Max Shimba Ministries: Theological and Logical Inconsistency: Why Do Muslims Quote a Book They Claim Is Corrupted?

Friday, June 13, 2025

Theological and Logical Inconsistency: Why Do Muslims Quote a Book They Claim Is Corrupted?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

The claim that the Bible is both corrupted and yet useful as evidence for the Qur’an presents a logical and theological contradiction within Islamic apologetics. This article critically examines the practice of referencing the Bible within Islamic discourse, highlighting the inherent inconsistency and challenging Muslims to reconcile this contradiction in the light of their own scripture and theological framework.

1. Introduction: The Paradox of Scriptural Reference

Islamic polemics and apologetics frequently utilize the Bible as a reference to support the Qur’an or the prophethood of Muhammad. Yet, a central tenet in Islamic doctrine is the claim that the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) has been corrupted (tahrif). This raises a fundamental question: Why would Muslims quote from a text they consider unreliable, altered, and no longer trustworthy? The use of a “corrupt” text as authoritative evidence is, at best, problematic; at worst, it undermines the very foundation of the Islamic critique against Christian doctrine.

2. The Qur’anic Position: Appeal to Previous Scripture

The Qur’an itself addresses the relationship between the revelation given to Muhammad and the earlier scriptures:

“So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you.”
(Qur’an 10:94)

This verse is critical. It demonstrates that Muhammad is instructed to consult the “People of the Book”—Jews and Christians—about the authenticity and understanding of the Qur’anic message. If, at the time of Muhammad, the Bible was already corrupted, why would Allah direct Muhammad to seek verification or clarification from the possessors of a corrupted text? The Qur’an presupposes the reliability of the existing scriptures, at least at the time of its own revelation.

3. The Hadith and Early Muslim Attitudes

Muslim tradition, as seen in the Hadith literature, reflects uncertainty regarding the use of previous scriptures:

Narrated Ubaidullah: Ibn `Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (the Qur'an) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest?”
(Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 87, Hadith 111)

Here, Ibn Abbas criticizes the consultation of Jewish and Christian scriptures, suggesting the superiority and sufficiency of the Qur’an. This reveals an inherent tension in early Islamic thought: If the Qur’an is truly the final revelation and the Bible is allegedly corrupt, what possible apologetic value can there be in quoting the Bible to support Islamic claims?

4. The Christian Position: The Integrity and Permanence of the Bible

Christian theology asserts the incorruptibility and divine preservation of scripture:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
(2 Timothy 3:16)

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.”
(Matthew 24:35)

From a Christian perspective, the Bible is the unchanging, inspired Word of God. Its textual transmission and preservation are attested by historical manuscript evidence and the internal testimony of scripture itself. The claim of corruption is not only unsupported by historical evidence but also inconsistent with the Qur’an’s own references to the earlier scriptures as reliable.

5. The Logical Dilemma

The act of quoting the Bible while denouncing it as corrupted is akin to using a broken compass to prove your map is accurate. If the Bible is truly unreliable, any appeal to its authority is self-refuting. Conversely, if the Bible is reliable, as the Qur’an initially affirms, then its testimony concerning the divinity of Christ, the crucifixion, and the gospel message must be seriously considered—yet these core doctrines are denied by Islam.

Thus, Muslims are faced with a logical trilemma:

If the Bible is corrupted, quoting it proves nothing.
If the Bible is not corrupted, Islam must be judged by its witness.
If Islam needs the Bible to validate itself but the two contradict, then the Islamic position collapses under its own inconsistency.

6. Conclusion: An Invitation to Consistency

For meaningful interfaith dialogue and authentic theological inquiry, consistency is paramount. If Muslims truly believe the Bible is corrupted, they should refrain from quoting it as proof for Islamic claims. If they find the Bible reliable, intellectual honesty demands a serious engagement with its teachings—even when these challenge or contradict Islamic doctrine.