📘 Qur’an vs. Gospels: When Islamic Apologetics Collapse Under Their Own Standards

Let’s be honest — a lot of Muslim polemics against the Gospels are just ticking time bombs waiting to backfire. If you apply their same criticisms to the Qur’an, it falls apart even faster.

Take this syllogism:

1. If a religious text is disqualified for being written after the prophet's death, by unnamed authors, with no eyewitness testimony, then it is not historically reliable.

2. The Qur’an was compiled after Muhammad's death, by unnamed compilers in the text, and never cites eyewitnesses.
   ∴ Therefore, by that standard, the Qur’an is not historically reliable.

Yet somehow this standard only gets used against the Gospels?

Here’s what Muslim apologists won’t say out loud:

• The Qur’an wasn’t compiled during Muhammad’s life.

• No compiler or scribe is named in the Qur’an itself.

• There’s no mention of how it was assembled, when, or by whom.

• All that comes from Hadiths written two centuries later (like Bukhari 4986).

Now compare that to Luke’s Gospel:

• Names his method, his audience (Theophilus), and says it’s based on eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1–4).

• The early church (Irenaeus, Muratorian canon) identifies Luke as Paul’s companion — not anonymous.

• No one waited 200 years to explain where the Gospel of Luke came from.

So the irony is: if you reject the Gospels for being "late," "anonymous," or "non-eyewitness" —
you have to reject the Qur’an first, or you're just committing special pleading.

And that’s where the whole apologetic implodes.