Abudullah and 786,
The question I asked was simply this
When Muhammad first received "his" revelations, he encouraged people to go search the scriptures of the "People of the Book".. the Jews and Christians for things that they didn't understand, as theirs was the earlier revelation. He later said they had deliberately hid the meaning of the words in the revelation. In the Surah I quoted 5:58, he endorses the Torah as an authoritive word from God for the Jews.
His complaint is not that they changed the word of God, but they didn't believe or act upon it.
The charge of corruption came later, when the differences and contradicitons became more evident, yet the scriptures in circulation at the time Muhammad began receiving his revelations and the ones in circulation when he died were exactly the same.
My question to you is why the change of opinion? In a mere 30 years, Muhammad changed his opinions on the state of the Torah and Injil. Was it because they were supposedly corrupted (and all the evidence shows they wern't) or was it because they began to show that his revelations were false? The contradictions between his revelation and the word of God for the Jews and Christians were becoming so noticiable, that how could they all come from the same God? Muhammad's response, and the response of the early caliphs and his companions, were to charge the Jews and Christians, the very ones Muhammed had earlier told his followers to go and seek out for the truth, with corruptiing God's word.
Do you realise how much change would have been necessary for corruptions to have occured in that 30 year period of muhammad's life? The manuscripts prove it wasn't changed or corrupted.. yet it was easier for that charge to be brought against the "people of the book" than to explain the obvious inconsistencies and contradictions between the same stories in both the Qur'an and the Bible.