Contradictions Within the Text
Clues of Human Editing, Not Divine Unity
Part 5 of the series: “Ten Evidence-Based Reasons to Doubt the Divine Origin of the Qur’an”
Introduction: Should divine speech contradict itself?
One of the central claims Muslims make about the Qur’an is that it is perfectly coherent, preserved, and free from contradiction.
The Qur’an itself states:
“Do they not consider the Qur’an carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would have found therein much contradiction.”
— Qur’an 4:82
Yet when the text is read critically — rather than devotionally — it displays internal contradictions, reversals, and inconsistencies.
Rather than signs of divine unity, these are better explained by:
Human authorship
Changing contexts
Later editing and redaction
This article lays out clear, concrete examples — not vague allegations — and explains why they matter.
1. What counts as a contradiction?
A meaningful contradiction is:
Two or more statements that cannot both be true at the same time, under the same conditions.
Or doctrinal reversals with no reconcilable explanation.
Apologists often claim context or abrogation explains these.
But if a text truly comes from an omniscient God, why would it need:
Later self-correction (naskh)?
Contradictory statements about the same events or doctrines?
2. The problem of abrogation (naskh): built-in contradiction
The Qur’an itself acknowledges that God replaces or “abrogates” some verses with others:
“Whatever verse We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar.”
— Qur’an 2:106
“Allah eliminates what He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book.”
— Qur’an 13:39
Key problem:
If God is omniscient and timeless, why would His perfect revelation require cancellation and replacement?
Abrogation is an explicit admission that contradictory rulings exist.
Scholars:
John Burton, The Sources of Islamic Law (1990): details how early jurists used naskh to reconcile contradictions.
3. Contradictions about free will and divine predestination
Humans choose:
“Whoever wills, let him believe; and whoever wills, let him disbelieve.”
— Qur’an 18:29
“Indeed, Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.”
— Qur’an 13:11
God controls:
“Allah has set a seal upon their hearts… so they do not understand.”
— Qur’an 2:7
“Whomever Allah wills, He leaves astray; and whomever He wills, He guides.”
— Qur’an 16:93
Logical contradiction:
Humans cannot be both fully free and entirely bound by divine decree.
Apologetic claim:
“It’s beyond human comprehension.”
This explains nothing; it just asserts compatibility without evidence.
4. The fate of Pharaoh: belief or disbelief?
“This day We shall save you in your body so that you may be a sign…”
— Qur’an 10:92
Versus:
“Pharaoh led his people astray and did not guide them.”
— Qur’an 20:79
Some verses suggest Pharaoh repented at death; others insist he died an unbeliever.
Classical exegetes tried to harmonise by saying repentance at death is invalid.
But this is post hoc theology: the text itself presents conflicting portrayals.
5. How long is Allah’s day? 1000 or 50,000 years?
“A day with your Lord is like a thousand years of what you count.”
— Qur’an 22:47; see also 32:5
“The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day the measure of which is fifty thousand years.”
— Qur’an 70:4
Contradiction:
One divine “day” equals 1000 years.
Another divine “day” equals 50,000 years.
Apologetic explanation:
Different contexts: one is God’s reckoning, the other is angels’ ascent.
Logical problem:
Both speak of a “day with Allah,” but the measures differ drastically.
If God wished clarity, why ambiguity?
6. Alcohol: permitted, discouraged, then prohibited
Early tolerance:
“From the fruits of date palms and grapes you derive intoxicants and good provision.”
— Qur’an 16:67
Discouraged during prayer:
“Do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated.”
— Qur’an 4:43
Completely forbidden:
“Intoxicants… are abominations of Satan’s handiwork.”
— Qur’an 5:90
Timeline:
Clear progression from permissibility → discouragement → total ban.
Evidence of human process:
Reflects changing social conditions, not timeless moral law.
Abrogation:
Later verses cancel earlier ones — another admission of contradiction.
7. Creation: from blood clot, water, or dust?
“Created man from a clot (alaq).” — Qur’an 96:2
“He created you from water.” — Qur’an 25:54
“He created him from dust.” — Qur’an 38:71
Contradiction:
Cannot be simultaneously created from all three in the same sense.
Apologetic claim:
“They refer to different stages.”
But the text itself does not say so; classical tafsir struggles to explain.
8. Who guides and who misguides?
“Allah guides whom He wills and misguides whom He wills.” — Qur’an 14:4
“Whoever strives, strives only for himself; indeed, Allah is free of need.” — Qur’an 29:6
Contradiction:
Human striving is presented as decisive.
Elsewhere, guidance is wholly God’s choice.
Logical problem:
Both cannot be ultimate causes.
9. Punishment for adultery: 100 lashes vs. death by stoning
Qur’an 24:2: “The fornicatress and the fornicator — flog each of them with a hundred stripes.”
But:
Authentic hadith and early Muslim practice (from Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar) enforced stoning for married adulterers.
Problem:
Stoning verse allegedly existed in Qur’an: “The old man and the old woman… stone them.” (per Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)
Verse lost but ruling preserved — contradicts Qur’anic text.
Evidence of human editing:
If stoning was divinely ordained, why is it absent in the Qur’an?
Scholars:
John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an (1977)
10. Do humans see God on Judgment Day?
“Faces that Day will be radiant, looking at their Lord.” — Qur’an 75:22–23
“No vision can grasp Him, but He grasps all vision.” — Qur’an 6:103
Contradiction:
One implies believers see God.
The other says God is beyond all seeing.
Apologetic:
“They see God’s glory, not His essence.”
Again, text itself offers no such clarification.
11. Why contradictions matter: divine unity vs. human composition
A text from an omniscient, eternal God should:
Be internally consistent across themes, theology, and law.
Need no cancellation or correction.
The Qur’an itself says:
“Had it been from other than Allah, they would have found therein much contradiction.” — Qur’an 4:82
Yet the record shows:
Contradictions between verses.
Reversals through abrogation.
Disagreement in theology and law.
The most plausible explanation:
Human composition under changing circumstances.
Editing and compilation after Muhammad’s death.
12. The apologetic defense: context, metaphor, or test of faith
Muslim scholars respond:
“Contradictions are only apparent.”
“God abrogates as a mercy.”
“It’s a test of faith.”
Logical flaw:
A test of faith cannot also be objective proof.
If the text’s consistency is supposed to prove divinity, contradictions undermine that proof.
13. Evidence of compilation and editing
Multiple qira’at (variant readings) change meaning.
Uthmanic recension standardised one version; others were burned.
Hadith record verses lost or forgotten.
Historical consensus:
Qur’an did not descend as a single, unified text.
Compiled from memories and fragments, decades later.
Sources:
Fred Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins (1998)
Harald Motzki, “The Collection of the Qur'an” (2001)
14. Conclusion: human fingerprints, not divine coherence
Contradictions in theology, law, and narrative:
Are best explained by human context, revision, and compilation.
Show the Qur’an’s emergence as a product of history, not perfect revelation.
“The text we have today shows the marks of editing and compromise, typical of human scripture, rather than the clarity of divine unity.”
— John Wansbrough, Quranic Studies (1977)
Thus, far from proving divinity, contradictions point to human authorship.
📚 References & further reading:
John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an (1977)
Fred Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins (1998)
John Wansbrough, Quranic Studies (1977)
Harald Motzki, “The Collection of the Qur'an” (2001)
Patricia Crone, God’s Caliph (1986)
⚠️ Disclaimer
This post critiques Islam as an ideology, doctrine, and historical system — not Muslims as individuals. Every human deserves dignity. Systems that trap people in cruelty under divine claims do not.
💡 Next in the series:
Part 6 — The Doctrine of Abrogation: God’s Eternal Word, Constantly Revised
No comments:
Post a Comment