Contradictions in the Qur’an – Part 4

Shimba Theological Institute
New York, NY
Department of Comparative Theology
Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Th.D.

---

Contradictions in the Qur’an – Part 4

A Theological and Textual Examination of Internal Inconsistencies

---

Introduction

Muslim theologians have long insisted that the Qur’an is internally consistent and wholly free from contradiction. This belief is not merely a theological position but one embedded in the Qur’an itself:

Surah 4:82 – “Do they not then reflect on the Qur'an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would have found therein much contradiction.” (Yusuf Ali)

This claim forms a central pillar of the Qur'an’s argument for divine authorship. According to this verse, any meaningful contradiction within the text itself would undermine the assertion that the Qur'an originates from God. In this segment of our ongoing series, we turn our attention to descriptions of the food in Hell (Jahannam) to examine whether multiple and differing portrayals present a case of internal contradiction.

---

Subject of Investigation: The Nature of Food in Hell

The Qur'an offers vivid imagery of the torments awaiting those consigned to Hell, including descriptions of the sustenance provided therein. However, these descriptions are varied and, arguably, conflicting.

---

1. Bitter Thorny Plant (Dhaari‘)

Surah 88:6 – “No food will there be for them but a bitter Dhari’.”
The term “Dhari’” has been interpreted by classical commentators (e.g., Ibn Kathir, Al-Jalalayn) as referring to a thorny desert plant—dry, bitter, and inedible. Some exegeses interpret it as the poisonous plant known as al-Shubruq.

---

2. Corrupted Pus from Wounds

Surah 69:36 – “Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds.”
This disturbing description—variously translated as "filthy pus" or "discharges from wounds"—represents an entirely different and grotesque kind of sustenance.

Surah 69:31 (contextual background): “Burn him in the blazing Fire.” This precedes the mention of the pus, suggesting that punishment includes more than fire—there is also detestable nourishment.

---

3. Devilish Fruit from the Tree of Zaqqum

Surah 37:64–66 – “For it is a tree that springs out of the bottom of Hellfire: The shoots of its fruit-stalks are like the heads of devils: Truly they will eat thereof and fill their bellies therewith.”
Here, the food of Hell is said to come from the tree of Zaqqum, a recurrent symbol in Islamic eschatology. Its fruit is described in demonic imagery, emphasizing spiritual as well as physical torment.

---

Analysis of the Discrepancy

The central issue lies in the Quran presenting multiple, seemingly exclusive descriptions of the only food available in Hell. If Surah 88:6 declares that “no food will there be except bitter thorny plants,” how can Surah 69:36 claim instead that the food consists of pus? Moreover, how does the tree of Zaqqum in Surah 37 integrate with these accounts?

There are three interpretive options, each with theological implications:

1. Literal Exclusivity: If taken literally and exclusively, these verses cannot all simultaneously be true unless different groups in Hell receive different forms of torment. However, this explanation is not present in the Qur'anic text itself and thus requires extrapolation not explicitly supported.

2. Metaphorical Reading: Some commentators propose metaphorical interpretation—Dhari’, Zaqqum, and pus all symbolize intense suffering rather than being literal foods. While plausible, this undermines the vividness and specificity of the descriptions, which are otherwise presented in concrete terms.

3. Cumulative Punishment: Another apologetic attempt suggests a cumulative model—each description represents one facet of Hell’s torment, applied variously to different sinners. However, this again assumes something not stated in the texts that use exclusivist phrasing such as “no food except…”

---

Theological Implications

If the Qur’an claims, per Surah 4:82, that divine authorship implies absence of contradiction, and yet it exhibits conflicting descriptions of the same eschatological reality, one must ask whether these contradictions are reconcilable without significant eisegesis (reading into the text).

While one might argue that literary or thematic diversity does not amount to contradiction, the specificity and exclusivity of the language in these verses suggest more than poetic variety. The claim of “no food except…” logically negates alternatives unless multiple groups are being described—something the Qur'an itself does not clarify in these contexts.

---

Conclusion

While the type of food in Hell may seem doctrinally minor, the implications are weighty. If the Qur’an presents mutually exclusive descriptions of the same phenomenon without qualification, and if it states that such contradictions would prove the text is not divine, then this becomes a theological and philosophical problem.

Final Assessment: The varying depictions of Hell’s food in Surahs 88:6, 69:36, and 37:64–66 constitute a textual inconsistency unless heavily reinterpreted. According to Surah 4:82, this opens the Qur'an to legitimate critical scrutiny regarding its claim of divine origin.

---

Prepared by:
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Senior Fellow in Comparative Scripture
Shimba Theological Institute, New York, NY

---