لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُوٓا۟ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ هُوَ ٱلْمَسِيحُ ٱبْنُ مَرْيَمَ ۚ قُلْ فَمَن يَمْلِكُ مِنَ ٱللَّهِ شَيْـًٔا إِنْ أَرَادَ أَن يُهْلِكَ ٱلْمَسِيحَ ٱبْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَأُمَّهُۥ وَمَن فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ جَمِيعًا
Laqad kafara'lladhīna qālū inna'llāha huwa'l-Masīḥu'bnu Maryam · Qul fa-man yamliku mina'llāhi shayʾan in arāda an yuhlika'l-Masīḥa'bna Maryama wa ummahū wa man fi'l-arḍi jamīʿā · Wa li'llāhi mulku's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍi wa mā baynahumā · Yakhluqu mā yashāʾ · Wa'llāhu ʿalā kulli shayʾin qadīr
"Those who said 'God is the Messiah, son of Mary' have certainly fallen into denial. Say: if God willed to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother, and everyone on earth together, who could hold anything against Him? To God belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He wills. God has power over all things."
The subject of the sentence is not the name of a community but an utterance: alladhīna qālū — "those who said."
This is a structure that will be recorded again and again in this section, and it is what the rule "a ruling is tied to an attribute" of Method comes to in the text. The verse names no name of a group; it names a particular sentence and ties the ruling to that sentence.
The same structure will be repeated at 5/72 and 5/73, and in all three the same pattern is used: laqad kafara'lladhīna qālū…
And the proof is given not directly against the claim of divinity but by way of a comparison of power: if a being can be destroyed, and has no power to stop the one destroying it, then that being cannot be what is being said about it.
The most striking side of the proof is that it names three things side by side: al-Masīḥ, ummahū (his mother), and wa man fi'l-arḍi jamīʿā (everyone on earth).
I record this as my own reading; its ground is the sequence of the list: the name of the Messiah is set inside the same sentence as the name of his mother and as all mankind. That is, the distinction is drawn not between an ordinary person and a superior person, but between the created and the Creator. The proof belittles no one; it fixes a category.
مَسِيح — root م-س-ح: to lay a hand on, to stroke; and to anoint with oil. The lexicographers do not agree on the origin of the word as a name; I issue no verdict on etymology. More than one explanation is transmitted in the classical commentaries.
يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَآءُ — and the sentence touches the real support of the claim: an extraordinary birth. This subject was treated at Maryam 19/21; I rely on that treatment. The verse does not deny that the event was out of the ordinary; it places it inside the act of creation.