The argument, step by step

Stated loosely, the Islamic Dilemma sounds like a debating trick. Stated carefully, it is a straightforward validity question: can the Quran's claims about earlier scripture and its claims about Jesus both be true, given what the earlier scripture demonstrably says?

1 The premises #

1. The Quran affirms the Torah and the Gospel as revelation from God. They are called guidance and light Surah 5:44, Surah 5:46, and Muslims are told to believe in what was sent down before Surah 2:136, Surah 29:46.
2. The Quran addresses seventh-century Jews and Christians about books they possess. Not books they once had. The People of the Gospel are told to judge by what is in it Surah 5:47; they stand on nothing until they uphold the Torah and the Gospel Surah 5:68; Muhammad is told to ask those who read the scripture before him Surah 10:94.
3. The Quran says God's words cannot be replaced. No one can alter them Surah 6:115; there is no changing the words of God Surah 10:64; there is no changer of his words Surah 18:27.
4. The scriptures Christians held in the seventh century taught the deity, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. This is not an inference. It is the content of every complete manuscript, lectionary, translation and commentary that survives from before Islam — and there are a great many. See the manuscript record.
5. The Quran denies all three. Jesus was not killed or crucified, though it was made to appear so Surah 4:157; calling him the Son of God is condemned Surah 9:30; God does not beget Surah 112:3.

2 The fork #

Premises 1 to 3 commit the Quran to the reliability of scripture that, by premises 4 and 5, it contradicts. Only two escapes are available, and each costs something.

Option A — the seventh-century Bible was sound

This is the reading the Quranic text most naturally supports. But if the Gospel Christians held in 610 AD was reliable enough to judge by, then its central claims are reliable too: that Jesus died by crucifixion, that he was raised, that he is the Son who shares the Father's nature. Those are not marginal passages that could have been slipped in. They are the load-bearing structure of every book in the New Testament. Accept the premise and the Quran's denials fail.

Option B — the seventh-century Bible was already corrupt

This is the position most modern Muslim apologists take. It relieves the pressure on the crucifixion and the sonship, but three costs come with it:

• The Quran told people to uphold and judge by a book it knew to be corrupt, without saying so — and, in Surah 10:94, sent Muhammad to consult its readers for reassurance.
• Someone succeeded in changing God's revelation, which Surah 6:115 and Surah 18:27 say cannot happen.
• The corruption has to have happened before 610 AD and left no trace, when the manuscript record from 610 AD is thick, geographically scattered, and in several languages that were no longer in contact with one another.

3 What the argument does not show #

Honesty about scope makes the argument stronger, not weaker. It does not prove Christianity true; a Muslim could conclude that both books have problems. It does not show the Quran is internally incoherent on every subject, only on this one. And it does not settle whether Jesus is who the New Testament says he is — that question has to be faced on its own evidence, which is why the material on Jesus matters more in the end than the dilemma does.

What it does do is close off a comfortable middle position: the idea that the Quran and the Bible are simply two witnesses to the same God, differing only in emphasis. On the identity of Jesus they cannot both be right, and the Quran itself supplies the reason why.