Paul Is Not Mentioned in the Quran — Refuting the Christian Claim That Surah Ya-Sin References Paul

The Noble Quran is entirely purified of any mention of Paul. Many Christians attempt to seek support for their belief that Paul is a messenger of God from Quranic verses — basing their claim on Surah Ya-Sin (36:13–30). This claim is groundless. Paul was a Jewish man who belied and misguided Christians, deviating them from the righteous path. He was not the messenger of Allah, nor the messenger of His Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him).

---

The Claim and Its Basis

Christians base their claim on the following verses from Surah Ya-Sin:

Their claim is based on quotations reported by some Muslim scholars who explain that the mentioned messengers in this story are Jesus’ (peace be upon him) disciples, whom Jesus had sent to the city of Antioch to invite its people to monotheism, and that Paul was one of them.

We must have a stance here. For interpretation scholars have two popular sayings in this issue: the first — which is the preponderant — explains that these messengers were Allah’s messengers and not Jesus’. The second is not so preponderant, lacks proof, and lacks continuity of transmitters for the reported hadiths which suggest that these messengers were Jesus’. We will clarify how the first opinion is the accounted-for opinion while the second is almost unanimously denied. Even if we assume that it was meant that the messengers were Jesus’, this will not raise Paul’s concern at all — because he was never among the disciples or companions of Jesus, and he had never seen Jesus in his lifetime, as agreed by all interpretation scholars. He is thus deprived of this honour.

Whether they are the messengers of Allah or those of Jesus’ — Paul is not among them. The Quran is totally purified of mentioning his name.

---

Important Preliminary Points

The Infallibility Issue and How to Quote Scholars

Muslims know that their interpretation scholars are not infallible — thus they can err. They do not require specifying what was not specified by the Quran, because the purpose of the Quranic stories materialises without specification. There is consensus that it is not obligatory to abide by or quote from all scholars because of the infallibility issue. All agree that infallibility pertains to scholars’ consent; the Muslim nation never agrees on aberrances or deviations. Muslims only abide by their trusted and authenticated sources: God’s words — the Quran — and those of the Prophet — the hadiths.

If scholars disagree in reporting or in any legislative matter, Muslims take the closest saying that conforms to the Quran and Sunnah. The suspicion of mentioning Paul in the Quran found marketability among Christians because of their ignorance of the above bases of quoting scholars. If they find a Muslim scholar saying that Paul is mentioned in the Quran, they stick it to the Quran rather than to the reporter himself.

The Quranic Style of Obscuring Names

Quranic stories usually obscure — many times — the names of their characters, yet this does not affect the understanding of the story. What the Quran obscures does not hinder understanding the events of the main story that the Quran wants to establish. This is done in such a stimulating way that drives readers’ minds to smoothly deduce the wisdom and allegories enclosed in them. This has never been the case with the other falsified scriptures of non-Muslims, which record all unnecessary and useless details that distract attention. Non-Muslims are thus not accustomed to this Quranic style which purifies the story of unnecessary events in such a way that frees the mind to deduce the good lessons. Abridgement is a unique characteristic of the Noble Quran’s perfection and inimitability — a divine capability never found in any man-written scripture.

The fact that some scholars mention every detail they hear of in their books — even if it was built on Israelite superstitions — has to be understood properly by non-Muslims. They do so because scientific honesty necessitates transmitting exactly everything that pertains to a given story and enriching its reading. This does not mean those transmitted details are established.

Even Within the Second Opinion — Paul Was Never Unanimously Among the Three

Scholars who agreed that Surah Ya-Sin referred to messengers of Jesus (peace be upon him) failed to unanimously agree that Paul was one of them. Some accounted him as one of the first two sent; others considered him the third who was sent alone to reinforce the first two; and still others did not mention him at all. Even those who considered him among them never came to a consensus — some accounted him as one of the first two, and others considered him the third.

---

Response to “Does Mentioning Him in Tafsir Mean He Was Not a Liar?”

One may say: since Paul was mentioned by some interpreters as one of Jesus’ messengers, does that not mean he was not a liar?

Our response: There is not a single narration with continuously conforming transmissions (sanad sahih) that reports the mentioning of Paul — neither by the scholars’ followers nor by others. All narrations are poorly verified. Despite their weakness of authenticity, they became popular with a general meaning — that the messengers were Jesus’ disciples — without specifying names. Mentioning the specific names of these messengers was uncommon among interpreters, which makes the authenticity of naming Paul questionable. It is not correct to lean on unverified stories as a reference or source of reliable information.

Furthermore, the Prophet ﷺ never mentioned Paul’s name in any of his sayings. The word Boulos (Paul) was mentioned only once — when the Prophet ﷺ informed companions of the name of a valley in Hellfire bearing the same name — and this is not proved either.

Response to “Why Did Muslims Accept Unauthenticated Stories?”

Another may say: why did Muslims accept these unauthenticated stories? They had rather prove to everyone that Paul was a liar!

Our response: The veracity of whether Paul is the same person who used to be called Saul the Jewish has not been established yet. Therefore, it does not harm Muslims or make it mandatory for them to embrace the aforementioned unverified opinions, nor to fear stating that scholars were ignorant of Paul’s true being — because an issue may be comprehensible to one scholar and not to another, and all Muslims believe in this divine creation wisdom without any arguments. Stating so will not belittle or reduce these interpreters’ prestige in Islam. It is also not a condition in the interpretation sciences — or any science — that to be a scholar one should not err. Only Prophets are infallible.

It is worth noting that there were also many obscure issues for the Sahaba (the Prophet’s companions) due to absence of information which got unveiled after his death ﷺ, and this did not affect their sublimity.

---

Ibn Kathir’s Interpretation

Ibn Kathir says regarding Ya-Sin 36:13: “Allah says to His Apostle Muhammad: tell your people who deny you and accuse you of lying, the example and story of the city, which We sent messengers to.”

Here, Ibn Ishaq cites — on the authority of what Ibn Abbas transmitted to him and on the authority of what was narrated through Ka’ab al-Ahbar and Wahb ibn Munabbah: “It is Antioch city, which had a king named Antikhs ibn Antikhs ibn Antikhs, who used to worship idols. Then Allah sent him three messengers called: Sadiq, Sadouq, and Shalom. But the king belied them.” This was also narrated by Buraida ibn al-Khasib, Ikrimah, Qutada, and al-Zuhri, who all said it was Antioch — although some scholars were unsure of its being Antioch.

After the completion of the story, Ibn Kathir fulfilled what he promised (p. 570): “And from what has preceded, and according to many of our Salaf, this village is Antioch, and that these three were messengers of Jesus’.” He then presents three possible interpretations:

The first: To take the story at face value and show that these were messengers of Allah — not of Jesus. The verses say:

Ibn Kathir explains: “If they were Jesus’ disciples they would have used different words that suit their status and not say: ‘you are but mortals like us.’”

The second: It is widely known that the people of Antioch believed Jesus’ disciples who were sent to them, and that Antioch was the first believing city — which is why it is one of the four major Christian cities which have Patriarchs. If it were decided that Antioch was the first city that believed Jesus’ disciples, how can it then be the same village that God destroyed because it denied the messengers? The Quran states:

The third: The Antioch story with Jesus’ disciples happened after the revelation of the Torah. Abu Sa’eed al-Khidri and others mentioned that Allah did not only destroy those old nations by merely inflicting chastisement on them — He also ordered believers to fight polytheists. This is supported by:

Conclusion from Ibn Kathir: Ibn Kathir does not say that Paul was one of Jesus’ messengers or disciples. He clearly states they were the messengers of Allah.

---

Al-Jalalayn’s Interpretation

Other interpretation books such as Al-Jalalayn say that the messengers were Jesus’ disciples. We again say that we are not obliged to embrace the sayings of those late writers who do not have sufficient proof for their interpretations — unlike Qutada and others. Besides, even this does not mean that Paul was one of them. Once again, he is deprived of the honour of Jesus’ companionship.

---

The Hadith of Ibn Ishaq — No Mention of Paul by Name

Some Christians quote the hadith narrated by Ibn Ishaq:

This hadith proves again that there is no mentioning of Paul in Muhammad’s ﷺ sayings. He said “Jesus’ disciples” and never named them.

---

Ibn Taymiyyah’s Decisive Exposition

Ibn Taymiyyah says in his book The Correct Answer to Who Changed Jesus’ Religion, p. 251:

Ibn Taymiyyah continues: “These are Allah’s words! It does not mention that these messengers were the disciples, nor does it say that the people they were sent to believed them. It also mentions that these people were extinct by one cry sent from Allah.”

Ibn Taymiyyah then advances the following arguments, each independently decisive:

First argument: The saying “When We sent unto them twain” is a clear statement that the sender is Allah. Muslims never say about those sent anywhere in a mission by the Prophet ﷺ that they are Allah’s messengers. One would not say about Dahiyyah ibn Khalifa — whom the Prophet ﷺ sent to Caesar of Rome — that Allah sent him. Nor about Al-Mughira ibn Shu’ba, Abdullah ibn Huzaifah — sent to the King of Persia — or Hatib ibn Balta’a — sent to the Bishop of Egypt. We never say that God sent them, and it is not permissible as agreed by all scholars to say that they are included in God’s saying: “We sent our messengers with the clear proof of God’s sovereignty.” If the names of the Prophet’s messengers were not mentioned in that verse, how can anyone say that their names are included in it? The same logic applies to our discussion.

Second argument: The people of the city said to the messengers: “Ye are but mortals like us.” If they were an Apostle’s messengers, the denial would be directed at the Apostle who sent them, and there would be no point in saying “you are but mortals like us” — because nobody argues that messengers of Allah’s Apostles would be mortals. The denial of mortality is the polytheists’ way of speaking with anyone informing them that he was sent and received inspiration from Allah — not with messengers sent by Apostles. If denial was for them as mortals and messengers of an Apostle, they could have said: “send for the person who sent us, or to his companions, who already know that we are honestly conveying their message to you” — unlike if they were God’s messengers.

Third argument: The saying “Ah, the anguish for the servants! Never came there unto them a messenger but they did mock him!” — this is usually said about messengers sent by Allah Himself.

Fourth argument: This example was mentioned for the nations that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was sent to — warning them of God’s vengeance done to past nations. God sets for the Prophet ﷺ an example with an equivalent or counterpart, and not with anyone lower in sublimity to the Prophet’s companions, such as the disciples. It is agreed by all scholars that the disciples are lower in sublimity than the Sahaba.

Fifth argument: God did not send any messengers after Jesus — maintaining a reminding period for the People of the Scripture:

Sixth argument: After the revelation of the Torah, Allah did not destroy disbelieving nations with a general heavenly punishment as He did with Noah’s people, ‘Aad, Thamud, Lot’s people, and the Pharaoh. He ordered believers to fight the polytheists instead. But the village’s people in Ya-Sin were destroyed by a heavenly retribution — which proves that those mentioned messengers were before Moses’ lifetime. Also, God did not mention in the Quran any messengers sent by someone else — He only mentioned the Apostles He Himself sent.

Seventh argument — from the authenticated hadiths:

These verified hadiths state that there was no prophet between Muhammad’s ﷺ span and Jesus’. This means that if anyone claimed prophethood or messengership in the period between Jesus’ span and Muhammad’s ﷺ, he would be lying. Paul falls precisely in this period.

---

Narrators and Historians’ Sayings — The Full Story of Antioch

Many narrators and historians have mentioned that the three messengers of Ya-Sin were the disciples and that the village was Antioch, and that the man referred to was named Habib al-Najjar, while others say that the messengers were sent during Jesus’ lifetime. But Christians believe that the people of Antioch believed the disciples and followed them and that Allah did not destroy Antioch — whereas the Quran says that God demolished this man’s people.

Christian scriptures state that two came — one named Shim’on al-Safa and the other Paul — and that Antioch’s people believed in them. They do not mention Habib al-Najjar nor the arrival of a man from the uttermost part of the city. They also report that Shim’on and Paul prayed to Allah until he revived the king’s son. Christian scriptures thus state that they were not Jesus’ disciples — which concords with Muslim scholars and interpreters who said the story in the Quran happened before Jesus’ lifetime and with other names, not the disciples as was reported by Muhammad ibn Ishaq.

Muhammad ibn Ishaq narrated — from Salmah ibn al-Fadl, from Ibn Ishaq through the chain: Ibn Abbas, from Ka’ab, from Wahb ibn Munabbah — that the righteous man of Antioch was Habib, whose craft was weaving silk, and leprosy had spread in his body. He lived in a house nearby the city doors where he conducted his trading business. He was a charitable righteous person — he used to earn his living, split his earnings, give half to his children and the rest to charity. There used to live a Pharaoh in this same city, named Intkhs ibn Intnkhs, who used to worship idols. God sent his three messengers for this Pharaoh — they were called Sadiq, Masdouq, and Shalom. Allah sent the first two, and when the Pharaoh belied them, Allah reinforced them with a third.

Al-Rabi’ ibn Anas narrated from Abul-‘Aliya about God’s saying “when we sent them two whom they denied, then we reinforced them with a third”: to strengthen the proof of their denial, God sent a third. When they approached the village people and called them to monotheism, they denied them. They then approached a man who lived in a farm. He asked: who are you? They answered that they were God’s messengers sent to invite the people of this village to monotheism. He asked: are you being paid for this? They said no. So he threw what he had in his hand and accompanied them. He then approached the city people and said: “O my people! Follow those who have been sent! Follow those who ask of you no fee, and who are rightly guided.”

This saying is considered to be the correct one — those messengers were God’s messengers before Jesus. They were sent to Antioch, Habib al-Najjar believed in them, they came before Jesus’ time, the city’s people denied them and God destroyed them as mentioned in the Quran. Then after this Antioch was rebuilt while its people were polytheists, until the disciples were sent to them and they believed in Jesus Christ and became Christians.

Other Sayings

It is also said that Antioch was one of the first great cities that believed in Jesus (peace be upon him) after his raising to the heaven, but some interpreters thought that the mentioned messengers in the Quran are Jesus’ disciples.

This is wrong for several reasons:

• Allah has mentioned in the Quran that He destroyed those whom He sent the messengers to. The people of Antioch believed the messengers who invited them to Jesus’ religion — and they were not destroyed.
• The messengers in the Quran are three, and a man came hurrying from the uttermost part of the city. The ones sent as Jesus’ followers were two, and no one came hurrying to them — neither Habib nor another.
• These messengers came after Jesus’ lifetime and God did not send them.
• God destroyed the people of Midian with the retribution of the day of gloom (Yawm al-Zullah) when Shu’ayb came to them.
• It was also mentioned in the Quran that Moses came to this city and married one of its people’s daughters — and this is considered not correct as agreed by Muslim scholars such as Ibn Abbas, Al-Hasan al-Basri, and Ibn Juraij and many others who agreed that the man was not Prophet Shu’ayb, although some misinformed interpreters said it was Shu’ayb. It was also confirmed by the Prophet’s ﷺ companions and other followers.

People of the Scripture on Moses’ Father-in-Law

The People of the Scripture (Ahl al-Kitab) agree that Moses’ father-in-law was not Prophet Shu’ayb, but a man from Midian city. Others say it is a different Midian — not the one which God destroyed.

The Two Interpreters’ Opinions on the Messengers

The interpreters’ opinions on the messengers’ issue were two:

The first: Allah sent them. For Abu al-Faraj ibn al-Jawzi said: this is the apparent meaning in the Quran — and it is narrated by Ibn Abbas and Ka’ab and Wahb ibn Munabbah, who said: interpreters explained God’s saying “It was but one Shout” in Ya-Sin, that Angel Jibreel took the city forcefully by its doors and shouted a loud cry which killed everybody — soundless, like a quenched fire. This is what was meant by “and lo! They were extinct” — they were all dead as though they were extinct ash.

The second — the popular account: It is also popular among people that this did not happen to the people of Antioch after Jesus’ advent and that they believed him before his religion got falsified. They were all Muslims believing in his religion until it got altered. This conforms to al-Qurtubi’s sayings.

It is also acknowledged by scholars that after the revelation of the Torah, Allah did not destroy disbelieving nations with a general heavenly punishment similar to that of Noah’s people, ‘Aad, Thamud, and Lot’s people — and the Pharaoh and many others. He also ordered believers to fight the polytheists, like when He ordered the Children of Israel according to Moses to fight the tyrants. But this village’s people were destroyed by a heavenly retribution — which proves that those mentioned messengers were before Moses’ lifetime. Also, God did not mention in the Quran any messengers sent by someone else — He only mentioned the Apostles He Himself sent.

God also mentioned: “where We sent them twain, they denied them, so We enforced them with a third” — stating that He had sent them, just as He said of sending Noah and Moses and others.

When it says in the Quran “you are but mortals like us, and the Beneficent did not send anyone” — this proves they are sent by Allah, because this is the polytheists’ way of speaking with anyone informing them that he was sent and received inspiration from Allah, and not for messengers sent by Apostles.

The saying “Ah, the anguish for the servants! Never came there unto them a messenger but they did mock him!” — this is usually said about messengers sent by Allah.

This example was also mentioned for the nations the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was sent to — warning them of God’s vengeance done to past nations. God sets for the Prophet ﷺ an example with an equivalent or counterpart, and not with anyone lower in sublimity to the Prophet’s companions such as the disciples. It is agreed by all scholars that the disciples are lower in sublimity than the Sahaba.

God did not send any messengers after Jesus — maintaining a reminding period for the People of the Scripture to grasp the lessons, as He says in the Quran:

God also says:

If they were an Apostle’s messengers, denial would be for the Apostle who sent them, and there would be no doubt in their saying “you are but mortals like us” — because nobody argues that messengers of Allah’s Apostles would be mortals. But they denied the fact that God’s Apostles are mortals too. If denial was for them as mortals and messengers of an Apostle, they could have said: “send for the person who sent us, or to his companions who already know that we are honestly conveying their message to you” — unlike if they were God’s messengers.

The saying “When We sent them twain” is a clear statement that the sender is Allah.

Another explanation: Muslims never say for those sent anywhere in a mission by the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ that they are Allah’s messengers. One would not say about Dahiyyah ibn Khalifa that Allah sent him. This also applies to Al-Mughira ibn Shu’ba, Abdullah ibn Huzaifah, and any other one sent by the Prophet ﷺ. The Prophet had sent his messengers to kings all over the world — he sent Dahiyyah ibn Khalifa to Caesar of Rome, and Abdullah ibn Huzaifah to the King of Persia, and Hatib ibn Balta’a to the Bishop of Egypt. We thus never say that God sent them. Besides, Muslims never call these “God’s Apostles” — and it is not permissible, as agreed by all scholars, to say that they are included in God’s saying “We sent our messengers with the clear proof.” If the names of the Prophet’s messengers were not mentioned in that verse, how can anyone say that their names were included in it? The same logic applies to our discussion.

---

Imam al-Qurtubi on Paul — Who He Actually Was

Imam al-Qurtubi says in his interpretation book:

Paul: a Jewish man who killed Jesus’ companions, infiltrated Christianity, invented the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity, divided the Church into warring sects, and then killed himself. There are neither Quranic verses nor authentic hadiths that say he was an Apostle or a messenger sent by Allah.

---

Conclusion — Four Points

• There were no prophets between Jesus’ span and that of Muhammad’s ﷺ according to Muslim interpretations and proofs.
• There are some Muslim and Christian scholars who attribute Christians’ aberrance and polytheism to Paul — the Jewish man who pretended to be a Christian.
• There are neither Quranic verses nor narrated hadiths that say Paul is an Apostle or a messenger sent by Allah.
• The name that scholars and historians referred to in their books has qualities different from those the Christians believe in.

---

The Quranic Verse That Actually Applies to Paul

We thank God that Paul the liar’s name is not mentioned in the Noble Quran except through this verse.

---