Tafsir of Maryam 19:42

Regarding the substitution (badal), specifically the word "when" (idh) in His saying: “When he said to his father,” the author of al-Fara’id objects that an interruption between the substitute (badal) and the thing for which it is substituted (mubdal minhu) without the particle wa (and) is contrary to natural linguistic usage. He further asserts—citing the Bahr—that for idh to be a substitute for Ibrahim necessitates that it be declinable (mutasarrif), yet the more correct view is that it is indeclinable. There is discussion regarding this.

It has been said that idh is an adverbial object (zarf) for kana (in the preceding verse), which is based on the premise that the incomplete kana and its sisters can govern adverbial objects, a matter of dispute. Others say it is an adverbial object for nabiyyan (prophet), meaning: "He was a prophet at the time he said to his father." This is objected to on the grounds that it implies his selection as a prophet occurred precisely at that moment. Others say it is an adverbial object for siddiqan (truthful); however, in the Bahr, this is deemed impermissible because it has been described as a noun (na’t)—according to the Kufan school—and it contains the fact that nabiyyan is a predicate, as we mentioned, not a noun. Indeed, restricting the state of truthfulness to that specific time is not without complication.

Some say it is an adverbial object for both siddiqan and nabiyyan, the outward implication being that it is governed by both. The objection here is that two operators governing one object is not permitted according to the correct view. The argument that they are treated as a single noun—like the interpretation of "sweet-sour" (maz) as "possessing the combined characteristics of both"—when he addressed his father, is not without its own obscure points. What the context necessitates and refined taste witnesses is that it is a badal (substitution), specifically a badal ishtimal (substitution of inclusion). The practice of linking mentions to specific times—even when the intention is to recall the events that took place within them—has had its secrets revealed repeatedly, so take heed.

Ya Abati (O my father): That is, ya abi (O my father), for the ta is a substitute for the ya of possession. This is why they are not combined except in rare, irregular instances, such as the verse: "Ya abati arqani al-qadha." The combination in ya abata is said to be a case of "two substitutes," which is permissible, just as a person with a splint may combine wiping and tayammum (both being substitutes for the ritual bath). Others say the combination itself is a single substitute, while some say the alif is for elongation. You are well aware of the state of these grammatical justifications.

Ibn ‘Amir, al-A’raj, and Abu Ja’far read ya abata with a fatha on the ta. Harun claimed this was a solecism (lahn), but the truth is the contrary. In the codex of ‘Abdullah, it appears as wa abati, with a wa instead of a ya, and using the vocative particle for this is rare outside of nudba (lamentation). The Prophet (peace be upon him) addressed him thus to soften his heart.

Abu Nu’aym and al-Daylami narrated from Anas, attributed to the Prophet: "The right of a father over his son is that he should not call him by anything other than what Ibrahim called his father, 'Ya Abati,' and he should not address him by his name." This is clear evidence that he was his father in reality, though the consensus of the scholars confirmed that he was his paternal uncle, and the application of the term "father" to him is figurative.

“Why do you worship that which does not hear”—your praise of it when you worship it and your pleading to it—“nor see”—your submissiveness and humility before it. Or, it does not hear or see anything among things audible or visible, thus encompassing what was mentioned as a primary inclusion. Ma (that which) is a relative noun, though some have permitted it to be an indefinite noun modified by an adjective. “Nor avail”—that is, it does not have the power to avail “you of anything”—of things, or in any way of availing; it is in the accusative case as an object or as a source (masdariyyah).

The Prophet (peace be upon him) followed the best method in his call. He debated with him using the best conduct and character—a method that has no equal—so that he would not ride the steed of arrogance and obstinacy, nor turn away entirely from the path of right guidance. He asked him for the justification for his worship of things that the intellect of every rational person would disdain, whether it be a created being or an agent. He refuses to rely upon it, let alone worship it, which is the ultimate form of veneration. Such worship is only rightfully due to the One who possesses absolute self-sufficiency and universal power—the Creator, the Provider, the Giver of life and death, the Rewarder, and the Punisher. He alerted him that a rational person must perform every action based on a sound motive and a sound purpose. Even if the object were alive, discerning, hearing, seeing, and capable of benefit and harm, but were still a contingent being (mumkin), a person of sound intellect would refrain from worshipping it—even if it were the most noble of creatures—because he would see it as his peer in terms of need and submission to the Absolute, Necessary Power. What, then, do you suppose about an inanimate, manufactured object that possesses neither the essence nor the trace of the attributes of the living?