Argument

Ibn Kathir Affirms Paul as Messenger Argument

Intro

Many Muslim speakers today say that Paul corrupted Christianity. On this view Jesus taught a simple Jewish monotheism, and Paul, who never met him, invented the divinity of Christ and threw out the law.

Classical Islamic sources do not speak with one voice on Paul, and some of the oldest speak well of him:

• The Sira. Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad lists the envoys Jesus sent out to the nations. It says Peter went to Rome "and Paul with him," and adds that Paul "belonged to the followers and was not a disciple." Paul appears as one of those Jesus sent, not as a traitor.
• The tafsir on Surah 36. The Quran tells of a town that rejected three messengers (36:13-14) and was destroyed. Ibn Kathir's commentary preserves one report that names the messengers Sham'un (Simon), Yuhanna (John), and Bulus (Paul), and places the town at Antioch. Al-Baghawi preserves a report that names Yuhanna and Bulus as the first two.

The honest limits matter as much as the facts:

• The Quran never names Paul.
• Ibn Kathir relays the Paul report but does not adopt it. He argues the messengers were sent by Allah directly, not by Jesus, and that the town was probably not the famous Antioch.
• Other classical writers did call Paul a corrupter, as early as the 8th century.

So the argument does not say "Ibn Kathir declared Paul a prophet." It says something smaller and true. The corrupter charge is not what classical Islam unanimously taught. Respected classical sources preserve a memory of Paul as an envoy of Jesus. A Muslim who calls Paul the great corrupter is choosing one strand of his tradition over another.

Antioch (Antakiyeh) from Mount Silpius, early 20th century. Photograph, American Colony Photo Department, Matson Collection, Library of Congress; public domain, via Wikimedia Commons (one frame of a stereo pair, cropped).

◎ See this page's graph and discover linked topics →

In full

The Paul-as-corrupter charge is standard in popular Muslim-Christian debate. It is often presented as the Islamic position on Paul. This page tests that presentation against the classical sources usually cited in support of it, and finds that they are divided.

What the sources say, checked against the primary texts:

1. Ibn Kathir on Surah 36:13-14 (Tafsir al-Quran al-Azim, 14th c.) relays several reports:

   • Ibn Ishaq, from what reached him from Ibn Abbas, Ka'b al-Ahbar and Wahb ibn Munabbih: the town was Antioch under an idol-worshipping king called Antiochus. Allah sent three messengers named Sadiq, Saduq and Shalum. Paul is not in this report.
   • Antioch is also reported from Buraydah ibn al-Husayb, Ikrimah, Qatadah and al-Zuhri. Ibn Kathir adds that some of the imams were not sure it was Antioch.
   • Ibn Jurayj, from Wahb ibn Sulayman, from Shu'ayb al-Jaba'i: the first two messengers were Sham'un and Yuhanna, the third was Bulus, and the town was Antioch. This is the only report in Ibn Kathir that names Paul. In it Paul is the reinforcing third messenger.
   • Qatadah: the messengers were envoys of the Messiah sent to Antioch. Abu al-Aliyah: they came from the people's Lord.

2. Ibn Kathir's own judgment (on 36:28-29) goes against the Jesus-envoy reading. He gives three reasons:

   • Read at face value, the text presents the men as messengers from Allah. Disciples of the Messiah would have said they came from him.
   • The people of Antioch believed in the Messiah's envoys, and Antioch was among the first cities to believe. It became one of the four patriarchal sees. The Quran's town rejected its messengers and was destroyed.
   • Early authorities (he names Abu Sa'id al-Khudri) held that after the Torah, Allah no longer destroyed whole nations by a direct punishment.

   He concludes that the town is probably not Antioch, or else a different, lesser-known Antioch, "and Allah knows best."

3. Al-Baghawi (Ma'alim al-Tanzil, 12th c.) on 36:14 gives Wahb's report that the first two were Yuhanna and Bulus. In his telling, Jesus then sent the head of the disciples, Sham'un al-Safa, as the third. This version is probably the origin of the line, often misquoted as Ibn Kathir, in which Paul and John are the first two and Simon the third.

4. Al-Tabari (Jami al-Bayan) on 36:13-14 gives Qatadah's report (Jesus sent two of his disciples to Antioch and reinforced them with a third) and Ibn Ishaq's report (Sadiq, Masduq and Salum, sent by Allah). He does not name Paul in this passage.

5. Al-Qurtubi (al-Jami li-Ahkam al-Quran) says Antioch is the view of all the mufassirun, as reported by al-Mawardi. He lists Sadiq, Saduq and Shalum (al-Tabari's report), "Sham'un and Yuhanna" (others), and "Sim'an and Yahya" (al-Naqqash). He tells the story of Jesus sending two envoys and then Sham'un al-Safa. He adds that the Quran ascribes the sending to Allah because Jesus sent them by the Lord's command. He does not name Paul in his comment on these verses.

6. Al-Zamakhshari (al-Kashshaf) identifies the town as Antioch and the messengers as envoys of Jesus, with Sham'un as the third. Paul does not appear in the passage checked.

7. Ibn Ishaq's Sira (Ibn Hisham's recension, Guillaume's translation p. 653) records a document listing "those whom Jesus son of Mary sent, both disciples and those who came after them." The list includes "Peter the disciple and Paul with him, (Paul belonged to the followers and was not a disciple) to Rome." According to the narrator, al-Zuhri recognized the document.

The argument that survives the check:

• P1. Classical Islamic sources that Muslims themselves treat as standard preserve reports in which Paul is an envoy sent by Jesus: the Sira list, the Shu'ayb al-Jaba'i report in Ibn Kathir, and Wahb's report in al-Baghawi. In the tafsir version he is one of the messengers whom the Quran's story vindicates.
• P2. None of these sources calls Paul a corrupter. Ibn Kathir disputes the report on textual and historical grounds (who sent the men, and whether the town was Antioch). He says nothing against Paul's character or message.
• P3. The corrupter narrative is also classical, but it is a separate strand. It is found in Sayf ibn Umar (8th c.) and developed by the theologian Abd al-Jabbar (d. 1025).
• C. So "Paul corrupted Christianity" is not the Islamic position on Paul. It is one classical strand, and other classical memory runs against it. A Muslim who presents it as settled owes an argument for preferring it, and the Quran itself supplies none.

The weaker claims the argument used to make are dropped. They are listed in the Tensions section below.

Tensions

Earlier versions of this argument circulated in a stronger form, and this page once carried it. Checked against the primary texts, that form overclaims in five ways:

1. Misattributed quotation. The line "they were called Bulus (Paul) and Yahya (John)... Sham'un al-Safa, the head of the disciples" is not Ibn Kathir's. The nearest classical match is al-Baghawi's report from Wahb, which names Yuhanna and Bulus, followed by Sham'un al-Safa. Ibn Kathir's only Paul report names Sham'un and Yuhanna first and Bulus third.
2. "Ibn Kathir identifies Paul." Ibn Kathir relays the report without endorsing it. His own view is that the messengers came from Allah and the town was probably not the well-known Antioch.
3. "Tabari, Qurtubi and Zamakhshari preserve the same identification." They preserve the Antioch identification (al-Tabari as one view among others) and the Jesus-envoy reading. None of the three names Paul on these verses in the passages checked.
4. The isma dilemma. The old argument said Paul is a messenger of Allah, messengers are protected (ma'sum) from corrupting the message, so Paul cannot be a corrupter. That cannot be pressed as a strict entailment. On the reading that makes Paul an envoy of Jesus, he is a disciple-level emissary, not a prophet, and classical doctrine ties isma to prophets. On the reading that makes the messengers prophets of Allah (Ibn Kathir's), Ibn Kathir doubts they are Jesus's men at all. Both readings leave a Muslim free of the dilemma.
5. "The corrupter charge is a 20th-century invention." It is not. Sean W. Anthony has traced Sayf ibn Umar's 8th-century story of "King Paul" corrupting Christianity. S. M. Stern and Gabriel Said Reynolds have studied Abd al-Jabbar's 11th-century account of how Christianity was falsified. The modern dawah form leans on Western critical scholarship, but the core charge is old.

What remains is still useful. Classical Islamic memory of Paul is divided, its positive strand is old and respectable, and the corrupter charge cannot claim the whole tradition.

Cheatsheet

The 30-second argument:

• "You say Paul corrupted Christianity, as if that were the Islamic position. Ibn Ishaq's Sira, the earliest surviving biography of your Prophet, lists Paul among those Jesus sent out, going to Rome with Peter. Ibn Kathir's tafsir on Surah 36 preserves a report naming Paul as one of the messengers to Antioch, and al-Baghawi preserves another. Ibn Kathir doubts that report, but his reasons are about who sent the men and which town it was. He never says Paul was a corrupter. So your own classical sources are divided on Paul. What makes the corrupter strand the one you follow?"

Fast facts:

1. The Quran does not name Paul. Surah 36:13-14 has three unnamed messengers sent to an unnamed town. In the Darussalam rendering of Ibn Kathir: "When We sent to them two Messengers, they denied them both; so We reinforced them with a third."
2. Ibn Kathir's Paul report comes from Ibn Jurayj, from Wahb ibn Sulayman, from Shu'ayb al-Jaba'i. It names Sham'un and Yuhanna, then Bulus, and places the town at Antioch. His main report, from Ibn Ishaq, names Sadiq, Saduq and Shalum instead.
3. Ibn Kathir's own view: the messengers were sent by Allah, not the Messiah, and the town was probably not the famous Antioch, because Antioch believed early and was never destroyed.
4. Al-Baghawi names Yuhanna and Bulus as the first two, with Sham'un al-Safa, head of the disciples, sent by Jesus as the third.
5. Ibn Ishaq's Sira (Guillaume p. 653) lists "Peter the disciple and Paul with him" sent to Rome among those Jesus sent, adding that Paul "was not a disciple."
6. Al-Tabari, al-Qurtubi and al-Zamakhshari give Antioch and the Jesus-envoy reading but do not name Paul on these verses.
7. The corrupter strand is also classical: Sayf ibn Umar (8th c.) and Abd al-Jabbar (d. 1025).

Counter-moves:

• "Ibn Kathir rejected the report." He rejected the claim that the men were Jesus's envoys to Antioch. He did not reject Paul as a righteous man, and he relays the report without a word against him. His second reason also concedes the Acts picture of Antioch as one of the first cities to believe in the Messiah.
• "Those are weak isra'iliyyat." Granted for the tafsir reports. The Sira list is a different kind of source: a report in the standard biography of Muhammad, which al-Zuhri is said to have recognized. And if weak reports carry no weight, the corrupter narratives of Sayf ibn Umar carry none either.
• "The Injil is not the New Testament." Granted as an Islamic claim, and this page does not depend on it. The point is narrower. Islamic memory does not require Paul to be the villain, so the Muslim who makes him one needs evidence, and the evidence lies in Paul's letters and their agreement with the Jerusalem apostles (see Paul Invented Christianity Objection Defeater).

Concessions to make freely:

• The Quran never names Paul, and no Muslim is bound by a tafsir report.
• Ibn Kathir did not hold that Paul was one of the Surah 36 messengers.
• The tafsir reports come through transmitters (Wahb ibn Munabbih, Ka'b al-Ahbar, Ibn Jurayj's chain) whom Muslim scholars often treat as carriers of isra'iliyyat, material from earlier scriptures and lore.
• The Sira calls Paul a "follower," not one of the disciples.
• The corrupter charge is old, not modern.

What NOT to claim:

• That Ibn Kathir "identifies" or "affirms" Paul as a messenger of Allah.
• That al-Tabari, al-Qurtubi or al-Zamakhshari name Paul on Surah 36.
• That isma doctrine logically forbids a Muslim from criticizing Paul.
• That the corrupter charge began in the 20th century.
• The misquoted line "they were called Bulus and Yahya" as Ibn Kathir's words.

Closing line:

• "I am not asking you to accept Paul because a tafsir report mentions him. I am asking you to notice that your own classical sources remember him as someone Jesus sent, and that the corrupter story is one voice among several. If you want to say Paul corrupted the message, you need evidence. The earliest evidence is Paul's own letters, and the other apostles recognized them."

Argument structure

Master objections to the whole argument

MO1: "The Quran never names Paul. Tafsir reports are not revelation, so this proves nothing."

• Agreed that it proves nothing about the Quran. The argument is about what classical Islam remembered of Paul, not what the Quran teaches. Its target is the claim that Islam teaches Paul was a corrupter. The Quran does not teach that either, and the sources show it was never the only classical memory.

MO2: "These reports are isra'iliyyat from Wahb and Ka'b. Serious scholars discount them."

• Partly granted. Ibn Kathir himself is known for warning against isra'iliyyat. But consider three points:
  • The Sira list is a different kind of report, part of Muhammad's biography and tied to al-Zuhri.
  • The corrupter narrative has equally weak credentials. Sayf ibn Umar is a transmitter the hadith critics rated weak.
  • The argument needs only that the positive memory exists and is old. Both are secure.

MO3: "Ibn Kathir explicitly rejects the Antioch and Jesus-envoy reading. You are citing him against himself."

• The page now states his view plainly. Two things remain true:

  • He relays the Paul report in his own tafsir without a word against Paul.
  • His reasons are exegetical and historical, about who sent the men, which town it was, and the post-Torah pattern of judgment. None of them is that Paul could not have been righteous.

  His second reason adds a point for the Christian. He accepts that Antioch was among the first cities to believe in the Messiah, which is what Acts 11:19-26 records.

MO4: "Even granting all this, a righteous Paul of legend is not the Paul of the letters. The Injil Jesus received is not the New Testament."

• The strongest Muslim reply. Christians should not claim more here than the sources give. Classical Islamic memory does not decide what Paul taught; his letters do. The point of this argument is to clear the ground. Once the "Islam says so" claim is set aside, the question becomes historical: do Paul's letters agree with the Jerusalem apostles? Galatians 2:9 records James, Cephas and John giving Paul "the right hands of fellowship," and the defeater Paul Invented Christianity Objection Defeater makes the full case. On the Injil question, see Tahrif.

MO5: "Some Muslim scholars condemned Paul centuries ago. The charge is classical, not modern."

• Granted, and this page says so (Sayf ibn Umar, Abd al-Jabbar). That proves the tradition is divided, which is the conclusion. The Christian should not claim the corrupter charge is a 20th-century invention.

MO6: "Hebrew Israelite and other groups also say Paul corrupted the faith. Does this apply to them?"

• Not directly, since they do not rely on Islamic sources. The parallel move for them is the New Testament's own recognition of Paul: Acts 9, Galatians 1, Galatians 2:9 and 2 Peter 3:15-16.

Premise 1, the Quranic text names no one

Affirmative case

1. Surah 36:13-14, in the Darussalam rendering printed with Ibn Kathir's abridged tafsir: "(a similitude; the Dwellers of the Town, when there came Messengers to them.) (When We sent to them two Messengers, they denied them both; so We reinforced them with a third, and they said: "Verily, we have been sent to you as Messengers.")"
2. The surrounding verses (36:15-29) give the town's rejection, the man who came running from the far end of the town to urge belief, his death and entry into Paradise, and the town's destruction by a single cry (sayhah).
3. The text gives no names and no location. Every identification comes from later commentary.

Anticipated objections

1. "Then the whole discussion is speculation."
2. "The passage is a parable (mathal), not history."

Rebuttals

1. The discussion is about what the commentators reported, which is a historical fact about the Islamic tradition, not a claim about the Quran's meaning.
2. The mufassirun treated it as history and debated the town and the messengers. The mathal framing does not change what they reported.

Premise 2, the tafsir reports that name Paul

Affirmative case

1. Ibn Kathir on 36:14 relays: Ibn Jurayj from Wahb ibn Sulayman from Shu'ayb al-Jaba'i, "The names of the first two Messengers were Sham'un and Yuhanna, and the name of the third was Bulus, and the city was Antioch." The Arabic reads wa-ism al-thalith Bulus.
2. Al-Baghawi on 36:14 relays Wahb: the two were Yuhanna and Bulus, and the third, sent by Jesus, was Sham'un al-Safa, head of the disciples.
3. In both reports the messengers are the vindicated party in the Quran's story. The town is destroyed for rejecting them, and the believing man who backed them enters Paradise (36:26-27).
4. Al-Qurtubi on 36:14 explains that the Quran ascribes the sending to Allah because Jesus sent the envoys at the Lord's command. On that harmonization, envoys of Jesus are still God's sending.

Anticipated objections

1. "Ibn Kathir's main report (Ibn Ishaq) names Sadiq, Saduq and Shalum, not Paul."
2. "Ibn Kathir thinks the messengers were sent by Allah long before Jesus."
3. "Al-Tabari and al-Qurtubi do not mention Paul."

Rebuttals

1. Granted. The Paul report is one of several, and the page says so. Its existence in a standard tafsir is the point, not its dominance.
2. Granted. That is Ibn Kathir's reasoned view, and it is stated as a concession. It still leaves the Paul report preserved, uncondemned, and in the company of the many early authorities who placed the story at Antioch.
3. Granted. They preserve the Antioch and Jesus-envoy readings, which fit the Paul report, but they do not name him. Do not cite them for Paul.

Premise 3, the Sira's list of those Jesus sent

Affirmative case

1. Ibn Ishaq (d. c. 767), in Ibn Hisham's recension, records that Yazid ibn Abi Habib found a document listing those the Prophet sent to kings. Within it is a list of "those whom Jesus son of Mary sent, both disciples and those who came after them" (Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, p. 653).
2. The list reads in part: "Peter the disciple and Paul with him, (Paul belonged to the followers and was not a disciple) to Rome; Andrew and Matthew to the land of the cannibals; Thomas to the land of Babel... John to Ephesus... James to Jerusalem."
3. Paul is placed among those Jesus sent, alongside Peter, with no hint of corruption.

Anticipated objections

1. "The Sira says Paul was not a disciple. That supports the Muslim view that Paul was an outsider."
2. "The Sira is not hadith-grade, and this report rests on a found document."

Rebuttals

1. Christians agree that Paul was not one of the Twelve. Paul calls himself one born out of due time and the least of the apostles (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). "Follower" is not "corrupter." The list counts him among those Jesus sent.
2. Granted that it is a narrative report. The argument uses it to show what early Islamic memory held, and it does that. It is earlier than, or at least as early as, the corrupter narrative of Sayf ibn Umar.

Premises 4 and 5, what the Paul reports do not say, and the older corrupter strand

Affirmative case

1. No report that names Paul calls him a corrupter (P4). The Sira list, Shu'ayb al-Jaba'i's report in Ibn Kathir, and Wahb's report in al-Baghawi all place him among those sent. Ibn Kathir's three objections on 36:28-29 concern the wording of the verses, Antioch's early faith, and the pattern of judgment after the Torah. None concerns Paul.
2. The corrupter strand is also classical (P5, a built-in concession). Sayf ibn Umar (8th c.) tells a story in which Paul, an enemy of the Christians, feigns conversion in order to corrupt them. Sean W. Anthony analyzes its composition in Der Islam 85 (2009).
3. The Mu'tazili theologian Abd al-Jabbar (d. 1025), in his Tathbit Dala'il al-Nubuwwa, gives an extended account of how the religion of Christ was falsified. S. M. Stern (1968) and Gabriel Said Reynolds (2004) have studied it.
4. The classical Islamic memory of Paul is therefore divided. Neither strand can claim to be "the Islamic view."

Anticipated objections

1. "Then the Muslim may simply follow the corrupter strand."

Rebuttals

1. He may. But then he is choosing between traditions and owes a reason. The reason cannot come from the Quran, which is silent on Paul. It has to come from history, and the earliest historical evidence is Paul's own letters, which show agreement with Peter, James and John (Galatians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 15:3-7).

The Antioch anchor (corroborating)

• Acts 11:25-26: "and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught much people; and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26, ASV)
• Acts 13:1-3: "And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." (Acts 13:2, ASV)
• Ibn Kathir's second reason accepts that Antioch was among the first cities to believe in the Messiah. On that point the commentator and Acts agree. The agreement is about Antioch's early faith, not about the Surah 36 story, and should be cited only that far.

Live-cite kit

Quran

• Surah 36:13-14, three unnamed messengers to an unnamed town (Darussalam rendering above).
• Surah 36:26-27, the believing man enters Paradise.
• Surah 3:52 and 61:14, the disciples (hawariyyun) of Jesus called "helpers of Allah," useful when a Muslim speaks of Jesus's envoys as if they were suspect.

Tafsir and Sira

• Ibn Kathir on 36:14: Shu'ayb al-Jaba'i's report, "the first two... Sham'un and Yuhanna, and... the third was Bulus, and the city was Antioch."
• Ibn Kathir on 36:28-29: his three reasons against the Antioch/Jesus-envoy reading. Cite these yourself before your opponent does.
• Al-Baghawi on 36:14: Wahb's report, Yuhanna and Bulus, then Sham'un al-Safa.
• Al-Qurtubi on 36:14: Allah ascribes the sending to Himself because Jesus sent them by His command.
• Ibn Ishaq, Sira, Guillaume p. 653: "Peter the disciple and Paul with him, (Paul belonged to the followers and was not a disciple) to Rome."

Scripture (ASV)

• "James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision" (Galatians 2:9, ASV).
• "even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you" (2 Peter 3:15, ASV).

Scholarly

• Sean W. Anthony, "The Composition of Sayf b. 'Umar's Account of King Paul and His Corruption of Ancient Christianity," Der Islam 85 (2009).
• S. M. Stern, "'Abd al-Jabbar's Account of How Christ's Religion Was Falsified by the Adoption of Roman Customs," Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 19 (1968).
• Gabriel Said Reynolds, A Muslim Theologian in the Sectarian Milieu: 'Abd al-Jabbar and the Critique of Christian Origins (Brill, 2004).

Aphorism

• Your classical sources do not agree that Paul was a corrupter. Some remember him as a man Jesus sent. Choosing the villain version is a choice, not a given.

Tactical notes for live deployment

Opening line

• "Before we talk about whether Paul corrupted anything, can we look at how your own classical sources remember him? Ibn Ishaq lists him among those Jesus sent, with Peter to Rome. Ibn Kathir preserves a report naming him as a messenger to Antioch, though Ibn Kathir himself doubted it. None of these calls him a corrupter."

Cross-exam questions

• "Is the corrupter charge in the Quran? Where?"
• "Ibn Ishaq lists Paul among those Jesus sent. Why prefer Sayf ibn Umar's story to Ibn Ishaq's list?"
• "Ibn Kathir doubted the Antioch report. Did he give any reason to think Paul was a corrupter?"

When the Muslim cites Ibn Kathir's rejection

• Agree immediately and state his three reasons. Then note that none concerns Paul's character, and that his second reason confirms Antioch's early faith. Conceding first builds credibility.

Posture

• Polemical on the position, tender on the person. Do not mock Ibn Kathir or the mufassirun, and do not overclaim them. A misquoted source hands the opponent an easy win (see Anti-Muslim Polemic Quality-Control).
• Keep this argument small. It clears the ground and then hands off to the historical case in Paul Invented Christianity Objection Defeater.

Scholarship

Published academic works this page draws on, each matched to a publisher, index or library catalog record.

• Sean W. Anthony, "The Composition of Sayf b. ‘Umar's Account of King Paul and His Corruption of Ancient Christianity," Der Islam 85 (2009). doi:10.1515/islam.2010.003
• Gabriel Reynolds, A Muslim Theologian in the Sectarian Milieu: ʿAbd al-Jabbār and the Critique of Christian Origins (Brill, 2004). doi:10.1163/9789047405825

See also

• The Muslim Defense, the master Christian-Islamic apologetic hub
• Islam, the comparative-religion hub on Islamic theology
• Christianity, the master Christian apologetic hub
• Tahrif, the Islamic doctrine of scriptural corruption, parent of the corrupter-charge family
• Paul Invented Christianity Objection Defeater, the historical case for Paul's continuity with Jesus and the apostles
• Paul the Apostle, the person hub on Paul
• Peter the Apostle, named with Paul in the Sira list
• John the Apostle, the Yuhanna of the tafsir reports
• Anti-Muslim Polemic Quality-Control, why overclaimed sources cost credibility
• Acts 11.19-26, Antioch as the first Gentile-Christian center
• Acts 13.1-3, Paul sent out from Antioch
• Quran Confirms Jesus is God Argument, a parallel argument from Islamic sources
• Did Jesus Send Muhammad Dilemma Argument, a related argument on Jesus's envoys and Muhammad