Tafsir of Maryam 19:4

Some have claimed that the hidden nature of the call—indicating it was not loud—is signified by the omission of the vocative particle in His saying: (He said, "My Lord"). The sentence is an explication of the call, clarifying its manner, and thus has no grammatical standing.

(Indeed, my bones have become feeble), meaning they have weakened. This is attributed to the "bone" because it is the pillar of the body and the support of the physique; when weakness and laxity afflict it, that which is behind it fails and its strength collapses. Thus, the speech contains a metonymy based on a hidden analogy within the self. Alternatively, because it is the most solid and firm of the body's parts and the least affected by ailments, if it becomes feeble, then that which is behind it is even more so—in which case the speech contains a metonymy without analogy. It is singular, according to what the scholar al-Zamakhshari stated—a view approved by many investigators—because the singular is what indicates the generic meaning and the intent that this genus, which is the pillar and support and the strongest of what the body is composed of, has been struck by feebleness. Had it been pluralized, the intent would have been a different meaning: that not some of his bones had weakened, but all of them, as if the listener had doubted the scope and inclusion, for a qualifier in speech looks toward denying its opposite, and this is not appropriate for the context. Al-Sakkaki said: The pluralization of "bone" was abandoned in favor of the singular to seek the inclusion of the bones one by one in the state of feebleness. Had it been pluralized, that would not have been definitively established, for it is valid to say "the bones weakened" when feebleness occurs for some of them and not every individual part; this is another approach deemed weak by many, and the verification of this is in its proper place. It is narrated from Qatada that he, peace be upon him, complained of the falling of his teeth; it is not hidden that this requires a report to substantiate it, as understanding it from the verse is hardly sound.

(From me) is connected to a suppressed term, acting as a state (hal) of "the bone." He did not say "my bone," even though it is closer, because of the detailing after generalization, and because it is more explicit in indicating the generic meaning intended here. The sentence is emphasized to manifest the fullness of care in realizing its content. Al-A‘mash read wahana (feeble) with a kasra on the ha, and it was also read with a damma.

(And my head has flared with gray hair). He likens gray hair in its whiteness and luminosity to the flame of a fire, and its spreading through the hair and taking hold of it in every way to its flaring, then expresses it through metaphor. Thus, the speech contains two metaphors: an explicit derivative metaphor in "flared," and an implicit one in "gray hair." Its separation from the imaginative is what the investigators among the scholars of rhetoric hold, though it is possible, albeit remotely, to claim the presence of the imaginative here as well. Some have strained—due to their claim that separation is not permissible and the lack of appearance of the imaginative—to interpret the verse as a representational metaphor, which it is not. He attributed the flaring to the place of the hair and its growth, and expressed it as a specifier (tamyeez) for the sake of hyperbole and to convey inclusion. For the attribution of a meaning to a container of what is described by it—whether temporally or spatially—conveys the universality of its meaning to all that is within it according to the conventions of discourse. Your saying "his house flared with fire" conveys the burning of everything within it, unlike "the fire of his house flared."

Some have claimed that (gray hair) is in the accusative as an infinitive source, because the meaning is "the head has turned gray." It is also said that it is a state (hal), meaning "being gray." Neither of these two views is approved by the complete scholar, as is not hidden. The definite article was sufficient in place of the genitive construction, because the implied definity of the covenant conveys what the genitive would convey. Since the definity of "the bone" previously was for the genus, as you know, it was not deemed sufficient, so He added: "from me." In summary, how eloquent this sentence is, and how expressive! From it, Ibn Durayd took his saying: "The whiteness has flared in its blackness, like the flaring of fire in a bundle of wood." It is narrated from Abu ‘Amr that he assimilated the seen into the sheen.

(And never have I been, in my invocation of Thee, my Lord, miserable), meaning I have not been, in my calling upon Thee, disappointed at any time during this long life; rather, whenever I called upon Thee, Thou didst answer me. The sentence is conjoined to the preceding one. It is also said to be a state (hal) of the first-person pronoun, for the meaning is "and my head has flared [while] I have not been..."—this is strange. This is an act of seeking intercession by him, peace be upon him, through the previous instances of the Exalted's answering him, after paving the way with what invokes mercy, such as old age and weakness of condition. For when the Almighty has accustomed His servant to answering for a long age, He hardly ever disappoints him, especially at the time of his distress and intense need. In this intercession, there is an indication of the greatness of the generosity of God—Mighty and Majestic is He.

It is narrated that Hatim al-Ta'i—and it is said Ma'n ibn Za'ida—was approached by a needy person who asked him, saying: "I am the one to whom you did a favor at such-and-such a time." He replied: "Welcome to the one who has used us to intercede with ourselves," and he fulfilled his need. It is also said that the meaning is: "I have not been miserable in Thy calling me to obedience," but rather I was among those who obeyed Thee and worshipped Thee sincerely; thus, the kaaf (in bi-du'a'ika) in this reading is the subject. The first is more apparent and preferable, and it is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas—may God be pleased with them both. The mention of the description of Lordship in both places—which signifies the inclusion of that which contains the welfare of the one being governed along with the attribution to his own pronoun, peace be upon him—is especially effective, particularly its placement between "was" (kana) and its predicate, to set in motion the chain of answering through the hyperbole in supplication.

It has come in some traditions that when a servant says in his supplication, "O Lord," God Almighty says to him, "I am here, My servant." It is narrated that Moses, peace be upon him, said one day in his supplication, "O Lord," and God—exalted be He—said to him, "I am here, O Moses." Moses said, "Is this for me exclusively?" God—blessed and exalted be He—said, "No, but for everyone who calls upon Me by Lordship." It is said: If a servant wishes for his supplication to be answered, let him call upon God Almighty by His names and attributes that are appropriate to his request—Mighty and Majestic is He.