Tuesday, December 9, 2025

The Mawlid of Prophet Muhammad is Haram

Chapter X: The Mawlid of Prophet Muhammad – Pagan Origins and Historical Examination

Introduction

The celebration of the Mawlid of Prophet Muhammad has become widespread among many Muslims. However, a critical examination of Islamic sources raises important questions:

  1. Which verse of the Qur’an commands Muslims to hold the festival of Mawlid?

  2. Whom do Muslims truly follow—Allah, the Qur’an, the authentic Hadith, the Prophet Muhammad, the Pillars of Islam, or Sharia?

This chapter explores the history, scholarly views, and religious implications of celebrating Mawlid, demonstrating that its origins are not rooted in the Qur’an or the practices of the Prophet and his companions, but rather in later historical innovations.


1. Historical Background of Mawlid

1.1 Early Islamic Practice

A careful examination of Islamic history shows three key points:

  1. Neither the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) nor his companions (may Allah be pleased with them) celebrated Mawlid.

  2. Mawlid was introduced over three centuries after the Prophet’s passing.

  3. Its founders were associated with non-Islamic practices and lineages.

Al-Haafidh as-Sakhawi emphasizes:

“The practice of celebrating the noble Mawlid was not accepted by the early righteous generations (Salafus Salih) of the first three centuries. Indeed, this matter was innovated afterward.”
(Subulul Hudaa war-Rashaad, Vol. 1, p. 439)^1


1.2 The Emergence of Mawlid under the Fatimids

According to Sunni scholar Al-Imam al-Maqrizi:

“During the rule of the Fatimids in Egypt, these celebrations were treated as festive seasons where rulers would distribute wealth and generosity. They observed various festivals, including the Prophet’s Mawlid, the Mawlid of Ali, Hasan, Husayn, Fatimah, and other leaders.”
(Al-Khutwat, Vol. 1, p. 490)^2

The Fatimids, a Shia Ismaili dynasty, institutionalized these celebrations to legitimize their political and religious authority. They compelled people to light lanterns and observe festivities, particularly during Rabi’ul Awwal. Mawlid was officially observed as a custom rather than a divinely mandated practice.


1.3 Scholarly Commentary on the Fatimids

Historical records describe the Fatimids (Banu Ubayd) as rulers who claimed lineage from Fatimah, though this was disputed by scholars. Imam Shamah notes:

“The Fatimid rulers falsely claimed noble descent, oppressed people, and allied with foreign invaders. They introduced corrupt practices under the guise of religious celebration, including the Mawlid, to consolidate power and promote innovation over authentic Islamic practices.”
(Ar-Rawdatayn, pp. 200–202)^3

Abdullah Saleh Farsy writes:

“Those who started Mawlid were Shia Ismailis. They ruled Sunni lands from 297 A.H. (909 CE) to 567 A.H. (1171 CE). When they left, Sunnis continued the Mawlid of the Prophet alone, discarding other celebratory innovations.”^4

The first official Sunni Mawlid was organized by King Mudhaffar al-Din, brother-in-law of Salahuddin Ayyubi, in the 12th–13th century.


2. Absence of Qur’anic or Hadith Evidence

The exact birth date of the Prophet Muhammad is not mentioned in the Qur’an or in any authentic Hadith. Scholars have only speculated:

  • Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri (Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum, p. 62) estimates the Prophet’s birth as Monday, 9 Rabi’ul Awwal, in the Year of the Elephant (571 CE)^5.

  • Sirajur Rahman suggests the date corresponds approximately to late February or early March 571 CE (Al-Mustafa, 1993, p. 11)^6.

Thus, the Mawlid cannot be derived from any Qur’anic directive or prophetic instruction; it is a post-hoc historical innovation.


3. Scholarly Opinions on Mawlid as Bid‘ah (Innovation)

Many Islamic scholars have condemned the Mawlid as an illegitimate innovation (bid‘ah):

  • Imam Ash-Shatibi (Al-I’tisam, 1/34) lists Mawlid among condemned innovations^7.

  • Imam Al-Fakihani denounces it in his treatise on bid‘ah^8.

  • Imam Al-Hajj Al-Maliki calls it bid‘ah in Al-Mudkhal (2:11–12)^9.

  • Abu at-Tayyib Shamsul-Haq Al-Adhwiym Abaadiy and his teacher Bashirud-Din Qanuji declare it forbidden, citing authentic Hadith^10.

  • Abu ‘Abdillah Al-Haffaar Al-Maalikiy confirms that neither the Prophet nor his companions performed Mawlid, and it was never part of early Islamic practice^11.


4. Questions for Reflection

  1. Where in the Qur’an are Muslims permitted to celebrate the Prophet’s Mawlid?

  2. Where in the Qur’an does it state that Muhammad was born and lived?

  3. Why do Muslims celebrate the Mawlid, which is not mentioned in the Qur’an?

  4. Muslims, whom do you truly follow—Allah, the Qur’an, the authentic Hadith, the Pillars, or Sharia?


Conclusion

The celebration of the Prophet Muhammad’s Mawlid is a pagan innovation that emerged centuries after his passing. It was introduced for political and social purposes by the Fatimid rulers and is not rooted in authentic Islamic teachings. Understanding the historical and religious context of Mawlid invites Muslims to reflect on the importance of following Allah, the Qur’an, and the Sunnah of the Prophet, rather than cultural or political innovations introduced centuries later.

Max Shimba Ministries Org.
October 16, 2016


Footnotes

  1. Al-Haafidh as-Sakhawi, Subulul Hudaa war-Rashaad, Vol. 1, p. 439.

  2. Al-Imam al-Maqrizi, Al-Khutwat, Vol. 1, p. 490.

  3. Imam Shamah, Ar-Rawdatayn Fiy Akhbaar Dawlatayn, pp. 200–202.

  4. Shaykh Abdullah Saleh Farsy, Tafsir Mawlid Barzanji, Zanzibar, p. iv.

  5. Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum, p. 62.

  6. Sirajur Rahman, Al-Mustafa, 1993, p. 11.

  7. Imam Ash-Shatibi, Al-I’tisam, 1/34.

  8. Imam Al-Fakihani, Risaalah Maalooma.

  9. Imam Al-Hajj Al-Maliki, Al-Mudkhal, Vol. 2, pp. 11–12.

  10. Bashirud-Din Qanuji, Ghaayatul Kalaam fi Ibtwaal ‘Amal al-Mawlid wal-Qiyaam.

  11. Abu ‘Abdillah Al-Haffaar Al-Maalikiy, Al-Mi’yaar Al-Mu’arab, 7/99.


Bibliography

  • Al-Haafidh as-Sakhawi, Subulul Hudaa war-Rashaad, Vol. 1.

  • Al-Imam al-Maqrizi, Al-Khutwat, Vol. 1.

  • Imam Shamah, Ar-Rawdatayn Fiy Akhbaar Dawlatayn.

  • Shaykh Abdullah Saleh Farsy, Tafsir Mawlid Barzanji, Zanzibar.

  • Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum.

  • Sirajur Rahman, Al-Mustafa, Ansaar Muslim Youth Organisation, 1993.

  • Imam Ash-Shatibi, Al-I’tisam.

  • Imam Al-Fakihani, Risaalah Maalooma.

  • Imam Al-Hajj Al-Maliki, Al-Mudkhal.

  • Bashirud-Din Qanuji, Ghaayatul Kalaam fi Ibtwaal ‘Amal al-Mawlid wal-Qiyaam.

  • Abu ‘Abdillah Al-Haffaar Al-Maalikiy, Al-Mi’yaar Al-Mu’arab.



THE NOAH OF THE QURAN IS DIFFERENT FROM THE NOAH OF THE BIBLE

Sunday, October 16, 2015

CONTROVERSY: THE NOAH OF THE QURAN IS DIFFERENT FROM THE NOAH OF THE BIBLE

Dear Reader,

Muslims always tell us that the Quran is a book that explains everything, a book that is self-sufficient, a book that came down from Almighty God, while they criticize the BIBLE, claiming it is not from God. Now, I will present two verses from the BIBLE and then two verses from the Quran, and afterward I will ask you a question.


WHEN DID THE FLOOD OCCUR ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE?

Genesis 7:6
“And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.”

The BIBLE, which Muslims say is not from God, states that Noah was six hundred (600) years old when the flood occurred. It also tells us Noah’s age after the flood.

Genesis 9:28
“And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.”


HOW OLD WAS NOAH WHEN HE DIED?

Genesis 9:29
“And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.”

We are told by the BIBLE that Noah lived three hundred and fifty (350) years after the flood and died at the age of nine hundred and fifty (950) years. That is the total lifespan of Noah — he did not live beyond those years.

Now let us go to the Quran, and then I will ask my questions.


WHEN DID THE FLOOD OCCUR ACCORDING TO THE QURAN?

Quran 29:14
وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا نُوحًا إِلَى قَوْمِهِ فَلَبِثَ فِيهِمْ أَلْفَ سَنَةٍ إِلَّا خَمْسِينَ عَامًا فَأَخَذَهُمُ الطُّوفَانُ وَهُمْ ظَالِمُون
“And indeed, We sent Noah to his people, and he stayed among them a thousand years minus fifty. Then the flood seized them while they were wrongdoers.”

Quran 29:15
فَأَنجَيْنَاهُ وَأَصْحَابَ السَّفِينَةِ وَجَعَلْنَاهَا آيَةً لِّلْعَالَمِين
“But We saved him and the people of the ship, and We made it a sign for all the worlds.”


FULL ANALYSIS

The BIBLE says the flood happened when Noah was 600 years old.
The Quran says Noah lived 950 years among his people before the flood, which equals the age the BIBLE says Noah lived in total.

The BIBLE says Noah lived 350 years after the flood and died at age 950.
But the Quran says the flood came after Noah had already lived 950 years among his people — which equals the Bible’s age of his death.


QUESTIONS

  1. Since the Quran tells us that Noah was 950 years old when the flood came, while the Bible says he was only 600 years old, and the Bible says he died at 950, then according to the Quran, how many years did Noah live after those 950 years at the time of the flood?

  2. Or did he die in the very same year of the flood, being 950 years old, the age the Quran states he had reached when the flood happened?

NOTE:
The answers must come strictly from the Quran — the book you Muslims claim is from God.
If the Quran is not sufficient, say so, and I will allow you to use even newspapers or magazines.


Prepared by Abel Suleiman Shiliwa
For Max Shimba Ministries Org.

Dated: October 16, 2015



Why Is the Color Black Revered in Islam?

Why Is the Color Black Revered in Islam?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba – Shimba Theological Institute

A lady wrote the following dream:

“There is a woman who wears a black baibui (Islamic veil) that covers her entire face. I do not know her, but I have dreamt about her twice.

The first time, I dreamt I was in a cafeteria eating. She came and sat close to me, looking at me. I gave her some food, but every time I spoke to her she would not talk; she only looked at me. I asked her name, but she remained silent.

The second time, I dreamt I went into an old, broken building to urinate. Suddenly, I saw her standing in the hall. She began chasing me, almost flying toward the window, trying to reach me. I jumped down from the veranda of that tall building and ran away. She leaped from above, flying after me, but she failed to catch me…”

I have seen many people struggling with similar dreams, and many Christians often ask: Why do Muslims appear to favor the color black so much? Why do jinn appear in dreams wearing black veils similar to Muslim women? Why has this belief system produced such troubling spiritual experiences in society?

To understand this, we must look at the root, because the origin of a thing explains its purpose. The root is always hidden underground, yet it determines the life of what grows above the ground. A person suffering tooth pain must find the root cause; the root may be rotten, and unless it is examined, the entire tooth will continue to ache.
Therefore, we must examine carefully whether this matter originates from the true God—or not!

Why Is the Color Black Highly Honored in Islam?

  • Why do Muslim women wear black veils that resemble those worn by jinn?

  • Why does the Kaaba in Mecca have a massive black stone and a black covering?

Dr. Abu Ameenah, in his book THE JINN (Chapter 4, p. 68), wrote:

“Prophet Muhammad said that a black dog is a devil; and since the jinn were created from fire, the remaining heat in them caused them to prefer the color black.”

This is the reason the color black is exalted in Islam. Muslim women are seen wearing black veils that cover them completely from head to toe.
Is this not a sign that Islam and satanic symbolism share the same imagery?


What Does Color Represent Biblically?

God uses colors in Scripture to communicate spiritual messages. For example, after Noah left the ark, God placed the rainbow—a combination of seven colors—as a covenant that He would never again destroy the earth with a flood.
Why specifically seven colors? Why not another sign or an image?
Because colors carry deep spiritual meaning in the realm of the Spirit.

Biblical Meanings of Colors


1. Green

Green represents life, prosperity, freshness, and fruitfulness. Where there is life, there is greenness. When rain falls, plants sprout and appear green, symbolizing blessing and favor.

Genesis 1:11 – “Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass…’”
Thus, in visions or dreams, green signifies grace and blessing ahead.


2. Blue

Blue represents the glory of God.

“...When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers…”
Psalm 8:3

Large bodies of water—lakes, seas—appear blue from a distance. When God shows you blue in a vision, He is revealing His glory and majesty.


3. White

White represents purity, holiness, and divine light.

Where there is whiteness, nothing can hide; even dirt is easily exposed. God often reveals Himself in white garments, white hair, and heavenly brightness.

  • Revelation 1:14 – Christ with white hair

  • Daniel 7:9 – The Ancient of Days, with white clothing

  • Revelation 20:11 – The White Throne

  • Revelation 3:5 – Saints given white garments

Heaven itself is associated with this pure brilliance.
White symbolizes holiness, purity, and the presence of the Holy Spirit.


4. Black

Black represents darkness, because darkness is visually black.
Evil deeds are done in darkness.

Jude 1:13 describes blackness as the domain of darkness reserved for the ungodly.

Thus, black symbolizes the kingdom of darkness and the authority of Satan. So, when one encounters black in a spiritual dream—such as the testimony above—one must seek God for guidance in spiritual warfare, because satanic forces may be involved.


If all Muslims worldwide gather in Mecca to circle and kiss the Black Stone, is this not a sign that what is being venerated originates from the kingdom of darkness?

Why is black exalted, honored, and even worshiped within Islam?

Think deeply.
Ask questions.
Take action.

Come to Jesus.


Why Islamic Punishment for Adultery Appears Contradictory and Unequal

 Why Islamic Punishment for Adultery Appears Contradictory and Unequal:

An Academic Reflection
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

In Islamic jurisprudence, discussions surrounding the punishment for adultery reveal significant textual and interpretive tensions. The Qur’an, considered by Muslims to be the ultimate and infallible divine revelation, outlines a specific punishment for zina (adultery or fornication) in Surah An-Nur 24:2. The verse prescribes one hundred lashes for both the man and the woman found guilty of the act, and it stipulates that the punishment must be administered publicly in the presence of other believers. Notably, the Qur’anic text does not differentiate between offenders who are married (muhsan) and those who are unmarried (ghayr muhsan), thereby presenting a uniform penalty for all.

However, within Islamic tradition, a second layer of authority emerges through the Hadith literature—sayings and actions attributed to Prophet Muhammad. In Sahih Bukhari (Book 8, Hadith 805), the punishment of death by stoning (rajm) is introduced, particularly for married adulterers. This creates a sharp contrast with the Qur’anic prescription. The Qur’an itself, in its Arabic form, contains no reference to stoning in connection with adultery. Yet some translations and commentaries insert the term “stoning” in parentheses, signaling that it is not part of the original Arabic text but rather an interpretive addition intended to align the Qur’anic verse with hadith-based jurisprudence.

This divergence raises critical questions regarding the hierarchy of Islamic legal sources. If the Qur’an is believed to be perfect and complete, why then must hadith literature introduce a harsher penalty not explicitly stated in the Qur’anic revelation? Which source, therefore, should be considered authoritative—Allah’s law in the Qur’an or Muhammad’s rulings in the Hadith?

The issue becomes even more complex when examining how these punishments are applied in practice. Historical and contemporary reports demonstrate that women often bear the brunt of zina-related penalties. Social norms, unequal evidentiary standards, and patriarchal cultural environments contribute to disproportionate punishment of women, making the legal tradition appear heavily biased. This leads to broader theological and ethical questions: Why do the punishments attributed to Allah seem to oppress women? And why does Islamic jurisprudence, as practiced in several Muslim societies, consistently place women at a disadvantage in matters of moral and legal accountability?

These tensions continue to spark academic, religious, and human rights debates worldwide, especially concerning the nature of divine justice, the reliability of secondary Islamic sources, and the status of women within Islamic legal frameworks.

If that is the case, which one has the true authority? Is it Allah’s law in the Qur’an, or Muhammad’s Hadith?

Why is it that women alone are often the ones punished under this law?

Why are Allah’s punishments so oppressive toward women?

Monday, December 8, 2025

MUHAMMAD WAS UNAWARE OF RELIGION

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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

  1. Abu Bakr al-Jaza’iri. Aysar al-Tafasir li Kalam al-‘Ali al-Kabir. Vol. 5. Madinah: Al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1999, p. 2070.

  2. The Qur’an, Surah Ash-Shura 42:52.

  3. Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. Mafatih al-Ghayb (Tafsir al-Kabir). Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1981.

  4. Ibn Kathir. Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim. Riyadh: Darussalam, 2000.

  5. Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.

  6. Guillaume, Alfred. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955.

  7. 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

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:

  1. Where in the Qur’an does Allah command Muslims to have Imams, Sheikhs, or Ustaadhs?

  2. What are the qualifications of such figures according to Qur’anic verses?

  3. 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:

  1. Who is the real speaker in the Qur’an?

  2. Is the Qur’an truly the Word of Allah, or is it a collection of multiple voices?

  3. If Allah needs Jibril to speak, does that not suggest limitation rather than omnipotence?

  4. 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

  1. 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.

  2. The Bible: John 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

  3. John 14:6 – “Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life.”

  4. Academic Source: W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman (Oxford University Press, 1961).

  5. 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:

  1. Was Muhammad a Sunni or a Shia?

  2. Did Muhammad declare all Muslims in sects (except one) to be candidates for Hellfire?

  3. Is there a group that follows the Qur’an alone (“Quranooyoon”) which Muhammad endorsed, as opposed to combining Hadith + Qur’an?

  4. 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?

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

  1. Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 4596.

  2. Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 2641.

  3. Surah Al-An‘am 6:159 – The Qur’an.

  4. Surah Aal-Imran 3:103 – The Qur’an.

  5. Al-Baghdadi, Abu Mansur. Al-Farq Bayna al-Firaq.

  6. Ibn Hazm, Al-Fisal fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal.

  7. Dar al-Ifta Al-Misriyyah, Is it true that only one sect of the Ummah will enter Paradise?

  8. Watt, W. Montgomery. The Formative Period of Islamic Thought. Edinburgh University Press, 1973.

  9. Crone, Patricia. God’s Rule: Government and Islam. Columbia University Press, 2004.



TRENDING NOW