Tafsir of Maryam 19:29

{فَأَشَارَتْ إِلَيْهِ}: That is, toward 'Isa (peace be upon him), signaling them to speak to him. The Shaykh al-Islam says: The apparent meaning is that she clarified her vow at that time, and that she was withdrawn from conversing with humans as she had been commanded. Thus, there is an indication in this that what she was commanded to do was to declare her vow by gesture, not by speech, and combining both [methods] is something for which there is no precedent.

{قَالُوا}: Denying her response. In some narrations, it is mentioned that when she pointed to him and they spoke to him, they said: "Her mockery of us is more severe than her adultery"—though she is far above such things—then they said:

{كَيْفَ نُكَلِّمُ مَنْ كَانَ فِي الْمَهْدِ صَبِيًّا}

Qatada said: "The mahd (cradle) is the lap of his mother." 'Ikrimah said: "The place of upbringing," meaning where he is rocked. Others said: "His cot," and others: "The place where he settles."

A difficulty is raised regarding this verse: Everyone whom people speak to was once an infant in a cradle before the time they were spoken to, so why should this be a subject of astonishment and denial?

Al-Zamakhshari responded to this in two ways: First: That "kāna" (was) conveys the occurrence of the predicate in an indefinite past time, which can apply to the near or distant past; here, it applies specifically to the near past. What indicates this is that the speech is framed for the purpose of astonishment. The meaning is: "How can we speak to one who, only yesterday or very recently, was in the cradle?" Their intention in this is the persistence of his state as an infant, from which he has not yet departed. If it had been said "man huwa" (who is in the cradle), it would not have the same emphasis regarding the prior state that acts as evidence for the present. "Man" (who) here is a relative pronoun referring to 'Isa (peace be upon him).

Second: That "nukallimu" (we speak) is a narration of a past state, and "man" is descriptive. The meaning is: "How can we speak to those who are described as being in the cradle?"—meaning, we have never spoken to such ones until now, so how could we speak to this one? Shifting from the past to the present tense provides a sense of visualization and continuity. As stated in al-Kashf, this is a sound and suitable perspective.

Abu 'Ubaydah said: "Kāna" is redundant, serving merely for emphasis without indicating time. "Sabiyyan" (an infant) is an emphatic state (hal), and the operative factor is the implied existence (al-istiqrar). Thus, the statement of Ibn al-Anbari—that "kāna" here takes a predicate and a redundant word cannot take one—is baseless. The meaning is: "How can we speak to who is in the cradle now, in the state of being an infant?" According to those who say that the redundant "kāna" does not indicate an event but does indicate a past time restricted to that which it is added to—such as al-Sirafi—the difficulty is not resolved by simply calling it redundant.

Al-Zajjaj said: The best interpretation is that "man" is conditional, not relative nor descriptive. Meaning: "Whoever is in the cradle, how can we speak to him?" Its remoteness [from the context] is not hidden.