Tafsir of Al-Anbiya' 21:33

His statement, the Exalted: "And it is He who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon," [the two] which are His signs. For this reason, He did not count the act [of creating] as a clarification of some of those signs regarding which they are turning away, by way of the iltifat (shift in mode of address) which necessitates emphasizing the care given to the content of the speech. Since the bringing into existence of the night and the day is not of the same manner as the bringing into existence of the animals and the setting of the mountains, the expression denoting it was not unified; rather, "the making" (ja'l) was used there, and "the creation" (khalq) was used here. This is what has been said, and it is as you see.

His statement, the Exalted: "Each" (kull) is an mubtada' (subject), and its tanwin is a substitute for the mudaf ilayhi (genitive). The author of Al-Kashshaf considered it an indefinite singular—meaning each one of the sun and the moon. This was objected to by Ibn Hisham in Al-Mughni, stating that if the omitted noun is an indefinite singular, the pronoun returning to "each" (kull) must be singular, just as if it were explicitly stated. Here, [the pronoun] is plural, therefore it must be considered a definite plural—meaning "all of them." Whenever it is considered as such, it becomes mandatory, according to Ibn Hisham, to use the plural pronoun, even if it were not mandatory had the antecedent been mentioned. The obligation of the singular in the first case and the plural in the second is to alert [the reader] to the state of the omitted word.

Abu Hayyan allows both the singular and the plural absolutely. Thus, it is permissible here to consider the mudaf ilayhi as an indefinite singular while using a plural pronoun afterwards, as Al-Zamakhshari did—and he is whose high standing in Arabic is well-known.

His statement, the Glorified: "in an orbit" (fi falak) is its khabar (predicate). The reason for its singular form is clear because the indefinite noun intended for generalization is of the distributive (badali) type, not the comprehensive (shumuli) type. Those who presumed a definite plural said: The intent is the collective genus which is treated as a plural—like [the phrase] "he clothed them in a garment," based on the fact that the sum of them is not in a single orbit.

His statement, the Mighty and Majestic: "are floating" (yasbahun) is an hal (circumstantial qualifier). It is also permissible for it to be the khabar, and "in an orbit" to be an hal or related to it. The sentence "Each... is floating" is an hal from the sun and the moon, and the connector is the pronoun, not the waw (and), based on the permissibility of this without it being considered poor style. Those who deemed it poor style considered the sentence to be independent (musta'nafa), and their pronoun was plural in consideration of the multiplication caused by the abundance of rising points (matali'). Thus, they [the sun and moon] have, with respect to their conceptual meaning, external individuals according to this consideration, though not in reality. For this reason, it is said "suns" and "moons," even if there is not in reality except one sun and one moon. What made this acceptable here is the harmony of the verse endings. Some have claimed that the "two moons" were treated as a dominant masculine dual out of honor for them over the other stars, and thus the pronoun was pluralized for that reason. It is also said: The pronoun refers to the stars, even if they were not mentioned, because of the indication of what was mentioned toward them.

It is also said: The pronoun is for the sun, the moon, the night, and the day. The issue with this is that it is not appropriate to describe the night and the day as "floating," even if it were a metaphor for traveling. The choice of the pronoun for rational beings is either because they are truly rational, as some Muslims such as the philosophers have claimed, or because they are rational by claim and attribution, as "floating" is attributed to them—which is an act of rational beings.

Falak (orbit/celestial sphere), in its origin, is anything that is circular; from this is the falak of the spindle. The intent here, according to what is narrated from Ibn Abbas and Al-Suddi, may Allah the Exalted be pleased with them, is the heaven. Most exegetes said: It is a restrained wave beneath the heaven in which the sun and the moon run. Al-Dahhak said: It is not a physical body; rather, it is the path of these stars. The famous view is what is narrated from Ibn Abbas and Al-Suddi, and in it is the assertion of the rotundity of the heavens. In "each in an orbit" is a hidden sign toward this, for it does not become impossible through transformation, and there are abundant proofs for it. The fact that they [the heavens] are a canopy does not negate this.

The term falak has been applied by philosophers to the heaven, describing it as a living, knowing entity that moves by will in a circular motion only, and does not accept generation, corruption, growth, wilting, piercing, or healing. Its type is limited to its individual, and it is neither hot, cold, moist, dry, light, nor heavy. Most of these descriptions are derived from the fact that it has no inherent inclination. This has been refuted in theological books. They built upon the impossibility of "piercing and healing" [in the celestial spheres] the notion that a star does not move except by the movement of its sphere. When they saw different movements, they posited the multiplicity of spheres. The famous view is that the total spheres are nine: seven for the seven planets, one for the fixed stars, and another for moving everything with the daily motion.

The truth is that there is no definitive proof to deny anything beyond that. Do you not see that the Master (Avicenna) did not make it clear whether the fixed stars are in one sphere or in spheres nested within one another? Their statement that the movements of the fixed stars are similar, and therefore they are embedded in a single sphere, is not certain. As for their minor premise, it is because even if their movements are similar in sensory perception, perhaps they are not so in reality. For if we estimate that one of them completes a cycle in 36,000 years, and the other completes it in the same time but with a difference of a tenth or less, then that which is assigned to one degree of this amount of difference would be very small, such that our lifespans would not suffice to record it. If this is possible, the certainty of their similarity falls.

What adds to this falling of certainty and strengthens the possibility is the finding of later astronomers of a star faster than the fixed stars and slower than the planets, which they called Herschel, and no one from the ancients in past ages had discovered it. As for their major premise, there is no possibility of different things sharing many requirements; thus, it is permissible that each has a separate sphere, and those spheres are compatible in their movements in direction, pole, region, and depth. Furthermore, the possibility is not exclusive to the sphere of the fixed stars but is present in all spheres. It is possible that between the spheres of the planets there are other spheres. What is said to refute this—that the closest distance of every planet equals the farthest distance of all the planets assumed beneath it—is nothing, because between the farthest distance of the moon and the closest distance of Mercury is the thickness of the sphere of the moon’s jawzahar (lunar nodes).

The investigators of the astronomers have mentioned that the epicycle sphere for each of the superior planets has three spheres, one surrounding the other, and the body of the planet is embedded in the inner sphere. Thus, the thickness of four spheres from those epicycles exists between the closest distance of the superior and the farthest distance of the inferior. They proved five epicycles for the inferior ones, so there is the thickness of eight spheres between the closest distance of Venus and the farthest distance of Mercury. Moreover, they only believed that the closest distance of the superior is equal to the farthest distance of the inferior because they initially believed that there is nothing intervening between these spheres; thus, they cannot build upon that, otherwise a circular argument ensues. Rather, there must be another proof for it. Their statement that there is no void in celestial bodies, despite the fact that you see what it is, is refuted by what they said regarding the greatness of the thickness of the determinant sphere. It is also permissible that there is above the ninth sphere of the spheres that which no one knows except Allah the Exalted. Indeed, it is possible that this ninth sphere, with the spheres it contains, is embedded in the thickness of another great sphere, and within the thickness of that sphere there are a million spheres like these spheres. This is not far-fetched, for the epicycle of Mars is greater than the representative of the sun; if that is rationalized, what harm is there in assuming the like of it, or what is greater?

It is also permissible, as has been said, that the total spheres are eight, with the possibility of all fixed stars being embedded in the convex surface of the representative of Saturn—that is, in its complement which contains it—to move with a slow movement, while the eighth sphere moves with the fast movement. It is even said that it is permissible for them to be seven, by assuming the fixed stars and the zodiac circles on the convex surface of the representative of Saturn, and two souls, one of which connects to the sum of the seven and moves them with one of the two movements, fast or slow, and the other with the seventh sphere, moving it with the other. There is also no definitive proof to deny that the spheres are fewer than nine.

Then, what is apparent from the verse is that each of the sun and the moon runs within the thickness of its sphere, and there is no rational barrier to this. The proof for the impossibility of "piercing and healing"—which is that if the sphere were capable of that, it would be capable of straight-line motion, which is impossible for it—is not complete. And even if it were complete, it would only apply to the determinant sphere; it is permissible for "piercing" to occur in the sphere from the direction of some of its parts while maintaining rotation. Thus, there is no barrier to saying: The planets in general are moving in their spheres like the movement of fish in water. The science of astronomy is not invalidated by this, because their movements must be similar around the centers of their spheres—that is, they neither speed up, nor slow down, nor stop, nor go back, nor turn.

The statement of Al-Suhrawardi in Al-Mutarahat: "If the spheres were capable of piercing, and it has been proven that they possess life, then upon the occurrence of piercing in them and the scattering of parts, if they do not feel, then the pierced part has no relation to the other through a perceptive commonality; and there is no information in it about its parts; and no force has spread to its body from its soul that gathers those parts, so its soul has no connection with its body." It has been said that they possess life. "And if they do feel, then there must be pain from the scattering of parts, for it is a perception of what is harmful. And every perception of what is harmful is either pain or causes pain. If this is so, and the planets pierce them by their running, then they would be in constant torment. And we will prove that permanent matters that are not possible to be overlooked cannot be imagined to undergo this." It is not hidden that this is among the rhetorical arguments, rather, it is lower than that.

Some have claimed that it is among the strong proofs, while it is from that for which there is no proof—among the weak proofs. The Imam claimed that just as it indicates the running of the planet, it indicates the stillness of the sphere. The truth is that it is ambiguous regarding stillness, not apparent in it, nor in its motion. Some Muslims held the view of the stillness of the entire sphere, and it is narrated from the Grand Master (Al-Shaykh al-Akbar), may his secret be sanctified. It is possible that the sphere is moving and the planet moves within it, either opposing the direction of its motion or agreeing with it, either with a movement equal in speed and slowness to the movement of the sphere, or opposing it. It is also permissible for the planet to be fixed in the sphere, stationary within it, as is the view of most philosophers, or moving upon itself, as is the view of their investigators, while the entire sphere is moving—which is what the philosophers necessitated, for which no proof of theirs is sound or complete.

It is also permissible for the planet to be in a body separate from the thickness of the sphere, similar to a ring whose diameter equals the diameter of the planet, and it is this which moves it, while the sphere is stationary. It is also permissible for there to be a void in the thickness of the sphere in which the planet rotates, with the stillness or motion of the sphere. There is no assertion of "piercing and healing" in this; rather, it is an assertion of the void, which is permissible according to us and most philosophers, contrary to Aristotle and his followers. The proof of permissibility is stronger than a rock for the questioner. The statement that the sphere is simple, and its simplicity prevents such a thing from being in its thickness, is nothing; the evidence they mentioned for simplicity, despite its weakness, only applies to the determinant [sphere], not the rest of the spheres. Also, when it is permissible for the sphere to be hollow despite its simplicity, then what was mentioned should be permissible along with it. They can hardly achieve a resolution to this.

In some traditions, it has come that all the stars are hung by chains of light beneath the lowest heaven in the hands of angels who move them wherever Allah the Exalted wills. This is hardly authentic, even if Allah the Mighty and Majestic is powerful over all things. The view held by most philosophers and astronomers is that the movement specific to the planet, established for its sphere primarily and essentially, is taking place from the West to the East; it is the movement following the signs of the zodiac, and it is called the second movement. It is the slow movement, which is apparent in the planets; in the moon, it is in extreme clarity, and in the fixed stars, it is hidden—which is why the ancients among them did not establish it. The movement not specific to it, established for its sphere secondarily and accidentally, is taking place from the East to the West, and it is called the first movement. It is the fast movement, and it is by way of the movement of the determinant [sphere], and by it the night and day exist in all inhabited areas. As for the latitude of ninety and its like, it is in the second movement. Thus, according to them, the planet has two movements differing in direction and slowness; they exemplified them by the movement of a millstone in one direction quickly, and the movement of an ant upon it in the opposite direction slowly.

Some of the ancients held that there is no movement in the celestial bodies from the West to the East; rather, all their movements are from the East to the West because they are more appropriate for these bodies, as they are less contrary [to the primary motion]. And because the purpose of movement is for the outermost body, and the purpose of stillness is for the earth; therefore, that which is closer to the outermost must be faster than what is farther. And because if some were from the East and some from the West, it would necessitate the planet moving with two movements differing in direction—that is impossible because movement in a direction necessitates the arrival of the moving object in the direction to which it is transferred. If a single body moved at once in two directions, it would necessitate its arrival at once in two places, which is impossible. There is no difference in this between the two movements being natural, or forced, or one natural and the other forced.

This is not repelled by what is witnessed of the movement of the ant on the millstone in one direction while the millstone moves in the opposite direction, because it is an example, and an example does not damage a proof. And because certainty regarding these movements is permissible, while [it is] impossible regarding the celestial movements. That which was argued—that other than the fast movement from the West to the East does not indicate it—is not correct, because it is possible that it is from the East and is thought to be from the West. Its explanation is that two moving objects in one direction with a periodic movement, when one of them is faster than the movement of the other, if they move in that direction, the slower of the two is seen falling behind, so it is thought that it is moving in the opposite direction. This is because when they join, then move in the direction with what they have of movement, the fast one travels a full cycle and the slow one travels a cycle minus an arc; the slow one is seen falling behind the fast one in the direction opposite to the direction of their movement by that arc. They said: It is necessary to resort to this because the proof necessitates it and nothing from astronomical operations invalidates it.

The Imam in Al-Mulakhkhas brought forward what was mentioned in the deduction of the impossibility of two movements of differing direction for a single body as an objection to those who assert them. Then he said: "Due to the strength of this speech, some have established the daily movement for the sphere of the earth, not for the sphere of the heaven, even if that is false." He brought it forward in the exegesis and called it a definitive proof, and he adopted in it what this [group] adopted—that all movements are from the East to the West, but they differ in speed and slowness. There is a view regarding what they mentioned, because the first two doubts are persuasive, and the third, even if it were a proof, its corruption is more apparent than to be hidden. As for that "none of the astronomical operations invalidates it," it is false, because this specific movement of the planet—I mean the movement of the moon from the East to the West, for example, a cycle minus an arc—cannot be on the poles of the zodiac, because it is found parallel to the celestial equator, nor on the poles of the equator, otherwise it would not move from its parallelism, and it would not have organized from the arcs in which it falls behind every day a great circle intersecting the equator like the circle of the zodiac from the arcs in which the sun fell behind; rather, it would have organized small [circles] parallel to it. Unless the planet were on the equator for an amount that completes a cycle with its movement, then what is organized would be the equator itself. But this is not found in the planets we know. Nor on poles other than its poles, otherwise its path would be seen above the earth on a circle intersecting the parallel circles, and the meridian circle would not divide the time from when it rises to when it sets into two halves, because the poles of its inclined sphere would not always be on the meridian circle, so the arcs of its apparent orbits would not be divided into two halves. And because if the matter were as they imagined, the sun would reach its apogee and perigee and its two mean distances, indeed its north and south, so all the shadows appropriate to the sun being in these positions should occur in a single day, and existence is contrary to that.

The statement of those who said it is permissible for the movement of the sun in the zodiac to be to the West is apparently false, because if it were so, a single day with its night would be less than a cycle of the celestial equator by the amount of the arc the sun covered, approximately—contrary to what is the reality, because it exceeds the cycle of the equator by that amount. And it would be seen crossing the zodiac in the opposite direction of the order [of the signs], and this is not so, due to it falling behind the part that is centered with it from the equator every day toward the East. Thus, the movements of the spheres surrounding the earth are two: a movement in the order [of the signs] and another in the opposite. As for the movements of the epicycles, they are outside the two categories, because the movements of their upper parts are inevitably opposite to the movements of their lower parts for being not surrounding the earth. If the movement of the upper part is from the West to the East, then the movement of the lower part is the opposite, as in the wandering planets. And if the movement of the upper part is from the East to the West, then the movement of the lower part is the opposite, as in the moon.

This is the utmost that we say in this station: What the philosophers mentioned regarding the matter of the total and partial spheres and the manner of their movement and positions is a matter possible in itself, and there is no proof that it is what exists and nothing else. Those who hold the opposite view are the people of London and others among the modern astronomers, and likewise the people of the spiritual observatories and the meaningful ascensions, such as the Grand Master (Al-Shaykh al-Akbar), may his secret be sanctified; he has prolonged the speech on this in Al-Futuhat al-Makkiya. As for the righteous predecessors, no detailed speech on this has been authentically attributed to them, because it is of little benefit. They stopped where the report was authentic and said: The difference of movements and their like is by the decree of the Almighty, the All-Knowing, and they clung, in what was authentic and whose cause was hidden, to the tails of submission.

That to which I lean is that the heavens are according to the pattern that the prophetic reports have verified regarding the thickness and what is between each heaven and heaven. I do not exit the circle of this inclination, and I say: It is permissible that the thickness of each heaven is a sphere for each one of the planets in the manner of the sphere that the philosophers established for it, and its essential movement is in the manner of its movement according to them, and its accidental movement is by way of the movement of its heaven to the West—the daily movement. Thus, the movement of the heavens would be equal. And if you refuse the movement of the heaven with all that is in it due to some reports refusing it, while there is no definitive proof necessitating it, I say: It is permissible that there be a mover in the thickness of the heaven also, and what remains of it remains stationary by the power of Allah, upon its upper surface angels who float [by praising] night and day, they do not tire. The philosophers have speech in verifying how the surrounding makes the surrounded move, which the Imam followed up. Then he said: The correct view is that the Mover of all is Allah the Exalted by His will, even if it is established on the law of their saying that the container is a mover for the contained, it would be a mover by the power of His self, not by contact.

As for the fixed stars, it is possible that they are in a sphere above the seven heavens, and it is possible that they are in the thickness of the seventh heaven above the sphere of Saturn. Indeed, if it is said that all the planets, fixed and wandering, are in the thickness of the lowest heaven, moving on spheres similar to the spheres which the philosophers established for them, and they have two movements in the manner of what they say, it is not far-fetched. In it is the preservation of the apparent meaning of His statement, the Exalted: "And We have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps." What they mentioned in the science of celestial bodies and distances, despite its instability, we are not required to accept it. Thus, it is not an objection that they said the distance of the fixed stars from the center of the earth is twenty-five million four hundred and twelve thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine farsakhs. And what came in the report that between the heaven and the earth is five hundred years, and the thickness of the heaven is likewise, necessitates that between the face of the earth and the fixed stars, according to this estimate, is a thousand years—and the farsakhs of that distance along with the farsakhs of the radius of the earth, which is 1,273 approximately, according to what is said, is much less than what was mentioned.

There is no need to say: The number has no [exclusive] concept. The choice of five hundred is because five is a circular number, so there is in that a hidden symbol for rotundity, as was said regarding every sphere. The validity of the possibility that the sphere is in the thickness of the heaven is pointed to by what Ibn Abi Hatim and Abu al-Shaykh extracted from Ibn Abbas, may Allah the Exalted be pleased with them, saying: "The sun is in the position of a waterwheel running in the heaven in its orbit. If it sets, it runs at night in its orbit beneath the earth until it rises from its rising place; and likewise the moon." The reports, both marfu' (attributed to the Prophet) and mawquf (attributed to the Companions), regarding the matter of the stars, the heavens, and the earth are many. Jalal al-Suyuti mentioned some of what he mentioned in a treatise he authored on the explanation of the Hay'a al-Sunniya (The Prophetic Cosmology). If you observe it, you see most of it leaning away from the circle of the signs of the zodiac, and in it is what suggests that the planets have a forced movement, toward what Ibn al-Mundhir extracted from Ikrimah: "The sun does not rise until it is commanded, as a bow is pulled."

Then the apparent meaning is that the "floating" refers to the essential movement, and it is permissible for it to mean the accidental movement. Indeed, it is said this is more appropriate because that [essential movement] is not observed, while this is observed. Indeed, the common people do not know it. It is said: It is permissible for it to mean what encompasses both movements. Some derived from the attribution of "floating" to the planet that there is no carrier for it that moves by its movement absolutely; rather, it is moving by itself in the sphere like the movement of a fish in water, for one does not say to the one sitting in a box or on a log running in the water that it is "floating." He chose that it runs in a current capable of "piercing and healing" like water. And without establishing the impossibility of that, the ascent to the seventh heaven [is reached]. And Allah the Exalted knows the reality of the matter, and He, the Glorified, is the Guardian of success, and upon the axis of His guidance revolves the sphere of investigation. This is a portion of what we saw fit to mention for this station, and another portion of what relates to that from the speech will come, if Allah the Exalted wills.