Does the Qur’an contain contradictory statements?

The Doctrine of Abrogation addresses the question of contradictions within the Qur’an. It states that an earlier statement carrying legal or divine authority is abrogated (erased) by a later contradictory statement which also carries legal or divine authority. Maulana Muhammad Ali comments that some Islamic scholars place the number of abrogated verses in the Qur’an at five hundred.Other scholars, however, are more conservative, claiming a more correct number to be as few as twenty-one.

Three passages in the Qur’an establish the doctrine:
“Whatever verse we may annul or cause thee to forget, we will bring a better one than it, or one like it; dost thou not know that God is mighty over all?” (Q 2.106)

“God blots out what He will, or He confirms; and with Him is the Mother of the Book.” (Q 13.39)

“We will make thee recite, and thou shall not forget, save what God pleases.” (Q87.6-7)

The point is that statements made in earlier surah’s are subject to abrogation if statements in later surah’steach differing concepts. In this respect, the doctrine employs the logic of chronology and progressive revelation. Proof-texting(that is, lifting a verse out of its context and chronological setting and thereby
building a doctrine from it) is particularly problematic. Controversial topics—such as alcoholic beverages (wine), the nature of jihad, Muhammad’s view of Jews and Christians—must be read in chronological order, since verses mentioned early in the Qur’an are not necessarily active in later surahs.

The Doctrine of Abrogation has proved to be troublesome for Islamic scholarship.The problem is due to the fact that Muhammad insisted that the Qur’an isan eternal uncreated book—a book with no beginning, guarded in Paradise by Allah (see Q 85.21-22). Hence, Islamic scholars are left with no easy explanations
to justify erasures and corrections within the Qur’an. Two common responses arethe following:

-Many Islamic scholars deny the doctrine altogether. When rightly interpreted, they insist, apparent contradictions are understood to be no contradictions whatsoever.

-Other Islamic scholars argue against the notion of the Qur’an being an eternally uncreated book. The Qur’an could not be an eternal book without a beginning, asalleged, since the properties of change are necessarily connected to the properties of time. All such references in the Qur’an being an eternal document are
therefore hyperboles—exaggerated speech—and not to be taken literally.

Moderate Islamic scholars lean towards the second response. Conservative Islamic scholars lean towards the first.

CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
The Doctrine of Abrogation demonstrates that the Qur’an is indeed a historical document. It was written in a specific time in history and within the interactions of a variety of cultures. Muhammad made changes to his developing theology due to changes in circumstances and his outlook on life. These changes affected specific teachings, such as his views on alcoholic beverages, Jihad, and Jews and Christians (see Q 2.106 and 13.39).

Christians have a similar understanding of the Bible. It too is a historical document, written in history within the competing interactions of differing cultures. God established covenants with His people in one historical moment that were later replaced or modified by other covenants in other historical moments.

The Mosaic Covenant is a case in point. Established during the ministry of Moses, it was later replaced by the New Covenant (see Jer 31:30-34; Heb 8:13). In the Old Testament, a common teaching was that the blood of animals shed in ritual sacrifices provided divine forgiveness. In the New Testament, this teaching changed. It was the blood of Jesus Christ shed at the cross that provided divine forgiveness. The first was merely a prefiguring of the second (see Jn 1:17; Gal3:24-25; Heb 9:12-14).

Since Christians do not believe that the Bible is an eternal uncreated document, they have no problem with the Doctrine of Abrogation. In the Bible, God spoke within the context of culture and history. He made changes to His covenants, according to His divine will. In the Old Testament, people were instructed
to place their faith in the efficacious work of animal sacrifices which covered their sins. In the New Testament, people were instructed to place their faith in the efficacious work of Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for their sins. The Apostle Paul explained: “Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (Gal 3:23-25).

Moreover, the Bible is also understood to be a document with dual authorship ,wholly written by God and wholly written by man. John R. W. Stott writes, “To say ‘the Bible is the Word of God’ is true, but it is only a half-truth, even a dangerous half-truth. For the Bible is also a human word and witness...Thus God spoke and men spoke. Both statements are true, and neither contradicts theother.”2

It is in the human dimension that we see the presence of history and culture most forcefully in the Bible. Yet, the presence of history and culture does not negate its divine inspiration or authority. Indeed, Christians explain, this is howGod always speaks to us—within the context of history and culture. This does not imply cultural and historical relativism. To the contrary, it makes the case that God challenges our cultural and historical predilections with a divinely inspired understanding of culture and history.
________________________
1 See Maulana Muhammad Ali, The Religion of Islam, pp. 32, 33.
2 John R. W. Stott, Culture and the Bible, p. 5.