Intro
In the mid-1990’s, Mirza Tahir Ahmad and his team of writers published “Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth” (1998).
In the chapter “The Quran and Cosmology,” Mirza Tahir Ahmad first establishes his own standard – that scientific consensus is the measure of truth. On page 303 he writes:
“The concept of the expanding universe belongs to the former category, and has been universally accepted by the scientific community as ‘fact’.”
This matters because it sets up his own benchmark. He is saying: when science reaches consensus, we accept it. Keep that in mind.
He supports the expanding universe claim with Surah 51:48:
“And the heaven We built with Our own powers (aydin) and indeed We go on expanding it (musi’ūn).”
He then presents two competing theories about the ultimate fate of the universe. On page 305:
“One of the two theories relating to the expansion predicts that the universe thus created will carry on expanding forever. The other claims that the expansion of the universe will, at some time, be reversed because the inward gravitational pull will ultimately prevail. Eventually, all matter will be pulled back again to form perhaps another gigantic black hole.”
He was fully aware both options existed. This was not an innocent remark. He then makes his choice explicit, on pages 305-306:
“This latter view appears to be supported by the Quran.”
The Quranic verses he uses to support the Big Crunch specifically are two. The first is Surah 21:31 (page 304), which he uses to describe the original singularity and Big Bang:
“Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We clove them asunder (fataqnā)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?”
He interprets the word ratqan – meaning “closed-up mass” or “total darkness” – as a description of a black hole singularity, and fataqnā – “We clove them asunder” – as the Big Bang eruption from it.
The second verse, which he uses specifically to support the Big Crunch collapse and recreation, is Surah 21:105 (page 306):
“Remember the day when We shall roll up the heavens like the rolling up of scrolls…”
And the continuation of the same verse:
“As We began the first creation, so shall We repeat it; a promise binding on Us; that We shall certainly fulfil.”
He interprets “rolling up the heavens like scrolls” as matter being pulled into a black hole – the Big Crunch collapse – and “We shall repeat it” as the universe being recreated from that singularity, completing an eternal cycle.
On page 307 he makes clear this is not a tentative observation but a confident claim about divine knowledge:
“This wrapping up and unfolding of the universe appears to be an ongoing phenomenon, according to the Holy Quran…one is wonder-struck by the fact that this most advanced knowledge, regarding the perpetually repeating phenomenon of creation, was revealed more than fourteen hundred years ago to an unlettered dweller of the Arabian desert.”
The argument is clear: these verses predicted the Big Crunch and an oscillating universe. This is presented as evidence of divine authorship.
What the Science Said – and When
Here is where things get interesting.
RRKT was published in 1998. That same year, two independent teams of astronomers were completing observations that would permanently change our understanding of the universe.
The High-Z Supernova Search Team and the Supernova Cosmology Project both studied distant Type Ia supernovae – essentially using exploding stars as measuring tools across vast cosmic distances. Their conclusion, published in 1998 and 1999, was not what anyone expected: the universe’s expansion is not slowing down under gravity. It is speeding up. Something – now called dark energy – is pushing everything apart at an accelerating rate.
The scientific community considered this so significant it was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011.
You can read the original papers yourself:
- Riess et al. (1998): https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201
- Perlmutter et al. (1999): https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9812133
- Nobel Prize summary: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/
An accelerating expansion doesn’t merely complicate the Big Crunch model. It directly contradicts the specific mechanism Mirza Tahir Ahmad described – that “inward gravitational pull will ultimately prevail.” According to our best current evidence, it will not prevail. The Quranically endorsed view was being falsified in real time, the same year the book was printed.
A Note on the “But DESI Data” Response
I want to address this preemptively because I expect it will come up. Recent observations from the DESI telescope suggest dark energy may be weakening slightly, which some have interpreted as potentially reopening the door to a Big Crunch scenario. Some have already pointed to this as vindication of RRKT.
I’d ask you to look at this carefully.
The DESI findings are preliminary, actively debated among cosmologists, and nowhere near establishing a Big Crunch as the likely fate of the universe. But more importantly – even if the Big Crunch eventually turns out to be correct – that wouldn’t validate the methodology used in RRKT.
Look at the pattern:
- Two options exist in 1998 → one is selected and called Quranic
- Science moves against that option → no update, no acknowledgment
- New tentative data hints at possible revival → claimed as vindication
A claim that can accommodate any scientific outcome is not a prediction. It is an unfalsifiable position. And an unfalsifiable position, no matter how sincerely held, cannot serve as evidence of anything.
The Methodology Problem
This is what I find most worth examining – not whether the Big Crunch turns out to be right or wrong, but how the argument is constructed.
A genuine scientific prediction has to meet three criteria: it must be made before the evidence, it must be specific enough to be proven wrong, and it must actually risk being wrong.
Notice the careful language Mirza Tahir Ahmad uses – “this latter view appears to be supported.” That hedge is doing significant work. It is vague enough to retreat from if the science goes the wrong way, while sounding confident enough to be persuasive to readers unfamiliar with the active scientific debate happening at the time of writing.
What we’re actually seeing in this chapter is a pattern sometimes called retrofitting – taking an existing scientific debate, choosing a side, and presenting that choice as ancient divine knowledge. The problem with this approach is that it can be done with almost any ancient text and almost any scientific debate if you’re willing to be flexible enough with interpretation. Which means it doesn’t actually establish anything distinctive about the Quran.
If eternal expansion had become the overwhelming consensus, different verses would have been found to support that. The interpretation follows the science rather than preceding it. That’s the opposite of prediction.
What I Find Genuinely Interesting
I want to be clear that I don’t think Mirza Tahir Ahmad was being deliberately dishonest. I think he was genuinely excited by cosmology, genuinely curious about the universe, and genuinely wanted to share that excitement with his community. There’s real learning in these pages. He read widely and engaged seriously with difficult material.
That curiosity is admirable. The universe really is extraordinary – far stranger and more humbling than any of our prior assumptions about it. The discovery that it is accelerating outward, driven by a force we still don’t fully understand, is one of the most astonishing findings in the history of science.
But the universe being astonishing doesn’t mean any particular text predicted it. And I think we do a disservice to both science and to honest inquiry when we claim otherwise.
The cosmos doesn’t need our scriptures to validate it. It is extraordinary on its own terms. And following the evidence honestly – even when it leads somewhere unexpected, even when it overturns what we thought we knew – is more interesting, more rigorous, and ultimately more rewarding than finding confirmations of what we already believe.
Summary
- RRKT p.303 establishes scientific consensus as the standard of truth – his own benchmark.
- RRKT p.304 uses Surah 21:31 (ratqan/fataqnā) to describe the original Big Bang singularity.
- RRKT p.305-306 explicitly endorses the Big Crunch as the Quranically supported view, citing Surah 21:105 – “rolling up the heavens like scrolls” – as describing gravitational collapse.
- The same year of publication, 1998, landmark supernova observations established that the universe’s expansion is accelerating – directly contradicting the Big Crunch mechanism described.
- This was confirmed by the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics.
- The Quranic verses used are flexible enough to support multiple cosmological interpretations, which is precisely the problem – a genuine prediction cannot mean everything.
- The DESI data response doesn’t rescue the methodology even if the findings eventually hold up.
- The deeper issue is that retrofitting existing scientific debates onto ancient texts is not prediction – it’s pattern matching after the fact.
I’m genuinely curious what others think, particularly those who have read RRKT carefully. Am I misreading the claim? Is there a stronger version of the Ahmadi response I haven’t considered?
