Real Logical Fallacies in Surah Al-Baqarah (2:136)

When analyzing religious texts, particularly from a critical or theological standpoint, identifying logical fallacies requires attention to detail and consistency. In Surah Al-Baqarah (2:136), which asserts belief in God, the prophets, and previous revelations, certain claims reveal logical issues when scrutinized within the framework of Islamic theology. Below is a refined analysis of the real logical fallacies within this verse.

---

1. Contradictory Premises

Text:

"We make no distinction between any of them [the prophets]."

Problem:

Islamic theology elevates Muhammad (PBUH) as the final and most important prophet, often referred to as the "Seal of the Prophets" (Surah Al-Ahzab 33:40). Furthermore, belief in Muhammad is mandatory for salvation (Surah Al-Imran 3:85). This creates a direct contradiction:

• On one hand, the Quran claims that no distinction is made between prophets.
• On the other hand, Islamic teachings distinguish Muhammad as the ultimate prophet whose message supersedes all previous revelations.

Fallacy: Contradiction (a subtype of logical inconsistency)

The premise of "no distinction" cannot logically coexist with the theological elevation of Muhammad’s status in Islamic practice and belief.

---

2. Special Pleading

Text:

The verse affirms belief in "what has been revealed to Moses and Jesus."

Problem:

The Quran acknowledges the Torah and Gospel as divine revelations yet accuses these texts of corruption (e.g., Surah Al-Baqarah 2:79, Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:13). Meanwhile, it asserts that the Quran is divinely protected from corruption (Surah Al-Hijr 15:9).

This creates a real double standard:

• Earlier scriptures are claimed to have been altered by human hands.
• The Quran is uniquely protected by God from similar alterations, without independent justification for why this protection was not extended to previous revelations.

Fallacy: Special Pleading

This fallacy arises from applying different standards to the Quran versus earlier scriptures without sufficient reasoning or evidence to explain this distinction.

---

3. False Continuity

Text:

The verse claims belief in all prophets and revelations as part of a single divine tradition.

Problem:

While the verse emphasizes continuity, the Quran reinterprets or outright contradicts key doctrines from earlier scriptures, such as:

• The Crucifixion of Jesus: The Quran denies the crucifixion (Surah An-Nisa 4:157), a foundational belief in Christianity.
• The Trinity: The Quran rejects the Christian concept of the Trinity (Surah An-Nisa 4:171).

This divergence undermines the claim of unbroken continuity between Islam and earlier Abrahamic traditions, as these reinterpretations conflict with essential doctrines in Judaism and Christianity.

Fallacy: False Continuity

The Quran’s claim of confirming earlier revelations is undermined by significant theological contradictions, making the claim of continuity logically untenable.

---

4. Begging the Question

Text:

The verse presupposes that all prophets were "Muslims" (i.e., submitters to Allah).

Problem:

The Quran assumes that all prophets and their followers were adherents to Islam’s concept of submission to Allah, but this assumption is not substantiated by Jewish or Christian scriptures. In those texts, figures like Moses and Jesus are not described as "Muslims" in the Quranic sense.

By defining all prophets as "Muslims," the verse presupposes the correctness of the Islamic framework without proving its validity.

Fallacy: Begging the Question

The verse assumes as true what it needs to prove: that all prophets adhered to the Islamic understanding of submission to God.

---

Conclusion

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:136) contains several real logical fallacies that emerge from its claims and their implications within Islamic theology. These include:

1. Contradiction: Claiming "no distinction" between prophets while elevating Muhammad above others.
2. Special Pleading: Applying different standards of preservation to the Quran versus earlier scriptures.
3. False Continuity: Claiming theological continuity while diverging from the core teachings of Judaism and Christianity.
4. Begging the Question: Assuming the Islamic framework applies universally without substantiating this claim.

These fallacies are not speculative but arise directly from inconsistencies within the verse itself or its interaction with broader Islamic teachings. They invite deeper reflection and critical discussion, particularly in interfaith contexts where claims of continuity and universality are often debated.