BİRİNCİ FEN · İKİNCİ BÂB · BİRİNCİ FASIL · Birinci Madde
First Article
It explains the evidence for the roundness of the celestial spheres and elements, and strange matters pertaining to this subject.
O esteemed one! Know that astronomers have said: Astronomers say that it is necessary to refrain from the proofs advanced regarding the roundness of the celestial spheres and elements, so that the acceptance of the world as a sphere (a rotating form) and the earth as a globe may be established. For all the fundamental rules of this science are founded upon the assumption that the universe and the earth are spherical, and nothing else is seen to be possible.
If this philosophical view is deemed contrary to Islamic belief, then in order to dispel this error and appease hearts, we present here the verbatim translation into Turkish of passages from the work “The Incoherence of the Philosophers” by the eminent Imam Muhammad al-Ghazali, may peace be upon him [31/a]. That great Imam said: "It is known that disagreements between philosophers and the common people are of three kinds. The first kind involves disagreement which is merely a verbal dispute. For example, when philosophers call the Creator of the universe ‘essence’ and say that essence is not an entity residing in a place, meaning they define it as an existence transcendent to place, self-subsistent – [443] The second kind involves disagreements on matters not pertaining to the fundamentals of religion. In these matters, there is no necessity to engage in argument with philosophers, for it does not require acceptance of the prophets. That is, accepting those matters does not necessitate denying the prophets or their exact opposite.
For example, when they say: ‘An eclipse of the moon (husuf-i kamer) occurs because the earth passes between the sun and the moon, causing the lunar light to disappear, for the moon receives its light from the sun, and the earth is spherical, and the sky encompasses the earth from all sides. Whenever the moon is in the shadow of the earth, this prevents the sunlight from striking the moon,’ –
And when they say: ‘A solar eclipse (küsûf-i şems) occurs when an object of the moon passes between the person facing the sun from the earth and the sun, and this happens when the beginnings and ends of the sun and moon coincide at one time’– such words of the philosophers are merely verbal disputes, and it is not necessary to refute them with arguments.
If someone considers arguing with philosophers on such matters as a religious obligation, then he has essentially weakened religion and betrayed it with baseless claims. For geometry and mathematics have proven that the things mentioned will occur as the philosophers describe.
[The disadvantages of engaging in debate on these matters in the name of religion without possessing the definite proofs attained by scholars are:]
If someone possesses certain knowledge regarding the natural phenomena we mentioned above, and is capable of demonstrating them; if he were to state the cause, time, quantity, and duration of those events, and then be told ‘This contradicts your religion,’ [this would not be true]. For he does not doubt a matter about which he knows with definite proofs. Perhaps he doubts the religion, wondering 'How can religion contradict certain knowledge?'
Now we say that the harm caused by those who seek to harm religion is greater than the harm caused by those who attempt to help without proper guidance. As it is said: ‘A clever enemy is better than a foolish friend.’
Following this, Imam al-Ghazali may peace be upon him, recounts the hadith concerning solar and lunar eclipses and says: “If it were said that the phrase added at the end of the hadith, 'The eclipse of the moon is a display of divine majesty,' what would you say? We would say that this sentence has been appended to the end of the hadith, and it is not correct to transmit it in this form. Even if it were authentic, it is more prudent to interpret [444] it rather than arguing over matters of certainty. How can it be more prudent when numerous miracles have been interpreted with rational proofs? Let alone giving credence to something that is not authentically transmitted.
In such debate environments, what most delights the freethinkers (mülhid) is when Muslims reject a matter that has been proven by the natural sciences and whose truth is evident, saying ‘These are acts of disbelief, contrary to religion.’ For in this way, they have opened and even facilitated a path for disregarding religious principles. And a situation arises where something you oppose in the name of religion must be accepted because of its established proof. In a debate with philosophers regarding whether the universe has existed from eternity or was created (hudûs and kudûm), what is important is the acceptance that the universe was created. After this point, their other words, which can be considered details, are not of primary importance.
For example, the theses concerning the shape of the universe; whether it is accepted as round or flattened. The celestial spheres and elements, whether they are thirteen layers as the philosophers claim, or fewer, or more. All these things do not harm the fundamentals of religion. For it does not matter what form the universe takes. What is important here is to express that it came into being through the knowledge and infinite power of God.
The third kind involves arguing with philosophers on a matter pertaining to a fundamental principle of religion. These are matters such as whether the universe was created (hudûs-i âlem), the attributes of God, and the resurrection of bodies (haşr). It is obligatory to oppose them in matters that pertain to the fundamentals of religion. They must be refuted with the proofs presented by religion regarding their theses.
Here is the English translation of the provided text, aiming for faithfulness and preservation of meaning within a classical/Sufi context:
They say that this world is eternal ( *qadīm*). For it rests upon something ancient, and whatever is attributed to something ancient must itself be ancient. Therefore, the world too is ancient.
We refute their words, saying that the world is created anew (*ḥādith*). For it changes every moment. And anything subject to change is necessarily *ḥādith*. Thus, the world is *ḥādith*.
The words of Imam al-Ghazali, may Allah have mercy upon him, are included here for this purpose: so that sincere individuals devoted to the truth will not, when they encounter surprising developments, discoveries, and inventions later on, reject them as being contrary to religion. They should not stray into denial.