Undeniable Mistakes in the Quran You Didn’t Know About!

For over a millennium, the Qur’an has been introduced as a divine and flawless book, a text that Muslims regard as the direct, unaltered word of God. In their view, this book is not only free from error but also the standard by which truth is measured. But if, for a moment, we set aside this belief and look at it purely from a rational, impartial, and assumption-free perspective, what will we see? Is it possible to find evidence of error, contradiction, or even suspicious interpretations within it? Can this so-called divine revelation stand up to the test of reason and logic? Or, as some argue, do its internal inconsistencies point to a human origin?

I wrote the content of this post years ago, but gradually updated and expanded it over time. While I was in Iran, I could not publish it out of fear of torture and execution. But after leaving Iran, I was finally able to release it—first in Persian, and now I present its English translation. This article is an attempt to thoroughly examine the claims of the Qur’an, and it is an invitation to think, not to follow blindly. Please note that I am critiquing a book which Muslims believe to be a miracle, with every word revealed by God to Muhammad. They also believe that this book has a clear and simple expression so that everyone may understand it, and that it is protected from distortion and harm.

Why is it important to examine the errors of the Qur’an?

Sacred texts play a crucial role in shaping the worldview, morality, and politics of societies. Over the centuries, the Qur’an has been recognised by Muslims as “the final word of God.” Such a claim carries a heavy responsibility: every sentence, every number, and every story must be precise, free from contradiction, and aligned with reality.

But if there are errors, contradictions, or inconsistencies within this sacred text, should they not be carefully examined? Should the truth not be filtered through reason and critical inquiry, even if it is wrapped in the cloak of sanctity?

The examination of the errors and contradictions in the Qur’an does not stem from hostility, nor is it aimed at destroying people’s faith. Rather, it is an effort to answer questions that have arisen for many, questions that, if ignored, can at times lead to confusion and even intellectual alienation.

The need for an unbiased view of religious concepts

If religion is true, it must be in harmony with reason, science, and intellect. Blind faith and fanaticism hinder a true understanding of religion. Many well-meaning believers assume that criticising the Qur’an equates to disrespecting religion, but in fact, questioning is a sign of taking the subject of religion seriously, not of disbelief.

A good doctor is one who is not afraid to acknowledge a possible misdiagnosis. In the same way, a truth-seeker must be able to examine sacred texts through the lens of reason, logic, and fairness.

Method of the article: analysing verses, not attacking belief

This article seeks to examine more than sixty cases of alleged contradictions and errors in the Qur’an. Each case will be analysed with care and impartiality, and with support from the relevant verses, interpretations, and logical evaluation.

The article does not aim to pass judgement, but rather to clarify and provide deeper understanding, without insult, without contempt, and with respect for freedom of thought.

1. Allah’s Strange Accounting: Inheritance Distribution and Numerical Error

📖 Verses under Examination

• Surah An-Nisa, verse 11:

“Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, the share of two females… and if he has siblings, then for his mother one-sixth…”

• Surah An-Nisa, verse 12:

“They [the wives] shall have one-fourth of what you leave, if you have no children… but if you have children, then they shall have one-eighth…”

• Surah An-Nisa, verse 176:

“…If a man dies leaving no child but has a sister, she shall have half of what he left…”

❗ Explanation of the Alleged Contradiction

These verses define the shares of inheritance for family members. However, when some of these rulings are combined, the resulting total exceeds 100% of the estate. In other words, if the inheritance is divided strictly according to these verses, the total sum distributed becomes greater than the actual estate. Two classical examples illustrate this issue:

Example 1: A man dies and leaves behind:

• Three daughters → two-thirds of the estate (according to verse 11)
• Father and mother → one-third in total
• Wife → one-eighth (according to verse 12)

Calculation:

• Daughters: 8/12
• Parents: 4/12
• Wife: 1.5/12

Total = 13.5/12 → more than 100%

Example 2: A man dies and leaves behind:

• Mother → one-third
• Wife → one-fourth
• Two sisters → two-thirds (according to verse 176)

Calculation:

• Mother: 4/12
• Wife: 3/12
• Sisters: 8/12

Total = 15/12

These results are mathematically inconsistent and show that in some combinations, the total allocated inheritance exceeds the whole estate.

🔍 Impartial Examination

In Islamic jurisprudence, in order to resolve this issue, scholars have defined a concept known as ʿawl. According to this rule, if the total shares of the inheritors exceed one (i.e. 100%), the entire estate is proportionally reduced so that it totals exactly one. In other words, all inheritors receive less than what is stated in the Qur’an.

For instance, in the example above, if the total of the heirs’ shares is 13.5 units, each share is recalculated proportionally so that the total equals 12 units.

But the key question is:

• Why did the Qur’an, which claims to be the word of God, not foresee this obvious mathematical possibility?
• Why was such an important matter left to later jurists to fix using mathematical manoeuvres?
• Should a divine text not have been structured in a way that avoids such a clear and fundamental error from the outset?

It is noteworthy that the Qur’anic text itself makes no mention of the rule of ʿawl or radd (the adding of shares when part of the estate remains undistributed), and these principles emerged only in later jurisprudential texts.

🧠 Conclusion

This is one of the clearest examples of a numerical error in the Qur’an – not only is it easy to understand, but it can be proven through simple arithmetic. Juridical concepts such as ʿawl and radd, though intended to compensate for this flaw, still leave behind one essential question:

Why does a text claimed to be the flawless divine revelation require human correction?

This numerical inconsistency, although addressed by later legal texts, remains in itself a structural flaw in the claimed sacred scripture.

2. How Many Angels Came to Mary? Contradictory Accounts of Jesus’s Conception

📖 Verse(s) Under Consideration

• Surah Al Imran, Verses 42 and 45:
  “…When the angels said, O Mary… When the angels said, O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good news of a Word from Him, whose name is the Messiah…”
  

In these verses, “the angels” – in plural – are mentioned.

• Surah Maryam, Verses 17 to 21:
  “…So We sent to her Our Spirit, and he appeared to her as a well-proportioned man… He said, I am only a messenger of your Lord…”
  

Here, only a single angel (the Spirit) comes to Mary in human form.

❗The Alleged Contradiction Explained

In Surah Al Imran, the narrative presents a group of angels speaking to Mary and giving her the news of her pregnancy.

However, in Surah Maryam, the story shifts, and the account is delivered by a single angel (commonly identified by commentators as Gabriel), who appears in human form and speaks to her directly.

The clear distinction is:

• In one, a group of angels is present (not just Gabriel)
  
• In the other, only a single angel appears, and all dialogue is conducted directly between him and Mary
  

Since both verses clearly refer to the moment of the annunciation of her pregnancy, this contradiction cannot be ignored.

🔍 Neutral Examination

Defenders of the Quran usually provide a few justifications in response to this issue:

1. Different stages at different times: Some argue that the initial annunciation might have been made by a group of angels (Al Imran), and then Gabriel was later sent alone to Mary to convey the details (Surah Maryam).
   
2. The Spirit = Representative of the angels: Another interpretation suggests that the Spirit in Surah Maryam could be a representative of the angelic group, relaying the message on their behalf.
   

However, both justifications are flawed:

• Neither Surah refers to two separate stages or distinct events.
  
• Linguistically, in Surah Al Imran, plural verbs and pronouns are used, clearly indicating the simultaneous presence of multiple angels.
  
• In Surah Maryam, everything is personal, singular, and direct. Even the angel’s presence is described in human form, and the tone of the exchange is extremely intimate and one-on-one.
  

Given the claim of the Quran’s complete precision, such divergence in recounting a specific event constitutes at the very least a form of narrative inconsistency and discrepancy.

🧠 Conclusion

If the Quran is the singular Word of God, we should expect similar narratives to be repeated with perfect consistency – not that one time a group of angels is present and another time only a single individual, and that too in a different manner.

In this case, the two accounts are not only different, but contradictory in timing and sequence of events. This has led critics to cite it as a classic example of inconsistency in the Quran. On the other hand, the question arises: is the “Spirit” who appears to Mary in Surah Maryam not in fact the “Holy Spirit”?

3. Further Numerical Discrepancies: The Days of God, Number of Gardens, Groups on Judgement Day, and the Role of Angels

📖 Verse(s) Under Examination

A) How long is a day of God?

• Surah Al-Hajj, verse 47:
  “…Indeed, a day with your Lord is like a thousand years of what you count.”
• Surah As-Sajdah, verse 5:
  “…in a day whose measure is a thousand years of what you count.”
• Surah Al-Ma’arij, verse 4:
  “…in a day whose measure is fifty thousand years.”

B) How many gardens are in Paradise?

• One garden:
  • Surah Az-Zumar, verse 73
  • Surah Fussilat, verse 30
  • Surah Al-Hadid, verse 21
  • Surah An-Nazi’at, verse 41
• Multiple gardens:
  • Surah Al-Kahf, verse 31
  • Surah Al-Hajj, verse 23
  • Surah Fatir, verse 33

C) How many groups on Judgement Day?

• Three groups: Surah Al-Waqi’ah, verse 7
• Two groups: Surah Al-Balad, verses 18–19 / Surah Az-Zalzalah, verses 6–7

D) Who takes the soul?

• Angel of Death: Surah As-Sajdah, verse 11
• Angels (plural): Surah Muhammad, verse 27
• Allah: Surah Az-Zumar, verse 42

E) How many wings does Gabriel have?

• Sahih Bukhari (Vol. 4, Book 54, Hadith 455): 600 wings
• Surah Fatir, verse 1:
  “…[He] made the angels messengers with wings – two, three, and four…”

❗ Explanation of the Alleged Contradictions

In this section, we face five examples of numerical and statistical inconsistencies in the Qur’an, each presenting a different picture of fundamental concepts:

1. God’s day: Two verses state that one day with God is equivalent to 1,000 human years, while Surah Al-Ma’arij presents the same “day” as 50,000 years.
2. Number of gardens in Paradise: Sometimes only a single garden (jannah) is mentioned as the reward for the righteous, while other verses clearly refer to multiple gardens (jannat).
3. Number of groups on Judgement Day: Surah Al-Waqi’ah divides people into three groups (the forerunners, the people of the right, and the people of the left), but other Surahs refer only to two groups (the righteous and the wicked).
4. The taker of souls: In one verse it is the “Angel of Death,” in another it is “the angels” (plural), and elsewhere, “Allah” is described as the one who takes the souls.
5. Gabriel’s wings: The Qur’an only mentions angels with two, three, or four wings, while Sahih Bukhari, one of the most authoritative Sunni sources, describes Gabriel with 600 wings. This inconsistency reflects a lack of harmony between a sound hadith and the Qur’anic text.

🔍 Impartial Examination

1. Discrepancy in God’s days:
Commentators have tried to justify this difference. For instance, it is said that the 50,000-year verse refers to the hardship of Judgement Day, while the 1,000-year verses concern the governance of worldly matters. However, this distinction is not made explicit in the verses themselves and is only drawn through external interpretation.

The repeated use of the same word “yawm” (day) in all three verses, without any clarification of differing meanings, creates structural ambiguity and contradiction.

2. Number of gardens in Paradise:
Some exegetes argue that Paradise is a single place composed of multiple sections (gardens). But if this were so, why do some verses mention only “jannah” in the singular, while others clearly refer to “jannat” in the plural? This variation in Qur’anic vocabulary is unlikely to be accidental and indicates divergent perspectives by the text’s authors.

3. Divergence in Judgement Day categorisation:
It might be suggested that the division into two or three groups reflects different analytic perspectives in the Qur’an. But such explanations fall short in light of specific phrasing like “you will be in three classes” (Surah Al-Waqi’ah), versus “whoever is given his record…” and “whoever…” (Surah Az-Zalzalah). One would expect core doctrinal structures like Judgement Day accounting to be presented with full clarity and consistency.

4. On soul-taking:
The difference between the subjects of the verbs (Allah, the Angel of Death, the angels) points to either contradictory or at least ambiguous narratives. If all are involved in the same task, why are there multiple, unexplained formulations? Such narrative multiplicity deserves scrutiny in a text that claims to be clear and illuminating.

5. Gabriel’s wings:
This is not just a Qur’anic discrepancy but also exposes inconsistency between hadith and the Quran. While the Qur’an caps the number of angelic wings at four, Sahih Bukhari states that Gabriel had 600 wings. This raises doubts either about the hadith or the Qur’an’s descriptive precision.

🧠 Conclusion

This set of numerical inconsistencies may appear technical or minor, but they reveal a lack of internal cohesion in a text claiming divine authorship.

These discrepancies cannot be reduced merely to differences of perspective or metaphor, especially when the subjects involve eschatology, the afterlife, or the nature of divine communication.

Taken together, such inconsistencies point towards a multi-voiced, multi-sourced message, not a unified, singular revelation – a text seemingly constructed from varied sources and viewpoints, where internal coherence gives way to fragmentation.

4. How Many Days Did Allah Take to Destroy the People of ‘Ad?

📖 Verse(s) Under Examination

• Surah Al-Qamar, verse 19:
  “Indeed, We sent upon them a screaming wind on a continuous unfortunate day.”
• Surah Fussilat, verse 16:
  “So We sent upon them a screaming wind on several unfortunate days.”
• Surah Al-Haqqah, verses 6–7:
  “As for ‘Ad, they were destroyed by a screaming, violent wind. He imposed it upon them for seven nights and eight days in succession.”

❗ Explanation of the Alleged Contradiction

These three verses give differing accounts of the time period over which the people of ‘Ad were destroyed:

• In Surah Al-Qamar, the destruction is said to have occurred in a single day.
• In Surah Fussilat, the reference is to several days.
• In Surah Al-Haqqah, the precise duration is given: eight days and seven nights.

These three descriptions appear to be incompatible. How can a single cosmic event occur in one day, several days, and also exactly eight days, all at the same time?

🔍 Impartial Examination

Commentators attempting to reconcile these differences have put forward several theories:

1. Emphasis rather than contradiction:
It is said that Surah Al-Qamar stresses the intensity of punishment on one “unfortunate day,” possibly referring only to the start of the punishment, while it continued over several more days. However, the verse does not hint at continuation beyond that day.

2. Independent descriptions, not contradictions:
Others argue that each verse presents the event from a different angle: one from a calendar perspective (eight days), another from a symbolic view (one cursed day), and another highlighting the repetition of torment.

However, all three verses clearly describe the same event – the destruction of the people of ‘Ad by a violent wind – and do not refer to distinct occasions or symbolic retellings.

In reality, presenting three different durations for one event can only be acceptable if the Qur’an itself clarifies the distinctions between these views – which it does not.

🧠 Conclusion

If the punishment of the people of ‘Ad occurred in a single day, why do other verses mention multiple days and then specifically eight days?

Placed side by side, these three verses leave only one possibility:

Either the Qur’an draws from multiple narrative sources that differ in detail,

Or this contradiction is evidence of a lack of coherence in Qur’anic composition and revelation.

A divine text that claims to be comprehensive and infallible cannot present temporal contradictions in describing a major historical event – especially one it references repeatedly.

5. Was Creation in Six Days or Eight?

📖 Verse(s) Under Examination

• Surah Al-A’raf, verse 54:
  “Indeed, your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days…”
• Surah Yunus, verse 3:
  “…Then He established Himself on the Throne, managing all affairs. No intercessor can plead except after His permission. That is Allah, your Lord – so worship Him…”
• Surah Hud, verse 7:
  “And it is He who created the heavens and the earth in six days…”
• Surah Al-Furqan, verse 59:
  “…who created the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them in six days…”

All of these verses emphasise that the creation of the heavens and the earth took six days.

However, in Surah Fussilat, verses 9 to 12, the process of creation is described in more detail, and eight days are implied:

• Two days for the creation of the earth
• Four days for its provisions (food, blessings, mountains…)
• Two days for the creation of the heavens

2 + 4 + 2 = 8 days

❗ Explanation of the Alleged Contradiction

Multiple verses in the Quran state clearly that the creation of the heavens and the earth was completed in six days. This number holds symbolic and theological importance both in the Quran and the Torah.

However, Surah Fussilat, when adding the time allocated to the different stages of creation, gives a total of eight days. This is while the final verse of the same Surah speaks of a perfectly ordered creation – with no mention of any numerical discrepancy.

This mathematical inconsistency, left unexplained within a text claimed to be divine, raises a serious problem of coherence.

🔍 Impartial Examination

Muslim commentators have proposed several interpretations to resolve this contradiction:

1. Some say the four middle days include the initial two days – that is, the four days are not additional but an elaboration of what had already been mentioned.
2. Another view is that the six days refer to the core acts of creation, while the remaining two concern the arrangement and regulation of created things, not their actual formation.

However, these interpretations are not supported explicitly by the verses themselves. Verse 10 says:
“…He determined therein its provisions in four days…”
– without stating that these four days include the first two.

The Quran even emphasises clarity for the inquirer:
“[As] an explanation for those who ask”,
making the attempt to compress or overlap the days even more problematic.

🧠 Conclusion

If the Quran explicitly states that the creation of the heavens and the earth took six days, yet a more detailed narrative results in a total of eight, an evident contradiction arises.

The inability to harmonise these two numerical reports raises the question: was the author of the text not aware of the sum of the figures? And if the speaker is God, “all-knowing of all things”, why does such an arithmetic error exist?

Despite efforts by defenders to justify the account through interpretive reasoning, none of the verses explicitly say that some of the days overlap or are to be counted as one. This silence and lack of clarity call into question the claimed inerrancy of the Quran.

6. Was Creation Instantaneous or Gradual?

📖 Verse(s) Under Examination

• Surah Al-A’raf, verse 54:
  “Indeed, your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days…”

(This clearly states that Allah created the heavens and the earth over six days.)

• Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 117:
  “Originator of the heavens and the earth – when He decrees a matter, He only says to it ‘Be’, and it is.”

(This describes Allah as one who, when He wills something, simply says ‘Be’, and it immediately comes into existence.)

❗ Explanation of the Alleged Contradiction

The first verse – and others like it – assert that the creation of the world occurred over six days, clearly implying a gradual, staged process.

However, the second verse introduces Allah as one who, with the mere utterance of “Be”, causes instant creation.

These are two fundamentally different depictions of divine action:

• One is process-oriented, requiring time and progression.
• The other is instantaneous, without any delay or process.

Attempting to reconcile these two – especially under modern efforts to scientifically frame the Quran – results in a deep contradiction.

🔍 Impartial Examination

Defenders of the Quran offer a number of justifications:

1. Some suggest that the six days are symbolic of six cosmic phases, not earthly time. Therefore, while creation unfolded over six stages, it was still under the instantaneous command of Allah.
2. Others argue that although Allah can create instantly, He chose to create the universe gradually to establish an orderly and instructive creation process.

However, these defences encounter critical issues:

• If creation was in fact instantaneous, why do multiple verses refer repeatedly to six days, a term that clearly implies duration?
• If “day” was meant to signify a cosmic phase or era, why does the Quran not use clearer terms like “period” or “stage”?
• Surah Al-Baqarah explicitly says:
  “When He wills something, He only says ‘Be’, and it is” – a phrase that denotes immediacy and the absence of any time-dependent process.

🧠 Conclusion

On one hand, the Quran repeatedly emphasises that the creation of the heavens and the earth occurred over six days, clearly suggesting a gradual, deliberate plan. On the other hand, it states that Allah merely says “Be”, and things instantly come into being.

These two depictions are irreconcilable – unless one relies on philosophical or metaphorical explanations that are absent from the Quranic text itself. This problem is especially serious for those who seek to interpret the Quran as scientifically coherent.

Does God need time? If not, why six days?
And if creation is not instantaneous, then why declare with certainty that He only says “Be” and it becomes? We are left uncertain about which account to accept.

7. Was the Earth Created First, or the Heavens?

📖 Verse(s) Under Examination

• Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 29:
  “It is He who created for you all that is in the earth, then He turned to the heaven and fashioned them into seven heavens…”

(Here, creation of everything on earth comes first, followed by the heavens. The word “thumma” is used, indicating sequential order with a gap in time in Arabic.)

• Surah An-Nazi’at, verses 27 to 30:
  “Are you a more difficult creation or the heaven? He built it,
  He raised its ceiling and proportioned it,
  He darkened its night and brought forth its brightness.
  And the earth – after that – He spread it out.”

(This clearly presents the heavens as being created before the earth.)

❗ Explanation of the Alleged Contradiction

In Surah Al-Baqarah, the sentence structure clearly indicates a chronological order:

First, the creation of the earth and all that is in it, then the creation of the heavens – emphasised by the word “thumma”, which in Arabic implies a delayed sequence.

However, Surah An-Nazi’at reverses this order: the heavens are built, layered, and lit first, and then it says:
“And the earth – after that – He spread it.”

So, the accounts differ significantly:

• One states that the earth preceded the heavens.
• The other shows the heavens were created first, followed by the earth.

🔍 Impartial Examination

In an attempt to resolve this contradiction, Quranic commentators have relied on linguistic manoeuvres and interpretive readings:

1. Some argue that “thumma” in Arabic does not always imply chronological order and may simply list events without time priority. However, this justification clashes with the classical Arabic style of the Quran, where “thumma” is consistently used to indicate sequentiality.
2. Regarding Surah An-Nazi’at, some claim that the verb “dahāhā” (spread out) refers to the preparation of the earth for human life, not its initial creation. Yet, Al-Baqarah makes it clear that everything on earth was created before turning to the heavens – not just the preparation stage.
3. Others posit that the initial creation of earth and heavens happened simultaneously, but their organisation took place in different stages. This, however, is a post-hoc interpretation not explicitly grounded in the verses themselves.

The core issue is that, despite claiming clarity and detail, the Quran never explicitly explains how these two accounts fit together. This ambiguity has led to divergent interpretations – some of which are difficult to reconcile with scientific chronology or logic.

🧠 Conclusion

The differing order of the creation of earth and heaven in these two Surahs is a clear example of narrative inconsistency.

If the earth was created first, why does another verse claim it came after the heavens?

And if the heavens were created first, why does Al-Baqarah insist that after creating the earth, God turned His attention to the sky?

Interpretive attempts, while sometimes detailed and clever, rely on adding concepts not found in the Quranic text itself.

This undermines the Quran’s claim of clarity, consistency, and freedom from the need for complex interpretation.

8. Coming Together or Being Pulled Apart? A Contradiction in the Creation Narrative

📖 Verse(s) Under Examination

• Surah Al-Anbiya, verse 30:
  “Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them…”

(This describes the heavens and the earth as having originally been fused together, and then split apart.)

• Surah Fussilat, verse 11:
  “Then He turned to the heaven while it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: Come willingly or unwillingly. They said: We come willingly.”

(This depicts the heaven as smoke, and God addresses both heaven and earth separately, commanding them to comply – with no mention of prior unity.)

❗ Explanation of the Alleged Contradiction

Surah Al-Anbiya claims that the heavens and the earth were once a single entity – clearly phrased as:
“kāna ratqan fa-fataqnāhumā” (They were joined, so We separated them).

In contrast, Surah Fussilat paints a reversed image. Here, the heaven is described as smoke, and God commands both heaven and earth to come forth – indicating some form of convergence or compliance, not separation.

In simple terms:

• One verse says the heavens and earth were together, then split
• The other describes them as separate, then unified in purpose or submission

We are presented with two seemingly opposite narratives of how the creation began.

🔍 Impartial Examination

To resolve this, commentators often resort to philosophical or scientific frameworks:

1. Some say “ratq” refers to a primordial undifferentiated state of matter, and that “fataq” is the separation or expansion (sometimes linked to Big Bang cosmology).

But these interpretations are modern extrapolations, developed centuries after the Quran’s revelation.

2. For Surah Fussilat, it’s said the smoke represents an ongoing state of creation, and the command to “come” was not physical movement, but a figurative submission to divine order.

These interpretations are largely dependent on external assumptions rather than the plain text.

The deeper issue is this:

• Surah Al-Anbiya refers to oneness followed by separation
• Surah Fussilat describes smoke and independent response, with no reference to prior unity

Nowhere in the Quran is it stated that these two verses refer to distinct phases of creation. And if they do, why does a text that claims to be clear and detailed not clarify this difference?

🧠 Conclusion

This contradiction is conceptual, not just linguistic or metaphorical.

Were the heavens and the earth originally one and then separated?

Or, as Surah Fussilat suggests, was the sky smoke and the earth something distinct, and both were then called to submission?

In a text that claims coherence, clarity, and a single divine source, such variations in the creation narrative raise serious questions about the source, sequencing, and editorial consistency of the verses.

Even if these accounts can be interpreted, the fact remains that the Quran, without heavy external interpretation, does not provide a singular, cohesive account of creation.

9. What Was Man Created From? Blood, Water, or Clay?

📖 Verse(s) Under Examination

A) From a clot of blood:

• Surah Al-‘Alaq, verses 1–2:
  “Recite in the name of your Lord who created –
  Created man from a clinging clot.”

(A direct reference to a biological substance, describing a stage of embryonic development.)

B) From water:

• Surah Al-Anbiya, verse 30:
  “…And We made from water every living thing…”
• Surah An-Nur, verse 45:
  “And Allah created every moving creature from water…”
• Surah Al-Furqan, verse 54:
  “And He is the One who created man from water…”

C) From clay or something like baked mud:

• Surah Al-‘Imran, verse 59:
  “Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust…”
• Surah Ar-Rum, verse 20:
  “And among His signs is that He created you from dust…”
• Surah Fatir, verse 11:
  “And Allah created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop…”

❗ Explanation of the Alleged Contradiction

These verses introduce three different substances as the source of human creation:

1. Clotted blood (ʿalaq): Refers directly to a biological substance and a specific stage of embryogenesis.
2. Water: In several verses, water is described as the source of life and the material from which man was made.
3. Clay, soil, or baked mud: In other verses, man’s creation is attributed to earth-based materials, with some even referring to “sounding clay” or something like pottery.

These variations raise foundational questions:

• Are these descriptions sequential stages of creation, or conflicting sources?
• If they are metaphors, why does the Quran not clarify the sequence or meaning of each?
• Was man created from clay, then water, then blood – or are these completely separate accounts?

🔍 Impartial Examination

Some Islamic commentators have offered the following explanations:

1. Sequential stages:
   It is said that human creation occurred in phases – beginning with clay (Adam), then water (as sperm), then blood (as embryo), eventually forming a complete human.
2. Distinction between Adam and his descendants:
   Some verses refer to the creation of Adam, while others describe the reproductive process of subsequent generations.

However, these explanations face serious issues:

• The Quran does not explicitly differentiate between the creation of Adam and the rest of humanity.
• The term “al-insān” (man) is often used (which usually refers to all humans), yet the material source differs across verses.
• The Quran does not provide a clear narrative or indicate whether these descriptions are part of a structured sequence.

Linguistically, if the intent had been to present scientific or evolutionary stages, one would expect transitions like “then”, “after that”, or “in the next stage” – but these are absent in many verses.

🧠 Conclusion

When the Quran mentions clay, water, and blood in a scattered and unstructured way as the substance of human origin, it raises the strong possibility that these accounts stem from diverse sources or traditions.

Attempts to reconcile them into a scientific or evolutionary model rest more on the reader’s effort than on the clarity of the text itself. In reality, the Quran does not present a unified, stepwise account of human creation – rather, it offers multiple, at times conflicting, descriptions.

This calls into question the unity and coherence of the Quran’s message, and the core question remains:

If man is from clay, why also from blood? If from water, why also from dust? And if these are all metaphors, why are they never explained?

10. Is the Quran Complete and Perfect or Incomplete and Fragmented?

📖 Verse(s) Under Examination

Verses that claim the Quran is complete and comprehensive:

• Surah Al-An‘am, verse 38:
  “…We have not neglected anything in the Book…”
• Surah Al-An‘am, verse 114:
  “…a Book fully detailed. Then those to whom We gave the Book…”
• Surah Yusuf, verse 111:
  “…a detailed explanation of all things and a guide and mercy…”
• Surah An-Nahl, verse 89:
  “…And We revealed to you the Book as an explanation of all things…”

❗ Explanation of the Alleged Contradiction

These verses explicitly state that the Quran:

• Omits nothing
• Details everything clearly
• Is a guide and clarification for all matters

However, when we examine everyday or complex matters – like the ruling on alcohol – we find not detailed clarity, but a gradual, evolving sequence of conflicting verses:

1. Permissibility of alcohol as a blessing:
   Surah An-Nahl, verse 67:
   “…And from the fruits of the date-palm and grapevine you derive intoxicants and good provision…”
2. Reference to its harm and benefit, without prohibition:
   Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 219:
   “…In them is great sin and [some] benefit for people…”
3. Ban on prayer while intoxicated, not a general prohibition:
   Surah An-Nisa, verse 43:
   “…Do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated…”
4. Final, complete prohibition:
   Surah Al-Ma’idah, verse 90:
   “Intoxicants… are abominations of Satan’s work, so avoid them…”

This gradual and stepwise approach to a matter as clear as alcohol consumption stands in stark contrast to the claim of “explaining all things in detail”. If the Quran truly offers everything in full, why did it not start with a clear and decisive ruling?

🔍 Impartial Examination

Defenders of the Quran usually respond with the following arguments:

1. Wisdom of gradual revelation:
   It is argued that God revealed rulings slowly to help the ignorant, unprepared society of the time adjust progressively.
2. The need for Hadith and Sunnah:
   Others claim that the details are not in the Quran because they were intended to be clarified in the Prophet’s tradition.

Yet these responses are not without problems:

• If the Quran is a “clarification of all things”, why is a secondary source required to understand its legal rulings?
• If gradual revelation was part of divine wisdom, why is this process never explained within the Quran itself?
• If alcohol was to be banned, why was it initially described as “good provision”?

These issues suggest that the Quran, contrary to its own claims, may not be fully comprehensive, or at best, it addresses matters only at a general level, leaving out specifics.

🧠 Conclusion

A Quran that repeatedly insists “nothing has been omitted” and “everything has been explained” nonetheless appears, in crucial matters like alcohol, punishments, women’s rights, inheritance, and worship, to contain ambiguities, graduality, and even silence.

This gap between the claim of completeness and the reality of incompleteness creates a major tension – one that cannot simply be filled with the excuse of gradual revelation or “the intellectual immaturity of the Arabs.”

If the Quran is truly comprehensive, why are the most socially and legally significant matters left for hadith, consensus, and interpretation?

11. Worshipping One God or Another? The Contradiction in the Identity of the Pagans’ Deity

📖 Verses under review

Surah Al-Kafirun, verse 3:
“Wa la antum ‘abidoona ma a’bud”
(And you do not worship what I worship)

Surah Az-Zumar, verse 38:
“Wa la-in sa’altahum man khalaqas-samawati wal-ard la-yaqoolunna Allah…”
(And if you ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they will surely say: Allah)

Surah Al-Ankabut, verse 61:
“Wa la-in sa’altahum man khalaqas-samawati wal-ard… la-yaqoolunna Allah…”
(And if you ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they will surely say: Allah)

❗ Alleged contradiction explained

In Surah Al-Kafirun, Muhammad is commanded to tell the disbelievers, “You do not worship what I worship.” This statement is very direct and emphatic, and insists that the deity of the pagans is not the same as his own, namely Allah.

However, in several other verses it is clearly stated that the pagans of Mecca recognised Allah as the Creator of the heavens and the earth and believed in Him. They only committed shirk in worship, not in the fundamental belief in God.

Here a clear conceptual contradiction arises. Did the pagans worship a different god? Or did they worship the same Allah but alongside idols?

If the second is true, which textual and historical evidence supports, then why does the Quran state so absolutely that they do not worship what Muhammad worships?

🔍 Impartial examination

To resolve this contradiction, some commentators have offered explanations.

Firstly, some have said that although the pagans knew Allah, their worship was insincere and therefore worthless and unacceptable.

Others believe that the phrase “you do not worship what I worship” refers to a difference in intention and method of worship, not the deity itself. In this view, Muhammad worshipped Allah alone without partners, whereas the pagans invoked Him alongside idols.

However, these interpretations are not compatible with the literal text of Surah Al-Kafirun. The phrase “ma a’bud” means “that which I worship” and “ma ta’budoon” means “that which you worship,” and clearly refers to the object of worship itself, not to the quality or intention of the act. Especially since the same idea is repeated twice more in this very short surah, without any indication of metaphor or analogy.

If the pagans were indeed worshipping the same Allah but with shirk, then the total negation in Surah Al-Kafirun about the object of their worship is either an error or an exaggeration, and in any case inconsistent with the other verses.

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran states in several verses that the pagans recognised Allah and even believed Him to be the Creator. Nevertheless, in Surah Al-Kafirun, Muhammad emphatically declares that the pagans do not worship what he worships. This contradiction in defining the object of worship is a clear case of internal inconsistency.

The attempt to explain this contradiction requires adding meanings and interpretive layers that the verses themselves do not mention. As a result, a text that claims clarity and coherence ends up expressing ambiguity regarding the most fundamental principle of the religion, which is monotheism.

12. To Intercede or Not to Intercede? That Is the Question

📖 Verses under review

Verses that completely reject intercession:

• Surah Al-Baqarah, verses 122–123:
  “Ya Bani Isra’il adhkuroo ni’mati… yawmun laa tajzee nafsun ‘an nafsin shay’an wa laa yuqbalu minhaa shafaa’ah…”
  (A day will come when no soul can bear anything on behalf of another and no intercession will be accepted)
• Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 254:
  “…yawmun laa bay’un feehi wa laa khullatun wa laa shafaa’ah…”
  (A day on which there is no trade, no friendship and no intercession)
• Surah Al-Infitar, verses 18–19:
  “Wa maa adraaka maa yawmud-deen * thumma maa adraaka maa yawmud-deen * yawma laa tamliku nafsun li-nafsin shay’an…”
  (A day when no soul shall have power to do anything for another)

Verses that affirm intercession:

• Surah An-Najm, verse 26:
  “Wa kam min malakin fis-samawaati laa tughnee shafaa’atuhum shay’an illa min ba’di an ya’zana Allah…”
  (How many angels there are in the heavens whose intercession will be of no use except after Allah gives permission)
• Surah Az-Zukhruf, verse 86:
  “Wa laa yamliku alladheena yad’oona min doonihi ash-shafaa’ata illa man shahida bil-haqq…”
  (Those whom they call upon besides Him possess no power of intercession except those who bear witness to the truth)
• Surah Saba, verse 23:
  “Wa laa tanfa’u ash-shafaa’atu ‘indahu illa liman adhina lahu…”
  (Intercession is of no benefit with Him except for those to whom He grants permission)
• Surah Ta-Ha, verse 109:
  “Yawma idhin laa tanfa’u ash-shafaa’atu illa man adhina lahu ar-Rahman…”
  (On that day, intercession will not benefit except those for whom the Merciful grants permission)

❗ Alleged contradiction explained

The Quran in some verses clearly states that no intercession will be accepted on the Day of Judgement. This is stated absolutely and without exception. There will be no trade, no friendship and no intercession.

But in other verses, intercession is affirmed provided that it is by divine permission. Not only does intercession exist here, but a structure for it is also defined. Those who are permitted by God may intercede on behalf of others.

This creates a content contradiction:

• Does intercession not exist at all?
• Or does it exist but only under specific conditions?

If the second is correct, why do the first verses reject it so strongly and categorically? And if intercession fundamentally does not exist, why are later conditions introduced for its occurrence?

🔍 Impartial examination

To resolve this contradiction, some Muslim commentators have pointed to several possibilities:

1. Intercession is forbidden without permission but allowed with it.
   This answer seems logical on the surface, but its flaw lies in the absolute wording of the verses that deny intercession, which do not mention any exception or condition. For example, Surah Al-Baqarah says “no intercession will be accepted” and does not say “unless by God’s permission.”
2. The verses denying intercession are about disbelievers.
   According to this view, the verses that reject intercession refer only to those who did not believe in God. However, there is nothing in the text to suggest that the audience is limited to disbelievers. The wording applies to all humanity.
3. The verses that deny intercession were revealed earlier, and the others came later.
   Even if we accept this sequence of revelation, it still implies a change in the Quran’s position on one of the essential tenets of the afterlife. For a book that claims to be free of contradiction, such a change is unacceptable.

In the end, none of the interpretive attempts has succeeded in reconciling the two groups of verses in a way that removes their conceptual inconsistency.

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran on one hand says in absolute terms that there will be no intercession on the Day of Judgement. On the other hand, it outlines conditions and structures in which intercession may take place. These two stances are not compatible and contradict one another.

The claim that the Quran is free of contradictions is challenged here, because we are faced with two conflicting declarations. One completely denies the possibility of intercession and the other affirms it under conditions. These two cannot both be true unless external interpretations are added which are not mentioned in the Quranic text.

13. Allah and His Throne – Where is He?

📖 Verse(s) under examination

Surah Qaf, verse 16:
“And We are closer to him than his jugular vein.”

Surah Hadid, verse 4:
“Then He established Himself upon the Throne.”

Surah Hud, verse 7:
“And His Throne was upon the water.”

Surah Sajdah, verse 5:
“He arranges every matter… in a day whose span is a thousand years.”

Surah Ma’arij, verse 4:
“The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him… in a day the measure of which is fifty thousand years.”

❗ Stated contradiction explained

In some verses, Allah is described as extremely close to human beings – even closer than their jugular vein. This presents an image of a present, active, and ever-watching deity.

However, in other verses, Allah is described as being upon the Throne, a throne that was established upon water. This is a clearly spatial and physical description, suggesting that God possesses a particular location or position within the universe.

Elsewhere, other verses indicate that reaching Allah requires a journey of a thousand or even fifty thousand years, implying a vast distance between Him and His creation.

How can these three portrayals – absolute proximity, presence upon the Throne, and immense distance – all be simultaneously true?

🔍 Neutral examination

Commentators have tried to explain these differences as follows:

1. Allah’s closeness to human beings is not physical but refers to His awareness and knowledge.
2. The Throne is symbolic of sovereignty, not a literal place.
3. The mentioned durations are metaphorical expressions of Allah’s majesty, not indicators of actual distance.

Though such interpretations are common, they present certain problems:

• The Qur’anic text never states that these descriptions are metaphorical.
• The use of concepts such as throne, water, and precise time spans leads the reader to understand them literally.
• The absence of a clear boundary between metaphor and reality creates conceptual ambiguity.

🧠 Conclusion

In the Qur’an, Allah is at times within the human being, at times upon a throne, and at other times so distant that reaching Him would take thousands of years. These three descriptions cannot all be literally true unless additional interpretations are added, which are not explicitly found in the text.

This inconsistency in the depiction of God’s location and presence creates a significant contradiction and calls into question the conceptual coherence of Qur’anic monotheism.

13. Allah and His Throne – Where is He?

📖 Verse(s) under examination

Surah Qaf, verse 16:
“And We are closer to him than his jugular vein.”

Surah Hadid, verse 4:
“Then He established Himself upon the Throne.”

Surah Hud, verse 7:
“And His Throne was upon the water.”

Surah Sajdah, verse 5:
“He arranges every matter… in a day whose span is a thousand years.”

Surah Ma’arij, verse 4:
“The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him… in a day the measure of which is fifty thousand years.”

❗ Stated contradiction explained

In some verses, Allah is described as extremely close to human beings – even closer than their jugular vein. This presents an image of a present, active, and ever-watching deity.

However, in other verses, Allah is described as being upon the Throne, a throne that was established upon water. This is a clearly spatial and physical description, suggesting that God possesses a particular location or position within the universe.

Elsewhere, other verses indicate that reaching Allah requires a journey of a thousand or even fifty thousand years, implying a vast distance between Him and His creation.

How can these three portrayals – absolute proximity, presence upon the Throne, and immense distance – all be simultaneously true?

🔍 Neutral examination

Commentators have tried to explain these differences as follows:

1. Allah’s closeness to human beings is not physical but refers to His awareness and knowledge.
2. The Throne is symbolic of sovereignty, not a literal place.
3. The mentioned durations are metaphorical expressions of Allah’s majesty, not indicators of actual distance.

Though such interpretations are common, they present certain problems:

• The Qur’anic text never states that these descriptions are metaphorical.
• The use of concepts such as throne, water, and precise time spans leads the reader to understand them literally.
• The absence of a clear boundary between metaphor and reality creates conceptual ambiguity.

🧠 Conclusion

In the Qur’an, Allah is at times within the human being, at times upon a throne, and at other times so distant that reaching Him would take thousands of years. These three descriptions cannot all be literally true unless additional interpretations are added, which are not explicitly found in the text.

This inconsistency in the depiction of God’s location and presence creates a significant contradiction and calls into question the conceptual coherence of Qur’anic monotheism.

14. Where does suffering come from?

📖 Verse(s) under examination

Surah Sad, verse 41:
“And remember Our servant Job… who said, ‘Indeed, Satan has touched me with hardship and torment.’”

Surah Nisa, verse 79:
“Whatever good befalls you is from Allah, and whatever ill befalls you is from yourself…”

Surah Nisa, verse 78:
“…Say, ‘All is from Allah…’”

❗ Stated contradiction explained

In the above verses, three different sources are given for evil and suffering:

1. Satan: Job declares in his prayer that it was Satan who afflicted him with suffering and pain. This indicates that the source of human suffering may be external and demonic.
   
2. The human being himself: Another verse claims that all misfortunes that befall a person are the result of their own actions and choices. This view assigns full responsibility for evil to the individual.
   
3. Allah: Finally, one verse explicitly states that everything, whether good or bad, is from Allah. This view contradicts the previous one by identifying Allah as the ultimate source of all events.
   

The presence of these three different views, without explanation or clear differentiation, confronts the reader with three separate and sometimes contradictory sources of evil.

🔍 Neutral examination

Commentators have tried to resolve these contradictions with the following arguments:

1. Satan as an intermediary: It is said that Satan is merely an instrument of trial or punishment, but the ultimate will rests with Allah.
   
2. “From yourself” refers to the causal responsibility of humans: That is, a person’s wrongdoings create the conditions for evil to befall them, although its realisation still depends on Allah’s will.
   
3. As for the verse “all is from Allah,” it is interpreted to mean that even evils have a place in the divine decree, though humans attract them due to their free will.
   

Nonetheless, these justifications rely on secondary interpretation, while the Qur’anic text itself clearly expresses three separate origins without semantic alignment.

Moreover, if all events are from Allah, what then remains of human free will and responsibility? And if evil originates from the individual, what role do Allah and Satan play? This ambiguity is particularly troubling in a theological system that claims absolute coherence.

🧠 Conclusion

In the Qur’an, evil and suffering are sometimes attributed to Satan, sometimes to the individual himself, and at other times wholly to Allah. These three differing views, without clear boundaries or explanation, confront the reader with a conceptual contradiction regarding the origin of evil.

In a religious system built upon justice, free will, and reward or punishment, such a lack of clarity in answering the basic question “What is the source of evil?” is a clear sign of a lack of logical and theological coherence.

15. How extensive is Allah’s mercy?

📖 Verse(s) under examination

Surah An’am, verse 12:
“He has decreed mercy upon Himself…”

Surah An’am, verse 35:
“If Allah had willed, He would have gathered them all upon guidance…”

Surah Ibrahim, verse 4:
“So Allah misguides whom He wills and guides whom He wills…”

❗ Stated contradiction explained

One verse in Surah An’am explicitly states that Allah has decreed mercy upon Himself. This phrase portrays an image of a merciful and compassionate God, eager to guide humanity, whose mercy is neither limited nor conditional.

However, just a few verses later in the same surah, it is stated that even if you struggle for people’s guidance, Allah will not guide them, for had He willed, He would have guided everyone.

In another surah, it is stated that Allah Himself misguides whom He wills, and guides whom He wills. This casts doubt on both human free will and the unbounded nature of divine mercy.

How is it possible for a God who has decreed mercy upon Himself to deliberately misguide some, even though He can guide them and chooses not to?

🔍 Neutral examination

Qur’anic commentators have attempted to resolve this contradiction with the following justifications:

1. The phrase “He has decreed mercy upon Himself” means that divine mercy prevails over creation, not that it is always applied to everyone.
   
2. Regarding guidance, some believe that ultimate guidance is only given to those who prepare themselves for it.
   

Thus, the misguidance of others is a reaction to their disobedience, not a baseless divine choice.

3. Others interpret divine misguidance as a form of punishment, not a denial of mercy from the outset.
   

Yet even within these interpretations, the core issue remains: if guidance is entirely in Allah’s control and He is capable of guiding everyone but chooses not to, what becomes of unconditional mercy?

And why should divine mercy be contingent upon merit, when Allah has decreed it upon Himself?

🧠 Conclusion

The verses of the Qur’an portray Allah’s mercy as kind, absolute, and unbounded, yet elsewhere it is clearly stated that Allah does not want some people to be guided, even though He can.

This creates a contradiction between divine will, human agency, and the claimed boundlessness of Allah’s mercy.

If His mercy is real, infinite, and universal, why does He prevent some from being guided? And if guidance depends solely on His will, where lies human responsibility? This significant ambiguity contradicts the image of the Merciful God presented in the Qur’an.

16. Will There Be Questioning in Paradise or Not?

📖 Verse(s) under examination

Surah Al-Mu’minun, verse 101: “And when the Trumpet is blown, there will be no kinship among them that Day, nor will they ask one another.”

Surah At-Tur, verse 25: “And they will approach one another, inquiring of each other.”

Surah As-Saffat, verse 27: “And they will turn to one another, questioning each other.”

❗ Stated contradiction explained

The Quran presents a portrayal of the afterlife that is at times serene and at times terrifying. Yet regarding a seemingly simple issue – inquiry and conversation among individuals – it contains a contradiction.

Surah Al-Mu’minun states that on the Day of Judgement, no one will ask another anything. The sentence is absolute and definitive: no kinship will remain, and no questioning will take place.

However, in other verses, it is explicitly stated that people will speak to each other, ask questions, and engage in dialogue.

In Surah As-Saffat, those who have entered Hell or been spared from it speak to one another. In Surah At-Tur, the people of Paradise recall their past lives in conversation.

How is it possible that no questioning occurs while everyone is simultaneously described as asking one another?

🔍 Neutral examination

Some commentators have attempted to resolve this contradiction as follows:

1. The verse in Surah Al-Mu’minun refers to the initial moment of resurrection, while the other verses refer to post-judgement periods, i.e., in Paradise or Hell.
2. It is claimed that “they will not question” means worldly ties and relationships are ineffective, not that no conversation at all will occur.
3. Others suggest that this initial silence is due to the overwhelming terror of the Day of Judgement, which later transitions into conversation.

However, these interpretations are not aligned with the explicit text. The Quran in Surah Al-Mu’minun mentions the lack of questioning as a characteristic of “that Day” without specifying a particular phase.

If questioning is only possible in Paradise, why does Surah As-Saffat describe questioning by those in Hell?

And if questioning absolutely does not occur, how are the numerous dialogues and interactions after death in other verses justified?

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran states in one verse that on the Day of Judgement, people will not question one another, yet in other verses it clearly presents mutual questioning, verbal interaction, and recollection of past events.

This duality in narrative reveals a conceptual contradiction in the depiction of what will happen on the Last Day.

If the purpose of describing such details is to inform humanity about its destiny, consistency in the narrative should be maintained. The lack of such consistency suggests either the information was not conveyed correctly or that the speaker’s understanding changed over time.

17. Are Angels Guardians?

📖 Verse(s) under examination

Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 107: “You have no guardian or helper besides Allah.”

Surah Al-Ankabut, verse 22: “You cannot escape Allah on earth or in the heavens; and you have no protector or helper besides Him.”

Surah Fussilat, verse 31: “We are your allies in the worldly life and in the Hereafter.”

Surah Ar-Ra‘d, verse 11: “For each one are successive angels before and behind him who protect him by the decree of Allah.”

Surah Qaf, verses 17–18: “When the two receivers receive [his words]… Not a word does he utter but there is an observer near him ready [to record it].”

Surah Al-Infitar, verse 10: “And indeed, [appointed] over you are guardians.”

❗ Stated contradiction explained

According to some verses of the Quran, there is no guardian, helper, or protector except Allah. This emphasises divine exclusivity in support and protection, implying that no being can act in that role independently or alongside Him.

Yet in other verses, angels are clearly described as guardians, watchers, and protectors of humans.

In Surah Fussilat, the angels directly inform the believers that they were their companions and protectors in both worldly life and the Hereafter.

In other surahs, angels are described as tasked with guarding, recording actions, preserving people physically, and observing speech.

These two depictions – the exclusive protection by Allah and the active protective role of angels – are plainly at odds with one another.

🔍 Neutral examination

Interpreters commonly reconcile this contradiction through the following points:

1. Angels function as divinely authorised agents, not independent protectors. All their actions are carried out under God’s command.
2. The phrase “no guardian except Allah” refers to denying independent protection, not the absolute absence of appointed agents.
3. The term “wali” is sometimes used, which implies permanent custodianship, not merely the act of guarding.

Nonetheless, the fundamental problem remains:

If angels play such an active role in protecting humans, recording deeds, and accompanying them even in Paradise, why does the Quran elsewhere completely deny all such roles and attribute them solely to Allah?

This contradiction either arises from ambiguity in Quranic phrasing or from a duality in its theological depiction of monotheism and the unseen realm.

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran at times attributes all roles of support, guardianship, and custody exclusively to Allah, and at other times presents angels as actively engaged guardians of human beings.

These two portrayals cannot both be fully correct unless one resorts to justifications that are not present in the Quranic text itself, relying instead on external interpretations.

Therefore, this duality in the protective role of angels is yet another indication of conceptual inconsistency within the Quran.

18. Is Everything Obedient to Allah?

📖 Verse(s) under examination

Surah Ar-Rum, verse 26: “To Him belongs whoever is in the heavens and the earth; all are devoutly obedient to Him.”

Surah Al-A‘raf, verse 11: “And when We said to the angels, ‘Prostrate to Adam,’ they prostrated, except Iblis…”

Surah Al-Hijr, verses 28–31 (command to prostrate and Iblis’ refusal)

Surah Al-Isra, verse 61 (again stressing Iblis’ disobedience)

Surah Ta-Ha, verse 116 (Iblis’ defiance)

Surah Al-Kahf, verse 50: “Except Iblis. He was of the jinn and departed from the command of his Lord…”

Surah Al-Qasas, verses 71–74 (mentions those who deny God’s commands)

❗ Stated contradiction explained

Surah Ar-Rum declares definitively that all who are in the heavens and the earth are obedient to God. The word “qanitoon” denotes subservient, obedient, and devout beings, and the surface meaning suggests no exception.

Yet dozens of other verses speak of explicit disobedience by Iblis (Satan), and of disobedience by humans, jinn, and possibly other beings.

The most cited example is Iblis’ refusal to prostrate before Adam, which is mentioned multiple times in the Quran and each time framed as a rebellion against a direct command from God.

How can the Quran state that “all” are obedient, when it itself reports numerous cases of conscious disobedience?

🔍 Neutral examination

Defenders of the Quran typically argue as follows:

1. The term “qanitoon” refers to obedience to cosmic laws, not necessarily moral or conscious obedience. That is, all beings follow God’s laws in the natural order, even if they rebel in behaviour.
2. Some interpreters claim the “all” in 30:26 refers only to certain creatures or the faithful, not every being.
3. The disobedience of Iblis and others are exceptions that reflect free will and divine testing, not flaws in the structure of obedience.

Still, these interpretations do not align with the straightforward wording of the verse.

When the Quran states categorically “all are obedient to Him”, but repeatedly speaks of willful rebellion, arrogance, and sinful actions by intelligent beings, this creates an obvious conflict in the reader’s understanding.

If “all” is meant to mean “most” or “in a cosmic sense”, why does the verse itself not provide such clarification?

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran’s claim of absolute obedience from all creatures to God conflicts with its many references to the deliberate disobedience of Iblis, humans, jinn, and unbelievers.

Justifications that soften this contradiction are drawn from external interpretations, not the text itself.

This tension between “absolute obedience” and “documented rebellion” is a clear example of conceptual inconsistency in the Quran’s portrayal of the Creator-creature relationship.

19. Does Allah Forgive Polytheism?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah An-Nisā’, verse 48:
“Indeed, Allah does not forgive associating others with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills…”
(Without doubt, Allah does not forgive polytheism [association of others with Him], but forgives other sins for whomever He wills)

Surah An-Nisā’, verse 116:
(The same concept is repeated: polytheism is unforgivable)

Surah An-Nisā’, verse 153:
“…So We pardoned that…”
(And We forgave [the polytheism and previous sins of the people of Moses])

Surah Al-An‘ām, verses 76–78:
(The story of Abraham calling the sun, moon, and stars his Lord, and then rejecting each of them)

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

In several verses, the Quran presents polytheism as the greatest and most unforgivable sin. Verses 48 and 116 of Surah An-Nisā’ assert, with utmost certainty, that Allah may forgive any sin, except polytheism. This is considered one of the central theological principles of the Quran.

Yet, in the very same Surah (verse 153), it clearly states that He pardoned the polytheism of the ancestors, thereby forgiving it. How can such a firm rule suddenly be broken in the same Surah?

Moreover, the story of Abraham in Surah Al-An‘ām clearly shows that at one stage of his life, he considered the sun, moon, and stars to be his Lord. If such worship constitutes polytheism, and if polytheism is unforgivable, then how did Abraham attain the status of prophethood? And if prophets are meant to be sinless, was his polytheism ignored?

These examples create a conceptual contradiction in the Quran’s framework of sin, forgiveness, and prophetic infallibility.

🔍 Impartial Review

Those who defend against this contradiction have put forth several explanations:

1. Verses 48 and 116 refer to those who die in a state of polytheism, whereas verse 153 refers to those who repented or are still alive.
   
2. Regarding Abraham, some claim that worshipping the sun and moon was a mental exercise in search of truth, not real polytheism.
   
3. Some commentators argue that Abraham’s polytheism was due to innocent ignorance in childhood, and therefore not judged by the criteria of legal responsibility.
   

However, these justifications face two major problems:

– Nowhere in the Quranic text are any of these distinctions explicitly stated; the verses are categorical and unqualified.

– If Abraham was once a polytheist, and Allah does not forgive polytheism, then either we must accept that Abraham sinned, or admit that the verse stating “polytheism is unforgivable” has been contradicted.

🧠 Conclusion

The Quranic verses portray polytheism as an unforgivable sin, and yet in cases such as the people of Moses or even the figure of Abraham, polytheism appears to have been overlooked or forgiven. This duality disrupts conceptual coherence.

If polytheism is only unforgivable at the point of death, why is this not clearly stated in the verse?

And if Abraham is infallible, why does the Quran plainly show him going through a stage that involves polytheism?

This contradiction is a clear indication of a lack of clarity in the Quran regarding the boundaries of sin, repentance, forgiveness, and the status of prophets.

20. The Story of the Golden Calf Worship

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-A‘rāf, verse 149:
“And when regret overcame them and they saw that they had gone astray, they said: If our Lord does not have mercy on us and forgive us…”
(And when they repented and realised that they had gone astray, they said: If our Lord does not have mercy on us and forgive us, we shall surely be among the losers)

Surah Ṭā Hā, verse 91:
“They said: We will not cease to be devoted to it until Moses returns to us”
(They said: We shall remain devoted to this calf until Moses returns to us)

Surah Ṭā Hā, verses 85–90:
(Hārūn is described as innocent and as one who warned the people)

Surah Ṭā Hā, verse 92:
“He [Moses] said: O Hārūn, what prevented you when you saw them going astray?”

Surah Al-A‘rāf, verse 151:
Moses said: My Lord, forgive me and my brother, and admit us into Your mercy

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

The story of the worship of the golden calf by the Israelites is one of the Quran’s most frequently mentioned and significant narratives. However, its recounting across different Surahs contains inconsistencies.

In Surah Al-A‘rāf, it is stated that the people of Israel repented before Moses returned from the mountain and realised they had gone astray. This verse portrays a group of penitent and self-aware individuals who had turned back from their error.

Yet in Surah Ṭā Hā, it is said that they insisted on worshipping the calf and declared that they would not desist until Moses returned. This verse depicts a people who deliberately and consciously remained in polytheism.

In addition, there is a clear contradiction regarding the role of Hārūn. In Surah Ṭā Hā, Hārūn is described as blameless, having warned the people against calf worship, but ultimately unable to stop them.

However, later in that same Surah—and also in Surah Al-A‘rāf—Moses becomes angry with Hārūn and even asks God to forgive his and his brother’s sin.

If Hārūn was merely a faultless warner, why did Moses rebuke him and ask for his forgiveness?

And if Hārūn was guilty, then why was he initially exonerated?

🔍 Impartial Review

Some commentators, in order to resolve these contradictions, have offered the following explanations:

1. The verse in Surah Al-A‘rāf refers to a group within the people who repented before Moses returned, whereas Surah Ṭā Hā refers to another faction who remained calf-worshippers.
   
2. Moses rebuked Hārūn out of anger, but this reproach concerned his leadership, not an accusation of polytheism or complicity.
   
3. The request for forgiveness for Hārūn was an act of humility from Moses and aimed at avoiding division among the people, not an admission of actual guilt.
   

Despite these justifications, the core problem remains unresolved:

If Hārūn had truly committed no sin, there would have been no need to ask God for his forgiveness. And if the people had repented before Moses returned, why did they still persist in calf worship?

These inconsistencies point to narrative variation, and possibly a multi-sourced origin for this story in the Quran.

🧠 Conclusion

The story of the golden calf worship is narrated in the Quran in ways that undermine temporal and logical coherence.

Did the people repent before Moses returned, or did they insist on polytheism?

Was Hārūn blameless, or complicit in sin?

These contradictions challenge the reliability of the Quran’s historical accuracy and its claim to divine origin.

21. Did Jonah Reach the Desert or Not?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah As-Sāffāt, verse 145:
“So We cast him on the barren shore while he was ill”
(And We cast him, while he was ill, onto a bare land [desert])

Surah Al-Qalam, verse 49:
“Had it not been that a favour from his Lord reached him, he would certainly have been cast on the barren shore, while he was blamed”
(If his Lord’s favour had not reached him, he would have been cast onto the barren land [waterless desert], in a state of blame)

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

The Quran recounts the story of Jonah multiple times. In one verse (As-Sāffāt 145), it clearly states that God cast Jonah onto the barren land while he was ill. This verse is entirely unambiguous and affirms the event decisively.

However, in another verse (Al-Qalam 49), it says that if God’s favour had not reached him, he would have been cast onto the barren land; that is, what was a certainty in the previous verse is now presented as a conditional possibility.

This contradiction between an event described as having happened and one described as something that would have happened had divine mercy not intervened creates a fundamental ambiguity in the narrative:

Did Jonah reach the desert, or was he saved from falling into it by divine favour?

🔍 Impartial Review

Muslim commentators typically offer the following explanations to resolve this interpretative discrepancy:

1. The verse in Al-Qalam refers to a negative outcome that might have awaited Jonah, but divine favour prevented him from being cast down in a state of blame and disgrace.
   
2. In Surah As-Sāffāt, the emphasis is on Jonah’s physical state (illness) rather than the aspect of being blameworthy.
   

That is, in both cases, Jonah was cast onto the barren land, but one verse compares that to the alternative of being cast down in disgrace, while the other focuses on his frail condition.

3. Some also argue that the verse in Al-Qalam refers to the time before Jonah was cast out: “Had the favour not come, this would have happened”, but in the end, the favour did come, and the desert landing occurred under better conditions.
   

Although these interpretations attempt to reconcile the contradiction, it must be noted that in Arabic linguistic structure, both verses describe events that relate to a specific moment and situation.

In one verse, the act is stated as having definitely occurred, while in the other, its occurrence is said to have been prevented by divine mercy.

🧠 Conclusion

In the story of Jonah, the Quran at one point clearly states that Jonah was cast into the desert, and elsewhere it says that were it not for divine favour, he would have been cast there. This tension between a completed action and a conditional hypothetical reflects narrative inconsistency.

Even when analysed through refined interpretative frameworks, this discrepancy still appears—especially to a general reader or someone unfamiliar with Arabic linguistics—as a conceptual contradiction in the text.

A text that claims to be divine in origin ought not to display such ambiguity when describing a specific event.

22. Moses and the Gospel?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-A‘rāf, verse 157:
“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet… whom they find written about in the Torah and the Gospel which they have with them…”
(Those who follow the unlettered Prophet, whose [name] they find written in the Torah and the Gospel…)

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

According to accepted historical sources, Moses lived approximately 1300 years before Jesus. The Gospel, as affirmed both by the Quran and by Christian belief, is the book that was given to Jesus, not to Moses.

Yet in Surah Al-A‘rāf, God is shown speaking to the Israelites during the time of Moses, urging them to believe in a prophet whose description is found in both the Torah and the Gospel.

At that point in history, the Gospel did not yet exist, and Jesus had not yet been born.

This means that either:

– Moses and his people had knowledge of a book that had not yet been revealed,
– or the author of the verse assumed, consciously or unconsciously, that both books existed simultaneously and were accessible to the people of Moses.

In either case, a temporal and logical contradiction arises in the narrative.

🔍 Impartial Review

Defenders of this contradiction have attempted to interpret the verse in a way that removes the chronological tension. For example:

1. Some say the verse refers to the fact that in the time of the Quran’s revelation, the People of the Book could find mention of the Prophet of Islam in the Torah and Gospel available to them, not necessarily during the time of Moses.
   
2. Others believe the verse is addressed to the Jews and Christians of the Prophet Muhammad’s era, not to the Israelites during the time of Moses.
   

However, these explanations do not sit well with the text and its context, because in the preceding verse (verse 156), it is Moses who is speaking to God, and in the continuation of that same dialogue, the verse suddenly introduces a future prophet and books such as the Gospel.

Furthermore, the Quran itself repeatedly emphasises that the Gospel came after the Torah and was given solely to Jesus (for instance, Surah 5, verse 46).

So how could Moses have known about the contents of the Gospel?

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran’s reference to the Gospel during God’s dialogue with Moses is historically and logically inconsistent.

A Gospel that was revealed centuries after Moses could not have been available to or known by his people.

This presents not only a chronological contradiction but also a sign of confusion in the sequencing of historical events in the Quranic text.

If the aim is guidance and enlightenment, such obvious errors in historical sequence cast serious doubt on the credibility of the narrative.

23. Are Those Who Accuse Women of Immorality Forgiven?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah An-Nūr, verse 5:
“Except those who repent after that and reform. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”

Surah An-Nūr, verse 23:
“Indeed, those who accuse chaste, unsuspecting, believing women are cursed in this world and the Hereafter. For them is a great punishment.”

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

In one verse, the Quran states that accusing chaste women is a grave sin that can be forgiven if the offender repents and reforms. This verse reflects divine compassion towards the repentant and preserves the possibility of forgiveness.

In the same chapter, a few verses later, it is declared in absolute terms that those who accuse believing and innocent women are cursed in this life and the next. A severe punishment awaits them. No possibility of forgiveness is mentioned, and the language suggests a permanent consequence.

Both verses appear in close succession, yet they convey conflicting messages about whether this sin is forgivable.

🔍 Impartial Review

Commentators have attempted to explain the contradiction in various ways.

Some argue that verse 5 refers to slander in general, while verse 23 concerns those who slander believing, innocent, and unaware women, which carries heavier consequences.

Others say that verse 23 addresses people who not only made the accusation but insisted upon it and never repented.

A different interpretation suggests that the curse and punishment in verse 23 apply only if there is no repentance, even though the verse does not say so explicitly.

However, neither verse contains the clarifying conditions of the other. If verse 23 were meant to allow for repentance, it should have stated it as clearly as verse 5 does. And if verse 5 includes all cases of slander, the eternal curse and punishment in verse 23 seem to contradict the promise of forgiveness.

🧠 Conclusion

Within a single chapter, the Quran presents two different outcomes for the same act. One offers the hope of forgiveness through repentance. The other declares permanent curse and punishment.

This inconsistency, especially regarding a serious and socially sensitive accusation, raises questions about the narrative coherence and fairness.

Does God forgive, or not? Is repentance a valid path to redemption, or not? The answer is unclear. This lack of clarity in a text that claims to be a source of guidance represents a serious flaw.

24. How Will We Receive Our Record on the Day of Judgement?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-Infiṭār, verse 10:
“As for the one who is given his record behind his back…”

Surah Al-Ḥāqqah, verse 25:
“As for the one who is given his record in his left hand…”

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

In describing how sinners will receive their record of deeds on the Day of Judgement, the Quran presents two different images.

In Surah Al-Ḥāqqah, it says they will receive their record in the left hand.

In Surah Al-Infiṭār, it says they will be given it behind their back.

Both verses clearly refer to the same group, namely the sinners or the damned, and both portray a state of loss and punishment. However, the difference in the way the record is handed over raises questions.

Do they receive it in their left hand, or from behind their back?

These two physical positions cannot be reconciled easily without imposing a special interpretation or an implied combination, neither of which is mentioned in the text itself.

🔍 Impartial Review

Commentators have proposed different explanations in an attempt to harmonise these two descriptions.

Some suggest that the record is received with the left hand from behind the back, meaning both descriptions are valid and refer to different aspects of the same event.

Others interpret the phrase “from behind the back” as symbolic of a more humiliating punishment, rather than referring to physical orientation.

There are also those who argue that the two verses refer to different types of sinners, each group receiving its record in a distinct way based on the severity of their deeds.

However, none of these interpretations are explicitly supported by the Quranic text. The verses simply say “the one who is given his record…” without offering any differentiation between levels of guilt or types of sinners.

If it is assumed that both descriptions apply to the same group, the lack of clarification in the Quran regarding how these two images fit together creates ambiguity and narrative inconsistency.

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran presents two distinct and seemingly incompatible images regarding how sinners receive their record: either behind their back or in their left hand.

In the absence of a clear explanation or indication of different groups, this variation cannot be assumed to represent two angles of the same event.

Rather, it suggests the existence of two separate versions of the narrative or a shift in the perspective of the author at different moments, which undermines the overall consistency of the message.

25. Are There No Angels Who Are Disobedient or Arrogant?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah An-Naḥl, verses 49–50:
“To Allah prostrates whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth of creatures and the angels, and they do not act arrogantly. They fear their Lord above them and do as they are commanded.”

Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 34:
“And when We said to the angels: Prostrate before Adam, they all prostrated except Iblis. He refused and acted arrogantly and became one of the disbelievers.”

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

In the verses of Surah An-Naḥl, it is stated that angels never show arrogance and always carry out the commands given to them. The image of angels here is one of complete obedience, humility, and loyalty.

However, in Surah Al-Baqarah, the story of prostration before Adam is told, and Iblis is introduced as the one who disobeyed the divine command and acted arrogantly, standing apart from the rest of the angels.

The contradiction begins here.

Either Iblis was an angel, in which case his disobedience and arrogance directly contradict the claim made in Surah An-Naḥl that angels do not disobey.

Or Iblis was not an angel, yet the verse in Surah Al-Baqarah places him among the angels and treats him as subject to the same command and expectations.

In both cases, there is a structural and semantic inconsistency that undermines the notion of angels being entirely obedient by nature.

🔍 Impartial Review

Islamic commentators have offered several arguments to resolve this contradiction.

The most common response is that Iblis was from the jinn, not an angel. They refer to Surah Al-Kahf, verse 50, which states:
“Iblis was one of the jinn, and he departed from the command of his Lord.”

According to this view, Iblis was simply present among the angels but was not one of them, and therefore his disobedience does not contradict the verses describing absolute angelic obedience.

Others argue that the divine command applied to all elevated beings, including jinn like Iblis, and he, unlike the angels, chose to disobey.

Although these explanations are somewhat plausible, the main problem remains.

Verse 2:34 clearly addresses all the angels and then makes an exception for Iblis from among them.

If Iblis was of the jinn, why does the Quran use the term “angels” and then exclude Iblis from within that group?

In Arabic linguistic structure, such an exception typically implies that the excluded entity is a part of the group mentioned.

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran presents two incompatible depictions of angels.

One shows them as entirely obedient and free from arrogance.

The other involves a figure who is included in their gathering but refuses to obey and acts arrogantly.

The attempt to argue that Iblis was a jinn and not an angel does not align with the wording of Surah Al-Baqarah, which places him in the midst of the angels and under the same directive.

This contradiction in explaining the nature of supernatural beings in the Quran represents a serious conceptual flaw.

26. Who Brings the Revelation? Jibril, the Holy Spirit, or Both? And Is the Quran a Confirmation or a Replacement?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 97
“Say, whoever is an enemy to Jibril, it is he who brought it down upon your heart by Allah’s permission, confirming what was before it.”

Surah An-Nahl, verse 102
“Say, the Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord in truth.”

Surah An-Nahl, verse 101
“When We substitute one verse in place of another.”

Surah An-Nahl, verse 103
“We certainly know that they say: a human being is teaching him. The tongue of the one they refer to is foreign, and this is a clear Arabic tongue.”

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

This section of the Quran presents several significant inconsistencies at the same time.

The first concerns the identity of the messenger of revelation. In Surah Al-Baqarah, Jibril is mentioned as the one who brings down the revelation. In Surah An-Nahl, it is the Holy Spirit who is described as delivering it. Nowhere in the Quran are these two names explicitly equated, and the text does not explain whether Jibril and the Holy Spirit are the same or different. If they are the same, the question arises why two different names are used. If they are different, then which one is responsible for the delivery of revelation.

The second issue is the nature of revelation. Verse 97 in Surah Al-Baqarah describes the Quran as confirming what came before it. Yet only a few verses later, in Surah An-Nahl, it is said that some verses are replaced by others. This idea suggests change and even abrogation rather than confirmation. If the Quran confirms earlier scriptures, it should not replace their content. If it replaces them, it cannot at the same time be described as a confirmation.

The third issue involves the language of the Quran and the use of non-Arabic words. Surah An-Nahl insists that the Quran is a clear Arabic text. However, linguistic research shows that the Quran contains hundreds of non-Arabic words, taken from Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew, Abyssinian, Persian, Greek and Coptic. Examples include Injil, Tur, Istabraq, Zanjabil, Firdaws and Sundus. These words were borrowed from foreign languages and appear in the Quran without any explanation.

🔍 Impartial Review

In response to these contradictions, Muslim commentators have offered several explanations.

Regarding Jibril and the Holy Spirit, some argue that they are the same being and that the Holy Spirit is a spiritual title for Jibril. However, the Quran never clarifies this and the two names are consistently used separately with different terms and contexts.

In regard to confirmation and substitution, some commentators claim that the Quran confirms the principles of previous religions but replaces their specific laws. Although this distinction may be philosophically appealing, it is not mentioned in the text itself and appears to be an external justification rather than something directly supported by the verses.

On the subject of Arabic language, it is argued that borrowed words became part of Arabic over time. Yet this contradicts the verse’s clear statement that the Quran is in clear Arabic. A clear and pure Arabic message would not include terms of foreign origin that were not necessarily familiar or understandable to its original audience.

If the language of revelation is meant to be fully accessible and unambiguous, the inclusion of borrowed and potentially obscure vocabulary remains problematic.

🧠 Conclusion

This twenty-sixth case contains three distinct contradictions.

There is a conflict in the identity of the messenger of revelation. It is unclear whether Jibril or the Holy Spirit is responsible.

There is a conflict in the nature of revelation. The Quran is described both as a confirmation and as a text that replaces earlier content.

There is a conflict regarding the language of the Quran. Although it is called a clear Arabic message, it contains many words borrowed from non-Arabic languages.

These examples clearly demonstrate that the Quran suffers from internal inconsistency. Such discrepancies may be expected in a human work. However, in a text that claims to come from an all-knowing and perfect God, this level of ambiguity and contradiction is difficult to accept.

27. The Infinite Loop (Repetition Without End)

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Ash-Shu‘arā, verses 192 to 196
“Indeed, it is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. The Trustworthy Spirit has brought it down. Upon your heart, so that you may be one of the warners. In a clear Arabic language. And indeed, it is in the scriptures of the former peoples.”

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

Several ideas are presented in these verses at the same time.

The Quran is clearly described as a revelation in clear Arabic.

It is also claimed that this very Quran appears in the scriptures of previous prophets.

Taken together, these points raise serious logical problems.

The earlier scriptures, such as the Torah and the Gospel, were written in non-Arabic languages like Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic.

If the Quran, especially this passage from Surah Ash-Shu‘arā, was revealed in Arabic, how could the exact same content including verse 195, which says “in clear Arabic language”, exist in previous scriptures written in other languages.

This leads to two contradictions.

The first is linguistic. A Quran that is described as having been revealed in Arabic cannot appear in non-Arabic scriptures without a change in language. However, the verse asserts that what is found in the earlier books is this very content.

The second is logical. If this verse itself, for example verse 196, is said to exist in earlier scriptures, then those earlier books must also contain the claim that the Quran appears in even earlier books. This leads to a never-ending chain of scriptures, each one declaring that the Quran is found in the one before it, without ever reaching an original source.

Such a structure creates a logical infinite regress, which is both philosophically and rationally impossible.

🔍 Impartial Review

To resolve this issue, Muslim commentators have suggested a few explanations.

One interpretation is that “the scriptures of the former peoples” refers to the general concepts of the Quran, not to its exact wording.

Others believe it means that references to the coming of Prophet Muhammad or shared beliefs like monotheism, prophethood and the afterlife are found in earlier scriptures, not the Quranic text itself.

However, these interpretations do not fully align with the verse itself. The phrase “indeed it” clearly refers to this very Quran in Arabic. The wording strongly implies that this specific content is said to exist in the earlier books, not merely similar ideas or moral themes.

If we accept this literally, the implication is that earlier books also contained this same claim, which would mean that they too should state that this Arabic Quran exists in books before them. This repetition has no end and forms a circular structure with no logical resolution.

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran’s claim that this Arabic Quran appears in the non-Arabic books of earlier prophets leads to a contradiction in both language and logic.

Furthermore, if this claim is taken literally and repeated across scriptures, it creates an infinite regress with no origin point.

In logic, such a self-referencing loop is considered a flaw in reasoning. One would not expect this kind of structural inconsistency in a text that claims divine authorship.

28. Is the Torah Like the Quran or Not?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-Baqarah, verses 23–24
“And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our servant, then produce a surah like it… But if you do not and you will never be able to…”

Surah Al-Isrā, verse 88
“Say, if all mankind and jinn gathered together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce the like of it…”

Surah Al-Qaṣaṣ, verse 49
“Say, then bring a Book from Allah that is better in guidance than both of them [the Torah and the Quran], that I may follow it…”

Surah Al-Aḥqāf, verse 10
“Say, tell me, if this is from Allah and you disbelieve in it, and a witness from the Children of Israel has testified to something similar to it and believed…”

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

In many verses, the Quran asserts that no one can produce a book like it. This portrays the Quran as unique, matchless, and unparalleled in its style, meaning, and impact.

However, in Surah Al-Qaṣaṣ and Surah Al-Aḥqāf, the Quran instructs the Prophet to challenge the disbelievers. It invites them to bring a book that is better or similar in guidance to the Torah and the Quran. It even presents an example of a person from the Children of Israel who believed in something similar to the Quran.

If books like the Torah or other earlier scriptures (which Muslims claim have been distorted) can be considered similar to the Quran or even better in guidance, then one of two conclusions must follow.

Either the Quran is not absolutely unique and incomparable, which contradicts the declarations in Surah Al-Baqarah and Al-Isrā.

Or the Torah is on the same level as the Quran in terms of style or content, which undermines the claim that it has been corrupted or altered.

🔍 Impartial Review

Commentators have tried to reconcile this inconsistency in several ways.

Some argue that the verses in Surah Al-Baqarah and Surah Al-Isrā refer to the literary style and linguistic inimitability of the Quran, whereas the verses in Surah Al-Qaṣaṣ refer to the content in terms of spiritual guidance. However, this distinction is not clearly stated in the verses themselves.

Others suggest that the statements in Surah Al-Qaṣaṣ and Al-Aḥqāf are rhetorical challenges to the disbelievers, not genuine acknowledgements of equivalence. But if no similar book exists in reality, such a challenge loses its significance and rhetorical force.

In the case of Surah Al-Aḥqāf verse 10, some claim that the word “similar” refers only to general resemblance and not full equivalence. However, the Arabic word “mithl” is repeatedly used in the Quran to mean a complete or close equivalent, not a vague similarity.

Altogether, these explanations appear more like post hoc attempts to resolve internal textual tensions rather than natural interpretations supported by the verses themselves.

🧠 Conclusion

On one hand, the Quran claims that no one is capable of producing anything like it, even with the combined efforts of all humans and jinn.

On the other hand, it invites opponents to bring a book like the Torah or the Quran and gives an example of someone who believed in something similar to it.

These two types of statements are logically and conceptually incompatible. If nothing can be like the Quran, then no previous scripture should be on the same level or even comparable.

This contradiction is another example that casts doubt on the semantic and logical coherence of the Quranic text.

29. The Old Woman and the Character of Allah

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Ash-Shu‘arā, verses 170 to 171
“So We saved him and his entire family. Except for an old woman who was among those who remained behind.”

Surah Al-A‘rāf, verse 83
“So We saved him and his family, except for his wife, she was among those who remained behind.”

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

In two Quranic verses describing the story of Lot, one mentions that only an “old woman” did not survive, and the other clearly identifies the person as his wife. This difference raises two problems.

If the “old woman” refers to Lot’s wife, then why is her role as his spouse omitted and replaced with a general and arguably dismissive description. The use of the word “old woman” without any further clarification or respect seems to reflect an unfavourable tone in referring to the wife of a prophet.

If the old woman is someone other than Lot’s wife, then there were two individuals who were not saved, which contradicts other verses that mention only one exception.

🔍 Impartial Review

Most Muslim commentators interpret the “old woman” as Lot’s wife. Even so, the choice of the word deserves attention. The Quran treats the wife of Pharaoh, who was a polytheist, with dignity. But regarding Lot’s wife, her identity and her role as a spouse are omitted, and only her age and the fact that she was left behind are highlighted.

On the other hand, if the text is referring to two different individuals, the structure of the verses does not support that. The form of the sentences implies a single exception, not more than one.

🧠 Conclusion

In one verse, the Quran refers to a woman as the wife of a prophet, and in another verse, possibly the same person is described using a vague and potentially demeaning term. If the reference is to the same individual, this points to a lack of respect or at least inconsistency in tone. If the reference is to two different individuals, the account becomes numerically and historically inconsistent.

This case, while small in scale, is a noteworthy example of inconsistency in character description and tone within the Quran.

30. Further Problems in the Story of the People of Lot

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-A‘rāf, verse 82
“And the response of his people was only that they said, ‘Expel them from your town. Indeed, they are people who keep themselves pure.’”

Surah An-Naml, verse 56
“So the answer of his people was only that they said, ‘Expel the family of Lot from your town. Indeed, they are people who keep themselves pure.’”

Surah Al-‘Ankabūt, verse 29
“And the response of his people was only that they said, ‘Bring us the punishment of Allah, if you should be of the truthful.’”

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

In each of the three verses above, it is stated using similar wording that the people of Lot had only one specific reply. However, the responses themselves are not the same.

In the verses from Al-A‘rāf and An-Naml, the people’s response is to expel Lot and his family from the town.

In the verse from Al-‘Ankabūt, their reply is to demand that Lot bring down divine punishment upon them if he is truthful.

Each verse uses the same formulaic expression, “the response of his people was only that…” meaning there was no other response except what is about to be quoted.

This leads to a clear contradiction in expression and narrative. If the people had only one response, that response cannot vary from verse to verse.

🔍 Impartial Review

Some commentators have attempted to resolve this contradiction by suggesting that these verses refer to different moments in the story, or that the various responses were given at different times.

However, this explanation is not consistent with the wording in the Quran. The phrase “their only response was…” does not allow for multiple replies at different times. It strongly implies a single and exclusive response at a particular point in the narrative.

If the Quran intended to show different reactions at different times, it could have clarified the temporal or situational distinctions, but it does not. Each verse presents its cited statement as the sole reply, with no indication that other responses existed or that time had passed between them.

In effect, each verse gives the impression that the people of Lot had one and only one reaction, yet those reactions differ.

🧠 Conclusion

When the Quran claims in three different verses that the response of the people of Lot was only one thing, but then proceeds to present three different responses, the result is a narrative inconsistency.

Either all three responses occurred, in which case the phrase “only this was their reply” becomes incorrect,

Or only one of them is accurate, and the others are mistaken or fabricated.

In either scenario, this case illustrates a breakdown in narrative clarity and internal consistency within the Quranic text.

31. The Pleasure of Allah?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-An‘ām, verse 12
“Say, to whom belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth? Say, to Allah. He has decreed mercy upon Himself…”

Surah An-Naḥl, verse 93
“If Allah had willed, He could have made you one nation, but He leads astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills, and you will surely be questioned about what you used to do.”

Surah As-Sajdah, verse 13
“If We had willed, We could have given every soul its guidance, but the word from Me will come true: ‘Surely I will fill Hell with jinn and men all together.’”

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

In some verses, the Quran presents a picture of God that is full of mercy. So much so, He is said to have made mercy incumbent upon Himself. Such a depiction suggests a compassionate and gentle God, concerned with the wellbeing of His servants.

However, in other verses, a very different image appears. God is shown to lead astray whomever He wills and to guide whomever He wills, seemingly without explaining any clear criteria of justice or individual merit.

The verse from Surah As-Sajdah is especially striking. It states that God could have guided everyone, but He chose not to. Instead, He declares that He will fill Hell with both humans and jinn. This raises a serious question.

Is God’s ultimate goal to offer guidance and mercy to His creatures, or is it to punish and populate Hell?

If God has the power to give guidance to everyone but deliberately refrains from doing so, and instead states with certainty that He will fill Hell, this undermines the earlier claim in Surah Al-An‘ām that He has obligated Himself to mercy.

🔍 Impartial Review

Muslim commentators have generally responded to this issue using two kinds of reasoning.

First, they argue that divine will follows divine wisdom. So leading people astray is not injustice but part of God’s greater justice and knowledge.

Second, they explain the concept of “misguidance” as the natural result of people turning away from the truth. In this view, God withdraws guidance only after someone has actively chosen falsehood.

Nevertheless, these explanations are not always supported by the literal text. Especially in verses like Surah As-Sajdah, it is made clear that God had the power to guide all but simply did not. Instead, He speaks of His will to fill Hell, not as a response to rebellion, but as a predetermined divine statement.

Moreover, many verses in the Quran diminish human responsibility by emphasising God’s role in deciding who will be guided or misled. This gives rise to deep questions about the justice of God’s judgement.

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran offers two competing portraits of God.

One is of a merciful being who has written mercy upon Himself.

The other is of a being who chooses not to guide many, despite having the ability, and who firmly announces His intent to fill Hell with humans and jinn.

These two visions cannot easily be reconciled as originating from one consistent nature, unless one turns to complex philosophical explanations that are not derived from the text itself.

What remains, then, is a conceptual contradiction in the Quran’s portrayal of divine will and purpose concerning humankind.

32. Did Abraham Destroy the Idols?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-Anbiyāʾ, verses 51 to 59
In these verses, Abraham confronts his people directly. He condemns the idols, and when the people are away, he destroys them all except the largest, placing the axe on its shoulder as a challenge to his people. This account is bold, active, and confrontational.

Surah Maryam, verses 41 to 49
This section presents a softer conversation between Abraham and his father. Abraham speaks gently, and when threatened, he retreats respectfully and leaves his father behind. There is no mention of breaking idols or confronting the people.

Surah Al-Anʿām, verses 74 to 83
Here, Abraham engages in a philosophical argument with his father and the people about worshipping the sun, moon, and stars. The narrative focuses on reasoning and reflection, not on physical confrontation or action.

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

In Surah Al-Anbiyāʾ, Abraham is depicted as a revolutionary figure who challenges the dominant belief system and takes direct action by smashing the idols.

In contrast, the narratives in Surah Maryam and Surah Al-Anʿām show Abraham either speaking respectfully or reasoning intellectually. In the case of Maryam, he even walks away without any direct confrontation.

If these three accounts were meant to form parts of one coherent storyline, it would be very difficult to harmonise them.

In one version, Abraham remains in the town and acts decisively. In another, he walks away quietly after a private conversation.

🔍 Impartial Review

Commentators usually argue that the story in Surah Maryam shows the early phase of Abraham’s engagement with his father, while Surah Al-Anbiyāʾ represents a later escalation with the broader community.

They suggest Abraham tried gentleness first, and when that failed, he resorted to symbolic action.

However, the Quran itself never presents such a clear timeline or progression. Each narrative stands alone, with no textual signals that one follows the other.

In Surah Maryam, Abraham is shown explicitly leaving his people behind. In Surah Al-Anbiyāʾ, he remains in the community long enough to destroy the idols while the people are away.

These are two different narrative arcs that are hard to place within the same historical setting or sequence.

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran offers at least three different portrayals of Abraham that conflict in terms of attitude, action, and outcome.

In one, he acts boldly and symbolically. In another, he speaks gently and withdraws.

Although commentators have tried to integrate these versions into a single narrative, the Quranic text itself does not support this harmonisation.

This inconsistency highlights a significant narrative contradiction within the Quran, calling into question both its historical reliability and its internal coherence as a divine text.

33. What Happened to Noah’s Son?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-Anbiyāʾ, verse 76
And Noah, when he cried out before, We responded to him and saved him and his family from the great distress.

Surah Al-Ṣāffāt, verse 77
And We made his offspring the survivors.

Surah Hūd, verses 42 to 43
The ship sailed with them through waves like mountains. Noah called to his son, who kept away, saying: “O my son, come aboard with us.” The son replied: “I will seek refuge on a mountain to protect me from the water.” Noah said: “There is no protector today from the decree of God except for whom He has mercy.” Then the waves came between them and he was among the drowned.

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

In two verses, Noah and his family are said to have been fully saved. In Surah Al-Anbiyāʾ, it is stated that his “family” was delivered from anguish. In Surah Al-Ṣāffāt, it is emphasised that his progeny survived.

However, in Surah Hūd, we are presented with a detailed story in which one of Noah’s sons is clearly drowned. Not only is he not saved, but God even tells Noah that this son is not of his family.

In verse 46 of Surah Hūd, God says:
“He is not of your family. He is of unrighteous conduct.”

This creates contradiction on several levels:

Was Noah’s whole household saved or not?

Was the drowned son part of his surviving lineage or excluded?

Why does God first promise to save his family but later exclude one of his sons without prior clarification?

🔍 Impartial Review

Islamic commentators generally argue the following:

The “family” mentioned in Surah Al-Anbiyāʾ refers only to the believing members of Noah’s household.

The drowned son was excluded from this category due to disbelief.

The surviving lineage referred to in Surah Al-Ṣāffāt is through other sons who remained faithful.

While these interpretations may make theological sense, they do not fully resolve the textual issue.

When the Quran says, without qualification, that Noah and his family were saved, and later specifies that one of his sons drowned, the inconsistency must be clearly addressed in the text, not corrected retroactively with theological nuance.

Furthermore, the verse in Surah Al-Ṣāffāt speaks of “his descendants” being left behind. If one of his sons perished and was not considered part of the “saved”, then the description lacks precision.

This also raises another issue: if Noah’s son was disbelieving, why did Noah not know?

And if he was excluded from salvation, why was this not stated earlier alongside the promise of delivering Noah’s household?

🧠 Conclusion

These three verses describing Noah’s family and the fate of his son appear inconsistent with one another.

In one, the entire household is saved. In another, his descendants are preserved. And in the third, a son is drowned and even denied as part of the household.

If the son was a disbeliever, why did Noah plead for him and not know his spiritual state?

If God’s promise was to save his family, why was the exception introduced only later?

And if his lineage was preserved, does this refer to all his sons or only those who believed?

Altogether, this creates conceptual and narrative tensions that challenge the internal coherence of the Quran’s account of Noah’s story.

34. Was Noah Banished?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-Qamar, verse 9
Before this, the people of Noah rejected. They called Our servant a liar, said he was insane, and drove him away.

Surah Hūd, verse 38
And he was building the Ark. Whenever the chiefs of his people passed by him, they mocked him.

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

In Surah Al-Qamar, the Quran clearly states that the people of Noah rejected him, called him mad, and drove him away. The word “fuzujira” implies forceful expulsion, suggesting Noah was cast out from his people, village, or at least from their social presence.

However, in Surah Hūd, Noah is seen building the Ark in a location where his people can regularly see him and mock him. He is still accessible, physically present, and actively observed by those same people who supposedly drove him out.

This creates a direct contradiction. If Noah had truly been expelled, how could the people still pass by and ridicule him?

🔍 Impartial Review

Traditional commentators often interpret the word “zujira” not as physical banishment but as verbal rejection or social exclusion.

However, in Quranic and classical Arabic usage, “zujira” typically indicates forceful dismissal or expulsion with an element of hostility.

If Noah had only been insulted and not expelled, the verse in Surah Al-Qamar should have made this distinction clear. Its tone suggests a definitive rejection.

On the other hand, the verse in Surah Hūd clearly shows Noah in plain sight, engaging in physical activity, while his people are close enough to walk past him and scoff at him. This is not merely verbal opposition; it includes physical presence and interaction.

These two portrayals, taken together, either indicate inconsistency in the historical account or imply that the Quran is silently shifting between stages of the story without providing narrative clarity.

🧠 Conclusion

If Noah had truly been cast out by his people, he would not be in a position where they could easily pass by him and mock his construction of the Ark.

If he remained among them, then the claim that he was driven away loses its literal meaning.

These two depictions of Noah’s situation cannot simultaneously be true without stretching interpretation. This is a clear indication of narrative and chronological inconsistency.

Such internal tension undermines the historical and thematic coherence of the Quranic account.

35. Did Pharaoh’s Magicians Become Believers or Remain Disbelievers?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-A‘rāf, verses 103–126
In these verses, after Moses performs his miracle and defeats Pharaoh’s magicians, they clearly declare: “We have believed in the Lord of Moses and Aaron.” They persist in their faith despite Pharaoh’s threats.

Surah Ṭāhā, verses 56–73
A similar account is narrated. The magicians submit before the truth, affirm their belief in God, and say: “We have believed in the Lord of all worlds, the Lord of Moses and Aaron.”

Surah Ash-Shu‘arā’, verses 29–51
Again, the same event is described. The magicians fall in prostration after witnessing the miracle, declare their faith, and accept Pharaoh’s threats without hesitation.

Surah Yūnus, verse 83
But this verse states: “None believed in Moses except some offspring of his people,” which plainly asserts that only a small group from among Moses’s own people believed in him. There is no mention of any Egyptians or magicians converting.

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

Three prominent Quranic chapters (Al-A‘rāf, Ṭāhā, and Ash-Shu‘arā’) unanimously emphasise that Pharaoh’s court magicians believed in Moses. Their belief was not private or hesitant, but public, determined, and enduring, even unto death.

Yet Surah Yūnus says that only a few of Moses’s own people believed. This strongly implies that no one outside of the Israelites, including the magicians, believed.

These two statements do not align. Either the magicians truly believed, or they did not. If their belief was real, Surah Yūnus contradicts that. If not, why are they praised elsewhere with such admiration?

🔍 Impartial Review

Some Muslim commentators claim that Surah Yūnus refers only to “ongoing belief,” and that the magicians’ faith was brief or an exception.

However, there is no support for this distinction in the text. In fact, the verses describing the magicians’ belief depict it as sincere and profound. In Surah Ṭāhā, the magicians even say: “We have believed in our Lord. You (Pharaoh) only rule this worldly life. We will return to our Lord.”

These words suggest deep, conscious, and lasting belief — not a superficial or momentary submission.

So, if the Quran states that only a few Israelites believed in Moses, yet also reports the belief of Egyptian magicians, either the group of believers should be described as larger, or the contradiction stands.

🧠 Conclusion

If Pharaoh’s magicians truly believed in Moses as the Quran repeatedly affirms, then Surah Yūnus contradicts this by saying that only a small number from Moses’s own people believed.

Both claims cannot be simultaneously true unless one reinterprets the verses beyond their plain meaning. This tension between Quranic narratives about the same event reveals another example of internal inconsistency and narrative ambiguity.

36. Did Pharaoh Repent at the Moment of Death?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Yūnus, verses 90 to 92
“And when drowning overtook him, he said, ‘I believe that there is no god but the One in whom the Children of Israel believe, and I am of those who submit.’
(Allah) said, ‘Now? While you had disobeyed before and were of the corrupters?
So today We will save your body, that you may be a sign for those after you.’”

Surah An-Nisā’, verse 18
“But repentance is not for those who continue to do evil deeds until, when death approaches one of them, he says, ‘Now I repent,’ nor for those who die while disbelieving…”

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

In Surah Yūnus, Pharaoh repents and declares faith just as he is overtaken by drowning. The Quran recounts this in detail and then mentions that his body was saved as a sign for future generations.

On the surface, this may suggest that his repentance was accepted, or at least valuable enough to warrant this specific mention.

However, Surah An-Nisā’ provides a general rule. Repentance made at the point of death is not accepted. Nor is it accepted from those who die in a state of disbelief.

There are thus two conflicting portrayals. In one, Pharaoh’s final repentance is narrated in detail. In the other, all such deathbed repentance is rejected.

🔍 Impartial Review

Commentators have attempted to reconcile the verses through a number of interpretations.

Some argue that Pharaoh’s repentance was not accepted, and Surah Yūnus merely reports his final words without endorsing their value. According to this view, the verse is a historical account, not a theological affirmation.

Others say that the saving of his body was not a sign of acceptance, but merely a warning for others, as the verse itself states.

However, if Pharaoh’s repentance was in fact worthless or rejected, then why does the Quran report it with such emphasis? Why does it use phrases like “I believe” and “I am of the submitters,” which carry an apparently positive tone?

Also, Allah’s reply in the next verse is a rhetorical question. He asks, “Now?” but does not state explicitly, “Your repentance is rejected,” which leaves room for interpretation.

This ambiguity is the root of the issue. If the intent was to reject Pharaoh’s repentance, why not say so clearly, especially given the firm stance in Surah An-Nisā’?

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran presents two differing views on repentance at the moment of death.

In one, Pharaoh’s dramatic final confession is described, followed by the rescue of his body, possibly as a symbol of some divine consideration.

In the other, a universal rule is given: repentance made at the time of death is invalid.

The absence of a clear verdict in Surah Yūnus regarding the status of Pharaoh’s repentance, combined with the decisive statement in Surah An-Nisā’, creates a conceptual inconsistency.

This reflects a deeper tension within the Quran’s moral and theological framework regarding divine mercy, repentance, and the conditions under which salvation is granted.

37. Abrogation

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-Anʿām, verse 115
“The word of your Lord has been perfected in truth and justice. None can change His words. He is the Hearing, the Knowing.”

Surah Al-Anʿām, verse 34
“No one can alter the words of Allah.”

Surah Yūnus, verse 64
“There is no change in the words of Allah. That is the great triumph.”

In contrast:

Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 106
“Whenever We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We bring forth one better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is capable of everything?”

Surah An-Naḥl, verse 101
“When We substitute one verse in place of another — and Allah knows best what He reveals — they say, ‘You are just a fabricator.’ But most of them do not know.”

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

Some verses in the Quran present the word of God as absolute, unalterable, and perfected in both truth and justice. The emphasis is that no one, not even the Prophet himself, has the right or ability to change God’s word, and that His words cannot be replaced or invalidated.

But in other verses, the Quran openly acknowledges that some verses are abrogated — meaning cancelled or made void — and replaced with others that are said to be better or similar.

This raises key questions:

If God’s words are unchangeable, how is abrogation possible?

If one verse is replaced with a “better” one, does this not imply that the previous verse was incomplete or non-final?

If verses are subject to replacement, how are believers to discern which ones remain valid?

🔍 Impartial Review

Traditional commentators attempt to resolve this contradiction by distinguishing between “the words of God” and “Quranic verses.”

They argue that:

“The words of God” refer to eternal promises or metaphysical truths.

“Verses” that are abrogated concern legal or contextual rulings that were temporary by design.

However, this distinction is not made explicit in the Quran itself. The Quran’s audience consistently treats its verses as the words of God, and when a verse is removed or replaced, it is natural to perceive this as a change in the divine word.

Furthermore, Surah An-Naḥl, verse 101 explicitly states that this process of replacement caused people to say:

“You have fabricated this.”
And the Quran responds with a justification, not a denial. This indicates that even early listeners sensed the tension.

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran affirms both that God’s word is unchanging, perfected, and immune to modification, and that certain verses are abrogated and substituted.

These two positions, unless clearly qualified or differentiated within the text itself, stand in contradiction.

Post hoc theological explanations cannot fully reconcile the inherent conflict between immutability and abrogation.

This case remains one of the most serious internal inconsistencies in the Quran, and raises fundamental questions about the permanence of divine guidance and the criteria by which believers are to discern valid rulings.

38. The Guide to Truth?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Yūnus, verse 35
“Say, ‘Is there any of your partners who guides to the truth?’ Say, ‘Allah alone guides to the truth. Is then He who guides to the truth more deserving to be followed?’”

Surah Ibrāhīm, verse 4
“We did not send any messenger except in the language of his people, so that he might make things clear to them. Then Allah leads astray whomever He wills and guides whomever He wills. He is the Almighty, the All-Wise.”

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

In the verse from Surah Yūnus, Allah is portrayed as the sole and flawless guide towards truth, implying that His guidance is grounded in justice and sincere desire for righteousness. The logic of the verse invites believers to follow such a guide precisely because He is aligned with truth, not misguidance.

Yet in Surah Ibrāhīm, the Quran asserts that Allah Himself chooses whom to guide and whom to lead astray.

This raises a deep theological dilemma:

Does guidance come through human will, inquiry, and striving for the truth?

Or is it the product of divine selection, where Allah unilaterally chooses whom to enlighten and whom to misguide?

If only Allah guides, but He also chooses to misguide some, then the fairness of divine judgement comes into question. It implies that human beings are ultimately not responsible for their belief or disbelief, but rather are the outcome of divine choice.

🔍 Impartial Review

Traditional interpretations try to reconcile these verses by suggesting:

Allah provides guidance to all, but only those who are worthy or ready accept it.

However, Surah Ibrāhīm does not phrase it this way. It clearly states that Allah misguides whom He wills — not that people misguide themselves.

This wording attributes active misguidance to God Himself, not merely a passive allowance of human error.

This issue touches upon one of the most debated questions in Islamic theology:

Are human beings free or predestined?
If divine will decides guidance and misguidance, then what room remains for personal responsibility?

And more critically, if God chooses to lead someone astray, how can that person be held accountable for failing to find the truth?

The question raised in Surah Yūnus seems to presume that everyone has access to God’s guidance — yet the answer found in Surah Ibrāhīm casts doubt on that assumption.

🧠 Conclusion

These two Quranic verses offer contrasting perspectives on the nature of divine guidance:

One presents Allah as a just and impartial guide to truth.
The other describes Him as an active agent in leading people astray.

This tension is not merely verbal, but philosophical. It challenges the coherence of divine justice and undermines the very foundation of free moral agency.

If Allah has already determined who will be guided or not, then the entire concept of seeking truth, earning reward, or deserving punishment becomes philosophically unstable.

39. The Punishment for Adultery

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Nūr, verse 2
“The woman and the man guilty of fornication, flog each one of them with a hundred stripes. Let not compassion for them prevent you from carrying out Allah’s law, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day.”

Surah Nisā’, verse 15
“As for those of your women who commit immorality, call four witnesses from among yourselves against them. If they testify, confine them to the houses until death takes them or Allah appoints for them another way.”

Surah Nisā’, verse 16
“And those two of you who commit it, punish them. But if they repent and mend their ways, then leave them alone. Surely Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

In Surah Nūr, the punishment for adultery is clearly one hundred lashes for both the man and the woman, with an emphasis on applying this ruling without emotional leniency.

However, in Surah Nisā’, two different and seemingly milder approaches are found:

For women, the punishment is indefinite house confinement until death or divine intervention.

For men, the punishment is unspecified harm or reprimand, and if they repent, they are to be forgiven.

The contradictions arise on multiple levels.

Firstly, there is a disparity between genders. While Surah Nūr offers equal punishment for men and women, Surah Nisā’ imposes house arrest only on women and allows men to be let off more easily.

Secondly, the type of punishment is inconsistent. Surah Nūr prescribes a corporal and public penalty. In contrast, Surah Nisā’ mentions confinement or verbal harm, with no physical penalty.

Thirdly, the question of timing and legal abrogation is unresolved. If Surah Nūr came later, it could be viewed as abrogating the earlier ruling. However, the Quran does not explicitly state this transition or confirm that one ruling replaces another.

🔍 Impartial Review

Classical commentators typically claim that the ruling in Surah Nūr abrogates the instructions found in Surah Nisā’. According to this view, confinement in the home was an initial measure during the early Islamic community, later replaced by the more established flogging penalty.

This interpretation faces several challenges.

The Quran never explicitly states that the verse in Surah Nisā’ has been abrogated.

If Surah Nūr presents the final ruling, then why are the verses of Surah Nisā’ still retained in the Quran with no indication of expiration or inapplicability?

Furthermore, Surah Nisā’, verse 16, seems especially unjust. It gives men a path to forgiveness with repentance, while the corresponding verse for women describes lifelong imprisonment. This discrepancy raises broader questions of legal consistency and fairness within Quranic legislation.

The text appears to offer unequal treatment for similar actions based solely on gender, which contradicts the principle of justice often claimed in the Quran.

🧠 Conclusion

The three verses discussed present three very different responses to adultery.

Public flogging for both men and women.

Indefinite confinement for women.

Verbal punishment and forgiveness for men.

Such disparities — in both gender treatment and severity — cannot be easily harmonised unless one assumes external frameworks such as abrogation. Yet the Quran itself never clearly communicates that one verse invalidates the others.

This inconsistency in legal rulings is a striking example of the structural tensions within the Quranic legal discourse, allowing for diverging interpretations and raising serious concerns about coherence and equity in divine law.

40. Who Will Bear the Burden of Sin? 

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah al-Isrā’, verses 13 to 15
“And We have bound every human’s destiny to their neck, and on the Day of Resurrection We will bring forth a record which they will find laid open. Whoever is guided, is guided only for the benefit of their own soul, and whoever goes astray, only goes astray to their own loss. No bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another.”

Surah al-Najm, verses 38 to 42
“That no soul shall bear the burden of another, and that there is not for man except what he has striven for, and that his effort will soon be seen.”

In contrast:

Repeated references in the Quran to the sin of the Golden Calf committed by the Israelites
Including Surah al-Baqarah, verses 51 and 54, where the Children of Israel are condemned for idolising the calf during Moses’s absence. The Quran continues to reproach them for this even in the time of Muhammad.

Similar condemnations appear in Surah al-A‘rāf, verses 148 to 152, and Surah Ṭā-Hā, verses 83 to 97, where God’s anger is expressed towards the Israelites, despite the historical distance between the event and the audience addressed.

❗ Explanation of the Claimed Contradiction

In several verses, the Quran establishes the foundational principle of individual moral responsibility. Everyone is accountable only for their own actions. No person bears another’s sin. No collective guilt is to be assigned.

Yet in many other verses, particularly those criticising the Jews, people are blamed for sins their ancestors committed.

The Golden Calf episode is a key example. The idolatry occurred during the time of Moses, but centuries later, Jews living during Muhammad’s time are still reproached as though personally responsible.

This appears to violate the principle that “no soul bears another’s burden.” If so, why are later generations still condemned?

🔍 Impartial Review

Some Muslim commentators argue that these later condemnations are not about past actions, but about repeating the same patterns of disobedience. According to this reading, the Jews of Muhammad’s time deserved criticism because they continued the spirit of rebellion shown by their forefathers.

However, the Quranic language often goes further. It recounts specific historical acts, and frames the reproach as a direct response to those events.

In Surah al-Mā’idah, verse 78, the text says: “They were cursed because of what their fathers had done,” which strongly implies punishment across generations for past deeds.

This raises theological concerns. If the Quran insists that each person is only judged for their own actions, why would anyone suffer reproach for historical events that preceded their birth?

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran, on the one hand, firmly asserts that no one carries another’s burden and that each person is accountable only for their own choices.

On the other hand, it frequently condemns Jews in Muhammad’s time for the sins of their ancestors, particularly the incident of the Golden Calf.

This contradiction calls into question the Quran’s consistency and fairness in applying moral responsibility.

If judgment is meant to be based solely on individual deeds, then inherited guilt becomes incompatible with divine justice, unless justice itself is redefined along ethnic or collective lines.

41. Will Christians Enter Paradise?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-Baqarah, Verse 62
“Indeed, those who believed, and the Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabeans—whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does righteous deeds—their reward is with their Lord, and no fear shall be upon them, nor shall they grieve.”

Surah Al-Ma’idah, Verse 69
“Indeed, those who believed, and the Jews, and the Sabeans, and the Christians—whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good deeds—there shall be no fear upon them, nor shall they grieve.”

In contrast:

Surah Al-Ma’idah, Verse 72
“Certainly they disbelieve who say, ‘God is the Messiah, son of Mary’… Whoever associates partners with God, God has forbidden Paradise to him, and his abode shall be the Fire.”

Surah Al-Imran, Verse 85
“And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam—it shall never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

In the first two verses (Al-Baqarah 62 and Al-Ma’idah 69), previous religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Sabianism are mentioned, and it is explicitly stated that if they believe in God and the Day of Judgement and perform righteous deeds, they will be granted Paradise.

However, just a few verses later in the same Surah Al-Ma’idah (verse 72), the Quran says whoever says God is the Messiah is a disbeliever, and for such a person, Paradise is forbidden.

In the verse from Surah Al-Imran as well, it is explicitly stated that no religion other than Islam will be accepted, and anyone who adheres to another religion will be among the losers in the Hereafter.

Considering that the common belief among today’s Christians is the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, verse 72 appears to exclude Christians as a whole from salvation in the Hereafter. This directly contradicts the two earlier verses that promise salvation.

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Islamic commentators have explained this contradiction in the following way:

– Verses 62 and 69 refer to “Christians” who truly believe in God and the Afterlife, and have not fallen into polytheism or embraced the Trinity.

– Therefore, the promise of Paradise only includes monotheists before Islam or non-polytheistic Christians.

However, this interpretation is not mentioned in the verses themselves, but is rather a subsequent reading proposed to harmonise the verses.

Moreover, none of the initial verses refers to any specific beliefs or time-bound limitations.

In addition, the phrase “whoever chooses a religion other than Islam…” is highly general and applies to all followers of other religions, without exception.

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran in certain verses clearly promises Christians (and other People of the Book) salvation and entry into Paradise, provided they have faith and do good deeds.

However, in other verses, it explicitly describes those who believe in the divinity of Christ or adopt any religion other than Islam as disbelievers destined for Hell.

These two perspectives are fundamentally irreconcilable unless through external, non-explicit interpretations, and this contradiction creates ambiguity in understanding the Quran’s actual position on the salvation and final fate of followers of other religions, particularly Christians.

42. Does Only God Know, or Do Some Humans Know Too? Clear or Incomprehensible?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah An-Nahl, Verse 103
“We certainly know that they say: ‘A human is teaching him.’ The tongue of the one they refer to is foreign, whereas this Quran is in clear Arabic.”

Surah Al-Imran, Verse 7
“He is the One who has revealed the Book to you. Part of it consists of definitive verses… and part of it is ambiguous. As for those in whose hearts is deviation, they follow what is ambiguous… even though no one knows its interpretation except Allah. And those firmly grounded in knowledge say: ‘We believe in it…’”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

In Surah An-Nahl, the Quran clearly states that it was revealed in clear Arabic so that people may understand it and so that the argument may be established against them.

But in Surah Al-Imran, it emphasises that there are ambiguous verses in the Quran whose interpretation is known only to God. Immediately following this, it says, “And those firmly grounded in knowledge say: ‘We believe in it,’” which grammatically can have two meanings:

1. Only God knows its interpretation (end of sentence).
   
2. Only God and those firmly grounded in knowledge know its interpretation (continuation of sentence).
   

These two readings lead to entirely different outcomes:

– In the first reading, understanding some verses is solely with God, and even the knowledgeable only believe in them without full comprehension.

– In the second, knowledgeable and learned individuals can grasp the meaning of the ambiguous verses.

This grammatical ambiguity, when placed alongside the claim of the Quran’s clarity, creates an evident contradiction:

Is the Quran a book that is clear and comprehensible to people, or are parts of it interpretable only by God?

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Islamic commentators, depending on their theological stance, have accepted both readings:

– Some Sunni exegetes consider the sentence to end after “except Allah,” believing that only God knows the interpretation of the ambiguous verses.

– Others (especially in Shia thought) link the phrase with “and those firmly grounded in knowledge,” and argue that divine scholars are also aware of the interpretations.

However, in both cases, the issue remains:

– If the Quran is clear Arabic, and its purpose is to guide people, why does it contain verses whose meanings are known only to God or to a very exclusive group of humans?

– And if such verses do exist, why is there no indication in the text itself to distinguish between the clear and the ambiguous ones?

This issue highlights the tension between the Quran’s declared goal as a clear, guiding book for all, and the reality of the presence of incomprehensible ambiguities.

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran presents itself as a book that is clear, Arabic, and understandable to people, yet it simultaneously admits that parts of it are known only to God, or at best, only accessible to certain knowledgeable individuals.

These two portrayals create a fundamental contradiction in practice, and cast doubt on the Quran’s claim to serve as a universally authoritative source for all of humanity.

How can ordinary people be expected to follow a book of which parts are understood only by God or a specific elite?

43. Was Pharaoh Drowned or Saved by the Israelites?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Yunus, Verse 92
“So today We shall save your body so that you may be a sign for those who come after you…”

Surah Al-Qasas, Verse 40
“So We seized him and his hosts and threw them into the sea…”

Surah Al-Isra, Verse 103
“So he intended to drive them out of that land, but We drowned him and all those with him.”

Surah Az-Zukhruf, Verse 55
“When they provoked Our wrath, We took retribution upon them and drowned them all.”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

In the verse from Surah Yunus, Allah explicitly states that the body of Pharaoh was saved so that it may serve as a sign for those who come after. The apparent meaning of the verse suggests that Pharaoh survived, or at the very least that his body was taken out of the water intact.

In the other verses, however, it is emphatically stated that Pharaoh and his army were all drowned. In particular, the phrases “We drowned” and “We threw them into the sea” in various surahs reinforce this point.

This contradiction raises a fundamental question:

Did Pharaoh perish in that sea event, or, as Surah Yunus states, was he saved?

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Islamic commentators have explained this matter in the following way:

– The phrase “saving the body” in Surah Yunus does not mean saving his soul or preserving his life, but that his lifeless body was brought ashore after drowning, so that it would serve as a sign for others.

– In other words, Pharaoh drowned and died, but his body miraculously remained intact and was brought out of the sea.

Yet, several points challenge this explanation:

1. In verse 92, the term “nunajjīka” (we save you) is used, which in the Quran is usually applied to those who are actually saved from death, not to corpses.
   
2. The verse makes no mention of death or a body; on the contrary, a reader might assume that “saving” means survival.
   
3. If the intention was merely to display the body, do the other verses about Pharaoh’s drowning and destruction align with this? Those verses present “drowning” as the final punishment.
   

As a result, the existing interpretive explanations cannot, linguistically or conceptually, fully resolve the tension between these two portrayals.

🧠 Conclusion

In some verses, the Quran explicitly declares Pharaoh’s death by drowning and describes it as a sign of divine punishment.

Yet in another verse, it speaks of “saving” his body, without clarifying the exact nature of this “saving.”

The contradiction between these two depictions – certain death or symbolic preservation – remains disputed, and considering the wording of the text, it creates ambiguity in understanding the historical event.

Does “saving” mean retrieving the corpse? Or saving from death? And if it is the latter, how then was the punishment of drowning carried out?

44. When Did Pharaoh Order the Killing of Infant Boys?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Ta-Ha, Verses 38–39
“When We inspired your mother with what We inspired: ‘Place him (Moses) in a chest and cast it into the river… An enemy to Me and to him will take him in.’ And I cast love upon you from Me…”

Surah Ghafir, Verses 23–25
“Indeed, We sent Moses with Our signs and a clear authority, to Pharaoh, Haman, and Qarun. But they said: ‘A lying magician.’ Then, when the truth came to them from Us, they said: ‘Kill the sons of those who have believed with him…’”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

In Surah Ta-Ha, the narrative takes place during the infancy of Moses, when his mother, due to Pharaoh’s decree to kill the newborn sons of the Israelites, is forced to place her baby in a chest and cast it into the water. These verses clearly indicate that the decree to kill the sons was issued before Moses’ mission and during his early childhood.

But in Surah Ghafir, Pharaoh gives the order to kill the sons of those who believed in Moses after he is appointed as a prophet and begins preaching the message of God.

Thus, these verses report a similar act of violence and infanticide against the sons of the Israelites at two distinct points in time:

– Once during the childhood of Moses
– And once during his prophetic mission

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Islamic commentators have attempted to reconcile these two reports:

– Some have argued that the decree to kill the sons was issued twice: once at the time of Moses’ birth to thwart the fulfilment of a dream foretelling the birth of a deliverer for the Israelites, and again after Moses’ mission, to suppress his followers.

– This interpretation seeks to resolve the contradiction by proposing a historical separation of the two events. However, there is no independent Quranic or historical indication supporting the idea that the killing order occurred in two distinct phases.

– Furthermore, in the verses from Surah Ghafir, Pharaoh says: “Kill the sons of those who have believed,” which strongly resembles the earlier policy, yet it is presented without any indication that it is a different or second decree.

From a narrative structure perspective, if the Quran intended to convey that a second command was issued, one would expect it to explicitly distinguish this order from the first, rather than repeat the same scenario without any preamble.

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran presents two different times for Pharaoh’s command to kill the sons of the Israelites:

Once during Moses’ infancy, and once during his prophetic ministry.

With no clarification about the difference between these two decrees, it appears that a single historical event has been presented in two conflicting timelines.

If both decrees truly occurred, the Quranic text ought to have clarified the difference in timing and purpose. Yet, no such clarification is provided, making this case another notable example of narrative inconsistency in the Quran.

45. When and How Are Faiths Determined?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-Qadr, Verses 3–4
“The Night of Power is better than a thousand months. On that night, the angels and the Spirit descend, by the command of their Lord, regarding every matter.”

Surah Ad-Dukhan, Verse 3
“We sent it down on a blessed night. Indeed, We were warning. On that night, every firm matter is decided.”

Surah Al-Hadid, Verse 22
“No misfortune occurs on earth or within yourselves but that it was written in a Book before We bring it into being. Indeed, that is easy for Allah.”

Surah Al-Isra, Verse 13
“We have fastened the fate of every human to their neck, and on the Day of Resurrection We shall bring forth for them a book which they will find laid open.”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

In Surahs Al-Qadr and Ad-Dukhan it is clearly stated that on the Night of Power the fate of human matters such as life, death, provision, and calamities is determined for the coming year. This is a traditional belief common among Muslims, that there is one night each year when Allah decides the yearly fate of His servants and assigns it to the angels.

However, in Surah Al-Hadid verse 22 it is said that all events were recorded before creation. That is, before a human even exists, their destiny has already been written.

And in Surah Al-Isra it is stressed that human actions are tied to themselves, and these very deeds will be presented to them as an open book on the Day of Judgement. This means that the person is responsible for what they have done.

The contradiction arises from this situation

If everything is predetermined as stated in Surah Al-Hadid, then what purpose does the annual writing on the Night of Power serve

If the human being is responsible for their own actions as stated in Surah Al-Isra, then how can what is written in advance or annually be considered just

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Commentators have offered various theories to justify these differences

Some have said that everything is known in divine knowledge from eternity, known as the Preserved Tablet, and the Night of Power is the moment when the divine will is operationalised and conveyed to the angels

Others have tried to distinguish between divine decree as an absolute ruling, and the measure or unfolding of events within causal systems that are linked to human choice

Another explanation suggests that a person must make effort regardless of whether their fate is known in advance, since humans are not privy to divine eternal knowledge

However, these answers are all external interpretations. The Quran itself does not explicitly make these distinctions. Rather, some verses speak of all matters being pre-recorded, others of annual decisions, and yet others of personal responsibility for actions

🧠 Conclusion

The three groups of verses present three seemingly irreconcilable views on the time and method by which human fate is determined

On the Night of Power each year

Before creation itself

By each individual through their own actions

These views cannot be unified on the surface without relying on interpretative frameworks that are not explicitly mentioned in the Quran. This raises not only uncertainty about when destiny is written, but also questions about divine justice. If a human is held accountable for something that was previously recorded elsewhere, then what is the true meaning of free will

46. Wine: Good or Bad?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-Ma’idah, Verse 90
“O you who believe, indeed wine and gambling and idols and divining arrows are abominations from the work of Satan, so avoid them so that you may succeed.”

Surah Muhammad, Verse 15
“And rivers of wine, delicious for the drinkers…”

Surah Al-Mutaffifin, Verses 22 and 25
“The righteous will be in bliss… They will be given a sealed pure wine to drink.”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

In Surah Al-Ma’idah, wine is explicitly described as a work of Satan. It is not only forbidden but is mentioned alongside gambling and idolatry, and is regarded as a cause of impurity and misguidance.

However, when describing Paradise, the Quran presents wine as a reward for the righteous. It mentions rivers of wine flowing in Heaven, from which the virtuous drink and take pleasure.

This contrast in the nature of a single thing, namely wine, raises serious questions

If wine is impure, evil, and Satanic in essence, how can it exist in Paradise

Are there things in Paradise that are considered sinful on Earth? If so, what does that say about the consistency of God’s moral standard

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Islamic commentators have offered several justifications for this difference

Some argue that there is a difference in nature between worldly wine and heavenly wine. Earthly wine causes intoxication, irrationality, conflict, and sin, whereas heavenly wine is pleasant and harmless

Others interpret heavenly wine metaphorically as a symbol of joy and divine reward, not a literal intoxicating substance

Another view is that the conditions of the afterlife differ, and in Paradise, the human body is purified and perfected, enabling it to benefit from things that are harmful in this world without suffering any harm

However, these explanations are not without problems

The Quran refers to wine as a work of Satan, not merely a harmful material. If Satan is behind the creation of earthly wine, how can the same substance, free from Satan’s influence, be permitted and pleasurable in Paradise

The Quran uses the same word for wine both in the context of prohibition and reward, without adding any clear qualifier or explanation to distinguish between them

Linguistically, there is no indication in the text that the two types of wine are fundamentally different in nature or content

🧠 Conclusion

On the one hand, the Quran describes wine as impure and of Satan’s doing, and warns against it

On the other hand, it describes it in Paradise as one of the delightful rewards for the righteous

In the absence of any explicit and direct clarification from the Quran itself, these two portrayals stand in direct contradiction and raise a serious question about the stability of moral standards and the criteria for reward and sin in Quranic theology

How can something deemed Satanic be offered as a reward to the faithful

47. Good News of Painful Punishment?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-Imran, Verse 21
“Give them glad tidings of a painful punishment.”

Surah Al-Inshiqaq, Verse 24
“So give him tidings of a severe punishment.”

Surah Al-Jathiyah, Verse 8
“As if he had never heard… so give him news of a humiliating punishment.”

Surah Luqman, Verse 7
“When Our verses are recited to him, he turns away in arrogance, as though he had not heard… so give him tidings of a painful punishment.”

Surah At-Tawbah, Verses 3 and 34
“Give the disbelievers glad tidings of a painful punishment… and those who hoard gold and silver… give them tidings of a painful punishment.”

Surah An-Nisa, Verse 138
“Give the hypocrites glad tidings of a painful punishment.”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

In the above verses, the verb bashshirhum (give them glad tidings) is used, which comes from the root bashar, meaning to give good news or joyful news. However, the content of what is being announced is torture, punishment, and painful chastisement.

The use of bashshir to announce punishment appears to be contradictory

In Arabic, Persian, and even within the Quran itself, basharah usually carries the meaning of positive and hopeful news

Yet in these verses, the same word is used for a terrifying warning

This clash between the meaning of the word and the content of the message raises questions

Is this merely bitter irony or rhetorical sarcasm, or is it an inappropriate use of the word

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Some Islamic commentators have attempted to justify this usage with several explanations

One view is that basharah simply means announcing an important matter, not necessarily a joyful one, and that it can apply even to negative news if the announcement is significant

Others interpret it as sarcasm or divine mockery, suggesting that the message is meant to ridicule the wrongdoer, as in “Rejoice, for a punishment awaits you”

Another view is that the technical meaning of the word changes within the Quran, and that basharah sometimes takes on a more specialised usage that differs from its usual positive meaning

However, none of these explanations removes the fact that the reader is likely to experience linguistic and conceptual confusion

In many other verses, the Quran uses the same word to refer to paradise, forgiveness, and good rewards, reinforcing its positive connotation in the reader’s mind

🧠 Conclusion

The repeated use of the word basharah in the Quran to announce painful and severe punishment creates a clear linguistic and conceptual inconsistency

If the intent were to emphasise the certainty of punishment, the Quran could have used verbs like announce or warn

But by choosing a word that typically carries a positive tone, a rhetorical and semantic ambiguity is introduced

This inconsistency between word choice and message content stands out as a prominent example showing that, at times, the Quran conveys its message through a linguistic structure that does not reinforce the meaning, and instead creates confusion or even contradiction for the audience

48. Do Muslims Enter Hellfire?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Maryam, Verse 71
“There is none among you who will not pass through Hell. This is a definitive decree from your Lord.”

Surah Al-Imran, Verses 169–170
“Do not think of those who are killed in the path of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive and are provided for by their Lord, rejoicing in what Allah has granted them from His bounty.”

Surah At-Tawbah, Verse 111
“Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their wealth in exchange for Paradise. They fight in the way of Allah, kill and are killed…”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

Surah Maryam, verse 71, states that every human being, without exception, will enter Hell. The verse makes no exceptions and the phrase “there is none among you” clearly includes all people.

However, other verses, especially those concerning martyrs or those who strive in the path of God, promise immediate entry into Paradise and enjoyment of divine rewards. These individuals are not said to even hear of Hell, but are placed directly in “bliss” and “divine approval”.

These two depictions are not compatible

Do all, including martyrs, first enter Hell and then get saved

Or are some believers exempt from entering Hell altogether, receiving a truthful promise of direct entry into Paradise

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Islamic commentators have tried to explain this tension in the following ways

Some argue that entering Hell simply means passing through it, not remaining in it. They claim that the believers will just cross over it without harm

Others limit the verse to sinful believers who must undergo purification in Hell before eventually being admitted to Paradise

A further interpretation holds that the promises of Paradise for martyrs apply after the completion of Judgement Day, and that entering Hell is just a temporary stage in the process

However, there is no direct or explicit explanation in verse 71 or in the other verses that clearly states any of these exceptions

The absolute language such as “none” and “will enter” suggests that the message of this verse is general and final

🧠 Conclusion

On one side, the Quran declares that every single person without exception will enter Hell

On the other side, it describes some people, such as martyrs or those who fight in God’s path, as being directly worthy of Paradise and divine reward

If entry into Hell applies to everyone, then what is the meaning of the promise made to martyrs

If some never enter Hell, then how can verse 71 be so absolute and inclusive

In the absence of a clear and direct clarification, this becomes one of the conceptual contradictions in the Quran that raises questions about both divine justice and the structure of punishment and reward

49. Will Christ Burn in Hell?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah An-Nisa, Verse 158
“Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself. Allah is Mighty and Wise.”

Surah Al-Imran, Verse 45
“The angels said, ‘O Mary, Allah gives you glad tidings of a word from Him… and he will be among those brought near.’”

Surah Al-Anbiya, Verse 98
“Indeed, you and what you worship besides Allah are fuel for Hell. You will all enter it.”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

The Quran speaks of Jesus with respect in many verses.

He is described as the “Spirit of God,” the “Word of God,” and one of those “brought near” to Allah. It also explicitly states that God raised him up to Himself.

However, in Surah Al-Anbiya, verse 98, it is stated that everyone who is worshipped besides Allah, along with their worshippers, will enter Hell.

Since millions of Christians throughout history have worshipped Jesus—whether as the Son of God or as one person of the Trinity—this verse appears to include Jesus himself, because

He was worshipped

And the verse says that all who are worshipped besides Allah, along with their worshippers, will enter Hell

This creates a contradiction in the appearance of the Quran

How could Jesus be in Hell if the Quran describes him as one who was raised to God and among those who dwell in Paradise and are close to Allah

🔍 Impartial Analysis

In order to resolve this contradiction, Islamic commentators have proposed various interpretations

Some have argued that the verse in question refers to idols and statues that were worshipped in place of Allah, and not to righteous human beings such as Jesus or the other prophets

Others point to the wording ma ta‘budun (“what you worship”), noting that the pronoun ma typically refers to non-rational objects, suggesting that the verse speaks only of inanimate or non-human entities

Another explanation is that Jesus never approved of being worshipped, and therefore bears no responsibility for it. Because he did not will it, he should not be subject to the same fate as his worshippers

However, verse 98 contains no explicit exemption. A later verse in the same surah (verse 101) speaks of exceptions for those who were granted goodness beforehand, which is presumably meant to address this problem. Yet the verse does not specifically mention Jesus by name

🧠 Conclusion

The verse stating “you and what you worship” will enter Hell appears to include Jesus, since he has indeed been worshipped throughout the centuries

Yet the Quran elsewhere grants him an exalted status, describing him as one who was “raised up to God” and “brought near”

The lack of clarity in exempting prophets such as Jesus from such a general ruling creates a serious apparent contradiction within the Quranic logic regarding the fate of worshipped prophets

50. Were Jinn and Humans Created for Worship or for Hellfire?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Adh-Dhariyat, Verse 56
“I did not create the jinn and mankind except that they may worship Me.”

Surah Al-A‘raf, Verse 179
“Indeed, We have created many of the jinn and mankind for Hell. They have hearts with which they do not understand, eyes with which they do not see, and ears with which they do not hear.”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

In verse 56 of Surah Adh-Dhariyat, the purpose of the creation of jinn and human beings is defined as the worship of God. According to this, the philosophy of their existence revolves around recognising and serving their Creator.

However, in Surah Al-A‘raf, verse 179, many jinn and humans are explicitly said to have been created for Hellfire. The phrase “We have created for Hell” appears to suggest that not only is their fate predetermined, but that their very purpose is to serve as fuel for Hell.

These two perspectives appear to be in contradiction

Is the purpose of creating jinn and humans to worship God, or have many been created from the outset for Hellfire

If the purpose is worship, then why are so many beings described as having been destined for Hell from the beginning

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Some commentators have offered several explanations to reconcile these two verses

One view is that there is a distinction between purpose and outcome. The verse in Adh-Dhariyat expresses the divine intention that humans and jinn are created to worship, while the verse in Al-A‘raf reflects the outcome for those who deviate from that purpose

Another explanation is that creation is linked to God’s foreknowledge, meaning that although creation was for worship, God already knew that many would reject it. Hence, the verse simply reflects this foreknown reality

A further interpretation holds that being “created for Hell” is not an inherent purpose, but rather an indication of who qualifies for Hell due to their choices and characteristics, such as failing to use their faculties of reason, sight, and hearing

However, these explanations do not fully resolve the linguistic problem posed by the verse. The wording “We created” and “for Hell” clearly implies creation with a specific outcome in mind, which appears to contradict other verses that speak of human free will and divine testing

🧠 Conclusion

Surah Adh-Dhariyat states that the purpose of the creation of jinn and humans is worship. Surah Al-A‘raf states that many of them have been created for Hellfire.

Taken without interpretative layers, these two statements are fundamentally opposed

One portrays a positive divine purpose, while the other describes a predetermined Hellish fate for many creatures

In the absence of a clear explanation in the Quran itself, this tension becomes one of the most prominent examples where the Quranic portrayal of God’s relationship to mercy, justice, and destiny appears to be caught in a conceptual contradiction

51. Who Is the Father of Christ?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-Imran, Verse 45
“The angels said, ‘O Mary, Allah gives you glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary…’”

Surah An-Nisa, Verse 171
“Jesus, son of Mary, was a messenger of Allah and His word that He cast into Mary, and a spirit from Him.”

Surah At-Tahrim, Verse 12
“And Mary, daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity. So We breathed into her from Our Spirit…”

Surah Al-An‘am, Verse 101
“How can He have a child when He has no consort?”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

The Quran clearly refers to Jesus (the Messiah) as the son of Mary, and emphasises that he is not the “son of God”.

Yet, the description of his birth employs phrases that appear to introduce a conceptual contradiction

Jesus is the result of “the breathing of God’s spirit into Mary”

He came into being as “a word from Allah”

Allah, without having a consort, breathed a spirit from Himself into Mary

This manner of expression effectively attributes the causality of Jesus’ birth directly to God, without any earthly paternal intermediary. However, in another verse (Surah Al-An‘am, verse 101), the Quran denies the possibility of God having a child on the grounds that He has no spouse

This raises multiple layers of ambiguity and contradiction

If God Himself breathed into Mary, how can it be said that He has no role in the birth of Jesus

If this breathing of spirit is independent of any father, why is such a mechanism not repeated for other humans

If Jesus was born without an earthly father and this is what makes him unique, is this not similar to the Christian claim that he is “the Son of God”? And if so, why is that label rejected in Islam

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Islamic commentators often argue as follows

The phrase “a spirit from Him” refers to a spirit from among God’s creations, not a part of His essence

The act of breathing the spirit is a metaphorical expression for direct creation, and does not indicate any form of sexual or biological parenthood

Jesus was created like Adam, without a father, to demonstrate God’s power rather than to imply sonship

At the same time, these arguments do not eliminate the conceptual and linguistic similarity between the Quranic description of Jesus’ birth and Christian narratives of divine sonship

Since the Quran does not introduce any earthly father for Jesus, and states that God breathed His spirit into Mary, the image constructed around Jesus’ birth remains conceptually ambiguous and raises logical questions about the nature of the relationship between God and Jesus

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran does not introduce a specific father for Jesus and states that he was conceived through the breathing of God’s spirit into Mary

Yet this form of expression indirectly positions the God of the Quran as a direct causal agent in Jesus’ birth, while simultaneously denying any notion of God having offspring

This conceptual contradiction between denying divine sonship and affirming divine causation in the creation of Jesus stands as one of the most ambiguous elements in Quranic theology

It has led to confusion and theological overlap with Christian beliefs, which the Quran explicitly rejects

52. Creating and Being Free of Need?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Adh-Dhariyat, Verse 56
“I did not create the jinn and mankind except that they may worship Me.”

Surah An-Naml, Verse 40
“Indeed, my Lord is free of need and generous.”

Surah Al-An‘am, Verse 133
“Your Lord is the Self-Sufficient One, the Possessor of mercy. If He wills, He can remove you and replace you with whomever He wills.”

Surah Fatir, Verse 15
“O people, it is you who are in need of Allah, while Allah is the Free of need, the Praiseworthy.”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

The Quran repeatedly emphasises that God is free of need, not just from His creation but from all worship and praise. Yet, in other verses it declares that the purpose of creating humans and jinn is to worship Him.

This gives rise to a conceptual contradiction

If God is free of need, why would He create beings for the purpose of worshipping Him

If worship is the purpose of creation, does that not suggest some form of need for worship

If the purpose is merely to test creation, then why is worship named as the goal rather than trial

The contrast in the type of language used to describe God’s relationship with creation leads to conflicting interpretations

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Islamic commentators commonly explain this in the following ways

They say that God is inherently free of need, but He has designed the purpose of creation for the benefit of the created, meaning that worship is for human growth, not divine necessity

The statement “created for worship” is interpreted as indicating the highest wisdom or ultimate path of fulfilment for creation, rather than an actual divine need

Some argue that the seemingly needy language in the Quran is addressed to humans, rather than a reflection of God’s actual state

However, all of these answers are interpretative and external to the Quranic text itself

If one reads the text on its own terms, the contradiction remains. Why would a God who is utterly without need create beings with the specific purpose of worshipping Him

🧠 Conclusion

The absolute independence of God, alongside a clearly stated purpose for creation in worship, creates a conceptual tension. If human worship has no effect on God, why is the creation of humans justified on the basis of that worship

In the absence of a clear and direct clarification within the text itself, this issue may be viewed analytically as an example of lexical or conceptual inconsistency in certain parts of the Quran, particularly when one reflects philosophically on the nature of need, purpose, and divine omnipotence

53. Can Allah Have a Child?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Az-Zumar, Verse 4
“If Allah had willed to take a child, He could have chosen whomever He willed from among those He created. Exalted is He. He is Allah, the One, the Subduer.”

Surah Al-An‘am, Verse 101
“He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a child when He has no consort? He created all things and has full knowledge of everything.”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

In Surah Az-Zumar, verse 4, the Quran implicitly affirms the possibility of God having a child, saying only that He did not will it. This verse links the possibility of a child to divine will, rather than treating it as inherently impossible.

By contrast, Surah Al-An‘am, verse 101, presents the idea of God having a child as logically impossible, because God “has no consort”.

This verse uses the human logic of reproduction, namely the necessity of a mate, as a reason to deny the possibility of divine offspring.

As a result, these two verses appear to convey conflicting messages

One implies that having a child is possible but not desired

The other asserts that having a child is inherently impossible due to the absence of a mate

🔍 Impartial Analysis

To resolve this contradiction, some Islamic commentators have proposed the following

Surah Az-Zumar, verse 4, is said to speak hypothetically, denying the conceptual legitimacy of God choosing a child, even if the language appears permissive

Surah Al-An‘am, verse 101, is understood to be responding specifically to polytheistic logic, where divine sonship necessarily implies the presence of a divine consort, a notion being rejected here

However, these interpretations conflict with the explicit content of the verses themselves

Surah Az-Zumar clearly says, “If He had willed, He could have chosen,” not “He could never have” or “It is conceptually absurd”

On the other hand, Surah Al-An‘am asks, “How could He have a child?” implying that divine fatherhood contradicts God’s nature as Creator and Self-Sufficient

The contradiction arises between the idea of divine freedom to choose a child and the absolute impossibility of divine parenthood

🧠 Conclusion

In Surah Az-Zumar, the possibility of God having a child is presented as a matter of will, something He could have done but chose not to

In Surah Al-An‘am, that very possibility is denied altogether, with the reason being that He has no consort and that such a concept is incompatible with divine nature

These two views are logically incompatible

One speaks of potential and discretion

The other of inherent and logical impossibility

Without a clear explanation in the Quran itself, this difference in philosophical and theological framing stands out as one of the notable contradictions within Quranic theology regarding the idea of divine sonship

54. Was Christ Dead?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-Imran, Verse 144
“Muhammad is no more than a messenger. Messengers have passed away before him. So if he dies or is killed, will you turn back on your heels?”

Surah An-Nisa, Verse 158
“Rather, Allah raised him [Jesus] up to Himself. And Allah is Mighty and Wise.”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

Surah 3, verse 144, clearly states that all prophets before Muhammad have died. The past tense expression qad khalat (“have passed away”) emphasises that death was the fate of all previous messengers.

In contrast, Surah 4, verse 158, says of Jesus that he was neither killed nor crucified, but that Allah raised him up to Himself. The phrase rafa‘ahu Allahu ilayh implies that he did not die, but rather was taken up to the heavens or to God’s presence.

This creates an obvious contradiction

Was Jesus, like the other prophets, dead

Or is he still alive and with God, having neither died a natural death nor been killed

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Commentators have attempted to resolve this contradiction in several ways

Some argue that verse 144 is a general statement about prophets, and may allow for exceptions such as Jesus

Others say that Jesus has not yet died, but will die after his return at the end of time, so verse 144 refers to the eventual fate of all prophets, not their current state

Some have proposed that the term raising could be metaphorical, indicating spiritual exaltation or elevation in status, not literal physical ascension while alive

However, all these explanations are external interpretations, and are not based directly on the text of the Quran

The Quran clearly states that God raised Jesus up, while also stating that all prophets before Muhammad have passed away. It gives no reference to a future return or death of Jesus

🧠 Conclusion

One verse claims that all prophets before Muhammad have died, while another explicitly states that Jesus did not die but was raised up

In the absence of any indication within the Quran of a future return or subsequent death for Jesus, these two claims cannot be reconciled within the text alone

Thus, this issue may be regarded as a clear verbal and semantic contradiction concerning the death of Jesus in the Quran, where the attempt to resolve it relies more on extra-textual interpretation than on the verses themselves

55. One Creator or Many?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-Mu’minun, Verse 14
“…So blessed be Allah, the best of creators.”

Surah As-Saffat, Verse 125
“Do you worship Baal and forsake the best of creators?”

Surah Az-Zumar, Verse 62
“Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the Guardian over everything.”

Surah Al-Furqan, Verse 2
“And He is the One who created the heavens and the earth… and He has no partner in creation.”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

In certain verses, the Quran uses the phrase “the best of creators”, implying that there are multiple creators, at least linguistically.

This plural form clearly suggests the existence of other creators, and Allah is said to be the best among them.

However, in numerous other verses, the Quran insists that there is only one Creator.

Allah is described as the sole creator of everything.
He has no partner in creation.
Everything has been created solely by Him.

These two positions appear logically incompatible

If Allah is the only Creator, how can He be the best among multiple creators

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Islamic commentators have traditionally offered several explanations for this tension

Some argue that the term “creator” can also apply in a limited, metaphorical sense to humans, who create art, tools, poetry, or inventions, but this is not creation from nothing, as is divine creation

Others claim that the other “creators” are false gods imagined by idolaters, so the phrase “best of creators” is a rhetorical rejection of those idols

Some interpretations treat the phrase “the best of creators” as a figure of speech, a literary device used to exalt God, not to state a philosophical claim

However, if we take the phrase literally and directly, it implies a comparison between actual entities.
A phrase like “best of creators” assumes there are other creators to compare with, otherwise the phrase loses meaning or becomes misleading.

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran simultaneously speaks of the absolute oneness of Allah in creation and also refers to Him as the best of creators

If there is only one true creator, comparing Him to others becomes meaningless

But if other creators exist in any real sense, then the claim of exclusive divine creatorship is weakened

This tension in the use of the word creator within the Quran may be seen as a notable inconsistency in key theological language, particularly where rhetorical expression overlaps with doctrinal assertion

56. From All Nations, or Only from Abraham’s Lineage?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-‘Ankabut, Verse 27
“We gave him [Abraham] Isaac and Jacob and placed among his descendants Prophethood and the Book…”

Surah An-Nahl, Verse 36
“Indeed, We sent a messenger to every nation, [saying]: Worship Allah and avoid the false gods…”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

In verse 27 of Surah Al-‘Ankabut, the Quran explicitly states that Prophethood and revelation were confined to Abraham’s descendants. This implies that all prophets were from Abraham’s lineage, effectively excluding other ethnic groups and nations from having divinely appointed messengers.

However, verse 36 of Surah An-Nahl clearly states that a messenger was sent to every nation. This conveys a broader, more inclusive view, implying that all peoples in history received divine guidance through prophets.

These two positions appear irreconcilable:

Either all prophets were descendants of Abraham,
Or every nation received a prophet, including those not linked to Abraham ethnically or geographically.

🔍 Impartial Analysis

To reconcile these seemingly conflicting statements, commentators have proposed several explanations:

One approach limits the claim in Surah Al-‘Ankabut to the period after Abraham, implying that earlier prophets (such as Noah or Hud) are excluded from that statement.

Another interpretation confines the statement about Abraham’s descendants to prophets who brought scripture, suggesting that only scripture-bearing prophets were from Abraham’s line, while other messengers (warners and preachers) may have been sent elsewhere.

A further distinction is made between Nabi (prophet) and Rasul (messenger), claiming that the verse about Abraham refers to a particular category, not to all divine emissaries.

Yet these explanations are not supported directly by the Quranic text. Both verses are presented in broad and absolute terms, without any mention of timeframes, geographical limits, or linguistic qualifications.

🧠 Conclusion

The verse that states all Prophethood was confined to Abraham’s progeny appears to conflict with the verse that says a prophet was sent to every nation.

If all prophets truly came from Abraham’s descendants, then not every nation could have received a prophet, unless one argues that all nations are somehow genealogically linked to Abraham – which is not historically or ethnologically tenable.

This contradiction may point to an underlying inconsistency between the idea of a regionally rooted prophetic tradition and a universal divine mission. It also raises the possibility that later universal claims were superimposed on an originally more tribal or lineage-based theology.

57. Marriage to the Ex-Wives of Adopted Sons?

📖 Verse(s) Under Review

Surah Al-Ahzab, Verse 37
“When Zayd had fulfilled his desire for her, We gave her to you in marriage, so that there may be no blame upon the believers concerning the wives of their adopted sons once they have fulfilled their desire for them…”

Surah Al-Ahzab, Verses 4–5
“God has not placed two hearts in any man’s breast. Nor has He made your wives whom you divorce your mothers, nor has He made your adopted sons your [real] sons… Call them by [the names of] their [biological] fathers; that is more just in the sight of God…”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

In verse 37, the Quran explicitly allows the Prophet Muhammad to marry the divorced wife of Zayd, his adopted son. The verse justifies this by saying the action was meant to abolish a social taboo: among pre-Islamic Arabs, it was considered improper to marry the ex-wife of an adopted son.

Yet, in verses 4–5 of the same chapter, the Quran denies the legal status of adoption altogether, stating that adopted sons are not real sons, and people should be called by their biological fathers’ names.

This leads to an apparent inconsistency:

If adoption is not legally recognised, and an adopted son is not a real son,
Then why does marrying his ex-wife require divine revelation and justification?

Logically, one must choose between two positions:

Either the adopted son holds a son-like status, in which case marrying his former wife would be considered inappropriate and the action needs divine justification,
Or the adopted son holds no legal or relational weight, in which case the marriage should not be controversial or require a divine decree.

Both cannot be true simultaneously without contradiction.

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Commentators offer several ways to reconcile this tension:

One explanation is that the verse addresses the cultural reality of the time, in which adopted sons were treated as if they were biological sons. The Quran, by allowing this marriage, aimed to dismantle a false social construct.

Another approach is that verses 4–5 provide the legal correction to the mistaken social assumption, and verse 37 is the public demonstration of that correction through the Prophet’s action.

Yet even if this is accepted, a logical issue remains. If, by divine standard, Zayd was never a “real” son, then no divine justification should have been necessary. The very presence of the verse and the apparent hesitation of the Prophet suggest that the action was controversial, even by early Muslim standards.

🧠 Conclusion

On one hand, the Quran emphatically denies any legal or familial status for adopted sons. On the other, it treats the Prophet’s marriage to his adopted son’s ex-wife as a notable exception that required divine sanction.

This dual stance is logically inconsistent:

If adopted sons are not sons, then marrying their ex-wives should not require explanation.
If the marriage did require divine explanation, then adopted sons must have held a significant social or legal status.

The coexistence of these two claims within the same chapter presents a conceptual conflict in the Quran’s treatment of family structure and legal reform.

58. Have Messengers Only Ever Been Sent from Within Their Own People?

📖 Verses Under Review

Surah Ibrahim, Verse 4
“We never sent a messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people, so that he might make things clear to them…”

Surah Ar-Rum, Verse 47
“Indeed, before you, We sent messengers to their [own] peoples…”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

The above verses clearly state that every messenger was raised from among his own people. This implies that each prophet:

• spoke the same language,
• belonged to the same ethnicity,
• and was originally from that nation or community.

However, the Quran also presents Jonah (Yunus) as a prophet who was sent to the people of Nineveh. According to many Islamic scholars and historical sources—including Jewish and Christian traditions—Jonah was not from Nineveh. He was from the land of Israel, while the people of Nineveh were Assyrians, an entirely non-Hebrew and non-Semitic population.

This leads to a logical problem:

If the Quranic rule is that prophets must be from the people to whom they are sent,
then why was Jonah, a Hebrew, sent to a foreign nation?

If Jonah is an exception, why does the Quran not acknowledge or explain this exception?

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Several commentators have offered possible reconciliations:

One argument is that the verse refers to language and communication, not bloodline or ethnic origin. It is claimed that what matters is that the prophet understands the people’s tongue and culture.

Another claim is that Jonah may have been familiar with the language and culture of Nineveh due to geographical proximity.

A third theory attempts to reframe the mission to Nineveh as a secondary mission, while maintaining that Jonah’s primary assignment was to his own people.

However, these explanations fall short of resolving the core issue. The Quran explicitly refers to the people of Nineveh as “Jonah’s people” and praises their response to his call. The mission to Nineveh is not presented as incidental—it is central to his prophetic story in the Quran.

Thus, Jonah’s case challenges the general principle stated in the Quran about prophets always being from among their own people.

🧠 Conclusion

If the Quran states that every prophet must be raised from within his own people, then Jonah’s mission to a foreign nation violates that principle.

The attempt to resolve this by focusing on language or familiarity is unconvincing because:

• the text explicitly emphasises ethnic belonging,
• and Jonah’s prophetic mission to Nineveh is a major narrative in the Quran, not a minor exception.

Therefore, this is another example of an inconsistency in the Quranic logic of prophethood:

One verse sets out a universal rule,
while another verse contradicts it with a clear counterexample, yet offers no clarification or stated exception.

The Case of Zoroaster and the Iranian People

If the Quran’s principle is that every nation has had its own prophet, then one must ask:

Who was the prophet of the Iranian people?

The answer given by historians, scholars of religion, and many traditionalists is clear:

Zoroaster (Zarathustra) – an Iranian prophet who introduced a monotheistic and ethical system based on:

• Ahura Mazda as the supreme and wise creator,
• the moral triad of Good Thoughts, Good Words, and Good Deeds,
• a belief in judgement, afterlife, reward and punishment,
• and the power of free will in choosing between good and evil.

If Zoroaster was divinely sent to the Iranians, then by the Quran’s own logic, the people of Iran in the time of Muhammad should not have been required to adopt a new religion.

Yet in reality, what followed was violent conquest, the marginalisation of Zoroastrianism, the imposition of jizya (tax), destruction of fire temples, and pressure to convert to Islam.

This is in conflict with key Quranic verses such as:

Surah Al-Baqarah, Verse 256: “There is no compulsion in religion…”
Surah An-Nahl, Verse 125: “Call to the path of your Lord with wisdom and good advice…”

Most importantly, it also contradicts the Quranic principle that every nation has received its own prophet.

🧠 Final Conclusion

The case of Jonah being sent to a foreign nation,
and the forced Islamisation of Iranians who already had a monotheistic prophet,
both stand in direct contradiction to the Quran’s principle that each people has their own prophet.

If this rule is true, then sending a prophet to another nation (like Jonah), or demanding a new religion for a people already guided by a prophet (like Zoroaster), must be clearly justified or presented as an exception.
But the Quran does not do this.

This serves as yet another example where the claimed consistency in Quranic theology about prophethood breaks down under closer scrutiny.

59. Have There Been Prophets Among the Jinn and the Angels?

📖 Verses Under Review

Surah Yusuf, Verse 109
“We did not send messengers before you except [as] men from among the people of the towns, to whom We revealed…”

Surah Al-Anbiya, Verses 7–8
“And We did not send before you any but men to whom We revealed… and We did not make them bodies that did not eat food, nor were they immortal.”

Surah Al-Furqan, Verses 20–21
“And We did not send before you any messengers but that they ate food and walked in the markets…”

Versus:

Surah Al-An’am, Verse 130
“O company of jinn and humans! Did there not come to you messengers from among yourselves, reciting to you My revelations and warning you of the meeting of this Day of yours?”

Surah Hud, Verses 69 and 77
Describing angels who come to Abraham and Lot, delivering divine messages.

Surah Al-Hajj, Verse 75
“Allah chooses messengers from among the angels and from among people…”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

Several verses in the Quran clearly state that only human beings have been appointed as prophets:

– They eat food,
– They walk in markets,
– They are men of flesh and blood.

Yet other verses just as clearly refer to messengers among the jinn and angels:

– In Surah Al-An’am 130, God speaks directly to both jinn and humans, asking: “Did not messengers come to you from among yourselves?” This strongly implies that messengers were sent from among the jinn themselves.

– In Surah Al-Hajj 75, it is stated that Allah chooses messengers from both angels and human beings.

This appears to contradict the earlier claim that all messengers were only human.

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Several commentators have attempted to resolve this contradiction in different ways:

1. Some argue that only humans can be “prophets” (nabi), while jinn or angels may be “messengers” (rasul).
   However, the Quran does not consistently maintain this distinction—both terms are sometimes used interchangeably, and no clear theological boundary is set in the text itself.
   
2. Others suggest that the messengers to the jinn were actually human prophets, whose message the jinn overheard or received indirectly.
   But the phrase “from among yourselves” in Surah Al-An’am makes that difficult to reconcile. If jinn are being told that messengers came from among themselves, this strongly implies that jinn messengers existed.
   
3. Regarding angels, some say “messenger” refers only to their role as carriers of divine messages, not as prophets.
   Again, this fails to align with Quranic usage, which applies the term “rasul” to both human prophets and angelic messengers, blurring the distinction.
   

Thus, these interpretative efforts rely on theological frameworks external to the Quran, and the internal consistency remains unresolved.

🧠 Conclusion

If only human beings can be prophets, as several verses insist,

– then why does the Quran speak of messengers among the jinn?
– and why does it say that Allah chooses messengers from the angels?

This reveals a conceptual inconsistency in the Quran’s portrayal of prophecy and messengership across species.

There is no clear delineation of categories, no solid distinction between prophet and messenger within the text, and no framework for explaining how or why non-human entities would carry out prophetic functions if prophecy is human-only.

Thus, the Quran’s claim that only humans can be messengers or prophets stands in direct tension with its other claims about messengers among the jinn and angels.

60. How Many Easts and Wests Are There?

📖 Verses Under Review

Surah Ash-Shu’ara, Verse 28
“The Lord of the East and the West, and whatever is between them—if you would only understand.”

Surah Ar-Rahman, Verse 17
“[He is] Lord of the two Easts and the two Wests.”

Surah Al-Ma’arij, Verse 40
“So I swear by the Lord of the Easts and the Wests: We are indeed able…”

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

These verses present three entirely different counts of the “Easts” and “Wests”:

1. Surah Ash-Shu’ara mentions a single East and a single West.
   
2. Surah Ar-Rahman speaks of two Easts and two Wests.
   
3. Surah Al-Ma’arij shifts to multiple Easts and Wests in the plural.
   

This fluctuation from singular to dual to plural without any explanation raises an apparent numerical and conceptual inconsistency.

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Several commentators have attempted to reconcile these differences by proposing:

– The two Easts and two Wests refer to the summer and winter solstices, marking the extreme sunrise and sunset points during the year.

– The plural form implies the countless locations of sunrise and sunset across the globe, as the sun appears to rise and set at different angles throughout the year and across different latitudes.

– The singular form is used symbolically or generically, referring to “the East” and “the West” as concepts.

However, these explanations raise certain concerns:

1. The Quran itself provides no clarification for these variations, leaving the average reader, especially one without astronomical knowledge, without clear understanding.
   
2. If the Quran is “from God”, one would expect precise and internally consistent expression from the outset—not language that depends on external scientific or interpretive scaffolding for coherence.
   
3. The change in number across verses—one, two, and many—suggests a lack of clarity or editorial consistency within the text.
   

🧠 Conclusion

The Quran’s shift from one East and West, to two, and then to many, without offering any explanatory context, appears to reflect a lack of consistency in the presentation of natural facts.

If the terms are symbolic, that should be indicated. If they are precise, the numbers should not vary without explanation.

In either case, this inconsistency adds to the list of numerical, conceptual, and linguistic contradictions in the Quran that challenge its overall coherence and methodological unity.

61. The Greatest Philosophical Contradiction in the Quran

📖 Verses Under Review

🔹 “No calamity befalls you except that it is recorded in a Book before We bring it into being.” (Surah Al-Hadid, 57:22)
🔹 “There is nothing but that it is written in the Preserved Tablet.” (Surah Al-Buruj, 85:22)
🔹 “Whoever is guided is guided for their own benefit, and whoever goes astray only goes astray to their own loss.” (Surah Al-Isra, 17:15)
🔹 “We appointed Satan to mislead mankind.” (Surah Saba, 34:21)
🔹 “No bearer shall bear the burden of another.” (Surah An-Najm, 53:38–39)
🔹 “We guide whom We will and mislead whom We will.” (Surah Ibrahim, 14:4)

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

One of the most fundamental conflicts in the Quran lies in the contradiction between divine predestination and human accountability.

Numerous verses emphasise that God has predetermined all things, and that every matter, from human behaviour to the movement of galaxies, is inscribed in the Preserved Tablet.

At the same time, the Quran holds humans responsible for their actions, warns them of Hell, and attributes free will to them.

Adding to this contradiction is the statement that Satan was appointed to lead people astray.

This raises a deeper question. Is the human being truly a chooser, or merely a victim of divine planning and the workings of heavenly forces?

The dilemma becomes more complex when considering the sin of Adam and Eve. Their fall, caused by Satan’s whispering, is seen to have consequences for all their descendants. Yet the Quran also claims that no soul bears the burden of another.

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Muslim commentators have tried to resolve this contradiction using concepts such as “a matter between two extremes” or by distinguishing between “existential” and “legislative” guidance.

However, these explanations often suffer from one or more of the following issues.

They are highly abstract and not easily understood by the average believer.
They tend to intensify the conceptual conflict rather than resolve it.
They conflict with the very notion of moral reward and punishment.

If human beings do not possess true freedom of choice, the promise of Paradise and the threat of Hell become meaningless.

If free will is granted, then how can it be accepted that God Himself misguides and even employs Satan to carry out this misguidance?

Moreover, how can a person be held accountable in a moral system for a transgression they themselves did not commit, such as the sin of Adam and Eve?

Some Muslim thinkers, such as Shoja’uddin Shafa, and orientalists like Jules Labbeaum in the nineteenth century, have examined this issue. They have identified it as the greatest intellectual and philosophical inconsistency in the structure of Islamic theology.

🧠 Conclusion

The contradiction between absolute divine determinism and human free will stands as one of the most profound philosophical challenges within the Quran.

If everything is predetermined and written in the Preserved Tablet, what space remains for genuine choice, accountability, and moral consequence?

If human beings are truly free, how is it reasonable that God gives or withholds guidance entirely as He wills?

This dilemma leads to a central question in Islamic philosophy. Is man free, or is he a slave to an inescapable divine decree?

The lack of a clear, coherent, and rational response to this question from Islamic scholars has left thinking individuals without satisfactory answers for over a thousand years.

In today’s world, where reason and inquiry demand answers, this silence points to an unresolved ambiguity at the very heart of religious belief.

62. Is a Day with God Equal to 1,000 Years or 50,000 Years?

📖 Verses Under Review

🔹 “Indeed, a day with your Lord is like a thousand years of what you count.” (Surah Al-Hajj, 22:47)
🔹 “He arranges every affair from the heavens to the earth, then it ascends to Him on a day whose measure is a thousand years of what you count.” (Surah As-Sajdah, 32:5)
🔹 “The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him on a day whose measure is fifty thousand years.” (Surah Al-Ma’arij, 70:4)

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

In three different verses, the Quran refers to the length of a “day” with God, yet gives contradictory numerical values.

Two of the verses (Surahs Al-Hajj and As-Sajdah) clearly state that a day with God equals 1,000 years in human reckoning.

Another verse (Surah Al-Ma’arij) states that a certain day is equal to 50,000 years.

The Quran offers no explanation to distinguish between the contexts or meanings of these days. This raises an immediate question. Is a day with God 1,000 years or 50,000 years? Has the divine message contradicted itself?

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Some Quranic apologists attempt to justify this discrepancy in the following ways.

They argue that the verses in Al-Hajj and As-Sajdah refer to the return of deeds or angels, while the verse in Al-Ma’arij refers to the Day of Judgment.
They claim that “fifty thousand years” is metaphorical, intended to reflect the severity and difficulty of that day, rather than a literal measurement of time.
Others suggest that the difference lies in the types of angels or the nature of the tasks being described.

However, these explanations face several challenges.

Firstly, none of these distinctions appear in the Quran itself. They are entirely the work of later commentators.
Secondly, if the intention was metaphorical, then the use of precise numbers like 1,000 or 50,000 becomes confusing, as metaphors typically do not involve specific numerical data.
Thirdly, the stark contrast between 1,000 and 50,000 in reference to the same concept (a “day” with God) is highly noticeable and difficult to overlook.

🧠 Conclusion

This is one of the most striking numerical contradictions in the Quran, easily spotted even by a casual reader.

If a “day” with God is 1,000 years, why are the angels said to ascend on a day equal to 50,000 years?
If one verse is metaphorical, why are the others not treated the same? Why does the Quran provide no clarification?
And if the numbers are meant to be literal, then the physical and logical contradiction becomes undeniable.

Explanations invoking metaphor, difference of context, or diversity of angelic tasks do not resolve the core issue.

In a book that claims divine origin and perfection, such a blatant inconsistency concerning a fundamental concept like time with God appears inexcusable.

63. The Creation of the Heavens and the Earth

📖 Verses Under Review

🔹 “He is the One who created for you all that is on the earth, then turned to the heaven and fashioned it into seven heavens. And He has knowledge of all things.” (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:29)
🔹 “Are you a more difficult creation, or is the heaven? He constructed it. He raised its ceiling and made it proportioned. He darkened its night and brought forth its daylight. And the earth, after that, He spread out.” (Surah An-Nazi’at, 79:27–30)

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

These two sections of the Quran present two different sequences regarding the creation of the heavens and the earth.

In Surah Al-Baqarah, the sequence appears as follows. First the earth is created. Then attention is turned to the heavens, which are shaped into seven layers.

In Surah An-Nazi’at, the order is reversed. The heavens are created and structured first. Then, only after that, the earth is spread out.

These two accounts are not only inconsistent in chronological order, but each verse presents its version with an assertive tone, implying it reflects the actual order of creation.

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Some commentators attempt to reconcile this difference with arguments such as the distinction between initial creation and later development. The main interpretive claims include:

The verse in Al-Baqarah refers only to the preparation of the earth for human life, not its initial formation.

The passage in An-Nazi’at uses the word “spread” (dahaha), which is interpreted by some as referring to shaping and furnishing the earth after its basic creation.

However, these explanations face clear problems.

First, the Quran does not clarify the distinction between creating and spreading, nor does it define what stage each refers to.

Second, both verses speak in terms of chronological sequence, using language that implies a real-time order of creation, not metaphor or abstraction.

Third, expecting seventh-century listeners to discern such technical nuances, without clear textual cues, seems highly unlikely and inconsistent with the Quran’s claim of being a message for all.

🧠 Conclusion

This contradiction directly undermines the Quran’s claim of internal consistency.

If the Quran is truly from an all-knowing deity, then such a basic contradiction in the timeline of the universe’s creation should not appear.

Invoking interpretations like “metaphor” or “different perspectives” does not solve the issue, because the verses clearly describe a sequence of actual events.

In the end, this is another example of how the Quran’s internal logic and narrative order raise serious questions about the claimed perfection and coherence of the text.

64. The Rising and Setting of the Sun

📖 Verses Under Review

🔹 “Until he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and he found a people near it. We said, O Dhul-Qarnayn, either punish them or adopt a good approach towards them.” (Surah Al-Kahf, 18:86)
🔹 “Until he reached the rising place of the sun, he found it rising upon a people for whom We had made no shelter against it.” (Surah Al-Kahf, 18:90)

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

These verses describe Dhul-Qarnayn’s journeys, stating that he reached a place where the sun set in a muddy spring, and another location where it rose over a people without protection from its rays.

At face value, these verses appear incompatible with modern scientific understanding, for several reasons.

First, the sun does not set in or rise from any physical spring or body of water.
Second, the notion of an absolute “place of sunset” or “place of sunrise” is meaningless from a scientific standpoint, since the Earth is spherical and the sun’s rising and setting is relative to the observer’s location.
Third, describing a physical location for sunrise and sunset reflects a geocentric or flat-earth worldview, which contradicts well-established astronomical facts.

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Traditional defenders of the Quran often argue that the text is merely reporting what Dhul-Qarnayn saw. In this view, the verse does not claim the sun actually set in a spring, but rather that he perceived it that way.

However, this explanation faces challenges.

The verses are presented as part of a divine narration, not a personal account from Dhul-Qarnayn’s point of view.
Furthermore, if it were merely a description of perception, why is it phrased as a factual statement in the divine voice?

Others suggest that the language is metaphorical or poetic. Yet this raises further issues.

Why would a divine revelation use imagery that conflicts so openly with natural science?
Why would metaphors be used in a way that has historically supported a scientifically inaccurate worldview?

If such verses are metaphorical, and if every scientific issue in the Quran is subject to metaphorical reinterpretation, the text’s credibility as a clear and literal guide becomes questionable.

🧠 Conclusion

These verses, at least in their surface reading, conflict with scientific reasoning and present a picture of the cosmos either rooted in pre-scientific geocentric beliefs or conveyed in a manner that invites misunderstanding.

Either way, this raises serious concerns for those who claim the Quran is a scientifically flawless and perfectly clear text.

And if one argues that these are simply observations from Dhul-Qarnayn’s perspective, the question still remains: why would an omniscient and wise deity reproduce those observations without clarification or correction in a book intended to serve as guidance for all humankind?

65. Why Did God Create the Stars?

📖 Verses Under Review

🔹 “And We have made them [the shooting stars] missiles against the devils, and for them We have prepared the punishment of the blazing Fire.” (Surah Al-Mulk, 67:5)

🔹 “Indeed, We have adorned the nearest heaven with the stars, and We have protected it from every rebellious devil. They cannot listen to the exalted assembly [of angels] and are pelted from every side.” (Surah As-Saffat, 37:6–8)

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

In these verses, the purpose of the stars is clearly stated as being for the adornment of the sky and as missiles hurled at devils. This explanation aligns more with ancient mythological cosmologies than with modern astrophysical knowledge.

From a scientific perspective:

1. Stars are immense celestial bodies composed of plasma, many of which are millions or billions of kilometres away from Earth.
   
2. Meteors (commonly referred to as “shooting stars”) are physical phenomena caused by small space rocks entering the Earth’s atmosphere, not actual stars being launched as projectiles.
   
3. There is no scientific evidence for invisible devils attempting to eavesdrop on celestial assemblies, nor any cosmological function for stars as weapons.
   

The Quran’s explanation of the stars’ purpose, therefore, appears disconnected from known scientific reality, and more consistent with the symbolic or mythical understandings of the seventh century.

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Some traditional commentators have tried to resolve this issue by distinguishing between stars (kawakib) and meteors (shihab). They suggest that meteors, not actual stars, are what the Quran refers to in the context of being fired at devils.

However, this interpretation faces significant challenges.

The Quran first states that the stars are a decoration of the lowest heaven, and then speaks of them in the same breath as weapons against devils. This implies a single function or shared identity, not two separate phenomena.

If the stars are for adornment, why should they also serve as military tools in a celestial war? And if they are supposed to protect the heavens from devils, why do they not hinder scientific observation, which in fact allows us to look far deeper into space than ever before?

Moreover, if meteors are what is meant, then why are they not described scientifically as natural phenomena, but instead presented as supernatural weapons against spiritual beings?

There is no empirical evidence for devils being repelled by meteors, or for a heavenly domain requiring defence from eavesdropping forces.

🧠 Conclusion

The portrayal of stars as both ornaments and missiles against devils reflects a pre-scientific worldview of the cosmos. While it may have been intelligible within a seventh-century mythological framework, its presence in a text claimed to be timeless and aligned with science is problematic.

Such imagery raises doubts about the scientific inerrancy of the Quran, especially when supernatural ideas are presented as literal explanations for observed cosmic phenomena.

In light of this, claims that the Quran is scientifically flawless face serious scrutiny, particularly where superstitious notions appear to supplant empirical understanding.

66. Is the Sky Nothing More Than a Roof or Canopy Over the Earth?

📖 Verses Under Review

🔹 “And We made the sky a protected ceiling, yet they turn away from its signs.” (Surah Al-Anbiya, 21:32)

🔹 “He created the heavens without pillars that you can see…” (Surah Luqman, 31:10)

🔹 “He is the One who made the earth a resting place for you and the sky a canopy over you…” (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:22)

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

In these verses, the sky is repeatedly described as a “roof” or “canopy”, a concept that modern science regards as fundamentally inaccurate.

The Quran presents the sky as a protective structure over the Earth, implying that the Earth occupies the central position in the cosmos and that the heavens are somehow spread above it, like a tent or a roof.

Furthermore, references to “invisible pillars” upholding the sky appear aligned with pre-Copernican and mythological cosmologies, not with modern astrophysics.

This framework suggests a material and physical nature of the heavens, as though the sky were a tangible structure resting above the Earth, sustained by hidden supports.

From this, one may infer that the sky is considered a separate object with material architecture, a view entirely incompatible with contemporary scientific understanding of the universe.

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Defenders of the Quran have attempted to reinterpret these verses metaphorically, proposing that the “roof” refers to the earth’s atmosphere, or to the protective magnetic fields surrounding the planet.

However, such interpretations are neither supported by the textual language nor by the historical context in which the Quran was revealed.

No early Muslim exegete or medieval commentator ever deduced modern scientific concepts such as magnetospheres or atmospheric shielding from these verses.

Their view of the sky was quite literal: a solid dome, semi-spherical, and physically near, consistent with ancient Near Eastern cosmologies.

The phrase “pillars you cannot see” also lacks scientific grounding. If these refer to gravitational forces or laws of physics, the text fails to explain how and why they are invisible.

Instead, the language evokes an image of the heavens being suspended on unseen supports, a view widely found in Babylonian, Greek, and Hebrew cosmologies of the ancient world.

🧠 Conclusion

The image of the sky conveyed in the Quran is incompatible with the scientific model of the cosmos and appears more closely aligned with ancient mythological worldviews.

If the sky is truly a physical roof, then why has no such structure ever been observed through modern astronomy?

If it is meant as a metaphor, why does the Quran present it with the certainty and tone of physical reality?

This gap between the literal appearance of the verses and scientific knowledge introduces serious doubts regarding the Quran’s claim to scientific accuracy and divine origin.

67. Will the Ceiling of the Sky Collapse on the Day of Judgement?

📖 Verses Under Review

🔹 “And the sky will be opened and become gateways.” (Surah An-Naba, 78:19)

🔹 “When the sky is split open.” (Surah Al-Infitar, 82:1)

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

In these verses, the sky is described as a physical structure that will be torn apart or opened on the Day of Judgement.

This portrayal evokes the image of a roof-like covering over the Earth, which at the end of time will be ripped open or collapse, marking a dramatic cosmic event.

However, this concept is at odds with modern scientific understanding of the universe. According to current cosmology, the “sky” is not a tangible ceiling but rather an expanse of space, largely empty, housing stars and galaxies, without any solid structure to be “opened” or “split”.

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Defenders of the Quran may argue that these descriptions are metaphorical, referring to cosmic upheaval or existential terror associated with the end of time.

Yet the terminology used — such as “gates” and “splitting” — strongly suggests physical imagery, presenting the sky as something material and capable of being breached.

Moreover, this imagery closely resembles the descriptions found in ancient religious texts such as the Hebrew Bible or Mesopotamian beliefs, where the sky is envisioned as a dome or firmament over the Earth.

This raises questions about whether the Quran’s descriptions are divinely revealed insights into the nature of the universe or reflections of common pre-scientific cosmological models.

🧠 Conclusion

The depiction of the sky as a ceiling that may one day crack open or form physical openings appears to reflect a mythical or symbolic worldview rather than a scientifically accurate one.

If these images are intended as metaphor, why are they expressed using literal, physical language?

And if they are meant to describe real events, why do they conflict with everything we know from astronomy and astrophysics?

Such verses seem to portray a universe as understood before the advent of scientific discovery, casting doubt on the Quran’s claim to contain timeless truth about the cosmos.

68. Why Does the Quran Portray the Earth as Flat Like a Carpet, Not Spherical Like a Globe?

📖 Verses Under Review

🔹 “And We spread out the earth, and placed upon it firm mountains, and caused every kind of balanced vegetation to grow in it.” (Surah Al-Hijr, 15:19)

🔹 “Have We not made the earth a resting place? And the mountains as pegs?” (Surah An-Naba, 78:6–7)

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

These verses describe the Earth as something spread out, stable, and stationary, resembling a carpet laid flat upon which mountains are fixed like pegs.

Such descriptions conflict with the scientific understanding of the Earth as a spherical body that rotates on its axis and undergoes constant tectonic activity beneath its crust.

Modern geology confirms that mountains are not pegs holding the Earth still. Rather, they are the result of tectonic collisions and uplift, not stabilising spikes driven into a flat terrain.

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Defenders of the Quran may argue that phrases like “spread out the Earth” refer only to the fact that humans experience the surface as livable and stable, not literally flat.

However, the literal language used in the verses — such as “spread out” and “pegs” — evokes flat-Earth imagery rather than any metaphorical or advanced scientific insight.

These metaphors align with pre-scientific cosmologies, common in the seventh century and echoed across ancient mythologies. In those systems, the Earth was imagined as a flat disc or a resting surface, often anchored by mountains or pillars.

If the Quran were intended as a revelation surpassing its time, why does it employ imagery that aligns so closely with ancient misconceptions?

🧠 Conclusion

The verses in question appear to depict the Earth through the lens of ancient flat-Earth cosmology.

Rather than presenting a revolutionary or accurate model of the planet, they reflect the worldview of people living on seemingly flat land, who imagined mountains as stakes preventing movement.

If the Quran is to be considered a divine revelation from an all-knowing Creator, the question arises:

Why does its description of the Earth resemble the primitive understanding of early civilisations rather than the scientific reality we now know?

69. Was Man Created from Clotted Blood?

📖 Verses Under Review

“Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump, and We made the lump into bones, and We clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah, the best of creators.” (Surah Al-Mu’minun, 23:14)

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

This verse clearly describes a sequence in which the human being is created from a “clot” — commonly interpreted from the Arabic word ‘alaqah — which is typically understood to mean “clotted blood” or “a leech-like substance”.

However, modern biology and embryology offer no support for the idea that the human embryo ever passes through a stage where it resembles or consists of clotted blood. Human development begins with the fertilised egg, which undergoes cellular division and differentiation. At no point is the embryo a static “blood clot”.

Likewise, terms such as “mudghah” (meaning “chewed flesh” or “lump of meat”) evoke a highly simplistic and anatomically inaccurate view of embryonic development.

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Some contemporary apologists argue that ‘alaqah refers to something that “clings” or “attaches,” aligning it with the embryo’s attachment to the uterine wall. While linguistically possible in some modern interpretations, classical Arabic dictionaries overwhelmingly define ‘alaqah as “clot of blood” or “congealed blood,” particularly in pre-Islamic and early Islamic usage.

Moreover, the verse follows a linear and physical description of development: from a clot, to a lump, to bones, and finally to flesh covering the bones. This specific sequence directly contradicts what embryology has shown. Bones and muscle tissue develop simultaneously from the mesodermal layer; one does not precede the other in the manner described.

This strongly suggests that the description reflects pre-scientific anatomical assumptions, rather than divinely revealed biological insight.

🧠 Conclusion

The verse in question presents a scientifically inaccurate and outdated description of human embryogenesis.

Its references to clotted blood, chewed lumps, and sequential bone formation followed by muscle covering reflect a primitive understanding rather than a miraculous insight into human biology.

If the Quran claims to be a divine book revealed with perfect knowledge, how can such an elementary biological process be described in ways that clash so clearly with modern science?

70. Religious Machiavellianism

📖 Verses Under Review

“There is no compulsion in religion. The right path has become distinct from error.” (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:256)

“Fight those among the People of the Book who do not believe in God or in the Last Day, who do not consider unlawful what God and His Messenger have made unlawful, and who do not embrace the religion of truth, until they pay the jizyah with willing submission while being subdued.” (Surah At-Tawbah, 9:29)

“When the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them.” (Surah At-Tawbah, 9:5)

“When you meet the disbelievers in battle, strike their necks.” (Surah Muhammad, 47:4)

“Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out. Persecution is worse than killing.” (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:191)

“O Prophet, encourage the believers to fight.” (Surah Al-Anfal, 8:65)

❗ Explanation of the Stated Contradiction

It is commonly claimed that Islam is a religion of peace and that there is no compulsion in religion. Yet dozens of verses in the Quran directly call on believers to engage in war, killing, and the imposition of religion through jihad against disbelievers, the People of the Book, polytheists, and even prisoners. Numerous verses are found that appear to contradict the claim of freedom in faith.

Some verses explicitly command beheading, siege, forced taxation, and encouragement to kill in the name of religion. The underlying philosophy seems to be that killing a disbeliever in this life may save him from further misguidance or eternal damnation. This logic closely mirrors the principle that the end justifies the means, which is central to Machiavellian political thought.

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Many Islamic scholars argue that the verses concerning warfare were revealed in specific historical circumstances, such as in defence or in response to aggression from certain tribes, and therefore should not be generalised. However, this explanation conflicts with the absolute and general tone of the verses, particularly those in Surah At-Tawbah which deliver sweeping commands without specifying any particular historical setting.

Other commentators claim that the verse declaring no compulsion in religion belongs to an earlier period of the Prophet’s mission, during the time in Mecca, and that the verses concerning fighting and combat after the migration to Medina have abrogated it.

🧠 Conclusion

The notion commonly associated with Machiavellian political theory, which justifies violence, deceit, and coercion in the pursuit of power or order, is echoed in many verses of the Quran. If political ethics are to be measured by principles such as freedom of conscience, rejection of coercion, and respect for human dignity, then these verses make it difficult to claim that Islam is founded upon peace and reason.

The Quranic statement that there is no compulsion in religion appears to stand in direct contrast to centuries of jihad, conquest, enforced conversions, and the imposition of Islam upon various peoples such as the Persians, Copts, Berbers, and Indians. Furthermore, the conduct of Islamic rulers across different historical periods has shown that if a Muslim decides to adopt another religion, they face execution for apostasy.

71. Did Jesus Have a Revealed Book Called the Gospel?

📖 Verses Under Review

“We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah that had come before him, and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light.” (Surah Al-Ma’idah, 5:46)

“We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit.” (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:253)

“Then We sent after them Jesus, son of Mary, confirming what came before him in the Torah, and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light.” (Surah Al-Hadid, 57:27)

❗ Stated Contradiction Explained

These verses indicate that Jesus was given a divine scripture called the Gospel, just as Moses was given the Torah and Muhammad the Quran. However, no historical source or early Christian text confirms that Jesus himself authored or received such a book from God. Jesus never wrote any text, nor was he given a distinct scripture from heaven. What is today referred to as “the Gospel” consists of writings by his disciples and followers who, after his resurrection, recorded his message under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The term “Gospel” in its original language means “Good News”, not a written book revealed to a prophet. The four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are the testimonies of their respective authors regarding the life and teachings of Jesus. They are considered inspired texts, but not in the sense of being a divine book directly handed down to Jesus. This reveals a fundamental difference between the Quranic concept of the Gospel and the historical and biblical understanding of the term.

🔍 Impartial Analysis

Historically, Jesus did not leave behind any written text, and the early Christians did not expect him to. Instead, they collected personal testimonies and experiences, which were later compiled into the various Gospels. Christians believe that the New Testament was written by the followers of Jesus under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Meanwhile, the Quran portrays the “Gospel” in the same manner as it does the Torah or the Quran itself – as a single, revealed scripture that contains law and divine guidance. This understanding is inconsistent with both historical reality and Christian theology.

Another issue arises from the claim made by Muslims that the Gospel was originally a divine book which was later altered in order to mislead believers. But if it was truly altered, how can anyone be certain of this unless they possess an uncorrupted original version for comparison? If God is capable of preserving the Quran from distortion, why was He unable or unwilling to preserve the Gospel? Furthermore, if the Gospel was altered, why does the Quran still repeatedly affirm it, as in Surah Al-Ma’idah verse 46? How can Muslims claim that the Gospel has been corrupted while the Quran continues to validate it?

This reveals an internal inconsistency. One cannot simultaneously affirm that a book is from God, accept its corruption, blame its followers for straying from it, and still insist that it remains a source of guidance for the righteous.

🧠 Conclusion

From the perspective of the Bible, Jesus did not receive a book called the Gospel. Rather, he himself is the Gospel – the good news and the living Word of God. What is now called the Gospel consists of testimonies about him, not a book revealed to him from heaven. Therefore, the Quranic assertion that Jesus was given a book named the Gospel is not consistent with historical evidence or the theological meaning of the term.

The Quran claims the existence of a specific divine book called the Gospel which was directly given to Jesus. But neither historical documents nor Christian teachings support this claim. This leaves two possibilities: either the Quran was unaware of the true nature of Christian texts, or the word “Gospel” in the Quran refers to something entirely different that has never been clearly explained.

In either case, there is a clear gap between the Quranic claim and the historical and theological realities concerning Jesus and the Bible. This discrepancy cannot be resolved with common apologetic explanations.

The Greek word euangelion means “good news” or “glad tidings,” not a revealed scripture. It refers to the redemptive message that Jesus brought: that the kingdom of God is near and people must repent, believe, and return to God. This implies that the authors of the Quran did not have an accurate understanding of what the Gospel truly was, nor did they know how the Christian texts were compiled or transmitted. The claim that Jesus had a book called the Gospel which was later altered has no historical support. No evidence exists showing that Jesus ever presented a book to his followers as a divine scripture. And even if one were to assume that such a book once existed, a serious problem would remain – that God either failed or chose not to protect His sacred word. Moreover, if this distortion did take place, how did Christians remain unaware of it, while Muslims became informed?

In this post I have tried to examine the Quranic verses and the common Muslim arguments in defence of them without bias. Whether you accept or reject what has been presented is a matter for your reason and discernment. Blind acceptance of any belief is never wise. Let us remember that reason is the lamp of humanity. Begin with a simple question: could a book containing so many errors and inconsistencies truly have come from God, or was it written by human beings?