Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:27

(O Children of Adam): The repetition of the call is to signal the completeness of the attention given to the content of what follows it.

(Let not Satan tempt you): That is, let him not cause you to fall into temptation and trial by whispering to you in a way that prevents you from entering Paradise, such that you obey him. It is read as yuftinannakum with the damma on the letter of the imperfect tense (yā), meaning "he drives you to temptation." It is also read as yaftinakum without the intensive nūn (emphatic). This is a prohibition directed at Satan in form, but the intent is to prohibit the addressees from following him or doing what leads to temptation.

(As he brought your parents out of the Garden): That is, just as he tempted your parents and tried them by bringing them out of it. Thus, the cause is placed in the position of the effect. It is permissible that the estimated meaning is: "Let him not tempt you with a temptation like the temptation of bringing your parents out," or "Let him not bring you out by his temptation with an expulsion like his bringing your parents out." The attribution of the expulsion to him is because it was due to his seduction. Similarly, the attribution of the stripping to him in His saying (Exalted is He): "Stripping from them their clothing to show them their shame" is due to him. The sentence is an adverbial state (hal) from "your parents" or from the doer of "brought out." The use of the imperfect tense, according to what Al-Qutb said, is to narrate a past state, because the stripping—which is the removal—is past in relation to the expulsion, even if the state of being naked remained.

And His saying (Glorious is His Majesty): (Indeed, he sees you—he and his tribe—from where you do not see them) is a justification for the prohibition, as is well known in sentences starting with "indeed" (inna) in similar contexts. It is a reinforcement of the warning, because when an enemy comes from a place where he is not seen, it is more severe and fearful. The pronoun in "He" (innahu) refers to Satan. It is also permissible that it refers to the state (sha'n), acting as a confirmation of the hidden pronoun in "he sees you." His "tribe" (qabiluhu) is coordinated with that pronoun, not with the explicit noun, because the explicit noun is not suitable for such emphasis. It is also permissible that it is a subject whose predicate is omitted, and min (from) indicates the starting point of the limit, while haythu (where) is an adverb for the place where vision is negated, and the sentence "you do not see them" is in the genitive case as a possessive construction.

Regarding Abu Ishaq, he says that haythu is a relative noun (mawsulah) and what follows it is the connective clause. Perhaps he means that it is like a relative noun, for no one else holds this view, as Abu Ali al-Farisi stated. The qabil (tribe) means the group; if they are from one father, they are a qabilah. The intent here is his soldiers from the Jinn. Al-Yazidi read wa qabilahu with the accusative case, making it coordinated with the noun of inna, and in this case, it is definite that the pronoun refers to Satan; it cannot refer to the sha'n (the state), contrary to those who were mistaken in that, because it is not suitable to be coordinated with it nor to be followed by an appendage.

The matter is absolute (mutlaqah), not permanent (da'imah), so it does not indicate what the Mu'tazilah went to, namely that the Jinn are not seen and do not appear to humans at all, nor do they take on forms.

Evidence for what we have said is the authentic account of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) seeing their leader when he tried to distract him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) from his prayer. Allah enabled him against the Jinn, and he intended to tie him to one of the pillars of the mosque so that the children of Medina could play with him, but he remembered the supplication of Sulayman (peace be upon him) and left him. Also, there is the sighting by Ibn Mas’ud of the Jinn of Nasibin. What is reported from Al-Shafi’i (may Allah the Exalted be pleased with him)—that whoever claims to have seen them, his testimony is rejected and he is punished for opposing the Qur'an—is interpreted, as some have said, as referring to those who claim to see their forms in which they were originally created. For seeing them after they have taken a form that Allah the Exalted has empowered them to take is the doctrine of the People of the Sunnah, and he (may Allah be pleased with him) is one of their masters.

The objection raised against the claim of their ability to take forms—that it necessitates destroying trust in everything (since someone who sees his father or son might think they saw a Jinn disguised as them)—is refuted by the fact that Allah has guaranteed this nation its protection against the occurrence of that which would lead to such doubt in religion and the removal of trust in a scholar or others. Therefore, the aforementioned necessity is legally impossible.

As for the statement of the scholar Al-Baydawi—after defining the Jinn in their chapter as he did—"And in this is evidence that he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not see them and did not recite to them, and that their presence during some times of his recitation was coincidental, so they heard it and Allah the Exalted informed him of that," this arises from a lack of knowledge of the many authentic hadiths which explicitly state that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saw them, recited to them, and they asked him for provisions for them and their mounts in various ways. In my view, there is no prohibition against the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) seeing the Jinn in the forms they were created in; he saw Jibril (peace be upon him) in his original form twice. Seeing them is no more distant than seeing him or seeing any existing being, which is within the realm of possibility. The subtlety that prevents seeing them according to the Mu'tazilah does not necessitate impossibility, nor does it prevent their appearance as a rupture of habit. Likewise, the justification of the Ash'aris for the lack of vision—that Allah the Exalted did not create in the eyes of humans the power of perception—does not necessitate impossibility either, for it is permissible for Allah the Exalted to create that power in the eye of His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who saw Him (Glorious is His Majesty) with the eyes of his head on the night of the Ascension, according to the more correct opinion. Thus, he sees them. Indeed, it is not far-fetched to say that the saints (may Allah be pleased with them) see them in that way, although I have not found an explicit text indicating the occurrence of this vision.

As for the saints, and even ordinary people, seeing them in manifested forms, the books of the people are full of them, and the ledgers of historians and storytellers are overflowing with them. Based on this, one who claims to have seen them in their original forms is not declared a sinner if it is a situation suggesting a divine gift (karamah). The verse contains nothing more than the negation of seeing them as such according to the norm, while it is possible that the verse is phrased as a representation of the subtlety of their plotting and the hidden nature of their tricks, and the intent is not the negation of vision in reality. From this, it is known that declaring those who claim such vision to be disbelievers is devoid of fairness. So, ponder this.