ISLAM VS HISTORY: Can the Qur'an Survive Scrutiny?

By YouveBeenGreeked | Some Random Thoughts. | 4 Jul 2025

You thought my Abortion post was controversial?

Oh boy...

What first caused me to ask this question was a hypocrisy I thought I came across at first while reading a copy of the Qur'an I bought, but getting Islam's answer to this question of mine only deepened the rabbit hole.

My original query was this:

If Islam believes that Jesus is not the son of God,
yet also believes that Jesus will come back to judge,
and yet also believes that only God can judge...

Does Islam believe that Jesus is God or not?

Let's break it down...

... no, not dancing, stop it.

ALLAH AND JUDGEMENT

In the Qur'an, we can find the following quote, stating that only God (Allah) can judge:

Say, 'O Prophet,' "Indeed, I stand on a clear proof from my Lord - yet you have denied it. That 'torment' you seek to hasten is not within my power. It is only God who decides 'its time'. He declares the truth. And He is the best of judges."

- Al-An-âm, 57

Islam also teaches that Jesus (known in the Qur'an as "'Îsa") will return to judge at the end of time. While it isn't explicitly stated that Jesus will judge humanity, Hadiths mention Jesus's return, stating that Jesus will kill the false messiah (the Dajjal), and He will judge in accordance to Islamic law:

By Him in Whose Hand is my life, the son of Mary will shortly descend among you... He will judge people by the Law of the Qur'an and not by the law of Gospel.

- Sahih Bukhari 3448

While Jesus is painted in a very good light in Islam, Islam does not believe in Jesus's divinity, firmly denying it in fact:

Those who say, "God is the Messiah, son of Mary," have certainly fallen into disbelief. The Messiah 'himself' said, "O Children of Israel! Worship God - my Lord and your Lord." ... Those who say, "God is one in a Trinity," have certainly fallen into disbelief. There is only one God. If they do not stop saying this, those who disbelieve among them will be afflicted with a painful punishment.

- Al-Mâ'idah, 72 - 73

The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger. 'Many' messengers had 'come and' gone before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They both ate food. See how We make the signs clear to them, yet see how they are deluded 'from the truth'?

- Al-Mâ'idah, 75

So Jesus is honoured in Islam as a prophet, but not worshipped.

Is this not a contradiction? That Jesus will judge as only God can, but Jesus was not God?

Well, it is not contradiction according to Islam. Here's why:

Jesus is not judging on his own authority. He is judging as a servant of God, carrying out His will. In this theology, Jesus acts as a vicegerent (Khalifah), appointed essentially as an agent of Allah, much alike other messengers and prophets. Jesus's role in judgement is subordinate to God's final authority.

If you will, think of it as a judge in a courtroom: a judge can pass judgement, but only because the higher authority of the state authorises them to do so. Judges are not the source of the law - they simply apply it.

Furthermore, Jesus's return isn't seen as the big Second Coming like it is in Christianity, only as a completion of his earthly mission.

In short, God appoints whoever He wants as judge, but those judges are always subordinate to God's final will. This contrasts Christianity's view of Jesus being the judge because he IS God.

But if God / Allah is the final judge, why have other subordinate judges if God's will will override them when needed anyway, even a prophet / messenger? The Qur'an states:

... It is only God who decides 'its time'. He declares the truth. And He is the best of judges.

- Al-An-âm, 57

It means simply that ultimate authority and the right of deciding rewards and punishments belong only to God, not to prophets, saints or angels.

JESUS AND JUDGEMENT

So where does Jesus fit into this?

Well, in Islam, delegation is not synonymous with divinity. Scholars of Islam interpret Jesus's role as a delegated task, not as independent judgement.

In Hadith literature, Jesus doesn't judge who goes to Heaven or Hell. He returns to restore justice, break the cross, abolish the jizya head tax, kill the Antichrist, and rule by the Qur'an's word - not by the Gospel's - as a Muslim leader, fulfilling his role as a human prophet, not as a divine judge.

He will judge people by the Law of the Qur'an and not by the law of Gospel.

- Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 3448

It is also a theological Islamic principal that only God can judge, but He can appoint agents to help do so. In Islam, this isn't considered a contradiction, because final judgement still remains with God.

THE CRUCIFIXION IN THE QUR'AN

But why would anyone, including Jesus, need to be involved in judgement at all? Why not just leave the judging up to Allah if God calls the shots ultimately?

Well, Islam believes that Jesus never completed his mission on Earth, in part because the Qur'an states the following:

... and for boasting, "We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of God." But they neither killed nor crucified him - it was only made to appear so. Even those who argue for this 'crucifixion' are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever - only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him. Rather, God raised him up to Himself. And God is Almighty, All-Wise.

- An-Nisâ', 157 - 158

Yes, Islam denies the crucifixion and death of Christ. And this is a big one.

In Islam, Jesus's return isn't about judgement, but rather fulfilling his earthly role as a prophet: to live and die like all prophets have done, to preach Islam and correct the false words supposedly spread about himself (such as regarding his divinity and death on the cross), and restoring true monotheism, since Islam regards the idea of the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) as polytheistic.

Every one of the people of the Book will definitely believe in him before his death. And on the Day of Judgement Jesus will be a witness against them.

- An-Nisâ', 159

In the Qur'an, Jesus's return is also about demonstrating God's justice and authority down on Earth; God works through agents and through signs in order to manifest power on Earth, unifying humanity before the Final Judgement, and to honour Jesus without deifying him.

That sounds fine. However... the denial of the crucifixion, the very cornerstone of Christianity itself, and the retelling of the events as one that was merely made to appear so?

The four gospels of the Bible - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - were all made by people who were eye-witnesses to Jesus and/or His crucifixion. With all the eye-witnesses and accounts of Jesus,

Jesus remains one of the most well-documented figures in human history, particularly so given He was simply a carpenter living in Judaea at the edge of the Roman Empire at the time - really, a bit of a nobody as far as others would have been concerned.

REWRITING HISTORY OR REVEALING TRUTH?

My main query that arises then is simply: why does an Arabic source written about six-hundred years after the primary sources outright deny such a well documented event? The man and His events weren't just confirmed by fellow Christians of the time, but Jewish and Roman sources of the time confirm the crucifixion.

This isn't even really about theology at this point: this is a denial of eye-witness history. Like the Qur'an says:

But they neither killed nor crucified him - it was only made to appear so.

- An-Nisâ', 157

Islam does not deny that a crucifixion took place, but rather that Jesus himself was not crucified; someone else - perhaps Judas - was crucified in his place.

In what is often called "the Substitution Theory", Islam preaches that Jesus was raised to heaven alive by God prior to the crucifixion.

This isn't a rejection based on history, but on revelation.

The "truth" was later revealed to Muhammad to correct earlier misunderstandings, as it is believed that the Gospels are altered or corrupted, so they cannot be fully trusted as preserved records. What people thought they saw was an illusion or deception allowed to be so by God.

In an Islamic perspective, truth comes from revelation, not just from eye-witnesses. A prophet of God in Islam cannot die in humiliation, so Jesus's crucifixion is seen as unfitting for such a mighty prophet. His "death" is an Islamic test of faith.

And yet, all non-Muslim sources - Christian or otherwise - confirm the crucifixion, including the Roman historian Tacitus, the Jewish historian Josephus, the Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata, and the Jewish rabbinic texts of the Talmud. It is even accepted by atheist scholars today as an event that absolutely occurred, whether they believe in the theology of it all or not of course.

So, Muslims believe the Qur'an because they believe it is the final word of God, and that it corrects prior, distorted scriptures. Muhammad is believed to be the Seal of the Prophets, and his message overrides all others before him. So to a Muslim, even history itself cannot override Allah's final revelation.

But to me, that doesn't seem right.

Even Christianity and Judaism - for all their theology - are still heavily rooted in historical events and eye-witnesses; the Torah and Bible are a treasure-trove of historical information on civilisations like Babylon, Persia, Macedonia, Judaea and Rome amongst others - they aren't "just fairy tale" stories like a lot of critics today think of them as.

But anyway, there is no historical claim made during the life of Jesus or even slightly after that states that someone else was crucified in His place - the Qur'an's statement that someone else was crucified instead seemingly comes out of nowhere.

And if the point of revealing the truth through Muhammad was to correct the mistakes Allah allowed to happen beforehand, why allow the mistakes and misperceptions in the first place? Why not just reveal the truth through Jesus six-hundred years before, especially if Jesus is going to have a huge role in judgement in the end anyway?

What is the point of deceiving eye-witnesses of the time - why test humanity like that if Allah was just going to reveal the truth through someone else later anyway?

To me, this all seems too convenient for Islam.

The Qur'an does not offer historical evidence for its denial of the crucifixion, and doesn't even offer any names of who could have been killed that day instead of Jesus - it just says "it didn't happen like that" and moves on.

And why not reveal the truth through the great prophet Jesus Christ anyway? In Islam, he was born a virgin, performed miracles and will return to judge, and yet he apparently did not publicly clarify he would not be crucified and allowed his own followers to believe he died and rose again, leaving behind a six-hundred year old legacy through Muhammad.

So why allow six centuries of false beliefs to flourish unchecked? Why not correct it sooner, especially if Jesus will return anyway?

Islam's answer: Allah has the right to test whoever he pleases, and later prophets like Muhammad clarify prior errors.

But why would Allah deceive eye-witnesses?

Like the Qur'an says, "[the crucifixion] was made to appear so", so Allah allowed deception of his own creations, let Jesus's own mother believe that he died, allowed his faithful disciples to grieve a death that didn't happen, and allowed Christianity to develop and flourish into the single largest faith on the planet, even larger today than Islam by about a billion followers.

Islamic scholars respond as such: "It was a test, like other trials in life are", or "only true believers would be open to later correction via Muhammad", and "apparent reality isn't always ultimate reality".

To me and many alike, this just sounds like a retroactive justification for a theologically inconvenient history, and it seems incompatible with the apparent love and mercy of God. It seems too convenient to dismiss historical evidence by simply appealing to the Qur'an.

Islamic revelation comes before empiricism, because God's word in the Qur'an is direct, unfiltered, meaning any contradiction between empiric history and the Qur'an means that history is wrong, not the Qur'an.

This approach makes any falsifiability or cross-examination damn-near impossible in Islam. It allows no room for an open historical inquiry, since "revelation" will overrule every fact.

As a lover of history, I hope you can understand my issue with Islam so far.

Christianity is anchored in historical events, and like is said in Corinthians 15:14, if Jesus didn't die and rise again, Christianity falls right apart.

To summarise, Islam's claims on the crucifixion are not based on any history, it denies eye-witness accounts, and it contradicts God's justice and clarity.

WHY ISLAM?

So my next question is... why Islam? What's the point?

Islam sees Christ's death for our sins as illogical (how can a God die?), unjust (why would innocents suffer for the guilty?) and unnecessary (why not forgive without a blood sacrifice?). Christianity's answers of course are that Jesus was God in human form, to reconcile mankind and its sins with God, and the symbology of blood as life marries well with forgiveness always having a cost in life.

The other reason someone may be so adamant on the Qur'an is simply that they were raised with it; it's what they were taught, it's embedded in eastern cultures like Arabic, Turkic and Indian, and they've never deeply questioned it.

Questioning the Qur'an to many can feel like a rejection of the entire Islamic faith and law and undermining the prophethood of Muhammad, and all of that is one hell of a spiritual and psychological step for many, understandably. Faith and revelation will always come before anything else in Islam.

OK... so isn't it hypocritical of Islam to scrutinise Christians if the Gospels are "all they've been taught" and that it's just "embedded in their culture" like the word of Muhammad is for them?

To me, it seems far too convenient to teach your followers to ignore certain parts of history and eye-witnesses claims, simply in place of the belief that the Qur'an is the word of God. The preaching of logic, empiricism and evidence-based knowledge all being allowed to be skipped over without a proper counter-argument is deeply troubling to me. Why ever even teach history in Islam?

And if the Bible is unreliable because the original word of Christ has been lost over time and translation, well, right back at you, Islam: What about the reliability of the Qur'an? What about when the third Caliph (Islamic ruler) after Muhammad, Caliph Uthman, collected all the versions of the Qur'an he disagreed with and burnt them? The Qur'an as we know it today was compiled under political authority, compared to the Bible which was collected by eye-witnesses against political authority and persecution.

And on top of that, there are still variations of the Qur'an today, despite what Muslims may say; The Qirā'āt are ten canonised variations of the Qur'an, which all have their own pronunciations, vowelisations, conjugations, and - yes - even entirely different words, phrases and syntaxes. They come from the necessity to preach the Qur'an to early followers of Islam in Arabia in the seventh century AD, who had their own dialects.

The Qirā'āt were formalised after Caliph Uthman had the versions he disagreed with burnt, leaving only the Qur'anic consonantal skeleton (the rasm) ambiguous enough to support multiple readings. Later Islamic scholars of the 10th - 11th centuries like Ibn Mujāhid canonised seven readings, later expanded to ten, all being considered equally valid in Sunni Islam despite their glaring differences.

Each Qirā'āt is attributed to a prominent early reciter. The two most common ones are Hafs 'an 'Āsim and Warsh 'an Nāfi'. They aren't just different versions with their own pronunciations, they each have their own words and phrases that make each one subject to different interpretations.

For example, in the Hafs version of Al-Baqarah 184, where the Qur'an talks about the rules of fasting in order to help feed the needy, it says "a ransom: feeding a poor person" (ta āmu miskīn), whereas in other versions such as Ibn Kathīr, it is "feeding poor people" (ta āmu masākīn).

So should you fast for one less fortunate person's sake or many? Different versions, different interpretations and meanings.

It's not just the Bible that has different translations - EVERY book has different translations. The history books I use for my Greek history blog are just one version each; I could equally have different translations of those books and thus I could have produced slight variations of work, but the overall story / message each book is getting across is ultimately the same.

This methodology is not how you scrutinise Christianity, it's how we much all study and criticise any text, including the Qur'an.

The Bible has thousands of early manuscripts allowing for textual criticism, a well-documented transmission history, and variants that mostly do not affect doctrine. This is in comparison to the Qur'an, which lacks a single original manuscript from the time of Muhammad, contains internal permission for different versions, and was standardised under state authority of the Caliph that involved burning books.

The key difference between the two is how each handles its variations: Christianity acknowledges its differences and allows for variations and promotes textual criticism and translations, whereas Islam handles its variations via canonised recitations, theological framing and political handling and burning of texts.

And if Jesus supposedly being God and God being able to die is illogical, well we can just ignore that logic, right? Again, Jesus as a man not being able to be humiliated and killed as any man could be once again goes against historical eye-witness accounts. Christian theology explains suffering as redemptive, Islam sees it as dishonourable.

Trusting faith over evidence, pure revelation over logic, is like Plato preaching his "ideal society" in his work "The Republic", and the belief that the realm of forms exists, based on no evidence. And once one accepts unfalsifiable claims, then anything goes. It removes the anchor from history, empiricism and rational consistency.

This makes sincere inquiry impossible, since the final answer to everything in Islam can always be, "But the Qur'an says otherwise". That's not seeking understanding - that's shutting the door to it.

As far as I know, there is no historical event that Christians have had to stand up against to say, "no, that could contradict the Bible, so it cannot have happened that way". However this seems commonplace in the Qur'an.

THE FINAL WAR

And above all else, Islam is in the position it is in today, as a world religion, because Islam's rise was very conveniently timed:

The early six-hundred's AD saw the entire middle east embroiled in one of the largest wars the region had ever seen, a war that is often dubbed simply "The Final War" by some historians. This war, "the Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602 - 628 AD", saw the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanian-Persian Empire go to war for over a quarter of a century, the last war the Greeks and Romans and Persians would face against one another.

Although the Romans won in the end, both sides were exhausted, financially crippled, militarily depleted, politically spent and theologically fractured, as this war was very much a Holy War, with holy relics and sites being invaded and desecrated; the True Cross that Christ was crucified on was captured by Persian forces who invaded Jerusalem - a power vacuum the Persians capitalised on after a Jewish rebellion broke out against the Romans - after they sacked the city and killed or enslaved ninety-thousand of the holy city's inhabitants.

What resulted was a massive power-vacuum: the Roman Empire at the time was suffering from invasions on all sides thanks to all their energy having to be put towards the Persian frontier in the east, while the Persians succumbed to civil wars and infighting upon defeat.

All the while, to the south, Islam had unified Arabia through warfare, its leaders had time to study the world around them including the military doctrines of the Roman and Persian empires, and the first empire of Islam - the Rashidun (rightly guided) Caliphate - was able to militarily and politically understand its neighbours in order to defeat them.

Islam spread via the sword. Christianity spread despite the sword.

MY TROUBLES WITH ISLAM

Islam can offer structure to one's life, disciple and perhaps belonging, but lots of things can do that, and that should never have to come at the cost of historical honesty, moral clarity or divine intimacy. What good is a powerful idea being offered via Islam if the idea is based on historic contradictions?

If what Islam offers is done so through inconsistencies, reliance on revelation and faith alone at the expense of evidence, and is put forward via conquest and head taxes on non-Muslims (Jizyah), then really what is the difference between Islam and any other totalitarian political regime throughout history?

Islam denies the Holy Trinity, because it claims that Christianity pushes the idea of three gods instead of just one - polytheism instead of monotheism.

But the trinity shows the three natures of God; He is one divine being with three distinct persons. This is no more illogical than a triangle with three distinct angles, or one flame that produces heat, light and smoke, or one person with heart, body and mind.

If I take a photograph of someone, that photo is them, although it is not physically and literally that person. Likewise, Jesus is a "photo" of God. It's perhaps confusing, sure, but it is not contradictory like Islam preaches.

And Islam doesn't even truly provide "unity" like it preaches; within a generation of its conception and Muhammad's death in 632 AD, the Islamic world was split into Sunni and Shia Islam by 661 AD during the first Islamic civil war: the first Fitna.

Compared to Christianity, Christ died around 30 - 33 AD, and the first proper Schism occurred between Orthodox and Catholic Christians over 1,000 years later in 1,054 AD. The First Fitna has led to endless wars, persecutions, two mutually exclusive hadith traditions, and two entirely different views on Islam's authority.

And the sheer authority of Islam, honestly, scares me.

Criticising Islam in many places can get you thrown in prison, or even killed. The largest religious persecution today is of Christians, predominantly in Muslim-majority countries like Iran.

WRAP-UP

Now this isn't to say nothing good has or can ever come of Islam; the Middle East was in a scientific and cultural Golden Age for centuries thanks to the advances of Islam, and what we know as Arabic Numerals were able to spread from the Indian subcontinent and eventually into Europe thanks to Islam. And ancient Greco-Roman texts were preserved and highly venerated in Islam; Aristotle for instance was simply referred to by Muslim scholars as "the philosopher", and sometimes even as "the master".

Today, two-thirds of the objects we can see in the night sky have Arabic names, and methods of navigation and astrology were advanced by the Islamic world. And great leaders like Harun al-Rashid and Saladin helped shape the world we know today.

But this isn't an attack on people. This is a scrutiny on a belief system - you can preserve texts and advance science without Islam, or Christianity for that matter. But the theological, historical and moral structure of Islam troubles me, and doesn't seem to hold up well against proper scrutiny.

That's all.

And look, I really am just a guy in his saggy clothes lounging back on a comfy chair asking questions. I'm trying to be honest and pursue truth, but that doesn't mean I'm perfect - I've probably got some bits wrong here and there (that goes for my other work on Publish0x too, not just this post of course), and there's plenty more that can be dove into.

But, I think this is enough.

For now.

Now, with respect, go away.

Ciao ciao.