If You Accept Partial Corruption 

How Do You Identify What and Where?

Muslim apologists often say:

“The Torah and Gospel were partially corrupted.”

Okay — but then the obvious question becomes:

Which parts are corrupted, and by what standard do you judge them?

This is where the entire framework collapses into circularity, because…

---

🧭 1. The Qur’an Becomes the Sole Judge — Circular Reasoning Ensues

If the standard is:

“Whatever agrees with the Qur’an is true, whatever contradicts it is corrupted,”

Then you’re not detecting corruption — you're declaring it by fiat.

This isn't objective textual criticism. It's:

• Starting with the Qur’an as infallible,

• Measuring the Bible against it,

• Then calling any disagreement “corruption.”

That’s circular reasoning.

It’s like saying:

“This ruler is one meter long because I measured it with this stick that I already decided is one meter long.”

It proves nothing.

---

📌 2. There's No Historical Manuscript Evidence of Biblical Tampering

If you claim specific verses are corrupted — like:

• The crucifixion of Jesus,

• The Sonship of Christ,

• Or depictions of the patriarchs in Genesis,

Then you must show:

• Where the change happened,

• When it happened, and

• What the original said instead.

But the manuscript record — from the Dead Sea Scrolls to Codex Vaticanus to early Syriac and Coptic translations — shows:

• No sweeping textual changes across all manuscripts.

• No disappearing verses about Muhammad.

• No "lost Injil" from Jesus as Islam imagines.

So the Islamic claim becomes:

“The Bible was corrupted... but we can’t tell you how, when, where, or by whom — and we don’t have a copy of the original either.”

That’s not a claim — that’s an assumption built on air.

---

🧠 3. If You Can't Identify the Corruption, You Can't Make Any Meaningful Use of the Text

If parts of the Torah and Gospel are true, and parts are false — but you don’t know which is which — then:

• How do you know whether you’re reading God’s word or man’s distortion?

• How can you base theology, ethics, or prophecy on it?

• How can you judge the Qur’an by it, if you don’t know which parts to trust?

In other words:

If the integrity of the Bible is compromised beyond recognition, then it’s functionally useless — and the Qur’an’s entire appeal to it collapses.

But if it’s still recognizable, preserved, and coherent — then you can’t claim corruption without hard evidence.

You can’t have it both ways.

---

⚠️ 4. "Corruption" Becomes a Catch-All Escape Hatch

This is the danger of vague theology:

• Don’t like the crucifixion? Call it corrupted.

• Don’t like the Son of God? Call it corrupted.

• Can’t find Muhammad in the Bible? Claim it was erased.

But when nothing can falsify your claim, you no longer have a real claim — you have a dogma immune to evidence.

And in any honest search for truth, that’s a red flag.

---

🧠 Final Logical Chain

1. The Qur’an says it confirms earlier scriptures.

2. Muslims say those scriptures were corrupted — but only “partially.”

3. But they can't identify:

   • What parts were corrupted,

   • When it happened,

   • How it happened,

   • Or what the original said instead.

4. They judge the Bible only by the Qur’an.

5. This is circular and makes the Qur’an its own judge, which defeats its claim of confirming anything.

Therefore:

The claim of partial corruption is unprovable, vague, and logically incoherent.
Unless you can identify and verify the corruption with real evidence, you have no grounds to call any part corrupted.