The Pan-Abrahamic Problem: Why Mohamed’s Defense Collapses Under Its Own Weight

How one apologist reply accidentally confirms the evolution of Islam rather than refuting it.

For years, Muslims have repeated the claim that Islam is unchanged, preserved, and identical to what Muhammad preached in the 7th century. It’s an argument repeated so often that many assume it must be true.

But the moment you examine early Islamic history, early Qur’anic categories, and foundational documents like the Constitution of Medina, a problem emerges — a problem modern apologetics is not equipped to solve.

Recently, in response to a critique of Islam’s evolution, a Muslim apologist (Mohamed, Ph.D) offered a familiar defense: Islam didn’t change; it simply “culminated,” “progressed,” and “completed” what earlier prophets taught. According to him, what appears as doctrinal shift is actually divine continuity.

The problem?
His argument collapses under the weight of the very texts he quotes — and inadvertently proves the opposite of what he intends.

This article explains why.

1. The Qur’an’s Early Vision Was Pan-Abrahamic, Not Exclusivist

The earliest Islamic movement — what scholars like Fred Donner, Stephen Shoemaker, and Joshua Sijuwade call the “Believers’ movement” — was not a closed, Muhammad-only religion.

It included:

Jews
Christians
Sabians
And any monotheist who “believed in God and the Last Day”

The Qur’an itself distinguishes between believers (mu’minūn) and Muslims (muslimūn), using the terms in ways that do not map onto later Islamic orthodoxy.

Verses like 2:62, 5:69, and 22:17 explicitly place Jews, Christians, and other monotheists within the umbrella of salvation — without requiring belief in Muhammad.

This is not fringe scholarship.
It’s the consensus of the earliest Qur’anic strata.

2. The Constitution of Medina Confirms Early Inclusivity

The Constitution of Medina — a foundational document attributed to Muhammad — defines Jews as:

part of the ummah
politically equal partners
religiously autonomous
not required to convert
not designated disbelievers
free from jizya
entitled to collective defense

In other words:
They were not outside the community.
They were members of it.

This directly contradicts the theological system that emerged centuries later, where:

Jews and Christians are labeled unbelievers
They must pay jizya
They are excluded from the ummah
They are placed under Islamic authority
Their scriptures are called corrupted
Their religions are invalidated

These two systems — Medina’s charter and later Islamic law — cannot both represent “unchanged Islam.”

One is inclusive.
The other is exclusivist.
One is early.
The other is the product of political empire.

3. Modern Apologetics Rewrites History to Protect Doctrine

When confronted with this evidence, Mohamed responded with a single verse (Qur’an 42:13), claiming that Islam has always been continuous with the message given to earlier prophets.

That argument is circular:

The Qur’an claims continuity.
Therefore, Islam must be continuous.

But the question is not what the Qur’an claims —
It’s whether the historical record matches that claim.

This requires engagement with:

early inscriptions
early coins
non-Muslim sources
Qur’anic philology
the Constitution of Medina
early terminology
academic research

None of this appeared in his response.

Instead, he attempted to reinterpret the Constitution of Medina through the lens of much later Islamic orthodoxy — ignoring the actual text of the document.

This is not exegesis.
It is retroactive harmonization.

4. The Key Admission: “Submission Now Includes Belief in Muhammad”

Mohamed’s most revealing statement was this:

“Submission now includes belief in Muhammad as the final prophet.”

This is not a rebuttal.
It is an accidental confession.

It means:

Early Islam did not require belief in Muhammad.
Later Islam made that mandatory.
Therefore, the religion changed.

Once you admit change, you destroy Islam’s core claim:

“Islam is unchanged and preserved exactly as revealed.”

Early Islam was a coalition of monotheists.
Later Islam became a replacement religion centered around Muhammad.

That is doctrinal evolution — not preservation.

5. Continuity vs. Change: You Cannot Have Both

Islamic theology depends on five assertions:

Islam is unchanged.
Islam is the original religion of Abraham.
Muhammad’s message is identical to earlier prophets.
The Qur’an is preserved.
Doctrine has never evolved.

But history reveals:

Early Islam included Jews and Christians as believers.
Early Islam did not require belief in Muhammad for salvation.
Early Islam recognized other monotheists as part of the ummah.
Later Islam rejects all of that.
Later Islam imposes exclusivity, jizya, and doctrinal boundaries.

If Islam “progressed” into exclusivity, then it changed.
If Islam changed, it was not preserved.
If it was not preserved, the central theological claim collapses.

You cannot “complete” a religion and simultaneously claim it never changed.

6. Why Mohamed’s Defense Fails

Because instead of addressing:

early Qur’anic categories
early monotheist inclusion
textual evolution
historical evidence
the Believers’ movement
the Constitution of Medina’s content
academic consensus
political transformation under the Umayyads and Abbasids

He responded with:

one verse
one reinterpretation
one doctrinal assertion
one sentimental metaphor

None of this touches the actual argument.
None of this resolves the contradiction.
None of this explains the historical evolution from inclusivity to exclusivism.

His reply demonstrates exactly what modern Islamic apologetics does when confronted with history:

It replaces analysis with theology,
evidence with assertion,
and data with devotion.

Conclusion: The Evidence Speaks for Itself

The earliest form of Islam:

was pan-Abrahamic
included Jews and Christians
defined “believers” broadly
structured the ummah as a multi-faith community

The later form of Islam:

excludes Jews and Christians
restricts salvation
replaces earlier revelation
redefines “believers” and “Muslim”
imposes jizya
creates an exclusive religious identity

This is not preservation.
This is transformation.

The very defense offered by Mohamed accidentally confirms the historical truth:

Modern Islam is not the religion Muhammad started.
It is the religion built after him.

And acknowledging that truth is the first step toward understanding the origins of Islam — not as a timeless monolith, but as a movement shaped by history, politics, and doctrinal evolution.

Combating Islam

Tuesday, February 10, 2026