Although Paradise does not accommodate obligation...

Although Paradise does not accommodate obligation, but this does not pose a problem in the case of Adam and Eve (ع), for the eternal residence in Paradise is the result of acquired eligibility, which was lacking in their case. But there are several problems with this view. Firstly, if he resided in Paradise which does not accommodate obligation, then why does the Qur`an state that he disobeyed Allah (awj)? And how was Satan capable of disobedience?

Secondly, if it were Paradise, then Satan would not have had access to it? Thirdly, the consumption of all the bounties of Paradise is permissible and Allah (awj) does not prohibit anything there, while Adam (ع) had been prohibited from eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. Therefore, it seems that the correct view is that he was in a terrestrial paradise.

This view is actually substantiated by hadiths which specify that it was a garden in this world, pointing out that Adam and Eve (ع) would even witness the setting of the sun and the moon. There are however contradicting hadiths indicating that the place of their residence was in a heavenly location. This contention is corroborated by the usage of the word hubut in speaking of the banishment, which denotes descending from a higher level to a lower level.

The third issue is in regard to Adam and Eve’s (ع) deed: whether they committed a sin or not? There are three positions on this question, two of which are the more important. The first position is that, firstly, it was a minor sin, and secondly, it preceded Adam’s (ع) prophethood, and hence the station of prophethood was not violated.

Several reasons have been cited in support of this position, among them: the verses that deal with this issue clearly indicate the sinful nature of the deed, for the word ‘isyan occurs in them, which in the Qur`an is employed only in the sense of sin. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the command addressed to Adam prohibiting the consumption of the fruit in question (“ la taqraba ”) was an advisory warning.

And furthermore, it does not make sense that Adam (ع) repented on account of disregarding an advice . The other position—which seems to be the correct one of the two—is that Adam (ع) was in fact a prophet when committing the deed in question, for Jibra`il would visit him and the visitation of Jibra`il indicates prophethood, for he does not visit anyone but prophets.