Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:78

Al-Shihab said: What compelled them to what was mentioned is the consequence by the letter fa (then). It is possible that it is a customary consequence (ta‘qib ‘urfi), such as "he married, and then a child was born to him," indicating that days and nights did not necessarily pass between them, whether it was inference, supposition, or gradualism, and not that it is specifically for the latter as was imagined. Furthermore, we do not concede what was mentioned if a specific star is intended; rather, the objection only holds if all stars are meant or one without specification. So, contemplate this. It is not hidden that the view of customary consequence and the commitment that this reasoning did not occur in one night and its morning is what the heart leans toward. The claim of the possibility of the moon’s rising after the setting of the star in reality and before the rising of the sun, and its setting before the sun rises, is not claimed by any scholar of astronomy in these horizons we inhabit, because the impossibility of that is customary. If a specific star is intended, the matter is clear, especially according to what has come from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that the sighting of the moon was at the end of the month. Yes, it might be possible in some zodiacal signs at specific latitudes, but between us and them lie deserts. Perhaps for this reason, he was told to "contemplate."

{He said}—meaning in the aforementioned manner—{This is my Lord}—an indication of the observed object as it is, not as it is designated by any of the names, let alone the aspect of its being named "the sun." Therefore, he used the demonstrative pronoun.

Abu Hayyan said: It is possible to say that most of the languages of the non-Arabs do not differentiate in pronouns or in demonstratives between the masculine and the feminine, and they have no sign for the feminine; rather, the feminine and masculine are the same to them. Thus, he indicated the feminine in the verse with what is used to indicate the masculine when he recounted the speech of Ibrahim (peace be upon him). And when He, the Exalted, informed about the feminine by "rising" (bazighatan) and "it set" (aflat), He made it feminine in accordance with Arabic, for that is not a narration (of their speech).

This was countered by saying: This would only appear if their speech were narrated exactly in their own language. But when expressed in the Arabic language, what is considered is the rule of the Arabic language. More than one has stated that the consideration in masculinization and feminization is the narration, not the narrated. Do you not see that if someone said: "The cup of the day rose" (masculine), and you narrated it by its meaning and said: "The sun rose" (feminine), you would not be able to avoid the feminine without interpretation of what occurred in his phrasing. If you trace what has occurred in the Noble Text, you will see that it observes the narration therein. Furthermore, the statement that the dialogue of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) was in a non-Arabic language rather than Arabic is based on the idea that Ismail (peace be upon him) was the first to speak Arabic, and the correct view is the opposite.

It was also said: The masculinization is for the masculinization of the predicate (khabar). They have explicitly stated regarding the pronoun and the demonstrative pronoun that observing the predicate therein is more appropriate than observing the referent, because it is the pivot of the benefit in the speech, and what has passed is gone. In al-Kashshaf, after making the masculinization for the sake of the predicate, it was stated that choosing this method was necessary to protect the Lord from the suspicion of femininity. This was objected to by saying that this is conceded regarding the true Lord, but what is here is not such. It was answered that this is on the assumption that he is seeking guidance, which is apparent. The intent of the other approach is to manifest the protection of the Lord to lead them on gradually, for if He were belittled in any way, it would be a cause for them not to listen.

His saying, the Almighty: {This is greater}—is a confirmation of what he, peace and blessings be upon him, intended of demonstrating fairness, with a subtle indication, as it is said, to the corruption of their religion from another angle, by clarifying that the greater is more entitled to Lordship than the smaller. That the sun is greater than what preceded it is something about which there is no obscurity. The reports regarding the magnitude of its body are various, and what the verified scholars of astronomy hold is that it is one hundred sixty-six and one-quarter and one-eighth times the Earth, and six thousand six hundred forty-four and two-thirds times the moon. They mentioned that the Earth is thirty-nine and one-fifth times the moon. The verification of this is in the commentary on Mukhtasar al-Hay'ah by al-Birjandi.

{Then when it set}—just as what preceded it set—{he said}—to his people, proclaiming the truth among them: {O my people, I am free from what you associate}—that is, from your associating [with Allah], or from that which you associate as created bodies that change from one state to another, subservient to their Creator. He, peace be upon him, argued by the setting and not the rising, even though it also is a transition. It is said it is because of the multiplicity of its indication: for it is a transition with concealment, while the first is movement, which is an event; thus, the eventness of its locus follows. The second is a disappearance that entails the possibility of its descriptor. The rising is not like that; even if it is a transition with appearance, the second has no role in the argument. It was objected that rising is also a transition with concealment, because concealment in the first is subsequent, and in the second, it is prior. That he, peace be upon him, saw the star they worshipped in the middle of the sky, as it is said, and did not observe its rising, makes it a point regarding the star, but not the moon and the sun, unless one claims the superiority of "setting" by its generality, contrary to "rising."

The best is what was said: The arrangement of this ruling and its two counterparts upon the setting rather than the rising and the appearance is among the necessities of conducting the argument upon this wise path. For even though each of them is in itself a transition that contradicts the entitlement to [Lordship] in general, the first ruling—meaning "This is my Lord"—was arranged upon the aforementioned method. Since the second is a state requiring the effacement of traces and the invalidation of rulings that are clearly contradictory to the aforementioned entitlement—a contradiction that almost every stubborn denier would admit—he arranged upon it what he arranged.

In the sense of this is what the Imam said regarding the mode of arguing by setting: that its indication of the intended goal is apparent, known to everyone. For the one who sets, its power ceases at the time of setting. It is reported from some investigators that falling into the abyss of possibility is a "setting." The best speech is that which contains a portion for the elite, a portion for the intermediates, and a portion for the commoners. The elite understand from "setting" possibility, and every possible thing is needy, and the needy cannot be the end of need; thus, it is necessary to reach that which is free from possibility until needs are cut off by virtue of its existence, as the Almighty said: {And that to your Lord is the finality}. As for the intermediates, they understand from "setting" absolute movement, and every moving thing is created, and every created thing is in need of the Eternal, the Powerful; thus, the setting thing cannot be a god; rather, the God is the One that the setting thing needed. As for the commoners, they understand from "setting" the sunset, and they observe that every star, when it approaches setting and sunset, its light fades, its radiance diminishes, its authority departs, and it becomes like the dismissed. Whoever is like that is not fit for Godhead. Then he said: So the phrase {I do not love the setters} contains the share of those brought near, the companions of the right, and the companions of the left, so it was the most perfect of indications and the best of proofs.

Here is another subtlety: he, peace be upon him, was debating them, and they were astrologers. The doctrine of the people of astrology is that when a star is in the eastern quadrant and is ascending toward the middle of the sky, it is strong and has great influence. But when it is western and close to setting, it is weak in influence and low in power. He alerted them with this subtlety that the God is He whose power does not change to weakness, and whose perfection does not change to deficiency. Your doctrine is that the star, when it is in the western quadrant, is weak in power, deficient in influence, and incapable of managing; that points to a flaw in its Godhead.

It appears from this that setting, according to the astrologers, has an additional property in being a cause for questioning its Godhead. It is not hidden that the understanding of "falling into the abyss of possibility" from {Then when it set} in this verse is not easily accepted. The meaning being "when its possibility was realized due to the appearance of signs of that, such as corporeality and spatiality," is clear in its implications. Yes, understanding this meaning from {I do not love the setters} is perhaps possible from a distance. It is reported from Hujjat al-Islam al-Ghazali that he interpreted the star as the animal soul that belongs to every star, the moon as the rational soul that belongs to every sphere, and the sun as the abstract intellect that belongs to every sphere. From some of them, it is reported that he interpreted the star as the senses, the moon as the imagination and estimation, and the sun as the intellect; the meaning being that these perceiving faculties are limited and finite in power, and the Manager of the world is dominant over them, subduing them. This is also contrary to the apparent meaning. There will come, if Allah wills, in the chapter of signs, the like of this.

He did not limit himself, peace be upon him, in arguing against his people with the setting of the sun, even though the impossibility of the attribute of Lordship in it implies its impossibility in others a fortiori. It also contains an observance of brevity and conciseness, ascending from the lower to the higher, as an exaggeration in confirmation and explanation, as is befitting for that station. He did not argue against them with corporeality and spatiality and the like—things the observer perceives upon sighting as signs of eventness and possibility—choosing what is clearer in indication and more complete.