Tafsir of Al Imran 3:18

His indication of His Oneness is likened to His specific actions which none other than He is capable of performing, and to what He has revealed through His signs that speak of Tawhid (Oneness), such as Surat al-Ikhlas, the Verse of the Throne (Ayat al-Kursi), and others. This is like the testimony of a witness in declaration and disclosure, as well as the affirmation of the angels and those endowed with knowledge regarding this, and their argumentation for it.

"…upholding justice" Establishing justice in the distribution of provisions and lifespans, in rewarding and punishing, and in what He commands His servants regarding fairness toward one another and acting with equality among themselves.

Its accusative case (nasb) is as a confirming state (hal mu’akkada) from Him, similar to His saying: "And he is the Truth, confirming..." (Al-Baqarah: 91).

If you ask: "Why is it permissible to isolate it in the accusative case as a state, while the two nouns conjoined to it are not? If you were to say, 'Zayd and Amr came to me riding (rakiban),' it would not be permissible." I say: This is only permissible here because there is no ambiguity, just as it is permissible in His saying: "And We gave him Isaac and Jacob as a gift" (Al-Anbiya: 72), if "a gift" (nafilatan) is taken as a state from Jacob. If you were to say, "Zayd and Hind came to me riding," it would be permissible due to the distinction of gender, or it could be for praise.

If you ask: "Is it not the right of that which is in the accusative for praise to be definite, as in your saying, 'Praise be to God, the Praiseworthy'?" I say: It has come as an indefinite noun just as it has come as a definite one. Sibawayh cited as evidence for its usage as an indefinite noun the verse of the Hudhali poet: "And he shelters with women, idle and disheveled, nursing, like the ghouls."

If you ask: "Is it permissible for it to be an adjective for the negated noun, as if it were said, 'There is no god upholding justice except Him'?" I say: It is not far-fetched, for we have seen them expand the separation between the adjective and the noun described.

If you ask: "You have made it a state from the subject of 'bears witness' (shahida), so is it valid for it to be in the accusative as a state from 'He' (huwa) in 'There is no god but He'?" I say: Yes, because it is a confirming state, and a confirming state does not require that the sentence—which is an addition to its benefit—have an agent for it, like your saying, "I am the servant of God, brave." Likewise, if you said, "There is no man except the servant of God, brave." This is more sound than its accusative case being from the subject of "bears witness."

If you ask: "Does His upholding of justice enter into the ruling of the testimony of God, the angels, and those endowed with knowledge, just as the Oneness entered?" I say: Yes, if you make it a state from "He," or an accusative for praise from Him, or an adjective for the negated noun, as if it were said: "God, the angels, and those endowed with knowledge bear witness that there is no god but He, and that He is upholding justice."

Abdullah read it as al-qa'imu bi-l-qist (the Upholder of justice), as a substitute for "He" or as the predicate of a deleted subject. Abu Hanifa read it as qayyman bi-l-qist.

"The Almighty, the Wise" Two attributes confirming what He has described His Essence with: Oneness and Justice. It means He is the Almighty whom no other god can overcome, and the Wise who does not deviate from justice in His actions.

If you ask: "Who are those endowed with knowledge whom He has honored with this great honor, gathering them with Himself and the angels in the testimony of His Oneness and Justice?" I say: They are those who establish His Oneness and Justice with brilliant arguments and decisive proofs; they are the scholars of justice and Tawhid.

It is read annahu (that He) with a fatha, and inna al-dina (that the religion) with a kasra, on the basis that the verb acts upon annahu—meaning "God bore witness that..." or "by the fact that..." His saying, "Indeed, the religion in the sight of God is Islam," is a new sentence confirming the first.

If you ask: "What is the benefit of this confirmation?" I say: The benefit is that His saying, "There is no god but He," is Tawhid, and His saying, "upholding justice," is Ta'dil (establishing justice). When He follows it with, "Indeed, the religion in the sight of God is Islam," He has signaled that Islam is justice and Tawhid, and that is the religion in the sight of God; whatever is other than that is not part of the religion in His sight at all. In this is evidence that whoever leans toward anthropomorphism or what leads to it—such as permitting the vision [of God in a physical sense]—or leans toward predestination (al-jabr), which is pure injustice, is not upon the religion of God which is Islam. This is clear and manifest, as you see.

They are both read with fatha on the basis that the second is a substitute for the first, as if it were said: "God bore witness that the religion in the sight of God is Islam." The substitute is the same as the original in meaning, so it is an explicit declaration that the religion of God is Tawhid and justice.

It is read with the first in kasra and the second in fatha on the basis that the verb acts upon inna, and what is between them is a confirming parenthetical clause. This is also evidence that the religion of Islam is justice and Tawhid; you see all the readings supporting that.

Abdullah read: "That there is no god but He." Ubayy read: "Indeed, the religion in the sight of God is for Islam," which strengthens the reading of those who opened the first and broke the second.

It is read shuhada'a lillahi (witnesses for God) in the accusative as a state from those mentioned before it, and in the nominative as "They are witnesses of God." If you ask: "To what is 'the angels and those endowed with knowledge' conjoined in this reading?" I say: To the pronoun in shuhada'a; it is permissible due to the occurrence of a separator between them.

If you ask: "Why did He repeat His saying, 'There is no god but He'?" I say: He mentioned it first to indicate His exclusivity in Oneness and that there is no god except that distinct Essence. Then He mentioned it a second time, after pairing the proof of Oneness with the proof of Justice, to indicate His exclusivity in both matters, as if He said: "There is no god except this One described by these two attributes." For this reason, He paired it with His saying, "The Almighty, the Wise," because they contain the meaning of Oneness and Justice.

"Those who were given the Book" The People of the Book, the Jews and the Christians. Their disagreement is that they abandoned Islam, which is Tawhid and justice.

"After the knowledge had come to them" That it is the Truth from which there is no turning away. The Christians adopted the Trinity, the Jews said Ezra is the son of God, and they said, "We are more entitled to the prophethood than the Quraysh because they are unlettered and we are the People of the Book." This is injustice.

"Out of envy among themselves" Meaning, this disagreement and the posturing of these with one sect and those with another was only out of envy among them, a seeking of leadership and worldly gains, and each group wanting to have followers walking in their footsteps due to doubts in Islam. It is also said: It is their disagreement regarding the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him), as some believed in him and some disbelieved.

It is also said: It is their disagreement regarding belief in the prophets; some believed in Moses and some in Jesus. It is said they are the Jews, and their disagreement was that when Moses (peace be upon him) was dying, he entrusted the Torah to seventy rabbis of the Children of Israel and made them its guardians, and appointed Joshua as his successor. When century after century passed, the descendants of the seventy disagreed after the knowledge of the Torah had come to them, out of envy among themselves and competition for worldly gains and leadership.

It is also said: They are the Christians, and their disagreement was regarding the affair of Jesus after the knowledge had come to them that he was the servant of God and His messenger.