Should Islamic scholars and their tafsirs be taken seriously? Not 100%, these scholars can be subjective, influenced by time, culture, personal beliefs, and the fear of hellfire or revenge by Allah.
And there is no universal guarantee that their interpretation is “the truth”; it is an attempt to make the text understandable and practical. Therefore, approach tafsirs with skepticism.
1. Why scholars do not admit contradictions
Within the Islamic tradition, the belief holds that: The Qur’an is the uncreated Word of God (muhkam, perfect, without error). God makes no mistakes and does not contradict Himself.
See, for example, 4:82: “Do they not reflect on the Qur’an? If it were from other than Allah, they would have found in it many contradictions.”
It is therefore theologically impossible for a religious scholar to admit contradictions—that would undermine the foundation of their faith.
2. How do they resolve this?
Contextualization: stating that apparent contradictions arise from the context (e.g., one verse is about war, another about peace → different situations).
Tafsir and hermeneutics: “deepening” or “nuancing” meaning so that it doesn’t clash.
Linguistic leeway: Arabic words often have multiple meanings. A word can then be interpreted in such a way that it doesn’t appear contradictory.
Naskh (abrogation): some scholars acknowledge that later verses abrogate or replace earlier verses. This eliminates the contradiction in their system.
3. Why not simply admit that there are contradictions in the Quran?
Because for them, the Quran is no ordinary book. If you admit that there are errors or contradictions, the idea that the Quran is literally God’s perfect word collapses, and the core of the Islamic belief system is under pressure.
In other words: admitting contradictions = implicitly admitting that the Quran is not divine/perfect → a Muslim scholar (who defends the text) cannot accept this.
4. How an Outsider Sees This
From the outside, it often seems as if scholars are “wrestling” with words like mubīn (“clear”) because they have to bridge a tension: on the one hand, difficult or contradictory texts, and on the other, the dogma of perfection.
A critical reader calls this “apologetics” (smoothing out texts), while a believer sees it as “deeper explanation” or “harmonization.”
In short:
Islamic scholars do not admit contradictions because doing so conflicts with the foundation of their faith. Therefore, they lean toward interpretations that remove the tension—sometimes linguistically, sometimes theologically, sometimes through “abolition” (naskh). To an outsider, this often looks like “manipulation”; For a believer, it is precisely remaining faithful to the conviction that God’s word is perfect. Scholars devise tricks, or theological strategies, to smooth over problems and maintain internal consistency.
Because the Quran contains vague and erroneous verses, the earliest scholars began to wonder: “What could this possibly mean?” Scholars began to guess, invent ideas, or interpret them. So-called scholars began to give it a human interpretation that is substantiated without evidence.
Why are the tafsirs of Islamic scholars not the universal truth?
The explanations of individual Islamic scholars are human interpretations, limited by their level of knowledge, cultural context, and personal biases. Consequence: Different scholars sometimes give contradictory interpretations of the same verse.
There is no objective, independent test outside of Islamic scholars.
There is no way to objectively verify whether a tafsīr truly conveys the intended “divine meaning.” Confidence, therefore, rests on authority and tradition, not on evidence.
Consequence for Rational Understanding If the understanding of a text depends entirely on human commentary, the message, rationally speaking, becomes a combination of divine text and human interpretation.
The purity of a “divine message” cannot therefore be guaranteed.
There is no independent way to verify which tafsīr, which interpretation, is “correct.”
Conclusion: Critically examined: you cannot automatically trust human interpretation if the source itself is vague. The “clarity” of the Qur’an for a rational reader is therefore partly dependent on human interpretation, which is not universally objective or verifiable.
The smoothing, harmonizing, or reinterpreting of contradictions and errors by Islam defenders, is a defensive tactic to maintain Islam as a religious institution.
Why do they do this?
- To maintain the desire to believe.
- No one wants to believe in something incomprehensible.
- A collapsing belief system destabilize societies.
- Religion provides meaning, purpose, and hope.
In this sense, defending religion through interpretation is a strategy for existence—both personal and collective.
Religious people and institutions use intellectual, interpretive, and psychological resources to resolve or mitigate tensions in their belief system—so that faith remains intact, both personally and collectively.
Why is this important?
- For many, religion is a source of identity,
- a moral compass,
- a community bond,
- and often also an anchor (where do I come from, why do I live, what happens after death).
So, when apparent errors or contradictions arise in the core text (such as the Quran), this can be perceived as a threat to the entire system.
Therefore, believers often develop ways to: reinterpret the text, frame tensions as “apparent,” or relativize certain verses in their application, in an attempt to maintain their worldview.