Was Paul a True Apostle of God? A Theological Challenge to Muslims

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

---

A Call for Evidence

Muslims, bring us a verse from either the Qur’an or the Bible that says Paul was not an Apostle of God.

Today, I have decided to put an end to the endless taunts of the "Philistines" concerning the Apostle Paul—whose very name seems to trouble Muslims and their Allah day and night.

Let us be clear: Paul was indeed an Apostle of God. The Bible itself plainly testifies to this fact. Let us read:

Galatians 1:1
"Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead."

This verse is crystal clear: Paul was commissioned directly by God, not by any human or intermediary angel.

Now, contrast this with Muhammad: the Qur'an openly declares that Muhammad received his message through Jibril (Gabriel), who is not God. According to Islamic sources, Muhammad never spoke to or saw God directly, but always through this angelic intermediary.

In stark contrast, Scripture teaches that Paul’s apostleship came directly from God Himself.

Romans 1:1
"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God."

Therefore, from today onward, it must be understood clearly: Muslims are following a counterfeit message. Muhammad never spoke with God. Muhammad was not sent by God. He was a false prophet without divine commission.

All true prophets and apostles in the Bible conversed directly with God—without the need for an intermediary angel. Yet Muhammad relied entirely on Jibril, an angelic being allegedly sent by Allah.

Why is Muhammad the only so-called prophet who needed an intermediary in his communications with his god?

If Allah were truly the Almighty God, why would He need an intermediary to communicate with Muhammad? Why did the God of the Bible never require such intermediaries when speaking to His prophets?

If you, Muslims, cannot produce a single verse from the Qur'an or the Bible stating that Paul was not an apostle of God, then your silence itself becomes undeniable evidence that Muhammad was a false prophet, while Paul was indeed a true apostle of the Living God.

---

Additional Theological Questions for Reflection

1. If Paul was not a true apostle, why did the early Church—both Jews and Gentiles—accept his writings as inspired Scripture?

2. Why do even Islamic commentators admit that Paul’s influence on the early Christian Church was profound, while the Qur’an never explicitly denounces him?

3. Why does the Qur’an mention other figures—like Jesus and Mary—but never directly mention Paul if he were so supposedly false? Would not a true "final revelation" warn against him?

4. How can Muhammad’s supposed prophetic status be valid when no biblical prophet nor the New Testament apostles ever prophesied about Muhammad?

5. Why do the biblical apostles (including Paul) show consistency with the Old Testament revelation of God, while Muhammad introduces doctrines contradictory to both Old and New Testaments?

6. Why did Jesus never mention Muhammad, even though He foretold the coming of the Holy Spirit? Why does Paul confirm this teaching, while Muhammad contradicts it?

---

Final Challenge

Muslims, produce your evidence!

Bring us a verse from the Qur’an or the Bible that says:
"Paul was not an Apostle of God."

Until then, your failure to do so is proof that Paul’s apostleship stands firm, and Muhammad’s prophethood remains unsubstantiated.

The question remains:
Why does the God of the Bible speak directly to His chosen servants, while the Allah of Islam cannot?

---