Monday, December 1, 2025

Do Not Be Deceived — Gabriel Was Not Sent to Muhammad

Translated into English by Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Do Not Be Deceived — Gabriel Was Not Sent to Muhammad

The Angel Gabriel we know from Scripture is:

gentle
humble
calm
orderly
HE DOES NOT STRANGLE PEOPLE

Any human being who encounters a spiritual being will naturally feel fear, because such encounters are extraordinary. But there is a difference between feeling fear because you have seen something supernatural, and feeling fear because the being has grabbed you by the neck and pressed you until you lose your breath.

Let us look at the TRUE Gabriel as revealed in Scripture:

“And he said to me, ‘O Daniel, you greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak to you, and stand upright; for I have now been sent to you.’ While he was speaking this word to me, I stood trembling. Then he said to me, ‘Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words were heard; and I have come because of your words.’”
— Daniel 10:11–12

“And the LORD answered the angel who talked with me with good and comforting words.”
— Zechariah 1:13

“When Zachariah saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said to him, ‘Do not be afraid, Zachariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.’”
— Luke 1:12–13

“And he came to her and said, ‘Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.’ But she was greatly troubled at the saying and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.’”
— Luke 1:28–30

“And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. And the angel said to them, ‘Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which shall be for all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.’”
— Luke 2:8–11

This is the Gabriel I know.
This is the true Gabriel.
This is the Gabriel of heaven.

But what about Jibril, whom Islam claims is the same Gabriel of the Bible?

We read in Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 3:

“The Prophet added, ‘The angel caught me forcefully and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it anymore.’”

Meaning:

“The angel grabbed me violently and squeezed me so strongly that I could no longer breathe.”

The one who came to Muhammad:

Was NOT Gabriel.
Was NOT!
Not even once!

The Lord Jesus says:

“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
— John 8:12

Do not be deceived.
Reflect deeply.
Take action.

Was Muhammad Sent Only to the Arabs?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Moderator’s Introduction

Today’s debate addresses a highly consequential question in Islamic theology:
Was Muhammad a universal messenger for all mankind, or was he sent exclusively to the Arabs?

Representing the Argument for Exclusivity is Scholar A.
Representing the Argument for Universality is Scholar B.

The debate follows an academic format: opening statements, rebuttals, and closing arguments.

OPENING STATEMENTS

**Scholar A (Exclusivity):

"Muhammad was sent only to the Arabs."**

I will demonstrate—using the Qur’an alone—that Muhammad’s mission was limited to the Arab peoples, specifically the Quraysh and neighboring Arabian tribes.

1. The Qur'an Teaches That Every Nation Has Its Own Messenger

Surah Yunus 10:47 states:

“Every nation has its messenger.”

If every nation was individually assigned a prophet, then Muhammad cannot logically be the prophet of all nations.

2. Prophets Are Sent in Their Own Language to Their Own People

Surah Ibrahim 14:4:

“We have not sent a messenger except in the language of his people.”

Muhammad spoke Arabic and belonged to an Arab tribe.
Thus his "people" are Arabs — not Africans, not Indians, not Europeans.

3. Earlier Nations Already Received Their Messengers

Surah An-Nahl 16:36:

“We certainly sent a messenger to every nation…”

The Qur'an claims Africans, Indians, and Persians had prophets before.
Thus Muhammad cannot be their prophet.

4. The Qur'an Explicitly Declares Different Shari’as for Different Peoples

Surah Al-Mā’idah 5:48:

“To each of you We prescribed a law and a method.”

Different peoples = different laws = different messengers.

5. Muhammad Sent to a People Who Had Never Received a Messenger Before

Surah As-Sajdah 32:3:

“So that you may warn a people to whom no warner has come before you.”

This describes Arab pagans, not the whole world.

6. Muhammad Was One Among Many Regional Messengers

Surah Ya-Sin 36:6:

“To warn a people whose forefathers were not warned.”

Again—Arabs only.

7. The Qur'an Distinguishes Between “Two Former Nations” and Muhammad’s Own Nation

Surah Al-An’ām 6:156–157:
Here Allah speaks to a new nation different from the “two nations” (Jews and Christians) who already had scriptures.

Who is this new nation?
The Arabs.

8. The Qur’an Is a Book in “Clear Arabic” Sent to an Arab Prophet

Surah Ash-Shu’ara 26:195:

“In a clear Arabic language.”

Then Allah adds:

“If We had revealed it to a non-Arab… they would not have believed.”

Thus the Qur'an is not universal.

9. Muhammad Sent to “The Mother of Cities (Mecca) and its Surrounding Regions”

Surah Al-An’ām 6:92; Surah Ash-Shūrā 42:7:

“To warn the Mother of Cities and those around it.”

“Those around it” cannot mean the whole world; it refers to nearby Arab regions.

10. Qur'an Revealed in Arabic for Arabs

If the Qur'an were for all humanity, why restrict it to Arabic only?

No universal scripture demands one ethnic language.

Conclusion of Scholar A

Based solely on Qur’anic evidence, Muhammad is not a prophet for all humanity.
He is the prophet for the Arabs only, and the Qur'an is their regional scripture.

**Scholar B (Universality):

"Muhammad was sent to all mankind."**

Scholar B acknowledges the verses cited but provides interpretive arguments common in Islamic theology.

1. The Qur'an Uses Gradual Revelation

Muslims argue that early verses emphasize Arabs because Muhammad was starting with his own people.

2. Universality Claimed Explicitly

Two verses are commonly cited:

Surah Al-Anbiya 21:107:

“We have sent you as a mercy to the worlds.”
Surah Saba 34:28:

“We have sent you to all mankind.”

These verses form the basis for universality.

3. “Language” Does Not Limit Audience

They argue: Moses spoke Hebrew but Jews still believe his message is universal in moral terms.

4. Arabs Were the First Audience, Not the Only Audience

Muslims say the Qur’an began with Arabs but extended globally through dawah.

5. “Every Nation Has a Messenger” Indicates Continuity, Not Exclusivity

Thus Muhammad fulfills earlier prophets and unifies humanity.

REBUTTALS

Scholar A Responds

✔ Verse 34:28 Does Not Override 10:47, 14:4, 16:36, 42:7

The universal claim contradicts earlier foundational principles:

Every nation has its prophet.
Prophets are sent to their own people.
Each nation has its own law.

These cannot harmonize with a universal prophet.

✔ “Mercy to the Worlds” Does Not Mean “Messenger to the Worlds”

It is a poetic honorific, not a doctrinal definition.

✔ A truly universal message cannot be locked in one ethnic language

Why is the Qur'an:

eternally Arabic
untranslatable (translations are not Qur’ans)
limited to Arab culture, law, and context?

✔ The Qur'an repeatedly points only to Arabs

Not once does it name Africans, Persians, Chinese, or Europeans as part of Muhammad’s mandate.

Scholar B Responds

Scholar B appeals to Islamic consensus:

Muslim scholars historically agree that Muhammad is universal.
The Qur'an was revealed in Arabic simply because Muhammad was Arab.

But Scholar B cannot negate the explicit limiting verses.

CLOSING STATEMENTS

Scholar A (Exclusivity)

The Qur’an itself—consistently, repeatedly, and explicitly—defines:

Muhammad = Messenger to Arabs.
Each nation = its own messenger.
Qur'an = Arabic message for Arabic speakers.
Mission field = Mecca and its regional tribes.

No verse can overturn this structural doctrine.

Therefore:
Muhammad is not the prophet of the world.
He is the prophet of the Arabs.

Scholar B (Universality)

Muslim theology relies heavily on later interpretations and hadith, not the explicit Qur’anic text.
But the Islamic consensus still insists on Muhammad’s universal mission.

FINAL VERDICT (Moderator)

A textual analysis of the Qur'an as it reads literally strongly supports Scholar A’s position:

The Qur’an repeatedly limits Muhammad’s mission to:

His people
His language
His region
His tribe
His culture
His historical context

Universal claims appear later and are contradicted by foundational principles.

A Disturbing Case of Police Brutality in Tundu

A Disturbing Case of Police Brutality in Tunduma: An Urgent Call for Accountability

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute

There are countless videos circulating online documenting the extreme brutality committed by police on October 29. However, one particular video has been especially distressing and demands national attention.

According to eyewitness accounts, the incident occurred in Tunduma on October 29. A young Tanzanian man—our fellow citizen—was arrested by police officers who subjected him to severe beating before forcing him into a police Defender vehicle. After prolonged assault, the officers reportedly ordered him to step out of the vehicle and run. The moment he began to flee, police opened fire. The first bullet missed him; the second struck him in the back, causing him to collapse instantly.

Witnesses further report that the police took his body away. To this day, his family has searched every mortuary in Songwe and Mbeya regions but have not been able to locate his remains. The disappearance of the victim’s body raises profound concerns about obstruction of justice, concealment of evidence, and the dehumanization of Tanzanian citizens at the hands of those entrusted with their protection.

This incident forces us to confront difficult questions: Where did the police—and those in leadership—learn such cruelty? What moral, legal, or institutional justification exists for shooting a person in the back after commanding him to run?

Police brutality is not merely an act of excessive force; it is a violation of human dignity, constitutional rights, and the social contract between the state and its people. Tanzania must demand transparency, independent investigation, and accountability. Silence only perpetuates the cycle of abuse.

If we are to build a just society, we must refuse to normalize such violence. We must stand with families who have been denied truth, justice, and closure. And we must insist that the value of human life remains sacred—above politics, above power, and above institutional impunity.

The Bible Is Not Corrupted — Rather, Muslims Have Been Misinformed

Translated into English and arranged academically
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

The Bible Is Not Corrupted — Rather, Muslims Have Been Misinformed

The Islamic claim that the Bible has been corrupted is one of the most common arguments in Muslim apologetics. However, a careful reading of the Qur’an itself reveals the opposite. The Qur’an repeatedly affirms the authority, authenticity, and divine origin of the earlier Scriptures—the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel.

Consider the following Qur’anic passages:

“O you who believe! Believe in Allah, His Messenger, the Book He has revealed to His Messenger, and the Scriptures He revealed before.”
(Al-Nisā 4:136)

Again, the Qur’an states:

“If you are in doubt about what We have revealed to you, then ask those who read the Scripture before you.”
(Yūnus 10:94)

In these verses, the Qur’an explicitly confirms the existence and reliability of the earlier Scriptures at the time Muhammad was speaking. If the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel had already been corrupted, why would Allah direct believers to consult them?

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that what the Qur’an asserts is true.

By the time Muhammad uttered these statements in the 7th century (around A.D. 600):

The Old Testament was already thousands of years old.
The New Testament had already been in circulation for hundreds of years.

With this historical reality in mind, here are critical questions for our Muslim brothers and sisters—questions that help determine whether the Bible was corrupted or whether the misunderstanding lies elsewhere.

Key Questions Every Muslim Must Consider

1. Jeremiah 8:8 and the Claim of Corruption

Muslims often cite Jeremiah 8:8 to argue that the Bible was corrupted.
But ask yourself: Was Jeremiah 8:8 already in existence when Allah instructed believers to trust the previous Scriptures (Al-Nisā 4:136)?
If the Qur’an affirmed the Scriptures in Muhammad’s day, does this not imply that Jeremiah 8:8 was not evidence of corruption?

2. Why Command People to Consult “A Corrupted Book”?

If the Bible was already corrupted by A.D. 600, why did Allah instruct Muhammad and his followers to seek clarification from “the People of the Book” (Yūnus 10:94)?
Would Allah direct believers to be misguided?

3. Did Allah Expect Jews and Christians of Muhammad’s Time to Rise from the Dead?

If the texts were corrupted long before Islam, was Allah telling Muslims to consult Moses, Jesus’ apostles, and the ancient prophets—who were already dead?
This interpretation is absurd and contradicts the context.

4. The Only Logical Conclusion

If Muslims were indeed instructed to consult Jews and Christians living at the time of Muhammad, then the implication is clear:
As of the 7th century, the Bible was still authentic and trustworthy.
Otherwise, Allah would never have directed anyone to it.

5. When Then Did the Corruption Happen?

If Muslims insist the Bible is corrupted today, they must also admit:
Any alleged corruption must have occurred after the 7th century,
because the Qur’an affirms the Scriptures that existed at that time.

But here lies the problem:
Today we possess Bible manuscripts that predate Islam by hundreds and even thousands of years. These ancient manuscripts match the Bible Christians read today.

Conclusion

There are Biblical manuscripts in existence today that were written long before A.D. 600—the same Scriptures the Qur’an commands Muslims to believe. These manuscripts prove that the Bible has not been altered.

The decision now rests with you.

If you choose to be misled, that choice is personal.
But truth remains unchanged:

Jesus alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Reflect.
Examine the evidence.
And take the step toward truth.

Why Did Aisha Give Her Flower to Safwan Ibn Al-Muattal?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

This subject remains one of the most troubling issues within the Muslim community. When the “Mother of the Believers,” Aisha, engages in an act that raises shame and countless unanswered questions, one must ask: Did Aisha truly love Muhammad? Or had she already been accustomed to questionable conduct from the beginning? Personally, many concerning questions arise in my mind—questions that demand careful investigation. Did Aisha grow tired of Muhammad and decide to give her “flower” to Safwan Ibn Al-Muattal? And why did she refuse to bear Muhammad a child? These are legitimate queries.

Ibn Hisham, citing Ibn Ishaq, narrates that Aisha was caught committing ZINAA (sexual intercourse) with Safwan Ibn Al-Muattal, one of Muhammad’s companions—what is widely known as the Safwan Incident. This occurred in Madinah, and the news spread throughout the entire city, forcing the Prophet of Allah to return Aisha to her parents’ home in humiliation.

Ali, who was both Muhammad's cousin and the husband of his daughter Fatimah, advised Muhammad to divorce Aisha to hide the great embarrassment caused by being caught in an act of adultery.

The Muslims of Madinah, led by Abdullah bin Ubayy, publicly declared that Lady Aisha (RA) had committed adultery with Safwan. When Muhammad heard this, he gathered his companions and consulted them on what should be done. Some advised him to divorce her. The Prophet then visited Aisha and told her:
“If you are innocent, Allah will forgive you; but if not, seek forgiveness from your Lord.”

Aisha cried uncontrollably and asked her parents for forgiveness for the immorality she had committed with Safwan, but her parents remained speechless.

References

Ibn Sa’ad, Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, vol. 8 (Arabic)
Ibn Hisham, Al-Sira Al-Nabawiyya (Arabic)
Dr. Sami Alrabaa, Karen in Saudi Arabia
Sahih al-Bukhari, Chapter of Washing, narrated by Anas (Arabic)
Al-Lulu’ wal-Marjan fima Ittafaqa Alayhi Al-Shaikhan, Hadith No. 168, 173 (Arabic)

Did Aisha Love Muhammad?

Aisha was the daughter of Abu Bakr. Her mother was Umm Ruman according to Al-Tabari, vol. 9, p.129. She was married to Muhammad at the age of six (6) and moved into his house for consummation at the age of nine (9)—a complete child marriage. (Bukhari vol. 7, book 62, hadith 88; Muslim vol. 2, book 8, hadith 3309–3311).

It is possible that Aisha’s alleged involvement with Safwan was influenced by the fact that she never truly consented to marrying Muhammad, but merely obeyed her parents’ wishes. This raises deeper psychological and moral questions surrounding her marriage and her personal agency.

Aisha’s Questionable Character

Aisha narrated:

“The Prophet used to screen me with his garment while I watched the Ethiopians playing in the courtyard of the mosque. (I continued watching) until I was satisfied.”

This describes a nine-year-old child, not yet at puberty, watching grown men performing entertainment. One can observe how a young girl might have become exposed to or accustomed to inappropriate environments that could shape her future conduct. (Bukhari vol. 7, book 62, chapter 115, hadith 163).

Critical Questions

Can a nine-year-old girl feel entertained by watching Ethiopian men performing in a mosque courtyard?
Did Aisha already possess tendencies toward immoral behavior, perhaps even a form of early promiscuity, that made her attracted to other men besides Muhammad?
Why did Aisha “give her flower” to Safwan Ibn Al-Muattal?
What emotional, psychological, or marital factors pushed her into this scandalous situation?

Questioning an apparent contradiction: “Everything is created from water” and the creation of Adam, angels, and Iblis

An academic inquiry by Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract.
Many theological and scientific discussions centre on Qurʾānic statements that describe the origin and composition of living things. A frequently cited phrase—rendered in many translations as “We made every living thing from water”—has been used by both apologists and critics to link Qurʾānic revelation to biological facts about life’s dependence on water. Yet when the Qurʾān also describes the origin of specific beings (for example, Adam made from clay or dust; angels as spiritual beings; Iblīs as created from fire), readers perceive tension or even contradiction. This article frames those tensions as scholarly questions worthy of careful hermeneutical, theological, and scientific reflection rather than as simple refutations. It catalogues the problems, evaluates common interpretive moves, and proposes a set of focused questions for further research.

1. Introduction — the problem stated

Certain Qurʾānic verses, commonly translated as “We made every living thing from water,” appear to assert a universal material origin for living creatures. At the same time, other Qurʾānic passages attribute the creation of Adam to clay/dust and describe angels and Iblīs (the rebellious jinn) as constituted of other elements or as spiritual beings. Prima facie, these descriptions can be read as mutually exclusive material claims. The purpose of this essay is to examine this apparent tension critically: is the Qurʾān speaking in multiple registers (metaphorical, phenomenological, ontological), and how should a reader synthesize these statements?

2. Textual and hermeneutical considerations

Genre and register. Sacred scripture often mixes cosmological description, theological affirmation, poetic metaphor, and moral instruction. A literalist reading of single phrases risks missing the Qurʾān’s discursive breadth.
Scope of the universal claim. Does the claim “everything is created from water” aim to be ontologically exhaustive (a material assertion about the substrate of all created things), or is it a restricted claim referring to a category—“every living thing” in a biological sense?
Semantic range of key words. Terms translated as “water,” “clay,” “dust,” or “fire” may function as proximate descriptors, symbolic language, or indications of form and function rather than precise material ontology.
Intertextual reading. How do the Qurʾānic passages interact? Are there places that reconcile apparent differences through qualifiers, chronology (creation narratives), or the purpose of each passage (e.g., moral, apologetic, cosmological)?

3. Theological implications and models of reconciliation

Several interpretive strategies are used by Muslim scholars and by critics to reconcile these passages:

Hierarchy of reference: Some argue that a general cosmological truth (“life depends on water”) coexists with particular creation narratives (Adam from clay), where “clay” denotes the shaping or formation rather than the ultimate material substrate.
Functional/teleological reading: “Created from water” may highlight life’s dependence upon water for biological functioning, whereas “from clay” highlights humanity’s lowly origin and moral lessons about humility.
Layered ontology: The Qurʾān may describe different ontological layers (physical body, spiritual interior, created form). Adam can be “from clay” in bodily formation while the living aspect—breath/soul and metabolic life—depends on water.
Metaphor and phenomenology: Terms such as “clay” and “fire” could be phenomenological descriptions accessible to the original audience, not modern chemical statements.

Each model has strengths and weaknesses; none is immune to critical probing.

4. Biological and philosophical reflections

From a modern biological perspective, all known terrestrial life exhibits a strong dependence on water for cellular processes. Yet:

Material substrate vs. emergent properties. Saying life “comes from water” can mean water is necessary for biochemistry, not that organisms are literally composed solely of water. Cells contain water but also complex organic molecules derived from minerals and carbon chemistry.
Origin-of-life questions. Scientific theories about abiogenesis posit aqueous environments as likely incubators for life, which would lend a non-theological reading to the Qurʾānic phrase—but science speaks at a different epistemic register than scripture.
Non-material beings. Angels and jinn, as described in Islamic tradition, belong to metaphysical categories. Comparing their scriptural descriptions to empirical biology is category-mistaken unless one first defines what counts as “creation” for non-physical entities.

5. Focused critical questions (for further theological and scholarly work)

Below I list questions that expose the interpretive and conceptual tensions; these are intended for theologians, exegetes, philosophers of religion, and scientifically literate readers.

When the Qurʾān states that “every living thing is made from water,” is the referent strictly biological life, or does it intend a cosmological, ontological claim that includes all created entities?
Does “made from water” mean “origins in aqueous environments,” “dependence upon water for life processes,” or a literal material composition claim?
How should statements about Adam being fashioned from clay/dust be reconciled with statements about life-from-water? Are these descriptions addressing different aspects (formation vs. animation)?
Are angels and jinn described as created from “different elements” in ways that imply categorical differences in mode of being (material vs. spiritual)? If so, does the “water” claim intentionally exclude spiritual beings?
To what extent do classical tafsīr (exegesis) traditions acknowledge and attempt to reconcile these divergent images? What hermeneutical principles do they use?
Can a consistent theological model be built where “water” describes the proximate material conditions for life while “clay/dust” describes the shaping of a special human form without contradiction? What are the costs of such a model for traditional exegesis?
How should contemporary scientific knowledge about cellular composition and abiogenesis inform a modern reading of these Qurʾānic phrases without reducing scripture to a scientific textbook?
Do different Qurʾānic terms for matter (e.g., ṭīn — clay, ṭabīʿa — nature, māʾ — water, nār — fire, rūḥ — spirit) operate with mutually exclusive ontologies, or is the text employing them rhetorically?
Is the tension best resolved by recognizing multiple literary registers in the Qurʾān (poetic, juridical, theological, cosmological), and if so, what methodological safeguards should interpreters use to avoid conflating registers?
What are the implications for doctrine (anthropology, angelology, soteriology) if one insists on a strictly literal material interpretation of all relevant verses?

6. Conclusion — toward a disciplined inquiry

Apparent contradictions between phrases like “everything is created from water” and other creation statements in the Qurʾān raise important hermeneutical challenges. These challenges are not mere pedantry: they shape theology, interreligious dialogue, and the interface between revelation and science. The most fruitful next steps are interdisciplinary: careful exegesis drawing from classical tafsīr, contemporary hermeneutics, and scientifically informed philosophy of biology. Scholarship should aim to clarify whether these statements are truly incompatible or whether they speak from complementary perspectives.

7. Suggested next steps for scholars and students

Compile classical and contemporary tafsīr on the relevant verses and compare methodologies.
Produce a short monograph outlining models of reconciliation and their implications.
Host interdisciplinary seminars (exegetes, philosophers, biologists) to test hermeneutical models against scientific and metaphysical criteria.

Prepared by:
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Helel, Lucifer, and Halal: A Philological and Theological Inquiry into Claims of Linguistic Relationship

Helel, Lucifer, and Halal: A Philological and Theological Inquiry into Claims of Linguistic Relationship

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

In recent years, some polemical discussions have attempted to draw a connection between the Hebrew term hêlēl (הֵילֵל) in Isaiah 14:12—later rendered as Lucifer in Latin—and the Arabic term halāl (حلال), which in Islam denotes what is lawful, particularly with reference to food and ritual slaughter. This article offers a critical, academic examination of these claims by exploring the linguistic, historical, and theological foundations of each term. Although superficial phonetic similarities may prompt comparison, the evidence demonstrates that these words arise from entirely different linguistic roots, semantic fields, and historical contexts. Nevertheless, this article investigates why such comparisons emerge, what assumptions they rely on, and how such claims function within interreligious debates.

1. Introduction

The idea that halal—Islamic ritual slaughter—derives from, or is conceptually related to, the Hebrew hêlēl, the word underlying the Latin Lucifer, appears frequently in polemical religious discourse. Proponents suggest that because the words sound alike, they share a common origin or meaning. Some even argue that halal practices are therefore connected to worship of a figure associated with evil.

From the standpoint of Hebrew, Arabic, philology, and biblical studies, this claim requires dispassionate academic scrutiny. The goal of this article is not to defend Islamic practice, nor to promote Christian polemics, but to analyze the linguistic and theological foundations of the claim and clarify what the biblical and Semitic data actually allow us to conclude.

**2. The Hebrew Term Helel (הֵילֵל) in Isaiah 14:12**

2.1 Meaning and Context

The word hêlēl appears only once in the Hebrew Bible (Isaiah 14:12). It derives from the root hll (הלל), which carries the meaning to shine. The phrase hêlēl ben shaḥar translates to “shining one, son of the dawn.”

2.2 Literary Purpose in Isaiah

Isaiah 14 is a poetic taunt against the king of Babylon. The prophet mocks the king’s pride by comparing his arrogance to that of the morning star rising in the sky—only to be cast down.

2.3 Later Christian Interpretation

Because the Latin Vulgate translated hêlēl as Lucifer (“light-bringer”), later Christian tradition associated this fall-from-heaven imagery with Satan. But in its original Hebrew context, the term referred metaphorically to a human king, not a supernatural being.

**3. The Arabic Term Halal (حلال)**

3.1 Meaning and Usage

Halāl in Arabic means “lawful, permissible” according to Islamic law. It derives from the Semitic root ḥ-l-l (حلل), meaning to untie, to make lawful, to permit. In Islamic jurisprudence, it refers to:

lawful food
lawful conduct
lawful economic transactions

3.2 Ritual Slaughter

Dhabīḥah, the Islamic method of slaughter, is commonly described as “halal meat.” The term halal does not originally mean sacrifice; it refers to permissibility.

**4. Linguistic Comparison: Helel and Halal

4.1 Different Root Letters

Despite superficial similarity in English transliteration, the words come from entirely different roots:

Word	Language	Root	Meaning
hêlēl (הֵילֵל)	Hebrew	h-l-l (הלל)	to shine
halāl (حلال)	Arabic	ḥ-l-l (حلل)	to make lawful

Hebrew h (ה) is not the Arabic ḥ (ح), which is a deep pharyngeal sound. The roots differ in meaning and structure.

These two words are not cognates, nor historically related.

4.2 Semitic Languages and “False Friends”

Semitic languages often produce words that look similar but are unrelated. These are called false cognates. Examples:

Hebrew kadosh (holy) vs. Arabic qadash (to curse)
Hebrew melek (king) vs. Arabic malak (angel)

Thus, similarity in sound does not establish a linguistic relationship.

5. Why Then Do Some Suggest a Connection?

Even though the linguistic evidence is clear, the comparison persists. Several factors explain this:

5.1 Phonetic Similarity in English Translation

When Hebrew הֵילֵל (hêlēl) is transliterated as “helel” and Arabic حلال (halāl) is transliterated as “halal,” the spellings look similar. This resemblance disappears when the original scripts and phonetics are considered.

**5.2 Confusion Between Hebrew halal (הלל – “to praise”) and Arabic halal (حلال – “lawful”)**

A separate Hebrew root halal (הלל), meaning “to praise”, is unrelated to Arabic halāl (“lawful”), but their English spellings create confusion.

5.3 Theological Interpretation vs. Linguistic Evidence

Some Christians argue:

If Lucifer (Helel) is a fallen angel,
and if “halal food” is ritual slaughter,
then the similarity in sound might suggest spiritual connection.

Academically, this falls under the fallacy of etymological association—the assumption that similar-sounding words imply shared origin or spiritual meaning.

6. Theological Evaluation of the Claim

Even if one rejects Islamic theology, no biblical, historical, or linguistic evidence supports the claim that:

“Halal comes from helel, therefore halal food is linked to Lucifer.”

6.1 Scriptural Silence

Neither the Bible nor Jewish tradition connects helel with food sacrifice.
Neither the Qur’an nor Islamic tradition connects halal with heavenly beings.

6.2 Historical Development

The term halāl predates Islam and is found in early Arabic usage meaning “lawful,” unrelated to celestial terminology.

6.3 Logical Implication

If phonetic similarity were enough to establish theological meaning, then:

English sun and son
Hebrew ’or (light) and Arabic ’awr (shame)
Latin malum (apple) and malum (evil)

Would also be considered spiritually connected. They are not.

7. Academic Conclusion

This study demonstrates:

Helel (הֵילֵל) in Hebrew means “shining one”, referring poetically to the king of Babylon.
Lucifer is a later Latin interpretive rendering, not the original Hebrew meaning.
Halal (حلال) in Arabic means “lawful/permitted” and has no etymological connection to hêlēl.
Any proposed theological relationship is non-linguistic, based on modern polemical interpretation rather than historical or philological evidence.

Thus, claims that Islamic halal derives from Hebrew hêlēl (Lucifer) are linguistically unfounded, historically unsustainable, and theologically constructed rather than textually supported.

Nevertheless, such claims should be studied academically because they reveal how language, religion, and polemics interact in contemporary debates.

Why Do We Say ISIS Are “True Muslims”?

English Translation

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Why Do We Say ISIS Are “True Muslims”?

Our Muslim brothers insist strongly that Muhammad is their ultimate standard of piety.
Therefore, every Muslim desires to reach the level of their prophet Muhammad by:

saying what he said,
doing what he did,
thinking what he thought,

because, according to them, these are “the righteous deeds.”

In the city of Medina, there was a Jewish tribe known as Banu Qurayza. They were attacked by Muhammad and his group in a battle that lasted about 25 days. Eventually, they were overpowered and surrendered.

Muhammad chose one of his companions, Sa’d ibn Mu’adh, to determine what should happen after Banu Qurayza surrendered.
Sa’d ibn Mu’adh ruled that:

all the men of Banu Qurayza should be executed,
their property confiscated,
their women and children taken as captives.

Muhammad accepted this ruling.

So what happened to those who were sentenced to death?

We read in Al-Tabari 8:35 and Ibn Ishaq 464:

“The Jews were made to come down, and Allah's Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men.”

Meaning:

The Jews were brought, and the Messenger of Allah imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went to the marketplace of Medina and ordered trenches to be dug. He commanded that the Jewish men be brought to him, and he ordered their beheading in those trenches. They were brought to him in groups. Their total number reached 800 to 900 men and boys.

This is the Muhammad whom Muslims claim is the beloved of Allah and the perfect example to follow.

Our Questions Are These:

Who are you to say Boko Haram are not “true Muslims” because they kidnapped 200 schoolgirls, when Muhammad himself captured an entire tribe?
Who are you to say ISIS are not “true Muslims” when they also dig trenches and kill people in them—just as Muhammad did?
Or is the difference simply that they use guns instead of swords?

Our Muslim brothers will argue that Banu Qurayza “broke a treaty,” and therefore they deserved such treatment.

But this argument collapses for one simple reason:

If you meet a professor who refuses to teach and says,
“Why should I teach when the students themselves are not teaching me?”
—would you not think something is seriously wrong with him?

You Muslims claim that you have the word of God.
You claim that non-Muslims are astray because they do not know God’s ways.

So if someone outside your faith does wrong, aren’t you the professor who is supposed to teach him?

If you behave exactly like the one you call a “disbeliever,” what do you have that is different?
Do you expect the non-believer to act righteously first so that you may act righteously afterward?
How absurd!

Therefore, we maintain this:

If Muhammad is truly the model of Islam, then ISIS and Boko Haram are indeed excellent Muslims.

But Jesus Is the Only Way to Life

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world.
Whoever follows Me shall not walk in darkness,
but will have the light of life.”
(John 8:12)

Reflect.

Take action.

What is the veil according to the Bible?

Translated into English by Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

**Why Is Jesus Called God?

Through the Qur’an and the Bible**

Many loud claims have been made among us, especially by Muslims, attempting to persuade us to accept what they believe. They continue to hold tightly to their views concerning the Divinity of Jesus. The root of all the questions Muslims ask about the Lord Jesus begins the moment Jesus took on human flesh. At first glance, this act may seem to diminish His divine authority. However, from my understanding, this act never lowered His authority—rather, it concealed it for the following reason:

God Once Revealed Himself Openly—and Humans Perished

Follow this:
Exodus 19:20–21 – The LORD descended upon Mount Sinai… The LORD called Moses up the mountain… Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go down and warn the people lest they break through to gaze at the LORD, and many of them perish.”

The key question:
In what form must God appear so that human beings can endure His presence?

Answer:
He must come in a form that covers the terrifying intensity of His divine authority from sinful human beings.

When He appears in human form, He experiences hunger, tears, walking, sleeping, and all human conditions. This is why Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.

Follow:
Exodus 33:18,20 – Moses said, “Show me Your glory.” God replied, “You cannot see My face, for no one can see Me and live.”

This fundamental reason explains why Jesus took on human flesh through Mary. The body of Jesus covered His majestic divine authority—it would not have been wise to reveal it fully, lest humanity perish instead of being saved. In other words, God (Jesus) used His human body as a means to approach His servants—just as God once revealed Himself in a burning bush according to the Qur’an.

“Humanity Is God’s Communication Method With His Servants”

Qur’an 42:51 – God communicates with His servants through:

Inspiration
From behind a veil (a covering of His authority)

The Qur’an mentions the veil as an instrument through which God speaks to humans. This veil is a covering that hides the full reality of God. Thus, God at certain times chooses to reveal Himself from behind a veil.

What is the veil according to the Bible?

Hebrews 10:20 – “through the veil, that is, His flesh.”

In the Bible, the veil represents the body of the Lord Jesus. His human flesh is the medium of communication between God and man—a covering that makes it possible for humanity to encounter Him without being destroyed.

Supporting Scriptures:

1 Timothy 3:16 – “God was manifested in the flesh.”
Hebrews 10:5 – “A body You prepared for Me.”
Philippians 2:7 – “He made Himself of no reputation… being made in the likeness of men.”

Why Is He Called the Son If He Is God?

Jesus’ title “Son of God” originates from His action of taking on human flesh.

John 1:14 – “The Word became flesh… the glory as of the only Son from the Father.”

This verse presents two great truths:

He became flesh
He is called the Son from Heaven

The Reason

Jesus’ mission to save humanity required Him not only to cover His divine glory but also to change His authoritative title temporarily.

A Simple Illustration

Water can change into different forms. When it freezes, we no longer call it water—we call it ice.

Question: Is ice not water?
Answer: It is water, only temporarily transformed in nature—and it will eventually return to its original state.

Likewise, Jesus was called the Son because He temporarily took on a form suitable for redeeming humanity.
He became “ice” from “water”—He became the Son from the divine essence solely for the purpose of salvation.
His divine essence remained unchanged.

Further Biblical Testimony of Jesus’ Divinity

John 14:7–10 – “Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father.”
Titus 2:13 – “Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
John 20:28 – Thomas said, “My Lord and my God!”

Dear beloved, I believe your fears and doubts concerning this subject have been addressed and cleared through this analysis. Now make your decision today and rebuild your faith in the divine authority of the Lord Jesus as revealed in Scripture.

Conclusion

Jesus is God, and therefore anyone who desires to go to Heaven can only do so through Jesus Christ alone.

Acts 4:12 – “There is no other name under Heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

WHY KHADIJA OPENED HER HEART TO MUHAMMAD

Translated into English by Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

“Can Muhammad truly marry me?” wondered Lady Khadija, an elderly woman who had already lost her teeth. After thinking for a long time, Khadija (Radhiya Llahu ‘anha) reached the decision to express to Muhammad the affection she had for him. “Even though this feels like a dream, it is still possible,” she thought. “But who can deliver my request to him? And will Muhammad accept me despite my old age?” she whispered to herself with concern.

As she was lost in these thoughts, there was a knock at the door.

“Who is knocking?”
“It is I, your sister Halah.”

Khadija welcomed her sister:

“Ahlan wa sahlan, welcome Halah.”

Halah replied,
“Thank you, Khadija. How are you all doing?”

Khadija said,
“We are fine, but this sudden visit surprises me.”

Halah responded,
“I simply came to check on you.”

Khadija looked at her intently,
“To check on me only? You sound unusual today. Are you hiding something from me?”

Halah observed her sister carefully and said:
“Not at all. I am hiding nothing. It’s just that earlier today I fell asleep and dreamt of you walking as though you were lost in a dark path, and behind you a voice kept saying, ‘Go forward, go forward.’ I felt I should come and check on you, though I do not know the meaning of the dream.”

Lady Khadija smiled slightly and said,
“The truth is, I have been deeply troubled in my thoughts these days.”

Halah asked,
“What are you thinking about? You live in such abundance and comfort.”

Khadija replied,
“I am thinking about Muhammad, my sister. I think about his qualities and his charm—none among the Quraysh men can match him.”

Halah asked,
“And where do these thoughts lead you?”

Khadija answered,
“I want him to marry me.”

Halah said,
“Then ask him to marry you.”

Lady Khadija responded timidly,
“I fear he might reject me because of my old age. He is young, and I am old.”

Halah encouraged her:
“You too, my sister, are a woman of wealth and great respect.”

Khadija replied,
“But look at my age. I have been married twice already, while he is a young man of twenty–five who has never married. How would Muhammad accept to marry a woman nearly the age of his mother, who has married twice before, and who has children?”

Halah asked,
“And who first told you about Muhammad, enough for you to trust him with your wealth for business?”

Khadija answered,
“My friend Nafisa.”

Halah said,
“Then let that same Nafisa present your request to him.”

She then bid farewell to her sister and left.

Given that Muhammad was an orphan who lived under the care of various people, it is clear his life lacked stability. Undoubtedly, like any young man, he would long for a permanent home. For this reason, the request of the elderly, wealthy toothless Khadija appeared to him as an opportunity.

Muhammad found no alternative but to accept the proposal of the wealthy elderly woman. Yet in his heart, there was always a certain inclination. When we look at Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 310, we find that one day Muhammad asked Jarir ibn Abdullah:

“Have you got married?”
He replied: “Yes.”
Muhammad asked: “A virgin or a matron?”
He answered: “I married a matron.”
Muhammad said: “Why did you not marry a virgin, so you may play with her and she may play with you?”

Meaning:

“You married?”
“Yes.”
“A virgin or an older woman?”
“An older woman.”
“Why did you not marry a virgin who would play with you and you play with her?”

What does this imply?

It implies that Muhammad’s marriage to Khadija, the elderly toothless woman, was not out of deep affection or desire. Rather, life circumstances compelled him to accept her. Muhammad preferred young girls—those he could “play with” and who could “play with him.”

This is why the death of Khadija created a rare opportunity—an opportunity he had long desired—to marry little girls such as Aisha, who was only six years old.

Questions for Reflection

(i) Why did Muhammad not have genuine affection for Lady Khadija?
(ii) Why was Muhammad drawn to Khadija’s wealth?
(iii) Did Muhammad benefit from Khadija’s death in order to fulfill his desire to marry little girls?
(iv) Why was Muhammad only able to marry many women after Khadija died?