Discussion of the Narrations

The Paradise of Adam and Eve

From al-Ḥasan ibn Bashār from Abū ʿAbdillāh (a.s.): I asked about the Paradise of Adam. He said: “The Paradise of Adam was from the paradises of the world (dunyā) where the sun and moon rise. If it had been from the eternal paradises, he would never have left it.”(114)

From Amīr al-Muʾminīn (a.s.): “…Then God, glory be to Him, settled Adam in a house where his life was most pleasant and his dwelling was secure…”(115)

From al-Ṣādiq (a.s.): “Adam and Eve remained in Paradise until they left it for only seven hours from the days of the world (dunyā), until He made them descend on that day of theirs.”(116)

Analysis:

a) The term dunyā (world) contrasts with the Hereafter. It also includes heavenly beings because the world is not synonymous with the earth. Therefore, a heavenly being that is not on earth, even if it descends to earth, is still considered worldly.

b) The rising of the sun and moon, accompanied by the alternation of night and day, is possible in realms other than the Greater Resurrection. This implies that beings not of the Hereafter (in the sense of the Greater Resurrection) can still experience night and day. Verses 107 and 108 of Sūrah Hūd suggest that the heavens and earth are applicable to beings in the barzakh (intermediate realm) rather than the Greater Resurrection.

c) Adam’s exit from his Paradise suggests that it was not the eternal Paradise of the Greater Resurrection. However, this does not imply it was part of the material world. The rising of the sun and moon can also occur in the barzakh, and exiting a barzakh__ī (intermediate) Paradise is reasonable, possible, and even realized.

It is important to note that the term “world” can also encompass realms related to the Greater Resurrection, including the barzakh. This broader interpretation can be derived from the Noble Qur’an and will be addressed in its appropriate context. The concept of the barzakh can be categorized into different types, such as the descending barzakh and the ascending barzakh, among others. Therefore, if the Paradise of Adam (a.s.) is considered a barzakh__ī paradise, it does not exclusively refer to the barzakh that exists after death, which serves as an intermediate stage between the worldly life and the Greater Resurrection.

The Will & Desire of God

From Abū al-Ḥasan (a.s.): “Indeed, God has two wills and two desires: a will of determination and a will of resolution; He forbids while He desires, and He commands while He does not desire. Have you not seen that He forbade Adam and his wife from eating from the tree while He desired that? And if He had not desired for them to eat, their desire would not have overcome the desire of God. And He commanded Abraham to slaughter Isaac (Ishmael according to another narration), but He did not desire for him to slaughter him, and if He had desired, Abraham’s desire would not have overcome the desire of God.”(117)

From Abū ʿAbdullāh (a.s.): “By God, He commanded but did not desire, and He desired but did not command. He commanded Iblīs to prostrate to Adam and desired for him to prostrate, and He forbade Adam from eating from the tree and desired for him to eat from it, and if He had not desired, he would not have eaten.”(118)

Points:

a) The difference between will (irāda) and desire (mashīʾa) and their non-difference with each other requires its own special discussion and is not necessary at present, and the mentioned narrations also do not refer to the difference between these two with each other.

b) The difference of wills with each other and also the difference of desires with each other is pointed out in the mentioned narrations. It is clear that the legislative will (irāda tashrīʿiyya) will not be combined with the absence of legislative will; just as the legislative desire (mashīʾa tashrīʿiyya) is not combined with its absence, otherwise the impermissible combination of two contradictories would be necessary. However, the legislative will is completely compatible with the absence of existential desire (mashīʾa takwīniyya), and likewise the existential desire with legislative aversion (karāha tashrīʿiyya) or with the absence of complete legislative will, and there is no impermissibility in between at all.

Diversity in Service is Forbidden

ʿAbd al-Salām b. Ṣāliḥ al-Harawī said: I said to al-Riḍā (a.s.), “O son of the Messenger of God! Tell me about the tree from which Adam and Eve ate, what was it? For people have differed concerning it. Some of them relate that it was wheat, some of them relate that it was grapes, and some of them relate that it was the tree of envy.” He (a.s.) said, “All of that is true.” I said, “Then what is the meaning of these aspects despite their differences?” He said, “O Abū al-Ṣalt! The tree of Paradise bears different types, and it was a tree of wheat in which there were grapes, and it is not like the trees of this world…”(119)

From ʿAlī (a.s.): “It is the camphor tree.”(120)

From al-ʿAskarī (a.s.): “‘And do not approach this tree’—the tree of knowledge, the tree of the knowledge of Muḥammad and the family of Muḥammad (s.a.w.), whom God Almighty has preferred with it over the rest of His creation. So the Most High said, ‘Do not approach this tree’—the tree of knowledge, for it is for Muḥammad and his family specifically, to the exclusion of others. None partakes of it by God’s command except them. And from it is what the Prophet (s.a.w.), ʿAlī, Fāṭima, al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn (a.s.) partook of after feeding the orphan, the poor, and the captive, until they no longer felt hunger, thirst, fatigue or weariness afterwards. It is a tree that is distinguished among the trees of Paradise. The effect of the trees of Paradise was that each type of them bore one type of fruit and food, while this tree bore wheat, grapes, figs, jujube, and other types of fruits and foods. That is why those who mentioned the tree differed. Some of them said it is wheat, others said it is grapes, others said it is figs, and others said it is jujube…”(121)

From Ibn ʿAbbās: “The tree which God forbade Adam was the ear of corn (or wheat).”(122)

Note: Regarding the forbidden tree mentioned in this verse and the reason behind the differences in the narrations, it is possible that some narrations pertain to conceptual exegesis (tafsīr mafhūmī), while others relate to interpretation (taʾwīl). Some narrations may deal with the apparent meaning, while others explore the inner meanings. This diversity highlights that the infallible Imams (a.s.) addressed each individual according to their level of understanding. A similar approach can be observed in the exegeses narrated under the verse “Nūn. By the pen...” where, in some narrations, it is interpreted as the conventional writing tools, in another as a flowing river that the Glorious God commanded to solidify into ink,(123) sometimes as a radiant light,(124) and in some narrations, it is described that the Tablet and the Pen are two angels: “He said: They are two angels.”(125) Furthermore, the Imam (a.s.) remarks at the end of another narration: “Rise, for I cannot speak with you more than this, and this is not a safe place either,” suggesting that if a person possesses a greater capacity for understanding, more profound teachings would be revealed to them.

During the era when the Abbasid government aligned with the Ashʿarites, comprehending such teachings was extremely challenging, and disseminating them was even more difficult. The Ashʿarites were inclined to rely solely on the apparent meanings of the words, and the government of the time supported and encouraged this rigidity, particularly due to their belief in predestination. They insisted that anything suggesting wilāya (divine guardianship), spirituality, or deeper understanding should not be discussed at all.

The Noble Qur’an is like a rope with one end held by God and the other end held by human beings. The end in God’s hand is exalted (ʿalī) and wise (ḥakīm): “And indeed it is, in the Mother of the Book with Us, surely sublime and wise” (43:4). At this level, there is no discussion of words, expressions, conventions, or languages like Hebrew, Arabic, Persian, or any other. This is because that reality existed even before the creation of the heavens, the earth, human beings, and the emergence of literature. Literature belongs to conventional sciences, grounded in the agreements of linguists and scholars of language. Thus, a word with multiple meanings in one language might be entirely meaningless in another culture or lexicon. When a person steps beyond the boundaries of these conventions, they encounter another aspect of the Qur’an: “And indeed you receive the Qur’an from One All-Wise, All-Knowing” (27:6).

Of course, to reach the deeper reality of the Qur’an, one must navigate through the surface of outward forms and follow the rules and literal meanings of the Arabic language, as the Qur’an is presented to us in clear Arabic: “Indeed We have made it an Arabic Qur’an” (43:3). To access the inner meanings and profound truths of the Qur’an, it is essential not to overlook its outward expression. Only by engaging with and preserving the outward form can one attain its inner realities.

With this preface, we turn our attention to the narrations regarding the exegesis of the forbidden tree, as narrated by the esteemed scholar Fayḍ Kāshānī (may God have mercy on him). He begins with a narration from the tafsīr of Imam Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī (a.s.), who states that the forbidden tree represents the knowledge of Muḥammad and the Family of Muḥammad (s.a.w.), which is uniquely theirs. Through this knowledge, God has chosen them above all others, and only they, by God’s permission, partake of this tree: “It is the tree of the knowledge of Muḥammad and the Family of Muḥammad. God Almighty has preferred them with it over the rest of His creation. None partake from it by God’s command except them.”

Then he says: The Prophet (s.a.w.), ʿAlī, Fāṭima (a.s.), Ḥasan, and Ḥusayn (a.s.) would partake from this tree after feeding the poor, the orphan, and the captive, and thus they did not feel hunger, thirst, or the fatigue of hardship afterward: “And from it was what the Prophet (s.a.w.), ʿAlī, Fāṭima, Ḥasan, and Ḥusayn (a.s.) would partake after feeding the poor, the orphan, and the captive, such that they did not feel hunger, thirst, or the hardship of fatigue afterward.”(126)

He further explains: This tree is distinct from the trees of this world because each worldly tree bears only one type of fruit, whereas this tree produces wheat, grapes, figs, jujube, and other types of fruits, produce, and foods: “And it is a tree distinguished from other trees in that each of them only bears one type of fruit, while this tree and its kind bear wheat, grapes, figs, jujube, and other types of fruits, produce, and foods.”

Then he notes: This is why there are differing opinions about it; some have identified it as wheat, others as grapes, and some as jujube: “So for that reason, those who mention it have differed; some of them said: It is wheat, and others said: It is grapes, and others said: It is jujube.”

Finally, he concludes: This tree bestows upon those who partake of it with God’s permission the knowledge of the first and the last without the need for learning. However, whoever consumes from it without God’s permission will not achieve their intended purpose and will be in disobedience to their Lord: “It is the tree from which whoever partakes with God’s permission will be inspired with the knowledge of the first and the last without learning, and whoever partakes from it without God’s permission will fail in his purpose and disobey his Lord.”(127)

The second and third narrations, which the late Fayḍ briefly mentions, provide differing interpretations of the forbidden tree: one describes it as envy, while the other identifies it as camphor.

The fourth narration from ʿUyūn al-Akhbār is attributed to Imam al-Riḍā (a.s.). When he was told that people have differing opinions about the forbidden tree—some saying it was wheat, others saying grapes, and some saying it was envy—he responded: “All of that is true.” When Abā Ṣalt al-Harawī asked about the reason for these differing exegeses (tafsīr), the Imam explained: “The tree of Paradise (unlike the trees of this world) bears various types of fruits, and the forbidden tree was a wheat tree that also bore grapes.”

He further elaborated: When God, the Glorified, honored Adam, made the angels prostrate before him, and admitted him into Paradise, Adam thought to himself: “Has God created any human being better than me?” Aware of what had passed through Adam’s mind, God addressed him: “O Adam, raise your head and look at the Throne.” Adam raised his head and saw the following inscription on the Throne: “There is no god but God, Muḥammad is the Messenger of God (s.a.w.), and ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib is the Commander of the Faithful, and his wife Fāṭima is the mistress of the women of the worlds, and al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn are the masters of the youths of the people of Paradise.”

He said: “My Lord! Who are they?” God replied: “They are from your offspring, and they are better than you and all of My creation. Were it not for them, I would not have created you, nor Paradise and Hell, nor the heavens and the earth.”(128)

Then God warned: “Beware of looking at them with the eye of envy,(129) lest I expel you from My proximity.” Despite this, Adam looked at them with envy and desired their station. As a result, Satan gained control over him, leading him to eat from the forbidden tree. Similarly, Eve also fell under Satan’s influence due to her envious gaze towards Fāṭima (a.s.). Consequently, she too ate from the forbidden tree, like Adam. Ultimately, God Almighty expelled them both from His paradise and sent them down from His proximity to the earth.(130)

From the sum of these few narrations, certain characteristics of the forbidden tree are derived that require explanation and justification:

a) This tree is exclusive to Muḥammad and the Family of Muḥammad (a.s.), and others cannot access it except by God’s permission.

b) Whoever accesses it with God’s permission and partakes from it will attain the knowledge of the first and the last.

c) Whoever partakes from it without God’s permission has disobeyed the Lord and will not succeed.

d) It is a tree that, unlike the trees of this world, bears various fruits.

e) Apart from the variety of fruit types, its fruits differ in another aspect: they are both material and spiritual, including fruits like grapes and jujube as well as the fruit of knowledge.

Due to these characteristics and varieties, after narrating these traditions, the late Fayḍ (r.a.) has sought to explain and clarify, stating:

“Just as there are foods for the human body from grains and fruits, there are also foods for the human soul from sciences and knowledge. And just as there are trees that produce bodily food, there are also trees that bear spiritual food. Each person benefits from the food and tree that is suitable for them; if the rule of their body dominates the rule of their soul, they only benefit from bodily and material food, and if the rule of their soul dominates the rule of their body, they benefit from spiritual food and trees. Ultimately, human beings have different degrees by which they excel over one another, and those with higher degrees also have the capabilities of those with lower degrees, with more.”

Every physical and material fruit has a corresponding example in the higher spiritual realm. Therefore, the tree is sometimes interpreted as the tree of fruits, considering its physical and material existence, and sometimes, due to its connection to the higher realm, it is interpreted as the tree of knowledge. The tree of Muḥammad’s knowledge (s.a.w.) is renowned for the profound love that the Prophet has in the presence of God—a love that serves as the source and fruit of all human perfections and embodies Muḥammadan monotheism (tawḥīd), which involves annihilation in God (fanāʾ fī llāh) and subsistence through God (baqāʾ bi-llāh). This is reflected in the prophetic ḥadīth: “I have a time with God in which no angel brought near nor sent prophet can accommodate me.”(131)

The camphor tree symbolizes the coolness of certainty, which brings complete tranquility and great character. The tree of envy is referred to in this way because the initial approach to the lofty tree was driven by envy, leading those engaged in interpretation (taʾwīl) to describe it as the tree of desire and nature. Thus, there is no contradiction among the various narrations reported about the aforementioned tree, nor between the narrations and the insights provided by the people of taʾwīl.(132)

From what has passed and from the subtle explanation of the late Fayḍ (r.a.), it becomes evident why Imam al-Ṣādiq (a.s.) said to Abū Ḥanīfa: “You have not inherited even a single letter from the Qur’an” (“wa mā waritha ḥarfan min al-Qur’ān”).(133) This statement underscores that if inheritance means the knowledge of the Qur’an and the ʿitra (household of the Prophet), then it is rooted in a special spiritual connection—one which Abū Ḥanīfa lacked. However, if the Imam (a.s.) was referring to conventional scholastic knowledge, then the pathway to such learning was accessible to all, including Abū Ḥanīfa, who was a prominent jurist and a reference for legal opinions (fatwā) among the Sunnis.

It may be questioned: How was Adam, who had been taught all the names, deprived of such specific knowledge? The answer, as drawn from the insights of Fayḍ, lies in the varying degrees of the knowledge of the names. All prophets were granted this knowledge, but the most profound and exalted degree was given uniquely to Muhammad and his family (s.a.w.). The Qur’an highlights this gradation among prophets with verses such as: “We have made some of these messengers excel others” (2:253) and “We have exalted some of the prophets above others” (17:55).

Additionally, the late Mufīd (may God have mercy on him), in multiple places in al-Amālī, quotes Imam Ali (a.s.) asserting his precedence and unique faith in the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) even before Adam’s creation was completed: “I am the first person to believe in the Messenger of God (s.a.w.). I affirmed him when the internal structure of Adam (a.s.) had not yet been perfected and he had not yet been prostrated to by the angels. I affirmed him while Adam was between spirit and body.”(134)

Note:

a) Disregarding the chains of transmission of such ḥadīths and setting aside the fact that these ḥadīths, even assuming the reliability of their chains, do not impact primary issues but rather secondary ones, it can be said: If the narrations in this chapter referred to a material and worldly tree, they would indeed appear contradictory. However, if they pertain to the intermediate (barzakh__ī) tree and the well-known paradise of Adam, they align as affirmatives and do not contradict one another. This is because, as mentioned in the ḥadīth, the non-material tree has the unique capacity to bear various fruits.

b) The ranks of the friends of God, like the degrees of the prophets and messengers, differ significantly. It is conceivable that certain trees of Ṭūbā are exclusive to the great friends of God, to the extent that if others attempted to reach for them, they would be struck by the thunderbolt of “an evil outcome for both of them” (7:22), similar to the incident involving Moses, the Interlocutor (a.s.), who, upon desiring such an encounter, was overwhelmed and struck unconscious.(135) Although such occurrences are possible in terms of conceptual establishment, applying this directly to the verses revealed on this subject is complex and not easily substantiated.