Tafsir of Maryam 19:25

(And shake towards you)—that is, towards your direction. Hazz (shaking) is the act of moving something to the right and left, whether done with force or otherwise, or moving it by pulling and pushing. It implies the meaning of inclination; hence, it is transitive via ilā (towards). Alternatively, it is a metaphor for this, or it is considered so in its transitivity because it is part of its meaning. This is what has been said.

Abu Hayyan rejected its connection to huzzī (shake), arguing that it is established in grammar that a verb cannot be made transitive to a connected pronoun [preceded by a preposition] that refers back to the subject of the same verb, unless it falls under the category of ẓanna (to think/deem) or faqada (to lose/lack), which involve two meanings (subject and object). Therefore, one cannot say ḍarabtuka (I hit you) and Zaydun ḍaraba-hu (Zayd hit him) in the sense of "I hit myself" and "he hit himself." The prepositional pronoun, in their view, is like the accusative pronoun; thus, it is not said naẓartu ilayka (I looked at you) and Zaydun naẓara (Zayd looked) in the sense of "I looked at myself" and "he looked at himself." From this, they considered ‘alayka (upon you) in the saying, "Everything depends upon you (or is controlled by you), for the affairs are managed by the decrees of God," to be a noun, as in the saying: "It became from ‘alayhi (upon it) after its thirst was quenched."

He (Abu Hayyan) treated the prepositional phrase here as connected to an omitted element, meaning: "I mean towards you," as they say in suqyan laka (may it be a drink for you) and the like, which is brought for the sake of clarification. You know that they have spoken of ilā (to/towards) coming for the sake of clarification, but Ibn Malik and the author of al-Qāmūs stated that it is the one clarifying the agent of its object after that which implies love or hatred, such as a verb of wonder or a superlative. What is here is not of that sort.

In al-Itqān, it is mentioned that Ibn ‘Usfur narrated in his commentary on the verses of al-Īḍāḥ, on the authority of Ibn al-Anbari, that ilā is used as a noun, so one says, "I departed from ilayka (your presence)," just as one says, "I went forth from ‘alayhi (upon it)." Wa-huzzī ilayki (And shake towards you) is interpreted in this way, and through this, the difficulty raised by Abu Hayyan is dispelled. End quote.

It was incumbent upon him to explain its meaning when treated as a noun. Perhaps, in that case, it is in the sense of ‘inda (at/near); it is explicitly stated in al-Qāmūs that it comes with this meaning, and he cited the verse: "Is there no path ilā (to/near) youth?" and the statement: "It is more beloved ilay-ya (to/near me) than pure, running nectar." However, this meaning is not appropriate in the verse. Similarly, it has been said that it is a verbal noun (ism fi‘l). Furthermore, if the narration of its usage as a noun is correct, it undermines the claim of Abu Hayyan that "it is impossible to claim that ilā is a noun due to the consensus of the grammarians on its status as a particle." Perhaps he intended the consensus of those whom he considers worthy of consideration among them.

The explanation I am inclined toward in resolving the difficulty is that the verb is implied with the meaning of inclination, and the prepositional phrase is connected to it, not to the verb that raises the pronoun. This is a far-reaching insight, and one should not be hasty in objecting to it. Moreover, I have reservations regarding the invalidity of such a construction based on the aforementioned rule, due to its frequent occurrence in their speech. Among these are the Almighty’s saying: (Hold on to your wife), the aforementioned verse, the poet’s saying: "Leave ‘anka (from you) the plundered wealth," and their saying: "Go ilayka (to you)" and "Depart ‘anka (from you)," in addition to other instances that are not hidden from the researcher. Interpreting all that has come is not devoid of affectation. So, contemplate and be fair.

Furthermore, the verb here is treated as an intransitive verb, as in the saying of Dhu al-Rummah: "If you excuse yourself by the place from the udders of its camels to the guest, it will wound its hocks." Hence, it is made transitive with al-bā’ (i.e., bi-jidh‘i), meaning: "Perform the shaking bi (with/by means of) the trunk of the palm tree." The bā’ is for the instrument, as in katabtu bi-al-qalam (I wrote with the pen). It is also said that it is transitive and the object is omitted, and the speech is based on an implied added noun, meaning: "Shake the fruit by shaking the trunk of the palm tree." It is not hidden that this is affected, and that shaking the fruit is not devoid of weakness.

According to al-Mubarrad, its object is (raṭaban) (fresh dates) which follows, and the construction is of the type of tanāzu‘ (competing governance). This has been countered by the argument that shaking cannot occur on the dates except as a consequence, so making it the original object, and making the original object (the trunk) a consequence by adding the bā’ for instrumentality, is not appropriate, along with the fact that there is an interruption by the answer to the imperative command between it and its object. It would also involve the governance of the first (governor), which is weak, especially in this context. What was mentioned about the reversal applies to that which contains affectation, and it is evident. What has been said—that although the shaking falls primarily on the trunk, the objective is the fruit, and for this subtle point of suitability it was made the primary object because the shaking of the fruit is the fruit of the shaking—does not dispel the weakness we mentioned, especially since the one that provides the benefit is what is mentioned in the answer to the command.

Some have placed (bi-jidh‘i al-nakhlah) in the position of a circumstantial qualifier (ḥāl), on the premise that the object is (raṭaban) or "the fruit," meaning: "existing with the trunk of the palm tree." There is no benefit in this; it does not nourish nor avail.

It is said that the bā’ is extra for emphasis, like its usage in the Almighty’s saying: (And do not throw by your own hands into destruction) and the poet's saying: "They are free women, owners of veils, with black eyes, who do not read from the chapters."

The correct view, which is appropriate for the strangeness of the arrangement as found in al-Kashf (the tafsir), is the first. The statement of al-Farra’—that it is said hazzahu and hazza bihi—if he meant that they are synonymous, as is apparent, then it is not to be heeded, as was stated by some whom one relies upon.

(Tasāqaṭ) is derived from sāqaṭat, meaning "it causes to fall." The feminine pronoun refers to the palm tree, and the return of the pronoun to the one linked to it is common; whoever denies this is like a donkey carrying books.

Abu Hayyan allowed that the pronoun could be for the jidh‘ (trunk), as it acquires femininity from the one it is linked to, as in the Almighty’s saying: (The car would pick him up)—in the reading of those who read with the tā’ (feminine)—and the poet’s saying: "As the chest of the spear bled with blood." It has been countered that this is contrary to what is apparent, even if it is valid. Masruq and Abu Haywah read (in one transmission) tusqiṭ with a damma on the tā’ and a kasra on the qāf. In another transmission from Abu Haywah, he read it similarly, but with a yā’. The Almighty’s saying: (raṭaban) (fresh dates) is, in all these readings, an accusative object. It is the ripened busr (unripe dates); the singular is with a tā’ (marbuta), and its plural is anomalous, as arṭāb like rub‘ and arbā‘.

From Abu Haywah it is also narrated that he read tusqiṭ with an open tā’ and a damma on the qāf, and from him also similarly but with a yā’; he then put raṭaban in the accusative as a tamyīz (specifier). It is narrated from him that he put it in the nominative in the latter reading as the agent.

Abu al-Samal read tatasāqaṭ with two tā’s. Al-Bara’ ibn ‘Azib read yusāqiṭ with a yā’ as the imperfect of asāqaṭa. The majority read tasāqaṭ with an open tā’, a shadda on the sīn, followed by an alif, and an open qāf. The accusative case in these three is also for tamyīz.

In some readings, it is permitted to be a circumstantial qualifier (ḥāl) that acts as a preparation. If a masculine pronoun is implied according to one of the readings, it is for the trunk; if a feminine pronoun is implied, it is for the palm tree or its fruit, as you have heard.

(Janiyya), meaning "harvested." Fa‘īl is in the meaning of maf‘ūl (passive participle), meaning "fit for harvesting." In al-Qāmūs: "Fruit that is janiyy (harvested) at its moment." Based on this, it is said the meaning is: "Fresh dates—whoever sees them says: This is janiyy (harvested)." This is a descriptor of praise, for that which is harvested is better than that which falls by shaking, and that which is recently picked is better than that which is long separated. It is also said that fa‘īl is in the meaning of fā‘il (active), meaning "fresh and soft," and the intent, as it is said, is that its ripening was complete.

Talha ibn Sulayman read jiniyya with a kasra on the jīm to follow the vowel of the preceding word. The reason for the masculine gender is clear. Ibn al-Sayyid said in his commentary on Adab al-Kātib that it would have been preferred to say janiyyah, but he explained some of the speech as being based on the masculine and some on the feminine, and there is a view on this.

It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that the palm tree had no trunk and no top. When she shook it, the palm fronds emerged, then she looked at the fruit clusters coming out from between the fronds, then they turned green and became balaḥ, then turned red and became zahw, then became fresh dates—all that in the blink of an eye. Then the fresh dates began to fall between her hands. It was Barnī (a type of date). It is also said it was ‘Ajwah, which is what is narrated from Abu ‘Abd Allah, may God be pleased with him.

The apparent meaning is that it did not bear anything but fresh dates. It is said there were bananas with it, and this is narrated from Abu Rawq. It was limited to this because of its extreme benefit for the woman in labor. It is from al-Baqir, may God be pleased with him: "The woman in labor does not seek healing with anything like fresh dates. God the Almighty fed them to Maryam in her labor." They said: "There is nothing better for the woman in labor than fresh dates, and for the sick than honey." It is said: "For a woman whose labor is difficult, there is nothing better for her than fresh dates." It is mentioned that dates for the woman in labor is a custom since that time, and likewise the taḥnīk (rubbing the palate of a newborn with a chewed date).

In the command given to her to shake is an indication that striving to obtain sustenance, in general, is required, and it does not contradict reliance upon God (tawakkul). How beautiful is what was said: "Do you not see that God inspired Maryam, 'And shake towards you the trunk, the fresh dates will fall,' and if He had willed, He would have bent the trunk towards her without her shaking it, but everything has a cause."