FATAL Quranic Contradictions


In evaluating the Quran, as with any other book which purports to be God’s word, we must be very meticulous and have an open mind and open heart. We have to correctly understand the historical context (audience, contemporary cultural values and standards), original language, author’s intent, and the phraseology. We must read the surrounding text, recognize mere copyist errors (which do not nullify inerrancy), correctly quote the text, and thoughtfully and open-mindedly consider ways in which two seemingly contradictory passages might be compatible with each other and ways to alleviate possible difficulties a passage has with external evidence. Original inerrancy is all that is necessary; not having inerrant copies encourages freely made decisions and critical and independent thinking, and mankind could not logistically handle inerrant copies due to the chaos they would cause. Original inerrancy (including the complete absence of false prophecies and presence of true ones), perfect morality, and miracles corroborated by compelling internal and external evidence are necessary to establish divine inspiration; eloquence is not evidence of inspiration.

That being said, the Quran, while an extremely intriguing book, is most certainly not the word of God.

Let us look at contradictions which are not plausibly deniable. Q.YA= Quran, as translated by Yusuf Ali. S=Sura. SAB = Sahih al Bukhari hadith. SAD = Sunan Abu Dawud hadith.

One of them is the food in Hell. S69.36 says, “Nor hath he any food except the foul pus from the washing of his wounds.” S88.6 says, “No food will be there for them but a bitter Dhari.” According to S88.6n, Dhari “is a plant, bitter and thorny, loathsome in smell and appearance, which will neither give fattening nourishment to the body nor in any way satisfy the burning pangs of hunger.” According to S37.62-68, the damned in Hell will eat fruit from the Tree of Zaqqum. Now, it might at first seem that this can be harmonized with S88.6, but the fruit is not the same as Dhari, as S37.66 shows: “Truly they will eat theirof and fill their bellies therewith.” So, the Quran says that foul pus is the ONLY food in Hell, that Dhari is the ONLY food in Hell, and that there is ALSO fruit from the tree of Zaqqum.

Allah is said to be the ONLY wali (protector) [S9.116; 17.111; 32.4; 42.28], but then the messenger and those who believe in him are walis [S5.55; 9.71] and Allah has [S10.62] and raises [S4.75] walis. So the Quran says Allah is and is not the only Wali.

The Quran contradicts itself about marrying Christians. It calls Christians infidels [S9.28-33] and prohibits Muslims from marrying idolatrous women [S2.221], yet says it is OK for Muslims to marry Christian women [S5.5]. This is not merely a rule for one time and a superseding rule for a different time; both are meant to be permanent. Thus the Quran says Muslims may marry Christian women and that they may not marry Christian women.

The Quran contradicts itself about the identity of the first Muslim. It names Muhammad [S6.14,133], some Egyptians [S26.51], Adam [S2.37], Moses [S7.143], and Abraham [S2.133-137; 3.67].

The Quran says that a Samaritan made the Golden Calf during the 40 years Moses and the Israelites were in the Sinai Desert [S20.87,94]. This purports to be a literal, factual, historically accurate narrative but contains a falsehood; this is an anachronism. In the same way, the Quran errs when it says (according to the earliest and most reliable tradition) that King Nimrod threw Abraham into the fire, since Nimrod lived seven generations before Abraham. This is not e.g. a deliberate anachronism so that later readers can understand the message, as in the case of David’s payment for the altar. King David paid 50 shekels of silver [1 Sa 24:24] but 1 Chr 21:25, written in the Persian period 600 years later, gives the equivalent 600 shekels of gold so the audience can better understand.

The Quran condemns lust [S79.40-41], and yet permits divorce, polygamy, and concubinage for all times. Most importantly, there is the reward of boundless lust in Paradise [S55.46-78; 56.11-39]. The Quran bans wine on earth [S5.91], calling it Satanic, but says there are rivers of wine in Paradise [S47.15; 76.5; 83.25].

Continued in next post…


The Quran repeatedly calls Satan an angel [S2.34; 7.11-12; 15.28-31; 20.116; 38.71-74]. However, Satan is called a jinn in S18.50. Jinns are not angels (even though Muslim apologists have tried to show that Jinns are a tribal group of angels) since the Quran repeatedly says that ALL angels obey Allah [S16.49-50; 21.19-20; 66.6]. A couple of exceptions is understandable but the Quran says that MANY jinns disobey (sin against) Allah [S55.39] by misleading men, [S6.128-130], thereby going to Hell [S7.38; 41.25; SAB9.93.480]. The Arabic grammatical principle Tagleeb does not resolve this difficulty. Jinns, who can be male or female [SAD1.6]. are mortal [S7.38; 41.25; SAB9.93.480] and can pee [SAB2.21.245; 4.54.492] and fart [SAB2.22.323; 4.54.505] and have fiery bodies [S7.12; 15.27; 38.76; 55.15]. They eat bones and dung [SAB5.58.200] and charcoal [SAD1.39]. On the other hand, angels are immaterial, sexless, and immortal. So, the Quran says that Satan is and is not an angel; in other words, that Satan is a jinn and is not a jinn.


I go with Dawood.


I have never read the Quran other than some of the passages posted here and other places so I would have no idea which is the best translation but I have found cestusdei’s opinions to be well thought out, studied, intelligent and reasonable so I would trust his opinion if I were looking for a Quran.


I have a copy of Dawood somewhere - I’ve also read Arthur Arberry’s translation, in the World Classics series.

What would be very handy is a translation with very full notes - Dawood has a few, but not that many.

As to contradictions: they won’t be felt as contradictions if there is some sort of interpretative principle which can act to make them cease to be felt as such. Inerrancy is the principle which does this for Fundamentalist Protestants - it’s a principle they accept, so they don’t find the Bible not to be inerrant, as an outsider might. Presumably Muslims have some principle or principles to hold their own sacred book together in a similar way so that it is not experienced as contradictory. ##


Hi people :slight_smile:

I am here to remind you that some online translations of the Koran demonstrate deliberate distortion of the original text through the replacement of original Koran sentences with the personal interpretations of the translators. The aim of such a hideous act is to conceal some problematic parts of Mohammed’s Bible and destroy the ground on which many critiques are raised up. For instance, let’s compare/contrast the following translations of the same verse:

003: 035-036 (Remember) when the wife of 'Imran said: My Lord! I have vowed unto Thee that which is in my belly as a consecrated (offering). Accept it from me. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Hearer, the Knower! And when she was delivered she said: My Lord! Lo! I am delivered of a female - Allah knew best of what she was delivered - the male is not as the female; and lo! I have named her Mary, and lo! I crave Thy protection for her and for her offspring from Satan the outcast.


003: 035-036 Behold! a woman of 'Imran said: “O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: so accept this of me: for Thou hearest and knowest all things.” When she was delivered, she said: “O my Lord! behold! I am delivered of a female child!” - and Allah knew best what she brought forth - “and no wise is the male like the female. I have named her Maryam, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from the Evil One, the Rejected.”

The most remarkable difference between these two translations concerns the identification of Maryam’s mother. The first one insists that Maryam’s mother was Imran’s wife, making Maryam (Mary) Imran’s (Amram) biological daughter. Since this sort of an identification highlights one of the historic errors of the Koran - (Virgin Mary and Moses’ sister Mary (Miriam) are the same person!!!), the second translation makes efforts to get rid of this major error in Allah’s book by the help of personal commentary that disregards the real meaning of the phrase in Arabic.

Conclusion: be careful against translations that pervert the Koran for the sake of its protection against critiques. :wink:

Angelos N.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.