Second: that the precise wording of what they cite has been reliably established.

Third: that the intended meaning of those words is truly known—both in their translation and in their interpretation.

Should a Person of the Book say to a Muslim, “You agree with me about the prophethood of those earlier messengers,” the Muslim may answer in several ways. One response is to say, “I have never agreed with you that any one of them is a prophet while, at the same time, denying Muhammad—may Allah bless him and grant him peace. In fact, the religion of all Muslims is that whoever believes in some prophets and disbelieves in others is an unbeliever; how much more so someone who disbelieves in the very one we consider the best and final of all prophets! Indeed, most Muslims will add: We only learned of the prophethood of those earlier figures through Muhammad’s report that they were prophets. If we were to undermine the very foundation by which we came to know of their prophethood, that would necessarily undermine their prophethood itself. Whenever a branch is struck at its root, the branch is thereby shown to be flawed in itself, whether that root is assumed to be sound or corrupt: if the root is corrupt, the branch is corrupt; and if the root is sound yet the branch contradicts it, the branch is void. Thus, anything that contradicts its own foundation is invalid in every respect.

Likewise, if the scripturalist says, “We are already agreed on affirming Moses and the Torah, and Jesus and the Gospel,” the Muslim replies, “I only agreed with you on affirming Moses and Jesus—those who