Tafsir of Maryam 19:87

What the context of intimidation necessitates, and the majesty of the Revelation demands, is that [the verb] be parsed in one of the first two ways, and that this be an inauguration [of a new sentence] clarifying some of the matters of that Day which indicate its terror.

The plural pronoun refers to both the God-fearing and the criminals—that is, servants absolutely. It is also said: it refers to the God-fearing. And it is said: it refers to the criminals among the people of belief and the people of disbelief.

As for (الشفاعة): according to the first two [interpretations of the pronoun], it is a verbal noun [masdar] derived from the active voice, and according to the third, it is a verbal noun derived from the passive voice.

This is a connected exception from the pronoun in the first interpretation. The grammatical position of the exception [mustathna] is either nominative as a substitute [badal] or accusative based on the principles of exception. The meaning is: Servants do not possess the power to intercede for others, except for him among them who has been characterized by that which makes him worthy of interceding. This is what is meant by the "covenant" [‘ahd].

Ibn Abbas interpreted it as the testimony that there is no god but Allah, disavowing power and strength, and having no hope in anyone but Allah, the Exalted. Ibn Abi Shaybah, Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Tabarani, Ibn Marduyah, and al-Hakim—who authenticated it—narrated from Ibn Mas‘ud that he recited the verse and said: "Allah, the Exalted, will say on the Day of Resurrection: 'Whoever has a covenant with Me, let him stand.' None will stand except he who said this in the world: 'O Allah, Creator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, I make a covenant with You in this worldly life: that if You entrust me to my own self, You bring me near to evil and distance me from good; and I do not trust except in Your mercy, so make it for me a covenant with You that You will fulfill for me on the Day of Resurrection, for You do not break the promise.'"

Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated from Muqatil that he said the covenant is "righteousness." Something similar was narrated from al-Suddi and Ibn Jurayj. Al-Layth said: "It is the preservation of the Book of Allah, the Exalted." Naming what was mentioned a 'covenant' is by way of simile.

It is also said: The meaning of the covenant is a command and permission, from their saying: "The prince made a covenant with such-and-such person," meaning he commanded him with it. That is: servants do not possess the power to intercede except for him whom Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, has permitted to intercede and commanded him with it, for he possesses that and does not refuse. Regarding (عند)—the "taking" [ittikhadh] is not at all negated, for just as one says, "I have taken permission for such-and-such," one says, "I have taken it." Yes, in His saying, Exalted is He, (عند الرحمن) there is a type of rejection of that, although the majority are upon the first [view].

The intended meaning of "intercession" in both views is that which includes intercession for entering Paradise and intercession for other than it. The Mu'tazila disputed this and did not permit intercession for entering Paradise, but the [authentic] reports refute them. For Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "A man from my nation will intercede for a group of people, and they will enter Paradise because of his intercession, and a man will intercede for a man and his household, and they will enter Paradise by his intercession."

Ibn ‘Atiyyah allowed that intercession might refer to the general intercession for the separation of the judgment, and that the one who "took" it is the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and that the covenant is the promise of that in His saying, Glorified and Exalted is He: (It may be that your Lord will raise you to a station of praise)—though this is extremely contrary to the apparent meaning.

As for the second view regarding the plural pronoun, the exception is from [the act of] intercession by estimating an added word [mudhaf], and it is also connected. In the exception, the two aforementioned views hold: that is, the God-fearing do not possess the power of intercession except the intercession of him who took a covenant with the Most Merciful. The meaning intended is belief, and the addition of the verbal noun is to the object. It is also said: The exception is from an omitted [word] in this view: that is, the God-fearing do not possess the power of intercession for anyone except for him who took, etc., meaning: except for him who is characterized by belief. It is permissible that the exception be from the intercession by estimating a mudhaf as in the first view of the pronoun, and that the verbal noun be added to its agent or its object. It is also allowed that the exception [mustathna minhu] be omitted, as you have heard.

As for the third view, the exception is from the pronoun, and it is also connected. In the exception, the two views hold: that is, the criminals do not possess the power for anyone to intercede for them except for him who was a believer, for he possesses the power to have intercession made for him. It is said: The exception, assuming the pronoun returns to the criminals, is disconnected [munqati‘] because the intended meaning is the disbelievers. Applying this to both sinners and disbelievers is far-fetched, as Abu Hayyan said. The exception in that case must be in the accusative case according to the Hijazis, and it is permissible to be in the accusative or to be a substitute according to the Tamim.

Al-Zamakhshari permitted that the waw in (لا يملكون) be a sign of the plural, like the waw in "Akaluni al-baraghyth" [the fleas ate me], and the agent is (من اتخذ) because it is in the meaning of the plural. Abu Hayyan critiqued this by saying: "It is not appropriate to burden the Quran with this rare dialect while it is clearly evident that the waw is a pronoun." Professor Abu al-Hasan ibn ‘Usfur mentioned that it is a weak dialect. Furthermore, the waw, alif, and nun which function as signs are not known to be followed by an agent unless it is an explicit plural, an explicit dual, or a conjunction. As for bringing a singular word that is applied to a plural or dual, it requires a transmission [naql] to prove it. While the return of pronouns as dual or plural to a word that is singular in form—while being intended for the dual or plural—is heard and known in the tongue of the Arabs, it is possible to analogize these signs to those pronouns, but the more cautious path is not to say this without hearing [it from the Arabs]."

Ibn al-Munir also critiqued it, saying that it involves affectation, for if the waw is made a sign for 'man' [who], then the return of the pronoun of (اتخذ) to its form in the singular is a generalization after clarification; and that is the reverse of the path of rhetoric, which is clarification after generalization. Even if the waw is not returning to 'man', it is a revealer of its meaning just as the pronoun returning to it reveals it. He then said: "Be alert to this criticism, for it is more current than the criticism—and upon the necks of women, the necklace is considered beautiful." From this, it is known that the statement regarding the permissibility of the pronoun returning to it firstly in consideration of its meaning, and secondly in consideration of its form, is not free from turbidity.