Mauao Man

Appropriation and Disowning

Islam’s Paradoxical Claim About the Previous Scriptures

Introduction: The Tension at the Heart of Islamic Apologetics

One of the most striking features of Islamic theology is its relationship to the scriptures that came before it — the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel. The Qur’an is unambiguous: these texts were revealed by Allah to earlier prophets, all of whom were, according to Islam, Muslims. Moses, David, and Jesus were not Jewish or Christian in the Qur’anic telling; they were part of an unbroken chain of Islamic prophecy leading up to Muhammad.

Yet, the same Qur’an also insists that Jews and Christians corrupted their scriptures (Arabic: taḥrīf). This creates an unavoidable paradox. If these were originally Islamic revelations, then to say they were corrupted is to admit that Islam’s own scriptures failed to remain intact. And if they are so corrupted as to be unreliable, then Muslims cannot consistently claim that Muhammad is foretold in them.

This essay explores that tension — how Islam both appropriates the Jewish and Christian scriptures as its own, then later disowns them as corrupted when they contradict Qur’anic claims, while still cherry-picking verses to retroactively insert Muhammad. It is a theological tactic that collapses under scrutiny, exposing Islam’s uneasy dependence on texts it simultaneously dismisses.

Step One: Appropriation — The Previous Scriptures as Islamic Texts

The Qur’an presents itself not as a new revelation but as a continuation:

Surah 3:3 — “He revealed the Torah and the Gospel before as guidance for mankind.”
Surah 21:48 — “And We gave Moses and Aaron the Criterion and a light and a reminder for the righteous.”
Surah 57:27 — “We sent Jesus, son of Mary, and gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light.”

In all these cases, the Qur’an insists these books were revealed by Allah. They are not “Jewish” or “Christian” scriptures but Islamic scriptures entrusted to Muslim prophets.

From this framework, the Torah is not the property of Israel but Allah’s word; the Psalms are not Hebrew hymns but divine revelation; and the Gospel is not a Christian innovation but Allah’s message to Jesus.

Thus, Islam begins by claiming ownership of the very texts that define Judaism and Christianity.

Step Two: Disowning — The Charge of Corruption

Once this appropriation is established, however, Islam faces a serious problem. The existing Torah and Gospel contradict the Qur’an on every key point:

The Torah affirms Israel’s covenant with Yahweh, not with “Allah” in the Qur’anic sense.
The Psalms celebrate Zion, Jerusalem, and Davidic kingship, not a coming Arab prophet.
The Gospels proclaim Jesus as the crucified and risen Son of God — the opposite of the Qur’an’s denial.

Instead of reconciling with these texts, the Qur’an pivots: it declares them corrupted.

Surah 2:75 accuses some Jews of “hearing the words of Allah then distorting them after understanding.”
Surah 3:78 charges them with “twisting their tongues with the Book so you may think it is from the Book when it is not.”
Surah 5:13–15 repeats the claim of distortion and concealment.

This allows Islam to dismiss contradictions wholesale. Anything that disagrees with the Qur’an is “corruption”; anything that can be forced into agreement is “authentic.”

But this strategy is double-edged. If the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel were originally Islamic revelations, then the corruption claim is an admission that Allah’s own revelations were not preserved. In other words, Muslims cannot condemn Jews and Christians for corrupting their scriptures without simultaneously declaring that Islam’s scriptures were corrupted long before the Qur’an appeared.

Step Three: Cherry-Picking — Forcing Muhammad into the Texts

Despite branding the earlier texts as corrupted, Islam still insists that Muhammad was foretold within them.

Surah 7:157 claims Muhammad is described in “the Torah and the Gospel.” Muslim apologists for centuries have tried to find him:

In Deuteronomy 18:18, they argue Moses foretold a prophet “like him” — claiming Muhammad fits better than Jesus.
In Song of Songs 5:16, they read the Hebrew phrase maḥmaddîm (“altogether lovely”) as a veiled mention of “Muhammad.”
In John 14–16, they argue Jesus’ promise of the “Paraclete” (Greek: paraklētos, helper/advocate) is actually a corruption of periklutos (“praised one”), which they equate with Muhammad.

The problem is obvious: if these texts are truly corrupted, then they cannot be used as evidence for Muhammad at all. And if they are trustworthy enough to predict him, then the charge of corruption collapses.

This is what logicians call special pleading — creating an arbitrary rule that only applies when convenient. Muslims accept “corruption” when the Bible contradicts the Qur’an, and “authenticity” when they think it supports Muhammad.

Logical Contradictions in the Corruption Claim

The Islamic position produces several fatal contradictions:

Self-Refutation
- Premise 1: The Torah, Psalms, and Gospel were revealed by Allah.
- Premise 2: They were corrupted by men.
- Conclusion: Allah’s revelations are vulnerable to corruption.
This undermines the Qur’an itself. If earlier revelations could be corrupted, what guarantees the Qur’an is not also corrupted?
Inconsistency
- Muslims claim the Bible is too corrupted to trust — except when it allegedly predicts Muhammad.
- This is a textbook case of cherry-picking and special pleading.
Historical Inaccuracy
- The Qur’an assumes Jews and Christians deliberately rewrote their scriptures.
- But manuscript evidence (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus) shows remarkable textual stability centuries before Muhammad.
- There is no evidence of a coordinated “corruption” campaign.

The Historical Record: No Evidence of Qur’anic Claims

Modern textual criticism decisively disproves the Qur’anic accusation.

The Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd century BCE–1st century CE) confirm that the Hebrew Bible was stable long before Islam.
Early New Testament manuscripts from the 2nd–3rd centuries CE (e.g., Papyrus 52, Papyrus 46) align closely with modern Bibles.
The Codex Sinaiticus (mid-4th century CE) contains the full New Testament centuries before Muhammad.

By the time the Qur’an appeared in the 7th century, the biblical texts were already globally disseminated in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and other languages. Any claim of wholesale corruption is historically impossible.

Thus, the corruption narrative is not evidence-based but a theological coping mechanism to explain away contradictions.

Appropriation and Disowning as a Tactic

When viewed as a whole, Islam’s strategy toward the previous scriptures can be summarized in three steps:

Appropriation — The Torah, Psalms, and Gospel are Islamic revelations given to Muslim prophets.
Disowning — When contradictions with the Qur’an arise, Muslims accuse Jews and Christians of corrupting them.
Cherry-Picking — Despite declaring them corrupted, Muslims still insist Muhammad is foretold in them.

This pattern is not unique to Islam; it is a classic case of intellectual appropriation followed by rejection. Islam cannot afford to ignore the Bible entirely because it provides historical legitimacy. But it also cannot accept it as it stands, because it contradicts core Islamic claims. The result is a selective, inconsistent, and ultimately incoherent doctrine.

Why This Matters

The corruption argument is more than an academic quibble. It shapes how Muslims engage with Jews and Christians today:

Dialogue is undermined, since Muslims begin with the presumption that the other side’s scripture is unreliable.
Missionary claims (da’wah) depend on forcing Muhammad into texts that are simultaneously discredited.
Theological insecurity is masked by rhetorical confidence, but the contradictions are transparent once exposed.

For critics, apologists, and scholars alike, this issue is a litmus test of Islam’s intellectual credibility. If the Qur’an is Allah’s word, it must withstand historical and logical scrutiny. But on this point, it fails on both counts.

Conclusion: The House Built on Contradiction

Every time Muslims argue that the previous scriptures were corrupted, they are effectively saying that their own scriptures — revealed to earlier Muslim prophets — were corrupted. Every time they claim Muhammad is foretold in those same scriptures, they contradict their own corruption narrative.

The strategy of appropriation, disowning, and cherry-picking cannot hold up under critical examination. It is a theological escape hatch, not a coherent doctrine.

In the end, Islam’s claim collapses into self-refutation: it both owns and disowns the same scriptures, accuses them of corruption while relying on them for prophecy, and asserts their divine origin while denying their integrity. This is not revelation but contradiction.

Disclaimer: This post critiques Islam as an ideology, doctrine, and historical system—not Muslims as individuals. Every human deserves respect; beliefs do not.