The notion of paradox, with the meaning of “the juxtaposition of two conflicting, yet valid, ideas,” has been explored extensively in Biblical Studies. It is still largely unexplored in Qur’anic Studies. Traditional Islamic sources generally do not use the category of paradox to explain Qur’anic passages. Critical academic works on the Qur’an also show little interest in this category. In my IQSA paper I would like to offer a basic introduction to the concept of paradox and propose that the Qur’an makes intentional use of paradox for theological purposes. As a first step in the paper I will engage the work of Lauren Sweat, author of the Theological Role of Paradox in the Gospel of Mark, who lays out a road map for appreciating how theological ideas (and in particular the limits of human reason in understanding God) are communicated through paradox in Mark. I will also clarify the difference between parable (where the apparent contrast between two objects of comparison is resolved) and paradox (where both objects or ideas are valid and yet the contrast is not resolved). In the first part of the paper I will also engage with the work of scholars, including Toshihiko Izutsu, Fazlur Rahman, Neal Robinson, and Matthias Zahniser, who emphasize cohesiveness in the Qur’an and often seek to undo theological and rhetorical tension therein. In the second part of the paper I will present three cases where the Qur’an thoughtfully uses paradox: eschatological passages of divine mercy and punishment, the “Khidr” passage of al-Kahf (Qur’an 18), and the angelic resistance to the creation of humans in al-Baqarah (Q 2). These three cases of paradox advance theological arguments on divine freedom, theodicy, and anthropology respectively. I will argue that the Qur’an uses paradox intentionally in each case to describe inspire wonder and mystery in its audience. Thus while the Qur’an is for a people “who think” (qawm yatafakkarūn; Q 30:21), it also insists that “God knows and you do not know” (Q 2:216) – two messages that form a fourth sort of paradox. In conclusion I will argue that the study of paradox in the Qur’an, while running contrary to some recent scholarship on Qur’anic cohesiveness, will allow for a new sort of theological and literary reflection on the Qur’an. In particular, it will set the Qur’an more in the context of exhortation (mawʿiẓah), and not in the context of a systematic theological manual. As Daud Rahbar once wrote in God of Justice (1960): “Prophets do not offer philosophy. They offer wisdom of a type, a wisdom which has a dominant note.”