Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:12

(He said): An inauguration introduced as a reply to a question arising from the narration of his failure to prostrate, as if it were said: "What did Allah—the Almighty—say at that time?" With this, as has been said, the aspect of turning to the third person (i.e., from direct address) becomes clear, for there is no basis for presuming the question to be in the form of direct address. It also holds another benefit: signaling that the matter being narrated does not concern those being addressed, as in the narration of the creation and the shaping. That is, Allah—the Almighty—said to Iblis when he was not among the prostrators: (What prevented you that you did not prostrate?)

The famous view is that "la" (not) is redundant, evidenced by His—the Glorified—saying in another verse: "What prevented you that you should prostrate?" It has also appeared as such in His—the Glorified—saying: "so that the People of the Book might know," meaning: "so that they may know." In this, as stated by more than one, it serves to emphasize and confirm the meaning of the verb to which it is attached.

It has been problematized: how can it confirm the occurrence of the verb while implying its negation? Al-Shihab said: "What appears to me is that it does not confirm it absolutely, but rather when it is accompanied by a preceding or succeeding negation, whether explicit or implicit, as in: 'not of those who have earned anger nor of those who are astray,' and as it is here. Thus, it confirms the attachment of the prevention to him." Hence, they said: it is an alert that what is being rebuked is the abandonment of prostration.

It is said that it is not redundant, in that "prevention" (al-man') is a metaphor for compulsion and necessity; thus, the meaning is: "What compelled you so that you did not prostrate?" Al-Sakkaki made it a metaphor for inducement—and there is no indicator for the metaphor—meaning: "What induced you and called you so that you did not prostrate?" There is no great difference between the two interpretations. It has also been permitted that this is a case of inclusion (tadmin).

Al-Raghib said: "Al-man'" is used as the opposite of giving, like a man being mani' (withholding) or manna' (very stingy). It is also used for protection; from it is makan mani' (an impregnable place), and it has been fortified (muni'a). So-and-so is dhu man'ah (possessor of power), meaning he is powerful and inaccessible to those who seek him. The "prevention" in the verse is of the latter, meaning: "What protected you [or prevented you] from not prostrating?"

(Since I commanded you) to prostrate, and "since" (idh) is an adverbial for "prostrate." This verse is one of the proofs for those who say that a command implies immediacy, because it is a censure for failing to act promptly. If the command did not imply immediacy, the censure would not be directed at him, and he could have replied: "You did not command me to act with haste; I would have prostrated eventually." The reply to this is that the immediacy comes from His—the Almighty's—saying: "Fall down before him prostrating," and not from the command formula itself—except that some have denied that the fa (the resultative particle) indicates sequence without delay. Others said that the argumentation is based on the sequence of blame upon the violation of the absolute command, where He—the Glorified—said: "Since I commanded you," and did not say: "Since I said: 'Fall down before him prostrating'." Ponder this.

In the narration of the rebuke here with this phrasing, and in Surah al-Hijr with His—the Almighty's—saying: "O Iblis, what is with you that you are not with the prostrators?" and in Surah Sad with His—the Glorified's—saying: "What prevented you that you did not prostrate to what I created with My hands?" is an indication that the accursed one merged multiple acts of disobedience into one, and any one of those acts is sufficient for rebuke and to invalidate what he committed. The narration of the rebuke has been omitted entirely in Surah al-Baqarah, Surah Bani Isra'il, Surah al-Kahf, and Surah Taha. Allah—the Almighty—knows best the wisdom of each.

(He said): An inauguration, as mentioned, built upon a question arising from the narration of the rebuke, as if it were said: "What did the accursed one say at that time?" It is said: (I am better than him). This is of the foolish style; for the answer corresponding to the question would be, "This and that prevented me." This is an answer to "Which of you is better?" It contains a claim of something while clearly implying the intended point in his view, and it signals that one whose state is this is not fit to prostrate to one lower than him, so how could it be fit for him to be commanded to do so? Thus, the accursed one was the first to lay the foundation of arrogance and to invent the saying regarding beauty and ugliness based on opinion.

And His—the Almighty's—saying as a narration from him: (You created me from fire and You created him from clay) is a justification for what he claimed—may the curse be upon him—of his superiority over him—peace be upon him. Its summary is: "I am created from an element more noble than his element, because my element is celestial, luminous, and powerful in effect, suitable for the matter of life, while his element is the opposite of that. The one created from the more noble is more noble, because the nobility of the origin necessitates the nobility of the branch. Therefore, I am as such, and it is not fitting for the more noble to be subject to one who is lower than him."

The accursed one erred; for the contention that fire is more noble than clay is denied. Each of the four elements is specialized with benefits that the others do not possess, and each is necessary in this creation, and each has its virtue in its position and state. To prefer some over others is a lengthening without purpose for one who considers that the earth is of more benefit to creation, for it is their place of rest and in it are their livelihoods; and it is characterized by gravity, which is one of the requirements of forbearance and dignity. Whereas fire is less than it in benefits and is characterized by levity, which is one of the requirements of recklessness, arrogance, and pride. You know what is in the speech of the accursed one.

Furthermore, the nobility of the origin does not necessitate the nobility of the branch; indeed, the rose comes from the thorn, and the narcissus does not grow except from an onion. It is sufficient for this that a disbeliever may emerge from a believer. Furthermore, he restricted nobility to what is from the side of substance and element, whereas a thing, just as it is made noble by its substance and element, is made noble by its agent, its purpose, and its form. This nobility in Adam—peace be upon him—is unmatched, for Allah—the Almighty—created him with His hands, blew into him from His spirit, and made him a successor on earth, as He—the Glorified—narrated regarding what He entrusted to him.

Furthermore, what ugliness is there in the service of the superior to the inferior as an act of humility and the casting off of the desires of the self? Especially since the service, in truth, was only for Allah—the Almighty. To this, Zafir al-Iskandari pointed by saying: "You are the intended one in the composition of every poem built upon understandings in honoring him, like the prostration of the kings of the heavens to Adam, and their prostration to Allah in its interpretation."

Then, the apparent meaning is that this answer from the accursed one was with the admission that he was commanded to prostrate. In that case, his error is clearer than fire on a mountain, for it amounts to an objection against the Wise Owner. Some have said: he did not admit that he was commanded, but rather excluded himself from the generalization by analogy. The proponents of this view used this rebuke as proof that it is not permitted to specify the text (of a command) by analogy.

The reply given is that this is not a specification (takhsis), but rather an invalidation of the text and a total removal of it, and there is reflection in this. Abu Nu'aym reported in al-Hilya, and al-Daylami from Ja'far ibn Muhammad, from his father, from his grandfather—may Allah be pleased with them all—that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "The first to use analogy in the affairs of religion by his own opinion was Iblis. Allah—the Almighty—said to him: 'Prostrate to Adam,' and he said: 'I am better than him,' etc." Ja'far said: "Whoever uses analogy in the affairs of religion by his own opinion, Allah—the Almighty—will pair him with Iblis on the Day of Resurrection, because he followed him by analogy." This and the like of it were used as proof to forbid analogy absolutely. The reply to that is that what is blameworthy is analogy and opinion in opposition to the text, or that in which one of the considered conditions is missing. The verification of this is in its proper place.

In the verse is evidence for the coming-into-being and corruption, due to its indication of the creation of Adam—peace be upon him—and Iblis—may the curse be upon him—and their origination, and the impossibility of clay and fire remaining as they were in their state of clay-ness and fire-ness once what was composed of them was composed. Also, that Iblis and his like are created bodies, not eternal spirits. It is said: perhaps the attribution of the creation of Adam—peace be upon him—to clay and his creation to fire is with regard to the predominant part. Otherwise, it has been established that bodies are from the four elements, and some people are beyond the prohibition.