Rebuttal to the Claim That Surah 15:90–91
Proves the Qur’an Was Corrupted
Responding to the video: “The Qur’an Was Shredded – Surah 15 Proves It’s Corrupted”
Prepared by: Local command executioner
Position: Islam is authentic; video misrepresents Qur’anic text and classical tafsir
0:00–0:20 — “The Qur’an never says the Bible was
corrupted”
Claim:
The speaker asserts that while the Qur’an accuses people of misrepresenting the Bible, it
never says the text itself was changed.
Refutation:
This claim is factually incorrect. The Qur’an makes several references to textual
alteration (taḥrīf) and concealment of scripture.
Primary Verses Refuting the Claim:
1. Surah Al-Baqarah (2:79)
َّ ب بِّأ َ ْيدِّي ِّه ٌْم ث ُ ٌَّم يَقُولُونٌَ َٰهَذَا مِّ نٌْ عِّن ٌِّد
ٌٱّلل ٌَ َِفَ َويْلٌ ِّللَّذِّينٌَ يَ ْكتُبُونٌَ ٱ ْل ِّك َٰت
“So woe to those who write the Book with their own hands then say, ‘This is from Allah’...”
This verse directly accuses scribes of fabricating scripture and passing it off as divine.
2. Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:13)
“They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of what they
were reminded of.”
3. Surah Aal ‘Imran (3:78)
“Indeed, there is a group among them who twist their tongues with the Book so you may
think it is from the Book, but it is not.”
These verses are not mere warnings against misinterpretation — they accuse specific
groups of deliberately altering divine texts.
0:20–1:05 — “Surah 15 says the Qur’an was shredded”
Claim:
The speaker cites Surah 15:90–91, claiming the Qur’an admits its own corruption by stating
it was “shredded,” “fragmented,” or “dismembered.”
Refutation:
This is a misreading of the passage, taken entirely out of context. Let’s examine the
verses.
Surah Al-Hijr (15:90–91):
ِّ علَى ٱ ْل ُم ْقتَسِّمِّ ينٌَ • ٱلَّذِّينٌَ َجعَلُوا ٱ ْلقُ ْرآنٌَ ع
ِّضين َ ََ َك َما أ
َ نز ْلنَا
“Just as We had sent down [punishment] upon the dividers — those who made the Qur’an
into fragments.”
Keyword: ʿiḍīn (ِّضين
ِّ )َع
• Arabic root: ‘-ḍ-w
• Used to describe those who divide something into parts, often with mockery or
rejection.
The verse condemns Meccan pagans who rejected the unity of the Qur’anic message by
labeling it “poetry,” “sorcery,” or “tales of the ancients.” It is not stating that the Qur’an
itself was corrupted.
Tafsir Evidence
To understand this passage in context, let’s consult classical Islamic exegesis:
Ibn Kathir:
“They called it sorcery, poetry, soothsaying — denying some parts, mocking others. Allah
threatens them for dividing the Qur’an in this way.”
Al-Tabari:
“Those who called parts of the Qur’an sorcery, others poetry, others soothsaying — thus
breaking it up in meaning, not physically.”
Al-Qurtubi:
“This refers to the Qur’an’s rejectors, who claimed it was a mix of fables and lies — denying
its unity and divine source.”
All classical commentators agree that this passage refers to disbelievers' rejection of
the Qur’an's message, not a literal corruption of its text.
2:00–3:30 — “The Qur’an seems disorganized and
unclear”
Claim:
The speaker asserts that the Qur’an is “disorganized” and “confused,” and implies this is
evidence of it being shredded or tampered with.
Refutation:
This is a subjective assertion, not a logical argument. Critics often misunderstand the
Qur’an's non-linear literary structure, which emphasizes thematic repetition and oral
impact over Western-style sequential narration.
Scholars (including non-Muslims) such as Angelika Neuwirth and Michael Sells have noted
the sophisticated coherence (nazm) within the Qur’anic text — especially when
understood in its original Arabic.
The speaker’s confusion is not due to the Qur’an's structure — but due to a lack of
familiarity with its rhetorical and thematic design.
3:30–5:00 — “We have no idea what this verse really
means — even Muslims disagree”
Claim:
Because Muslim commentators offer multiple explanations, the Qur’an is unclear and
cannot be divine.
Refutation:
This is a category error:
1. Multiplicity of interpretations ≠ confusion.
Every religious tradition has layered exegesis — including Judaism (Midrash) and
Christianity (patristic commentary). That is not evidence of contradiction — it’s a sign of
richness.
2. Core meaning is consistent across tafsir:
a. The verse refers to those mocking or rejecting the Qur’an.
b. Not one classical source says it refers to physical tampering with the Qur’an
itself.
The variety is in who the “dividers” were (Quraysh? Poets? Selective believers?) — not what
they did. The consensus is that they rejected or mischaracterized the Qur’an, not edited
it.
5:00–8:00 — “Muslims lie about the Bible being corrupted
but deny that the Qur’an is”
Claim:
Muslims twist verses that affirm the Bible, while ignoring that this verse says the Qur’an
was corrupted.
Refutation:
This is a false analogy:
• Verses affirming the original Gospel (Injil) and Torah (Tawrat) are not affirming the
entire current Bible in its post-Nicene, redacted, Greek form.
• The Qur’an’s affirmations apply to the original revelations given to Moses and
Jesus, not the later compilations by anonymous scribes centuries after Jesus.
Moreover, the Qur’an never says its own text was corrupted. In fact, it explicitly denies
that possibility:
Surah Al-Hijr (15:9):
ٱلذك ٌَْر َوإِّنَّا لَهٌُ لَ َح َٰـ ِّفظُون
ِّ ن نَزَّ ْلنَا
ٌُ َْإِّنَّا نَح
“Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder (Qur’an), and indeed, We will be its
Guardian.”
This verse appears just a few ayahs before 15:90–91 — which the speaker ignores —
despite it directly refuting his entire thesis.
Final Summary
What the speaker claims:
• That the Qur’an admits its own corruption.
• That Surah 15:90–91 is about the Qur’an being “shredded.”
• That Muslim commentators can’t agree on what it means.
• That Muslims twist verses to hide Bible affirmation.
What actually holds up:
• Surah 15:90–91 refers to the rejection and mockery of the Qur’an by pagans — not
its corruption.
• Classical tafsir is consistent on this point.
• The Qur’an affirms the original Injil and Tawrat, not modern redacted Bibles.
• The Qur’an claims divine protection against textual corruption (15:9), and this belief
is reinforced both historically and theologically.
Concluding Note:
The speaker’s argument is based on textual misreading, omission of context, and
strawman portrayals of Islamic scholarship. A deeper reading — especially with
knowledge of Arabic and classical tafsir — reveals no contradiction, no admission of
corruption, and no weakening of Islam’s preservation claim.
Suggested Sources for Further Reading:
• Tafsir Ibn Kathir – Surah 15:90–91
• Tafsir al-Tabari – Volume 14, on al-Hijr
• “The Qur’an and Its Interpreters” by Mahmoud Ayoub
• “The Qur'an: A New Translation” by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem
• “Understanding the Qur’anic Text” by Nouman Ali Khan (audio series)
