Short answer
No. Nothing, in the full sense, has no space, no time, no energy and no laws. It has no power to do anything, so it cannot produce a universe. When some physicists say a universe can come from nothing, they mean something else. They mean a quantum vacuum, a field of energy that obeys the laws of physics. That is not nothing. It is a physical thing, and it needs explaining as much as the universe does. The philosopher of physics David Albert made this point when he reviewed such a book. So the real question remains: why is there anything at all? The only answer that does not stop at an unexplained thing is a being that exists by its own nature. The Qur'an puts the choice plainly: were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
Full explanation
What nothing means
Nothing is not empty space, which has size and shape. It is not a vacuum, which holds energy. It is the absence of everything: no matter, no energy, no space, no time and no laws. Something that does not exist has no properties, so it cannot act, wait, fluctuate or give rise to anything. To say the universe came from nothing in this sense is to say it came from no cause at all. Ibn Sina and later Leibniz drew the lesson: whatever exists either has the reason for its existence in itself or receives it from something else.
Divides all that exists into what is only possible in itself (mumkin al-wujud), which needs a cause, and what is necessary in itself (wajib al-wujud), which needs none. Argues that a chain of possible things, however long, needs a necessary being outside it, and that this being is one and has no parts.
Argues that the sufficient reason for the whole series of contingent things must lie outside that series, in a necessary substance, which Leibniz calls God.
What the physicists mean by nothing
In A Universe from Nothing (2012) the physicist Lawrence Krauss argued that physics can explain how a universe arises from nothing. But his "nothing" is first empty space, then a state with no space or time that is still governed by the laws of quantum physics. David Albert, a philosopher of physics, answered in his review that the quantum vacuum is a particular arrangement of physical fields. A universe arising from it arises from something. The book explains how one physical state could turn into another. It does not explain why there are any physical states, or any laws, at all.
Argues that physics can describe how a universe could arise from "nothing" without a creator. He uses "nothing" first for empty space, then for no space or time at all. He suggests that even the laws of physics may differ from one universe to another.
A philosopher of physics answers Krauss. The quantum vacuum is not nothing: it is a particular arrangement of physical fields, so the book describes how a universe could arise from those fields, not why there are any.
Laws describe; they do not create
A law of physics tells us how things behave once they exist. It is a description, written in mathematics, of a pattern in what is there. A law cannot itself bring anything about, just as the rules of arithmetic put no money in a bank account. If the laws of quantum physics were there before the universe, then something was there: a world ordered by those laws. The physicist Eugene Wigner called the fit between mathematics and nature a gift we neither understand nor deserve. That order is part of what needs explaining.
Argues that the power of mathematics to state the laws of physics borders on the mysterious and has no rational explanation, and calls it a wonderful gift that we neither understand nor deserve.
A philosopher of physics answers Krauss. The quantum vacuum is not nothing: it is a particular arrangement of physical fields, so the book describes how a universe could arise from those fields, not why there are any.
The universe cannot have made itself
A second way out is to say the universe caused itself. But to cause anything, a thing must already exist. A universe that made itself would have to exist before it existed, which is a contradiction. So there are only three options: the universe came from nothing, it made itself, or something else brought it into being. The first two fail, which leaves the third. And that something else cannot be one more thing that depends on others, or the question only moves back a step.
Divides all that exists into what is only possible in itself (mumkin al-wujud), which needs a cause, and what is necessary in itself (wajib al-wujud), which needs none. Argues that a chain of possible things, however long, needs a necessary being outside it, and that this being is one and has no parts.
“Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, they have no firm belief.”
Islam's answer: created by the One who needs nothing
The Qur'an asks the same three-way question: were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators? It answers that Allah (﷾) is the Originator of the heavens and the earth, who brings a thing into being by His command. He is not part of the universe, made of its parts or bound by its laws. He depends on nothing, while everything depends on Him.
“Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, they have no firm belief.”
“To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is.”
“O ye men! It is ye that have need of Allah: but Allah is the One Free of all wants, worthy of all praise.”
The replies answered
A Universe from Nothing (2012)
Argues that physics can describe how a universe could arise from "nothing" without a creator. He uses "nothing" first for empty space, then for no space or time at all. He suggests that even the laws of physics may differ from one universe to another.
Cited for
Physicists use the word nothing for the most empty state there can be. Asking for a deeper nothing is playing with words.
The response
The question is not about a word but about what needs explaining. If the emptiest state still contains fields and laws, it is a physical reality. Then we can ask why that reality exists, and why its laws are these. Calling it nothing does not make the question go away.
Where it lands — A quantum vacuum is something, so it moves the question back a step without answering it.
Russell and Copleston, BBC radio debate (1948)
In a debate on the existence of God broadcast on the BBC Third Programme on 28 January 1948, the Jesuit philosopher Frederick Copleston argued that the world needs a cause outside itself. Bertrand Russell, an agnostic, answered that he saw no reason to think the universe as a whole needs any cause or explanation: it is simply there, and that is all.
Cited for
Even if the universe needs a cause, why should that cause be God, or one being rather than many?
The response
Whatever depends on nothing cannot be made of parts, or it would depend on its parts. It cannot be limited by another like it, or something would set the limit. So it is one, without parts and without equal. The page on why there can only be one God takes this further.
Where it lands — What depends on nothing must be one and uncomposed, which is what Islam means by Allah (﷾).
Perspectives
Physics shows a universe can come from nothing
Some physicists argue that quantum physics explains how a universe could arise from nothing, so no Creator is needed. Lawrence Krauss is the best known of them.
Quantum theory allows particles, and perhaps whole universes, to appear from empty space. Or they may appear from a state with no space and time.
Rebuttal
Granted that quantum states can change into others. But a vacuum and its laws are something, as David Albert pointed out. They explain how one physical state becomes another, not why anything physical exists at all.
If physics can explain the universe's beginning, God is no longer needed as an explanation.
Rebuttal
God (﷾) is not offered as a gap in physics, but as the answer to why there is a physical world with laws at all. A better account of the first moments leaves that question untouched.
The universe is just there
Others say the universe needs no explanation. In his 1948 debate with Copleston, Bertrand Russell said it is simply there, and that is all.
There is no reason to think the universe as a whole needs a cause or an explanation.
Rebuttal
For no single thing in the universe do we accept that it is simply there, with no explanation. A whole made of dependent parts is no less dependent. So stopping at the universe is a choice not to ask, not an answer.
The Islamic perspective
Nothing cannot produce anything, and the universe cannot make itself. So it was brought into being by a Creator who depends on nothing: Allah (﷾), the Originator of the heavens and the earth.
Absolute nothing has no properties or power, so it cannot be the source of a universe.
The Qur'an sets out the three options: created of nothing, self-created, or created by a Creator.
Allah (﷾) originated the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He says to it "Be", and it is.