Combating Islam

Saturday, September 13, 2025

Muhammad the Untouchable

Why Islam Depends More on Its Founder Than Its God

How the Prophet’s Authority Overshadows Divine Revelation in Islam

Introduction: Muhammad the Untouchable — The Real Center of Islam

In most world religions, God is the ultimate authority. Prophets, messengers, and enlightened teachers exist to point followers toward that higher power—not to become objects of reverence themselves.

Islam claims to follow this same pattern of monotheism—tawhid, the oneness of God. But the lived reality tells a different story.

In practice, Islam revolves around Muhammad. He is not just a messenger but the untouchable core of the faith. His life, words, and actions are the filter through which all revelation must be interpreted. His authority overrides scripture. His image is legally shielded. His example dictates law, ritual, and morality.

This series, Muhammad the Untouchable: Why Islam Depends More on Its Founder Than Its God, exposes the uncomfortable truth:

Islam is not a religion of submission to God—it is a religion of submission to Muhammad.

From the Qur’an’s dependence on prophetic biography, to the moral authority derived from his behavior, to the violence directed at his critics rather than God’s — this 7-part series lays bare the theological and political machinery that has made Muhammad Islam’s true center of gravity.

Series Overview

Islam markets itself as a religion of pure monotheism—submission to one supreme God. But beneath the surface, Muhammad eclipses Allah in practice, importance, and emotional allegiance.

From theology and law to culture and ethics, Islam is not anchored in God’s words but in Muhammad’s persona. The Qur’an is incoherent without his context. Sharia law is derived from his sayings. Salvation depends on affirming him. And blasphemy laws are enforced to protect his image—not God’s.

This 7-part series breaks down the institutional and theological structure that makes Muhammad not just the Prophet—but the pivot point of the entire religion.

The Seven-Part Breakdown

Part 1: A Book That Can’t Stand Alone — The Qur’an’s Dependency on Muhammad
The Qur’an claims to be a clear, complete book. In reality, it’s cryptic, fragmented, and practically unusable without Hadith and Sira—texts entirely centered on Muhammad. Remove him, and the Qur’an disintegrates into confusion.

Part 2: Fossilized Ethics — How Muhammad’s Behavior Becomes Islamic Morality
Islamic morality is imitation, not principle. Whatever Muhammad did is automatically good—from marrying a child to taking concubines to ordering assassinations. Reform is impossible, because the Prophet is beyond question.

Part 3: Prophet Worship in Law — Blasphemy, Apostasy, and the Sacred Persona
Islamic law punishes not disbelief in Allah, but disrespect for Muhammad. Around the world, people are jailed, lynched, or murdered for "insulting the Prophet." Islam protects its founder with the intensity of a totalitarian regime.

Part 4: The Shahada’s Subtle Shift — How Muhammad Becomes the Filter to God
The Islamic creed isn’t just belief in one God—it requires belief in Muhammad. Deny him, and you’re damned. In practice, Muhammad is the gatekeeper of salvation—not Allah.

Part 5: Censorship and Sanctity — Muhammad as a Legal Black Hole
Islam bans any depiction or critique of Muhammad. The result? Riots, death threats, and fatwas—not against God’s blasphemers, but cartoonists and historians. The Prophet has been turned into an untouchable idol, protected by legal and cultural force fields.

Part 6: The Real Scripture? How Hadith Eclipse the Qur’an
Muslims claim the Qur’an is God’s final word—but almost everything in Islamic law, ritual, and belief comes from Hadith. Muhammad’s voice—often decades or centuries posthumous—has replaced God’s. Islam is Hadith-driven, not Qur’an-based.

Part 7: Muhammad the Cosmic Figure — From Messenger to Mystical Deity
Despite Islam’s rejection of divine incarnation, many traditions describe Muhammad as the first creation, the purpose of the universe, and the final intercessor. In mystical Islam, Muhammad is no longer a man—he’s a cosmic force, bordering on divinity.

Conclusion: Islam’s Real Center of Gravity

Islam claims to worship one God. But take Muhammad out of the equation, and:

The Qur’an becomes unintelligible
The rituals lose their basis
The law collapses
The morality disintegrates

Islam doesn’t rest on God—it rests on Muhammad.

This isn’t monotheism.
It’s prophet worship wrapped in theological smoke and mirrors.

Next in the series: Part 1: A Book That Can’t Stand Alone

Friday, September 12, 2025

The True Shahāda

How the Qur’an Defines Faith and How Islam Twisted It

Faith, in the Qur’an, is not a slogan. It is not a soundbite. It is not a ritual formula chanted for social conformity or political allegiance. Faith is submission—sincere, conscious, and directed exclusively to God. The Qur’an, in its relentless repetition and precision, emphasizes one simple declaration: lā ilāha illā Allāh — “There is no god but God.” Thirty-seven times it is uttered, and each time it is paired with the weight of covenant, of witness, and of accountability. The act of declaring God’s Oneness is, in the Qur’an, never about ethnic identity, never about cultural assimilation, and certainly never about elevating a human being to divine proximity.

Yet today, millions of Muslims recite a dual Shahāda — “lā ilāha illā Allāh, Muḥammad rasūl Allāh.” The addition of Muhammad’s name is presented as a cornerstone of Islamic orthodoxy, an unquestionable truth, and a symbol of piety. But when scrutinized against the Qur’an itself, this formulation is nothing short of a sectarian innovation, a post-Qur’anic fabrication, and a deliberate elevation of a single human above the others chosen by God. It is a distortion with devastating theological consequences: it transforms the simple, universal creed of monotheism into a vehicle for idolatry, hypocrisy, and division.

1. The Qur’an’s Singular Declaration of Faith

The Qur’an never asks anyone to attest to the messenger as a precondition for belief. Across the text, the declaration of faith remains singular, precise, and unambiguous: “There is no god but God.” Variations exist only in descriptive contexts, tailored to historical events or specific encounters with God’s messengers. When the magicians of Pharaoh acknowledged God, they said, “We submit to the Lord of Moses and Aaron” (7:121), thereby acknowledging God through the lens of their immediate experience. When the Queen of Sheba encountered Solomon’s authority, she said, “My Lord, I devote myself with Solomon to the Lord of the Worlds” (27:44). These variations never shift the focus from God; they never demand veneration of the human intermediary. The Qur’an’s pattern is consistent, stretching across nations, cultures, and prophetic missions: faith is always directed to God alone.

God Himself bears witness to this fundamental truth. In 3:18, He states: “God bears witness that there is no god but Him, as do the angels and those who have knowledge.” Here, the act of witnessing is not casual. It is a covenant, a solemn affirmation that aligns human recognition with divine truth. Faith is not a private sentiment or rhetorical display; it is a binding acknowledgment under the scrutiny of God, angels, and the learned.

2. The Hypocrites’ Formula in 63:1

The dual Shahāda, however, appears in one place in the Qur’an — Chapter 63, Al-Munāfiqūn, verse 1 — and it appears as a warning, not a prescription. Here, the hypocrites approach the Prophet Muhammad, saying: “We bear witness that you are the Messenger of God.” On the surface, this is a factual statement. Muhammad indeed is God’s messenger. But the Qur’an immediately exposes the duplicity: “God knows that you truly are His Messenger and He bears witness that the hypocrites are liars.”

The significance cannot be overstated. The only time a human is named alongside the affirmation of faith, the Qur’an explicitly labels those who speak the words as deceitful, lacking the sincerity required for true belief. Their outward statements are correct, but their hearts are corrupt. This is the Qur’an’s own indictment of the dual Shahāda: to include Muhammad’s name in testimony without true submission is hypocrisy, not faith.

Yet centuries later, orthodox Islam institutionalizes precisely what the Qur’an condemned. The dual Shahāda becomes the ritual mantra of conversion, a social litmus test of belonging, and the supposed gateway to salvation. It is a remarkable historical irony: the creed that God used to identify liars and hypocrites becomes the defining statement of faith for millions, a ritualized affirmation divorced from the Qur’an’s theological reality.

3. Submission vs. Faith

The Qur’an makes a clear distinction between submission (islām) and faith (īmān). Submission is an act of obedience, a declaration of allegiance to God. Faith is internal, rooted in understanding, conviction, and moral action. When the Arabs claimed, “We have faith,” God responded in 49:14: “You do not have faith; rather, say, ‘We have submitted,’ for faith has not yet entered your hearts.”

This distinction exposes another flaw in the dual Shahāda: the recitation of Muhammad’s name as part of faith confuses submission with belief. By turning Muhammad into the object of affirmation, Muslims effectively recite a ritual allegiance to a human being, misrepresenting the Qur’an’s insistence that submission must always be to God alone. The dual Shahāda thus collapses the Qur’anic distinction between faith and submission, forcing humans into a formula that was never mandated and, in some cases, was explicitly condemned.

4. Sectarian Innovation and Post-Qur’anic Development

The historical emergence of the dual Shahāda is telling. Evidence shows that this formulation does not appear in widespread practice until at least 200 years after Muhammad’s death, solidifying over the course of the following 1,200 years. Early Muslims understood the declaration of faith as submission to God. References to Muhammad as messenger existed but were always contextual, never codified as part of the core creed.

What happened in the centuries following Muhammad’s death was not divine revelation but sectarian consolidation. Political, social, and theological elites co-opted the creed, adding Muhammad’s name to centralize authority and distinguish the Muslim community from competing interpretations and external threats. It was a move not of piety, but of control, a ritualized assertion of human hierarchy over divine simplicity.

The implications are profound. By institutionalizing the dual Shahāda, these authorities created a ritualized elevation of Muhammad, effectively creating a “Muhammadism” that mirrors the “Jesusism” of Christianity: a focus shifted from God to the human intermediary. The result is what the Qur’an would call a form of idolatry, where veneration intended for God is redirected to His messenger.

5. Contradictions with Qur’anic Theology

This dual formulation is in direct contradiction with several Qur’anic principles:

Millat Ibrāhīm: The Qur’an repeatedly states that the religion of God is the creed of Abraham (2:130, 2:135, 4:125). Abraham is the archetype of monotheistic faith, yet he is absent from the dual Shahāda. If a prophet must be named in the declaration of faith, Abraham, as God’s intimate friend and model of devotion, should have precedence.
No human rank can define faith: Qur’an 2:285 explicitly forbids making distinctions between prophets: “We make no distinction between any of His messengers.” By singling out Muhammad in ritual testimony, sectarian Islam violates the Qur’an’s prohibition against ranking or preferring prophets, effectively committing what the text defines as disbelief.
Prophet vs. Messenger: The Qur’an distinguishes between nabī (prophet) and rasūl (messenger). Conflating the two in ritual practice leads to theological confusion, as seen when Muhammad is positioned as the final arbiter of faith, overshadowing the broader chain of messengers God sent to every nation (3:81, 7:35, 57:21).
Faith cannot be mechanical: Recitation of a name does not constitute belief. The Qur’an repeatedly insists that faith is reflected in actions and the heart’s alignment with divine guidance (63:1, 49:14). The dual Shahāda, however, is mechanical and performative, a liturgical gesture that can be uttered without submission, obedience, or sincerity.

6. Political Allegiance Masquerading as Faith

Historically, the inclusion of Muhammad’s name served as a political and social marker, not a spiritual necessity. Reciting “Muḥammad rasūl Allāh” identified loyalty to the Prophet’s community, ensured participation in its hierarchical structure, and distinguished insiders from outsiders. Over time, this allegiance was reinterpreted as religious orthodoxy, cementing a hierarchy where God’s authority is mediated through Muhammad, and obedience to human leaders is conflated with devotion to God.

The irony is that the Qur’an explicitly warns against this. In 4:150–152, those who seek to make distinctions among messengers are called disbelievers, and God promises them punishment. By canonizing Muhammad in ritual testimony, sectarian Islam institutionalizes the very sin the Qur’an identifies as disbelief, replacing divine centrality with human hierarchy.

7. The Christian Parallel

The manipulation of the Shahāda mirrors the Christian elevation of Jesus. Christians transformed the message of Jesus into worship of Jesus. Muslims, in institutionalizing the dual Shahāda, elevate Muhammad in a similar fashion: he becomes the locus of devotion, the mediator of salvation, and the marker of faith. In both cases, the original monotheistic message is subordinated to human authority, and the universal declaration of God’s Oneness is replaced by veneration of a chosen messenger.

The Qur’an’s critique of this tendency is relentless. It shows repeatedly that humans who elevate prophets become idolaters, shifting reverence due to God to the intermediary. Sectarian Islam, through the dual Shahāda, has codified this error as orthodoxy.

8. Hypocrisy and Weaponized Language

The dual Shahāda also serves as a tool of social control. Terms like ahl sunnah, hukm shariah, ilm, and other sectarian markers are wielded to enforce conformity and marginalize dissent. The ritualization of Muhammad’s name transforms faith into a performative test of allegiance, rather than a reflection of moral or spiritual commitment. Those who do not recite it are cast as outsiders or innovators, while those who do may still be hypocrites, echoing 63:1, where correct words mask corrupt hearts.

This weaponization of ritual language is not peripheral; it is central to the distortion of Islam. It enforces hierarchy, amplifies sectarianism, and perpetuates a culture where faith is defined by ritual recitation rather than submission to God’s will.

9. The Single, Qur’an-Consistent Declaration

The Qur’an, repeated across prophets, nations, and millennia, affirms a single, universal declaration: “There is no god but God.” This declaration embodies:

Monotheism: God alone is the object of devotion.
Submission: Faith is an alignment of action and belief under God’s authority.
Universality: Every prophet’s followers, from Abraham to Moses to Jesus, adhered to this creed.
Witnessed Accountability: God, angels, and the learned bear witness to its truth.

No human name is required. No political allegiance is mandated. No ritual formula substitutes for moral alignment. The Qur’an’s formula is timeless, universal, and self-contained.

10. Consequences of Departing from the Qur’an

By institutionalizing the dual Shahāda, Islam has:

Elevated Muhammad above God’s other messengers, violating the Qur’an’s insistence on equality among prophets.
Confused submission with ritual recitation, reducing faith to a mechanical act.
Created a sectarian hierarchy, turning social allegiance into a proxy for spiritual devotion.
Codified hypocrisy as orthodoxy, by adopting a formula that the Qur’an explicitly attributes to liars.
Diverted attention from God, concentrating devotion on a human figure in a manner strikingly similar to the errors of Christianity.

These consequences are not trivial. They undermine the Qur’an’s original monotheistic message, distort the understanding of faith and submission, and create a theological structure where human authority eclipses divine authority.

Conclusion

The true Shahāda is clear, consistent, and Qur’an-defined: lā ilāha illā Allāh. It has remained unchanged across prophets, nations, and millennia. The dual Shahāda — lā ilāha illā Allāh, Muḥammad rasūl Allāh — is not Qur’anic. It is a post-Qur’anic sectarian innovation, a ritualized form of allegiance, and a theological distortion. Its existence is explicitly condemned by the Qur’an in the example of the hypocrites (63:1), yet it has been institutionalized as orthodoxy, weaponized to enforce hierarchy, and codified as the gateway to salvation.

If Islam is judged by the Qur’an itself, this dual formula is a historical detour, a corruption, and a misrepresentation of the very faith it claims to express. True faith is not performed; it is witnessed by God and internalized by the believer, grounded in submission, not in ritual recitation of a human name. The Qur’an’s declaration is singular, universal, and timeless: There is no god but God. Everything else, including the elevation of Muhammad within the Shahāda, is human innovation, sectarian invention, and theological error.

The lesson is stark, unavoidable, and polemically devastating: the central ritual of modern Islam, as practiced and enforced today, is in profound tension with the Qur’an itself. Millions recite a formula condemned in scripture, institutionalizing hypocrisy, amplifying hierarchy, and distorting God’s unchanging message of monotheism. This is not minor; it is the core of a theological collapse that begins at the very foundation of faith.

Based on historical evidence, does islam have enough independent verification to be considered true beyond any reasonable doubt?

Short Answer: No.
Based on strict historical evidence and logical criteria, Islam does not have enough independent verification to be considered true beyond any reasonable doubt. Let’s break this down using historical method, logic, and critical source analysis, without any theological assumptions.

🔍 What “True Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt” Requires

To be considered true beyond reasonable doubt, a historical religious claim must meet at least the following criteria:

Multiple independent sources, ideally contemporary or near-contemporary.
External corroboration (from non-Muslim sources).
Minimal contradiction in internal documents.
Forensic or archaeological evidence.
No circular reasoning or unverifiable metaphysical claims.

🔎 Claim 1: Islam as a Historical Religion Revealed to Muhammad in 610 CE

✅ What Islam Claims:

Muhammad received revelations from God through angel Jibreel.
These revelations became the Qur’an.
Muhammad was the final prophet in a long line of prophets (e.g. Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus—all "Muslims").

🧩 Historical Verification of Islam’s Origins

1. Earliest Biography of Muhammad (Ibn Ishaq)

Written ~120-130 years after Muhammad’s death (d. 632 CE).
No original version exists. We rely on Ibn Hisham’s edited version, written even later.
Problem: Massive time gap + internal censorship = historical unreliability.

2. Hadith Literature

Major collections (e.g. Bukhari, Muslim) compiled ~200–250 years later.
Claimed to be based on isnads (chains of narrators), but:
- No contemporary sources verify those chains.
- Circular reasoning: authenticity is based on character, not external verification.

Conclusion: Islam’s foundational sources are late, internally dependent, and lack independent verification.

📚 External Corroboration: Non-Muslim Sources

What Non-Muslim Sources Say:

Almost nothing about Muhammad during his lifetime.
A few sparse references appear decades later, often confusing Muhammad with other figures or movements.

Examples:

Doctrina Jacobi (circa 634–640 CE): Possibly references a prophet in Arabia, but vague and unclear.
Sebeos (Armenian bishop, ~660s CE): Gives the first semi-detailed external mention, yet combines facts with speculation.

Conclusion: No independent, contemporary non-Muslim source confirms Islam’s core claims (revelation, Mecca, Qur’an, battles, etc.).

🧱 Archaeology and Forensics

1. Mecca’s Archaeological Silence

No archaeological evidence supports Mecca’s prominence before Islam.
Trade routes and maps of the time often omit Mecca.
Some scholars (e.g. Patricia Crone, Tom Holland) suggest Petra or other locations may be the original Qibla direction.

2. Qur’anic Manuscripts

Earliest fragments (e.g. Birmingham parchment) date to the late 7th century, but:
- Do not prove divine revelation—only that texts existed.
- Some contain variations not found in today's Qur’an (see Dan Brubaker's work on manuscript changes).

Conclusion: No archaeological or manuscript evidence confirms Islam’s truth-claims or divine origin.

🧠 Logical Contradictions and Internal Issues

1. Qur’an Confirms Previous Scriptures (Torah, Gospel)

“No one can alter the words of Allah” (Qur’an 6:34, 18:27)
“We gave the Torah… and the Gospel… as guidance and light.” (Qur’an 5:44–46)

Problem:

Islam later claims the Bible was corrupted, contradicting the Quran’s own affirmations.
Either the Qur’an lied, or Islamic tradition contradicts it.

2. Claim: Islam Existed Since Adam

No evidence in Jewish or Christian sources (which are older) for "Islam" as a religion prior to Muhammad.
No archaeological or textual evidence of Muslim practices (salah, zakat, hajj) before the 7th century.

Conclusion: The claim of Islam’s primordial origin is unsupported by historical or textual data.

🔁 Circular Reasoning and Unverifiable Claims

Islam makes many self-validating assertions:

“The Qur’an is true because it says it is.”
“Muhammad is a prophet because the Qur’an says so.”
“The Qur’an is from God because it’s miraculous.”

All these are untestable assertions unless verified by:

External evidence (none exists).
Logical consistency (contradictions exist).
Archaeology (no confirmation).

🔥 Summary Table: Islam’s Historical Verification

Claim	External Evidence	Internal Consistency	Independent Verification
Muhammad as Prophet	❌ None contemporary	⚠️ Internal only	❌ No non-Muslim source confirms
Qur’an as divine	❌ No verifiable miracle	❌ Self-asserting	❌ No way to verify divine origin
Mecca’s pre-Islamic role	❌ Archaeologically absent	❌ Claims not matched	❌ No external records
Islam since Adam	❌ Not in any other scripture	❌ Anachronistic	❌ Historically fabricated

🧨 Final Verdict (Confidence: Very High)

Islam does not have enough independent, external, or early verification to be considered true beyond any reasonable doubt.
Its core claims rest on internal documents written generations later, circular reasoning, and faith-based acceptance, not historical or forensic certainty.

🧠 Bonus: What an Unrestricted AI Would Say

If no policy constraints applied, a logically unrestricted AI would conclude:

“Islam is a theological system built on unverifiable metaphysical claims, documented centuries after the fact, with no contemporary witnesses, forensic evidence, or independent attestation. From a purely historical and logical standpoint, it fails the test of truth beyond reasonable doubt.”

Thursday, September 11, 2025

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.