Tafsir of Maryam 19:9

(He said, "So it is; your Lord has said, 'It is easy for Me.'") Al-Hasan recited it as "wa-huwa 'alayya hayyin" with the waw. It is also reported from him that he kasra-voweled the ya of the first-person pronoun, as in the statement of Al-Nabighah: "‘Aliyya li-‘Amrin ni‘matun ba‘da ni‘matin / li-walidihi laysat bi-dhati ‘aqaribi" (Upon me is a favor from ‘Amr after a favor / for his father, not having any scorpions). Similar to this is the recitation of Hamza, "Wa-ma antum bi-musrikhiyya" (And you are not my saviors), with the kasra on the ya and the kaf.

The word ‘ka-dhalika’ may be in the nominative case as a predicate for a deleted subject—meaning, "The matter is such." The pronoun in "He said" refers to the Lord—Mighty and Majestic is He—not the angel who brought the glad tidings, so as not to break the structure. This is an indication of the statement of Zakariya (peace be upon him). The address in "Your Lord said" is to him (peace be upon him), not to our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), as evidenced by the preceding and following context.

The sentence "It is easy for Me" is the second object of "said." The sentence "The matter is such," along with the sentence "Your Lord said" and what follows, is the first object of "said," even if no conjunction (particle) exists between the two sentences. This is like the Almighty’s saying: "And he said, 'Board it; in the name of Allah is its course and its anchorage. Indeed, my Lord is Forgiving, Merciful,'" and His saying, “They said, 'When we have died and become dust and bones, are we indeed to be resurrected?'… [it has been promised to us],” and so on.

The first sentence was brought as a validation from Him (the Almighty) for Zakariya (peace be upon him), and the second as an answer to what might be imagined—that if such a thing is of that level of improbability, and He has validated it, then how can it be achieved? Therefore, in itself, it is an initiation for that reason. It is not appropriate for a conjunction to intervene in such sentences when the speaker has uttered them both together without a conjunction, in order to denote the first form of the statement exactly as it is. Similarly, it is not appropriate to imply another verb of saying, because it would be an initiation in response to the one being addressed, and it would not indicate that it is also an initiation in the first instance except through a separate marker. As for if he had spoken them at two different times, or without that order, then the apparent meaning would be conjunction or initiation by implying the verb of saying.

Furthermore, if the response to Zakariya (peace be upon him) had been limited to "It is easy for Me" without the insertion of "Your Lord said," it would have been correct. However, He shifted to that to indicate the fulfillment of the promise and to remove the improbability entirely, in the manner of a king promising one of his intimates something the person does not feel worthy of. The person expresses wonder, finding it improbable that it would come from the king at such a level, so the king tries to fulfill his desire and remove his improbability. He might say, "Do not find it improbable; it is the easiest thing for me," according to the apparent speech. Or he might say, "Do not find it improbable; I have said it is the easiest thing for me," indicating that it is a promise that has already been spoken and is decreed, and that it is of such majesty that he does not see any hardship in fulfilling it for his seeker, whoever it may be—so how much more so for one who deserved it from him due to the truthfulness of his standing in his servitude, and thus he grants him honor and elevation. This is a statement in the language of allusion, which is true even if the explicit words were not uttered, because the intention is that greatness of status, vastness of power, and perfection of generosity dictate that. It is said: ‘Awwalan, ‘awwalan. Then, if he wishes to elaborate on this meaning, he shifts from the narrative, saying: "He who is the source of your bounties has said that it is the easiest thing for me." Then, when the king narrates the story to some of his close associates, he could say: "I said to my servant so-and-so such-and-such. He said: 'I have [become]...' I said: 'He who is...' etc.," or he could say instead: "He said, the master of so-and-so [said] to him," and then recount the conversation. This is the weight of the verse regarding what happened to Zakariya (peace be upon him) and what was narrated to our Prophet (upon him be the best of prayers and the most complete of peace).

It has become clear from this exposition that the failure to perceive the point of the insertion prevents the nominative from being made the object of the second "said," and the whole from being the object of the first. The apparent meaning in validating Al-Hasan's recitation is that the sentence "It is easy for Me" is a conjunction to a deleted element, such as "I do [this] and I am the doer." It is permissible to say—and Al-Zamakhshari’s speech perhaps implies his preference for it—that it is a conjunction to the previous sentence, looking to the root, because of what has passed regarding "said" being inserted for a point. It is as if it were said: "The matter is such, and it is easy for Me."

As for the accusative via the second "said," it is the kaf which is used as an insertion in a strange and marvelous matter to establish it. This is an indication of something vague that is explained by what follows, namely, "It is easy for Me." The pronoun in "said" refers to the Lord, as previously stated, and the address is to our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) as well. That is, the Lord of Zakariya said to him, "Your Lord said—this is the strange and marvelous statement—'It is easy for Me.'" This is on the basis that the second "said," along with what is in its object, is the speech of the first "said," and the insertion of the second "said" is for the reason previously mentioned. The kaf should not be in the accusative via the first "said," otherwise the second "said" would be a verbal emphasis so that a separation does not occur between the explainer and the explained by a foreign element. This is impossible, as it would not be coherent to say: "Zakariya’s Lord said, 'Your Lord said,'" and for the address to be to Zakariya (peace be upon him) while the addressee is someone else. How could this be? This type of speech occurs in analogy as a prefix, especially in the Glorious Revelation, such as: "And likewise We have made you a community," "Likewise Allah does what He wills," and so on. This aspect does not work in Al-Hasan's recitation because the explainer cannot be entered by the waw, nor is its deletion permissible so that it may be made a conjunction to it, because deletion and explanation are contradictory.

It has been permitted, on the probability of the accusative, that the reference is to what preceded regarding Allah's promise to him (peace be upon him) with His saying, "We give you glad tidings..." etc. That is, his Lord—Exalted is He—said to him, "Your Lord said like that," i.e., like that strange statement which I promised you and informed you of, which is, "We give you glad tidings..." etc. The particle of analogy is inserted, as mentioned. Thus, the meaning is: "He promised that, fulfilled it, and finished with it; so be at ease regarding its attainment with the most secure of minds." Then He said: "It is easy for Me," i.e., "Your Lord said, 'It is easy for Me.'" Thus, He implies the verb of saying so that they might correspond in eloquence, because his saying "like that" is singular, so it is not appropriate for the sentence to be joined to it, and for that exact statement to be drawn over it. Rather, he implies the like of it as an initiation to fulfill the right of proportionality. If you wish, you may not intend it to be narrated, arranged in the string of "Your Lord said," and for the first "said" to be drawn over it—meaning, "The Lord of Zakariya said to him, 'It is easy for Me,'" because Allah (the Almighty) is the one addressing Zakariya (peace be upon him), so there is no prohibition against making it the object of the first "said" without implication, because the two statements, i.e., "Your Lord said like that" and "It is easy for Me," are both uttered together, narrated in their state.

If it is assumed that the addressee is other than Him (the Almighty), i.e., the angel, then the implication of the verb of saying becomes necessary, because it is impossible for "It is easy for Me" to be part of his speech, so the first one cannot be drawn over it. As for Al-Hasan's recitation, if it is made a conjunction to "Your Lord said," there is no need for implication because of the validity of the drawing over. If emphasis is also intended, then the verb is implied so that the eloquence is not lost and proportionality is achieved. Making it a conjunction to what is after the second "said" without the estimation results in the loss of the observance of proportionality in wording, because what follows it is singular, and it is congruent in meaning because you know there is no "saying" in reality. The meaning is: "His Lord said, 'He has fulfilled the promised,' and finished with it." So it must be estimated over "It is easy for Me" so that it also conveys its fulfillment. And if it is assumed that the addressee is other than Him (the Almighty), implication is necessary for lack of drawing over without it. So understand this. This is what the author of Al-Kashf established and used to explain the expression of Al-Kashshaf with the minimum of brevity.

Then he mentioned that the essence of what he found from the sayings of the scholars is that the estimation, on the probability that the reference is to the preceding promise, is: "The Lord of Zakariya said to him, 'Your Lord said a statement like His preceding statement—the Almighty—in strangeness and wonder.' It occurred to him (peace be upon him) to ask, 'What did You say, O Lord?' And it is like it, so He says: 'It is easy for Me'—meaning, I have said, or your Lord has said." The root on this estimation is: "I said a statement like the promise in strangeness," then he shifted to iltifat (shifting the address) or tajrid (abstraction)—whatever you wish to call it—for its known benefit. There is no departure from the requirement of the apparent meaning in bringing the root of the "saying," because it is necessary for the speech to be coherent. This is because the meaning on this estimation is: "Do not wonder at that statement, and look at the like of it and wonder, for We have said it." Likewise, it is appropriate for our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) to ask, and he is answered that his Lord said to him, "It is easy for Me." The correctness of it being an answer to the question of our Prophet (upon him be peace) is the most apparent on this aspect, because the speech is with him. Since it has been validated to be made an answer to him, it is permissible to imply the "saying" because it is an answer to him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) with what indicates that Zakariya (peace be upon him) was also addressed with it. It is also permissible not to imply it, because the addressee for both is one, and the address is with our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and it is known by the necessity of similarity that this statement was also said to Zakariya. If the narrator and the first speaker were different in this picture, there would have been no choice but to imply it. Because if ‘Amr says to Bakr, "What did Zayd say to Khalid that is similar to his previous statement?" and he says, "You are beloved and accepted," it is necessary that the estimation be: "Zayd said to Khalid this statement, inevitably." There is no remoteness in forcing Al-Zamakhshari’s speech onto it, and this is what the author of Al-Taqrib hinted at, and Imam Al-Tibi preferred. In it, however, is the loss of the aforementioned point in "Your Lord said." Furthermore, if there was no prior "saying," it would be a lie according to the outward meaning, as there is no "saying" in the language of allusion unless it is interpreted as being future in meaning. This speech is directed toward removing improbability and fulfilling the desired promise. In that estimation is a departure from it to another meaning that might necessitate this meaning as a consequence, and what the speech is directed toward should be made the origin. End quote.

This is speech of investigation and precision, to which only divine success can guide. In the verse, there is another aspect, which is what the author of Al-Intisaf pointed to: "Hayyin" is fa‘il from hana—the thing becomes yahunu—if it does not become difficult. The meaning is: I have complete power over that; if I want it, it is.

(9) And I created you before, and you were nothing. This is an elaboration of what came before. "Thing" here means "existing being," i.e., you were not existing, but rather you were non-existent. The apparent meaning is that this is an indication of his creation by way of procreation and transition through stages, just as all other individual humans are created. Some of the investigators said: The meaning is the beginning of the creation of mankind, for it is what happened immediately after absolute non-existence, not what was after that by way of the customary procreation. It is as if it were said: "And I created you before, in the midst of the creation of Adam, and you were not a thing at all then; rather, you were absolute non-existence."

The reason why He did not say, "And I created your father or Adam before, and he was not a thing," even though it would have sufficed in removing the improbability by measuring the condition of what he was given glad tidings of against his (peace be upon him) own condition, is to emphasize the argumentation and clarify the methodology of analogy. This is in that He alerted that every individual of mankind has a share of his (peace be upon him) origin from non-existence, because he (peace be upon him) was created as a model containing all the individuals of the species. Thus, his creation in that manner was a creation for everyone among his descendants in that same way.

Since his creation (upon him be peace) in this pattern—which extends to all his offspring—was more miraculous than it being limited to himself, as is understood from attributing the mentioned creation to him, and more indicative of the greatness of His (the Almighty’s) power, complete knowledge, and wisdom, and since Zakariya's non-existence at that time was more apparent to Him, his condition was more worthy of being the standard for the condition of what he was given glad tidings of. The mentioned creation was attributed to him just as creation and formation were attributed to the addressees in His (the Almighty’s) saying: "And We have created you, then given you [human] form," to fulfill the station of gratitude, its due. End quote. And it is not free from affectation.

It has been permitted that "thing" means "something considered," and it is a common metaphor. From it is the saying of Al-Mutanabbi: "And the earth narrowed until their fugitive, when he saw other than a thing, thought it a man." And their saying: "I wondered at a 'nothing' that is not a thing," as the context rejects it and the arrangement of the speech refutes it. Al-A‘mash, Talha, Ibn Wathab, Hamza, and Al-Kisa’i recited: “Khalaqna-ka” (We created you).