Tafsir of Al-Anbiya' 21:88

(So We responded to him), meaning: [We responded to] his supplication, which he offered while acknowledging his state and manifesting repentance.

As for the fa (conjunction), there is an interpretive nuance. The most excellent [explanation] is that which Ahmad, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa’i, al-Hakim in Nawadir al-Usul, al-Hakim (who authenticated it), Ibn Jarir, al-Bayhaqi in al-Shu’ab, and a group reported from Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas from the Prophet (peace be upon him) who said: "The supplication of Dhu al-Nun (Jonah) while he was in the belly of the whale: 'There is no deity except You; exalted are You; indeed, I have been of the wrongdoers' (La ilaha illa anta subhanaka inni kuntu min al-zalimin). No Muslim has ever supplicated to his Lord with it regarding anything but that He responded to him." Ibn Abi Hatim reported from al-Hasan that this is the Greatest Name of Allah, and al-Hakim similarly reported it from Sa’d in a marfu’ form. I myself have witnessed the effect of supplicating with it—all praise is due to Allah—at the time when one whom I consider to be of the awliya (saints) among the strangers residing in the presence of the "Grey Falcon" (al-Baz al-Ashhab) instructed me to do so, for I had been afflicted with a trial, the details of which only Allah knows, and the explanation of which is long while you are prone to boredom.

It is related from Anas in a marfu’ form that when he (peace be upon him) supplicated with it, his supplication ascended, hovering around the Throne. The angels (peace be upon them) said: "This is a faint voice, but known, coming from a strange land." Allah, the Exalted, said: "Do you not recognize it?" They asked: "O Lord, who is it?" He said: "That is My servant, Yunus (Jonah)." They said: "Your servant Yunus, whose accepted deeds and answered supplications have always ascended to You? O Lord, will You not show mercy for what he used to do during times of ease and save him from this affliction?" He said: "Yes." So He commanded the whale, and it cast him out. This is the meaning of His saying (the Exalted): (And We saved him from the distress), meaning: the distress that afflicted him when the whale swallowed him, by casting him onto the shore after some hours. Al-Sha’bi said: "It swallowed him at mid-morning and cast him out in the evening." Qatada stated that he remained in its belly for three days, which is what the Jews claimed. Ja'far al-Sadiq (may Allah be pleased with him) said he remained for seven days. Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Abu Malik that he remained for forty days. It has also been said that the "distress" refers to the distress of sin. The aforementioned [view] is more evident.

The Exalted did not say fa-najjaynahu (then We saved him) as He said in the story of Ayyub (Job) (peace be upon him), "So We removed..." Some of the eminent scholars said: This is because he (Yunus) prayed for deliverance from harm, so the "removal" follows the "response," whereas Yunus (peace be upon him) did not supplicate [in the same manner], so the aspect of sequence in the response did not exist. This was refuted by stating that the fa in the story of Ayyub is explanatory, and the conjunction here is also explanatory; stylistic variation (tafannun) is a well-trodden path in rhetoric. Furthermore, we do not concede that Yunus (peace be upon him) did not supplicate; had there been no supplication from him, the response would not have been realized.

Al-Khafaji criticized this, stating it has no substance, and that being "explanatory" does not dispel the question, because the result is: "Why was the fa brought there and not brought here?" The apparent view is to say: The first (Ayyub) was a supplication for the removal of harm in a manner of gentleness. Since the response was summarized and the request was made by way of allusion (ima'), it was appropriate to use the explanatory fa. As for here, because he (peace be upon him) migrated without a command, that was considered a sin relative to his status—as he indicated by saying, (Indeed, I have been of the wrongdoers)—so what was revealed to him was the supplication of not being held accountable for what he had done. Thus, the "response" is the acceptance of his repentance and the failure to hold him accountable. What followed was not an explanation of it, but an increase in favor beyond what he requested; hence, it was conjoined with waw (and).

It is not hidden that what he mentioned does not apply to the saying of the Exalted: (And [mention] Nuh (Noah), when he called out before, so We responded to him and saved him and his family from the great distress), nor to His saying (the Exalted): (And Zakariya (Zechariah) when he called to his Lord, "My Lord, do not leave me alone, and You are the best of the inheritors." So We responded to him and gave him Yahya (John)). For Nuh's request was not by way of allusion, yet the Exalted said in his story: (fa-najjaynahu) with the fa. And Zakariya (peace be upon him) did not commit what would be considered a sin relative to his status such that he would need to be gentle in asking not to be held accountable, yet He, the Exalted, said in his story: (wa-wahabna) with the waw.

Therefore, there must be an explanation other than what was mentioned for the expression used in each of these two places. What al-Shihab mentioned regarding the latter verse will come, if Allah wills. It may be said that the explanatory fa was used in the stories of Nuh and Ayyub (peace be upon them) out of concern for the [significance of the] response, due to the summarization and then the detailing, because of the immense and compounded nature of the [calamities] they were in. Do you not see how the example is set by the affliction of Ayyub (peace be upon him), as it affected his self, family, and wealth, and continued for as long as Allah willed? And how Allah described that from which He saved Nuh (peace be upon him) by saying: (and saved him and his family from the great distress)? This is not the case with what Dhu al-Nun and Zakariya (peace be upon them) were in relative to that; hence, the waw was used in their verses. Although it [the waw] can be used for explanation, the use of fa for that is more frequent. It does not seem far-fetched to me what al-Khafaji mentioned in this verse, that the response is the acceptance of his repentance and the deliverance is an increase in favor beyond his request. The same may be said regarding what will come later, which you will hear, if Allah wills.

(And thus), meaning: like that complete deliverance, (We save the believers) from distresses in which they call upon Allah, the Exalted, with sincerity—[it is] not a deliverance less than that.

Al-Jahdari read it as nunji (with a shadda), the present tense of najja. Ibn ‘Amir and Abu Bakr read naji with one nun (voweled with damma), a shadda on the jim, and a quiescent ya. Abu ‘Ubaydah preferred this reading over the reading with two nuns because it is more consistent with the Uthmanic script, as it is written with one nun. Abu ‘Ali said in al-Hujjah: It is related from Abu ‘Amr that it is naji with idgham (assimilation), but the nun does not assimilate into the jim; rather, it is hidden (ikhfa’) because it is quiescent and comes from the nasal passage, so it was dropped from the writing while remaining in the pronunciation. Those who say it is assimilated have erred, because this nun is hidden with the letters of the mouth, which are called the shajariyyah letters (the jim, shin, and dad), and making them distinct is a flaw (lahn); thus, when he hid it, the listener thought it was assimilated.

Abu al-Fath ibn Jinni said: Its origin is nunjii as in the reading of al-Jahdari, but the second nun was dropped because of the concurrence of two identical letters. The other was brought for a meaning, and the heaviness only occurred with the second. This is like dropping the second ta in (tazaharon); it does not matter that it is original. Likewise, the lack of uniformity between its vowel and the vowel of the first nun does not matter, because what necessitates the dropping is the gathering of two identical letters when assimilation is impossible. Therefore, the statement of Abu al-Baqa’ that this justification is weak for two reasons—firstly, that the second nun is original (being the first letter of the root), so dropping it is very remote; and secondly, that its vowel is different from the first nun, so the combination of them is not burdensome, unlike tazaharon—is not acceptable. The omission in tatarafa was forbidden due to the fear of confusing it with the past tense, unlike our case, for if it were past tense, its end would not be quiescent. That it is quiescent for lightness is contrary to the apparent meaning. It has been said that it is a past tense verb in the passive voice, and the ya is made quiescent for lightness, as in the reading of those who read: wadharu ma baqiya min al-riba. And his saying: "He is the caliph, so be pleased with what He has been pleased with for you," is a past tense of firm resolve, in which there is no deviation. The deputy agent (na'ib al-fa'il) is the pronoun of the verbal noun, and (the believers) is the object. Al-Akhfash, the Kufans, and Abu ‘Ubayd permitted the verbal noun to stand in the place of the agent while the object is present, and they used this to interpret the reading of Abu Ja’far: li-yujza qawman. And his saying: "If a poor [woman] were to give birth to a puppy, the dogs would be cursed because of that dog." The famous view among the Basrans is that whenever an object is found, nothing else can stand in the place of the agent. It is also said that (the believers) is in the accusative case by the implication of a verb, meaning: "And likewise He saves—from the act of saving—the believers." Another said it is in the accusative case by the pronoun of the verbal noun. All of it is as you see.