How sound is the interpretation that the whale did not swallow Jonah, but rather kept him in its mouth, and that the tree which shaded him was a gourd, not a grape vine, and that a blue whale was the one that engulfed him, in contrast to the Quranic verses (لَلَبِثَ فِي بَطْنِهِ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ يُبْعَثُونَ) "he would have remained inside its belly until the Day they are resurrected" and (فَنَادَىٰ فِي الظُّلُمَاتِ) "and he cried out in the depths"? Is it preferable to rely on the texts of the People of the Book based on a scientific theory, and is it permissible to assert what Allah has left ambiguous, and does this deny Allah's ability to suspend natural laws? What is the meaning of "engulfed him" (التقمه), and do Arabs use the word "belly" (بطن) to refer to the mouth? What are the flaws of this scientific interpretation?

The story of Yunus (peace be upon him) in the Holy Qur’an mentions the whale swallowing him and his presence in the darknesses of its belly. The meaning of "swallowed him" (iltaqamahu) in Arabic is that it devoured him, and this is what the exegetes have followed and what the Sunnah has confirmed. As for the duration of his stay in the whale's belly, there are several differing opinions, including: 40 days, or 7 days, or 3 days, or 20 days, or part of a day. However, denying his stay in the whale's belly on the pretext of perishing is a strange matter, and it is considered a rejection of the miracle, which is a breach of custom and a suspension of causes, just like Ibrahim (peace be upon him) when he was cast into the fire and did not perish. This confirms that Yunus (peace be upon him) was in the whale's belly, not in its mouth. The People of the Book have agreed that the pumpkin is what grew for Yunus, and this contradicts what is mentioned in the Qur’an, which mentioned the pumpkin after his emergence from the whale, while grapes were not mentioned. Therefore, the message mentioned in the question is false due to its contradiction with the Qur’an and Sunnah.