"Islam's archaeology doesn't outshine the Bible's—both have their strengths and gaps. The Qur'an claims divine preservation (Surah Al-Hijr, 15:9), and early manuscripts like the Birmingham folios (circa 632 CE) back that up, aligning with Muhammad's (peace be upon him) time. Sites like Al-Ula in Saudi Arabia tie to Thamud, mentioned in Surah Ash-Shu'ara (26:141-159), and the Ka'ba's pre-Islamic roots are real, though not fully dug up due to restrictions. But evidence is thin—Mecca and Medina lack structures from Muhammad's day, and key Qur'anic events like the ‘Ad people's fate (Surah Al-Fajr, 89:6-8) stay unproven.
The Bible's got more meat on its bones. The Dead Sea Scrolls (3rd century BCE to 1st century CE) match today's texts closely, and finds like the Tel Dan Stele (9th century BCE) name King David, backing 2 Samuel. Jericho's walls (Joshua 6) and Hezekiah's tunnel (2 Kings 20:20) line up with digs too. Still, gaps exist—Exodus lacks direct proof, and some dates clash.
Islam's edge is the Qur'an's early consistency, but the Bible's broader, older record—hundreds of corroborated sites versus Islam's handful—gives it more archaeological weight. Neither's ‘better' in a slam-dunk way; the Bible just has more to show so far."