Q: (6) Have they not looked...

There are several issues concerning this verse:

Issue 1: The Interrogative Hamza with and without 'Waw'

The interrogative hamza sometimes enters speech without a preceding waw (أ), and sometimes with a preceding waw (أو). Is there a difference between the two forms?

We say there is a subtle difference. If someone says: "Is Zayd still in the house after the sun has risen?" he says this to express denial/reproach regarding the situation.

If he says: "And is Zayd still in the house after the sun has risen?" (أو زيدا), the waw subtly indicates that the ugliness of his action is akin to two ugly actions. It is as if he is saying, after hearing what Zayd did, "He is still in the house, heedless, while he is still in the house!" This is because the waw suggests something contrary to what follows it, even if there is no explicit preceding statement; rather, the waw hints at an additional layer of denial/reproach.

If it is asked why the verse here uses أفلم ينظروا (with fa) while another verse uses أولم يروا (with waw), we reply:

Here, their denial of the resurrection (ذلك رجع بعيد) preceded the command to look. Therefore, the fa (which denotes sequence/consequence) is used to immediately follow up their denial with a counter-argument.

If it is asked why in Surah Ya-Sin, the verse begins with أولم when it follows the statement {Who will give life to the bones while they are dust?} (Ya-Sin: 78), we reply: There, the evidence was drawn from the heavens. Since the denial was not immediately followed by a counter-denial, another proof was presented: {Say, "He will give them life Who produced them the first time"} (Ya-Sin: 79), and then the other evidence was mentioned. Here, however, the evidence followed immediately after the denial, so the fa was used.

The difference between using the word Nazar (looking) here and Ru'yah (seeing) in Al-Ahqaf is subtle:

1. Here (أفلم ينظروا): Since they expressed extreme disbelief regarding the resurrection by saying, {That is a distant return}, the response challenges their act of disbelief itself. Nazar (looking) is less complete than Ru'yah (seeing). It is as if the looking was sufficient to establish the knowledge that refutes their disbelief, and full Ru'yah was not necessary to counter their disbelief.
2. In Al-Ahqaf (أولم يروا): Since no explicit denial was mentioned by them beforehand, they were guided by Ru'yah, which is more complete than Nazar.

Furthermore, Allah completed this by saying: {to the heaven} (إلى السماء), not in the heaven (في السماء).

• Looking to something (إلى): Implies contemplation and exaggeration (focusing attention towards a limit).
• Looking at something (في): Implies entering into the meaning of containment (as a ظرف, adverbial object). When the gaze reaches the object (إلى), it should penetrate it for the meaning of containment (في) to be valid.

And His saying: {above them} (فوقهم) is another emphasis, meaning it is clearly above their heads and not hidden from them.

His saying: {How We have constructed it and adorned it, and it has no cracks} (كيف بنيناها وزيناها وما لها من فروج) points to the manner of demonstration and the priority of occurrence regarding the resurrection.

The Manner of Demonstration: Man has a foundation (bones, which are like pillars) and powers/lights (like hearing and sight). The structure of the heaven is loftier than the foundation of the body, and the adornment of the heaven is more perfect than the adornment of man (flesh and fat).

The Priority of Occurrence: The heaven has no cracks (فروج), meaning its composition is tighter. Man has openings and pores. Undoubtedly, a tighter composition (like thick weaving) is more difficult [to create] and more astonishing to people than a looser composition (like thin weaving). If they acknowledge the existence of the higher, more difficult creation (the heaven), how can they deem the lower one (resurrection) impossible?

The Philosophers argued that this verse proves the heaven cannot be pierced, just as they argued regarding {Do you see any fissures?} and {seven} (An-Naba: 12). They strained the meaning, because His saying {it has no cracks} (ما لها من فروج) explicitly denies this. Announcing the non-existence of a thing does not imply the non-existence of its possibility. Moreover, Allah clarifies the opposite of their claim by saying: {And when the heaven is split} (Al-Mursalat: 9), {When the heaven is broken open} (Al-Infitar: 1), and {On that Day, it will be frail} (Al-Haqqah: 16) in contrast to {seven strong ones} (An-Naba: 12), and {And when the heaven is split and becomes rose-colored like ointment} (Ar-Rahman: 37), and other verses, all clearly refuting them. What they derived for demonstration is not apparent, nor does it possess any hidden indication. As for their rational proof, it is weaker and more absurd than their reliance on transmitted reports.

7 < { And the earth We have spread out, and cast therein firm mountains and caused to grow therein every kind of beautiful vegetation. } > 7 !