and this is the view adopted by Fakhr al-Rāzī in his "Tafsīr" (4/323), and it was supported by the scholar Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī in "Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ" (1/140-141). He said following Fakhr's statement: "Some of the investigators said: Indeed, the children of Adam are from his back, so all that is brought forth from their backs until the Day of Judgment are those whom Allāh brought forth in eternity from the loins of Adam, and took from them the eternal covenant to know that the progeny brought forth continuously from the loins of his children is the same as that brought forth in eternity from his loins, and from whom the first covenant was taken, which is the eternal verbal covenant, just as it was taken from them continuously in stages when the second covenant was brought forth, which is the current revealed covenant. In summary, since Allāh has two covenants with the children of Adam, one of which is guided by reason through the establishment of proofs leading to current acknowledgment, and the second is the verbal covenant which reason does not guide to, but rather depends on the instruction of one who is aware of the states of the servants from eternity to eternity, like the prophets (peace be upon them), He intended to teach the ummah and inform them that beyond the covenant they are guided to by their reason, there is another eternal covenant. He said what He said about wiping the back of Adam in eternity, bringing forth his progeny, and taking the covenant from them, and with this, many confusions are removed, so reflect upon it with true reflection." In conclusion, the ḥadīth is authentic, indeed it is mutawātir in meaning as previously mentioned, and there is no contradiction between it and the verse of taking the covenant. It is obligatory to combine them and take the truth from their entirety, which has become clear to you, God willing, from what I have conveyed to you from the words of the scholars. By this, we avoid two major problems, indeed two great corruptions: the first is rejecting the ḥadīth under the pretext of its contradiction with the verse. The other is interpreting it in a way that nullifies its meaning, similar to the interpretation of the innovators and the Muʿtazilah. How could it not be when they themselves denied the reality of the taking, witnessing, and the statement mentioned therein, claiming that it was expressed as a metaphor! It has greatly saddened me that figures like Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Kathīr followed them in this, contrary to what is known of them in refuting the innovators with interpretations far less than this. Protection is with Allāh alone