The Jew (1) replied, “But in your own Quran it says: ‘And to Midian We sent their brother Shuʿayb’ (Al-Aʿrāf 7:85); ‘And to ʿĀd We sent their brother Hūd’ (Al-Aʿrāf 7:65); and ‘And to Thamūd We sent their brother Ṣāliḥ’ (Al-Aʿrāf 7:73). Likewise, the Arabs address a single man by saying, ‘O brother of the Banū Tamīm.’ By the same token, then, the Torah’s words, ‘I will raise up for the Children of Israel, from among their brothers,’ could mean one of their own.”

The Muslim answered, “The difference between the two cases is obvious. It is impossible to say that the Children of Israel are ‘brothers of the Children of Israel,’ or that the Banū Tamīm are ‘brothers of the Banū Tamīm,’ or that the Banū Hāshim are ‘brothers of the Banū Hāshim.’ No language on earth would regard such phrasing as meaningful. It is, however, perfectly intelligible to say, ‘Zayd is the brother of the Banū Tamīm,’ or ‘Hūd is the brother of ʿĀd,’ or ‘Ṣāliḥ is the brother of Thamūd’—in other words, he is one of them, related to them by lineage. But were one to say, ‘ʿĀd is the brother of ʿĀd,’ ‘Thamūd the brother of Thamūd,’ or ‘Midian the brother of Midian,’ the expression would be flawed and would parallel your statement that ‘the Children of Israel are brothers of the Children of Israel.’ To equate one context with the other is a manifest error (5).”

The Jew said, “He also informed us that this prophet would be raised up for the Children of Israel, whereas Muhammad was raised up for the Arabs and not for the Children of Israel. This particularization implies that he was sent to them alone.”

The Muslim replied, “That, in fact, is one of the proofs of his truthfulness (6), for he claimed that he was the Messenger of God to—"