Maisonneuve & Larose

The Portrayal of Nature in a Medieval Qur'an Commentary Author(s): Robert G. Mourison Source: Studia Islamica, No. 94 (2002), pp. 115-137 Published by: Maisonneuve & Larose Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1596214 . Accessed: 02/02/2011 11:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mal. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Maisonneuve & Larose is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studia Islamica.

http://www.jstor.org

Studia Islamica, 2002

The Portrayal of Nature in a Medieval Qur'an Commentary

1. Introduction
Many commentaries(singular tafsir, pl. tafdsir, tafsirrt) on the Qur'an discussed naturein order to elucidate the verses (Cdyt)that refer to God's control over the naturalworld. The exegete Fakhral-Din al-Razi (d. 1209 A. D.) (') pioneered a mode of commentaryin which lengthy and technical of discussions of naturalphilosophydominatedinterpretations these dydt.(2) A little over a century later, Nizam al-Din al-Nisabiri (3) (d. 1329) adopted a similar approach when he interpretedthe same dydt in his own tafsir,
1. All dates in this paper are A. D. unless specified as A. H. All translationsare mine unless otherwise noted. 2. Fakhral-Din al-Razi:Al-Tafsiral-kabir (Beirut:Dar Ihya' al-Turath al-'Arabi [thirdedition]), vol. 1, of pp. 12-13. (TK hereafter). Although Razi never addressedthe interpretation the verses dealing with the naturalworld in isolation, his expressed methodologyfor the firstsara of the Qur'an(Saratal-Fdtiha) consideredevery conceivable question thatmight arise. "Knowthatif we mentionedone issue in this book and if we prove its veracityin ten differentways, then each one of these ways and the evidence is an issue in itself." Among the issues that Razi consideredgermaneto Sirat al-Fdtiha was the productionof sound and how the muscles produce sounds and letters. See the following works on Razi's intellectual biography and oeuvre: Roger Arnaldez: "L'oeuvrede Fakhral-Din al-Rizi: commentateur Coranet Philosophe,"Cahierde CivilisationMedievale (1960): pp. du in 307-23, esp. 320; G. C. Anawati: "Fakhral-Din al-Razi: Tamhid li-dirasat hayatih wa-mu'allafatih," al-Din alMelanges TdhdHusayn (Cairo:Dir al-Ma'arif, 1960): pp. 193-234, esp. 197-99; and ibid: "Fakhr Razi,"in E12, vol. 2, p. 752. 3. For accounts of Nisaburiin the pre-modernbio-bibliographical literature,most of which emphasized his work as a Qur'ancommentatorover his work in other areas,see Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti:Bughyatal-wu'dh fit abaqdt al-lughawiyin wa-'l-nuhdh [Cairo:Matba'atal-Sa'ada, 1323 A. H. (1905-1906)]: p. 230. The only texts al-Suyfti mentionedwere the tafsir and Sharhal-Shdfiya. Modem writersalso conveyed the same impression. Al-Zirikli classified Nisaburias a Qur'ancommentatorwith a preoccupationwith philosophy and mathematics[Khayral-Din al-Zirikli:Al-A'dlm (Beirut:Dar al-'Ilm li-'l-Malayin, 1980), vol. 2.] The der only texts by NisaburithatZirikli nameddealt with tafsir and grammar.Brockelmann[GAL=Geschichte Arabischen Litteratur (Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1937-1949)], in his two entries on Nisaburi(G2: p. 200 and S2: p. 273), groupedNisbfiri with other specialists in the sciences of the Qur'an,but did list Nisabfri's scientific works. Nisbfiri did not appearin the 1902 edition of GAL. Otherevidence underscoresthe impact of Ghard'ibal-Qur'dn. The 1992 Beirut Dar al-Ma'rifaedition, to which I refer in this article, placed the text in the marginsof Tabari's(d. 923) widely-respectedJdmi' albaydnfi tafsir al-Qur'dn. This suggests that GQ complementedTabari'shadith-orientedapproach. [The 1992 Beirut edition was a reprintof the 1323 A. H. (1908-1909 A. D.) Biiliq edition that was edited by alKhashshabal-Kutubion the basis of MSS in the Khediviallibrary.]

115

ROBERTG. MORRISON

which he titled:Ghard'ibal-Qur'anwa-raghd'ibal-furqan(GQ hereafter). (4) Nisaburiacknowledgedhis dependenceon Razi'sAl-Tafsiral-kabir(a. k. a. in to Mafditi al-ghayb;TK hereafter) the introduction GQ. The extentof this was such thatmost of GQ'sinterpretations dayt which referred of dependence to God's control over the naturalworld reproducedsignificant portions of TK. (5) Despite the close relationship between the two texts, Nisaburi'sportrayal of naturewas neverthelessoriginal. In this article, I shall explore Nisaburi'sportrayal naturein GQ by means of comparisonsand contrasts of with Razi's portrayal naturein TK. of In the Qur'an,God's controlover natural processessuch as aging (see ?2a), rain(see ?2b), andthe motionsof the starsandplanets(see ?4) is evidencefor his existence, omniscience,and omnipotence. The Qur'anmakes this quite clear. Razi andNisaburiwere awarethattheirdescriptions nature, of given in the course of interpretations the Qur'an'sstatements God'scontrolover of of had for nature, implications debatesaboutGod'seternalexistenceandomnipotence.(6) Forexample,the statement God createscloudswhichin turnprothat duce rain might initially appearinnocuousand free of broaderimplications. However, the statementdoes suggest that the clouds could act on theirown withoutGod's direct involvement. The clouds would act as an independent intermediate cause even thoughGod would remainthe primary cause. In order to emphasize the absoluteness of God's omnipotence, earlier thinkers,such as al-Ghazali(d. 1111), had denied the existence of intermediate causes. That is, God might not only create the clouds, but in addition create the rain within the clouds in a way that was beyond humancomprehension. (7) While this paper will examine in detail the degree to which Nisabfri actuallyacceptedthis critiqueof intermediate causality, we cannot (8) deny that it influencedhis interpretations. causes in his portrayal Nevertheless,Nisabiri includedchainsof secondary of the terrestrial realm, which comprisedthe Earth(9) and the surrounding the causesin orderto (10) atmosphere. He acknowledged existenceof secondary facilitatehumankind's and of processes. I investigation comprehension natural shall analyzepassagesfrom GQ in orderto examinehow he construedthese
of 4. GQ, vol. 1, pp. 5-6. Furtherresearchon Razi would undoubtedlycontributeto our understanding commentatorslike Nisaburiwho relied on Razi. 5. TK was not the only significantsource for GQ. Zamakhshari's source Al-Kashshdf was an important for linguistic matters(see GQ, vol. 1, pp. 5-6). Nisaburiacknowledgedthe influence of the worksof the szifi (see Hamid Algar: "Nadjmal-Din Razi Najm al-Din al-Rhzi Daya (d. 1256) on his esoteric interpretations Daya," EI2, vol. 7, pp. 870-871). In addition,Nisaburicited a numberof other sources for more technical matters(GQ, vol. 30, pp. 222-3). 6. TK, vol. 20, p. 74. Also GQ, vol. 14, p. 91. al7. Al-Ghazali (trans.and intro. Michael E. Marmura): Incoherenceof the Philosophers(Tahdfiut The faldsifa) (Provo, UT: BrighamYoung University Press, 2000): pp. 166-77. 8. GQ, vol. 8, pp. 127-8. 9. I will use 'Earth' refer to the planetand 'earth' refer to substancessuch as dirt or soil. to to 10. Such a distinctionbetween the terrestrial realm and the heavens originatedin Peripateticphilosophy (See Aristotle, De Generationeet Corruptione,338a-338b). The extent to which this distinctioncould be made was a point of contentionbetween Nisaburiand Rfzi.

116

THE PORTRAYALOF NATURE IN A MEDIEVALQUR'AN COMMENTARY

realmso as to minimizeinfringechainsof secondarycauses in the terrestrial mentson a strictinterpretation divine omnipotence. In his portrayal the of of the heavens,which comprised sun, moon, planets,and stars,Nisiabri'sscientific explanations heavenlymotionsreliedon extensiveobservations. of Whilehe the he acknowledged difficultyof thoseobservations, did notchoose to question science'sconclusionsjust because those conclusionsentailedthe existence of causesin the celestialrealm. He saw no reasonto questionscience's secondary conclusionsif no alternative theorywas available. Science andnatural philosoin of contributed a portrayal nature GQ in which natural to phy processeswere not just appearances,but the results of chains of real secondary causes. Nisaburi'sacceptanceof tenets of science and natural philosophyin his porto trayalof natureshowed thatthese disciplinesremainedattractive some relischolarsin the late medievalperiod. gious 2. The Terrestrial Realm in Ghara'ib al-Qur'dn It is appropriate begin with Nisaburi'sdepictionof the terrestrial to realm in GQ. Not only was the Earthat the center of all cosmologies of the perrealm affected his discussion iod, but Nisaburi's portrayalof the terrestrial of the heavens which I will subsequentlyexamine. There is no one place in realm in full. InsteadI culled GQ where Nisaburi describedthe terrestrial his descriptionof the terrestrial realm from statementshe made throughout the tafsir. The question which dominated his portrayalof the terrestrial realm was: what was the constituentmaterialof the terrestrial realm? This question was fundamentalbecause the essence of this materialdetermined the way God could controlit, the mannerin which natural phenomenawould and the extent to which man could understandnaturalphenomena. occur, Two competing theories, which I shall summarize,shaped Nisaburi'sanswer in GQ. One theorywas based on the approachof thefalasifa, who were practitionersof falsafa, philosophy in the Hellenistic tradition.(") They argued that naturewas composed fundamentallyof four elements (arkcin) which were earth,air, fire, and water. Each element had its own particular characteristics. Fire was fire because it was hot and dry; earth was earth because it was cold and dry. (12) Moreover, accordingto thefaldsifa, God createdcertaininherenttendencies in each element. For example, fire tended to rise up and away from the center of the universe. When flames rose because they were flames. Or, when a clump of soil up, they did so naturally fell down, it did so because soil was composed of earth which tended
in in see 11. Formoreabout "Falsafa," tradition, R. Arnaldez: falsafa,Islamic philosophy the Greek the vol. second edition hereafter), 2, pp.769-775. Formoreabout relationship (E12 Encyclopedia Islam, of in see "Science Philosophy Medieand and in betweenfalsafa religious thought the 14' century, A. I. Sabra: valIslamic Geschichte derArabisch-Islaof The Zeitschriftfiur Century," Theology: Evidence theFourteenth mischen IX Wissenschaften (1994): 1-42. pp. 12.Aristotle: Generatione Corruptione, De 330b-332b. et

117

ROBERTG. MORRISON

towardsthe center of the universe. Although the primarycause of the earth's downwardmotion was God, the secondarycause was the tendency of earth to fall. On that basis one might object that this tendency to fall circumscribedthe reachof God'somnipotence. After all, God would not be the proximatecause of the earth'sdownwardmotion. In orderto defend God's omnipotenceagainst the encroachmentof these independentsecondarycauses, the opponents of the faldsifa, the mutakalliman
(13),

proposed an alternative conception of terrestrial matter. They

arguedthatnaturewas composed of uniformatoms thatdid not exist without the accidents that God conferred upon them at every instant. (14) For mutakallimansuch as al-Ghazali, soil was not composed of earth, but of atoms in which God createdthe color and textureof dirt, and possibly other accidentalqualities of dirt, at every instant. (15) If the soil was to fall, God would have to create and re-createthe accident of heaviness for as long as the soil was to fall. (16) However, God couldjust as easily reversethe downwardpath of the dirt by creatingin it the accidentof lightness, as extraordinaryas thatwould seem to humanobservers. Insteadof independentsecondarycauses, in the guise of the tendenciesof the elements, the mutakallimun proposed only illusions of causal processes that God would constantly create. This customarysequence of apparentcauses ( which replaced the secondary causes of the falisifa) was known as 'ada (custom). (17) This denial of both the elements and the secondarycausationof events is known as occasionalismand was a featureof kaldm.(18)
of as 13. The mutakallimun were practitioners kaldm. While kaldmhas been translated 'dialecticaltheology', that term does not convey the full range of topics with which kaldmconcerneditself. For thatreason, I use the Arabicterminology. In this respect, I follow Alnoor Dhanani["KaldmAtoms and EpicureanMinimal Parts,"in F. J. Ragep and Sally P. Ragep (eds.) with Steven Livesey: Tradition,Transmission,Transformation (Leiden, New York, and Koln: E. J. Brill, 1996): pp. 157-8] and others. 14. For the ancientsources of kaldmatomism,such as the Atomists and Stoics, see Shlomo Pines (trans. Studies in Islamic Atomism (Jerusalem:The Magnes Press, Michael Schwarz and ed. Tzvi Langermann): in 1997):pp. 108-141; and David Furley:"TheCosmological Crisisin ClassicalAntiquity" JohnCleary(ed.): Proceedings of the BostonArea Colloquiumin AncientPhilosophy (Lanham:UniversityPress of America), vol. 2: pp. 1-19. 15. Dhanani,Alnoor:The Physical Theoryof Kaldm:Atoms,Space, and Void in Basrian Mu'tazili Cosmology (Leiden,New York, Koln: E. J. Brill, 1994). 16. The denial of the elements was a characteristicof kaldm dating from the Mu'tazili period. See Richard M. Frank:The Metaphysics of Created Being According to Abu l-Hudhayl al-'Alldf (Istanbul: NederlandsHistorischArchaeologischInstituut,1966): p. 14. 17. See, for example, Ghazali,pp. 170-2. 18. BarryS. Kogan:Averroesand the Metaphysicsof Causation (Albany:State Universityof New York Press, 1985): pp. 135-164. Occasionalismdenied a chain of independent,intermediatecauses, and asserted insteadGod's directinvolvement at every stage and at every instant. The classic formulationof occasionalism was in al-Ghazali(ed. MauriceBouyges): Tahdfutal-faldsifa (Beirut:ImprimerieCatholique, 1962): pp. 195-6. The presence of fire next to cotton would not mean that the cotton will bum. Rather,God alone The Incoherence of the Philosowould produce the burning. See also al-Ghazali (ed. Michael Marmura): phers, Islamic TranslationSeries, vol. 1 (Provo: BrighamYoung University Press, 1997), p. 169. For more on the mutakallimuin's view of causality, see Pines (1997), pp. 32-40. Pines relied heavily on Maimonides'account in The Guide of the Perplexed. See Moses Maimonides (trans. Shlomo Pines): The Guide of the Perplexed (Chicago and London:The Universityof Chicago Press, 1963), vol. 1: pp. 194-214.

118

THE PORTRAYALOF NATURE IN A MEDIEVAL QUR'AN COMMENTARY

The concept of 'cda not only preservedGod'sdirectand total controlover every aspect of nature,but also provideda simple explanationfor miracles. For the mutakallimtn,miracles were instances in which God disruptedthe customary course of events. Since occasionalism denied intermediateor secondarycauses, there were no obstacles in the way of the occurrenceof occasionalism was an effective response to miracles. The mutakallimuin's because occasionalismsuccessfully explained why humansperceive falsafa causal processes in nature. God could create the appearanceof causal processes. A disadvantageof occasionalismwas that it providedan explanation of the way things appearto happen, as opposed to falsafa which gave an explanationof the way things do happen. 2a) The Existence of the Elements Nisaburi'sportrayalof the terrestrialrealm developed out of this debate between the faldsifa and the mutakallimunover whether terrestrialmatter was comprisedof the four elements or of atoms. In the end, Nisaburipreservedfalsafa's belief in the existence of the elements, but diminishedthe had wanted. Aya 70 significance of secondarycauses as the mutakallimun of Surat al-Nahal discusses the process of aging and reads: "God created you; then He will gatheryou to Him; and some of you will be kept back unto the vilest stateof life, thatafterknowing somewhat,they may know nothing; God is All-knowing, All-powerful." (19) The faldsifa had proposed that changing proportionsof blood and semen, i. e. bodily substancescomposed of elements, were solely responsible for humankind'spassage throughthe stages of life and ultimatelyback to God. (20) of Althoughfalsafa was the starting point for Razi's interpretation the passage, he interspersedhis summaryof thefalasifa's explanationwith his own criticismsof thatexplanation. He did so in orderto arguethatGod, and not changingproportionsof blood and semen, carriedmankindthroughthe stages of life. (21) Nisaburi,too, repeatedsome of Razi's criticisms in order to distancehimself from thefaldsifa. However, close attentionto Nisaburi's comments will indicate which parts of Razi's critique Nisaburi did and did not accept. Nisbfiri's reactions to Razi's criticisms indicate that Nisburii acceptedthe elements'existence, but denied thatthe elements could be independentintermediatecauses. (22) When Nisaburirecapitulated Razi's summaryof thefaldsifa's views with the attendantcriticisms, Nisabiri attributedthe criticisms to the mutakalMacMillan 19.A. J. Arberry: Koran The 1955),vol. 1, (NewYork: Publishing Company, Interpreted p. 294. 20. TK,vol. 20, p. 74. filledthenexttwopages. 21. Idem.Razi's refutation thedoctors of lacwhich of werediscrete, uniform atoms 22. Raziproposed timesthatthebasicconstituents nature at kedanynecessary accidents vol. 14,p. 97). (TK,

119

ROBERTG. MORRISON

limun, while Razi had, of course, presentedthem as his own. (23) This was the first signal thatNisaburidid not intend to align himself completely with Razi and the mutakallimuin.Then, Nisdaburi commented that: "thereis no doubt thatrelatingthese affairs [i. e. changes in man'sbody] only to nature (al-tabi'a) is infidelity and ignorance because it [nature]is not necessarily existent (wdjibatal-wujud)by agreement. But denying the powers and the elements is also far fromjust treatment. And the truthis that they [the eleand for ments]are instruments intermediaries what is above them in the way of principlesand causes..." (24) Nisabfirireiteratedhis belief in the elements' existence in his interpretation of dya 50 of Surat Tdhd. The verse reads: "OurLord is He who gave everything its creation." (25) The allusion to God's role in creation led Nisabiri to elaborateon "someof the wonders of creation...namelythat the naturalscientist says that heavy things fall and light things rise. For the same reason, water is above the earth, air above the water, and fire above everythingelse." (26)For Nisabfri to call the elements a wonderof creation, we can infer thatthey must have existed in his view. Then he wrote thatthe of arrangement the elements was reversedin an abstractsense in humananaBones and hair, being the hardestof the partsof the body, possessed tomy. of many charateristics the element earth. Unlike earth,which was beneath the other three elements, the naturalplace of bones and hair was at the top to of the body. The brain,corresponding water,was just underthe bones and hair. Below thatwas the soul, parallelingthe air in the macrocosm. Finally, the heart,with its instinctualheat, resembledfire. While fire was the uppermost element of the macrocosm, the heart was the innermost part of the microcosm (the body), just beneath the soul. If the elements were in fact atoms which God endowed with certain accidents, the reflection of their in arrangement the body would be of little significance because this arrancould change at any moment. But Nisabuiri gement argued,by analogy, that the microcosmof the elements within the humanbody confirmedtheirexistence in the macrocosm.(27) Since Nisaburi wrote in the 14th century,after the triumphof kaldm over falsafa, self-identification as a faylasuf would have been anachronisticand foolhardy for one writing a Qur'an commentary. (28) Given those constraints,Nisabfri's acknowledgmentof the elements'existence deserves our attention.

23. GQ, vol. 14, p. 91. 24. GQ, vol. 14, p. 93; see also vol. 16, pp. 113-14. 25. Arberry,vol. 1, pp. 341-342. 26. GQ, vol. 16, pp. 113-114. 27. Idem. 28. Sabra(1994), pp. 12-13. See also Ibn Khaldun(FranzRosenthaltrans.):Al-Muqaddima (Princeton: Bollingen, 1958), vol. 3, p. 34ff. (abridgededition p. 353). In ? 2b, I will investigate furtherhow Nisabfiri dealt with certaintheological implicationsof the elements'existence.

120

THE PORTRAYALOF NATURE IN A MEDIEVALQUR'AN COMMENTARY

2b) The Ramifications Omnipotence

of the Elements' Existence

for Divine

The mutakallimun denied the existence of the elements because the role of the elements as secondary causes in natural processes might restrict divine omnipotence. (29) Nisaburi agreed with the mutakallimunthat the divine omnipotence,but he faldsifa's conceptionof the elements did threaten did not believe that this threatto divine omnipotencenecessitatedthe denial of the elements' existence. Rather,we shall find that he drew on kalam in orderto depict the existence of the elements so as not to detractfrom God's complete control over all naturalprocesses. The details of God's control over the elements arose with Nisaburi's of interpretation dya 57 of Surat al-A 'rf which reads: "Itis He who looses the winds...till, when they are charged with heavy clouds, We drive it to a dead land and therewithsend down water, and bring forth therewithall the fruits. Even so (kadhalika)we shall bring forth the dead." (30) As in ?2a, of Nisaburi'sposition once again evolved against the background the debate between the faldsifa and the mutakallimiun. First Nisaburi reported the faldsifa's argumentthat God endows rain (made of the element water) with a power that, when mixed with soil under the right conditions, would prorebuttedthefaldsifa with the mutaduce plants on its own. Then Nisabfuri kallimun'sresponse: there was no necessary connection between the presence of waterand the creationof a plant. Waterdid not have to be present for a plant to be created. Rather,God would customarily ('ali majrdal'dda) create plants whenever soil and waterare mixed. So far Nisaburihas given us the impressionthathe has sided with the mutakalliman. But when Nisabiri elaborated on God's role in the growth of plants, Nisaburi did not define 'dda (custom) exactly as the mutakallimunhad. that the growth of the plants could Nisabfri agreed with the mutakallimun not be attributed the elements directly, but ratherto God. In orderto eluto cidate God's necessary and proximaterole in the growth of plants,Nisaburi discussed how the word 'kadhalika' ('even so') in the aya likened the resurrectionof the dead to the growth of plants. (31) Clearly,rain alone could not of bringaboutthe resurrection a corpse; ratherGod had to be directlyinvolved. By analogy, God had to be just as involved in the growth of plants.
29. While Nisaburinever supportedan atomist universe, I have not located a section in GQ with a lengthy and thoroughcritiqueof atomism. He came closest to doing this in his comments on dya four of Surat atomist view of the soul (GQ, vol. 11, pp. 54-5). Although Yanus,where he questioned the mutakallimun's Razi did not accept the mutakallimdin's conception of the soul either, Nisaburi'swording in this case was stronger. For more on Razi's non-Ash'ariview of the soul, see his commentson dya 85 of Suratal-lsrd' (Sura 17) is in TK, vol. 21, pp. 36-53. Explicit criticism of the mutakallimun on p. 40. See also Tilman Nagel: Geschichte der islamischen Theologie VonMohammedbis zur Gegenwart (Munich:Verlag C. H. Beck, 1994): pp. 187-97, esp. 187-92. 30. Arberry,vol. 1, p. 178. 31. GQ, vol. 8, p. 127. Nisaburiwrote that the elements were not necessarily existent (wdjibal-wujud).

121

ROBERTG. MORRISON

Nisaburisolidified this analogy by concurringwith othercommentators who presented that analogy in reverse: just as God creates plants through the medium of rain, God also resurrects bodies from the soil through the medium of rain. (32)Nisaburi concluded that God was not obligated to use rain as a medium either to grow plants or to resurrect;it was simply God's custom to do so. (33) So far,Nisabuiri's adoptionof the conceptof 'adamightsuggestthathe had In sidedcompletelywith the mutakallimun. fact, he has subtlyproposeda differentdefinitionof 'ada. Nisaburicleverlyframedthe debateover iya 57 of Suratal-A'rf aroundwhetherGod used a secondary cause to cause the growth of plants,or whetherGod endowedrainwitha powerthatcausedthe growthof that plantson its own. Nisbuiri neverquestioned rainwas in fact the secondary cause for the growthof plants,in the event thatGod chose to employ a secondarycause. Insteadof choosing to createthe illusionof causalprocesses,God wouldchoose to employ realsecondary causes. Nisaburi's of interpretation the next phrasein the passage ('haplyyou will remember') held that rain could function as a real secondarycause in resurrection, too. In his comments, Nisaburicompared effect of the Qur'anon the soul to the revivifyingeffect the of the rainon the dead bodies. (3) Because the Qur'anwould have an undeniablyrealeffect on the soul, thenthe effect of rainupondeadbodiescould not be illusory. For the mutakallimun, had '&da denotedthe mere appearance of causesandcausalprocessesin eitherthe case of plantsor the case of secondary resurrection.Accordingto Nisabiri, the elementsexisted as secondarycauses thatoperated underGod'sdirectcontrol,when God chose to use them. There was only a fine line between God customarilyusing an intermediary, as Nisabiri alleged, and God customarilycreating the semblance of an intermediary,as the mutakallimuin held. Such a subtle approachwould be advantageoussince GQ was a tafsir, a genre of literature which could not God's omnipotence. Nevertheless, Nisbuiiri'sacknowledgmentof question the elements' existence affected the rest of his portrayalof the terrestrial realm in GQ. 2c. The Occurrence of Miracles Through the Intermediation of the Elements to NisSiburi preferred discuss the occurrenceof miraclesthroughthe intermediationof the elements, even thoughhis interpretation dya 57 of Sirat of al-A 'rdf left open the possibility that God might choose not to act through causal intermediaries. Recall that the mutakallimuin had developed the theory of 'ida not only to give God complete control over all naturalphe32. GQ, vol. 8, pp. 127-8. 33. Idem. 34. Idem.

122

THE PORTRAYALOF NATURE IN A MEDIEVALQUR'AN COMMENTARY

nomena, but also to facilitate explaining the occurrence of miracles. To occasion a miracle God would simply have to suspend 'ada, the normal appearance of natural processes. But Nisabiri favored explanations of miracles that did not deny the existence of the elements and naturalprocesses. Nisaburi investigatedhow Moses drew water out of a stone in SuiratalBaqara, aya 60: "Andwhen Moses sought waterfor his people, so we said, 'Strikewith thy staff the rock,' and there gushed forth from it twelve fountains." (35) Nisaburi admittedthat God could perform the aforementioned miracle without a cause (sabab) or intermediary (wdsita). (36) Thus, consoal-A'rdf,God might have nant with Nisaburi'scomment on aya 57 of Sutrat created the water directly from the rock, without resortingto any intermediate causes. However, God could just as easily have producedthe water directly from the rock. Nisaburipointedout thatthe elements had some type of common primordial substance(hayula). Withoutthis hayild it would not be possible to transformone element into another,as the philosophershad written.(37) Thus the waterlatentin the stone could be removedfrom the air it. surrounding (38)Because waterdid not normallyappearout of a stone, the appearanceof water, even if it was latent in the stone, neitherdiminished God's omnipotence nor detracted from the remarkable aspects of the miracle. Since the existence of the elements did not hinderGod's ability to atomist, occasionalist universe would performmiracles, the mutakalliman's be a superfluoussafeguardof divine omnipotencefor Nisaburi. God'scomplete control over naturedid not preclude the existence of true causal processes that functionedin a mannersusceptible to humanunderstanding. 3. Connections Between the Terrestrial and Celestial Realms

The existence of the elements as intermediatecauses raised the possibility that they were subject to heavenly control. Aristotle had observed that the motion of the sun affectedthe seasonalrenewalof life on Earth.(39) This correct observationof the effect of heavenly motions on terrestrialevents became a foundationof astrology which the faldsifa accepted. The mutakalliman not only rejected any type of secondaryor intermediatecause, as we have seen, but disagreedwith anotherprinciple of astrology: that man might gain omniscience and knowledge of future events. (40) This additiodenial of the nal consideration lent extra vehemence to the mutakalliman's
vol. 35. Arberry, 1, pp.35-6. 36. GQ,vol. 1, p. 298. to into was 37. Thepossibility transforming element another axiomatic alchemy.See Aristotle, of one
De Generationeet Corruptione,314b-315a & 319a-319b.

38. GQ,vol. 1, p. 298. See alsoTK,vol. 3, p. 96.

39. On Coming -to-Be and Passing-Away,336b.

40. Ghazali, 173. p.

123

ROBERTG. MORRISON

causal connections between heaven and earth which astrology postulated. We can begin to discern Nisaburi'sopinion on the existence of connections between the terrestrial realm and the heavens from his comments on Siirat Al 'Imran,aya 190. The aya reads:"Surelyin the creationof the heavensand earthand in the of alternation night and day thereare signs for men possessed of minds."(41) To explain this verse, NisaburiexplainedthatGod exercisedhis controlover the universeby endowingthe heavenswith powers. Thatis, the movementsof the fixed stars (Arabic:al-kawakibal-thdbitaor al-thawabit;i. e. celestial bodies besidesthe sun, moon, andplanets)and planetswould occasioncertain realm. The heavensbecame the meansfor effects (ta'thirit) in the terrestrial elements. Therefore,Nisabiri adoptedthis God's controlover the terrestrial principle, which originated in Aristotle's De Generatione, from falsafa. of Acceptanceof this foundation astrologydid not mean thatNisaburiaccepof ted the entirescience. The mutakallimiin, course, had contendedthat the celestialbodieswere notreallythe causesfor terrestrial events,but only appeared to be ('ali majraal-'dda Id 'aldsabil al-haqiqa).(42)Thatis, the mutakalrealmto cover the limuncould extendthe conceptof 'ddafrom the terrestrial connectionsbetween heaven and earth. Nisaburidid consider the mutakallimdn's occasionalistposition, but ultimatelydisagreed. He arguedstrongly on causesdid not precluderestingeverything thatthe existenceof intermediate causalintermeGod. (43)WheneverGod chose to controlthe universethrough diaries,the connectionsbetweenheavenand earthwere underGod'scomplete causes in the terrestrial realm. controljust like intermediate 3a. Was Astrology Permissible? While causal connectionsbetween heaven and earthmight exist, Nisaburi had yet to determineif one could derive informationfrom these connections. Critics of astrology, such as the mutakallimun,had alleged that heavenly events in orderto motionsprovidedno practicalinformationaboutterrestrial supporttheircontentionthattherewere no causal connections between heaven and earth. (44) Even in the Hellenistic period, critics of astrology had noted the inaccuracyof astrologicalpredictions.(45) I will begin by analy41. Arberry,vol. 1, p. 97. denotedsimply 42. GQ, vol. 4, p. 166. Recall that the phrase"aid majrdal-'dda' for the mutakallimun the appearance intermediatecauses. of 43. Idem. "Wa-'l-insdffiuhddha al-maqdmanna wujudal-wasd 'it Id yundfi istinddal-kull ild musabbib al-asbdb..." 44. TK, vol. 26, p. 147. There was a long historyof critiquesand criticisms of astrologyin Islamic civilization. See Saliba:"TheDevelopmentof Astronomyin Medieval Islamic Society,"Arab StudiesQuarterly IV (1982): pp. 211-25; and ibid: "TheRole of the Astrologerin Medieval Islamic Society,"Bulldtind'tudes OrientalesXLIV (1992): especially pp. 46-7. 45. Ptolemy (ed. and trans. F. E. Robbins):Tetrabiblos (Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1940 repr. 1980): pp. 13-19.

124

THE PORTRAYALOF NATURE IN A MEDIEVALQUR'AN COMMENTARY

zing Nisaburi's position on the permissibility of astrological predictions. This will provide more informationabout the precise connection between heaven and earthand will lead to his opinion of the practicalityof astrologinuancedposition on the permissibilityof astrocal predictions. NisabCuri's when he rebuttedcritics of astrology, among whom were the logy emerged mutakallimun in his exegesis of dyat 87-89 of Surat al-.dfdt. The pas(46), sage containedthese words of Abraham:"Whatthink you then of the Lord of all Being? And he cast a glance at the stars, and he said, 'Surely I am
sick.' " (47)

that Both NisaburiandRazi understood the phrase'casta glance at the stars' with to mean thatAbraham resortedto astrology. Razi initiallyconcurred had and the mutakallimun's belief thatastrologywas forbidden, he posed the quesscience.(48)The firstintertionof why Abraham wouldresortto thatforbidden assumedhe hada feverthatflathatRazi proposedwas thatAbraham pretation red up at certaintimes of the night, so he looked to the starsto determinethe time of night when the fever would return. Althoughthe stars indicatedthe illness. Razi time of night, they had no controlover the cause of Abraham's one subsequentlypresentedanotherinterpretation, of a total of eight, which held thatAbraham said he was sick of heart. This sicknessof heartwas due to his belief thatthe rising of a certainstar at a certaintime would indicatethe onset of the illness. (49)For anyoneopposedto astrology,as Abraham should have been, linkingthe risingof a starto the onset of illness was tantamount to infidelity. But Razi disagreedwith that conclusion and wrote that astrology was not forbidden becauseit was nothingbutthe belief thatGod has given each stara power (quwwa)thatoccasioneda specific effect (athar)and deductions basedon this idea were not futile (batil).(5) Thus while Razi wantedto show that he rejectedpart of astrology,he also upheld the possibility of a causal
nexus between heaven and earth. (5')

Nisaburi did not equivocate about the acceptabilityof astrology. His first explanationof the verse arguedthatlooking at the stars (al-nazarfi alnujum)meant looking at the science ('ilm) of the stars, i. e. astrology ('ilm al-nujim), and at its books and judgments (ahkdm). (52) As had Razi, Nisaburistoppedshortof assertingthatthe starswere independentcauses of
46. Ghazhli, 162-5. pp. 47. Arberry, 2, p. 153. vol. on 48. TK,vol.26, pp. 147-8. Elsewhere Razi,in his comments Siratal-Nizi'dt, five(TK,vol. 31, dya events. terrestrial couldcontrol that and pp.29-30),acknowledged thestars spheres 49. TK,vol. 26, p. 147. 50. Ibid,pp. 147-8. considered heavens be intermediate the to 51. Thisis an acceptance 'soft' of astrology astrology.'Soft' held to of causes,andthusportents divineworkings.'Hard' astrology the planets be whollyindependent in from causes. I amadopting terminology A. A. Long:"Astrology: this arguments andcontra," Jonapro Schofield Science Speculation: and and than (eds.): Barnes, MylesBurnyeat, Malcolm Jacques Brunschwig,
Studies in Hellenistic theory and practice (Cambridgeand New York: CambridgeUniversity Press/Paris:

de tditionsde la Maison Sciences 1'Homme, des 1977): 172andp. 190. p. 52. GQ,vol. 23, p. 64.

125

ROBERTG. MORRISON

terrestrial events. Man could not save himself throughastrologicalpredictions from an undesirableoccurrence(zhala makruha).(53) For example, in the case of Abraham'sfever, Nisfiburiexplained that stellar positions indicated whetherthe fever would flare at a certain time. The validity of that informationrelied on the existence of a causal connection between heaven and earth. However, Abrahamcould not avoid the fever throughstudying the stars since the stars were an instrumentof the divine will which was immutable,inescapable,and not discerniblefrom stellar positions. (54) The second explanationthatNisaburigave for the phrase'cast a glance at the stars' began with a reference back to Sirat al-An'tm, aya 76: "When night outspreadover him he saw a starand said, 'Thisis my Lord.' But when it set he said, 'If my Lord does not guide me I shall surely be of the people " gone astray.' (55) In this dya, Abrahambelieved that the stars'power was sufficient to renderthem divine. Because the stars'divinity was unacceptable to Nisaburi, he interpretedAbraham'sstatementthat he was sick to mean that Abrahamsaid that his heartwas sick and he was not sure of his of God. While the starswere an instrument the divine will for Nisabiri, they did not indicate the divine will or representGod. The thirdand final possible explanationwhich Nisaburimentioned was that the stars were plants and that Abrahamlooked at them as part of his searchfor a cure for his illness. (56) Nisaburipaid little attentionto this third explanation. If we returnto the second possible explanation,we find that elsewhere in GQ a disavowal of the stars'divinity provokedan examination of exactly how the stars could be instrumentsof the divine will without threateningdivine omniscience or omnipotence. to Clearly,worshippingthe starswould be tantamount polytheism(shirk). Saba', enumerated Nisaburi,in his comments on the first two iayatof Sutrat four categories of polytheism that would result from worshippingthe stars. The passage reads: "Praisebelongs to God to whom belongs whatsoeveris in the heavens and whatsoeveris in the earth...Heknows what penetrates into the earthand whatcomes forthfromit, whatcomes down from heavens, and what goes up to it." (57) The first category of polytheism was worshipping the stars even while one acknowledgedGod's power over them. The second category was alleging thatwhile God createdthe stars,the starswere capable of controlling the terrestrialrealm independently. The third was earthlyevents to God, but alleging thatGod entrusts them to the attributing
53. GQ, vol. 23, p. 64. 54. Idem. Nobody writingon astrology,Nisabfri included,would claim thatAbrahamcould observe the stars with perfectaccuracy. Nisabiri's supportof astrologyin Ghard'ibal-Qur'dn was consonantwith arguments, which qualified the reliability of astrological predictions, that existed in his scientific works. [Nisaburi:Kashf-i haqd'iq-i Zij-i ilkhdni,Fatih MS 3421, 5r-5v. This was a Persiancommentaryon Nasir al-Din al-Tusi's(d. 1274) Zij-i ilkhdni (The IlkhanidAstronomicalHandbook)]. 55. Arberry,vol. 1, p. 158. 56. GQ, vol. 23, p. 64. 57. Arberry,vol. 2, p. 131.

126

THE PORTRAYALOF NATURE IN A MEDIEVALQUR'AN COMMENTARY

stars. The fourthratherobvious category of shirk was the worship of the stars as an idol, which entailed that the stars were forms of the angels who might possibly intercedefor humankind.(58) That the first and fourthcategories constitutepolytheismshould be clear a priori. In light of Nisiburi's earlierstatementthatGod could choose not to use secondarycauses, and that secondary causes were never independentin any case, it follows that the second category also constitutedshirk. Now let us analyze why the thirdcategory, in which God might entrust the starswith some role in causality,constitutedshirk. Were God to entrust the stars with a causal role, the stars'ability to act independentlywould be greatlyreduced. Nevertheless,God would still have ceded his directcontrol over terrestrial events once he entrustedthe stars with their role in determining terrestrialevents. Thus, because entrustingthe stars would involve ceding controlto some degreehowever small, the starswould acquirea measure of independencelargeenough to compromiseGod's absolutepower. (59) Hence this third interpretation the stars' role as a secondary cause did of constitute polytheism for Nisaburi. Since this third definition of shirk (tafivd), furtherreflection depended on the precise meaning of 'entrusting' on the termwill lead to a more refined understanding how the starscould of be an intermediary divine control. for When we read Nisaburi'scommentaryon aya 13 of Surat al-Fatir, we can contrasttafwi.dwith subjugation(taskhir). In Nisbuiri's view, taskhir was the correct descriptionof God's control over the heavens. The verse reads: "Hemakes the night to enter into the day, and makes the day to enter into the night, and He has subjected [sakhkhara-I prefer 'subjugated'] the sun and the moon, each of them runningto a statedterm." Nisaburiexplained that this dya was a response to those who wrongly attributed terrestrial events to the essence of the stars, ratherthan to God's subjugationof the stars. So Nisabiri acceptedtaskhiras a descriptorof God's control over the heavens. (60) Medieval dictionaries emphasized how sakhkhara (verbal noun: taskhir)connoted the subjugationof will and desire. (61) Armed with this definitionof sakhkhara,we can understand what Nisabfri found objectionable in the first two ayat of Suirat Saba'. The stars might be the proximate cause of events on earth, but have no choice but to carry out God's desires, even if God's desires were against their own will. This contrasted with entrusting(tafwid) where God would entrust(fawwada) the stars with his desires, but not subjugatethe stars'will to his own desires. In Nisabfri's
58. GQ, vol. 22, p. 58. 59. As evidence for the falsity of that position, Nisaburi referredto this passage from dya 22 of Surat Saba': "mdlahu minhummin zahir"- "Godhas no helper among the heavenly bodies." 60. GQ, vol. 22, pp. 80-1. I would preferto translatesakhkharahere as 'subjugate', ratherthan'subject'. The Qur'analso uses the verb sakhkharain Sarat Luqman(31:20) to describe how God has subjugatedthe heavens and earthto Luqm&n, furtherevidence for God'spower and greatness(Arberry,vol. 2, p. 14). as 61. EdwardLane:An Arabic-EnglishLexicon (London:IslamicTexts Society), vol. 1: p. 1324. See also al-Zabidi:Tdjal-'aris minjawdhir al-Qdmus (Kuwait, 1972), vol. 11, p. 524.

127

ROBERTG. MORRISON

of portrayal nature,the causal links between heaven and earthwere permissible because they were completely dominatedby God's will. 3b. Nisaibri's Assessment of the Practicality of Astrology

Althoughwe have foundhow the link betweenheavenandearthcould function according Nisaburi,we have yet to examine in detail if the motionsof to the starsprovidedmeaningfulinformation a humanobserver. The question to of practicality because if man was incapableof graspingthe was important effect of the starson the elements,even while a link betweenheavenandearth therewouldbe no reasonto defendthe exismightbe theoretically permissible, tence of this connection. Nisaburi's directdefense of the viabilityof astrological predictions in his response(62) to Razi'sinterpretation ayat 50of emerged 52 of Saratal-Zumar.The passagereads:"Sosaidthose thatwerebeforethem; but that they earneddid not avail them, in that the evils of that they earned smote them. The evildoersof these men, they too shall be smittenby the evils of thattheyearned; it. they will notbe able to frustrate Do they know thatGod andstraitens provisionto whomsoeverHe will? Surelyin that His outspreads aresigns for a people who believe."(63)Razi hadrecognizedthatthe passage's referencesto 'signs'anddiscussionof fate could be explainedwith recourseto astrology,so he had raiseda commoncritiqueof astrology:Two people born at exactly the same time, underthe same ascendant(tali'), might live complelives. (64) citedRazi'scritique namein GQ, andrepeaNisaburi tely different by ted the anecdote,to whichRazi alluded,of the son of a sultanand the son of a bathattendant (hammaml). The son of the sultanenjoyeda betterlife even (65) were subjectto the same stelthoughbothhe andthe son of the bathattendant lar influences. On the basis of this anecdote,an opponentof astrologywould argue,as Razi did, thatthe effects of the heavenson the earthwere imperceptibleandthusnon-existent practical this for purposes.Razi presented objection in TK. To Nisaburi,Razi's objectionwas questionable(kalcm ghayr muhaqqaq) because the differencebetween the two sons was due to the differencesbetween the receiver (al-qdbil) of the celestial influences (ta'thirdt), the two sons, and not to the influences themselves. That is, the son of the sultan,by dint of his environmentand lineage, would likely grow up to be completely differentfrom the son of the bath attendant.(66)The presence of such envi62. GQ, vol. 24, p. 11. Nisbuiri statedthat the effects (ta'thirdt)of the heavens on the earthexpress the will of the creator. This would follow from the concept of taskhir. 63. Arberry,vol. 2, p. 171. 64. TK, vol. 26, p. 289. 65. GQ, vol. 24, p. 11. Razi did not mention this story, but hinted at it by saying that two people bor underthe same ascendantcould live completely differentlives. 66. A person's constitutionwas related to the proportionsof the humours (akhlCt)in the body. The humourswere composed of the elements.

128

THE PORTRAYALOF NATURE IN A MEDIEVALQUR'AN COMMENTARY

ronmentalfactorsmodified, but hardlynullified the existence of and effects of the celestial influences. Nisabufri acknowledgedthat astrologicalpredictions could be quite complex as they entailed both the comprehensionof a vast amount of minutiae and the difficult prediction of particularsfrom celestial motions. (67) Nevertheless, throughstudy of human environments and constitutions,as well as throughobservationof the heavens, one could gain sufficient mastery of these details. Nisaburi's confidence in some astrologicalpredictionsrenderedthe causal connectionsbetween heaven and earthmore tangible. (68) 4. The Portrayal of the Heavens in Ghara'ib al-Qur'an Nisaburi'sportrayalof the terrestrialrealm, and of the causal nexus between heaven and earth, explained how naturalprocesses occurred,and not how they appearedto occur. Similarly, the goal of his portrayalof the heavens was to explain the way the heavens moved, not the way they appeared to move. The first objective of Nisaburi'sportrayalof the heavens was to identify the substance out of which the heavens were composed. Again, Nisbuiri had two pre-existing options from which to choose. The first option originatedwithfalsafa and was a corollary offalsafa's theory of the four elements. It was thatthe starsand planets were made of a fifth element (the quintessence), whose predilection was for uniform circular motion. Unlike the terrestrial elements, which had predilectionsto move eitherdown or up (i. e. towardor away from the Earth-consideredthe center of the universe), the stars and planets were observed to move aroundin circles (i. e. around the Earth). Also, while the motion of the terrestrialbodies had beginnings and ends, the uniform circular motion of the heavens seemed eternal. This seemingly eternalmotion led thefalasifa to conclude that the heavenlyquintessencewas not subjectto disruptionand was thereforeinviolable. It is not surprisingthat the inviolability of the quintessence posed many of the same questions (e. g. the problemsof miracles and divine omnipotence) that the existence of the four elements had posed. If one were to deny the existence of the elements and the quintessence,as the mutakallimun did, then the terrestrialand celestial realms would be composed out of the same matter. God simply causes the stars and planets' atoms to move, at every instant,with circularmotion. God, of course, could easily terminate realm. or redirectthatmotionjust as he could in the terrestrial A position on whetherthe heavens were violable or inviolable was related to a position on the question of whetheror not the heavens were essen67. GQ,vol. 24, p. 11. a Id 68. GQ,vol. 4, p. 165. Nisaburi Razi ka-'l-tafakkur. actually expressed gavethishadith: 'ibdda of was the similar elsewhere (TK,vol. 9, p. 134). Reading starsas portents thefuture thesixthof opinion sevenpossible of interpretationsastrology givenin TK,vol. 26, pp. 147-48.

129

ROBERTG. MORRISON

realm. If the heavens were inviotially differentfrom the violable terrestrial realm. The healable, they would be essentially differentfrom the terrestrial vens would be composed of the inviolable quintessence,and not of the four terrestrial elements. If the heavens were violable, then the heavens would be similarto the terrestrial realm, and be composed of either atoms or, theoelements. Nisabuiri Razi's positions on the and retically, the four terrestrial of inviolabilityof the heavens, which developed againstthe background this debate between thefaldsifa and mutakallimun, emerged in their comments on the first dya of Surat al-Qamar. The verse reads: "Thehour has drawn that nigh; the moon is split." (69)Razi had argued,as had the mutakalliman, the heavens were essentially the same as the earth. (70) So if the terrestrial bodies could be pierced, then so could the heavenly bodies. Nisaburi'sbackground in science and natural philosophy provided him with a host of of conceivable metaphoricalinterpretations the dya. For example, he could have commentedthatthe verse referredto a partiallunareclipse in which the sun obscuredpartof the moon. In that way, the moon could have been said the to have split. (") However, Nisabiri rejectedany attemptto interpret dya and determinedthat the word of God took precedenceover metaphorically, the doctrinesof philosophy. (72) For Nisaburi,the heavens were violable, as they were for Razi. Nisaburi added that the inviolability of the heavenly realms could not necessarily be upheld as was demonstratedin philosophy (hikma). (73) Falsafa's principles were not strong enough to supercede a revealed text. But althoughNisaburi abandonedthefalksifa's belief in the eternalinviolabilityof the heavens, he did not conclude, as Rgzi had, thatthe heavens were not essentially differentfrom the terrestrial realm. (74) Rather,repeatedobservationsof the heavens led Nisabfri to infer thatthe heavens were essentially differentfrom terrestrial matter. This was the Aristotelianposition thatthefaldsifa had adopted. Nisabuiri's view becameappahave rentfromhis commentson Surat Qdf, dya six. The verse reads:"What not beheld heaven above them, how we have built it, and decked it out they
69. Arberry,vol. 2, p. 247. 70. TK, vol. 31, p. 76. Razi made this point in his comments on Suirat Qdf,and addedthatit justified his of interpretation the first verse of Strat al-Qamar. 71. GQ, vol. 27, p. 64. 72. Idem. "Thecommunicationof the veracious one (God), in thatit can be adheredto, is more suitable was thanthe doctrineof the philosopher." For Ghazali, a desire to interpretSirat al-Qamar metaphorically a hallmarkoffalsafa (Tahdfitt,p. 192). Zamakhshari acknowledgedthat the splitting of the moon was one of Muhammad's miracles, and cited hadith to the effect that the moon had in fact split twice. But Zamakhshari also suggested that the splitting of the moon might take place only on the day of judgment. See Zamakhshari:al-Kashshdf 'an haqd'iq ghawdmidal-tanzll wa-'uyunal-aqdwilfi wlujth al-ta 'wll (Beirut:Dar alkitabal-'arabi),vol. 4: pp. 430-1. 73. GQ, vol. 27: p. 64. "...althoughtheir demonstrationfor the impossibility of disruptionis not comin plete as we demonstrated philosophy." Nisabfri reaffirmedthatin GQ, vol. 26, p. 108. 74. Anotherimportanttheological ramificationof portrayingthe heavens as being composed of spheres was thatthefaldsifa believed the spheres to have a naturalpredilectionfor uniformcircularmotion. My initial findings show that Nisabuiri was more favorableto this tenet offalsafa than Razi was (GQ, vol. 2, p. 82; TK , vol. 4, p. 182). I hope to explore this important question more thoroughlyin a futurearticle.

130

THE PORTRAYALOF NATURE IN A MEDIEVAL QUR'AN COMMENTARY

fairandit has no cracks?" Whereasthe Qur'anuses the rupture the heaof (75) vens to demonstrate God'sgreatnessin Suratal-Qamar,here the Qur'anuses the perfect sphericityof the heavens to the same end. Nisabfri's comments ostensiblyremindedthe readerthatthe perfectsphericityof the heavensmentioned in Sirat Qdf did not precludethe possibilitythatthey could be pierced in the future (e. g. in Surat al-Qamar). (76) But while Nisaburi'sargument deniedfalsafa'scontentionthatthe heavenswere eternallyinviolable,his argumentwas predicated onfalsafa's conclusionthatthe heavenswere, in fact,permatter. The mutakalfectly sphericaland thereforedifferentfrom terrestrial for limunwere concernedthatthe tendencyof the quintessence eternalcircular motionmightlead one to believe thatGod could not disrupt alterthatmotion or at any time. Therefore,they deniedessentialdifferencesbetweenheavenand earthin orderto preserveGod'sflexibilityto perform miracles. Nisiabfri subtly respondedthatuntilthe momentthatGod violatesthe heavenswith a miracle, the heavenscouldbe essentiallydifferentfromterrestrial matter.(77)Justas the existence of the four terrestrial elementsdid not interferewith the occurrence of miraclesin the terrestrial betweenthe terresrealm,an essentialseparation trialand celestialrealmsdid not obstructGod'scontrolover the latter. of Nisaburi'sinterpretation dya one of Suratal-Infitdrsupportedthe position he took in his comments on Sarat Qaf. The aya reads: "Whenheaven is split open, when the stars are scattered."(78) Razi had argued that while the separateclassifications of terrestrialand celestial bodies were permisand celestial bodies resembledeach other in that they were sible, terrestrial both bodies. So if the terrestrial bodies could be pierced, then the celestial ones could be too. (79)Nisaburi'sresponse to Razi did not deny the possibidisagreedboth lity that God could pierce the heavens. However, Nisiaburi with Razi's reasoning, which Nisaburi described as neither useful nor convincing, and then with Razi's position on the overall similiaritybetween terrestrialand celestial bodies. (80) For Nisabuiri, form (suira)of a heathe venly body was manifestly different from that of a terrestrialbody. The theological ramificationsof a distinctionbetween the substanceof the heavens and earthwere insufficientto dissuadeNisaburifrom incorporating that tenet offalsafa into his portrayalof the heavens. 4a. The Arrangement of the Heavenly Spheres Nisabfri and Razi agreed that the celestial realm was composed of spheres. They disagreed, as we have seen, over whetherthe materialof the
75. Arberry, 2, p. 233. vol. the 76. GQ,vol. 26, p. 108. Razihadmade samepoint(TK,vol. 28, pp. 155-6). 77. GQ,vol. 26, p. 108. 78. Arberry, 2, p. 328. vol. 79. TK,vol. 31, p. 76. 80. GQ,vol. 30, p. 39.

131

ROBERTG. MORRISON

matter.In any case, themovesphereswas essentiallydifferentfromterrestrial ments of these spheres,in which the planetsand fixed starswere embedded, wouldcombineto carrytheplanetsandfixed starson theirobservedpaths.Following Aristotlein De Caelo (On the Heavens), thefaldsifa had arguedthat each observedsimple motioncould be accountedfor with a single sphereand thatcompoundmotionsrequired combinations spheres.(81) Razi criticized of boththe accuracyof observations celestialmotionsandthefaldsifa'sconcluof sions about the numberof spheres needed to account for the observations. Nisabfiri's view of the arrangements the sphereswas in greater of concordwith the findingsoffalsafa. in The debatebetweenRazi and Nisaburiappeared theircommentson aya of 164 of Suratal-Baqara. This iayaelicited the most detaileddescription the in GQ, of Rzi's presentation was in TK;Nisaburi's heavenlyspheres rephrasing, in equallyextensive.(82)The dyareads:"Surely thecreationof theheavensand the earthandin the alternation nightandday and the ship thatrunsin the sea of with profitto men, and the waterthatGod sends down from heaventherewith abroadin it all mannerof revivingthe earthafterit is dead and His scattering betaboutof the windsandthecloudscompelled andthe turning crawlingthing, ween heaven and earth,surely thereare signs for a people havingunderstanof the ding."(83)I will focus on a single aspectof theirdescriptions the heavens: of sphereor configuration spheresnecessaryto move the fixed stars. The Greekshad observedthat the fixed starsmoved with uniformmotion and maintaineda certainangulardistancefrom each other. Aristotleconcluded in De Caelo that since the fixed stars were found to performa single (i. e. simple) motion, they would requirebut a single mover. (84) The single sphere responsiblefor moving the stars with this motion would rotatefrom east to west once every 24 hours. Important features of the faldsifa's portrayal of the heavens can be understood by analyzing steps of Aristotle's progression from available observationsto the single-spheremodel. Aristotle establishedin De Caelo that the heavens were sphericaland that they revolved. (85) Since the earth
81. Themistius: "Min sharh Thamistiyfs li-harf al-lam,"in 'Abd al-RahmanBadawl:Aristti 'inda al'arab (Kuwait: 1978): p. 16; and Ibn Sina: "Sharhkitab harf al-lam"in 'Abd al-RahmanBadawi:Aris.tu 'inda al-'arab (Kuwait: 1978): p. 29 82. There were instances where Nisaburidid not approachastronomyon such a technical level, such as in his commentson this passage from dya 16 of Sarat al-.Hijr: "Wehave set in heaven constellationsanddecked them out fair to the beholders."(Arberry,vol. 1, p. 272) The theological issue was whetherGod'ssigns, like the fixed stars, would be visible in the lower heavens (al-samd' al-dunyd),i. e. from Earth. This problem would exist whetherthe fixed stars were in the seventh or eighth spheres since both sphereswould be in the upper heavens (al-samd' al-a'la). Thus Nisaburi could ignore the debate among astronomers over whetherthe fixed stars were on the seventh or eighth sphere (GQ, vol. 14, p. 11), which arose elsewhere in GQ (GQ, vol. 1, p. 211; the discussion originatedin Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi:Fa'altu fa-ld talum, FatihMS 3175/2, 168r). 83. Arberry,vol. 1, pp. 48-49. 84. Aristotle, De Caelo, 289b-290b. See also Tadhkira,pp. 108-11. No observationsof the fixed stars from Greek or Islamic astronomerswould suggest that the fixed stars were not in a single sphere. 85. Aristotle, De Caelo, 286b ff.

132

THE PORTRAYALOF NATURE IN A MEDIEVALQUR'AN COMMENTARY

was thoughtto be at rest, phenomenalike the succession of night and day would be impossible without the movement of the heavenly spheres. He also observedthatthe fixed starscompleteda rotationin the periodof a night and a day (a nychthemeron).Aristotledid considerthe possibility thatwhile the starsand the heavenly spheresrotated,the starsmight not be fixed in the same sphere, or even in any particularsphere. However, he rejected as exceedingly remote the possibility that all the fixed stars could have their speeds calibrated so that they would complete a revolution in the same amountof time without being fixed in the same sphere. Thus, observations to of the fixed stars demonstrated Aristotle that they were fixed in a single Thefalasifa agreed with that conclusion. (87) sphere. (86) Razi and Nisabfiri,because they came after thefalasifa, had to considera different strain of thinking about the heavens that had developed in the course of Islamic history.(88) Due to criticismoffalsafa, astronomers began to focus on theoretical descriptions of planetarymotions, ratherthan on investigatingthe actual physical causes of those motions. (89) Astronomers preferredto adopt aspects offalsafa, such as how the heavens was composed of solid spheres, as the basis for their theories. (0) But these new theories did not speak with metaphysicalforce, as thefaldsifa had when they said that the heavens were composed of solid spheres. (9') So the possibility of the fixed starsmoving at the same speed as the outer sphereof the heavens, withoutall being fixed in that sphere, was no longer exceedingly remote,as Aristotlehad concluded. In fact, the only theoriesthat could be readilydismissed were those thatcould not accountfor availableobservationswith the necessary accuracy.(92) The impactof these developmentswas exemplified by the statementsof the mutakallimal-Iji (d. 1355). Iji proposed that the
86. Aristotle, De Caelo, 289b-290b. 87. Themistius: "Min sharh Thamistiyis li-harf al-lam," in 'Abd al-RahmanBadawi: Aristt 'inda al'arab (Kuwait: 1978): p. 16; and Ibn Sina: "Sharhkitab harf al-lam"in 'Abd al-RahmanBadawi: Aristi

al-'arab (Kuwait: 'inda 1978): 29 p.

88. Saliba (1982), pp. 211-25. 89. F. J. Ragep (ed., trans.,and comm.):Nasir al-Din al-Ttsi's Memoiron Astronomy (al-Tadhkirafi 'ilm al-hay'a) (New York and Berlin: Springer-Verlag,1993): p. 35. "...'ilmal-hay'a [astronomy]was held to deal with the externalaspect of the physical bodies and not theirinternalcharacter..." 'llm al-hay'a was not between physics and metaphysicsas astronomyhad been with Aristotle a division of philosophyintermediate (Aristotle,Metaphysics, 1026a). These texts include Nisaburi'sTawdihal-Tadhkira(see ?5), a commentary on Tisi's Tadhkira. In the remainderof the article, when I refer to the text of the Tadhkira,I will use the title 'Tadhkira'; when I refer to Ragep'sintroductionand commentary,I will specify 'Ragep(1993)'. 90. Ragep (1993), pp. 41-46, esp. p. 46. One reason TOsiadoptedfromfalsafa principleslike the inclination of the celestial spheres towardcircularmotion was because such principlesconformedwith observations. 91. Saliba: "The Astronomical Tradition of Maragha:A Historical Survey and Prospects for Future Research,"in Arabic Sciences and Philosophy I (1991): p. 93 and p. 96; and Ragep (1993) p. 48 and p. 411. themselveswere seeking- sometimes consciously, someSee also Ragep (1993), p. 17. "Islamicastronomers times not- to free their physical theories from a metaphysicaltaint." they never predictedpositions that differedfrom the Ptolemaicpositions by more than ten minutesof arc.

because in theories acceptable part were that 92. Tadhkira, 208-9. Tusiconcluded hisowninnovative pp.

133

ROBERTG. MORRISON

celestial bodies be carriedon belts which resembledtambourines, ratherthan on complete spheres. (93) Even though Iji's critics found his denial of the spheres' existence unattractive,they found his denial difficult to refute because the existence of these belts could not be disproventhroughobservations. (94) Because no observation could disprove the theory that the fixed stars were arrayedon multiplespheresor belts, Razi and Nisaburiwere not confined to the view thatthe fixed starswere all arrayedon a single sphere. Razi could cite Ibn Sina (d. 1037) as a precedentto argue that some stars could be found on one sphere,and other starson anothersphere,as long as all the spheres rotatedwith the same angularvelocity. (95) In fact, each star could have its own sphere. Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (d. 1274) would laterconsiderthis same explanationbecause no observationcould confirmor refute whetheror not the fixed stars were found on multiple spheres. (96) So far Razi's reasoning, when he disagreedwith thefalasifa's statementthatthe fixed starshad to be on the same sphere, agreedwith precedent. In orderto supportfurtherhis proposal of multiple spheres for the fixed stars, Razi raised the possibility of minute variationsin the motions of the fixed stars that the human eye could not detect. This would mean that while the single-spheremodel might agree with available observations,the single-sphere model would not agree with reality because the available observationscould be flawed. Above I explained that the fixed stars were observed to complete an east to west rotation in 24 hours. Since that observation could be repeated and verified daily, the existence of minute
93. 'Adud al-Din al-Iji (ed. Ibrahimal-Dusuqi 'Atiyya and Ahmad Muhammadal-Hanbili): Kitdb almawaqiffi 'ilmal-kaldm (Cairo, 1357/1938): pp. 200-15. See also Sabra(1994), p. 35. Sabraexplainedthat Iji proposedsuch alternativetheories, which had been mentionedin the past by Ptolemy, in orderto "insist on the hypotheticaland conjecturalcharacter astronomical of theories,and therebyto vindicate the Ash'arite conception of a contingentworld." These belts (nitdqdt)were similar to the sawed-off portions of the orbs known as manshirdt. In the "becauseto set forthsomethingother thana sphere would not be Tadhkira,Tusi had rejectedthe manshulrdt appropriatefor the models of this science." (Tadhkira,pp. 216-7) Interestingly,Ptolemy proposed the manshuirdt the first place because he deemed the rest of the orbs extraneous. [Ragep (1993), p. 28.] in See also Willy Hartner: "MediaevalViews on Cosmic Dimensions and Ptolemy's Kitdbal-manshuirdt," in Oriens Occidens (Hildesheim:Georg Olms, 1968), vol. 1: pp. 319-48, esp. pp. 345-8; and AndreaMurschel: "The Structureand Functionof Ptolemy's Physical Hypotheses of PlanetaryMotion,"in Journalfor the History of Astronomy XXVI (1995): pp. 33-61. 94. Mir Zahid:Hdshiyatal-mawdqif,Hasan Hisnii Pasa MS 1127, 148v. "andas far as the possibility of other hypotheses (usul), in lieu of the above-mentionedhypotheses, which precisely determine them [celestial motions] accordingto the way in which they are observed,they [the astronomers]did not deny it. But such hypotheses are not known. Ratherthey, during the establishmentof that which they established from among the hypotheses that precisely determine[celestial motions], are still at a loss. And how, unless it [the other hypothesis] is not known?" 95. Ibn Sina (ed. IbrahimMadkfr and Mahmiud wa-'l-'dlam (Cairo, 1969), chapter6: Qasim):Al-Saman' p. 46. See also TK, vol. 4, pp. 180-1. See also Ragep (1993), p. 389; and Carlo Nallino: 'Ilm al-falak: tdrikhiuhu al-'arabfi al-qurfn al-wustd (Rome, 1911; reprintedBeirut:Al-Dar al-'arabiyyali-'l-kitab, 'ind 1993): pp. 257-9. 96. Ragep (1993), p. 389. In Tawdihal-Tadhkira,Nisabfiriaccepted the one-sphere model (Tunis MS 13533, 74r-74v).

134

THE PORTRAYALOF NATURE IN A MEDIEVALQUR'AN COMMENTARY

variations in that observation was unlikely. However, the fixed stars also moved slowly from west to east, completing a rotation in 36, 000 years. Most astronomers posited an additional sphere or spheres to move the sphere of the fixed stars with this slow motion. Because the period of this motion was about 36, 000 years, it was more difficult to measure and verify. If a star or stars, but not all the stars, completed the west-east rotation in 35, 900 years or 36, 010 years, but not 36, 000 years, such a discrepancy could not be measured. (97) Razi raised the possibility of variations with this motion because, were they to exist, they would obviate any model with the fixed stars in a single sphere. On the other hand, a system of multiple spheres to hold the fixed stars could account for them. Razi was astute to target observations of the fixed stars, because experienced astronomers,including Nisaburi, conceded that observations of the fixed stars were problematic.(98) Additionally, astronomershad observed over a thousand stars and it was not necessary to assume that they were equidistant from the earth, and in the same sphere. (99) But Razi overstatedthe implicationsof hypotheticalobservationalerrors. He was correctto conclude thatone could not resolve for certain(li yumkin al-jazm) that any motion traditionallyaccounted for with a single sphere (like the motion of the fixed stars) was in fact caused by a single sphere . That was consonant with the trend in Islamic intellectual history towards descriptionsratherthan explanationsof heavenly motions. However, Razi went too far when he alleged that thefalisifa's demonstrationthat the fixed stars were found in a single sphere was proven false. ('0) The mere possibility of errors in observationswas not sufficient proof that the falasifa's methodology was mistakenand that their theories were false. Razi's wider purposein raising the possibility of minute variationswas to cast doubt on the falcsifa's conclusions about the physical structure of the heavens. Towardthatend, the possibility of an observationthat showed thatthe fixed starsmoved with varyingspeeds would be crucial. refusal to criticize observationsof the fixed stars In this light, Nisabuiri's in the course of his commentson aya 164 of Surat al-Baqara is quite significant. Nisaburimentionedthat Ptolemy in the Almagest had found that all of the fixed stars completeda revolutionin 36, 000 years, while laterastronomers had revised this figure to 25, 200 years. Regardless of these differences in the numberof years, Nisaburi never doubted that the fixed stars completed their rotationtogetherbecause there was no evidence to suggest
97. TK, vol. 4, p. 181. 98. Nisaburi:Sharh Tahriral-Majisti,Tunis MS 3663, 48v. 99. In Tawdihal-Tadhkira,Nisaburidid not exclude the possibility of the discovery of other spheresin the future. He wrote: "andone cannotbe certainthatat the same time there are not more [orbs]."(FatihMS 3397, 108r). Nisaburimay not have stated outright,in his comments on this dya, that the fixed stars were found in a single sphere because he had previously acknowledgedthe possibility that other spheresor orbs might exist. 100. TK, vol. 4, p. 181. "Al-tariqild wahdat kull kura laysa illd md dhakarnmhu wa-zayyafnahu."

135

ROBERTG. MORRISON

otherwise. (101) Razi could not supportwith observationaldata his contention that the fixed stars were in multiple spheres and moved with different
speeds. (102)

Nisbfiri's commentson zaya164 of Suratal-Baqarawere not the only insof tanceof a rebuttal criticismsoffalsafa's portrayal the heavens. IbnRushd of (d. 1198), widely known for his responseto Ghazali'scritiqueof causalityin
Tahdfut al-tahdfut (Incoherence of the Incoherence) (103), had noted that all

availableobservations would supportthe originallyAristotelianhypothesis thatthe fixed starswerein a single sphere.('04)IbnRushdreiterated Aristotle's view thatif the starswere in differentspheres,it would be extremelyunlikely that all the sphereswould move with the same speed. Besides Ibn Rushd's and the refusalof Tusi and otherastronomers concludethat the to argument fixed starswere in a single sphere,Nisaburialso statedelsewherein GQ that the fixed starswere found in a single spherealthoughhe did not completely dismiss the possibilityof multiplespheres.(105)Once again, this came in response to a passagein TK whereRazi had assertedthatone could not exclude the possibilityof multiplespheresfor the fixed stars.(06) Hence, Nisaburi's bothfalsafa's essential distinctionbetdepictionof the heavens incorporated ween the terrestrial heavenlyrealmsandfalsafa'sconclusionthata simple and observedcelestialmotionwas best accountedfor by a single sphere. Additiothat of nally,Nisabiri'sportrayal the heavenlyrealmwas free of the skepticism in fromfalsafa when he allowed God the possibiappeared TK. He departed accurate observations lity of violatingtheheavens. Still, humanscouldperform and could confidentlyproposevalid physicalmechanisms(i. e. arrangements of spheres)to explainthese observations.

101. GQ, vol. 2, p. 84. 102. Rizi's unwillingnessto attributea single motion to a single mover was most blatantin the case of the mover responsiblefor the diurnalrotationof the heavens as a whole: "Onecannotbe certainof the unity it of the sphereof the diurnalmotion...perhaps is many spheres,which differ in the measuresof theirmotions by a very insignificantmeasure(miqddrqalil jiddan), our lives not sufficing to determine that difference (TK, vol. 4, p. 181) While the heavens might not rotateexactly in the period of a nychthemeron (tafdwut)." (i. e. the period of a day and a night), a single sphere could account for that rotation,whateverits period. Nisbuiirirespondedconcisely that the outermostspherecompleted its rotationin the period of a nychthemeron. (GQ, vol. 2, p. 84) 103. Ibn Rushd (ed. MauriceBouyges): Tahdfutal-tahdfut (Bibliotheca ArabicaScholasticorum; repr. Beirut:Dar al-Machreq,1992). 104. Ibn Rushd (ed. Rafiq al-'Ajam): Risclat al-samd' wa-'l-'dlam (Beirut: Dar al-fikr al-lubnani, 1994): pp. 68-9. There existed as well the separateissue of how the spheres'great distance from the earth rendersdirect knowledge of them quite difficult. Maimonides arguedthat this distance requiredthat astronomy'sphysical theoremsremainconjectural. [See Moses Maimonides(trans.Shlomo Pines): The Guideof the Perplexed (Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press, 1963): p. 326.] 105. GQ, vol. 1, p. 211. In Tawdi/h al-Tadhkira,one of Nisbuiiri'stexts on astronomy,he acceptedthe one-spheremodel (Tunis MS 13533, 74r-74v). See also Ragep (1993), p. 389. 106. TK, vol. 2, pp. 156-7. Both Rizi and Nisfibri were commentingon dya 28 of Surat al-Baqara.

136

THE PORTRAYALOF NATURE IN A MEDIEVALQUR'AN COMMENTARY

5. Conclusion of Nisaburi'sportrayal naturein GQ depictedtruenatural processes in the terrestrial celestial realms, while Razi had argueda centuryearlierthat and one could perceive only the appearanceof naturalprocesses. In so doing, Nisaburiwas much more faithfulthanRazi to the conclusions of thefaldsifa. Nisaburiagreedwith thefaldsifa thatmatterwas made of either the four terrestrialelements or the celestial quintessence. Additionally,Nisabiri accepted, with some modifications,thefaldsifa's belief in secondarycauses. It is noteworthythata 14'h centurythinkerwould defendfalsafa in a tafsir. After Nisaburi wrote in an era where the dispute betweenfalsafa and kaldm all, had been resolved in favor of kaldm. (107) Nisabiri's portrayalof natureis significanton a more generallevel because it illustratedthe role thattechnical discussions of science andfalsafa could play in late medieval Islamic thought. In future publications I intend to compare the role of Nisabfiri's and of portrayal naturein his tafsirat (exoteric interpretations) ta'wildt (esoteric interpretations). RobertG. Mourison WhitmanCollege*

107.Sabra (1994),pp. 12-13. * The author and of wouldlike to thankGlenCooper Brigham youngUniversity GeorgeSalibaof Columbia for comments ... and University their

137