to those who heard the report from them. If it was therefore possible for the hearers to be mistaken in this affair—and they were by no means infallible in transmitting it—then it is likewise possible that they erred in some other things they relayed from him. Such slips do not impugn the Messiah’s prophethood, nor do they undermine the recurrent, well-established testimony that he is Allah’s Messenger whose guidance must be followed, whether he was crucified or not. Whatever about him has reached us through multiple, corroborated chains must be believed, irrespective of the crucifixion question.

The disciples are deemed truthful in what they conveyed from him and are not suspected of willfully fabricating lies about him. Yet should one of them have slipped in part of his narration, this does not prevent other reports from remaining reliable—especially when the very point in which he erred is shown elsewhere to be mistaken.

Christians themselves have differed over nearly every point in which error crept in, even over the crucifixion. Some maintain that the person crucified was not the Messiah at all but only a look-alike, exactly as Muslims assert. Others affirm his servitude to God and reject both incarnation and union, such as the Arians. Still others deny union while accepting incarnation, like the Nestorians.