plenty sufficient and I thank you for your eloquent explanation (a while back). I was just framing the discussion for what abrnger presented; a completely different assertion than what was originally presented.
However, the 'discernment' of what is valid and what is not, lays entirely in the eye of the beholder, leaving it of no absolute (what you see as the true path, won't be what others in a different region see as the true path) reasoning when qualifying both religions through the same method.
The real dilemma here, is that if you believe the OT as a chronicling of history and tradition through the belief of the god of Abraham.....believe that throughout that time god spoke through the prophets......and continued on through the life of Jesus of Nazareth (a prophet of god), then there really isn't that disqualifies the prophet Mohammad. You can accept Matthew - John Gospels....and still believe god spoke through Mohammad. The dividing point is the epistles of Paul that become an addendum of doctrine/story.......like Joseph Smith or the prequels to Star Wars.