Tafsir of Az-Zumar 39:3

It has been objected that this is a repetition of the verse: "Unquestionably, for Allah is the pure religion." It is answered that the first sentence is an inauguration (isti'naf) acting as a justification for the command to make worship sincere, while this sentence is an emphasis on the exclusivity of religion to Him, the Exalted. That is, it is He, Glorified be He, who must be exclusively accorded the purity of religion because He is unique in the attributes of divinity, among which is the knowledge of secrets and inner thoughts.

According to the reading of the majority, it is an inauguration affirming what preceded it regarding the command to dedicate religion sincerely to Him, the Almighty, and the obligation to comply with it. In using "unquestionably" (ala), the nominal form of the sentence, the manifestation of the Name of Majesty and "the religion," the description of it as "pure," the preposing which signifies exclusivity along with the lam (preposition) assigned to it, there is—according to some—an evident indication of the concern for the religion, which is the foundation of all good.

It has been said that from this, one knows there is no harm in making the sentence an emphasis for the preceding one in the latter reading. The author of al-Taqrib held this view, stating that the two sentences differ in their indication—the former being general and the latter specific. By this, he refuted the claim that this sentence rejects the validity of al-Farra's interpretation. The truth is that it is an interpretation upon which no reliance can be placed. In al-Kashshaf, it is stated: Since the verse "For Allah is the pure religion" serves as a justification for His statement, "So worship Allah, [being] sincere to Him in religion," the original structure should have been "For Allah is the pure religion." It was then shifted to "Unquestionably, for Allah is the pure religion" for the sake of hyperbole, as you know that it is the stronger of the two modes of connection. It was then prefaced with the particle of alerting (ala) as a reinforcement upon reinforcement, and to verify that what is not pure is like non-existence. If the inaugural justification had been posited first without the required description—which is the essence of the cause—and without the particle of alerting for the aforementioned benefit, it would have been discordant speech. Discordance would also arise from describing the religion as "pure" a second time, as it would indicate stammering in the first, since there is nothing in the first to guide one toward this description such that it could be considered a case of general followed by specific. As for making it an emphasis, there is no basis for it due to the aforementioned description and because the particle of alerting does not suit its position then, for it is brought at the beginning of an inauguration that contradicts the intent of emphasis.

The second scholar (Al-Baydawi) also affirmed that the second sentence being an emphasis for the first is invalid according to those who have knowledge of the styles of speech and the composition of meanings, for in both there is that which the position of emphasis rejects, and the emphasized does not typically accompany it. However, there is a dispute regarding the statement of the author of al-Kashshaf: "There is nothing in the first to guide one toward the description of purity such that it could be made a case of general followed by specific," for one could say that "For Him is the religion" carries the meaning of "For Him is the perfect religion," and it is known that the perfection of religion lies in its being pure. Thus, the first contains that which guides to this description. Yes, that interpretation remains fragile regardless of whether one accepts this counter-argument or not.

Abu Hayyan said: "The religion" (al-din) is in the nominative case because it is the agent of "sincere" (mukhlisan), which serves as a state (hal), and the referent to the subject of the state is omitted according to the opinion of the Basrans—that is, "the religion [proceeding] from you." Or, the al (definite article) is a substitute for the possessive pronoun, meaning "your religion." Based on this, the description of the religion with sincerity is a description of its possessor, which is a case of metaphorical attribution, like their saying "a poet's poetry." The verse contains an indication of the nobility of sincerity in worship, and how many verses point to that!

Ibn Marduyah recorded from Yazid al-Raqashi that a man said: "O Messenger of Allah, we give our wealth seeking fame; do we have any reward?" The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "No." He said: "O Messenger of Allah, we give seeking reward and fame; do we have a reward?" The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "Allah, the Exalted, does not accept except what is made sincere to Him." Then the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) recited this verse: "Unquestionably, for Allah is the pure religion." This supports the view that what is intended by "religion" in the verse is obedience, not as narrated from Qatadah that it is the testimony that there is no god but Allah, nor from al-Hasan that it is Islam.

His saying: "And those who take as allies other than Him..." is an establishing of the truth of monotheism by the invalidity of polytheism, so that the truth of sincerity and the invalidity of abandoning it may be known from it. In this is a solicitation for the sincere and a warning to others that is self-evident. The relative pronoun (alladhina) refers to the polytheists of Quraysh and others, as is narrated from Mujahid. Juwaybir recorded from Ibn Abbas that the verse was revealed concerning three tribes: Amir, Kinanah, and Bani Salamah, who used to worship idols and say: "The angels are the daughters of Allah, the Exalted." The relative pronoun is either a reference to them or to what encompasses them and their ilk among the worshippers of other than Allah, the Exalted; this is what is apparent. Thus, the "allies" refers to every false object of worship, such as the angels, Jesus (peace be upon them), and idols. The position of the relative pronoun is nominative as an initial subject (mubtada'), and its predicate is the following sentence introduced by anna. His saying: "We do not worship them except that they may bring us nearer to Allah in position," is a state (hal)—assuming a verb of saying is implied from the waw in "they have taken"—clarifying the nature of their polytheism and the lack of purity in their religion; that is, "they took them while saying this." It is also permitted that the implied verb is "they said," and it serves as a substitute for "they have taken," or that the implied is "that," and it is the predicate of the relative pronoun. The following sentence is an inaugural explanation, as if it were said after recounting what was mentioned: "So what will Allah, the Exalted, do with them?" and it was said: "Allah will judge between them..." The first view is the one that naturally comes to mind. Yes, Abdullah, Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, and Ibn Jubayr read it as "They said: 'We do not worship them...'" though it does not necessitate that it be a substitute or a predicate. The substitute theory was objected to by the author of al-Kashshaf on the grounds that the context is not one of substitution, for it does not involve repeating the ruling because the first was insufficient for the purpose—being concerned with its importance—especially since omitting the substitute is weak and contradicts the purpose of introducing it. The exclusion is of the "empty" type (mufarragh) from the most general of causes, and "nearness" (zulfa) is an emphatic verbal noun derived from a root other than the verb, meaning: "And those who did not make worship pure for Allah, the Exalted, but rather tainted it with the worship of others, saying: 'We do not worship them for any reason except that they may bring us near to Allah in proximity.'"

It was read "We do not worship you" (na'budukum) with a damma on the nun following the vowel of the ba'. "Indeed, Allah will judge between them" (meaning between them and their adversaries who are the sincere in religion, the subject having been omitted due to the indication of the context, as in His saying: "We make no distinction between any of His messengers," according to one of the two interpretations, i.e., between any one of them and another. To this belongs the saying of al-Nabigha: "For there was no one between the good/generous and me, had he come safely, but for a few nights," meaning between the generous one and me). It is said that the pronoun refers to the two parties, the takers and the taken, and the same discourse applies to the two dual pronouns in His saying: "concerning that in which they differ." The meaning in the first view is that He, the Exalted, will settle the dispute between the polytheists and the sincere regarding what they differed upon—monotheism and polytheism—each party claiming the validity of what it adopted, by admitting the sincere monotheists into Paradise and the polytheists into the Fire. Or, He distinguishes them with a distinction from which the state of what they disputed is known. The meaning in the second view is that He, the Exalted, will judge between the worshippers and the worshipped regarding what they differ upon, as the worshippers hope for their intercession while they disavow them and curse them, by admitting those of the worshipped who have the capacity for Paradise into Paradise, and admitting the worshippers and those who do not have the capacity for Paradise among those who were worshipped, such as idols, into the Fire. The admission of idols into the Fire is not for their torment, but for the torment of their worshippers through them. Soon, if Allah wills, what weakens this will be mentioned.

Al-Zamakhshari permitted the previous relative pronoun to refer to the worshipped objects, with the omission of the referent and the implication of the polytheists without mentioning them, relying on the indication of the context toward them. The meaning would be: "And those whom the polytheists took as allies, saying: 'We do not worship them except that they may bring us near to Allah in proximity,' indeed Allah will judge between them [the worshipped] and their worshippers concerning that in which the two parties differ, as the worshippers hope for their intercession while they curse them, by admitting those of them who are worthy of Paradise into Paradise and admitting the worshippers along with their idols into the Fire." This was challenged on the grounds that, putting aside the strained interpretations, it is far from sound. How could it be otherwise? For there is no substance in the request for intercession and the cursing such that the two parties would differ in a way that requires judgment and separation. That is merely the difference between the two parties of monotheists and polytheists in this world regarding the religion, which remains until the Day of Judgment. So contemplate and do not be heedless.

It was read: "We do not worship you [plural] except that you may bring us near..." narrating what they addressed their deities with. "Indeed, Allah does not guide"—meaning He does not grant accordance for the guidance which is the path to salvation from the disliked and the attainment of the desired—"who is a liar, a denier."

In his essence and the exigency of his readiness, because he is not receptive to guidance. Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, does not bestow upon the receptive except according to their capacities, as is pointed out by His saying: "Our Lord, who gave everything its creation, then guided [it]," and His saying: "Say, 'Each works according to his manner,'" and His saying: "And We did not wrong them, but they were the ones who were wronging themselves." This is what He, Glorified be He, has ordained for him, as he corrupted his readiness by persisting in misguidance; some leading scholars have said this. Al-Tabarsi said: "He does not guide to Paradise"—that is, on the Day of Judgment—"who is a liar, a denier" in this world.

Ibn Atiyyah said: "The intent is that He does not guide the liar, the denier, in the state of his lying and disbelief." This is of no consequence whatsoever. The intent of "who is a liar, a denier" is said to encompass those mentioned and others. Others say it refers to those mentioned, and their lie is in their claim that other than Allah is entitled to worship, or their statement regarding some of those they took as allies other than Allah that they are daughters of Allah—Exalted is He far above that—or that the one taken is the son of Allah. Thus, "who is a liar" is from the manifest that replaced the implicit, meaning that Allah, the Exalted, will not guide them—the takers—as a confirmation against them of lying and disbelief. Some said the sentence is a justification for the ruling.

Anas bin Malik, al-Jahdari, al-Hasan, al-A'raj, and Ibn Ya'mar read it as kadhdhabun kaffarun (a confirmed liar, a persistent denier). Zayd bin Ali read it as kadhubun kafurun (a frequent liar, a frequent denier). They interpreted the "liar" here as one established in lying for these two readings, and likewise, they interpreted the "denier" as denial of blessings rather than disbelief in creed, according to the reading of Zayd. The Imam mentioned two possibilities regarding this.