Malik

[Malik @Maliksdef]

Your argument assumes the exact opposite of what prophets are sent for.

You say Arabia was steeped in paganism for centuries.
Okay,
and?

That's an argument for sending a prophet, not against sending one.

Israel received prophet after prophet, scripture after scripture, and miracle after miracle, yet the Old Testament is full of accounts of idolatry and rebellion. So a long prophetic history clearly isn't proof that a people will remain guided.

More importantly, where does God ever say that revelation is permanently restricted to Isaac's descendants? Abraham was the father of both Isaac and Ishmael.

What you're really arguing is that because Arabia was spiritually lost, God wouldn't send guidance there.

Arabia's paganism doesn't disprove Muhammad ﷺ. It explains why his mission was necessary.

[Malik @Maliksdef]

If Israel had a "continuous, documented covenant" with prophet after prophet, scripture after scripture, miracles after miracles, then why were they repeatedly condemned for idolatry, corruption, and rejecting God's messengers?

You're mocking Arabia for centuries of paganism, but the Israelites started worshipping the golden calf while Moses was still alive. They had prophets in front of them and still fell into error.

And where exactly does God say that only Isaac's descendants are entitled to receive prophets forever? Show the verse.

God sent prophets where people needed guidance. The fact that Arabia had fallen into paganism is an argument for sending a prophet there, not against it.

[Malik @Maliksdef]

That's exactly the question.

Show us where this original Injil was in the 7th century, and show us where Christians were following it.

If the Injil was fully preserved, why don't we have a single manuscript written by Jesus, dictated by Jesus, or even claiming to be the direct words of Jesus?

Instead, you have four Greek biographies written decades later by different authors, none of which identifies itself as 'the Injil of Jesus.'

So where is the Injil that Allah revealed to Jesus? Point to it.

[Malik @Maliksdef]

You're creating a false dilemma and then acting like you've trapped Islam.

Quran never says the Gospel revealed to Jesus vanished from existence. It says people altered, concealed, and misrepresented parts of God's message. Those are not the same thing.

When Quran tells the People of the Gospel to judge by what Allah revealed therein (5:47), it's calling them back to the truth that remained in their scripture, not endorsing every doctrine that developed centuries later.

And your use of Surah 6:34 doesn't work either. The verse is about Allah's promises and decrees not being defeated. If "no one can change Allah's words" means no one can ever distort scripture, then why does the Bible itself repeatedly accuse people of mishandling, ignoring, and corrupting God's commands?

But here's the bigger problem with your argument:

If the Gospel in your hands today is exactly the pure revelation given to Jesus, then why are Christians still debating who wrote the Gospels, when they were written, which books belong in the canon, what salvation means, and even who Jesus is?

You can't tell me the text is perfectly preserved and crystal clear while thousands of denominations reach different conclusions from it.

The reality is simple: Quran confirms the original revelation given to Jesus, not every later interpretation attached to it. That's why it agrees with parts of previous scripture, corrects other claims, and acts as a criterion over what came before.

So no, there's no trap here. The only trap is assuming that "God revealed a book" automatically means every later copy, interpretation, and doctrine built around it is beyond question.

[Malik @Maliksdef]

By your logic, historians should treat a witness statement and a fourth-hand account written 70 years later as equally reliable.

No serious historian does that.

And notice what happened: instead of defending the late authorship, anonymity, and transmission history of the Gospels, you ran to Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. That's called changing the subject.

[Malik @Maliksdef]

What exactly convinced you that Islam is lying, when the earliest Gospel manuscripts never identified their authors?

You seem eager to call others liars, yet you don't appear to know the history of your own scriptures. This isn't even an Islamic claim to begin with. It's a conclusion reached by many biblical scholars, including Christian scholars.

Is your argument simply that the names "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke," and "John" appear in the titles of the Gospels today? That's not the issue. The real question is whether the original texts identified their authors and whether the authors themselves claimed to be eyewitnesses.

Let's look at the timeline:

Jesus' ministry ended around 30–33 CE.

Mark is generally dated around 65–70 CE.

Matthew and Luke are usually dated around 80–90 CE.

John is commonly dated around 90–100 CE.

That means the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, in Greek, not in the language Jesus primarily spoke. The earliest copies we possess are not the original manuscripts, and the original texts do not identify their authors within the documents themselves.

Calling people liars doesn't answer these historical facts. It avoids them.

If you're so certain, explain why numerous biblical scholars, including Christian scholars, acknowledge that the Gospels originally circulated anonymously and that the traditional attributions came later. Are they all lying as well, or is this simply a historical discussion you're uncomfortable engaging with?

Insults are easy. Evidence is harder.

[Malik @Maliksdef]

I keep noticing you repeat the same claim under different posts as if repetition somehow turns an assumption into evidence. What's the goal? When your questions are answered, instead of engaging with the response, you move on and repeat the same talking points elsewhere.

There are only two possibilities: either you're unwilling to consider anything beyond what you've already decided to believe, or you're pushing an agenda rather than looking for the truth. In a genuine discussion, you present an argument, consider the response, and then address it. What often happens instead is that once the answers become difficult to refute, you disappear and restart the same argument somewhere else.

Now, to your claim:

First, prophets do not need to read previous scriptures to receive revelation. Moses did not learn from Abraham's written books. Revelation comes from God, not from a library.

Second, if Muhammad ﷺ was merely copying "oral folklore," why does Quran repeatedly correct and challenge theological beliefs that had become widespread among Jews and Christians? A copier follows his sources. He doesn't confront them.

Third, the irony is that the Bible itself is based on texts written decades after Jesus, by unknown authors who were not even eyewitnesses to most of the events they recorded, and in a language Jesus did not speak as his daily language. Yet you accept those writings as authoritative.

So the claim that Muhammad ﷺ could not read Hebrew or Greek is not an argument against his prophethood. It's simply a distraction from the actual discussion.

[Malik @Maliksdef]

Where did Jesus clearly say, "I am God, worship me"?

Not where someone interpreted it.

Not where a theologian explained it.

Not where verses are combined to conclude.

Where did Jesus plainly and directly say it?

For a belief that determines salvation, the instruction should be clear enough that ordinary people can understand it without centuries of theological debate.

[Malik @Maliksdef]

You are stacking long-debunked polemics and calling them "historical blunders."

Haman? The Quran never says Haman is the same person from Esther. It simply mentions a man named Haman in Pharaoh's court. Assuming every person with the same name across centuries must be the same individual is not history, it's speculation.

The Samaritan? The Arabic word Samiri doesn't necessarily mean a member of the later Samaritan ethnic group. You're importing your interpretation into the text and then attacking the interpretation you created.

"Sister of Aaron"? Even Christians know "brother" and "sister" were used for lineage, tribe, piety, or ancestry. Elizabeth in the Bible is called a "daughter of Aaron" centuries after Aaron. By your logic, she must also be Aaron's literal daughter.

Who was the first Muslim? First in what context? The first of a nation, the first among a people, the first to submit in a specific situation. The Quran uses the phrase contextually, not as a global chronology. That's why there is no contradiction.

6 days vs 8 days? This has been answered for over a thousand years. The 4 days in Surah 41:10 include the previous 2 days, not 2+4+2. The total remains 6. You're counting cumulative periods twice.

Which Quran? Hafs or Warsh? Different Qira'at are recitations transmitted from the Prophet ﷺ. They are not different Qurans. The message, chapters, and core text remain the same. A British English Bible and an American English Bible may differ in wording, but nobody claims they're different books.

Uthman burning manuscripts? He standardized the written dialect to prevent regional disputes, not because there were multiple competing Qurans. If he had altered the Quran, how did thousands of memorizers across the Muslim world fail to notice?

The irony is that you're demanding mathematical precision from the Quran while defending theological doctrines that require centuries of councils, philosophical definitions, and interpretations that Jesus himself never explicitly taught. Before accusing others of historical problems, first show where God clearly taught your theology.

[Malik @Maliksdef]

Case closed only works if the case was actually made.

Just to update your knowledge / understanding
The word Muslim means one who submits to God, not someone who happened to live after the 7th century.

By your logic of following,
Abraham wasn't a believer either because he didn't follow the Mosaic Law.
Moses wasn't a believer because he didn't follow Jesus.
And Jesus wasn't a believer because he didn't testify to Muhammad by name.

Did Moses worship one God? ✅
Did Moses submit to God's commands? ✅
Did Moses prostrate in prayer? ✅
Did Moses call people to obey God alone? ✅

As for sacrifices, they were part of the law given to Moses. Different prophet, different legislation. The Quran itself says that for every community God prescribed its own rites and laws.

The irony is that the Quran explicitly calls Abraham a Muslim, even though he lived long before Muhammad.

The universal faith of all prophets with the specific rituals given to particular nations and periods. Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad had different laws, but they all called people to worship the same God and submit to Him alone.

That's why they are all regarded as Muslims in the literal sense of the word: those who submit to God.

[Malik @Maliksdef]

The Quran does say it is the truth:
'The truth is from your Lord' (Quran 2:147).

But it doesn't stop there.

It challenges people to examine it, reflect on it, and even produce something like it if they think it's false (Quran 2:23, 4:82, 10:38).

That's very different from 'believe it because it says so.

[Malik @Maliksdef]

The Children of Israel were given prophet after prophet, from Moses to Jesus. Why? If they already had the true faith and the covenant, why was there a constant need for correction, reform, and new prophets?

According to your own scriptures, they couldn't even wait for Moses to come down from Mount Sinai before making and worshipping a golden calf. If the people of the covenant could fall into idolatry within days of receiving revelation, why is it so hard for you to believe that the descendants of Ishmael could also drift away from Abraham's monotheism over centuries?

By your logic, Moses was unnecessary because Abraham already existed. Jesus was unnecessary because the Torah already existed. Every prophet after Noah was unnecessary because humanity had already received guidance.

What Islam rejects is the idea that God's guidance belongs exclusively to one bloodline. If God could send dozens of prophets to the descendants of Isaac when they went astray, why is it suddenly impossible for Him to send one prophet to the descendants of Ishmael when they went astray?

That sounds less like a historical argument and more like an assumption that God should only care about one family forever.

[Malik @Maliksdef]

That's exactly the problem. You are doing theology like a math equation:

God is good. Jesus is called good. Therefore Jesus is God.

But that's not what Jesus actually said.

You have to connect verses from different contexts, add assumptions in the middle, and then arrive at a conclusion that Jesus never explicitly stated himself.

Meanwhile, the clear statements are right there:

"The Father is greater than I."
"The only true God" (John 17:3) referring to the Father.
"I was sent."
"I do nothing of myself."
"The words I speak are not my own."
"My God and your God."

Those are direct, plain statements.

If Jesus wanted people to believe he was God, why is the doctrine dependent on connecting scattered passages, titles, and symbolism, while the straightforward statements consistently present him as God's servant, messenger, and one sent by God ?

You're asking us to abandon the explicit for the inferred, the clear for the assumed, and the direct for the theological reconstruction. That's exactly why Muslims don't find the argument convincing.

[Malik @Maliksdef]

A shepherd leading God's people is completely understandable within Jewish thought. Turning every divine title or metaphor into a claim of being Yahweh Himself is a much bigger leap and one that first needs to be proven, not assumed.

What Muslims find problematic is not that Christians interpret the New Testament through the Old Testament.
It's that clear statements about God being one and Jesus being sent by God are often reinterpreted through later theology, while metaphorical titles are elevated into proof texts for divinity.

If I take your logic of being shepherd of Israel, than every person in the Bible described with a title also used for God would become divine.

David was a shepherd. Israel's leaders were called shepherds. Judges were called gods (elohim) in Psalm 82. Moses was even said to be "as God" to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1).

Would you accept their divinity too ??

[Malik @Maliksdef]

Stop for a moment and think about what you're doing.

You're describing God's inner life, His eternal relationships, what He was doing before creation, and how love functioned within the Godhead. My question is simple:

Where did God say any of this?

Not a church council. Not a theologian. Not your interpretation. God.

Show me the verse where God says, "I am an eternal community of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Show me where God explains that He exists as three persons eternally loving one another.

If not than stop repeating rhetoric without any clear proof from the book.

[Malik @Maliksdef]

This is exactly the difference.

Muslims start with the clear verses and interpret everything else in light of them. The Quran repeatedly states that Allah alone is God, that everything belongs to Him, and that all creation returns to Him:

"Indeed, we belong to Allah, and indeed to Him we will return." (2:156)

The meaning couldn't be clearer. We already belong to Allah. Therefore, Allah being "The Inheritor" cannot mean He suddenly acquires ownership in the future. It means that when all temporary owners are gone, His absolute ownership alone remains.

The Bible expresses the same reality when it says:

"The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." (Psalm 24:1)

There is no controversy here. God is the ultimate owner of everything.

This is what often separates the two approaches.
Muslims interpret unclear passages through clear ones. Christian theological arguments do the opposite: they take theological assumptions and then read them back into the text, even when clear verses point elsewhere.

Qur'an's message is simple, explicit, and repeated throughout:
God is One,
without partners,
equals,
or incarnations.

[Malik @Maliksdef]

Christians, Jews, and Muslims all claim the God of Abraham as the source of their faith.

Jews reject the Trinity, reject Jesus as God, reject the Incarnation, and reject the New Testament altogether.
By your logic, Christians and Jews worship different gods too.

Yet you don't say, The God of the Torah is a different god.

That's exactly how Muslims view the matter.

And let's be honest: quoting "Before Abraham was, I am" doesn't magically settle the debate.

As for Surah 112, it doesn't "curse" the idea of God having a son, it simply rejects it.
The Quran's argument is simple: the Creator is unlike creation. He doesn't reproduce, descend from anyone, or become someone's literal offspring.

Its agreed that Abraham worshipped one God. Its agreed that Jesus existed.

But Million Dollar question.

Jesus was praying to which God, coz saying that before Abraham was, I am. Was Jesus to praying to himself ??

While on contrary to your assumptions, Jesus taught the worship of the One God.
Or
Did he teach that he himself was that God?

[Malik @Maliksdef]

Well you messed up ideology is in a deeper problem now:
Who was running the universe while God was dead?
If God truly died, then He wasn't God.
If only Jesus' human nature died, then God didn't actually die for anyone.

A mother sacrifices because she lacks the power to simply remove the danger.
God does not. If God must bleed, suffer, and die to prove His love, then weakness becomes greater than omnipotence.

Your argument only works if suffering is the highest virtue. It isn't.

[Malik @Maliksdef]

Strawman.

No one said prostration alone proves truth. The argument is that the worship of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the prophets included prostration before one God.
If your position is that posture is irrelevant, then stop appealing to Jesus' practices when they suit your theology. The issue isn't a bent spine, it's continuity of belief and worship.