Tafseer of The Prophets · Al-Anbiyaa · 21:88
So We responded to him and saved him from the distress. And thus do We save the believers.
Important: The Arabic source text is always authoritative. This translation is a study aid and has not been verified by scholars — do not use it as a basis for religious proof or for deriving rulings (ahkam). When in doubt, always consult the Arabic text and a qualified scholar.
Allah, exalted be His praise, says: (فَاسْتَجَبْنَا) — We answered Yūnus' supplication to Us, when he called upon Us from the belly of the fish, and We delivered him from the distress that had overcome him through Our holding him captive in the belly of the fish and tormenting him on account of his sin and transgression. (وَكَذَلِكَ نُنْجِي الْمُؤْمِنِينَ) — Allah, exalted be His praise, says: Just as We delivered Yūnus from the anguish of captivity in the belly of the fish in the sea, when he called upon Us, so do We deliver the believers from their anguish when they call upon Us for help and call upon Us.
Thus also run the reports concerning this.
*Those who say this are mentioned:*
ʿImrān ibn Bakkār al-Kulāʿī related to us; he said: Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān related to us; he said: Abū Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān related to us; he said: Bishr ibn Manṣūr related to me, on the authority of ʿAlī ibn Zayd, on the authority of Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab, who said: I heard Saʿd ibn Mālik say: "I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say: 'The name of Allah by which, if one calls upon Him, He answers, and if one asks by it He gives, is the supplication of Yūnus ibn Mattā.'" He said: "I said: O Messenger of Allah, is that exclusively for Yūnus ibn Mattā or for all Muslims?" He said: 'It is special to Yūnus ibn Mattā and general to all the believers when they pray with it. Have you not heard the words of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He: فَنَادَى فِي الظُّلُمَاتِ أَنْ لا إِلَهَ إِلا أَنْتَ سُبْحَانَكَ إِنِّي كُنْتُ مِنَ الظَّالِمِينَ * فَاسْتَجَبْنَا لَهُ وَنَجَّيْنَاهُ مِنَ الْغَمِّ وَكَذَلِكَ نُنْجِي الْمُؤْمِنِينَ — it is a promise from Allah to whoever prays to Him with it.'
The Qurʾān reciters differed in reciting His words (نُنْجِي الْمُؤْمِنِينَ). The reciters of the great cities — except for ʿĀṣim — read it with two nūns, the second of which is unvocalized, from the pattern: We delivered him (أنجيناه), then We deliver him (ننجيه). They read it thus, even though in the codices it is written with only one nūn, because if it were read with one nūn and a doubling of the jīm — with the meaning of the unnamed subject (passive) — "the believers" would stand in the nominative, whereas in the codices they stand in the accusative. And if it were read with one nūn and a light jīm, then the action would be attributed to the believers and it would be nominative, in which case it would be necessary for "najjā" to be written with an alif, because it is of the wāw-class, whereas in the codices it is written with a yāʾ.
If one asks: how then was it written with one nūn, while the orthographic rule for (نُنَجِّي) prescribes two nūns? Then I answer: because the second nūn was unvocalized, and what is unvocalized is not manifest upon the tongue, it was omitted — just as was done with (إلا), from which the nūn of (إنْ) was dropped on account of its inaudibility, because it was assimilated into the lām of (لا). ʿĀṣim read (نُجِّي المُؤْمِنِينَ) — with one nūn, a doubling of the jīm and a sukūn on the yāʾ. If ʿĀṣim based his reading on the usage in Arabic of "the striking struck Zayd," in which it is the verbal noun (maṣdar) functioning as a subjectless subject, and he regarded the believers as the substitute for the unnamed subject, as if he meant to say: and thus were the believers delivered — then that is a possible reading, even if the other is more precise. Otherwise, what he read would be a linguistic error, because "the believers" in his reading are the subject of the unnamed (passive) action, and the Arabs then put such nouns in the nominative. What moved ʿĀṣim to this reading was that he found the codices with one nūn, and that in reciting in accordance with the other reciters he would add a second nūn that is not in the codex, and he could find no way to account for its omission.
Abū Jaʿfar said: The correct reading, which admits no other in our view, is that of the reciters of the great cities — with two nūns and a light jīm — on account of the consensus of the authorities among the reciters concerning it and their deeming erroneous whatever conflicts with it.