العروة الوثقى الزيدية - موقع إسلامي يهدف لتعريف الزائر بفكر وتراث المسلمين الزيدية

The Question

Question: Our Imams (Peace be upon them) said: “O Allah, indeed the first thing Allah created was the air, which is a place that is not in a place.” They said: because if it had a place, this would lead to infinite regress, which is impossible. And the principle according to the investigators is that no body is intelligible except in a place, and it is impossible for there to exist a body that is not in a locus:
a) Does the statement of our Imams (Peace be upon them) amount to contradicting this principle?
b) According to this principle – namely, that it is impossible for there to exist a body that is not in a locus – it follows that affirming the air as “not in a place” is impossible, and affirming the air “in a place” is impossible because it leads to infinite regress. So why did our Imams (Peace be upon them) prefer the first statement, even though both are impossible, knowing that it is not permissible to assert something impossible?
c) Our Imams (Peace be upon them) adduced, as proof that the air is a subtle body, that it moves and rests, and that it fills skins and containers. This is known in the case of the air within the atmosphere. So is the air outside the atmosphere like that which is inside it, or is it still and unmoving? And if it is still and unmoving, is that a refutation of the proof of the Imams (Peace be upon them)?
d) Allah, exalted is He, said: “There is nothing like unto Him” [al-Shura: 11], and: “Nor is there to Him any equivalent” [al-Ikhlas:4]. So when our Imams (Peace be upon them) affirm air as being “not in a place,” does that make it share with Allah the attribute of placelessness?

The Answer

Answer: The word air (al-hawā’) is used and intended for two things:
1. The first is pure empty space (void).
2. The second is a subtle body residing in that void, which rests and moves and fills containers.
As for the first – which is pure void – it is neither a body nor an accident. This is what is meant by saying that it is “not in a place”. This is not described by motion or rest; rather, that which is described by them is only the body residing within it.
And as for the second – which is the subtle body that rests and moves and fills containers – its place is that void which we mentioned previously.
Thus, the statement of our Imams (Peace be upon them), that “the air was without a place,” is intended in the first sense.
And their statement that “the air is a subtle body” is intended in the second sense.
This, and what we have said already contains the answer to the questions up to the last but one, so understand.
And here is an example by which you know that place does not need a place: [imagine] an object whose length is ten centimetres, and its width is likewise, and its depth likewise. These dimensions themselves are its place; and necessarily it occupies of space only these dimensions. You will see that if you put it in water, it occupies nothing but those very dimensions. If those dimensions themselves needed a place, you would see the water splitting around them to the right and left. Since that does not occur, we know that they do not need a place.
As for the answer to the last question, we say: Their description of “place” as “not having a place” – this attribute, namely “not having a place”, only came to be after the coming-to-be of place. It is thus a originated attribute. On this basis, there is no similarity between the attribute of the Eternal and that of what is originated. What has occurred is only a sharing in the word, not in the meaning – just as the words “existent”, “able”, “knowing”, and “living” are used for both the Eternal and the originated. So reflect.

Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.3