Is the Qur’an True Because It Says So?
A Deep Dive into Islam’s Circular Reasoning
One of the most foundational assertions in Islam is that the Qur’an is the literal word of God. It is not merely considered inspired or divinely guided—it is held to be God’s direct, unaltered, and eternal speech, preserved verbatim in Arabic.
But the critical question remains: Why is the Qur’an true?
The answer most commonly offered—both by Muslims and within Islamic texts—is this:
The Qur’an is true because it says it is.
This is a textbook case of circular reasoning—a logical fallacy in which the conclusion is assumed in the premise. But in Islam, this form of reasoning is not only present—it is central. In this post, we will examine why this circularity exists, how it is maintained, and whether Islam has successfully escaped the trap of assuming what it needs to prove.
1. Defining the Circle: What is Circular Reasoning?
Circular reasoning (also known as “begging the question”) is a logical fallacy in which the argument’s conclusion is used as a premise to support itself. For example:
"The Bible is true because it says it's the Word of God."
"My teacher is always right because she said so."
"The Qur’an is from God because it says it's from God."
Such arguments presume the very point in question. They do not offer any external validation or independent support for the claim.
2. The Qur’an's Self-Referential Claims
The Qur’an repeatedly claims divine origin:
“This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for the God-conscious.” (Qur’an 2:2)
“And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant, then produce a surah like it…” (Qur’an 2:23)
“This Qur’an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah.” (Qur’an 10:37)
Notice that the evidence for the Qur’an’s truthfulness, in every case, is within the Qur’an itself.
3. The Theological Foundation: Why Islam Embraces This Circularity
a. The Qur’an as Epistemological Final Authority
Islam does not see the Qur’an as one truth among many—it is the ultimate source of truth. All human reasoning, historical analysis, moral judgment, and empirical inquiry must submit to it.
Thus, appealing to external evidence to verify the Qur’an is seen by many scholars as inappropriate—akin to testing God with human tools.
This leads to a foundationalist epistemology:
Premise: God exists.
Premise: God sent the Qur’an.
Therefore: The Qur’an is true.
But these premises are never demonstrated independently. Instead, they are asserted and then the Qur’an is used to support them, producing a circular loop.
4. Attempts to Break the Circle: The “Challenge” Verses
Islamic apologetics attempts to avoid this circularity by invoking the so-called inimitability of the Qur’an (iʿjāz al-Qur’ān). The Qur’an issues a literary challenge:
“Say: If mankind and the jinn gathered together to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another.” (Qur’an 17:88)
Muslim scholars argue that the Qur’an is miraculous in style, substance, and impact, and that its divine origin is proven because no one has met this challenge.
However, this argument still relies on circularity, for two reasons:
a. The Challenge Itself Is the Standard
The standard for what counts as “like the Qur’an” is defined by the Qur’an. The judge, jury, and prosecutor are all the same text. There is no objective external metric for what constitutes "equal or better."
If someone produces a text similar in style, Muslims simply say: “It’s not like the Qur’an.”
But that means the Qur’an is unfalsifiable, not necessarily true.
b. The Challenge Is Subjective and Unverifiable
No clear criteria are offered for what makes a surah “like it.” Is it rhythm? Syntax? Meaning? Eloquence? Emotional impact?
The Qur’an’s own stylistic devices—like grammatical breaks, asyndeton, and elliptical grammar—have analogues in pre-Islamic poetry.
The content (monotheism, heaven, hell, moral duties) was already present in Jewish, Christian, and Hanif literature.
So, even if the challenge were unmet, that does not prove divine authorship. It only shows linguistic distinctiveness, not supernatural origin.
5. The “Scientific Miracles” Argument: A Modern Diversion
To further support the Qur’an’s truth, some modern apologists turn to alleged scientific miracles in the Qur’an—claims that modern science confirms things the Qur’an stated 1400 years ago.
But these also fail logically:
The interpretations are often retroactive—finding scientific meaning after the fact.
The language of the Qur’an is often vague, poetic, or metaphorical, allowing for wide reinterpretation.
Many of the alleged “miracles” were known or speculated in Greek, Indian, and Persian sources long before Islam.
Thus, scientific miracle claims are not independent confirmations of divine origin. They are reinterpretations that assume divine origin first, and then find confirmation after.
This, again, is circular:
“The Qur’an is divine because it predicted science.” → “How do you know it predicted science?” → “Because it’s divine.”
6. Internal Consistency Is Not External Truth
Some Muslim arguments claim that the Qur’an’s internal coherence is evidence of its truth. For instance:
“Do they not consider the Qur’an with care? Had it been from other than Allah, they would have found in it many contradictions.” (Qur’an 4:82)
But internal consistency does not prove external truth:
A well-written novel may be internally consistent.
A detailed lie may be internally coherent.
A work of fiction can be compelling and unified.
The absence of contradiction within a text does not prove its divine origin—only that it is well-constructed.
7. Conclusion: Islam’s Core Justification Is Logically Flawed
Islam claims the Qur’an is the word of God and then appeals to the Qur’an itself to prove it. Despite centuries of theological and apologetic efforts, the core logic remains:
The Qur’an is true because the Qur’an says so.
No external validation—historical, textual, or empirical—has been provided that does not, in some way, loop back into the Qur’an itself.
In the realm of critical thinking, this is unacceptable. No claim can be accepted as true simply because it asserts its own truth. Any system that requires us to assume its authority before testing it has disqualified itself from rational inquiry.
Closing Note to Readers
If you are a Muslim reader or a student of Islamic theology and believe this post misrepresents Islam’s own claims or evidentiary standards, you are invited to point out specific discrepancies using referenced Islamic sources—such as the Qur’an, authentic hadith, or classical tafsir.
Let truth be tested—not assumed.
No comments:
Post a Comment