Refuting Islam

Which Has Stronger Historical Corroboration The Bible or the Qur’an?

Introduction

If a book claims to come from God, it must first be trustworthy in the realm of history—who, what, when, and where. If it fails on historical facts, there's no reason to trust it on spiritual truths.

In this analysis, we won’t sugar-coat or hide behind euphemisms. We will compare the Bible and the Qur’an based on:

Manuscript evidence
External documentary references
Archaeological data

This isn't about feelings. It’s about facts.

1. Preliminary Considerations

The Bible is roughly four times longer than the Qur’an and is far more historical in style. Its narrative includes genealogies, reigns of kings, battles, decrees, and timelines. The Qur’an, by contrast, is largely devotional, legalistic, and poetic. Historical references are brief, vague, and often out of sequence.

Conclusion: By genre alone, the Bible is built for historical testing. The Qur’an is not.

2. Manuscript Evidence

🕮 The Bible

Over 24,000 New Testament manuscripts exist.
Earliest fragment (P52) dates to within decades of Jesus.
Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (4th century) preserve nearly the whole NT.
Variants exist, but no major doctrine depends on them.
Textual criticism has restored the text with high confidence.

📜 The Qur’an

Muslims claim perfect preservation. But the evidence says otherwise.
The Sanaa manuscripts (early 8th century) contain over 1,000 textual variants in just 83 surahs.
Verses that now say “Say…” once read “He said…” — a major change.
The Topkapi and Tashkent Qur’ans are 9th-century at best.
No original Uthmanic codex exists.
Hadiths admit that Uthman ordered burning of variant Qur’anic materials (Sahih Bukhari 6:510).

Conclusion: Bible transmission is transparent, with scientific oversight. Qur’an transmission is opaque and selectively controlled.

3. External Documentary Sources

✍ The Bible

Church Fathers quoted nearly the entire New Testament before 325 A.D.
Tacitus, Josephus, and Lucian confirm Jesus’ crucifixion.
These are independent, hostile sources, not believers.

🧱 The Qur’an

No mention of Muhammad as a prophet until 691 A.D. — 59 years after his death.
First appears on coins and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.
Yehuda Nevo's research: 7th-century Arab inscriptions show monotheism, but no Islam.
Hadiths and Sira sources were written 150–250 years after Muhammad, with no contemporaneous corroboration.

Conclusion: The Bible has early, external witnesses. Islam lacks any for Muhammad’s prophetic role in the 7th century.

4. Archaeological Evidence

🏺 The Bible

Hezekiah’s tunnel, Jehu’s tribute, Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem.
Dead Sea Scrolls confirm Old Testament textual consistency.
Belshazzar: long thought fictional, later confirmed by inscriptions as Nabonidus’ son—explains Daniel 5’s “third ruler” offer.

🕌 The Qur’an

Mecca is absent from all early inscriptions, maps, and trade routes.
Early mosques (in Egypt, Jordan, even China) do not face Mecca, but Petra.
This contradicts the doctrine that prayer was fixed to Mecca from 624 A.D.
No archaeological digs in Mecca have unearthed 7th-century artifacts confirming the Qur’anic narrative.

Conclusion: The Bible is grounded in historical geography. The Qur’an floats in a historical vacuum.

Final Verdict: No Comparison

Criterion	Bible	Qur’an
Manuscript Integrity	✅ Early, transparent	❌ Late, altered
External Sources	✅ Many, hostile	❌ None before 691
Archaeological Evidence	✅ Confirming finds	❌ Contradictions

If we treat both books like we treat any historical text, the result is unavoidable:

The Bible has far greater historical corroboration than the Qur’an.

It is not perfect, but it has withstood centuries of scrutiny and passed the test.

The Qur’an, on the other hand, rests on later traditions, missing originals, and contradictions. It cannot stand on its own historically.