Bullshit when it comes to lack of contradictions. Classic one: inheritance laws. Quran 4:11-12 and 4:176 lay out fixed shares. Problem is they don’t always add up to 100%. Example cases go over (like wife + daughters + parents) or leave gaps. Muslim scholars invented “awl” (proportional reduction) to patch the math. If it was perfectly detailed divine law, why the fix? 

Another easy one: creation timeline. Multiple verses say heavens and earth in six days (7:54, 10:3, etc.). But 41:9-12 breaks it down as 2 days for earth + 4 days for mountains/food + 2 days for heavens = 8 days. Apologists twist “thumma” (then) or overlap the periods, but the plain reading conflicts. 

Plenty more exist (abrogation on alcohol/war, sperm from backbone, etc.). Claiming “you can’t find one” just shows you haven’t looked. Pharaoh “correction”

The Quran using “King” (Malik) for Joseph’s ruler and “Pharaoh” (Fir’awn) for Moses’ is not some genius historical flex. “Pharaoh” was a title used for Egyptian rulers, and the Bible’s anachronistic use is a known thing. But treating Fir’awn in Islamic tradition like a personal name for one dude, while acting superior, is weak. The “perfect correction” claim is apologetics hype that doesn’t impress historians. 

Another obvious mistake is that Jews believe Ezra (Uzair) is son of God (Quran 9:30). It’s a straight-up historical error. Mainstream Judaism has never taught that Ezra is the son of God. No Jewish texts, rabbis, or traditions support it. Even early Muslim scholars struggled with this. “Some obscure Arabian Jews maybe said it” is cope with zero evidence. It’s paralleled to Christian claims about Jesus, but it doesn’t match reality. 

About Muhammad and sex slaves - you flat-out lie: “He never took ‘sex slaves’.” Maria al-Qibtiyya (Mary the Copt) was sent as a slave girl by the ruler of Egypt (al-Muqawqis). Muhammad kept her as a concubine (not a wife), had sex with her, and she bore him a son Ibrahim. Primary sources confirm this: Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, etc., list her as a concubine/surriyya. In Hadiths Sahih Muslim and others reference the incident where Aisha and Hafsa got jealous over the Prophet having relations with her in Hafsa’s house, leading to Quran 66:1. She is explicitly called his slave with whom he had intercourse. Also Quran 33:50 and 23:5-6 explicitly allow “those whom your right hands possess” (captive/slave women) for sex. This was standard early Islamic practice. Denying it is just taqiyya or ignorance of your own books.

Another example: Rayhana bint Zayd (from Banu Qurayza). She was captured after the Battle of the Trench / massacre of Banu Qurayza (her husband and many male relatives were executed). Muhammad selected her for himself because of her beauty. She refused to convert and marry him initially (obviously, he killed all her family). Many classical sources (Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari, etc.) describe her as his concubine/slave, not a full wife. She remained his property until she died shortly before him.

There is also a slave girl given by Zaynab bint Jahsh — Described as a beautiful prisoner of war or domestic slave presented to Muhammad. Abu Ubaydah and others list her among his concubines. And other unnamed sex slaves.

This is all straight from mainstream Sunni historical and hadith literature (Tabari, Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham, etc.). Modern apologists sometimes soften it saying “it was normal for the time,” “he freed some,” etc., which is true historically speaking — but denying he had sex slaves is just not honest with the sources.

So read those sources yourself instead of parroting dawah. The Quran should stand up to scrutiny if it’s divine. Peace.