Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:50

(And [mention] when We said) i.e., remember the time of Our saying (to the angels), all of them, as is the apparent meaning. Some Sufis have excepted the Muhaimin (the arch-angels submerged in the love of God), and others have excepted the angels of the heavens entirely, claiming that those addressed were only the angels of the earth.

(Prostrate to Adam) with a prostration of greeting and honor, or prostrate toward his direction in the sense of taking him as a qiblah for your prostration to God Almighty. The complete discussion on this has already passed.

(So they prostrated) all of them, collectively, in compliance with the command, (except Iblis). He was not among those who prostrated; rather, he refused and was arrogant. His saying, (He was of the jinn), is a new sentence introduced as an explanation for what the exclusion of the accursed one from the prostrators implies. It is also said that it is a state (hal) from the excluded one, with a "was" (kana) being implied, and the connector being the pronoun. This is the choice of Abu al-Baqa', though the first is closer to the heart. It is as if it were said: "Why did he not prostrate?" and the reply was: "His origin was a jinn." This is apparent in that he is not of the angels. Yes, he was with them and counted among their number. Ibn Jarir extracted from Sa‘d ibn Mas‘ud that he said: "The angels were fighting the jinn, and Iblis was taken captive while he was young. He was with the angels, so he worshipped by prostrating with them." Similar accounts were extracted from Shahr ibn Hawshab, and this is the opinion of many scholars—to the point that al-Hasan said, in what Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Abi Hatim extracted from him: "May God Almighty fight a people who claim that Iblis is of the angels, while God Almighty says: (He was of the jinn)."

Ibn Jarir and Ibn al-Anbari in Kitab al-Addad and Abu al-Shaykh in al-‘Azamah extracted from him that he said: "Iblis was never of the angels for the blink of an eye; he is the origin of the jinn just as Adam, peace be upon him, is the origin of mankind." This indicates that there were no jinn before him, just as there were no humans before Adam, peace be upon him. There is some doubt in the heart regarding its authenticity. Closer to correctness is what a group said: that there were jinn before him, but they perished and left no offspring except for him. Thus, the jinn and devils today are all from his progeny; he is to the jinn what Noah, peace be upon him, is to mankind, according to what is famous.

It is also said: He was of the angels, and the "jinn" is a tribe among them. Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Abu al-Shaykh in al-‘Azamah and al-Bayhaqi in Shu‘ab al-Iman extracted this from Ibn ‘Abbas. In another narration from him, may God be pleased with them both, Iblis was from the nobles of the angels and the most honored of them in tribe. He was a keeper of the Gardens (Paradise), possessed the authority of the lowest heaven, and had the confluence of the two seas—the Sea of Rome and the Sea of Persia—and the authority of the earth. Thus, he perceived that he possessed greatness and nobility over the inhabitants of the heaven, and pride entered his soul—something no one knew but God Almighty. When he was commanded to prostrate, the pride that was in his soul manifested, so God Almighty cursed him until the Day of Resurrection. According to what Qatadah narrated from him, he used to say: "If he were not of the angels, he would not have been commanded to prostrate." This was answered by what we have pointed to and by other things which are not hidden. Ibn Jubayr went to this, and a group narrated from him that he said: "The 'jinn' in the verse is a class of angels who never ceased forging jewelry for the people of Paradise until the Hour is established." In another narration from him, the meaning of (He was of the jinn) is that he was one of the keepers of Paradise; this is a strange interpretation. Similar is what Abu al-Shaykh extracted in al-‘Azamah from Qatadah: that the meaning of him being "of the jinn" is that he was "hidden" (ajjanna) from the obedience of God—meaning he was veiled and obstructed. The narration of many from him is that he maintains what was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas. It is also said: He is of the angels, and the meaning of (He was of the jinn) is that he became one of them through transformation (maskh). It is also said: It means he was counted among them because of his agreement with them in disobedience, as they had been disobedient before, so a group of angels, peace be upon them, were sent to fight them.

You know that it is difficult for someone who claims Iblis is an angel while simultaneously claiming their (the angels') infallibility to provide an answer, and he must inevitably commit to a meaning contrary to the apparent in this verse. Yes, the issue of their infallibility is a matter of disagreement, and there is nothing definitive regarding it, as the scholar al-Taftazani stated. Qadi ‘Iyad mentioned that a group held the view of the infallibility of the messengers among them and the favored ones, peace be upon them, and did not speak to the infallibility of others. If someone who claims Iblis is an angel adopts this, he cannot escape the objection except by claiming he was not among the favored ones, yet the traditions do not support this. It also remains for him that the verse rejects his claim, as is the case if he adopts what was narrated from some Sufis: that the angels of the earth were not infallible and Iblis, the accursed, was one of them.

(He departed from the command of his Lord), i.e., he departed from His obedience, glory be to Him, as al-Farra’ said. Its origin is from "the date ripened/departed from its skin" (fasaqa al-rutab). They called the mouse fasiqah (transgressor) because it exits its hole; it is from both chapters, and for this reason, it is transitive with "from" (‘an), as in the saying of Ru’bah: "They fly in Najd and the lowlands, going off/departing from their course, straying." The apparent meaning is that fisq (transgression/departing) in this sense is something the Arabs spoke of before. Abu ‘Ubaydah said: "We have not heard this in any of the poems of the Jahiliyyah or their narrations; the Arabs only spoke it after the descent of the Qur’an." Al-Mubarrad agreed with him on this, saying: "The matter is as Abu ‘Ubaydah mentioned, and it is an eloquent word on the tongues of the Arabs." It is as if what al-Farra’ mentioned is an explanation of the essence of the meaning, for the "command" is not the meaning of obedience at all. Rather, it is either meant as "the thing commanded," which is the prostration, and his departure from it is the lack of him being characterized by it; or it refers to His saying: (Prostrate), and his departure from it is his opposition to it. That the essence of the meaning is that upon both interpretations is apparent. It is also said: (From/‘an) is for causality, as in their saying: "I clothed him because of nakedness" (kasawtuhu ‘an ‘uran) and "I fed him because of hunger" (at‘amtuhu ‘an ju‘in). That is, he became a fasiq (transgressor/disbeliever) because of God’s command to the angels—the command to which he was counted among their number. If not for that command, the refusal would not have materialized. Qutrub went to this, except he said: "It means he transgressed because he rejected the command of his Lord." It is possible that it is an estimation of meaning and possible that it is an estimation of grammar. It was permitted, upon the estimation of causality, that "the command" means the Will, i.e., he transgressed because of the Will of God Almighty for his transgression, and if not for that, he would have obeyed. The most apparent is what was mentioned first. The fa (so) is for causality, connecting what follows to His saying: (He was of the jinn), indicating that his transgression was caused by his being of the jinn, since their nature is rebellion due to the turbidity of their material and the malice of their essence. That which is malicious only brings forth what is stunted, even if there are among them those who obey and believe. It is permitted that the connection is to what is understood from the exception, as if it were said: "So they prostrated, except Iblis; he refused prostration, so he transgressed." It then indicates that his transgression was caused by his refusal and abandonment of prostration. It is said: The fa here is not conjunctive, since it is not valid to explain the abandonment of prostration and the refusal of it by his transgression against the command of his Lord. Al-Radi said: "The fa that is for other than conjunction, which is called the fa of causality, is also not free from the meaning of sequence. It is specific to sentences and enters upon that which is a consequence, with the precedence of a conditional word or without it." This is not something [of substance], because it is sufficient for the validity of the consequence of the second that it be caused by the first, as in: (Moses struck him, so he killed him), as was stated in al-Tashil; and here it is the same. Exposure to the title of Lordship, which is incompatible with transgression, is to clarify the ugliness of what he did.

The intended meaning of the command to mention the time of the story is the mention of the story itself, because it contains a harsh reprimand for the arrogant who boast of their lineages and wealth and are too proud to be numbered in the ranks of the poor believers, by explaining that this is the path of Iblis and that they are in that followers of his promptings, as the coming [verses] inform, God willing. From this, the angle of the connection is known. It is permitted that its angle is: when He Almighty clarified the state of those deluded by the world and turning away from it—and the cause of delusion by it is the love of desires and the prompting of the Devil—He, glory be to Him, first turned them away from the decorations of the world, describing them as presenting vanishing and imminent departure, and that the remaining good deeds are better in reward and better in hope than them and higher. Then He turned them away from the Devil by reminding them of the old enmity between them. Abu Hayyan chose, regarding its angle, that when He mentioned the Day of Resurrection and the Gathering and mentioned the fear of the criminals regarding what was recorded in their books, and Iblis, the accursed, was the one who drove them to sins and taking partners, it was appropriate to mention Iblis and warn against him, distancing them from sins and from complying with what he whispers and calls to. Whatever the case, mentioning this story here is not considered repetition with the mention of it before, because the mention of it here is for a benefit other than the benefit for which it was mentioned before; and likewise is its mention in every place it is mentioned in the Glorious Book. The same is said regarding everything that is a repetition according to the apparent.

It is not hidden that most repetitions are apparently different in styles and varying in wording and expressions; in that are divine secrets, so do not let the Devil cause you to slip.

(Then will you take him and his descendants as allies other than Me?) The hamza is for denunciation and astonishment, and the fa is for succession. The intent is either the denunciation that the taking of him and his descendants as allies succeeds the knowledge of the occurrence of what he issued, along with astonishment at that; or it is the succession of the denunciation of the aforementioned taking and astonishment at it after the notification of God Almighty regarding the ugliness of the deed of the accursed one—so reflect. The apparent is that the intended meaning of "descendants" is children, so the verse indicates that he has children; a group said this. It has been narrated from Ibn Zayd that God Almighty said to Iblis: "I will not create descendants for Adam but that I will create the like of them for you." So, no child is born to Adam but that a devil is born with him, paired with him. From Qatadah, it is said: "He marries and reproduces just as the sons of Adam reproduce." It is mentioned in al-Bahr that among those who said this were al-Dahhak, al-A‘mash, and al-Sha‘bi.

It is narrated from al-Sha‘bi that he said: "There is no progeny except from a spouse," so he is a proponent of the existence of a wife. What is in al-Durr al-Manthur, by the narration of Ibn al-Mundhir from him, is that he was asked about Iblis: "Does he have a wife?" He said: "That is a wedding I have not heard of." Ibn Abi al-Dunya in al-Maka'id and Ibn Abi Hatim extracted from Mujahid that he said: "Iblis has five children: Thabr, who is the companion of calamities; al-A‘war; Dasim—I do not know what they do; Maswat, who is the companion of clamor; and Zalinur, who is the one who divides people and makes a man see the faults of his family."

In another narration from him: al-A‘war is the companion of adultery; Maswat is the companion of lying news which he casts upon the mouths of people and they find no basis for it; Dasim is the companion of houses—if a man enters his house and does not mention God’s name, he enters with him; if he eats and does not mention God’s name, he eats with him; and Zalinur is the companion of markets. These five were from five eggs the accursed one laid. It is said that he, the accursed, inserts his tail into his anus and lays eggs, then the egg splits open to reveal a group of devils. Ibn Abi Hatim extracted from Sufyan that all his progeny are from five eggs he laid. He said: "And it reached me that more than Rabi‘ah and Mudar gather upon a single believer." God Almighty knows the authenticity of these reports. Some said: "He has no children," and the intended meaning of "descendants" is the followers among the devils; it is expressed as such metaphorically, comparing them to children. It is said—and perhaps it is the truth—that he has children or followers, and it is permissible that the "descendants" refers to the sum of both, by way of dominance or by combining the literal and the metaphorical for those who view it as metaphorical, or the generality of the metaphor. It has come in some reports that among those who are attributed to him by birth are those who believed in Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and our Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace; it is hamah, may God be pleased with him. Glory be to Him who brings the living from the dead! We are not obliged to know the modality of his birth, for many things are unknown in modality to us, yet we affirm them. So let it be of this type, if the report regarding it is authentic.

Those who deny his angelic status used the apparent meaning of the verse as evidence, where it indicates he has descendants, while the angels do not. A proponent of his angelic status may say: "After acknowledging the interpretation of 'descendants' as children, he was transformed and fell from angelic status after he disobeyed, so he came to have children; the verse did not indicate that he had children before the disobedience." The proof from it is not complete except by that. His saying (other than Me) is in the position of a state (hal), meaning: "Will you take them as allies, deviating from Me to them, and replace Me with them, so you obey them instead of My obedience?" (While they are to you an enemy), i.e., enemies, as in His saying (For they are an enemy to Me, except the Lord of the worlds), and His saying (They are the enemy). It was done to him by similarity to nouns like qabul (acceptance) and wulu‘ (fondness). The restriction of the taking to the hal (state) sentence is to emphasize the denunciation and tighten it, for its content prevents the occurrence of the taking and is definitively incompatible with it: "Among the miseries of the world for a free man is seeing an enemy for him with no alternative to befriending him." (Evil for the wrongdoers as an exchange). (Those who place a thing in other than its place). (As an exchange) is a replacement for God, glory be to Him, and it is in the accusative as a specifier (tamyiz). The subject of (Evil/Bi'sa) is a hidden pronoun explained by it; it is the object of the blame, which is omitted, i.e., "Evil is the replacement for God Almighty for the wrongdoers: Iblis and his descendants." In the shift to the third person, while placing the "wrongdoers" in the position of the second-person pronoun, there is an indication of the perfection of displeasure and an indication that what they did is an ugly wrong, as is not hidden.