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