The Messiah will not disdain. He will neither disdain nor elevate himself. Al-Mahmood said that it means he will not disdain nor elevate himself. Ahmad said: There has been much disagreement regarding the preference of the prophets over the angels. The majority of the Ash'ari scholars hold that the prophets are preferred. Al-Qadi Abu Bakr, Al-Halimi, and a group of the Mu'tazila hold that the angels are preferred. The Mu'tazila have taken this verse as their proof for the preference of the angels based on the reasoning of Al-Zamakhshari. With Allah's help, we will elaborate on the matter based on the verse. We say: The Ash'ari scholars have raised questions regarding its evidence.

One of them is that our master Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him, is better than Jesus, peace be upon him. Therefore, it does not follow that if the angels are better than the Messiah, they are better than Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him. This question is directed only if the source does not claim that each individual prophet is better than each individual angel. Our group has a disagreement on this point.

The second question is that the phrase: 'the angels who are near' (لا الْمَلَائِكَةُ الْمُقَرَّبُونَ) is a plural form that encompasses all the angels. This implies that the entirety of the angels is better than the Messiah, but it does not necessitate that each one of them is better than the Messiah. This question also has a perspective because if the source is based on the premise that the Messiah is better than each individual angel, it could be said that it necessitates the claim that he is better than all, just as the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, when he was better than each individual prophet, was better than all of them. No one who has classified in this matter has distinguished between preference in detail and preference in general. Some contemporaries have attempted to differentiate between the two preferences and claimed that preference in detail does not necessitate preference in general, but this claim has not been established. If anyone were to say it, it would be refuted in a subtle way, which is that the intended preference is primarily indicated by the elevation of the rank of the preferred in Paradise. The hadiths are abundant in this regard. Therefore, it must be either that the rank of one of the less preferred is elevated above one who is agreed upon as being better than each of them, or that the rank of none of them is elevated above him. There is no way to the first, as it would necessitate elevating the less preferred above the preferred, so the second must be the case, which is the elevation of the preferred's rank over the ranks of the group. Thus, it follows that his preference over the group is established from his preference over each one of them certainly.

The third point is that the angels are mentioned alongside the Messiah with the conjunction 'and,' which does not imply a hierarchy. As for citing the mentioned example to assert that the second is always of a higher rank, it is opposed by examples that do not imply that, such as saying: 'Neither Zayd nor Amr criticized me for this matter.'

I say: And your saying: 'Do not harm a Muslim nor a dhimmi,' this arrangement is the face of the speech. The second is lower and of a lesser degree. If you were to reverse this and say: 'Do not harm a dhimmi nor a Muslim' to place the higher second, you would deviate from the limits of speech and the laws of rhetoric.

This example clarifies what is presented in refuting the established law, but the truth is more deserving than dispute, and there is no contradiction between the two examples.

And we prepare a clarification that removes ambiguity and uncovers the truth. We say: The point in the arrangement in the two hypothetical examples is that one opposes the other. This necessitates, in some places, the precedence of the higher, and in other places, its delay. That point is a requirement of eloquence, which avoids repetition and is free from descent. Therefore, if you rely on this, whatever leads to your last words being a descent in relation to your first, or if the latter is included in the former and has benefited you while you are independent of the latter, then turn away from that to what is an elevation from the lower to the higher, and a beginning for a benefit not included in the first. An example of this is the mentioned verse. If you were to consider that the Messiah is better than the angels and of a higher rank, mentioning the angels after him would be superfluous. This is because if the best, which is the Messiah in this estimation, is a servant of Allah and does not shy away from servitude, it follows that those beneath him in virtue are more deserving not to shy away from being servants of Allah, and they are the angels in this estimation. Thus, nothing new is added by his saying: 'And not the angels, the ones brought near.' If you consider the Messiah as inferior in relation to the angels, then you have elevated the glorification of Allah, the Exalted, by showing that the inferior does not shy away from being His servant, to the point that the best does not shy away from that. And it does not follow from the lack of shyness of the inferior that the best also lacks shyness. Hence, there is a need to mention the angels, as the first does not necessitate the second. Thus, the speech in this estimation generates new benefits and increases. What is like this must be the basis for the noble Book, for it is the ultimate in eloquence. With this point, you must say: Do not harm a Muslim or a dhimmi, so you delay the inferior contrary to the arrangement in the verse. This is because if you prohibit him from harming a Muslim, it may be said: That is one of his specific traits, in respect for Islam. Therefore, it does not necessitate prohibiting him from the disbeliever, who lacks this specificity. When you say: 'And not a dhimmi,' you have generated a benefit that was not in the first, and you have elevated from the prohibition of some types of harm to the prohibition of more than that. If you had arranged this example like the arrangement of the verse and said: Do not harm a dhimmi, it would imply that the harm to a Muslim is included in the prohibition, as the dhimmi is equal to him in the cause of respect, which is humanity, for example, and is distinguished from him by a greater and more significant cause, which is Islam. This prohibition would suffice to renew another prohibition against harming a Muslim. If you said: 'And not a Muslim,' you would not have specified a benefit for him nor taught him anything other than what you taught him initially. You have understood that this is a single point that sometimes necessitates the precedence of the higher and sometimes its delay, and only the context distinguishes that for you. I have no doubt that the context of the verse necessitates the precedence of the inferior and the delay of the higher. Among the eloquence based on this point is His saying, the Exalted: 'So do not say to them [both] "

," as a sufficiency against prohibiting them from striking them and what is above that by estimating the inferior. It is not befitting the eloquence of the noble Book that you intend a prohibition against something higher than annoyance and disrespect, for it is sufficient and what the contemplator needs from the verses of the Qur'an, with support, is no other witness than this: 'We have not neglected in the Book from anything.' And when fairness necessitated accepting the implication of the verse for the preference of the angels, and the evidence for the preference of the prophets was established for those who believe in that, it brought together the verse and that evidence by interpreting the preference in the verse in a matter not subject to dispute. That is, the preference of the angels in strength, severity of force, and vast ability and power. He said: This type of virtue is suitable for the context of the verse because the aim is to refute the Christians in their belief in the divinity of Jesus, peace be upon him, relying on the fact that he revived the dead, healed the blind and the leper, and great miraculous effects occurred through him. It is appropriate to say: This one through whom these miracles occurred does not shy away from worshiping Allah, the Exalted, but rather one who has more miracles and more evident effects, such as the angels brought near, among whom is Gabriel, peace be upon him. He has reached such strength and power from Allah that he uprooted cities and carried them on the tip of his wing, turning their high into low. Thus, the preference of the angels is, therefore, in this regard, with no dispute that they are stronger and more forceful, and that their miracles are more numerous. The dispute is only in preference regarding increased reward, honors, and elevated ranks in the Day of Judgment. And there is no evidence for that in the verse. And when most of what confused the Christians regarding the divinity of Jesus was that he was a created being, that is, existing without a father, Allah, the Exalted, informed us that this being without a father does not shy away from worshiping Allah, nor do the angels created without a father or mother. Therefore, the delay in mentioning them is because their creation is stranger than the creation of Jesus. This is evidenced by the fact that Allah, the Exalted, compared Jesus to Adam, peace be upon them both, viewing the stranger with the more strange, and the marvelous with the more marvelous of His power.

It is more astonishing that Jesus is created from a mother, while Adam is created without a mother or father. Therefore, it was said: (He created him from dust, then said to him, 'Be,' and it is.) The focus of this discussion is on the point I have highlighted. Whenever the inclusion of the mentioned (days) contains a benefit not included in the first, in any way of preference or other benefits, it has drawn attention and corresponds to the wording of the verse. And Allah knows best. In general, the matter is auditory, and the certainty in it is known by the text that does not allow for interpretation, and its existence is difficult. Blessings and peace of Allah be upon them all. How excellent is Al-Zamakhshari's confirmation of his argument by the resurrection of the angels, meaning those who are close to Allah. From this, he establishes the distinction in the discussion of angels and prophets. He did not generalize the preference in angels or in prophets, but rather preferred and then specified. The aim is only to mention the meanings of the verse, not to discuss the differences of the sects. And Allah is the Grantor of success. From the tear that you have stopped, when you moved it away from your cheek with your finger, not the close angels. Nor from one who is higher than him in rank and greater in danger, and they are the cherubic angels around the Throne, like Gabriel, Michael, and Israfil, and those in their rank. If you say: How does his saying: (not the close angels) indicate that the meaning is: nor from above him? I say: Because the knowledge of meanings does not imply anything else. The speech was directed to refute the doctrine of the Christians and their exaggeration in elevating Christ above the status of servitude. It must be said to them: Jesus will not be elevated above servitude, nor will anyone who is higher than him in rank. It is as if it was said: The close angels will not disdain servitude, so how about Christ? It indicates a clear and evident proof, the specification of the close ones for being the highest angels in rank and status. An example of this is the saying of someone: And no one like him among those who are generous as Hatim... nor the sea with its waves that is overflowing. [‘Yaltajj’ means its waves are agitated, and ‘the overflowing’ is elevated. He says: And no one like my praised one among the people who are generous as Hatim, nor among those who are compared to the overflowing sea, meaning he does not match them in generosity. Thus, the sea is mentioned alongside Hatim, emphasizing that no one like him can be compared in generosity, and it follows that he cannot be compared either. He negates the comparison from the example as a metaphor for negating it from the praised one. It also contains exaggeration by elevating from the negation of being compared to the most generous of people to the negation of being compared to the most beneficial of things. The action regarding the sea is metaphorical or analogous. Or he likens the sea to a human and affirms for it the comparison in a metaphorical manner. This is if ‘yujawid’ is built for the doer; if it is built for the unknown, the meaning is that Hatim is not like him among those who can be compared in generosity, just as the sea cannot be compared in benefit. He has likened him to the sea implicitly.] There is no doubt that he intended by the sea with waves: what is above Hatim in generosity. And whoever has taste, let him taste with this verse his saying: (And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians) until he acknowledges the clear difference. And it was read to me by Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him: 'servants of Allah,' in a diminutive form. It was narrated that the delegation of Najran said to the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him: Why did you criticize our companion? He said: And who is your companion? They said: Jesus. He said: And what should I say? They said: Say: He is the servant of Allah and His Messenger. He said: It is not a disgrace for him to be a servant of Allah. They said: Yes, it is. Then it was revealed: meaning that Jesus does not disdain that, so do not disdain it for him. If it were a matter of disdain, he would be the first to disdain it because the disgrace is more attached to him. If you say: To what is the saying: (not the angels) connected? I say: It can either be connected to Christ, or to the name 'be,' or to the implied subject in: (forever).

Due to its meaning of description, for it indicates the meaning of worship, like saying: I passed by a man whose father was a servant. The conjunction with the Messiah is apparent for leading others to something that deviates somewhat from the purpose, which is that the Messiah does not disdain to be described as a servant, nor does he or those above him disdain to worship Allah. If you say: You have made the angels, who are a group, servants of Allah in this conjunction, what is the reason for it? I say: There are two aspects to it: one is that it is intended: and not every one of the angels or not the angels who are close to be servants of Allah, so that was omitted for brevity, as 'servant of Allah' implies it. As for when you conjoin them to the pronoun in: 'servant,' this question is resolved. It has been read: 'He will gather them' with the 'sheen' pronounced as 'dhamma' and 'kasra' and with the 'noon'.