Tafsir of An-Naba' 78:12

"And We built above you seven strong ones": that is, seven heavens, strong in creation, firmly established, from which nothing falls that would prevent you from [earning] your livelihood. The expression of their creation as "building" is to liken them to domes erected over their inhabitants. It has been said that it is to indicate that their creation was done by degrees, though this is not strong. In this [description] is the implication that the heaven is tent-like, not a flat surface. There are traditions that attest to this, and it is not contradicted by describing it as a "ceiling" (saqf) in another verse. It has also been authentically reported in the ‘Urs (wedding/nuptial traditions) that which attests to its tent-like nature as well.

The ancient philosophers maintain its sphericity and apply the term "celestial sphere" (falak) to it. They provided evidence for this according to their principles, following the evidence for the sphericity of the apparent surface of the earth; yet, their proof for it is hardly complete. They said: "That which indicates the sphericity of the heaven is that whenever we designate several habitations on a single line of the earth’s latitude, and we determine the planets passing through the zenith in each one of them, then we consider the distances of the paths of those planets in the meridian circle relative to one another, we find them in the same proportions as the terrestrial distances between those habitations. Likewise, we find the altitude of the pole in them varying by those same proportions. Thus, the convexity of the heaven in latitude is similar to the convexity of the earth in it." However, this similarity exists for every line of latitude and likewise for every line of longitude, so the entire surface of the heaven is parallel to the entire apparent surface of the earth, and this surface is spherically curved in sensation; thus, so is the heaven parallel to it.

Furthermore, observers have recorded the magnitudes of the planetary bodies and the distances between them in different places at the same time—such as in the meridians of those places—and they are equal. This indicates the equality of the distances of the planetary centers from the observers' viewpoints, which necessitates the equality of their distances from the center of the world, due to the sphericity of the earth, which necessitates that the heaven is spherical. They claimed that these two are the closest things to be held onto regarding sphericity from the perspective of educational theory.

Regarding every debate: as for the second [argument], the debate against it is that it only holds true if the celestial sphere, in their view, is stationary and the planet is moving; for if the heaven were moving, it would be possible for it to be square, and the equality of the distances of the planetary centers from the observers' viewpoints, and the equality of the magnitudes of the planetary bodies, would still be realized. As for the first [argument], the debate against it is that it only holds true if the aforementioned equilibrium exists in every line of longitude and latitude, which is not known. As for their other proofs, they are mentioned—along with their criticisms—in Nihayat al-Idrak fi Dirayat al-Aflak, so return to it if you desire.

A question remains here: if the conjunction is attached to the verb negated by "did not" (lam), it enters into its governing rule, which necessitates that the building of seven strong heavens above [the people] was known to the addressees—who are the polytheists of Mecca, the deniers of the Resurrection, as you have heard—so that they may be reproached by it, just like the other matters preceding and following it. It is said that the fact that the heavens are seven is not something grasped by observation. They are those who disbelieved in the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—so they would not believe him regarding such a matter, the knowledge of which, apparently, is only through revelation.

It was answered that they knew this through their observation of the differing movements of the seven planets and their differing distances from one another. This is because they knew the planets, the differences in their movements, and they knew that some were above others because of the occultation of some by others. So they said, at first, that there are seven heavens, each heaven for one of those planets. We are not obligated to research what they said about the fixed stars, nor about what moves them and the seven [planets] with the daily motion, for that is beyond what we are dealing with.

This was objected to, saying that this only holds true if they believed that the "heaven" meant the sphere and that it rotates in a circle, and that its apogee is a perigee and its perigee is an apogee. Perhaps they did not say that, but rather said—like some of the predecessors among the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them)—that the heaven is stationary and the planet is moving, and the sphere is merely its path. In that case, it is possible for the seven to be, with their differing movements and distances, within the thickness of a single heaven, moving in orbits and paths in the observable manner; and other possibilities exist, as is not hidden. Furthermore, if their knowledge of that were from what was mentioned, they would have spoken of epicycles and the like, as the ancient astronomers did, because the difference in movements—in their claim—necessitates it, especially in the case of the retrograding planets. If the Arabs had held this view, it would have appeared in their poetry. Indeed, it is not far-fetched that if someone had mentioned epicycles and the "containing and contained" completions to them, they would have attributed it to what is disliked.

It was also said that they inherited this knowledge from their ancestors who heard it from those they believed to be truthful, such as Ishmael (peace be upon him). It is also possible that they heard it from the People of the Book, and since they did not see anything that contradicted their position, they believed it. This amount of knowledge is sufficient for the validity of the reproach. This was countered by the fact that, according to this, the conjoined clauses used for the reproach do not form a single string of knowledge. But the matter in this is easy.

It was also said that they were treated as if they were people of knowledge regarding it because the evidence for it was manifest, which is the report of the one whose truthfulness was indicated by a miracle. In this, there is remoteness. It was also said that the address is to the people, both believers and polytheists, and the believers were given precedence over others in the reproach, which necessitates prior knowledge—but this is as you see.

Some chose the view that the conjunction is to what is necessitated by the reproaching denial; thus, the speech is equivalent to [saying]: "Did We not make the earth..., and We built above you seven strong ones?" In that case, it is the beginning of a report from Him, the Almighty and Majestic, about the aforementioned building, and it does not necessitate prior knowledge. This was countered by the fact that the conjunction to the verb negated by lam is more consistent with using the aforementioned items as evidence for the truth of the Resurrection, as is not hidden. So, reflect upon this. The precedence of the adverbial phrase over the object is for the sake of causing yearning [for the information].