Al-Anbiyā’ (The Prophets): Verses 30–33

Introduction to the Proofs

Know that the Almighty and Exalted [Allah] is now commencing with the proofs indicating the existence of the Creator. These proofs also indicate His transcendence above having a partner, as they point to the marvelous order present in the universe. The existence of two gods would necessitate corruption. Thus, these proofs indicate Monotheism (Tawhid) and serve as confirmation for what preceded. Furthermore, they refute the idolaters, for how can it be rationally permissible to turn away from worshipping the God capable of creating such noble beings toward worshipping a stone that can neither benefit nor harm? This is the connection of this verse to the preceding ones. Know that the Almighty has mentioned six types of proofs here:

The First Type of Proof: Separation of Heavens and Earth

{Or have those who disbelieve not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We have separated them?} (21:30)

Ibn Kathir recited it as ‘A lam yaraw (without the wāw), while the rest recited it with the wāw (Aw lam yaraw). Including the wāw indicates a connection to a preceding statement. The author of Al-Kashshāf stated that ratqan (رتقاً) was read with a fatḥa on the tā’. Both readings mean "joined" or "fused," similar to khalq (creation) or nafḍ (scattering). If you ask: Since ratq is a verbal noun (maṣdar), why is it used in place of the passive participle (martūqatan)? The answer is that it is on the estimation of an implied noun, meaning "they were a joined thing (shay’un ratq)."

One might ask: Is the "seeing" (ru’yah) mentioned in {Or have those who disbelieve not considered...} literal sight or knowledge?

1. Literal Sight is problematic: They never saw the heavens and earth in that state. Furthermore, Allah says, {I did not make them witness to the creation of the heavens and the earth} (Al-Kahf: 51).
2. Knowledge is problematic: Bodies are inherently capable of being joined (ratq) and separated (fatq). Judging them as joined first and then separated is only possible through revelation (sam‘), not rational argument, especially when debating disbelievers who deny prophethood.

The Answer: The intended meaning of ru’yah here is knowledge. The objections raised are refuted in several ways:

1. We first establish the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH) through other miracles, then use his statement [about the separation] as proof for the order in the universe and the absence of corruption therein, which reinforces the proof for Monotheism.
2. The terms ratq and fatq can be understood in terms of possibility: The intellect indicates that bodies are capable of both union and separation; therefore, specifying one state (union) over the other (separation), or vice versa, requires a specific determiner (a Maker).
3. The Jews and Christians were aware of this, as the Torah mentions that God created a jewel, looked upon it with awe, and it became water, from which He created the heavens and the earth, separating them. Since the idolaters had some affinity with the Jews due to their shared enmity toward Muhammad (PBUH), Allah used this argument based on their acceptance of the Jews' testimony.

He said kānatā (dual feminine) because al-samāwāt (heavens) is a plural noun referring to a single entity representing the genus. Al-Akhfash said: The heavens are one type, and the earth is one type. Similar usage is found in {Indeed, Allah restrains the heavens and the earth from ceasing} (35:41). Also, their saying, "We reconciled between the two groups," and "We passed by two black herds of sheep," where the singular noun refers to the genus of the plural.

Ratq in language means sealing or plugging. One says, "I plugged the thing, and it became plugged" (rattaktu al-shay’ fa-irtataqa). Fatq means the separation of two things that were stuck together. Al-Zajjaj said ratq is a maṣdar (verbal noun), meaning "they were possessing ratq." Al-Mufaḍḍal said He did not say kānatā ratqayn (they were two joined things) like {And We did not make them bodies that did not eat food} (21:8), because each one—the heavens and the earth—is a single joined entity.

The exegetes differed on the meaning:

1. Hasan, Qatādah, Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, and a narration from ‘Ikrimah via Ibn ‘Abbās: They were one single, stuck-together mass, and Allah separated them, raising the heaven to its place and establishing the earth. This implies the earth was created before the heaven, as He left the earth where it was and elevated the heavenly parts. Ka‘b said God created them stuck together, then created a wind between them, separating them with it.
2. Abū Ṣāliḥ and Mujāhid: The heavens were raised high, and they became seven heavens, and similarly, the earths became seven.
3. Ibn ‘Abbās, Hasan, and most exegetes: The heavens and the earth were joined in solidity and hardness (ratq). Allah separated the heaven through rain and the earth through plants and trees. This is supported by {By the heaven which retains [rain] * And by the earth which splits [for vegetation]} (86:11-12). They preferred this interpretation because of the following verse: {And We made from water every living thing}, which only fits this context where water (rain) is involved.
   • Objection: Rain descends only from the lowest heaven. Reply: The term "heavens" is used in the plural because every portion of it is a heaven, just as one says a garment is akhlāq (tattered) or a pot is a‘shār (broken into pieces). This interpretation also allows ru’yah to mean literal sight.
4. Abū Muslim al-Iṣbahānī: Fatq means bringing into existence and manifestation, like {Originator of the heavens and the earth} (42:11) and {He created them} (21:56). Thus, ratq refers to non-existence, and fatq refers to existence.
   • My analysis: Absolute non-existence is pure nothingness, lacking distinct entities. It is like a single, continuous, undifferentiated thing. When realities come into being, they become distinct and separate. Thus, using ratq metaphorically for non-existence and fatq for existence is appropriate.
5. Night preceded Day: Based on {And a sign for them is the night, from which We remove the day} (36:37). The heavens and earth were initially dark, and Allah separated them by manifesting the visible day.

Which interpretation is most apparent? The apparent meaning suggests that the heavens as they are, and the earth as it is, were joined (ratq). This requires them to exist. Since ratq is the opposite of fatq (separation), ratq must mean adherence/cohesion. This makes the fourth and fifth interpretations weak. The first interpretation (one mass separated) is the strongest, followed by the second (each becoming seven layers), and then the third (being solid, separated by rain and vegetation).

The evidence for the Creator and His Unity is clear from all these interpretations, as no one else could achieve such a feat. It is most likely that He created them joined (ratq) for the benefit of the angels, and then made them separated (fatq) when He settled mankind upon the earth for the benefit of the servants.

The Second Type of Proof: Water as the Source of Life

{And We made from water every living thing; so will they not believe?} (21:31)

The author of Al-Kashshāf notes that Ja‘alnā (We made) is either transitive to one object or two:

1. One Object: We created every living creature from water, like {And Allah created every moving creature from water} (24:45). Or, it means He created them as if from water due to their extreme need for it, like {Man was created hasty} (21:37).
2. Two Objects: We made every living thing become alive by means of water, which is indispensable for it. This is similar to the Prophet’s saying: "(I am not from dadd and dadd is not from me)." The word ḥayyan (alive) was also read as the second object.

One might ask: How can He say "We made every living thing from water" when He also said, {And the jinn We created before from smokeless fire} (15:27)? And reports state angels were created from light, and Jesus from clay, and Adam from dust?

The Answer: Although the wording is general, there are specific contextual qualifiers (qarā’in). The proof must be observable and perceptible to be most relevant to the intended audience. This excludes angels, jinn, Adam, and the story of Jesus, as the disbelievers did not witness those creations.

The exegetes differed:

1. Some said it only refers to animals.
2. Others said it includes plants and trees, as they become growing things, possessing moisture, greenness, light, and fruit due to water. This latter view is more fitting, as it connects to the previous verse: We separated the heaven (to send rain) and made everything on earth alive from it.
   • Objection to the second view: Plants are not called "living." Reply: We dispute this; evidence is {And how Allah gives life to the earth after its death} (30:50).

As for {so will they not believe?}, it means: Will they not reflect upon these proofs to know the unique Creator and abandon polytheism?

The Third Type of Proof: Mountains as Anchors

{And We placed in the earth firmly set mountains, lest it should sway with them} (21:32)

It means "lest it should sway with them" or "so that it would not sway with them." The particle lā (not) is omitted, which is permissible when there is no ambiguity, as seen in {so that the People of the Scripture may know} (3:199).

Rawāsi means the mountains. A rāsī is something deeply rooted in the earth.

Ibn ‘Abbās said the earth was spread out over water and would tilt with its inhabitants like a ship. Allah anchored it with the heavy mountains.

The Fourth Type of Proof: Paths and Guidance

{And We made therein broad pathways so that they might be guided} (21:33)

Fijāj (broad paths) is an adjective. Why is it placed before subulan (paths) here, unlike {that you may travel therein paths wide} (71:20)? In the latter, it is an adjective following the noun. Here, it is placed as a ḥāl (circumstantial adverb), similar to the poetry: "A desolate ruin, an ancient trace." The difference in meaning is that {subulan fijājan} informs that He made wide paths therein. {fijājan subulan} informs that when He created them, He made them with that characteristic. This verse clarifies what was ambiguous in the previous one.

1. It refers to the mountains (rawāsi): We made pathways within the mountains, which are the anchors. This is the view of Muqātil, Al-Ḍaḥḥāk, and a narration from ‘Aṭā’ via Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn ‘Umar. They said the mountains were compacted until Allah drowned the people of Noah, then He split them into pathways.
2. It refers to the earth: We made pathways and roads within the earth. This is the view of Al-Kalbī.

It means "so that they may be guided," as doubt is impossible concerning Allah.

1. Guided to the lands/regions.
2. Guided to the Oneness of Allah through reflection. The Mu‘tazilah hold this view, implying Allah willed guidance for all accountable beings (a point previously discussed).
3. A third view: Both guidance to regions and guidance to Monotheism share the concept of "the origin of guidance." The word is applied to this common concept, encompassing both meanings without using the shared term for both specific meanings simultaneously.

The Fifth Type of Proof: The Preserved Sky

{And We made the heaven a protected ceiling, yet they are turning away from its signs} (21:34)

The heaven is called a ceiling because it is to the earth as a roof is to a house.

1. Protected from falling: Protected from falling down upon the earth, as with other ceilings. This is supported by verses like {And He restrains the heaven from falling upon the earth except by His permission} (22:65) and {Indeed, Allah restrains the heavens and the earth from ceasing} (35:41).
2. Protected from the devils: Supported by {And We have guarded it from every expelled devil} (15:17).
   • There are two views here: Protected by angels from devils, or protected by the stars from devils. The first view is stronger, as it magnifies the blessing by implying Allah Himself guarantees its preservation from falling, unlike the second view, which concerns only the devils' eavesdropping.

This means they turn away from the signs and lessons Allah placed within it: its movements, the manner and direction of its movements, its risings and settings, its connections and separations, all according to precise calculation and marvelous order, indicating profound wisdom and overwhelming power.

It was read in the singular (āyatihā), referring to the genus. This means they are aware of the worldly benefits they receive from the sky—light from the moon, guidance from the stars, life from the rain—yet they are heedless of its being a clear sign of the Creator's existence and unity.

The Sixth Type of Proof: Celestial Motion

{And it is He who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all [of them] are swimming in an orbit} (21:35)

Since Allah said, {yet they are turning away from its signs}, He then detailed those signs. If He had created the heaven and the earth without the sun and moon to manifest day and night, and the benefits derived from the alternation of heat and cold, His blessings would not be complete. This completion comes through their motion in their orbits. Hence, {all [of them] are swimming in an orbit}.

Argumentation on Motion: Observation confirms that celestial bodies have different motions.

1. The Daily Motion: A motion encompassing all of them, moving from East to West (the sun's daily motion).
2. The Motion from West to East: The majority of philosophers and astronomers assert this motion exists for the seven planets and is hidden for the fixed stars. They argue that whenever a faster moving planet overtakes a slower one, it appears to advance eastward relative to it. This is very clear with the moon. They also observe a slow motion of the fixed stars along the zodiac.

Our Counter-Argument (Against the Philosophers): We disagree. It is impossible for a single body (like the sun) to have its own slow motion from West to East while simultaneously having the daily motion from East to West. This would require the same body to move in two opposite directions simultaneously, which is impossible, as motion toward a direction implies the mover ends up in that direction.

• Objection: Can we not say that when the sun moves Eastward, its Westward motion ceases, and vice versa? Reply: This contradicts your principle that celestial motions are continuous.
• Objection: The millstone moves in one direction while the ant on it moves in the opposite. Reply: That example is plausible, but our argument is definitive proof, so they do not conflict.

Refuting the Evidence for West-to-East Motion: Why can we not say that all bodies move East to West, but some are slower than others? The difference in speed causes some to lag behind, creating the illusion of movement in the opposite direction. For example, the outermost sphere completes a full rotation in one day. The sphere of fixed stars completes a full rotation in one day minus a tiny fraction (a second). This apparent deficit makes it seem as if the fixed stars moved backward by that second, when in reality, they just lagged behind.

Under this model, all directions are Eastward, with the daily motion being the fastest, followed by the sphere of fixed stars, then Saturn, down to the sphere of the moon, which is the slowest. This aligns better with the order of existence: the outermost sphere (the a‘ẓam) is the limit of motion, and the Earth (the farthest body) is the limit of stillness. Bodies closer to the outermost sphere move faster, and those farther move slower.

Furthermore, if there were no inclination (motion in latitude), the effect would be confined to one spot, leaving other sides without benefit. If the motion were too slow, the effect would be excessive in one area and lacking in another. If the motion were too fast, the benefits would not be fully realized. An inclination that preserves the effect in one direction for a period, then shifts to another as needed, ensures the effect is balanced, avoiding extremes.

Conclusion: Intellects grasp only a fraction of the secrets of creation. Glory be to the Wise Creator with infinite power.

The word kull (all) requires the inclusion of the fixed stars, even if not explicitly mentioned, to satisfy the plural pronoun referring back to them.

Linguistically, falak means anything circular, plural aflāk.

1. Some said falak is not a body but the path/orbit of the stars (view of Al-Ḍaḥḥāk).
2. The majority said they are bodies upon which the stars move. This aligns better with the apparent meaning of the Qur'an.
   • Some said the falak is a contained wave in which the sun, moon, and stars flow. Al-Kalbī said it is collected water in which the planets swim, arguing that swimming only occurs in water. We dispute this, as a horse running with extended limbs is called "swimming" (sābiḥ).
   • The majority of philosophers say they are solid bodies, neither heavy nor light, incapable of being pierced, joined, growing, or decaying. Discussion of the philosophers is reserved for appropriate texts; the truth is that the nature of the heavens can only be known through revelation.

There are three possibilities regarding the motion of the planets:

1. The orbit (falak) is stationary, and the planets move within it (like fish in still water).
2. The orbit is moving, and the planets move within it, either in the same direction or opposite, and either at the same speed or different speeds.
3. The orbit is moving, and the planet is stationary within it.

Philosophers reject the first two options because they necessitate the piercing of the orbits, which is impossible. They conclude only the third option remains: the planet is embedded in the orbit and moves because the orbit moves.

Our View: The premise that orbits cannot be pierced is false. All three divisions are possible, as Allah is capable of all possibilities. The Qur'anic text suggests the first option: the orbits are stationary, and the planets move within them, like fish swimming in water.

The tanwīn (nunation) in kull is a substitute for an implied possessive pronoun, meaning "all of them" (kulluhum) are swimming in an orbit.

Abū ‘Alī Ibn Sīnā argued that the planets are living, speaking beings based on {they are swimming} (yusabbiḥūn), as the plural wāw and nūn is only used for rational beings, and also based on {the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating to you} (12:4).

The Answer: The wāw suffix is used for rational beings because they are described by an action (sabḥ) that is attributed to them.

• Grammatical note: The clause {all [of them] are swimming...} is either in the accusative case as a ḥāl (circumstantial description) of the sun and moon, or it is a new, independent clause.
• Regarding "orbit" (singular): If each moon has its own orbit, why is it said "all of them are swimming in an orbit"? This is like saying, "The prince clothed them with a robe and gave them a sword," meaning each one received a robe and a sword.

Verses 36–39: Mortality and Mockery

{And We did not grant to any human before you eternal life. So if you should die, would they be the eternal ones? * Every soul will taste death. And We test you with evil and with good as a trial, and to Us you will be returned. * And when those who disbelieve see you, they take you only in ridicule, [saying], "Is this the one who mentions your gods?" And they are disbelievers in the mention of the Most Merciful.} (21:34–36)

(Note: The numbering in the source text seems to skip from 33 to 7, indicating the start of a new section or verse block in the original manuscript structure.)

{And We did not grant to any human before you eternal life. So if you should die, would they be the eternal ones?} (21:34 in the source numbering, 21:34 in standard numbering) This confirms the mortality of the Prophet (PBUH), refuting the claim of the disbelievers that he should live forever if his message were true.

{Every soul will taste death. And We test you with evil and with good as a trial, and to Us you will be returned.} (21:35 in the source numbering, 21:35 in standard numbering) This establishes the universal principle of death and the nature of life as a test involving both hardship and ease, leading to the final return to Allah.

{And when those who disbelieve see you, they take you only in ridicule, [saying], "Is this the one who mentions your gods?" And they are disbelievers in the mention of the Most Merciful.} (21:36 in the source numbering, 21:37 in standard numbering) When the disbelievers see the Prophet (PBUH), they mock him, questioning how someone who speaks ill of their idols could possibly be a messenger from the Most Merciful, whom they themselves deny.