Tafsir of Maryam 19:92

It has been said that this is the reason for the aforementioned “The heavens almost rupture…” and it was objected to on the grounds that the fact that “The heavens almost rupture…” is caused by that [the attribution of a son] is already known from the preceding context, thus necessitating redundancy. This was answered with an explanation not devoid of scrutiny.

It has also been said that it is the reason for this [the statement], while [the statement] itself is the reason for the rupture. It has also been said that there is no implied preposition (lam); rather, an and what follows it is interpreted as a verbal noun (masdar) in the genitive case, functioning as a substitute (badal) for the pronoun ha in minhu (from it), similar to the poet’s saying: "In a state where, if Hatim were among the people, because of his generosity, Hatim would be stingy with water," where Hatim is genitive as a substitute for the ha in judhihi (his generosity). Abu Hayyan considered this unlikely due to the separation of two clauses between the substitute and the substituted-for.

It has been said that the verbal noun is nominative as a predicate for an omitted subject—that is: "The cause of that is their attributing a son to the Most Merciful"—though there is debate regarding this. It has also been said that it is nominative as the agent (fa'il) of hadduha (it ruptures them), considering it a verbal noun acting upon its subject, meaning: "Their attributing a son to the Most Merciful ruptures them." Abu Hayyan countered this by noting it is far-fetched, as the apparent function of this verbal noun is emphatic, and an emphatic verbal noun does not govern [a grammatical object]. Even if one were to assume it is not emphatic, it does not govern [an object] by analogy except if it is a command, such as darban zaidan (Strike Zaid!), or after an interrogative, such as atadribu zaidan (Are you striking Zaid?). Neither of these cases applies here. What has been cited as a usage of this governing force—such as the poet’s saying, "Standing by them, my companions, on their camels"—is rare, and insisting that this instance is among the rare cases does not dispel the far-fetched nature of it. Perhaps what we have mentioned is the most precise of the views and the most appropriate; so reflect upon it, and Allah the Exalted is the Guide to the straight path.

Da'aw (they attributed/called), according to most, means "named." Invocation (du'a) in the sense of naming takes two objects directly, as in the saying: "Umm 'Amr called me her brother, though I was not her brother, nor did I place [anything] for her." It may also take the second [object] via the preposition ba, as one says: "I called my son Zaid." Here, only the second is mentioned, and the first is omitted to indicate generality and encompassment of everyone to whom they attributed a son—be it 'Isa or 'Uzayr (peace be upon them) or others. It is also permitted that it is from da'a in the sense of "to attribute lineage," as in the Prophet's (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) saying: "Whoever claims lineage to other than his [true] masters," and the poet's saying: "We are the sons of Nahshal; we are not attributed to a father other than our own, nor does he buy us with sons." In this case, it takes one object.

Regarding the prepositional phrase (bi-al-rahman), it is permitted that it relates to an omitted word acting as a state (hal) for "a son," or that it relates to what is implied by da'aw. The clause "And it does not befit..." is a state (hal) from the agent of da'aw, and it is said: from the agent of qalu (they said).

Yanbaghi (it befits) is the imperfect of inbagha, the reflexive of bagha in the sense of "to seek." Its past tense has been heard, so it is a conjugated verb in general. Ibn Malik counted it in al-Tashil among the verbs that are not conjugated, and Abu Hayyan faulted him for this. It is possible to say: his intent was that it is not fully conjugated.

An yattakhidha (that He should take) is interpreted as a verbal noun acting as its subject. The meaning is: It is not fitting for Him—exalted is He—to take a son, nor is it sought for Him—exalted is He—due to the impossibility of this in His very essence, as it would necessitate composition or homogeneity, and every manifestation [of such] is impossible. The name "the Most Merciful" (al-Rahman) was placed in the stead of a pronoun to indicate the reason for the ruling, alerting [the listener] that everything other than Him—Exalted is He—is either someone who possesses grace or someone upon whom grace is bestowed. How could such a thing compare to Him who is the source of grace and the provider of its roots and branches? This has been indicated by His saying, the Exalted:...