Tafsir of Ta-Ha 20:121

"Then they both ate from it, and so their shame became apparent to them."

"Then they both ate"—meaning he and his wife—"from it"—meaning from the tree which the accursed one named 'The Tree of Eternity.' "And so their shame became apparent to them"—Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) said: They were stripped of the light that Allah the Exalted had clothed them with, until their private parts became visible. In another narration from him, it is said that their clothing was [in the form of] nails; when they committed the sin, it was stripped from them, and these remnants were left only at the tips of their fingers. Allah the Exalted knows best the truth of that. Furthermore, what has been mentioned may be a punishment for the act of eating, or it may be a consequence arranged for another wisdom.

"And they began to fasten upon themselves from the leaves of Paradise"—its interpretation has already passed.

"And Adam disobeyed his Lord"—by the aforementioned act of eating from the tree—"and he erred."

This means he strayed from his objective, which was eternity, or from what was required of him—abstaining from the tree—or he strayed from guidance, as he was deceived by the words of the enemy. It is also said that ghawa (erred) means his life was spoiled for him; from this comes the expression al-ghawa used for poor breastfeeding. It has been recited as fa-ghawa with a fatha on the ghayn, a kasra on the waw, and a fatha on the ya, meaning he became bloated from excessive eating, derived from the phrase "the young camel became ghawa," meaning it became overfilled from milk. The other recitation has been explained in this way. Al-Zamakhshari criticized this, saying: "Even if this is correct according to the dialect of those who turn the ya (when preceded by a kasra) into an alif—saying fana and baqa for faniya and baqiya, who are the tribe of Tayy—it is a despicable interpretation."

The outward meaning of the verse indicates that what occurred was among the major sins, which is what is understood from the Imam’s [Fakhr al-Din al-Razi] speech. If this took place after the Prophethood intentionally, without forgetfulness or interpretation, it would conflict with what the verifiers and the mastered Imams have agreed upon: the necessity of the Prophets (peace be upon them) being infallible after their commission, regarding the commission of such acts in that manner. None would hold such a view except the Azariqa sect of the Khawarij—upon them is what they deserve—for they permitted disbelief for them, and anything less than that is more worthy of being permitted.

If it occurred before the Prophethood, as a group has stated—and the Imam said: "It is our school"—then if it were intentional, it would conflict with the view of the majority of the Mu'tazila and the Shia regarding their infallibility against committing such things intentionally even before Prophethood. Yes, there is no conflict in this according to what Judge Abu Bakr said: that it is not impossible, rationally or scripturally, for a sin to occur from a Prophet (peace be upon him) before his Prophethood, absolutely. Indeed, it is not even rationally impossible for one who was a Muslim after having been a disbeliever to be sent as a messenger. Al-Amidi agreed with this in Abkar al-Afkar, as did most of the scholars and many of the Mu'tazila.

If it were by forgetfulness—as indicated by His saying, "And he forgot, and We did not find in him determination"—based on one of the two opinions regarding it, it would conflict with what is reported from the Shia, who deny the occurrence of major sins even by forgetfulness before Prophethood. Yet, there is no conflict in this according to what you heard from Judge Abu Bakr.

If it were after Prophethood by forgetfulness, it is also a matter of dispute among some. 'Adud al-Milla said in al-Mawaqif that the majority permitted the occurrence of major sins—meaning those other than disbelief and lying, in matters where a miracle has proven their truthfulness—by forgetfulness or by way of error on their part. The scholar Al-Sharif [al-Jurjani] said the opposite is the preferred view. Many have taken the position that what occurred was a minor sin, and the matter is light in that case, for minor sins—provided they do not imply baseness—are permitted to occur from them (peace be upon them) intentionally after Prophethood, according to the majority, contrary to Al-Jubba'i and his followers. It is permitted for them to occur by forgetfulness by consensus, but the verifiers stipulated that they be reminded of it so they may desist. Yes, it is mentioned in Sharh al-Maqasid that they are infallible against committing such things intentionally.

The safest course, considering the station of Adam (peace be upon him), is to say that the occurrence of what was mentioned from him was before his Prophethood, and it was either by forgetfulness or by interpretation. However, the matter was grave for him and appeared grave in his sight, considering his high status and the increase of Allah’s grace and benevolence upon him. It has become common that "the good deeds of the righteous are the evil deeds of those drawn near." Among what indicates his own viewing of this as grave due to his high station (peace be upon him) is what Al-Bayhaqi recorded in Shu'ab al-Iman from Abu Abdullah al-Maghribi, who said: "Ibrahim reflected on the affair of Adam (peace be upon them both) and said: 'O Lord, You created him with Your hand, blew into him of Your spirit, and made Your angels prostrate to him, then for a single sin You filled the mouths of people with the mention of his disobedience?' So Allah the Exalted revealed to him: 'O Ibrahim, do you not know that opposing the Beloved is hard upon the Beloved?'"

Some mentioned that in his (peace be upon him) viewing of it as grave, there is a profound warning to his descendants against such things. In any case, it is not befitting for anyone to attribute disobedience to him today, nor to report that, unless one is reciting what contains it or narrating it from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). As for initiating it from oneself, it should not be done. Judge Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi explicitly stated that it is not permissible to attribute disobedience to the fathers who are close to us and resemble us, so how can it be permissible to attribute it to the Prophets, the ancient ones and the foremost, noble Prophet? Al-Qurtubi approved of this and claimed that initiating reports about something of the ambiguous attributes of Allah the Exalted—like the Hand, the Finger, and the Descent—is more worthy of prohibition and lack of permission.

Furthermore, what occurred was, in reality, purely by the decree and predestination of Allah the Exalted. Otherwise, it is narrated from Abu Umama al-Bahili and Al-Hasan that his intellect (peace be upon him) was like the intellect of all his children, and the enmity of Iblis—may he be cursed—toward him (peace be upon him) was at the height of clarity. In that is evidence that no intellect is of benefit, and nothing avails against the decree and predestination of Allah the Exalted.