The Islamic Dilemma and the Preservation Question

What you'll learn

Explain the 'Islamic dilemma' using the Quran's own statements about the Torah and Injil
Present the Muslim doctrine of tahrif (corruption) fairly and evaluate it
Compare the textual histories of the Quran and the New Testament honestly and accurately

What the Quran says about the earlier Scriptures

The Quran speaks warmly about the Torah (Tawrat, given to Moses) and the Gospel (Injil, given to Jesus). It claims to 'confirm' what came before it (for example 5:48). Several passages are central:

5:43: speaking of the Jews of Muhammad's time, it asks why they come to him for judgment when they have the Torah, 'in which is the judgment of Allah'.
5:46-47: Allah gave Jesus the Injil, containing guidance and light; and 'let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein'. This is a command to Christians in the seventh century.
5:68: People of the Book 'stand on nothing' until they uphold the Torah, the Gospel and what was revealed to them.
10:94: if Muhammad is in doubt about what was revealed to him, he should 'ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you'.
6:115 and 18:27: none can change the words of Allah. (See also 6:34 and 10:64.)

Which Quran passages show that the Quran treats the Torah and Gospel of Muhammad's day as authoritative, and how?Show answer

Surah 5:43 asks why the Jews come to Muhammad for judgment when they have the Torah, 'in which is the judgment of Allah'. Surah 5:47 tells 'the People of the Gospel' to judge by what Allah revealed in it, a command to seventh-century Christians, and 10:94 tells Muhammad to ask those who have been reading the earlier Scripture. Passages like 6:115 and 18:27 add that no one can change the words of Allah.

5:43: Torah has Allah's judgment
5:47: Christians judge by Gospel
10:94: ask Scripture readers
6:115: words cannot be changed

The Islamic dilemma

Christian apologists, especially David Wood, have popularised what is called the Islamic dilemma. It runs like this. The Quran affirms that the Torah and Injil are the word of God, and tells Jews and Christians of Muhammad's day to judge by them. Either those Scriptures were reliable in the seventh century, or they were not.

If they were reliable, then Islam has a problem, because those Scriptures (which we still have in manuscripts older than the seventh century) teach that Jesus died on the cross, rose again, and is the Son of God, all of which the Quran denies. If they were corrupted, then the Quran has a problem, because it commanded Christians to judge by a corrupted book and said no one can change Allah's words. Either way, the Quran appears to be in error.

The force of the dilemma is that Christians in Muhammad's day used the same Bible we use. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (fourth century) predate Muhammad by more than two centuries and contain the same Gospels.

Well-trained Muslims have replies, and you should know them. Some say that 'confirming' (musaddiq, 5:48) means the Quran confirms the original revelation, or whatever truth remains in the earlier books, not every word Christians now read. Others point to a variant canonical reading of 5:47 (wa-li-yahkuma) that turns the command into a purpose clause: Allah gave the Gospel 'so that the People of the Gospel would judge' by it, which they take to describe Christians in Jesus' day. Answer carefully, not dismissively. The reading most Muslims recite (Hafs) is a command, and in any case 5:43, 5:68 and 10:94 still assume that the Scriptures in the hands of Jews and Christians in Muhammad's time were available and authoritative. Ask a question rather than declaring victory: 'Which Torah did the Jews of 5:43 have, if not the one we still have?'

Example: Raising the Islamic dilemma with a friend

Bilal: Brother, the Bible has been changed. Everyone knows that.

You: I've heard that a lot. Can I ask, when do you think it was changed?

Bilal: Over time. Probably before the Prophet, peace be upon him.

You: That's interesting, because the Quran seems to treat the Bible of Muhammad's day as trustworthy. Surah 5:47 says, 'Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.' How could Christians judge by the Gospel if it was already corrupted?

Bilal: It means the original Injil, the one given to Jesus.

You: But where would Christians in Arabia find that? The Gospels they were reading are the ones we have in manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus, from more than two centuries before Muhammad. They're the Gospels I read today. And the Quran says no one can change Allah's words (6:115).

Bilal: Then maybe it was changed after the Prophet.

You: Then the manuscripts from before his time would show us the original, and they teach that Jesus died for our sins and rose again. I'm not trying to trap you. I think the Quran itself points you to the Gospels. Would you read Luke with me and see what Jesus says about himself?

Put the Islamic dilemma in your own words, as you might explain it to a friend.Show answer

The Quran affirms that the Torah and Injil are God's word and tells Jews and Christians of Muhammad's day to judge by them. If those Scriptures were reliable then, Islam has a problem, because they teach Jesus' death, resurrection and divine sonship, which the Quran denies. If they were corrupted, the Quran has a problem, because it commanded people to judge by a corrupt book and said no one can change Allah's words. Either way the Quran appears to be in error.

Quran affirms earlier Scriptures
Reliable: they contradict Quran
Corrupted: Quran commanded a corrupt book
Either way, a problem

Give two replies Muslims make to the Islamic dilemma, and how you would answer them.Show answer

Some say 'confirming' means the Quran confirms only the original revelation or the truth that remains in the earlier books. Others cite a variant reading of 5:47 that makes it a purpose clause about Christians in Jesus' day. You can answer that the reading most Muslims recite (Hafs) is a command, and that 5:43, 5:68 and 10:94 still assume the Scriptures held by Jews and Christians in Muhammad's time were available and authoritative. Ask a question, such as which Torah the Jews of 5:43 had, rather than declaring victory.

'Confirming' only the original or remaining truth
Variant reading of 5:47 as purpose clause
Hafs reading is a command
5:43, 5:68, 10:94 still assume available Scriptures

Tahrif: the Muslim response presented fairly

Tahrif means 'alteration' or 'corruption'. The Quran accuses some Jews of 'distorting words from their places' (4:46; 5:13) and of writing a book with their own hands and saying it is from Allah (2:79). Notice the context of 4:46: it describes some Jews 'twisting their tongues' in wordplay, which is distortion in speech, not rewriting manuscripts. Muslim scholars have understood the accusation in two ways. Tahrif al-ma'na is corruption of meaning: misinterpreting or misquoting the text. Tahrif al-lafz is corruption of the actual text. Many early commentators leaned toward the first; the Andalusian scholar Ibn Hazm (d. 1064) developed a strong case for textual corruption, and that is now the popular view.

A well-trained Muslim apologist will argue: the true Injil was a revelation given to Jesus, not the four Gospels, which are biographies written by others. The Quran confirms the original Torah and Injil, not the corrupted versions. The Quran is the muhaymin, the guardian or criterion, over earlier scriptures (5:48), so where the Bible disagrees, the Quran corrects it. They will also quote Bart Ehrman on textual variants and point to passages most scholars think were added later, such as Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7 in the King James Version.

Responses: (1) The Quran addresses Christians of its own time and tells them to judge by what they have (5:47), not by a lost book. (2) It never says what the 'true Injil' contained or when it was lost. (3) Textual variants are real, but textual criticism allows us to identify them. That is why modern Bibles mark Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. No Christian doctrine depends on any disputed passage. (4) Ehrman himself has acknowledged that essential Christian beliefs are not affected by the variants.

What is the difference between tahrif al-ma'na and tahrif al-lafz, and which view is popular today?Show answer

Tahrif al-ma'na is corruption of meaning: misinterpreting or misquoting the text. Tahrif al-lafz is corruption of the actual text itself. Many early commentators leaned toward corruption of meaning, but Ibn Hazm developed a strong case for textual corruption, and that is now the popular view.

Ma'na: corrupted meaning
Lafz: corrupted text
Early commentators: meaning
Ibn Hazm; now popular: text

A Muslim friend says, 'The true Injil was lost, and the Quran is the muhaymin that corrects the Bible.' Give two responses from the section.Show answer

First, the Quran addresses Christians of its own time and tells them to judge by what they have (5:47), not by a lost book. Second, it never says what the 'true Injil' contained or when it was lost. You can also note that textual variants are real but identifiable, which is why modern Bibles mark passages like Mark 16:9-20, and no Christian doctrine depends on any disputed passage.

5:47: judge by what they have
Quran never says Injil was lost
Variants identifiable and marked
No doctrine depends on them

The Quran's own textual history

Muslims often claim that the Quran has been perfectly preserved letter for letter, unlike the Bible. Fairness requires presenting what Islamic sources themselves say.

Sahih al-Bukhari 4986-4987 reports that after Muhammad's death Abu Bakr had the Quran collected, and that later the caliph Uthman (around AD 650) ordered a standard text, sent copies to the major cities, and ordered other copies to be burned, because Muslims were reciting differently. Hadith also report that Muhammad said the Quran was revealed in seven ahruf (modes or readings), when Umar and Hisham ibn Hakim recited Surah al-Furqan differently (Bukhari 4992). Scholars disagree on what the ahruf were. Today there are ten canonical qira'at (readings), each passed down through recognised transmissions (riwayat) such as Hafs (from the reader Asim) and Warsh (from Nafi), with small but real differences in wording and vowels.

The Sana'a palimpsest, found in 1972 in the Great Mosque of Sana'a, Yemen, has an erased lower text of the Quran beneath a later one. Studies by Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi (2012) show the lower text is non-Uthmanic, with many variants in words and phrases and a different order of surahs, while a leaf of its parchment radiocarbon-dates to about AD 578-669 (95 percent probability), so probably the first half of the seventh century. Sadeghi argues this supports an early Quran close to the standard text; Christian scholars like Keith Small and Jay Smith stress that it shows the text was not uniform. Present both sides honestly.

The point is not that the Quran is hopelessly corrupt; early Quran manuscripts such as the Birmingham folios are impressive. The point is that the Quran, like the Bible, has a textual history, so a double standard cannot be used against the Bible.

What do Islamic sources themselves say about how the Quran's text was standardised?Show answer

Sahih al-Bukhari reports that Abu Bakr had the Quran collected and that Uthman, around AD 650, ordered a standard text, sent copies to major cities and had other copies burned because Muslims were reciting differently. Hadith also say the Quran was revealed in seven ahruf. Today there are ten canonical qira'at, transmitted through riwayat such as Hafs and Warsh, with small but real differences in wording and vowels.

Abu Bakr collected it
Uthman standardised, burned others
Seven ahruf
Ten qira'at, e.g. Hafs and Warsh

Why should you present the Sana'a palimpsest 'both sides honestly', and what is the main point of raising the Quran's textual history at all?Show answer

The palimpsest's erased lower text is non-Uthmanic, with many variants and a different surah order, and dates probably to the first half of the seventh century. Sadeghi argues it supports an early Quran close to the standard text, while Christian scholars like Keith Small and Jay Smith stress it shows the text was not uniform. The point is not that the Quran is hopelessly corrupt, but that it has a textual history too, so a double standard cannot be used against the Bible.

Lower text non-Uthmanic
Sadeghi vs Small and Smith
Not 'hopelessly corrupt'
Avoid a double standard

Abrogation and 'missing' verses

Islamic sources also teach naskh (abrogation): 'We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it' (2:106). Some hadith describe verses that are no longer in the Quran. Aisha reports that a verse about ten sucklings was revealed and then replaced by five, and that this was still being recited as part of the Quran when Muhammad died (Sahih Muslim 1452). Umar feared that one day people would say they could not find the verse of stoning (rajm) in the Book of Allah (Sahih al-Bukhari 6829).

Muslim scholars explain these as cases where Allah abrogated the recitation of a verse while keeping or changing its ruling, so they see no conflict with 15:9. Present that answer fairly. Your point is modest: on the testimony of Islamic sources themselves, the Quran's text has a history of collection, standardisation and abrogation. It cannot be held to a standard of 'every letter unchanged' that is then used against the Bible.

What do Sahih Muslim 1452 and Sahih al-Bukhari 6829 report, how do Muslim scholars explain them, and what modest point should you draw?Show answer

Sahih Muslim 1452 reports Aisha saying a verse about ten sucklings was replaced by five, which was still being recited when Muhammad died, and Bukhari 6829 reports Umar's fear that people would not find the verse of stoning in the Book of Allah. Muslim scholars explain these as abrogation (naskh, 2:106), where the recitation was removed but the ruling kept or changed. The modest point is that Islamic sources themselves describe a textual history, so the Quran cannot be held to an 'every letter unchanged' standard that is then used against the Bible.

Ten/five sucklings (Muslim 1452)
Verse of stoning (Bukhari 6829)
Explained as abrogation of recitation (2:106)
Avoid a double standard

The Bible's manuscript evidence

You studied manuscripts and textual criticism in The Reliable Word, Lesson 1. The New Testament has over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, plus thousands in Latin, Syriac and Coptic, and a vast number of quotations in early Christian writers. Some fragments, such as P52 (John 18), are often dated to the second century. Wes Huff and others explain that the abundance of manuscripts with variants actually helps scholars reconstruct the original, because no single authority could control or standardise them. Unlike Uthman's codex, no central authority ever destroyed rival copies of the New Testament.

The Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered from 1947) include a complete Isaiah scroll from about the second century BC that agrees closely with medieval Hebrew manuscripts, showing careful transmission of the Old Testament. When your Muslim friend says the Bible was corrupted, ask: when, by whom, and where are the earlier, uncorrupted manuscripts?

Why does the large number of New Testament manuscripts, variants included, actually help establish the original text?Show answer

The New Testament has over 5,800 Greek manuscripts plus thousands in other languages and many early quotations. Because no single authority could control or standardise them, comparing so many copies lets scholars reconstruct the original. Unlike Uthman's codex, no central authority ever destroyed rival copies of the New Testament.

Over 5,800 Greek manuscripts
No central control
Comparison reconstructs original
No rival copies destroyed

In their own words

“Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.” (Quran 5:47)

“Among the Jews are those who distort words from their proper places.” (Quran 4:46; see also 5:13; 2:75)

“So woe to those who write the Scripture with their own hands, then say, 'This is from Allah,' in order to exchange it for a small price.” (Quran 2:79)

“We have revealed to you the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion (muhaymin) over it.” (Quran 5:48)

“Indeed, it is We who sent down the message, and indeed, We will be its guardian.” (Quran 15:9)

Key texts

Quran 5:46-47: The Injil contains guidance and light, and Christians of Muhammad's day are told to judge by it. The heart of the Islamic dilemma.
Quran 10:94: Muhammad is told to ask those who read the earlier Scripture. Implies that Scripture was available and reliable.
Quran 6:115; 18:27: No one can change Allah's words. If the Torah and Injil are Allah's words, how could they have been corrupted?
Isaiah 40:8: 'The word of our God will stand forever.' The Bible's own claim to preservation, which Muslims share in principle.
Matthew 24:35: Jesus: 'my words will not pass away.' A promise Muslims who honour Jesus should take seriously.
Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11: Passages most scholars regard as later additions. Know them, and show how textual criticism identifies them openly without affecting doctrine.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“The Injil the Quran confirms is not your four Gospels. It was the revelation given to Jesus himself, which is now lost.”Show a response

I understand that view, but look at what the Quran actually says. Surah 5:47 tells 'the People of the Gospel' to judge by what Allah revealed in it. That command was given to Christians in the seventh century. They could only obey it if they had the Injil. And the Gospel the Christians of Arabia, Syria and Ethiopia had was the same four Gospels we have; we have complete New Testaments like Codex Sinaiticus from more than two centuries before Muhammad. If the true Injil was lost, why would the Quran command Christians to judge by it? And where does the Quran ever say it was lost? It actually says no one can change Allah's words (6:115).

“Bart Ehrman, one of your top scholars, says there are more variants in the New Testament manuscripts than words in the New Testament. Your Bible is corrupted.”Show a response

Ehrman's statistic is true, but it's mostly because we have so many manuscripts, over 5,800 in Greek alone. The vast majority of variants are spelling differences, word order or obvious slips that don't change meaning. Ehrman himself has said that essential Christian beliefs are not affected by them. Because we have so many copies spread across regions, scholars can compare them and reconstruct the original with remarkable confidence. And the Quran also has variants: the hadith tell us Uthman burned other copies, there are ten canonical qira'at, and the Sana'a palimpsest has non-Uthmanic readings. If variants disprove preservation, they cause problems for both books. I'd rather we use the same standard for both.

“The Quran has been perfectly preserved, every letter, from the time of the Prophet. It's a miracle. The Bible can't say that.”Show a response

I respect how carefully Muslims memorise and recite the Quran; it's impressive. But Islamic sources themselves describe a textual history. Sahih al-Bukhari reports that Uthman standardised the text and ordered other copies burned because Muslims were reciting differently. The hadith speak of seven ahruf, and today there are ten canonical recitations, transmitted as Hafs, Warsh and others, which differ in some words. The Sana'a manuscript has a lower text with different wording. That doesn't mean the Quran is unreliable, but it does mean 'every letter perfectly preserved' isn't the whole story. The Bible's preservation is shown the opposite way: through thousands of uncontrolled manuscripts that let us check the text openly.

“Christians changed the Bible at the Council of Nicaea in 325 when Constantine chose the books.”Show a response

That's a popular idea, but historians agree it isn't what happened. The Council of Nicaea discussed the deity of Christ and the date of Easter; it didn't decide which books were in the Bible. The four Gospels were already recognised by Christians long before. Irenaeus around AD 180 defends exactly four Gospels. And we have manuscripts from before Nicaea, such as papyri from the second and third centuries, which contain the same Gospels. So Nicaea couldn't have changed them without leaving evidence in those earlier copies. It's worth checking where that idea came from, because it's really from modern novels and websites rather than the ancient sources.

“The Quran is the muhaymin, the guardian over earlier scriptures. So wherever the Bible disagrees with the Quran, the Bible is wrong. Problem solved.”Show a response

I understand that's how many Muslims read 5:48, and I want to take it seriously. But the same verse says the Quran confirms what came before it. And just before it, 5:47 tells the People of the Gospel to judge by what Allah revealed in it, a command to Christians in Muhammad's own day. A guardian protects something; it doesn't announce that the thing it guards was lost. The Quran also says no one can change Allah's words (6:115). Yet the Gospels those Christians had, the same ones in manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus centuries before Muhammad, teach that Jesus died and rose. So the question remains: if those books were God's word then, how can the Quran contradict them now? Calling it guardianship doesn't make the dilemma go away.

“Your own Bibles admit that the ending of Mark, the woman caught in adultery and 1 John 5:7 were added later. That proves the Bible was corrupted.”Show a response

You're right that those passages are disputed, and I'm glad you've read carefully. But notice how we know: modern Bibles mark Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 precisely because scholars compared thousands of manuscripts and identified them. That's preservation working in the open, not corruption hidden away. With over 5,800 Greek manuscripts and no central authority destroying rival copies, additions show up rather than replace the original. And no Christian doctrine depends on any disputed passage. The Trinity, for example, doesn't rest on 1 John 5:7; Jesus teaches the Father, Son and Spirit in Matthew 28:19. Even Bart Ehrman has acknowledged that essential Christian beliefs are not affected by the variants. If anything, our ability to spot those passages shows how reliably the rest has come down.

“The Quran challenges anyone to produce a surah like it (2:23), and no one has. That proves it is from Allah. Your Bible makes no such challenge.”Show a response

I can see why the Quran's language moves you; many people find its Arabic beautiful. But think about the test itself. Who decides whether a new chapter is 'like it'? The judges would be people who already believe nothing can match it. And literary brilliance alone does not prove divine origin: many great works are unmatched in their style, yet no one thinks they came from God. The Bible offers a different kind of test. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 says a true prophet's word comes to pass, and Paul rests the whole faith on a public, checkable event: 'if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile' (1 Corinthians 15:17). So I'd rather we look at evidence we can both examine. Could we look at the evidence for the resurrection together?

Written task

Your Muslim friend says: 'The Bible has been corrupted, but the Quran has been perfectly preserved.' Write a 300-400 word response that (a) presents the Islamic dilemma using at least three Quran references, (b) fairly states the Muslim response (tahrif and the 'lost Injil'), (c) honestly outlines the Quran's own textual history, and (d) explains why the New Testament manuscript evidence supports its reliability.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

Cites Quran references accurately (e.g. 5:47, 10:94, 6:115) and explains the dilemma's logic clearly
Represents the Muslim position fairly, including the 'lost Injil' and muhaymin arguments
Describes Uthman's standardisation, ahruf/qira'at or Sana'a accurately without exaggeration
Uses accurate New Testament manuscript evidence (e.g. Sinaiticus, number of manuscripts)
Remains respectful and avoids double standards in both directions