“Elohim”, “Allah,” and “God” function quite similarly in their original linguistic contexts. Indeed, the English language is somewhat odd here. The modern rule of capitalizing proper nouns muddies the waters. Initially, without qualifications, these words do not pick out any specific deity. At various points, I have highlighted that elohim is a common noun, not a proper one. In the Bible, elohim refers to Yahweh, Satan, angels, foreign gods, the spirit of a dead human, and so on.
Similarly, “allah” in the pre-Islamic era does not mean what it is now taken to mean. Indeed, the allah of that era was Hubal, the moon god with a dedicated shrine at the famous Ka’ba in Mecca. Some Islamic sources tell us that Hubal was imported from Syria. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammed cleansed the Kabah by destroying the idols and rededicating it to another God identified with the Biblical God, but this narrative is not without problems, as we shall now see.

First, a general point. The destruction of idols and even shrines does not equal the destruction of a god. Yes, such a move can help people slowly change their views about a deity, but the deity is NOT the same as the idols used in their honor. In the Bible, the ancient Israelites repeatedly destroyed shrines and idols only for a later generation to go back to the same gods. We do not kill a deity by smashing its idols.

Islamic traditions maintain that Muhammed restored true monotheism as God initially handed down to the ancestors of the Jews when he cleansed the Kabah of the worship of Hubal and other deities. However, the Quranic God is very dissimilar to the Biblical God in critical ways. To begin with, the Biblical God would reject the rededication of a rocky shrine belonging to Hubal. Yahweh was very particular about objects of worship associated with him. He gave Moses and David/Solomon mind-boring details about constructing the Ark of the Covenant and the first temple. He would not settle for hand-me-downs. Besides, the Bible clearly describes the divine policing of the blessed lineage leading to Judah and Jesus. There is just no room for Mohammed anywhere.

It is at this point that Muslim apologists generally claim that the reason we do not see clear pointers in the Bible to Muhammed is because the Bible has been corrupted. This claim is meant to say that the Jews and Christians excised the parts of their Scripture pointing to the Arab Muhammed from their text. When pressed for evidence to back up the claim, a typical Muslim leans on two significant lines of evidence: The Quran itself and variations found in biblical manuscripts.

A faithful Muslim believes as an article of faith that the Quran is God’s uncreated and perfect Word. The Quran is the theological equivalent of not the Bible but the Biblical Jesus himself. Of course, if it is true that the Quran is the perfect Word of God, then whatever doesn’t agree with it in the Bible (or science, history, or anywhere else) must be wrong. The inference is logically valid. But is the premise on a solid foundation? Whatever the merits, the first line of evidence for the typical Muslim basically relies on circular reasoning: The Quran was necessary because the Bible became corrupted as the Quran says the Bible is corrupted.

The second line of evidence breathes life into the first. Indeed, about 24,000 biblical manuscripts are known today, with the New Testament accounting for about 19,000 of them. No ancient writing rivals the New Testament in the copies of manuscripts. These manuscripts differ at various points, and many Muslims are trained from infancy to know some examples of these differences in the Biblical texts. It is a brilliant way of providing psychological certainty to the faithful. The reasoning goes thus: “Why 24000 copies with textual disagreements? This proves corruption necessitating the revelation of the Quran, God’s perfect and preserved final Word.”

But not so fast. Leaving aside the fact that the Quran also has extant differing manuscripts (not to mention the variants Uthman destroyed to ensure uniformity), not a single biblical manuscript supports the Islamic narrative. No predictions of Muhammed’s coming or the transfer of the elected lineage to Arabia. So, while the existence of various manuscripts may “prove” an Islamic claim, it doesn’t help its narrative. The simple historical truth is that people had to copy ancient texts, especially the influential ones. Because the copying was done by hand, mistakes often happened. It happened to the Bible and the Quranic texts alike, just as it did to Homer’s epic, The Iliad.

Let us revisit the first line of evidence: does the Quran claim that the Bible was corrupted? Two verses of the Quran are relevant here, 2:75 and 5:13.

Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 75:
أَفَتَطْمَعُونَ أَن يُؤْمِنُوا لَكُمْ وَقَدْ كَانَ فَرِيقٌ مِّنْهُمْ يَسْمَعُونَ كَلَامَ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ يُحَرِّفُونَهُ مِن بَعْدِ مَا عَقَلُوهُ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ
Do you then hope that they would believe in you, and a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this).

This chapter of the Quran is partly focused on corruption charges. In another entry, I wrote about some people in Muhammed’s lifetime who charged him with plagiarism, saying he merely repurposed old and familiar tales. The “they” in this verse refers to those adversaries often taken as Jews or people with knowledge of the Jewish Scripture. Here, Allah says “a party from among” the Jews used to alter the Word of Allah after understanding it. However, this verse implies that the uncorrupted Scripture was available. First, the verse says some, not all the Jews, were in the business of altering the Word after understanding it. This means the Jews who did not participate in the business are free of the corruption charge. Second, the verse says these Jews altered the Word after hearing it. This suggests that the corruption was in understanding, not in the text.

Furthermore, the Surah provides evidence for reading this verse the way we have done. Below is verse 41 of the same passage:

Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 41:
وَآمِنُوا بِمَا أَنزَلْتُ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا مَعَكُمْ وَلَا تَكُونُوا أَوَّلَ كَافِرٍ بِهِ وَلَا تَشْتَرُوا بِآيَاتِي ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا وَإِيَّايَ فَاتَّقُونِ
And believe in what I have revealed, verifying that which is with you, and be not the first to deny it, neither take a mean price in exchange for My communications; and Me, Me alone should you fear.

Allah charges Muhammad to believe in the revealed Surah/Quran, adding that the new revelation verifies or confirms “that which is with you.” Here is how Muhsin Khan translates the verse:

“And believe in what I have sent down (this Quran), confirming that which is with you, [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)], and be not the first to disbelieve therein” (Tafsir At-Tabari, Vol. I, Page 253).

In other words, Allah confirms that the Torah and the Gospel were available to Muhammed if he wanted to verify the Quranic Surah being revealed. But if these texts were already corrupted, necessitating the sending of the Quran, what was the Surah to confirm – a corruption? The implication is that the Torah and the Gospel available to Muhammed were reliable and trustworthy.

The second Quranic witness on our question is quoted below:
Surah Al-Maeda, Verse 13:
فَبِمَا نَقْضِهِم مِّيثَاقَهُمْ لَعَنَّاهُمْ وَجَعَلْنَا قُلُوبَهُمْ قَاسِيَةً يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوَاضِعِهِ وَنَسُوا حَظًّا مِّمَّا ذُكِّرُوا بِهِ وَلَا تَزَالُ تَطَّلِعُ عَلَىٰ خَائِنَةٍ مِّنْهُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا مِّنْهُمْ فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاصْفَحْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ
But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).

Once again, only a theory-laden reading would lead one to conclude from this verse that the text of the Bible was corrupted. This verse, like the one above, seems to describe certain Jews and their neglect of the Scriptures. It says they are treacherous and have neglected a portion of their Scriptures. Ostensibly, they neglected those (righteous?) portions because they did not like them. If they were corrupting texts, these portions would be excellent pieces to edit out of existence. Hence, Ibn Kathir, a respected Islamic authority, writes: “'[they] displace words from (their) right places” means that they misinterpret them and understand them in a way that Allah did not intend, doing this deliberately and inventing lies against Allah.’ So, this text does not prove the corruption of biblical texts.

So, we are back to where we started. There is no evidence for the Islamic charge that the Bible was corrupted. The Quran, the weightiest source and evidence Muslims rely on, does not support the claim. Besides, we have conclusive evidence that the Torah available to Muhammed is essentially the same one we have today. The Dead Sea Scrolls belonged to a Jewish community that existed shortly before the time of Jesus. These texts, discovered in 1946, are very similar to the texts in the Bible that Christians have always had. So, if the Bible were ever corrupted, it would be only in/around Arabia with no impact whatsoever on the Bible today.

This leads to an obvious conclusion: the Allah of the Quran is not the same as the God of the Bible. Whatever similarities there maybe are incidental at best. The worldviews, ethics, history, and eschatology are all irreconcilably different. Muhammed might have genuinely introduced monotheism to his people, but he did so to another allah, not Yahweh.