And it is recited: "It runs to a resting place for it." Ibn Mas'ud recited: "There is no resting place for it," meaning: it continues to run and does not settle. It is also recited: "There is no resting place for it," on the basis that "no" means "not." This running is according to that precise calculation and estimation which the wise cannot extract and the minds are bewildered in deducing it. It is nothing but an estimation of the predominant by His ability over every able thing, encompassing knowledge of every known thing. It is recited: "And the moon" raised as a subject, or as an addition to the night. He means: among His signs is the moon. And it is in the accusative due to a verb that is explained by "We have determined it," and there must be in "We have determined its stations" an additional estimation, because there is no meaning in estimating the moon itself as stations. The meaning is: We have determined its course as stations, which are twenty-eight stations. The moon descends each night in one of them, not surpassing it nor falling short of it, according to a steady estimation that does not vary. It moves each night from the beginning to the twenty-eighth, then it conceals itself for two nights or one night when the month decreases. These stations are the positions of the stars to which the Arabs attributed the rainy seasons, and they are: the two horns, Al-Batin, Al-Thurayya, Al-Dabaran, Al-Haqa, Al-Han'a, Al-Dhira', Al-Nathra, Al-Tarf, Al-Jabha, Al-Zubara, Al-Sarfah, Al-Awwa, Al-Samak, Al-Ghafr, Al-Zabani, Al-Ikleel, Al-Qalb, Al-Shawla, Al-Na'eem, Al-Balda, Sa'd Al-Dhabih, Sa'd Bal'a, Sa'd Al-Su'ud, Sa'd Al-Akhbiyah, the front bucket emptied, the back bucket emptied, Al-Rasha. So when it is at the end of its stations, it becomes thin and curves back, resembling the old stalk of a date palm, from its tops to its root in the palm tree. Al-Zajjaj said: It is "Fa'loon" from the act of bending. And it is recited: "Al-'Arjoun," with the weight of "Al-Farjoun." Both are two dialects, like Al-Baziyun and Al-Baziyun, and the old one that is transformed. When it is presented, it becomes thin and bends and turns yellow, so it is likened to it from three aspects. It is said: The least duration described as old is a year. If a man says: Every slave of mine that is old is free, or writes that in his will: he frees those who have passed a year or more. And it is recited: "The preceding of the day," based on the original meaning. The meaning is: Allah, the Exalted, has divided for each of the night and the day and their signs a portion of time, and set for them a known limit, and arranged their matter in succession. Therefore, it should not be for the sun: meaning it is not easy for it, nor is it correct or proper for the occurrence of the arrangement on succession, even though He has made for each of the two lights a dominion over its own. Al-Mahmoud said: "Its meaning is that each of them does not enter upon the other in its dominion, so it obscures its light, but they are successive by virtue of His arrangement." He said: "If you say: Why did you make the sun non-overlapping and the moon preceding?" I say: Because the sun moves slowly, completing its orbit in a year, while the moon completes its orbit in a month. Thus, the sun, due to its slowness, is deserving of being described as overlapping, and the moon, due to its speed, is deserving of being described as preceding." Al-Ahmad said: "It is taken from this verse that the day follows the night, which is the well-known view of the jurists. Its explanation from the verse is that it made the sun, which is the sign of the day, non-overlapping to the moon, which is the sign of the night. The negation of overlapping is because it is the one that can occur, and that necessitates the advance of the moon and the following of the sun, for it is not said: The preceding overtakes the following, but the following overtakes the preceding. And according to the possibility, the negation is designated, so the night is the one that is followed and the day is the one that follows.

If it is said: Is it necessary for the night to precede the day based on this? And the verse has stated that it does not precede, the answer is: This is a shared obligation. Its explanation is that the possible categories are three: either the day is dependent on the night, which is the opinion of the jurists, or the opposite, which is reported from a group of grammarians, or both occur together. This third category is negated by consensus. Therefore, only the dependency of the day on the night and its opposite remain. This question applies to both, because whoever says that the day precedes the night must also imply that the eloquence requires saying: 'And the night does not overtake the day.' For the later one, if it is denied its overtaking, is more eloquent than denying the precedence of the former. Moreover, it is distanced from the implication of his saying: 'The sun should not overtake the moon,' in a way that does not unify the meaning with the wording. For Allah, glorified and exalted is He, has denied that it overtakes, let alone that it precedes. If this is established, the accurate response is that the negation of precedence necessitates the delay of the day from the night and the interposition of another time between them. At that point, succession is established, which is the intent of the verse. As for the precedence of the first of the two succeeding each other over the latter, it is not considered. Do you not see the response of Musa when he said: 'They are right behind me'? He was excusing himself from the saying of Allah, glorified and exalted is He: 'And what made you hasten from your people?' It is as if he made this haste easy by saying they are right behind him. How would it be if he were ahead and they were right behind him with no distance intervening between them? If that were to happen, the context of the verse would necessitate that it would not be considered haste or precedence. At that point, the claim of the day preceding the night would contradict the beginning of the verse in a way that does not allow for interpretation. For there is a great distance between the absence of overtaking, which indicates delay and dependency, and precedence, which also contradicts the rest of the verse. If the night were dependent and delayed, it would be more appropriate to describe it as not overtaking, and it would not reach the point of not preceding. The claim of the night preceding the day would explicitly align with the beginning of the verse, and its inability to be interpreted in any way is suitable for the structure of the Qur'an, while the establishment of its opposite is closer to the truth than the vein of its blood. And Allah is the one who grants success in the truth of the saying and its guidance. The sun does not overtake the moon, meaning the sign of the night is the sign of the day, and they are the two fires. And the matter continues in this arrangement until Allah nullifies what has been planned of that and overturns what has been established, bringing together the sun and the moon, and the sun rises from its west. If you say: Why did you make the sun not overtaking and the moon not preceding? I say: Because the sun does not traverse its orbit except in a year, while the moon traverses its orbit in a month. Therefore, the sun is deserving of being described as overtaking due to its slow movement compared to the movement of the moon, which is fitting to be described as preceding. And all of them, the noun with the tanween is in place of the added noun, and the meaning is: And all of them, and the pronoun refers to the suns and moons as previously mentioned.