Tafsir of Qaf 50:6

(Have they not looked)—meaning: have they been heedless or blind, such that they did not look—when they disbelieved in the Resurrection—at the sky above them, in such a way that they witness it at all times? It has been said: This is evident according to what is well-known among people, namely that what is witnessed is the sky, which is the specific celestial body that will be folded up on the Day of Resurrection, and which has been described in the verses and traditions as it has been described.

As for the view held by the philosophers—that what is witnessed is merely a sphere of vapor or air that appears in this color, while in reality it has no color, and that this lies below that celestial body—it contains obscurity. Some eminent scholars have said in this regard: The manifest meanings of the verses and traditions declare that the sky is visible. What the ancient philosophers mentioned—that the celestial spheres are solid, transparent bodies that cannot be seen—is not accepted at all. Similarly, the claim that the seven heavens are the seven spheres is not accepted by the verifying scholars, nor is the existence of the sphere of vapor, or the claim that what is between the sky and the earth is air of varying degrees of subtlety, such that the higher one goes, the more subtle it becomes, to the point where it may become unsuitable for life and cause blood to emerge from the extremely fine pores of those who reach it. Furthermore, seeing the atmosphere in this color does not negate the reality of seeing the sky, even if the sky itself is not colored by it; it is like seeing the bottom of the sea as green from behind its water, or similar things that are seen through an intermediary of a certain color while the object itself is of a different color. Indeed, it has been said: The visibility of the sky, despite the existence of the sphere of vapor, is like the visibility of luminous bodies, such as the bottom [of the sea] and the like.

You know that the scholars uphold the manifest meanings until evidence appears to show that what they indicate is impossible; only then do they interpret them metaphorically. Furthermore, committing oneself to reconciling what the Sharia has declared with what the philosophers have said, when they contradict one another, is harder than walking on water or ascending to the sky. I say: There is no harm in interpreting a manifest text with a proximate metaphorical interpretation for the sake of something philosophical if it contains a religious benefit and does not entail a religious corruption. I consider fairness to be part of religion, and rejecting an argument out of contempt for its proponent is unbecoming of verifying scholars. This being said, some have taken "the sky" here to mean the genus of celestial bodies, but this is as you see it. The manifest meaning is that it is the specific body, and that it is the lowest heaven—that is, "Have they not looked at the lowest heaven"—how We built it—meaning: We perfected it and raised it without pillars—and adorned it—for those who look, with stars arranged in the most wondrous system—and it has no rifts.

(6)

Meaning: no fissures or cracks. The intention is its flawlessness from every defect or imperfection, so it does not contradict the statement that it has gates. Some have claimed that the intention is that its layers are joined together; however, this contradicts what has been reported in the Hadith, that between each heaven and the next is a journey of five hundred years. Perhaps the delay of this [mention] was to observe the rhyming endings of the verses.

It is said: [The verse] here uses (Have they not looked) with the fa (implying sequence), whereas in another place it uses (Or have they not looked) with the waw (conjunction), because the denial of the Resurrection had preceded it, so it was appropriate to follow it with what implies reasoning for it. The word "looking" (nazar) was used rather than "seeing" (ru'ya), as in [the verse in] Al-Ahqaf, to reflect their distancing of the truth; as if it were said: "Looking" is sufficient to attain knowledge of the possibility of the Resurrection, and there is no need for "seeing." The Imam [al-Razi] said this, and he used the Almighty's statement (it has no rifts) as an argument against the philosophers regarding the impossibility of piercing [the heavens]. You know, however, that negating a thing does not prove its impossibility, especially since you have already heard what is intended by that [description], and it does not harm [the argument] that it is not a literal meaning, due to its common usage.