Qur'an and the Gospels: Is Historical Scrutiny a Two-Way Street or a One-Way Attack?

In many interfaith debates, Islamic critics reject the Gospels because they were written decades after Jesus, by non-eyewitnesses, and went through editorial processes. Fair enough — historical scrutiny matters. But let’s be consistent:

• The Qur'an was not compiled during Muhammad’s life. It was assembled from oral memory and scattered fragments after his death, according to Hadith (e.g., Bukhari 4986).

• No eyewitnesses are named in the Qur'an for the events it narrates — not even Muhammad himself is the narrator.

• The Qur'an has no internal documentation explaining how it was compiled, by whom, or when. That information only comes from later Islamic tradition — not the text itself.

• Standardization under Uthman involved destroying variant Qur’anic versions — which is an act of centralization, not organic preservation.

If someone critiques the Gospels for being post-event, composite, and human-authored — then why isn’t the Qur'an held to the same standards? If one set of scriptures is rejected for historiographical reasons, consistency demands we scrutinize the other the same way.

Unless, of course, we're just saying “Our book is off-limits — yours isn't.” But that’s not history. That’s special pleading.

Would love to hear from those who take a historical-critical approach — not just theological assumptions.