Every Day Straight Talk on Islam

Muslims Claim the Scriptures Were Corrupted

So Why Do They Force Muhammad Into Them?

Introduction: The Contradiction at the Heart of Islamic Apologetics

One of the most striking and rarely acknowledged contradictions in Islamic theology is the way the Qur’an treats the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel. On the one hand, it repeatedly asserts that these texts were revealed by Allah to Moses, David, and Jesus, making them Islamic scriptures. On the other hand, the Qur’an accuses Jews and Christians of corrupting these same texts, while simultaneously claiming that those texts foretell Muhammad.

This creates a profound internal tension: if the previous scriptures are corrupted, they cannot reliably predict Muhammad. If they predict Muhammad, they cannot be corrupted.

The central mechanism Islam employs to navigate this tension is a three-step strategy:

Appropriation — Claim the scriptures as originally Islamic.
Disowning — Declare them the property of Jews and Christians when inconvenient.
Corruption — Accuse their custodians of altering or misinterpreting them.

The problem is that this strategy is logically self-defeating. By accusing Jews and Christians of corruption, Islam is effectively admitting that Allah’s own earlier revelations were corrupted, because according to Islam, the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel were originally Islamic. This essay will explore this contradiction in depth, with historical evidence, textual analysis, and logical reasoning, exposing the sleight of hand behind Islamic apologetics.

1. Appropriation: Claiming the Scriptures as Islamic

The Qur’an repeatedly frames the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel as divinely revealed Islamic texts:

Torah (Tawrat) to Moses: “Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light” (Qur’an 5:44).
Psalms (Zabur) to David: “And We gave David the Psalms” (Qur’an 4:163).
Gospel (Injil) to Jesus: “And We gave him the Gospel, wherein was guidance and light” (Qur’an 5:46).

According to the Qur’an, these texts were meant for Muslims before Muhammad. Moses, David, and Jesus are depicted as prophets who fully submitted to Allah, and Abraham is explicitly described as a Muslim (Qur’an 3:67).

From this perspective:

These books were originally Islamic scriptures.
They were revealed by Allah, intended to convey the same monotheistic, submissive faith as Islam.

Islamic apologetics often emphasizes this point: any continuity with earlier Abrahamic prophets is a way to validate Muhammad as the final prophet in a long line of divinely guided Muslims.

2. Disowning: When Ownership Becomes a Problem

The problem arises when the Qur’an confronts the reality: Jews and Christians possess these scriptures. The Qur’an cannot align perfectly with the Torah or Gospel without acknowledging discrepancies:

Jesus’ crucifixion and divine sonship are contradicted by Islamic teachings.
The Bible does not mention Muhammad.

To resolve this, the Qur’an switches rhetorical modes. The texts are no longer simply Islamic—they are now framed as Jewish and Christian property, allegedly corrupted and misused:

Jews are accused of hiding, altering, or misrepresenting the Torah (Qur’an 2:75, 5:13).
Christians are accused of exaggerating Jesus’ status and corrupting the Gospel (Qur’an 4:171, 5:14).

This is the disowning phase. The Qur’an turns the scriptures into the property of rival communities, thereby displacing any direct ownership from Islam itself. But the sleight of hand is apparent: the Qur’an must claim the texts were originally Islamic to justify using them to support Muhammad, yet simultaneously disown them to avoid acknowledging inconvenient truths.

3. Corruption: The Theological Escape Hatch

Once the Qur’an has appropriated and disowned the scriptures, it introduces taḥrīf, or corruption, as a solution to contradictions. Scholars distinguish between two forms:

Taḥrīf al-lafẓ (word corruption): textual changes introduced by humans.
Taḥrīf al-maʿnā (meaning corruption): deliberate misinterpretation of genuine text.

Through corruption, Islamic apologists can:

Dismiss any verses that contradict Muhammad as corrupted.
Claim verses that can be stretched to support Muhammad were miraculously preserved.

The unavoidable implication of this approach is stark: every time the Qur’an argues that previous scriptures are corrupted, it is admitting that Allah’s own earlier Islamic revelations were corrupted. If Moses’ Torah or Jesus’ Gospel were originally Islamic, then corruption is not just a human problem—it reflects the failure of divine preservation. This is an internal theological paradox: the Qur’an claims Allah’s words cannot be altered (Qur’an 6:115), yet simultaneously claims His words were corrupted.

4. Historical Reality: These Texts Were Never Islamic

Textual and historical scholarship confirms that the Qur’an’s narrative of appropriation and corruption is historically untenable.

Torah

Composed between c. 10th–5th century BCE, integrating multiple sources (J, E, P, D).
Canonized under Ezra; foundational to Jewish religious identity.

Psalms

Compiled between c. 1000–400 BCE as Hebrew hymns and poetry.
Integral to Jewish worship and later adopted by Christianity.

Gospel

Written between c. 50–100 CE; canonized by the 4th century CE.
No evidence of a single “Injil” revealed to Jesus as claimed in the Qur’an.

From a historical-critical perspective, these were Jewish and Christian scriptures from their inception, long before Islam existed. Islam’s claim that they were originally Islamic is a retroactive rebranding.

5. Forced Prophecies: Mining the Corrupted Texts

Despite declaring the scriptures corrupted, Muslim apologists routinely extract “prophecies” of Muhammad:

Deuteronomy 18:18: “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers.” Muslims reinterpret “brothers” as Arabs, ignoring the original reference to Israelites.
Song of Songs 5:16: The Hebrew word maḥmadîm (“desirable”) is claimed to secretly mean “Muhammad,” despite the romantic poetic context.
John 14–16: The Paraclete is claimed to be Ahmad (Muhammad), despite Greek manuscripts consistently reading paraklētos (“advocate”).

This selective reading exemplifies special pleading: anything unfavorable is corrupted; anything favorable is divinely preserved.

6. Logical Breakdown: The Self-Undermining Tactic

The sequence of appropriation → disowning → corruption can be formalized logically:

Appropriation: Torah, Psalms, and Gospel are Islamic.
Disowning: These texts are now Jewish and Christian.
Corruption: Anything inconvenient is declared altered.
Forced prophecy: Extract passages to claim Muhammad was foretold.

Contradiction: If the texts are corrupted, they cannot reliably predict Muhammad. If they predict Muhammad, they cannot be corrupted. Moreover, claiming corruption implies Allah failed to protect His own earlier revelations, contradicting Qur’anic doctrine.

7. Motivations Behind the Strategy

Why employ this sleight of hand?

Legitimacy: By claiming all previous prophets were Muslim and their books Islamic, Muhammad situates himself in a universal prophetic line.
Delegitimizing rivals: Accusing Jews and Christians of corruption discredits their religious authority.
Control of narrative: Islam rewrites sacred history, retroactively claiming authority over texts and prophets.

This is strategic theological opportunism: it maximizes Muhammad’s legitimacy while neutralizing inconvenient historical evidence.

8. Consequences of the Corruption Claim

The implications of this tactic are profound:

Theological tension: Islam’s claim that Allah’s words were corrupted undermines divine infallibility.
Apologetic inconsistency: Muslims cannot credibly use the Bible as evidence for Muhammad while dismissing it as corrupted.
Historical falsity: Islamic claims about the origin and nature of Torah, Psalms, and Gospel are contradicted by textual evidence.

Every invocation of “corruption” is therefore not just a defensive maneuver—it is an admission that the Qur’an’s own narrative relies on texts it simultaneously disowns.

9. The Central Contradiction

Islamic apologetics is built on a double-edged sword:

Step one: appropriate earlier scriptures as Islamic.
Step two: disown them when inconvenient, labeling them Jewish or Christian.
Step three: accuse them of corruption to dismiss contradictions.

This sequence means that every time Muslims argue the previous scriptures were corrupted, they are admitting that the very scriptures that were supposed to validate Islam were themselves vulnerable to corruption.

The Qur’an must then perform yet another sleight of hand: selectively preserve only the verses that “predict” Muhammad, while ignoring the rest. This is a circular, internally inconsistent, and logically fragile strategy.

10. Conclusion: The Sleight of Hand Exposed

The Qur’an’s approach to earlier scriptures—appropriation, disowning, and corruption—is a deliberate theological tactic designed to assert authority over Jewish and Christian texts while maintaining Muhammad’s legitimacy.

But the strategy cannot withstand logical scrutiny:

Appropriation makes these texts Islamic.
Disowning turns them into Jewish and Christian property.
Corruption admits Allah’s own earlier revelations were altered.
Forced prophecy extracts selective verses to claim Muhammad was foretold.

The result is a self-undermining apologetic. Every time Muslims argue that the previous scriptures were corrupted, they are implicitly admitting that Allah’s own earlier revelations—the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel—were corrupted. This is not a minor inconsistency; it is a fundamental logical and theological problem.

Selected References

Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim, 14th century.
Al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-bayan fi ta’wil al-Qur’an, 10th century.
Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 1997.
Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 1987.
Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 2005.
John Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 1977.

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