وَإِذْ أَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِنۢ بَنِىٓ ءَادَمَ مِن ظُهُورِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ وَأَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلَىٰٓ أَنفُسِهِمْ أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ قَالُوا۟ بَلَىٰ شَهِدْنَآ
Wa idh akhadha rabbuka min banī Ādama min ẓuhūrihim dhurriyyatahum wa ashhadahum ʿalā anfusihim, a-lastu bi-rabbikum, qālū balā shahidnā, an taqūlū yawma'l-qiyāmati innā kunnā ʿan hādhā ghāfilīn · Aw taqūlū innamā ashraka ābāʾunā min qablu wa kunnā dhurriyyatan min baʿdihim, a-fa-tuhlikunā bimā faʿala'l-mubṭilūn · Wa kadhālika nufaṣṣilu'l-āyāti wa laʿallahum yarjiʿūn
"Remember when your Lord took from the children of Adam — from their backs — their offspring, and made them witnesses against themselves: 'Am I not your Lord?' They said, 'Yes, we bear witness.' Lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, 'We were unaware of this.' · Or should say, 'Our forefathers associated others with God before us, and we were a generation coming after them. Will You then destroy us for what the followers of falsehood did?' · Thus do We set out the signs in detail, that they may return."
This verse is the second of the three cornerstones recorded in the section on the structure of the sūra (11-25 Adam, 172-174 alast, 175-177 the man who slipped out of the signs). I rely on that treatment.
And the sentence immediately before the verse must be recorded: in the hundred and sixty-ninth verse a covenant was being asked about — a-lam yuʾkhadh ʿalayhim mīthāqu'l-kitāb. The hundred and seventy-second verse tells of a far older covenant, and it begins with the same verb: wa idh akhadha rabbuk.
The same root (أ-خ-ذ), two verses apart, for two different covenants. This is a weave that can be verified within the sūra.
ظُهُور — the root ظ-ه-ر: the back; and from this, the visible, outer face of a thing. The plural of ẓahr.
ذُرِّيَّة — the lexicographers disagree about its root: ذ-ر-أ (to scatter as one scatters seed) or ذ-ر-ر (to divide into small parts) or ذ-ر-و (to winnow). All three are transmitted; I issue no settled ruling on the root. In sense they all come to the same place: what issues from one origin and spreads.
And the root ذ-ر-أ will occur expressly in the hundred and seventy-ninth verse of the sūra: wa laqad dharaʾnā li-jahannam. This root was undone at 23/79 in al-Muʾminūn, where al-Aʿrāf 7/179 was named. I rely on that treatment.
أَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلَىٰٓ أَنفُسِهِمْ — the root ش-ه-د: to be present; and from this, to know by seeing, to bear witness. Form IV (ashhada) — "to call to witness".
And a point of word order must be recorded: the testimony is taken about themselves — ʿalā anfusihim. That is, the person is made a witness not about another but about himself.
أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ — the question is built on a negation: a-lastu — "am I not?" In Arabic this pattern is a question of confirmation whose answer is affirmative.
بَلَىٰ — and the word of the answer must be recorded: balā, not naʿam. In Arabic balā is the answer that removes the negation of a negative question. Had naʿam been said, then according to the majority of the lexicographers the negation would have been affirmed.
This is a datum of the language and must be recorded; the difference between the two words is settled in Arabic.
There are two great readings of this verse, and both have been voiced in the classical sources. Per the method (Method) I give the disagreement with its grounds in a table and I DO NOT IMPOSE A PREFERENCE. This is a field of kalām debate, and no side is taken here.
| Reading 1 — a real address | Reading 2 — a description of the fiṭra | |
|---|---|---|
| What it says | The scene is an event that actually took place: the offspring were brought out, the question was put, the answer was given | The scene is a likeness telling of the manner of man's creation: the question and the answer are the putting into language of the structure man carries |
| Its ground from the text | That the verbs are in the perfect (akhadha, ashhada, qālū); that the particle idh states a past time; that the question and the answer are reported directly | That the purpose of the sentence is given as an taqūlū yawma'l-qiyāmati innā kunnā ʿan hādhā ghāfilīn — that is, a closing off of an excuse; and that no human being has any such memory |
| Support from within the Qurʾān | That the scene is given with a detailed telling; that it is nowhere characterised as a likeness | al-Rūm 30/30: fiṭrata'llāhi'llatī faṭara'n-nāsa ʿalayhā — that there is a ground upon which man was created |
| The difficulty raised against this reading | The text does not say where or how the event took place; and the question is asked how a forgotten testimony can serve as proof | Reducing the speech in the sentence qālū balā shahidnā to a likeness counts as departing from the plain sense of the wording |
Both readings are transmitted. I do not impose a preference, and I do not use the evidence of one side against the other.
And no report at all is transmitted about this verse in this commentary, because their soundness cannot be established. The detail the Qurʾān does not give is not invented: I write nothing about the place, the time, the manner of the scene, or who was brought out and how (Method).
The link with فِطْرَة — 30/30 in al-Rūm
The within-the-Qurʾān ground of the second reading is 30/30 in al-Rūm, and I rely on that treatment. A summary of what was recorded there:
Fiṭra is not "creation" but "the manner of creation". The word names not man's having been brought into being but the fashion upon which he was brought into being. And the verse explains this itself: allatī faṭara'n-nāsa ʿalayhā — "upon which He created mankind". The particle ʿalā — upon: it states a ground.
| al-Rūm 30/30 | al-Aʿrāf 7/172 | |
|---|---|---|
| What is stated | A ground upon which man was created | A testimony taken from man |
| Particle / pattern | Faṭara'n-nāsa ʿalayhā — upon it | Ashhadahum ʿalā anfusihim — against themselves |
| Its permanence | Lā tabdīla li-khalqi'llāh | An taqūlū yawma'l-qiyāmati innā kunnā ʿan hādhā ghāfilīn — the excuse is closed |
I record this as an observation, and its ground is the patterns of the two verses. This observation appears to support the second reading; but I do not present it as a preference — those who hold the first reading also draw a link between this verse and alast, and explain the fiṭra as the trace the testimony taken has left in man. Both readings can make use of this verse.
And independently of the debate, the purpose the verse itself states is read from the text and is not disputed. This is the main thing to be recorded:
| # | The excuse that is closed | Verse |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | We were unaware — innā kunnā ʿan hādhā ghāfilīn | 172 |
| 2 | Our forefathers did it — innamā ashraka ābāʾunā min qablu wa kunnā dhurriyyatan min baʿdihim | 173 |
| Verse | Expression |
|---|---|
| 28 | Qālū wajadnā ʿalayhā ābāʾanā wa'llāhu amaranā bihā |
| 70 | Wa nadhara mā kāna yaʿbudu ābāʾunā |
| 173 | Innamā ashraka ābāʾunā min qablu |
Three occurrences. And the hundred and seventy-third verse carries this excuse into the scene of the hereafter and closes it there.
I record this as my own reading and it is not binding; its ground is the word shared by the three verses (ābāʾ): the ground "our forefathers used to do it", repeated throughout the sūra, is declared invalid in advance in the hundred and seventy-third verse. And the ground is tied to the sūra's own backbone: knowledge was given, no excuse remains.
And the closing of the hundred and seventy-fourth verse must be recorded: wa kadhālika nufaṣṣilu'l-āyāti wa laʿallahum yarjiʿūn. The same verb had occurred in the thirty-second verse of the sūra too (kadhālika nufaṣṣilu'l-āyāti li-qawmin yaʿlamūn). The table at the fifty-second verse is completed here.