May 11, 2025 12 min read

Let’s Talk About the “Islamic Dilemma”

Did Early Islam Affirm the Authority of Jewish and Christian Scriptures?

Recently, many people have been asking me my take on the “Islamic Dilemma”. I’ve seen it popping up more and more often on YouTube suggestions and social media in recent weeks, so either The Algorithm is listening in on me, or its a topic that has gathered some wind in its sails as of late.

The “Islamic Dilemma” is an argument presented by Christian missionaries to undermine the religion of Islam. A typical rendition of the Dilemma is as follows:

The Qur’an confirms the divine inspiration, authority, and preservation of the Old Testament and New Testament.
The Qur’an contradicts the teachings of the Old and New Testament with regard to the Triune God, the deity of Christ, the vicarious atonement, etc.
If the Qur’an is true, the Old and New Testament are true.
The Qur’an is false due to contradicting itself. (source)

So, in other words, if the Qur’an affirms the Torah and the Gospel, but these scriptures contradict the Qur’an, then either the Qur’an is wrong or the scriptures have been corrupted — both options supposedly undermining Islam’s foundation.

But is this “dilemma” based on an accurate reading of early Islam’s view of the Jewish and Christian scriptures?

I submit that a closer historical look suggests something more complex — and perhaps surprising to most people today, both Christian and Muslim. The earliest Islamic understanding of the Torah (Tawrat) and the Gospel (Injil) appears to have been one of reverence and affirmation, seeing them as authoritative, rather than as corrupted or invalidated texts.

Let’s “unpack this”, as they say:

Exhibit A: The Qur’an’s Direct Affirmation of Previous Scriptures

One of the earliest surviving manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible from the 10th century — Pentateuch with vowel-points and accents, masorah magna and parva, aka London Codex. Or 4445 / Copyright: British Library Board

Throughout the Qur’an, Jews and Christians — referred to as Ahl al-Kitab, the People of the Book — are recognized as recipients of genuine revelations.

Consider the following verses:

“Indeed, We send down the Torah, in which was guidance and light.” (Qur’an 5:44)

“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light.” (Qur’an 5:46)

“He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel before, as guidance for the people, and He revealed the Criterion [Qur’an].” (Qur’an 3:3–4)

It is well to point out that both the Torah and the Gospel are described as containing “guidance and light.” There is no explicit indication here that these texts had been altered in their substance.

Indeed, they are upheld as part of a continuous Divine revelation.

The Qur’an even instructs Jews and Christians to judge by their own scriptures:

“Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.” (Qur’an 5:47)

Had these scriptures been seen as entirely corrupted at the time of the revelation of the Qur’an, such a command would seem nonsensical.

Exhibit B: Accusations of Corruption — Interpretation, Not Text

But doesn’t the Qur’an accuse Jews and Christians of corrupting their texts? Yes — but the nature of this corruption is the key.

For example:

“Among the Jews are those who distort words from their [proper] places.” (Qur’an 4:46)

“So for their breaking of the covenant, We cursed them… they distort words from their [proper] places and have forgotten a portion of what of which they were reminded.” (Qur’an 5:13)

The Arabic phrase used here (yuharrifuna al-kalima ‘am mawadi’ihi) referes to distortion “from their places”, implying misinterpretation, concealment, or misapplication, rather than a literal rewriting.

Gabriel Said Reynold, professor of Islamic Studies at Notre Dame, notes:

“The Qur’an’s charge of tahrif (corruption) seems to involve misreading or misapplication of scripture, not necessarily falsification of its text.” (Reynolds, The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext, p. 190)

Similarly, Islamicist W. Montgomery Watt writes:

“The Qur’anic criticism of Jews and Christians is not so much that they have corrupted their scriptures by changing the words but rather that they have misinterpreted or failed to apply them properly.” (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 183)

In other words, the Qur’an’s critique seems aimed at hermeneutics, and not the integrity of the manuscripts themselves.

This understanding aligns with classical tafsir as well. Imam al-Tabari explains that the Jews’ ‘distortion’ in Qur’an 2:75 refers to altering meanings in interpretation, not the actual scriptural text itself.

Exhibit C: Early Islamic View — Respectful Recognition

In fact, early Islam — as it does now — recognized the Bible as a source of verification for Muhammad’s (ﷺ) prophethood:

“If you are in doubt about what We have revealed to you, ask those who have been reading the Book before you.” (Qur’an 10:94)

Why would the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) be directed toward consulting Jews and Christians if their texts were irreparably corrupted? This verse only makes sense if their scriptures were still seen as containing authentic revelation.

Similarly, Qur’an 2:41 urges the People of the Book:

“And believe in what I have sent down, confirming that which is with you.”

Here, the Qur’an claims to “confirm what is with you” — in the present tense — implying that the Torah and Gospel, as possessed by Jews and Christians at the time, still contained recognizable divine truth.

And again, this is still done to this day when the Jewish and Christian scriptures are referenced as prefacing and/or foretelling the Prophet Muhammad or certain truths within Islam.

This respect wasn’t just theoretical or textual; it extended into the Prophet’s legal practice.

In a well-known hadith recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari (6819), when Jews brought an adulterous couple to the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) for judgment, he asked:

“What do you find in the Torah?”

They attempted to conceal the verse of stoning, but he had them uncover it, affirming its validity. In another narration, the Prophet placed the Torah on a cushion and said:

“I believe in you and in Him who revealed you.” (Sunan Abi Dawud 4449)

These narrations suggest that the Torah was seen by the Prophet as an authentic revelation, respected and upheld in principle, even as he critiqued some interpretations or applications.

Other scholars have noted that the Qur’an itself assumes some working knowledge of previous Scriptures. Islamic historian Sidney Griffith writes:

“The Qur’an presumes the knowledge of the scriptures by the People of the Book and their ability to verify the truth of its message.” (Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, p. 51)

Not only was it assumed that the People of the Book were able to be guided by their own Scriptures, but that Muslims would have a basic understanding of it as well — especially to fill out the details of various accounts in the Jewish Scriptures which were given only a passing reference in the Qur’an.

Griffith summarizes:

“The Qur’an is aware of the existence of the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel among the People of the Book in its own day and resumes their general validity.” (Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, p. 53)

The Qur’an’s role, then, was not to dismiss or replace these scriptures outright but to function as a muhaimin (guardian or overseer) over them (Qur’an 5:48), correcting distortions of meaning rather than rewriting divine history.

Ibn Kathir, the great 14th century Islamic exegete, historian, scholar, and expert on tafsir, explains “muhaimin” as “a judge and witness” over the earlier scriptures, confirming what is true, yet exposing distortions.

Other classical scholars, like al-Razi and al-Qurtubi, also interpreted the Qur’an’s accusations of ‘distortion’ as primarily about misinterpretation rather than textual corruption.

Exhibit D: The Shift to Textual Corruption Theory

So when did the idea that the actual texts were corrupted arise within Islam?

As with anything, we can examine this question historically. Historians point to a gradual shift as Islam engaged more deeply in polemics and theological debates with Jews and Christians under the Abbasid Caliphate (8th-10th centuries CE).

Ibn Hazm (d. 1064), a prominent Andalusian theologian, was one of the earliest to argue explicitly for textual corruption (tahrif al-nass) of the Bible. He wrote:

“The Christians and Jews changed the Torah and the Gospel by adding and subtracting, changing words and meanings, and inserting their own writings.” (Ibn Hazm, Kitab al-Fasl fi al-Milal, vol. 1)

This view became the mainstream in later Islamic thought, especially in the context of defending Islam against Christian missionary critiques.

But as Reynolds summarizes:

“It seems that the doctrine of the textual corruption of Jewish and Christian scriptures developed not so much from the Qur’an itself, but from the exigencies of interreligious polemic.” (Reynolds, The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext, p. 191)

In other words, the doctrine hardened over time as a theological necessity in the face of Christian claims. The later doctrine of textual corruption may have arisen as a theological defense mechanism — but it should not be retrojected back onto the Qur’an’s original outlook as understood by the early Muslim community in the first centuries of Islam.

While it is a minority opinion currently, there are some modern scholars and theologians like Shaykh Yasir Qadhi who acknowledge that “tahrif” originally meant interpretive distortion, not wholesale textual corruption. It is still a “permissible” opinion.

Conclusion: A Nuanced Early View

Of course, none of this is to say that early Muslims saw the Torah and Gospel as perfectly preserved in every detail. Rather, the historical record and evidence suggests a more nuanced and respectful affirmation of the scriptures’ essential authority, alongside critiques of misinterpretation and concealment.

Only in later centuries, under the pressure of polemical debates and rising theological boundaries, did the view shift toward a doctrine of wholesale textual corruption.

Ironically, this development within Islam mirrors the early development of Christianity, which initially saw itself as a movement within Judaism. Only years later would Christianity emerge as its own ‘separate’ faith with its own self-understanding, its own interpretation of previous Scripture, etc.

In this light, the “Islamic Dilemma” overly simplifies what was historically a more fluid and layered relationship between Islam and the earlier revelations.

Far from a ‘dilemma’, the Qur’an’s position may reflect a complex interplay of continuity, correction, and affirmation, resisting the binary imposed by later apologetics.

Perhaps the real challenge isn’t whether Islam affirmed or denied the Bible’s integrity, but whether modern debates can make room for the textured theological middle ground that early Islam seemed to occupy.

My Personal Analysis: Or, Why this Matters to Muslims Today

I feel that this is a call for us — as Muslims — to be more strenuous in our own approach towards taking more serious Christian and Jewish Scripture.

Far too often I hear things like “the Gospel that was hidden” or “not the current Bible, but the Bible that was lost” — or something to that effect. In my own studies — both as a priest-monk and academically within the Christian tradition — there is simply no evidence of some dastardly, wide-scale purposeful corruption of Christian or Jewish Scripture for the purposes of hiding the ‘Truth’. Furthermore, there is even less evidence of a class of dishonest priests or scribes “hiding” the “real” Scriptures from the faithful, which is another narrative that I hear very often. It is a fanciful conclusion based on no evidence at all.

Quite to the contrary, discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls show a remarkable preservation of the Jewish and Christian scriptures across millennia. These findings have largely settled academic debates about how faithfully the texts were transmitted over time.

Ironically, many Muslims today appeal to critical scholars like Bart Ehrman when critiquing Christianity, yet shy away from similar historical scrutiny within Islamic tradition. But applying critical analysis is not about undermining faith — it’s about seeking clarity and truth. It would serve us better to seek the wisdom of the Sahaba and the understanding of the early Muslim community, rather than cynically relying on the findings of modern scholars like Ehrman and others who operate with materialistic and atheistic assumptions — scholars who are just as eager to direct their deconstructive critiques toward Islam as they are toward Christianity.

If we look at the earliest Muslim community, we don’t see a view of the Torah and Gospel as entirely corrupted or nullified. Rather, the Qur’an and early Islamic understanding positioned themselves as a continuation and correction of these earlier revelations — not a total rupture.

Over time, however, this nuanced approach was lost. Later polemical debates hardened into a doctrine of total textual corruption — an idea for which there is little historical evidence, even acknowledged by critical scholars like Ehrman.

Understanding this early view dissolves the so-called “Islamic Dilemma.” It shows that Islam didn’t originally position itself in simple opposition to the Bible, but stood in continuity with it — reaffirming its truth while correcting its misinterpretations.

Moreover, it’s important to recognize that, outside certain fundamentalist Protestant circles, the Bible was never viewed as perfectly inerrant in every word the way Muslims regard the Qur’an. The Bible has always been understood as a collection of inspired writings — poetry, history, law, letters — not a single unified revelation equivalent to the Qur’an.

When modern Muslim critiques collide with a literalist Protestant reading of the Bible, both sides risk talking past each other — missing the complexity of how scripture was historically understood.

In light of this, I believe reclaiming a more historically grounded view of early Islam’s relationship with earlier scriptures doesn’t weaken our faith. On the contrary, it strengthens it. And puts us in line with the early Sahaba and the genuine tradition of the first centuries of Islam.

But that’s my analysis.

I invite you to reflect, engage, and share your own thoughts below.

Update:

I was asked about the writings of Paul, which I neglected to discuss. I will write a separate article dealing with the issue of Paul and of the Gospel of John.

Furthermore, it was brought to my attention by a respected scholar in the field that recent scholarship (e.g., Ryan Schafner’s dissertation, “The Bible through a Qur’ānic Filter: Scripture Falsification (Taḥrīf) in 8th -and 9th -Century Muslim Disputational Literature,” Ohio State University, 2016) has challenged the classic narrative of a linear shift from accusations of interpretive corruption (tahrif al-ma’ani) to textual corruption (tahrif al-nass), arguing that both perspectives may have coexisted earlier in Islamic thought. It appears that Schafner’s main source was from earlier “polemical literature”, which is bound to attack the texts themselves.

While I appreciate and acknowledge this important academic development, the core argument of this article remains unchanged: that the Qur’an itself affirms the Torah and Gospel as containing ‘guidance and light’, critiques misinterpretation rather than explicitly declaring total textual falsification, and that early Islamic engagement with earlier scriptures was more nuanced than later polemical stances imply — even citing 8th and 9th century Muslim polemical sources. While I appreciate this addition to the discussion, I don’t believe this new information really changes the core argument and thesis of my article.

See, also, Imam Tom’s response to the ‘Islamic Dilemma’, which he posted at the same time of the publication of this article.— Sa’id