Tafsir of Al Imran 3:1-2

Abu Ja'far, al-A'mash, and al-Barjami—narrating from Abu Bakr on the authority of ‘Asim—read [the letters] with a silent mim and a glottal stop (hamza) for the alif. There is no difficulty in this, for the method of articulation for those among these opening letters that are not singular—like Sad—and the balancing of the singular—like Ha-Mim—is merely according to the account provided in the book: the final letters are silent, based upon a pause, whether they are considered names or listed in the manner of enumeration. Even if this necessitates the meeting of two silent letters, it is absolutely permissible in the context of pausing. For this reason, the reading of ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd—who reads with a kasra on the mim—is considered weak. The majority vocalize the mim with a fatha and drop the hamza from the Majestic Name (Allah).

It is said: The mim is vocalized with a fatha due to the transference of the hamza’s vowel onto it, to indicate that the hamza is in the position of being established—for it was dropped for the sake of lightening, not for elision (darj). This is because the mim is in the position of a pause, as in the phrase: Wahid ithnan (one, two), not because of the meeting of two silent letters, as Sibawayh said. In the context of a pause, it [the hamza] is not considered deleted; hence, it was not vocalized in Lam. Al-Farra’ inclined toward this view. In al-Bahr, it is noted that this is weak, due to their consensus that the conjunctive alif (alif al-wasl) in the definite article is dropped during connection, and that which is dropped does not have its vowel transferred, as Abu ‘Ali stated.

Their statement that "the mim is in the position of a pause and its vowel is a vowel of transference" contradicts the consensus of the Arabs and grammarians that one must never pause on a vowel, whether it be a vowel of inflection, construction, transference, the meeting of two silent letters, recitation, or assimilation. Thus, it is not permissible in qad aflaha—if the hamza is deleted and its vowel transferred to the dal—to pause on the dal of qad with a fatha; rather, you must make it silent, without dispute.

As for their analogy to wahid ithnan via the transference of the hamza’s vowel onto the dal, Sibawayh mentioned that they "smell" (ishmam) the final letter of wahid to indicate its presence, but he did not report the kasra as a dialect. If it is correct, then wahid is not being paused upon as they claim, nor is its vowel one of transference from a conjunctive hamza; rather, it is connected to their saying ithnan, so two silent letters met—the dal of wahid and the than of ithnan—and the dal was given a kasra not because of the meeting of two silents [in isolation], but because the hamza was dropped as it does not remain in connection.

As for their saying that it is not considered deleted in the context of a pause—and thus it was not vocalized in Lam—the response is: he who said the vowel is due to the meeting of two silents did not intend by them the meeting of the ya and mim of ALM in a pause, but rather the final mim of ALM and the lam of the definite article. It is like the meeting of the nun of min and the lam of al-rajul when you say min al-rajul. Furthermore, in their statement "they defended it," the silence of the final mim is based on the intention of pausing on it, while the transference of the hamza’s vowel onto it is based on the intention of connection—and the intention of connection necessitates the deletion of the hamza, while the intention of pausing on what precedes it necessitates its establishment and its glottal stop. This is contradictory. For this reason, al-Jarburdi said: The correct view is what Sibawayh and many of the grammarians said: that the vocalization of the mim is due to the meeting of two silents, and that the fatha is chosen to preserve the heavy articulation (tafkhim) of the Majestic Name. Ibn al-Hajib chose this and claimed that al-Farra’s school relies on a weak position, because treating connection as if it were a pause is not strong in the language.

Many have said: One must accept treating connection as a pause, and the claim that it is "weak" is not conceded. Even if conceded, it is not untenable, because it is strong where lightness is required, such as thalatha (three) or arba'a (four), and the need for lightening here is more pressing. For this reason, they made it one of the causes for the fatha. This is only said because these names are of the category of declinable words, and their silence is the silence of a pause, not of construction; it is their right to be paused upon, and ALM is the end of a verse. Furthermore, if they are made the name of the chapter, then one pauses on them because they are a complete statement. If they are listed in the manner of enumerating the names of letters—either as a "striking of the staff" to gain attention or as a preface to the proofs of inimitability—then it is also mandatory to stop and begin with what follows as a distinction between them and an independent, self-contained statement. Therefore, the view of transferring the vowel is the accepted one, because it indicates the retention of the trace of the hamza deleted for lightness, which signals both beginning and pausing. The view that the vowel is not due to the meeting of two silents is not the same. Since the vowel of the mim is for something else, it remains in the judgment of a pause on silence, not a vowel as imagined, so as not to necessitate what is forbidden. Al-Zamakhshari's speech in this position is inconsistent: in al-Kashshaf he chose the school of al-Farra’, while in al-Mufassal he chose the school of Sibawayh. Perhaps the first is based on independent reasoning and the second on imitation and transmission, as al-Mufassal is a summary of the [Sibawayh's] Kitab. So reflect upon this.

The discussion regarding the opening letters in terms of grammar and otherwise has preceded, and it is sufficient for those whom Providence has taken by the hand. The Majestic Name is the subject (mubtada') and what follows is its predicate (khabar), and the sentence is a new inception. It means: He alone is worthy of worship. Al-Hayy al-Qayyum (The Ever-Living, The Self-Subsisting) is a predicate following a predicate, or the predicate of a deleted subject—i.e., He is the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsisting, no other. It is also said: It is an adjective for the subject, or a substitute for it, or for the first predicate, or it is the predicate while what precedes it is an insertion between the subject and the predicate, confirming what the Majestic Name implies, or it is a state (hal) according to the one who considers such to be correct. Whichever it may be, it is like a proof for the exclusivity of the right of worship to Him, Glorified be He.

Al-Tabarani and Ibn Marduyah narrated from a hadith of Abu Umamah, attributed to the Prophet: "The greatest name of Allah is in three chapters: Surat al-Baqarah, Al ‘Imran, and Taha." Abu Umamah said: I sought them out and found in al-Baqarah: "Allah! None has the right to be worshipped but He, the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsisting," in Al ‘Imran: "Allah! None has the right to be worshipped but He, the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsisting," and in Taha: "And all faces shall be humbled before the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsisting."

'Umar, Ibn Mas'ud, Ubayy, and ‘Alqama read: al-hayyu al-qayyumu. This is a refutation of the Christians who claimed that ‘Isa (Jesus), peace be upon him, was a lord. Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Jarir, and Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Muhammad ibn Ja'far ibn al-Zubayr who said: A delegation from Najran came to the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—consisting of sixty riders. Among them were fourteen of their leaders, and the Prophet spoke with Abu Harithah ibn ‘Alqama, al-‘Aqib, ‘Abd al-Masih, and al-Sayyid. They were following the religion of the King, despite their internal differences. They say: "He is Allah," "He is the son of Allah," and "He is the third of three." This is also the statement of the Christians. They argue for their claim by saying: "He is Allah, for he used to revive the dead, heal the sick, inform of the unseen, and fashion from clay the shape of a bird, then blow into it, and it would become a bird." They argue for their claim that he is the son of Allah by saying: "He had no known father, he spoke in the cradle, and did what no one from the sons of Adam did before him." They argue for their claim that he is the third of three by saying: "Allah says: 'We did, We commanded, We created, We decreed.' If He were one, He would not say except 'I did, I commanded, I created, I decreed.' But it is He, ‘Isa, and Maryam." The Quran was revealed regarding everything they said, and Allah the Exalted mentioned to His Prophet their statements. When the two priests—who were al-‘Aqib and al-Sayyid, as in the narration of al-Kalbi and al-Rabi' on the authority of Anas—spoke to him, the Prophet said to them: "Submit." They said: "We have already submitted before you." He said: "You lie. What prevents your submission is your invocation of a son for Allah, your worship of the cross, and your eating of swine." They said: "Then who is his father, O Muhammad?" He remained silent and did not answer. Then Allah the Exalted revealed regarding their claims and their differences the beginning of Surat Al ‘Imran up to over eighty verses. He opened the chapter by declaring Himself pure from what they said, His Oneness in creation and command, having no partner therein, and He refuted the innovations of disbelief they had introduced and the rivals they had set up alongside Him. He argued against them by citing their own claims about their companion in order to show them their error, saying: "Allah! None has the right to be worshipped but He, the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsisting." Meaning: There is no partner with Him in His command. "The Ever-Living" who does not die—and ‘Isa, peace be upon him, died according to their own account. "The Self-Subsisting" who stands by His own authority and does not cease—and ‘Isa ceased to exist.

In a narration by Ibn Jarir from al-Rabi', he said: The Christians came to the Prophet and argued with him about ‘Isa ibn Maryam and said to him: "Who is his father?" and they uttered lies and slander against Allah. The Prophet said to them: "Do you not know that there is no child but that he resembles his father?" They said: "Yes." He said: "Do you not know that our Lord is Living and does not die, while ‘Isa is subject to annihilation?" They said: "Yes." He said: "Do you not know that our Lord is Qayyum (Self-Subsisting) over everything, guarding, protecting, and providing for it?" They said: "Yes." He said: "Does ‘Isa possess any of that?" They said: "No." He said: "Do you not know that Allah, nothing is hidden from Him on earth or in heaven?" They said: "Yes." He said: "Does ‘Isa know any of that except what he has been taught?" They said: "No." He said: "Do you not know that our Lord shaped ‘Isa in the womb however He willed, and that our Lord does not eat food, drink, or answer the call of nature?" They said: "Yes." He said: "Do you not know that ‘Isa was carried by his mother as a woman carries, then she delivered him as a woman delivers her child, then he was nourished as a child is nourished, then he used to eat food, drink, and answer the call of nature?" They said: "Yes." He said: "How then can this be as you claim?" They understood, but they refused, choosing denial. Then Allah revealed: "Allah! None has the right to be worshipped but He, the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsisting."