Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:36

His causing them to slip—upon him be the curse—was through lying to them and swearing oaths to them, as God Almighty has narrated in His Book. Regarding the manner in which he reached this, there are various opinions:

• It is said: He entered the Garden to test Adam and Eve.
• It is said: He stood at the gate, called out to them, and corrupted their state.
• It is said: He manifested in the image of a beast and entered without the keepers recognizing him.
• It is said: He sent some of his followers to them.
• It is said: While they were strolling in the Garden, a peacock appeared to them on the wall of the Garden, which awed them. Eve approached it, followed by Adam, and he whispered to them from behind the wall.
• It is said: He used a serpent that scaled the Garden.

The story of the serpent is famous. Among our masters, the Sufis, the latter two indicate his approach: the first from the side of lust outside the Garden, and the second from the side of anger. Scaling the wall of the Garden is, in their view, an indication that anger is closer to the spiritual horizon and the realm of the heart than lust.

It is said: His approach to what he approached then is like his approach today to the humiliation and misguidance of whomever God Almighty wills. We know nothing of this except for the promptings and thoughts that lead to what they lead to. Many do not hold firmly to the idea of Satan entering the heart; rather, they find it inconceivable. This is why they said: The report that "Satan circulates within the son of Adam as blood circulates" is interpreted as a metonymy for his increased dominion over them and their compliance with him. It is as if I see you preferring this view. Abu Mansur said: "We do not have the right to investigate the manner of this, nor should we make a definitive statement without evidence," and this is the height of fairness.

Ibn Mas’ud—may God Almighty be pleased with him—read: (Fawaswasa lahuma al-shaytanu 'anha). The pronoun in this reading refers to the tree exclusively. Its return to the Garden—by incorporating the meaning of "removing"—is far-fetched.

(And brought them out from that which they were in): That is, from the bliss and honor, or from the Garden. The first interpretation follows the estimation that the pronoun in "from it" ('anha) refers to the tree or the Garden; the second is specific to the first estimation, so that the speech is not rendered redundant. It is said: He brought them out of their clothing that they were in, because when they ate, it fell away from them. There is an unmistakable grandeur in this expression.

(We said: "Descend, some of you to others as enemies"): Regarding al-hubut (descent), the middle vowel of the imperfect verb is both kasrah and damma. Al-Mufaddal said: It means exiting a city and entering it; it is one of the addad (words with opposite meanings). It is also said regarding a decline in status. Al-ba'd (some) is originally a verbal noun meaning "to cut," and it is applied to a part. It is like the word "all" in that it is associated with the genitive construction, either explicitly or implicitly; the definite article al- does not enter upon it, and the pronoun returns to it as singular or plural if a collection is intended. Al-'aduww (enemy) comes from enmity—transgression, distancing, or injustice. It is used for the masculine singular, and beyond that with a single form. Sometimes a'da' and aduwwah are said.

The address is to Adam and Eve, due to the Almighty’s saying: (We said: "Descend, both of you, from it together"). The incident is one, and the pronoun is pluralized because their descent leads to all of humanity. Since there is a degradation of rank in the command to descend, it did not open with a vocative call as the command for dwelling did. Al-Farra’ chose the view that it addresses them and their descendants; this involves addressing those who do not yet exist. It is reported from Ibn Abbas—may God be pleased with both of them—and Mujahid and many of the predecessors that it refers to them and Iblis. It has been objected that he exited before them, and the response is that the report tells of what He said to them separately, noting that there is no prevention of simultaneousness. It is said: They, and the serpent. It was objected that it [the serpent] is not tasked with duties; the response is that the command is existential (takwini).

The nominal sentence (some of you to others as enemies) is in the place of an accusative state (hal), intended for the future. The ruling is considered with respect to the offspring. If Iblis and the serpent are included, the matter is clearer. It is not a valid objection to ask how the command to be enemies can be given when it is forbidden, because we say that the focus is shifted away from the constraint: the enmity is natural, and natural matters are not subject to the obligation of duty. Or, if they are subject to duty, it is with respect to their causes. If the command is made existential, the problem disappears, although there is a distance in that. Some make the sentence a new beginning based on an implied question, fleeing from this inquiry, despite the debate surrounding the sufficiency of the pronoun instead of the waw in the circumstantial nominal sentence—so much so that Al-Farra’ considered it irregular. Even though the investigation is what some researchers have mentioned: that the circumstantial sentence is either from the cause of the subject of the state or extraneous. If it is from its cause, it requires a returner and the waw, such as: "Zayd came, and his father is leaving," except for irregularities like "I spoke to him, and his mouth is against my mouth." If it is extraneous, it requires the waw as a substitute for the returner. Sometimes both are combined... [The text concludes with grammatical discourse].

The singular form of "enemy" is either due to considering the word "some" (ba'd) or because its measure is that of a verbal noun like al-qubul (acceptance), and what preceded it is attached to it. The lam—as in [the book] Al-Bahr—is for strengthening. Abu Haywah read: (Uhbatu) with a damma on the ba’. This is a dialectal variant. Through this command, the previous command and prohibition were abrogated.

(And for you on the earth is a place of settlement and enjoyment for a time): By "the earth," he intended the place of the descent. It does not mean the specific location, which for Adam—peace be upon him—was a spot on Mount Serendib, for Eve a spot in Jeddah, for Iblis a spot in Ubulla, and for his female companion a spot in Nisibis, Isfahan, or Sistan. Mustaqarr (place of settlement) is a noun of place or a verbal noun (masdar mimi). It is possible, though remote, that it is a passive participle, meaning "that upon which your possession and activity are settled." More remote is the possibility that it is a noun of time. It is a subject, and its predicate is (for you), and in it is what is attached to what the preceding [phrase] was attached to. Al-mata' (enjoyment) is provision, taken from "the day reached mata'" when it rises. It is used for enjoyment that lasts for a period and is not restricted to what is trivial. Al-hin (time) is an amount of time, short or long; what is intended here is until the time of death, which is the Lesser Resurrection. It is said: Until the Day of the Greater Resurrection; on this view, the dwelling in the grave is considered enjoyment on the earth, or the address is made inclusive of Iblis, and the totality of the collection is intended. The prepositional phrase is attached to enjoyment, or it is said: to it and to settlement via competition [for governance of the word], or [as] bi-miqdar (in the amount of) which is an adjective for enjoyment. This sentence is like the one before it, both as an inception and as a circumstantial clause.