The emergence of revisionist readings of the Qur’an, borrowing from the “hermeneutics of suspicion” to deconstruct the sacred text in favor of women-centered interpretations, has posed profound epistemological challenges to Islamic theology. This study, employing a descriptive-analytical method and relying on kalam principles, assesses the feasibility of transferring this methodology in light of the doctrine of “inerrancy of revelation.” Findings reveal that applying the biblical criticism model to Qur’anic studies involves a fundamental categorical error; the hermeneutics of suspicion presupposes the “human construction of the text” and its influence by patriarchal culture, whereas analyses demonstrate an irreconcilable conflict between this presupposition and the nature of “spoken revelation” and the theological principle of “non-contradiction.” The results show that adopting this method logically leads to denying divine wisdom, attributing deception through ignorance to God, and replacing “revelation” with “historical experience.” Ultimately, moving beyond a negative approach, the study proposes the kalam model of “proportional justice” as an alternative framework. According to this model, the Islamic legislative system—by distinguishing between “absolute equality in human dignity” and “proportionality in social roles”—provides a realistic and just response to innate differences between men and women without desacralizing the text.