Detailed Exegesis

Al-Asmāʾ (the names): The definite article alif and lām at the beginning of al-asmāʾ (the names) can serve one of two possible functions. First, they may replace a genitive construction (muḍāf ilayh), similar to how the verse “and the head became white” (ishta’ala l-ra’s shayban)(205) uses them, which would mean that the generality and comprehensiveness of the names are derived solely from the word kullahā (all of them). Alternatively, these articles may be of the type that appears at the beginning of a plural noun to convey generality (based on the principle that a plural with the definite article indicates generality, a principle discussed in relation to the previous verse). Consequently, the generality and comprehensiveness could be derived from both the word al-asmāʾ and kullahā.

Two possibilities arise from this interpretation. A group of exegetes, such as the late Ṭabrisī, the late Sayyid al-Balāghī, and Abū al-Suʿūd, have favored the first possibility, while the esteemed scholar ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī (may God have mercy on him) has chosen the second. (206)However, it is evident that delving into this distinction has little practical significance because, in any case, the generality of the names is derived from the word kullahā unless it is argued that the word kull serves to emphasize the preceding content and does not itself convey generality.

That is, if asmāʾ refers to a specific meaning and not to every individual name, then the word kull emphasizes that specific content.

Kullahā (all [of them]): The feminine pronoun in kullahā is used in consideration of the word asmāʾ, just as in the phrase “and by Your names which fill the foundations of everything,”(207) the feminine pronoun is employed even though asmāʾ in this context refers to divine realities.

Present them: As will be discussed in the section on the meaning of “names,” the reason for using the masculine plural pronoun in ʿaraḍahum and the demonstrative pronoun hāʾulāʾ is that the referent and the indicated in these two terms are not the “names” in the sense of assigned words, where their relationship to the named would be one of assignment, convention, and consideration. Rather, the “names” here refer to conscious realities—realities that the angels observed to a limited degree and were unaware of their depth, similar to how a human might see the sun, water, metal, and plants without understanding their true essence.(208)

Anbiʾūnī (inform me): The term anbāʾ refers to an absolute report, whether it is significant news or not, though it is most often used for important news. This is why divine messengers are called nabī—because they bring significant nabāʾ (tidings). The Noble Qur’an refers to the crucial news brought by the prophets, their communities, and sometimes the Hereafter, which is comparable to the origin and among the most important tidings in the world, as nabāʾ. Occasionally, to emphasize its significance, it is described as ʿaẓīm (great or tremendous), as in: “Say: It is a tremendous tiding” (38:67), and “About what are they asking one another? About the tremendous tiding” (78:1-2). Therefore, referring to the report as anbāʾ highlights the importance of knowing the divine names. Additionally, it may imply that I do not expect you to fully explain the realities of the names, but merely to give a report. Such a report, though scholarly, does not reach the level of the act itself.

“And He taught Ādam all the names, then presented them to the angels and said, ‘Inform Me of the names of these, if you are truthful.’”

After declaring the appointment of a vicegerent in the previous verse, this verse, along with the two that follow, seeks to elucidate the wisdom behind the appointment of Ādam as vicegerent. It illustrates Ādam’s worthiness for this position while simultaneously demonstrating the angels’ lack of qualification for it.

From this verse, it can be inferred that the wisdom behind Ādam’s appointment to the divine vicegerency is not the negation of corruption and bloodshed, as God has not denied their occurrence. Similarly, the angels’ disqualification for vicegerency is not due to a deficiency in their glorification and sanctification of God, as their claim of these attributes was not refuted.

Rather, the secret of Ādam’s vicegerency lies in his unique capacity to bear and understand something that the angels lack—the knowledge of the names. According to the following verses, these names represent the unseen realities of the heavens and the earth. It is this knowledge, this ability to comprehend these unseen truths, that sets Ādam apart from the angels.

It is noteworthy that teaching the names is not the first action that follows the declaration of Ādam’s vicegerency, as the creation of Ādam certainly precedes the teaching of the names. In other words, between the verse under discussion and the previous verse, the creation of Ādam has already occurred. However, since the purpose of this verse is solely to state the criterion for appointing Ādam as vicegerent, there is no mention of Ādam’s creation.

This verse, which highlights Ādam’s extraordinary readiness and capacity to comprehend the realities of the world, is divided into two parts: the first part discusses the teaching of the names to Ādam, and the second part addresses the presentation of these names to the angels, along with their inability to comprehend them.

The Difference between Taʿlīm and Tadrīs

Taʿlīm (teaching) differs from tadrīs (instruction). In taʿlīm, learning and acquiring knowledge are inseparable; the essence of knowledge settles firmly in the learner’s soul. This contrasts with tadrīs, which can coexist with the learner’s ignorance and inattention; sometimes it leads to learning, and sometimes it does not. What is common in human educational systems is tadrīs, not taʿlīm.

Instruction may result in learning, but it also may not; whereas, what God, the Glorious, has provided to the prophets and what is mentioned in the verse regarding Ādam (a.s.) is taʿlīm—a form of teaching that leaves no room for forgetfulness, oblivion, or ignorance. Consequently, the taʿlīm of all names to Ādam (a.s.) is inseparable from his deep and comprehensive knowledge of them.

Of course, taʿlīm and taʿallum (learning) can occur either in the realm of nature or in the metaphysical realm. In the natural realm, there is the possibility of taʿallum being separate from taʿlīm; that is, the teacher may have taught the subject flawlessly, but the learner’s weakness might prevent the acquisition of knowledge. In such cases, the learner lacks the full capacity to accept the knowledge, leading to refusal, and this kind of taʿlīm reverts to being tadrīs.

In the realm of metaphysics, the issue of complete separation between taʿlīm (teaching) and taʿallum (learning) does not arise. The capacity for learning perfectly aligns with the capacity for receiving knowledge. In this context, the realization of taʿlīm inherently includes the realization of taʿallum. Therefore, when the taʿlīm of the aforementioned names occurred, it was accompanied by the definite taʿallum of Ādam, the perfect human being, without any failure or discrepancy between the two.

Teaching Ādam the Names without an Intermediary

Teaching and learning can occur either directly without an intermediary or through one, just as the attainment of knowledge can happen directly or with mediation.

To elaborate on the first type, if the teacher conveys a subject directly to the student without any intermediary, the student learns the subject directly from the teacher, possessing knowledge without any intermediary. This type of knowledge is considered ladunī (direct knowledge). However, if the teacher uses an intermediary to convey the subject, the student’s knowledge of that subject is not considered ladunī in relation to the teacher.

Regarding the second type of learning, if the known object is present to the knower without any mediation of its essence or an abstracted concept, this unmediated knowledge is called presential (ḥuḍūrī). Conversely, if the known object is presented through the abstraction of its essence or through the formation of a concept about it, with its original identity remaining veiled, this mediated knowledge is referred to as acquired (ḥuṣūlī). Further discussion of these central elements of unmediated and mediated teaching and knowledge can be found in their respective contexts.

There is no doubt that in teaching the names, the angels were not intermediaries, and the divine teaching was direct. This is because mediation here is not like that of a telecommunications messenger or an ordinary postal connection where the intermediary simply conveys a message without understanding its contents. Rather, mediation in this context involves someone who is an intermediary in grace, and such mediation is impossible without awareness of it. The directness of teaching the names is evidenced by the fact that only Ādam became aware of the names, and if the angels gained any knowledge of them, it was through Ādam’s teaching.

Consequently, God’s teaching of the names was not conveyed in the manner of revelation, where a messenger is sent and reveals by divine permission. Instead, the apparent meaning of the verse suggests that it was not communicated from behind a veil, as in “or from behind a veil,” but was realized through the third way in which God speaks to man—direct revelation, as described in “It is not for any human that God should speak to him except by revelation.”(209)

The meaning of “names” (asmāʾ) in this verse is not akin to names without referents (asmāʾ _bi-_masmā) as mentioned in the verse: “They are not but [mere] names you have named them—you and your forefathers—for which God has sent down no authority” (53:23). Rather, they are names with reality and referents. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify that the “names” (asmāʾ) mentioned here do not refer to the names of the named things (asmāʾ al-musammayāt), where teaching pertains to the names and involves God showing Ādam the genera of the world and informing him of their names as well as their characteristics, states, and religious and worldly benefits, as some exegetes, including the late Ṭabrisī,(210) have suggested. Nor does it refer to the named things of the names (_musammayāt al-_asmāʾ), nor does it refer to names in the sense of signified things and mental concepts, where the signified is expressed by the signifier, and the meaning is conveyed by the word that represents it, due to the strong connection between the word and the meaning.(211)

Rather, what is meant by asmāʾ (names) are the same unseen realities of the world, which are called names because they are signs and marks of God. These realities are conscious, intelligent, and hidden behind the veil of the unseen, treasured with God, and at the same time serve as the treasuries of the things in the world. They are lofty beings from which all the realities of the world of witnessing are descended and derived. Everything seen in the heavens and the earth is a manifestation of their light and glory, and it descends by their goodness and blessing.

The purpose of teaching these names to Ādam was not to impart acquired knowledge through words and concepts, but rather to provide presential witnessing (ishād ḥuḍūrī)—meaning that these celestial beings were made present and witnessed by Ādam.

The evidence for these realities being conscious lies in the use of the masculine rational pronoun in ʿaraḍahum (He presented them) and the demonstrative pronoun specific to rational beings in hāʾulāʾ (these). The evidence for their being unseen is found in the phrase, “Did I not tell you that I know the unseen (ghayb) of the heavens and the earth?” in the next two verses. The context suggests that this unseen is not merely what is absent from the heavens and the earth, but rather refers to the unseen and inner realities of the heavens and the earth—the very names that were taught—and is also connected to the relative pronoun in the phrase “I know what you do not know.”

In any case, what was taught to Ādam and presented were those lofty realities known as the names of God. These are probably the same as the “keys of the unseen” (mafātiḥ al-ghayb) mentioned in the verse: “And with Him are the keys of the unseen...” (6:59) and the “treasuries” referred to in the verse: “And there is not a thing but that with Us are its treasuries” (15:21). These keys and treasuries, due to being “with God” (ʿindallāh), do not perish: “Whatever is with you will be exhausted, and whatever is with God will remain” (16:96).

A few other points are also noteworthy in this regard:

1. From the perspective that the names are the treasures, the unseen, the inner reality of the heavens and the earth, and the rest of the realities of the material and angelic realms, and that the natural realities are nothing but their descended forms, it can be said: The names in the verse encompass all the realities of the world, both the unseen and the seen. It is as if by showing those treasures to Ādam, all the things of the world, both the unseen and the seen, were shown to Ādam and became visible to him. The pronouns and demonstrative nouns being mentioned and possessing intellect may be because, based on the verse: “There is not a thing but celebrates His praise” (17:44), all existents possess consciousness, praise, and glorify God. If in some narrations these names have been interpreted as the names of the Ahl al-Bayt (a.s.), it is by way of applying it to the most perfect instance, not as a conceptual exegesis (tafsīr).

2. There is no doubt that what truly possesses the divine name and is actually a sign, a verse, and an indicator of God are these external realities. The meanings and mental forms of them are actually the names of these realities, not the divine names. The verbal names that are uttered by the tongue and have been assigned to mental concepts and indicate them are the names of this mental meaning. So words are actually the names of the names of the names of God.

3. The requirement of such teaching and presentation is that the learner becomes familiar with all the effects, properties, benefits, and harms associated with these realities, including their mental concepts and their apparent and verbal names. In other words, the way God taught Ādam allowed him to analyze and explain each of these realities individually, name them, introduce them, and report them to the angels. The manner in which Ādam was taught and informed, compared to the angels, is a specific discussion, focusing on whether it was through presential witnessing and direct teaching or through acquired knowledge.

Therefore, what is mentioned in some narrations—that Ādam was taught the names of mountains, valleys, trees, etc.—does not contradict this. Often, the issuance of certain statements is based on the understanding of the audience, hence the mention of natural and material things.

4. An objection may arise that if “al-asmāʾ” (the names) refers to the names of God, meaning that the annexed term (muḍāf ilayh) of “asmāʾ” is “Allāh,” and the definite article “al-” has replaced “Allāh,” then the annexed term would differ from the “hāʾulāʾ” mentioned later in the verse: “Inform Me of the names of these (hāʾulāʾ).”

This would imply that the “asmāʾ” at the beginning of the verse is different from the “asmāʾ” at the end, which contradicts the apparent meaning and disrupts the unity of the context. Therefore, the late Ṭabrisī has argued that the word “al-asmāʾ” refers to the named entities (musammayāt) indicated by “hāʾulāʾ” and to the pronoun in “ʿ_araḍahum_” (presented them).(212)

In response, it should be stated that the name, understood as the pure reality of existence with a specific determination, has a manifestation. Since the realities of the created world, especially the hidden treasures, are manifestations of the beautiful names of God, and given the relative connection and unity between the manifest and the manifestation, these contingent realities are also considered among the divine names. Consequently, the concepts abstracted from those realities are the names of the names, and the words signifying those abstracted concepts are considered the names of the names of names. Therefore, the harmony between the beginning of the verse and its continuation is preserved.

5. One might also question: if the names refer to the conscious realities of the world, and hence the pronouns are in the plural masculine form, indicating rational beings, why is the pronoun in kullahā (all of them) in the singular feminine form? Does this not suggest that the plural masculine pronoun isn’t exclusively used for rational beings but can also apply to non-rational beings, as seen in the verse where Prophet Yūsuf (a.s.) dreams of the sun, moon, and stars prostrating to him? (12:4). Additionally, the masculine and rational pronoun doesn’t necessarily imply that all individuals it refers to are rational; it may also be compatible with the rationality of a significant group among them, predominating over the others.

The answer is that sometimes a term can be associated with two different pronouns due to the variation in the verbal form being feminine, while in terms of meaning, it aligns with the masculine. In this case, the feminine form of the pronoun in kullahā refers to the verbal form of the word names (asmāʾ), whereas the subsequent masculine pronouns correspond to the meaning. Regarding the pronouns of intelligent beings in the story of Prophet Yūsuf (a.s.), they are used in relation to the act of prostration, which is an act of utmost reverence performed by the sun, moon, and stars in the dream.

Additionally, the interpretation of this verse pertains to the realm of the malakūt (kingdom) and the dream vision, which is a domain of life and consciousness. Moreover, predominance (taghlīb) is not merely a possibility that brings about an occurrence; it requires specific contextual evidence to establish its realization.

6. It might also be questioned whether the term names (asmāʾ) in verses like “And to God belong the most beautiful names, so invoke Him by them” (7:180) and “They are not but [mere] names you have named” (53:23) refers solely to realities. In the first verse, does it not refer to the thousand names mentioned in the supplication of Jawshan Kabīr or the 99 names cited in some narrations? And in the second verse, does it not refer to names like al-Lāt, al-ʿUzzā, and Manāt? Essentially, why couldn’t the verse under discussion have both an apparent meaning (referring to familiar names, in the sense of names as distinct from the named things) and an inner meaning, where the names represent the realities of the world or exalted luminous existences?

Especially since Ṣadūq, may God have mercy on him, narrated through two reliable chains of transmission from Imām al-Ṣādiq (a.s.), who said: “God, blessed and exalted is He, taught Ādam the names of all His proofs (ḥujaj). Then He presented those proofs, while they were spirits, to the angels and said: ‘Inform Me.’”(213) From this narration, it appears that names as opposed to the named entities were taught to Ādam, without any ambiguity that requires justification. Of course, it is possible that the essence of this matter and how familiarity with names in this sense serves as the criterion for vicegerency may remain beyond our full comprehension.

In response, it must be clarified that the concept of names as pure existence with a specific determination holds a particular interpretation in religious texts. This is partly reflected in the supplication of Kumayl: “And by Your names which have filled the foundations of all things.” The derivation of the realities of both the unseen and the seen from the verse under discussion is based on the apparent meaning of the term, not its inner or esoteric meaning. Arbitrary words, which neither have permanence nor serve as criteria for perfection, cannot be the basis for divine vicegerency. The teaching of the names of the proofs (a.s.), as indicated by the internal context of the ḥadīth, refers to the realities of the friends of God (awliyāʾ Allāh).(214) Just as the verse under discussion, through its central themes, implies that the names refer to realities, the verse “They are not but [mere] names...” clearly suggests that those names refer to arbitrary labels and meaningless words.

7. In any case, it is clear that the term “names” (asmāʾ) in the verse under discussion does not merely refer to words. Firstly, verbal names are conventions and agreements that, unlike realities, change over time and may even become obsolete, replaced by new terms. Learning such things is not considered a true perfection that would serve as the basis for Ādam’s vicegerency and his superiority over the angels.

Secondly, in the realm of angels, there is no discourse on conventions or the coining of words; immaterial beings and the inhabitants of the celestial realm are not familiar with these conventional sciences.

Thirdly, the conventions of each people and race differ from those of others. So, which language and dialect was taught to Ādam?

Fourthly, as ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī (may his soul be sanctified) has stated, if the teaching of “names” referred to the knowledge of vocabulary in the way it is customary among us, then with Ādam’s enlightenment, the angels would also have become knowledgeable and equal to Ādam. Moreover, it would not have been considered a virtue or honor for Ādam, because the angels could have responded to God by saying, “If You had taught us those words as well, we would have been worthy of the position of vicegerency.” Such a question and answer would not have convinced the angels or invalidated their argument. Additionally, the perfection of knowledge in terms of words and vocabulary lies in understanding the intentions of hearts, which the angels do not need to achieve through speech. Instead, they perceive the intentions of hearts directly, without the mediation of words, thus possessing a perfection beyond that of mere speech.(215)

Fifthly, the primary criterion for deriving meanings from religious texts is whether they are definitive (naṣṣ), most apparent (aẓhar), or apparent (ẓāhir). When there is a conflict between these apparent meanings, the definitive or most apparent meaning takes precedence over the apparent one. This rule is rooted in the culture of dialogue and is endorsed by the system of religious understanding and comprehension. If such a conflict occurs within a single statement, the apparent meaning at the beginning of the statement often takes precedence over the apparent meaning at the end, because the foundation of the statement is what the speaker presents at the outset of their speech or writing.

In the verse under discussion, the topic of teaching is introduced at the beginning. Firstly, merely teaching words would not be wise, nor would it justify the divine vicegerency. Secondly, when referring to the presentation to the angels, the sound masculine plural pronoun, which is specific to rational beings, is used. The key point is that the pronoun’s referent is certainly not the names themselves (as it cannot be said that the names were presented to the angels; the verse states: “Tell me the names of these,” and it is clear that names do not have names). Therefore, the intended referent of the pronoun must be the named entities, not the names themselves.

Hence, what is derived from the beginning of the verse, according to the aforementioned points, is the realities of things and persons, not their names. Otherwise, the apparent meaning at the end of the verse, where it says: “Tell me the names of these,” would suggest that the focus of teaching and the basis of presentation was on the names themselves. However, based on the precedence of the apparent meaning of the beginning over that of the end, and considering the points mentioned, it can be concluded that the addition of “names” to “these” is a form of emphatic addition, similar to expressions like “Zayd’s self.” This emphasizes the importance of the matter without involving the impossibility of adding a thing to itself.(216)

However, knowledge of realities necessitates an awareness of conventional matters. While awareness of conventional matters does not directly lead to knowledge of realities, understanding the realities of things as the Beautiful Names of God necessitates the teaching of all conventional matters and titles. This includes teaching the names of various things throughout history and across different geographies, without reducing the profound meaning of the renowned verse on teaching the names to merely conventional words in languages like Hebrew, Arabic, or Persian.

Therefore, what Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭabarī narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās in the exegesis (tafsīr) regarding the teaching of the names—such as “He taught him the name of everything, even... and the breaking of wind and...”(217) —is not befitting the status of the exegesis of the Noble Qur’an. Similar statements are found in the exegesis Kashf al-Asrār wa ʿUddat al-Abrār, known as the exegesis of Khwāja ʿAbdullāh Anṣārī.(218)

Of course, al-Ṭabarī considers the taught names to be specific to the names of the progeny of Ādam and the names of the angels, excluding the names of other genera, let alone the names of things. He infers this specificity from the use of the sound masculine plural pronoun, citing its predominant use for angels and humans.(219) However, this view was critiqued in the course of our previous discussions.

It may be argued that the ability to name things is synonymous with the gift of expression, which is introduced in Sūrah al-Raḥmān as the first virtue and blessing bestowed upon man after the blessings of creation and the teaching of the Qur’an: “He created man, [And] taught him eloquence” (55:3-4). What prevents the “teaching of names” in the verse under discussion from being understood as the ability to name, meaning the same teaching of eloquence mentioned in Sūrah al-Raḥmān, especially considering the multiple similarities between these two verses?

Firstly, in both verses, the term “taught” (ʿallama) is used.

Secondly, the verse under discussion is not solely about the person of Ādam but, as mentioned earlier, presents Ādam as a model for humanity, just as in Sūrah al-Raḥmān, humanity as a whole is being addressed.

Thirdly, in the verse under discussion, the first virtue mentioned for Ādam after his creation is the teaching of the names (asmāʾ), and similarly, in Sūrah al-Raḥmān, the first honor bestowed upon man after his creation is the teaching of articulate speech (bayān).

Fourthly, names (asmāʾ) and naming (tasmiya) are tools and means for articulate speech (bayān) and explanation (tabyīn). The difference between names and articulate speech is akin to the difference between a premise and a conclusion, and a similarity and proximity to this extent allows one to be used in place of the other. In any case, what is the objection to considering the power of articulate speech as the most important virtue of Ādam, the criterion for his vicegerency, and the basis of his distinction over the angels in the verse under discussion, just as in Sūrah al-Raḥmān, the power of articulate speech is regarded as the reason for man’s superiority over other creatures and the first human honor after his creation?

The response to this error is as follows:

Firstly, the mere ability to name things is not the criterion for vicegerency.

Secondly, the apparent meaning of the verse under discussion indicates the actual process of teaching, learning, and the attainment of knowledge, not just the potential or readiness for it.

Thirdly, the value of a potential is determined by the worth of what it actualizes. If that potential only leads to articulate speech, it cannot serve as the basis for divine vicegerency.

Fourthly, the principle of interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an, as mentioned: “Ask the Qur’an from the Qur’an, and that is sufficient,” follows a specific criterion that is not met by the aforementioned interpretation.

Fifthly, in Sūrah al-Raḥmān, articulate speech (bayān) is mentioned after the realization of humanity. The mere physical form of an animal, due to its ambiguity, is not considered articulate speech. The realization of humanity depends on internalizing the teachings of the Qur’an; if the reality of the Qur’an becomes ingrained in one’s being, then they are truly human, and their speech will be articulate. Therefore, God the Glorified first speaks of teaching the Qur’an, then mentions the creation of man, and only after this does He speak of teaching man eloquence.

Sixthly, if the verse is to be interpreted by comparing it with other verses, then the teaching of the names should be understood in harmony with the teaching of the Qur’an, rather than with the teaching of eloquence, as these two only share a superficial similarity. Since the inner meaning of the Qur’an is synonymous with the clear and wise book, as in: “It is in the Mother of the Book with Us, sublime and wise” (43:4), this teaching can be in harmony with the divine names.

The reason for the varying interpretations among exegetes regarding the meaning of the names stems from the differences in their scholarly approaches. Those who focus on linguistic expressions interpret the names as mere words and expressions. Those who engage with symbolic meanings find subtle allusions within the names. Meanwhile, those who explore deeper spiritual nuances reveal the divine subtlety inherent in the names. As for the prophets, who are the people of truth, they not only convey the divine names with true realization but are also themselves designated and defined by these names in their very essence.

Presenting the Names to the Angels

To demonstrate to the angels their own limitations concerning vicegerency and to express the wisdom behind making Ādam the vicegerent, God, the Glorified, presented to the angels the very names and realities that He had taught Ādam. He then challenged them by saying: “Inform Me of their names, if you are truthful” (in your claim of possessing knowledge of the unseen in the heavens and the earth, or in your claim of being more worthy of vicegerency). The verse reads: “Then He presented them to the angels and said, ‘Inform Me of the names of these, if you are truthful.’”

The word “then” (thumma) in this verse indicates an existential sequence rather than a temporal delay. This means that first, Ādam (a.s.) received divine knowledge directly related to the names and understood those realities without any intermediary. Subsequently, God showed these realities to the angels.(220)

It could be argued that the creation of Ādam (a.s.) occurred after the creation of the earth, the heavens, and temporal beings. Naturally, the breathing of the spirit into him and the teaching of the names also occurred after his creation from clay. Consequently, the presentation of these names to the angels must have happened after Ādam’s creation from clay. Given that the acts of breathing the spirit, teaching the names, and presenting these to the angels occurred at specific points in time and involved a temporal being—Ādam (a.s.)—it stands to reason that the specific moment of teaching the names was also chronologically prior to the presentation to the angels.

Even if these acts are considered abstract and immaterial, they still occurred within a temporal framework, similar to the story of the miʿrāj (ascension). Despite the Noble Prophet’s ascension to the heavens up to the Farthest Lote Tree (Sidrat al-Muntahā), which, as the late ʿAllāmah (may God have mercy on him) suggested in his commentary on Sūrah al-Isrāʾ,(221) might have been spiritual and abstract in nature, the miʿrāj still occurred at a specific time, in a particular year of the Hijri calendar, and at a specific hour of the night. Additionally, it is said that the second miʿrāj of the Prophet took place later than the first, even though both are assumed to be of an abstract nature.

The answer is firstly, the human being consists of a material body that is bound by time and a spirit that is abstract and transcends time. Secondly, functions related to the body possess a material and temporal aspect, while those associated with the spirit are characterized by abstraction and transcendence beyond time. Thirdly, giving each rightful owner their due necessitates that material affairs of the body, while connected to the immaterial affairs of the spirit, be distinguished from them in rational analysis. Fourthly, when a human perceives an intelligible and abstract matter through bodily activities such as conversation, debate, discussion, study, and investigation—though all these bodily actions are temporal—the stage of intellect is free from time.

Fifthly, in the process of teaching the names, what pertains to Ādam’s body is temporal, while the reality of the names, the manner of their witnessing, presential teaching, and presentation to the immaterial angels are free from time. Sixthly, in the story of the ascension (miʿrāj) and similar narratives, whatever pertains to the natural realm is temporal, while whatever lies beyond nature is not bound by time. Seventhly, the unity between the spirit and the body justifies attributing the predicates of one to the other in everyday speech, but such figurative expressions do not hold in precise philosophical analyses.

Types of Presentation and Kinds of Veils

The term “presentation” (ʿarḍ), as mentioned in the phrase “Then He presented them...,” refers to displaying something and providing a summary awareness through inspiration or similar means. Presentation can occur in two ways:

Physical Presentation: This involves physically presenting an object, such as showing a heavy item to someone claiming strength and challenging them to lift it.

Intellectual Presentation: This involves presenting a problem or issue to someone claiming knowledge and the ability of ijtihād (independent reasoning), asking them to solve it. Here, the issue is presented to their mind and carried upon their intellectual spirit. Clearly, the type of presentation in the context under discussion is of the second kind.

Similarly, the veil (ḥijāb) or obstacle that is mentioned after presentation, which prevents understanding or reception, also comes in two forms:

Material and Opaque Veil: This type of veil blocks the reception of material things.

Spiritual and Luminous Veil: This veil obstructs the understanding and reception of spiritual knowledge. It represents the depth of an intellectual matter—the deeper and more luminous the matter, the more difficult it is for a weak heart to comprehend it.

The phrase “And illuminate the eyes of our hearts with the radiance of looking towards You until the eyes of the hearts pierce through the veils of light”(222) refers to our ability to transcend and understand deep intellectual issues and religious knowledge, which themselves are luminous veils. These veils are not mere obstacles but are the profound layers of divine knowledge that require piercing through.

The reason the angels were unable to understand after the presentation was due to these very veils of light—the depth and complexity of the divine names. The angels lacked the capacity to surpass these fixed stations or break through these luminous veils, as each has a known station: “And there is none of us except that he has a known station” (37:164). Therefore, the angels acknowledged their lack of inherent knowledge of divine realities, stating that since they were not taught the knowledge of the names, they could not grasp these realities.

In summary, firstly, a veil is essentially an obstacle. Secondly, an obstacle can be either material, like a wall, or abstract and immaterial, such as the conceptual and propositional premises of theoretical issues, as indicated in the verse: “Indeed, We will cast upon you a heavy word” (73:5). Thirdly, grasping such weighty premises is challenging for those who are deficient in understanding, and they become veiled by these luminous veils of knowledge. Fourthly, engaging in practical exercises and training one’s faculties is also difficult for weak wayfarers, who are veiled by luminous veils of practice. Fifthly, the beautiful names of God are akin to a heavy word, and like the intense light of the sun, they serve as an obstacle to the angels’ knowledge. In this context, the veil is not something separate from what is veiled, but rather the very intensity of the luminosity itself. Sixthly, deep premises, while being a veil in relation to what follows from them, are also what is veiled; meaning, the deficient observer lacks the intellectual vision to fully understand these premises. As a result, they are unable to first comprehend these deep concepts and then move beyond them to reach the conclusions.

How the Names were Presented to the Angels

There are several possibilities regarding how the names or the named entities were presented to the angels, similar to how Ādam was taught. These include a detailed presentation while maintaining external multiplicity, or a concise presentation with detailed unveiling but without actual multiplicity. It is also possible that presenting the names to the angels was equivalent to presenting the reality of the perfect human being, who embodies all the beautiful names of God. In other words, the perfect human being, who contains the greater world within himself, was presented to the angels, and they were asked to define this reality—this all-encompassing existence and the gathering place of the divine names—and to report on his collective identity.

In any case, it is important to note that some of the divine names have an actual existence, while others are considered merely metaphysical or ethical concepts without an existence outside the self. However, it can be said that all ethical attributes and meanings possess an ugly or beautiful form in the realm of the unseen and the world of similitudes. Thus, presenting those types of ethical meanings could be accompanied by presenting their imaginal forms.

Note:

1. If, firstly, the presentation concerns the named entity, and secondly, what is meant by names are the words signifying them, and thirdly, the narration of Ibn ʿAbbās(223) is also considered, and fourthly, the offered explanation is not accepted, then the pinnacle of the Qur’anic truth would be reduced to a reality that cannot be adhered to.

2. Some who believe that God can assign an impossible task have cited the verse “inform Me of the names of these” as evidence, arguing that He commanded the angels to inform Him of these names even though He knew they would be unable to do so. The response to this doubt is that the aforementioned command is intended to demonstrate their incapacity, not to actually make them responsible for doing the impossible. In other words, it is meant to highlight the addressee’s inability, not to impose an actual demand.

The Sign of the Existential Gap Between Humans and Angels

What was mentioned about Ādam (the perfect human) was, firstly, his teaching, and secondly, his understanding of the reality of the divine names. Conversely, what was mentioned about the angels was, firstly, their role in informing, and secondly, their knowledge of the names of the divine names. The angels were told that they were neither aware of the reality of these names nor knowledgeable about the essence of the names of names. They were challenged to at least inform and report on the names of the beautiful names of God: “Inform Me of the names of these.”

However, the angels were incapable of even providing information about these names. The command to “inform” was not an existential directive that would have enabled them to fulfill it, nor was it a genuine moral imperative, as that would have meant imposing an impossible task on them. Instead, it was intended to reveal their incapability and to make it clear to the angels that they were several stages removed from the divine vicegerency.

This gap is evident because, firstly, they were incapable of merely informing (let alone fully expressing knowledge). Secondly, they were unable to report even the names of these divine names, let alone the beautiful names themselves. Thirdly, how can one who is incapable of mere reporting be expected to manifest these names, realize them within their collective identity, and be adorned with them? Fourthly, the most critical qualification for governing and ruling the cosmos is being adorned with the beautiful names of God. How can someone who lacks the cornerstone of divine vicegerency—the divine names—be appointed to oversee the world that God has created?

To convey the existential gap between Ādam and the angels, the word “fa” (lit. “then”) is used: “Then He presented them... and (fa) said: Inform Me...”

What transpired between God and the angels, though it may have been a direct conversation and beyond the realm of acquired knowledge, is conveyed in the Qur’an in a manner consistent with human understanding, specifically within the framework of acquired knowledge, including its laws and rulings. This process of challenge, invitation to a gathering, and similar confrontations is reflected in the call to prophethood, messengership, miracles, and the like. When God, the Exalted, communicated with the angels and requested the names of the divine manifestations, it was in the nature of a challenge concerning the matter of divine vicegerency.

This type of challenge and confrontation is also presented regarding the deniers of prophethood, as mentioned in the exegesis (tafsīr) of verse 23 of this same chapter.(224) Similarly, a challenge is issued to those who claim that the angels are female and the daughters of God, who is exalted above all forms of birth. The Qur’an addresses this matter as follows: “Has He chosen daughters over sons?... Then bring your book, if you are truthful” (37:153-157).

Note:

1. The angels were not rejecting or being disdainful about the vicegerency of man; rather, they were simply inquiring about it. Once the matter was clarified to them, they immediately accepted it and acknowledged their own limitations. In contrast, the polytheists generally rejected and showed arrogance towards the idea of human prophethood, particularly the prophethood of the Messenger of God (s.a.w.). Even after the proof was established, they persisted in their rejection. Instead of the insightful declaration, “God knows best where to place His message,” they clung to the ignorant slogan, “Does a human guide us?”

2. The angels made two claims: one positive, asserting their own suitability for divine vicegerency, and one negative, denying the suitability of man for this role. After God challenged them, and they were unable to inform Him of the divine names, their positive claim was invalidated. Furthermore, when Ādam informed them of the names, demonstrating his knowledge and thus becoming their teacher, the angels’ negative claim was also invalidated. Therefore, Ādam’s fitness for vicegerency was established not merely by the angels’ inability, but by his role as a teacher to the angels.

The Claim of the Angels

Regarding the phrase “if you are truthful” (in kuntum ṣādiqīn), two questions arise: First, what was the claim of the angels in which there was a possibility of truthfulness or falsehood? In other words, what claim could they have been either truthful or false about?

In response to this question, several possibilities are mentioned. One interpretation is that the angels claimed that appointing Ādam as vicegerent was without wisdom and benefit, meaning that if they were truthful in asserting that Ādam’s appointment lacked wisdom and benefit, then they should demonstrate their knowledge. Another interpretation is that the angels claimed they were more deserving of the vicegerency than Ādam.(225)

The esteemed scholar ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī (may God have mercy on him) explains that the occurrence of this phrase “if you are truthful” following the command “Inform Me of the names of these, if you are truthful” (_anbiʾūnī bi-_asmāʾ__i hāʾulāʾi in kuntum ṣādiqīn) indicates that the angels had made a claim which necessitated knowledge of the names. This claim was their belief that they were more deserving of vicegerency than Ādam, and that Ādam was not worthy of it.(226)

This explanation, which aligns with the second possibility mentioned earlier, is supported by a narration from Imām al-Ṣādiq (a.s.), who said: “Indeed, God, blessed and exalted is He, taught Ādam the names of all of God’s proofs (ḥujaj). Then He presented them, while they were spirits, to the angels and said, ‘Inform Me of the names of these if you are truthful in your claim that you are more deserving of vicegerency on earth due to your glorification and sanctification than Ādam...’”(227) Here, the phrase “if you are truthful” is directly applied to the angels’ claim that they were more deserving and suitable for vicegerency: “if you are truthful in your claim that you are more deserving of vicegerency” (in kuntum ṣādiqīn bi-annakum aḥaqqu bil-khilāfa).

However, it is equally possible that this application is meant in a more extended (jarī) or conventional sense, not strictly as a conceptual interpretation, so that it can also be reconciled with the first interpretation. Additionally, the beginning of the narration, which considers the names taught to Ādam as being the names of the divine proofs, could also be understood in the same way of extension and its application in this sense, without contradicting the idea that God taught Ādam the other names and realities of the world.

The statement “if you are truthful” could also be understood as addressing the first question: The angels claimed to glorify and sanctify God with complete praise, as expressed in “We glorify You with Your praise and sanctify You.” However, complete praise requires a comprehensive knowledge of all the realities of the world, which are all blessings from God, including the hidden knowledge that only God possesses. Those who, like the angels, lack knowledge of these hidden realities or possess only partial knowledge cannot fully praise God. Therefore, their claim to glorify God with complete praise is questionable.

As a result, they are challenged: “If you are truthful in this claim, then inform Me of this knowledge.”

Perhaps this explanation aligns with the idea that some scholars have proposed, which connects glorification to the acknowledgment of the manifestation of the Divine Names. They suggest that the angels, when questioning the appointment of a being capable of corruption and bloodshed as God’s vicegerent, simultaneously claimed to glorify and sanctify Him. Yet, every act of glorification is related to specific Divine Names that God has manifested in creation. Some of these Names are the sources of the angels’ own existence, while others pertain to higher beings or to the Pen and the Preserved Tablet, which rank above them. Without knowing these specific Names, it is impossible to offer proper glorification and sanctification of them.(228)(229)

The response is sufficient if we understand the angels’ claim as glorification accompanied by absolute praise in a general sense, rather than specific praise in certain aspects. The phrase “We glorify You with Your praise” does not necessarily imply absolute praise, but rather praise in specific respects.

Note:

Considering that angels are immune from intentional falsehoods, the issue lies not in the truthfulness of the angels as reporters, but in the truth of the report itself. Truth and falsehood can pertain to both the content of a report and the reporter themselves, though these are distinct concepts.

The ethical and value-based concepts of truth and falsehood that result in legal rulings are applicable to earthly beings, including angels. However, for metaphysical angels who exist in a state of complete intellectual abstraction and are not subject to legal rulings, truth and falsehood pertain to their existential perfection or deficiency. This is similar to what is discussed regarding God Almighty, who is characterized as truthful and not false. This means that God possesses existential perfection to such a degree that all reports from the Divine Essence are in complete conformity with reality, with no deficiency in knowledge or power that might result in a report that does not align with reality. The same reasoning applies to the immaterial angels of the celestial realm.

In summary, truth and falsehood, when understood in a purely abstract sense, are fundamentally about existence and non-existence, rather than about moral obligations and prohibitions.

There are other aspects that can be considered in response to the aforementioned question. The second question arises from the fact that truth and falsehood are typically applicable only to reports or statements of fact. However, what the angels expressed was an inquiry, not a report. An inquiry, which is essentially a question, falls under the category of performative utterances (inshāʾ), not factual statements. Performative utterances are not typically characterized by truth or falsehood. The Noble Qur’an also uses the terms “truth” and “falsehood” specifically in the context of claims and reports, as seen in verses like “Then long for death, if you are truthful” (2:99) and “Say, ‘Produce your proof, should you be truthful’” (2:111).

In response to the question regarding the usage of the term “truth” in the verse under discussion, several perspectives have been offered:

1. Some predicative statements are intended as speech acts (inshāʾ), and some speech acts are meant to convey predicative statements (khabar). At times, a predicative statement may be conveyed with the intent of performing a speech act, and conversely, a speech act may be delivered with the motive of conveying a predicative statement. In this context, the sentence “Will You place upon it...” appears to be a question in form, which is a type of speech act. However, its implicit message is that the angels believe themselves to be more knowledgeable and superior to Ādam, and therefore, more deserving of divine vicegerency than him. This underlying claim is a predicative statement that can be judged as true or false, and the angels regarded themselves as truthful in this claim.(230)

2. The statement made by the angels was not merely a question; following their inquiry, they also made claims regarding their glorification (tasbīḥ), sanctification (taqdīs), and praise (ḥamd) of God Almighty. It is possible that the truthfulness mentioned in the verse refers to these subsequent claims rather than the preceding question.