His saying - glorified and exalted is He -:

﴿And O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise, and eat from wherever you wish, but do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers﴾

When a person is commanded with something he is already engaged in, the intent of that is for him to continue in his state and persist in his condition. His saying, the Most High, to Adam - peace be upon him - "dwell"; is from this category. He emphasized the pronoun in his saying: "you"; and at that point, it is permissible to coordinate with it, and it is a pronoun that cannot be made explicit, nor can it be dependent. Coordinating with the pronoun that is explicitly mentioned is not permissible unless after its affirmation, like your saying: "you stood, you and Zayd"; because the pronoun is like a letter of the verb. This pronoun in "dwell" is weaker than the explicitly mentioned one; so it is more appropriate that coordinating with it is not valid except after affirmation.

And His saying, the Most High, "and eat"; is from "to eat"; its origin is "eat"; so the letter of the verb was omitted due to the occurrence of two similar letters; and the other was dispensed with when what follows it moved. It was also good to omit the letter of the verb because they found it difficult to have a movement on a letter of weakness. This is the case with every verb whose first letter is a hamzah; and its form is "fa'ala"; like "to take"; and "to command"; and similar to them. The norm would be that the letter of the verb should not be omitted; but their usage has come in this way.

It is said: "to approach; he approaches"; and ﴿this tree﴾; it appears that He, the Most High, referred to a specific tree of a type; and He intended it. It is possible that He refers to a specific tree while He means the type in general; and He expressed it with the name of the singular, as you say: "the people received the dinar; and the dirham"; while you mean the type.

(p-529) The judge Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: And on both possibilities, Adam - peace be upon him - indeed intended, at the time of his disobedience, to do what he was forbidden from; this was said by the majority of the interpreters. And by that, Iblis - may Allah curse him - misled him by saying: "You were only forbidden so that you do not become immortal; or so that you would be a king;" thus invalidating the statement of whoever said that Adam - peace be upon him - only erred by interpreting that he thought the prohibition was related to a specific tree; so he ate from the type; and he was not excused for the error.

The judge Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: And this speaker indeed presumes Adam to believe that the prohibition was only related to a specific tree; so how can it be said to him - with this belief -: "You were only forbidden so that you do not become immortal;" then he intends to seek immortality in committing what he was forbidden from? There is no difference between eating what he believes he was not forbidden from, and eating all the permissible things for him.

The judge Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: And the last "h" in "this"; is a substitute for the "y" in "this"; it was replaced in the pause; then it was established in the connection as "h"; carrying on the pause; and there is no feminine "h" before it with a kasrah except this one; and Ibn Muhaisin read: "this tree"; based on the original; and His saying, the Most High, "lest you be"; was in the accusative as a response to the prohibition.

The judge Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: The people have relied on this verse in the matter of prohibition and permissibility. This is because the matter of prohibition and permissibility has been discussed by people in two ways: As for the jurists, they were prompted to speak about it because new issues arise that are not explicitly mentioned in the Book of Allah - the Exalted and Majestic - nor in the Sunnah of His Prophet - blessings and peace be upon him - nor in consensus. The method of inferring them from any of these three is relied upon, and they then return to consider which direction to take regarding permissibility and prohibition. Some of them said: If such a thing arises, we will interpret it as prohibition and take a strict stance on it, and we will seek to clear ourselves, since Allah - the Exalted and Majestic - has clarified for us in His Book all that needs to be clarified, and He has permitted what He intended to permit. He did not leave the mention of this issue except with intention; thus, our abstaining from it is not required by the Sharia. Others said: Rather, we interpret it as permissibility because Allah - the Exalted and Majestic - has completed our religion for us and prohibited what He wished to prohibit. He did not neglect to mention any issue except that He has left it in the category of what is permissible, and it is unlikely that He would intend prohibition regarding something without mentioning it to us, leaving us in ignorance of it. Therefore, we interpret it as permissibility until prohibition occurs. Some of them said: Rather, we will always interpret that as suspended, and we will not rule on it with prohibition or permissibility; rather, we will seek to examine and compare it always. This is because we find Allah - the Exalted and Majestic - saying in His Book: 'Prohibited to you' in certain instances, and saying: 'Permitted to you' in other instances. This indicates that every issue requires a ruling, either specifically related to it or inclusive of it and others. If things were all prohibited, He would not have said regarding anything: 'Prohibited to you.' And if they were all permissible, He would not have said regarding anything: 'Permitted to you.'

The judge Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: And this is the clearest of the statements. The jurists have not addressed the consideration of the improvement or ugliness of reason in this matter; rather, they have relied in their statements on the causes of the Sharia and have sought to derive their opinions from it.

As for the second type of speech of people regarding prohibition and permissibility; the Mu'tazila - and those who follow their words: that reason beautifies and deprecates - looked into the matter from this perspective; they said: We assume a time in which there is no law; or a man who grew up in a wilderness; and has never experienced a law; nor a command; nor a prohibition; or we consider Adam - peace be upon him - at the time of his descent to the earth, when he was left without law and reason; before he was commanded and prohibited; how were things for him? Or how does reason necessitate in the time and the two assumed men? Some of them said: What is reasonable is that all of it should be prohibited until permission comes for its permissibility; and that is because its permissibility is a transgression against the property of others; and if that is reprehensible in the witness; then it is of greater sanctity in the right of Allah, glorified and exalted is He; and some of this group went to exclude breathing and movement from this prohibition; they said: These cannot be otherwise.

Qadi Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: It is possible to estimate the necessity of them as permissibility for them; and some of them said: Rather, it is reasonable that they should be permissible; since controlling the property of others in a way that does not harm them; like seeking shade from walls; and the like is permissible; so if this is permissible in the witness; then it is more permissible in the greatness of Allah, glorified and exalted is He; since there is no harm in our actions regarding His property; and something of that is related to His right.

And the people of truth and the Sunnah - in this manner of consideration - said: Rather, the matter in itself is suspended; and reason does not necessitate beautification; nor deprecation; by mere existence; it is judged by it; and the ruling of the good and the bad cannot be directed except by the law; and some of them said: Reason has never been without law; so there is no meaning in delving into this matter; nor in assuming what does not occur; and they went to argue that Adam - peace be upon him - was addressed with commands and prohibitions in Paradise; by His saying - when the spirit entered his body; and he sneezed -: "Say: 'All praise is due to Allah'; O Adam"; and by His saying: "Dwell"; and "Eat"; and "Do not approach"; and the like; and Qadi Ibn al-Baqillani said in "Al-Taqreeb and Al-Irshad": The jurists who spoke of prohibition and permissibility did not intend to be with the Mu'tazila in their misguidance; but they saw for them a fabricated speech; disguised; and they approved it without realizing what it leads to of corruption in the saying of the beautification of reason; and its deprecation.

Qadi Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: And in this speech is a burden on the jurists of the law; and a shortening for them; and the correct view is that this flaw should not be assumed of them; rather, they sought in their novelties to link the ruling of prohibition and permissibility to the law; and they should not be assumed to deny the truth that reason does not beautify nor deprecate without the law.

And it has been mentioned previously in Surah Al-Baqarah regarding the disagreement about the tree; and its specification.