His saying, the Exalted and Majestic:

﴿Their messengers said, 'Is there doubt about Allah, the Creator of the heavens and the earth? He calls you to forgive you of your sins and to delay you for a specified term.' They said, 'You are not but humans like us. You want to turn us away from what our forefathers used to worship. So bring us a clear authority.'﴾

﴿Their messengers said to them, 'We are not but humans like you, but Allah grants favor to whom He wills of His servants. And it is not for us to bring you an authority except by permission of Allah. And upon Allah let the believers rely.'﴾

﴿And why should we not rely upon Allah while He has guided us to our ways? And we will surely be patient over whatever harm you cause us. And upon Allah let the reliant rely.'﴾

His saying: ﴿Is there doubt about Allah﴾ has an implied pronoun. Its interpretation according to many grammarians is: Is there doubt about His divinity? Abu Ali al-Farisi said: Is there doubt about His oneness?

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

And some people claimed that Abu Ali only resorted to this expression to preserve the doctrine of the Mu'tazila, and to avoid what the term 'divinity' implies of attributes according to its generality. The term 'oneness' is free from that implication.

And 'the Creator': the initiator, and the mention of this attribute is an argument against the doubters, meaning the doubt in one who has this attribute. So he presented the attribute that is established to eliminate doubt. And His saying: ﴿of your sins﴾, some grammarians have said that it is extra. Sibawayh refuses for it to be extra, and sees it as indicating part of something, which is a correct meaning. This is because the promise was made to forgive polytheism and what accompanies it from sins, and what one of them may commit after his faith from sins is left unmentioned to remain with him in the will of Allah, the Exalted. Thus, forgiveness is only promised for part of it, so the meaning of 'of' is correct.

(p-230) And His saying: ﴿and to delay you for a specified term﴾, the statement about it has already been made in Surah Al-A'raf in His saying: ﴿And for every nation is a term﴾ [Al-A'raf: 34]. I brought this here because of what appears between the two verses of contradiction, and it is appropriate here to mention the issue of the murdered: Was his term cut off or was that his predetermined term? The first is the saying of the Mu'tazila, and the second is the saying of the people of the Sunnah. The Mu'tazila say: 'If he had not been killed, he would have lived, and this is the reason for retribution.' A group from the people of the Sunnah said: 'If he had not been killed, he would have died naturally.' Abu al-Ma'ali said: 'All of this is confusion. It is only his term that was decreed in the divine decree that he would die in that manner, so it is impossible for anything else to occur. If we assume that if he had not killed him, and we assume along with that that the knowledge of Allah, the Exalted, preceded that he would not kill him, then his matter remains in the realm of possibility that he may live or be killed or however Allah's knowledge precedes in it.

And the saying of the disbelievers: ﴿You are not but humans like us﴾ contains a rejection of the mission of humans. Some people said: Rather, they intended to challenge him, and they followed the path of the Brahmins or those who say from the philosophers: That there is no such distinction among species.

The judge Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: The apparent meaning of their words does not imply that they have closed their eyes to this closing. It indicates what I mentioned, that they requested from them to bring a clear sign and proof. If their mission was impossible for them, they would not have requested a proof from them. It is possible that their request for proof from them is merely for the purpose of incapacitating them, meaning: your mission is impossible, otherwise bring forth a clear proof, meaning: you will never do that. This possibility strengthens the inclination of those who adhere to the view of the philosophers.

His saying, glorified and exalted is He: ﴿Their messengers said to them, 'We are only human beings like you'﴾, means: You have spoken truthfully in your saying: 'We are human beings' in terms of persons and creation. However, we differ by the grace of Allah, the Most High, and His favor which He bestows upon whom He wills. Thus, they distinguished themselves from them in meaning, unlike His saying, glorified and exalted is He: ﴿They are like rabid donkeys﴾ [Al-Muddathir: 50], for that is in meaning, not in form.

And His saying: ﴿And it is not for us to bring you a proof except by the permission of Allah﴾, this phrase, if a person says it of himself, or it is said to him regarding what falls under his power, its meaning is prohibition and restriction. And if it is regarding something he has no power over, its meaning is the complete negation of that matter. Likewise, this verse. Al-Mahdawi said: Its wording is the wording of prohibition and its meaning is negation. The 'lam' in His saying: 'So let him put his trust' is the 'lam' of command. The majority read it as silent, while Al-Hasan read it as broken. Its being pronounced with a kasrah is its original form, and its being silent is a request for alleviation, due to its frequent use, and to distinguish it from the 'lam' of 'kay' which is unanimously required to have a vowel.

And His saying: ﴿And what is there for us not to put our trust in Allah﴾, the messengers confronted them with a reprimand for their reasoning in not putting their trust in Allah while He has bestowed upon them, guided them to the path of salvation, and favored them over His creation. Then they swore that they would endure the harm for the sake of Allah, the Most High. And 'what' in His saying: ﴿You have not harmed us﴾ is a source word, and it is a particle according to Sibawayh when it stands alone, except that it is a noun with what is connected to it from the source. Some grammarians said: 'What' when it stands alone is a noun. It is possible that 'what' in this context means 'that which', so in 'You have harmed us' there is a pronoun that refers back to: 'You have harmed him', and it is not permissible to attach it due to the implied preposition. This is the view of Sibawayh, while Al-Akhfash permits that.