A Critical Response: Is the Islamic Narrative Historically Sustainable?

Islamic Continuity or Constructed Myth?

The blog post “The Unfolding of Islam: Eternal Truth or Historical Evolution?” attempts to walk a line between presenting Islam’s internal narrative and exposing its historical evolution. However, it stops short of directly challenging the core premise upon which Islam is built: that it represents the final, universal, and unchanging truth revealed by God. This response will examine that claim with rigorous scrutiny.

1. The Myth of Prophetic Continuity

Islam claims to be the culmination of a long prophetic chain dating back to Adam and culminating in Muhammad. Yet this continuity is entirely internally asserted. Outside Islamic tradition, there is zero historical evidence that links Muhammad to prior prophets like Abraham, Moses, or Jesus—let alone to Adam or Noah.

• There is no contemporaneous Jewish, Christian, or historical source that recognizes Muhammad as the "seal of the prophets" or acknowledges Islam as the completion of prior revelations.

• The Qur’anic narratives of earlier prophets often diverge sharply from Biblical accounts (e.g., Abraham in Mecca, Jesus not crucified), suggesting theological repurposing rather than historical continuity.

In reality, Islam appears not as a continuation of earlier revelations, but as a 7th-century Arabian reinterpretation of Judeo-Christian themes—filtered through Muhammad’s own theological and political agenda.

2. Revelation or Retrofitted Ideology?

The post upholds the Qur’an as the uncreated, timeless word of God. But this belief cannot be reconciled with the empirical and historical evidence:

• The Qur’an evolved over two decades, shaped by changing political, military, and social circumstances. Early Meccan verses are spiritual and tolerant; later Medinan verses are legalistic and militarized.

• The doctrine of abrogation (naskh) admits internal contradiction. How can an eternal, perfect book contain verses that nullify others?

• Scholars such as John Wansbrough, Patricia Crone, and Michael Cook have demonstrated that the Qur’an’s language, structure, and historical allusions reflect post-7th century redaction, not timeless revelation.

These issues suggest that the Qur’an is not a divine monolith but a composite document, shaped by human needs and evolving political contexts.

3. The Illusion of a Singular Orthodoxy

The post notes that multiple schools of jurisprudence (madhāhib) emerged, yet it still speaks of “Islam” as if it were a unified entity. This is misleading. Islam has never been a singular, internally consistent system. Its history is a record of fragmentation, reinterpretation, and power struggles:

• The Sunni-Shi’a schism emerged within a generation of Muhammad’s death and has never been resolved.

• Competing sects like the Kharijites, Mutazilites, Ismailis, and various Sufi orders demonstrate that “Islamic orthodoxy” is a retrospective construction, often enforced by political rulers to consolidate control.

• Major concepts like Sharīʿah, caliphate, and even prophetic authority were debated, adapted, or imposed by force.

What the post describes as “internal diversity” is in fact a persistent theological instability—one that belies the claim of divine coherence.

4. Violence and Authority: The Political Roots of Revelation

The use of verses like Qur’an 9:29 (“fight those who do not believe…”) and Hadiths like “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” reveals the political underbelly of Islam’s formative period. These are not abstract theological teachings; they were used to justify conquest, subjugation, and religious repression.

• The early Islamic empire expanded primarily by the sword, not by peaceful da‘wah.

• The Caliphate was a theocratic monarchy, not a spiritual community.

• The claim that Islamic law provides justice is undercut by brutal hudud punishments, gender inequality, and religious discrimination—all rooted in classical jurisprudence.

These realities challenge the idea that Islam is a divinely guided civilization. Instead, it looks like a political movement cloaked in religious language, using scripture to sanctify domination.

5. Islam and Modernity: A Doctrinal Crisis

The post rightly identifies the tension between Islamic tradition and modernity. But it softens the dilemma. In truth, classical Islam is fundamentally incompatible with modern liberal values:

• Freedom of speech is limited by blasphemy and apostasy laws.

• Gender equality contradicts Islamic inheritance laws, polygyny, and testimony rules.

• Religious pluralism is undermined by the doctrine of jizya, the inferiority of non-Muslims, and the claim that all other religions are either corrupted or false.

Attempts to reform Islam often require rejecting foundational texts or reinterpreting them beyond recognition. This is not evolution; it is deconstruction masquerading as continuity.

6. The Fallacy of Timelessness

The belief that Islam provides unchanging answers to all times and places is intellectually untenable.

• If Islam were truly timeless, it would have foreseen scientific advances, democratic theory, and human rights discourse. Instead, it is anchored in the norms of a 7th-century tribal society.

• Muslims today are forced to choose between fidelity to scripture and functional coexistence with modern civilization.

• The reality is that Islam survives not because of timeless truth, but because of cultural inertia, geopolitical identity, and authoritarian enforcement in many regions.

---

Conclusion: A Construct, Not a Completion

The Islamic claim to eternal truth does not withstand critical scrutiny. Its narrative is one of constructed legitimacy, not divine continuity. Its scriptures are historically shaped, not supernaturally dictated. Its unity is politically enforced, not spiritually derived. And its legal and moral system is outdated, not transcendent.

In the end, what we call "Islam" is not a fixed divine order but a historically situated ideology—born in a specific time, tailored to specific power structures, and continually reinterpreted to maintain relevance. It does not offer unchanging truth, but rather a contested legacy of beliefs, laws, and ambitions that reflect more of man than of God.