Tafsir of At-Tawbah 9:30

(And the Jews said) This is an inception meant to confirm what has already been mentioned regarding the lack of faith in Allah (the Exalted) by the people of the two Books, and their inclusion thereby among the polytheists. The one who says "Ezra is the son of God" refers to the elders of the Jews; attributing an ugly thing, when it originates from some of a people, to the whole is a common usage.

The reason for this—according to what Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them)—is that Ezra was among the people of the Book, and they possessed the Torah, acting upon it as Allah (the Exalted) willed for them to act. Then they lost it and acted against the truth. The Ark was with them, and when Allah (the Exalted) saw that they had squandered the Torah and acted according to their desires, He lifted the Ark from them, made them forget the Torah, and erased it from their hearts. Ezra called upon his Lord (the Mighty and Majestic) and supplicated to Him to restore to him what had been erased from his heart. While he was praying and supplicating to Allah (the Mighty and Majestic), a light from Allah (the Exalted) descended and entered his chest; thus, that which had departed from his chest regarding the Torah returned. He then proclaimed to his people, saying: "O my people, Allah (the Exalted) has brought me the Torah and restored it to me." He began to teach them, and they remained as long as Allah willed for them to remain while he taught them. Then, the Ark was sent down upon them after it had departed from them, and they presented what was in it to that which Ezra was teaching them; they found it to be identical. They said: "By Allah, Ezra was not given this except because he is the son of God."

Al-Kalbi stated regarding the reason for this: Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem, overcame the Children of Israel, and killed those who could recite the Torah. Ezra was young at that time, so he did not kill him due to his youth. When the Children of Israel returned to Jerusalem and there was no one among them who could recite the Torah, Allah (the Exalted) sent Ezra to renew the Torah for them and to be a sign for them, after Allah had caused him to die for one hundred years. An angel came to him with a vessel containing water, and he drank from it; the Torah was then manifest in his chest. When he came to them, he said: "I am Ezra." They disbelieved him and said: "If you are as you claim, then dictate the Torah to us." He wrote it for them from his heart. A man among them said: "My father told me from my grandfather that the Torah was placed in a chest and buried in a vineyard." They went with him until they brought it out, and they compared it to what Ezra had written for them; they did not find him to have missed a single letter. They said: "Allah (the Exalted) did not cast the Torah into Ezra’s heart except because he is His son." Exalted is Allah far above that!

Other reports have been narrated, but the essence of these accounts is that the reason was his (peace be upon him) preservation of the Torah. It is also said that the speaker was a group of the Jews of Medina, among them Salam ibn Mishkam, Nu'man ibn Abi Awfa, Shas ibn Qays, and Malik ibn al-Sayf. Ibn Abi Hatim, Abu al-Shaykh, and Ibn Marduyah narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that they came to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said: "How can we follow you when you have abandoned our direction of prayer (qibla), and you do not claim that Ezra is the son of God?" Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Ibn Jurayj that the one who said this was Finhas ibn Azura, who is—according to what is mentioned in some reports—the one who said: "Indeed, Allah is poor, and we are rich."

In summary, this statement was widespread among them, and there is no regard for their denial of it entirely, nor for the claim of some: "The reality is that our statement is 'Ezra, may Allah make clear,' i.e., clarify His rulings and explain His religion, or something similar," after Allah (the Exalted) has informed us of what He has informed.

Asim, al-Kisa’i, Ya'qub, and Sahl recited 'Uzayrun with tanwin, while the others recited it without. As for the tanwin, it is on the basis that it is an Arabic name of which "son" is a predicate. Abu Ubaydah said: "It is non-Arabic, but it is declined (munsarif) because of its lightness through diminutive, like Nuh and Lut," and al-Saghani followed this. It is a diminutive of 'Azar, a syncopated diminutive. The statement that it is non-Arabic and came in the form of a diminutive, but is not one, is a matter of debate.

As for dropping the tanwin, it is said to be due to the meeting of two quiescent (sakin) letters; for the nun of the tanwin is quiescent, and the ba in ibn (son) is also quiescent, so they met, and the nun was dropped for that reason, just as the vowels (huruf al-'illah) are dropped for that. This is based on likening the nun to the semi-vowel; otherwise, the standard rule would be to vocalize it. It is an ibtidai (initial) subject, and "son" is its predicate. Thus, it is written with an alif in all the codices. It is also said: it is because it is diptote (mamnu' min al-sarf) due to being a proper name and non-Arabic. And it is said: because "son" is an adjective, and the predicate is omitted, such as "our object of worship." This has been refuted as a strained interpretation that has no necessity. The Sheikh refuted it in Dala’il al-I'jaz, arguing that if a noun is described with an attribute and then a predicate is provided, the refutation of the one who denies it directs itself toward the predicate, and that attribute becomes accepted. If the purpose of the denial were their saying "Ezra is the son of God, our object of worship," then the denial would be directed toward his being an object of worship for them, and his being "son of God" would be conceded, which is disbelief. The Imam objected to him, saying: "That the denial is directed toward the predicate is conceded, but that this would be a concession of the attribute is forbidden; for it does not necessarily follow from him being a denier of the predicate that he is a believer in the attribute." Unless it is said that this is via the implication of the address (dalil al-khitab), but that is weak. Some answered that the attribute is for causality, so the denial of the judgment implies the denial of its cause. The objection here is that the denial of the judgment might be due to a lack of attribution, not because the attribute itself (like the structure, for example) is negated.

In al-Idah, it is mentioned that the statement functions as an attribute, and the intention is that it does not need a predicate to be estimated. Just as when someone makes a statement, some of which is denied, and only the denied part is reported—this is, as stated in al-Kashf, a sound approach to avoiding strained interpretations, but it is contrary to the apparent meaning, as testified to by the end of the verse. Some verifiers have said: it is possible that "Ezra is the son of God" is the predicate of an omitted subject, i.e., "our companion Ezra is the son of God," for example. When a predicate is described, the denial is directed toward its description, like "this man, the wise." This aligns with rhetoric and follows the rules of Arabic without strain or obscurity. It is not clear to me why this would be abandoned despite its obviousness. The apparent meaning is that the construction is a predicate, and there is no omission there.

There is a difference of opinion as to whether Ezra is a prophet or not, and the majority hold the latter.

(And the Christians said, "The Messiah is the son of God.") This is also the statement of some of them. Perhaps they said it because it is impossible for one to be born without a father, or because they saw from his actions what they saw. It is possible—and this is what seems apparent to me—that they found the attribution of "son" to him (peace be upon him), and likewise the attribution of "Father" to Allah (the Exalted), in the Gospel they possessed, so they said what they said and erred in understanding what was intended by that. We have previously provided sufficient discussion in this regard.

It is strange, and hardly authentic, what is said: that the cause of their statement is that they were upon the true religion for eighty-one years after the ascension of Jesus (peace be upon him), praying, fasting, and affirming the oneness of God, until a war broke out between them and the Jews. There was a courageous man among the Jews named Paul who killed a group of them, then said to the Jews: "If the truth is with Jesus (peace be upon him), then we have disbelieved and the Fire is our destiny, and we are at a loss if we enter the Fire and they enter Paradise. I will scheme against them and lead them astray until they enter the Fire with us." Then he took a horse he used for fighting and hamstrung it, feigned remorse and repentance, put dust on his head, and came to the Christians. They said to him: "Who are you?" He said: "Your enemy Paul. I have been called from the heavens that there is no repentance for you until you become victorious. I have repented and come to you." They admitted him into the church and helped him. He entered a house therein and did not leave it for a year until he learned the Gospel. Then he went out and said: "I have been called that Allah (the Exalted) has accepted your repentance." They believed him and loved him, and his status rose among them. Then he took three men from among them: Nestorius, Jacob, and Malkah. He taught Nestorius that the gods are three: Allah, Jesus, and Mary—exalted is Allah far above that! He taught Jacob that Jesus is not human but is the son of God (the Exalted). He taught Malkah that Jesus is Allah (the Exalted), who has always existed and will always exist. When this took hold of them, he called each of them in private and said to him: "You are my trusted one, so call the people to what I have taught you," and he ordered each to go to a different part of the land. Then he said to them: "I saw Jesus (peace be upon him) in a dream, and he is pleased with me, and I am slaughtering myself as an offering to him." Then he went to the altar and slaughtered himself. The three of them dispersed; one went to the Romans, one to Jerusalem, and the other to another region. Each of them proclaimed his doctrine and called the people to it, so those who followed them followed them, and the corruption and straying that occurred, occurred.

(That is their saying with their mouths)—that is, it is a statement not supported by any proof, similar to meaningless words that have no existence except in the mouths, without having any reality in the external world. It is said: it is an emphasis on the attribution of the aforementioned statement to them, and a negation of metaphor regarding them; this is common in such contexts. It is also said: the "saying" is intended to mean opinion and doctrine, and the mention of "mouths" is either to indicate that it has no effect in their hearts and they only speak it out of ignorance and stubbornness, or to signal that it is their chosen position, having no fear of declaring it. For a person might indicate his doctrine through writing or allusion, for instance; so if he declares it and mentions it with his tongue, that is the ultimate in choosing it. Many have claimed that making this a matter of emphasis—as in your saying "I saw him with my eyes" and "I heard him with my ears"—is something the context rejects. Even if the intention is emphasis along with astonishment at their declaration of that corrupt doctrine, the context does not reject it, and there is no contradiction in the nuances.

(They imitate)—i.e., their statement imitates in disbelief and heinousness (the statement of those who disbelieved before). The possessor (mudaf) is omitted and replaced by the possessor of (mudaf ilayh), and it is made nominative. It is possible that it is a matter of metaphor, as was said regarding the saying of Allah (the Exalted): {And that Allah does not guide the plot of the betrayers}, i.e., does not guide them in their plot. The meaning is: "They imitate in their saying the saying of those who disbelieved before," i.e., before them. They are, as narrated from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, and Qatadah—and al-Farra chose this—the polytheists who said: "The angels are the daughters of Allah." Exalted is He above what they say! It is said: the intention is their predecessors; so the imitators are those who were in his (peace be upon him) time among them, imitating their ancestors. The intention is to inform of their deep-rootedness in disbelief. You know that there is no multiplicity in the statement such that a comparison could take place, and making it between the statements of the two parties has no added merit. It is said: the intended parties are the Jews, with the pronoun referring to the Christians; it is not hidden that this is contrary to the apparent meaning, even if Ibn al-Mundhir and others narrated it from Qatadah, especially since their imitation has already been known from the beginning of the verse. It also requires the response and refutation in the saying of Allah (the Exalted) {That is their saying with their mouths} to be restricted to the Christians.

Most recited yudahuna with a quiescent ha followed by a waw. Dahayt and daha't have both come to mean imitation (mudahah), which is similarity. Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) explained it with this, and al-Hasan explained it as agreement; they are two linguistic dialects. It is said that the ya is a derivative of the hamza, just as they said qaraytu and tawadduytu. It is said the hamza is a substitute for the ya due to its damma. This is refuted by the fact that the ya is not established in such cases to be flipped; rather, it is dropped, like karamuna from al-ramy. It is said it is derived from their saying: "A woman is dahya" (with a short vowel), meaning one who has no breasts, or does not menstruate, or does not conceive, due to her similarity to men. It is said dahya' (with a long vowel) and dahya'ah (with a long vowel and the feminine ta). The combination of the two signs of femininity is rare here. This is refuted as being an error due to the difference in the root; the hamza in dahya' in its three dialects is superfluous, while in mudahah it is original. They did not say that the hamza of dahya' is original and its ya is superfluous because the form fu'ila' is not established in their structures, nor did they say its weight is fa'lal like Ja'far because the superfluity of the hamza in dahya' (with a long vowel) is established. Thus, it is determined in the other dialect. In this place, there is a detailed discussion in its proper context.

Some people allow pausing at {their saying} and making {with their mouths} dependent on {they imitate}. There is no doubt that this is nothing. In sum, this is a condemnation of those who disbelieved in the most eloquent way, even if it were not meant for their condemnation.

(May Allah destroy them)—a prayer against them for destruction; for whoever fights Allah (the Exalted) is destroyed, and whoever overcomes Him is overcome. Ibn Jarir and others narrated from Ibn Abbas that the meaning is "May Allah curse them," which is a metaphorical meaning for "May Allah destroy them." It is permissible that the intention of this phrase is astonishment at the heinousness of their statement, for it has become widespread in that, even to the point that it is used for praise; it is said: "May Allah destroy him, how eloquent he is!" It is said: it is for supplication and astonishment, understood from the context, because it is a phrase not said except in a place of astonishment at the heinousness of a people's action or their statement. The problem with restricting it to heinousness is not hidden.

(How are they deluded?)—i.e., how are they turned away from the truth to falsehood after the clarity of the evidence and the radiance of the proof?