Event: (20) And fruits of what they choose.

There are several issues concerning this verse:

Issue 1: What is the rationale for the genitive case (جر) for "fruits" (فاكهة), when the attendants (ولدان) do not circulate with fruits, as they do with meat, and the conjunction implies similarity?

The answer lies in two perspectives:

1. Dual States of Enjoyment: In this world, meat and fruit are sought in two different states: one when drinking, and another when not. Fruits are taken from the tops of trees, as stated: "Whose clusters are near at hand" (Al-Haqqah: 23) and "The gardens of both will be near" (Ar-Rahman: 54), and so on. As for the state of drinking, it is possible that attendants circulate, offering them rare fruits and wondrous meats, not necessarily for eating, but for honor, just as a host places various fruits by a guest even if both are equally close to them.
2. Grammatical Connection: Alternatively, it is a connection in meaning to "Gardens of Bliss" (جنات النعيم), meaning: they are the Near Ones in Gardens, and [enjoying] fruits, and meat, and Houris—meaning they are immersed in these bounties. The famous view, however, is that the connection is purely by juxtaposition in wording (للمجاورة) rather than in meaning. This is permissible, just as it is permissible to say one wears a sword and a spear (تقلد سيفا ورمحا).

Issue 2: Is there eloquence in specifying "choice" (تخير) for fruits and "craving/desire" (اشتهاء) for meat?

Indeed, how could there not be eloquence, when every letter in the Qur'an possesses eloquence and fluency, even if my limited intellect cannot fully grasp it?

What appears evident is this: when meat and fruit are presented to a hungry person, the soul inclines toward the meat. When presented to a satiated person, the soul inclines toward the fruit. The hungry person craves (مشتهي), while the satiated person does not necessarily crave; he merely chooses (مختار) if he wishes to eat, and if not, he does not. We do not say of the hungry person that he chooses, because the particle an (أن) is only used for something doubtful.

Given this, it is established that in this world, meat is associated with desire (for the hungry), and fruit is associated with choice (for the non-craving). The description of Paradise reflects this worldly understanding: meat is associated with desire, and fruit with choice.

The linguistic subtlety is that choice (ikhtiyār) implies selecting the better of two options, where the two options initially present no strong inclination for the chooser, requiring contemplation before selecting one over the other. Enjoyment/relishing (tafakkuh), which is related to takhayyur (choosing the best), occurs when there is no pressing need. If someone specifically desires a certain fruit, summons it, and eats it, he is not truly relishing it; he is merely satisfying a need.

However, the fruits of Paradise are first present before the inhabitants without any prior inclination, and then they relish them according to their choice (takhayyur). As for meat, their souls incline toward it with the slightest inclination, and then it appears before them. The inclination of the soul toward food is desire (shahwah).

Evidence for this is found in verses describing fruits: "Whose clusters are near at hand" (Al-Haqqah: 23), "The gardens of both will be near" (Ar-Rahman: 54), and "And abundant fruits, Unfailing, unprohibited" (Al-Waqi'ah: 32-33), indicating their constant presence.

Regarding meat, it is narrated that a bird flies, and the believer's soul inclines toward its meat, and it descends roasted or fried according to his desire.

Conclusion: Fruits are present, and the believer chooses (yatakhyyar) after their presence. Meat is sought by the believer, and his soul inclines toward it slightly, because fruits delight the eyes upon their presence, whereas meat does not necessarily delight the eyes upon its mere presence.

Furthermore, there is a linguistic subtlety: the Almighty said, "of what they choose" (mimmā yatakhyyarūn) and did not say, "of what they select" (mimmā yakhtārūn), despite the near meaning. This is because takhayyur implies a degree of effort or refinement, suggesting they take what is of the utmost perfection, which is only possible for one who has no need or compulsion.

Issue 3: What is the wisdom in presenting fruit before meat?

The answer has several aspects:

1. Worldly Custom: In this world, the custom is to start eating with fruits, and Paradise is described based on known worldly descriptions, especially the customs associated with drinking gatherings. Perhaps the intent is to describe the state of the inhabitants of Paradise during their drinking sessions.
2. Digestive Wisdom: In this world, wisdom dictates eating fruit first because it is lighter, descends faster, and requires less time in the stomach for digestion. Moreover, fruit stimulates the appetite for eating, whereas meat satisfies it.
3. Context of Choice vs. Desire: Based on what we have discussed, fruit is always present, while meat appears upon desire. This indicates a state of satiety, as a truly hungry person would have a greater need for meat than the ability to choose it. Therefore, the mention of fruit first (wa-fākihah) suggests a state similar to satiety in this world, where one inclines more toward fruit, hence its precedence. This third explanation is the soundest, as some fruits are only eaten after a main meal, making the first explanation universally inapplicable.