Detailed Exegesis

Wa idh: The command to prostrate before Adam holds significant importance and conveys profound points, which is why it is introduced with the repetition of the word idh, linking one event to another independently rather than merely conjoining with “and” or “or.” This highlights that the event itself merits distinct mention. The verse’s meaning is: “Remember Our command to the angels…” The pronoun was explicitly replaced with the apparent name, and the singular verb qāla was shifted to the plural qulnā to befit the gravity of the prostration command.

Qulnā: The command to prostrate in this verse did not come through the intermediary of the angels, as it seems that all those intermediaries were themselves commanded to comply with the order,(2) with no other intermediary or messenger present who would act as a mediator without being a direct addressee and commanded party. Therefore, the shift to the plural qulnā instead of qulta is purely due to the magnitude of the command and the grandeur of the speaker, with no involvement or mediation of the mudabbirāt al-amr (angels who manage affairs).

As noted in verses like Innā anzalnāhu fī laylat al-qadr and Wa arsalnā al-riyāḥ,(3) the plural expression emphasizes the collective engagement of the highest and closest angels who serve as messengers. These angels, similar to other angels, are also recipients of the divine address and are commanded to convey the message, just as a perfect human, when mediating a message, is also addressed and subject to the command, along with others. Based on this interpretation, qulnā implies that “I and the angels close to Me, who are commanded to deliver My commands, issued the command of prostration to all the angels.”

Istakbara: The root kibr, in the forms of istikbār and takabbur, both imply seeking superiority. Istikbār, like istiqrār (seeking stability) and istijāba (seeking response), suggests exaggeration, although it does not contradict the notion of striving or calling towards kibr (arrogance).

The difference between arrogance (kibr) and conceit (ʿujb) lies in their relational dynamics: arrogance necessitates an object, while conceit does not. Conceit is self-admiration, an internal state, whereas arrogance is self-aggrandizement, a relational meaning that inherently requires a comparative object. This means that arrogance involves seeing oneself as greater than another, or seeing oneself as significant while regarding the other as insignificant.