Who is Apostle Paul in Islam?

In Islam, the status of religious figures is clearly defined by divine criteria. When it comes to Apostle Paul, Islamic teachings present a starkly different view than Christianity. Paul is not recognized as a true prophet in Islam-in fact, he is considered a false claimant to divine revelation.

Before diving deeper, it’s important to clarify that Islam makes no distinction between apostles and prophets. Anyone who claims to receive divine revelation from Allah (God) is, by definition, claiming prophethood. Paul’s alleged vision on the road to Damascus, where he claims to have received divine instruction, does not meet the strict criteria of prophethood in Islam.

While it’s possible that Paul saw a light or heard a voice, this was not from Allah. True prophets are held to the highest standards, and Paul fails to meet even the most basic requirements.

The Islamic Criteria for Prophethood

In Islam, prophets are chosen by Allah and granted divine protection (Iṣmah) from sin. They must fulfill key conditions:

1. Sinless (Even Before Prophethood)
2. Honest & Trustworthy
3. Conveyed the Entire Divine Message
4. Sane & Mentally Sound

Paul fails the very first requirement. He was not sinless.

1. All Prophets Are Protected from Sin (Iṣmah)

Prophets are selected by Allah before birth and are protected from sin their entire lives. This divine protection ensures that they remain pure, even before receiving revelation.

• Noah (Nuh) was not a drunkard (as falsely claimed in some Biblical accounts).
• Lot (Lut) would never sleep with his daughters.
• Solomon (Sulaiman) did not commit idolatry or adultery.

Paul, however, was a persecutor of early Christians before his alleged conversion. His violent past alone disqualifies him from prophethood in Islam.

2. Prophets Must Be Honest & Trustworthy

A prophet must have an impeccable reputation for truthfulness even before receiving revelation. If a person was known to lie or lacked credibility, their message would be justifiably questioned.

• Muhammad (ﷺ) was called “Al-Amin” (The Trustworthy) long before Islam.
• Jesus (Isa) was known for his righteousness from birth.

Paul, however, was a Pharisee who initially tortured Christians. His sudden shift in stance raises serious doubts about his sincerity.

3. Prophets Must Convey the Full Message, Without Alterations

Allah ensures that His prophets fully deliver His message without omissions or distortions.

• Jesus (Isa) was not crucified and Allah raised him to Heaven after he completed his mission.
• Moses (Musa) received the complete Torah before his death.

Paul, however, introduced doctrines that Jesus never taught—such as abolishing the law (Romans 10:4) and the concept of atonement through crucifixion. If Jesus’ message was complete, why would Paul need to “update” it?

4. Prophets Must Be Sane & Rational

Prophets are mentally sound and wise, ensuring their message is taken seriously.

Paul’s sudden vision and radical transformation—from persecuting Christians to leading them—raises questions about his stability. Would Allah choose a former torturer to spread His message?

A Christian Perspective: Did God Need Paul to Finish His Work?

From an Islamic viewpoint, Jesus (Isa) was a prophet sent by Allah with a clear message. If God Himself came to Earth (as Christians believe), why would He allow Himself to be crucified before finishing His mission?

• Did God fail to complete His message?
• Why would He then choose Paul—a known enemy of early Christians—to correct His teachings?

This line of reasoning exposes the inconsistency in Paul’s claim to divine authority.

Conclusion: Paul Was Not a Prophet in Islam

Islam upholds that Allah only chooses the best messengers—sinless, truthful, and fully conveying His word. Paul fails every criterion for prophethood:

❌ Not sinless (persecuted believers)
❌ Not trustworthy (sudden, unexplained conversion)
❌ Altered Jesus’ teachings (added new doctrines)
❌ Questionable mental state (dramatic, unverified visions)

Paul’s teachings contradict Islamic belief in the perfection of Allah’s prophets. Therefore, he is considered a false claimant to divine revelation in Islam.

Final Thought

Allah does not choose flawed messengers for His most important message. The integrity of prophethood in Islam is absolute, and Paul’s life and teachings do not meet that standard.

A Defense of Ashari and Maturidi Kalam (Apologetics and Polemics)

In the name of Allah, Praise belongs to Allah, and Peace and Blessings be upon our Master Muhammad, and upon his family and his noble companions.

And so:

In the realm of Islamic theology, few topics are as misunderstood or as frequently attacked as kalam (Islamic theological discourse) and aqida (creed). Critics often conflate the two or misrepresent their purposes, leading to confusion among Muslims and non-Muslims alike. This blog post aims to clarify the definitions of kalam and aqida, defend the methodologies of the Ashari and Maturidi schools, and explain why their approaches to Islamic apologetics and polemics remain relevant today.

What Are Aqida and Kalam?

Before diving into the differences between the schools of thought, it’s essential to define the key terms:

1. Aqida: This refers to the Islamic creed—the foundational beliefs that every Muslim must hold. It encompasses core tenets such as the oneness of Allah, the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him), and the belief in the afterlife.
2. Kalam: This is the discipline of Islamic theological discourse, which includes both apologetics (defending Islamic beliefs) and polemics (refuting heretical or incorrect beliefs). Kalam is a tool used to articulate and safeguard the Islamic creed.

The Unity of Aqida Among the Schools

The three primary schools of Islamic creed—Ashari, Maturidi, and Hanbali/Athari—share the same foundational beliefs. Their differences are often overstated and are primarily related to terminology or minor theological nuances. For example:

• Some schools argue that iman (faith) can increase or decrease, while others contend that it is the quality of iman that fluctuates.
• Despite these differences, all three schools accept Aqida Tahawiyya, a classical text on Islamic creed, as a foundational reference.

This unity in creed underscores the fact that the real distinctions between these schools lie not in their core beliefs but in their methodologies and attitudes toward kalam.

The Role of Kalam: Ashari and Maturidi vs. Hanbali Approaches

The primary divergence between the schools is their approach to kalam:

Hanbali/Athari Perspective

The Hanbali school, often associated with the Athari creed, takes a more reserved stance on kalam. Hanbalis believe that engaging in theological discourse can lead to unnecessary confusion or deviation. For example, if someone were to ask, “Why couldn’t Prophet Noah (﵇) have been a drunkard?” a Hanbali scholar would respond by affirming the infallibility of prophets and declaring such a question as an act of kufr (disbelief). The Hanbali scholars believes it is wrong for them to try and use logic to explain this issue. They prioritize simplicity and adherence to textual evidence.

Ashari and Maturidi Perspective

The Ashari and Maturidi schools, on the other hand, embrace kalam as a necessary tool for defending and clarifying Islamic beliefs. They argue that engaging with questions and doubts through logic and reasoning can strengthen a person’s faith and correct misconceptions.

Using the same example about Prophet Noah (﵇), an Ashari or Maturidi scholar would employ apologetics to explain why Allah would never allow a prophet to commit such a sin. They might argue that a prophet’s fallibility would undermine their role as a moral paragon, giving people an excuse to justify sinful behavior. However, like the Hanbalis, they would still consider calling Noah (AS) a drunkard an act of kufr.

The Misunderstood Legacy of Kalam

Critics of kalam often point to early scholars like Imam Shafi’i, who reportedly cautioned against engaging in theological discourse. However, it’s important to note that the kalam being criticized was primarily that of the Mu’tazila, a school heavily influenced by Greco-Roman philosophy. The Mu’tazila reduced Allah to a theoretical concept, divorced from His divine attributes, and prioritized reason over revelation in ways that often led to heresy.

The Ashari and Maturidi schools, by contrast, strike a balance between reason and revelation. They use logical arguments to defend Islamic beliefs without compromising the transcendence and sovereignty of Allah.

Why Ashari and Maturidi Kalam Matters Today

In an age of skepticism and misinformation, the Ashari and Maturidi approaches to kalam are more relevant than ever. Here’s why:

1. Addressing Modern Doubts: With the rise of atheism, agnosticism, and secularism, Muslims are increasingly confronted with questions about their faith. The logical and reasoned approach of Ashari and Maturidi kalam provides a framework for addressing these challenges.
2. Countering Excess: By engaging with doubts and misconceptions, these schools prevent individuals from falling into excess or heresy. They offer a balanced, intellectually robust understanding of Islam.
3. Preserving the Creed: While the Hanbali approach emphasizes textual purity, the Ashari and Maturidi methodologies ensure that the Islamic creed remains accessible and defensible in diverse intellectual contexts.

Conclusion

The Ashari and Maturidi schools of thought have played a vital role in preserving and defending Islamic theology. Their use of kalam as a tool for apologetics and polemics has helped countless Muslims navigate doubts and strengthen their iman. While differences in methodology exist, the unity of their creed underscores the shared goal of upholding the truth of Islam.

Islamic Rulings: Why the Mashur Matters

In the name of Allah, All Praise belongs to Allah, and Peace and Blessings be upon our Master Muhammad, his family and his noble companions.

And so:

Too often, well-meaning Muslims justify unconventional fatwas by saying, “The majority opinion (mashur) of the scholars is so and so, but some say the complete opposite.” This approach, however, would never be acceptable in other fields of study. For example, we wouldn’t tell a medical researcher, “Yes, recent studies confirm smoking is harmful, but some doctors in the past smoked in operating rooms, so both opinions are valid!”

This flawed reasoning has crept into Islamic thought due to a widespread lack of religious knowledge. To address this, it’s essential to understand the four levels of Islamic opinions, a framework shared across all madhabs (schools of thought):

1. Mu’tamad: The relied-upon view. This is the definitive opinion of a madhab, with no debate about its validity.
2. Mashur: The famous view. This is the opinion supported by the majority of scholars.
3. Mutasawi: Equal view. When two opinions have significant scholarly support.
4. Shadh: The strange view. An opinion with little to no scholarly backing.

Equating a mashur opinion with a shadh one is irresponsible. While shadh opinions aren’t worthless—they can be useful for muftis or qadis in specific cases—they should not be treated as equal to mainstream views.

What Is a Fatwa?

In Islamic jurisprudence, most people follow the mashur opinion. However, if someone has a valid reason to deviate, they can consult a mufti for a fatwa (a personalized religious opinion) granting a rukhsa (allowance) to follow a lesser opinion temporarily.

Unfortunately, today, muftis are scarce and often disrespected. Many untrained individuals now attempt to issue fatwas by cherry-picking hadiths without understanding the broader context or the advanced science of Usul al-Fiqh (principles of jurisprudence). This has led to the proliferation of bizarre fatwas based on shadh opinions.

Why Are Shadh Opinions Being Followed?

Some imams or khateebs promote shadh opinions to make Islam appear easier for their audience. Worse, untrained individuals issue fatwas based on personal interpretations, often citing hadiths out of context. They overlook the vast corpus of hadith literature, including works like Sunan Nisai, which contains sahih hadiths not found in Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim.

The Role of Usul al-Fiqh

Usul al-Fiqh provides the framework for analyzing conflicting hadiths and deriving fatwas. Mastering this science requires deep knowledge of at least one madhab’s fiqh and its usuli method. Attempting usul without this foundation often leads to invalid conclusions.

It’s important to note that the door to ijtihad (independent reasoning) on established issues is closed. Modern scholars cannot contradict foundational rulings, such as the pillars of wudu. Ijtihad is only valid for new issues, and even then, such cases are rare. Classical fiqh texts already address many scenarios, including hypothetical ones like interactions with extraterrestrials.

Islam Is Easy Without Compromises

Islam is inherently easy, and there’s no need for the majority to rely on rukhsas or dispensations for basic practices:

• Praying five times a day is manageable. Many spend more time scrolling on their phones than the time required for all five prayers.
• Eating halal meat may cost slightly more, but the price difference doesn’t justify compromising on religious principles.
• Men avoiding jewelry (except for a silver ring) is a simple guideline to follow.

As an ummah, we must strive to practice Islam properly. Taking shortcuts is intellectually dishonest and deprives us of the immense rewards in the afterlife. Let’s prioritize knowledge, respect scholarly consensus, and avoid equating weak opinions with established ones.

فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ
So ask those who have knowledge if you do not know.
Surah Nahl, Verse 43