Al-A'raf: Verses (172-174)

And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam...

Issue 1: The Meaning of Taking the Covenant (Mithaq) from the Progeny of Adam

There are two main interpretations regarding the verse:

The First Opinion (The view of the exegetes and traditionists): This view is based on narrations, such as the one reported by Muslim ibn Yasar al-Juhani, where 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was asked about this verse. He said he heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) asked about it, and the Prophet replied:

"Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, created Adam, then wiped his back, and extracted from it his progeny. He said: 'These I have created for Paradise, and they will act with the deeds of the people of Paradise.' Then He wiped his back again and extracted another progeny, saying: 'These I have created for the Fire, and they will act with the deeds of the people of the Fire.'" A man asked, "O Messenger of Allah, then what is the purpose of action?" The Prophet replied: "If Allah creates a servant for Paradise, He employs him with 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. If He creates a servant for the Fire, He employs him with the deeds of the people of the Fire until he dies upon one of the deeds of the people of the Fire, and Allah admits him to the Fire."

Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

"When Allah created Adam, He wiped his back, and every soul from his progeny until the Day of Resurrection fell from his back."

Muqatil said: Allah wiped the surface of Adam's back, which was black like specks of dust, and said, "O Adam, these are your progeny."

Then Allah said to them: {Am I not your Lord?} They replied: {Yes, indeed.} He said to the white ones: "These are in Paradise by My Mercy, and they are the companions of the Right Hand." He said to the black ones: "These are in the Fire, and I do not care; they are the companions of the Left Hand and the companions of Misfortune." Then He returned them all into Adam's loins. The people of acceptance (of the covenant) are detained until all the covenant-takers emerge from the loins of men and the wombs of women. Allah mentions those who broke the first covenant: {And We found not in most of them any firm commitment} (Al-A'raf: 102).

This view was held by many early exegetes, such as Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, al-Dahhak, and 'Ikrimah.

Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that he saw people among Adam's progeny who had light. He asked, "O Lord, who are they?" He replied, "The Prophets." He saw one among them whose light was the most intense and asked, "Who is he?" He replied, "David." Adam asked about his age, and was told seventy years. Adam said, "That is a short time; I grant him forty years from my lifespan." Adam's lifespan was 1000 years. When 960 years of Adam's life passed, the Angel of Death came to take his soul. Adam said, "Forty years of my lifespan remain." The Angel replied, "Did you not grant them to your son David?" Adam said, "I would never assign anything of my lifespan to anyone." At that point, the lifespan of every soul was recorded.

The Mu'tazilites' Rejection: The Mu'tazilites unanimously agreed that interpreting the verse in this manner is impermissible. They presented several arguments against this view:

1. Argument 1: The verse states: {from the loins of the children of Adam} (min dhurūri banī ādam). The phrase min dhurūrihim (from their loins) must refer back to wa-idh akhadha (And when He took). Thus, the meaning is: "And when your Lord took from the loins of the children of Adam." In this context, Allah did not mention taking anything from the loins of Adam himself.
2. Argument 2: If Allah intended to extract the progeny from Adam's loins, He should have said min dhaharihi (from his loin, singular), not min dhurūrihim (from their loins, plural). Adam has only one loin. Similarly, if it were Adam, it should have been dhurriyatuhu (his progeny), not dhurriyyatuhum (their progeny).
3. Argument 3: Allah recounts that those progeny said: {Or say that our fathers associated others [with Allah] before us}. This speech is appropriate for the first generation of Adam's offspring, as Adam himself was not a polytheist.
4. Argument 4 (The Argument against Transmigration/Reincarnation - Tanasukh): The taking of the covenant requires rationality ('aql). If Allah took the covenant from those specks of dust, they must have been rational beings. If they were rational and gave that covenant while rational, they should remember it now upon entering this world. A person cannot completely forget a momentous and awe-inspiring event without retaining any memory of it. This same argument invalidates the doctrine of Tanasukh. If our souls existed in previous bodies, we should remember those states now. Since we don't, Tanasukh is false. Since the basis for refuting Tanasukh is this very principle, we must apply it here: if we accept that we gave the covenant while rational but do not remember it now, why should we not accept that we were in another body before this one, yet remember nothing of those states? In essence, this view is no different from the doctrine of Tanasukh. If accepting this view is not far-fetched, then accepting Tanasukh is also not far-fetched.
5. Argument 5: The total number of Adam's descendants is immense. The volume and mass of all those particles would be too great to fit into Adam's small loin.
6. Argument 6: Physical structure (bunya) is a prerequisite for life, intellect, and understanding. Otherwise, every speck of dust could be rational, capable of composing complex sciences, which leads to accepting absurdities. Since physical structure is necessary for life, none of those particles could have been rational or understanding unless they possessed a physical, fleshy structure. If so, the total number of beings from the beginning of Adam's creation until the end of the world cannot be contained in the space of the world, let alone in Adam's loin all at once.
7. Argument 7: This covenant was either taken to serve as proof against them at that time, or to serve as proof when they enter this world. The first is false, as there is consensus that this level of covenant does not necessitate reward, punishment, praise, or blame. The second is impossible, because if they do not remember the covenant in this world, how can it serve as proof for adhering to faith?
8. Argument 8 (Al-Ka'bi's View): The state of those progeny would not be higher in understanding than that of infants. Since accountability (taklīf) is not directed at infants, how can it be directed at those entities?

Al-Zajjaj's Reply: It is not impossible for Allah to grant intellect to ants, as mentioned in {A speaking ant said...} (An-Naml: 18), or grant understanding to mountains so they glorify Him, as in {And We made the iron subservient to David} (Al-Anbiya: 79). Just as Allah gave intellect to a camel so it prostrated to the Messenger, and to a palm tree so it listened and obeyed when called, so too here.

9. Argument 9: Those progeny at that time were either fully rational and capable, or they were not. If they were fully rational, they were accountable (mukallaf). They would remain accountable only if they knew Allah through deduction (istidlāl). If so, their state then would not differ from their state in this life. If accountability in this world required the prior covenant, then accountability at the time of the covenant would require another prior covenant, leading to an infinite regress, which is impossible. If they were not fully rational or capable at the time of the covenant, then addressing them with commands and prohibitions is impossible.
10. Argument 10: Allah says: {Then let man look at what he was created from. He was created from a forcefully ejected fluid} (At-Tariq: 5-6). If those particles were rational and complete beings, they existed before this ejected fluid. Since "man" (al-insān) means nothing other than that being, then man would not be created from the ejected fluid, which contradicts the explicit text of the Qur'an.

• Counter-Argument: What if Allah created them fully rational and capable at the time of the covenant, then removed their intellect, understanding, and ability, and then created them again in the mother's womb to bring them into this life?
  • Reply: This is false. If that were the case, their creation from the semen would not be a primary creation (ibtida') but a re-creation (i'ādah). Muslims agree that creation from semen is the primary creation, proving what you suggested is false.

11. Argument 11: Those particles are either identical to these people or they are not. The latter is false by consensus. If they are identical, did they remain intelligent, rational, and capable while they were semen, a clinging clot, or a chewed lump? If yes, this is obviously false by necessity. If no, then man experienced life four times: first, at the time of the covenant; second, in this world; third, in the grave; and fourth, on the Day of Resurrection. And he experienced death three times: death after the first life at the covenant, death in this world, and death in the grave. This number contradicts what Allah says: {Our Lord, You made us die twice and gave us life twice} (Ghafir: 11).
12. Argument 12: Allah says: {And indeed, We created man from an extract of clay} (Al-Mu'minun: 12). If the view about these particles were correct, those particles would be "man" (the accountable being), but those particles were not created from semen, clot, or lump. The text explicitly states that man is created from semen and clot, as in {Woe to man, what has made him ungrateful? From what thing did He create him? From a sperm-drop did He create him} ('Abasa: 17-18).

These are the arguments presented to show that this first opinion is weak.

The Second Opinion (The view of the rationalists/scholars of Ma'qūlāt): Allah brought forth the progeny (the offspring) from the loins of their fathers. This extraction meant that they were semen, which Allah placed in the wombs of mothers, making it a clinging clot ('alaqah), then a chewed lump (mudghah), then He fashioned them into complete, sound human beings. Then He made them witness concerning themselves by embedding in them the proofs of His Oneness, the wonders of His creation, and the marvels of His making. By this witnessing, it became as if they said, "Yes," even without speaking with the tongue.

This is analogous to:

• {Then He directed Himself to the heaven, while it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being] willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We come [into being] willingly"} (Fussilat: 11).
• {Indeed, Our word to a thing when We intend it is that We say to it, "Be," and it is} (An-Nahl: 40).
• The Arabic saying: "The wall said to the peg, 'Why do you split me?' The peg replied, 'Ask the one who hammers me. For the one behind me has not left me alone.'"
• The poet's saying: "The basin is full, and it cried, 'Enough!'"

This type of metaphor and figurative speech is well-known in discourse, so the verse must be interpreted figuratively. This second view is entirely sound, and if it is correct, it does not contradict the first view's validity. The debate is whether the first view itself is sound.

Our Preferred Position: There are two stages to consider:

1. Is the view of taking the covenant from the progeny (Dhurr) sound?
2. If it is sound, can it be used to interpret the literal words of this verse?

Regarding Stage 1 (Soundness of the Covenant from Progeny): The objectors relied on the rational arguments mentioned above. However, each argument can be answered satisfactorily:

• Reply to Argument 1 (We should remember it now): The Creator of the knowledge of past events is Allah, as these are necessary, self-evident truths ('ulūm 'aqliyyah ḍarūriyyah). Since Allah is the Creator of these necessary truths, it is possible for Him to create them (or the lack of memory of them).
  • Counter-Objection: If you allow this, then allow the possibility of transmigration (Tanasukh), where we were in other bodies but do not remember those states now.
  • Reply: The difference between the two cases is clear. If we existed in other bodies for years and ages, it is customarily impossible to forget them. However, the taking of this covenant occurred in the quickest possible time. Therefore, forgetting it is not far-fetched. The clear difference dictates the validity of this distinction: if a person practices one action for many years, it is impossible to forget it, but if they practice it for a single moment, they might forget it. The difference is established.

• Reply to Argument 2 (Adam's loin cannot contain them): We argue that physical structure (bunya) is not a prerequisite for life. The indivisible atom (al-jawhar al-fard) is capable of life and intellect. If we consider each of those particles an indivisible atom, why do you claim Adam's loin cannot accommodate their totality? However, this answer is only valid if we hold that man is an indivisible atom existing within the body (the view of some early scholars). If we hold that man is the rational soul (an-nafs an-nāṭiqah), which is a non-corporeal substance not residing in a corporeal one, the question dissolves.

• Reply to Argument 3 (The purpose of the covenant): We say: Allah does what He wills and judges as He wills. Furthermore, when the Mu'tazilites wish to validate weighing deeds or making limbs speak, they argue that it is not impossible for Allah to bestow a subtle benefit (luṭf) upon some accountable beings by making them hear these things. Similarly, it is not impossible that there is a subtle benefit for some angels in distinguishing the fortunate from the wretched at the time of the covenant. Alternatively, Allah will remind them of this covenant on the Day of Resurrection. The rest of the arguments are weak and easy to refute.

Regarding Stage 2 (Interpreting the Literal Words): If we accept the view of taking the covenant from the progeny, can it be interpreted as the literal meaning of the verse?

We say the first three arguments mentioned earlier refute this literal interpretation:

1. We established that {from the loins of the children of Adam} means from the loins of Adam's descendants generally.
2. If the progeny were taken from Adam's loin, it should have been stated as min dhaharihi dhurriyatuhu (from his loin, his progeny), not min dhurūrihim dhurriyyatuhum (from their loins, their progeny).

• The Proponents' Reply: The narration from the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) is authentic, stating that he interpreted the verse this way. Refuting the Prophet's interpretation is impossible.
• Our Response: The apparent meaning of the verse indicates that Allah extracted the progeny from the loins of the children of Adam (plural). We interpret this to mean that Allah knew which person would beget whom, and in the sequence they would come into existence, He brought them forth and distinguished some from others. As for Allah extracting all progeny from Adam's single loin, the wording of the verse does not prove this, nor does it disprove it; rather, the Hadith proves it. Thus, the extraction of progeny from the loins of the children of Adam is proven by the Qur'an, and the extraction of progeny from Adam's loin is proven by the Hadith. There is no contradiction between the two; both must be accepted to preserve the verse and the Hadith from potential criticism as much as possible. This concludes the discussion on this stage.

Naafi', Ibn 'Amir, and Abu 'Amr read {wa-ittaba'at-hum dhurriyātuhum} (their progeny) with an alif (plural form). The rest read it as singular: {wa-ittaba'at-hum dhurriyatuhum}.

Al-Wahidi said: Dhurriyyah can be used for both singular and plural. Those who use the singular have dispensed with the plural form because dhurriyyah already implies plurality, similar to bashar (mankind), which can refer to one person (as in {This is not but a human like you}) or a group (as in {Do you promise us that when we have died and become dust and bones, that we will be brought forth [again]?} (Al-Mu'minun: 35, implied context) or {You are not but men like us}). Just as bashar is not pluralized with a sound plural or broken plural, dhurriyyah is not pluralized.

Those who pluralized it argue that even if dhurriyyah is singular in form, it is permissible to pluralize it, especially since broken plurals are sometimes pluralized (e.g., ṭuruqāt for ṭuruq). This is the preference of Yunus.

Regarding Allah's statement: {And He made them witness over themselves: "Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, indeed."}

1. If the First Covenant is affirmed: All these matters are taken literally.
2. If the First Covenant is denied (Second Opinion): These statements are metaphorical. The meaning is that Allah presented proofs of His Lordship, and their intellects testified to it, making it equivalent to Him making them witness over themselves and their affirmation of His Oneness.

Regarding the statement {We testified} (shahidnā): There are two opinions:

• First Opinion (The Kufan view): This is the speech of the Angels. When the progeny said, "Yes," Allah commanded the Angels, "Be witnesses," and they replied, "We testified." In this case, it is appropriate to stop reading at {They said, "Yes, indeed."} (qālū balā), as the speech of the progeny ends there. The following phrase, {so that you [people] will not say on the Day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were heedless of this"}, means the Angels testified concerning their affirmation, preventing them from later claiming they did not affirm. The particle lā (so that not) is omitted, similar to {And He cast into the earth firmly set mountains, lest it should shake with you} (An-Nahl: 15), meaning lā tamīda bikum.
  • The Basran view holds that {We testified} is said out of dislike for them saying they were heedless.

• Second Opinion: {We testified} is part of the progeny's speech. In this case, {so that you will not say on the Day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were heedless of this"} is connected to {And He made them witness over themselves}. The meaning is: He made them witness over themselves concerning such and such, so that they would not say on the Day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were heedless of this," or out of dislike for them saying that. Therefore, stopping the reading at {We testified} is impermissible because {so that you will not say} (an taqūlū) is connected to the preceding clause, {And He made them witness} (wa-ashhadahum).

The reciters differed on {an taqūlū} (you say) or {aw taqūlū} (or you say). Abu 'Amr read it with a yā' (implying the third person, li-yaqūlū or li-taqūlū), because the preceding context was in the third person (referring to the progeny). Both readings are sound because the absent ones are the ones addressed in meaning.

Regarding {Or say that our fathers associated others [with Allah] before us}: The exegetes mean that the purpose of this witnessing was to prevent disbelievers from claiming they only associated others because their fathers did so, and they merely followed them—which is implied by {Will You destroy us for what the corrupters did?}. Thus, by taking the covenant, this excuse is removed from them.

For those who interpret the verse as merely establishing proofs: The meaning is that Allah established these proofs and made them clear to the intellects, out of dislike for them saying on the Day of Resurrection, {Indeed, we were heedless of this}, or out of dislike for them saying they only associated others by imitating their ancestors, because the establishment of proofs for Monotheism already exists with them, leaving them no excuse to turn away and follow their fathers.

Then Allah says: {And thus do We detail the verses}. This means that just as We detailed and clarified in this verse, We detailed the other verses so that they may reflect and return to the truth while turning away from falsehood, which is the meaning of {and perhaps they will reflect}. Another interpretation is that what He took from them regarding the covenant concerning Monotheism is detailed in this manner.

There is a Third Opinion: Human souls existed before the bodies, and the recognition of the existence of God is inherent in their essence and reality. This knowledge does not require acquisition or seeking. This discussion requires subtle rational inquiries that cannot be detailed in this book. (And Allah knows best.)

Verse 175-176

{And recite to them the news of him to whom We gave Our signs, but he detached himself from them; so Satan followed him, and he became one of the misguided. And if We had willed, We could have elevated him thereby, but he inclined to the earth and followed his desire. So his example is like the example of the dog: if you attack it, it pants, or if you leave it, it pants. That is the example of the people who denied Our signs. So relate the stories; perhaps they will reflect.}

(The text ends here, moving to the next section.)