Tafsir of Ta-Ha 20:115

It is as if, when the Almighty praised the Qur’an, urged the adoption of patience and gentleness in receiving it, and commanded steadfastness in its mandates and the avoidance of negligence regarding it, He set forth the story of Adam as a parable for negligence and the abandonment of steadfastness. Ibn ‘Atiyyah mentioned that this serves as an additional warning to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) against haste and the lack of patience, so that he might not fall into what is improper, just as Adam (peace be upon him) fell. Thus, the speech is linked to His saying, "And do not hasten with the Qur’an," and so on.

Al-Zamakhshari said: It is a conjunctive clause linked to "We have turned/distributed," [joining] the narrative to the narrative. The difference in style—between the imperative and the declarative—does not matter, especially since the intended purpose of this conjunction is [to function as] the answer to an oath. The gist of the meaning according to this interpretation is: We have presented the warning and repeated it so that they might fear God or that it might provide a reminder for them, yet they paid no heed to it and forgot it, just as their forefather paid no heed to the warning and forgot the covenant made to him. The benefit of this is to indicate that their opposition is a hereditary disposition (shanashin akhzamiyyah), that their affair is fundamentally based on this, and that their roots are deeply embedded in it. A similar view is narrated from al-Tabari.

Ibn ‘Atiyyah objected to this, labeling it weak because it contains a slight to the station of Adam (peace be upon him) by making his story a parable for those who deny the signs of Allah, whereas what occurred from him (peace be upon him) was based on an interpretation (ta’wil). However, fairness dictates its elegance, so do not pay attention to what was said regarding its being problematic.

Abu Muslim said: It is a conjunctive clause to His saying, "Likewise, We relate to you of the news of what has passed." Yet this is not compelling. Yes, it does contain—along with what preceded—the fulfillment of the promise made in that verse. Ibn ‘Atiyyah favored one of two things: either linking it to "do not hasten," or considering it the beginning of a new discourse with no link to what preceded it. The latter, although he prioritized it in his text, arises from a narrowness of perspective, as is evident.

Al-‘Ahd (the covenant) means al-wasiyyah (the testament/command). It is said: "He entrusted to him" (‘ahida ilayhi), meaning he commanded him and charged him. The thing covenanted is omitted, indicated by what follows. The lam functions as the response to an omitted oath; meaning: "And I swear by Allah, We commanded him and charged him."

"From before," meaning: before this time. It is also said: before the existence of these opposers. According to al-Hasan, it means: before the revelation of the Qur’an. It is also said: before he ate from the tree.

"And he forgot," meaning the covenant; he did not concern himself with it, nor did he preoccupy himself with safeguarding it until he became negligent of it. The reproach came from the abandonment of concern, and one of his status (peace be upon him) is held accountable for such a thing. Ibn ‘Abbas and al-Hasan state that the meaning is: he abandoned what he was commanded regarding the caution against the tree and ate its fruit. Thus, "forgetting" is a metaphor for "abandoning." The fa (in fanasiya) is for sequence; it is conventional. It is also said: it is fasihah (explanatory), meaning: he did not concern himself with it, so he forgot. The object is omitted, and it is what we have indicated. Others say the "forgotten" thing was the warning regarding exiting the Garden if he ate; others say it was His saying, "Indeed, this is an enemy to you and your wife"; and others say it was the inference that the prohibition was regarding the category, not the specific individual. The most apparent meaning is what we have indicated.

Al-Yamani and al-A‘mash read fannasa (with a shaddah on the sin), meaning: Satan made him forget.

"And We did not find in him ‘azman," meaning: resolve, a firm view, and steadfastness of foot in matters. This applies to both interpretations of "forgetting." Yes, it has been said that it is more suitable to the second interpretation and more consistent with the context of the verse according to what we mentioned first. A group narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas and Qatadah that the meaning is: We did not find in him patience against eating from the tree. Ibn Zayd and a group stated that the meaning is: We did not find in him a resolve for sin; for he (peace be upon him) erred and did not intend it. This is the view of those who say that the "forgetting" is in its literal sense.

There is a narration from Ibn ‘Abbas that necessitates this; al-Zubayr ibn Bakkar recorded in al-Muwaffaqiyat that he said: ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said to me: "This companion of yours—meaning ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah honor his face)—if he were in charge, he would be ascetic, but I fear his own pride would lead him away." I said: "O Commander of the Faithful, our companion is who you know; by Allah, we do not say he changed, nor replaced, nor angered the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) during the days of his companionship." He said: "Not even regarding the daughter of Abu Jahl?" (referring to his intention to propose to her over Fatimah). I said: "Allah says regarding the disobedience of Adam (peace be upon him), 'And We did not find in him ‘azman.' So our companion did not resolve (‘azama) to anger the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), but these were impulses that no one can repel from himself. Perhaps it comes from the scholar in the religion of Allah, the one knowledgeable of the command of Allah—when he is reminded of it, he returns and repents." He said: "O son of ‘Abbas, whoever thinks that he can return to the seas you have dived into, until he reaches their bottom, has thought in vain."

However, it is not hidden from you that this interpretation is not the first to come to mind, nor does it have much relevance to the context. The gist of "We did not find..." is that he forgot, so it repeats what preceded it.

Furthermore, if "We did not find" is from the experiential wujud (finding/discovery), then ‘azman is the object, with the second being placed before the first because it is a zarf (adverbial expression). If it is from wujud as opposed to non-existence, as some have chosen, then it has a [prepositional] phrase linked to it, placed before its object for reasons mentioned more than once, or it is linked to an omitted [state] acting as an adjective for its indefinite object. The meaning in this case is: We did not encounter any resolve in him.