| Al-A'raf: (173) "Or that you say..."

(Or that you say) on that Day: (Only our fathers associated others with Allah before)—meaning, our fathers are the ones who invented polytheism and instituted it before our time—(and we were descendants after them)—we followed them—(shall You destroy us)—meaning, shall You seize us and destroy us today with punishment—(for what the falsifiers did) from among our misguided fathers? We do not see You doing that.

The use of (or) is to indicate that the avoidance of the state of "collective ignorance" is not necessarily restricted to the collection of those things, and the verb "to say" is coordinated with its counterpart. Abu Amr read both with the ya (third-person prefix), based on the hidden subject, because the beginning of the discourse relates to them. The justification for the second-person address (taqulu) is what you already know.

Some have said: This refers to the saying of the Lord, may He be exalted, "Am I not your Lord?" And the reason this speech did not encompass the people is that what was mentioned of their readiness narrows the paths toward Him, for taqlid (blind imitation) when proofs are established and the capability to reason exists is something that has no justification at all.

This is the case. What the later scholars and the Sufis unanimously agree upon is that Allah, may He be exalted, took a covenant from all the servants before they appeared in this specific physical form, and that this extraction from the "appearing" was also before. Indeed, Ahmad, Al-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Marduyah, Al-Hakim (who authenticated it), and Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Asma' wa al-Sifat reported from Ibn Abbas, from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who said: "Allah, may He be exalted, took the covenant from the loins of Adam at Nu'man on the Day of Arafat, and extracted from his loins every descendant He had created, spread them before Him like tiny ants, then spoke to them directly: 'Am I not your Lord?' They said: 'Yes, we testify.'"

Malik in Al-Muwatta’, Ahmad, ‘Abd ibn Humayd, Al-Bukhari in Al-Tarikh, Abu Dawud, Al-Tirmidhi (who graded it hasan), Al-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir, and many others reported from Muslim ibn Yasar al-Juhani that Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) was asked about this verse, "(And [mention] when your Lord took...)" until the end. He said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) asked about it, and he said: 'Allah, may He be exalted, created Adam, then stroked his back with His right hand and extracted from it a progeny, saying: "I created these for Paradise, and they will do the deeds of the people of Paradise." Then He stroked his back and extracted a progeny, saying: "I created these for the Fire, and they will do the deeds of the people of the Fire."' A man asked: 'O Messenger of Allah, then what is the purpose of deeds?' He replied: 'If Allah creates a servant for Paradise, He employs him in the deeds of the people of Paradise until he dies upon one of the deeds of the people of Paradise, and Allah admits him to Paradise. And if He creates a servant for the Fire, He employs him in the deeds of the people of the Fire until he dies upon one of the deeds of the people of the Fire, and Allah, may He be exalted, admits him to the Fire.'"

Al-Baydawi interpreted the verse as a metaphor, as he did in his commentary on Al-Masabih, and mentioned therein that the manifest meaning of Umar's report does not support that, nor does the manifest meaning of the verse, because if He, glory be to Him, had intended to mention that He extracted the progeny from the loins of Adam all at once—and not through one being born of another over the passage of time—He would have said: "And when your Lord took from the loins of Adam his progeny." The reconciliation between them is to say: The intended meaning of "children of Adam" in the verse is Adam and his offspring; it has become a name for the species, like "human" (insan) and "mankind" (bashar). The meaning of the extraction is the birth of one from another over the passage of time, and the report mentioned Adam alone, sufficing by mentioning the root instead of the branch.

His saying—peace and blessings be upon him—in the report, "stroked the back of Adam," could mean the "stroker" is the angel appointed over the formation of embryos, their creation, and the gathering of their materials, and it is attributed to Allah, may He be exalted, because He is the Commander, just as "taking the soul" (tawaffi) is attributed to Him in His saying, "He takes the souls at the time of their death," while the one who actually takes them is the angel, according to His saying, "The angels take them." It is also possible that the "stroker" is Allah, may He be exalted, and the stroking is an act of representation. It is said: It is from masaha (to measure), meaning "estimation," as if He said: "He estimated what was in his loins of progeny." (End of his words).

Some have said: The meaning in the report is not that He, may He be exalted, extracted all of them from the loins of Adam (peace be upon him) in essence, but rather He extracted from his loins his immediate children, and from their loins their immediate children, and so on until the end of the chain. However, because the original appearance was his loins—peace be upon him—and the course of the report was to explain the state of the two groups in summary without any scientific purpose regarding the mention of intermediaries, the extraction of all was attributed to him. As for the noble verse, since it was directed at arguing against the disbelievers contemporary to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and stating that excuses relying on attributing polytheism to their fathers are of no benefit, the situation required attributing the extraction of each one of them to the loins of his own father, without discussing the extraction of the immediate children of Adam (peace be upon him) from his loins specifically. The non-mention of the covenant in the report of Umar is not a statement of its non-existence, nor does it necessitate it.

You know that the interpretation mentioned by Al-Baydawi is rejected by all the evidence, including the report of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), and that what "some" mentioned regarding the course of the report being a summary of the state of the two groups is rejected by the fact that the question was clearly not about their general state. The manifest truth is that the Companion asked the Prophet—peace be upon him—about what was difficult for him to understand regarding the meaning of the verse: Is the witnessing literal or metaphorical? When he answered him in a way that made his intent clear, the Companion remained silent because he was eloquent. Had it been difficult for him from another angle, it would have been an obligation to clarify that angle. This is also how the Farooq (Umar) (may Allah be pleased with him) understood it.

From this, one learns that the Imam's statement—that the manifest meaning of the verse points to the extraction of the progeny from the loins of the children of Adam and that there is nothing in it indicating they were extracted from the loins of Adam nor anything denying it, except that the report indicated it, so their exit from Adam is proven by the report and from his children by the verse—does not match the context of the report, as is not hidden.

Shaykh Shihab al-Din al-Turabashti said: Many of the people of knowledge exerted themselves to escape from interpreting the verse according to the literal meaning of the report of the "Scholar" (Ibn Abbas) because of His saying, may He be exalted: (Lest you say on the Day of Resurrection: 'Indeed, we were unaware of this'). They said: If this acknowledgement was out of compulsion, where they were unveiled to the truth of the matter and witnessed it with certain vision, then they would have the right to say on that Day: "We witnessed it on that day; when the knowledge of compulsion was removed from us and we were entrusted to our own opinions, some of us hit the mark and some of us missed." And if it was from reasoning, but they were protected at that time from error, then they also have the right to say: "We were supported at the time of acknowledgement with guidance and protection, and we were deprived of them afterwards. Had we been sustained by them forever, our testimony would have been at every moment like our testimony on the first day."

Therefore, it is necessary that "the covenant" refers to what Allah, may He be exalted, instilled in them of intellect and what He gave them of insight, because that is the conclusive argument and the preventive against their saying, "Indeed, we were unaware..." For Allah, may He be exalted, made the acknowledgement and the ability to know His Lordship and Oneness a proof against them regarding polytheism, just as He made the sending of the Messenger a proof against them regarding faith in what he informed them of the Unseen. (End quote).

In short: If the verse is not interpreted as mentioned, the consequence is that they would not be argued against on the Day of Resurrection. This has been answered by choosing either of the two options and removing the difficulty. As for the first: By saying that if they say, "We witnessed it on that day, and when the knowledge of necessity was removed and we were entrusted to our own opinions, such-and-such happened," you liars, when were you entrusted to your own opinions? Did We not send Our messengers one after another to awaken you from the sleep of heedlessness? As for the second: It is said that this is a shared burden, for if it is said to them, "Did We not grant you intellect and insight?" they can say, "If we were denied grace and success, what benefit is there for us in intellect and insight?"

Muhyi al-Sunnah mentioned in answer to the question: How is the argument binding when no one remembers that covenant? That Allah, may He be exalted, has clarified the proofs for His oneness and the truthfulness of His messengers in what they reported, so whoever denies it is an obstinate covenant-breaker, and the argument is binding upon him. His forgetting and lack of remembering it does not drop the proof after the informing of the Truthful Informer. The weakness in this is not hidden. For this reason, some have answered that His saying, may He be exalted, (Lest you say...), is not the object of the cause for His saying, (And [mention] when He made them witness) and what follows from their saying (Yes, we testify), such that it is mandatory that this witnessing and testimony be preserved for them in the binding of the proof. Rather, it is for a hidden verb that the discourse flows upon. The meaning is: "We did what We did of commanding the remembrance of the covenant and clarifying it, fearing that you might say—or so that you would not say—O disbelievers, on the Day of Resurrection, 'Indeed, we were unaware of that covenant and were not alerted to it in the abode of trial, otherwise we would have acted according to its requirements.'" This is according to the recitation of the majority.

As for the other recitation, it is the object of the cause for the hidden verb itself which governs (When He took). The meaning is: Remind them of the covenant taken from them in the past, so they do not excuse themselves on the Day of Resurrection with ignorance of it or by following the fathers. Then he said: This is on the assumption that "we testify" is from the speech of the progeny, which is the apparent meaning. As for the assumption that it is from the speech of Allah, may He be exalted, then it is the governor of (Lest you say), and there is no difficulty at all. The meaning is: "We witnessed your saying this, so that you do not say on the Day of Resurrection... because We will refute you and call you liars then." (End quote).

It is not hidden that what he mentioned first—that "that" and what follows it relates to a hidden verb that the discourse flows upon, or to the same hidden verb governing "when"—is clear in دفع (repelling) the question we pointed out. By my life, it is extremely good, except that the apparent meaning is its relation to the witnessing and what follows from it. I see the answer, while not departing from it, is not without some departure.

What he mentioned second—that "we testify" is from the speech of Allah, may He be exalted, and that it is the governor—is supported by what Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr reported in Al-Tamhid via Al-Suddi from Abu Malik and from Abu Salih from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), and from Murra al-Hamadani from Ibn Mas‘ud and a group of the Companions, that they said regarding the verse: When Allah, may He be exalted, extracted Adam from Paradise before sending him down from heaven, He stroked the right side of his back and extracted from it a white progeny like pearls, in the form of ants, and said to them: "Enter Paradise by My mercy." And He stroked the left side of his back and extracted a black progeny like ants and said: "Enter the Fire, and I do not care." That is the saying of Allah, may He be exalted: (The companions of the right and the companions of the left). Then He took the covenant from them and said: "Am I not your Lord?" They said: "Yes." A group gave it willingly, and a group reluctantly out of dissimulation. So He and the angels said: (We testify, lest you say on the Day of Resurrection)... until the end.

This report contradicts what was narrated from the "Scholar" (Ibn Abbas) first, that the taking was at Nu'man, for it is apparent that that was after the descent, while this is apparent that it was before. Some reports suggest it was while His Throne, glory be to Him, was upon the water. For 'Abd ibn Humayd, Al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi in Bawadir al-Usul, Al-Tabarani, Abu al-Shaykh in Al-‘Azamah, and Ibn Marduyah reported from Abu Umamah that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Allah, may He be exalted, created the creation, decreed the decree, and took the covenant of the prophets while His Throne was upon the water. He took the people of the right with His right hand and the people of the left with His other hand—and both hands of the Most Merciful are right—and said: 'O people of the right!' They responded to Him: 'Here we are, our Lord, at Your service.' He said: 'Am I not your Lord?' They said: 'Yes.' He said: 'O people of the left!' They responded to Him and said: 'Here we are, our Lord, at Your service.' He said: 'Am I not your Lord?' They said: 'Yes.' Then He mixed some of them with others..."

Some have mentioned that it was in India where Adam (peace be upon him) descended, and others that it was in the place of the Ka‘bah, and that the progeny extracted from the back of Adam (peace be upon him) like ants surrounded it, and that the place they occupied then was made a sanctuary. There is no chain of narration for this that can be relied upon. Reconciling these narratives is difficult, unless one posits that the taking of the covenant occurred multiple times; this is the view of the Sufi masters—may Allah sanctify their secrets—but their words suggest a difference in type. Some have said: "I saw someone who recalled six other covenantal instances before the covenant of 'Am I not?'" I mentioned that to our shaykh—may he be pleased with him—and he said: "If the speaker of the six instances intended the universals, it is accepted; but if he meant the total number of covenantal instances before 'Am I not?', they are more than that."

From this, one knows the error in their statement: "No one remembers that covenant," as a total negation. It has been narrated from Dhu al-Nun, when asked about that, if he remembered it, that he said: "It is as if it is now in my ears." And some have said, justifying it: "This covenant was yesterday," and pointed therein to other covenants that were before. It is possible to say his intent by that negation is: "No one from the polytheists remembers that covenant," not "no one absolutely."

The Pole of Truth and Religion, the scholar Al-Shirazi, mentioned in reconciling the verse and the report of Umar words that the authorities have approved and accepted. In summary: The response of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) when asked about the verse is of the style of the wise; that is, he—peace and blessings be upon him—was asked about the clarification of the actual covenant, so he answered by clarifying the verbal covenant in the most subtle way. The explanation is that He, glory be to Him, had two covenants with the children of Adam: one that the intellects are guided to by the setting of proofs prompting current acknowledgement, and the second is the verbal one, which the intellect does not find guidance to, but rather depends on the informing of someone informed of the states of the servants from eternity to eternity, like the prophets—peace be upon them.

So the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) wanted to teach the nation and inform them that behind the covenant they are guided to by their intellects is another eternal covenant. So he said what he said about stroking the back of Adam (peace be upon him) in eternity and extracting the progeny, so that it may be known that this offspring that exits continuously from the loins of the children of Adam is the progeny that was extracted in eternity from the loins of Adam, and the verbal eternal covenant was taken from them, just as the current non-eternal covenant was taken from them gradually as they were extracted. (End quote).

This is good as they have said, but "eternity" (azal) and "continuously" (la-yazal) should be interpreted metaphorically, because the exit of the offspring is limited to the Day of Resurrection, and according to the saying that it does not cease after that, it is special to the blessed in a special way, as is known in its place. The matter is created, not eternal, otherwise, it would necessitate the breaking of the consensus of the Muslims and the contradiction between the verse and "Allah was and nothing was with Him."

It is reported from Al-Khalkhali that he prepared himself to refute this, saying: The addressees are the ancient intellectual forms which are the essences of things and their realities; they call them "fixed essences." Those forms are not existing in the outside world, so no "making" relates to them according to that fixed state; rather, in their own selves, they are not in need of anything to make them those forms. They are emanating from Him, may He be exalted, by the Most Holy Emanation (fayd al-aqdas). They have explicitly stated that they are manifestations and considerations of the One Essence. Their answer by saying "Yes" is by the tongues of their eternal readiness, not by the tongues that exist after their realization in the outside world. (End quote). This is based on the distinction between "being fixed" (thubut) and "existence" (wujud), and there is a long dispute regarding it, but we are among those who say it, and Allah is not ashamed of the truth.

From this, another way of reconciling the verse and the report occurred to some of the eminent scholars: that the intended meaning of the progeny extracted from the loins of Adam (peace be upon him) and his children is the intellectual forms and fixed essences, and the intended meaning of extracting them is the manifestation of the One Essence and His appearance within them. The attribution of extraction to their "backs" is with the consideration that those forms, when they exist in the essences, are their very selves, and that the conversation is "actual/ready" (hali), eternal, not "verbal/incidental/created." This is the meaning of what the scholar of reality, Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami, reported in Al-Haqa'iq from Banan, where he said: "He brought them into existence with Him in the state of eternity, then called them, so they answered Him quickly. He made Himself known to them when they were not yet in the human form, then He brought them out by His will as a creation and deposited them in the loins of Adam. So He, glory be to Him, said: 'And when your Lord took...' He informed that He addressed them while they were not existing except by His existence for them, as they were finding the Truth while not existing for themselves, and the Truth was existing by the Truth in that." Then Al-Sulami recited for some of them: "If they heard as I heard her speech, they would have fallen down for dignity, bowing and prostrating."

It is not hidden that this reconciliation is far removed from the taste of the literalists because it contradicts the apparent meaning of the reports and what is understood from the traditions. What is reported from Banan—and it is the beginning of his speech: "He selected them for wilayah (guardianship), purified them for honor, and made for them expanses in the obscurities of the Unseen of the Kingdom"—and what follows it—that what he mentioned and its inclusion of the rest of the creation, the happy and the miserable—is not without distance.

The Greatest Shaykh (Ibn Arabi)—may his secret be sanctified—mentioned that Allah, may He be exalted, initiated the initiated things and manifested with the tongue of the Oneness in the Lordship, saying: "Am I not your Lord?" And the addressed was in extreme attention, so they said: "Yes." It was like an echo, for they answered Him with it, because the created existence is an imagined appearance. This witnessing was a witnessing of mercy, because He, glory be to Him, did not say to them "My One," out of keeping them, because He knew that they would associate others with Him—exalted is He far above that—due to what is in them of natural portion and what is in them of accepting the divine power, and only a few know that.

You know that the investigative exegetes considered the oneness in the witnessing and likewise in the testimony, as the indication has passed and the reports have spoken of it. Among that is what Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal reported in Zawa'id al-Musnad, Al-Bayhaqi, Ibn ‘Asakir, and a group from Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, that he said regarding the verse: "He gathered them all together and made them spirits in their forms, then made them speak, and they spoke. Then He took from them the pledge and the covenant and made them witness upon themselves: 'Am I not your Lord?' They said: 'Yes.' He said: 'I call the seven heavens to witness against you, and I call your father Adam to witness, lest you say on the Day of Resurrection, "We did not know of this." Know that there is no god but Me, and no lord but Me. Do not associate anything with Me. I will send My messengers to you to remind you of My pledge and My covenant, and I will send down My books upon you.' They said: 'We testify that You are our Lord and our God; there is no lord for us but You and no god for us but You.' So they acknowledged, and Adam raised them and looked at them. He saw the rich and the poor, the beautiful in form and otherwise, and said: 'O Lord, if only You had made Your servants equal!' He said: 'I have loved that I be thanked.'"

By this, what is said is repelled: that the acknowledgement of the descendants of His Lordship, may He be exalted, does not negate polytheism because the polytheists are sayers of His Lordship, may He be exalted, as His saying, may He be exalted, points to: (And if you ask them who created them, they will surely say, "Allah").

The Mu'tazilah deny the verbal covenant mentioned in the reports and say: They are among the isolated reports (ahad), so it is not binding on us to abandon the manifest meaning of the Book for them. They attacked their authenticity with rational premises based on philosophical rules, as is their habit in such matters. They said first: "The taking of the covenant is only possible from one who is rational, so it is necessary that the human remembers that covenant in this world, since it is not permissible for a rational person to forget such a great event completely. Since he forgot, it indicates its non-occurrence." By this kind of evidence, reincarnation is nullified.

It is answered that knowledge is only by the creation of Allah, may He be exalted, so it is permissible that He did not create it for a wisdom He knew. The proof of the nullity of reincarnation is not limited to what was mentioned, for they also used as evidence for its nullity the necessity that the body have two souls, as the Imam explained in Al-Mabahith al-Mashriqiyyah, and that the number of the dead would be equal to the number of the living, and the general floods refute this equality. Moreover, it is possible to answer by the difference between reincarnation and what we are in, which is that if we were in other bodies and stayed in them for years, it would be impossible in the course of habit to forget their states. As for the taking of the covenant, it happened in the fastest time, so forgetting it is not far-fetched. Some answered that the forgetting and lack of remembering here is due to the distance of time. It was objected that the people of the Hereafter know many of the states of the world, as the verses and reports have stated. Unless it is said: "That is a specific property of the abode."

They said second: "That progeny extracted from the back of Adam (peace be upon him) must have for each one of them a measure of physical form so that knowledge and understanding occur in it. So the arena of the world cannot contain them, so it is impossible for it to occur in the back of Adam to be extracted then returned." It is answered that it is based on life being conditional upon a specific physical form, as is the position of the opponents, and the proof stands on its nullity, as established in Theology. So it is permissible that Allah, may He be exalted, creates life in an indivisible atom (jawhar fard), and that extracted progeny was like ants, which is close to the indivisible atom. The claim that the arena of the world cannot contain them is not accepted; if the taking was in heaven before the descent of Adam (peace be upon him), the circle is wide; and if it was when the Throne was upon the water, the circle is wider. And there is no obstacle if it was on earth that the gathering of the ants was stacked between it and the heaven, for it is a vast space, even if its base is small. And if one considers that the human is the "speaking soul" and that it is an essence that is not located in space, it does not need space. Though in that is what is in it.

They said third: "There is no benefit in taking the covenant because they do not become deserving of reward and punishment because of it, and they are in a state lower than children, and the child is not subject to trial, so how can it be directed to ants?" It is answered that the benefit of the taking is not limited to the aforementioned merit; rather, it is permissible that it be the revealing of the perfection of power to those present of the angels, and the establishing of the argument on the Day of Resurrection, as is implied by the saying of some regarding the verse. The claim that they were in that state lower than children is in the realm of invalidity, as is not hidden to anyone who is lower than children.

They said fourth: "He, glory be to Him and Most High, said: (And We created man from an extract of clay) and said, may He be glorified: (So let man look from what he was created. He was created from a fluid, ejected). The fact that those ants are humans contradicts man being created from what was mentioned." It is answered that man in this existence is created from that, and it does not necessitate that he be in that existence likewise. Furthermore, nothing escapes Allah, may He be exalted.

In summary, it is necessary for the believer to believe in that taking, for the reports issuing from the source of the Message have spoken of it. Do not pay attention to the saying of whoever said that they are abandoned in practice because they are isolated reports, for that leads to closing a great door of unseen conquests and deprives the speaker of them of great divine gifts. Al-Bayhaqi reported in Al-Madkhal from Al-Shafi‘i—may Allah be pleased with him—that he said: "Those we met all accept the report of one from one from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and make it a sunnah; praised is he who follows it and blamed is he who opposes it." And he said: "Whoever opposes this methodology is, in our view, departing from the path of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the people of knowledge after them, and is among the people of ignorance."

In Jami‘ al-Usul from Razin from Abu Rafi‘ that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "I will certainly know of a man among you who will have a matter come to him of my affair that I have ordered or forbidden, while he is reclining on his couch, and he will say: 'We do not know what this is; we have the Book of Allah, and this is not in it.'"

There should be no search into the "how" of that, for it is among the sciences about which silence is kept, requiring the lifting of the veil and the overflow of giving. Among that is what Al-Jundi reported in Fada’il Makkah, and Abu al-Hasan al-Qattan, Al-Hakim, and Al-Bayhaqi in Shu‘ab al-Iman (and he weakened it) from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri who said: "We performed pilgrimage with Umar—may Allah be pleased with him—and when he entered the tawaf, he faced the Stone and said: 'I know that you are a stone that neither harms nor benefits, and were it not that I saw the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—kiss you, I would not have kissed you.' Then he kissed it. Then Ali—may Allah honor his face—said to him: 'O Commander of the Faithful, it does harm and benefit.' He said: 'How?' He said: 'By the Book of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.' He said: 'And where is that in the Book of Allah?' He said: 'Allah, may He be exalted, said: (And [mention] when your Lord took...) until the saying, glory be to Him: (Yes). That is because Allah, may He be exalted, created Adam (peace be upon him) and stroked his back and extracted his progeny, then had them acknowledge that He is the Lord and they are the servants, and took their pledges and covenants, and wrote that on a parchment. This stone had eyes and a tongue, so He said to it: "Open your mouth." It opened its mouth, and He put that parchment into it and said: "Witness for whoever meets you on the Day of Resurrection by fulfilling the covenant." And I witness that I heard the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) saying: "The Black Stone will be brought on the Day of Resurrection, and it will have a sharp tongue to witness for whoever touches it with monotheism." So, O Commander of the Faithful, it does harm and benefit.' Umar—may Allah be pleased with him—said: 'I seek refuge in Allah, may He be exalted, that I should live among a people I am not among, O Abu al-Hasan!'"

It is said: From here one knows the saying of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "The Stone is the right hand of Allah, may He be exalted, on His earth." The discourse on that is famous. There are people who mentioned that after the people said "Yes," some of them prostrated two prostrations, some did not prostrate at all, some prostrated with the first ones the first prostration and did not prostrate the second, and some did the reverse. The first group are those who live as believers and die as such; the second are those who live as disbelievers and die as such; the third are those who live as believers and die as disbelievers; and the fourth are those who live as disbelievers and die as believers. (End quote). This is speech for which neither the Book nor the Sunnah has testified, so it cannot be relied upon. Similar to it is the saying that some of those who said "Yes" were deceived then, for Iblis appeared to them in that gathering, and they thought he was the one saying "Am I not your Lord?" so they answered him; these are the miserable. And some had the Lord—glory be to Him—manifest to them, so they recognized Him and answered Him; these are the blessed. In my opinion, this is highly invalid. What should be believed is that they all directed the answer to the Lord of Lords.

Yes, some have held that some answered reluctantly, and they used as evidence some of the previous reports. The people of this view held that the children of the polytheists are in the Fire. And whoever said they are in Paradise held that they acknowledged at the taking of the covenant willingly, so they enter Paradise by that acknowledgement. Allah, may He be exalted, is the Most Merciful of the merciful. The attribution of the speech in the verse to the plural pronoun is only by consideration of its occurrence from some, for its occurrence from all is invalid by necessity. Similar things appear in the verses often.