A Comparative Analysis with Biblical Ethics
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute
Introduction
Throughout history, religious texts have been subject to scrutiny, interpretation, and comparative analysis to assess their claims of divine origin and moral authority. One of the most debated issues in Islamic theology concerns the unique privileges granted to Muhammad in the Qur'an — privileges not extended to his followers, and which conspicuously coincide with moments of personal desire or scandal in his life. This paper offers a critical examination of these verses within the Qur’an, comparing them to Biblical narratives of patriarchal moral failure, and evaluating the theological implications for the concept of divine impartiality and holiness.
Muhammad’s Exclusive Privileges in the Qur’an
Several Qur'anic passages reveal peculiar concessions made specifically for Muhammad. A closer analysis of these texts suggests an unsettling pattern where divine revelations seem tailored to accommodate his personal interests, particularly in matters of marriage, sexual access, and household affairs.
-
Surah 33:50 provides Muhammad with an exclusive list of women he is permitted to marry or engage with sexually — including wives, cousins, slave girls, and any believing woman who offers herself to him. Notably, these allowances are restricted to the Prophet alone:
“O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives, those your right hand possesses… and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet — if the Prophet wishes to marry her — [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers.” (Qur’an 33:50)
-
In Surah 33:51, Allah grants Muhammad discretionary authority to favor certain wives and postpone others without consequence:
“You may defer [the turn of] any of them you wish and take to yourself whomever you wish, and any that you desire of those whom you had set aside, there is no blame upon you.”
-
Surah 66:1–2 addresses an incident where Muhammad vowed to cease relations with his slave concubine, Maria the Copt, to appease his wives’ jealousy. Rather than uphold his word, a new revelation appears, rebuking him for forbidding what Allah made lawful:
“O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking to please your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”
-
Perhaps most controversially, Surah 33:37 records Muhammad’s attraction to his adopted son Zayd’s wife, Zaynab bint Jahsh. Subsequently, a revelation arrives permitting the marriage:
“And when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you so that there would not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons.”
-
Even household etiquette is managed by divine decree. Surah 33:53 advises guests not to linger in Muhammad’s home after meals to avoid infringing on his personal time:
“When you are invited, enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of [dismissing] you.”
The consistent pattern suggests that revelations often served to resolve Muhammad's immediate domestic and personal predicaments, rather than addressing timeless, universal moral or theological concerns.
Comparative Reflection: The Bible and Prophetic Moral Failure
In the Biblical tradition, figures such as Abraham, David, and Solomon indeed took multiple wives and concubines. However, unlike the Qur’an’s treatment of Muhammad, the Bible neither condones nor grants divine approval for these actions. Instead, the Hebrew Scriptures record such behaviors as moral failings with clear negative consequences:
-
David’s adultery with Bathsheba and arranged murder of her husband resulted in severe judgment, including the death of their child (2 Samuel 12:9–14).
-
Solomon’s polygamy and idolatry led to the division of the Israelite kingdom (1 Kings 11:1–13).
The absence of divine endorsement for these acts underscores the Bible’s commitment to the principle that all humans, including prophets, are accountable to God’s moral law. Their failings serve as cautionary tales rather than precedents.
Theological Implications
The divergence between the Qur’an’s accommodation of Muhammad’s personal life and the Bible’s portrayal of prophetic fallibility raises significant theological questions. If a deity is truly holy, impartial, and transcendent, the expectation would be for moral consistency and justice — qualities compromised if divine revelation appears selectively self-serving. The Qur’an’s repeated intervention in Muhammad’s private affairs under the guise of revelation challenges the integrity of its claim to be a universal, immutable word of God.
Moreover, the preferential treatment granted to Muhammad contradicts the Islamic assertion of his being a "mercy to all worlds" (Qur’an 21:107) and a model of moral perfection. If the sacred text reinforces inequitable privileges rather than holding its prophet accountable, it not only undermines its ethical credibility but invites the conclusion that the deity of the Qur’an functions more as a personal agent of the prophet’s will than as a sovereign, righteous God.
Conclusion
A careful, contextual, and comparative reading of the Qur’an alongside the Bible reveals marked differences in how prophetic misconduct is treated. The Biblical God remains morally consistent, rebuking even His chosen servants when they sin. In contrast, the Qur’anic Allah frequently appears as an enabler of Muhammad’s desires, issuing timely revelations that address his personal concerns, particularly in matters of marriage and social convenience.
Such a pattern casts serious doubt upon the claim of divine impartiality in the Qur’anic message. It invites modern scholars and theologians to reevaluate the theological foundations of Islam, particularly where prophetic conduct and divine holiness intersect. It is the duty of any sincere seeker of truth to discern whether a religious system elevates human desire above moral law or upholds a transcendent, holy standard for all — prophets included.
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba,
Shimba Theological Institute
No comments:
Post a Comment