Home > Surah 5 - The Table Spread
1. The Present Authority:
The text uses the phrase ‘indahumu ("with them / in their possession") regarding the Torah. If the text had been corrupted or stripped of its authority by the 7th century, directing individuals back to a compromised standard would be a logical contradiction. The rhetorical question confirms that the text in their hands remained an active, binding authority.
2. The Present-Tense Verdict:
The verse states that the Torah contains the Ḥukm ("judgment/law") of God in the present tense. Because 7th-century manuscripts match modern biblical translations, the text's core theological claims must logically be accepted as the enduring judgment of God.
3. The Rejection of Forum Shopping:
Historical exegesis indicates the dispute involved a penalty for adultery. The narrative explicitly refuses to provide a secondary legal loophole, demanding instead that the community abide by the absolute standard already given to them
Surah 5:43 records a moment in Medina where Jewish community members sought a legal ruling from Muhammad, leading to a divine rhetorical question that affirms the sufficiency of their own scripture.
Surah 5:43:
But how is it that they come to you for judgment while they have the Torah, in which is the judgment of Allah? Then they turn away, after that; and those are not believers.
The verse uses the word 'indahu (with/in the possession of). For many scholars, this is a strong indicator that the Quran views the Torah of the 7th century as an intact authority.
If the Torah were fundamentally corrupted or lost at that point, the question—"How can they come to you... while they have the Torah?"—would be logically inconsistent, as it would be directing them back to a flawed or non-existent standard.
The assertion that the Torah contains "the judgment of Allah" (in the present tense) is central to the Islamic Dilemma.
If the Torah contained God's judgment during the time of Muhammad, it must have been functionally uncorrupted.
If it was uncorrupted then, and it matches the manuscripts we have from that era (such as the 4th-century codices), then its theological claims (which often differ from Quranic assertions) must also be accepted as God's judgment.
Traditional Islamic exegesis (Tafsir) often links this verse to a specific case involving a penalty for adultery. The narrative suggests that some members of the Jewish community sought a lighter sentence from Muhammad than what was found in the Torah.
The Quran’s response in 5:43 is a refusal to let them "forum shop" for a more convenient ruling, insisting instead that they must be bound by the "Judgment of Allah" already in their hands.
Surah 5:43 serves as a divine certification of the Torah’s status. By questioning the necessity of a new judgment when the old one is already present and authoritative, the verse anchors the Quranic message to the textual integrity of the Bible.
It presents a scenario where the previous scripture is not only valid but is the primary standard by which its own people will be judged.
This verse raises the critical question: if the Torah was the "Judgment of Allah" in the 7th century, at what point could it have become the "corrupted" text that modern Islamic apologists often describe?