Thursday, July 10, 2025

Muhammad’s Insult and Curse Against an Orphan: An Interfaith Perspective on Ethical Speech

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Muhammad’s Insult and Curse Against an Orphan: An Interfaith Perspective on Ethical Speech

Introduction

Religious texts and traditions play a pivotal role in shaping the moral and ethical outlook of their adherents. The teachings of both Islam and Christianity strongly emphasize compassion, kindness, and the sanctity of speech—particularly toward the vulnerable in society, such as orphans. However, historical and scriptural records sometimes reveal instances where even revered figures are portrayed in ways that challenge contemporary ethical expectations. One such instance is recorded in Islamic sources, where the Prophet Muhammad is said to have insulted and cursed an orphan child. This episode invites critical reflection not only on the figure of Muhammad but also on the ethical standards upheld by the world’s major religions.

The Incident as Reported in Islamic Tradition

The Sahih Muslim collection, regarded as one of the most authoritative compilations of Hadith in Sunni Islam, records an event in which the Prophet Muhammad insulted and cursed an orphan who was in the care of Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik (Sahih Muslim, Book 32, Hadith 6297). The implications of this narration are significant, given the high esteem in which orphans are generally held within the Qur’anic and Prophetic traditions, and the explicit warnings against mistreating them (Qur’an 93:9–10).

The Universal Prohibition of Abusive Speech

Islamic Perspective

It is noteworthy that the ethical teachings of Islam strongly prohibit the use of abusive or insulting language. The Prophet Muhammad himself is reported to have stated:

“Indeed, a true believer is neither a slanderer, nor one who curses others, nor is he indecent or foul-mouthed.”
(Musnad Ahmad, Volume 1, Page 416, Hadith Number 3948)

This hadith underscores the foundational Islamic virtue of speaking kindly and refraining from verbal abuse, cursing, or slander. The Qur’an itself commands believers to “speak to people good words” (Qur’an 2:83), and repeatedly extols those who restrain their anger and forgive others (Qur’an 3:134).

Christian Perspective

Christian ethics similarly maintain a high standard for speech and interpersonal conduct. The Apostle Paul, addressing the church in Ephesus, instructs:

“Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice.”
(Ephesians 4:31, NKJV)

This call is echoed throughout the New Testament, as followers of Christ are admonished to build others up through their words (Ephesians 4:29) and to imitate the humility and gentleness of Christ himself (Philippians 2:5).

The Consequences of Abusive Speech: Divine Judgment

Both traditions warn of divine judgment for those who persist in abusive language and conduct.

Islamic Warnings

Despite the troubling hadith in Sahih Muslim, the wider corpus of Islamic teachings presents a consistent warning against cursing and slander. The Prophet Muhammad is often depicted as embodying patience and mercy, especially toward children and orphans. Muslims are instructed to follow these ethical standards, with the understanding that God is both Just and Merciful, and that “whoever does an atom’s weight of evil will see it” (Qur’an 99:8).

Christian Teachings

The Apostle Paul is unequivocal in his warnings regarding the eternal consequences of unrepentant sin, including verbal abuse:

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers [abusive talkers], nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
(1 Corinthians 6:9–10, ESV)

This stern admonition underscores that verbal abuse—categorized here as “revilers” or those who insult—can disqualify a person from inheriting the Kingdom of God if not repented of.

Ethical and Interfaith Reflections

The incident recorded in Sahih Muslim raises important questions about the application of religious teachings and the moral accountability of religious leaders. Both Islamic and Christian traditions agree: insults, curses, and abusive language are antithetical to authentic faith. The episode serves as a reminder for all believers to scrutinize their own speech, attitudes, and actions—especially towards the marginalized and vulnerable, such as orphans.

In interfaith dialogue, these common ethical imperatives can serve as a foundation for mutual respect and moral accountability. As religious communities, we must uphold and promote the values of kindness, respect, and compassion in both word and deed.

Conclusion and Benediction

Let us be reminded that knowledge is to be shared with respect and humility. The teachings of the great faith traditions converge on the principle that our words have the power to bless or to harm, to build up or to destroy. May we all strive to embody the highest ideals of our faiths, treating every human being with dignity and love.

May God bless you all.

Dr. Max Shimba,
Servant of Jesus Christ, the Great God (cf. Titus 2:13)
For Max Shimba Ministries Org

Copyright Statement:
MAX SHIMBA MINISTRIES ORG ©2016. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Generated image

Did Allah Identify Muhammad as a False Prophet?

Debate:

Presented by Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

This debate seeks to rigorously examine the controversial claim that the Qur’an and authentic Hadiths provide evidence for Muhammad being identified as a false prophet by Allah Himself. The discussion will present both sides of the argument, encouraging scholarly discourse and critical engagement with the primary Islamic sources.

Proposition: The Qur’an and Hadith Indicate Muhammad Was a False Prophet

A. Scriptural Evidence from the Qur’an

The Qur’an provides the following passage:

“And if [the Messenger] had made up about Us some [false] sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand; then We would have cut from him the aorta.”
(Qur’an 69:44–46, Sahih International Translation)

Analysis:
This text is unambiguous: If Muhammad, the Messenger, were to fabricate revelations, Allah would punish him by cutting his "aorta," the main artery of the heart, a fatal blow. This establishes a divine litmus test for prophetic authenticity—should Muhammad die by such means, it could be perceived as evidence of divine judgment.

B. Testimony from Hadith Literature

1. Sahih Bukhari 5:59:713

At the end of his life, Muhammad reportedly said:

“I feel as if my aorta is being cut from this poison.”

2. Abu Dawud 34:4498

Another narration echoes this:

“I feel as if my aorta is being severed.”

Analysis:
According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad died after suffering for some time from the effects of poisoning. His own words invoke the very sign outlined in the Qur’an—his aorta being cut—which could be interpreted as fulfillment of Allah’s stated method of dealing with a false prophet.

C. The Logical Question

If the Qur’an states that a false prophet’s aorta will be cut, and Muhammad himself claimed such an experience as he died, does this not constitute evidence, by the Qur’an’s own standard, that he was a false prophet?
Why then do Muslims continue to follow Muhammad if, by this standard, he fits the Qur’an’s definition of a false prophet?

Counterargument: Orthodox Islamic Response

A balanced debate must present counterpoints as articulated by Muslim scholars and apologists.

A. Context and Interpretation

Muslim scholars argue that Qur’an 69:44–46 is a hypothetical warning, not a prophecy or historical prediction. The purpose of the passage is to underscore the severity of fabricating revelation, not to assert that Muhammad would actually do so. There is no evidence, they maintain, that Muhammad invented revelation.

B. Nature of Muhammad’s Death

Muslim tradition holds that Muhammad’s death was ultimately natural, even though he suffered effects from poison. The mention of the aorta is metaphorical, describing the intensity of pain rather than a literal fulfillment of the Qur’anic warning.

Scholarly References:

Ibn Kathir and Tafsir al-Jalalayn both emphasize the hypothetical nature of Qur’an 69:44–46.
The poisoning incident (after the Battle of Khaybar) did not immediately cause Muhammad’s death, but only weakened him over time, according to most biographical sources.

C. Prophet as Martyr

Some Islamic scholars reinterpret Muhammad’s suffering from poison as a sign of his status as a martyr (shahid), rather than as evidence of falsity or divine punishment.

D. Theological Safeguards

Muslims cite numerous other Qur’anic passages declaring Muhammad as a true prophet (e.g., Qur’an 33:40, 7:157).
The verse is considered part of the Qur’an’s rhetorical style, warning not only Muhammad but all would-be false prophets throughout history.

Rebuttal: Critical Reflections

Literal vs. Metaphorical:
The Hadiths indicate that Muhammad himself invoked the language of the Qur’anic warning at his death. The coincidence invites further scrutiny as to whether this can be dismissed as merely metaphorical.
Consistency of Standards:
If a clear sign is given in scripture, and the sign is reportedly fulfilled, is it intellectually honest to reinterpret that sign only when it becomes problematic for doctrinal beliefs?
Burden of Proof:
If the Qur’an sets a test for a false prophet, should it not be applied consistently, even if the results are uncomfortable?

Conclusion

This debate illustrates the complexity of interpreting scriptural texts and historical reports. The question remains deeply challenging:

Does the conjunction of Qur’an 69:44–46 and Muhammad’s own death testimony suggest, by the Qur’an’s own standard, that he was a false prophet?
Or does orthodox Islamic exegesis satisfactorily explain away the apparent contradiction?

Scholars and seekers are encouraged to examine the evidence with intellectual honesty, utilizing rigorous critical methodologies and a commitment to truth.

References

The Qur’an, Sahih International translation.
Sahih Bukhari 5:59:713.
Abu Dawud 34:4498.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Jalalayn.
Sirat Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari’s History.

Question for Further Debate:
Should one accept a religious claim solely on faith, or must it be tested against the explicit standards set by its own scriptures?

Generated image

Do You Understand Why Aisha, the Wife of Muhammad, Committed Adultery with Safwan ibn al-Muattal?

Friday, August 26, 2016
Do You Understand Why Aisha, the Wife of Muhammad, Committed Adultery with Safwan ibn al-Muattal?

Furthermore, why did Aisha refuse to bear children for Muhammad?

It is common to hear Muslims boast that Aisha is the "Mother of the Believers," meaning the Mother of Muslims. A companion of Muhammad, Amr bin Al-Aas, once asked the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him):
“O Prophet of Allah, which of your wives do you love the most?”
The Prophet Muhammad replied, “Aisha.”
As we read above, Muhammad loved Aisha more than all his other wives.

However:

Aisha, the daughter of Abu Bakr, was discovered engaging in sexual relations with Safwan bin al-Muattal.

It is narrated by Ibn Hisham and by Ibn Ishaq that Aisha was caught in adultery (“zina”) with Safwan ibn al-Muattal, one of the companions of Muhammad. This event, commonly referred to as the “Safwan Incident,” took place in Medina. News of the incident spread throughout the city, prompting the Prophet of Allah to send Aisha back to her parents’ home.

Ali, who was Muhammad’s cousin and the husband of his daughter Fatimah, reportedly advised Muhammad to divorce Aisha to conceal the great shame caused by the accusation of adultery.

This is a highly sensitive secret among Muslims, and there is a reluctance to acknowledge that Aisha committed adultery with Safwan ibn al-Muattal, leading Muhammad to return her to her parents.

If Aisha was so dearly loved by Muhammad above all his other wives, why did she decide to commit adultery with Safwan ibn al-Muattal?

This was a great calamity for Muhammad and the Muslim community.

Perhaps this explains why Aisha refused to bear children with Muhammad—or perhaps it was due to Muhammad’s own misconduct, including his alleged sexual relations with his female slaves (see: Islam Watch article).

The Muslims of Medina, led by Abdullah bin Ubai, publicly declared that Lady Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) had committed adultery with Safwan. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) heard these accusations, he summoned his companions to consult with them on what action to take, and some advised him to divorce her. The Prophet visited Aisha and told her:
“If you are not guilty, then surely Allah will acquit you; but if you are, then seek forgiveness from your Lord.”

Aisha wept and asked her parents for forgiveness for the adultery she allegedly committed with Safwan, but her parents had nothing to say in her defense.

References:

Ibn Sa’d, Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 8 (Arabic)
Ibn Hisham, Sira al-Nabawiyya (Arabic)
Dr. Sami Alrabaa, Karen in Saudi Arabia
Sahih al-Bukhari, Chapter of Washing, narrated by Anas (Arabic)
Al-Lulu wa Al-Marjan fima ittafaqa alayhi al-shaykhan: Muslim and Bukhari, Hadith No. 168; 173 (Arabic)

Questions for Reflection:

Why did Aisha refuse to have children with Muhammad, the Prophet of Allah, especially knowing that Muhammad loved her so dearly?
How do these incidents influence our understanding of Islamic history and the character of its central figures?

With all due respect to all Muslims, it is evident that this religion is filled with many oddities and contradictions.

Source: www.maxshimbaministries.org
Posted on August 26, 2016

For further academic discussion, these accounts should be critically examined in light of classical Islamic sources, modern scholarship, and the historical context in which they were written.

Generated image

Would Moses Condemn Muhammad?

A Comprehensive Theological and Legal Analysis of Muhammad’s Violations of the Mosaic Law

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

8. Patristic Commentary: The Early Church on Prophets, Law, and Novel Revelation

8.1. Early Christian Attitudes Toward Prophetic Succession

a) Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 CE)

In Against Heresies (Book IV, ch. 33), Irenaeus emphasizes the unity and consistency of God’s revelation:
“The law and the prophets and the evangelists and the apostles…proclaimed one and the same God, perfect, just, and good.”
Irenaeus repeatedly asserts that true prophets confirm and do not contradict the Torah:
“The coming of the Son of God was prepared by the Law and the Prophets.”

b) Tertullian (c. 155–240 CE)

In Prescription Against Heretics (ch. 6–7), Tertullian warned:
“No man is wise, no man is holy, except the man who is a disciple of the Law and the Prophets.”
Tertullian sees any later prophet or teacher who seeks to “introduce another rule of faith” as a heretic and a corrupter of God’s original message.

c) Origen (c. 184–253 CE)

In his Contra Celsum (Book V), Origen defends the continuity and completeness of Mosaic revelation, insisting that all new claims must be measured by the “pattern given in the Law and Prophets.”

d) John of Damascus (c. 676–749 CE)

In Fount of Knowledge (Book II: Heresies), John of Damascus, who lived after the rise of Islam, directly addressed Muhammad, calling him “the false prophet” who “having no miracles to show for himself, says that God gave him this written book [the Qur’an].”
John accuses Muhammad of introducing doctrines “in direct contradiction to the Law and the Prophets,” and saw Islam as a post-Christian heresy, judged by the standards of biblical revelation.

8.2. Patristic Summary

The Church Fathers—unanimous in their respect for the Mosaic Law—set a hermeneutical rule:
Any prophet or teacher whose doctrine contradicts, adds to, or subtracts from the Mosaic Law is to be rejected.
For them, Jesus fulfilled rather than abrogated the Law (Matt. 5:17–18). All later claims of prophecy must align with the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).

9. Rabbinic Commentary: Talmud, Midrash, and Medieval Jewish Thought

9.1. The Talmud: Testing Prophets and Prophecy

a) Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 90a–99b

The Talmud is clear that the Torah is eternal and unchangeable (Sanhedrin 99a):
“He who says, ‘The entire Torah is from Heaven except one verse…’—such a one has despised the word of the Lord.”
Sanhedrin 90a–93b: If a prophet’s message contravenes the Torah, even if accompanied by miracles, he is a false prophet and liable to death.
- “If he seeks to uproot even a single commandment, he is a false prophet.”

b) Maimonides (Rambam, 1135–1204)

In his Mishneh Torah, Laws of Foundations of the Torah, ch. 9–10:
- “If a prophet arises and performs a sign or wonder and says that God sent him to add to or to detract from a commandment…he is a false prophet.”
- “Even if he performs a sign, listen not to him.”
In Epistle to Yemen, Maimonides identifies Muhammad as a “madman” who “added to and took away from the Torah” and thus cannot be accepted by the people of Israel.

c) Rashi (1040–1105)

On Deut. 13:2: “Even if he gives you a sign or a wonder…you shall not listen… For the Lord your God is testing you.”
Rashi affirms that the test of a prophet is absolute loyalty to the Torah, regardless of signs or wonders.

9.2. Midrashic and Later Rabbinic Thought

Midrash Tanchuma, Re’eh 13: “There will arise prophets who will say, ‘Let us go after other gods.’ The sign is not a proof, for the Law is above signs.”
Rabbi Saadia Gaon (882–942): In The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Gaon maintains that only Moses had direct, unmediated prophecy; all others are subordinate and must conform to his Law.

9.3. Jewish Evaluation of Later Claimants

General rabbinic opinion (from Maimonides to modern times) is that any claimant to prophecy who advocates abrogation or alteration of the Torah is a navi sheker (false prophet).
Notably, both Islam and Christianity are viewed as forms of sheker (false doctrine) where they diverge from Mosaic law. (See Letter to Yemen, Maimonides; Kuzari by Judah Halevi.)

9.4. Rabbinic Summary

Jewish tradition is explicit:
The Torah is perfect, eternal, and unchangeable.
Any prophet, no matter what signs he claims or performs, who seeks to alter the Torah or its commandments is to be rejected and, under Mosaic jurisdiction, put to death.

10. Synthesis: The Voice of Moses, the Fathers, and the Sages

The combined witness of the Mosaic Law, the Patristic Fathers, and the Rabbinic Sages establishes a consistent rule of judgment:

The Law of Moses is the absolute standard by which all future claims of revelation are measured.
Muhammad’s teachings—introducing new laws, rituals, and a different concept of God—would be judged by Moses, the Church Fathers, and the rabbis alike as a clear breach, meriting condemnation.
The patristic and rabbinic consensus is unwavering: fidelity to Torah is the litmus test for prophetic authenticity.

11. Conclusion

The biblical, patristic, and rabbinic traditions are united:

The Torah is inviolable;
Any prophet contradicting or abrogating it is a false prophet, regardless of signs or claims;
Muhammad, by his teaching and example, would have been judged and condemned under Mosaic Law, and declared false by the spiritual heirs of Moses in both the Synagogue and the Church.

Expanded Bibliography

Patristic Sources:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies
Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics
Origen, Contra Celsum
John of Damascus, Fount of Knowledge

Rabbinic and Medieval Jewish Sources:

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 90a–99b
Rashi, Commentary on the Torah
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah and Epistle to Yemen
Saadia Gaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions
Midrash Tanchuma
Judah Halevi, Kuzari

Islamic Sources:

The Qur’an
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah
Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim

Modern Scholarship:

Mark Durie, Revelation? Do We Worship the Same God?
Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Generated image

How Did the Satanic Verses Enter Muhammad’s Mouth?

Friday, August 26, 2016

Introduction

Muslims are often quick to tell others that God allowed the Bible to be corrupted. Their underlying claim is that the Qur’an, as it exists today, is a reliable word of God, unlike the Bible. While the Bible indeed has many variant manuscripts with minor differences, the evidence for doctrinal corruption is weak. In contrast, the Qur’an itself demonstrates significant evidence of alteration, according to sources such as Ubayy, abrogated verses, ‘Uthman’s recension, and other problems. However, perhaps the greatest doctrinal difference brought forth by Muslims themselves concerns the so-called “Daughters of Allah.”

Summary

The Christian website Answering Islam states:
“One of the most embarrassing events in Muhammad’s life occurred when Satan inserted his words into Muhammad’s mouth, and Muhammad spoke Satan’s words as if they were from God. This incident has been recorded in Islamic literature by several early Muslim authors and is mentioned in both the Hadith and the Qur’an. Later Muslims, ashamed that their self-declared prophet spoke the words of Satan, have tried to deny that this event happened. Many excuses and denials have been made by these later Muslims to cover up the grave sin of Muhammad.”

It is important to note that the event of the “Satanic Verses” is not a fabrication by non-Muslims. It is recorded in the oldest available Islamic sources, contemporary with Muhammad’s lifetime. No one should think this is a tale invented by critics of Islam; it is found directly in early Islamic records.

This is one of the most controversial subjects within Islam. Satan caused Muhammad to utter his (Satan’s) words as if they were from God.

What Did the Qur’an Say Originally?

Surah An-Najm (The Star), Surah 53:19-20 states:
“Have you considered al-Lat and al-‘Uzza, and another, the third (goddess), Manat?”

Allah was already famous in Arabia before Islam, known as a deity with three daughters: al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat (note that “al-” means “the” in Arabic). Four early biographers of Muhammad wrote that these verses were originally followed by:

“These are the exalted cranes (intercessors) whose intercession is to be hoped for.”

Interpretation: The Daughters of Allah were believed to be celestial beings who could intercede on behalf of others. The “exalted cranes” was a metaphor for them. Alternate translations for “to be hoped for” (“turtaja”) include “whose intercession is approved” (“turtada”). (From Alfred Guillaume’s translation of The Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq, p.166.)

Later, this passage was removed and replaced with:

“Is the male for you and the female for Him? That, then, is an unjust division.” (Surah 53:21-22 today)

Interpretation: Those who believed Allah had three daughters were unjust to Allah, preferring sons for themselves while attributing only daughters to Allah.

These are the so-called “Satanic Verses.” In modern times, Salman Rushdie used this phrase in the title of his fictional novel, but this writing does not discuss the contemporary controversy. For the original Satanic Verses, how can any fair-minded person, Muslim or not, determine which verses were present originally? The remainder of this article provides direct and indirect evidence that the Satanic Verses were indeed present, as well as nine Islamic objections.

The Four Early Biographers of Muhammad: Direct Evidence

While not everything early Muslims said about Muhammad is necessarily true, Islamic scholars generally accept things attributed to Muhammad that are confirmed by at least three sources. We know the Satanic Verses did not originate from non-Muslim sources but from four distinct early Muslim biographers. Notably, three of these authors wrote before the major Sunni hadith collections.

1. Al-Wahidi/Waqidi (d. 207/823 CE) – Asbab al-Nuzul

“One day, the chiefs of Mecca gathered beside the Ka‘bah and discussed their city’s affairs; Muhammad appeared and sat near them in a friendly manner, beginning to recite Surah 53. When he reached the verses: ‘Have you considered al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat, the third, the other?’ the devil suggested words of reconciliation he had long desired, placing in his mouth words eagerly awaited from God: ‘These are the exalted cranes, whose intercession is to be hoped for.’ The Quraysh rejoiced at this acceptance of their deities, and as Muhammad concluded the Surah, the entire gathering prostrated together. That evening Gabriel visited him and, after Muhammad recited the Surah, said, ‘What have you done? You recited to the people what I did not bring to you!’ Muhammad was grieved…”

2. Ibn Sa‘d (d. 230/845 CE) – Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir

Ibn Sa‘d, familiar with al-Wahidi’s work, was himself a biographer and author of a 15-volume history.

3. Ibn Ishaq (d. 145/767 or 151/773 CE) – Sirat Rasul Allah

“[The emigrants] remained in [Ethiopia] until they heard that the people of Mecca had accepted Islam. This was because Surah An-Najm had been revealed and recited by Muhammad. A believer and a polytheist listened in silence as he said: ‘Have you considered al-Lat and al-‘Uzza?’ All listened intently; when believers heard the ‘satanic suggestion,’ some reverted to idolatry, saying: ‘By Allah, we will serve them so they may bring us closer to Allah.’ Satan taught these two verses to all idolaters, who grasped them easily. This distressed the Prophet until Gabriel visited and complained…” (Transmission chain: Yazid bin Ziyad → Muhammad bin Ishaq → Salama → Ibn Hamid → Ibn Ishaq)

4. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 923 CE) – History of the Prophets and Kings, vol. 6, pp. 108-110

“When the Messenger of God saw his people turning away, he wished in his heart for a revelation that would reconcile them. Upon reaching: ‘Have you considered al-Lat and al-Uzza, and Manat, the third, the other?’ Satan interjected, because of his inner deliberations, the words: ‘These are the exalted cranes whose intercession is to be hoped for.’ The Quraysh rejoiced, believing their gods were affirmed, and the Muslims, trusting their Prophet, did not doubt him. Later Gabriel came and said: ‘Muhammad, what have you done? You recited to the people what I did not bring to you…’”

Other Early Islamic Scholars Who Mentioned This Event

Abu Ma’shar of Khorasan (787–885 CE)
Ibn Abi Hatim
Ibn al-Mundhir
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (773–852 CE)
Ibn Mardawayh
Musa ibn ‘Uqba
Zamakhshari’s commentary on Surah 22:52 (1070–1143 CE)

(Sources: The Book of the Major Classes, translated by S. Moinul ‘Haq)

Indirect Evidence from the Qur’an and Hadith

Sahih al-Bukhari (d. 870 CE) records that when Muhammad recited Surah An-Najm, both pagans and Muslims prostrated (vol. 3, book 19, nos. 173 & 176; vol. 6, book 60, nos. 385–386; Abu Dawud vol. 1, book 2, chapter 481, no. 1401). Pagans are not known to have prostrated for any other Qur’anic recitation. Why this one, unless the recitation included affirmation of their deities?

Surah 22:52 says:
“We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he desired, Satan threw [some suggestion] into his desire; but Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in, then Allah makes precise His verses.”

Surah 17:73–75 states:
“They almost lured you away from what We have revealed to you, so that you would invent something else against Us; then they would have taken you as a friend. And if We had not strengthened you, you would almost have inclined to them a little. Then We would have made you taste double punishment in life and double after death. Then you would not find for yourself against Us a helper.”

Note: Although some claim that Surah 17:73–75 was revealed during the “Isra and Mi’raj,” both Tabari and Ibn Sa’d state it was revealed around the time of the Satanic Verses. Muslims even have a specific word for satanic whispering, “waswas,” echoing this concept.

Nine Common Muslim Objections and Scholarly Responses

Objection 1: Only eleven early authorities mention the Satanic Verses; others, such as Imam Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Nasai, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Ibn Hisham, do not.

Response: Many hadiths are not found in every collection. For example, Bukhari contains long hadiths absent from Muslim. Ibn Hisham, who used Ibn Ishaq’s work, omitted the Satanic Verses section because he considered it problematic. If he was too embarrassed to include it, this omission is not proof of its non-occurrence.

Objection 2: The alleged Satanic Verses do not fit with the rest of Surah 53.

Response: The current text replaced the original, and parts of a surah were sometimes revealed at different times. We do not know if the entirety of Surah 53, post verse 22, was written at once. Verses 51–53 seem out of place, as they address Muhammad personally.

Objection 3: Surah 53:19–21 may have been revealed before the verses about Satanic whisperings.

Response: Tabari and Ibn Sa’d say they were revealed simultaneously with Surah 17:73–75. Exact timings are uncertain, but even if revealed earlier, this does not negate the content. If Muslims trust the Qur’an, including Surah 17:73–75 and 22:52, they must accept that Satan can insert words into revelation.

Objection 4: The Satanic Verses contradict monotheism, which Muhammad consistently taught.

Response: Muhammad is not shown to have been perfectly consistent. Bukhari (vol. 4, book 54, no. 490; vol. 8, book 53, no. 400) records he was bewitched for a time. These biographers were still Muslims, indicating that people followed Muhammad even if he erred.

Objection 5: Many verses state that Muhammad could not speak falsely, so this story is incompatible.

Response: The claim is that Satan, not Muhammad, produced the false verses. The Qur’an’s preservation does not preclude temporary satanic interference that is later corrected by God. Also, abrogation (nasikh) is a Qur’anic principle, with some verses lost after being abrogated (cf. Sahih Muslim vol. 1, book 244, no. 1433). Thus, the Qur’an’s textual preservation is debated.

Objection 6: Tabari may have been an unreliable collector of reports.

Response: Even if so, three other biographers wrote about the event, two before Tabari. Dismissing all as unreliable is not tenable. Tabari was not uncritical; for example, he expressed doubts about some reports from people of the Torah (Woman in the Qur’an, Tradition, and Their Interpretation, Barbara Freye Stowasser, p. 28).

Objection 7: The strongest hadiths do not mention this story explicitly.

Response: Bukhari (vol. 3, book 19, nos. 173, 176; vol. 6, book 60, nos. 385–386) and Abu Dawud (vol. 1, book 2, no. 1401) document the unusual prostration at the recitation of Surah 53. This strongly suggests something unique occurred.

Objection 8: Shaykh al-Albani criticized the isnad (chain of transmission) for these reports.

Response: According to Answering Islam, al-Albani has been shown to contradict himself on isnad criticism. See Al-Albani Unveiled by Sayf ad-Din Ahmed Ibn Muhammad Amirul Islam for many examples.

Objection 9: Non-Muslims bring up this story to attack Muhammad and Islam.

Response: The event was not invented by non-Muslims but recorded by early Muslims. Ignoring criticism merely because it opposes one’s views is not the path of truth. Christians are called to expose false prophets out of love, desiring Muslims to turn from error and find salvation in the true Jesus Christ.

Where Do We Go from Here?

Muslims themselves are not unanimous on whether Satan’s words entered the Qur’an.

Option 1: If Muhammad did speak as a prophet concerning the intercession of Allah’s daughters, he was a false prophet for that time.
Option 2: If Muhammad never uttered the Satanic Verses, all four early biographers must have conspired in error. Some people may choose to follow something even if they believe their leader spoke Satan’s words.

Either way, Islam teaches that Allah allowed his word to be substantially altered and allowed even sincere followers to be led astray. The Qur’an (Surah 43:44–45) claims all previous prophets shared the same message, and Surah 41:43 claims nothing was sent to Muhammad that was not previously sent to other prophets. Thus, either:

a) Allah allowed his prior revelations to be corrupted, or
b) The Qur’an is itself a corrupted message.

In both cases, Islam concedes that Allah cannot be trusted to preserve his word against substantial doctrinal change.

Trust in God

The Almighty God is able to preserve His message. People should trust in God more.

Trust that God has preserved His word. Surah 5:46–48 states that Jesus confirmed the Torah in his time, and that God gave the Scriptures to Jews and Christians, which could be used to discern truth even during Muhammad’s life. Surah 3:48 and 5:110–111 show Jesus had both the Torah and the Gospel. Jesus’ disciples were inspired. The Bible says, “The word of God endures forever” (Isaiah 59:21; 40:8; Psalm 119:89). God’s word was never corrupted in the past and has been preserved without major error to this day (Isaiah 55:11; 1 Peter 1:23–25; Psalm 119:89, 91, 144, 160).

Trust that God desires you to know the truth and come to Him. God does not wish for anyone to perish (Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 2 Peter 3:9). All are called to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 1:8).

Do not put your trust in mortal men. “Do not be wise in your own eyes” (Proverbs 3:7). Instead, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight” (Proverbs 3:5–6). Do you believe God can direct your ways if you acknowledge Him?

Trust in Jesus: He came from God, and God’s message is preserved. Jesus is not a thief or a robber (John 10:8–10). Believe that Jesus gave His life as a ransom (Matthew 20:28), as a sin offering (Romans 8:3), by the blood He shed on the cross (Hebrews 10:19).

Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved (Acts 16:31). “…‘Whoever believes in him will not be put to shame’” (Romans 10:11). So trust God and believe He leads faithfully. He did not allow His word to be corrupted, so the Bible can be trusted. Give your life to Jesus, and He will give you peace and joy.

www.MuslimHope.com
www.maxshimbaministries.org
August 26, 2016

Generated image

The Satanic Verses

Journal of Comparative Religious Studies

Title

“The Satanic Verses: Textual History, Islamic Tradition, and the Question of Qur’anic Integrity”

Abstract

The “Satanic Verses” incident represents one of the most controversial topics in Islamic historiography and interfaith polemics. Rooted in the earliest Islamic sources, the narrative claims that the Prophet Muhammad, at one point, recited verses in honor of pre-Islamic deities, which were subsequently abrogated and denounced as satanic interference. This article critically examines the historical evidence for the event, the textual variations in the Qur’an, early Islamic responses, and theological implications for the doctrines of revelation and scriptural integrity. Through the analysis of primary Islamic sources—biographies, hadith collections, and exegetical literature—this study contributes to the ongoing discourse on the transmission and preservation of sacred texts in Abrahamic religions.

Keywords

Qur’an, Satanic Verses, Muhammad, textual criticism, Islamic tradition, abrogation, scriptural integrity, polemics, revelation, early Islam.

1. Introduction

Within Islamic polemics and apologetics, the question of the reliability and preservation of holy scriptures remains central. Muslims often assert the divine preservation of the Qur’an, contrasting it with alleged textual corruption in the Bible. Yet, a critical review of Islamic historiography reveals episodes—such as the so-called “Satanic Verses”—that challenge simplistic notions of textual purity. This article investigates the “Satanic Verses” narrative, its documentation in Islamic sources, and its wider doctrinal consequences.

2. Background: The Satanic Verses Narrative

The term “Satanic Verses” refers to an incident recounted by numerous early Muslim authorities, wherein Satan is said to have inspired the Prophet Muhammad to utter verses affirming the intercessory power of three pre-Islamic goddesses: al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat. These verses were later abrogated and replaced within the Qur’anic corpus. The narrative, while highly contentious in Islamic thought, remains extensively documented in Islamic historical literature.

3. Primary Sources and Early Islamic Historiography

3.1 Qur’anic Context

Surah An-Najm (53:19–20) states:

“Have you considered al-Lat and al-‘Uzza, and another, the third [goddess], Manat?”¹

Historical biographers recount that this passage was originally followed by a now-excised verse:

“These are the exalted cranes (gharāniq), whose intercession is to be hoped for.”²

This interpolation was later condemned as a product of satanic interference and removed, replaced with the current verses (53:21–22):

“Is the male for you and the female for Him? That, then, is an unjust division.”

3.2 Early Islamic Biographers

Four principal early Muslim biographers preserve the episode:

al-Wahidi / al-Waqidi (d. 207/823 CE): In Asbab al-Nuzul, describes how Muhammad’s conciliatory recitation led to the Meccan leaders’ approval, until Gabriel later rebuked him for reciting words not divinely revealed.³
Ibn Sa’d (d. 230/845 CE): In Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, corroborates the occurrence and details communal reactions.⁴
Ibn Ishaq (d. 145/767 CE): In Sirat Rasul Allah, reports that both Muslims and polytheists were momentarily reconciled by the verses, only for Muhammad to later retract them as satanic suggestion.⁵
al-Tabari (d. 923 CE): In Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk, provides a detailed account of Muhammad’s inner conflict, Satan’s intervention, and Gabriel’s subsequent correction.⁶

3.3 Other Acknowledgements

Several other prominent scholars and exegetes—including Abu Ma’shar, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Hajar, Ibn Mardawayh, Musa ibn ‘Uqba, and Zamakhshari—reference or discuss the incident, indicating its prevalence in the early Islamic tradition.⁷

4. Indirect Evidence: Qur’an and Hadith

4.1. Canonical Hadith

Sahih al-Bukhari and Abu Dawud document that, after Muhammad’s recitation of Surah An-Najm, both Muslims and pagans prostrated—a unique occurrence, suggesting the inclusion of conciliatory content.⁸

4.2. The Qur’an on Satanic Interference

Two passages are cited as allusions to this episode:

Surah 22:52: “We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that, when he desired, Satan threw [some suggestion] into his desire; but Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in, then Allah makes precise His verses...”
Surah 17:73–75: Addresses external attempts to sway Muhammad from divine revelation, with warnings of grave consequences.

5. Muslim Responses and Scholarly Critique

5.1. Common Muslim Objections

Lack of unanimity in the isnad (transmission chain): Some hadith collectors omit the incident, or question its reliability.
Contradiction with Qur’anic monotheism and Muhammad’s inerrancy: Verses such as 15:9 and 41:42 are cited as evidence for the Qur’an’s incorruptibility.
Redaction in Islamic sources: Later redactors like Ibn Hisham are known to have removed the episode from earlier biographies out of theological discomfort.⁹

5.2. Academic Responses

Scholarly consensus recognizes the multiplicity of independent early attestations, the early dating of the reports (predating major Sunni hadith collections), and the narrative’s consistency across biographical and exegetical sources. The practice of abrogation (naskh) within the Qur’an further supports the possibility of excised revelations.¹⁰

6. Theological and Scriptural Implications

The Satanic Verses episode, if accepted, raises questions regarding the doctrine of revelation, prophetic impeccability (isma), and the Qur’an’s textual preservation. If Muhammad could temporarily utter non-divine words as revelation, it suggests a more dynamic—and vulnerable—process of scriptural transmission than traditional Islamic dogma permits.

Conversely, if the incident is rejected, one must explain the widespread early Muslim attestation and the textual traces in both Qur’anic and hadith literature.

The episode further intersects with the broader polemic between Islam and Christianity regarding the reliability and corruption of sacred texts, highlighting both shared anxieties and divergent doctrines of scriptural integrity.

7. Conclusion

The “Satanic Verses” incident, deeply embedded in early Islamic literature, presents a significant case study in the history of religions. It compels both Muslims and non-Muslims to reckon with the realities of textual transmission, historical memory, and the complex evolution of doctrinal orthodoxy. Ultimately, the episode invites renewed reflection on the nature of divine communication, the limits of human agency in revelation, and the enduring quest for religious certainty.

References

Correspondence:
[Author Name], [Affiliation], [Email]

Acknowledgments:
The author thanks the staff at Max Shimba Ministries and the editorial board of the Journal of Comparative Religious Studies for their input.

For further reading:

This article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

If you need further customization (citations, additional sections, author bio, journal formatting, etc.), let me know your academic/religious field and target journal style!

Qur’an 53:19–20. ↩
Guillaume, A. (Trans.). (1955). The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 166. ↩
al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul. ↩
Ibn Sa‘d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir. ↩
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah. ↩
al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk (History of the Prophets and Kings), vol. 6, pp. 108–110. ↩
See S. Moinul Haq (Trans.), The Book of the Major Classes. ↩
Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 3, book 19, nos. 173, 176; vol. 6, book 60, nos. 385–386. Abu Dawud, vol. 1, book 2, no. 1401. ↩
Ibn Hisham, al-Sira al-Nabawiyya (redacted biography). ↩
Sahih Muslim, vol. 1, book 244, no. 1433 (on abrogation). ↩

Muhammad’s Attitude Towards Children

Muhammad’s Attitude Towards Children: A Critical Scholarly Examination

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Servant of Jesus Christ
www.maxshimbaministries.org

Introduction

The subject of religious leadership and moral conduct, particularly in relation to the treatment of children, remains central to interfaith dialogue and the comparative study of world religions. This paper critically examines the character and actions of the Prophet Muhammad, as depicted in Islamic primary sources, in relation to children. It juxtaposes these findings with the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the New Testament. The analysis intends to offer a clear perspective for those seeking to understand the ethical frameworks within which these two prominent religious figures operated.

1. Muhammad’s Stance on the Killing of Children: A Hadith Analysis

A significant moral and theological concern arises from narrations regarding the conduct of Muhammad in the context of warfare and the treatment of non-combatants, particularly women and children. In Sahih Muslim, one of the most authoritative collections of Hadith, Sa'b b. Jaththama reports:

"The Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) was asked about the women and children of polytheists being killed during the night raids. He said: 'They are from them (i.e., they are part of them).'"
(Sahih Muslim, Hadith 4322; see also Sahih Bukhari 52:256)

This narration indicates a disturbing moral ambiguity regarding the permissibility of collateral damage involving children in armed conflict, a position seemingly at odds with modern concepts of human rights and the protection of innocents during war (see: Peters, R. (1996). Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam. Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers).

The Execution of Singing Girls

Following the conquest of Mecca, sources in early Islamic historiography report that Muhammad ordered the execution of two female singers, Fartana and her companion, for satirizing him in song:

"The two singing-girls, Fartana and her friend, used to sing satirical verses about the Messenger of Allah. The Prophet ordered that they be put to death, and they were executed."
(Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, ed. A. Guillaume, p. 819)

This episode is recorded in the earliest and most respected biography of Muhammad, and it highlights the grave consequences faced by even young women and girls who fell afoul of the Prophet's authority (see: Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 819; also referenced in al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, Vol. 8).

2. Muhammad’s Marriage to Aisha: Historical Context and Ethical Considerations

Among the most contentious aspects of Muhammad’s biography is his marriage to Aisha, which, according to several Hadith sources, occurred when she was very young:

"Aisha reported: The Prophet married me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine years old."
(Sahih Muslim 3310; Sahih al-Bukhari 5133, 5134, 5135, 5158; Sunan Abu Dawud 2116)

Aisha herself is quoted as saying:

"The Prophet married me when I was six years old, and had sexual intercourse with me when I was nine years old."
(Sunan Abu Dawud 2116)

Scholarly debate continues regarding the historical and cultural context of this marriage. However, contemporary ethical standards, informed by modern understandings of child development and consent, regard such actions as morally indefensible and legally criminal (see: Spencer, R. (2006). The Truth About Muhammad. Regnery Publishing; Barlas, A. (2002). "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. University of Texas Press).

3. The Teachings of Jesus Concerning Children

By contrast, the Gospels portray Jesus Christ as embodying a profoundly compassionate attitude toward children, emphasizing their inherent dignity and spiritual significance:

"Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
(Matthew 19:14; cf. Matthew 18:1-4; Mark 9:33-37; Mark 10:13-16)

Jesus not only welcomed children but also used their example to illustrate the humility and purity required to enter the Kingdom of God. He publicly blessed children and affirmed their place in the community of believers (see: France, R. T. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew. Eerdmans; Nolland, J. (2005). The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Eerdmans).

4. Comparative Ethical Reflection

From an ethical and theological standpoint, the contrast is stark:

Muhammad is depicted in Islamic tradition as permitting or at least not preventing the killing of children in war and entering into a marital relationship with a prepubescent girl.
Jesus, in the Christian tradition, is portrayed as a protector and lover of children, elevating them as exemplars of the qualities needed for entry into God’s kingdom.

Such divergent portraits compel the conscientious seeker to critically evaluate which model truly embodies the spirit of divine love and moral uprightness. The choice between following a figure who, according to some sources, permitted harm to children, or one who cherished and blessed them, is ultimately a personal and spiritual decision.

Conclusion: A Call for Moral Discernment

In light of these historical and scriptural records, I urge readers to examine the evidence thoughtfully. Consider whether Muhammad’s actions align with the standards of prophetic conduct expected of a messenger of God, or whether the example of Jesus, who loved and blessed children, represents the higher ethical path.

The choice is yours:

To follow Muhammad, who, according to these sources, permitted the killing and sexual exploitation of children,
or
To follow Jesus, who loved, blessed, and welcomed children into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Servant of Jesus Christ
www.maxshimbaministries.org

References

Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Hadith 4322; also Sahih Bukhari 52:256.
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, ed. A. Guillaume, p. 819.
Sahih Muslim 3310; Sahih al-Bukhari 5133, 5134, 5135, 5158; Sunan Abu Dawud 2116.
The Holy Bible, New Testament: Matthew 18:1-4; 19:13-15; Mark 9:33-37; 10:13-16.
France, R. T. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew. Eerdmans.
Nolland, J. (2005). The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Eerdmans.
Peters, R. (1996). Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam. Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers.
Spencer, R. (2006). The Truth About Muhammad. Regnery Publishing.
Barlas, A. (2002). "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. University of Texas Press.

CELEBRATING THE MAWLID (BIRTHDAY) OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD

CELEBRATING THE MAWLID (BIRTHDAY) OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD: PAGAN ROOTS AND ABSENCE IN THE QURAN

Max Shimba Ministries Org.

Introduction

This article examines the historical, textual, and scholarly perspectives on the celebration of the Mawlid (Prophet Muhammad’s birthday). It interrogates the origin, lack of scriptural basis, and the critical stance of renowned Islamic scholars, arguing that the practice is an innovation (bid‘ah) rooted in pagan custom rather than Islamic revelation.

1. The History of Mawlid

Historical records indicate that neither the Prophet Muhammad nor his Companions celebrated the Mawlid. The earliest reports of the celebration emerge centuries after the Prophet's death, primarily among the Fatimid (Ismaili Shi‘a) dynasty in Egypt (Calvert, 2010; Schimmel, 1987).

Al-Hafidh al-Sakhawi (d. 902 AH) records:

“The celebration of the Mawlid was not practiced by the pious predecessors (Salaf al-Salih) of the first three generations. It was introduced after them.”
(al-Sakhawi, Subul al-Huda wa al-Rashad, Vol. 1, p. 439)

Al-Maqrizi (d. 845 AH) provides a historical account:

“The Fatimid rulers inaugurated the Mawlid festival along with others, such as Mawlid of ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan, Husayn, and their living Imam, as well as other seasonal festivals.”
(al-Maqrizi, al-Khitat, Vol. 1, p. 490)

Further, Shaykh ‘Ali Mahfudh notes:

“The first to introduce Mawlid in Cairo were the Fatimid rulers in the 4th century AH. They created six Mawlids.”
(Mahfudh, al-Ibda‘ fi Madhahir al-Ibtida‘, p. 251)

Sunni Adoption

Sheikh Abdulla Saleh Farsy states:

“The first official Mawlid recited by Sunnis was organized by King Mudhaffar ad-Din in northern Iraq, a brother-in-law to Sultan Salahuddin al-Ayyubi. This event was unprecedented in size and splendor.”
(Farsy, Tafsiri ya Mawlid Barzanji, p. iv)

2. Absence of Scriptural Evidence

There is no authentic evidence from the Quran or the sahih hadith specifying the exact date of the Prophet's birth or instructing Muslims to commemorate it.

Safi-ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri writes:

“Muhammad… was born on Monday, 9th Rabi‘ al-Awwal, in the Year of the Elephant… corresponding to April 20 or 22, 571 CE.”
(Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum, p. 62)

Sirajur Rahman adds:

“The event of the Elephant occurred in Muharram, fifty-five days before the Prophet’s birth, suggesting the birth fell between 25th Safar and 25th Rabi‘ al-Awwal.”
(Rahman, Al-Mustafa, p. 11)

The Quran remains silent on the Prophet’s exact birth date and does not prescribe any celebration of his birth (Nasr, 2003).

3. Scholarly Critique and the Question of Innovation (Bid‘ah)

Notable classical and contemporary scholars have denounced the Mawlid as an innovation with pagan undertones:

Imam al-Shatibi (d. 790 AH): Criticized the Mawlid as an innovation in his magnum opus.
(al-Shatibi, al-I‘tisam, Vol. 1, p. 34)
Imam al-Fakihani (d. 734 AH): Authored a treatise refuting the legitimacy of Mawlid.
(al-Fakihani, Risalah fi Mawlid al-Nabi)
Imam Ibn al-Hajj al-Maliki (d. 737 AH): Explicitly categorized Mawlid as bid‘ah.
(Ibn al-Hajj, al-Madkhal, Vol. 2, pp. 11–12)
Abu ‘Abdillah al-Haffar al-Maliki: Asserted the absence of Mawlid celebration among the Prophet’s Companions or their successors.
(al-Haffar, al-Mi‘yar al-Mu‘rab, Vol. 7, p. 99)
Abu At-Tayyib Shams al-Haq al-‘Aẓimabadi and his teacher Bashiruddin Qannuji authored a monograph refuting the practice.
(Qannuji, Ghayat al-Kalam fi Ibtal Amal al-Mawlid wal-Qiyam)

The Prophet himself is reported to have said:

“Whoever introduces into our religion that which is not from it, it will be rejected.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 2697; Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1718)

Key Questions for Reflection

Where in the Quran are Muslims instructed or permitted to celebrate the Mawlid?
Where in the Quran is the birth or lifespan of Muhammad mentioned in detail?
Why do Muslims celebrate the Mawlid when it is absent from the Quran and authentic hadith?
Who is the ultimate authority for Muslims: Allah, Muhammad, the Quran, authentic hadith, or established schools of law?

References

al-Fakihani, Abu’l-‘Abbas Ahmad. Risalah fi Mawlid al-Nabi (Treatise on the Prophet’s Birthday).
al-Haffar, Abu ‘Abdillah. al-Mi‘yar al-Mu‘rab.
al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Abu Bakr Ahmad. Tariq Baghdad.
al-Maqrizi, Taqi al-Din Ahmad. al-Khitat (The Plans), Vol. 1, Cairo, 1999.
al-Mubarakpuri, Safi-ur-Rahman. Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar), Darussalam, 2002.
al-Sakhawi, Shams al-Din Muhammad. Subul al-Huda wa al-Rashad, Vol. 1.
al-Shatibi, Abu Ishaq. al-I‘tisam, Vol. 1, Beirut: Dar Ibn ‘Affan, 1997.
Farsy, Abdulla Saleh. Tafsiri ya Mawlid Barzanji, Zanzibar.
Ibn al-Hajj al-Maliki, Muhammad. al-Madkhal, Vol. 2, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1981.
Mahfudh, ‘Ali. al-Ibda‘ fi Madhahir al-Ibtida‘, Cairo, 1970.
Mubarakpuri, Safi-ur-Rahman. Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar), Darussalam, 2002.
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, et al. The Study Quran, HarperOne, 2015.
Qannuji, Bashiruddin. Ghayat al-Kalam fi Ibtal Amal al-Mawlid wal-Qiyam.
Rahman, Sirajur. Al-Mustafa, Ansaar Muslim Youth Organisation, 1993.
Schimmel, Annemarie. And Muhammad is His Messenger: The Veneration of the Prophet in Islamic Piety, University of North Carolina Press, 1987.
Calvert, John. Sayyid Qutb and the Origins of Radical Islamism, Columbia University Press, 2010.
Qur’an: Various translations, e.g., M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, Oxford University Press.
Hadith Collections: Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim.

For further scholarly study, readers are encouraged to consult the original Arabic sources and the listed academic works.

Generated image

Prophet Muhammad as a Sinner

Prophet Muhammad as a Sinner: An Academic and Theological Analysis

Introduction

While the Christian Scriptures declare Jesus Christ to be sinless (Hebrews 4:15; 2 Corinthians 5:21), both the Qur’an and the Hadith present a markedly different portrait of the Prophet Muhammad. This article systematically examines canonical Islamic sources to highlight instances where Muhammad is depicted as a sinner—requiring forgiveness, participating in violence, and engaging in morally questionable acts. The analysis will compare these findings with the Christian concept of the sinlessness of Christ, raising theological and ethical questions about the implications for soteriology in Islam and Christianity.

1. Muhammad’s Participation in Raids and the Acquisition of Spoils

1.1 Historical Context

Early Islamic history documents several military raids (ghazawat) led or sanctioned by Muhammad, during which the property of others was seized and captives were taken. According to Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495, “When Allah made the Prophet rich through victories, one-fifth of the war booty was placed in the treasury.” Likewise, Sahih Muslim, Volume 2, Book 5, Chapter 401, Number 2348, states that Muhammad’s family shared in the spoils of war.

The first recorded act of plundering by Muslims, known as the Nakhla Raid, occurred during the sacred months, a period traditionally respected for the cessation of hostilities. During this raid, Muhammad’s followers attacked a Quraysh caravan, killed a man, and enslaved the survivors, seizing their property (see Watt, 1956, Muhammad at Mecca, p. 136). Muhammad himself later led the significant Battle of Badr, where further spoils were gained (Qur’an 8:1, 8:41).

At the conquest of the Jewish settlement of Khaybar, Muhammad and his followers again obtained considerable wealth and took women as captives (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 59, No. 512; Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 510–515). Notably, after the siege of Banu Qurayza, between 700–900 men were executed, and women and children were taken as slaves (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 464–466; al-Tabari, History, vol. 8, pp. 35–40).

1.2 Moral and Theological Assessment

From an ethical standpoint, such actions are considered grave sins by Christian standards, as they involve violence, theft, and the violation of the dignity and rights of others (Exodus 20:13, 15; Matthew 5:44). The New Testament’s Jesus, by contrast, is presented as rejecting violence (Matthew 26:52) and commanding love even for enemies.

2. Muhammad’s Admission of Sin and the Command to Seek Forgiveness

2.1 Qur’anic Directives

The Qur’an explicitly records Allah instructing Muhammad to seek forgiveness for his sins. Surah Ghafir (40:55) states:

“So be patient, [O Muhammad]. Indeed, the promise of Allah is truth. And ask forgiveness for your sin and exalt [Allah] with praise of your Lord in the evening and the morning.” (Sahih International translation)

Similarly, Surah al-Fath (48:1–2) reads:

“Indeed, We have given you, [O Muhammad], a clear conquest. That Allah may forgive for you what preceded of your sin and what will follow and complete His favor upon you and guide you to a straight path.”

2.2 Hadith Testimony

The Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, Book 4, Chapter 268, Number 1695, records Muhammad’s prayer:

“I have wronged myself and made repentance for my sins. Forgive my sins...”

Other hadiths reinforce this, including Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 1, Book 2, Chapter 13, Number 19, and Vol. 8, Book 75, Number 319, where Muhammad repeatedly asks for forgiveness. In several narrations, he admits to seeking forgiveness over seventy times a day (Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 75, Number 319).

2.3 Punitive Actions

Grave punishments for criminals are reported in the hadiths, such as amputating hands and feet, gouging out eyes, and denying water until death (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, Book 82, Numbers 794-796; Fiqh us-Sunnah, Vol. 1, p. 133). Such acts, in a Christian moral framework, would be considered inhumane and sinful.

3. Theological Implications: The Problem of Sin and Atonement in Islam and Christianity

The frequent Qur’anic and hadith references to Muhammad’s need for forgiveness and the acts attributed to him contrast sharply with the Christian doctrine of Christ’s sinlessness. In Christian theology, Jesus claims to pay the penalty for humanity’s sins (John 1:29; Romans 5:8; 1 Peter 2:22–24), providing a unique model for redemption.

In Islam, no teaching asserts that Muhammad or anyone else pays for the sins of others; rather, forgiveness is based on Allah’s mercy, with no objective atonement (Qur’an 39:53). This raises questions about the justice of God and the means by which sins are actually remitted.

4. Contemporary Reflections

Modern events have shown some Muslims justifying acts of violence by citing the Prophet’s actions as precedent, particularly in regions such as Sudan, Nigeria, and Indonesia. Conversely, when Christians perpetrate violence, it is often condemned as contrary to Christ’s teachings. Rarely is similar criticism leveled against Muslims who emulate the Prophet’s example in violence.

It is vital for honest interfaith dialogue to confront these realities. Acts of violence, especially against those who worship God, should be unequivocally condemned regardless of the religious identity of the perpetrator. The model set by a religion’s founder profoundly impacts its adherents’ morality and worldview.

Conclusion

The evidence from both the Qur’an and hadith literature unmistakably portrays Muhammad as a sinner who repeatedly seeks forgiveness for his transgressions. His participation in violence, acquisition of spoils, and admission of sin set him apart from the Christ of the New Testament, who is depicted as sinless and the redeemer of humanity.
The ultimate question for Muslims remains: “Who pays for your sins?” Christianity offers an answer in Christ. Islam, by contrast, leaves the question open, relying on Allah’s discretion rather than atonement.

The invitation stands: Come to the living Jesus, the true Savior, who alone offers forgiveness and eternal life.

Reflection:
Take action.
Be saved.

Max Shimba Ministries Org.
May 26, 2015

References

The Holy Bible, New International Version
The Qur’an, Sahih International Translation
Sahih al-Bukhari, various volumes and hadith numbers as cited above
Sahih Muslim, various volumes and hadith numbers as cited above
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah
Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari
Fiqh us-Sunnah, Sayyid Sabiq, Vol. 1
Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Mecca. Oxford University Press, 1956.
Peters, F.E. Muhammad and the Origins of Islam. State University of New York Press, 1994.

Correspondence:
Max Shimba Ministries Org.
[Contact via Email]
[Share to X]
[Share to Facebook]
[Share to Pinterest]

Generated image

Zul-Qarnain and the Setting of the Sun in Surah 18:85-86: An Academic Analysis

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The narrative of Zul-Qarnain and the setting of the sun as described in the Qur’an (Surah 18:85–86) has long been a subject of debate, especially regarding its compatibility with astronomical realities. This paper critically examines the literal meaning of the Qur’anic text, the historical context of its interpretation among early Muslims, and the responses by Muslim scholars to challenges raised by this passage.

1. The Text of Surah 18:85-86

Surah Al-Kahf (18:85-86) states (various translations):

“So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of dark mud, and he found near it a people...”
(Sahih International, 18:85-86)

A straightforward reading seems to suggest that Zul-Qarnain witnessed the sun setting in a muddy or dark spring. This passage has been the subject of much theological, philosophical, and scientific scrutiny.

2. Astronomy and the Early Islamic World

It is often overlooked that Abbasid-era Islamic rulers and scholars, both Arabs and Persians, made significant advancements in astronomy. They named many stars and corrected astronomical tables inherited from ancient Egyptians (such as Ptolemy’s tables). Nevertheless, modern astronomy is unequivocal: the sun is vastly larger than Earth, and Earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. The sun never physically “sets” in a spring of muddy water.

3. Who Was Zul-Qarnain?

The identity of Zul-Qarnain remains debated. Islamic sources offer four main theories:

Alexander the Great: The majority opinion identifies Zul-Qarnain (“the one with two horns”) as Alexander the Great. There is an apocryphal legend that Alexander was a god who possessed two ram’s horns. This idea is not supported by historical facts, and the practical challenges (such as wearing a helmet with two horns) make this legend dubious. Nonetheless, many Muslims historically have believed that Surah 18 refers to Alexander.
Cyrus I of Persia: Another theory suggests that Zul-Qarnain was Cyrus I, whose kingdom comprised two principal peoples, the Medes and the Persians. There is, however, little evidence connecting the “two horns” to him.
A King of Yemen: Some traditions associate Zul-Qarnain with a Yemeni king who wore a helmet adorned with two ram’s horns.
An Unknown Figure: Some scholars suggest Zul-Qarnain was simply an unknown person, but explanations involving unnamed historical figures risk incoherence.

Conclusion: Ultimately, regardless of Zul-Qarnain’s identity, the narrative’s claim that the sun sets in a muddy spring contradicts established scientific knowledge.

4. Interpretations and Muslim Responses

View 1: Literal Interpretation – The Sun Sets in a Muddy Spring

Early Muslims, including the classical historian al-Tabari, understood the verse literally. Al-Tabari (d. 923 CE), for example, in his History (Vol. 1, p. 234) states that Zul-Qarnain “witnessed the setting of the sun in its resting place, in a black, foul-smelling spring.” Similar interpretations appear throughout al-Tabari’s works (see also Vol. 5, pp. 173–174; Vol. 1, p. 371).

Additionally, al-Tabari recounts that, according to ancient lore, the earth rests on a great fish (History, Vol. 1, p. 220), reflecting the mythological worldview that pervaded the ancient Near East.

View 2: The Sun Seemed to Set in the Lake of Ithaca, Macedonia

Some have suggested that the verse refers to Alexander observing the sun setting over a lake in Macedonia (Ithaca). However, this is inconsistent with known Greek and Phoenician geography, since Greeks had colonies far west of Macedonia, including in Spain and Sicily, centuries before Alexander. Greek writers such as Aristotle mention explorers from Sardinia, which is much farther west. Thus, no educated Greek or Macedonian would have believed the sun literally set in Macedonia.

View 3: “Spring of Muddy Water” Refers to the Atlantic Ocean

Another interpretation is that the “spring” refers to the Atlantic Ocean. Yet the Atlantic is neither muddy nor black, but blue-green, and it is an ocean, not a spring. Alexander the Great, Cyrus I, and the Yemeni kings never reached the Atlantic’s edge, nor does the Qur’an mention such a journey.

View 4: Refers to the Black Sea

Some posit that the spring refers to the Black Sea. Yet, there is no evidence Cyrus I ever traveled to the regions east of the Black Sea. Additionally, the Black Sea is not a “spring,” and even ancient Egyptians and Greeks knew the sun did not set in the Black Sea.

View 5: Refers to the Aegean Sea

If the reference were to the Aegean, Persians were well acquainted with Greeks across that sea, and would not have believed that the sun set there.

View 6: Refers to the Red Sea

If the “spring” was the Red Sea, Yemenis (Sabaeans) were familiar with Abyssinians (Ethiopians) across the water, so the claim would again be implausible.

View 7: Metaphorical Interpretation

Some propose the description is metaphorical. However, the Qur’an does not indicate the story is allegorical or parabolic, and the earliest Muslim interpreters did not treat it as such. Therefore, if it was meant metaphorically, the Qur’an failed to clarify its figurative intent, misleading its audience.

View 8: A Dream Narrative

Others suggest Muhammad was narrating a dream or vision. However, neither the Qur’an nor early Islamic sources present the story as a vision or dream. If millions believe a passage is literal, but the author failed to clarify its true nature, this calls into question the reliability of the narrative.

5. Conclusion

Regardless of Zul-Qarnain’s identity—Alexander the Great, Cyrus I, or another—the Qur’an presents the sun as setting in a muddy spring as a literal occurrence. Even a millennium before Muhammad, educated people knew the sun does not set in Spain or any earthly body of water. Early Muslims, including the companions and successors of Muhammad, interpreted this passage literally.

If Allah, the God of Islam, revealed this information, and it was factually incorrect, then this is a clear error. If, instead, the Qur’an was authored by Muhammad or his contemporaries, the mistake is explained by the worldview of the time. Alternatively, if the Qur’an’s God does not exist, then the question of error or deception is moot.

References and Bibliography

Qur’an Translations and Commentaries

Arberry, Arthur J. The Koran Interpreted. Macmillan Publishing Co., 1955.
Dawood, N.J. The Koran. Penguin Books, 1956–1999.
Malik, Farooq-i-Azam. English Translation of the Meaning of AL-QUR’AN: The Guidance for Mankind. The Institute of Islamic Knowledge, 1997.
Pickthall, Mohammed Marmaduke. The Meaning of the Glorious Koran. Dar al-Islamiyya (Kuwait), n.d.
Rodwell, J.M. The Koran. Ivy Books/Ballantine, 1993.
Shakir, M.H. The Qur’an. Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc., 12th U.S. Edition, 2001.
Sher Ali, Maulawi. The Holy Qur’an. Islam International Publications Limited (Ahmadiyya), 1997.
Yusuf ‘Ali, Abdullah. The Holy Qur-an: English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary. King Fahd Holy Qur-an Printing Complex, Al Madina, Saudi Arabia, 1410 A.D.

Historical and Secondary Sources

Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1958.
Yar-Shater, Ehsan, General Editor. The History of al-Tabari: An Annotated Translation. State University of New York Press, 1989–.

Classical Islamic Sources

Al-Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir. Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk (History of the Prophets and Kings). Various volumes and translations.

Patristic and Classical Sources

Tertullian. A Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 49.

Prepared by Dr. Maxwell Shimba,
Shimba Theological Institute

For further reading on the development of early Islamic cosmology and its interaction with Greek, Persian, and ancient Near Eastern traditions, see the above sources and the works of David A. King (Islamic Astronomy), as well as contemporary studies in Qur’anic exegesis and the history of science in the medieval Islamic world.

Generated image