Cain and Abel Are Not Mentioned by Their Names in the Qur’an: A Scholarly Challenge

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

The Qur’an in Surah 5:27–32 narrates the account of “the two sons of Adam,” yet it conspicuously fails to provide their names. In Judeo-Christian Scriptures, the names Cain and Abel are foundational in understanding the beginnings of human morality, fratricide, sacrifice, and divine justice. The glaring absence of their names in the Qur’an raises fundamental questions about the claim of the Qur’an as a “final revelation” that allegedly confirms and supersedes prior Scriptures.

If the Qur’an claims to be detailed (Qur’an 6:114, 12:111) and a clarification of all things (Qur’an 16:89), then why does it omit critical historical and theological details about the very first murder in human history? The omission is not accidental; it reflects a lack of awareness, context, and literary depth in what should have been a central account of humanity’s moral fall outside Eden.

Scholarly Critique and Questions

1. Why are the names missing?

   • In Genesis 4, Cain and Abel are clearly identified by name. This provides theological depth, linking their identities with their sacrifices, characters, and destinies. The Qur’an, however, generalizes them as “two sons of Adam,” stripping the narrative of individuality and accountability. Why does the Qur’an erase their identities?

2. Why is their mother missing?

   • The Bible consistently identifies Eve as the mother of humanity (Genesis 3:20). The Qur’an never names her, reducing her merely to “the wife of Adam.” How then do Muslims today confidently use the name Hawwa (Eve) unless borrowed directly from Jewish and Christian traditions? Is this not an admission that the Qur’an alone is insufficient for historical accuracy?

3. Why do Muslims assume Cain and Abel?

   • Without the Bible, Muslims would have no way to identify who the “two sons” were. This dependence shows that the Qur’an is not self-explanatory but parasitic on the Bible for basic details. If the Qur’an was meant to be the “criterion” (Qur’an 25:1), why does it require the very Scriptures it claims to supersede?

4. Why omit foundational names while emphasizing trivial ones?

   • The Qur’an mentions Mary (Maryam) more often than the New Testament, and even Pharaoh’s wife (Asiya, according to Islamic tradition) is exalted. Why then does it refuse to mention Cain, Abel, or Eve—figures who shaped the earliest human story? Is this not evidence of inconsistency in what the Qur’an chooses to preserve?

5. Why the lack of narrative context?

   • The Qur’anic version of Cain and Abel lacks the theological framework of sin, blood sacrifice, repentance, and God’s redemptive plan found in Genesis 4. Instead, it ends with a moralizing statement about killing one person being like killing all of humanity (Qur’an 5:32)—a verse ironically borrowed from Jewish Talmudic literature (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5). Why does a book that claims divine originality borrow from human rabbinic commentary?

Implications for the Qur’an’s Reliability

If the Qur’an fails to provide the most basic details of humanity’s first murder, how can it be trusted to give accurate knowledge of salvation history? Its silence on names, identities, and theological meaning undermines its claim of being a complete and final revelation. Instead, it demonstrates dependency on the Bible and Jewish oral traditions, thereby disqualifying itself as an independent source of divine truth.

The Qur’an presents itself as “mufassal” (detailed) and “tibyanan li-kulli shay’” (an explanation of all things). Yet when faced with the foundational narratives of human existence, it provides skeletal accounts that require the Bible for completion. A truly divine book would not rely on previous texts while simultaneously accusing them of corruption.

Conclusion

The absence of Cain, Abel, and Eve’s names in the Qur’an reveals a profound lack of awareness of humanity’s foundational narrative. It suggests that the Qur’an is not a revelation but a fragmented reworking of Biblical and extra-Biblical stories. If the Qur’an cannot name humanity’s first mother and the first victims of murder, how can it be considered the ultimate revelation of God?

Thus, the Qur’an falls below scholarly standards of historical reliability, theological consistency, and literary completeness. The challenge remains: how can Muslims claim the Qur’an is detailed, sufficient, and final, when even the names of humanity’s earliest figures must be supplied by the very Bible it seeks to replace?

---