Tafsir of Maryam 19:20

As for adultery, it is not appropriate to refer to it by metonymy, because the context is either to purify the tongue—in which case there is neither metonymy nor explicit mention—or it is for the purpose of rebuke, in which case it deserves more than mere explicit mention. Words that are thought to be metonyms for adultery have become so widespread that they have become explicit realities for it, including the wording in the Noble Quran.

It does not invalidate this [argument] to point to the verse in Surah Al-Imran, where she says, "No man has touched me," restricting it to that. The most that has been said regarding that is that it is a metonym for marriage and adultery by way of generalization (taghlib), and it was not intended as a metonym for adultery alone. Some might argue that it is a metonym for marriage only, just as it is here, and that the text is comprehensive here because it is a context of elaboration, whereas she limited herself to denying marriage there because there was no suspicion, and she knew they were angels calling out, so she did not imagine any suspicion being cast upon her. This is unlike the present situation, for Gabriel (peace be upon him) had come to her in the form of a beardless youth; for this reason, she sought refuge from him, and her fear had not been completely calmed until he said, "I am only a messenger of your Lord."

Furthermore, it is said that the sufficiency of the phrasing in Al-Imran versus the lack of sufficiency here is because the former was revealed earlier, making this the place for detail, unlike the former due to prior knowledge. It is also said that "touching" here is a metonym for both acts by way of generalization, as it is in that surah.

It is as if she (peace be upon her), out of the intensity of her astonishment and the extreme unlikelihood of the matter, did not pay attention to the description in the words of the angel (peace be upon him), "To bestow upon you a pure boy"—which negates all doubt and suspicion. She cast it behind her back, brought only the noun itself, and proceeded to substantiate its negation in the most eloquent manner. That is: How remote is the existence of this entity with these obstacles, let alone with that description? This is close to the "wise style" (al-uslub al-hakim).

Baghi (unchaste) is of the pattern fa‘ul according to al-Mubarrad. Its root is baghawi; when the waw and ya met and one of them was preceded by a vowelless state, the waw was changed into a ya and assimilated into the ya, and the ghayn was kasra-vocalized by assimilation. For this reason, it does not take the feminine ta, because the fa‘ul pattern is equal for both masculine and feminine, even if it has the meaning of the active participle (fa‘il), like sabur (patient). Ibn Jinni criticized this in Kitab al-Tammam, arguing that if it were fa‘ul, it would have been said baghu, just as nahw (prohibiting) is used. It was replied that one should not draw analogies from anomalous forms, and scholars have asserted the anomaly of nahw because it violates the rule regarding the meeting of waw and ya when one is vowelless. He preferred that it is of the pattern fa‘il, and according to what Abu al-Baqa said, it has the meaning of the active participle. It would seem the analogy requires it to take the feminine ta, because in that case, it is not of the patterns common to both genders like fa‘ul. The reason it does not take it is because, due to its intensive meaning, it was treated like fa‘ul.

Some say: It is of the category of relational nouns (nasab), like taliq (divorced woman), where the masculine and feminine are equal. It is said that its feminine suffix was omitted because it is restricted in usage to females (men are referred to as baghin). It is also said it is fa‘il in the sense of the passive participle (ma‘ful), like ‘ayn kahil (a kohl-lined eye). On this view, the meaning is: a woman whom men seek for immorality. If it is in the sense of the active participle, it means a dissolute woman who seeks men.

Regardless, it has become an explicit reality for an adulteress due to its frequency. Thus, the objection does not stand that the consideration of intensification in it does not suit the context—since the negation of the more intense [act] does not necessarily imply the negation of the root action—and there is no need for the reply that it is a case of nasab, or that the intent is the negation of both the restriction and the restricted object, or that it is an intensification of the negation rather than the negation of the intensification.