Max Shimba Ministries

Monday, December 8, 2025

MUHAMMAD WAS UNAWARE OF RELIGION

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This article explores the controversial claim within Islamic exegesis that Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.w.) was initially unaware of religion and divine guidance prior to his prophetic commission. Drawing from authoritative Islamic sources, including Aysar al-Tafasir by Abu Bakr al-Jaza’iri, this paper examines the theological implications of such assertions in contrast to the Qur’an’s self-portrayal of the Prophet’s mission. Furthermore, it critically evaluates how these statements challenge the notion of Muhammad’s infallibility (‘ismah) and his pre-prophetic spiritual awareness.

1. Introduction

Within Islamic theology, Prophet Muhammad is often presented as the “Seal of the Prophets” (Khatam an-Nabiyyin)—a figure endowed with divine revelation and impeccable character. However, certain classical Islamic commentaries suggest that prior to receiving revelation, Muhammad did not possess knowledge of divine law or the true religion. This notion raises significant theological questions: Was Muhammad divinely prepared from birth, or was his awareness of true faith only realized upon the first revelation (wahy)?

A striking example of this view appears in Aysar al-Tafasir by Abu Bakr al-Jaza’iri, a respected Sunni scholar, who asserts that Muhammad “did not know the religion or the correct guidance” (lam yakun ya‘lamu ad-dīn wa-l-hudā). This statement, found in Volume 5, page 2070, provokes critical examination concerning the Prophet’s pre-prophetic state of knowledge.

2. Textual Analysis of the Source

In Aysar al-Tafasir, Abu Bakr al-Jaza’iri writes:

“The noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not know religion or the correct guidance [before revelation].”
— Aysar al-Tafasir, Vol. 5, p. 2070.

This statement refers to Qur’an 42:52:

“And thus We have revealed to you a Spirit of Our command. You did not know what the Book was, nor what faith was, but We have made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants.” (Surah Ash-Shura 42:52)

Abu Bakr al-Jaza’iri interprets this verse literally, implying that the Prophet’s understanding of religion and divine law was entirely absent before the descent of revelation.

From a theological standpoint, this interpretation creates tension with the Qur’an’s broader portrayal of Muhammad as one chosen and prepared by God from birth, as seen in verses such as Surah al-Inshirah (94:1–3)—“Did We not expand your breast for you and remove from you your burden?”—which may suggest divine preparation prior to revelation.

3. Theological Implications

If the Prophet Muhammad was indeed unaware of religion prior to the revelation, as Abu Bakr al-Jaza’iri suggests, several critical implications arise:

Questioning Pre-Prophetic Infallibility:
Islamic scholars who uphold ‘ismah (prophetic infallibility) argue that prophets are divinely protected from sin and error even before their mission. However, the claim that Muhammad did not know divine guidance seems to challenge this doctrine.
Conflict with Divine Foreknowledge and Selection:
The Qur’an depicts Muhammad as divinely chosen: “Allah chooses messengers from angels and from men” (Surah al-Hajj 22:75). If Muhammad lacked any prior awareness of truth, this raises the question of divine foreknowledge—how can one be the “best of creation” while entirely unaware of divine reality before revelation?
Comparative Prophetic Knowledge:
Unlike other prophets such as Moses or Jesus, who demonstrated spiritual awareness from an early age (cf. Exodus 3:1–6; Luke 2:46–49), Muhammad’s pre-revelation period appears, in Islamic sources, as one of ignorance (jahiliyyah). This distinction is critical in understanding the uniqueness and development of Muhammad’s prophetic consciousness.

4. Scholarly Reflections

Islamic and non-Islamic scholars have long debated Muhammad’s pre-prophetic spiritual condition:

Al-Razi (Fakhr al-Din): Interprets 42:52 symbolically, arguing that “not knowing faith” refers not to ignorance of God but to the absence of prophetic revelation.
Ibn Kathir: Suggests that the Prophet was familiar with certain truths of Abrahamic monotheism but did not yet possess formalized law (Shari‘ah).
Western Islamicists such as W. Montgomery Watt and Alfred Guillaume have described this state as “ethical monotheism without revelation,” where Muhammad sensed divine presence but lacked structured doctrine.

From a Christian theological perspective, this scenario underscores the human dimension of Muhammad’s prophetic identity, distinguishing it from the divine pre-existence of Christ (John 1:1–14). Unlike Jesus, whose divine knowledge preceded His incarnation, Muhammad’s awareness of God appears contingent and developmental.

5. Conclusion

The statement that Prophet Muhammad “did not know religion or correct guidance” prior to revelation, as asserted by Abu Bakr al-Jaza’iri, presents a significant theological paradox within Islam. It challenges the doctrine of prophetic infallibility and the concept of divine foreordination. While Qur’anic verses such as 42:52 provide textual support for this claim, the broader Islamic theological framework attempts to reconcile Muhammad’s human unawareness with divine election and ultimate perfection.

From a comparative theological perspective, this distinction underscores a central difference between Islamic and Christian understandings of divine revelation and prophetic knowledge—whereas Muhammad attains divine understanding through progressive revelation, Christ embodies divine knowledge inherently.

References

Abu Bakr al-Jaza’iri. Aysar al-Tafasir li Kalam al-‘Ali al-Kabir. Vol. 5. Madinah: Al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1999, p. 2070.
The Qur’an, Surah Ash-Shura 42:52.
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. Mafatih al-Ghayb (Tafsir al-Kabir). Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1981.
Ibn Kathir. Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim. Riyadh: Darussalam, 2000.
Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.
Guillaume, Alfred. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955.
The Holy Bible, John 1:1–14; Luke 2:46–49; Exodus 3:1–6.

The Absence of Imams, Sheikhs, and Ustaadhs in the Qur’an: A Theological Inquiry

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Originally written: August 14, 2015 | Revised and expanded, 2025

Abstract

This paper examines a crucial theological question concerning the structure and legitimacy of Islamic religious leadership. While Islam today recognizes figures such as Imams, Sheikhs, and Ustaadhs as authoritative leaders and teachers within the Muslim community, the Qur’an itself provides no explicit reference or divine instruction establishing these roles. In contrast, the Holy Bible delineates clear qualifications and divine mandates for church leadership, such as bishops (episkopoi), pastors, elders (presbyteroi), and deacons (diakonoi). This study therefore questions the Qur’anic foundation of Islamic clerical titles and compares them with the biblical model of ecclesiastical order, ultimately affirming the biblical structure as divinely ordained and the Islamic hierarchy as humanly fabricated.

1. Introduction

The claim that Islam is a divinely established faith demands that its structure and doctrines be traceable directly to revelation. However, upon examination, we find that the Qur’an never mentions nor prescribes the existence of Imams, Sheikhs, or Ustaadhs as formal religious offices. Contemporary Islam, however, heavily depends upon these figures for teaching, interpretation, and leadership.

This raises fundamental questions:

Where in the Qur’an does Allah command Muslims to have Imams, Sheikhs, or Ustaadhs?
What are the qualifications of such figures according to Qur’anic verses?
If such offices are not mentioned, how did they become integral to Islamic practice?

These questions are not intended to offend but to provoke honest scholarly reflection on the historical and theological authenticity of Islamic leadership structures.

2. The Qur’anic Silence on Religious Hierarchy

Muslims sometimes cite Surah al-Baqarah 2:124, which reads:

“And [mention] when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [Allah] said, ‘Indeed, I will make you a leader (Imām) for the people.’ [Abraham] said, ‘And of my descendants?’ [Allah] said, ‘My covenant does not include the wrongdoers.’” (Qur’an 2:124)

However, a linguistic and contextual analysis reveals that the Arabic term Imām here does not refer to a religious cleric or teacher as in modern Islam. It simply denotes a leader or model — in this case, Abraham as the father of nations (see Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, vol. 1). The verse does not establish an institutional office or a perpetual title of Imam within a religious system.

Beyond this verse, the Qur’an provides no direct command or description for an office of Imam, Sheikh, or Ustaadh with qualifications, responsibilities, or ordination processes. These titles evolved later through Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) and cultural development, particularly under the Abbasid and Ottoman caliphates (see Hodgson, The Venture of Islam, 1974).

Thus, the modern Islamic clerical system lacks divine establishment within the Qur’anic revelation itself.

3. The Biblical Model of Church Leadership

In contrast, the Bible provides an explicit, divinely inspired framework for spiritual leadership in the Church of Christ. Scripture identifies and qualifies distinct offices for governance and teaching within the body of believers.

3.1 Christ as the Head of the Church

The New Testament declares that Jesus Christ Himself is the sole and eternal head of the Church:

“And He put all things under His feet and gave Him as head over all things to the church.” (Ephesians 1:22; cf. 4:15; Colossians 1:18)

This means that all authority and leadership flow directly from Christ, not from man-made offices or traditions.

3.2 Autonomy and Governance of the Church

The Apostle Paul instructed Titus to establish elders in every city:

“For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you.” (Titus 1:5)

This demonstrates that biblical leadership was divinely directed, spiritually qualified, and locally accountable—unlike Islamic leadership, which developed administratively rather than through divine revelation.

4. Offices of the Church According to Scripture

4.1 Bishops and Pastors (Overseers)

The qualifications of bishops (or overseers) are clearly set forth in 1 Timothy 3:1–7:

“If anyone desires the office of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous…”

This passage reveals divine standards for leadership based on moral integrity, family responsibility, and spiritual maturity.

4.2 Deacons

Likewise, Scripture outlines the role of deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8–13:

“Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.”

This structure ensures order, accountability, and sanctity in the service of God’s people.

4.3 Further Biblical Witness

Other scriptural affirmations of church order include:

Titus 1:1–9 – Qualifications of elders.
Acts 6:1–6 – Appointment of the first deacons.
Philippians 1:1 – Recognition of bishops and deacons within the early Church.

5. Comparative Theological Analysis

The fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam in matters of leadership lies in divine revelation versus human construction.

In Christianity, leadership offices are divinely instituted through apostolic authority and Scriptural revelation.
In Islam, religious offices such as Imam, Sheikh, and Ustaadh are not divinely ordained but historically constructed to fill interpretative and administrative gaps after Muhammad’s death.

Without Qur’anic basis for such roles, the legitimacy of the Islamic clerical system is theologically questionable. The Bible, on the other hand, remains internally consistent and self-authenticating concerning its leadership framework.

6. Conclusion: An Invitation to Truth

Dear readers, the absence of Qur’anic directives concerning Islamic clerical offices exposes the constructed nature of Islamic authority. Conversely, the Bible provides an unbroken, Spirit-guided structure for leadership within the Body of Christ.

Therefore, I invite my Muslim friends to examine the Scriptures openly and consider the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who alone is the Shepherd and Savior of humanity (John 10:11; Acts 4:12).

Islam may have titles and traditions, but Christianity has divine revelation and salvation through Christ alone.

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” — John 8:32

Bibliography

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV).
The Qur’an, Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali.
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, Vol. 1. Riyadh: Darussalam, 2000.
Hodgson, Marshall G. S. The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.
Al-Tabari, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān ʿan Ta’wīl Āy al-Qurʾān, Cairo: Dar al-Maʿarif, 1902.
Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Noll, Mark A. Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1997.

THE QUR’AN IS NOT THE WORD OF ALLAH NOR OF GOD

THE QUR’AN IS NOT THE WORD OF ALLAH NOR OF GOD
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Date: Thursday, August 6, 2015

Introduction

This is one of the most critical theological questions that should challenge every Muslim to examine the origin, structure, and nature of the Qur’an. Muslims worldwide commonly assert that “the Qur’an is the pure word of Allah.” However, when one examines the Qur’an critically and contextually, a profound contradiction emerges. Many voices other than Allah are found speaking within the Qur’an itself. This raises a series of important theological questions:

If Allah is the sole author of the Qur’an, why do we hear other entities — such as Satan, Mary, the angels, and prophets — speaking directly in the text?
Why does Allah require the help of Jibril (Gabriel) to deliver His message if He is omnipotent and omnipresent?
Can the Qur’an still be called “the Word of Allah” when it contains the words of multiple beings?

Let us now explore the internal evidence from the Qur’an itself.

1. Satan Speaks in the Qur’an

Surah Al-Hijr 15:39: “[Iblis] said: My Lord! Because You have put me in the wrong, I will make [evil] fair-seeming to them on the earth, and I will mislead them all.”

Here, we clearly see Satan speaking in the Qur’an. The verse does not record Allah’s words, but the direct speech of Satan. Therefore, this statement cannot be considered divine revelation from Allah’s mouth.

Question:
If Allah alone speaks in the Qur’an, how is it that Satan’s direct words are recorded within the same text? Does this mean the Qur’an is partially composed of Satan’s speech?

2. Prophet Zakaria Speaks in the Qur’an

Surah Maryam 19:4: “He (Zakaria) said: My Lord! Indeed my bones have weakened, and my head has filled with white, but never have I been disappointed in my supplication to You, my Lord.”

Here, Prophet Zakaria is speaking. His personal prayer is being quoted directly. This indicates that the Qur’an contains not only the words of Allah but also the prayers and dialogues of human beings.

Question:
If the Qur’an is purely Allah’s word, why does it include the personal expressions and emotions of a prophet?

3. Mary (Maryam) Speaks in the Qur’an

Surah Maryam 19:18: “She (Mary) said: Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you, if you should be fearing of Allah.”

Mary, the mother of Jesus (Isa), is here shown speaking in her own voice. Are we to assume that Mary’s speech is Allah’s word?

Question:
Has Mary become divine by virtue of her words being included in the Qur’an? If not, then whose word is this truly?

4. The Angels Speak in the Qur’an

Surah Maryam 19:21: “He (the angel) said: Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter already decreed.’”

Here again, the speaker is not Allah but an angel—identified in Islamic tradition as Jibril (Gabriel). This demonstrates that even the angel’s words are recorded as part of the Qur’an.

Question:
If Allah’s word is perfect and self-sufficient, why must it include the words of His creation?

5. Jesus (Isa) Speaks in the Qur’an

Surah Maryam 19:36: “And indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path.”

Here, Jesus himself is speaking. This verse records Jesus’ direct declaration. If this is “the word of Allah,” then Allah is quoting Isa verbatim — meaning that Isa’s words are embedded within Allah’s alleged word.

Question:
Does this not demonstrate that the Qur’an contains the voices of men, angels, and even Satan — rather than the exclusive speech of Allah?

6. Other Human Speakers in the Qur’an

The Qur’an also records the words of Pharaoh (Surah Ash-Shu‘ara 26:29), Abraham (Surah Al-An‘am 6:79), Noah (Surah Hud 11:37), and the people of various nations. This mixture of divine narration and creaturely dialogue makes it impossible to claim the Qur’an is entirely the speech of Allah.

For example:

Surah Al-A‘raf 7:12: “[Allah] said: What prevented you (O Iblis) from prostrating when I commanded you?” [Iblis] said: I am better than him. You created me from fire and created him from clay.”

Here we again have Allah and Satan conversing — a dialogue involving multiple speakers.

The Problem of Mediation: Why Does Allah Need Jibril?

Muslims claim that Allah is All-Powerful and All-Knowing. Yet, according to Islamic theology, Allah never spoke directly to Muhammad; instead, He sent Jibril (Gabriel) as a messenger to deliver His revelation (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:97).

Critical Question:
If Allah is omnipresent and omnipotent, why did He need a helper (Jibril) to convey His message? Could Allah not communicate directly, as He allegedly spoke directly to Moses in the Torah (Surah An-Nisa 4:164)?

This theological inconsistency raises doubts about the divine origin of the Qur’an and the necessity of intermediaries in delivering revelation.

7. A Mixture of Voices

The Qur’an contains conversations between:

Allah and angels
Allah and prophets
Prophets and their people
Satan and Allah
Human beings among themselves

This multiplicity of speakers makes the Qur’an a compilation of dialogues, not a single monologue from Allah. In literary analysis, such a composition is called polyphonic — having many voices. Therefore, it cannot logically or theologically be described as the “pure word of Allah.”

Conclusion and Challenge

Therefore, the central question remains:

Who is the real speaker in the Qur’an?
Is the Qur’an truly the Word of Allah, or is it a collection of multiple voices?
If Allah needs Jibril to speak, does that not suggest limitation rather than omnipotence?
Why does the Qur’an contain the words of Satan, humans, and angels?

Until Muslims can answer these questions academically and scripturally, the claim that “the Qur’an is the direct word of Allah” remains theologically inconsistent.

We invite our Muslim brothers and sisters to examine this matter sincerely and to seek the truth found in Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God (John 1:1; John 14:6).

References

The Qur’an: Surah Al-Hijr 15:39; Surah Maryam 19:4, 18, 21, 36; Surah Ash-Shu‘ara 26:29; Surah Al-A‘raf 7:12; Surah Al-Baqarah 2:97; Surah An-Nisa 4:164.
The Bible: John 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 14:6 – “Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life.”
Academic Source: W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman (Oxford University Press, 1961).
Theological Reference: William St. Clair Tisdall, The Sources of the Qur’an (T&T Clark, 1905).

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute
Max Shimba Ministries
"Come to Jesus, the Living Word of Life." ✝️

JESUS IS GOD: The Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ

JESUS IS GOD: The Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

1. Introduction

The doctrines of the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ are two central eschatological themes in Christian theology, both emphasizing the return of Jesus Christ but differing in nature, purpose, and timing. While both events affirm the deity of Jesus Christ and His sovereign authority over time and eternity, they occur under distinct prophetic circumstances as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. This paper provides a concise academic outline of both events with exegetical and biblical references drawn exclusively from the King James Version (KJV).

2. The Rapture

2.1 Definition

The Rapture refers to the sudden and miraculous removal of the true believers in Christ from the earth, to meet the Lord in the air. The Apostle Paul describes this as the moment when both the dead and the living in Christ are caught up together to be with the Lord forever (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 KJV).

2.2 Timing

The precise timing of the Rapture remains unknown and is considered imminent, meaning it can occur at any moment without preceding prophetic signs. Christ Himself emphasized this uncertainty, declaring, “Of that day and hour knoweth no man” (Matthew 24:36 KJV). The Church is therefore called to perpetual readiness.

2.3 Visibility

The Rapture is primarily for believers. It is not described as a public or visible event to the entire world but as a spiritual and supernatural gathering of the saints to meet Christ “in the air” (1 Thessalonians 4:17 KJV). Unlike the Second Coming, Christ does not descend to the earth at this time.

2.4 Purpose

The purposes of the Rapture include:

Gathering the Bride of Christ (the Church) unto Himself (Ephesians 5:25–27 KJV);
Delivering the Church from the coming wrath of God (1 Thessalonians 5:9 KJV); and
Transforming believers into immortal beings prepared for eternal fellowship (1 Corinthians 15:51–52 KJV).

2.5 Nature and Character

The Rapture will occur suddenly and instantaneously. Paul declares:

“In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump… the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.”
(1 Corinthians 15:52 KJV)

This transformation represents a divine act of mercy and power—an expression of God’s saving grace towards His people.

2.6 Accompanying Conditions

Believers are repeatedly exhorted to watch and remain ready. Paul reminds the Thessalonians:

“For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night… therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.”
(1 Thessalonians 5:2–6 KJV)

This expectation fosters holiness, vigilance, and spiritual alertness.

3. The Second Coming of Christ

3.1 Definition

The Second Coming of Christ refers to His visible, glorious, and triumphant return to earth to judge the nations, overthrow evil, and establish His millennial reign. This event is distinct from the Rapture, as it involves Christ’s physical descent to the earth and is witnessed by all humanity (Revelation 1:7 KJV).

3.2 Timing

Unlike the imminent Rapture, the Second Coming follows a series of prophetic events, including the Great Tribulation, the rise of the Antichrist, and cosmic disturbances (Matthew 24:29–31 KJV). This sequence is consistent with Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks (Daniel 9:27 KJV) and the apocalyptic visions of Revelation.

3.3 Visibility

Christ’s Second Coming will be public and unmistakable. Scripture declares:

“And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven... and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”
(Matthew 24:30 KJV)

He returns as a conquering King, accompanied by the armies of heaven (Revelation 19:11–16 KJV).

3.4 Purpose

The purposes of the Second Coming include:

The final defeat of Satan and the Antichrist (Revelation 19:19–21 KJV);
The judgment of the nations (Matthew 25:31–32 KJV); and
The establishment of Christ’s millennial kingdom on earth (Revelation 20:1–6 KJV).

3.5 Nature

The Second Coming is triumphant, judicial, and earth-centered. It marks the culmination of divine justice as Christ executes wrath upon the wicked and rewards the righteous. Unlike the Rapture, which emphasizes deliverance, the Second Coming emphasizes judgment and dominion.

4. Comparative Summary

Aspect	Rapture	Second Coming
Location of Meeting	Believers meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4:17 KJV)	Christ descends to the earth (Rev. 19:11–16 KJV)
Visibility	For believers; unseen by the world	Public and global — “every eye shall see Him” (Rev. 1:7 KJV)
Timing	Imminent; before Tribulation (pre-tribulational view)	After Tribulation and cosmic signs (Matt. 24:29–31 KJV)
Purpose	To gather and transform believers; to deliver the Church	To judge the nations and establish the Kingdom
Nature	Sudden, merciful, transformative	Triumphant, judicial, and wrathful
Judgment	Believers rewarded (1 Thess. 5:9 KJV)	Wicked punished (Rev. 19:15–21 KJV)

5. Pastoral Application: The Watchman’s Charge

The expectation of Christ’s return calls believers to holy living and spiritual readiness. Jesus warned:

“Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.”
(Matthew 25:13 KJV)

Believers are admonished to remain faithful and alert, rejecting false teachings and speculative date-setting (Matthew 24:4–5 KJV). The Apostle Paul calls this blessed anticipation:

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
(Titus 2:13 KJV)

This dual expectation — the Rapture and the Second Coming — should inspire believers toward purity, perseverance, and proclamation of the Gospel.

6. Conclusion

Both the Rapture and the Second Coming affirm the divine authority and deity of Jesus Christ. As God incarnate, He will fulfill every promise of Scripture regarding redemption and judgment. The Rapture highlights His intimate relationship with the Church as the Bridegroom, while the Second Coming manifests His universal lordship and kingship over all creation. Thus, the believer’s cry remains:

“Even so, come, Lord Jesus.”
(Revelation 22:20 KJV)

Bibliography

The Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV).
Walvoord, John F. The Rapture Question. Zondervan, 1979.
Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology. Zondervan, 1958.
Ladd, George Eldon. The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture. Eerdmans, 1956.
Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Moody Press, 1999.
Shimba, Maxwell. Systematic Theology of the End Times. Shimba Theological Institute Press, 2024.

Was Muhammad a Sunni or a Shia?

Introduction

The questions raised involve several issues:

Was Muhammad a Sunni or a Shia?
Did Muhammad declare all Muslims in sects (except one) to be candidates for Hellfire?
Is there a group that follows the Qur’an alone (“Quranooyoon”) which Muhammad endorsed, as opposed to combining Hadith + Qur’an?
What does Islamic scholarship say about these hadiths and their authenticity, meaning, and implications?

We will examine each in turn.

Definitions & Background

Sunni and Shia are labels for two major branches of Islam that crystallized after the death of Muhammad and after early disputes over leadership, theological doctrine, law, etc. The terms were not in use in Muhammad’s lifetime in the way they are used now.
Hadith: reported sayings, actions, tacit approvals of Muhammad; treated in traditional Islam as a source of guidance along with the Qur’an.
Qur’an-only (variously called “Qur’anists”, “Qur’aniyoon”, etc.): groups who accept only the Qur’an as authoritative, rejecting or minimizing authority of Hadith collections. This is a minority position in Islamic history, not one of the traditional major madhahib (schools).

Examination of the Claimed Hadiths & Their Interpretations

The hadith about “73 sects”

There is a widely circulated hadith (or reports) stating something along these lines:

“My Ummah will be divided into seventy-three sects; all but one will be in Hell, and the saved sect is the one that follows what I and my companions follow.”

Scholars have collected many versions; some with additions like “all of them will be in Hell except one”, others without that addition; some where the saved group is described simply as al-Jamaʿah, or “the group”, or “those who follow me and my companions”. (Islam-QA)

Authenticity / Criticism

Scholars have debated:

Which versions are authentic or weak. Some versions include extra phrases (“all except one in Hell”, etc.) that some scholars regard as weak or even fabricated. (موقع دار الإفتاء المصرية)
Whether all narrations attributed to this hadith are sahih (sound), hasan (good), or weak. Some affirm parts are acceptable, others reject certain additions. (islam3.worldofislam.info)

Analysis of the Specific Claims

You asserted several things. Let’s check them one by one.

Assertion	Evidence / Counter-Arguments
“Muhammad declares Sunni, Shia and all Muslims following different sects are in Hellfire.”	The hadith discussed does say that the Ummah will split into many sects and all but one will be in Hellfire (in some versions). But: • The versions differ; some do not include the phrase “all but one in Hellfire” verbatim; sometimes it is weaker. (موقع دار الإفتاء المصرية) • Furthermore, identifying contemporary “Sunni”, “Shia” etc., with those sects is a retrospective interpretation. The hadith does not explicitly mention “Sunni” or “Shia” in most versions in the way they are used today. • Some scholars caution against using such hadiths to judge individuals or groups with certainty, because of issues of authenticity, context, meaning.
“Muhammad was not a Sunni / Shia (because those sects came later).”	This is largely correct from a historical perspective: the formal Sunni / Shia labels, schools, theological systems, crystallized after the Prophet’s death, often in the 2nd / 3rd Islamic centuries. So Muhammad himself cannot be properly said to have “belonged” to a sect named “Sunni” or “Shia” as they are used today.
“Muhammad did not combine Hadith with Qur’an; if you do, you differ from him (i.e. you are of a sect).”	There is no credible evidence that Muhammad himself rejected Hadith; in fact, Muslims believe many sayings/actions of Muhammad are preserved as Hadith. The hadith literature is considered by most Muslims as explanatory of the Qur’an, and Muhammad is understood to have instituted practices and words beyond the Qur’an (as Muslims believe). The Qur’an itself refers to obeying the Prophet and following his example (as Muslims interpret). So the idea that Muhammad followed “Qur’an only” in the sense of rejecting or not needing Hadith is not supported by mainstream Islamic sources.
“If you follow Qur’an only but belong to Sunni or Shia sect, you are not of Muhammad’s sect, all are going to hell according to Muhammad.”	This is an interpretation that some people derive from certain versions of the 73 sects hadith. But scholars debate whether those versions are reliable. Also, mainstream scholarship holds that salvation is not strictly about sect labels but about faith, actions, sincerity, etc. The Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes righteous belief and deeds. So to say definitively that all but one sect are going to hell is controversial and not accepted universally.

Scholarly Positions

Many Sunni scholars interpret that the “saved sect” (the one among the many divisions) is al-Jamaʿah (“the group / community”), defined as those who adhere to what Muhammad and his companions did. This is seen in works such as Al-Farq Bayna al-Firaq by Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi. (Wikipedia)
Some scholars accept the hadith about 73 sects in a form that does not include “all in Hell except one”, or only in a weaker form. They caution against using it to judge other Muslims. (موقع دار الإفتاء المصرية)
Scholars differ on whether certain narrations are “mutawatir” (strongly transmitted) versus “ahad” (individual) and how much weight to give to them. Some additions (e.g. “all in Hell except one”) are considered less certain. (موقع دار الإفتاء المصرية)

Conclusion

From a scholarly standpoint:

Muhammad was neither Sunni nor Shia in the sense those terms later came to define. Those sects formed after his passing.
The hadith about the 73 sects is real in Islamic tradition in many versions; it is reported that there will be many sects and that one is the “saved group” (often defined as the Jamaʿah, or those following Muhammad and his companions).
However, not all versions of the hadith are universally accepted. There is debate over authenticity, over the exact wording, over whether it literally means “all other sects are in hell” in the sense some interpret it.
Mainstream Islamic theology holds that faith, deeds, sincerity, following the guidance of Qur’an + authentic Sunnah (Prophetic tradition) matter; sectarian labels are less emphasized in terms of ultimate judgment.

Suggested Bibliography & References

(As would be appropriate in a theological institute)

Al-Baghdadi, Abu Mansur - Al-Farq Bayna al-Firaq.
Ibn Hazm, Al-Fisal fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal.
Ibn al-Wazir, Al-Awasim wa al-Qawasim fi Dhabb an-Sunnah Abi l-Qasim.
Shawkani, Fath al-Qadir.
Tirmidhi, Sunan al-Tirmidhi (Hadith 2641) — narration of Ibn ‘Amr.
Dar al-Ifta / Fatwa bodies that discuss the hadith of “73 sects” (e.g. Egypt’s Dar al-Ifta). (موقع دار الإفتاء المصرية)
Works on Qur’an-only (Qur’aniyyoon) groups: history, critique, modern perspectives.

WAS MUHAMMAD SUNNI OR SHIA?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

The question of whether Prophet Muhammad was a Sunni or Shia has profound implications for understanding the nature of Islam as practiced today. This paper argues that Muhammad was neither Sunni nor Shia, and that all sectarian divisions in Islam represent a deviation from his original message. Drawing upon the Prophet’s own words in the Hadith concerning the seventy-three sects, it becomes evident that Muhammad condemned the fragmentation of his followers into groups and declared all but one sect as destined for Hellfire. The study challenges contemporary Muslims to re-examine their allegiance to sectarian doctrines and to consider the implications of following systems Muhammad never endorsed.

1. Introduction

The sectarian split in Islam—principally between Sunni and Shia—has shaped the political, theological, and social realities of the Muslim world for over a millennium. However, a fundamental question arises: Was Muhammad himself affiliated with any sect? Historically, the answer is unambiguous. Neither Sunni Islam nor Shia Islam existed during Muhammad’s lifetime. These divisions crystallized in the decades and centuries following his death, largely due to disputes over leadership, interpretation of revelation, and jurisprudence.

Hence, to describe Muhammad as either Sunni or Shia is anachronistic—projecting later developments backward onto the Prophet himself.

2. The Hadith of the Seventy-Three Sects

A pivotal text often cited in discussions of Islamic sectarianism is the hadith recorded in Sunan Abu Dawud (Hadith 4596) and Sunan al-Tirmidhi (Hadith 2641):

“The Jews were divided into seventy-one sects, the Christians into seventy-two, and my Ummah will divide into seventy-three sects. All of them are in the Fire except one.”
When asked which one, the Prophet replied:
“That which I and my Companions are upon.”

This narration—though varied in form and authenticity—has been used by Muslims themselves to justify sectarian exclusivity. Yet, ironically, it is a condemnation of sectarianism, not a justification for it. The Prophet’s statement is a prophetic warning, not a license to create divisions.

3. The Prophet’s Sect: The Qur’an Alone

If Muhammad declared that salvation belongs only to those who follow “what I and my companions follow,” then it becomes critical to ask: What did Muhammad and his companions follow?

They followed the Qur’an alone, for there was no codified “Hadith literature,” no “madhhab,” and certainly no “Sunni” or “Shia” theology. Muhammad’s followers obeyed his message as revealed in the Qur’an, not through later compilations or sectarian interpretations.

The Qur’an itself warns repeatedly against division:

“As for those who divided their religion and became sects, you (O Muhammad) have nothing to do with them; their affair is with Allah alone.”
— Surah Al-An‘am 6:159

This verse alone discredits any notion that Muhammad would have approved of sectarian identity. It directly refutes those who classify themselves as Sunni, Shia, or any other denomination.

4. The Contradiction of Modern Islam

Modern Muslims claim to follow the Prophet, yet most identify themselves with one of over seventy sects—Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Ahmadiyya, Ibadi, Wahhabi, or Qur’aniyoon, among others. Even within Sunni Islam, there are subdivisions—Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, Hanbali—each differing in legal rulings and theological emphasis.

If Muhammad declared that every sect apart from his own and that of his companions would end in Hellfire, then according to his own words, all these sects—including Sunni and Shia—fall outside the “saved group.” The so-called “Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah” (People of the Sunnah and the Community) cannot claim to represent Muhammad’s path while simultaneously adhering to post-Prophetic doctrines.

5. The Role of Hadith in Creating Sects

Another layer of complexity lies in the Hadith literature itself. The collections known today (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, etc.) were compiled more than two centuries after Muhammad’s death. They represent human efforts to preserve oral traditions—but also to define orthodoxy and authority.

Many of these Hadiths became the foundation of sectarian law and theology. Thus, the very act of combining the Qur’an with Hadith as equal sources of faith contradicts the Prophet’s own era, where only revelation (the Qur’an) was recited, memorized, and codified under divine inspiration.

If Muhammad’s followers in his lifetime had only the Qur’an as their divine reference, then those who add extra-Qur’anic sources effectively belong to a different religious formulation—a sect not identical to that of Muhammad and his companions.

6. A Theological Challenge

Therefore, the challenge to contemporary Muslims is straightforward yet profound:

Was Muhammad a Sunni or a Shia?

Did he follow Hadith literature that was written centuries later?

If he was neither Sunni nor Shia, then why do his followers claim these labels?

And if, as the Hadith says, all sects except his own will enter Hell, what assurance do these sectarian followers have of salvation?

The uncomfortable truth is that modern Islam—fragmented, violent, and contradictory—is far removed from the simple monotheism and unity Muhammad claimed to represent.

7. Ethical and Spiritual Implications

Beyond theology, the implications are moral. The very divisions condemned by the Prophet have produced centuries of bloodshed, persecution, and theological arrogance. Muslims have killed one another over doctrinal nuances, each side claiming to be “the saved sect.” Yet the Prophet warned of this very outcome.

The Qur’an itself declares:

“And hold fast, all of you together, to the rope of Allah, and be not divided.”
— Surah Aal-Imran 3:103

The “rope of Allah” is the Qur’an—not the traditions, councils, or sectarian creeds of later generations.

8. Conclusion

The Prophet Muhammad was neither Sunni nor Shia. He belonged to no sect, no theological school, and no jurisprudential faction. He was, according to the Qur’an, simply “a Muslim” (Surah Al-Ahzab 33:35).

Those who claim his legacy while embracing sectarian labels reject his own warning about division. By Muhammad’s own testimony, only the sect that remains faithful to his example and that of his companions—the Qur’an alone—will escape the fate of Hellfire.

Hence, the overwhelming majority of Muslims today, whether Sunni or Shia, by their own Prophet’s standard, stand condemned by the very traditions they claim to defend.

References

Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 4596.
Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 2641.
Surah Al-An‘am 6:159 – The Qur’an.
Surah Aal-Imran 3:103 – The Qur’an.
Al-Baghdadi, Abu Mansur. Al-Farq Bayna al-Firaq.
Ibn Hazm, Al-Fisal fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal.
Dar al-Ifta Al-Misriyyah, Is it true that only one sect of the Ummah will enter Paradise?
Watt, W. Montgomery. The Formative Period of Islamic Thought. Edinburgh University Press, 1973.
Crone, Patricia. God’s Rule: Government and Islam. Columbia University Press, 2004.

✝️ Jesus Is the Savior of the World

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The doctrine of salvation, according to the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, rests not on ritual, merit, or human effort, but solely on the grace of God received through faith in Jesus Christ. This truth stands at the heart of the Christian faith and distinguishes the Gospel of Christ from every system of works-based righteousness. The Scriptures consistently affirm that salvation is both a divine gift and a complete work of Christ on the cross, applied to the believer by faith alone.

1. Salvation: A Gift of Grace

The Apostle Paul emphasizes:

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9, KJV).

Grace excludes all boasting. Faith is the hand that receives Christ, but it is Christ Himself who saves. The Reformers echoed this Pauline truth by affirming sola gratia (grace alone) and sola fide (faith alone). Thus, salvation cannot be earned by law-keeping, rituals, or religious duties. It is God’s sovereign act of love in Christ Jesus.

2. The Example of the Thief on the Cross

One of the most vivid testimonies to salvation by faith alone is found in the thief crucified alongside Christ. He uttered a humble plea:

“Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom” (Luke 23:42, KJV).

To this, Jesus assured him:

“Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43, KJV).

Here we observe that the dying man had no opportunity for baptism, church membership, or ceremonial observance. His salvation was grounded entirely upon faith in Christ. This demonstrates that faith alone unites the sinner with the Savior.

3. Confession and Belief in Christ

The apostolic teaching is equally clear:

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Romans 10:9, KJV).

The essence of the Gospel is not human achievement but divine accomplishment. Faith rests upon the finished work of Christ in His death and resurrection. The Philippian jailer heard the same message:

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31, KJV).

Thus, salvation flows not from external observances but from inward trust and outward confession.

4. Jesus Christ: God Incarnate

The KJV leaves no ambiguity regarding the divinity of Christ:

Isaiah foresaw Him as “The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).
Matthew declared Him Emmanuel, “God with us” (Matthew 1:23).
Paul confirmed, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9).

Jesus Christ is not one among many prophets, nor a mere moral teacher. He is the incarnate God, the eternal Word made flesh (John 1:14), the exclusive Redeemer of mankind.

5. The Narrow Gate: The Exclusivity of Christ

Jesus Himself declared:

“I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved” (John 10:9, KJV).

He further warned:

“Enter ye in at the strait gate… because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life” (Matthew 7:13–14, KJV).

The exclusivity of Christ is not narrow-mindedness but divine truth. Salvation is only in Him; any attempt to add works, ceremonies, or secret rites obscures the simplicity of the Gospel.

Conclusion: Assurance and Growth

Believers can be assured of eternal life:

“These things have I written unto you… that ye may know that ye have eternal life” (1 John 5:13, KJV).

Sanctification follows salvation—good works, baptism, and Christian service are fruits of grace, not conditions of it. The Christian life is a walk of growing in grace and knowledge of Christ (2 Peter 3:18).

The Gospel remains simple yet profound:

Christ died for sinners.
He rose again in victory.
Anyone who trusts Him is saved forever (John 3:16; 1 Peter 1:3).

This is the hope of the world: Jesus is the Savior, and God is glorified forever.

✝️ By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Pork in the Qur’an: A Theological and Textual Examination

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The dietary laws in Islam have long been debated among scholars, with the prohibition of pork standing at the center of controversy. Muslims today universally regard pork as haram (forbidden), yet the Qur’an itself presents a complex testimony that raises questions regarding this absolute prohibition. A closer reading of the Qur’an demonstrates that (1) pork is referred to as a “good thing”, (2) its prohibition is historically tied to the Jews as a punishment, not as a universal law, and (3) Jesus, according to the Qur’an, came to permit such foods. These facts expose significant theological tensions within Islamic doctrine.

The Qur’an on the Prohibition of Good Things (Surah An-Nisa 4:160)

Surah An-Nisa 4:160 states:

“So for the wrongdoing of the Jews, We prohibited for them good things that had been lawful to them, and for their averting from the way of Allah many people.”

This verse makes several important theological assertions:

The prohibition was directed specifically to the Jews, not to all humanity.
The things prohibited were described as “good things.” This suggests that foods such as pork are inherently good and beneficial, but were denied to the Jews as divine punishment.
The Qur’an never explicitly extends this punishment to Muslims.

Thus, the Qur’an itself implicitly acknowledges that pork is a good thing, contradicting later Islamic jurisprudence that categorically bans it.

Jesus in the Qur’an Permitting the Forbidden (Surah Al-Imran 3:50)

The Qur’an places Jesus in direct contrast to the Torah’s restrictions:

“And [I have come] confirming what was before me of the Torah and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you. And I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so fear Allah and obey me.” (Al-Imran 3:50)

From this, several conclusions emerge:

Jesus explicitly permits what had been previously forbidden.
Since pork was among the forbidden foods in the Torah, the Qur’an acknowledges that Jesus came to remove such restrictions.
Jesus commands obedience: “Obey me.” According to the Qur’an’s own testimony, obedience to Jesus includes recognition of his authority to allow foods such as pork.

Therefore, to reject the eating of pork while acknowledging Jesus as a prophet in the Qur’an places Muslims in a theological contradiction.

The Food of the People of the Book (Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:5)

Further clarity is found in Surah Al-Ma’idah:

“This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them.” (Al-Ma’idah 5:5)

This verse is unambiguous:

All good foods are made lawful.
The food of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) is permitted for Muslims.
Since Christians eat pork and the Qur’an recognizes their food as lawful, pork is thereby permissible within the Qur’an’s framework.

This raises the question: If God declared the food of Christians as lawful, how can pork simultaneously be haram?

Theological Contradictions for Islam

The evidence above reveals multiple theological problems for Islam:

Historical Limitation of Prohibition: Pork was prohibited to the Jews alone (4:160), not universally.
Jesus’ Authority to Permit: The Qur’an affirms that Jesus came to lift dietary restrictions (3:50).
Permission of Christian Food: The Qur’an sanctions Christian dietary practices (5:5), which include pork.

Taken together, these passages undermine the absolute prohibition of pork in Islam and expose inconsistency in Islamic jurisprudence.

Conclusion

The Qur’an itself affirms that pork is a good thing, restricted only as a punishment upon the Jews. Jesus, according to the Qur’an, came to make lawful what had been forbidden, which includes pork. Moreover, the Qur’an permits Muslims to eat the food of Christians, which includes pork consumption.

Therefore, the Muslim prohibition of pork is not grounded in the Qur’an, but rather in later Islamic tradition and jurisprudence. This presents a theological calamity for Islam, as it demonstrates inconsistency between Qur’anic testimony and Islamic practice.

The central question remains: If Allah called pork a good thing, Jesus permitted it, and the Qur’an allows Christians’ food, why do Muslims continue to forbid what their scripture permits?

References

The Qur’an, Surah An-Nisa 4:160
The Qur’an, Surah Al-Imran 3:50
The Qur’an, Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:5
Guillaume, A. (1955). The Life of Muhammad. Oxford University Press.
Wensinck, A. J. (1965). Muhammad and the Jews of Medina. Brill.
Cragg, K. (1991). The Event of the Qur’an: Islam in Its Scripture. Oneworld.

The Question of Jibril’s Identity in Muhammad’s Revelation: A Critical Examination

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

In Islamic tradition, the angel Jibril (Gabriel) is presented as the messenger who delivered the Qur’an to Muhammad. However, a close reading of both the Qur’an and the Hadith raises serious questions about the identity of this figure. Unlike the biblical Gabriel, who consistently introduced himself by name and declared his divine commission (cf. Luke 1:19; Daniel 8:16), the Qur’anic Jibril never once introduces himself directly to Muhammad with the explicit words: “I am Jibril; I have been sent to you by Allah.”

This absence of self-identification stands in stark contrast to the biblical record and undermines the reliability of Muhammad’s claim to prophethood. If Muslims insist that Jesus’ divinity cannot be accepted because he never said verbatim, “I am God, worship me,” then by the same logic, Muhammad’s encounter with the alleged Jibril must also be rejected, since no such explicit self-introduction exists.

The Qur’anic Silence on Jibril’s Self-Introduction

A survey of the Qur’an reveals that the name Jibril (or Gabriel) appears only in a handful of verses (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:97–98; Surah At-Tahrim 66:4). Yet in none of these does Jibril ever address Muhammad directly, nor does the Qur’an preserve any statement of Jibril introducing himself as God’s messenger.

For example:

Surah 2:97–98 states:

“Say, ‘Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel—it is he who has brought it (the Qur’an) down to your heart by permission of Allah…’”

This verse speaks about Jibril but not from Jibril. There is no direct speech where Jibril identifies himself.
Surah 66:4 mentions Jibril alongside other angelic beings but again, no self-identification is made.

The Qur’an itself provides no evidence that Muhammad ever heard the words: “I am Jibril, I have been sent by Allah.”

The First Encounter: Squeezing Without Introduction

Islamic tradition (Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 1, Hadith 3) records Muhammad’s first alleged encounter with Jibril in the cave of Hira. Muhammad reports that a being appeared and commanded him to “Read!” (Iqra). When Muhammad replied that he could not, the being violently squeezed him three times before dictating words later included in Surah 96:1–5.

Crucially:

No introduction is recorded. The being did not say who he was.
The encounter was traumatic, not reassuring. Muhammad feared for his life and doubted his own sanity afterward.
It was Muhammad’s later assumption—through others—that the figure was Jibril.

By contrast, in the Bible, Gabriel always introduces himself:

To Daniel: “Gabriel, make this man understand the vision.” (Daniel 8:16).
To Zechariah: “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you.” (Luke 1:19).
To Mary: “The angel said to her, ‘I am Gabriel…’” (Luke 1:26–27).

The biblical Gabriel acts with clarity, reassurance, and divine authority. The Qur’anic figure, however, acted with violence and anonymity.

The Satanic Verses and the Question of Authenticity

The so-called Satanic Verses episode, preserved in early Islamic sources (al-Tabari, History of the Prophets and Kings, Vol. 6), recounts how Muhammad once delivered verses endorsing pagan goddesses (al-Lat, al-‘Uzza, and Manat) as intercessors. Later, he retracted them, claiming Satan had deceived him.

If Muhammad could be deceived by Satan once, then the legitimacy of his entire encounter with the unnamed “angel” in the cave is suspect. Since this being never identified himself, what guarantee exists that it was not a demonic entity rather than the biblical Gabriel?

Applying the Muslim Argument Consistently

Muslims frequently reject Jesus’ divinity with the argument: “He never said, ‘I am God, worship me.’” If such a standard of verbatim self-claim is applied to Muhammad, then:

Muhammad never heard Jibril say: “I am Jibril, sent by Allah.”
The Qur’an never records such a declaration.
The Hadith never preserves such a statement.

Thus, by their own standard, Muslims must concede that Muhammad never met Jibril.

Conclusion

The Qur’an and Hadith fail to provide any explicit evidence that Muhammad ever encountered the angel Jibril. Unlike the biblical Gabriel, who always declared his identity and mission, the Qur’anic “Jibril” remains silent, anonymous, and forceful in his first appearance. This absence of self-identification raises deep suspicions about the true nature of the being Muhammad encountered.

If Jesus’ divine nature can be dismissed on the grounds of not making a verbatim claim, then Muhammad’s encounter with Jibril must also be rejected on the same grounds. Without Jibril’s clear testimony, Muhammad’s prophethood rests on uncertain and highly questionable foundations.

References

The Qur’an: Surah Al-Baqarah 2:97–98; Surah At-Tahrim 66:4; Surah Al-‘Alaq 96:1–5.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 1, Hadith 3.
Al-Tabari, History of the Prophets and Kings, Vol. 6.
Guillaume, A. (1955). The Life of Muhammad. Oxford University Press.
Crone, P. & Cook, M. (1977). Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Cambridge University Press.
Reynolds, G. S. (2018). The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext. Routledge.

AND THIS IS ETERNAL LIFE, THAT THEY MAY KNOW YOU, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST WHOM YOU HAVE SENT

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

AND THIS IS ETERNAL LIFE, THAT THEY MAY KNOW YOU, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST WHOM YOU HAVE SENT

Dear readers,

Today I will explain John 17:3, a verse Muslims often use to claim that Jesus denied being God. Through religious lectures and various pamphlets, Muslims attempt to intimidate the Christian community by saying Jesus rejected His divinity. Are these claims true? Does this verse teach something deeper?

To truly understand the Bible, you must read several verses to grasp what God is saying through His Word. Therefore, I have included verses 4 and 5 to clarify what Jesus was actually saying in John 17.

Let me place all the verses here:

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they might know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
4 I have glorified You on the earth; I have finished the work which You gave Me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify Me with Your own self with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”

In verse 5 — [And now, O Father, glorify Me with Yourself with the glory I had with You before the world existed] — Jesus is saying that:

He lived before the world existed!
This gives us a real understanding of what Jesus was saying and who Jesus truly is. All belief systems acknowledge that the One who existed before all things is God. Yet in verse 5, Jesus claims pre-existence before creation.
Jesus continues in the same verse, claiming that He had divine majesty — “GLORY.”
Jesus tells God the Father to glorify Him with the glory He had before the world existed.
Now, if Jesus is not God and is only an ordinary human being, why would He ask His Father to glorify Him? By what authority does Jesus claim glory that belongs to God alone?
If Jesus is not God, then when He asked the Father to glorify Him, wouldn’t that be blasphemy?
Yet we never read anywhere that Jesus committed any sin. Even Islam acknowledges that of all human beings who ever lived, Jesus alone lived without committing sin.

Dear readers, the Muslim claim that John 17:3 denies the divinity of Jesus is completely false, because today we have learned from the same chapter that:

Jesus existed before the world was created.
Jesus possesses the glory of God.

Verse 5 quotation:
“And now, O Father, glorify Me with Yourself with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”

Key Points:

Jesus claims that He lived before the world was created.
Jesus claims that He has glory like that of His Father.

THEREFORE:

Who is Jesus, that He claims divine glory — and that glory from God the Father Himself?
Who is Jesus, that He says He existed before the creation of the world, and says this directly to God the Father?

My beloved brothers and sisters,

The discussion is complete, and it answers the Muslim allegation that Jesus denied His divinity in John 17:3.

I welcome you all to Jesus Christ, the Living One. He is the way, the truth, and the life. Come to Him so that you may receive eternal life and life in abundance.

In His service,
Max Shimba
For Max Shimba Ministries
April 28, 2015 @ Max Shimba Ministries.