1

Salam,

I am studying for a physics degree and we are beginning to study Black Holes. But I am not sure whether or not these comply with the Quran, any justification would be appreciated.

Farhan
  • 11
  • 1
  • Similar: http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/269/should-a-muslim-believe-in-dinosaurs – مجاهد Dec 11 '13 at 17:28
  • See this: http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/1174/do-the-teachings-of-physics-and-astronomy-contradict-the-teachings-of-islam – مجاهد Dec 11 '13 at 17:30
  • 4
    As always with these kinds of questions, you have to ask yourself: why are you seeking an answer to this? Is there doubt about a certain aspect of black holes? If so, investigate the source of this doubt. If it is just general doubt that doesn't have any concrete backing to it, then leave it alone and continue your studies. – System Down Dec 12 '13 at 18:08
  • http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/36653/does-the-sun-set-in-a-murky-pool-in-quran-1886/37137#37137 – qdinar Jan 03 '17 at 11:10

1 Answers1

8

The Qur'an (or the hadith, for that matter) is not a science textbook. It is a book of (spiritual) guidance and revelation from our Creator. It touches on matters of creation, and the remarkable thing about that is that it uses language and descriptions that fit perfectly with modern understandings of those things. However, it doesn't necessarily offer detailed knowledge about them.

Allah SWT touches upon the creation of the heavens in generalities, with some detail here and there. There is definitely plenty of detail that we don't know about. Allah points to the intricacy in the heavens as a proof of His ability to resurrect. He tells humans to ponder on the creation in order to get to know Him.

When you have a physical phenomenon that's been measured, why would you not believe in it? The source of the phenomenon and the Qur'an are the same so how can there be a contradiction?

Ansari
  • 13,076
  • 8
  • 46
  • 77
  • 1
    "The Qur'an (or the hadith, for that matter) is not a science textbook." Does that imply it makes no statements about observable reality that can be approached with the scientific method? How does it fit with " It touches on matters of creation, and the remarkable thing about that is that it uses language and descriptions that fit perfectly with modern understandings of those things."? – G. Bach Apr 05 '17 at 14:03