In public life — courts, schools, and civic institutions — our shared moral vocabulary is anchored in certain historical and religious commitments. For those who regard the Bible as foundational to Western moral and intellectual tradition, a short, powerful argument demands attention: the Muslim Dilemma. Put plainly, if the Qur’an genuinely affirms earlier revelations and those revelations make central historical claims that the Qur’an denies, then a sober thinker must choose which testimony to accept.
What the Two Testimonies Claim
Two historically grounded observations open the debate. First, the Qur’an treats earlier revelations — notably the Torah and the Gospel — as God-given scriptures in the context of Muhammad’s mission. Second, the Christian Gospels present a public historical claim about Jesus: his identity, his atoning death, and his resurrection. Those Gospel claims are not incidental; they are the centerpiece of Christian doctrinal truth and public testimony. When two authoritative texts make conflicting claims about the same historical figure and events, the disagreement raises a real epistemic problem.
A Clear Logical Formulation
The dilemma is compact and formalizable:
- Either the Bible (understood as the authoritative witness to Jesus and the earlier covenants) is true (B), or it is false or corrupted (¬B).
- If B, then Islam (as the Qur’an denies central Christian claims about Jesus) is false (¬I).
- If ¬B, then Islam is false (¬I) as well, because the Qur’an affirms earlier revealed scriptures; if those scriptures are not reliable, the Qur’an’s affirmation is mistaken.
- Therefore, in either case, the Qur’an cannot be true in the way it claims.
The form is logically valid: it is proof by cases. The question is whether the conditional premises (2) and (3) are plausible and defensible.
Common Defences and Direct Responses
Defenders of Islam typically try several moves to blunt this dilemma. Below are the most common defences and direct rejoinders.
- Defence: “The Qur’an affirms only the original revelations, not the later texts.”
- Response: This distinguishes original revelation from later transmission. Yet the Qur’an’s practical injunctions — directing Jews and Christians of Muhammad’s day to consult their books and to judge by them — presuppose those scriptures functioned as accessible authorities. If God commands reliance on texts that are already unreliable, the command appears incoherent unless the defender explains why God would command obedience to corrupted texts. A consistent defense must reconcile this tension without special pleading.
- Defence: “Tahrīf refers to interpretive distortion rather than textual loss.”
- Response: Restricting corruption to interpretation still leaves the public testimony of the Gospels intact. Interpretive drift may explain divergent emphases, but it does not erase the historical claims about identity and events the Gospels report. Unless one shows how interpretive shifts actually dissolve these specific factual conflicts, the dilemma stands.
- Defence: “The books answer different questions and are not directly comparable.”
- Response: This claim collapses where the texts make explicit historical statements about the same person. If two revealed texts contradict on who Jesus was and what happened to him, a difference of genre does not remove the factual contradiction. A serious defence must demonstrate how apparent contradictions are merely category mistakes rather than true factual conflicts.
Why This Matters
The Muslim Dilemma presses the issue of coherence: if a competing revelation both affirms and denies the same prior testimony, public confidence in moral foundations built on that testimony is undermined. This is not about cultural grandstanding; it is about whether the principles that sustain civic institutions rest on coherent historical claims. The demand is clear: either the biblical testimony is accepted as a reliable public witness, or the competing claim must meet a high standard of historical justification.
How to Engage Constructively
This is a debate for evidence, not slogans. Constructive next steps include:
- Examine manuscript and transmission evidence for the New Testament and assess early Christian testimony.
- Study the Qur’anic passages that reference prior scriptures in their historical and rhetorical contexts.
- Review scholarship on the meaning of tahrīf (corruption) across traditions to understand whether it denotes interpretive shift, textual alteration, or both.
- Compare which hypothesis better explains the historical data: that the Gospel testimony is substantially reliable, or that the Qur’an’s corrective account is historically superior.
An honest inquiry privileges primary sources, rigorous scholarship, and logical consistency.
Practical Consequences for Public Argument
When religious claims intersect with public policy, clarity about sources of authority matters. A society that anchors its moral discourse in a coherent set of historical convictions needs reliable testimony. If competing revelations provide contradictory narratives about central events, educators, lawmakers, and civic leaders cannot credibly claim a stable foundation without choosing which testimony they accept. The dilemma thus has downstream consequences for curriculum, legal reasoning, and public conversation.
Conclusion: A Demand for Consistency, Not Combat
The Muslim Dilemma reduces a sprawling interfaith argument to a focused demand for consistency. If the Bible is taken as a reliable, public witness to Jesus, the Qur’an’s contrary claims cannot both be true in the same sense. If the Bible is judged unreliable, then the Qur’an’s own affirmation of earlier revelation becomes problematic. Neither branch is easy to defend; both require historical and philosophical labor. The right posture is clear: investigate primary evidence, hold claims to public standards, and prefer reasoned argument over rhetorical triumphalism.
Featured image credit: DepositPhotos.com
