Questions:

1. Why did Yunus (a.s.) leave his people?
2. What is the correct meaning of the sentence "and he thought We had no power over him"?
3. Was there a command from Allah asking him not to leave or to stay?
4. Why did Yunus (a.s.) say, "surely I have been a wrong-doer"?
5. Why were lots cast in the laden ship?
6. What is the implication of the clause, "for which he blamed himself"?
7. What was the reason for the Whale to swallow Yunus (a.s.)?
8. What was the reason for Yunus' salvation?
9. What is the significance of this story in the Qur'an?
10. Based on this episode in the Qur'an, can we say that Yunus (a.s.) commited a sin?

The exegetes selected for this study are:

Allamah Tabataba'I

Sayyid Maududi

Go To: Our Conclusions

ALLAMAH TABATABA'I

(Translated from the Arabic volumes 14 &17)

Qur’an: “ And (mention) Dhu'n-Nun, when he went off in anger and thought that We will not limit him (limit his sustenance).

Al-Noon is the whale, and Dhun-Nun is prophet Yunus (a.s.) son of Mata the companion of the whale, who was sent to the people of Nainawa and called them (to Allah), but they did not believe. So he asked Allah to punish them. When the torment was near, they repented and became believers, so Allah lifted the torment and Yunus left them. Thus, Allah tried him with a whale, which swallowed him. Yunus called upon Allah while in the whale’s belly. Allah lifted it (his trial) from him and sent him back to his people.

The verse And (mention) Dhun-Nun, when he went off in anger and thought that We will not limit him means, and remember Dhun-Nun when he left angry with his people when they did not believe him, and thought that We will not limit (from the verse faqadara alayhi rizqah) his sustenance.

Also, the verse And (mention) Dhu'n-Nun, when he went off in anger and thought that We will not limit him may have come as a simile to mean that his (Yunus’) leaving and abandoning his people was like (the similitude of) the one who is angry at his master thinking that his master has no power over him and that he will lose him (the master) by going further away from him, so that he (the master) will have no power over him. However, to say that prophet Yunus (a.s.) got truly angry with his Lord, and his thinking that Allah has no power over him is something that is far away from the honorable prophets when they are infallible.

Qur’an: but he cried out in the darkness…

The darkness, like it was said, is the darkness of the sea and the darkness of the whale’s stomach and the darkness of the night.

Qur’an: There is no Allah save Thee. Be Thou Glorified!

It is a renouncement by Yunus for what he has represented by leaving and abandoning his people without being ordered. His leaving represented – even though he did not do it intentionally and on purpose - that there is another refuge that he can go to other than his Lord, so he renounced that by saying "there is no God save Thee. Be Though Glorified." And it (his leaving) represented the possibility of objecting to His (Allah’s) actions, and getting angry at those actions, and that its possible that Allah will let that go and that it (objecting to his actions, getting angry, and thinking that Allah will let it go) will be out of the circle of His power, so he renounced that by saying " be Though Glorified!"

Qur’an: Lo! I have been a wrong-doer

It is a confession of wrong doing since what he came up with has represented a wrong act even though it was not a wrong act in itself. Nor did he mean or intend by it a sin or wrong act, but rather it was a disciplining from Allah of His prophet in order for him to come near (to Allah) in a manner innocent of representing a wrong act let alone actually doing wrong.

Qur’an: Then we heard his prayer and saved him from the distress. Thus we deliver the believers.

It refers to Yunus (a.s.). Even though he did not explicitly plea or pray, he began with Tawheed and Tanzeeh (Allah is free from blemishes) and confession of doing wrong, and with that, he revealed himself and presented his stance with his Lord and in it a request of salvation and well being, so Allah answered him and saved him from the distress that he was in.

The sentence Thus we deliver the believers is a promise to save any believer who suffers from distress and calls upon his Lord the way Yunus called (his Lord). His (Yunus’) story will also come in Chapter of Saffat Inshallah!

Qur’an: And Yunus was most surely of the messengers. When he left (withdrew from his people) to a laden ship:

(The verses) Refer to a ship full of people, and "ibaq" is the fleeing of a slave from his master.

Fleeing to the ship (abaqa ela al-fulk) means leaving his people and withdrawing from them. Even though leaving his people was not a disobedience to Allah’s orders, nor did Allah forbid him to leave; yet, his leaving, at that time, represented a slave leaving his master, so Allah took him as that. This has been previously explained in the verse "And (mention) Dhun-Nun, when he went off in anger and thought that We will not limit him (limit his sustenance)" (21:87)

Qur’an: And then drew lots and was of those rejected:

"al-mosahama" means drawing lots and "al-edhath" means losing, i.e. he drew lots* with those on the ship and lost. A whale has objected (burdened) their ship, so they had to throw one of them into the sea for the whale to swallow, and leave the ship (alone). So they drew, and Jonah (a.s.) was picked.*

(* Some traditions mention that they cast lots three times and Jonah was the loser all three times. Perhaps the clause "a laden ship" was mentioned to hint that the probability of drawing the same person’s name three times is very small considering the number of people present in the ship. So whatever was objecting the ship was meant for Yunus a.s.) (tr.)

Qur’an: So the fish swallowed him while he was blameworthy:

"al-iltiqam" means swallowing, and "mulim" means blameworthy.

Qur’an: And had he not been one of those who glorify (Allah), He would have tarried in its belly till the day when they are raised:

Allah has considered Jonah as one who glorifies Him, and there are those who continue to glorify (Allah) until it becomes an adjective (description) of them. This shows that he (Yunus) glorified Allah for a long period of time.

The exegetes have expressed different opinions in explaining the meaning of the verse:

First Interpretation: He was one who glorified (Allah) before the whale swallowed him.

Second Interpretation: He was one who glorified (Allah) inside the whale.

Third Interpretation: He was one who glorified (Allah) before the whale swallowed him, and inside the whale.

The verse that (also) mentioned about him glorifying (Allah) was in chapter of the Prophets: "but he cried out in the darkness, saying: There is no Allah save Thee. Be Thou Glorified! Lo! I have been a wrongdoer" (21:87). Therefore, he had to glorify (Allah) inside the whale in particular, or inside the whale and before entering it. The probability that the verse means he glorified before the whale swallowed him is small and should not be considered.

His glorifying along with his confession of being a wrongdoer as in the verse "Be Thou Glorified! Lo! I have been a wrongdoer," – as will later be explained - is glorifying Allah on what he felt** when he left his people. And the verse "And had he not been one of those who glorify (Allah)" etc, indicates that this (glorifying Allah) was the reason for his salvation. And this necessitated that he was put in that trial to praise Allah, and be saved from the grief.

(** he thought that Allah will not limit his sustenance as in the verse "And (mention) Dhu'n-Nun, when he went off in anger and thought that We will not limit him (limit his sustenance)" (21:87) (author)

Therefore, it is apparent that (the verse means) he glorified (Allah) in the whale. So the best of the three interpretations is the second one.

Evidently, the meaning of his glorifying (tasbihah) is calling in the darkness: {{There is no Allah save Thee. Be Thou Glorified! Lo! I have been a wrongdoer.}} He started with "tahlil" (there is no Allah save Thee) to indicate the reason of his glorification, as if he were to say: " there is no god of truth that we direct to except you. You are free from what my actions have represented: that I have left and withdrew from your worship, and headed towards others. I have oppressed myself with my action, so here I am coming to you, renouncing what my action has represented by leaving you to others."

That is the meaning of his (Jonah’s) glorification, and if it were not for that, he would have never survived. The sole reason for his salvation was the glorification and the renouncing of any bad trait of Allah.

With that, it is apparent that the intended meaning of He would have tarried in its belly till the day when they are raised is an assurance that he would have stayed in the whale’s belly until he is restricted. Then, he would come out of it, like if it was a grave that buries people, and he would have stayed there until he is restricted and leaves it; Allah says: Thereof We created you, and thereunto We return you, and thence We bring you forth a second time. (20:55)

There is no evidence in the verse whether he (Jonah) would have been alive or dead in the whale’s belly until resurrection day, with the whale’s belly as his grave. There is also no indication if both of their bodies would have stayed normal or in a different manner. Therefore, there is no base for their (some people’s) differences if he (Jonah) would remain alive in that respect or dead, and the belly is his grave. Nor did it mention if the intended meaning of the resurrection day was the first blowing of the horn that will kill all creatures, or the second blowing, or the postponement to Judgment day to mean a long period of stay.

Qur’an: But We cast him forth on the naked shore in a state of sickness, "nabth" is to cast or discard, and "al-‘ara" is a place that has no shelter of a roof, or tree to provide shade.

The meaning as it appears in the context is he (Jonah) glorified Allah, so we let him out of the whale’s belly and cast him out of the water to a place that has no place where he could shelter, and he was ill.

SAYYID MAUDUDI

(Actual text from English volumes 7 & 11)

Qur’an: And We showed a favor to Dhun-nun.

That is Jonah. Literally Dhun-nun means "the man of the fish". He was called so because he was devoured by a fish by the Command of Allah. (See also 37:142, 10:98).

Qur’an: Remember when he went away in anger…

Prophet Jonah left his people before he received Allah’s Command for migration.

Qur’an: for he thought that We would not take him to task for this.

He (Jonah) presumed that he should leave the place, which was going to be visited by the scourge of Allah. This was not by itself an offence but it was an offence for a Prophet to leave the place of his mission without the permission of Allah.

Qur’an: But afterwards he invoked Us from the depths of darkness

The darkness in the belly of the fish and the darkness of the sea over and above it.

The story of Prophet Jonah has been cited to show that even a great Prophet like him did not go unnoticed when he committed an error in regard to Allah’s message. But when he repented, Allah, by His grace delivered him alive from the belly of the fish.

"The mention of Prophet Job has been made to show that even Prophets were put to hard trials and afflictions and even they had to beg Allah to restore them to health, not to speak of curing others of diseases." (Meaning of the Qur’an, vol VII, page… by Sayyid Maududi)

Qur’an: And indeed Jonah was also one of the Messengers

This is the third place where the Prophet Jonah (peace be upon him) has been mentioned in the Qur’an. Before this, he has already been mentioned in Surah Yunus:98 and Al-Anbiya:87-88.

Qur’an: Remember when he fled to the laden vessel

The word abaqa in Arabic is used for the flight and escape of a slave from his master’s house.

Qur’an: then he took part in the casting of lots and lost. At last the fish swallowed him for he was blameworthy.

This is what one understands from a study of these sentences:

1. The vessel which Prophet Jonah boarded was already overloaded

2. Lots were drawn in the vessel probably at a time when during the voyage it was felt that the lives of the passengers had been endangered due to the overloading; therefore, lots were cast to pick out a person to be thrown overboard.

3. The lot fell on the Prophet Jonah, and so he was thrown into the sea, and a fish swallowed him.

4. The Prophet Jonah was so afflicted because he had fled and abandoned the place of his mission without the permission of his Master (Allah Almighty). This meaning is confirmed by the word "abaqa" as has been explained above and also by the word muleem. Muleem is a blameworthy person who becomes worthy of blame by himself because of his sin and error, whether somebody else blames him for it or not. (Ibn Jarir)

Qur’an: Had he not been of those who glorify (Us)

It has two meanings and both are implied:

That the Prophet Jonah was not of the people, who are heedless of God, but was of those who glorify and adore Allah constantly and perpetually.

That when he went inside the fish, he turned to Allah alone and glorified Him. In surah Anbiya it has been said: "He invoked Us from the depths of the darkness saying "There is no god but You; Glory be to you; I am indeed blameworthy’" (21:87)

Qur’an: he would have remained in the fish’s belly till the day of Resurrection

This does not mean that the fish would have lived till Resurrection and the Prophet Jonah would have remained alive in its belly till then, but the fish’s belly would have become his grave till Resurrection. The famous commentator Qatadah has given this same meaning of this verse. (Ibn Jarir).

Qur’an: At last We cast him on a bare shore in a state of sickness, and caused a creeper to grow over him.

That is, "When the prophet Jonah confessed his fault, and began to glorify Allah like a true and sincere believer, the fish spat him up on the beach by Allah’s Command. The beach was a bare plain, without any vegetation on it, or anything to provide him shade, or any means of food."

Sayyid Maududi also writes….

Some people have taken exception to what we have written concerning this story of the Prophet Jonah in our commentary of surah Yunus and surah Al-Anbiya. It would therefore be proper that we should reproduce here the explanations given by other commentators in this regard.

The famous commentator Qatadah in his commentary of verse 98 of surah Yunus says: "There has been no habitation which disbelieved and might have believed after the arrival of the scourge and then might have been left unpunished. The only exception was the people of the Prophet Jonah. When they searched for their Prophet, and did not find him, and felt that the scourge had approached near at hand, Allah put repentance in their hearts." (Ibn Kathir, volume II, page 433).

Commenting on the same verse, ‘Allama Alusi says: "The Prophet Jonah (peace be upon him) had been sent to the people of Nineveh in the land of Mosul. They were polytheistic people. The Prophet Jonah invited them to believe in Allah, the One, and to give up idol-worship. They refused to believe and belied him. Jonah gave them the news that they would be visited by a scourge after three days and he left the place at midnight before the expiry if the three days. Then in the daytime when the scourge approached and the people realized that they would all perish they began to search for the Prophet but did not find him. At last they took their families and their cattle and came out in the desert and expressed belief and repentance…So Allah showed them mercy and accepted their prayer." (Ruh al-Ma’ani, vol. IX, page 170)

Commenting on verse 87 of Surah Al-Anbiya, ‘Allamah Alusi writes: "The Prophet Jonah’s forsaking his people in anger was an act of migration, but he had not been commanded to do so." (Ruh al-Ma’ani, volume XVII, page 77). Then he explains the meaning of the sentence, "Inni kun-tu min-adh-dhalimeen", of Jonah’s prayer, thus: "That is, I was blameworthy in that I hastened to migrate, against the way of the Prophets, before receiving the command for it." This was in fact, a confession of his sin and expression of repentance so that Allah might remove his affliction. (Ruh al-Ma’ani, volume XVII, page 78)

Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi’s note on this verse is: "He became angry with his people when they did not believe and forsook them, and did not return to them of his own accord when the scourge had been averted and did not await Our Command for the migration." (Bayan al-Qur’an).

Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani writes in his note on this verse: "Vexed at the misconduct of his people he left the city in anger, did not await the Divine Command and threatened the people that they would be visited by a torment after three days….Inni Kun-tu min adh-dhalimeen: He confessed his error that he had made haste and left the habitation without awaiting Allah’s Command."

Explaining these verses of Surah Saffat, Imam Razi writes: "The Prophet Jonah’s fault was that when Allah threatened to destroy the people who had belied him, he thought that the scourge would inevitably befall them. Therefore, he did not show patience and abandoned his mission and left the place, whereas he ought to have continued the work of his mission, for there was a possibility that Allah might not destroy those people." (Tafsir Kabir, volume VII, page 158).

Explaining the verse idh abaqa… ‘Allama Alusi writes: "Literally, abaqa means the escape of a slave from his master’s house. Since Jonah had run away from his people without Allah’s leave, the word has been rightly used about him." Then he writes: "When the third day came, the Prophet Jonah left the place without Allah’s permission. Thus when his people did not find him, they came out along with their young and old people and their cattle, and they implored Allah and begged for His forgiveness and Allah forgave them." (Ruh al-Ma’ani, volume XXII, page 13)

Maulana Shabbir Ahmad ‘Uthmani has explained the words wa huwa muleem, thus: "The accusation against him was that he had left the city because of an error of judgment without awaiting the Divine Command, and even specified the day for the coming of the scourge."

Then Maulana Shabbir Ahmad’s note on verse 48 of Surah Al-Qalam is: "Do not be perplexed and agitated with regard to the deniers like the Man of the Fish (i.e. the Prophet Jonah." And about the sentence: wa huwa makzum of the same verse, he writes: "That is, he was full of anger against his people, so he prayed for the torment, rather foretold it, in fretful haste."

These explanations by the commentators clearly show that there were three offences on account of which Prophet Jonah was made to suffer Allah’s displeasure:

1.That he himself fixed the day of the torment, whereas Allah had not made any declaration in this regard;

2.That he emigrated from the city even before the day came; whereas a Prophet should not leave the place of his mission until Allah commands him to do so; and

3. That he did not return to his people after the torment had been averted from them.

OUR CONCLUSIONS:

Prelude: This study is intended to prove that Prophets and Messengers were sinless i.e. possessed the divine ‘ismah.

'Ismah which is generally translated as "sinlessness", literally means 'protection'. The 'protection' is of three kinds:

(1) Protection from error in receiving the revelation,

(2) Protection from error in communicating and imparting that revelation to the people, and

(3) Protection from sins. Sin here means any thing or action which goes against the obligatory command of Allah, and thus becomes a disgrace for the man. In other words, any word or action which is against the dictates of the servitude, homage and devoutness of man towards his Lord.

These three kinds of protection are proven from the decisive verses of the Qur’an. In this study, we are concerned with the third kind which is protection from sins.

There are many verses which prove the 'ismah of the prophets in all its aspects:-

These are they whom Allah has guided; therefore, follow their guidance. (6:90)

and whomsoever Allah lets go astray, there is no guide for him; and whom Allah guides, there is none that can lead him astray; is not Allah Mighty, the Lord of retribution? (39:36-37)

whomsoever Allah guides, he is the rightly guided one. (18:17)

According to these verses all the prophets were decidedly guided by Allah and those who are guided by Allah can never be led astray by any misleading agency. In other words, they are free from all misguidance; and every sin is a misguidance, as is shown by the words of Allah:

Did I not enjoin on you, 0 children of Adam! that you should not worship the, Satan? Surely he is your open enemy, and that you should worship Me; this is the right way. And certainly he led astray a great multitude from among you. What! could not then understand? (36:60-62)

In this verse, Allah counts every sin as going astray, a misguidance as a result of the agency of Satan; at the same time regarding it as the worship of Satan. Looking at all the above verses we find that Allah guided all the prophets by His guidance. Anyone guided by Allah's guidance can never be misled, can never go astray. Every sin is a misguidance; every sin is straying from the right path.

And whoever obeys Allah and the Apostle these are with those upon whom Allah has bestowed the favors of the prophets and the truthful and the martyrs and the righteous ones; and excellent are these as companions! (4:69)

Keep us on the right path, the path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors, not (the path) of those inflicted with Thy wrath, nor (of those) gone astray. (1:5-7)

In these verses, the prophets are described as of those upon whom Allah has bestowed His favors; and those upon whom Allah's favors have been bestowed are other than those who have gone astray. It means that the prophets never went astray. If they had committed a sin, they would have gone astray (as explained above). Also, if they had committed any error or mistake in receiving or communicating the revelation, they would have gone astray.

These are they on whom Allah bestowed favors, of the prophets of the posterity of Adam, and of those whom We carried with Nuh, and of the posterity of Ibrahim and Israel, and of those whom We guided and chose. When the signs of the Beneficent (God) were recited to them, they fell down prostrating (in obeisance) and weeping. But there followed after them an evil generation, who neglected prayer and followed sensual desires, so they shall soon meet (the result of their) sin. (19:58-59)

This verse attributes two virtues to the prophets: first, the bestowing of favors (upon whom He bestowed favors); second, guidance (whom We guided and chose). Then it goes on praising them for the highest degree of obedience, devoutness and humility before Allah. Afterwards, it condemns the unworthy following generation for their evil traits. Obviously, we see here two opposite groups: one, the praiseworthy ones deserving to be honored by Allah; the other, the condemned ones. This second group has been described as those who followed sensual desires and who will soon see the result of their sins. It clearly means that the first group, i.e. the prophets, did not follow their desires and will not be overtaken by sin. Such sincere servants of Allah could not commit any sin, even before their appointment as prophets. Had they committed any sin even before their receiving prophethood, they would have surely come under the condemnation, neglected prayer and followed sensual desires, so they shall soon meet (the result of their) sin. But, as we explained, theirs is a group of diametrically opposite to the condemned ones.

This Qur'anic proof is somewhat similar to the rational proof given for the 'ismah of the prophets, which is as follows:-

The sending of the prophets and the showing of miracles in their hands is the confirmation of their words. It means that they cannot tell a lie. Also, it is an endorsement that they have the ability to communicate the message of Allah to their people. But a man who indulges in sins and such actions as would harm a project, cannot be said to be qualified to preach the usefulness of that project or to invite the people to participate in it. Therefore, when Allah showed miracles in the hands of the prophets it not only authenticated their claim of prophethood, but also confirmed that they could not commit error in receiving and delivering the divine revelation, and that they faithfully obeyed all the commands of Allah and desisted from all such things which were disliked by Allah. In other words, they were sinless in all its aspects.

References: Al-Mizan English Volume 3 by Allamah Tabataba'I

Allamah Tabataba’I has expounded these verses that tell the story of Yunus (a.s.) and his episode with the whale, in a way that no part of his commentary contradicts the Qur’anic understanding from the decisive verses that Prophets and Messengers have to be protected by Allah through divine ‘Ismah from making mistakes and sinning. (Read the prelude to conclusions above.)

However, the literal meanings of some of the allegorical verses describing the story of Yunus (a.s.) could give an impression that a Prophet like Yunus (a.s.) was not sinless or did not possess the divine ‘Ismah we mention above. In order to avoid a possible contradiction with the Qur’an regarding the character and quality of the Prophets appointed by Allah for a divine mission, these verses, as Tabataba’I correctly points out in one case, could have come down as similes and the only way to arrive at the correct meaning is to return such verses to the decisive part of the Qur’an so that their true connotation could be fixed.

In the beginning, Tabataba’I tells the story of Yunus who left his people after they disbelieved and belied him. His explanation of the verse "idh abaqa ela ‘l-fulk" (37:140) conforms to the verse 21:87 - "And (Remember) Dhun-Nun (Yunus) when he left in anger…" which shows that Yunus withdrew from his people and not that he was running away from his mission. However, Yunus felt that his leaving ‘represented’ a slave fleeing from his master and thus the usage of the word "abaqa".  Some scholars have said that "abaqa" could also mean a slave leaving his place after completing his duties. Such a meaning is also not rejected by the context of verse 21:87.

It appears from Tabataba’I’s tafseer that Yunus (a.s.) left his people at the time when the punishment had already arrived and at the same time, Allah had lifted the punishment. According to his tafseer, and as evident from the Qur'an, there was no commandment as such from Allah instructing his Prophet not to leave or to stay with his people. Therefore, there was no offence or sin on the part of Yunus (a.s.).  This explanation is not rejected because, according to the Qur’an, it seems that Allah can make His plan of work known to a Prophet or Messenger to the extent that it is beneficial for the trial of the people and when the Prophet or Messenger thinks that the plan has reached its end, a new development takes place with an unexpected result. This is evident from the following verse: "Allah effaces what He pleases and establishes (likewise). With Him is the basis of the Book" (13:39). The argument by other exegetes that Yunus (a.s.) committed an offence because he  foretold the day of the punishment is baseless because of the following reasons:

1. Prophets or Messengers have to be informed of the plan of work by their Master (Allah). So if Yunus (a.s.) warned the people of the coming of the scourge including the exact day, it was based on his knowledge (given by Allah) of the divine plan.

2. There is evidence in the Qur’an that the people of Yunus brought belief when they saw the punishment coming. The explanation by Tabataba’I that the punishment had already arrived is evident from the following verse: And wherefore was there not a town which should believe so that their belief should have profited them but the people of Yunus? When they believed, We removed from them the chastisement of disgrace in this world's life and We gave them provision till a time (10:98). This verse inevitably proves that if Yunus had informed his people about the coming of the punishment, it was not a forecast or prediction but a reality.

There is an important factor to consider in the story of Yunus (a.s.). In verse 21:87, Allah has revealed a sentence and its literal translation is as follows: "…and he (Yunus) thought that We had no power over him". This sentence has led some exegetes to explain that Yunus committed an offence by running away from his people and place of mission without Allah’s permission thinking that his Master would have no power over him. Far be it for a prophet appointed by Allah to think that way because he would be termed as a ‘disbeliever’. A good example is Firawn who claimed to be the Lord of the people because he did not believe in the Absolute power. Tabataba’I has been swift in pointing out that this part of the verse could have come down as a simile for us. In other words, the sentence was revealed that way to create a picture in our minds of a slave leaving his master thinking that he is out of the circle of his master’s power. The similitude in turn, helps us to understand the situation Yunus (a.s.) was in, although innocent. Tabataba’I also gives us the true meaning of the sentence by quoting the verse: "But when He tries him (differently), then straitens to him his means of subsistence, he says: My Lord has disgraced me" (89:16), where similar words were used (faqadara alayhi rizqah).

The most interesting part of Tabataba’I’s tafseer is when he explains that the lots were cast because a whale was objecting the laden ship. The explanation by other exegetes that lots were cast because the ship was overloaded and one person had to be thrown overboard is totally illogical besides the fact that the clause "laden ship" has several meanings. Tabataba’I’s explanation that a whale was objecting the ship seems more plausible and conforming to the sentence: "so the Fish swallowed him…" In other words, the whale was already commanded by Allah to swallow Yunus (a.s.) and was thus meant for Yunus (a.s.). Probably the description "laden ship" is pointing to another miracle: Yunus’ name was picked in the casting of lots despite all the odds that he would not be picked in a ship filled with capacity! The explanation by some exegetes and scholars that when the ship had reached the middle of the sea, it was gripped in a violent storm is also rejected by the context of the verses 37:140-142. This part of Tabataba’I’s tafseer probably explains that Yunus (a.s.) has blamed himself because of the problem the ship was experiencing by the whale’s presence.

Now we come to the part in which Yunus confesses his so called ‘wrongdoing’ while inside the belly of the whale. Based on his previous explanation that Yunus (a.s.) represented in his action, a slave leaving his master, Tabataba’I now explains that Yunus’ confession is related to that ‘representation’. This means that Yunus was not confessing an actual wrongdoing but he was in a state of distress (in darkness) because he felt that he represented an action, which could be deemed as undesirable. Allah tried him for that and Yunus glorified Allah while inside the belly of the whale, at the same time renouncing that representation and thus Allah delivered him. Tabatabai’I’s commentary that this was a disciplining from Allah of His prophet in order for him to come near (to Allah by glorifying Him) in a manner innocent of representing a wrong act let alone actually doing wrong is truly remarkable and explains the purpose of the similitude in verse 21:87 which we previously mentioned.

As a final conclusion, Tabataba’I’s tafseer clearly proves that there was no wrong done by Prophet Yunus (a.s.) and that the trial that he was subjected to was to elevate his status, in a miraculous way, as a Prophet and Messenger of Allah. Yunus left his people based on the sufficient knowledge given to him by Allah for that mission. A similar example can be given in the case of Prophet Ibrahim (a.s.) when he was commanded by Allah to sacrifice his son Ismael. Allah brought about a new development and ransomed him with a great sacrifice (of later generations). Ibrahim was put through this difficult trial when he was already a great Prophet and Messenger of Allah. He was not aware of the outcome of the trial. Allah tried him in order to elevate his status to an Imam of the people: "And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men. Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust, said He" (2:124). The explanation by other exegetes that the swallowing by the whale was a punishment for the Prophet is totally rejected by the Qur’an.  It is a shame for someone to say that Allah punished His Messenger when Allah Himself sends peace on His Messengers (37:181). Hence the belief that Prophet Yunus was sinless, protected by Allah, still stands.

Sayyid Maududi, in his tafsir of the passage in surah al-Anbiya', explains that Yunus had done wrong by leaving his place of mission without Allah's consent. He further says that it was an offence for a prophet to leave his place, which was going to be visited by the punishment of Allah. Maududi also mentions that the story has been "cited to show that even a great Prophet like him did not go unnoticed when he committed an error in regard to Allah's message…" There are several arguments to consider with respect to this part of Maududi’s tafseer. First, one can equally argue that there was no command from Allah instructing the Prophet not to leave and therefore Yunus did nothing wrong to leave his people. Second, based on what we mentioned above, in the prelude to conclusions, to say that a prophet appointed by Allah did wrong is like attributing the wrong to Allah (God Forbid!) since He made the appointment! Third, to assert that a prophet should never leave his place without Allah’s permission is like saying that they were not allowed to exercise their free will and the Qur’an negates this one too. Needless to mention, Sayyid Maududi says in Vol. 7, Meaning of the Qur’an, in commenting on the passage about prophet Job, "the mention of Prophet Job has been made to show that even Prophets were put to trials and afflictions". It is rather surprising that Maududi considers Yunus’ encounter with the whale as his punishment for leaving his people and not a trial to elevate his status! The Qur’an has numerous verses, which mention that believers are subjected to trials and afflictions in order to prove and increase their level of submission and belief.

In commenting on the passage in surah Saffat, Maududi explains the meaning of the word abaqa and says that it is used for the flight and escape of a slave from his master's house. He also explains that Yunus (a.s.) boarded a ship which was overloaded and lots were drawn in the vessel to pick out a person to be thrown overboard when it was felt that the lives of the passengers was in danger due to the overloading. We have mentioned before that the word abaqa was used to give us a similitude of a slave leaving his master and it does not imply that Yunus was running away from his responsibility. Further, it is unreasonable for an exegete, who is highly regarded by the ahlul-Sunnah, to say that throwing one person overboard would have reduced the danger the vessel was facing due to overloading. One can see that such explanations are easily rejected by the context of the verses under study. The clause "laden ship" could mean a ship, which is filled with people to its capacity or "burdened" by something. Tabataba’I’s explanation that a whale was objecting the ship seems to flow well with the whole story and supported by the verse "so the Fish swallowed him…" OR "at last the Fish swallowed him…" (translation, as it appears in Maududi’s tafseer).

Maududi’s commentary on the aftermath of the events that took place in the vessel seems to suggest that a whale appeared in the sea (by the command of Allah) after Yunus was thrown overboard and then swallowed him. In other words, Maududi says that the whale swallowed Yunus because he had fled the place of his mission without the permission of Allah. He supports his statement by pointing out the word "Muleem" (a blameworthy person). His explanation therefore implies that Yunus became worthy of blame by himself because of his sin and error. He attributes this explanation to Ibn Jarir. In any case, this explanation is rejected by the Qur’an because the verse "so the Fish swallowed him while he did that for which he was blameworthy" seems to point to the burdening of the ship by the whale and the casting of lots to decide whom to give to the Fish in order to relieve the burdening. In short, Maududi deems the swallowing by the whale as a punishment from Allah for his so called sin and error while Tabataba’I considers it as a miracle and salvation for a Prophet who was in distress and Allah eventually delivered him from this affliction. As a matter of fact, if Allah really intended to punish Yunus (God forbid), He would have left him in the sea all by himself rather than commanding a whale to swallow him!

Maududi also makes a statement while commenting on the verse, "Had he not been of those who glorify (Us)…" that Prophet Yunus was not of the heedless people but was one of those who glorify Allah constantly and perpetually. Tabataba’I makes a similar statement and says that Yunus (a.s.) was one who glorified Allah for a long period. Therefore, it is very hard to accept that Allah punished a servant of His who glorified Him constantly and perpetually. Maududi has actually contradicted himself in this respect.

In addition, Maududi, through the explanations of various Sunni commentators, including Imam Razi, author of tafseer al-Kabeer, says that there were three offenses on account of which Prophet Yunus was made to suffer Allah’s displeasure:

First, Yunus (a.s.) himself foretold or fixed the day of the punishment when "Allah had not made any declaration in this regard."

Reply: This is without any proof from the Qur’an. As a matter of fact, verse 10:98 proves that the punishment had already arrived before Allah lifted it and we have commented on this above.

Second, Yunus’ offense was that he left his people even before the day of punishment came, while a prophet is not allowed to leave his place of mission until given the order by Allah.

Reply: There is no evidence from the Qur’an that Yunus left his people before the punishment arrived. Also, where in the Qur’an does it say, with the exception of a specific command that a Prophet is not allowed to leave his place of mission until Allah orders him to do so? We have mentioned above that to assert that a prophet should never leave his place without Allah’s permission is like saying that they were not allowed to exercise their free will! After all, 'Ismah (protection) comes from Allah; He creates in the prophet a cause from which all his actions emanate - the actions which are done by his own free will and are always in obedience to Him.

Third: Yunus’ offense was that he did not return to his people after the punishment had been averted from them.

Reply: We don’t know the exact meaning of the third offence. Does he mean to say that Yunus never returned to his people? If so, it is negated by the following verse: And We sent him (Yunus) to a hundred thousand, rather they exceeded. (37:147) However, if he means to say that Yunus should have stayed with his people, then it is a repetition of the second offence. According to Tabataba’I’s tafseer and verse 10:98, it appears that Yunus left his people after the punishment had arrived and the lifting of it by Allah and therefore the claim that he did not return to his people after the punishment was averted does not make sense at all.

In short, we have witnessed that Maududi’s tafseer on the story of Prophet Yunus in the Qur’an began and ended on the wrong footing that Prophets appointed by Allah can make mistakes and commit sins. This is evident from the explanations Maududi presents by taking the literal meanings of some of the verses, which probably came down as similes. In addition, his commentary in the end that Prophet Yunus committed three offences is baseless, not even apparent from the verses under study and also without any proof from the Qur’an. To claim that Prophet Yunus was guilty of these offences or even to utter that Prophets and Messengers were capable of sinning is blasphemy and a blatant contradiction of the Qur’anic verses honoring the Prophets such as:

Back To Top