Tafsir of Al Imran 3:19

(Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam): A sentence that serves as an inception, appearing as an affirmation of the first [statement]. The definition of both parts [the subject and the predicate] denotes exclusivity; meaning, there is no religion acceptable in the sight of Allah, the Exalted, other than Islam.

According to what Ibn Jarir narrated from Qatadah, it is the testimony that there is no god but Allah, the Exalted, and the affirmation of what has come from Allah, the Exalted. It is the religion of Allah, which He legislated for Himself, sent His messengers with, and pointed His beloved servants (awliya) toward. He accepts nothing else and rewards for nothing but it.

It is narrated from the Commander of the Faithful (may Allah honor his countenance) that he said in a sermon: "I shall attribute Islam with an attribution no one before me has attributed it: Islam is submission (taslim), submission is certainty (yaqin), certainty is belief (tasdiq), belief is affirmation (iqrar), affirmation is compliance (ada'), and compliance is action." Then he said: "The believer takes his religion from his Lord and does not take it from his opinion. The believer is he whose faith is known in his actions, and the disbeliever is known by his denial. O people, hold fast to your religion, for a bad deed in it is better than a good deed in another. A bad deed in it is forgiven, while a good deed in another is not accepted."

Ubayy recited: "The religion with Allah is Islam" (with al-Islam in the nominative case). Al-Kisa'i recited anna al-din with the hamza opened, on the basis that it is a substitute of one thing for another (badal al-shay' min al-shay'), if Islam is interpreted as Iman (faith). It is intended by this the affirmation of the oneness of Allah, the Exalted, and the belief in it, which is the greatest part. Likewise, if it is interpreted as the affirmation of what the Prophet (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) brought, which is known from the religion by necessity; for that is the essence of the testimony mentioned, considering what it necessitates. Thus, it is the same thing.

However, if it is interpreted as the "Law" (Sharia), then the substitution is a substitution of inclusion (badal al-ishtimal), for the Sharia encompasses faith and the affirmation of oneness. Some interpreted it as "the knowledge of rulings" and claimed the priority of this interpretation in view of the context of the speech, arguing that the knowledge of foundations (usul) was not restricted by the "sight of" (indiyyah), because these are matters according to their own reality and do not revolve around considerations—this is why all true religions are united in them. They restricted the fact that religion is Islam by the "sight of" because laws revolve around the consideration of the Legislator; thus, they change and fluctuate according to interests and times. The hidden weakness in this is apparent.

Or, it is [in the accusative] on the basis that shahida (He witnessed) governs it, assuming the reading of inna (with the kasra), as indicated. In every assumption, inda (in the sight of) is an adverb whose operator is the "subsistence" (thubut) indicated by the sentence. It is said: It is connected to a specific state (kawn) that the mind arrives at; it is considered an adjective for "religion," meaning "The religion accepted in the sight of Allah is Islam." It is also said: It is connected to a suppressed state (hal) from the religion. It is also said: It is connected to it [the religion]. It is also said: It is connected to a suppressed predicate of a suppressed subject, and the sentence is parenthetical, meaning: "This judgment is established in the sight of Allah." I see all of these as being of no value.

As for the first: because it contradicts the rule of definitions regarding adverbs when they occur after indefinites. As for the second: because it is well-known that inna does not operate on a state (hal). As for the third: because there is no basis for connecting it to the word "religion" unless one is content with the fact that it originally means "recompense." As for the fourth: because the artificiality in it, which is unnecessary, is too obvious to be hidden.

Furthermore, there has been disagreement regarding the application of "Islam" to that which was not brought by our Prophet (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him), though the majority agree on the application. I believe that after clarifying the dispute, no disagreement should remain.

(And those who were given the Scripture did not differ...) It is said: It refers to the Jews, and they differed regarding what Moses (peace and blessings be upon him) had entrusted to them. Ibn Jarir narrated from al-Rabi' who said: "When death approached Moses (peace and blessings be upon him), he called seventy rabbis of the Children of Israel, entrusted the Torah to them, made them trustees over it, and appointed Joshua the son of Nun as successor. When the first, second, and third centuries passed, division occurred among them—those who were given knowledge from the sons of the seventy—until they shed each other's blood, and evil occurred in search of worldly power, kingship, treasures, and its adornment. Consequently, Allah, the Exalted, set their tyrants over them."

It is said: It refers to the Christians, and they differed regarding monotheism. It is said: The intent of the relative pronoun is the Jews and the Christians, and the "Scripture" is the genus. They differed regarding monotheism. It is said: Regarding his (the Prophet's) prophethood. It is said: Regarding faith in the prophets. The apparent [meaning] is that the relative pronoun encompasses both groups, and that which they differed in is Islam, as the context suggests. Addressing them with this title is an additional disparagement of them, for disagreement after the arrival of the Scripture is uglier.

His saying, the Exalted: (...except after knowledge had come to them) is an additional [reproach]. For disagreement after the arrival of knowledge is even greater in ugliness. The exception is empty (istithna' mufarragh) from the most general circumstances or the most general times. The intent of the "arrival of knowledge" is the capability to attain it due to the brilliance of its proofs, or the intent is the actualization of knowledge regarding the reality of the matter for them. He did not say "they knew" (alimū), even though it is shorter, as an indication that it was knowledge by way of revelation.

His saying, the Exalted: (...out of envious rivalry among themselves) is an additional denunciation. The noun in the accusative is a reason (maf'ul lahu) for what the "what" and the "except" indicate regarding the establishment of disagreement after the arrival of knowledge—just as you say: "I did not hit except my son for the purpose of discipline." Thus, there is no indication in the speech of restricting the motive, though some have claimed otherwise; i.e., the motive for disagreement is envy and jealousy, not ambiguity or the obscurity of the matter. Perhaps this is understood from the context or the speech, based on the permissibility of multiple empty exceptions; i.e., "They did not differ at any time for any purpose except after the knowledge, for the purpose of envious rivalry." Just as you say: "Zayd did not hit 'Amr except for X," meaning, "No one hit 'Amr except Zayd."

(And whoever disbelieves in the signs of Allah) It is said: The intent is His proofs. It is said: The Torah. It is said: It and the Gospel. It is said: The Quran. It is said: The signs that explicitly state that the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam. The apparent [meaning] is generalization; i.e., whatever sign it may be. The intent of "whoever" is also more general than the aforementioned who differed and others; though you may specify it to them.

(Indeed, Allah is swift in account) acts as a substitute for the condition's response and as a reason for it. That is: Whoever disbelieves, Allah, the Exalted, will punish him and recompense him soon, for He is swift in account—meaning His reckoning comes soon, or it is completed with speed. It is said: The swiftness of reckoning necessitates the encompassment of knowledge and power, so the sentence binds the warning, and through it, the condition and the response are organized without the need for estimation. Perhaps this is better and more precise in view [of the context].

In the manifestation of the Majestic Name [Allah], there is an upbringing of awe and the instillation of fear. In the arrangement of the punishment following the absolute disbelief after explaining the condition of those aforementioned, there is an indication of the severity of their punishment.