وَإِذْ قَالَ ٱللَّهُ يَٰعِيسَى ٱبْنَ مَرْيَمَ ءَأَنتَ قُلْتَ لِلنَّاسِ ٱتَّخِذُونِى وَأُمِّىَ إِلَٰهَيْنِ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ
"God will say: 'O Jesus, son of Mary! Was it you who said to people, take me and my mother as two gods besides God?' He will say: 'Glory be to You; it is not for me to say what I have no right to say.'"
The sentence is a question, and its subject is brought forward: a-anta qulta. The lexicographers record that this fronting conveys specification: "is it you who said this?"
I record this as an observation about the language: the question investigates not the content of the claim but its source — and in doing so the link between the claim and the person is cut.
| Step | Expression |
|---|---|
| 1 | Subḥānak — declaring Him beyond it |
| 2 | Mā yakūnu lī an aqūla mā laysa lī bi-ḥaqq — refusal of authority |
| 3 | In kuntu qultuhū fa-qad ʿalimtah — referral to knowledge |
| 4 | Taʿlamu mā fī nafsī wa lā aʿlamu mā fī nafsik — asymmetry |
The fourth step should be recorded: the sentence sets up no reciprocity — the knowledge runs one way. And this is the same admission as lā ʿilma lanā at 5/109.
And what was said is transmitted — and this sentence occurs in the sūra for the second time: at 5/72 too there was iʿbudu'llāha rabbī wa rabbakum.
The same sentence twice, forty-five verses apart — one as the counter-proof to a ruling, the other as the answer at the reckoning. This repetition can be verified from the text.
وَكُنتُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا مَّا دُمْتُ فِيهِمْ فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّيْتَنِى كُنتَ أَنتَ ٱلرَّقِيبَ عَلَيْهِمْ
The exegetes differ on the sense of the word tawaffī (و-ف-ي) here — the primary sense of the root is "to take in full, to receive complete", and it has been debated in the context of Āl ʿImrān 3/55 and al-Nisāʾ 4/157-158. No preference is adopted in this commentary.
5/118 — إِن تُعَذِّبْهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ عِبَادُكَ وَإِن تَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ فَإِنَّكَ أَنتَ ٱلْعَزِيزُ ٱلْحَكِيمُ
| Condition | Ground |
|---|---|
| In tuʿadhdhibhum | Fa-innahum ʿibāduk — they are Your servants |
| Wa in taghfir lahum | Fa-innaka anta'l-ʿazīzu'l-ḥakīm |
I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the departure from the expected pattern: the pair of names expected in the second half of the sentence would be al-Ghafūru'r-Raḥīm. In their place comes al-ʿAzīzu'l-Ḥakīm.
That is, forgiveness is named not as weakness but as might and wisdom. This is a choice that can be verified from the text, and a point noticed in classical exegesis as well.
And there is the same subtlety in the first half: the ground given for the possibility of punishment is innahum ʿibāduk — that is, not an enumeration of offences but ownership.