Tafsir of Maryam 19:18

“She said: ‘I seek refuge in the All-Merciful from you, if you are God-fearing.’”

It is a witness of justice that not even a trace of inclination toward him crossed her mind, let alone the state resulting from the highest degrees of inclination and desire. Yes, his appearance in that superior beauty and splendid comeliness was a representation, for it is the custom of an angel, when he represents himself, to appear in the form of a handsome human, just as he used to come to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) in the form of Dihyah (may Allah be pleased with him). [This was] initially to test her and probe her chastity, and there appeared from her of piety and chastity that which has no limit beyond it. The desire of the one who says that it actually occurred as such—so that it might be a suspect [occasion] for what was mentioned, and then its opposite is revealed, making it stronger in her integrity—is very far from his [true] meaning.

Some later scholars have said: Her seeking refuge in Allah (Exalted be He) signals the agitation of her desire and her natural inclination toward him, according to what Allah (Exalted be He) said in the story of Joseph (peace be upon him): "And if You do not avert their plan from me, I might incline toward them." It has been said that the meaning of "inclination" (sabwah) therein is the inclination according to the requirements of nature and the judgment of the appetitive force. Furthermore, this does not contradict her chastity; rather, it confirms it, for it is natural and compulsive, not falling under religious obligation, as was said regarding the words of the Exalted: "And he inclined toward her." Despite this, Joseph (peace be upon him) sought refuge in Allah, as Allah (Exalted be He) recounted of him: "He said: 'I seek refuge in Allah; indeed, He is my Lord, He has made my residence good.'" Therefore, the claim that seeking refuge denies agitation and natural inclination is a falsehood, and the saying that the position of explaining the traces of power for the habit refuses that is nothing, because the creation of man from a single drop of fluid is also a trace of the power that transcends habit. The causes in this context are not to be rejected entirely, as the story of Yahya (peace be upon him) guides to that. Moreover, it is claimed that the creation of something from absolutely nothing is impossible, so it is not among the levels of power, and the material of creative origination is the "fixed essences" (al-a‘yan al-thabitah), and they are eternal. This is not free from discussion, and what we have mentioned regarding the justification is safer from gossip and debate; so contemplate it.

The word "human" (basharan) is accusative as a circumstantial qualifier (hal) that is anticipated, or as a specificatory noun (tamyiz). It is also said to be in the place of an object, by incorporating the meaning of "took" into the word "represented" (tamaththala). The matter of this representation is considered problematic, in that Gabriel (peace be upon him) is a creature of immense bulk, as the reports have indicated. Thus, when he becomes the size of a human body, it necessitates that he either ceases to be Gabriel if the excess parts fall away, or that the parts overlap if nothing is removed, and that is impossible. Furthermore, if representation were permissible, reliability would vanish, and it would be impossible to be certain that the person seen now is the Zayd who was seen yesterday, due to the possibility of representation. Also, if representation in the form of a human is permissible, why is his representation in a form other than that of a human not permissible? Such as a gnat or similar. It is known that every doctrine that leads to this is invalid. Additionally, if that were permissible, the reliability of mutawatir (mass-transmitted) reports would vanish, such as the report of the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) fighting on the day of Badr, for it is possible that the fighter was the one who represented [him].

The answer to the first is that it is not impossible for Gabriel (peace be upon him) to have few original parts and surplus parts; thus, with the original parts, he is able to represent [as] a human. This is according to those who hold that he is a physical body. As for those who hold that he is a spiritual being, there is no improbability in his clothing himself sometimes with a great structure and other times with a small structure. As for the second, it is a shared obligation among all; for whoever acknowledges the Able Creator is also bound by this, since it is possible that He (Glory be to Him) creates someone like Zayd, for example, and with this possibility, reliability vanishes and certainty becomes impossible in the manner previously mentioned. Likewise, he who does not acknowledge [the Creator] and attributes events to celestial conjunctions and configurations is also bound by this, due to the possibility of a conjunction occurring that necessitates the occurrence of the like of that; at that point, certainty also becomes impossible. Perhaps because such a thing is rare, it does not necessitate an impairment of the ordinary sciences based on sensation, so there is no need to doubt that the Zayd we see now is the one we saw yesterday.

The answer to the third is that the principle of permission exists in the intellect, but its corruption is known through the evidences of revelation; this is the answer to the fourth, as the Imam al-Razi said. In my view, the issue of representation, according to the doctrine of corporeality, is something whose affair should be entrusted to the Knower of the Unseen, and there is no path for the intellect to reach a definitive conclusion in it that would put hearts at ease.

He (the Exalted) mentioned Himself with the title of the All-Merciful (al-Rahman) as a reminder to the one she saw, [calling upon] mercy so that he might show mercy to her weakness and inability to repel him, or as an exaggeration in seeking refuge in the Exalted, and to attract the traces of the special mercy which is protection from what overwhelmed her. As for what has been said—that this is a reminder to the one she saw of the recompense so that he might be deterred—it is said: "Oh, All-Merciful of the Hereafter" is nothing, because it has been transmitted that He is the All-Merciful of this world and the Hereafter, and the Most Merciful in both.

"If you are God-fearing" is a condition for a suppressed response, based on the trust in the indication of the context upon it; i.e., "If it is hoped from you that you fear Allah (Exalted be He) and revere Him, and that you honor the seeking of refuge in Him, then I am seeking refuge in Him from you." This is how al-Zamakhshari estimated it. In al-Kashshaf, it is mentioned that he indicated that the point of this condition—despite the fact that seeking refuge in the All-Merciful is more appropriate even if he were not God-fearing—is that the effect of seeking protection in Allah (Exalted be He), namely, his refraining and her safety from him, is only realized and manifested with respect to the God-fearing person. In this is an indication that piety requires the right of sanctuary and protection for the one seeking refuge in Allah, and of the greatness of the status of piety, in that it was made a condition for seeking refuge, without which it is not completed. He also said: "If it is hoped" is an expression of the meaning that the hope for piety was even greater than the knowledge of it.

The outcome is that piety was not made a condition for the act of seeking refuge, but rather a condition for his refraining and her safety from him; she alluded to that by seeking refuge in Allah (Exalted be He) as an incitement for him to refrain in the gentlest and most eloquent way, and that whoever threatens one who seeks refuge in Him has threatened His great wrath.

Al-Zajjaj estimated [the meaning as]: "If you are God-fearing, then take warning from my seeking refuge." The most appropriate for him is "take warning" (tatta‘iz) by dropping the fa, because the imperfect verb acting as a response [to a condition] is not joined with the fa, so it would require making it nominative by estimating an initial subject. Some estimated [it as]: "So go away from me," and others: "Do not molest me." It is said she meant: "If you are God-fearing and abstinent, then I seek refuge from you, so how much more if you are not such?" It is as if he intended that she sought refuge with this condition so that her seeking refuge would be known through what is said to him [to be] a matter of a fortiori (min bab awla). Al-Shihab said: The apparent [meaning] is that if (in) in this view is of the "inclusive" (wasliyyah) type, and there is a debate regarding its arrival without the waw. He mentioned that the sentence in this case is a circumstantial qualifier (hal) and the intention is the resorting to Allah (Exalted be He) from his evil, not inciting him to be deterred. It is also said it is negative, and the sentence is a new beginning in the place of an explanation, i.e., "You are not God-fearing and abstinent by your presence with me and your seclusion with me." This is contrary to the apparent meaning. Regardless, the "God-fearing" (taqi) is an attribute derived from piety (taqwa), and the saying of the one who said it is the name of a righteous or wicked man is not sound.