since when is it a part of aqidah? while alahazrat presents verses of the qur'an and ahadith (which are NOT marfu') but he interprets it as implicitly marfu' and it is implied because of other hadith of manaqib. unfortunately, his fauz e mubin has remained incomplete; and the last portion in which he intended to explain the verses of the qur'an is either lost or was not completed. one of the aayats of the qur'an is interpreted as being proof that the earth is stationary. but this is not nass qaTyi. this is deemed the commonly held interpretation, but if there is evidence to the contrary, then obviously it has to be interpreted. one should not forget the context: the astronomy of alahazrat's time was mainly based on calculations and observations from the earth. it is not wise to take accept his conclusions at face-value in the face of evidence in our time. whether we like it or not, there have been leaps and bounds in terms of research, observational and experimental data available in our times. in my opinion, it is not. imam ghazali in his qanun al-ta'wil says that there are three kinds of approaches to interpret verses of the qur'an. for want of time, i have summarised his approach below. [link for a translation provided far below]. 1. purely based on narrations (manqul) reject anything that appears to contradict it 2. the other extreme. purely rational and reject what has been narrated (manqul) to the point of even rejecting matters of faith if they couldn't comprehend it (or describe in rational terms) 3. the third are those who do ta'wil; but the primary basis of their ta'wil is to satisfy rational thought. and they go to ends to satisfy a rational explanation. and if they cannot do it, they reject the nass or belie narrators. 4. the fourth are those who do ta'wil: but their primary basis is naql / text and narration. they are well-versed in their knowledge of tradition and text; and they do ta'wil even if such ta'wil is not plausible. 5. fifth is the moderate group: those who seek to balance manqul with ma'qul [narrated proofs, texts with rational explanations]. because we cannot deny or ignore the rational approach. after all, the proofs of prophethood and other issues are examined on a rational basis. they seek to find a balance without outraging or falling foul of either denial or rejection of texts; OR propound something that seems irrational. imam ghazali also draws attention towards epistemology, albeit briefly - because what the mind deemed rational and scientific 500 years ago, was not rational 100 years ago. many things that sounded perfectly reasonable or 'commonly known and accepted by the scientific community' 100 years ago is rejected in our time as unscientific or irrational. the point is that one should not feel obliged to accept the research or theories prevalent in one's time and touted as THE truth. the truth according to a muslim is the qur'an and hadith. this is the major takeaway from alahazrat's rasail on this topic. ============= qanun al-kulli in arabic: https://www.ghazali.org/books/qununtawail-bejou.pdf a good translation can be found here: http://suraj.lums.edu.pk/~ss182/common/GhazaliQanunTawil.html frank griffel's appraisal of 'qanun al-kulli' from the brill work: islam and rationality. vol.1 p.89 onwards is a good read. BRILL links here: vol.1 and vol.2 (brill series numbering #94 and #98). if you find a PDF link on the net, please don't post it here as it may not be authorised. just sayin'. ---------------------- Allah ta'ala knows best.