IMAM
Member
“He [Iblees] was one of the jinn; he disobeyed the Command of his Lord”[al-Kahf 18:50]
The apparent meaning is that the reason for his disobedience of his Lord was the fact that he was one of the jinn. The conjunction fa’ in the Arabic text [kaana min al-jinn fa-fasaqa ‘an amri Rabbihi] is indicative of the reason, as in the Arabic phrase saraqa fa quti’at yaduhu which means, “he stole, so his hand was cut off”, i.e., that was because he stole; or the phrase saha fa sajada which means, “he forgot so he prostrated”, i.e., that was because he forgot. The same pattern is seen in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):
“And (as for) the male thief and the female thief, cut off [fa-qta’u] (from the wrist joint) their (right) hands”
[al-Maa’idah 5:38]
i.e., because of their stealing.
Similarly, the phrase kaana min al-jinn fa-fasaqa (he was one of the jinn [so] he disobeyed…
means that this was because he was in essence one of the jinn, because this feature is what made him different from the angels, for they obeyed the command but he disobeyed. Because of the apparent meaning of this aayah, a number of scholars were of the opinion that Iblees was not originally one of the angels, rather he was one of the jinn, but he used to worship Allaah with them, so he was called by their name because he followed them, just as an ally of a tribe may be given their name. The dispute as to whether Iblees was originally an angel whom Allaah changed into a devil, or whether he was not originally an angel but was included in the word malaa’ikah (angels) because he had joined them and worshipped Allaah with them, is a well known dispute among the scholars. The evidence of those who say that he was not originally one of the angels is based on two things:
1 – The fact that angels are protected against committing kufr as was committed by Iblees, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“who disobey not, (from executing) the Commands they receive from Allaah, but do that which they are commanded”
[al-Tahreem 66:6]
“They speak not until He has spoken, and they act on His Command”[al-Anbiya’ 21:27]
2 – Allaah clearly states in this aayah [al-Kahf 18:50] that he was one of the jinn, and the jinn are not angels. They said: this is a Qur’aanic text concerning which there is some dispute.
…
Among those who stated that he was not originally one of the angels based on the apparent meaning of this aayah was-Hasan al-Basri, who was supported by al-Zamakhshaari in his Tafseer.
Al-Qurtubi said in his tafseer of Soorat al-Baqarah: “The idea that he was one of the angels is the view of the majority, Ibn ‘Abbaas, Ibn Mas’ood, Ibn Jurayj, Ibn al-Musayyib, Qutaadah and others. It is the view chosen by al-Shaykh Abu’l-Hasan and regarded as more correct by al-Tabari, and it is the apparent meaning of the phrase “except Iblees” [al-Kahf 18:50]
What the mufassireen have quoted from a group of the salaf, such as Ibn ‘Abbaas and others, that he was one of the noblest of the angels, one of the keepers of Paradise, and that he controlled the affairs of the first heaven, and that his name was ‘Azaazeel (Azazel) is all taken from the Israa’eeliyyaat (reports narrated from Jewish sources) and is not reliable.
The most clear evidence concerning this matter, the evidence cited by those who said that he was not an angel because of the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):
“He [Iblees] was one of the jinn; he disobeyed the Command of his Lord” [al-Kahf 18:50]
is the clearest text from the revelation that proves this point. And Allaah knows best.
The apparent meaning is that the reason for his disobedience of his Lord was the fact that he was one of the jinn. The conjunction fa’ in the Arabic text [kaana min al-jinn fa-fasaqa ‘an amri Rabbihi] is indicative of the reason, as in the Arabic phrase saraqa fa quti’at yaduhu which means, “he stole, so his hand was cut off”, i.e., that was because he stole; or the phrase saha fa sajada which means, “he forgot so he prostrated”, i.e., that was because he forgot. The same pattern is seen in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):
“And (as for) the male thief and the female thief, cut off [fa-qta’u] (from the wrist joint) their (right) hands”
[al-Maa’idah 5:38]
i.e., because of their stealing.
Similarly, the phrase kaana min al-jinn fa-fasaqa (he was one of the jinn [so] he disobeyed…
means that this was because he was in essence one of the jinn, because this feature is what made him different from the angels, for they obeyed the command but he disobeyed. Because of the apparent meaning of this aayah, a number of scholars were of the opinion that Iblees was not originally one of the angels, rather he was one of the jinn, but he used to worship Allaah with them, so he was called by their name because he followed them, just as an ally of a tribe may be given their name. The dispute as to whether Iblees was originally an angel whom Allaah changed into a devil, or whether he was not originally an angel but was included in the word malaa’ikah (angels) because he had joined them and worshipped Allaah with them, is a well known dispute among the scholars. The evidence of those who say that he was not originally one of the angels is based on two things: 1 – The fact that angels are protected against committing kufr as was committed by Iblees, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“who disobey not, (from executing) the Commands they receive from Allaah, but do that which they are commanded”
[al-Tahreem 66:6]
“They speak not until He has spoken, and they act on His Command”[al-Anbiya’ 21:27]
2 – Allaah clearly states in this aayah [al-Kahf 18:50] that he was one of the jinn, and the jinn are not angels. They said: this is a Qur’aanic text concerning which there is some dispute.
…
Among those who stated that he was not originally one of the angels based on the apparent meaning of this aayah was-Hasan al-Basri, who was supported by al-Zamakhshaari in his Tafseer.
Al-Qurtubi said in his tafseer of Soorat al-Baqarah: “The idea that he was one of the angels is the view of the majority, Ibn ‘Abbaas, Ibn Mas’ood, Ibn Jurayj, Ibn al-Musayyib, Qutaadah and others. It is the view chosen by al-Shaykh Abu’l-Hasan and regarded as more correct by al-Tabari, and it is the apparent meaning of the phrase “except Iblees” [al-Kahf 18:50]
What the mufassireen have quoted from a group of the salaf, such as Ibn ‘Abbaas and others, that he was one of the noblest of the angels, one of the keepers of Paradise, and that he controlled the affairs of the first heaven, and that his name was ‘Azaazeel (Azazel) is all taken from the Israa’eeliyyaat (reports narrated from Jewish sources) and is not reliable.
The most clear evidence concerning this matter, the evidence cited by those who said that he was not an angel because of the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):
“He [Iblees] was one of the jinn; he disobeyed the Command of his Lord” [al-Kahf 18:50]
is the clearest text from the revelation that proves this point. And Allaah knows best.
