Detailed Exegesis

Idh (“When”): Before delving into the meaning of idh, it is important to discuss whether this word is superfluous. Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭabarī states: “A scholar of Basra, known for his expertise in the Arabic language, believed that the meaning of idh qāla rabbuka is no different from qāla rabbuka; in other words, he considered idh to be a superfluous particle that does not add anything to the meaning of the verse, and he cited the poetry of Aswad ibn Yaʿfur as evidence.”

Following this, al-Ṭabarī presents a detailed critique regarding the claim that the word idh is superfluous. He first critiques and examines the evidence provided by the Basran scholar, which is the poetry of Aswad ibn Yaʿfur. He then addresses the verse in question and ultimately concludes that the word idh is original and not superfluous.(1)

Fakhr al-Rāzī also refutes the notion of idh being a superfluous particle, asserting, “The truth is that there are no meaningless words in the Qur’an.”(2)

Al-Qurṭubī also narrates the view of the superfluousness of the word idh from Maʿmar ibn al-Mutaá Abū ʿUbayda, stating: “Al-Zajjāj, al-Naḥḥās, and all exegetes have denied its addition,” and al-Naḥḥās remarked: “This statement (of addition) is an error, because idh is a noun and an adverb of time, and it cannot be superfluous.” Al-Zajjāj also commented: “This is a grievous error from Abū ʿUbayda.”(3)

The point is that the possibility of idh being an addition has been rejected in most Arabic and Persian exegetical writings, as al-Andalusī has also denied it.(4) Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, like al-Ṭabarī,(5) also considers the possibility of idh being superfluous to be incorrect. Additionally, later exegetes, by focusing on explaining the meaning of idh, have dismissed the notion of it being meaningless and did not even consider it worth discussing.

Regarding the referent of idh, there is disagreement among exegetes about what the word idh refers to. Some, such as al-Zamakhsharī in al-Kashshāf and al-Ṭabrisī in Jawāmiʿ al-Jāmiʿ, have considered the possibility that it refers to an implicit verb, udhkur (remember, mention, recall). They also consider the possibility of it referring to qālū (they said), which appears later in the verse. Al-Ālūsī considers the second possibility to be more appropriate and more eloquent. Balāghī (may God have mercy on him) states: If it refers to udhkur, it would imply that the noble Messenger is only commanded to remember the specific phrase innī jāʿilun fī l-arḍi khalīfatan (Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority), and the subsequent phrases would be considered unrelated to it. If they were related, there should have been a fāʾ at the beginning, and it should have been said: fa-qālū... (So they said...), similar to fa-ajāʾahā l-makhāḍu... (Then the pains of childbirth drove her...) which follows after wa-dhkur fī l-kitābi maryama idh__i ntabadhat... (And mention, [O Muḥammad], in the Book [the story of] Mary, when she withdrew...).(6) (19:6, 23)

Therefore, Balāghī considers idh to be referring to an omitted word suggested by the context, such as jarat (occurred), because the context of the speech necessitates that the implied meaning of the verse be as follows: “And when your Lord said to the angels, ‘Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority,’ discussions and events took place in this regard in such a way that the angels said...”

In any case, according to the views of al-Ālūsī and the late Balāghī, idh refers to a verb that comes later in the speech, whether this verb is implied or explicit. The verse should be interpreted as: “And when your Lord said to the angels, ‘Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority,’ they said...”, rather than meaning “Remember when...”.

Fakhr al-Rāzī is among the exegetes who consider the word “remember” (udhkur) to be implicit here, linking it to “when” (idh). Al-Rāzī suggests that this omission is due to two reasons: first, the frequent use of such omissions or ellipses in Arabic literature, and second, its explicit mention in many places in the Noble Qur’an, such as:

“And remember the brother of ʿĀd, when he warned his people in the sand dunes” (46:21),

“And remember Our servant Dāwūd...” (38:17),

“And present to them an example: the people of the city, when the messengers came to it—when We sent to them two” (36:13-14).

He then makes a very subtle and insightful point, stating that “the Qur’an has come like a single word.”(7) Similarly, Kamāl al-Dīn al-Zamalkānī said, “Indeed, the entire Qur’an is like a single word.”(8)

The expression that “the entire Qur’an is like a single word” implies that it is a single statement composed of all its parts.

1. Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭabarī says: Malāʾika is the plural of malāk, and its singular in Arabic speech is used without a hamza. Sometimes its singular is used as mālik with the hamza before the lām, like in jabadha and jadhaba, shāmil and shimāl—from inverted words. However, in the plural form, it is never said mālik, but always malāʾik and malāʾika...(9) The singular of malāʾika in the Qur’an is malak, and the term malāk is mentioned in Ḥadīth, but not in the Qur’an. The mere fact that in the Torah an angel is referred to as malāk is not evidence that it has been borrowed by the Arabic language, because the proximity and similarity of a word in two languages is not evidence of its transfer from one to the other, except where there is reliable evidence for this.(10)

2. Al-Ṭabarī, continuing the aforementioned discussion, said: The root of malāk means “message” and “sending”...; because the angels are the divine messengers between God and the prophets or other special servants. That is why they are called malāʾika.

Shaykh Ṭūsī (r.a.) critiques this argument regarding the naming of angels and says: This statement is correct for those who consider all angels to be divine messengers. However, among our companions, this statement is accepted only partially, not absolutely; because angels are of two types: some are messengers, and some are not. This is evident from God’s words: “God chooses messengers from among the angels” (22:75) just as He says about humans: “And We have certainly chosen them with knowledge over the worlds” (44:32). Just as not all people are messengers, not all angels are messengers either; otherwise, all of them would have been chosen for messengership, not just some of them. Therefore, malak is not a derived name, but rather a proper noun or a generic noun.(11) Amīn al-Islām al-Ṭabrisī has also followed the same line of reasoning.(12)

Perhaps it can be said that what is apparent from the absolute statement “Who makes the angels messengers” (35:1) is the messengership of all angels, and what is inferred from the aforementioned verse of choosing is a special selection for a specific messengership. This is because not all angelic missions involve conveying God’s message to people; some are assigned to carry out other duties concerning beings other than humans.

3. Zamakhsharī considers the attachment of the letter tāʾ in malāʾika to be for the feminine plural.(13) Fakhr Rāzī also follows this line of reasoning.(14) Some believe that the feminization of angels has spread into the Arabic language from the beliefs of Arabic-speaking Christians, who held that angels are the daughters of God. The idol-worshipping Arabs also accepted this incorrect notion, and the noble verse “And they attribute daughters to God, glory be to Him” (16:57) suffices to dispel such a delusion.(15)

Andalusī narrates the possibility that the tāʾ is for hyperbole.(16) However, this possibility is based on the assumption that the letter tāʾ is not an original part of the plural. If, however, the letter tāʾ is an original part of the word malāʾika, which is the irregular plural of malak, then it does not carry a separate meaning such as femininity, emphasis, or exaggeration.

4. The term malāʾika has been mentioned several times in the Noble Qur’an, and it does not appear that Iblīs is included in any of these instances. In the verse under discussion and the verses following it, various topics have been addressed concerning the angels, and while the inclusion of Iblīs in one of them is certain, it is unclear for the other topics. The topics in question are:

a) Informing the angels about the appointment of a vicegerent.

b) Presenting the names to the angels.

c) Ādam (a.s.) informing the angels of the names.

d) Commanding the angels to prostrate before Ādam (a.s.).

The fourth case, i.e., the command to prostrate, includes Iblīs, and his inclusion under the term malāʾika is by way of predominance (taghlīb)—meaning he was among the angels and thus came to be included with them. However, there is no evidence for the inclusion of Iblīs under the term malāʾika in the other three events. Although predominance is possible, the mere possibility does not necessitate occurrence. Accepting that predominance occurred in the fourth event is based on the fact that the Noble Qur’an, on the one hand, considers Iblīs to be commanded to prostrate, and on the other, no separate command was issued regarding the prostration of Iblīs. Additionally, the fact that Iblīs is presented as an exception to the angels’ obedience to the command to prostrate is evidence of the unity of the original command and the inclusion of Iblīs in this single command from God. Of course, if reliable separate evidence is presented, accepting predominance in those other three cases would also be necessary.

5. Sometimes the title of “king” (malak) is applied to Iblīs, who is from the jinn, such as: “God, glory be to Him, would not admit a human into Paradise by a command that expelled a king (malak) from it.”(17) At other times, the title of “jinn” is applied to angels (malak) due to their being hidden (which is the root meaning of jinn), such as: “And they have made a kinship between Him and the angels (jinna)” (37:158), because the polytheists of the Age of Ignorance considered the angels to be the daughters of God, glory be to Him, and believed in a relationship of fatherhood and childhood between the angels and God, not between God and the jinn. Therefore, what is meant by jinna in this verse is the angels. Of course, such applications are dependent on contextual evidence; otherwise, the type of angels is distinct from the type of jinn.

Jāʿil (“making,” “will make”): Regarding jaʿl in “I will make (jāʿil) a successive authority on earth,” there are two opinions:

The first is that it means “to make” or “to appoint.” In this interpretation, the aforementioned jaʿl has two objects (the first object being “vicegerent” and the second object being “on earth”); meaning, “I will place a vicegerent on earth.” This is the opinion preferred by al-Zamakhsharī, and in fact, it is the only possibility that he mentioned for the verse.(18)

The other opinion is that it means “to create”; meaning, “I will create a vicegerent on earth” (in this case, the aforementioned jaʿl has one object, which is “vicegerent”). This opinion was preferred by Abū Ḥayyān al-Andalusī.(19) This interpretation is based on the idea that if the root jaʿl had two objects, the phrase “Will You place (atajʿalu)...” would have been repeated without explicitly mentioning the vicegerent. If it had two objects, the sentence should have been expressed in this way: “Will You place (atajʿalu) in it a vicegerent who will cause corruption in it.”

One might argue that the vicegerent is implied by the context of the previous sentence, but proponents of this view would reply that speech without omission is superior to speech with omission and therefore should be preferred.(20)

It should be noted that the term jaʿl (making) has been used in many instances as a synonym for the term khalq (creation). However, in some cases, it is used to mean creation in a subtle, abstract, or spiritual manner... such as: “When He made prophets among you” (5:20) and “Praise be to God who created the heavens and the earth and made darkness and light” (6:1).

Therefore, in cases where the intention is the creation of the physical human body, it is stated: “Indeed, I will create (khāliq) a human being from clay” (38:71). But in the verse under discussion, where the intention is the spiritual aspect of the human being, He said: “Indeed, I will make (jāʿil) a vicegerent on the earth.”

Another significant aspect to consider when examining the meaning of the word jaʿl is its implication of transformation or change from one state to another. If this interpretation is applied to the concept of God making Ādam a vicegerent, it suggests that Ādam’s elevation to this position may have occurred after his initial creation as a human being from clay. The Qur’an states, “When your Lord said to the angels, ‘Indeed, I am creating a human being from clay’” (38:71). This verse implies that there was a period when Ādam existed solely as a human being, without the designation of being God’s vicegerent, and that he was later appointed to this role.

However, this interpretation is contingent upon the sentence being phrased as, “Indeed, I am making Ādam a vicegerent.” In the actual verse, the sentence reads, “Indeed, I am making a vicegerent on the earth.” This wording suggests that the earth itself was not initially characterized as the dwelling place of God’s vicegerent. Rather, it indicates that the vicegerent was subsequently placed on the earth, thereby distinguishing it as the abode of God’s chosen representative.

Khalīfa (vicegerent): Khalīfa is an active participle that refers to one who succeeds and takes over after someone else, as opposed to the one who is succeeded, although some commentators have suggested this latter meaning.(21)

The difference between the terms khalīfa and imām is that khalīfa looks to the past, while imām looks to the future, whether it is in a temporal or hierarchical form of precedence and succession. If someone occupies the place of another after them, they are called a khalīfa, and if someone guides others and others follow them, they are called an imām. Of course, it is possible for an individual to be both a khalīfa and an imām; their being a khalīfa is in relation to those who preceded them, and their being an imām is in relation to those who come after them. The perfect human being is like this; meaning, they are an imām in relation to the people and a khalīfa in relation to the Being that precedes them in essence, meaning God. However, the deeper meaning of man being the khalīfa of the Absolute God will be explored in the subtleties and allusions.

The tāʾ in khalīfa is for emphasis, not femininity, similar to the tāʾ in the word baṣīra in the verse: “Rather, man is a witness (baṣīra) against himself, even if he presents his excuses” (75:14-15), which is also for emphasis. The meaning of the verse is that man fully knows himself, even if he may fabricate excuses for his misdeeds. The khalīfa in the verse under discussion is like this as well; meaning that perfect being who can realize the divine effects (in the station of action) in the world in all aspects.

Nusabbiḥu (“we glorify”): Glorification (tasbīḥ) means expressing the highest veneration, which is an expression of monotheism (and for this reason, it is not permissible for anyone other than God, just as worship, which is the ultimate form of gratitude, is not permissible for anyone other than God). It is derived from the root sabaḥa meaning “to come and go” and “to strive and endeavor in movement.” The noble verse “Indeed, for you in the day is prolonged endeavor (sabḥan ṭawīlan)” (73:7) also carries this meaning, indicating that during the day, there is prolonged coming and going and continuous effort. Since the servant takes the initiative and hastens to perform worship,(22) the act of glorifying God has been termed tasbīḥ.

Of course, some lexicographers have considered sabḥ to mean a specific movement in the path of truth without any weakness or deviation, not just any kind of movement. In other words, they consider two aspects: one is movement in the path of truth, and the other is being free from weakness and deviation. Therefore, they interpret the angels’ glorification (tasbīḥ) of God and the phrase nusabbiḥu to mean: “We consider Your command to be in accordance with the truth, and we do not see any weakness, crookedness, or deficiency in it.”(23)

Nuqaddisu (“we sanctify”): Sanctification (taqdīs) is also derived from qudus (a vessel used for ablution and purification)(24) and means purification. Regarding the difference between it and tasbīḥ, it has been said: Tasbīḥ is to declare God free from any partner, while taqdīs is to declare Him free from any defect.(25) Mawlā ʿAbd al-Razzāq Kāshānī has said, “Tasbīḥ is absolutely more general, while taqdīs is absolutely more specific, because tasbīḥ means declaring God free from any partner and any weakness or deficiency, while taqdīs specifically means declaring God free from material and natural deficiencies such as needing time, space, and the like. The former relates to God’s oneness and His being free from any defect or flaw, while the latter relates to His transcendence from the needs of the natural and material world.”(26)

It has also been said that tasbīḥ and taqdīs both mean declaring God free from deficiency, with no difference between them in this regard. The only difference is that tasbīḥ is used specifically in relation to declaring God’s essence free from deficiency, and perhaps this is why some have defined tasbīḥ as “declaring God free from evil in a manner of exaltation,”(27) while taqdīs is more general. Hence, one can speak of a sanctified person or a sanctified land, but no man or land is ever called “glorified (musabbaḥa).”(28)

It appears from some statements that the difference between tasbīḥ and taqdīs is that in taqdīs, the existential aspect that results after the negation and removal of faults and deficiencies is taken into consideration. In other words, the attainment of sanctity and purity after the removal of deficiency and fault is considered, while in tasbīḥ such a thing is not considered. Rather, as mentioned earlier, two aspects are intended: moving in the path of truth and distancing from fault and deficiency.

Note: It may be inferred from the contrast the angels draw between the corruption and bloodshed perpetrated by humans and their own glorification and sanctification of God, that corruption and bloodshed represent the ultimate evil, while glorification and sanctification of God are the pinnacle of goodness and the height of perfection and virtue. This can also be deduced from the words of Imām Sajjād (a.s.), who stated that the essential nature of the human being is that of a rational animal who praises God.(29)

It is possible that this verse is a continuation of the argument presented in the previous verse: “It is He who created for you all that is in the earth...” which itself continues the argument of the preceding verse: “How can you disbelieve in God when you were lifeless and He brought you to life...” Thus, the meaning of this set of verses (28 to 30) could be understood as: “How can you disbelieve in God, when you were dead and He gave you life... and created for you all that is in the earth... and made you, as long as you maintain the conditions of worthiness, His vicegerent on earth, bestowing all this honor upon you?”

After God referred to the special blessings granted to the human being in the previous two verses, proclaiming the entire cosmic system to be for the benefit of the human being, and the purpose of the creation of the heavens and earth to be for the benefit of the human being, it can be said that the heavens and earth with all their aspects were created for the human being. Therefore, this leads to the inevitable question: Who is the human being for whom this great collection was created?!

In other words, this verse serves as a justification for the human being as the ultimate purpose of all the bounties and blessings contained within the earth and the arrangement of the heaven into seven heavens, as stated in the previous verses. It indicates that if We created everything in the earth for the human being and adorned the seven heavens for him, it is due to the station of divine vicegerency of the perfect human being.

It may also be said that following the enumeration of the material blessings God bestowed upon man, this verse introduces the blessing of knowledge. It emphasizes that man, by virtue of possessing the special gift of knowledge, became the object of prostration for the angels, and due to such a virtue, all the angels humbled themselves before him. The Glorious God created the entire system of the kingdom and the dominion for the perfect man and created him to attain the position of vicegerency through knowledge.

It is also possible that following the explanation of the corruption of the transgressors and the expression of astonishment at the disbelief of the deniers, this verse firstly makes the deniers understand that they should not refrain from accepting the proofs of the noble Messenger (s.a.w.) or from the pursuit of knowledge in general. This is because if the angels, who are exalted beings, stand in need of knowledge, then humans, for whom the pursuit of knowledge is a natural and innate drive, are even more in need of it. Secondly, it consoles the Prophet not to be hurt by the objections of the deniers and not to be surprised by the corruption of some on earth and their rejection of the truth after gaining awareness. When the angels reacted in such a way due to their unawareness of the reality of the matter, it is to be expected that ignorant and unjust men might also reject it. Corruption and denial are not exclusive to his nation or to the present generation, but are challenges faced by every being possessing thought and free will.

In any case, the verse in question, which can be divided into two main topics—God’s announcement of human vicegerency and the subsequent dialogue between the angels and God regarding this vicegerency—serves as the introduction to a set of ten verses that delineate the position of mankind within the divine cosmic order. This verse highlights the unique capacity of human beings in the realm of understanding the true nature of things. By excelling in this domain, humans can surpass even the angels and become the embodiment of the attributes of majesty, beauty, and all the magnificent names of the Divine. As a result, humanity’s ability to harness and utilize all that exists in the heavens and on earth becomes evident, as stated in the Qur’an: “And He has subjected to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth” (45:13).

Furthermore, this verse elucidates the relationship between angels and humans. By presenting the angels’ inquiries, God’s response, and the command for the angels to prostrate before Ādam, it demonstrates their lack of capacity for the unique divine vicegerency bestowed upon mankind. The verse also reveals the position of Iblīs (Satan) and his enmity toward Ādam and his descendants, as well as his general arrogance against God. Lastly, the verse addresses the vulnerability of human beings due to the whispers of Iblīs, which can lead to their fall and descent from the elevated status they once held. However, it simultaneously emphasizes the possibility of repentance, rectifying the damage caused by this fall, and regaining the previous position of closeness to the Divine.

Regarding whether “the angels” refers to all the angels or only a group of them, there are two opinions: Shaykh Ṭūsī (r.a.) narrates from Ibn ʿAbbās that the angels whom God addressed and who asked questions from Him were only those angels who had settled on Earth after the jinn.(30)

This possibility is supported firstly by the narration in the exegesis of Imām Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī (a.s.), which Fayḍ Kāshānī (r.a.) has cited.(31) Secondly, it is supported by another expression from the same exegesis: “I am going to place a vicegerent on the earth in your stead and raise you from it, so that was difficult for them because worship would be harder for them upon their return to heaven.”(32) The expression “their return to heaven” indicates that the angels being addressed were previously in heaven and, at the time of the address, were settled on Earth. It was decreed that they would return to heaven again. Such a descent and ascent is unlikely to include all the angels, because some of them are the bearers of the Throne and also the managers of affairs in all the worlds, not just the Earth.

Another possibility is that the intended meaning of angels, due to the generality of the term _al-_malāʾika and the absence of any specifier, is all the angels, as some exegetes such as Kāshānī (may God have mercy on him) have preferred.(33) This possibility is based on the assumption that a plural word prefixed with al- indicates generality. However, some scholars deny that it indicates generality by default; they argue that neither the definite article nor the word it governs, nor the combination of the definite article al- and its governed word, inherently denote generality.(34) They assert that generality must be derived through the premises of wisdom or another contextual evidence,(35) and it is clear that the premises of wisdom in the subject under discussion do not necessitate such a thing. The existence of other evidence for generality needs to be proven.

Rather, it is possible that there is evidence to the contrary; because among the angels, there is a group that is mortal, immersed in God, constantly in a state of glorification, and perpetually prostrating or bowing. These angels do not perceive themselves in the first place, so as to compare themselves with Ādam.

In any case, although the term malāʾika is mentioned in the plural form and with the definite article al-, its indication of generality must be carefully considered. This is because what is derived from the divine declarations, as well as what is inferred from the questioning of the angels and from the presentation of the names to them, is not consistent with what is inferred from the verse about the angels’ prostration. The apparent meaning of the verse about the angels’ prostration, since it is accompanied by the two emphases kulluhum (all of them) and ajmaʿūn (altogether), suggests comprehensiveness and generalization. However, the other instances lack these two emphases.

This point should be taken into consideration in general, so that its details can be presented in its appropriate place.

Note:

1. Fakhr Rāzī has presented an extensive discussion on angelology, covering its types and kinds. He says: “Know that after the speech of God and the speech of the Messenger of God, there is no speech higher and more exalted in describing the angels than the speech of Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿAlī (a.s.).” He then recounts the words of Amīr al-Muʾminīn (a.s.) that have been narrated in the first sermon of Nahj al-Balāgha about the nature of the angels.(36)

2. The discussion about the infallibility of angels has occupied a significant portion of the exegesis of Fakhr Rāzī, as well as his followers and those influenced by him. However, delving into it would cause a departure from the main focus of the verse under discussion, so we will not address it here.

Special Features of the Divine Appointment

The emphasis of “indeed” (inna) in the sentence “Indeed, I will make upon the earth a vicegerent” indicates the seriousness of the decision to appoint a vicegerent.(37) The nominal nature of this sentence and the attribute-like nature of “making” (jāʿil) is evidence of the continuity of the existence of the vicegerent of God. This contrasts with cases where the verb comes in the past tense, such as: “O Dāwūd, indeed We have made you a vicegerent upon the earth...,” (38:26) in which the vicegerency of Dāwūd (a.s.) is a personal appointment, not a general one. Specifying a particular person (Dāwūd) also removes and invalidates any notion of general vicegerency, unless the mention of the specific person (Dāwūd) is by way of example rather than designation.

It has been suggested that the use of a nominal sentence, particularly with the emphatic particle “indeed” (inna), serves to decisively convey the matter of vicegerency to the angels. This clear and eloquent communication is employed to prevent the angels from falling into disobedience, transgression, or objection, ensuring that nothing inappropriate to their servitude in relation to divine lordship arises from them.

And indeed, this approach proved effective, as the angels took advantage of the opportunity presented to them for intimate conversation and discourse with the Lord of existence, the Knower of all good and evil, and the Creator of all things. Instead of objecting or protesting, they engaged in a respectful dialogue by asking questions.

By employing an interrogative form and alluding to what is detested by the holy essence of God Almighty (corruption and bloodshed) and what He loves (glorification, praise, and sanctification), the angels demonstrated their utmost sincerity and love toward their Lord. This approach allowed them to express their concerns while maintaining their reverence and devotion to the divine will.

The use of the first-person singular pronoun “I” (anā) instead of the first-person plural “We” (naḥnu): This is also why in some cases, God Almighty uses the verb in the plural form when intermediaries are involved, such as: “Indeed, We sent it down during the Night of Decree” (97:1), “And We send the fertilizing winds” (15:22), “Indeed, We have made the devils...” (7:27) and “And indeed, We have sent the devils...” (19:83), as well as in the case of the vicegerency of Prophet Dāwūd (a.s.): “Indeed, We have made you a vicegerent...” (38:26).

In such cases, God uses the verb in the plural form considering the presence of intermediaries (in addition to the aspect of magnification and glorification that is observed in some instances). However, in the matter of the vicegerency of the perfect human being, where no intermediary from the angels is involved (especially if all the angels are addressed in this speech), there is no justification for using the first-person pronoun in the plural form.(38) But such a point does not exist in this context either, because the subject under discussion involves expressing monotheistic issues from the One in whom no multiplicity or plurality can be conceived, as in: “Indeed, I am God” or “There is no god but Me” (20:14).

It is worth mentioning that the absence of angelic intermediaries is related to the reality and essence of the vicegerent of God, which is foundational in the issue of vicegerency. This stage of the vicegerent’s existence is the teacher of the angels and beyond their comprehension. Therefore, they cannot be intermediaries of divine grace in that regard. However, there is no doubt that the angels have intermediary roles in the lower stages of the vicegerent of God, meaning his body and physical form.

Note: If some of the important and perplexed angels, due to being immersed in witnessing the divine and remaining in a perpetual state of annihilation without sobriety, are not included in the address and conversation, they also have no role in appointing the divine vicegerent. This is because an angel consigned to pure effacement, just as it is not present in the dialogue of declaration, in the command to prostrate, and in learning the names from Ādam, will also not be a mediator in appointing the vicegerent.

In other words, those angels who are so deeply absorbed in their spiritual state that they are unable to engage in dialogue or receive commands are also excluded from the process of selecting and appointing God’s vicegerent.

Note: In the discussion of the subtleties and allusions of this verse, it will be explained in detail that what is meant by “on the earth” is not that the perfect human being is God’s vicegerent specifically on earth, but rather that he is the vicegerent of God in all the worlds, both unseen and visible. The expression “on the earth” indicates that the origin of the human being in the arc of ascent is earthly matter, and that the place of his elemental body is the earth, and his movement begins from matter and earth.

In other words, the qualifier “on the earth” is a qualifier of the appointment, not the appointee. That is, the vicegerency, which is the appointee, is absolute, while its appointment is restricted. Hence, the phrase “on the earth” has been placed before “vicegerent,” unlike in the case of the vicegerency of Dāwūd (a.s.), where it says: “O Dāwūd, indeed We have made you a successor (khalīfa) on the earth.” In this case, the qualifier “on the earth” is related to the vicegerent, and the prepositional phrase defines the context of the vicegerency. Therefore, according to this verse, Dāwūd is a vicegerent on earth, not in the entire world.

Who is the Vicegerent and What is Vicegerency?

In determining the instance of the vicegerent, several possibilities have been raised, which will be examined:

1. It is specific to the real person of Ādam (a.s.), as stated by al-Zamakhsharī(39) and al-Ṭabrisī,(40) may God have mercy on him.

2. Generalizing it to all perfect human beings.

3. Generalizing it to all pious and God-fearing believers.

4. Generalizing it to all human beings, whether believers or disbelievers, as it appears from the statements of al-Kāshif(41) and al-Manār(42) that all human beings have actually been honored with this crown of dignity—even if they are ungrateful for the blessing of vicegerency, like many other blessings and virtues that God has bestowed upon them, and become unjust and ignorant.

5. Generalizing it to all human beings, whether believers or disbelievers, but not in the way mentioned in the fourth possibility (actual appointment of vicegerency for all human beings). Rather, in this aspect, which we prefer, what has been appointed is the comprehensive reality of vicegerency for the reality of the human being. And since divine vicegerency is subject to gradation and has various levels, and human perfections have different degrees, each level of vicegerency has been appointed for a specific level of human existence.

To explain, the origin of human vicegerency lies in the instilling of knowledge of the Names in his nature, and undoubtedly, knowledge of the Beautiful Names of God is a reality with levels. To the extent that a human being is guided to the straight path of belief, ethics, and action, the Divine Names are actualized in his existence, and consequently, divine vicegerency also manifests.

Therefore, those who are at the level of human potential only possess the capacity for vicegerency (although the degrees of proximity and distance of power also vary). For those who are weak or mediocre in human and divine perfections, since their knowledge of the Divine Names is weak or mediocre, the manifestation of divine vicegerency in them is also weak or mediocre. The perfect human beings who benefit from the highest level of knowledge of the Divine Names also enjoy the highest level of divine vicegerency.

Examining the Five Possibilities

1. The first possibility, that the divine vicegerency mentioned in this verse is specific to the real person of Ādam, is not acceptable. This is because the intended meaning of khalīfa is not the actual person of Ādam (a.s.), but rather the legal personality of Ādam and the status of humanity. In other words, the essence of humanity and the lofty status of humanity manifested in the form of Ādam in the story of the vicegerency, and Ādam became the model of humanity. Just as that before which the angels prostrated was not the person of Ādam, but rather Ādam was placed as the qibla, like the Kaʿba, and his personality and humanity, which is the personality and humanity of all humans, was made the object of prostration. The details of this will be discussed in the following verses.

There are evidences that indicate this claim (that the actual person of Ādam is not intended here):

a) The report of the decision to appoint a vicegerent is presented in the form of a nominal sentence: “I will make upon the earth a vicegerent” (innī jāʿilun fi l-arḍi khalīfatan), which indicates continuity.

b) Time on the earth and the power to subdue it, to discover its benefits and possibilities, and to utilize its blessings and effects have been granted to the human species, not to a specific human being. This shows that God’s vicegerent on earth, meaning the successive authority who can act as a special divine sign and manifestation authorized by Him and actualize the potential possibilities of the earth, is the human species as a whole, not a specific human being.

c) Knowledge of the names is not exclusive to Ādam (a.s.), but has been deposited in him and all his descendants in potentiality, such that if any human being can actualize it by traversing the path of truth, manifest its effects, and attain a share of the knowledge of the divine names, he will benefit from the divine vicegerency to that extent.

d) The emergence of the angels’ interrogative question: “Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise...?” The apparent meaning of this phrase, especially in light of the contrast between “one who causes corruption...” and “we declare Your praise...”, is the corruption of one type versus the righteousness of another type of beings, namely the angels, not the corruption of an individual from a type. The necessary implication is that the appointed vicegerency is also for that same type, albeit partially, not entirely.

e) The verse: “And We have certainly created you, [O Mankind], and given you [human] form. Then We said to the angels, ‘Prostrate to Ādam’”... (7:11).

Because it shows that Ādam was prostrated to by the angels not as an individual, but as the exemplar of the human species and the essence of humanity; for the address in this verse is directed at the human species.(43) From the fact that Ādam was prostrated to by the angels due to the station of vicegerency, it follows that the station of vicegerency is not exclusive to Ādam.

For this reason, Satan’s enmity is also not exclusive to Ādam. While it is expressed in Sūrah Ṭāhā: “Indeed, this is an enemy to you and to your wife” (20:117), it is stated in Sūrah al-Aʿrāf: “O children of Ādam, let not Satan tempt you” (7:27).

ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī (may his soul be sanctified) has mentioned another evidence, which is the verses that speak of vicegerency and attribute it to all humans, such as: “When He made you successors after the people of Noah” (7:69), “Then We made you successors in the land” (10:14) and “And He makes you successors of the earth” (27:62).(44) However, considering the context of these verses, it appears that what is meant in these verses is the succession of present nations from previous nations, not the vicegerency of the human species over God, or over the jinn, or other types besides humans.

Of course, this meaning may be derived from the address to the Prophet Dāwūd: “O Dāwūd, indeed We have made you a vicegerent (khalīfa) upon the earth” (38:26) with the illusion that what is meant by vicegerency in this verse is similar to the vicegerency of Ādam, and its implication is that vicegerency is not exclusive to Ādam (a.s.). However, the response is that, firstly, the vicegerency of Dāwūd (a.s.) was realized through an independent appointment, while the testimony of this verse for the verse under discussion is based on the idea that the vicegerency of Dāwūd (a.s.) originated from that first appointment, meaning “Indeed, I will make upon the earth a vicegerent.”

Secondly, it is not established that what is meant by the vicegerency of Dāwūd is something similar to the vicegerency of Ādam (a.s.), because it is possible that his vicegerency is the same as the vicegerency mentioned in the three aforementioned verses. That is, what is meant is Dāwūd’s vicegerency over past rulers and leaders, and khalīfa in the sense of ruler and leader, the scope of which is naturally limited to the earth, not the entire world. Apparently, it is for this reason that in the verse related to Dāwūd’s vicegerency, the context of “upon the earth” is stated as a condition of vicegerency, and it is expressed as “a vicegerent upon the earth,” unlike the verse under discussion where the context of “upon the earth” is a condition of appointment and precedes the vicegerent in the form of “Indeed, I will make upon the earth a vicegerent.”

If what is meant is also the vicegerency of Dāwūd (a.s.) from God, then it specifically refers to the vicegerency of God’s legislative authority, not the complete and absolute vicegerency that is intended in the verse under discussion. That is, Dāwūd (a.s.) is God’s vicegerent in judgment and arbitration, which is still a vicegerency in the realm of the earth. Of course, as mentioned before and will be discussed later, vicegerency from God has levels and degrees.

Note:

i) It is necessary to consider that since the verse in question indicates continuity, if the vicegerency of one of the perfect human beings is mentioned in a separate sentence, it can be a sign of the continuation of that same ongoing vicegerency and the perpetual appointment of humankind by God.

ii) Mentioning some aspects of the complete vicegerency concerning Prophet Dāwūd (a.s.) does not suggest that he has been deprived of other aspects of the divine vicegerency. This is because that noble one, like other perfect human beings, was the vicegerent of God to the extent of his share of knowledge of the Divine Names, and affirming some aspects of the vicegerency does not necessitate the negation of other aspects.

2. The second possibility—that the divine vicegerency applies to all perfect human beings—is supported by some of the narrations mentioned under the verse in question. For example, there is a narration that says: After Ādam informed the angels about the names of God’s proofs, they knew that the named ones were more deserving than the angels to be in the position of vicegerency: “They knew that they were more deserving to be the caliphs of God on His earth and His proofs among His creation...”(45) A similar narration is from the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.): “I want to create a creation with My hand. I will make their offspring prophets, messengers, righteous servants, and guided Imāms; I will make them My caliphs over My creation on My earth...”(46)

This narration, along with another narration mentioned under the same verse in which Ādam is also referred to as the first vicegerent of God: “So Ādam was the first vicegerent of God,”(47) concludes that the appointed one in the verse of vicegerency is Ādam and every other perfect human being.

Note: Based on this possibility, although divine vicegerency is predicated on gradation, the minimum threshold for becoming God’s vicegerent is being a perfect human being. Whoever has reached this threshold is God’s vicegerent, and this station is not exclusive to the most perfect of human beings, namely the Seal of the Prophets (s.a.w.). In other words, the differences that exist among perfect human beings do not affect the essence of divine vicegerency. Rather, these differences only entail other effects. For example, it is mentioned about the Messenger of God (s.a.w.): “On the Day of Resurrection, We will bring forth a witness from every nation to encompass all the deeds and beliefs of that nation under their testimony and bear witness to them. And We will make you a witness over all nations and prophets: ‘So how [will it be] when We bring from every nation a witness and We bring you, [O Muḥammad], as a witness over these [witnesses]?’” (4:41). Therefore, the Prophet himself said: “Ādam and those below him will be under my banner on the Day of Resurrection.” This station is exclusive to the most perfect human being, meaning the First Emanation and the First Manifestation.

The answer to the second possibility is that such narrations do not imply exclusivity and do not negate vicegerency for believing and God-fearing human beings, even if they are at an average or weak level, nor do they negate the potential level of it for non-believing human beings.

3. The third possibility—that the divine vicegerency mentioned in the verse extends to all pious and God-fearing believers—necessitates a congruence between the vicegerent and the one who is represented. If the one represented is God Almighty (as will be explained), then rebellious, atheistic, disbelieving, and immoral humans have no congruence in perfect attributes with God. Given that the congruence between the vicegerent and the one represented has degrees, and as a result, the reality of vicegerency also has various levels, this existence becomes determined. That is, all humans who possess righteousness and piety are vicegerents of God, and ultimately, the most perfect vicegerent is the one who manifests as the first emanation or the first manifestation. Other humans will have intermediate or lower stages of divine vicegerency.

The response to the third possibility is that the necessary implication of the aforementioned explanation is only to prove the actual vicegerency for all believing humans, and it does not necessitate the negation of vicegerency, even if only at a potential level, for other humans.

4. The fourth possibility—that the divine vicegerency extends to all human beings, whether believers or disbelievers—is the preferred view of al-Kāshif and al-Manār. This view can first be derived from some narrations, such as what has been reported from Gabriel regarding the story of the prayer over Ādam (a.s.): “We do not precede humans in prayer since we were commanded to prostrate to Ādam.”(48) In another expression, it is stated: “It is not for us to lead any of his children in prayer.”(49) Also, in Sūrah al-Aʿrāf, as mentioned earlier, addressing all humans, it states: “And We have certainly created you, [O Mankind], and given you [human] form. Then We said to the angels, ‘Prostrate to Ādam’” (7:11), which indicates that Ādam, as the exemplar of the human species, was the object of the angels’ prostration.

Secondly, in justifying this, it can be said: The obstinacy, disbelief, and sinfulness of an obstinate, disbelieving, and sinful human being does not necessarily imply a lack of affinity between the human species and God. Even a disbelieving, obstinate, or sinful human being possesses knowledge, intellect, and potential or actual capabilities that are not observed in any other creature, even the angels. That is, even in such a human being, the greater world is contained: “And in you the greater world is contained”(50); his creativity and vicegerency are manifestations of God’s creativity, and his freedom, choice, and authority are manifestations of God’s absolute choice and authority.

The only difference between a believer and a disbeliever is that the believer does not misuse such a position and power, but rather employs it in the path of goodness, righteousness, and the intentions and desires of the One who appointed him as vicegerent.

However, the disbeliever is ungrateful and has shown ignorance and injustice in the face of this great trust placed upon his shoulders—a trust that other creatures, even the angels, do not have the capacity to bear. Although it will become clear in the future that applying the verse about the presentation of the trust to vicegerency is not straightforward, the disbeliever has misused this trust on the path of corruption and bloodshed. This is similar to many successors who abuse the opportunities and positions they have obtained; they do not show gratitude for their position but rather exploit it to satisfy their carnal desires. It is evident that ingratitude for a blessing does not equate to or necessarily imply the absence of that blessing.

Supporting this point, after God announced the appointment of a vicegerent, the two attributes the angels mentioned in response to God as the reasons for man’s unsuitability for vicegerency pertain to the human species, just as the two attributes they considered as their own worthiness pertain to the angelic species. This indicates that what they understood from “I am placing a vicegerent on the earth” was the vicegerency of the human species. Therefore, it is as if they said in their question: “This species, due to possessing a specific existential composition that leads to corruption and bloodshed, is not worthy of being Your vicegerent. Rather, Your vicegerent should be the angelic species, which not only abstains from corruption and bloodshed but also constantly glorifies and sanctifies You.”

In response to them, God did not deny their understanding, nor did He say to them, “You have misunderstood, and My appointed vicegerent is not a corrupter and bloodshedder from the human species; only some humans are like that.” Instead, the Glorious God first said, “I know about this vicegerent what you do not know,” and then He brought up His knowledge of all the names (asmāʾ). It is as if He wanted to convey that the criterion for human vicegerency is his comprehensiveness and his being a manifestation, albeit potentially, of all the names. Thus, the comprehensiveness of man has caused his vicegerency, and what serves as the criterion for vicegerency is possessing these very potentialities. The degrees of their actualization vary according to the number of humans and their conditions and attributes.

Every human being, due to their potential being actualized to a certain extent, attains a specific degree of vicegerency and becomes God’s representative on earth—a representative who, as a sign and manifestation of God, can create and innovate, intervene in the beings of the world, and actualize the potential capabilities and possibilities of the earth and beyond.

The point is that this position is a trust placed upon the shoulders of every human being. However, some of them, instead of benefiting from this trust in the way intended by the Owner of the trust, practiced oppression and ignorance, became oppressive and ignorant, employed it in the path of Satan’s desires, and seated the enemy at the table of the friend.

In contrast, another group fulfilled the right of this position, and some of them (the perfect human beings) observed all aspects of vicegerency and put into practice all the duties that the One who appointed them had specified for them.

It is also possible that the origin of the notion of restricting the position of vicegerency to perfect human beings is the conflation of the system of creation (takwīn) and the system of legislation (tashrīʿ); because in the system of legislation, many conditions are raised regarding vicegerency, some of which are the necessity of the trustworthiness, faithfulness, and purity of the vicegerent. However, what is raised in the system of creation regarding vicegerency is the power of innovation and the capacity to manifest the Most Beautiful Names (asmāʾ al-ḥusnā), nothing more. Of course, corruption, bloodshed, destruction, and the ruin of crops and progeny are contrary to the position of vicegerency, but this means human ingratitude and ungratefulness for the great position that has been ordained for them, not that this position has not been ordained for the human species.

The author of al-Manār says: Just as God’s way (sunna) in the realm of legislation and within the scope of individual human beings has been to announce His legislative rulings through a chosen individual from among mankind and to implement them among them – and he is in fact God’s vicegerent (khalīfa) and successor among mankind – His way in the creative (takwīnī) rulings and in the vast expanse of the entire universe has also been to manifest the laws and creative ways of the universe through one of His created kinds, and that kind is the human being. Therefore, He chose the human species and granted it distinctions and honors, the essence of which is his comprehensiveness in relation to other creatures; for other creatures, even the angels, have a limited existence and are only manifestations of a specific name among the divine names. Perhaps what has been mentioned in narrations – that a group of angels are only in the state of bowing (rukūʿ) and another group only in prostration (sujūd) on the Day of Resurrection – is an allusion to this limitedness of their manifestation.

It is the human being who, despite being created weak – “and mankind was created weak” (4:28) – and ignorant – “And God brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers while you knew nothing” (16:78) – is truly a source of lesson for everyone who takes admonition and a wonder for everyone who is astonished. For he, with all his initial weakness, after the blossoming of his potential at the hands of the prophets, exercises authority in great and important matters, and with all his initial ignorance, becomes knowledgeable of all the names (asmāʾ).

Every animal is aware of its own benefit and harm through inspiration or instinct, and its faculties are perfected and activated in a short time. However, humans, despite having nothing but crying to fulfill their needs at birth, and their senses and consciousness developing slowly, are given the power of reason upon reaching maturity and perfection. With this, they dominate the universe and manipulate it as commanded by this faculty, bringing it under their control. To the extent that everything other animals achieve through instinct (such as factors that protect them from cold and heat, organs with which they obtain food, defend themselves, and overcome their enemies, etc.), humans attain through the power of reason, the essence and reality of which remains unknown to them. They progress so far as to manifest these amazing inventions of the present age and will offer countless other inventions in the future.

In any case, with this faculty, humans have been endowed with unlimited potential, equipped with boundless desires, inclinations, and limitless knowledge and action. As a result, the human species as a whole, despite the weakness that exists in each individual, has been able, by God’s permission, to have unlimited influence on the universe.

It is noteworthy that, in addition to the natural and innate capacities that God has placed at the disposal of human beings to manifest the secrets of creation and harness the universe, He has also established laws and regulations for their actions, morals, and rights, in order to keep them away from oppression and corruption and lead them to perfection and growth, and in fact, to nurture that mysterious faculty (ʿaql) and bring it closer to divine proximity: “...and they stir up for them the hidden treasures of the intellects.”(51)

It is due to all this honor and virtue that the human being has become God’s vicegerent on earth and the most deserving creature for the position of divine vicegerency. The effects and blessings of this vicegerency have been revealed thus far, demonstrating the human’s wondrous works in mines, plants, seas, deserts, and air. Their creativity, innovation, invention, discovery, and endeavor have advanced to such an extent that they have been able to change the very shape of the earth: to soften the hard earth, to make the barren land green, and the ruined prosperous; to turn its dry lands into seas and gulfs, to create new pairs of plants through grafting and transplantation, and to make changes in various types of animals according to their will. They have trained, fed, and produced them according to their desire in such a way that they bring about changes in their creation, character, and type: making the small large and the large small, the domesticated wild and the wild domesticated, and benefiting from each type in a specific way, bringing them into the service of human society.

Does the wisdom of God, the Creator and Guide of every being—“He gave everything its creation, then guided it” (20:50)—not necessitate that He appoint such a human being, endowed with all these gifts, as His vicegerent to establish divine ways in the world of creation, to manifest the wonders of His handiwork, the secrets of creation, the marvels of His wisdom, and the benefits of His rulings? Is there a clearer sign of the perfection of God and the vastness of His knowledge than a human being whom He has created in the best of forms (aḥsan taqwīm)? (95:4). Is it surprising for such a human being to become a vicegerent in this sense? And does expressing astonishment at the vicegerency of such a human being, or raising questions about it, have any source other than ignorance of the nature of the human being and the purpose of his vicegerency?(52)

The response to the fourth possibility is that the justification provided, while helpful in supporting the non-exclusivity of vicegerency to the person of Ādam (a.s.) and perfect human beings—and instead extending it to all believing human beings—is insufficient to establish actual vicegerency for all human beings, including disbelievers, the immoral, and the obstinate. It can only demonstrate the potential and capacity for vicegerency in non-believing human beings. The reason for the inadequacy of this justification will be examined in the discussion of the fifth possibility.

5. The fifth possibility—explaining the inadequacy of the fourth possibility and establishing the fifth possibility—that divine vicegerency includes all human beings, though not in the way mentioned in the fourth—requires clarifying a few points about the meaning of vicegerency, its characteristics, and the attributes of the divine vicegerent. These points will serve as a criterion to address any ambiguity in this discussion, making it firm, solid, and clear:

a) Vicegerency is something that, in its occurrence and continuance, reflects divine deputyship. It never deviates from this direction, nor does it turn away from it. The vicegerent is someone who, at the beginning and end of his position, mirrors the one who appointed him, never deviating from that direction or turning away from that kaʿba.

If something, in its occurrence or continuance, does not reflect divine deputyship, it represents independence, not vicegerency; originality, not deputyship; and authority, not agency. Similarly, if someone, at the beginning or end of his position, ceases to be a mirror of the one who appointed him—whether due to the dust of the soul becoming polluted, losing its reflective quality, showing nothing at all, or deviating toward himself or another and turning away from the original divine direction—then such a person will never be a vicegerent. Instead, he will be deposed. Such a person is a usurper, not appointed; expelled, not accredited; and subject to wrath and detestation, rather than being a deputy beloved by God.

This matter can be inferred from the noble verse: “O Dāwūd, indeed We have made you a vicegerent upon the earth, so judge between the people in truth and do not follow [your own] desire, as it will lead you astray from the way of God. Indeed, those who go astray from the way of God will have a severe punishment for having forgotten the Day of Account” (38:26).

It is deduced from this verse that the sign of divine vicegerency is being based on truth, and that a human being who follows desire is astray from the way of God. As long as a human being remains on the path of God, he has a share in His vicegerency; however, as soon as he falls from the way of God into misguidance, he will be deposed and punished.

b) Being a divine deputy (khilāfa) differs from being a manifestation (maẓhariyya) or a sign (āyatiyya), just as the title khalīfa differs from the title maẓhar and āya. Their distinction lies in the form of generality and specificity. That is, every khilāfa is accompanied by manifestation, but not every manifestation is accompanied by divine deputyship in the context being discussed. Just as every divine deputy is a manifestation and sign of God, not every manifestation and sign is a deputy in the sense under discussion.

For example, the perfection and beauty of the angels are manifestations and signs of divine perfection and beauty, and the angels themselves are also manifestations and signs of God, the Glorified, but they are not instances of the conventional khalīfa of God. Similarly, Iblīs is a manifestation of punitive misguidance. Just as every natural being, whether inanimate, plant, animal, or a corrupt, bloodthirsty, and mischievous human, is also a manifestation and sign of one of the divine names, none of them is the deputy of God. Their attributes and actions do not possess the character of the divine deputyship of divine actions.

Of course, if a broad meaning is proposed for the concept of vicegerency and the title of khalīfa, extending beyond the scope of the verse under discussion, then its inclusion of a non-believing human within its domain is not problematic.

c) If it is possible to distinguish between the meaning of deputyship (khilāfa) and the title of deputy (khalīfa), one can propose the following: Those who live atheistically and have no share of intrinsic goodness, yet occasionally perform good deeds—such as an altruistic disbeliever, a self-sacrificing polytheist, an innovative and inventive atheist, or a skilled evildoer whose work benefits human society—though they themselves are not deputies of God, their actions may present the divine deputyship of God’s actions (khilāfat fi’l-i khudā). The idea that religion can be supported by an immoral person is an example of this possibility: “Indeed, God supports this religion through people who have no morals.”(53)

This means that sometimes God assists His religion through groups that lack creativity, spiritual, and otherworldly benefit. This good action entails the vicegerency of God’s action, even though the agent himself, i.e., the person deprived of divine grace, is not God’s vicegerent.

And since it is not a characteristic of confirming religion, the work of anyone that has been shaped in the direction of benefiting human society and has brought about general benevolence can be an expression of the vicegerency of divine work, even though that person himself has no share in the vicegerency of God; because the disbeliever is deposed (khalīʿ), not a vicegerent (khalīf), and is deviant (janīf), not upright (ḥanīf), and is subject to wrath (maghḍūb), not divinely appointed (manṣūb), and is a traitor (khāʾin), not trustworthy (amīn). It is clear that a traitor can never be the deputy of the absolutely trustworthy.

d) The central pillar of both vicegerency and the status of the vicegerent is none other than the knowledge of the divine names; that is, being the manifestation of all the beautiful names of God, glory be to Him, while taking into account their specific order and arrangement, and preserving the leadership and followership of the names of God.

Beings that are manifestations of only some of the divine names, and not all of them, such as the angels, who are only signs of God’s transcendent names, and animals, who are only manifestations of God’s immanent names, are not God’s vicegerents. The trustworthy, detached human being, who is the manifestation of all the divine names, both transcendent and immanent, has a share in vicegerency and is God’s vicegerent.

Certainly, vicegerency possesses a gradational (tashkīkī) reality, because knowledge of the Divine Beautiful Names is also a gradational reality. For example, in the perfect human being, the Beautiful Names are found in their perfect form, while in the average or weak human being, all of them are present in an average or weak manner. If a person is unable or unwilling to actualize the Divine Names, even to an average or weak degree, their vicegerency remains in a state of potentiality, not actuality, and they themselves are a potential vicegerent, not an actual vicegerent, although the degrees of nearness and distance in potentiality also vary.

In other words, Divine vicegerency is a kind of existential perfection and is subject to gradation, with its higher stages found in perfect human beings such as Ādam (a.s.) and other prophets and saints, while its lower stages manifest in refined and committed religious individuals.

Although the Noble Qur’an has not explicitly used the title of Divine vicegerency for committed believers, it has employed what is meant by this title, which is, by way of common usage, an instance of deputyship, vicegerency, manifestation, and the like, regarding the men of God who act according to their religious duty. For example, it attributes the struggle and fighting of the religious warriors, which is their direct action, to God: “You did not kill them, but it was God who killed them” (8:17), “Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, and He will disgrace them and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of a believing people and remove the rage from their hearts” (9:14-15). In these verses, numerous actions that have been manifested by the hands of the pious and steadfast mujāhidīn are attributed to God; that is, the direct action of the believing human being has become the causative action of God, and this is the very same divine deputyship that we have been discussing. The point is that, although the perfect degree of the Divine vicegerency is found in the perfect human being, the expanse of the vicegerency extends to the breadth of refined humanity, and its details will be discussed in the course of the discussion.

e) A diagram of the order of the Most Beautiful Names and their special arrangement is that the vicegerent of God possesses the attribute of mercy and the attribute of wrath, but his wrath always manifests under the leadership of his mercy, and his mercy always guides his wrath. This is because the One who is represented, meaning God, is such that His mercy is greater than His wrath and manifests before it. In other words, His mercy engineers the design of His wrath, and His wrath manifests under the leadership of His mercy. So if a being becomes wrathful and his wrath is not under the leadership and guidance of his mercy, such a being is not the conventional vicegerent of God. And one whose anger is not in service of his kindness, whose severity is not overcome by his affection, and whose sting is not preceded by his sweetness, is not the vicegerent of a God whose mercy leads His wrath and strives, and whose love takes precedence over His wrath.

From what has passed, the perfection and agreement of the chosen view (fifth) has become clear, and in the end, in addition to answering the question of who is the vicegerent, the question of what is vicegerency has also found its answer, and there is no need for repetition.

Who is the one being succeeded (mustakhlaf ʿanhu) by the divine vicegerent?

There is no doubt that a khalīfa (vicegerent) in the sense of one who succeeds another, means someone who acts as a successor to someone other than himself. So every khalīfa bears the responsibility of succeeding the mustakhlaf ʿanhu. There are multiple views regarding who the mustakhlaf ʿanhu is in the succession (khilāfa) under discussion, some of which will be mentioned (although it has been briefly established from the previous discussions that the mustakhlaf ʿanhu is God).

1. They are the angels who were on earth and went to war against the jinn who were living on earth under the leadership of Iblīs and had engaged in corruption and bloodshed.

This group of angels was commanded by God to destroy the evil group of jinn, and after them, they ruled over the earth, while Iblīs had also concealed himself among them. After God informed them of His will to appoint a khalīfa, it weighed heavily upon them, because God told them: “I want to place a khalīfa on earth in your place and take you to heaven,” and they knew that worship in heaven is more difficult than worship on earth.

This explanation is derived from combining the narration of the exegesis (tafsīr) attributed to Imām Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī (a.s.) and the narration of al-Qummī from Imām al-Ṣādiq (a.s.).(54) It necessarily implies that the addressee in “And when your Lord said to the angels...” are the angels who took over the succession (khilāfa) and rule of the earth after the destruction of the jinn, not all the angels, as mentioned in the discussion on what is meant by angels, and it was said that Shaykh al-Ṭūsī in al-Tibyān attributes it to Ibn ʿAbbās.

However, these two narrations contradict the apparent meaning of another narration from Imām al-Bāqir (a.s.) by al-Qummī, because the apparent meaning of that narration is that at the time of appointing the vicegerent, the creatures living on earth were jinn and nasnās (not angels).(55) Especially considering that in the verse, the position of the vicegerent is on earth, and being an angel is incompatible with being earthly (which necessarily involves desires, anger, conflict, and competition); because according to verses such as “Rather, [they are] honored servants. They do not precede Him in word, and they act by His command” (21:26-27), all angels are infallible, and it is impossible for an earthly community to live on earth, which is a realm of conflict and movement, while at the same time, all its members are infallible and protected from error and disobedience. Rather, the verse “Say, ‘If there were upon the earth angels walking securely, We would have sent down to them from the heaven an angel [as a] messenger’” (17:95) indicates that even a group of angels do not live on earth, because if that were the case, God would have sent them a prophet from among the angels in the past or present.

Moreover, if those from whom vicegerency is taken are angels and humans are their vicegerents and representatives, then there would be no room for “while we declare Your praise” and [the argument] that we are more deserving of this position because, in that case, they would be the original, and humans would be the branch. Such an expression in the Noble Qur’an indicates the granting of a position superior to that of the angels to humans; a position for which the angels do not have the capacity and worthiness, and it is only humans who possess such a capacity.

2. They are corrupt and bloodthirsty jinn who became extinct. This possibility is narrated by Shaykh al-Ṭūsī (may God have mercy on him) from Ibn ʿAbbās.(56)

3. All beings are [taught the names]; because the human being is a comprehensive copy of the world, and a sample of all types of creatures and classes of beings has been entrusted to him, as it has been narrated from Imām Ali (a.s.): “Do you think yourself a small body, while the macrocosm is contained within you?”(57)

Based on this possibility, the human being is the representative of all beings in the world.

4. The previous humans are referred to as nasnās, who are mentioned in the narration of Qummi from Imām Bāqir (a.s.).(58) The narration of Imām Baqir (a.s.) also indicates that a thousand thousand worlds and Ādams other than the current world and Ādam were created: “Perhaps you think that God has only created this one world? Or do you think that God has not created any humans other than you? Yes, by God, He has created a thousand thousand worlds and a thousand thousand Ādams. You are in the last of those worlds and those humans.”(59)

In confirmation of this view, it has been said that it is possible that the bodies discovered from under the ground, which archaeologists attribute their history to thousands of years ago, are from these same previous generations of humans; because certainly, the history of the current generation is much less than this amount.

5. It is God, the Glorified; because the context of the verse under discussion and the next verse is that God is in the position of granting dignity and perfection to the human being—a dignity that requires a suitable basis such as knowledge of the names, and the honored angels are deprived of the aforementioned basis.

Such perfection and dignity can be conceived if, firstly, the human being is the vicegerent of God, and secondly, the realm of vicegerency and the domain of his authority is all the heavens and the earth, not just the earth, and the earth is only his dwelling; as will be discussed in the continuation of the exegesis of the verse.

Of these five views, the fifth one is correct; because the vicegerency of man over jinn or nasnās does not bring him any honor and does not require knowledge of the names or attainment of the station of glorification and sanctification, so as to cause the angels to question. Moreover, firstly, the apparent meaning of the sentence “I am going to place a vicegerent on the earth” is that the speaker appoints a vicegerent for Himself, not for others. Secondly, the event of prostration before the vicegerent also shows that he is the vicegerent of God, not the vicegerent of someone else, because the prostration of the angels is not mentioned for the one who is being represented (mustakhlaf ʿanhu), let alone prostration for his vicegerent. Thirdly, many generations came one after another, each succeeding the other, and the Creator of all of them was God, the Glorified, but when creating any of them, He did not inform the angels about the creation of a new generation and did not refer to it as a vicegerent; otherwise, the angels would have been preceded by the appointment of vicegerency.

And they would not have been surprised by this kind of appointment of vicegerency. The point is that historical vicegerency was abundant, but God never referred to any of them by the title of vicegerent. So it becomes clear that man’s vicegerency is not a historical, natural, or social matter, but rather a divine matter.

As for the third view, which considers all existents as the ones being succeeded (mustakhlaf ʿanhu) by the divine vicegerent and introduces the human being as the microcosm of the world, although vicegerency (khilāfa) in this sense is also a great perfection and honor for the human being, the problem with this aspect is that such perfection is not termed as vicegerency, and such a meaning cannot be intended by vicegerency. Moreover, things are each in their own place and engaged in fulfilling their own duties, and in such a state, there is no room for envisioning vicegerency. Of course, such perfection and comprehensiveness can be the source of divine vicegerency; meaning that since the human being is the comprehensive copy of the world and the macrocosm has been entrusted to him, and there exists a sample of all types of creatures in him, this provides a suitable basis for his position of divine vicegerency. Just as it can be said that due to such comprehensiveness, the purpose of the world can be accomplished by Ādam, but the purpose of Ādam cannot be accomplished by the world.

Therefore, Ādam can sit in place of the world, but the world cannot replace Ādam.

In addition to the contextual evidence mentioned, there are also separate pieces of evidence that the one being represented is the sacred essence of God. Numerous narrations refer to Ādam as the vicegerent of God (khalīfat Allāh) and to the perfect human beings from his progeny as the vicegerents of God (khulafāʾ Allāh), such as the two narrations that were referenced in the discussion on who is the vicegerent and what is vicegerency.

Note: Since Ādam (the perfect human being) is the vicegerent of God, he is also the vicegerent of the world. Therefore, if the intention behind both types of vicegerency is encompassed by the comprehensive title of khalīfa, it is not problematic. The intention behind one type (vicegerency of God) is direct, while the other (vicegerency of the world) is indirect.

The answer to three questions will be discussed in detail in the chapter on allusions:

a) How can the human being be the vicegerent of God when God has power over all affairs, encompasses everything, is present everywhere, and has no absence that would require someone to fill His place or act as His successor?

b) What is the task of this vicegerent, and what duties does he have as the representative and vicegerent of God?

c) Who are those over whom he is appointed as vicegerent (mustakhlaf ʿalayhim)?

Summary:

According to the second possibility, which states that the position of vicegerency is exclusive to perfect human beings, the vicegerent mentioned in this verse is the absolute vicegerent of God, not a relative one. This means that just as God encompasses all things (muḥīṭ)(60) and is a witness over all things (shahīd)(61), His vicegerent must also, by God’s permission, encompass the entire world and manifest all His beautiful names. Nothing should exist in the world under the banner of God’s action and grace unless God’s vicegerent possesses its perfection and is capable of fulfilling its function. In other words, the vicegerent must be a mirror reflecting all the attributes of the one being represented (mustakhlaf ʿanhu)—the owner of the image. This role is exclusive to the perfect human being, referred to in technical terms as the all-encompassing being (kawn jāmiʿ). It does not apply to those who are as astray as cattle or worse (aḍall),(62) the devils among mankind (shayāṭīn al-ins),(63) or those whose hearts are as hard as stones or even harder (qāsiya).(64)

On the Questioning of the Angels:

The angels asked: “Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?” God said, “Indeed, I know that which you do not know.”

The author of Tafsīr al-Tibyān and most exegetes have stated that the interrogative in “Will you place (a tajʿalu)” was not meant to express denial, objection, astonishment, or pride, but rather it was an interrogative of wonder combined with a kind of inquiry and questioning about the wisdom behind this act, as well as being mixed with grief and concern about its consequences.

In other words, the angels knew that Ādam was a creature of the earth, and the earthly being is material and composed of the faculties of desire and anger. The realm of matter is a region of conflicts and clashes, the necessary consequence of which is corruption and bloodshed.(65) Alternatively, because man, in comparison to the jinn or previous humans,(66) possesses the three faculties of desire, anger, and intellect, they asked about the wisdom of such an appointment. This is because the effects of the two faculties of desire and anger, which are nothing but corruption and ruin, cannot be the wisdom behind the appointment and creation. If the wisdom behind the appointment and creation is the manifestation of the blessings of the faculty of intellect, meaning sanctification and glorification, then the angels reasoned that they already perform that, making the creation of man for such a purpose a case of attaining what has already been attained (taḥṣīl al-ḥāṣil).(67)

According to the third explanation, from the angels’ acknowledgment of God’s knowledge and wisdom at the end of the second verse after the verse under discussion: “Indeed, You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise,” it appears that they accepted the principle of wisdom in establishing vicegerency on earth and believed that this act of God is not without wisdom and benefit. However, they did not know what that benefit was because the establishment of vicegerency is such that the vicegerent (khalīfa) represents the one who appointed him (mustakhlaf ʿanhu), meaning there must be a correspondence between the vicegerent and the one who appointed him.

Therefore, in other cases where there is no mention of establishing a vicegerent, but only the creation of man or the prostration of the angels before man is discussed, such a question has not been raised by the angels. For example, when God says to the angels: “Indeed, I will create a human being out of clay from an altered black mud. So, when I have proportioned him and breathed into him of My [created] soul, then fall down to him in prostration” (15:28-29).

In all his affairs, effects, rulings, and measures, there should be a sign of Him, and he should glorify, praise, and sanctify Him. However, being earthly is not compatible with such a thing for the vicegerent because an earthly being, as it is material and composed of wrathful and lustful faculties, and the realm of matter is the region of conflict, change, dissolution, corruption, and falsehood, will inevitably be drawn to corruption and ruin. Such an existence cannot represent the Origin who possesses the Most Beautiful Names and the Sublime Attributes of Beauty and Majesty and is free from deficiency in essence and attribute and from evil and corruption in action.

Moreover, the ultimate glorification, praise, and sanctification is already achieved by our glorification, praise, and sanctification. So, we should be Your vicegerents. In this case, what is the benefit of establishing vicegerency on earth?(68)

In other words, one who wants to become the vicegerent of God, whose will is absolute and whose knowledge is infinite, must also have an absolute will and infinite knowledge. However, man is a being whose knowledge, which is expended by his will, is gradually acquired. It is natural that the limitation of knowledge and comprehension is the source of corruption, the cause of conflict, and ultimately bloodshed. Human knowledge, due to its gradual nature and limitations, bears no resemblance to divine knowledge. The more it increases, the more his ignorance becomes apparent.(69)

The phrase “You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise” is a connected contextual evidence that the question of the angels was not an objection; just as the angels’ own glorification and sanctification is another connected contextual evidence that they did not intend to object to God in their question. This is because with the admission of God’s absolute infallibility from any flaw or defect, there is no longer any room for criticism and dissatisfaction with the work of the Real One.(70)

In the fourth explanation, the question of the angels is not akin to the objectionable question rooted in the arrogance and entitlement of the Children of Israel regarding Saul’s leadership, when they said to their prophet: “How can he have kingship over us while we are more worthy of kingship than him, and he has not been given any measure of wealth?” (2:247). Rather, it is comparable to the inquiries of Mūsā to Khidr, which arose from the inherent limitations in the knowledge and understanding of the questioner.

Unlike the Children of Israel, who claimed superiority and entitlement, the angels did not assert that they were more deserving of the vicegerency than Ādam. Instead, they expressed a concern based on their understanding of the purpose of vicegerency. They implied: If the objective of appointing a vicegerent is to glorify and sanctify God, we fulfill this purpose perfectly. Humanity, on the other hand, is prone to corruption and bloodshed.

When the angels questioned God’s decision to appoint a vicegerent on earth, asking: “Will You place in it one who will cause corruption in it and shed blood, while we glorify You with praise and sanctify You?” it should not be interpreted as an objection or critique of God’s decision. Rather, their inquiry reflected their limited perspective and genuine desire to understand the wisdom behind this divine plan.

However, it is important to note that the angels are infallible and never do anything wrong. They do not even speak without God’s permission, as the Qur’an states: “Rather, [they are] honored servants. They do not precede Him in speech” (21:26-27). This means that even in asking this question, they had God’s permission, just as humans will not speak on the Day of Resurrection except with the permission of the Most Merciful. (78:38)

One who does not speak without God’s permission, whose speech is nothing but the truth, who is a pure servant like Christ and the angels and has no disdain or arrogance toward worshipping his Lord—“Never would the Messiah disdain to be a servant of God, nor would the angels near [to Him]” (4:172)—and who, being in God’s presence, is not too proud to worship Him and glorify and prostrate to Him—“Indeed, those who are near your Lord are not prevented by arrogance from His worship, and they exalt Him, and to Him they prostrate” (7:206)—and does whatever he is commanded (16:50), such a being does not ask objectionable questions, but rather does not ask without God’s permission.(71)

Objection: The apparent meaning of some traditions about this story is that the angels committed a sin and error, which is consistent with their question being a denial and objection. Merely asking for clarification and information is not considered a sin, as seen in the following traditions:

1. ...So they responded to God Almighty with this answer, then they regretted it and took refuge by the Throne and sought forgiveness...(72)

2. As for the beginning of this verse, indeed God Blessed and Exalted said to the angels: “Indeed, I will make upon the earth a vicegerent.” So the angels responded to God Exalted and said: “Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood?” So He turned away from them and they saw that this was from His wrath, so they took refuge by His Throne...(73)

3. Indeed, when God Exalted commanded the angels to prostrate to Ādam, they responded to Him... So He became angry with them, then they asked Him for repentance...(74)

4. ... That was grievous to them and they were angry with God...(75)

5. ... The angels realized that it was God’s wrath upon them...(76)

6. ... So they responded to God, the Blessed and Exalted... Then He veiled them from His light for seven thousand years, so they took refuge in the Throne...(77)

The apparent meaning of these narrations, considering the expressions used in them such as the angels’ response and anger, and then their remorse and seeking forgiveness, and expressions like God’s wrath and anger upon them and veiling them from the divine light, is that the angels’ questioning was considered a form of denial and they committed a sin in this objection. This is because mere inquiry and seeking clarification to know the divine wisdom is a praiseworthy matter.

Therefore, some researchers, like the late Balāghī, who have admitted that the questioning was not an objection, have said: “But despite that, it would have been more appropriate for them not to raise this question in this context, even if their question was for learning. Rather, they should have entrusted the matter to God and His wisdom and knowledge of what is right.”(78) They have fallen into a kind of inconsistency, unless it is considered as leaving the more appropriate (tark al-awlā) and in the sense that “the good deeds of the righteous are considered as sins for those close to God.”(79)

However, al-Mīzān’s citing the phrase “Indeed, You are the All-Knowing, All-Wise” is not conclusive, because this acknowledgment is not evidence that the angels’ questioning was not an objection. This is because they uttered this phrase after their question and God’s answer and clarification, not before that. It may be said that the implication of this statement is that the angels are not infallible.

The answer is that, given the frequent narrations mentioned, there is no choice but to accept one of two aspects: either their sin was to the extent of abandoning the preferable (tark al-awlā), which does not contradict infallibility, just as it is said about the prophets, and as the late Balāghī chose regarding the angels’ question; or a distinction is made between the groups and ranks of angels. What is mentioned in the Qur’an regarding the angels being honored and infallible—“Rather, [they are] honored servants. They cannot precede Him in word, and they act by His command” (21:26-27)—is related to the angels brought near, not the middle ones or those descending from them, even if the apparent meaning of the verse includes all angels. As for the verse under discussion, it relates to a group of middle or lower-ranking angels who became rulers on earth after the extinction of the jinn or nasnās.

Especially considering that the plural form with the definite article “al-” (al-malāʾika) does not denote generality. The second aspect is the choice of those who make a distinction and say: The group described as “They fear their Lord above them and do what they are commanded” (16:50), “They do not disobey God in what He commands them, and they do what they are commanded” (66:6) and “They cannot precede Him in word, and they act by His command” (21:27) are from the luminous heavenly angels, to whom revelation is sometimes given, not from the earthly angels (al-mādiyya al-laṭīfa).

In any case, as some exegetes(80) have pointed out, what supports the objectionable nature of the angels’ question is the abundance of emphases that appear in their speech after God’s answer and clarification:

1. The expression “Glory be to You” (subḥānak), which is a spiritual emphasis.

2. The negation of inherent knowledge from themselves and the restriction of their knowledge to what God has given them.

3. The emphasis with “indeed” (inna).

4. The use of a nominal sentence.

5. The use of the pronoun of separation “You” (anta).

6. The use of the two intensive forms “All-Knowing” (ʿalīm) and “All-Wise” (ḥakīm). All of these elements indicate that something improper had occurred from them, which they sought to rectify with all this emphasis.

Another support is the manner of God’s response and the style and tone of His argument with them, as He said: “Inform Me of the names of these, if you are truthful” (2:31). This manner of speech and address is appropriate for those from whom a violation or unpleasant speech has occurred. With this explanation, it becomes clear that what was mentioned as a connected contextual evidence for the angels’ question not being an objection is, in the view of some exegetes, an incomplete statement.

Answer: The investigation into the issue is that firstly, weak or mursal (incompletely transmitted) narrations are not authoritative in secondary rulings, let alone in scholarly issues and matters of belief. Secondly, establishing their tawātur (mass transmission) is not easy. Thirdly, the realm of angels is not the domain of legislation and jurisprudential rulings, otherwise there would be law, prophethood, prescribed punishments, reward, and punishment for them.

Fourthly, the surrounding of the aforementioned conversation with expressions of glorification, sanctification, knowledge, and wisdom indicates the angels’ belief, acknowledgment, and admission of the purity of God’s actions from impropriety and the sanctity of His deeds from inappropriateness. Rather, the entirety of divine creation is always knowledge and wisdom. Belief in their purity from faults and defects and acknowledgment of their knowledge and wisdom is sufficient evidence that the question is interrogative.

Fifthly, the verse about the infallibility of angels does not allow for exceptions. Of course, it is not possible to investigate all types of angels and examine the rulings pertaining to all of them and issue a verdict on the infallibility of every angel. However, the well-known Qur’anic angels who are God’s administrators are infallible, especially those who are connected to the Throne of God and seek refuge and protection in the Divine Throne, as mentioned in some narrations that were questioned.

Sixthly, the praise and exaltation of the angels is not a document of redress, because the conduct (sīra) of the angel and the inner nature (sarīra) of the angel is glorification in harmony with praise and also divine sanctification.

Note:

1. Although the aforementioned narrations mention the wrath of God, some narrations state that the angels became angry for the pleasure of God and felt sorry for the people of the earth. Therefore, the anger and sorrow of the angels had a devotional aspect, which will be discussed later.

2. Some exegetes have interpreted the circumstantial clause “while we celebrate Your praise and sanctify You” as follows: How can You make Ādam Your vicegerent while we are more deserving, because we celebrate Your praise and sanctify You? It has been reported from al-Ṭabrisī (may God have mercy on him) and al-Zamakhsharī that they said this sentence is equivalent to saying: “Do you do good to so-and-so while I am more deserving of goodness than him?” For this reason, and since the apparent meaning of this statement involves a kind of self-admiration and boasting, they tried to refute it and said: The angels’ question was merely for inquiry and seeking information.

However, from what has been discussed, it is clear that this sentence has a different direction and meaning: While we celebrate Your praise and sanctify You, and You are exalted and holy above vain and unwise actions and evil deeds, how can You do something whose wisdom is not clear?! According to this explanation, it is evident that the angels’ question, even apparently, does not involve any self-admiration or arrogance, so that we would try to justify it, and comparing it to the sentence “Do you do good to so-and-so...” is also incorrect.

The secret behind the expression “who causes corruption therein”

The expression “who causes corruption therein” instead of “who will cause corruption” may indicate that the angels were aware of the will, choice, and intellect of Ādam, and their astonishment and concern stemmed from knowing that if the supreme reality called the spirit(81) is combined with a structure composed of desire and anger, and instincts are armed with choice and planning, and mixed with the boundless power of the intellect, then with the eruption of desire, what corruption and mischief would not arise: “who will cause corruption therein”, and with the flaring up of the flame of anger, what blood would not be shed on the earth: “and shed blood”(82) in a way that no predator from other types of creatures reaches? Because the bloodshed and corruption of predatory animals are limited only to fulfilling their bodily needs.

God’s answer is also precisely directed at this aspect, that you have only seen one side of the coin of this combination and have viewed it with a negative perspective. However, this coin also has a positive side that causes the benefits and advantages of this combination to be far greater than its harms and disadvantages.(83)

Note: The phrase “and shed blood” coming after the phrase “they will cause corruption therein” is a case of mentioning the specific after the general and is due to the particular importance of the aforementioned. It is evidence that the most important or highest instance of corruption is the killing of an inviolable soul and an innocent human being, and the worst form of killing is killing by way of bloodshed; because killing by other means is not as ugly and difficult as bloodshed. The repetition of the word “therein” is for emphasis on the corruption in the land and the intensity of its unlikelihood, otherwise, mentioning this context once would have been sufficient.

The necessity of combining praise (ḥamd) and glorification (tasbīḥ)

Is the purpose of “we glorify You with Your praise” (nusabbiḥu bi ḥamdika) and the intention behind adding “with Your praise” (bi ḥamdika) to “we glorify” (nusabbiḥu) to convey the meaning that we glorify You while we are grateful to You, because if it were not for Your grace, we would not have the success to glorify You? Or is the meaning that we glorify You because of Your praise or with the aid of Your praise? Or is the intended meaning a third thing, which is that we glorify You along with praising You?

The answer to this question depends on clarifying the meaning of the preposition “bi” in “bi ḥamdika” and what this prepositional phrase is connected to. There are several possibilities:

1. The prepositional phrase is in the position of a circumstantial phrase (ḥāl) and is connected to “mutalbisīn”, meaning “nusabbiḥu mutalbisīn biḥamdika”—we glorify You while in a state of being grateful to You, because if it were not for Your grace, success, and blessings, we would not have the ability to glorify You.(84)

As a result, this sentence is similar to what is commonly expressed by some, for example, when they say: “By God’s praise” (bi ḥamd Allāh), I found the success to revive Laylat al-Qadr (the Night of Determination),” meaning I am grateful to God for this success because He granted me such a blessing. The angels also said: While we—of course by Your grace and care—glorify and sanctify You, how can You make Ādam a vicegerent on earth?!

Apparently, the “bi” according to this reading is for transitivity (taʿdiya), because it is as if it is said: “talabbastu bi thawbi fulān” (I dressed in the garment of so-and-so).

2. The prepositional phrase is connected to “nusabbiḥu” and the “bi” is for causation (sababiyya) or seeking aid (istiʿāna),(85) meaning we glorify You in order to praise You or with the help of Your praise.

In this case, there are two possibilities: First, that the addition of praise (ḥamd) to the pronoun (kāf) in bi ḥamdi-ka is by way of adding the infinitive to the subject, and in this case, the praiser (ḥāmid) is God (which would render the meaning bi ḥamdi-ka iyyāka – “by Your praise [of Yourself]”). The meaning of the sentence is that we glorify You through the praise that You have for Yourself (not in any way, even if it leads to the suspension of many attributes, such as the glorification that the Muʿtazilites or other erring schools of thought have). The other possibility is that it is by way of adding the infinitive to the object, and in this case, the praisers (ḥāmid) are the glorifiers (musabbiḥīn) (bi-ḥamdinā iyyāka – “By [our] praise of you”); meaning, we glorify You through our own praise.

Based on both possibilities, this question arises: How can praise be a means for glorification, while praise is adorning the praised with the attributes of beauty, and glorification is purifying Him from deficiency and fault?

It may be possible to answer the aforementioned question by saying that although adornment does not always lead to purification (of course, the opposite may be true, meaning that every purification from a deficiency and fault may lead to adornment), but in the specific case of the holy essence of God Almighty, it is such that adorning Him with the attributes of beauty also entails purifying Him from deficiencies and faults; because all the positive attributes (ṣifāt thubūtiyya) that God is praised with are absolutely true for God; meaning, God is absolutely rich (ghanī), capable (qādir), mighty (ʿazīz), knowledgeable (ʿālim), strong (qawī), etc., and such a description and such an adornment inherently negates the opposites; for example, when we say that God is absolutely rich, it means that there is no poverty in Him whatsoever. Of course, what causes the gathering of pure beauty (jamāl maḥḍ) and sheer majesty (jalāl ṣirf), which entails glorification accompanying praise, is the very absolute and unconditioned identity (huwiyyat muṭlaq wa lā bi-sharṭ muqassamī) of the Unified Divine Essence (dhāt aḥadī).

3. The bāʾ has the meaning of “with” (maʿ) and is a preposition with a genitive noun (jār wa majrūr) connected to nusabbiḥ.(86) In this case, nusabbiḥu biḥamdika means nusabbiḥuka maʿa ḥamdika, and in fact, the bāʾ in this case is for clarifying the manner of glorification (tasbīḥ) and indicating that our glorification is a glorification accompanied by praise of You and Your comprehensiveness in relation to all perfections.

It is possible that the mention of “and” (wāw) in expressions such as subḥāna rabbī l-ʿaẓīmi wa biḥamdih supports this possibility, because with the presence of “and”, the bāʾ definitely indicates accompaniment and association, unless it is said that the bāʾ meaning “with” is contrary to the default, and this is only overlooked when there is a contextual indicator (such as cases of conjunction with “and”), not otherwise.

4. The preposition and the genitive noun (jār wa majrūr) are connected to nusabbiḥ, and the bāʾ has the meaning of attachment (ilṣāq), which, according to what Ibn Hishām narrated from some grammarians, this meaning does not depart from the letter bāʾ.

Therefore, Sibawayh sufficed with this meaning, considering it to be the original and fundamental meaning of the bāʾ, and he said: The bāʾ is for attachment and mingling.(87) So nusabbiḥuka bi ḥamdi-ka means “we attach and mingle our glorification with Your praise.” The result of this meaning is the same as accompaniment and association, with the difference that in this case, there is no longer any deviation from the default, but rather adhering to such a meaning is required to preserve the original meaning of the bāʾ.

With this explanation, it becomes clear that the more correct translation of wa naḥnu nusabbiḥu biḥamdika is: “while we glorify You with Your praise” or “while we perform Your exaltation and praise.” And in translating “wa in min shayʾin illā yusabbiḥu biḥamdih” (17:44), it should be said: “and there is nothing except that it glorifies Him with praise” or “and there is no being except that it performs His glorification and praise.”

In any case, the message of attaching “bi ḥamdi-ka” to the verb “exaltation” (tasbīḥ) in all these cases is that, in any case, our exaltation must be accompanied by our praise; because exaltation without praise is negation without affirmation, while negation is a prelude to affirmation. Just as our praise must also be accompanied by our exaltation; because praise without exaltation is an incomplete affirmation, since our praise is describing God through our imperfect understanding, and God is exalted above such limited and imperfect description.

“Exalted is God above what they describe” (37:159). So it is necessary that we exalt and glorify Him from such imperfect description. In any case, praise alone and also exaltation alone cannot fulfill the right of describing God.

In other words, God must be both glorified and exalted, and praised and lauded. The reason for the necessity of glorification and exaltation is that He removes every deficiency and purifies creatures from every flaw, and only one who has no deficiency or flaw Himself can be such. The secret of the necessity of praise mixed with glorification is also that by granting perfection and bestowing blessings, He removes deficiencies and flaws from others. So He Himself is free from every need, flaw, and deficiency, and on the other hand, it is clear that every perfection and blessing demands praise.

In any case, God is both subūḥ (Glorious) and musabbaḥ (Glorified), because otherwise He could not be the remover of deficiencies, and He is also maḥmūd (Praiseworthy), because by granting perfection and blessing, He removes deficiencies from others. So He must be both glorified and His glorification must be accompanied by praise, or in other words, just as God’s own transcendence in relation to creatures is mixed with the granting of perfection and blessing, our exaltation in relation to God must also be accompanied by His praise.

Note: The fact that the angels, instead of saying “We are worthy of being Your vicegerents,” allusively stated, “Your vicegerent must be one who glorifies and sanctifies You, and we are those who glorify and sanctify You,” is evidence of their politeness. And that God said to them, “I know what you do not know,” is an allusion to the fact that My vicegerent must also be aware of something that you are unaware of; that is, My vicegerent must be a more perfect being than you, as the next verse, “And He taught Ādam the names...” testifies to it.

The sacred referent in the verse

The context of the verse and the necessity of conjoining nuqaddisu (we sanctify) with nusabbiḥu (we glorify) requires that the one being sanctified and the sacred being is the pure essence [of God], just as the one being glorified is His pure essence, not the world and the existents of the world, such that the meaning of the sentence would be: “We are advancing the world and the existents of the world toward righteousness, sanctity, and perfection,” as some have said.(88) Nor is it the angels themselves, meaning that we purify ourselves from impurities, as has been narrated from Ḍaḥḥāk and others,(89) or that we purify our actions from sins, as has been related from Abū Muslim.(90)

Although some have chosen this meaning for nuqaddisu laka (we sanctify for You) and have said: The intended meaning is the sanctification of the souls for God.(91) He also says regarding sabbaḥa lillāh (glorified for God) and all cases where glorification comes with the preposition lām (lit. “for”), such as: yusabbiḥūna lahu bil-layli wal-nahār (they glorify for Him by night and day)(92) and yusabbiḥu lahu fīhā bil-ghuduwwi wal-āṣāl (wherein He is glorified for in the mornings and the evenings):(93) The intended meaning is their glorifying their own souls for God, for His sake, and to seek perfection and be free from every deficiency and weakness.(94)

Apparently, what has led to such a possibility is that instead of saying nuqaddisu-ka or nuqaddisu-ka laka (with the pronoun kāf attached to the verb as a direct object), it has been expressed as nuqaddisu laka with the omission of the direct object, even though if the object of nuqaddisu is the pure essence of God, it should be said nuqaddisu-ka like nusabbiḥu-ka, and in the case of sabbaḥa lillāh it should be expressed as sabbaḥa Allāh.

However, as mentioned, the context of the verse requires that the sanctified and glorified one be the pure essence of God, especially considering what was mentioned in the definition of glorification as being the highest levels of veneration, and such a meaning is specific to God and is not applied to other than Him. The conclusion is that the lām in laka is for emphasis.(95)

It means that the object of nuqaddisu is the genitive kāf, or it is the lām of enumeration and justification (meaning nuqaddisu li-ajlik, “we glorify for Your sake”). In this case, the object of nuqaddisu is implied; meaning, nuqaddisu-ka li-ajlik. The lām conveys sincerity and devotion; meaning, we sanctify You purely and sincerely, without any greed or fear of the present or future.(96) The same applies to subḥāna Allāh and all instances where glorification is mentioned with lām.

The meaning of “innī aʿlamu...”

Regarding the interpretation of the phrase, “Indeed, I know that which you do not know” (innī aʿlamu mā lā taʿlamūn), two questions arise: First, why did God respond to the angels’ question in a concise manner? Second, what was it that God knew and the angels were unaware of?

Regarding the first question, two answers have been given: One is that for a servant who submits to the Lord and knows that God is essentially wise in all His actions and affairs, a detailed explanation of the wisdoms is not necessary. The other is that God’s answer was not entirely concise; rather, some of the wisdoms are alluded to in the subsequent verses.

Regarding the second question, it has been narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās and Ibn Masʿūd that it refers to the arrogance, conceit, and disobedience of Iblīs.(97) It is as if God wants to say, “I know that the source of this objection is Iblīs’ arrogance and envy toward Ādam’s vicegerency.” It has also been narrated from Qatāda that what is meant by “mā lā taʿlamūn” (“that which you do not know”) are the prophets and righteous individuals from Ādam’s progeny;(98) meaning, you do not know what pure and great individuals from Ādam’s descendants will come into existence.

The second possibility is confirmed by some narrations that were previously mentioned, and its explanation is the same as what was pointed out in previous discussions. It is as if the speech of God is: You have only seen one side of the coin (Ādam and his unique existential composition). You do not know that if in this composition and engagement of intellect with desire and anger, the intellect prevails, qualities such as chastity, courage, fairness, etc. will emerge, and effects such as encompassing the particulars, deducing the crafts, and extracting the benefits of beings from potentiality to actuality will become manifest. The power and servitude of the soul will increase, bringing one closer to God.

You do not know that although human knowledge is acquired gradually and his ignorance is far greater than his knowledge, and it is very little compared to the vastness of divine knowledge, nevertheless, the most extensive manifestations of divine knowledge is human knowledge, and no one can match him in knowledge.(99)

You do not know that the creation of Ādam is a hidden grace of God, because prophets and Imāms emerge from him who, despite having desire and anger, are at the highest level of purity, infallibility, obedience, and worship, and strive to guide and reform people for the servitude of God.

Therefore, it is narrated from Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿAlī (a.s.) in the exegesis of this verse: “Indeed, I will make upon the earth a vicegerent” for Me over them, so he will be My proof over them in My earth.(100) And also in the continuation of this narration: I will make his descendants messengers, prophets, righteous servants, and guided Imāms; I will make them My vicegerents over My creation in My earth, forbidding them from disobedience and warning them of My punishment...(101) You are unaware that although the purpose of appointing a vicegerent is to glorify, praise, and sanctify Me, that also has levels. And given your existential limitations: “Each one of us has a known station.” Your knowledge of Me is also limited, and due to the limitation of the knowledge that is the basis of glorification, praise, and sanctification, the glorification and sanctification itself will also be limited and not befitting and proportionate to My sacred and magnificent realm.

So I must appoint a vicegerent who, despite being earthly, surpasses you, the people of heaven, in knowledge, and in divine manifestation, is the manifestation of all My beautiful names (unlike you, where each one or each group is the manifestation of one name). As a result, he will have superior praise, glorification, and sanctification. As it has been narrated about the Messenger of God (s.a.w.) that he is the bearer of the banner and standard of praise on the Day of Resurrection, and the one carrying it is the Commander of the Faithful, ʿAlī (a.s.):

Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī (a.s.) narrated from his father ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (a.s.), who said: The Messenger of God (s.a.w.) said to me: “You will be the first to enter Paradise.” I said, “O Messenger of God, will I enter it before you?” He said, “Yes, because you are the bearer of my standard in the Hereafter, just as you are the bearer of my standard in this world, and the standard-bearer is the one who goes ahead.” Then he (s.a.w.) said, “O ʿAlī, it is as if I see you having entered Paradise with my standard in your hand, and it is the standard of praise, and under it are Ādam and those below him.”(102) Meaning, the first and the last cannot praise God like him and ʿAlī (a.s.).

You do not know that within man is the potential for knowledge of the Names, of which you are unaware and lack the ability to learn. I create him for this very knowledge, not for vices and sins. The purpose of man’s creation is his knowledge of the Names, sound understanding, and righteous deeds. I make man aware of this purpose, show him the way to attain it, forbid him from corruption and sin, and warn him of punishment. Such a creation, with these qualities, is certainly preferable to its absence.

In the end, you do not know that although it is true that the earthly being is prone to corruption and bloodshed, and that you are devoted to glorification (tasbīḥ) and sanctification (taqdīs), the vicegerent of God (khalīfat Allāh) is neither prone to bloodshed and corruption, nor do you have the ability to perform the glorification and sanctification that he does.

In fact, he is your teacher in glorification and sanctification: “We glorified, and the angels glorified with Our glorification.”(103) This means that even in this perfection, you are students of the perfect man (insān al-kāmil).

In any case, what God knows in the phrase “Indeed, I know what you do not know” are the prophets, the righteous, and the infallible Imāms (peace be upon them). In other words, as will be clarified in the exegesis of the next verse, they are the same sacred beings who are meant by the names taught to Ādam and also what is meant by “the unseen of the heavens and the earth” mentioned at the end of the verse in question. That is, “what you do not know” is explained by the end of the next verse: “Did I not tell you that I know the unseen of the heavens and the earth?” (What is meant by the unseen are the same names that are veiled by the veils of the unseen, and from whose light and splendor everything in the heavens and the earth is derived.) This is because the expression “Did I not tell you” indicates that the phrase “I know the unseen...” has been previously stated, and what has been previously stated is nothing but “Indeed, I know what you do not know.” So “what you do not know” is the same as “the unseen of the heavens and the earth,” and that is nothing but the names that were taught.(104)

Of course, if we take the phrase “and I know what you reveal and what you have concealed” as a continuation of the quotation in “Did I not [tell you],” the result is that “what you have concealed” is also part of what God knows and is included in the phrase “Indeed, I know what you do not know.” And if it is accepted in the exegesis of the next verse that what is meant by “what you have concealed” is the arrogance, vanity, and envy of Iblīs, the result is a combination of the first opinion (the opinion of Ibn ʿAbbās and Ibn Masʿūd) and the second opinion (the opinion of Qatāda). That is, in each of these two opinions, an instance of what God knows in the phrase “Indeed, I know what you do not know” is stated, and there is no contradiction between the two opinions.

The result is that just as “what you do not know” includes the blessed theoretical and practical effects of the existence of perfect human beings, it also includes the inauspicious faults and reproaches of beastly subhumans; for perhaps some of the corruptions and evils of human misdeeds that are not committed by any predatory or wrathful animal may be committed by a rational human being who employs his knowledge in the despoiling of the land and the massacre its inhabitants.