The Question No Muslim Can Answer

Muslims: Here’s a challenge. From pre-Muhammad sources, name someone who lived between 40 AD and 600 AD who you consider to be a true follower of Jesus.

No excuses. Don’t say “Islam believes” or “the Quran says.” A name, and a pre-Muhammad historical source. Go.

Cue the crickets.

Prediction: You can’t, and that’s a big problem. In Quran 3:55, it says:

“Allah said, ‘O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection.’”

Allah promised Jesus that his followers would be superior. Quran 61:14 says that they will be dominant:

“O you who have believed, be supporters of Allah, as when Jesus, the son of Mary, said to the disciples, ‘Who are my supporters for Allah?’ The disciples said, ‘We are supporters of Allah.’ And a faction of the Children of Israel believed and a faction disbelieved. So, We supported those who believed against their enemy, and they became dominant.”

If these verses are true, then the challenge should be easy. If the true followers of Jesus are superior and dominant, and you have more than five centuries to find one, then providing a name and a historical source should be easy peasy.

To be clear: I’m not asking you to find people who called themselves Muslims, or who believed everything that Muhammad taught. He comes later. That’s fine. I just want a historical pre-Muhammad source that names one person, about whom you can say, “that’s a true follower of Jesus.”

Before we get started, here are some things Muslims believe about Jesus’ followers:

1. True followers of Jesus believe the one simple message: Allah is one, worship Him alone, keep His laws.
2. Jesus was a true prophet of God – a man, not the Son of God or divine (Quran 9:30)  –  who taught the one simple message.
3. Jesus was authenticated by his virgin birth and miracles.
4. Jesus was not executed by the Jews and Romans (Quran 4:157).

Keep those in mind as we work through the candidates for true followers of Jesus. Here’s the awkward truth: we’re not going to find anyone. Here’s why:

• Most of the world hadn’t even heard about Jesus during this time.
• Orthodox Christians worship Jesus as the divine Son of God.
• Non-orthodox Christians included Gnostics, who claimed the world’s creator (Allah) is evil, and Arians, who denied Jesus’ deity but still called Him God’s special Son and affirmed His crucifixion.
• Jews didn’t follow Jesus—they rejected Him as a prophet.
• Zoroastrians followed Zoroaster, not Jesus.
• The ‘ḥunafā,’ only mentioned in later Islamic sources, are said to follow Abraham, not Jesus.
• The Ebionites were a small, second-century sect known only through Christian sources. They accepted the death and resurrection of Jesus but rejected His virgin birth. They believed the “Christ” descended on Jesus temporarily and departed at His resurrection, and they relied on a mutilated version of the Gospel of Matthew.
• The other religions in the region where Jesus was known were polytheists, worshiping many gods.

And that’s it. That’s pretty much everyone.

Among all those groups, there is no one who a Muslim can call a true follower of Jesus. Which means that Islam has failed the challenge. If you disagree, give a name and an actual source.

If there is no one, there are only two possible conclusions:

1. The Quran is wrong. It says that Allah promised Jesus that his followers would be dominant, and yet there isn’t even one single person we can find in the five centuries after Jesus. So, you should reject the Quran.
2. The Quran is correct, and the true followers of Jesus are the ones who became dominant. By the time of Muhammad, there were twenty million Christians in the world. Christians are the superior, dominant followers of Jesus. So, if you believe the Quran, you must believe that Christians are the true followers of Jesus. Allah made us uppermost.

How the Tafsirs Make Things Worse

When you crack open the Islamic tafsirs (commentaries) to untangle Quran 3:55 and 61:14, the mess doesn’t get better—it explodes. The Quran claims Jesus’ true followers would dominate until the Day of Resurrection. Sounds straightforward, right? But the tafsirs? They’re a patchwork of conflicting interpretations.

Take Al-Jalalayn. He says Jesus’ followers—both Christians and Muslims—are superior through argument and force. But wait. The Quran repeatedly condemns core Christian beliefs like the Trinity and Jesus’ divinity as shirk (associating partners with Allah). So, if Christians dominated, does that mean Allah approved of the shirk-committing crowd? Talk about a theological trainwreck. This is a tacit admission that the Christians were dominant.

Maududi doubles down on this mess, claiming Christians and Muslims jointly defeated Christ’s disbelievers (the Jews). And I quote: “Those who follow” him are really the Muslims only but if it may be taken to imply all those who believe in him, then the sincere Christians may also be included.” But again, how can Christians, whose theology the Quran rejects, share divine victory with Muslims? This “explanation” tries to merge two opposing groups under one promise, only creating more confusion.

Ibn Kathir cranks it up. He spins a conspiracy theory about Constantine corrupting Christianity and claims rival sects like the “Jacobites” (Monophysites?) and Nestorians united to wipe out Jesus’ supposed “Muslim” followers. Problem? There’s zero historical evidence for this—and if these “true followers” were wiped out, the Quran’s promise of dominance falls flat. To patch this, Ibn Kathir shifts the prophecy to Muslims centuries later. That’s not an explanation; it’s post hoc rationalization. The Quran’s claim is about Jesus’ immediate followers, not a group that showed up long after.

Kashani skips history entirely and plunges into mysticism, claiming Jesus’ followers are “spiritual ones” who triumph over ego. Seriously? This vague, allegorical dodge completely sidesteps the Quran’s clear historical claim. And even “spiritual” groups leave some trace in history—but for this supposed group? Nothing but crickets.

Al-Qushairi takes another evasive route, arguing the victory is “moral” or “ethical.” Translation: “Let’s just pretend this promise wasn’t about history at all.”

Ibn Abbas offers nothing new, repeating the Quran’s claim that Jesus’ followers will triumph through argument—without identifying who they are or how this victory happened. It’s a non-answer.

al-Baghawi splits Jesus’ followers into three groups: those who called Him God, those who called Him God’s son, and the “true believers” who saw Him as Allah’s servant. He claims the true believers were suppressed, only for their views to resurface with Muhammad. But the Quran promises dominance starting with Jesus’ time, not centuries of obscurity. Baghawi just kicks the can down the road.

The Tazkirul Quran commentary concedes Christian dominance but punts the problem to Judgment Day, basically saying, “Yeah, Christians are on top now, but they’ll get theirs later.” Convenient, but contradictory. The Quran already calls Jesus’ original followers Muslims. If Christians are dominant, does that mean Allah let their “blasphemous” theology win for centuries? That’s a glaring problem and an admission of Christian dominance.

Here’s the real issue: the Quran claims to be crystal clear (Surah 6:114, 16:89, 41:3), yet its tafsirs are a circus of contradictions and ad hoc rationalizations. Imaginary conspiracies, vague allegories, and historical revisionism don’t solve the problem—they magnify it. If this promise were truly “clear guidance,” why does it take so much theological gymnastics to make sense of it?

Addressing the Argument from Silence

One common rebuttal to this challenge is that it’s just an argument from silence. But let’s get one thing straight—not all arguments from silence are created equal. Claiming that the absence of evidence always disproves a claim is lazy reasoning. But recognizing when silence itself becomes damning? That’s a different story.

A weak argument from silence assumes something didn’t happen just because there’s no evidence, even when there’s no reason to expect evidence in the first place. For example, skeptics claim the Massacre of the Innocents didn’t happen because only Matthew mentions it. But come on—Bethlehem was a tiny village, and we’re talking about a handful of kids. It wasn’t exactly front-page news in the Roman Empire, and Matthew is a source making a plausible claim. Herod was one paranoid dude.

On the flip side, a strong argument from silence kicks in when you’d definitely expect evidence but find nothing. It’s like saying, “I don’t see a spider in the room, therefore there aren’t any in here”—sure, but spiders are small and they’re good at hiding. But claiming, “I don’t see an elephant in the room”? Now you’re onto something. Missing a spider makes sense—they’re small and sneaky. Missing an elephant? That’s impossible if it’s supposed to be there.

Now let’s talk about the Quran. In 3:55 and 61:14, it promises that Jesus’ true followers would be dominant and superior until the Day of Resurrection. If that’s true, we should see clear evidence of these followers between 40 AD and 600 AD. Yet, history tells a different story. The dominant group during that time? Orthodox Christians—who proclaimed Jesus’ divinity and crucifixion, beliefs that Islam outright denies. So where are these supposed “true followers”? This isn’t just silence—it’s the deafening absence of an elephant-sized group that the Quran claims should exist.

And it gets worse. We’ve got records of all kinds of groups from that era: Gnostics like the Valentinians and Marcionites, Jewish sects like the Essenes and Zealots, Christian heresies like the Arians, Montanists and Sabellians, and even pagan cults like Mithraism and the Isis cult. Yet when it comes to this mysterious, dominant Islamic-aligned Jesus-following group? Crickets. No names, no evidence, nothing.

Let’s make this crystal clear with Bayesian reasoning. If the Quran’s claim were true (H), the absence of evidence (~E|H) would be shockingly improbable because historical dominance (however you want to define it) leaves footprints. But if the claim is false (~H), the absence of evidence (~E|~H) makes perfect sense. The probability ratio tips heavily in favor of the Quran’s claim being false, making this a textbook case of a strong argument from silence.

Finally, there isn’t even silence. We have earliest and best records of what the disciples taught: that Jesus was crucified, resurrected, and proclaimed as God. The data is that straightforward. My channel and blog are packed with videos and posts breaking down the reliability of the New Testament in detail.

Addressing Common Objections

Whenever this challenge is raised, some well…interesting objections tend to roll in. Some of these were already addressed in the section on the Tafsirs, but a little repetition never hurt anyone. Let’s tackle a few of the big ones.

“What about Waraqa?”

Waraqa ibn Nawfal is often brought up as a potential “true follower” of Jesus, but this doesn’t work. Waraqa was Muhammad’s contemporary, so he can’t count as a pre-Islamic source. We only read about him in the Hadith. The Quran’s promise in 3:55 and 61:14 refers to Jesus’ followers before Muhammad, not someone from the 7th century. Plus, if Waraqa followed Nestorian doctrines, as many believe, he likely affirmed the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus—key beliefs that Islam explicitly rejects. Reportedly recognizing Muhammad’s prophetic call doesn’t make him fit the Quran’s description of Jesus’ dominant followers.

“It’s Not Fair to Exclude Non-Muslim Sources!”

This objection completely misses the mark. The challenge gives Muslims 500 years—an incredibly generous timeframe—to find a pre-Muhammad source naming a follower of Jesus who fits the Quran’s description. And no, we’re not asking for a “non-Islamic” source in the theological sense. If Islam means submission to God, then any pre-Muhammad figure who truly submitted to God in line with the Quran’s description would qualify. But the Quran also says these followers were superior and dominant—so where are they? If they existed, this shouldn’t be a difficult request.

“Allah was okay with his ‘true followers’ holding at least some false beliefs, like the crucifixion“

Some argue the Ebionites are “close enough” because they accepted the virgin birth—even though they also believed in Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, and held other beliefs contradictory to Islam. But really? Are we supposed to believe Allah was okay with His “true followers” embracing beliefs He’d later have to outright condemn—beliefs that became the foundation of what Islam calls blasphemous worship? That’s not “close enough”; that’s absurd. And why couldn’t Jesus or Allah have easily corrected these mistaken beliefs among Jesus’ disciples before they spread?

“But Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc. were all Muslims!”

Some Muslims argue that figures like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon count as Muslims because, by definition, a Muslim is someone who submits to God and the Quran recognizes them as prophets. But that’s just circular reasoning and blatant equivocation. It assumes they practiced Islam simply because the Quran says so, without offering evidence, and it stretches the definition of “Muslim” so broadly that it becomes meaningless. Sure, you believe that—but so what?

More importantly, this argument completely misses the point. The Quran’s promise in 3:55 and 61:14 is about Jesus’ followers before Muhammad, not ancient prophets from completely different eras. Tossing in figures from outside the challenge’s timeframe because “the Quran says” is like entering a horse into a car race—it’s irrelevant and doesn’t address the problem. Stick to the actual question.

“You can’t find Moses in non-Jewish or Christian sources either!”

This objection came up during my time when I was live on EF Dawah, and it’s a classic false equivalence and a weak deflection. Moses is mentioned in ancient Greek and Roman works, albeit indirectly. Hecataeus of Abdera (quoted by Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, Book 40, fragments) describes Moses as a lawgiver and the founder of Jewish religious laws. Strabo (Geography, Book 16, Chapter 2) refers to Moses as a wise leader who established monotheism. Tacitus (Histories, Book 5, Chapters 3-5) discusses Moses as the leader of the Jewish exodus from Egypt. Even Josephus (Against Apion, Book 1) cites Greek writers like Manetho and Cheremon, who mention Moses, though often critically. These aren’t direct sources for Moses’ life, but let’s not pretend he’s absent from non-biblical sources.

However, this completely misses the point. The argument isn’t about Moses being mentioned—it’s about the Quran’s explicit claim that Jesus’ true followers would remain dominant until the Day of Resurrection. No passage in the Bible, Quran, or any text about Moses (or Abraham, or any other prophet) makes a comparable claim about their followers. This objection is a deflection that fails to address the Quran’s inability to meet its own historical standards.

“You’re misunderstanding the Quran—it’s about spiritual or moral dominance, not historical or political dominance.”

This was the Kashani/Al-Qushairi move. Again, this is a way to dodge scrutiny. Even if the dominance is “spiritual,” we’d still expect some kind of trace left in the historical record. After all, spiritually dominant groups tend to influence communities, inspire movements, or leave writings. But there’s nothing. This “fuzzy and intangible” reinterpretation moves the goalposts away from tangible investigation and makes the claim unfalsifiable.

Plus, 61:14 clearly describes a real group of followers prevailing over opponents—a historical scenario, not some abstract moral victory. The grammar and at least most of the tafsirs both suggest influence in the real world. If these “spiritually dominant” followers existed but left no evidence, we’re back to wondering how the Quran’s claim squares with historical reality.

“The dominance only happens after Muhammad! This is about Muslims!”

This is part of what Ibn Kathir seems to argue. So, is the Quran retroactively giving credit to Muslims for something they weren’t even present to achieve? That appears to be a classic case of post hoc reasoning—interpreting historical events to fit a prophecy after the fact. The verses explicitly address Jesus’ followers and promise their dominance “until the Day of Resurrection,” implying an unbroken continuation. There’s no clear textual basis for a centuries-long gap or a sudden handoff to Muhammad’s followers. The plain reading of the Quran leaves little room for such reinterpretation—this isn’t about bending the text to fit history; it’s about facing what the Quran actually claims.

“The Christians wiped out Jesus’ true followers and buried the evidence!”

This baseless excuse creates more problems than it solves—just like we saw with al-Baghawi and Ibn Kathir. If Jesus’ true followers were wiped out, then the Quran’s promise in 3:55 and 61:14—that they would be dominant and superior until the Day of Resurrection—failed outright. A group erased from history isn’t dominant by any definition, making this explanation a direct contradiction of the Quran’s claim.

And where’s the evidence? Josephus and Philo documented Jewish sects like the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, and Sicarii. Early Christians recorded heretical groups like various Gnostic groups and other Christian factions such as the Arians, Donatists, and Pelagians in detail. Yet there’s nothing about a faction aligning with Islamic beliefs being systematically erased. This isn’t just an unsupported theory; it’s an ad hoc rescue—a desperate attempt to dodge the fact that history doesn’t back up the Quran’s bold assertion. If the followers were wiped out, the Quran’s promise failed. If they didn’t exist, the promise was meaningless. Either way, this objection only digs a deeper hole.

“Surah 3:55 and 61:14 are about two different groups!”

This came up in my conversation with Deen Responds. Claiming that Surah 3:55 and Surah 61:14 refer to two entirely different groups seems unlikely and unnecessarily complicated. Probabilistically, this explanation feels ad hoc and far less plausible than the straightforward interpretation that both verses refer to the same group of Jesus’ followers. There’s no clear textual evidence in the Quran suggesting a shift between groups or promises.

Making matters worse, 61:14 explicitly states that a faction from the Children of Israel would be made victorious. Deen’s attempt to apply this verse to a later group in Arabia—or to anyone besides Jesus’ immediate followers—makes zero sense. The Quran is clearly referencing Israelites, not Arabs centuries later. Trying to stretch this to fit the rise of Islam ignores the plain meaning of the text.

Deen seemed to waffle between claiming his explanation was clear from the context and yet later admitting the passages were unclear, especially when I pointed out the diversity of interpretations among commentators. The simplest and most natural reading is that both verses describe the same followers, who were promised superiority from Jesus’ time until the Day of Resurrection. The lack of historical evidence for such a group strongly challenges this claim.

Let’s weigh the probabilities. What’s more reasonable: (1) that Allah’s promise to Jesus’ followers was fulfilled by a group so obscure they left no historical trace for five centuries, or (2) that these verses are overstating a claim that doesn’t match the historical record? Introducing a second group to bridge this gap doesn’t solve the issue—it just adds unnecessary complexity while leaving the historical silence unaddressed. The straightforward interpretation, while challenging, avoids these pitfalls of patchwork explanations.

Deen also claimed Jesus taught the virgin birth (despite no evidence for this in the Quran or Hadiths) and that the Ebionites—who, according to Eusebius, at least one group affirmed it—were the “superior” followers promised in Surah 3:55. Yet, when confronted with the fact that the Ebionites also accepted the crucifixion and resurrection—beliefs Islam explicitly rejects—he dismissed it with, “the disciples were deceived.” Conveniently, their belief in the virgin birth is treated as reliable because “Jesus taught it” (again, with no source—just an assumption). And when all else failed, he argued their theological errors were excusable because the Quran hadn’t been revealed yet. This isn’t reasoning; it’s a patchwork of contradictions.

Here’s the problem: if the Ebionites could be deceived about events as monumental as the crucifixion and resurrection, why assume that a segment of them were infallible about the virgin birth? Even if they affirmed it, the Ebionites were a tiny, fractured, and historically irrelevant group—not remotely fitting the description of a “superior” community. Spiritualizing their supposed superiority doesn’t solve the problem; it just moves it out of the realm of investigation, like Joseph Smith’s disappearing golden plates. It’s a messy attempt to salvage an unworkable claim and only makes it clearer how the Quran’s promise fails to align with history.

The Real Problem

The Quran’s claim that Jesus’ followers would be dominant until the Day of Resurrection faces a glaring probabilistic problem. No historical evidence supports it, tafsirs contradict each other, and excuses stretch credibility to the breaking point. What’s more likely: a dominant group perfectly aligned with Islam existed but left no trace, or the Quran’s claim just doesn’t match reality?

If the Quran’s right, history makes it clear who dominated—Christians proclaiming Jesus’ divinity and crucifixion. So, either the Quran is wrong, or it’s pointing you to the real Jesus: God incarnate. The odds aren’t in Islam’s favor. Take the hint. Follow Jesus.