Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:157

(And their saying) [is said] by way of boasting: (Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah). They mentioned him with the title of "Messenger" as a form of mockery and derision, similar to the Almighty’s saying, recounting the words of the disbelievers: "O you upon whom the Reminder has been sent down..." (15:6). It is also possible that they said this based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), even if they did not believe it. It has been said: They described him with other attributes of disparagement, but these were altered in the narration, making this a matter of the narration [as recorded in the Quran] rather than the thing narrated. Others said: It is a commencement [of speech] from Him (Allah), praising him (Jesus) and elevating his status, while exposing the extremity of their audacity in setting out to kill him and the climax of their impudence in their boasting.

(And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him) — this is a circumstantial clause or an interruption.

(But it was made to appear to them) — It is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that a group of Jews insulted Jesus (peace be upon him) and his mother, so he prayed against them, and they were transformed into monkeys and swine. This reached Judah, the head of the Jews, so he grew fearful and gathered the Jews, and they agreed to kill him. They set out toward him to kill him, but Gabriel (peace be upon him) brought him into a house and ascended with him from there to the heavens while they were unaware. Titus entered to kill him but did not find him, and he delayed in returning to them. Allah (Exalted be He) cast the likeness of Jesus (peace be upon him) upon him, so when he came out, they killed him and crucified him.

Wahb ibn Munabbih said in a long report narrated from him by Ibn al-Mundhir: Jesus (peace be upon him) came with twenty-seven disciples into a house, and they surrounded them. When they entered upon them, Allah (Exalted be He) made them all resemble Jesus (peace be upon him). The Jews said to them: "You have bewitched us; let Jesus appear to us, or we shall kill you all." Jesus said to his companions: "Who among you will purchase his soul today for Paradise?" A man among them said: "I will." So he went out to them and said: "I am Jesus." They killed him and crucified him, and Allah (Exalted be He) raised Jesus (peace be upon him). Al-Qatada, al-Suddi, Mujahid, and Ibn Ishaq held this view, although they differed on the number of the disciples. No one other than Wahb mentioned that his likeness (peace be upon him) was cast upon all of them; rather, they said: His likeness was cast upon one man, and Jesus (peace be upon him) was raised from among them.

Al-Tabari favored the opinion of Wahb, saying it is the most likely. Abu Ali al-Jubba'i said: The leaders of the Jews seized a man and killed him, crucifying him on a high place, and they allowed no one to draw near him until his appearance changed. They said: "We have killed Jesus," to deceive their common people, because they had surrounded the house where Jesus (peace be upon him) was, and when they entered and did not find him, they feared this would become a cause for the Jews to believe [in him], so they did what they did.

It is also said: There was a man among the disciples who was hypocritical toward Jesus (peace be upon him). When they wanted to kill him, he said: "I will guide you to him," and he took thirty dirhams for that. He entered the house of Jesus (peace be upon him), and Jesus was raised, and his likeness was cast upon the hypocrite. They entered upon him and killed him, thinking he was Jesus (peace be upon him).

The word shubbiha (was made to appear) is attributed to the prepositional phrase [to them], and the intent is that a confusion occurred to them between Jesus (peace be upon him) and the one who was crucified, or it implies confusion regarding the matter, according to the view of al-Jubba'i. Or, it is attributed to the pronoun of the [actually] killed person, which is indicated by "Indeed we have killed"—meaning, the one they killed was made to resemble Jesus (peace be upon him) to them. Or, the pronoun refers to the matter (the affair), and shubbiha comes from shubhah (doubt/ambiguity), meaning the affair became ambiguous to them based on that statement. The subject [of the passive verb] is not the pronoun of the Messiah (peace be upon him), because he is the one who the likeness was cast upon, not the one who is the likeness.

(And indeed, those who differ over it)—that is, over the affair of Jesus (peace be upon him)—for when that event occurred, people differed. Some said: "He was a liar, so we killed him truly." Others wavered, saying: "If this is Jesus, then where is our companion? And if this is our companion, then where is Jesus?" Some said: "The face is the face of Jesus, but the body is the body of our companion." And some who heard him say that Allah (Exalted be He) would raise him to heaven said so.

The Christians, who claim his divinity (peace be upon him), said: "The humanity was crucified, and the divinity ascended." For this reason, they do not count the killing as a deficiency, since they do not attribute it to the divinity. These people are refuted by the Jacobites, who say that the Messiah, through the union, became a single nature, since in a single nature, there is no humanity distinct from divinity. It cannot be said of one thing that it died and did not die, or was humiliated and was not humiliated. As for the Romans, who say that the Messiah remains in two natures after the union, it is said to them: Did the divinity depart from its humanity at the time of the killing? If they say: "It departed," they invalidate their religion, for the Messiah only deserved divinity in their view through the union. If they say: "It did not depart," they have accepted what was leveled against the Jacobites: the killing of the divinity along with the humanity. If they interpret the union as "indwelling"—meaning the God made him a dwelling and a house, then departed when what befell the humanity befell—they invalidate his divinity in that state. We say to them: "Was he not humiliated?" This much is sufficient in proving a deficiency, for the divinity did not disdain for its dwelling to suffer these deficiencies. If it was capable of preventing them, it was negligent in its neighborhood and content with its deficiency, which reflects a deficiency upon the divinity itself. And if it was not capable, that is even further from the majesty of divinity. These people deny the casting of the likeness and say: "That is not permissible because it is deception." Its refutation is more apparent than to be hidden, and it is sufficient in proving it that if it were not established, it would necessitate the falsification of the Messiah and the invalidation of his prophethood—indeed, the invalidation of all prophethoods. Moreover, their claim in the chapter that the crucified one said, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me and abandoned me?" contradicts acceptance of the painful decree and opposes submission to the rulings of the Wise. Furthermore, he complained of thirst and demanded water, while the Gospel declares that the Messiah fasted forty days and nights, along with other things that, if true, cry out that the crucified one was the [the person of] likeness, as is not hidden.

The intent of the relative pronoun [in "those who differ"] is that which includes both the Jews and the Christians. (Are in doubt about it)—that is, in hesitation. The root of shakk (doubt) is used for the equality of two sides, but it is sometimes used for the necessary implication of its meaning, which is hesitation in an absolute sense, even if one side is not weighed over the other; this is the intended meaning here. For this reason, He emphasized it with the negation of knowledge that encompasses it as well, by His (Glorified be He) saying: (They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption). The exception is disjunctive—that is, "but they follow assumption." It is permissible to interpret shakk as ignorance and knowledge as the belief to which the soul settles with certainty, whether it be true or otherwise. The exception then would be conjunctive, and Ibn Atiyyah leaned toward this, although it is contrary to the well-known view. What has been said—that following assumption is definitely not knowledge, so its conjunction is inconceivable—is countered by the fact that the one who says it means the "followed assumption."

(And they did not kill him, for certain). The pronoun refers to Jesus (peace be upon him), as is apparent—meaning, they did not kill him with a certain killing, or they were not certain of killing him. It does not follow that the negation of a "certain killing" necessitates the establishment of a "doubtful killing," because the negation is of the qualification, and there is no obstacle to him being killed in their estimation; it implies that it is not so in reality. Thus, there is no need to commit to making yaqinan (certainly) an absolute object for an omitted verb—the estimation being "they were certain of that with certainty."

It is also said: The pronoun refers to "knowledge"—and al-Farra and Ibn Qutaybah held this view—meaning: "They did not kill the knowledge for certain," from the saying "I killed the knowledge and the opinion," meaning you have mastered your knowledge of it. It is figurative, as in [the dictionary] al-Asas. The meaning is: They did not know it for certain. It is also said: The pronoun refers to the "assumption," meaning they did not finalize the assumption with certainty. This is reported from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) and al-Suddi. Ibn al-Anbari reported that in the speech there is a transposition, and that yaqinan is related to His (Almighty) saying...