Islam Watch

Analysis of the Muslim Response to the Article "Quran Confirms: Today’s Bible Unchanged"

This response to the article “Quran Confirms: Today’s Bible Unchanged” attempts to refute the claim that the Quran affirms the authenticity and uncorrupted nature of the Bible (Torah and Gospel). However, a close analysis of this response reveals several critical weaknesses, logical errors, and misinterpretations of both the Quran and the arguments presented in the original article. This analysis will critically examine these issues in a systematic manner.

1. Misunderstanding of Quranic Verses and Their Context

Surah 10:94: Misinterpretation and Avoidance

The response begins by addressing Surah 10:94, where Allah instructs Muhammad to "ask those who read the Book before you" if he is in doubt. The article argues that this verse suggests the Torah and Gospel were considered trustworthy at the time.
The response attempts to counter this by claiming that this verse only refers to a “particular topic” and does not confirm the entire Bible as uncorrupted. However, this is a special pleading fallacy because it arbitrarily limits the verse’s scope without textual justification.
If the Quran truly considered the Bible corrupted, why would it direct Muhammad to consult people who were supposedly following a corrupted text for confirmation of the truth? This instruction only makes sense if the Quran viewed the Torah and Gospel as reliable and trustworthy.

Selective Acknowledgment of Corruption Without Proof

The response repeatedly asserts that the Bible has been corrupted but provides no historical or textual evidence for this claim. It treats the corruption of the Bible as an established fact without any supporting evidence.
In reality, historical manuscript evidence — such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Codex Sinaiticus, and other ancient manuscripts — demonstrates that the Bible has been remarkably preserved over centuries.

2. Logical Inconsistencies and Self-Contradictions

The “Particular Topic” Defense: An Arbitrary Limitation

The response tries to argue that when the Quran says to ask the People of the Book, it is only referring to specific topics. But this is a special pleading fallacy, as it selectively narrows the Quran’s instruction without textual support.
This limitation is not indicated anywhere in the text of the Quran. The command is clear and direct — if there is doubt, consult those who read the Book before you.

Contradictory Attitude Towards the Bible

The response argues that the Bible is partially corrupted yet also claims it can still be used for confirmation of Islamic teachings. This is a self-contradiction:
- If the Bible is corrupted, then how can it be trusted for any kind of confirmation?
- If the Bible can be used for confirmation, then it must be considered reliable, which contradicts the corruption claim.
The response tries to resolve this by suggesting that the Quran clarifies what is corrupted in the Bible. But this is another circular argument: the Quran is said to prove the Bible is corrupted, but this corruption is only known because the Quran says so.

3. Misrepresentation of the Article’s Arguments

The “Honorable People” Misunderstanding

The response attacks the article for stating that there were Jews and Christians “on the right course” during Muhammad’s time, implying that this confirms the Bible’s authenticity.
The response argues that being “on the right course” only means that these people believed in Muhammad, not that their scriptures were pure.
However, this is a straw man argument because the article never claimed that personal faith in Muhammad was the standard for being on the right course. Rather, it pointed out that these individuals were described as following the Torah and Gospel, implying that these texts were viewed as reliable.

The “Partial Truth” Fallacy

The response argues that the Quran only confirms “some truth” in the Bible while other parts are corrupted. But this is another unsupported claim.
The Quran’s references to the Torah and Gospel are consistently positive, describing them as guidance and light, without any clear statement that they are corrupted.
The claim of partial truth is a later Islamic doctrine developed to explain away contradictions between the Quran and the Bible.

4. Misunderstanding the Concept of Preservation in the Quran

Surah 10:64 – No Changing the Words of Allah

The response tries to argue that when the Quran says, “There is no changing the words of Allah,” it is only referring to prophecies or a particular type of divine word, not the Torah or Gospel.
This is a textual distortion. The Quranic statement is absolute — it does not limit itself to a particular type of divine word.
If the Quran affirms that the words of Allah cannot be changed, and it identifies the Torah and Gospel as the words of Allah, then the logical conclusion is that these texts cannot be corrupted. The response fails to address this clear logical connection.

Circular Reasoning About Quranic Clarification

The response repeatedly asserts that the Quran is the final revelation that clarifies what is corrupted in the Bible.
This is a circular argument: The Quran is used to prove that the Bible is corrupted, but the Bible is also used to confirm the Quran’s teachings.
This approach also undermines the Quran’s credibility because it suggests that Allah’s previous revelations were corrupted, making it difficult to trust that the Quran would not suffer the same fate.

5. Unsupported Accusations and Ad Hominem Attacks

Accusations of Deception

The response frequently accuses the article of being “misleading,” “deceptive,” “silly,” and “weak,” but it does so without logically proving these claims.
Resorting to insults and mockery instead of presenting clear logical arguments weakens the response and reveals a lack of serious engagement with the article’s points.

Lack of Scholarly Support

The response makes several theological and historical claims (e.g., “The Bible has been corrupted,” “The Quran clarifies the corruption”), but it fails to provide any scholarly support or historical evidence for these assertions.
The entire argument rests on a circular theological claim: The Bible is corrupted because the Quran says so, and the Quran is true because it says it is the final revelation.

6. Major Logical Errors Identified

Special Pleading: The Quran’s instruction to ask the People of the Book is arbitrarily limited to “certain topics” without any textual basis.
Straw Man Argument: Misrepresents the article’s claim about “people on the right course” to mean faith in Muhammad rather than faithfulness to the Torah and Gospel.
Circular Reasoning: The Quran is used to prove the Bible is corrupted, and the Quran is trusted because it is the final revelation.
Self-Contradiction: The response claims the Bible is corrupted but can still be used to confirm Islamic teachings.
Ad Hominem Attacks: Frequent use of insults and mockery rather than logical refutation.
Historical Denial: Ignores historical manuscript evidence showing the remarkable preservation of the Bible.

7. Conclusion: The Response Fails to Refute the Article’s Core Argument

The response to the article “Quran Confirms: Today’s Bible Unchanged” is fundamentally flawed due to logical errors, misrepresentations, and unsupported claims. It fails to provide any credible evidence for the corruption of the Bible, instead relying on circular reasoning and theological assertions without historical backing.

The Quran’s positive references to the Torah and Gospel suggest that it viewed them as authentic and reliable.
The response’s attempt to dismiss this fact by selectively limiting Quranic verses is unconvincing.
The article’s core argument — that the Quran affirms the uncorrupted nature of the Bible — stands strong in the face of this weak and logically inconsistent rebuttal.

If the Quran claims that Allah’s words cannot be changed, and it acknowledges the Torah and Gospel as Allah’s words, then it is irrational to claim that these texts are corrupted without direct evidence. The response fails to address this fundamental contradiction in the Islamic position.