A foundational point of misunderstanding stems from the interpretation of Quranic verses that speak of previous revelations. When the Quran confirms the “Torah” and the “Injeel” (Gospel), it refers to the original, pure revelations given to Prophet Moses and Prophet Jesus (peace be upon them). It does not provide a blanket endorsement for the Bibles that exist today, which are compilations of texts written and assembled long after the prophetic missions they describe.
The Scope of Prophetic Missions
Islam teaches that while numerous prophets were sent by God, their missions were often specific to a particular people or time. The Bible itself corroborates this in the case of Jesus (peace be upon him), who is quoted as saying, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The Quran affirms this specific mission, stating that Jesus was a messenger to the Children of Israel (Bani Israel).
In contrast, the mission of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is presented as universal—a message for all of humanity until the end of time. This follows a divine pattern: when a new prophet is sent to a people, they are required to follow that prophet. It would be illogical to adhere to a previous message when a subsequent, final, and universal revelation has been delivered.
The Question of Textual Integrity
The argument that the Bible has remained unchanged is contradicted by overwhelming evidence, much of which is acknowledged by Christian biblical scholars themselves. Textual criticism reveals thousands of variations among ancient manuscripts. Key passages and stories, such as the account of the adulterous woman in the Gospel of John, are absent from the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, leading scholars to conclude they are later additions.
The Quran directly addresses this issue, stating that people distorted the scriptures with their own hands, changing words from their proper places and then claiming their writings were from God. The evidence of textual corruption—from minor scribal errors to major doctrinal additions—validates the Quranic position.
The Fallacy of Interpretation Without Expertise
Interpreting ancient religious texts requires a deep understanding of their original language and context. To understand the Quran, one must have knowledge of classical Arabic, the historical context of its revelation, the explanations of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and the understanding of his companions.
It is methodologically flawed for an individual without this expertise to impose their own interpretation on the text, especially when that interpretation is filtered through the lens of a different theological framework. This would be akin to someone who does not speak classical Cantonese attempting to correct a scholar of ancient Cantonese literature on the meaning of a 14th-century text. The consensus of scholars who are masters of the language and its tradition must be given precedence.
The Inescapable Conclusion
To insist that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) affirmed the modern Bible as perfectly preserved leads to an irresolvable contradiction. Given the provable and academically accepted evidence that the Bible has been altered, such an affirmation would mean the Prophet was fundamentally mistaken. This would undermine the very basis of his prophethood.
The only logical and consistent position is the classical Islamic one: Islam confirms the divine origin of the revelations given to past prophets but maintains that these texts have not been preserved in their original form. The Quran acts as the final arbiter and corrector of previous scriptures, reaffirming eternal truths while rectifying human-introduced errors. Therefore, the claim that Islam validates the modern Bible is a misconception that collapses under theological and historical scrutiny.