Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:18

(And the Jews and the Christians said, "We are the children of Allah and His beloved ones.") This is a narration of the false claim made by both parties regarding themselves, and an explanation of its invalidity—following the mention of the false claims made by one of them against the other and the explanation of their falsehood. It means that both groups uttered this false statement. By "children," they intended those drawn near, meaning: "We are drawn near to Allah the Exalted, just as children are near to their father." By "beloved ones," the plural of habib (beloved), they meant those who love or are loved.

It is also possible that by "children," they meant the elite, as one says, "the children of this world" and "the children of the Hereafter." Or, they may have meant the followers of those described with prophethood—that is, the Jews said, "We are the followers of His son, Uzair," and the Christians said, "We are the followers of His son, the Messiah," peace be upon them both. "Children" was used metaphorically for "followers," either due to dominance (taghlib) or by likening them to children in the closeness of their status. This is similar to how the followers of a king might say, "We are the kings," and how "the Khubaybids" was used for the followers of Abu Khubayb, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, in his saying:

Sufficient for me, of the victory of the Khubaybids, is enough for me.

According to the reading of those who recite it in the plural, Ibn al-Sikkit said: "He means Abu Khubayb and those who were with him." Since it is permissible to pluralize the name of Khubayb along with his followers, it is even more appropriate to permit the pluralization of "the son of Allah"—exalted is His name—and the followers of that "son" according to the claim of both parties. Thus, we refute what has been said, that they do not claim sonship for themselves, and it is not to be interpreted as a distribution (i.e., "we ourselves are the beloved, and our children are the children") by grouping the two sons to harmonize with "the beloved," for the address "Nay, you are human beings" rejects this outwardly, or points to their claim of sonship in whatever sense it may be.

It has been said that the speech is based on the omission of a genitive (i.e., "We are the children of the Prophets of Allah the Exalted"), but this is contrary to the apparent meaning. The speaker of this claim among the Jews was a specific group, though it is attributed to them all, as has been mentioned more than once. Ibn Jarir and al-Bayhaqi reported in al-Dala'il from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—who said: "Nu'man ibn Aṣa, Baḥri ibn 'Amr, and Shash ibn 'Adi came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). They spoke to him, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) spoke to them, invited them to Allah the Exalted, and warned them of His vengeance. They said, 'Do not frighten us, O Muhammad. We are, by Allah, the children of Allah and His beloved ones.' The Christians had said that before them, so Allah the Exalted revealed this verse concerning them." From al-Hasan, it is reported that the Christians interpreted what was in the Gospel of the Messiah's saying, "I am going to my Father and your Father," as they did.

In my view, the application of "Son of Allah" to the obedient was present in ancient times. In the Torah, Allah the Exalted said to Moses, peace be upon him: "Go to Pharaoh and say to him: Thus says the Lord of Israel, 'My firstborn son; let him go so he may worship Me. If you refuse to let My firstborn son go, I will kill your firstborn son.'" It is also mentioned therein regarding the story of the Flood: "When the children of Allah the Exalted saw the daughters of men, they were very beautiful; they were infatuated with them, so they married whichever of them they loved and chose. They begot giants and caused corruption. Allah the Exalted said: 'My care shall not dwell upon this people.'" He intends by "the children of Allah" the children of Abel, and by "the children of men," the children of Cain, who were very beautiful, and they turned their hearts away from the worship of Allah the Exalted to the worship of idols. In the Psalms: "You are my son; ask of me and I will give it to you." Also therein: "You are my son and my beloved." Isaiah said in his prophecy regarding Allah the Exalted: "Command them concerning my sons and daughters," meaning the male and female righteous worshippers of Allah the Exalted. John the Evangelist said in the second chapter of his first epistle: "See what love the Father has for us, that He has given us to be called children." And in the third chapter: "O beloved, now we have become children of Allah the Exalted; therefore, we ought to revere Him as He is. Whoever truly holds this hope, let him purify himself by abandoning sin and transgression; and know that whoever practices sin has not known Him." Matthew said: "The Messiah said, 'Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be the children of your Father who makes His sun rise on the good and the evil, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.'" John the disciple said in the stories of the Apostles: "O my beloved, we are the children of Allah the Exalted, He has named us so." Paul the Apostle said in his epistle to the Romans: "The Spirit bears witness to our spirits that we are the children of Allah the Exalted and His beloved," and so on, in countlessly numerous instances. The application of "son" has also been used for the disobedient, but in the sense of consequence and the like. In the fifth epistle of Paul: "Beware of foolishness, abuse, and play, for the adulterer and the unclean, like the idolater, have no share in the kingdom of Allah the Exalted. Beware of these evils, for because of them comes the wrath of Allah upon the children who do not obey Him. Beware of being partners with them, for you were once in darkness; strive now as the children of light."

The objective of both parties with "We are the children of Allah and His beloved ones" is a meaning that implies praise. The essence of their claim is that they possess merit and distinction before Allah the Exalted over all other creation. Therefore, the Exalted One refuted them and said to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): (Say)—by way of binding and shaming them—(Why then does He punish you for your sins?) That is, if what you claim is true, then for what reason would He punish you on the Day of Resurrection in the Fire for a number of days equal to the days you worshipped the Calf? You have acknowledged this in more than one place, and this contradicts your claim of closeness and Allah’s love for you, or your love for Him, which necessitates His love for you—as it is said: "What is the reward of the one who loves, except that he is loved?"—or [it means]: For what reason did you sin, given the evidence that you will be punished? And "children of Allah," if used in a context of boasting, is only applied to the obedient, as your own books state. Or, if what you claim were true, why would He punish you with the metamorphosis (al-maskh), which you cannot deny? Some counted calamities and trials, such as killing and captivity, as part of the punishment. This was objected to on the grounds that it does not serve as a binding argument, for calamities and trials are abundant among the righteous, and it has been reported: "The most severely tested of people are the Prophets, then those who are best, then those who are next best." The poet said:

But they are the people of duty and nobility; They are the adversaries to the vicissitudes of time.

His saying: (Nay, you are human beings) is a conjunction to an implied [clause] upon which the speech carries; that is, the matter is not as you claim, "Nay, you are human beings." If you wish, you may estimate such [a phrase] at the beginning of the speech and make the fa a conjunction. His saying, may He be exalted: (from among those He created) relates to an omitted [word] which acts as an adjective for "human beings"—i.e., human beings who are of the species of those whom Allah the Exalted has created, with no superiority for you over them. (He forgives whom He wills)—that He wishes to forgive—from among those created beings, and they are the believers in Him, the Exalted, and in His Messengers, peace be upon them. (And He punishes whom He wills)—that He wishes to punish—and they are those who disbelieved in Him, the Exalted, and in His Messengers, peace be upon them, like you. What points to this specification is the saying of Allah the Exalted: "Verily, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him," if we take it in its generality, as is well known and famous. Among the strange [claims] is that in al-Nawawi’s commentary on Muslim, that it is possible it is specified for this [Islamic] nation, and in that [assertion] there is reflection.

Here, some researchers have raised a problem, stating it is strong: If the meaning of "We are the children of Allah the Exalted" is "followers of His children," then at most they are on the path of the "son" as a confirmation of being followers. But from where does it necessarily follow that they are of the same species as the father, as al-Zamakhshari explicitly stated regarding the negation of [the ability to] commit foul deeds and the negation of humanity and createdness, so that the response to them being human beings "from among those He created" would be sound? Yes, what they mentioned in this context—that love necessitates the absence of disobedience and punishment—might hold up, because the nature of the lover is not to disobey the beloved nor to deserve punishment from him. Hence it is said:

You disobey the God while you show His love, This, by my life, is a strange deed in actions. If your love were truthful, you would have obeyed Him, For the lover is obedient to the one he loves.

This involves a debate because this is the nature of lovers, and "the beloved" (al-ahibba') are those who love. He answered the problem of proving humanity by saying: It is not the proof of absolute humanity such that the refutation of the claim must be by its negation. Rather, it is the proof that they are human beings like other humans and of the same species as other created beings, among whom are the sinner and the obedient, those deserving of forgiveness and those deserving of punishment—not as they claimed that they are the followers specifically endowed with greater closeness and exclusivity not found in other humans. Thus, He described them as "human beings" with His saying, may He be exalted, "from among those He created," so that it would not be far-fetched that "He forgives whom He wills" also sits in the position of an adjective with an omitted pronoun—i.e., "whomever He wills among them." As for the problem of the species, it was said in response: The intent is that if you were the followers of the children of Allah the Exalted, you would be of their quality in abandoning foul deeds and not deserving punishment, for it is the nature of followers to be of the quality of the followed, and the followed here are "the children" by claim, and it is the nature of children to be of the quality of the father. Thus, it is the nature of followers to be of the quality of the father by mediation. It was also said: The statement of those who said, "It is necessary that they be of the species of the father," is based on the omission of a genitive, meaning: "If you were the followers of the children of Allah the Exalted, you would be of the species of the followers of the father," meaning the people of Allah the Exalted who do not commit foul deeds and do not deserve punishment. In al-Kashf, it states: "Their saying, 'We are the children of Allah the Exalted,' contains the affirmation of a son and that they are his followers, deserving of the father’s love for that reason. Therefore, the response should include the destruction of both claims." Thus it was said: "He to whom you attribute sonship is not fit for it, as foul deeds cannot be attributed to Him; and [your] occurrence of such is a lapse, and [Allah’s] holding you to account is for the slip, and your claim of love is lying, otherwise you would not be punished." Also, if it is invalidated that He, the Exalted, has a son, it is invalidated that they are his followers, and likewise the love based upon that. Then he said: "It is permissible to say that it is to invalidate that they are children in reality, as is understood from the apparent wording, or metaphorically, as interpreted by al-Zamakhshari."

You know that everything he mentioned is of no account, as is not hidden from one who has the slightest [intellectual] contemplation. What we have mentioned is sufficient for the purpose. Indeed, al-Shihab—may mercy be upon him—mentioned a justification that is acceptable, which is that it is appropriate that their intent by being "the children of Allah" is that when the "son" was sent to them, according to their claim, and messengers of His servants were sent to others, this indicated their distinction over the rest of creation and that they have a complete affinity and closeness with Allah the Exalted, necessitating an honor above which there is no honor. Just as if a king were to send to a people one of his soldiers, and to others his son, they would know that he intended to draw them near and that they are safe from every evil that might afflict others. The method of the response is that there is no difference between you and others before Allah the Exalted, for if it were as you claimed, He would not have punished you or caused the metamorphosis among you. The same applies to [the meaning] of being "the drawn near," as it is intended for a special closeness, so the response matches it, and the two answers embrace each other. Understand this.

The response to the debate done by some is known from what we pointed out earlier, so do not be heedless. (And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them) is a completion of the response. That is, all of this belongs to Him, the Exalted; nothing of it can be attributed to Him except through servitude, slavery, and being overpowered under His sovereignty. He disposes of it as He wills: creating and annihilating, giving life and causing death, rewarding and punishing. How, then, can these [people] claim what they have claimed? It may be said that this, along with what preceded, is a refutation of them being "the children of Allah" in the sense of being followers of His children. Thus, He negated, firstly, them being followers, and secondly, the existence of children for Him—exalted is His majesty. (And to Him is the [final] destination)—that is, the return in the Hereafter, not to anyone else independently or in partnership. So He will recompense each, the doer of good and the doer of evil, according to what His knowledge necessitates, without any averter to turn Him away or any intercessor to bend Him.