Refuting Islam

Part 9 – Formal Logical Refutation of Islam’s Core Claim

The final nail in the coffin of Islam’s theological credibility

Introduction – Why This Refutation is the Endgame

Across this series, we have peeled back layer after layer of Islam’s core theological claim:
That Allah revealed the Torah to Moses, the Zabur (Psalms) to David, the Injil (Gospel) to Jesus, and finally the Qur’an to Muhammad — all as a single, unified chain of Islamic revelation.

According to the Qur’an, each of these revelations is:

From the same divine source (Allah).
Intended to guide humanity.
Affirmed as truth in Muhammad’s own time.
Impossible to corrupt because Allah’s words cannot be altered.

This is not a minor point of Islamic theology — it is foundational. Without this claim, Muhammad’s prophetic authority collapses, because his message depends on the validity of the chain that came before him.

Yet, as we have demonstrated in earlier parts, this claim is self-defeating. If the earlier scriptures have been preserved, Islam is false because they contradict the Qur’an. If they were corrupted, Islam is false because the Qur’an affirms their authority and preservation.

Now, in this final part, we will take the evidence, the logic, and the contradictions we have already identified — and distill them into a formal, airtight, logical refutation. By the end, the reader will see that Islam’s foundational claim is not merely questionable or problematic — it is logically impossible.

Section 1 – Restating Islam’s Core Claim

Before dismantling it, we must state the claim as accurately and fairly as possible, in the words of Islam’s own scripture.

The Qur’an asserts:

Allah revealed the Torah, Zabur, and Injil (Surah 3:3, 4:163, 17:55).
They were divine guidance for their time (Surah 5:44-46).
They were still valid and authoritative in Muhammad’s time (Surah 5:47, 5:68).
Allah’s words cannot be changed or corrupted (Surah 6:115, 18:27, 10:64).
The Qur’an confirms these earlier revelations (Surah 2:41, 2:89, 3:3).

In simple terms:

The earlier scriptures were from Allah.
They were valid in the 7th century.
They cannot be corrupted.
The Qur’an aligns with them.

This is the bedrock of Islam’s theological structure.

Section 2 – The Contradiction in Simple Form

The logical problem emerges the moment we compare Islamic claims with reality.

Premise 1 – The Qur’an says the Torah and Gospel are from Allah and cannot be corrupted.
Premise 2 – The Torah and Gospel (as preserved today) predate Islam and contradict the Qur’an on key doctrines.
Premise 3 – Either they are preserved, or they are corrupted.

From here, the dilemma is unavoidable:

If preserved → Islam is false because the Qur’an contradicts the Torah and Gospel.
If corrupted → Islam is false because the Qur’an affirms their validity and incorruptibility.

This is why David Wood famously called it The Islamic Dilemma. It is binary, airtight, and inescapable.

Section 3 – Formal Logical Breakdown (Syllogistic Refutation)

Let’s present this in a formal deductive structure:

P1: If the Qur’an is true, then the Torah and Gospel are (a) divine revelations from Allah, (b) preserved, and (c) authoritative (Surah 3:3, 5:47, 6:115).
P2: The Torah and Gospel contradict the Qur’an on essential theological points (crucifixion, deity of Christ, atonement, salvation).
P3: If the Torah and Gospel are preserved, then Islam is false because it rejects their content.
P4: If the Torah and Gospel are corrupted, then Islam is false because the Qur’an affirms their preservation and authority.

Conclusion (C): Whether preserved or corrupted, Islam is false.

This is not an argument from emotion, prejudice, or rhetoric.
It is pure deductive logic: the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

**Section 4 – Why This is a Fatal Contradiction**

Some contradictions in religious texts can be explained away with context, metaphor, or variant interpretations. This one cannot.

Why? Because it attacks Islam’s self-verification mechanism. The Qur’an uses the earlier scriptures as a benchmark for its own truth:

Surah 5:48 – “And We have revealed to you the Book in truth, confirming what was before it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it…”

If those earlier scriptures are corrupted, then the benchmark is broken.
If they are preserved, then the Qur’an fails the benchmark.
Either way, the Qur’an discredits itself.

This is the theological equivalent of sawing off the branch you’re sitting on.

Section 5 – Historical Evidence Confirms the Contradiction

The Islamic apologist might try to avoid the dilemma by claiming:
“Well, the Bible was partially preserved and partially corrupted.”

But this position fails both logically and historically:

Historically: We have complete manuscripts of the Torah and Gospels centuries before Muhammad (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls ~150 BC, Codex Sinaiticus ~AD 350). They match today’s Bible in essential doctrines.
Logically: If key doctrines were corrupted before Muhammad, then the Qur’an was wrong to affirm the Torah and Gospel in his time.
Textually: No Qur’anic verse specifies that “the earlier scriptures have been changed beyond recognition.” The closest it gets is accusing some Jews and Christians of “misinterpretation” or “concealment” — not wholesale textual corruption.

Thus, historical manuscript evidence doesn’t rescue Islam; it buries it deeper.

Section 6 – The “Partial Corruption” Evasion Fails

A popular Muslim defense is to say:
“Yes, parts of the Torah and Gospel are true, but parts are false. We only accept what agrees with the Qur’an.”

This is textbook circular reasoning:

Step 1: Assume the Qur’an is true.
Step 2: Accept only those parts of the Bible that match the Qur’an.
Step 3: Claim the Bible agrees with Islam.

But this does not demonstrate the Bible’s corruption — it simply filters the Bible through an Islamic lens.
This is not evidence; it is presupposition.

Worse, it contradicts the Qur’an’s own affirmation of the earlier scriptures without qualification.

Section 7 – Apologetic “Escape Routes” and Why They Fail

Islamic scholars and debaters often attempt several escape routes:

Claim: “The Qur’an only affirms the original Torah and Gospel, not the current ones.”
Refutation: The Qur’an commands Jews and Christians in Muhammad’s time to “judge by what Allah has revealed therein” (Surah 5:47). That only makes sense if the scriptures they physically possessed were valid.
Claim: “The Bible was changed after Muhammad.”
Refutation: Historical manuscripts centuries before Muhammad match today’s Bible. The claim is historically false.
Claim: “The Qur’an affirms previous revelations but abrogates them.”
Refutation: Abrogation within Islam does not explain contradiction between the Qur’an and an allegedly preserved revelation from the same God.
Claim: “Corruption refers to interpretation, not text.”
Refutation: This still creates the problem: if the interpretation was wrong in Muhammad’s time, why did the Qur’an affirm their authority without correction?

Every path leads back to the core dilemma: the Qur’an affirms scriptures it contradicts.

Section 8 – The Revelation Chain Self-Destructs

Islam’s theological framework depends on an unbroken, consistent chain of revelation:

Torah → Zabur → Injil → Qur’an.

If any link is broken — if Allah’s word can be lost, corrupted, or contradicted — then:

Allah failed to preserve His word (contradicting His own claim).
Muhammad’s message loses its foundation.
The Qur’an’s self-verifying mechanism collapses.

It is like a relay race where each runner must pass the baton. If the baton is dropped halfway, the race is lost.
In Islam’s case, the Qur’an says the baton was never dropped — yet it claims the baton is damaged.
That is a contradiction.

Section 9 – Formal Logical Final Form

Let us now restate the refutation in its cleanest, most concise form:

P1: The Qur’an affirms the Torah and Gospel as divine, preserved, and authoritative in Muhammad’s time.
P2: The Torah and Gospel contradict the Qur’an on core doctrines.
P3: If they are preserved, the Qur’an is false.
P4: If they are corrupted, the Qur’an is false because it affirms their preservation.

C: Therefore, the Qur’an — and by extension Islam — is false.

This is not a probabilistic argument. It is a logical necessity.

Conclusion – Why the Dilemma is Inescapable

The “Islamic Dilemma” is not a clever debating trick. It is the direct, logical consequence of Islam’s own claims compared against historical and textual evidence.

Unlike other theological disputes, this one is binary — there is no middle ground. Islam cannot survive both sides of the fork in the road:

Preserved Bible → Qur’an is wrong doctrinally.
Corrupted Bible → Qur’an is wrong factually.

This is why, after centuries of debate, Islamic scholars have failed to resolve it without resorting to special pleading, circular reasoning, or historical denialism.

The chain of revelation Islam claims is unbroken — yet its own theology requires it to be both unbroken and broken. That is not faith. That is a contradiction.

And in logic, a contradiction is the death of a claim.