Uzayr is the son of Allah, a subject and predicate, like his saying: the Messiah is the son of Allah. And Uzayr is a foreign name like 'Azar, 'Izar, and 'Azra'il. Due to its foreignness and definition, it is prevented from being declined. Whoever adds tanween has made it Arabic. As for the saying of those who said: the dropping of tanween is due to the meeting of two consonants, like the reading of one who recited 'Ahad Allah', or because the son has become an attribute and the predicate is omitted, which is our deity, this is a forced interpretation. This is the saying of some Jews who were in Medina, but it is not the saying of all of them according to Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him: the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, came to Salama ibn Mishkam, Nu'man ibn Awf, Shash ibn Qays, and Malik ibn al-Sayf, and they said that. It is said that this was said by Finhas. The reason for this saying is that the Jews killed the prophets after Musa, peace be upon him, so Allah lifted the Torah from them and erased it from their hearts. Uzayr went out as a youth wandering in the land, and Gabriel, peace be upon him, came to him and said to him: Where are you going? He said: I seek knowledge, so he memorized the Torah. He recited it to them from memory without missing a letter. They said: Allah did not gather the Torah in his heart while he was a youth except because he is his son. I said: I mentioned the source joined to the previous one and did not mention who narrated it, and the correct view is that it is another hadith narrated. The evidence that this saying was among them is that the verse was recited to them, and they did not deny it nor lie, despite their eagerness to deny. If you say: Every saying is said by the mouth, what is the meaning of his saying: 'That is their saying by their mouths'? I say: There are two meanings. One of them is that it is a saying that is not supported by proof, so it is merely a word they utter, devoid of meaning beneath it, like meaningless words that are mere bells and tunes that do not indicate meanings. This is because the saying that indicates a meaning is said by the mouth and its meaning affects the heart. What has no meaning is said by the mouth alone. The second is that the saying refers to the doctrine, like their saying: the saying of Abu Hanifa, meaning his doctrine and what he says, as if it were said: that is their doctrine and religion by their mouths, not by their hearts, because there is no proof with it nor doubt that would affect the hearts. This is because if they acknowledged that he has no partner, there would remain no doubt in the negation of the son. They resemble, and there must be an omitted addition, the meaning of which is: they resemble their saying, then the addition was omitted and the pronoun that was added to it took its place, thus becoming elevated. The meaning is that those who were in the time of the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, from the Jews and Christians resemble their saying to that of their predecessors, meaning it is an ancient disbelief among them, not newly introduced. Or they resemble the saying of the polytheists: the angels are the daughters of Allah, glorified is He. It is said that the pronoun refers to the Christians, meaning they resemble their saying: the Messiah is the son of Allah, to the saying of the Jews: Uzayr is the son of Allah, because they are older than them. And it was read 'yudahi'oon' with the hamzah from their saying: a woman who has a resemblance to men in that she does not menstruate, and its hamzah is added, as in 'gharaqih, may Allah fight them.' They are more deserving to be told this, in astonishment at the ugliness of their saying, as it is said to a people who committed an ugly act: may Allah fight them, how strange is their action! How are they turned away from the truth?