Ibn al-Qayyim’s words on the debate between Musa and Adam (peace be upon them both). Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned a view that Adam debated Musa because he repented from the sin and abandoned it, then he refuted this view.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Shaykh, may Allah bless you: Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned in *Shifa al-‘Alil* regarding the debate between Adam and Musa (peace be upon them both). Shaykh, there was a problem in it, meaning I found a problem. Did you present it to you, Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes, that is right.
The questioner : Shaykh, he mentioned the various views on explaining the hadith. Then he mentioned the view of one group that Adam (peace be upon him) debated Musa by saying he repented from the sin and abandoned it, and whoever repents from a sin is like one who has no sin. Then Ibn al-Qayyim refuted this view, saying it is not correct, and he refuted them from three angles. Then he mentioned the words of Shaykh al-Islam on the issue. Then Ibn al-Qayyim said, “This is addressed in two responses: As for arguing with divine decree, it is beneficial at one time and harmful at another. It is beneficial if a person has repented from it, meaning after repentance, if a person argues with divine decree, it is permissible. But while he is in the state of sin, it is not permissible. So now, Shaykh, Ibn al-Qayyim’s explanation here, meaning he seems to be explaining the hadith as if he fell into what the group fell into, which Shaykh refuted.”
The Shaykh : He, may Allah bless you, people have disputed over the hadith according to their schools and opinions. Some rejected this hadith and said: It is not authentic because it is a report from a single narrator, and it contradicts what they consider a principle of the Shari'ah, which is not arguing with divine decree.
And some explained it in multiple ways, and the best explanations are two. The first explanation is what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah held, and he said: Musa did not argue with Adam regarding the disobedience, but rather regarding the expulsion. He said, “Why did You expel us and yourself from Paradise?” and he did not say, “Why did you disobey Allah?” So Adam (peace be upon him) argued that this had been written for him, meaning it was written that he would do it and the result would be that he would be expelled from Paradise. It is as if he is saying, “If I had known that this was the result, I would not have done it.” This happens often; for example, a person travels to a certain country and then an accident happens to him. If he is asked, “Why did you travel? If you had not traveled?” He will say to himself and to the one who spoke to him, “If I had known that this would happen, I would not have traveled. But this is a matter written for me to travel and for this accident to happen, and I did not travel for the sake of the accident.” So this is the case of Adam. Adam did not eat from the tree to be expelled from Paradise, but he did not know what would result from eating from the tree, so he ate from the tree, and then the result was that Allah the Exalted expelled him from Paradise. This is a result that appears bad and distressing to a person, but upon reflection, you find the wisdom in it. Had this not happened, we would not have lived on earth; we would have remained there, and the order of the world that Allah the Glorious and Exalted intended would have been disrupted.
As for the second explanation, it is the one chosen by Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), that Adam did not argue with the sin to continue in it, as the polytheists did who said:[Al-An'am 6:148] Rather, he argued with divine decree regarding a matter that had passed, from which he had repented, and the effect of this disobedience was erased by Allah’s acceptance of his repentance, so it was as if it had not happened. It appears to me that the explanation of Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) is closer to the truth, because it is unlikely that Musa (peace be upon him) would blame his father for a matter from which he had repented, and Allah the Exalted chose him and guided him afterward. But Ibn al-Qayyim’s words have a point, and arguing with divine decree is not condemned absolutely. Allah the Blessed and Exalted said: [Al-An'am 6:107] So arguing with divine decree, if it is for the sake of continuing in disobedience, whether by committing a forbidden act or leaving an obligatory one, is a false argument. But arguing with divine decree regarding a matter that has occurred and a person cannot escape from, but he has repented in what is between him and his Lord and in what is obligatory upon him of repentance, there is no harm in that. Yes, that is correct.
The questioner : Shaykh, is there no contradiction now, Shaykh? Because Ibn al-Qayyim chose this view even though he refuted the group.
The Shaykh : I cannot do it now because I am far from the time of this matter; it requires contemplation, and I fear that if we read this and discuss it, it will take up the brothers’ time.
The questioner : Perhaps another time.
The Shaykh : Another time, or give us the page and I will review it.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is right.
The questioner : Shaykh, he mentioned the various views on explaining the hadith. Then he mentioned the view of one group that Adam (peace be upon him) debated Musa by saying he repented from the sin and abandoned it, and whoever repents from a sin is like one who has no sin. Then Ibn al-Qayyim refuted this view, saying it is not correct, and he refuted them from three angles. Then he mentioned the words of Shaykh al-Islam on the issue. Then Ibn al-Qayyim said, “This is addressed in two responses: As for arguing with divine decree, it is beneficial at one time and harmful at another. It is beneficial if a person has repented from it, meaning after repentance, if a person argues with divine decree, it is permissible. But while he is in the state of sin, it is not permissible. So now, Shaykh, Ibn al-Qayyim’s explanation here, meaning he seems to be explaining the hadith as if he fell into what the group fell into, which Shaykh refuted.”
The Shaykh : He, may Allah bless you, people have disputed over the hadith according to their schools and opinions. Some rejected this hadith and said: It is not authentic because it is a report from a single narrator, and it contradicts what they consider a principle of the Shari'ah, which is not arguing with divine decree.
And some explained it in multiple ways, and the best explanations are two. The first explanation is what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah held, and he said: Musa did not argue with Adam regarding the disobedience, but rather regarding the expulsion. He said, “Why did You expel us and yourself from Paradise?” and he did not say, “Why did you disobey Allah?” So Adam (peace be upon him) argued that this had been written for him, meaning it was written that he would do it and the result would be that he would be expelled from Paradise. It is as if he is saying, “If I had known that this was the result, I would not have done it.” This happens often; for example, a person travels to a certain country and then an accident happens to him. If he is asked, “Why did you travel? If you had not traveled?” He will say to himself and to the one who spoke to him, “If I had known that this would happen, I would not have traveled. But this is a matter written for me to travel and for this accident to happen, and I did not travel for the sake of the accident.” So this is the case of Adam. Adam did not eat from the tree to be expelled from Paradise, but he did not know what would result from eating from the tree, so he ate from the tree, and then the result was that Allah the Exalted expelled him from Paradise. This is a result that appears bad and distressing to a person, but upon reflection, you find the wisdom in it. Had this not happened, we would not have lived on earth; we would have remained there, and the order of the world that Allah the Glorious and Exalted intended would have been disrupted.
As for the second explanation, it is the one chosen by Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), that Adam did not argue with the sin to continue in it, as the polytheists did who said:
If Allah had willed, we would not have associated [anything] and neither would our fathers, nor would we have prohibited anything.
لو شاء الله ما أشركنا ولا آباؤنا ولا حرمنا من شيءBut if Allah had willed, they would not have associated. And We have not appointed you over them as a guardian, nor are you a manager over them.
ولو شاء الله ما أشركوا وما جعلناك عليهم حفيظًا وما أنت عليهم بوكيلThe questioner : Shaykh, is there no contradiction now, Shaykh? Because Ibn al-Qayyim chose this view even though he refuted the group.
The Shaykh : I cannot do it now because I am far from the time of this matter; it requires contemplation, and I fear that if we read this and discuss it, it will take up the brothers’ time.
The questioner : Perhaps another time.
The Shaykh : Another time, or give us the page and I will review it.