Muslim apologists often claim that the Quran is not only perfect Arabic but also a book of flawless internal harmony. They insist that its 114 chapters form a seamless whole, every verse fitting together like a perfect mosaic, with no contradictions and no adjustments. According to this view, any apparent problem is only in the reader’s mind, a misunderstanding that disappears once one masters the “sciences of the Quran.”

But when we read the Quran historically—following the order in which Muhammad’s revelations appeared—a very different picture emerges. The book did not descend as a single unit. It grew over twenty-three years in response to crises, defeats, arguments, and embarrassments. Early verses speak of tolerance, patience, and peaceful coexistence; later Medinan chapters introduce sword verses, war taxes, and threats against Jews and Christians. Some verses cancel earlier ones. Others appear to have been inserted to solve very specific personal or political problems Muhammad faced. Still others, by Muslim admission, once existed but vanished—one story even says a domestic animal ate them.

Jehovah’s Word does not work like this. The Bible developed over many centuries, yes, but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit through inspired prophets and apostles who never claimed the right to erase earlier revelation. Later books deepen earlier truth; they do not contradict it. The New Testament explicitly fulfills the Old rather than rewriting it. The Quran, by contrast, behaves like the product of a single human life: it shifts tone as circumstances change, reverses course when earlier positions become inconvenient, and patches holes as they appear.

When we examine the Quran’s internal structure honestly, we do not find 114 chapters in perfect harmony. We find a patchwork of panic fixes stitched together and then shielded from criticism by theological rules about abrogation and reverent storytelling. The fact that Muslim scholars have spent 1,400 years building complicated systems just to explain why the book does not mean what it clearly says at first reading is itself evidence of deep inconsistency.

From Tolerance in Mecca to Sword Verses in Medina—the 180° Turn

The Quran began in Mecca, when Muhammad had few followers and no political power. During that period, his messages emphasize patience, endurance, and the limited role of a preacher. Suras from this time talk about warning people of judgment, leaving guidance to Allah, and accepting rejection with forbearance. Muhammad is told that he is only a warner, not a controller over people. Islam is presented as a call to worship the one God and live morally, not as a political movement.

A famous early passage effectively says, “To you your religion and to me my religion.” Another implies that if people do not believe, Muhammad is not responsible; his duty is merely to preach. These verses fit the situation of a minority religious teacher without military means. He must endure insults and rely on persuasion.

Everything changes after the Hijra—Muhammad’s move to Medina. There he becomes not just a preacher, but a political ruler and war leader. He forms alliances, raises an army, and conducts raids on Meccan caravans. As his power grows, the tone of the revelations changes. Verses appear commanding Muslims to fight those who oppose the new community, to take spoils of war, and to treat pagans, Jews, and Christians as enemies unless they submit.

The most notorious of these are the so-called sword verses. One instructs Muslims to fight the polytheists wherever they find them, to seize and surround them, and to lie in wait for them. Another orders fighting those who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day—specifically targeting Jews and Christians—until they pay the jizya tax “while humbled.” Earlier language about patience toward mockers gives way to commands to kill, expel, and subdue.

Traditional Islamic scholarship admits this shift. Commentators classify suras as Meccan or Medinan and routinely explain that certain tolerant verses were revealed when Muslims were weak, while harsh verses came when they gained strength. Then they say the harsh verses abrogate the earlier peaceful ones. The result is an 180° turn: from “no compulsion in religion” to “fight until religion is all for Allah.”

This is not progressive moral education; it is opportunistic adjustment. When Muhammad lacked power, he presented Islam as peaceful persuasion. When he gained power, he presented Islam as a conquering force. The Quran’s own history therefore contradicts claims of timeless ethical consistency. Its message follows the fortunes of one man’s political career, not the unchanging holiness of Jehovah.

By contrast, the Bible’s moral vision is stable from Genesis to Revelation. Jehovah hates murder, theft, and oppression throughout. Even when He permits Israel to wage wars under His direct command, those conflicts are tied to specific covenant purposes and are never turned into a universal mission of conquest. The New Testament then clearly reveals that Christ’s congregation does not expand by the sword at all. There is no whiplash turn from tolerance to forced submission. The Quran shows precisely such a turn because it grew out of human calculations, not divine consistency.

The Doctrine of Naskh: Allah “Changing His Mind” More Than 40 Times

Because of this drastic shift between early and late revelations, Muslim scholars developed the doctrine of naskh—abrogation. Naskh means that a later verse cancels or replaces an earlier verse, either in its wording, its legal ruling, or both. Some even say an entire law can be abrogated without erasing the text, leaving verses that are recited but no longer followed.

The Quran itself alludes to this idea when it says that Allah can cause a verse to be forgotten and bring another similar or better, or that when He substitutes one revelation for another, some complain. These admissions are extraordinary. They show that Muhammad’s audience noticed changes and objected. People questioned why instructions given at one time were being modified or reversed. Instead of denying the changes, the Quran declares that Allah has the right to do this.

Classical scholars then catalogued abrogated verses. Depending on the author, lists vary from about forty to well over two hundred verses said to be superseded by later ones. These include:

Verses urging Muslims to bear patiently with persecution, to forgive and overlook the insults of unbelievers, and to leave punishment to God—replaced by verses commanding fighting, killing, and humiliating opponents.

Verses giving certain rulings on inheritance, fasting, and social conduct that were then altered by later verses or by Muhammad’s actions, which themselves were treated as divine revelation.

Even the direction of prayer, from Jerusalem to Mecca, is treated as a case where Allah changed His instructions and used the shift as a test of obedience.

Naskh is not the same as the biblical pattern of progressive revelation. In the Bible, Jehovah gradually reveals more of His salvation plan, but He never reverses moral principles. The sacrifices in the Law, for example, are shadows fulfilled in Christ; they are not declared mistaken and replaced by contradictory rituals. The Old Testament prohibition against idols does not get abrogated by a later permission to worship images. God’s character is steady.

In the Quran, however, abrogation regularly turns an earlier instruction into its opposite. Peaceful coexistence is replaced by active warfare. Permission to drink wine becomes a complete ban. Rules about how to treat wives and concubines shift with circumstances. Allah’s commands are portrayed as flexible to the point of instability.

This raises a deeper theological problem. If Allah can change his revelations dozens of times in just twenty-three years, what guarantee exists that he will not change them again? If he reversed rulings once, why not again? The God of the Bible swears by Himself and binds Himself by promises. He makes covenants and keeps them, even at the cost of sending His own Son to the cross. The Allah of naskh, in contrast, moves the goalposts constantly, then threatens anyone who notices with hellfire.

The fact that Muslim scholars must maintain large abrogation tables to explain which verses still apply is itself evidence against any claim of tidy internal coherence. A book requiring that much internal cancellation is not a picture of divine clarity; it is a record of theological improvisation.

Contradictions on Wine, Intercession, Compulsion in Religion, and the Number of Days of Creation

While naskh is the official tool used to handle many conflicts, it does not resolve every tension. Even where abrogation is invoked, the contradictions show that the Quran’s message shifts under pressure. Several examples make this unmistakable.

On wine, the Quran moves through a series of positions. In one passage, intoxicating drinks from dates and grapes are described as a “good provision,” with no hint of moral concern. Later, a different verse acknowledges both benefit and sin in wine, saying the sin is greater but not prohibiting it outright. Then another verse forbids approaching prayer while intoxicated, implying that outside prayer one may still drink. Finally, a later Medinan passage calls wine an abomination from Satan and orders believers to avoid it entirely.

The direction of movement—loosely tolerant to restrictive—may sound like moral growth, but within the Quran’s own framework these are all divine commands. If Allah is delivering perfect guidance from the start, why does He first praise something, then merely warn, then place a partial restriction, and only at last ban it? This is exactly what we expect from a human leader managing a community’s habits, not from an all-wise God speaking timelessly.

On intercession, the Quran vacillates between denying that anyone can intercede for sinners and hinting that Muhammad and others may secure mercy for their followers. Some verses insist that on the Day of Judgment no soul shall benefit from another’s intercession; others say there are intercessors whose pleas Allah will accept. Islamic tradition then develops an elaborate belief in Muhammad’s intercession and that of other favored figures. The resulting tension is never cleanly resolved; instead, readers are told that intercession exists but only by Allah’s permission, leaving ordinary believers unsure whether to rely on it or not.

On compulsion in religion, the contradiction is even sharper. One famous early Medinan verse states that there is no compulsion in religion; truth stands clear from error. This is often quoted in modern apologetics as proof that Islam is tolerant. But later verses command Muslims to fight people of the Book until they pay the jizya tax in humiliation, and to fight polytheists until religion belongs entirely to Allah. Muhammad’s own practice, as recorded in Islamic sources, includes threats of death for apostasy and forced choices between Islam, tribute, or sword.

Islamic law codified this: adult male apostates are to be executed; conquered populations must submit to Islamic rule and taxation or face war. Whatever “no compulsion” once meant is effectively overridden. The doctrine of naskh explains this by saying that militant verses abrogate earlier toleration. But that simply admits the contradiction instead of erasing it.

On the number of days of creation, the Quran presents conflicting accounts. Several verses say that Allah created the heavens and the earth in six days. Another passage describes the formation of the earth in two days, the placing of mountains and provisions in four days, and the making of the heavens in two days—apparently totaling eight. Commentators twist themselves into knots trying to re-interpret the numbers, suggesting that the middle four include the first two, or that “days” here are overlapping phases. The plain reading, however, shows that a book claiming perfect precision cannot keep its own timeline straight in a simple creation narrative.

These examples are not obscure technicalities. They reveal a text that shifts positions, then threatens anyone who fails to harmonize the shifts. Rather than a crystal-clear speech from heaven, we see layers of revision. By contrast, the Bible consistently affirms creation in six “days” or periods, leaves no doubt that compulsion in religion has no place in the church’s mission, and states plainly that no human intercession apart from Christ can save. Its coherence comes from Jehovah’s unchanging character, not from legal devices that say, “Ignore what I said earlier; now I want the opposite.”

Verses Inserted Years Later to Solve Personal and Political Problems

The Quran not only contradicts itself on major themes; it also reveals a pattern of verses appearing at moments when Muhammad faces personal or political embarrassment. These revelations act like convenient problem-solvers, retroactively turning his desires or mistakes into divine law.

When Muhammad took Zaynab, the divorced wife of his adopted son Zayd, as his wife, scandal erupted. In the surrounding culture, adoption created a bond similar to blood kinship; marrying your adopted son’s ex-wife was considered shameful. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad had admired Zaynab’s beauty while she was still married to Zayd, and after their divorce he married her. In the midst of this, a verse descended that rebuked Muhammad for hiding what Allah would bring to light and then framed his marriage as a divine act meant to abolish adoption taboos so that believers could marry the divorced wives of their adopted sons.

In other words, a personal decision that raised eyebrows suddenly became a cosmic lesson: Allah wanted to “solve” a supposed social problem, and Muhammad’s controversial marriage was the teaching tool. The revelation arrives not beforehand as guidance, but after the deed, as justification.

Another set of verses grants Muhammad special privileges in marriage that no other Muslim enjoys. While ordinary believers are restricted to four wives, a passage gives Muhammad the right to marry whomever he pleases among certain categories and to postpone or favor wives as he wishes. This reads less like an eternal moral command and more like a royal edict securing unusual sexual liberties for one man.

When Muhammad’s young wife Aisha was accused of immorality during a caravan episode—the so-called “necklace incident”—anxious days passed as gossip spread. Eventually, verses appeared declaring her innocence and warning the community about slander. These verses also introduced legal penalties for false accusations. Whatever truth there may be in Aisha’s defense, the pattern is revealing: a very personal domestic crisis becomes the occasion for revelation that vindicates the prophet’s household and threatens his critics.

Other examples include verses about inheritance that happen to resolve disputes in ways favorable to Muhammad’s allies, verses about booty distribution that settle arguments after battles, and verses about hypocrites that match exactly the profiles of his political opponents in Medina. In one case, a woman complains to Muhammad about her husband’s oath treating her as his mother, and revelation comes down siding with her and setting new rules. In another, Muhammad swears to refrain from something lawful, then a verse arrives rebuking him for forbidding what Allah made lawful and explaining away his oath.

Jehovah’s true prophets sometimes receive timely words that address specific situations, but those words always align with prior revelation and never serve merely to rescue the prophet’s reputation or desires. Nathan’s rebuke of David after his sin with Bathsheba does not excuse David; it condemns him sharply. The Law does not bend to the king’s appetite. In the Quran, by contrast, revelation appears again and again to validate Muhammad’s choices or to rescue him from criticism. That is exactly what we expect if the source is his own mind and ambitions, not the holy God of Scripture.

Missing Verses Eaten by a Goat and “Lost” Suras Admitted Even by Aisha

Muslim apologetics constantly repeats the slogan that the Quran is perfectly preserved, word for word, exactly as revealed. Yet the earliest Islamic sources tell a more complicated story. They speak of verses that once existed but vanished, suras that were longer and then shortened, and portions that were supposedly recited but never made it into the final codex.

One report attributed to Aisha, Muhammad’s favorite wife, states that a paper containing verses about stoning adulterers and about adult breastfeeding ten times was kept under her bed. After Muhammad’s death, she says, a domestic animal—often reported as a goat—came in and ate the sheet. The ruling about stoning, according to other reports, remained in force as a legal punishment, even though the verse’s recitation was said to be “abrogated.” The breastfeeding rule likewise disappeared from the Quran but survived in hadith discussions.

This is astonishing. A book claiming perfect preservation has a missing verse about a major legal penalty, with the loss blamed on an animal. Scholars try to rescue the doctrine by saying the verse was abrogated in recitation while its ruling stayed. But that only highlights how strained the system becomes. If Allah’s exact words can vanish through such mundane accidents, what does that say about the claim that He personally guards every letter?

Other traditions mention that the sura now called al-Ahzab was once as long as al-Baqara, the Quran’s longest chapter, but much of it was lost or forgotten. Some companions remembered verses that others did not. Different early codices compiled by notable companions, such as Ubayy ibn Ka‘b and Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud, reportedly contained suras or verses that the later standardized text does not, and omitted some that the official version includes. Later Muslim history describes how the third caliph, Uthman, ordered all variant copies destroyed, leaving only his chosen recension.

Again, harmonizing explanations abound. Apologists say that Uthman’s codex merely unified recitation styles, not content. They claim that all missing verses were meant by Allah to be forgotten. Yet the raw data from hadith and early histories remain: companions disagreed, texts varied, and some material was physically lost.

Contrast this with the Bible. Christians freely acknowledge textual variants in manuscripts, but they can compare thousands of copies across centuries to reconstruct the original wording with high confidence. No doctrine hangs on disputed verses. We do not have stories of books of Scripture devoured by goats that somehow contained unique commandments with no surviving witnesses. Jehovah’s providential care through many scribes and manuscripts gives us a stable text without appealing to magical protection.

The Quran, despite many fewer manuscripts and a far shorter textual history, claims absolute word-perfect preservation yet must explain away its own reports of loss, forgetting, and deliberate burning of alternative codices. That tension only grows the more one reads Islam’s own early sources. A truly coherent, divinely guarded book would not need such elaborate defense.

Conclusion: A Book That Needs 1,400 Years of Mental Gymnastics to Appear Consistent

When we put all these pieces together—the Meccan tolerance that flips into Medinan aggression, the doctrine of naskh that normalizes divine self-contradiction, the conflicting statements about wine, intercession, compulsion, and creation, the verses clearly crafted to rescue Muhammad from personal embarrassment, and the frank admissions of missing or altered passages—the picture of the Quran that emerges is not one of flawless harmony. It is a patchwork.

Muslim scholars have spent more than a millennium and a third trying to smooth this patchwork into a seamless robe. They classify verses chronologically, build complex charts of which passages abrogate which, invent categories of “abrogation in recitation but not in ruling,” and spin elaborate literary theories about ring structure and hidden symmetry. Whenever a contradiction surfaces, they assure readers that a deeper, esoteric harmony lies beneath. But this is precisely what one expects when human beings work overtime to defend a text that does not actually live up to its own marketing.

Jehovah’s Word does not require such mental gymnastics. The Bible is certainly complex and rich, and serious study always yields more depth, but its basic storyline is accessible: God creates, humanity sins, God calls a people, promises a Messiah, sends His Son, accomplishes salvation through His death and resurrection, and will consummate all things in a new heavens and new earth. The moral character of God shines through from start to finish. There is no point where He suddenly decides that forced religion is acceptable, or that killing people for changing beliefs is holy.

The internal coherence of Scripture is all the more remarkable because it was written by many human authors over some fifteen hundred years in different languages and cultures. The Quran, by contrast, is the product of one man’s lifetime in one region over just two decades—and yet it requires far more artificial scaffolding to hold it together.

Most importantly, the Bible’s unity centers on Christ. Every book, directly or indirectly, points to His person and work. He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, the promised seed of Abraham, the true King from David’s line, the suffering Servant, and the risen Lord. The New Testament does not abrogate the Old; it fulfills it in Him. By rejecting the cross and the resurrection, the Quran severs itself from that unity, leaving only a fragmented collection of moral commands and legal rulings that lack a saving center.

A book that truly came from the Creator of the universe would not contradict His earlier revelation, would not excuse a prophet’s lusts and political maneuvers with ad hoc verses, and would not need doctrines like naskh and missing “goat verses” to excuse its problems. The Quran’s internal incoherence is strong evidence that it reflects Muhammad’s evolving circumstances and desires, not Jehovah’s eternal mind.

For Muslims, this reality is painful but liberating. If the Quran is not the meticulously preserved, perfectly harmonious Word of God, then they are no longer bound to its denial of Christ. They are free to go back to the Scriptures it half-acknowledges and half-attacks—the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel—and to read them without the filter of abrogation and panic fixes. There they will meet the only One who never needed to revise His words, who never contradicted Himself, and who never received convenient “revelations” to excuse sin: Jesus Christ, the faithful, sinless Son of God.

He does not need 1,400 years of mental gymnastics to appear consistent. His life, teaching, death, and resurrection stand without such props. His Word calls us to repent, believe, and follow Him—not through coercion or shifting rules, but through the clear, coherent truth of Jehovah’s unchanging grace.

You May Also Enjoy

Muhammad – Uhud: Defeat, Blame-Shifting, and the Mutilation of the Dead (625 C.E.)

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS