Maryam (19): He said, "I am only..."

Issues Discussed:

When Gabriel realized her fear, he said, {I am only a messenger from your Lord} to remove that fear from her. However, the fear would not vanish merely by this statement; rather, there needed to be a sign indicating that he was Gabriel, peace be upon him, and not a human being.

There are two possibilities here:

1. He might have manifested a miracle that allowed her to recognize him as Gabriel, peace be upon him.
2. She might have known the nature of angels through Zachariah, peace be upon him. When Gabriel said, {I am only a messenger from your Lord}, he might have revealed something from the interior of his body that made her recognize him as an angel, and this served as the recognition.

Al-Qadi Abd al-Jabbar, in his commentary, asked himself: If you (the rationalists) do not consider her a prophet, and you hold that God only sends messengers to His creation as men, how can this event be valid? He answered that this occurred in the time of Zachariah, peace be upon him, and Gabriel was a messenger, and Zachariah knew all of this. This view is weak because if a miracle is performed for a Prophet, the least requirement is that the Prophet must be aware of it. Zachariah did not have knowledge of these specific events, so how can it be valid to make it a miracle for him? Rather, the truth is that this was either a Karāmah (honor) for Maryam or an Irḥāṣ (precursor sign) for Jesus, peace be upon him.

Ibn 'Amir and Nafi' recited it as {liyahaba} (with a yā' opened after the lām), meaning "that God may give you." The rest recited it with an opened hamza (i.e., {li'ahaba}).

Regarding the phrase {li'ahaba laka} (that I may give you), there are two interpretations concerning its grammatical implication:

1. The first: Since the giving occurred through his agency (as he was the one who breathed into her bosom by God's command), he attributed the action to himself as if he were the one giving it. Attributing an action to what is its cause is a common usage, as seen in the verse about idols: {Indeed, they have led astray many of the people} (Ibrahim: 36).
2. The second: When Gabriel brought her this true tidings, that tidings served the function of a gift.

If someone asks: What is the proof that Gabriel, peace be upon him, cannot combine parts, create life, intellect, and speech within them? What is said is that Gabriel is a body, and a body cannot do these things. As for him being a body, it is because he is created (muḥdath), and every created thing is either a localized entity (mutaḥayyiz) or subsists in a localized entity. As for a body being incapable of these things, it is because if one body could do this, every body could do it, as bodies are similar (mutamāthil).

This is weak because the opponent can argue: We do not concede that every created thing is either localized or subsists in a localized entity. Rather, there exist entities that subsist by themselves, neither localized nor subsisting in a localized entity. It does not follow from their being such that they resemble God's essence, because sharing in positive attributes does not necessitate similarity, let alone similarity in negative attributes.

Even if we concede he is a body, why do you say a body cannot do this? You say bodies are similar. We mean they are similar in that they occupy space and are subject to direction, or we mean they are similar in the entirety of their essences. The first is conceded, but occupying space is an attribute of those entities, and sharing an attribute does not necessitate sharing the essence being described. Even if we concede bodies are similar, why is it not possible that God Almighty specifically endowed some of them with this power while withholding it from others, such that it is valid for them but not for humans?

The answer is that the reliance in repelling this possibility is solely upon the consensus of the Ummah (community). And God knows best.

Zakiy implies three things:

1. That he is pure from sins.
2. That he grows through purification (tazkiyah), as it is said of one without sin that he is zakiy, and it is said of growing crops that they are zakiy.
3. Integrity and purity concerning what is required for him to be sent as a Prophet.

Some theologians said the best approach is to apply it to all three meanings, but this is weak, based on what is known in Usul al-Fiqh: A single word cannot be applied to two meanings, whether it is literal in both, or literal in one and metaphorical in the other.

He was named Zakiy even though he possessed nothing of the world. If you look in your marketplace, whoever owns nothing is considered wretched (shaqī) by you. The Zakiy is the one who possesses wealth, yet God says he was Zakiy. This is because his way of life was poverty, and his wealth was wisdom and the Book. As for you, you are called Zakiy only if your way of life is ignorance and your path is money.