Section: The Muslims acknowledged the prophethood of none of these persons except together with the prophethood of Muhammad—may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

If their aim in adducing this material is to use it as an argument against the Muslims, they may be told:

First, what you present is merely a dialectical proof. On what authority—before Allah—do you affirm one claimant and deny another when the signs of veracity are the same in both, indeed clearer in the one you have rejected? If your proof is sound, you must accept the one you have disbelieved and your religion is thereby undone. If it is unsound, your appeal to it in defence of your faith is void. Hence, while they persist in denying Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), they have no legitimate basis for citing the words of any of the prophets, peace be upon them, as evidence.

Second, the Muslims came to know the truthfulness of those prophets only through what established for them the truthfulness of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). If Muhammad were not truthful, their certainty regarding those earlier prophets would disappear and your argument would fail. If he is truthful, the Christian religion collapses and its alleged proof vanishes as well. Thus their evidence is invalid in every possible case.

Third, the Muslims affirmed the prophethood of none of those figures except in conjunction with the prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Even if it is claimed that they recognized that prophethood by some other route, the very proof that establishes the truthfulness of any one of them establishes—more decisively—the truthfulness of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Therefore it is impossible to affirm any prophet while denying Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).