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