Tafsir of Al-Isra 17:12

(And We have made the night and the day two signs): This, according to what has been said, is an initiation into clarifying some of the guidance previously mentioned, by way of directing one toward the path of inferring through cosmic signs and proofs—each of which is a luminous argument beyond doubt and a clear path for those who follow it. Although the aforementioned "making" and what is conjoined to it are among the creational forms of guidance, the report of this is part of the Quranic guidance that alerts one to those creational guidances.

The Imam mentioned several aspects regarding the connection: First: When He, the Exalted, explained in the preceding verse what He had brought to the creation in terms of the blessings of religion—namely, the Quran—He followed it with an explanation of what He had brought them in terms of the blessings of this world. Thus, He said, "And We have made..." Just as the Quran is a composition of the Muhkam (clear) and the Mutashabih (allegorical), so too time consists of night and day. And just as the purpose of the religious obligation (taklif) is not fulfilled except by mentioning both the Muhkam and the Mutashabih, so too the utility of time is not completed except through both the day and the night.

Second: He, the Exalted, described man as being "hasty"—meaning he transitions from one attribute to another and from one state to another. He thus made clear that all conditions of the world are likewise: a transition from light to darkness and vice-versa, and the transition of the moon’s light from increase to decrease and vice-versa.

Third: Similar to what we mentioned first, which is perhaps the most appropriate. The night is mentioned first to observe the existential order, as it is from the night that the day emerges, and in it appear the crescents of the Arabic months, and because the end purpose of the day is predicated upon it without mediation. What adds beauty to the mention of the night first is that the Surah begins with His saying, "Exalted is He who took His Servant by night."

"Making" (Ja'l), according to what is reported from al-Samin, means "to render" (tas-yir), requiring two objects, or it means "to create" (khalq), requiring one object. "Two signs" is a future-oriented state (hal muqaddara).

Al-Kermani raised a difficulty regarding the first view, stating that it implies the night and day were already existing in one state and then transitioned to another, which is not the case. It was defended by saying that it is of the category of "narrowing the mouth of the well" (dayfu fam al-rakiah)—a well-known metaphorical expression. Abu Hayyan favored this, and the meaning is: We rendered the two cycles, with their forms, their alternation, and their variation in length and brevity, in a wondrous manner as two signs indicating that they have a Wise, Powerful, and Knowing Creator, and they guide to what the Noble Quran has guided to—namely, Islam and monotheism.

(We blotted out the sign of the night): The genitive construction here and hereafter is either explanatory, as in the addition of a number to the counted object (e.g., "four women"), meaning: We blotted out the sign which is the night; that is, We made the light of the night blotted out, erased, and darkened, such that nothing is distinct in it, just as nothing is distinct in a blotted-out tablet. The author of Al-Kashshaf went with this view.

It is narrated from Mujahid that it is like "narrowing the mouth of the well," and the letter fa is explanatory (tafsiriyya), because the "blotting out" mentioned and what is conjoined to it are not things that occur after the making of the two as signs; rather, they are part of that very "making" and its completions. It is said that the meaning of blotting out the night is the removal of its darkness by light, and this is preferred because it keeps the "blotting out" in its literal sense—which is the removal of an established thing—whereas what Zamakhshari mentioned does not have that. One should not depart from the literal meaning without necessity. This was countered by saying that what follows is sufficient as a context for that intended meaning, for the blotting out of the night is in contrast to making the day "illuminating." According to the literal meaning mentioned, no additional benefit is gained from blotting out the night beyond what follows it. It was said against this: Darkness is the origin, and light is an accident; therefore, the night is created as an erased-light state, and that is settled. The intent is to clarify that God created time as a dark night, then made a portion of it day by causing brightness for a benefit the Exalted has mentioned. The fact that the blotting out of the night is in contrast to making the day "illuminating" does not necessitate taking it as a metaphor for the sake of clarifying that some time is left in its darkness while some is made illuminating. There is an obvious affectation in this and the context does not suit it; therefore, the reliance is upon what is in Al-Kashshaf.

(And We made the sign of the day)—that is, the sign which is the day—(illuminating) (mubsira): meaning "light-giving." This is a metaphor based on the relationship of causality, or it is a metaphorical attribution, like "his day is fasting." The intent is: it makes its inhabitants see, or the form is for attribution, meaning: "possessing the ability for them to see." Or it is from absara (transitive): meaning He made it a seer—observant—and the attribution to the day is likewise metaphorical, from the category of attribution to the habitual cause, while the True Agent is God, the Exalted. Or it is from the category of af'ala when intended for someone other than the one attributed to (like "the man became weak" when his mounts were weak). Thus, "the sign became illuminating" means its inhabitants became possessors of sight. This is narrated from Abu Ubaydah; it is a lexical meaning, not a metaphorical one. Qatadah and Ali ibn al-Husayn (may God be pleased with them) read it as mubsira (with a fatha on the mim and sad), a verbal noun used in place of another. This is common in descriptions of places, such as "a land infested with beasts" (masba'a) or "a place with many lizards" (madabba).

Alternatively, it may be a genitive of belonging (lamiyya). The two signs of the night and day are their two luminaries: the moon and the sun. In this case, one needs to assume a genitive in His saying: "And We have made the night and the day two signs"—meaning We made the two luminaries of the night and day into two signs, or We made the night and the day possessors of two signs—if "making" (ja'ala) is taken as transitive to two objects, with "night and day" being the first and "two signs" the second. If the order is reversed, as Abu Hayyan favored—treating "the night and the day" as in the accusative of place/adverbial—then it is in the position of the second object, meaning "We have made in the night and the day two signs," which are the two luminaries; this requires no assumption, as if "making" were transitive to one object and the night and day were in the accusative of place, as permitted by the grammarians.

The blotting out of the sign of the night—which is the moon, as indicated by the traditions—is the removal of the light that was established for it on the day it was created. Ibn Jarir and Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Ibn Abbas regarding the verse: "The moon used to shine as the sun shines, and it was the sign of the night, then it was blotted out." The blackness in the moon is the trace of that blotting out. Abd ibn Humayd and others narrated from Ikrimah: "God created the light of the sun in seventy parts and the light of the moon in seventy parts, then He blotted out sixty-nine parts of the moon's light and added it to the sun’s light. Thus, the sun consists of one hundred and thirty-nine parts, and the moon of one part." Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Muhammad ibn Ka'b al-Qurazi: "There was a sun at night and a sun during the day, then God blotted out the sun of the night; that is the blotting out in the moon." Al-Bayhaqi in Dala'il al-Nubuwwah and Ibn Asakir narrated from Sa'id al-Maqburi that Abdullah ibn Salam asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) about the blackness in the moon, and he said: "They were two suns," then recited, "And We have made the night and the day two signs; then We blotted out the sign of the night." The blackness you see is the blotting out. In a long hadith narrated by Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Marduwayh with a weak chain from Ibn Abbas, it is stated: "God created two suns from the light of His Throne, then He sent Gabriel (peace be upon him) who passed his wing over the face of the moon—which was a sun on that day—three times, erasing the light from it, though the light remained within it." This is His saying: "And We have made the night and the day two signs," and so on.

The fa in this case is for sequence (ta'qib). Making the sign of the day—the sun—illuminating is in the manner previously described, so that it gives sight. It is said that blotting out the moon is either its creation as dull, with blotted-out light, not intrinsically luminous—according to what the astronomers mention, that it is not luminous in itself but its light is borrowed from the sun’s radiance—in which case the fa is explanatory, as passed. Or it is the diminishing of what it borrowed from the sun, bit by bit, according to vision and perception, until it is extinguished, which is the meaning of "blotting out," in which case the fa is for sequence.

The Imam mentioned two views on its blotting out: one, the gradual decrease of its light until extinction; and second, making it possessor of dark spots. He then said: "Applying it to the first view is more appropriate, because the lam in both following verbs relates to what was mentioned before, which is the blotting out of the sign of the night and the making of the sign of the day illuminating. The blotting out of the sign of the night only impacts the 'seeking of the bounty of God' if we interpret the blotting out of the moon as the increase and decrease of its light, because the cause of this sign’s occurrence differs according to the states of the moon’s light." Those of experience have proven that the variation of the moon’s states in amounts of light has a great effect on the states of this world and its interests, such as the conditions of the seas in tides, and the conditions of crises (bahranat) as physicians mention in their books. Also, because of the moon’s increase and decrease, months occur, and by the recurrence of months, Arabic years are formed—built upon the sighting of the crescent, as He, the Exalted, said: "And so that you may know..." and so on.

You know that whenever an authentic effect from the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) indicates what we mentioned first, one should not claim that another is more appropriate. It is, by my life, a point that is not cumbersome for those who have a seeing eye.

The philosophers have long discussions regarding this visible blotting out on the face of the moon; it would not be amiss for you to grasp it well. We say: The Imam mentioned in Al-Mabahith al-Mashriqiyyah that the refusal of some parts on the face of the moon to accept complete light is either due to a cause external to the moon’s body or not. If it is due to an external cause, it is either like what happens to mirrors—where reflections of objects fall upon them, and when those objects are seen, they are not seen as shimmering. Thus, the moon, when reflections of mountains and seas are formed upon it, must not show those parts as being at the height of illumination. Or it is due to a veil. The first is false: firstly, because reflections do not retain their forms with the movement of the mirror, and even assuming they were stationary, those reflections would not remain constant for observers at different locations; yet the markings on the moon are not like that. Secondly, because the moon reflects light toward the eye, and if it were like that, it would not be suitable for imagining. Thirdly, because those markings should be like spheres, as mountains on Earth are like the "wrinkling" or roughness on the surface of a sphere, and they do not possess a scale that would affect the Earth's sphericity; how then could their reflections be seen in the mirror?

If it is due to a veil, that veil is either elemental or celestial. The first is false: firstly, because the concealed parts of the moon's body should vary according to the positions of the observers. Secondly, because that veil cannot be pure air or pure fire, as they are transparent and would not conceal. Rather, it must be composite, either vapor or smoke, and that would not be constant. If the veil is celestial, that is the truth, and it would only be due to the existence of celestial bodies very close to the moon, being so small that each one is not seen, but rather the whole of them [forms] a specific shape, and they are either devoid of light or have light weaker than that of the moon, so they are seen as dark when it is illuminated.

If it is due to a cause returning to the moon’s essence, it must be either that the substance of that part is equal to the substances of the illuminated parts in essence, or it is not. If it is not, it is due to the embedding of celestial bodies of a different kind within its body, as we mentioned before, which is similar to it. If those parts are equal in essence to the moon’s body, it is impossible for them to be distinguished by those markings except through an external cause. However, it has become clear to us that celestial bodies are not affected by anything elemental, and by this, the statement of those who said that this blotting out is due to the "erasure" of the moon’s width from the friction of fire is refuted. Firstly, because that would necessitate that, over long periods, it would lead to non-existence and corruption entirely, and successive observations refute that. Also, the moon is not in contact with the fire, for it is scattered in its epicycle, which is in its deferent—there is a great distance between it and the fire, evidenced by the fact that if fire were touching its deferent, it would move with its movement toward the East, but that is not the case, for the movements of meteors, in most cases, are not except toward the West, and that movement follows the movement of fire. Circular movement is not intrinsic to fire, as its movement is straight; thus, it is to it accidentally, following the movement of the whole. So what they said is void.

Al-Amidi mentioned in Abkar al-Afkar additions to what is understood from the mentioned sayings: some said what is seen is a fantasy with no reality, which he refuted by saying that if it were so, observers would differ regarding it. Others said it is the blackness that exists in the moon on the side that does not face the sun; he refuted this by saying if that were so, it would not be seen as scattered. Others said it is the "face" of the moon, as it is formed into the image of a human face with two eyes, two eyebrows, a nose, and a mouth; he refuted this, stating that, given its distance, this would mean the action of nature is "devoid of utility" among them, because the benefit of eyebrows is to prevent sweat from harming the eyes, the nose is for smelling, and the mouth is for food, none of which the moon has. The mercy of God be upon him, he refuted all that they mentioned.

The Imam mentioned in his Tafsir that the last thing the philosophers mentioned regarding this is that bodies with little light are embedded in the face of the moon, like the embedding of stars in the bodies of the spheres. Since those bodies are of less light than the moon’s body, they are inevitably seen on its face like spots on a human face. Their embedding in some parts rather than others, despite the moon having uniform parts according to them, is evidence of the Wise Creator, just as the specialization of some parts with strong light and others with weak light, despite the similarity of the parts, is evidence of that. Similar to this specialization in indication is the specialization of some sides of the sphere—which is also for them a simple body with uniform parts—by the embedding of stars in it and not in others.

Some of the historians claimed that "La ilaha illa Allah" is written on the face of the moon, and it is said a beautiful phrase, or something else. It is said that the visible blotting out is that writing. No reliance is to be placed on any of that. Yes, "La ilaha illa Allah" is written on everything, as is beauty, but that is in another sense, as is not hidden.

It was reported to me from the practitioners of "new astronomy" that they claim the moon is like the Earth, containing mountains, valleys, trees, and seas, and they witnessed this in their observations. They claim the parts where no blotting out is seen are the seas, and those where blotting out exists are uneven ground. They claimed that if someone reached the moon, they would see the Earth as such. From here, they said it is not far-fetched that it is inhabited by creatures and is a populated Earth. Indeed, they said all planets are like it in that regard, by analogy, even if it is not seen in them due to their extreme distance. It is far from wisdom that God, the Exalted, would populate the Earth with creatures despite its smallness and leave immense bodies—most of which are greater than the Earth—barren without creatures, despite their size. Since the moon tempted them, they clung to its ropes, working on tricks to ascend to it. They built mercury-powered ships and ascended in them, but before they could reach the sphere of vapor, their bodies swelled and they went astray just as their intellects had strayed before. So they returned humiliated and descended disgraced.

You know that their speech on this subject contradicts the principles of philosophy, and they have no proof for it except foolishness. Its origin is purely that they saw something on the moon and did not verify it, thinking it was what they thought. And what prevents God, the Exalted, from having made the blotting out in a way that makes one imagine that? Indeed, there is no impediment, according to our principles, in saying that God, the Exalted, has made bodies on the moon that resemble what they surmised, but nothing regarding that has come from the Truthful One (peace be upon him), and he is the one who ascended to the distance of "two bows' length or nearer." As for what they mentioned—that it is far from wisdom that God populates the Earth, etc.—it would imply that the space between the planets, such as the stars of the Great Bear for instance, must also be populated with creatures like the Earth, as they are vastly wider than it, and they do not say that. Moreover, we say it has been reported: "The heaven has groaned, and it is right for it to groan; there is no space for a foot but there is an angel bowing or prostrating." Thus, it is possible that upon the moon’s body there are angels worshipping God, the Exalted, as He wills and however He wills. Indeed, it is possible that at every atom of its atoms there is such an angel, and this is a type of population by creatures. The best thing, for those who cherish their time, is not to pay attention to such superstitions or waste time in refuting them. And God, the Exalted, is the Grantor of success.

Furthermore, the earlier point—that the blotting out is the gradual decrease of what the moon borrowed from the sun—contains the opinion that the moon’s light is borrowed from the sun’s light. Most scholars counted this among the intuitive notions, mentioning that the sun is luminous by itself. Both matters are among what the philosophers mentioned and have no foundation in the Sharia to rely upon. Al-Amidi reported it and refuted it, saying: "They mentioned that the sun is luminous by itself. What prevents it from being a dark body, with God, the Exalted, creating light within it at the times we observe it? Or that it is illuminated by other stars above it, and that those are hidden from us by some dark celestial bodies, as happens to the sun during an eclipse? Even if we concede that it is luminous by itself, we do not concede that the moon's light is borrowed from it. As for the impediment to the Lord, the Exalted, creating light in it at one time and not another, or it being embedded in its sphere and rotating on its center—with one side luminous and the other dark, just as some parts of the sphere are transparent and others luminous, while it moves with a motion equal to the motion of its sphere, and its luminous side is present during its opposition to the sun (which is the side facing us)—and the increase and decrease appear to us according to its distance or proximity to the sun—then it would not be illuminated by the sun."

It was objected that if you combine the eclipse with the increase and decrease, in terms of proximity and distance, what he mentioned does not hold, and what they (the philosophers) mentioned regarding borrowed light is correct. He responded that the objection is: what prevents the eclipse from being due to the interposition of a superior body between us and it, rather than the Earth interposing between it and the sun? There must be proof to negate that. So understand; and God, the Exalted, knows best, and He is the Disposer in His dominion however He wills.

(That you may seek): relates to His saying, "And We have made the sign of the day." In the speech is an assumed component, meaning: We have made the sign of the day illuminating so that you may seek for yourselves in it...

(Bounty from your Lord): meaning provision, as this is not possible at night. In expressing provision as "bounty" (fadl) and earnings as "seeking" (ibtigha'), and exposing the attribute of Lordship (rububiyya)—which indicates the bringing to completion bit by bit—there is a sign. As the Shaykh al-Islam said: "It indicates that the servant has no influence in obtaining provision except for the seeking, while the giving is to God, the Exalted—not by way of obligation upon Him, but out of grace by the judgment of Lordship." The meaning of the "influence" of seeking is like the influence of habitual causes, for it is one of them, and provision is not truly dependent upon it. In the hadith: "Your provision seeks you just as your death seeks you." To God belongs the poet who said: "I have known—and the noble are not of my creation—that what is my provision will come to me, I strive toward it, and it finds it disgraceful that I seek it; if I sat still, it would come to me, so I do not concern myself."

(And that you may know): relates, as it is said, to both verbs—namely, the blotting out of the night sign and the making of the day sign illuminating—not just one of them, for that alone would not be sufficient for the mentioned knowledge. That is: that you may know through the distinction between the two, or their two luminaries, in their essence—regarding darkness and illumination—along with their alternation, their movements, their positions, and all their states.

(The number of the years): which are connected to an intellectual objective for the establishment of your religious and worldly interests.

(And the calculation): meaning the calculation connected to what is contained within them of times—meaning months, nights, days, and other things upon which something of the mentioned interests depends. The year itself, in terms of its realization, is through what the calculation organizes. What is counted is a group of them, and its connection within that to each one of them is not from the aspect of realization and attainment—that it is a count of months each obtained from a count of days, each obtained from a group of hours, for instance—for that is the function of the science of calculation. Rather, it is from the aspect that it is an individual of a group of years whose count is known—meaning it is itself, without considering the attainment of a specific thing in that, as the Shaykh al-Islam established.

It is said the meaning of "(That you may know) through their difference and their alternation in a single order, or through their movements, (is) the number of years..." The intent of "calculation" is its genus—meaning that which is current in transactions such as leases, deferred sales, and others. Some mentioned that the apparent fit is that the intent is "that you may know by the night," for the number of years of the Sharia and the calculation of the Sharia are usually known by it, or by the moon, for His saying regarding the crescents: "Say, they are measurements of time for the people and for Hajj." You know that years are solar and lunar, and with both of them, work is done. If it were said that one of the two signs clarifies one and the other clarifies the other, there is no harm in it. The fact that the Sharia relies on one of them does not hurt.

The placing of "number" before "calculation"—despite the order between their objects, as you heard first, being the opposite in terms of existence and non-existence—is to alert from the beginning that the object of calculation is what is in the intervals of the years of times. Or because the knowledge connected to the number of years is a summary knowledge of what the calculation is connected to in detail. Or because the knowledge connected to the former is the highest of ranks, so it was worthy of being mentioned first in the context of granting favor. Or because the number is in the position of the "simple" to the "composite" relative to the calculation, based on what was established: that calculation is the counting of what has a discrete quantity by repeating its likes, whereby a specific limit is obtained from a specific group of them that has a special name and an independent ruling; while number is the counting of it by the mere repetition of its likes without a specific thing being obtained as such. And because years—where no specific limit having a special name and an independent ruling is considered in them—the number was added to them, and the calculation was connected to what is besides them. So ponder.

(And everything): that you need for your livelihood and your return, besides what was mentioned of making the night and day two signs and the following religious and worldly benefits. It is in the accusative by a verb clarified by His saying: "We have detailed in complete detail." This is of the category of "occupation" (ishtighal), and the accusative is favored because of the preceding verbal sentence. It is permitted that it be conjoined to "the calculation," and the sentence "We have detailed" would be an adjective for "everything," but that is far-fetched in meaning.

"Detailing" (tafsil) is from "separation" (fasl), meaning cutting. The intent is complete clarification. The verbal noun is brought for emphasis. Thus, the meaning is: We have clarified everything in the Noble Quran with an eloquent clarification, leaving no ambiguity, like His saying: "And We have sent down to you the Book as a clarification for everything." Thus, it is manifested that it is a guide to that which is most upright, in a clear manifestation.