Surah At-Tawbah (9): 30

Issues Discussed in the Verse:

After Allah judged in the preceding verse that the Jews and Christians do not believe in Allah, this verse explains that judgment by citing their claim that God has a son.

1. The Gravity of the Claim: Whoever permits the concept of God having a son has, in reality, denied the existence of God (as understood properly).
2. Equivalence to Polytheism: Allah clarifies that they are like polytheists in their act of shirk (associating partners with God), even if the methods of asserting this partnership differ. There is no difference between one who worships an idol and one who worships the Messiah or others, as the essence of shirk is taking a deity alongside God.
3. Severity of Christian Belief: If we reflect deeply, the disbelief of the idol-worshipper might be considered lighter than that of the Christians. The idol-worshipper does not claim the idol is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe; rather, they use it as a means of intercession toward God. However, the Christians assert hulūl (indwelling) and ittiḥād (union), which is an extremely ugly form of disbelief.
4. Distinction for Jizyah: It is established that there is no real difference between these adherents of hulūl and other polytheists. The reason Allah permitted accepting the jizyah (poll tax) from them is that outwardly, they associate themselves with Moses and Jesus, claiming adherence to the Torah and the Gospel. Due to the reverence for these two great Messengers, their books, and the ancestors of these Jews and Christians (who were once on the true religion), Allah ruled to accept the jizyah from them. Otherwise, in reality, they are no different from the polytheists.

There are several opinions concerning this statement:

1. One Individual: 'Ubayy ibn Mas'ūd said that only one Jewish man named Finḥāṣ ibn 'Azūrā’ made this claim.
2. A Group: Ibn 'Abbās, through the narration of Sa'īd ibn Jubayr and 'Ikrimah, reported that a group of Jews—including Salām ibn Mishkam, al-Nu'mān ibn Awfā, and Mālik ibn al-Ṣayf—came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: "How can we follow you when you have abandoned our Qiblah, and you do not claim that Ezra is the son of Allah?" This verse was then revealed.
   • Conclusion on 1 & 2: In both views, only some Jews held this belief. Allah attributed the saying to "the Jews" based on the common Arabic practice of using the plural noun to refer to an individual (e.g., "So-and-so rides horses," even if he only rides one).
3. A Widespread, Then Extinct Belief: Perhaps this belief was widespread among them and later ceased. Allah recounted it about them, and their denial now is irrelevant, as Allah's account is the truest.
   • Reason for the Claim (Narrated by Ibn 'Abbās): The Jews lost the Torah and acted unjustly. Allah caused them to forget the Torah and erased it from their hearts. Ezra supplicated fervently to God, and the memory of the Torah returned to his heart. He warned his people, and when they tested him, they found him truthful, leading them to say: "This was not possible for Ezra except that he is the son of Allah."
   • Other Narrations: Al-Kallabī said that Nebuchadnezzar killed their scholars, leaving no one who knew the Torah. Al-Suddī said the 'Amāliq (Amalekites) killed them, leaving no one who knew the Torah.

Regarding the Christians' Claim: "The Messiah is the Son of Allah"

This is outwardly clear, but it presents a strong problem: We are certain that the Messiah (peace be upon him) forbade people from inviting others to worship him except through the concept of fatherhood/sonship, as this is the most egregious form of disbelief. How could this be fitting for the great Prophets? And how could a whole group of Jesus's followers agree upon this disbelief? Who established this corrupt doctrine and managed to attribute it to Jesus?

• Explanations by Commentators: After Jesus was raised, his followers were on the truth until a war broke out between them and the Jews. A brave Jew named Paul killed many of Jesus's companions. Paul then told the Jews: "If the truth is with Jesus, then we have disbelieved, and the Fire is our destination. We are losers if they enter Paradise and we enter the Fire. I shall devise a plan to mislead them."
  • He was punished, then feigned repentance, covered his head with dust, and claimed: "I was called from the heavens: there is no repentance for you except if you become a Christian." They admitted him to the church, where he stayed for a year, learned the Gospel, and they believed and loved him.
  • He then went to Jerusalem and appointed a man named Nestorius in his place, teaching him that Jesus, Mary, and God were three. He traveled to the Romans and taught them about divinity (lāhūt) and humanity (nāsūt), saying Jesus was neither human nor body, but God. He taught another man named Jacob this as well.
  • He then called a man named Malak and told him: "God has always been and always will be Jesus." He called these three men and told each one: "You are my successor; call people to your Gospel. I saw Jesus in a dream, and he was pleased with me. Tomorrow, I will sacrifice myself to please Jesus." He then entered the sanctuary and sacrificed himself. Each of these three then called people to his own doctrine. This is the reason this disbelief spread among the Christian sects (as narrated by Al-Wāḥidī).

• My Preferred View (Al-Rāzī): It is more likely that the word "Son" (ibn) appeared in the Gospel as a term of honor, similar to how "Friend of God" (Khalīl) was used for Abraham. Then, due to the enmity with the Jews and the desire to counter their corrupt extremism in one direction with corrupt extremism in the other, they exaggerated and interpreted the word "Son" as literal, physical sonship. The ignorant accepted this, and this corrupt doctrine spread among Jesus's followers. Allah knows the reality.

1. Readings: 'Āṣim, Al-Kisā'ī, and 'Abd al-Wārith (from Abū 'Amr) read it with tanwīn (nunation): 'Uzayrun. The rest read it without tanwīn: 'Uzayr.
2. Argument for Tanwīn (Al-Zajjāj): The mubtada' (subject) is 'Uzayrun, and the khabar (predicate) is ibnu Allāh. If so, tanwīn is necessary because 'Uzayr is munṣarif (diptote exception does not apply), whether it is a foreign or Arabic name. This is because:
   • It is a light name, so it is munṣarif (like Hūd or Lūṭ, even if foreign).
   • It is on the pattern of the diminutive form, and foreign names are not usually made diminutive.
3. Arguments for No Tanwīn:
   • First View: It is a foreign proper noun, so it must be ghayr munṣarif (indeclinable).
   • Second View: The word 'ibn is an adjective (ṣifah), and the predicate is omitted. The meaning is: "Ezra is the son of Allah, our worshipped one."
     • Critique by Al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī: He argued that when a noun is described by an adjective and then predicated, the denial targets the predicate, making the adjective accepted as true. Since the denial targeted their claim that "Ezra is the son of Allah, our worshipped one," the denial should focus on him being worshipped, while his being the son of God is accepted (which is disbelief).
     • Al-Rāzī's Response: This critique is weak. While it is true that denial targets the predicate, it does not necessarily imply that the adjective is affirmed. This relies on dalīl al-khiṭāb (argument from silence), which is weak, especially in this context.
   • Third View (Al-Farrā'): The nūn of tanwīn in 'Uzayrun is silent, and the bā' in ibn is silent. This results in the meeting of two silent letters (iltiqā' al-sākinayn), so the nūn of tanwīn is dropped for ease of pronunciation. He cited poetry as evidence.

When Allah recounts their saying, He specifies: {that is their saying with their mouths}. One might ask: Since every saying is spoken by the mouth, why single out this saying?

• Answers:
  1. Lack of Substance: It refers to a saying unsupported by proof—mere utterance devoid of meaningful substance. Their assertion of a son for God (who is free from need, desire, sexual intercourse, or procreation) is a baseless statement that yields no rational result. This is similar to: {They say with their mouths what is not in their hearts} (3:167).
  2. Utmost Declaration: A person may hold a belief implicitly (through allusion or hint). When they state it explicitly with their tongue, that represents the ultimate choice and declaration of that belief. Here, it means they are openly proclaiming this doctrine without concealment.
  3. Widespread Propagation: It means they called people to this doctrine until it became common on tongues and lips. The intent is to emphasize their extreme effort in inviting others to this doctrine.

Further Analysis: {They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them}

1. Similarity to Idolaters: The saying of the Jews and Christians imitates the saying of the polytheists who claimed the angels were the daughters of Allah.
2. Christian Imitation of Jews: The pronoun refers to the Christians; their saying "The Messiah is the son of Allah" imitates the Jews' saying "Ezra is the son of Allah," as the Jews are older in this specific claim.
3. Imitation of Ancient Disbelief: This saying by the Christians imitates the disbelief of their ancient predecessors; meaning, it is an old form of disbelief, not newly invented.

• Similarity: Muḍāhāt means resemblance. Al-Farrā' said: "One says ḍāhaytuhu ḍahyan and muḍāhāt." This is the view of most linguists.
• Following: Shammir said muḍāhāt means following. One says: "So-and-so imitates so-and-so," meaning he follows him.

• 'Āṣim reads it with a hamza and a kasra on the hā' (yudāhi'ūna). The rest read it without a hamza and with a ḍamma on the hā' (yuḍāhi'ūna).
• It is said: ḍāhaytuhu and ḍāha'tuhu are two linguistic variants, like arjaitu and arj'atu. Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā said no one followed 'Āṣim in using the hamza.

This phrase is an expression of astonishment at the ugliness of their saying, similar to the Arabic expression: "May God fight them! How wonderful their deed is!"

• Meaning of Yu'fakūn (Deluded/Averted): Ifk means turning away or diverting. A man who is ma'fūk is one diverted from good.
• Interpretation: {How they are averted} means: How are they turned away and diverted from the truth after the evidence has become clear, to the extent that they attribute a son to God!
• Source of Astonishment: This astonishment refers to the creation (the people), as Allah does not experience astonishment. This address follows the Arabs' customary manner of speech. Allah is marveling at their abandonment of truth and persistence in falsehood.

Verse 31: {They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God. There is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above what they associate with Him.}