وَقُلْنَا يَٰٓـَٔادَمُ ٱسْكُنْ أَنتَ وَزَوْجُكَ ٱلْجَنَّةَ وَكُلَا مِنْهَا رَغَدًا حَيْثُ شِئْتُمَا وَلَا تَقْرَبَا هَٰذِهِ ٱلشَّجَرَةَ فَتَكُونَا مِنَ ٱلظَّٰلِمِينَ
“And We said: O Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and eat ye freely (of the fruits) thereof where ye will; but come not nigh this tree lest ye become wrong-doers.” — M. M. Pickthall
Taberî9-10. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Taberî, this verse carries clear evidence that Iblis was expelled from paradise after his arrogance towards the command to prostrate, and that Adam was settled in paradise before Iblis was cast down from there. Furthermore, the relationship between 'do not approach' and 'you will become' is examined in the context of the answer to prohibition, meaning that approaching the tree would make one among the wrongdoers. It is also noted that the tree in Arabic means 'any plant growing upon a trunk.'
وفي هذه الآية دلالة واضحة على صحة قول من قال: إن إبليس أخرج من الجنة بعد الاستكبار عن السجود لآدم، وأسكنها آدم قبل أن يهبط إبليس إلى الأرض
Zemahşerî12. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Zemahşerî, the ruling regarding divorced mothers nursing their children is like the ruling for wet nurses; as long as the child is theirs, according to Abû Hanîfa and his companions, nursing for a fee (istîcâr) is not permissible unless they separate and divorce, while according to al-Shâfi'î it is permissible. He also notes that the word 'ائتمروا' means 'to command one another, consult' (تآمروا), the address is directed to the mother and father, and the phrase 'bi ma'rûf' expresses a good compromise in that the father should not be strict in negotiation and the mother should not cause difficulty; because the child is the common offspring of both and they share the responsibility of showing compassion towards him.
الائتمار بمعنى التآمر ، كالاشتوار بمعنى التشاور . يقال : ائتمر القوم وتآمروا ، إذا أمر بعضهم بعضا . والمعنى : وليأمر بعضكم بعضا
Fahreddin er-Râzî12-13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to this commentator, different reports have been transmitted regarding the nature of the forbidden tree: it is reported from Ibn Abbas that it was wheat/grain, grapevine, and fig. Furthermore, from Rebî' b. Enes, the view is transmitted that whoever eats the fruit of this tree will break his ablution, and such a thing would not be appropriate in paradise. The text states that there is no evidence in the literal wording to confirm this determination.
واعلم أنه ليس في الظاهر ما يدل على التعي
Kurtubî13. c.✓ Citation verified
Kurtubî explains in detail the linguistic and grammatical elements in the verse: that the origin of the demonstrative pronoun 'hâzihî' is 'hâzî' and that the hâ letter is a substitute for ya, the different readings and dialects of the word 'tree', why the phrase 'do not approach' was preferred over 'do not eat' (for blocking the means), and the meaning of the word 'ragadâ' (comfortable, abundant livelihood). He also conveys the linguistic root of the word wrongdoing and the context of the address to Adam after Iblis was cast out from paradise.
قال أبن عطية قال بعض الحذاق : إن الله تعالى لما أراد النهي عن أكل الشجرة نهى عنه بلفظ يقتضي الأكل وما يدعوا إليه العرب وهو القرب قال أبن عطية : وهذا مثال بين في سد الذرائع
İbn Kesîr14. c.✓ Citation verified
Ibn Kesîr transmits various views regarding which tree was forbidden to Adam (grapevine, wheat/grain, palm, fig) and conveys the preference of Ibn Cerir: Allah forbade a specific tree in paradise, but since the type of this tree is not explicitly stated in the Qur'an or authentic Sunnah, it cannot be known with certainty. He also addresses in this context a matter regarding miraculous deeds (breaking the customary course) being seen in those who are not saints, supporting it with the example of Ibn Sayyâd.
ولا علم عندنا بأي شجرة كانت على التعيين لأن الله لم يضع لعباده دليلا على ذلك في القرآن ولا من السنة الصحيحة
Beydâvî13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Beydâvî, the pronoun 'ente' comes to emphasize the pronoun included with Adam, and paradise is the known paradise which is the abode of reward because the lâm of specification is for the known one and there is no other known paradise. With 'however you wish' they are given broad permission, and the prohibition is limited only to eating from a specific tree. The prohibition is expressed with the verb 'approach' to emphasize the severity of the prohibition and the necessity of staying away from it; furthermore, to point out that proximity to something will incline the heart towards it. Regarding which tree it is (wheat, grapevine, fig, etc.), since there is no definitive text, it is more appropriate not to determine it.
تعليق النهي بالقرب الذي هو من مقدمات التناول مبالغة في تحريمه، ووجوب الاجتناب عنه، وتنبيها على أن القرب من الشيء يورث داعية، وميلا يأخذ بمجامع القلب
Comparison
Common ground
Taberî, Fahreddin er-Râzî, Kurtubî, Ibn Kesîr, and Beydâvî all point to a shared uncertainty regarding the type of the forbidden tree; the transmitted reports (wheat/grain, grapevine, fig, etc.) cannot be given a definitive preference, and they emphasize that this matter is not clearly stated in the Qur'an and authentic Sunnah. Moreover, Taberî, Kurtubî, and Beydâvî address linguistically the special meaning and purpose of the phrase 'do not approach' (blocking the means/emphasizing severity); these three commentators are methodologically weighted towards linguistic-rhetorical analysis. Taberî and Kurtubî also share the contextual/narrative relationship between Iblis being cast out from paradise and Adam being settled in paradise.
Differences
Zemahşerî in this verse group focused entirely on a different topic (the ruling regarding divorced mothers nursing and fiqhî school differences), thus examining a separate passage that cannot be directly compared with the others; this reflects his methodology giving more place to jurisprudential-legal inferences. While Taberî balanced transmission with linguistic analysis, Fahreddin er-Râzî and Ibn Kesîr give more weight to transmission transmission and emphasize the lack of explicit evidence; Ibn Kesîr additionally expands the topic to a discussion of miracles/sainthood, adding a theological dimension absent in the others. Kurtubî and Beydâvî are the commentators who devote most attention to linguistic/grammatical examination (reading differences, pronouns, lâm of specification, word origins); while Beydâvî presents this in a more concise and systematic exegetical language, Kurtubî adds more detailed philological data and citations from Ibn Atîyya. These differences stem from the methodological differences between the Mu'tazilite-rhetoric-focused Zemahşerî, Taberî who balances transmission and reasoning, Râzî who frequently employs theological-methodological approaches, Kurtubî who stands out with his philologist-jurist identity, and Beydâvî who represents a concise and systematic exegetical tradition.
Historical context
In the process extending from the earliest commentator Taberî to the most recent commentator Beydâvî, the fundamental reports regarding the identity of the forbidden tree (wheat, grapevine, fig) have remained constant and have been transmitted from generation to generation, and no commentator has definitively determined one of them; this shows that uncertainty has been accepted and preserved in the exegetical tradition. Over time, it is seen that linguistic/grammatical analysis became more systematic and detailed: while Taberî had basic grammatical-rhetorical observations, Kurtubî offered richer philological examination regarding reading differences and word origins, and Beydâvî presented a more concise but conceptually sharpened linguistic analysis (pronoun functions, lâm of specification). In Ibn Kesîr, transmission critique (through Ibn Cerir's preference) became more prominent, reflecting that the influence of hadith methodology on exegesis increased over time. Zemahşerî's focus on a different verse passage in this context shows that exegeses could proceed with different emphases within the same chapter, and that comparison sometimes may not cover the same topic directly.
Modern connection
The commentator differences surrounding this verse remind us of the importance of distinguishing between certain knowledge and interpretively open areas in religious texts; disagreement on details such as the type of the forbidden tree concerns how to approach knowledge rather than the essence of faith. In contemporary times too, the existence of different views on a matter may not mean the topic is fundamentally contentious; dwelling on the main message (obedience, observing boundaries, maintaining awareness of staying away), can encourage a measured and tolerant attitude in detailed discussions. This can be understood as an example of approaching uncertainty with patience and respect both in scholarly tradition and in daily life.
AI analysis — not a fatwa or ruling, not yet reviewed by a scholar