Al-An'am (The Cattle): Verses 76-79

Verse 76: "So when the night enveloped him..."

The meaning of {جن} (Junn) is "to conceal/cover." This root gives rise to words like Jannah (Paradise), Jinn (spirits), Junun (madness), Jann (serpent/concealer), Janin (fetus), Mijn (shield), Jinan (covering/protection), and Jinan (the buried one). All these derive from the concept of concealment or being concealed.

Some grammarians suggest that {جن عليه اليل} means "the night darkened upon him," which explains the use of the preposition 'ala (upon), similar to saying "it darkened upon him." However, Jannahu (it covered him) does not necessarily imply the meaning of "darkening."

Gabriel (peace be upon him) came, placed his finger in Abraham's mouth, and the infant sucked it, receiving his sustenance. Gabriel continued to look after him. The mother would occasionally visit to nurse him. Abraham remained in this state until he grew up, gained intellect, and realized he had a Lord.

He asked his mother, "Who is my Lord?" She replied, "I am." He asked, "And who is your Lord?" She replied, "Your father." He asked his father, "And who is your Lord?" The father replied, "The king of the city."

Abraham realized their ignorance of their true Lord. He looked out of the cave entrance to see something that would serve as evidence for the existence of the Lord (Exalted is He). He saw a star, the brightest in the sky, and said, "This is my Lord," and so on with the moon and the sun (as detailed in the narrative).

Disagreement among Scholars: Some who hold this view say this occurred after Abraham reached puberty and was accountable (subject to religious law). Others say it was before puberty.

The Majority of Verified Scholars (Muhaqqiqin) deem the first view corrupt, citing several proofs:

1. Proof 1 (Consensus on Faith): Believing a star is a Lord is disbelief (Kufr) by consensus, and disbelief is impermissible for Prophets by consensus.
2. Proof 2 (Prior Knowledge): Abraham (peace be upon him) already knew his Lord through proof before this incident. Evidence: Allah informed us that before this event, he said to his father Azar: {وَإِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ لِأَبِيهِ آزَرَ أَتَتَّخِذُ أَصْنَامًا آلِهَةً إِنِّي أَرَاكَ وَقَوْمَكَ فِي ضَلَالٍ مُبِينٍ} (And [mention] when Abraham said to his father Azar, "Do you take idols as deities? Indeed, I see you and your people to be in manifest error.") (6:74).
3. Proof 3 (Method of Da'wah): Allah recounts that Abraham invited his father to monotheism gently: {يَا أَبَتِ لِمَ تَعْبُدُ مَا لَا يَسْمَعُ وَلَا يُبْصِرُ وَلَا يُغْنِي عَنكَ شَيْئًا} (O my father, why do you worship that which does not hear and does not see and does not avail you at all?) (19:42). In the current passage, however, he addresses his father with harsh words and stern language. A person inviting others to Allah typically begins with gentleness and leniency, resorting to harshness only after prolonged effort and complete despair. This proves the current incident occurred after he had repeatedly invited his father to monotheism. He would only engage in inviting his father after completing the task concerning himself (i.e., establishing his own faith). Thus, this incident occurred after he had known God for some time.
4. Proof 4 (Divine Vision): This incident occurred after Allah showed Abraham the dominion (Malakut) of the heavens and the earth, where he saw everything from above the Throne and the Footstool down to beneath the lowest earth. How could someone of this high religious standing and knowledge of God possibly believe in the divinity of the stars?
5. Proof 5 (Intellectual Impossibility): The proofs of contingency (Huduth) in the celestial spheres are evident in fifteen or more ways. How could the least rational person, let alone the most intelligent and knowledgeable, assert the Lordship of the stars?
6. Proof 6 (Pure Heart): Allah describes Abraham as: {إِذْ جَاءَ رَبَّهُ بِقَلْبٍ سَلِيمٍ} (When he came to his Lord with a sound heart) (37:84). The minimum level of a sound heart is being free from disbelief. Furthermore, Allah praised him: {وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَا إِبْرَاهِيمَ رُشْدَهُ مِن قَبْلُ وَكُنَّا بِهِ عَالِمِينَ} (And We had certainly given Abraham his right guidance before, and We were of him knowing) (21:51). This means We gave him his right guidance from the beginning of his contemplation, and "We were of him knowing" means knowing his purity and perfection.
7. Proof 7 (Sequence of Events): Allah says: {وَكَذَلِكَ نُرِي إِبْرَاهِيمَ مَلَكُوتَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَلِيَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُوقِنِينَ} (And thus do We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and the earth that he may be of those who are certain) (6:75). Then, immediately following, {فَلَمَّا جَنَّ عَلَيْهِ اللَّيْلُ} (So when the night enveloped him...). The Fa' (then) implies sequence. This proves the incident occurred after Abraham became one of the certain ones who knew his Lord.
8. Proof 8 (Purpose of Debate): This incident occurred due to Abraham's debate with his people. Evidence: Allah says after relating the story: {وَتِلْكَ حُجَّتُنَا آتَيْنَاهَا إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَلَى قَوْمِهِ} (And that was Our argument which We gave Abraham against his people). He did not say "against Himself." This shows the discussion was with his people to guide them to faith, not for Abraham to seek knowledge for himself.
9. Proof 9 (Location of Contemplation): The opponents claim Abraham contemplated the stars, moon, and sun while in the cave. This is false. If so, how could he say {إِنِّي بَرِيءٌ مِّمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ} (Indeed, I have disavowed that which you associate [with Allah]) when there were no people or idols in the cave?
10. Proof 10 (Confrontation): Allah recounts: {وَحَاجَّهُ قَوْمُهُ قَالَ أَتُحَاجُّونِّي فِي اللَّهِ وَقَدْ هَدَانِ} (And his people argued with him. He said, "Do you argue with me concerning Allah while He has guided me?") How could they argue with him when he had not seen them, nor they him (while in the cave)? This indicates he began contemplating the stars, moon, and sun after mixing with his people and seeing them worship idols, leading him to say {لَا أُحِبُّ الْأَفِلِينَ} (I do not love those that set) in response and to expose the falsehood of their claims.
11. Proof 11 (Fear of Idols): Allah recounts Abraham saying to the people: {وَكَيْفَ أَخَافُ مَا أَشْرَكْتُمْ وَلَا تَخَافُونَ أَنَّكُمْ أَشْرَكْتُم بِاللَّهِ} (And how should I fear that which you associate [with Allah], while you do not fear that you have associated with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority to you?). This implies the people had threatened him with their idols, similar to how the people of Hud threatened him: {إِن نَّقُولُ إِلَّا اعْتَرَاكَ بَعْضُ آلِهَتِنَا بِسُوءٍ} (We say nothing except that some of our gods have afflicted you with harm) (11:54). This dialogue is not suitable for a cave setting.
12. Proof 12 (The Sun's Precedence): That night was preceded by a day. The sun was certainly risen during the preceding day, then it set. Therefore, its prior setting should have served as proof that it is unfit for divinity. If the sun is proven unfit by this proof, then the moon and stars are unfit by greater necessity. This applies if the goal was self-knowledge. If the goal was to refute the people and compel them, this question is irrelevant, as his conversation with them could have started when the star appeared, and the debate continued until the moon rose, and then the sun rose after that. In this case, the objection is invalid.

Conclusion on the Incident: It is established by these clear proofs that Abraham (peace be upon him) could not have said, "This is my Lord," as a statement of firm belief.

Two Possibilities Remain (Assuming the incident occurred after puberty):

Possibility 1: Abraham did not state this as a fact, but for a specific purpose. There are seven interpretations for his statement:

1. Recounting the Opponent's View: He did not say "This is my Lord" as a statement of fact, but rather was debating the star-worshippers whose belief was that the star was their Lord. Abraham repeated their claim using their own words to refute it. Example: When debating a proponent of eternal matter, one asks, "Is matter eternal?" to then show the absurdity of that claim. Thus, he said {هَٰذَا رَبِّي} (This is my Lord) to quote the opponent, immediately followed by refutation: {لَا أُحِبُّ الْأَفِلِينَ} (I do not love those that set). This is the intended meaning, supported by {وَتِلْكَ حُجَّتُنَا آتَيْنَاهَا إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَلَى قَوْمِهِ} (And that was Our argument which We gave Abraham against his people).
2. Sarcastic Attribution: {هَٰذَا رَبِّي} means "This is my Lord in your estimation and belief." Similar to how a monotheist might mockingly say to a corporealist, "Your god is a limited body," referring to their belief (e.g., {وَانظُرْ إِلَىٰ إِلَٰهِكَ الَّذِي ظَلْتَ عَلَيْهِ عَاكِفًا} [And look at your god whom you remained devoted to] (20:97)).
3. Rhetorical Question: The statement implies a question of denial, where the interrogative particle is omitted due to contextual clarity.
4. Implied Speech: The statement implies speech from others: "He said, 'They say: This is my Lord.'" (i.e., this is what they claim is my sustainer). This is common in Arabic, like {رَبَّنَا} (Our Lord) in 2:127, implying "They say, 'Our Lord.'"
5. Mockery: He stated this mockingly, as one might sarcastically call a lowly person "your master" to a group.
6. Strategic Entrapment (The Strongest View): Abraham knew that due to their ingrained tradition and aversion to evidence, a direct call to God would be rejected. He therefore adopted a method to draw them in to listen to the argument. He mentioned something that seemed to agree with their belief in star-lordship, while his heart was firm in faith. His goal was to position himself to present the refuting evidence, ensuring they would accept it. This is permissible under the principle of necessity (like being forced to utter a word of disbelief while the heart is firm in faith, as per 16:106). If uttering a word of disbelief is permissible to save one life, it is more appropriate to utter such a statement to save a community of rational people from disbelief and eternal punishment. Furthermore, if one must interrupt prayer to save a drowning child, Abraham's utterance was permissible because it served a greater religious purpose: making the refutation more effective. This is supported by his later action: {فَنَظَرَ نَظْرَةً فِي النُّجُومِ * فَقَالَ إِنِّي سَقِيمٌ} (Then he looked a look at the stars * And said, "Indeed, I am ill") (37:88-89). The astrologers believed stars predicted future events. Abraham agreed with their method outwardly while being innocent of it inwardly, using it as a means to break the idols. If outward agreement is permissible here, it is permissible in our case.
7. Sequential Observation: When they called him to worship the stars, he observed the bright star, said {هَٰذَا رَبِّي} (This is my Lord), remained silent until it set, and then said {لَا أُحِبُّ الْأَفِلِينَ} (I do not love those that set). This completes the analysis under the first possibility (post-puberty).

Possibility 2: The statement occurred before puberty (or near it). Allah had granted Abraham perfect intellect and a pure disposition. Before puberty, the idea of establishing the Creator occurred to him. He contemplated and saw the star, saying {هَٰذَا رَبِّي}. When he witnessed its movement, he said {لَا أُحِبُّ الْأَفِلِينَ}. During this contemplation, Allah completed his maturity, leading him immediately to say: {إِنِّي بَرِيءٌ مِّمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ} (Indeed, I have disavowed that which you associate [with Allah]). This possibility is acceptable, though the first possibility is preferred due to the many proofs indicating the debate was related to his mission of calling his people to monotheism.

Issue 4: Recitations of {رَأَى} (He Saw)

Abu Amr and Warsh (from Nafi') recited it with an open Ra' and a broken (kasra) Hamza wherever it occurred. Ibn Amir, Hamzah, and Al-Kisai recited it with both letters broken (kasra). If a Kaf or Ha' follows the Alif (e.g., Ra'āka, Ra'āhā), Hamzah and Al-Kisai break the Hamza, while Ibn Amir opens it. Yahya (from Abu Bakr from Asim) recited like Hamzah and Al-Kisai. If followed by an Alif Wasl (e.g., Ra'ā ash-Shams), Hamzah, Yahya (from Abu Bakr), and Nasr (from Al-Kisai) break the Ra' and open the Hamza. The rest open both. They all agree on opening both in Ra'a-k and Ra'a-hu.

Al-Wahidi explained: Those who open the Ra' and Hamza follow the original form (like Ra'ā in Ra'ā and Ramā). Those who open the Ra' and break the Hamza incline the Hamza towards Kasra to incline the Alif in Ra'ā towards Ya', while keeping the Ra' open as the original. Those who break both do so to make the Ra' movement similar to the Hamza movement. Al-Wahidi elaborated extensively on this in his book Al-Basit.

Issue 5: The Miraculous Upbringing in the Cave

The story that Abraham was born in a cave and his mother left him, and Gabriel raised him, is generally possible. Al-Qadi (Al-Baqillani) argued that any event preceding the claim of prophethood is impermissible, as this is called Irhas (preliminary miracle), unless a messenger is present at that time, in which case the event becomes a miracle for that Prophet. However, our scholars (Ash'ari school) permit Irhas, thus resolving the doubt.

Issue 6: The Proof of Setting (Aful)

Abraham (peace be upon him) used the setting of the star as proof that it could not be his Lord and Creator. We must examine two things:

1. What is setting (Aful)?
2. How does setting prove the lack of Lordship?

Answer: Setting (Aful) means the disappearance of something after its appearance.

Objection: Setting only proves contingency because it is a form of motion. If motion proves contingency, then rising also proves contingency. Why did Abraham abandon proving contingency by rising and rely only on setting?

Response: Rising and setting both indicate contingency. However, the proof used by Prophets when calling all creation to God must be clear and evident, understood by both the intelligent and the dull. While motion proves contingency, it is subtle, understood only by the elite. The proof of setting is obvious to everyone: when a star sets, its dominion vanishes. Thus, setting is a more complete proof for this purpose.

Some verified scholars state that the possibility of existence (Imkan) is inherent in the concept of setting. The best speech contains a share for the elite, the middle class, and the common folk:

• The Elite: Understand from setting the Imkan (contingency). Every contingent being requires something else; thus, the chain of need must end at the Necessary Existent (Wajib al-Wujud), who is free from contingency ({وَأَنَّ إِلَىٰ رَبِّكَ الْمُنتَهَىٰ} [And that to your Lord is the final limit] (53:42)).
• The Middle Class: Understand from setting mere motion. Every moving thing is contingent, and every contingent thing needs the Eternal, Capable One. The setting object cannot be God; God is the one the setting object needs.
• The Common Folk: Understand from setting disappearance/setting. They observe that when a star approaches setting, its light wanes, its brilliance diminishes, its dominion vanishes, and it becomes like one deposed. Such a being is unfit for divinity.

Thus, the single statement {لَا أُحِبُّ الْأَفِلِينَ} encompasses a share for the near ones, the righteous, and the wrongdoers, making it the most complete proof.

Another Subtle Point: Abraham was debating astrologers. Their doctrine held that a star in the eastern quadrant, ascending toward the zenith, is powerful and influential. When it is in the western quadrant, nearing setting, it is weak and has little power. Abraham pointed out this subtlety: the Deity is one whose power never changes into inability, nor whose perfection into deficiency. Their own doctrine proves the star's weakness, deficiency in influence, and inability to manage affairs when setting, which damages its claim to divinity. Thus, according to the astrologers' own principles, setting has a special significance in invalidating divinity.

Second Aspect: Does the setting of a star prevent it from being a Lord? One might argue: At most, setting proves contingency. Contingency does not prevent it from being a Lord or object of worship. Astrologers and intermediaries claim the Greatest God created the stars, and these stars then create plants and animals in the lower world. Thus, even if setting proves contingency, it doesn't prevent them from being Lords for humans in this world.

Response (Two Positions):

1. Lordship as Cessation of Need: Lordship (Rabb) means the Existent upon Whom all needs cease. If setting proves their contingency, and contingency necessitates need for another being, then these stars need others for their existence. Once need is established, they cannot be Lords in the sense that needs cease upon their existence. Thus, setting invalidates their claim to Lordship under this definition.
2. Lordship as Creator: Lordship means the one who creates and brings our essence and attributes into being. Setting proves their inability to create and originate, making their worship impermissible, for several reasons:
   • Setting proves their contingency, which proves their need for an Eternal, Capable Agent whose power is eternal (otherwise, an infinite regress of agents occurs, which is impossible).
   • The thing that becomes subject to God's power does so based on its possibility (Imkan), which is uniform across all contingent beings. Therefore, all contingent beings must be subject to God's power.
   • If this is established, nothing contingent can occur except through Him, as established by certain proofs in Usul al-Fiqh (Principles of Jurisprudence).

Summary: The setting of the stars proves they are contingent, and being contingent proves they cannot create or originate (even if this requires intermediate steps). Quranic proofs mention the fundamental premises, leaving detailed derivation for dialectics (Jadal). Since Allah alluded to these two premises, it sufficed to show the stars lack the power to create. This is why Abraham used their setting to prove they could not be Lords of worldly events.

Second Reason: Setting proves their contingency, which proves their need for the Choosing, Capable Agent. This Agent is the Creator of the spheres and stars. The one capable of creating the greater thing (spheres/stars) without intermediary is certainly capable of creating humans. This is alluded to in {لَخَلْقُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ أَكْبَرُ مِنْ خَلْقِ النَّاسِ} (The creation of the heavens and earth is greater than the creation of mankind) (40:57). Therefore, the Greatest God must be capable of creating humans and managing the lower world without relying on celestial bodies. Worshipping the Greatest God is thus more appropriate than worshipping the sun, moon, and stars.

Third Reason: If some stars were creators, this possibility would apply to all of them. Man would then be uncertain which star—or combination of stars—is his creator, leading to doubt about knowing his Creator. Only by attributing creation, origination, and management to the Creator of all things can one know the Creator and engage in His worship and gratitude. Thus, the setting of the stars proves both their lack of eternity and their lack of divinity over this world and humanity.

Rebuttal to the Objection on Timing: Objection: That night was preceded by a day and night, and the setting of the sun, moon, and stars occurred in the preceding cycle. Thus, the setting during that night holds no special significance. Response: We established that Abraham presented this proof to people devoted to star worship. It is plausible that he was sitting with them one night, admonishing them against worshipping stars. As he was arguing, his gaze fell upon a bright star. When it set, Abraham said: If this star were a god, it would not move from ascending to setting, from strength to weakness. Then, the moon rose and set during this discussion, so he repeated the argument. The same applies to the sun. This concludes the discussion on Abraham's proof.

Issue 7: Philosophical Interpretations

Al-Ghazali philosophized in some of his books, interpreting:

• The star as the animal rational soul associated with each planet.
• The moon as the rational soul associated with each sphere.
• The sun as the pure Intellect associated with all of them.

Ibn Sina interpreted setting (Aful) as Imkan (contingency). Al-Ghazali claimed the meaning of {لَا أُحِبُّ الْأَفِلِينَ} is that all these entities are contingent in their essence, and every contingent being requires an efficient cause, ultimately leading back to the Necessary Existent.

This interpretation is acceptable, but it is far-fetched to apply the literal meaning of the verse to it. Some interpret the star as the sensory faculty, the moon as the imaginative/apprehensive faculty, and the sun as the intellect, meaning these three perceptive powers are limited and finite, while the world's Manager is dominant over them.

Issue 8: Rulings Derived from {لَا أُحِبُّ الْأَفِلِينَ}

1. God is not a Body: If God were a body, He would always be absent from us, thus always setting. Furthermore, it is impossible for Him to descend from the Throne to the heaven and ascend back, as this would imply setting.
2. God is not Subject to Created Attributes: This verse proves God is not subject to created attributes (as the Karramiyyah claim). If He were, He would change, implying setting, which is impossible.
3. Religion Requires Proof, Not Imitation: This verse proves religion must be based on evidence (Dalil), not mere imitation (Taqlid), otherwise this demonstration would be useless.
4. Prophets' Knowledge is Inferential, Not Innate: This proves the knowledge of Prophets about their Lord is derived through inference (Istidlal), not innate necessity (Dharurah), otherwise Abraham would not have needed to argue.
5. Path to Knowing God: This proves that the only way to attain knowledge of God is through contemplation and inference regarding the states of His creation. If knowledge could be attained by another path, Abraham would not have resorted to this method.

Verse 77: "And when he saw the moon rising..."

Abraham's adherence to our doctrine (of seeking guidance from God) is clearer than any doubt, as he attributes guidance to Allah here, and in {الَّذِي خَلَقَنِي فَهُوَ يَهْدِينِ} (Who created me, and it is He who guides me) (43:78), and {وَاجْنُبْنِي وَبَنِيَّ أَن نَّعْبُدَ الْأَصْنَامَ} (And keep me and my sons away from worshipping idols) (14:35).

Verse 78: "And when he saw the sun rising, he said, 'This is my Lord...'"

Objection: Since setting (Aful) applies to the sun, and setting prevents Lordship, then if the sun is disqualified, the moon and other stars are disqualified by greater necessity. Why did he not stop at mentioning the sun, for brevity?

Response: Moving from the lowest to the highest (step-by-step) has a unique impact on establishing the argument and confirmation that cannot be achieved otherwise. Therefore, mentioning them sequentially was preferable.

Objection: Even if it is proven that these celestial bodies are not Lords, this does not necessitate the absolute negation of any partner and the affirmation of absolute monotheism. Why did he immediately affirm absolute monotheism based only on disproving these specific entities?

Response: The people agreed on negating other partners; they only disputed the divinity of these specific forms. Once evidence proved these entities are not Lords, and agreement confirmed the negation of others, the absolute negation of partners was established.

Verse 79: "Indeed, I have turned my face..."

• Fatar (Originated): Brought them into existence. The root means splitting; trees are said to tafatar with leaves when they bring them forth.
• Hanif (Upright/Inclining): One who inclines. Abu Al-'Aliyah said it is one who faces the Kaaba in prayer. Others say it is one who turns away from all worshipped entities other than Allah.

Verse 80: "And his people argued with him. He said, 'Do you argue with me concerning Allah while He has guided me?..."

This verse proves that guidance (Hidayah) is exclusively from Allah. If guidance were merely enabling or presenting proofs, it would be redundant, as those were already established. The guidance sought here must be something beyond those preliminary steps.