Exegesis of the saying of Allah the Exalted: “Is not the pure religion for Allah alone? And those who take others besides Him as allies, they do not worship them except to bring them closer to Allah in nearness.”

Allah the Exalted said: is a particle of introduction, and it is a letter intended for attention, is that right? Brother? And what did we say? You, you.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, where are you? Come on...
The student: ...

The Shaykh : What does it mean, what did I say?
The student:

The Shaykh : Yes, and what did you say?
The student: "Ala" is a particle of attention.

The Shaykh : A particle of attention? Yes, right?
The student: "Ala" is a particle of introduction.

The Shaykh : "Ala" is an introductory particle, a letter used for attention. Pay attention, my brother, keep up with us. This is an introductory particle, a letter used for attention, because when the speaker says: "Ala," the addressee pays attention. And his saying: the preposition and the noun in the genitive case is a fronted predicate, and is a delayed subject. Fronting the predicate implies restriction, meaning: for Allah alone. And his saying: means the deed: the deed for which reward is sought. And his saying: means pure from impurities and shirk (associating partners with Allah), meaning that it is obligatory for the person of intellect to make the pure religion for Allah alone. How befitting is it for a person of intellect to worship the truth for Allah in order to draw near to other than Him? This is contrary to reason. If a person stands to pray in order for people to see him, he is foolish in his intellect and misguided in his religion. How can you make the pure truth for people? The pure truth is for Allah, yet you make it for people. Yes, the deed that is for people is for people, but the deed that is for Allah must be for Allah. And for this reason he said: So it is not permissible for us to make it for other than Him. And for this reason he said: they say to the end of it. The "waw" here is for resuming the topic, and is the subject, and is the relative clause, and the predicate of the subject is omitted, its estimation being: they say, "We do not worship them," or: they said, "We do not worship them." And his saying: "attakhadha" means "made" or "turned into," like His saying, the Exalted: meaning "He made it." And His saying, the Exalted: meaning "He made his desire his god." If means "made" or "turned into," it requires two objects: the one being made and the one being made into. Did you understand? Where is the first object? The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "The idols

allies

أولياء

" And accordingly, the first object is omitted and the second is . Omitting the object is permissible if the evidence indicates it. Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said in the chapter on the subject and predicate:
Omitting what is known is permissible, just as you say: "Zayd is after the one with you."
"Omitting what is known is permissible" In reality, this verse is in the chapter of the subject and predicate, but is it general? Yes? Yes, it is general. Omitting what is known is permissible, and it may be a matter of eloquence and rhetoric that it is omitted. The original rule is that what is known, omission is permissible, and what is not known, omission is not permissible, because speech must be clear regarding the speaker's intent, and this does not happen with the omission of what is not known. So, the first object is omitted and its estimation is: the idols, and the second exists, and it is his saying: , is the plural of "wali" (ally), meaning they take them as allies in the sense of worship, they humble themselves to them, they prostrate to them, they vow to them, they give charity to them, but they do not believe that these idols benefit them or harm them in themselves, nor that they create, nor that they provide sustenance, but they claim that they took them as a means.