Session Twenty-Two, The First Station: Examining the Existence or Non-Existence of Intrinsic Dignity in the Human Being

Session Twenty-Two

The First Station: Examining the Existence or Non-Existence of Intrinsic Dignity in the Human Being – The Foundations of the Intrinsic Dignity of the Human Being – The Second Category: 3. Being the Object of the Angels’ Prostration – Evidence – Being the Object of Prostration: An Acquired Dignity, Not an Intrinsic One

January 5, 2025

3. Being the Object of the Angels’ Prostration

The third instance among those cited as one of the foundations of the intrinsic dignity of the human being—which we have placed within the second category—is that the human being was the object of the angels’ prostration. There is disagreement as to whether this is, in reality, a distinct advantage separate from the station of divine vicegerency, or whether it is regarded as one of the aspects of the station of vicegerency—in which case there would be no warrant for mentioning it independently. Nevertheless, it has been presented by some as one of the foundations of the intrinsic dignity of the human being. We wish to examine this instance and determine whether it can truly be accepted as a foundation or not.

According to certain Qur’anic verses, the Prophet Adam was certainly the object of the angels’ prostration: “And [mention] when We said to the angels, ‘Prostrate before Adam’; so they prostrated, except for Iblīs. He refused and was arrogant and became of the disbelievers.” (وَإِذْ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ أَبَى وَاسْتَكْبَرَ وَكَانَ مِنَ الْكَافِرِينَ)—When We said to the angels, “Prostrate before Adam,” they prostrated, except for Iblīs, who refused. We are not particularly concerned here with the exegetical discussions of this verse; what is presently under consideration is the command of God, the Blessed and Exalted, to the angels to prostrate before Adam. This matter is mentioned in certain other verses as well. This command indicates that God has honored the human being.

Of course, it is true that the command to prostrate pertained to Adam, but the individual person of the Prophet Adam was certainly not intended. The notion that this prostration was solely for the individual person of Adam can be refuted by various proofs and pieces of evidence, among them: God states in the Qur’an: “And We have certainly created you, then given you form, then said to the angels, ‘Prostrate before Adam’; so they prostrated, except for Iblīs. He was not of those who prostrated.” (وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَاكُمْ ثُمَّ صَوَّرْنَاكُمْ ثُمَّ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ لَمْ يَكُنْ مِنَ السَّاجِدِينَ). This is the account of the creation of the human being; it states: “We have certainly created you” (لقد خلقناکم), which is an address to all human beings; “then given you form, then said to the angels, ‘Prostrate before Adam'” (ثُمَّ صَوَّرْنَاكُمْ ثُمَّ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ)—here the discussion is the creation of the human being. However, we have a human species and an individual human being; when the account of the creation of the human being is related—if the matter of dust, clay, and the breathing of the divine spirit is raised—this pertains to the individual person of Adam; the individual person of Adam was created from dust and clay. But with regard to the human species, no reference is made to dust and clay; there the discussion is of the sperm-drop (nuṭfa), the clinging clot (ʿalaqa), the lump of flesh (muḍgha), and creation from a pair. This verse refers to the creation of the human species; here both are mentioned together. However, since Adam was the symbol of the human species and no other human being yet existed, God, the Exalted, states that after We created the human being and gave him form, We commanded the angels to prostrate before Adam. The creation of all human beings is intended, and the forming of all human beings is intended; however, the prostration was before the individual person of Adam, but as the symbol of all human beings; otherwise, the individual person of Adam had no particular relevance.

Thus, the verse refers to Adam’s being the object of prostration as the symbol of the human species; this is certainly considered a kind of honoring, and it is an honoring of the human species, while it is also an honoring of the individual person of the Prophet Adam. When God says, regarding such a being, “Prostrate,” prostration is the utmost submission and humility before the one prostrated to. When we prostrate before God, the Blessed and Exalted, it means that we manifest submission, humility, abasement, and reverence. Prostration is the utmost submission before the one prostrated to; when one places one’s head and forehead upon the dust—which is the lowest point relative to the human being, and to all appearances there is nothing lower than the ground—this is an act of homage and is certainly considered a kind of honoring, esteeming, and ennobling of the human being. Of course, this prostration is not a prostration of worship. In its proper place, this matter has been addressed: how is it that prostration, which is exclusive to God, is here commanded by God for the angels to perform before Adam? Does this mean that we, too, may prostrate before someone other than God, or not? It has been said that this prostration is a manifestation of submission and humility, not the prostration in the technical sense that is exclusive to God.

Question:

Professor: Yes, that too goes back to intention; but at the same time, one must take into account the perception and understanding of others and of the rest of the Muslims, and this must not become a cause of disparagement and reproach against the [Shīʿa] school. This point must be heeded. Now, whether intention plays a role, or whether the act itself is considered prostration—and for that reason we should say it is impermissible—or not, that is a separate discussion.

In any case, the command to prostrate before Adam is an honoring, esteeming, and a kind of ennobling of the human being; there is no doubt whatsoever in this. Thus, the reality of the human being’s being the object of prostration, and that this took place by God’s command, signifies the esteeming and honoring of the human being.

In contrast, however, some may deny this meaning, for they say that the angels are, in any case, superior to the human being. The nature of the angels is purity and immaculateness; nothing but servitude and sincerity has any place in them; there is no admixture of caprice, lust, or wrath in them. Therefore, a being with these characteristics is superior to all beings and is considered higher and superior to the human being as well.

However, this view is mistaken, for if one says that the angels are more excellent than human beings, what is one to do with this command to prostrate? What justification can truly be cited for it? Is it possible for a being who is more excellent and superior to manifest submission and abasement before a being whose rank is lower, and to render homage before him? These cannot be reconciled with one another. This is a matter that is plain and evident.

Question:

Professor: That is, was this command a command of trial? On what basis do you say that this command was one of trial? We must look to the apparent meaning. Compliance with the divine command as a trial, or non-compliance with it, could have been realized through other commands; but prostration before this being indicates the greatness of the rank and standing of the human being.

Question:

Professor: I shall state the pieces of evidence indicating that this refers to all human beings; the most important piece of evidence is that they said, “Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood?” (أَتَجْعَلُ فِيهَا مَنْ يُفْسِدُ فِيهَا وَيَسْفِكُ الدِّمَاءَ). It becomes clear that the individual person of Adam was not intended, for the individual person of Adam had no such problem and had not shed blood or engaged in bloodshed that they would wish to say this. This itself shows that the matter was not the individual person of the Prophet Adam at all, but rather that the human species was raised. This, too, is one of the pieces of evidence that can be appended to the previous point so that it becomes clear that the object of prostration was the human species and not the individual person of the Prophet Adam.

In any case, this command indicates that this is a dignity for the human being, and there is no doubt in this.

Evidence

We can also cite pieces of evidence for this claim; that is, they show that the human being was superior, such that the angels were commanded to prostrate before him.

The First Piece of Evidence

One of the pieces of evidence is the objection or question of the angels and their nearly initial denial of this command. When they say, “Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood?” (أَتَجْعَلُ فِيهَا مَنْ يُفْسِدُ فِيهَا وَيَسْفِكُ الدِّمَاءَ), this shows that they had adopted a state of denial and, as it were, had an objection. They asked: Do You wish to appoint as a vicegerent one who engages in the shedding of blood and bloodshed? This itself indicates that the angels considered themselves superior to the human being, and for this reason they said: We declare Your glorification and Your praise; are we then to render submission, abasement, and humility before that being? From this it becomes clear that, as it were, God had bestowed a special dignity upon the human being; otherwise, there would have been no occasion for this objection.

Question:

Professor: This itself is a topic of discussion and has been raised in the form of a question regarding this verse: does an objection on the part of the angels even make sense? Do we not say that the angels are beings who are purely obedient? Objection has no place at all in their being; so why did they say this to God? In that regard, certain explanations have been offered to the effect that this is not an objection; rather, it is an inquiry for greater knowledge concerning the being of the human being. They say that this is not an objection.

If it be said: It may be asked, why did they refer to the shedding of blood, bloodshed, and corruption upon the earth? Given that we have rejected the existence of human beings who were upon the earth prior to the creation of Adam, and have said that the human being is the successor of God, and that before Adam there were neither other beings upon the earth nor other human beings who had become extinct and on account of whose conduct the angels posed this question—none of these is the case. The matter is that the angels possessed enough perception and understanding to compare themselves with a being who has two sides (dhū janbatayn); they themselves had merely a spiritual and celestial existence, and there was no attachment to the material world within them; the faculties of wrath, lust, and imagination did not exist within them; whatever existed was the rational faculty, and the rational faculty also compelled them to obedience. After they observed a being with bodily and spiritual, material and immaterial, supernal and terrestrial, celestial and worldly dimensions—a being who had gathered within himself the various faculties: wrath, lust, intellect, and imagination—this being would, as a matter of course, end up engaging in the shedding of blood and bloodshed. That is, it was not necessary that there had been a precedent, such that we should say that if the angels posed this question, it was because they had previously witnessed beings performing such acts. No—without any precedent or prior instance, they could perceive that a being possessing various dimensions and aspects, in whom conflict and strife arise among these faculties, and in whom there exists the possibility of the faculties of lust, wrath, and imagination overcoming the rational faculty, would inevitably end up engaging in bloodshed, the shedding of blood, and corruption upon the earth. As it were, they wished to understand the rationale and necessity of this matter; that is, this was for greater awareness and knowledge concerning the human being. Some say that this was a framework for expressing this reality and was not an objection; for now, we have no need of these discussions here.

Question:

Professor: First, it is not at all clear how many years have passed since the creation of the Prophet Adam. Certainly, historians, chroniclers, and those who have written books concerning human civilization can offer an analysis on the basis of the very tools at their disposal or the evidence presented to them, and can, on the basis of conjecture and supposition, make certain statements. But none of these means that they existed before the Prophet Adam; it is fundamentally not at all clear how many years ago the creation of the Prophet Adam occurred. That refers to power and aptitude; “And He taught Adam the names—all of them” (وَعَلَّمَ آدَمَ الْأَسْمَاءَ كُلَّهَا)—as to what the meaning of “the names” is, there are several views: that those names were, for instance, applied to the Five People of the Cloak (Aṣḥāb al-Kisā’) and to the People of the House of infallibility and purity (peace be upon them); in one place the discussion is of the divine names, and in another, of these powers and capacities; these are reconcilable with one another, and one can reconcile them. But as for whether there were beings upon the earth before this Adam, or human beings, or, for instance, jinn, on account of whose conduct the angels posed this question—this is of no importance in this context. As I have stated, when the angels understood the constituent elements of this being, they naturally drew the conclusion that these would end up in the shedding of blood and bloodshed. To all appearances, it is thus. These beings are, in any case, more general than the human being; all the parts of this world glorify God and sanctify Him; their glorification and sanctification is creational, not legislative. If we wish to derive these from these narrations, it is from the standpoint that all the beings of this world are creationally drawn to the Exalted Truth, and they are naturally separate from the enemies of God and from whatever is incompatible with the path of guidance of this world. These can be reconciled by means of these interpretations; but as for there being beings who possess a religious law and for whom the matter of accountability, punishment, and reward is raised, we have nothing in the narrations to this effect.

In any case, this is one piece of evidence indicating that this itself was a dignity.

The Second Piece of Evidence

The second piece of evidence is Satan’s demand for a reason from God as to why he should prostrate before the human being: “You created me from fire and created him from clay” (خَلَقْتَنِي مِنْ نَارٍ وَخَلَقْتَهُ مِنْ طِينٍ)—I was created from fire and he from clay; why should I, whose substance of creation is more excellent, prostrate before a being whose substance of creation is baser? The very fact that Satan demanded a reason from God, the Exalted, shows that in the prostration before Adam there is a dignity bestowed on the part of God.

The Third Piece of Evidence

There are also one or two narrations indicating that prostration before the human being is an honoring of him, which I shall relate.

1. Imām al-Sajjād (peace be upon him), in a narration referring to this verse whose import is the angels’ prostration before the human being, states: The angels did not suppose that God, the Exalted, had honored another being, besides themselves, to this extent, for they thought that they were the treasury and storehouse of God and the closest of creatures to God: “We did not suppose that God would create a creature more honored by Him than us; we are the treasurers of God, His neighbors, and the closest of creation to Him.” (مَا كُنَّا نَظُنُّ أَنْ يَخْلُقَ اللَّهُ خَلْقاً أَكْرَمَ عَلَيْهِ مِنَّا نَحْنُ خُزَّانُ اللَّهِ وَ جِيرَانُهُ وَ أَقْرَبُ الْخَلْقِ إِلَيْهِ). But later they realized their own mistake. That is, an event had to occur so that they would understand that they are not the closest to God nor His treasurers.

2. In another narration related from Imām al-Riḍā (peace be upon him), he states: “And their prostration was, before God, the Exalted, an act of servitude, and before Adam, an honoring” (و كان سجودهم لله تعالى عبودية، و لآدم إكراما)—the prostration of the angels before God was out of servitude, but their prostration before Adam was out of honoring and esteeming.

Being the Object of Prostration: An Acquired Dignity, Not an Intrinsic One

In any case, this honoring and dignity is certain, and the human being has been the recipient of dignity; but this dignity is not intrinsic, but rather acquired. That is, when the superiority of the human being over the angels is established, and God, on this criterion, commands the angels to prostrate, it is clear which human being is closest to God. You have observed the narration as well, according to which the angels’ supposition was that they are the closest, but later they understood that there exists one closer to God than they; they thought that they themselves were the treasurers of God, but they saw that the treasurers of God are certain human beings who are more significant than they, such as to be the repositories of the divine secrets. This, in fact, does not pertain to all human beings; this has not been placed actually within the being of the human being; the prostration of the angels is before the human being with faith—the human being who has subdued his faculties of lust and wrath to his intellect; the human being whose rational faculty has gained dominance over his other animal faculties; this human being is the object of the angels’ prostration. We cannot say that all human beings, with any belief, conduct, and deed, are the object of the angels’ prostration; the human being who is drowned in lust, the human being who is immersed in wrath, the human being who lives by his vain imaginings—he cannot be the object of the angels’ prostration. The object of the angels’ prostration is one who is certainly more excellent than they. This does not pertain to all human beings; it is acquired and not intrinsic; it is not the case that all possess this dignity from the inception of creation. This is a dignity that the human being can come to possess; he has its aptitude and capacities.

Therefore, this instance, too, is not acceptable as an intrinsic dignity.