Adam’s Story in the Qur’an and the Testaments

At the conclusion of the exegesis (tafsīr) of the verses on vicegerency, a comparative examination of the story of Adam as presented in the noble Qur’an and narrated aḥādīth with the accounts mentioned in the religious texts of the Two Testaments and the commentaries of their exegetes is offered. The final judgment between these accounts relies on the insight and comprehensive perspective of the exegete. Such an exegete should be well-versed in the overarching themes, aware of the commonalities between the heavenly books, and able to discern the foreign and alien elements. This knowledge enables him to deliver a just verdict without falling into excess or negligence.

The Complexity of Issuing Judgments on the Story of Adam

The complexity in issuing judgments regarding Adam, Eve, and Iblīs lies in the nature of some ancient events that are sporadically studied by experts in specific fields. In such cases, the presented opinions are few, with minimal contradictions, making them easier to summarize. However, there are ancient and long-standing events that have consistently attracted the attention of numerous enthusiasts and researchers, resulting in a proliferation of contradictory views. This abundance of conflicting interpretations often makes it challenging to distill and summarize the findings, sometimes leading to confusion rather than clarity.

The enduring story of Adam, Eve, the angels, and Iblīs falls into this latter category. The aspects related to biology and the emergence of Adam as the first human being have always been the subject of ongoing biological research. Simultaneously, this narrative intertwines with the creation of Adam (a.s.) and relies on religious texts and transmitted documents, continuously subjected to varied interpretations by exegetes (mufassirūn) and commentators. The components based on transmissions from infallible sources and reliable religious texts are frequently found amidst a spectrum of authentic and false reports. Moreover, the rational analyses or mystical insights of sages and mystics often intermingle with novel yet acceptable ideas and sometimes with rejected innovations.

This turbulent fate burdens the heart of an exegete, especially when some ambiguous verses (mutashābihāt) are discussed without proper reference to the clear or decisive verses (muḥkamāt), and the supporting narrations are weak—whether they are definitive (maqṭūʿ), halted (mawqūf), elevated (marfūʿ), feeble (mawhūn), or mursal. This indicates that the verses of the Qur’an, the greatest weight and ultimate reference, have not been sufficiently elucidated, nor have the transmitted narrations achieved the credibility and authority required for interpreting the Noble Qur’an.

The difficulties of religious texts have transferred from Judaism to Christianity and then overflowed into Islam. Given the long history of the story, what was reported in religious texts before Judaism entered the exegetical traditions of the Jewish faith, and from there, narratives about figures from Adam (a.s.) to the Seal of Prophets (s.a.w.) have permeated Islamic exegesis. The pure essence of Adam’s (a.s.) story is often overshadowed by layers of undesirable, spurious, and incredible additions. Only an exegete with a heavenly disposition and a seeker of paradise can peel away these layers, casting aside the surrounding halos of confusion. They must place rational demonstration, like Qur’anic revelation, as a guiding light—referring the ambiguous to the definitive, presenting narrations to the Qur’an, and weighing all statements found in texts prone to distortion against the Qur’an’s absolute truth and veracity.

Such an exegete should proceed with the hope of divine favor and unseen inspiration, refraining from speaking until they reach certainty or a state of tranquility, issuing judgments within the bounds of what is known, and withholding opinions beyond that. For the knowledge of realities is the gradual sustenance of human societies, and a special portion is determined for each era, place, and generation.

The essential recommendation in this regard is that the critique of Isrāʾīlīyāt should remain within its proper domain and not extend to the authentic religious texts of the Torah, Gospel, Psalms, and similar scriptures. Just as one must believe in the infallibility, sanctity, and divine station of all the messengers of God—“We make no distinction between any of His messengers” (2:185)—the same belief applies to the authentic and uncorrupted scriptures and texts protected from non-revelatory influences. One must acknowledge their sanctity, purity, and authority: “We make no distinction between any of His books.” The Noble Qur’an requires faith in all uncorrupted divine books: “The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in God and His angels and His books and His messengers” (2:285).

The First Human in Biology and Religious Texts

The apparent meaning of any text that is conveyed for the instruction of the people, based on the culture of public discourse, is considered authoritative unless valid rational or transmitted evidence necessitates departing from that apparent meaning. Sacred religious texts are not exempt from this instructional principle. Therefore, the apparent meaning of the Noble Qur’an, which considers the creation of Adam (a.s.) from earthly elements and does not view him as the offspring of anyone, is authoritative.

What has been discussed and examined regarding the first human in biology, as well as inferences from discovered fossils and archaeological remains, will not be a reliable basis for anthropologists as long as these findings remain at the level of initial hypotheses and have not reached the status of scientific research. Similarly, they do not necessitate any modification to the apparent meaning of religious texts. Even if these hypotheses advance to the level of established theories and become a foundation for technical researchers, they are not responsible for proving the nature of Adam’s (a.s.) emergence to the extent that they would alter the apparent meaning of religious texts. This is because many humans existed and went extinct before Adam (a.s.), but Adam (a.s.) was not from the lineage of any of them.

The ineffectiveness of discovered fossils and technical experiments in biology lies in their inherent limitations: although these empirical methods can affirm occurrences, they do not possess the language of negation since they have not tested the impossibility of their own contradictions. In other words, empirical evidence can demonstrate that certain events have occurred concerning humans, but it cannot assert that other possibilities are impossible or that the way humans came into existence is solely as archaeological remains and biological tests suggest.

The primary points are:

Firstly, it is essential to distinguish between investigating the specific emergence of Adam (a.s.), from whom the current human race descends, and the broader examination of the emergence of the first human.

Secondly, the value of empirical knowledge should be differentiated from philosophical or theological knowledge, which is capable of a broader, two-sided perspective that includes both affirmation and negation. The absence of empirical evidence should not be mistakenly considered as proof of the nonexistence of phenomena beyond empirical observation, nor should ordinary impossibility be confused with rational impossibility.

Thirdly, the term “making” (jaʿl) in the sense of creation (khalq), which involves a single object, should not be equated with “making” in the sense of transformation (taṣyīr) and conversion (taḥwīl), which involves two objects. The verse “Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority” (Qur’an 2:30), which signifies the creation of a khalīfa (vicegerent), should not be misinterpreted as merely placing or changing something from one state to another.

Fourthly, the term “God” should not be mistaken for the khalīfa of the previous generation. Even if Adam is considered the successor to previous humans, this does not serve as evidence for the transformation of species or his emergence from an earlier generation.(262)

Fifthly, the term “teaching” (taʿlīm), though indicative of Adam’s existence preceding his learning, does not in any way suggest his emergence from a previous generation or imply any Darwinian transformation of species.(263)

Therefore, the acceptance or rejection of biologists’ views—such as: a) the emergence of man from the earth, b) the cosmic origin of man involving the fall of his primary materials in the air and their transfer to the earth by rain, c) transformism or the evolution of species, and d) fixism or the stability of species—does not determine the story of Adam’s (a.s.) creation. This is true unless it is proven that Adam was the exclusive first human and that no humans existed before him. According to certain narrated and non-narrated reports, many humans existed before Adam (a.s.), just as many worlds were inhabited and destroyed before the current world of the last Adam. None of these views decide the fate of Adam (a.s.) as described in religious texts. Similarly, religious texts do not claim that the creation of humanity was confined to Adam or that no humans existed before him in earlier epochs. The apparent meanings are as follows:

i) All current human beings are descendants of Adam.

ii) Adam (a.s.) was not the offspring of anyone.

iii) Human creation outside a woman’s womb is possible, just as human creation without a father is possible. However, the speed of transformation does not imply skipping the intermediate stages between the inanimate and human. Rapid or slow evolution does not equate to Darwinian species transformation, for the development of sperm to the human stage, although direct, does not resemble Darwinian species evolution.

The blending of mathematical and empirical issues, confusing logical limitations with incomplete inductive reasoning, mistaking conventional impossibility for rational impossibility, and perhaps being psychologically influenced by the advancement of empirical science, have collectively led to confusion and inertia regarding species transformation.

The Special Purity of the Story of the Chosen One

The book revealed by God, like His book of creation, is established on the best system. Thus, God declares: “God has sent down the best discourse” (39:23). The manifestation of this excellence in storytelling is such that the best story is presented with the finest narration, as implied in the verse: “We relate to you the best of stories” (12:3). This can be understood comprehensively: We narrate the best story (the infinitive as the object) in the most beautiful way (the absolute object of manner). This means both recounting the most beautiful story and narrating it in the most elegant way. Therefore, all the stories of the Qur’an, along with their narrations, are of the highest quality.

The excellence of a story lies in its truth, veracity, instructiveness, and beneficial nature, while the excellence of its narration lies in avoiding brevity, neglect, ambiguity, prolongation, excessive conciseness, and similar flaws. The story of Adam (a.s.) stands as the best of stories in this respect, and what is mentioned at the beginning of Sūrah Yūsuf reflects a divine principle in narration, not exclusive to Prophet Joseph’s (a.s.) story. Rather, any beauty in the story of Joseph and any artistry in its narration is a reflection of the excellence of Adam’s story, demonstrating the inherent quality of its presentation. This is because all the beauty and majesty seen in Joseph emanate from the vicegerency of the perfect human being, his knowledge of the beautiful names of God, the prostration of angels to him, and similar attributes.

For this reason, all existing religious texts in the world must be referred to the Qur’an, which has narrated the best story of Adam in the most excellent manner. The Qur’an holds authority and dominance over all of them, whether these texts are considered as divine revelations or narrated ḥadīths, and regardless of whether those ḥadīths have originated within Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Another reason for presenting other texts to the Noble Qur’an was also mentioned in the previous discussion.

Since the Qur’an’s narration of the story of Adam (a.s.) is the best, any omission or absence of a particular aspect or quality in its narration is due to specific reasons. Either including that aspect would have had a detrimental effect, or if its mention would have been beneficial, an equivalent or similar has already been included or considered.

From the discussions, it can be inferred that the general and comprehensive principles of the Qur’anic narrative about the story of Adam (a.s.)—such as his creation from clay without a father and mother—either align with the authentic previous heavenly books or do not contradict them. Otherwise, the custodians of the Old Testament and the rabbis and monks of the Jewish and Christian faiths, who were vigilant in their scrutiny and criticism, would have seized the opportunity to challenge and dispute it. They would have actively engaged in campaigns of criticism, claiming fabrication, slander, and interpolation, and would have established these accusations. They might have accused the Qur’an of contradiction, citing its claim to confirm the previous scriptures: “confirming what was before it” (3:3) while simultaneously presenting ideas that do not align with those texts. However, such accusations have not been leveled against the Noble Qur’an by the People of the Book. Instead, claims of fabrication, interpolation, and similar criticisms have primarily come from polytheists or heretics.

They have been and still are unable to substantiate such an accusation. The secret behind the unity and multiplicity, singularity and repetition, brevity and detail observed in the Qur’anic narratives may lie in the distinct excellence of each story. Thus, the story of the declaration of Adam’s (a.s.) vicegerency is mentioned only once, while the event of the command to prostrate before him, the angels’ obedience, and Iblīs’s rebellion are recounted multiple times.

In summary, the story of Adam, the chosen one, or the specially selected one, is presented in a manner that is free from the shadows of ignorance, the darkness of falsehood, the contamination of distortion, and the impurity of fabrication and interpolation.

The Agreement of the Angels with the Creation of Adam

Some texts derived from the Torah, such as the Talmud, suggest that when the divine will decided to create Adam, the angels were summoned for counsel. Some of them agreed, inspired by the hope of the love and kindness that would emanate from him, while others opposed the creation, fearing the misdeeds and conflicts he might incite. Ultimately, the Divine Essence decided to create Adam.(264) However, such details are not directly inferred from the Qur’an. Although a reliable narration from an infallible (a.s.) can serve to clarify the text, restrict the absolute, specify the general, or similar functions, the establishment of such a distinction between the angels would necessitate valid evidence.

The Creation of Adam in the Image of God

While the Noble Qur’an emphasizes the honor of human creation, the title of vicegerency, the breathing of God’s spirit into man, and similar concepts, it deliberately avoids using terms such as “image,” “likeness,” or similar expressions. No verse in the Qur’an explicitly states that man was created in the image of God or resembles God. However, in the aḥādīth, such a title has been mentioned, with clear distinctions made between correct and incorrect interpretations. Some reports reject the term “image” when it implies anthropomorphism or likening God to His creation,(265) while other aḥādīth affirm the term when it denotes an honorific attribution of man to God,(266) similar to the attribution of the Kaʿba to God in the phrase “purify My House…” despite God being above the need for a house or any physical place. Conversely, in the Book of Genesis, the Talmud, and other commentaries on sacred texts, the terms “image” and “likeness” are fully present and accepted.

The texts from the Talmud and the Christian book Al-Hāyat provide distinct perspectives on the concept of man being created in the image of God:

Perspective in Talmud: The Talmud emphasizes that being created in the image of God is a central principle in Jewish teachings about human existence. This belief grants humans superiority over all other creatures, highlighting humanity’s unique position in creation. The Talmud states that each individual is akin to an entire world, illustrating the profound value of human life. It teaches that destroying a single soul is as if one has destroyed an entire world, while saving a soul is as if one has saved an entire world.(267)

Christian Perspective: Al-Hāyat explains that the Bible describes the original state of humanity as being made in God’s image and likeness. The text suggests that there is little difference between “image” and “likeness” in Hebrew, urging readers not to dwell on these distinctions but to grasp the primary purpose behind them.(268) It states that since God is spirit, and man possesses a spirit endowed with reason, conscience, and will, this likeness reflects God’s rational, moral, and free nature in humanity. This similarity is essential for humans to know God and constitutes the foundation of human religiosity. Without this likeness, humans would be no different from animals, lacking the capacity to know God.(269)

In summary, the concept of humans being created in the “image of God” and in the “likeness of God” is a fundamental principle in both Jewish and Christian teachings. This notion is often articulated to safeguard divine knowledge from any form of embodiment (tajsīm), anthropomorphism (tashbīh), or the afflictions of incarnation (ḥulūl) and union (ittiḥād) with contingent beings. It aims to maintain the divine attribute of purity and transcendence, protecting it from distortion and false perceptions.

Jewish and Christian scholars, particularly after the emergence of the Islamic divine worldview, have reexamined the narratives found in the Book of Genesis and other parts of the Torah, as well as the established texts of Christianity. Their objective has been to shield these teachings from critiques that could misinterpret the Transcendent God as embodied or anthropomorphized.

A group explored the terms “image” and “likeness,” approaching meaningful conclusions, while another group focused on the definitions of “human” and “Adam,” failing to fully escape the shadows of anthropomorphism despite moving beyond the confines of corporealism.

Among the first group is Moses Maimonides of Cordoba, Andalusia (1135-1204 CE), who viewed the heavenly Torah as a guide for both early and later generations. He believed that a deep understanding of its teachings was not achievable for someone who only occasionally engages with it during spare moments from eating and drinking. Maimonides considered the term “image” in Hebrew to differ from mere physical drawing or shape, interpreting it as a spiritual resemblance. Similarly, he explained “likeness” as indicating a spiritual similarity rather than a physical resemblance. He asserted that the intended meaning of both “image” and “likeness” is aligned with intellectual perception, stating: Since the human being (Adam) possesses intellectual perception, he is thus created in the image and form of God.

This sage regards those who have not engaged deeply in religious knowledge as being outside the house of divine understanding. He considers those who have engaged but have not found pure proof in all its principles to be in the vestibule of the house of religious knowledge, not fully acquainted with its master. Those who have excelled in this knowledge and gathered all necessary proofs, he sees as fully acquainted with the sultan of the house. The pinnacle of such knowledge, companionship, and acquaintance belongs to the prophets, while the lower degrees are reserved for their true followers and wise sages. Just as prophets hold different ranks, some perceive their Lord from a distance, as stated: “From afar, the Lord appears to me,” while others witness their Lord up close. He asserts: One who does not investigate the knowledge of God, but merely utters His name based on imitation or imaginary perception, is, in my view, outside the house of knowledge and far from it.

In any case, the term “form” and “example” refer to the same rational knowledge and intellectual awareness that human beings possess. This type of perfection is the divine form (shākila) upon which Adam was created, embodying that form, example, and shākila.(270)

Ibn Maymūn describes the hierarchy of sciences and the ranks of scholars and intellectuals as follows: Those who engage in the knowledge of mathematics and logic and remain absorbed in them belong to the group residing outside the house of knowledge of God, wandering around it. As said about Ibn Zūmā, “Ibn Zūmā lā yazālu fī l-khārij” (Ibn Zūmā is always outside); he perpetually remains outside the palace of divine knowledge. Those who delve into natural sciences and complete them enter the house of divine knowledge but move only in its hallways. Scholars who have perfected natural sciences and understood divine sciences reside inside the palace with the sultan, yet even they vary in their stages of perfection. However, one who turns his entire being towards God, devotes his intellectual pursuits to understanding creation as a means to know the Exalted God, and comprehends the ways of contemplation, has reached the inner chamber of the sultan in the palace of knowledge—this is the rank of the prophets.(271)

There have been and continue to be exegetes, commentators, theologians, and religious scholars, like the sage Ibn Maymūn, who interpret the concept of the “form” in parables as transcending physical embodiment, viewing it instead as a spiritual representation. This group’s perspective emphasizes understanding the terms “form,” “parable,” and “resemblance” as abstract and spiritual, rather than corporeal.

The second group has reinterpreted the meaning of the human being (Adam), described as being created in the image of God, aligning with the divine example and resembling God’s likeness. They have attempted to distance this interpretation from the pitfalls of anthropomorphism and materialism. Yet, the risk of anthropomorphism remains unless further refined by a higher explanation, just as the first group is driven to seek a more elevated understanding.

This second group sometimes sees the intended meaning of the human as referring to his abstract spirit, rather than his body or the combination of body and spirit. At times, they interpret it as referring to his capacity for thought and intellect. Occasionally, they argue that “human” (Adam) symbolizes the spiritual and eternal Adam, distinct from the physical and temporal one.

For instance, Ezekiel, during his heavenly ascension and observation of spiritual realms, describes witnessing a form resembling that of a human being. Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher from the first half of the 1st century CE, similarly believed in both a heavenly and earthly Adam. He suggested that the Adam expelled from Paradise was the earthly one, while the heavenly Adam remained in Paradise.(272)

The essence of these justifications is to avoid the objectionable concept of anthropomorphism; however, the danger of likening God to creation still persists, as God, the Exalted, is an existence unlike any other—nothing resembles, is similar to, or is like Him: “There is nothing like unto Him” (42:11). The only solution to the challenge posed by terms such as “image,” “likeness,” “resemblance,” and similar expressions lies within the central element of the Qur’an. The Noble Qur’an uses the term “sign” (āya) as a general description for all creatures, with the degree of an existence’s manifestation of being enhancing its characteristic as a sign. Some contingent existences are clear signs of God, like the day, while others, like the night, are less clear: “And We have made the night and the day two signs, and We have erased the sign of the night and made the sign of the day visible” (17:12).

Although all contingent existences serve as manifestations and signs of God, the human being, due to his comprehensive nature, holds a unique kind of manifestation. This is reflected in reports stating that God created the human being in His image, likeness, and resemblance. This justification is well-recognized in the later Jewish mystical tradition, and it is possible that Islamic teachings influenced this understanding. However, accusing the People of the Book of anthropomorphism, likening [God to creation], and similar errors is not straightforward, except for what the Qur’an narrates about some of them concerning dualism and trinitarianism, as opposed to monotheism. Such narrations are true and truthful, even if the content they address is false and misleading.

Note: Some analysts believe that the idea expressed in certain exegeses of the two Testaments regarding the creation of Adam—that the rational human was created before the physical human—is influenced by Plato’s views. However, reaching a definite conclusion on this matter is challenging because it is possible that both Plato’s opinion and the interpretations of some exegetes of the two Testaments stem from religious narrations that circulated among the companions of Moses (a.s.) or Aaron (a.s.) during the revelation of the Torah. This is similar to what is mentioned in Islamic narrations that spirits were created before bodies, aligning with Plato’s belief in the precedence of spirits over bodies.

The widespread influence of Plato’s philosophy during certain times or in specific regions, coupled with the alignment of terminology and expression with Platonic terms, supports this analysis. This is akin to the Jewish claim that God created the universe based on the Torah, viewing the teachings of the Torah as the blueprint for the creation of the cosmos(273)—a concept that aligns with some ideas of Greek philosophers.

The Speculative Critique of a Jewish Thinker

Adam (a.s.) was expelled from Paradise after committing a forbidden act—eating from the forbidden tree. It remains unknown what state he would have reached or how long he would have stayed in Paradise if he had not sinned, as no definitive rational or transmitted proof has been established on this matter. However, some Jewish thinkers have speculatively equated their insights with sensory narration, presenting them as reliable accounts. They suggest that if Adam had not sinned, the entire Torah would have been revealed to him, similar to how some laws were given to him before the emergence of the Mosaic law. For instance, observing the Sabbath (Saturday) became obligatory from his time, and he was the first to perform a sacrifice.(274)

Judah Halevi (1040-1140 CE), an Andalusian Jewish physician and philosopher, believed that each of the four types or hypostases of nature—mineral, plant, animal, and human—has a superior and more perfect part compared to the others. In humans, this perfection is manifested in individuals who possess the spirit of prophethood and divine power, enabling a profound connection with God. This divine power was inherited from Adam by the children of Jacob (Israel), distinguishing the Jews from all other nations. However, this power is fully realized and actualized only when nourished by the divine rulings of the Torah and cultivated in the Promised Land.(275)

This point lacks substantiated evidence beyond the conjecture of the aforementioned thinker. Often, a psychological belief is mistakenly perceived as a logical one, leading such notions to assume the semblance of logical beliefs, though they lack confirmation.

Firstly, the ranks of the prophets and messengers differ, and so do the levels of their scriptures and revelations. It is uncertain what kind of scripture or divine guidance Adam (a.s.) would have received if he had not committed the forbidden act, as no reliable evidence supports such speculation.

Secondly, the Glorious God is pure existence and absolute truth. According to theoretical wisdom, every degree of existence and every level of value and ethics, as viewed through practical wisdom, must be measured in relation to God, who embodies absolute truth. God has set piety as the standard of human dignity: “Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you” (49:13). He has also stated that any divine covenant depends on justice and righteousness and is denied to those who commit wrongdoing and corruption: “My covenant does not extend to the wrongdoers” (2:124). The children of Abraham, whether descended from Ishmael or Isaac, attain God’s favor or are deprived of it based on their own righteousness or corruption. No particular race or people possess inherent dignity due to their lineage. Rather, whoever best adheres to the divine religion and the holy scripture of their time will achieve a more complete success and triumph through God’s grace.

The Equality of Men and Women in Creation in the Divine Image

Although some expressions used by exegetes and commentators of the two Testaments suggest the precedence of man over woman and imply the superiority of one gender, certain foundational principles emphasize the equality of man and woman regarding their creation in the divine image. Since the terms “image,” “likeness,” and “resemblance” are interpreted as sign and manifestation to avoid anthropomorphism and similitude, there is no difference in the divine creation of Adam and Eve; both were made in the image of God. This concept of equality in creation can be observed in the Book of Genesis(276) and in some commentaries on the Old Testament.(277)

Note: When attributing viewpoints to followers of the heavenly books, it is important to distinguish between their profound thinkers and ordinary individuals, as some writings from average authors may be subject to criticism by their leading scholars. The Noble Qur’an, revealed on principles of justice and equity, and speaking truthfully, acknowledges the virtues of sincere followers of the People of the Book, even while criticizing those afflicted with dualism and trinity. It states: “They are not [all] the same; among the People of the Scripture is a community standing [in obedience], reciting the verses of God during periods of the night and prostrating [in prayer]” (3:113).

The Spiritual Father of Adam

Islamic mystics, sages, and theosophers(278) have often expressed that while the noble Messenger of Islam is physically a descendant of Adam, the father of mankind, in terms of spiritual meaning, he is considered Adam’s father. This is due to the Messenger’s possession of higher knowledge and perfections that symbolize his spiritual fatherhood over Adam (a.s.). Such a notion is echoed in the poetic expressions of Ibn al-Fāriḍ al-Miṣrī:

“Although I am the son of Adam in form

And in it is the meaning of ‘witness of my fatherhood.’”(279)

Similar reverence is found among Christian exegetes, commentators, and mystics.(280) They believe that while Jesus, son of Mary, is physically a descendant of Adam the Chosen (a.s.) through his mother, his divine knowledge establishes him as the spiritual father of Adam (a.s.). This mirrors Islamic traditions that portray the noble Messenger of Islam (s.a.w.) as the first emanation or manifestation, through whom all contingent beings and manifestations have emerged. Likewise, Christian texts often refer to Christ (a.s.) as the first Word and the first divine creation, or occasionally, as the divine offspring.

It is plausible that followers of Moses the Interlocutor (a.s.) and the companions of Abraham the Friend (a.s.) hold similar exalted views about their respective prophets, acknowledging them as the first emanations or manifestations and recognizing their spiritual fatherhood over Adam (a.s.).

This concept, however, necessitates both textual scrutiny for authenticity and rational analysis, as spiritual fatherhood, akin to prophethood, messengership, and vicegerency, is subject to various degrees and levels. Therefore, due to the high status of Adam the Chosen (a.s.), it is possible that the stages above him may be viewed as the first emanation or manifestation and as spiritual father, without necessarily placing every spiritual rank above him.

The First Human in Zoroastrianism

In the existing Zoroastrian tradition, concepts such as human vicegerency, the teaching of names, the informing of the angels, the command to prostrate, the obedience of all except Iblīs, and the abundant knowledge seen in the heavenly scriptures, particularly the Noble Qur’an, are not mentioned.

The first human in this religion is Kayomars, whose name symbolizes mortal life, as opposed to the immortal life attributed exclusively to God. Zoroastrianism emphasizes moral principles for human happiness and perfection, highlighting attributes such as good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. Other virtues that align with these principles are also present in the sacred texts of various world religions. However, the central themes of vicegerency, the teaching of names, and similar elements are absent from Zoroastrian teachings.