A Critical Analysis of Muslim Scholars’ Defensive Strategy
Introduction
Whenever a controversial or harsh verse of the Qur’an is questioned, Muslim scholars and preachers immediately defend it with one stock phrase:
“Read the verses before and after, understand the context, only then will you know the true meaning.”
At first glance, this sounds academic and logical.
But on deeper inspection, the claim collapses instantly. Why?
Because the Qur’an was not compiled in the chronological order of revelation.
Instead, during the reign of the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan (c. 650 CE), the Qur’an was arranged into an artificial surah-order, divorced from its actual timeline.
The result: when someone cites “the verses before and after,” they are not pointing to the true historical context but rather to a later, man-made arrangement.
“The reality is that the Qur’an was not revealed surah by surah in sequence. Verses were revealed at different times and in different circumstances, often with verses of multiple surahs coming down simultaneously. This is why we find a gap of 7–8 years between the early and later verses of the same surah. Therefore, the claim of ‘reading the Qur’an in context’ turns out to be nothing more than a deceptive excuse.”
Thus, the so-called context is often artificial.
To see this more clearly, let’s study one case.
Surah al-Ahzab (33): A Case Study
This surah contains several important verses, but they were revealed years apart from each other. Yet, they are grouped together under one surah.
Classical works of Tafsir and Asbab al-Nuzul make it clear: the verses of Surah 33 came down at very different times.
1. Verse 33:36 – Zayd and Zaynab’s Marriage (624 CE / 5 AH)
Asbab al-Nuzul (al-Wahidi) and Tafsir Ibn Kathir state that this verse was revealed when Muhammad arranged the marriage of his freed slave Zayd ibn Haritha to his cousin Zaynab bint Jahsh.
2. Verse 33:37 – Zaynab’s Divorce and Marriage to Muhammad (627 CE / 7 AH)
Tafsir al-Tabari (vol. 22, pp. 12–15) and Ibn Kathir (vol. 6) record that when Zayd divorced Zaynab and Muhammad himself married her, this verse was revealed.
3. Verse 33:33 – The Cloak Incident, “Verse of Purification” (631 CE / 9 AH)
Sahih Muslim (Hadith 2424) and Musnad Ahmad narrate the famous Hadith al-Kisa: Muhammad gathered Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, and Husayn under a cloak. This verse was then recited, forming the basis of the Ahl al-Bayt doctrine.
Chronology vs Compilation
Compare the actual timeline:
- 624 CE – Marriage of Zaynab and Zayd (v. 36)
- 627 CE – Marriage of Zaynab and Muhammad (v. 37)
- 631 CE – The cloak incident with Hasan and Husayn (v. 33)
These events span at least 7 years apart, yet they are placed side by side in the same surah, sometimes even in reverse order.
This proves: verses adjacent in the Qur’an were often revealed years apart.
So how can “reading the verses before and after” provide historical clarity when the context itself is broken?
The Disruption of Context
Consider this:
- In 624 CE, verse 36 was revealed about Zaynab and Zayd’s marriage. At that time, Hasan and Husayn were not even born.
- Yet just three verses earlier (33:33), Hasan and Husayn are already mentioned as part of the Ahl al-Bayt.
Similarly:
- In 627 CE, verse 37 came down about Muhammad’s marriage to Zaynab.
- It was placed directly after verse 36, although the two events were separated by nearly two years.
Therefore, the claim “read the verses before and after” is exposed as meaningless.
Case Study: Surah al-Isra (17) — The Myth of “Contextual Reading”
1. Verses from the Shi‘b Abi Talib Period (616–619 CE)
During the economic and social boycott in Makkah, Muslims were trapped in Shi‘b Abi Talib, suffering hunger, tears, and humiliation. Some verses in Surah al-Isra clearly reflect that situation.
Verse 17:109
“And they fall upon their faces weeping, and it increases them in humility.”
(وَيَخِرُّونَ لِلۡأَذۡقَانِ يَبۡكُونَ وَيَزِيدُهُمۡ خُشُوعٗا)
✦ This directly reflects the emotional state of Muslims, crying in pain and despair.
✦ Timeline: Around 619 CE (Shi‘b Abi Talib / Year of Sorrow).
Verse 17:110
“Call upon Allah or call upon the Most Merciful (al-Rahman) — by whatever name you call upon Him, to Him belong the best names.”
(ٱدۡعُواْ ٱللَّهَ أَوِ ٱدۡعُواْ ٱلرَّحۡمَٰنَۖ أَيّٗا مَّا تَدۡعُواْ فَلَهُ ٱلۡأَسۡمَآءُ ٱلۡحُسۡنَىٰ)
✦ This verse reflects the mockery of Quraysh: “Sometimes you say Allah, sometimes you say Rahman!”
✦ Again: 619 CE context.
2. The First Verse — Isra and Mi‘raj (621 CE)
Verse 17:1
“Exalted is He who took His servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa…”
(سُبۡحَٰنَ ٱلَّذِيٓ أَسۡرَىٰ بِعَبۡدِهِۦ لَيۡلٗا مِّنَ ٱلۡمَسۡجِدِ ٱلۡحَرَامِ إِلَى ٱلۡمَسۡجِدِ ٱلۡأَقۡصَا)
✦ This refers to the Isra and Mi‘raj event.
✦ Timeline: 621 CE (after the Year of Sorrow, just before Hijrah).
3. The Core Problem — Chronological Contradiction
- 619 CE verses (like 17:109–110) appear later in the Surah.
- 621 CE verse (17:1) appears at the beginning of the Surah.
In other words: a later verse was placed first, while earlier verses were placed after it.
4. Conclusion
This case study demonstrates that:
- Qur’an verses were not compiled in chronological order.
- The claim “read Qur’an in context” is misleading, because here the context itself is jumbled — later events are placed before earlier ones within the same Surah.
- The arrangement was done arbitrarily during compilation, not in line with actual history.
This strengthens the argument: “Contextual reading” is a false defense mechanism, because the Qur’an itself has mixed and misplaced contexts.
Case Study: Surah al-Hajj (22) — The Collapse of the “Context” Argument
1. Early Meccan Verses
Qur’an 22:1–2
“O mankind! Fear your Lord. Indeed, the earthquake of the Hour is a terrible thing. On that Day you will see every nursing mother distracted from her child, and every pregnant woman will miscarry…”
✦ This is clearly Meccan style: apocalyptic warnings, no laws or jihad.
✦ Timeline: Mecca, ~615–617 CE (before Hijrah).
2. Later Medinan Verses
Qur’an 22:39–40
“Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they have been wronged. And Allah is capable of granting them victory…”
✦ This is considered the first verse authorizing jihad.
✦ Timeline: Medina, ~624 CE (around the time of Badr).
3. The Contradiction
- The opening verses (22:1–2) belong to the Meccan context of warnings and fear.
- The later verses (22:39–40) belong to the Medinan context of armed struggle and warfare.
- That means a 7–8 year gap exists inside the same Surah — two radically different contexts merged together.
4. Conclusion
- Surah al-Hajj is a mixed Surah — partly Meccan, partly Medinan.
- If Muslims insist on “reading Qur’an in context”, the obvious question is: Which context? Meccan or Medinan?
- The compilers arranged the verses without chronological order, creating contradictions.
- Thus, the “contextual reading” defense is nothing but a smokescreen to hide inconsistencies within the Qur’an.
The Hypocrisy of Scholars
To cover this contradiction, Muslim scholars resort to three major strategies:
1. Gradual Revelation (Tadreej al-Nuzul)
They say: “The Qur’an was revealed gradually over 23 years.”
But if so, why was it not preserved in chronological order?
2. Abrogation (Naskh wa Mansukh)
Where contradictions are glaring, they argue:
“This verse was abrogated by a later one.”
In other words, they themselves decide which parts of the Qur’an to discard.
3. The “Read Before and After” Excuse
They insist that context solves everything.
But as shown, “before and after” may belong to entirely different years and events.
The Contradiction of Abrogation
The Qur’an itself states:
- 2:106 – “We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth one better than it or similar to it.”
- 16:101 – “When We substitute one verse in place of another, they say: ‘You have forged it.’”
But if the chronology is lost, how can anyone know which verse abrogates which?
The Problem of 9:5 and 4:34
The false refuge of “context”- The big question now arises: If the order of the verses is not even correct, then a “naskh” (abrogation) verse like 2:106 becomes practically meaningless. Scholars often say: “Look at 9:5 (the verse of the sword) or 4:34 (permission to strike a woman) in context.” But the reality is this— Looking at the “before and after” makes no difference. Because neither the actual chronology is known, nor is there any clear list of abrogating (nāsikh) and abrogated (mansūkh) verses. This is why verses like 9:5 are considered the “final command,” and all the “tolerant verses” (like 2:256 – “There is no compulsion in religion”) are crushed beneath them.
The Outcome
- The “read in context” argument collapses completely.
- Qur’anic compilation was a human, political process, not a divine or systematic one.
- Verses years apart are spliced together artificially.
- Classical Tafsir itself acknowledges these contradictions.
Thus, the true context lies in the Asbab al-Nuzul (the historical reasons and timings of revelation), not in the artificial surah order.
Conclusion
A critical reading of the Qur’an shows:
- The chronology of revelation and the compilation order do not match.
- Claims of “context” are riddled with inconsistencies.
- Figures like Hasan and Husayn are mentioned in verses predating their very birth.
- The “before and after” argument is an apologetic shield, not truth.
- Sensitive verses (4:34, 9:5) are excused away by false appeals to “context,” when in reality, the context itself is disordered.
“The conclusion is clear: when there is a gap of 7–8 years between the verses of a single surah, the call to ‘read the Qur’an in context’ is nothing but an illusion. It is a convenient excuse crafted to hide the contradictions.”
The Qur’an, therefore, is not a divine book but a human compilation, edited for political and theological purposes.
The bottom line:
The so-called context defense is nothing more than a strategy to cover up contradictions.
📢 Did you find this article useful?
🙏 Support our work by clicking here.