Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:11

This is a reminder of another favor. Its postponement—after mentioning what occurred subsequently, such as the favor of establishment upon the earth—is either because this favor is supererogatory to the addressees essentially and through this intermediary, or to signal that each of them is an independent favor.

The intended meaning is the creation of Adam (peace be upon him) and his fashioning, as necessitated by the literal implication of the subsequent conjunction. However, since he is the origin of the addressees, his creation was made their creation, and placed in its stead. The figurative usage (metaphor) in the plural pronoun is based on treating Adam (peace be upon him) as all of creation due to their branching out from him, or it is in the attribution, as that which pertains to Adam—the origin and cause—is attributed to that which branched from him and was caused by him.

Some have suggested that the discourse is based on the estimation of an omitted noun. The Imam (Al-Razi) held that it is a metonymy for the creation of Adam (peace be upon him), and the meaning is: "We created your father Adam (peace be upon him) as clay, not fashioned, then We fashioned him with the most creative fashioning and the best stature." This refers to all of you. It is also permitted that the figurative usage lies in the verb, meaning: "We began your creation, then your fashioning, by creating Adam then fashioning him." This returns to the beginning of the creation of the species and the beginning of the creation of every species by the manifestation of its first individual; thus, it is analogous to His saying (Exalted is He): "He created man from clay."

Based on these two views, the rationale for the conjunction with "then" (thumma) in His saying (Exalted is He): "Then We said to the angels: Prostrate to Adam," becomes clear. Al-Akhfash claimed that "then" here is in the sense of "and," but Al-Zajjaj countered this by stating it is an error that neither Al-Khalil, Sibawayh, nor those whose knowledge is trusted would permit, because "then" is for that which occurs after the previously mentioned thing, not otherwise. The meaning is: "We began the creation of Adam (peace be upon him) from dust, then We fashioned him," i.e., this is the origin of your creation, and after the completion of your origin, We said... etc.

Others have said that "then" is for the ordering of reports, not for chronological order, so there is no need for such maneuvering. The meaning is: "We created you, O sons of Adam, as unformed morsels (mudghah), then We fashioned you by splitting the hearing, the sight, and the rest of the limbs," as was narrated from Yaman. Or, "We created you in the loins of men, then We fashioned you in the wombs of women," as was narrated from 'Ikrimah, "then We inform you that We said to the angels..." A group of grammarians held this view, among them Ali ibn Isa, the Judge Abu Sa'id al-Sirafi, and others.

Al-Tayyibi said: It is possible to interpret "then" as referring to delay in rank, because the context of bestowing favor requires one to say that the state of their father being prostrated to by the angels is a higher degree than their creation and fashioning. In this is a hint at the nobility of knowledge and an admonition to the addressees to attain that virtue which their father won. Hence, in [Surat] al-Baqarah, the command to prostrate is followed by the challenge of knowledge.

It is reported from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Al-Rabi', Qatadah, and Al-Suddi that the meaning is: "We created Adam (peace be upon him), then We fashioned you in his back, then We said..." The discussion regarding the identity of the angels commanded to prostrate, and the meaning of the prostration itself, has already preceded.

Some researchers mentioned that the apparent meaning would be to say, "Then We commanded the angels to prostrate to Adam," yet He turned away from that because the command to prostrate occurred before the creation of Adam (peace be upon him), as indicated by His saying (Exalted is He): "So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down to him prostrating." What occurred after his fashioning is merely His saying (Glorified is He): "Prostrate to Adam," which serves to designate the time of the prostration commanded previously. In summary, He (Glorified is He) commanded them first with a suspended command, then He commanded them a second time with a realized command conforming to the previous one; thus, He made it a narration of it. In that is what is not hidden of the concern for the affair of Adam (peace be upon him).

"(So they prostrated)"—meaning the angels (peace be upon them) after the utterance, without hesitation, all of them together—"(except Iblis)." This is a connected exception, regardless of whether we say Iblis was truly of the angels or not. As for the first view, it is apparent. As for the second, since he was a singular Jinn submerged among thousands of angels, characterized by most of their attributes, they were generalized over him in "so they prostrated," then one of them was excepted. It has been said it is a disconnected exception based on the fact that he was of the Jinn, and they are not of the species of angels, and there is no generalization. The first view is the preferred one.

His saying (Exalted is He): "(He was not of the prostrators)" means he was not among those who prostrated to Adam (peace be upon him), despite the fact that the non-prostration was already known from the exception. For what is known from an exception is the negation of generality, not the generality of negation. The intent is the latter; namely, that no prostration proceeded from him absolutely, neither with them nor individually. This is only realized through explicit statement (tansis). This is what has been said, and it has been examined by stating that the aforementioned explicit statement does not imply the generality of circumstances and times, so what was mentioned does not hold.

The verification of this position, according to what the Mawla Siraj al-Din mentioned, is to say that the scholars differed as to whether an exception from a negation is an affirmation or not. Al-Shafi'i said: Yes, so the opposite of the ruling is established for the excepted party by way of expression (ibarah), and the apparent text of Al-Hidayah agrees with him. A group of the Hanafis went toward the view that it is by way of indication (isharah), while others went toward the view that the excepted party is in the status of being remained silent upon, and the ruling is only derived by way of the concept of the contrary (mafhum al-mukhalafah). The author of Al-Bahr chose the view that it is an explicit text (mantuq) sometimes by indication and other times by expression.

Once this is established, it is possible to answer: since the context was one of recording against Iblis his failure to prostrate, and of defamation and rebuke for that hideous obscenity, it was fitting to be explicit and worthy to be cautious—due to the weakness of relying on a contextual clue—and suitable for the perfection of clarification and affirmation. Thus, he turned away from the method of omission (hadhf)—even if the discourse implies what is omitted—to the method of mention and explicit statement. This, according to the opinion of Al-Shafi'i and those who agree with him, is apparent, and to this, Al-Siraj al-Hindi alluded in the discussions of exception in his explanation of Al-Mughni. As for the other schools, the matter is even more apparent, because the ruling upon the excepted party by the opposite of the ruling of that from which it was excepted is either by way of indication or the concept of the contrary. In any case, the context rejects mere sufficiency with such things and necessitates an explicit mention of the ruling.

Our Master Ibn al-Kamal claimed that this sentence was only brought for the sake of a disconnected exception, and that if the exception were connected, bringing it would be futile, because the fact that Iblis was not of the prostrators is understood from the exception assuming it is connected. The flaw in this is not hidden to those who have mastered what we have mentioned. It was also objected to by some that, even assuming it is disconnected, it would be futile based on what he presumed; for the establishment of the opposite of the ruling of that from which it was excepted for the excepted party is not exclusive to the connected [exception]. This is why we do not see them mention the opposite of the ruling of that from which it was excepted along with the disconnected excepted party, except rarely. And if what he mentioned were complete, it would be mandatory to mention the predicate with every disconnected exception. So understand this.