Tafsir of Maryam 19:46

(He said) This is a resumption of the narrative, originating from a question that arose from the preceding text, as if it were said: "What did his father say when he heard these admonitions from him—peace be upon him—that were worthy of acceptance?" It is said: He replied, persisting in his obstinacy and responding to the supplication and gentleness with harshness and severity:

(Are you averse to my gods, O Abraham?) Al-Zamakhshari chose the view that rāghib (averse/rejecting) is a fronted predicate and anta (you) is the subject. In this, the denial is directed toward the act of aversion itself, with a form of astonishment. Abu al-Baqa', Ibn Malik, and others maintained that anta is the active subject (fa'il) of the participle (adjective) due to the preceding interrogative, which makes the predicate unnecessary. This is to avoid the necessity of separating ārāghib from its complement—which is ‘an ālihati (to/from my gods)—with an extraneous element, namely the subject. It was answered that ‘an is related to a complement understood after anta, indicated by rāghib.

The author of al-Kashf stated: The subject is not extraneous in every respect, especially since what separates them is a prepositional phrase, and there is an intention of postponement in what is fronted. An eloquent speaker turns the meaning once there is a permissible path for it in Arabic, even if it is less preferred. Perhaps following this style is close to preferring what is deemed "good" (istihsan) because its effect is stronger than strict analogy. It is not hidden that the increase in denial originates from fronting the predicate, as if it were said: "Are you averse to them, not seeking them, desiring them?"—alerting him to the error in his aversion to them. Had it been said atarghabu (do you turn away), it would not be of this category at all.

Ibn Hayyan favored the parsing of Abu al-Baqa' and those with him, due to the lack of necessary separation and the integrity of the sentence in terms of the standard order of fronting and postponement. Al-Badr al-Damamini hesitated regarding the permissibility of the postponed element functioning as a subject in such a structure—even if it is free from separation or other defects—as in atāli'u ash-shamsu ("Is the sun rising?"). This is similar to aqā'imun Zayd ("Is Zayd standing?"), because of the necessary confusion between the subject and the active participant (fa'il), as in daraba Zayd ("Zayd struck"), where it is not permissible for Zayd to be the subject. Al-Shamni answered that Zayd in the first instance admits two possibilities, both of which are contrary to the standard order, which is a general ambiguity rather than a specific confusion, unlike the second instance. So, ponder this.

(If you do not desist, I will surely stone you) This is a threat and a warning regarding the admonition and reminder he was engaged in. That is: "I swear, if you do not desist from what you are upon—namely, forbidding the worship of them and calling to what you have invited me to—I will surely stone you with stones," as narrated from al-Hasan. It is also said: "with the tongue," meaning: "I will surely revile you," which is narrated from Ibn Abbas, al-Suddi, al-Dahhak, and Ibn Jurayj. Some estimated the object of the prohibition to be "aversion to the gods," meaning: "If you do not desist from being averse to my gods, I will stone you," but this is not strong.

(And leave me) This is a conjunction to an elided verb indicated by the threat, meaning: "So beware of me and leave me." Al-Zamakhshari held this view. Perhaps the motivation for this—and for not considering it a conjunction to the aforementioned text—is that it is not valid, or it is not eloquent due to the disparity between the two conjoined elements: the one being imperative (constructional) and the other being declarative. The response to an oath—that which is not an appeal—cannot be imperative. The fa in fa-ihdhar-ni (so beware of me) is not a conjunction such that the defect would return. Some scholars conjoined it to the previous sentence based on Sibawayh’s permission to conjoin despite a disparity between declaration and construction. The interpretation is "more impactful upon the soul."

(For a long time) That is, a long age, according to al-Hasan, Mujahid, and a group. Al-Suddi said: "For a time," and it seems this is what is meant, relating it to al-imla' (prolonging/extension). Similarly, al-milawah (with a triple-vowel mim) has the same meaning, as in al-milwan (the night and the day). It is in the accusative case as an adverb of time, as in the saying of Muhalhil: "It cracked the peaks of the mountains upon his death, and the widowed women wept over him for a long time." Ibn al-Anbari extracted from Ibn Abbas that he interpreted it as "long," without mentioning the qualified noun; thus, it is said to be in the accusative as an absolute object (masdar), meaning: "a long leaving." In another narration from Ibn Abbas, the meaning is "safe and sound," intended as "capable of leaving and able to endure it." In this case, it is a state (hal) from the subject of ihjur-ni (leave me), meaning: "Leave me for a long time in separation and moving away from me before I beat you severely, so that you are unable to depart." According to this, it is from the root "to enjoy something (tamalla) for a long period of time."