This is also the view adopted by Fakhr al-Din al-Razi in his Tafsir (4/323), and endorsed by the eminent scholar Mulla Ali al-Qari in Mirqat al-Mafatih (1/140–141). After citing Fakhr al-Din’s words, he said:

“Some learned authorities have said: Adam’s descendants who came from his back—and all those brought forth from their backs successively until the Day of Resurrection—are the very ones whom Allah Most High brought forth from Adam’s loins in pre-eternity and from whom He took the pre-eternal covenant. This shows that the progeny successively brought forth from the loins of his descendants are those who were brought forth in pre-eternity from his loins and from whom He took the first covenant, namely, the pre-eternal verbal covenant. Likewise, He takes from them, successively as they are brought forth, the second covenant, namely, the present-state covenant associated with their descent into the world.

“In sum, Allah Most High has two covenants with Adam’s descendants. One is discerned by the intellects through the establishment of proofs that lead to their present acknowledgment; the other is the verbal covenant, which reason cannot independently discern, but depends upon authoritative information from one who knows the states of the servants from pre-eternity to eternity, such as the Prophets, peace and blessings be upon them. Thus, He willed to make the community know and inform them that beyond the covenant they can discern through their intellects, there is another, pre-eternal covenant. He therefore mentioned what He mentioned concerning His wiping Adam’s back in pre-eternity, bringing forth his progeny, and taking the covenant from them. In this way, many difficulties are removed. So reflect upon this most carefully.”

In brief, the hadith is authentic; indeed, as mentioned earlier, it is mass-transmitted in meaning. There is no contradiction between it and the verse concerning the taking of the covenant. Rather, it must be considered alongside that verse, and the true meaning must be derived from their combined evidence. This has, Allah willing, become clear to you from what I have cited from the words of the scholars. By this, we escape two problems—or rather, two grave corruptions:

The first is rejecting the hadith on the claim that it contradicts the verse.

The second is subjecting the verse to a figurative reinterpretation that nullifies its meaning, closely resembling the reinterpretation of the innovators and the Mu'tazilites. How could it not, when they themselves denied the reality of the taking of the covenant, the taking of testimony, and the speech mentioned in it, claiming that it was couched merely as an analogy? It grieved me deeply that scholars such as Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Kathir should follow them in this, contrary to what is well known of them: their refutations of the innovators for figurative reinterpretations far less serious than this. Infallibility belongs to Allah alone.