Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:15

(He said, "You are of those reprieved.")

This is an interpolation [of speech], as previously mentioned. Its apparent meaning reaches until the Day of Resurrection, as it occurred in response to his words. However, in the chapters of al-Hijr and Sad, it is restricted to the "Day of the Known Time." There is disagreement regarding what is intended by it. The most famous [opinion] is that it is the day of the first Trumpet blast, not the day of Resurrection, because the latter is not a day of death. Some permitted that the intended meaning is the day of Resurrection, and it does not necessitate that he will not die; perhaps he will die at the beginning of that day and be resurrected with the rest of creation during its progression.

In the book al-Ara’is, it is narrated from Ka‘b al-Ahbar that Iblis will only taste the bitterness of death on the Day of Gathering. He mentioned the manner of his death and the Angel of Death taking his soul in a way that is astonishing. The erudite al-Safarini did not approve of this. He stated in his book, al-Buhur al-Zakhirah, that Nu‘aym ibn Hammad recorded in al-Fitan, and al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak, from Ibn Mas‘ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "They will not remain—meaning the people—after Gog and Magog, until the sun rises from its setting place, at which point the pens will dry, the scrolls will be folded, and no repentance will be accepted from anyone. Then Iblis will fall prostrate, crying out: 'My Lord, command me to prostrate to whomsoever You will!' The devils will gather around him and say, 'O our master, to whom do you turn in distress?' He will reply: 'I only asked my Lord to reprieve me until the Day of Resurrection, yet He reprieved me until the Day of the Known Time, and now the sun has risen from its setting place; this is the Day of the Known Time.' The devils will become manifest on the earth until a man will say, 'This is my familiar [Qarin] who was with me,' and praise be to Allah who has disgraced him. Iblis will continue to remain prostrate, weeping, until the Beast emerges and kills him while he is in prostration."

From this, it is understood that the intended meaning of the "Known Time" is what the Accursed One himself stated, which is long before the first Trumpet blast. This is an opinion we have not seen any of the exegetes mention, yet it is the one preferred by that learned man. He said: "The report is in the status of marfu‘ (attributed to the Prophet), because it is not spoken based on personal opinion, and Ibn Mas‘ud is not like Ka‘b al-Ahbar, who would derive [information] from the books of the People of the Book."

You know that if the attribution of this report to Ibn Mas‘ud is sound, one should not turn to an opinion that contradicts it. However, I have hesitation regarding the soundness of its attribution to him (may Allah be pleased with him).

It has been said: The intended meaning is a time whose end Allah alone knows, which He has hidden from us and from the Accursed One. According to this, it must be before the second Trumpet blast. Some have argued for this by saying that the Accursed One was mukallaf (accountable), and it is not permissible for an accountable being to know the time of his death, for he would then hasten toward sin with a carefree heart until his time approached, at which point he would repent and his repentance would be accepted. This would be like an incitement to sin, which would be evil. This was answered by stating that for one whom Allah knows will die in a state of purity and protection—such as the Prophets (peace be upon them)—or in a state of disbelief and sin—such as Iblis and his cohorts—informing him of the time of his death is not an incitement to sin, because his state does not change due to that notification.

The apparent meaning of the noble arrangement [of the verse], according to more than one, is that this is an answer to his supplication, either in whole or in part. In this is evidence for those who say that the supplication of a disbeliever may be answered. This is the position taken by al-Dabbusi and other jurists, contrary to what was quoted in al-Bazzaziyyah from some who said: "It is not permissible to say the supplication of a disbeliever is answered, because he does not know Allah to call upon Him." The fatwa is based on the former [view] due to the apparent [evidence] and the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "The supplication of the oppressed is answered, even if he is a disbeliever." Interpreting the disbelief here as ingratitude for favors, rather than disbelief in the religion, is contrary to the apparent meaning. Furthermore, being answered does not necessitate love or honor, for it might be a form of istidraj (luring one to destruction).

Some researchers stated: The sentence is an information about him being among the reprieved in Allah's decree, without it being a consequence of his supplication. It is argued that its arrival in the form of a nominal sentence, while demonstrating the inclusion of others whom the Accursed One asked for, in a manner implying that the requester was a follower to them in that, is explicit that this is information that his reprieve was decreed eternally, not an initiation of a specific reprieve for him as an answer to his supplication. From this, it is also known that his request for reprieve was a request for the delay of death—since it is by that [death] that his inclusion among them is realized—not for the delay of punishment, as has been said. This is not devoid of merit. The wisdom in his reprieve for that long duration, with all the corruption he is upon, is something whose knowledge should be delegated to the Creator of the servants.

Al-Shahrastani mentioned from the commentator of the Four Gospels a description of a debate that took place between the angels and Iblis after this incident, which is mentioned in the Torah. It is that the Accursed One said to the angels: "I acknowledge that I have a Lord who is my Creator, my Originator, and the Creator of the creation. However, I have questions regarding His judgment: First, what is the wisdom in creation, especially when He knew that the disbeliever would deserve nothing but the Fire upon his creation? Second, what is the benefit in accountability when no benefit or harm returns to Him from it, and everything that returns to the accountable ones He is capable of granting them without the intermediary of accountability? Third, suppose He held me accountable for knowing and obeying Him, then why did He hold me accountable to prostrate to Adam? Fourth, when I disobeyed Him in refusing the prostration, why did He curse me and make my punishment mandatory, even though there is no benefit in it for Him or anyone else, and it causes me the greatest harm? Fifth, when He did that, why did He grant me authority over his [Adam's] children and enable me to lead them astray and misguide them? Sixth, when I asked Him for a long delay for that, why did He grant it to me, knowing that if the world were free of evil, that would be better?" The commentator of the Gospels said: "So Allah revealed to him from the veils of might and majesty: 'O Iblis, you have not known Me; for had you known Me, you would have known that there is no objection to Me in anything I do, for I am Allah, there is no god but Me, I am not questioned about what I do.'"

In the sixth question, there is evidence supporting the first opinion. It is not hidden that these doubts are difficult for those who profess the rational goodness and evil [of acts] to answer. Indeed, the Imam said: "If the first and the last of the creatures were to gather and judge based on the rational determination of good and evil, they would find no escape from these doubts, and all would be unavoidable."

Al-Zamakhshari interpreted His answering of his request for reprieve by stating that it serves as a trial for the servants, and in opposing him lies the greatest reward. His ruling is the ruling of what Allah created in the world regarding types of adornments, forms of entertainment, pleasures, and what He placed in the souls of desires, in order to test His servants with them. The Second Scholar (al-Qadi) criticized this, like others, by stating that it is based on explaining the actions of the Exalted with purposes, and not attributing the creation of evils and vices to Him, the Exalted, while this is invalid. This is because the reality of "testing" is impossible for Him, the Exalted, and its metaphorical meaning does not dispel the question. Also, the painful punishment in following him is many times greater than the great reward in opposing him. Rather, if there were no reprieve and empowerment [for Iblis], the servants would do nothing but obedience and avoid sin, and there would be nothing but reward, like the angels. The content of this is well-known, except that his statement afterward: "It is better for the servant not to delve into such secrets and to delegate their reality to the All-Wise, the Disposer," is something we agree with, because knowing such things is extremely difficult for those who argue and dispute.

However, the omission of timing in this chapter is based on trust in what occurred in the chapters of al-Hijr and Sad, just as the mention of the call and the fa (particle of consequence) in the request for reprieve and the granting of reprieve was omitted in reliance upon what was mentioned there.

If you were to say: There is no doubt that the speech reported to him, at the time it was issued from the speaker, has a specific state that necessitates it being delivered in a particular way of arrangement, such that if anything were omitted, the speech would fall from the rank of eloquence entirely. Thus, if a single speech reported in various ways necessitates that the situation requires it being delivered in a specific way of those various ways at the time of reporting, then that way is the one matching the requirement of the situation and reaching the rank of eloquence, unlike the other ways. We would then say: It is not hidden that the request of the Accursed One was issued only once. Thus, if his situation necessitated the expression of pleading and the arrangement of the request for reprieve upon the curse and expulsion that befell him, in a manner of seeking compensation for the loss—as is implied by his words: "My Lord, reprieve me," as reported in the two chapters—then what is reported here would be devoid of conformity to the requirement of the situation, let alone rising to the levels of inimitability.

I say: Our master, Shaykh al-Islam, answered this question after presenting it, stating that the situation of his request for reprieve necessitates what was mentioned regarding the expression of pleading and the arrangement of the request for reprieve upon the deprivation indicated by the expulsion and rejection. Likewise, the situation of granting the reprieve necessitates arranging the report of the reprieve upon the request for reprieve. The speech was adjusted to that in those two chapters, and each of the two situations—the reporting and the reported—received its share. As for here, since the situation of the reporting required merely informing about the request for reprieve and the granting of it, the report was driven in the manner of brevity and conciseness, without dealing with the manner of each of them at the time of the address and the answer. It does not necessitate that this is not a transmission of the speech as it was, nor that it does not match the requirement of the situation. What must be considered in transmitting speech is its fundamental meaning and its very implication. As for the manner of expression, it may be observed and it may not be observed, depending on the requirement, and its omission does not harm the essence of the speech. Rather, qualities may be observed when it is transmitted that the original speaker did not observe at all, or might not have even been able to observe. All the statements reported in the verses are of that category; otherwise, many of them would not be miraculous. The standard for conformity is the situation of the reporting; as for the situation of the reported, if its requirement matches that, then each receives its due, as in the two chapters, and if not, then it is not, as is the case here. Let this be understood.