Tafsir of Al-Anfal 8:54

This is another resumption, according to what some meticulous scholars have mentioned, directed toward confirming what the first resumption was directed toward, by likening their habit to the habit of those mentioned. However, it is not by way of mere repetition, but rather by changing the title, and making the "habit" (da’b) in both instances an expression of what is necessitated by its original meaning: the changing of state and the changing of a favor. This is derived from what the words of the Almighty state: "That is because Allah would not change" (8:53), etc.

That is to say: the habit of these people and their state—which consists of the two aforementioned changes—is like the habit of those people, in that they changed their state, so Allah the Almighty changed His favor toward them. Thus, His saying, the Exalted: "Who denied the signs of their Lord" is an interpretation of their habit—the act they performed by changing their state. By the term "Lord" (al-Rabb), it is indicated that this change was due to ingratitude for His favors, as it carries the implication that He is their Nurturer and the Bestower of favors upon them. His saying, the Exalted: "So We destroyed them" is an interpretation of their habit regarding what was done to them: the changing of the favor He, the Exalted, had bestowed upon them.

In "destruction" (al-ihlak), there is an allusion to "change," which is why it was expressed this way rather than by "seizing" (al-akhdh), which was used initially. "Seizing" is not equivalent to it in this regard; do you not see that "destruction" is frequently applied to removing a thing from the order it is in, whereas we have not seen "seizing" applied to that? It has been said: the expression "seizing" was used first, and "destruction" here, because their crime here is ingratitude, which demands the greatest punishment, and "destruction" points to that, unlike what preceded. In this, there is a point of contention. As for the habit of the Quraish, it is inferred from what has been mentioned by virtue of the comparison. How excellent is the Qur’anic revelation, for it sufficed in each of the two comparisons to explain only one of the two sides.

It is stated in the Fawa'id that this is not repetition, because the meaning of the first is: the state of these people is like the state of the people of Pharaoh in disbelief, so He seized them and the punishment came upon them. The meaning of the second is: the state of these people is like the state of the people of Pharaoh regarding their changing of favors and Allah’s changing of their state because of that change, which is that He, the Exalted, drowned them, as evidenced by what preceded it. What we have mentioned is more precisely articulated. The scholar Al-Tibi objected to this, arguing that the noble structure of the verse rejects it, because the point of comparison in the first is their disbelief upon which punishment follows, so it should be that the point of comparison in the second is what is understood from His saying: "Who denied," etc., because it is similar. Each of them is a sentence initiated after a comparison, suitable to be the point of comparison, so it is applied to it, as in the words of the Almighty: "Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam; He created Him from dust" (3:59). As for His saying: "That is because Allah," etc., it is like an explanation for the arrival of the punishment, interjected between the two comparisons, not specific to any one people, but rather encompassing all those who change the favor of Allah, from the preceding and succeeding nations. To restrict it to the second point without the first, and to present it as the point of comparison while its presence is explicit—as you have come to know—is far from one who has tasted knowledge of the two types of eloquence and has grasped the arrangement of the verse’s structure.

It is not hidden that this objection is invalid against what we have presented upon reflection. As for the differentiation between the two verses: it is said that the first is to explain their state regarding their deserving the punishment of the Hereafter, and the second is to explain their deserving the punishment of this world. Or, the intent of the first is to liken their state to the state of those mentioned regarding denial, and the intent of the second is to liken their state to theirs regarding total annihilation. Or, the intent in the former is to explain their being seized by punishment, and here it is an explanation of its manner—these are things that should not be relied upon.

Some great scholars said: His saying, the Exalted: "Like the habit" is in the position of an accusative as an adjective for a deleted verbal noun; i.e., "until they change what is within themselves" a change "that is like the habit of the people of Pharaoh." That is, like their change—assuming their "habit" is an expression of what they did, as is most appropriate for the concept of "habit." His saying, the Exalted: "Who denied," etc., is an interpretation of it in its entirety. His saying: "So We destroyed them," etc., is an announcement of the consequence of the punishment, not that it is part of its interpretation. There is no harm in the intervening of His saying, the Exalted: "And that Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing," between them, whether it is a conjunction or a resumption. In this view, the verse would depart entirely from the pattern of its counterpart. Furthermore, there is no basis for restricting the "change" upon which Allah’s changing [the state] follows to be like the change of the people of Pharaoh, given that the prepositional phrase being in the accusative as an adjective is far-fetched, despite the presence of that separator, even if we grant the possibility of separation. Whoever is fair knows that the eloquence of the revelation demands the first view.

The shift to the "Nun" of majesty in "We destroyed them" (ahlakna) follows the custom of majesty to emphasize the gravity of the affair, and this does not contradict the subtle point we previously indicated, as is not hidden. The discussion regarding the "fa" and the mention of "sins" follows the same style as what we mentioned regarding its parallel.

His saying, the Exalted: "...and We drowned the people of Pharaoh" is a conjunction to "We destroyed." In joining it to it, despite the fact that its content is included within the content of the other, there is an indication of the completeness of the terror of the drowning and its atrocity.

"And all"—meaning all of the mentioned groups, or all of these and those, or all of the people of Pharaoh and the disbelievers of Quraish, according to what has been said, based on the fact that what preceded it is a clear and explicit comparison of the habit of the disbelievers of Quraish to the habit of the people of Pharaoh, and that the like of it suffices as evidence for the specification—"were wrongdoers"—meaning, they wronged themselves through disbelief and acts of disobedience (though if it were generalized, there would be a basis for it), or they placed disbelief and denial in the position of faith and affirmation. And for that reason, what befell them, befell them.