Second: Even with those whose prophethood Muslims do acknowledge—Moses, Jesus, David, and Solomon—Muslims have no conclusive evidence that everything the objectors cite was actually spoken by those prophets, that the Arabic rendering presented is an accurate translation of their words, or that the interpretation assigned to those words reflects what the prophets themselves intended.

Third: The great majority of Muslims know of the prophethood of anyone before Muhammad—peace and blessings be upon him—only because Muhammad informed them of it. Therefore they can affirm the prophethood of none of those earlier figures until they have first affirmed the prophethood of Muhammad himself, peace and blessings be upon him.

If, then, the objectors demand that Muslims concede the prophethood of those earlier men while refusing to recognize Muhammad’s prophethood, Muslims cannot comply; neither reason nor revelation sanctions such a concession. Consequently, unless the objectors produce independent proofs for the prophethood of those figures, they will have offered neither a demonstrative proof nor even a sound dialectical argument.

Fourth: Muslims believe in the prophethood of Moses and Jesus only together with their testimony to the future prophethood of Muhammad. If the objectors accept that Moses and Jesus did in fact foretell Muhammad’s mission, then his prophethood—and theirs—stands confirmed. But if they deny that testimony, Muslims will in turn deny the prophethood of the person they claim to be Moses.