Exposing Islam

📘 “No Contradictions in the Quran”? A Formal Rebuttal to the Standard Defense

“Then do they not reflect upon the Quran? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.”
— Surah 4:82

This verse is often quoted as proof that the Quran is divine — because, according to it, there are no contradictions. But that’s not a proof; that’s a claim. If a contradiction is found, the Quran fails its own test.

Let’s deal with it head-on. One Christian critic posed a challenge using Surah 26 vs Surah 10, asking:

Did Pharaoh drown and die?
Or was Pharaoh’s body preserved and rescued?

The response given by Islamic apologetics is an attempt to explain away the contradiction. But that’s not reasoning — it’s retrofitting.

🔍 The Verses in Question

📖 Surah 26:66

“Then We drowned the others.”

📖 Surah 28:40

“So We seized him and his soldiers and threw them into the sea. So see how was the end of the wrongdoers.”

Clear: Pharaoh drowned. No question about it.

But now look at:

📖 Surah 10:92

“So today We will save you in your body that you may be to those who succeed you a sign.”

This appears to contradict the drowning. It suggests his body was saved (not decomposed or lost) and that this was an intentional act of preservation by Allah.

🧠 Standard Response vs Logic

Islamic apologists argue: “He drowned and died, but his corpse was saved. That’s not a contradiction.”

Let’s break that down.

⚠️ Problem 1: "Saved" ≠ "Drowned"

The word used is "We will save (nunajjīka) you in your body", not “We will recover your corpse.” If the intention was to clarify that he died but his body was preserved, the Quran should have said exactly that.

The phrase implies deliverance, not recovery of a cadaver.

⚠️ Problem 2: Drowning vs Saving in Body

If Allah drowned Pharaoh as punishment (Surah 26), but then saved him in another verse (Surah 10), it presents an intentional reversal of outcome.

It’s either:

A death judgment by Allah (drowning),
Or a saving action by Allah (rescue).

It cannot logically be both without contradiction.

⚖️ Formal Logical Contradiction

Let’s structure this:

Premises:

P1: Surah 26 and 28 state that Pharaoh drowned.
P2: Surah 10 states that Allah saved Pharaoh “in his body” so he could be a sign to others.
P3: The verb “save” (نُنَجِّيكَ) implies intentional preservation, not random recovery.
P4: A person cannot be both drowned and saved in the same context unless the text clarifies that it’s talking about different aspects (soul vs body, etc.) — and the Quran does not.

Conclusion:

The Quran contradicts itself in its description of Pharaoh’s fate.

“If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.”
— Surah 4:82

Well — we found one.

🔁 Apologetic Dodge: Harmonization ≠ Consistency

Yes, it is possible to construct a harmonized view — just like theologians do when reconciling contradictions in any text. But a harmonization is not a refutation of contradiction. It's a workaround.

Analogy:

If someone says: "The man drowned."
Then says: "We saved the man."
And provides no context that distinguishes body vs soul, before vs after, dead vs alive — we rightly call that a contradiction.

🧾 Bonus: The Real Test in 4:82

That verse isn’t asking you to “reflect harder and find harmony.” It says the absence of contradiction is proof of divine authorship. That’s a falsifiable claim.

And the moment any contradiction is found, the Quran fails its own test.

📚 Closing Argument

Islamic scholars argue the Quran is:

Clear (Surah 5:15)
Perfect (Surah 6:115)
Fully explained (Surah 12:111)
Without contradiction (Surah 4:82)

Yet we find textual contradictions, doctrinal reversals, and internal tension — not because of reader error, but because of the text itself.

That means either:

The Quran was not from Allah, or
Allah contradicts Himself.

You can’t claim both perfection and contradiction. If the Quran says its truthfulness is proven by its consistency, and that consistency fails — then so does the claim to divine origin.