I don’t think Muslim or Christians are really concerned about the context, they are more concerned about interpreting what they read in accordance with the dogma they follow.
Because when context is in favor of their dogma, they argue, context, when the context is not in favor with their dogma, they argue, that is not how our church or scholars or priest or whatever understand it.
To the point of this thread. It is possible to arrive at both understanding (the Advocate being the Holy Spirit as well as the Advocate being Muhammad. ) What interpretation you accept will depend on your worldview.
I honestly see both points of view.
Sorry there’s where we differ. We Christians are concerned over the context because we do not start with dogma but with the facts (and therefore context) on which the dogma is based. Christianity and Islam have different starting points.
At the risk of oversimplificaiton, I can reduce the difference as such:
Christianity
We believe that the Bible is written by men, under the guidance of God but written by men nevertheless. Therefore there is a context to be understood. Biblical studies involves the understanding of the audience, the intention of the writer, the historical context of the times. The Bible exists within human history and should be understood within such context. (Bible reflection/sharing is a different discipline altogether and understanding of the context may not be necessary to obtain the very personalised message God has for us)
Based on the understanding of what happened, why the particular verse of the scriptures was written, we then work out the dogma that God is revealing to us. Of course how we understand & interpret the facts & the context could differ with our values (personal & communal) and experiences. But understanding with the guidance of the Holy Spirit brings the Church to the dogmas that she now teaches.
Our starting point is therefore God’s intervention in human history and understanding (with faith and grace) how he so intervened and, thus, revealed himself, we develop our dogmas. Our dogmas did not fall from the sky but came about through careful consideration, understanding & logical theology.
Islam
Muslims believe that the Quran is written by the hand of God himself. It is therefore written outside of human history and therefore do not have a context like the Bible has. A study of the Quran is a study of 7th century Arabic of the Qurashi dialect (since God presumably was not an Englishman but spoke in 7th century Qurashi Arab). There is no study of the mind of the author or the background of the times, etc because if God wrote it himself, there cannot be a context in human history.
As such, one may say that Muslim dogmas fall from the sky in the form of a book written by God himself. The Muslim view of scriptures is a very literalist view (unlike the mainstream Christian view which is very contextual), which is why dogma for Muslims come before context.
The starting point of the Muslim is that the Quran is right (because it is written by God himself) and so all dogmas contained in the Quran is right if it says so. Anything that contradict the Quran is wrong (including the certain parts of the Bible and weak hadiths, for instance). Facts and history are often written in a way to support dogmas as revealed in the Quran. (I will leave it at more charitable language)
I suppose the topic of the thread had been dealt with sufficiently with nothing much to be added after the first few pages as John 14 was very clear about the promise of the Holy Spirit. Unless Muslims come up with something new to support their claim that the Advocate was Muhammad, I guess that was all to it.