If Contradictions in Religious Texts Are Explained as ‘Contextual’ or ‘Interpretative Differences,’ How Can Divine Truth Be Distinguished from Human Influence?

April 15, 2025

One of the most common defenses used by religious scholars — particularly in Islam — when confronted with contradictions in their sacred texts is this:

“That’s not a contradiction. It’s just a matter of context or interpretation.”

This response, while sounding intellectually safe, raises a far more serious question:

If contradictions are always explained away through context or interpretation, how can we ever tell what is divine truth and what is merely human error?

Because if a text can say seemingly opposite things — and the only way to reconcile them is through human reinterpretation — then what, exactly, makes it “divine”?

Let’s unpack the implications of this defense, especially as it relates to the Qur’an, which claims to be the eternal, perfect, and final revelation from God.

---

1. The Nature of Divine Revelation: Clarity or Confusion?

Islam teaches that the Qur’an is:

• Clear (mubeen)

• Detailed (mufassal)

• Fully explained (tibyanan li-kulli shay)

• Without contradictions (Surah 4:82)

These are not modest claims. They are absolute and comprehensive.

Yet time and time again, Muslims are forced to explain apparent contradictions or morally troubling verses by appealing to:

• Historical context

• Different interpretations

• Varying legal rulings

• Complicated doctrines like abrogation (naskh)

But here’s the contradiction:

A divine book that claims to be clear and perfect should not require generations of scholars, centuries of tafsir, and volumes of legal rulings to make basic sense of itself.

If the Qur’an is truly for “all people, at all times,” why does it require so much human scaffolding to be understood?

---

2. Examples of Qur’anic Contradictions "Resolved" by Interpretation

Let’s look at some key examples where contradictions are excused through interpretative gymnastics — and ask whether this reflects divine perfection or human patchwork:

❖ Compulsion in Religion

• “There is no compulsion in religion.” – Surah 2:256

• “Fight those who do not believe… until they pay the jizya.” – Surah 9:29

These verses appear to contradict each other directly. So how is it explained?

“Surah 2 was revealed earlier in Mecca, when Muslims were weak. Surah 9 was revealed later in Medina, when Muslims were strong.”

But that’s not theology. That’s political context driving theological change. And it means God’s commands change with Muhammad’s power level — hardly a sign of divine consistency.

❖ Jews and Christians: Saved or Damned?

• “Indeed, those who believe, and those who are Jews and Christians... will have their reward with their Lord.” – Surah 2:62

• “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him.” – Surah 3:85

Are Jews and Christians saved, or are they destined for Hell? The usual response:

“Verse 2:62 only applies to Jews and Christians before Muhammad’s message was complete. After that, they must convert.”

But if that’s true, the verse no longer means what it plainly says. It’s not a matter of “clarification” — it’s a theological rewrite after the fact.

And if we can’t take God's words at face value, what distinguishes them from human words at all?

---

3. The Problem of Infinite Interpretation

Every time a verse seems problematic, Islamic scholars appeal to a vast and ever-expanding sea of interpretive traditions:

• Hadiths

• Tafsir (commentary)

• Usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence)

• Historical context

• Abrogation rules

But this raises the question:

If human interpretation is needed to “fix” divine revelation, isn’t the divine revelation insufficient on its own?

And more dangerously:

If all contradictions can be explained away with interpretation, then no contradiction can ever falsify the text.

Which means the book is not testable — and thus not meaningfully true or false. It's immune to falsification, and therefore immune to accountability.

That’s not truth. That’s theological authoritarianism.

---

4. Divine Truth vs. Human Influence: Where’s the Line?

Here’s the heart of the issue: How can you tell when a message is from God and when it’s been shaped by human hands?

• If a verse reflects 7th-century tribal patriarchy, is that divine command or cultural baggage?

• If a ruling is abrogated (canceled) by a later verse, was the earlier verse wrong, or was the later one more correct?

• If verses need a scholar to tell you what they “really” mean, how is that God’s clear guidance?

Divine revelation should be timeless, consistent, morally superior, and intelligible across time and culture. But the Qur’an often appears:

• Historically reactive

• Ethically regressive

• Dependent on post-hoc interpretation

That looks very human — not divine.

---

5. The Qur’an's Own Testimony Against Itself

The Qur’an actually offers a test for divine authorship:

“Do they not ponder the Qur’an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would have found much contradiction in it.” – Surah 4:82

This verse invites reflection — and yet Muslims are forbidden to question the text’s consistency in any serious way. Any contradictions are dismissed before examination.

That’s not divine confidence. That’s defensive theology.

A truly divine book would stand up to open, rigorous, critical inquiry — and wouldn’t need armies of interpreters to shield it from scrutiny.

---

6. Conclusion: Clarity is the Hallmark of Divine Truth

If contradictions in religious texts are always explained away by “interpretation” or “context,” we are left with a critical problem:

There is no way to distinguish what is truly from God from what is merely human justification.

This means:

• Divine authority becomes subject to scholarly manipulation.

• Religious truth becomes a moving target.

• The “perfect word of God” becomes just another text open to endless debate.

That’s not divine clarity. That’s theological noise.

So we must ask:

If God's revelation is so unclear that it requires generations of human minds to make it coherent, can we still call it God’s word?

Or is it far more honest — and intellectually responsible — to recognize it as the work of fallible, context-bound human authors trying to explain the divine through the limited lens of their own time?

Because divine truth should not contradict itself.

It should not need human repair.

And it should certainly not be shielded from scrutiny by appealing to interpretation every time it fails the test of reason.