Imam Jibreel JOKOMBA@JokombaJibreel
Bismillah
I have read your thoughtfully articulated analogy and the accompanying question. However, I must respectfully point out that the comparison falls short of capturing the nuances of the matter at hand. In the case of mbape's goals, do we have any primary source claiming he didn't score—wether old or recent? I believe the answer is NO. Are there any eyewitnesses contesting the fact of his goals? Again, no.
From your analogy, the man who came 30 years after cannot, by any rigorous historiographical standard, be classified as a primary source. Consequently, his testimony would be inadmissible in any serious historical inquiry. But in the case of the crucifixion of Jesus, we are confronted with multiple early accounts offering different accounts.
I'll approach this from a point of commitment to intellectual integrity and critical scholarship. I also trust that your question arises from an earnest pursuit of truth, rather than from a position already impervious to reconsideration.
Cc: @tomiwaImmanuel
One might hastily assume that the belief in the Quranic account about Jesus, the son of mary is peak folly based on the question " How is it that Prophet Muhammed's claim (by revelation) comes almost 6 centuries after, yet is contradictory? How can he be correct? ". In the real sense, not critically examining the historiography surrounfing this history is sheer accademic negligence, if not the highest level of academic injustice.
In the study of history, history stands at one end of the spectrum, while historiography occupies the other. They are interdependent yet epistemologically distinct aspects of the field of historical studies
While History refers to the actual events, stories ir experience of the past, Historiography is the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particular details from the authentic materials in those sources, and the synthesis of those details into a narrative that stands the test of critical examination. One might aptly say history provides the raw material for the sculpture of knowledge.
It is safe to say that historiography is not merely a retelling a story, but a disciplined exercise in discerning what merits remembrance, based on evidentiary credibility and interpretive insight.
Now let's get to the crux of the mattwr. For one to meaningfully engage, let alone accept the account of the Qur'an concerning Jeus, one must subject the prophethood of Muhammad to proper intellectual and theological scrutiny. Why?
Because he claimed to have received revelation from the same primary source from which Jesus came—God. Respectfully, Pastor. Do you believe that the account of God regarding any historical event supersedes that of a human being, even if both are considered primary sources of history?
Of your answer is No, then there is little basis for further discussion, and you may consider this a natural point of departure. But of your answer is yes, then Alhamdulillah, let's proceed.
Both the Quran and the Bible assert themselves to be divine revelations from the same transcendent Source: God. This shared claim provides an interesting premise for comparative analysis. As such, both texts must be subjected to an equivalent standard of academic and rational scrutiny.
It would be intellectually disingenuous to uncritically affirm the divine authorship of the Bible while placing the Quran under rigorous examination or vice versa. True fairness demands that we examine both scriptures through the lens of historical criticism, textual consistency, and theological coherence.
Only by engaging with each text on equal epistemological footing can our respective faith commitments be carved not merely in tradition or emotion but in informed conviction.
