Paul and Muhammad Compared 

Sam Shamoun


As promised, here is the second part of our rebuttal to Nisar’s attacks. This paper will focus on contrasting the Apostle Paul’s life and teachings with that of Muhammad’s. As we shall shortly demonstrate, the facts will prove that Muhammad was not in the league of the Apostle Paul. 

Paul on Lying 

Muslims often claim that Paul admitted to lying in Romans 3:7-8. Yet when we actually read these verses in context, a different picture altogether arises. It is clear that Paul was speaking figuratively. Paul was addressing how man's unrighteousness manifests God's righteous judgment more clearly. Paul then addresses a hypothetical question a person might ask that if in fact one's falsehood proves that God is righteous, then why does God condemn the individual? Here is the passage in question:  

Interestingly, Paul indicates that it was deceitful men who were slanderously accusing the Apostle of condoning sin and falsehood, a charge to which Paul places under the condemnation of God.  

Here is Paul’s views regarding lying and deception:

Muhammad on Lying 

It might surprise our readers to discover that it is Muhammad who condoned deception and lying to achieve one’s aim, as the following verses demonstrate:  

Al-Tabari comments:  

The Traditions tell us that there are at least four instances where deception can be used:  

More information is provided by William Muir's "Life of Mahomet", Volume I, footnote 88:  

We are told in Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Number 361:  

The Quran testifies that even Allah is a deceiver:  

Ibn Kathir comments:  

After claiming that Allah does not deceive, Ibn Kathir goes on to say:  

Therefore, Muslims themselves admit that their God is a deceiver.  

Further passages from the Qur'an about the deceiving nature of Allah:  

The term for scheme in Arabic is makara and denotes one who is a deceiver, a conniver, a schemer. It is always used in a negative sense. Allah is thus seen as the best of deceivers, the premiere schemer and conniving one.  

Muslim theologians themselves admit to the negative connotation of the Arabic term. For example Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub in his book, The Quran and Its Interpreters, Volume II, The House of Imran, brings up the question of,  

After listing several Muslim sources he quotes ar-Razi as arguing that "scheming (makr) is actually an act of deception aiming at causing evil. It is not possible to attribute deception to God. Thus the word is one of the muttashabihat [multivalent words of the Quran]." (Ibid., p. 166; all bold italic emphasis ours) 

Paul on Husband and Wife Relations 

Paul exhorts husbands to view their wives as their own bodies:  

Paul also commands husbands to view their bodies as not belonging to themselves but to their wives and vice-versa, and must not deny the others' needs:  

We challenge Nisar to produce similar verses from the Quran commanding husbands to view their wives as their own bodies, since we are confident he cannot especially in light of the following.  

Muhammad on Husband and Wife Relations 

Unlike Paul in the Holy Bible, Muhammad clearly classifies women as property and teaches that they are inferior to men:  

The reason why this verse was “revealed” is given in the Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2159:  

Instead of respecting the woman's refusal to engage in a particular sexual position, Allah sends down the command permitting men to enter women as they like!  

Muslim commentator Ibn Kathir notes:  

Continuing further:  

Again, Ibn Kathir:  

The Quran states:  

Not only does this last verse say that men are superior to women, but it also grants husbands the right to beat disobedient wives! The Concise Oxford English-Arabic Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 1982, ISBN 0-19-864321-7, p. 32, defines the Arabic word for “beat” as: 

Here is Ibn Kathir's interpretation of 4:34:  

And:  

Notice that even in Ibn Kathir's translation of S. 4:34 the command to beat one's wife sticks out clearly.  

Again from the Sunan Abu Dawud:  

And:  

There is absolutely no justification for Muhammad to permit the beating of women. This is simply inhumane to say the least. The reason for this being inhumane is not simply over whether the beating is light or heavy. Rather, it has to do with the fact that the right of the man to beat his wife is a clear violation of her dignity as an equal partner. Parents may at times beat their children as part of disciplining them, because they are in authority above them, while children have the duty to obey. Their position is not one of equality. Beating is an statement of not only higher physical strength, but of position. Beating clearly violates the status and dignity of women, putting them on the level of children (and even animals as we shall shortly see) in comparison to their "owner".  

The following citations are taken and adapted from M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton’s The Place of Women in Pure Islam. 

Muhammad stated:  

Umar Ibn al-Khattab once told his wife:  

The Caliph 'Amru Bin al-'Aas said:  

Another shameful practice that Muhammad permitted was temporary marriages known as Mut’a, a practice still observed by Shiite Muslims till this day: 

Ibn Kathir comments:  

The Hadith supplies several examples of such marriages:  

Finally:  

We would like Nisar to answer for us what kind of prophet would sanction such immorality? Is not this type of temporary marriage a form of legal prostitution since the intent in the marriage is sexual gratification as opposed to marital union and family upbringing? And how does this maintain the integrity of the women who are simply provided material gifts for the degrading of their bodies in satisfying the sexual lust of men acting as untamed animals?  

Paul and Miracles

The NT records that God backed up the message of Paul and the other apostles with supernatural signs and wonders: 

Paul even had power over demons and poison by God’s sovereign grace: 

Muhammad and Miracles 

The Quran testifies that Muhammad could perform no miracles: 

Furthermore, unlike Paul, Muhammad had no power over Satan but actually fell under demonic influence and also died as result of poison!:  

From Ibn Sa'd's biography, the Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir (Book of the Major Classes), Volume 2, p. 249:  

And,  

From al-Tabari's History, Volume 8, p. 124:  

In light of this, we are left with the following conclusions. Either Allah was not powerful enough to protect his prophet from being bewitched or poisoned, making Jesus more powerful and greater than Allah. Or Muhammad was not a true prophet of God. We will let Nisar Muhammad answer these questions for our readers.  

This brief comparison should convincingly demonstrate to our readers that Muhammad doesn’t even come close in comparing to the beloved Apostle Paul, the risen Lord Jesus’ faithful and righteous servant. This concludes this part. The final part to follow soon, Lord Jesus willing.

  1. Home Back Home
  2. Articles by Sam Shamoun Found on Answering Islam main site

E-mail me Quennel Gale at queball20@yahoo.com