And in Arabic usage, “setting” is not known to mean movement or passage from one place to another, nor change in the sense of transformation from one attribute to another—let alone activity in which attributes undergo no transformation.

Abraham said:

“I do not love those that set” (al-An‘ām: 76).

He said this only to refute those who took a star as an object of worship besides Allah, as those who invoke the stars do, and as his people used to do. He was not refuting anyone who claimed that the star was the Lord of the worlds, for no one had said this; rather, his people were polytheists. Had Abraham intended to deny that the star was the Lord of the worlds, and argued for this on the basis of its setting, that would have constituted an argument against them. For when he saw the star, the moon, and the sun rising, they were in motion from the time they rose until they set. Yet during that time he did not disavow love for them as he did when they disappeared.

This shows that the change, motion, and passage from one place to another that they mentioned did not conflict with Abraham’s purpose, peace be upon him. What conflicted with it was disappearing and becoming hidden from view. If his purpose was to deny that the star was the Lord of the worlds, this would have been an argument against them, not in their favour. They would thus have attributed to Abraham the view that change, motion, and passage from one place to another did not preclude something possessing these characteristics from being the Lord of the worlds. Thus, even if their account were correct, it would constitute an argument against them, not in their favour.