Tafsir of Ar-Ra'd 13:3

(And He it is who spread the earth), meaning He extended it in length and breadth. Al-Asamm said: "Spreading is the extension (to an extent whose limit is not seen)." In this is an indication of the vastness of its expanse and the breadth of its regions. It is said: It was gathered together, then He spread it forth from Makkah, from beneath the House (the Ka'bah). It is also said: It was gathered at Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem), then He spread it forth and said to it: "Go thus and so," and this is what is meant by "spreading." It is not hidden that this is contrary to what the context requires.

The verse is used as evidence that it is flat, not spherical. Philosophers are divided on this; one group holds that it is not spherical, and they are of two types: one says it is convex on top and flat on the bottom, like a bowl overturned on the surface of the water, and another says the reverse. The majority of them hold that it is spherical. As for its length: because cities that are aligned in longitude, or which have no longitude, the later they are toward the west, the later the sun and other planets rise over them at a single ratio, and that is not conceivable except in a sphere. As for its latitude: because a traveler in the north, the further they penetrate into it, the more the pole rises over them in proportion to their penetration, at a single ratio, until they see it near their zenith. Likewise, northern stars appear to them, and southern stars disappear from them, and a traveler penetrating into the south is the opposite of that. As for what is between them, it is due to the combination of both matters.

They were confronted with the variation observed on its surface, and they replied that this does not undermine the sensory sphericity known by what has been mentioned. For the ratio of the height of the greatest mountains—according to what their research has settled upon and their opinions reached, which is Mount Damavand between Rayy and Tabaristan, or a mountain in Serendib—to the diameter of the earth is like the ratio of seven barleycorn widths to a cubit. This was objected to by saying: "Granted that what you mentioned is so, what is your say regarding what is submerged in water?" If they say: "If the visible part is spherical, then the remainder is also, for it is one nature," we say: "The reference then is to simplicity and its requirement of true sphericity, and there is no doubt that topography prevents this, even if it does not appear to the senses due to being extremely small." But you know that the masters of instruction are content with sensory sphericity in the visible surface, so the question regarding the submerged part is not directed at them, and a response by referring to simplicity is not appropriate for them.

The truth, which no one denies except a fool or one feigning ignorance, is that what appears of it is spherical to the senses. It is because of this sphericity of the sphere that prayer times differ across lands; it may be noon in one city while it is not in another, and likewise the rising and setting [of the sun] and so forth. As for the sphericity of what is beyond that, only Allah the Exalted knows it. Yes, due to the magnitude of its visible mass, every piece and region of it is observed as if it were flat, and likewise every great circle. By this, it is known that there is no contradiction between the spreading and its being spherical.

Ibn 'Atiyyah claimed that the literal meaning of the Sharia implies it is flat, and he seems to assert this, which is contrary to what the evidence requires. According to them, it is three layers: the pure layer surrounding the center, then the earthy layer, then the mixed layer in which minerals and many plants and animals are formed. The pure layer is uncolored according to some, while Ibn Sina leaned toward it being colored, arguing that the earth found among us, even if mixed with others, we find in it what is predominantly earthy. If the simple earth were transparent, we would have to see in some parts of the earth—that which is not mineral-formed—something transparent, and the state of earth in that would be like the state of water and air, for although they mix, they do not lose transparency entirely.

Those who affirm coloring differ; some said its color is gray (ghubrah), and others claimed it is black. It is claimed that the gray color only occurs when earthy parts mix with airy parts; because of this, the light refracts and grayness results. But when those parts gather in such a way that no airy parts penetrate them, the blackness intensifies, such as charcoal before it becomes ash. Fire has no action except in separating differing things; when it dissolves the airy part in the wood, and the earthy parts gather without anything foreign intervening, the color of its parts appears, which is black. Then, when it is turned to ash, airy parts mix with those parts, and inevitably it turns white again. That is why it is sound in the report—and "the gray one" (al-ghabra) has been used previously to refer to the earth—and it is possible that all its layers are like this, or that its upper surface is like this. Yes, it has come in some narrations that in the depths of the earth is white soil. What has been mentioned of the layers does not contradict any sound report. The claim of it being seven layers, with the distance between each layer and the other being like the distance between each heaven and the other—five hundred years—and each containing creation, is not proven, as you will know if Allah wills. The report regarding that is also not of confirmed authenticity.

Similar to that, in my view, is what was narrated from Ka'b that he said to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him: "Allah the Exalted made the distance between the East and the West five hundred years; one hundred years in the East, nothing of living creatures dwells in it—neither jinn, nor human, nor beast—and there is no tree in it. One hundred years in the West is the same, and three hundred years between the East and the West is where living creatures dwell." Likewise is what Ibn Hatim extracted from 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar: "The world is a journey of five hundred years: four hundred years of ruin and one hundred of habitation."

What is established by the scholars of geometry and astronomy is other than this. The ancients among them mentioned that the circumference of the earth's circle, parallel to the meridian circle, is eight thousand farsakhs, obtained by multiplying the farsakhs of one degree—which they consider to be twenty-two and one-ninth farsakhs—by three hundred and sixty, the circumference of the great circle on the earth. The later ones say it is six thousand eight hundred farsakhs, obtained by multiplying the farsakhs of a degree—which they consider to be nineteen farsakhs minus one-ninth farsakh—by the aforementioned circumference. Based on both views, the disparity between what the geometers and their associates say and what is attributed to others who preceded them is a great matter, and the truth in this lies with the geometers.

They claimed that the natural place is the center of the sphere, and that by its nature it requires being submerged in water, stationary at the absolute center of it. But when hills and mountains and high places appeared on one side of it, and the opposite on another—for reasons you will hear later if Allah wills—and it was of the nature of water to flow from high places to deep places, inevitably the elevated side of the earth was exposed, and water flowed to the deep sides of it. According to their claim, the planets have an influence on this according to the alignments (musamatat) that change during their movements, especially the fixed stars and the apogees and perigees changing in their locations.

The observers of the heavens judged that the length of the exposed land is half the earth's rotation, and its width is one-fourth of it toward the north. As for determining which of the two northern quarters is exposed, it is impossible or difficult, as the author of at-Tuhfah said. As for the rest of that, the Imam said: "No evidence has been established that it is submerged in water, but the most likely is that, since water is several times more than earth." For every element must be such that if it were to transform entirely into another element similar to it, and water decreases in volume upon transforming into earth... yet even if there were slight habitation in some places of the three quarters, it is not considered. As for under the poles, it is not possible for there to be habitation due to the severity of the cold. They only judged that the inhabited part is the quarter because they did not find in the observations of astronomical events—such as eclipses and planetary conjunctions that have no parallax—an advancement in the hours of those penetrating into the East for those events over the hours of those penetrating into the West, exceeding twelve equal hours, which is half the rotation; for every hour is approximately fifteen parts of the degrees of the celestial equator, and multiplying fifteen by twelve is one hundred and eighty.

We say that ruins exist and that they are much more than the inhabited part, and most of the inhabited part is in the north, and only a small amount of it is found in the south. However, we say: what they claimed as the cause for the exposure is not accepted, and we attribute the earth's being in a state capable of human habitation and the emergence of plants to His power, may He be exalted, and His choice, may He be glorified. Otherwise, whoever is fair knows that there is no path for the intellect to know the cause of that with certainty. He said: "He the Exalted did that in the earth merely for His will, which is in accordance with wisdom."

(And He placed therein firm mountains), meaning mountains fixed in their positions, from rusu (anchoring), which is the stability of heavy bodies. He did not mention the described object (mawsuf) because the predominance of the description (wasf) made it unnecessary. Fawa'il (plural form) is the plural of fa'ilah if it is a feminine adjective, like ha'id (menstruating), or an adjective of something mindless that is masculine, like bazil and bawazil, or a stagnant noun or what runs in its course, like ha'it (wall) and hawa'it. The restriction of its coming as a plural for that in fawaris (knights) and hawalik (black) and nawakis (bowing heads) is only for the adjectives of rational beings, not absolutely. Here, the plural is in an adjective of something mindless. It is said: There is no need to make the singular here, rasiyah (firm), an adjective for the plural of paucity (ajbul), and consider the plural of multitude (jibal) as including a group from the plurals of paucity, and treating each of them as a singular, as has been said. Moreover, there is no scope for that because the plurality of both plural forms is for the inclusion of individuals, not by considering the inclusion of the plural of paucity for individuals and the plural of multitude for the plurals of paucity. Both of them are the plural of jabal (mountain), not that jibal is the plural of ajbul.

This was countered by saying: perhaps the one who said that rawasi here is the plural of rasiyah, an adjective of ajbul, does not commit to what they mentioned. If it is valid to apply ajbul rasiyah to the mountains of a region, for example, it is valid to apply al-jibal (the mountains) to the mountains of all regions without considering making al-jibal the plural of the plurals of paucity. Yes, it is not valid for jibal to be the plural of ajbul because it would then become the plural of the plural, which is contrary to what the philologists have explicitly stated. Making rasiyah an adjective of jabal, not ajbul, and the ta in it is for intensification, not for femininity, as in 'alamah (sign/scholar). It is retorted that the intensive ta in fa'ilah is not standard. Abu Hayyan said: It has become predominant for mountains to be described as rawasi, and therefore they dispensed with the described object by using the adjective, and the plural of the name, like ha'it and hawa'it, which is something for which there is no need, as you have heard. It was also argued against him that predominance is by frequency of usage, and the discussion is on its correctness from the beginning; thus, there is circular reasoning in what he mentioned. It was answered that the frequency of the usage of rawasi not running on a described object suffices for his claim, but there is contemplation in that. Likewise, there is no need for what was said: that it is the plural of rasiyah, an adjective of a feminine jabal due to the locality (buq'ah). All of that stems from negligence regarding what the verifiers among the scholars of Arabic have mentioned.

Furthermore, the expression for the mountains with this title is to explain the derivation of the stability of the earth upon their steadfastness. In the report: "When Allah the Exalted created the earth, it began to sway, so Allah the Exalted created the mountains upon it, and it stabilized. The angels said: 'Our Lord, have You created a creation greater than the mountains?' He said: 'Yes, iron.' They said: 'Our Lord, have You created a creation greater than iron?' He said: 'Yes, fire.' They said: 'Our Lord, have You created a creation greater than fire?' He said: 'Yes, water.' They said: 'Our Lord, have You created a creation greater than water?' He said: 'Yes, air.' They said: 'Our Lord, have You created a creation greater than air?' He said: 'Yes, the son of Adam who gives charity with his right hand, concealing it from his left.'" The first mountain placed on the earth, as Ibn Abi Hatim extracted from 'Ata, is Abu Qubays, and the total of what is seen upon it of mountains is one hundred and eighty-seven.

The philosophers denied that the stability of the earth is by the mountains, and they differed in the cause of that. Among those who hold the sphericity [of the earth], some made it the attraction of the sphere to it from all sides; thus, it follows that it would stop in the center, as is recounted about an iron lump in a house of magnets on all sides, for it stopped in the center due to the equality of attraction from every side. This was countered: the smaller object is faster in attraction to the attractor than the larger, so why is a clod of earth not attracted to the sphere, but rather flees from it to the center? Also, the closer is more worthy of attraction than the farther, so a clod thrown upward is more worthy of attraction according to their principle, so it should not return.

Others made it the pushing of the sphere by its movement to it from all sides, as if something of soil were placed in a spherical bottle and then rotated on its poles with a rapid rotation; it happens that the soil stops in its center due to the equality of pushing from every side. This was countered: if the pushing were of this strength, why is it not felt? Also, why does this pushing not make the movement of winds and clouds to a specific direction? Also, why did it not make our transition to the West easier than our transition to the East? Also, the movement of the heavy object must be [faster] the greater it is, because the pushing of the greater by the pusher is slower than the pushing of the smaller. Also, the movement of the heavy object descending must be faster at the beginning than its movement at the end, because at the beginning it is closer to the sphere.

Others, not holding [the sphericity], made it infinite from the bottom side, and the cause of its stillness in their view is that it had no landing place to descend into, and the proof of the finiteness of bodies is brought against them. Others said it is finite and made the cause its floating on water, with its convex part on top and its flat part on the bottom, or the reverse. This was countered: mere floating does not necessitate stillness, and it has, according to the philosophers, what it has [of difficulties]. Their verifiers held that its stillness is for itself, not for an external cause. It says in al-Mabahith al-Sharqiyyah: "The common aspect in refuting what they said regarding the cause of stillness is to say: all you mentioned of attraction and pushing and others are contingent matters, not natural nor necessary for the essence. Thus, it is valid to assume an essence of the earth bare of them. If we imagine this possible occurrence, either it occurs in a specific boundary or it does not occur in it. If it does not occur, then either it occurs in all boundaries or it does not occur in any of them; the latter two are clearly corrupt. Thus, the first is determined: that it is restricted to a specific boundary, and that is for its specific nature, and then its stillness in the boundary is for itself, not for an external cause. If that is conceivable, let it be conceivable in its restriction to the center also."

Then he mentioned in the formation of mountains several discussions: First, the large stone is only formed because great heat encounters sticky clay, either all at once or gradually. As for the height, it has a cause by essence and a cause by accident. As for the first, it is as if the wind causing the earthquake moved a portion of the earth and made it a hill. As for the second, it is that the clay, after it turns to stone, has differing parts in softness and hardness, and water of strong flow or great winds occur, excavating the soft parts and leaving the hard ones. Then the floods and winds continue to influence those excavations until they sink deep, and what they deviate from remains towering. It is likely that this inhabited land was in past ages submerged in the seas, so sticky, abundant clay was formed there, then it happened after the exposure, and the mountains were formed. What supports this suspicion is that in many stones, when we break them, we find parts of aquatic animals like shells. Then when the mountains were formed and the seas moved, the towering occurred, either because floods excavated what was between the mountains or because what was of these exposed parts was stronger in petrification and harder in clay; when what was below it fell, it remained higher and taller. However, these are matters that do not complete in a period that histories are sufficient to record.

Second: the cause of clay veins in the mountains, it is possible it is from the side of what crumbled from them and turned to dust and water flowed over it and moistened it or mixed its good clay with it, or from the side that the ancient sea clay is not uniform in essence—some of it strengthens in petrification and some weakens—and it is possible it is from the side that it happens for the sea to overflow little by little over plains and mountains, so it happens for the plain to become sticky clay prepared for strong petrification, and for the mountain to crumble, as if you soaked a brick and earth in water, then exposed the brick and the clay to fire; then the brick crumbles and the clay remains petrified.

Third: we may see some mountains stacked, layer by layer, and it resembles that this is because its clay was arranged like that, in that one layer accumulated first, then after it, in another period, another layer occurred and accumulated, and there had flowed onto each layer something of different essence, so it became a barrier between it and the other layer. When the matter petrified, it happened for the barrier to scatter from between the two layers. This was countered by saying: what they mentioned regarding the cause of formation is not hidden, that the restriction of some parts of the earth to hardness and others to softness, while the ratio of all those parts to the celestial bodies which they claimed were the preparers for it is equal, absolutely for the proximity and adjacency occurring between the soft and hard parts, demands a specific cause. At this demand, the intellect stops and refers that specification to a cause from outside, which is the Choosing Agent, may His majesty be exalted. Would that I knew why He did not do that first to avoid the burden! Yes, it is not distant that this is from the causes of its formation by the will of Allah the Exalted according to those who speak—from the religious people and others—of intermediaries, not according to the Ash'arites, since all, according to their opinion, is referred to Him, the Exalted, primarily, so no real intermediary is imagined according to their view. The causes mentioned are matters that do not yield except weak suspicion. The report of seeing parts of aquatic animals like shells is likewise; for we often see that in places of rain. One whom I trust informed me that he witnessed frogs that fell in rain. Moreover, this does not complete upon the assumption that the revealed part of the earth was revealed at the inception of creation and was not submerged in water, then was revealed; this is something some verifiers among the philosophers also held.

They objected to those who hold that the exposure happened after, [by saying] that its strongest evidence is that the sun's perigee is in the side of the south, so the sun's proximity to the earth there is more than the side of the north by the thickness of the complement of its mumaththal; thus the heat intensifies there, so water was attracted from the north to the south, and for this, the northern quarter was revealed. If the perigee moves to the side of the north, the matter reverses. This is countered: if it were like that, the other northern quarter would also be exposed, as there is no difference between the two quarters in that. And in committing to that, it is remote, as no one has committed to it. Then, the existence of mountains in the submerged part, like their existence in the inhabited part, demands that it was inhabited and that the perigee was in other than its direction today, which is a claim that the land is always becoming sea and the sea is always becoming land by the exchange of the directions of the apogee and perigee. Thus, the exposed part is sometimes the side of the north and sometimes the side of the south. Since this is only by way of gradualness, it demands that we witness today something of the side of the south exposed and of the side of the north submerged. Do not think that this exists; if it did, it would be famous. The apogee of the sun today is in the tenth of Cancer, and its movement every year is approximately one minute, so from the time it moved from the northern side to today, thousands of years have passed in which much is submerged and much is inhabited. Yes, it is narrated that the island of Cyprus was connected to the land, then the sea intervened between them, but even if confirmed, it is not of what we are in. We do not agree that it is a world whose exposure occurred, for the possibility that it was exposed from before. The truth is that this land, after it was found, did not become sea, and this surrounding sea, after it surrounded, did not become land, and this is what the divine reports and prophetic narrations require.

Yes, it has come in some narrations that which its literal meaning is that the inhabited earth was exposed at the inception of creation, such as the narration of the yaqutah (ruby). In others, it is that it was submerged, such as the report of Ibn 'Abbas: "When Allah the Exalted wanted to create the creation, He commanded the wind, so it revealed from the hashfah (tip/apex), and from it the earth was spread forth as much as Allah the Exalted willed in length and breadth. It began to sway, so He placed the firm mountains upon it." In the Torah is what is explicit in that. In the first book of creation: "In the beginning, Allah created the heaven and the earth. And it was submerging and vast, and there was darkness, and the wind of God was blowing upon the face of the water. Allah the Exalted willed there to be light, and it was." Then it is mentioned therein that when a second day passed, Allah the Exalted willed for the water from under the heaven to gather to one place and for the dry land to appear, and it was so. Allah, the Exalted, named the dry land Earth and the gathering of water Seas. It is also therein that the creation of the two luminaries was on the third day.

This turns away from making the cause of exposure what you heard regarding the proximity of the sun. What this verse pointed to, and other verses spoke of, that the mountains are a cause for the stability of the earth, and that without them it would sway, is a matter upon which no evidence is established by our principles that denies it, so we believe in it, even if we do not know the nature of that in truth. It is possible that its aspect is that Allah the Exalted created the earth, according to what His wisdom required, small in relation to other spheres, and gave it a specific amount of weight, and placed it in the place He placed it in the water, and caused to appear of it what He caused to appear. That is not but for the cause of His will, the Exalted, which follows His wisdom, the Exalted, not a matter its essence required. Thus, it began to sway due to the turbulence of the waves of the sea surrounding it, so He placed upon it of mountains that which it became heavy with, such that the waves no longer had authority over it. This is like what is witnessed in ships, where they place in them what makes them heavy of stones and others for such [reasons].

The fact that the ratio of the height of the greatest mountains to it is the ratio previously mentioned does not harm us in this context, because volume is one matter and weight is another matter. A small-volume object may be much heavier than a large-volume object. It is not said: "Its creation initially in such a way that the waves would not displace it was possible, so why did He, the Exalted and Most High, not do it, but rather created it in such a way that the waves move it, then placed mountains upon it to push that away?" For we say: He, the Exalted, only did so because of the wisdoms in it, of which He, the Majestic, is more knowledgeable. This question is similar to saying: "The creation of man initially in such a way that hunger and thirst, for example, do not influence him at all was possible, so why did He, the Exalted, not do it, but rather created him in such a way that they influence him, then created for him what he pushes that away with, to push it away with it?" It has many other parallels, and that is not but arising from negligence of what ensues from what proceeded from Him, the Exalted, of wisdoms. Perhaps the wisdom in what we are in is the manifestation of the increase of His greatness, the Majestic, for the angels, peace be upon them, for that is something that awakens the eyelid of veneration. Do you not see how they said when they saw what they saw: "Our Lord, have You created a creation greater than the mountains?" etc.

It is said to one who believes in this: "Explain for us the wisdom of the precedence of some things over others in creation, however the precedence is, and likewise the wisdom of the creation of man and his likes in need, and the creation of what removes his need, rather than his creation initially in a way that he does not need anything with it." If he explains one, we will say the like of it in what we are in. Furthermore, we say: the wisdom of the creation of mountains is not limited to their being pegs for the earth and a cause for its stability, but there are many wisdoms that only Allah the Exalted knows.

The philosophers mentioned many benefits for the mountains. They said: "The material of clouds, springs, and minerals is vapor, so it does not form except in the mountains or near them." As for springs: because when the earth is soft, vapors dry out from it, so there does not gather from it an amount to be considered. Thus, it does not gather except in solid earth, and mountains are the most solid of earths; inevitably, they were the strongest in holding the vapor until there gathers what is fit to be material for springs. It resembles that the reservoir of the mountain is full of water, and the mountain, in its retention of vapors, is like a solid alembic prepared for distillation; it does not let anything of the vapor dissolve, and the bottom of the earth beneath it is like the cucurbit, and the springs are like the tails in the alembics, and the valleys and the vapor are like the receivers. That is why most springs only burst from the mountains, and fewer of them are in the wildernesses. This, moreover, is only when the earth is solid. As for that most clouds are in the mountains, there are aspects: first, that in the interior of the mountains are humidities that are not in the interior of soft earths. Second, that the mountains, due to their height, are colder; inevitably, there remains on their surface of dews and snows what does not remain on the surface of earths. Third, that the ascending vapors are in the mountains. When this is established, it appears that the causes of the accumulation of clouds in the mountains are more, because the material in them, apparently and internally, is more, the congestion is more severe, and the dissolving cause, which is heat, is less. As for minerals needing vapors, their mixing with the earthy [material] is more, their remaining in places where they do not separate for longer is more, and there is nothing in this meaning like the mountains. Whoever contemplates knows that the mountains have benefits other than that which cannot be counted, so it does not harm that some people are beyond the prohibition of some of what was mentioned.

I heard from some contemporaries that among their benefits is their being a cause for the exposure of this observable amount of the earth, and that is for the entrapment of vapors seeking the direction of height in them. This requires that the earth before them was submerged, and that is contrary to what the literal meaning of his statement, peace be upon him: "When Allah the Exalted created the earth, it began to sway, so He placed the mountains upon it, and it stabilized." Moreover, it appears there is a contradiction between their being "pegs," which is explicitly stated in the verses, and their being an attractor of the earth toward the direction of height. It does not rebut what was mentioned in directing their being a cause for the stability of the earth, that their being in it is like ballast in a ship, which contradicts it, for that requires the earth to move toward the direction opposite to the blowing of the air. For we are beyond prohibiting the occurrence of air in a way that moves it for that reason in such a manner.

All this is if we judge the intellect in the middle and are restricted by customary things ('adiyat). But if we attribute all of that to the power of the Choosing Agent, the Majestic, and we say: He, the Exalted, created the earth as a table, placed the mountains upon it, and preserved it from swaying for wisdoms known to Him, in which thoughts wander and which no one encompasses except those who have been given hidden knowledge from those of insight—then all burdens are lifted from us, and all trials cease. It is not necessary for us, based on this, to say that the earth is the center of the world, as is the opinion of most philosophers, the predecessors and successors.

None of the former disagreed except a band who claimed that the fire is in the center because it is more noble than earth, as it is luminous, subtle, and beautiful in color, and the earth is dense, dark, and ugly in color; the location of the noble must be the noblest of locations, which is the center. Therefore, it is in the center. This is of the weak persuasions; nevertheless, it is rebutted by that we do not agree on the nobility of fire over earth absolutely. For if it outweighs it in subtlety and what accompanies it, the earth outweighs it in matters: first, that fire is extreme in quality, corrupting, and earth is not so. Second, that it does not remain in a strange place as earth remains. Third, that earth is the place of life and growth, and fire is not so. What was mentioned of the visual sense's appreciation of fire is countered by the tactile sense's appreciation of earth in relation to it. Moreover, if we granted the nobility, it does not require except the noble center, not the quantitative one, as it has no nobility. That is nothing but its place which the majority of the predecessors claim for it, because it is intermediate between the elemental bodies and the celestial bodies.

None of the latter disagreed except a small band, they are Herschel and his companions, who claimed that the sun is stationary in the center of the world and everything other than it moves upon it because it is a very great mass, and all the masses below it, especially the earth, are nothing in relation to it, and wisdom is the stillness of the greater and the movement of the smaller. This is also of the weak persuasions; nevertheless, it is rebutted by that the stillness of the smaller, especially between waves and winds, and the movement of the greater, especially like the movement which the majority establish for the sun, is more eloquent in power. Their explaining that also by that we do not see the sun deviating from what is called the zodiac circle, so it requires it to be stationary, unlike others, is not hidden what is in it.

What many people lean toward is that beneath the earth is water, and it is in it like a green watermelon in a basin. It has come in some reports that the earth is on the back of a bull, and the bull is on the back of a whale, and the whale is in the water, and no one knows what is beneath the water except He who created it. More than one mentioned that the excess of the liver of that whale is what will be the first food of the people of Paradise; thus, they carried the whale in what is sound of his saying, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: "The first thing the people of Paradise eat is the excess of the liver of the whale," on that whale. They explained the wisdom of that eating as an indication of the ruin of the world and a glad tiding of the corruption of its foundation and security from returning to it, since the earth which they used to dwell upon was stationary upon it. The eating was specified to the excess because of what the physicians clarified, that if the illness occurs in the liver, not the excess, his recovery is hoped for, but if it occurs in the excess, the sick person dies; so their eating from that is more entering into the glad tidings.

Some of them prohibited the authenticity of the reports indicating that it is on water without an intermediary, especially the long report which al-Baghawi mentioned in Surah Nun. He did not deny the authenticity of the report that the first thing the people of Paradise eat is the excess of the liver of a whale, except that he said: "The whale in it is a whale of the water," based on what the Sultan of Traditionists, al-Bukhari, narrated: "The first thing the people of Paradise eat is the excess of the liver of a whale, from which seventy thousand eat," with the indefiniteness of the word "whale." Its parallel is in Sahih Muslim, where it is mentioned in it that the earth will be on the Day of Resurrection one loaf of bread, which the Compeller will overturn with His hand as one of you overturns his loaf in a journey, as provisions for the people of Paradise, and that their condiment is a bull and a nun (whale), from the excess of whose livers seventy thousand eat. Mentioning the state of the earth in it does not determine the intention of the opponent; for it is permissible that the combination between that is to indicate the ruin of the world and the cutting off of the matter of preparation for livelihood and the expiration of elemental, aquatic life. As for the indication to the first, it is clear. As for the second, it is by taking over the bull and eating the excess of its liver, for it is the pillar of the equipment of the cultivator concerned with his livelihood—and in the report: "All of you are cultivators, and all of you are ambitious." As for the indication to the third, it is by taking over the whale and eating the excess of its liver also, for it is an aquatic, elemental animal that cannot live for a moment if it departs from the water. By this, the complete appropriateness between what the report contains appears. It is not remote that the manifestation of worldly life is in the form of a whale, and what is needed in it of the causes of cultivation necessary for the matter of livelihood is in the form of a bull, "and all the hunt is in the belly of the wild ass." That is of the kind of the manifestation of death in the form of a grayish ram on that day.

Some of the knowers said regarding the secret of specifying the liver: "It is the house of blood, and it is the house of life, and from it its division in the body to the heart and others occurs, and the vapor of that blood is the soul expressed by the animal spirit. Its being food for the people of Paradise is a glad tiding that they are alive and will not die." It was mentioned that the spleen is extracted from the bull, and it is in the animal in the position of filth in the body, for the filth of the body from what the body gives of corrupt blood gathers in it, so it is given to the people of the Fire to eat. That was from the bull because it is cold and dry, like the nature of death, and Hell is in the form of a buffalo, and the food for the people of the Fire from its spleen is more appropriate than it. Because of what is in it of blood-like quality, the people of the Fire will not die, and because it is of the filth of the body and of the corrupt, painful blood, they will not live and will not enjoy; so eating it only increases them in illness and sickness.

It is reported from al-Ghazali—and the responsibility is on the reporter—that he, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was asked once what is beneath the earth, and he said: "The whale." And he was asked another time and he said: "The bull." He, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him, intended by that the two zodiac signs which were among the twelve known zodiac signs. Each of them was a peg of the earth at the time of the question. If the peg at that time had been, for example, the Scorpio, he, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him, would have said: "The Scorpio is beneath the earth." You know that this is far from the intentions of the Lawgiver, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. It does not complete upon what you have arrived at, that the earth is on the back of the bull, and the bull is on the back of the whale, and the whale is on the water, and the saying that the intention is that the earth is above the bull because it is its peg at the time of the report, and the bull is above the whale because it is of the northern signs and the whale is of the southern signs, and the northern signs in most of the inhabited land are considered above the southern signs, and the whale is above the water because there is no barrier between it and it that is seen, except a bull or a donkey. Some of them interpret the report of the sequence as meaning that the intention is to indicate that the habitation of the earth is dependent on cultivation, and it is dependent on effort and agitation, and that is the bull from the principles of cultivation, and the whale hardly settles from movement in the water. It is as you see. What should be relied upon is the belief in what came from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, if it is sound; for there is no wise person beyond him, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him. The sequence which the philosophers mention, they did not bring a clear proof for it, and they have nothing in it except what yields suspicion. In that case, it is possible to speak of another sequence. Yes, one should not speak of a sequence which the senses deny and clear intellect refuses, and if such a thing came from the Lawgiver, it must be interpreted, as is not hidden. Some of the virtuous mentioned that the sequence of the celestial and terrestrial bodies and the explanation of their states did not come as the philosophers did from the Lawgiver, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, because that is not among the important issues in his view, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him. There is nothing important except reflecting upon them and using them as evidence for the oneness of the Maker and His perfection, the Majestic, and that is obtained by what is sensed of them. So glorified is He who raised the heaven without pillars, spread the earth, and placed therein firm mountains.

(And rivers), the plural of nahr (river), which is the channel of overflowing water. It is also pluralized as nahr and nuhur and anhur. It is applied to the waters flowing on the earth. He joined it to the mountains and suspended one verb for both of them, in that the mountains are a cause for their formation, as has been said. This was countered that it is built upon what some philosophers held, that mountains, due to their composition of solid stones, when vapors ascend to them, they entrap them, and they complete, so they turn into waters, and perhaps they pierce them, so they emerge. It was mentioned that what the narrations indicate is that they descend from the heaven, but since their descent upon them is more, they often emerge from them. This is sufficient to make them share in one agent and to make them one totality. It is as if they intended by the descent from the heaven upon the mountains the descent of rainwater from the heaven, which is one of the celestial bodies, upon them. The majority say that the descent is from the clouds, and the intention of "heaven" is the direction of height; that is what observation judges. We have preceded you with what relates to that at the beginning of the book, so remember.

The rivers which Allah the Exalted placed in the earth are many, and some of them mentioned that they are one hundred and ninety-six rivers. It is said: they are more than that. It came in four of them that they are from Paradise; in Sahih Muslim from Abu Hurayrah: the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: "Sayhan, Jayhan, the Euphrates, and the Nile are all from the rivers of Paradise." The first two are with an alif after the ha, and they are two rivers in the land of Jordan; Jayhan is the river of al-Massisa, and Sayhan is the river of Adana. The statement of al-Jawhari in his Sahih that Jayhan is a river in the Levant is a mistake, or he intended the metaphorical, in that it is in the land of the Armenians, and it is adjacent to the Levant. They are not Sayhun and Jayhun with a waw; for Sayhun is the river of India, and it flows from mountains at its farthest ends from what is adjacent to the eye until it pours into the Abyssinian sea from what is adjacent to the coast of India, and the amount of its flow is four hundred farsakhs. Jayhun is the river of Balkh, flowing from springs until it reaches Khwarezm, then some of it scatters in places, and the rest goes to the lake on which is the village known as al-Jurjaniyyah, below Khwarezm; ships flow from it to it, its length being a journey of a month and its width about that. As for the statement of the Qadi 'Iyad: "These four rivers are the greatest rivers of the lands of Islam—the Nile in Egypt, the Euphrates in Iraq, Sayhan and Jayhan—and it is said Sayhun and Jayhun in the lands of Khurasan," al-Nawawi said: "There is denial in it from aspects: first, his saying: 'the Euphrates in Iraq,' and it is not in Iraq; it is a divider between the Levant and the Jazira. Second, his saying: 'Sayhan and Jayhan, and it is said Sayhun and Jayhun,' making the names synonymous, and it is not so; rather Sayhan is not Sayhun and Jayhan is not Jayhun, by the agreement of the people. Third, his saying: 'in the lands of Khurasan,' while Sayhan and Jayhan are in the lands of the Armenians near the Levant." This is finished.

It may be answered to the first with the like of what was answered to al-Jawhari, and it is not hidden that after the claim of synonymy, it is valid to judge that they are in the lands of Khurasan just as it is valid to judge that they are in the lands of the Armenians. Regarding these rivers being from Paradise, there are two interpretations: first, the intention is to liken their waters to the waters of Paradise and to inform of their distinction over others, and its like is many in speech. Second, what Qadi 'Iyad mentioned: that the faith covers their lands and the bodies nourished from them are destined for Paradise, and this is nothing. If it were returned to considering the likening—i.e., they are like the rivers of Paradise in that those nourished from their water are believers—it would be more appropriate. Al-Nawawi said: "The most correct is that the speech is upon its literal meaning, and that they have a material from Paradise, and it is existing today according to the people of the Sunnah." The first interpretation is refused by what is also in Sahih Muslim from the narration of the Isra: "And the Prophet of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, narrated that he saw four rivers: two manifest rivers emerge from their origin, and two hidden rivers. I said: 'O Gabriel, what are these rivers?' He said: 'As for the two hidden rivers, they are two rivers in Paradise, and as for the two manifest, they are the Euphrates and the Nile.'" The pronoun "their origin" is the Lote Tree of the Utmost Boundary, as it came clarified in Sahih al-Bukhari and others.

Qadi 'Iyad said here that this hadith indicates that the origin of the Lote Tree of the Utmost Boundary is on the earth because the Nile and the Euphrates emerge from its origin. Al-Nawawi countered him that this is not necessary; rather, its meaning is that the rivers emerge from its origin, then flow where Allah willed until they emerged from the earth and flow in it, and this no intellect or law prohibits, and it is the manifest of the hadith, so it is necessary to move to it. It is said: perhaps Allah the Exalted causes the waters of those rivers to reach, by His dazzling power, their locations from which their emergence is witnessed, from where no one sees anyone, and that is not difficult for Allah. The manifest is that the intention is the origin of their waters emerging from their locations, not them and what is organized to them of floods and others. It is as if I see some people hardly committing to that in all that flows in those rivers, and some of them also make the reports in this affair indications to psychological matters only, and it is not of what the pleased souls are satisfied with. Yes, I do not prohibit the interpretation while the matter remains horizontal, and non-belief in the literal meaning is not of what harms the religion, as is not hidden to one who has no fanaticism.

The reporters have long speech regarding these rivers which the ears of those of understanding reject, and it does not run in the rivers of their hearts, and I do not see it fitting except for throwing into the sea. It has come in some reports, elevated: "Two rivers are believers and two rivers are disbelievers; as for the believers, they are the Nile and the Euphrates, and as for the disbelievers, they are the Tigris and Jayhun." This was carried on that he, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him, likened the first two rivers for their benefit by ease to the believer, and the last two rivers to the disbeliever for their lack of benefit likewise, as their water only emerges in most cases by apparatus and hardship. Otherwise, describing that with belief and disbelief in reality is not manifest. Then, the best of rivers, as more than one said, is the Nile, and the rest are equal. Some of them added to the count of what is from Paradise the Tigris, and a report was narrated in that from Muqatil from 'Ikrimah from Ibn 'Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, and it is not of what is relied upon. And Allah the Exalted knows best.

(And of all the fruits), connected to yaj'al (He places) in His saying, the Exalted: (He placed therein two pairs), meaning a true duality, and they are the two individuals, each of which is a pair of the other. He emphasized with the two pairs so that it would not be understood that the intention of that is the two even numbers, for "pair" is applied to the totality, but the duality of that is relative; i.e., He placed from every type of fruit existing in the world two kinds and two classes, either in color, like white and black, or in taste, like sweet and sour, or in size, like small and large, or in quality, like hot and cold, and the like of that. It is said: The meaning is: He created in the earth from all types of fruits two pairs, two pairs when He spread it, then they multiplied after that and diversified. This was countered that it is a claim without evidence, while the manifest is contrary to it, for the rational type needing two pairs was created as a male first, so how in fruits? The creation of one of each first is sufficient in the creation, and the aspect is what was mentioned first. It is permissible for the prepositional phrase to be connected to the first ja'ala, and the second to be an initiation to explain the manner of the placing. Some of them claimed that the intention of the two pairs, upon the assumption of the connection of the prepositional phrase to the previous ja'ala, is the sun and the moon. It is also said: the night and the day. Both sayings are nothing.

(He causes the night to cover the day), meaning He clothes its place, so the atmosphere becomes dark after it was luminous. In this is the attribution of what is a place for the thing to it, and in making the atmosphere a place for the day is a metaphor, for time has no place, and the place is only for the light which is its necessity. It is permissible in the verse to have a metaphor, like His saying, the Exalted: (He wraps the night over the day), making it covering the day, wrapped upon it like the garment on the worn. It is said: The first is more appropriate and more eloquent. He sufficed with mentioning the covering of the night over the day, with the occurrence of its opposite, due to knowledge of it from it, although the expression is capable of it. However, the covering in the sense of covering is more appropriate for the night than the day. This was counted among the celestial verses, although its connection to the terrestrial verses is manifest due to its appearance in the earth. Hamzah, al-Kisa'i, and Abu Bakr read yughashshi with the intensive, and the complete discussion in that has preceded.

(Indeed in that), i.e., in what was mentioned of spreading the earth, placing the firm mountains upon it, causing the rivers to flow in it, creating the fruits, and the covering of the night over the day—in the pointing with that is an attention to the greatness of the pointed-to in its category—(are signs), dazzling, it is said: they are the traces of the wonderful actions; the wisdom of their Maker is glorified. The fi (in) is upon its meaning, for those traces are settled in those actions, dependent upon them. It is permissible to point with that to those traces which are indicated by those actions. (for a people who reflect).

Reflecting upon them leads to the judgment that for every one of these in this elegant pattern and appropriate style, there must be a Creator, All-Powerful, All-Wise, who does what He wills and judges what He wants. Reflection, as al-Raghib said, is the power that drives knowledge to the known, and reflection is the moving of that power according to the view of the intellect, and that is for man, not the animal. It is not said except in what is not possible for its form to occur in the heart. For this, it was narrated: "Reflect upon the signs of Allah the Exalted, and do not reflect upon Allah the Exalted, since Allah, the Exalted, is transcendent above being described with a form." Some of the literati said: Fikr (thought) is the inversion of fark (rubbing), but fikr is used in meanings, and it is the rubbing of matters and researching them, seeking to reach their truth. It is famous that it is the arranging of known matters to lead to an unknown, and the aspect of making this a breakpoint in the verse has preceded. The Imam mentioned that the most in the verses, if the evidence existing in the terrestrial world is mentioned in them, is to make its breakpoint: (Indeed in that are signs for a people who reflect), and what is near it, and its cause is that the philosophers attribute the events of the terrestrial world to the variations occurring in the planetary configurations, so Allah the Exalted rejected it by His saying: (for a people who reflect), because whoever reflects upon them knows that it is not permissible for the occurrence of those events to be from the planetary conjunctions. So reflect.