Argument#10
Statement No. 10
Repulsion and revolution as mutual causes
Explanations and summaries are editorial material. Consult the source to verify the original wording.
Faithful reading
My Statement No. 10: Here, they say that revolution occurs because of repulsion; this is their discreditable speculation. Yet they are also very fond of the idea that repulsion itself occurs because of revolution. That is meaningless and unreasonable. Modern astronomy, however, is well used to lying; its condemnation will take place in Chapter III, Insha-Allah.
Easy explanation
Immediately before Statement 10, the book presents a model in which the sun supplies an inward pull, called , while the planet has an outward-running tendency, called . The two are then said to produce the planet’s around the center.
Imam Ahmad Raza (rahmatullahi alayh) focuses on one simple question: in this explanation, which comes first—repulsion or revolution?
In one direction, the preceding explanation makes repulsion a cause of revolution. In plain words: the planet is said to keep moving away while attraction pulls inward, and this combination is used to explain why it goes around the center.
But the book had also described repulsion from the center by starting with a body that is already revolving. The faster the body is revolved, the stronger its outward tendency is said to appear. Read that way, revolution is being used to explain repulsion.
Put the two claims side by side. One says: repulsion helps produce revolution. The other says: revolution produces, or at least reveals, repulsion. Imam Ahmad Raza (rahmatullahi alayh) objects that the explanation has turned back on itself.
A simple analogy makes the point easier. Suppose someone says, “This wheel turns because force X exists.” Then, when asked why force X exists, the answer is, “Because the wheel turns.” The second answer has not supplied an independent starting reason; it has sent the explanation back to the first statement.
So the main target of Statement 10 is the order of cause and result. The point is not a new calculation in this short statement. It is a logical criticism of using repulsion to account for revolution while also using revolution to account for repulsion.
The source then uses very strong language about modern astronomy and says that its criticism will be taken up in Chapter III, God willing. Those words are Imam Ahmad Raza’s own judgment in the source; this explanation is only making his argument easier to follow.
The shortest way to remember Statement 10 is this: if repulsion is offered as the reason for revolution, the same explanation should not then depend on revolution as the reason for repulsion unless some separate starting cause is given. That is the cause-and-result loop Imam Ahmad Raza (rahmatullahi alayh) is objecting to here.
Imam Ahmad Raza (rahmatullahi alayh) focuses on one simple question: in this explanation, which comes first—repulsion or revolution?
In one direction, the preceding explanation makes repulsion a cause of revolution. In plain words: the planet is said to keep moving away while attraction pulls inward, and this combination is used to explain why it goes around the center.
But the book had also described repulsion from the center by starting with a body that is already revolving. The faster the body is revolved, the stronger its outward tendency is said to appear. Read that way, revolution is being used to explain repulsion.
Put the two claims side by side. One says: repulsion helps produce revolution. The other says: revolution produces, or at least reveals, repulsion. Imam Ahmad Raza (rahmatullahi alayh) objects that the explanation has turned back on itself.
A simple analogy makes the point easier. Suppose someone says, “This wheel turns because force X exists.” Then, when asked why force X exists, the answer is, “Because the wheel turns.” The second answer has not supplied an independent starting reason; it has sent the explanation back to the first statement.
So the main target of Statement 10 is the order of cause and result. The point is not a new calculation in this short statement. It is a logical criticism of using repulsion to account for revolution while also using revolution to account for repulsion.
The source then uses very strong language about modern astronomy and says that its criticism will be taken up in Chapter III, God willing. Those words are Imam Ahmad Raza’s own judgment in the source; this explanation is only making his argument easier to follow.
The shortest way to remember Statement 10 is this: if repulsion is offered as the reason for revolution, the same explanation should not then depend on revolution as the reason for repulsion unless some separate starting cause is given. That is the cause-and-result loop Imam Ahmad Raza (rahmatullahi alayh) is objecting to here.
No text is available in this reading mode yet. Choose another mode or open the source PDF.
Source PDFs
Page references belong to the source edition; other editions may use different pagination.