A Point‑by‑Point Rebuttal: Why the Islamic Injīl Claim Collapses Under Historical Scrutiny
Formal Rebuttal: Response to “Rediscovering Jesus’ Original Message Beyond Layers of History”
This article is a formal rebuttal to Mohamed, Ph.D., “Rediscovering Jesus’ Original Message Beyond Layers of History: The Injīl Inside the Gospel.”
It is written as a direct response, not a parallel reflection. The original piece presents itself as a historical and textual exploration accessible to global readers. It is neither. It is a theological argument advanced under the appearance of historical analysis.
What follows is a point-by-point rebuttal. Each major claim made in the original article is identified, examined, and tested against historical-critical standards. Assertions are not treated as evidence. Appeals to faith are not treated as argument.
The aim is simple: methodological accountability.
Introduction: This Is Not a Neutral Exploration
The article “Rediscovering Jesus’ Original Message Beyond Layers of History: The Injīl Inside the Gospel” presents itself as an educational bridge for global readers. It is not. It is a theological assertion dressed up as historical analysis.
What follows is a direct, no‑holds‑barred, point‑by‑point counter. Each major claim is restated, then tested against historical method, textual evidence, and basic logic. Where the article asserts, this response demands proof. Where it theologizes, this response draws boundaries.
Claim 1: “The Injīl Is the Original Gospel Revealed Directly to Jesus”
The Claim
Islam teaches that Jesus received a divine revelation called al‑Injīl, distinct from the New Testament Gospels.
The Problem
There is no historical evidence whatsoever for such a document.
No manuscripts
No quotations
No references in early Christian literature
No Jewish polemics mentioning it
No pagan critiques acknowledging it
No archaeological trace
The Injīl appears only in the Qur’an, six centuries after Jesus.
Conclusion
This is not a lost text. It is a retroactive theological construct. A claim without evidence does not become plausible through repetition.
Claim 2: “Christians Were Told to Judge by the Gospel They Possessed” (Qur’an 5:47)
The Claim
Qur’an 5:47 proves that the Gospel in Christian hands still preserved divine truth.
The Dilemma (Unavoidable)
Either:
The Gospel in the 7th century was reliable enough to judge by
Or Allah commanded judgment by a corrupted text
The Gospel Christians possessed already affirmed:
Jesus’ crucifixion
Resurrection
Sonship
Lordship
Worship of Jesus
Islam accepts the verse when it suits apologetics and rejects its implications when it doesn’t.
Conclusion
This is special pleading, not consistency. Qur’an 5:47 destabilizes later corruption claims.
Claim 3: “Monotheism in the Gospels Reflects the Original Injīl”
The Claim
Verses affirming God’s oneness are remnants of Jesus’ original monotheistic message.
The Problem
Selective quotation is not historical recovery.
The same texts also assert:
Pre‑existence (John 1:1)
Divine authority
Acceptance of worship
Equality of honor with God
Extracting subordinational verses while ignoring narrative structure violates basic hermeneutics.
Conclusion
This is proof‑texting, not scholarship.
Claim 4: “Jesus Is Presented as a Servant, Not Divine”
The Claim
Statements like “The Father is greater than I” align with Islam’s view of Jesus.
The Problem
The Gospels simultaneously portray Jesus:
Forgiving sins
Redefining divine law
Speaking with self‑derived authority
Receiving worship
In Second Temple Judaism, prophets do not behave this way.
Conclusion
Islam flattens the Christological spectrum to force compatibility.
Claim 5: “The Gospel Calls Jesus a Prophet — Confirming Islam”
The Claim
Jesus is explicitly called a prophet in the Gospels.
The Correction
Yes — and more.
Being called a prophet does not exclude other identities. The Gospels present escalating recognition, not reduction.
Conclusion
This is a category error, not confirmation.
Claim 6: “The Qur’an Corrects the Crucifixion Narrative”
The Claim
Qur’an 4:157 reveals that Jesus was not crucified.
The Historical Reality
Jesus’ crucifixion is one of the best‑attested events of antiquity, affirmed by:
Tacitus
Josephus
Lucian
Early creeds and letters
All four Gospels
The Qur’an offers:
No eyewitnesses
No alternative account
No historical corroboration
Conclusion
Contradiction labeled as correction is not evidence. This is theology overriding history.
Claim 7: “Textual Variants Support Qur’anic Corruption Claims”
The Claim
Bart Ehrman’s work supports the idea of Gospel distortion.
The Reality
Ehrman explicitly states:
Core doctrines are not products of textual corruption
The NT text is highly reconstructable
No variant erases crucifixion or resurrection
Conclusion
This is misuse of scholarship.
Claim 8: “Fragments of the Injīl Still Shine Through”
The Claim
Agreement equals preservation; disagreement equals corruption.
The Logical Issue
This framework is unfalsifiable:
Agreement → authentic fragment
Disagreement → corruption
Absence → lost text
No possible evidence could ever disprove the claim.
Conclusion
Unfalsifiable claims are not historical claims.
Claim 9: “Islam Restores Jesus”
The Claim
Islam restores Jesus’ original message.
The Test for Restoration
Restoration requires:
A demonstrable original
Evidence of loss
Verifiable recovery
Islam provides none.
Conclusion
This is not restoration. It is replacement.
Final Conclusion: Call It What It Is
The Injīl described in the article is not a recoverable historical text. It is a theological necessity created to reconcile Islam’s Jesus with a prior historical record that contradicts him.
That does not make it illegitimate as belief.
But presenting it as history, scholarship, or neutral exploration is intellectually dishonest.
History asks for evidence.
The Injīl offers none.
Invitation to Public Response
This rebuttal is published openly and in good faith.
If any of the following can be demonstrated, this critique fails:
Independent historical evidence for a distinct Injīl revealed to Jesus
Manuscript, patristic, Jewish, or pagan references to such a text
A non-circular method for identifying “authentic fragments” within the Gospels
A historically coherent resolution of Qur’an 5:47 and Gospel theology
A falsifiable framework under which the Injīl claim could be tested
Absent these, the Injīl claim remains what this rebuttal has shown it to be: unfalsifiable theology, not recoverable history.
Responses addressing evidence and method are welcome.
Deflections, appeals to faith, or repetitions of assertion are not answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment