Evidence · Case 10 · Islam
The response that the corruption came later
One exhibit from the free evidence repository at apologetics.pro.
A second response is that Christians altered the text after Muhammad. Fairly put, this keeps the Qur’an consistent by placing the change after its endorsement. The problem is evidential: such a change would require a coordinated rewrite across Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic copies spread across the world, with no surviving record of it.
Sources
Objections & responses
- No serious Muslim scholar holds that the Bible was corrupted after Muhammad. Isn’t this a straw man?
Fair. The after Muhammad view is a popular-level position rather than a scholarly one, and it should be described that way. The scholarly Muslim positions are textual corruption before Muhammad (Ibn Hazm’s view) or interpretive corruption; the manuscript evidence answers the first, and the exegetical burden answers the second. This exhibit exists because the popular version is what you will actually hear in conversation, not because it is the strongest form of the claim.