Further Topic Research:
Syntax help

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog


This article is located at: http://www../Responses/Menj/readersreply.htm


This rebuttal is written by Umar.


We continue with part II of our analysis on Paul’s stance in Islam. We will only address what’s important here, and leave out the non-important things.




He Wrote:


He begins his "problem searching":

Evaluating The Missionary Claims

Sam Shamoun says:

The sole witness to Muhammad's prophethood is Muhammad.

Well, there were thousand of Muslims who bear witness to Muhammad's Prophethood by watching his miracles, his good conduct, and his great character!


The link which our anonymous author points to (which also appears on MENJ’s site) fails to provide a single verse from the Quran to show the kind of miracles that Muhammad supposedly performed; apart from the claim that the Quran cannot be matched. It is truly amazing that the Quran does not hesitate to mention the kinds of miracles performed by Moses, Jesus and others but does not cite a single miracle performed by the alleged seal of the prophets.

The examples of the alleged miracles of Muhammad come primarily from the hadith literature. There are at least a couple of problems with appealing to the hadith literature to substantiate Muhammad’s miracles. The first problem is the late dating of the hadiths. The hadith literature does not stem from the seventh century, but date from the mid to late ninth centuries onwards. This leaves a gap of nearly two hundred years from Muhammad's death in A.D. 632 to the first collection of traditions by Imam Bukhari (d. A.D. 870). Even Ibn Ishaq's biography on Muhammad, which purportedly dates to the eighth century, only exists in edited form by Ibn Hisham from the ninth century.

As Christian author and polemicist Jay Smith noted:

… There are many compilers, but the four who are considered by many Muslims to be the most authoritative in each genre all lived and assembled their material between 750-923 A.D. (or 120-290 years after the death of Muhammad). It may be helpful to list their works, along with their dates:

  1. The Sira are accounts concerning the traditional life of the prophet (including his battles). The most comprehensive Sira was written by Ibn Ishaq (died 765 A.D.), though none of his manuscripts exist today. Consequently, we are dependent on the Sira of Ibn Hisham (died 833 A.D.), which was supposedly taken from that of Ibn Ishaq, though, by his own admission (according to the research of Patricia Crone) he omitted those areas which might have caused offense (such as anything which he felt was repugnant, poems not attested elsewhere, as well as matters which he could not accept as trustworthy) (Crone 1980:6).
  2. The Hadith are thousands of short reports or narratives (akhbar) on the sayings and deeds of the prophet which were collected by Muslims in the ninth and tenth centuries. Of the six most famous collections of Hadith, those of al-Bukhari (died 870 A.D.) are considered by many Muslims as the most authoritative.
  3. The Ta'rikh are histories or chronologies of the prophet's life, the most famous written by al-Tabari (died 923 A.D.) early in the tenth century.
  4. The Tafsir, are commentaries and exegesis on the Qur'an, its grammar and its context; the best known also written by al-Tabari (died 923 A.D.).

Smith responds to those who would argue for earlier collections of hadith material:

Obviously, the first question which we must ask is why these traditions were written so late, 150-300 years after the fact? We simply do not have any "account from the Islamic community during the [initial] 150 years or so, between the first Arab conquests [of the early seventh century] and the appearance, with the sira-maghazi narratives, of the earliest Islamic literature" [towards the late eighth century] (Wansbrough 1978:119). We should expect to find, in those intervening 150 years, at least remnants of evidence for the development of the old Arab religion towards Islam (i.e. Muslim traditions); yet we find nothing (Nevo 1994:108; Crone 1980:5-8).

There are Muslims who disagree, maintaining that there is evidence of earlier traditions, principly the Muwatta by Malik ibn Anas (born in 712 A.D. and died in 795 A.D.). Norman Calder in his book Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence disagrees with such an early date and questions whether works can be attributed to the authors listed. He argues that most of the texts we have from these supposedly early authors are "school texts," transmitted and developed over several generations, and achieving the form in which we know them considerably later than the putative "authors" to whom they are usually ascribed. Following the current assumption that "Shafi'i's law" (which demanded that all hadith be traced to Muhammad) did not come into effect until after 820 A.D., he concluded that because the Mudawwana does not speak of Muhammad's prophetic authority whereas the Muwatta does, the Muwatta must be the later document. Consequently, Calder positions the Muwatta not prior to 795 A.D., but sometime after the Mudawwana which was written in 854 A.D. In fact Calder places the Muwatta not even in eighth century Arabia but in eleventh century Cordoba, Spain (Calder 1993). If he is correct then we are indeed left with little evidence of any traditions from the early period of Islam.

Humphreys crystallizes this problem when he points out that, "Muslims, we would suppose, must surely have taken great care to record their spectacular achievements, while the highly literate and urbanized societies which they had subjugated could hardly avoid coming to grips with what had happened to them." (Humphreys 1991:69) Yet, according to Humphreys all we find from this early period are sources which are, "either fragmentary or represent very specific or even eccentric perspectives," completely annulling any posibility of reconstructing Islam's first century adequately (Humphreys 1991:69).

The question, therefore, must be asked as to where the eighth and ninth century compilers actually obtained their material from?

The answer is that we just don't know. "Our evidence for documentation prior to 750 A.D. consists almost entirely of rather dubious citations in later compilations." (Humphreys 1991:80) Consequently, we have no reliable proof that the traditions speak truly of the life of Muhammad, or even of the Qur'an (Schacht 1949:143-154). We are asked to believe that these documents, written hundreds of years later are accurate, though we are not presented with any evidence for their veracity, outside of Isnads, which are nothing more than lists purporting to give the names of those from whom these oral traditions were passed down. Yet even the Isnads lack any supportive documentation with which to corroborate their authenticity (Humphreys 1991:81-83)! … (Source: The Problems with the Islamic Traditions)

In light of the great time factor involved it is not hard to see how stories of Muhammad's miracles could be forged and circulated. Seeing that no eyewitnesses were present who could prevent the development of myths Muslims could say and write anything that suited their fancy. That this is quite plausible can be readily seen in light of the candid admission of Muslims that there were thousands of hadiths circulating which were deemed weak or inauthentic. Note the statements from the following Muslim web site:

  1. Collection during the 3rd Century H.: The Hadith was collected and categorized in the latter part of the third century of Hijrah resulting in six canonical collections (Al-Sihaah Al-Sittah)
    1. Sahih of Al-Bukhari, d.256 A.H [SAM- 870 A.D.]: 7275 (2712 Non-duplicated) out of 600,000.
    2. Sahih of Muslim, d.261 A.H [SAM- 875 A.D.]: 9200 (4,000 Non-duplicated) out of 300,000.
    3. Sunan of Abu Dawood, d.276 A.H. [SAM- 889 A.D.] 4,800 of 500,000.
    4. Sunan of Ibn Maajeh: d.273 A.H. [SAM- 886 A.D.]
    5. Jami' of Tirmidhi, d.279 A.H. [SAM- 892 A.D.]
    6. Sunan of al-Nisaa'i, d.303 A.H. [SAM- 915 A.H.]. (Source)

Imam Bukhari only accepted 2712 non-duplicated traditions out of a whopping 600,000!!!! Since Muslims didn’t hesitate to forge hadiths, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that they would also forge hadiths regarding the alleged miracles of Muhammad.




My Response:



It is common for missionaries to give a response like this when they cannot reply to the fact that the Holy Prophet (S) performed miracles! When they can’t reply, they begin to attack the authenticity of the Hadiths, and Shamoun quotes Joseph Smith, a guy who denies that the Holy Prophet (S) even existed!


And it is also interesting to note how this hypocrite Shamoun says:


“Muhammad states that vegetation preceded the formation of light, i.e. the sun. It must be emphasized that Sahih Muslim is considered the second most reliable source of hadith collections. Hence, to brush aside this hadith basically means that Shabir must denounce the entire collection of hadiths. This is something that he, as a Sunni Muslim, cannot do”


But he then contradicts himself, by brushing aside the same hadiths saying:


“It is true that the hadith literature ascribe miracles to Muhammad, but these sources were compiled over one hundred years (if not later) after Muhammad’s death. They were not written by eyewitnesses, but by overzealous Muslims seeking to make Muhammad more like Christ and the other miracle-working prophets.”


If this is the case, then Answering Islam needs to shut down their website, since most of the time they attack the Sunnah!


Lastly, issues like that have thoroughly been discussed here:




We highly recommend anyone to visit that section of Brother Saffiulah’s website, as it contains detailed refutations to arguments like how Shamoun gave.



He Wrote:


Second, even if Muhammad had performed miracles this still wouldn’t prove his prophethood. The Holy Bible states that false prophets will come performing signs and wonders and yet they are to be rejected on the basis that their message does not conform to the teachings of God’s true prophets and apostles. Cf. Deuteronomy 13:1-6; Matthew 24:23-24; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 1 Timothy 4:1-2.

Muhammad’s message contradicts the teachings of the true spokespersons of God and is therefore to be rejected as a false prophet.



My Response:


We can use that same argument and shoot it back at Sam, since Paul came and taught his own doctrine. Paul taught that Jesus was GOD, but Jesus himself never said he is GOD.




He Wrote:



It never ceases to amaze me how Muslims will even malign their own sources in order to avoid the inevitable. Ibn Ishâq is the oldest biography on the life of Muhammad, even predating the hadîth collection of Sahih Al-Bukhari.

Sam Shamoun's argument is based on Ibn Ishâq's work. He can go nowhere if we leave Ibn Ishâq's biography on the side. Let me clarify that Ibn Ishâq's biography is not among the sources of Islam. ...


Anonymous thinks that I can go nowhere if Ibn Ishaq’s source is set aside. But this only exposes his wishful thinking, i.e. he wishes and hopes that he can convince the readers that setting aside Ibn Ishaq will leave me with no support whatsoever. As anyone reading my article could clearly see I wasn’t dependent on Ibn Ishaq alone, but on other sources such as al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir. Al-Tabari is considered one of Islam’s premiere historians, while Ibn Kathir is recognized as one of the great Quranic commentators. More on this below.


My Response:



Please note that Ibn Kathir himself refutes Sam’s paper, only Sam Shamoun purposely (?) cut off the rest of the Tafsir so that noone can read how Ibn Kathir refutes the idea that the city mentioned in Sura 36 is Antioch.


For more on this refer to Part I of our rebuttal/analysis of Sam’s paper.



He Wrote:



Second, it is simply an unsubstantiated assertion that Ibn Ishaq is not among the sources of Islam seeing that it is essentially a Muslim work intended for a Muslim audience! If it wasn’t one of Islam’s sources then one wonders why was it preserved at all? Why did Ibn Hisham go through the trouble of editing it if he and other Muslims didn’t consider it essential for a more thorough understanding on the life of Muhammad? Why not simply reject it altogether?

One also wonders why was Ibn Ishaq’s work used as one of the foundational sources for what many consider to be one of the best, if not the best, English biography of Muhammad’s life? We are referring to Martin Ling’s Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources.


My Response:



Sam forgets that there are scholars of Islam, who will determine what is, and what isn’t reliable. We consider Ibn Ishaq to be alright, only one must take caution, as Ibn Ishaq borrowed freely from Christians and Jews, one case is that of Kinana , a Jew in Khaibar who was allegedly tortured by the Holy Prophet (S), so that they would know where the treasury is. This story came from Ibn Ishaq himself, and the scholars have said:


" While describing the battle of Khaibar, the history writers have committed a serious blunder in reporting a totally baseless report, which has become a common place. It is said that the Prophet ( Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had granted amnesty to the Jews on condition that they would not hide anything. When Kinana Ibn Rabi' refused to give any clue to the hidden treasures, the Prophet ( peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered Zubair to adopt stern measures to force a disclosure. Zubair branded his chest with a hot flint again and again, till he was on the point of death. At last he ordered Kinana to be put to death and all the Jews were made slaves.

The whole truth in the story is that Kinana was put to death. But it was not for his refusal to give a clue to the hidden treasure. He was put to death because he had killed Mahmud Ibn Maslama (also Muslima). Tabari had reported it in unambiguous words: " Then the Holy Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave Kinana to Muhammad Ibn Maslama (Muslima), " and he put him to death in retaliation of the murder of his own brother, Mahmud Ibn Maslama (Muslima)."

In the rest of the report, both Tabari and Ibn Hisham have quoted it from Ibn Ishaq, but Ibn Ishaq does not name any narrator. Traditionalists, in books on Rijal, have explicitly stated that Ibn Ishaq used to borrow from the Jews stories concerning the battle of the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). As Ibn Ishaq does not mention the name of any narrator whatsoever in this case, there is every likelihood of the story of having been passed on by the Jews.

That a man should be tortured with burns on his chest by the sparks of a flint is too heinous a deed for a Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) who had earned for himself the title of Rahma'lil Alamin (Mercy for all the worlds). After all, did he not let the woman who had sought to poison him go scot free? Who would expect such a soul to order human body to be so burnt for the sake of a few coins.

As a matter of fact, Kinana Ibn Rabi Ibn al-Huquaiq had been granted his life on the condition that he would never break faith or make false statements. He had also given his word, according to one of the reports, that if he did anything to the contrary, he could be put to death. Kinana played false, and the immunity granted to him was withdrawn. He killed Mahmud Ibn Maslama (Muslima) and had, therefore to suffer for it, as we have already stated on the authority of Tabari."

(Source: Sirat Un Nabi by Allama Shibli Nu’Mani rendered into English by M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni, Vol.II 173-174, Kazi Publications Lahore Pakistan)




“As regards the Maghazi literature the famous book is the work of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, who borrows freely from the Christians and the Israelites”


(Source: Maudu’at of Mulla ‘Ali Qari, Mujtaba’I Press, p.85, as cited by Allama Shibli Nu’Mani in Sirat Un Nabi, Vol. I, p.17)




“Al Dhahabi also declares that Muhammad ibn Ishaq reported facts borrowed from the Jews and the Christians, whom unfortunately, he considered as reliable.”


(Source: Sirat Un Nabi by Allama Shibli Nu’Mani rendered into English by M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni, Vol. I p. 22, Kazi Publications Lahore)



Therefore, one must take caution when he reads Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat, as it contains many false narrations. For some more information on narrations which are false that are found in Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat, please visit:







It is not our fault that the Anti-Islamic Evangelists cannot comprehend this.




He Wrote:



In fact, the following Muslim website uses Ibn Ishaq’s work as a basis to argue for the early transmission of hadiths and their subsequent preservation by the biographer!!!

Early Hadith collections

3. The lost folios of Aban ibn `Uthman (d. 105) the son of `Uthman ibn `Affan (d. 35), from whom Muhammad ibn Ishaq (80-150/152) narrated;

5. Muhammad ibn Shihab al-Zuhri's (d. 120) Sira, from which Ibn Ishaq also borrowed much;

6. `Asim ibn `Umar ibn Qatada ibn al-Nu`man al-Ansari's (d. 120 or 129) Maghazi and Manaqib al-Sahaba, another principal thiqa source for Ibn Ishaq and others;

7. `Abd Allah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn `Amr ibn Hazm al-Ansari's (d. 135) tome, another main source for Ibn Ishaq Ibn Sa`d, and others; (http://www.abc.se/~m9783/n/vih_e.html; underline emphasis ours)

If anything, Ibn Ishaq is more thorough and advantageous for the Muslim than the hadith literature since he tried to follow an alleged chronological structure which the hadiths do not.

The next Muslim argues that Ibn Hisham’s editing of Ibn Ishaq’s work has made it one of the best and most authentic sources available:

Muhammad Ibn Ishaq (d. 768) relates the first biographie [sic] Sira known of the Prophet (PBUH), much of which was incorporated by Ibn Hisham (d.833) in whose work can also be found much on the creation of the [sic] of the world, Biblical prophets, and the advent of Islam. He corrects hadiths, and also rids his accounts of legends and poetry that are not on the reliable side. The actions and deeds of the Prophet (PBUH) are scrupulously noted, and his battles described in great detail. Ibn Hisham’s Sirat Muhammad rasul Allah is considered by Dunlap one of the best existing authorities on the life of the Prophet (PBUH). (Source)



My Response:



And again, as mentioned above, Ibn Ishaq freely took from Christians and Jews.


This is a fact agreed upon by the scholars of Islam.




He Wrote:


It needs to be stated that Ibn Hisham omitted the reference to the tradition of Jesus sending out the Apostles, which Guillaume reinserted based on al-Tabari, who reported it on the authority of Ibn Ishaq. Yet not everyone believes that Ibn Hisham’s editing was as innocent as the previous author makes it sound. It is quite clear that Ibn Hisham edited the work in order to make it more palatable and tolerable, insuring that it fell in line with his preconceived views of Muhammad and Islam, which were not necessarily authentic. Speaking of Ibn Hisham’s omission of the story of the Satanic verses from Ibn Ishaq’s work, noted Christian Apologist John Gilchrist writes:

The arguments for and against the original inclusion of the story are all based on secondary sources - Tabari, Ibn Hisham, Abu Habban - but Tabari is an author of considerable prominence and a compelling one for the claim that it was indeed a part of Ibn Ishaq's work. The record of his reliance on Ibn Ishaq for the narrative suggests that Ibn Hisham may well have expunged it from the original text and prompts one writer to say:

There is reason to suspect that Ibn Hisham was not quite so trustworthy as his great authority Ibn Ishac. Certainly there is one instance which throws suspicion upon him as a witness, disinclined at least to tell the whole truth. We find in Tabari a quotation from Ibn Ishac, in which is described the temporary lapse of Mahomet into idolatry; and the same incidents are also given by Wakidy from other original sources. But no notice whatever of the fact appears in the biography of Ibn Hisham, though it is professedly based upon the work of Ibn Ishac. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. lxx).

This suggestion is strengthened by the fact that Ibn Hisham's edition contains no unfavourable stories about Muhammad, and yet in his introduction he openly complained of "scurrilous attacks on the prophet" (Guillaume, introduction to Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasulullah, p.xxxi) in the original work.

There are many evidences in other works, which quote from the Sirat, that Ibn Hisham's edition is incomplete and the story of the "satanic verses" was almost certainly one of those expunged from the text by him. Recently a Muslim publishing house in India has reprinted Hughes' great work, A Dictionary of Islam, and has introduced the reprint with these words in a "Publisher's Note":

The Publisher has very meticulously gone through the pages and has expunged the remarks derogatory to Islamic faith, published in the original edition. (Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, p. vi).

This statement seems to sum up perfectly the similar action taken by Ibn Hisham against the original text of Ibn Ishaq's work. Not long ago new evidence came to light strengthening considerably the claim that the story of Muhammad's lapse was part of Ibn Ishaq's original work. (Gilchrist, "Satan’s Interjections and its Implications", Muhammad and the Religion of Islam, pp. 123-124)



My Response:



It really makes no difference to us if Ibn Hisham himself omitted the story of the “Satanic verses”. That story is itself mursal, and not reliable:



“Once the Prophet was offering his prayers in the Ka’ba, when the unbelievers too were there. The Prophet recited the verse: “ Wa Manat Al-Thalithat Al-Ukhra” (And Manat, the third, is the last) and Satan made him utter the words: “Tilka Al Gharaniq Al-Ula, Wa Inna Shifa Atuhunna La Turtaja” (These are the exalted idols whose intercession is acceptable to God). The prophet then made a prostration and the unbelievers did the same. (Here the last portion of this report which is to the effect that once, with the exception of a few believers, all the human beings and the Jinnies made a prostration with the Holy Prophet is correct, as is reported in the Sahih of al-Bukhari, Chapter, Commentary on Sura al-Najm S). The rest of this story is evidently an absurd myth that deserves no comment. Most of the great traditionists, for instance al-Baihaqi, Qadi ‘Iyad, al-‘Aini, al-Mundhiri and al-Nawawi have declared it to be false and fabricated. But unfortunately many traditionists have recorded it with reference to the chains of its narrators. Among them more commonly known are: al-Tabari, Ibn Abi Hittam, Ibn al-Mundhir , Ibn Mardauyah, Ibn Ishaq, Musa ibn ‘Uqba and Abu Ma’shar. It is all the more strange that Ibn Hajar, a recognized authority on the traditions insist on the truth of this report, and says: “As we have mentioned above, three of its chains of narrators satisfty the conditionts requisite for an authentic report. These reports are however, all “MURSAL” traditions, and those who believe the “MURSAL” traditions may argue on their basis”.


We know the fact that unbelievers, whenever the Prophet recited the Holy Qur’an, set up a noise, interposing sentences of their own. The following verse of the Qur’an refers to this mischief: “ And those who disbelieve say: hearken not unto this Qur’an and babble therein, haply you may overcome”. It was usual with the Quraish that, while making a Tawaf (walking round the Ka’ba) they recited words: “By Lat and Uzza and the third god Manat, they are they exalted ones and their intercession is expected (to be helpful)”. When the Prophet was reciting the foregoing verses from Sura Sura al-Najm, some of Satan from amongst the non-believers might have interpolated the additional words in the same tone, and the unbelievers at a distance might have taken them to be the words of the Prophet. Later on, we may suppose, the report was talked over among the Muslims when someone possibly may have explained it saying that a satan (meaning a mischief monger) had perhaps said these words on behalf of the Prophet. Hence the report, in passing from one to another, came to be altered into the aforesaid version that Satan put up these words into the mouth of the Prophet. It being a popular belief that Satan could make a person speak out what he desired, this vesion was taken as correct. This is not a mere guess of ours; the early research scholars held similar views. In the Mawahib we find: “ Some say that while reciting the verses of the Qur’an, the Prophet came to the verse ‘ And Manat the third and the last’, then the unbelievers expected the Prophet would next say something against their idols and so they immediately put up a shout sub-joining the words already stated to those recited by the Prophet. They had often advised one another not to listen to the Qur’an and to create a confusion.. Or the word “Shaitain” here means a wicked fellow of Satanic nature”.



Above in the Dark Red, the author noted what Imam Nawawi says about the report. Here is the full quote we find from Imam Nawawi regarding the story of the “Satanic verses”:


“Al-Zurqani, ‘Ali Mawahib, the shifa of al-Qadi Iyad and al-‘Aini, commentary of al-Bukhari, and Nur al-Nibras. Al-Nawawi says, “Nothing in it is correct. Neither is it authentically reported nor does it stand to reason”. Al-Aini too has pressed his opinion in similar words.


(Source: Sirat Un Nabi by Allama Shibli Nu’Mani rendered into English by M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni Vol. I p.213-215. Kazi Publications Lahore Pakistan)



He Wrote:



Anonymous may wish to argue from this that Ibn Hisham’s omission proves his contention that Paul was not accepted by the earliest Muslims. A couple of responses are in order. First, anonymous cannot simply assert that Ibn Hisham omitted this reference due to the mention of Paul, since he needs to first show that Ibn Hisham disbelieved in Paul’s legitimacy. Besides, Ibn Hisham could have simply omitted the reference to Paul while keeping the rest of the reference intact. It seems more plausible that Ibn Hisham omitted the reference perhaps due to the assumption that Muhammad was the only supposed universal messenger. As a result of this, he may have then reasoned to himself that it couldn’t have been possible for Jesus to send out his disciples throughout the whole world.

Second, as we had just stated, al-Tabari cited this very tradition on the authority of Ibn Ishaq, which means that both Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari had no problem with Paul being a true representative of Christ.

Third, even if anonymous could show that Ibn Hisham omitted the citation due to his disbelief in Paul's legitimacy, this would only show that this specific Muslim didn't believe in the beloved Apostle. It would do nothing to refute my position that the earliest Muslims such as Ibn Ishaq viewed Paul positively.

In light of the foregoing, the only reason why we are even citing these sources is to show that the author’s claim that Ibn Ishaq is not one of the sources of Islam is simply without any merit. As I said, it never ceases to amaze me how Muslims will even malign their own sources in order to avoid the inevitable.



My Response:



Sam can say that early Muslims believed that Paul was a Prophet from God (using Sura 36 as proof), but I can also argue that early Muslims also said he wasn’t an Apostle, as Ibn Kathir says:


This implies that the city mentioned in the Qur'an is a city other than Antioch, as also stated by more than one of the Salaf


Once proven that the city in Sura 36 isn’t Antioch, then what happens to St. Paul?


And lastly, it is most likely that Ibn Ishaq was influenced by Christians when he said Sura 36 referred to Antioch, and when he considered Paul to be a true Prophet of Allah SWT, since Paul’s words contradict the teachings of the Holy Qur’an.



He Wrote:


{IMPORTANT NOTE: It has been brought to our attention that Ibn Hisham does actually include this reference to Paul. The following quotation is the Arabic text of Ibn Hisham for those who are able to read it:

[ رواية ابن حبيب عن بعث الرسول رسله ]

قال ابن إسحاق : حدثني يزيد بن أبي حبيب المصري : أنه وجد كتابا فيه ذكر من بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى البلدان وملوك العرب والعجم ، وما قال لأصحابه حين بعثهم . قال فبعثت به إلى محمد بن شهاب الزهري فعرفه وفيه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم خرج على أصحابه فقال لهم إن الله بعثني رحمة وكافة فأدوا عني يرحمكم الله ولا تختلفوا علي كما اختلف الحواريون على عيسى بن مريم ; قالوا : وكيف يا رسول الله كان اختلافهم ؟ قال دعاهم لمثل ما دعوتكم له فأما من قرب به فأحب وسلم وأما من بعد به فكره وأبى ، فشكا ذلك عيسى منهم إلى الله فأصبحوا وكل رجل منهم يتكلم بلغة القوم الذين وجه إليهم .

(Source: http://sirah.al-islam.com/Display.asp?f=hes2712)

We had based our assumption that Ibn Hisham did not include the story about Paul on Guillaume’s translation:

"God has sent me (Muhammad) to all men, so take a message from me, God have mercy on you. Do not hang back from me as the disciples hung back from Jesus son of Mary. They asked how they hung back and he said, ‘He called them to a task similar to that which I have called you. Those who had to go a short journey were pleased and accepted. Those who had a long journey before them were displeased and refused to go, and Jesus complained of them to God. (T. From that very night) every one of them was able to speak the language of the people to whom he was sent.’ (T. Jesus said, ‘This is a thing that God has determined that you should do, so go.’)

"Those whom Jesus son of Mary sent, both disciples and those who came after them, in the land were: Peter the disciple AND PAUL WITH HIM, (PAUL BELONGED TO THE FOLLOWERS AND WAS NOT A DISCIPLE) to Rome. Andrew and Matthew to the land of the cannibals; Thomas to the land of Babel, which is in the land of the east; Philip to Carthage and Africa; John to Ephesus the city of the young men of the cave; James to Jerusalem which is Aelia the city of the sanctuary; Bartholomew to Arabia which is the land of Hijaz; Simon to the land of Berbers; Judah who was not one of the disciples was put in place of Judas." (Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad [Oxford University Press Karachi], p. 653; bold and capital emphasis ours)

The T. stands for Tabari and is meant to indicate to the reader that the information cited within the parenthesis is not found in Ibn Hisham. It is found in al-Tabari’s work that he received from Ibn Ishaq. For some reason we had assumed that the quote about Paul was also taken from Tabari, even though it was not included within the parenthesis.

Hence, Ibn Hisham’s inclusion of this quote provides additional support for our case. Ibn Hisham was quick to omit any material he found derogatory or contrary to his views and yet the quote on Paul was left intact. This demonstrates that Ibn Hisham saw no problem in affirming the legitimacy of Paul as a bonafide representative of Christ. }





My Response:



It makes no difference to us what Ibn Hisham, Tabari, Waqidi, Ibn Ishaq, or any other scholar say about Paul, since we have already refuted the idea that he was an Apostle of Allah SWT.


Remember that Allah SWT says in the Holy Qur’an.


It was no more than a single mighty Blast, and behold! they were (like ashes) quenched and silent. (Sura 36 Ayat 29)


If Sam Shamoun wants to assert this city is Antioch, so that he can prove that Paul is an Apostle from Allah SWT, we hereby challenge him to:


Bring Archaeological Proof that Antioch WAS Destroyed AFTER The Time of Isa (A)!



He Wrote:


Anonymous proceeds to quote the Quran to demonstrate that the Quran and the hadith are the official sources of Islam. Yet none of the verses cited prove anonymous’ false assertion that a Muslim is required to follow Muhammad’s hadith. In fact a careful examination of the verses in question, as well as the over all context of the Quran proves otherwise. Let me illustrate:

... Sources of Islam are the Qur'ân and Hadîth. As Allâh clearly says in numerous places in Glorious Qur'ân:

"And We have also sent down unto you (O Muhammad) the Dhikr [reminder and the advice (i.e. the Qur'ân)], that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them, and that they may give thought." (Qur'ân, 16:44)

The hadîth of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allâh be upon him) is a revelation (wahy) from his Lord. Allâh says

"Your companion (Muhammad) has neither gone astray nor has erred. Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is only a Revelation revealed." (Qur'ân, 53:2-4)


Neither one of these passages prove anonymous’ contention that one must follow the hadith. Surah 53 simply claims that the Quran is a revelation given to Muhammad. And here is the context of 16:44 to make this point clearer:

And We did not send before you any but men to whom We sent revelation -- so ask the followers of the Reminder (Dhikri) if you do not know – S. 16:43 Shakir

The Reminder here obviously refers to the previous scriptures as the following passage demonstrates:

But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers. S. 10:94 Shakir

Hence, if 16:44 proves that Muhammad’s hadith must be followed then this would also imply that all the other prophets had hadiths which need to be followed.


My Response:


Here is Sura 16:44;


"And We have also sent down unto you (O Muhammad) the Dhikr [reminder and the advice (i.e. the Qur'ân)], that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them, and that they may give thought." (Sura 16 Ayat 44)


The above in bold actually shows that the Holy Prophet (S) was to explain clearly what was sent, meaning he was to interpret it.


Sam says that if Sura 16:44 means that we must follow the Hadith of the Holy Prophet (S), this would also mean that we have to follow the hadiths of the other Prophets.


How Shamoun reaches this conclusion is beyond us!






He Wrote:



Now the author may have not intended to use these specific passages to show that the hadiths are necessary since he seems to be aware that these passages, or at least 16:44, refer to the Quran. But he continues:

He who obeys the Messenger (Muhammad(P)), has indeed obeyed Allâh!

"And whosoever obeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed achieved a great achievement (i.e. he will be saved from the Hell-fire and will be admitted to Paradise)." (Qur'ân, 33:71)

"And obey Allâh and the Messenger (Muhammad) that you may obtain mercy." (Qur'ân, 3:132)

"And whosoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad), and transgresses His limits, He will cast him into the Fire, to abide therein; and he shall have a disgraceful torment." (Qur'ân, 4:14)

"It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed into a plain error." (Qur'ân, 33:36)

Say (O Muhammad to mankind): "If you (really) love Allâh, then follow me (i.e. accept Islamic Monotheism, follow the Qur'ân and the Sunnah), Allâh will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Qur'ân, 3:31)


The Quran also mentions that people were required to obey any Messenger or Prophet which was sent to them:

And (I come) [Jesus] confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me. S. 3:50 Pickthall

And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me ye will (all) return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ. S. 3:55 Pickthall

We sent no messenger save that he should be obeyed by Allah's leave. And if, when they had wronged themselves, they had but come unto thee and asked forgiveness of Allah, and asked forgiveness of the messenger, they would have found Allah Forgiving, Merciful. S. 4:64 Pickthall

And warn mankind of a day when the doom will come upon them, and those who did wrong will say: Our Lord! Reprieve us for a little while. We will obey Thy call and will follow the messengers. (It will be answered): Did ye not swear before that there would be no end for you? S. 14:44

In light of the foregoing, the command to obey Muhammad no more proves that a Muslim is required to follow his hadiths then the preceding statements prove that people were required to follow the hadiths of the other prophets as well. These statements simply show that a person was/is required to obey the revelation that God gave the messengers and prophets, i.e. the scriptures and laws which they passed on. For instance, to obey Jesus was to obey the Gospel given to him by revelation. The Quran says absolutely nothing about a person following Jesus’ hadiths apart from the Gospel which he received.


My Response:


Sam doesn’t realize how he shot himself in the foot by posting Sura 4 Ayat 64, because it refutes his sloppy interpretation below!


Moreover, it *proves* our point that the Messenger is to be followed. Since the Holy Prophet (S) was the LAST Messenger, who came with the Final Revelation, his example is what the Muslims today follow.


As for Shamoun’s comment that the command to obey the Holy Prophet (S) doesn’t require for a Muslim to follow the hadiths, we shall deal with that below Insha’Allah.





He Wrote:



 Anonymous concludes from this:

It is very clear from the above verses of Glorious Qur'ân that the sources of Islam are two:

1. Speech of God, i.e. the Qur'ân.
2. Saying and Practices of the Prophet(P), i.e. Sunnah and Hadîth.

Let us now analyze the status of Paul in Islam, using the above-stated two sources of Islam.


I would like to further correct the author’s unqualified statement regarding the hadith being a source for Islam. As we saw, none of the verses cited lead to anonymous’ conclusion that one is required to follow the hadiths. In fact, there are clearer references which say that the only hadith one must follow is the Quran:

Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all the things GOD has created? Does it ever occur to them that the end of their life may be near? Which Hadith, BESIDE THIS, do they believe in? 7:185 Khalifa

These are GOD's revelations that we recite to you truthfully. In which Hadith other than GOD and His revelations do they believe? S. 45:6 Khalifa

The obvious answer is that a Muslim will turn to no other hadith besides the Quran.

In their history, there is a lesson for those who possess intelligence. This is not fabricated Hadith; this (Quran) confirms all previous scriptures, provides the details of everything, and is a beacon and mercy for those who believe. S. 12:111 Khalifa

Note the claim of this verse that the Quran provides the details of everything, excluding the need for any other hadith besides it.

GOD has revealed herein the best Hadith; a BOOK that is consistent, and points out both ways (to Heaven and Hell). The skins of those who reverence their Lord cringe therefrom, then their skins and their hearts soften up for GOD's message. Such is GOD's guidance; He bestows it upon whoever wills (to be guided). As for those sent astray by GOD, nothing can guide them. S. 39:23 Khalifa

Let them produce a Hadith like this, if they are truthful. S. 52:34

The Quran is a hadith which cannot be duplicated. The Quran also mentions the Sunnah of Allah and its unchangeableness, but fails to mention the Sunnah of Muhammad. Cf. 17:77; 33:38, 62; 35:43; 48:23.

And yet anonymous and other Sunni Muslims believe that the hadith collections, which are based on the narrations of uninspired men who used their own words, are equal to the so-called revealed Quran.



My Response:


Actually, in the Holy Qur’an we are supposed to follow the example of the Holy Prophet (S), as Allah SWT says himself that in the Holy Prophet (S) there is an excellent example:


Indeed, in the messenger of Allah you have an excellent example for anyone who expects (to meet) Allah and the last day, and remembers Allah a lot. (Sura 33 Ayat 21)


If Sam thinks the verses provided by the “Reader” doesn’t suffice, let’s see what he has to say about these:


O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to God and His Apostle, if ye do believe in God and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination. (Sura 4 Ayat 59)


O ye who believe! Obey God and His Apostle, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak). (Sura 8 Ayat 20)

Indeed, in the messenger of Allah you have an excellent example for anyone who expects (to meet) Allah and the last day, and remembers Allah a lot. (Sura 33 Ayat 21)


He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah: But if any turn away, We have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds) (Sura 4 Ayat 80)


"Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper (Sura 7 Ayat 157)


Indeed Allah conferred a great favour on the believers when He sent among them a Messenger (Muhammad SAW) from among themselves, reciting unto them His Verses (the Quran), and purifying them (from sins by their following him), and instructing them (in) the Book (the Quran) AND  AlHikmah (the wisdom and the Sunnah of the Prophet SAW (i.e. his legal ways, statements, acts of worship, etc.)), while before that they had been in manifest error. (Sura 3 Ayat 164, translated by Muhammad Al-Hilali and Muhsin Khan)


Had not the Grace of Allah and His Mercy been upon you (O Muhammad SAW), a party of them would certainly have made a decision to mislead you, but (in fact) they mislead none except their own selves, and no harm can they do to you in the least. Allah has sent down to you the Book (The Quran), and AlHikmah (Islamic laws, knowledge of legal and illegal things i.e. the Prophets Sunnah - legal ways), and taught you that which you knew not. And Ever Great is the Grace of Allah unto you (O Muhammad SAW). (Sura 4 Ayat 113)


It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by God and His Apostle to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys God and His Apostle, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path. (Sura 33 Ayat 36)


It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, AND to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom,- although they had been, before, in manifest error;- (Sura 62 Ayat 2)


Deem not the summons of the Apostle among yourselves like the summons of one of you to another: God doth know those of you who slip away under shelter of some excuse: then let those beware who withstand the Apostle's order, lest some trial befall them, or a grievous penalty be inflicted on them. (Sura 24 Ayat 63)



How do the Hadith Rejecters answer this??


Before we continue on, let me make this very clear:


We Are NOT Hadith Rejecters!!


Therefore, all Shamoun is doing is mindless rambling.


The Holy Qur’an is clear in its message to follow the Holy Prophet (S)!


The problem here is not the Hadiths, but Sam Shamoun’s interpretation. Yes indeed the Holy Qur’an is the true word of Allah SWT, but that doesn’t mean the Prophetic Sunnah is to be discredited, because the True Word of Allah SWT clearly says in the Messenger of Allah is an excellent example!


If Sam Shamoun cannot understand that, then all we can say is leave him in his ignorance.




He Wrote:



Furthermore, although it is correct to say that for most Sunni Muslims the hadiths are considered one of the main sources of Islam, not all professing Muslims agree with this position. Nor do all Muslims who hold to the primacy of the hadiths believe in the hadith collections of the Sunni Muslims. For instance, there are Muslims who follow the Quran alone, and even use the passages which we just cited to prove that the only hadiths and Sunnah that are required is the Quran:


Lest the author labels these Muslims "Submitters" as a way of denigrating them as nothing more than heretics, here are links by those who deny their affiliation with these "Submitters" but who nonetheless hold to the Quran alone:


You can find a whole host of like-minded links here:


The Shiite Muslims have their own collection of hadiths and reject the Sunni collection. After citing some Sunni hadiths, the following Shiite site writes:

There is NO requirement in Islam to believe in Sahih Bukhari, Muslim etc. As the Minhajj have taken offence to the comments let is look at some of these hadith, and then we leave it to those with open minds to conclude whether these are true words / deeds or folk tales, we present seven hadith for our readers perusal …

We the Shi’a refuse to accept such filthy traditions, by doing so does that make us kaafir. As far as we are concerned protecting the integrity of the Prophet (S) if far more important than protecting the integrity of Sahih al Bukhari! Hence yes we do regard these as tales we believe that:

  1. It is utterly untrue that the Holy Prophet (s) visited all his wives (i.e. eleven) in just one night.
  2. It is also untrue that Holy Prophet (s) had the desire of fondling his (s) wives during menses
  3. It is also untrue that The Holy Prophet (s) desired to have sexual intercourse with Hadhrath Safiya on the day of sacrifice.
  4. It is also untrue that The Holy Prophet (s) recited The Holy Qur’an in the Laps of any wife during her menses.

The above traditions are derogatory to the piety & holiness of The Holy Prophet (s). When a Non-Muslim commits blasphemy by quoting these narrations our necks bow down with humiliation & embarrassment. And this Minhajj are trying to call us kaafirs because we reject these books! On the Day of Judgement at least the Shi’a will say we protected the perfection of the infallible Prophet, whilst groups such as Minjajj dedicated their lives to degrading the Prophet (s) with the above filthy traditions! (Source)

This should sufficiently put to rest anonymous’ erroneous claim that HIS SUNNI hadiths are one of the essential sources of Islam.



My Response:



It is hilarious to note that the Shia are saying that the traditions (as cited above) are “filthy” yet they themselves still practice Temporary Marriage called Mut’ah.




In the above link, you will find responses to Shia’s, which I highly recommend everyone to read.



The links given by Shamoun before he posted the Shia view are from Quranist websites. A good refutation to that particular website “Free-Minds” is:




It is another great article by Brother Ali, which I also highly recommend everyone to read.



He Wrote:


With that said, we will still play along with anonymous’ evasion tactics and show that even his appeal to the Quran and hadiths fails to substantiate his case against Paul:

The Qur'ân

1. Qur'ân mentions the names of 25 Prophets. They are: Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Hud, Saleh, Lot, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, Elias, Ilyasa', Jonah, Zechariah, John the Baptist, Jesus and Muhammad. As we can see clearly, Paul is not among the above-mentioned prophets.

2. Allâh says clearly in Glorious Qur'ân:

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allâh (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "This is evident sorcery!" (Qur'ân, 61:06)

Here we clearly see Jesus(P) is saying that Muhammad(P) is the Prophet after him. If Paul is a Prophet recognized in Islam, wouldn't he be mentioned above?


First, we need to correct anonymous’ straw man. We never said that Paul is a prophet recognized in Islam, but rather that the first Muslims recognized Paul as a true representative of the teachings of Christ and a follower of the Apostles.

Second, does anonymous want to argue that since there are only 25 prophets mentioned explicitly by name this means that any prophet or messenger not mentioned must therefore be rejected? If so, then anonymous seems to be trying to pull a fast one since he must be aware that the Quran clearly says that there are many other apostles/messengers who are not mentioned by name:

Of some apostles We have already told thee the story; of others We have not;- and to Moses God spoke direct;- S. 4:164 Y. Ali

In light of the foregoing, and from a purely Quranic perspective, it is quite conceivable that Paul was one of these other unnamed apostles.


My Response:



Paul is definitely not one of the unnamed Apostles, as his doctrine was totally contrary to what the Holy Qur’an teaches.




He Wrote:



Nor does anonymous’ appeal to S. 61:6 establish his claim that Muhammad is the only messenger after Jesus, anymore than the following passages imply that Muhammad was the only messenger after Moses:

Do they say, ‘He has forged it?’ Say, ‘Then bring ten Surahs like it forged, and call on whom you can apart from ALLAH, if you are truthful.’ And if they do not accept your challenge, then know that it has been revealed comprising that which is only within ALLAH's knowledge and there is no god but HE. Will you then submit. Whoso desires the present life and its adornment, WE will fully repay them for their works in this life and they shall not be wronged therein. Those are they who shall have nothing in the Hereafter save the Fire, and that which they wrought in this life shall come to naught, and vain shall be that which they used to do. Can he, then, who stands upon a clear proof from his Lord, and to testify to whose truth a witness from HIM shall follow him, and who was preceded by the Book of Moses, a guide and a mercy, be an impostor? Those who are the true followers of Moses believe therein, and whoever of the opposing parties disbelieve in it, the Fire shall be his promised place. So be not thou, O reader, in doubt about it. Surely, it is the truth from thy Lord; but most men believe not. S. 11:13-17 Sher Ali

The Revelation of the Book is from God the Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom. ... When Our Clear Signs are rehearsed to them, the Unbelievers say, of the Truth when it comes to them: "This is evident sorcery!" Or do they say, "He has forged it"? Say: "Had I forged it, then can ye obtain no single (blessing) for me from God. He knows best of that whereof ye talk (so glibly)! Enough is He for a witness between me and you! And he is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." Say: "I am no bringer of new-fangled doctrine among the apostles, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I follow but that which is revealed to me by inspiration; I am but a Warner open and clear." Say: "See ye? If (this teaching) be from God, and ye reject it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel testifies to its similarity (with earlier scripture), and has believed while ye are arrogant, (how unjust ye are!) truly, God guides not a people unjust." The Unbelievers say of those who believe: "If (this Message) were a good thing, (such men) would not have gone to it first, before us!" And seeing that they guide not themselves thereby, they will say, "this is an (old,) falsehood!" And BEFORE THIS, was the Book of Moses as a guide and a mercy: And this Book confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue; to admonish the unjust, and as Glad Tidings to those who do right. S. 46:2, 7-12 Y. Ali

Behold, We turned towards thee a company of Jinns (quietly) listening to the Qur'an: when they stood in the presence thereof, they said, "Listen in silence!" When the (reading) was finished, they returned to their people, to warn (them of their sins). They said, "O our people! We have heard a Book revealed after Moses, confirming what came before it: it guides (men) to the Truth and to a Straight Path." S. 46:29-30 Y. Ali

The preceding passages imply that the Book sent immediately before the Quran was the one given to Moses. Would anonymous argue that this means God didn’t send any apostles beside Moses and Muhammad, and that there was no other Book sent besides the ones given to these men? If not, then anonymous’ appeal to Jesus’ supposed claim that a messenger coming after him implies that no messengers would be sent until Muhammad is simply erroneous to say the least.



My Response:



Before we continue on, the passages above do NOT imply that the book sent IMMEDIATELY after the Tawrah was the Holy Qur’an, as the missionary claims. Not even in the translations cited by Shamoun do they say IMMEDIATELY after the Tawrah, as this would go against the Holy Qur’an:


And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God. (Sura 5 Ayat 46)


Before this We wrote in the Psalms, after the Message (given to Moses): My servants the righteous, shall inherit the earth." (Sura 21 Ayat 105)


And it is your Lord that knoweth best all beings that are in the heavens and on earth: We did bestow on some prophets more (and other) gifts than on others: and We gave to David (the gift of) the Psalms. (Sura 17 Ayat 55)


Lastly, Sam’s comment on the Ayat the “Reader” cited is wrong, as there is a Hadith that says perfectly agrees with the “Reader” in Sahih Bukhari:


Volume 4, Book 55, Number 651:

Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "I am the nearest of all the people to the son of Mary, and all the prophets are paternal brothers, and there has been no prophet between me and him (i.e. Jesus)."




He Wrote:



This leads us to our third point. The Quran mentions that Jesus had followers who were supposed submitted ones:

And when I inspired the disciples, (saying): Believe in Me and in My messenger, they said: We believe. Bear witness that we have surrendered (unto Thee) "we are muslims". When the disciples said: O Jesus, son of Mary! Is thy Lord able to send down for us a table spread with food from heaven? He said: Observe your duty to Allah, if ye are true believers. (They said:) We wish to eat thereof, that we may satisfy our hearts and know that thou hast spoken truth to us, and that thereof we may be witnesses. Jesus, son of Mary, said: O Allah, Lord of us! Send down for us a table spread with food from heaven, that it may be a feast for us, for the first of us and for the last of us, and a sign from Thee. Give us sustenance, for Thou art the Best of Sustainers. Allah said: Lo! I send it down for you. And whoso disbelieveth of you afterward, him surely will I punish with a punishment wherewith I have not punished any of (My) creatures. S. 5:111-115


My Response:



Okay, nothing important here.



He Wrote:



The Quran says that Christ’s followers prevailed against the unbelievers:

O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the Disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, AND THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED. S. 61:14 cf. 3:55



My Response:



If Shamoun is trying to imply what I think he is trying to imply with that Ayat, then we must correct him. The following is from Brother Bassam Zawadi’s article:


Christian Missionary Argument:

The Quran says...

Surah 61:14

O ye who believe! Be Allah's helpers, even as Jesus son of Mary said unto the disciples: Who are my helpers for Allah ? They said: We are Allah's helpers. And a party of the Children of Israel believed, while a party disbelieved. Then We strengthened those who believed against their foe, and they became the uppermost.


The Quran says that the believers of Jesus became the victorious ones and prevailed. We all know that Pauline Christianity is the one that prevailed. Therefore, the Quran affirms Pauline Christianity. 


My Response:

Tafsir of Qurtubi says...

قَالَ اِبْن عَبَّاس : أَيَّدَ اللَّه الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا فِي زَمَن عِيسَى بِإِظْهَارِ مُحَمَّد عَلَى دِين الْكُفَّار

Ibn Abbas said: Allah strengthened those who believed in the time of Jesus by having having Muhammad's religion be uppermost over the religion of the disbelievers. 

Source: http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=KORTOBY&nType=1&nSora=61&nAya=14


Tafsir of Tabari says...

فَقَوَّيْنَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْ الطَّائِفَتَيْنِ مِنْ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيل عَلَى عَدُوّهِمْ , الَّذِي كَفَرُوا مِنْهُمْ بِمُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِتَصْدِيقِهِ إِيَّاهُمْ , أَنَّ عِيسَى عَبْد اللَّه وَرَسُوله , وَتَكْذِيبه مَنْ قَالَ هُوَ إِلَه , وَمَنْ قَالَ : هُوَ اِبْن اللَّه تَعَالَى ذِكْره , فَأَصْبَحُوا ظَاهِرِينَ , فَأَصْبَحَتْ الطَّائِفَة الْمُؤْمِنُونَ ظَاهِرِينَ عَلَى عَدُوّهِمْ الْكَافِرِينَ مِنْهُمْ .

So we strengthened those who believed from the two tribes of Bani Israel over their enemies, those who disbelieved in Muhammad peace be upon him for what he came to attest to them, that is that Jesus is the slave of Allah and his Messenger, and to expose the lies of those who say that he is God, and those who say that he is the son of Allah the Most High, so they (the believing tribe) have been made victorious over the disbelieving enemies.

قَالَ : لَمَّا بَعَثَ اللَّه مُحَمَّدًا , وَنَزَلَ تَصْدِيق مَنْ آمَنَ بِعِيسَى , أَصْبَحَتْ حُجَّة مَنْ آمَنَ بِهِ ظَاهِرَة

He said: When Allah sent Muhammad, and sent the confirmation of who believed in Jesus, it was established that those who believed in him (Jesus) were uppermost.

Source: http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=TABARY&nType=1&nSora=61&nAya=14


Tafsir of Razi says...

وقال إبراهيم: أصبحت حجة من آمن بعيسى ظاهرة بتصديق محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم وأن عيسى كلمة الله وروحه،

Ibrahim said: It became established that the sect that believed in Jesus was uppermost by the confirmation of Muhammad peace be upon him and Jesus is the word of Allah and His spirit.

Source: www.altafsir.net

So basically what we can see is that when God said that those who believed in Jesus were strengthened and became victorious over those who disbelieved it meant that because eventually the Quran was going to come down and confirm what the truth is. It came down to confirm what the true revelation of Jesus Christ was and that those who truly believed in the original teachings of Jesus were strengthened in status and made victorious because the truth has finally come to confirm that they were on the true path.

The Quran could obviously not affirm Paul's teachings. Paul preached a crucified Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:23) while the Quran preached a non crucified Jesus (Surah 4:157). So the Quran was not and will never affirm the teachings of Paul.


And here is our addition to the above. Here is the commentary of Ibn Kathir on the Sura 61 Ayat 14:


(So, We gave power to those who believed against their enemies,) that is, `We gave them victory over the group of Christians which defied them,'

﴿فَأَصْبَحُواْ ظَـهِرِينَ﴾

(and they became the victorious (uppermost).) `over the disbelieving group, when We sent Muhammad.' Imam Abu Ja`far bin Jarir At-Tabari reported that Ibn `Abbas said, "When Allah decided to raise `Isa to heaven, `Isa went to his companions while drops of water were dripping from his head. At that time, there were twelve men at the house. `Isa said to them, `Some of you will disbelieve in me twelve times after having believed in me.' He then asked, `Who among you volunteers that he be made to resemble me and be killed instead of me; he will be with me in my place (in Paradise).' One of the youngest men present volunteered, but `Isa commanded him to sit down. `Isa repeated his statement and the young man again stood up and volunteered, and `Isa again told him to sit down. `Isa repeated the same statement and the young man volunteered. This time, `Isa said, `Then it will be you.' The appearance of `Isa was cast upon that young man, while `Isa, peace be on him, was raised to heaven through an opening in the roof of the house. The Jews came looking for `Isa and arrested the one that appeared as him, killing him by crucifixion. Some of them disbelieved in `Isa twelve times, after they had believed in him. They divided into three groups. One group, Al-Ya`qubiyyah (the Jacobites), said, `Allah remained with us as much as He willed and then ascended to heaven.' Another group, An-Nasturiyyah (the Nestorians), said, `Allah's son remained with us as much as Allah willed and He then rasied him up to heaven.' A third group said, `Allah's servant and Messenger remained with us as much as Allah willed and then Allah raised him up to Him.' The last group was the Muslim group. The two disbelieving groups collaborated against the Muslim group and annihilated it. Islam remained unjustly concealed until Allah sent Muhammad,

﴿فَـَامَنَت طَّآئِفَةٌ مِّن بَنِى إِسْرَءِيلَ وَكَفَرَت طَّآئِفَةٌ﴾

(Then a group of the Children of Israel believed and a group disbelieved.) This Ayah refers to the group among the Children of Israel that disbelieved and the group that believed, during the time of `Isa,

﴿فَأَيَّدْنَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ عَلَى عَدُوِّهِمْ فَأَصْبَحُواْ ظَـهِرِينَ﴾

(So, We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, and they became the victorious (uppermost).) through the victory that Muhammad gained over the religion of the disbelievers, which brought the dominance of their religion.'' This is the wording in his book for the Tafsir of this honorable Ayah. Similarly, An-Nasa'i collected this statement of Ibn `Abbas in his Sunan. Therefore, the Ummah of Muhammad will always be prevalent on the truth until Allah's command (the Final Hour) commences, while they are on this path. The last group of them will fight against Ad-Dajjal along with `Isa, peace be on him, according to Hadiths in the authentic collections. This is the end of the Tafsir of Surat As-Saff. All praise and thanks are due to Allah.

(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged Version, Dar-Us-Salam Publications)




He Wrote:



Now the questions for anonymous are, can he show us from the Quran what were the names of these disciples of Jesus and how many were they? The obvious answer is NO! Hence, to use the Quran to disprove Paul is nothing more than a smokescreen since this method would disprove Peter, John, and James etc. from being true disciples as well. Anonymous, if he were being consistent, must also reject Abu Bakr, Aisha, Umar b. Khattab, Uthman b. Affan, Ali b. Abu Thalib, Ibn Abbas etc. since none of their names appear in the Quran as well.




My Response:



To use the Holy Qur’an to disprove Paul is not a smokescreen, infact using the Holy Qur’an to prove Paul is a true Prophet is a smokescreen! The Holy Qur’an clearly says that the crucifixion of Jesus never happened (Sura 4 Ayat 157), and anyone who believes that he was crucified follows conjecture, and has no knowledge. Yet, Paul preached the crucifixion (1 Corinthians 1:23), thus how can Paul be a true Prophet according to the Holy Qur’an?


The Missionary infact completely ignores that, and tries to prove from the Holy Qur’an that Paul is an Apostle of God! If this isn’t a smokescreen, then it is definitely an oxymoron to use the Holy Qur’an to prove Paul is a Prophet according to Islam.



He Wrote:


Anonymous then tries to bring up the crucifixion in order to support his contention:

3. Allâh also says:

"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allâh" - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not." (Qur'ân, 4:157)

But Paul says:

"If Christ be not risen from the dead, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain." (1 Corinthians 15:14)

So how can Muslims consider Paul as a prophet of God, when it is clear he gives so much stress on the crucifixion of Jesus(P) and Islam is clearly against the crucifixion?


We have already demonstrated why appealing to S. 4:157 does nothing to refute our position, albeit in relation to the Quran’s view of the Holy Bible. Nonetheless, it equally applies here:




My Response:



On the contrary, Sura 4 Ayat 157 literally destroys your argument, and shows how desperate Missionaries are.




He Wrote:



More importantly, ALL of Jesus’ true followers affirmed the crucifixion of Christ, as the following passages from Peter show:

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him… Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear… Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." Acts 2:22-24, 29-33, 36

"The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see." Acts 3:13-16

"You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached-how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen - by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." Acts 10:36-43

"For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect." 1 Peter 1:18-19

"To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. ‘He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.’ When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed." 1 Peter 2:21-24

"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison… It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand-with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him." 1 Peter 3:18-20, 21b-22

There is no example of an apostle denying Christ’s crucifixion. Now anonymous may wish to appeal to the literature of some dissenting Christian groups to argue otherwise, but he won’t get far. The only literature we are aware of that deny the crucifixion of Christ was written by individuals who did not believe in the real humanity of Jesus, or who assumed that there was a divine Christ that left the physical body of Jesus right at the time of the crucifixion. We seriously doubt that anonymous would consider such individuals as true followers of Jesus.

Therefore, if Surah 4:157 is a reason to reject Paul, then anonymous must reject the rest of Christ’s true followers. Yet to reject them is to reject the Quranic teaching regarding Jesus’ followers being true believers who prevailed against the unbelievers. We will leave it to anonymous to solve this problem.



My Response:



We need not go into details on that issue. Brother Osama Abdallah has thoroughly discussed that already in the following links:













He Wrote:


Anonymous dares to say:

Sunnah and Hadîth

Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Al-Muslim are two most authentic books followed by four other hadîth books. Not a single of them contains the name of Paul!

As I had said above, Islam = Qur'ân + Sunnah. If neither the word of God or the sayings of Prophet(P) ever mentioned the name of Paul, what does it prove? It proves that Paul has no status in Islam. Early Muslims strictly followed Qur'ân and Hadîth of Prophet(P). If both of them do no mention them, why did the early Muslims not believe that Paul is Messenger of God?


The problem with the above claims is that these same books DO NOT MENTION A SINGLE APOSTLE OF CHRIST BY NAME EITHER!!!! Using the author’s logic this means that Muslims must reject Peter, James, John, Thomas etc. solely because their names are not mentioned!!!

As we said above, it is only an assertion (not accepted by all) that Islam = Qur'ân + Sunnah. And seeing that neither the Quran (which the author erroneously assumes is the word of God) nor the hadith collections ever mention the names of the rest of Christ’s followers, we can see that anonymous has failed to prove that Paul has no status in Islam. And in light of the fact that early Muslims such as Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari, al-Thalabi and Ibn Kathir refer positively to Paul, our readers should be able to discern by now how weak anonymous’ case truly is thus far.




My Response:



*NOTE*: Ibn Kathir DOES NOT refer to Paul positively, infact in his Commentary for Sura 36, all the time he refers to Paul he says “IBN ISHAQ REPORTED... so and so and so”. He then *REFUTES* Ibn Ishaq on the claim the city in Sura 36 is Antioch with intellect, and reasoning, as shown in Part 1 of our rebuttal.


Lastly, even Ibn Kathir makes clear that more then one of the Salaf (Ancestors) agree that the city in Sura 36 is Antioch, therefore Sam’s appeal to the early Muslims only backfires against him.





He Wrote:



Anonymous proceeds to quote the hadiths which say that there were no prophets between Muhammad and Jesus. He boldly says that this is universally accepted. Again, a couple of comments are in order. First, as we had already mentioned, this simply shows that there is a contradiction within the Muslim sources. Anonymous has chosen to reject one source for another, obviously due to his presupposition that Paul wasn’t a true Apostle. But since he justifies his position by questioning Ibn Ishaq, here are the comments of ar-Razi on 3:53 in connection to Jesus’ disciples, ON THE AUTHORITY OF IBN ABBAS NO LESS:

Razi relates on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that the witnesses in question are Muhammad and his community. Razi substantiates this view by citing verse 2:143. He then presents a number of possible interpretations of the verse:

I. The verse, also on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas, means "Inscribe us in the company of the prophets because every prophet shall be a witness over his people [on the last day], as God says, ‘We shall question those whom [messengers] were sent and We shall question the messengers’ (Q. 7:6). God answered the prayers of the disciples AND MADE THEM PROPHETS AND MESSENGERS, for they revived the dead and did all the things which Jesus was able to do." (Ayoub, The Qur'an and Its Interpreters, Volume II, The House of 'Imran [State University of New York Press, Albany, 1992], p. 163; bold and capital emphasis ours)




My Response:



Sam really needs to read his sources properly, as they clearly say:

Razi relates on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that the witnesses in question are Muhammad and his community. Razi substantiates this view by citing verse 2:143. He then presents a number of possible interpretations of the verse:”

And he then quotes the rest of it, but forgets this part:

I. The verse, also on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas, means "Inscribe us in the company of the prophets because every prophet shall be a witness over his people [on the last day], as God says, ‘We shall question those whom [messengers] were sent and We shall question the messengers’ (Q. 7:6). God answered the prayers of the disciples AND MADE THEM PROPHETS AND MESSENGERS, for they revived the dead and did all the things which Jesus was able to do." (Ayoub, The Qur'an and Its Interpreters, Volume II, The House of 'Imran [State University of New York Press, Albany, 1992], p. 163; bold and capital emphasis ours)

What one can deduct from the above is that, there are multiple interpretations to the Ayat (Sura 3 Ayat 53). That interpretation, is most likely, one which Ibn Ishaq had.


He Wrote:


Ar-Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, affirms that Jesus’ disciples were prophets and messengers. Ar-Razi wasn’t alone. We again present the comments of Ibn Kathir:

<so We reinforced them with a third> means, ‘We supported and strengthened them with a third Messenger.’ Ibn Jurayj narrated from Wahb bin Sulayman, from Shu’ayb Al-Jaba’i, "The names of the first two Messengers were Sham’un and Yuhanna, and the name of the third was Bulus, and the city was Antioch ...

<Verily, we have been sent to you as Messengers.>
meaning, ‘from your Lord Who created you and Who commands you to worship Him Alone with no partners or associates.’ This was the view of Abu Al-‘Aliyah. Qatadah bin Di‘amah claimed THAT THEY WERE MESSENGERS OF THE MESSIAH, peace be upon him, sent to the people of Antioch. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 8, Surat Al-Ahzab, Verse 51 to the end of Surat Ad-Dukhan, abridged under a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors Riyadh, Houston, New York, London, Lahore; First Edition, September 2000], p. 179; bold and capital emphasis ours)


We have already referred to the reports from MANY OF THE SALAF that this city was Antioch, and that these three Messengers were messengers sent from the Messiah Isa bin Maryam, peace be upon him, as Qatadah and others stated. This is not mentioned by any of the later scholars of Tafsir besides him, and this issue must be examined from a number of angles… (Ibid., p. 189; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Do recall that we said that Sham’un refers to Simon Peter, Yuhanna to the apostle John, and Bulus is Arabic for Paul. Ibn Kathir claims that not only did some of the Salaf view Jesus’ disciples as Messengers, BUT ALSO LISTED PAUL AS ONE OF THESE MESSENGERS SENT BY GOD!!!

Perhaps anonymous will also call into question ar-Razi and Ibn Kathir, who were simply narrating the opinions of the Salaf.


My Response:


Again, Sam Shamoun cuts off the REST of the Tafsir, since it literally destroys his claim. We shall post the parts which Shamoun forgot:

(The first) is that if we take this story at face value, it indicates that these men were Messengers from Allah, may He be glorified, not from the Messiah, peace be upon him, as Allah says:

﴿إِذْ أَرْسَلْنَآ إِلَيْهِمُ اثْنَيْنِ فَكَذَّبُوهُمَا فَعَزَّزْنَا بِثَالِثٍ فَقَالُواْ إِنَّآ إِلَيْكُمْ مُّرْسَلُونَ ﴾

(When We sent to them two Messengers, they denied them both; so We reinforced them with a third, and they said: "Verily, we have been sent to you as Messengers.'') up to:

﴿قَالُواْ رَبُّنَا يَعْلَمُ إِنَّآ إِلَيْكُمْ لَمُرْسَلُونَ - وَمَا عَلَيْنَآ إِلاَّ الْبَلَـغُ الْمُبِينُ ﴾

("Our Lord knows that we have been sent as Messengers to you. And our duty is only to convey plainly (the Message).'') If they had been from among the Disciples, they would have said something to indicate that they had come from the Messiah, peace be upon him. And Allah knows best. Moreover, if they had been messengers sent by the Messiah, why would the people have said to them,

﴿إِنْ أَنتُمْ إِلاَّ بَشَرٌ مِّثْلُنَا﴾

("You are only human beings like ourselves'') (The second) is that the people of Antioch did believe in the messengers sent by the Messiah to them. Antioch was the first city to believe in the Messiah, and it is one of the four cities in which there are Christian patriarchs. These cities are: Jerusalem, because it is the city of the Messiah; Antioch, because it was the first city where all of the people believed in the Messiah; Alexandria, because it was in that city that they agreed to reform the hierarchy of patriarchs, metropolitans (archbishops), bishops, priests, deacons and monks; and Rome, because it is the city of the Emperor Constantine who supported and helped to establish their religion. When he adopted Constantinople as his city, the Patriarch of Rome moved there, as has been mentioned by several historian, such as Sa`id bin Batriq and others, both People of the Book and Muslims. If we accept that, then the people of Antioch were the first to believe, but Allah tells us that the people of this town rejected His Messengers and that He destroyed them with one Sayhah and lo! they (all) were still. And Allah knows best. (The third) is that the story of Antioch and the Disciples of the Messiah happened after the Tawrah had been revealed. Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri, may Allah be pleased with him, and others among the Salaf stated that after revealing the Tawrah, Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, did not destroy an entire nation by sending a punishment upon them. Rather, He commanded the believers to fight the idolators. They mentioned this when discussing the Ayah:

﴿وَلَقَدْ ءَاتَيْنَا مُوسَى الْكِتَـبَ مِن بَعْدِ مَآ أَهْلَكْنَا الْقُرُونَ الاٍّولَى﴾

(And indeed We gave Musa -- after We had destroyed the generations of old -- the Scripture) (28:43). This implies that the city mentioned in the Qur'an is a city other than Antioch, as also stated by more than one of the Salaf. Or, if we wish to keep the same name, it is possible that it is another Antioch, not the one which is well-known, for it is not known that it (the famous Antioch) was destroyed, either during Christian times or before. And Allah knows best.

﴿يحَسْرَةً عَلَى الْعِبَادِ مَا يَأْتِيهِمْ مِّن رَّسُولٍ إِلاَّ كَانُواْ بِهِ يَسْتَهْزِءُونَ - أَلَمْ يَرَوْاْ كَمْ أَهْلَكْنَا قَبْلَهُمْ مِّنَ الْقُرُونِ أَنَّهُمْ إِلَيْهِمْ لاَ يَرْجِعُونَ - وَإِن كُلٌّ لَّمَّا جَمِيعٌ لَّدَيْنَا مُحْضَرُونَ ﴾

(30. Alas for mankind! There never came a Messenger to them but they used to mock at him.) (31. Do they not see how many of the generations We have destroyed before them Verily, they will not return to them.) (32. And surely, all -- everyone of them will be brought before Us.)

Again, if this city is Antioch (as Sam claims), then according to the Ayat, it should have been destroyed AFTER Christ’s arrival. We now challenge Sam Shamoun:

Show us Proof that Antioch was destroyed, not by an army, AFTER THE ARRIVAL OF ISA (A)!


If Sam Shamoun can NOT do this, then he must dismiss the claim that the city in Sura 36 is Antioch, since Sura 36 Ayat 29 clearly says:

It was no more than a single mighty Blast, and behold! they were (like ashes) quenched and silent.



He Wrote:



Second, even if we were to accept Muhammad’s alleged claim that there were no prophets between Christ and him, this still doesn’t prove anonymous’ point. One can argue that from the Muslim perspective Paul wasn’t a Prophet but only a follower of Christ like the other disciples, and hence a true spokesperson of Jesus. This way both positions can be maintained, without one having to nullify the other. We find Ibn Sa’d saying essentially the same thing:

He (Ibn Sa'd) said ... There was a span of one thousand nine hundred years between Musa Ibn 'Imran and 'Isa Ibn Maryam and there was no fatarah [Sam- an interval of time between two apostles or prophets]; one thousand Apostles were raised from among the Israelites besides those raised among other nations. There was a span of five hundred and sixty nine years between Christ's nativity and the birth of the Prophet Muhammad. In the beginning of the period THREE APOSTLES WERE RAISED AND CONCERNING THIS ALLAH SAYS: "We sent to them two Prophets whom they disbelieved and we honoured them with the third." The one by whom they were honoured was SIMON who was a hawari (Apostle of Christ). The Fatarah was of four hundred and thirty-four years, when no prophet was raised. Christ's apostles were twelve in number although many people followed him. Among these apostles were a washerman and a hunter: they worked with their own hands and they were chosen persons. (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, Volume I, parts I & II, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110 002 India], p. 46; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Ibn Sa’d could accept the position that Jesus’ disciples functioned as messengers of God as well as believing that there were no prophets between Jesus and Muhammad. He obviously considered Jesus’ disciples as essentially being one with Christ in his respective office as prophet/messenger, i.e. that their prophetic abilities was an extension of Christ’s prophetic office, not as separate prophets and messengers of God. In this way, it could be said that there were no prophets between Jesus and Muhammad.



My Response:



It is obvious that Ibn Sa’d position is clearly wrong, as we have already refuted the claim that the city is Antioch, since there exist no Historical Data after the arrival of Isa (A) that says Antioch was destroyed (not by an army!).




He Wrote:



Anonymous wrote:

Deception In The Missionary Methods

The missionary writes

Since Muhammad believed that Jesus was alive during his time, it is little wonder that the former believed that there were no prophets and messengers between them since all the apostles and prophets were long dead leaving only Christ.

This man is very clever in trying to confuse people who do not know what Muslims truly believe. We Muslims believe that Jesus(P) is alive and will come before Day of Judgment. Does that mean Muhammad is not Last Prophet since Jesus(P) is alive and will come after him. Jesus(P) was given Prophethood before Prophet Muhammad(P). So, he is a Prophet before Muhammad(P).


Deception In WHOSE Methods? Anonymous is very clever in thinking that he can get away with trying to twist what I actually said in order to attack a straw man. My comment was made in connection with Salman the Persian meeting Jesus HERE ON EARTH. My comment had nothing to do with the Muslim belief that Jesus is alive in heaven. I stated that one can see why Muhammad could say that there were no prophets between Christ and himself, SINCE MUHAMMAD ERRONEOUSLY BELIEVED THAT CHRIST WAS SUPPOSEDLY STILL ROAMING THE EARTH CENTURIES AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS DISCIPLES.


My Response:



Let us correct Sam’s “erroneous” misinterpretation, of what the Holy Prophet (S) says about Isa (A). Sam feels that the Holy Prophet (S) believed that Isa (A) was still roaming the earth, centuries after his death. In order to correct this, we will post this Hadith:


Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).

(Sahih Al-Bukhari)


So NO Shamoun, the Holy Prophet (S) didn’t believe Isa (A) was still roaming the earth, infact he makes it clear that Isa (A) will DESCEND (from Heaven) to earth in the Last Days.


However, again as noted in Part I, it is possible that the narration given by Shamoun is false, since the Sahih (Authentic) Hadiths make clear that Isa (A) will arrive/descend from heaven in the Last Days.



He Wrote:



Next, anonymous repeats his claim that Islam is based (or so he thinks) on the Quran and Sunnah and that Ibn Ishaq is a non-source of Islam (whatever that means), which we already refuted. So we won’t bother with it except for the following portion:

... We all know that Christians accept Paul as an apostle, that is something which even missionary Sam would not deny. Now, if Ibn Ishâq as a historian wrote in his book a historical fact that Paul is accepted as an apostle and followers of Christ by Christian world, does that prove Islam believes Paul is a prophet of God? Of course not! Islam is not based on false ideas spread in History. It is based on Qur'ân and Sunnah. If the Qur'ân and Sunnah do not consider Paul as a Prophet, as has been mentioned above, then it is clear that Paul has no status in Islam ...


Anonymous really thinks that he can get away with such misrepresentations. He seems to think that the readers who have read our response are stupid enough to not see his smokescreen here. Ibn Ishaq wasn’t simply narrating history, but also the theological views of Muslims. In light of this, why would Ibn Ishaq mention an alleged false Apostle of Christ AND NOT SAY A WORD ABOUT IT? It is obvious why he didn’t say anything in regards to Paul’s alleged heresies; neither Ibn Ishaq nor the Muslims that he cited believed that Paul was a heretic!!!



My Response:


Sam Shamoun accuses the reader of a “smokescreen”, regarding his comments on Ibn Ishaq. He then says:


In light of this, why would Ibn Ishaq mention an alleged false Apostle of Christ AND NOT SAY A WORD ABOUT IT?


We will again have to post the quotes in the book Sirat Un Nabi:


“As regards the Maghazi literature the famous book is the work of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, who borrows freely from the Christians and the Israelites”


(Source: Maudu’at of Mulla ‘Ali Qari, Mujtaba’I Press, p.85, as cited by Allama Shibli Nu’Mani in Sirat Un Nabi, Vol. I, p.17)




“Al Dhahabi also declares that Muhammad ibn Ishaq reported facts borrowed from the Jews and the Christians, whom unfortunately, he considered as reliable.”


(Source: Sirat Un Nabi by Allama Shibli Nu’Mani rendered into English by M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni, Vol. I p. 22, Kazi Publications Lahore)


It is clear that Ibn Ishaq mentioned a false Prophet, but didn’t say a word about it, because he felt it was reliable!


In reality, what Sam Shamoun said in fact was a “smokescreen”. It is common for people like Shamoun to use arguments such as:


“Well, Ibn Ishaq was an early Muslim; he couldn’t have possibly got it wrong”




“Why did Ibn Ishaq approvingly cite so and so, if it wasn’t correct?”



These arguments are infact very weak, just like Shamoun’s argument. If someone considers something reliable, why in the world would he speak against it, as the Missionary wants him to do?




He Wrote:



Anonymous proceeds:

Ibn Ishâq's statement indicates that Paul is follower of Christ suggesting that he is amongst the Ummâh of Prophet Jesus(P). Being in the Ummâh of Prophet Jesus does not mean that he is righteous servant of God. Missionary Sam is also among ummâh of Prophet(P), but he would not enter Paradise unless he does Taubâ, and sincerely believe and follow the message of our forefather Abraham(P).

Jesus(P) prayed to Almighty God in Qur'ân:

"Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

"Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'Worship Allâh, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things.

"If Thou dost punish them, they are Thy servants: if Thou dost forgive them, Thou are the Exalted in power, the Wise."

Allâh will say:

"This is a day on which the truthful will profit from their truth: theirs are Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath- their eternal home: Allâh well-pleased with them, and they with Allâh: that is the great Salvation, (the fulfillment of all desires).

To Allâh doth belong the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, and it is He who hath power over all things."


As a side note, Allah also prays:

He it is who sends PRAYERS on you (Arabic- yusallii alaykum), as do His angels ... S. 33:43

Allah and His angels PRAY for the Prophet (Arabic- yasalluuna alan-Nabiyy): O ye that believe PRAY for him (salluu `alayhi), and salute him with all respect. S. 33:56

For more on this issue, please read the following: http://./Responses/Menj/divinity2.htm



My Response:



Brother Saami A Muslim has already covered that issue in his previous rebuttal located here:






The rest of Sam Shamoun’s article is exactly like the previous one. He proceeds to attack Ibn Taymiyyah again, and repeats the same argument above on the Salaf’s view of Paul.


If anyone wants to see the refutations to that, just scroll up, or go to Part I of our rebuttal Insha’Allah.



We conclude by saying:


And truly, Allah SWT Knows Best!







Back to My Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.

Rebuttals to Sam Shamoun's Articles section.

The early Disciples' original writings declare that Jesus never got crucified!

Rebuttals by Umar.

Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.