A real contradiction is not merely two passages sounding different. It is when two statements affirm and deny the same thing, in the same sense, at the same time, with no reasonable way to read them together.
The argument at its strongest
The critic's best version is this: the Quran presents itself as revelation from God and even invites scrutiny. If it contained a genuine contradiction, that would count against its claim to be from the All-Knowing God, because God does not err, forget, or speak falsehood.
Then do they not reflect upon the Quran? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.
Quran 4:82
That is a fair challenge. Muslims should not answer it by pretending that words have no meaning, or by making every difficulty vanish through forced interpretation. If two Quranic statements truly could not both be true, that would be serious.
What counts as a contradiction
Classical scholars treated this carefully. A contradiction requires sameness in subject, time, respect, and meaning. For example, "Zayd is alive" and "Zayd is not alive" contradict only if they refer to the same Zayd, at the same moment, in the same sense.
Many alleged contradictions fail at this point. One verse may speak about creation from dust, another from a drop of fluid, another from clay. These are not rival claims about the same stage. They describe different aspects: Adam's origin, the human species' earthly material basis, and ordinary human reproduction.
Likewise, one passage may give a summary while another gives detail. One may address believers, another hypocrites, another previous nations. One may describe what Allah decrees, while another describes what human beings choose. Difference is not contradiction.
The strongest reply
The strongest reply is not "there are no hard passages." There are hard passages, and scholars have discussed them for centuries. The reply is that a contradiction must be proven after Arabic usage, context, scope, chronology, and the rest of the Quran are considered.
This is also how law and language work generally. If a contract says "employees may enter the building" and another clause says "employees may not enter the laboratory," no one calls that a contradiction. The second statement limits the first. The same principle applies to scripture: general and specific, absolute and qualified, literal and idiomatic speech must be read properly.
Abrogation also is not contradiction. A later legal ruling can replace an earlier one by Allah's wisdom, just as fasting rules or prayer direction were legislated in stages. A changed command is not a mistaken statement; it is a new ruling for a new phase.
What this does and does not prove
This does establish that many popular "contradictions" are too quick. They often compare translations, remove context, or treat complementary descriptions as mutually exclusive.
It does not establish that every answer is automatically convincing, or that every reader must immediately see the harmony. Nor does it mean Muslims are allowed to twist plain language. The standard is honest: if there is a sound reconciliation grounded in Arabic, context, and established interpretation, the charge of contradiction fails.
So the question is not whether two verses can be made to look different in English. The question is whether they truly cannot both be true. That is a much higher burden, and it is the burden the objection must actually meet.