Tafsir of Yunus 10:22

"It is He who enables you to travel on land and sea."

It is said that this is a new sentence, intended to explain another of their crimes, based upon what preceded regarding the variation of their states according to the varying degrees of adversity that afflict them. According to Abu Muslim, it is an explanation of some of what was summarized in His (the Almighty’s) saying: "And when We make mankind taste..." and this is close to the opinion of the Imam, that when He said, "And when We make mankind taste," it was a general statement, and He provided this as an example for them so that their state might become clear and manifest.

Some have claimed that it is connected to the preceding arguments for monotheism, as if it were said: "Your God who made the sun a radiance and the moon a light is the same 'who enables you to travel,' etc."

The word tas-yir (enabling travel) was interpreted as "transportation during travel" and "empowerment to do so." The reason given for this is that it is not correct to make His saying: "until when you are in the ships" a limit (end-point) for the tas-yir at sea, given that the ships precede that state, and the end-point of a thing must necessarily come after it. After this interpretation, there is no problem in making what was mentioned a limit to what preceded it.

It is said: This is a rebuttal to the necessity of combining literal and figurative meanings. The one who causes movement on the sea is Allah (the Almighty), as He is the originator of those movements in the ships via the wind, and the servant has no role in it, not even in its prerequisites. As for travel on land, it is among the voluntary acts proceeding from the addressees themselves, if they are pedestrians, or from their beasts, if they are riders. Allah’s tas-yir there is the provision of limbs and tools, and the necessity of combining [literal and figurative meanings] becomes apparent. The way to rebut this is that the meaning of tas-yir is what was mentioned; it is a figurative meaning that encompasses both the literal and the figurative.

Some have claimed that the tas-yir on land and sea is one and the same, and they used the verse as evidence that the acts of servants are created by Allah (the Almighty). This was countered by the claim that it is a forced interpretation. Az-Zamakhshari did not interpret tas-yir as we mentioned; rather, he made the end-point the content of the conditional sentence occurring after hatta (until), including what is within its scope. It is as if it were said: "He enables you to travel until such an event occurs," such as the coming of a violent wind, the accumulation of waves, the thought of destruction, and the prayer for salvation—not merely the state of being at sea. This was countered by al-Qutb, who argued that if the state of being in the ships—along with what is conjoined to it from His saying: "and they sailed with them in a fair wind and they rejoiced in it"—were made the limit, that would have sufficed, and there would be no need to consider the combination of the conditional and the result. He then said: The truth is that if the "limit" is defined as that which a thing ends at by its essence, then it is nothing but that which served as the condition in such a case. If it is defined as that which a thing ends at absolutely—whether essentially or by intermediary—then it is the entirety of the condition and the result. This is clarified by your saying: "I walked until, when I reached the city, I engaged in trade." For what the walking ended at by its essence is the arrival at the city, whereas the trading is a matter that resulted from that, so it is one of the things that the walking ended at by way of an intermediary.

The tashdid (doubling of the consonant) in yusayyirukum is for the purpose of transitivity; you say sara ar-rajulu (the man walked) and sayyartuhu (I caused him to walk). Al-Farisi said: sara is transitive, like sayyara, because the Arabs say surtu ar-rajula (I walked the man) and sayyartuhu (I caused him to walk) with the same meaning. From this is the saying of the Hudhali: "Do not panic at a tradition you have walked (initiated)," for the first person to be pleased with a tradition is the one who initiates it. In as-Sahah, it is stated: "The beast walked (sarat) and its owner walked it (saraha)," meaning it is both transitive and intransitive. He cited this verse as evidence. Grammarians interpreted it differently, as they did not approve of that [view].

Al-fulk (ships) is both singular and plural; the variation in the vowels between them is a matter of interpretation. In as-Sahah, it is said that it is a singular and plural noun that can be used as masculine or feminine, and this is seemingly in consideration of the vessel and the ship. Sibawayh used to say: al-fulk (as a plural) is a broken plural of al-fulk (as a singular), and it is not like al-junb (the side/neighbor), which is both singular and plural, nor at-tifl (the child), and similar names, because fa'l and fi'l participate in the same thing, like al-'arab and al-'urb (Arabs). Since it is permissible for fa'l to be the plural of fa'l, like asad (lion) and usud (lions), it is not forbidden for fi'l to be the plural of fulk.

The pronoun in jarayna (they sailed) refers to the ships, and the pronoun in bihim (with them) refers to those in them. This is a shift in address (iltifat) to exaggerate the reproach of their state, as if He turned away from addressing them to others to show the ugliness of their conduct. It is also said that it is not a shift, but rather the meaning of His saying "until when you are in the ships" is "until when some of you are in them," since the address is to everyone, including those who are traveling on land. The implied third-person pronoun refers back to that implied additive, as in His saying: "or like darknesses in a deep sea, covered by waves," for it is in the estimation of "or like one who has darknesses, covered by waves." The first ba (in bihim) is for transitivity, and the second—likewise the third—is for causality, which is why the two particles are attached to one object; otherwise, they have forbidden the attachment of two particles with the same meaning to a single object. However, considering the attachment of the second after the attachment of the first to it, and observing it together with it, removes the union of the objects.

It is permitted that the second be for state (hal)—jarayna bihim while they are accompanied by a wind—so it attaches to an implied word, as in fi al-bahr. The first can also be made for accompaniment. Wa farihu (and they rejoiced) is conjoined to jarayna, and it is conjoined to kuntum. It could also be made into a state (hal) with an implied qad. The pronoun in biha (with it) refers to the wind. At-Tabari reported that it refers to the ships, but the pen hardly cares to record that. What is meant by tayyibah (good/fair), as the context requires, is a gentle, favorable breeze for the destination.

The surface meaning of the verse, according to what is reported from the Imam, requires that the rider of the ship be moving by its movement, contrary to those who say that he is stationary. As some researchers have said, there is no basis for this disagreement, for he is stationary by essence and moving by intermediary.

Ibn Amir recited yanshurukum with a nun, shin (dotted), and ra, from an-nashr (the opposite of folding), meaning: He scatters you and spreads you. Al-Hasan recited yanshurukum from anshara, meaning: He gave life. Some of the people of the Levant recited yanshurukum with tashdid to denote frequency, also from an-nashr. Umm ad-Darda’ is reported to have recited fi al-fulki with the addition of two relative yas; the explanation for this is that they are extra, as in al-khariji and al-ahmari. This is not restricted to adjectives, as seen in dudawi (worm-like) and as-saltani in the saying of as-Saltan. It is also possible that it refers to the surge and the deep water in which the ships only sail.

His saying: "Came to it" is the response to idha (when). The object pronoun refers to the ships or the fair wind, in the sense of meeting it and seizing it from a side opposing it, for blowing in accordance with it is not usually called "coming" for another wind, but rather it is an intensification of the first wind. The second view is preferred because it is more apparent, as it necessitates the first without the reverse. The blowing in the same direction as the wind is not considered "coming" relative to the ship—unlike the gentle wind—nor does it result in the clashing of waves that necessitates its "coming" from every place. Furthermore, the alarm is more effectively raised by describing its seizing of that which they rejoiced in and which they took to be the ropes of their hope. In this, there is contemplation.

Rihun 'asif (a violent wind), meaning possessing violence ('asf). It is from the category of attribution, like ibn and tamir. It is the same for masculine and feminine, as they have clarified. That is why He did not say 'asifah (feminine), even though rih (wind) is feminine and is not used as masculine without interpretation. It is said: It was not said 'asifah because violence is specific to the wind, so it is like ha'id (menstruating), and there is no need for a differentiator. Or, the masculine was considered in the wind just as the feminine was considered. The first [explanation] is what we have presented. The origin of 'asf is breaking, and the broken pieces of plants. What is intended is "intense blowing."

"And the waves came to them" refers to what rose and surged from the agitation of the water. It is said: It is the agitation of the sea. The first is the most famous. "From every place," meaning from the places where waves usually come. It may happen that they come from various directions according to causes that coincide for that. "And they thought that they were surrounded," meaning destroyed, as Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Ibn Jurayj. In the speech is a derivative metaphor. It is said that "being surrounded" is a metaphor for the blocking of the paths of escape, comparing it to an enemy surrounding a person; then, that metaphor is used as a metonymy for destruction because it is one of its synonyms and consequences. It is also said that it is a simile for destruction.

As for "thought," it is taken at its surface meaning. It is permitted that it means "certainty," based on the realization of its occurrence in their belief, or that the metonymy is for being near destruction.

"They called upon Allah" — a number of scholars made this a badal ishtimal (permutation of inclusion) for "they thought," because their prayer is one of the consequences of their thinking they were destroyed, so there is an association between them that permits this substitution. It is said: It is the response to the condition contained within the meaning—i.e., when they thought they were surrounded, they called upon Allah, etc.

Abu Hayyan made it an expository initiation (ist'naf bayani), as if it were said: "What was their state at that time?" and it was said: "They called upon Allah, etc." The opinion of it being a badal is preferred over this, as it is more indicative of the connection of the speech and that it is the intended meaning, while providing what is provided by the initiation without the need to estimate a question. You know that estimating a question is not a literal estimation but a conceptual matter, and it contains brevity, and it is no more far-fetched than the forced interpretation for the badal. Some suggest it is permissible that it be the response to the condition, and "came to it" is in the state position, like His saying: "So when they ride in the ships, they call upon Allah..." The objection to this is that the need for a response requires that what is fit for it be directed toward it, not toward a "superfluous" state that requires the estimation of qad. Furthermore, the conjunction of "and they thought" to "came to it" rejects the state interpretation, and joy in the fair wind cannot be the state at the time of the arrival of the violent one. The meaning is based on the realization of the arrival, not its supposition, so as to make it an estimated state, and it is not devoid of beauty. It appears that what was counted as an impediment to the state interpretation is not common between it and being the response to idha, for it requires that they be in the same time, as is not hidden to anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the styles of speech.

His saying: "sincere to Him in religion" is a state from the pronoun in "they called." Li (to Him) relates to mukhlisina, and ad-din is its object. Meaning: They called upon Him (the Almighty) without polytheism, because they returned—out of the intensity of fear—to the natural disposition (fitra) upon which every person is created, regarding monotheism and that there is no disposer of affairs except Allah (the Almighty), which is ingrained in the natures of the world. This is reported from Ibn Abbas, and from a hadithخرج (extracted) by Abu Dawud, an-Nasa'i, and others from Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, who said: "On the day of the Conquest, 'Ikrimah ibn Abi Jahl fled and boarded the sea. A violent wind struck them, and the crew of the ship said to the people of the ship: 'Be sincere, for your gods will not avail you anything.' 'Ikrimah said: 'If nothing saves me at sea except sincerity, then nothing will save me on land either. O Allah, You have a covenant that if You heal me from what I am in, I will go to Muhammad until I place my hand in his hand, and I will find him forgiving and generous.' He said: So he came and embraced Islam." In a report by Ibn Sa'd from Abi Mulaykah: "When 'Ikrimah boarded the ship and the wind took them, they began calling upon Allah (the Almighty) and declaring His oneness. He asked: 'What is this?' They said: 'This is a place where nothing benefits except Allah (the Almighty).' He said: 'Then this belongs to Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), whom he calls us to; so take us back.' He returned and embraced Islam."

The manifest meaning of the verse is that the intent is not just to restrict the calling to Him (the Almighty), but also to restrict worship to Him, for by that act alone they would not be "sincere in religion." However, regardless, the verse is evidence that polytheists do not call upon anyone other than Him (the Almighty) in that state. You are well aware that today, when people are afflicted by a dangerous matter or a grave event on land or sea, they call upon those who neither harm nor benefit, who neither see nor hear. Among them are those who call upon al-Khidr and Ilyas; among them are those who call out to Abu al-Khamis and al-Abbas; among them are those who seek relief from one of the Imams; and among them are those who implore a sheikh from the sheikhs of the nation. You do not see any of them singling out their Lord with their supplication and call, nor does it ever pass through their mind that if they called upon Allah (the Almighty) alone, they would be saved from those horrors. By Allah, tell me, which of the two groups is more guided in this regard, and which of the two callers is more upright in speech? To Allah (the Almighty) is the complaint regarding a time in which the wind of ignorance has blown, the waves of falsehood have clashed, the ship of the Sharia has been punctured, and seeking relief from other than Allah (the Almighty) has been taken as a means for salvation. Commanding the good has become difficult for those who know, and all sorts of calamities have stood between them and forbidding the evil.

His saying (the Almighty): "If You save us from this, we will surely be among the thankful" (22) is in the position of being an object for an implied verb for the Basrans, and it is a state from the previous pronoun. The school of the Kufans is to treat the "call" as a "saying," because it is a type of it, and to treat the sentence as being quoted by it. The first is more appropriate here. The lam is a preparatory particle for an implied oath, and lanakunanna is its response.

The reference to this state in which they are is: "By Allah, if You save us from what we are in of distress, we will surely be, after that, forever thankful for Your blessings, of which this requested blessing is one." The shift from "we will be thankful" to what is in the magnificent arrangement is to exaggerate the indication of steadfastness in thankfulness and perseverance upon it.