Tafsir of Al Imran 3:36

(When she delivered it) The pronoun "it" (ha) refers to what is in the womb. When the speaker knows that the referent is feminine, it is permissible to use the feminine pronoun to refer back to it, even if the word (ma—that which) is masculine.

As for the feminine usage in His saying: (She said: “My Lord! I have delivered it a female”), this is not based on the knowledge of the entity itself, but rather on the fact that any pronoun occurring between a masculine and a feminine noun—where both refer to the same object—allows for both masculine and feminine usage; for example, "The speech is called a sentence" (Al-kalamu yusamma jumla).

The word "female" (untha) acts as a circumstantial qualifier (hal) performing the function of a predicate. Therefore, the pronoun returning to "what" (ma) is feminized in consideration of this state, without necessitating that the meaning of "femininity" be inherent in the pronoun itself (which would render the term "female" redundant). Alternatively, it is viewed through the lens of a feminine-gendered construct that serves both masculine and feminine, such as nafs (soul/person), habilah (pregnant), or nasamah (being). Thus, the feminization is not problematic, and "female" is not redundant; rather, it is a clarifying circumstantial qualifier. Such is what has been said, though it is not without scrutiny.

The truth is that the pronoun is feminine because of "what is in the womb," and the feminization in the first instance is because the context demands the manifestation of her femininity. It is considered within the condition (shart) because the response to "when" (lamma) is predicated upon it, not upon the delivery of "some child." The feminization in the second instance is for the purpose of expressing the disappointment of her hopes and the severing of her expectations. "Female" is a circumstantial qualifier (hal) emphasizing the pronoun or acting as a substitute (badal) for it. The purpose of this speech is not informational—for it is either to convey knowledge or its necessity, and God’s knowledge is already all-encompassing—but merely for the sake of lamentation and grief.

Imam al-Marzuqi said: "A statement may appear as an informative sentence but be intended for purposes other than information, as in the saying: ‘My people, they killed my brother Umaym, and if I cast [an arrow], my arrow hits me.’ This speech is an expression of grief and lamentation, not an act of informing." The essence of the meaning here, as established, is: When she delivered a girl, she lamented to her Lord and grieved, for her hope in her had been dashed. Thus, there is no problem at all regarding the feminization, the response (jaza’), or its logical sequence from the condition.

As for what has been said—that this speech might serve to belittle the one dedicated to the temple in order to invite divine acceptance (for whoever humbles himself before God, God shall exalt)—this is a diminutive form of speech in comparison to what we have mentioned. The emphasis here is said to be a refutation of her false belief, or perhaps it returns to the notion of deep concern and the intensity of the lamentation she intended, signifying that it proceeded from a broken heart, shackled by the constraints of deprivation.

(And Allah is most knowing of what she delivered) The intention is not to refute her report regarding what He is more knowing of, as the context might suggest. Rather, the clause is parenthetical, brought forward to exalt the newborn she delivered, to magnify her status, and to highlight her [the mother's] ignorance of her [the daughter's] true worth. That is: "And Allah is more knowing of what she delivered" and what greatness and subtle mysteries and clear signs were entrusted to her, while she [the mother] was oblivious to all of that.

In this view, "what" (ma) refers to the object delivered. It has been said that employing "what" rather than "who" (man) is appropriate for demonstrating ignorance, as "what" is often used for that which is unknown. Alternatively, making it refer to the one who delivered—that is, "Allah is more knowing of the state of the mother of Maryam during her lamentation and grief arising from the illusion that her hope was lost, and that she was not among those near to God"—is baseless; the excellence of the composition rejects it.

Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) read it as: "of what you delivered," addressing God's speech to her. The intent is also to magnify the status of the newborn: that you do not know the worth of what you have delivered and what God has deposited within her. Ibn Amir, Abu Bakr from ‘Asim, and Ya’qub read it as: "of what I delivered," as part of her own speech, said as an apology to God for delivering a newborn who does not suit her intended purpose, or as self-consolation: "Perhaps God has a secret and wisdom in this, and perhaps this female is better than the male." In this case, the clause is for the negation of knowledge, not an indication of ignorance, because the servant looks only at the outward state and does not grasp the mysteries within.

Carrying Ibn Abbas’s reading to this meaning renders the address from her to herself highly remote. Placing the noun in the position of the second-person pronoun is an expression of supreme reverence.

(And the male is not like the female) This is another parenthetical clause clarifying what the first included of exaltation, not an explanation of its literal expression, so it should not be attached as an explanatory conjunction (‘atf al-bayan), which would forbid the conjunction here. The definite article (al) in "the male" and "the female" denotes specific reference (‘ahd). Regarding the "female," it is because she was mentioned explicitly in His saying: "I have delivered it a female." Regarding the "male," it is because of her saying: "I have vowed..." for that is what she requested, and the dedication (tahrir) is not performed except for a male. This is called "presumptive reference" (al-‘ahd al-taqdiri), which is distinct from mental reference, because her saying "what is in my womb" is applicable to both categories, and her saying "dedicated" is a wish that it be a male; thus, the reference is to what is in the womb according to her hope.

It is permissible for this clause to be from her own speech, where her intent is to deny that the male is equivalent to the female. In this case, the definite article denotes the genus, as is apparent, because she did not intend a specific male or female, but rather that this genus is not like that genus. An objection was raised that if it were her speech, it would be "The female is not like the male," because her intention is to denigrate the female in comparison to the male, and the habit in such expressions is to deny the likeness of the lesser to the greater, not vice versa. It was answered that this is also consistent with the custom in such cases; for the mother of Maryam’s intention is not to prefer the male over the female, but the reverse, to exalt God’s gift over her own request—that is, "The male, which was my request, is not like the female, which God has bestowed upon me," knowing that what He does is better than what the servant desires.

This view is subject to scrutiny. Firstly, because the article in "the male" and "the female" would then be for specific reference, which is contrary to the outward appearance adopted by most exegetes. Secondly, because it contradicts the lamentation and grief understood from her saying: "My Lord! I have delivered it a female," for her grief is based on her preference for the male over the female, whereas this interpretation implies she prefers the female over the male. Unless, of course, her statement is taken as self-consolation after having grieved over the gift of a female instead of the male she had requested. However, even then, the deviation from the outward appearance remains.

Therefore, it is better in the answer not to deviate from the apparent meaning and to examine what custom necessitates. In Al-Intisaf, after relaying the objection and mentioning the rule, it is stated: "I have found the matter in this to be varied, and it has not been established for me that what they said is definitive. Do you not see the Almighty’s saying: 'You are not like any other women'? He negated the resemblance of the lesser to the perfect, because perfection is established for the wives of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) in relation to women in general. The expression of the wife of Imran comes in this manner, and from it is also: 'Is he who creates like him who does not create?'"

The complete discussion on this subject is what some researchers have mentioned: when a negation with "not" (la) or its equivalents enters upon a simile whose elements are explicit—or some of them—it holds two meanings: the preferment of the object being likened, in that it cannot be compared to the other because the attribute in the former is more deserving and stronger (like saying, "Zaid is not like Hatim in generosity"); and the possibility that it means it cannot be compared to it due to the distance between them (like the Arabs' saying, "No water is like the sada' [a specific type of water], and no pasture is like the sa'dan").

It has appeared in the commentaries of the Maqamat and others that the Arabs did not use the negation with "not" in this way except for the second meaning, and that its use to prefer the subject is a construct of later writers, to the point that they objected to Al-Hariri in his saying, "I set out, and not like the setting out of a crow," and criticized the author of At-Talwih in his introduction: "He attained a share of fame, and not like the fame of the sun at midday." The foundation of the objection is this, though perhaps it is not mandatory, as indicated by the author of Al-Intisaf through the verses he cited, and what Al-Tha’alibi also cited to the contrary in his book Al-Muntakhab: "He is beautiful, and not like the moon; and a steed, and not like the rain." Moreover, even if what they mentioned were true, meanings have no constraints, and what has been narrated regarding the negation with "not" is in the context of it being intercepted between the two parties, not in every negation. This is as he said: among the gems of meaning that should be preserved.

His saying, (And I have named her Maryam) is a conjunction to "I have delivered it a female," which is in the accusative position as the object of the verb "to say." What is between them, as you have learned, is a parenthetical insertion of two clauses, not reported as speech. The second is a completion of the first in meaning, according to what some have handled as an insertion within an insertion, making it comparable to His saying: "And it is a mighty oath, if you but knew."

It was objected: how can there be an insertion between the statements of the mother of Maryam and the statement of another speaker, when it is not permissible for an insertion to occur between the statements of another speaker? It was answered that the mother of Maryam’s speech is from the speech of Allah, relaying the mother of Maryam’s words; there is no distance in it being Allah's speech, acting as an insertion between her two statements which are themselves from Allah's speech, relaying her words. This is on the assumption that those two clauses are not from the speech of the mother of Maryam herself. But if they are her speech, based on the aforementioned readings and possibilities, then there is no insertion.

It is said the purpose of presenting the name to the "Knower of the Unseen" is to seek closeness to Him and to invoke protection for her, for "Maryam" in their language means "the worshiper." Its distance is evident, for merely mentioning her name "Maryam" would be a means of closeness, as closeness to Him is only through worship, and the mere presentation of a name is not an act of worship. Unless one says that closeness to God is attained through her love for the worshipers, which is indicated by her naming her daughter "a worshiper," and the belief that God is a protector who shelters those who seek refuge in Him from what they fear.

It was objected that this does not dispel the doubt, for it remains: the closeness is achieved by the love and belief in the heart, not by presenting it to One for whom no secret is hidden. It is better to say the purpose is to show that she has not turned back from her intention; even if she delivered a female, and even if she were not qualified for the custodianship of the House of Jerusalem, let her be among the worshipers therein. Her independence in naming her is because her father had passed away while her mother was pregnant with her; thus, the presentation to Him is for exclusivity, meaning: "I named her, and no one shares this with me," not her father. It is said that in this there is an insinuation of her orphaning to invoke His mercy, making her orphaning an intercessor for her.

The statement that the purpose of presenting the name is also for lamentation and grief—meaning: "I named her, not her father, due to his lack of celebration and attention to her, as is often the case with men's dislike for daughters"—is contrary to what the traditions indicate and what most reports state: that her father died while she was a fetus. This leads to that which the court of the righteous man Imran should be cleared of, as is evident.

The discussion on "Maryam," regarding its weight and meaning, has preceded. Some later scholars have chosen the view that it is an Arabized word, "Maria," meaning "young girl." It is close to being the relied-upon view. The verse is used as evidence for the permissibility of naming children on the day of birth, not the seventh, for the outward meaning is that she said this in the aftermath of the delivery. The variation of the two objects is used as evidence for the variation between the name and the named, the discussion of which has preceded.

(And I seek refuge in You for her) is a conjunction to "I have named her," and the present tense verb is used here to indicate her request for the continuity of the protection, without cessation. This is in contrast to "I delivered her" and "I named her," where the verbs were in the past tense because they were completed. The protection was presented before the later conjunction for the sake of importance. The meaning of "I seek refuge in You for her" is: I withhold her and guard her with Your protection. The origin of ‘awdh, as Al-Raghib said, is taking refuge in another and clinging to him; it is said "So-and-so sought refuge in so-and-so" when seeking his protection. From this the ‘awdhah (amulet/incantation) is derived.

Ja’far and Nafi’ read inni with a fathah on the ya of the first person, as well as in all other places where the ya is followed by a damma-vowel alif, except in two places: "with My covenant, fulfill" and "bring them to me, I will pour."

(And her progeny) is a conjunction to the pronoun in the accusative. The specification of protecting her and protecting her progeny is a symbol of the request for her to remain alive, to grow up, and a request for descendants from her. This is if "protection" is intended as: (From the accursed Satan), i.e., the driven away. The origin of rajm is throwing stones. It refers to protection from his whisperings that lead to sins, for that only occurs after maturity, as there is no accountability before it. If protection is intended from him absolutely, then both requests are understood from the final command.

This is supported by what the two Sheikhs (Bukhari and Muslim) recorded from the hadith of Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him): "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: 'There is no newborn who is born but that Satan touches him at the moment of birth, and he starts screaming from his touch, except for Maryam and her son.'" In some versions, it is said that a veil was struck between him and her, and that Satan wanted to strike with his finger, but the strike fell upon the veil. In a narration by Ishaq bin Bishr from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both): "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: 'Every child of Adam, Satan strikes him with his finger when he falls to the earth, and that is why he screams, except for what was of Maryam and her son; for Iblis did not reach them.'"

Judge Abd al-Jabbar criticized these reports, arguing they are solitary reports (khabar wahid) contrary to evidence, because Satan only invites to evil those who possess discernment, and because if he were capable of this act, it would be possible for him to destroy the righteous. Also, why were Isa and his mother singled out from all other prophets? And if the touch or the prick occurred, its effect should be lasting, which is not the case.

Al-Zamakhshari claimed that the meaning, assuming the report is authentic, is that every newborn Satan covets to lead astray, except Maryam and her son, for they were infallible, as was everyone in their state, like His saying: "I will surely lead them all astray, except Your chosen servants among them." His screaming from the touch is a metaphor and imagery for his covetousness over them; it is as if he touches him and strikes him with his hand. Similar imagery is the saying of Ibn al-Rumi: "Because of what the world warns of regarding its vicissitudes, there is the crying of the child the hour it is born." As for the reality of the prick and the touch, as those who cling to literalism imagine, it is not so; for if Iblis were empowered over people to prick them, the world would be full of screaming and wailing from what they suffer from his pricking.

It is evident that the reports on this subject are numerous, and most are recorded in the authentic collections, and the matter is not impossible. The Truthful one (peace and blessings be upon him) has informed us of it, so it should be received with acceptance. The imagery that Al-Zamakhshari relied upon is nothing, for touching with the hand might fit that, but screaming does not. Moreover, most narrations do not have such interpretation. As for his saying "the world would be full of wailing," we say: it is already full, for there is no newborn who does not scream. And it does not follow from his ability to deliver that prick that he is able to do so at all times; for the authentic hadith says: "Were it not that the angels protect you, the devils would surround you as flies surround honey," and in another version: "The Jinn would have snatched you away."

His saying (Exalted is He): "He has successors before him and behind him" is interpreted in one way as this. By this, the Judge's objection—that if he were capable of this act, it would be possible for him to destroy the righteous—is also dispelled. The persistence of the effect, or even its occurrence, is not a necessary condition for the touch or the prick. The restriction to Isa (peace be upon him) and his mother is to signal the response to the prayer of the wife of Imran in the most perfect way, to guide those in need to God with all their being, or it is destined for him specifically. In either case, the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is excluded from the general rule, so there is no requirement to prefer Isa (peace be upon him) in this meaning. This is supported by the exclusion of the speaker from the generality of his speech, which a group has advocated. This is witnessed by what Al-Jalal reported in Al-Bahja al-Sunniyya from Ikrimah: "When the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was born, the earth shone with light. Iblis said: 'A child was born tonight who will ruin our affair.' His soldiers said: 'If only you would go to him.' He came to him, but Gabriel (peace and blessings be upon him) kicked him, and he fell in Aden." This is better than maintaining the general rule and saying that it is not unlikely that Isa and his mother were singled out for this merit, without it implying his preference over all other prophets, for there may be found in the virtuous that which is not found in the more virtuous. In both cases, the virtuous and the less virtuous, there is no problem with the reports from that perspective.

Yes, it may be problematic according to their literal meanings that the protection of the wife of Imran was after the delivery, so it would not be correct to interpret it as protection from the touch that occurs at the time of birth. It was answered that the touch only occurs upon separation, which is the delivery, and with it is the protection. Its limit is that it was expressed in the present tense, as we indicated, for the purpose of continuity. So, let it be pondered. It is a wonder how some of the Sunnis follow the Mu'tazilah in interpreting such authentic hadiths merely for the sake of leaning toward the nonsense of the philosophers, even though leaving them to their literal sense would not cloud their drink or narrow their path. We ask God the Exalted to grant us success for what pleases Him and to make the future of our state better than our past.