Before continuing my blogs about the principles that underpin what to do when in doubt, I would like to discuss a very clever point and inference made by one of the readers.
The verse in question is 2:35:
"And We said: O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the garden and eat from it a plenteous (food) wherever you wish and do not approach this tree, for then you will be of the unjust"
There are two options for this verse:
1. It is a clear and unambiguous statement of obligation to Adam and Hawa (this is the apparent meaning of the verse as in general, an order is consdered to be an obligation, unless there is something that implies otherwise)
2. It is doubtful as to what is meant i.e. if it is obligation or recommendation.
The reader of the blog said that if we consider Shahid al-Sadr's view (given no textual evidence from Allah, the correct rational option MUST be to consider Allah's obedience and observe precaution rather than be free to do anything), how can Adam and Hawa ever have eaten from the forbidden tree? Even in option 2, the correct course of action MUST be to practice precaution.
The answer to this point is based on a theological position held by the Shi'a, which considers Prophet Adam to be infallible. His action therefore cannot be (a priori) considered a sin. What must the reason be?
In essence, the argument against the reader's suggestion, is based on the fact that our conception of obedience to our Creator is predicated on our presence in THIS world. Our judgement and rational mind have come to the conclusion that Allah has the right to be obeyed...etc., following our experience and understanding in this frame of existence. In the heavens, how can we be sure that the same conclusions exist?
1. How can we know that pre-this world, evil was known to exist as a counterpoint to good i.e. could Adam have KNOWN that Satan was saying something actually wrong (Haram) rather than just not good, as he had never experienced evil?
2. How do we know that in that world, orders from Allah, can/should be considered as orders that MUST be obeyed, rather than just advice, that can be overlooked?
Therefore, the argument is clear - that in that world, we cannot impose our understanding of right and wrong in the same way, and our pre-conceived notions of rationality may not be applicable in a different situation. Doing something when not knowing of its reality, may not therefore, be considered a sin in the way we understand it, in this life...
In the end, Prophet Adam's infallibility is a question of theology rather than one of practicality!
1. In the Qur'an, Allah says He forgive Adam and Hawa - using the word ghafara. Let's assume that it was a different world and so on and the same rule does not apply. Then about those prophets who did something incorrect, and again Allah uses the same term ghafara - to forgive - about them. What is the theological line on this? Even though what they did may not have been a 'sin' in the first place, Allah does say He forgave them (eg 28:16 about Musa)
ReplyDelete2. In answer 1 in the post, inference is made that maybe Adam did not know about right/wrong. does that not question the essence of prophethood? the prophet should be there to guide people, but if he doesnt know himself, then how can he guide?
If he did not know, then surely he can't be reprimanded?
Another says maybe he was not a prophet at that time. This brings into question the life of Prophet Muhammad before his prophethood. some say he was infalliable even before his prophethood. But if Adam wasn't, then what's to say prophet Muhammad (saw) wasn't?
3. Imagine you're in this vast garden when Adam and Hawa are. and you're new to everything. then Allah tells you, you can do whatever you want in this vast garden, but he gives a clause and picks one tree from amongst this huge array of trees and says: don't eat from that particular one. Would it even have crossed their mind to eat from that tree if they had been told not to? In the same way, a child when told not to do something, will be more eager to do that thing.
4. If Adam and Hawa did not eat from the tree, the whole course of mankind would have been on a totally separate path. Question: is this life not meant to be a test? So it would not actually be possible for us to live in an abode where we could do anything - it would defeat the purpose of this life and we might as well just be sent straight to heaven.
I get very interested in the Adam and Eve ideas. :)
good points...all with a response!:
ReplyDelete1. the term "ghafara" is used to mean forgive but there are a range of possibilities: for prophets, not doing the best course of action might be something that can be "forgiven" even though it might not be a sin. Allah understands the imperfection of humandkind and has different standards for different people - this is how the absolute level of sin that is applicable to all is not breached by any Prophet (as they are considered infallible), whereas the higher level of perfection, is not reached by all Prophets, and therefore, this can be "forgiven".
2. Not knowing right and wrong might defeat the purpose of prophethood in this world, but it is different in the heavens? In this world, he was the Prophet but he cannot have been a Prophet (in the same sense of our understanding) in the heavens, as there was nobody to give the message to? Following coming to this world...
The difference with the Prophet (SAW) is the fact that the Prophet (SAW) was always on this earth..
3. It's not that - it's more the fact that someone (Satan) came and deceived them....they had never understood that someone could lie - that perhaps might be seen as "naive" given our knowledge of reality, but not in theirs?
4. There are some who say that this HAD to happen....for the reason you have suggested, but this is a by-the-by comment, and it is not really conceivable that Allah created a situation and removed free will, just so as to get what He wanted to happen....I don't think that works....
Hope that helps!
Okay...re. number 4:
ReplyDeleteWhat's the understanding behind free will? Can I venture some questions?
Free will only really exists in this system because it is designed to exist (or so the theologians will tell us), to be an explanation for all our available options.
Therefore, the same argument might be ventured at Prophethood - the notion of the Prophet Adam being a Prophet and impeccable example is hypothetical, until there is someone actually to guide... but I digress...
Thus, in the pre-human eden, free will might still have existed conceptually, only the mortal agents for its exercise weren't there (except of course for Shaitan, who was exercising his free will to be deviant), there.
Thereafter, on arrival of Adam and Eve, free will of Shaitan is exercisable, and the free will of the former can be manipulated?
On its own, I don't think it's too extreme an argument to make.. The problem arises when we ask why this 'had' to happen...
If we're talking about causes and effects, the fact that God HAD to know that Shaitan was devient would affect the way his model of Eden happened..else why let Shaitan into Eden in the first place? On that level, then it's not about God manipulating anyone's free will, rather, this is something that would have to have been known in God's model, and done intentionally?