Until when he reached the setting place of the sun

(Meaning the extremity of the earth in the direction of the West, such that no one could pass beyond it. He stopped—as is the apparent meaning—at the edge of the Western Encircling Sea, which is called the Ocean, in which are the islands called the "Eternal Isles" (Khālidāt), which represent the prime meridian of longitude according to one of the opinions.

He found it (i.e., the sun) setting in a muddy spring (i.e., possessing ham’ah, which is black mud; derived from the expression "the well became ham’ah" when its mud increased).

Abdullah, Talha ibn Ubayd Allah, Amr ibn al-Aas, his son Abdullah, Ibn Umar, Mu’awiyah, al-Hasan, Zayd ibn Ali, Ibn Amir, Hamzah, and al-Kisa’i read it as (ḥāmiyah) with a yā’, meaning "hot." Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) rejected this reading the first time he heard it. Abd al-Razzaq, Sa’id ibn Mansur, Ibn Jarir, and Ibn al-Mundhir recorded via Uthman ibn Abi Hazim that it was mentioned to Ibn Abbas that Mu’awiyah had read it as fi ‘aynin ḥāmiyah. Ibn Abbas said to him, "We do not read it but as ḥami’ah (muddy)." Mu’awiyah then asked Abdullah ibn Amr how he read it, and he replied, "Just as you read it." Ibn Abbas said, "In my house the Quran was revealed." He then sent for Ka’b and asked him, "Where do you find the sun setting in the Torah?" Ka’b replied, "Ask those of determination, for they are more knowledgeable about it. As for me, I have not found in the Torah that the sun sets in water and mud," and he pointed with his hand toward the west. Ibn Abi Hazim said: "If I were in your presence, I would have supported you with words that would increase your insight regarding ḥami’ah." Ibn Abbas asked, "What is that?" He replied, "The words of Tubba’ regarding what he mentioned about Dhu al-Qarnayn in his devotion to knowledge and his following of it..." [The author here cites poetic verses]. The point of evidence is his saying: "He saw the setting of the sun at its decline in a spring of sludge, mire, and black clay." Ibn Abbas asked, "What is khulb?" Ibn Abi Hazim replied, "Mud, in their language." He asked, "What is tha’t?" He replied, "The black mud (ham’ah)." He asked, "What is ḥaramad?" He replied, "The black [substance]." Ibn Abbas then summoned a boy and said, "Write down what this man says."

It is not hidden that there is no absolute contradiction between the two readings, as it is possible for the spring to combine both descriptions: being full of black mud and its water being hot. It is also possible that the reading with a yā’ (hot) originated as a hamzated word whose hamza was converted to a yā’ due to the kasra preceding it, even if that is only standard when the hamza is quiescent. This has been said, yet it has been refuted by the fact that the incident between Ibn Abbas and Mu’awiyah contradicts it. It was responded that if we grant the correctness of that incident, it is based on audition and arbitration to prefer one of the two readings. What you have heard suggests the preference for the reading of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both). It seems that Mu’awiyah’s return to the reading of Ibn Abbas, as mentioned by al-Qurtubi, was due to this.

Yes, what was recorded by Ibn Abi Shaybah, Abd ibn Humayd, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Marduyah, and al-Hakim—who authenticated it—from Abu Dharr, who said: "I was riding behind the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) while he was on a donkey, and he saw the sun when it set. He said: 'Do you know where it sets?' I said: 'Allah and His Messenger know best.' He said: 'It sets in a hot (ḥāmiyah) spring, un-hamzated.'" This supports Mu’awiyah’s reading and indicates that "in a spring" is connected to "setting," as is apparent. The claim of some forced interpreters that it is connected to a hidden element acting as a state of the subject of "found" is something that should not be heeded. Perhaps what prompted them to say this is the necessity of an objection to the apparent meaning: for the mass of the sun is many times larger than the mass of the earth, so how could it enter into a spring of water on earth? This is repelled by the fact that the intent is that he found it so in the perspective of the eye, as he saw nothing there but water; it is not that it is so in reality. This is just like a traveler on the sea who sees it as if it rises from the sea and sets into it, because he sees nothing there but water; it is not so in reality. Likewise, one who is on a vast, smooth land also sees it as if it rises from the earth and sets into it. It cannot be objected that the Quran used "found" (wajada) and finding indicates existence, for "found" can mean "saw," as al-Raghib mentioned. Let it be in this sense here. The intent of the "muddy spring" is either a spring within the sea or the sea itself, and naming it a spring is acceptable, especially since, relative to the greatness of Allah Almighty, it is like a drop, even if it is great to us.

Some Baghdadis claimed that "in" (fī) means "at" (’inda), i.e., it sets at a spring. Some people have claimed that the verse is to be taken literally, and nothing is too difficult for Allah Almighty. We acknowledge the greatness of the power of Allah the Exalted, but we do not heed this statement. Similar to this is what al-Turtushi related, that a whale swallows it. Rather, this is speech that only children and their ilk accept. It may remain rising in some horizons for six months and setting similarly, as in the horizon of ninety degrees latitude. Sometimes it sets for an hour, and its light appears from the East in some latitudes, as in Bulghar on certain days of the year. The sun, as is the truth, does not cease traveling, rising upon one people and setting upon others according to their horizons. Indeed, the Imam of the Haramayn said: "There is no disagreement on this."

Supporting what was mentioned is what was recorded by Ibn Abi Hatim in his Tafsir and Abu al-Shaykh in al-’Aẓamah from Ibn Abbas, who said: "The sun is like a water channel, running by day in the sky in its orbit. When it sets, it runs by night in its orbit beneath the earth until it rises from its east." The same applies to the moon. Likewise, what Ibn Asakir recorded from al-Zuhri that Khuzaymah ibn Hakim al-Sulami asked the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) about the heat of the water in winter and its coldness in summer. He said: "When the sun falls beneath the earth, it travels until it rises from its place. When the night is long, its lingering beneath the earth increases, so the water heats up because of that. When it is summer, it passes quickly and does not linger beneath the earth due to the shortness of the night, so the water remains in its state, cold." It is not hidden that the sun differs in this travel beneath the earth in terms of proximity according to horizons and times; it is sometimes directly under the feet and sometimes not. Therefore, what Abu al-Shaykh recorded from al-Hasan—saying: "When the sun sets, it circles in the orbit of the sky from the side behind the qiblah until it returns to the east from which it rises..."—is hardly correct.

What creates difficulty regarding what was mentioned is what al-Bukhari recorded from Abu Dharr, who said: "I was with the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the mosque at sunset. He said: 'O Abu Dharr, do you know where the sun sets?' I said: 'Allah and His Messenger know best.' He said: 'It goes until it prostrates beneath the Throne, and that is the saying of the Almighty: And the sun runs to a place of rest for it.'" It was answered that the intent is that it goes beneath the earth until it reaches the limit of its descent, which, at the time it reaches the meridian for the people from whom it has set, is at the nadir (opposite the feet) relative to their horizon. That arrival is the thing most resembling prostration. Indeed, there is no impediment to it prostrating there in a real prostration befitting it. Thus, "beneath the Throne" refers to a specific place adjacent to some parts of the Throne; otherwise, it is at all times beneath the Throne and within its sphere. This is based on the premise that it [the Throne] is a spherical body encompassing all the heavens and celestial objects, and by it the directions are determined. This is the opinion of the philosophers, and what relates to this will come, if Allah wills, in Surah Tā-Hā. According to this, its "place of rest" is the location of the end of its descent; it runs for every people to that limit, then begins to rise. Al-Khattabi said: "It is possible that the intent of its resting beneath the Throne is that it rests beneath it in a manner we cannot encompass. There is nothing in its nightly prostration beneath the Throne that prevents it from circulating in its orbit." This is the end of his words, and the rest of the discussion will follow, if Allah wills, in Surah Yāsīn. In summary, this interpretation does not necessitate the sun exiting its deferent orbit, nor even from the eccentric, even if its proximity and distance from the Throne differ relative to its movement in that eccentric.

Yes, it has been reported in some traditions that it exits its domain. From Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) it is said that when the sun sets, it is raised to the seventh heaven at the speed of the angels' flight and is held beneath the Throne. It then asks permission to be ordered to rise. Then it is taken between the seventh heaven and the lowest levels of Paradise at the speed of the angels' flight, and it descends toward the east from heaven to heaven. When it reaches this heaven, that is when the dawn breaks. When it reaches this face of the sky, that is when the sun rises. Although our principles—concerning the encompassment of Allah’s power over all possibilities and the fact that the rupture and joining of the heavens is not impossible—do not reject this, it is not consistent with the reality of its setting for one group of people and rising for others, and its remaining risen for about six months in some latitudes, and other things which are not hidden. Perhaps the report is not authentic.

Al-Jalal al-Suyuti noted that Abu al-Shaykh narrated it with a weak chain of transmission. Furthermore, the apparent meaning in the narration of al-Bukhari and the narration of Ibn Abi Shaybah and those with him is that Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him) was asked twice, but he referred the knowledge the second time to Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him) seeking increased benefit and out of extreme politeness with the Messenger (peace be upon him). And Allah knows best.

And he found near it (i.e., near that spring on the seashore) a people (whose clothing, it is said, was skins of beasts, and their food was what the sea cast out). Wahb ibn Munabbih said: "They are a people called 'Nasik'; none can count their multitude except Allah Almighty."

Abu Zayd al-Suhayli said: "They are a people from the descendants of Thamud who used to dwell in Jābarisā, a great city with twelve gates." It is said in Syriac that it is called Jarjisā. Something similar was narrated from Ibn Jurayj. Ibn al-Sa’ib claimed that among them were believers and disbelievers. The majority hold that they were disbelievers, so Allah Almighty gave him the choice between punishing them by killing them or inviting them to faith. That is the saying of the Almighty: We said, "O Dhu al-Qarnayn, either you punish (by killing from the outset) or you adopt toward them kindness (meaning a matter possessing kindness, with the omission of the genitive, or by way of describing with the infinitive for emphasis). This is done through inviting to the truth and guiding to that in which lies the attainment of ranks. The position of "in" (in with its connected clause) is either in the nominative as an initial subject or as the predicate, or in the accusative as an object. As in: "Your punishment is occurring," or "Your command is either to punish," or "You either do or cause your punishment to occur." The same applies to the "adopting." He mentioned punishment first because it is what they deserved at the time due to their disbelief. The expression "or you adopt toward them kindness" instead of, for example, "or you invite them," is a gesture indicating the preference for the second option.

Those who assert his prophethood have cited the verse as evidence, and the saying according to some was through an angel, while according to others it was face-to-face. Those who do not assert his prophethood say: the address was through a prophet in that era, or it was inspiration, not revelation, after that choosing had been in accordance with the law of that prophet. This has been refuted by the fact that such a choice, involving the ending of lives, cannot be by inspiration without being informed, even if it matches a law. This was countered by the story of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) regarding the slaughter of his son through a vision, which is even lower than inspiration. The response is that the visions and inspirations of the prophets (peace be upon them) are revelation, as explained in its place. The discussion here is on the assumption of non-prophethood, which is apparent.

Ali ibn Isa said: "The meaning is, we said—O Muhammad—the people said, meaning his soldiers who were with him, 'O Dhu al-Qarnayn.' Thus, the 'saying' was omitted, relying on the evidence that he was not a prophet." This is highly contrived, as is the claim that the speaker was the scholars who were with him, who said it based on independent reasoning and consultation with him, and Allah attributed it to Himself metaphorically. The truth is that the verse is clear evidence of his prophethood. Perhaps it is clearer in this regard than the evidence of the Almighty's saying: And I did it not of my own accord regarding the prophethood of al-Khidr (peace be upon him). It seems the motive for diverting it from its apparent meaning is the reports indicating otherwise. Perhaps the best in interpreting it is to say: the speech was through a prophet.