If These Words Are Timeless, Must They Be Obeyed Timelessly?

The Qur’an’s Eternal Claims vs. Historical Realities

“Timeless words demand timeless relevance—or else expose their own expiration.”

---

🔍 The Premise

Muslim belief holds that the Qur’an is eternal, perfect, unchangeable, and directly the word of God—not just inspired but dictated. It is:

• Uncreated (per mainstream Sunni theology),

• Universally applicable,

• Final and complete.

This raises a serious question that pierces to the heart of Islam's claim to timelessness:

If the Qur’an is eternal, must its commandments be followed eternally?

If not—why not?
If yes—how do Muslims explain the violent, theocratic, and patriarchal commands embedded in its pages?

---

📖 Textual Absolutism: The Claim

The Qur’an repeatedly insists on its timeless perfection:

• Surah 18:27 – “None can change His words.”

• Surah 10:64 – “No change is there in the Words of Allah.”

• Surah 6:115 – “The word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and justice. None can change His words.”

Its law is called:

• "Guidance for mankind” (2:185),

• "Clear explanation of all things” (16:89),

• "A light and a mercy" (6:157).

And so the logic is straightforward:

If the Qur’an is eternal, then its commands are not historical—they’re binding for all time.

---

🧨 The Ethical Timebomb

This creates an unavoidable ethical trap. The Qur’an contains numerous commands that cannot coexist with modern values of human rights, freedom of religion, and moral equality:

🔹 Warfare and Conquest

• 9:29 – “Fight those who do not believe in Allah… until they pay the jizya with willing submission.”

• 8:12 – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Strike their necks…”

Are these commands eternal? Or were they context-bound?

If eternal → You justify endless religious warfare.
If contextual → Then the Qur’an’s commands are not timeless.

🔹 Gender Inequality

• 4:34 – Men may beat disobedient wives.

• 2:282 – A woman’s testimony is half that of a man’s.

Timeless moral guidance? Or culturally conditioned tribal law?

🔹 Religious Intolerance

• 3:85 – “Whoever desires a religion other than Islam—it will never be accepted.”

• 98:6 – “Those who disbelieve among the People of the Book… are the worst of creatures.”

If these verses are eternal—how can Islam claim to support religious pluralism or coexistence?

---

🤯 Apologetic Evasions

Muslim scholars have developed various mental escape routes to explain away the troubling implications:

1. “Context matters!”

So they say... but:

• If context limits the Qur’an, then its laws are not universal.

• If they’re not universal, then the Qur’an fails its own test of timelessness.

2. “Abrogation (naskh) replaced old rules!”

This makes the problem worse.

• Qur’an 2:106 – “We substitute one verse for another…”

• An all-knowing God shouldn’t need to update Himself.

• Also, this implies that later violent verses overwrite earlier peaceful ones.

3. “Modern ijtihad (reasoning) can reinterpret the text!”

But reinterpretation is not obedience. It’s modification.

• You’re not following what it says—you’re editing it to make it palatable.

So which is it?

Do you obey it as it is, or rewrite it to protect your conscience?

---

🚨 The Modern Muslim’s Dilemma

Muslims in modern societies often want to:

• Be seen as peaceful and tolerant,

• Embrace democracy and human rights,

• Distance themselves from groups like ISIS who do take the Qur’an literally.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth:

Groups like ISIS don’t misinterpret the Qur’an. They take it seriously.

The ones who reinterpret or ignore verses are picking and choosing what’s acceptable to modern tastes.

So we ask again:

If these words are timeless, why are they not obeyed timelessly?
If they are obeyed timelessly, is that morally defensible?

There is no third option.

---

💣 The Theological Crisis

This exposes a fatal contradiction at the heart of Islamic theology:

• The Qur’an claims timelessness,

• But many of its rules are ethically obsolete or socially catastrophic today,

• Therefore, either:

  • The Qur’an is not timeless, or

  • Its values are fundamentally at odds with modern morality.

Both conclusions dismantle the claim that Islam is:

• Final,

• Perfect,

• Universal.

---

🧭 Conclusion: The Cost of Eternal Words

Timelessness is not a boast—it’s a burden.

If the Qur’an’s verses are eternal, they demand eternal application—including its regressive and violent laws.

If they are not eternal, then the core claim of Islam collapses: that the Qur’an is the perfect, unchangeable, and final revelation for all time.

One cannot simultaneously affirm the Qur’an’s perfection and ignore its unpalatable commands.

It’s one or the other.

And either way, the claim of timeless moral superiority cannot survive the scrutiny.