Moreover, if his argument (1) had been based on motion and change of place, he would not have waited [until] (2) it disappeared. Rather, the very (3) motion he witnessed from the time it rose until (4) it disappeared would itself (5) have been afūl.
Moreover, its motion (6) after disappearing and being concealed is neither observed nor known.
Moreover, if his statement:
{This is my Lord}
meant (7), “This is the Lord of all worlds,” then the account of Abraham [peace be upon him] (8) would have constituted evidence against them, because he (9) would not then have regarded motion (10) as precluding its being the Lord of all worlds; rather, the sole impediment would have been afūl (11).
And when (12) these men distorted the term afūl, Ibn Sīnā adopted [this approach] (13)
(1) *Ihtijājuhu* (“his argument”): thus in A, N, and M; B reads *ihtijābuhu* (“its concealment”). The meaning is that if Abraham’s argument—peace and blessings be upon him—against the lordship of the stars, sun, or moon had been based on the motion and change of position of each, he would not have needed to wait until it disappeared. Rather, the motion visible to the naked eye would itself have sufficed to demonstrate that it was not a lord.
(2) “Until” is omitted from N and M.
(3) N and M read: “He did not wait for it to disappear; rather, the motion itself…” etc.
(4) N reads: “until the time of.”
(5) B reads: “it is.”
(6) N and M read: “its movements.”
(7) “That is” is omitted from A and B.
(8) “Peace be upon him” is added in A and B.
(9) N and M read: “because they.”
(10) N and M read: “in their view.”
(11) See the commentary on verses 74–79 of Surat al-Anām in *Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr*.
(12) N alone reads: “and not,” which is a corruption.
(13) “This approach” is omitted from N alone.