Al-Ma'idah: (116) "And when Allah said..."
(And when Allah said, "O ‘Isa, son of Maryam") This is conjoined to "When the disciples said," and it is in the accusative case due to the implied verb that governs the previous clause, or it is governed by an independent implied verb. The past tense is used for what has already passed. The intended meaning is: "He says to him—peace be upon him—(Did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?')" This will occur on the Day of Resurrection as a rebuke to the disbelievers and to silence them by having him—peace be upon him—affirm, before the witnesses, the truth of servitude and the command to worship Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.
It is said: The Almighty said this to him—peace be upon him—in this world. This occurred after sunset, so he—peace be upon him—prayed the Maghrib prayer, three units, as gratitude to Allah the Exalted for addressing him in this manner. The first unit was to negate divinity from himself, the second to negate it from his mother, and the third to affirm it for Allah, the Mighty and Majestic; thus, he—peace be upon him—was the first to pray Maghrib. It is not hidden that what will come hereafter in the verses—if Allah wills—rejects this, nor is there any sound report concerning it. Furthermore, it is not the focus of the well-known discourse, as in His saying, "Did you say this to our gods?" and the like. Rather, the point of certainty is the "taking" (as gods), and the interrogation is to determine whether it was by his—peace be upon him—command or of their own accord, as in His saying, "Did you mislead these servants of Mine, or did they stray from the path?"
Some have said: Since the speech originated from their leaders in misguidance, it was established as a "taking," so the interrogation is to identify the source from whom it emanated; hence, the subject was brought forward. It is also said: The fronting is to strengthen the attribution because it is so far removed from acceptance that the listener’s mind would not even consider the literal meaning until the speaker reinforces it so that the listener may focus on the intended query. In this lies the perfection of the rebuke to the disbelievers by attributing this statement to him. In His saying, "Take me and my mother" instead of "Take me and Maryam," there is a rebuke upon a rebuke, as if it were said: "Did you say what you said, despite being born and having a mother, whereas the God neither begets nor is begotten?"
You know that His calling him—peace be upon him—in the mentioned manner serves as an indication to nullify that "taking." The "lam" in "for the people" is for the purpose of transmission. As for "taking," if it is a verb that takes two objects, "the ya" (me) is the first, and "two gods" is the second. If it is a verb that takes one object, then "two gods" is a circumstantial qualifier (hal) of the object, and "besides Allah" is a circumstantial qualifier of the subject of the taking, meaning: "transgressing against Allah the Exalted," or it is an adjective describing "two gods," meaning: "existing besides Allah," i.e., other than Him, added to the Almighty. Thus, Allah is God, and they—according to the claim of the disbelievers—are two gods. The intended meaning is taking them both by way of associating them with Him, the Exalted. This is similar to His saying, "And they worship besides Allah that which does not harm them or benefit them, and they say, 'These are our intercessors with Allah,'" up to His saying, "Exalted and High is He above what they associate." This is supported by the fact that rebuke and silencing only occur in such a context.
Al-Raghib said: The outward meaning of that statement implies that they—peace be upon them—are independently divine, without Allah the Exalted being taken as a god alongside them. This must be interpreted, for the people [the Christians]—may Allah be protected from such—triangulated (the Trinity). Either it is said that whoever associates another with Allah has, in meaning, negated Him, because He is One and has no partner; thus, his affirmation of Allah is as if no affirmation at all. In that case, "besides Allah" is a metaphor for "along with Allah." Or, it is said that the meaning of "besides Allah" is the mediation between them and Him, the Exalted. The "two gods" then indicates the inferiority of their rank to His rank, for they said: "He—the Mighty in Name—is like the sun, and they are like its rays."
Some have claimed that the intention is taking them as gods in a way of independence. The reasoning is that the Christians believe the miracles that appeared at the hands of ‘Isa and his mother—peace be upon them—were not created by Allah, but that they themselves created them. Thus, it is correct that they took them, in regard to some things, as two independent gods, even if they did not take them as gods in regard to everything else. It is clear that the first interpretation is definitive, to which the Allamah pointed, and the Shaykh al-Islam stipulated his preference for it.
The verse was considered problematic because it is not known that any of the Christians took Maryam—peace be upon her—as a god. This was answered with several responses:
First, that since they made ‘Isa—peace be upon him—a god, it necessitated that they also make his mother one, because the child is of the same genus as the one who bears him; thus, "two gods" was mentioned by way of compelling the argument against them.
Second, that when they venerated her with the veneration due to gods, the name "god" was applied to her, just as the name "lord" was applied to the rabbis and monks in His saying, "They took their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah," because they venerated them as they would a Lord. The duality here is like the phrase "the two tongues of the pen."
Third, it is possible that there were some among them who said that, and this is supported by what Abu Ja'far al-Imami narrated about some Christians, that in times past there were people called "The Maryamiyyah" who believed that Maryam was a god. This is like the fact that among the Jews there were those who believed that 'Uzayr was the son of God—exalted be His Name. This is the most sound of the views in my opinion. What the claimant asserted—that Christians believe [that they are creators]—is not accepted among the Christians of our time, and no one worthy of trust has reported it from them at all. The explicit mention of the Majestic Name is because it is within the scope of the speech attributed to ‘Isa—peace be upon him—.
(He said): This is an inception based on a question that arose from the utterance of the statement, which is evident. In some traditions, it is said that when the Lord—the Mighty and Majestic—says to him what He says, his joints tremble, and from the root of every hair on his body, an eye of blood erupts out of fear of his Lord—Great is His Majesty. In some [traditions], it is mentioned that he—peace be upon him—trembles in fear, and the gate of response is not opened for him for five hundred years, then Allah inspires the response to him afterwards.
He says: ("Exalted are You"), meaning: Purifying You from saying that, or that it should be said about You, as Ibn 'Atiyyah estimated. Others estimated it as: "Purifying You from having a partner, let alone being taken as two gods besides You, and [purifying You] from sending a messenger who claims divinity other than You, calls to it, and disbelieves in Your grace." The first is more consistent with the context of the noble structure. "Subhan" (Exalted), on all these interpretations according to one of the views, and it has already been mentioned as a standard for glorification (tasbih), and it is in the accusative as a verbal noun (masdar), and its governor is rarely mentioned. In it is exaggeration in purification, in terms of derivation from the word "sab'h," which is to go far and move across the earth, and from the aspect of shifting to the form of "taf'il," and the departure from the verbal noun to the noun specifically placed for it, which points to the reality present in the mind, and setting it in the place of the verbal noun with the verb—this is a matter that is not hidden.
His saying, the Almighty: ("It is not for me to say what I have no right to") is an inception establishing the purification and clarifying what is being purified. "Ma" (what), whether relative or an indefinite noun described, is the object of "say." The intended meaning is the aforementioned statement, or what includes it and other things, and the aforementioned statement is included in the primary sense. The predication of the word "say" to specific things, such as sentences, speech, or poetry—the correctness of which is not in doubt—is like its predication to clear sentences; thus, there is no need to interpret "say" as "mention," as is imagined. The noun for "is not" is an implied pronoun returning to "ma," and "by right" is its predicate. The prepositional phrase between them is for clarification, so it relates to an omitted word, as in "sugya laka" (a watering for you). The preference for "laysa" (is not) over the negated verb "what is not right for me" is due to its clear indication of the continuous negation of righteousness and the bringing about of emphasis through the "ba" in its predicate, which is standard in the predicate of "laysa."
The meaning of "it is not for me" is: It is neither appropriate nor befitting. This is more eloquent than "I did not say it," and therefore it was preferred over it. The meaning is: It is not befitting for me to say a statement that I have no right to say at all, at any time. Abu al-Baqa' permitted "li" (to me) to be the predicate of "laysa," and "by right" to be in the position of a state (hal) from the pronoun in the prepositional phrase, and the governor of it is what is in it from the meaning of stability. It could also relate to an omitted verb as a "maf'ul lahu" (causal object), with the "ba" being for causality, meaning: "What is not established for me by reason of right." It could also be the predicate of "laysa," and "li" is an adjective of "right" that was brought forward, thus becoming a state; this is a way out for those who permit the fronting of a state belonging to a prepositional object before the object itself. It is said that "li" relates to "right," which is the predicate, and this is also based on the opinion of some grammarians who permit the fronting of the supplement of the prepositional object before the preposition. The majority, however, hold that it is not permitted, and there is no difference for them in the prohibition between the preposition being extra or otherwise.
His saying, the Almighty: ("If I had said it, You would have known it") is an argument for his innocence from the issuance of the aforementioned statement from him, for its issuance from him would certainly necessitate His—the Almighty's—knowledge of it, and such knowledge is negated, so the issuance is negated—the negation of the necessitated entails the negation of the necessary. This sentence was viewed as problematic because the meaning here is in the past, and "kana" (was) turns the past into the future. Al-Mubarrad responded to this by saying that "kana" is strong in its indication of the past, so much so that it was said it is only placed for it, not for the event, and they made this a reason for it being deficient, so "inna" (if) cannot turn it into the future. Ibn al-Sarraj responded that the estimate is "If I had said it, I would have said it," etc., and the same is said for anything similar. This was reported by Uthman ibn Ya'ish, though Ibn Hisham weakened it in his Tadhkirah. The majority hold that the meaning is: "If my statement and claim were true, Your knowledge of it would have become clear."
("You know what is in my self") is an inception that functions as an explanation for what preceded it. His saying, the Almighty: ("And I do not know what is in Your Self") is a clarification and a manifestation of his—peace be upon him—limitation. "Nafs" (self) in their speech has various applications: it is applied to a thing's essence and reality, to the spirit, to the heart, to the blood, and to the will. It is said that it is also applied to the "evil eye," to the unseen, and to punishment. It is understood from the speech of some that it is literal in the first application and metaphorical in the others. Many have interpreted "self" here as "heart." The meaning is: "You know my known thing which I conceal in my heart, so how could I not know what I make public? And I do not know Your known thing which You conceal." He followed the method of mushakalah (co-occurrence of form) in this, as in the saying: "They said, 'Propose something for us to cook for you.' I said, 'Cook me a cloak and a shirt.'" Except that in the verse, both terms occur in the speech of one person, while in the verse of poetry, it is not so. In Al-Durr al-Masun, this interpretation is narrated from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them—and it is also mentioned from him in Majma' al-Bayan.
Some interpreted it as "essence" (dhat) and claimed that its attribution in this meaning to Allah does not require the assumption of mushakalah. Among such examples are His saying: "Your Lord has prescribed for Himself mercy," "And I have chosen you for Myself," "And Allah warns you of His Self," and His saying—peace be upon him—: "My Lord swore to His Self that no servant who drinks wine and does not repent to Allah will be given to drink from tinat al-khabal (the discharge of the inhabitants of Hell)," etc. And his saying—peace be upon him—: "There is no one more loving of praise than Allah the Exalted, and for that reason, He praised His Self," and his saying—peace be upon him—: "Exalted is Allah, by the number of His creation and the satisfaction of His Self," among other reports.
The expert Al-Sharif said in the commentary on the Miftah and others: The word "nafs" is not applied to the Exalted except by way of mushakalah if "essence" is intended. But this is nothing, given what you know from the verses and traditions. The claim that what is in them is a figurative mushakalah, as was said regarding His saying: "The coloring of Allah, and who is better than Allah in coloring," is evidently of little value. The correct view, which is relied upon, is the permissibility of applying it to Allah the Exalted in the meaning of "essence" without mushakalah. Yes, it is said that the word "nafs" in this verse, even if it means "essence," must also take mushakalah into account, because "I do not know what is in Your essence" is not a satisfactory statement, so it needs to be carried over to mushakalah in its entirety, meaning: "I do not know Your objects of knowledge." He expressed "the known thing" as "what is in Your self" because he had expressed "my known thing" as "what is in my self."
On this, the second Allamah carried the speech of the author of Al-Kashshaf, and what is in it is not hidden. The investigation is that the verse is an instance of mushakalah, but it is not in the application of the word "nafs," but rather in the word "in." Its significance, with regard to what is in the self of ‘Isa—peace be upon him—is the idea of sketching and engraving, and this is not possible when regarding Allah. To this, the speech of some investigators points. From this, the confusion found in the books of usul regarding this topic is known. Al-Raghib said: It is permissible that the intention is to negate the "self" from the Exalted, as if He said: "You know what is in my self, but You have no 'self' that I may know what is in it," like the poet’s saying: "And you will not see a lizard nesting there." This, despite its distance, is not something that is needed. Similar to this is what some scholars mentioned: that the second "self" is also the self of ‘Isa—peace be upon him—and he only attributed it to the pronoun of Allah because it is created by Him, the Exalted, as if he said: "You know what is in my self, and I do not know what is in it."
("Indeed, it is You who are the Knower of the Unseen") is a confirmation of the content of the two sentences, both in terms of what is spoken and what is implied, because of the exclusivity (hasr) it contains. Its implication is affirmation, so it confirms "You know what is in my self," because what souls contain is part of the Unseen. It necessitates negation, so it confirms "I do not know what is in Your Self," because that is also of the Unseen. The implication of the negation is that no one knows the Unseen except Him, the Almighty.
