Thursday, July 31, 2025

The Problem of Violence — Qur’anic Commands and Modern Realities

Part 7 of the series: “Ten Evidence-Based Reasons to Doubt the Divine Origin of the Qur’an”

Introduction: The persistent shadow of violence

One of the most debated issues about the Qur’an is its apparent sanction of violence. Verses commanding warfare, punishment, and harsh penalties raise crucial questions:

Are these commands divine eternal truths or products of 7th-century tribal contexts?
How do these violent injunctions reconcile with modern ethics and international law?
Do they reflect God’s immutable will or human socio-political realities?

This post critically examines these questions to show that the Qur’an’s violence undermines claims of timeless divine guidance.

1. The historical context of violent verses

Most violent commands appear in the Medinan period, after Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to Medina.
Context:

Ongoing tribal wars.
Political struggles for survival.
Conflict with pagans, Jews, and rival tribes.

Examples:

Qur’an 9:5, the “Sword Verse”: “Kill the polytheists wherever you find them…”
Qur’an 47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, strike their necks…”

Historical-critical scholarship shows these verses reflect specific military and political circumstances, not universal commands.

2. The doctrine of jihad: “striving” or “holy war”?

The Qur’an’s concept of jihad literally means “struggle” or “striving,” with spiritual and physical dimensions.

Physical jihad against enemies is conditional and context-bound.
Verses like Qur’an 2:190 specify: “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress.”

Problem:

Later Islamic jurisprudence expanded jihad into offensive warfare.
The Qur’an’s violent verses are used to justify both defensive and offensive actions.

3. Contradictions in peace and violence

The Qur’an simultaneously calls for peace and tolerance:

“There is no compulsion in religion.” — Qur’an 2:256
“Repel evil with good.” — Qur’an 41:34

Yet it commands violence against unbelievers and apostates.

This contradiction undermines claims of coherent divine morality.

4. Violence against specific groups

Polytheists: frequent calls to fight and kill.
Jews and Christians: mixed portrayal; sometimes allies, sometimes enemies.
Apostates: punishable by death in some hadiths, not explicitly in Qur’an.

Historical reality:

Early Muslim community fought Jewish tribes in Medina.
These events contextualise Qur’anic violence but are often universalised in later exegesis.

5. Modern interpretations and selective readings

Contemporary Muslim scholars vary:

Some argue violent verses are time-bound, abrogated by peaceful verses.
Others maintain literal, eternal application.

The lack of consensus indicates ambiguity in the text, not clear divine instruction.

6. Impact on modern Muslim societies

Islamist groups cite Qur’anic violence to justify terrorism.
Moderate Muslims reject literalism, promoting peace.
This tension causes internal conflict and external fear.

7. Comparative religious violence

Other scriptures (Bible, Torah) also contain violent passages.

Key difference:

Many modern societies reject literal application of these texts.
Islam’s Qur’an remains central, unaltered, with some groups applying violent verses literally.

8. Ethical problem: divine commands to kill

Philosophically:

Morality presupposes universal, timeless ethics.
Commands to kill specific groups conflict with this.

If God commands violence, does that make it moral?

9. The challenge to divine perfection

A perfect deity should:

Uphold consistent, universal ethics.
Not command violence contingent on political expediency.

The Qur’an’s violent commands, evolving with history, suggest human authorship.

10. Conclusion: Violence undermines divine claim

The Qur’an’s violent verses:

Are rooted in historical context.
Contradict peaceful and tolerant verses.
Create theological and ethical dilemmas.

Thus, they do not support the claim of a perfect, divine revelation.

📚 References & further reading:

Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (1987)
John Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path (1998)
Reza Aslan, No god but God (2005)
Gabriel Reynolds, The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext (2010)
Angelika Neuwirth, The Qur’an and Late Antiquity (2010)

💡 Next in the series:

Part 8 — The Problem of Hadith: Reliance on Unverifiable Traditions

Wednesday, July 30, 2025

The Doctrine of Abrogation — God’s Eternal Word, Constantly Revised

Part 6 of the series: “Ten Evidence-Based Reasons to Doubt the Divine Origin of the Qur’an”

Introduction: A divine text in flux?

The doctrine of abrogation (naskh) in Islamic theology asserts that some verses of the Qur’an replace or cancel earlier ones. This means God's eternal revelation is not static but subject to change over time.

This doctrine raises a fundamental logical problem:
If the Qur’an is the perfect, eternal word of God, why must parts of it be revoked and replaced?

This article explores the origins, theological justifications, contradictions, and implications of abrogation, arguing that this concept undermines the claim of the Qur’an’s divine perfection.

1. What is abrogation (naskh)?

Definition:

Abrogation means the cancellation or replacement of a ruling or verse by a later one.
It applies primarily to legal rulings (ahkam), but also to narrative or doctrinal statements.

Classic verses on abrogation:

“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

These verses are the foundation of the doctrine.

2. Origins of the doctrine: a theological solution

Abrogation was not an original Qur’anic concept; it developed as Muslim jurists and theologians confronted contradictory or evolving texts.

Early Islamic scholars like Al-Shafi‘i (8th century) formalised the doctrine.
It became a tool to reconcile conflicting verses and legal rulings.

Purpose:

Explain why some verses seem inconsistent.
Justify later rulings that replace earlier ones.

3. Examples of abrogation in the Qur’an

Alcohol prohibition:

Early: Qur’an 16:67 acknowledges intoxicants as part of God’s provision.
Later: Qur’an 4:43 forbids approaching prayer intoxicated.
Final: Qur’an 5:90 declares intoxicants “abominations” and forbids their use.

Direction of prayer (qibla):

Initially towards Jerusalem (Qur’an 2:142–144).
Later changed to Mecca (Qur’an 2:149–150).

Fighting:

Early verses advise patience and non-violence (Qur’an 16:126).
Later verses permit and command fighting (Qur’an 9:5).

These shifts are cited as classical examples of naskh.

4. Logical problem #1: Why would God change His mind?

The doctrine implies:

God revealed something.
Later, God revealed something else replacing the first.
This contradicts the concept of an omniscient, unchanging deity.

If God is perfect and all-knowing, the entire revelation should be:

Final from the start.
Free from contradictions requiring correction.

5. Logical problem #2: Eternal versus temporal revelation

Muslim theologians argue abrogation reflects God’s wisdom in addressing changing circumstances.

But this assumes the revelation is:

Temporal (changing over time).
Not truly eternal or final.

This conflicts with mainstream claims that the Qur’an is the eternal, unaltered word of God.

6. Problem #3: How to identify abrogated verses?

There is no consensus among scholars on:

Which verses abrogate others.
The number of abrogated verses (estimates range from a handful to over 200).
The methodology to determine abrogation.

This leads to confusion and subjectivity.

7. Case study: The “Sword Verse” and earlier pacifist verses

Early Meccan verses advocate patience, forgiveness, and non-violence.
Later Medinan verses, especially Qur’an 9:5 (“Kill the polytheists wherever you find them”), are said to abrogate earlier peaceful verses.

This interpretation:

Presents God as shifting from mercy to violence.
Raises ethical and theological questions about divine consistency.

8. Historical-critical perspective: human legislative evolution

Abrogation better fits a human legislative process adapting to:

Political realities.
Social needs.
Warfare.

It resembles human law-making, not immutable divine command.

9. Abrogation and scriptural integrity

The existence of abrogation:

Challenges the idea of the Qur’an as fully preserved and consistent.
Implies the text has internal editorial layers.

Historical note:

Some abrogated verses are missing from the Qur’an manuscript tradition but preserved in Hadith.
Suggests later editing and selection.

10. Apologetic defenses and their limits

Defenders argue:

Abrogation shows divine mercy, allowing gradual implementation.
It reflects God’s wisdom, not ignorance.

Logical flaw:

Divine wisdom and perfection imply no need for revision.
Gradual implementation can be explained by human development, not divine inconsistency.

11. Broader implications: Abrogation undermines Qur’an’s uniqueness

If the Qur’an requires:

Revisions.
Self-corrections.
Multiple rulings over time.

It resembles human scripture evolving with its community.

12. Conclusion: The doctrine of abrogation — a fatal flaw for divine perfection

Abrogation is:

An explicit admission of contradiction.
Evidence the Qur’an is not eternally perfect.
A theological patch for inconsistencies.

This undermines claims of divine origin and points towards a human-authored, evolving text.

📚 References & further reading

John Burton, The Sources of Islamic Law (1990)
Wael B. Hallaq, The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law (2005)
Norman Calder, Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence (1993)
Gerald Hawting, The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam (1999)
Angelika Neuwirth, The Qur’an and Late Antiquity (2010)

💡 Next in the series:

Part 7 — The Problem of Violence: Qur’anic Commands and Modern Realities

Tuesday, July 29, 2025

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)

💡 Next in the series:

Part 6 — The Doctrine of Abrogation: God’s Eternal Word, Constantly Revised

Monday, July 28, 2025

Borrowings from Earlier Texts — Cultural Echoes, Not Unique Revelation

Part 4 of the series: “Ten Evidence-Based Reasons to Doubt the Divine Origin of the Qur’an”

Introduction: Does originality prove divinity?

Muslim apologetics claim the Qur’an’s content is uniquely original, transcending human sources.
Yet historical evidence shows the opposite: it draws heavily on older Jewish, Christian, and apocryphal traditions circulating in late antiquity.

These borrowings are not hidden — they appear openly in narratives, vocabulary, and themes. Instead of unique divine revelation, what emerges is a tapestry woven from the religious culture of Muhammad’s environment.

The most logical explanation is not a direct voice from God, but a text shaped by local oral lore, scripture, and apocrypha known in Arabia.

1. The cultural crossroads of Arabia: why this matters

Mecca and Medina were not isolated deserts.
Arabia sat between Byzantium and Persia, bordering Jewish communities in Yathrib (Medina), Christian Arabs in Najran, and trade routes carrying ideas and texts.

Historical evidence:

Jewish tribes like Banu Qurayza and Banu Nadir lived near Medina.
Hanifs and others explored Jewish and Christian monotheism.
Oral storytelling (Qassas) kept biblical and extra-biblical tales alive.

Scholarly consensus:
The Qur’an emerged inside this environment, not apart from it.

“The Qur'an bears unmistakable marks of a milieu saturated with biblical legends and apocrypha.”
— John Wansbrough, Quranic Studies (1977)

2. Abraham destroys the idols: Midrash, not Torah

The Qur’an (21:51–67) tells how Abraham smashed his tribe’s idols, leaving only the largest so people would blame it.

Key point:

This story does not appear in the Hebrew Bible (Genesis).
It comes from Jewish Midrash Bereshit Rabbah (38:13), a rabbinic commentary written centuries before Islam.

The Qur’an retells the story in its own style, but the narrative core predates Muhammad.

Logical implication:

If God revealed the Qur’an independently, why does it reuse a Jewish parable absent from the canonical Torah?

3. Jesus speaks from the cradle: echo of the Arabic Infancy Gospel

The Qur’an (19:29–30; 3:46) has baby Jesus speaking from the cradle to defend his mother Mary.

Key point:

Absent from canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John).
Found in apocryphal Arabic Infancy Gospel (6th century), widely known in Christian Near East.

Example text:
“And Jesus spoke, saying: ‘Lo, Mary, I am Jesus the Son of God…’”

Scholars:

Sidney Griffith, “Christian Lore and the Arabic Qurʾan” (2008)
Gabriel Reynolds, The Qur'an and its Biblical Subtext (2010)

The Qur’an’s version is stylistically different, but the motif — infant Jesus speaking — comes from outside the canonical Bible.

4. The Seven Sleepers: a Christian legend retold

Qur’an 18:9–26 recounts youths who fled persecution, slept in a cave for centuries, then awoke.

Origin:

Known as the Legend of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, popular in Syriac, Greek, and Latin before Islam.
Celebrated by Christians as proof of bodily resurrection.

Key point:

Qur’an localises the story (al-Raqim) and disputes details (how many sleepers, how long).
But the core narrative is not original.

Scholarly view:
The Qur’an's version reflects oral transmission, with embellishments.

Sources:

Andrew Palmer, “The Seven Sleepers in Christian and Muslim Tradition” (1990)

5. Alexander the Great as Dhul-Qarnayn: Greek romance turned scripture

Qur’an 18:83–98 describes Dhul-Qarnayn (the “two-horned one”) traveling to the ends of the earth, building a barrier against Gog and Magog.

Origin:

Mirrors the Alexander Romance, a popular Greek text translated into Syriac and Arabic.

Key points:

Alexander depicted with horns (symbol of divine power).
The Qur’an retells the wall-building against Gog and Magog.

Problems:

Alexander was a pagan; the Qur’an casts him as a righteous monotheist, likely from Syriac Christian reinterpretation.

Scholars:

Kevin Van Bladel, The “Alexander Legend” in the Qur’an (2008)

6. The confusion of Mary (Maryam) with Miriam (sister of Moses): inherited from pious legend

Qur’an 19 and 3:35–36 call Mary “sister of Aaron” (ukht Harun) and her father “Imran” (Amram).

Problem:

In the Bible, Miriam (Moses’ sister) is daughter of Amram; Mary, mother of Jesus, is centuries later.

Apologetic claim:

“Sister of Aaron” is an honorific title.

Historical explanation:

The confusion likely comes from oral blending of Old and New Testament figures in Syriac Christian storytelling.

Scholars:

Sidney Griffith (2008)
Christoph Luxenberg, The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran (2007)

7. Pre-Islamic monotheist language and prayer forms

Phrases:

Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim (“In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful”) predates the Qur’an.
Meccan Arabs used “Rahman” (the Merciful) before Islam.

Ka‘ba:

Already known as a sanctuary dedicated to Allah, alongside other gods.

Evidence:

Inscriptions from South Arabia (5th–6th century) invoke Rahmanan.

Sources:

Garth Fowden, Empire to Commonwealth (1993)
Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (1987)

8. Common theological ideas: Judgment, paradise, and hell

Qur’anic descriptions of:

Houris in paradise.
Scales weighing deeds.
Fire torment for unbelievers.

All appear in earlier Jewish apocalyptic texts and Christian apocrypha (e.g., Apocalypse of Peter, Testament of Abraham).

These themes are not unique but part of late antique monotheistic worldview.

9. Why it matters: divine originality vs. cultural borrowing

A truly divine revelation, independent of human culture, should:

Transcend known local myths and apocrypha.
Introduce radically new theological ideas.

Instead, the Qur’an:

Reuses familiar stories from Jewish, Christian, and Arabian lore.
Localises them with Arabic style, but keeps the narrative frame.

Scholarly view:

“The Qur’an is best understood not in isolation, but as part of a continuum of late antique monotheist literature.”
— Gabriel Said Reynolds, The Qur'an and Its Biblical Subtext (2010)

10. The apologetic fallback: “It confirms earlier scriptures”

Muslim apologists argue:

The Qur’an borrows because it confirms prior revelation.
Borrowing shows continuity, not human authorship.

Problems:

Qur’an corrects, changes, and sometimes contradicts the originals.
Includes apocryphal tales unknown to the canonical Bible.
The doctrine of tahrif claims Jews and Christians corrupted their scriptures — yet the Qur’an repeats content from those same “corrupted” texts.

Logical problem:

How can a divine revelation depend on, yet accuse of corruption, the same texts?

11. Intellectual honesty: what does the evidence suggest?

Historical evidence shows:

Widespread oral and written circulation of these legends.
Muhammad lived amid Jews, Christians, and storytellers.

Simplest explanation:

Muhammad retold stories he heard, adapting them to his preaching.
The Qur’an reflects the religious culture of 6th–7th century Arabia.

Not an isolated, miraculous revelation beyond human reach.

12. Conclusion: echoes, not invention

The Qur’an is not “plagiarised.”
It reflects:

Cultural borrowing.
Oral transformation.
Unique Arabic style.

But:

These are signs of human composition, not divine isolation.
The text’s originality is in rhetorical arrangement, not theological novelty.

“The Qur’an’s real historical interest lies in how it reworked known traditions, not in transcending them.”
— John Wansbrough (1977)

Thus, the Qur’an looks like a product of its time and place — not the timeless word of an omniscient God.

📚 References & further reading:

John Wansbrough, Quranic Studies (1977)
Sidney Griffith, “Christian Lore and the Arabic Qurʾan” (2008)
Gabriel Reynolds, The Qur'an and its Biblical Subtext (2010)
Kevin Van Bladel, The “Alexander Legend” in the Qur’an (2008)
Christoph Luxenberg, The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran (2007)
Andrew Palmer, “The Seven Sleepers” (1990)
Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (1987)

💡 Next in the series:

Part 5 — Contradictions Within the Text: Clues of Human Editing, Not Divine Unity

Sunday, July 27, 2025

The Inimitability Claim — Subjective, Circular, and Unfalsifiable

Part 3 of the series: “Ten Evidence-Based Reasons to Doubt the Divine Origin of the Qur’an”

Introduction: A claim unlike any other — or just rhetoric?

One of the most frequently repeated arguments for the Qur’an’s divinity is the claim of i‘jaz — its supposed inimitability. The Qur’an itself declares:

“Say: If mankind and the jinn gathered together to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another.”
— Qur’an 17:88

Classical Islamic theologians built an entire doctrine on this: the idea that the Qur’an’s literary style, structure, and content are so unique and perfect that no human could match them. Muslim apologists call this the Qur’an’s “miracle” (mu‘jiza).

But does the claim withstand honest, evidence-based scrutiny?
When tested, it turns out to be subjective, circular, and ultimately unfalsifiable — making it logically empty as proof of divine origin.

1. What the claim actually says — and why it matters

The doctrine of i‘jaz al-Qur’an rests on two main pillars:

Challenge: The Qur’an challenges skeptics to produce a text like it.
Miracle: Muslims argue the failure of opponents to do so proves the Qur’an’s divine authorship.

In other words:

The Qur’an says: “Produce something like me.”
No one (allegedly) has succeeded.
Therefore, it must be from God.

This argument is found explicitly in verses like:

2:23 — “And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down… then produce a surah like it.”
10:38 — “Or do they say, ‘He invented it’? Say, ‘Then bring forth a surah like it…’”

The entire apologetic edifice rests on the assumption that this challenge is meaningful, objective, and testable.

2. The first flaw: Subjectivity — who decides what is “like it”?

For the challenge to prove anything, we need clear, objective criteria for what makes the Qur’an inimitable.
Yet classical scholars never agreed on what, exactly, makes it unique.

Examples:

Al-Jurjani (11th century): the Qur’an’s unique rhetorical structure.
Al-Baqillani: its arrangement of words and meaning.
Some modern apologists: its "scientific accuracy" or "hidden codes."

But these are subjective standards:

A believer finds the style beautiful; a skeptic might not.
Non-Arabic speakers cannot judge at all; even Arabic linguists disagree.
The “beauty” argument depends on personal taste, culture, and faith.

As historian John Wansbrough noted:

“The alleged inimitability of the Qur'an is not a statement of fact, but a statement of faith, sustained by tradition rather than evidence.”
— Quranic Studies (1977)

3. The second flaw: Circularity — assuming what you must prove

The argument is circular:

The Qur’an says it is inimitable.
Muslims accept this because they already believe the Qur’an is divine.
Therefore, the Qur’an must be divine.

But the claim that “no one can imitate it” is based on believing its divine origin, rather than proving it.

Logical syllogism:

Premise: Only God could produce such text.
Fact: We have such text.
Conclusion: Therefore it is from God.

But the premise assumes what it must prove — that the text is beyond human capacity.

4. The third flaw: Unfalsifiability — an empty challenge

A meaningful challenge must be possible to fail. But the Qur’an’s challenge cannot be falsified because:

If someone produces a text, Muslims simply declare: “It isn’t as good.”
The standard is undefined and unfalsifiable.
Judgement depends on subjective belief.

Thought experiment:

Imagine someone composes a surah in Arabic, equal in length and similar themes.
Muslims reject it on faith alone, not on objective grounds.

Thus, the challenge is logically meaningless:

“Produce a text we will not accept as equal.”

5. What about attempts to answer the challenge?

Throughout history, some tried:

Musaylima ibn Habib (d. 632): composed rhymed passages imitating the Qur’an.
Medieval works like Furqan al-Haqq (Christian polemic).
Modern parodies or literary attempts.

Apologists dismiss these as failures — but on what grounds?

They sound “less beautiful” to Muslim ears.
They do not inspire the same reverence among believers.

But this just restates the circular belief that only the Qur’an can succeed.

6. Comparison: Other religions also claim unique scriptures

Other faiths make similar claims:

Hindus say the Vedas are eternal and inimitable.
Mormons say the Book of Mormon could not be written by any human.

Yet Muslims reject those claims. Why?

Because they do not share the faith starting point.

Key point:

Unfalsifiable literary claims prove nothing across religions. Each group believes only their text is miraculous.

7. Literary excellence is not divine

Even if the Qur’an were aesthetically unique, this does not prove it is divine:

Great poetry exists in many languages.
Shakespeare, Homer, and others created works that have never been “matched.”

Yet no one claims divine authorship.

Uniqueness does not logically imply supernatural origin.

8. The Qur’an itself admits humans contributed

The Qur’an addresses critics who said:

“This is nothing but the speech of a poet… a human taught him.” (16:103; 36:69)

The fact that contemporaries accused Muhammad of composing it himself implies:

They found its style within the range of human speech.
They did not experience it as obviously divine.

9. The doctrine’s historical development

I‘jaz was not systematically formulated in Muhammad’s lifetime.
It developed over 200+ years as:

Muslims debated why non-believers rejected the Qur’an.
Theological schools (Ash‘arites, Mu‘tazilites) tried to rationalise divine authorship.

This historical evolution shows it was a human apologetic response, not an original, obvious fact.

Source:

Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida: noted how doctrine evolved in classical scholarship.

10. Why it fails as evidence of divinity

A truly divine book should:

Prove its divine origin with testable, objective evidence.
Not rely on subjective judgments of style or faith.

The i‘jaz claim:

Cannot be tested across cultures and time.
Is circular and unfalsifiable.
Depends entirely on starting with belief.

As academic Devin Stewart wrote:

“The Qur’an’s inimitability is a theological claim, not a demonstrable historical fact.”
— Sajʿ in the Qur'an (2008)

11. The apologetic fallback: “No one has done it for 1400 years”

This often-repeated claim ignores:

Literary challenges are judged by those committed to rejecting them.
Few outside Islam see the challenge as worth answering.
The standard of success is undefined.

It’s akin to saying:

“Our book is divine because we say so, and you haven’t convinced us otherwise.”

12. Intellectual honesty: what would real evidence look like?

Imagine the Qur’an contained:

Precise, unknown scientific facts.
Verifiable, specific prophecies.
Clear moral truths transcending its age.

That would be objective, testable evidence.

Instead, it offers a rhetorical challenge that cannot logically prove divinity.

13. Conclusion: Style is not proof of God

The Qur’an’s style is striking, historically influential, and culturally powerful.

But:

Subjective beauty cannot prove supernatural origin.
Circular claims cannot replace evidence.
Unfalsifiable challenges convince only those who already believe.

The simplest, evidence-based explanation:

The Qur’an’s style reflects the genius, cultural context, and oral artistry of Muhammad and his time — not divine authorship.

📚 References & further reading:

John Wansbrough, Quranic Studies (1977)
Devin Stewart, “Sajʿ in the Qur'an” (2008)
Theodor Nöldeke, The History of the Qurʾān (2013 English)
Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida (early modern reformists)
G. S. Reynolds (ed.), The Qur'an in Its Historical Context (2008)

💡 Next in the series:

Part 4 — Borrowings from Earlier Texts: Cultural Echoes, Not Unique Revelation

Saturday, July 26, 2025

Moral & Scientific Errors — Echoes of a 7th-Century Worldview

Part 2 of the series: “Ten Evidence-Based Reasons to Doubt the Divine Origin of the Qur’an”

Introduction: Does timeless truth age?

A text claimed to be the eternal, direct speech of an all-knowing, transcendent God should reflect moral and factual truths that transcend time and place.
Yet the Qur’an, when read without apologetic gloss, repeatedly reveals its deep roots in the culture, ethics, and knowledge of 7th-century Arabia.

Muslim theologians often argue that these verses were progressive “for their time.” But that concession itself undermines the claim of timeless, universal, and divine authorship. If a text reflects its time and place so fully, the simplest explanation is that it came from that time and place — not from an omniscient deity beyond it.

1. The Qur’an and moral universality: what should we expect?

If a divine text truly guides humanity for all time, its moral teachings should:

Reflect principles that are coherent, just, and universal.
Avoid endorsing cruelty, discrimination, or slavery.
Stand ethically robust under cross-cultural scrutiny, not just tribal custom.

But the Qur’an’s ethics often fall short, echoing tribal patriarchy, conquest ethics, and slavery — features typical of 7th-century Arabia, not divine moral perfection.

2. Wife-beating (Qur’an 4:34): codifying violence, not compassion

Text:

“As for those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance (nushuz), admonish them, then forsake them in bed, then beat them (idribuhunna). But if they obey you, seek no means against them…”
— Qur’an 4:34

Problems:

Authorises physical violence by men against wives on suspicion of disobedience, not proven guilt.
Codifies male dominance rather than mutual respect.
Conflicts with universal ethical norms of nonviolence and gender equality.

Defenses & their flaws:

Some claim “beat” means “lightly tap.” But the plain Arabic verb daraba means to strike, and classical scholars (e.g., al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir) interpreted it as real physical punishment.
Saying it was “progressive for its time” concedes it is not timeless divine ethics.

Sources:

Mahmoud Ayoub, The Qur’an and Its Interpreters (1984)
Amina Wadud, Qur'an and Woman (1999)

3. Slavery and sexual slavery: not condemned, but regulated

Text:

“And [also prohibited to you are] married women except those your right hands possess.”
— Qur’an 4:24

“And those who guard their private parts, except from their wives or what their right hands possess…”
— Qur’an 23:5–6

Problems:

Recognises and normalises sexual ownership of female captives.
No verse unequivocally forbids slavery; instead, the Qur’an treats it as normal social structure.
Modern apologists claim Islam encouraged emancipation; historically, it regulated and institutionalised slavery rather than abolished it.

Historical evidence:

Islamic law (fiqh) formalised concubinage (milk al-yamin) as lawful.
Female slaves could be used sexually without marriage, creating classes of children born of concubines.

Sources:

Kecia Ali, Sexual Ethics and Islam (2006)
Roy Mottahedeh, Qur’anic Ethics and Islamic Law (2001)

Critical question:

Would a transcendent God enshrine sexual slavery in his final revelation, or condemn it outright?

4. The Qur’an’s view on non-Muslims: violence and exclusion

Texts:

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah… until they pay the jizya and feel themselves subdued.” (9:29)
“When the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them…” (9:5)

Problems:

Mandates offensive fighting against non-Muslims until subjugation.
Discriminatory tax (jizya) enforces second-class status on non-Muslims.

Historical impact:

Early Islamic conquests justified by these verses.
Classical jurists codified dhimmi laws: special taxes, social restrictions.

Defenses & flaws:

Apologists claim these verses were “contextual.” But jurists (e.g., al-Shafi‘i) read them as general and timeless.
A universal revelation should transcend conquest ethics.

Sources:

Patricia Crone, God’s Caliph (1986)
Khaled Abou El Fadl, Rebellion and Violence in Islamic Law (2001)

5. Scientific errors: products of human knowledge, not divine omniscience

If the Qur’an were from an all-knowing deity, its statements about the natural world should be:

Consistent with reality.
Free from the errors common to 7th-century cultures.

Instead, the Qur’an makes empirical claims better explained by human knowledge at the time.

a) Cosmology: flat earth language and geocentrism

Examples:

“And the earth — We spread it out.” (madadnaha, 15:19; dahaha, 79:30)
“He created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six days…” (7:54)

Problems:

Language describes earth as spread, flattened, or extended.
Mentions sun and moon each floating in “orbits,” but does not clearly describe heliocentrism.

Historical context:

Pre-Islamic Arabs believed in a flat or gently domed earth.
No trace of knowledge that earth is spherical and orbits the sun.

Sources:

Neal Robinson, Discovering the Qur'an (1996)
Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, The Qur’an and Science (criticised for forced reinterpretation)

b) Embryology: clot of blood and semen from backbone

Texts:

“Created man from a clot (alaq).” (96:2)
“From a drop emitted proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.” (86:6–7)

Problems:

Describes embryo as a blood clot, contrary to modern embryology.
Semen does not originate between backbone and ribs.

Apologetic defenses:

Some claim alaq means “something that clings.” But classical tafsir usually rendered it as “clot” (mudgha follows as chewed substance).

Sources:

Keith Moore (often misquoted by apologists)
Qur’anic tafsir: al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir

Critical question:

Should we expect forced re-interpretation to fit science, or clear timeless knowledge?

6. Failed prophecies: another mark of human authorship

Example:

“The Romans have been defeated… but they will overcome [the Persians] within a few years.” (30:2–4)

Problems:

Prophecy interpreted as fulfilled when Byzantines won. But “few years” (bid‘a sinin, usually 3–9) is vague.
Muslim sources disagree on when verse was revealed.

Historical context:

Such vague, self-fulfilling prophecies are common in human oracles.

Sources:

G. S. Reynolds, The Qur'an and Its Historical Context (2008)
Fred Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins (1998)

7. Apologetic strategy: re-interpret, spiritualise, or claim “context”

Muslim apologists respond:

“It was a mercy for its time.”
“Scientific statements are metaphorical.”
“Verses were revealed for specific contexts.”

Yet:

A text truly divine and universal should not require reinterpretation to match modern ethics or science.
If God knew slavery is evil or earth is round, why use outdated language?

Key problem:
Reinterpretation starts from the conclusion — “the Qur’an is divine” — then bends meanings to fit facts.

8. Why this matters: moral and factual truth are testable

If the Qur’an were purely divine:

It should lead on morality, not reflect tribal patriarchy.
It should reveal true science unknown to its first hearers, not mirror human beliefs.

Instead, the evidence shows:

It shares moral blind spots with its environment.
It contains empirical claims now proven false.
Its “miraculous” verses appear only when strained readings are applied.

Simplest explanation:
A human text, shaped by its time, not a timeless divine revelation.

9. Intellectual honesty: do we judge by evidence or faith?

Faith begins with the answer: “The Qur’an must be perfect.”
Evidence shows a different story: a text from 7th-century Arabia, echoing its worldview.

Critical thinking asks:

Is it more likely God sanctioned wife-beating and concubinage?
Or that these are human rules from a patriarchal culture?

Intellectual honesty requires following evidence, even when it conflicts with cherished beliefs.

10. Conclusion: a book of its time, not beyond time

The Qur’an is historically fascinating and morally complex. But its moral and scientific claims do not show signs of transcendent origin.

They show:

Tribal patriarchy.
Acceptance of slavery.
Outdated cosmology and biology.

“Its moral and factual content shows it belongs not to all times, but specifically to its own.”
— John Wansbrough, Quranic Studies (1977)

If moral and empirical truth are divine, then the Qur’an, judged by its own content, falls short.

📚 References & further reading:

Mahmoud Ayoub, The Qur’an and Its Interpreters (1984)
Kecia Ali, Sexual Ethics and Islam (2006)
Patricia Crone, God’s Caliph (1986)
Neal Robinson, Discovering the Qur'an (1996)
G. S. Reynolds (ed.), The Qur'an in Its Historical Context (2008)
Roy Mottahedeh, Qur’anic Ethics and Islamic Law (2001)

💡 Next in the series:

Part 3 — The Inimitability Claim: Subjective, Circular, and Unfalsifiable