Tuesday, December 16, 2025

The long-debated Two-State Solution between Israel and Palestine

 Shimba Theological Institute

Theological and Geopolitical Reflections Series
Vol. 7, Issue 4 (October 2025)

The Illusion of Peace: A Theological Reflection on the Two-State Solution

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

The long-debated Two-State Solution between Israel and Palestine continues to dominate international discourse as the supposed path toward peace in the Middle East. Yet, beneath the veneer of diplomacy lies a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of peace itself—both politically and theologically. The idea of dividing the land of Israel, granting half to a people whose leadership has repeatedly chosen violence over coexistence, reveals not a step toward harmony but a deep moral and spiritual blindness.

To grant political legitimacy to entities that glorify terrorism and reject Israel’s right to exist is tantamount to “inviting a snake to share one’s pillow and then acting shocked when it bites.” The events of October 7th serve as a chilling reminder of this truth. Efforts to negotiate peace with those who harbor ideological hatred only embolden further acts of violence. What the world applauds as “progress” is, in reality, the staging ground for another tragedy—a repetition of bloodshed, grief, and shattered lives.

This global obsession with a superficial “peace” has been prophetically addressed in Scripture. Jeremiah lamented, “They have also healed the hurt of My people slightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace!’ When there is no peace.” (Jeremiah 6:14, NKJV). Likewise, the Apostle Paul warned, “For when they say, ‘Peace and safety!’ then sudden destruction comes upon them.” (1 Thessalonians 5:3, NKJV). These verses expose the futility of political solutions that ignore the root cause of human conflict—the unregenerate heart estranged from God.

True peace cannot emerge from diplomatic treaties signed in the absence of spiritual transformation. The heart of the Middle East crisis is not territorial but theological. It is a conflict of worldviews—between the message of Christ, which offers forgiveness and reconciliation, and the ideology of Islam, which perpetuates division and vengeance. Real peace will only come when hearts are changed, not merely when borders are redrawn.

To our Palestinian brothers and sisters, this message is not one of condemnation but of liberation. The world’s political powers and many within the Muslim world have exploited your suffering for their own agendas. While they march in anger and chant slogans, it is often Christian organizations that build hospitals, send aid, and pray for your restoration. Freedom will not come through endless hostility or allegiance to ideologies of hatred, but through the redemptive truth of Jesus Christ—who alone offers peace that surpasses all understanding (Philippians 4:7).

Therefore, let it be clearly stated: the solution to the Middle East crisis is not found in the Two-State Solution but in the One Savior Solution. Only through faith in Christ can enmity be transformed into reconciliation, and only through His lordship can nations experience lasting peace. As Scripture declares, “He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation.” (Ephesians 2:14, NKJV).

References

  • The Holy Bible, New King James Version (NKJV).

  • Jeremiah 6:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:3; Ephesians 2:14; Philippians 4:7.

  • Shimba, M. (2025). Theology and Conflict: Biblical Insights on Peace in the Middle East. Shimba Theological Institute.

  • Lewis, B. (2002). The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror. Random House.

  • Pipes, D. (2014). Militant Islam Reaches America. W.W. Norton & Company.


at No comments:

Muhammad’s Engagement with Slavery

Slavery and the Claim of Prophethood:

A Critical Theological and Ethical Examination of Muhammad’s Engagement with Slavery

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

The moral authority of a prophet is traditionally measured not only by doctrinal proclamations but also by ethical embodiment. This article critically examines the institution of slavery as practiced and sanctioned by Muhammad, with particular focus on authenticated hadith literature. Using Sunan an-Nasa’i 4621 as a primary case study, the article interrogates whether slave ownership and trade can be reconciled with genuine prophethood. A comparative analysis with biblical prophets is undertaken, revealing a significant theological discontinuity. The study concludes that Muhammad’s participation in slavery reflects cultural accommodation rather than transcendent moral reform, raising serious questions about the nature and scope of his prophetic claim.

1. Introduction: Prophethood and Moral Authority

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, prophets are understood as moral revolutionaries—divinely commissioned figures who confront injustice, liberate the oppressed, and elevate ethical standards beyond cultural norms. From Moses confronting Pharaoh to Jesus identifying himself with the poor and enslaved, prophetic identity is inseparable from moral transcendence.

Islamic theology similarly asserts that Muhammad is al-insān al-kāmil (the perfect man) and uswatun ḥasanah (the best example for humanity). Consequently, his personal conduct is not merely historical but normative and imitable. This raises a crucial question:

Can participation in slavery—buying, owning, and exchanging human beings—be harmonized with the moral expectations of prophethood?

2. Primary Source Evidence: Sunan an-Nasa’i 4621

One of the clearest and most troubling accounts is found in Sunan an-Nasa’i, graded Ṣaḥīḥ (authentic):

“A slave came and pledged allegiance to the Messenger of Allah to emigrate, and the Prophet did not realize that he was a slave. Then his master came looking for him. The Prophet said: ‘Sell him to me.’ So he bought him for two black slaves…”
— Sunan an-Nasa’i 4621

This narration establishes several uncontested facts:

  1. Muhammad approved the return of an escaped slave to his master.

  2. He purchased the slave, legitimizing the transaction.

  3. The purchase involved exchanging two slaves for one, treating human beings as economic units.

  4. The transaction occurred during Muhammad’s prophetic ministry, not before it.

This was not an isolated incident but part of a broader, well-documented pattern.

3. Slavery as a Normalized Institution in Islam

Islamic primary sources consistently assume the legitimacy of slavery:

  • Qur’an 4:24; 23:5–6; 33:50 explicitly permit sexual access to “those whom your right hand possesses.”

  • Hadith literature records Muhammad owning slaves such as Zayd ibn Harithah, Maria al-Qibtiyya, and others.

  • Slavery is regulated but never abolished in the Qur’an.

The argument that Islam “encouraged manumission” does not negate the fact that:

What God truly condemns, He abolishes—not merely regulates.

Alcohol, idolatry, and pork were eliminated decisively. Slavery was not.

4. Was This Part of Prophethood—or Cultural Accommodation?

Muslim apologists often argue that Muhammad worked within the socio-economic realities of 7th-century Arabia. However, this defense creates a theological dilemma:

  • If Muhammad merely reflected his culture, then his moral authority is historically contingent, not divinely absolute.

  • If his actions are divinely sanctioned, then slavery becomes theologically legitimized.

Either conclusion undermines the claim of universal moral prophethood.

True prophets do not merely manage injustice; they confront it.

5. Comparative Prophetic Analysis: Where Are the Other Slave-Holding Prophets?

A comparative examination is revealing:

Moses

  • Raised in a slave empire.

  • Led the largest emancipation event in biblical history (Exodus).

  • Never portrayed as owning slaves.

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos

  • Condemned exploitation, oppression, and dehumanization.

  • Identified injustice as sin against God.

Jesus Christ

  • Identified with slaves and the oppressed (Luke 4:18).

  • Declared radical human equality (Matthew 23:8).

  • Never owned, bought, sold, or exchanged slaves.

The biblical prophetic tradition moves away from slavery, not toward its regulation.

Muhammad stands alone among major prophetic claimants in personally participating in slave transactions during his ministry.

6. Ethical Tension: Human Dignity vs. Property Status

Slavery reduces a person from imago Dei (image of God) to commercial property. The hadith in Sunan an-Nasa’i 4621 explicitly demonstrates this reduction:

  • A man seeking spiritual allegiance is overridden by property rights.

  • His spiritual commitment is subordinated to ownership claims.

  • His value is measured in exchange units (“two black slaves”).

This raises an unavoidable ethical question:

Can a prophet who embodies divine justice treat a human soul as transferable property?

7. The Problem of Imitability (Uswah)

Islamic theology insists that Muhammad is the model for all believers, for all time (Qur’an 33:21). This creates a lasting moral problem:

  • If Muhammad owned slaves, then slavery cannot be intrinsically immoral in Islam.

  • If slavery is immoral today, then Muhammad’s actions cannot be universally exemplary.

This tension has no coherent theological resolution within orthodox Islam.

8. The Silence of Allah on Abolition

One of the most striking features of Islamic revelation is what it does not say:

  • No verse abolishes slavery.

  • No verse declares slave ownership sinful.

  • No verse commands universal emancipation.

After Muhammad’s death, Allah issues no further moral correction. Slavery continued for over 1,300 years in Islamic societies, often justified directly by Muhammad’s example.

9. Scholarly and Theological Implications

This analysis does not rest on polemics but on Islam’s own authenticated sources. The issue is not whether slavery existed historically—it did everywhere—but whether a true prophet:

  1. Participates in it,

  2. Sanctifies it,

  3. Leaves it intact for future generations.

From a Judeo-Christian theological perspective, the answer is decisively no.

10. Conclusion

The hadith of Sunan an-Nasa’i 4621 presents an unavoidable historical and ethical reality: Muhammad engaged in the ownership and exchange of slaves during his prophetic ministry. This conduct stands in stark contrast to the moral trajectory of biblical prophethood, which consistently moves toward liberation, dignity, and justice.

Historical context may explain Muhammad’s actions, but it cannot sanctify them. Prophethood, by definition, transcends culture rather than conforming to it.

The question therefore remains open—and pressing:

Is slavery compatible with divine prophethood, or does it reveal the limits of Muhammad’s moral authority?

Selected References

  • al-Nasa’i, Aḥmad ibn Shuʿayb. Sunan an-Nasa’i, Book 44, Hadith 4621.

  • Crone, Patricia. Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam. Princeton University Press.

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

  • Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Medina. Oxford University Press.

  • Holy Bible, NIV & ESV editions.


at No comments:

The Issue of Slavery in the Life of Prophet Muhammad: A Critical Examination

The Issue of Slavery in the Life of Prophet Muhammad: A Critical Examination
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract
Slavery remains one of the most debated aspects of human history, particularly when examining religious figures and their conduct. Prophet Muhammad (c. 570–632 CE), the founder of Islam, is often portrayed as a reformer and moral guide. Yet, historical Islamic sources document that he owned and transacted in slaves. This article critically examines the narratives surrounding Muhammad’s engagement with slavery, questions whether such actions are inherently tied to his prophethood, and compares his practices with those of previous prophets.

Introduction
The institution of slavery was widespread in Arabia prior to the advent of Islam. Within Islamic texts, multiple references indicate the possession and trade of slaves, including in the biography of Prophet Muhammad. One particular hadith, narrated in Sunan an-Nasa'i (4621), recounts the following incident:

"A slave came and gave his pledge to the Messenger of Allah to emigrate, and the Prophet did not realize that he was a slave. Then his master came looking for him. The Prophet said: 'Sell him to me.' So he bought him for two black slaves, then he did not accept until he had asked: 'Is he a slave?'" (Sunan an-Nasa'i, Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 4625, Sahih).

This account demonstrates that Muhammad participated in the acquisition of slaves and indicates that slave ownership occurred even during the early Islamic community.

Slavery and Prophethood: A Theological Question
A critical question arises: does the act of owning slaves align with the mission of prophethood? Prophets in Abrahamic traditions are typically associated with moral reform, justice, and the protection of human dignity. The Hebrew Bible and Christian scriptures do not record prophets personally owning slaves as part of their ministry. For example, Moses, David, and Jesus are portrayed as advocating justice and righteousness rather than engaging in slavery as proprietors.

Muhammad’s engagement with slavery raises a theological and ethical concern: if prophethood is meant to guide humanity toward righteousness, how do we reconcile ownership of slaves with the ideals of justice and liberation? While Islamic scholars argue that Muhammad sought to regulate and humanize slavery, critics assert that this does not negate the moral responsibility inherent in owning and trading human beings.

Historical Context and Cultural Practices
It is crucial to situate these actions within the historical context of 7th-century Arabia. Slavery was a norm in pre-Islamic Arabia, encompassing captives of war, debtors, and inherited slaves. Muhammad’s interactions with slavery often involved emancipating slaves, regulating treatment, and advocating for gradual societal reforms. However, ownership and transactions—such as purchasing a slave for other slaves—persisted. The question remains whether cultural practices justify actions that appear ethically incompatible with prophetic morality.

Comparison with Other Prophets
Examining other prophets offers an important contrast. No other Abrahamic prophet is recorded as owning slaves for personal or religious purposes. Moses led the Israelites out of bondage, Isaiah and Jeremiah denounced social injustice, and Jesus emphasized love, equality, and liberation from oppression. This contrast highlights a unique aspect of Muhammad’s biography: his prophethood is intertwined with existing socio-economic norms that included slavery.

Ethical and Scholarly Implications
Modern scholars and theologians face a complex dilemma. On one hand, Muhammad’s actions are historically documented within authentic Islamic sources. On the other, these actions challenge contemporary ethical standards, raising questions about the nature of prophethood, divine guidance, and cultural accommodation. A critical examination suggests that while Muhammad may have sought reform, his participation in slavery does not align seamlessly with the moral example set by earlier prophets.

Conclusion
The documentation of Prophet Muhammad’s ownership of slaves, such as the incident narrated in Sunan an-Nasa'i 4621, invites rigorous scholarly scrutiny. While historical context partially explains these actions, they raise important theological and ethical questions regarding the role of a prophet in advancing justice and human dignity. Unlike other prophets, Muhammad’s biography includes participation in slavery, which necessitates critical engagement from scholars and believers seeking to reconcile historical practice with spiritual ideals.

References

  1. al-Nasa'i, Ahmad ibn Shu'ayb. Sunan an-Nasa'i. Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 4625. Darussalam.

  2. Armstrong, Karen. Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time. HarperCollins, 2006.

  3. Crone, Patricia. Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam. Princeton University Press, 1987.

  4. Esposito, John L. Islam: The Straight Path. Oxford University Press, 1998.

  5. Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Mecca. Oxford University Press, 1953.


at No comments:

A Comparative Ethical Analysis of Michael Jackson and Muhammad


Shimba Theological Institute – Scholarly Newsletter

**Moral Leadership, Children, and Ethical Legacy:

A Comparative Ethical Analysis of Michael Jackson and Muhammad**

Author: Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Institution: Shimba Theological Institute
Discipline: Comparative Theology, Moral Philosophy, Religious Ethics

Abstract

This article presents a comparative ethical analysis of two globally influential figures: Michael Jackson and Muhammad. While occupying vastly different domains—entertainment and religion—both figures have been presented to the public as moral exemplars within their respective cultural frameworks. This study evaluates their legacies through four ethical lenses: treatment of children, legal accountability, social impact, and moral conscience. By examining historical sources, legal records, and ethical outcomes, the article argues that moral authority must be evaluated not by popularity or claims of divine mandate, but by demonstrable ethical consistency and protection of vulnerable populations.

1. Introduction: The Question of Moral Exemplars

Religious and cultural traditions often elevate individuals as moral models for future generations. In Islam, Muhammad is explicitly presented as al-insān al-kāmil (the perfect man), whose conduct (sunnah) is binding for all times. In contrast, Michael Jackson never claimed moral perfection nor divine authority; nevertheless, he exercised immense cultural influence.

This article asks a critical but necessary question:
When evaluated by universal ethical standards—especially concerning children and the vulnerable—who better exemplifies moral leadership?

2. Michael Jackson: Legal Accountability and Moral Sensitivity

Michael Jackson faced severe accusations of child abuse—among the most damaging allegations possible for a public figure. Crucially, however, his case was adjudicated within a modern legal system governed by evidentiary standards, cross-examination, and due process.

In 2005, Jackson was found not guilty on all charges in a criminal court of law. This verdict followed months of scrutiny, testimony, and forensic examination. The outcome is ethically significant: moral accountability requires openness to investigation, not immunity from critique.

Equally important is Jackson’s psychological and moral response to the accusations. Multiple interviews, writings, and testimonies reveal profound emotional distress, grief, and reputational anguish—responses consistent with a functioning moral conscience. He did not normalize the accusations, justify them, or transform them into social norms.

Beyond legal matters, Jackson donated hundreds of millions of dollars to children’s hospitals, humanitarian organizations, disaster relief efforts, and global charities. His public mission emphasized joy, peace, racial unity, and the emotional well-being of children.

3. Muhammad: Historical Practices and Ethical Tensions

Islamic primary sources—including Sahih Hadith collections—affirm that Muhammad married Aisha when she was a child and consummated the marriage when she was approximately nine years old. Unlike Jackson, Muhammad faced no legal challenge, expressed no moral hesitation, and instead established this practice as normative, later sanctified through religious jurisprudence.

The ethical problem is not merely historical but systemic: child marriage became embedded within Islamic law, practiced for centuries, and justified by appeal to Muhammad’s example. Unlike contested allegations, this practice is celebrated, not repudiated, within orthodox Islamic theology.

Additionally, Muhammad instituted legal reforms that:

  • Abolished biological adoption while retaining control over orphans

  • Restricted artistic expression, including music

  • Introduced wartime practices that included enslavement and sexual access to captives

While apologists frequently invoke “historical context,” moral exemplars—especially those claimed to be timeless—must transcend their era, not merely reflect it.

4. Children, Consent, and Ethical Universality

From a moral philosophy standpoint, children represent a non-negotiable ethical boundary. Modern ethics, natural law theory, and biblical theology converge on one principle: children lack the capacity for informed consent and therefore require maximal protection.

Michael Jackson, despite allegations, never institutionalized harm, never codified abuse, and never claimed divine sanction for questionable behavior. His legal exoneration and philanthropic record reinforce this distinction.

Muhammad, by contrast, embedded child marriage into religious precedent. The result is not theoretical but observable: ongoing cases across multiple Islamic societies where child marriage persists with religious justification.

A moral system that cannot safeguard children fails the most basic ethical test.

5. Women, Privacy, and Moral Agency

Ethical leadership also requires respect for personal dignity and privacy. Islamic texts include accounts of Muhammad surveilling or regulating private marital affairs, reinforcing a patriarchal structure with limited female autonomy.

Michael Jackson, despite intense scrutiny of his private life, did not legislate sexual ethics for society, nor did he impose surveillance-based moral control. His influence remained cultural, not coercive.

6. Power, Violence, and Social Consequences

Jackson’s influence operated through persuasion, art, and charity. His legacy—music, humanitarian aid, and global unity—did not involve conquest or coercion.

Muhammad’s leadership included military expansion, political domination, and religious enforcement. While these actions produced a civilization, they also normalized violence as a tool of religious propagation—a legacy still visible in contemporary extremist movements.

7. Ethical Comparison Summary

Ethical CriterionMichael JacksonMuhammad
Legal AccountabilitySubjected to trial; acquittedAbove legal scrutiny
Child ProtectionPublic advocacy, charityChild marriage normalized
Moral ConscienceExpressed anguish and griefPractices justified as divine
Social InfluenceJoy, peace, artRegulation, conquest
Timeless EthicsAligns with modern moral normsConflicts with modern ethics

8. Conclusion: Rethinking Moral Authority

This study does not argue that Michael Jackson was flawless, nor that historical figures should be judged frivolously. Rather, it asserts a foundational ethical principle:

No individual—religious or secular—should be upheld as a moral exemplar if their legacy institutionalizes harm to children or strips vulnerable populations of dignity.

Michael Jackson, though imperfect, demonstrated accountability, remorse, and a consistent commitment to human flourishing. Muhammad, by contrast, established precedents that continue to generate profound ethical conflicts in the modern world.

The question is not popularity or tradition—but moral fruit.

References (Selected)

  1. California v. Jackson, 2005 Criminal Trial Records

  2. Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 5134

  3. Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1422

  4. Esposito, J. Islam: The Straight Path. Oxford University Press

  5. Kant, I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

  6. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child


at No comments:

Comparative Reflections on Moral Leadership: Michael Jackson and Muhammad

Shimba Theological Institute Newsletter
Comparative Reflections on Moral Leadership: Michael Jackson and Muhammad
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Abstract:
This article undertakes a comparative moral and ethical analysis of Michael Jackson and the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), focusing on their respective interactions with children, philanthropy, and societal influence. While acknowledging controversies surrounding both figures, the analysis examines documented behavior, legal findings, and historical practices to assess their impact on societal norms, particularly regarding children’s welfare and moral example.

Introduction:
In contemporary moral discourse, public figures are often scrutinized as role models. Michael Jackson, the globally renowned entertainer, and the Prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, provide distinct examples of leadership, influence, and societal impact. This study examines their respective approaches to children’s welfare, charity, music, and ethical conduct.

Michael Jackson: Legal Vindication and Philanthropy
Michael Jackson’s public life was marked by extraordinary musical talent and widespread humanitarian efforts. While he faced allegations of child abuse, court proceedings ultimately found him not guilty. Jackson consistently expressed personal anguish over these accusations, demonstrating moral sensitivity and the capacity for ethical reflection. Beyond legal vindication, Jackson dedicated significant resources to charitable causes, including children’s hospitals, education, and disaster relief. His public persona emphasized joy, inclusivity, and the protection of children, reflecting a deliberate moral and philanthropic commitment.

Muhammad: Historical Practices and Ethical Implications
Historical records indicate that Muhammad engaged in practices, such as early-age marriage, which contemporary ethical frameworks consider morally problematic. Additionally, certain policies, including limitations on adoption and music, had broad societal consequences. While these actions must be understood within their historical and cultural context, they present ethical questions when considering Muhammad as a moral exemplar for modern audiences, particularly in comparison to contemporary standards of children’s welfare and women’s rights. Reports also indicate practices involving surveillance of private matters, raising further ethical considerations regarding privacy and interpersonal conduct.

Comparative Moral Assessment
When comparing Jackson and Muhammad, several distinctions emerge:

  1. Children’s Welfare: Jackson’s legal vindication and philanthropic focus demonstrate an emphasis on children’s well-being. Historical records of Muhammad suggest practices that today may be viewed as compromising the autonomy and rights of minors.

  2. Philanthropy vs. Social Regulation: Jackson utilized personal wealth to enhance societal welfare, while Muhammad’s governance introduced regulatory frameworks with complex moral implications, some of which curtailed individual freedoms.

  3. Cultural Impact: Jackson’s music and persona propagated joy, inclusivity, and positive social engagement, whereas Muhammad’s leadership involved military campaigns and social regulation that imposed both security and restrictions on communities.

Conclusion:
This comparative analysis highlights divergent approaches to moral leadership and societal impact. While Michael Jackson’s life demonstrates a consistent orientation toward child welfare, philanthropy, and joy, Muhammad’s historical record reflects practices that, although influential in shaping Islamic civilization, raise contemporary ethical questions regarding children’s rights, women’s privacy, and social regulation. Evaluating role models in a modern context necessitates careful consideration of both historical practices and current ethical standards, particularly concerning the protection and well-being of vulnerable populations.

References:

  1. Jackson, M. HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. Epic Records, 1995.

  2. Sunan an-Nasa’i 4621. Hadith literature referencing historical practices.

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

  4. Tarbiya studies on Islamic marriage practices in 7th-century Arabia.

  5. Legal proceedings of Michael Jackson v. State of California, 2005.


at No comments:

The Paradox of Paternal Authority and Spiritual Maternity in Islam: A Theological and Logical Examination of Qur’an 33:6 and 33:40

 Title: The Paradox of Paternal Authority and Spiritual Maternity in Islam: A Theological and Logical Examination of Qur’an 33:6 and 33:40

Author: Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Institution: Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

Islamic theology contains a notable paradox concerning the Prophet Muhammad’s relationship to the Muslim community. The Qur’an describes Muhammad’s wives as the “Mothers of the Believers” (Surah al-Ahzab 33:6), yet in the same chapter (33:40), it explicitly declares that Muhammad is “not the father of any of your men.” This raises critical theological, logical, and ethical questions about the nature of Muhammad’s paternal status in Islam and the prohibition against remarriage of his widows. This paper seeks to analyze this doctrinal inconsistency through historical, linguistic, and theological perspectives, and to question the coherence of the Qur’anic reasoning in relation to social and moral norms.

1. Introduction

The Qur’an presents Muhammad as both the Messenger of Allah and Seal of the Prophets (Qur’an 33:40). However, it simultaneously establishes a peculiar familial relationship between Muhammad and his followers. His wives are declared the “Mothers of the Believers” (33:6), while Muhammad himself is emphatically denied any paternal role toward his male followers. This duality gives rise to a complex paradox: how can one’s wives be mothers while the husband is not a father?

The contradiction becomes more pronounced in light of Islamic marital law, which forbids any man from marrying the Prophet’s widows, invoking their “maternal” status to the Muslim community. Yet, logically, if Muhammad is not a father to any believer, the justification for this prohibition becomes unclear.

2. The Qur’anic Framework

2.1. The Denial of Fatherhood (Qur’an 33:40)

“Muḥammad is not the father of any of your men, but the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.”

This verse was reportedly revealed in response to the controversy surrounding Zayd ibn Harithah, Muhammad’s adopted son. When Muhammad married Zayd’s former wife, Zaynab bint Jahsh, the Qur’an redefined adoption laws, annulling adopted sonship and, consequently, Muhammad’s legal fatherhood over Zayd (see Tafsir al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan, vol. 22). Thus, the verse served to deny Muhammad any human fatherhood over the believers, preserving his prophetic status from personal familial association.

2.2. The Declaration of Spiritual Maternity (Qur’an 33:6)

“The Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers.”

This verse confers a unique symbolic status on Muhammad’s wives, elevating them above ordinary women. However, the text does not clarify the logical basis for this designation nor its theological implications, especially since it does not confer corresponding paternal authority upon Muhammad himself.

3. The Logical Inconsistency

The two verses (33:6 and 33:40) produce a theological dilemma:

  • If Muhammad’s wives are mothers of the believers, then Muhammad logically ought to be the father of the believers.

  • If Muhammad is not a father of any of the believers, then his wives cannot logically be mothers of the believers.

Islamic apologists argue that “motherhood” in 33:6 is spiritual, not biological. Yet, the same principle could apply to Muhammad’s “fatherhood” — spiritual rather than physical. The deliberate exclusion of Muhammad’s paternal role seems inconsistent with the spiritual analogy intended by the verse.

4. The Ethical Question: Prohibition of Remarriage

After Muhammad’s death, the Qur’an prohibited his widows from remarrying (Qur’an 33:53):

“And it is not lawful for you to harm the Messenger of Allah, nor to marry his wives after him ever. Indeed, that would be an enormity in the sight of Allah.”

This restriction is justified by their “maternal” status — yet the argument collapses under scrutiny.
If the Prophet’s wives were “mothers” only in a symbolic sense, why should they be denied remarriage — a right granted to all other widows in Islam (Qur’an 2:234–235)?
Moreover, if Muhammad is not the “father” of the believers, then his widows cannot truly be “mothers” to them, and the prohibition becomes legally and ethically questionable.

5. Historical Context: Muhammad’s Marriages

Muhammad’s marriages included several widows, such as Sawdah bint Zam’ah, Hafsah bint Umar, and Umm Salamah. These marriages were often justified as acts of social welfare. Yet the same compassion was not extended to his own widows, who were condemned to lifelong celibacy. The question arises: if Muhammad could marry widows for their protection, why could not others protect and marry his widows after his death?

The inconsistency suggests that the prohibition was politically and socially motivated to preserve the Prophet’s exclusive legacy and to prevent disputes over lineage or inheritance within the early Muslim community.

6. Theological Implications

From a theological standpoint, Islam presents Muhammad as the “Seal of the Prophets” — the final messenger and ultimate exemplar. Yet the Qur’an strips him of spiritual fatherhood, creating a vacuum in the believer’s personal relationship to him. Christianity, by contrast, recognizes both paternal and fraternal spiritual relationships in divine-human dynamics (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:15, Philippians 2:22).

In Islam, however, Muhammad’s detachment as “not the father” while his wives remain “mothers” results in a doctrinal asymmetry — a partial metaphor that fails to maintain theological coherence.

7. Conclusion

The Qur’an’s portrayal of Muhammad’s family relationships reveals a deep inconsistency within Islamic theology.

  • If Muhammad is not the father of any believer, then his wives cannot logically be the believers’ mothers.

  • If his wives are indeed the “Mothers of the Believers,” then a corresponding paternal role must exist — at least symbolically.

The prohibition on the remarriage of Muhammad’s widows, coupled with his own marriages to other widows, further exposes the internal contradictions within Islamic social ethics.
This paradox demonstrates that the Qur’anic narrative on Muhammad’s familial relations is less theological and more political — crafted to preserve Muhammad’s exclusive prophetic authority rather than to maintain logical or moral consistency.

References

  1. The Qur’an, Surah al-Ahzab (33:6, 33:40, 33:53).

  2. Al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan fi Ta’wil al-Qur’an, Vol. 22.

  3. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, commentary on Surah al-Ahzab.

  4. Al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami’ li-Ahkam al-Qur’an, commentary on 33:6 and 33:40.

  5. Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 4787 – Narration on Zayd ibn Harithah and Zaynab bint Jahsh.

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

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

  8. Cragg, Kenneth. The Call of the Minaret. Oxford University Press, 1956.


at No comments:

THE TWO SEAS’ WATER NOT MIXING, IS THIS A MIRACLE OF ALLAH OR A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE?

THE TWO SEAS’ WATER NOT MIXING

IS THIS A MIRACLE OF ALLAH OR A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE?

Today I will answer a weak Muslim argument concerning the claim that the waters of two seas do not mix. Is this a miracle or a lack of knowledge in basic physics?

To understand what happened regarding the non-mixing of waters, it is good to first learn Fourth Grade Physics about Density.

ALLAH in the Qur’an, Surah 18 verses 60 to 82:

“And remember when Musa said to his servant: I will continue travelling until I reach the junction of the two seas, or I will continue for ages and ages until I meet the one whom I seek.”

So, when Muslims saw a picture of two seas (their claim), they connected it with this verse as a miracle of Allah. Fortunately, here at Max Shimba Ministries, we have scholars who are experts in Science, Mathematics, and Biology. Therefore today we respond to Muslims using science.

Let us begin with the principle of Density:

WHAT IS DENSITY?

DENSITY = MASS / VOLUME

Density is a measure that compares the mass and volume of a substance. Its physical symbol is ρ (rho).

A substance with high density contains a lot of matter within a specific volume. A substance with low density contains little matter within the same volume. High density is what makes us call something “heavy.”

Density is commonly measured in g/cm³ and kg/m³.

Using logic:

Fresh water without salt has a density of 1. One liter has a mass of 1 kilogram.

WHAT IS MASS?

Mass in physics is a property of matter, and thus also the property of an object or substance.

The standard international unit of mass is the kilogram. Its usual formula symbol is m.

WHAT IS VOLUME?

Volume explains the size of a mathematical object (cube, sphere, cylinder) by measuring the space it occupies.

It is measured in cubic units such as cubic meters (m³) or cubic centimeters (cm³).

Every object with length, width, and height has volume.

SALT WATER:

Salt water is water containing a certain amount of dissolved salt. All types of natural water contain some amount of dissolved salts.

On average, seawater on earth contains about 3.5% salt (35 g/L, 599 mM). This means that every kilogram (roughly one liter plus a little) of seawater has about 35 grams (1.2 oz) of dissolved salts (mostly sodium (Na+) and chloride (Cl–) ions). The average surface density is 1.025 kg/L.

Seawater is denser/heavier than fresh water because dissolved salts greatly increase mass. The freezing point of seawater decreases as salinity increases. At normal salinity, it freezes at –2°C (28°F). The coldest liquid seawater recorded in 2010, under an Antarctic glacier, measured –2.6°C (27.3°F). Seawater pH is usually between 7.5 and 8.4. However, no universally accepted pH standard exists for seawater, and different reference scales can differ by up to 0.14 units.

FRESH WATER:

Fresh water is water without much salt.

Rainwater, river water, and lake water are called “fresh water,” meaning they are basically suitable for drinking or watering plants even though they may contain some mud or impurities. The opposite is salt water found in oceans and some lakes.

Scientifically, water is considered “fresh” when its salt concentration is less than 1% or one gram per liter. Most fresh water on Earth is snow and ice—frozen precipitation formed in cold climates.

NOW I WILL EXPLAIN IN SIMPLE LANGUAGE SO EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THESE WATERS DO NOT MIX QUICKLY.

First, understand this: Two seas are NOT meeting. This Muslim claim is false and based on lack of knowledge. The picture being used is the meeting of glacial meltwater and offshore waters of the Gulf of Alaska.

The cause of this strange phenomenon is the difference in water density, water temperature, and salt content between glacial meltwater and the waters of the Gulf of Alaska. They fail to mix because of their density differences.

Seawater has a salt concentration of 3.5%. Scientists often refer to 0.1% as fresh water.

Because both types of water are very cold in temperature, the mixing process takes time.

A solution is the result of completely mixing two substances to obtain a uniform mixture that does not show separate parts. A SIMPLE EXAMPLE: stirring sugar into water. The sugar becomes invisible once fully dissolved. If the water is cold, sugar takes much longer to dissolve compared to warm or hot water.

This is exactly what happens in the Gulf of Alaska, where all the water is cold and the glacial meltwater, which has very little salt, takes a very long time to mix with the Gulf waters, which have salt levels up to 3.5%.

Is this a miracle or just normal science?

This is why I continue to say Allah is not God.

Shalom,

Dr. Max Shimba, servant of Jesus Christ the Great God.
Titus 2:13

at No comments:

JESUS IS GOD AND SAVIOR: SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH

JESUS IS GOD AND SAVIOR: SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba | Shimba Theological Institute

One of the most life-changing truths in Scripture is this: Jesus Christ is God, He is the Savior of the world, and salvation is a gift of grace received through faith alone. Every page of the New Testament echoes this divine revelation. From the incarnation to the resurrection, the Bible consistently proclaims the deity of Christ and the liberating truth that our redemption is completely the work of God—not human effort.

1. Jesus Is God: The Bible’s Clear Testimony

The identity of Jesus Christ is foundational to the Christian faith. He is not merely a prophet, a miracle worker, or a moral teacher—He is God in the flesh.

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

  • John 1:14 confirms, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

  • Thomas worshiped Him saying, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).
    Jesus did not correct him, because Thomas’s confession was true.

Jesus also claimed divine authority:

  • He forgave sins (Mark 2:5–7)

  • He accepted worship (Matthew 14:33)

  • He declared Himself one with the Father (John 10:30)

  • He used God’s divine name “I AM” (John 8:58)

Only God can do these things. In Jesus, God stepped into time and space to save humanity from sin, death, and judgment.

2. Jesus Is the Only Savior

Because Jesus is God, He alone has the power to save. The apostle Peter boldly declared:

“There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
— Acts 4:12

The cross was not an accident—it was the divine plan of redemption. Jesus willingly gave His life as the perfect sacrifice for sin. His blood accomplishes what no human work could achieve: atonement, forgiveness, and reconciliation with God.

The resurrection sealed His identity as Savior and Lord. No founder of any religion rose from the dead—only Jesus lives forever. Therefore, He remains the sole bridge between God and humanity.

3. Saved by Grace Through Faith—Not by Works

Many people believe they must earn God’s acceptance through good works, rituals, or moral performance. But the Bible clearly teaches the opposite:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”
— Ephesians 2:8–9

What does this mean?

  • Grace means God acts out of His love—not our merit.

  • Faith means trusting Jesus alone—not ourselves.

  • Gift means salvation is free—not something we earn.

  • Not of works means we cannot take credit for it.

Salvation is not a reward for the good, but a rescue for the lost. It is not achieved by effort, but received by believing in the finished work of Christ on the cross.

Human works cannot save because:

  • We are sinners by nature (Romans 3:23)

  • Our righteousness is insufficient (Isaiah 64:6)

  • Salvation requires perfection, which only Christ provides (2 Corinthians 5:21)

4. Good Works Follow, They Do Not Save

Paul continues after Ephesians 2:8–9 with an important truth:

“For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works…” (Eph. 2:10)

Good works are the evidence, not the cause, of salvation. When a person is born again:

  • The Holy Spirit transforms them.

  • Their desires change.

  • They bear spiritual fruit.

  • They live in obedience—not to earn salvation, but because they have it.

Grace produces transformation that works never could.

5. Why This Message Matters Today

In a world filled with religious confusion, moral uncertainty, and spiritual deception, the gospel stands as the only message of hope:

  • Jesus is God—therefore His authority is supreme.

  • Jesus is Savior—therefore His salvation is sufficient.

  • Grace through faith—therefore no one is beyond God’s reach.

This truth brings peace to the guilty, hope to the broken, and rest to the weary. It removes the burden of religion and invites us into a relationship with the living God.

6. A Personal Appeal

Beloved reader, your salvation does not depend on your performance, your background, your struggles, or your past. It depends solely on Jesus Christ, who loved you enough to die for you.

Today, place your trust fully in Him.
Receive the gift of grace.
Embrace Jesus as your God and Savior.

He is mighty to save. He is faithful to forgive. He is God, and He is good.


at No comments:

Where in the Qur’an does it explicitly state that Muhammad is a son or direct descendant of Abraham, or where Abraham himself declares Muhammad as his descendant?

 Professional, Text-Based Analysis

Question: Where in the Qur’an does it explicitly state that Muhammad is a son or direct descendant of Abraham, or where Abraham himself declares Muhammad as his descendant?

Answer:
There is no verse in the Qur’an in which Abraham explicitly names Muhammad as his son or descendant, nor any verse where Muhammad is directly identified as Abraham’s biological offspring.

What the Qur’an does affirm is Abraham’s lineage through Ishmael, and it places Muhammad within the broader Abrahamic tradition, not through an explicit genealogical statement.

Key Qur’anic Passages Commonly Cited

  1. Abraham and Ishmael

    • “And We gave him Isaac and Jacob, and guided them; and Noah We guided before; and among his descendants, David, Solomon… and Ishmael…”
      (Qur’an 6:84–86)

    Ishmael is clearly identified as Abraham’s son. Muhammad is not mentioned here or elsewhere as Abraham’s son.

  2. Prayer of Abraham and Ishmael

    • “Our Lord, raise among them a messenger from among themselves who will recite to them Your verses…”
      (Qur’an 2:129)

    This verse is interpreted by later Islamic tradition as a reference to Muhammad, but:

    • Muhammad is not named

    • No biological lineage is stated

    • The connection is interpretive, not explicit

  3. Religion of Abraham

    • “Then We revealed to you [Muhammad]: Follow the religion of Abraham, inclining toward truth.”
      (Qur’an 16:123)

    This establishes theological continuity, not biological descent.

  4. Muhammad Identified by His Immediate Lineage

    • “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but the Messenger of Allah…”
      (Qur’an 33:40)

    Notably, the Qur’an never traces Muhammad’s genealogy back to Abraham, despite doing so for other prophets.

Scholarly Conclusion

  • The Qur’an does not explicitly state that Muhammad is a son or direct descendant of Abraham.

  • Abraham never declares Muhammad as his descendant in the Qur’anic text.

  • The claim that Muhammad descends from Abraham comes from later Islamic historiography and tradition, not from a clear Qur’anic assertion.

  • The Qur’an connects Muhammad to Abraham theologically, not genealogically.

In summary:
Any assertion that the Qur’an plainly teaches that Muhammad is a direct descendant of Abraham goes beyond the explicit wording of the Qur’an and relies on post-Qur’anic tradition rather than direct textual evidence.

at No comments:

Is the Qur’an Allah? Is the Qur’an identical to Allah, or distinct from Allah?

 Is the Qur’an Allah?

Eternity, Createdness, and the Problem of Monotheism in Islamic Theology
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

One of the most persistent and unresolved theological tensions within Islam concerns the nature of the Qur'an. Classical Islamic theology is divided over whether the Qur’an is created or uncreated. This article argues that both positions generate serious philosophical and theological problems for Islamic monotheism (tawḥīd). If the Qur’an is created, it cannot be the eternal speech of Allah. If it is uncreated and eternal, then Islam appears to affirm two eternal realities, raising fundamental questions about whether Islam consistently maintains monotheism while simultaneously rejecting the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

1. The Central Question: What Is the Qur’an?

Islam universally affirms that the Qur’an is the kalām Allāh—the speech of Allah. However, Islamic theology has never reached consensus on how this speech exists in relation to Allah Himself. The dilemma can be framed simply:

  • Is the Qur’an created in time, or

  • Is the Qur’an uncreated and eternal?

This question is not peripheral. It strikes at the heart of divine ontology, revelation, and the coherence of Islamic monotheism.

2. The Created Qur’an: A Finite Revelation?

The Muʿtazilite school famously argued that the Qur’an is created. Their motivation was to preserve absolute divine unity and avoid positing anything eternal alongside Allah.

However, this position generates severe consequences:

  1. Denial of Eternal Speech
    If the Qur’an is created, then Allah’s speech is not eternal. This implies that Allah was once without speech, contradicting the Islamic claim that divine attributes are eternal.

  2. Undermining Divine Perfection
    Speech is not an accidental attribute but an essential expression of intellect and will. A God who acquires speech in time is, by definition, mutable—an attribute incompatible with classical theism.

  3. Theological Instability
    If the Qur’an is created, then it becomes a contingent object, subject to historical conditions. This weakens claims of its absolute, timeless authority.

Thus, in attempting to protect monotheism, the “created Qur’an” position undermines divine immutability and perfection.

3. The Uncreated Qur’an: Two Eternals?

The dominant Sunni position holds that the Qur’an is uncreated, eternal, and subsisting with Allah. This view avoids the problems of mutability but introduces a far deeper contradiction.

If the Qur’an is:

  • Eternal

  • Uncreated

  • Distinct from creation

then the following dilemma arises:

Is the Qur’an identical to Allah, or distinct from Allah?

3.1 If Identical to Allah

If the Qur’an is Allah, then Muslims effectively identify a book, words, sounds, and letters with God Himself. This is theologically incoherent and borders on bibliolatry.

3.2 If Distinct from Allah

If the Qur’an is not Allah, yet eternal and uncreated, then Islam affirms two eternal realities:

  1. Allah

  2. The Qur’an

This violates the very principle of tawḥīd Islam claims to defend. Monotheism, by definition, does not permit multiple uncreated eternals.

4. The Trinity Objection Reconsidered

Islam frequently rejects the Christian Trinity on the grounds that it compromises divine unity. Yet Christianity does not teach three gods, but one God with eternally existing personal distinctions.

Ironically, classical Sunni Islam affirms:

  • One God (Allah)

  • An uncreated, eternal speech (the Qur’an)

  • Multiple eternal divine attributes without personal distinction

The question then becomes unavoidable:

How can Islam accuse Christianity of polytheism while affirming an eternal reality alongside Allah that is not Allah?

At minimum, Islam faces the same metaphysical complexity it condemns—without the philosophical clarity Christianity provides through Trinitarian ontology.

5. Philosophical Implications

From a philosophical standpoint, Islam is caught in a false dilemma:

  • Created Qur’an → God is mutable and not eternally speaking

  • Uncreated Qur’an → Two eternals, undermining monotheism

Both options compromise either:

  • Divine perfection, or

  • Divine unity

There is no third coherent alternative within Islamic theology.

6. Conclusion

The question “Is the Qur’an Allah?” is not rhetorical—it is unavoidable. Islamic theology cannot coherently maintain that the Qur’an is eternal, uncreated, and yet not divine without collapsing into contradiction.

Thus, Islam faces a fundamental challenge:

How can Islam consistently claim monotheism if both Allah and the Qur’an are eternal and uncreated?

Until this dilemma is resolved, Islamic claims of theological simplicity and superior monotheism remain philosophically and logically unsubstantiated.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

TRENDING NOW