Tafsir of Yunus 10:89

"He said, 'Your supplication has been answered,'" is an address to Moses and Aaron (peace be upon them both). Its apparent meaning is that Aaron (peace be upon him) truly offered a supplication similar to that of Moses (peace be upon him), but the text limits itself to mentioning the supplication of Moses alone because he was the independent messenger, and it associates Aaron in the glad tidings to show his honor (peace be upon him). It is also possible that Aaron did not pray in reality, but the prayer was attributed to him because Moses’ prayer was, in the ruling of a command, as if it were Aaron’s, given that Aaron was a follower and minister to him. The reports that have converged indicate that Aaron (peace be upon him) used to say 'Amen' to his brother’s prayer, for the act of saying 'Amen' is a form of supplication. The meaning of 'Amen' is "answer it," and it is not one of the names of Allah—contrary to what is narrated on the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him).

It is said that because it is a supplication, the Hanafis recommend saying it quietly. This is debated, because it is apparent that the criterion for recommending secret or audible recitation is not whether it is a supplication; the Shafi'is recommend saying it aloud even though it is famous among them that they also consider it a supplication. The explicit words of some investigators suggest that the addition of the "Lord" to the pronoun of the speaker [Moses] along with another [Aaron] in the three instances indicates that Aaron (peace be upon him) was saying 'Amen' to the prayer of Moses (peace be upon him). The subtlety of this indication is not hidden.

It is recited as "your supplications" (da'watikuma) in the plural, and its justification is clear.

"So remain on the right path," means: continue in My command and remain steadfast in what you are upon regarding the call and the establishing of the proof. Do not be in haste, for what you have requested will inevitably come to pass in its appointed time. Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that he said: "They claim that Pharaoh remained for forty years after this supplication." Ibn Jarir narrated the same from Ibn Jurayj, and al-Tirmidhi narrated from Mujahid that the prayer was answered after forty years, without mentioning the word "claim."

"And do not follow the way of those who do not know," regarding the customs of Allah the Exalted in suspending matters based on wisdom and interests, or the way of the ignorant in their lack of trust in the promise of Allah (subhanahu). The prohibition does not necessitate the possibility of the prohibited act occurring; it is frequent for a person to be forbidden from what is impossible for him to do. Perhaps the purpose here is merely to emphasize the matter of the promise and to show that there are divine wisdoms in delaying its fulfillment.

It is narrated from Ibn 'Amir that he recited "wa la tattabi'an" with the nun of lightness, broken (kasra) due to the meeting of two quiescent letters. Ibn al-Hajib justified this by stating that the "la" is negative and the nun is a sign of the nominative case; the sentence is either in the position of a state (hal) from the nominative pronoun in "remain on the right path" (istaqima), as if to say: "remain steadfast while not following." A verb sentence negated by "la" occurring as a hal may be joined with waw or not, contrary to those who claim the necessity of no waw. Or it is conjoined to the imperative sentence before it, which, although declarative in wording, is imperative in meaning, for the intent is a prohibition—as in His saying: "You (should) believe in Allah and His Messenger" and "You (should) not worship except Allah." A prohibition issued in the form of a statement is more eloquent than one issued in its standard form. It is also possible that the sentence is considered a new beginning to inform that they will not follow the path of the ignorant. Some people have made the "la" in the general reading also negative, but this is weak, because negation is not emphasized according to the correct view.

It is said: the "la" is prohibitive, and the nun is the nun of emphasis (light), broken due to the meeting of two quiescent letters. This is a fragile derivation, for al-Kisa'i and Sibawayh do not support it, as they forbid the occurrence of the light nun after an alif, whether it is the alif of duality or the alif separating the nun of females and the nun of emphasis, such as "hal tadribnan ya niswah?" Moreover, when a quiescent letter meets the light nun, the majority hold that the nun must be dropped, and it is not permissible to move it. However, Yunus and al-Farra permitted this, and there are two narrations from them: leaving it quiescent because the alif is, due to its lightness, like a vowel, or breaking it based on the principle of the meeting of two quiescent letters. Based on this, that derivation is complete.

It is said: this nun is the heavy nun of emphasis, but it was lightened. It is as you see. It is also narrated from him (in another reading): "wa la tattabi'an" with the lightening of the second ta and its quiescence, and with the heavy nun from the triliteral tabi'a. And also "wa la tattabi'an," which is like the first except that the nun is quiescent according to one of the narrations from the aforementioned regarding the quiescence of the light nun after an alif according to the principle, and forgiving the meeting of two quiescent letters if the first is an alif, as in "mahya-ya."

Know that it is famous in explaining the breaking of the nun in the general reading that it is for the meeting of two quiescent letters. The appearance suggests that this removes the meeting of two quiescent letters, but this is not the case, for the two quiescent letters are the alif and the first nun, neither of which is vowelized. The only vowelized letter is the second nun. Hence, some investigators of grammar said: the origin of moving it is to make assimilation possible, and its being with a kasra is by analogy to the nun of duality. The meeting of two quiescent letters, namely the alif and the first nun, is not harmful, as they have stated that it is permissible if the first is a letter of prolongation and the second is assimilated into its equivalent, as in "dabbah," because of the elevation of the tongue for both simultaneously at that time. This has been established in its place, so refer to it. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.