Islam Watch

Debunking the Defense: A Critical Analysis of a Muslim Response to "Quran Confirms: Today’s Bible Unchanged"

In the world of theological debate, clarity is everything. Yet, clarity is precisely what is missing in the Muslim response to the article “Quran Confirms: Today’s Bible Unchanged.” This response is a tangled web of misinterpretations, logical fallacies, and unsupported assertions, all aimed at rejecting the idea that the Quran affirms the authenticity of the Bible (Torah and Gospel). But a careful, point-by-point examination reveals just how fragile this rebuttal truly is.

1. Misreading the Quran: A Case of Selective Interpretation

Surah 10:94 – A Clear Instruction, Misunderstood

The response begins by addressing Surah 10:94, where Allah directs Muhammad, "If you are in doubt, ask those who read the Book before you." The article correctly argues that this verse implies trust in the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) and their scriptures.

But the response quickly dismisses this clear implication, claiming that it only applies to a “particular topic” and does not confirm the Bible’s authenticity. This is a desperate special pleading fallacy — an arbitrary limitation with no basis in the text.

The Text is Clear: The verse does not limit the instruction to a specific topic. It is a general directive to consult the People of the Book for confirmation.
An Absurd Implication: If the Quran viewed the Bible as corrupted, why would it instruct Muhammad to seek confirmation from those following a corrupted text? This would be like asking someone to verify the truth using a known falsehood.
A Self-Defeating Claim: The response claims the Bible is corrupted but still useful for confirmation — a blatant self-contradiction.

Surah 10:64 – Twisting the Meaning of Divine Words

The response also tries to reinterpret Surah 10:64, which declares, “There is no changing the words of Allah.” The article rightfully argues that this affirms the preservation of God’s revelations, including the Torah and Gospel. But the response claims this only refers to “prophecies” or some vague category of divine word.

This is an obvious textual distortion. The verse is clear: "There is no changing the words of Allah." There is no qualifier, no limitation. If the Torah and Gospel are the words of Allah, then they cannot be changed. The response’s attempt to limit this is pure desperation.

2. A Maze of Contradictions and Logical Fallacies

Selective Trust in a Corrupted Text?

The response repeatedly asserts that the Bible is corrupted while also claiming that it can be used to confirm Quranic teachings. This is a direct self-contradiction:

If the Bible is corrupted, how can it be trusted for confirmation?
If it can be trusted for confirmation, then it cannot be considered corrupted.

This is like claiming a history book is full of lies but then using it to prove your own argument. The response tries to escape this contradiction by suggesting that the Quran “clarifies” what is true and false in the Bible. But this is a circular argument:

The Quran is used to prove that the Bible is corrupted.
But the Quran is also claimed to be confirmed by the Bible.
And the Bible is only considered true when it agrees with the Quran.

This is the logical equivalent of chasing your own tail.

Misunderstanding the “People on the Right Course”

The response attacks the article for saying that Jews and Christians in Muhammad’s time were described as “on the right course,” implying that their scriptures were uncorrupted. The response argues that this only means they believed in Muhammad.

But this is a straw man argument — a complete misrepresentation of the article’s point. The article’s argument is simple: the Quran describes certain Jews and Christians as “on the right course” because they were faithful to their scriptures, not because they converted to Islam. The Quran itself praises those who “uphold the Torah and Gospel” (Surah 5:66), a description that makes no sense if these scriptures were corrupted.

3. Unsupported Assertions: The Corruption Claim Without Evidence

Where is the Proof of Corruption?

The response treats the idea of Bible corruption as an unquestionable fact, yet it offers no historical or textual evidence. It simply declares, “The Bible has been corrupted,” as though repeating it enough times will make it true.

Historical Reality: Manuscript evidence, including the Dead Sea Scrolls (for the Old Testament) and the Codex Sinaiticus (for the New Testament), shows that the texts of the Bible have been remarkably preserved over centuries.
No Quranic Evidence: The Quran itself never directly states that the Bible has been textually corrupted. Instead, it accuses some Jews of “misinterpreting” or “concealing” certain verses (Surah 2:79), but this is a far cry from claiming the text itself was changed.
A Convenient Excuse: The corruption claim is a theological invention used to explain away the contradictions between the Quran and the Bible.

The Quran’s Silence on Textual Corruption

If the Bible was truly corrupted, why does the Quran never provide a clear, direct statement declaring the text itself to be altered? Instead, it speaks of people “altering the words with their tongues” (Surah 3:78) — a clear reference to misinterpretation, not textual corruption.

4. A Flawed Defense: Arbitrary Limitations and Circular Reasoning

The “Particular Topic” Defense: A Desperate Limitation

The response repeatedly claims that the Quran’s instruction to consult the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) is only about “a particular topic.” But this is a pure special pleading fallacy — an arbitrary limitation invented to escape the obvious problem.

No Textual Basis: The Quran never states that its instruction is limited to a specific topic.
Illogical Implication: If the People of the Book were using corrupted scriptures, why would they be a reliable source for any topic?
A Logical Trap: If even one topic in the Bible can be trusted, this suggests that the text is fundamentally reliable, contradicting the corruption claim.

The “Quranic Clarification” Excuse: Circular Reasoning

The response tries to escape the problem by claiming that the Quran “clarifies” what is true in the Bible. But this is another circular argument:

The Bible is claimed to be corrupted because the Quran says so.
The Quran is confirmed by the Bible because it “clarifies” what is true.
The Bible is only true when it agrees with the Quran.

This is not an argument — it is a closed loop.

5. A Pattern of Emotional Attacks and Insults

Name-Calling Instead of Arguments

Throughout the response, the author frequently resorts to insults and mockery instead of logical arguments:

The article is called “silly,” “deceptive,” and “weak.”
Those who disagree are accused of being “peanut polly-pocket” thinkers.
The response even uses sarcasm and exclamation marks to ridicule the article.

But name-calling is not a substitute for a coherent argument. It only reveals the insecurity of the responder’s position.

A Desperate Attempt to Avoid the Truth

The emotional tone of the response, filled with sarcasm and mockery, is a classic sign of defensiveness. Rather than calmly presenting evidence, the response tries to drown the article’s arguments in a flood of insults.

6. The Article Stands Strong: A Clear, Logical Argument

The article “Quran Confirms: Today’s Bible Unchanged” presents a clear, logical case based on the Quran’s own words:

The Quran repeatedly affirms the Torah and Gospel as divine revelations.
It instructs Muhammad to consult the People of the Book if in doubt — a meaningless instruction if their scriptures were corrupted.
It declares that “there is no changing the words of Allah,” a statement that must logically apply to the Torah and Gospel.

The Muslim response fails to refute this argument because it is built on a foundation of special pleading, circular reasoning, and logical contradictions.

7. Conclusion: The Quran Confirms, Not Denies, the Bible

The article’s core argument is undeniable: The Quran itself confirms the authenticity of the Bible, and the desperate attempts to claim corruption are a later invention. The response analyzed here is nothing more than a defensive rant, filled with logical errors and emotional attacks. It cannot stand against clear logic and historical evidence.