Abuamam:
Muslims believe that the devil's ultimate aim is to turn us to disobedience and shirk- the association of partners with God; be they demi-gods or whatever. And since the prophets (including Isa; may God's blessings be upon him and who you refer to as Jesus), all preached pure monotheism in a manner that touched the hearts of people, the devil would always send his agents to try to corrupt that message which the prophet had just brought to the people, so as to turn people away from monotheism. Muslims believe that Paul is one of those agents that tried to corrupt the message of prophet Jesus by incorporating pagan philosophies into it.
The devil tried it on Islam too (he's not too bright you see... he will repeatedly use the same strategy if it keeps working). After the prophet Muhammad (saw) died, a jew who claimed conversion to Islam; named Abdullah bin Saba'; travelled far and wide, preaching the infallibility, and subsequently the divinity of Ali bin abi Talib... a cousin of the prophet (saw). Narrations have it that he was executed for blasphemy by the same Ali bin abi Talib who was the Khalifah then. By then, he had disseminated his beliefs over a large part of the rural villages of the muslim world, and some sects today still unknowingly profess some of his ideology.
So you see, to us Paul is just fulfilling the devil's bidding of corrupting pure monotheism, just like Abdullah bin Saba'.
Not trying to argue here. Just answering your question about what muslims think of Paul and explaining the viewpoint.

Thanx so much pls can u tell me more about ALI BIN SABA?

@olanje, it's ABDULLAH bin Saba'. I am sure you will find info about him on wikki. The shi'a sect try to conceal his presence though, because he puts their origin in a bad light, so you might see denials by shi'a sources. His story is found abundantly in authentic historical write ups however, even many of the older shi'a historians.

Rilwayne001:
Islam does'nt recognise paul as an apostle of christ.
Same way Jesus never recognised him.

This is Sam Shamoun's reply to Nisar here: http://www.answer-islam.org/Stpaulandislam.html

You and other bias Muslims may not recognise the Apostleship of Paul but the FIRST Muslims commentators do.

Unless you want to tell us that all these Muhammad's companions are wrong

<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)

Sham’un refers to Simon Peter, Yuhanna to the apostle John, and Bulus is Arabic for Paul.

In Alfred Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulullah titled The Life of Muhammad (Oxford University Press Karachi) we find the following positive endorsement of Paul:

“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.” (Ibid. p. 653; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Other Muslim sources that affirm the preceding statement include:

“Among the apostles and those disciples around them, whom Jesus sent out, there were Peter and his companion Paul.” (Thalabii, Qisas al-Anbiyaa, pp. 389-390)

And,

“Among the apostles, and the followers who came after them were the Apostle Peter and Paul who was a follower and not an apostle; they went to Rome. Andrew and Matthew were sent to the country whose people are man-eaters, a land of blacks, we think; Thomas was sent to Babylonia in the east, Philip to Qayrawan (and) Carthage, that is, North Africa. John went to Ephesus, the city of the youths of the cave, and James to Jerusalem, that is, Aelia. Bartholomew was sent to Arabia, namely, the Hijaz; Simeon to the land of the Berbers in Africa. Judas was not then an apostle, so his place was taken by Ariobus. He filled in for Judas Iscariot after the latter had perpetrated his deed.” (History, Volume IV, p. 123; bold emphasis ours)

@Emusan.
We do not hold the companions of the prophet (saw) as infallible. Some of them were converted jews/ christians and attempted to understand the Qur'an from their own perspective. So saying a companion could be wrong in his opinion is not blasphemous. They were human like us and humans err. Besides, 'those companions' you mentioned were only a handful. What we understand was that ibn Ishaq believes it was their opinion. Maybe, maybe not. Ibn Katheer has destroyed that hypothesis in his tafseer of Surah 36:14.

Secondly, even Alfred Guillame (a missionary famous for malicious translations of muslim works) admits in his introduction that Ibn Ishaq would frequently introduce his opinion, and sometimes (unverified) narrations into his seerah. The presence of unauthentic narrations in the seerah of ibn Ishaq was understood by muslim scholars from the early days.
Ibn Ishaq was incidentally not a companion.

Thirdly the verse 36:14-29, continues to say that the city was eventually destroyed. There is no evidence that this ever happened to Antioch post-christian era, and Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his commentary noted that, based on Ibn Katheer's arguments, he rejected the identification with Antioch.

Imam al tha'laabi is noted for his use of israeeliyat (non muslim) sources in his book "Stories of the prophets". Of course some of those sources were christian, and those ones would have endorsed Paul. He merely compiled those stories of prophets as narrated by them without attempting to distinguish between what was authenticated by the prophet (saw) or not. His Qisas al anbiyaa is not considered a serious work. Fantasy abounds, and it is extremely difficult reading for any serious scholar. Incidentally, Imam al tha'labi was also not a companion.

You can learn more about these relatively meager and weak items of 'evidence' on

http://ebrahimsaifuddin./2007/09/09/is-paul-a-prophet-according-to-quran/

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/paul-of-tarsus-the-false-apostle-according-to-islam/

For a more comprehensive understanding of the muslim perspective on christian history, Ibn Taimiyyah's book... "The correct response concerning those who changed the faith taught by the Messiah".
I am not too sure if there is a translation though.

Go back to that link I gave and read it properly, Ok!

Abuamam:
We do not hold the companions of the prophet (saw) as infallible. Some of them were converted jews/ christians and attempted to understand the Qur'an from their own perspective.

some of them were Jews/Christians and they can still be given true statement about Paul

I can see you NEGLECTED the part that says MUHAMMAD HIMSELF said "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.” (Ibid. p. 653; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Unless if you want to tell us that THEY DIDN'T hear Muhammad making this claim or they erroneously apply this statement to Muhammad.

so saying a companion could be wrong in his opinion is not blasphemous.

Then The Quran you have now will also wrong because this same companions were the one who preserve it after Muhammad's death.

They were human like us and humans err.

Yet you believe human that can err can preserve Quran without error.

Besides, 'those companions' you mentioned were only a handful.

Really? So because it turns the table towards Islam they are now handful, so what assurance do you have on their work over Quran if they were only handful?

What we understand was that ibn Ishaq believes it was their opinion. Maybe, maybe not. Ibn Katheer has destroyed that hypothesis in his tafseer of Surah 36:14.

So the Muhammad's word for word they sited was also their opinion, keep it coming.

Secondly, even Alfred Guillame (a missionary famous for malicious translations of muslim works) admits in his introduction that Ibn Ishaq would frequently introduce his opinion, and sometimes (unverified) narrations into his seerah. The presence of unauthentic narrations in the seerah of ibn Ishaq was understood by muslim scholars from the early days.

Was the Muhammad statement also Ibn Ishaq opinion?

Ibn Ishaq was incidentally not a companion.

Typical Muslim denying their true man.

Thirdly the verse 36:14-29, continues to say that the city was eventually destroyed. There is no evidence that this ever happened to Antioch post-christian era, and Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his commentary noted that, based on Ibn Katheer's arguments, he rejected the identification with Antioch.

Why can't you quote the Yusuf Ali foot note so that everybody can see it THIS IS THE SAME THING THAT HAPPENED in the two links you gave they just talk without any support.

Imam al tha'laabi is noted for his use of israeeliyat (non muslim) sources in his book "Stories of the prophets". Of course some of those sources were christian, and those ones would have endorsed Paul.

Even if this man is using Christian it's not his fault, it's the fault of the author of Quran who always left incomplete information after the book claim to be well detailed. Example is this Sura 36:14-29, here two people were sent, and been strengthen by third person THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WITH NAME WHO ACTUALLY LIVE BEFORE THIS STORY WAS NARRATED BY Allah, how can Allah narrate an historical event and couldn't mention the name of the people, did Allah not know their name?

Without consulting Christian/Jews book many stories in Quran are meaningless and doesn't make sense at all.

Nevertheless, don't tell me you want diminish the effort of this man in Islam. That reminds me when one of your brother one time ago rubbish Yusuf Ali just because he wants to defend the verse that says "Muslims must enter hell".

He merely compiled those stories of prophets as narrated by them without attempting to distinguish between what was authenticated by the prophet (saw) or not.

What of the word for word of the prophet in the above quote, was it fabricated?

His Qisas al anbiyaa is not considered a serious work. Fantasy abounds, and it is extremely difficult reading for any serious scholar. Incidentally, Imam al tha'labi was also not a companion.

So who was he?

You can learn more about these relatively meager and weak items of 'evidence' on
http://ebrahimsaifuddin./2007/09/09/is-paul-a-prophet-according-to-quran/

Actually what this site was saying it that Paul's name never appeared in the verse that some commentators believe it talks about Paul but I'm not here for that in fact no disciple of Jesus' name appear in the Quran BUT my main concern is WHAT THE EARLY MUSLIMS COMMENTATOR BELIEVES about Paul?

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/paul-of-tarsus-the-false-apostle-according-to-islam/

When I saw this link I thought I will see where Quran mention Paul's name as corrupter of Christianity or says something similar but what the author did is not but biting around the bush, in fact it's like the author copy Nisar the rebuttal of link I provided in my first post.

The question will need to ask ourselves is, did Allah not aware that Paul has corrupted the teaching of Jesus and Allah couldn't mention Paul's name just for once throughout Quran?

For a more comprehensive understanding of the muslim perspective on christian history, Ibn Taimiyyah's book... "The correct response concerning those who changed the faith taught by the Messiah". I am not too sure if there is a translation though.

Is it Muslims that suppose to be given their own perspective about Christian's history something that would have given Allah and Muhammad great prestige if everything was well detailed in the Quran?

What you will see the Muslims do is using the same Bible to condemn this faithful Apostles who were eyes witness and received direct revelation from God.

Rilwayne001:


Kindly create a new thread and lets discuss this together.




Really!
So you love enemies that are oppressing you?
You love BOko Haram? why don't you stop the Nigerian military from going to fight boko haram?
How have you shown love to your enemies such as BH.

Boko Haram are oppresors and you can't watch them continuosly killing people thats why we have the military combating them.

Had it been you like your enemy such as BH, you ought to stage a protest against military actions biko

Same way the pagan of mecca were killings muslims because of their religion back then in arab, do you want them to watch their entire generation killed?

Tell me why the catholic pope propagate the crusade?




Yeah, we can see the godly lifestyle everywhere,
The burning of church members by pastor king
The extortion of money from members to buy private jets
Catholic raising the crusade which claim a lot of lives
Catholic vs protestants war which claim lives that are much more than worldwar1 & 2 combined.
Oritsejafor buy firrarms for his bH boys.
Tb joshua building killing hundreds of people.
oyahkilome and fornication.
And all other Christians propaganda to discredits islam.

Create another thread and lets talk about this in full.

*have a nice day*

Ion really like creating threads.
We were never taught to war. As a matter of fact, Peter was scolded for cutting off the priest's servant's ear.
As per extortion claims, tithes and offerings isn't extortion, they are avenues for accessing God's blessings and it isn't a forceful thing.
As per several allegations against some pastors, you just saw that Christianity frown at covering ones sins as dictated in the bible and mind you, we are but human and no one is perfect though we are all striving towards perfection.

Comparison between Muhammad and Paul

http://www.answer-islam.org/PaulandMuhammad.html

"I can see you NEGLECTED the part that says MUHAMMAD HIMSELF said "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.” (Ibid. p. 653; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Unless if you want to tell us that THEY DIDN'T hear Muhammad making this claim or
they erroneously apply this statement to Muhammad." quote.

I omitted mentioning it. The reason is that ibn Ishaq did not give a chain of narrators to this paragraph. Neither did atTabari who took the story from ibn Ishaq. So we cannot analyse its authenticity. As muslims know very well, any purported hadeeth that cannot be traced back to the prophet (saw) is a dud. Not acceptable.

"Then The Quran you have now will also wrong because this same companions were the
one who preserve it after Muhammad's death." quote.

No, the Qur'an is traced back to the Prophet (saw) through thousands of the companions. An authenticating process called 'tawattur' whereby a narration has too many independent chains to permit falsification, and all the narrators in all the chains report the same wordings. Furthermore, the Qur'an is not opinion. I said that the companions could err, ie in opinion.

"Really? So because it turns the table towards Islam they are now handful, so what
assurance do you have on their work over Quran if they were only handful?"quote.

Lol. the number of companions who held the view that Paul was a follower of prophet Isa can hardly be compared to the hundreds of thousands that memorised at least part of the Qur'an. pls don't exaggerate to try to win points. I am responding to this as a scholarly debate, don't turn it to childish argument.

"Was the Muhammad statement also Ibn Ishaq opinion?"

Yes until you provide an authentic chain of narrators connecting it to the prophet (saw).

" Typical Muslim denying their true man."quote.

Ibn Ishaq was born 85AH, 75 years after the death of the prophet (saw). A companion by definition, is one who met with the prophet and accepted Islam during the prophet's lifetime. Ibn Ishaq is not a companion.
Imam atTha'labi was born much later. He also does not fit the above description of companion.
In all cases, muslims are free to form opinions based on the authentic sources available. The opinion of previous scholars is not binding and we consider their opinions merely as background to our research. As Imam asShaf'i stated clearly... "every man's word may be accepted or left behind; except the prophet's which must be accepted." Difference of opinion does not mean contempt. We do not condemn the scholar but his mistakes. Correction of error is not denial of the person.

" Even if this man is using Christian it's not his fault, it's the fault of the author of
Quran who always left incomplete information after the book claim to be well
detailed. Example is this Sura 36:14-29, here two people were sent, and been
strengthen by third person THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WITH NAME WHO ACTUALLY
LIVE BEFORE THIS STORY WAS NARRATED BY Allah, how can Allah narrate an
historical event and couldn't mention the name of the people, did Allah not know their
name?" quote.

The Qur'an is not meant to be a history Book like the extant Bible. It is a Book of Guidance. The story was one of warning and exhortation. The name of the people would have just been frivolous addition to the message behind the story. Allah is not frivolous.

" Actually what this site was saying it that Paul's name never appeared in the verse
that some commentators believe it talks about Paul but I'm not here for that in fact
no disciple of Jesus' name appear in the Quran BUT my main concern is WHAT THE
EARLY MUSLIMS COMMENTATOR BELIEVES about Paul?"quote

The ONLY muslim commentator you mentioned was atTabari, and he based his opinion on that of a historian- ibn Ishaq who based his opinion on ibn Jurayj and an unproven 'hadith'

" Is it Muslims that suppose to be given their own perspective about Christian's history
something that would have given Allah and Muhammad great prestige if everything
was well detailed in the Quran?"quote.

Yet non muslims like Sam Shamoun and his disciples are allowed to give their perspectives about Islamic history. And it is cool, right?

Allah (God) is Great above all petty squabbles. Do not be abusive. It is a weapon of the ignorant... from whatever faith. Whatever your petty belief, millions of Arab christians call Him 'Allah'.

Abuamam:
"I can see you NEGLECTED the part that says MUHAMMAD HIMSELF said "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.” (Ibid. p. 653; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Unless if you want to tell us that THEY DIDN'T hear Muhammad making this claim or
they erroneously apply this statement to Muhammad." quote.

I omitted mentioning it. The reason is that ibn Ishaq did not give a chain of narrators to this paragraph. Neither did atTabari who took the story from ibn Ishaq. So we cannot analyse its authenticity. As muslims know very well, any purported hadeeth that cannot be traced back to the prophet (saw) is a dud. Not acceptable.

"Then The Quran you have now will also wrong because this same companions were the
one who preserve it after Muhammad's death." quote.

No, the Qur'an is traced back to the Prophet (saw) through thousands of the companions. An authenticating process called 'tawattur' whereby a narration has too many independent chains to permit falsification, and all the narrators in all the chains report the same wordings. Furthermore, the Qur'an is not opinion. I said that the companions could err, ie in opinion.

"Really? So because it turns the table towards Islam they are now handful, so what
assurance do you have on their work over Quran if they were only handful?"quote.

Lol. the number of companions who held the view that Paul was a follower of prophet Isa can hardly be compared to the hundreds of thousands that memorised at least part of the Qur'an. pls don't exaggerate to try to win points. I am responding to this as a scholarly debate, don't turn it to childish argument.

"Was the Muhammad statement also Ibn Ishaq opinion?"

Yes until you provide an authentic chain of narrators connecting it to the prophet (saw).

" Typical Muslim denying their true man."quote.

Ibn Ishaq was born 85AH, 75 years after the death of the prophet (saw). A companion by definition, is one who met with the prophet and accepted Islam during the prophet's lifetime. Ibn Ishaq is not a companion.
Imam atTha'labi was born even later. He also does not fit the above description of companion.

" Even if this man is using Christian it's not his fault, it's the fault of the author of
Quran who always left incomplete information after the book claim to be well
detailed. Example is this Sura 36:14-29, here two people were sent, and been
strengthen by third person THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WITH NAME WHO ACTUALLY
LIVE BEFORE THIS STORY WAS NARRATED BY Allah, how can Allah narrate an
historical event and couldn't mention the name of the people, did Allah not know their
name?" quote.

The Qur'an is not meant to be a history Book like the extant Bible. It is a Book of Guidance. The story was one of warning and exhortation. The name of the people would have just been frivolous addition to the message behind the story. Allah is not frivolous.

" Actually what this site was saying it that Paul's name never appeared in the verse
that some commentators believe it talks about Paul but I'm not here for that in fact
no disciple of Jesus' name appear in the Quran BUT my main concern is WHAT THE
EARLY MUSLIMS COMMENTATOR BELIEVES about Paul?"quote

The ONLY muslim commentator you mentioned was atTabari, and he based his opinion on that of a historian- ibn Ishaq who based his opinion on ibn Jurayj and an unproven 'hadith'

" Is it Muslims that suppose to be given their own perspective about Christian's history
something that would have given Allah and Muhammad great prestige if everything
was well detailed in the Quran?"quote.

Yet non muslims like Sam Shamoun and his disciples are allowed to give their perspectives about Islamic history. And it is cool, right?

Allah (God) is Great above all petty squabbles. Do not be abusive. It is a weapon of the ignorant... from whatever faith. Whatever your petty belief, millions of Arab christians call Him 'Allah'.

powerful contribution brother, i love ur inteligence prowess... More power to ur elbow

pls mods I'm on my knees i'll appreciate it if u can move this thread to FP... Help a brother as God will help u in all ur endeavours... Thanks in anticipation

Rilwayne001:


Is'nt the bible a contradiction itself?

Yet your Quran said gospel and injeel, which are contents of the Bible, are from God.

Rilwayne001:


Are there contradictions in the bible or not?

I asked your bros this same question a day ago, he was just stammering.

help him please

Your Quran approves the Bible. So, your Quran approves the"contradiction"