Al-Baqarah: (35) And We said, "O Adam..."

The First Issue: Command of Dwelling

There is a difference of opinion regarding whether the command { اسكن } (Dwell) was a command of obligation (taklīf) or permission (ibāḥah).

• View 1 (Based on Qatādah): God tested Adam by commanding him to dwell in Paradise, just as He tested the angels with prostration. He commanded him to live in Paradise, eat whatever he wished, but forbade him from one specific tree. This prohibition remained a trial until he fell into what he was forbidden from. Consequently, his private parts became apparent, and he was expelled from Paradise to a place where he would desire things but be prevented from obtaining them—which is considered one of the severest forms of obligation.
• View 2: It was a permission (ibāḥah). Settling in pleasant, beautiful places for enjoyment falls under acts of worship (ta‘abbud), just as eating good things does not constitute an obligation, but rather permission (as in the verse: {Eat of the good things which We have provided for you} [Al-A'rāf: 16]).
• The Sounder View: The dwelling encompassed both permission and obligation.
  • Permission: The Prophet (peace be upon him) was permitted to benefit from all the bounties of Paradise.
  • Obligation: The forbidden item was present, and he was prohibited from approaching it.
• Analogy: If someone says to another, "I have settled you in my house," it does not make the house his property. Similarly, God did not say, "I have gifted you Paradise," but rather, "I have settled you in it." This was done because God created him for the vicegerency of the Earth, making the dwelling in Paradise a prelude to that.

The Second Issue: Creation of the Spouse

After God commanded all to prostrate to Adam, and Iblīs refused, God cursed him. Then God commanded Adam to dwell in Paradise with his wife. There is a difference of opinion regarding when his wife was created:

• View 1 (Narrated from Al-Suddī, citing Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn Mas‘ūd, and others): After Iblīs was expelled and Adam was settled in Paradise alone, God caused him to sleep. He then took a rib from his left side, replaced the space with flesh, and created Ḥawwā’ (Eve) from it. When Adam awoke, he found a woman sitting by his head. He asked her, "Who are you?" She replied, "A woman." He asked, "Why were you created?" She replied, "To find tranquility with me." The angels asked, "What is her name?" They replied, "Ḥawwā’." Why is she called Ḥawwā’? Because she was created from something living (ḥayy).
• View 2 (Narrated from ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbās): God sent a host of angels who carried Adam and his wife on a golden couch, like kings. They were clothed in light, each wearing a crown studded with rubies and pearls. Adam had a girdle studded with pearls and rubies. They were brought into Paradise in this manner. This narration suggests Ḥawwā’ was created before Adam entered Paradise.

The first report suggests she was created in Paradise. God knows the reality best.

The Third Issue: Identity of the Spouse

There is consensus that the "wife" mentioned refers to Ḥawwā’, even though she was not explicitly named earlier in this Sūrah or elsewhere in the Qur’an. The text confirms she was created from him, as stated in An-Nisā’: {Who created you from one soul, and from it created its mate} (An-Nisā’: 1), and in Al-A‘rāf: {And from it He created its mate, that he might find tranquility in her} (Al-A‘rāf: 189).

• Hadith: Al-Ḥasan narrated from the Messenger of God (PBUH) that he said: "Woman was created from a rib. If you try to set it straight, you will break it; but if you leave it, you will benefit from it while it remains crooked."

The Fourth Issue: Location of Paradise

There is a difference of opinion regarding the Paradise mentioned in this verse: Was it on Earth or in Heaven? If it was in Heaven, was it the final abode of reward (Jannat al-Khuld) or another Paradise?

• View 1 (Abū Al-Qāsim Al-Balkhī and Abū Muslim Al-Iṣfahānī): This Paradise was on Earth. They interpret the descent (ihbāṭ) as a mere transition from one location to another, similar to {Go down to a city} (Al-Baqarah: 61).
  • Arguments:
    1. If it were the final abode, Adam would not have been deceived by Iblīs’s words: {Shall I direct you to the Tree of Eternity and a kingdom that will never decay?} (Ṭā-Hā: 120), nor would the verse {Your Lord forbade you this tree only lest you become angels or become among those who abide eternally} (Al-A‘rāf: 20) be valid.
    2. Those who enter the final abode do not leave, as stated: {And they will not be expelled from it} (Al-Ḥijr: 48).
    3. Since Iblīs was cursed for refusing to prostrate, he could not have reached the eternal Paradise while under God's wrath.
    4. The delights of the final abode do not cease (e.g., {Its fruit and its shade are perpetual} [Ar-Ra‘d: 35]; {an unending gift} [Hūd: 108]). This Paradise, however, was perishable, as {Everything will perish except His Face} (Al-Qaṣaṣ: 88), and Adam was expelled from it, ending those comforts.
    5. It is inconsistent with God’s wisdom to create beings in an eternal abode without prior deeds, as God does not give the reward of workers to those who have not worked. Furthermore, God does not leave His servants without motivation through promises, threats, warnings, and admonitions.
    6. It is undisputed that Adam was created on Earth, and the story does not mention him being transported to Heaven. If he had been transported to Heaven, it would have been a greater blessing worthy of mention, implying it did not happen. Therefore, the Paradise mentioned is another one, not the eternal one.

• View 2 (Al-Jubbā’ī): That Paradise was in the Seventh Heaven. The evidence is the command to descend ({اهبطوا}), implying the first descent was from the Seventh Heaven to the First Heaven, and the second descent was from Heaven to Earth.

• View 3 (The Majority of our Companions): This Paradise is the final abode of reward. The evidence is that the definite article al- in {الجنة} (The Paradise) does not imply generality, as dwelling in all Paradises is impossible. Therefore, it must refer to the previously known/established one, which Muslims understand to be the abode of reward.

• View 4: All possibilities are plausible, but the textual evidence is weak and contradictory, necessitating suspension of judgment. God knows best.

The Fifth Issue: Interpretation of the Command

Al-Kashshāf states:

• {السكنى} (Dwelling) derives from sukūn (stillness/rest), as it is a form of remaining and settling.
• {أنت} (You) is an emphasis on the one dwelling in {اسكن} to allow for the subsequent conjunction.
• {رغداً} (Abundantly/Freely) is an adjective describing the verbal noun (the act of eating), meaning ample, wide, and easy eating.
• {حيث شئتما} (wherever you both willed) refers to an indefinite place within Paradise.

The meaning of the verse is to grant them unrestricted permission to eat from Paradise with extreme ease, as nothing was forbidden to them regarding eating or location, leaving them no excuse to approach the single forbidden tree among its many others.

The Sixth Issue: Conjunction of Commands (Wāw vs. Fā’)

One might ask: Here, God says, {وكلا منها رغدا} (And eat from it freely), but in Al-A‘rāf, He says, {فكلا من حيث شئتما} (So eat wherever you will) (Al-A‘rāf: 19). Why the conjunction with wāw (and) in Al-Baqarah and fā’ (then/so) in Al-A‘rāf?

Answer: When an action is followed by another, and the first action is like a condition, and the second is like a consequence (part of the result), the conjunction fā’ is used, not wāw. Example: {When We said, "Enter this town and eat from it freely wherever you will"} (Al-Baqarah: 58). Eat is connected by fā’ to Enter because eating was contingent upon entering; if you enter, you eat.

This is clarified by a similar verse in Al-A‘rāf: {And when it was said to them, "Settle in this town and eat from it wherever you will"} (Al-A‘rāf: 161). Here, eat is connected by wāw, not fā’, because Settle implies remaining for a long time, whereas eating is not strictly dependent on settling; a passerby can eat in a garden. Since the second action (eating) is not strictly dependent on the first (settling) as a condition for its existence, the wāw is used, not the fā’ that implies consequence.

Applying this:

1. In Al-Baqarah, the command {اسكن} (Dwell) came after Adam was already in Paradise, meaning the command was to remain there. Since eating is not dependent on remaining, the wāw is used.
2. In Al-A‘rāf, the command came before entering Paradise, meaning the command was to enter and settle. Since eating is dependent on entering, the fā’ is used. God knows best.

The Seventh Issue: The Prohibition {ولا تقربا هذه الشجرة} (And do not approach this tree)

There is no doubt that this is a prohibition, but there are two points of discussion:

First Discussion: Prohibition of Reprehensibility (Tanzīh) or Prohibition of Illegality (Taḥrīm)?

• View 1 (Tanzīh): Some argue this is a prohibition of reprehensibility. The form of the command is sometimes used for tanzīh and sometimes for taḥrīm. Since the word cannot inherently mean both, it must refer to the common ground: favoring abstinence over action without strictly forbidding the action absolutely. Since the default ruling for benefits is permission (ibāḥah), combining the word's meaning with this default principle results in a ruling of tanzīh. This view is preferred because Adam’s sin then becomes leaving the better option, which aligns with the doctrine of prophetic infallibility (‘iṣmah).
• View 2 (Taḥrīm): Others argue it is a prohibition of illegality (taḥrīm).
  1. The phrasing is similar to {And do not approach them until they are purified} (Al-Baqarah: 222) and {And do not approach the orphan's property except in a way that is best} (Al-An‘ām: 152), which imply taḥrīm.
  2. God said: {فتكونا من الظالمين} (Lest you become among the wrongdoers). This means if you eat, you have wronged yourselves. This is confirmed when they ate and said: {Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves} (Al-A‘rāf: 23).
  3. If this were merely tanzīh, Adam would not have deserved expulsion from Paradise, nor would repentance have been necessary.

Rebuttal to View 2:

1. While the command form (nahy) is fundamentally for tanzīh, it can be elevated to taḥrīm by an external indication.
2. {Lest you become among the wrongdoers} means you wrong yourselves by doing what is better left undone, as doing so leads to expulsion from Paradise—a place where you never thirst, hunger, suffer hardship, or go naked, to a place where you possess none of these comforts.
3. We do not concede that expulsion was due to this specific reason (which will be explained later, God willing).

Second Discussion: Does {Do not approach} imply prohibition of eating?

• View 1 (Weak): Some say that prohibiting the approach implies prohibiting the eating. This is weak because prohibiting approach does not necessarily prohibit eating; perhaps the benefit lies only in avoiding the proximity, yet if he reached it, eating would be permissible. The apparent meaning is a prohibition against approaching.
• View 2 (Stronger): The prohibition against eating is known through other evidence:
  1. God states later: {But when they tasted of the tree, their nakedness appeared to them} (Al-A‘rāf: 22).
  2. The context began with permission to eat freely: {Eat from it freely wherever you will}. This implies God forbade them from eating the fruit of that specific tree.
  3. If the prohibition was only against eating, it would not encompass all forms of benefit. Since the prohibition is stated broadly (approaching), it carries more significance.

The Eighth Issue: Identity of the Tree

There is a difference of opinion regarding what the tree was:

• View 1 (Mujāhid, Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, citing Ibn ‘Abbās): It was the vine (al-karm) or wheat (al-sunbulah). Abū Bakr As-Ṣiddīq asked the Prophet (PBUH), and he replied it was the blessed tree, the wheat.
• View 2 (Al-Suddī, citing Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn Mas‘ūd): It was the grapevine (al-karm).
• View 3 (Mujāhid and Qatādah): It was the fig tree (al-tīn).
• View 4 (Al-Rabī‘ ibn Anas): It was a tree whose fruit caused bodily discharge (ḥadath), which is inappropriate in Paradise.

Conclusion on Identity: The apparent text does not mandate specifying the tree. It is unnecessary to state it because the purpose of the narrative is not to identify the exact species. A wise speaker does not state what is not essential to the point; stating the specific name might even be superfluous, like explaining the exact name and description of a boy who caused a delay.

Linguistic Note on "Tree" (Shajarah):

• Some say it must have a trunk and branches.
• Others argue this is unnecessary due to the verse {And We caused to grow over him a plant of gourd} (Aṣ-Ṣāffāt: 146), which is like a crop or melon but still called a tree (shajar).
• Al-Mubarrid suggested that Arabs call anything that branches out left and right a shajar during its branching phase. The root means something that spreads out (shajara). (e.g., "I saw him among the spreading spears," or when two people dispute: tashājara).

The Ninth Issue: Interpretation of {Lest you become among the wrongdoers}

There is consensus that this means: If you eat, you have wronged yourselves, because eating from the tree constitutes wronging others (by disobeying the command), and one can be a wrongdoer by wronging oneself or others. Wronging oneself is considered more general and greater.

People differ on the nature of this self-wronging:

• View 1 (Ḥashawiyyah): He committed a major sin (kabīrah), and thus his action was wrongdoing.
• View 2 (Mu‘tazilah): He committed a minor sin (ṣaghīrah).
  • Sub-view (Abū ‘Alī Al-Jubbā’ī): He wronged himself by imposing upon himself the difficulty of repentance and rectification.
  • Sub-view (Abū Hāshim): He wronged himself by nullifying some of the reward he had already earned, resulting in a deficit of what he deserved.
• View 3 (Those who deny sin entirely for Prophets): This wrongdoing means he did what was better for him not to do. Example: If a person seeks a high office (like vizier) but then abandons it for weaving, one might say, "O self-wrongdoer, why did you do that?"

Question: Is it permissible to describe the Prophets (peace be upon them) as "wrongdoers" or "self-wrongdoers"? Answer: It is preferable not to use these terms, as they carry the implication of blame (dhamm).

7 < {But Satan made them slip from it and removed them from where they had been. And We said, "Go down, some of you [being] enemies to others, and you will have in the earth a place of settlement and enjoyment for a time."} > 7

<