Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:15

• "And He has cast into the earth firm mountains" (that is, mountains that are fixed/stable). The full discussion regarding this has already passed. "Lest it sway with you" (that is, out of dislike that it should sway, or so that it might not sway). The mayd (swaying) is the agitation of a great thing. The explanation for why the "casting" (of mountains) prevents the swaying of the earth is that the earth is like a ship upon the surface of the water; if a ship contains no heavy masses, it sways and tilts from side to side at the slightest thing, but if heavy masses are placed within it, it becomes stable. Thus it is with the earth: if these mountains were not upon it, it would sway, and the mountains relative to it are like the heavy masses placed in a ship.

The Imam (al-Razi) challenged this with several points: First: According to the doctrine of the philosophers, who hold that the movement or rest of bodies is due to their natures, the earth is heavier than water, so it should sink into it, not float or be stabilized by mountains. This is unlike a ship, which is made of wood and contains air between its parts, which prevents it from being still and leads it to sway were it not for the heavy weights. Second: According to the doctrine of the People of Truth (Ahl al-Haqq), who hold that bodies do not have natures that necessitate rest or motion, nothing remains still or moves in land or sea except by the pure power of Allah the Almighty alone. Third: The stabilization of the earth by mountains so that it does not sway and remains standing on the surface of the water is only intelligible if the water upon which it rests is itself still. If it is said that the cause of its stillness in its specific space is its specific nature, then why is it not said that the stillness of the earth in this space is also due to its specific nature? And if we say that it is by His pure power, may He be glorified, then why is it not said that the stillness of the earth is likewise? Thus, the stabilization by mountains is unintelligible under both premises. Fourth: It is possible that the earth could sway in its entirety without its movement being apparent, such that its inhabitants would not perceive it. This would be like the movement of a ship without the awareness of its passengers. This is not contradicted by the perception of movement during the build-up of vapors within it, as that occurs in a small part of it and functions like a twitching in a specific limb of the body.

Then he said: "What I hold regarding this problematic issue is this: It is established by certain proofs that the earth is a sphere, and it is established that these mountains on the surface of the sphere function like roughnesses on the face of this sphere. We say then: If we assumed these roughnesses were not present, but rather it were smooth and devoid of them, it would be such that it would rotate like the celestial spheres due to its simplicity, or move due to the slightest cause for movement. But when these mountains were created and were like roughnesses on its face, its sides became unequal, and the mountains, by their weight, were directed toward the center, thus becoming like pegs to prevent it from circular motion."

Al-Allamah al-Baydawi followed the Imam in this solution, yet he was challenged on the grounds that there is no basis for what he mentioned according to the doctrine of the People of Truth nor that of the philosophers. As for the former, because the essence of a thing does not necessitate its motion; rather, that is by the will of Allah. As for the latter, the philosophers did not say that the earth is naturally inclined to move in a circle, because the earth has a rectilinear (straight) inclination, and that which is such does not contain the principle of circular inclination, according to what they mentioned in [the study of] nature. He was also challenged regarding the mountains preventing its motion: it has been established in geometry that the largest mountain on earth—which is two and a third farsakhs in height—has a ratio to the diameter of the earth like the width of a barleycorn to a sphere with a diameter of a dhira’ (cubit). There is no doubt that that amount of a barleycorn does not remove that sphere from being spherical to the extent that it would prevent it from motion; such is the state of mountains relative to the sphere of the earth.

It was then said: The correct view is to say that Allah created the earth in a state of agitation for a wisdom known only to Him, and then stabilized it with mountains, according to His custom of making things contingent upon causes. Some researchers said in response: The intent is that the earth, in its capacity as a true, simple sphere—setting aside its being an element—necessarily had one of two states. Because of that aspect, it was either possessing a circular inclination like the celestial spheres (in which case it should move like them in rotation), or possessing a rectilinear inclination (in which case its nature is to be still, but it moves by the slightest external force). As for stillness: a body in its natural space does not leave its natural motion momentarily because that would require exiting its natural space, and voluntary motion cannot be imagined for the earth because it lacks awareness. As for moving by the slightest force: anyone with a sound imagination judges this by necessity. This is clarified by a true sphere on a true surface: it only touches it at a single point, so at the slightest thing—even a puff of air—it would roll from its place. Indeed, what exists in reality is one of those two specific states, and mentioning both is a broadening of the scope—which is common among them—thus refuting the objection "As for the second, the philosophers, etc."

As for his statement: "It has been established in geometry, etc.," the response is that they have stated explicitly in books of astronomy that there are thirty mountains in every region, or even more. The ratio of each mountain, even if it is as mentioned, may collectively prevent its motion like a rope composed of individual hairs, for the whole is governed by the rule of the parts. Moreover, that ratio is by volume, while its prevention of motion is by weight, and the weight of these mountains nearly resists the weight of the earth, for mountains are solid, stony bodies, while the earth is soft and porous like a wooden sphere onto which iron beads have been attached. What is said—that it contains other things—is based on the rules of philosophy, and it is not to be criticized unless it contradicts religious rules, as is the case here. The one who claimed the correctness of the objection was himself objected to, as the same arguments he raised are turned against him. I believe that after understanding his intent, nothing of what was mentioned holds against him, and we have already preceded with something similar and elaborated on the discussion in this place; from it, what is most consistent with the rules of Islam becomes apparent. Furthermore, what the respondent mentioned—that the explicit statement in astronomy books is that there are thirty mountains in every region—is contrary to the famous view, which is that in the first region there are twenty, in the second twenty-seven, in the third thirty-three, in the fourth fifty-five, in the fifth thirty, and in each of the sixth and seventh eleven, for a total of one hundred and eighty-seven mountains. Moreover, his statement is not devoid of debate, so reflect.

The meaning of "cast" (alqa), according to what Ibn Atiyyah transmitted in terms of interpretation, is "created and placed." He himself chose that it is more specific than that; namely, that it implies that Allah, Glory be to Him, brought the mountains into existence by His pure power and invention, not from the earth, and placed them upon it. This is supported by reports they narrated in this context, some of which have preceded. He did not use the preposition ‘ala (upon), as in His saying: "And I cast upon you love from Me," to point to the perfection of the mountains, their rootedness, and their stability in the earth, as if they were nails in wood. Consider whether they are counted as part of the earth, such that one who swears an oath not to sit on the earth would break his oath if he sat upon a mountain, or not? I have not encountered anyone who addressed this. The apparent meaning is the former, as custom counts them as part of it, even if the apparent meaning of this verse, like others, does not include them.

And His saying: "and rivers" is a conjunction to "firm mountains," and the governing agent is "He has cast." However, it governs it based on the meaning of "making and creating" contained within it, or by including that meaning within it. In either case, there is no ellipsis, which is what more than one scholar chose. It is permitted for it to be an object of an implied verb, and it is not an consensus [that it is otherwise], contrary to Ibn Atiyyah; i.e., "And He made or created rivers," similar to what was said regarding the verse: "I fed it hay and cold water." Abu al-Baqa estimated an ellipsis, and the conjunction is then a conjunction of clauses. Since most sources of rivers are from the mountains, He mentioned the rivers after mentioning the mountains. And His saying: "and paths" is a conjunction to "rivers," i.e., "and He made paths to your destinations, that you might be guided."

The causal link [in "that you might be guided"] is with respect to His saying "and paths," as is apparent. It is also permissible for it to be a causal link with respect to all that preceded, because those great signs indicate the falsity of [the theory of] chance. It is said they indicate the existence of a Wise Creator, and there is, therefore, a double entendre (tawriyah) in His saying "you might be guided."