Tafsir of Al Imran 3:45

It is also said that he was called this because Allah the Exalted gave glad tidings of him in the previous scriptures. In the Torah, in the twentieth chapter of the fifth book: "Allah came from Sinai, shone forth from Seir, and appeared from the mountains of Paran." Sinai is the mountain of manifestation for Musa; Seir is the mountain of the Holy House (Jerusalem), where ‘Isa used to worship; and Paran is the mountain of Makkah, where the Master of the Messengers—may Allah’s peace be upon him—used to worship (tahannuth). This is like the saying of one who reports a matter when it arrives in accordance with what he reported: "My word has arrived." It is also said it is because Allah guides through him just as He guides through His word.

Some people have claimed that "the Word" means the glad tidings, as if it were said, "With a glad tiding from Him," but the explicit wording of the Almighty, "The Messiah, ‘Isa, son of Maryam, is only a messenger of Allah and His Word which He cast to Maryam," makes this unlikely. Perhaps the first of these opinions is the strongest, as supported by the lack of consistency in the other claims, though this is not strictly necessary in such matters. Regarding "yubashiruki" (gives you glad tidings) here, it contains the same variant readings as mentioned previously.

Those who made these three predicates for the initial are challenged by the fact that the name is in reality "‘Isa," while "al-Masih" is a title and "son" is an adjective; how then can all three be predicates? The answer given is that the intended meaning of "name" is its technical meaning, which is the proper noun (‘alam), and it is not in the sense of something contrasting a title, but rather that which encompasses it and others; that its addition implies generalization, as the addition of a generic noun may intend inclusion; and that its application to the son of Maryam is by way of predominance (taghlib). It is also said that the intended meaning of "name" is its linguistic meaning: the mark and the distinguishing sign, not the proper noun. In that case, there is no obstacle to making the totality of the three the predicate, for the distinction by that is stronger than the distinction by each one alone. The meaning thus leads to your saying: "He who is known and distinguished from others by the totality of these three."

By this—as in al-Intisaf—there is an escape from the problem they raise, saying: "If 'al-Masih' in the verse intends naming, which is the apparent meaning, what is the position of '‘Isa son of Maryam,' and naming is not described by prophethood? And if this naming is intended, it does not reconcile with His saying, 'His name'?" The mode of escape is manifest. Due to the lack of clarity of this orientation for some, they opted to escape by saying that "al-Masih" is the predicate of His saying, "His name," and the intended meaning is the naming, whereas "‘Isa son of Maryam" is the predicate of an implied initial, estimated as "he is," with the pronoun returning to the one named by the aforementioned naming, disconnected from "al-Masih."

The well-known opinion is that "al-Masih" is his title, peace be upon him, and it is among his honorable titles like "al-Faruq." Its origin in Hebrew is Meshikha, meaning "the Blessed." From Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i: "The Truthful One" (al-Siddiq). From Abu ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ala’: "The King." "‘Isa" is the arabized form of Yeshua, meaning "The Master." From many of the predecessors, "al-Masih" is derived from "al-mash" (to wipe/touch). They differed on the reason for its application to ‘Isa, peace be upon him: It is said he was wiped with blessing and good fortune (narrated from al-Hasan and Ibn Jubayr). It is said he used to wipe the eyes of the blind so they could see (narrated from al-Kalbi). It is said he would not touch any afflicted person with his hand but that they were cured (narrated by ‘Ata’ and al-Dahhak from Ibn ‘Abbas). Al-Jubba’i said: Because he would wipe with olive oil that had been blessed, which the prophets used for anointing. It is said because Jibril touched him with his wings at the time of birth, so he would be a protection from the accursed Shaytan. It is said because when Allah touched the back of Adam, peace be upon him, and extracted the atoms of his progeny, He did not return him to his place like the rest of the atoms, but kept him by Him until He cast him to Maryam; thus the name "al-Masih" (the wiped/touched one) remained with him.

These statements imply that the word is Arabic, not Hebrew, and many researchers hold the second view. Abu ‘Ubaydah chose it, and according to it, there is no derivation, as it does not apply in reality to foreign names. In al-Kashf, it is stated that the appearance here suggests derivation because it is Arabic, and the characteristics of their speech were applied to it, making it a title of honor for him—like "al-Khalil" for Ibrahim—and considering it arabized, then treating it as an adjective by adding the definite article (al-), since in their speech it has the meaning of a description, which is contrary to the manifest appearance.

Some have claimed that the entry of "al-" does not negate its foreignness, for "al-Tawrah" (Torah), "al-Injil" (Gospel), and "al-Iskandar" (Alexander) are not heard except paired with it, even though they are foreign. Perhaps this does not contradict the fact that it is more apparent that the point of contention is Arabic. Indeed, it is said regarding ‘Isa that it is derived from al-‘ays (whiteness mixed with redness), and he was only named thus because his complexion was ‘ays—a whiteness with a tinge of red—as the report "He came out of the womb..." indicates. However, the reliance regarding it is that it has no derivation, and the one who claims it is like one writing on water.

This disagreement is only regarding this Messiah; as for the Dajjal Messiah, he is Arabic by consensus, and he was named so because one of his eyes was wiped, or because he wipes the earth—i.e., traverses it—in a short time. Al-Nakha‘i distinguished between the title "Spirit of Allah" and his enemy, saying the first is with a fatha on the mim and a light consonant, and the second with a kasra on the mim and a doubled sin (like shirrir), though others denied this, and it is the known convention.

Then, those who hold it to be a title in the verse, and that "‘Isa" is a substitution, for example—many of them forbade placing the title before the name unless it is more famous than the name, either in reality or in claim. As for when it is more famous, as in this case, then placing it first is permissible, as Ibn al-Anbari explicitly stated, and it is not restricted to non-eloquent speech as is the case when it is not so. The common view when the name and title are singular is to annex the first to the second. In al-Mufassal, it is stated to be mandatory, and the practice of Sibawayh points to that. Those who permitted the following/dependent status (taba‘iyyah) used as evidence their saying, "This is Yahya the Eyed One" (where ‘aynan is in the accusative), for if it were annexed, it would have been "the two eyes" (‘aynayn). The attempt to interpret this according to the dialect of those who bind the dual with the alif is rejected by the fact that the narration is with the damma on the nun; if the narration had been with the kasra, that interpretation might have been possible, so the evidence is not complete. Similarly, if it were with the fatha, it could be that the title is in the genitive case by annexation, except that the fatha therein acts as a substitute for the kasra based on the opinion that the one named by it may be inflected like that which does not take tanwin (la yansarif). But you know that the extent of what this evidence proves is its occurrence in this specific instance, and as for proving it as a general rule, it does not. Perhaps the preventer only forbids that and claims that the rule is annexation, provided there is no hindrance. Thus, it is not allowed when the definite article (al-) is present by placement to prevent it. So, "al-Harith Karz" is not said by way of annexation. Similarly, when the title is originally a description, such as "Ibrahim al-Khalil," as stated by Ibn al-Hajib in his commentary on al-Mufassal, because the described is not annexed to its description according to the common view.

Some have made what we are discussing part of this category, and it is built upon the school of thought of those who say that "al-Masih" is a description in Arabic. Despite this, there is disagreement on the issue of Ibn Hisham, for he permits annexation in this section as well. The complete research is in our books of grammar, so let it be understood. It was said "son of Maryam," despite the address being to her, as an indication that he is born without a father, and if he had a father, he would have been attributed to him; in this, there is also a symbol of preferring the mother. It is said that in this is a refutation of the Christians. It is further fetched that one claimed this annexation is to praise ‘Isa, peace be upon him, for the speech in that instance is in the strength of "son of a worshipper."

Know that the word "ibn" (son) in the verse is written without an alif (hamza), based on it occurring as an adjective between two proper nouns; for the rule is that whenever it occurs thus, its hamza is not written, but omitted in writing following its omission in speech due to the frequency of its usage as such. Whenever a proper noun precedes it but it is annexed to a non-proper noun, like "Zayd ibn al-Sultan," or a non-proper noun precedes it and it is annexed to a proper noun, like "al-Sultan ibn Zayd," or it occurs between two things that are not proper nouns, like "Zayd the intelligent, son of the Prince ‘Amr," the alif is written and not omitted in writing in all those cases. Scribes often err in this, omitting the hamza wherever it occurs, and this error of theirs has been pointed out by Ibn Qutaybah and others. Hence, it is said that the orthography supports the following status (taba‘iyyah). Indeed, there is disagreement as to whether this is a general rule when the annexed-to is the mother's name. What I choose is omission as well if it is well-known.

"Wajihan" is in the accusative as an implied state (hal) from "a Word." The arrival of the state from it, even though it is an indefinite noun, is validated by it being described by what follows it, and the masculine is used in consideration of the meaning, as indicated. The state is considered as future/intended (muqaddarah) because the status was after the glad tidings.

Some made the state refer back to ‘Isa. Abu al-Baqa’ said: This is not allowed. Likewise, it is not allowed to make it a state from "the Messiah" or from "son of Maryam," because they are predicates, and the factor governing them is the initial, the subject, or both, and none of those operate on the state. Likewise, it is not allowed for it to be a state from the "ha" in "his name" due to the separation occurring between them and the lack of a governor for the state. The prepositional phrase is related to "‘indahu" (at/with Him) due to it containing the meaning of the verb.