Friday, June 13, 2025

Did Muhammad Read and Write? A Theological and Hadithic Analysis

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

The traditional Islamic narrative asserts that Muhammad was “ummi”—often interpreted as “illiterate.” However, a careful reading of the Hadith and early Islamic sources presents a more nuanced and, at times, contradictory picture. This article critically examines the hadithic evidence concerning Muhammad’s literacy, evaluates the meaning of “ummi” in historical context, and addresses the theological implications of affirming Muhammad’s ability to read and write.

Introduction

Muslim orthodoxy frequently holds that the Prophet Muhammad was illiterate, unable to read or write Arabic. This assertion, rooted in the term “ummi” as used in the Qur’an (Qur’an 7:157-158), is often cited as evidence of the miraculous nature of the Qur’an, believed to be revealed to an unlettered prophet. However, hadith literature and early Islamic historical sources provide compelling evidence challenging this claim. This article explores these sources, interrogating the theological and historical implications of Muhammad’s literacy.

I. Linguistic and Contextual Analysis of “Ummi”

The word “ummi” (أُمِّيٌّ) in Arabic traditionally translates as “illiterate” or “unlettered.” However, scholars such as W. Montgomery Watt and Alfred Guillaume have argued that “ummi” may refer to “gentile” (one who is not Jewish or Christian) or one not formally instructed in the scriptures, rather than simply illiterate (see Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, 1953).

Qur’anic Usage

The Qur’an refers to Muhammad as “the unlettered prophet” (النَّبِيُّ الْأُمِّيُّ), but the same root is used in the Qur’an to describe “ummiyeen” (gentiles, or non-Jews) in 2:78. Thus, the term does not necessarily denote an inability to read and write.

II. Hadithic Evidence: Muhammad’s Literacy

1. Treaty of Hudaybiyyah: Writing His Name

The Sahih al-Bukhari (2731; also see 3186, 4199, 4832) narrates that during the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, Muhammad participated in the drafting of the document. When the Quraysh emissary objected to the title “Messenger of Allah,” Muhammad asked for the phrase to be erased. The narration in some versions states:

“The Prophet took the document though he did not know how to write, and he wrote, ‘This is what Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, has agreed to.’”
(Sahih Bukhari 3186, 4199, 4832; also Sahih Muslim 1784)

Some narrations include, “The Prophet wrote,” and others clarify that he “asked Ali to write,” but the persistence of narrations where Muhammad himself “wrote” or made corrections is notable.

2. Muhammad’s Signature and Seal

The Sahih al-Bukhari (4425) describes the Prophet’s use of a ring inscribed with “Muhammad Rasul Allah,” which he used as a seal for correspondence. In Sahih Muslim (2092), it is stated:

“The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) intended to write to the Persians, Romans, and Abyssinians. It was said, 'They will not accept any letter unless it is stamped with a seal.' So he took a silver ring and had (the words) Muhammad, Messenger of Allah engraved on it…”

Here, the act of sending written letters is ascribed directly to Muhammad, with historical records indicating these letters were preserved and read by their recipients.

3. The Incident at the Deathbed

A famous episode in Sahih al-Bukhari (114, 4431) recounts that as Muhammad lay dying, he asked for writing materials to record a statement:

“Bring me a (pen and paper) so that I may write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.”

This incident suggests familiarity with writing and the expectation that he could dictate or author documents.

4. Hadith of Mu’awiyah bin Al-Hakam

Sahih Muslim 537 narrates a story of a slave girl, where Muhammad asks her, “Where is Allah?” and “Who am I?” Some versions of this hadith mention that Muhammad “wrote” (kataba) instructions or words, highlighting a potential for literacy.

III. Early Islamic Historical Accounts

Ibn Ishaq’s Sira

Ibn Ishaq (d. 767 CE), in his Sirat Rasul Allah, narrates multiple occasions where the Prophet read, corrected, or dictated letters and contracts. There are also accounts of his business dealings in Mecca, which would have required basic literacy in record-keeping.

IV. Theological Implications

Miraculousness of the Qur’an

If Muhammad could read and write, the apologetic argument that the Qur’an’s literary merit is miraculous due to his illiteracy is weakened. However, the miracle could then be ascribed to the substance and content of the revelation, not merely the mode.

Integrity of Transmission

Acknowledging Muhammad’s literacy does not diminish the message but rather enhances the plausibility of accurate transmission of revelation, as the Prophet could oversee, review, and authenticate written documents.

“Ummi” as Gentile

If “ummi” means gentile rather than illiterate, then Qur’anic inerrancy is maintained, and the hadith evidence harmonizes with the historical context.

V. Counterarguments and Reconciliation

Some Muslim scholars argue that narrations suggesting Muhammad’s writing are metaphorical or refer to dictation. However, the prevalence and multiplicity of hadith mentioning his direct engagement with writing cannot be easily dismissed. The argument that Muhammad was initially illiterate but later learned to read and write is also present in some early tafsir (see al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Tabari, on Qur’an 29:48).

Conclusion

The hadithic and historical evidence reveals that Muhammad’s relationship to literacy was more complex than traditional narratives suggest. Theological insistence on his illiteracy is not required by the evidence and may arise from later apologetic concerns. An honest reading of hadith and sira demonstrates occasions where Muhammad read, wrote, or corrected written materials. Reinterpreting “ummi” as “gentile” reconciles Qur’anic language with these traditions, suggesting that the Prophet Muhammad possessed at least functional literacy, a fact that aligns with his role as a statesman, leader, and communicator.

References

  1. Sahih al-Bukhari: Hadiths 2731, 3186, 4199, 4832, 114, 4431, 4425.

  2. Sahih Muslim: Hadiths 1784, 2092, 537.

  3. Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, tr. A. Guillaume.

  4. Al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Tabari (on Qur’an 29:48).

  5. Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Mecca, 1953.

  6. Guillaume, Alfred, Islam, 1954.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute


at No comments:

The Apostle Paul (Bulus) as a Messenger in the Qur’an: A Scholarly Investigation

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The Apostle Paul is a foundational figure in Christian theology, yet his role and mention within Islamic sources have often been the subject of polemical debate. While many Muslim polemicists have accused Paul of corrupting the message of Jesus, an examination of classical Islamic exegesis, especially on Surah Ya-Sin (Qur’an 36:13-17), reveals a dramatically different tradition—one in which Paul (Bulus) is actually recognized as a messenger (rasūl) sent by Allah, associated with the Messiah (al-Masīḥ, i.e., Jesus). This article explores the evidence from primary Islamic sources—Qur’an, Tafsir, and Hadith—that confirm the respected status of Paul in early Islamic thought.

1. Paul in the Qur’an and Tafsir Literature

1.1 Qur’an 36:13-17: The Three Messengers to Antioch

Surah Ya-Sin verses 13–17 narrate the story of a city that received three messengers, yet rejected them. The Qur’an itself does not name these messengers, but the major classical exegetes do.

Your provided screenshot from Tafsir Ibn Kathir (see attached and online reference) directly states:

“The names of the first two Messengers were Sham‘un and Yuhanna, and the name of the third was Bulus (Paul), and the city was Antioch (Antakiyah).”
– Ibn Kathir, Tafsir on Surah Ya-Sin 36:14.

Bulus is the Arabic name for Paul, and Antakiyah is the Arabic for Antioch—a known center of early Christianity and a place historically associated with Paul’s missionary journeys (Acts 13:1-3). The same is confirmed in other tafsir works, such as Tafsir al-Tabari and Tafsir al-Qurtubi.

1.2 The Messengers as Disciples of Jesus

The exegesis further states:

“Qatādah bin Di‘āmah claimed that they were messengers of the Messiah, peace be upon him, sent to the people of Antioch.”

This directly contradicts the polemical view that Paul corrupted the message of Jesus. Instead, Paul is seen in these Islamic sources as a true emissary of Christ, appointed and sent to spread his message.

1.3 Multiple Sources Confirming Paul

Other Tafsir works:

  • Tafsir al-Tabari (20:500): Echoes the names Sham‘un (Simon Peter), Yuhanna (John), and Bulus (Paul) as the messengers.

  • Tafsir al-Qurtubi: Also narrates the story with the same names.

Contemporary Islamic scholars rarely mention this tradition, but it is clear that the earliest and most authoritative commentators on the Qur’an identified Paul as a genuine, divinely appointed messenger.

2. Support from Hadith and Early Islamic Historians

2.1 Historical Traditions (Akhbar)

Early Islamic historians and hadith transmitters recorded similar narrations:

  • Al-Tabari, Tārīkh al-Rusul wa’l-Mulūk (History of Prophets and Kings):

    “Jesus sent to Antioch two of his disciples, Simon and John. When they were opposed, he sent a third, Paul, to support them.”

  • Ibn Ishaq (as cited by Ibn Kathir):

    The disciples of Jesus, who spread his message after his ascension, included Sham‘un (Simon Peter), Yuhanna (John), and Bulus (Paul), among others.

2.2 Hadith Literature

Although there is no direct sahih (authentic) hadith mentioning Paul by name as a disciple, numerous hadith collections affirm that Jesus had disciples (al-Hawariyyūn) who spread his message:

  • Sahih Muslim 302:

    “The Prophet (Muhammad) said, ‘Both in this world and in the Hereafter, I am the nearest of all the people to Jesus, the son of Mary. The prophets are paternal brothers; their mothers are different, but their religion is one.’”

    This hadith, while general, supports the notion that the mission and succession of messengers after Jesus—including his disciples—were part of a continuous divine plan, which, as the tafsir shows, included Paul.

3. Refuting the Polemic: Paul as “Corruptor” versus “Messenger”

Modern Muslim polemicists, often unaware or dismissive of classical exegesis, assert that Paul corrupted the message of Jesus. However, the earliest and most authoritative Islamic sources held the opposite view:

  • Paul is named and honored as a messenger of the Messiah.

  • He is placed in the same category as Peter (Sham‘un) and John (Yuhanna), who are universally recognized as disciples of Jesus.

  • The story is affirmed across multiple classical tafsir works and histories.

This demonstrates a significant dissonance between early Islamic tradition and later polemical developments. Any assertion that Paul is absent or denigrated in Islamic sources is a distortion of the historical record.

4. Archive and Verification

For those who wish to verify these claims, original sources are available:

Your attached screenshot provides a faithful reproduction of the printed work, confirming this tradition for posterity.

Conclusion

The evidence from the Qur’an, classical tafsir, and historical traditions unambiguously demonstrates that Paul (Bulus) is recognized as a legitimate messenger of Jesus in Islam’s earliest and most authoritative sources. Far from being a corrupter, Paul was understood to be a messenger of the Messiah to Antioch, working alongside Peter and John.

This challenges both popular misconceptions within Islamic polemics and offers a basis for deeper interfaith dialogue. Scholars and students alike are encouraged to consult the primary sources and recognize the complex, interconnected legacy of Paul in the Abrahamic faiths.

References

  1. Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Surah Ya-Sin 36:13-17, QuranX.

  2. Tafsir al-Tabari 20:500.

  3. Tafsir al-Qurtubi (on Surah Ya-Sin).

  4. Sahih Muslim, Book 30, Hadith 5836.

  5. Al-Tabari, Tārīkh al-Rusul wa’l-Mulūk.

  6. Ibn Ishaq, as cited in Ibn Kathir, al-Bidāya wa’l-Nihāya.

  7. Ibn Kathir Archive, Internet Archive.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

at No comments:

A Theological Critique of Allah’s Claimed Omnipotence: The Case of Muhammad’s Poisoning at Khaibar

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This article critically investigates the claim of Allah’s omnipotence (all-powerful nature) within Islamic theology, focusing on the historical incident of Muhammad’s poisoning at Khaibar. It argues that the inability of Allah to prevent, heal, or answer the prophetic prayers of Muhammad undermines the assertion of Allah’s unlimited power. By scrutinizing the Islamic primary sources and theological claims, this report demonstrates that Allah’s power is, at best, a claim without consistent demonstrable evidence—particularly in the life and death of Islam’s own prophet.

1. Introduction

The doctrine of divine omnipotence is foundational to the concept of God in both Islamic and Christian theology. However, the real test of such an attribute is not merely in claims but in the historical and empirical manifestations of that power—especially towards the most favored and chosen prophets. In Islam, Muhammad is considered the “Seal of the Prophets,” and thus the manner of his life and death reflects directly on the character and ability of Allah. The poisoning incident at Khaibar (as recorded in multiple hadith sources) presents a severe challenge to the Islamic claim that Allah is all-powerful and attentive to the prayers of His prophets.

2. The Incident at Khaibar: A Brief Historical Account

According to Sahih al-Bukhari and other major Islamic sources, after the conquest of Khaibar, a Jewish woman offered Muhammad poisoned meat (specifically, a roasted sheep). Muhammad consumed the meat, realized it was poisoned, and reportedly suffered lingering effects until his death years later.

Sahih Bukhari 4428:
"When the Prophet was poisoned at Khaibar, he said: ‘I feel the effects of that poison from this very moment.’”
(See also: Sunan Abu Dawood 4512, Sahih Muslim 5840.)

Muhammad is reported to have prayed for healing, yet, the poison remained effective, ultimately contributing to his death. This fact is unambiguous in classical Islamic sources.

3. Theological Implications: Allah’s Power in Question

3.1. Why Didn’t Allah Save Muhammad?

If Allah is all-powerful (Qur’an 2:20, 2:106, 6:61), why did He not prevent His final prophet from ingesting poison? The omnipotent deity, by definition, should have the capability to intervene in any circumstance—especially to protect His chosen messenger from harm. The failure to do so casts doubt on the absoluteness of Allah’s power.

3.2. Why Did Muhammad’s Prayers Fail?

The Qur’an repeatedly claims that Allah answers the prayers of His prophets:

“When My servants ask you concerning Me, I am indeed close: I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calls on Me.”
— Qur’an 2:186

Yet, in the case of Khaibar, Muhammad’s supplications for healing were not answered. If even the greatest prophet’s prayers went unanswered, does this not suggest a limitation—either in Allah’s willingness, power, or both?

3.3. Allah’s Inaction: Absence of Evidence

Divine omnipotence must be evidenced by consistent acts of deliverance and intervention, particularly for God’s own messengers. The Khaibar incident offers no such evidence, only a claim that is not substantiated by reality. Allah’s supposed power remains abstract, unmanifested in crucial moments.

4. Comparative Theology: The Biblical God vs. Allah

The God of the Bible consistently demonstrates power by protecting, rescuing, and sometimes even resurrecting His prophets (Daniel 6:22, 1 Kings 17:21-22). Jesus, in particular, declares that He lays down His life of His own accord (John 10:18)—not at the mercy of human schemes or poison. The impotence of Allah in Muhammad’s final crisis stands in stark contrast to the Biblical model of divine omnipotence.

5. The Omnipotence Claim: Philosophical and Logical Evaluation

5.1. The Problem of Selective Power

A deity whose power is manifest only in select, unverifiable circumstances, but is absent in the most vital instances (such as the protection of His own prophet), cannot logically be called omnipotent.

5.2. Internal Contradiction in the Qur’an

While the Qur’an asserts Allah’s omnipotence, it also narrates stories where Allah’s power is either absent or conditional, contradicting the definition of absolute power (Qur’an 8:17 vs. 69:44-46).

6. Conclusion: Allah’s Omnipotence—A Claim Without Evidence

The incident of Muhammad’s poisoning exposes a critical flaw in Islamic theology. If Allah was unable (or unwilling) to save or heal his prophet, then Allah’s power is either limited or unreliable. This is not the mark of an omnipotent deity, but of a being whose power exists only in unsubstantiated claims and dogmatic assertions.

A God who cannot, or does not, save His own messenger from such an ignoble and painful death cannot be trusted as all-powerful, nor as the true God worthy of ultimate allegiance.

References

  1. Sahih al-Bukhari 4428

  2. Sahih Muslim 5840

  3. Sunan Abu Dawood 4512

  4. The Qur’an: 2:20, 2:106, 6:61, 2:186, 8:17, 69:44-46

  5. The Bible: Daniel 6:22, 1 Kings 17:21-22, John 10:18

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute


at No comments:

Is Qur’an 33:53 the Word of Allah or Muhammad?

A Logical and Theological Analysis

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the most critical claims of Islamic theology is that the Qur’an is the verbatim word of Allah, revealed directly and unfiltered, with Muhammad merely as the passive recipient. However, Qur’an 33:53 (al-Ahzab) provides an intriguing case where the distinction between divine revelation and personal interests becomes blurred. A close reading exposes internal evidence that suggests Muhammad, rather than Allah, is the true author behind this verse.

The Content and Context of Qur’an 33:53

Qur’an 33:53 (Sahih International translation):

“O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of you. But Allah is not shy of the truth…”

Here, the verse is directed to the believers, instructing them on etiquette regarding the Prophet’s house. But a peculiar admission emerges:

“Indeed, that was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of you. But Allah is not shy of the truth.”

This admission raises critical questions:

  1. Who is Troubled?
    The verse openly says it is Muhammad (“the Prophet”) who is troubled by people lingering in his house after meals.

  2. Who is Shy?
    The text admits Muhammad is “shy” about telling people to leave, but “Allah is not shy of the truth,” implying that Allah is supposedly intervening where Muhammad is too embarrassed to speak.

  3. Who is the Speaker?
    The style shifts abruptly from instructing the people, to explaining Muhammad’s feelings, then providing justification for what is presented as Allah’s direct words.

Logical Analysis: Who is Really Speaking?

A. The Human Element in Divine Speech

If this verse is the word of Allah, then why does it center on Muhammad’s personal feelings (“he is shy of you”), his comfort, and his social awkwardness? Is it befitting for the eternal God to interrupt the flow of divine revelation to address the social discomforts of a single individual, especially in such a mundane context?

B. The Speaker’s Identity

A logical reading asks: Who is narrating here? Is Allah narrating Muhammad’s emotions to the believers? Or is Muhammad, feeling shy to address his guests, claiming divine sanction for his personal need? The narrative voice becomes inconsistent—at times Allah, at times Muhammad’s own inner thoughts.

C. The Absence of Universal Application

Divine revelation, in all monotheistic traditions, provides principles that are universal and transcend the prophet’s personal needs. Yet this verse is a personal solution for Muhammad’s inconvenience, not a moral or spiritual law.

Theological Critique: Contradiction to Divine Attributes

  1. Impersonal Decree vs. Personal Convenience

    • If Allah is almighty, why would He reveal a verse simply to manage Muhammad’s household inconvenience?

    • Does God become the mouthpiece for Muhammad’s personal comfort, or does Muhammad use God’s authority to resolve his own social anxieties?

  2. The Voice of the Verse

    • Throughout the Qur’an, Allah speaks in the first person or commands via the second person. In this verse, the narrative switches awkwardly to comment on Muhammad’s emotions, something expected from a human narrator, not a divine one.

  3. Prophetic Model in Previous Scriptures

    • Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible or New Testament do we find God intervening solely to protect a prophet’s personal comfort from guests, let alone admit the prophet is too shy to speak. Prophets such as Moses, Elijah, or Jesus are often bold and forthright, their human needs never dressed up as divine revelation.

The Critical Question

If this verse is truly Allah’s word, then why does it serve only Muhammad’s immediate, mundane need, and why does it admit the prophet is too shy to confront his own guests?

  • Did Allah appear and directly speak to the people to resolve Muhammad’s shyness, or is this Muhammad himself, using “Allah” as a rhetorical tool to command respect and privacy?

  • Who was actually speaking “mouth to mouth and face to face” to the people here? The verse suggests an observer aware of Muhammad’s emotional discomfort, which is inconsistent with a transcendent, omnipotent God.

Conclusion

By examining Qur’an 33:53 in its literary, logical, and theological context, it becomes evident that this verse is best explained as Muhammad’s own words, articulated for his personal benefit and codified under divine authority. The verse reveals a human author who is too embarrassed to ask guests to leave, and thus attributes his wish to God. This raises profound doubts about the claim that the Qur’an is purely the word of Allah and not the word of Muhammad.

Unless Muslims can demonstrate that it was truly Allah—speaking directly and not just Muhammad’s self-interest—who dictated this passage, the evidence from the verse itself remains damning: the Qur’an, at least in this instance, is the word of Muhammad, not the word of God.

References:

  • Qur’an 33:53 (al-Ahzab)

  • Various classical and modern Islamic exegesis (tafsir)

  • Comparative analysis with the prophetic voice in the Bible

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute


at No comments:

Theological and Logical Inconsistency: Why Do Muslims Quote a Book They Claim Is Corrupted?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

The claim that the Bible is both corrupted and yet useful as evidence for the Qur’an presents a logical and theological contradiction within Islamic apologetics. This article critically examines the practice of referencing the Bible within Islamic discourse, highlighting the inherent inconsistency and challenging Muslims to reconcile this contradiction in the light of their own scripture and theological framework.

1. Introduction: The Paradox of Scriptural Reference

Islamic polemics and apologetics frequently utilize the Bible as a reference to support the Qur’an or the prophethood of Muhammad. Yet, a central tenet in Islamic doctrine is the claim that the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) has been corrupted (tahrif). This raises a fundamental question: Why would Muslims quote from a text they consider unreliable, altered, and no longer trustworthy? The use of a “corrupt” text as authoritative evidence is, at best, problematic; at worst, it undermines the very foundation of the Islamic critique against Christian doctrine.

2. The Qur’anic Position: Appeal to Previous Scripture

The Qur’an itself addresses the relationship between the revelation given to Muhammad and the earlier scriptures:

“So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you.”
(Qur’an 10:94)

This verse is critical. It demonstrates that Muhammad is instructed to consult the “People of the Book”—Jews and Christians—about the authenticity and understanding of the Qur’anic message. If, at the time of Muhammad, the Bible was already corrupted, why would Allah direct Muhammad to seek verification or clarification from the possessors of a corrupted text? The Qur’an presupposes the reliability of the existing scriptures, at least at the time of its own revelation.

3. The Hadith and Early Muslim Attitudes

Muslim tradition, as seen in the Hadith literature, reflects uncertainty regarding the use of previous scriptures:

Narrated Ubaidullah: Ibn `Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (the Qur'an) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest?”
(Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 87, Hadith 111)

Here, Ibn Abbas criticizes the consultation of Jewish and Christian scriptures, suggesting the superiority and sufficiency of the Qur’an. This reveals an inherent tension in early Islamic thought: If the Qur’an is truly the final revelation and the Bible is allegedly corrupt, what possible apologetic value can there be in quoting the Bible to support Islamic claims?

4. The Christian Position: The Integrity and Permanence of the Bible

Christian theology asserts the incorruptibility and divine preservation of scripture:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
(2 Timothy 3:16)

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.”
(Matthew 24:35)

From a Christian perspective, the Bible is the unchanging, inspired Word of God. Its textual transmission and preservation are attested by historical manuscript evidence and the internal testimony of scripture itself. The claim of corruption is not only unsupported by historical evidence but also inconsistent with the Qur’an’s own references to the earlier scriptures as reliable.

5. The Logical Dilemma

The act of quoting the Bible while denouncing it as corrupted is akin to using a broken compass to prove your map is accurate. If the Bible is truly unreliable, any appeal to its authority is self-refuting. Conversely, if the Bible is reliable, as the Qur’an initially affirms, then its testimony concerning the divinity of Christ, the crucifixion, and the gospel message must be seriously considered—yet these core doctrines are denied by Islam.

Thus, Muslims are faced with a logical trilemma:

  1. If the Bible is corrupted, quoting it proves nothing.

  2. If the Bible is not corrupted, Islam must be judged by its witness.

  3. If Islam needs the Bible to validate itself but the two contradict, then the Islamic position collapses under its own inconsistency.

6. Conclusion: An Invitation to Consistency

For meaningful interfaith dialogue and authentic theological inquiry, consistency is paramount. If Muslims truly believe the Bible is corrupted, they should refrain from quoting it as proof for Islamic claims. If they find the Bible reliable, intellectual honesty demands a serious engagement with its teachings—even when these challenge or contradict Islamic doctrine.

“If the Bible is corrupted, stop quoting it. If it’s not, follow it.”

References

  • Qur’an 10:94

  • 2 Timothy 3:16

  • Matthew 24:35

  • Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 87, Hadith 111

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute


at No comments:

The Late Muhammad: A Greedy, Insatiable, and Selfish Man – An Academic Theological Critique

The Late Muhammad: A Greedy, Insatiable, and Selfish Man – An Academic Theological Critique
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The character and daily practices of a religious leader—especially one regarded as a prophet—hold immense theological significance. For adherents, the prophet's moral and personal life sets a paradigm of spiritual conduct. In Islamic tradition, Muhammad is held as al-Insan al-Kamil (“the perfect human”). However, when subjected to historical scrutiny and theological analysis, significant inconsistencies and moral deficiencies emerge, challenging his claim to prophetic perfection.

Historical Testimony: Muhammad’s Eating Habits

Citing the historical work Kitabu cha Historia ya Mtume Muhammad by Mohammed Riday of Mombasa, Kenya (p.176, paragraph 5), we read:

"Prophet Muhammad would not eat until he was overtaken by hunger, and even when he did eat, he was never satisfied…"

"This is a prophet of Allah, who, when eating, never seemed to be satisfied, often eating until he was overfull. Beyond this, he was described as selfish in his habits."

Such descriptions from Muslim historical sources themselves point to a portrait of Muhammad that diverges significantly from the traditional narrative of asceticism and generosity. The implication of selfishness and insatiability in a prophet, especially regarding food, demands serious theological reflection.

Quranic Evidence: Restriction and Social Conduct

Surah Al-Ahzab 33:53 provides further insight:

“O you who believe! Do not enter the Prophet’s houses—except when you are permitted for a meal, without waiting for its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse, without seeking to remain for conversation. Verily, that would cause annoyance to the Prophet, and he would be shy of you; but Allah is not shy of [telling you] the truth... And it is not [right] for you to offend the Messenger of Allah, nor to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be an enormity in the sight of Allah.”
(Qur'an 33:53)

This verse reveals a Prophet who, far from being hospitable, is so troubled by the presence of guests and extended conversation that divine revelation is invoked to regulate social conduct around his home. The instruction is clear: do not linger after eating, do not engage in casual conversation, and do not “annoy” the Prophet. The Quran, in this context, appears to serve the Prophet’s personal comfort rather than any divine or communal ethical ideal.

Theological Analysis: Selfishness as an Unprophetic Trait

Theologically, selfishness is universally recognized as a vice, not a virtue. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, selfishness is associated with sin and even with Satan. The Bible, for instance, teaches selflessness, hospitality, and generosity as marks of true godliness (see Matthew 25:35; Hebrews 13:2). By contrast, the characteristics described in both historical sources and the Qur’anic text attribute to Muhammad behaviors that contradict prophetic ideals.

Selfishness is a trait of Satan, not of a true Prophet of God.

Implications for Islamic Theology

If the Prophet of Islam is depicted as greedy, never satisfied, and selfish—even necessitating divine revelation to shield himself from his own followers—how can such a figure serve as the model of righteousness for humanity? How does this comport with the Islamic claim that Muhammad was the best example (uswa hasana) for mankind (Qur’an 33:21)?

Furthermore, the contrast with Jesus Christ is profound. Jesus is consistently depicted in the Gospels as generous, self-sacrificing, and inviting all—even to the point of washing his disciples’ feet (John 13:1-17) and feeding the multitudes (Matthew 14:13-21), never using divine revelation to serve his own convenience or personal comfort.

Conclusion

The evidence from Islamic history and the Qur’an itself presents Muhammad as a prophet whose actions and revelations often served personal interests and comfort, not higher moral ideals. This challenges the claim of his moral perfection and raises serious questions for those who seek to follow him as the exemplar of human conduct.

Selfishness and insatiability are not prophetic qualities, but rather marks of spiritual deficiency. If these are the characteristics of Muhammad, then serious reconsideration is required regarding his status as a prophet of the living God.

To my Muslim friends, I ask: Can you truly claim that selfishness and personal comfort—traits more aligned with Satan than with the prophets—should be emulated as a model of divine life?

References:

  1. Mohammed Riday, Kitabu cha Historia ya Mtume Muhammad, Mombasa, Kenya, p. 176.

  2. Qur’an, Surah Al-Ahzab 33:53.

  3. The Holy Bible, Matthew 25:35; Hebrews 13:2; John 13:1-17; Matthew 14:13-21.


at No comments:

A Comparative Theological Analysis: The Omnipotence of Jesus Christ and the Qur’anic Limitation of Allah in the Parable of the Camel and the Needle’s Eye

Title:
A Comparative Theological Analysis: The Omnipotence of Jesus Christ and the Qur’anic Limitation of Allah in the Parable of the Camel and the Needle’s Eye

Abstract:
This article examines the contrasting depictions of divine omnipotence in the Qur’an and the New Testament by focusing on the metaphor of the camel passing through the eye of a needle. Specifically, it analyzes Surah Al-A‘raf 7:40 and juxtaposes it with the teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in Titus 2:13, Mark 10:25–27, Luke 18:25, Matthew 19:24, and Ephesians 3:20. The theological implications of these texts are discussed to elucidate the distinct understanding of divine ability within Islamic and Christian frameworks.

Introduction

The question of divine omnipotence occupies a central position in both Islamic and Christian theology. A striking illustration emerges in the parabolic use of the "camel passing through the eye of a needle," a motif that appears in both the Qur’an and the New Testament. This article explores the Qur’anic narrative of this metaphor and compares it with its treatment in the words of Jesus Christ, aiming to uncover deeper theological meanings regarding the nature and limits of divine power.1

Qur’anic Perspective: The Inaccessibility of Paradise for Deniers of God’s Signs

Let us begin by examining the relevant passage from the Qur’an, Surah Al-A‘raf (7:40):

"Indeed, those who deny Our signs and are arrogant towards them—the gates of heaven will not be opened for them, nor will they enter Paradise until the camel passes through the eye of the needle. Thus do We recompense the criminals."
(Qur’an 7:40, Saheeh International)2

This passage asserts that those who reject Allah’s signs will categorically be denied access to Paradise, a prohibition described as so absolute that it would only be reversed if a camel could pass through the eye of a needle—an event that is, by all human reckoning, impossible. The Qur’anic metaphor thus emphasizes the utter impossibility of salvation for those who persistently reject divine revelation.3

The New Testament: Divine Omnipotence in the Teachings of Jesus Christ

In contrast, the New Testament presents the same imagery in a different theological light. Jesus uses the phrase in His teachings about the difficulty of a rich man entering the kingdom of God:

  • Mark 10:25: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."4

  • Luke 18:25: "Indeed, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."5

  • Matthew 19:24: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."6

However, Jesus immediately follows this metaphor with a critical theological assertion regarding divine possibility:

  • Mark 10:27: "Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.’"7

This key distinction establishes that, while human effort is insufficient to achieve what is metaphorically impossible, God’s omnipotence transcends all human limitations.8

Theological Implications: Divine Power in Christianity versus Islam

The Qur’anic statement in Surah Al-A‘raf presents an impossibility as an insurmountable barrier, even by divine decree.9 Conversely, the Christian Scriptures, while affirming the impossibility of the task for humans, assert unequivocally that for God, nothing is impossible (see also Ephesians 3:20: "Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us."10). This claim serves as a cornerstone of Christian faith in the absolute omnipotence of God manifested in Jesus Christ (cf. Titus 2:1311).

Conclusion

A careful comparison of these texts highlights a significant doctrinal divergence between Islam and Christianity regarding the limits—or lack thereof—of divine ability. The Qur’anic text sets an absolute limit for certain sinners, while the New Testament proclaims a God who is unconstrained by any impossibility. Thus, the person of Jesus Christ is presented as possessing the power to accomplish what is otherwise unachievable, affirming His divinity and omnipotence.12

Shalom,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Servant of Jesus Christ, the Most High God (Titus 2:13)

References & Footnotes

If you need this in a different citation style (e.g., APA, Chicago footnotes, SBL), or would like expanded academic references, please specify!

Footnotes

  1. For a broader treatment of comparative monotheism, see: Parrinder, Geoffrey. Jesus in the Qur’an. Oxford: Oneworld, 1995. ↩

  2. The Qur’an, Surah Al-A‘raf 7:40. English translation: Saheeh International. For comparative translations, see also Yusuf Ali and Pickthall editions. ↩

  3. Abdel Haleem, M.A.S., The Qur’an: A New Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 144. ↩

  4. The Holy Bible, Mark 10:25, New International Version (NIV). ↩

  5. The Holy Bible, Luke 18:25, New International Version (NIV). ↩

  6. The Holy Bible, Matthew 19:24, New International Version (NIV). ↩

  7. The Holy Bible, Mark 10:27, New International Version (NIV). For a detailed exegesis, see France, R.T., The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ↩

  8. Wright, N.T., Jesus and the Victory of God, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996, pp. 393–394. ↩

  9. See Rahman, Fazlur. Major Themes of the Qur’an. 2nd Ed., University of Chicago Press, 2009, pp. 130–132. ↩

  10. The Holy Bible, Ephesians 3:20, New International Version (NIV). ↩

  11. The Holy Bible, Titus 2:13, New International Version (NIV). See also Fee, Gordon D., Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. ↩

  12. For a theological discussion on omnipotence, see: Plantinga, Alvin, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977, ch. 2. ↩

at No comments:

The Deity of Truth: A Theological Critique of the Islamic Concept of Allah as a “Deceiver”

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

Throughout history, the nature and character of God have been central to the world’s great monotheistic faiths. However, while both Islam and Christianity profess belief in one God, the conception of God’s character, particularly regarding truthfulness and deception, diverges significantly between the Bible and the Qur’an. This article offers a rigorous theological critique of the Islamic concept of Allah in light of key biblical doctrines, exposing critical incompatibilities and affirming the unique deity of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture.

I. The God of the Bible: The Impossibility of Deceit

In biblical theology, God’s truthfulness is not merely an attribute but an essential aspect of His very being. The Bible insists repeatedly that God cannot lie or act contrary to His own righteous nature:

“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”
Numbers 23:19, KJV 1

Paul reiterates this foundational truth:

“In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.”
Titus 1:2, KJV 2

The writer of Hebrews declares the impossibility of God lying:

“…in which it is impossible for God to lie…”
Hebrews 6:18, ESV 3

These verses collectively reveal that truthfulness is intrinsic to the divine identity. The impossibility of deceit is not a voluntary limitation, but a logical necessity of God’s nature as the ultimate moral being.

II. The Qur’anic Depiction of Allah: The “Best of Deceivers”?

A profound challenge to the biblical doctrine arises in the Qur’an, which describes Allah using terms associated with deception. Consider Surah 3:54:

“And they (the disbelievers) planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners.”
Qur’an 3:54, Sahih International 4

The key Arabic word here is makara, which has a semantic range that includes “to plot,” “to scheme,” “to deceive,” or “to act with guile.” Notably, more literal translations render it:

“And they cheated/deceived and Allah cheated/deceived, and Allah is the best of the cheaters/deceivers.”
Qur’an 3:54, M. A. Samira 5

Classical Islamic commentaries do not dispute the usage of makara in this sense; rather, they interpret Allah’s “deception” as a righteous response to the deception of others. However, from a biblical perspective, such attribution of deceit—even in response to evil—stands in direct contradiction to the holy nature of God.

Other Qur’anic passages echo this troubling attribute:

“And (the unbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed against them: and Allah is the best of schemers.”
Qur’an 8:30, Pickthall 6

The repeated use of makara for Allah’s actions raises critical theological questions: Can the one true God ever justifiably engage in deception? Does moral relativism apply to the divine nature?

III. Satan: The Biblical Paradigm of Deception

In stark contrast to the Qur’anic depiction, the Bible ascribes all deception, cunning, and falsehood to Satan, the great adversary of God and humanity:

“…that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world…”
Revelation 12:9, KJV 7

Jesus further clarifies the origin of all lies:

“You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
John 8:44, ESV 8

Scripture is consistent and absolute: deception is wholly incompatible with the holy nature of God and is the very signature of Satan.

IV. The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ: Sinlessness and Divinity

Remarkably, both the Bible and the Qur’an bear witness to the sinlessness and unique holiness of Jesus Christ:

  • Biblical Testimony

    “He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.”
    1 Peter 2:22, ESV 9
    “Which of you convicts me of sin?”
    John 8:46, ESV
    “…Holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.”
    Hebrews 7:26, ESV

  • Qur’anic Testimony

    “He said: ‘I am only a messenger of thy Lord, to announce to thee the gift of a holy son.’”
    Qur’an 19:19, Yusuf Ali 10

No other prophet—neither Moses, Abraham, Muhammad, nor any other—is described as “holy” or sinless in such absolute terms in either scripture.

Jesus, furthermore, declares Himself to be the personification of truth:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one comes to the Father except through me.”
John 14:6, ESV 11

If perfect truthfulness is the mark of God, and Jesus alone fulfills this without the stain of sin or deceit, then by biblical and Qur’anic testimony, Jesus alone is qualified to be called God.

V. Theological Implications and Critical Reflection

The Qur’an’s depiction of Allah as the “best of deceivers” presents a profound theological crisis. If the standard of deity is set by the biblical revelation—utter moral perfection and incapacity for falsehood—then the Qur’anic Allah cannot be identified as the same God as YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God of the Bible cannot lie. The Qur’anic Allah can and does.

This contrast is not a matter of semantics but of the very essence of God. As C.S. Lewis argued, “If God is not good, then He is not God at all.”12 Any being who deceives, regardless of motivation, cannot be the God of truth and light.

Furthermore, the evidence points unerringly to Jesus Christ, who, according to both sacred texts, is uniquely sinless and absolutely true. As such, the only logical and theological conclusion is that Jesus is indeed God incarnate, and that the standard of deity is met in Him alone.

Conclusion

The integrity of God’s character stands or falls on the issue of truthfulness. The biblical God is a God who cannot lie; the Qur’anic Allah is described as a deceiver. By the standards set in Scripture, only Jesus Christ—the sinless, holy, and truthful Son—is truly God. To worship any other is to exchange the truth of God for a lie.

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Footnotes

For further engagement or scholarly dialogue, please contact Shimba Theological Institute.

Would you like further expansion on any specific subtopic, additional rebuttals to common Islamic objections, or more references from classical Islamic sources?

Footnotes

  1. Numbers 23:19, King James Version (KJV). ↩

  2. Titus 1:2, KJV. ↩

  3. Hebrews 6:18, English Standard Version (ESV). ↩

  4. Qur’an 3:54, Sahih International. See also Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, and Arberry translations for similar renderings. ↩

  5. Qur’an 3:54, M.A. Samira, Literal Translation from Arabic. ↩

  6. Qur’an 8:30, Pickthall. Arabic: وَمَكَرُوا وَمَكَرَ اللَّهُ وَاللَّهُ خَيْرُ الْمَاكِرِينَ ↩

  7. Revelation 12:9, KJV. ↩

  8. John 8:44, ESV. ↩

  9. 1 Peter 2:22, ESV. See also Isaiah 53:9 (LXX and Hebrew). ↩

  10. Qur’an 19:19, Yusuf Ali: غُلَامًا زَكِيًّا (“a holy son”). ↩

  11. John 14:6, ESV. ↩

  12. Paraphrased from C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (HarperCollins, 1952), Book 2, Chapter 2. ↩

at No comments:

Theological and Scientific Critique of Consanguineous Marriages in Islam:

An Academic Analysis of Quran 33:50 and Its Societal Impact

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This article presents a critical theological and scientific analysis of the Islamic allowance of consanguineous marriages, as derived from Quran 33:50 and the prophetic practices of Muhammad. Through exegetical engagement with Islamic texts and interdisciplinary consultation with genetic science, this paper aims to challenge the doctrinal and practical legitimacy of intra-family marriages, highlighting the resultant negative consequences for contemporary Muslim societies.

1. Introduction

Marriage customs are foundational to the ethical, cultural, and biological health of societies. Across history, religious traditions have shaped the parameters of permissible marital unions. In Islam, the Quran and the Hadith corpus provide explicit guidelines concerning the permissibility of marrying relatives, a practice embodied by Muhammad himself. This article critically interrogates the theological rationale behind these allowances and presents a comprehensive analysis of the deleterious effects of such practices, particularly in the light of modern genetics and global health.

2. Quranic Permission for Consanguineous Marriage

Quran 33:50 states:

“O Prophet! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have paid their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to you, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts, who emigrated with you…”
(Sahih International translation)

This verse explicitly permits Muhammad to marry his cousins and by extension, it has shaped Islamic jurisprudence regarding the lawfulness of cousin marriage (consanguinity). Islamic law (fiqh) remains distinctive among world religions for its wide acceptance of intra-familial unions, especially first-cousin marriages (see: Sahih Bukhari 62:27). Muhammad’s own marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh, his paternal cousin (see Quran 33:37), established a direct prophetic precedent.

3. Theological Implications: A Comparative Critique

While Islam authorizes cousin marriages, both Judaism and Christianity, particularly in their later doctrinal and canonical developments, imposed increasing restrictions on such unions. For instance, Leviticus 18:6-18 enumerates prohibited degrees of kinship for marriage, based on the principle of kedushah (holiness/separation). The Christian tradition, especially post-early church councils, further expanded prohibitions on consanguinity to protect both spiritual and physical well-being.

This theological divergence is not arbitrary; it reflects a teleological concern for the integrity and flourishing of the human family as an image-bearing community (Genesis 1:27; 2 Corinthians 6:17). The Islamic position, as reflected in both scripture and prophetic practice, appears more permissive, arguably due to the tribal social structure of 7th-century Arabia, yet this raises ethical and theological questions in the context of God’s design for human health and diversity.

4. Muhammad’s Example and Its Enduring Influence

The personal example of Muhammad, who married Zaynab bint Jahsh (his cousin), serves as the behavioral model for Muslims, as Muhammad is described as uswa hasana—the “beautiful pattern” (Quran 33:21). This prophetic endorsement has perpetuated the practice among Muslims globally. According to the United Nations Population Fund, consanguineous marriage rates in Muslim-majority countries remain significantly higher than in non-Muslim regions, with cousin marriages comprising up to 50% of all unions in some communities (UNFPA, 2022).

5. Scientific and Biological Consequences of Consanguinity

Modern genetics offers a stark warning regarding the practice of marrying close relatives. Consanguineous marriages dramatically increase the risk of congenital disorders and genetic diseases due to the increased probability of inheriting autosomal recessive conditions.

5.1 Genetic Risks

  • Higher Incidence of Birth Defects: Research shows that children born to first-cousin unions have a 2–3 times higher risk of congenital malformations, intellectual disability, and hereditary diseases (Bittles, A.H., 2001, The Lancet).

  • Increased Infant Mortality: Studies indicate higher infant and child mortality rates among populations practicing regular consanguinity.

  • Long-Term Health Burden: Communities with persistent intra-family marriage exhibit higher rates of genetic illnesses (e.g., thalassemia, cystic fibrosis, spinal muscular atrophy).

5.2 Societal and Ethical Impact

The social normalization of consanguineous marriages in Muslim-majority countries perpetuates a cycle of genetic illness and poses ethical questions about the stewardship of human life and health. The World Health Organization and medical ethicists recommend against cousin marriages due to these well-documented risks.

6. Conclusion: Theological and Scientific Responsibility

The Quranic allowance for cousin marriage (Quran 33:50), modeled by Muhammad, has had a lasting and measurable impact on the health of Muslim societies. From a theological perspective, this raises questions about the nature of divine legislation and its consonance with the well-being of humanity. Scientifically, the evidence is unequivocal: intra-family marriages carry grave genetic risks that are neither compatible with the biblical ethos of life preservation nor with modern principles of bioethics.

A Call to Reconsideration

For the sake of public health, theological integrity, and future generations, it is incumbent upon religious scholars, community leaders, and policymakers to reconsider and reformulate marital norms in light of both scriptural evidence and scientific reality. True religion should not perpetuate harm but should uphold the flourishing of the human family in all its diversity.

References

  • The Holy Quran, 33:50, 33:37, 33:21

  • Sahih Bukhari 62:27

  • The Holy Bible, Leviticus 18:6-18, Genesis 1:27, 2 Corinthians 6:17

  • Bittles, A.H. (2001). "Consanguinity and its relevance to clinical genetics." The Lancet, 358(9294), 861-862.

  • United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Consanguineous Marriages Report, 2022.

  • World Health Organization, "Genetic Diseases and Consanguinity," Fact Sheet, 2021.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute


at No comments:

Challenging the Islamic Narrative: Is Islam Truly the Fastest Growing and Oldest Religion?


A Theological and Historical Debate

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The claim that Islam is both the oldest and fastest-growing religion in the world is frequently asserted in Muslim apologetics. Islamic tradition contends that Adam, the first human being, was a Muslim, thereby extending the roots of Islam back to the very beginning of humanity—approximately 6,000 years ago. In contrast, Christianity, as per Muslim narratives, was founded only 2,000 years ago, yet it currently has more adherents worldwide. This article aims to critically examine and debate the veracity of Islamic claims regarding the age and growth of Islam in comparison to Christianity, employing historical data, demographic trends, and theological perspectives.

1. Islamic Claims: Islam from Adam?

Islamic doctrine asserts that all prophets, from Adam to Muhammad, preached "Islam" (submission to the one God). The Qur’an claims, “He [Allah] has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty. It is the religion of your father, Abraham” (Qur’an 22:78), and further, “Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam” (Qur’an 3:19). On this basis, many Muslims maintain that Islam is not merely 1,400 years old (from Muhammad), but as old as humanity itself.

Critical Analysis

This theological assertion, however, is problematic when scrutinized through the lens of historical and textual criticism. No credible archaeological or textual evidence exists to demonstrate that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, or Jesus practiced Islam in the sense understood today (Shahada, Salat, Zakat, Sawm, Hajj). Rather, these figures are situated in different cultural, historical, and theological contexts, each with distinct beliefs, rituals, and scriptures. The retrojection of Islam onto all previous prophets is a theological assertion, not a historical fact.

2. Christianity: Historical Growth and Impact

Christianity, according to most historians, began in the first century AD, with Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples, and rapidly spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. Unlike the Islamic narrative, Christianity’s origins and explosive growth are well-documented in both secular and ecclesiastical history.

Statistical Evidence

  • Christianity has approximately 2.9 billion adherents (Pew Research Center, 2024), making it the largest religion on earth.

  • Islam, with around 1.9 billion adherents, is the second largest.

  • Christianity achieved this growth in less than 2,000 years, compared to Islam’s claim of 6,000 years of existence.

3. The Fallacy of the "Fastest-Growing Religion" Claim

Muslims often claim that Islam is the "fastest-growing religion." This statement is misleading for several reasons:

A. Historical Longevity vs. Membership

If Islam has truly existed since Adam (6,000 years), why does it lag behind Christianity, which is demonstrably younger, in total adherents? Logically, a religion with a 4,000-year head start should have more followers, not fewer. The numbers do not support the narrative of continuous, uninterrupted Islamic faith from Adam onward.

B. Growth Rate Misconceptions

Claims about Islam being the fastest-growing religion often conflate natural population growth in Muslim-majority countries with actual religious conversions. Most demographic studies reveal that the primary driver of Muslim population growth is birth rate, not conversion.

A 2015 Pew Research Center report states:
"Muslims are projected to grow more than twice as fast as the overall world population between 2015 and 2060. But much of this is due to higher fertility rates, not mass conversions."

C. Christianity’s Global Spread

Unlike Islam, Christianity’s growth is marked by massive global missionary efforts and conversions, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In terms of cross-cultural adoption and religious transformation, Christianity has had the most dramatic impact in human history.

4. Theological and Philosophical Objections

A. Redefining "Islam"

Muslim apologists redefine "Islam" as "submission to God," then retroactively apply it to all righteous figures. But this is not what is meant by "Islam" today—a faith defined by the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and specific rituals. Historical Judaism, Christianity, and the ancient faiths of the Near East had fundamentally different beliefs and practices.

B. Contradictions in the Islamic Narrative

If Islam was the original and universal faith, why do we see no evidence of Islamic practices before Muhammad—no mosques, no Qur’an, no record of the Shahada, no Ramadan, no Hajj to Mecca among ancient Israelites or Christians? To claim continuity without evidence is to make an untestable assertion.

5. Conclusion: A Call for Intellectual Honesty

This debate reveals a fundamental weakness in the Islamic apologetic narrative:

  • Historically, Christianity is younger yet outpaces Islam in both adherents and global influence.

  • Demographically, Islam’s growth is primarily due to higher birth rates, not conversions.

  • Theologically, the claim that all prophets were "Muslims" is unsupported by evidence and amounts to anachronistic revisionism.

Therefore, if the criterion for a "fastest-growing" religion is based on total adherents over time, Christianity—not Islam—holds that distinction.

I challenge my Muslim counterparts to present verifiable evidence, not mere assertions, if they wish to maintain their claim. Until then, the logical, historical, and statistical case rests solidly with Christianity.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

References:

  • Pew Research Center, “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050,” 2015; updated data, 2024.

  • The Qur’an, Surah 3:19, 22:78.

  • The Bible, Acts 2:41-47; Matthew 28:19-20.

  • Academic literature on religious demographics and historical origins.


at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

TRENDING NOW