One argument of the Christian presuppositional apologists is that only the Bible is self-authenticating. Other sacred texts, like the Quran, are not.
Consider the way Ten Bruggencate's tract on Islam addresses the issue. To Muslims who claim that they could not be wrong, he presents "contradictions in [their] source of knowledge"; that is, he claims that there are contradictions inherent in Islam and the Quran.
John Frame and Steve Hays deal with the issue similarly, in a response to a similar challenge:
As a matter of public record, Muhammad did not, in fact, claim that his message was self-attesting. To the contrary, when confronted with doubters, Muhammad appeals to the People of the Book—the Jews and Christians—to validate his message. In the event, then, of conflict between the Bible and the Koran, Muhammad’s prophetic pretensions are thereby invalidated by his own appointed standard of judgment. Case closed.
Steve Hays provides more detail in a subsequent response, calling the Quran's textual history "checkered" and expounding on contradictions between the early (Meccan) verses of the Quran and later (Medinan) ones:
In the earlier—Meccan—verses, Christians are accorded the right to judge the Koran. Muhammad appeals to the People of the Book (Jews & Christians) to vouch for his prophetic credentials. So he sets up the Bible and its Judeo-Christian interpreters as the standard of reference. By the time we get to the Medinan verses, there's a dramatic about-face. This is one of the major hurdles in Islamic apologetics.
Thus, the argument goes, the Quran is contradictory and therefore not self-authenticating, and thus that it cannot serve as the basis for knowledge.
