and that He is his Lord, the One who created him. The furthest the Christians go in their excesses is to say, “true God from true God,” and to regard him as a creator; but to give him a higher claim than the Father by making him David’s Lord—this they have never asserted, and it is patently baseless.

Third: there is no mention here of the three hypostases. At most—if their interpretation were sound—it would speak only of the Son. As for the three hypostases, none of the Books of God now in their hands, let alone the Qurʾan, mentions them—neither the term nor the concept. They coined the word “hypostasis” and used it for what they alleged to be the meaning of the divine scriptures, even though those scriptures do not indicate it. Thus they became mere translators of God’s word without understanding its import, and they failed to express it in language that conveys the intended meaning.

Fourth: the phrase “to my Lord” here means “to my master,” just as Joseph said, “Indeed, he is my lord; he has made my lodging agreeable” (Q 12:23); and as he said to the king’s servant, “Mention me in the presence of your lord” (Q 12:42); and as the Almighty said, “But Satan caused him to forget the mention of his lord” (Q 12:42). For this reason the first occurrence of “Lord” is left unqualified while the second is qualified. The sense, then, is: “God said to my master”—the Lord of all realms addressed my master. David called him “master” out of humility and as a mark of veneration, believing him to be superior to himself.