yet if he lies in any portion of what he says, he is a liar, and Allah, exalted be He, does not commission someone who lies about Him. No created being, after all, would willingly appoint a representative whom he knows to be fabricating on his behalf; were he to do so, it would only betray his ignorance or incapacity. How then could the Lord of all worlds send a man whom He knows to be lying about Him?

Accordingly, once they declare even a single word of the Book to be false, their appeal to—or reasoning from—anything else in that Book is rendered void. If, on the other hand, they affirm the whole of the Book, they are bound to believe in what he brought, to follow his law, and to acknowledge the unbelief of those who rejected him—indeed, the unbelief of those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” or “Allah is one of three.”

This differs from the case of someone who believes in the Messenger, yet some reports transmitted from him have not been firmly established for that person, or whose meaning he does not understand; such matters do not invalidate his basic faith in the Messenger. Thus, when Muslims reject certain reports attributed to Moses or Jesus, their objection is directed at the reliability of the transmitters, not at the prophets to whom the reports are ascribed.

By contrast, the Christians know that Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace) brought the Quran; therefore, their disparagement of any part of it amounts to disparaging the Messenger himself and constitutes unbelief in him. This is not comparable to their example of a deed of debt whose discharge is written on its back: in that scenario the creditor himself acknowledges receipt of payment that cancels the debt, leaving no outstanding claim. The matter differs entirely from what is reported by the one who