If it is asked: If it is a circumstantial qualifier of “Him,” why does it not immediately follow it? Why is the coordinated phrase placed between the qualifier and its subject?
I reply: The benefit is clear. Had He said, “Allah bears witness that there is no god but Him, upholding justice, and the angels and those endowed with knowledge,” this might suggest that the angels and those endowed with knowledge were conjoined with the implicit pronoun in “upholding justice.” The intervening words would make such coordination grammatically acceptable. Yet this is certainly not the intended meaning. Rather, the intended meaning is the opposite: His upholding justice is exclusive to Him, just as divinity is exclusive to Him. He alone is the God who is worshipped and deserves worship, and He alone requites, rewards, and punishes with justice.
Regarding His words, “There is no god but Him,” Muhammad ibn Jarīr al-Tabarī «1» stated: “The first occurrence is a description and an affirmation of His oneness; the second is a prescription and an instruction—that is, say: ‘There is no god but Him.’”
This means that the first occurrence conveys that Allah, glory be to Him, has borne witness to this statement and declared it. The person reciting the Quran is merely reporting Allah’s testimony, not bearing witness himself. This does not constitute testimony on the reciter’s own part. Thus, Allah, glory be to Him, repeated the statement on its own so that the reciter would utter it and thereby bear witness to it himself as well.
Moreover, the first occurrence reports the testimony to His oneness, whereas the second affirms His oneness itself. He concludes with the words, “The Almighty, the All-Wise.” Thus, the verse encompasses His oneness and justice, His might and wisdom.