وَٱلَّتِىٓ أَحْصَنَتْ فَرْجَهَا فَنَفَخْنَا فِيهَا مِن رُّوحِنَا وَجَعَلْنَٰهَا وَٱبْنَهَآ ءَايَةً لِّلْعَٰلَمِينَ
"And her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit and made her and her son a sign for all beings."
And the first thing to be recorded about the verse is this: no name is given. The person named comes with a relative pronoun: wa'llatī — "and she who".
| Verse | How named | According to what |
|---|---|---|
| 87 | Dhu'n-Nūn | According to what happened to him |
| 91 | wa'llatī aḥṣanat farjahā | According to what she did |
I record this as my own reading, its ground being the shared form of the two verses: of the two people in the series left unnamed, one is named by an event and the other by an act. And in the second case the naming rests on the person's own deed.
The same expression occurs in the Qurʾān at al-Taḥrīm on 66/12 and was treated there. I rely on that treatment and set the two verses side by side:
| al-Taḥrīm 66/12 | al-Anbiyāʾ 21/91 | |
|---|---|---|
| The naming | Maryama'bnata ʿImrāna'llatī aḥṣanat farjahā — by name | wa'llatī aḥṣanat farjahā — unnamed |
| The breathing | fa-nafakhnā fīhi — a masculine pronoun | fa-nafakhnā fīhā — a feminine pronoun |
| The added note | wa ṣaddaqat bi-kalimāti rabbihā wa kutubihi wa kānat mina'l-qānitīn | wa jaʿalnāhā wa'bnahā āyatan li'l-ʿālamīn |
And the difference between the two pronouns is recorded in the classical commentaries and is disputed:
| View | To what fīhi (al-Taḥrīm) refers |
|---|---|
| 1 | To the opening of her garment — hence masculine |
| 2 | To farj — the word has been treated as masculine |
| 3 | The two verses tell the same thing from two different sides; the difference of pronoun does not change the sense |
Ḥiṣn — a fortress; ḥaṣīn — firm, well-defended. The core sense of the root: to make a thing defensible, to make it firm.
The verb is not passive but active. Not uḥṣinat (she was guarded) but aḥṣanat (she guarded). That is, the verse records the being guarded as a person's own act.
And its place in the series is understood by this voice: in the series' other links the prophets were named by calling out; here the person named is named by an act. The common point is that both are the person's own deed.
I record this in measured language and go no further: the verse conveys an attribute, it does not give a description. No detail the Qurʾān has not given is entered into.
The note of transcendence set down at al-Zumar on 39/67 for a similar annexation holds here too: these expressions cannot be understood in a way that ascribes a part, a portion or an organ to God.
The explanation the lexicographers and the exegetes widely record: the annexation here is an annexation of honour — that is, in saying "Our spirit" what is meant is a relation conveying the honour of that thing; the same structure is present in the Qurʾān in expressions such as baytī (My house) and nāqatu'llāh (the she-camel of God). I transmit this as a transmitted explanation.
And in the classical commentaries what the rūḥ is has been disputed. This commentary does not enter into that debate; what the verse gives is a relation, not a definition.
And a point of grammar must be recorded: two people are named (jaʿalnāhā wa'bnahā) but the sign is singular: āyatan, not āyatayni.
لِّلْعَٰلَمِين — and the word for the third time in the sūra. (71, 91, 107.) The series closes here, and in the next verse the sūra sets down its verdict.