Mauao Man

They Find Him Written with Them

The Qur’an, the Bible, and the Contradictions in Islamic Polemics

Introduction

Among the most frequently heard slogans in Muslim apologetics is the bold declaration: “The Bible has been corrupted; only the Qur’an is preserved.” The polemic is repeated in mosques, pamphlets, and online debates. It is often presented as an obvious truth, beyond dispute. The Bible is accused of falsification by Jews and Christians, while the Qur’an is said to have descended, remained untouched, and endured “not a letter changed” since Muhammad’s time.

But when we put this claim under forensic scrutiny—historical, textual, and logical—it collapses. The Qur’an itself, far from rejecting the Bible, repeatedly affirms the Torah and Gospel as divine revelation. It appeals to them as confirmation of Muhammad’s mission. It commands Jews and Christians to judge by their own scriptures.

The polemic that the Bible was corrupted is not Qur’anic. It is a post-Qur’anic development, arising in the Hadith and hardened into a doctrine by later polemicists such as Ibn Ḥazm. The result is a deep contradiction within Islam: the Qur’an affirms the Bible, but later Islamic polemics deny it. Both cannot be true.

This essay will demonstrate that contradiction in full, with detailed textual and historical evidence. It will show:

What the Qur’an actually says about the Bible.
How Hadith reshaped the message.
The historical development of the “corruption” doctrine.
The manuscript evidence that collapses the polemic.
The logical contradiction inside Islam.
The implications for Muslims, Christians, and interfaith dialogue.

The conclusion will be unavoidable: Islam’s central polemic against the Bible contradicts the Qur’an itself.

1. What the Qur’an Actually Says About the Bible

1.1 Torah, Gospel, and Psalms as Revelation

The Qur’an repeatedly names the Tawrāt (Torah), Injīl (Gospel), and Zabūr (Psalms) as revelations given by God:

“He has sent down upon you the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel before as guidance for mankind, and He revealed the Criterion.” (Q 3:3–4)
“Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars… And We sent Jesus, son of Mary, following in their footsteps, confirming what came before him of the Torah, and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light.” (Q 5:44–46)

This is not language of corruption. It is language of divine origin and continued authority.

1.2 Muhammad Confirmed by the Earlier Scriptures

The Qur’an describes Muhammad as one foretold in earlier scriptures:

“…those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written with them in the Torah and the Gospel…” (Q 7:157)
“And when there came to them a Book from Allah confirming what was with them, though before they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieved—when there came to them what they recognized, they disbelieved in it.” (Q 2:89)

The expectation here is clear: Jews and Christians could look into their scriptures and find Muhammad written there.

1.3 Commands to Judge by the Bible

Even more striking is the Qur’an’s direct command for Jews and Christians to judge by their scriptures:

“Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. Whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed—it is they who are the defiantly disobedient.” (Q 5:47)

The logic collapses if the Gospel was already falsified. The Qur’an assumes that the Torah and Gospel circulating in the 7th century were genuine sources of guidance.

1.4 Muhammad Directed to the People of the Book

The Qur’an even instructs Muhammad himself to consult the “People of the Book” if he doubts:

“If you are in doubt about what We have sent down to you, ask those who have been reading the Book before you.” (Q 10:94)

Again, this presumes the reliability of the existing biblical tradition.

2. The Hadith Shift: From Affirmation to Accusation

If the Qur’an affirms the Bible, how did Islam’s message shift to the polemic that the Bible is corrupted? The answer lies in the Hadith.

2.1 Taḥrīf in the Qur’an

The Qur’an accuses some Jews of taḥrīf—distorting words from their contexts:

“They distort words from their contexts and have forgotten a portion of what they were reminded of.” (Q 5:13)

But here the distortion is interpretive, not textual. The complaint is about twisting meaning, not rewriting the text.

2.2 Hadith and Narrative Growth

By contrast, Hadith traditions grow more aggressive. They portray Jews and Christians as deliberately altering, hiding, or erasing references to Muhammad. This marks the beginning of the “corruption” accusation in Islamic discourse.

Examples include reports where Jews allegedly conceal passages of the Torah, or where Christians supposedly mistranslate texts about Jesus.

2.3 From Interpretation to Textual Falsification

Thus, the Hadith represents the turning point: it transforms taḥrīf from distortion of meaning into falsification of text. This shift becomes crucial for later Muslim polemicists.

3. Classical Polemics and the Hardening of the Doctrine

The next stage comes in classical Islamic theology.

3.1 Ibn Ḥazm (d. 1064)

Ibn Ḥazm of Córdoba is often credited with systematizing the doctrine that the Bible had been textually corrupted. He argued that Jews and Christians rewrote their scriptures to erase prophecies of Muhammad. His polemic became deeply influential and shaped Muslim attitudes for centuries.

3.2 Other Theologians

Other figures, such as al-Rāzī (d. 1209), elaborated similar themes: the Bible was altered, incomplete, or otherwise unreliable. By the medieval period, this view had become mainstream in Muslim apologetics.

3.3 Modern Muslim Apologetics

In the 19th and 20th centuries, with the rise of Christian missionary activity in the Muslim world, Muslim apologists doubled down on this doctrine. Figures like Rahmatullah Kairanawi popularized the “corruption” polemic in debates with missionaries. Today, it is standard fare in Islamic daʿwah literature.

4. The Manuscript Evidence

The corruption polemic claims that the Bible was rewritten before or during Muhammad’s time. But manuscript evidence disproves this.

4.1 Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls, dating from the 2nd century BCE, contain books of the Hebrew Bible virtually identical to those in use today. The textual continuity is undeniable.

4.2 Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both from the 4th century CE, contain the New Testament in essentially the same form as modern translations.

These manuscripts predate Muhammad by centuries. The Bible circulating in the 7th century is materially the same as today’s Bible.

4.3 Implication

If the Bible was corrupted, it must have been corrupted before Muhammad. But the Qur’an affirms the Bible as it existed in Muhammad’s day. Thus, the corruption charge contradicts the Qur’an.

5. The Contradiction Inside Islam

We can now state the contradiction plainly:

The Qur’an affirms the Torah and Gospel as divine revelation, commands judgment by them, and appeals to them as confirmation of Muhammad.
Later Hadith and theologians accuse Jews and Christians of falsifying those scriptures.

Both cannot be true.

5.1 If the Bible Was Already Corrupted

If the Bible was corrupted in Muhammad’s day, then the Qur’an erred by affirming it. Commands like Q 5:47 would be incoherent.

5.2 If the Bible Was Intact

If the Bible was intact in Muhammad’s day, then the Qur’an’s affirmation is consistent. But in that case, later Muslim polemics are false. And since the manuscripts show the Bible then is the same as today’s Bible, the polemic collapses.

5.3 Self-Defeating Nature

Islam thus faces a self-defeating choice:

Either the Qur’an is wrong, or
Later Islamic polemics are wrong.

There is no way to reconcile the two.

6. Logical Breakdown

Premise 1: The Qur’an affirms the Torah and Gospel as revelation and guidance.
Premise 2: Manuscript evidence shows the Bible of Muhammad’s day is the same as today’s.
Premise 3: Later Hadith and theologians accused Jews and Christians of falsifying the Bible.
Conclusion: Either the Qur’an erred in affirming corrupted texts, or later Islamic polemics erred in contradicting the Qur’an. Both cannot be true.

7. Implications

7.1 For Muslims

Muslims who affirm the Qur’an must acknowledge that the Bible available in the 7th century—and still today—is genuine revelation. The polemic that the Bible is corrupted contradicts the Qur’an.

7.2 For Christians

Christians can use the Qur’an as a hostile witness: it affirms the Bible’s integrity. Muslim polemics rest on later traditions, not on the Qur’an itself.

7.3 For Interfaith Dialogue

Honest dialogue must separate the Qur’an’s actual testimony from later Islamic polemics. The corruption charge is not Qur’anic; it is a later invention.

Conclusion

The Qur’an affirms the Torah and Gospel as divine revelation, commands judgment by them, and appeals to them as testimony to Muhammad. Later Hadith and theologians accused Jews and Christians of corrupting those scriptures. The two claims are contradictory. Manuscript evidence demonstrates that the Bible in Muhammad’s day was materially the same as today.

Therefore:

If Muslims believe the Qur’an, they must affirm the Bible.
If Muslims repeat the polemic, they contradict the Qur’an.

There is no logical escape. The preservation polemic against the Bible is a post-Qur’anic invention that refutes itself.