Wow, that's quite a stretch. "...the position of the stars," somehow gives you "white space holes?" There's nothing in that verse (or anywhere in the Surah) about the birthplace of anything, or of any holes. That's a completely imaginary interpretation.
"By the star, when it goes down," gives you black holes? No, that's another stretch, even if we accept that English translations sometimes render this passage as the stars "fading away." If you absolutely need to correlate this passage to an astronomical phenomenon, there are far better ones in astronomy to consider. Most stars simply burn out; they do not form black holes or get swept into one. That behavior embodies "fading away" far better than a comparatively rare black hole.
But my Arabic-English dictionary translates هَوَى as "[he] goes down." So I think the version alludes better to the setting of the stars in the normal nocturnal cycle. That fits much better the experience of a desert author who would spend a lot of time looking at the night sky and watching the stars set, or watching them fade as the sun rises.
My interpretation makes much more sense in context than would some veiled reference to some phenomenon that neither the author nor the readers could identify with. Yes, the Qur'an employs symbolic imagery. Here, the author is trying to extol the virtues of the Prophet as a reliable witness. To do that, the author contrasts the Prophet with a phenomenon the listeners would understand: the ephemeral nature of stars in the night sky. He says that the Prophet is not something that fades away, errs, or goes astray, like stars do at night (or in the morning). Instead the Prophet gives unwhimsical knowledge revealed to him by a mighty angel, that can be trusted.
See, the key to employing symbolic imagery is to use an image the reader actually knows. Instead, you're trying to tell us the author here is indicating an obscure astronomical phenomenon that won't be discovered until many centuries later and behaves like nothing anyone at that time or place would understand at all as something that can happen to a star.
That would be the stupidest attempt at imagery I can imagine. It's like saying, "My love for you is as constant as a gruntbuggly." The reader has no idea what a gruntguggly is, whether one will ever be discovered, or any notion of its constancy or lack thereof. The analogy completely fails if we must consider the image to be something that only becomes evident much later and departs radically from prevailing knowledge and belief.
No, you suck as a "Koranic scholar" too.
No. As especially evidenced by this latest comedy, your efforts to shoehorn modern scientific concepts into the Qur'an are obviously self-serving. You don't know science, so let's stop pretending you do. And your efforts at "Koranic scholarship" seem to amount to little more than stretching the text far beyond the breaking point in order to tack on some very wishful interpretations. Then you complain vaguely that everyone else's translations are bad or outdated and that your critics are ignorant.
You aren't fooling anyone.
