Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:116

This was revealed regarding the Jews when they said, "Uzayr is the son of Allah," the Christians of Najran when they said, "The Messiah is the son of Allah," and the polytheists of the Arabs when they said, "The angels are the daughters of Allah." Thus, the pronoun refers to those previously mentioned—the Christians, the Jews, and the polytheists—who do not know.

It is conjoined to "The Jews said..." and Abu al-Baqa’ suggested it is conjoined to "And they said, 'None will enter Paradise...'" It is also permitted that it be conjoined to "preventing" or to the implied meaning of "who is more unjust," despite the difference between the inaugural and declarative forms. The estimation is: "They committed grave injustice by preventing [people from the mosques] and saying [this claim]." If it is considered a conjunction of one narrative to another, there is no need for interpretation. The commencement is then explanatory, as if, after enumerating their evils, the question was posed: "Has their string of fabrications against Allah, Exalted is He, ceased, or does it extend?" The response is: "Nay, it extends; for they have said that which is more abominable and heinous."

Ititkhadh (taking) is either in the sense of making and creating, in which case it does not take more than one object; or it is in the sense of rendering, and the first object is omitted, meaning: "He rendered some of His creatures a son." Ibn Abbas, Ibn Amir, and others read "They said" with a waw (and) for commencement, or implying a sense of conjunction, finding the pronoun and the connection sufficient without the waw, as noted in al-Bahr.

"Glorified is He" is a declaration of transcendence and an exoneration of Him, Exalted is He, from what they said, in the most eloquent form. The object of "Glorified" is omitted, as you see, due to the context indicating it.

"Nay, to Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth" is a refutation of what they claimed and a turning away from what their false statement implies—the comparison to created beings in procreation, reproduction, and the need for a son to assist in what a parent requires, or to prevent the rapid perishability [of the parent]. This is because need is necessitated by composition, and every composed thing is created, finite, and rapid to cease. Furthermore, the wisdom behind procreation is that the species remains preserved by the succession of like entities where there is no way for the individual to remain for the duration of time; all of this is impossible for Allah, Exalted is He, for He is the Eternal, the Everlasting, the Absolutely Rich, the Transcendent above resembling the creatures.

The lam (the 'l' in lahu) is said to denote ownership. It is also said to be like the one in your saying, "To Zayd, I gave a beating," indicating the attribution of an effect to the effector. It is also said to denote exclusive belonging, which is the most apparent meaning. The meaning is: The matter is not as they fabricated; rather, He is the Creator of all existents, among which is what they claimed to be a son. The Creator of every existent has no need for a son, as He brings into existence what He wills, transcendent above the need for procreation.

"All are devoutly obedient to Him"—meaning everything in them, whatsoever it may be, is submissive to Him. Nothing among them defies His will and His formation, whether in bringing into existence, annihilating, or transforming from one state to another. This necessitates contingency and possibility, which contradicts necessary existence. Whoever is characterized by this attribute cannot be a parent, for it is the right of a son to share the essence of his parent, being a part of him, even if he does not equal him.

Although it would have been more apparent to use the word "who" (man) with "devoutly obedient" to avoid the consideration of generalization (taghlib) and to match the discourse—since the discussion is about Uzayr, the Messiah, and the angels, who are sentient—the word "what" (ma), which is restricted to the non-sentient, was used. Some argued this based on the story of al-Zubayri, contradicting the view of al-Rida that it is usually for the non-knowing, and the view of the majority that it is general, as stated in al-Talwih. The consideration of generalization in "devoutly obedient" is an indication that those whom they made sons of Allah—Exalted and High is He above the magnitude of their greatness—are [in the same category as] inanimate objects, equal in their inability to be taken as sons.

It is also said that "what" was used in the first instance because it refers to the station of divinity, where the sentient are equivalent to inanimate objects, and the sentient were grouped in the second instance because it refers to the station of servanthood, where the inanimate are equivalent to the sentient. It is also possible that the mudaf ilayh (possessive) is estimated as "all that they made a son," due to the indication of the statement, rather than being general, due to the indication of its refutation.

"Qunut" (devotion) is taken to mean submission to the command of obligation, just as it is, in general, submission to the command of creation. In this case, there is no generalization in "devoutly obedient," and the sentence acts as a binding argument that what they claimed to be a son is obedient to Allah, acknowledging His servanthood, after establishing the proof against them by what preceded. The conjunction was omitted to alert [the reader] to the independence of each in indicating falsehood, and their difference in that one is a proof and the other is a binding argument. According to the first [view], the latter confirms what preceded it.

Al-Jassas mentioned that this verse contains evidence that a human's ownership does not remain over his son, because [the verse] negated the son by establishing ownership [of Allah], considering that the lam denotes ownership; thus, when one owns his son, he becomes free by that very act. The Prophet, peace be upon him, ruled similarly regarding a father when he comes to own his son. It is not hidden that this is far from what was intended by the verse, especially since the most apparent meaning is exclusive belonging, as you have known.