Subtleties and Allusions

The Attention of the Inhabitants of the Kingdom to the Divine Call

Although the divine call always conveys glad tidings, it holds particular significance when directed toward God’s vicegerent—the knower of the names, the teacher, and the one to whom the angels prostrated. Consequently, the attention of the inhabitants of the kingdom and those close to the divine presence was drawn to this call, underscoring the importance of the guidance being imparted. Thus, not only was Adam (a.s.) in a state of complete listening and utmost attentiveness, but the prostrating learners (the angels) were also eager to witness and seek new grace through their awareness of the divine call.

Comfortable Living: A Basis for Perfection or a Source of Contempt?

The system of the objective world, which reflects the divine scientific order, is designed such that a comfortable and pleasant life, with more permissible than impermissible and more lawful than unlawful, is accessible to all. This is particularly true for the intellectual minds of society, whose primary focus is the intellectual nourishment and scientific advancement of the people. Although such individuals are encouraged to live contentedly and simply, avoiding luxurious and extravagant lifestyles, the comfort provided is a means, not an end.

In the Paradise of Adam and his wife, this balance was evident: an abundance of blessings, a multitude of permissible and lawful things, and only a few impermissible and forbidden matters.

However, from the perspective of a perfect human being, such as the Master of the Monotheists, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (a.s.), living a comfortable and luxurious life is not a path to perfection but a source of contempt. Regarding the simple lifestyle of the Prophet (s.a.w.), ʿAlī (a.s.) stated: “He belittled the world and made it small, and he despised it and made it contemptible, knowing that God had removed it from him by choice and expanded it for others out of disdain.”(106)

The noble Prophet (s.a.w.), being the chosen one of God, did not lead an extravagant life. Those who indulge in luxury while ignoring the Prophet’s conduct should recognize that God has humiliated them by granting them the means of a pleasant living, not out of honor but out of contempt.

The Difference Between Theological and Mystical Prophethood

Linguistic prophethood and the concept of prophethood as understood by the people of gnosis (ahl-i maʿrifat) differ from the prophethood discussed in theology and philosophy, which is the primary focus of exegetical discussions. Linguistically, prophethood refers to the mere act of reporting and conveying news, so anyone who announces significant news can be considered a prophet in relation to that particular message.

In the mystical tradition, prophethood goes beyond the conventional religious definition and includes the reporting of significant heavenly news, whether related to the sharīʿa or not. This form is referred to as the prophethood of news-bearing (nubuwwat-i anbāʾī). In contrast, the theological and philosophical understanding of prophethood is the one commonly recognized, involving prophets who deliver a message consisting of beliefs, ethics, jurisprudence, and law, along with specific obligations, prohibitions, rights, and established features.

Proving this well-known type of prophethood for Adam (a.s.) based solely on divine calls and specific inspirations is challenging. This is because neither the act of dialogue, calling, and addressing an individual, nor the principle of inspiration, necessarily proves that the addressee is a prophet. Similar interactions occurred with the mother of Moses, the interlocutor of God, and the mother of Jesus, the Messiah of God. Though they received unseen guidance and acted upon it, neither of these noble women were prophets in the conventional sense.

Therefore, the commands to “dwell” and “eat” and the prohibition to “not approach” do not necessarily establish the well-known prophethood of Adam (a.s.) at that time. Many commands, prohibitions, and promises from God were also given to the mothers of Moses and Jesus (a.s.),(107) yet they were not considered prophets. Similarly, the informative (anbāʾī) and definitional (taʿrīfī) prophethood of Adam (a.s.), as referenced in the context of: “Then when he had informed them of their names, He said, ‘Did I not tell you…’” (2:33) does not confirm the recognized verbal, philosophical, or exegetical prophethood for Adam (a.s.) at that moment.

Thus, what al-Qurṭubī has mentioned in al-Jāmiʿ is incomplete.(108)

The Sanctity and Infallibility of Adam (a.s.)

To uphold the sanctity of Adam (a.s.) and preserve his infallibility from actions that could degrade the soul and distance it from the court of honor to the realm of duty, several considerations are relevant, some of which are mentioned below:

a) The incident in question occurred in a realm where legislative prophethood had not yet been established, and no revelation bearing law or guidance had been received. In this context, there was no obligatory or formal ruling to discuss in terms of prohibition or undesirability. Just as with the mothers of Moses and Jesus (a.s.), the presence of revelation does not imply legislative authority, nor do guidance, commands, prohibitions, promises, and threats necessarily impose obligations. These matters can be considered advisory, similar to the command and prohibition directed at the mother of Moses (a.s.).(109)

b) It was a matter of customary behavior, involving abandoning the resolve to resist and hastening to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree in a setting where Adam (a.s.) had not yet attained prophethood. In some traditions,(110) it is considered permissible for prophets to commit minor errors before reaching prophethood. However, establishing this aspect depends on factors that are not easily verifiable.

Firstly, it must be demonstrated that such a ruling emerged within the framework of sharīʿa, while Adam (a.s.), considered the first prophet, had not yet reached the station of prophethood. The question arises: who was the bearer of legislative revelation, and who was the prophet who introduced such a sharīʿa?

Secondly, it needs to be proven that the prohibition “do not approach” was mawlawī (obligatory) rather than irshādī (advisory).

Thirdly, it must be shown that it was an absolute prohibition (taḥrīm), not merely a discouragement (tanzīh).

Fourthly, it must be established that committing minor sins before prophethood is permissible for prophets. Although proving some of these four aspects is feasible, confirming the first and fourth points presents significant challenges.

c) The well-known incident occurred in the context of Adam’s (a.s.) forgetfulness, and actions committed out of forgetfulness carry no blame. This aspect is based on certain interpretive possibilities regarding the verse: “And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he forgot; and We found not in him determination” (20:115). Therefore, there is no need to interpret the prohibition as mere discouragement or advice, nor to interpret wrongdoing as a deficiency in share, nor to consider the commission of a minor sin as occurring before prophethood, among other interpretations.(111)

Nevertheless, the essential point is to focus on this aspect, even if the verse’s complete meaning is not fully grasped. The key issue is that if a Prophet were to err in fulfilling his personal religious duties and inadvertently commit an act contrary to sharīʿa, it would cast doubt on the reliability of his sunna, which encompasses his words, actions, and tacit approvals. This is because if a Prophet forgets his own personal and religious obligations, his speech, conduct, and legislative silence cannot be wholly trusted.

While some scholars may allow for a Prophet’s forgetfulness in non-religious matters, they do not justify or validate forgetfulness in committing an unlawful act.

Note: The discussion surrounding the forgotten covenant of Adam—“And We had already taken a promise from Adam…” (wa laqad ʿahidnā ilā ādama fa-nasiya…)—whether it refers to the prohibition against approaching the tree, a warning about Iblīs’s enmity, the primordial covenant (mīthāq al-alast), the special covenant of the prophets, or another possibility, is further explored in the exegesis of Sūrah Ṭāhā.

d) The aforementioned incident was of the nature of committing a disliked act (makrūh), not a forbidden one (ḥarām). However, proving this aspect requires establishing certain matters, such as: confirming the realization of the essence of legislative revelation and terminological prophethood, determining that Adam (a.s.) was indeed a prophet at the time of eating from the tree, establishing that the prohibition was prescriptive (mawlawī) rather than advisory (irshādī), and proving that the prohibition was merely discouraging (tanzīhī), not outright prohibiting (taḥrīmī). While some of these points may not be difficult to ascertain, proving all of them remains challenging.

The incident can also be seen as the abandonment of what is preferable (tark al-awlā) in response to guiding instructions, rather than obligatory ones, even while recognizing the principle of prophethood and acknowledging that Prophet Adam (a.s.) had reached the esteemed status of prophethood. That is, the act of eating occurred in a context where both the principle of legislative prophethood was established, and Adam (a.s.) was already a prophet.

Although commands issued before the establishment of legislative prophethood are certainly guiding and not obligatory—as the assumption is the absence of formal legislation—not all commands given after the principle of legislation necessarily impose obligations. It is possible for guiding instructions to be issued even after the advent of legislation, particularly in matters of permissibility where there is no significant impact on otherworldly reward or punishment. Such instructions may relate to the ease or difficulty of actions for individuals, where compliance does not guarantee otherworldly reward, nor does non-compliance result in punishment.

Establishing this interpretation depends on the possibility of understanding terms such as disobedience, misguidance, injustice, and repentance as reflecting the abandonment of what is preferable in the aforementioned sense.

Note: The aforementioned aspects, along with other potential interpretations, each contain strengths and weaknesses. To safeguard the infallibility of Prophet Adam (a.s.), it is essential to prioritize rational and heart-based considerations over verbal and transmitted evidence, to avoid tarnishing the principle of prophethood with the stain of sin, even if minor. This is because, according to the verdicts of eminent exegetes such as Ṭūsī and Ṭabrisī,(112) all sins are inherently major, and the relative smallness of some does not negate their intrinsic gravity. That is, every sin is significant in itself, even if regarded as minor when compared to a more severe transgression.

5) The Equality of Women and Men in the Station of Wilāya

The examination of the status of men and women can be approached in two ways: one that confines existence solely to the material world, limiting knowledge to sensory experience and empirical observation; and another that adopts a broader philosophical perspective, encompassing both material and non-material existence, recognizing knowledge derived from sensory experience, imagination, conjecture, reasoning, and intuitive insight.

Based on the first, more limited view, some might hastily and erroneously conclude that men and women are either entirely different or completely equal, relying solely on psychological studies centered on sensory experience. They may perceive differences in psychological tendencies between men and women as proof of their complete divergence, leading to conclusions about absolute equality or disparity.

However, the second, more comprehensive perspective avoids these extremes, affirming the intellectual, spiritual, and moral equivalence of men and women while acknowledging their differences in practical matters. Jurisprudence and law outline these practical distinctions, recognizing that the essential identity of a human being is their soul, which is inherently neither male nor female. These attributes are not inherently oppositional, meaning their absence in a non-material being is not impossible. Therefore, debating the equality or difference in the essence of human beings is unfounded.

If we consider the soul to have a material origin and a spiritual existence, there may still be differences in its nature. According to this view, the human soul has a material antecedent and is influenced by physical conditions, such as the internal structure of male and female bodies, which shape specific psychological characteristics. Consequently, psychology develops distinct branches for children, women, men, inhabitants of different climates, and various races, each with its own theoretical and practical foundations, as well as distinct positive and negative outcomes. However, these remain within the realm of possibility and probability, rather than scientific certainty or definitive practical conclusions.

According to the author, those who have not delved into religious knowledge at all are regarded as being outside the house of divine knowledge. Those who have engaged with it but have not reached pure proof in all foundational principles are considered to be in the hallway of the house of religious knowledge, not fully acquainted with its true owner. Those who have excelled in this knowledge and gathered all the necessary proofs are seen as fully acquainted with the master of the house. The highest level of such knowledge, companionship, and familiarity is attributed to the prophets, while the lesser degrees belong to their true followers and sages. Prophets themselves have varying ranks; some have seen their Lord from afar, as it is said: “From a distance, the Lord appears to me,” while others have witnessed their Lord up close. He states: “Someone who lacks true knowledge of God and merely invokes His name based on imitation or imaginary perception is, in my view, outside the house of knowledge and distant from it.”

In any case, when valid rational or transmitted evidence establishes the deprivation of one of these categories from specific scientific or practical perfections, it is possible to form a proof of the burhān innī (affirmative demonstration) type. This would demonstrate that the internal bodily system—which, according to the view that the spirit is material in origin and spiritual in subsistence—played a role in the precedence of the immaterial spirit and influenced the motivation of the human soul, contributing to the nurturing and emergence of a particular type of human spirit. Otherwise, mere possibility and potentiality cannot serve as conclusive evidence for determining the essential difference between these categories.

Examining transmitted evidence, along with reflecting on the views of philosophical thinkers and the behavior of insightful witnesses, reveals that there is no distinction between men and women concerning spiritual wilāya—the very essence of human perfection. However, in practical matters, each has specific duties as outlined by jurisprudence and law. The details of this topic are further discussed in the exegeses or other writings by the author and other scholars.(113)

The Reason for Adam Being the Central Focus in Certain Addresses

While many verses related to Adam and Eve address them both equally—using terms like kulā (eat), shiʾtumā (wherever you wish), lā taqrabā (do not approach), and fatakūnā min al-ẓālimīn (lest you be among the wrongdoers)—and refer to them collectively in the third person, such as in “Then Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that [condition] in which they had been” (2:36), and “And he swore [by God] to them, ‘Indeed, I am to you from among the sincere advisors.’ So he made them fall, through deception” (7:21-22), some instances focus primarily on Adam (a.s.), with Eve (a.s.) being secondary. This is seen in the opening of the verse under discussion: “O Adam, dwell, you and your wife,” which is also repeated in verse 19 of Sūrah al-Aʿrāf. In other verses from Sūrah Ṭāhā that discuss Adam and Eve, the emphasis on Adam is evident in phrases such as: “And We had already taken a promise from Adam…”, “So We said, ‘O Adam, indeed this is an enemy to you and to your wife,’”, “Indeed, it is [promised] for you not to be hungry therein or be unclothed…”, “Then Satan whispered to him…”, “And Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred,” and “Then his Lord chose him and turned to him in forgiveness and guided [him]” (20:115-122).

This emphasis raises the question of why Adam is given primary consideration, and whether it implies a general subordination of the female gender to the male gender. The correct understanding is that Eve (a.s.) was under Adam’s (a.s.) guidance, and besides being her husband, Adam was also her future imam and prophet. If Adam had resisted the temptation, Eve would have remained protected as well. Therefore, Adam was the central figure in terms of both virtue and the experience of temptation and expulsion from Paradise, making him the primary focus in many divine addresses and expressions.

The truth is that the divine addresses that focus on Adam do not imply the subordination of the female gender or suggest that women are secondary to men. Human perfection is tied to one’s humanity, which resides in the soul, not in the physical attributes of being male or female. Masculinity and femininity pertain only to the body and physical structure, not the abstract, spiritual nature of the human soul.

In Islam, no perfection is exclusive to men, nor is any perfection withheld from women. Greater sincerity leads to greater closeness to God, regardless of gender. A woman, in her role as a mother, might exhibit more sincerity than her husband in his role as a father, and her virtue may far exceed that of the man. Sincerity, virtue, and perfection are rooted in belief and morality, governed by a spirit that transcends gender distinctions.

Even in the highest spiritual stations, such as becoming a friend of God (walī Allāh), neither masculinity is a condition nor femininity an impediment. Mary (a.s.) stands among the friends of God (awliyāʾ Allāh), and in Sūrah Maryam, when enumerating divine friends and great figures with phrases like “And mention in the Book…,” God includes Mary: “And mention in the Book, Mary, when she withdrew from her family to an eastern place” (19:16). Furthermore, among the most distinguished of divine friends is Fāṭima (a.s.), who holds a status even superior to many prophets.

Of course in executive matters, tasks are divided between men and women. Due to their specific bodily structure, women are exempt from certain strenuous tasks, such as jihād. However, women can still contribute significantly by supporting from behind the front lines, engaging in nursing, or providing medical treatment on the battlefield, often working with even greater sincerity.

Similarly, in roles like prophethood and messengership, which have an executive aspect, certain positions are traditionally male-dominated. Although the inner reality of prophethood and messengership, grounded in existential wilāya (guardianship), is not exclusive to men, these roles involve responsibilities that align with broader societal structures.

Regarding the position of marjaʿiyya (religious authority) in taqlīd (emulation), women can attain the level of a jurist (faqīh) and mujtahid, and can even be marjaʿ for other women. However, being a marjaʿ for men, which entails frequent interaction with non-maḥram individuals, carries reservations. If these reservations could be addressed through the advancement of science and industry, the permissibility of such a role for women gains considerable support.