the prohibition concerned only that particular tree, to the exclusion of the rest of its kind, he would not have been sinful for eating from another, nor would Allah have banished him from the Garden and stripped him of his garment.

Another group alleged that Adam interpreted the command as a counsel of discouragement (tanzīh), not an absolute prohibition (taḥrīm), and for that reason he went ahead and ate. This claim is certainly false for many reasons, one of which suffices: Allah says, “so that the two of you would become among the wrongdoers” (al-Baqarah 2:34). Moreover, whenever Allah forbids one even to draw near something, it can only indicate a strict prohibition, as in His words: “Do not approach them until they are pure” (al-Baqarah 2:222); “Do not come near fornication” (al-Isrāʾ 17:32); and “Do not approach the property of the orphan” (al-Anʿām 6:153). Had the command been merely for discouragement, Allah would neither have expelled him from Paradise nor informed us that he had disobeyed his Lord.

Yet another party claimed that Adam understood the prohibition to apply only to the two of them approaching and eating together, not to either of them eating separately, because the phrase “Do not draw near” (al-Baqarah 2:34) addresses them jointly; a prohibition directed at their joint action, they argued, does not necessarily apply to each individually. This interpretation is cited by Ibn al-Khaṭīb in his Tafsīr (1), but, as you can see, it is sheer falsehood and corruption. We are certain that such a notion never once occurred to the minds of Adam and Eve; they were more knowledgeable of Allah than that and possessed far sounder understanding. Do you imagine that anyone has ever taken from Allah’s words, “Do not approach the property of the orphan,” “Do not come near fornication,” and the like, that He meant only to forbid you from committing those acts together, but not individually?