Verses 115–126
These verses narrate the story of Adam and his wife’s entering the Garden and leaving it through insinuation by the Satan and God’s decision thereupon to legislate the religion; happiness for whoever follows guidance and wretchedness for whoever turns away from His remembrance.
The story appears in this chapter in the briefest wording and [with] the most beautiful expressions. The main intention in it—as testified to by its conclusion—is linked to explaining what He has decreed—legislating the religion, requital, reward and punishment. It is also supported by the deduction made after it: And thus do We recompense him who is extravagant and does not believe in the communications of his Lord …
True—insofar as it refers to Adam’s repentance—the story is somewhat linked to, And most surely I am most Forgiving to him who repents and believes and does good, then continues to follow the right direction. The story, as is clear from its context in this chapter and wherever else it is referred to for example, al-Baqarah (The Cow) and al-Aʿrāf (The Elevated Places), depicts Man’s state in accordance with his corporeal and material nature. God created him with the best makeup, immersed him in His innumerable blessings and made him dwell in the Garden of temperance. He prohibited him from transgressing by going to the side of extravagance due to following his desires and attachment to the mirage of this world. He warned him against forgetting the side of the Lord by forsaking his covenant to Him, disobeying Him, and following the insinuations of Satan who decorates this world in his eyes. By doing so, Satan makes it appear to his imagination that if he clings to this world and forgets his Lord he will thereby acquire power over natural causes and will be able to employ them in order to acquire all of the pleasures that he desires, which will eternally remain for him and he will eternally remain for them. It is thus that one clings to this world and forgets the status of his Lord. As a result, the evils of life will eventually appear to him and the grim face of wretchedness will become manifest to him. Calamities befall him, time betrays him, the means will let him down and Satan will turn away from him. As a result, he begins to cover himself with visible blessings and tries to make up for the loss of one blessing with another present one. He escapes from one punishment to a more excruciating one, and ventures to treat a pain with a more severe one, until he is finally ordered to go out of the Garden of bliss and honor to the pitfall of wretchedness and failure. This is what appeared to Adam when God put him in the Garden and bestowed honor upon him, until his case ended up where it did. However, his events occurred before the legislation of any religion to begin with, and his Garden was an intermediary (barzakhiyyah) Garden represented in an otherworldly life. Thus the proscription was an advisory one (irshādī) not an authoritative one (mawlawī). Hence, the consequence of his disobedience was an inevitable and natural outcome of what he did, not to legislative punishment meted out due to disobedience, as we discussed in detail in the exposition of chapters 2 (al-Baqarah) and 7 (al-Aʾrāf).
Commentary
وَلَقَدْ عَهِدْنَا إِلَىٰ آدَمَ مِنْ قَبْلُ فَنَسِيَ وَلَمْ نَجِدْ لَهُ عَزْمًا ١١٥
(20:115) And certainly We made a covenant with Adam before, but he forgot; and We did not find in him any determination.
[The word] ʿahd means advice. It is used in this sense for edicts and constitutions. Nisyān, forgetting, is well known but it may be used metonymically for not doing [something] because it is concomitant to it—when something is forgotten it is not done. ʿAzm means firm resolve to do something. He says: … so when you have decided (ʿazamta), then place your trust in God ().
It may also be used to mean forbearance, perhaps because forbearance is something difficult for souls and thus it requires a stronger and more resolute determination. ʿAzm as forbearance is an example of referring to something [that is, forbearance] by the name of one of its implications [that is, determination]. He says: … these most surely are actions due to courage (la min ʿazm al-umūr) ().
It means: “I swear, We advised Adam before but he forsook the advice and We did not find in him any firm resolve to keep it or [to have] forbearance for it”. The aforementioned ʿahd as is apparent from his story in various places in the Qur’an was the prohibition from eating from the tree, for example: … but do not go near this tree ().
وَإِذْ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ أَبَىٰ ١١٦ فَقُلْنَا يَا آدَمُ إِنَّ هَٰذَا عَدُوٌّ لَكَ وَلِزَوْجِكَ فَلَا يُخْرِجَنَّكُمَا مِنَ الْجَنَّةِ فَتَشْقَىٰ ١١٧
(20:116-117) And when We said to the Angels: Make obeisance to Adam, they made obeisance, but Iblīs (did it not); he refused. So We said: O Adam! This is an enemy to you and to your wife; therefore let him not drive you both forth from the Garden so that you should be unhappy;
This is joined with a conjunction to an implied phrase: “Remember Our covenant to him [Adam] and remember a time when We commanded the Angels to make obeisance to him, who made obeisance except for Iblīs. Make mention of this so that it may become clear that he forgot and resolved not to keep to Our command”. His Word, abā (refused) is the answer to an implied question, namely: What did Iblīs do? Came the answer: He refused. His Words, So We said: O Adam! This is an enemy to you and to your wife; therefore let him not drive you both forth from the Garden so that you should be unhappy follow on consequentially from Iblīs’ refusal to make obeisance that is, when he refused, We said by way of directing Adam to what was best for him and by way of advice: This one who refused to make obeisance—Iblīs—is an enemy to you and your wife…
… therefore let him not drive you both forth from the Garden: Directing the instruction to Iblīs—not to drive them both forth from the Garden—at Adam, is metonymy for an instruction for him not to obey Iblīs or be inadvertent to his trickery and underestimate his scheming that is, do not obey him or be inadvertent to his trickery and insinuation such that he gains mastery over you and has the power to drive you both forth from the Garden and make you both unhappy.
In his exegesis, Imam al-Rāzī cites a number of explanations for the reason why Iblīs was an enemy to Adam and his wife. They are ridiculous reasons, and going to the length of citing them is of no benefit. The truth is that the reason for his [Iblīs] expulsion from the favored position, his being damned and cursed to the day of resurrection as is clear from His Words—may God curse him—is as cited by God in: He said: My Lord! Because Thou hast made life evil to me, I will certainly make (evil) fair-seeming to them on earth, and I will certainly cause them all to deviate () and He said: Tell me, is this he whom Thou hast honored above me? If Thou shouldst respite me to the day of resurrection, I will most certainly cause his progeny to perish except a few ().
Obviously, honoring Adam over Satan means honoring the human species over him, just as ordering him to make obeisance to Adam means ordering him to make obeisance to the human species. Hence, the main reason [for Satan’s enmity] was giving precedence and superiority to mankind over him, followed by his expulsion and curse.
His Word fatashqā is a consequence of their [Adam and Eve’s] expulsion from the Garden. Shaqāʾ means drudgery that is, you will be tired if you leave the Garden and live a worldly life elsewhere—the earth—confronting needs and your striving to fulfil them, for example, the need for food, drink, clothing, shelter etc. Proof that shaqāʾ means drudgery is in the two subsequent verses which is indicated in its exegesis: And that you shall not be thirsty therein nor shall you feel the heat of the sun. It is also proof that the prohibition was advisory—disobedience of which would result in no more than falling into the harm consequential to the deed itself that is, the drudgery of striving to fulfil life’s needs and acquire what is necessary to live—and not authoritative, the very disobedience of which would have been harm into which the servant fell, consequential to which would be punishment in the Hereafter.
Furthermore, the readers know that the covenant was before the legislation of the foundation of religion which [only] happened upon the command to leave the Garden and descend to the earth. As for the use of the singular in tashqā (you should be unhappy) and not saying tashqiyā in the dual form, it is because the covenant only came down upon Adam and the words were addressed to him. That is why the singular was used with regard to everything referring to it, for example:
- but he forgot; and We did not find in him any determination.
- so that you should be unhappy.
- that you shall not be hungry therein nor bare of clothing.
- And that you shall not be thirsty therein nor shall you feel the heat of the sun.
- But the Shaytan made an evil suggestion to him
- and Adam disobeyed
- Then his Lord chose him, so He turned to him
True, the dual is used where it is unavoidable as in:
- an enemy to you and your wife; therefore let him not drive you both forth
- Then they both ate of it, so their evil inclinations became manifest to them
- so they began to cover themselves
- Get forth you two therefrom, all (of you), one of you (is) enemy to another
The reader should reflect on this.
It is claimed that the singular is used for tashqā (you should be unhappy) because a Man has a duty to maintain a Woman. That is why shaqāʾ that is, drudgery in earning a living is attributed to Adam. The problem is that the two subsequent verses do not fit that. If it was as claimed, it would have said: “Surely it is (ordained) for you [dual] that you shall not be hungry therein nor bare of clothing and that you [dual] shall not be thirsty therein nor shall you [dual] feel the heat of the sun”.
إِنَّ لَكَ أَلَّا تَجُوعَ فِيهَا وَلَا تَعْرَىٰ ١١٨ وَأَنَّكَ لَا تَظْمَأُ فِيهَا وَلَا تَضْحَىٰ ١١٩
(20:118-119) Surely it is (ordained) for you that you shall not be hungry therein nor bare of clothing; And that you shall not be thirsty therein nor shall you feel the heat of the sun.
One says ḍaḥā, yaḍḥā—like saʿā; yasʾʿā—daḥawā, daḥyā when the sun hits one or shines for one as if what is meant by the lack of ḍaḥw is that there is no effect from the heat of the sun such that there is any need to take shelter in any abode as protection from heat and cold. The four things are put in order in the style of sequential folding and evolution (laff wa nashr) to observe the pauses. The basis of the sequence is that, you shall not be hungry, thirsty, bare or feel the heat of the sun.
فَوَسْوَسَ إِلَيْهِ الشَّيْطَانُ قَالَ يَا آدَمُ هَلْ أَدُلُّكَ عَلَىٰ شَجَرَةِ الْخُلْدِ وَمُلْكٍ لَا يَبْلَىٰ ١٢٠
(20:120) But the Satan (al-Shaytan) made an evil suggestion to him; he said: O Adam! Shall I guide you to the tree of immortality and a kingdom which decays not (lā yablā)?
Al-Shaytan means the evil one—Iblīs’ nickname because of his being evil. The tree of immortality means the forbidden tree. Al-bilā means a thing’s becoming old—the opposite of new. The tree of immortality means a tree, the fruit of which gives everlasting life. A kingdom which decays not means a rulership which is not affected by the passage of time and friction from competitors and impediments. It ultimately means something like what we say—“Shall I guide you to a tree (such that) eating the fruit from it, you will be bestowed with everlasting life and an eternal kingdom”. Thus, lā yablā is not repetition to achieve emphasis as has been claimed. The proof of what is said here is in Sūrah al-A ʿrāf (The Elevated Places) with regard to this theme: Your Lord has not forbidden you this tree except that you may not both become two Angels or that you may (not) become of the immortals ().
There is no contradiction between combining eternal life and eternal kingdom here [] with the conjunction wāw (and) and presenting them as alternatives (al-tardīd) in Sūrah al-A ʿrāf (The Elevated Places) because it is possible that the presentation as alternatives there is to negate “neither” (manʾ al-khuluww) but not to negate “both” (manʾ al-jamʾ). The combination here is with regard to its having both attributes and the presentation as alternatives there [] is with regard to the muta ʿalliq (dependent object) of the nahy (prohibition) as if to say: “Surely there are two attributes in this tree. Your Lord has only prohibited you from it because of one or the other or surely your Lord prohibited you from it so that you would not abide forever in the Garden with an eternal kingdom, or you should not be eternal based on eternal kingdom—meaning everlasting life”. This is something the reader should understand. Whatever the case may be, there is no contradiction between the presentation as alternatives in one verse and combining the two in another.
فَأَكَلَا مِنْهَا فَبَدَتْ لَهُمَا سَوْآتُهُمَا وَطَفِقَا يَخْصِفَانِ عَلَيْهِمَا مِنْ وَرَقِ الْجَنَّةِ ۚ
(20:121) Then they both ate of it, so their evil inclinations became manifest to them, and they both began to cover themselves with leaves of the Garden …
Exegesis of this appeared in Sūrah al-A ʿrāf (The Elevated Places).
وَعَصَىٰ آدَمُ رَبَّهُ فَغَوَىٰ ١٢١
(20:121) … and Adam disobeyed his Lord, so he erred.
Al-Ghayy (lit. error, going astray) is the opposite of al-rushd which means hitting on the truth, not error which is straying off the path. Hudā (guidance) is the opposite of both of them—it means guidance if it is made the opposite of error, for example, in the subsequent verse, and, showing the way or taking [someone] to the destination by setting someone on the way if it is the opposite of ḍalāl (straying) so it is not satisfactory to explain ghayy in this verse as ḍalāl (straying).
Adam’s disobedience of his Lord, as referred to above, and previously explained, just means his disobeying an advisory instruction and not an authoritative one. The Prophets are protected from disobedience and transgression with regard to a matter attributable to the religion which is revealed to them, with respect to their receiving it—so they do not sin—and with respect to their preserving it—so they do not forget or corrupt—and, with respect to their passing and communicating it to the people, in word—their speaking nothing but the truth which is revealed to them—and deed—their actions not contradicting their words. They do not accrue any minor or major sin because there is communication through action just as through word. As for disobedience in the sense of disobeying an advisory instruction motivated by nothing but achieving that which is instructed as one of life’s good or benefits by choosing the best way—like a sincere counselor who commands and prohibits by way of advice—obedience or disobedience thereof has nothing to do with the proofs for infallibility, as is clear.
This may be what is meant by someone who says that in spite of their infallibility, it is possible for the Prophets not to do what is best (tark al-awlā), for example, Adam’s eating from the tree. The verse is one of the battlegrounds of [different] opinions. Exegeses differ according to their different schools of thought on the infallibility of the Prophets, each of [the exegetes] feathering his own nest.
ثُمَّ اجْتَبَاهُ رَبُّهُ فَتَابَ عَلَيْهِ وَهَدَىٰ ١٢٢
(20:122) Then his Lord chose him, so He turned to him and guided (him).
Ijtibāʾ as stated many times above means collecting in the way of selection. Part of it is His collecting His servant for Himself, not sharing him with anyone and making him one of the mukhlaṣīn (the most sincere). Based on this explanation, the clause, so He turned to him and guided (him) follows on consequentially. It is as if he was made up of different, separate parts and He collected them together from here and there into one place then turned to him, guided him and made him advance toward Himself. Here we interpreted hadā (“guided him”) as “guided him to Himself” even though the term is unqualified. We did so because of the context provided by the clause, “chose him”. This does not contradict unqualified guidance because being guided to Him is the root and origin of all guidance. True, guidance has to be restricted to what pertains to the religion—true belief and good deeds. Its proof is guidance in the verse being made consequential to choosing. This is something the reader should ponder upon.
Thus, what we have presented (as explanation) cannot be objected to by saying that the apparent [effect] of this guidance appearing after reference to that ghiwāyah (not getting it right) is that, that ghiwāyah is not connected to it. Because the ghiwāyah pertained to an advisory instruction, the verse means his being given infallibility in instances both of authoritative and advisory instructions and his being protected from error both in religious and secular matters. The reason why this objection cannot be made is because guidance has been made consequential to being chosen, which apparently means that he was guided to that for which he was chosen. The choosing is only linked to religious happiness that is, restricted to servitude to God.
Thus the guidance is also linked to that, that is, guidance without any intermediary between Him and the servant receiving guidance without any lag. As He says: … yet surely God does not guide him who leads astray ().
Guidance is also to life’s benefits even though they are also attributable to Him. However they are of those things in which causes come between them and Him and causes may fail. This is something the reader should consider.
قَالَ اهْبِطَا مِنْهَا جَمِيعًا ۖ بَعْضُكُمْ لِبَعْضٍ عَدُوٌّ ۖ فَإِمَّا يَأْتِيَنَّكُمْ مِنِّي هُدًى فَمَنِ اتَّبَعَ هُدَايَ فَلَا يَضِلُّ وَلَا يَشْقَىٰ ١٢٣
(20:123) He said: Get forth you two therefrom, all (of you), one of you (is) enemy to another. So there will surely come to you guidance from Me, then whoever follows My guidance, he shall not go astray nor be unhappy
This is similar to what was explained (by way of exegesis) in Sūrah al-Baqarah [The Cow] and Sūrah al-Aʾrāf [The Elevated Places].
There is in the clause, He said: Get forth you two, a grammatical shift for rhetorical purpose from the second person to the third person singular. The reason for it may be because the verse contains judgment and sentence which are exclusive to Him. He says: And God judges with the truth () … and … judgment is only God’s … ().
So there will surely come to you guidance from Me, then whoever follows My guidance, he shall not go astray nor be unhappy: There is in the verse a judgment from Him consequential to the fall. That is why it is joined with the fāʾ (so) denoting consequentiality. Fa immā is originally fa in, where an extra aā is added for emphasis. Then this is further emphasized by letter nūn in yaʾtiyannakum. These two emphases indicate the occurrence of the condition, as if to say: If guidance comes to you from Me—and it inevitably comes—whoever follows guidance…
Ascribing “following” to “guidance” in the clause, then whoever follows My guidance is a metaphorical expression in the form of metonymy. The basis of it is: Whoever follows the guide who guides by My guidance.
His Words, he shall not go astray or be unhappy mean he will not stray on his path and will not be unhappy at his destination which is the outcome of his affair. The lack of any qualification to ḍalāl (straying) and shaqāʾ (unhappiness) dictates negation of straying and unhappiness from him, both in this world and the Hereafter. This is indeed the case, for surely God’s guidance is what He has called to through the tongues of His Prophets and which conforms to the innate human nature (fiṭra). It consists of a set of beliefs and deeds which Man’s instinct and disposition call him to in accordance with the systems put at his disposal. Obviously everything’s happiness is what its disposition dictates along with what it has been equipped with. There is no happiness beyond that. He says: Then set your face upright for religion in the right state—the nature (fiṭra) made by God in which He has made men; there is no altering of God’s creation; that is the right religion ().
وَمَنْ أَعْرَضَ عَنْ ذِكْرِي فَإِنَّ لَهُ مَعِيشَةً ضَنْكًا وَنَحْشُرُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ أَعْمَىٰ ١٢٤
(20:124) And whoever turns away from My reminder, his shall be a straitened life, and We will raise him on the day of resurrection, blind.
Al-Rāghib says:
al-ʿish means life exclusive to animals. It is more particular than ḥayāt because ḥayāt is said about animals, the Creator and the Angels. Maʿīshah is derived from it because a living is made from it (limā yuta ʿayyashu minhu). He says: We distribute among them their livelihood (maʿīshatahum) in the life of this world and a straitened life (maʿīshatan ḍankan) ().
Ḍank means straits of everything. The masculine and feminine are both the same. One says makan ḍank (a narrow place [masculine]) and maʿishah ḍank (a straitened life [feminine]). Etymologically it is a gerund (maṣdar) from yadunk of the same pattern as sharafa, yashrufu and it means, to be straitened.
“And whoever turns away from My reminder” contrasts “then whoever follows My guidance” in the previous verse. The contrast should have naturally said: “And whoever does not follow My guidance”. The only reason He departs from that, instead referring to “turning away from the reminder”, is to show thereby the reason for the ruling, because forgetting Him and turning away from His reminder is the reason for a wretched life and blindness on the day of resurrection. It is a prelude and introduction to what is mentioned below: His negligence, on the day of resurrection, of those who neglected Him in this world.
“Reminder” here could be an infinitive, where “His reminder” would mean the act of remembering God, which is a case of ascription of an infinitive to the object of the verb. It could also mean the Qur’an or all divine books, as supported by His subsequent statement, Our communications came to you but you neglected them. It could also refer to the call of the truth, which is called a reminder (dhikr) because the remembrance of God is a necessary consequence and implication of it.
His Words, his shall be a straitened life, means wretched (ḍayyiqah) life. That is because nothing will remain for whoever forgets his Lord and stops remembering Him apart from clinging to the world and making it his only pursuit which he strives for. He will care about fixing, increasing and gaining enjoyment from his livelihood. The livelihood he has been given will not suffice him, no matter whether it is a little or a lot, because he is never satisfied with whatever he achieves and acquires, but constantly hankers for more, without any limit. He will always have straitness of heart and be exasperated by what he finds, his heart attached to what is beyond it along with the worry, grief, sorrow, distress, anxiety and fear which assails him upon the descent of calamities and accidents such as death, illness, malady, the envy of the envious, the scheming of schemers, striving resulting in disappointment and loss of loved ones. If only he knew the status of his Lord and remembered Him without negligence, then he would be certain that he has a life with his Lord that is unadulterated by death, a dominion that is not afflicted by evanescence, a power that is unsullied by humiliation, and a happiness, joy, honor and dignity that have no end. He would realize that this world is an ephemeral abode and its life is naught but a trivial enjoyment compared to the Hereafter. If he realized that, his soul would be satisfied by what of the world has been assigned to him. His livelihood would suffice him without narrowness or straitness.
It has been claimed that “straitened life” means the punishment of the grave and the wretchedness of life in the barzakh (purgatory) based on the fact that many who turn away from the remembrance of God attain the most abundant livelihoods, and the affairs of this world are completely docile under their command. They live rich and happy lives in this world.
The problem with that is that it is based on comparing a rich way of life with a poor way of life with regard to the ways of life themselves and their means. However, the Qur’an does not assess wealth and poverty in and of themselves, but it views them in light of a believer’s way of life who is armed with God’s remembrance and belief in Him, versus an unbeliever’s way of life who is forgetful of his Lord, whose soul is attached to life in the worldly life, and who is far away from faith. There is no doubt that a believer has a free, happy life; He is content with the livelihood that his Lord has bestowed upon him, even if it is the bare necessity or less than that. The one who turns away from remembrance of his Lord will have nothing but discontent with what he finds and attachment to what is beyond that.
True, punishment of the grave is an example of a straitened life based on “his shall be a straightened life” being addressed to explaining their state in this world and His Words, and We will raise him on the day of resurrection, blind to explain their state in the Hereafter, the barzakh (purgatory life) being on the tails of the world.
It has been claimed that a straitened life means the straitness of hell’s punishment on the day of resurrection and, We will raise him … [means] what precedes entering hell.
The problem with this explanation is that the lack of any qualification in the clause, his shall be a straitened life followed by the qualification of the words, and We will raise him to the day of resurrection does not fit it as is obvious.
True, if the beginning of the verse is treated as unqualified—thus applicable to the way of life both in this world and the Hereafter—and the end of it as restricted to the Hereafter, there is validity for it.
His Words, and We will raise him on the day of resurrection, blind mean such that he is not guided to where his happiness would be, that is, Paradise. Proof of that is what is coming up in the two subsequent verses.
قَالَ رَبِّ لِمَ حَشَرْتَنِي أَعْمَىٰ وَقَدْ كُنْتُ بَصِيرًا ١٢٥
(20:125) He shall say: My Lord! why hast Thou raised me blind and I was a seeing one indeed?
It springs to mind that blindness on the day of resurrection is linked to the sense of sight because what he asks about is the loss of his sight which he had in the world that is, his sense of sight as opposed to vision of the heart that is, baṣīrah. There is an apparent contradiction between what is said here and some other verse that talk about the guilty seeing the horrors of the day and the signs of grandeur and subjugation as in: And could you but see when the guilty shall hang down their heads before their Lord: Our Lord! we have seen and we have heard () and Read your book … ().
That is why some of them say that they will first be raised seeing then they will go blind. Some of them will be raised seeing, then blind, then seeing [again]. This is based on comparing the affairs in the Hereafter with the affairs in this world, which is an analogy between two dissimilar things. It is evident and agreed upon based on the Qur’an and Sunnah that the system governing in the Hereafter is not the same as the system that governs the world and which we are accustomed to in the realm of nature. In this world the seeing can see everything visible while the blind cannot see anything that can be seen. There is no evidence that it applies also to the system in the Hereafter. It is possible for the matter to be separable there—the guilty being unable to see where happiness, success and victory through honour in their life would be, but able to see what completes the case against him, the terrors of the resurrection which terrify him and that by which the punishment becomes more severe—Hellfire and so on. He says: Nay! most surely they shall on that day be debarred from their Lord ().
قَالَ كَذَٰلِكَ أَتَتْكَ آيَاتُنَا فَنَسِيتَهَا ۖ وَكَذَٰلِكَ الْيَوْمَ تُنْسَىٰ ١٢٦
(20:126) He will say: Even so, Our communications came to you but you neglected them; even thus shall you be forsaken this day.
[This is] the answer to the person’s question: My Lord! why hast Thou raised me blind and I was a seeing one indeed? The demonstrative kadhālika [literally: like that, even so] in kadhālika atātka (“Even so, Our communications came to you”) refers to his being raised blind as referred to in the question, and, in kadhālika al-yawm, thus this day, to the meaning of, Our communications came to you but you neglected them. It means: “He will say, Just as We raised you blind, Our communications came to you but you neglected them. Just as Our communications came to you and you neglected them, We will forsake you this day. That is, your are raised blind on this day of resurrection and you are left on your own without being able to see, just as something neglected is left on its own. This is like your negligence of Our communications in the world. Your failure to be guided by Our communications in the world is like Our forsaking you today and not guiding you by not making you seeing so that you would find your way to salvation. In other words, We are requiting you on this day just as you acted in the world”. As He says: And the recompense of evil is punishment like it ().
God calls the guilty’s disobedience as forgetting (nisyān) His communications—their having turned away from remembrance of Him and forsaking His guidance—and their being punished with blindness on the day of resurrection and His forsaking (nisyān) them. The end of what He says is turned back to the beginning—Adam’s disobedience which He called forgetting His covenant, saying, And certainly We made a covenant with Adam before, but he forgot… It is as if the story of Adam’s Garden along with all its particulars was an earlier parable representing what would happen to his children after him right up to the day of resurrection. Thus His prohibition of approaching the tree resembles the religious call and the divine guidance that would come later on, and Adam’s disobedience—that is, his negligence (nisyān) of the covenant—resembles his offspring’s acts of disobedience which are negligence of His remembrance and His reminding communications. The only difference with Adam’s test is that it was before any laws of Shariah were legislated. Thus the prohibition addressed to him was of advisory nature. His disobedience was a case of not doing what is preferred, unlike the disobedience of his descendants.
Examining Narrations
- Tafsīr, al-Qummī says about His Words, And certainly We made a covenant with Adam before, but he forgot; and We did not find in him any determination: It is an example of what He forbade him from, was eating from the tree.
- Tafsīr, al-ʿAyyāshī on the authority of Jamīl ibn Darrāj on the authority of one of our companions on the authority of one of the two of them: I asked him: How did God penalize Adam for forgetting. He said: He did not forget. How could he have forgotten when Iblīs said to him: Your Lord has not forbidden you this tree except that you may not both become two Angels or that you may (not) become of the immortals ().
Author’s comment: This is the opinion of someone who says of the verse that forgetting is meant literally—that Adam literally forgot the prohibition when he ate and did not have any determination at all to disobey. He refuted that by saying that it contradicts the Book. Thus the weakness becomes apparent of what is narrated on the authority of al-Bāqir: God, Blessed and Almighty is He, commanded Adam not to approach this tree. When the time within God’s knowledge came for him to eat from it, he forgot [his covenant] and thus ate from it. That is what God’s words mean: And certainly We made a covenant with Adam before, but he forgot; and We did not find in him any determination. This opinion is attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās. [The original follows]
- It is narrated on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās: I asked ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb about God’s words: O you who believe! do not put questions about things which if declared to you may trouble you … He said: There was a problem with the lineage of some men from among the Muhajirin and so they said one day: We swear by God, we would like God to reveal some Qur’an about our lineage. Thereafter, God revealed what you have recited. He then said to me: Surely this companion of yours that is, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, if he were in charge he would be ascetic. However I fear conceit for himself would carry him away. I said: O, commander of the faithful, surely our companion is, by God, he about whom we say that he is one of a kind, there is no substitute for him and that he never angered God’s Messenger all the days he kept him company. He said: Not even with regard to Abū Jahl’s daughter when he wanted to get engaged to her on top of Fāṭimah? I said: God said with regard to Adam’s act of disobedience: and We did not find in him any determination. Our companion did not intentionally anger God’s Messenger. However, the notions which no one is able to keep away from himself, be as he may one who understands God’s religion, knows God’s commandment. If his attention were to be drawn to it, he would resile and turn in repentance. He then said: O, Ibn ʿAbbās, whoever thinks that he can push back the seas and plunges into them with you until he reaches the depth of them is mistaken.
Author’s comment: He bases his proof on ʿazm meaning intention to disobey. Concomitant to this is forgetting being meant literally. Thus Adam did not remember the commandment when he ate but he did not have a firm intention to disobey so he did disobey his Lord. However, as indicated above, it contradicts: Your Lord has not forbidden you this tree except that you may not both become two Angels or that you may (not) become of the immortals ().
Furthermore, the explanation given for the verse does not fit the context provided by the verses preceding or following it. It is worth mentioning that Ibn ʿAbbās is above this statement being attributed to him, his being who he is.
As for what the hadith says about God’s Messenger being angry with ʿAlī for his wanting to get engaged to Abū Jahl’s daughter on top of Fāṭimah, it is an allusion to what Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim say via several chains of narration on the authority of al-Miswar ibn Makhramah. The wording of one of them is that ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib sought Abū Jahl’s daughter’s hand when Fāṭimah the daughter of God’s Messenger was still with him. When Fāṭimah heard about that, she came to the Prophet and said to him: Your people are talking about you [saying] that you do get angry for your daughters. This, ʿAlī is going to marry Abū Jahl’s daughter. Al-Miswar said: The Prophet then stood up and I heard him when he uttered the declarations of faith (tashahhada) then said: Now to our topic, surely I married off al-ʿĀṣ ibn al-Rubayʾ and he spoke to me and told me the truth. Surely, Fāṭimah is a part of me and I only hate them to test her. Verily, by God, God’s Messenger’s and God’s enemy’s daughter cannot ever both be married to the same man. He said: Thereafter, ʿAlī abandoned his proposal.
Careful scrutiny of what the hadith says makes one think ill of him because there is in it explicit defamation of the Prophet. If what it says is true, the anger on his part was a pre-Islamic (jāhiliyyah) inclination without anything to legitimize it. What was he angry with—with His Words, … then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four … () which is general, was not abrogated or particularized by any other verse particular to it? Was it some Sunnah which made Fāṭimah an exception to the verse and legislated a special rule of prohibition exclusive to her which had not hitherto been established or communicated prior to that? There is in the wording of the hadith an indication of that. Alternatively, this statement itself was an explanation and communication so it was not explained or communicated prior to that. There is no harm in breaking a rule before it is communicated and there is no disobedience in so doing. So what was the meaning of his becoming angry with someone who had not performed any act of disobedience or resolved to do so? He is innocent of these pre-Islamic dispositions. It is as if some of the narrators of hadith wanted to defame ʿAlī and [ended up] defaming the Prophet without realizing it.
Furthermore, it contradicts indubitable narrations which indicate ʿAlī’s innocence of any disobedience, for example, Khabar al-Thaqalayn (Narration of The Two Weighty Things), Khabar al-Manzilah (The Narration on Status) Khabar ʿAlī maʿa al-Ḥaqq (The Narration: ʿAlī is with the truth) etc.
- al-Bāqir said regarding God’s Words, And certainly We made a covenant with Adam before, but he forgot; and We did not find in him any determination: “He covenanted him regarding Muhammad and the Imams from his offspring but he forsook [it] and his mind was not made up about them that it was thus. They were only called ulī al-ʿazm because a covenant was made to them regarding Muhammad, the Executors after him and the Mahdī and his life. They were all resolved that it was all thus, confessing it”.
Author’s comment: The narration is an abridged version of a detailed hadith narrated on the authority of al-Bāqir mentioning Mankind’s creation followed by people’s being made witness to themselves in the world of particles and a covenant being taken from Adam and the Messengers firm in determination to [God’s] being Lord, Prophethood, guardianship (wilāyah), those firm in determination confessing to it and Adam’s hesitation and his mind not being made up to testify even though he did not reject. His Words: And certainly We made a covenant with Adam … are then applied to it.
The meaning referred to in the narration is an example of esoteric [interpretation of the] Qur’an (baṭn al-Qur’an) in which rules are referred back to their essence and covenants to their true meaning (taʾwīl)—divine guardianship. It is not exegesis of the wording of the verse at all. Proof that it is not exegesis is that the verses—twelve verses—all tell the same story. If the first verse is construed as such by way of exegesis, there is nothing left in the verses to indicate a prohibition on eating from the tree which is the cornerstone of the story upon which the remainder rests. Therefore, the clause, let him not drive you both forth from the Garden cannot subsist without it, as is obvious. The prohibition was not referred to in any chapter revealed before this chapter such that it can be referred to. Both chapters al-Aʾrāf and al-Baqarah in which the aforementioned prohibition was referred to, were revealed after this chapter, as will be alluded to if God pleases.
In short, it is esoteric interpretation and not exegesis even though it appears in some of the narrations in the form of exegesis, for example, Jabir’s aforementioned narration. It may be [an instance] of what some of the hadith narrators became confused about and so they presented it in this form. It reached the point in some of the narrations that the Imam’s words were made part of the verse and so it became one of the oral traditions [claiming] corruption for example, al-Manāqib on the authority of al-Bāqir: We covenanted (ʿahidnā) words about Muhammad, ʿAlī, Fatima, Hasan, Husayn and the Imams from their offspring to Adam. That is how it was revealed to Muhammad. Similar to these narrations are other narrations which are cases of application (ṭaṭbīq) of His Words, then whoever follows My guidance and from My reminder of the People of the Household’s guardianship. It is one of the narrations demonstrating continued relevance (al-jary) and not exegesis as mistakenly presumed.
- Ibn ʿAbbās said: God’s Messenger said: God will guide whoever follows His Book away from error in this world and protect him from the evil of the reckoning on the day of resurrection. That is [what it means when] God says: then whoever follows My guidance, he shall not go astray nor be unhappy.
Author’s comment: The hadith explains the words, he shall not go astray as referring to the world and, nor be unhappy as referring to the Hereafter. Thus it supports the aforementioned exegesis of the verse.
- Majmaʿ [al-bayān] says about His Words, his shall be a straitened life: It is said: It is the punishment of the grave. Abu Hurayrah narrates it via an unconnected chain of transmission (marfuʾ).
- Al-Kāfī says via its chain of narration on the authority of Abū Baṣīr: I heard al-Ṣadiq say: Whoever dies healthy and prosperous without having gone on Hajj is of those about whom God, Mighty and Sublime is He, said: and We will raise him on the day of resurrection, blind. I said: Subḥānallāh! Blind? He replied: Yes. God makes him blind to the path of truth.
Author’s comment: Al-Qummī narrates something similar in his exegesis on the authority of al-Ṣādiq. The oral tradition, in restricting the blindness on the day of resurrection to the path of truth that is, the path of success and happiness supports the aforementioned exegesis of the verse.
Rawḍat Al-Kāfī on the authority of Abū Ḥamzah. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of al-Zubayr ibn Bakkār in [Al-akhbār] al-Muwaffaqiyyāt. ↩︎
Al-Kāfī and Ilal [al-Sharaʾiʾ] via a chain of narration back to Jābir ibn Yāzid. ↩︎
Al-Kāfī on the authority of Muhammad ibn Yaḥyā on the authority of Aḥmad ibn Muhammad on the authority of Dawūd al-ʿIjlī on the authority of Zurārah on the authority of Ḥamrān. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr cited by Ibn Abī Shaybah, al-Tabarānī, Abu Naʿīm in al-Ḥilyah and Ibn Mardawayh. ↩︎
On the authority of Ibn Masʿūd, Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī and al-Saddī. ↩︎
Via a chain of narration back to Muʿawiyah ibn ʿAmmār and al-Ṣadūq [narrates it] in Man Lā Yaḥduruhu al-faqīh without any chain of narration on his authority. ↩︎