Is the Quran a a Refinement of the Bible or a Repurposing of the Bible?

Catholic philosopher and author Peter Kreeft (often misspelled as Kreep) holds a nuanced view of Islam that emphasizes spiritual "common ground" while maintaining firm theological distinctions. 
His primary comments and positions include:
• Moral & Ethical Ally: Kreeft frequently argues that Muslims and Christians are allies in the "culture war". He admires Muslim devotion to prayer, their rejection of abortion and pornography, and their high birthrates, which he sees as a willingness to "pay forward the gift of life".
• Theological Perspective: He describes Islam as a religion that "reinterprets" Christianity rather than just adding to it, comparing the Quran's interpretation of the New Testament to how the New Testament interprets the Old Testament.
• Commonalities vs. Differences: In his book Between Allah and Jesus, he uses a fictional dialogue to show that while Muslims and Christians disagree on the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, they share a belief in a single, all-powerful God and a focus on submission to His will.
• Controversial Demographic Comments: Kreeft has remarked that while historical attempts to conquer Europe by force failed, Islam is now "succeeding" through demographics and mothers, leading to what he calls the "Muslimization" of the continent.
• Debate with Robert Spencer: During a noted debate with Robert Spencer, Kreeft argued that radicalism is a perversion of Islam, similar to how historical inquisitions were distortions of Christianity. He remains more optimistic than Spencer about finding a version of Islam that renounces religious oppression. 


In his book 
Between Allah and Jesus
, Kreeft uses fictional dialogues—primarily featuring a devout Muslim student named 'Isa (Arabic for Jesus)—to explore deep theological overlaps and points of friction. 
His core theological arguments include:
• Shared Essence of God: Kreeft posits that Muslims and Christians worship the same God but with different understandings of His nature. He argues that the "God of the Muslims" and the "God of the Christians" share the same divine essence.
• The "Social Analogy" of the Trinity: In one of the book's most significant chapters, Kreeft attempts to bridge the gap between Islamic Tawhid (absolute oneness) and the Christian Trinity. He explores the Trinity using a "social analogy," suggesting that the one God is a community of distinct Persons, which he contrasts with the Muslim confession of absolute unitarianism.
• Incarnation vs. Inlibration: Kreeft makes a structural comparison between the two faiths: what the Person of Jesus (the Word made Flesh) is to Christians, the Quran (the Word made Book) is to Muslims. This highlights that both religions believe in a direct, authoritative revelation from Heaven to Earth.


• The Problem of the Cross: Kreeft argues that while Islam is rich in "morality and sanctity," it fundamentally lacks "the Cross, and Christ, and his radical love." He notes that in the Muslim view, the Jesus of the New Testament was "corrupted" by later followers like Paul.
• Submission as Common Ground: The theological centerpiece is the concept of surrender (Islam means "submission"). Kreeft argues that Christians can learn "spiritual tenacity" and total surrender to God’s will from Muslims, which he sees as a "primordial purity" often lost in modern Western Christianity.
• "Anonymous Christianity": The book touches on the Catholic view that sincere seekers of other faiths might be saved by Jesus even without explicit knowledge of Him—a concept sometimes called "anonymous Christianity" that remains controversial among more traditionalist readers. 

Peter Kreeft’s perspective on Jihad vs. Spiritual Warfare is primarily outlined in his book Ecumenical Jihad. He provocatively reclaims the term "Jihad" to describe a shared moral struggle.
• Redefining "Jihad" for the West: Kreeft argues that while many in the West associate Jihad only with terrorism, its literal meaning is "struggle" or "effort". He uses the term "Ecumenical Jihad" to call for a unified religious front—including Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims—to fight a common war against secular humanism, materialism, and moral decay.
• The "Real" Enemy: He asserts that too many Muslims think the enemy is "flesh and blood" (people), while too many modern Christians think there is "no enemy at all". Kreeft emphasizes that the true enemy is spiritual: Satan and sin.
• Spiritual Warfare as Internal: For Kreeft, the most critical "holy war" takes place inside the soul. He notes that "wars on earth always reflect wars in Heaven". He admires the Muslim concept of total submission to God's will (Islam) as a potent weapon in this spiritual combat.
• Critique of Violence: In his debate with Robert Spencer, Kreeft argued that violent Jihad is a perversion of the faith, comparable to historical Christian "distortions" like the Inquisition. He believes "good Muslims" can serve as ethical allies because they still possess a "fear of God" and respect for divine law that the secular West has lost.
• The Goal of the "War": Unlike historical military jihads aimed at territorial expansion, Kreeft’s "Ecumenical Jihad" is aimed at saving Western civilization through moral and spiritual restoration rather than physical force. 

In his book 
Ecumenical Jihad
, Peter Kreeft argues that the "sides" of history have shifted. He believes traditional religious groups should no longer treat each other as primary enemies because they face a common "anti-religious" threat. 
Kreeft identifies the following as the primary "enemies" in the modern culture war:
• Secular Humanism: Kreeft identifies this as the chief "godless" ideology that attempts to build a moral system entirely without God. He argues it results in moral relativism, which he claims has never been embraced by a surviving culture.
• Materialism: He views the focus on physical wealth and the denial of the supernatural as a spiritual sickness that blinds Westerners to reality.
• Moral Decay and "The Culture of Death": Kreeft identifies specific social symptoms as enemies, particularly abortion (which he calls the "murder of the conceived") and the breakdown of the traditional family.
• Nihilism and Atheism: He describes atheism as the "essential diagnosis" of Western ills, leading to a "loss of meaning" and a feeling that life is "nauseating" or absurd.
• "Comfortable Lies": In his lecture on 10 Lies of Contemporary Culture, he lists modern "enemies" such as spiritual pacifism (refusing to fight evil), the elevation of tolerance above truth, and the idea that freedom is an end in itself rather than a means to do good.
• Scientism: He critiques the "naïve belief" that science alone can create an earthly paradise, calling it a major cause of human misery. 
Kreeft’s central argument is that devout Muslims, Jews, and Christians share a "fear of God" and a belief in objective moral truth that makes them natural "co-belligerents" against these secular forces. 


Peter Kreeft  views Islam through a lens of both moral alliance and theological distinction. His primary thesis is that Christians and Muslims share a common "enemy" in secular nihilism. 
Kreeft's key positions on Islam include:
• Moral Lessons for Christians: Kreeft argues that Muslims can "prick the conscience" of Christians regarding devotion, the fear of God, and the rejection of modern social ills like abortion and pornography.
• The "Ecumenical Jihad": In his book Between Allah and Jesus, he uses fictional dialogues to suggest that while theological differences are vast (specifically the nature of God), Christians and Muslims are natural allies in a "culture war" against secularism.
• Demographic "Conquest": More controversially, Kreeft has remarked on EWTN that Islam is "conquering" Europe not by force, but through higher birth rates—what he calls the "power of mothers"—contrasting this with the declining birth rates in the West.
• Theological Critique: Despite his call for alliance, Kreeft maintains that Islam is a reinterpretation of Christianity (similar to how Christianity reinterprets Judaism) and firmly believes in the necessity of Christ for full salvation. 

In his comparative analysis,
Peter Kreeft highlights that while both faiths share an 
Abrahamic foundation, they diverge sharply on the nature of God's interaction with humanity. 


Kreeft’s specific theological comparisons include:
• The Nature of Jesus: Kreeft notes that the Quran affirms the virgin birth and Jesus’ role as a prophet and teacher, but strictly denies His divinity, resurrection, and role as a Savior. To Kreeft, Islam views Jesus as a "lawgiver" (another Moses), whereas the New Testament presents Him as the Mediator between God and man.
• The "Word of God": Kreeft makes a structural comparison where the Quran is to Islam what Jesus (not the Bible) is to Christianity. In Islam, the Word of God is a book; in Christianity, the Word is a Person.
• Method of Salvation: Kreeft contrasts the Islamic concept of "mathematical salvation"—where good deeds are weighed on a scale—with the Christian doctrine of grace through the sacrifice of Christ. He argues that Islam lacks the Cross, which he considers the essential "missing link" for redemption.
• Concept of God (Tawhid vs. Trinity): While Kreeft suggests both faiths may worship the same God in essence, he acknowledges the irreconcilable difference between Islam's strict unitarianism (Tawhid) and the Christian Trinity.
• Divine Revelation: He describes Islam as a religion of "God's law," emphasizing submission (Islam's literal meaning), while Christianity is a religion of "God's search for man," emphasizing divine love and adoption.

Peter Kreeft approaches the idea of "anonymous Christians"—a term popularized by theologian 
Karl Rahner—with a focus on the sincerity of the seeker and the universal reach of Christ's Logos.
Kreeft’s perspective on the salvation of devout Muslims includes these core principles:
• The Power of Seeking: Kreeft leans on Jesus’ promise that "all who seek, find". He argues that if a Muslim is sincerely seeking and loving God, they are actually seeking the Logos (the Word), which Christians identify as Christ, even if they do not recognize Him by name.
• Invincible Ignorance: He distinguishes between those who reject Christ out of malice and those who see Him only through "broken lenses". He posits that God does not punish people for not knowing a Savior they were never properly introduced to, a concept known as invincible ignorance.
• Implicit Faith: Kreeft views the Islamic "fundamental option"—the total submission of one's will to God—as a potential "yes" to the same Divine Life that Christians embrace. In this sense, a devout Muslim could be an "anonymous Christian" because their heart is aligned with the Will of God that Christ perfectly embodied.
• Christ as the Sole Door: While he is optimistic about the possibility of salvation for Muslims, Kreeft remains an exclusivist regarding the method: he insists that if any Muslim is saved, they are saved by Christ alone, not by the merits of Islam as a separate system.
• The Scale vs. the Savior: He notes a crucial psychological difference: a Muslim often lives in hope that their good deeds will outweigh their bad. Kreeft suggests that the "anonymous Christian" transition happens when a person realizes their own insufficiency and throws themselves entirely on Divine Mercy. 




Peter Kreeft’s perspective on 
Jihad vs. Spiritual Warfare is primarily outlined in his book Ecumenical Jihad. He provocatively reclaims the term "Jihad" to describe a shared moral struggle.
• Redefining "Jihad" for the West: Kreeft argues that while many in the West associate Jihad only with terrorism, its literal meaning is "struggle" or "effort". He uses the term "Ecumenical Jihad" to call for a unified religious front—including Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims—to fight a common war against secular humanism, materialism, and moral decay.
• The "Real" Enemy: He asserts that too many Muslims think the enemy is "flesh and blood" (people), while too many modern Christians think there is "no enemy at all". Kreeft emphasizes that the true enemy is spiritual: Satan and sin.
• Spiritual Warfare as Internal: For Kreeft, the most critical "holy war" takes place inside the soul. He notes that "wars on earth always reflect wars in Heaven". He admires the Muslim concept of total submission to God's will (Islam) as a potent weapon in this spiritual combat.
• Critique of Violence: In his debate with Robert Spencer, Kreeft argued that violent Jihad is a perversion of the faith, comparable to historical Christian "distortions" like the Inquisition. He believes "good Muslims" can serve as ethical allies because they still possess a "fear of God" and respect for divine law that the secular West has lost.
• The Goal of the "War": Unlike historical military jihads aimed at territorial expansion, Kreeft’s "Ecumenical Jihad" is aimed at saving Western civilization through moral and spiritual restoration rather than physical force. 


Ecumenical Jihad
, Peter Kreeft argues that the "sides" of history have shifted. He believes traditional religious groups should no longer treat each other as primary enemies because they face a common "anti-religious" threat. 
Kreeft identifies the following as the primary "enemies" in the modern culture war:
• Secular Humanism: Kreeft identifies this as the chief "godless" ideology that attempts to build a moral system entirely without God. He argues it results in moral relativism, which he claims has never been embraced by a surviving culture.
• Materialism: He views the focus on physical wealth and the denial of the supernatural as a spiritual sickness that blinds Westerners to reality.
• Moral Decay and "The Culture of Death": Kreeft identifies specific social symptoms as enemies, particularly abortion (which he calls the "murder of the conceived") and the breakdown of the traditional family.
• Nihilism and Atheism: He describes atheism as the "essential diagnosis" of Western ills, leading to a "loss of meaning" and a feeling that life is "nauseating" or absurd.
• "Comfortable Lies": In his lecture on 10 Lies of Contemporary Culture, he lists modern "enemies" such as spiritual pacifism (refusing to fight evil), the elevation of tolerance above truth, and the idea that freedom is an end in itself rather than a means to do good.
• Scientism: He critiques the "naïve belief" that science alone can create an earthly paradise, calling it a major cause of human misery. 
Kreeft’s central argument is that devout Muslims, Jews, and Christians share a "fear of God" and a belief in objective moral truth that makes them natural "co-belligerents" against these secular forces. 


Kreeft’s "Ecumenical Jihad" has drawn significant fire from critics who believe he prioritizes cultural politics over essential doctrine.
The pushback generally falls into three categories:
• Theological Incompatibility: Critics from The Gospel Coalition and other Reformed circles argue Kreeft minimizes the exclusivity of the Gospel. They contend that because Islam denies the Trinity and the Atonement, any "spiritual alliance" is built on a foundation of sand.
• Historical Realism: Scholars like Robert Spencer, who famously debated Kreeft, argue that Kreeft is naïve about Islamic history. They claim that "Jihad" has historically been an outward military force rather than Kreeft’s idealized internal struggle, making his "ecumenical" vision a dangerous misunderstanding of Islamic doctrine.
• Indifferentism: Traditionalist Catholics often accuse Kreeft of Religious Indifferentism—the idea that all religions are equally valid paths to God. They argue his focus on "common ground" obscures the Catholic Church's claim as the sole path to salvation, a concern often voiced on platforms like Catholic Answers.
The "Enemy of My Enemy" Fallacy: Some social critics argue that just because Muslims and Christians both oppose secularism, it doesn't make them allies. They point out that their ultimate goals for society (e.g., Sharia Law vs. Christian Democracy) are fundamentally incompatible

Kreeft’s advice is rooted in a "diplomacy of the heart," encouraging Christians to view Muslims as comrades-in-arms rather than enemies.
His practical recommendations include:
• Lead with Virtue: Kreeft suggests that the best way to "evangelize" a Muslim is not through intellectual debate, but through moral excellence. He argues that Muslims often view Westerners as decadent; therefore, a Christian’s best witness is a life of visible prayer and chastity [PeterKreeft.com].
• Find Common "Sacred Ground": He advises starting conversations with shared beliefs, such as the Virgin Birth of Jesus (which is in the Quran) and the belief in the Day of Judgment. He believes this builds the trust necessary to later discuss the Cross [InterVarsity Press].
• The "Test of Charity": Kreeft reminds Christians that if they do not love their Muslim neighbors, they have already lost the "spiritual war." He insists that charity is the only "weapon" that actually works in the "Ecumenical Jihad" [Ignatius Press].
Learn from Their Devotion: He paradoxically suggests that Christians should let themselves be "shamed" by Muslim devotion—such as praying five times a day—to reignite their own spiritual discipline

Xxx



Kreeft argues that while Islam is a theological rival, atheistic secularism is an existential threat because it denies the very foundation of objective truth and morality.
His reasoning centers on these points:


His reasoning centers on these points:
• Common Transcendence: Kreeft notes that Muslims and Christians both believe in a transcendent moral order and a final judgment. In contrast, he views atheistic nihilism as a "spiritual vacuum" that seeks to dismantle the concept of God entirely.
• The "Ecumenical Jihad": He famously advocates for an Ecumenical Jihad, a spiritual war where believers of all stripes (Muslims, Jews, and Christians) unite against a secular culture that promotes moral relativism, abortion, and the deconstruction of the family.
• Islam as a "Wakup Call": Kreeft suggests that the vigor of Islamic faith exposes the lukewarmness of the modern West. He argues that a culture with no "God to die for" will eventually be supplanted by a culture that has one.
• Rationality vs. Absurdity: For Kreeft, Islam is a rational alternative to Christianity, whereas atheism often leads to the absurdity of the "unmeaningful universe". He finds it easier to debate someone who believes in the wrong God than someone who believes in no God at all

Xxxx

Applying Occam’s Razor—the principle that the simplest explanation (the one requiring the fewest assumptions) is usually the correct one—to the relationship between the Bible and the Quran yields different conclusions depending on the lens through which one views the texts: historical-critical or theological.

​Here is an analysis of your points through that philosophical lens.

​1. The Historical-Critical Explanation

​From a secular or historical-critical perspective, Occam’s Razor suggests that the Quran is a product of its 7th-century Arabian environment.

• ​The Simplest Explanation: Muhammad lived in a world where Jewish and Christian narratives were circulating via oral tradition, trade, and regional communities. The presence of biblical figures (Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mary) in the Quran is most simply explained as the recontextualization of existing cultural and religious material to suit a new monotheistic framework.

• ​The "Plagiarism" Argument: In a modern academic sense, "plagiarism" requires the intent to pass off another's work as original. However, ancient texts functioned on intertextuality. The Quran assumes its audience already knows these characters; it doesn't "introduce" them so much as it "corrects" or "remixes" their stories to align with its specific message of absolute monotheism (Tawhid)

​2. The Theological Explanation (Islamic Perspective)

​From the perspective of Islamic theology, Occam’s Razor is applied to the concept of divine continuity.

• ​The Simplest Explanation: There is only one God; therefore, there is only one true religion revealed over time. The similarities exist because they all come from the same source (Umm al-Kitab, or the "Mother of the Book").
• ​Addressing Differences: The Quran accounts for the differences (like the nature of Jesus or the mechanics of salvation) by claiming that previous scriptures were corrupted or misinterpreted over time. Thus, the Quran is the "Criterion" (Al-Furqan) sent to restore the original, "pure" monotheism.

​3. Comparing the​3. Comparing the Premises of Salvation

​You noted a sharp distinction between the Christian "Redeemer" model and the Islamic "Self-Certification" mode

Point of Comparison	Christianity (Redemption)	Islam (Submission/Pillars)	Occam’s Razor Perspective
Human State	Born in Sin (Original Sin).	Born Pure (Fitra).	Islam’s view is "simpler" (no inherited guilt), but Christianity’s view explains the "need" for the complex mechanism of the Cross.
Path to God	Faith in a Mediator (Jesus).	Works and Belief (The Pillars).	The Quranic path is more transactional/linear; the Christian path is more relational/substitutionary.
Nature of Heaven	Spiritual/Holy (Restoration).

The "Ithar" vs. "Sacrifice" Distinction

​Regarding John 15:13 and the concept of Ithar:

Occam’s Razor might suggest that the Quran diverges here because its primary objective is Sovereignty rather than Atonement. If the goal of the text is to establish the absolute authority of God (Allah) and the responsibility of the individual, then a "radical sacrifice" by a Savior complicates the "Self-Certification" model. Therefore, the Quran "simplifies" the ethics into Ithar (generosity/sacrifice) without the metaphysical weight of a "God-man" dying for sins.

​Conclusion

​If we apply Occam’s Razor to your proposition:

1. ​On Plagiarism: The simplest explanation for the similarities is shared cultural heritage and the deliberate intent to "claim" the prophetic lineage of the Middle East to establish legitimacy.
2. ​On the Differences: The shift from a "1D" spiritual eternity to a "Multi-D" carnal eternity and the removal of the "Redeemer" represents a fundamental pivot in the "Product Logic." Christianity is built on a "Problem/Solution" (Sin/Cross) model; Islam is built on a "Guidance/Compliance" (Ignorance/Law) model.

To dive deeper into the Criterion of Embarrassment and how it interacts with Occam’s Razor regarding these two texts, we have to look at what historians call "counter-intuitive" data.

​The Criterion of Embarrassment suggests that if a story contains details that are "embarrassing" or difficult for the author’s agenda to explain, those details are more likely to be historically true (because why would you make up something that makes your case harder?).

​Here is how that applies to the specific shifts you mentioned:

​1. The "Redeemer" vs. "The Prophet"

​In the Bible, the narrative often highlights the failures of its "heroes" (Peter denying Jesus, David’s adultery, Moses’ anger). From a historical perspective, these are "embarrassing" details that lend the text a sense of raw authenticity.

​In contrast, the Quran applies Ismah (the doctrine of prophetic impeccability). It "repurposes" these characters by removing their moral failings to present them as perfect models of submission.

• ​Occam’s Razor response: The simplest explanation for the Quranic version is systematic refinement. If the goal is to provide a "Manual for Living" (the Pillars), it is simpler to have "perfect" examples than flawed ones who require a complex "Redeemer" to fix their mistakes.

​2. The Crucifixion (The Ultimate Divergence)

​The most radical "edit" in the Quranic dissertation is the denial of the Crucifixion (Surah 4:157), claiming "it only appeared so to them."

• ​Christian Perspective: The Crucifixion is an "embarrassing" and "weak" end for a God-man, yet it is the core of the faith. Historians argue this makes it more likely to have happened.
• ​Islamic Perspective: A Prophet of God being killed by his enemies is a "failure" of God's protection.
• ​The Razor’s Edge: The simplest literary explanation for the Quran's change is that it maintains the "Strength of Allah." If Allah is all-powerful, he wouldn't let his messenger be humiliated. By removing the "embarrassing" death, the Quran creates a more logically consistent (though historically divergent) narrative of Divine Victory.

​3. "Carnal Bliss" vs. "Holy New Bodies"

​You mentioned the "Multidimensional carnal bliss" of the Islamic Jannah versus the "1D" (or purely spiritual/holy) Christian eternity.

Feature	Bible (New Jerusalem)	Quran (Jannah)
Focus	Presence of God (The Lamb is the Light).	Physical Rewards (Gardens, Wine, Spouses).
Simplicity	Requires a total transformation of human desire.	Leverages existing human desires.

The Historical "Simple" Explanation: Proponents of the "Plagiarism/Repurposing" theory argue that the Quranic afterlife is a simplified psychological motivator. For a 7th-century audience in a harsh desert, the promise of flowing water, silk robes, and physical pleasure is a "simpler" sell than the abstract concept of "becoming like angels" or "beholding the Beatific Vision."

​The Verdict of the "Razor"

​If we treat these texts as competing "PhDs":

• ​The Bible presents a complex, often messy "Case Study" of human failure and divine rescue.
• ​The Quran presents a "Systematic Review" that cleans up the data, removes the "outliers" (the scandals of the prophets), and provides a clear, actionable "Methodology" (the Pillars).

​Occam’s Razor would suggest that the Quran isn't just "loose paraphrasing," but a deliberate editorial overhaul designed to move the reader from a "Drama of Salvation" to a "System of Governance."

To continue the "PhD dissertation" analogy, this comparison shows how the Quran acts as an Executive Summary that cleans up the "raw data" of the Bible. It removes "embarrassing" human flaws to strengthen the "thesis" of Divine Sovereignty.

​The "Peer Review": Biblical Protagonists vs. Quranic Prophets

Character	The Biblical "Case Study" (Flawed/Human)	The Quranic "Dissertation" (Perfected/Protected)	The "Razor" Explanation
Abraham	Lies about his wife being his sister; doubts God's promise of a son.	Never doubts; is a "Monolith of Faith" who challenges idols from childhood.	Simplification: Removes psychological complexity to create a pure archetype of Monotheism.
Noah	Gets drunk and is seen naked by his son after the flood.	A steadfast Warner whose only struggle is the rejection by his people.	Editorial Cleanup: Eliminates moral failure to maintain the "impeccability" of God’s messengers.
Solomon	Turns to idolatry in his old age under the influence of his wives.	A master of the unseen (jinns/animals) who never commits shirk (idolatry).	Thesis Defense: If a Prophet committed idolatry, the "System of Guidance" would be seen as a failure.
Lot	Offers his daughters to a mob and later commits incest (unwittingly).	A righteous man whose only "failure" is his wife's lack of faith.	Harm Reduction: Removes the most "embarrassing" Biblical narratives to protect the sanctity of the office.

The "Plagiarism" vs. "Synthesis" Debate

​Using Occam’s Razor, if you were a professor grading these "dissertations," you would notice a specific pattern in the Quran’s use of Biblical material:

1. ​Selection Bias: The Quran ignores the genealogy, geography, and specific historical dates found in the Bible.
   • ​Simplest Explanation: The Quran isn't interested in "History as Chronology," but rather "History as Moral Instruction."
2. ​Harmonization: It resolves contradictions. For example, the Bible has two different accounts of Creation; the Quran synthesizes the "Power of God" into a singular, repetitive theme.
3. ​The "Abridged" Version: Much like a PhD student "loosely paraphrasing" a 500-page study into a 10-page summary, the Quran focuses on the Dialogue. Most Quranic stories consist almost entirely of the Prophet speaking to his people and their stubborn response.

​The "MSN" (Self-Certification) vs. "Grant Funding" (Grace)

​To use your "Self-Certification" point:

• ​In the Biblical dissertation, the "Funding" (Salvation) is a grant you didn't earn—it’s based on the "Credit" of the Redeemer.
• ​In the Quranic dissertation, the "Funding" is a performance-based contract. The Six Pillars and the "Scales" of Good/Evil (Surah Al-Qaria) provide a quantifiable metric.

​Occam’s Razor suggests that a quantifiable metric (do X, Y, and Z to get reward A) is a "simpler" governing tool for a society than a mystical relational one (have faith in a sacrifice to receive grace).

​Final Thought

​The "Criterion of Embarrassment" hits hardest at the Cross. If a "plagiarist" wanted to make a successful religion, they would naturally "edit out" the part where the hero dies a criminal's death. By doing exactly that, the Quran presents a "cleaner," more logically consistent version of a "Victorious God."

To answer this using the same analytical framework—Occam’s Razor and the Criterion of Embarrassment—we have to look at how a system (like Islam) accounts for data that appears to support a rival system (like Catholicism).

​If the Quran is the "corrected dissertation," these modern phenomena (apparitions at Fatima, stigmata like Padre Pio, or the Miracle of the Sun) are seen by theologians through three primary lenses:

​1. The "Jinn" Hypothesis (Supernatural Deception)

​In Islamic theology, the simplest explanation for a supernatural event that promotes "un-Islamic" doctrine (like the divinity of Jesus or the intercession of Mary) is the agency of Jinn.

• ​The Logic: Jinn are sentient beings with abilities beyond humans. They can manifest as light, produce physical sensations, or heal.
• ​Occam’s Razor: If you accept the existence of a spiritual world but believe the Quran is the final truth, the simplest explanation for a miracle that contradicts that truth is deception rather than divine approval. Just as the Bible warns of "lying wonders" (2 Thessalonians 2:9), Islam views these as tests of faith.

​2. The "Karamat" vs. "Mu'jiza" Distinction

​Islam makes a sharp distinction between two types of wonders:

• ​Mu'jiza: A miracle performed by a Prophet to prove his mission (e.g., Jesus raising the dead). According to Islam, these ended with Muhammad.
• ​Karamat: Wonders performed by righteous people (saints).
• ​The Explanation: Some Muslims argue that because Mary is a highly revered figure in the Quran (the only woman named in it), God might allow "wonders" associated with her to occur. However, they would argue the interpretation of these events (e.g., "I am the Immaculate Conception") is a human or demonic addition to a simpler, God-sanctioned wonder.

​3. The Secular/Psychological Lens

​Applying the Razor from a non-religious perspective, these events are often explained as Sociogenic Phenomena:

• ​Fatima (1917): Occurred during WWI during a time of extreme religious and political stress. The "Miracle of the Sun" was reported by many, but not all; some saw colors, others saw the sun "dance," and others saw nothing.
• ​Simplest Explanation: Mass suggestion and religious pareidolia (seeing patterns where none exist). The human brain, primed by deep faith and high stress, "completes the dissertation" by providing the visual evidence the believer is desperate to see.

Phenomenon	Catholic Explanation	Islamic Explanation	Secular/Occam Explanation
Marian Apparitions	Mary visiting from Heaven to guide the faithful.	Jinn mimicking Mary to lead people into Shirk (associating partners with God).	Mass hysteria or optical atmospheric phenomena.
Stigmata	A mystical sharing in the suffering of Christ.	A psychosomatic physical reaction or self-inflicted (pious fraud).	"Autosuggestion"—the mind's power over the body in states of extreme trance.
Incorruptibility	A sign of holiness and the future resurrection.	A "Karamat" (wonder) that can happen to any righteous person, or natural mummification.