Spotlight On Islam

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