And “setting,” by the unanimous agreement of linguists and Quranic commentators, means disappearing and becoming concealed. Indeed, this is self-evident in the Arabic language in which the Quran was revealed, and scholars unanimously agree that this is the intended meaning.

Thus, Abraham did not say, “I do not love those that set,” until the star had set and disappeared from sight, so that it was no longer visible or witnessed. Only then did he say, “I do not love those that set.” This entails that its movement and change of place, with temporal events occurring in it—indeed, its being a body occupying space in which temporal events occur—were not, in Abraham’s view, grounds for withholding love from it.

If Abraham inferred from its “setting” that it was not the Lord of the worlds—as they claim—then it follows that the characteristics of the thing that sets—its movement and change of place, its being subject to temporal events, indeed its being a body occupying space—were not, for Abraham, evidence that it was not the Lord of the worlds. Accordingly, Abraham’s account must be evidence for the opposite of what they seek to establish, not for their particular conclusion. Such is the way of the people of innovation: scarcely do they advance an argument from revelation or reason without its proving, upon reflection, to be evidence against them rather than in their favour.

However, when Abraham, peace be upon him, said, “This is my Lord,” he did not mean that it was the Lord of the worlds. Nor did any of his people say that it was the Lord of the worlds—assuming that such a belief could be attributed to them. Rather, they were polytheists who acknowledged the Maker. They took the stars, the sun, and the moon as lords, invoking them besides Allah and building temples for them. Books have been composed on doctrines like theirs, such as The Hidden Secret: On Magic and Addressing the Stars, and other works.