Exploring Tawaqquf In Islamic Theology

﷽

EXPLORING TAWAQQUF IN ISLAMIC THEOLOGY:

NAVIGATING BELIEF OBLIGATIONS, ADAMIC EXCEPTIONALISM, AND APPLICATION CHALLENGES

ABSTRACT

This essay rigorously examines the theological concept of tawaqquf, or non-commitment, within the framework of Islamic theology, with a specific focus on its implications for Adamic exceptionalism. By scrutinising the indiscriminate utilisation of tawaqquf, it elucidates its inappropriate application when addressing pivotal theological inquiries. Through detailed analysis of Qur’anic verses, scholarly consensus, and the doctrinal tenets upheld by Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿah, the essay interrogates the legitimacy of maintaining a non-committal stance concerning critical issues such as the lineage of Prophet Ādam’s ﵇ descendants. By meticulously dissecting the multifaceted dimensions of tawaqquf and delving into the intricate nuances of theological interpretation, it aims to disentangle the conflicting implications of Adamic exceptionalism within Islamic theological discourse, as ratified by orthodoxy and consensus. Moreover, the essay underscores the imperative of deeply engaging with classical scholarly texts to establish consensus positions, which may not be explicitly stated but hold authoritative sway within the theological framework of Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿah, while cautioning against the potential pitfalls of deviating into theological innovation when entertaining alternative perspectives grounded in rare or rejected opinions.

Shaykh Rafāqat Rashid

JKN Fatāwa Department, Bradford UK

Al Balagh Academy, Department of Sharīʿah

www.albalaghacademy.org

Attested by Shaykh Muftī Saiful Islām

JKN Fatāwā Department, Bradford, UK

www.jknfatawa.co.uk

March 2024, Shaʿban 1445 AH

CONTENT

INTRODUCTION

SECTION 1 – USAGE OF TAWAQQUF IN THEOLOGY

Defining Tawaqquf in Theology
Types of Tawaqquf in Theology
Inappropriate Application of Tawaqquf

SECTION 2 – PRINCIPLES DETERMINING OBLIGATIONS IN BELIEF

Interpretation of Clear, Explicit and Ambiguous Text in Creedal Matters
Consensual Implication on Non-explicit Wording
The Attribution of Consensus (Ijmāʿ) to Evidence
What the Consensus Implies
The Ruling on Opposing Consensus, (Ijmāʿ)
The Consensus in Matters of Belief

SECTION 3 – AHL AL-SUNNAH AND ADAMIC EXCEPTIONALISM

What is a Human
Lineage from a Single Soul
Were there Humans (Insān) before Prophet Ādam ﵇
Did we originate from one lineage only, or from others as well?

SECTION 4: HUMAN UNIQUENESS RELATED TO NAFSIN WĀḤIDAH

Nafsin Wāhidah relating to the Critical Component of Insān
Was the Covenant with Soul and Body Together?

SECTION 5: APPLICATION OF TAWAQQUF TO NAFSIN WĀḤIDAH

Problems with Application of Tawaqquf
Possibility of Interbreeding between Human and other Species

SECTION 6: PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR EMPIRICAL FINDINGS RELATED TO EVOLUTION

Substance from which Ādam was Created.
Creation of Prophet Ādam and its Scientific Implications

CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION

It is asserted that in instances where definitive theological positions remain uncontradicted, and there exists no conclusive proof to affirm or refute the matter, adherence to a non-committal stance (tawaqquf) becomes imperative. This approach stems from the acknowledgement that definitive belief or rejection based on scriptural evidence is untenable under such circumstances. Consequently, proponents argue for the necessity of maintaining a stance of non-commitment towards both Adamic exceptionalism and Human exceptionalism. This non-committal position inadvertently leads to an absence of a conclusive Islamic stance on pivotal questions, such as whether biological humans underwent an evolutionary process or whether Prophet Ādam’s descendants could have interbred with other hominins, potentially resulting in humans being a product of this biological evolutionary process. This situation parallels the non-committal stance often adopted within Islamic discourse concerning topics like the existence of dinosaurs, thus creating space for various theories and interpretations to coexist.[1]

This perspective oversimplifies the systematic application of tawaqquf (the position of non-commitment) in Islamic theology, neglecting to fully address the demands inherent to such a stance. This essay aims to demonstrate the inadequacy of applying tawaqquf to the issue of Adamic exceptionalism. Contrary to claims suggesting the appropriateness of tawaqquf in this context, an examination of the Qur’anic verse (Q. 4:1) reveals a consensus (ijmāʿ) among the orthodox scholars of Islām regarding the exclusive lineage of all children of Ādam ﵇, as indicated by the term “nafsin wāḥidah.” This consensus precludes the possibility of lineage crossing, thereby challenging any deviation from this established understanding. Hence, it could be argued that considering an alternative perspective constitutes an innovation (bidʿa) within Islamic theological discourse.

[1] Theological tawaqquf, is claimed to be that which is an obligatory, permanent epistemological stance of declaring a matter unknowable, e.g., when the scriptures are totally silent about something. The assertion is that the diversification of Ādam’s descendants in color, stature, and appearance suggests a broad range of human variation. However, the lack of explicit textual evidence about Ādam’s earliest descendants prevents definitive conclusions about their classification as Homo sapiens or an earlier species. Questions regarding creatures like Homo Neanderthalis and the timing of Homo sapiens’ evolution before Ādam remain unanswered, but their significance in both scientific and theological realms is limited.

In theological discourse, tawaqquf mandates an epistemological stance of declaring a matter unknowable when scriptures are silent on it. For instance, the absence of mention of dinosaurs in Islamic scripture prohibits arguing for or against their existence based on religious texts. Therefore, claims asserting Islam’s denial or mandatory belief in dinosaurs are considered unwarranted and sinful, as they exceed scriptural evidence and delve into speculative territory.

(Malik, S.A. Islam and Evolution, Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm, Routledge, London 2021, 134; Jalajel DS, Islam and Biological Evolution – Exploring Classical Sunni Sources and Methodologies, MA thesis, University of the Western cape, 2009, 164)

To comprehensively address this issue, it is imperative to gain a deep understanding of the concept of tawaqquf and its theological implications. This necessitates a thorough examination of its definition, its application in theological discourse, and the various nuances that shape its usage. In the first section of this essay, we will delve into these aspects, delineating the types of tawaqquf, elucidating its parameters, assessing the permissibility of its use, and identifying common deviations that may arise in its application.

Building upon this foundational understanding, the second section will explore the principles related to the obligation of consensus within the theological framework of Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿah. This inquiry will delve into the intricate topic of the acceptance of meanings of words in scripture, examining both explicit and non-explicit wording to unravel the guiding principles of theological interpretation.

Subsequently, in the third section, we will investigate whether there exists a consensual position regarding the descent of humans insān from Ādam ﵇, as interpreted from the verse of “nafsin wāhidah.” This exploration will shed light on Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿah’s stance on the necessary components underpinning the discourse on Adamic exceptionalism. We will delve into fundamental questions such as the nature of humanity, the concept of lineage from a single soul, the possibility of humans (insān) existing before Ādam (as), and the origins of human lineage. Through this rigorous analysis, we aim to uncover the nuanced theological perspectives surrounding Adamic exceptionalism within Islamic theology.

In the fifth section, we will draw upon the principles of tawaqquf to scrutinise whether Adamic or Human exceptionalism can be reconciled within Islamic theology. Through a thorough examination of theological perspectives, we aim to elucidate the compatibility of these concepts within the framework of Islamic belief.

In the final section, section six navigates genetic evidence supporting evolution while aligning it with Islamic teachings on Prophet Ādam’s creation from clay, adhering to the theological stance expounded in the essay. By delving into aḥadīth, it clarifies Ādam’s unique creation without biological parents, revealing possible points of convergence between scientific discoveries and Islamic theological principles.

**SECTION 1 – USAGE OF TAWAQQUF IN THEOLOGY**

Defining Tawaqquf in Theology

The theological concept of “tawaqquf” presents a challenge due to the absence of a universally agreed-upon definition. Various expressions are employed to convey the theological stance of non-commitment or reservation when addressing inquiries related to definitive Islamic beliefs. This diversity in terminology often leads to confusion concerning the precise meaning and application of the non-commitment position as intended by Islamic theologians in specific cases.[1]

This confusion can result in the misapplication and misrepresentation of the theological use of tawaqquf, primarily due to the inconsistency and overlap of terms that sometimes refer to tawaqquf or unrelated issues. It is crucial to recognise that classical Muslim theologians typically share a consensus on the concept of non-commitment. They frequently employ phrases like “waqafa f’il-jawāb“^[2] (non-commitment to a response) or “al-sukūt ʿanhu“^[3] (silence) to convey this idea, although these terms may also have broader interpretations where they can be applied to discussions not directly related to Islam. However, it’s important to differentiate tawaqquf from other concepts such as “mashkūk fīhi“^[4] (there is

[1] انظر: التوقف في العقيدة: دراسة في المنهج والمسائل والأسباب عند أهل السنة, بدر بن سعيد الغامدي

[1] – شرح العقيدة الطحاوية المؤلف: صدر الدين محمد بن علاء الدين علي ابن أبي العز الحنفي الأذرعي الصالحي الدمشقي المتوفى ، تحقيق شعيب الأرنؤوط – عبد الله بن المحسن التركي، الناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة – بيروت، الطبعة العاشرة، ١٤١٧هـ – ١٩٩٧م. وما نقله شارح الطحاوية عن أبي حنيفة رحاله في والأنبياء: «فإن الإمام أبا حنيفة ه وقف في الجواب عنها على ما ذكره في مال الفتاوى، فإنه ذكر مسائل لم يقطع أبو حنيفة فيها بجواب، وعد منها :التفضيل بين الملائكة والأنبياء»(٤١١/٢)

[1] شرح أصول اعتقاد أهل السنة والجماعة المؤلف: أبو القاسم هبة الله بن الحسن بن منصور الطبري الرازي اللالكائي المتوفى (٤١٨هـ)، تحقيق : أحمد بن سعد بن حمدان الغامدي، الناشر : دار طيبة – السعودية، الطبعة الثامنة، ١٤٢٣هـ – ٢٠٠٣م. ما رواه اللالكائي عن مصعب أن مالكاً قال: «فأما الكلام في الله فالسكوت عنه » (1/ 165), شرح أصول اعتقاد أهل السنة والجماعة وفي اعتقاد الإمام أحمد الله : «ونذهب إلى حديث ابن عمر : كنا نعد وأصحابه متوافرون : أبو بكر، ثم عمر، ثم عثمان، ثم ورسول اللہ ﷺ حي. نسکت» (۱/ ۱۷۹)

[1] حاشية الطحطاوي على مراقي الفلاح وكلفظ (مشكوك فيه): نقل الطحطاوي في حاشيته: «قال ابن أمير حاج: هذه التسمية لم ترو عن سلفنا أصلاً، وإنما وقعت لكثير من المتأخرين فسماه بعضهم مشكوكاً وبعضهم مشكلاً ومرادهم بذلك التوقف»(۳۲/۱)

doubt in it), “tafwīḍ“^[1] (deferment of interpretation),^[2] and “al-tawaqquf al-sharʿī“[3] (suspended judgment of legal opinion), which find usage in Islamic jurisprudence and other fields and differ from tawaqquf within theology.

In the realm of theology, tawaqquf typically pertains to the position that something is ‘impossible to know’ because the scripture being referred to does not provide explicit evidence either affirming or denying it. Consequently, delving into such matters is either not

[1] حاشية إتحاف المريد بجوهرة التوحيد لابن المؤلف عبد السلام اللقاني ، نقلاً عن مذهب أهل التفويض في الصفات للقاضي (١٥٢). والتفويض مصطلح يستخدم عند أهل التعطيل في أبواب الصفات غالباً؛ ويعني : «صرف اللفظ عن ظاهره مع عدم التعرض لبيان المعنى المراد منه، بل يترك ويفوض علمه إلى الله تعالى بأن يقول: الله أعلم بمراده»(۱۲۸)

حاشية البيجوري قال البيجوري: «(أوله)؛ أي: احمله على خلاف ظاهره مع بيان المعنى المراد. . . كما هو مذهب الخلف وهم من كانوا بعد الخمسمائة، وقيل : من بعد القرون الثلاثة .(أو فوض)؛ أي: بعد التأويل الإجمالي الذي هو صرف اللفظ عن ظاهره، فبعد هذا التأويل فوض المراد من النص الموهم إليه تعالى على طريقة وطريق الخلف أعلم وأحكم لما فيها مزيد الإيضاح والرد على السلف . . .الخصوم وهي الأرجح»(١٥٧).

“Mentioning the word without explaining its intended meaning, leaving it to God to know what is meant by it, and saying, ‘God knows best about His intention.'”

[2] In Islamic theology, the concepts of “tawaqquf” and “tafwīḍ” are not inherently contradictory, as tafwīḍ can be viewed as a response to tawaqquf. Thus, there exists an overlap between them, yet they can also be perceived as distinct notions within matters of belief and theology. Furthermore, they reflect differing approaches to comprehending and addressing specific aspects of faith. Here are the principal distinctions between tawaqquf and tafwīḍ:

Tawaqquf (Non-Commitment of Judgment):

Tawaqquf is the approach of non-commitment judgment or refraining from making definitive theological statements on matters that are unclear or beyond human comprehension.
It involves acknowledging that there may be issues or questions in Islamic theology that are not fully understood or explained in the religious texts (Quran and Ḥadīth) and that human reasoning may be insufficient to grasp the complete reality of certain matters.
Those who adopt tawaqquf believe that it is better to avoid making speculative or dogmatic claims about such issues, as doing so might lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the faith.

Tafwīḍ (Delegation or Entrustment):

Tafwīḍ is the approach of delegating or entrusting the understanding of complex theological matters to Allāh ﷻand His divine wisdom when the texts apparent meaning is problematic and contradictory.
It involves accepting that Allāh ﷻ possesses complete knowledge and wisdom, and that humans should not attempt to fully comprehend or rationalize matters that are considered beyond human intellect and understanding and seem problematic.
Those who practice tafwīḍ believe that it is their duty to submit to God’s will and trust that God’s actions and decisions are just and wise, even if they do not fully understand the underlying reasons.

[3] Al-Tawaqquf al-sharʿī is the act of refraining from making a judgment when faced with conflicting evidence. It represents a form of hesitation or indecision, albeit temporary, while awaiting additional evidence or arguments that may sway the balance in favour of one possibility over another. For instance, when confronted with two conflicting ahaḍīth, a haḍīth scholar may opt to reserve judgment, recognizing their inability to reconcile the contradiction at hand. However, this abstention does not preclude the possibility of another scholar, at a later time, or with different insights, successfully resolving the discrepancy. In this context, al-tawaqquf al-sharʿī involves a deferral of judgment, acknowledging that a solution may be attainable but is postponed either for another individual or a later period.

permitted or considered a futile pursuit, as ‘there is no solid knowledge available to affirm or deny it.’^[1] For the purpose of this essay, we will exclusively refer to tawaqquf as it is used in theology.

Types of Tawaqquf in Theology

Tawaqquf in theology can be classified into two categories: maḥmūd (praiseworthy/commendable) and madhmūm (blameworthy/condemned).

Maḥmūd (Praiseworthy) Tawaqquf:

Obligatory Restraint (al-tawaqquf al-wājib): This form of tawaqquf relates to matters where knowledge resides exclusively with Allāh ﷻ, encompassing subjects such as the attributes of Allāh ﷻ and certain aspects of the unseen. When it becomes impossible to definitively ascertain the truth in such matters or when discussing them may potentially lead to public harm (mafsadah), theologians deem silence not merely a recommendation but an imperative duty. To illustrate, consider the discussion of specific attributes of Allah, where silence is mandated due to the inherent impossibility of obtaining absolute knowledge or making conclusive determinations. This is reminiscent of an incident involving Imām Aḥmad (d. 241 AH)[1] when he was asked about the apparent contradiction between his belief in Prophet’s cousin, and son-in law, ʿAlī’s rightful Imāmat and the fact that the companions of the Prophet, Ṭalḥa and Zubayr, disobeyed ʿAlī but rather opposed him. Imām Aḥmad, may Allāh ﷻhave mercy upon him, responded, “I have not entangled myself in their dispute in any manner.” His response signified his refusal to meddle in the disagreements they held, recognizing that they possessed superior knowledge in areas of interpretation and ijtihād. He acknowledged his lack of involvement in their conflicts and chose instead to focus on seeking forgiveness for them, maintaining a sincere heart towards them, and adhering to the commandment of loving and supporting them. It is important to emphasize that despite the virtues and merits of the individuals involved, the belief in ʿAli’s leadership and Imāmat is firmly substantiated by textual

[1]المحصول الرازي في المحصول تعقب من قال أن الوقف ليس بحكم وذكرالخلاف فيه فقال: وهذا الوقف تارة يفسر بأنه: لا حكم، وهذا لا يكون وقفاً بل قطعاً بعدم الحكم، وتارة : بأنا لا ندري هل هناك حكم أم لا؟ وإن كان هناك حكم فلا ندري أنه إباحة أو حظر، لنا: أن قبل الشرع ما ورد خطاب الشرع فوجب أن لا يثبت شيء من الأحكام لما ثبت أن هذه الأحكام لا تثبت إلا الشرع»((1/ 160)

المستصفى والغزالي انتقد القول الذي ذكره الرازي بأنا لا ندري أنه إباحة أو حظر فقال: «وإن أريد به أنا نتوقف فلا ندري أنها محظورة أو مباحة فهو خطأ لأنا أنه لا حظر، إذ معنى الحظر : قول الله تعالى: (لا تفعلوه)، ولا إباحة :ندري إذ معنى الإباحة قوله: (إن شيء تم فافعلوه وإن شيء تم فاتركوه) ولم يرد شيء من ذلك»(١/ ٥٢).

[1] Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, was a Sunni Muslim polymath, renowned as a scholar, jurist, theologian, traditionist, and ascetic. He is revered as the eponym of the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence, one of the four major orthodox legal schools of Sunni Islam. Regarded as the most highly influential and active scholar during his lifetime, Imam Ahmad’s legacy extends far beyond his era. He is widely recognized as one of the most venerated intellectual figures in Islamic history, whose profound influence resonates across nearly every facet of traditionalist perspective within Sunni Islam.

evidence, and that which is established by textual evidence must be faithfully followed.[1]
Recommended and Permissible Restraint (al-tawaqquf al-mustaḥab w’al-mubāḥ): This category of tawaqquf is employed when there is a potential for benefit and a strong likelihood of harm. In more critical cases, as mentioned earlier under al-tawaqquf al-wājib, where either the benefit cannot be realised or the risk of harm is considerably high, restraint shifts from being merely recommended to becoming an obligatory course of action. A case in point is the response of Imām Mālik (d. 179 AH)[2] when queried about the statement of the Prophet ﷺ to ʿAli, “You are to me like Ḥārūn was to Musā,” and its interpretation. Imām Mālik replied, “This is the narration as it came.”^[3] Similarly, when asked about the statement of the Prophet ﷺ concerning ʿAli’s leadership (mawlā), Imām Mālik advised, “Do not speak about this; leave the ḥadīth as it came.”^[4]

While scholars have provided comprehensive explanations for these hadiths and have engaged in insightful discussions about them, Imām Aḥmad recommended maintaining silence when individuals inquired about them. This was done to prevent unnecessary debates and potential misinterpretations by some individuals. Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH)[5] also commented on this matter, asserting that silence is a

[1]مجموع الفتاوى [ابن تيمية] كما ورد عن الإمام أحمد الله حين لامه من لامه لأنه لم يربع في الفضل بعلي ه: «قال له بعضهم: إذا قلت : كان إماماً واجب الطاعة ففي ذلك طعن على طلحة والزبير بث لم يطيعاه بل قاتلاه! فقال لهم أحمد الله : إني لست من حربهم في شيء؛ يعني: أن ما تنازع فيه علي وإخوانه لا أدخل بينهم فيه؛ لما بينهم من الاجتهاد والتأويل الذي هم أعلم به مني، وليس ذلك من مسائل العلم التي تعنيني حتى أعرف حقيقة حال كل واحد منهم، وأنا مأمور الاستغفار لهم وأن يكون قلبي لهم سليماً، ومأمور بمحبتهم وموالاتهم، ولهم من السوابق والفضائل ما لا يهدر؛ ولكن اعتقاد خلافته وإمامته ثابت بالنص وما ثبت بالنص وجب اتباعه (٤٤٠/٤)

[2] Imām Mālik ibn Anas, born in Medina, was a revered Sunni Muslim scholar, jurist, and theologian. He is celebrated as the founder of the Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence, one of the four major orthodox legal schools of Sunni Islam. Renowned for his vast knowledge of ḥadīth and fiqh, Imām Mālik’s contributions to Islamic jurisprudence are widely recognized. During his lifetime, Imām Malik became one of the most influential scholars of his era, earning profound respect and admiration. His seminal work, the Muwatta Imām Mālik, remains one of the most authoritative compilations of ḥadīth and legal opinions in Sunni Islam. Imām Mālik’s teachings and principles continue to shape the practice of Islamic law and jurisprudence to this day, making him an enduring figure in the history of Islamic scholarship.

[3] السنة للخلال جاء عند الخلال أن المروذي، قال: «سألت أبا عبد الله عن قول النبي ﷺ لعلي: «أنت مني بمنزلة هارون من موسى» أيش تفسيره؟ قال :ذا الخبر، كما جاء»((٣٤٧/٢)، برقم (٤٦١))

[4] وكذلك سئل عن «قول النبي ﷺ لعلي : «من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه»، ما وجهه؟ قال: لا تكلم في هذا ، دع الحديث كما جاء» أخرجه أحمد (۷۱/۲)، برقم (641)، وابن ماجه (٤٥/١)، برقم (۱۲۱)، والترمذي (74/6)، برقم (۳۷۱۳)، والنسائي (411/7)، برقم (8343)، قال الذهبي: متنه متواتر، السير (٣٣٥/٨) وقال الأرناؤوط في مسند أحمد: صحيح جاء عن ثلاثين صحابياً .

[5] Ibn Taymiyyah, Taqī al-Dīn Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm ibn ʿAbd al-Salām al-Harrānī al-Dimashqī, was a prominent Islamic scholar, theologian, and jurist of the medieval period. He was born in Harran, in present-day Turkey. Known for his vast knowledge of Islamic sciences, Ibn Taymiyyah made significant contributions to various fields, including theology, jurisprudence, Quranic exegesis, and ḥadīth studies. He was deeply influenced by the teachings of earlier scholars, particularly the Hanbali school of jurisprudence. Ibn Taymiyyah’s staunch adherence to Qurān and Sunnah and his emphasis on the purification of Islamic practices from innovations earned him both admiration and criticism during his lifetime. Ibn Taymiyyah’s prolific writings cover a wide range of subjects, including theology, Islamic law, Sufism, and political theory. His works reflect his rigorous analytical approach and his efforts to uphold what he perceived as the authentic teachings of Islam. He became known for his sharp critiques of theological and philosophical deviations within Islamic thought, as well as his outspoken stance against practices he deemed contrary to Islamic principles. His teachings continue to resonate with contemporary Muslim scholars and have sparked ongoing debates on issues of theology, jurisprudence, and Islamic reform.

In both forms of praiseworthy tawaqquf, the position of non-commitment is adopted because it aligns with scriptural evidence (naṣṣ). In situations where there is neither an explicit nor implicit text that definitively affirms or denies a particular position, restraint becomes either obligatory or recommended. This approach ensures scholarly integrity and prevents unnecessary discord while upholding the essence of tawaqquf.^[1]

Madhmūm (Blameworthy) Tawaqquf:

Non-Commitment Leading to Disbelief (al-tawaqquf al-kufrī): This category arises when maintaining a stance of non-commitment amounts to disbelief (kufr). It encompasses fundamental matters of belief and creed, where multiple sources within scripture strongly corroborate the tenets of faith. Refraining from affirming the absolute oneness of Allah, His lordship, divinity, or denying the finality of prophethood, the existence of paradise and hellfire, and other fundamental aspects of faith falls within this category.

For instance, asserting uncertainty about Allah’s location, as in saying, “I don’t know if my Lord is in the heavens or on the earth,” is considered an act of disbelief. Similarly,

criticism during his lifetime. Ibn Taymiyyah’s prolific writings cover a wide range of subjects, including theology, Islamic law, Sufism, and political theory. His works reflect his rigorous analytical approach and his efforts to uphold what he perceived as the authentic teachings of Islam. He became known for his sharp critiques of theological and philosophical deviations within Islamic thought, as well as his outspoken stance against practices he deemed contrary to Islamic principles. His teachings continue to resonate with contemporary Muslim scholars and have sparked ongoing debates on issues of theology, jurisprudence, and Islamic reform.

[1] Other examples where tawaqquf is recommended (mustaḥab) or permissible (mubāḥ)

Recommended:

Do pious people enjoy a higher status than angels?
Are the virtuous Jinn admitted into Paradise in the Hereafter?
Is Arabic the language of the Hereafter?
Will Moses be spared the general death when the trumpet is blown on the day of Resurrection?

Permissible:

Was God seen directly on the night of prophetic ascension?
Do animals have rational souls?
Are animals recompensed for the suffering they undergo in life?
What type of fruit did the tree in the Garden bear?
Was Prophet Ādams’s Garden in heaven or on Earth?

[1] الفتاوى الكبرى قول ابن تيمية رحاله : «ولهذا يسع الإنسان في مقالات كثيرة لا يقر فيها بأحد النقيضين لا ينفيها ولا يثبتها، إذا لم يبلغه أن الرسول نفاها أو أثبتها ، ويسع الإنسان السكوت عن النقيضين في أقوال كثيرة إذا لم يقم دليل شرعي بوجوب قول أحدهما» (351/6).

doubting the status of certain individuals as messengers or expressing uncertainty about the fate of disbelievers in the afterlife is also deemed disbelief. Imām Abū Ḥanīfah (d. 150 AH)[1], for example, maintained that anyone who says, “I don’t know whether my Lord is in the heavens or on the earth,” has committed an act of disbelief. Likewise, those who claim that Allāh ﷻis on the Throne but are uncertain about whether the Throne is in the heavens or on the earth also fall into this category^[2].

Ibn Taymiyyah elaborated on this, noting that if someone were to ask, “Is someone who says, ‘I don’t know if the disbeliever is a disbeliever?’ [considered a disbeliever]?” Abū Ḥanīfah would reply, “He is like [the disbeliever].” Ibn Taymiyyah added that it was asked, ‘What if someone says, ‘I don’t know where the fate of the disbeliever will be?’ Abū Ḥanīfah said, ‘He denies the Book of Allāh ﷻ and is a disbeliever.'”^[3]

Additionally, Ibn Taymiyyah stated, “Whoever believes in everything that must be believed but says, ‘I don’t know if Musā and Īsā were messengers or not,’ is a disbeliever. And whoever says, ‘I don’t know if the disbeliever will be in paradise or in hell,’ is a disbeliever, as indicated by the verse, ‘Those who disbelieve, for them is the fire of Hell. They will neither die therein nor live.’ [Fāṭir: 36]. And He also said, ‘And for them is a painful punishment.’ [Al-Shūra: 16].”^[4]

[1] Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, also known as Abū Ḥanīfah al-Nu’mān ibn Thābit, was a prominent Islamic scholar and jurist of the early Islamic period. He was born in the city of Kūfa, Irāq. He is revered as the founder of the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence, one of the four major Sunni legal schools. His legal methodology emphasised the use of reason and analogy (qiyas) alongside scripture to derive legal rulings. This approach earned him recognition as one of the greatest jurists in Islamic history. Throughout his life, Abū Hanīfah gained a reputation for his piety, humility, and dedication to scholarship. Abū Ḥanīfah’s contributions to Islamic jurisprudence include the development of systematic legal principles and methodologies, as well as the compilation of his renowned legal compendium, Al-Fiqh al-Akbar. His legal opinions and rulings, collected by his students, formed the basis of the Hanafi school’s legal doctrine.

[2] الفقه الأبسط ما جاء عن أبي حنيفة الله قوله: «من قال لا أعرف ربي في السماء أم في الأرض فقد كفر، وكذا من قال إنه على العرش ولا أدري العرش أفي السماء أم في الأرض» (135).

[3] الفقه الأبسط مطبوع مع الشرح الميسر على الفقهين الأبسط والأكبر المنسوبين لأبي حنيفة تأليف محمد بن عبد الرحمن الخميس) المؤلف: ينسب لأبي حنيفة النعمان وسأل أبا حنيفة الله كذلك سائل فقال: «إن قال قائل: لا أعرف الكافر كافراً؟ قال: هو مثله . قلت : فإن قال: لا أدري أين مصير الكافر؟ قال: هو جاحد لكتاب الله تعالى وهو كافر» (114 – 115).

[4] الفقه الأبسط. من آمن بجميع ما يؤمن به، إلا أنه قال: لا أعرف موسى وعيسى أمرسلان هما أم غير مرسلين! فهو كافر، ومن قال: لا أدري الكافر أهو في الجنة أو في النار! فهو كافر، لقوله تعالى والذين كفروا لهم ناز جهنم لا يقضى عليهم فيموتوا فـاطـر: 36] وقـال : ولهم عذاب الحريق ( [البروج : 10] وقال الله تعالى: «ولهم عذاب شديد ( [الشورى: 16]» (١٢٦)

In the context of his father’s beliefs, Ibn Abū Ḥātim (d. 327 AH)[1] mentioned that “whoever doubts the speech of Allāh ﷻ and remains in doubt, saying, ‘I don’t know if it (the Qur’ān) is created or uncreated,’ is a Jahmī.”^[2]

This category underscores the gravity of non-commitment when it leads to disbelief in fundamental aspects of faith, and it serves as a stark reminder of the significance of firm adherence to core theological principles.

Non-Commitment Leading to Innovation (al-tawaqquf al-bidʿī): This form of tawaqquf pertains to theological matters that diverge from the sunnah (traditions of the Prophet) but do not reach the level of disbelief, and/or go against the consensus (ijmāʿ) of the early Islamic scholars (salaf). In these cases, even though the scripture may not explicitly state a particular viewpoint, the Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿa (the mainstream Sunni Muslim community) are in agreement that the intended meaning is clear, and any alternative interpretation would constitute a deviation and misguidance.^[3] While such non-commitment doesn’t amount to disbelief, it falls within the categories of innovation (bidʿa).[4]

For instance, having a non-committal stance regarding the superiority of the Rightly Guided Caliphs over others or expressing uncertainty about the faith of apparent Muslims without clear evidence falls into this category. Scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah emphasised that certain matters, which run contrary to consensus, ijmāʿ, should not

[1] Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muhammad ibn Idris ibn al-Mundhir ibn Dāwūd ibn Mihrān al-Tamīmi al-Hanzali al-Rāzī (240 AH – 327 AH), known as Ibn Abī Ḥātim, hailed from a lineage deeply rooted in Islamic scholarship. His father, Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī, was an esteemed scholar renowned for his expertise in ḥadīth, criticism, narrators’ biographies, and the study of ḥadīth anomalies. Ibn Abi Hatim followed in his father’s footsteps, dedicating himself to the pursuit of ḥadīth knowledge with unparalleled dedication. His travels in search of ḥadīth spanned vast distances, as he tirelessly traversed regions from Kūfa to Baghdad, Makkah to Medina, Bahrain to Egypt, and beyond, accumulating a wealth of ḥadīth knowledge. Ibn Abi Hatim’s relentless quest for Ḥadīth knowledge culminated in the compilation of his seminal work, “Sunan,” and his refutation of the Jahmiyya sect, aligning firmly with the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamā’ah. His approach to Quranic exegesis emphasized reliance on authenticated narrations traced back to the Prophet Muḥammad ﵆, his companions, or the Successors, thereby adhering to the methodology of the Salaf. Ibn Abī Ḥātim’s theological stance and scholarly endeavours reflect his unwavering commitment to the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamā’ah, as evidenced in his written works.

[1] شرح أصول اعتقاد أهل السنة وجاء عن ابن أبي حاتم في ذكره لاعتقاد أبيه أبي حاتم وأبي زرعة :«من شك في كلام الله ﷿ فوقف شاكا فيه يقول: لا أدري مخلوق أو غير مخلوق فهو جهمي» (۲۰۰/1).

[1]مجموع الفتاوى [ابن تيمية] فما ثبت عنه من السنة فعلينا اتباعه؛ سواء قيل إنه في القرآن؛ ولم نفهمه نحن أو قيل ليس في القرآن؛ كما أن ما اتفق عليه السابقون الأولون والذين اتبعوهم بإحسان؛ فعلينا أن نتبعهم فيه؛ سواء قيل إنه كان منصوصا في السنة ولم يبلغنا ذلك أو قيل إنه مما استنبطوه واستخرجوه باجتهادهم من الكتاب والسنة. (5:163)

[1] Some examples are to hold tawaqquf on issues like the vision of Allāh ﷻin the Hereafter, the denial of vision of Allāh ﷿in the this world, on the issue of the accountability (taklīf) of jin and their punishment and many others as there is ijmāʿ of the Ahl al-Sunnah on these matters.

be subject to tawaqquf. For example, denying the caliphate of Ali or expressing uncertainty about it is considered an innovation.

Ibn Taymiyyah expounded on this issue, quoting ʿAbd Allāh bin Masʿūd who stated, “Loving Abū Bakr and ʿUmar and recognising their virtue is part of the Sharīʿah, for the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Follow those who come after me, Abū Bakr and ʿUmar.’ Therefore, acknowledging their virtue over those who followed them is obligatory, and maintaining a non-committal position about it is not permissible.” However, regarding ‘Uthmān and ʿAlī, there were differing opinions on whether having a non-committal stance about their virtue was permissible.^[1]

Anyone persistently holding a non-committal stance about the virtue of the two Shaykhs (Abū Bakr and ʿUmar) over others or expressing uncertainty about ʿAlī’s caliphate is engaging in innovation. Ibn Taymiyyah also highlighted the innovation of those who adopt a non-committal position concerning ʿAlī’s caliphate.

Regarding those who remained silent about ʿAlī’s calīphate, Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that Imām Ahmad had a clear stance on the matter, considering it an innovation for someone to maintain a non-committal position about Ali’s caliphate. Ahmad explicitly stated that those who did so were misguided, and he advocated boycotting and discouraging support for them. Ahmad and other early scholars (salaf) firmly believed that Ali was more deserving of the caliphate, leaving no room for doubt.^[2]

Another issue that falls within this category is having a non-committal position on the created nature of the Quran, particularly when done out of ignorance. Abū Ḥātim and Abu Zurʿah (d. 289 AH)[3] ruled that someone who maintains a non-committal stance on the created nature of the Qurān, despite being knowledgeable about it, is guilty of innovation. However, for those who do so out of ignorance, their judgment is milder, and it has been narrated that they are not considered disbelievers. [4]

In summary, maḥmūd (praiseworthy) tawaqquf involves either obligatory or recommended restraint in theology when explicit scriptural evidence is lacking to affirm or deny a position.

[1] مجموع الفتاوى قول ابن تيمية رحله : «قال عبد الله بن مسعود ه : حب أبي بكر وعمر ا ومعرفة فضلهما من الشئة؛ أي: من شريعة النبي ﷺ التي أمر بها فإنه قال: «اقتدوا باللذين من بعدي : أبي بكر وعمر» ولهذا كان معرفة فضلهما على من بعدهما واجباً لا يجوز التوقف فيه بخلاف عثمان وعلي ففي جواز التوقف فيهما قولان (4/ 435).

مجموع الفتاوى [ابن تيمية] الإجماع وهو متفق عليه بين عامة المسلمين من الفقهاء والصوفية وأهل الحديث والكلام وغيرهم في الجملة وأنكره بعض أهل البدع من المعتزلة والشيعة لكن المعلوم منه هو ما كان عليه الصحابة وأما ما بعد ذلك فتعذر العلم به غالبا ولهذا اختلف أهل العلم فيما يذكر من الإجماعات الحادثة بعد الصحابة واختلف في مسائل منه كإجماع التابعين على أحد قولي الصحابة والإجماع الذي لم ينقرض عصر أهله حتى خالفهم بعضهم والإجماع السكوتي وغير ذلك (11:341)

[2] مجموع الفتاوى المنصوص عن أحمد تبديع من توقف فيخلافة علي وقال: هو أضل من حمار أهله وأمر بهجرانه ونهى عن ولم يتردد أحمد ولا أحد أئمة الشئة في أنه ليس غير علي ﷺ أولى بالحق منه ولا شكوا في ذلك» (4:438)

[3] Abu Zurʿah al-Rāzī (207 AH – 289 AH) was a renowned hadith scholar known for his reliability and vast knowledge. He traveled extensively and narrated from numerous scholars. His narrations are found in the major hadith collections, with Muslim directly narrating one hadith from him. Abu Zurʿah passed away three years after Muslim, highly praised for his piety, devotion, and strong memory.

[4] شرح أصول اعتقاد أهل السنة روى عنهم ذلك ابن أبي حاتم: «من وقف في القرآن جاهلا علم وبدع ولم يكفر»(1:200)

[1] Abu Zurʿah al-Rāzī (207 AH – 289 AH) was a renowned hadith scholar known for his reliability and vast knowledge. He traveled extensively and narrated from numerous scholars. His narrations are found in the major hadith collections, with Muslim directly narrating one hadith from him. Abu Zurʿah passed away three years after Muslim, highly praised for his piety, devotion, and strong memory.

[1] شرح أصول اعتقاد أهل السنة روى عنهم ذلك ابن أبي حاتم: «من وقف في القرآن جاهلا علم وبدع ولم يكفر»(1:200)

Madhmūm (blameworthy) tawaqquf encompasses disbelief when applied to fundamental beliefs and heresy or innovation when applied to issues conflicting with the sunnah and the consensus of early scholars. These distinctions help clarify the theological significance of tawaqquf in various contexts.

Inappropriate Application of Tawaqquf

Tawaqquf may be ‘misapplied’ تحريف (taḥrīf) or تطبيق خاطئ (taṭbīq khaṭī’), primarily due to a failure to distinguish between the application of tawaqquf to the word (lafẓ) and its application to the affirmed meaning (maʿna) in scripture. “Misapplied” suggests that there’s a failure to correctly apply the concept of tawaqquf due to a lack of distinction between its application to the word (lafẓ) and its application to the affirmed meaning (maʿna) in scripture.

And/ or it may be ‘misrepresented’ تشويه (tashwīh) or تحريف الدلالة (taḥrīf al-dalālah), where there is a desire to allow alternate interpretations of a statement despite a lack of room for such interpretations. “Misrepresented” implies that there’s an intentional distortion or misinterpretation of tawaqquf, perhaps to accommodate alternate interpretations of a statement where there isn’t room for such interpretations according to the original intent or context.

Misapplication of Tawaqquf:

Tawaqquf in Both Word and Meaning: In certain cases, tawaqquf pertains to both the word (lafẓ) and its meaning. An example is the discussion of the attributes of Allah. In this context, according to some, there is a non-commitment not only to the wording used to describe Allāh ﷻbut also to the meaning conveyed by those words.[1]

[1] Ambiguity in the Qurān can be attributed to both the wording (lafẓ) and the meaning (maʿna), and sometimes it can involve both simultaneously. If there is ambiguity, then there is simultaneously the need to make tawaqquf on fundamental issues of creed where the ambiguity is not definitively clarified.

The first category of ambiguity refers to cases where the ambiguity arises from the wording itself, which can be either in singular or compound form. Singular form ambiguity may arise due to the unusual nature of the word or its multiplicity of meanings. Compound form ambiguity may occur due to its brevity, expansion, or arrangement.
The second category deals with cases where the ambiguity arises from the meaning alone. Examples include descriptions of Allāhﷻ , the horrors of the Day of Judgment, the delights of Paradise, and the punishment of Hell. These are beyond human comprehension, and it is impossible for the human intellect to fully grasp the realities of these matters.
The third category involves cases where the ambiguity arises from both the wording and the meaning together. An example given is the verse: “It is not righteousness that you enter the houses from the back, but righteousness is in one who fears Allāhﷻ.” (Qurān, 2:189) This verse may not be fully understood without knowledge of the customs of the pre-Islamic Arabs. Some of the Ansar used to enter their homes through a hole in the wall, while others entered from the front. This verse clarifies the correct approach and the virtue of righteousness, but without knowledge of the context, its meaning may remain obscure.

مناهل العرفان في علوم القرآن [الزرقاني، محمد عبد العظيم] منشأ التشابه وأقسامه وأمثلته[

نعلم مما سبق أن منشأ التشابه إجمالا هو خفاء مراد الشارع من كلامه أما تفصيلا فنذكر أن منه ما يرجع خفاؤه إلى اللفظ ومنه ما يرجع خفاؤه إلى المعنى ومنه ما يرجع خفاؤه إلى اللفظ والمعنى معا.

فالقسم الأول وهو ما كان التشابه فيه راجعا إلى خفاء في اللفظ وحده منه مفرد ومركب والمفرد قد يكون الخفاء فيه ناشئا من جهة غرابته أو من جهة اشتراكه والمركب قد يكون الخفاء فيه ناشئا من جهة اختصاره أو من جهة بسطه أو من جهة ترتيبه…

والقسم الثاني هو ما كان التشابه فيه راجعا إلى خفاء المعنى وحده مثاله كل ما جاء في القرآن الكريم وصفا لله تعالى أو لأهوال القيامة أو لنعيم الجنة وعذاب النار فإن العقل البشري لا يمكن أن يحيط بحقائق صفات الخالق ولا بأهوال القيامة ولا بنعيم أهل الجنة وعذاب أهل النار وكيف السبيل إلى أن يحصل في نفوسنا صورة ما لم نحسه وما يكن فينا مثله ولا جنسه؟ …

القسم الثالث وهو ما كان التشابه فيه راجعا في اللفظ والمعنى معا له أمثلة كثيرة منها قوله عز اسمه: {وليس البر بأن تأتوا البيوت من ظهورها} فإن من لا يعرف عادة العرب في الجاهلية لا يستطيع أن يفهم هذا النص الكريم على وجهه ورد أن ناسا من الأنصار كانوا إذا أحرموا لم يدخل أحد منهم حائطا ولا دارا ولا فسطاطا من باب فإن كان من أهل المدر نقب نقبا في ظهر بيته يدخل ويخرج منه وإن كان من أهل الوبر خرج من خلف الخباء فنزل قول الله: {وليس البر بأن تأتوا البيوت من ظهورها, ولكن البر من اتقى, وأتوا البيوت من أبوابها, واتقوا الله لعلكم تفلحون} .

فهذا الخفاء الذي في هذه الآية يرجع إلى اللفظ بسبب اختصاره ولو بسط لقيل وليس البر بأن تأتوا البيوت من ظهورها إذا كنتم محرمين بحج أو عمرة ويرجع الخفاء إلى المعنى أيضا لأن هذا النص على فرض بسطه كما رأيت لا بد معه من معرفة عادة العرب في الجاهلية وإلا لتعذر فهمه. (2:278)

[1] Other verses (Q. 3:173), (Q. 48:4), (Q. 9:124) also explicitly state that imān increases but there are no verses which explicitly state that imān decreases.

[1] الشريعة المؤلف: أبو بكر محمد بن الحسين بن عبد الله الأجري البغدادي ، المحقق: الدكتور عبد الله بن عمر بن سليمان الدميجي، الناشر: دار الوطن – الرياض – السعودية، الطبعة الثانية، ١٤٢٠هـ – ۱۹۹۹م. جاء عند الآجري: «قيل لسفيان بن عيينة :الإيمان يزيد وينقص؟ قال: أليس تقرؤون القرآن فزادهم إيمانا في غير موضع، قيل: ينقص؟ قال: ليس شيء يزيد إلا وهو ينقص»(٦٠٥/٢)، برقم (٢٠٤).

شرح أصول اعتقاد أهل السنة جاء ذكر نقصان الإيمان عن الصحابة باستفاضة، فضلاً عمن بعدهم، ورواه اللالكائي عن ستة عشر صحابياً، وثمانية وعشرين تابعياً، وأكثر من أئمة الإسلام بعدهم، منهم: الشافعي، والأوزاعي، والثوري، ووكيع، وابن المبارك، وأحمد بن حنبل، وابن راهويه ، أربعين من وحماد بن سلمة ، والبخاري، وغيرهم (٩٦٢/٥) وقد ذكر بعد ذلك عن عقبة بن عامر الجهني ه ولم يذكره في هذا الموضع، ولم ينبه عليه المحقق، فصار المروي عنهم عنده : سبعة عشر صحابياً .

فعن عمير بن حبیب قال: «الإيمان يزيد وينقص، قيل له: ما زيادته ونقصانه؟ قال: إذا ذكرنا الله وحمدناه وسبحناه فذلك زيادته، وإذا غفلنا ونسينا فذلك نقصانه»المرجع السابق (۱٠٢٠/٥)، برقم (۱۷۲۱) وذكر المحقق من أخرجه غيره بأسانيد مختلفة

[1] Can be argued that the reason it affirms decrease in imān is because it necessarily infers that with increasing imān that there will be decreasing imān see– this is not the case with absolute decent from Prophet Ādam vs relative descent.

understood and established, even though it is not explicitly stated in scripture. This is the situation where there is “dalātahu ʿalayhā mafhūman lā manṭūqan” (its implication is understood and unanimously agreed but not explicitly stated).^[1] Here, tawaqquf is related to the wording but not to the meaning, which is definitively affirmed. Going against this understanding requires substantial evidence (ḥujjah).

The word “deficiency” (النقص) is not mentioned in the Qurān, so there is tawaqquf concerning confirming the word itself in the Qur’ān, but not in confirming the meaning of deficiency which is implied. This is not unique, as contemporaries of Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah (d. 198 AH)[2] questioned this (i.e. confirmation of the wording of deficiency in the Qur’ān) and asked him for textual evidence. Ibn al-Mubārak (d. 181 AH)[3] also exercised tawaqquf regarding the wording of deficiency, as mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah in his travels. He said, “The companions have been affirmed to have said that faith can increase and decrease.” This is the view of the majority of scholars. Ibn al-Mubārak used to say, “It can vary and increase, and he refrains from using the word ‘decrease.’ Imām Māik, in his belief, has two narrations: one that it does not decrease, and the Qurān has spoken of increase in places. The proof is that texts also indicate its decrease, as in the saying: ‘The adulterer does not commit adultery when he commits adultery while being a believer,’ and similar statements. However, this word is only known in the Qurān in His saying in Sūrah Al-Nisā’: ‘Deficient in intelligence and religion,’ and they interpreted deficiency in her religion to mean that when she menstruates, she does not fast or pray, and in this way, several scholars have argued that there is a decrease.”^[4]

[1] معارج القبول.واستدرك العلامة حافظ الحكمي الله على دلالته الصريحة فقال :«وقال النسائي : باب زيادة الإيمان ذكر فيه حديث الشفاعة، ودلالته منطوقاً على تفاضل أهل الإيمان فيه، وأما الزيادة والنقص فدلالته عليها مفهوماً لا منطوقاً (۳/ ۱۱۷۸)

وكذلك حديث : «نافق حنظلة» يدل على نقصان الإيمان وإن لم يصرح بلفظ النقص . أخرجه مسلم (٢١٠٦/٤)، برقم (٢٧٥٠).

[2] Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah (سفيان بن عُيينة) was a prominent scholar of ḥadīth and jurisprudence in the early Islamic period. He was born in the year 107 AH (after Hijra) and passed away in the year 198 AH. was a prominent eighth-century Islamic religious scholar from Mecca. He was from the third generation of Islam referred to as the tabiʿ al-tabiʿīn, “the followers of the followers”. He specialized in the field of ḥadīth and Quran exegesis and was described by al-Dhahabi as Shaykh al-Islām—a preeminent Islamic authority. Some of his students achieved much renown in their own right, establishing schools of thought that have survived until the present.

[3] Ibn al-Mubārak (ابن المبارك), whose full name is ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Mubārak, was a renowned scholar of ḥadīth and Islamic jurisprudence. He was born in the year 118 AH (after Hijra) and passed away in the year 181 AH. was an 8th-century Sunni Muslim scholar and theologian. Known by the title Amīr al-Mu’minin fi al-Ḥadīth, he is considered a pious Muslim known for his memory and zeal for knowledge who was a muhaddith and was remembered for his asceticism. His teachers included Sufyān al-Thawrī and Abū Hanīfah.

[4] مجموع الفتاوى. وهو لم ينفرد بهذا، فقد سبق أن معاصري سفيان بن عيينة استشكلوا ذلك وسألوه عليه نصاً، وكذلك ابن المبارك توقف في النقص كما ذكر ابن تيمية رحاله : «والصحابة قد ثبت عنهم أن الإيمان يزيد وينقص وهوقول أئمة الشئة وكان ابن المبارك يقول: هو يتفاضل ويتزايد ويمسك عن لفظ ينقص، وعن مالك في كونه لا ينقص روايتان، والقرآن قد نطق بالزيادة في غير موضع، ودلت النصوص على نقصه كقوله: «لا يزني الزاني حين يزني وهو مؤمن» ونحو ذلك لكن لم يعرف هذا اللفظ إلا في قوله في النساء «ناقصات عقل ودين» وجعل من نقصان دينها أنها إذا حاضت لا تصوم ولا تصلي وبهذا استدل غير واحد على أنه ينقص» (١٣/٥٠ – ٥١)

An example of the misapplication of tawaqquf can be observed in discussions involving dinosaurs, as illustrated by Shoaib Malik. He argues that Islamic scripture neither affirms nor denies the existence of dinosaurs, thus rendering attempts to argue for or against them on scriptural grounds invalid. The claim is that the Qurān and ḥadīth remain entirely silent on this subject, rendering it inappropriate and, indeed, sinful to invoke scripture in such discussions. Claiming either the denial or mandated belief in dinosaurs within Islam lacks scriptural support.[1]

Comparing the issue of dinosaurs to theological concepts where tawaqquf is typically applied constitutes a false analogy. The crucial distinction lies in the presence or absence of scriptural references. Tawaqquf in Islamic theology typically pertains to matters addressed in scripture, whether explicitly or implicitly, signifying their theological significance. In cases where the text is not explicit, tawaqquf may apply to the interpretation of wording or meaning, allowing for a non-committal stance on theological beliefs lacking definitive textual support.

In contrast, dinosaurs are not addressed in Islamic scripture. Neither the wording nor the meaning in scripture relates to the existence or non-existence of dinosaurs, making it inappropriate to employ tawaqquf terminology in this context. Essentially, Islam offers no direct teachings or guidance regarding dinosaurs because they are not discussed in the Qurān or ḥadīth.

The comparison between the lineage of Ādam and dinosaurs poses a significant challenge, as they hold distinct levels of relevance and importance within Islam. The lineage of Ādam is explicitly documented in Islamic scriptures, carrying profound theological significance through its recurrent mention. Conversely, dinosaurs find no mention in Islamic texts, leading scholars to generally overlook theological debates concerning them, unlike the lineage of Ādam, which delves into theological realms. The absence of scriptural references regarding dinosaurs sets them apart from theological matters where tawaqquf, or suspension of judgment, may apply. It underscores the fundamental disparity between the roles and implications of these two subjects in the context of Islamic theology.

Misrepresentation of Tawaqquf:

Tawaqquf is not a tool to evade providing clear answers and accountability for one’s beliefs, nor is it meant to allow theologians to hide behind ambiguity and avoid taking a firm stance on important theological matters. There are instances where individuals employ tawaqquf on the wording of scripture, even when explicit or implicit consensus exists among scholars. This tactic, whether intentional or unintentional, opens the door for alternative opinions or interpretations that may deviate from the intended literal or obvious meaning of the text. By

[1] Malik, S.A. Islam and Evolution, Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm, Routledge, London 2021, 134

asserting that scripture does not definitively confirm or deny a particular interpretation, these individuals indirectly challenge or reject the consensus interpretation or meaning of the text. Consequently, when tawaqquf is claimed in such cases, it paves the way for other interpretations, diverging from the consensus, without necessarily having equal or stronger evidential support. This can lead to the acceptance of these alternative interpretations on the premise that Islam maintains a stance of non-commitment on the issue.

For instance, Shoaib Malik generalises the concept of tawaqquf when he claims that “the take-home message with theological tawaqquf is that a Muslim cannot affirm nor negate such things using scripture because scripture itself isn’t saying anything. If so, all options are possible to take up since all are compatible with Islamic scripture. It is this understanding of tawaqquf that Jalajel uses to make his case for there being no conflict between Islam and evolution.” [1]

However, this assertion overlooks the nuanced nature of theological tawaqquf, which is a specific and qualified epistemological approach used by theologians. It is intended to be applied exclusively to the words of scripture and not to any arbitrary point of discourse lacking a direct relationship with scripture, such as the existence or non-existence of dinosaurs. Furthermore, the mere invocation of tawaqquf does not imply that any idea can be entertained in interpretation. Instead, it must adhere to a standardised hermeneutical approach in interpreting the text’s wording, and there should be no imposition of restrictions on the implied meaning of the word due to consensus (ijmāʿ) among Muslim scholars.

A compelling example that illustrates the nuanced nature of tawaqquf in theology is the debate surrounding the created or uncreated nature of the Qurān. Abū Ḥātim (d. 277 AH)[2] and Abu Zurʿah (d. 264 AH)[3] held the position that someone who maintains a non-committal stance, tawaqquf, on the created nature of the Quran, despite possessing knowledge about it, is guilty of innovation, bidʿa.^[4]

[1] Malik, S.A. Islam and Evolution, Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm, Routledge, London 2021, 134

[2] Abū Ḥātim Muḥammad ibn Idrīs al-Rāzī, (أبو حاتم الرازي), was a prominent scholar of ḥadīth and Islamic jurisprudence. He was born in the year 195 AH (after Hijra) and passed away in the year 277 AH. Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī was highly respected for his knowledge, piety, and contributions to Islamic scholarship, particularly in the fields of ḥadīth criticism and authentication. He was a leading figure in the science of ḥadīth and played a significant role in preserving the authenticity of prophetic traditions.

[3] Abū Zur’ah Muāammad ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Dimashqī, (أبو زرعة الرازي), was a renowned scholar of ḥadīth and Islamic jurisprudence. He was born in the year 158 AH (after Hijra) and passed away in the year 264 AH. He was highly respected for his expertise in ḥadīth sciences and his contributions to the authentication and preservation of prophetic traditions. He was considered one of the leading authorities in the field of ḥadīth criticism during his time.

[4] شرج أصول اعتقادأهل السنة روى عنهم ذلك ابن أبي حاتم: «من وقف في القرآن جاهلا علم وبدع ولم يكفر»(1:200)

It’s noteworthy that none of the scriptural proofs confirming that the Qur’ān is not created, in line with the consensus position, ijmāʿ of Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿa, are explicit. They are, instead, implicit meanings deduced from the Qur’ān by authoritative scholars well-versed in matters of creed or derived through rational deduction. [1] Yet, scholars have made serious statements about those who employ tawaqquf in an attempt to obscure or conceal the consensus position regarding the creation of the Qurān. Al-Khallāl (d. 311 AH)[2] reported from al-Mukhramī (d. 254 AH)[3]: “He said to Abū ʿAbdullah Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥanbal: ‘al-wāqifah (those who do tawaqquf)?’ He replied: ‘They are worse than the Jahmiyyah[4]; they concealed themselves with al-waqf (non-commitment).'”^[5]

Furthermore, some have argued that proponents of theological innovation, bidʿa, would equate (1) those who adopt a position of non-commitment (i.e., al-wāqif) and (2) those who outright deny (i.e., al-Jahmi) the uncreated nature of the Qurān. This is because the ultimate

[1]. شرح القصيدة اللامية لابن تيمية – عبد الرحيم السلمي [عبد الرحيم السلمي] [الأدلة على أن القرآن كلام الله غير مخلوق[

والقرآن كما قلت: هو كلام الله عز وجل غير مخلوق، والسلف ينصون على هذا؛ لأن المعتزلة قالت: بأن القرآن مخلوق من الخلق، ويقولون: إن القرآن ليس صفة من صفات الله، بل هو خلق من خلقه، ويقولون: إن الله عز وجل خلق الكلام في الهواء فأخذه جبريل وجاء به إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، فالقرآن مخلوق.

ولا شك أن هذا باطل، ويدل على بطلان هذا أدلة كثيرة، منها: قول الله عز وجل: {ألا له الخلق والأمر} [الأعراف:٥٤]، ففرق بين الخلق والأمر، ولا شك أن القرآن من أمر الله وليس من خلقه، وهذا ما استدل به الإمام أحمد ومن قبله سفيان بن عيينة الهلالي رحمهما الله، فاستدلوا على أن القرآن ليس مخلوقا بالتفريق بين الخلق والأمر واعتبار الأمر غير الخلق، فالأمر صفة من صفات الله عز وجل كما أن الخلق صفة من صفاته، لكن لا يصح أن يقال في صفة: إنها مخلوقة.

الدليل الثاني: قول الله عز وجل: {الرحمن * علم القرآن * خلق الإنسان * علمه البيان} [الرحمن:١ – ٤]، والقرآن من البيان، ولهذا قال الإمام أحمد: القرآن من علم الله تعالى، واستدل على أنه من علم الله عز وجل بقول الله تعالى: {فمن حاجك فيه من بعد ما جاءك من العلم} [آل عمران:٦١]، والذي جاء النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم هو القرآن، فاعتبر القرآن من علم الله عز وجل، ومن قال: إن علم الله عز وجل مخلوق فلا شك في كفره؛ فإن علم الله عز وجل صفة من صفاته، وليس في صفات الله مخلوق؛ لأنه لو كان علم الله مخلوق لاقتضى هذا أن يكون الله سبحانه وتعالى مخلوق، تعالى الله عما يقولون علوا كبيرا، ولهذا يجب الحذر من هذه المقالة البدعية الضالة وهي: القول بأن القرآن مخلوق. (2:7)

[2] Abu Bakr al-Khallāl (235 AH – 311 AH) was Abu Bakr Aḥmad ibn Muhammad ibn Harūn ibn Yazīd al-Baghdādi, known as al-Khallāl. He was a devout jurist, a distinguished scholar, and a renowned expert in ḥadīth among the Ḥanbali scholars. He compiled and arranged the jurisprudence of Imām Ahmad ibn Hanbal. He traveled to Persia, Sham, and al-Jazira seeking the jurisprudence, verdicts, and responses of Imām Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

[3] Hamād ibn ʿAbdullah ibn al-Mubārak, known as Abu Ja’far al-Qurashi, their freedman, al-Baghdādi, al-Mukhramī, al-Madani (173 AH – 254 AH), was a judge in Helwan. He was one of the leading scholars of ḥadīth, known for his reliability and preservation. Al-Dhahabi said: “The Imam, the distinguished scholar, the reliable guardian.”

[4] The Jahmiyyah, also known as the Jahmites, were a sect in early Islamic theology named after Jahm ibn Safwān, who lived in the 8th century CE. They held theological views that were considered deviant by mainstream Islamic scholars. Some of their beliefs included denying divine attributes, particularly those related to God’s speech and actions, as well as rejecting predestination. They emphasised the use of reason and intellect in theological matters and were known for their extreme rationalism. The Jahmiyyah were opposed by prominent scholars of their time, such as Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who vigorously refuted their beliefs. Over time, the Jahmiyyah became marginalised, and their theological views were largely rejected within Sunni Islam. However, their influence can still be seen in certain philosophical and theological debates within Islamic thought.

[5] السنة للخلال روى الخلال عن المخرمي: «أنه قال لأبي عبد الله أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل: الواقفة؟ قال: هم شر من الجهمية، استتروا بالوقف» (۱٢٩/٥)، برقم (۱۷۸۲).

outcome of both positions is the same: denying the truth that the Qurān is the eternal word of Allāh and not created.

Qiwām al-Sunnah al-Asbahānī (d. 535 AH)[1] expounds on this matter, stating, “So, disapproving of it (al-munkar) is akin to having doubt (al-shakk), and doubt and denial (al-inkār) in it constitute disbelief (kufr). Consequently, the one disapproving of it (al-munkar) is deemed Jahmi, while the one in doubt is classified as al-wāqifi (those who do tawaqquf).”^[2]

In summary, the improper use of tawaqquf can arise when there is a misrepresentation of its application to both word and meaning or when it is wielded to obscure consensus interpretations. This misapplication may inadvertently lead to the introduction of alternative interpretations that lack evidential support. Therefore, it is crucial to exercise caution and clarity when applying tawaqquf to avoid misrepresentation and misapplication in theological discourse. Theological tawaqquf is not a tool for unrestricted interpretations but must adhere to established linguistic and theological norms and respect consensus among scholars.

SECTION 2 – PRINCIPLES DETERMINING OBLIGATIONS AND BELIEFS

The Principles Related to the Obligation of the Consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿah regarding the Acceptance of Meanings of Words in Scripture

Interpretation of Clear, Explicit and Ambiguous Text in Creedal Matters

The Qurān and Ḥadīth contain both explicit and implicit meanings, leading to a nuanced understanding of their teachings. This intricate science warns against the dangers of misinterpretation and deviation, stressing the necessity of applying a systematic and correct methodology. Surah Āl Imrān addresses this diversity of clarity in Quranic verses, urging believers to guard against misinterpretation by those with ulterior motives. It underscores the significance of profound knowledge and understanding among sincere believers, while affirming that the ultimate interpretation rests with Allāhﷻ.

هُوَ الَّذِي أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ ۖ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاءَ الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ ۗ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ ۗ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا ۗ وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّا أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ

[1] Ismaʿīl ibn Muhammad ibn al-Faḍl ibn ʿAli al-Qurashi al-Talhi al-Taymi al-Asbahāni (d. 535 AH), known as Abū al-Qāsim, nicknamed “Qiwām al-Sunnah,” was one of the eminent preservers of knowledge. He was an authority in the fields of Quranic exegesis, ḥadīth, and linguistics, and he was one of the teachers of Imām al-Suyūti in ḥadīth.

[1] الحجة في بيان المحجة وشرح عقيدة أهل السُّنَّة، المؤلف: إسماعيل بن محمد بن الفضل بن علي القرشي الأصبهاني أبو القاسم، الملقب بقوام

السنة ، المحقق: محمد بن ربيع المدخلي ومحمد بن محمود أبو رحيم الناشر: دار الراية – السعودية – الرياض، الطبعة الثانية ١٤١٩ هـ – ١٩٩ م . يقول قوام السنة الأصبهاني الله في مسألة خلق القرآن : «فالمنكر فيه كالشاك، والشك والإنكار فيه كفر، فالمنكر الجهمي والشاك الواقفي» (۱/ ۲۳۸).

“It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] decisive (al-muḥkam) – they are the foundation of the Book – and others ambiguous (al-mutashābih). As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allāh ﷻ. But those firm in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord.” And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.” (Q. 3:7)

Scholars hold varied perspectives on the definitions of “al-muhkam” (clear expressions) and “al-mutashābih” (ambiguous expressions) within the Qurān. Upon scrutiny, these interpretations do not reveal discord but rather demonstrate similarities and convergences. Notably, the viewpoint of Imām Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī[1] (d. 606 AH) provides a particularly lucid and detailed explanation that aligns with the consensus of the majority. He stresses that the distinction between decisiveness and ambiguity lies in the clarity of the intended message conveyed by the speaker’s words. Al-Rāzī’s comprehensive elucidation addresses this crucial aspect, shedding light on nuances that scholars have approached differently in their definitions of “al-muḥkam” and “al-mutashābih.” According to Imam al-Razi, a prominent position adopted by many scholars, the terms “al-muḥkam” and “al-mutashābih” can be understood as follows:[2]

[1] Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (فخر الدين الرازي), Abū ʿAbdullah Muhammad ibn ʿUmar ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Husayn ibn Ali al-Rāzi, known as al-Tabrastāni al-Mawlid, al-Qurashi, al-Taymi, al-Bakri, al-Shāfiʿī, al-Ashʿarī, nicknamed Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī and Ibn Khattīb al-Ray, Sultan of the Logicians, the Shaykh of Reasoning, and the Transmitted. He was an imām, a commentator, a jurisprudent, and a scholar of fundamentals. His encyclopedic research and writings extended from humanities and linguistic sciences to pure sciences such as physics, mathematics, medicine, and astronomy. He was born in Rey, Qurashi by lineage, with origins from Tabaristan. He travelled to Khwarazm, Transoxiana, and Khorasan, where people were attracted to his books, which he taught, and he was proficient in the Persian language. He championed the Ashʿarī creed and was renowned for his rebuttals against philosophers and Muʿtazilites. He authored numerous beneficial works, including “al-Tafsīr al-Akbar,” which he called “Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb,” compiling what was not found in other commentaries, as well as “Al-Maḥṣūl fī ʿIlm al-Uṣūl” in the science of uṣūl, “al-Muṭālib alʿĀliyah” and “Ta’sīs al-Taqdīs” in theology and ʿilm al-kalām, as well as many more. He passed away in the city of Herat in the year 606 AH.

[2] في مناهل العرفان في علوم القرآن [الزرقاني، محمد عبد العظيم] أن المحكم ما كانت دلالته راجحة وهو النص والظاهر أما المتشابه فما كانت دلالته غير راجحة وهو المجمل والمؤول والمشكل ويعزى هذا الرأي إلى الإمام الرازي واختاره كثير من المحققين وقد بسطه الإمام فقال ما خلاصته.

اللفظ الذي جعل موضوعا لمعنى إما إلا يكون محتملا لغيره أو يكون محتملا لغيره الأول النص والثاني إما أن يكون احتماله لأحد المعاني راجحا ولغيره مرجوحا وإما أن يكون احتماله لهما بالسوية واللفظ بالنسبة للمعني الراجح يسمى ظاهرا بالنسبة للمعنى المرجوح يسمى مؤولا وبالنسبة للمعنيين المتساويين أو المعاني المتساوية يسمى مشتركا وبالنسبة لأحدهما على التعيين يسمى مجملا وقد يسمى اللفظ مشكلا إذا كان معناه الراجح باطلا ومعناه المرجوح حقا.

إذا عرفت هذا فالمحكم ما كان دلالته راجحة وهو النص والظاهر لاشتراكهما في حصول الترجيح إلا أن النص راجح مانع من الغير والظاهر راجح غير مانع منه.

أما التشابه فهو ما كانت دلالته غير راجحة وهو المجمل والمؤول والمشكل لاشتراكها في أن دلالة كل منها غير راجحة وأما المشترك فإن أريد منه كل معانيه فهو من قبيل الظاهر وإن أريد بعضها على التعيين فهو مجمل.

ثم إن صرف اللفظ عن المعنى الراجح إلى المعنى المرجوح لا بد فيه من دليل منفصل وذلك الدليل المنفصل إما أن يكون لفظيا وإما أن يكون عقليا والدليل اللفظي لا يكون قطعيا لأنه موقوف على نقل اللغات ونقل وجوه النحو والتصريف وموقوف على عدم الاشتراك وعدم المجاز وعدم الإضمار وعدم التخصيص وعدم المعارض العقلي والنقلي وكل ذلك مظنون والموقوف على المظنون مظنون.

وعلى ذلك فلا يمكن صرف اللفظ عن معناه الراجح إلى معنى مرجوح بدليل لفظي في المسائل الأصولية الاعتقادية ولا يجوز صرفه إلا بواسطة قيام الدليل القطعي العقلي على أن المعنى الراجح محال عقلا وإذا عرف المكلف أنه ليس مراد الله تعالى فعند ذلك لا يحتاج إلى أن يعرف أن ذلك المرجوح ما هو لأن طريقه إلى تعيينه إنما يكون بترجيح مجاز على مجاز وبترجيح تأويل على تأويل وذلك الترجيح لا يكون إلا بالدلائل اللفظية وهي لا تفيد إلا الظن والتعويل عليها في المسائل القطعية لا يفيد لذا كان مذهب السلف عدم الخوض في تعيين التأويل في المتشابه بعد اعتقاد أن ظاهر اللفظ محال لقيام الأدلة العقلية القطعية على ذلك اهـ (2:274)

Al-muḥkam (the clear) refers to text with decisive indications, such as the explicit text “al-nass” (clear expression), primarily due to their shared tendency to establish predominance. However, while the explicit text is predominant and exclusive, the apparent interpretation is predominant yet not exclusive.

Al-mutashābih (the ambiguous) refers to text with indications that lack decisiveness, encompassing meanings such as ‘al-mujmal’ (unclear), ‘al-mu’awwal’ (diverted expression), and ‘al-mushkil’ (problematic expression) due to their shared characteristic of having non-decisive indications. Regarding Al-mushtarak (the homonym), if all its meanings are intended, it falls under ‘al-ẓāhir’ (the apparent), but if only some meanings are intended, it is categorized as ‘al-mujmal.’

The term designated to convey meaning either exclusively signifies one interpretation or potentially signifies multiple interpretations. The former denotes “naṣṣ” (clear expression), while the latter scenario can either emphasize one interpretation over another, rendering it predominant for one meaning and dubious for another, or it can equally apply to both interpretations. In the context of emphasizing the predominant interpretation, it is termed “al-ẓāhir” (apparent), whereas in reference to the dubious interpretation, it is termed “al-mu’awwal” (diverted expression). When the meaning has no predominant interpretation and the word equally encompasses two interpretations, it is termed “al-mushtarak” (Homonym). If assigned to a specific interpretation only and not to multiple, it is termed “al-mujmal” (unclear), and if its predominant interpretation proves false while the dubious interpretation holds true, it may be labelled “al-mushkil” (problematic expression).

When a word’s meaning is diverted from its predominant (al-rājiḥ) interpretation to a dubious (al-marjūḥ’) one, separate evidence (al-dalīl al-munfaṣil) is required, which can be linguistic or rational. Linguistic evidence, however, is inconclusive as it relies on language transmission, grammatical rules, and conjectural knowledge, which is itself based on conjecture (‘maẓnūn‘). Consequently, linguistic evidence cannot definitively alter a word’s meaning from its predominant one to a dubious one in matters of creedal fundamentals.

Such alteration is permissible only with the establishment of conclusive rational evidence proving the logical impossibility of the predominant meaning.

If the accountable person discerns that Allāhﷻ does not intend a particular interpretation, then there’s no necessity for them to ascertain the specific dubious meaning, as its determination relies solely on a preference for metaphor (al-majāz) over metaphor and interpretation (al-ta’wīl) over interpretation. Such preference can only be established through linguistic evidence, which inherently implies conjecture (ẓann).

Relying solely on linguistic evidence in matters of ultimate significance is deemed invalid. Therefore, the practice of the predecessors was to abstain from delving into the interpretation of the ambiguous (mutashābih) once they believed that the apparent meaning of the word was impossible, supported by conclusive rational evidence. In such cases, they adopted a position of non-commitment (al-tawaqquf), recognizing that such meanings are ultimately unknowable.

Consensual Implication on Non-Explicit Wording

It is argued that when scripture remains silent on a particular issue, such as Adamic exceptionalism, a stance of tawaqquf should be adopted.[1] However, this argument overlooks a crucial aspect: while scripture may not explicitly address every nuanced topic, the consensus, ijmāʿ, of scholars can effectively restrict the interpretation of certain words or statements to a singular predominant meaning. In essence, this consensus establishes a definitive theological belief based on unanimous agreement and to oppose this is tantamount to innovation in belief, bidʿa.

As previously mentioned, this scenario can typically arise when the implication of a statement is widely understood and accepted, even though it may not be explicitly stated in scripture. In such cases, the indication is grasped through consensual implication rather than explicit wording, a concept known as dalātahu ʿalayhā mafhūman lā manṭūqan.^[2] This concept is particularly relevant to unclear or ambiguous wordings (al-mutashābihāt) in scripture, which are given definitive contextual meanings affirmed through the ijmāʿ, consensus, of scholars. To interpret them solely through reason is incorrect as the intellect is not an independent source; rather, it requires the guidance of the divine law and direction towards proof. Relying solely on pure reason or pure science leads to divergence and

[1] Malik, S.A. Islam and Evolution, Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm, Routledge, London 2021, 134

[2] معارج القبول.واستدرك العلامة حافظ الحكمي الله على دلالته الصريحة فقال :«وقال النسائي : باب زيادة الإيمان ذكر فيه حديث الشفاعة، ودلالته منطوقاً على تفاضل أهل الإيمان فيه، وأما الزيادة والنقص فدلالته عليها مفهوماً لا منطوقاً (۳/ ۱۱۷۸)

وكذلك حديث : «نافق حنظلة» يدل على نقصان الإيمان وإن لم يصرح بلفظ النقص . أخرجه مسلم (٢١٠٦/٤)، برقم (٢٧٥٠).

dispute, for the intellect will not be guided except by revelation, and revelation does not negate sound reason.[1]

Prominent scholars emphasise the paramount importance of adhering to the Qurān, the Sunnah (the practices and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him), and the consensus of scholars (Ijmāʿ) as the primary sources of guidance in Islamic jurisprudence and beliefs. They assert that those who adhere to these sources are considered part of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah, the mainstream of Islamic tradition. Moreover, they regard the companions of the Prophet Muhammad, may Allāh ﷻ be pleased with them all, as the foundational authority upon which the consensus and the correct understanding of the religion are built. Any deviation from these sources or innovation in religious matters is warned against, as it is considered a deviation from the path of guidance, with potential consequences in the Hereafter.[2]

In theological interpretations of Quranic verses where the meaning is not explicitly stated, several key principles guide the consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah, particularly concerning implicit meanings derived from these verses related to theological positions. A firm theological stance can be deduced from non-explicit texts in the Sharīʿah sources or scripture based on the consensus of early generations and the scholarly opinions of recognized authorities from the past. These principles ensure a cohesive and tradition-based approach to understanding the Quran and its theological implications within the framework of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah, safeguarding the integrity and continuity of Islamic beliefs and practices.

The consensus of the salaf, the revered early generations of Muslims, stands as a cornerstone in Islamic scholarship. This consensus, comprising scholars from diverse backgrounds and fields of expertise, serves as a foundational pillar for theological understanding and interpretation. While it’s acknowledged that differences in interpretation may emerge among later scholars, it is imperative to prioritize the consensus of the early generations as the bedrock of theological discourse.

Ibn Taymiyyah states; “The consensus (ijmāʿ) is something agreed upon by the majority of Muslims among the jurists, Sufis, scholars of hadith, theologians, and others as a whole. It has been acknowledged by most, but some of the people of innovation (ahl al-bidʿa) among the Muʿtazilites and Shīʿī have denied it. However, what is known is the consensus of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). As for what came after them, it is often difficult to establish with certainty, and that is why scholars have differed regarding

[1]الموسوعة العقدية [مجموعة من المؤلفين] المبحث الثالث: العقل الصريح] العقل مصدر من مصادر المعرفة الدينية، إلا أنه ليس مصدرا مستقلا؛ بل يحتاج إلى تنبيه الشرع، وإرشاده إلى الأدلة؛ لأن الاعتماد على محض العقل، سبيل للتفرق والتنازع ((إيثار الحق على الخلق)) لابن الوزير (ص ١٣))، فالعقل لن يهتدي إلا بالوحي، والوحي لا يلغي العقل (1:63)

[2] مجموع الفتاوى. ويقول شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية -فمن قال بالكتاب والسنة والإجماع فهو من أهل السنة والجماعة (٣٤٦/٣)

شرح السنة – ويقول الإمام البربهاري -والأساس الذي تُبنى عليه الجماعة هم أصحاب محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم ورحمهم الله أجمعين، وهم أهل السنة والجماعة فمن لم يأخذ عنهم فقد ضل وابتدع وكل بدعة ضلالة والضلالة وأهلها في النار . .( ص ٦٧ )

what is mentioned about post-companion consensus (ijmāʿ) and have disagreed on certain issues, such as the consensus of the tābiʿūn (the generation after the companions) on one of the opinions of the companions, the consensus that did not disappear during the era of its people but was later disputed by some, silent consensus (ijmāʿ sukūti), and other forms of consensus”.[1]

The hierarchy within Islamic scholarship places the religious verdicts of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) at the forefront, followed by those of the Successors (tābiʿīn), and subsequently, their followers (tābi’ al-tābiʿīn), and so forth. This hierarchy reflects the principle that the closer an era is to the time of the Prophet, the more reliable and accurate its knowledge and interpretations are considered to be, especially concerning general principles rather than isolated cases. The disparity in knowledge and virtue between the early generations and later ones is likened to the distinction in faith and excellence between them.[2]

In navigating the ambiguity present in Quranic verses, the stance of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah underscores the reliance on scholarly opinions originating from the early generations. This reliance ensures that theological interpretations remain firmly rooted in the traditions and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions, who are regarded as the most credible authorities on matters of faith. It is widely recognized, among those who reflect upon the Qurān and Sunnah, and the consensus of the Sunni community, that the earliest generations of Muslims are unparalleled in their virtues, actions, beliefs, and all aspects of righteousness. The Prophet Muhammad himself affirmed the superiority of the early generations without dispute. They are revered for their comprehensive excellence, encompassing knowledge, deeds, faith, intellect, religion, eloquence, worship, and their adeptness in elucidating any ambiguities. Only those who obstinately oppose the established knowledge within Islam, and those who have been led astray by ignorance, would contest this undisputed truth. [3]

Even if a particular theological interpretation is not explicitly outlined in the Qurān, its acceptance based on the consensus of the salaf or those who adhere to their traditions through logical deduction carries immense significance. This consensus holds weight, even in

[1] مجموع الفتاوى [ابن تيمية] الإجماع وهو متفق عليه بين عامة المسلمين من الفقهاء والصوفية وأهل الحديث والكلام وغيرهم في الجملة وأنكره بعض أهل البدع من المعتزلة والشيعة لكن المعلوم منه هو ما كان عليه الصحابة وأما ما بعد ذلك فتعذر العلم به غالبا ولهذا اختلف أهل العلم فيما يذكر من الإجماعات الحادثة بعد الصحابة واختلف في مسائل منه كإجماع التابعين على أحد قولي الصحابة والإجماع الذي لم ينقرض عصر أهله حتى خالفهم بعضهم والإجماع السكوتي وغير ذلك (١١:٣٤١)

[2]إعلام الموقعين عن رب العالمين كتاب ألفه ابن قيم الجوزية ففتاوى الصحابة أولى أن يؤخذ بها من فتاوى التابعين، وفتاوى التابعين أولى من فتاوى تابعيهم وهلم ج را ، فكلما كان العهد بالرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم أقرب كان الصواب فيه أغلب،وهذا باعتبار جنس المسائل وليس باعتبار آحادها، فالتفاوت بين علوم المتقدمين وعلوم المتأخرين كالتفاوت الذي بينهم في الفضل والدين )-٥٤٣/٤ )

[3] مجموع الفتاوى يقول شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحاله في نص نفيس: «ومن المعلوم بالضرورة لمن تدبر الكتاب والسنة وما اتفق عليه أهل السنة والجماعة من جميع الطوائف : أن خير قرون هذه الأمة ـ في الأعمال والأقوال والاعتقاد وغيرها من كل فضيلة ـ أن خيرها: القرن الأول ثم الذين يلونهم ثم الذين يلونهم، كما ثبت ذلك عن النبي ﷺ من غير وجه وأنهم أفضل من الخلف كل فضيلة: من علم وعمل وإيمان وعقل ودين وبيان وعبادة وأنهم أولى بالبيان لكل مشكل . في هذا لا يدفعه إلا من كابر المعلوم بالضرورة من دين الإسلام وأضله الله على علم»(4/ ١٥٧)

matters of ijtihad (independent juristic reasoning) derived from the Qurān and Sunnah. The collective understanding and agreement of the early generations serve as a sturdy foundation for theological beliefs and practices.

Ibn Taymiyyah aptly articulates this principle, stating: “We are obliged to follow what has been established from the Sunnah, whether it is explicitly stated in the Qurān and we fail to grasp it, or whether it is not mentioned in the Qurān at all. Similarly, we should adhere to the consensus reached by the early predecessors and those who followed them in righteousness, whether it is explicitly documented in the Sunnah and we are unaware of it, or whether it is inferred and deduced through their meticulous efforts from the Qurān and the Sunnah.” [1]

In discerning theological truths that are exclusively attainable through divine revelation, it is imperative to adhere strictly to the deductions made by early scholars from the foundational sources of Sharīʿah, primarily the Qurān and the Sunnah. Ibn Taymiyyah elucidates that theological concepts should not be extrapolated from philosophical, rational, linguistic, or scientific sources. Rather, the interpretations and deductions of the early scholars from these Islamic bedrocks constitute the cornerstone of theological comprehension.

Consequently, certain groups like the Muʿtazilites, Murjiʿa, Shīʿī, and other innovators deviate by interpreting the Qurān according to their personal opinions and reasoning, veering away from the guidance provided by the Prophet (peace be upon him), the Companions, the tābiʿūn, and the Imams of the Muslims. They eschew reliance on the Sunnah or the consensus of the early generations and instead predicate their interpretations on rationality and linguistics. These factions disregard traditional Quranic exegesis (tafsīr) or Ḥadīth, opting instead for literature and philosophical texts authored by their leaders.

Ibn Taymiyyah underscores that this methodology also finds traction among atheists, who draw from philosophical and literary works while dismissing the Quranic and Hadith texts as irrelevant to knowledge. Such individuals interpret the Qurān based solely on their own conjectures, without recourse to the Prophet’s sayings, the Companions’ insights, or any authentic sources. Notably, scholars like Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others have vehemently refuted this approach, categorizing it as the path of people of innovation (ahl al-bidʿa). Upon closer examination, the assertions of these groups often lack substantive evidence to substantiate their claims. [2]

[1] مجموع الفتاوى [ابن تيمية] فما ثبت عنه من السنة فعلينا اتباعه؛ سواء قيل إنه في القرآن؛ ولم نفهمه نحن أو قيل ليس في القرآن؛ كما أن ما اتفق عليه السابقون الأولون والذين اتبعوهم بإحسان؛ فعلينا أن نتبعهم فيه؛ سواء قيل إنه كان منصوصا في السنة ولم يبلغنا ذلك أو قيل إنه مما استنبطوه واستخرجوه باجتهادهم من الكتاب والسنة. (5:163)

[2]مجموع الفتاوى [ابن تيمية] وقد عدلت ” المرجئة ” في هذا الأصل عن بيان الكتاب والسنة وأقوال الصحابة والتابعين لهم بإحسان واعتمدوا على رأيهم وعلى ما تأولوه بفهمهم اللغة، وهذه طريقة أهل البدع؛ ولهذا كان الإمام أحمد يقول: أكثر ما يخطئ الناس من جهة التأويل والقياس. ولهذا تجد المعتزلة والمرجئة والرافضة وغيرهم من أهل البدع يفسرون القرآن برأيهم ومعقولهم وما تأولوه من اللغة؛ ولهذا تجدهم لا يعتمدون على أحاديث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم والصحابة والتابعين وأئمة المسلمين؛ فلا يعتمدون لا على السنة ولا على إجماع السلف وآثارهم؛ وإنما يعتمدون على العقل واللغة وتجدهم لا يعتمدون على كتب التفسير المأثورة والحديث؛ وآثار السلف وإنما يعتمدون على كتب الأدب وكتب الكلام التي وضعتها رءوسهم وهذه طريقة الملاحدة أيضا؛ إنما يأخذون ما في كتب الفلسفة وكتب الأدب واللغة وأما كتب القرآن والحديث والآثار؛ فلا يلتفتون إليها. هؤلاء يعرضون عن نصوص الأنبياء إذ هي عندهم لا تفيد العلم وأولئك يتأولون القرآن برأيهم وفهمهم بلا آثار عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وأصحابه وقد ذكرنا كلام أحمد وغيره في إنكار هذا وجعله طريقة أهل البدع (7:118)

Moreover, the consensus and authoritative opinions of recognized scholars proficient in Islamic jurisprudence and theology play a pivotal role in elucidating the viewpoints representative of the early generations of scholars. Ibn Taymiyyah underscores that these scholars possess the requisite knowledge and credibility to guide the community in discerning implicit meanings and theological precepts. The beliefs of luminaries such as Imām al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204 AH)[1], Mālik, al-Thawrī (d. 161 AH)[2], al-Awzāʿī (d. 157 AH),[3] Ibn al-Mubārak, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, and Isḥāq ibn Rahwayh (d. 238 AH)[4], echo the convictions of revered figures like Fuḍayl ibn ʿIyād (d. 187 AH),[5] Abū Sulayman al-Dārānī (d. 215 AH)[6], Sahl

[1] Al-Shafiʿī (ٱلشَّافِعِيّ) was a Sunni Muslim scholar, jurist, traditionist, theologian, ascetic, and eponym of the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence. He is known to be among the first contributors to the principles of Islamic jurisprudence, having authored one of the earliest works on the subject: al-Risāla. His legacy and teaching on the matter provided it with a systematic form, thereby “fundamentally influenc[ing] the succeeding generations which are under his direct and obvious impact,”[8] and “begin[ning] a new phase of the development of legal theory.

[1] Abū ʿAbd Allah Sufyān ibn Saʿīd ibn Masrūq al-Thawrī (97 AH – 161 AH) was a jurist from Kufa, renowned for his asceticism among Muslims. He was a leading authority in Prophetic ḥadīth, a prominent follower of the Successors, and a revered figure in the Islamic community of Iraq. He was associated with one of the extinct Islamic schools of thought, which remained influential until the eighth century AH. Al-Dhahabi described him as “the Shaykh of Islam, the Imam of Preservers, the leader of scholars in his time, Abu ʿAbd Allāh al-Thawri al-Kūfī, the diligent author of the book Al-Jāmiʿ’.” Bashr al-Hafī also remarked, “Sufyan in his time was like Abū Bakr and Umar in theirs.”

[1] The Imām, the Hafiẓ, the leader of Beirut and all of Greater Syria, the Maghreb, and Andalusia, Abu ʿAmr Abd al-Rahmān ibn ʿAmr ibn Yaḥya al-Awzāʿī, was a jurist, a scholar of Hadith, and one of the Successors. He was the leading authority in Greater Syria during his time. He was among the prominent scholars who staunchly defended Islam and the Prophetic Sunnah, especially during a period marked by the proliferation of innovations, controversies, and deviations from the Qurān and Sunnah. He was deeply committed to jihad, steadfastness, and defending the oppressed and the truth.

[1] Isḥāq ibn Rahawayh al-Marwazi al-Ḥanafī al-Hanbali al-Tamīmi (161 AH – 238 AH), the great Imam, the leading scholar of the East, the master of preservation, one of the scholars of Islam, excelling in hadith, jurisprudence, memorization, truthfulness, piety, and asceticism. He was the proponent of one of the extinct schools of thought.

[1] Al-Fuḍayl ibn ʿAyyāḍ, known as “ʿĀbid al-Haramayn,” was a renowned scholar of Ahl al-Sunnah in the second century AH. Born in Samarqand in 107 AH, he later resided in Abiward. His repentance from a worldly desire after hearing a Quranic verse marked a pivotal moment in his life. Al-Fudayl studied under eminent scholars like Al-Aʿmash and Al-Thawri, garnering praise for his trustworthiness and piety. Notable figures, including Al-Thawri and Al-Shāfiʿī, were among his students. He was lauded by scholars such as Ibn ʿUyaynah and Al-Nasaʿī for his integrity and righteousness, cementing his legacy as a respected authority in Islamic scholarship.

[1] Abū Sulayman ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Aḥmad ibn Attiyah al-Ansi al-Dāranī was a prominent scholar of Ahl al-Sunnah and a leading figure in Sunni Sufism in the third century AH, hailing from Dāriyya, a village near Damascus, Syria. Described by Al-Dhahabi as “the great imam, ascetic of his time,” he was born in 140 AH and passed away in 215 AH. He received transmissions from renowned scholars such ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Tustari (d. 283 AH)[1], and others. Notably, there exists unanimity among these eminent scholars and their counterparts regarding the foundational tenets of faith.

Similarly, the doctrinal stance of Abū Ḥanīfah concerning matters of monotheism (tawḥīd), predestination (qadar), and related themes aligns seamlessly with the convictions of these scholars. Their beliefs mirror the teachings upheld by the Companions and the subsequent generations, remaining firmly anchored in the Quranic and Prophetic traditions.[2]

The Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah encompasses the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, their followers, and subsequent righteous scholars who meticulously adhere to the methodology outlined in the Qurān and the Sunnah. Should an Imām be appointed among them, it is incumbent upon believers to obey and unite under their leadership. However, in the absence of such leadership, Muslims are obligated to align themselves with the truth wherever it may be found, remaining steadfast in their adherence to authentic Islamic teachings.[3]

Ibn Ḥazm articulated: “The adherents of the Sunnah are the proponents of truth, and those who oppose them are the advocates of innovation (ahl al-bidʿa). They comprise the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, their righteous successors, the scholars of ḥadīth, and their successive followers through the generations until our present era. Additionally, among the common people, those who have embraced their guidance in both the East and the West.” [4]

as Sufyan al-Thawri, Abu al-Ash’ath al-Azdi, Abdul Waḥīd ibn Zayd al-Basri, Alqamah ibn Suyīd, and Sālīh ibn ʿAbdul Jalīl. Notable disciples, including Ahmad ibn Abi al-Hawari, Hāshim ibn Khālid, Hāmid ibn Hasham al-Ansi..

[1] Abu Muhammad Sahl ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Tustari, a renowned figure in Sunni Sufism and scholarship during the third century AH, hailed from Bustar, Iran. His journey into Sufism began under the guidance of his uncle Muhammad ibn Suwar, where he immersed himself in worship and remembrance. Influenced by the ascetic Al-Abadani, Sahl became a significant authority in Sufi teachings, revered for his knowledge of sincerity, mathematics, and the flaws of actions. Sahl’s legacy persists as a pivotal figure in Sunni Sufism, embodying dedication to spiritual pursuits despite societal trials

[1] مجموع الفتاوى ،.يقول ابن تيمية رحاله : «اعتقاد الشافعي په واعتقاد سلف الإسلام کمالك والثوري والأوزاعي وابن المبارك وأحمد بن حنبل وإسحاق بن راهويه؛ هو اعتقاد المشايخ المقتدى بهم كالفضيل بن عياض وأبي سليمان الداراني وسهل بن عبد الله التستري وغيرهم .فإنه ليس بين هؤلاء الأئمة وأمثالهم نزاع في أصول الدين وكذلك أبو حنيفة ـ رحمة الله عليه ـ فإن الاعتقاد الثابت عنه في التوحيد والقدر ونحو ذلك موافق لاعتقاد هؤلاء واعتقاد هؤلاء هو ما كان عليه الصحابة والتابعون لهم بإحسان وهو ما نطق به الكتاب والسنّة»(٢٥٦/٥)

[1] ويمكن أن يختصر هذا فيقال : الجماعة هم الصحابة والتابعودن لهم ومن تبعهم بإحسان من العلماء الجتهدين السائرين على منهج الكتاب والسنة ، ومن تبعهم في ذلك إلى أن يرث الثه الأزض ومن عفيها، وإن كان لهم إمام مسغ فواجب عليهم طاعته ، والاجتماع حوله ، لالا فليكن المسلم مع الحق أينما كان وأينما وجد

كما ورد في حديث حذيفة بن اليمان !ه والذي فيه : (تلزم جماعة المسلمين وامامهم) أخرجه البخاري (13 ،35 رقم : 8407)

انظر: إعلام الموقعين لابن القيم (3/793)، الاعتصام للشاطبي (/2 265-262)، موقف ابن تيمية من الأشاعرة د. عبد الرحمن المحمود 1(18:1) وجوب لزوم الجماعة لجمال بادي (ص 69) فما بعدها (، معالم الانطلاقة الكبرى لمحمد عبد الهادي (ص )167 وسطية أهل السنة للشيخ محمد باكريم (ص 87)

[1] الفصل– وقال ابن حزم : ؤأهل السنة .. أهل الحق ومن عداهم فأهل البدعة ، فإنهم الصحابة ومن سلك نهجهم من خيار التابعين ، ثم أصحاب الحديث ومن اتيعهم من الفقهاء جيلا فجيلا إلى يومنا هذا ومن اقتدى بهم من العوام في شرق الأرض وغربها (2:107)

In situations where an exegete encounters difficulty in grasping the intended meaning of a text, recourse should be made to the elucidations provided by the scholars of tafsīr among the tābiʿīn, such as Mujāhid (d. 104 AH), Saʿīd ibn Jubayr (d. 95 AH), ʿIkrimah (d. 105 AH), Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib (d. 94 AH), Qatādah (d. 118 AH),[1] and others of their ilk, along with their adherents. Furthermore, consideration should be given to the insights of subsequent luminaries among the Imāms of guidance, who are closer in temporal proximity to the revelation of the Qurān, possess a deeper understanding of its language and stylistic nuances, and exhibit a more extensive memorisation of the Sunnah and its narrations. Consequently, they merit greater recognition and adherence in matters of interpretation compared to those who succeeded them. [2]

Ibn Taymiyyah advocates distinguishing between definitive consensus and cases with unequivocal unanimity among believers, treating the former as conclusive evidence. He underscores the divergence of opinion among scholars on this issue, with some affirming its conclusiveness and others regarding it as speculative. [3] He maintains that the correct view is to differentiate between what can be considered definitive consensus and what can be known with certainty to have no dissent among believers in general. In the latter, if there is certainty of no dissent, it should be considered like it is definitive evidence even though, technically, it does not have the same epistemic value of certainty. He also emphasises that there is a difference of opinion among scholars on this matter, with some regarding it as definitive and others as conjectural.[4]

[1] Mujāhid (d. 104 AH) was a prominent scholar of tafsīr among the tabiʿīn, known for his insightful interpretations of the Qur’an. He studied under Ibn Abbas and is renowned for his profound understanding of the Qur’anic exegesis.

Saʿīd ibn Jubayr (d. 95 AH) was another distinguished figure among the tabiʿīn known for his expertise in tafsīr. He was a student of Ibn Abbas and is celebrated for his comprehensive knowledge and eloquent explanations of the Qur’an.

ʿIkrimāh (d. 105 AH), a student of Ibn Abbas, was highly regarded for his tafsīr contributions, offering valuable insights into the meanings of Qur’anic verses.

Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib (d. 94 AH) was a renowned scholar known for his profound knowledge and meticulous approach to tafsīr. He was a prominent figure among the tabiʿīn and his interpretations of the Qur’an are highly respected.

Qatādah (d. 118 AH) was among the foremost scholars of tafsīr among the tabiʿīn, renowned for his comprehensive understanding of the Qur’an’s meanings and his eloquent explanations. His teachings and insights greatly influenced subsequent generations of scholars.

[2] فان لم يجد المفسر ما يعينه على فهم المراد من النص ، فإنه يرجع إلى كلام أئمة التابعين من علماء التفسير، كمجاهد وسعيد بن جبير وعكرمة مولى ابن عباس ، وسعيد بن المسيب ، وقتادة) ، وغيىرهم، وتابعيهم ، ومن بعدهم من أئمة الهدى ، حيث إنهم أقرب عهدا بنزول القرآن ، وأعرف من غيىرهم بلغته وأساليبه ، وكثر حفظا للسنة والآثار، فهم أحق بالاقتداء بفهمهم ممن جاء بعدهم

انظر لهذا المطلب : الرسالة ، للشافعي (ص 42)، مجموع فتاوى ابن تيمية (13 / 362) فما بعدها(، الإتقان في علوم القرآن للسيوطي 2:175 التحيير في علم ،التفسير )ص 323)، أصول التفسير لخالد عبد الرحمن العك (ص 50 ).

[3] مجموع فتاوى ابن تيمية (7:39)(17:270)

[4] مجموع فتاوى ابن تيمية (7:39)(17:270)

Definitive-based consensus (ijmāʿ) holds a paramount position in Islamic jurisprudence, representing authoritative proof that cannot be opposed. As articulated by Ibn Taymiyyah, any issue under definitive consensus falls within the divine guidance, and opposing it equates to disbelief, akin to opposing clear textual evidence. However, if the consensus lacks definitiveness or conclusiveness, opposing it may not amount to disbelief but could be deemed a bidʿa, or an outlandish opinion. Hence, it is imperative to discern between matters that entail disbelief through opposing consensus and those that do not[1].

Imām Shāfiʿī said, “Whoever says what the Muslim community says has adhered to their consensus, and whoever opposes what they say has opposed their consensus, which is obligatory to adhere to.”[2]

The Attribution of Consensus (Ijmāʿ) to Evidence in Matters of Creed

As was quoted from Ibn Taymiyyah, scholars differ regarding the requirement for consensus ijmāʿ to be based on evidence, with two schools of thought:[1]

The majority hold that consensus must be supported by evidence (mustanad). This is the opinion of the majority of scholars.[2] Al-Āmidī (d. 631 AH)[3] reported consensus on this and disregarded dissenting views.[4] There is a difference of opinion among the scholars (ahl al-ʿilm) whether the evidence must be definitive (qaṭʿī) or speculative (ẓannī).[5]

[1] منهج الاستدلال علي مسائل الاعتقاد عند اهل السنة و الجماعة لعثمان بن علي حسن

[2] انظر : شرح البدخشي : مناهج العقول » لمحمد بن الحسن البدخشي ٣١٠/٢ وما بعدها وبحاشيته شرح الأسنوي – نهاية السول – كلاهما شرح منهاج الوصول في علم الأصول للبيضاوي -مطبعة محمد علي صبيح – مصر ) بدون رقم الطبعة وتاريخها ) والإحكام للآمدي ۱۹۳/۱ . والمحصول للرازي ٢٦٥/١/٢ ، ٢٦٦ ، ومجموع فتاوى ابن تيمية ١٩٥/١٩ – ١٩٧ .

[3] Saif al-Dīn al-Āmidī (551 AH – 631 AH) was a prominent jurist and scholar known for his expertise in both the Hanbali and Shafiʿī schools of jurisprudence. Born in Amad near Diyarbakir, he excelled in Quranic recitations and jurisprudence under notable scholars. After relocating to Baghdad and later Cairo, he gained fame as a teacher. Despite facing false accusations regarding his beliefs, he continued his scholarly pursuits in Damascus until his passing. Al-Āmidi authored several influential works, demonstrating his mastery in legal theory and philosophy, leaving a lasting legacy in Islamic scholarship including “Al-Iḥkām fi Uṣūl al-Aḥkām” and “Abkar al-Afkār,”.

[4] انظر : الإحكام للآمدي ١٩٣/١

[5] انظر : التقرير والتحبير ۱۰۹/۳ – ۱۱۲ ، وتيسير التحرير ٢٥٤/٣ وما بعدها والإحكام للأمدي ١٩٥/١ ، ۱۹٦ ، وفواتح الرحموت بشرح مسلم الثبوت ۲۳۹/۲ و مجموع فتاوى ابن تيمية ۱۹٦/١٩ ، وكشف الأسرار للبزدوي ٢٦٣/٣ وما بعدها

The majority believe it is permissible for the evidence to be definitive, such as from the Qurān, Sunnah, or speculative, like individual reports (khabar al-wāḥid) or analogy (qiyās).[1]
Others, including Dāwūd al-Ẓāhirī (d. 270 AH)[2] and his followers, the Shīʿa, Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310 AH)[3], and al-Qāshānī (d. 578 AH)[4] from the Mu’tazilites, require definitiveness in the evidence.

In response to this[5], there is no sound evidence for this condition. Muslims unanimously agree on the obligation of ghusl after the meeting of the two circumcised organs (i.e. intercourse), despite the evidence being khabar al-wāḥid.[6] They also unanimously agreed on Abu Bakr’s allegiance, relying on scholarly deduction which is explicit and implicit, considering it implied in his leading the prayer. Some even said, “If the Messenger of Allāh ﷻ was satisfied with him in matters of religion, why wouldn’t we be satisfied with him in matters of the world?”[7]

[1] هكذا يطلق الأصوليون الظنية على خبر الآحاد ، وقد عرفت ما في هذا الإطلاق من التجاوز . (5) انظر : كشف الأسرار ٢٦٤/٣ (٦) انظر : صحيح مسلم ۲۷۱/۱ ، ۲۷۲ كتاب الحيض – باب نسخ و الماء من الماء ، ووجوب الغسل حديث رقم : ٣٤٩

[2] Dāwūd al-Ẓāhirī (d. 270 AH) was a prominent scholar known for his contributions to various fields, including Qur’anic exegesis (tafsīr). He was a jurist and traditionist and played a significant role in the development of Islamic jurisprudence. His approach to tafsīr emphasized linguistic analysis and adherence to the literal meanings of the Qur’anic text. Followers of al-Ẓāhirī, known as the Ẓāhiriyya, upheld his methodologies and interpretations, particularly in the realm of legal theory and tafsīr.

[3] Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310 AH) was a renowned Sunni scholar celebrated for his monumental work in tafsīr, “Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī,” which remains one of the most comprehensive and authoritative exegeses of the Qur’an. His tafsīr incorporates a wide range of sources, including prophetic traditions, linguistic analysis, and historical context, making it a valuable resource for scholars.

[4] Al-Qāshānī, also known as ʿAbd al-Jalīl al-Qāshānī, was a renowned Sunni scholar who lived during the 6th century AH. He hailed from Qāshan, a town in Persia (modern-day Iran). Al-Qāshānī made significant contributions to various fields of Islamic knowledge, including Qur’anic exegesis (tafsīr), jurisprudence (Fiqh), theology (ʿAqīdah), and Sufism (Taṣawwuf). His scholarship, particularly in tafsīr, earned him recognition among scholars of his time and subsequent generations. Al-Qāshānī’s approach to Qur’anic interpretation was characterized by his adherence to Sunni orthodoxy and his meticulous analysis of the Qur’anic text. He authored several works, with his tafsīr writings being particularly esteemed for their depth and clarity. Al-Qāshānī’s commentaries reflect a profound understanding of the Qur’an’s linguistic nuances, legal implications, and spiritual dimensions, contributing significantly to the preservation and elucidation of Islamic knowledge. His enduring legacy continues to influence scholars and students of Islamic studies worldwide.

[5] انظر : كشف الأسرار ٢٦٤/٣

[6] صحيح مسلم ۲۷۱/۱ ، ۲۷۲ كتاب الحيض – باب نسخ و الماء من الماء ، ووجوب الغسل حديث رقم : ٣٤٩

[7] انظر : الاستيعاب لابن عبد البر ۹۷۱/۳. ترجمة رقم : ١٦٣٣

That which the author Imām al-Bazdawī (d. 493 AH)[1]of “Kashf al-Asrār” narrated from some scholars,[2] stating that ijmāʿ consensus doesn’t require definitive evidence from the Qurān or Sunnah (al-tawātur) because having definitive evidence renders consensus unnecessary for establishing a ruling.

In response to this, even if the evidence is conclusive (qaṭʿī al-thubūt) in its establishment, its indication may still be speculative (ẓannī al-dalālah), thus it is decisively settled by consensus on one of the possible interpretations, or the evidence may be conclusive, then strengthened by consensus, making it a result of the convergence of evidence.[3]

The second opinion is permissibility for consensus to occur without a basis (ghayr mustanad), by Allāh ﷿ enabling the community to choose the correct opinion without them relying on specific evidence. However, scholars have considered this opinion weak, considering it outlandish (shādhdh), and some attributed it to people of desires (ahl al-hawā’) without specifying their names.[1]

The majority and most sound position, as mentioned earlier, is that consensus must have a basis (mustanad), whether it is conclusive or speculative. However, in matters of creed (al-ʿaqīdah), its basis can only be the Qurān or the Sunnah (in both its forms), not analogy (al-qiyās) or any other source, as creedal issues are definitive and can only be known through the indication of the Qurān and the Sunnah upon them.

What the Consensus Ijmāʿ Implies in Creedal Matters

The advocates of the legitimacy of consensus vary in their interpretation regarding whether it denotes certainty (qaṭʿ) or conjecture (ẓann). Understanding this distinction is crucial, as consensus implying certainty carries significant weight in matters of creed, subject to specific conditions to be elaborated later, unlike when it is deemed conjectural. Classical Muslim scholars delineate three main schools of thought on this matter:[1]

[1] Abu al-Yusr Muāammad ibn Muāammad ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm ibn Māsa ibn Mujāhid al-Nasafi (421-493 AH), known as Abu al-Yusr al-Bazdawi, was a Hanafi scholar and jurist originally from Bukhara. He served as a judge in Samarqand and eventually became the head of the Hanafi school beyond the river (i.e., in Central Asia). Born in 421 AH, Abu al-Yusr earned the title of “the prominent judge” due to his extensive knowledge. He was regarded as a leading figure in the Hanafi school, succeeding his elder brother, and his association with Bazd was due to his lineage. Omar ibn Muhammad described him as the undisputed leader of scholars, whose writings in jurisprudence and its principles filled the world. He passed away in Bukhara on the 9th of Rajab in the year 493 AH.

[1] انظر : الاستيعاب لابن عبد البر ٢٦٤/٣

[1] انظر : فواتح الرحموت بشرح مسلم الثبوت ]عبد العلي محمد بن نظام الدين محمد السهالوي الأنصاري اللكنوي[ ٢٤٦/٢ ، التقرير والتحبير على كتاب التحرير [ابن أمير حاج] ١١٦/٣ وحجية الإجماع ، لفرغلي ص : ۲۷۹

[1] انظر : الإحكام للآمدي ۱۹۳/۱ – ۱۹۵ ، والمحصول للرازي ٢٦٥/١/٢ ، والتقرير والتحبير ١١٠/٣ ، وه كتاب المعتمد ، في أصول الفقة لأبي الحسين محمد بن علي بن الطيب البصري ٥٢٠/٢ ، ٥٢١ تحقيق : محمد حميد الله وآخرين – طبعة المعهد العلمي الفرنسي ۱۳۸۵ هـ – ١٩٦٥ م – دمشق . والإبهاج شرح المنهاج ۳۸۹/۲

[1] انظر : كشف الأسرار ٢٥١/٣ – ٢٥٣ ، حاشية البناني على شرح الجلال المحلي على جمع الجوامع]عبد الرحمن البناني[ ۲۰۰/۲ ، ۲۰۱ و إرشاد الفحول للشوكاني ص : ۷۸ ، ۷۹

The first school asserts that consensus constitutes conclusive evidence (hujjatun qaṭʿīun). This position was articulated by scholars such as al-Sīrafi (d. 368 AH) and Ibn Burhān, (518 AH), and strongly upheld by figures like al-Dabūsī (d. 430 AH) and Shams al-A’imma al-Sarakhsī. Al-Aṣfahānī attributed this perspective to the majority of scholars.[1]
The second school argues that consensus merely implies conjecture, regardless of whether its basis is conclusive or speculative. This view is advocated by a group of scholars, including al-Rāzī and al-Āmidī. This perspective might explain why Imam al-Rāzī exhibits less enthusiasm in endorsing consensus on certain matters compared to others, as he assigns less epistemic weight to it. He is also more inclined to present unconventional opinions of a few rare scholars, some of whom do not belong to the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah, such as the Mu’tazalites, alongside predominant opinions perceived as consensus by many. This practice gives the impression that these opinions are also permissible. Consequently, certain academics and scholars tend to heavily rely on al-Rāzī’s tafsīr, for instance, to lend weight to ambiguous opinions.

The third school proposes a nuanced approach, advocating for detailing what reputable scholars have unanimously agreed upon as conclusive evidence, while distinguishing it from areas of disagreement, such as silent consensus (ijmāʿ sukūtī) or rare dissent, which

[1] Biographies as follows:

Al-Sīrāfī (ابن السيرافي): Al-Sīrāfī, known as Abū Sa’id al-Ḥasan, was a prominent grammarian and jurist born in Siraf. He studied in Oman before settling in Asqar Makram, where he gained renown for his expertise. Later, he became a judge in Baghdad, succeeding Ibn Ma’ruf. Al-Sirafi was highly knowledgeable in Basran grammar and proficient in various disciplines including Quranic recitation, language, grammar, jurisprudence, arithmetic, rhetoric, poetry, prosody, and rhymes. He studied under renowned scholars and left a significant legacy in his field.
Ibn Burhān (ابن برهان): Abu al-Fatḥ Ahmad ibn ʿAli ibn Muhammad ibn Burhān (518 AH), known as Ibn Burhan, was a Shafi’i jurist, theologian, and scholar of principles of jurisprudence. Born in Baghdad, he initially followed the Hanbali school but later adopted the Shāfiʿī school. Renowned for his deep understanding of jurisprudence, he authored several influential works on the principles of Islamic law, including “Al-Baṣīt,” “Al-Awsat,” “Al-Waṣīt,” “Al-Wajīz,” and “Al-Wuṣūl ila al-Uṣūl.” He was highly esteemed for his intellect and dedication to learning.
Al-Dabūsī (الدبوسي): Abu Zaid al-Dabūsī, also known as Abdullah or ʿUbaydullah bin ʿUmar bin ʿĪsā al-Dabūsi al-Bukhāri al-Ḥanafi al-Qāḍi, was a Ḥanafi jurist renowned for his expertise in Islamic jurisprudence. He was considered one of the foremost scholars of the principles of Ḥanafi jurisprudence and was renowned for his meticulous analysis and extraction of legal arguments. Ibn Khallikān noted that he was among the first to illuminate the field of legal differences. Among his notable works are “Taqwīm al-Adillah fi Uṣūl al-Fiqh,” “Al-Asrār,” “Ta’sīs al-Naẓar,” and “Al-Anwār.” He passed away in the year 430 AH.
Shams al-A’imma al-Sarakhsī (شمس الأئمة السرخسي): Shams al-A’imma Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Sarakhsī al-Anṣāri (d. 490 AH) was a renowned Ḥanafi jurist from Sarakhs, Turkmenistan. He studied jurisprudence and legal theory under notable scholars and was recognized for his diligence and counsel to rulers, despite facing imprisonment for his advice. Notably, he authored “Al-Mabṣūṭ,” a monumental work in Ḥanafi jurisprudence, while in prison. His treatise on the principles of jurisprudence remains one of the most significant works in Ḥanafi legal theory.

would be considered speculative evidence. This perspective is widely regarded as the correct view and was endorsed by Ibn Taymiyyah, as previously mentioned. After discussing the disagreement on this matter, he asserted: “The correct stance is to differentiate between what is conclusively affirmed by consensus, knowing with certainty that there is no dissent among the believers fundamentally; thus, it necessitates certainty…” [1] In another context, he clarified: “They disputed regarding consensus: Is it conclusive evidence or speculative? The clarification is that the conclusive is conclusive, and the speculative is speculative…” [2] Additionally, Al-Shawkānī (d. 1250 AH)[3] reported from some Hanafis that consensus can be categorized into different levels: the consensus of the companions (ṣaḥābah), which is akin to the Qurān or the Mutawātir Ḥadīth (a widely transmitted narration); the consensus of those who came after them, which is comparable to a widespread report (khabar mashhūr); and the consensus that followed disagreement, which is equivalent to an isolated report (khabar wāḥid). [4]

The Ruling on Opposing Consensus, Ijmāʿ

Consensus in matters of creed can face opposition in two ways: either by rejecting its validity as evidence or by contradicting a ruling established by consensus. Each stance carries its own set of consequences, as outlined below:

1. Rejecting consensus and denying its validity has led some scholars to assert the disbelief of those who deny consensus. Imām al-Bazdawī stated: “Whoever denies consensus has invalidated their entire religion because the foundation of all religious principles and references relies on the consensus of Muslims.”[1] It is known that the foundations of religion are based on the Qurān and Sunnah, and their indication—according to many scholars—towards consensus is speculative, not definitive, as they are not unanimously agreed upon. Thus, Imām al-Bazdawī added: “However, those who deny consensus can argue that the principles of religion are not established by consensus but by mutawātir transmission. There is a clear distinction between mutawātir transmission and consensus. Transmission conveys what is established, while consensus establishes what was not established. Therefore, denying consensus doesn’t necessarily invalidate the principles of religion, but rather indicates their lack of establishment by consensus. This doesn’t preclude their establishment

[1] مجموع فتاوى ابن تيمية ۳۹/۷

[1] مجموع فتاوى ابن تيمية ۲۷۰/۱۹ وانظر : روضة الناظر لابن قدامة ( مع الشرح ) ٣٨٦/١

[1] Muhammad al-Shawkāni, born in Yemen in 1173 AH, rose to become a prominent Sunni scholar and judge in Sanaa. He excelled in Quranic studies and jurisprudence, benefiting from a rich scholarly environment. Al-Shawkāni’s influence extended beyond Yemen, earning him widespread recognition as a leading authority in Islamic jurisprudence. He passed away in 1250 AH, leaving a lasting legacy in Islamic scholarship.

[1] انظر : إرشاد الفحول ص : ۷۹ ، ونقل الشوكاني عن بعض الحنفية أن الإجماع مراتب : إجماع الصحابة ويكون كالكتاب ، أو الخبر المتواتر ، والإجماع من بعدهم ويكون بمنزلة الخبر المشهور ، والإجماع الذي سبقه خلاف ويكون بمنزلة خبر الواحد. وانظر : التقرير والتحبير ١١٤/٣ ، وأصول السرخسي ۳۱۸ – ۳۱٣/١

[1] كشف الأسرار ٢٦٦/٣ ) بتصرف ) ، وانظر : أصول السرخسي ٢٩٦/١ .

by another evidence.” [1] Hence, they said: “Whoever denies the evidence of consensus is not declared a disbeliever but may engage in innovation or disobedience.”[2]

Contradicting a ruling established by consensus: Some have asserted the disbelief of those who contradict a ruling established by consensus, which is not entirely accurate. What is established by consensus falls into different levels:[3]

– Matters known as essential in religion (maʿlūm min al-dīn b’il-ḍarūrah), unanimously agreed upon by the general and specific consensus, such as the Oneness of Allāh ﷿ , His Lordship, His exclusive right to worship, the Prophethood of Muhammad, his finality as a messenger, and textual evidence indicating the occurrence of the Day of Judgment, Resurrection, Reckoning, Paradise, Hell, as well as the fundamental principles and acts of worship in Islam. Denying these is undoubtedly disbelief.

– Rulings established by definitive consensus (al-ijmāʿ al-qaṭʿī), such as the prohibition of marrying both a girl and her paternal or maternal aunt, or the prohibition of lying about the Prophet Muhammad. Denying these rulings constitutes disbelief because it rejects a legal ruling established by conclusive evidence.

– Rulings established by speculative consensus (al-ijmāʿ al-ẓannī), such as silent consensus (al-ijmāʿ al-sukūtī) or rare dissent. Denying these rulings might lead to disobedience (fisq) or innovation (bidʿa) but doesn’t amount to disbelief because it contradicts evidence that obliges action according to the majority—although it is speculative.

The Acceptable Consensus in Matters of Belief

Some Ḥanafī scholars have prohibited the use of consensus in matters regarding future events, such as signs of the Hour and aspects of the Hereafter, but they have not suggested so regarding past events, in particular those indicated to explicitly or implicitly in Qurān and Sunnah. They argue that these topics belong to the realm of the unseen, where personal reasoning and opinion hold no sway. [1] However, it’s argued in response that consensus can indeed be valid in such matters, given the convergence of evidence. Scholars unanimously agree on evidence, which must stem from scripture or tradition, not analogy or personal opinion. Narrating the consensus regarding the transmission of evidence suffices in this regard.

[1] كشف الأسرار ٢٦٦/٣ ) بتصرف )

[1] انظر : البرهان للجويني ٧٢٤/١ ، ۷۲۵ والتقرير والتحبير ۱۱۳/۳ ، ونقد مراتب الإجماع لابن تيمية ص : ٢٠٤ وهو بذيل مراتب الإجماع في العبادات والمعاملات والمعتقدات لابن حزم – دار الوفاق الطبعة الأولى ۱۹۷۸ م – بيروت .

[1] انظر : مجموع فتاوى ابن تيمية ۳۹/۷ ، ۲۶۹/۱۹ ، ۲۷۰ ، ونقد مراتب الإجماع لابن تيمية ص : ٢٠٤ ، والإحكام للآمدي ۲۰۹/۱ ، حاشية البناني ۲۰۱/۲ ، ۲۰۲ ، وتيسير التحرير ٢٥٩/٣ ، ٢٦٠ ، وحجية الإجماع لفرغلي ص : ٣٩١

[1] انظر : فواتح الرحموت بشرح مسلم الثبوت ٢٤٦/٢ ، والتقرير والتحبير ١١٦/٣ .

The purpose here is to illustrate that consensus holds applicability in matters of belief to bolster evidence and mitigate potential errors stemming from conjecture. Through consensus, beliefs are solidified into certainties. Islamic scholars have documented consensus in matters of belief, as exemplified by Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm’s classification of consensus levels. Ibn Taymiyyah also supported this notion, though he disputed certain issues claimed to be consensually agreed upon. [1]

Ibn Taymiyyah delineates the methodology of the Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamāʿah, highlighting their foundation in consensus as a unifying force against division. Consensus stands as their third fundamental pillar for knowledge and religion. [2]

In summary, to determine the consensus position on a theological matter, several conditions must be fulfilled: [3]

Reliable Source Establishment: The consensus must be established through a reliable source, either by a valid chain of transmission or transmission by trustworthy individuals with profound knowledge.

Ibn Taymiyyah states, “There is no ruling known to have consensus except that there is someone in the nation who knows that there is textual evidence for it. Therefore, when there is consensus, it serves as evidence for the textual evidence”[4]

Absence of Preceding Disagreement: Consensus cannot exist if there was a settled disagreement beforehand, as the demise of their proponents does not invalidate prior opinions. Consensus prevents new disagreements but does not eliminate previous ones. However, some scholars argue that consensus can form later based on pre-existing opinions, serving as evidence for subsequent generations.

Timing of Consensus: The era of consensus need not be over for consensus to occur; it can happen when parties involved reach an agreement, and they are bound by it thereafter. The consensus remains binding regardless of whether the era continues or not.

[1] انظر : نقد مراتب الإجماع ، ص : ۲۰۳ وما بعدها .

[2] مجموع فتاوی ابن تيمية ١٥٧/٣ .

[3]الأصول من علم الأصول [ابن عثيمين] شروط الإجماع (ص66)

للإجماع شروط منها:

١ – أن يثبت بطريق صحيح، بأن يكون إما مشهورا بين العلماء أو ناقله ثقة واسع الاطلاع.

٢ – أن لا يسبقه خلاف مستقر، فإن سبقه ذلك فلا إجماع، لأن الأقوال لا تبطل بموت قائليها.

فالإجماع لا يرفع الخلاف السابق، وإنما يمنع من حدوث خلاف، هذا هو القول الراجح لقوة مأخذه، وقيل: لا يشترط ذلك فيصح أن ينعقد في العصر الثاني على أحد الأقوال السابقة، ويكون حجة على من بعده، ولا يشترط على رأي الجمهور انقراض عصر المجمعين فينعقد الإجماع من أهله بمجرد اتفاقهم، ولا يجوز لهم ولا لغيرهم مخالفته بعد، لأن الأدلة على أن الإجماع حجة ليس فيها اشتراط انقراض العصر، ولأن الإجماع حصل ساعة اتفاقهم فما الذي يرفعه؟

وإذا قال بعض المجتهدين قولا أو فعل فعلا، واشتهر ذلك بين أهل الاجتهاد، ولم ينكروه مع قدرتهم على الإنكار، فقيل: يكون إجماعا، وقيل: يكون حجة لا إجماعا، وقيل: ليس بإجماع ولا حجة، وقيل: إن انقرضوا قبل الإنكار فهو إجماع؛ لأن استمرار سكوتهم إلى الانقراض مع قدرتهم على الإنكار دليل على موافقتهم، وهذا أقرب الأقوال.

[4] منهاج السنة وما من حكم يعلم أن فيه إجماعا الاو في الأمة من يعلم أن فيه نصا, وحينئٍذ فاالاجماع دليل على النص (8:344)

4. Unopposed Adoption by Authorities: If an authoritative opinion held by majority remains unopposed by authoritative jurists or theologians, it may constitute consensus. However, there are differing views on whether this amounts to consensus or simply serves as a valid precedent. Nonetheless, if objections cease before the practice becomes well-known, it is likely to be considered consensus, as continued silence implies agreement.

Ibn Taymiyyah states, “Consensus is of two types: decisive (qaṭʿī) and presumptive (ẓannī). The decisive consensus is the pathway to certainty… As for the presumptive, it is the affirming and extrapolating consensus: when one examines the statements of scholars and finds no disagreement, or when a statement becomes widespread regarding the Qur’ān and no one is known to reject it, this constitutes consensus. Even though it may be used for argumentation, it cannot override established textual evidence, because it is a presumptive argument that one cannot assert its correctness with certainty. Similarly, one cannot assert with certainty the absence of opposition. Where there is certainty about the absence of opposition, the consensus becomes decisive.”[1]

An essential aspect to consider in discussions about ijmāʿ is the nuanced understanding that a theological stance asserted as consensus by an authority may not always carry the full weight of unanimity if there exist a few authoritative dissenting voices. This caveat is particularly relevant when those dissenting voices are themselves recognized as authoritative scholars within the Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿa tradition. It’s crucial to emphasize that if authoritative figures label a particular stance as bidʿa (innovation) or kufr (heresy), and there is no dissenting voice, it unmistakably contradicts the consensus (ijmāʿ) or the explicit teachings of scripture and thus cannot be considered an acceptable theological position.

Adhering to these conditions ensures a meticulous approach to determining consensus and upholding its significance in Islamic scholarship.

It has been proposed that discussions surrounding consensus should be understood within the context of historical constraints and the evolving landscape of scientific knowledge. For instance, while classical scholars might not have explicitly addressed concepts such as beings other than Ādam and Ḥawā’ in the human lineage, their discourse was inevitably influenced by the scientific understanding and cultural milieu of their time. Thus, imposing modern scientific perspectives, like human evolution, onto the interpretations of classical scholars

[1] مجموع الفتاوى الاجماع نوعان: قطعي، فهذا السبيل إلى أن يعلم…وأما الظني فهو الاجماع الاقراري والاستقرائي: بأن يستقرئ أقوال العلماء فلا يجد في ذلك خلافا او يشتهر القول في القرآن ولا يعلم أحد أنكره، فهذا الاجماع وإن جاز االحتجاج به، فال يجوز أن تدفع النصوص المعلومة به، لان هذا حجة ظنية لا يجزم الانسان بصحتها؛ فإنه لا يجزم بانتفاء المخالف، وحيث قطع بانتفاء المخالف فالاجماع قطعي (19:267)

would be anachronistic, particularly when drawing crucial distinctions like the theological concept of humans versus biological beings.[1]

However, this perspective overlooks the fact that classical Muslim jurists grounded their principles and interpretations of scriptural texts in divine revelation, which is considered the ultimate source of guidance. While the application of these principles may be subject to scrutiny and adaptation based on evolving knowledge and cultural context, the core principles themselves and the consensus on specific interpretations, which stem directly from transmitted revelatory knowledge rather than mere reason, remain unchanged.

In matters where verses allude to events beyond the scope of scientific inquiry or relate to the unseen, the limited understanding transmitted by the early generations of Muslims remains steadfast and is not open to reinterpretation in light of new scientific discoveries or cultural shifts, especially when there is a claim of consensus on such matters. This is due to the high epistemic value attached to consensus, which is grounded in the strict adherence to transmitted revelatory knowledge. This position is further expounded upon in my essay regarding the timing of ensoulment of a foetus, underscoring the distinction between knowledge derived from revelation and that influenced by recent advancements in specific fields. It underscores the primacy of revelatory knowledge in theological discourse, where comprehension primarily hinges on transmission rather than reason.[2]

[1] Shoaib Ahmed Malik (19 Oct 2023): Defending ‘Islam and Evolution: Al Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm’: Abrahamic Dialogues and Interdisciplinary Insights, Theology and Science, 26

[2] Rashid R, PART 1-WHEN DOES ENSOULMENT OCCUR IN THE HUMAN FOETUS? https://www.academia.edu/44337613/PART_1_WHEN_DOES_ENSOULMENT_OCCUR_IN_THE_HUMAN_FOETUS

**SECTION 3 – AHL AL-SUNNAH AND ADAMIC EXCEPTIONALISM**

The Position of Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿah on the Descent of Insān from Ādam ﵇

What is a Human?

In exploring the concept of what constitutes a human being, it’s crucial to differentiate between theological and biological perspectives. While the term “biological humans” is often associated with the modern classification of Homo sapiens, it’s important to note that this designation may not align precisely with the theological understanding of humans. In Islamic scripture, terms like insān, bashar, and banī Ādam are used to refer to modern-day ‘humans’, each carrying theological significance as theological humans.

On the other hand, evolutionary biology categorises various hominins, including Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo denisova, and Homo erectus, among others. The correlation between theological and biological perspectives on human beings presents an intriguing intersection of disciplines. While theological understanding is derived from scriptural sources like the Qurʾān and the ḥadīth corpus, biological classification relies on fossil records, genetics, and other empirical data.

The question then arises: how do these theological and biological terminologies intersect? [1]

Theological Humans as a Subcategory of Homo sapiens: This perspective suggests that theological humans are a subset of the biological category Homo sapiens. However, this view poses challenges as it implies the existence of other Homo sapiens like us separate from the lineage of Prophet Ādam. It will be shown that this conflicts with Islamic teachings. We will refer to this conflict later in this essay.
Theological Humans as a Broader Group within Homo: Another possibility is that theological humans represent a broader group than Homo sapiens but still fall within the genus Homo. This stance allows for the acknowledgment of Ādam’s unique characteristics, mentioned in some prophetic traditions, while accepting some non-critical differences from modern humans. For instance, Islamic scholars have proposed that Ādam may have been taller and lived longer than contemporary humans, without compromising his fundamental humanity.[2]

[1] For more detail regarding this discussion see: Shoaib Ahmed Malik (19 Oct 2023): Defending ‘Islam and Evolution: Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm’: Abrahamic Dialogues and Interdisciplinary Insights, Theology and Science, DOI:10.1080/14746700.2023.2255955, p 10-11

[2] There are some prophetic traditions which have sound narration which suggest that Ādam was much taller than modern man:

Theological Humans as Homo sapiens: Perhaps the most straightforward perspective is to consider theological humans as synonymous with Homo sapiens. This aligns better with the belief that Ādam, as the progenitor of humanity, was indeed a Homo sapien, and subsequent generations have maintained this lineage. It is more suited to the position of Muslim theologians as it suggests that we are no different to Ādam our progenitor, all belonging to the same genus Homo sapiens aligning to the biological and theological perspective.

It’s evident that modern-day humans are classified as Homo sapiens, and from a theological standpoint, they can be referred to as theological humans. This designation bridges the gap between theological and biological perspectives, acknowledging both the understanding of empirical evidence of human evolution and the theological understanding of human creation. Therefore, going forward, I will use the theological term “insān“[1] to refer to modern-day humans, recognizing their biological classification as Homo sapiens within the theological framework of Islam.[2]

Lineage from a Single Soul

The Qur’ānic verse 4:1 underscores a foundational belief in Islam concerning the common ancestry of humanity tracing back to the Ādam. Addressing mankind (al-nās, plural of al-insān), the verse emphasizes that humans were created from a single soul (nafsin wāḥidah).

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّاسُ ٱتَّقُوا۟ رَبَّكُمُ ٱلَّذِى خَلَقَكُم مِّن نَّفْسٍۢ وَٰحِدَةٍۢ وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا وَبَثَّ مِنْهُمَا رِجَالًۭا كَثِيرًۭا وَنِسَآءًۭ ۚ وَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ ٱلَّذِى تَسَآءَلُونَ بِهِۦ وَٱلْأَرْحَامَ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلَيْكُمْ رَقِيبًۭا

The verse that relates this is, “O men, fear your Lord who created you from a nafsin wāḥidatin (single soul), and from it created its match, and spread many men and women from the two.

“Allah created Ādam with a height of sixty cubits. He said, “Go and greet that group of angels and hear how they return your greeting: that is the greeting for you and your progeny.” [Ādam] said, “Peace be upon you,” and they replied, “Peace be upon you and Allah’s mercy.” Thus, they added “and Allah’s mercy”.

عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : ( خلق الله آدم وطوله ستون ذراعا ، ثم قال : اذهب فسلم على أولئك من الملائكة فاستمع ما يحيونك ، فإنها تحيتك وتحية ذريتك . فقال السلام عليكم فقالوا : السلام عليكم ورحمة الله . فزادوه : ورحمة الله فكل من يدخل الجنة على صورة آدم ، فلم يزل الخلق ينقص حتى الآن ) . رواه البخاري ( 3336 ) ومسلم (7092)

For a detailed analysis of acceptance of meaning of these aḥadīth see: The Height of Prophet Ādam: At the Crossroads of Science and Scripture, Mufti Muntasir Zaman

[1] Terms like insān, bashar, and banī Ādam all refer to the same concept of theological human, though I will use the term insān in all these cases even when bashar or banī Ādam are mentioned in the Arabic textual sources.

[1] Malik, S.A. Islam and Evolution, Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm, Routledge, London 2021, 324

Fear Allāh ﷻ in whose name you ask each other (for your rights), and fear (the violation of the rights of) the womb-relations. Surely, Allāh ﷻ is watchful over you..” (Q. 4:1) [1]

The Arabic term used in the verse, “nafs,” carries profound significance. It conveys the idea of not just an individual soul but a singular essence from which all human beings originate. This concept highlights the unity and interconnectedness of humanity, emphasising that despite our diverse appearances and backgrounds, we share a common lineage and origin.

Furthermore, the verse elaborates that from this single soul, its counterpart was created (its match), referring to the creation of Ḥawā’ from Ādam. This reinforces the idea of complementary pairs in creation, as well as the institution of marriage and family, which are integral aspects of human society. Moreover, the verse mentions the proliferation of men and women from these two original beings, emphasising the vast diversity within the human population while underscoring its fundamental unity.

In addition to emphasising the common ancestry of humanity, the verse also exhorts believers to be mindful of their duties towards one another and towards their families. It calls for reverence towards Allāh ﷻ and the sanctity of family ties, reminding believers of divine oversight and accountability.

Overall, Qur’ān 4:1 encapsulates a profound theological concept in Islam, affirming the unity of humanity and the shared origin of all human beings from the Ādam. It serves as a reminder of the interconnectedness of the human family and the importance of upholding mutual respect, justice, and compassion towards one another.

Determining the intended audience of a Quranic verse is crucial for comprehending its implications. In the case of Qur’ān 4:1, which addresses “O mankind,” it seems to encompass all of humanity. Some may argue that since there were beings before Ādam, this verse doesn’t include them. However, we will revisit this argument later on.[1]

If we consider that Allāh ﷻis addressing all insān from the lineage of Ādam, it implies that the exclusivity of origin from a single nafs applies to all human beings descended from Ādam until the end of time. This interpretation underscores the universality of the message, encompassing all of humanity irrespective of time or place.

On the other hand, if the verse is addressing a specific group, such as the immediate children of Ādam or a later specific generation, it raises questions about the scope of this exclusivity. If it refers to a specific generation, subsequent generations might not be limited to the

[1] Malik, S.A. Islam and Evolution, Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm, Routledge, London 2021, 135

understanding of originating from a single nafs, especially considering the possibility of interbreeding with other creations.

However, if the verse does indeed refer to all later generations, it essentially extends the exclusivity of origin from a single nafs to all humanity, akin to addressing all insān. In this case, the message remains consistent with the broader theme of unity and common ancestry emphasized throughout the Qurān.

In conclusion, while interpretations may vary regarding the precise audience addressed in Qur’ān 4:1, the underlying message of human unity with Ādam as the progenitor and common ancestry remains profound and universal, resonating with all of humanity regardless of time or lineage.

Al-Wāḥidī (d. 468 AH)[1], attributing his stance to Ibn ʿAbbās, suggests that the verse of the Qur’ān 4:1 in Surah al-Nisā addresses the people of Makkah during the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) time. Imām al-Rāzī further elaborates on this viewpoint, asserting that the latter part of the verse, specifically mentioning invoking Allāh ﷻand kinship ties, pertains to Arab customs. As invoking Allāh ﷻand invoking kinship ties were prevalent customs among the Arabs, this interpretation posits that the statement “fear Allāh, whom you ask one another through Him and the wombs” is particular to them. Consequently, the initial part of the verse, “O mankind,” is seen as directed specifically to the Arabs.

However, it’s noteworthy that in jurisprudential principles, the specificity of the latter part of a verse does not annul the generality of its beginning. Hence, while the latter part may have a specific audience, the statement “O mankind” retains its general applicability. Therefore, while the latter part may be directed at a specific addressee, the former part maintains its universal address.

It’s important to highlight that there is no reliable explicit transmitted source directly from Ibn ʿAbbās regarding the interpretation of this verse. Thus, interpretations based solely on attributed sources should be approached with caution and subjected to critical examination.

However, Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597 AH)[2] presents a different perspective, highlighting a divergence of opinion regarding the revelation of the verse. According to him, there are two

[1] Abu al-Ḥasan ʿAli ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ʿAli al-Wāḥidi al-Nisābūri al-Shāfi’i (died 468 AH) was a scholar of exegesis, reasons for revelation, Arabic language, and history. He was also known for his eloquent poetry. His most famous works include “Asbāb al-Nuzūl” (Reasons for Revelation), and he authored three commentaries: “al-Basīṭ“, “al-Waṣīṭ“, and “al-Wajīz“.

[2] Ibn al-Jawzī, full name Abu al-Farāj Abd al-Rahmān ibn Abi al-Ḥasan ʿAli ibn Muhammad ibn Ali al-Qurashi al-Timi al-Bakri, commonly known as Ibn al-Jawzi, was a renowned Hanbali jurist, hadith scholar, historian, and theologian. He lived from 510 AH to 597 AH, born and died in Baghdad. He gained fame for his extensive knowledge and significant contributions to preaching, teaching, and scholarly writing. Ibn al-Jawzī was known for his ascetic lifestyle and dedication to religious studies from a young age. He played a key role in establishing educational institutions and contributed to social welfare initiatives in Baghdad.

opinions: one suggesting that it is of Makkah origin, narrated by Atiyya from Ibn Abbas, and the other proposing that it is of Medinan origin, narrated by Ata from Ibn Abbas. Many scholars, including Ibn Abbas, held the belief that verses revealed with ‘yā ayyuha al-nās’ (O mankind) were revealed in Makkah, while those revealed with ‘yā ayyuha al-ladhīna āmanū’ (O those who believe) were revealed in Medina. Perhaps the attribution of this opinion to Ibn Abbas was presented in this context.

Moreover, numerous scholars regarded Surah Al-Nisā as being of Medinan origin. Al-Qurṭubī (d. 671 AH)[1] affirmed this stance, asserting that those who understand its rulings recognize it as unmistakably Medinan. Additionally, disputing the notion that ‘yā ayyuha al-nās’ in the verse is of Makkah origin, Al-Qurṭubī pointed out that Al-Baqara, a Medinan surah, contains ‘Ya Ayyuhan-Nas’ in two instances. [2] Consequently, it is evident that this verse is a Medinan verse.

However, the consensus ijmāʿ among scholars is that the verse addresses all obligated subjects amongst humankind (al-nās) from the time of Ādam. There are several reasons supporting this interpretation:^[3]

The usage of the definite article “al-” before “nās” signifies universality (al-istighrāq), encompassing all individuals.
The obligation of piety (taqwa) mentioned in the verse is not specific to the people of Makkah; rather, it is a universal obligation for all humankind. Therefore, if the term “people” is understood in its general sense, and the command of piety applies universally, along with the reason for this obligation being the creation of all humans

[1] Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abi Bakr ibn Farh, known as Al-Qurṭubī or Ibn Al-Qurṭubī, was born in Cordoba, Al-Andalus. He excelled in Quranic studies, Arabic language, jurisprudence, and rhetoric. Later, he moved to Egypt and remained in Minya Bani Khasib until his death. Renowned for his scholarship in Quranic exegesis, jurisprudence, and hadith, he was deeply influenced by the vibrant scholarly atmosphere of Al-Andalus. His era witnessed flourishing scientific and scholarly activities, particularly under the Almohad dynasty, fostering his intellectual development.

[2]قال القرطبي رحمه الله في «تفسيره» ٥/ ٥: هي مدنية إلا آية واحدة نزلت بمكة عام الفتح في عثمان بن طلحة الحجبي وهي قوله: إن الله يأمركم أن تؤدوا الأمانات إلى أهلها. وهو الصحيح، فإن في صحيح البخاري- ٤٩٩٣- عن عائشة أنها قالت: ما نزلت سورة النساء إلا وأنا عند رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم تعني قد بنى بها. ولا خلاف بين العلماء أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إنما بنى بعائشة بالمدينة. ومن تبين أحكامها علم أنها مدنية لا شك فيها

[3] في تفسير الرازي المسألة الأولى: روى الواحدي عن ابن عباس في قوله: يا أيها الناس أن هذا الخطاب لأهل/ مكة، وأما الأصوليون من المفسرين فقد اتفقوا على أن الخطاب عام لجميع المكلفين، وهذا هو الأصح لوجوه:

أحدها: أن لفظ الناس جمع دخله الألف واللام فيفيد الاستغراق. وثانيها: أنه تعالى علل الأمر بالاتقاء بكونه تعالى خالقا لهم من نفس واحدة، وهذه العلة عامة في حق جميع المكلفين بأنهم من آدم عليه السلام خلقوا بأسرهم، وإذا كانت العلة عامة كان الحكم عاما. وثالثها: أن التكليف بالتقوى غير مختص بأهل مكة، بل هو عام في حق جميع العالمين، وإذا كان لفظ الناس عاما في الكل، وكان الأمر بالتقوى عاما في الكل، وكانت علة هذا التكليف، وهي كونهم خلقوا من النفس الواحدة عامة في حق الكل، كان القول بالتخصيص في غاية البعد.

وحجة ابن عباس أن قوله: واتقوا الله الذي تسائلون به والأرحام مختص بالعرب لأن المناشدة بالله وبالرحم عادة مختصة بهم. فيقولون أسألك بالله وبالرحم، وأنشدك الله والرحم، وإذا كان كذلك كان قوله: واتقوا الله الذي تسائلون به والأرحام مختصا بالعرب، فكان أول الآية وهو قوله: يا أيها الناس مختصا بهم لأن قوله في أول الآية: اتقوا ربكم وقوله بعد ذلك: واتقوا الله الذي تسائلون به والأرحام وردا متوجهين إلى مخاطب واحد، ويمكن أن يجاب عنه بأنه ثبت في أصول الفقه أن خصوص آخر الآية لا يمنع من عموم أولها، فكان قوله: يا أيها الناس عاما في الكل، وقوله: واتقوا الله الذي تسائلون به والأرحام. خاصا بالعرب.(9:475)

from a single soul, then it becomes clear that the verse is not exclusive to the people of Makkah at the time of the Prophet (saw).

Hence, the verse addresses all humans (insān), emphasizing their fundamental uniqueness as creatures originating from a single soul (nafs).

Regarding the question of what is meant by a single soul, it is essential to address related questions and ascertain whether Muslim scholars have held theological opinions on them, and whether there is consensus (ijmāʿ) on these opinions, with opposition being considered as bidʿa or kufr:

Were there insān before us or multiple Ādams who were progenitors of each type of insān?
Whether we originated from one lineage only or from others as well?

Were there Humans (insān) before Prophet Ādam

Most exegetes unanimously interpret the term “single soul” here as referring to Ādam, deriving this understanding not solely from the wording (lafẓ), but rather from a shared consensus regarding Ādam’s role as the progenitor of humanity, a concept consistently upheld across generations and affirmed by the salaf. Al-Rāzī further affirms the consensus (ijmāʿ) on this interpretation. [1]

It is argued by proponents of Adamic exceptionalism that when Ādam descended from heaven to earth, a view held by the majority of scholars, the Qurʾān neither confirms nor denies the existence of other humans on earth prior to his descent. Consequently, the Qurʾān remains silent on this matter. Given this ambiguity, some scholars advocate adopting a theological stance of tawaqquf, or a position of non-commitment regarding this issue. [2]

This claim is erroneous because it fails to acknowledge that scholars are unanimous about there being no humans on Earth before Ādam—peace be upon him—as he is regarded as the father of all mankind, insān. This understanding is derived from scripture, where Allah, exalted be He, stated: “And [mention] when your Lord said to the angels, ‘Indeed, I will make upon the earth a deputy (khalīfah).” [3] (Qurān, Al-Baqarah: 30) This verse indicates that Ādam was the first being created and appointed as a caretaker on Earth. Ibn ʿAshūr (d. 1393 AH)[4]

[1]في تفسير الرازي المسألة الرابعة: أجمع المسلمون على أن المراد بالنفس الواحدة هاهنا هو آدم عليه السلام (9:476)

[2] Malik, S.A. Islam and Evolution, Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm, Routledge, London 2021, 135

[3] وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلَـٰٓئِكَةِ إِنِّى جَاعِلٌۭ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةًۭ ۖ قَالُوٓا۟ أَتَجْعَلُ فِيهَا مَن يُفْسِدُ فِيهَا وَيَسْفِكُ ٱلدِّمَآءَ وَنَحْنُ نُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِكَ وَنُقَدِّسُ لَكَ ۖ قَالَ إِنِّىٓ أَعْلَمُ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ ٣٠

[4] Mohammed al-Ṭāhir ibn Ashūr (1879 – August 12, 1973) was a prominent Tunisian scholar and jurist. He studied at Zaytuna University and later became one of its leading professors. Ibn Ashūr held various positions, including judge and Grand Mufti of the Māliki School. He was known for delivering the shortest Friday sermon in Islamic history. He served as a judge in 1909 and then as a Māliki judge in 1911. He rose to the rank of Mufti, and in 1932, he was appointed as the Grand Mufti of the Māliki School.

further elucidates this point, stating, “Appointing someone on Earth as a caretaker to do what we desire on Earth… So, when you follow the mention of the creation of the Earth and then the heavens by mentioning His ﷻ supreme will, appointing the vicegerent becomes evidence that appointing the vicegerent was the first order on Earth after its creation.”[1] In essence, Ādam and his descendants were the initial and unique creations on Earth, with no prior existence of humans. This understanding, as articulated by Ibn ʿAshūr, aligns with the consensus among Muslim scholars that humankind, as descendants of Prophet Ādam, holds a unique and special status in creation.

In Ṣaḥīḥ Al-Bukhārī, it is narrated that on the Day of Judgment, all creations will approach Ādam seeking intercession. They will address him, saying, “O Prophet Ādam, you are the father of all mankind. Allāh ﷻcreated you with His own Hand, breathed into you from His Spirit, commanded the angels to prostrate to you, and placed you in Paradise. Will you not intercede for us?” The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) affirmed this relationship by stating, “All Mankind (al-insān) is from Ādam, and Ādam is from dust.” [2] This hadith underscores the singular origin of humanity from Ādam alone. The meanings of the definite article “al” on “al-insān” gives meaning of every human without exception as the term “every” implies istighraq, as in the saying of Allah: “Every soul (kullu nafsin) will taste death.” (Q. 3:185). [3]

In Ibn Kathīr’s (d. 774 AH)[4] tafsīr, a narration from Ibn Jarīr, transmitted via Muhammad ibn Bashar, who received it from ‘Adi ibn Abi ‘Adi, and ultimately from ‘Awf, documents a

[1] التحرير والتنوير [ابن عاشور] أي: جاعل في الارض مدبرا يعمل ما نريده في الارض … فان تعقيب ذكر خلق الارض ثم السماوات بذكر ارادته تعالى جعل الخليفة دليل على ان جعل الخليفة كان اول الاحوال على الارض بعد خلقها (1:398)

واعلم أن موقع الدليل بخلق آدم على الوحدانية هو أن خلق أصل النوع أمر مدرك بالضرورة لأن كل إنسان إذا لفت ذهنه إلى وجوده علم أنه وجود مسبوق بوجود أصل له بما يشاهد من نشأة الأبناء عن الآباء فيوقن أن لهذا النوع أصلا أول ينتهي إليه نشوءه، وإذ قد كانت العبرة بخلق ما في الأرض جميعا أدمجت فيها منة وهي قوله: لكم [البقرة: ٢٩] المقتضية أن خلق ما في الأرض لأجلهم تهيأت أنفسهم لسماع قصة إيجاد منشأ الناس الذين خلقت الأرض لأجلهم ليحاط بما في ذلك من دلائل القدرة مع عظيم المنة وهي منة الخلق التي نشأت عنها فضائل جمة ومنة التفضيل ومنة خلافة الله في الأرض، فكان خلق أصلنا هو أبدع مظاهر إحيائنا الذي هو الأصل في خلق ما في الأرض لنا، فكانت المناسبة في الانتقال إلى التذكير به واضحة مع حسن التخلص إلى ذكر خبره العجيب، فإيراد واو العطف هنا لأجل إظهار استقلال هذه القصة في حد ذاتها في عظم شأنها. (1:399)

[2] ومن السنة ما جاء في صحيح البخاري: “أن الخلائق يأتون آدم يوم القيامة يطلبون منه الشفاعة ويقولون: يا آدم أنت أبو البشر، خلقك الله بيده ونفخ فيك من روحه وأمر الملائكة فسجدوا لك، وأسكنك الجنة، ألا تشفع لنا؟. وقال صلى الله عليه وسلم: “الناس من آدم، وآدم من تراب”. رواه أحمد، وغيره، وحسنه الأرناؤوط.

[3] The definite article “al” of “al-insān” is termed as istighraq” (استغراق) refers to the comprehensive or inclusive meaning of a term or phrase. It involves encompassing all possible meanings or implications of a word or phrase within a specific context. This concept is particularly important in legal and religious texts where precise interpretation is crucial. the meanings of the definite article “al” in Arabic. For example, you say, “The human is better than the animal,” meaning every human is better than every animal.

هو الاسْتِيعابُ والإحاطةُ، وهو أحدُ مَعاني “أل” التَّعْريفِ؛ تقولُ: الإنْسانُ خَيْرٌ مِنَ البَهيمةِ، أيْ: كلُّ إنْسانٍ خَيْرٌ مِن كلِّ بَهيمةٍ. ويُفيدُ الاسْتِغراقَ أيضًا كَلِمةُ “كلٍّ”، كقَولِه تعالى: كُلُّ نَفْسٍ ذَائِقَةُ الْمَوْتِ [آل عمران: 185] .كما تُفيدُ النَّكِرةُ المَنْفيَّةُ أيضًا الاسْتِغراقَ، نَحْوُ: لا رَجلَ في الدَّارِ، ونَحْوُ قَولِه تعالى: فَمَا لَنَا مِنْ شَافِعِينَ * وَلَا صَدِيقٍ حَمِيمٍ [الشعراء: 100-101]. يُنظر: ((الكليات)) للكفوي (ص: 103)، ((معجم المُصْطلَحات النَّحْوية والصرفية)) لمحمد سمير اللبدي (ص: 165).

[4] Imād al-Dīn Abu al-Fīḍa Ismāʿīl bin ʿUmar bin Kathir bin Daw al-Qurashi al-Hasani, known as al-Busrawi, al-Shafi’i, and later al-Dimashqi, was a prominent scholar and jurist born in Majdal near Damascus in 701 AH. He memorized the Quran by 711 AH and studied various Quranic recitations and interpretations. He delved into Shafi’i jurisprudence and learned ḥadīth from renowned scholars. He authored notable works, including Quranic interpretation, historical compilations, and hadith explanations. He passed away in 774 AH, buried beside Ibn Taymiyyah in Damascus. He authored several notable works, including the interpretation of the Quran, “al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah“, “Tabaqāt al-Shāfi’iyyah“, an explanation of the concise version of hadith sciences, “al-Bath al-Hadīth”, a biography of the Prophet Muhammad, a treatise on jihad and more.

statement by al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī: “Iblis (Satan) was never among the angels, not even for the blink of an eye. He is indeed the origin of the jinn, just as Ādam—peace be upon him—is the progenitor of mankind (al-insān).” This narration is affirmed as authentic by Ibn Kathīr. Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 110 AH)[1] emphatically reiterated this stance, underscoring that Iblis never possessed angelic nature, even momentarily. [2] He argued convincingly for this conviction, by drawing a parallel between Iblis’s origin from the jinn and the indisputable consensus regarding Ādam’s role as the progenitor of all humanity. Ibn Jarīr transmitted this statement through a reliably authenticated chain of transmission.

These statements collectively affirm the consensual fact that all humans (al-insān) trace their lineage back to Ādam, who serves as their progenitor. Scholars uphold this truth with high certainty, utilizing it as a benchmark to establish the similarly certain understanding that Iblis belongs to the category of jinn. This comparison underscores the indisputable nature of Ādam’s role as the progenitor of humanity.

The belief that humans existed on Earth prior to Ādam, is firmly rejected by the Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamā’ah, the mainstream Sunni Muslims. Such notions are deemed a bidʿa, innovation in religion. There exist unfounded and dismissed opinions suggesting the pre-existence of humans before Ādam, which contravenes established Islamic doctrine.[3] [4]

[1] Abu Sa’id ibn Abi al-Hasan Yasar al-Basri, often referred to as Hasan of Basra for short, Muslim preacher, ascetic, theologian, exegete, scholar, and judge. Born in Medina in 642 belonged to tābiʿūn. He became one of “the most celebrated” of the tābiʿūn enjoying an “acclaimed scholarly career and an even more remarkable posthumous legacy in Islamic scholarship.” The particular disciplines in which he is said to have excelled included exegesis (tafsīr) of the Quran.

[2] في تفسير ابن كثير – ط العلمية [ابن كثير] وقال ابن جرير: حدثنا محمد بن بشار حدثنا عدي بن أبي عدي عن عوف عن الحسن، قال: ما كان إبليس من الملائكة طرفة عين قط، وإنه لأصل الجن كما أن آدم أصل الإنس. وهذا الإسناد صحيح عن الحسن (1:138)

قال الحسن البصري: ما كان إبليس من الملائكة طرفة عين قط، وإنه لأصل الجن، كما أن آدم عليه السلام أصل البشر، رواه ابن جرير «٢» بإسناد صحيح عنه (5:151)

[3] For instance, Ruh al-Ma‘āni recounts a narration from the Imāmiyyah—a group considered outside the mainstream Sunni tradition—asserting the creation of thirty Ādams before Prophet Ādam, with vast intervals between each, followed by extensive periods of desolation and habitation. Similarly, Ibn Babawayh, in Kitab al-Tawhid, records a narration attributed to al-Ṣādiq, implying the creation of numerous Prophet Ādams preceding the one known as our father Prophet Ādam. Al-Maysami, in his extensive commentary on Nahj al-Balaghah, transmits a statement from Muḥammad al-Bāqir suggesting the existence of countless Ādams before Prophet Ādam. Additionally, Ibn Arabi, in his Futuḥāt, alludes to the existence of another Ādam forty thousand years prior to the Ādam commonly recognized in Islamic tradition.

[4] تفسير الألوسي = روح المعاني [الألوسي، شهاب الدين] وذكر صاحب جامع الأخبار من الإمامية في الفصل الخامس عشر خبرا طويلا نقل فيه أن الله تعالى خلق قبل أبينا آدم ثلاثين آدم وآدم، بين كل آدم ألف سنة، وأن الدنيا بقيت خرابا بعدهم خمسين ألف سنة، ثم عمرت خمسين ألف سنة، ثم خلق أبونا آدم عليه السلام، وروي ابن بابويه في كتاب التوحيد عن الصادق في حديث طويل أيضا أنه قال: لعلك ترى أن الله تعالى لم يخلق بشرا غيركم بلى والله لقد خلق ألف ألف آدم أنتم في آخر أولئك الآدميين، وقال الميثم في شرحه الكبير على النهج- ونقل عن محمد بن علي الباقر- أنه قال: قد انقضى قبل آدم الذي هو أبونا ألف ألف آدم وأكثر، وذكر الشيخ الأكبر قدس سره في فتوحاته ما يقتضي بظاهره أن قبل آدم، (2:393)

However, these narratives are viewed with scepticism and are not considered credible within mainstream Sunni scholarship. The Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamā’ah uphold the belief in Ādam as the first human, rejecting any notion of multiple Ādams preceding him. Such alternative interpretations are regarded as deviations from orthodox Islamic belief.

The esteemed Muslim commentator of the Qurʿān, al-Alūsī (d. 1270 AH)[1], unequivocally states that Allāh ﷿ has not created the likes of Ādam or humans prior to him, and he is a contingent being, both in terms of his species and individuality, contrary to the claims of some philosophers who alleged the pre-existence of the human species. The belief in the existence of multiple Ādams is categorically rejected by the adherents of Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿah, with some, i.e. Zain al-Arab, even pronouncing disbelief upon those who advocate for such multiplicity. While it is acknowledged that Ādam (peace be upon him) was preceded by the creation of other beings such as angels, jinn, and various animals—whose nature and existence are known solely to Allah—there is unanimous consensus (ijmāʿ) among authoritative figures of Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿah affirming that the equivalence of modern-day humans (insān) did not exist before Ādam.[2] The creation and nature of humankind find a defining unity grounded in Ādam’s role as the progenitor. This consensus is unchallenged by any authoritative figures within Ahl al-Sunnah, rendering it a position of consensus ijmāʿ. [3]

[1] Maḥmūd Shahāb al-Dīn Abū al-Thanā al-Hussaini al-Alūsi was a scholar, commentator, historian, jurist, literary figure, and poet whose lineage traced back to Alūs, an island in the Euphrates River. He held the position of mufti in his hometown before dedicating himself to teaching in various Baghdad schools, where he attracted scholars from across regions. Firmly adhering to orthodoxy in creed and the Shāfiʿī school of jurisprudence, he rejected interpretations implying superiority over Allāh and emphasized Allāh’s absolute transcendence. Towards the end of his life, he showed a tendency towards independent legal reasoning. He authored many works in his elegant handwriting, most popular being the tafsīr, “Rūḥ al-Maʿānī”. His intellectual contributions and flexible approach to scholarship left a lasting impact on Islamic jurisprudence and thought.

[2] في تفسير الألوسي = روح المعاني [الألوسي، شهاب الدين] وحمل تعدد آدم في ذلك العالم أيضا غير بعيد، وأما القول بظواهر هذه الأخبار فما لا يراه أهل السنة والجماعة، بل قد صرح زين العرب بكفر من يعتقد التعدد، نعم إن آدمنا هذا عليه السلام مسبوق بخلق آخرين كالملائكة والجن وكثير من الحيوانات وغير ذلك مما لا يعلمه إلا الله تعالى لا يخلق أمثاله وهو حادث نوعا وشخصا خلافا لبعض الفلاسفة في زعمهم قدم نوع الإنسان (2:392)

[3] The actual translation of al-Alūsī the context relates, “ And perhaps this, and its likes, are from the realm of hypotheticals and conjecture (i.e. multiple Ādams). If true, it applies to a hypothetical world, not to the actual world we inhabit. The idea of multiple Adams in that world is not far-fetched either. As for asserting the literal meanings of these reports (i.e. transmitted knowledge), it is not in line with the beliefs of the Ahl al-Sunnah. Indeed, Zain al-Arab explicitly declared disbelief for those who believe in plurality [of Ādam].” This is quite explicit that the belief in a progenitor of insān and hence his progeny prior to Prophet Ādam is unacceptable in this world.

روح المعاني ولعل هذا وأمثاله من أرض السمسمة وجابرسا وجابلقا إن صح محمول على عالم المثال لا على هذا العالم الذي نحن فيه، وحمل تعدد آدم في ذلك العالم أيضا غير بعيد، وأما القول بظواهر هذه الأخبار فما لا يراه أهل السنة والجماعة، بل قد صرح زين العرب بكفر من يعتقد التعدد، نعم إن آدمنا هذا عليه السلام مسبوق بخلق آخرين كالملائكة والجن وكثير من الحيوانات وغير ذلك مما لا يعلمه إلا الله تعالى لا يخلق أمثاله وهو حادث نوعا وشخصا خلافا لبعض الفلاسفة في زعمهم قدم نوع الإنسان، وذهب الكثير منا إلى أنه منذ كان إلى زمن البعثة ستة آلاف سنة وأن عمر الدنيا سبعة آلاف سنة ورووا أخبارا كثيرة في ذلك، والحق عندي أنه كان بعد أن لم يكن ولا يكون بعد أن كان، وأما أنه متى كان ومتى لا يكون فمما لا يعلمه إلا الله تعالى، الأخبار مضطربة في هذا الباب فلا يكاد يعول عليها(2:392)

ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī (d. 429 AH)[1], in his discussion on the Bāṭiniyya and their departure from orthodox Islamic beliefs, highlights a concerning tactic employed by some deviant groups. He recounts a statement attributed to al-Qayrawānī, who advises sowing doubt among people regarding fundamental tenets of faith. This advice includes casting doubt on the authenticity of the Qurān, Torah, Psalms, and Gospel, rejecting belief in divine laws, denying the Day of Judgment and Resurrection, disputing the existence of angels and jinn, and promoting the notion of pre-Adamite humans. By advocating the belief in humans existing before Ādam, proponents of this strategy seek to challenge the concept of Ādam as the first human and thus undermine key aspects of Islamic theology. This aligns with the objectives of refuting the Bāṭiniyya, who are accused of perpetuating the eternity of the world, denying the existence of a Creator, and rejecting divine laws.[2]

The promotion of such beliefs is considered deviant within mainstream Islamic thought, as it contradicts established teachings regarding the creation of Ādam as the first human and the cornerstone of human existence.

Did we Originate from One Lineage Only, or from Others as Well?

As was mentioned before, the Qur’ānic verse 4:1 underscores a foundational belief in Islam concerning the common ancestry of humanity tracing back to the Ādam. Addressing mankind (al-nās), the verse emphasizes that humans were created from a single soul (nafsin wāḥidah).

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّاسُ ٱتَّقُوا۟ رَبَّكُمُ ٱلَّذِى خَلَقَكُم مِّن نَّفْسٍۢ وَٰحِدَةٍۢ وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا وَبَثَّ مِنْهُمَا رِجَالًۭا كَثِيرًۭا وَنِسَآءًۭ

[1] Abū Manṣūr ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī al-Tamīmī was a prominent theologian and scholar of the Ashʿarī school in the late fourth and early fifth centuries. Born in Baghdad, he later moved to Nishāpur where he studied under notable scholars. He gained fame for his expertise in various fields, especially mathematics and religious sciences. After the death of his mentor, al-Isfarayīni, he assumed his teaching position at the Mosque of Aqil in Baghdad. He also taught in Isfarayīn briefly before his death. His scholarly stature earned him praise from contemporaries, including renowned scholars like Abu Uthman al-Sabāni and Shaykh al-Islām Taj al-Din al-Subkī, who hailed him as a towering figure in jurisprudence, theology, and mathematics, particularly in his hometown of Nishāpur.

[2] الفرق بين الفرق [عبد القاهر البغدادي] وقد قال القيروانى في رسالته الى سليمان بن الحسن انى اوصيك بتشكيك الناس فى القرآن والتوراة والزبور والانجيل وبدعوتهم الى ابطال الشرائع والى ابطال المعاد والنشور من القبور وابطال الملائكة فى السماء وابطال الجن فى الارض واوصيك بان تدعوهم الى القول بانه قد كان قبل آدم بشر كثير فان ذلك عون لك على القول بقدم العالم وفى هذا تحقيق دعوانا على الباطنية انهم دهرية يقولون بقدم العالم ويجحدون الصانع ويدل علىدعوانا عليهم القول بابطال الشرائع (281)

O men, fear your Lord who created you from a nafsin wāḥidatin (single soul), and from it created its match, and spread many men and women from the two. …” (Q. 4:1)[1]

Sohaib Malik claims that humans from same descent may have interbred with hominids and we being the product of that, does not negate the possibility of common descent from a single soul for human beings since tawaqquf must be exercised regarding the marriage practices of Prophet Ādam’s earliest descendants.[2]

Malik’s assertion regarding the potential interbreeding of humans with hominids and its compatibility with the concept of common descent from a single soul warrants careful consideration. The interpretation of the phrase “nafsin wāḥidah” (single soul) in the verse emphasizing common descent is pivotal in this regard. The verse underscores the idea that humans share a common origin from Ādam, denoted by the phrase “nafsin wāḥidah.” It is essential to discern whether this phrase implies absolute or relative descent. Absolute descent suggests an exclusive lineage from Ādam without any intermixing with other creations, maintaining a strict homogeneity in human ancestry. Conversely, relative descent allows for the possibility of intermixing with other creations or hominids further down the lineage, while still retaining the defining components that establish human identity.

Considering the verse’s address to “all humankind,” the term “nafsin wāḥidah” must consistently signify these defining components of humanity. Therefore, common descent can be understood in both absolute and relative terms, depending on the interpretation of the phrase and its application within the broader context of the verse.

What is explicit and non-explicit in the wording Nafsin Wahidah

In the realm of Quranic interpretation, numbers are universally regarded as falling within the realm of “al-muhkam” (clear and unequivocal). This classification is due to the fact that numbers in the Qurān are typically employed straightforwardly, devoid of ambiguity or manifold interpretations. They frequently serve to denote precise quantities or durations, such as the count of years or nights specified in various verses. Consequently, they are commonly comprehended in their literal sense, requiring no intricate interpretation. Numbers carry singular meanings, unmistakably imparting knowledge and certitude regarding their intended interpretation. For instance, consider the verse: “And he remained among them a thousand years, except fifty years” [Surah Al-Ankabut: 14]. Another illustration is found in the verse: “And We appointed with Moses thirty nights and completed them with

[1] Also, “It is He who created you all from one soul (nafsin wāḥidatin), and from it made its mate so that he might find comfort in her …” (Qurʾān 7:189)

[2] Malik, S.A. Islam and Evolution, Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm, Routledge, London 2021, 135

ten; thus, the term of his Lord was fulfilled as forty nights” [Surah Al-A’raf: 142].[1] Imām al-Shāfi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) remarked: “So, it became established among us, concerning whoever was addressed with this verse, that thirty and ten amount to forty nights (decisively).”[2]

In the verse, “O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from a single soul” [Quran, Surah An-Nisa: 1], the term “wāḥidatin” (single) is explicitly expressed (al-muḥkam) and more precisely is naṣṣ (clear), and is not open to interpretation, while “nafsin” (soul) is considered al-mutashābih (ambiguous) and more precisely, “mujmal” (unclear) as it is to be assigned to one interpretation only and not to multiple in its indication in this context.[3] As a compound phrase it has been clarified through scholarly consensus ijmāʿ that in this context, “single soul” refers specifically to Ādam. Thus, it is unequivocally stated that Allāh ﷻ created humanity from a single soul, referring directly to Ādam. This establishes Ādam as the progenitor of humanity and this is “al-ẓāhir” (apparent) where it is predominant for one meaning based on ijmāʿ. Consequently, as the progenitor of humanity, Ādam serves as the common ancestor for all human beings, meaning that all human lineages are descended from him.

When exploring the origins of humanity based on “nafsin wāḥidah”, it’s pivotal to differentiate between two assertions: (1) humans descended from “a single soul, nafsin wāḥīdah” and (2) humans descended from “a soul, nafsin.”

[1] These examples highlight that numerical decisiveness is clear, yet ambiguity arises when numbers are attributed to something, such as nights or years. The ambiguity stems from whether these terms align with our conventional understanding of nights and years. However, this ambiguity doesn’t detract from the clarity of the numerical value itself as being al-muḥkam.

[2] )لأول ) نصوص لا تحتمل إلا معنى واحدا ، فهذه تفيد العلم واليقين بمدلولها قطعا ، وذلك مثل قوله ( تعالى ﴿ فَلَبِثَ فِيهِمْ أَلْفَ سَنَةٍ إِلَّا خَمْسِينَ عَامًا ) العنكبوت : ١٤ ] . وقوله تعالى : ﴿ وَوَاعَدْنَا مُوسَى ثَلَاثِينَ لَيْلَةً وَأَتْمَمْنَاهَا بِعَشْرٍ فَتَمَّ مِيقَتُ رَبِّهِ أَرْبَعِينَ لَيْلَةً ﴾ [الأعراف : ١٤٢ ) . قال الشافعي ( رحمه الله ) : فكان بينا عند من خوطب بهذه الآية أن ثلاثين وعشرا أربعون ليلة ) الرسالة (ص27)

[3] In the Quran, the concept of the “nafs” is rich and multifaceted, encompassing various meanings depending on the context of the verses. It is important to understand the linguistic and terminological definitions of nafs. Linguists in the Arabic language have mentioned numerous meanings of nafs, ranging from its association with the human soul to its role in forming personality and influencing behaviour. Additionally, nafs can denote jealousy or envy and even refer to blood or the distinguishing faculties within an individual. In terms of terminology, scholars describe nafs as the essence of an individual, comprising the faculties of life, perception, movement, and will. In contemporary psychology, nafs is understood as the core of a person, driving various aspects of their cognitive, emotional, and moral faculties. Within the Quran, nafs is depicted in various contexts, sometimes referring to the soul, other times to the individual, and at times symbolizing the intellect or the faculties of good and evil within humans. Verses address the self as the rational being responsible for its actions, capable of both righteousness and transgression. Therefore, the Quran portrays nafs as the conscious, accountable human being, encompassing both physical and spiritual dimensions.

لسان العرب للمؤلف: محمد بن مكرم بن علي، أبو الفضل، جمال الدين، ابن منظور الأنصاري، الرويفعي، الإفريقي، الصحاح تاج اللغة وصحاح العربية؛ للمؤلف: أبو نصر، إسماعيل بن حماد الجوهري الفارابي،

In the initial assertion (1), “al-muqayyad” (the qualified) i.e., the word, “single”, restricts the meaning of “soul”. “al-Muqayyad” refers to a word which qualifies a specific or unspecified entity to a particular quality (mauṣūfun b’il-sifah), often with an additional limitation or condition on its absolute meaning.[1] The principle regarding “al-muqayyad” dictates that when a text is qualified, it must be adhered to with its qualification, and deviation from it is impermissible unless evidence suggests otherwise. [2] Therefore, the first assertion establishes that humanity traces back to a singular individual, as denoted by the term “wāḥidatin” (single). Any suggestion of subsequent diversification through interbreeding contradicts the straightforward interpretation of the statement. The phrase “a single person” inherently implies a singular lineage, making the notion of multiple lineages arising from this singular source incompatible and paradoxical. To clarify, consider the analogy of inheriting from one person: it explicitly denotes that the inheritance stems solely from that individual, excluding any other sources. Otherwise, why specify “single”?

Conversely, in the second assertion (2), where humans are purported to have descended from “a person, nafsin” or “a specific person,” the implication is broader and referred to as “al-muṭlaq” (the unqualified).

“Al-muṭlaq” refers to a word or expression denoting a reality either in its comprehensive essence or within its genus, without any specific restriction or condition.[3] Therefore in the second assertion it is entirely plausible to argue here that humans initially originated from the lineage of a particular individual and subsequently diversified through interbreeding. This interpretation aligns with the wording and accommodates the possibility of multiple lineages emerging from the original source without contradiction. Analogously, liken it to inheriting from “a specific person”; it does not preclude the possibility of inheriting solely from that individual while acknowledging other potential sources.

[1] اختلف األصوليون كذلك في تعريف المقيد تبعاً الختالفهم في تعريف المطلق ، نورد منها ثالثة تعريفات مع ترجيح أحدها وشرحه ونقد التعريفين اآلخرين:

-1 التعريف األول: أن المقيد هو اللفظ الدال على معين أو غير معين موصوف بصفة، وهذا التعريف قريب من تعريف ابن قدامه . انظر:( المطلق والمقيد وأثرهما في الفقه اإلسالمي )

-2 التعريف الثاني: هو ما دل على ِّ وصف مدلوله المطلق بصفة زائدة عليه (انظر: اإلحكام في أصول األحكام لآلمدي .)

-3 التعريف الثالث: هو ما دل على الماهية بقيد من قيودها (إرشاد الفحول .)

[2] حكم المقيد: إذا ورد النص مقيدًا فإنَّه يجب العمل به مع قيده، ولا يجوز العدول عن ذلك إلاَّ إذا قام الدليل على عدم اعتبار القيد.

ومثال ذلك: تقييد الصيام بالتتابع في كفَّارة الظهار وكفارة القتل خطأً. يقول الله تعالى: ﴿ فَصِيَامُ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ ﴾ [النساء: 92، المجادلة: 4]، وذلك في آيتين مستقلتين فيهما تقييد الصيام بالتتابع، فهنا يَجب العمل بالقيد، فلا يجزئ إلاَّ صيام شهرين متتابعين، ولو فرَّقهما لم يجز ) انظر: في مراتب القيد وتفاوتها، إمَّا بكثرة القيود أو قلَّتها مع الأمثلة في المسودة (148)، شرح مختصر الروضة (2/ 633)

[3] حين ننظر في تعريفات الأصوليين للمطلق نجد لهم تعريفات متعددة، وتختلف باختلاف تصوُّرهم له.فعرَّفه الرازي بأنه:”اللفظ الدالُّ على الحقيقة من حيث هي هي”[ المحصول (1/ 2/ 521).]، وهو اختيار القرافي والبيضاوي] انظر: شرح تنقيح الفصول (266)، ومعراج المنهاج (1/ 348)[. وعرَّفه ابن قدامة بقوله:”المطلق المتناولُ لواحد لا بعينه باعتبار حقيقة شاملة لجنسه”[ روضة الناظر (2/ 165)]، وقد اختاره الطوفي وابن اللحام] انظر: شرح مختصر الروضة (2/ 630)، والمختصر في أصول الفقه (125) .[وذهب الآمدي وابن الحاجب إلى أن المطلق هو ما دلَّ على شائع في جنسه[انظر: الأحكام للآمدي (3/ 5)،]، وذكر الآمدي إلى أنَّ المطلق عبارة عن النكرة في سياق الإثبات[انظر: الأحكام للآمدي (3/ 5)، ومختصر ابن الحاجب (2/ 859).]، وقال ابن السبكي في تعريفه:”المطلق الدال على الماهية بلا قيد”[ جمع الجوامع مع شرحه الغيث الهامع (1/ 484).]، وبالتَّأمُّل في التعريفات السابقة نجد من الأصوليين مَنْ نظر إلى حقيقة المطلق الذهنيَّة، ووجودها الذهني المجرد، وبعضهم نظر إلى حقيقة المطلق من حيث وجودها الخارجي المتمثل في أفرادها انظر: ]الإطلاق والتقييد في الدليل الشرعي (40)[

This distinction is evident in the Quranic verse where (1) “He (Allah) created you from nafsin wāḥidah (a single soul – Ādam)” unequivocally asserts absolute descent from a single source—Ādam. Conversely, the alternative statement (2) “He (Allah) created you from a nafs (soul – Ādam)” lacks the explicit limitation to a single lineage. As a result, while verse (1) establishes the notion of absolute descent, verse (2) allows for interpretations both absolute and relative, fostering a broader comprehension of human origins.

Recognizing the limitations of relying solely on linguistic evidence in matters of ultimate significance, it’s understood that issues of creed require verification through strict adherence to the deductions made by early scholars from the foundational sources of Sharīʿah, primarily the Qurān and the Sunnah.

Verification from Scholarly Consensual Opinion

In light of this discussion, the question arises: must we affirm that Ḥawā’ (Eve) was created from an absolute descent from Ādam? If we maintain that Ḥawā’ was directly created from Ādam, then we are essentially asserting that the description in the verse, which emphasizes the origin of humanity from “nafsin wahidah” (one soul), pertains to an absolute descent.

However, if we entertain the possibility that Ḥāwa was not created directly from Ādam, then we confront a significant implication: since Ḥāwa is undeniably a member of the human species (insān), her existence challenges the notion of an absolute descent implied by “nafsin wahidah.” This alternative perspective introduces the idea of a relative descent for humanity, suggesting the potential for other origins or intermediaries beyond Prophet Ādam.

This leads us to explore three interconnected aspects:

The Descension and Creation of Ḥawā’: Understanding the circumstances surrounding the creation of Ḥawā’ and its implications for the concept of common descent.
The Descension and Creation of the Children of Prophet Ādam: Examining the broader narrative of human creation and lineage, particularly concerning the descendants of Ādam and Ḥawā’.
Human Uniqueness: Delving into the significance of “nafsin wahidah” as it relates to the fundamental essence of humanity, highlighting the critical component that defines human identity and unity.

Descension and Creation of Hawā’

“… and from it (minhā) created its match, and spread many men and women from the two…” (Q. 4:1)

The account of Ḥawā’s creation, as elucidated by Imām al-Rāzī, underscores the intimate connection between her and Ādam. It is commonly held that Ḥawā was created from a part of Ādam, typically interpreted as his right rib, and that all humanity originated from this primordial couple. This interpretation suggests an absolute understanding of “nafsin wahidah” (one soul) concerning Ḥawā’s descent from Ādam.

However, the term “minhā” (from it) in the verse, “…and from it created its match…” (Q. 4:1), has engendered varied interpretations within scholarly discourse. The majority view, in line with Ahl al-Sunnah w’al Jamāʿah, asserts that “minhā” refers directly to Ādam, affirming that Ḥawā’ was created from a part of Ādam himself, thereby reinforcing the concept of absolute descent.

Conversely, Abū Muslim al-Aṣfahānī[1], a muʿtazalite scholar known for his non-conformist views, presents an alternative interpretation. He suggests that “minhā” signifies the genus, i.e. “…He created from its genus, its partner/ wife…”, implying that Ḥawā’ was created from the same genus as Ādam rather than directly from him. While this interpretation diverges from the consensus upheld by Ahl al-Sunnah w’al Jamāʿah, it introduces a nuanced perspective that accommodates broader notions of descent within the same genus. [2]

Al-Qāḍi Abu Bakr al-Bāqilānī (d. 403 AH)[3] posits that the first opinion holds greater strength, primarily because if Ḥawā’ were to be created independently, not directly from

[1] Abū Muslim Muḥammad ibn Baḥr al-Asfahānī (254-322 AH) was a scholar of the fourth century, and he belonged to the Mu’tazilite school of thought. He was a writer, grammarian, literary figure, theologian, and an exegete of the Quran. He was also involved in the Abbasid government. There is not much information available about his life, especially the first half of his life. However, some investigations suggest that he was born in Asfahan and began his education there. He later moved to Baghdad to further his studies and had encounters with Al-Bahthari during his time in Baghdad. The proximity in beliefs and ideas between the Mu’tazilites and the Zaidīs led to the attraction of the Alawite government in Tabaristan to the two Mu’tazilite scholars, Abū Muslim al-Asfahānī and Abū al-Qāsim al-Balkhī, after their return to Iran. Abu Muslim, in the years before 287 AH, served as a teacher to Muhammad ibn Zayd al-Daʿi (ruled 270-287 AH), the Alawite ruler of Tabaristan.

[2] في تفسير الرازي قوله تعالى: وخلق منها زوجها فيه مسائل:

المسألة الأولى: المراد من هذا الزوج هو حواء، وفي كون حواء مخلوقة من آدم قولان:

الأول: وهو الذي عليه الأكثرون أنه لما خلق الله آدم ألقى عليه النوم، ثم خلق حواء من ضلع من أضلاعه اليسرى، فلما استيقظ رآها ومال إليها وألفها، لأنها كانت مخلوقة من جزء من أجزائه، واحتجوا عليه بقول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: «إن المرأة خلقت من ضلع أعوج فإن ذهبت تقيمها كسرتها وإن تركتها وفيها عوج استمتعت بها»

والقول الثاني: وهو اختيار أبي مسلم الأصفهاني: أن المراد من قوله: وخلق منها زوجها أي من جنسها وهو كقوله تعالى: والله جعل لكم من أنفسكم أزواجا [النحل: ٧٢] وكقوله: إذ بعث فيهم رسولا من أنفسهم [آل عمران: ١٦٤] وقوله: لقد جاءكم رسول من أنفسكم [التوبة: ١٢٨] (9:478)

[3] Al-Qāḍi Abū Bakr al-Bāqilānī was a prominent theologian known as the “Sheikh of Sunni Scholars.” He followed the Ashʿari school and was a leading figure in his time, renowned for his extensive writings and staunch defense of Sunni beliefs. Ibn al-ʿImād praised his intellect and devotion, while Ibn Taymiyyah hailed him as the foremost theologian of his affiliation. Ibn Khallikān lauded his scholarship and debating skills, highlighting his pivotal role in advancing Sunni theology.

Ādam but from the same genus as Ādam, it would imply a creation from two distinct souls (nafsayn), contradicting the literal meaning of nafsin wāḥidah. This absolute understanding of nafsin wāḥidah emphasizes a single lineage originating from Prophet Ādam, the progenitor of humanity. If Ḥawā’ were to be independent of Ādam’s lineage, it would imply the existence of two separate lineages for modern-day humans: one from Ādam and another from Ḥawā’. Such a notion conflicts with the principle of nafsin wāḥidah, asserting a single soul and lineage as the foundation of humanity. Therefore, according to this view, all modern-day humans trace their lineage back to Ādam alone, rather than multiple origins from other humans or hominids.

However, Imām al-Rāzī offers an alternative interpretation, suggesting that the term “min” in the verse can also signify the beginning of the process (ibtidā’ al-ghāyah). According to this perspective, since the inception of creation and the existence of humanity began with Ādam, it is valid to assert that humanity originated from one soul. In essence, Ādam serves as the progenitor of humanity, as indicated in the verse referring to the creation from a single soul (nafsin wāḥidah).[1]

Al-Alūsi, mentions in his commentary of the Qur’ān, “Ruh al-Maʿāni, related to:

وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا وَبَثَّ مِنْهُمَا رِجَالًۭا كَثِيرًۭا وَنِسَآءًۭ

“ and from it (nafsin wāḥidah) [Allah] created its match, and spread many men and women from the two. …” (Q. 4:1)

“…and from it nafsin wāḥidah) [Allah] created its match” is a conjunction of “He [Allah] created you” This verb [khalaqa, Allah created] is repeated to demonstrate the distinction between the two creations, as the first (man, insān) was created through branching from the original source (Ādam), and the second (Ḥāwa) was created from the substance itself. The intention behind the term ‘mate’ is Ḥāwa, who was created from the rib of Ādam, peace be upon him, on his left side. This was narrated by Ibn ʿUmar and others.… Abū Muslim denied the creation of Ḥāwa from Ādam’s rib because, as he argued, Allāh ﷻ is capable of creating her from clay. He questioned the benefit of creating her in such a manner. He claimed that the meaning of “from it” refers to her being of the same kind as Ādam, citing the verse: “And He made for you from yourselves mates” [Quran 16:72]. Some agreed with him, asserting that this interpretation leads to the notion that Ādam (peace be upon him) was marrying members of his own kind, which is a notion worthy of disdain. Some even claimed that Ḥāwa was a “hūri” (heavenly maiden) created like the “ḥūr” (heavenly maidens) created for Ādam

[1]في تفسير الرازي قال القاضي: والقول الأول أقوى، لكي يصح قوله: خلقكم من نفس واحدة إذ لو كانت حواء مخلوقة ابتداء لكان الناس مخلوقين من نفسين، لا من نفس واحدة، ويمكن أن يجاب عنه بأن كلمة «من» لابتداء الغاية، فلما كان ابتداء التخليق والإيجاد وقع بآدم عليه السلام صح أن يقال: خلقكم من نفس واحدة، وأيضا فلما ثبت أنه تعالى قادر على خلق آدم من التراب كان قادرا أيضا على خلق حواء من التراب، وإذا كان الأمر كذلك، فأي فائدة في خلقها من ضلع من أضلاع آدم. (9:478)

Taymiyyah hailed him as the foremost theologian of his affiliation. Ibn Khallikān lauded his scholarship and debating skills, highlighting his pivotal role in advancing Sunni theology.

after he was settled in paradise. Both opinions are invalid. The second opinion lacks any evidence from the Qurān or Hadīth to suggest it, let alone confirm it. Despite this, it may still be mentioned. Indeed, it has been mentioned in some narrations that the “ḥūr” (heavenly maidens) were created from the saffron of paradise.

If Ḥawā’ was created from the same substance as Ādam, as claimed by some, then there would be a significant difference between them, as Ādam was created from the dust of this world, which almost implies a divergence in their nature, which the verse may hint at. Furthermore, if reproduction occurred between them in this scenario, even though Ḥawā’ was supposedly created from the same substance as Ādam, it contradicts the explicit (ẓāhir) statement. This response counters the argument presented by Abu Muslim. Otherwise, it is a plausible interpretation. As for the first point, if the matter were mentioned, then people would be created from two souls, not from one soul, which contradicts the textual evidence. Additionally, it contradicts the authentic reports narrated from the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. This refutes the second argument as well.[1]

Drawing from the commentary of Al-Alūsi in “Ruh al-Maʿāni,” it is evident that considering alternate lineages, other than the one directly descending from Ādam, is deemed contradictory to the Qurān and ahadīth. Al-Alūsi highlights the potential contradiction if Ḥawā’ was created from a different substance than Ādam, suggesting a divergence in lineage that contradicts the Quranic notion of humans originating from a single soul. He asserts that accepting multiple lineages conflicts with both the consensual textual meaning of the Qurān, ‘nafsin wāḥidah’, and authentic hadiths, which affirm the singular origin of humanity from Ādam. Thus, according to Al-Alūsi’s analysis, the concept of multiple lineages for humans stands in direct contradiction to Islamic scripture and prophetic tradition.

Therefore, the prevailing and singularly accepted viewpoint among the Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿah asserts that the creation of Ḥawā’ from Ādam was unequivocal. This interpretation aligns with the verse’s reference to “nafsin wāhidah,” signifying an exclusive lineage tracing back to Ādam alone, rather than suggesting a common genus with Ādam or an alternative

[1] في تفسير الألوسي = روح المعاني [الألوسي، شهاب الدين]

بقوله تعالى شأنه: وخلق منها زوجها وهو عطف على خلقكم داخل معه في حيز الصلة، وأعيد الفعل لإظهار ما بين الخلقين من التفاوت لأن الأول بطريق التفريع من الأصل، والثاني بطريق الإنشاء من المادة فإن المراد من الزوج حواء وهي قد خلقت من ضلع آدم عليه السلام والأيسر (٢) كما روي ذلك عن ابن عمر وغيره

وأنكر أبو مسلم خلقها من الضلع لأنه سبحانه قادر على خلقها من التراب فأي فائدة في خلقها من ذلك، وزعم أن معنى منها من جنسها والآية على حد قوله تعالى: جعل لكم من أنفسكم أزواجا [النحل: ٧٢] ووافقه على ذلك بعضهم مدعيا أن القول بما ذكر يجر إلى القول بأن آدم عليه السلام كان ينكح بعضه بعضا، وفيه من الاستهجان ما لا يخفى، وزعم بعض أن حواء كانت حورية خلقت مما خلق منه الحور بعد أن أسكن آدم الجنة وكلا القولين باطل، أما الثاني فلأنه ليس في الآيات ولا الأحاديث ما يتوهم منه الإشارة إليه أصلا فضلا عن التصريح به، ومع هذا يقال عليه:

إن الحور خلقن من زعفران الجنة- كما ورد في بعض الآثار

فإن كانت حواء مخلوقة مما خلقن منه- كما هو نص كلام الزاعم- فبينها وبين آدم عليه السلام المخلوق من تراب الدنيا بعد كلي يكاد يكون افتراقا في الجنسية التي ربما توهمها الآية، ويستدعي بعد وقوع التناسل بينهما في هذه النشأة وإن كانت مخلوقة مما خلق منه آدم فهو مع كونه خلاف نص كلامه يرد عليه أن هذا قول بما قاله أبو مسلم وإلا يكنه فهو قريب (2:392)

منه، وأما الأول فلأنه لو كان الأمر كما ذكر فيه لكان الناس مخلوقين من نفسين لا من نفس واحدة وهو خلاف النص، وأيضا هو خلاف ما نطقت به الأخبار الصحيحة عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهذا يرد على الثاني أيضا (2:393)

origin. Here, “nafsin wāḥidah” implies a singular and absolute source. To propose that the descendants of Ādam originated from sources other than him, such as evolved hominids or other humans, contradicts the teachings of scholars like al-Bāqilānī and al-Alūsī who represent the position of the Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿah. Such a notion would imply a dual ancestry for the progeny of Ādam, originating both from Ādam and from other hominids, which runs counter to the explicit mention in the verse of a single soul (nafsin wāhidah) as the progenitor.

Figure 1. Types of Descent

Types of Descent

Descension and Creation of Children of Ādam Related to Covenant of Faith (al-Mīthāq)

Returning back to the question of the progeny of Ādam prompts an essential inquiry: are they of absolute descent, as is the case for Ḥawā’, if the meaning of nafsin wāhidah is to be maintained, or is their descent relative, allowing for intermixing down the lineage line with other creations? If they are born from both Ādam and Ḥawā’ together, as mentioned in the verse, “…and spread many men and women from the two…” (Q. 4:1), then this would indicate that although they have originated from absolute descent from Ādam, this descent is indirect through Ḥawā’. If this descent is indirect, then there is the possibility of accepting nafsin wāhidah as allowing the understanding of both direct and indirect descent, facilitated by the intermediary, Ḥawā’, who directly descended from Prophet Ādam. Is the descent of the progeny of Ādam absolute, direct, indirect, or relative, in their origin being from a single nafs? In order to address this, we refer to another verse (Q. 7:172).

Progeny of Ādam coming from his Loin and al-Mithāq (The Covenant)

وَإِذْ أَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِنۢ بَنِىٓ ءَادَمَ مِن ظُهُورِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ وَأَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلَىٰٓ أَنفُسِهِمْ أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ ۖ قَالُوا۟ بَلَىٰ ۛ شَهِدْنَآ ۛ أَن تَقُولُوا۟ يَوْمَ ٱلْقِيَـٰمَةِ إِنَّا كُنَّا عَنْ هَـٰذَا غَـٰفِلِينَ ١٧٢

“(Recall) when your Lord brought forth their progeny from the loins of the children of ’Ādam, and made them testify about themselves (by asking them,) “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Of course, You are. We testify.” (We did so) lest you should say on the Day of Judgment, “We were unaware of this.” (Q. 7:172)

This verse recounts Allāh ﷻ addressing all the descendants of Ādam, reminding them of their witness to His Lordship and affirming their testimony to it. While some argue this occurred before humanity’s presence on Earth, others contend it relates to man’s birth on Earth. [1] The commentary and discussion surrounding this verse shed light on the acceptable scope of interpreting “nafsin wāḥidah” within Sunnī orthodoxy. It underscores the significance of maintaining consistency and coherence in understanding the process of the initial creation of human beings, affirming their origin from “nafsin wāḥidah,” i.e., from Ādam. This consistency is crucial, as it becomes apparent when examining scholarly positions on the issue. Any apparent contradiction within the Qurān, such as stating humans were created from “ nafsin wāḥidah ” and then presenting evidence to the contrary in another verse or reliable ḥadith, poses a challenge to the concept’s integrity. Such contradictions demand explanation, as they jeopardize the coherence of the concept of “ nafsin wāḥidah ” as traditionally understood. [2]

Given this premise, it becomes pertinent to examine whether interpreting the concept of “ nafsin wāḥidah” to encompass both absolute and relative meanings regarding the descent of Ādam’s descendants is permissible. This inquiry leads us to scrutinise various interpretations of Quranic verses related to the covenant. However, regardless of the context or event discussed, it is imperative to uphold the notion of creation from “ nafsin wāḥidah ” whenever the origin of Ādam’s progeny is addressed.

The crux of the matter lies in whether the covenant event mentioned in the verse, which necessitates maintaining the notion of Ādam’s creation from “ nafsin wāḥidah,” permits a broader interpretation of this concept. We will delve into whether “ nafsin wāḥidah ” can

[1] تفسير الرازي = مفاتيح الغيب أو التفسير الكبير [الفخر الرازي[ (15:397)

[2] The Principle of Consistency: It is imperative to uphold the coherence between the texts of the Qurān and the Sunnah, and to reject any notions of contradiction or disparity among them. This consistency should prevail, whether it pertains to reconciling one verse with another, aligning one authentic hadith with another similar narration, or harmonising a verse with an authentic ḥadīth. Any perceived contradictions or differences in certain texts should be understood in light of their apparent meanings, rather than suggesting any fundamental divergence in essence.

منهج الاستدلال علي مسائل الاعتقاد عند اهل السنة و الجماعة لعثمان بن علي حسن صورة القاعدة: مما ينبغي اعتقاده : ضرورة الاتفاق بين نصوص الكتاب والسنة ، ونفي التعارض والاختلاف بينها ، سواء أكان ذلك بين آية وآية ، أو بين حديث صحيح وآخر مثله ، أو بين آية وحديث صحيح . وأن ما يظن من تعارض واختلاف بين بعض النصوص فذلك بحسب الظاهر ، لا في نفس الأمر ص313

encompass (1) both absolute creation, direct and indirect from Prophet Ādam, as well as relative creation from Ādam, and (2) whether this interpretation extends uniformly down the lineage of creation to encompass all ‘progeny of Ādam’ until the last day.

A Conflict between Verse and Hadith arises when comparing the Quranic verse “When your Lord brought forth their progeny from the loins of the children of ’Ādam…” (Q. 17:172) with the ḥadīth statement, “Indeed, Allāh ﷿, created Ādam and then wiped his loin with His right hand, and from him He extracted his descendants.” [1],

This conflict prompts two interpretations of the verse (Q. 7:172): [2]

The first interpretation:

The first interpretation of this verse stems from ḥadīth literature, suggesting that all the progeny of Ādam were instantaneously extracted from Ādam’s loin, thereby affirming absolute descent from Prophet Ādam. This notion finds support in the ḥadīth of ʿUmar. [1]

However, a literal reading of the Quranic verse (Q. 7:172) appears to conflict with these aḥadīth, as it implies that the progeny of Ādam were taken from the loins of Ādam’s

[1] ما رواه أبو داود (4703) عَنْ مُسْلِمِ بْنِ يَسَارٍ الْجُهَنِيِّ، أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ، سُئِلَ عَنْ هَذِهِ الْآيَةِ، وَإِذْ أَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِنْ بَنِي آدَمَ مِنْ ظُهُورِهِمْ قَالَ: فَقَالَ عُمَرُ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ سُئِلَ عَنْهَا، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: (إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ خَلَقَ آدَمَ، ثُمَّ مَسَحَ ظَهْرَهُ بِيَمِينِهِ، فَاسْتَخْرَجَ مِنْهُ ذُرِّيَّةً، فَقَالَ: خَلَقْتُ هَؤُلَاءِ لِلْجَنَّةِ وَبِعَمَلِ أَهْلِ الْجَنَّةِ يَعْمَلُونَ، ثُمَّ مَسَحَ ظَهْرَهُ فَاسْتَخْرَجَ مِنْهُ ذُرِّيَّةً، فَقَالَ: خَلَقْتُ هَؤُلَاءِ لِلنَّارِ وَبِعَمَلِ أَهْلِ النَّارِ يَعْمَلُون

شرح وترجمة حديث: لما خلق الله آدم مسح ظهره فسقط من ظهره كل نسمة هو …

عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه ، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : «لما خلق اللهُ آدمَ مسح ظهره، فسقط من ظهره كل نَسَمة هو خالقها من ذُرِّيته إلى يوم القيامة، وجعل بين عيني كل إنسان منهم وَبِيصًا من نور، ثم عرضهم على آدم فقال: أي رب، مَن هؤلاء؟ قال: هؤلاء ذريتك، فرأى رجلا منهم فأعجبه وَبِيصُ ما بين عينيه، فقال: أي رب مَن هذا؟ فقال: هذا رجل من آخر الأمم من ذُرِّيتك يقال له: داود. فقال: رب كم جعلتَ عُمُرَه؟ قال: ستين سنة، قال: أي رب، زِده من عُمُري أربعين سنة. فلما قضي عمر آدم جاءه مَلَكُ الموت، فقال: أوَلَم يبقَ من عمري أربعون سنة؟ قال: أوَلَم تُعْطِها ابنَك داود قال: فجَحَدَ آدمُ فجحدت ذُرِّيتُه، ونسي آدمُ فنسيت ذُرِّيتُه، وخَطِئ آدم فخَطِئت ذُرِّيتُه».

[1]في تفسير الرازي والقول الثاني: في تفسير هذه الآية قول أصحاب النظر وأرباب المعقولات: إنه تعالى أخرج الذرية وهم الأولاد من أصلاب آبائهم وذلك الإخراج أنهم كانوا نطفة فأخرجها الله تعالى في أرحام الأمهات، وجعلها علقة، ثم مضغة، ثم جعلهم بشرا سويا، وخلقا كاملا ثم أشهدهم على أنفسهم بما ركب فيهم من دلائل وحدانيته، وعجائب خلقه، وغرائب صنعه. فبالإشهاد صاروا كأنهم قالوا بلى، وإن لم يكن هناك قول باللسان، ولذلك نظائر منها قوله تعالى: فقال لها وللأرض ائتيا طوعا أو كرها قالتا أتينا طائعين [فصلت: ١١] ومنها قوله تعالى: إنما قولنا لشيء إذا أردناه أن نقول له كن فيكون [النحل: ٤٠] (15:400)

[1] في تفسير الرازي روى مسلم بن يسار الجهني أن عمر رضي الله عنه سئل عن هذه الآية فقال: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سئل عنها فقال: «إن الله سبحانه وتعالى خلق آدم ثم مسح ظهره فاستخرج منه ذرية فقال خلقت هؤلاء للجنة وبعمل أهل الجنة يعملون ثم مسح ظهره فاستخرج منه ذرية فقال خلقت هؤلاء للنار وبعمل أهل النار يعملون» فقال رجل يا رسول الله ففيم العمل؟ فقال عليه الصلاة والسلام: «إن الله إذا خلق العبد للجنة استعمله بعمل أهل الجنة حتى يموت على عمل من أعمال أهل الجنة فيدخل الجنة وإذا خلق العبد للنار استعمله بعمل أهل النار حتى يموت على عمل من أعمال أهل النار فيدخله الله النار»وعن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه قال:قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «لما خلق الله آدم مسح ظهره فسقط من ظهره كل نسمة (person)من ذريته إلى يوم القيامة»وقال مقاتل: «إن الله مسح صفحة (surface)ظهر آدم اليمنى فخرج منه ذرية بيضاء كهيئة الذر (speck)تتحرك، ثم مسح صفحة ظهره اليسرى فخرج منه ذرية سوداء كهيئة الذر فقال يا آدم هؤلاء ذريتك. (15:397)

descendants, not directly from Ādam himself. This apparent contradiction between the prophetic aḥadīth and the Quranic verse presents a challenge.

In order to preserve the fundamental belief that Ādam’s progeny were created from “nafsin wāḥidah,” scholars have sought reconciliation between the literal meaning of the aḥadīth and the verse of the Qurān. They argue that while the aḥadīth confirm the principle of absolute descent, the Quranic verse seemingly contradicts this. To resolve this discrepancy, Muslim scholars explain that the Qurān outlines the process and order of extraction of Prophet Ādam’s progeny from his loins, indirectly through his descendants. The aḥadīth, on the other hand, refer to the actual origin (al-aṣl), affirming Ādam as the progenitor.

The Quranic verse describes the extraction of some of Ādam’s progeny from the loin of others, reflecting the ongoing process of lineage until the Day of Judgment. The aḥadīth, meanwhile, suggest that all of Ādam’s progeny were extracted from his loin in a single instance, mirroring the concept of humanity’s collective resurrection, when the whole of humanity will be made to die in an instance and come back to life in an instance with the two blowings of the trumpet.

This interpretation restricts the meaning of “nafsin wāḥidah” to absolute descent, implying that all of Ādam’s descendants trace back to a single soul, exclusive to Ādam. Such an interpretation precludes the possibility of interbreeding with other creations, as it would imply descent from lineages other than Ādam’s. Therefore, according to this interpretation, it would be inaccurate to assert that all of Ādam’s progeny were extracted from his loin if some also originated from other lineages of mankind.

The second interpretation:

This interpretation predominantly aligns with the scholars of reason, such as the Mu’tazilites, who posit that Allāh ﷻ extracted the progeny of Ādam in a manner consistent with conventional parental lineage. According to this view, the process entailed the initial form of a nuṭfa (sperm), which then developed in their mothers’ wombs through stages of ʿalaqa and mudgha, gradually assuming a fully formed state. It is at this stage that they purportedly bore witness to the covenant, albeit not necessarily verbally articulated.

Mu’tazilites assert that the literal understanding of the Quranic verse can be upheld without the need for reconciliation with the aḥadīth. In essence, they reject the interpretation derived from the aḥadīth, suggesting instead that the verse does not indicate the simultaneous extraction of Ādam’s progeny from his loin. Rather, they contend that Ādam’s descendants were born from one another over time.

This interpretation introduces the possibility of interbreeding with other creations, as it does not preclude the notion that some of Ādam’s progeny may have interbred with other creatures. However, it maintains that the ultimate descent of the offspring remains linked to Ādam, albeit indirectly or possibly relatively through such interbreeding.

The proponents of this view argue that logic and reason support the notion that the covenant was taken from the children of Ādam while they were in the world, rather than before their birth in a worldly sense. They suggest that individuals who gave birth to children during their lifetime also partook in this covenant. Despite this perspective, they still maintain the concept of “nafsin wāḥidah,” asserting that all of Prophet Ādam’s progeny originate from him indirectly, with the possibility of interbreeding with other hominids. In essence, while acknowledging that all of Ādam’s descendants were created from him, they emphasize that this creation occurred indirectly, through the possibility of relative descent, via intermediaries among them, with some being born from others.[1]

[1] في تفسير الرازي أما المعتزلة: فقد أطبقوا على أنه لا يجوز تفسير هذه الآية بهذا الوجه. واحتجوا على فساد هذا القول بوجوه.

الحجة الأولى: لهم قالوا: قوله: من بني آدم من ظهورهم لا شك أن قوله: من ظهورهم يدل من قوله: بني آدم فيكون المعنى: وإذ أخذ ربك من ظهور بني آدم. وعلى هذا التقدير: فلم يذكر الله تعالى أنه أخذ من ظهر آدم شيئا.

الحجة الثانية: أنه لو كان المراد أنه تعالى أخرج من ظهر آدم شيئا من الذرية لما قال: من ظهورهم بل كان يجب أن يقول: من ظهره، لأن آدم ليس له إلا ظهر واحد، وكذلك قوله: ذريتهم لو كان آدم لقال ذريته.

الحجة الثالثة: أنه تعالى حكى عن أولئك الذرية أنهم قالوا: إنما أشرك آباؤنا من قبل وهذا الكلام يليق بأولاد آدم، لأنه عليه السلام ما كان مشركا.

الحجة الرابعة: أن أخذ الميثاق لا يمكن إلا من العاقل، فلو أخذ الله الميثاق من أولئك الذر لكانوا عقلاء، ولو كانوا عقلاء وأعطوا ذلك الميثاق حال عقلهم لوجب أن يتذكروا في هذا الوقت أنهم أعطوا الميثاق قبل دخولهم في هذا العالم لأن الإنسان إذا وقعت له واقعة عظيمة مهيبة فإنه لا يجوز مع كونه عاقلا أن ينساها نسيانا كليا لا يتذكر منها شيئا لا بالقليل ولا بالكثير، وبهذا الدليل يبطل القول بالتناسخ. (in sequence) فإنا نقول لو كانت أرواحنا قد حصلت قبل هذه الأجساد في أجساد أخرى لوجب أن نتذكر الآن أنا كنا قبل هذا الجسد في جسد آخر، وحيث لم نتذكر ذلك كان القول/ بالتناسخ باطلا. فإذا كان اعتمادنا في إبطال التناسخ ليس إلا على هذا الدليل وهذا الدليل بعينه قائم في هذه المسألة، وجب القول بمقتضاه، فلو جاز أن يقال إنا في وقت الميثاق أعطينا العهد والميثاق مع أنا في هذا الوقت لا نتذكر شيئا منه، فلم لا يجوز أيضا أن يقال إنا كنا قبل هذا البدن

في بدن آخر مع أنا في هذا البدن لا نتذكر شيئا من تلك الأحوال. وبالجملة فلا فرق بين هذا القول وبين مذهب أهل التناسخ فإن لم يبعد التزام هذا القول لم يبعد أيضا التزام مذهب التناسخ.

الحجة الخامسة: أن جميع الخلق الذين خلقهم الله من أولاد آدم عدد عظيم وكثيرة، فالمجموع الحاصل من تلك الذرات يبلغ مبلغا عظيما في الحجمية والمقدار وصلب آدم على صغره يبعد أن يتسع لذلك المجموع.

الحجة السادسة: أن البنية شرط لحصول الحياة والعقل والفهم، إذ لو لم يكن كذلك لم يبعد في كل ذرة من ذرات الهباء (specs)أن يكون عاقلا فاهما مصنفا للتصانيف الكثيرة في العلوم الدقيقة. وفتح هذا الباب يفضي إلى التزام الجهالات. وإذا ثبت أن البنية شرط لحصول الحياة، فكل واحد من تلك الذرات لا يمكن أن يكون عالما فاهما عاقلا إلا إذا حصلت له قدرة من البنية واللحمية والدمية، وإذا كان كذلك فمجموع تلك الأشخاص الذين خرجوا إلى الوجود من أول تخليق آدم إلى آخر قيام القيامة لا تحويهم (possession)عرصة(courtyard) الدنيا، فكيف يمكن أن يقال إنهم بأسرهم حصلوا دفعة واحدة في صلب آدم عليه السلام؟

الحجة السابعة: قالوا هذا الميثاق إما أن يكون قد أخذه الله منهم في ذلك الوقت ليصير حجة عليهم في ذلك الوقت، أو ليصير حجة عليهم عند دخولهم في دار الدنيا. والأول باطل لانعقاد الإجماع على أن بسبب ذلك القدر من الميثاق لا يصيرون مستحقين للثواب والعقاب والمدح والذم ولا يجوز أن يكون المطلوب منه أن يصير ذلك حجة عليهم عند دخولهم في دار الدنيا لأنهم لما لم يذكروا ذلك الميثاق في الدنيا فكيف يصير ذلك حجة عليهم في التمسك بالإيمان؟

الحجة الثامنة: قال الكعبي: إن حال أولئك الذرية لا يكون أعلى في الفهم والعلم من حال الأطفال، ولما لم يكن توجيه التكليف على الطفل، فكيف يمكن توجيهه على أولئك الذوات؟

وأجاب الزجاج عنه فقال: لما لم يبعد أن يؤتي الله النمل العقل كما قال: قالت نملة يا أيها النمل [النمل: ١٨] وأن يعطي الجبل الفهم حتى يسبح كما قال: وسخرنا مع داود الجبال يسبحن [الأنبياء: ٧٩] وكما أعطى الله العقل للبعير حتى سجد للرسول، وللنخلة حتى سمعت وانقادت حين دعيت فكذا هاهنا.

الحجة التاسعة: أن أولئك الذر في ذلك الوقت إما أن يكونوا كاملي العقول والقدر أو ما كانوا/ كذلك، فإن كان الأول كانوا مكلفين لا محالة وإنما يبقون مكلفين إذا عرفوا الله بالاستدلال ولو كانوا كذلك لما امتازت أحوالهم في ذلك الوقت عن أحوالهم في هذه الحياة الدنيا، فلو افتقر التكليف في الدنيا إلى سبق ذلك الميثاق لا فتقر التكليف في وقت ذلك الميثاق إلى سبق ميثاق آخر ولزم التسلسل وهو محال. وأما الثاني: وهو أن يقال إنهم في وقت ذلك الميثاق ما كانوا كاملي العقول ولا كاملي القدر، فحينئذ يمتنع توجيه الخطاب والتكليف عليهم.

الحجة العاشرة: قوله تعالى: فلينظر الإنسان مم خلق خلق من ماء دافق [الطارق: ٥، ٦] ولو كانت تلك الذرات عقلاء فاهمين كاملين، لكانوا موجودين قبل هذا الماء الدافق ولا معنى للإنسان إلا ذلك الشيء فحينئذ لا يكون الإنسان مخلوقا من الماء الدافق وذلك رد لنص القرآن.

Reconciling both interpretations:

Most theologians assert that the first interpretation does not contradict the second interpretation. According to the second interpretation, which is considered the literal understanding, the verse (Q. 17:172) suggests that Allāh ﷻ extracted the progeny of Ādam from the loins of his descendants. The theologians argue that while the verse does not explicitly state that the progeny came directly from Ādam’s loin, it also does not deny it. Furthermore, the aḥadīth literature affirms that all of Ādam’s progeny were indeed extracted from his loin. Thus, the aḥadīth serve as an explanation of the verse rather than a contradiction to it, according to authoritative and reliable scholars who adhere to the first opinion,[1] Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751 AH)[2] provides further elaboration on this point.[3]

Moreover, Ibn al-Qayyim highlights the stance of those who espouse innovative beliefs (bidʿa), asserting that they reject the interpretations provided by scholars regarding the verse (Q. 7:172). They claim that Allāh ﷻ did not take any covenant from Ādam or his descendants before their creation, nor did He create them except in the wombs of their mothers.

فإن قالوا: لم لا يجوز أن يقال إنه تعالى خلقه كامل العقل والفهم والقدرة عند الميثاق ثم أزال عقله وفهمه وقدرته؟ ثم إنه خلقه مرة أخرى في رحم الأم وأخرجه إلى هذه الحياة.

قلنا: هذا باطل لأنه لو كان الأمر كذلك لما كان خلقه من النطفة خلقا على سبيل الابتداء بل يجب أن يكون خلقا على سبيل الإعادة. وأجمع المسلمون على أن خلقه من النطفة هو الخلق المبتدأ فدل هذا على أن ما ذكرتموه باطل.

الحجة الحادية عشرة: هي أن تلك الذرات إما أن يقال هي عين هؤلاء الناس أو غيرهم والقول الثاني باطل بالإجماع، بقي القول الأول. فنقول: إما أن يقال إنهم بقوا فهماء عقلاء قادرين حال ما كانوا نطفة وعلقة ومضغة أو ما بقوا كذلك والأول باطل ببديهة العقل. والثاني: يقتضي أن يقال الإنسان حصل له الحياة أربع مرات: أولها وقت الميثاق، وثانيها في الدنيا، وثالثها في القبر، ورابعها في القيامة. وأنه حصل له الموت ثلاث مرات. موت بعد الحياة الحاصلة في الميثاق الأول، وموت في الدنيا، وموت في القبر، وهذا العدد مخالف للعدد المذكور في قوله تعالى: ربنا أمتنا اثنتين وأحييتنا اثنتين [غافر: ١١] .

الحجة الثانية عشرة: قوله تعالى: ولقد خلقنا الإنسان من سلالة من طين [المؤمنين: ١٢] فلو كان القول بهذا الذر صحيحا لكان ذلك الذر هو الإنسان لأنه هو المكلف المخاطب المثاب المعاقب، وذلك باطل.

لأن ذلك الذر غير مخلوق من النطفة، والعلقة، والمضغة، ونص الكتاب دليل على أن الإنسان مخلوق من النطفة والعلقة، وهو قوله تعالى: ولقد خلقنا الإنسان من سلالة من طين وقوله: قتل الإنسان ما أكفره من أي شيء خلقه من نطفة خلقه [عبس: ١٧- ١٩] فهذه جملة الوجوه المذكورة في بيان أن هذا القول ضعيف (15:397)

[1]القلائد في شرح العقائد ]القونوي[ فإن قيل : ظاهر الآية لا يوافق هذا التفسير، فإن الآية تدل على أخذ الذرية من ظهر بني آدم، فإن قوله تعالى: «من ظهورهم) بدل من بني آدم بدل البعض من الكل، بتكرير الجار، والـحـديـث يدل على إخراج الذرية من صلب آدم، فما التوفيق؟ . قلنا : وجه التوفيق أن الله تعالى أخرج ذرية آدم بعضهم من ظهور بعض على حسب ما يتوالدون إلى يوم القيامة، فكان ذلك أخذا من ظهره، وكان ذلك في أدنى مدة، كما يكون في موت الكل بالنفخ في الصور، وحياة الكل بالنفخة الثانية، (ص279).

[1] Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (691 AH – 751 AH), also known as Abu Abdullah Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, was a renowned Ḥanbali jurist, hadith scholar, and commentator from Damascus. Influenced by his father, a prominent Hanbali scholar, and later by Ibn Taymiyyah, he developed a distinct approach to Islamic jurisprudence, emphasizing Quranic and Prophetic texts over strict adherence to the Hanbali school. Ibn al-Qayyim’s enduring legacy lies in his extensive writings, which continue to shape Islamic thought and scholarship globally.

[1]تفسير ابن القيم وقوله صلى اللّه عليه وآله وسلم مسح ظهر آدم فاستخرج منه ذريته معنى واحد في الأصل إلا أن قوله صلى اللّه عليه وآله وسلم مسح ظهر آدم زيادة في الخبر عن اللّه عز وجل ومسحه عز وجل ظهر آدم واستخراج ذريته منه مسح لظهور ذريته واستخراج ذريتهم من ظهورهم كما ذكر تعالى لأنا قد علمنا أن جميع ذرية آدم لم يكونوا من صلبه لكن لما كان الطبق الأول من صلبه ثم الثاني من صلب الأول ثم الثالث من صلب الثاني جاز أن ينسب ذلك كله إلى ظهر آدم لأنهم فرعه وهو أصلهم.

وكما جاز أن يكون ما ذكر اللّه عز وجل أنه استخرجه من ظهور ذرية آدم من ظهر آدم جاز أن يكون ما ذكر صلى اللّه عليه وآله وسلم أنه استخرجه من ظهر آدم من ذريته إذ الأصل والفرع شيء واحد، وفيه أيضا أنه عز وجل لما أضاف الذرية إلى آدم في الخبر احتمل أن يكون الخبر عن الذرية وعن آدم كما قال عز وجل: فَظَلَّتْ أعْناقُهم لَها خاضِعِينَ} والخبر في الظاهر عن الأعناق والنعت للأسماء المكنية فيها وهو مضاف إليها، كما كان آدم مضافا إليه هناك، وليسا جميعا بالمقصودين في الظاهر بالخير، ولا يحتمل أن يكون قوله خاضعين للأعناق،

Additionally, they deny the extraction of descendants from Ādam’s back (as witness to the covenant) capable of speech.”^[1]

Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (d. 463 AH)[2] in al-Tamhīd states, ” The meaning of the verse and the ḥadīth is that Allāh ﷻ brought forth the descendants of Ādam from his back as He willed, and He inspired them that He is their Lord. They acknowledged this by saying, “Yes, we testify,” so that they would not say on the Day of Resurrection, “We were unaware of this.” Then He followed this with the argument of intellect during discernment and with the messengers thereafter, as a demonstration of what is in their minds of dispute, leading them to acknowledge the Wise Creator who manages them in a way that they cannot conceive and cannot deny. This is the consensus, ijmāʿ, of Ahl al-Sunnah, and all praise is due to Allah.”[3]

Shaykh Ṣālīḥ Āl al-Shaykh[4] said in his commentary on al-Ṭahāwiyya: “Yes, it’s true that there are differences among the people of the Ahl al-Sunnah regarding the issue of the covenant mentioned in the Qur’ān and the aḥadīh. But there is a general consensus ijmāʿ on the extraction of descendants from Prophet Ādam’s back and the taking of the covenant upon them, they differ in interpreting these concepts and understanding the timing and nature of this covenant, and whether it is the intended meaning of the verse and the ḥadīth or not. These differences may relate to linguistic interpretation, historical interpretation, theological interpretation, and other aspects that can affect the comprehensive understanding of the subject.”[5]

[1] في تفسير القرآن الكريم لابن القيم [ابن القيم]– وأما أهل البدع فمنكرون لكل ما قاله العلماء في تأويل قول الله عز و جل: (وإذ أخذ ربك من بني آدم من ظهورهم ذرياتهم .. ) قالوا: ما أخذ الله من آدم ولا من ذريته ميثاقا قط قبل خلقه إياهم، وما خلقهم قط إلا في بطون أمهاتهم، وما استخرج قط من ظهر آدم من ذرية تخاطب

[2] Abū ʿUmar Yūsuf ibn ʿAbdullah al-Namari, known as Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (368–463 AH), was a prominent Andalusian Imām, Māliki jurist, ḥadīth scholar, and historian. Born in Cordoba to a scholarly family, he received education in various Islamic sciences from notable scholars of his time. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr excelled in hadith studies, jurisprudence, and linguistics, initially adhering to the Ẓāhiri school before gravitating towards the Māliki school with some inclination towards Shafi’i jurisprudence. Renowned for his vast literary contributions, including “Al-Istiʿāb fi Maʿrifat al-Asḥāb” and numerous other works covering various disciplines, Ibn Abd al-Barr’s influence extended far beyond Andalusia, earning praise from scholars across the Muslim world for his deep knowledge and meticulous scholarship in ḥadīth and jurisprudence.

[3] التمهيد الحافظ ابن عبد البر ومعنى الآية والحديث أنه أخرج ذرية آدم من ظهره كيف شاء ذلك، وألهمهم أنه ربهم فقالوا: بلى، لئلا يقولوا يوم القيامة إنا كنا عن هذا غافلين. ثم تابعهم بحجة العقل عند التمييز، وبالرسل بعد ذلك؛ استظهارا بما في عقولهم من المنازعة إلى خالق مدبر حكيم يدبرهم بما لا يتهيأ لهم ولا يمكنهم جحده، وهذا إجماع أهل السنة والحمد لله. اهـ(18:89)

[4] Shaykh Ṣālīḥ bin ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz bin Muhammad Āl al-Shaykh (born 1378 AH/1959 CE) is a Saudi religious scholar, a state minister, a member of the Saudi Council of Ministers, and a member of the Council of Political and Security Affairs. Born in Riyadh, he is a professor of Islamic sciences and a former Minister of Islamic Affairs, Dawah, and Guidance in Saudi Arabia. Specializing in the Quran and its sciences within the Faculty of Sharia. Upon graduation, he joined the university’s teaching staff.

[5] في شرح الطحاوية وقال الشيخ صالح آل الشيخ: أهل السنة والجماعة اختلفوا جدا في مسألة الميثاق، مع اتفاقهم على حصول الاستخراج من ظهر آدم وأخذ الميثاق عليه.

Imām al-Rāzī states that those who claim that all insān were initially like atoms (al-ḍharr) and were gathered within the body of Ādam, take the literal meaning (al-ẓāhir) of, “And He spread from them (Ādam and Ḥawā’) many men and women”. Those who rejected this view argued that “spread from them” refers to their offspring and that another group (lineage) came from the offspring, so everyone is figuratively (al-majāz) attributed to them (Ādam and Ḥawā’).[1] To take the figurative meaning requires proof, and no such proof is available. Infact contrary to that there is ample reliable proof available to affirm the literal understanding which is supported by both the Qur’ān and aḥadīth.

More specifically, it is mentioned in Tafsīr Ibn al-Kathīr who reported that marriage between siblings was permissible in the time of Ādam (peace be upon him) due to necessity. There were some scholars who disagreed, claiming that Allāh ﷻwould send heavenly brides from paradise to marry the sons of Ādam (peace be upon him), but this is far from the truth because if the wives of Ādam’s sons and the husbands of Ādam’s daughters were from the people of paradise, then this offspring would not solely be from the descendants of Ādam (i.e. nafsin wāḥidin), and this by consensus (al-ijmāʿ) is invalid.[2] Ibn al-Kathīr explicitly mentions absolute descent is the only acceptable opinion and to entertain the idea of interbreeding with another lineage is unacceptable and invalid as then there will be two lineages which is contrary to scripture in relation to nafsin wāḥidah.

Imām al-Ṭabarī (d. 310 AH)[3] states, “then describes Allāh ﷻ Himself as the One who created all mankind from a single soul, thereby defining His servants as originating from one source. He enlightens them about the inception of their creation from that single soul, alerting them that all are descendants of one man and one woman, all from each other (baʿḍahum min baʿḍ) and that the right of some over others is an obligatory duty, just as the right of one

[1] في تفسير الرازي قوله تعالى: وبث منهما رجالا كثيرا ونساء. وفيه مسائل:

المسألة الثالثة: الذين يقولون: إن جميع الأشخاص البشرية كانوا كالذر، وكانوا مجتمعين في صلب آدم عليه السلام، حملوا قوله: وبث منهما رجالا كثيرا ونساء على ظاهره، والذين أنكروا ذلك قالوا: المراد بث منهما أولادهما ومن أولادهما جمعا آخرين، فكان الكل مضافا إليهما على سبيل المجاز. (9:478)

[2] في تفسير ابن كثير – ط العلمية [ابن كثير]أن الله تعالى: شرع لآدم عليه السلام، أن يزوج بناته من بنيه لضرورة الحال، ولكن قالوا: كان يولد له في كل بطن ذكر وأنثى، فكان يزوج أنثى هذا البطن لذكر البطن الآخر، وكانت أخت هابيل دميمة وأخت قابيل وضيئة، فأراد أن يستأثر بها على أخيه، فأبى آدم ذلك، إلا أن يقربا قربانا، فمن تقبل منه فهي له، فتقبل من هابيل ولم يتقبل من قابيل، فكان من أمرهما ما قصه الله في كتابه … وقال ابن أبي حاتم: حدثنا الحسن بن محمد بن الصباح حدثنا حجاج عن ابن جريج أخبرني ابن خيثم قال: أقبلت مع سعيد بن جبير، فحدثني عن ابن عباس، قال: نهي أن تنكح المرأة أخاها توأمها وأمر أن ينكحها غيره من إخوتها، وكان يولد له في كل بطن رجل وامرأة، فبينما هم كذلك إذ ولد له امرأة وضيئة وولد له أخرى قبيحة دميمة، (3:74)

في تفسير الرازي = مفاتيح الغيب أو التفسير الكبير [الفخر الرازي]أما نكاح الأخوات فقد نقل أن ذلك كان مباحا في زمن آدم عليه السلام، وإنما حكم الله بإباحة ذلك على سبيل الضرورة، ورأيت بعض المشايخ أنكر ذلك، وقال: إنه تعالى كان يبعث الحواري من الجنة ليزوج بهن أبناء آدم عليه السلام وهذا بعيد، لأنه إذا كان زوجات أبنائه وأزواج بناته من أهل الجنة، فحينئذ لا يكون هذا النسل من أولاد آدم فقط، وذلك بالإجماع باطل. (10:23)

[3] Mohammed ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, born in 224 AH, was a prominent exegete, historian, and jurist, widely known as the “Imam of the Exegetes.” He was a renowned scholar known for his expertise in Quranic interpretation and historical writings. His works, including “Tafsīr al-Ṭabari” and “Tārīkh al-Ṭabari,” are celebrated for their depth and insight, reflecting his exceptional intellect and dedication to learning. Al-Tabari’s profound influence on Islamic scholarship continues to be felt today, underscoring his enduring legacy in the field.

brother over another is obligatory, due to their common lineage (ijtimāʿhim) from one father and one mother. Consequently, the responsibilities they owe to one another arise from their kinship ties, despite any variations in their closeness to the common paternal ancestor, akin to the responsibilities they have in closer kinship relations. Thus, they are urged to show affection towards one another, to be fair and just, and for the strong to fulfil the rights of the weak, as mandated by God. Allāh ﷻ says, “He who created you from a single soul,” meaning from Ādam.”[1]

Imām al-Ṭabari’s words decisively negate any alternate links to other lineages and the possibility of interbreeding with other lineages. By emphasising that all mankind originates “from a single soul” and are “descendants of one man and one woman,” and “all from each other (baʿḍahum min baʿḍ)”, he rejects the idea of multiple ancestral lines. This assertion underscores the exclusive descent of humanity from Adam and Hawa, negating the possibility of interbreeding with other lineages or secondary origins. Al-Tabarī’s emphasis on “their common lineage from one father and one mother” reinforces the notion of a unified human ancestry, which precludes any divergence or intermingling with alternative lineages. Thus, his commentary leaves no room for ambiguity, firmly establishing the belief in absolute descent from Adam and Hawa and rejecting any notion of secondary or alternate lineages.

So, there is ijmāʿ that all progeny of Ādam were extracted from Ādam’s loin directly or indirectly and not from elsewhere. There are those who have deviated from this consensus allowing them to have the belief that this descent is either figurative, or other progeny of Ādam came from the progeny of Ādam and interbred with other lineages producing offspring with mixed lineage, the result of both is that this is not an absolute descent from Prophet Ādam, but this is contrary to the position of the Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿah.

These few divergent positions (shādhdh), which suggest figurative interpretations or allow the proposal of interbreeding with other lineages, are to be rejected due to the consensus (ijmāʿ) established among scholars regarding the absolute direct or indirect descent of Ādam’s progeny from his loin. Holding onto contrary views goes against the consensus of the scholarly community and, in fact, leads to the propagation of innovation (bidʿa).

[1] تفسير الطبري جامع البيان – ط دار التربية والتراث [أبو جعفر ابن جرير الطبري] ثم وصف تعالى ذكره نفسه بأنه المتوحِّد بخلق جميع الأنام من شخص واحد، مُعَرِّفًا عباده كيف كان مُبتدأ إنشائه ذلك من النفس الواحدة، ومنبِّهَهم بذلك على أن جميعهم بنو رجل واحد وأم واحدة= وأن بعضهم من بعض، وأن حق بعضهم على بعض واجبٌ وجوبَ حق الأخ على أخيه، لاجتماعهم في النسب إلى أب واحد وأم واحدة= وأن الذي يلزمهم من رعاية بعضهم حق بعض، وإن بَعُدَ التلاقي في النسب إلى الأب الجامع بينهم، مثل الذي يلزمهم من ذلك في النسب الأدنى= وعاطفا بذلك بعضهم على بعض، ليتناصفوا ولا يتظالموا، وليبذل القوي من نفسه للضعيف حقه بالمعروف على ما ألزمه الله له، فقال:”الذي خلقكم من نفس واحدة”، يعني: من آدم (7:512)

SECTION 4: HUMAN UNIQUENESS RELATED TO NAFSIN WĀḤIDAH

What is the Critical Component of Insān

Proponents of Adamic exceptionalism assert strive to reconcile between human evolution and Islamic theology, contending that Islām accommodates alternative perspectives on human origin concerning the biological human body. They argue that the Qurān’s silence on pre- Adamite humans allows for the possibility of other routes to human ancestry, including the potential for biological evolution. Central to this viewpoint is the interpretation of “nafsin wāḥidah” as referring to the human soul rather than the physical body. According to this claim, the human soul, descending from Ādam, is the essential component defining humanity, while the physical human body is not crucial in this context and may have evolved from other hominid lineages.

From this religious standpoint, proponents emphasize Ādam’s singular uniqueness as depicted in sacred texts, asserting that he and his descendants collectively define humanity. This perspective, articulated by Jalajel, claims to transcend considerations of biology or physiology in defining what it means to be human. Notably, theologians like al-Rāzī are quoted to argue against defining humankind solely in physical or biological terms, asserting that the essence of humanity is independent of physical appearance. Instead, they view the human being as an entity beyond the physical body, a sentiment echoed by theologians like al-Aṣfahānī and al-Ghazālī.[1]

The position of ijmāʿ is clear: interpreting “nafsin wāḥidah” as allowing for relative descent, where intermixing with other creations is possible, contradicts the established consensus. Such an interpretation would imply a descent through two lineages (nafsayn), which is inconsistent with the notion of a single origin. However, it is crucial to discern whether the descent from “one soul” encompasses both body and soul or solely the soul, excluding the body. In this context, our soul is understood to have descended from the singular soul of Ādam, while our physical body may have originated from other sources, such as through another lineage of hominids. This distinction underscores the primacy of the soul as the critical component of humanity, as emphasized by the verse.

Therefore, the discussion revolves around whether the progeny or children of Ādam are essential to the souls of Ādam’s descendants or if the significance lies in their souls in conjunction with their bodies. This distinction is pivotal in understanding the verse’s reference to the critical component of humanity.

[1] Jalajel DS, Islam and Biological Evolution – Exploring Classical Sunni Sources and Methodologies, MA thesis, University of the Western cape, 2009, 164

Imām al-Rāzī extensively discusses the ontology of human beings – what constitutes the essence or critical components that make humans unique – in light of the question on the nature of the soul posed in the Quran (17:85) “They ask you ˹O Prophet˺ about the spirit. Say, “Its nature is known only to my Lord, and you ˹O humanity˺ have been given but little knowledge.”. He outlines three main scholarly opinions that emerge in answer to this question.^[1]

The first opinion holds that the human being is essentially just the physical body (jism). Some argue the body alone constitutes human existence while others say the soul resides within the body’s components. Imām al-Rāzī, however, provides detailed rational, speculative arguments against reducing humanity solely to the body. He contends qualities like knowledge, agency and unified singular existence experienced subjectively illustrate humans are more than just physical forms.[2]

[1] في تفسير الرازي = مفاتيح الغيب أو التفسير الكبير [الفخر الرازي]المسألة الثالثة: في شرح مذاهب الناس في حقيقة الإنسان، اعلم أن العلم الضروري حاصل بأن هاهنا شيئا إليه يشير الإنسان بقوله أنا وإذا قال الإنسان علمت وفهمت وأبصرت/ وسمعت وذقت وشممت ولمست وغضبت فالمشار إليه لكل أحد بقوله أنا إما أن يكون جسما أو عرضا أو مجموع الجسم والعرض أو شيئا مغايرا للجسم والعرض أو من ذلك الشيء الثالث فهذا ضبط معقول.

[2] أما القسم الأول: وهو أن يقال إن الإنسان جسم فذلك الجسم إما أن يكون هو هذه البنية أو جسما داخلا في هذه البنية أو جسما خارجا عنها، أما القائلون بأن الإنسان عبارة عن هذه البنية المحسوسة وعن هذا الجسم المحسوس فهم جمهور المتكلمين وهؤلاء يقولون الإنسان لا يحتاج تعريفه إلى ذكر حد أو رسم بل الواجب أن يقال الإنسان هو الجسم المبني بهذه البنية المحسوسة واعلم أن هذا القول عندنا باطل وتقريره أنهم قالوا: الإنسان هو هذا الجسم المحسوس، فإذا أبطلنا كون الإنسان عبارة عن هذا الجسم وأبطلنا كون الإنسان محسوسا فقد بطل كلامهم بالكلية والذي يدل على أنه لا يمكن أن يكون الإنسان عبارة [عن] هذا الجسم وجوه. الحجة الأولى: أن العلم البديهي حاصل بأن أجزاء هذه الجثة متبدلة بالزيادة والنقصان تارة بحسب النمو والذبول وتارة بحسب السمن والهزال والعلم الضروري حاصل بأن المتبدل المتغير مغاير للثابت الباقي ويحصل من مجموع هذه المقدمات الثلاثة العلم القطعي بأن الإنسان ليس عبارة عن مجموع هذه الجثة. الحجة الثانية: أن الإنسان حال ما يكون مشتغل الفكر متوجه الهمة نحو أمر معين مخصوص فإنه في تلك الحالة يكون غافلا عن جميع أجزاء بدنه وعن أعضائه وأبعاضه مجموعها ومفصلها وهو في تلك الحالة غير غافل عن نفسه المعينة بدليل أنه في تلك الحالة قد يقول غضبت واشتهيت وسمعت كلامك وأبصرت وجهك، وتاء الضمير كناية عن نفسه فهو في تلك الحالة عالم بنفسه المخصوصة وغافل عن جملة بدنه وعن كل واحد من أعضائه وأبعاضه و [يكون] المعلوم غير معلوم، فالإنسان يجب أن يكون مغايرا لجملة هذا البدن ولكل واحد من أعضائه وأبعاضه. الحجة الثالثة: أن كل أحد يحكم عقله بإضافة كل واحد من هذه الأعضاء إلى نفسه فيقول رأسي وعيني ويدي ورجلي ولساني وقلبي والمضاف غير المضاف إليه فوجب أن يكون الشيء الذي هو الإنسان مغايرا لجملة هذا البدن ولكل واحد من هذه الأعضاء. فإن قالوا:

قد يقول نفسي وذاتي فيضيف النفس والذات إلى نفسه فيلزم أن يكون الشيء وذاته مغايرة لنفسه وهو محال قلنا قد يراد به هذا البدن المخصوص وقد يراد بنفس الشيء وذاته الحقيقة المخصوصة التي يشير إليها كل أحد بقوله أنا فإذا قال نفسي وذاتي فإن كان المراد البدن فعندنا أنه مغاير لجوهر الإنسان، أما إذا أريد بالنفس والذات المخصوصة المشار إليها بقوله: أنا فلا نسلم أن الإنسان يمكنه أن يضيف ذلك الشيء إلى نفسه بقوله إنساني وذلك لأن عين الإنسان ذاته فكيف يضيفه مرة أخرى إلى ذاته. الحجة الرابعة: أن كل دليل على أن الإنسان يمتنع أن يكون جسما فهو أيضا يدل على أنه يمتنع أن يكون عبارة عن هذا الجسم وسيأتي تقرير تلك الدلائل الحجة الخامسة: أن الإنسان قد يكون حيا حال ما يكون البدن ميتا فوجب كون/ الإنسان مغايرا لهذا البدن والدليل على صحة ما ذكرناه قوله تعالى: ولا تحسبن الذين قتلوا في سبيل الله أمواتا بل أحياء عند ربهم يرزقون [آل عمران: ١٦٩] فهذا النص صريح في أن أولئك المقتولين أحياء والحس يدل على أن هذا الجسد ميت.

الحجة السادسة: أن قوله تعالى: النار يعرضون عليها غدوا وعشيا [غافر: ٤٦] وقوله: أغرقوا فأدخلوا نارا [نوح: ٢٥] يدل على أن الإنسان يحيا بعد الموت وكذلك قوله عليه الصلاة والسلام: «أنبياء الله لا يموتون ولكن ينقلون من دار إلى دار»وكذلك قوله عليه السلام: «القبر روضة من رياض الجنة أو حفرة من حفر النار» وكذلك قوله عليه الصلاة والسلام: «من مات فقد قامت قيامته» كل هذه النصوص تدل على أن الإنسان يبقى بعد موت الجسد، وبديهة العقل والفطرة شاهدان بأن هذا الجسد ميت. ولو جوزنا كونه حيا جاز مثله في جميع الجمادات، وذلك عين السفسطة. وإذا ثبت أن الإنسان شيء وكان الجسد ميتا لزم أن الإنسان شيء غير هذا الجسد.

الحجة السابعة:قوله عليه السلام في خطبة طويلة له «حتى إذا حمل الميت على نعشه رفرف روحه فوق النعش، ويقول يا أهلي ويا ولدي لا تلعبن بكم الدنيا كما لعبت بي، جمعت المال من حله وغير حله فالغنى لغيري والتبعة علي فاحذروا مثل ما حل بي»وجه الاستدلال أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم صرح بأن حال ما يكون الجسد محمولا على النعش بقي هناك شيء ينادي ويقول يا أهلي ويا ولدي جمعت المال من حله وغير حله ومعلوم أن الذي كان الأهل أهلا له وكان جامعا للمال من الحرام والحلال والذي بقي في رقبته الوبال ليس إلا ذلك الإنسان فهذا تصريح بأن في الوقت الذي كان فيه الجسد ميتا محمولا كان ذلك الإنسان حيا باقيا فاهما وذلك تصريح بأن الإنسان شيء مغاير لهذا الجسد ولهذا الهيكل.

الحجة الثامنة: قوله تعالى: يا أيتها النفس المطمئنة ارجعي إلى ربك راضية مرضية [الفجر: ٢٧، ٢٨] والخطاب بقوله: ارجعي إنما هو متوجه عليها حال الموت فدل هذا على أن الشيء الذي يرجع إلى الله بعد موت الجسد يكون حيا راضيا عن الله ويكون راضيا عنه الله والذي يكون راضيا ليس إلا الإنسان فهذا يدل على أن الإنسان بقي حيا بعد موت الجسد والحي غير الميت فالإنسان مغاير لهذا الجسد.

الحجة التاسعة: قوله تعالى: حتى إذا جاء أحدكم الموت توفته رسلنا وهم لا يفرطون ثم ردوا إلى الله مولاهم الحق [الأنعام: ٦١، ٦٢] أثبت كونهم مردودين إلى الله الذي هو مولاهم حال كون الجسد ميتا فوجب أن يكون ذلك المردود إلى الله مغايرا لذلك الجسد الميت.

الحجة العاشرة: نرى جميع فرق الدنيا من الهند والروم والعرب والعجم وجميع أرباب الملل والنحل من اليهود والنصارى والمجوس والمسلمين وسائر فرق العالم وطوائفهم يتصدقون عن موتاهم ويدعون لهم بالخير ويذهبون إلى زياراتهم، ولولا أنهم بعد موت الجسد بقوا/ أحياء لكان التصدق عنهم عبثا، والدعاء لهم عبثا، ولكان الذهاب إلى زيارتهم عبثا، فالإطباق على هذه الصدقة وعلى هذا الدعاء وعلى هذه الزيارة يدل على أن فطرتهم الأصلية السليمة شاهدة بأن الإنسان شيء غير هذا الجسد وأن ذلك الشيء لا يموت، بل [الذي] يموت هذا الجسد.

الحجة الحادية عشرة: أن كثيرا من الناس يرى أباه أو ابنه بعد موته في المنام ويقول له اذهب إلى الموضع الفلاني فإن فيه ذهبا دفنته لك وقد يراه فيوصيه بقضاء دين عنه ثم عند اليقظة إذا فتش كان كما رآه في النوم من غير تفاوت، ولولا أن الإنسان يبقى بعد الموت لما كان كذلك، ولما دل هذا الدليل على أن الإنسان يبقى بعد الموت ودل الحس على أن الجسد ميت كان الإنسان مغايرا لهذا الجسد الميت.

الحجة الثانية عشرة: أن الإنسان إذا ضاع عضو من أعضائه مثل أن تقطع يداه أو رجلاه أو تقلع عيناه أو تقطع أذناه إلى غيرها من الأعضاء فإن ذلك الإنسان يجد من قلبه وعقله أنه هو عين ذلك الإنسان ولم يقع في عين ذلك الإنسان تفاوت حتى أنه يقول أنا ذلك الإنسان الذي كنت موجودا قبل ذلك إلا أنه يقول إنهم قطعوا يدي ورجلي، وذلك برهان يقيني على أن ذلك الإنسان شيء مغاير لهذه الأعضاء والأبعاض وذلك يبطل قول من يقول الإنسان عبارة عن هذه البنية المخصوصة.

الحجة الثالثة عشرة: أن القرآن والأحاديث يدلان على أن جماعة من اليهود قد مسخهم الله وجعلهم في صورة القردة والخنازير فنقول: إن ذلك الإنسان هل بقي حال ذلك المسخ أو لم يبق؟ فإن لم يبق كان هذا إماتة لذلك الإنسان وخلقا لذلك الخنزير وليس هذا من المسخ في شيء. وإن قلنا إن ذلك الإنسان بقي حال حصول ذلك المسخ فنقول على ذلك التقدير: ذلك الإنسان باق وتلك البنية وذلك الهيكل غير باق، فوجب أن يكون ذلك الإنسان شيئا مغايرا لتلك البنية.

الحجة الرابعة عشرة: أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يرى جبريل عليه الصلاة والسلام في صورة دحية الكلبي وكان يرى إبليس في صورة الشيخ النجدي فهاهنا بنية الإنسان وهيكله وشكله حاصل مع أن حقيقة الإنسان غير حاصلة وهذا يدل على أن الإنسان ليس عبارة عن هذه البنية، وهذا الهيكل. والفرق بين هذه الحجة والتي قبلها أنه حصلت صورة هذه البنية مع عدم هذه البنية وهذا الهيكل.

الحجة الخامسة عشرة: أن الزاني يزني بفرجه فيضرب على ظهره فوجب أن يكون الإنسان شيئا آخر سوى الفرج وسوى الظهر، ويقال إن ذلك الشيء يستعمل الفرج في عمل والظهر في عمل آخر، فيكون المتلذذ والمتألم هو ذلك الشيء إلا أنه تحصل تلك اللذة بواسطة ذلك العضو ويتألم بواسطة الضرب على هذا العضو.

الحجة السادسة عشرة: أني إذا تكلمت مع زيد وقلت له افعل كذا أو لا تفعل كذا فالمخاطب بهذا الخطاب والمأمور والمنهي ليس هو جبهة زيد ولا حدقته ولا أنفه ولا فمه ولا شيئا من أعضائه بعينه، فوجب أن يكون المأمور والمنهي والمخاطب شيئا مغايرا لهذه الأعضاء، وذلك يدل على أن ذلك المأمور والمنهي غير هذا الجسد فإن قالوا لم لا يجوز أن يقال المأمور والمنهي جملة هذا البدن لا شيء من أعضائه وأبعاضه؟ قلنا بوجه التكليف على الجملة إنما يصح لو كانت الجملة فاهمة عالمة فنقول لو كانت الجملة فاهمة عالمة فإما أن يقوم بمجموع البدن علم واحد أو يقوم بكل واحد من أجزاء البدن علم على حدة، والأول يقتضي قيام العرض بالمحال الكثيرة وهو محال، والثاني يقتضي أن يكون كل واحد من أجزاء البدن عالما فاهما مدركا على سبيل الاستقلال، وقد بينا أن العلم الضروري حاصل بأن الجزء المعين من البدن ليس عالما فاهما مدركا بالاستقلال فسقط هذا السؤال.

الحجة السابعة عشرة: أن الإنسان يجب أن يكون عالما، والعلم لا يحصل إلا في القلب فيلزم أن يكون الإنسان عبارة عن الشيء الموجود في القلب وإذا ثبت هذا بطل القول بأن الإنسان عبارة عن هذا الهيكل، وهذه الجثة إنما قلنا إن الإنسان يجب أن يكون عالما لأنه فاعل مختار، والفاعل المختار هو الذي يفعل بواسطة القلب والاختيار وهما مشروطان بالعلم لأن ما لا يكون مقصودا امتنع القصد إلى تكوينه فثبت أن الإنسان يجب أن يكون عالما بالأشياء وإنما قلنا إن العلم لا يوجد إلا في القلب للبرهان والقرآن. أما البرهان فلأنا نجد العلم الضروري بأنا نجد علومنا من ناحية القلب، وأما القرآن فآيات نحو قوله تعالى: لهم قلوب لا يفقهون بها [الأعراف: ١٧٩] وقوله: كتب في قلوبهم الإيمان [المجادلة: ٢٢] وقوله: نزل به الروح الأمين على قلبك [الشعراء: ١٩٣، ١٩٤] وإذا ثبت أن الإنسان يجب أن يكون عالما، وثبت أن العلم ليس إلا في القلب ثبت أن الإنسان شيء في القلب أو شيء له تعلق بالقلب وعلى التقديرين فإنه يبطل قول من يقول الإنسان هو هذا الجسد وهذا الهيكل.

وأما البحث الثاني: وهو بيان أن الإنسان غير محسوس وهو أن حقيقة الإنسان شيء مغاير للسطح واللون وكل ما هو مرئي فهو إما السطح وإما اللون وهما مقدمتان قطعيتان وينتج هذا القياس أن حقيقة الإنسان غير مرئية ولا محسوسة وهذا برهان يقيني.

المسألة الرابعة: في شرح مذاهب القائلين بأن الإنسان جسم موجود في داخل البدن اعلم أن الأجسام الموجودة في هذا العالم السفلي إما أن تكون أحد العناصر الأربعة أو ما يكون متولدا من امتزاجها، ويمتنع أن يحصل في البدن الإنساني جسم عنصري خالص بل لا بد وأن يكون الحاصل جسما متولدا من امتزاجات هذه الأربعة فنقول: أما الجسم الذي تغلب عليه الأرضية فهو الأعضاء الصلبة الكثيفة كالعظم والغضروف والعصب والوتر والرباط والشحم واللحم والجلد ولم يقل أحد من العقلاء الذين قالوا: الإنسان شيء مغاير لهذا الجسد بأنه عبارة عن عضو معين من هذه الأعضاء وذلك لأن هذه الأعضاء كثيفة ثقيلة ظلمانية فلا جرم لم يقل أحد من العقلاء بأن الإنسان عبارة عن أحد هذه الأعضاء، وأما الجسم الذي تغلب عليه المائية فهو/ الأخلاط الأربعة ولم يقل أحد في شيء منها إنه الإنسان إلا في الدم فإن منهم من قال إنه هو الروح بدليل أنه إذا خرج لزم الموت، أما الجسم الذي تغلب عليه الهوائية والنارية فهو الأرواح وهي نوعان: أحدهما: أجسام هوائية مخلوطة بالحرارة الغريزية متولدة إما في القلب أو في الدماغ وقالوا إنها هي الروح وإنها هي الإنسان ثم اختلفوا فمنهم من يقول الإنسان هو الروح الذي في القلب، ومنهم من يقول إنه جزء لا يتجزأ في الدماغ، ومنهم من يقول الروح عبارة عن أجزاء نارية مختلطة بهذه الأرواح القلبية والدماغية وتلك الأجزاء النارية وهي المسماة بالحرارة الغريزية وهي الإنسان، ومن الناس من يقول الروح عبارة عن أجسام نورانية سماوية لطيفة، والجوهر على طبيعة ضوء الشمس وهي لا تقبل التحلل والتبدل ولا التفرق ولا التمزق فإذا تكون البدن وتم استعداده وهو المراد بقوله: فإذا سويته نفذت تلك الأجسام الشريفة السماوية الإلهية في داخل أعصاء البدن نفاذ النار في الفحم ونفاذ دهن السمسم في السمسم، ونفاذ ماء الورد في جسم الورد، ونفاذ تلك الأجسام السماوية في جوهر البدن هو المراد بقوله: ونفخت فيه من روحي [ص: ٧٢] ثم إن البدن ما دام يبقى سليما قابلا لنفاذ تلك الأجسام الشريفة بقي حيا، فإذا تولدت في البدن أخلاط غليظة منعت تلك الأخلاط الغليظة من سريان تلك الأجسام الشريفة فيها فانفصلت عن هذا البدن فحينئذ يعرض الموت، فهذا مذهب قوي شريف يجب التأمل فيه فإنه شديد المطابقة لما ورد في الكتب الإلهية من أحوال الحياة والموت، فهذا تفصيل مذاهب القائلين بأن الإنسان جسم موجود في داخل البدن، وأما أن الإنسان جسم موجود خارج البدن فلا أعرف أحدا ذهب إلى هذا القول.

The second view concedes humanity is characterized by attributes beyond the mere body but locates these as accidents (al-ʿarḍ) or states subsisting in the physical form. Life, knowledge, capability and volition subsist in and depend on the human body under this

conception. Again, Imām al-Rāzī marshals counter arguments, demonstrating why a being with such ontologically real qualities cannot be qualified as just an accident of corporeal existence. He highlights that most denying the soul’s independent existence still agree humans exhibit an essence beyond basic bodily function.[1]

This leads Imām al-Rāzī to outline the third perspective as the most credible based on human experiential evidence, which does not achieve definitive knowledge from Sharīʿah standards, yet provides some substantive proof as a firm position. The proponents of this view rely on both discursive proofs and scriptural traditions to substantiate that humanity’s essence and critical basis of distinction is the soul. Unlike the body which is composite, singular qualities like self-awareness and unified agency illustrate the soul’s simple indivisible existence. Bodily death does not lead to the soul’s expiration. Verses highlighting the soul’s divine origination differentiate it from physical creation as well.[2]

Imām al-Rāzī notes two sub-views develop around the independent subsistence of the soul. The first describes the soul and body as two mutually managing essences that cooperate during earthly life to comprise the human being and separate at bodily death. The second argues the soul and body form a singular composite existence in life that splits with the cessation of bodily function. In both understandings, the self or soul retains existence beyond corporeal demise.[3]

In conclusion, Imām al-Rāzi is expressing the consistent essence of what makes a human (insān) unique. While the human being in its manifest form appears as a physical body to enable worldly interaction, Imām al-Rāzī forcefully argues this outward form alone cannot capture the totality of human essence and distinction. It requires positing an immortal soul, recognized across history for its intellectual, volitional and spiritual capacities, to properly understand what constitutes humanity. As such, the term “human being, (ins)” when referring to customary bodily existence remains an approximation that should not be equated absolutely with humanity’s fundamental ontology of soul-based being.^[4]

[1] أما القسم الثاني: وهو أن يقال الإنسان عرض حال في البدن، فهذا لا يقول به عاقل لأن من المعلوم بالضرورة أن الإنسان جوهر لأنه موصوف بالعلم والقدرة والتدبر والتصرف، ومن كان كذلك كان جوهرا والجوهر لا يكون عرضا بل الذي يمكن أن يقول به كل عاقل هو أن الإنسان يشترط أن يكون موصوفا بأعراض مخصوصة، وعلى هذا التقدير فللناس فيه أقوال.

القول الأول: أن العناصر الأربعة إذا امتزجت وانكسرت سورة كل واحدة منها بسورة الآخر حصلت كيفية معتدلة هي المزاج. ومراتب هذا المزاج غير متناهية فبعضها هي الإنسانية وبعضها هي الفرسية، فالإنسانية عبارة عن أجسام موصوفة متولدة عن امتزاجات أجزاء العناصر بمقدار مخصوص، هذا قول جمهور الأطباء ومنكري بقاء النفس وقول أبي الحسين البصري من المعتزلة.

[2] Prominent scholars who embraced this view include Abu al-Qāsim al-Rāghib al-Asfahānī, Abu Hāmid al-Ghazālī, and Muʿmar ibn ʿAbbād al-Sulamī among the early Mu’tazilites, as well as the Shia scholar known as Sheikh al-Mufīd and some of the Karāmites.

[3] والقول الثاني: أن الإنسان عبارة عن أجسام مخصوصة بشرط كونها موصوفة بصفة الحياة والعلم والقدرة والحياة عرض قائم بالجسم وهؤلاء أنكروا الروح والنفس وقالوا ليس ها هنا إلا أجسام مؤتلفة موصوفة بهذه الأعراض المخصوصة وهي الحياة والعلم والقدرة، وهذا مذهب أكثر شيوخ المعتزلة. والقول الثالث: أن الإنسان عبارة عن أجسام موصوفة بالحياة والعلم والقدرة والإنسان إنما يمتاز عن سائر الحيوانات بشكل جسده/ وهيئة أعضائه وأجزائه إلا أن هذا مشكل فإن الملائكة قد يتشبهون بصور الناس فهاهنا صورة الإنسان حاصلة مع عدم الإنسانية وفي صورة المسخ معنى الإنسانية حاصل مع أن هذه الصورة غير حاصلة فقد بطل اعتبار هذا الشكل في حصول معنى الإنسانية طردا وعكسا.

[4] الجواب عن الثاني: أنه لما كان الإنسان في العرف والظاهر عبارة عن هذه الجثة أطلق عليه اسم الإنسان في العرف،

What Imām al-Rāzī is indicating here is that the critical attributes of human beings are not their bodies or corporeal entities but their soul, and their bodies are an imprint of what this uniqueness represents but this corporeal entity is not exclusively representative of human uniqueness, it is necessary to it, but not in physical bodily form. Hence when man, in his customary and apparent form, is described as this body, the term “insān” (human person) is applied to him.

This correlates to Imām al-Rāzī’s comments regarding the verse, “We create man in the finest stature. (Qurʾān 95:4)”, that the verse emphasises that mankind has been created in the best form, with the term “taqwīm” referring to the precise shaping of the physical body. Unlike other creatures, humans possess an upright posture and an elongated stature, enabling them to reach their sustenance with their hands. This physical perfection relates to outward or manifest (al-ẓāhir) essence of man which is complemented by qualities such as intellect, understanding, manners, knowledge, and eloquence, which are considered integral (al-bāṭinī) aspects of human essence. Therefore, the essence of man, particularly in terms of the corporeal aspect, is characterized by the physical form’s alignment and functionality, along with the inherent capacities and faculties, all of which distinguish humans from other beings, in other words represent the essence of insān.[1]

I explain elsewhere that the human organism, as defined from an Islamic theological and jurisprudential standpoint, represents a unique entity within the human species. This uniqueness is articulated through a symbiotic union of non-critical and critical attributes.[2]

The non-critical attributes serve as the fundamental distinction between human and non-human entities. They are rooted in the visual biological domain of the physical human form and body, known as takhlīq.[3]

I argue that this is essentially the phenotypical expression of the genotype, or genetic DNA which is the blueprint for the human physical structure. However, these non-critical attributes are not merely impressions of our genetic makeup; they are expressions that are influenced and moulded by environmental factors. From a theological perspective, the interaction

[1]تفسير الرازي = مفاتيح الغيب أو التفسير الكبير [الفخر الرازي] لقد خلقنا الإنسان في أحسن تقويم (٤) المراد من الإنسان هذه الماهية والتقويم تصبير الشيء على ما ينبغي أن يكون في التأليف والتعديل، يقال: قومته تقويما فاستقام وتقوم، وذكروا في شرح ذلك الحسن وجوها أحدها: أنه تعالى خلق كل ذي روح مكبا على وجهه إلا الإنسان فإنه تعالى خلقه مديد القامة يتناول مأكوله بيده وقال الأصم: في أكمل عقل وفهم وأدب وعلم وبيان، والحاصل أن القول الأول راجع إلى الصورة الظاهرة، والثاني إلى/ السيرة الباطنة، وعن يحيى بن أكثم القاضي أنه فسر التقويم بحسن الصورة، فإنه حكى أن ملك زمانه خلا بزوجته في ليلة مقمرة، فقال: إن لم تكوني أحسن من القمر فأنت كذا، فأفتى الكل بالحنث إلا يحيى بن أكثم فإنه قال: لا يحنث، فقيل له: خالفت شيوخك، فقال: الفتوى بالعلم ولقد أفتى من هو أعلم منا وهو الله تعالى فإنه يقول: لقد خلقنا الإنسان في أحسن تقويم وكان بعض الصالحين يقول: إلهنا أعطيتنا في الأولى أحسن الأشكال، فأعطنا في الآخرة أحسن الفعال، وهو العفو عن الذنوب، والتجاوز عن العيوب (32:212)

[2] Due to be published Sept 2024; Rashid R, Embryo Moral Status and Ontological Grounding in Islamic Ethics: Examining Ethical Implications of Contemporary Medical Practices through Sunni Jurisprudence, Name of volume and publication not yet finalized Edited by Mahdi Institute, UK

[3] During the formative period of Islamic scholarship, Muslim scholars associated high moral status with the manifestation of the human form, takhlīq, in the developing foetus. They contended that it was the distinctive human form that set humans apart from other creations and marked the point at which high moral status was attributed.

between genotype and environment underscores the dynamic nature of human biological existence and our capacity for adaptation and change.

On the other hand, the critical attributes delve deeper, cohering between stages of human life, such as an embryo (a human organism) and a child (a human person). These attributes are the combination of the abstract encoded information within the genotype, which facilitates the potentiality component or progression from a non-human to a human organism, and finally to a human person, which is tied intrinsically to the human soul which, serves the human capacity component. They transcend the limitations of biological and environmental influence, embracing an ontological realm unique to the human person.

In a profound theological claim, these critical attributes trace their absolute origins back to Ādam, the progenitor of humankind. This traceability imbues the human person with a sense of continuity and divine endowment, emphasising an inherent potential for growth, consciousness, and self-awareness, along with a capacity for moral reasoning and intellectual exploration.

Therefore, in this theological perspective, a human person is not merely a biological organism subject to environmental influence. Rather, it is also an ontological being imbued with a soul and extraordinary capacities, transcending the physical realm. The human person stands as a bridge between our biological and environmental reality and our spiritual origins, representing an enduring lineage that reaches back to Ādam.

We know now with advancements in science that human persons possess a specific genotype that sets them apart from other species. While there may be similarities and shared genetic material with other organisms, the combination and expression of genes in humans as the phenotype create a distinct set of physical characteristics and traits. The human phenotype, with its unique anatomical, physiological, and cognitive features, distinguishes us from other living beings. This uniqueness can be seen as a testament to our special place in the biological realm.

The soul is unique to humans and plays a significant role in defining our essence and whilst the concept of the human soul is the transcendent aspect of our unique nature, it is not without our genotype and its phenotypical bodily manifestation that separates us from other beings. It is with this very same body rejuvenated that we will be resurrected in their exact form.

Some argue that upon death, individuals cease to exist, making resurrection in their exact form impossible. Instead, they propose that resurrection entails the creation of entirely new beings, distinct from the original person. The Muʿtazilites advocate for this view, asserting that physical bodies perish completely, and on Judgment Day, Allāh ﷿ creates new bodies resembling the originals, infused with souls for judgment. However, Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamāʿah reject this belief, maintaining that the same bodies will be resurrected as they are. This assertion finds support in the Qurān, which emphasizes individual accountability for deeds tied to the actions performed by the same body. Moreover, the concept of punishing a different body for the original’s actions is deemed unjust, as Allāh ﷿prohibits one soul from bearing the burden of another’s sins. Hence, the resurrection of bodies in their exact form is deemed necessary for just recompense and reward according to deeds.[1]

Muslim theologians respond to this argument with two plausible possibilities: Firstly, Allāh ﷻ, the Most High, has the power to resurrect individuals in their exact same form from nothingness, effectively recreating them as they were. Secondly, Allāh ﷻcan resurrect individuals in their exact same form by reconstituting them from the original elements, such as dust, preserving their identity. In both scenarios, the essence remains unchanged, and the individual is recognized as the same person, despite potential changes in attributes. These alterations do not necessitate the creation of a new being; rather, it is the same individual, as supported by previous evidence. [1]

Upon resurrection, a person’s identity remains intact, aligning with their unique human phenotype, which encompasses anatomical, physiological, and cognitive features distinguishing humans from other living beings. This discussion underscores the significance of the human soul in defining essence and individuality while emphasizing that individuals remain recognizable with the same body even in the afterlife. This concept reinforces the special status of humans in the biological realm, characterized by their distinct genetic and phenotypic traits, as well as the transcendent nature of the soul, collectively setting them apart from other beings.

At the time of the covenant before birth, the nature of the children of Ādam, extracted from his loin, raises questions about whether they were souls with bodies or possessed another essence, contrasting with what we witness at birth, where they appear as souls with bodies. By exploring this relationship between the soul and the human body, we can better understand the critical and non-critical components of the human being. This investigation allows us to delve into the essence of human existence and discern the fundamental aspects that define our nature and identity.

Figure 2. Descent of Critical and Non-Critical Components

[1] التمهيد في بيان التوحيد ]ابو شكور السالمي قالت المعتزلة: إن الأجساد تفنى” وتصير معدومة؛” ثم إن الله تعالى خلق جسدا غيرهذا الجسد يوم القيامة، وأدخل الروح فيه، وعذبه وأثابه، وهذا كفر. والمذهب عند أهل السنة والجماعة أن هذه الاجساد تحشر بعينها بدليل قول الله تعالى: «كل نفیس بما كسبت رهينة»، وقوله: «جزاء بما كانوا يعملون». ولأن العمل حصل من هذا الجسد، ولو جوزنا تعذيب جسد اخر بسبب هذا العمل فإنه لا يكون عدلا، والله تعالى يقول: «ولا تزر وازرة وزر أخرى»، فوجب أن يحشر هذا الجسد بعينه حتى يجازى” ويكافأ بأعماله. (ص253)

[1] التمهيد في بيان التوحيد ]ابو شكور السالمي[فإن قيل: إن هذا الشخص إذا مات وانعدم فإنه لا يتصور حشره بعينه، بـل يـكـون إيجادا من العدم ويكون استئنافا بالتخليق، فثبت أنه يكون غير هذا ولا يكون هو بعينه. قلنا: من الجائز أن الله تعالى يحشر هذا بعينه من حيث أنه يوجد هذا الشخص بعينه من العدم. والثاني وهو أن الله تعالى يحشر هذا بعينه من حيث أنه يجعل التراب لحما وعظما كما كان؛ فالعين يكون هذا العين والجوهر يكـون / هذا الجوهر بعينه، ولكن يتغير من صفة إلى صفة؛ وتغير ” الصفة لا يوجب تخليقا آخر ولا يكون شخصا آخر، بل يكون هذا الشخص بعينه بالدليل الذي ذكرنا. (ص253)

Descent of Critical and Non-Critical Components

Was the Covenant with Soul and Body Together?

Many theologians assert that the response of the progeny of Ādam to Allah’s question during the covenant (Q. 17:172) implies that Allāh ﷻcreated souls with bodies, which were then placed in the loins of their parents. Subsequently, at birth on Earth, the children of Ādam were extracted from their parents in a similar manner, continuing in this fashion until the Day of Reckoning. [1] In essence, according to the authoritative position in Sunni Islam, the progeny of Ādam originated from Ādam at the time of the covenant in a form with their physical bodies. This understanding is significant as it indicates that the physical body’s imprint is predetermined and has an absolute descent from Ādam, rather than from other lineages.

The Muʿtazalī and the Rawāfidh argue that the covenant cannot be taken on the body (jasad) as it contradicts reason. They propose various interpretations, suggesting it was taken with the souls or as a covenant of reason (mīthāq aqlī) post-birth, emphasizing the necessity of faith and gratitude while prohibiting polytheism and disbelief.

In contrast, Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿah assert that the covenant includes the body (jasad), citing Quranic evidence (Q. 7:172). Allāh ﷻ addresses all ‘children of Ādam,’ implying the

[1]القلائد في شرح العقائد ]القونوي[ فالإشهاد بالأدلة صار كأنهم قالوا : «بلی» قبل، وهذا القول من جملة ما لا طعن فيه ألبتة، وأنه لا يكون منافيًا للقول الأول وإنما الكلام في أن القول الأول هل يصح أم لا؟ ولا يستحيل أن يصح، وكيف يستحيل وقد ذهب إليه جماعة من كبار الأئمة (هذا قول ابن عباس والقفال، القرطبي، الجامع لأحكام القرآن، تفسير سورة الأعراف آية ١٧٢، ج۷، ص314 و316)

وأما المعتزلة، فإنهم أطبقوا أنه لا يجوز تفسير هذه الآية بهذا الوجه ، وهذا بناء منهم على أن كل ما لا يدركه العقل، لا القول به لما عرف من أصلهم. (ثم الآية تدل على أن الله تعالى خلق الأرواح مع الأجساد، كما هم الآن، حيث قال: «ألستُ برتكم قالوا بلى»، والخطاب والسؤال للأرواح مع الأجساد، ثم ردهم إلى أصلاب آبائهم، ثم أخرج أولاد آدم منهم، ثم أخرج أولاد أولاده من أولاده، هكذا إلى يوم القيامة، لأن الله تعالى قال: «من ظهوره كما بينا (ص280)

covenant was with their bodies. The term “from banī Ādam” excludes souls without bodies, while “min ẓuhūrihim dhurriyatahum (from the backs of their progeny)” suggests progeny as bodies with souls. They maintain this interpretation is explicit in scripture and not subject to mere speculation.

Regarding the timing of the covenant, opinions vary, with some suggesting it occurred before the soul entered Ādam or during Ādam’s transition from heaven to Earth. While belief in the covenant’s connection to the body is obligatory, the exact manner of its occurrence remains unknown and subject to scholarly interpretation.[1]

In conclusion, the imperative to recognize that the covenant is taken with the body underscores the fundamental significance of both the soul and the physical body in defining the progeny of Ādam. According to authentic theological perspectives, the children of Ādam are distinguished by the presence of both soul and body. This implies that the absolute descent from Ādam encompasses not only the soul but also the physical body, with its imprint predetermined, serving as an essential component of human identity and lineage.

[1] التمهيد في بيان التوحيد ]ابو شكور السالمي[ القول في إيمان13 الميثاق قالت المعتزلة والروافض: إن أخذ الميثاق على الأجساد غير جائز ولا صحيح، وذلك مما لا يوجب القبول بالعقل. وقال بعضهم: الميثاق كان للأرواح… وقال أهل السنة والجماعة: الميثاق على الأجساد صحیح ثابت بدليل قول الله تعالى: (وإذ أخذ ربك من بني عادم من ظهورهم ذريتهم وأشهدهم على أنفسهم ألست بربكم قالوا بلى .. فالله تعالى أخبر أنه أخذ الميثاق على جميع بني آدم، وهم خبر ماض وكان على الأجساد، لأن الله تعالى قال: «من بني ءادم»، والأرواح بدون الأجساد ليس من بني آدم؛ ولأن الله تعالى قال: «من ظهورهم ذريتهم»، والذرية هي الجسد مع الروح، فكان عيانا وصريحا لا عقليا وحكميا، لأن الله تعالى قال: الست بربكم» أخبرهم بلفظ المخاطبة.” ولما روي عن النبي عليه السلام أنه قال: «إن الله تعالى مسح ظهر آدم فأخرج منه ما هو مولود إلى يوم القيامة، فأخذ عليهم الميثاق على أن تعبدوني ولا / تشركوا بي شيئا»، فصح أن الميثاق كان صحيحًا. وقال بعض الفقهاء: إن الله تعالى أمر جبريل عليه السلام جناحه على ظهر آدم، فأخرج أولاده وذريته من أصلابهم، من كان منهم إلى بروحهم وجسدهم عاقلين بالغين، وخاطبهم بقوله: «ألست بربكم وقال بعضهم: إن الله تعالى أوجدهم وخلقهم وجمعهم في صلب آدم وأخبرهم بقوله: «ألست بربكم»، قالوا جميعا: بلى، وهذا كان إيمانا منهم. وقال بعضهم الميثاق كان قبل إدخال الروح في آدم، وقال بعضهم: في السماء الرابعة، وقال الدنيا بعد هبوط آدم عليه السلام من السماء في وادي رملة. ثم الإيمان به واجب والكيفية غير معلومة.” وأجمعنا أنه ما كان عليهم الموت، وما كان التوالد، بل كان إخراج أجزاء كمثل الذرية من أصلابهم بعضهم من بعض ثم يرجعهم الي أصلابهم كما كان (ص220)

SECTION 5: APPLICATION OF TAWAQQUF TO NAFSIN WĀḤIDAH

Problems with Application of Tawaqquf

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّاسُ ٱتَّقُوا۟ رَبَّكُمُ ٱلَّذِى خَلَقَكُم مِّن نَّفْسٍۢ وَٰحِدَةٍۢ وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا وَبَثَّ مِنْهُمَا رِجَالًۭا كَثِيرًۭا وَنِسَآءًۭ ۚ وَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ ٱلَّذِى تَسَآءَلُونَ بِهِۦ وَٱلْأَرْحَامَ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلَيْكُمْ رَقِيبًۭا

The verse from the Qur’ān, “O men, fear your Lord who created you from a nafsin wāḥidah (single soul), and from it created its match, and spread many men and women from the two …” (Q. 4:1), stands as a significant point of reference in discussions concerning Adamic exceptionalism. Although this verse’s wording may not be unequivocally explicit (naṣṣ), leaving room for interpretation (taʿwīl), early Islamic scholars (salaf) and their successors reached a consensus (ijmāʿ) on its interpretation. They understood this verse to denote the descent of all humans from Ādam, excluding the possibility of shared lineage with other beings.

Muslim scholars have historically interpreted these verses as indicating a singular human lineage, dismissing the notion of multiple lineages with distinct origins. Thus, to adopt a stance of tawaqquf (non-commitment) on an issue that the Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿah considers obligatory to accept as the sole permissible position may be deemed a form of innovation (bidʿa). This form of tawaqquf, referred to as al-tawaqquf al-bidʿī, is contentious within the community, as consensus has been established on the matter, leading some authorities to denounce deviation from this consensus as heresy.

Those who advocate for holding the position of tawaqquf due to the lack of explicitness in the verse and the absence of definitive knowledge from scripture must address the stringency of this stance they propose. Is it considered wājib (obligatory), mustaḥab (recommended), or mubāḥ (permissible)?

If it is deemed wājib, it would imply that believing or denying absolute descent from Ādam according to Islamic teachings is an innovation (bidāʿ). This is because Islam neither confirms nor denies the possibility of the children of Ādam interbreeding with other hominids and having mixed lineages. This perspective raises concerns as it suggests that scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿ have introduced an innovation by claiming a consensus on the obligation to believe in absolute descent, which is unfounded. According to consensus, it is mandatory to believe in human exceptionalism if evolution is accepted as a reality and to reject Adamic exceptionalism based on the consensus of our absolute descent from Ādam. Therefore, any position suggesting that we descended from intermixing between humans and other hominins is deemed unacceptable.

If tawaqquf is considered mustaḥab (recommended) or mubāḥ (permissible), it suggests that Muslims may choose to adopt a position of non-commitment to absolute descent. However, this poses a challenge as it contradicts the consensus (ijmāʿ) among authoritative scholarly figures who affirm absolute descent. Deviating from this consensus on matters of creed constitutes an innovation (bidāʿ).

Furthermore, the complexity increases when tawaqquf is invoked regarding the concept of nafsin wāḥidah. In doing so, individuals may unintentionally obscure the consensus position, potentially opening the door to alternative interpretations like Adamic exceptionalism. This becomes concerning, especially when explicit proof for or against such views is lacking. By resorting to tawaqquf, there’s a risk of indirectly undermining the consensus interpretation and allowing unsupported ideas to gain traction, even if they seem implausible.

Possibility of Interbreeding between Human and other Species

Regarding the interbreeding of humans with other species, Shoaib Malik argues that within Islamic scholarship, there is discussion about the potential for intermarriage between jinn and humans. Although not universally accepted, numerous scholars considered the notion of such unions. If scholars, who possessed deep knowledge of religious texts, acknowledged the possibility of intermarriage between jinn and humans resulting in offspring, it suggests that they did not view the children’s lineage with non-Adamic ancestors as contradicting any scriptural text. Therefore, these same texts would not necessarily dismiss the possibility of intermarriage scenarios as proposed by Adamic Exceptionalism. By drawing a comparison between the marriage of jinn and humans and Adamic Exceptionalism, it highlights the cautious approach taken in interpreting theological doctrine when scripture remains silent on certain possibilities, emphasizing the importance of restraint in definitively affirming or negating such possibilities.[1]

Al-Alūsi delved into the narrative of Prophet Sulaymān and Bilqīs, addressing various fanciful accounts that he compared to myths. He unequivocally dismissed the notion of intercourse between humans and jinn, deeming it absurd and unworthy of consideration. Indeed, he went further to emphasise that contemplating such a concept, let alone entertaining the possibility of offspring resulting from such unions, was beyond reason and merit.[2]

[1] Shoaib Ahmed Malik (19 Oct 2023): Defending ‘Islam and Evolution: Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm’: Abrahamic Dialogues and Interdisciplinary Insights, Theology and Science, 24-25,

DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2023.2255955

[2] وقد ذكر الألوسي في تفسيره عند ذكر بلقيس، ذكر حكايات كثيرة جداً وقال: “هي أشبه شيء بالخرافات”، وقال: “إن الظاهر على تقدير وقوع التناكح بين الإنس والجن الذي قيل يصفع عنه السائل لحماقته، فعلى تقدير التناكح فلا يكون بينهما توالد”.

It’s worth mentioning that in his book “al-Siyār,” Imām al-Dhahabī (d. 748 AH)[1] related from Imām al-Ṭahāwī (d. 321 AH)[2] as narrated to him by Yūnus bin ʿAbd al-Aʿla. He described an encounter with a man named Yaghnam bin Salim, who falsely claimed to have married a jinn woman. Yunus bin ʿAbd al-A’la, upon hearing this claim, chose not to engage further with Yaghnam, recognizing such assertions as mere superstition and falsehood. This anecdote underscores how scholars of the past regarded such narratives with scepticism and cautioned against entertaining them.

Additionally, it is mentioned that Khalīl al-Murādī the author of “Sālik al-Ḍurar“[3] documented al-Ḥāmid al-ʿImādī’s (d. 1171 AH)[4] treatise titled “Taqāqaʿ al-Shun fi Nikāḥ al-Jinn,” where al-Ḥāmid al-ʿImādī unequivocally denied the possibility of marriage between humans and jinn. This further emphasises the scholarly majority rejecting the notion of such unions as unsupported by evidence or religious teachings.[5]

Al-Māwardī (d. 450 AH)[6] expressed strong opposition to the notion of marriage between humans and jinn, citing the fundamental disparities between their genders and natures. He likened the concept to mixing incompatible elements, such as clay and fire, highlighting the

[1] Abū ʿAbd Allah Shams al-Dīn al-Dhahabī (673 AH – 748 AH) was a renowned Muslim scholar, expert in hadith, and historian, noted for his comprehensive knowledge of Islamic history and meticulous expertise in narrator criticism. His numerous works, totaling around two hundred books, earned him the nickname “al-Dhahabi” (the golden) for his meticulous evaluation of individuals akin to weighing gold.

[2] Al-Ṭaḥāwī (238 AH – 321 AH) is Abu Jaʿfar Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Salāmah ibn Salma al-Azdi al-Ṭahāwi, a jurist who became the leading figure of the Ḥanafi school in Egypt. He was born and raised in the village of Taha in the Minya region of Upper Egypt, initially adhering to the Shafi’i school before adopting the Hanafi school. One of his most famous works is “Al-Aqīdah al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah” (The Ṭahāwi Creed).

[3] سلك الدرر في أعيان القرن الثاني عشر [محمد خليل المرادي]

[4] Ḥāmid bin ʿAli al-Dimashqi (d. 1171 AH), known as al-ʿImādi, was a prominent mufti, scholar in Damascus, known for his expertise in the Hanafi school of thought. He studied extensively under various scholars, including Abu al-Mawāib and Muhammad bin ʿAli al-Kamāi, and authored several works, including a ten-volume commentary on the Quran. He also received training in hadith during his pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina, earning licenses from scholars there.

[5] الجن مخلوقات ليست كثيفة قد تحل البدن، وإن حلت البدن قد يحصل استمتاع، لكن لا يجوز أن نقول: “النكاح شرعي بين الإنسي والجني”، ولا يجوز أن نقول عن أحد أبويه جنياً، ومن اللطائف أن الإمام الذهبي في (السير) (4/459) قال عن الطحاوي: حدثنا يونس بن عيد الأعلى قال: قدم علينا رجل كذاب، اسمه يغنم بن سالم، فجئته فسمعته يقول: تزوجت امرأة من الجن، فقال يونس بن عبد الأعلى فلم أرجع إليه، فالعلماء قديماً كانوا يعتبرون هذا الكلام من باب الخرافة ومن باب الكذب، فمن يخبر أنه تزوج جنية وكان يجلس ويحدث لا يرجع إليه ولا يتكلم معه. وقد ذكر صاحب (سلك الدرر) (2/12) أن الحامد العمادي له رسالة سماها (تقاقع الشن في نكاح الجن)، ونفى وقوع النكاح الجن بالكلية

[6] Al-Māwardi, a prominent Shāfi’i jurist and scholar, born in 364 AH in Basra, authored extensive works on jurisprudence and Quranic exegesis. He served as the chief judge in Baghdad and was known for his close ties to the Abbasid caliphs. Despite facing retirement allegations, he continued his scholarly activities until his death in 450 AH at the age of 86, leaving behind a lasting legacy in Islamic jurisprudence and governance.

inherent rejection of such mingling. Al-Māwardī firmly asserted that reproduction resulting from such divergence is prohibited. [1]

Furthermore, he elucidated on the nature of jinn, describing them as non-corporeal beings in their original state, capable of inhabiting bodies and experiencing pleasure. However, despite this capability, Al-Māwardī emphasized that it is impermissible to declare marriage as lawful between humans and jinn, or to claim that someone’s parent is a jinn. This latter stance underscores the clear prohibition against entertaining the possibility of marital unions or familial ties between humans and jinn, as dictated by religious principles.

Al-Shanqītī mentions that Al-Maqīdah, said: “I do not know of any text in the Qurān or in the Sunnah of the Prophet ﵆, that indicates the permissibility of marriage between humans and jinn. Rather, what is deduced from the apparent meanings of the verses is the prohibition of such marriage.” Regarding this noble verse: “And Allāh ﷿ has made for you from yourselves mates” (Qurān, Sūrah Al-Naḥl, 16:72), it is a blessing upon the children of Ādam that their mates are of their own kind and species. It is understood from this that Allāh ﷿ did not create mates for them who are different from themselves, such as the difference between humans and jinn, and this is evident. His statement supports this understanding: “And among His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquillity in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy” (Qurān, Sūrah Al-Rūm, 30:21). So, when Allāh ﷿ says, “created for you from yourselves mates,” it indicates gratitude, meaning that mates were not created for them from other than themselves.[2]

Although scholars have held varying opinions regarding the permissibility of marriage and relations between jinn and humans, the predominant view among them is one of prohibition or disapproval. This stance is influenced by the profound disparities in the nature and essence of these two beings. While humans are physical entities, jinn are perceived as ethereal spiritual beings, highlighting a fundamental contrast that suggests biological incompatibility for successful reproduction. Even in cases where intercourse might hypothetically occur through a jinn possessing a human body, the notion of cross-breeding to produce viable offspring between such vastly disparate creatures is deemed implausible. As such, concerns about interbreeding are deemed secondary to the more fundamental issue of prohibiting such relationships based on the divergent natures of humans and jinn.

[1] قال المناوي في ” شرح الجامع الصغير “ : ففي ” الفتاوى السراجية ” للحنفية : لا تجوز المناكحة بين الإنس والجن وإنسان الماء ؛ لاختلاف الجنس ، وفي ” فتاوى البارزي ” من الشافعية : لا يجوز التناكح بينهما ، ورجح ابن العماد جوازه .وقال الماوردي : وهذا مستنكر للعقول ؛ لتباين الجنسين ، واختلاف الطبعين ، إذ الآدمي جسماني ، والجني روحاني ، وهذا من صلصال كالفخار ، وذلك من مارج من نار ، والامتزاج مع هذا التباين مدفوع ، والتناسل مع هذا الاختلاف ممنوع اهـ

[2] أضواء البيان قال مقيده عفا الله عنه : لا أعلم في كتاب الله ولا في سنَّة نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم نصّاً يدل على جواز مناكحة الإنس الجن ، بل الذي يستروح من ظواهر الآيات عدم جوازه ، فقوله في هذه الآية الكريمة : ( والله جَعَلَ لَكُمْ مِّنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجاً ) النحل/ 72 ممتنّاً على بني آدم بأن أزواجهم من نوعهم وجنسهم : يُفهم منه أنه ما جعل لهم أزواجاً تباينهم كمباينة الإنس والجن ، وهو ظاهر ، ويؤيده قوله تعالى : ( وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُم مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجاً لتسكنوا إِلَيْهَا وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَكُم مَّوَدَّةً وَرَحْمَةً ) الروم/ 21 .فقوله : ( أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُم مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجا ) في معرض الامتنان : يدل على أنه ما خلق لهم أزواجاً من غير أنفسهم . ( 3 / 43 )

Ultimately, scholars consider any possibility of reproduction and fertile crossover procreation between the two species to be far-fetched and exceedingly unlikely, reinforcing the prohibition or disapproval of such relationships within Islamic teachings.[1]

Even if there are a few individuals who entertain the possibility of progeny between jinn and humans, no matter how far-fetched, it does not detract from the widely accepted understanding that the modern human lineage traces back exclusively to Ādam without any mixing with lineages of other species. This understanding is derived from the verse of nafsin wāḥidah, which emphasizes the concept of a single soul. In essence, even if interbreeding between species were hypothetically possible, any resulting progeny would not be viable or

[1] الجن مخلوقات ليست كثيفة قد تحل البدن، وإن حلت البدن قد يحصل استمتاع، لكن لا يجوز أن نقول: “النكاح شرعي بين الإنسي والجني”، ولا يجوز أن نقول عن أحد أبويه جنياً،

ومن اللطائف أن الإمام الذهبي في (السير) (4/459) قال عن الطحاوي: حدثنا يونس بن عيد الأعلى قال: قدم علينا رجل كذاب، اسمه يغنم بن سالم، فجئته فسمعته يقول: تزوجت امرأة من الجن، فقال يونس بن عبد الأعلى فلم أرجع إليه، فالعلماء قديماً كانوا يعتبرون هذا الكلام من باب الخرافة ومن باب الكذب، فمن يخبر أنه تزوج جنية وكان يجلس ويحدث لا يرجع إليه ولا يتكلم معه. وقد ذكر صاحب (سلك الدرر) (2/12) أن الحامد العمادي له رسالة سماها (تقاقع الشن في نكاح الجن)، ونفى وقوع النكاح الجن بالكلية.

” أضواء البيان ” (2:412) .وأما بخصوص حكم التزاوج والنكاح بين الجن والإنس : فقد اختلف العلماء فيه إلى ثلاثة أقوال :

القول الأول : التحريم ، وهو قول الإمام أحمد .

والقول الثاني : الكراهة ، وممن كرهه : الإمام مالك ، وكذا كرهه الحكم بن عتيبة ، وقتادة ، والحسن ، وعقبة الأصم ، والحجاج بن أرطاة ، وإسحاق بن راهويه – وقد يكون معنى ” الكراهة ” عند بعضهم : التحريم – .

وهو قول أكثر أهل العلم .

قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية – رحمه الله – :

وكره أكثر العلماء مناكحة الجن .

” مجموع الفتاوى ” (19:40) .

والقول الثالث : الإباحة ، وهو قول لبعض الشافعية .

قال الشيخ محمد الأمين الشنقيطي – رحمه الله – :

اختلف العلماء في جواز المناكحة بين بني آدم والجن . فمنعها جماعة من أهل العلم ، وأباحها بعضهم .

قال المناوي في ” شرح الجامع الصغير ” : ففي ” الفتاوى السراجية ” للحنفية : لا تجوز المناكحة بين الإنس والجن وإنسان الماء ؛ لاختلاف الجنس ، وفي ” فتاوى البارزي ” من الشافعية : لا يجوز التناكح بينهما ، ورجح ابن العماد جوازه .

وقال الماوردي : وهذا مستنكر للعقول ؛ لتباين الجنسين ، واختلاف الطبعين ، إذ الآدمي جسماني ، والجني روحاني ، وهذا من صلصال كالفخار ، وذلك من مارج من نار ، والامتزاج مع هذا التباين مدفوع ، والتناسل مع هذا الاختلاف ممنوع اهـ .

وقال ابن العربي المالكي : نكاحهم جائز عقلاً ، فإن صح نقلاً : فبها ونعمت .

قال مقيده عفا الله عنه : لا أعلم في كتاب الله ولا في سنَّة نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم نصّاً يدل على جواز مناكحة الإنس الجن ، بل الذي يستروح من ظواهر الآيات عدم جوازه ، فقوله في هذه الآية الكريمة : ( والله جَعَلَ لَكُمْ مِّنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجاً ) النحل/ 72 ممتنّاً على بني آدم بأن أزواجهم من نوعهم وجنسهم : يُفهم منه أنه ما جعل لهم أزواجاً تباينهم كمباينة الإنس والجن ، وهو ظاهر ، ويؤيده قوله تعالى : ( وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُم مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجاً لتسكنوا إِلَيْهَا وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَكُم مَّوَدَّةً وَرَحْمَةً ) الروم/ 21 .

فقوله : ( أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُم مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجا ) في معرض الامتنان : يدل على أنه ما خلق لهم أزواجاً من غير أنفسهم .

” أضواء البيان (3:43) .

وقال الشيخ ولي زار بن شاهز الدين – حفظه الله – :

أما القضية من حيث الواقع : فالكل قد جوز وقوعها ، وحيث إن النصوص ليست قاطعة في ذلك – جوازاً أو منعاً – : فإننا نميل إلى عدم الجواز شرعاً ؛ لما يترتب على جوازه من المخاطر التي تتمثل في :

1. وقوع الفواحش بين بني البشر ، ونسبة ذلك إلى عالم الجن ، إذ هو غيب لا يمكن التحقق من صدقه ، والإسلام حريص على حفظ الأعراض وصيانتها ودرء المفاسد مقدَّم على جلب المصالح ، كما هو مقرر في الشريعة الإسلامية .
2. ما يترتب على التناكح بينهما من الذرية والحياة الزوجية – الأبناء لمن يكون نسبهم ؟ وكيف تكون خلقتهم ؟ وهل تلزم الزوجة من الجن بعدم التشكل ؟ – …
3. إن التعامل مع الجن على هذا النحو لا يسلم فيه عالم الإنس من الأذى ، والإسلام حريص على سلامة البشر وصيانتهم من الأذى .

وبهذا نخلص إلى أن فتح الباب سيجر إلى مشكلات لا نهاية لها ، وتستعصي على الحل ، أضف إلى ذلك أن الأضرار المترتبة على ذلك يقينية في النفس والعقل والعرض ، وذلك من أهم ما يحرص الإسلام على صيانته ، كما أن جواز التناكح بينهما لا يأتي بأية فائدة .

ولذلك فنحن نميل إلى منع ذلك شرعا ، وإن كان الوقوع محتملاً .

وإذا حدث ذلك ، أو ظهرت إحدى المشكلات من هذا الطراز : فيمكن اعتبارها حالة مرضية تعالج بقدرها ، ولا يفتح الباب في ذلك .

” الجن في القرآن والسنة ” ( ص 206 )

present today. According to this interpretation, all existing humans share a single lineage that can be traced back to Ādam. This reinforces the idea of a unified human ancestry originating from Ādam, regardless of any speculative scenarios involving interbreeding with other species.

SECTION 6: PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR EMPIRICAL FINDINGS RELATED TO EVOLUTION

Substance from which Ādam was Created

An argument can be made regarding the relative genetic similarities observed among orangutans, apes, chimpanzees, and humans, which serve as a significant line of evidence indicating a common ancestry. Moreover, the presence of non-functional genes known as pseudogenes, passed down through successive generations and species, further supports the notion of biological lineage connections among different animals. Notably, humans and chimpanzees share remarkably similar pseudogenes, bolstering the argument for a shared ancestor between the two species. Hence, genetic evidence strongly supports the concept of evolution, extending to humans within the biological realm.[1]

From a Muslim perspective, such genetic evidence poses no theological concern, as it is conceivable that Allāh ﷻcreated Ādam from the same clay and genetic substance as other distinct hominids closely preceding the placement of insān. In this scenario, the genetic markers passed down through evolutionary processes would also be inherent in the clay used to create Ādam, giving the impression that Ādam was part of the biological evolutionary lineage. The theological plausibility of this scenario remains intact, as it pertains to metaphysical assertions that are beyond empirical disproval.

The Qurān identifies the substance from which Ādam was created which is water (al-mā’), soil (al-turāb), clay (al-ṭīn), dry clay, ringing like pottery (ṣalsālin k’al-Fakhkhār) and molded clay (ḥama’in masnūn). Prophet Ādam’s progeny is created from the same substance, but the origin of Ādam is not through semen as is the case with his progeny.

Recall when your Lord said to the angels, “I am going to create a human being from a ringing clay made of decayed mud. (Sūrah al-Ḥijr 15:28)[2]

Then He made his progeny from a drop of semen, from despised water. (Sūrah al-Sajdah 32:7-8)[3]

He has created man from dry clay, ringing like pottery (Sūrah al-Raḥmān 55:14)[4]

Indeed We created man from a ringing clay made of decayed mud (Sūrah al-Ḥijr 15:26)[5]

[1] Malik, S.A. Islam and Evolution, Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm, Routledge, London 2021, 35-38

[2] وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلَـٰٓئِكَةِ إِنِّى خَـٰلِقٌۢ بَشَرًۭا مِّن صَلْصَـٰلٍۢ مِّنْ حَمَإٍۢ مَّسْنُونٍۢ ٢٨

[3] ٱلَّذِىٓ أَحْسَنَ كُلَّ شَىْءٍ خَلَقَهُۥ ۖ وَبَدَأَ خَلْقَ ٱلْإِنسَـٰنِ مِن طِينٍۢ ٧ثُمَّ جَعَلَ نَسْلَهُۥ مِن سُلَـٰلَةٍۢ مِّن مَّآءٍۢ مَّهِينٍۢ

[4] خَلَقَ ٱلْإِنسَـٰنَ مِن صَلْصَـٰلٍۢ كَٱلْفَخَّارِ

[5] وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا ٱلْإِنسَـٰنَ مِن صَلْصَـٰلٍۢ مِّنْ حَمَإٍۢ مَّسْنُونٍۢ

It is among His signs that He has created you from dust, then soon you are human beings scattered around. (Sūrah al-Rūm 30:20)[1]

Clay (al-ṭīn) is formed through the amalgamation of water and soil, as previously discussed. As such, it serves as the fundamental substance from which the physical body of a human is fashioned. Described as cohesive, sticky, and compact, clay possesses an adhesive quality that binds its particles together.

The diversity observed among humans in terms of their qualities, forms, and characteristics can be attributed to the materials utilised by God in the creation of Ādam. Drawing from various elements and substances found across the Earth, God fashioned Ādam from a composite mixture. In a narration by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), it is elucidated that Allāh ﷻ created Ādam from a handful of material sourced from every corner of the Earth. Consequently, the offspring of Ādam reflect the diverse proportions of the Earth. This diversity manifests in various human traits, including skin colour (white, red, black), disposition (easy-going, sorrowful), and morality (wicked, good), among others.”^[2]

Moulded Clay (ḥama’in masnūn): Upon the amalgamation of its constituent elements, Allāhﷻ allowed the clay to mature into moulded clay. This process is elucidated in the Quranic verse: “And We certainly created man out of clay from an altered black mud” (Quran 15:26). The term “moulded” carries various interpretations among scholars. Some contend that it denotes the formed appearance and shape of the human face, as articulated in poetic expressions describing smooth and unblemished features.

According to Ibn Abbās (may Allah be pleased with him), when questioned about the meaning of “mud” (masnūn), he explained it as “formed” or “shaped.” This interpretation finds support in the statement of Ḥamzah ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib (may Allah be pleased with him), praising the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for his exceptional beauty.

Alternatively, “moulded” may allude to the poured and hollowed form, akin to the casting of images into molds, or to soft clay, as per interpretations by scholars such as Ibn Abbās,

[1] َمِنْ ءَايَـٰتِهِۦٓ أَنْ خَلَقَكُم مِّن تُرَابٍۢ ثُمَّ إِذَآ أَنتُم بَشَرٌۭ تَنتَشِرُونَ

[2] مراحل خلق الإنسان الأول: 1– الطين: وهذا الطين ناتجٌ من امتزاج عنصرَي الماء والتراب كما وضحنا آنفًا، ولذلك فالطين هو المركَّب الذي يتكوَّن منه خلق جسد الإنسان، قال – تعالى -: ﴿ ذَلِكَ عَالِمُ الْغَيْبِ وَالشَّهَادَةِ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ * الَّذِي أَحْسَنَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقَهُ وَبَدَأَ خَلْقَ الإنسان مِنْ طِينٍ * ثُمَّ جَعَلَ نَسْلَهُ مِنْ سُلَالَةٍ مِنْ مَاءٍ مَهِينٍ * ثُمَّ سَوَّاهُ وَنَفَخَ فِيهِ مِنْ رُوحِهِ وَجَعَلَ لَكُمُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَالْأَفْئِدَةَ قَلِيلًا مَا تَشْكُرُونَ ﴾ [السجدة: 6 – 9]. ويصف الله – سبحانه وتعالى – هذا الطين بأنه كان طينًا لازبًا؛ أي: لزج لاصقًا متماسكًا يشدُّ بعضه ببعض، قال – تعالى -: ﴿ فَاسْتَفْتِهِمْ أَهُمْ أَشَدُّ خَلْقًا أَمْ مَنْ خَلَقْنَا إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاهُمْ مِنْ طِينٍ لَازِبٍ ﴾ [الصافات: 11]. ومما هو جديرٌ بالذِّكر أن سببَ اختلاف البشر في صفاتهم وأشكالهم وأخلاقهم يرجع إلى المادة التي خلق الله منها آدم؛ حيث جمعها من جميع الأرض، قال رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم -: ((إن الله خلق آدم من قبضة قبضَها من جميع الأرض، فجاء بنو آدمَ على قدرِ الأرض، فجاء منهم الأبيض والأحمر والأسود، وبين ذلك والسهل والحزن، وبين ذلك والخبيث والطيِّب، وبين ذلك))(أحمد وأبو داود والترمذي وابن حبان في صحيحه، وقال الترمذي: حسن صحيح.)

Mujāhid (d. 104 AH), and Dahhāk (d. 105 AH).[1] Ibn Kathīr suggested that “moulded” indicates a smooth surface, as exemplified in poetic descriptions of marble sculptures.

Al-Shanqītī (d. 1393 AH)[2] and other scholars support the view that after the initial mixing of soil and water, the resulting clay attained a sticky and cohesive consistency before transforming into altered black mud, subsequently moulded and formed. This interpretation, reinforced by evidence from Quranic exegeses such as Aḍwā’ al-Bayān, Tafsīr al-Qurān al-ʿAẓīm, and Fatḥ al-Qadīr, underscores the transformative process by which clay evolves into moulded clay under divine guidance.^[3] In other words, Allāh ﷻcould have created it in any which way He pleased, even resembling the matter of the creation on earth at the time.

[1] Mujāhid (d. 104 AH): Mujāhid ibn Jabr al-Makki was a prominent scholar of Tafsir (Quranic exegesis) and a student of Ibn Abbas, one of the companions of the Prophet Muḥammad ﵆ . Born in Makkah, Mujāhid became renowned for his knowledge and interpretation of the Quranic verses. He played a significant role in disseminating the teachings of Islam and explaining the meanings of the Quranic text. Mujāhid’s exegesis is widely cited and respected among scholars of Tafsir, and his works have had a lasting impact on Islamic scholarship.

Dahhāk (d. 105 AH): Dahhāk ibn Muzahim al-Hilāli was a distinguished scholar of Tafsir and a successor to Mujāhid in the field of Quranic interpretation. Hailing from the region of Kufa, Dahhāk was known for his profound understanding of the Quran and his ability to elucidate its meanings. He studied under Mujāhid and became renowned for his expertise in Tafsir, contributing significantly to the elucidation of Quranic verses. Dahhāk’s scholarly contributions helped enrich the understanding of the Quranic text, and his interpretations continue to be studied and revered by scholars and students of Islam.

[2] Al-Shanqītī (d. 1393 AH): Al-Shanqītī, whose full name is Muhammad Al-Amīn ibn Muḥammad Al-Mukhtār ibn Ādam Al-Jakani Al-Shanqītī, was a renowned Islamic scholar, jurist, and educator from Mauritania. He is best known for his expertise in Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), theology (Aqīah), and Quranic exegesis (Tafsir). Al-Shanqītī studied under prominent scholars in Mauritania and later pursued advanced studies in Medina, Saudi Arabia. He authored several influential works, including “Aḍwā’’ al-Bayān,” an extensive Tafsir known for its comprehensive and systematic approach to interpreting the Quran. Al-Shanqītī’s scholarship played a significant role in promoting a balanced understanding of Islam, emphasising adherence to authentic sources and rejecting extremism. His works continue to be studied and revered by scholars and students of Islam worldwide.

[3] الحمأ المسنون: ترك الله – تعالى – هذا الطين بعد أن مزج عنصريه حتى صار حمأً مسنونًا، قال – تعالى -: ﴿ وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الإنسان مِنْ صَلْصَالٍ مِنْ حَمَأٍ مَسْنُونٍ ﴾ [الحجر: 26]، والحمأ هو الطِّين الأسود المتغيِّر، كما عليه أقوال المفسرين، أما المسنون ففيه خلاف بين المفسِّرين، قيل: المصوَّر من سُنَّة الوجه وهى صورته، ومنه قول ذي الرمة: تُرِيكَ سُنَّةَ وَجهٍ غَيرِ مُقرِفَةٍ مَلْسَاءَ لَيسَ بِهَا خَالٌ وَلا نَدَبُ

وعن ابن عباس – رضى الله عنهما – أنه لما سأله نافعُ بن الأزرق عن معنى المسنون، وأجابه بأن معناه المصوَّر، قال له: وهل تعرف العرب ذلك؟ فقال له ابن عباس: نعم، أما سمعت قول حمزةَ بنِ عبدالمطلب – رضى الله عنه – وهو يمدح رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم -:

أغرٌّ كأنَّ البدرَ سنةَ وجهِه جلا الغيمُ عنه ضوءَه فتبدَّدا

وقيل: المسنون المصبوب المفرغ؛ أي: أفرغ صورة الإنسان كما تفرغ الصور من الجوهر في أمثلتها.

وقيل المسنون في رواية لابن عباس ومجاهد والضحاك: إنه المنتن، وقال ابن كثير: المسنون الأملس، كما قال الشاعر: ثم خاصرتُها إلى القبَّةِ الخضراء تمشي في مرمرٍ مَسنونِ

ويرجِّح الشنقيطي الرأي الأول بدليل قوله – تعالى -: ﴿ وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الإنسان مِنْ صَلْصَالٍ مِنْ حَمَإٍ مَسْنُونٍ ﴾ [الحجر: 26][ أضواء البيان، وتفسير القرآن العظيم، وفتح القدير، في تفسير الحجر: 26. أي بعد أن مزَج الخالق – تبارك وتعالى – عنصرَي التراب والماء صار المزيج طينًا لازبًا لاصقًا، ثم بعد ذلك صار هذا الطين حمأ أسودًا مسنونًا مصورًا.

Upon undergoing transformation, the clay evolved into altered black mud, assuming the form of Prophet Ādam, and subsequently transitioned into “salsāl” or mouldable clay, akin to pottery. This progression in the creation process is elucidated in the Quranic verse: “He created man from clay like [that of] pottery, and He created the jinn from a smokeless flame of fire” (Quran 55:14-15). “Salsāl” denotes dried clay that emits a sound upon striking, unless exposed to fire, wherein it transforms into “fakhkhār” or pottery. This interpretation aligns with the consensus of most interpreters. Although mouldable clay resembles pottery, it remains distinct, as Ādam was not subjected to fire to achieve the state of pottery, as emphasized by Allah’s statement: “He created man from clay like [that of] pottery” (Quran 55:14).

Ibn al-Qayyim underscores those discrepancies in terminology, attributed to a single subject, do not inherently imply contradiction. Allāh ﷿, in His scripture, employs various terms to describe the creation of Ādam, including dust, moulded clay, sticky clay, and clay resembling pottery. These terms signify different stages in the creation process, each conveying unique attributes and characteristics. While clay differs from mud, and mud differs from dust, their common origin lies in the fundamental essence of soil, with these diverse states emerging progressively in the divine act of creation.^[1]

Creation of Ādam and Scientific Implications

According to traditional accounts, Ādam was created miraculously as an adult directly from earthly matter and elements. These elements are shared with other creatures of the Earth, and the substance of Ādam’s body was passed down to his progeny. This narrative suggests that Ādam had no biological parents and was not part of the biological evolutionary tree. However, it does not rule out the possibility that Ādam was made from the same material as species towards the end of the evolutionary tree before modern humans.

The ḥadīh statement, “Allāh ﷻcreated Ādam in his form” (Saḥīḥ Muslim), has been subject to scholarly commentary. One interpretation posits that this was a response by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to refute the Dahriyyah, a group during his time promoting the belief that all humans, including Ādam, originated from semen and underwent the embryological process. Ibn Fūrak (d. 406 AH)[2] elaborates on this, stating

[1]تفسير ابن القيم — ابن القيم كذلك الألفاظ إذا اختلف في ذاتها وكان مرجعها إلى أمر واحد لم يوجب تناقضا كما قال عز وجل في كتابه في خلق آدم فذكر مرة أنه خلق من تراب ومرة أنه خلق من حمأ مسنون، ومرة من طين لازب، ومرة من صلصال كالفخار. فهذه الألفاظ مختلفة ومعانيها أيضا في الأحوال مختلفة إذ الصلصال غير الحمأ، والحمأة غير التراب إلا أن مرجعها كلها في الأصل إلى جوهر واحد وهو التراب ومن التراب تدرجت هذه الأحوال.

[2] Ibn Fūrak (d. 406 AH): Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Habīb al-Fūrakī, commonly known as Ibn Furāk, was a prominent Islamic jurist (faqih) and scholar of Hadith in the Abbasid era. Born in Baghdad, he received his education from renowned scholars of his time. Ibn Furāk excelled in the study of Islamic law (Fiqh) and Hadith sciences, becoming a leading authority in both fields. He authored several works on Islamic jurisprudence and Hadith, earning recognition for his depth of knowledge and scholarly contributions. Ibn Fūrak’s commentary on Sahih Muslim, one of the most authentic collections of Hadith, is particularly esteemed among scholars. His scholarship played a crucial role in the development and preservation of Islamic legal traditions, and his works continue to be studied and cited by scholars in Islamic jurisprudence and Hadith studies.

that the Prophet Muhammad ﵆ affirmed that Ādam was in Paradise in the same form and shape as he was on Earth, and Allāh ﷻ did not alter his creation. This knowledge serves to distinguish Ādam from all others who were expelled from Paradise, highlighting the distinction in their ranks and statuses.

The second point underscores the significance of interpreting the pronoun “ه” (his) in the context of Ādam, as it pertains to the Prophet’s statement. This interpretation serves to refute the claims of the Dahriyyah, who asserted that humans were solely created from sperm, and only human sperm at that. The Prophet’s words elucidate that despite the ongoing pattern in human creation, the first human, Ādam ﵇, was uniquely formed without the need for sperm, sexual reproduction, or the typical transition from infancy to adulthood observed in human offspring.

Furthermore, the Prophet’s statement aligns with the conclusions drawn from intellect and reasoning regarding the creation of the world, affirming it as an initial act with a definite beginning and end. This assertion, known only through transmission from a credible source, highlights that our lineage originates directly from Allāh’s creative act, exemplified in the creation of Ādam (peace be upon him). He was formed from clay, akin to pottery, from the same substance as other creations, before the divine breath infused life into him. Unlike conventional human development, Ādam did not undergo conception, foetal formation, or childhood. Instead, he was instantaneously created as a fully-grown human being, mirroring the form in which he was observed.

This understanding finds support in the works of eminent scholars such as Abū Manṣūr ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādi, Ibn Battāl (d. 449 AH), Ibn Rushd (d. 595 AH), and Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ (d. 544 AH),[1] reinforcing its theological significance and scholarly consensus. The hadith’s inclusion

authentic collections of Hadith, is particularly esteemed among scholars. His scholarship played a crucial role in the development and preservation of Islamic legal traditions, and his works continue to be studied and cited by scholars in Islamic jurisprudence and Hadith studies.

[1] Ibn Battāl (d. 449 AH): Abū ʿAbdullah Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Barr al-Najjār, known as Ibn Battāl, was a distinguished Islamic scholar, ḥadīth expert, and jurist in Andalusia during the Almoravid dynasty. He is best known for his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, one of the most authoritative compilations of ḥadīth in Islam. His commentary, titled “Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī,” is highly regarded for its meticulous analysis and elucidation of the Hadiths found in Sahih al-Bukhari. Ibn Battāl’s scholarship significantly contributed to the understanding and preservation of prophetic traditions. He also made notable contributions to Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) and other fields of Islamic knowledge. His works remain influential in the study of Hadith and Islamic law.

Ibn Rushd (d. 595 AH): Abu al-Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Rushd, commonly known as Ibn Rushd or Averroes, was a polymath, philosopher, jurist, and physician born in Cordoba, Andalusia. Ibn Rushd is renowned for his contributions to Islamic philosophy, particularly his commentaries on the works of Aristotle. He also wrote extensively on Islamic law (fiqh) and theology (ʿaqīdah). Ibn Rushd’s philosophical works had a profound influence on both Islamic and Western thought during the Middle

in both Saḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Saḥīḥ Muslim further solidifies its authenticity and importance in Islamic tradition.[1].

It has been established that the Adamic species’ do not need to exhibit significant discernible biological, anatomical, physiological, or genetic distinctions from other hominid species that one would expect to emerge in evolutionary history. Despite not occupying a position on the phylogenetic tree, from a sharīʿah perspective, humans (insān) are distinct from these hominids.

Ādam and Ḥawā’ could have possessed all the necessary biological traits that appear to align with evolutionary processes, a theological concept that may find backing in scientific findings. This assertion suggests that divine revelation, which is considered to contain accurate historical narratives, serves to illuminate our scientific limitations and bridge gaps in our understanding as Muslims. From a theological standpoint, Ādam and his descendants would occupy the same position on the phylogenetic tree, a scenario that is theoretically plausible and not empirically disprovable, given its metaphysical nature, making it unfalsifiable from a scientific perspective. This perspective also maintains the traditional narrative of Ādam in the Qur’ān and prevents the natural sciences from exceeding their disciplinary boundaries.

Moreover, there’s the issue of genetic bottlenecking, which arises when a population drastically declines, resulting in a loss of genetic diversity that can lead to disease, reproductive challenges, and even extinction. If humanity indeed originated from a single couple, such as Adam and Ḥawā’ in Islamic tradition, the notion of producing healthy offspring seems scientifically improbable, if not impossible. However, from a theological lens,

Ages and the Renaissance. Despite controversies surrounding some of his ideas, his impact on the development of philosophy and jurisprudence remains significant.

Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ (d. 544 AH): Abū al-Faḍl ʿIyāḍ ibn Mūsā ibn ʿIyāḍ al-Yahsubī, commonly known as Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, was a prominent Maliki jurist, scholar of Hadith, and judge in Al-Andalus during the Almoravid and Almohad dynasties. He is best known for his magnum opus, “Al-Shifā’,” a comprehensive biography of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This work covers various aspects of the Prophet’s life, character, and teachings, making it a significant source of Islamic knowledge and inspiration. Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ also made notable contributions to Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), ḥadīth studies, and other fields of Islamic scholarship. His works continue to be studied and revered by scholars and students of Islam.

[1] مشكل الحديث وبيانه [ابن فورك] فعرفنا صلى الله عليه وسلم بذلك أن أباكم آدم عليه السلام كان في الجنة على الصورة التي كان عليها في الدنيا لم يغير الله خلقته وتكون فائدة ذلك تعريفنا الفرق بينه وبين سائر من أخرجه من الجنة معه وإبانته منهم في الرتبة والدرجة وهذه فائدة لا يمكن الوقوف عليها إلا بخبر الصادق (ص52)

والوجه الثاني من ذلك إذا قلنا إن الهاء يرجع إلى آدم فسبيله أن النبي عليه السلام أفادنا إبطال قول أهل الذمة أنه لم يكن إنسان إلا من نطفة ولا نطفة إلا من إنسان فيما مضى ويأتي ليس لذلك أول ولا آخر وأن الناس إنما ينتقلون من نشوء على ترتيب معتاد وإن كان ذلك أبدا كان كذلك فعرفنا صلى الله عليه وسلم بتكذيبهم وأن أول البشر آدم عليه السلام خلق على صورته التي كان عليها وعلى الهيئة التي شوهد عليها من غير أن كان من نطفة قبله أو عن تناسل أو تنقل من صغر إلى كبر كالمعهود من أحوال أولاده فأما ما دلت عليه دلائل العقول من كون هذا العالم ذا ابتداء وإنتهاء

وأفاد به ما لا يوصل إليه إلا بالسمع إلا أن الأصل الذي هو منه توالدنا لم يكن عن توالد قبله بل خلق كما كان عليه وهو آدم عليه السلام خلقه الله عز وجل من صلصال كالفخار ثم خلق فيه الروح ولم يكن قط في صلب ولا رحم ولا كان علقة ولا مضغة ولا مراهقا ولا طفلا بل خلق ابتداء بشرا سويا كما شوهد // أخرجه البخاري ومسلم(ص52)

Muslims believe in divine intervention, suggesting that Allāh ﷿ could have ensured genetic diversity and the health of subsequent generations through miraculous means, thus bypassing natural laws. Another speculative possibility is that Allāh ﷿ safeguarded Ādam’s offspring from health issues despite potential incest, thereby allowing human diversity to flourish over time.

CONCLUSION

This essay has highlighted the complexity surrounding the application of tawaqquf in Islamic theology, particularly in relation to pivotal theological questions such as Ādamic exceptionalism and Human exceptionalism. By elucidating the nuances of tawaqquf and its theological implications, we have sought to address the inadequacies of applying tawaqquf to the issue of Adamic exceptionalism. Through an examination of Qur’anic verses and scholarly consensus, we have challenged the appropriateness of adopting a non-committal stance in this context, arguing that it constitutes an innovation within Islamic theological discourse.

Furthermore, our exploration of the principles related to consensus within Ahl al-Sunnah w’al-Jamāʿa has shed light on the guiding principles of theological interpretation, particularly in deciphering the acceptance of meanings of words in scripture. This inquiry has provided valuable insights into the intricate dynamics of theological discourse within Sunni Islam.

In summary, it has been established that the Adamic species’ do not necessarily require significant discernible biological, anatomical, physiological, or genetic distinctions from other hominid species expected to emerge in evolutionary history. Despite not occupying a specific position on the phylogenetic tree, from a sharīʿah perspective, humans (insān) are viewed as distinct from these hominids. It is conceivable that Ādam and Ḥawā’ were endowed with all the necessary biological characteristics to appear to align with evolutionary processes. While this theological assertion may find some support in scientific evidence, revelation, considered to encompass accurate historical narratives, serves to illuminate our scientific limitations and fill gaps in our understanding.

And Allāh ﷿ knows best.

الله أعلم بالصواب

March 2024

Shaʿban 1445 AH

To access full Document - Download as PDF 📩

Exploring Tawaqquf In Islamic Theology

CONTENT

SECTION 1 – USAGE OF TAWAQQUF IN THEOLOGY

SECTION 2 – PRINCIPLES DETERMINING OBLIGATIONS AND BELIEFS

SECTION 3 – AHL AL-SUNNAH AND ADAMIC EXCEPTIONALISM

SECTION 4: HUMAN UNIQUENESS RELATED TO NAFSIN WĀḤIDAH

SECTION 5: APPLICATION OF TAWAQQUF TO NAFSIN WĀḤIDAH

SECTION 6: PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR EMPIRICAL FINDINGS RELATED TO EVOLUTION

CONCLUSION

#ez_toc_widget_sticky-2 .ez-toc-widget-sticky-title { font-size: 120%; font-weight: 500; color: #000; } #ez_toc_widget_sticky-2 .ez-toc-widget-sticky-container ul.ez-toc-widget-sticky-list li.active{ background-color: #ededed; } Table of Contents

**SECTION 1 – USAGE OF TAWAQQUF IN THEOLOGY**

**SECTION 3 – AHL AL-SUNNAH AND ADAMIC EXCEPTIONALISM**

Table of Contents