Comment at Q 6:20

2. From a critical perspective

From a rational or non-religious point of view you can also see it as:

• A  polemical claim : the Qur’an establishes its truth by saying that others  actually  know it to be true—so disbelief is reduced to  moral failure , not to difference of belief.

• This mechanism closes the dialogue: it essentially says

  “If you don’t believe, then  deep down you know  we’re right—you just deny it.”

This is a  rhetorically powerful , but also  manipulative position: it makes the dissenter morally suspect rather than substantively contradictory.

In short,
Surah 6:20 presents an  absolutist truth claim : Muhammad’s message is so evident that denying it harms himself. In a classical context, this applies to Jews and Christians; more broadly, it becomes a universal schema:  “Whoever disbelieves does so against his better judgment.”

1. Quranic verses that repeat this motif

2:89

And when there came to them a Scripture from Allah confirming what is with them, and they had previously prayed for victory over those who disbelieved—when there came to them what they recognized, they disbelieved in it. May Allah’s curse be on the disbelievers.

→ The same structure as 6:20:  recognize but reject .
According to this verse, they would even have  prayed  for Muhammad’s coming, but then  refused to accept him  —so disbelief = hypocrisy.

2:146

Those to whom We have given the Book know it as they know their own sons. But a group of them conceal the truth while they know it.

→ Here the reference is literally identical to 6:20, but with the emphasis on  deliberate concealment  ( yaktumūna al-ḥaqq ).
This reinforces the moral reproach: it is not a matter of misunderstanding, but  of malicious intent .

3:70–71

O People of the Scripture! Why do you disbelieve in Allah’s signs, while you are witnesses?
O People of the Scripture! Why do you mix truth with falsehood, and conceal the truth while you know?

→ Same old story again: deliberately  mixing and concealing the truth .
The disbelief is not intellectually corrupt, but  ethically corrupt .

7:157

“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned with them in the Torah and the Gospel…”

This verse suggests that  Muhammad’s coming  was foretold in their scriptures. Therefore, whoever rejects him  ignores his own revelation .

2. What this does in Quranic logic

These verses together form a  consistent narrative :

At the same time the Quran legitimizes:

• the continuity  with previous books (same God), and

• the exclusivity  of Islam as its final accomplishment.

3. Critical evaluation (in a human perspective)

From a rational or humanistic point of view, this is a  classic rhetorical technique  seen in many religious movements:

“Our message is the fulfillment of what came before.
And whoever rejects it does so not out of ignorance, but out of evil intent.”

That creates a  morally closed worldview :

• Believers = sincere and righteous,

• Dissenters = lying or stubborn.

It precludes honest disagreement, because disbelief  cannot be explained rationally  —only morally condemned.

4. Summary overview

Contradiction:  From the verses below in the Quran it is clear that Jews and Christians did not recognise Muhammad and his prophethood at all from the Bible and Torah!!

Let’s go through them thoroughly.

1. Verses implying that Jews and Christians  were not  convinced

Although the Quran says they “know” the truth, many other passages indicate they  were doubtful, rejected, or confused . These verses implicitly show that they  did not recognize Muhammad  as foretold in their own books.

2:120

“Never will the Jews or the Christians be pleased with you until you follow their faith. Say: The guidance of Allah is the true guidance.”

This clearly shows that the People of the Book  are not convinced  that Muhammad’s message confirms their own revelation.
They continue to cling to their own tradition.

2:253

“And if Allah had willed, they would not have disputed among themselves after the clear proofs had come to them. But they differed, some of them believing and some disbelieving.”

This shows that even after “clear signs,”  the people of the previous books remained divided .
In other words,  they did not clearly recognize the new prophets .

3:70

O People of the Scripture! Why do you disbelieve in Allah’s signs while you are witnesses to them?

This rhetorical question would be redundant if they clearly recognized Muhammad.
It suggests, on the contrary, that they  did not regard his signs as divine , and therefore did not recognize him as a prophet.

3:98–99

Say, “O People of the Scripture! Why do you reject the signs of Allah, when Allah is witness to what you do? Say, “O People of the Scripture! Why do you hinder those who believe from the path of Allah?”

Again we see that their attitude is characterised as  negative and actively rejecting , not as a conscious denial of a recognisable truth.

4:153

“The People of the Book ask you to send down a book from heaven. They even asked Moses for something greater than that…”

Their demand for physical proof (a book from heaven) shows that they  were not convinced of Muhammad’s revelation .
Thus, they do not recognize any confirmation from their own Scripture.

5:15

O People of the Scripture! Our Messenger has come to you, to clarify for you much of the Scripture you concealed, and to forgive you much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.

If they truly “recognized” Muhammad, such an announcement would be superfluous.
The fact that the Quran presents itself here as  a restoration of lost truth implies that they  lacked a clear point of recognition  .

5:68

Say: O People of the Book! You have no ground to stand on until you adhere to the Torah, the Gospel, and that which was revealed to your Lord.

This admonition implies that they are  not properly following their own Scripture  —and thus not recognizing or taking seriously the alleged prophetic references to Muhammad.

5:77

Say: O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion beyond the truth, and do not follow the desires of those who were once astray.

Here too: they follow  their own religious interpretations  (e.g., the Trinity and an exclusive Jewish identity)—not what the Quran claims was the “true message.”
This means, in concrete terms, that they do not recognize Muhammad  as a continuation of their tradition .

9:30

The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” This is what they say with their mouths; they imitate the words of those who disbelieved before them.

This verse emphasizes their  theological deviation , not their recognition of Muhammad.
It portrays them as people who  have completely strayed from the true message .

2. Conclusion from this series

So the Quran contains  two opposing lines :

This tension is theologically important:

• In  a polemical context, the Quran uses line A to  characterize  disbelief as  moral treason .

• In  narrative context,  however, line B emerges: that Jews and Christians  were simply not convinced  that Muhammad was foretold in their Scripture.
  

  ---

The Quranic verses shown below constitute precisely the  counter-narrative within the Quran itself . The Quran claims in some places that the people of the Book  recognize Muhammad , but elsewhere it cites at length how  people ridiculed him, rejected him, and explicitly declared him not a prophet . In other words, the Quran contains  two parallel voices  regarding the reception of Muhammad’s message—one theological (they know but hide it), and one historical (they simply don’t believe him). We will proceed to analyze it systematically, for it is a key point in the Quran’s internal logic.