Al-Baqarah: (36) Then Satan made them slip from it...

The author of Al-Kashshaf said: {Then Satan made them slip from it} (fa-azallahumā al-shayṭānu 'anhā). This means Satan caused their slip from it. The preposition 'an (from) in this verse is like its usage in the verse: {And I did not do it by my own command} (wa mā fa'altuhu 'an amrī) (Al-Kahf: 82).

Al-Qaffāl (may God have mercy on him) said: The root zalala (to slip) implies that a person is firmly standing on something, then slips away from that position, moving away from that place.

As for the one who reads {Fa-azālahumā} (Then He removed them), it is derived from zawāl (removal) from a place. It is narrated from Abū Ma'ādh that he said: It is said, "I made you slip from such-and-such" (azaltuka 'an kadhā) until you slipped away from it, and "I moved you away" (azlaltuka) until you slipped—and their meanings are the same: meaning, I moved you away from it.

Some scholars said: {Satan made them slip} (azallahumā) means Satan caused them to descend (istanzalahumā). This is from the saying, "He slipped in his religion" (zalala fī dīnihi) if he erred, and "Someone else caused him to slip" (azallahu ghayruhu) if someone caused him something that leads to his slipping in religion or worldly affairs.

Know that there are several issues in this verse:

Issue 1: The Infallibility of the Prophets (Peace Be Upon Them)

People differed regarding the infallibility of the Prophets (peace be upon them). The established position on this matter can be divided into four categories:

1. Matters of Belief (I'tiqād): The majority of the Ummah agrees that it is impermissible for them to hold beliefs of disbelief or misguidance. The Fudayliyyah sect of the Khawārij claimed that sins occurred from them, and since they consider any sin to be disbelief and polytheism, they consequently affirmed the occurrence of disbelief from the Prophets. The Imāmiyyah (Shī'a) permitted the outward expression of disbelief for the sake of Taqiyyah (dissimulation).

2. Matters of Conveying the Message (Tablīgh): The Ummah is unanimous that they are infallible from lying and distortion concerning the conveyance of the message, otherwise, trust in their transmission would cease. They agreed that this is impermissible, whether intentionally or by mistake. Some people permitted it by mistake, arguing that avoiding it is impossible.

3. Matters of Rulings and Issuing Fatwas (Aḥkām wa al-Futyā): They agreed that intentional error in this area is impermissible. As for error by mistake, some permitted it while others forbade it.

4. Matters of Their Actions and Conduct (Af'ālihim wa Sīratihim): The Ummah differed on this point, resulting in five opinions:
   • First Opinion: Permitting major sins intentionally. This is the view of the Ḥashawiyyah.
   • Second Opinion: Major sins are impermissible, but minor sins are permissible intentionally, except for those that cause repulsion, like lying or short-changing in measure. This is the view of most Mu'tazilites.
   • Third Opinion: It is impermissible for them to commit any sin, minor or major, intentionally, but only through interpretation (ta'wīl). This is the view of Al-Jubbā'ī.
   • Fourth Opinion: Sin occurs from them only by mistake or error, but they are held accountable for what occurs this way, even if it is excused for their community, because their knowledge is stronger, their evidence is greater, and they are capable of greater caution than others.
   • Fifth Opinion: Sin—neither major nor minor—does not occur from them, neither intentionally, nor by mistake, nor by interpretation or error. This is the doctrine of the Rāfiḍah (a term often used for early Shī'a).

The people also differed on the timing of infallibility into three opinions:

1. They are infallible from the time of their birth. This is the view of the Rāfiḍah.
2. Infallibility begins at the time of maturity (bulūgh), and they did not permit them to commit disbelief or major sins before prophethood. This is the view of many Mu'tazilites.
3. Infallibility is required only during prophethood; before that, it is permissible. This is the view of most of our companions (Ash'arites), Abū al-Hudhayl, and Abū 'Alī from the Mu'tazilites.

Our Chosen Position: No sin, neither major nor minor, has ever proceeded from them during prophethood. This is supported by several arguments:

1. If sin proceeded from them, they would be of a lower rank than the sinners in the Ummah, which is impermissible. The degree of the Prophets was of the utmost majesty and honor, and sin emanating from someone of such stature is more heinous. Consider the verse: {O wives of the Prophet, whoever of you commits a manifest immorality, the punishment will be doubled for her} (Al-Aḥzāb: 30). An unchaste married person is stoned, while others receive the lash; a slave receives half the punishment of a free man. That a Prophet should be of a lower status than the Ummah is agreed upon as impossible.

2. If we suppose they committed transgression (fisq), their testimony would not be accepted based on the verse: {O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient person with information, investigate} (Al-Ḥujurāt: 6). Yet, their testimony is accepted. Otherwise, they would be of a lower status than the righteous people of the Ummah. Prophethood and messengership mean nothing other than testifying about God regarding the laws He has legislated. Furthermore, they will be witnesses over all people on the Day of Resurrection, as stated: {That you may be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger will be a witness over you} (Al-Baqarah: 143).

3. If they committed a major sin, they would have to be rebuked for it, meaning harming them would not be forbidden. However, harming them is forbidden by the verse: {Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter} (Al-Aḥzāb: 57).

4. If the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) committed a sin, we would be obliged to follow him in it due to the verse: {Follow me} (Āl 'Imrān: 31), which leads to combining prohibition and obligation, an impossibility. If this is established for Muhammad (PBUH), it is established for all Prophets by necessity, as no one differentiates.

5. By intellectual necessity, we know that nothing is uglier than a Prophet whom God has elevated, entrusted with His revelation, and made His vicegerent over His servants and lands, hearing his Lord call him, "Do not do such-and-such," yet he proceeds, preferring his desires, unconcerned by his Lord's prohibition or deterred by His warning. The ugliness of this is self-evident.

6. If sin proceeded from the Prophets, they would deserve punishment based on the verse: {And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then indeed, for him is the fire of Hell, to abide therein eternally} (Al-Jinn: 23). They would also deserve the curse based on: {Indeed, the curse of Allah is upon the wrongdoers} (Hūd: 18). The Ummah is unanimous that none of the Prophets deserved cursing or punishment, so it is established that sin did not proceed from them.

7. They commanded people to obey God, and if they did not obey Him themselves, they would fall under the verse: {Do you order righteousness in the people and forget yourselves while you recite the Scripture? Then will you not use reason?} (Al-Baqarah: 44). And the verse: {I do not intend to do what I forbid you from} (Hūd: 88). How can this be attributed to the Prophets (peace be upon them) when it is not fitting for any preacher of the Ummah?

8. The verse: {Indeed, they used to hasten to good deeds} (Al-Anbiyā': 90). The word al-khayrāt (good deeds) is general and encompasses everything, including doing what is proper and leaving what is improper. Thus, it is established that the Prophets were doers of all that is proper and leavers of all that is improper, which contradicts the occurrence of sin from them.

9. The verse: {And indeed, they are, in Our sight, among the chosen, the excellent} (Ṣād: 47). This covers all actions and omissions, evidenced by the permissibility of exception (istithnā'). One can say, "So-and-so is among the chosen and excellent, except for such-and-such an act." Exception removes from the statement what would have entered it otherwise. Thus, it is established that they were excellent in all matters, which contradicts the occurrence of sin. God says: {Allah chooses from the angels messengers and from mankind} (Al-Ḥajj: 75), and {Indeed, Allah chose Adam and Noah and the family of Abraham and the family of 'Imrān above the worlds} (Āl 'Imrān: 33). Regarding Abraham: {And We chose him in this world} (Al-Baqarah: 130). Regarding Moses: {I have chosen you over the people with My messages and with My words} (Al-A'rāf: 144). And: {And remember Our servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, those of [strong] hands and vision. Indeed, We purified them with a pure remembrance of the Hereafter. And indeed, they were, in Our sight, among the chosen, the excellent} (Ṣād: 45-47). All these verses indicate their description as being chosen and excellent, which contradicts the occurrence of sin from them.

10. God recounted Iblīs's statement: {By Your might, I will surely mislead them all, except for Your sincere servants among them} (Ṣād: 82-83). He exempted the sincere ones, who are the Prophets (peace be upon them), from those he would mislead. God describes Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: {Indeed, We purified them with a pure remembrance of the Hereafter} (Ṣād: 46). And regarding Joseph: {Indeed, he was of Our chosen servants} (Yūsuf: 24). If infallibility is obligatory for some, it is obligatory for all, as no one makes a distinction.

11. The verse: {And Iblīs did certainly prove true his assumption about them, and they followed him, except for a party of the believers} (Saba': 20). It must be said that sin did not occur from that party who did not follow him, otherwise, they would have been followers of him. If it is established that this party (whether Prophets or others) did not sin, then if they were the Prophets, it is established that the Prophet does not sin. If they were not the Prophets, and it were established that the Prophets did sin, then the non-Prophet would be of a higher rank with God than the Prophet, which is false by consensus. Thus, it is established that sin did not proceed from them.

12. God divided creation into two groups: {Those are the party of Satan; indeed, the party of Satan are the losers} (Al-Mujādilah: 22), and the other group: {Those are the party of Allah; indeed, the party of Allah are the successful} (Al-Mujādilah: 22). Undoubtedly, the party of Satan is the one who does what Satan pleases, and what Satan pleases is disobedience. Therefore, whoever disobeys God is of the party of Satan. If sin proceeded from the Messenger, it would be true that he was of the party of Satan and among the losers, while some ascetics of the Ummah would be of the party of God and the successful. In that case, that one person from the Ummah would be far superior to that Messenger in God's sight, which no Muslim would claim.

13. The Messenger is superior to the Angel, so sin must not proceed from the Messenger. We assert his superiority based on the verse: {Indeed, Allah chose Adam and Noah and the family of Abraham and the family of 'Imrān above the worlds} (Āl 'Imrān: 33). The evidence for this has been mentioned in the issue of the superiority of the Angel over humans. We say that because of this superiority, sin must not proceed from the Messenger, as God described the Angels as refraining from sin: {They do not precede Him in speech} (Al-Anbiyā': 27), and {They do not disobey Allah in what He commands them but do what they are commanded} (Al-Taḥrīm: 6). If sin proceeded from the Messenger, it would be impossible for him to be superior to the Angel, based on the verse: {Or shall We treat those who believe and do righteous deeds like the corrupters in the land? Or shall We treat the righteous like the wicked?} (Ṣād: 28).

14. It is narrated that Khuzaymah ibn Thābit testified for the Messenger of God (PBUH) according to his claim. The Messenger of God (PBUH) asked him, "How did you testify for me?" He replied, "O Messenger of God, I believe you regarding the revelation sent down to you from above the seven heavens, so should I not believe you regarding this much?" The Messenger of God (PBUH) accepted his testimony and named him Dhū al-Shahādatayn (The Possessor of Two Testimonies). If sin were permissible for the Prophets, this testimony would not have been valid.

15. Regarding Abraham (peace be upon him), God said: {Indeed, I will make you an Imam for mankind} (Al-Baqarah: 124). An Imam is one who is followed. This obligates all people to follow him. If sin proceeded from him, they would be obligated to follow him in that sin, which leads to contradiction.

16. The verse: {And [mention] when his Lord tested Abraham and he fulfilled [His commands]} (Al-Baqarah: 124) [Note: The text quotes the beginning of the verse, but the argument relies on the concept of the covenant/Imamate]. The covenant ('ahd) here means either the covenant of Prophethood or the covenant of Imamate. If it means the covenant of Prophethood, then wrongdoers (ẓālimūn) cannot attain prophethood. If it means the covenant of Imamate, then wrongdoers cannot attain Imamate. If they cannot attain Imamate, they cannot attain Prophethood, because every Prophet must be an Imam who is followed and emulated. The verse, under all interpretations, indicates that the Prophet is not a sinner.

Regarding the Opponents: The opponents relied on verses in each of the four categories mentioned above. We will briefly point to the core of their arguments and defer the detailed refutation to the subsequent exegesis of these verses, God willing.

1. They cite the verse about Adam (PBUH): {It is He who created you from a single soul and made from it its mate that he may find comfort in her...} (Al-A'rāf: 189) to the end of the passage. They argue that the single soul is Adam and his mate created from him is Eve. They claim all the pronouns refer to them, and the verse {And He made partners for Him in what He gave them. So exalted is Allah above what they associate with Him} (Al-A'rāf: 190) implies polytheism from them.
   • The Reply: We do not concede that the single soul is Adam. Furthermore, the verse does not indicate that. Rather, the address is to Quraysh, specifically the lineage of Quṣayy. The meaning is: He created you from the essence of Quṣayy and made from that lineage an Arab mate for comfort. When they were granted what they sought—righteous offspring, especially their four sons (Abd Manāf, Abd al-'Uzzā, Abd al-Dār, and Abd Quṣayy)—the pronoun in {they associate} refers to them and their descendants. This is the relied-upon answer.

2. They claim Abraham (PBUH) did not know God or the Last Day. For the first, they cite his statement about the stars: {This is my Lord} (Al-An'ām: 77). For the second, they cite: {And [mention] when Abraham said, "My Lord, show me how You give life to the dead." He said, "Have you not believed?" He said, "Yes, but [I ask] that my heart may be reassured"} (Al-Baqarah: 260).
   • The Reply: As for {This is my Lord}, it was a question of denial/reproach. As for {but that my heart may be reassured}, it means that news is not like direct observation.

3. They cite the verse: {So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who read the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters} (Yūnus: 94). They argue this implies Muhammad (PBUH) was in doubt about what was revealed to him.
   • The Reply: The heart in this worldly abode cannot be free from thoughts that lead to suspicions, but he (PBUH) used to remove them with proofs.

1. The verse: {We will make you recite, and you will not forget, Except what Allah wills} (Al-A'lā: 6-7). They argue this exception indicates forgetfulness in revelation.
   • The Reply: The prohibition is not against forgetfulness as the opposite of remembrance (which is outside human capacity), but against forgetfulness meaning omission (tark), which we interpret as leaving the preferable action.

2. The verse: {And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he wished, Satan cast [something] into his wish} (Al-Ḥajj: 52). The discussion on this is detailed in Sūrat Al-Ḥajj.

3. The verse: {Knower of the unseen, and He does not disclose His unseen to anyone, Except to a messenger whom He has approved; and indeed, He sends before him and behind him observers} (Al-Jinn: 26-28). They argue that if there were no fear of confusion in conveying the revelation from the Prophets' side, the purpose of sending observers would be pointless.
   • The Reply: Why can't the purpose be to repel the devils from casting whispers?

1. The verse about David and Solomon: {And David and Solomon, when they judged concerning the field when people's sheep had spread in it by night...} (Al-Anbiyā': 78). We discussed this in Sūrat Al-Anbiyā'.

2. The verse regarding the captives of Badr after the Prophet (PBUH) ransomed them: {It was not for a prophet to have captives until he has subdued the land} (Al-Anfāl: 67). If he had not erred in this judgment, he would not have been reprimanded.

3. The verse: {May Allah pardon you. Why did you permit them} (At-Tawbah: 43).
   • The Reply to all three: We interpret these instances as leaving the preferable action (tark al-awlā).

The story of Adam (PBUH) is cited using seven points:

1. He was disobedient ('āṣī), and a disobedient person must be a major sinner. We say he was disobedient due to {And Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred} (Ṭā-Hā: 121). We say the disobedient is a major sinner for two reasons: First, the text implies he deserves punishment: {And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then indeed, for him is the fire of Hell} (Al-Jinn: 23). Second... (The text seems to repeat the second reason or merge it with the first).

2. He was misguided (ghawī) due to {and erred} (fa-ghawā). The term ghawī is a term of blame, and ghayy (error/misguidance) is the opposite of rushd (right guidance), as in {The right guidance has become distinct from error} (Al-Baqarah: 256).

3. He was repentant (ta'ib), and a repentant person is a sinner. We know he was repentant from {Then Adam received from his Lord words, and He accepted his repentance} (Al-Baqarah: 37) and {Then his Lord chose him and made him of the repentant} (Ṭā-Hā: 122). A repentant person is one who regrets a sin; regret implies admitting to committing the sin. If he lies about it, he is a sinner for lying; if he speaks the truth, he is admitting to the sin.

4. He committed what was forbidden: {Did He not forbid you both from that tree?} (Al-A'rāf: 22) and {And do not approach this tree} (Al-A'rāf: 19). Committing what is forbidden is the essence of sin.

5. He was named a wrongdoer (ẓālim) in {lest you be among the wrongdoers} (Al-Baqarah: 35), and he named himself a wrongdoer in {Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves} (Al-A'rāf: 23). The wrongdoer is cursed based on {Indeed, the curse of Allah is upon the wrongdoers} (Hūd: 18). Whoever deserves the curse is a major sinner.

6. He admitted that without God's forgiveness, he would be among the losers: {If You do not forgive us and have mercy upon us, we will surely be among the losers} (Al-A'rāf: 23), which implies he was a major sinner.

7. He was expelled from Paradise due to Satan's whispering and causing him to slip, as retribution for obeying Satan, which indicates he was a major sinner.

They conclude: Even if each point individually does not prove a major sin, their totality surely indicates it. It is permissible for the combination of points, even if each one separately does not prove the matter, to be indicative of it.

The Main Reply to the Seven Points: Your argument holds only if you prove that this occurred during his prophethood, which is denied. Why can we not say that when Adam (PBUH) committed this slip, he was not yet a Prophet, and then he became a Prophet afterward? We have already shown there is no proof for this position.

We will discuss the detailed refutation of each point when we interpret those specific verses. Here, we address the nature of the slip to clarify God's intent in {Then Satan made them slip from it} (Al-Baqarah: 36).

Suppose this action proceeded from Adam (PBUH) after prophethood. His action was either due to forgetfulness (nāsiyan) or remembrance (dhākir).

Case 1: Forgetfulness. A group of theologians holds this view, citing {And We found in him no resolve} (Ṭā-Hā: 115). They compare it to a fasting person engrossed in an activity, causing him to forget his fast and eat during that absentmindedness, not intentionally.

• Objection 1: This is false for two reasons. First, the verse {Your Lord only forbade you from that tree lest you become angels or become among the immortals} (Al-A'rāf: 20) and {And he swore to them, "Indeed, I am to you a sincere advisor"} (Al-A'rāf: 21) indicate direct interaction, not forgetfulness. Second, a narration from Ibn 'Abbās indicates Adam acted intentionally. When they ate, their private parts became apparent, and Adam fled, caught by a tree in Paradise. God called him, "Are you fleeing from Me?" He replied, "Rather, I am shy before You." God asked, "Did I not grant you in Paradise ample space away from what I forbade you?" He said, "Yes, my Lord, but by Your might, I never thought anyone would swear by You falsely." God said, "By My might, I will surely cast you down from it, and you will not attain life except through toil."
• Objection 2: If he were forgetful, he would not have been reprimanded. Intellectually, the forgetful person is incapable of action and thus not obligated (as per {Allah does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear} (Al-Baqarah: 276)). Textually, the Prophet (PBUH) said, "The pen is lifted from three..." Since he was reprimanded, it proves it was not due to forgetfulness.

Reply to Objections on Forgetfulness:

• Reply to Objection 1: We do not concede that Adam and Eve accepted Iblīs's words or believed him. If they had believed him, their sin in believing him would be greater than eating the tree. When Iblīs said, {Your Lord only forbade you from that tree lest you become angels or become among the immortals}, he instilled in them bad assumptions about God, invited them to abandon submission to His command, and believe Iblīs was sincere while God had deceived them. These matters are greater than eating the tree, so the reprimand should be harsher. Furthermore, Adam knew of Iblīs's rebellion against prostration and his envy of the blessings God granted him. How could a rational person accept the word of his enemy given these signs? The verse does not state they acted immediately upon hearing those words. God states: {Indeed, this is an enemy to you and your wife. So let him not evict you from Paradise, lest you suffer} (Ṭā-Hā: 117), proving Adam knew of his enmity. As for the narration from Ibn 'Abbās, it is a weak, singular report (āḥād), so how can it contradict the Qur'an?
• Reply to Objection 2: The reprimand was for failing to guard against the causes of forgetfulness. This type of lapse is excused for Muslims, but it was not excused for the Prophets due to their high status. This is analogous to the verse about the Prophet's wives: {O wives of the Prophet, you are not like any other of the women} (Al-Aḥzāb: 32), followed by the verse about doubling the punishment for immorality. The Prophet (PBUH) said, "The people most severely tested are the Prophets, then the saints, then the best according to their rank." He also said, "I suffer pain like two men among you." If it is asked how their high status affects the condition of their obligation differently from others, we reply: Have you not heard, "The good deeds of the righteous are the sins of the near ones"? The Prophet (PBUH) had severe obligations that others did not have. This establishes that the act proceeded from Adam (PBUH) due to lapse/forgetfulness.

Some commentaries suggest Eve gave him wine, causing him to become intoxicated, and he committed the act during intoxication. This is deemed not far-fetched, as he was permitted everything except that tree. If the tree is interpreted as birr (righteousness), then wine would be permissible. However, one could argue that the wine of Paradise does not intoxicate, based on the description: {No intoxication therein, nor will they be exhausted thereby} (Aṣ-Ṣāffāt: 47).

Case 2: Intentional Action ('āmidan). There are four opinions here:

1. The prohibition was one of tanzīh (discouragement), not taḥrīm (prohibition). We discussed the weakness of this view earlier.
2. It was intentional, a major sin, while Adam (PBUH) was a Prophet. We already established the falsehood of this view.
3. It was intentional, but accompanied by such terror, fright, and apprehension that it reduced the act to the status of a minor sin. This view is also false based on previous proofs, as one who intentionally neglects an obligation or commits a forbidden act, even with fear, is still disobedient, deserving of curse, blame, and eternal Hellfire—which cannot be attributed to the Prophets. Furthermore, God described him with forgetfulness: {and We found in him no resolve} (Ṭā-Hā: 115), which contradicts intentionality.
4. The Fourth Opinion (Preferred by most Mu'tazilites): He committed the act due to an error in Ijtihād (independent reasoning), which does not necessitate a major sin. The error in Ijtihād is explained by the word {this} (hādihi). The word hādhā can refer to the specific individual or the species. It is narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) held silk and gold and said, "These two are permissible for the females of my Ummah and forbidden for their males," intending the species. He also performed wuḍū' once and said, "This is the ablution by which prayer is accepted," intending the species. When Adam (PBUH) heard {And do not approach this tree} (Al-Baqarah: 35 / Al-A'rāf: 19), he thought the prohibition applied only to that specific tree, so he avoided it and ate from another tree of the same species, erring in his Ijtihād because God intended the species, not the individual. Ijtihād in secondary matters, if erroneous, does not necessitate punishment or curse, as it might be a forgivable minor sin, as in our Shari'ah.

Objections to the Fourth Opinion (Error in Ijtihād):

1. The word hādhā primarily refers to a present, specific object in the original language. Referring to the species is contrary to the primary meaning. Furthermore, God cannot point incorrectly; thus, some angel must have been commanded to point to that specific individual, meaning everything else was outside the prohibition. If this is established, the jurist is obligated to interpret the word literally (as specific). Adam (PBUH) fulfilled his obligation by interpreting it as specific. He should not have interpreted it as the species. This view is supported by two other points: a) {And eat from it freely wherever you will} (Al-Baqarah: 35) implied permission to consume everything in Paradise except what was specifically excluded. b) Reason dictates that all benefits are permissible unless specifically prohibited. The specific prohibition only mentioned that one tree. Thus, Adam (PBUH) was permitted to benefit from all other trees. If this is established, it is impossible for him to deserve reprimand or be judged as having erred based on this act. This interpretation leads to judging him as correct, not mistaken, thus invalidating this interpretation.

2. Even if the word hādhā is ambiguous between the individual and the species, did God accompany it with a sign indicating the species was intended over the individual, or not? If He did, and Adam (PBUH) failed to recognize that sign, he committed a sin (by negligence). If he recognized the sign, he knew the species was intended, and eating from another tree of that species was intentional sin.

3. Prophets (peace be upon them) are not permitted to engage in Ijtihād, as Ijtihād is acting based on conjecture (ẓann), which is only permissible for those unable to attain certainty ('ilm). Prophets are capable of certainty, so acting on conjecture is impermissible, intellectually and textually. Thus, engaging in Ijtihād itself is a sin.

4. This issue is either a matter of certainty or conjecture. If it is certain, the error is major, and the original problem returns. If it is conjectural, either every jurist is correct (so no error occurred), or only one is correct, and the mistaken one is excused by consensus. How then could this level of error lead to Adam being stripped of his garments, expelled from Paradise, and sent to Earth?

Replies to Objections on Ijtihād:

• Reply to 1: While hādhā primarily refers to the specific, it can be used for the species, as explained. God had indeed accompanied it with a sign indicating the species was intended.
• Reply to 2: Perhaps Adam (PBUH) was negligent in recognizing that sign, thinking it wasn't binding at that moment, or perhaps he knew it but forgot it over time, as he remained in Paradise for a long period. This aligns with {and We found in him no resolve}, interpreted as forgetfulness.
• Reply to 3: We do not need to establish that Prophets engage in Ijtihād. We showed he was negligent in recognizing the sign, or he knew it but forgot it, which is what {and We found in him no resolve} means.
• Reply to 4: It could be that the indication was definitive, but because he forgot it, the forgetfulness served as an excuse so the sin would not be major. Or, it could be conjectural, but the resulting severity was unique to him because severity can differ based on the person. Just as the Messenger (PBUH) was singled out for specific severity and leniency not applicable to the Ummah, so too here.

Another possible view: Since God forbade both of them from approaching the tree ({Do not approach}—dual command), Adam (PBUH) might have thought that each of them individually could approach and eat, as the dual prohibition does not necessarily imply a prohibition when acting alone. The error might have occurred from this interpretation. This concludes what is said on this matter. God knows the truth of the matters.

Issue 2: How Iblīs managed to whisper to Adam (PBUH) while he was in Paradise and Iblīs was outside.

They mentioned several views:

1. The View of the Storytellers: Narrated from Wahb ibn Munabbih and Al-Suddī from Ibn 'Abbās, etc. When Iblīs wanted to enter Paradise, the guards prevented him. He approached the serpent (al-ḥayyah), a four-legged animal resembling a camel (bakhṭiyyah), the best of animals, after all other animals refused him. The serpent swallowed him and secretly brought him into Paradise. Once inside, Iblīs emerged from its mouth and began whispering. Consequently, the serpent was cursed, lost its legs, began crawling on its belly, its sustenance became dust, and it became an enemy to the children of Adam.
   • Critique: This and similar accounts should be ignored. If Iblīs could enter the serpent's mouth, why couldn't he transform himself into a serpent and enter? Furthermore, why was the serpent punished when it was neither rational nor obligated?

2. Iblīs entered Paradise in the form of an animal. This view is less flawed than the first.

3. Some scholars of Usūl (principles of jurisprudence) suggested that Adam and Eve might have gone to the gate of Paradise, and Iblīs was near the gate whispering to them.

4. The view of Al-Ḥasan: Iblīs remained on Earth and transmitted the whisper to them in Paradise.
   • Critique: Some say this is remote, as whispering is a subtle speech that cannot be transmitted from Earth to Heaven.

They also differed on whether Iblīs directly addressed them or transmitted the whisper through one of his followers.

• Argument for Direct Address: The verse {And he swore to them, "Indeed, I am to you a sincere advisor"} (Al-A'rāf: 21) implies direct speech, as does {So he led them on with deception} (Al-A'rāf: 22).
• Argument for Intermediary: Adam and Eve knew Iblīs and his envy/enmity, making it customarily impossible for them to accept his word. Therefore, the whisperer must have been one of Iblīs's followers.

Two questions remain:

Question 1: God attributed the slip to Iblīs ({Then Satan made them slip}), so why were Adam and Eve reprimanded?

• The Mu'tazilite Answer: The meaning of {He made them slip} is that upon his whispering, they performed the act, so it is attributed to Iblīs, as in Noah's complaint: {My call only increased their flight} (Nūḥ: 6). Similarly, Iblīs said: {And I had no authority over you except that I invited you, and you responded to me} (Ibrāhīm: 22).
• The Verified Answer (Our Position): As we have repeatedly established, a person is capable of action and omission. Given equality, it is impossible for one to become the source of either action except when a motive (dā'ī) is attached. The motive for a servant is knowledge, conjecture, or belief that the action contains some benefit. When this knowledge or conjecture arises from a stimulus, the action is attributed to that stimulus because it turned the potential actor into an actual actor. This is why the action is attributed here to the whispering. How beautifully some Gnostics said: Even if Adam's slip was due to Iblīs's whispering, Iblīs's sin occurred due to our whispering (i.e., Adam's response/action). This reminds you that action does not occur unless the motive is present, and although motives follow one another, they must ultimately terminate in something God creates initially—as Moses (PBUH) clarified: {That is not for you. Indeed, it is only Your trial by which You mislead whom You will and guide whom You will} (Al-A'rāf: 155).

Question 2: What was the nature of the whisper?

• The Answer: It was what God recounted: {Your Lord only forbade you from that tree lest you become angels or become among the immortals} (Al-A'rāf: 20). They did not accept this from him. When he despaired of that, he resorted to swearing: {And he swore to them, "Indeed, I am to you a sincere advisor"} (Al-A'rāf: 21). They still did not believe him. Apparently, he then turned to something else: occupying them with fulfilling permissible pleasures until they became engrossed in them. Due to their engrossment, they forgot the prohibition, and then what happened, happened. God knows the truth of the matters.

Regarding the verse: {And We said, "Go down"} (Wa qulnā ihbiṭū)

There are issues here:

Those who say Adam's Paradise was in Heaven interpret "Go Down" as descending from above to below. Those who say it was on Earth interpret it as moving from one place to another, like {Descend into a city} (Ihbiṭū miṣran) (Al-Baqarah: 61).

They agree that Adam and Eve (peace be upon them) were addressed, but they mentioned several views:

1. The Majority View: Iblīs is also included. They argue this because Iblīs was mentioned in {Then Satan made them slip from it}, meaning: He made them slip, and We said to them, "Go down."
   • Regarding {Some of you are enemies to others}: This informed Adam and Eve that Iblīs is an enemy to them and their progeny, just as God informed them before eating the tree: {O Adam, indeed, this [Satan] is an enemy to you and your wife. So let him not evict you from Paradise, lest you suffer} (Ṭā-Hā: 117).
   • Objection: When Iblīs refused to prostrate, he became a disbeliever and was expelled from Paradise, told: {Then get out of it, for indeed, you are expelled and despised} (Al-A'rāf: 13) and {So get out of it, for indeed, you are accursed} (Al-Ḥijr: 34). He was sent down due to his arrogance. Adam's slip occurred a long time later, and he was commanded to descend because of the slip. Since Iblīs descended before that, how can the command {Go down} include him?
   • Reply: When God cast him down to Earth, perhaps he returned to Heaven once more to whisper to Adam and Eve. When Adam and Eve were in Paradise, God said to them: {Go down} (dual). When they left Paradise and Iblīs joined them outside, God commanded them all: {Go down} (plural). Some say the command was not given all at once but to each individually at a specific time.

2. The Second View: Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. This is weak because it is agreed that the obligated beings are Angels, Jinn, and Humans. Some might contest this consensus, arguing that other creatures might be obligated based on verses like {Each one knows its prayer and its glorification} (An-Nūr: 41), and Solomon's threat to the hoopoe: {I will surely punish him with severe punishment} (An-Naml: 21).

3. The Third View: Adam, Eve, and their Progeny. Since they were the origin of humanity, they represent all of humanity. Evidence is in {Go down, some of you enemies to others. When guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance will not go astray and will not be wretched. But whoever turns away from My guidance - then indeed, he will have a miserable life and We will gather him blind on the Day of Resurrection} (Al-Baqarah: 123-124) [Note: The text quotes verses 36 and 38, but the argument relies on the general context of the expulsion and subsequent verses]. This ruling encompasses all people. The meaning of {Some of you are enemies to others} is the enmity, hatred, and mutual misguidance among people.
   • Critique: This view is weak because the progeny did not exist at that time, so how could the command address them? The question is resolved if one argues that the minimum number for a plural command is two.

It seems to be a command, as it involved severe hardship: leaving Paradise for a place where sustenance is only attained through toil and hardship. This is one of the hardest obligations. If this is established, the notion that it was a punishment is refuted, because severity in obligation is a cause for reward, so how can it be punishment when it involves great benefit?

• Objection: Do you not say that Hadd punishments and many expiations are punishments, even though they are obligations?
• Reply: Punishments (Ḥudūd) are inflicted upon the punished by another's action, so they can be punishment if the person persists. As for expiations, some are said to resemble punishments because they are only established alongside sin. But they cannot be punishments while simultaneously being avenues for great reward.

{Go down, some of you enemies to others} commands the descent, not the enmity. The enmity of Iblīs toward Adam and Eve was due to envy, arrogance regarding prostration, and deceiving them out of Paradise. His enmity toward their progeny is through whispering and inviting them to disbelief and sin—none of which can be commanded. As for Adam's enmity toward Iblīs, it is commanded by God: {Indeed, Satan is to you an enemy, so take him as an enemy} (Fāṭir: 6), and {O children of Adam, let not Satan tempt you as he caused your parents to be evicted from Paradise} (Al-A'rāf: 27). Thus, the meaning of the verse is: Go down from Heaven while some of you are enemies to others.

Mustaqarr can mean "settlement" (as in {To your Lord is the final settlement} (Al-Qiyāmah: 12)), or it can mean "the place where one settles" (as in {The inhabitants of Paradise that Day will be in the best settlement} (Al-Furqān: 24)), or {a place of settlement and a place of temporary stay} (Al-An'ām: 98).

The majority interpret {And for you in the earth is a settlement} (wa lakum fī al-arḍi mustaqarr) (Al-Baqarah: 36 / Al-A'rāf: 24) as the place. The meaning is that the Earth is your settlement during both life and death. Al-Suddī narrated from Ibn 'Abbās that al-mustaqarr means the grave, where you will be. The first interpretation is preferable because God mentioned provision (matā') alongside it, which only suits the state of life. Furthermore, He addressed them upon descent, which implies the state of life.

Note that in Sūrat Al-A'rāf, God said concerning this story: {He said, "Go down, some of you enemies to others. And for you in the earth is a settlement and provision for a time. In it you will live and in it you will die, and from it you will be brought forth} (Al-A'rāf: 24-25). It is possible that {In it you will live and in it you will die...} is an explanation of {a settlement and provision for a time}, or it is an addition to it.

They agreed that ḥīn means time. The preferable meaning is an extended period of time, because a person says to his companion, "I haven't seen you for a ḥīn" only when the viewing has been distant, not when it is near. Since people's lifespans are long and their appointed times are distant from their initial creation, it is appropriate to say {and provision for a time}.

These verses contain a great warning against all sins in several ways:

1. Whoever contemplates what happened to Adam (PBUH) due to his commitment to this minor slip will be severely fearful of sins. The poet said:

   O observer looking with a drowsy eye, And witnessing the matter without truly seeing, Sins reach sins, yet you hope To attain Paradise and the success of the worshipper. Have you forgotten that God expelled Adam From it to this world because of a single sin?

Fath al-Mawṣilī said: "We were a people of Paradise, but Iblīs enslaved us to this world. We have nothing but anxiety and sorrow until we return to the abode from which we were expelled."

2. A warning against arrogance (istikbār), envy (ḥasad), and greed (ḥirṣ). Qatādah said regarding {He refused and was arrogant} (Al-Baqarah: 34): The enemy of God, Iblīs, envied Adam for the honor God bestowed upon him, saying, "I am made of fire, and this is made of clay." Then he cast greed into Adam's heart, leading him to commit the forbidden act. Then he cast envy into the heart of Qābīl, leading him to kill Hābīl.

3. God clarified the intense enmity between the progeny of Adam and Iblīs, which is a great reminder of the necessity of caution.

< {Then Adam received from his Lord words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, He is the Acceptor of Repentance, the Merciful} >