Verses 1–15

Chapter 19: Maryam · Printed edition: Volume 27, pp. 1–38

بِسۡمِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

In the name of God, the most Merciful, the most Compassionate

The purpose of the chapter (sūrah) is to warn and give glad tidings. This is evidenced by the chapter’s concluding verses where God says: So We have only made it easy in your tongue that you may give good news thereby to those who guard (against evil) and warn thereby a vehemently contentious people ().

This objective is achieved in an innovative approach that begins by recounting the stories of Zachariah and John [the Baptist], Mary and Jesus, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses and Aaron, Ishmael (Ismāʿīl) and Enoch (Idrīs) [peace be upon them all]. It describes that which was conferred to them of the favor (niʿmah) of divine guardianship (wilāyāh) such as Prophethood, truthfulness and purity of action. It then retells that these individuals, whom God favored, were known for their submission and humility to their Lord. Regrettably, the verses continue, they were succeeded by those that turned away from that path by becoming heedless to their Lord, following their base desires instead. In turn, they will ultimately meet their perdition and loose their rectitude. Only those of them that repent and return to their Lord will be joined with the people of divine favor (niʿmah).

The chapter then discusses selections of the blunders and delusions that the people of error fall into including (1) their denial of Hereafter, (2) their belief that “God has taken a son to Himself” [vide ] and (3) their worship of idols. It then continues by depicting the punishment and retribution that they will face as a consequence of these devastating mistakes.

Hence, the discourse in this chapter can best be compared with that of a prosecutor making his case by citing legal precedents. It is as if the chapter is saying: The approach of so-and-so and so-and-so, who were on the path of rectitude and were blessed by God, was to abstain from base desires, and to turn toward their Lord. Their custom was to be submissive and humble whenever the communications of their Lord were recited to them. This is mankind’s approach to rectitude and divine favor (niʿmah). On the other hand, those who came after them abandoned this approach by turning away from righteous deeds toward reprehensible desires. This only led them to perdition as opposed to rectitude. Further, it only settled them in false beliefs such as denying the return to God and affirming partners for Him. It only drove them to obstruct the call to God and only led them into divine retribution and chastisement.

Therefore, as the reader can see, the chapter begins by providing examples to then deduce the universal lesson to be illustrated. A prime example is found in the verse: These are they on whom God bestowed favors …()

The chapter classifies people into three groups, namely (1) the top beneficiaries of God’s favors, including the Prophets, the chosen ones and the people of guidance, (2) those people of error and perdition and (3) those who repent, believe and do righteous deeds, who will be joined with the people of God’s favor (niʿmah) and of rectitude, the top beneficiaries of God’s favors.

The chapter then discusses the reward of those who repent and seek rectitude, as well as the punishment of those in perdition. It describes the latter group as the peers and loyal associates of the devils.

This chapter was revealed in Mecca without a doubt, as shown and verified by the content of the verses and by the consensus of the exegetes.

Commentary

كهيعص ١

(19:1) Kāf Hāʾ Yāʾ ʿAyn Ṣād

At the beginning of the exegesis of Sūrah al-ʾAʿrāf, it was mentioned [in Ar. vol. 8] that the chapters which begin with a combination of disjoint alphabetical letters (ḥūrūf-muqaṭṭaʿah) are thematically linked to these opening letters. Hence, chapters that share the same opening letters will also contain common themes. This is supported by some of the links and similarities seen between this chapter and Sūrah Ṣād, [especially in] regard to telling the stories of the Prophets. There will be a comprehensive discussion later on, God willing, on the links between the disjoint opening letters and the contents of the chapters which begin with them. In turn, a comparative analysis on the themes of chapters that share the same opening letters is in order. For example, we will compare this chapter and Sūrah Yā Sīn, insofar as they have the letter yāʾ in common, and this chapter and Sūrah al-Shūrā [The Counsel], insofar as they have the letter ʿayn in common.

ذِكْرُ رَحْمَتِ رَبِّكَ عَبْدَهُ زَكَرِيَّا ٢

(19:2) A mention (dhikr) of the mercy of your Lord to His servant Zachariah.

It is apparent from the context that ‘mention’ (dhikr) is the predicate of an implied subject. The verbal noun (that is, dhikr) is the same as the object. The implied meaning is: “This is a communication of your Lord’s aforementioned (madhkūr) mercy”. The ‘aforementioned mercy’ is God’s answer to Zachariah’s prayer, the details of which are in the story He immediately tells in the coming verses. This is evidenced by what He says subsequently: When he called upon his Lord in a low voice.

إِذْ نَادَىٰ رَبَّهُ نِدَاءً خَفِيًّا ٣

(19:3) When (idh) he called upon his Lord in a low voice.

The locative object (ẓarf) [idh meaning “when”] is connected to the “mercy of your Lord”. The words nidāʾ and munādāt both mean calling out loud. It is not contradictory to describe it as hidden (khafiyy) because it is possible to loudly call out in private without people hearing one’s call. This is also the impression given by: “So he came out to his people from his place of worship”. []

Some exegetes have said that the point of using the word nidāʾ is to convey the fact that he considered himself to be distanced from God due to his sins and poor circumstances, as is the condition of one who fears His punishment.

قَالَ رَبِّ إِنِّي وَهَنَ الْعَظْمُ مِنِّي وَاشْتَعَلَ الرَّأْسُ شَيْبًا وَلَمْ أَكُنْ بِدُعَائِكَ رَبِّ شَقِيًّا٤

(19:4) He said: My Lord! surely my bones are weakened and my head flares with gray, and, my Lord! I have never been unsuccessful in my supplication to You.

This opens the prelude to what he [Zachariah] is going to ask for: therefore grant me from Yourself an heir. He put the word rabbī (my Lord) first, at the beginning of the supplication, to seek and plead for divine mercy (raḥmah). The expression innā which contains inna, meaning ‘surely’, further affirms Zachariah’s oneness with his total need [to God].

Wahn means weakness and deficiency in strength. He attributed this weakness to al-ʿaẓm (the bone) because it is the substructure that supports the body in motion and at rest. He did not say al-ʿiẓam minnī (these bones of mine) or ʿaẓmī (my bones). Instead, he referred to ‘bones’ by genus, pointing to the intrinsic characteristics of all bones. Hence, he stated that which applies generally before that which pertains particularly to himself.

And my head flares with gray: ʾIshtiʿal means the spread of a fire’s flames and blaze in something which is burning. Majmaʿ al-bayān says: “Wa [i]shtaʿala al-raʾsu shayban is one of the most beautiful metaphors. It means that gray or white hair flared and spread around the head like a fire’s diffusion”. Here the intending meaning of diffusion (shuʿāʿ) is a fire’s flames and blaze.

Shaqāwa which means misery is the opposite of saʿāda which means felicity. It means being deprived of good, which is concomitant to misery or is synonymous with it. Bi duʿaʾika, in my supplication to You, is linked to shaqiyyan, miserable. The letter bāʾ indicates causation (because of). Alternatively, it means fī (in). All together, it means: “I was fortunate because of my supplication to You. Every time I pray to You, You answer me without rendering me miserable”. Another alternative is: “I have never been deprived and disappointed in my supplication to You. You have made me accustomed to Your response whenever I call You and to Your acceptance whenever I petition You”. In any event the word duʿāʾ, supplication, is a verbal noun (maṣdar) annexed to the object.

Some exegetes have said in the alternative that bi duʿāʾika is a verbal noun annexed to the subject, meaning: “I have never been wretched, rebellious, or disobedient to Your call to servitude and obedience, but rather I am servile to You and sincere in obedience to You”. However, the previous interpretation is more likely.

There is eloquence beyond measure in repeating the word rabbī (my Lord) and positioning it between the subject and predicate of the verb kān (was) in: akun (first person singular jussive form of the verb implying the subject) bi duʿāʾika rabbī shaqiyyan (predicate) (and, my Lord! I have never been wretched in my supplication to You). Wa [i]jʿalhu rabbī raḍiyyan (and make him, my Lord, one in whom You are well pleased) is similar to it.

وَإِنِّي خِفْتُ الْمَوَالِيَ مِنْ وَرَائِي وَكَانَتِ امْرَأَتِي عَاقِرًا

(19:5) And surely I fear my paternal uncles and and their sons (mawālī) after me, and my wife was barren …

This completes the prelude to Zachariah’s plea to God to grant him an heir from Himself. Mawālī here means paternal uncles and their sons. Other interpretations for mawālī that exegetes have adopted include (1) indirect heirs other than father or son relations (kalālah), (2) direct or indirect male heirs (ʿuṣbah), (3) the sons of paternal uncles exclusively and (4) heirs in general. Irrespective, it is clear that mawālī refers to heirs other than one’s biological children. Hence the intended meaning is: “I fear the doing of the mawālī after me, meaning, after my death”. He feared that he would die without children as heirs to inherit from him. Hence, mawālī was used as a metonymy to express the consequence that Zachariah feared: to die without anyone to carry after him [from his loins].

… and my wife was barren: A woman who is ʿāqir is one that cannot bear children while a man who is ʿāqir cannot beget any children. Hence, when he said: and my wife was barren, he, first, implied that she was barren and, secondly, that she has passed the childbearing age at the time of his supplication. The ability of this verse to be so concise and clear of repetition is due to (1) the fact that, and my wife was barren is a circumstantial phrase and (2) the segment of the verse from, and surely I fear till was barren is a single atomic unit. As a result, this segment of the verse could read as: “My wife’s barrenness dictates that I should fear my paternal uncles and their sons (mawālī) after I have passed away”.

Everything Zachariah said in prelude [, in verses 4 and 5,] to the heart of his supplication [, starting from “therefore grant from Yourself an heir” till the end of verse 6,] can be broken down into two parts. The first part is that God had answered his supplications time and again throughout his life, until he had become old and feeble. The second part is that he feared his paternal uncles and their sons after his death because of his wife’s barrenness. It is also reasonable to look at the words as comprised of three parts, taking the descriptions of his old age and his wife barrenness as two distinct parts.

فَهَبْ لِي مِنْ لَدُنْكَ وَلِيًّا ٥ يَرِثُنِي وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ ۖوَاجْعَلْهُ رَبِّ رَضِيًّا ٦

(19:5-6) … therefore grant me from Yourself an heir, Who should inherit from me and inherit from the children of Jacob, and make him, my Lord, pleasing.

This is the actual core of Zachariah’s supplication. The conditional clause “from Yourself” applied to “grant me” expresses Zachariah’s despair from the ordinary means at his disposal, himself having become old and decrepit and having lost his strength and his wife having become old having previously been barren.

A person’s waliyy is someone who takes charge of his affairs. The waliyy of the deceased is someone who takes care of his affairs and inherits his estate. A man’s family (āl) is his elect and closest, [those] whom he is responsible for, example, his children, relatives, and companions. It is said that its etymological origin is ahl. Jacob, as some have said, means Jacob son of Isaac son of Abraham. Alternatively, it is said that it means, Jacob son of Māthān, brother of of Amram son of Māthān. Amram son of Māthān is Mary’s father and Zachariah’s wife was Mary’s sister. Hence, based on this interpretation, who should inherit from me and inherit from the children of Jacob means: “who should inherit from me and inherit from my wife who is a relative to Jacob’s family”. On the basis of this interpretation, the most likely grammatical explanation of min in min Āl Yaʿqūb is that it is partitive meaning “of Jacob’s family”, even though it would also be correct to interpret it as a locative meaning “from Jacob’s family”.

In the phrase, and make him, my Lord, pleasing (raḍiyyan), raḍiyy means marḍiyy, that is, with whom God is well pleased. The lack of any specificity to raḍiyy broadens the scope of its applicability to include knowledge and deeds. Thus it depicts one whose belief and deeds are well-pleasing to God. All together it means: “My Lord, grace him with useful knowledge and good deeds”.

God told this story at the end of the account of Mary in Sūrah Āl-ʿImrān [The Family of Amram] which is Medinite—that is, revealed after [Sūrah] Mary, which is Meccan: … So her Lord accepted her with a good acceptance and made her grow up a good growing, and gave her into the charge of Zachariah; whenever Zachariah entered the sanctuary to (see) her, he found with her food. He said: O Mary! whence comes this to you? She said: It is from God. Surely God gives to whom He pleases without measure He said: O Mary! whence comes this to you? She said: It is from God. Surely God gives to whom He pleases without measure. There did Zachariah pray to his Lord; he said: My Lord! grant me from You good offspring; surely You are the Hearer of supplication ().

Anyone reflecting on the above two verses should not be in any doubt that what led Zachariah to supplicate as he did, in verses 4 to 6, was seeing how Mary was esteemed in the sight of God by virtue of her servitude and sincerity of deeds. This sparked in Zachariah the desire to beseech God to grant him offspring as favored and esteemed before Him as was Mary. Then, he complained to God about his old age and infirmity and about the old age and barrenness which had befallen his wife. More so, he continued that his indirect heirs, his paternal uncles and their sons, did not have the aptitude to carry after him and the prospect of their indirect successorship grieved him. Notwithstanding, he was mindful and certain that his Lord repeatedly answered his supplications and sufficed him in every matter. Thus he sought refuge in his Lord, supplicating and evoking God to grant him a good offspring.

The divine words in Sūrah Āl-ʿImrān: My Lord! grant me from You good offspring equates with the words in Sūrah Maryam: therefore grant me from Yourself an heir who should inherit from me and inherit from the children of Jacob, and make him, my Lord, pleasing.

The word “good” (ṭayyibah) [, in Sūrah Āl-ʿImrān] equates with the words “and make him, my Lord, pleasing (raḍiyyan)”. The intent of Zachariah when he supplicated for an offspring that would be well-pleasing was that they would have favor and esteem with God like he witnessed in Mary by virtue of her good deeds. In turn, My Lord! grant me from You offspring equates and explains, therefore grant me from Yourself an heir, who should inherit from me and inherit from the children of Jacob. Hence, an heir, who should inherit from me speaks of an heir directly from his offspring.

With this understanding, the incorrectness of the following claims becomes clear including those that said (1) that, therefore grant me from Yourself an heir, who should inherit from me means that he was asking for someone to take his place, irrespective of whether he was a son or not, or (2) that He despaired of having a child with his wife so he asked for his successorship and role to be passed on to anyone deemed worthy, be he from any of his people. Furthermore, using the words, therefore grant me (hab lī) is suggestive of a type of ownership which cannot properly be said of anyone who is not a member of his family. Such non-familial relationships are best described with the expression jaʿl, making, as found in: … and give us (wa ajʿal lanā) from You a guardian and give us (wa ajʿal lanā) from You a helper ().

Thus it is clear that, an heir (waliyy), who should inherit from me means offspring as it is referred to in the verse in Sūrah Āl-ʿImrān by the term dhurriyya which means offspring. Hence, here waliyy (heir) equates with dhurriyya (offspring) and it is the custodian (waliyy) of one’s inheritance. Further, the inheritance in question is that of the inheritance of the estate of the deceased including their wealth and material assets. No matter how we conceive of inheritance, without a doubt, material inheritance always comes to mind. On one hand, if we think of inheritance as literally implying the inheritance of wealth and property all while implying metaphorically the inheritance of immaterial possessions or attributes such as knowledge, then our conception of inheritance includes the material dimension. On the other hand, if we take inheritance to literally imply all aspects of inheritance, including the material and the immaterial, then our understanding of inheritance also includes the material. In any event, the apparent and most immediate meaning of the expression, yarithunī—who should inherit from me, is the inheritance of wealth and property. Hence, the intent in qualifying waliyy, which generally means guardian or custodian, with yarithunī, meaning who should inherit from me, is to denote a child or a biological heir. Moreover, the preceding phrase, and surely I fear my paternal uncles and their sons after me, serves to increase the likelihood of an heir (waliyy), who should inherit from me meaning material inheritance. Further explanation of this is coming up, God willing.

The claim that, therefore grant me from Yourself an heir, who should inherit from me means inheritance of Prophethood and that he asked his Lord to grant him a son to inherit his Prophethood is refuted by what the reader has already learned. Zachariah’s incentive to supplicate and make his request before God was what he witnessed in Mary. There is no oral tradition or evidence for her having been a Prophetess. Hence, what link is there between his being impressed with her worship and her honor in the sight of God, and his asking his Lord for a son to inherit his Prophethood?

Moreover, Prophethood is not obviously hereditary. Even if we accept, for the sake of argument that inheritance here just means one Prophet coming after another or that a Prophet comes from the offspring of another through a kind of divine care, another problem would arise. Namely, based on this interpretation, it would be inappropriate to say subsequently: and make him, my Lord, pleasing. This is because it makes no sense to say: “Grant me a son who is a Prophet and make him one in whom You are well pleased”. If it is construed as emphasis, it emphasizes something of a higher rank like Prophethood through something of a lower rank such as being well-pleasing.

A logical inconsistency also emerges in interpreting raḍiyy as pleasing to people because it opposes the broadness of applicability of the expression raḍiyy, as discussed above. This is in addition to the fact that this interpretation does not match the reason he had for saying this supplication as mentioned earlier.

Almost as incorrect as the above interpretation is the claim that inheritance in, therefore grant me from Yourself an heir means inheritance of knowledge. In other words, he asked his Lord to grant him a son to inherit his knowledge. There is no causal link between Zachariah being impressed with Mary’s worship and spiritual rank and his asking his Lord for a son to inherit his knowledge.

Other exegetes have said that inheritance means inheritance of knowledge and that, And make him, my Lord, pleasing, refers to good deeds. Beneficial knowledge and good deeds together, they continued, is the like of what he saw in Mary’s sincerity, her worship, and her status with God. However, this is refuted by the fact that the clause, and make him, my Lord, pleasing (raḍiyy), alone suffices to recount that Zachariah evoked God to be granted a son that held beneficial knowledge and performed good deeds. As explained earlier, raḍiyy, is a standalone unbounded qualifier and encompasses both knowledge and deeds. However, if we accept the interpretation that well-pleasing describes a person who performs good deeds with little attention to knowledge, we contradict the premise that well-pleasing (marḍiyy) meant pleasing in every way. Similarly, the claim that raḍiyy means pleasing to the people also does not align with the expression’s broadness by restricting its application to one aspect without another.

Almost as incorrect is the claim that inheritance means the inheritance of piety (taqwā) and esteem and that he asked his Lord to grant him a son to inherit his [Zachariah’s] closeness to God and his station in His sight.

Author’s comment: It would have been appropriate for him in the context shown earlier with the related verses from Sūrah Āl-ʿImrān, to ask for a son as close and esteemed to God as was Mary, or simply to ask for a son that is close and esteemed in the absolute sense, and not to ask for a son to whom his own closeness and rank with God would pass. Furthermore, it does not fit with what he said, “And surely I fear my paternal uncles and their sons after me” because it is apparent from the context that he was asking for a son to inherit from him and to whom everything—that would otherwise pass to his indirect heirs (mawālī)—could pass. He feared that they would exploit that after his death. Of course, there is no reason to believe that he feared that his indirect heirs (mawālī) would gain proximity and rank with God and that they become God wary and noble, either before his death or after. Prophets stand aloof of any such miserliness. Their sole wish is nothing but the well-being and felicity of all people.

Some claim that his indirect heirs (mawālī) were the worst of the Children of Israel, so he feared that they would not be good successors to him in his nation after his death.

Author’s comment: If this succession means divine esoteric spiritual succession, it is definitely not hereditary. More so, it never misses its rightful target and can only ever be assumed by its true owner. There is no reason to fear for it. If it means a worldly exoteric material succession, which is passed down through one’s line or by similar means, it is then a societal acquisition and one of the chattels of life in this world—like property. Thus, there is no point in not interpreting the inheritance in the verse as inheritance of property and instead interpreting it as inheritance of succession and government.

Furthermore, John did not take [charge of] any of the caliphate or government, which would have indicated that [he saw it] as his inheritance and was thus depriving his father’s kinsmen from inheriting it, nor did the Children of Israel have any dominion during the time of Zachariah or John. On the contrary, they were under Roman occupation and rule.

Some exegetes have said that the interpretation of inheritance in the verse refers to the inheritance of knowledge and so on, not property. They explain that this is supported by the fact that there is not even a fly’s wingspan’s inclination toward worldly chattels in the high outlooks and highest aspirations possessed by holy souls—especially Zachariah’s—which have cut themselves off from attachments to this fleeting, ephemeral world, and instead cling to the everlasting world. Zachariah was well-known for being completely cut off and detached, so ordinarily it would be impossible for him to worry, show concern, sorrow or fear on account of the inheritance of money and chattels which by his high standards did not have the slightest value. Saying that he made a supplication like this to his Lord for such motives would falsely imply that his heart was completely attached and in love with this world and its embellishments. Further, they continue, that saying that he asked his Lord for a pleasing heir because he feared his kinsmen would spend his money on what they should not after his death also lacks evidence. They elaborate that when a man dies and his property passes through inheritance to another, it becomes the property of the beneficiary. From there, spending it is the beneficiary’s responsibility irrespective of whether he does so properly or wrongly, and there is no censure or blame on the deceased. Further, they go on, dispelling this fear would have been easy for him, as he could have disposed of all his money before his death, and given it all to charity on God’s path, [thereby] leaving his evil paternal cousins disappointed because of their bad ways and repugnant deeds. Hence, they conclude, his only motive for asking for a son was to apply God’s laws, spread the Shariah, and for Prophethood to continue in his offspring.

Author’s comment: The objection presented above is based on the belief that [his supplication], grant me from Yourself an heir, who should inherit from me, is a request for his offspring to inherit his property, when in fact the opposite is true. His primary motive behind saying, an heir, who should inherit me, was to ask for a son, as is also clear from the direct speech cited: … My Lord! grant me from You good offspring, and elsewhere (), … O my Lord leave me not alone ().

The clause, who should inherit from me, is just a contextual indication that waliyy here means heir, that is, son because the word, wilāyah (guardianship), has a general meaning applicable in different ways. The only way the specific meaning of wilāyah can be disambiguated is with a contextual identifier. For example, in: … and they shall have no friends (awliyāʾ) to help them besides God (), the guardianship (wilāyah) is qualified as being a guardianship of help and support. Another example is in: … and (as for) the believing men and the believing women, they are guardians (awliyāʾ) of each other; they enjoin good and forbid evil (). Here wilāya means upholding societal balance because it is qualified by enjoining good and forbidding evil. There are other examples.

With this understanding, it becomes clear that if there had been no indication of financial inheritance to designate the nature of the guardianship (wilāyat) in question, there would be nothing left to indicate that a son is being asked for, which was the very purpose of the supplication. Inheritance of knowledge, Prophethood, worship, and spiritual status do not signify that an inheritor is [necessarily] a son, as confirmed by exegetes that understood the verse to refer to inheritance of one of these kinds. Without a qualifier to the type of guardian (waliyy) being asked for, the supplication is rendered empty of its desired intent. This response is sufficient to render the above argument without foundation.

In summary, the true purport of his request is that he wanted a son. He did not really want an heir to his “fortune”. That was just a contextual clue that what he really meant by heir was a son. True, by the fact itself, it indicates that if he had a son he would inherit his property. Even so, in the expression, an heir, who should inherit me, or likewise in his words, and surely I fear my paternal uncles and cousins after me, there is no indication of his heart being attached to the temporal world or to its deceptive embellishments.

As for asking for a son, it is part of the instinct which God has placed in the entire human race good and bad, Prophet and non-Prophet alike. He equipped everyone with a procreative system and placed in everyone the instinct to procreate. Everyone, provided his instinct has not deviated, is drawn toward trying to have children. He sees the survival of his child after his own death as a survival of himself and their taking possession of the necessities of life which he had been in possession of—inheritance—as his own possession and own livelihood.

The divine codes of law did not repeal this instinctive law or criticize this instinctive drive. On the contrary, they praise it and encourage it. There are many verses in the noble Qur’an that indicate this, for example, quoting Abraham: My Lord! grant me of the doers of good deeds (); Praise be to God, who has given me in old age Ishmael [Ismāʿīl] and Isaac [Isḥāq]; most surely my Lord is the Hearer of supplication (), and, quoting the believers: … O our Lord! grant us in our wives and our offspring the joy of our eyes … () There are other similar verses.

You may say that the above explanation of the meaning of inheritance was based on an inference from “There did Zachariah pray to his Lord” (), that what made him ask for a child was seeing Mary’s worship and spiritual rank. He then wanted to be blessed with a child who could equal her in worship and spiritual status. However, it is also possible that his motivation was something else. Some oral traditions say that Zachariah would find fruits out of season around Mary—winter fruits in summer and summer fruits in winter. He then said to himself: If it is not difficult for God to provide winter fruit in summer and summer fruit in winter, then it would not be difficult for him to provide me with a child “out of season”—my being old and my wife being barren. Thereafter, he said: … therefore grant me from Yourself an heir, who should inherit from me. Thus, seeing fruit out of season made him ask for a child “out of season”. However, this noble Prophet was too honorable to ask for a child to inherit his property. He only asked for one to inherit Prophethood or knowledge or worship and rank in the sight of God.

Author’s comment: There is no evidence in the wording of () that rizq, meaning sustenance, specifically means fruit out of season and that what made Zachariah ask for a child was either witnessing that or Mary’s telling him, Surely God gives to whom He pleases without measure. If it were the case that it was Zachariah’s motivation, it would have been alluded to more clearly. Rather, what is conveyed from the apparent, from the context, especially the beginning of the verse ()—“So her Lord accepted her with a good acceptance and made her grow well”—is that Mary was had reached such a high rank with her Lord that He provided for her in a manner than transcended natural means. This spiritual rank was the real motive that inspired Zachariah to ask for good offspring and a son with whom God would be well pleased.

If that is conceded, what it means is that Zachariah was provoked first into asking for offspring—a son. Since he was a noble Prophet he had no desire to have anything other than a good son, so he prayed, secondly, for him to be good and one in whom God would be well pleased. This is evidenced by the remainder of his supplication by saying: … and make him, my Lord, one in whom You are well pleased and qualifying him as “good” in “good offspring”.

He said what he meant, according to his direct speech attributed to him in Sūrah Āl-ʿImrān … grant me from You good offspring, and in this chapter—after first making reference to his old age, his wife’s barrenness and his fear of his kinsmen, he said, … therefore grant me from Yourself an heir, who should inherit from me. Here, An heir who should inherit from me, means a son, without a doubt. He just referred to by giving it the title of guardianship in inheritance (wilāyah al-ʾirth). Guardianship in inheritance (wilāyah al-ʾirth), which can always be taken as a qualifier for a son, is the guardianship that exclusively entitles him to the inheritance of what has been left behind by the deceased parent.

As for (1) guardianship in inheritance of Prophethood—if it is correct to refer to it as inheritance, (2) guardianship in inheritance of knowledge, where the student inherits his teacher’s knowledge, and (3) guardianship in inheritance of esoteric rank and spiritual status, all of these are independent of lineage. At times they are accompanied with familial ties and at times they are not. Hence, each of these types of ‘inheritances’ cannot be used to infer lineage or birthright without strong evidence. However, there nothing in the wording of the verse that can provide convincing clues. Whatever may be deemed fit to make a case can also be used to show the opposite. As a result, holding on the idea that the inheritance refers to one of Prophethood, knowledge or spiritual rank is tantamount to leaving the primary and immediately meaning to busy oneself with what could be behind it. That alone should suffice as a refutation of the claim.

يَا زَكَرِيَّا إِنَّا نُبَشِّرُكَ بِغُلَامٍ اسْمُهُ يَحْيَىٰ لَمْ نَجْعَلْ لَهُ مِنْ قَبْلُ سَمِيًّا ٧

(19:7) O Zachariah! surely We give you good news of a boy whose name shall be John. We have not made before anyone his equal.

There is an omission for the sake of brevity in the sentence, O Zachariah! surely We give you good news of a boy whose name shall be John. The implied meaning is, so We answered him and called to him: O Zachariah! Surely We give you good news of a boy whose name shall be John.

Sūrah al-Anbiyāʾ [The Prophets] says: So We responded to him and gave him John (). Sūrah Āl-ʿImrān [The Family of Amram] says: Then the Angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: That God gives you the good news of John ().

The verse in Sūrah Āl-ʿImrān is evidence that, O Zachariah! surely We give you good news … was revealed through the Angels, that is, His Words were passed on by the Angels to Zachariah. It is clearer in the second statement: He said: So shall it be, your Lord says: It is easy for Me (). There is an indication in the verse that it was God who named John—whose name shall be John (Yaḥyā)—and that no one before him had been given this name: We have not made before anyone (samiyyā), that is, anyone who shares the same name. It would not be surprising if samiyy meant equal to him as outlined below, that is, so serve Him and be patient in His service: Do you know anyone equal to Him (samiyyā) … (). Further testimony to this is the fact that God conferred upon him epithets accorded to none of His Prophets and friends before him, for example: … and We granted him wisdom while yet a child (); … and honorable and chaste (); And peace on him on the day he was born, and on the day he dies, and on the day he is raised to life ().

Even though, his maternal cousin, the Messiah, shared some of these epithets except that he was born after John.

قَالَ رَبِّ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لِي غُلَامٌ وَكَانَتِ امْرَأَتِي عَاقِرًا وَقَدْ بَلَغْتُ مِنَ الْكِبَرِ عِتِيًّا ٨

(19:8) He said: O my Lord! when shall I have a son (ghulām), and my wife is barren, and I myself have reached indeed the extreme degree of old age:

Al-Rāghib says:

A ghulām is one who has begun to grow a mustache. Alternatively, it is said that a ghulām refers to a human male in the period between birth to the age of seventeen. He said [quoting Zachariah]: when shall I have a son (ghulām). In Arabic the verb ightalama means he reached the age of puberty.

Majmaʿ al-bayān says:

Al-ʿatiyy and al-ʿaṣiyy mean the same thing. Third person perfect tense: ʿatā; third person present tense: yaʿtū; absolute object: ʿutuwwan or ʿatiyyan. Third person perfect tense: ʿaṣā; third person present tense: yaʿṣū; absolute object: ʿuṣuwwan or ʿaṣiyyan. Someone is said to be ʿātin or ʿāṣin if time has turned them dry. Reaching the age of al-ʿatiyy is an allusion to the loss of libido and an end to the means of procreation.

Zachariah’s question about the birth of a son despite his wife’s barrenness and his own extreme old age, notwithstanding his own reference to both matters in his supplication, My Lord! surely my bones are weakened …, stems from his astonishment at these glad tidings and his desire for clarification of its particularity. It is not an indication that he considered it to be unlikely, nor is it a denial of it. Someone who is given good news of something which is unexpected because of there being impediments and the lack of means to achieve it becomes restless when he first hears it. He starts asking about the particulars of what he has been given good news about to put his heart at rest and to calm the disturbance within his soul. In spite of that, he is certain of the truthfulness of what he has been given good news of. Indeed, passing thoughts may not stop in spite of one’s knowledge and firm belief. Something similar was said by way of exegesis (in Eng. vol. 2) of: And when Abraham said: My Lord! show me how You give life to the dead, He said: What! and do you not believe? He said: Yes, but that my heart may be at ease ().

قَالَ كَذَٰلِكَ قَالَ رَبُّكَ هُوَ عَلَيَّ هَيِّنٌ وَقَدْ خَلَقْتُكَ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَلَمْ تَكُ شَيْئًا٩

(19:9) He said: So shall it be, your Lord says: It is easy for Me, and indeed I created you before, when you were nothing.

This is an answer to what he asked and sought clarification on to put his soul at rest and calm his heart. The pronoun in “He said” refers to God and kadhālik (lit. “like that”) is a direct speech quotation. It is the predicate of an implied subject. The implied meaning is: “It is like that, that is, the matter will come to pass as We have told you of it in the good news. There is no doubt about it”.

The words, your Lord says: It is easy for Me, and indeed I created you before, when you were nothing, are a second direct speech quotation introduced by the initial “He said”. It is like an explanation for kadhālik (like that). All amazement is dispelled because His will does not fail to happen: His command, when He intends anything, is only to say to it: Be, so it is ().

Thus, creating a boy from a man who had reached old age and a woman who was barren was easy for Him.

In the same story, as told in Sūrah Āl-ʿImrān, the question and answer are worded as: He said: My Lord! when shall there be a son (born) to me, and old age has already come upon me, and my wife is barren? He said: even thus God does what He pleases ().

Thus, It is easy for Me, parallels, does God what He pleases. It supports the interpretation presented above. Further, and indeed I created you before, when you were nothing, gives an example of creation which clears up any astonishment.

Other explanations have been given for the verse, none of which are supported by the context, including:

1) Kadhālik is linked to the second “said” (qāl). The sentence put all together is the response. It means: Your Lord ordered that and passed judgment thus. It is easy for Me is either another part of the direct speech, or it is narrative.

2) (The clause), … your Lord says is addressed to the Prophet , not to Zachariah.

قَالَ رَبِّ اجْعَلْ لِي آيَةً ۚ قَالَ آيَتُكَ أَلَّا تُكَلِّمَ النَّاسَ ثَلَاثَ لَيَالٍ سَوِيًّا

(19:10) He said: My Lord! give me a sign. He said: Your sign is that you will not be able to speak to the people three nights while in sound health.

As mentioned above in the narrative from Sūrah Āl-ʿImrān (), the glad tidings came to Zachariah through the medium of the Angels who then called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: That God gives you the good news of John. Zachariah asked for a distinguishing sign that would separate truth from falsehood and to confirm that the call he heard was an Angelic revelation and not a satanic inception. For this reason, he received a divine distinguishing sign to which Satan had no control—knowing that Prophets are already granted divine immunity such that Satan can have no control over them.

He said: My Lord! give me a sign is a request for a distinguishing sign. God’s response was: your sign is that you will not be able to speak to the people three nights while in sound health. Hence, his tongue will be restrained from uttering anything except for the remembrance of God , all while he will be sawiyy, that is, in sound health without any sickness or ailment.

Here, not speaking to the people means not being able to speak to them. This is like saying the consequence (lāzim) [which in this case is ‘not speaking’], but meaning, metonymically, the antecedent (malzūm) [which in this case is ‘not being able to speak’]. Three nights means three nights along with their days, which is common usage. He remembered God with a variety of remembrance (dhikr), but was only able to communicate with people using sign language and gestures. Proof of all that is in His words telling the story in Sūrah Āl-ʿImrān: He said: My Lord! appoint a sign for me. He [God] said: Your sign is that you should not speak to men for three days except by signs; and remember your Lord much and glorify Him in the evening and the morning ().

فَخَرَجَ عَلَىٰ قَوْمِهِ مِنَ الْمِحْرَابِ فَأَوْحَىٰ إِلَيْهِمْ أَنْ سَبِّحُوا بُكْرَةً وَعَشِيًّا١١

(19:11) So he went forth to his people from his place of worship (al-miḥrāb), then he made known to them (fa awḥā ilayhim) that they should glorify (God) morning and evening.

Majmaʿ al-bayān says: A miḥrāb is so-called because someone who is turned toward it in his supplication is like someone combating (muḥārib) the Devil over his prayer. The etymological origin is the council of nobles which is a forum in which each person fends for the interests of his family and kinsmen. ’Awḥā is a past tense verb that shares the same root with Īḥāʾ which means communicating something meaningful secretly and quickly. The etymological origin is captured in the saying: al-Waḥyā! al-Waḥyā! which means: Hurry! Hurry!

With this, the meaning of the verse is clear.

يَا يَحْيَىٰ خُذِ الْكِتَابَ بِقُوَّةٍ ۖوَآتَيْنَاهُ الْحُكْمَ صَبِيًّا ١٢ وَحَنَانًا مِنْ لَدُنَّا وَزَكَاةً

(19:12-13) O John! take hold of the Book with strength, and We granted him wisdom (ḥukm) while yet a child. And tenderness from Us and an increase …

There is repeated reference in His words to taking hold of the Book with strength and the commandment to do so as in: … so take hold of them with firmness and enjoin your people to take hold of what is best thereof … (); … Take hold of the law (Torah) We have given you with firmness and bear in mind what is in it … () and … Take hold of what We have given you with firmness and be obedient ().

There are other verses that also have this idea. Their context bring to mind that taking hold of the Book with firmness means becoming one with its knowledge and sciences and acting in accordance with its laws, diligently and conscientiously.

Part of the verse is implied whereas the other part is kept short, all for the purpose of brevity. The implied meaning is: “When We granted him John, We told him: John, take the Book firmly both with regard to knowledge and deed”. Based on this interpretation, it is reasonable to take ‘the Book’ as the Torah or, alternatively, the Torah along with all of the other Prophets’ Books, because the Book which contained the code of religious law (sharīʿa) at that time was the Torah.

… and We granted him wisdom (ḥukm) while yet a child and tenderness from Us and an increase … : The word ḥukm has been interpreted as understanding, intellect, wisdom, knowledge of the etiquette of service, true discernment, and Prophethood. However, ḥukm does not mean Prophethood as can be inferred from verses such as: And certainly We gave the Book and the wisdom (al-ḥukm) and the Prophethood to the children of Israel … () These are they to whom We gave the Book and the wisdom and the Prophethood … ()

Other verses also show that ḥukm does not mean Prophethood. The same applies to interpreting it as knowledge of the etiquette of service, true discernment or intellect because there is no evidence to support any of these interpretations from the literal form of the word (lafz) or from its inferred meaning (maʿnā). It may be reminiscent of verses such as the following: … who shall recite to them Your communications and teach them the Book and the wisdom (al-ḥikma), and purify them (); and … who recites to them His communications and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and the wisdom (al-ḥikma) ().

In terms of construction, ḥikma (wisdom) is a type of ḥukm. Ḥukm means knowledge of true, divine gnosis/sciences (maʿārif) and revealing that which is not disclosed to normal perception. This may be the reason why ḥukm is interpreted as understanding.

Based on the above, the meaning is: “Verily, We gave him knowledge of true sciences (maʿārif haqīqiyya) while he was still a child, before he had even reached puberty (ḥulm)”.

The words, And tenderness from Us are linked by the conjunction “and” to the predicate, granted him wisdom while yet a child. The meaning thus rendered is: “And We granted him tenderness from Us”. Ḥanān means compassion and sympathy.

Al-Rāghib says: Because sympathy never separates from mercy (raḥmah) it is referred to as ḥanān in His Words, And tenderness from Us. Other examples are the Names of God, al-Ḥannān al-Mannān (The Tender, the Benefactor). Ḥanānik means, sympathy after sympathy [coming from You].

Ḥanān has been interpreted in several ways including that:

1) It is mercy meaning Prophethood or guardianship, as in Noah’s words: … and He has granted me mercy from Himself () and Ṣāliḥ’s words: … and He has granted to me mercy from Himself ().

2) It is love. It may mean people’s love for him, as in: … and I cast down upon you love (maḥabba) from Me (), meaning no one would see him without loving him.

3) It is his being compassionate, merciful, and gentle with people. He was kind to them and would advise them sincerely, guide them to God, and tell them to repent. That is why he is called John (Yuḥanna) the Baptist in the New Testament.

4) It is God’s love for him—whenever he called his Lord, according to oral tradition, God would answer him. This proves that God had special love for him, as also evidenced by the use of ḥanān in the indefinite.

Tenderness (ḥanān) being qualified as “from Us”, which is only used when characterizing what transcends and goes beyond normal or natural causes, tells us that it means a unique, divine, unprecedented kind of fondness and affinity between him and his Lord. Thus the second and third interpretations are refuted.

Next, it is followed up with zakātan. The root meaning of the word is sound incorrupt growth. It does not fit in well with the first interpretation. Therefore, either this segment of the verse is referring to God’s love and special care for Zachariah upon which he grew and was nurtured, or it means the love and affinity Zachariah had for his Lord and upon which he grew. Here, the growth is the growth of the soul (rūḥ). Thus, the weakness of the following claims becomes manifest:

1) zakāt means blessing—in the sense of his being blessed, helpful, and a teacher of good;

2) zakāt means charity, that is, We granted him wisdom during his formation as a charity to the people; or, it is charity from God to John’s parents, or, the wisdom given is charity from God to him; and

3) zakāt means being free of sins.

وَكَانَ تَقِيًّا ١٣ وَبَرًّا بِوَالِدَيْهِ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ جَبَّارًا عَصِيًّا ١٤

(19:13-14) … and he was one who guarded (against evil), and dutiful to his parents, and he was not insolent, disobedient.

Taqiyy is an adjective derived from taqwā, coming from the root word waqaya which has the vowel waw as its first letter (mithāl wāwī). Taqwā means guarding against what God has forbidden and avoiding forbidden acts which lead to punishment by God. Barr is an adjective derived from birr which means excellence in deeds (ʾiḥsān).

Majmaʿ al-bayān says: “Someone who is jabbār is someone who believes that no one else has any right over him, who has conceit and haughtiness. Jabbār is said of part of a date palm which is beyond one’s reach”. It can be interpreted as arrogant or haughty, and is said of someone who makes people put up with whatever he wants but someone who is unwilling to put up with anything from them. This interpretation is supported by its being followed by ʿaṣiyy which is an adjective derived from ʿiṣyān the root meaning of which is defiance.

It is clear that the three descriptive segments in the verse explain how he was with his Creator and with creation. And he was one who guarded (against evil)—explains how he was with his with his Lord. And dutiful to his parents—explains how he was with his parents. And he was not insolent, disobedient—explains how he was with everyone else. He was kind and compassionate with people, advising them sincerely, humbly, helping the weak among them and guiding those who sought guidance. It is also clear that the claim by some that ʿaṣiyyan means disobedient to his Lord is not correct.

وَسَلَامٌ عَلَيْهِ يَوْمَ وُلِدَ وَيَوْمَ يَمُوتُ وَيَوْمَ يُبْعَثُ حَيًّا ١٥

(19:15) And peace on him on the day he was born, and on the day he dies, and on the day he is raised to life.

The word salām (peace) means almost the same as ʾamn (safety). It appears from respective usages that the difference between the two is that ʾamn means that the locus is free of what a person hates and fears, whereas salām refers to the locus’ being such that everything a person finds in it suits him without his disliking or fearing it.

Salāmun is in the indefinite to indicate magnificence, that is, magnificent peace will be upon him from what he would dislike on those three days. Each of these days is the start of one of the worlds which Mankind enters and lives in. Peace will be upon him the day he is born, that is, no unpleasantness which would interfere with his happiness will touch him. Peace will be upon him on the day he dies—he will live a blissful life in the barzakh. Peace will be upon him the day he is raised to life—he will live truly there without weariness or exhaustion.

It is claimed that the added qualifier ḥayyan, which means alive, implies that he will be martyred. This is because of what God says about martyrs: … nay, they are alive [and] are provided sustenance from their Lord ().

Note that the use of different tenses in “he was born, “he dies” and “he is raised” informs that the greetings of peace would be said to him during the course of his eternal life time.

Examining Narrations

1. Majmaʿ al-bayān says that the Commander of the Faithful, ʿAlī said in his supplication to God: I ask You, O Kāf Hāʾ Yāʾ ʿAyn Ṣād.
2. al-Ṣādiq said: “Kāf Hāʾ Yāʾ ʿAyn Ṣād means, I am the Sufficient (al-Kāfī), the Guide (al-Hādī), the Guardian (al-Waliy), the Omniscient (al-ʿĀlim), the Faithful to His Promises (al-Ṣādiq al-Waʿd)”.

Author’s comment: Also narrated in it is something similar on the authority of Muḥammad b. ʿImāra on the authority of al-Ṣādiq.

3. Al-Durr al-manthūr says on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās about the words, Kāf Hāʾ Yāʾ ʿAyn Ṣād: “[It means, God is] Great (Kabīr), Guiding (Hadīn), Honest (Amīn), Mighty (ʿAzīz), Truthful (Ṣādiq). [Another version] says Sufficient (Kafīn) instead of Great (Kabīr)”.
4. It is also narrated on his authority via a different chain of narration that it [Kāf Hāʾ Yāʾ ʿAyn Ṣād] means: “Generous (Karīm), Guiding (Hadīn), Wise (Ḥakīm), Omniscient (ʿAlīm), Truthful (Ṣādiq)”. That is also narrated on the authority of Ibn Masʿūd and others.

Author’s comment: As the reader can see, the narrations are generally [about] the first letters of the most beautiful names [of God], for example, the [letter] Kāf is taken from al-Kāfī, al-Kabīr or al-Karīm etc. However, this is not true of the Yāʾ because according to the oral traditions, some say it is taken from al-Waliyy (the Guardian), al-Ḥakīm (the Wise) or al-ʿAzīz (the Mighty).

5. God’s Messenger (pbuh) said that it [Kāf Hāʾ Yāʾ ʿAyn Ṣād] means: Sufficient (Kafī), Guide (Hadīn), Omniscient (ʿAlīm), Truthful (Ṣādiq).

Author’s comment: The letter Yāʾ is left out in this narration. There was some allusion to this in the commentary of the verse (above).

6. Tafsīr, al-Qummī says about His Words , I have never been shaqiyyan in my supplication to You: My supplication has never been unsuccessful with You.
7. Majmaʿ al-bayān says on the authority of al-Ṣādiq, about His Words, And surely I fear the mawālī: It is said that they are the paternal uncles and their sons. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn and Muḥammad b. ʿAlī l-Bāqir recited [verse 5 as] innī khaffati [a]l-mawāl with a fatḥa (short vowel “a”) above the letter khāʾ, a double fāʾ and a kasra (short vowel “i”) below the tāʾ, meaning that: “I am taken lightly by my mawālī and the object of their mistreatment”.

Author’s comment: A number of Companions and successors used to recite it the same way.

8. Al-Iḥtijāj says: When Abū Bakr resolved to deprive Fāṭima of the land in Fadak and news of that reached her, she came to him and said to him: Son of Abū Qaḥāfa, does God’s Book say that you inherit from your father but I do not inherit from my father? Surely you have done a strange thing. Have you intentionally forsaken the Book of God and flung it away behind your backs? For, He says in what He tells of the story of John son of Zachariah: … therefore grant me from Yourself an heir, who should inherit from me and inherit from the children of Jacob …

Author’s comment: The content of this oral tradition is narrated via various chains by the Shia and others. Her [Fāṭima’s] reasoning is based on inheritance in the verse meaning inheritance of property. That was discussed above in the commentary on the verse. Some proof of that is narrated in the Sunni chains of narration.

9. God’s Messenger said: May God have mercy on my brother Zachariah. He did not have any heirs. May God have mercy on my brother Lot. He had recourse to a mighty support.
10. Ibn ʿAbbās said: “No children would be begotten by Zachariah so he asked his Lord (): My Lord, grant me from Yourself an heir, who should inherit from me and inherit from the Family of Jacob. [Ibn ʿAbbās] said: [It means] he should inherit my property and inherit Prophethood from the Family of Jacob”.
11. Ruḥ al-maʿānī says: The position taken by Ahl al-Sunna is that the Prophets neither inherit nor leave property because of the authentic oral traditions they have.The same is also reported by the Shia as follows: al-Ṣādiq said: “The scholars are the heirs to the Prophets. That is because the Prophets have inherited neither dirham nor dinar. They (the scholars) have certainly (innamā) inherited some of their hadiths. Anyone who learns any of them has received an abundant share”. The word innamā is indubitably restrictive as accepted by the Shia. The “inheritance” in the verse is construed as you have heard and we do not concede it to be a literal, dictionary definition of an inheritance of property. On the contrary its significance is encompassing of inheritance of knowledge, position and property. It has only become exclusive to property because of the predominant conventional usage by jurists, as with any other change due conventional usage. Even if we did concede that it is used for that [that is, knowledge, etc.] metaphorically, it is a well-known metaphor especially in the glorious Qur’an, such that it is equal to the literal meaning. Examples of this are as follows:

() Then We gave the Book for an inheritance to those whom We chose from among Our servants; Then there came after them an evil posterity who inherited the Book (); … and those who were made to inherit the Book after them (); He causes such of His servants to inherit it as He pleases (); … and God’s is the heritage of the Heavens and the earth ( and ).

They said, there is no need to depart from the literal meaning. We say that there is a need. [There is a need] to defend the words of an infallible figure (that is, the Prophet) from any accusation of falsehood. Further, it is extremely difficult to give an alternative interpretation to what is immediately apparent of these words [that is, the hadith]. As for the oral traditions which say that they [the Prophets] leave property to their heirs, they cannot hold trial before sound appraisal. Some claim, Ālūsī continues, that it cannot be construed as inheritance of Prophethood, so as not to render [the clause], and make him, my Lord, pleasing, redundant. What we have said above explains the problem with this claim. The claim that the impossibility of of earning (kasb) something stops it from being inheritable is also baseless because al-Ṣādiq’s words which do refer to the inheritance of something which cannot be earned (kasbiyy). Another example of that is what al-Ṣādiq said: Solomon inherited from David and verily Muḥammad inherited from Solomon. Hence, it is only conceivable for the Prophet’s inheritance from Solomon to be inheritance of knowledge, Prophethood, and the likes.

Author’s comment: There is a theological aspect to the discussion which goes back to the matter of Fadak, which is one of the townships of Khaybar. It was in the possession of Fāṭima, the daughter of Muḥammad. However, the first caliph subsequently seized it from her possession, relying on a hadith narrated on the authority of the Prophet : “Verily the Prophets do not bequeath property. What they leave behind is charity”. There is a long-standing dispute between Shia and Sunni theologians [about this]. It is a type of discussion which is beyond the scope of this book so we shall not address it. However, there is an exegetical aspect and addressing this does concern us because it is connected to the meaning of [the verse]: And surely I fear my paternal uncles and cousins after me, and my wife is barren, therefore grant me from Yourself an heir, who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Jacob, and make him, my Lord, one in whom You are well pleased ().

As for his [Ālūsī, the author of Ruḥ al-maʿānī] words, “it is also reported by the Shia … ”, the oral tradition on the matter is not confined to what he narrates on the authority of al-Ṣādiq. On the contrary, words to the same effect are narrated via their chains on the authority of the Prophet . It means—as anyone hearing it immediately realizes—that it is not appropriate for Prophets to concern themselves with amassing property and leaving it to their surviving heirs after their death. It is only appropriate for them to leave wisdom to those surviving them. This is a palatable concept and common usage which cannot be refuted.

As for his Words: “we do not concede it to be a literal, dictionary definition of an inheritance of property”, the point is not whether its literal, dictionary definition is one thing or whether it is commonly or rarely used as a metaphor. None of these matters need to be pursued. Whether wirātha (inheritance) is used literally to mean inheritance of property or metaphorically to mean inheritance of things like knowledge or wisdom, or, whether it can literally mean inheritance of all of property, knowledge and wisdom is not the determining factor to answer the question. Ascertaining that the inheritance alluded to in the verse is that of knowledge and wisdom requires either evidence that diverts away (qarīna ṣārifa) from a given type of inheritance or evidence that specifically indicates (qarīna muʿayyina) a given type of inheritance. The context provided by this verse and all the other verses telling the story in Sūrah Āl-ʿImrān and Sūrah al-Anbiyāʾ [The Prophets] along with all the contextual indicators surrounding them make it impossible for (the clause), who should inherit me, even to mean inheritance of knowledge etc, let alone diverting from it, or indicating it, as explained in the commentary above.

True, it is not correct for Prophethood to be the inherited thing based on what can be inferred from Qur’anic teachings, that is, it is a divine gift which cannot be transferred or passed on. There is no doubt that leaving [something] behind and transferring [something] are part of the definition of inheritance, like the inheritance of property, ownership, station, knowledge etc. That is the reason in the Book and the Sunnah, inheritance is not used in relation to Prophethood or becoming a Messenger.

As for his Words, “there is a need, namely, to defend the words of an infallible figure from any accusation of falsehood”, it is an acknowledgement that there is no contextual indication provided by the surrounding verses that [the clause], who should inherit me, does not mean property. In fact, the opposite is true. The only thing that forced them to construe it as such is defending the literal meaning of the hadith that they deem to be authentic. The intended meaning of God’s words cannot depend on other clues especially if they are not from His Words and when the surrounding context indicates the opposite. This is contrary to setting the specifics and the constraints of jurisprudential narrations based on the universals of jurisprudential verses in the Qur’an. Doing this is tantamount to skewing the intended meaning of the divine discourse and cannot be seen as simply extracting the intended meaning based on its different linguistic usages.

Furthermore, oral traditions with one chain of narration (āḥād) do not hold any jurisprudential imperative (ḥijjiyah) with regards to that which is other than the jurisprudential rulings. Note that jurisprudential rulings fall exclusively under the umbrella of legislative divine making (al-jaʿl al-tashrīʿī). This is especially true if these one-chain narrations oppose the Qur’an. Of course, these principles are well established in the science of jursprudential universals (ʿilm al-ʿuṣūl).

[Ālūsī’s statement], “What we have said above explains the problem with this claim …” shows that he interprets [the clause], and make him, my Lord, raḍiyyan, as emphasizing [the clause], an heir, who should inherit from me, and taking it to refer to the inheritance of Prophethood. Alternatively, he also proposed that raḍiyyan is interpreted as pleasing to the people, to exalt the Quran from redundancy. What we have said above explains the problem with this claim.

12. Abū ʿAbdillāh said: When Zachariah prayed to his Lord to grant him offspring and the Angels called what they called to him, he then wanted to know if that voice was from God. In turn, it was revealed to him that the sign of that was that his tongue would be restrained from talking for three days. When his tongue was restrained and he could not speak, he realized that no one but God could do that.
13. al-Ṣādiq said: The Commander of the Faithful said when asked what waḥy means: It can either mean Prophetic revelation (waḥy al-nubuwwa), inspiration (waḥy al-ilhām) or allusion (waḥy al-ishāra). This led him to comment: An example of an allusion is: So he went forth to his people from his place of worship, then he made known (fa awḥā) to them that they should glorify God morning and evening, that is, he signaled to them. It is like His words: … you should not speak to men for three days except by signs ().
14. Abū l-Ḥasan al-Riḍā said: The boys said to John: Let’s go and play. He replied: We were not created to play. So God revealed: … and We granted him wisdom while yet a child ().

Author’s comment: This thematic purport is narrated on the authority of the Prophet .

15. ʿAlī b. Asbāṭ said: I saw Abū Jaʾfar. He had come to see me so I took a good look at him. I began looking at his head and his feet to describe his stature to our Companions in Egypt. I carried on doing so until he sat down and said: “ʿAlī, God used as evidence for the Imamate what He used as evidence for Prophethood”. He then said [recited]: … and We granted him wisdom while yet a child ();

… until when he attains his maturity and reaches forty years ().

It is possible for him to be given wisdom while yet a child and possible for him to be given wisdom when he is a forty-year-old man.

Author’s comment: The oral tradition interprets ḥukm as wisdom, supporting what we said above.

16. Qatāda said about (the words), … and he was not insolent, disobedient: Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab would say: the Prophet said: No one except John, son of Zachariah, will meet God on the Day of Resurrection without sin.
17. Qatāda (also) said: al-Ḥasan said: The Prophet said: John, son of Zachariah, did not ever sin or make for a woman.
18. Ibn ʿAbbās said: The Prophet said: No one from the Children of Adam has not sinned or nearly sinned except John son of Zachariah. He did not even come close to sinning or actually doing so.

Author’s comment: This purport is narrated in various wordings by the Ahl al-Sunna. They must all be construed as referring to infallible Prophets and Imams, even though on the face of it they cannot be construed as such. However, this impossibility arises from the poor wording of the narrators, afflicted as they were with the habit of freehandedly transmitting what they understood from the narrations instead of the narrations themselves. Generally speaking however, oral traditions on John’s asceticism are beyond count. According to them, he would eat grass, wear palm fibers, and weep so much that his face was marked with the flow of tears shed out of reverend fear (khashyah) of God.

19. Qurra said: The sky has never wept for anyone apart from John son of Zachariah and Ḥusayn son of ʿAlī. It cries by turning red.

Author’s comment: This purport is also narrated in Majmaʿ al-bayān on the authority of al-Ṣādiq. The end of the hadith says: “John’s killer was the product of fornication and Ḥusayn’s killer was also the product of fornication”.

20. Ibn ʿAbbās said: God revealed to Muḥammad : Verily I avenged John by killing seventy thousand and I will avenge the son of your daughter by killing seventy thousand and seventy thousand.
21. Abū Ḥamza said: I asked [al-Bāqir]: What does what He says about John mean: And tenderness from Us and an increase? He replied: [It refers to] God’s love. I asked: What was the extent of God’s love? He replied: Whenever he said: O, Lord, God, Mighty and Sublime is He, [God] would reply: Here I am! At your service, O John!…
22. Abū l-Ḥasan al-Riḍā said: Three situations are the most desolate for [human] creation: the day they are born, coming out of their mother’s womb and seeing the world, the day they die, seeing the Hereafter and the occupants of the Hereafter and the day they are raised and seeing the laws [that] now governed, which they did not see in the world. God sent a greeting of peace to John in these three places and put his heart at rest by saying: And peace on him on the day he was born, and on the day he dies, and on the day he is raised to life. Jesus son of Mary sent a greeting of peace on himself in these three places: And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.

Discourse

The discussions “The Story of Zachariah in the Qur’an”; “The Story of John in the Qur’an”; “The Story of Zachariah and John in the Gospels” appear here in the printed volume. Read them in the Al-Mizan App.

---

1. That is, seeing Mary’s characteristics. See above (Trans.) ↩︎

2. God accepted her offering graciously and caused her to grow up admirably (Tarif Khalidi’s translation) (Ed.) ↩︎

3. It is not far-fetched to believe that John was conferred his own celestial book. ↩︎

4. Maʿānī l-akhbār via its chain of narration back to Sufyān b. Saʿīd al-Thawrī in a narrated hadith ↩︎

5. al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Umm Hānī ↩︎

6. Narrated by ʿAbdallāh b. al-Ḥasan via his chain of narration on the authority of his forefathers ↩︎

7. Al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of a number of compilers of hadith collections on the authority of al-Ḥasan ↩︎

8. al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of al-Fāriyābī ↩︎

9. al-Kāfī narrated by Al-Kulaynī on the authority of al-Bakhtarī ↩︎

10. al-Kāfī narrated by Al-Kulaynī ↩︎

11. Tafsīr, al-ʿAyyāshī on the authority of Abū Baṣīr ↩︎

12. Tafsīr, al-Nuʿmānī via its chain of narration ↩︎

13. Majmaʿ al-bayān on the authority of Muʿammar ↩︎

14. Al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn ʿAsākir on the authority of Muʿādh on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās ↩︎

15. Al-Kāfī via its chain of narration ↩︎

16. Al-Durr al-manthūr as cited by ʿAbd al-Razzāq; Aḥmad in al-Zuhd; ʿAbd b. Ḥumayd, Ibn Mundhir and Ibn Abī Ḥātim ↩︎

17. Al-Durr al-manthūr as cited by Ahmad; al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī in Nawādir al-uṣūl, and al-Ḥakīm and Ibn Mardawayh ↩︎

18. Al-Durr al-manthūr cites Ibn ʿAsākir ↩︎

19. Al-Durr al-manthūr cited by al-Ḥakīm and Ibn ʿAsākir ↩︎

20. Al-Kāfī via its chain of narration ↩︎

21. ʿUyūn al-akhbār via its chain of narration back to Yāsir al-Khādim. ↩︎