Verses 33–47
In the previous section, the verses told the story of the people of the town. They told of how they associated partners to God, denied the messengers, and belittled their mission. They were warned that divine punishment would descend upon them as it did to the ancient peoples who denied God, and that they would all be brought forth for reckoning and recompense.
Now, the verses turn to presenting the signs of the divine hand in the creation and management of the cosmos. These signs point to the divinity and lordship of God alone, with no partner. Then the verses censure them for failing to behold the signs of God’s oneness or the resurrection, for turning away from them, and for mocking the truth and refraining from spending on the poor and destitute.
Commentary
وَآيَةٌ لَهُمُ الْأَرْضُ الْمَيْتَةُ أَحْيَيْنَاهَا وَأَخْرَجْنَا مِنْهَا حَبًّا فَمِنْهُ يَأْكُلُونَ٣٣
(36:33) And a sign for them is the dead earth; We revive it and bring forth from it grain, and, from it, they eat.
Here and in the next two verses, God awakens people’s awareness towards the signs of His lordship, especially how He looks after people’s sustenance.
Here and in the next two verses, God reminds people of the signs of His lordship in how He looks after creation. Eat (yaʾkulūn) refers to the sustenance of people—feeding them with the fruits of the land in the form of fruit, grains, dates, grapes, and other edibles.
And a sign (āya) for them is the dead earth: At first glance, sign seems to be referring to earth. However, the next two sentences show how vegetative sustenance arises when the breath of life is blown onto the barren land, thereby becoming grains and fruits to eat. Therefore, sign more correctly refers to dead earth, because it is upon the barren land that these signs manifest, with food springing to life.
[We] bring forth from it grain: Meaning, “We cause plants with grains—like wheat, barley, rice and other foodstuffs—to sprout from the earth.”
And from it (minhu), they eat: This is the result of bringing forth grain; it shows the fruition of the divine plan in providing sustenance. It (-hu in minhu) refers to grain.
وَجَعَلْنَا فِيهَا جَنَّاتٍ مِن نَّخِيلٍ وَأَعْنَابٍ وَفَجَّرْنَا فِيهَا مِنْ الْعُيُونِ ٣٤
(36:34) And We have placed therein orchards (jannāt) of palm (nakhīl) and grape (aʿnāb) and caused springs (ʿuyūn) to gush forth.
Al-Rāghib says:
A jannah is an orchard which has so many trees that the ground is covered with trees.
Nakhīl is the plural of nakhl (meaning “palm tree”). Aʿnāb is the plural of ʿinab (typically “grape”), and is used for fruit-bearing vines and their fruit.
Al-Rāghib says:
ʿAyn [sing. of ʿuyūn] originally meant “wound”. (…) It later became used for various things that appear to be split open. (…) It was coined for springs of water because of the similarity in appearance.
Gushing forth (fajjarnā) in the earth means for it to split open and the water to burst out. Everything else is clear.
لِيَأْكُلُوا مِن ثَمَرِهِ وَمَا عَمِلَتْهُ أَيْدِيهِمْ أَفَلا يَشْكُرُونَ ٣٥
(36:35) So that they may eat (li-yaʾkulū) of its fruits. And their hands did not make it. Will they then not give thanks?
The l- in li-yaʾkulū indicates that this verse expresses the result of the verse that came before it—that is, “We put gardens in it and sprung forth springs so that people can eat from its fruits.”
Of its fruits (min thamarihi): Some exegetes say that the pronoun its (-hi in thamarihi) refers to the actual placing of the gardens [as opposed to just the word “gardens”], since the pronoun -hi is singular and masculine, whereas gardens itself would be referred to by the pronoun -hā [used for a plural inanimate object], and the palm and grape would be referred to by the dual pronoun -hummā.
Other exegetes say that the pronoun refers to the word madhkūr (what was described) and acts as a demonstrative pronoun, as in these verses by Ruʾba:
On it are lines of black and white
As if it were a zebra-striped skin
It has been related that Abū ʿUbaydah asked Ruʾba why he used [the singular] ka-annahu [to refer to two things, “black” and “white”], and he said it was because ka-annahu can mean kana dhāk [“it was such”].
There are also other baseless views on what it refers to in of its fruits. For instance:
It refers only to palm trees.
It refers to the water of the springs, or to something elided that means “spring water”.
It refers to “gushing forth” (tafjīr, the verbal noun of fajjarnā)
According to both of these views, fruits means “something beneficial or useful” [as in the English “fruits of one’s labor”].
There is the view that it refers to God, and it is appended to fruits since He is their creator and owner.
And their hands did not make it (wa mā ʿamilat aydīhim): The verb ʿamila means “doing” (faʿala). The difference between these ʿamila and faʿala—according to al-Rāghib—is that ʿamila is usually used for intentional actions aimed at accomplishing a goal. Therefore, it is not usually used for animals or inanimate objects. Similarly, ʿamila is associated with good and evil; that is, one can use it to say one “works good” or “works evil”, but this cannot be done with faʿala.
Mā here means “not”. It means that they did not create the fruits with their own hands, that they might thereby stake a claim to managing the distribution of sustenance along with God. Rather, God alone is the one who creates these things and brings their distribution to fruition, without any assistants. So why are they not thankful?
This interpretation is strengthened by the verses near the end of this sūrah, in which He describes how He created quadrupeds for them as part of His system of providing them sustenance: Do they not see that We created livestock for them—by Our own hands—and given them control over them? And We have subjected them to them, so some of them, they ride; and others, they eat. And they find other advantages and milk in them—will they not be grateful? ()
Some exegetes have introduced the possibility that mā in mā ʿamilat means “what” and relates back to fruits (thamarihi). [That is, instead of meaning their hands did not make it, it means what they make by their own hands.] In this case, it would mean, “So that they may eat from its fruits and what they make from these fruits with their own hands, such as vinegar and date syrup, which they produce from grapes, dates, and so on.”
Even those some exegetes have preferred this view over the previous one, it is incorrect. This is because the underlying aim of the verses is to demonstrate divine lordship by mentioning specific aspects of divine management. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to finish off the argument by mentioning someone else’s efforts. True, one could mention human efforts on the grounds that the human ability to work is a gift from God to His creation and still part of His overall means of managing things. However, in that case, it would have been more appropriate to say something along the lines of “and what We have gifted them to work with” in order to dispel any hint of partnership (shirk) in how God administers the cosmos.
Some exegetes have also proffered the view that mā is an open-ended relative pronoun in conjunction with fruits, rather than referring to fruits directly, thereby rendering the meaning, “So that they may eat from its fruits and from what their hands have wrought.” However, this view can be rejected for the same reason as the previous.
Will they then not give thanks? This rebukes them. How distasteful is their thanklessness towards God! He has set forth the divine order in how He manages creation. They could thank God for the divine blessings verbally or in acts. For instance, as His servants, they could express gratitude for being under His administration through acts of worship, confessing to His lordship, or acknowledging Him as divinity to be worshipped.
سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ الأَزْوَاجَ كُلَّهَا مِمَّا تُنبِتُ الأَرْضُ وَمِنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ وَمِمَّا لا يَعْلَمُونَ ٣٦
(36:36) Glory be to the One who created the pairs, all of them—of what the earth grows, and of their own selves, and of what they know not.
This establishes that God is free of defects or needs. Previously, it lamented their deficiency in gratitude towards him for the sustenance He created for them, such as grains and fruits. He created them in pairs, as this verse says:
And We made grow in it of every verdant pair ().
However, His creation is so vast that He did not just create plant life in pairs; rather, He fashioned everything in the universe as pairs (active and passive, male and female, or positive and negative), including human beings, animals, and plants, wherein the male and female couple to produce a third. However, God is above that: Glory be to the one who created the pairs, all of them….
Glory be to the one who created the pairs, all of them: This is an exclamation glorifying the greatness of God, rather than just an informative statement.
Of what the earth grows (min mā tunbitu al-arḍ): This refers to the various pairs of plant life that grows from the earth. Likely, it also encompasses animal life. For instance, God says regarding the human being—and the human being is a type of animal—And Allah caused you to grow from the earth (anbatakum min al-arḍi anbātan), that is, the same word root as above) (). Perhaps, animals are not mentioned—even though they also are earth-creatures—because it is glaringly obvious that they come in pairs, whereas this is less obvious for plants.
And of their own selves: Meaning, human beings.
And of what they know not: Meaning, the things that human beings are wholly unaware of, or which they know little about, or whose means of procreation they are unaware of.
Some exegetes maintain that pairs here means “type and subtype” or “genus and species” [thereby interpreting the verse as meaning, “Glory be to the one who created all types of things”]. However, this is not supported by a similar verse mentioning “pairs” (azwāj, sing zawj), which says: And We created pairs of all things, so that you might be mindful (). Zawj gives the sense of things which are compatible and coupled.
Al-Rāghib says:
Zawj (“pair”) is used for male and female animals. It is also used for other things that come in pairs, such as socks and sandals, as well as any sets of two things that are coupled together, whether they are similar or inverted. From We created pairs (zawjayn, ), it can be deduced that everything in the world is paired or coupled, whether or not the two members of the pair are identical, have an opposing interface, or are compound, and nothing in the world is free from one type of combination or the other.
Half of zawj [such as a mitten] cannot reach its full potential without its other half. This is why it is called “one of a pair”—because it requires its other half. Similarly, pairs that mate are also referred to as zawj, because they require their other half to produce a third entity.
وَآيَةٌ لَّهُمْ اللَّيْلُ نَسْلَخُ مِنْهُ النَّهَارَ فَإِذَا هُم مُّظْلِمُونَ ٣٧
(36:37) And a sign for them is the night. We strip (naslakhu) the day from it, and—behold!—they are plunged into darkness.
This depicts another sign of God’s lordship, displaying the presence of divine management throughout the human world. It is discussed across four verses.
Without doubt, this verse depicts how night suddenly falls as daylight disappears. The verb naslakhu usually means “extract” or “strip” and takes the preposition ʿan, as in the sentence “I stripped (salakhtu) the hide from (ʿan) the sheep.” Here, naslakhu means “taking away”; for that reason, in this verse, it takes the preposition min rather than ʿan.
This understanding is affirmed by the Qur’anic usage elsewhere describing how night and day follow on the heels of each other; for instance:
He causes the night to enter (or “be inserted into”) the day and the day to enter the night. ()
Since day is described as being inserted into the night, it makes sense here that the sudden fall of night would be described as “removing” the day from the night.
It is as if, at nightfall, its darkness surrounds them; then, daybreak penetrates it and surrounds them with its light. Then, the daylight vanishes, and night seizes them again with darkness permeating all that had once been in the light of day. This sort of expression can also be taken figuratively or metaphorically.
What we have said may suffice with respect to the reams that have been written upon the meaning of naslakhu with respect to night and day.
وَالشَّمْسُ تَجْرِي لِمُسْتَقَرٍّ لَّهَا ذَلِكَ تَقْدِيرُ الْعَزِيزِ الْعَلِيمِ ٣٨
(36:38) And the sun runs to (tajrī) its own dwelling place; that is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing.
Tajrī here means “moves to” [here, translated as “runs to”].
Its own dwelling place (li-mustaqarrin lahā): Li- means “towards” or “for the purpose of”. Mustaqarr is either a verbal noun formed with the letter mīm (maṣdar mīmī), or else a verbal noun showing where or when something happens (ism makān or ism zamān). It means that it moves towards its resting place or until it reaches its resting place—either until its end comes, or until it is time for sunset, or until it sinks to the horizon.
From where we are standing, the sun appears to be circling the earth. However, scientific research has determined that it is the opposite and that the sun actually travels towards the star Vega.
In any case, the verse tells us that the sun will not cease moving so long as the world and its order persist. When it comes to rest, the end of this world will ensue. This is in line with an alternate reading of this verse, attributed to Ahl al-Bayt and some others: and the sun runs, with no rest [wa al-shams tajrī lā mustaqarra lahā instead of wa al-shams tajrī li-mustaqarra lahā].
Some have suggested that this verse could be speaking of the rotation of the sun along its own axis; however, this does not fit with the verb tajrī, which implies motion from place to place.
That is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing: The motion of the sun is but an example of the divine decree and management which none can overrule or find fault with, for He knows all aspects of what is beneficial in His acts.
وَالْقَمَرَ قَدَّرْنَاهُ مَنَازِلَ حَتَّى عَادَ كَالْعُرْجُونِ الْقَدِيمِ ٣٩
(36:39) And We have ordained for the Moon its phases (manāzil) until she goes back to being like an old, dry palm branch (al-ʿurjūn al-qadīm).
Manāzil is the plural of manzil. It is a noun of place from the verb n-z-l (meaning “to come to rest at”, “to descend to”). Here, it refers to the 28 phases of the moon which the moon progresses through in each lunar cycle, which is roughly 28 days and nights long.
ʿUrjūn refers to the stalks of the palm tree that hang down with the weight of new clusters of dates on them. They are yellow and bow-shaped like the crescent moon. Qadīm means “old”.
There are various views over the meaning of the verse which center on differing understandings of its composition. The most apt view is the one which says that the verb qaddarnāhu [here translated “ordained”, as in We have ordained for it its phases] means “We have ordained its phases” [as in the translation] or “We have ordained its phases until it returns to a crescent which looks like an old, dry, yellow palm stalk.”
The verse refers to the varying forms that the moon takes from the perspective of earthlings. This is because it takes its light from the sun, and about half of its sphere is lit. The other half never sees sunlight and is perpetually cast into darkness. Then the places which the sun shine on vary, and this continues until it returns to its original form, which the people of the earth see as a crescent. Then it waxes into a full moon and then wanes into what it was before.
The cycle of the moon has various clear effects on nature, the oceans, and human life, as relevant studies have shown.
The verse describes the moon specifically as a wondrous sign for the people of the earth, not its condition in and of itself, or its condition only with respect to the sun. [That is, the phases of the moon can only be seen from the earth.]
With this in mind, it is not unreasonable to interpret and the sun runs to its own dwelling place () as referring to what people’s senses perceive with respect to the sun’s daily, seasonal, and yearly motion—that is, how the sun appears to us [rather than how it inherently is, or its motion with respect to the galaxy]. Its own dwelling place would then refer to how, from its own vantage point, the sun is essentially stationary vis-à-vis the earth. It is as if the verse were to say, “And a sign for them is the sun. It sees itself at rest, but, in their view, it rises and crosses the sky. The Mighty, Knowing one has arrange for that as part of the order of life on earth to care for its inhabitants.” And God knows best.
لا الشَّمْسُ يَنبَغِي لَهَا أَن تُدْرِكَ الْقَمَرَ وَلا اللَّيْلُ سَابِقُ النَّهَارِ وَكُلٌّ فِي فَلَكٍ يَسْبَحُونَ ٤٠
(36:40) Neither may (lā yanbaghī) the sun overtake the moon, nor may the night outrace the day—each glides in its orbit.
The expression la yanbaghī means “it does not behove it” or “it is not suitable for it”. Here, it means that it does not behove the sun to catch up with the moon, for the divine ordering of the cosmos does not run on some days but not others. Rather, the divine ordering of the cosmos is perpetual with no disorder and no violation, until the appointed time comes for it to end.
It means that the sun and moon have their own paths. The sun cannot spring ahead of the moon, thereby violating the divine order that it has been set in, nor can the night outrace the day. They are both sequential in the divine order. Night and day may approach each other, but they cannot outpace each other, such that there would be two sequential nights or two sequential days; rather, they alternate.
The verse speaks of the sun not overtaking the moon, rather than vice versa, because the sun is the stronger of the two. Similarly, the verse speaks of the night not overtaking the day, rather than vice versa, because the night is the absence of the day. This is a rhetorical device aimed at calling attention to the preservation of the divine order from any sort of chaos or disintegration; therefore, it disallows the things that are bigger and stronger from overtaking that which is weaker. It should be apparent that if the stronger cannot overtake the weaker, then the weaker cannot overtake the stronger (namely, the moon cannot overtake the sun, and the day cannot overtake the night); therefore, it is not necessary to say it.
Each glides in its orbit (falak): Meaning, that the sun, the moon, and other things, such as the stars and planets, have their own celestial paths which they “swim” through like fish swimming in water. A falak is the orbital path in space that a celestial body moves through. It is not unlikely that each (kull, also meaning “all”) refers to the sun, the moon, the night, and the day, even though there is no specific indication of that in the text.
The verses employ plural verbs which are restricted to sentient beings. Perhaps this is to show that they are willingly compliant with the divine will; this is similar to how they are described as sentient beings in:
Then He directed himself to the sky, and it was like smoke. He said to it and the earth, “Come willingly or unwillingly.” They said, “We come willingly.” ()
There are other views about the sentences of this verse; however, we have omitted them because some of these views are truly confused. Whoever wishes to peruse them can consult the relevant books.
وَآيَةٌ لَّهُمْ أَنَّا حَمَلْنَا ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ فِي الْفُلْكِ الْمَشْحُونِ ٤١
(36:41) And a sign to them is that We bore their offspring (dhuriyyatahum) in the laden ark (al-fulk al- mashḥūn).
Al-Rāghib says:
Dhuriyyah originally meant “small children” and later came to refer to both old and young [children]. It is used for both one and many, whereas, originally, it was used only for a group [of small children].
A fulk is a ship; mashḥūn means “full”.
This is another sign of divine lordship—namely, the workings of divine management in the ocean when it carries people in laden ships and allows them to travel from place to place for the sake of trade or other purposes. No one but God can keep the ship aloft or protect it from sinking. When crossing the sea, they are taking advantage of how God has put certain aspects of the natural world under their control—albeit the root cause of their ability to do this is God, without whom they would be unable to do it.
It speaks of their descendants being carried in the ships, rather than themselves—that is, it does not say “I bore them in ships”—to kindle an appreciation for divine compassion and mercy.
وَخَلَقْنَا لَهُم مِّن مِّثْلِهِ مَا يَرْكَبُونَ ٤٢
(36:42) And We created similar things for them on which they ride.
According to exegetes, this refers to riding animals, as in:
And He Who created pairs of all things, and made for you of the ships and the cattle what you ride on. ()
And they are borne upon them [quadrupeds] and upon ships. ()
Some exegetes maintain that the ship referred to in the previous verse is Noah’s ark, and that this verse refers to other types of ships and boats that were used after it. This is a rather unsophisticated view, as are similar views, such as the view that says that this verse specifically refers to camels.
Possibly, this verse can be taken to encompass airplanes and other aeronautical ships used these days; in fact, a general interpretation of the verse is better.
وَإِن نَّشَأْ نُغْرِقْهُمْ فَلا صَرِيخَ لَهُمْ وَلا هُمْ يُنقَذُونَ ٤٣
(36:43) And if We willed, we could drown them, and they would find no help (ṣarīkh) and no rescue (wa lā hum yunqadhūn).
Ṣarīkh is what happens when someone calls for help and is saved. Yunqadhūn means “being saved from drowning” (wa lā hum yunqadhūn).
This verse is connected via a conjunction to the verse which says We bore their offspring in the laden ark (), meaning that, “Things happen according to Our will. If We willed, We could have let them drown, and none could have saved them or rescued them from the water.”
إِلاَّ رَحْمَةً مِّنَّا وَمَتَاعًا إِلَى حِينٍ ٤٤
(36:44) Except as a mercy from Us and enjoyment for a time.
This is framed as an exception—that is, they would not be saved by any material cause or anything unless the mercy of God reaches them so that they can persist until their fixed ends decreed for them.
وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمُ اتَّقُوا مَا بَيْنَ أَيْدِيكُمْ وَمَا خَلْفَكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ ٤٥
(36:45) And when it is said to them, “Guard against what is before you and what is behind you, that you may be granted mercy.”
Now that the previous verses have enumerated various signs of God’s lordship, these verses turn to censuring those people who stubbornly refuse to heed or acknowledge the truth. They remain unmoved, even though these clear, lucid signs are related to them, proving that their lord is God. They should be mindful of their current transgressions as well as their past crimes—what is before them and what is behind them. They should be mindful of how they are now associating partners with God, transgressing in this world and facing divine wrath in the next. However, instead, they turn away from them, unresponsive to what has been patiently outlined to them in the previous verses.
Two points can be gleaned from this. First, that the intent behind “what is behind you and what is before you” means either (a) associating partners with God and disobeying God—things that they are presently tried with and were tried with before, or (b) the punishment which they have earned and which will be the only result, or (c) transgression in this world and punishment in the hereafter. The latter view is the best.
Second, the verse simply says when it is said to them and leaves the resulting clause to the audience’s imagination. [That is, “when it is said to them… what happens?”] This is to emphasize their audacity before God and their mockery of the truth. What words could express the situation when someone calls them to the truth and to be mindful of God, and, in return, they abandon that person? The next verse indicates that this is what happened: Whenever the signs of their Lord come to them, they turn away from them ().
وَمَا تَأْتِيهِم مِّنْ آيَةٍ مِّنْ آيَاتِ رَبِّهِمْ إِلاَّ كَانُوا عَنْهَا مُعْرِضِينَ ٤٦
(36:46) Whenever the signs of their Lord come to them, they turn away from them.
These verses could either be referring to seeing the signs of God, or hearing the verses about them and contemplating them. Beyond that, it could be referring to the signs present in the natural world and in their own selves. It could also be referring to miracles, such as the Qur’an; they are turning away from them all.
وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ أَنفِقُوا مِمَّا رَزَقَكُمْ اللَّهُ قَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَنُطْعِمُ مَن لَّوْ يَشَاء اللَّهُ أَطْعَمَهُ إِنْ أَنتُمْ إِلاَّ فِي ضَلالٍ مُّبِينٍ ٤٧
(36:47) And when it is said to them, “Spend of what Allah has gifted you,” those who deny [Allah] say to those who believe, “Should we feed those whom Allah could feed, if He willed? You are clearly astray.”
The previous verses showed their reply when they were called to worship God. This verse shows their reply when they were called to be compassionate to the creation of God. These two acts are the two pillars of the true religion. It can be deduced that their response was in the negative.
And when it is said to them, “Spend of what Allah has gifted you”: This encompasses the call to them to spend their wealth on the poor and needy. In describing their wealth as something which God has provided them, it shows that the true owner of this wealth is God who has granted it to them as sustenance and has true ownership over it. He is the one who created the poor and needy and placed it upon their shoulders to provide for them out of what they have given, not to be miserly but rather to spend graciously and handsomely. For God loves goodness and beautiful acts.
Those who deny [Allah] say to those who believe, “Should we feed those whom Allah could feed, if He willed?” This is how they replied when they were called to spend on others. The context here would require the use of a pronoun; however, direct speech is used instead (those who deny) to show that their disbelief, turning away from the truth, and following their base desires are what led them to make excuses like this. Such excuses are built on their refusal to accept the compassion for others and the desire for social reform that their divinely oriented inner nature (fiṭrah) calls them to. Similarly, using direct speech for “Those who believe” [instead of pronoun] is to show that spend of what Allah has gifted you is said by those who believe.
“Should we feed those whom Allah could feed, if He willed?” This gives the sense that the believers told the disbelievers spend of what Allah has gifted you to show that being charitable is part of the natural order of things that God wills and wishes. However, the disbelievers retorted that God’s act does not lag behind His will; were it His will to feed them—meaning, to grant them sustenance—He would already have made them rich.
This is just sophistry. The disbelievers are blurring the boundaries between the clear divine legislative will (irādah tashrīʿiyyah) and the divine creational will (irādah takwīniyyah). The divine legislative will is designed to test people and to lead them to a happy life, in this world and in the next. By nature, it can be disobeyed. However, the divine creational will cannot be violated; God’s will is done. It is obvious that God intends for those who can to share with the less fortunate and has ordained this as part of his legislative will. However, He has not enforced it as part of His creational will; therefore, people have the choice to obey or disobey. The disbelievers’ response shows that they are simply being stubborn and rebellious in choosing to abstain from what God has decreed, not that there was some sort of lapse in God’s will; their claim to that effect is a lie.
Their quarrels in their years of idol-worshipping were founded on this sort of sophistry. God speaks of it in:
And those who associate partners [with Allah] say: “If Allah had willed, we would not have served anything besides Allah, neither we nor our fathers, nor would we have prohibited anything without [an order from] Him.” ()
Those who are polytheists will say: “If Allah had willed, we would not have associated [anything with Allah], nor our fathers, nor would we have forbidden [anything arbitrarily]. ()
And they said, “If the Merciful had willed, we would never have worshipped them.” ()
You are clearly astray: This is how the disbelievers finished off their retort to the believers. It means, “You are clearly erring when you claim that God has ordered us to give charity and has willed that from us.”
Examining Narrations
- In Majmaʿ al-Bayān, it is narrated from ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn [Imām al-Sajjād], Imām al-Bāqir, and Imām al-Ṣādiq:
And the sun runs to its own dwelling place () is read as lā mustaqarra lahā, with an -a vowel after the final r.
- In Al-Durr al-Manthūr, it is related that Abū Dharr said:
I asked the Messenger of God about the verse And the sun runs to its own dwelling place (). He said, “Its dwelling place (mustaqirr) is beneath the Throne.”
Author’s comments: This idea is narrated from the Prophet via Abū Dharr through both Sunni and Shi‘I chains of narration, full and abridged. Some of these narrations say that, after the sun sets, it ascends from one level of heaven to the next until it reaches the spot right below the throne, and then it prostrates and seeks permission to rise. It continues doing this until it is clad in light and it is given permission to rise.
Even if the narration is authentic, it should be taken metaphorically or esoterically.
- In Rawḍat al-Kāfī, in a chain of narration from Salām ibn Mustanīr, it is related that Imām al-Bāqir said:
God, the Mighty and Glorious, created the sun before the moon, and the light before the dark.
- In Majmaʿ al-Bayān, it is related from al-ʿAyyāshī from his Tafsīr, from al-Ashʿath ibn Ḥātim:
I was in Khurasān when [Imām] al-Riḍa, al-Faḍl ibn Sahl, and al-Maʾmūn met in al-Īrwān in Marw, and he hosted a meal.
Imām al-Riḍā said, “A Jewish man in Medina asked me whether night or day was created first. What do you say?”
We talked about it, and our conversation went around in circles, but did not come up with anything. So al-Faḍl said to al-Riḍā, “Tell us about this, may God set you aright.”
Imām al-Riḍā said, “All right. A response from the Qur’an or through calculations?”
Al-Faḍl said, “Through calculations.”
Imām al-Riḍā said, “You know, Faḍl, that if the rising sign at the beginning of the world was Cancer, and the planets were in their exaltation—Saturn in Libra, Jupiter in Cancer, Mars in Capricorn, the Sun in Aries, Venus in Pisces, Mercury in Virgo, and Moon in Taurus—then the Sun would have been in the tenth [astrological] house at its highest point in the sky [thereby making it daytime]. Therefore, the day came before the night. And the Qur’an says nor may the night outrace the day ()—meaning that night was preceded by day.’”
Author’s comments: Al-Ālūsī relates this narration in Rūḥ al-Maʿānī then adds, “using the verse as argument is disputable. However, there are some issues with how it deals with the subject of calculations although it has some merit. The astronomers also held that the beginning of the cycle is at the meridian. Imām al-Riḍā’s answer agrees with this. However, it seems most likely that the narration is unsound, for Imām al-Riḍā would have been above using astronomers’ claims to ‘prove’ a Qur’anic verse.”
However, al-Ālūsī was unable to correctly understand the meaning of night and day; otherwise, he would not have questioned the validity of the narration.
Clarification: Night and day are two opposites based on the concept of having something and lacking something in a subject which is susceptible to both. They are similar to being sighted versus being unsighted. Someone or something that is blind is not just something that lacks eyesight. For instance, a wall is not referred to as “blind” even though it lacks eyes. A being, such as a human, is only described as blind if it is otherwise expected to see. Thus is night. “Night” does not refer to any and every condition of being lightless; rather, it refers to the specific situation where the sun is no longer overhead shining down its rays on a particular place. Thus, it is obvious that lacking such a quality [like eyesight, or sunlight], needs to be preceded by the existence of that quality to make the opposites. They are in fact defined by each other. Were there no such thing as eyesight, there would be no such thing as blindness; and were there no such thing as day, there would be no such thing as night.
“Night”, in its absolute sense, means “that which is preceded by the day”. Whenever someone speaks of night in an unqualified manner, the listener assumes that there was a preceding day. in the sentence, nor may the night outrace the day; if one looks at the natural order between day and night, no night can come before its preceding day.
However, God has said, nor may the night outrace the day. This is an absolute statement regarding the night not being able to outrace the day. He did not say “if one night were to occur in this sequence, it would not outstrip the sequence of the day before it.”
Therefore, the natural law given in the verse is built upon the essential nature of night and day as opposites, as God has made them. Because of this essential nature, night and day alternate. Since night, by definition, lacks day—which is what it follows—it cannot come first. This is what Imām al-Riḍā alludes to after he cites the verse. It means that day coming before night is a creational matter; that is, day must have been created before night. It is not as some imagine—that day and night existed independently, and then each was put in its place.
Al-Ālūsī’s comment—“However, there are some issues with how it deals with the subject of calculation. Imām al-Riḍā’s explanation via calculations has some merit”—does not make sense. Imām al-Riḍā’s explanation is not just acceptable; it is completely correct. However, it is necessary to have a firm grounding in the principles of astronomy to see that.
Smilarly, Al-Ālūsī is inaccurate when he says, “Astronomers also held that the beginning of the cycle is at the meridian. Imām al-Riḍā’s answer agrees with this.” The meridian is defined as the circle passing through the two poles and hypothetical infinite points between the two. So there is no particular point for it in the sky in such a way that the day happens when the sun is in that point.
- In Majmaʿ al-Bayān, it says regarding And when it is said to them, “Guard against what is before you and what is behind you” () that it is narrated from al-Ḥalabī that Abī ʿAbdillah [Imām al-Ṣādiq] said:
“What is behind you” means “sins”, and “what is before you” is the consequences.
Ruʾba ibn al-ʿAjjāj, a famous 8th century CE poet from a Bedouin background who later settled in Basra and whose poetry is often cited as a reference for grammar and word usage. [Trans.] ↩︎
That is, God does not need an “other half” or a mate; while the female lacks some aspects of the male and the male lacks some aspects of the female, there is nothing in existence to complement or complete God, for He is perfect and singular. This is how, or one of the ways, that the verse removes any possibility of defect or shortcoming from God. [Trans.] ↩︎
Note that the shade of meaning of “strip” was retained in translation. [Trans.] ↩︎
Manāzil is used in Arabic for both the phases of the moon and the mansions of the moon. Some translators render manāzil as “mansions of the moon”. However, this seems less correct here—and is not ʿAllāmah’s view of the meaning of the verse—since “mansions” refers to the position of the moon vis-à-vis the stars, whereas “phases” refers to the shape of the moon (that is, its progress from being a new moon, to a crescent moon, to a half moon, to a full moon, and so on, regardless of where it is in the sky). The latter seems to match the import of the verse better. [Trans.] ↩︎
In Arabic, plurals of inanimate objects generally take a feminine singular verb, not a plural verb. [Trans.] ↩︎
See ʿAllāma’s mention of an alternate reading of verse in the above discussion on that verse. ↩︎
It is related from Saʿīd ibn Manṣur, Aḥmad al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, Tirmidhī, al-Nasāʾī, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Abū al-Shaykh, Ibn Mardawayh, and al-Bayhaqī. ↩︎
This relates to a similar idea, tracing back to ancient Greece and known in English as Thema Mundi, of there being a theoretical and idealized astrological chart for the beginning of the world, with the rising sign as Cancer. However, in the Thema Mundi, the planets are in different zodiacal signs (their ruling signs rather than their exaltations). [Trans.] ↩︎