Friday, June 13, 2025

Muhammad and the Violation of the Sixth Commandment: An Academic Theological Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction: The Sixth Commandment in Judeo-Christian Tradition

The Sixth Commandment, as recorded in Exodus 20:13, is explicit: "You shall not murder." This divine mandate stands as a cornerstone of Judeo-Christian ethics, emphasizing the sanctity and inviolability of human life. Jesus Christ, in affirming the Decalogue, reiterated the necessity of adhering to these commandments as a prerequisite for inheriting eternal life (see Matthew 19:16-19, Luke 18:18-20). When asked about attaining eternal life, Christ underscored, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal..." — making these commandments central principles of the Kingdom of God.

Scholarly Investigation: Muhammad and the Violation of "You Shall Not Murder"

This article examines, from a theological and historical perspective, how Muhammad—founder of Islam—stands in direct violation of the Sixth Commandment, not only by sanctioning but also by personally ordering acts of violence, murder, and brutality, including against the elderly and defenseless women.

Case Studies from Islamic Sources

1. The Killing of the Elderly: Umm Qirfa

After the conquest of the Kaaba, Muhammad dispatched his close companion, Zayd ibn Haritha, to suppress a tribe that had resisted conversion to Islam. Zayd’s forces attacked, capturing women and children, and specifically targeting the elderly:

“We attacked them from all sides, fighting fiercely near their wells. We killed some of our enemies and took others captive. I saw a group fleeing, including women and children. I feared they would reach the mountain before me, so I shot an arrow, which landed in front of them, causing them to surrender. I herded them back like livestock.”
(Sahih Muslim 4345)

Among the captives was Umm Qirfa, an elderly woman, who was executed in a gruesome manner. Zayd ibn Haritha ordered her execution by tying each of her legs to a camel and having the camels pulled in opposite directions, tearing her apart.
(Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 980)

Her daughter, Umm Qirfa Fatima, was taken as a captive and later gifted as a slave to Abu Bakr, then eventually claimed by Muhammad himself.
(Sahih Muslim 4345)

2. The Assassination of Abu Afak (Aged 120)

Abu Afak, an elderly man (reportedly 120 years old), was killed for his poetry criticizing Muhammad’s actions in battle:

Muhammad asked, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” One of his followers volunteered and murdered Abu Afak in his sleep.
(Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 995)

3. The Killing of an Elderly Meccan

After the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad reportedly ordered the execution of any non-Muslim who resisted Islam. The Sahih Bukhari records:

“The Prophet recited Surah Najm while lying down. The others did the same except for an old man who took a handful of earth and placed it on his head, saying, ‘This is enough for me.’ Later, I saw him killed as a disbeliever.”
(Bukhari 19:173)

Analysis: Theological and Ethical Implications

Such actions, documented within respected Islamic sources, present a profound ethical and theological challenge. Unlike the teachings of Jesus—who rebuked violence and called for love even toward one’s enemies (Matthew 5:44)—Muhammad’s actions as chronicled in these incidents directly contradict the spirit and letter of the Sixth Commandment.

The murder of non-combatants, the elderly, women, and critics—often in particularly brutal ways—cannot be harmonized with the commandment, “You shall not murder,” nor with the Christian moral tradition. Instead, these events expose a pattern wherein religious authority was used to justify acts that the biblical God, and Christ Himself, explicitly condemned.

Further Scholarly Context

While some Muslim apologists attempt to contextualize or allegorize these events, the historicity of these incidents is affirmed in the earliest Islamic sources (Ibn Ishaq, Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari). The consensus among historians and scholars of Islamic studies is that these acts were not only permitted but commanded by Muhammad, thus presenting a significant theological divergence from the ethics of the Decalogue.

Conclusion

It is, therefore, evident that Muhammad, by both precept and example, violated the Sixth Commandment—"You shall not murder"—through his actions and directives involving the killing of the defenseless and elderly. This stands in stark contrast to the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and the foundational ethical code of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

References:

Exodus 20:13; Matthew 19:16-19; Luke 18:18-20
Sahih Muslim 4345
Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 980, 995
Sahih Bukhari 19:173

Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute
For Max Shimba Ministries Org ©2016. All rights reserved.

This article may be reproduced in full with proper attribution. Alteration is not permitted.

Did Muhammad Break the Eighth Commandment?

A Theological and Scholarly Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The Eighth Commandment, found in Exodus 20:15, is a pillar of Judeo-Christian morality: “You shall not steal.” This commandment upholds the sanctity of private property, condemning theft in all its forms. The question arises: Did Muhammad, the founder of Islam, uphold this commandment, or do his actions and teachings—documented in Islamic sources—constitute a violation? This article explores this question in depth, inviting scholarly debate and comparative analysis.

I. The Biblical Standard: The Eighth Commandment

The commandment “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:19) is unambiguous. In the Torah and throughout the Bible, theft is condemned, whether it is robbery, fraud, kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), or even withholding fair wages (Leviticus 19:13).
Jesus affirmed this law (Matthew 19:18), and Paul warned: “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands” (Ephesians 4:28). Property rights and respect for others' belongings are integral to biblical faith.

II. Muhammad’s Actions in Light of the Eighth Commandment

A. Raids and Distribution of Spoils (Ghanima)

Islamic historical sources describe Muhammad’s participation in caravan raids and battles, particularly after the Hijra to Medina.

The Raid at Nakhla: Early Muslims, under Muhammad’s command, attacked a Meccan caravan during a sacred month, seizing goods and captives (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah).
The Battle of Badr and Distribution of Booty: After victory at Badr, Muhammad divided spoils among his followers and kept a portion for himself (Quran 8:1, 8:41; Sahih al-Bukhari 4273).

Scholarly Debate:

Defenders of Islam argue that these actions were not “theft” but acts of war, sanctioned by revelation, in the context of Arab tribal warfare.
Critics and non-Muslim scholars argue that, regardless of justification, seizing the property of others without consent constitutes theft by biblical and universal moral standards.

B. Quranic Sanction for Plunder

The Quran addresses the question of spoils:

“They ask you (O Muhammad) about the spoils of war. Say: The spoils are for Allah and the Messenger...” (Quran 8:1)
“And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) thereof is assigned to Allah, and to the Messenger...” (Quran 8:41)

This institutionalizes the distribution of seized property. The Hadith further details how Muhammad allotted portions to his family and followers (Sahih Muslim 1758).

C. The Case of Fadak

After the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir was expelled from Medina, Muhammad took possession of their lands without battle (Sahih Muslim 1757). He also took the oasis of Fadak, which became his personal property.

III. Theological Debate: Was This Stealing?

A. The Islamic View

Muslim theologians contend that:

The context of war justifies seizure of enemy property.
Actions sanctioned by “divine command” are not theft but legitimate spoils.
The pre-Islamic Arabian context normalized raids.

B. The Judeo-Christian and Universal Ethical Perspective

The commandment “You shall not steal” is absolute, not subject to context.
Seizing property, land, or goods by force or without due process is theft, regardless of religious justification.
Jesus and the apostles taught radical love for enemies, not plundering them (Matthew 5:44; Romans 12:17-21).

C. Modern Scholarly Analysis

W. Montgomery Watt notes, “The early Muslim raids, though justified in Islamic tradition, would be considered acts of brigandage by contemporary standards” (Muhammad at Medina, 1956).
Alfred Guillaume highlights the pragmatic and economic motivations behind the raids.

IV. Case Study: The Execution of Banu Qurayza and Property Seizure

After the execution of the Banu Qurayza, Muhammad and his followers divided the women, children, and property ([Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah]; Sahih Bukhari 3043).

Biblical Law: Condemns the unjust taking of property, even in war (Deuteronomy 20:10-15 sets standards for war but still expects mercy and restraint).
Question: Can divine sanction be invoked for acts universally recognized as theft?

V. Conclusion: A Call to Honest Debate

Did Muhammad break the Eighth Commandment?

Islamic tradition claims divine sanction overrides human law, but from the perspective of the Bible and universal ethics, the taking of property by force is theft.
Christianity’s ethic forbids stealing, justifying violence or theft by divine right is rejected.

Final Questions for Debate:

Does divine command ever justify theft, or is the commandment absolute?
Should morality be context-dependent or universal?
If Muhammad is claimed to be a prophet in the biblical line, should his actions be held to the standard of the Ten Commandments?

References:

The Holy Bible (Exodus 20:15, Ephesians 4:28)
The Quran (8:1, 8:41, 59:6-7)
Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah
W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina
Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
For open and scholarly debate in pursuit of truth.

Did Muhammad Break the Tenth Commandment?

A Scholarly and Theological Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction: The Tenth Commandment in Biblical Theology

The Tenth Commandment, as found in Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21, reads:

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

Coveting is fundamentally an issue of the heart—a desire for what rightfully belongs to another. This commandment is unique in its inward focus, emphasizing not just action but internal intent and desire. In Christian tradition, coveting is seen as the root of many outward sins, linking the Tenth Commandment to the spirit of all others.

Islamic View: Desire, Possession, and Prophetic Privilege

Islam, as taught in the Qur’an and Hadith, also warns against envy (hasad) and excessive worldly desire. However, the prophetic biography of Muhammad presents several narratives that raise important theological questions for interfaith dialogue. The core question is: Did Muhammad, as described in Islamic sources, transgress the heart and spirit of the Tenth Commandment?

Debate Framework: Comparative Analysis

Affirmative Position: Evidence That Muhammad Broke the Tenth Commandment

The Incident of Zayd and Zaynab (Qur’an 33:36-40)
- Biblical Parallels: The most direct challenge arises from Muhammad’s marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh, formerly the wife of his adopted son, Zayd bin Harithah. Early Islamic sources (see Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Tafsir Ibn Kathir) record that Muhammad saw Zaynab and was struck by her beauty. Subsequently, Zayd divorced her and Muhammad married her by divine command (Qur’an 33:37).
- Theological Critique: Critics argue this event exemplifies coveting another’s wife, violating the Tenth Commandment’s explicit prohibition. While Islam permits marriage after divorce, the sequence of admiration, divorce, and remarriage raises suspicion of covetous intent.
- Moral and Prophetic Example: In the Bible, King David’s coveting Bathsheba leads to condemnation and judgment (2 Samuel 11–12). Should not Muhammad, as the “Seal of the Prophets,” be held to the same moral standard?
Prophetic Privileges and Possession (Qur’an 33:50)
- Sexual and Material Privileges: The Qur’an grants Muhammad unique privileges regarding women and property not afforded to other Muslims (Qur’an 33:50, 4:3; Hadith in Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari). Critics claim these privileges reflect a desire for what others possess and institutionalize covetousness at the highest level.
- Envy or Divine Exception? Detractors argue that invoking divine sanction for personal benefit is a spiritual violation of the Tenth Commandment’s prohibition against covetousness.
Spoils of War and Property (Qur’an 8:41; 59:6-7)
- Distribution of Spoils: Muhammad’s share of war spoils (fay’) is outlined in Qur’anic verses, often favoring the Prophet himself. Critics see this as further evidence of covetous acquisition, justified by revelation.

Negative Position: Islamic Defense and Contextualization

Islamic Ethics on Desire and Justice
- Distinction Between Desire and Action: Islamic jurisprudence distinguishes between fleeting desire (which is not blameworthy) and acting upon sinful covetousness. Defenders argue that Muhammad’s actions were governed by divine instruction, not personal greed.
- Marriage to Zaynab: Muslim scholars maintain that the marriage to Zaynab was divinely ordained to abrogate the Arab taboo against marrying an adopted son’s former wife, not driven by lust or covetousness. The Qur’an presents it as a legal reform, not personal desire (Qur’an 33:37).
- Prophetic Infallibility: Islamic theology posits the infallibility (ismah) of prophets, asserting that any act is by Allah’s will and beyond moral reproach by human standards.
Differentiating Old Testament and Qur’anic Law
- No Identical Prohibition: Some apologists assert that while the Qur’an warns against envy and injustice, it does not codify the Tenth Commandment as found in the Torah. Thus, Muhammad cannot be measured by Biblical standards alien to the Islamic worldview.
- Ethical Context: The socio-historical context of 7th-century Arabia differs from that of Israel under Moses. Actions taken by Muhammad must be understood within their historical and legal context.

Critical Evaluation: Which Standard Applies?

Universal Moral Law or Relative Ethics?
The debate hinges on whether the Tenth Commandment represents a universal moral law binding on all true prophets, or whether prophetic actions are contextually exempt under new dispensations.
The Problem of Prophetic Example:
If Muhammad’s example contradicts the ethical standard given by previous prophets (such as Moses and Jesus), what does this say about his claim to be the final and greatest messenger?
Spiritual Integrity:
The commandment against coveting is ultimately about the alignment of the heart with God’s will. Did Muhammad, by his actions as preserved in Islamic tradition, demonstrate or contradict this standard?

Conclusion: An Invitation to Further Dialogue

This analysis, rooted in both scriptural comparison and historical critique, challenges the Islamic position on prophetic conduct and the integrity of Muhammad’s example regarding the Tenth Commandment. For Christians, the issue is not merely legalistic, but profoundly spiritual—centered on whether the prophetic heart reflects God’s character.

Questions for Debate:

Should Muhammad’s actions be judged by the ethical standards of the Ten Commandments?
Do the incidents recorded in Islamic tradition constitute a breach of the Tenth Commandment?
Is divine privilege a valid exemption from moral law, or does it expose a theological double standard?

References:

The Holy Bible: Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21; 2 Samuel 11–12
The Qur’an: 4:3, 8:41, 33:36-50, 59:6-7
Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabari
Jonathan A.C. Brown, Misquoting Muhammad (Oneworld, 2014)
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith
Norman L. Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

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

Sahih al-Bukhari: Hadiths 2731, 3186, 4199, 4832, 114, 4431, 4425.
Sahih Muslim: Hadiths 1784, 2092, 537.
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, tr. A. Guillaume.
Al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Tabari (on Qur’an 29:48).
Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Mecca, 1953.
Guillaume, Alfred, Islam, 1954.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

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:

Tafsir Ibn Kathir Archive: See the section on Surah Ya-Sin, verses 13–17.
QuranX Tafsir: English translation and commentary.

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

Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Surah Ya-Sin 36:13-17, QuranX.
Tafsir al-Tabari 20:500.
Tafsir al-Qurtubi (on Surah Ya-Sin).
Sahih Muslim, Book 30, Hadith 5836.
Al-Tabari, Tārīkh al-Rusul wa’l-Mulūk.
Ibn Ishaq, as cited in Ibn Kathir, al-Bidāya wa’l-Nihāya.
Ibn Kathir Archive, Internet Archive.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

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

Sahih al-Bukhari 4428
Sahih Muslim 5840
Sunan Abu Dawood 4512
The Qur’an: 2:20, 2:106, 6:61, 2:186, 8:17, 69:44-46
The Bible: Daniel 6:22, 1 Kings 17:21-22, John 10:18

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

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:

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

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?
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.
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

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:

If the Bible is corrupted, quoting it proves nothing.
If the Bible is not corrupted, Islam must be judged by its witness.
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

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:

Mohammed Riday, Kitabu cha Historia ya Mtume Muhammad, Mombasa, Kenya, p. 176.
Qur’an, Surah Al-Ahzab 33:53.
The Holy Bible, Matthew 25:35; Hebrews 13:2; John 13:1-17; Matthew 14:13-21.

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!

For a broader treatment of comparative monotheism, see: Parrinder, Geoffrey. Jesus in the Qur’an. Oxford: Oneworld, 1995. ↩
The Qur’an, Surah Al-A‘raf 7:40. English translation: Saheeh International. For comparative translations, see also Yusuf Ali and Pickthall editions. ↩
Abdel Haleem, M.A.S., The Qur’an: A New Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 144. ↩
The Holy Bible, Mark 10:25, New International Version (NIV). ↩
The Holy Bible, Luke 18:25, New International Version (NIV). ↩
The Holy Bible, Matthew 19:24, New International Version (NIV). ↩
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. ↩
Wright, N.T., Jesus and the Victory of God, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996, pp. 393–394. ↩
See Rahman, Fazlur. Major Themes of the Qur’an. 2nd Ed., University of Chicago Press, 2009, pp. 130–132. ↩
The Holy Bible, Ephesians 3:20, New International Version (NIV). ↩
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. ↩
For a theological discussion on omnipotence, see: Plantinga, Alvin, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977, ch. 2. ↩