“I and My Father Are One”: The Divine Confession of Jesus Christ

 Title: “I and My Father Are One”: The Divine Confession of Jesus Christ

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

In John 10:30, Jesus declares, “I and My Father are one.” This statement, though brief, is theologically profound and theologically revolutionary. It was this claim that provoked the Jews to attempt to stone Him, perceiving it as blasphemy — a man making Himself God (John 10:33). This article examines the theological, linguistic, and historical context of Jesus’ declaration, establishing that His words were not metaphorical or symbolic of mere unity of purpose but were a direct confession of His divine nature and ontological oneness with God the Father.

---

1. Introduction

The divinity of Jesus Christ stands as the cornerstone of Christian theology. The identity of Jesus as Theos (God) has been debated since the early days of the Church, yet the Johannine narrative presents an unambiguous portrayal of Christ’s divine identity. In John 10:30, the Greek text reads: “ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν” (“Ego kai ho Patēr hen esmen”) — literally, “I and the Father are one.” This declaration was neither an expression of cooperation nor unity of mission alone; it was a profound assertion of homoousios — equality of essence with the Father.

---

2. The Immediate Context: Reaction of the Jews

The immediate reaction of Jesus’ audience confirms the divine implications of His statement. John 10:31–33 records:

“Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, ‘I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?’ They answered, ‘We are not stoning you for any good work, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.’”

The Jewish leaders, steeped in monotheistic belief (Deuteronomy 6:4), recognized the gravity of Jesus’ claim. Their accusation of blasphemy reveals that they fully understood Jesus’ assertion as a claim to divine equality, not merely unity of purpose.

---

3. Linguistic and Theological Analysis

The key word in this verse is “hen” (ἕν), the neuter form of the Greek numeral “one.” The choice of the neuter form (not the masculine “heis”) indicates oneness in essence or nature rather than in person. Jesus was not saying, “I am the Father,” but rather, “The Father and I share the same divine substance.”

This aligns with the doctrine later articulated in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 325), which declared the Son as “homoousios tō Patri” — “of one substance with the Father.” Hence, the early Church Fathers correctly interpreted John 10:30 as a foundational text affirming the consubstantial nature of the Son with the Father.

---

4. Old Testament Parallels and Theological Continuity

The Old Testament establishes God as the sole shepherd of Israel (Psalm 23:1; Ezekiel 34:11–16). Yet in John 10:11, Jesus claims, “I am the Good Shepherd.” This is a direct appropriation of Yahweh’s divine role, making Jesus’ identity as the divine Shepherd unmistakable.

Furthermore, Isaiah 43:11 declares, “I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.” Yet in John 4:42 and Luke 2:11, Jesus is called “the Savior of the world.” These texts, taken together, establish an unbroken theological continuity between the Yahweh of Israel and the Jesus of the Gospels.

---

5. Christological Implications

By declaring His oneness with the Father, Jesus revealed the mystery of the Trinity — one divine essence subsisting in three distinct Persons. This understanding was later crystallized in Trinitarian theology. The Apostle Paul echoes this divine equality in Philippians 2:6, where Christ, “being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped.”

Similarly, in John 14:9, Jesus tells Philip, “Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father.” Such statements transcend mere prophetic or moral identification with God — they reveal ontological unity.

The Nicene and Chalcedonian Fathers consistently cited John 10:30 as incontrovertible evidence of Christ’s deity. Athanasius, in his Orations Against the Arians (III.4), wrote:

“For the Son is not merely like the Father, but one with the Father, the same in essence, and the same God.”

---

6. The Witness of the Apostles

The apostolic testimony consistently affirms Jesus’ divine identity:

• John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

• Colossians 2:9: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”

• Hebrews 1:3: “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.”

Thus, the confession of Jesus in John 10:30 finds corroboration across the New Testament corpus, harmonizing with the apostolic understanding of His eternal and divine nature.

---

7. Conclusion

When Jesus said, “I and My Father are one,” He was not speaking as a prophet identifying with God’s mission but as God Himself declaring His ontological unity with the Father. His words caused outrage among the Jews precisely because they understood His divine claim. The statement stands as an explicit confession of divinity — a self-revelation of God incarnate.

In the person of Jesus Christ, the invisible God became visible, the eternal Word took on flesh, and the Shepherd of Israel walked among His sheep. The words of John 10:30 remain the cornerstone of Christian confession: that Jesus is not merely the Son of God but God the Son — coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial with the Father.

---

References

• The Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV). Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

• Athanasius of Alexandria. Orations Against the Arians. Translated by John Henry Newman. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. IV.

• Augustine of Hippo. Tractates on the Gospel of John. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. VII.

• Calvin, John. Commentary on the Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949.

• Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020.

• Nicene Creed (A.D. 325), in Creeds of Christendom, edited by Philip Schaff.

• Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

• Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

---

Mary Worships Jesus as God: A Theological and Christological Study

 Title: Mary Worships Jesus as God: A Theological and Christological Study

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

This article explores the theological assertion that Mary, the mother of Jesus, recognized and worshiped her Son as God incarnate. Drawing primarily from Luke 1:46–47 and Luke 2:11–12, this study affirms that Mary’s language, posture, and prophetic declarations demonstrate her acknowledgment of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Through a close exegetical analysis and historical-theological reflection, this paper argues that Mary’s worship was directed toward her divine Savior—Jesus Christ—who was both her Son and her God.

---

1. Introduction

The identity of Jesus Christ as both God and man is a foundational truth of Christian theology. From the earliest centuries, the Church has affirmed the hypostatic union—that in Christ, two natures, divine and human, exist in one Person (John 1:1, 14; Philippians 2:6–7). The question of Mary’s understanding of her Son’s divinity is not merely devotional but doctrinal, as it relates to the recognition of Jesus as Emmanuel, God with us (Matthew 1:23). In the Gospel of Luke, Mary’s response to the angelic announcement and her subsequent Magnificat provide theological evidence that she recognized her Son as divine and worshiped Him as God.

---

2. The Magnificat and the Recognition of Deity (Luke 1:46–47)

Mary’s song in Luke 1:46–47 states:

“My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.”

This verse reveals Mary’s intimate relationship with God as her Savior. The term “God my Savior” (ho theos ho sōtēr mou) indicates personal salvation, but within the narrative of Luke, it points prophetically to the child she was carrying—Jesus—who, according to Matthew 1:21, would “save His people from their sins.” Thus, Mary’s confession anticipates that her salvation would come through the divine mission of her Son.

Scholars such as Raymond E. Brown (The Birth of the Messiah, 1993) and N.T. Wright (Jesus and the Victory of God, 1996) emphasize that Mary’s declaration is theologically charged with Messianic expectation. Her identification of God as “my Savior” aligns with the angel’s announcement in Luke 2:11:

“For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.”

The same divine title “Savior” unites Mary’s confession and the angelic proclamation, confirming that the Savior she glorifies in her womb is the same Lord whom the angels worship. Hence, Mary’s praise is not abstract but Christocentric—her worship is directed toward the divine identity of her unborn Son.

---

3. The Angelic Announcement and Divine Identity (Luke 2:11–12)

The angels’ message to the shepherds in Luke 2:11–12 declares Jesus’ triple title: Savior, Christ, and Lord. Each of these titles carries divine connotations:

• Savior (σωτήρ) – used in the Old Testament (LXX) exclusively for God (Isaiah 43:11).

• Christ (χριστός) – the Anointed One, fulfilling the Messianic promise of divine kingship.

• Lord (κύριος) – a title used by the Septuagint for YHWH, the covenant name of God.

Therefore, when Mary heard this confirmation, it would have affirmed what she already knew from Gabriel’s earlier message in Luke 1:35:

“The holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.”

The phrase “Son of God” here signifies divine essence, not mere adoption or favor. Mary thus became both mother and worshiper—bearing the incarnate Deity who existed before her and through whom she herself would be redeemed.

---

4. Mary’s Worship as Theological Confession

Mary’s worship cannot be understood as idolatrous or misdirected because the object of her worship—Jesus—is God Himself in human flesh. The early Church Fathers, such as Athanasius (On the Incarnation, 318 A.D.) and Cyril of Alexandria, affirmed that “He whom Mary bore according to the flesh is God the Word.” This means that Mary’s reverence toward her Son was not toward a mere man but toward the divine Logos made flesh (John 1:14).

In the liturgical and theological traditions of the Church, Mary’s act of magnifying the Lord is interpreted as Theotokos theology—Mary as “God-bearer.” The Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) upheld this title precisely because her child was divine. Thus, her worship is an implicit acknowledgment of the mystery of the Incarnation: God became man, and the one who bore Him rightly worshiped Him.

---

5. Christological Implications

Mary’s worship of Jesus underscores three essential Christological truths:

1. The Divinity of Christ: Mary worships Jesus because He is God incarnate (John 20:28).

2. The Unity of the Natures: Her act of reverence toward her Son affirms that the divine and human natures of Christ are united in one Person.

3. The Revelation of Salvation: Her confession “God my Savior” aligns with the apostolic teaching that salvation is found in no other name but Jesus (Acts 4:12).

Thus, Mary’s faith anticipates the full revelation of Jesus’ identity as confessed by the Church: “Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:11).

---

6. Conclusion

Mary’s worship of Jesus is both a theological and a prophetic act. In Luke 1:46–47 and 2:11–12, she recognizes that her child is not merely the Messiah of Israel but God Himself, the eternal Savior. Her song magnifies the Lord who is in her womb, and her joy springs from the revelation that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has taken on human flesh through her. Therefore, Mary’s worship of Jesus is the worship of the one true God manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).

---

Bibliography

• Athanasius. On the Incarnation. Trans. A Religious of C.S.M.V. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1993.

• Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

• Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on Luke. Ancient Christian Texts Series.

• N.T. Wright. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

• The Holy Bible, English Standard Version.

• The Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431.

• Shimba, Maxwell. Christology and Divine Identity in the Gospel of Luke. Shimba Theological Institute Press, 2025.

---

Jesus’ Confession as God in John 5:23

 Jesus’ Confession as God in John 5:23

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

John 5:23 declares, “That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him.” This statement by Jesus Christ is one of the most profound theological affirmations of His deity within the Johannine corpus. It constitutes a Christological confession of equality with God, revealing that the Son is not a mere representative of divine will but a full participant in divine identity and honor.

In Jewish monotheistic tradition, divine honor (tîphtâr Yahweh) was exclusively reserved for God. To attribute equal honor to any created being was considered blasphemy (cf. Isaiah 42:8: “My glory I will not give to another”). Therefore, when Jesus demands that “all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father,” He explicitly positions Himself as the rightful recipient of divine worship and glory. This is not a derived or secondary honor; rather, it is an intrinsic honor that flows from His divine essence. Jesus here is not appealing for comparative reverence but asserting ontological equality — the Son possesses the same divine nature as the Father, thus deserving identical veneration.

The Greek expression “kathōs timōsin ton patera” (“even as they honor the Father”) denotes an equivalence in manner and measure. Jesus is not simply saying that He should be respected as a prophet or exalted as a messianic figure. He is declaring that the same worship, reverence, and glory given to the eternal Father must be rendered to Him. This linguistic symmetry conveys the theological truth of homoousios — the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, later defined by the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.). The early Church rightly perceived in this verse the foundation for Trinitarian theology: the Son is not a creature but co-eternal, co-equal, and co-glorious with the Father.

Furthermore, the context of John 5 reinforces this divine confession. Jesus had healed a man on the Sabbath (John 5:1–9), provoking outrage among the Jewish leaders. When accused of violating the Sabbath, He replied, “My Father is working until now, and I am working” (John 5:17). The evangelist immediately notes that the Jews sought to kill Him because He “was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18). Thus, verse 23 is the culmination of Jesus’ deliberate revelation of His divine identity — an identity that demands the same honor due to God alone.

In claiming equality in honor, Jesus implicitly claims equality in essence, authority, and power. The Father and the Son share in the same divine works (John 5:19–21), the same life-giving power (v. 26), and the same prerogative of judgment (v. 22). These are uniquely divine functions, not delegated to creatures. Therefore, the demand for equal honor is not arrogance but the rightful recognition of divine truth.

To deny the Son’s divine honor, Jesus warns, is to dishonor the Father Himself. The rejection of the Son is not a neutral act — it is a theological offense against the very God one claims to worship. Hence, Christ’s statement in John 5:23 carries both revelatory and judicial weight: it reveals who God truly is and judges all false forms of worship that refuse to glorify the Son alongside the Father.

In summary, John 5:23 stands as Jesus’ unmistakable confession of deity. It dismantles every notion of a merely human or created Christ and enthrones Him in the full majesty of divine worship. To honor the Son “as the Father” is to confess that Jesus is Theos — God manifest in the flesh (John 1:14). The early Church did not invent His divinity; it merely articulated what Jesus Himself declared — that He shares the same honor, glory, and essence with the Eternal Father.

References

• Holy Bible, John 5:17–23.

• Isaiah 42:8; Philippians 2:9–11; Revelation 5:12–13.

• Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Vol. I (New York: Doubleday, 1966).

• F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).

• Athanasius of Alexandria, Orations Against the Arians, III.

• Nicene Creed (325 A.D.).

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
"That all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." — John 5:23

Islam as a Culture of Arabification

Islam as a Culture of Arabification
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Islam, while widely recognized as a global religion, carries with it profound cultural implications that extend beyond mere faith. Historically, the spread of Islam has been closely intertwined with the propagation of Arab culture, resulting in a process that can be understood as a form of Arabification. This cultural phenomenon is evident in several distinct dimensions of Islamic practice and identity.

Firstly, the linguistic element is prominent. Arabic is not only the liturgical language of Islam but is also positioned as the central medium for religious expression and understanding. Non-Arab converts are often required to learn Arabic to engage fully with the Quran, perform prayers (Salat), and recite religious texts correctly. The insistence on Arabic as the language of worship and knowledge transmission represents a deliberate cultural imposition, ensuring that adherents adopt not only the religion but also the associated linguistic framework.

Secondly, dietary and lifestyle practices underscore Arabification. Islamic dietary laws, derived from Arabic jurisprudence, dictate the consumption of specific foods (halal) and the avoidance of others (haram), which are closely aligned with historical Arab eating customs. Similarly, dress codes—such as the hijab, thobe, and other traditional garments—reflect Arab sartorial norms. These prescriptions shape the daily life of Muslims, fostering cultural assimilation into an Arabized lifestyle.

Thirdly, Islamic rituals are spatially Arab-centric. The act of worship requires facing Mecca, the Arabian city of profound religious significance, during prayer. Pilgrimage (Hajj) also centralizes Mecca and Medina as the spiritual and physical heart of Islam, reinforcing the primacy of Arab geography in the religious imagination. Even the structure of mosques and the aesthetic of Islamic art often mirrors Arab architectural traditions, further embedding Arab culture into the global Muslim experience.

Finally, these aspects collectively point to Islam not merely as a religion but as a vehicle for Arab cultural propagation. While Islam’s theological claims are universal, its practices systematically require adherence to Arab linguistic, dietary, sartorial, and spatial norms. The result is a dual imposition: acceptance of faith coupled with absorption into an Arab cultural identity. This cultural dimension has profound implications for non-Arab societies, where conversion to Islam often entails a degree of Arabization in daily life, thought, and social behavior.

In conclusion, the Arabification embedded within Islamic practice highlights the inseparable relationship between faith and culture in Islam. Understanding Islam in this light allows scholars and practitioners to critically examine the extent to which religious adherence involves cultural assimilation, particularly into Arab norms, and to explore the broader social, linguistic, and cultural ramifications of this process.

References:

• Lapidus, I. M. A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

• Hourani, A. A History of the Arab Peoples. Harvard University Press, 2010.

• Esposito, J. L. Islam: The Straight Path. Oxford University Press, 2016.

• Rahman, F. Islam. University of Chicago Press, 2015.

---

The Crisis of Authenticity in Islam: A Theological and Sociopolitical Reflection

 Title: The Crisis of Authenticity in Islam: A Theological and Sociopolitical Reflection

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

This paper examines the pressing question of religious authenticity within Islam, particularly in light of extremist movements such as Hamas and ISIS. Despite their rigorous adherence to Islamic rituals—daily prayers, fasting, almsgiving, and Quranic memorization—these groups have engaged in violent acts that contradict the moral and humanitarian values they claim to uphold. This analysis seeks to understand how such contradictions can exist within a religious framework that lacks a formal mechanism of excommunication or theological correction.

---

Introduction

The global image of Islam has been deeply affected by the actions of extremist organizations that profess to represent true Islamic piety. Movements like Hamas and ISIS have demonstrated outward devotion—meticulous in prayer, fasting, and recitation of the Qur’an—yet they have simultaneously propagated terror, killed civilians, and committed acts of violence against both Muslims and non-Muslims. This paradox presents a profound theological and moral dilemma: who defines what it means to be a “true Muslim”?

Unlike other religious traditions, Islam possesses no centralized authority or formal system of excommunication. Consequently, anyone may self-identify as Muslim regardless of their interpretation or behavior. This theological vacuum allows extremists to weaponize religious language and rituals while justifying acts of brutality in the name of faith.

---

The Deceptive Nature of Outward Piety

Islamic extremism exposes the limitations of external religiosity as a marker of spiritual authenticity. Outward piety—strict observance of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving—can easily mask inner corruption. In groups such as ISIS and Hamas, ritual precision has become a performance of legitimacy, while their violent conduct stands in direct opposition to Qur’anic injunctions against murder and injustice (Qur’an 5:32).

To the uninformed observer, such ritual-perfect adherents appear more devout than moderate or reformist Muslims, making it difficult to distinguish true faith from fanaticism. This phenomenon mirrors Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees in the Gospels, who were outwardly righteous but inwardly corrupt (Matthew 23:27).

---

The Silence of Religious Leadership

Equally troubling is the silence of many Islamic clerics and scholars. Few are willing to challenge extremist ideologies publicly. Some, like the controversial preacher Zakir Naik, have even offered implicit or explicit justifications for militant interpretations of jihad. This reluctance to engage in open theological debate has allowed extremist ideologies to flourish unchecked within the Muslim world.

In contrast, other religious traditions—Christianity, for instance—have historically confronted heresy and doctrinal corruption through public councils, creeds, and formal condemnations. The absence of similar institutional accountability in Islam leaves a dangerous vacuum where extremist interpretations can claim divine legitimacy.

---

Theological Implications

If groups such as Hamas and ISIS are not “real Muslims,” then one must ask: why has there been no unified, authoritative condemnation from the global Muslim community? Conversely, if these groups are indeed acting consistently within certain interpretations of Islamic texts, then this raises serious theological concerns about the divine authenticity of those interpretations themselves.

This dilemma exposes Islam’s internal crisis—a religion deeply fragmented by its lack of central authority and interpretive unity. The coexistence of peace-loving Muslims and militant jihadists under the same religious banner demonstrates that Islam, as practiced today, operates more as a humanly constructed system than a divinely unified faith.

---

Conclusion

The challenge before Islamic theologians and leaders is immense. To reclaim moral credibility, Islam must develop a mechanism for theological accountability—a means to publicly denounce and excommunicate those who distort its teachings for political violence. Until that happens, extremists will continue to masquerade as devout believers, and the world will remain uncertain whether their faith inspires peace or perpetuates bloodshed.

The question remains: if Islam is divine, why does it continually produce movements that embody its most violent interpretations? Unless answered through open theological reform and moral courage, the silence of Islamic leadership will serve as its own indictment.

---

References

• The Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:32 – “Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land—it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.”

• The Holy Bible, Matthew 23:27 – “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres...”

• Esposito, John L. (2011). Islam and Politics. Oxford University Press.

• Lewis, Bernard (2003). The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror. Random House.

• Ruthven, Malise (2006). Islam in the World. Penguin Books.

• Shimba, Maxwell (2025). Islam is Refined Paganism. Shimba Theological Institute Press.

---

 

“Is there a massive hidden land in the hadith?”

An academic-scholarly critique and evidence-based refutation
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract (short).
A claim circulates online and in some popular discussions that a sahīh hadith teaches that there is a vast landmass currently hidden from humankind (a lost continent, hidden island or entire world). This paper examines the primary texts invoked, surveys classical and contemporary tafsīr/hadīth commentary, and compares those claims to modern empirical evidence from satellite and mapping systems. The conclusion: the specific sahīh hadiths commonly cited do not describe — nor provide evidence for — a presently hidden, massive terrestrial continent that human technology (satellite imagery, mapping) should already have discovered. The claim is therefore a piece of misinformation when presented as a literal, modern-empirical fact.

---

1. The claim and the primary texts people cite

The claim usually takes two shapes in popular circulation:

1. There is a sahīh hadith that says there are whole lands hidden (now unknown) to mankind.

2. Therefore, modern maps (Google Maps, satellites) are incomplete; a vast continent/land is currently hidden from us.

What do the canonical hadith collections actually contain? One frequently cited text is the hadith about someone “usurping a span of land” and being “encircled down the seven earths” — reported in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. These narrations are authentic, but their wording and context do not say “a hidden modern continent exists and is currently unknown to people.” (Sunnah)

(Other narrations that speakers sometimes conflate — e.g., reports about Gog and Magog (Yaʾjūj wa-Maʾjūj) being behind a barrier, or reports about an island where the Dajjāl is held — are also circulated; these are of mixed chains and require careful study and distinct treatment.) (Ghayb)

---

2. How classical and contemporary scholars read these texts

Scholars have offered several interpretive approaches to formulations such as “seven earths” or references to other lands:

• Literal-multilayer / multiple-worlds reading. Some classical mufassirūn and ḥadīth commentators accept that “seven earths” could mean distinct realms/lands created by God (analogous to seven heavens), whose exact nature is part of the unseen (ghayb). (SeekersGuidance)

• Metaphorical / moral reading. Other scholars stress the moral, juridical or eschatological point of the narration (e.g., the severity of usurping land) rather than a geographical claim about an unknown continent; thus the language may be symbolic or concerned with ultimate punishment rather than with cartography. (SeekersGuidance)

• Caution about over-literalization. Contemporary scholars frequently caution Muslims not to force ahādīth about the unseen into modern scientific categories; where the texts speak of the unseen, classical scholars often say: believe what is reported and do not insist on empirical analogues beyond what the text permits. (Islam-QA)

Bottom line from the fiqh/tafsīr/hadīth side: the canonical narrations cited by claimants do not straightforwardly assert the existence of a presently hidden, cartographically-large landmass on Earth that human observation should already have detected. Rather, they belong to cosmological or eschatological discourse and admit multiple legitimate interpretive options. (SeekersGuidance)

---

3. Empirical test: what would a massive hidden land mean for satellite and mapping evidence?

If there were a large landmass on Earth (on the order of a continent or large island) that humans had not observed or mapped:

• It would block or alter satellite optical imagery (visible bands) and radar returns at many wavelengths, and it would appear in multiple independent datasets collected by different agencies and commercial providers.

• Modern Earth-observation systems provide near-global coverage at multiple resolutions and wavelengths (NASA’s MODIS, Landsat series, ESA Sentinel, plus commercial high-resolution providers). Google Earth/Google Maps aggregate imagery from many such sources and also incorporate aerial, street-level, and photogrammetric data. These datasets overlap and are independently collected. (Worldview)

• Google itself reports very high coverage of habitable areas (Google Earth/Maps cover the vast majority of inhabited places and high-resolution datasets span almost the entire land surface available for imaging). Independent scientific programs (Landsat, Sentinel, MODIS) provide continuous global monitoring. The practical implication: a continent-scale feature cannot remain unseen across these independent systems for long. (Google)

Therefore: from an empirical/remote-sensing perspective, the notion of a modern massive landmass currently hidden from humanity is extremely implausible.

---

4. Why the “hidden land” myth spreads (and how to correct it)

Several dynamics produce and sustain the myth:

1. Conflation of genres. Eschatological, cosmological, and metaphorical hadith language gets conflated with modern, empirical geography. An image that was theological/eschatological becomes read as a geographic claim. Scholarly nuance is lost in popular transmission. (SeekersGuidance)

2. Ambiguous expressions (“seven earths”, “barrier”, “hidden island”). Classical Arabic terms (and Qurʾānic metaphors) admit multiple readings; readers who prefer sensational readings select the literal/physical interpretation and ignore alternate readings.

3. Trust deficit and conspiratorial thinking. In an era of conspiracy narratives, a claim that “authorities are hiding a continent” is emotionally attractive and shares features with other modern conspiracies (secret islands, hidden bases, suppressed maps).

How to correct it (practical steps):

• Encourage responsible citation: always publish the exact hadith text, the isnād, and classical explanations when making extraordinary claims. (Sunnah)

• Refer readers to authoritative tafsīr and hadith collections (e.g., Tafsīr al-Qurʾān by al-Tabari/Ibn Kathīr where relevant, and standard hadith collections with isnād/grades) and point out diversity of scholarly views. (SeekersGuidance)

• For empirical claims invoke open satellite datasets (NASA Earthdata, Landsat, Sentinel) and Google Earth/Maps — these are public, independently collected, and routinely updated; invite claimants to pick coordinates and check multiple imagery sources. (NASA Earthdata)

---

5. Qualified limits and honest caveats

• Underground or ephemeral features. The above does not deny the existence of underground caverns, subterranean structures, or places with sparse satellite coverage in very high resolution (e.g., deep caves, dense canopy) — those are not “massive continents” and would not change the overall global land map.

• Areas of restricted imaging. Certain sensitive sites (military bases, some governmental restrictions) may limit public high-resolution imagery in specific locations, but this is not the same as an entire hidden continent. Google and scientific satellites still provide multisource datasets that would reveal large-scale land presence. (Google for Developers)

---

6. Conclusion

1. Textually: The sahīh hadiths cited in social media (e.g., the “seven earths” wording) are authentic in wording, but their most reasonable classical readings do not require us to accept a claim that a large terrestrial continent is currently hidden from humanity. They speak in cosmological/eschatological register and admit multiple scholarly interpretations. (Sunnah)

2. Empirically: Modern satellite imagery and mapping systems (NASA, Landsat, Sentinel, Google Earth/Maps and many commercial providers) produce overlapping, independent, near-global coverage. The persistence of an undiscovered continent is inconsistent with the empirical evidence. (Landsat Science)

3. Therefore: Presenting a sahīh hadith as proof that there is a currently hidden massive land on Earth is a misreading of the texts combined with a misapplication of modern empirical claims. Such a claim should be treated as misinformation.

---

Selected resources & further reading

(These are sources to check primary texts, tafsīr, and empirical datasets.)

Primary hadith texts & commentary

• Sahih al-Bukhari / Sahih Muslim entries on “one who usurps a span of land … seven earths.” (various online editions and searchable collections). (Sunnah)

• SeekersGuidance — short commentary on that hadith’s meaning and moral import. (SeekersGuidance)

Classical/contemporary tafsīr & discussion

• Tafsīr entries on Qur’an 65:12 (“seven heavens and of the earth, the like of them”) — survey of Ibn Kathir, al-Suyūṭī, al-ʿAlūsī and others for multiple interpretive options. (SeekersGuidance)

Empirical / mapping datasets

• Google Earth / Google Maps (product pages and coverage statements). Useful to check any coordinate visually. (Google)

• NASA Earthdata, Worldview and Landsat — continuously updated, global, open satellite imagery and data archives. (Good for independent verification of any geographic claim.) (Worldview)

---

Short suggested public-facing statement you can re-use

“Certain hadith use cosmological and eschatological language (e.g., ‘seven earths’) that classical scholars have read in different ways. These narrations are not a basis for claiming a presently hidden continent. Independent satellite and mapping datasets (NASA, Landsat, Google Earth etc.) provide near-global coverage; a continent-scale terrestrial landmass invisible to them is empirically implausible. Prudence requires careful textual reading combined with open empirical verification.”

---

• 
  

MUHAMMAD THE FALSE PROPHET

Muslims will argue against the claim that Muhammad was a false prophet, but many of us know—based on evidence—that Muhammad never was and never will be a prophet of Almighty God. Rather, he was a fabricated prophet, meaning his prophethood was invented like a musical performance. When we examine Muhammad’s history, we learn the following:

When Muhammad reached the age of 38, due to the hardships of life, he left his home and relocated to the caves of Jabal Hira, located near the city of Mecca. At the age of 40, one day he was approached by a being that Muslims today call the Angel Gabriel.

The so-called “revelation” (wahyi) that came to Muhammad made him hear the sound of bells; his face turned red, and sweat poured from his body. In Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 2, Vol. 1; Al-Lu’lu, Book 3, p. 874, Hadith No. 1505, we read the following:

Aisha (r.a), the Mother of the Believers, narrated that Al-Harith ibn Hisham (r.a) asked the Messenger of Allah:
“O Messenger of Allah, how does revelation come to you?”

The Prophet replied:

“Sometimes it comes like the ringing of a bell, and that is the hardest on me. When the sound stops, I have received the revelation.
And sometimes the angel comes in the form of a man and speaks to me, and I understand what he says.”

Aisha added:

“I saw revelation coming to him on a very cold day, and once it departed from him, his forehead would be dripping with sweat.”

The Qur’an confirms this in Sura 53:2–6 (An-Najm – The Star):

Your companion (Muhammad) has neither strayed nor erred.
Nor does he speak from his own desire.
It is nothing but revelation revealed to him.
Taught to him by one mighty in power—Gabriel—
one endowed with strength, who stood firm.”

Let us continue with the analysis.

Muhammad Was Manipulated by Satan While in the Cave

In the book “Wakeze Mtume Wakubwa na Wanawe” written by Sheikh Abdullah Saleh Al-Farsy, p. 12, we read:

“The Prophet became frightened and returned to his wife. He told her what had happened, and immediately a great fever overtook him. He asked to be covered with garments.
He trembled severely and said:
‘I fear for myself that I have been played with by Satan, that my mind has been harmed, and that I have been deceived.’”

Khadija responded:

“Stop saying that. It is not possible. A person with your good qualities cannot be played with by Satan…”
(She then concluded): “By God, I see that you have become a prophet.”

This event, which Muslims universally describe as Muhammad receiving revelation and being appointed as a prophet, clearly shows that Muhammad himself did not know what happened to him in the cave. That is why when he reached home, he told Khadija:

“It was Satan.”
Not an angel, as Muslims insist today.

This is our first point.

---

Second Point: Waraqah ibn Nawfal

Khadija’s cousin, Waraqah ibn Nawfal, told Muhammad that the being who appeared to him was the angel Gabriel, and that Muhammad should rejoice because he is a prophet sent to the nation.

But was Waraqah present in the cave to verify this?

---

Third Point: Khadija’s Testimony

Even Khadija declared that Muhammad was a prophet, yet she was not in the cave.

If Muhammad said it was Satan who appeared to him, who told Khadija it was Gabriel?

Think about it.

---

Muhammad Could Not Distinguish Between Angels and Satan

In Tafsir Al-Kashif by Muhammad Jawad Mughniyyah, p. 74, paragraph 7, it states:

“There is no way to know Satan, demons, or jinn except through revelation alone.”

Qur’an Sura 38:69 (Sad) says Muhammad admitted:

“I had no knowledge of the exalted assembly (angels).”

Muhammad even claimed that when a donkey brays, it has seen Satan (Hadith in Mkweli Mwaminifu, Vol. 3–4, Hadith 789).

But the Bible teaches that God used a donkey to see and speak with an angel (Numbers 22:22–31).

Muhammad saw Satan.
Balaam saw the Angel of the Lord.

---

Revelation Built on Satanic Interaction

Since Muhammad’s earliest revelations involved deceptive interactions he interpreted as Satan, this casts doubt on his prophethood entirely—especially compared with biblical prophets.

The Bible warns us that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:13–15).

---

Muhammad Was Bewitched (Under Magic)

The Qur’an itself admits this accusation from the unbelievers:

Sura 17:47

“You are following only a man bewitched.”

Sura 113 (Al-Falaq) also deals with magic performed against Muhammad.

The commentary in Qur’an (8th edition, p. 977) explains that Muhammad was struck by sorcery that caused him illness and confusion. Numerous Islamic scholars—Bukhari, Muslim, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad, and others—confirmed this.

This implies:

If Muhammad could be controlled by sorcery, how can Muslims distinguish:

• which teachings came from Allah,

• and which came from magic?

The Bible says clearly:

Numbers 23:23 –
“There is no sorcery against Jacob, nor divination against Israel.”

No biblical prophet was ever bewitched.

---

Prophets Must Come from Israel – Qur’an Agrees

Biblically, true prophets come through the lineage of Israel:

Ezekiel 13:9

The Qur’an also confirms that prophethood is confined to the descendants of Isaac and Jacob:

Sura 29:27

Muhammad was neither an Israelite nor descended from Isaac or Jacob. He was a Qurayshi Arab.

Even Muhammad warned people to stay away from his own tribe:

Sahih Bukhari Vol. 1, Hadith 801

---

Absence of Miracles

The Qur’an testifies that Muhammad performed no miracles:

Sura 29:50

“They say: Why were no signs (miracles) sent down?
Say: Miracles are only with Allah; I am only a warner.”

But prophets in the Bible performed mighty miracles:

• Moses divided the Red Sea (Exodus 14:21)

• Paul healed the sick (Acts 19:11–12)

• Peter raised the dead (Acts 9:36–42)

---

Prophetic Qualifications in Islam Contradict Biblical Standards

Muhammad claimed that the characteristics of prophets included:

• trimming the mustache

• growing the beard

• using perfume

• marriage

• using a tooth-stick
  (From Mkweli Mwaminifu, Juzuu 3–4, Hadith 880)

These are not divine attributes; they are human hygiene practices, not prophetic criteria.

The Bible says prophets had:

• boldness

• divine authority

• purity

• spiritual insight

---

“We Have Sent You” – Who Sent Muhammad?

Qur’an 4:79 says:

“We have sent you to the people as a messenger, and Allah is sufficient as a witness.”

A witness is not the sender.

So who sent Muhammad?
Was it Khadija and Waraqah, who first declared him a prophet?

Think deeply.

---

Conclusion: The Bible and the Qur’an Contradict Muhammad’s Claims

Muslims claim Muhammad was sent by their god, the so-called “King of Kings”.
But the Bible says the true King of Kings is Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God (Revelation 17:14; 19:11–16).

Thus, the two cannot be the same.

---

MUHAMMAD PRACTICED MAGIC AND DIVINATION

 Friday, August 26, 2016

MUHAMMAD PRACTICED MAGIC AND DIVINATION

1. Prophet Muhammad used witchcraft.

2. Prophet Muhammad claimed that his hair could heal the evil eye.

3. Where in the Bible do we read that the Prophets and Apostles ever used witchcraft?

Dear Reader,
Today, I would like us to study about Muhammad and the Use of Witchcraft in Islam.

MUHAMMAD USED WITCHCRAFT

Muhammad used witchcraft (magical powers) against the evil eye and venomous creatures like lizards. (Ibn-i-Majah, Vol. 5, No. 3525, p. 48).
Now, where do we read in the Torah, Psalms, or Gospel that the Prophets and Apostles of the Bible used witchcraft?
Does Allah not have the power to heal the evil eye or poison without using witchcraft?

MUHAMMAD GAVE HIS WIFE AISHA A TALISMAN

Muhammad gave his wife ‘Aisha a magical charm to heal her from the evil eye. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, Book 24, Nos. 5445, 5447–5450, p. 1196).
What is the difference between witchcraft and sorcery? As we see above, Muhammad gave witchcraft to his beloved wife.
Where do we ever read that the Prophets of the Bible used witchcraft?

Muhammad believed in the evil eye and had charms against it. (Al-Tabari, Vol. 39, p. 134).
The last two chapters of the Qur’an (Surahs 113 and 114) were written concerning the evil eye according to (Ibn-i-Majah, Vol. 5, No. 3517, p. 41).

However, Surahs 113 and 114 are missing from Ibn Mas’ud’s version of the Qur’an (The Fihrist, p. 57). This omission was not accidental. It is recorded that Ibn Mas’ud said:

“The two charms—Surahs [113, 114]—are not part of the Book of God.”

Ibn Mas’ud was Muhammad’s personal secretary. Muhammad told people to learn the Qur’an from Ibn Mas’ud and three others. (Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 60, Section 8, No. 521, pp. 486–487).

MUHAMMAD SAID THAT TALISMANS CURE THE EVIL EYE

He claimed that witchcraft (charms) cures the evil eye. (Ibn-i-Majah, Vol. 5, Nos. 3510, 3511, p. 41; Vol. 5, No. 3512, p. 42).

AL-BADIRI IS A FORM OF MAGIC

Al-Badiri was permitted as protection against the evil eye according to (Ibn-i-Majah, Vol. 5, Nos. 3513–3518, pp. 42–44).

The evil eye is treated as a real condition. (Bukhari, Vol. 7, Book 71, Sections 36 & 86, Nos. 636, 827, pp. 427, 538).
Also read (Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 55, Section 9, No. 590, p. 386).
The evil eye is indeed real. (Ibn-i-Majah, Vol. 5, Nos. 3506, 3507, p. 39).

“The influence of the evil eye is a fact.”
—(Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, Book 24, No. 5426, p. 1192; also Nos. 5424–5427, p. 1192).

It is said that Amir bin Rabia cast the evil eye upon a man. (Ibn-i-Majah, Vol. 5, No. 3508, p. 40).

However, Muhammad’s hair was believed to cure the evil eye. (Bukhari, Vol. 7, Book 72, Section 65, No. 784, p. 518).
When Muhammad’s hair was shaved, his followers rushed to grab every strand to keep it as a sacred relic. Muhammad kindly distributed his hair among them. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, Book 7, Nos. 2991–2994, pp. 656–657).

MAGIC THROUGH CUPPING ON SPECIFIC DATES

Muhammad also said that if people perform cupping (bloodletting) on the 17th, 19th, or 21st day of the lunar month, it will cure every disease. (Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, No. 3852, p. 1084).

If Muhammad was truly a Prophet of God, why did he practice witchcraft?
If Allah is truly God, why would He allow the use of witchcraft?
If Islam comes from God, why does it allow magical charms?

Come to Jesus Christ, the Living God and Great Lord.

May God bless you abundantly,
In His Service,
Max Shimba Ministries Org.

©2015 Max Shimba Ministries Org. All Rights Reserved.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but altering it is not allowed.
www.maxshimbaministries.org

WHY DID ALLAH REVEAL SURAH AL-HIJR VERSE 6 AND CALL THE PROPHET OF ISLAM INSANE?

 Friday, August 26, 2016

WHY DID ALLAH REVEAL SURAH AL-HIJR VERSE 6 AND CALL THE PROPHET OF ISLAM INSANE?

Dear brothers and sisters,

The Bible says, “You will know them by their fruits.” These are the words from the Gospel of Matthew 7:16–17 — “You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.”

Prophet Muhammad failed to demonstrate righteousness in his mission. The work he claimed to be sent by God to do was filled with many contradictions that led people to call him “insane.” His act of marrying a six-year-old child caused great confusion, because such an act is inhumane and was never practiced by any prophet who came before him.

Below is a verse from the Qur’an, said to have been revealed by the god of Islam through the angel Gabriel:

Qur’an 15:6 – “And they say, ‘O you upon whom the message has been sent down, indeed you are mad!’
(http://www.quranitukufu.net/015.html)

Muhammad was called insane in the presence of the public. What is striking is that he never denied this accusation. Instead, he remained silent — a silence that itself served as an admission of guilt. His own writings and Islamic sources further confirm this insanity.

Let us look briefly at his own account in Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir (The Book of Major Classes) by Ibn Sa’d, translated by S. Moinal Haq, Vol. 4, p. 225, where Muhammad is recorded as saying:

“O Khadija, I see light, and I hear voices, and I fear that I am mad.”

In this narration, the Prophet of Allah openly admits that he fears he is insane. Such an admission raises many questions — questions that, in most cases, remain unanswered.

But we must ask: Why would Allah reveal a verse calling his own prophet insane? Why didn’t Muhammad deny being called insane? The prophetic mission of Muhammad becomes highly questionable when he himself admits, “O Khadija, … I fear that I am mad.”

In all other Holy Scriptures, we have never read of any prophet of the Bible admitting to being insane. Yet here we find Muhammad, the prophet of Allah, confessing it.

So, why should we follow a prophet who acknowledged that he was insane? That is a fundamental question.

Allah himself, in the Qur’an, instructs Muslims to ask the People of the Book — the Jews and the Christians — when they have doubts or questions, for they possess knowledge.

Allah has already answered: Christians hold the truth and have the answers for this world.

MUHAMMAD SAID:

“I fear that I am mad.”

Copyright © Max Shimba Ministries 2013

A Comparative Theological and Narrative Analysis of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

This study provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of the narrative, ethical, and theological portrayals of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad within their respective religious traditions. Whereas the biblical accounts of Moses and Jesus exhibit profound emotional depth, moral complexity, and spiritual coherence, the Islamic portrayal of Muhammad relies heavily on doctrinal proclamation and later historical embellishments. Despite widespread Islamic claims that Muhammad is “the greatest man in history,” such statements often lack narrative substantiation, ethical resonance, or historical evidence comparable to the biblical prophetic tradition. This paper critically evaluates these claims, explores the literary qualities of biblical texts versus Islamic sources, and challenges the retroactive Islamic reclassification of biblical prophets as “Muslims,” a term historically nonexistent prior to the 7th century. The study concludes that the biblical prophetic tradition contains an intrinsic beauty and moral force absent in the Islamic narrative of Muhammad.

---

1. Introduction

Prophetic figures shape the core narratives of the Abrahamic faiths. Their lives, teachings, and moral influence define the theological foundations of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. While Judaism and Christianity draw from deeply rooted and historically continuous scriptural traditions, Islam retroactively integrates earlier prophets into its own theological framework.

In modern Islamic discourse, Muhammad is frequently promoted as “the greatest man in history,” a claim often grounded not in historical-critical scholarship but in devotional rhetoric, selective online rankings, or repeated slogans. This contrasts sharply with the self-authenticating power of the biblical narratives of Moses and Jesus, which require no promotional reinforcement to convey their emotional, moral, and spiritual depth.

This paper provides an academic examination of the literary, theological, and historical dimensions of these three figures to assess the validity of comparative greatness claims and the legitimacy of Islamic retrospective classification.

---

2. Literature Review

2.1. Moses in Biblical Scholarship

Scholarly studies on Moses emphasize the complexity of his identity: a Hebrew child raised in an Egyptian court, a fugitive, a shepherd, and finally a reluctant prophet chosen by YHWH. Widely recognized works in biblical studies highlight Moses’ humanity, moral struggles, and leadership under divine commission. His story permeates Jewish and Christian theology, serving as a foundational liberation narrative.

2.2. Jesus in Theological and Historical Studies

Historical Jesus scholarship—spanning conservative, moderate, and critical perspectives—agrees that Jesus’ message centered on compassion, forgiveness, and the kingdom of God. His crucifixion is universally recognized as a historical event, and Christian theology views His sacrificial death as the pinnacle of divine love. The Sermon on the Mount and His prayer of forgiveness from the cross are widely acknowledged as unmatched ethical teachings.

2.3. Muhammad in Islamic Sources and Western Research

Islamic scholarship on Muhammad relies primarily on the Sīra (biographies) and Hadith literature, compiled one to two centuries after his death. Many Western scholars note that these sources blend history with theological idealization. The Qur’an itself provides minimal narrative about Muhammad, emphasizing commands and legislation over personal biography. Works in critical Islamic studies often highlight the contrast between Muhammad’s militarized prophetic model and the pacifistic moral vision of Jesus.

2.4. Claims of Prophetic Continuity in Islam

Islam claims that all previous prophets were “Muslims,” yet this assertion lacks corroborating evidence from Jewish, Christian, Greek, Roman, or Near Eastern historical records. The terminology and theological constructs of Islam and Muslim are absent from all pre-Islamic sources, appearing only with the rise of Muhammad in the 7th century.

---

3. Methodology

This research employs:

• Comparative literary analysis of scriptural texts (Torah, New Testament, Qur’an, Hadith).

• Historical-critical analysis of the development of prophetic narratives.

• Narrative criticism to assess emotional depth, moral force, and human resonance.

• Theological evaluation of each figure’s message and method of leadership.

The study does not seek to undermine individuals but to evaluate textual and historical claims within an academic framework.

---

4. Analysis

4.1. Moses: A Narrative Rooted in Vulnerability and Divine Calling

The story of Moses resonates because of its transparency. The Torah presents Moses as:

• fearful (Exod. 3:11; 4:10)

• unwilling (Exod. 4:13)

• exiled and humbled (Exod. 2:15)

• dependent entirely on God’s guidance

His leadership arises not from conquest but from obedience. The liberation of Israel, the challenge to Pharaoh, and the journey toward the Promised Land are built upon a narrative of divine-human partnership rather than force.

4.2. Jesus: The Apex of Moral and Emotional Resonance

Jesus’ narrative surpasses all in ethical profundity:

• He heals out of compassion, not power projection.

• He teaches radical love: “Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44).

• His crucifixion reveals ultimate forgiveness: “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34).

• His Kingdom message transforms individuals and societies through internal renewal rather than political conquest.

The emotional depth of Jesus’ life and death remains unmatched in ancient literature.

4.3. Muhammad: A Prophet Defined by Command and Conquest

Islamic narratives reveal a markedly different prophetic model:

• Muhammad participates in more than twenty military campaigns.

• Apostasy from his religion is punishable by death in traditional Islamic law.

• The expansion of Islam historically occurred through political dominance and, in many cases, coercion.

Islamic devotional literature exalts Muhammad with titles and slogans (“the greatest man”), yet provides few narratives of moral vulnerability or self-sacrificial love. Instead, Muhammad’s greatness is treated as a doctrinal requirement rather than an organically compelling story.

4.4. The Absence of Emotional or Narrative Depth in Islamic Biography

Unlike Moses and Jesus, whose narratives invite empathy and transformation, the Sīra and Hadith present Muhammad primarily as:

• a lawgiver

• a military commander

• a political leader

This functional portrayal lacks the deeply human emotional resonance found in biblical stories. The consequence is that Muslims must assert Muhammad’s greatness externally rather than demonstrating it through intrinsic narrative beauty.

---

5. Discussion

5.1. The Need for Repetition: Why Muhammad Must Be Declared Great

Islamic tradition elevates Muhammad through formulaic recitations because his narrative lacks the aesthetic and moral force of biblical prophetic traditions. The repetition compensates for the absence of narrative persuasion.

5.2. The Appropriation of Biblical Figures into Islamic Theology

Islam often appropriates Moses, Jesus, David, Solomon, and others as “Muslims,” but this claim collapses under historical scrutiny:

• The words Islam and Muslim appear nowhere in pre-Islamic texts.

• Judaism and Christianity never used Islamic terminology.

• The Qur’an retrospectively reinterprets earlier prophets to validate Muhammad.

This retroactive theological revision lacks historical foundations and appears motivated by the need to legitimize Muhammad's prophethood.

5.3. Contrasting Leadership Models

Figure	Leadership Model	Method
Moses	Reluctant prophet	Divine calling, liberation
Jesus	Servant-Savior	Love, sacrifice, transformation
Muhammad	Commander-prophet	Political power, conquest

The distinctions are stark and historically recognized.

---

6. Conclusion

The narratives of Moses and Jesus possess intrinsic spiritual, emotional, and moral power requiring no external validation. Moses’ vulnerability and Jesus’ sacrificial love stand as literary and theological masterpieces.

In contrast, Muhammad’s portrayal in Islamic literature is rooted in obedience, command, and conquest rather than vulnerability, compassion, or transformative love. Claims declaring Muhammad “the greatest man” reflect doctrinal insistence rather than narrative evidence.

Furthermore, Islamic attempts to reclassify all biblical prophets as “Muslims” are historically unjustifiable and linguistically anachronistic. The terms Islam and Muslim did not exist prior to Muhammad.

Ultimately, the greatness of Moses and Jesus is self-evident through their stories. The greatness of Muhammad must be proclaimed repeatedly because it cannot be demonstrated through narrative depth, emotional resonance, or moral beauty. When greatness is asserted but not evidenced, it ceases to be faith and becomes a form of false witness — something Scripture identifies as morally unacceptable.

---