Tafsir of Al-Anbiya' 21:31

"Lest it sway with them" (i.e., due to the dislike of it moving and shaking with them, or "so that it does not sway with them." The lam [of negation] was omitted because there is no risk of confusion, which is the school of the Kufans; the former interpretation is preferable. In al-Insaf, it is argued that a more preferable interpretation than these two is that it is similar to the saying, "I prepared this wooden support an [lest/so that] the wall might lean," according to Sibawayh’s explanation: that the meaning is, "I prepared it in order to support the wall with it if it leans."

The mention of "swaying" (mayd) was placed first to highlight its importance, and because it is the cause for the "supporting" (id'am), and the supporting is the reason for "preparing the support"; thus, the cause of the cause is treated as the cause itself. So, in the present case, the root would be: "We placed on the earth firm anchors, so that if it sways with them, we stabilize it." Thus, "swaying" is made the cause, just as "leaning" in the example was made the cause. The speech became: "We placed on the earth firm anchors, lest [or so that] it sway with them—so we stabilize it," and then "so we stabilize it" was omitted for brevity, as there is no risk of confusion. This is closer to reality than the first mentioned view, for the implication of the first is that the earth would never sway with its inhabitants because God Almighty dislikes that, and it is impossible for what He—Glory be to Him—dislikes to occur. Yet observation is to the contrary; how many earthquakes have caused the earth to sway until it almost overturned? According to our view, the meaning is that God Almighty stabilizes the earth with mountains when it sways. This does not deny the occurrence of swaying, but it is a swaying followed by stabilization. Likewise, the actual earthquakes are merely like a flash, and then God stabilizes it. End quote.

In al-Kashf, it states that their saying "disliking that it sways" is an explanation of the meaning, not that there is any ellipsis at all; therefore, the school of the Kufans is worthy of rejection. What is in al-Insaf regarding the preference for the "wooden support" analogy returns to what we have mentioned, and there is no contradiction. As for his rejection based on the contradiction of witnessed reality, it is not a valid objection because the total swaying of the earth is not occurring at all, and these earthquakes are not part of that. End quote. This is a sound statement, as is not hidden.

Some contemporary infidels have attacked what this noble verse points to, claiming that the earth, by its nature of seeking the center, is stationary, and that "swaying" is inconceivable even if there were no mountains in it.

The response is: First—setting aside the debate surrounding the claim of the earth’s natural tendency toward the center and its resulting stillness—it is possible that God Almighty created the earth on the day He created it free of mountains, with parts differing completely in weight and lightness, or that this difference occurred later. Despite this, the Almighty did not grant the totality of its mass a weight that would prevent the appearance of the weight of heavy bodies moving upon it. Thus, it would have two distinct centers: a center of volume and a center of gravity. According to them, it naturally seeks to have its center of gravity align with the center of the world. While this implies stillness, it would necessarily move with the movement of those heavy bodies. Therefore, He—Majesty be His—created the mountains within it so that it would possess a degree of weight against which the weight of moving objects would not appear, and thus it would not move at all.

The fact that the ratio of the height of the greatest mountains to the earth’s diameter is like the ratio of seven-tenths of a barleycorn width to a cubit only matters in terms of sensory sphericity; it does not follow that the aggregate of the mountains lacks a weight that is significant relative to the weight of the earth. Furthermore, the creation of mountains is not for this wisdom alone, but for countless wisdoms and exhaustive benefits, so it cannot be said that its creation is unnecessary such that the weight of heavy objects moving upon it would not show an effect relative to its mass.

Second, by its nature, it [the earth] would be submerged in water such that the lines extending from its center—which is aligned with the center of the world—to the surface of the water would be equal on all sides. Thus, the emergence of this amount of inhabited land is forced. It is possible that the mountains play a role in this "forcing" by trapping vapors within them, making the earth like a bladder in water that has been inflated so that a portion of it appears above the water's surface. Without this, the force would not be strong enough to resist what is on the earth, such as animals and others, which would necessitate the swaying that leads it to submergence. Reflect upon this.

We have already covered what relates to this subject, so we mention:

"And We placed therein" (i.e., in the earth. The repetition of the verb is due to the difference between the two objects, along with the indication of the perfection of the favor, or it refers to the "anchors," as Ibn Jarir and Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Ibn Abbas. This is supported by the fact that they are the things that need the Almighty to place therein...)

"broad ways" (fijajan) (Plural of fajj. Al-Raghib said: It is a mountain pass surrounded by two mountains. Al-Zajjaj said: Every passage between two mountains is a fajj. Some said: It is absolute vastness, whether it is a road between mountains or not, which is why it is said, "a wide wound" (jarh fajj). The apparent meaning is that fijajan is in the accusative as the direct object of "We placed." His saying "paths" (subulan) is an appositive to it, indicating by implication that He created them and widened them for travelers, alongside the emphasis, because an appositive is like repetition. It is based on the intention of repeating the operative verb, and the appositive is not in the state of being omitted absolutely.

Al-Kashshaf stated: It is a circumstantial qualifier (hal) for "paths," and had it been placed after, it would have been an adjective, as in His saying in Surah Nuh: "that you may traverse therefrom paths, broad ways" (subulan fijajan). It was not presented in that order, but rather fronted to become a hal, to indicate that at the time of making them paths, they were broad. Had it been an adjective, it would not have indicated that. Some insisted it is an object and that subulan is the appositive, and they similarly insisted in the verse from Surah Nuh that subulan is the object and fijajan is the appositive, arguing that fajj is a noun, not an adjective, because it denotes a specific entity—the broad road—and a noun is described, not used to describe. This is why it appears as a noun being described in His saying: "from every deep fajj." There is no evidence for stripping it of its denotation of a specific entity.

This was countered by saying: We do not concede that its meaning is that; rather, its meaning is the absolute vastness, and its specification to a "road" is accidental and does not prevent it from being an adjective. Even if it were conceded, the intent of those who say it is an adjective is that it is in the meaning of a descriptor relative to the "path," because "path" means a road, and it is a broad road; if it were placed after, its mention would be redundant if it were not a hal. The explicit speech of the learned Yemeni regarding the absolute suggests that "paths" is an explanatory appositive ('atf bayan), which is permissible for indefinite nouns, where he said: It is an explanation of the fijaj and a clarification that those passes are "through-ways," for a fajj might not be a through-way. It was fronted here and delayed in the Surah Nuh verse because that verse and the intent of the favor were for the sake of generalization, while this is for the sake of reflection and urging deep contemplation, which requires detailing. Hence, it was mentioned after His saying: "they were a closed-up mass," etc. End quote.

You know that the most apparent view is that fijajan here is in the accusative as the object of "We placed." The reason for the difference between the two verses is not hidden, so reflect.)

"that they might be guided" (To infer the Unity of God, the perfection of His power, and His wisdom. It is said: To their own interests and necessities. The aforementioned view was rejected on the grounds that His saying later, "but they turn away from its signs," is sufficient to refute this, and that the creation of paths does not show evidence for what was mentioned. End quote. There is something to be said about this. It is permitted that the meaning is broader than guidance to inference and guidance to worldly interests.)