Jurisprudential Rules (The Rule of Dignity)

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

Session Twenty-Five

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: 5. Knowledge of the Names – The Meaning of the Divine Name – The Categories of the Divine Name – The Proofs for the Exclusivity of This Knowledge to the Human Being – The Meaning of the Teaching of the Names – Examining the Intrinsic Nature of the Dignity of Knowledge of the Names

January 25, 2025

5. Knowledge of the Names

Of the second category of matters that have been raised, or may be raised, as a foundation for intrinsic dignity, one matter remains, namely knowledge of the names. Let us briefly offer an explanation concerning this topic and then consider whether this is a dignity exclusive to the human being or not; whether it is considered a dignity at all or not; and whether it is an intrinsic dignity or not.

In certain Qur’anic verses, reference is made to the teaching of the divine names, among them verse 31 of Sūrat al-Baqarah: “And He taught Adam the names—all of them.” (وَعَلَّمَ آدَمَ الْأَسْمَاءَ كُلَّهَا)—that God, the Blessed and Exalted, taught all the names to Adam. Concerning the verse “He created the human being * [and] taught him eloquence” (خَلَقَ الْإِنْسَانَ * عَلَّمَهُ الْبَيَانَ), some—including the late Imām [Khomeini], in his gloss on al-Fawā’id—have stated that what is meant by “eloquence” (bayān) is the named referents (musammā) of the names that God, the Exalted, taught to our father, the Prophet Adam; that is, “eloquence,” in the view of some, is the very names, and this verse refers to this very meaning. Now, what is meant by “And He taught Adam the names—all of them” (وَعَلَّمَ آدَمَ الْأَسْمَاءَ كُلَّهَا)? Is this an ennobling and honoring on the part of God? Does this pertain to the human being qua human being, such that the human being—irrespective of any belief, color, race, and religion—has been honored with this dignity, or is it specific to certain human beings? Or does the human being fundamentally possess the aptitude to acquire this knowledge? This is the very principal question that we must explain.

In order to understand knowledge of the names well and to grasp whether this dignity belongs to the human being or not, we must offer an explanation concerning the divine names and the knowledge thereof, and define and interpret this, so that we may then be able to answer this question.

The Meaning of the Divine Name

The divine name, according to the definition that the mystics (ʿurafā’) have given—and with the disagreement that exists among them—is, in brief, the Essence or a particular attribute among the attributes and a manifestation among the manifestations; if God, the Exalted, manifests by a particular attribute, a name among the names comes into being. For instance, from God’s manifestation by His vast mercy, the name “al-Raḥmān” arises; from His manifestation by His particular mercy, the name “al-Raḥīm”; from the manifestation of the Exalted Truth by the attribute of vengeance, the name “al-Muntaqim” appears. Thus, the name is the Essence that has become determined by a particular determination and has become the source of an effect. Hence, the divine names are the manifestations of the Essence of the Truth and Its existential appearances.

The difference between the divine name and attribute and the Essence or named referent is this: existence without any determination whatsoever is the Essence or named referent; existence conditioned by determination is the name; and the determination itself is called the attribute. This is the difference between the name, the Essence, and the attribute.

The Categories of the Divine Name

On this basis, the names are divided into several categories: the name of the Essence, the name of the attribute, and the name of the act; that is, we have names of the Essence (asmā’ al-dhāt), names of the attributes (asmā’ al-ṣifāt), and names of the acts (asmā’ al-afʿāl). Their brief definitions are as follows:

The names whose indication of the Essence is more apparent are called the names of the Essence; such as al-Quddūs, al-Subbūḥ, al-Awwal, al-Ākhir.
The names whose indication of the attributes is more apparent are called the names of the attributes; such as al-ʿĀlim, al-Qādir, al-Samīʿ.
The names whose indication of the acts is more apparent are called the names of the acts; such as al-Wakīl, al-Bāʿith, al-Mujīb, al-Khāliq. Thus, we have a set of names, all of which are regarded as divine names: the name of the Essence, the name of the attribute, and the name of the act.

The Meaning of “And He Taught Adam the Names—All of Them”

Now, the discussion is on what “And He taught Adam the names—all of them” (وَعَلَّمَ آدَمَ الْأَسْمَاءَ كُلَّهَا) means. Here, certain possibilities have been mentioned; several possibilities have been cited.

One possibility is that God, the Blessed and Exalted, taught the divine names to Adam; this itself involves an important discussion as to what the teaching of the divine names to the human being means; for whatever it may be, this is the secret and mystery of the human being’s vicegerency; that God appointed him as a divine successor—all of this reverts to these very names. For when God, in verse 30 of Sūrat al-Baqarah, stated “Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority” (إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الْأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً), the angels gave voice to objection, saying: You wish to create one who is such-and-such, who engages in the shedding of blood and bloodshed; God stated: I know something that you do not know. Then He alluded: Did I not tell you that I know better the unseen of the heavens and the earth? It is said that this “unseen” refers to those very names, not to Adam’s knowledge of the names. For the angels had no awareness whatsoever of that unseen; the angels had no awareness of the reality of the names—not that they had no awareness of Adam’s knowledge of the names; they had no awareness whatsoever of that unseen. Then He also says that this unseen was not manifest to anyone: “And there is not a thing but that with Us are its depositories” (وَإِنْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ إِلَّا عِنْدَنَا خَزَائِنُهُ)—no being had any awareness or knowledge of this unseen and of those depositories. Here, when the angels said that Adam was not worthy of vicegerency, the matter of the names was raised; God said to the angels: “He said, ‘Inform Me of the names of these'” (فَقَالَ أَنْبِئُونِي بِأَسْمَاءِ هَؤُلَاءِ); they professed ignorance and said: We do not know. When He said to Adam, “Inform [them] of the names,” he informed [them]. That is, He, in a sense, demonstrated and proclaimed to the angels Adam’s worthiness and merit for this station.

The Proofs for the Exclusivity of This Knowledge to the Human Being

This knowledge of the names is not of the genus of our knowledge—that is, this very acquired knowledge (ʿilm ḥuṣūlī); there are things we do not know and of which we then become aware; the forms of things are imprinted in our minds, and this constitutes acquired knowledge. The angels did not know; God, the Blessed and Exalted, taught the human being. Is what is meant that God taught Adam—that is, that they acquired awareness in this same manner, and then, when He said to Adam, “Teach the angels these names,” the angels too acquired awareness? This is not an advantage and nobility for Adam relative to the angels. Whereas God wishes to express an advantage; this is an honoring; an honoring that is certainly specific to the human being and does not include the angels as well.

The first proof: If what is meant is that this knowledge and awareness was attained for the human being, and then also for the angels, then this knowledge has, in any case, been attained for both Adam and the angels. The difference is only this: that the teacher of Adam is God, and the teacher of the angels is Adam; if knowledge is in this sense (that is, awareness and this very knowledge that is attained for us concerning matters), this was realized through Adam’s informing, and then was equalized with the human being [i.e., the angels became equal]; there is only one difference, which I have also mentioned, namely that Adam received this knowledge from God without intermediary, whereas the angels received it through an intermediary; otherwise, they later became equal. What advantage and ennobling is this considered for the human being?

The late ʿAllāma [Ṭabāṭabā’ī] here adduces several proofs that Adam’s knowledge of the names is not of the genus of our knowledge.

The second proof: Another proof is that, had it been thus, the angels would not have been satisfied merely by Adam’s possessing knowledge of these names, and their argument would not have been invalidated. They had, after all, another argument; God, in response to their argument, stated: I know something that you do not know; for instance, Adam possesses such knowledge, and He taught the names to Adam. If this were the case, what advantage would knowing a set of matters, terms, and words create for the human being? Can this truly bring about the human being’s nobility over the angels? The angels had attained the station of submission and compliance before God without these words and without these terms; the human being was not so. That He should accumulate a set of words, terms, and expressions in the mind of the human being is not truly considered an advantage. The angels fundamentally had no need of this; words, terms, and expressions are for understanding the intentions of the speaker; the angels were acquainted with and had comprehensive grasp of matters without need of these words, terms, and names. Therefore, neither is knowledge of the names of the genus of knowledge of other matters, nor are the names the name in the conventional sense and particular words and terms; this is certainly not the case. Thus, it must have another meaning. To say that God taught the human being language, words, and names does not bring about the human being’s dignity; this does not become exclusive to the human being and is of no importance. After all, without these names, the angels had access to the purpose that the coining of names pursues; this is considered no advantage whatsoever.

The Meaning of the Teaching of the Names

Therefore, all of this shows that this knowledge was of another genus; this knowledge, according to this verse, was knowledge of the names; and it becomes clear that knowledge of the names was possible only for Adam and was not possible for the angels. For this very reason, God said to the angels, “Indeed, I know that which you do not know” (إِنِّي أَعْلَمُ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ); it was on this account that he attained worthiness for the station of vicegerency; were it not for knowledge of the names, worthiness for vicegerency would not have been attained for the human being either.

In any case, the important point is that the secret and mystery of vicegerency is this very knowledge of the names; the angels did not possess this worthiness; these names are certainly not words and terms; the teacher of these names was God Himself. What the human being received from God was something that is not of the genus of this [acquired] knowledge; it is not that the human being acquired a set of pieces of awareness; these names are not at all of the genus of awareness. That knowledge which God placed within the being of the human being is the realities of the names in their requisites; this is the very expression of the late Imām [Khomeini]: “the realities of the names in their requisites—of grace, affection, mercy, wrath, guidance, misguidance, manifestation and concealment, and many other matters; He deposited these within the being of the human being; and what is meant by ‘teaching’ is depositing them within his constitution and their being latent within his clay.” Thus, “And He taught Adam the names—all of them” (وَعَلَّمَ آدَمَ الْأَسْمَاءَ كُلَّهَا), in light of the meaning we gave for “name,” means, in fact, the manifestations of the Exalted Truth by a particular attribute. Had God wished to manifest, He would have manifested by a particular attribute or by a particular name. The names of God mean these very manifestations. Now, we named several attributes: grace, affection, love, wrath; when all of these are to manifest, that which becomes manifest and determined becomes a name. God, the Exalted, deposited the realities of these within the being of the Prophet Adam; He placed them within his constitution and within his clay. The expression of the Imām is: He deposited these realities within the Perfect Human Being. “He taught Adam the names” means that God deposited those names (to which I have made a brief reference and which I have explained)—His grace, His wrath, His guidance, His affection, His manifestation, His concealment, His vengeance, whatever is raised as a name, every manifestation among the manifestations of God that can be deposited within a contingent being—within the Perfect Human Being. “He taught Adam the names—all of them”—this was the very reality that the angels did not have the possibility of receiving; therefore, God said to Adam: Inform the angels; He did not say, “Teach”; inform the angels of what this is; He did not say, “Teach”; for teaching was specific to the human being. God Himself taught the names to Adam; teaching means that He deposited them; He deposited them within his clay; that is, He created this human being with this constitution—however, He created the Perfect Human Being with this constitution.

This knowledge is specific to the Perfect Human Being; it is specific to the prophets, the saints, and the Infallible Imāms (peace be upon them). With this interpretation that we offer of the names, this is specific to the Perfect Human Being, who is the locus of manifestation, or himself is a manifestation among the manifestations of God. For these attributes have gathered together within him; therefore, he becomes the successor of God, becomes the appearance of God upon the earth, and there is no possibility of its attainment for the angels. Here He says to Adam: Inform the angels of those names; inform them; report to them; that which is attained for the angels—the informing thereof is that teaching.

This is the interpretation of this verse that is derived from the totality of the words of the mystics and the great scholars. ʿAllāma [Ṭabāṭabā’ī], too—who here took the names to mean the universal guardianship—is not unrelated to it.

Examining the Intrinsic Nature of the Dignity of Knowledge of the Names

The conclusion is that “He taught Adam the names—all of them” is an advantage and a dignity—of course, not for all human beings, but rather for particular human beings. Therefore, this is not considered an intrinsic dignity.

Someone might reduce this to the primordial nature (fiṭra); “He taught Adam the names—all of them” might be construed as the primordial nature. If someone says that what is meant is the primordial nature—that is, that God placed this primordial nature for the human being—this reverts to that matter we stated previously; again, this is not considered an independent matter.

If someone construes the names as religious obligations and obligatory duties, again this reverts to those very previous discussions. Here, in any case, the interpretations of the names differ; it has been said that they are the cosmic realities (al-ḥaqā’iq al-kawniyya), the realities of beings. In any case, various meanings have been stated here for the names.

In our view, the very meaning we stated for the names is truly comprehensive, defensible, and consistent with the Qur’anic verses, and it can be cited as a dignity for the human being. As I have noted, this is not an intrinsic dignity; for it is not for all human beings and is specific to Perfect Human Beings; although the ground and aptitude for moving toward this summit exist in all human beings. Even if that aptitude exists, it is still not an intrinsic dignity and becomes acquired; that is, the human being possesses the aptitude to attain the station of divine vicegerency. After all, what does divine vicegerency mean? The human being possesses the aptitude for the divine names to be made manifest within his being; however, it has degrees. The Perfect Human Being is the highest level of the appearance and manifestation of the divine names; other human beings are at lower levels. That is, even a single instance of affection and love can be an appearance among the divine manifestations; we are accumulations of various matters. Sometimes a single appearance and divine attribute manifests within us to the extent of the light of a candle; sometimes, too, satanic manifestations have appearance and emergence within us. The more complete and comprehensive these become, the greater, naturally, the human being’s nearness to the Exalted Truth. The angels do not possess this aptitude; each of the angels is the manifestation of one name among the divine names. The angels cannot be comprehensive.

Therefore, this matter is not acceptable as an intrinsic dignity; although it is a dignity and an honoring for the Perfect Human Being.

If we take the names to mean the universal guardianship or vicegerency, that too is, again, an aptitude; that is, the human being possesses the aptitude to come to partake of this guardianship, or to come under the divine guardianship, or to attain the station of vicegerency. This too is not an intrinsic dignity; yes, all possess the aptitude, but his attaining vicegerency or guardianship is not an intrinsic dignity and is an acquired dignity; for he does not possess vicegerency at present; he can become a successor, he can become a guardian (walī) of God. Therefore, it is not an intrinsic dignity and is an acquired dignity.

Question:

Professor: It cannot find manifestation in a particular attribute. There, it is not a manifestation in a particular attribute. Here it has been said… This discussion exists, and the narrations also bear this out: that these realities were offered to the angels as well, and they understood nothing of them. Here they have discussed the named referents of these names; some have said that they were living, rational beings whom God offered to the angels, and which were preserved in the divine unseen; that is, from those very depositories of which no one had any awareness, save God Himself; the angels too had no awareness of them.