Tafsir of Ya seen 36:40

Surah Ya-Sin (36): Verse 40

{لَا الشَّمْسُ يَنبَغِي لَهَا أَن تُدْرِكَ الْقَمَرَ وَلَا اللَّيْلُ سَابِقُ النَّهَارِ وَكُلٌّ فِي فَلَكٍ يَسْبَحُونَ}

What is the wisdom in using "Night" and "Day" and meaning their dominions (Moon and Sun), instead of saying, "Nor is the Moon preceding the Sun"?

If He had said, "Nor is the Moon preceding the Sun," the reference to the daily motion would not have been understood. It might be assumed that since the Sun does not overtake the Moon (in its annual motion), and if the Moon does not precede (in the daily motion), then the Moon is not faster. By saying "Night" and "Day," it is understood that the reference is to the motion by which the cycle is completed in a day and a night, and all celestial bodies have rising and setting within the night and the day.

What is the benefit in using the verb form {يَنبَغِي لَهَا أَن تُدْرِكَ} (is not suitable for it to overtake) for the Sun, and the active participle {سَابِقُ} (preceding) for the Night, instead of saying "Nor does the Night precede" or "Nor is the Night overtaking the Moon"?

The primary motion of the Sun, by which it does not overtake the Moon, is specific to the Sun, so it is expressed using the verb form, as a verb form is not attributed to one from whom the action does not originate (e.g., one cannot say someone is sewing if they never perform sewing).

The second motion (the daily rotation) is not specific to one celestial body; rather, all are involved due to the motion of a sphere that is not specific to any single body. Therefore, the motion is not attributed as originating from it, so the active participle is used, as the active participle does not necessitate the origination of the action (e.g., one can say someone is a tailor even if they are not currently sewing).

If one argues that His saying {يَغْشَى} (He covers) in Surah Al-A'raf (7:54) indicates the opposite—that if the Day seeks the Night, the Night precedes it—then the Night would be preceding, contradicting {وَلَا اللَّيْلُ سَابِقُ النَّهَارِ}.

We reply that what is meant by "Night" here is the dominion of the night (the Moon), which does not precede the Sun in the rapid daily motion. What is meant in the other verse is the Night itself, and since each follows the other, it is as if it demands it.

If one asks why here it is {سَابِقُ النَّهَارِ} (preceding the Day) and there it is "seeks it" (يَطْلُبُهُ), we reply that this is due to what we explained: in this Surah, "Night" refers to the celestial bodies of the night, and in this motion, they are as if they have no motion and do not precede, nor is it their nature to precede. In the other verse, "Night" and "Day" refer to the two time periods, and time has no fixed position; thus, it urgently seeks forward movement, implying its own progression.

His saying {وَكُلٌّ فِي فَلَكٍ يَسْبَحُونَ} confirms what we have stated: all have rising and setting in a day and a night, none preceding the other concerning this motion, and each motion is in its specific sphere.

The tanwin (nunation) in {كُلٌّ} (each) is a substitute for the idafa (genitive construction), meaning "every single one." The tanwin is dropped when the idafa is explicit to avoid having both definiteness (through the implied mudaf ilayh) and indefiniteness (through the tanwin) in one word. When the mudaf ilayh is omitted in pronunciation, the tanwin is returned to it in pronunciation, though it remains definite in meaning (as if it were idafa).

If one asks if there is a difference when the idafa is explicit versus omitted: Yes. When one says, "Every one of the people is like this," understanding is restricted to them. When one says, "Every [thing] is like this," the generality is broader than when the idafa is explicit. This is like qabla (before) and ba'da (after): if you say, "Do it before such-and-such," the understanding is restricted. If you omit the mudaf and say, "Do it qabla (before)," it implies doing it before everything.

If one asks about the difference between "Every one of them" (كُلٌّ مِنْهُمْ), "All of them" (كُلُّهُمْ), and "Every" (كُلٌّ):

• {كُلُّهُمْ}: Affirms the matter exclusively for them.
• {كُلٌّ مِنْهُمْ}: First affirms the matter generally, then specifies by saying "of them."
• {كُلٌّ}: Affirms the matter generally and leaves it as such.

If {كُلٌّ} means "every single one" of the mentioned bodies (Sun and Moon), why is the verb plural {يَسْبَحُونَ} (they swim)?

There are several answers:

1. What we explained: {كُلٌّ} is for generality, as if informing about every moving celestial body in the sky.
2. The word kull can be treated as singular because it is a singular word (not dual or plural), or it can be treated as plural because its meaning is plural. Duality is not indicated by the word or its meaning. Thus, one can say, "Zayd and 'Amr, kullun came" (singular verb) or "kullun came" (plural verb), but not "kullun came" (dual verb).
3. Since He said {وَلَا اللَّيْلُ سَابِقُ النَّهَارِ} and meant the celestial bodies within the night, He then said {يَسْبَحُونَ}.

What is Falak? It means a round body, a round surface, or a circle, because linguists agree that the spindle's falaka is named so due to its roundness, and the falaka of a tent is the flat, round piece of wood placed atop the pole to prevent the pole from tearing the tent—it is a round surface.

If Falak means round, then the heaven must be round. However, most exegetes agree that the heaven is spread out without edges, like a level roof, supported by His saying {وَالسَّقْفِ الْمَرْفُوعِ} (And the roof raised) (52:5).

We reply: There is no definitive textual evidence proving the heaven is flat and not spherical. Sensory evidence proves it is spherical, so we must adhere to that.

• Regarding the verse: A vaulted roof is still a roof, and being supported by mountains does not negate sphericity.
• Regarding sensory evidence:
  1. If one travels far south, certain stars (like Suhayl/Canopus) appear permanently visible, while others (like the Daughters of Na'sh) remain permanently hidden. If the sky were flat, everything would be visible to everyone. If it is spherical, some parts are hidden by the Earth's curvature.
  2. When the Sun is in Aries, a star in the Zodiac from Aries to Libra sets after the Sun sets. Soon, the star that set after the Sun sets is hidden, and the star that rose after the Sun rose appears, and vice versa. This is clear evidence, which becomes definitive upon investigation.
  3. The Sun's light appears before sunrise and after sunset, illuminating the atmosphere slightly before its disk becomes visible. This happens because part of the sky containing the Sun's body is hidden by the Earth, allowing its light to spread. If the sky were flat, its disk and light would appear simultaneously to everyone once it returned to the sky.
  4. If the Moon is eclipsed in the eastern part of the night, people in the West will report the eclipse occurring at a different time (earlier than the time the Easterners saw it). Since the eclipse happens simultaneously everywhere, the difference in reported time proves that night arrived earlier in the East than in the West. This means the Sun had set for the Easterners while it was still visible to the Westerners, proving it was hidden by the Earth. If the sky were flat, this would not happen.
  5. If the sky were flat, the Moon would appear larger when directly overhead (at the zenith) than when on the horizon, because the diameter is smaller than the chord. The same should apply to the Sun and stars. But this is not the case.

If one argues that when the Moon is overhead it might be deep within the "sea of the sky," and on the horizon, it is on the surface of the sky, allowing for the apparent size difference. We reply that while penetration is possible, the Moon's motion would then be in a circle, not a straight line, which supports our point. Furthermore, if it were on the nearest surface when overhead, it should appear largest to the Easterners during their midday (being close to their zenith), but we argue it is deeper in the "sea of the sky." In summary, there are many proofs, but what has been mentioned suffices to show that the Falak is a sphere.

This indicates that every celestial body has a Falak. What is your view?

For the seven moving planets, each has a Falak. As for the fixed stars, some say they all share one Falak. We briefly mention the view of astronomers (Hay'a) since interpreting Falak required it:

• The Moon has a Falak because its motion is faster than the other six. Each planet has a Falak due to differences in speed, slowness, and path. Some move in one circle, others in another, sometimes passing each other without eclipsing, and sometimes eclipsing. Thus, each has a Falak.
• Astronomers say every Falak is a spherical body. This is not necessary. We only need to say that for every Falak, there is a sphere, surface, or circle that the planet executes through its motion. Allah is capable of creating the planet embedded within a sphere, like a nail sunk into a hollow sphere, and rotating the sphere rotates the planet. This is the model for the moving planets according to astronomers.
• Allah is also capable of creating a ring surrounding four parallel surfaces (four parallel circles, like the outer ring of a millstone with the central grinding stone removed), and the planets are within this ring, which rotates and carries the planet. Although this motion is possible, no serious scholar adopted it.
• Allah is also capable of making the planets cut through the sky, tracing an imaginary circle, like a fish moving in the water, descending on one side and ascending on the other in a circular path. This is what is understood from {وَكُلٌّ فِي فَلَكٍ يَسْبَحُونَ}, and it seems the motion of the planets is like this.
• Astronomers reject this, arguing that since the planet has a body, if it cuts the sky, either the place of rotation splits and heals (like water moved by a fish), or there is a vacuum through which the planet moves. A vacuum is impossible, and the sky cannot split and heal. We say both are possible. A vacuum is not needed here, as {يَسْبَحُونَ} implies splitting and healing. They have no proof against the possibility of splitting and healing; their argument regarding the fixed directions is weak there.

Astronomers claim that based on their model, motions are derived, which explains eclipses. If motions were different, eclipses would not occur at the predicted times. We say the Sun has two spheres: one centered at the world's center, and another whose center is above the world's center (like the white of an egg between the yolk and the shell). The Sun is a sphere in the eccentric sphere, rotating annually. When it is at the highest point, it is farthest from Earth (apogee); when at the lowest point, it is closest (perigee).

The Moon has a sphere encompassing all its parts, and another sphere that is part of the first, surrounding it like the outer layer of an onion, and a third sphere within the lower sphere, similar to the eccentric sphere of the Sun. In the eccentric sphere, there is a sphere like the Sun's body, and the Moon is fixed in it like a nail in a sphere, called the Jawhar sphere (or upper sphere). The eccentric sphere carrying it is the carrier sphere, and the lower sphere containing the carrier sphere is the inclined sphere. The sphere within the carrier is called the deferent sphere (Tadwir).

They apply a similar model to the other five planets, except they omit the upper sphere (Jawhar) for them, resulting in 24 spheres: the highest sphere, the sphere of the Zodiac, and three spheres for Saturn (the representative, the carrier, and the deferent). Jupiter and Mars also have three each. The Sun has two spheres (the representative and the eccentric/center). Venus has three, like the upper ones. Mercury has four: the three mentioned for the upper ones, and another called the director sphere. The Moon has four spheres, the fourth being the Jawhar sphere. The director sphere is not like the Jawhar sphere because the director does not encompass the spheres, whereas the Jawhar sphere does. Some add two more spheres to each of the five, making their rotations composed of three spheres. They claim these mechanisms account for the varying motions, including latitude, retrograde/direct motion, slowness, and speed.

This is their summarized view. We say it is not impossible for Allah's power to create such a system, but we do not concede that their retrograde/direct motion, latitude/longitude, slowness/speed, and proximity/distance are necessary consequences. This concludes the discussion on this matter.

The astrologers claim the celestial bodies are living beings because Allah said {يَسْبَحُونَ} (they swim/move in orbits), which they argue is only applied to rational beings.

If you mean the sense in which glorification is valid, then yes, because everything glorifies Allah with His praise. If you mean something else, that is not proven, and usage does not dictate the meaning, as in His saying about the idols: {مَا لَكُمْ لَا تَنطِقُونَ} (What is the matter with you that you do not speak?) (37:92).

Then Allah Almighty said:

Surah Ya-Sin (36): Verse 41

{وَآيَةٌ لَّهُمْ أَنَّا حَمَلْنَا ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ فِي الْفُلْكِ الْمَشْحُونِ}