Mafatih al-Ghayb on Maryam 19:33

Surah Maryam (19): Verses 30–33

(30) He said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah.

He described Himself with nine attributes.

The First Attribute: His saying, {Indeed, I am the servant of Allah}.

This statement contains several benefits:

Removing Misconception: The speech coming from Him at that moment was the cause of the delusion that the Christians fell into. Therefore, the first thing He spoke was what would remove that delusion, saying, {Indeed, I am the servant of Allah}. Although this statement, issued from Him in that state, might have suggested something misleading, that illusion is dispelled because it is an explicit declaration of servitude.
Refuting Divinity: If He was truthful in His declaration of servitude, the purpose is achieved. If He was lying, then the power enabling Him to speak was not divine but satanic. In either case, His claim to divinity is nullified.
Prioritizing Purity: What was most urgently needed at that time was to clear the accusation of fornication from Mary (peace be upon her). Yet, Jesus (peace be upon him) did not explicitly address that first. Instead, he affirmed his own servitude, as if establishing the purity of God Almighty was more important than clearing the mother's name. This is why he spoke this first.
Indirect Vindication of Mary: Affirming the purity of God Almighty by denying any association with fornication indirectly clears the mother, because God Almighty does not bestow a child of such high status and great rank upon a fornicatress. Conversely, clearing the mother's name does not necessarily clear God Almighty's name. Thus, addressing the latter was prioritized.

This covers the benefits contained in this statement.

Know that the doctrine of the Christians is very confused. They agree that He (God) is neither a body nor confined to a location. Nevertheless, we will present a comprehensive classification that refutes their doctrine in all aspects.

We say: Either they believe He is confined to a location (a body) or they do not.

If they believe He is confined, we refute their claim by demonstrating the contingency (temporal origination) of bodies, which invalidates everything they derive from it.
If they believe He is not confined, what some of them say—that the Word mixed with the human nature (Nasut) like water mixes with wine or fire mixes with charcoal—is invalidated, as this mixing is only conceivable for bodies. If He is not a body, this is impossible.

Furthermore, people have two views on the nature of man: some say man is this physical structure or a body residing within it; others say man is a pure essence, detached from corporeality and dwelling in bodies.

We say: These Christians either believe that God, or one of His attributes, united with the body of the Messiah, or with His essence; or they believe that God, or one of His attributes, inhabited (Halla) the body or the essence of the Messiah; or they say they do not hold to union (Ittihad) or indwelling (Hulul), but rather that God granted him the power to create bodies and grant life, and for this reason, he is God; or they say none of the above, but rather that He took him as a Son merely as an honor, just as He took Abraham as a close friend (Khalil) as an honor.

These are the conceivable avenues in this matter, and all are false.

The First Claim: Union (Ittihad) is definitively false. When two things unite, during that union, they must either both exist, both cease to exist, or one exists while the other is non-existent.

If both exist, they remain two, not one. Thus, union is false.
If both cease to exist and a third thing results, this is not union but rather a statement about the non-existence of the two and the creation of a third.
If one remains and the other ceases, the non-existent cannot unite with the existent, as it is impossible to say that the non-existent is the existent. This brilliant proof shows that union is impossible.

The Second Claim: Indwelling (Hulul) requires two stages of discussion:

Stage One: Defining Indwelling. Belief must precede knowledge, so we must investigate the essence of Hulul to determine if it can apply to God Almighty. They offer three interpretations of Hulul:

Presence within another: Like rosewater in a rose, oil in sesame seeds, or fire in charcoal. This is false because it only applies if God Almighty were a body, which they agree He is not.
Occurrence like color in a body: The color is conceived to occupy the space occupied by its substrate. This is also only conceivable for bodies, not for God Almighty.
Occurrence like relational attributes of essences: This is also false because the implication of such dependence is neediness. If God Almighty were in something in this sense, He would be needy, thus contingent, and require an agent—which is impossible. Since Hulul cannot be interpreted in a coherent sense applicable to God Almighty, establishing it is impossible.

Stage Two: Arguments Against Indwelling in General. The scholars argue against Hulul absolutely: If indwelling occurred, it must either be necessary indwelling or permissible indwelling. Both cases are false.

Necessary Indwelling: This implies either the contingency (newness) of God or the eternity of the substrate. Both are false, as we have proven God is eternal and bodies are contingent. Furthermore, if indwelling were necessary, God would need the substrate, and something necessary by itself cannot be needy of another, making it contingent—which is impossible.
Permissible Indwelling: Since His essence is necessarily existent by itself, and His indwelling in a substrate is a contingent matter, His indwelling must be something additional to His essence. This is impossible for two reasons:
1. If His indwelling were additional to His essence, the indwelling of that addition in the substrate would also be additional to His essence, leading to an infinite regress (which is impossible).
2. If His indwelling were additional to His essence, then when He indwells in a substrate, a contingent attribute (the indwelling) must arise in Him. If He were capable of contingent events, that capacity would be an essential property, existing eternally. But the existence of contingent events eternally is impossible. Therefore, the capacity for contingent events must be impossible to acquire.

Objections and Responses regarding Necessary Indwelling:

Objection: Why can't we say His essence necessitates indwelling conditional upon the existence of the substrate? In eternity, the condition (substrate) did not exist, so the indwelling was not necessary. In the present, the condition exists, so the indwelling is necessary.
Response: We accept that this implies either the contingency of the indweller or the eternity of the substrate. Why is this impossible?
- Rebuttal to Contingency of the Indweller: We have proven bodies are contingent. Why can't the substrate be an intellect, a soul, or prima materia (as some posit)? Your proof for the contingency of bodies does not apply to these entities.
- Rebuttal to Neediness: We deny that necessity implies neediness. It is possible for a cause to be inseparable from its effect without needing it. Perhaps His essence is self-sufficient, yet His essence necessitates His indwelling in that effect, making the necessity of indwelling a consequence of His essence, not a need for the substrate.
- Alternative View: His essence is self-sufficient, needing neither the substrate nor the indwelling. However, the substrate itself necessitates the attribute of indwelling in Him. Thus, what needs the substrate is one of His relational attributes (His indwelling), not His essence. Relational attributes (like being first, last, simultaneous, agent, known, mentioned) only actualize when spatial confinement occurs. Since relational attributes require two poles, this is not an issue.

Objections and Responses regarding Permissible Indwelling:

Objection: If His indwelling is permissible, it is additional to His essence, leading to infinite regress. Also, He becomes a substrate for contingent events.
Response to Regress: Since His indwelling is permissible, it is additional. However, the fact that this indwelling is itself indwelling in the substrate is necessary, so the regress stops there.
Response to Substrate for Contingents: Why is this impossible? You affirm His power to create eternally, whether inherently or through something terminating in His essence. If He is an eternal agent, we apply everything you say about agency to capacity. If His essence were capable of contingent events, it would have been capable eternally, which we have proven impossible.

We establish this proof in another way that avoids these questions: His essence either sufficiently necessitates this indwelling or it does not.

If it sufficiently necessitates it, then stopping that necessity upon the fulfillment of a condition is impossible, leading back to the necessity of an eternal substrate or a contingent God.
If it does not sufficiently necessitate it, then His necessitating that indwelling is an addition to His essence, which is contingent.

In all scenarios, His indwelling in a substrate necessitates the contingency of something within Him. But it is impossible for Him to be capable of contingent events, as that capacity would have to be eternal, which is impossible. The objection regarding power is irrelevant because God is eternally powerful by His essence, so He is powerful in the present. If His essence were capable of contingent events, it would have been capable eternally, leading to the aforementioned impossibility.

We have other ways to refute the Christians:

The Word (Kalimah): They agree that God's essence did not indwell in Jesus, but the Word did, meaning knowledge (Ilm). If knowledge indwelt in Jesus, either:
- It remained in God's essence. This implies the same attribute existing in two locations, which is inconceivable. If the knowledge in Jesus is identical to the knowledge in God, then the knowledge in everyone could be identical to God's knowledge.
- It ceased to exist in God's essence. This means God ceased to be knowing after His knowledge indwelt in Jesus, which no rational person would claim.
The Argument from Absence of Evidence: A debate I had with a Christian: Does the absence of proof imply the absence of the proven thing?
- If he says no (absence of proof does not mean absence of the thing), then we ask: If you allow the union or indwelling of God's Word in Jesus, how do you know the Word did not enter Zayd or Amr, or this cat or dog? You only affirmed it for Jesus based on the miracles (raising the dead, healing the blind and leper). If these miracles are absent in others, how can you deny the union/indwelling? You admitted that absence of proof doesn't mean absence of the thing. Therefore, if union/indwelling is not inherently impossible, the lack of miracles in Zayd or Amr does not prove the absence of union/indwelling in them. Thus, allowing union/indwelling forces you to allow it for everyone and everything, leading to an absurd doctrine.
- If he says yes (absence of proof implies absence of the thing), then we ask: Why must God be contingent, since the proof for His eternity is the world, and if the absence of the proof implies absence of the proven, then the absence of the world in eternity implies the absence of the Creator in eternity—which is impossible.
- Furthermore, how do the miracles (raising the dead, healing) prove divinity? The staff turning into a serpent (Moses' miracle) is a greater transformation. If that did not prove Moses' divinity, why should Jesus' lesser miracles prove His divinity?
Servitude is Stronger Evidence: The circumstances of Jesus indicate servitude more strongly than divinity. He was intensely devoted to worship, which is only fitting for a servant. He was extremely detached from the world, so much so that the Christians claim the Jews killed him. How can divinity suit someone so weak?
Contingency: The Messiah is either eternal or contingent. Claiming eternity is false, as we know by necessity that he was born, was a child, became a youth, ate, drank, and experienced human frailties. If he is contingent, he is created, and servitude is simply being created. If they say the attribute of divinity indwelt in him, then the substrate (Jesus) is contingent and created. How can a contingent, created being be described as God?
The Nature of Sonship: A son must share some nature with the father. If God has a son, they must share something. If they share something, they are identical in that aspect. If they are distinguished by something, that distinguishing factor is different from the shared factor, implying composition in God's essence. Every composite being is contingent. Thus, the Necessary Being is contingent—a logical impossibility.

This refutes the claims of Union and Indwelling.

The Third Possibility: Granting Power. That God granted him the power to create bodies and manage the world, making him divine. This is also false because the Christians themselves recount his weakness and helplessness, and that the Jews killed him. If he had the power to create bodies, they could not have killed him; rather, he could have killed them or created an army to defend himself.

The Fourth Possibility: Honorific Sonship. That God took him as a Son as an honor. This is held by a group called the Arminians, and it contains little error except in terminology.

This concludes the refutation of the Christians, confirming the truth of what God recounted Him saying: {Indeed, I am the servant of Allah}.

The Second Attribute: {and He has made me the Book [Scripture]...}

This involves several issues:

Issue 1: Timing of the Statement. People differed on when He said this.

The majority hold that He said this while He was a child.
Abu al-Qasim al-Balkhi said He said it when He was adolescent, understanding but not yet accountable.
The first group has two opinions:
1. He was a Prophet at that young age.
2. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may God be pleased with him) that he said: The meaning of {He has decreed} was that God decreed He would be sent later. When Jesus spoke this, he fell silent and returned to childhood. God sent him as a Prophet when he reached thirty.

Those who argue against the first opinion cite:

A Prophet must be perfect, but a child is physically deficient. Such a challenge from a child would be repulsive, even more so than a woman speaking.
If he were a Prophet at that age, his intellect must have been complete, as a Prophet must have a complete intellect. If his intellect was complete at that time, it was a miracle preceding the challenge, which is impermissible.
If he were a Prophet then, he would have been obligated to explain rulings and laws. If this had happened, it would have been famous and transmitted, but since it was not, he was not a Prophet then.

The first group responds:

Regarding deficiency: The deficiency is due to his small body and limited understanding, not his essence. If God removed these, repulsion would turn into desire to hear him, making his state more perfect.
Regarding intellect: Why can't his intellectual completion, though preceding his claim, be a miracle for Zechariah, a precursor (Irhas) to his prophethood, or a miracle for Mary? We accept precursors and miracles.
Regarding rulings: Why can't his initial mission be simply being sent, without explaining laws, with the explanation of laws occurring after maturity?

Thus, there is no impossibility in him being a Prophet at that time, and the verse {and He has made me the Book} indicates he was a Prophet then, so we must take the apparent meaning, unlike what Ikrimah narrated. Abu al-Qasim al-Balkhi's view is remote, as the need for Jesus' speech only arose when the accusation against Mary surfaced.

Issue 2: The Meaning of "The Book" (Al-Kitab).

Some say it means the Torah, as the definite article (Al) refers to the known scripture, which was the Torah for them.
Abu Muslim said it means the Gospel, as the definite article here signifies the genus (i.e., He gave me a scripture of this kind).
Some say it means both the Torah and the Gospel, as the definite article implies totality/comprehensiveness.

Issue 3: When He Received the Book and Prophethood. The phrasing {and He has made me the Book, and He has made me a Prophet} suggests these occurred before or concurrent with the speech. Apparently, before He spoke to them, God gave Him the Book, made Him a Prophet, and commanded Him to pray, give charity, and call people to God and His religion, along with the specific law He was given. It is said this revelation came while He was in the womb; others say after He separated from His mother. He spoke to His mother, informed her of His state, and told her He would speak to them to prove her innocence, which is why she pointed to Him.

The Third Attribute: {and He has made me a Prophet}

Some say this means He was informed that He was a Prophet, but not a Messenger, because at that time, He brought no new law. Being a Prophet, in this view, means being elevated in rank. This is weak, because in religious terminology, a Prophet is one whom God has chosen for prophethood and, especially when linked to mention of law (as in {and He commanded me to pray and give charity}), also for the message.

The Fourth Attribute: {and He has made me blessed, wherever I be}

One might ask: How was he made blessed when people before him were on the correct religion, but after him, some became Jews and others Christians (believing in the Trinity), with only a few remaining on the truth?

The answer involves several interpretations of "blessed" (Mubarak):

Linguistically: Barakah means stability, originating from the kneeling of a camel. Thus, it means He made me steadfast and established upon God's religion.
Teaching: He was blessed because he taught people their religion and called them to the path of truth. If they strayed, it was by their own fault, not his. Al-Hasan narrated from the Prophet (PBUH) that Mary brought Jesus to the teacher and stipulated he not be beaten. When the teacher told him to write "Abjad," Jesus raised his head and asked, "Do you know what Abjad is?" When the teacher raised a stick to strike him, Jesus said, "O instructor, do not strike me! If you do not know, ask me, and I will teach you: Alif is from the Alaa' (Favors) of God, Baa' from the Bahaa' (Splendor) of God, Jeem from the Jamaal (Beauty) of God, and Dal from the Adaa' (Fulfillment) of duty to God."
Increase and Elevation: It means He made me victorious and successful in all circumstances. As long as I remain in the world, I will be superior to others through argument, and when the appointed time comes, God will honor me by raising me to heaven.
Blessing to People: He was a blessing to people through whom the dead were raised and the blind and lepers were healed. Qatadah narrated that a woman saw him raising the dead and healing the afflicted and said, "Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breast that suckled you." Jesus replied, "Blessed is he who recites the Book of God and follows what is in it, and is not a proud tyrant."

As for {wherever I be}, this indicates that his state did not change, even if some say he returned to childhood and the removal of accountability.

The Fifth Attribute: {and He has commanded me to pray and give charity...}

If He commanded prayer and charity while He was a child, for whom the pen is lifted (as the Prophet said, "The pen is lifted from three: the child until he reaches puberty"), there are two responses:

Future Command: {and He has commanded me to pray and give charity} does not imply He was commanded to perform them immediately, but rather after reaching puberty. The command was to perform them at the appointed time, which is maturity.
Instant Maturity: Perhaps when Jesus separated from his mother, God made him mature, rational, fully formed, and complete, supporting the verse {Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam} (Al Imran 3:59). Just as God created Adam fully formed instantly, so too with Jesus. This second view is closer to the apparent meaning due to {as long as I am alive}, which implies this obligation applies throughout his life on earth.

However, one might object: If he was fully formed when they saw him, his speaking would not be astonishing, and they should not have wondered. Therefore, the first view is preferable: God made him, despite his small body, strong in composition and complete in intellect, enabling him to perform prayer and charity. The verse indicates that his obligation did not change whether he was on earth, raised to heaven, or when he descends again.

The Sixth Attribute: {and to be dutiful to my mother}

This means God made him dutiful to his mother. This supports our view that human actions are created by God, as the verse indicates his dutifulness was achieved by God's making and creating it. Interpreting this as merely "kindness" is deviating from the apparent meaning. Furthermore, {and to be dutiful to my mother} is an indication of her purity from fornication, as a sinless Prophet would not be commanded to honor an adulteress.

The author of Al-Kashshaf says: He made his essence dutiful, due to the intensity of his dutifulness, and the accusative case is due to a verb implying command, similar to {and He commanded me to pray}, as commanding and instructing are equivalent here.

The Seventh Attribute: {and He has not made me a tyrant or wretched}

This also supports our view. Since He mentioned making him dutiful and not making him a tyrant, this only makes sense if God made others tyrannical or undutiful. If God made everyone dutiful and not tyrannical, Jesus would have no special distinction. Since he mentioned this in the context of specialization, it implies a distinction. {and He has not made me a tyrant} means He did not make me arrogant; rather, I am humble toward her. If I were a tyrant, I would be disobedient and wretched.

It is narrated that Jesus said: "My heart is tender, and I am humble in myself." Some scholars said: You will not find a wise person except that he is a proud tyrant, and they recited: {and to be dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a tyrant or wretched}. And you will not find a bad master except that he is boastful and proud, and they recited: {and what your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are boastful and proud} (An-Nisa 4:36).

The Eighth Attribute: {And peace be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I am resurrected alive.}

This involves several issues:

Issue 1: The Definite Article in "Peace" (As-Salam).

Some say the definite article refers back to what was mentioned concerning John (peace be upon him) in {And peace be upon him} (19:15). Thus, the peace mentioned for the three occasions applies to him as well.
The author of Al-Kashshaf says the correct view is that this definiteness is a compensation for the curse upon those who accused Mary of fornication. The Lam signifies totality. When he says {And peace be upon me}, it is as if he says, "All peace is upon me and my followers," leaving only cursing for the enemies. This is analogous to Moses' saying: {And peace be upon whoever follows the guidance} (Taha 20:47), meaning punishment is for whoever denies and turns away. This context of obstinacy and contention suits such an allusion.

Issue 2: Comparison with John. Some narrated that Jesus said to John: "You are better than me. God sent peace upon you, and I sent peace upon myself." Al-Hasan responded: His peace upon himself is by virtue of God's peace upon him.

Issue 3: The Meaning of Peace. The Judge said: Peace is an expression for what brings security, including safety in blessings and the removal of afflictions. It is as if he asked his Lord for what God informed Him He had granted John. Prophets must have their supplications answered. The greatest moments of human need for security are birth, death, and resurrection. He requested that safety and the gathering of happiness be granted to him by God in all these states, so he would be protected from afflictions and fears in every circumstance.

Know that the Jews and Christians deny that Jesus spoke in infancy. They argue that this is such a wondrous event that the motivation to transmit it would be overwhelming. If it had happened, it would have been transmitted by mass narration (Tawatur). If so, the Christians, who are the most zealous in investigating his affairs and exaggerating about him to the point of claiming divinity, would have known it. Since they do not know it, despite their intense love and investigation, we know it did not happen. Furthermore, when the Jews showed enmity upon his claim of prophethood, if he had spoken in infancy and claimed prophethood, their enmity would have been fiercer, and their intent to kill him greater. Since none of that occurred, we know he did not speak.

As for the Muslims, they argue rationally that he must have spoken, because without his speech proving his mother's innocence from fornication, they would have been obligated to carry out the prescribed punishment on her. Their abandonment of the punishment indicates he spoke in the cradle. They answer the first doubt by saying perhaps few people were present when he spoke, so it did not become famous. They answer the second by saying perhaps the Jews were not present and did not hear his speech, so they did not focus on killing him.

(31) and He has made me blessed wherever I be, and He has enjoined upon me prayer and charity as long as I be alive.

(32) and dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a tyrant or wretched.

(33) And peace be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I am resurrected alive.

(34) That is Jesus, the son of Mary—the statement of truth about which they are in dispute.

(35) It is not for Allah to take a son. Exalted is He! When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, "Be," and it is.

Tafsir of Maryam 19:30-33

Mafatih al-Ghayb

Surah Maryam (19): Verses 30–33