Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:159

The first: It is an adjective for a suppressed subject [mubtada'], and the Almighty’s saying {but he will surely believe in him before his death} is an oath-sentence, and the oath along with its response is the predicate of the suppressed subject. It is not a valid objection to say that an oath is an "initiation" (insha'), because the intent of the predicate is its response, which is a predicate emphasized by the oath. It does not contradict this that the response to an oath has no grammatical place (mahall), for that is only in terms of it being a response; it is not impossible for it to have a place from another perspective, if one were to concede that the predicate is not the aggregate. The estimation is: "There is no one from the People of the Scripture except—by Allah—he will surely believe in him."

The second: It is connected to a suppressed word that serves as the predicate for that subject, and the oath-sentence is an adjective for it, not the predicate. The estimation is: "There is no one—except he will surely believe in him—who is from the People of the Scripture." The meaning is: "Every man from the People of the Scripture will believe in him before his death," which is a beneficial statement. The objection to this view, that "none from" and the prepositional phrase do not form a predication, is invalid because it undoubtedly yields benefit. Indeed, the meaning on the first view is: "Every man of the People of the Scripture believes in him before his death," and it appears this is what is intended and that it is of more complete benefit. The exception is mufarragh (vacuous) from the most general of attributes. The Kufans estimate a relative pronoun (mawsul) after illa, while the Basrans forbid the deletion of the relative pronoun while keeping its relative clause.

The second pronoun refers to the suppressed subject, meaning "one," and the first refers to Isa (peace be upon him). Thus, the import of the verse is that every Jew and Christian will believe in Isa (peace be upon him) before his spirit departs, acknowledging that he is the servant of Allah the Almighty and His Messenger. His faith at that time will not benefit him, because that moment—due to being joined to the Barzakh (the barrier/purgatory)—is where the truth is unveiled to him, and legal obligation (taklif) is severed. This is supported by the fact that Ubayy recited {before their death}, with a damma on the nun, with the plural pronoun referring back to "one" because it is in the sense of the plural, whereas its return to Isa (peace be upon him) is not apparent.

Ibn al-Mundhir and others recorded from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—that he interpreted the verse this way. It was said to him: "What if he falls from a house?" He replied: "He will speak of it in the air." It was said: "What if his head is struck off?" He replied: "His tongue will stammer it."

Ibn al-Mundhir also recorded from Shahr ibn Hawshab, who said: Al-Hajjaj said to me: "O Shahr, there is a verse in the Book of Allah the Almighty that I have never read without something crossing my mind regarding it. Allah says: {And there is none from the People of the Scripture but he will surely believe in him before his death}, yet I bring prisoners and strike their necks, and I do not hear them say anything!" I replied: "You have raised it to yourself in other than its proper meaning. When the soul of the Christian is about to depart—as another narration from him indicates—the angels strike him from his front and his back and say: 'O filthy one, this Messiah, whom you claimed was Allah the Almighty and that he was the Son of Allah, the Glorified, and that he was the third of three, is the servant of Allah, His Spirit, and His Word.' So he believes in him at a time when his faith will not benefit him. And when the soul of the Jew is about to depart, the angels strike him from his front and his back and say: 'O filthy one, this Messiah, whom you claimed that you killed, is the servant of Allah and His Spirit.' So he believes in him at a time when his faith will not benefit him. And when Isa descends, their living will believe in him just as their dead believed in him." He asked: "Where did you take this from?" I said: "From Muhammad ibn Ali." He said: "You have taken it from its source." Shahr said: "By Allah the Almighty, I did not hear it from anyone but Umm Salama, but I wanted to make him angry." The notification of their state in this way is a threat to them and an incitement to hasten toward faith in him before they are forced to it while it lacks any utility.

It is said: The pronoun refers to Isa (peace be upon him). This is also narrated from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—as well as Abu Malik, al-Hasan, Qatadah, and Ibn Zayd, and al-Tabarani chose this. The meaning is that no one from the People of the Scripture existing at the time of the descent of Isa (peace be upon him) will remain except that he will believe in him before he dies, and all religions will become one religion. Ahmad recorded from Abu Hurairah—may Allah be pleased with him—who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Isa ibn Maryam will descend, and he will kill the swine, erase the cross, prayer will be gathered for him, and wealth will be given until it is no longer accepted. He will abolish the kharaj (tax), and he will descend to al-Rawha and perform Hajj from there, or Umrah, or both." He said: "Abu Hurairah—may Allah be pleased with him—recited: {And there is none from the People of the Scripture but he will surely believe in him before his death}."

It is said: The first pronoun refers to Allah the Almighty, though its remoteness is not hidden. More remote still is that it refers to Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him); this is narrated from Ikrimah, but it is weakened by the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was not mentioned here, and there is no necessity that requires directing the pronoun to him. It is not, as al-Tabari claimed, that if it were correct, it would not be permissible to apply the rulings of the disbelievers to the People of the Scripture after their death, for that faith occurs only at the time when legal obligation has ceased, and thus it is not counted.

{And on the Day of Resurrection, he} (meaning Isa, peace be upon him) {will be a witness against them} (meaning the People of the Scripture).

{He will testify against the Jews regarding their denial of him, and against the Christians regarding their saying of him: that he is the Son of Allah the Almighty.} The adverbial phrase is connected to "witness," and placing it before the verb indicates that it is permissible to front the predicate of kana absolutely, or when it is an adverb or a prepositional phrase, because the object only fronts where it is correct to front its agent. Abu al-Baqa permitted that the agent of it is yakunu.

{So for wrongdoing on the part of those who became Jews} (meaning, they repented from the worship of the Calf; expressing them with this title is an announcement of the extreme magnitude of their wrongdoing, by mentioning its occurrence after that horrific repentance, following the declaration of its greatness with the emphatic tanwin), {We made unlawful for them good things that were lawful to them} (and to those before them, for no other reason, as they claimed. For every time they committed one of the sins they had perpetrated, a type of the good things that were lawful to them and their ancestors before them was made unlawful for them as a punishment. Despite that, they would fabricate lies against Allah the Almighty and say: "We are not the first for whom things have been made unlawful; rather, it was unlawful for Nuh, Ibrahim, and those after them," until the matter reached us. So Allah the Almighty belied them in many places and rebuked them with His, the Glorified's, saying: {All food was lawful to the Children of Israel...} (the verse). The discussion regarding this has already passed. Some commentators held that what was made unlawful for them is what will come in al-An'am in detail.

It was argued that the prohibition occurred in the Torah, and at that time there was no disbelief in Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and Isa (peace be upon him), nor [was there] what the Almighty’s saying indicates: {And for their averting many from the way of Allah} (meaning many people, or a strong averting, or for a long time). It was said in response: The intent is the continuity of the prohibition, so contemplate and be not heedless. This is conjoined to "the wrongdoing," and making it—as well as what is conjoined to it—in al-Kashshaf an explanation for it is—as some investigators have said—to repel what is said: that conjoining to a fronted object contradicts restriction. Whoever makes the "wrongdoing" and the "averting" connected to a suppressed word faces no problem. From this, one knows the specification of what the rhetoricians mentioned—that it contradicts restriction—to cases where the second is not an explanation for the first; as if you said: "For a sin, I struck Zayd, and for his poor manners," for the intent there is for [the sin] and nothing else. Likewise, they specified that to where the restriction is not derived from other than the fronting. The ba' was repeated here and not repeated [elsewhere in the verse].