Max Shimba Ministries

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

The Paradox of Final Prophethood in Islam: A Theological Examination of Muhammad and the Return of Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus Christ)

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

Islamic theology asserts that Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets (Khatam an-Nabiyyin), as expressed in Surah al-Ahzab 33:40. Yet, paradoxically, the same Islamic corpus affirms that Jesus (Isa ibn Maryam) will return before the end of time to fulfill divine purposes on earth. This duality creates a profound theological tension: if Muhammad is indeed the last prophet, how can Jesus return as a prophet without violating the finality of prophethood? This paper critically examines this inconsistency within Islamic doctrine, analyzing Quranic verses, Hadith literature, and exegetical interpretations to reveal the underlying confusion and contradiction inherent in Islamic eschatology.

1. Introduction

Islam claims theological coherence through the principle of Khatm an-Nubuwwah—the finality of Muhammad’s prophethood. This concept is foundational to Islamic belief and a cornerstone of Muslim identity. However, the affirmation of Jesus’ second coming introduces a paradox. If Jesus was a prophet before Muhammad and is to return after Muhammad, then logically, Muhammad cannot be the last prophet.
This paper explores whether Islamic doctrine maintains internal consistency in its claims about Muhammad’s finality and Jesus’ eschatological return.

2. The Claim of Final Prophethood

2.1 Quranic Basis

The central text supporting Muhammad’s finality is:

“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets (Khatam an-Nabiyyin). And Allah has full knowledge of all things.”
— Surah al-Ahzab (33:40)

Muslim scholars, such as Al-Tabari and Al-Qurtubi, interpret Khatam an-Nabiyyin as the “final and ultimate prophet,” after whom no new prophet shall arise. This verse has been used to reject any subsequent prophetic claims, such as those of the Ahmadiyya movement or other heterodox sects.

However, this claim becomes problematic when juxtaposed with Quranic and Hadith passages describing the eschatological return of Jesus (Isa ibn Maryam).

3. The Return of Jesus in Islamic Theology

3.1 Quranic References

Several Quranic verses are interpreted by Muslim exegetes to refer to Jesus’ second coming:

Surah al-Nisa 4:159: “There is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them.”
Surah al-Zukhruf 43:61: “And indeed, he [Jesus] will be a sign for the Hour, so be not in doubt of it.”
Surah Ali ‘Imran 3:55: “Allah said, ‘O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve…’”

Traditional interpretations (e.g., Ibn Kathir, Al-Jalalayn) claim these verses allude to the eschatological descent of Jesus before the Day of Judgment, where he will rule with justice, break the cross, kill the swine, and restore true religion.

3.2 Hadith Testimony

The Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim collections contain numerous narrations affirming Jesus’ return:

“By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, surely (Jesus) the son of Mary will soon descend among you and will judge mankind justly (as a just ruler); he will break the cross and kill the pig and abolish the jizya.”
— Sahih al-Bukhari 3448; Sahih Muslim 155

This raises theological questions:
If Jesus returns to judge mankind and enforce divine law, are these not prophetic functions? If so, Muhammad’s prophethood cannot be the last.

4. The Theological Dilemma

4.1 The Contradiction

Muslim scholars attempt to resolve this tension by arguing that Jesus will not return as a new prophet, but as a follower of Muhammad. Yet, this reasoning fails under scrutiny. Jesus cannot be subordinate to Muhammad since, according to Islamic doctrine, Jesus was born without sin, performed miracles, and was taken up alive by Allah.

If Jesus returns with divine authority, performing prophetic duties, and executing eschatological justice, then by function and title, he remains a prophet. Hence, the claim that Muhammad is the “last prophet” collapses under its own theological weight.

4.2 Logical Implications

If Jesus returns as a Prophet, Muhammad cannot be the last prophet.
If Jesus does not return as a Prophet, what then is his role? A mere man cannot fulfill divine eschatological purposes.
If Jesus returns with divine power, Islam inadvertently affirms His divine nature—a direct contradiction to Tawhid (Islamic monotheism).

Thus, Islam faces a theological impasse: either contradict the Quran (by affirming another prophet) or contradict its doctrine of monotheism (by affirming Jesus’ divine authority).

5. Comparative Biblical Perspective

The Bible teaches that Jesus is both Prophet and God incarnate (John 1:1; Hebrews 1:1–3). His return is not as a prophet succeeding another, but as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 19:16).
The confusion within Islamic eschatology arises because it denies Christ’s divinity yet attributes to Him divine functions — judgment, resurrection, and the final victory over evil — all uniquely God’s prerogatives.

6. Why So Many Confusions in Islam?

The contradictions between Muhammad’s finality and Jesus’ return illustrate a larger pattern of inconsistency within Islamic theology. These include:

Doctrinal inconsistency: Quranic verses interpreted beyond their linguistic and historical context.
Theological borrowing: Islamic eschatology borrows heavily from Christian and Jewish apocalyptic traditions but adapts them inconsistently.
Prophetic hierarchy confusion: The Quran honors Jesus yet demotes Him below Muhammad, producing conflicting authority structures.

In the pursuit of asserting Muhammad’s supremacy, Islam inadvertently undermines its own claim of theological consistency.

7. Conclusion

Islam’s doctrine of the finality of prophethood collapses when examined in light of Jesus’ eschatological return. Either Islam must accept that another prophet—Jesus—will appear after Muhammad, or redefine its understanding of Jesus in a manner that contradicts its own scripture.

The Christian revelation resolves this tension clearly: Jesus Christ is not merely a prophet but the eternal Son of God, who will return not as a messenger, but as divine Judge and King. Thus, the confusion in Islam arises from denying the full revelation of God’s nature in Christ.

References

The Holy Quran, Surah al-Ahzab 33:40; Surah al-Nisa 4:159; Surah al-Zukhruf 43:61; Surah Ali ‘Imran 3:55.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 3448; Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 155.
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim, Commentary on Surah 33:40.
Al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an, Vol. 20.
Al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur’an, Commentary on Surah 33:40.
John 1:1–14; Hebrews 1:1–3; Revelation 19:16 (Holy Bible).
Shimba, Maxwell. Shimba Theological Institute Expository Commentaries on Islamic Theology (Orlando: STI Press, 2024).

Expository Commentary by Dr. Maxwell Shimba

The claim that Muhammad is the final prophet is incompatible with the Islamic affirmation of Jesus’ return. Either Jesus returns as a prophet, thereby nullifying Muhammad’s finality, or as divine Judge, thereby affirming His deity—both conclusions contradict core Islamic tenets. Islam, in its zeal to elevate Muhammad, traps itself in a theological paradox that only the divine revelation of Christ can resolve.

Muhammad, Prophecy, and the Theological Criterion of a True Prophet

An academic critique arguing that Muhammad did not fulfill the weightier prophetic expectations of the Judeo-Christian canonical tradition

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This paper examines the claim—advanced here as a theological hypothesis—that Muḥammad of 7th-century Arabia does not meet the canonical prophetic criteria set forth in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament and, therefore, from that Judeo-Christian theological vantage point, should be judged a false prophet. The argument proceeds in three stages: (1) articulation of a rigorous theological-hermeneutical criterion for what constitutes a bona fide prophet within the biblical tradition; (2) analysis of the principal prophetic expectations (messianic, covenantal, and eschatological) found in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament that later figures claiming prophetic status are measured against; (3) a critical appraisal of Muslim claims that Muḥammad fulfills biblical prophecy and of the internal Islamic corpus of prophetic predictions attributed to Muḥammad. The paper concludes that Muḥammad fails to satisfy the substantive prophetic markers (as understood in the canonical Judeo-Christian framework) and therefore, within that framework, must be assessed as a false prophet. Counterarguments are noted and discussed.

Introduction

The question whether a given claimant to prophetic office is genuine or false is not merely historical; it is theological and hermeneutical. For Jews and Christians the test is traditionally not popularity or charisma but conformity to earlier revelation and to the explicit markers of authentic prophecy preserved in Scripture. This study does not attempt to adjudicate the internal piety or moral character of Muḥammad as a historical person; rather it asks whether Muḥammad, as a prophetic claimant, fulfills the canonical prophetic expectations of the Bible and the New Testament. If a claimant fails those criteria, then within that theological system the claimant is properly designated a false prophet (cf. Deut. 13; Deut. 18:15–22; Matt. 7:15–23; 24:24).

Methodological premises and theological criteria for “true prophecy”

For clarity I adopt the following working criteria drawn from the canonical Jewish and Christian traditions:

Conformity to prior revelation (canonical continuity). A true prophet speaks on behalf of YHWH (or, in Christian perspective, in continuity with the self-revelation culminating in Christ). The prophet’s message must cohere with the Torah and the prophetic corpus (Deut. 13; 18:15–22).
Christological fulfillment (for Christian assessment). From a Christian hermeneutic, the ultimate test of prophetic authenticity is conformity to the person and work of Jesus Christ. Messianic and soteriological expectations in the Hebrew Bible that Christians read as fulfilled in Jesus are decisive markers.
Veracity of predictive prophecy. When a claimant asserts predictive prophecy as a credential, the predictions must be specific, verifiable, and not subject to after-the-fact interpretation. Deuteronomy 18:21–22 gives an empirical test: a prophecy that does not come to pass identifies the speaker as a false prophet.
Ethical and theological fruit. Jesus himself taught that the “fruit” (ethical, theological, soteriological effect) of prophetic ministry reveals its origin (Matt. 7:15–20).

These criteria will guide the subsequent examination.

I. Biblical prophecies often adduced for Muḥammad — close reading and theological assessment

Scholars and exegetes (from both Muslim and some Christian apologetic circles) commonly appeal to a small set of biblical passages as prefiguring or predicting Muḥammad. I examine the major ones and evaluate the plausibility of those identifications.

1. Deuteronomy 18:15–18 (“a prophet like Moses”)

Muslim apologetics often claim that Deut. 18:18 — “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren” — points to Muḥammad. The Christian exegesis traditionally understands the passage within Israelite context (a prophet from among Israel or from “their brethren” — commonly read as a reference to a prophet from within Israel’s own covenantal milieu or, in Christian reading, as anticipation of Christ and the prophetic office culminating in Him). Two interpretive difficulties arise for identifying Muḥammad with this text:

Contextual and canonical trajectory. The Deuteronomic promise is embedded within Israel’s covenantal framework and functions as a successor pattern within Israel (cf. Josh. 1; the Moses–Joshua pattern). The broader canonical reading (cf. Acts 3:22–26; 7:37) in the New Testament explicitly applies the promise to Jesus, not to an external non-Israelite figure.
Semantic and typological expectations. The figure “like Moses” implies covenantal, mediatorial, and law-giving functions. Muḥammad’s ministry, while legislative in the Islamic corpus, diverges substantially from the typological expectations Christians derive from Moses culminating in Christ.

From a canonical Christian hermeneutic, therefore, Deut. 18:15–18 cannot plausibly be read as referring to Muḥammad.

2. The “Paraclete” passages in the Gospel of John (John 14–16)

Some Muslim interpreters claim that Jesus’ promise of another “Paraclete” (Greek: Paraklētos) is a prophecy of Muḥammad. The Christian theological tradition reads the Paraclete as the Holy Spirit (see John 14:16–17; 15:26; 16:7–15). Arguments against identifying the Paraclete as Muḥammad include:

Lexical and contextual exegesis. John's immediate context describes the Paraclete as “the Spirit of truth” who will dwell with and in the disciples (14:17), teach, and guide into all truth (16:13). These are spiritual functions incompatible with a human messenger.
Chronological and narrative horizon. The Johannine account situates the Paraclete’s coming as a consequence of Jesus’ ascension (cf. Acts 1–2 and Pentecost), not as an out-of-context arrival centuries later in Arabia.

Therefore the Christian exegesis holds that John’s Paraclete is not a prediction of Muḥammad; reading it thus stretches both grammar and narrative logic.

3. Old Testament “nations” and ambiguous oracles (e.g., Isaiah, Psalms, Daniel)

Apologists sometimes appeal to prognostications about a future “light to the nations” or ambiguous oracles as vaguer anticipations of Muḥammad. Two methodological cautions apply:

Vagueness invites retrojection. Highly general texts can be read after the fact to fit many figures; this is not a secure method for establishing fulfilled prophecy according to Deuteronomy’s empirical test.
Canonical interpretive tradition. The Jewish and Christian interpretive histories do not point to Muḥammad for these texts; post-biblical identification requires extraordinary hermeneutical justification which is not supplied in the canonical record.

II. Internal Islamic prophetic claims: predictive prophecy and empirical verification

Islamic primary sources (Qur’an and Hadith) contain reports of Muḥammad making predictions (e.g., predictions of battles, the conquest of Mecca, the expansion of Islam). From a purely historical perspective some of those purported predictions appear to have been fulfilled. This raises the question: if Muḥammad made verifiable predictions that came to pass, does this satisfy Deuteronomy’s test?

Three caveats temper that conclusion:

Selective reporting and retrospective narration. Many hadith and sira traditions were compiled decades after Muḥammad’s death and sometimes shaped by occurrences they narrate; therefore retrospective narrator bias and hagiographic shaping must be considered.
Vagueness and probability. Some reported predictions are either sufficiently vague or concern events with significant probability (e.g., regional conflicts, shifting alliances), allowing post-hoc fitting.
Canonical primacy and theological content. Even if Muḥammad predicted particular events, the biblical test also demands conformity with prior revelation (Deut. 13). Predictions that conflict with prior revelation or that produce theological dissonance with earlier revelation are disqualifying for someone claiming prophetic authority in the Judeo-Christian schema.

Thus, the presence of some fulfilled predictions in the Islamic record is not dispositive in favor of genuine prophecy as judged by the biblical canonical standard.

III. The central Christian test: Christological fulfillment and soteriological claims

For the Christian theological posture, the decisive standard is Christological. Biblical prophecy points forward to the work and person of the Messiah and culminates in Christ (cf. Luke 24:25–27; John 5:39). Two central failures appear when evaluating Muḥammad against this standard:

Denial of the Incarnation and Atonement. Muḥammad’s message (as recorded in the Qur’an and hadith traditions) rejects the Christian claims regarding the divine Sonship and the atoning, substitutionary work of Christ (cf. Qur’an 4:157–158; 5:72; see also Islamic theological sources). For Christians these doctrines are non-negotiable axis points of redemptive history. By denying them, Muḥammad’s message is theologically incompatible with the trajectory of biblical revelation.
Absence of fulfillment of messianic criteria. Messianic expectations traditionally include an everlasting covenant, universal knowledge of God, and the consummation of divine rule (Isaiah 2, 9, 11; Daniel 7). Muḥammad’s career, while establishing a powerful religious and political order, did not fulfill the particular, specific Jewish and Christian eschatological and messianic expectations as those are read in the biblical canon (e.g., unending Davidic reign in the form expected by Israel; universal eschatological reconciliation as interpreted by Christian exegesis).

From a Christian theological vantage, therefore, Muḥammad’s message disconfirms rather than confirms the messianic expectations Christians read into Scripture.

IV. Ethical and theological fruit: fruit-testing the prophetic ministry (Matt. 7:15–20)

Jesus taught discernment by fruit: good trees bear good fruit and bad trees bad fruit. Evaluating fruit must be careful and nuanced; it cannot be reduced to political success or to moral reform alone. Key observations:

Mixed ethical outcomes. The expansion of Islam under Muḥammad and the early caliphate involved both socio-religious reforms and practices that Christian ethics critique (e.g., treatment of certain non-Muslim communities, the normative formulations in Islamic law that conflict with Christian moral theology).
Doctrinal fruit. Theologically, the replacement of Christology with a radically different soteriology and christology is decisive. For Christians the replacement of the gospel by an alternative soteriology is theological evidence against prophetic authenticity.

The fruit test, therefore, when applied within the Christian theological hermeneutic, points away from acceptance of Muḥammad as a true prophet.

V. Counterarguments and their assessment

Muslim exegetes and many modern scholars advance several defenses:

Muhammad fulfilled prophecies in the Qur’an and hadith and thus is authenticated. Response: internal claims within a religious corpus cannot, by themselves, settle disputes between competing religious canons; external corroboration and conformity with prior revelation remain necessary for a Judeo-Christian assessment.
Biblical texts were corrupted or mistranslated; hence Deuteronomy’s promise could refer to Muḥammad. Response: this claim requires proof of wholesale corruption that is historically and textually demonstrable. While textual history is complex, the burden of proof rests with those asserting corruption—or else a claim that invalidates one tradition’s hermeneutical authority cannot be used to validate another.
The Paraclete and other texts were mistranslated from Greek/Aramaic and actually refer to Muḥammad. Response: the Greek term paraklētos has a clear semantic range in the New Testament context; merely proposing a different referent undermines the literary and theological coherence of John’s Gospel and of early Christian interpretive history.

Where counterarguments raise serious academic questions, they deserve scholarly engagement; however, none meets the canonical and hermeneutical standards articulated above.

Conclusion

Assessing Muḥammad from the perspective of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and applying those traditions’ own internal standards for prophetic authenticity, leads to the conclusion advanced in this paper: Muḥammad does not satisfy the canonical criteria for a true prophet as understood within the Judeo-Christian theological tradition. He fails the tests of canonical continuity, Christological fulfillment, and (in relevant ways) the empirical and ethical tests laid down in Scripture. Accordingly, within that theological frame, Muḥammad must be judged a false prophet.

This conclusion is theological and confessional in nature. It does not assert the illegitimacy of Muslim piety or the sincerity of Muslim faith; rather it applies a particular theological standard (the biblical canon and the Christian reading of it) and finds that Muḥammad does not meet that standard. Honest interfaith dialogue requires clarity about such doctrinal judgments even while upholding charity and scholarly rigor.

Selected references and bibliography

Primary sources

The Holy Bible (useful modern translations: New International Version; English Standard Version).
The Qur’an. Recommended translations: M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, The Qur'an: A New Translation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an (1930).
Ibn Ishāq (as edited and translated by Alfred Guillaume), The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955).
al-Bukhārī, Sahīh al-Bukhārī (select hadith collections for reported predictions and practice).
Muslim primary legal and historical texts: al-Ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk (selected material), and the major Hadith collections (al-Bukhārī, Muslim).

Secondary historical and scholarly works

W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953).
W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956).
Fred M. Donner, Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010).
Robert G. Hoyland, In God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
Patricia Crone & Michael Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977) — controversial but useful for methodological discussion.
William Muir, The Life of Mahomet (various editions; 19th century, historically influential in Christian polemics).
N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (London: SPCK, 1992) — for Christian hermeneutical context on prophecy and fulfillment.
John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press) — for prophetic literature and interpretive methods.

Works on prophecy, hermeneutics, and the test of prophecy

James D. G. Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) — for methodological parallels on fulfillment.
Tremper Longman III, How to Read the Psalms (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press) — hermeneutical considerations for prophetic and poetic texts.
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic) — helpful for evaluating interpretive errors (e.g., proof-texting).

Author’s note and invitation to dialogue

This paper represents a confessional theological critique written to explore how the biblical prophetic standards bear upon the claim that Muḥammad was a genuine prophet within the Judeo-Christian theological framework. Scholars and interlocutors of different convictions are invited to reply with careful exegesis, historical evidence, and hermeneutical argumentation. Robust discussion that honours both truth-seeking and neighborly respect furthers mutual understanding even where serious doctrinal disagreement remains.

Muhammad, Prophecy, and the Test of a True Messenger

An academic theological critique arguing that Muhammad’s prophetic claims lack verifiable, non-self-fulfilling fulfillments

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract
This paper evaluates the claim that the Prophet Muhammad produced verifiable, non-self-fulfilling prophecies during his lifetime. Using a working definition of “prophecy” drawn from classical prophetic tests (precision, antecedence, and non-self-fulfillment), the study surveys the principal items commonly cited by Muslim apologetics as Muhammad’s predictions and subjects them to historiographical and methodological scrutiny. The paper concludes that the corpus of alleged prophetic fulfillments is philosophically and evidentially insufficient to demonstrate authentic prophetic foresight in the classical sense; many purported “prophecies” are either (a) recorded long after the events they allegedly predict, (b) stated in vague or symbolic terms, or (c) plausibly self-fulfilling. On that basis the claim that Muhammad was a divinely endowed predictor of future events — a key test used in many theistic traditions to verify genuine prophecy — is not established to the standard expected of a true prophet.

1. Introduction

Within classical theologies that take prophecy to be one of the distinctive marks of divine revelation, certain criteria are typically used to evaluate claims of prophetic authenticity: (1) antecedence — the prediction is recorded prior to the occurrence; (2) precision — the prediction is specific enough to be falsifiable; and (3) non-self-fulfillment — the fulfillment cannot plausibly be explained as the result of human agency acting to bring about the foretold outcome. Applying these criteria to any candidate for prophetic status is an essential cross-check against wishful reading, retrospective interpolation and hagiographic embellishment.

Advocates of Muhammad’s prophethood often point to a catalogue of predictions found in the Qur’an and the hadith corpus — for example, predictions about the conquest of Mecca, the future fortunes of Byzantium and Persia, the spread of Islam, and the division of the Muslim community into sects. Apologetic treatments frequently assemble many such items and argue that the number and specificity of fulfilled predictions constitute strong evidence of prophetic access to the unseen (al-ghayb).¹

This paper interrogates those claims by asking three questions for each alleged prophecy: (i) is the prediction attested in sources which clearly pre-date the event? (ii) is the prediction specific? and (iii) could the outcome plausibly have been brought about by ordinary human agency (including strategic action, rhetoric, or later redaction)?

2. Methodology and Sources

Because much of the material cited for Muhammad’s predictions appears in the hadith literature, a historiographical approach is necessary. Modern scholarship emphasizes careful dating and textual criticism of early Islamic sources; many hadith were compiled and canonized generations after the Prophet’s death, and some traditions clearly reflect later community memory or theological needs rather than contemporaneous reportage.² For context and scholarly orientation this paper uses representative academic treatments (e.g., W. Montgomery Watt’s studies) and a sample of both apologetic and critical analyses of the prophetic material.³

Where possible, primary texts (Qur’anic passages and the earliest hadith collections) are used; where the evidence consists mainly of later compilations, this is noted. This study focuses on the most often-cited "prophecies" rather than attempting an exhaustive catalogue, because the methodological problems affecting a representative set will generalize to the broader corpus.

3. Defining “Prophecy” for the Test

For the purposes of theological evaluation here, a prophecy is defined narrowly as: a specific, timestamped prediction of a future observable event that (a) was recorded prior to the occurrence, (b) could not be reasonably brought about by the predictor or their immediate agents, and (c) is not so vague that it admits many possible fulfillments.

This restrictive definition is intentionally demanding because the standards for verifying prospective, divinely-inspired revelation should be rigorous. Note also that different religious traditions apply different tests; this paper argues from the common classical standard that is, historically, used to validate prophetic claims in Judaeo-Christian theological debate.

4. Examination of Representative Alleged Prophecies

4.1 The Conquest of Mecca

Islamic sources report that Muhammad foretold the Muslims’ eventual control of Mecca (e.g., Qurʾān 48:27 is taken by some as anticipatory). Apologetic accounts present this as a clear, antecedent prediction that was fulfilled when Muslims entered Mecca peacefully in 630 CE.⁴

Critical issues. The Qurʾān passage often cited is part of a revelatory discourse produced during the Prophetic mission and was preserved by believers; its dating relative to the conquest is debated, and the text may have been recited or redacted in community contexts that presuppose later events. Moreover, the conquest of Mecca is a plausible political outcome given the trajectory of Muhammad’s career, strategic alliances, and shifting polities in the Arabian peninsula. Thus the event fails the non-self-fulfillment test: human agency (military, diplomatic, and social factors) plausibly explains the outcome without recourse to supernatural prediction. The methodological problem is compounded by the textual transmission gap between utterance and later codification. (For apologetic presentation of this prophecy see Yaqeen Institute’s compilation; for methodological cautions see critical hadith surveys.)(Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research)

4.2 The Fall of the Sassanian Empire and Roman Misfortunes

Several hadith and later Muslim writings attribute to Muhammad predictions that Persia (Sassanian Empire) would be overturned and that Byzantium would suffer and later be weak. Apologists point to the rapid Muslim conquests of Persian territory and Byzantine borderlands as confirmatory.(Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research)

Critical issues. The prediction, where attested, is often general and lacks dating. The collapse of Persia was not an unforeseeable miracle in 7th-century Near Eastern geopolitics; both Sassanian and Byzantine polities were strained by prolonged conflict and internal problems. Moreover, many of the hadith that mention such geopolitical developments circulated in contexts after the events became common knowledge. Hence the antecedence and textual reliability are suspect. See scholarly treatments of early Islamic expansion and the historiography of prophetic attributions (Watt).(Internet Archive)

4.3 Predictions about the Community — Division into Sects

Certain traditions ascribe to Muhammad predictions about the Muslim community dividing into many sects and about the qualities of future groups. These statements are cited as prophetic insight into social-religious developments.(islamawareness.net)

Critical issues. These statements are often couched in general terms (“you will be divided into sects”) and could be either observations of sociological tendency or post-factum moralizing readings. Vagueness reduces the claim’s diagnostic value as genuine prophecy.

4.4 Other Alleged Predictions (Numbers, Specific Events)

Apologetic lists sometimes assemble dozens of alleged fulfilled predictions (e.g., specific battles, the fate of named individuals, long-range eschatological signs). Close examination often shows these items are (a) reported in late hadith compilations, (b) ambiguous or symbolic, or (c) retrospectively reinterpreted to fit outcomes. Critical compilations and surveys of prophetic hadith point out the late and variable nature of many of these reports.(ResearchGate)

5. Two Central Methodological Problems

5.1 Late Attestation and Textual Formation

A substantial body of the so-called prophecies is found exclusively in the hadith literature, which was compiled and canonized decades to centuries after the Prophet’s death. Modern historians emphasize that many hadith reflect the social and theological concerns of later Muslim communities; hence treating them as straightforward eyewitness predictions is epistemically problematic. The late attestation problem undermines antecedence.(WikiIslam)

5.2 Vagueness and Self-Fulfillment

Many alleged prophecies are framed in broad, morally inflected or symbolic language. Vague predictions generate an interpretive space that can be retrofitted to many outcomes. Additionally, certain statements—particularly those concerning political rise, territorial fortunes, or the survival of a community—can be rendered true through the actions of the prophet and his followers; that is, strategic action can make a “prediction” come true without any supernatural foresight. This undercuts the non-self-fulfillment criterion.

6. Comparison with Classical Tests of Prophecy

Classical Judaeo-Christian polemics have long insisted that genuine prophecy is specific, antecedent, and non-self-fulfilling (cf. Deut. 18:21–22 and various prophetic tests in the Hebrew Scriptures). When evaluated against these classical criteria, the corpus of Muhammad’s alleged predictive sayings does not, as a whole, meet the standard. Either the textual basis is too late/uncertain, the content is too vague, or the fulfillment can reasonably be explained by ordinary historical causation.

W. Montgomery Watt and other modern historians treat Muhammad primarily as a religious and political leader whose actions and sayings shaped the emerging Muslim community; Watt’s careful historiography provides a tempering voice against uncritical acceptance of late hagiographic material.(Internet Archive)

7. Objections and Replies

Objection (Apologetic): Muslim scholasticism asserts many authentic prophetic predictions recorded in reliable hadith; numerous fulfilled items demonstrate divine foreknowledge. (Apologetic compilations list dozens of items.)(Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research)

Reply: Even if many hadith are sincere community memories, the epistemic question is whether they supply antecedent, precise, and non-self-fulfilling predictions. Apologetic lists frequently fail on one or more of those points. A fair assessment allows that some sayings may be authentic in the narrow sense, but authenticity of transmission is not equivalent to demonstrable divine foresight.

Objection (Historicist): Some predictions are attested in Qurʾānic passages that were clearly available before later events.

Reply: Where the Qurʾān is unambiguously antecedent, the normative burden is to show the statement is specific and could not be read as a general promise or rhetorical assurance. Many Qurʾānic verses praised ultimate vindication or foretold moral outcomes without the fine grain of a falsifiable predictive proposition.

8. Conclusion

Applying a strict criterion for what counts as demonstrable prophecy — antecedence, specificity, and non-self-fulfillment — the case for Muhammad as a prophet who produced verifiable, non-self-fulfilling predictions during his lifetime is weak. Much of the material cited as prophetic fulfillment derives from later hadith collections or is too vague or plausibly self-fulfilling to satisfy the classical tests. Therefore, from the standpoint of these classical and epistemic standards, the prophetic credentials of Muhammad judged by predictive demonstration are not established.

That said, historical and religious assessment of a figure’s authority may legitimately rely on other kinds of evidence (ethical teaching, socioreligious transformation, scriptural claims, spiritual fruits). This paper has confined itself to the single criterion of predictive demonstration because the user requested an argument focused on prophecy. When judged solely by that test, the available evidence is insufficient to vindicate Muhammad’s status as a predictive prophet in the classical sense.

Bibliography & Selected References

(Representative works and sources consulted; primary texts and both apologetic and critical secondary literature.)

Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press, 1961. (Classic scholarly biography and historiographical treatment.) (Internet Archive)
Elshinawy, Mohammad. The Prophecies of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ: Proofs of Prophethood Series. Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research. (Apologetic compilation of prophetic traditions and claimed fulfillments). (Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research)
“Prophecies in the Hadith.” WikiIslam (critical overview of hadith-based prophetic claims and the issues of late composition). (WikiIslam)
Yahya, Agusni. “Study of the Prophet’s Prediction Hadith.” ResearchGate / Universitas Islam Negeri Ar-Raniry. (A modern academic study of interpretation and methodology for prophetic hadith). (ResearchGate)
“Prohecies, Predictions and Past Events.” IslamAwareness.net (critical discussion of examples often produced as prophecy). (islamawareness.net)

Short Appendix — Suggested Further Reading (for expanded research)

Fred M. Donner, Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam (Harvard University Press) — for the political and social context of early Islam.
Gabriel Said Reynolds, The Qurʾān and Its Biblical Subtext — for comparative textual issues and intertextual readings.
Michael Cook, Muhammad (a concise modern biography) — for accessible critical scholarship.

Final note from the author

This article aims to employ rigorous, conservative standards for what counts as demonstrable prophetic foresight. The conclusion is specific to the predictive test; it neither addresses nor intends to negate other dimensions of Muhammad’s significance (ethical influence, communal leadership, scriptural authorship claims). For readers who accept different epistemic standards for prophecy, the assessment may differ; nevertheless, for those who insist on antecedent, precise, and non-self-fulfilling predictions as the decisive mark of prophetic authenticity, the evidentiary case for Muhammad is not persuasive.

The Hidden Gog and Magog: A Theological and Geographical Debate

Title: The Hidden Gog and Magog: A Theological and Geographical Debate

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

The Qur’anic narrative of Gog and Magog (Ya’juj and Ma’juj) presents a perplexing question for both theologians and modern scholars: if these beings were literally sealed behind a physical iron barrier between two mountains, why have they not been located through contemporary geographical, geological, or satellite exploration? This paper critically examines the claim of the hidden Gog and Magog within Islamic eschatology, analyzes the narrative context of Surah Al-Kahf (18:83–98), and engages with both Islamic and scientific perspectives to determine whether such a people or a physical barrier could still exist unseen in the modern world.

1. Introduction

In the Qur’an, the story of Dhul-Qarnayn and the building of the barrier against Gog and Magog stands as one of the most mysterious accounts of Islamic eschatology. According to Surah Al-Kahf 18:94–98, Dhul-Qarnayn constructed a massive wall of iron and molten copper to contain two destructive nations—Ya’juj and Ma’juj—until the appointed time near the Day of Judgment, when the barrier would be breached.

However, the rise of modern science, geography, and satellite technology poses an intellectual dilemma. If Gog and Magog were indeed trapped behind a literal wall somewhere between mountains, why has there been no trace of such a barrier—or any hidden civilization—on Earth?

This paper seeks to explore this contradiction through a multidisciplinary approach—engaging theology, geography, and logic—to question the physical existence of a “hidden land” containing Gog and Magog.

2. The Qur’anic Description

According to Surah Al-Kahf 18:94–98:

“They said: O Dhul-Qarnayn, verily Gog and Magog are doing great mischief in the land. Shall we then pay you tribute so that you might erect a barrier between us and them? ... Bring me blocks of iron... then he made them equal to the height of the mountains... and he said, blow! Then he poured molten copper over it.”

This description gives the impression of a tangible, geographic event. The Qur’an portrays Dhul-Qarnayn’s engineering feat as physical and monumental, not metaphorical. If interpreted literally, this barrier must have existed somewhere on Earth.

3. The Modern Scientific Challenge

With today’s advanced technology—Google Earth, global satellite mapping, oceanic exploration, and geological surveys—virtually every part of Earth’s surface has been mapped and recorded. There are no unexplored regions of such scale that could conceal an entire civilization “behind an iron wall.”

Questions arising include:

Where, geographically, could such an enormous iron-copper wall have been built?
If the wall was constructed “between two mountains,” why have no remains of it been discovered in Central Asia, the Caucasus, or other regions historically proposed by Islamic scholars?
Can iron and copper withstand millennia of corrosion without leaving detectable traces?
How can one reconcile a literal reading of this narrative with modern empirical evidence showing no such structure exists?

4. The Theological Debate

Islamic scholars differ on the interpretation of Gog and Magog. Some classical commentators, like Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari, treated the story as literal history, claiming the wall existed in ancient lands between the Caspian and Black Seas. Others, especially in modern times, interpret the story allegorically, suggesting that Gog and Magog symbolize barbaric or lawless nations unleashed at the end times.

Yet, if the Qur’an’s language was meant to be figurative, why does it include detailed construction instructions—iron, copper, mountains, and a physical wall? The narrative structure is more architectural than symbolic.

5. Logical Contradictions

If Gog and Magog are still alive and physically trapped:

How do they survive biologically—with food, water, and reproduction—over thousands of years without external contact?
What is their ecosystem?
Why are they invisible to modern satellite imaging and ground radar?
If the wall was physical, what force or technology has preserved it from erosion or discovery?
If they are spiritual entities, why does the Qur’an describe their restraint as a material, metallic structure rather than a divine or supernatural confinement?

Such inconsistencies invite the question: was the story meant to teach a moral lesson about human pride, conquest, and divine control rather than serve as literal geography?

6. Comparative Religious Analysis

The concept of Gog and Magog predates Islam, appearing in the Hebrew Bible (Ezekiel 38–39) and the Christian New Testament (Revelation 20:7–8). In both traditions, Gog and Magog symbolize global rebellion and chaos, not physical nations behind a wall. Islam’s adaptation of the motif appears to literalize the story while maintaining an eschatological function.

If the Biblical portrayal was symbolic, why would the Qur’anic version require a literal interpretation? Could the Qur’anic narrative be a retelling of a pre-Islamic allegory misunderstood as historical?

7. Modern Islamic Attempts to Locate the Wall

Some Muslim researchers have speculated the wall might be:

The Great Wall of China
A lost barrier in the Caucasus Mountains (Derbent, Daryal Pass)
Buried under the Caspian Sea or the Arctic regions

However, all these claims lack archaeological or geological evidence. The Great Wall of China, for example, predates Islam but is a manmade fortification against nomadic invasions—not a divine barrier against mythical nations.

8. Conclusion

The claim of a hidden Gog and Magog behind an invisible or undiscovered wall does not withstand historical, geological, or scientific scrutiny. Every habitable region of the Earth is now mapped. There is no physical barrier of iron and copper concealing a civilization. Therefore, a literal interpretation of this Qur’anic account creates severe theological and empirical contradictions.

Perhaps the narrative was never intended to be a cartographic mystery, but a theological parable—illustrating divine sovereignty over human power and civilization. If that is true, then modern Muslim scholarship must courageously reinterpret these verses symbolically rather than perpetuate the myth of a hidden land unseen by satellites or science.

9. Further Questions for Debate

If the Qur’an is literal, where exactly is the “iron wall” today?
If it has corroded, how could Gog and Magog still be trapped?
Are Muslims justified in believing in an untraceable civilization in a fully mapped world?
Should the story be seen as moral allegory instead of physical history?
How should faith respond when literal belief contradicts observable reality?

Bibliography

The Qur’an, Surah Al-Kahf 18:83–98
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim
Al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Tabari
Ezekiel 38–39, The Hebrew Bible
Revelation 20:7–8, The New Testament
Hamidullah, Muhammad. Introduction to Islam
Al-Azmeh, Aziz. Islams and Modernities.
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary.
Modern Geographic Data, NASA Earth Observatory & Google Earth Satellite Mapping Reports

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute – Department of Comparative Theology and Religious Studies

Sheikh Arrested for Selling Pork as Lamb: A Case Study in Religious Ethics and Consumer Deception

Title: Sheikh Arrested for Selling Pork as Lamb: A Case Study in Religious Ethics and Consumer Deception

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This article examines a recent case involving a Muslim cleric (Sheikh) who was apprehended for selling pork falsely labeled as lamb in a local market. The incident raises significant ethical, theological, and legal concerns within Islamic jurisprudence and broader interfaith discussions about integrity in religious and commercial practices. The case also illuminates the tension between ritual observance and moral authenticity in religious leadership.

Introduction

Religious authority carries an inherent expectation of integrity, especially in the observance of dietary laws. In Islam, dietary regulations (halal and haram) are central to Muslim identity and practice. The deliberate misrepresentation of haram food as halal constitutes not only commercial fraud but also a profound violation of Shariah principles. Recently, a Muslim Sheikh was found guilty of selling pork chops under the label of lamb and was subsequently ordered to destroy the prohibited meat. His defense—that the pork had been “halal prepared” and prayed over—has generated public outrage and theological debate.

Background and Context

The Islamic dietary code, as delineated in the Qur’an and Hadith, explicitly prohibits the consumption of pork. Surah al-Baqarah 2:173 states:

“He has only forbidden you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah.”

Similarly, Surah al-Ma’idah 5:3 reiterates that the flesh of swine is haram under all circumstances, regardless of how it is prepared or blessed. The claim that pork can be made permissible through prayer contradicts foundational Islamic theology, which views divine law (Shariah) as immutable and not subject to human alteration.

Ethical and Theological Analysis

From a theological standpoint, the Sheikh’s justification represents a grave misunderstanding of fiqh al-halal wal-haram (jurisprudence of lawful and unlawful). Prayer (dua) or invocation cannot transform the ontological status of what is inherently haram. This act, therefore, reflects a deliberate manipulation of religious authority to exploit consumer trust—a direct violation of amanah (trustworthiness), a virtue highly emphasized by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), who said:

“He who deceives us is not one of us.” (Sahih Muslim 101)

Furthermore, in Islamic ethics, the integrity of trade is not merely an economic issue but a moral one. The Prophet himself was a merchant and repeatedly stressed honesty in transactions. This case highlights how commercial deceit within a religious context erodes the moral fabric of the community and damages the credibility of religious leadership.

Legal Implications

Legally, the Sheikh faces multiple charges, including consumer fraud, misrepresentation, and violation of public health regulations. In many countries with Muslim populations, selling pork under false labeling can constitute both a criminal and religious offense. Moreover, his claim that the pork was “halal prayed over” may constitute an aggravating factor, as it involves blasphemous misuse of religious ritual for economic gain.

Societal and Interfaith Implications

Beyond the Islamic community, this incident affects interfaith relations by undermining public trust in halal certification and Islamic commerce. Non-Muslims who purchase halal products for ethical or dietary reasons may also feel deceived. The misuse of religious authority for profit risks reinforcing negative stereotypes about religious hypocrisy, further straining relations between faith communities.

Conclusion

The case of the Sheikh selling pork disguised as lamb serves as a cautionary example of how religious authority, when abused, can lead to both moral and societal decay. No amount of prayer can render what is intrinsically forbidden as permissible. The incident underscores the need for stronger regulatory frameworks in halal certification, greater accountability among religious leaders, and renewed emphasis on akhlaq (moral character) within Islamic education.

References

The Holy Qur’an, Surah al-Baqarah 2:173; Surah al-Ma’idah 5:3.
Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 101.
Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid. Ihya Ulum al-Din (The Revival of Religious Sciences).
Kamali, Mohammad Hashim. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. Islamic Texts Society, 1991.
Yusuf al-Qaradawi. The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam. American Trust Publications, 1985.
Shimba, Maxwell. Ethics and Deception in Religious Leadership. Shimba Theological Institute Press, 2024.

ISLAM’S DISDAIN FOR AFRICANS

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Originally published: July 1, 2015

Abstract

This essay examines the racial dynamics embedded within Islamic historical development and doctrine, focusing particularly on Islam’s historical relationship with Africans and people of African descent. It challenges the claim that Islam is a religion of the Black race or originated in Africa. Drawing primarily from Islamic canonical sources such as the Qur’an and Hadith—specifically Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim—this study demonstrates that the origins, leadership, and teachings of Islam neither arose from Africa nor favored the African people.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, certain Muslim advocates have attempted to persuade African Americans that Islam is inherently a Black religion and that Prophet Muhammad himself was Black. Such claims are strategically directed at Black communities but seldom presented to White audiences. This rhetoric serves a propagandist aim: to appeal to racial identity rather than theological truth.

It is crucial to clarify from the outset that this analysis does not endorse racial prejudice of any form. The acceptance or rejection of Islam—or any religion—should rest upon its theological, ethical, and spiritual merits, not on racial or ethnic identity.

2. Africa Was Not the Cradle of Islam

Islam was born in the 7th century A.D. on the Arabian Peninsula, geographically located in Asia. The Red Sea separates Asia from the African continent, thus distinguishing them as two distinct regions both racially and geographically. Islam, therefore, is not an African-born faith.

By contrast, Christianity had already reached Africa centuries earlier. St. Mark, the Jewish author of the Gospel of Mark, evangelized in Egypt during the first century. From Egypt, Christianity spread throughout North and East Africa. Figures such as St. Moses the Black and St. Tekle Haymanot of Ethiopia became prominent African saints. The New Testament itself records early African participation in Christianity, such as Simon Niger (Acts 13:1) and the Ethiopian eunuch baptized by Philip (Acts 8:26–40).

When African slaves were later brought to the Americas, the majority had either been Christians or practitioners of traditional African religions, not Muslims.

3. Muhammad Was Not Black

Prophet Muhammad was an Arabian of Asian descent, not a Black African. Numerous authentic Hadiths confirm that Muhammad was light-skinned or white in complexion.

For example:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, Hadith 63 records: “While we were sitting with the Prophet, a man came and asked, ‘Who among you is Muhammad?’ We replied, ‘This white man reclining on his arm.’”
Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 2, Hadith 122 describes him as “a white man,” while Vol. 2, Hadith 141 mentions “the whiteness of his armpits was visible when he raised his hands.”

These authentic narrations leave no doubt that Muhammad was not of African origin nor of dark complexion.

4. Muhammad Owned Black Slaves

Islamic historical records reveal that Muhammad owned and traded Black slaves. Among them were Bilal, Abu Hurairah, Usama ibn Zayd, and a servant boy named Rabbah.

Even today, in Arabic-speaking regions such as Saudi Arabia—the birthplace of Islam—the term “ʿAbd” (عبد), literally meaning “slave,” is often used to describe Black individuals, reflecting a persistent racial hierarchy.

In Sahih Muslim (Vol. 7, p. 83), Muhammad is reported to have sold a Black slave for 800 dirhams. Moreover, Islamic law distinguished between the punishments of free men and enslaved women, treating the latter as property rather than persons of equal worth (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, Hadith 821–822).

5. Islam’s Degrading View of Black People

Islamic scriptures and Hadiths contain numerous derogatory references to Black people. For instance, Muhammad referred to Black individuals as “raisin heads” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, Hadith 662; Vol. 9, Hadith 256).

Another Hadith records Muhammad saying, “Black people steal when hungry, and when they are full, they commit fornication” (Sahih Muslim). In another narration, he instructed followers to obey even “a slave with a flat nose” (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 9, pp. 46–47)—a phrase widely interpreted as a racial insult referring to Black people.

These statements reveal a theological framework that, historically, did not view Africans as equals but rather as inferior subjects.

6. Islam and the Absence of Freedom and Equality

Even if one were to assume incorrectly that Islam originated in Africa or that its Prophet was Black, these facts would still not make Islam a suitable faith for people of African descent—or for anyone who values liberty and equality.

Islamic law (Sharia) fundamentally contradicts principles of human freedom and civil rights. The Qur’an itself declares:

“Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him” (Surah 3:85).

Islamic jurisprudence limits the rights of women, endorses slavery, and mandates religious conformity. Examples include:

Men are superior to women (Surah 2:228).
Women’s testimony is worth half that of a man (Surah 2:282).
Women inherit half the share of men (Surah 4:11).
Men may beat their wives (Surah 4:34).
A man may have up to four wives simultaneously (Surah 4:3).
Muslims must fight non-Muslims until they submit (Surah 9:5).
Muslims must not befriend Jews or Christians (Surah 5:51).
Apostates must be killed (Surah 9:12).
Theft is punished by amputation (Surah 5:38).
Adultery is punished by flogging (Surah 24:2).

Islamic governance also rejects the separation of religion and state (Surah 2:193) and forbids opposition to religious authority (Surah 4:59).

7. A Call to African Americans

To African Americans who are told that “Islam is the religion of the Black man,” such claims are deceptive and racially manipulative. If Islam truly valued Black lives, then why are Black Christians in regions such as Sudan being enslaved and slaughtered by their Muslim counterparts to this very day? (See: U.S. State Department Report, International Religious Freedom, May 26, 1993).

By contrast, Jesus Christ came to liberate humanity from every form of bondage—spiritual and physical alike. The Apostle Paul writes:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

8. Conclusion: Know the Truth and Be Free

The distinction between Islamic doctrine and the teachings of Jesus Christ is profound. Islam subjugates; Christ liberates.

“You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).
“Stand firm, then, and do not be entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Galatians 5:1–2).

Know the truth. Follow the truth. Share the truth.

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Orlando, Florida

Ahmed Deedat & Zakir Naik: Scholarly Examination by Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This paper examines the claims concerning Ahmed Deedat’s illness and death, and the recent rumours about Zakir Naik’s health. It also considers the wider theological and rhetorical claims about "mocking Scripture", responsibility, and divine retribution. The aim is to assess what is verifiable, what is speculative, and what theological reflections might responsibly follow.

Introduction

Ahmed Deedat (1918–2005) and Zakir Naik (b. 1965) are prominent Islamic speakers known for engaging in comparative religion debates and polemics with Christian interlocutors. Over time, claims have circulated regarding Deedat’s illness as a consequence of his public criticisms of the Bible, as well as rumours about Zakir Naik’s health (notably claims of HIV/AIDS). These claims often serve theological or apologetic purposes.

Documented Facts

Ahmed Deedat

On 3 May 1996, Ahmed Deedat suffered a stroke which left him paralysed from the neck down, unable to speak or swallow. (biharanjuman.org)
After the stroke, he was transported to King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Riyadh, where he was reported to be fully alert. He learned to communicate by eye movements via a chart—using a grid of letters and signifying responses. (biharanjuman.org)
For nearly nine years, he remained incapacitated and bedridden in his home in Verulam, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, cared for by his family. (biharanjuman.org)
He died on 8 August 2005 of kidney failure, aged 87. (Al Jazeera)

Zakir Naik

In September 2025, rumours circulated on social media that Zakir Naik had been diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. (https://www.oneindia.com/)
These rumours have been denied by Zakir Naik himself and by his legal representatives (e.g., his lawyer Akberdin Abdul Kadir), who called them false, malicious, and baseless. (Sinar Daily)
No credible medical documentation or reputable news source has confirmed the HIV/AIDS claims. Fact‐checkers have noted that the allegations are unverified. (https://www.oneindia.com/)

Claims & Rumours: Verification and Critique

Claim	Status
Deedat “never read the Bible” and only relied on atheist websites etc.	Unsubstantiated. There is no credible evidence that Deedat never studied major Christian sources; indeed, his books and debates show familiarity with Biblical texts. However, whether he read all scripture in its original languages or in full context is a matter of debate.
Deedat was “speechless” as divine retribution for mocking Scripture.	This is an interpretive or theological claim, not a documented fact. The medical cause of his paralysis and loss of speech is a stroke. Whether that is “punishment” is a religious interpretation.
Zakir Naik is battling HIV / AIDS.	Not verified. All credible sources (so far) indicate the rumours are false.
That both men “kept yapping” or “mocking Scripture” as an “Olympic sport.”	This is rhetorical, not academic. Whether Deedat/Naik’s approach counts as “mocking Scripture” depends on one’s perspective. Critics see their style as confrontational; supporters see them engaging in apologetics / polemics.

Theological Reflection

From a Christian theological perspective, some interpretive frameworks are at play:

Divine retribution: Many religious traditions believe that mockery, contempt, or slander of holy texts can lead to divine discipline. One might see Deedat’s illness as fitting a pattern of “rebuke” or “consequence.” However, careful theological reflection requires caution: correlation does not prove causation. The Bible (e.g. Job; Ecclesiastes) warns against assuming every suffering is directly divine punishment.
Free will, moral responsibility, and mercy: Even if someone engages in strong criticism of sacred texts, Christian theology generally allows for repentance, forgiveness, and God’s patience.
Public claims and rhetoric: Public figures who engage in polemics often invite backlash. Part of responsible scholarship is to distinguish between what is factual (medical, historical) and what is “moral‐theological interpretation.”

Evaluation of Your Claim in Scholarly Terms

Your original text contains assertions that are:

Partially true (e.g. Deedat’s paralysing stroke, inability to speak);
Partially rumour (Zakir Naik HIV/AIDS claims);
Partially interpretive (that these are divine punishments for mocking Scripture).

In academic work, you’d want to label claims clearly: “according to Islamic sources,” “according to Christian critics,” “rumours with no verification,” etc. Assertions about God’s will or “poetic justice” are theological opinions, and must be treated as such.

Conclusion

Ahmed Deedat’s health decline and death are well‐documented: a stroke in 1996 left him paralyzed and unable to speak; he communicated via eye signals and eventually died in 2005.
The claims about Zakir Naik having HIV/AIDS remain unverified and have been denied.
The idea that these health issues are divine retribution is a theological interpretation, not an empirical conclusion.
For those considering engaging in similar polemics or criticisms of Scripture, Christian tradition would urge humility, careful study of texts, awareness of the weight of claims, and caution in attributing suffering to divine punishment.

Suggested Bibliography

Deedat, Ahmed. Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction? Durban, South Africa: Islamic Propagation Centre International.
Deedat, Ahmed. What the Bible Says About Muhammad. Durban, 1985.
Islamic Propagation Centre International (IPCI) website. “The Life of Sheikh Ahmed Deedat,” Al Jazeera. (Al Jazeera)
“Remembering the life of Sheikh Ahmed Deedat,” Al Jazeera, 2005. (Al Jazeera)
“Renowned scholar Ahmed Deedat dies,” Dawn (Pakistan), August 2005. (Dawn)
Fact‐check articles refuting allegations about Zakir Naik’s health; e.g., Sinardaily, LatestLY, OneIndia. (Sinar Daily)

When Childhood Is Stolen — The Testimony of Noora Al Shami

Shimba Theological Institute Newsletter
Issue No. XX | [October, 2025]
Feature Article: When Childhood Is Stolen — The Testimony of Noora Al Shami

“I was forced to marry a man in his 30s… and was a mum-of-three by 15.”

This is the haunting testimony of Noora Al Shami, a woman from Yemen whose life was forever altered when she was married off at just 11 years old to a 35-year-old cousin. By the time she was 15, she had given birth to three children. Her story is not simply shocking — it is a call to conscience and action for communities, churches, and theological institutions worldwide.

The Story Behind the Headline

From multiple reports, including an in-depth feature in The Guardian, we know that Noora was formally wed just after her 11th birthday to Mohammed Al Ahdam, a distant cousin estimated to be in his 30s. (The Guardian)
The wedding lasted three days, during which she was dressed in “adult clothes,” adorned with jewelry, and given gifts — little did she know these celebrations masked a far darker reality. (The Guardian)

Within days, she was removed from her parents’ home and taken to live with her husband and his father. Though she first resisted sexual advances, she soon faced coercion and abuse. (The Guardian)
Within a year, she experienced two miscarriages. When she turned 13, she gave birth to her first child, a son named Ihab. A year later, her daughter Ahlam arrived, and finally, at age 15, she had another son, Shihab. (The Guardian)

Her husband’s violence escalated over time, even harming their children. When community support and legal structures failed her, Noora joined a program run by Oxfam and the Yemeni Women’s Union, eventually seeking divorce, legal custody, and emotional recovery. (The Guardian)
She later returned to school, trained as a teacher, and now advocates for legal reform and deeper cultural change. (The Guardian)

Importantly, Noora’s case is not an anomaly in Yemen. In her reflections, she cites statistics: about 14% of girls are married by age 15, and over 50% by 18 (based on past Human Rights Watch data). (The Guardian)
In many rural or tribal contexts, customary law, economic distress, and patriarchal norms override statutory protections. (The Guardian)

A Theological Reflection

Violating the Image of God in Childhood
Every human being is created in the image of God (Imago Dei) — to be loved, protected, nurtured, and allowed to flourish in life’s full dignity. A child forced into marriage experiences the violation of that image in the most intimate way. Scripture repeatedly calls the community to defend orphans and the vulnerable (see Psalm 82:3; Isaiah 1:17).
Christian Responsibility in Cultures of Silence
The church must never remain silent when children are treated as commodities. In James 1:27 we are commanded to care for orphans and widows in their distress; this extends to any child deprived of protection. Silence, indifference, or cultural relativism becomes complicity.
Advocacy That Honors Dignity
True transformation requires more than legislative reform (though that is essential); it demands cultural renewal. Our theological institutions have a role in educating future pastors, community leaders, and laypeople to see beyond tradition — and to challenge practices incompatible with the Gospel’s vision of human dignity.
Healing, Restoration, and Hope
Survivors like Noora remind us that healing is possible, albeit long and painful. The church is called to provide safe spaces of restoration — psychological, spiritual, economic — for survivors of abuse. Moreover, we must partner with organizations and legal systems that support such healing.

What Shimba Theological Institute Can Do

Incorporate this testimony into our curricula on ethics, pastoral ministry, gender justice, and human dignity.
Host seminars / workshops on child justice, trauma-informed care, and biblical perspectives on children’s rights.
Partner with NGOs and Christian organizations in affected regions (such as Yemen) to support survivor ministries and advocacy.
Encourage alumni and partner churches to speak up locally, lobby for stronger child protection laws, and challenge harmful traditions in their contexts.

Conclusion and Call to Action

Noora Al Shami’s life story presents us with an urgent question: How will we respond?

Will we treat this as distant news, a problem for “somewhere else”?
Or will we allow her voice to penetrate our minds and hearts, compelling us to act — to educate, to protest, to intercede, to support?

Let us — as a theological community — refuse to rest until such stories are no longer possible in any land. Let us commit ourselves to theology in service, dignity in practice, and justice in love.

— Shimba Theological Institute

Jesus Christ: The Prince of Peace

Jesus Christ: The Prince of Peace
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Prayer for Inner Peace

Scriptural Foundation:
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." — Proverbs 3:5 (NIV)

The title “Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6) reveals a profound theological truth about the nature and ministry of Jesus Christ. In a world characterized by anxiety, conflict, and uncertainty, Christ stands as the eternal source of peace—both internal and external. His peace transcends human comprehension (Philippians 4:7), offering stability amid chaos and assurance amid doubt.

The wisdom literature of the Old Testament, particularly Proverbs 3:5, provides the foundation for cultivating inner peace through divine trust. The verse commands total reliance on God rather than human intellect. Human understanding, while valuable, is limited and often distorted by emotion, fear, and temporal reasoning. In contrast, divine wisdom is perfect, sovereign, and rooted in eternal truth.

When a believer surrenders personal anxieties and ambitions to God’s divine providence, a transformation occurs within the soul. The peace of Christ begins to govern the heart (Colossians 3:15), replacing confusion with clarity and fear with faith. True inner peace, therefore, is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of Christ’s rule in the believer’s heart.

A Scholarly Reflection

From a theological standpoint, peace (shalom in Hebrew, eirēnē in Greek) in Scripture denotes wholeness, harmony, and restored relationship with God. Jesus embodies this peace through His reconciling work on the Cross (Ephesians 2:14–17). His invitation to trust God completely reflects the call to spiritual maturity—a faith that transcends intellectual calculation and yields to divine direction.

Faith and peace are thus interdependent: faith anchors the soul in divine assurance, and peace becomes the fruit of that trust. The believer’s journey toward inner tranquility begins with surrender—an act of faith that acknowledges human limitation and divine omniscience.

Prayer

Heavenly Father,
Teach us to trust You with all our hearts and to release every burden into Your hands. May Your peace, which surpasses all understanding, guard our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Grant us faith to rest in Your perfect will and courage to follow Your divine path.
In Jesus’ name, Amen.

#TrustGod #Faith #PrinceOfPeace #ProverbOfTheDay #ShimbaTheologicalInstitute

Jesus Was Called God by His Followers

Jesus Was Called God by His Followers

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

King James Bible, John 20:28

“And Thomas answered and said unto Jesus, My Lord and my God.”

This verse clearly affirms from His followers that Jesus is God. Notice that Jesus did not rebuke Thomas for calling Him “God.”

Thomas, one of the disciples of Jesus, declared about Him, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Jesus did not correct or deny this statement, showing His acceptance of divine identity. Likewise, Titus 2:13 encourages believers to wait for “the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” The same truth is echoed in 2 Peter 1:1, which refers to “our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

In Hebrews 1:8, God the Father Himself speaks about the Son, saying:

“But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.”

These passages collectively affirm the deity of Jesus Christ, as recognized both by His disciples and by God the Father Himself. Jesus is not merely a teacher or prophet—He is truly God manifested in human form.