the perfection of the qur'an
To Muslims, the Qur’an is the literal, flawless, and uncreated word of Allah, miraculous in its poetic beauty and linguistic perfection. So how well does that claim align with what the Qur’an actually says?
Muslims are taught to recite the Qur’an and the five daily prayers in its original Arabic. Yet only 20% of Muslims around the world are native Arabic speakers. This means the vast majority of Muslims rely on translations to understand the meanings of their recitations. Unsurprisingly, this leads to endless debates over what constitutes the “correct” or most “accurate” translation of Allah’s perfect words, resulting in multiple versions and interpretations.
What’s rarely questioned, however, is the irony of revealing a supposedly universal religion in a now-archaic dialect of Classical Arabic. Modern translations sometimes include interpretive additions, such as inserting “[lightly]” before the command to beat one’s wife. These editorial choices are not found in the original Arabic and reflect an attempt to soften problematic verses rather than translate them faithfully.
The text itself contains a multitude of extremely obscure terms, some of which appear only in the Qur’an. Among scholars, there is even a term for the study of the Qur’an’s rare, difficult-to-understand words: Gharib al-Quran.
Adding to the confusion, some surahs begin with disconnected Arabic letters, like Alif Lam Meem in Qur’an 2:1 or Nun in Qur’an 68:1, that carry no clear meaning. Some Islamic scholars claim these are divine mysteries known only to Allah, their purpose hidden. In a book said to be perfectly clear and accessible to all, this kind of obscurity is difficult to reconcile.
While the Qur’an is widely believed to be the literal and unambiguous word of Allah, Qur’an 3:7 admits that some verses are allegorical. The same passage warns believers not to interpret these allegories, suggesting that doing so causes division. It also asserts that only Allah knows their true meaning, and that believers must accept the Qur’an’s perfection on faith alone.
This suggests that the Qur’an’s truth may not be immediately apparent, but must be accepted without question, like any supernatural belief that lies beyond empirical understanding. As a result, obscure and ambiguous verses have led to centuries of sectarian conflict and divergent interpretations. This undermines the claim that the text of the Qur’an itself is perfect, complete, and unchanging, as well as the idea that Islam is universally and timelessly understandable.
Several. The Qur’an’s positions on certain issues appear to shift over time. For example, in Qur’an 16:67, wine is described as a “wholesome” drink, and Qur’an 4:43 references drunkenness without prohibiting it. Yet other verses—Qur’an 5:90 and 2:219—condemn wine as the work of Satan and label drinking a grave sin. Given that the Qur’an was written over a span of 23 years, its changing opinions on this issue seem like a tell of its human authorship, as opposed to a divine voice issuing consistent and eternal guidance.
The Qur’an also repeats some stories multiple times with differing and contradictory details for no understandable purpose. For example:
-
The confrontation with Pharaoh’s magicians (7:109-110 vs. 26:34-35)
-
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (11:69-83 vs. 15:51-74)
Inconsistencies like these are typical of oral storytelling or multiple human recollections, which provide much simpler and more coherent explanations for the contradictions than the convoluted arguments of theologians.
The question of who is actually narrating the Qur’an presents another issue. While much of the text is framed as Allah speaking directly to humanity, other passages refer to Allah in the third person, such as Qur’an 112:1-4; 57:1-2; 25:2; and 16:70. This shift in narrative voice creates inconsistency and raises the question of divine authorship. Rather than reading as a single, divine voice, these changes suggest a human narrator describing Allah, not Allah speaking to mankind.
Perhaps most glaringly, Qur’an 19:27-34 refers to Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Mary, the sister of Aaron, as the same person. These are distinct individuals who, as documented in religious chronology, would have lived over a thousand years apart. The conflation suggests either a significant factual error or a misunderstanding of the original texts from which the story was drawn. Theologians often explain this as a reference to Mary’s spiritual lineage. However, the literal reading makes no such reference, presenting a major chronological inconsistency. For a human being to make this oversight is one thing; for an omniscient God to make it is another.
-
Not quite. While the Qur’an is often presented as a book of timeless, universal moral guidance, several verses focus solely on the Prophet Muhammad, granting him special privileges and instructing others on how to treat him. These verses stand out as personal and situational—far from universal in scope.
For example, in Qur’an 66:1, Allah chastises Muhammad for denying his own desires in order to please his wives, and instead encourages him to do as he pleases within religious boundaries. Just a few verses later (66:5), Allah warns Muhammad’s wives to improve their behavior or risk being replaced with “better” women. That a divine revelation would be so intently focused on scolding the Prophet’s wives and threatening their disposability is telling, especially when it aligns so neatly with Muhammad’s own interests.
Qur’an 33:50 outlines marital rights granted exclusively to Muhammad, including the right to marry cousins, captives, and women who offer themselves to him. These permissions explicitly apply only to him, not to other believers. Even more unusually, Qur’an 33:53 tells followers not to linger in Muhammad’s home after meals, noting that while the Prophet is too shy to ask them to leave, “Allah is not shy of the truth.” This verse elevates the Prophet’s personal comfort to the level of divine concern.
The Qur’an also prohibits anyone from marrying Muhammad’s widows after his death, effectively preserving his elevated status even beyond the grave. Taken together, these verses read less like universal moral guidance and more like a religious leader granting himself privileges under the guise of divine will. It’s a pattern we recognize in flawed human leadership, but Islam asks us to see its Prophet as the lone exception.