Yunus: (5) "It is He who made..."

(It is He who made the sun a light): This is an alert to draw evidence for the existence of the Exalted, His oneness, His knowledge, His power, and His wisdom, through the effects of His craftsmanship in the two luminaries. It serves as an extension of the previously mentioned evidence and an explanation of some instances of the administration [of the universe] to which a general allusion was made. It serves as guidance that if He—glory be to Him—has administered their affairs regarding their livelihood with this marvelous arrangement, then He is more worthy and deserving to administer their interests concerning their Hereafter by sending messengers and revealing scriptures.

"Made" (ja'ala) is either in the sense of "brought into existence and originated," in which case "light" (diya') is a state (hal) of its object, or it is in the sense of "rendered," in which case it is its second object. The speech is constrained as if it were the narrow mouth of a waterskin, for the sun is never devoid of that state. The word "sun" (shams) is—as it is said—derived from the "shamsa" of a necklace, which is the large bead in its center; it was so named because it is the greatest of the celestial bodies, as the reports indicate, as sensory observation witnesses, and as the majority of astronomers have held. Some say it was named such because it is in the middle sphere between the celestial spheres and the other three spheres; this is a speculative matter that has not been attested to by prophetic reports, as you will soon know, God willing.

"Light" (diya') is a verbal noun like "standing" (qiyam). Abu Ali said in al-Hujjah: "Treating it as a plural, like 'basin' (hawd) and 'basins' (hiyad), or 'whip' (sawt) and 'whips' (siyyat), is more analogical than treating it as a verbal noun." This was critiqued by the fact that the singular nature of "light" (nur) later [in the verse] favors the first view. Its 'ya' is transformed from a 'waw' because of the kasrah preceding it. The original meaning of the speech is "He made the sun possessing light."

It is permissible to treat the verbal noun as a present participle, meaning "luminous," or to keep it as it is without it being a genitive, thus implying hyperbole by making the sun the light itself. Ibn Kathir read it as di'a' with two hamzas with an alif between them; the justification for this, as Abu al-Baqa' said, is that the final letter is a ya' and he moved the hamza forward; when the ya' occurred as a terminal letter after an extra alif, it was changed into a hamza according to some, and according to others, it was changed into an alif, then the alif was changed into a hamza to avoid the confluence of two alifs.

(And the moon a light [nur]): meaning possessing light, or illuminated, or the light itself, according to the rule mentioned previously. It is said that "light" (nur) is more general than "radiance" (diya') on the basis that the latter is intense light, whereas "light" encompasses both the intense and the weak. The intent of His statement, Exalted is He: (Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth), is to liken His guidance, which He has erected for people, to the light existing in the night amidst the darkness. The meaning is that He, the Exalted, made His guidance like light in the darkness, through which He guides some and leads others astray; if He had made it like the radiance (diya') in which no darkness remains, no one would have gone astray, and that would contradict wisdom. In this there is a critical view.

It is said that the two are disparate: what is light by essence is diya', and what is light by accident is nur. Because the sun is luminous by itself, diya' is attributed to it, and because the moon's light is derived from it, nur is attributed to the moon. The second scholar [al-Razi] critiqued this by saying that this is the opinion of the philosophers and has nothing to do with the Arabic language, as the phrases "light of the sun" and "light of the fire" are widespread. We have already expanded upon this in what preceded and in our book al-Tiraz al-Mudhahhab, where we provided therein guidance for those who look.

It remains that the notion of the aforementioned derivation—whether it is by way of reflection without the substance of the moon becoming illuminated, as in a mirror, or by its substance becoming illuminated, which is more likely in the view of the Imam—has been mentioned by many, even al-Qadi in his Tafsir. It is a matter that has not come down from the report of the one who ascended to heaven, may God bless him and grant him peace; it only came from the philosophers. They claimed that the total spheres are nine: the highest is the Sphere of Spheres, then the Sphere of the Fixed Stars, then the sphere of Saturn, then Jupiter, then Mars, then the Sun, then Venus, then Mercury, and then the Moon. The author of al-Tuhfah claimed that the sphere of the sun is below the sphere of Venus. The majority position is the former. Many of them argued for this order using the phenomenon where ambiguity remains between the sun, Venus, and Mercury, such as occultations, eclipses, and parallax, which is determined by the instrument called the dhat al-shu'batayn. The former [order] is not imaginable there because Venus and Mercury burn up during conjunction in most of the inhabited world. The latter is also something impossible for that instrument because it is set up on the meridian plane, and these two planets do not appear there because they are around the sun by less than two zodiacal signs; so when they reach the meridian, the sun is above the earth—either in the east or west—and they are not seen at all.

Placing the sun in the middle sphere is due to the beauty of the arrangement—as if it were the shamsa (center bead) of a necklace—or because it is like the king in the world; just as it is fitting for a king to be in the middle of the army, it is fitting for it to be in the middle of the spheres of the world. This is a persuasive argument; indeed, it is of the category of clinging to the "mountains of the moon." Similarly, their argument for there being no more than these spheres is that there is no "excess" in celestial bodies, despite the fact that it necessitates that the thickness of the greatest sphere be the least possible thickness for bodies, since there is no planet in it for its thickness to equal its diameter; thus, anything exceeding the minimum possible is "excess." It has been clarified in the treatise on Dimensions and Bodies that it has reached the limit of thickness, and we have already presented that to you. At that point, it is possible for each of the fixed stars to have a separate sphere, and for those spheres to be consistent in their movements—direction, pole, plane, and speed. Indeed, even if it were said that some of them differ, there is no evidence to negate it, because the amount of them that has been observed is very small. Thus, it is possible that some of those which have not been observed might be different. Moreover, some people have posited a sphere above the sphere of the fixed stars and below the Greatest Sphere and argued for it with various proofs.

Whoever knows that those who perform observations have, since a short time ago, found a wandering planet slower in motion than Saturn, and they called it "Herschel"—and Lalande observed it and found it traverses a zodiacal sign in six solar years, eleven months, and twenty-seven days—it is [a day] on which we are editing this discussion, the 24th of Jumada al-Akhira in the year 1256 AH, with the sun in Virgo, [and it] has traversed from Pisces one degree and thirteen minutes in retrograde—it remains with no reliance on what the ancients said. It is possible that instances like what these moderns have discovered exist. Also, it is possible that it is of slow movement, and the eighth sphere moves with fast movement. In that case, the ecliptic circle passing through the beginnings of the zodiac signs occurs. Al-Birjandi explicitly stated that the ancients did not posit the Greatest Sphere; rather, the moderns posited it.

Also, it is permissible for there to be seven [spheres] by positing the fixed stars and the ecliptic circle on the convex side of the Saturnian model, and there being two souls, one of which connects to the sum of the seven and moves them with one of the two primary movements, and the other to the seventh sphere and moves it with the other, but on the condition that you posit the ecliptic circles moving with the fast [motion], not the slow, as they are imagined on the surfaces of the models with the fast motion, not the slow, in order to shift the fixed stars with the slow motion from one zodiac sign to another as is the reality. We are beyond preventing what is raised against this possibility.

The Imam also mentioned: why is it not permissible for the fixed stars to be below the sphere of the moon, such that they would be below the spheres of the wandering planets, not above them? What is said, "that we see these wandering planets occulting the fixed stars, and the occulter is necessarily below the occulted," is rebutted by the fact that these wandering planets only occult the fixed stars close to the ecliptic, not those close to the poles. So why is it not permissible to say: these fixed stars near the ecliptic are embedded in the eighth sphere, and those near the poles are embedded in another sphere below the sphere of the moon? Furthermore, why is it not permissible to say: the planets move by themselves without being embedded in another body? Proving the impossibility of this is like "carding cotton" [an idiom for an impossible task].

They mentioned regarding the derivation of the moon's light from the sun's radiance that it is among the intuitive matters due to the difference in its shapes according to its proximity and distance from it. This, as Ibn al-Haytham said, does not yield certainty of derivation, due to the possibility that the moon is a sphere half of which is luminous and half dark, and it moves upon itself, so it is seen as a crescent, then a full moon, then it wanes, and so on, always. His intent is that it is necessary to add something else to the difference in shapes according to proximity and distance to indicate the claim, which is the occurrence of an eclipse when the earth is between it and the sun. Some researchers, such as the author of Hikmat al-'Ayn and the author of al-Mawaqif, reported what they reported from Ibn al-Haytham and did not grasp his intent, so they said: "It is weak, for otherwise the moon would not have eclipsed at all in any of the oppositions." This, as al-'Amili said, is strange of them. You know that there is no certainty here either, and that the addition of what was added is permitted due to the possibility of another cause for the difference in those luminous shapes; we simply do not know it, such as there being a dusky planet below the sphere of the moon that causes it to eclipse in some of its oppositions.

If one attacks this by saying "if it existed, it would have been seen," we say: why is it not permissible for that difference and eclipse to be from the effects of the will of the Choosing Agent without the mediation of proximity and distance from the sun and the earth intervening between them? Indeed, there is nothing there except the mediation of the "Be" and "It is" (Kaf and Nun), and that is "sufficient" (kaf) for one whose eye is cleared of obstruction. The investigative jurists among the scholars of Hadith, as well as our masters the Sufis—may God, the Exalted, sanctify their secrets—have famous words on this matter, and you may have come across them; if not, you will come across them later, God willing. They have relied in what they say on prophetic narrations and inner observations. Most of the narrations regarding this have not reached the degree of authenticity, and what reached that status is isolated (ahad); moreover, it is subject to interpretation in a way that does not contradict the doctrine of the philosophers. The truth is that there is no certainty in what they say regarding the arrangement of the celestial bodies and what relates to that, and holding to it does not harm the religion unless it conflicts with what is known to be from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace.

(This)—the moon was named qamar (moon) for its whiteness, as al-Jawhari said; he and others considered its being a qamar [after it passes] three [days].

(And ordained it [qaddarahu] with phases [manazil]): meaning He ordained for it and prepared for it phases; or He ordained its path in phases. On the first view, manazil is a direct object, and on the second, it is in the accusative as an adverb of place. It is permitted that "ordained" (qaddara) is in the sense of a verb that takes one object, and manazil is a state of its object, meaning He created it and fashioned it in a state of transition; or that it is in the sense of a verb that takes two objects, meaning He rendered it possessing phases. In any case, the pronoun refers to the moon. Its specification with this ordainment is due to the speed of its travel relative to the sun, because its phases are known and sensible, because it is the primary basis for the Arab calendars, and because the rulings of the Sharia are attached to it in most cases. It is permitted for the pronoun to refer to both the moon and the sun by interpreting each of them.

The phases are twenty-eight: al-Sharatayn, al-Butayn, al-Thurayya, al-Dabaran, al-Ha'ah, al-Han'ah, al-Dhirah, al-Nathrah, al-Tarf, al-Jabha, al-Zubra, al-Sarfa, al-'Awwa, al-Simak al-A'zal, al-Ghafr, al-Zubani, al-Iklil, al-Qalb, al-Shawla, al-Na'a'im, al-Balda, Sa'd al-Dhabih, Sa'd Bula', Sa'd al-Su'ud, Sa'd al-Akhbiya, Fargh al-Dalw al-Muqaddam, al-Fargh al-Mu'akhkhar, and Batn al-Hut. They are divided among the twelve well-known zodiac signs; thus, each sign has two and one-third phases. The sign, in their view, is thirty degrees, obtained from dividing 360, the parts of the ecliptic circle, by twelve. The degree, in their view, is divided into sixty minutes, and it is divided into sixty seconds, and it is divided into sixty thirds, and so on to fourths, fifths, sixths, and others. The moon, by its own motion, traverses in each day and its night thirteen degrees, three minutes, fifty-three seconds, and fifty-six thirds. Naming what we mentioned "phases" is metaphorical, for it refers to specific fixed stars near the ecliptic. The real phase for the moon is the space occupied by the moon's body according to one of the opinions regarding place. Thus, the meaning of the moon "descending" in those phases is its alignment with them. Alignment is also considered in its descending in the zodiac signs because they are first posited in the Greatest Sphere. As for naming things like Aries, Taurus, and Gemini, that is also by considering alignment.

The first of the phases used to be al-Sharatayn, which is also called al-Nath; it was for the beginning of Aries. Then it shifted until the first of them—according to the findings of the investigative moderns—became al-Fargh al-Mu'akhkhar. The fixed stars do not have movement in sequence according to the correct view, even if it is slow, which is the movement of their sphere. Those who assert this differ on the duration of time it takes to traverse one part of the degrees of its ecliptic; it is said to be 66 solar years or 68 lunar years. Ibn al-A'lam held that it is 70 solar years, which matches the new observation conducted by Nasir al-Din al-Tusi in Maragha. Muhyi al-Din, one of his companions, claimed that he conducted observations of several fixed stars, like Aldebaran and Antares, with that observation and found them moving one degree every 66 solar years. Ptolemy claimed that he found the fixed stars close to the ecliptic moving one degree every 100 solar years. God, the Exalted, knows the truths of the conditions; He is the Disposer in His kingdom and sovereignty as He wills.

(That you may know the number of years): to which a scientific purpose relates for establishing their religious and worldly interests.

(And the calculation): meaning, and that you may know the calculation of times, by months, days, and other things upon which some of the aforementioned interests are predicated. The lam (the 'li' in li-ta'lamu)—according to what is understood from the Amali of 'Izz al-Din ibn 'Abd al-Salam—is linked to "ordained" (qaddarahu). He presented a difficulty for this, that the science of numbers and calculation does not require the moon to be ordained by phases; rather, its rising and setting are sufficient. Some mentioned that the wisdom of this is the ripening of fruits through the moonlight falling upon them gradually, and that it is a greater indication of the existence of the Exalted, for the multiplicity of the states of the possible [entities] and the increase in the difference of their attributes are more conducive to [the necessity of] their need for a wise Creator who is Necessary by Essence, and other things that those who grasp the secrets know. Our master Siraj al-Din answered that the intent of "calculation" is the calculation of times by knowing what has passed of the month and what remains of it, and likewise of the night. Then he said: "This is if you link the lam to 'ordained it by phases'; if you link it to 'He made the sun and the moon,' the question does not arise."

Perhaps it is better in this regard to interpret "years" as what encompasses both solar and lunar years, even though the lunar year is what is considered in the Arab-Islamic calendar. The difference between the two years is ten days, eleven hours, and one minute; for the first year [solar] is 365 days, 5 hours, and 49 minutes according to the Ablakhani observation, and the second year [lunar] is 354 days, 8 hours, and 48 minutes. Each of them is divided into simple and leap years, and the explanation of that is in its place. The specification of the number to years and calculation to times is because there is no meaning considered in the years counted that differs from repeated counts, as is considered in the times calculated. The investigation of it is that "calculation" is the enumeration of what has discrete quantity by repeating its peers such that a specific number is obtained from a specific group of them, which has a special name and an independent ruling—like the year obtained from twelve months, each of which has been obtained from known days, each of which has been obtained from hours likewise. "Counting" (ad) is merely enumerating it by repeating its peers without considering that something is obtained by that likewise. Since in the years counted, no achievement of a specific limit that has a special name (other than the names of the ranks of numbers) and an independent ruling was considered, "number" (adad) was appended to it. The ranks of numbers—tens, hundreds, and thousands—are conventional and do not benefit the acquisition of the counted object. Since in calculated times the acquisition of what was mentioned of the ranks that have special names and independent rulings was considered, the "calculation" (hisab) that signifies that was linked to it. The year, in terms of its realization in itself, is something to which calculation relates; what relates to counting is a group of them, and its relation [in counting] to each one of that group is not from that aforementioned aspect—namely, the aspect of its acquisition from a number of months, each of which has been obtained from a number of days, each of which has been obtained from a number of hours, for that is the function of calculation—but rather from the aspect of it being an individual of that counted group, without considering anything else with it.

The precedence of "number" (adad) over "calculation" (hisab)—even though the order between their referents in existence and knowledge is the reverse—is because the knowledge relating to the number of years has general knowledge of what calculation relates to in detail, even if the aspect is not unified; or because "number," since the acquisition of something else was not considered in it according to what was investigated earlier, is in the rank of the simple compared to the compound in "calculation," where that was considered. This was stated by Shaykh al-Islam.

(God did not create that): meaning what was mentioned of the sun and the moon according to the states that He, the Exalted, recounted, (except in truth): this is an exception from the most general states of the Agent and the Object. The ba' is for accompaniment, meaning: He did not create that in a state of being accompanied by anything, except being accompanied by "the truth," observing therein wisdom and benefit, or observing that therein. The intent of "truth" (al-haqq) here is the opposite of falsehood and play.

(He details the verses): meaning the formative signs mentioned or the more general ones, and what is mentioned enters in a primary way; or we detail the revealed verses that alert to that. It was read as "we detail" (nufassilu) with the 'nun' of majesty, in which there is an apostrophe (iltifat).

(for a people who know): the wisdom in the origination of beings, so they draw evidence from that for the affairs of their Originator, may He be glorified and exalted; or they know what is in the folds of the revealed verses and thus believe in them.