that Muhammad—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—had reported the very opposite. How much stronger, then, is the case when it is actually known that he did report the opposite, for certitude about those passages rests on a set of premises.

The first premise: one must know that the figures in question were genuine prophets, and that knowledge is impossible once Muhammad—peace and blessings be upon him—is declared a liar.

The second: one must prove that the wording now in their hands is exactly what those prophets uttered. This demands establishing an unbroken, mass-transmitted chain (tawātur) for those very expressions from the prophets themselves—something that has never been shown.

The third: one must demonstrate that the meaning of those words is indeed the meaning that contradicts the report of Muhammad—peace and blessings be upon him—and that, too, has not been proven.

Any one of these premises on its own blocks certain knowledge of a meaning that conflicts with the report of Muhammad—may Allah bless him and grant him peace; how much more so when all three coincide. In fact, they prevent certitude about the accuracy of those passages even if they did not conflict with him—so what if they do?

The third approach is that of those who argue that the wording of these scriptures was never transmitted by tawātur. They substantiate this by pointing to the break in the Torah’s transmission after the destruction of the Temple and the interruption of the Gospel’s transmission at its very outset.

The fourth approach is that of those who demonstrate that certain portions of the scriptures have been altered,