Verses 172–174

Chapter 7: Al-Aʿrāf (Elevations) · Printed edition: Volume 16, pp. 179–217

وَ إِذْ أَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِنْ بَنِي آدَمَ مِنْ ظُهُورِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ وَ أَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلى‏ أَنْفُسِهِمْ أَ لَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ قالُوا بَلى‏ شَهِدْنا أَنْ تَقُولُوا يَوْمَ الْقِيامَةِ إِنَّا كُنَّا عَنْ هذا غافِلِينَ ١٧٢ أَوْ تَقُولُوا إِنَّما أَشْرَكَ آباؤُنا مِنْ قَبْلُ وَ كُنَّا ذُرِّيَّةً مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ أَ فَتُهْلِكُنا بِما فَعَلَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ ١٧٣ وَ كَذلِكَ نُفَصِّلُ الْآياتِ وَ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ ١٧٤

172. When your Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their descendants and He made them bear witness over themselves, [He said to them,] “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes indeed! We bear witness.” [This,] lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Indeed we were unaware of this,”
173. or lest you should say, “Our fathers ascribed partners [to Allah] before [us] and we were descendants after them. Will You then destroy us because of what the falsifiers have done?”
174. Thus do We elaborate the communications, and so that they may come back.

Introduction

These verses refer to God’s covenant with the Children of Adam concerning His Lordship. They are among the most subtle verses of the Qur’an in terms of meaning, and the most elegant in terms of expression.

Commentary

وَ إِذْ أَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِنْ بَنِي آدَمَ مِنْ ظُهُورِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ وَ أَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلى‏ أَنْفُسِهِمْ أَ لَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ قالُوا بَلى‏ شَهِدْنا أَنْ تَقُولُوا يَوْمَ الْقِيامَةِ إِنَّا كُنَّا عَنْ هذا غافِلِينَ١٧٢

(7:172) When your Lord took (akhadhnā, from akhdh) from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their descendants and He made them bear witness over themselves, [He said to them,] “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes indeed! We bear witness.” [This,] lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Indeed we were unaware of this.”

Key Debate: The Covenant: “Am I not your Lord?” →

When something is “taken” (akhdh) from something else, it means that it is separated from it as an independent entity in one way or another. This can vary according to context and usage. Some examples are: (1) Taking a bite from a food, or taking a sip of water from a glass. (2) Taking money or possessions from a robber, a generous person, a seller, or a lender. (3) Taking knowledge from a scholar, taking [intellectual] provision from a session, taking pleasure from meeting a friend. (4) Taking a child from the father for education.

These applications show that the mere usage of the verb akhdh does not clarify the meaning unless more is added. That is why God complements it with: from the Children of Adam. This shows that they were separated and differentiated from one another.

… from their loins…: The partitive particle “from” (min) shows that only a part of the original object was taken, such that it maintained its form and did not lose its completeness and independence. The piece that was taken was then completed to become an independent object of the same kind. The child is initially a part of the parents, but then it is taken from their loins, separated as a new entity, and developed into a complete human being. Subsequently, another child is taken from the loin of this person, until every person is extracted and all parts are separated from their initial wholes. Then all humans become distinct, and stand as independent individuals. Each has their own soul, and will bear the good or evil consequences of their own deeds. This is what we can deduce from the expression: When your Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their descendants. Had the verse not mentioned from their loins, or had it said, “When your Lord dispersed the Children of Adam,” the meaning would have remained ambiguous.

… and He made them bear witness (ashhadahum) over themselves…: This sentence refers to another divine act with the Children of Adam after completely separating them from one another. To make one bear witness over something means summoning the witness to the scene and showing them the fact of the matter so that they may observe it directly. Making them witness over themselves means showing the reality of themselves to them in a way that they observe what He wants them to observe about themselves, so that they can later testify to what they witnessed whenever they are questioned about it [in God’s court of justice on the Day of Judgment].

Every soul has some relations with other things, and one could be made witness over any of them. This is clarified by: “Am I not your Lord?” That is what they were made to witness. God’s purpose was that they may witness His Lordship, so that they would testify to it whenever questioned about it.

No matter how proud and arrogant one becomes; no matter to what extent one is supported by favorable circumstances; no matter how much one is deceived by the availability of all means and facilities; still no one can deny in themselves that they do not own themselves and are not independent in managing their affairs. If one were their own owner, they would have shielded themselves against misfortunes like death, pain, and disaster. And if one were independent in managing their affairs, they would not need to resort to different means and instruments in the world, even though one may view oneself as having full control and dominance over those instruments. Moreover, one would realize that their means, instruments and connections are equally in need of what lies beyond them. They are subservient to a higher Ruler, whether He rules for or against them. It is not up to one to remove one’s needs and fulfill one’s wishes.

The need for God—that is, our Owner and Director—is the reality of the human being. Poverty is inscribed on our souls; weakness is sealed on our foreheads. This is not concealed from anyone with the slightest degree of reason, whether they are educated or illiterate, old or young, noble or lay. This means that the human beings, in any stage of their human existence, witness in themselves that they have a Lord Who owns them and directs their affairs. How could they not witness their Lord when they witness their essential need? Is it conceivable that one may realize a need in oneself without realizing the other side to whom one is in need?

… “Am I not your Lord?”…: This is what God made them witness.

… They said, “Yes indeed! We bear witness”…: This shows that they witnessed the above reality and acknowledged it.

Our explanations above should clarify what some exegetes have said: The verse refers to what humans observe throughout their life in this world. They see in themselves that they are needy with respect to every aspect of their existence and every law and property that revolves around it. Therefore, the meaning of the verse is: We created the Children of Adam in the earth, and We differentiated them through birth and procreation. We made them aware of their need and subjugation to Us, and they admitted that, saying: “Yes indeed! We bear witness that You are our Lord.”

Based on the above, there are two possible interpretations for: “Yes indeed! We bear witness.” (1) It is an expression of their condition and state (called lisān al-ḥāl), not something that they literally said. (2) It is a necessary implication of something that they said: They acknowledged that they are needy, and that necessarily implies acknowledging the One Whom they need. The difference between the two is that in the first case, the meaning is deduced from a quality or condition of the person or a thing, even if the that person or thing is unaware of it. For instance, the remnants of a ruined city “speak” of what happened to its people: “The life of this world turned them into its plaything, until they were trampled upon by the galloping of time; thus their peal dropped and their breaths stopped.” Another example is how the appearance of a poor person “speaks” of their poverty, need and adversity. In the second case, however, the meaning is deduced from what one says, as its entailment or corollary. Either of these two kinds of speech can interpret the acknowledgment mentioned in the verse: They said, “Yes indeed! We bear witness.” The first interpretation—that they confessed through lisān al-ḥāl (language of condition or state)—is more plausible because the verse is about testimony, which requires a direct and clear statement, not an implication of another statement.

It should be clarified that their witnessing of the scene [implied by “Yes indeed! We bear witness”] occurred in the same sense and way that God showed them the scene, implied by: He made them bear witness over themselves. He took their acknowledgment through the same “tongue” that He spoke to them. Based on this, we can offer a third way of communication to interpret this witnessing. This is based on the application of “speech” to God. God’s speech is any divine act that reveals God’s objectives and intentions. As we have repeatedly discussed, a real [and not metaphorical] sense of God’s speech is His act of ījād (existentiation, giving existence to something). The connection between the two may not be self-evident at first, but it will become clear with some analysis. Therefore, the question and answer here—“Am I not your Lord?” and “Yes indeed! We bear witness”—can be interpreted in the light of this mode of communication [through one’s purposeful action]. We shall discuss this further below.

Either way, this verse—When your Lord took from the Children of Adam…—describes three events: (1) God separated the Children of Adam from one another. (2) He made each of them witness over their self. (3) He took their acknowledgment of His Lordship. The purpose of this witnessing and acknowledgment is then described in the last part of the verse and the following verse: [This,] lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Indeed we were unaware of this,” or lest you should say, “Our fathers ascribed partners [to Allah] before [us] and we were descendants after them. Will You then destroy us because of what the falsifiers have done?” (). People could dispute with God on the Day of Resurrection based on either of these two arguments, had it not been for the above witnessing and acknowledgment of His Lordship. The verse’s context shows that now they are left with no argument for associating partners with Him, while He will be fully justified in dooming the violators to hell.

The word “or” (the Arabic particle aw) at the beginning of verse shows a parallel between the two arguments in these verses. Both are based on the knowledge that results from the above mentioned witnessing, and both are narrated from the Children of Adam who were separated from one another. Upon further reflection on these verses, we can see that these two arguments pertain to two possible alternatives to the above act of witnessing. The two arguments can be elaborated as follows:

(1) [This,] lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Indeed we were unaware of this” (). This could be the people’s argument against Us had We not taken their testimony at all. We took the descendants of the Children of Adam from their loins and made them bear witness over themselves. They acknowledged Our Lordship, and that completed Our proof against them on the Day of Resurrection. Had We not done this at all—that is, had We not made each of them to witness their self and testify that God is their Lord—all of them would have argued against Us on the Day of Resurrection. They would say that they were unaware of Our Lordship in this life, and unaware individuals are exempt from obligation and rebuke.

(2) Or lest you should say, “Our fathers ascribed partners [to Allah] before [us] and we were descendants after them. Will You then destroy us because of what the falsifiers have done?” (). This could be people’s argument against Us had We not taken their testimony partially. That would be the case if only some of them were made witness over themselves, but not others—meaning that only the fathers witnessed this momentous reality, but not their children. In that case, if they associated partners with God, the polytheism of the fathers would be despite their knowledge that their Lord is God alone, and no one else. That would be a sin on their part. Meanwhile, the polytheism of the children would be out of mere conformity in a matter that they had no way of knowing it, whether in detail or in brief. While the fathers would be sinful in associating partners with God—because of their knowledge of the truth—the children simply followed their fathers in their practice. It was the fathers who led their children on the way of polytheism through how they raised and educated them. The children had no way to learn the fact of the matter. How could they know that their fathers erred themselves, and also led them into error? So the descendants could argue against God on the Day of Resurrection, saying that it was the fathers who sinfully associated partners with God and violated the truth. That was an act of the fathers, and they alone should be taken to task. When someone does not know a truth to begin with, they cannot be charged with the duty to observe it, which in turn makes their disobedience meaningless. Hence, the children did not disobey or violate this truth. This means that God would not have a complete argument against the descendants, which would make His argument against the whole humankind incomplete.

Question: This is not a complete picture because the two arguments [at the end of verse and in verse ] do not cover all the possible arguments that humankind could present against God. There are two other possibilities that are not covered here: (a) What if only the children were made witness over themselves, but not the fathers? (b) What if only some of the descendants were made witness over themselves [but not all the descendants, and not their ancestors]? This is confirmed by the evolution of human knowledge and civilization, where the subsequent generations inherit what their predecessors have left, and add more to that. Hence, the later generations achieve what the former ones lacked.

Answer: These two cases would also fall under the arguments expressed in these verses. God’s argument would still be complete against either all descendants of humankind, or against those of them who witnessed the truth. If some of the ancestors [that is, the early generations] did not witness the truth, it means that they were completely heedless of God’s Lordship, so they could not be held responsible for their polytheism. Hence, they could argue by the first statement: “Indeed we were unaware of this” (). The second argument is not applicable to them because they were not preceded by others to follow them.

The evolution of human knowledge and civilization pertains to acquired knowledge that humans learn through experience gradually. That is different from one’s knowledge of oneself and one’s need of a Lord Who manages one’s affairs. That kind of knowledge is not empirical, but is present with everyone inherently. It is among our intrinsic cognitions, which are the roots of all other branches of human knowledge. It does not make sense for these types of knowledge to develop after what depends on them. As it has been proven in its place, the gradual development of human knowledge is a result of their inner sense of need [to develop various disciplines].

In short, the two verses are saying that God differentiated between the Children of Adam by taking some of them out of others, and then made them witness over themselves and took their covenant concerning His Lordship. As a result, none of them is unaware of that testimony and their covenant. Hence, neither can they all argue against God on the account of being heedless of it, nor can some of them claim exemption on the account of their fathers having led them into polytheism.

The View of the Opponents of the World of Pre-Existence

Based on the above summary, some exegetes have said that “when” in this verse—When your Lord took—refers to our life in this world (dunyā). These two verses [] describe God’s ongoing process of creating humans in this world: He first transfers the seeds of humans from the loins of their fathers to the wombs of their mothers, and then from there to this world. Then, during their life, He makes them witness over themselves, and shows them the signs of His creation and unity. They witness how they are in need from head to toe, which proves His existence and oneness. This is equivalent to asking them: “Am I not your Lord?” To this question, they answer through their mode of being (lisān al-ḥāl): “Yes indeed! We bear witness.” They effectively admit that “Thou art our Lord, and we have no other lord but Thee!” God does this so that people may not argue with Him on the Day of Resurrection. This way, they cannot claim that they were unaware and did not know Him; or that it was their fathers who associated partners with Him, but the children had no clue about it since they were raised in an environment of shirk (association, polytheism) without being responsible for it.

The above mentioned exegetes have rejected a number of narrations which talk about the world of pre-existence (ʿālam al-dharr). According to these narrations, there was a realm prior to this world, where God brought out all descendants of Adam from his loin in the form of small atoms (or ants), made them witness themselves, introduced Himself to them, and made a covenant with them concerning His Lordship. That is a decisive proof against them on the Day of Resurrection. The exegetes have rejected these narrations for contravening the apparent meaning of the Qur’an. Their reasons for this are the following:

(1) Were the descendants of Adam who were taken out of his loin intelligent or not? If they were not intelligent beings, then they could not recognize God’s unity and be addressed by Him. If they were intelligent beings who are held accountable for a pledge that they gave, then they must remember that scene. A covenant is a decisive proof only when the person remembers it, as the verse explicitly says: [This,] lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Indeed we were unaware of this” (). However, we do not remember any prior creation to our existence here in this world. Hence, what is meant in the verse can only pertain to what we comprehend in this world, and that is the need we find in ourselves to a Lord Who owns us and manages our affairs. That is the Lord of all things.

(2) It is not possible for a large number of rational beings to forget something, to the extent that not even a single one of them remembers it. The lapse between this life and the claimed world of pre-existence is not longer than the lapse between this world and the next, where the inhabitants of paradise and hell will remember what they went through in this world, as we can see in several verses such as: One of them will say, “Indeed I had a companion…” (); And they say, “What is the matter with us that we do not see [here] men whom we used to count among the bad ones?” ().

Besides, if it is possible for such a large number of individuals to forget, then it is also possible that our current life is a reincarnation following a previous round of existence where we were charged with certain obligations to follow. We do not remember this, but we are going through the consequences of our actions in our previous life [that is, our karma]. This is the same as the theory of transmigration (tanāsukh), which interprets the hereafter as the passing of the soul from one body to another through rebirth.

(3) The narrations talk about the loin of Adam, but the verse talks about the loin of the Children of Adam. The verse says their loins and their descendants [in plural], not “his loin” and “his descendants.” Therefore, the verse apparently does not include Adam’s immediate progeny. Moreover, the verses say that God did this so that they may not say on the Day of Resurrection, “Indeed we were unaware of this,” or that “Our fathers ascribed partners [to Allah] before [us] and we were descendants after them…” (). These statements show that the descendants in this verse had fathers who were polytheists.

Based on this, some scholars have said that these verses include only some of Adam’s descendants, not all of them. They exclude Adam, his immediate children, all believers, and those polytheists whose fathers were not polytheists. Therefore, the verses only apply to those polytheists who were born to polytheist parents.

(4) The world of pre-existence was presumably a realm where all humankind was gathered together as a single whole. This contradicts the idea that “Our fathers ascribed partners [to Allah]” (), which shows that they had polytheist fathers.

(5) Some exegetes have accepted these narrations as authentic, but not as an interpretation of the verse. Instead these narrations pertain to how God fashioned humankind before their appearance in this world: He hard-wired them to know His Lordship. Hence, these narrations fall in the same category as narrations which say that “All humans are born with a divine intuition and a monotheistic nature (fiṭrah).” Similarly, it is said that children [who die before puberty] will be in a blissful state in paradise because of their belief in God in the world of pre-existence.

Meanwhile, the verse has nothing to do with the message of these narrations. The central theme of the verse is that God did this so that the people would not argue with Him on the Day of Resurrection, saying that they were unaware of this. If the verse were about what He did to them in the world of pre-existence, then they would still have a case against God. They could argue: “Our Lord, it is true that You showed us ourselves when You took us out of Adam’s loin, and that we were certain about Your Lordship just as we are today—on the Day of Resurrection—but You made us forget that scene during our life in the world, which was the place of religious obligation and action. You left us to our own intellects to discover Your Lordship independently. Thus, those of us who could prove Your Lordship intellectually accepted it; and those of us who could not, did not. Both groups followed the rule of their reason. So what is our sin in all this? You took away from us the memory of that witnessing, and instead equipped us with a faculty whose job is to reason, which may either hit or miss.”

(6) There is no clear connection between the verse and what is found in the narrations because the scene depicted in the verse could be a symbolic illustration. The narrations [which imply a literal occurrence of such a testimony in a previous world] are not authoritative because their chain of transmission is either unconnected (called marfūʿ) or they end with the Prophet’s Companions (called mawqūf).

The above list was a summary of the arguments of some scholars concerning the purport of the verse and the validity of the narrations.

The Response of the Proponents

The proponents of the world of pre-existence (ʿālam al-dharr)—which include the majority of the scholars of hadith, and some exegetes—have given some responses to these arguments. Here is a summary of their answers to the above points:

(1) The fact that humans have forgotten the scene and its details does not harm the validity of God’s proof against them. What is problematic is if the covenant is entirely lost, which means that people forget God’s oneness as their Lord. This, however, is not forgotten and is never effaced from their souls. That suffices for a binding contract. For instance, suppose you want to make an agreement with Zayd, so you invite him to your house, treat him with honor, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the situation with him as much as you can. You go through all the details together, and he signs the agreement with you. Then he is responsible for his agreement as long as he remembers its overall occurrence, even though he may forget coming to your house and all the details that transpired between you at that time.

(2) There is no logical impossibility for a large number of rational beings to forget something. Rather, it is only a matter of unlikelihood [which does not equate impossibility]. Moreover, as stated in the previous answer, the basic knowledge of God’s Lordship is not forgotten, and that is sufficient for humankind’s responsibility. Also, if one admits that people may have forgotten what occurred to them prior to this life, it does not prove the theory of tanāsukh (transmigration, reincarnation). There are other problems that disprove that theory, which have been discussed in its place. Overall, there is no proof for claiming that it is impossible for people to forget the events of one realm when they move to another.

(3) The verse also includes the immediate progeny of Adam. The verse’s expression—When your Lord took from the Children of Adam—is sufficient to show this, because it clearly means that first Adam’s immediate children were taken out of his loin, and then their children were in turn taken out of their loins, and so on until the last descendants. This is just like the sequence of generations in this world, which occurs through procreation and birth. Al-Rāzī has responded to this differently: the narrations talk about the extraction of Adam’s immediate children from his loin, and the verse talks about the extraction of their children from their loins. Hence, the verse and the narrations build on each other and complete the picture.

The narrations which talk about Adam’s immediate children—that God took them out of Adam’s loin and made a covenant with them—do not intend to interpret the text of the verse, but they serve to elaborate on the story. Therefore, one cannot refute them on the account of being inconsistent with the Qur’an or contradictory to it.

There is also a problem with scholars who have limited the verse’s application to those individuals whose fathers were polytheists. They have excluded Adam’s immediate children, and anyone whose father was not a polytheist, from the verse’s scope. This is based on the assumption that the verse is only meant as an argument against the polytheists, intended to strip them of the claim that “Our fathers ascribed partners [to Allah].” They have concluded this restriction of application because only the polytheists would make this argument, not all individuals. However, these scholars have missed the purpose of the verse, because the claim is ascribed to all people as a general and overall statement, not as a claim that every one of them would make individually. The meaning is: Had We not done so, then all of you could argue, if they were to be punished on the Day of Resurrection: “I did not associate partners, but those who were before me did so, and I was only a descendant and follower of them, not a leader myself.”

(4) The answer to the fourth problem should be clear based on the above. The verse and the narrations imply that God separated the parents and their children in that realm of pre-existence, then He returned them again to the state of being together as a single whole.

(5) This is against the apparent purport of some narrations, and against the explicit text of others. As for the problem of forgetting the covenant, it was answered under number (1).

(6) The apparent sense (ẓāhir) of a statement is authoritative; it does not have to be direct or explicit (taṣrīḥ). Just because one can interpret something symbolically does not prove that it should be interpreted as such. We can opt for a symbolic meaning only if there is an obstacle to interpreting the text based on its apparent meaning. In this case, we explained that there is no such obstacle.

As for the claim that these narrations are weak and unreliable: that is not true. Among them there are also authentic (ṣaḥīḥ) and reliable (muwaththaq) narrations in terms of transmission.

The above was a summary of the debate over the world of pre-existence in the light of this verse, including the views of those who accept and defend it, and those who reject and doubt it. However, upon adequate contemplation on the verse and the narrations, and on the arguments of the proponents and opponents, we are led in a different direction than what the two groups have disagreed upon.

Examining the View of the Proponents

In short, here is the view of those who have accepted the narrations about the world of pre-existence, and have used them to interpret the verse:

When God created Adam in the form of a complete man, He extracted his seed from his loin—the seed that later turned into his progeny. Ho took that out of him, and then again extracted parts of that seed which would later become its children. He separated the essential parts of each seed from the parts that would later grow into its children. Thus He continued sequentially until the very last part that would become another human being. In other words, God took out Adam’s seed—which was the main material for humankind—and then divided it consecutively and indefinitely, such that every human being was separated and distinguished from that seed. That resulted in a countless number of dispersed particles.

At that point—or before that—God made each particle into a complete human: exactly the same as the person that the initial particle would grow to be in this world. The part that would later become Zayd, was the very Zayd there; and the part that would later become ʿAmr, was the very ʿAmr there. God gave them life and consciousness, and equipped them with the means of hearing and speech. He enabled them to understand meanings, and to choose to either disclose or conceal them. Then He introduced Himself to them. He spoke to them and they responded positively. They all acknowledged His Lordship, some of them in accordance to what they genuinely held in their hearts, and some of them contrary to that.

After making this covenant with them, God returned them to their original position in the loins recursively, until they were all gathered again in Adam’s loin, while still retaining their knowledge of God’s Lordship, even though they may have forgotten the scene of the witnessing and the making of the covenant. These individuals are really existent in the loins of their fathers until they are permitted to enter the world. They come to this world carrying with themselves their initial knowledge of God’s Lordship. That is their own verdict that they have a Lord based on observing in themselves a need for Someone Who owns them and directs their affairs.

This is what the proponents of the world of pre-existence have understood from the narrations and the verse, and that is what they wish to prove. However, this is logically impossible, and is also rejected by the Qur’an and hadith without a doubt. How could they prove that a single part of Zayd—which is one of his particles that was transmitted from Adam’s loin to his son, and from his loin to his son, and so on consecutively until it reached Zayd—is the same as Zayd himself? How could that particle be proven to have cognition, consciousness, hearing, sight and heart? How could that particle be charged with religious obligations, covenants and commitments? How could it be held accountable for God’s arguments that are addressed to it? How could Zayd be rewarded or penalized based on that particle’s covenant? Based on both rational proof and scriptural evidence, the reality of a human being is something beyond the person’s material substance. It is one’s soul which is created with the creation of one’s body in this world. We had some discussion on this topic before.

Moreover, it is proven [in logic] that all statements (taṣdīqāt) hinge upon a set of concepts (taṣawwurāt). This includes both statements that are self-evident (badīhiyyāt) and the ones that are derived (naẓariyyāt), including the admittance that one has a Lord Who owns them and directs their affairs. The concepts are themselves acquired through inner and outer sensations, which both hinge on having a compound material being. This is the case of all acquired knowledge of humans, one of which is the statement that there is a Lord Who takes care of one’s needs.

The verse is clearly saying that the witnessing and the covenant were meant to complete God’s argument against humankind. Now, there are two conditions that come into play here: (1) The other side must be intelligent. (2) The other side must recognize their Lord [through feeling a need in themselves]. If both conditions are required for the completeness of God’s argument, then the above notion of the world of pre-existence suffers from the fact that the particles lose their intellect once they return to their original position in the loins, until they appear again in this world. Even if they retain their intellect all the way through the loins and wombs, they must lose it upon their birth, and lack it until they reach the age of reason. This undermines God’s argument against humankind. And if we claim that only the second condition—of knowledge of the Lord—is sufficient for the completeness of God’s argument, then there would be no need for a world of pre-existence, because that condition can be met by the view of those who have rejected these narrations.

Alternatively, we can imagine three possibilities here:

(1) God’s argument hinges on all of what happened in that realm—including the witnessing, the recognition, and the covenant.

Comment: The problem with this view is that then God’s argument would fall short with the forgetting of any of these. We have forgotten the scene of our witnessing, God’s speech with us, and the making of the covenant.

(2) If God’s argument hinges only on the knowledge of His Lordship. The other events—the witnessing and the covenant—were rather meant to establish this knowledge. But once the knowledge is there, God’s argument does not depend on them anymore.

Comment: The problem with this view is that it means that everyone is accountable to God’s argument and covenant, including fetuses, infants, the mentally retarded, and the ignorant. This is against both rational and scriptural evidence.

(3) The knowledge of God’s Lordship becomes complete and binding only once one matures and develops rationally. This occurred in the world of pre-existence, whereby God’s argument became complete against the individuals. Then the conditions of maturity and reason receded, leaving the knowledge as an insufficient proof. Then, whoever matures and develops rationally in this world, God’s argument is made complete against them for a second time.

Comment: The problem with this view is that just as one develops rationally in this world through certain means and instruments, one’s knowledge of God’s Lordship can also develop through worldly channels and experiences. One’s rational faculty—that is, one’s power of distinction between good and bad—grows through the repeated occurrence of various events, and through consistent practice and experience in life. This is a gradual process and continuum with perfection of the intellect at one end, and its utter weakness at the other. A similar paradigm can be held to be true for knowledge of God’s Lordship: we acquire it gradually through certain means and channels, just as we develop our rational faculty. In that case, why should there be another realm of existence prior to this world to complete God’s argument? What purpose does that serve when God’s argument would be complete even in its absence?

Not to mention that the type of reason applicable in this discussion is practical reason. That is a faculty that we acquire in this world through experiencing social life, good and bad occurrences, emotional excitements, and inner stimulations to acquire what is beneficial and avoid what is harmful. As a result of these feelings and experiences, we make voluntary and calculated movements, where sometimes we hit and sometimes we miss. Then gradually we grow and become more competent in distinguishing right from wrong, good from bad, and benefit from harm. That is the kind of reason that is needed for the validity of being a witness to something or making a covenant. However, the world of pre-existence is not a realm to develop such practical reason, because it lacks the required conditions and bases for it.

One could possibly assume that the world of pre-existence was indeed a place for practical reason, and had all the required conditions and foundations for it. In fact, the discussions of the proponents of the world of pre-existence show that they accepted this assumption, relying on the apparent meaning of the narrations. Some narrations say that “God called all descendants of Adam to monotheism. They all responded positively: some of them in accordance to what they genuinely held in their hearts, and some of them contrary to that because they held disbelief deep inside. Furthermore, God raised among them some prophets and saints; some people accepted their call, while others rejected it.” The proponents have presented and discussed these narrations in detail. In short, anything that occurs in this world also occurred in that realm. If so, then that would prove another physical world prior to ours, much like the theory of “cycles of creation” (al-adwār wa al-akwār). This in turn requires a prior world of pre-existence to complete God’s argument against the inhabitants of that world, because that world would be no different than our current life. If our current world requires a prior world for witnessing and acknowledging God, then that world would itself require a similar previous world, for there is no difference between them in essence. Otherwise, God’s proof would remain incomplete.

Here is another problem with the theory of the world of pre-existence: the theory assumes that for us to know God in this world, there must have been another realm where we had a different form of existence—in the form of atoms—and where the witnessing and the covenant took place. That is required for the realization of our knowledge of God’s Lordship. This assumption is universal in terms of its application: it equally applies to all humans, including Adam and Eve. However, Adam and Eve did not have an “atomic existence” prior to this world to achieve a knowledge of God’s Lordship [because they were never in the loins of another person]. So how come they are exempted from the universal application of this assumption? If it is because of their virtue, then among their descendants were some individuals who were better and more virtuous than them. One may say that they were exempted because their creation was already complete, so they could know God without having to go through the process of atomic existence. If so, then each of their descendants would also have a complete creation in its due time. They could similarly realize knowledge of God’s Lordship after being born in this world and reaching maturity. Why should this knowledge be realized prior to their full creation?

The above problems pertain to the view that humans had an atomic existence prior to this world, as understood from some narrations. There is no way to dodge these problems, nor can we interpret the verse according to this notion. It is common among the scholars of hadith to deduce a certain meaning from some narration, and then impose it on the Qur’an as the meaning of the verse, without investigating whether the text of the verse is conducive to that meaning or not. That is assuming the narration to be authentic. Even if we want to adopt this approach, we cannot apply it in this case, because authentic narrations, just like the Qur’anic verses, would never offer something impossible.

This concludes our discussion with the proponents of the world of pre-existence. We also have the literalists (al-ḥashwiyyāh) and some scholars of hadith who hold no authority for the reason and rational necessity against the narrations. They accept solitary reports (called āḥād and khabar al-wāḥid) even with respect to the fundamental beliefs, which can only be based on certainty. We have no discussion with this group.

Examining the View of the Opponents

Now we shall examine the view of the opponents of the world of pre-existence. They claim that the verse describes the current state of human beings throughout their life in this world. God brings out the people from the loins and wombs of their parents, until they appear as separate individuals. He equips them with what they need to recognize His Lordship and their need of Him. Since He makes them realize how they are immersed in need and weakness, it is as though He is asking them, “Am I not your Lord?” And as they hear this question, they admit: “Yes indeed! We bear witness.” All this conversation is through the language of condition or state (lisān al-ḥāl). God does this in order to complete His proof and to cut off their argument against Him, because now they know. This way they cannot bring the excuse that they were unaware of this. This covenant runs through the entire course of this world. As long as time persists and human life continues, people are bound by this covenant.

One problem here is that this interpretation is not consonant with the apparent meaning and theme of the verse. The verse begins with When (idh) your Lord took. The word idh indicates the temporal container of an event, and is especially used for past events. Sometimes it is also used for future events that are certain. For instance, God says: And when (idh) Allah will say, “O Jesus son of Mary! Was it you who said to the people…” () up to the verse: Allah will say, “This is a day when their truthfulness shall benefit the truthful” (). The word idh (when) in verse indicates a future temporal container; it is used for a future event because its occurrence is definite.

The verse is addressed to the Prophet. Or perhaps it is addressed to the Prophet and others, since it uses the second person plural at the end: [This,] lest you should say (taqūlū) on the Day of Resurrection… It is addressed to all inhabitants of this world. We are the audience of these verses in our current state of existence. Based on the above view [held by the opponent of the world of pre-existence], the conversation narrated in these verses also takes place in this world, throughout the duration of human existence in this life. This is inconsistent with the use of the word idh, because this word indicates an event that occurred before the current address of the verse. And there is no other consideration to vouchsafe the use of the term here, because it is not about a definite future event or anything like that.

Our View

When your Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their descendants: We can deduce two points from this expression: (1) On the one hand, it matches what we observe in this world. The verse talks about God’s creation of humankind, where each person issues from another, and a small number [of early ancestors] proliferates into a multitude. This is how the individuals come to existence successively, and also how the species is maintained through the continuation of its members. (2) Nevertheless, this expression also indicates some sense of precedence. It implies something “prior” to our current course of creation that is readily observable to us.

This precedence cannot be temporal, as we discussed above. Temporal precedence to this world means that God took out from the first human being his seed which would later evolve into all humanity, differentiated it into as many particles as the number of individuals who would come to existence, and then gave every one of them the exact same properties of life, intellect, hearing, sight, heart, back and stomach. All these developments occurred before their natural course. Then He showed Himself to them and took their covenant, and then He returned them to their positions in the loins so that they may complete their natural course there until they come to life in this world. As we explained, this is impossible, and the verse does not support this notion. The reason why this is impossible is that it necessitates every person to exist twice in this world. It entails a worldly existence and personality prior to another worldly existence and personality for every individual. This means that every person would at the same time be themself and other than themself. All the problems we discussed above [concerning the common notion of the world of pre-existence] reduce to this contradiction.

It is possible for a human being—or any other being—to exist in multiple realms as part of its journey toward God. This is actually confirmed by the Qur’an, contrary to the disbelievers’ claim: There is nothing but the life of this world: we live and we die, and nothing but time destroys us (). God affirms another life for humans—and other beings—on the Day of Resurrection, where each person will be the same person as in this world, but in a different realm with different laws and properties than this world. He also affirms another life for humans in the world of barzakh (the intermediate realm between this life and the Resurrection), which is governed by different laws and properties than this world, although the individuals there will be the same as the individuals in this world.

Furthermore, God says: There is not a thing but that its stores are with Us, and We do not send it down except in a known measure (). This verse says that everything has another existence in the stores of God; an existence which is vast and not yet measured out. It becomes determined and delimited when God sends it to this world. For instance, the human world, notwithstanding its vastness, has another existence with God in His stores, which takes precedence to its existence in this world. What exists here is a result of that higher and prior existence descending to this world.

The existence of all beings in this world—including humankind—is gradual and subject to time and change. Yet, this gradual existence is itself granted by God immediately and instantaneously, through the divine command, “Be!” (kun). This notion is found in several verses, such as: All His command, when He wills something, is to say to it “Be,” and it is. So glory be to Him in Whose hand is the kingdom of all things (); And Our command is but a single [word], like the twinkling of an eye (). This means that this world and all things in it have two aspects: (1) They have a worldly aspect by which they face the world. This aspect of their existence is governed by time and change: they progress gradually from potentiality to actuality, and from non-being to being. They grow from imperfection step by step until they reach their perfection, then they die and return to their Lord. (2) They have a divine aspect by which they face God. This is a non-temporal and non-gradual existence that they have. Their divine aspect possesses all its properties timelessly, without going through the stages of perfection from potentiality to actualization. This aspect is different from the first one, although they are two sides of the same coin. The two aspects are not governed by the same laws. It requires fine intellectual ability to imagine and comprehend this second aspect of all things. We had some discussion on it previously, and we shall elaborate on it more below, by God’s will.

These verses [concerning the divine aspect of things] indicate that the human world, notwithstanding its vastness and extension, has an assembled and concentrated existence with God. This is the aspect by which humanity faces God, and through which God bestows gradual worldly existence on every member of humankind. In that divine aspect, no individual is absent from another; nor are they absent from their Lord; nor is He absent from them. After all, how could the act be absent from its actor? How could something manufactured be absent from its manufacturer? This is what God calls malakūt (God’s kingdom, angelic world) in the verse: Thus did We show Abraham the kingdom (malakūt) of the heavens and the earth, that he might be of those who possess certitude (). He also refers to the same concept where He says: No indeed! Were you to know with knowledge of certainty, you would surely see hell. Again, you will surely see it with the eye of certainty ().

What we observe in this world is the worldly aspect of humankind. That is where individuals are separated from one another, and their conditions and experiences are diversified as they are spread over time and space, and become subject to the passing of nights and days. That is where people are veiled from their Lord because of orienting themselves toward worldly objectives and sensual pleasures. This aspect is subsequent to the first aspect, and a result of that. The relation between our divine aspect and our worldly aspect is the relation between “Be!” (kun) and “it is” (yakūnu) in the verse: that He says to it “Be,” and it is ().

Human existence in this world is preceded by another existence in a different realm, which was nevertheless as humane, but with the difference that all individuals exist there together, and are not veiled from their Lord. They witness Him as their sole Lord through witnessing themselves. Their knowledge of His Lordship is not because of rational argumentation [which rests on the faculties of reason that develop gradually in this life], but because they are never cut off from Him and never fail to find Him. That is why they acknowledge Him and any truth that is from Him. The defilements of polytheism and sin belong to our life in this world, not the other realm, because the only acts and effects in that realm are those of God, which are sustained by Him existentially. The reader should reflect on this.

If you contemplate thoroughly about these verses [concerning the divine aspect of things], and then turn to the current verse of discussion—When your Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their descendants ()—and reflect on it well, you will realize that the current verse is really an elaboration of what is stated concisely in the other verses. It talks about another plane of human existence, where God separated and differentiated all humans from one another, then He made them bear witness over themselves, [He said to them,] “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes indeed! We bear witness” ().

This interpretation of the verse is immune from the above mentioned problems that apply to what is commonly held concerning the world of pre-existence, as the proponents have understood from the narrations. Our interpretation is deduced from other verses of the Qur’an, and it does not propose a temporal sequence or separation between the two realms. Our divine existence encompasses our worldly existence, and the two are inseparable. The divine plane of human existence precedes their worldly existence not by temporal precedence, but by the kind of precedence that is found in the verse: “Be,” and it is ().

Similarly, our interpretation is secure from the problems that we raised against the opponents’ view. They proposed that the verse is only concerned with our current life in this world. The problems with this view are: (1) The word idh (when) implies a preceding plane of existence. (2) It interprets “witnessing” metaphorically as “getting to know” [through rational development]. (3) It proposes that the narrated conversations in the verse—“Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes indeed! We bear witness”—are descriptions of our condition and state (lisān al-ḥāl). In our interpretation, however: (1) The word idh refers to a preceding stage. (2) “Witnessing” maintains its original and literal meaning. (3) The addresses in the verse are real.

In addition, one cannot object that this meaning is foreign to the verse and imposed on it, because: (1) there is nothing in the verse to reject this idea; and (2) it is deduced from putting other verses of the Qur’an next to one another.

As with the narrations, we shall discuss them below. Overall, some narrations go only as far as the verse: they simply assert that there is another plane of human existence. There are also some narrations which say that God disclosed that plane of human existence to Adam. God showed Adam the divine aspect (malakūt) of our current world, including the witnessing and covenant which occur in it. Hence, Adam had a similar experience to Abraham, who was shown the divine aspect (malakūt) of the heavens and the earth.

Back to the Verse

When your Lord took…: There is an implicit verb “remind” (uhdkur, in the imperative mood) at the beginning of the verse. Those being reminded are either the People of the Book, in continuation of the previous discourse; or all people in general, in line with the theme and message of the entire chapter. The meaning is: Remind them—the People of the Book or all people—that God made a covenant with the people, and He will certainly hold them accountable for it. Most people do not live up to their covenant although they have no excuse for this.

More elaborately: Remind them that there was a plane of existence prior to this worldly plane, where your Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their descendants. Every individual appeared there as an independent person, distinct from others. All humans were all gathered there individually. God showed them their very essence and reality which is directly tied to their Lord: descendants and He made them bear witness over themselves. They were not veiled from Him, but observed Him as their Lord.

This is not something exclusive to humans, but every being finds its Lord within itself and without a veil. There are many verses in the Qur’an which imply this, such as: There is not a thing but celebrates His praise, but you do not understand their glorification (). This is a matter of conscience and intuition (fiṭrah).

At that level of existence, people understand that God is showing them this reality [of their connection and need of Himself] because He wants them to acknowledge His Lordship and commit themselves to this covenant. That is why the conversation narrated in the verse—[He said to them,] “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes indeed! We bear witness”—is real speech by both sides, not merely a description of the state and condition there (lisān al-ḥāl). What we mean by “real speech” is the transmission of a certain intended meaning from one side to the other side.

… [This,] lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Indeed we were unaware of this”: This statement is addressed to the same audience as in “Am I not your Lord?” who then replied: “Yes indeed! We bear witness.” In that plane of existence, the people literally observe that they are made witness over themselves, that God speaks to them, and that they respond to Him with admission. Throughout their life in this world, they are only aware of knowledge through mental derivation and rational arguments; they are unaware of the kind of knowledge they realized in that preceding realm. Nevertheless, when the carpet of this world is rolled up on the Day of Resurrection, these veils and occupations will be cleared away, and they will reclaim their original view and observation. At that point they will remember what transpired between them and their Lord.

Another possibility is that the last part of the verse [lest you should say…] is addressed to all of us who are the audience of the verse [not to the witnesses in the higher realm]. The meaning would be: “We did that to the Children of Adam so that you people may not say on the Day of Resurrection…” The first interpretation is more apparent, and is confirmed by another recitation of the verse which reads the verb in the third person instead of the second person: an yaqūlū (lest they should say…).

أَوْ تَقُولُوا إِنَّما أَشْرَكَ آباؤُنا مِنْ قَبْلُ وَ كُنَّا ذُرِّيَّةً مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ أَ فَتُهْلِكُنا بِما فَعَلَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ ١٧٣

(7:173) or lest you should say, “Our fathers ascribed partners [to Allah] before [us] and we were descendants after them. Will You then destroy us because of what the falsifiers have done?”

The final part of the previous verse describes people’s potential argument against God if He had not conducted the scenario of witnessing and covenant with anyone whatsoever. This verse describes the people’s potential argument against God, had He done so only with the fathers, while leaving out their children and the later generations.

Here we are talking about a plane of existence where there is no barrier between the individuals and their Lord. That is a plane of knowing God directly, which is exactly what is meant by witnessing one’s essence and pledging a covenant with one’s Lord. If there is no witnessing of one’s reality and no covenant at that level, then there cannot be any knowledge of God’s Lordship in this world a fortiori, because our knowledge of God here is from behind a veil. We only have indirect knowledge of God in this life, through reasoning. If the children are not included in the witnessing and covenant on that plane, then they would have no way whatsoever to recognize God as their Lord in this world. Hence, they could no longer be called “sinners” for resorting to other gods. Since they would lack that underlying vision and intuition, the only way available to them would be to follow their fathers and adopt their shirk (polytheism, association). That is why they could argue: “Our fathers ascribed partners [to Allah] before [us] and we were descendants after them. Will You then destroy us because of what the falsifiers have done?”

وَ كَذلِكَ نُفَصِّلُ الْآياتِ وَ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ ١٧٤

(7:174) Thus do We elaborate (nufaṣṣilu, from tafṣīl) the communications, and so that they may come back.

The elaboration of the signs and verses (tafṣīl al-āyāt) means separating and distinguishing them from each other, so that the meaning of each becomes clear, and they are not confused with one another.

… and so that they may come back: The conjunction “and” shows that there is some other purpose that is not mentioned here. The implied meaning is: “We elaborate Our communications for some lofty objectives, and also so that they may return from falsehood to the truth.”

Examining Narrations

1. Imam al-Bāqir said: When God was about to create people, He created two waters: one potable, the other salty and bitter. The two waters mixed with each other. Then He took some dust from the crust of the earth, and scrubbed it hard. Then He addressed the People of the Right, while they were creeping like ants: “To paradise, and I do not give a hoot”; and He addressed the People of the Left: “To hell, and I do not give a hoot!” Then He said, “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes indeed! We bear witness.” [This,] lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Indeed we wereunaware of this” ()…
2. ʿAbd-Allāh b. Sinān says: Once I asked Imam al-Ṣādiq about the verse, the origination (fiṭrah) of Allah according to which He originated humankind (): “What is this fiṭrah (primal nature, innate disposition, initial makeup)?” He said, “It means submission (islām). When God took their covenant, He shaped them according to monotheism (tawḥīd), as He said: Am I not your Lord? (). That [covenant] included both the believers and the disbelievers.”
3. Once Ibn al-Kawwāʾ went to Imam ʿAlī and said, “Tell me about God, O Commander of the Faithful. Did He speak to any human being before Moses?” The Imam responded, “God spoke to all of His servants, including the good-doers and the evil-doers, and they replied back.” Ibn al-Kawwāʾ found this difficult to handle and understand. “How did that happen, O Commander of the Faithful?”

The Imam explained: “Haven’t you read in the Book of God, where He says to His Prophet: When your Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their descendants and He made them bear witness over themselves, [He said to them,] ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They said, ‘Yes indeed’ ()? As you can see, Ibn al-Kawwāʾ, He made them hear His speech, and they responded to Him, where He says: They said, ‘Yes indeed’ (). Then He proclaimed, ‘Indeed I am Allah! There is no god but Me, and I am the All-Merciful, the Ever-Merciful.’ There they acknowledged His right of obedience and Lordship. He also singled out the messengers, the prophets, and their successors, and ordered everyone to obey them. They also admitted that as part of their covenant. When they acknowledged this, the angels said: ‘We bear witness—over you, O Children of Adam—lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Indeed we were unaware of this” ().’”

Author’s comment: As we explained above, the above narrations—and some of the narrations below—simply refer to the covenant that God made with the Children of Adam, without referring to how they were taken out of Adam’s loins and how God showed Himself to them. They are compared to dharr (atoms, particles, ants) as an illustration of their multitude, but not in the sense of their physical size or other aspects. Since this analogy is used repeatedly in the narrations, that higher realm is often called ʿālam al-dharr (the world of particles, the realm of atomic existence, the world of ants).

The last narration clearly shows that the conversation in the verse was a real speech between God and the people, not a metaphorical communication through their state and condition (lisān al-ḥāl). Moreover, the narration says that the covenant was not about God’s Lordship alone, but it also included prophethood and other truths. All of these points confirm our interpretation above.

4. Rifāʿah says: Once I asked Imam al-Ṣādiq about the verse: When your Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their descendants (). He explained: “Yes, [this means that] God has a decisive proof against all His creatures.” The Imam clenched his fist and said, “He took them on the day of the covenant like this.”

Author’s comment: This narration apparently interprets “taking” (akhdh) as “encompassing” (iḥāṭah) and “having control” (mulk) over them.

5. Ibn Muskān says: Concerning the verse When your Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their descendants and He made them bear witness over themselves, [He said to them,] “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes indeed!” () I asked Imam al-Ṣādiq, “Was this an actual vision?” He said, “Yes. The knowledge [of God’s Lordship] was thus established, but then they forgot the scene, but they will remember it again [on the Day of Resurrection]. Had it not been for that [vision], no one would know Who is their Creator and Provider. In that world of particles (al-dharr), some of them admitted with the tongue, but did not believe it in the heart. That is what God says: but they were not to believe in what they had disbelieved in earlier ().”

Author’s comment: The opponents of the world of pre-existence claim that the verse is not about some covenant that was made in another realm. Instead, the verse’s expression—He made them bear witness over themselves, [He said to them,] “Am I not your Lord?” ()—means that God has made known to the people the signs that prove His Lordship. The above narration, which is authentic (ṣaḥīḥ), refutes this interpretation. We shall present other similar narrations in terms of authenticity and explicitness below, on the authority of Zurārah and others.

6. Zurārah says: Once a man asked Imam al-Bāqir about the verse: When your Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their descendants… (). The Imam replied, while his father was listening: “My father narrated that God took a handful of the dust with which He created Adam. He poured sweet and agreeable water on it, and left it for forty days. Then He poured salty and bitter water on it, and left it for forty days. When the clay was leavened, He took it and scrubbed it hard. Thus [numerous] ant-like creatures emerged from its right and left. He ordered them all to enter the fire. The People of the Right entered, whereby it became cool and safe for them, but the People of the Left refrained to enter.

Author’s comment: There are other narrations that convey the same idea. The command to enter fire is an expression for stepping into the sanctuary of servitude, obedience and submission.

7. Imam al-Bāqir said, “This is indeed how God created the people: He created whom He liked from what He liked, and what He liked was to be created from the clay of paradise. He whom He disliked from what He disliked, and what He disliked was to be created from the clay of hell. Then He raised them in [the form of] shadows.”

Someone asked, “What are these shadows?”

The Imam explained, “Do you see your shadow under the sun? It is something [in a sense] and it is nothing [in a sense]. Then He raised the prophets among them, and they invited them to acknowledge God [as their sole Lord]. This is what He says: If you ask them, ‘Who created them?’ they will surely say, ‘Allah’ (). They [the prophets] called them [the people] to acknowledge the prophets [as God’s messengers]. Some of them acknowledged, and some of them refused. Then they called them to our wilāyah (divine guardianship, spiritual authority). Some of them acknowledged—by God they were those whom God liked—and some of them refused. That is what He says: but they were not to believe in what they had disbelieved in earlier ().” Then the Imam added: “Denial was there [from day one].”

Author’s comment: Although this narration does not interpret the verse per se, we presented it because it refers to the story of God’s covenant with the people. This narration talks about “the shadows” (al-ẓilāl), which appears repeatedly in the narrations from the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt. As the above narration shows, “the shadows” apparently refer to that higher realm, which is identical with this world in a sense, and which is different from it in another sense. Therefore, it has some properties that are identical with the properties of this world, and other properties that are different from it. This description matches our interpretation of the verse.

8. Abū Baṣīr says: I asked Imam al-Ṣādiq, “How did the people answer God while they were ants (or particles)?” He said, “He placed in them something with which they would answer Him when He questions them.”

Author’s comment: What the Imam means here—by “something with which they would answer Him”—is not merely what is conveyed through their condition and state (called lisān al-ḥāl). The transmitter’s impression was that people’s response in that world was like our responses in our regular conversations in this world. He inquired about it because responding in this manner is unlikely from ant-like (or atomic) creatures. The Imam explained to him that the matter over there was such that if it were to descend to this world, it would map onto verbal response with the tongue. That is why the narration says, “when He questions them,” not “if they were to speak” or anything like that.

9. Abū Baṣīr says: Concerning “Am I not your Lord?” I asked Imam al-Ṣādiq: “Did they reply with their tongues?”

“Yes,” he said, “and also with their hearts.”

I asked, “And where were they at that time?”

He said, “He created in [or of] them what sufficed them [to answer].”

Author’s comment: The idea that they answered with their tongues and hearts means that if they were to be transformed from their mode of existence in that realm to a worldly existence, their response would map onto our common verbal response in our worldly conversations. However, in that higher realm, one’s heart and tongue are identical and not yet differentiated. That is why the Imam first confirmed the tongue, and then added the heart: “Yes, and also with their hearts.”

The rest of the narration is based on the transmitter’s impression that this event occurred in this world of nature. Some narrations which talk about the extraction of Adam’s descendants from his loin also specify the place of this event. In fact, some of these narrations are narrated on the authority of Abū Baṣīr himself—who is the transmitter of the above hadith. Having heard these narrations, he asked the Imam: “Where were they at that time?” The Imam did not determine their place, but said: “He created in them what sufficed them [to answer].” That is, God created them in a way that they could be questioned and could answer. All of these confirm our interpretation of that higher world. Moreover, this narration and others [which we quoted above] are almost explicit in saying that the conversation in the verse was through a real sense of speech [as opposed to a metaphorical one through the language of condition]. Rather, they are explicit [not almost explicit].

10. The Messenger of God said: “God created the creatures, finalized His decree, and made a covenant with the prophets while His Throne was [then] upon the waters (). Then He took the People of the Right in His right hand, and the People of the Left in His other hand—both hands of the All-Merciful are right.

‘O People of the Right!’ He called out.

‘Here we are,” they responded, ‘at Thy service, our Lord!’

‘Am I not your Lord?’ He inquired.

They said, ‘Yes indeed!’ ().

‘O People of the Left!’ He called out.

‘Here we are,” they responded, ‘at Thy service, our Lord!’

‘Am I not your Lord?’ He inquired.

They said, ‘Yes indeed!’ ().

Then He mixed them together. Someone among them asked, ‘My Lord! Why did You mix us?’

He said: they have deeds besides that which they perpetrate (); [This,] lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, ‘Indeed we were unaware of this’ (). Then He returned them to the loin of Adam. So the people of paradise belong to it, and the people of hell belong to it.”

At that point someone asked, “What about the actions, O Messenger of God?”

He explained, “Every group acts toward their [destined] position.”

ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “So we will strive hard.”

Author’s comment: While His Throne was [then] upon the waters () indicates the precedence of the world of covenant to this world [existentially and ontologically]. This does not mean a temporal precedence of the spirits over the bodies. We already discussed the logical problem with the temporal precedence of the world of pre-existence as commonly understood by most proponents of this view.

“Every group acts toward their [destined] position”: This means that the fulfillment and attainment of any position requires actions that are commensurate with that position. If one is to go to paradise, they will inevitably do good in this world; and if one is to go to hell, they will inevitably do evil in this world. We have been called [by the prophets and religions] to strive for paradise through good deeds. It is one’s actions which determine one’s position. Good deeds will inevitably place one in paradise, and evil deeds will inevitably place one in hell.

God says: And everyone has a direction that God is in charge of it; so take the lead in the good works (). This verse implies two things at once: (1) God determines where everyone is going. (2) You should vie to do good. There is no contradiction between the two. Felicity and wretchedness become inevitable if their complete cause occurs, but they are not inevitable with respect to the person’s choice and free will, because that is only part of the complete cause. What determines and finalizes the occurrence of an event is the fulfillment of its complete cause, not just part of it. We discussed this in detail in several places before. Our last discussion of it was in the same chapter, under the verses: as He brought you forth in the beginning, so will you return. A part [of humankind] He has guided, while error is fixed upon a part (), where we also presented and interpreted the narrations about ṭīnah (clay, substance).

11. Concerning the verse, When your Lord took from the Children of Adam… () Ibn ʿAbbās said: God created Adam and made a covenant with Him that He is his Lord. He wrote his term, his sustenance and his hardships. Then He took out his children from his loin in the form of ants (or particles). He made a covenant with them that He is their Lord. He wrote their terms, their sustenance, and their hardships.

Author’s comment: This idea is narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās through many chains of narration in various terms. What is common in all of them is that God extracted Adam’s descendants from his loin and made a covenant with them.

12. Concerning When your Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their descendants () it is narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās, Ibn Masʿūd and many other Companions: When God expelled Adam from the Garden, before He sent him down from the heaven, He touched the right side of his loin, whence He brought forth descendants that were white like pearl in the form of ants (or particles). He told them, “Enter paradise by My mercy.” And He touched the left side of his loin, whence He brought forth descendants that were black in the form of ants (or particles). He told them, “Enter hell, and I do not give a hoot.” That is what is meant by the People of the Right Hand () and the People of the Left Hand ().

Then He took their covenant and said: “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes indeed!” (). One group made the covenant willingly, and one group made it reluctantly out of fear (taqiyyah). Then God and the angels said: “We bear witness, lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, ‘Indeed we were unaware of this,’ or lest you should say, ‘Our fathers ascribed partners [to Allah] before [us]’” ().

Hence everyone among the descendants of Adam knows God as their Lord. This is what He says: to Him submits whoever there is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly (). He also says: To Allah belongs the conclusive argument (), which means [conclusive argument] on the day of making the covenant.

Author’s comment: A similar account of al-dharr (ants, particles, atoms) is narrated in Sunni sources from many Companions—either ending with the Companions (called mawqūf) or ending with the Prophet (called mawṣūl)—including: ʿAlī, Ibn ʿAbbās, ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, ʿAbd-Allāh b. ʿUmar, Salmān, Abū Hurayrah, Abū Amāmah, Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, ʿAbd-Allāh b. Masʿūd, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Qatādah, Abū al-Dardāʾ, Anas, Muʿāwiyah and Abū Mūsá al-Ashʿarī. It is narrated in Shia sources from Imams ʿAlī, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad and al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī al-ʿAskarī. There also many Sunni narrations—through various chains—from ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī and Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad. Therefore, one could arguably claim that this is mass-transmitted in terms of its overall meaning (called al-mutawātir al-maʿnawī).

13. The Messenger of God said, “Indeed God created Adam, then He took the people out of his loin and said: ‘These shall be in paradise, and I do not give a hoot; and these shall be in hell, and I do not give a hoot.’”

There a man asked, “So on what basis shall we act, Messenger of God?”

He said, “Based on what has been predestined.”

Author’s comment: The second half of this narration is similar to what we narrated from Abū Amāmah [number 10 above]. The man’s understanding of “These shall be in paradise, and I do not give a hoot; and these shall be in hell, and I do not give a hoot” was that our free will is ineffective. So the Prophet explained to him that this itself is part of God’s predestination (qadar). While our deeds are imputed to us as their actor, they also map onto God’s predestination, and God’s predestination matches them. The point here is that God has predestined our deeds through our free will. That is why we act with our volition, and at the same time that corresponds to God’s predestination. His predestination does not overturn our choice and the effectiveness of our free will. There are numerous narrations in this regard.

14. Zurārah says: I asked Imam al-Bāqir about the verse: As ḥunafāʾ of Allah, not ascribing partners to Him (). He said, “Ḥanafiyyah is of the same nature as the fiṭrah (primal nature, innate disposition, initial makeup), according to which He originated humankind. There is no altering Allah’s creation (). He hard-wired them with His knowledge.”

I also asked him about the verse: When your Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their descendants and He made them bear witness over themselves, [He said to them,] “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes indeed” (). He said, “He extracted all of Adam’s descendants until the Day of Resurrection from his loin. They emerged like ants (or particles), and He introduced and showed Himself to them. Had it not been for that, no one would know their Lord. The Messenger of God said: Every child is born on the original nature (fiṭrah), meaning the knowledge that the Almighty God is their Creator. That is what He says: If you ask them, ‘Who created the heavens and the earth?’ they will surely say, ‘Allah’ ().”

Author’s comment: This narration confirms our interpretation of the conversation and witnessing mentioned in the verse. This refutes the view of the opponents of the world of pre-existence, who advocate an indirect knowledge of God through His signs that point to His Lordship over all beings.

Another version of the same hadith says: “He introduced and showed His creation to them,” instead of “He introduced and showed Himself to them.” Perhaps one of the transmitters opted out of a verbatim narration of the hadith because it suggests a physical body for God. However, this alteration not only ruins the original wording, but also the meaning of the hadith. The narration says, “showed Himself to them” in both al-Kāfī and Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī. Furthermore, we read above [in hadith 5] that Ibn Muskān asked Imam al-Ṣādiq, “Was this an actual vision?” and the Imam said, “Yes!” We already explained that this vision has nothing to with physicality and anthropomorphism.

15. Zurārah says: I asked Imam al-Ṣādiq about the verse: When your Lord took… (). He said, “The knowledge [of God’s Lordship] was established in their hearts, but they forgot the scene [when they came to this world]. Nonetheless, they will remember it again someday [on the Day of Resurrection]. Had it not been for that, no one would know Who is their Creator and Provider.”
16. Imam al-Ṣādiq said: ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn saw no problem with contraception on the account of the verse: When your Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their descendants and He made them bear witness over themselves, [He said to them,] “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes indeed” (). Any person that God took out for the covenant will inevitably be born, even if it [the sperm] is diverted to a hard rock.

Author’s comment: The readers should realize that there are indeed very many narrations concerning the world of pre-existence. We skipped most of them because what we quoted above suffices to convey their message. There are also other narrations which talk about God’s covenant with the Prophet Muḥammad and the other prophets. We will present them in their proper place, by God’s will.

---

1. When we see anything, what we see is light. Realizing the inherent darkness of anything is tantamount to realizing the light which makes it visible. (Trans.) ↩︎

2. Lisān al-ḥāl is what is understood from a person’s condition and mode of being. Its opposite is lisān al-qāl (language of words), which is when someone actively expresses something, either through sound waves or otherwise. (Trans.) ↩︎

3. “Fathers” and “children refer to the early and later generations of humankind, respectively. (Trans.) ↩︎

4. This point is raised as an objection because reincarnation is against the apparent Qur’anic view of afterlife. (Trans.) ↩︎

5. The problem with al-Rāzī’s explanation should be clear. (Auth.) ↩︎

6. We shall present these in our examination of narrations below, by God’s will. (Auth.) ↩︎

7. See volume 2 (1st ed.), pp. 201ff of the English translation, under verses . (Trans.) ↩︎

8. Their view is that one’s need to a Lord is a kind of knowledge that is present with everyone inherently. (Trans.) ↩︎

9. This is the view that all events are the effects of the rotational movements of the firmaments (aflāk). It takes the sphere of fixed stars (called falak al-thawābit) 360 thousand years to complete its cycle. In every cycle of it, the events in this world occur again exactly as they did in the last round. (Auth.) ↩︎

10. Verses and also use the verb qāla in the past tense, meaning “said” not “will say.” This is in conformity with the use of idh, and also indicates certainty. (Trans.) ↩︎

11. This is different from the concept of multiple personalities as used in psychology and ethics. (Auth.)

    The author’s discussion is about ontological or existential personality, not psychological or ethical. (Trans.) ↩︎

12. The author discussed this under verse . See the section titled “The Meaning of Creation (Khalq) and Command (Amr)” in volume 15 of the English translation. (Trans.) ↩︎

13. What is meant here is causation in its ontological sense. It means giving existence (wujūd) to an individual, object or occurrence (called ījād). Metaphysically speaking, real action and true manufacturing mean effusing existence upon a certain event. The only source of this can be the Absolute Existence (that is, God), and that event can never be separated or veiled from this Source. (Trans.) ↩︎

14. The imperative kun is a one-time command that transcends time. Yakūnu means temporal and gradual becoming, since the verb is in the present tense, which implies continuity. Also, the letter fāʾ (so, therefore, then) before yakūnu shows that the latter is a consequence and result of the former. (Trans.) ↩︎

15. That is, they denote an ongoing and inseparable relation between the Actor and His acts. (Trans.) ↩︎

16. The Qur’an has used malakūt and mulk synonymously, meaning “kingdom, sovereignty, dominion.” The distinction between the two was developed later in Islamic metaphysics and theoretical mysticism, where malakūt is a locus of timeless realities, while mulk is the world of temporal phenomena. In terms of Qur’anic usage, malakūt is always annexed to something: the malakūt of everything (, ), or the malakūt of the heavens and the earth (, ). Similarly, the Qur’an talks about the mulk of the heavens and the earth (and whatever is between them), and also uses al-mulk in an unconditional form, with the article al-. Therefore, we can conclude that according to the Qur’an, everything has some malakūt and also has some mulk, but the contrast and contradistinction between the two is extra-Qur’anic. (Trans.) ↩︎

17. In this context, what marks “real speech” from lisān al-ḥāl (language of condition or state) is that the former is intended and conscious, while the latter is not. Lisān al-ḥāl is a meaning that can be observed in a person or thing even if that person or thing is unaware of it. That would be a metaphorical speech. Real speech is a meaning that one expresses intentionally and consciously, whether verbally or otherwise. (Trans.) ↩︎

18. Imagine a mirror that is facing the sun. The mirror happens to be conscious and intelligent, such that it can bend over itself and see within. If it were to be asked, “Look inside yourself; what do you see?” it would say, “I see the sun reflecting inside me.” A mirror, inasmuch as being a mirror, only reflects what it faces, not some essence or identity of its own. We humans are such mirrors. And in our state of pristine nature (fiṭrah), we are neither disoriented from the sun of reality, nor covered by dusts of illusion and desires. But then we develop a sense of self and identity that covers our true emptiness. Otherwise, the sun is always there, shining on all mirrors indiscriminately. This analogy, with some elaborations, was inspired by some of the author’s students and exponents concerning the current verse. For more insight on this topic, see the author’s al-Rasāʾil al-tawḥidiyyah, Rasāʾil al-insān and Risālat al-wilāyah. Meanwhile, it should be noted that when the Qur’an uses the word shahādah (witnessing) with the preposition ʿalá (over, against), it does not necessarily imply seeing and vision, whether physical or spiritual. Instead, it is meant in a forensic sense. Being witness ʿalá (over, against) someone means serving as evidence that would prove their responsibility. In the current verse, it means that God took the people’s testimony about His Lordship and made them acknowledge their duty to not associate partners with Him. Whether this involved some vision or not is secondary to the meaning. (Trans.) ↩︎

19. The covenant is also a central concept in the Bible. However, the Qur’anic covenant presented in this verse, and in verses and , is more universal and eternal. It is a covenant of oneness that God has made primordially with all humankind inherently. Our task is to see the light before seeing what is illuminated by it; to notice the reality of existence, in its absoluteness and infinitude, manifesting itself in a myriad of colorful expressions; to not get distracted from the kernel by the covering shell; to penetrate the foams and waves on the surface, and rest in the calm core of the ocean.

    “Yes indeed! We bear witness” () is reminiscent of a statement that is commonly narrated from Imam ʿAlī: “I did not see anything except that I saw God before it.” While the ascription of this statement to the Imam is incorrect, it bears a profound meaning and describes a purely monotheistic world view. The statement is complete without the addition of “and with it, and after it” in some versions, because God’s togetherness with all things, and His encompassment of everything, is neither physical nor temporal. In fact, the addition could undermine the meaning, because seeing God with something implies parallelism, and seeing God after something means that the thing is more apparent than the Truth.

    In short, living up to our eternal covenant with the Absolute can be expressed by these lines by Shabistarī in Gulshan-i rāz,:

    For the one who’s awakened to oneness in seeing,

    The first thing to witness is the light of being.

    If the heart is illumined and polished from façade,

    The first thing that it sees, before anything, is God.

    (Trans.) ↩︎

20. The People of the Right and the People of the Left are defined and described in Chapter 56 (Sūrah al-Wāqiʿah). (Trans.) ↩︎

21. Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Zurārah, on the authority of Ḥumrān. ↩︎

22. An alternative manuscript says, “they included.” (Auth.) ↩︎

23. Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration. ↩︎

24. This confirms another reading and interpretation of the verse, where the people’s answer is only the confirmation balá (“Yes indeed”). Then there is a pause, and what follows (We bore witness lest you should say…) is the speech of the angels. Much like many other verses in the Qur’an, the first person plural here—We bear (or bore) witness—can be treated as the majestic plural, called “the royal we.” Many narrations below also quote the verse only up to “Yes indeed,” implying a full stop there. (Trans.) ↩︎

25. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī and al-Sayyid al-Raḍī’s al-Khaṣāʾiṣ, on the authority of al-Aṣbagh b. Nubātah. ↩︎

26. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī. ↩︎

27. In other word, the verse is not about extracting and taking out the individuals from the loins of their fathers, but it is about holding the people accountable, closing down on them with evidence, and leaving them with no excuse or argument. (Trans.) ↩︎

28. Tafsīr al-Qummī, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Ibn Abī ʿUmayr. ↩︎

29. Al-Kāfī, on the authority of ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Ibn Abī ʿUmayr. ↩︎

30. Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of ʿAbd-Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Juʿfī and ʿUqbah. ↩︎

31. Al-Kāfī. It is also narrated in Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, where the transmitter [Abū Baṣīr] adds at the end: “That is with respect to the covenant.” ↩︎

32. “If they were to speak” would imply lisān al-ḥāl (language of condition or state), which is called “speech” only figuratively. But “when He questions them” means a real response; that is, an intended and conscious message through a mode of communication that is compatible with that realm. (Trans.) ↩︎

33. The narration says, “But what were they at that time?” The author has misquoted this part. Part of his explanation below is also based on his version. (Trans.) ↩︎

34. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī. ↩︎

35. Right (yamīn) symbolizes fortune, felicity and blessedness (yumn). Left (shimāl) symbolizes misfortune and misery (shuʿm). God is all blessing, and only blessedness ensues from Him. (Trans.) ↩︎

36. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of ʿAbd b. Ḥumayd, al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī’s Nawādir al-uṣūl, Abū al-Shaykh’s al-ʿAẓamah and Ibn Mardawayh, on the authority of Abū Amāmah. ↩︎

37. The verse’s translation is based on the author’s discussion below. A more apparent, accurate and common translation is: And everyone has a direction to which he turns… (). In other words, the pronoun “he” apparently refers to everyone which is explicitly mentioned in the verse, not to God. (Trans.) ↩︎

38. See volume 1 (1st ed.), pp. 166ff and 180ff, and volume 5 (2nd ed.), pp. 20ff of the English translation. (Trans.) ↩︎

39. See the section titled “II. Narrations about ṭīnah (clay, substance)” in volume 15 of the English translation. (Trans.) ↩︎

40. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of ʿAbd b. Ḥumayd, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim and Abū al-Shaykh. ↩︎

41. See my note on hadith 3 above. (Trans.) ↩︎

42. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr’s al-Tamhīd, from Ibn ʿAbbās through Abū Ṣāliḥ, and through Abū Mālik and al-Suddī; and from Ibn Masʿūd through Murrah al-Hamdānī. ↩︎

43. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Saʿd and Aḥmad, on the authority of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Qatādah al-Sulamī, who was one of the Prophet’s Companions. ↩︎

44. Al-Kāfī, on the authority of ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Ibn Abī ʿUmayr, on the authority of Ibn Udhaynah. Al-ʿAyyāshī has also narrated the middle part of this hadith from Zurārah with exactly the same wording in his Tafsīr. ↩︎

45. Maʿānī al-akhbār, with the same chain of narration, on the authority of Zurārah. ↩︎

46. Al-Maḥāsin, on the authority of al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Faḍḍāl, on the authority of Ibn Bukayr. ↩︎

47. This is called ʿazl, which is defined generally as preventing the sperm from entering the uterus. (Trans.) ↩︎

48. Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration. Al-Durr al-manthūr has also narrated the same idea about the Imam [ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn], on the authority of Ibn Abī Shaybah and Ibn Jarīr. It has also narrated the same notion from the Prophet, on the authority of Saʿīd b. Manṣūr and Ibn Mardawayh, on the authority of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī. ↩︎

49. See volume 6 (1st ed.), pp. 212ff of the English translation, under verse . The author has also quoted one hadith and presented some discussion under verse . (Trans.) ↩︎