The Divine Guidance Forbids

After permitting all kinds of disposal for Adam and his wife in Paradise, the exception is stated as follows: “Do not approach this particular tree, or you will be among the wrongdoers;” (wa lā taqrabā hādhihi l-shajara fa-takūnā mina l-ẓālimīn).

Regarding the phrase “wa lā taqrabā” (do not approach) and the prohibition of approaching, two points need to be considered:

1. This prohibition, similar to the verse “wa lā taqrabū māla l-yatīmi illā bi-llatī hiya aḥsan”(94) (do not approach the wealth of the orphan except in a manner that is best), is a metaphor for the prohibition of eating, not merely passing by it. The use of the expression “do not approach” instead of “do not eat” emphasizes the importance of the matter; it is akin to saying: “Do not go near the snake,” highlighting the severity and danger of the action, implying that even approaching it increases the risk of being afflicted.

For this reason, since “approaching” is a metaphor for “eating,” elsewhere it says: “fa-lammā dhāqā l-shajara badat lahumā sawʾātuhumā”(95) (when they tasted the tree, their nakedness became apparent to them), and “fa-akalā minhā fa-badat lahumā sawʾātuhumā”(96) (they ate from it, and their nakedness became apparent to them). If the emphasis was solely on approaching the tree, it would have stated: “fa-lammā qarabā” (when they approached…), not “when they tasted” or “ate.”

In other words, the command to dwell in Paradise is absolute and indicates unrestricted permissibility. Since there was no inherent restriction, it did not require explicit clarification of its absoluteness. However, while the command to eat from the fruits also conveyed unrestricted permissibility, it was subject to restriction due to the prohibition against eating from a specific tree. For this reason, in two verses of the Qur’an, with slight variations, unrestricted choice is given to Adam and Eve. In the verse under discussion, it is expressed as “eat from it freely wherever you wish” (kulā minhā raghadan ḥaythu shiʾtumā), and in Sūrah al-Aʿrāf as “so eat from wherever you wish” (fa-kulā min ḥaythu shiʾtumā) (7:19).

The prohibition “do not approach” (lā taqrabā) acts as a restriction on the previously granted permissibility of eating, signifying that all trees’ fruits may be consumed except for the specific tree, which is forbidden. Thus, this prohibition serves as a limitation and restriction on the otherwise absolute permission to eat.

However, some of the great mystics have interpreted the restriction as pertaining to the absolute permission implied by “wherever you wish” (ḥaythu shiʾtumā) and have stated: Nearness and proximity to the specific tree were prohibited, and Adam and Eve did not eat from the known tree until after they approached it. Thus, they were reprimanded for approaching the tree, not for eating from it.(97)

This claim, however, lacks supporting evidence. In fact, the Qur’anic evidence contradicts this view, as the apparent meaning of the verse “Then when they tasted the tree, their nakedness became apparent to them” (fa-lammā dhāqā al-shajara badat lahumā sawʾātuhumā) (7:22) and the verse “So they ate from it, and their nakedness became apparent to them” (fa-akalā minhā fa-badat lahumā sawʾātuhumā) (20:121) indicates that the reprimand was due to eating from the fruit of the known tree, even if that eating was only to the extent of tasting. Therefore, the restriction pertains to eating, not mere nearness, and the expression of nearness emphasizes the gravity of the issue, similar to expressions in other verses such as:

“Do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated” (lā taqrabū al-ṣalāta wa antum sukārā) (4:43),

“Do not approach indecencies” (wa lā taqrabū al-fawāḥish) (6:151),

“Do not approach the property of the orphan” (wa lā taqrabū māl al-yatīm) (6:152), and:

“Do not approach adultery” (wa lā taqrabū al-zinā) (17:32).

The accepted view among some great scholars of exegesis (tafsīr) is that the prohibition directed at Adam and Eve (a.s.) and the restriction on their actions were specifically related to eating, not approaching. This perspective has been elaborated upon by Shaykh Ṭūsī(98) and other like-minded scholars.

2. Considering that the prohibition “do not approach” (lā taqrabā) was issued in Paradise and before the descent of Adam and Eve to earth, it is clear that this prohibition was not a sovereign or legislative command. This is because the command to descend—“get down from it all together” (20:123)—was given after they ate from the tree, and it was only after their descent that the guidance, prophethood, and religious obligations were introduced, as indicated by the verse: “When guidance comes to you from Me…”(2:38).

Therefore, the prohibition “do not approach” should not be seen as a legal or sovereign directive where one might debate whether it is a strict prohibition or merely an aversion, nor should it be questioned in terms of reconciling it with the infallibility of the prophets. Instead, it is a guiding prohibition, similar to advice. Consequently, several verses highlight the worldly consequences of violating this guidance, such as:

“So We said, ‘O Adam, indeed this is an enemy to you and to your wife. Then let him not remove you from Paradise so you would suffer’” (20:117).

“Indeed, it is [promised] for you not to be hungry therein or be unclothed, and indeed, you will not be thirsty therein or be hot from the sun” (20:118-119).

These verses suggest that if Adam and Eve wished to remain in Paradise without suffering hunger, thirst, heat, or cold, they should not approach the tree. Otherwise, they would have wronged themselves and entered a realm of hardship and toil. It is similar to a physician advising, “Do not eat this food, or you will become ill,” or a teacher telling a student, “Eat less at night so that you can wake up early in the morning to study.” In contrast, sovereign prohibitions often involve discussions of Hell and other otherworldly punishments.

The third evidence that the aforementioned prohibition was advisory, rather than sovereign, is that after Adam’s (a.s.) repentance was accepted, his previous state did not return. Instead, the situational effects—such as his descent to earth and enduring the hardships of the material world—remained unchanged.

Of course, there is room for reflection on the completeness of this evidence, as it is possible that some situational effects of an obligatory sin may not be reversible, even if sincere repentance has been achieved.

The fourth evidence is that Adam’s disobedience is described as ghawāya (going astray): “And Adam disobeyed his Lord, so he went astray” (20:121). Ghawāya refers to misguidance and losing the way,(99) whereas if the ruling were mawlawī (binding), it would have been expressed as divine anger, placing the disobedient among those subject to anger rather than those who have gone astray.(100)

Reminder:

1. Although regarding the prohibition “do not approach” (lā taqrabā), aspects such as prohibition, discouragement, and guidance have been discussed, the commands “dwell” (uskun) and “eat” (kulā) are generally understood as permissibilities. Some exegetes, however, have raised the possibility that the command “dwell” indicates obligation.(101) Differentiating between the binding nature of one ruling and the non-binding nature of another in such contexts is customary.

However, it is important to note that the term “permissibility” here does not refer to the technical permissibility within the five-fold mawlawī (binding) rulings, as these pertain to legislative prophethood. Since the concept of legislative prophethood had not yet emerged at that stage, discussing technical permissibility in this context is not applicable. Instead, what is meant here is advisory permissibility as opposed to advisory prohibition. Guiding towards customary benefit and warning against customary harm do not require entering the realm of legislation.

2. The benefit of utilizing the well-known blessings of Paradise by Adam did not require specific evidence, whereas the harm associated with eating from the specific tree required justification. This is why God said: “lest you become among the wrongdoers” (fa-takūnā min al-ẓālimīn).