The Apostle Paul Defended


Muhammad Exposed

Sam Shamoun

The following is a response to the deliberate lies, slander and insults against the Apostle Paul published by Bismikaallahuma in the article titled Paul of Tarsus: The Clear-Cut Hypocrite.

The author, Tera Tak Adamar (TTA in the following), begins by stating:


We read the following teachings of the so-called "apostle" from Tarsus, Paul, written in his epistles, as follows:

If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay." (Romans 12:18-19)

Another teaching which Paul had written is

Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. (Col 3:13)

A summary of the above recorded statements by Paul:

We admit that these are all beautiful teachings. The question now, however, is did Paul himself put these very same teachings of his into effect? As it so happens, we beg to differ!


Let us highlight one key aspect of Paul's statement which the author conveniently overlooked:

"IF IT IS POSSIBLE, AS FAR AS IT DEPENDS ON YOU, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’" Romans 12:18-19

Paul clearly states to seek peace IF IT IS POSSIBLE. Yet, if the circumstances are such that it is not possible, then there is no sin on the part of the individual.

In the following, TTA is going to grossly misapply this passage for the purpose of mockery. We will discuss TTA's interpretation after we have quoted his discussion. Suffice it to say for now, that this verse certainly does not mean that Christians have to agree to everything anyone says or does. It is not about a superficial ‘peace’ that only consists in aquiescing to whatever the other person wants. Paul certainly leaves room for the discipline and rebuking of Christians for disobedience, failure or heretical teaching, as well as opposing and rebuking false believers:

"I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people." Romans 16:17-18

"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord... I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked man from among you.’" 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 9-13

"For I wrote you out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you. If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you, to some extent - not to put it too severely. The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven - if there was anything to forgive - I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes." 2 Corinthians 2:4-11

"Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it - I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while - yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us. Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done. At every point you have proved yourselves to be innocent in this matter. So even though I wrote to you, it was not on account of the one who did the wrong or of the injured party, but rather that before God you could see for yourselves how devoted to us you are. By all this we are encouraged." 2 Corinthians 7:8-13

"We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right. If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, IN ORDER THAT HE MAY FEEL ASHAMED. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother." 2 Thessalonians 3:11-15

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, REBUKING, CORRECTINNG and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

"In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage - with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry." 2 Timothy 4:1-5

These passages make it abundantly clear that discipline, rebuking and even disfellowshiping believers are necessary at times and are essential aspects of the Christian life and experience. Since Mark was clearly wrong for abandoning Paul and Barnabas, as the author himself will later note, Paul was therefore justified in administering discipline. Yet note that Paul's purpose in disciplining and rebuking a wayward Christian was to lead them back to repentance and right standing before God and the Church. As we shall see, this is precisely what happened with Mark. More on this below.

The author of the article under discussion has, however, his own agenda.


Paul's Hypocrisy Revealed

We read in Acts that

And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us return and visit the brethren in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are." And Barnabas was desirous of taking John, called Mark, along with them also. But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus. (Acts 15:36-40)

It is clear that Paul and Barnabas had had a sharp disagreement and later parted company because of that disagreement. So Paul was not following what he had preached, namely to " at peace with all men" (Romans 12).

We also observe that Paul had not forgiven John (called Mark) for having abandoned him and Barnabas at Pamphylia (Acts 15:38) and opposed Barnabas' plan to take John with him. Apparently Paul had amnesia with regard to his teaching, "forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you" (Col. 3:13). So why did not Paul forgive John for abandoning him earlier?

Further, regarding revenge this snake taught that "Never take your own revenge, beloved!" (Romans 12) but yet Paul himself took his revenge against John (called Mark) by refusing to take him in the journey. So again we ask, why did Paul seek his revenge against John when he had clearly forbidden this? He is truly no doubt a clear-cut hypocrite, through and through!


It is as sad as it is obvious that TTA has no interest in examining the situation honestly and coming to a fair conclusion. His chosen language of insult ("snake") and sarcastic mockery ("apparently Paul had amnesia") leaves little doubt about his motivation.

Apparently TTA thinks that striving to be at peace with all men means that it is forbidden to be in disagreement with anybody or about anything. He seems to have a very low and superficial understanding of peace, if he thinks that peace is the same as not disagreeing and not being allowed to argue passionately about convictions.

In a moment we will actually use the very same letter to the Colossians refered to by TTA to prove that Paul DID IN FACT FORGIVE MARK, exposing the author's distortion of the facts for the sake of cheap polemics. But before we answer, let us continue quoting some more of TTA's venom to have his complete argumentation in front of us.


On a related side note, this snake also has used Jesus'(P) name in his teaching when in reality it is not originally from Jesus(P), but from his own concoction. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15:6, Paul taught that the resurrected Christ had appeared to over five hundred breathren at one time whereas this episode is not available in the Gospels. Another proof is in Acts 20:35, whereby Paul cites, "remember the words of the Lord Jesus how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive". This citation is certainly not from Jesus(P) because nowhere in Gospels is this quote to be found and attributed to Jesus(P). This same snake has also urged all the Jews among the Gentiles to forsake Moses(P), he told them not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs (Acts 21:21), this goes against what Jesus(P) himself taught. But sadly, the Christian missionaries and Christians in general have taken this hypocrite as their "apostle" and they generally behave like him as well.


[ First a side remark on the chosen form and language of the article before we continue our discussion of the content. In the Qur'an we find this injunction:

Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious. ... (Sura 16:125)

The author would certainly preach and defend this verse as being the command of God. With this article being so full of aggression, insult and mockery TTa has clearly broken the command of Sura 16:125 on how to deal with those who do not yet believe in Islam. Assuming that TTA would uphold this verse as God's command, would he not be liable to judgment as a hypocrite under his own criteria? How can we take TTA and his writings seriously, if he does not obey what he wants us to accept as the Word of God? For us, it is clear that these observations certainly and severely damage the credibility and integrity of TTA and whoever is on the editorial board of Bismikaallahuma making the decision what to publish on their web site. ]

We are glad that the author was honest enough to make mention of the fact that Mark had abandoned Paul and Barnabas. This demonstrates that it is the author's agenda that is at fault, not Paul. His anti-Pauline stance leads him to seek for anything he can find in order to assault Paul's character. Yet as one reads the wider biblical context one will discover that it is the author who is being deceptive:

"JESUS DID MANY OTHER MIRACULOUS SIGNS IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS DISCIPLES, WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED IN THIS BOOK. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:30-31

"JESUS DID MANY OTHER THINGS AS WELL. IF EVERY ONE OF THEM WERE WRITTEN DOWN, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." John 21:25

The fact that John himself explicitly testifies that Jesus did and said many other things which he hadn't recorded exposes the sheer stupidity and illogicalness of the chosen approach since it is essentially an argument from silence. Just because the Gospels do not record all the resurrection appearances or words of the Lord Jesus DOES NOT MEAN THAT JESUS DIDN'T DO OR SAY MORE THAN WHAT IS WRITTEN.

Second, Luke wrote both Luke and Acts. This means that the author's claim that Paul made things up is a lie as well. Here is the reason why:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to US by those who from the first WERE EYEWITNESSES AND SERVANTS OF THE WORD. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know THE CERTAINTY OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT." Luke 1:1-4

"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: ‘Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.’" Acts 1:1-4

Luke claims to have carefully investigated all things to insure the accuracy of his report, having heard from the eyewitnesses and apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul was transmitting the actual words of Christ since Luke would not have included Paul's statements in his account had they been fraudulent.

Furthermore, Luke mentions Paul's warm reception by both the apostles and elders at Jerusalem:

"Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: ‘Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.’ This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem TO SEE THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS about this question. The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.’ The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, PETER got up and addressed them: ‘Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.’ The whole assembly became silent AS THEY LISTENED TO BARNABAS AND PAUL telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, JAMES spoke up: ‘Brothers, listen to me ... It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.’ Then THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS, WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with OUR DEAR FRIENDS BARNABAS AND PAUL - MEN WHO HAVE RISKED THEIR LIVES FOR THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell. The men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers. After spending some time there, they were sent off by the brothers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord." Acts 15:1-14, 19-35

"After this, WE got ready and went up to Jerusalem. Some of the disciples from Caesarea accompanied us and brought us to the home of Mnason, where WE were to stay. He was a man from Cyprus and one of the early disciples. When WE arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. The next day Paul and the rest of US went to see JAMES, AND ALL THE ELDERS WERE PRESENT. Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. WHEN THEY HEARD THIS, THEY PRAISED GOD ..." Acts 21:15-20a

If Paul were making things up, he wouldn't have been received so warmly BY JESUS' VERY OWN FOLLOWERS WHO HAD FIRSTHAND KNOWEDLEGE OF WHAT JESUS SAID AND DID!

Third, it is a deliberate lie by the author TTA when he says that Paul "urged all the Jews among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, he told them not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs (Acts 21:21), this goes against what Jesus(P) himself taught". Here is the passage in question:

"... Then they said to Paul: ‘You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. THEY HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT YOU TEACH ALL THE JEWS who live among the Gentiles TO TURN AWAY FROM MOSES, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. THEN EVERYBODY WILL KNOW THERE IS NO TRUTH IN THESE REPORTS ABOUT YOU, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. AS FOR THE GENTILE BELIEVERS, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.’ The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them." Acts 21:20b-26

The context shows that Paul WAS BEING FALSELY ACCUSED of teaching that the Jews need to turn away from the Law of Moses. As the context shows it was the Gentiles who were not required to observe the Law of Moses, something which both Paul AND THE OTHER APOSTLES were in agreement on.

This means that the author either has not read the passage and is therefore speaking out of irresponsible ignorance. Or he has read the passage and is therefore willfully lying.

Finally, we now turn the tables and examine some of the "words" of Jesus in the Quran which are not found in the Gospels:

And (appoint him) as a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): ‘I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I bring the dead into life, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe; (I have come to you), to attest the Torah which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me. It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight. When Jesus found unbelief on their part he said: 'Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?' Said the disciples: 'We are Allah's helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness THAT WE ARE MUSLIMS.' 'Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger. then write us down among those who bear witness.’" S. 3:49-53

"At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: ‘O Mary! truly a strange thing has thou brought! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!’ But she pointed to the babe. They said: ‘How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?’ He said: ‘I am indeed a servant of Allah. He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; (He hath made me) kind to my mother, and not overbearing or unblest; So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)’! Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute." S. 19:27-34

Since the Gospels do not record Jesus or his contemporaries saying any such things does this then not demonstrate - according to TTA's own criteria - that Muhammad was a snake and a liar? It is Muhammad, not Paul, who made up fraudulent speeches of not only Jesus, but of the other prophets and messengers of God as well (for details see, e.g., Rev. Tisdall's work The Original Sources of the Qur'an).

This in itself sufficiently vindicates Paul's honesty and integrity while exposing the shoddy scholarship and intentional deception of the author.

We move on to some more of the author's deliberate insulting and false statements.



It is very clear from the above exposition that Paul was a hypocrite, and hence, how can the Christian missionaries expect Muslims to accept this snake as a legitimate "follower" of the Messiah Jesus(P), son of Mary? Paul clearly told others to make peace but he himself did not practice what he had preached when he had a sharp disagreement with Barnabas and they parted company (Acts 15). This totally contradicts what he had earlier taught, namely "be at peace with all men" (Romans 12) and "forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you." (Col. 3:13)

He had also taken his revenge upon John (called Mark) because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work in Acts 15, even though he told the Romans, "Never take your own revenge, beloved!" (Romans 12). It seems that it was Barnabas who was more religious than Paul because he did not taken the revenge upon John.

Which leads us to the question:

If Paul himself has failed to follow what he had taught, would he indeed follow what Jesus(P) had taught?

And only God knows best.


First, we observe that TTA has his chronology all muddled up. Paul wrote the letters to the Romans and Colossians YEARS AFTER the incident reported in Acts. It is simply wrong to state, "This totally contradicts what he had earlier taught," because at the time of the reported disagreement with Barnabas those letters were not yet written. Thus, Paul has not contradicted his own teaching.

Secondly, let us quote Colossians in context to expose the author's willful twisting of scripture:

"My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, AS DOES MARK, THE COUSIN OF BARNABAS. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, WELCOME HIM) ... OUR DEAR FRIEND LUKE, the doctor, and Demas send greetings." Colossians 4:10, 14

Paul refers to Mark as being present with him in the very same epistle where Paul commands believers to forgive one another! This clearly demonstrates that, unlike Muhammad, Paul did in fact practice what he preached, SINCE HE DID FORGIVE MARK! Other places where Paul speaks highly of Mark includes:

"And so do MARK, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, MY FELLOW WORKERS." Philemon 24

"Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, BECAUSE HE IS HELPFUL TO ME IN MY MINISTRY." 2 Timothy 4:11

These statements were all written after Paul's dispute with Barnabas about Mark. This shows that despite Mark's disloyalty to Paul on their first trip, Paul and Mark later reconciled for the sake of Christian love and unity!

Before we turn to an examination of Muhammad's words and deeds, we need to come to a proper understanding of the incident in Acts that was abused by TTA to accuse the Apostle Paul.

These missionary journeys were quite dangereous. Preaching to anyone that his religion is wrong and God is calling them to repentance is bound to stir up opposition. On the first journey Barnabas and Paul were persecuted and finally expelled from Antioch (Acts 13:50), nearly stoned in Iconium (Acts 14:5-6) where they were able to flee, and finally Paul was actually stoned and left for dead in Lystra (14:19).

In such dangerous missions it is very important that all members of the team can fully trust each other. Mark had abandoned Paul and Barnabas in the early part of their first missionary journey (Acts 13:13). The time came to plan the second journey for revisiting also those areas where they had encountered the hostile opposition mentioned above. We read:

Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing." Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. (Acts 15:36-40)

In every industry, company, government, administration, army and also in the church, the leaders of a team or project have to decide who would be suitable co-workers that should be recruited for a specific given task. Paul and Barnabas disagreed whether Mark would be a good team member, having the strength of character and the stamina necessary to persevere when the situation would become difficult and even dangerous again.

Paul and Barnabas had become deep friends during the years that they had worked together. The experience of being persecuted, together risking their lives for the common cause and nearly being killed inevitably creates a deep bond between people. But they were both men of strong convictions. In this case, they could not come to an agreement. Because of their deep bond, they did not shrug it off as if their disagreement didn't matter. They were deeply committed to each other. They really argued long and sharp because it was important to both of them to solve their disagreement and travel together. However, none was able to convince the other, so that in the end, they decided to separate and make two teams instead.

Note that there is no report of an argument between Mark and Paul. There is no mention that Paul was angry and revengeful against Mark. Regarding their personal relationship, Paul had probably forgiven Mark long ago. This was not about personal grudges on Paul's side, but about his responsibility of selecting team members who were suitable for the difficult mission they had ahead of them. Mark knew that he had deserted them and was certainly sorry for what he had done. He probably had not even requested to be taken on the next journey because he knew he had no right to it. This was Barnabas' idea and the disagreement was between Paul and Barnabas. Mark probably only heard about it afterwards.

To "live at peace with all men" can hardly mean: employ anyone for any job disregarding his training, gifting, and proven (un)reliability. We may personally have forgiven a person who has failed us, but still not think that the person is currently qualified for a certain job. That is no sin.

Later, after Paul became convinced that Mark had grown and was now reliable and trustworthy, he took him on journeys again and gave him responsibilities as we have read above. In fact, apart from Paul's refusal to take him on this particular journey, everything Paul says about Mark in several different letters is only positive.

Certainly Paul was disappointed with Mark after his desertion at the first journey, and he was not willing to take him again on the very next journey, but revenge? Where is there any mention of Paul being vindictive and making an attempt of taking revenge as TTA claims? Where is there any indication that Paul tried to harm or hurt Mark? Did he injure him or try to kill him? Did Paul curse him, insult him, or seek to spread false rumors about him? Did he try to separate him from his wife and get her for himself? Did he try to sue him in court or try to destroy his professional career? No to all of this. There was no attempt of any kind of revenge. What is TTA talking about?

TTA has failed to bring proof on all counts of his charge. The decision not to take Mark on this journey was made by Paul in his position as responsible team leader. There is no indication anywhere that on a personal level Paul and Mark were (a) not at peace with each other, that (b) Paul ever took revenge against Mark or (c) had not forgiven him.

After looking at Paul's responsible and peaceful behavior towards Mark who abandoned him on a dangerous journey, or to Barnabas who disagreed with him on the right action, let us shortly contrast this with Muhammad's way of response.

Abdullah ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Sarh was one of Muhammad's companions and for some time acted as his scribe writing down the revelations of the Qur'an. Because of a certain incident Abdullah came to the conviction that Muhammad was not a prophet after all and left him. What is Muhammad's response? He gave the order to kill Abdullah (see this article for details). In fact, there are at least a dozen people which Muhammad commanded to execute for reasons of personal revenge (see Muhammad's and his Personal Enemies) as well as the genocide against the tribe of the Banu Qurayza. Not satisfied with the murder of his personal enemies in his own life time, Muhammad instituted the death penalty for apostasy in Islamic law: If anyone leaves Islam, kill him (consult these pages for details), thus ending freedom of religion and freedom of conscience once and for all. Sura 111 is dedicated to the curse of Abu Lahab, one of Muhammad's uncles, who opposed him. And even on his death bed, Muhammad had nothing better to do than to curse the Jews and the Christians (see for example this article). And this list could be continued with many more examples.

The members of Bismikaallahuma including TTA, the author of the currently discussed article are proud to be followers of Muhammad. For them, there is no reason to doubt that Muhammad was a true and the final messenger from God. They find nothing questionable in Muhammad's behavior that would throw doubt on his authority. But the grave offense of Paul, to refuse to take Mark on a journey with him, and him having an argument with Barnabas are clear proof that Paul is a hypocrite, snake, liar and false apostle. Are we the only ones who have the impression that there is something grossly out of balance in the author's thinking and ability of discernment? A serious loss of common sense?

Maybe TTA does not think the above examples count, because Muhammad was consistent: He killed those who opposed them in agreement with the command of the Qur'an to kill the disbelievers. He cursed his opponents, just like in the Qur'an he puts curses on those who oppose Islam. Therefore, Muhammad cannot be accused of being a hypocrite. As ridiculous as that excuse would be, we will entertain it for the moment, and in the second part below we will present a detailed examination of a number of serious discrepancies between Muhammad's words and deeds.

What would TTA have done, if Paul had just accepted the suggestion of Barnabas and taken Mark with them despite his serious failure? Most likely he would have quoted a couple of verses on disciplining disobedient believers (several were quoted above) and would have complained that Paul preaches disciplining the disobedient but here he just forgives - contrary to his own preaching! Therefore, Paul is a hypocrite, snake, liar and false apostle.

Clearly the problem is not with Paul, but with various Muslims who desparately seek to find anything that may subtract from the authority of Paul because the Gospel he so clearly preached exposes Muhammad's message as anti-Christian, vastly inferior and not coming from God.

TTA has presented to us his criteria for a test of an apostle of God, criteria applied by him in his article to the Apostle Paul. As a Muslim and author publishing at Bismikaallahuma TTA is part of the effort to call people to Islam, as the religion of God, to believe in Muhammad as the last messenger of God, and to follow Muhammad as the ideal role model for human behavior. TTA claimed (though falsely and only by twisting what the Bible actually says) that because Paul did not do what he preached, and is, therefore, a hypocrite, a liar, a snake and a false apostle, definitely not sent by God and not to be believed or followed.

It is certainly fair to ask whether Muhammad passes the test of these same criteria established by TTA. Therefore, we now logically proceed to the second part of this paper.

What about Muhammad?

We now turn the tables on Muhammad to see if he passes the author's own test. Muhammad taught that men should have up to four wives, provided that one can treat all of them fairly:

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. S. 4:3

Yet Muhammad failed to live up to his own criteria since he had more than 4 wives and did not treat them all fairly:

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the captives of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makkah) with thee; and any believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction - that of all of them - with that which thou hast to give them: and Allah knows (all) that is in your hearts: and Allah is All- Knowing, Most Forbearing. It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things. S. 33:50-52

The hadiths state:

Narrated Qatada:
Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were ELEVEN IN NUMBER." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa'id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268)

Narrated 'Ata:
We presented ourselves along with Ibn 'Abbas at the funeral procession of Maimuna at a place called Sarif. Ibn 'Abbas said, "This is the wife of the Prophet so when you lift her bier, do not Jerk it or shake it much, but walk smoothly because the Prophet had NINE WIVES and he used to observe the night turns with eight of them, AND FOR ONE OF THEM THERE WAS NO NIGHT TURN (SAM- This refers to Saudah. More on her later)." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 5)

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet used to pass by (have sexual relation with) all his wives in one night, and at that time he had NINE wives. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 142)

What makes this so shameful is that according to Ar-Razi, there was a man who had ten wives. When he became a Muslim, Muhammad told him, "Keep four, AND LEAVE THE REST." (Razi, At-Tafsir al-Kabir, commenting on Q. 4:3)

Al-Tirmidhi provides the name of the person in question:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar

Ghaylan ibn Salamah ath-Thaqafi accepted Islam and that he had ten wives in the pre-Islamic period who accepted Islam along with him; so the Prophet (peace be upon him) told him to keep four and separate from the rest of them.

Ahmad, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah transmitted it. (Al-Tirmidhi, Number 945 taken from the Alim CD-ROM Version)

We are also told in Sunan of Abu Dawud, Number 922 (Alim CD-ROM Version):

Narrated Al-Harith ibn Qays al-Asadi

I embraced Islam while I had eight wives. So I mentioned it to the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Select four of them.

Is this not exhibiting an astonishing measure of hypocrisy on the part of Muhammad?

Some Muslims claim that S. 33:52 forbade Muhammad from marrying any more wives. Yet, this still leaves us with the problem of Muhammad of having more than four wives. Furthermore, some Muslim scholars say that S. 33:52 was actually abrogated. Here are Ibn Kathir's comments regarding S. 33:52:

More than one of the scholars, such as Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid, Ad-Dahhak, Qatadah, Ibn Zayd, Ibn Jarir and others stated that this Ayah was revealed as a reward to the wives of the Prophet expressing Allah's pleasure with them for their excellent decision in choosing Allah and His Messenger and the Home of the Hereafter, when the Messenger of Allah gave them the choice, as we have stated above. When they chose the Messenger of Allah their reward was that Allah restricted him to these wives, and forbade him to marry anyone else or to change them for other wives, even if he was attracted to their beauty - apart from slave-girls and prisoners of war, with regard to whom there was no sin on him. THEN ALLAH LIFTED THE RESTRICTION STATED IN THIS AYAH AND PERMITTED HIM TO MARRY MORE WOMEN, but he did not marry anyone else, so that the favor of the Messenger of Allah towards them would be clear.

Imam Ahmad recorded that ‘A’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said: ‘The Messenger of Allah did not die until Allah permitted (marriage to other) women for him.’ It was also recorded by At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa’i in their Sunans. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 8, Surat Al-Ahzab, Verse 51 to the end of Surat Ad-Dukhan, p. 21; bold and capital emphasis ours)

In another place, Ibn Kathir wrote:

When the wives made their choices to be his wives, was the Prophet ... prohibited from divorcing them? The scholars suggested firmly that it was not forbidden; however, Allah ... at first, denied him other women as a good reward to the Prophet's wives (for they chose Allah, his Prophet and the Hereafter), then He ... made it lawful for him ... 'Aisha ... said: "Before his death, other women were lawful for him to marry" transmitted by Ashafi. (The Seerah of Prophet of Muhammad (S.A.W.), abridged by Muhammad Ali Al-Halabi Al-Athari [Al-Firdous Ltd., London, 2001: First Edition], pp. 99-100; bold emphasis ours)

What is even more astonishing is that S. 33:50 was revealed before 33:52 and yet the earlier verse canceled a verse that came later! The late Iranian Muslim scholar Ali Dashti writes:

"In Zamakhshari's opinion, ‘A’esha’s words show that verse 52 was abrogated by custom and by verse 49 (‘O Prophet, We have made lawful for you ...’). But an abrogating verse ought to come after the abrogated one. Nevertheless Soyuti, in his treatise on Qor’anic problems entitled ol-Etqan, maintains that in this case the earlier verse abrogated the later one." (Dashti, 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, Mazda Pub; ISBN: 1568590296, p. 128; bold emphasis ours)

Commenting on Indian Muslim scholar Shah Wali Allah's verdict that there are only five abrogated verses, the late Maulana Muhammad Ali of the Ahmadiyya sect wrote:

(4) 33 : 52: "It is not allowed to thee to take women after this." This is said to have been abrogated by a verse which was apparently revealed before it: "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives" (33 : 50). As stated before a verse cannot be abrogated by one revealed before it. Apparently what happened was this. When 4 : 3 was revealed, limiting the number of wives to four, should exceptional circumstances require, the Prophet was told not to divorce the excess number, and this was effected by 33 : 50; but at the same time he was told not to take any woman in marriage after that, and this was done by 33 : 52. (Ali, The Religion of Islam [The Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam (Lahore) U.S.A., Eighth Edition 2005], p. 34; bold emphasis ours)

Talk about confusion!

Muhammad also separated his wives into two groups. One group he would sleep with more often, while the others he would have sex with only when he liked. Al-Zamakhshari writes:

It is related that the Prophet (refrained from sexual intercourse and) put off temporarily the following wives: Sauda, Juwairiya. Safiyya, Maimuna, and Umm Habiba. In so doing he used to grant them a share (of sexual intercourse) according TO HIS WISH. Among the wives whom the Prophet preferred to take to himself belong ‘A’isha, Hafsa, Umm Salama, and Zainab (bint Jash). Thus, he used to put five off temporarily in order to take four to himself. (On the other hand) it is related that, disregarding divorce and the selection concerned with it, the Prophet treated (all his wives) the same, with the exception of Sauda, who relinquished the night belonging to her to ‘A’isha and said (to the Prophet): ‘Do not divorce me but let me remain in the company of your wives!’ ... (Helmut Gätje, The Qur'an and Its Exegesis, translated and edited by Alford T. Welch [Oneworld Publications, Oxford England], pp. 90-91; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Narrated 'Urwa from 'Aisha:
The wives of Allah's Apostle were in two groups. One group consisted of 'Aisha, Hafsa, Safiyya and Sauda; and the other group consisted of Um Salama and the other wives of Allah's Apostle. The Muslims knew that Allah's Apostle loved 'Aisha, so if any of them had a gift and wished to give to Allah's Apostle, he would delay it, till Allah's Apostle had come to 'Aisha's home and then he would send his gift to Allah's Apostle in her home. The group of Um Salama discussed the matter together and decided that Um Salama should request Allah's Apostle to tell the people to send their gifts to him in whatever wife's house he was. Um Salama told Allah's Apostle of what they had said, but he did not reply. Then they (those wives) asked Um Salama about it. She said, "He did not say anything to me." They asked her to talk to him again. She talked to him again when she met him on her day, but he gave no reply. When they asked her, she replied that he had given no reply. They said to her, "Talk to him till he gives you a reply." When it was her turn, she talked to him again. He then said to her, "Do not hurt me regarding Aisha, AS THE DIVINE INSPIRATIONS DO NOT COME TO ME ON ANY OF THE BEDS EXCEPT THAT OF AISHA." On that Um Salama said, "I repent to Allah for hurting you." Then the group of Um Salama called Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle and sent her to Allah's Apostle to say to him, "Your wives request to treat them and the daughter of Abu Bakr on equal terms." Then Fatima conveyed the message to him. The Prophet said, "O my daughter! Don't you love whom I love?" She replied in the affirmative and returned and told them of the situation. They requested her to go to him again but she refused. They then sent Zainab bint Jahsh who went to him and used harsh words saying, "Your wives request you to treat them and the daughter of Ibn Abu Quhafa on equal terms." On that she raised her voice and abused 'Aisha to her face so much so that Allah's Apostle looked at 'Aisha to see whether she would retort. 'Aisha started replying to Zainab till she silenced her. The Prophet then looked at 'Aisha and said, "She is really the daughter of Abu Bakr." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 755)

Muhammad’s wives complained about his preferential treatment of Aisha and demanded to be treated equally. Muhammad justified his preferential treatment by claiming that Divine revelations came to him on no other bed except Aisha's. If Muhammad is correct, this means that Allah himself distinguished Aisha's bed from the rest, implying that Allah was quick to satisfy Muhammad's desires. This is something that even Aisha herself noticed:

Narrated Aisha:
I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily)." (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 311)

Muhammad's failure as a husband is further seen by his treatment of Sauda bint Zam'ah. Sauda was one of Muhammad's first wives. She had become old and Muhammad decided to divorce her. The Quran refers to this situation:

And if a woman fears ill usage or desertion on the part of her husband, there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better, and avarice has been made to be present in the (people's) minds; and if you do good (to others) and guard (against evil), then surely Allah is aware of what you do. S. 4:128

Ibn Kathir states:

Making peace is better than separation. An example of such peace can be felt in the story of Sawdah bint Zam'ah who WHEN SHE BECAME AGED, THE PROPHET WANTED TO DIVORCE HER, but she made peace with him by offering the night he used to spend with her to A'isha so that he would keep her. The Prophet accepted such terms and kept her.

Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Ibn ‘Abbas said, "Sawdah feared that the Messenger of Allah might divorce her and she said, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Do not divorce me; give my day to 'A'ishah.’ And he did ...

In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that 'A'ishah said that when Sawdah bint Zam'ah BECAME OLD, she forfeited her day to 'A'ishah and the Prophet used to spend Sawdah's night with 'A'ishah ...

<And making peace is better>. IT REFERS TO THE WIFE RELINQUISHING SOME OF HER MARITAL RIGHTS and his acceptance of the offer. Such compromise is better than total divorce, as the Prophet did when retained Sawdah bint Zam'ah. By doing so, the Prophet set an example for his Ummah to follow as it is a lawful act ... (the preceding citation taken and adapted from Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Abridged, Volume 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5, Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147 [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; first edition March 2000], pp. 599-601, and Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 5, Sura An-Nisa, ayat 24-147, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa’i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London, 2000 first edition], pp. 193-194; bold emphasis ours)

One recent Muslim author says in a caption that:

Muhammad's personal and family life were not always smooth. His wives sometimes bickered amongst themselves and even once engaged in a petty plot against him. A'ishah, for example, disliked her Jewish co-wife, Safiyah, and insulted her periodically. Muhammad had to defend her status and honor a number of times and scold the youthful A'ishah. Hafsah became jealous of her co-wife, Maria, when she found her and Muhammad resting[sic] in her apartment one day. Sawdah gave up her allotted day with the Prophet WHEN SHE REALIZED HE WAS NOT REALLY ATTRACTED TO HER. As for the conspiracy, A'ishah agreed with two other co-wives to convince the Prophet that eating honey made him unpleasant to be around. When Muhammad vowed to never eat honey again, she privately repented to her co-conspirators. Though these incidents were not the norm, they demonstrate that the women in Muhammad's life were as human as the rest of us. (Yahiya Emerick, Critical Lives: Muhammad [Alpha Books, A Member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002], p. 263; capital and underline emphasis ours) {1}

This is further confirmed in the two Sahih collections:

Narrated Aisha:
Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to go on a journey, he would draw lots as to which of his wives would accompany him. He would take her whose name came out. He used to fix for each of them a day and a night. But Sauda bint Zam'a gave up her (turn) day and night to 'Aisha, the wife of the Prophet in order to seek the pleasure of Allah's Apostle (by that action). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 766)

‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Never did I find any woman more loving to me than Sauda bint Zam'a. I wished I could be exactly like her who was passionate. As she became old, she had made over her day (which she had to spend) with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to ‘A’isha. She said: I have made over my day with you to ‘A’isha. So Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) allotted two days to ‘A’isha, her own day (when it was her turn) and that of Sauda. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3451)

Amazingly, while it was okay for Muhammad to marry whomever he chose and to prefer some wives above others, it was not all right for his son-in-law to take another wife:

Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama:
I heard Allah's Apostle who was on the pulpit, saying, "Banu Hisham bin Al-Mughira have requested me to allow them to marry their daughter to Ali bin Abu Talib, but I don't give permission, and will not give permission unless 'Ali bin Abi Talib divorces my daughter in order to marry their daughter, because Fatima is a part of my body, and I hate what she hates to see, and what hurts her, hurts me." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 157)

Ali was forbidden from marrying any other women as long as he was married to Fatima, Muhammad's daughter from his first wife Khadijah. Muhammad did not want to see his daughter hurt or jealous over the possibility that by taking another wife, Ali might not have given Fatima the same kind of love and attention. Hence, it was okay for Muhammad to show more affection to one wife or to have more wives, but not okay for his son-in-law to do likewise! Where should we place this on the scale between consistency and hypocrisy?

Muhammad also justified the breaking of oaths:

"O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts. But Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths: and Allah is your Protector, and He is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom. When the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his consorts, and she then divulged it (to another), and Allah made it known to him, he confirmed part thereof and repudiated a part. Then when he told her thereof, she said, 'Who told thee this?' 'He said, "He told me Who knows and is well-acquainted (with all things)."' If ye two turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; But if ye back up each other against him, truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who believe,- and furthermore, the angels - will back (him) up. It may be, if he divorced you (all), that Allah will give him in exchange consorts better than you,- who submit (their wills), who believe, who are devout, who turn to Allah in repentance, who worship (in humility), who travel (for Faith) and fast,- previously married or virgins." S. 66:1-5

Muhammad Asad comments:

There are several essentially conflicting - and, therefore, in their aggregate, not very trustworthy - reports as to the exact reason or reasons why, at sometime during the second half of the Medina period, the Prophet declared on oath that for one month he would have no intercourse with any of his wives. Still, while the exact reason cannot be established with certainty, it is sufficiently clear from the above mentioned hadith that this emotional, temporary renunciation of marital life was caused by a display of mutual jealousy among some of the Prophet's wives. In any case, the purport of the above Quranic allusion to this incident is not biographical but, rather intended to bring out a moral lesson applicable to all human situations: namely the inadmissibility of regarding forbidden (haram) anything that God has made lawful (halal), even if such an attitude happens to be motivated by the desire to please another person or other persons. Apart from this, it serves to illustrate the fact repeatedly stressed in the Quran - that the Prophet was but a human being, and therefore subject to human emotions and even liable to commit an occasional mistake (which in this case, however, was invariably pointed out to him, and thus rectified, through divine revelation). (Muhammad Asad, The Message of The Qur'an [Dar Al-Andalus Limited 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar rpt. 1993], p. 875, n. 1)


Narrated Zahdam:
Once we were in the house of Abu Musa who presented a meal containing cooked chicken. A man from the tribe of Bani Taim Allah with red complexion as if he were from the Byzantine war prisoners, was present. Abu Musa invited him to share the meal but he (apologised) saying. "I saw chickens eating dirty things and so I have had a strong aversion to eating them, and have taken an oath that I will not eat chickens." Abu Musa said, "Come along, I will tell you about this matter (i.e. how to cancel one's oath). I went to the Prophet in the company of a group of Al-Ashariyin, asked him to provide us with means of conveyance. He said, ‘By Allah, I will not provide you with any means of conveyance and I have nothing to make you ride on.’ Then some camels as booty were brought to Allah's Apostle and he asked for us saying. ‘Where are the group of Al-Ash'ariyun?’ Then he ordered that we should be given five camels with white humps. When we set out we said, ‘What have we done? We will never be blessed (with what we have been given).’ So, we returned to the Prophet and said, ‘We asked you to provide us with means of conveyance, but you took an oath that you would not provide us with any means of conveyance. Did you forget (your oath when you gave us the camels)?’ He replied. ‘I have not provided you with means of conveyance but Allah has provided you with it, and by Allah, Allah willing, if ever I take an oath to do something, and later on I find that it is more beneficial to do something different, I will do the thing which is better, and give expiation for my oath.’ (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Number 361)

This is what God's true Word says about oath breakers:

"If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not be slow to pay it, for the LORD your God will certainly demand it of you and you will be guilty of sin. But if you refrain from making a vow, you will not be guilty. Whatever your lips utter you must be sure to do, because you made your vow freely to the LORD your God with your own mouth." Deuteronomy 23:21-23

"Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: 'This is what the LORD commands: When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.'" Numbers 30:1-2

"When you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow. It is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it." Ecclesiastes 5:4-5

Muhammad also deceived people that he disliked into thinking that he actually liked them!

Narrated 'Aisha:
A man asked permission to enter upon the Prophet. When the Prophet saw him, he said, "What an evil brother of his tribe! And what an evil son of his tribe!" When that man sat down, the Prophet behaved with him in a nice and polite manner and was completely at ease with him. When that person had left, 'Aisha said (to the Prophet). "O Allah's Apostle! When you saw that man, you said so-and-so about him, then you showed him a kind and polite behavior, and you enjoyed his company?" Allah's Apostle said, "O 'Aisha! Have you ever seen me speaking a bad and dirty language? (Remember that) the worst people in Allah's sight on the Day of Resurrection will be those whom the people leave (undisturbed) to be away from their evil (deeds)." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 59)

In fact, Ibn Kathir in his Sirah, which we cited above, candidly says that Muhammad was permitted to lie and deceive:

The Prophet ... was authorized to deceive his enemies in wars; he ... said: "War is deceit." Indeed, on the day of Al-Ahzab (The Confederates) invasion, he ... ordered Nu'aim to create enmity between Quraish and Quraidah, and their alliance was broken by the Will of Allah, and All Praise is to Allah ... (Seerah, p. 109)

In light of the presented factors, and according to the standards introduced by TTA, we are now left with one of two conclusions:

  1. Muhammad was "a hypocrite, snake, liar and false apostle" since he failed to live up to his own standards.


  1. Allah, Muhammad's god, is a hypocrite and liar since he is the one who commanded Muhammad to lie and act as a hypocrite.

And according to God's true Word, the Holy Bible, the implication is clearly that neither the Allah of the Qur'an nor the person of Muhammad can be believed in or trusted.

This concludes our rebuttal. Come Lord Jesus. We praise you, risen Lord, for saving and raising men up like Paul as your mighty vessels to expose Satan's lies. We truly do love you, Almighty King of eternal Glory. Amen.


{1} The Council of American Islamic Relationships (CAIR) actually distributes this book free of charge for the asking (here). We encourage our readers to request their free copy of this book.

Note to Bismikaallahuma and other Muslim polemicists: Further attacks on the person, life, words and deeds of the Apostle Paul are subject to the same rebuttal approach as in this article. We will first carefully explain the meaning of the Biblical texts and answer the attack on his person and authority. In a second part, any criteria used against Paul, will be applied to Muhammad as well. Anyone who knows the biography of both of these men, knows already that the outcome of such a comparison will not be to the liking of the Muslims. Keeping this in mind, you may save us a lot of work, and yourself and your Prophet a lot of embarrassment by refraining from attacking Paul of Tarsus, the Apostle of God.

Responses to Bismikaallahuma
Muhammad's Inconsistency
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page