Response to a doubt regarding the roundness of Earth

An argument that people still bring today, that was brought from Fakhr al Dīn al Rāzī (d. 606 AH), is still being used today. It is an argument that is supposed to force the opponent into accepting the earth is flat, which we know empirically is false, so that would be a big cost for them, thus lowering their priors, or accepting that Allah is in every direction one points. This argument is attempting to demonstrate that saying Allah is above His creation spatially leads to some absurdity.

There are some people, sadly, who end up submitting into saying the earth is, in fact, flat, and this is not something that is even committing in the first place, so we won’t even address that part, since it isn’t considered an option to accept to begin with. As for the second, there are many points that one may bring against you on this, and I will clarify the correct understandings by the permission of Allah.

There are, in fact, some narrations from the Salaf, including Ibn Abbas himself, that can be used to demonstrate the second view, that Allah encompasses his creation. We will begin by defending this view. It seems more so, when it comes to this view, that the opponent is attacking one’s intuition rather than giving an argument that leads to a contradiction or some absurdity.

If Allah was above in every direction, then that would also mean the throne is also in every direction, and likewise the heavens. However, Allah would be greater than them by far and encompass both, and even if the Throne was spherical, this would not entail that Allah resembles the spheres in shape, magnitude, or attributes.

The reason why I say that it is an attack on one’s intuition is because, often times, you’ll see people who argue against this view by showing a picture of what the model of the universe would look like and attempt at saying that Allah would be rectangular or spherical, and likewise the throne would be too, and this isn’t really an argument to begin with.

The opponent might ask, ‘What benefit is there in us directing ourselves to Allah upward during supplication and worship rather than downward if, on that side of the earth, Allah would actually be below you?’

They then say that there is no difference regardless of what direction you supplicate in. Ibn Taymiyyah responds by saying this assumes that half of the sphere is beneath the earth and the other half is above the earth. He then says that this is false, because if the sphere were beneath the earth from one direction, it would be beneath it from every direction. The sphere is, in fact, above the earth absolutely. Let’s try to give an example here, and I am not likening Allah to creation by doing so.

وأما قول القائل: إذا كان كرياً والله من ورائه محيط به بائن عنه، فما فائدة أن العبد يتوجه إلى الله حين دعائه وعبادته فيقصد العلو دون التحت، فلا فرق حينئذ وقت الدعاء بين قصد جهة العلو وغيرها من الجهات التي تحيط بالداعي؟ … فيقال له: هذا السؤال إنما ورد لتوهم المتوهم أن نصف الفلك يكون تحت الأرض وتحت ما على وجه الأرض من الآدميين والبهائم، وهذا غلط عظيم، فلو كان الفلك تحت الأرض من جهة لكان تحتها من كل جهة، فكان يلزم أن يكون الفلك تحت الأرض مطلقاً، وهذا قلب للحقائق، إذ الفلك هو فوق الأرض مطلقاً

Ibn Taymiyyah said: As for the statement of the one who says: if the celestial sphere is spherical, and Allah is beyond it, encompassing it and separate from it, then what benefit is there in the servant directing himself to Allah during supplication and worship by intending the direction of elevation rather than the direction beneath? In that case there would be no difference at the time of supplication between intending the direction of elevation and any other direction that surrounds the one who is supplicating.

It is said to him: this question only arises because the one who asks it imagines that half of the celestial sphere is beneath the earth and beneath those who are upon the earth such as humans and animals. This is a great mistake. If the sphere were beneath the earth from one direction, then it would be beneath it from every direction. That would mean the sphere would be beneath the earth absolutely. This turns realities upside down, since the sphere is in fact above the earth absolutely. (Majmuʿ al Rasaʾil wa al Masaʾil 4/123)

أن الأرض هي تحت السماء حيث كانت، وأن السماء فوق الأرض حيث كانت

He also said: The earth is beneath the heaven wherever it may be, and the heaven is above the earth wherever it may be. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 4/30)

In the above diagram, you would not say that the shell is below the ball. Even if you stand on the bottom of the ball, the shell appears below your feet, but this is only your personal orientation and not the true spatial relation.

Also, if they believe this is a good argument, then this argument of theirs would go against them, and they would be forced to deny the existence of the heavens or take it as a metaphor. This is what some of the Jahmiya did regarding the throne of Allah. They ended up saying it was simply the highest creation or taking it to be a metaphor because they wanted to negate Allah’s aboveness. Isn’t this what is, in fact, absurd? Here is a simple illustration one can bring to them.

Now, if we take this diagram and assume the earth is not flat in their view, and that heaven is truly above us, then what about on the opposite side of the earth? Is it still above us in their view? Would they then negate the existence of the Heavens? Every direction from the earth leads to the heavens. The heavens would not be under the earth anywhere, but rather encloses it. If they believe that this is ‘below ness’ in some sense, this isn’t the heaven being below the earth in reality.

The heavens would be outside of the earth in every direction, and the opponent would be confusing one’s ‘down’ being relative for a person on earth to then claiming the heavens would then be absolutely down, but this is false. If you were in your room, and the floor is below you and the ceiling is above you, would you say that your room is below you? The room would be surrounding you, so it would not be proper to say it is ‘below’ you.

Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) then continues this point, saying that if two people on the opposite sides of the earth went down until they met the centre of the earth, their feet would meet and neither of them would be beneath the other. Rather, both would be above the centre and both beneath the heavens.

وأهل الهيئة يقولون: لو أن الأرض مخروقة إلى ناحية أرجلنا وألقي في الخرق شيء ثقيل كالحجر ونحوه لكان ينتهي إلى المركز، حتى لو ألقي من تلك الناحية حجر آخر لالتقينا جميعاً في المركز، ولو قدر أن إنسانين التقيا في المركز بدل الحجر لالتقت رجلاهما ولم يكن أحدهما تحت الآخر بل كلاهما فوق المركز وكلاهما تحت الفلك كالمشرق والمغرب

Ibn Taymiyyah said “The astronomers say: if the earth were pierced through in the direction of our feet, and something heavy, such as a stone and the like, were dropped into that opening, it would come to the centre. Then, even if another stone were dropped from that other side, they would all meet together at the centre. And if it were supposed that two human beings met at the centre instead of the stones, their feet would meet, and neither of them would be beneath the other. Rather, both of them would be above the centre, and both of them would be beneath the celestial sphere, like the east and the west.” (Majmuʿ al Rasaʾil wa al Masaʾil, 4/123)

Another objection that some bring is that this would mean that you are inside of Allah. This is incorrect, and only someone with little intellect would say such a thing. If Allah is separate from his creation, how would we be inside? If one person surrounded an object, would it be proper to say that object is inside of you? This is clearly confused, and this objection itself is not good.

The opponent might also say that you are now a panentheist because of such a position! Panentheism translates from the Greek to ‘all in God’. If you are committed to the fact that Allah is not actually inside of creation, then this would not be panentheistic.

This is an ontic claim, and the universe would have to be nested within Allah’s being. He is not ontically present with us, so this objection is very weak. We see that the one who wants to deny Allah’s aboveness will try to find any reason to negate it, even if they turn into sophists, they do not care.

Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) says, regarding the hadith of lowering a rope, reported from Abu Hurayrah رضي الله عنه and Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه, was narrated by al Tirmidhī (d. 279 AH) and others through al Ḥasan al Baṣrī (d. 110 AH) from Abu Hurayrah رضي الله عنه, but it is disconnected since al Ḥasan al Baṣrī (d. 110 AH) did not hear from Abu Hurayrah رضي الله عنه.

وحديث الأدلاء الذي روي من حديث أبي هريرة وأبي ذر قد رواه الترمذي وغيره من حديث الحسن عن أبي هريرة وهو منقطع، فإن الحسن لم يسمع من أبي هريرة، ولكن يقويه حديث أبي ذر المرفوع، فإن كان ثابتاً فمعناه موافق لهذا

“The hadith of lowering the rope, which was reported through the hadith of Abu Hurayrah and Abu Dharr, was narrated by al Tirmidhi and others through al Hasan from Abu Hurayrah, but it is disconnected, since al Hasan did not hear from Abu Hurayrah. However, the marfu hadith of Abu Dharr gives it support. So if it is established, then its meaning agrees with this.” (Majmu al Rasa il wa al Masa il, 4/126)

However, it is strengthened by the Marfu’ hadith of Abu Dharr. If it is authentic, its meaning is in line with what we are saying here. However, keep in mind he doesn’t just grant it out right. Something Christians, Ash’aris, Jews, and Shias have been asking is, ‘If you take a rocket ship upward would you meet Allah?’ to try and mock our position.

Ibn Taymiyyah has already responded to these types of questions. He says, “If one of you were to lower a rope, it would descend upon Allah” is only a hypothetical supposition, that is, if such lowering did occur, then you would reach Allah. But no one can actually lower anything upon Allah, because Allah is exalted in his dhat.

When something is lowered towards the direction of the earth, it stops at the center and does not rise toward the other side. Yet, if we hypothetically assume the lowering, the consequence described would follow.

Even in the New Testament, John 20:17 demonstrates that God is above his creation spatially, so the fact that a Christian would mock this is astonishing.

Ibn Taymiyyah continues, saying that intuitively one does not seek Allah in this direction to begin with, and in reality, lowering the rope would get us to the center of the earth, and in the minds of the listeners what is beneath their feet is thought as descending here. But, as we mentioned above, if two people meet at the center, and the other person passes the center and he continued ‘descending’, would you still say he is descending? Or would you now say he is ascending?

فَهَكَذَا مَا ذَكَرَهُ السَّائِلُ: إِذَا قُدِّرَ أَنَّ الْعَبْدَ يَقْصِدُهُ مِنْ تِلْكَ الْجِهَةِ كَانَ هُوَ سُبْحَانَهُ يَسْمَعُ كَلَامَهُ وَكَانَ مُتَوَجِّهًا إِلَيْهِ بِقَلْبِهِ لَكِنَّ هَذَا مِمَّا تَمْنَعُ مِنْهُ الْفِطْرَةُ … وَإِنَّمَا يُسَمَّى هُبُوطًا بِاعْتِبَارِ مَا فِي أَذْهَانِ الْمُخَاطَبِينَ أَنَّ مَا يُحَاذِي أَرْجُلَهُمْ يَكُونُ هَابِطًا وَيُسَمَّى هُبُوطًا مَعَ تَسْمِيَةِ إهْبَاطِهِ إِدْلَاءً وَهُوَ إِنَّمَا يَكُونُ إِدْلَاءً حَقِيقِيًّا إِلَى الْمَرْكَزِ وَمِنْ هُنَاكَ إِنَّمَا يَكُونُ مَدًّا لِلْحَبْلِ وَالدَّلْوِ لَا إِدْلَاءَ لَهُ

“So likewise, concerning what the questioner mentioned: if it were assumed that the servant seeks Him from that direction, then He, glorified is He, would hear his speech, and his heart would be turned toward Him. But this is something that the natural disposition does not permit .. It is only called descending because, in the minds of those being addressed, whatever lies in line with their feet is thought of as descending. It is called descending, along with calling its lowering ‘letting down’, though in reality it is only truly a lowering down to the centre. From there, it is only an extension of the rope and bucket, not a lowering down.” (Majmuʿ al Fatawa, al Risalah al ʿArshiyyah, 6/571–572)

So, relative to Allah, it would not be said to have ‘descended’ to him. However, relative to us, what lies beneath our feet is beneath us and what lies above our heads is above us. What we lower from the direction of our heads toward the direction of our feet we think to be descending.

Thus, if we did lower a rope, we would think ourselves to be descending. In any case, this shows Allah is encompassing his creation in this view, and it is a hypothetical scenario regardless. We can easily ask the Christian if God can hypothetically incarnate as a woman and die on the cross. What exactly would stop this in their view? We have shown that there is no contradiction nor any incoherency in this view, so we will move onto the next.

Rather than saying Allah encompasses the creation, one could simply say that he is, in fact, above the creation, although even in some parts where we are located on earth, if we pointed downward, Allah would not be in this direction. However, he would, in fact, be above us either way.

Going back to this diagram, it is clear that the earth is below the heaven, even if from some points on earth, if we pointed up, the heaven would not be in that specific direction. This does not negate the fact that the heaven is still above the earth. So, we could simply say that when it comes to intensional contexts, by pointing in this direction Allah would not be there, although him as an object is still above me.

In an intensional context, the truth depends on how the object is described or thought about, the intension, not just who they are. Someone might object and say, “but you are actually pointing downward in reality and not to Allah”, and this is completely fine. We are still intending to point to Allah, and there are even times when looking upward to Allah is not permitted. For example, when we pray, we are to humble ourselves to Allah and not look upward.

We find it in our natural inclination to supplicate upward, even if the servant is not aware of these intricate matters. Also, no one is going to think that they must look downward and supplicate in this direction because, on this side of the earth, pointing upward does not get to Allah. We would take the easier route to reach Allah regardless. The easiest exit to earth is from any side of it, going in the upward direction.

Ibn Taymiyyah says that one wants to reach the intended goal by pursuing it in a straight path, not an inverted distance one.

Ibn Taymiyyah then gives an analogy pertaining to travel, saying, “If someone says ‘I want to perform Hajj from the west’, but instead of going west toward Mecca, he travels east to Khurasan first, then turns around and goes to Mecca, they would be moving away from their goal. Rather, they should take the closest path to their goal.’

Ibn Taymiyyah says this is conceivable, and one could do this, but in terms of one’s intention, they would be approaching the object, yet also moving away from the object, and it is not natural for someone to make an intention in this manner.

So, even if one were to say Allah is above absolutely, however on some parts of the earth if I went upward relative to myself, I would not reach Allah, this would in no way be problematic.

ولو فرض أنه قال : أقصده من اليمين مع العلو أو من السفل مع العلو : كان هذا بمنزلة من يقول : أريد أن أحج من المغرب فأذهب إلى خراسان ثم أذهب إلى مكة ; بل بمنزلة من يقول أصعد إلى الأفلاك فأنزل في الأرض ثم أصعد إلى الفلك من الناحية الأخرى ; فهذا وإن كان ممكنا في المقدور لكنه مستحيل من جهة امتناع إرادة القاصد له ; وهو مخالف للفطرة فإن القاصد يطلب مقصوده بأقرب طريق لا سيما إذا كان مقصوده معبوده الذي يعبده ويتوكل عليه وإذا توجه إليه على غير الصراط المستقيم كان سيره منكوسا معكوسا .
و أيضا : فإن هذا يجمع في سيره وقصده بين النفي والإثبات بين أن يتقرب إلى المقصود ويتباعد عنه ; ويريده وينفر عنه فإنه إذا توجه إليه من الوجه الذي هو عنه أبعد وأقصى وعدل عن الوجه الأقرب الأدنى كان جامعا بين قصدين متناقضين ; فلا يكون قصده له تاما ; إذ القصد التام ينفي نقيضه وضده

And if it were assumed that he said, ‘I seek Him from the right together with upwardness, or from below together with upwardness,’ this would be like someone saying, ‘I want to perform Hajj from the west, so I will go to Khurasan, then go to Mecca.’ Rather, it is like someone saying, ‘I will ascend to the celestial spheres, then descend into the earth, then ascend to the sphere from the other side.’

Even if this is possible in terms of sheer ability, it is impossible from the perspective of the seeker’s intention. It goes against the natural disposition, because the seeker pursues his intended goal by the nearest path, especially when what he seeks is his object of worship, the One whom he worships and upon whom he relies. If he turns toward Him by other than the straight path, then his course is reversed and inverted.

Also, this combines in his movement and intention both negation and affirmation, in that he both draws near to the intended goal and moves away from it, and both seeks it and recoils from it. For if he turns toward it from the direction that is farther and more distant from it, and leaves the nearer and closer direction, then he has combined 2 contradictory intentions. So his intention toward it is not complete, because complete intention excludes its opposite and its contrary.” (Majmuʿ al Fatawa6/569–570)

In my opinion, there just may be more support for the other view, since we have certain statements such as the one al Dārimī (d. 280 AH) transmits from ʿAbdullāh ibn al Mubārak (d. 181 AH), saying that when you are at the top of a minaret, you are closer to Allah than someone who is lower than the bottom of the minaret. Could one say that this is just in an intensional context as well? It seems one would be able to do so, given everything we have clarified above.

أَلا ترى أَن مَنْ صَعَدَ الجَبَلَ لَا يُقَالُ لَهُ: إِنَّهُ أَقْرَبُ إِلَى اللهِ تَعَالى. فَيُقَالُ لِهَذَا المُعَارِضِ المُدَّعِي مَا لَا عِلْمَ لَهُ: مَنْ أَنْبَأَكَ أَنَّ رَأْسَ الجَبَلِ لَيْسَ بِأَقْرَبَ إِلَى الله تَعَالَى مِنْ أَسْفَلِهِ؟ لِأَنَّهُ مَنْ آمَنَ بِأَنَّ اللهَ فَوْقَ عَرْشِهِ فَوْقَ سَمَاوَاتِهِ عَلِمَ يَقِينًا أَنَّ رَأْسَ الجَبَلِ أَقْرَبُ إِلَى الله مِنْ أَسْفَلِهِ، وَأَنَّ السَّمَاءَ السَّابِعَةَ أَقْرَبُ إِلَى عَرْشِ الله تَعَالَى مِنَ السَّادِسَةِ، وَالسَّادِسَةَ أَقْرَبُ إِلَيْهِ مِنَ الخَامِسَةِ، ثُمَّ كَذَلِكَ إِلَى الأَرْضِ. كَذَلِكَ رَوَى إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الحَنْظَلِيُّ، عَنِ ابْنِ المُبَارَكِ أَنَّهُ قَالَ: «رَأْسُ المَنَارَةِ أَقْرَبُ إِلَى الله مِنْ أَسْفَلِهِ». وَصَدَقَ ابْنُ المُبَارَكِ؛ لِأَنَّ كُلَّ مَا كَانَ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ أَقْرَبُ؛ كَانَ إِلَى اللهِ أَقْرَب.

Do you not see that whoever climbs the mountain, it is not said about him that he is closer to Allah Most High? So it is said to this opposing claimant, who has no knowledge: Who told you that the top of the mountain is not closer to Allah Most High than its bottom?

For whoever believes that Allah is above His Throne, above His heavens, knows with certainty that the top of the mountain is closer to Allah than its bottom, and that the seventh heaven is closer to the Throne of Allah Most High than the sixth, and the sixth is closer to Him than the fifth, then likewise down to the earth.

Likewise, Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm al Ḥanẓalī narrated from Ibn al Mubārak that he said: “The top of the minaret is closer to Allah than its bottom.” And Ibn al Mubārak spoke truthfully, because whatever is closer to the heaven is closer to Allah.”

Naqḍ al Dārimī ʿalā al Marīsī by ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd al Dārimī pg 193

To conclude, whether one assumes that Allah encompasses his creation or he is simply above them without encompassing his creation, we have demonstrated there is no contradiction entailed, nor is there any incoherency with such views.

The creatures are, in fact, smaller than him than a chickpea or peppercorn in the hand of one of us, and holding one of these in your hand does not make you spherical. Our hearts only direct ourselves to him in the upward direction, and both positions demonstrate that Allah is above his mighty throne.

Check out the brother’s Tiktok & Youtube

@rabbi.omar1

https://www.youtube.com/@MuslimLighthouse2.0