فَوَسْوَسَ إِلَيْهِ ٱلشَّيْطَٰنُ قَالَ يَٰٓـَٔادَمُ هَلْ أَدُلُّكَ عَلَىٰ شَجَرَةِ ٱلْخُلْدِ وَمُلْكٍ لَّا يَبْلَىٰ
<p>فَوَسْوَسَ إِلَيْهِ الشَّيْطَانُ قَالَ يَا آدَمُ هَلْ أَدُلُّكَ عَلَىٰ شَجَرَ‌ةِ الْخُلْدِ وَمُلْكٍ لَّا يَبْلَىٰ ﴿120﴾ فَأَكَلَا مِنْهَا فَبَدَتْ لَهُمَا سَوْآتُهُمَا وَطَفِقَا يَخْصِفَانِ عَلَيْهِمَا مِن وَرَ‌قِ الْجَنَّةِ ۚ وَعَصَىٰ آدَمُ رَ‌بَّهُ فَغَوَىٰ (Then the Shaitan instigated him...And 'Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred- 120, 121.) Here it is pertinent to ask that when Allah had specifically told Sayyidna 'Adam and Sayyidah Hawwa' (علیہما السلام) to abstain from a particular tree or to eat any part of its yield, and had also warned them to beware of shaitan's machinations who was their sworn enemy who would do his best to seduce them and thus cause their expulsion from Paradise, why then, despite all the warnings and admonitions, did Sayyidna 'Adam (علیہ السلام) let himself fall into the trap laid out for him by the shaitan. His action clearly constituted disobedience of the commands of Allah and were, therefore, acts of sin. There is consensus among scholars that the prophets of Allah are immune from all sins - minor or major, and Sayyidna 'Adam (علیہ السلام) was a prophet of Allah! So how may one explain his action of eating the fruit of the forbidden tree when Allah had warned him in such clear terms? An answer to all these questions will be found in the commentary of Surah Al-Baqarah which also explains the use of the words عِصٰی (to disobey) and غَوٰی (to err) in reference to Sayyidna 'Adam (علیہ السلام) . According to the divine Islamic law the action of Sayyidna 'Adam (علیہ السلام) did not constitute a sin but because he was a prophet of Allah and in His high favour therefore this minor lapse on his part has been described as عِصیَان (disobedience) for which he was admonished by Allah. A further point here is that the word غَوٰی has two meanings: One is "to be deprived" and the other is "to err", or "to go astray". Al-Qushairi and Al-Qurtubi have adopted the first meaning of the word and have explained this verse by saying that as a punishment for his lapse Sayyidna 'Adam (علیہ السلام) was deprived of the comforts which were available to him in the Paradise and as a result his life became harsh and bitter.</p><p>It is incumbent on Muslims to show reverence to the prophets of Allah when referring to them</p><p>Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn Al-` Arabi (رح) when discussing the word عَصٰی (disobeyed) etc. in reference to Sayyidna 'Adam (علیہ السلام) in his book Ahkam-ul-Qur'an has made an important observation which is reproduced below in his own words:</p><p>لا یجوز لاحدنا الیوم ان یخبر بذلک عن اٰدم الَّا اذا ذکرناہ فی اثناء قولہٖ تعالیٰ عنہ او قول نَبِیّہ، فامّا ان یبتدیء ذالک من قبل نفسہٖ فلیس بجایٔز لنا فی ابایٔنا الاذنین الینا المماثلین لنا فکیف فی ابینا الاقدام الاعظم الاکرم النّبی المقدّم الذی عذرہ اللہ سبحانہ و تعالیٰ و تاب علیہ وغفرلہ (تفسیر قرطبی و ذکرہ فی البحر المحیط ایضاً )</p><p>Today it is not permissible for any of us to use the word عِصیَان (disobedience) in relation to Sayyidna 'Adam (علیہ السلام) except when it has been used with reference to this verse or to a Hadith of the Holy Prophet ﷺ . When indeed it is not desirable to use this word in relation to our own not-too-distant ancestors, who were like us, how can it be permissible in relation to Sayyidna 'Adam (علیہ السلام) who is the father of all mankind and more deserving of respect than our own ancestors? Besides he is a revered prophet of Allah whose excuse He accepted and forgave him for his lapse. For such a person the use of the word of (disobedience) is totally forbidden.</p><p>The same views have been expressed by Qushairi Abu Nasr.</p>
فَوَسْوَسَ إِلَيْهِ الشَّيْطَانُ قَالَ يَا آدَمُ هَلْ أَدُلُّكَ عَلَىٰ شَجَرَ‌ةِ الْخُلْدِ وَمُلْكٍ لَّا يَبْلَىٰ ﴿120﴾ فَأَكَلَا مِنْهَا فَبَدَتْ لَهُمَا سَوْآتُهُمَا وَطَفِقَا يَخْصِفَانِ عَلَيْهِمَا مِن وَرَ‌قِ الْجَنَّةِ ۚ وَعَصَىٰ آدَمُ رَ‌بَّهُ فَغَوَىٰ (Then the Shaitan instigated him...And 'Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred- 120, 121.) Here it is pertinent to ask that when Allah had specifically told Sayyidna 'Adam and Sayyidah Hawwa' (علیہما السلام) to abstain from a particular tree or to eat any part of its yield, and had also warned them to beware of shaitan's machinations who was their sworn enemy who would do his best to seduce them and thus cause their expulsion from Paradise, why then, despite all the warnings and admonitions, did Sayyidna 'Adam (علیہ السلام) let himself fall into the trap laid out for him by the shaitan. His action clearly constituted disobedience of the commands of Allah and were, therefore, acts of sin. There is consensus among scholars that the prophets of Allah are immune from all sins - minor or major, and Sayyidna 'Adam (علیہ السلام) was a prophet of Allah! So how may one explain his action of eating the fruit of the forbidden tree when Allah had warned him in such clear terms? An answer to all these questions will be found in the commentary of Surah Al-Baqarah which also explains the use of the words عِصٰی (to disobey) and غَوٰی (to err) in reference to Sayyidna 'Adam (علیہ السلام) . According to the divine Islamic law the action of Sayyidna 'Adam (علیہ السلام) did not constitute a sin but because he was a prophet of Allah and in His high favour therefore this minor lapse on his part has been described as عِصیَان (disobedience) for which he was admonished by Allah. A further point here is that the word غَوٰی has two meanings: One is "to be deprived" and the other is "to err", or "to go astray". Al-Qushairi and Al-Qurtubi have adopted the first meaning of the word and have explained this verse by saying that as a punishment for his lapse Sayyidna 'Adam (علیہ السلام) was deprived of the comforts which were available to him in the Paradise and as a result his life became harsh and bitter.It is incumbent on Muslims to show reverence to the prophets of Allah when referring to themQadi Abu Bakr Ibn Al-` Arabi (رح) when discussing the word عَصٰی (disobeyed) etc. in reference to Sayyidna 'Adam (علیہ السلام) in his book Ahkam-ul-Qur'an has made an important observation which is reproduced below in his own words:لا یجوز لاحدنا الیوم ان یخبر بذلک عن اٰدم الَّا اذا ذکرناہ فی اثناء قولہٖ تعالیٰ عنہ او قول نَبِیّہ، فامّا ان یبتدیء ذالک من قبل نفسہٖ فلیس بجایٔز لنا فی ابایٔنا الاذنین الینا المماثلین لنا فکیف فی ابینا الاقدام الاعظم الاکرم النّبی المقدّم الذی عذرہ اللہ سبحانہ و تعالیٰ و تاب علیہ وغفرلہ (تفسیر قرطبی و ذکرہ فی البحر المحیط ایضاً )Today it is not permissible for any of us to use the word عِصیَان (disobedience) in relation to Sayyidna 'Adam (علیہ السلام) except when it has been used with reference to this verse or to a Hadith of the Holy Prophet ﷺ . When indeed it is not desirable to use this word in relation to our own not-too-distant ancestors, who were like us, how can it be permissible in relation to Sayyidna 'Adam (علیہ السلام) who is the father of all mankind and more deserving of respect than our own ancestors? Besides he is a revered prophet of Allah whose excuse He accepted and forgave him for his lapse. For such a person the use of the word of (disobedience) is totally forbidden.The same views have been expressed by Qushairi Abu Nasr.