Is the Bible textually corrupt? Muslims say yes, the Qur’an says no!

Sharing the Gospel with our Muslim neighbors and friends can be a challenge which at times seems almost insurmountable. This seeming insurmountability can take place rather quickly in the conversation when the allegation/charge of textual corruption of the Bible is brought ‘front and center’ into the conversation by our Muslim friends. If we, as Christians, are not prepared to respond, this baseless charge can bring the discussion to a grinding halt, or an impasse. The apostle Peter stated that we are to “always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks us for the reason of the hope that is in us,” (1 Pet. 3:15) and the defense of the veracity, truthfulness and reliability of the New Testament is central to our defense. In order to mount an effective defense (and offense) to this issue, some background as to why it is made will be helpful in understanding how to deconstruct and refute it.

In order to support their claim that the Qur’an is the inspired word of God, superseding all previous revelations, Muslims sustain an attack upon all competing claims. For the most part their efforts are directed against their chief rival, the Bible. There accusations fall into two basic categories: first, the text of Scripture has been changed or forged; second, doctrinal mistakes have crept into Christian teaching, such as the belief in the incarnation of Christ, the trinity of the Godhead, and the doctrine of original sin.

These Islamic views about the Bible are critically flawed. One evidence is the internal inconsistency within the Muslim view of Scripture itself. Another is that it is contrary to the factual evidence. There is serious tension in the Islamic rejection of the authenticity of the current New Testament. This tension can be focused by the following teaching from the Qur’an:

Point #3 is of critical importance in dismantling the charge of biblical corruption. The Qur’an/Muslims claim that the Bible is “the Word of God” (Surah 2:75). They also insist that God’s words cannot be altered or changed. But, as C. G. Pfander points out, “if both these statements are correct…then it follows that the Bible has not been changed and corrupted either before or since Muhammad’s time.” Islamic teaching insists that the Bible has been corrupted, thus, the contradiction. As we begin the discussion, we need to be clear that “we do not in any way whatever rely upon the Qur’an to prove our Scriptures for us. What we are doing is quite a different thing. We are endeavouring to show Muslims that they, as believers in the Qur’an, are bound to accept what it says about the Jewish and the Christian Books.”[2]

The point that, ‘God’s words cannot be altered or changed,’ is stated repeatedly in the Qur’an. The following are some of the key ayahs (verses) confirming the claim:

 
Having established the Qur’an’s claim that the words of God cannot be altered, we move on to the Quranic instruction to the Christians and Jews, which obligates them to accept and ‘find guidance’ in the New Testament (and Torah) that existed in Muhammad’s day. This along with Allah’s instruction to Muhammad to also consult the Gospel and Torah, as well as the Christians and Jews who believed and were given “the Books,” makes for a strong case as too the truthfulness and purity of the Gospel and Torah of Muhammad’s day.

 
Dr. William Campbell notes:

 
The reading of “the Book from before thee,” is in reference to the Taurat (Torah) given to the Jews—“But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) law before them?– therein is the (plain) command of Allah…” (Surah 5:43)

 
The following is an authoritative hadith that confirms that the Old Testament/Torah/Taurat that we have today was in existence and in use during the time of Muhammad, and as such, the ‘revelation’ given to Muhammad which we now have in the Qur’an:

 
In Surah 5, the Christians, “people of the Gospel,” are told to judge by what had been revealed therein:

These ayahs were quoted by Muhammad during the time period of 609 to 632AD, and as such, they were referring to the exact same New and Old Testaments that we possess today. (Almost all Muslim scholars argue that the original Old Testament was distorted/corrupted. However, like the New Testament, the ancient Dead Sea Manuscripts of the Old Testament reveal that the Old Testament today is substantially the same as the one in the time of Christ, over 600 years before Muhammad.) Therefore, since the Qur’an urges the Jews in Muhammad’s day to accept God’s revelation in the Law (10:94), and since the Jewish OT is substantially the same today as it was in Muhammad’s day, the Qur’an is not referring to scripture that Jews and Christians possessed in the past, but now are lost. Rather, the Torah given to Moses, and the New Testament/Gospels concerning Jesus, is the scripture that is with them (the Christians and Jews) and in their possession at the time of Muhammad. This is historically verified by copies such as the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both dated to the 4th century AD, as well as Codex Alexandrinus, 5th century AD. Each of these which contains both the Old and New Testaments, and includes the Four Gospels and the Book of Acts as we have them in our present day Bibles. These manuscripts prove conclusively that the only scriptures in the hands of the Church at least two hundred years prior to Muhammad’s time were the Old and New Testaments that we have in our hands today. 

After reading the Quranic passages above, we must then put forth the following propositions to our Muslim friends for response:

 
This brings us to the following conclusion:

 
When I hear the charge of textual corruption being leveled against the Bible (both the Old & New Testament), I simply ask my Muslim friend the following question: “If the Bible has been corrupted, please show me where, when, how, and by whom?” This is usually sufficient to cause a long pause, after which they simply restate the charge without any proof to offer. Most Muslims have been taught this response by their Imam’s and leaders along with the traditions passed down to them via the hadiths, and thereby accept this claim on ‘blind faith’ with no argument/facts to substantiate the claim. As Muslim scholar and apologist Ahmed Deedat explains, “…the Muslim believes this authoritative statement as the veritable Word of God. And as such, he asks no questions, and he demands no proof. He says, “There are the words of my lord: I believe, and I affirm.”

One response I have used on occasion is, “If the Bible is true, then the Qur’an is false. If the Bible is false, then the Qur’an is still false, because it says that the Bible is true.” (A comparison of Surah 4:157-denial of the crucifixion-with the Gospels’ eyewitness crucifixion accounts [along with extra-biblical sources] proves the point of contradiction) This usually places my Muslim counterpart square in the middle of a dilemma of contradiction that has no solution. (See video below) By ‘leveraging’ the Qur’an’s ‘truth claims,’ 1) God’s words cannot be altered or changed, and 2) the Bible [of Muhammad’s day] was/is the Word of God, the Qur’an’s internal inconsistency is exposed and the charge of biblical textual corruption is soundly refuted. The Muslim is soon brought to a crossroads of decision–either the charge is true, which cannot be proven by the Qur’an, or it is false, which can be proven by the Qur’an–there is no middle road.

As H. W. Stanton states:

 
It is interesting to note that Ibn Ishaq, the author of what is considered the authoritative biography of the life of Muhammad, quotes the Gospel of John as the very same gospel given to Jesus:

 
The preceding Gospel citation is taken from John 15:23-16:1. Ibn Ishaq NEVER ONCE HINTS THAT THIS PARTICULAR GOSPEL IS INAUTHENTIC OR CORRUPT.

In the first four centuries after Muhammad (600 – 1000 AD) no Muslim theologian seriously contended that the Gospel texts were not authentic. They might accuse Christians of giving a wrong interpretation to the words; they would not dispute the words themselves. As studies of Muslim apologetics have shown it was only with Ibn-Khazem who died at Cordoba in 1064, that the charge of falsification was born. Many of the great Muslim thinkers have, indeed, accepted the authenticity of the New Testament text. Listing the names of these men seems a fitting conclusion to this article. Their testimony proves that Christian-Muslim dialogue need not for ever be stymied by the allegation of biblical corruption introduced by Ibn-Khazem. Two great historians, Al-Mas’udi (died 956) and Ibn-Khaldun (died 1406), held the authenticity of the Gospel text. Four well-known theologians agreed with this: Ali at-Tabari (died 855), Qasim al-Khasani (died 860), ‘Amr al-Ghakhiz (died 869) and, last but not least, the famous Al-Ghazzali (died 1111). Their view is shared by Abu Ali Husain Ibn Sina, who is known in the West as Avicenna (died 1037). Bukhari (died 870), who acquired a great name by his collection of early traditions, quoted the Qur’an itself (Sura 3:72,78) to prove that the text of the Bible was not falsified.

Finally, Muhammad Abduh Sayyid Ahmad Khan, a religious and social reformer of modem times, accepted the findings of modern science. He said:

 
References:
[1] Norman L. Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam-The Crescent in the Light of the Cross, Baker Books, 2002, pgs. 213, 217
[2] C. G. Pfander, The Mizanu’l Haqq, Balance of Truth, Indo-Asiatic Publishers, 1910
[3] William Campbell, The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of History, Science, Middle East Resources 1992, p. 39
[4] H. W. Stanton, The Teachings of the Qur’an, New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1969
[5] Hans Wijngaards, Can we trust the Gospels?, A letter to my Muslim brothers, 1985, found, here

For a comprehensive overview of the topic, please see:

The Quranic Witness to Biblical Authority/The Quran on the Authority and Integrity of the Biblical Text, Part 2/The Quran on Biblical Authority Revisited, Part 3-by Sam Shamoun, here

The Mizanu’l Haqq, Balance of Truth-by C. G. Pfander and W. St. Clair Tisdall, here

Other resources found at this site:

Historicity of the Crucifixion & the Law of Non-contradiction-by Lane, here

The question: Why was Jesus crucified? ‘What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?’-Matt. 22:42-by Lane, here

The Quran, the Bible, and the Islamic Dilemma

A Quranic Case for Biblical Preservation–Islam Critiqued

The Bible is Corrupted: Another Later Muslim Development–Islam Critiqued

Is The Bible Corrupted? – Jay Smith