Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:35

"And We said, 'O Adam, dwell, you and your spouse, in the Paradise'" is a conjunction linked to "when We said," either by assuming the word "when" or without it, or it is linked to "We said." The time is extended and broad for both statements. Starting the discourse with a call serves to alert the one commanded to the order being delivered to him and to stir him for the address, as it is among those matters to which one should pay attention.

"Dwell" (uskun) is a command derived from sukna (residence), meaning the act of establishing a dwelling, not from sukoon (cessation of movement), as "wherever you both wish" apparently contradicts that. Mentioning its object without "in" is not because the place is indefinite.

"You" (anta) is an emphasis for the hidden pronoun in "dwell" (uskun). Its essential purpose is to validate the conjunction, for without it, the conjunction would be attached to a connected pronoun without a separator, which is forbidden in eloquent speech according to the correct view. The benefit of establishing the followed (antecedent) is intended secondarily. The conjunction is valid even though the conjoined does not have the imperative verb acting directly upon it, because it occurs as a subordinate, and what is not permissible for the followed is excused for the subordinate.

It is said: there is a "predominance" (taghlib)—the masculine predominates over the feminine, and the addressed over the absent. Since this predominance is metaphorical, and the meaning of "dwelling" and the command exist in both literally, the imperative is hidden. Thus, one must either commit to the idea that predominance can be a non-linguistic metaphor—such as metaphor in the attribution—or it is said that it is linguistic, because the imperative form here is for the addressed but has been used in a broader sense. To escape this, it is said: it is conjoined by assuming "let her dwell" (fa-li-taskun), but the issue is that it would then be a conjunction of a sentence to a sentence, so there would be no reason for the emphasis. The command may be for permission, like "hunt," or for obligation, just as the prohibition later is for prohibition. Choosing this over "dwell both" (uskuna) is to alert that he, peace be upon him, is the intended subject of the rule in all commands, and they are subordinate to him, just as they are in creation. For this reason, some researchers said: it is not correct to present "your spouse" without the conjunction as a noun in the accusative as an accompaniment (ma'iyyah).

"The Paradise" (al-Jannah) is, by common consensus, the abode of reward for the believers on the Day of Judgment, as it is the immediate meaning upon mention and because it was previously cited in the Chapter. The apparent evidences in the traditions indicate this, including what is in the Sahih regarding the debate between Adam and Moses, peace be upon them. Therefore, it is in the heaven where Allah, the Exalted, willed it to be.

The Mu'tazilah, Abu Muslim al-Isfahani, and others held that it was another garden created by Allah, the Exalted, as a trial for Adam, peace be upon him, and that it was an orchard on Earth between Fars and Kerman. Others said: in the land of Aden. Others said: in Palestine, a district in the Levant. They argued it was not the well-known Paradise and interpreted the "descent" as a transfer from one spot to another, as in "Go down to Egypt" (ihbitu misran), or they took it literally and allowed that it might be in a high place. They said: because there is no dispute that Allah created Adam on Earth, and it is not mentioned in the story that He transferred him to heaven; if He had, it would have been more deserving of mention. Also, because He, the Glorified, said regarding that Paradise and its people, "They will not hear therein ill speech or commission of sin—only a saying: 'Peace, peace'" and "There is no ill speech therein, nor any commission of sin," and "They shall not be expelled from it." Yet, Iblis reached them therein and lied, and Adam and Eve were expelled from it after having been admitted as residents, unlike the entry of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) on the night of the Mi'raj. Furthermore, the Garden of Eternity is an abode of pleasure and rest, not a place of obligation, yet Adam was obligated not to eat from the tree. Also, Iblis was among the disbelievers, and he entered it to whisper; if it were the Garden of Eternity, he would not have entered it, for the leading authorities stated that if a disbeliever were brought to the gate of Paradise, he would be torn apart and would not enter it, because he is darkness and it is light. His secret entry into Paradise, despite the discussion surrounding it, provides no benefit. Also, because it is a place of purification, so how is it appropriate for disobedience and opposition to occur therein, or for the unpurified to dwell there? Also, the first pregnancy of Eve was in Paradise according to some traditions, and it is not mentioned that such subtle food could generate the sperm of this dense body.

Committing to answer all this is not without strain. Committing to what is not necessary and what is in the realm of debate can be applied to this garden. The idea that applying it to what was mentioned runs the course of toying with religion and stubbornness against the consensus of Muslims is not accepted. It is said: it was in heaven, but it is not the abode of reward, rather it is the Garden of Eternity. It is said: it was something else. This is refuted by the fact that it is not proven there are orchards in heaven other than those of the known Paradise. The possibility that it was created then and vanished is something no fair-minded person would claim. Others say: all is possible, and Allah, the Exalted, is powerful over whatever He wills. Since the evidences are contradictory, the most cautious and safest approach is to refrain from determining its location or asserting it. To this, the author of al-Ta'wilat inclined.

The view held by some of our Sufi masters—may Allah sanctify their secrets—is that it is on Earth near the Mountain of Ruby under the equator. They call it the Paradise of the Barzakh (interspace), and it exists now, and the Gnostics enter it today with their spirits, not their bodies. Had they said it is the Garden of Refuge that appeared where Allah willed and as He willed, just as it appeared to our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) as mentioned in the Sahih upon the wall of the mosque, it would not have been far from their school of thought. If a speaker were to say this, I would say it too, but there are dangers in being singular in such matters.

Just as there is disagreement about that Paradise, there is disagreement about the time of the creation of his spouse, peace be upon them. Al-Suddi mentioned from Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Abbas, and a group of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) that when Allah drove Iblis from Paradise and placed Adam in it, he remained there alone and had no one to find comfort with. So Allah cast sleep upon him, then took a rib from his left side and placed flesh in its place, and created Eve from it. When he woke up, he found her sitting by his head. He asked her, "Who are you?" She said, "A woman." He said, "Why were you created?" She said, "So that you may find comfort in me." The angels, testing his knowledge, asked, "Who is this?" He said, "A woman." They said, "Why was she called a woman (imra'ah)?" He said, "Because she was created from a man (mar')." They asked, "What is her name?" He said, "Eve (Hawwa')." They said, "Why was she called Eve?" He said, "Because she was created from a living thing (hayy)."

Many have said—and I lean toward their view—that she was created before entering, and they entered together. The apparent meaning of the noble verse points to this, otherwise the command would have been addressed to a non-existent being, even if it were existent in the knowledge of Allah. Also, presenting "your spouse" before "the Paradise" has a kind of indication of this. In the proverb: "The companion before the road." Also, she is the dwelling of the heart, and Paradise is the dwelling of the body, and it is from wisdom to present the first before the second. The tradition of al-Suddi, despite the issues within it known to you, is countered by what is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both): "Allah sent an army of angels, and they carried Adam and Eve on a throne of gold as kings are carried, and their clothing was light, until they brought them into Paradise." This, as you can see, indicates her creation before entering Paradise.

"And eat therefrom in abundance wherever you both wish"—the genitive pronoun refers to the Paradise, with an elided noun, i.e., from its foods, such as fruits and others; so He did not forbid them anything except what is to come. The root of kula is u'kula with two hamzas; the first for connection and the second is the radical of the word, but the second was dropped due to the convergence of two similar letters—an irregular elision—and the first was given a vowel because the purpose was lost. It is said: both were dropped due to frequent usage. Raghad (abundance)—and al-Nakha'i read it with a quiescent ghayn—means the wholesome, in which there is no hardship, or the spacious. It is said: "The people's life became raghad"—and raghad with a kasra or damma on the ghayn means they were in spacious, abundant provision. "The people became arghada" means they were in prosperous times and became in a state of ease. Its accusative case is that it is an adjective for an elided source (masdar), i.e., "eat an eating of abundance." Ibn Kisan said: It is a state (hal), interpreted as "you two, being in ease and comfort."

"Where" (haythu) is an indefinite adverb of place that is strictly adverbial. Its declinability is a dialect of the Banu Faq'as. It is not an adverb of time, contrary to al-Akhfash; it does not take a jussive without "ma," contrary to al-Farra'; it is not added to a singular noun, contrary to al-Kisa'i; and one does not say "Zaid is haythu Omar," contrary to the Kufans. The three vowels alternate on its end along with the ya, waw, and alif. It is sometimes said hayth with rarity. Here, it is linked to "eat" (kula), and the intent is generality due to the context and the absence of a specifier, i.e., "any place in Paradise."

"You both wish" (shi'tuma)—and He permitted them to eat likewise as a removal of the excuse for partaking of what was forbidden. It is not made linked to "dwell" because the generality of the places is derived from making Paradise the object of it, even though the honor is in eating from everything he wants from it, not in not specifying the dwelling. Also, His saying, the Exalted, in another verse: "And eat therefrom where you both wish" necessitates what we have mentioned.

Likewise, His saying, the Exalted: "And do not approach this tree, lest you both be among the wrongdoers." The apparent meaning of this prohibition is prohibition (tahrim), and what is prohibited is eating from the tree, except that He, the Exalted, prohibited approaching it as an exaggeration. For this reason, He, the Majestic, made the disobedience resulting from the eating a consequence of approaching it, and He avoided "lest you sin" (fa-ta'thama) in favor of the expression "wrongdoing," which is applied to major sins. He did not suffice with saying "wrongdoers," but said "among the wrongdoers," based on what they mentioned: that saying "Zaid is among the learned" is more eloquent than "Zaid is learned," because it makes him drowned in knowledge from father to grandfather. If we say that "lest you be" (ta-kuna) indicates permanence, the exaggeration increases.

Some people said: la taqrab with a fatha on the ra' is a prohibition from becoming involved in the matter, and with a damma it means "do not draw near to it." Al-Jawhari said: qurba with a damma, yaqrubu, qurbanan, and qaribtuhu with a kasra, qurbanan, means I drew near to it. The ta in "the tree" is for individual unit identification, and this is what is appropriate for the position of removing excuses. It is permissible that the species is meant, and on both interpretations, lam is for the genus, as in al-Kashf.

There was a disagreement regarding this tree: it is said to be wheat, the date palm, the camphor tree (attributed to Ali, may Allah honor his face), the fig, the colocynth, the tree of love, or the tree of nature and desire. "It is said, and it is said." The best is not to be definitive or specific, just as Allah, the Exalted, did not specify it by name in the verse. I see no fruit in identifying this tree. It is said in it shajarah with a kasra on the shin, and shirah by substituting the jim with a ya, with the shin opened or kasra-ed, and some read with each. It is reported that Abu Amr disliked shirah, saying: "The laborers and blacks of Mecca read with it." The nature of this is not hidden. Shajar (tree) is what has a trunk, or everything that branches out into twigs and sticks, or is more general than that, due to His saying, the Exalted: "A tree of gourd," and His saying, the Exalted: "Lest you be"—either jussive by deleting the nun, conjoined to "approach," so it is forbidden, and kana is in its original meaning; or accusative as a response to the prohibition, like His saying, the Exalted: "And do not transgress therein, lest My wrath fall upon you." The accusative is by eliding an according to the Basrans, or by the fa itself according to al-Jarmi, or by disagreement according to the Kufans, and kana would then mean "become."

In any case, the causality of what preceded is understood from it being "among the wrongdoers," i.e., those who wronged themselves by committing the sin, or diminished their shares by engaging in what disturbs the honor and the bliss, or transgressed the limits of Allah, the Exalted. Perhaps the "approaching" that is prohibited, which is the cause of the wrongdoing that disrupts infallibility, is what is not accompanied by an excuse—such as forgetfulness here, for instance, indicated by His saying, the Exalted: "He forgot, and We did not find in him determination." Thus, it does not necessitate interpreting the prohibition as "prohibition" (tahrim), and the "wrongdoing," which is called by gradation, as the commission of sin, or the lack of infallibility of Adam, peace be upon him, due to the eating accompanied by forgetfulness, even if what followed resulted from it, considering that the good deeds of the righteous are the bad deeds of those brought near. The Master may address His servant as He wills. Yes, if that were not accompanied by an excuse, then its commission would have been disruptive, but proving this is like combing prickles. Thus, there is no evidence in this story for a lack of infallibility, nor is there a need to say that what occurred was before prophethood, not after, as the Mu'tazilah claim. The claim that his appearance with his knowledge of the names is a miracle for his prophethood at that time, and that the occurrence of sin before it is permissible according to most of the scholars—this is the view of Abu Hudhayl and Abu Ali from the Mu'tazilah—nor is there a need to interpret the prohibition as disapproval or the wrongdoing as a deficiency of share, for instance, a view many have committed to. Taqraba was read with a kasra on the ta', which is a dialect of the Hijazis. Ibn Muhaysin read hadhi with a ya.