BREAKING VIDEO: IDF pounding Hezbollah training compounds.

 🚨 BREAKING VIDEO: IDF pounding Hezbollah training compounds.

The targets included a Radwan Force training facility used for weapons drills and operational preparations for attacks against IDF troops and Israeli civilians.

Disturbing acts of revenge are taking place in Australia. Pig heads had been thrown at Muslim graves #BondiBeach #Australia #SydneyNews

 Disturbing acts of revenge are taking place in Australia. Pig heads had been thrown at Muslim graves #BondiBeach #Australia #SydneyNews

Aisha was 6 years old when married to Mohammad 54 years old

 

Confusion in the Mosque

 

Bible distribution

 

Breaking Evil Altars

 

 

The Myth of Muhammad’s Fragrant Sweat: A Scientific and Theological Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

Islamic tradition records claims that the Prophet Muhammad’s sweat was uniquely fragrant, collected by companions, and even considered a source of blessing (barakah). This article demonstrates that such claims are neither scientifically verifiable nor theologically defensible. From the standpoint of physiology, human sweat is odorless at secretion and gains its smell only through bacterial action; therefore, the suggestion that sweat can naturally exude perfume-like fragrance is unscientific. From the standpoint of theology, the idea that fragrance carries divine blessing is foreign to biblical revelation and inconsistent with God’s mode of authenticating prophets. Furthermore, Muhammad’s life practices—such as seizing booty (ghanimah) and personal gain from war spoils—undermine the notion that any supposed fragrance of his body conveyed holiness or divine sanction.

---

1. The Hadith Narratives of “Fragrant Sweat”

Several hadith from the Sahih collections record companions collecting Muhammad’s perspiration as perfume and blessing. Examples include:

• Sahih al-Bukhari 112 (Book of Ablution):

Narrated Anas bin Malik: “The Prophet came to our house and slept in our bed. He sweated during his sleep and my mother brought a bottle in which she collected that sweat and mixed it with his perfume. The smell of that perfume remained for a long time.”

• Sahih Muslim 2331 (Book of Virtues):

Anas bin Malik reported: “The Messenger of Allah came to our house and slept. He began to perspire and Umm Sulaym brought a bottle in which she collected his sweat and poured it into perfume. The Messenger of Allah said: ‘O Umm Sulaym, what is this?’ She said: ‘It is your sweat, and we mix it in our perfume, and it becomes the most fragrant of all.’”

These reports are the basis for the belief that Muhammad’s sweat was not only fragrant but carried barakah.

---

2. Scientific Refutation: Sweat Has No Intrinsic Fragrance

Modern physiology shows that sweat is odorless at secretion. Eccrine sweat (for cooling) is mostly water and salts, while apocrine sweat (in armpits, groin) contains proteins and lipids that bacteria break down into volatile compounds, producing odor. Pleasant fragrance cannot arise intrinsically from sweat. Any extraordinary scent must therefore be explained naturally (use of perfumes, oils, or exaggeration) or as devotional embellishment. Scientifically, sweat cannot be perfume.

---

3. Theological Absurdity: Fragrance as “Barakah”

Even if Muhammad’s sweat smelled pleasant, fragrance cannot impart blessing. In the Bible, blessing (barakah) comes from God’s covenantal promises, not from human bodily fluids (Genesis 12:2–3; Psalm 119:1–2). Prophets were validated by the truth of God’s word and miracles consistent with divine revelation—not by sweat or perfume.

Furthermore, Muhammad authorized and benefited from seizing property and spoils of war (Quran 8:1, 41). Such actions contradict holiness and discredit the idea that God would sanctify his perspiration as a means of blessing.

---

4. The Poisoning at Khaybar: A Counterexample to “Healing Sweat”

Sahih al-Bukhari 4428 narrates that Muhammad said:

“I continued to feel pain from the food which I had eaten at Khaybar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”

If his body carried healing properties, why did his sweat not heal him from the effects of poison? Why did divine protection not preserve him? This contradiction exposes the falsehood of the myth.

---

Conclusion

The hadith about Muhammad’s fragrant sweat fail scientifically, theologically, and morally. Scientifically, sweat is odorless until bacteria act upon it. Theologically, blessing comes from God’s word, not from perspiration. Morally, Muhammad’s material enrichment from booty undermines claims of holiness. Historically, his death by poisoning reveals the inconsistency of claims that his body carried miraculous healing.

The tradition of “fragrant sweat” is therefore not divine truth but a fabricated hagiographical embellishment—evidence of Muhammad’s false prophethood rather than divine authentication.

---

Bibliography

• Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 112, 4428.

• Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2331.

• The Holy Bible: Genesis 12:2–3; Deuteronomy 8:3; Psalm 119:1–2; Isaiah 40:8.

• Quran 8:1, 41.

• American Society for Microbiology. “Microbial Origins of Body Odor.”

• Lam, T.H. et al. Understanding the Microbial Basis of Body Odor. Microbiome, 2018.

• StatPearls. “Anatomy: Skin Sweat Glands.” NCBI Bookshelf, 2022.

---

The Myth of Muhammad’s Fragrant Sweat: A Scientific and Theological Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

Islamic tradition records claims that the Prophet Muhammad’s sweat was uniquely fragrant, collected by companions, and even considered a source of blessing (barakah). This article demonstrates that such claims are neither scientifically verifiable nor theologically defensible. From the standpoint of physiology, human sweat is odorless at secretion and gains its smell only through bacterial action; therefore, the suggestion that sweat can naturally exude perfume-like fragrance is unscientific. From the standpoint of theology, the idea that fragrance carries divine blessing is foreign to biblical revelation and inconsistent with God’s mode of authenticating prophets. Furthermore, Muhammad’s life practices—such as seizing booty (ghanimah) and personal gain from war spoils—undermine the notion that any supposed fragrance of his body conveyed holiness or divine sanction. The tradition is therefore better understood as a hagiographical embellishment designed to elevate Muhammad’s image, rather than as evidence of true prophecy.

---

1. The Hadith Narratives of “Fragrant Sweat”

Canonical hadith collections (e.g., Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim) contain reports that Muhammad’s companions, such as Umm Sulaym, collected his perspiration in bottles and mixed it with perfume. They claimed it smelled sweeter than musk and preserved it as a form of blessing (barakah). Such reports became part of Islamic relic-veneration, where Muhammad’s bodily traces—hair, saliva, sweat—were attributed miraculous properties.

Yet this tradition itself reveals theological inconsistency: blessing is redirected from the word of God to a bodily secretion. Instead of revelation being the locus of divine power, physical residues become idolized. This not only departs from biblical precedent, where prophets are validated by their obedience to God’s word and true miracles, but also undermines the uniqueness of God as the source of blessing (Deut. 8:3; Isa. 40:8).

---

2. Scientific Refutation: Sweat Has No Intrinsic Fragrance

Physiological science is unequivocal: sweat secreted by eccrine glands (responsible for thermoregulation) is nearly pure water with small amounts of salts. It is odorless at secretion. Apocrine sweat, found in areas like the armpits, contains proteins and lipids, but it too has no inherent fragrance. Body odor arises when bacteria metabolize these compounds, producing volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Thus, the idea of perfume-like fragrance emanating naturally from sweat has no scientific foundation.

Any unusual pleasant odor associated with Muhammad’s body must be attributed to cultural exaggeration, added perfumes, or retrospective idealization. It cannot serve as proof of divine intervention or prophetic authenticity.

---

3. Theological Absurdity: Fragrance as “Barakah”

Even if one grants that Muhammad’s sweat smelled pleasant, fragrance itself cannot impart blessing. In Scripture, blessing comes from God’s covenantal promises and obedience to His word—not from human sweat, relics, or bodily fluids (Genesis 12:2–3; Psalm 119:1–2). True prophets of God were validated by their fidelity to divine revelation, not by physical residues.

Moreover, Muhammad’s conduct stands in contradiction to the claim of holiness. He sanctioned the seizure of war booty and distributed property taken from others as spoils (Quran 8:1, 41). If his lifestyle included accumulation of wealth and benefit from conquest, it is incongruous to suggest that his sweat, a natural byproduct of the body, could simultaneously serve as a channel of divine blessing. A man who materially profited from battle cannot be the vessel through which God channels supernatural sanctity via perspiration.

---

4. The Poisoning at Khaybar: A Counterexample to “Healing Sweat”

Hadith also record that Muhammad suffered lingering pain from poisoned meat eaten at Khaybar (Sahih al-Bukhari). If his bodily fluids truly bore healing and protective power, why was he not protected from poisoning? Why did his supposed barakah not neutralize the effects of poison within his own body? This contradiction exposes the myth of fragrant, healing sweat as a fabrication of hagiography rather than divine fact.

---

Conclusion

The claim that Muhammad’s sweat was fragrant and a source of blessing fails both scientifically and theologically. Scientifically, sweat has no fragrance of its own; any pleasant odor must be explained naturally, not supernaturally. Theologically, blessing is mediated by God’s word, not by sweat. Furthermore, Muhammad’s actions in claiming booty undermine the credibility of any claim to holiness associated with his body. Finally, the poisoning incident demonstrates that his body was not endowed with healing or protective power.

Taken together, the myth of “fragrant sweat” is not evidence of divine authentication but a devotional fiction designed to exalt Muhammad. It reveals a reliance on embellishment rather than truth, confirming that such traditions do not originate from God and that Muhammad cannot be upheld as a true prophet.

---

Bibliography

• Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Ablutions, Hadith on Umm Sulaym collecting Muhammad’s sweat.

• Sahih Muslim, reports on companions preserving his perspiration.

• Quran 8:1, 41 — texts on war booty and Muhammad’s share.

• American Society for Microbiology. “Microbial Origins of Body Odor.”

• Lam, T.H. et al. Understanding the Microbial Basis of Body Odor. Microbiome, 2018.

• StatPearls. “Anatomy: Skin Sweat Glands.” NCBI Bookshelf, 2022.

• The Holy Bible. Genesis 12:2–3; Deuteronomy 8:3; Psalm 119:1–2; Isaiah 40:8.

---

Muhammad as a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: A Theological and Historical Analysis of Prophetic Deception in Light of Biblical Standards

 Title: Muhammad as a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: A Theological and Historical Analysis of Prophetic Deception in Light of Biblical Standards

Author: Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute, New York, NY

---

Abstract

This journal article critically examines the prophetic claims of Muhammad through the lens of biblical theology, historical accounts, and Islamic sources, proposing that Muhammad meets the scriptural definition of a "wolf in sheep’s clothing" (Matthew 7:15). This exploration is not intended to incite polemics but to apply rigorous theological and historical scrutiny to the prophet of Islam in contrast with the revealed standards of divine prophecy and messianic truth as preserved in the Judeo-Christian canon.

---

Introduction

The emergence of prophets throughout history has often accompanied both genuine divine calling and false representation. Jesus Christ warned His followers explicitly, saying, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves" (Matthew 7:15, ESV). In the context of eschatology and discernment, this article investigates Muhammad's prophetic role from a biblical and theological standpoint and argues that his teachings and actions demonstrate characteristics aligned with deceptive spiritual leadership.

---

I. The Biblical Standard of Prophets

According to Deuteronomy 18:20–22, a prophet is authenticated by:

• Speaking in the name of the true God, Yahweh.

• Speaking only what God commands.

• Delivering prophecies that are fulfilled without contradiction.

• Maintaining moral and doctrinal consistency with God's established revelation.

Moreover, Isaiah 8:20 asserts, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." This provides a measuring rod against which all prophetic claims must be evaluated.

---

II. Muhammad’s Prophethood in Islamic Sources

Islamic tradition holds that Muhammad began receiving revelations through the angel Jibril (Gabriel) in the Cave of Hira around 610 CE. However, multiple early Islamic sources present troubling inconsistencies regarding the origin, nature, and content of these revelations. For instance:

1. The Satanic Verses Incident
   According to Al-Tabari and Al-Waqidi, Muhammad allegedly accepted pagan verses praising the Meccan goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat (cf. Surah An-Najm 53:19–22) and later claimed Satan deceived him. This confession alone, if accurate, directly contradicts the biblical criteria of divine inspiration (cf. Galatians 1:8–9).

2. Doctrinal Divergence
   Muhammad denied the crucifixion of Christ (Surah 4:157), rejected the divine Sonship of Jesus (Surah 112:3), and refuted the Trinity—all core tenets of biblical revelation. His teachings are not a continuation of the biblical narrative but a radical departure.

3. Moral Contradictions
   Unlike the biblical prophets who were held accountable to God's moral standards, Muhammad’s conduct—e.g., his marriage to Aisha at a very young age, the execution of the Banu Qurayza, and sanctioning temporary marriages (mut’ah)—raises serious ethical concerns when held against the fruits expected of a true prophet (Matthew 7:16–20).

---

III. The Cloak of Righteousness: Muhammad’s Sheepskin

Muhammad often claimed continuity with the Abrahamic tradition, portraying himself as the final prophet in a long line of biblical figures. Yet, this alignment was superficial and strategic. While adopting elements of Jewish and Christian scriptures, he simultaneously altered or abrogated their core doctrines to fit a new religious and political paradigm under his authority.

• Appropriation of Biblical Symbols
  Muhammad claimed to restore the "pure monotheism" of Abraham (Surah 2:135), but did so by stripping away the covenantal theology rooted in Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 17:19–21), instead privileging Ishmael.

• Use of Peaceful Language in Early Meccan Surahs
  During his early ministry in Mecca, Muhammad emphasized tolerance and peaceful coexistence. However, once in Medina, the tone of his revelations shifted toward militancy, with calls for jihad (e.g., Surah 9:5, 9:29). This duality reflects a calculated adaptation to political circumstances—a hallmark of deceptive leadership.

---

IV. Fruits of the Prophet: A New Empire, Not a Kingdom of God

Jesus warned that false prophets would be known by their fruits (Matthew 7:16). The fruits of Muhammad’s ministry were the creation of a militarized religious empire, coercion in belief, and the suppression of dissent. The early Islamic conquests were not primarily spiritual revivals but political expansions. This contrasts starkly with the apostles of Christ, who suffered and died for a non-violent, redemptive gospel rooted in sacrificial love and grace.

---

V. Eschatological Warnings and Modern Relevance

Jesus prophesied that “many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many” (Matthew 24:11). Muhammad's influence over 1.9 billion people may be interpreted by some as evidence of divine approval. Yet biblically, numerical success is never the sign of truth (cf. Matthew 7:13–14). In fact, broad acceptance often characterizes deception, especially in the end times. Theologically, Muhammad's legacy aligns not with the suffering servants of the biblical canon but with those who “transform themselves into apostles of Christ, but are false” (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:13–15).

---

Conclusion

This scholarly investigation contends that Muhammad, examined in light of biblical prophetic criteria and early Islamic sources, fulfills the description of a "wolf in sheep's clothing." His teachings subverted foundational biblical doctrines while cloaking themselves in Abrahamic language. While millions have followed him in sincerity, the theological legacy he left diverges from the Gospel of Jesus Christ, making discernment essential in the age of rising spiritual deception.

---

References

1. Al-Tabari, History of the Prophets and Kings, Vol. 6.

2. Sahih Bukhari, Hadith collections.

3. The Holy Qur’an, Surahs cited throughout.

4. The Holy Bible, ESV/NASB.

5. Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah (The Life of Muhammad).

6. G. H. A. Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature.

7. Norman Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam.

8. Samuel Zwemer, The Cross Above the Crescent.

---

Author Bio

Dr. Maxwell Shimba is a theologian, scholar of comparative religion, and founder of the Shimba Theological Institute in New York. He specializes in biblical apologetics and Islamic studies with a focus on prophetic authenticity, eschatology, and restoration theology.

Bananas, Cucumbers, and the Politics of Gendered Morality in Islam

Shimba Theological Institute

Newsletter Article
Bananas, Cucumbers, and the Politics of Gendered Morality in Islam

In recent decades, a number of reports and fatwas emerging from certain Islamic contexts have gained notoriety for their unusual—and deeply gendered—approach to sexuality. Among the most striking examples are clerical warnings issued against women consuming or even looking at objects such as cucumbers and bananas, on the grounds that these fruits allegedly provoke immoral thoughts. While these pronouncements might sound comical on the surface, they reflect a much deeper cultural and theological problem: the disproportionate moral burden placed upon women, contrasted with a conspicuous leniency extended to men.

The policing of female sexuality in Islam has historically been tied to notions of family honor and social stability, wherein women’s bodies become sites of communal control. The prohibition of masturbation, the banning of sexual aids, and even restrictions on seemingly neutral foods underscore a worldview in which female desire is constructed as inherently dangerous and in need of containment. By contrast, in numerous Islamic traditions, men have historically been afforded a wide margin of sexual freedom, sometimes extending to permissiveness in cases of bestiality, which, though repugnant, has been disturbingly minimized by certain jurists. This double standard reveals an asymmetry not only in practice but also in theological imagination, where male transgression is trivialized while female embodiment is demonized.

Theologically, such rulings expose the fragility of a system that cannot articulate a positive doctrine of the body, desire, and pleasure. Rather than acknowledging sexuality as a divine gift, certain Islamic discourses recast the female form and even neutral objects as latent weapons of sin. The image of a woman forbidden from holding a cucumber, lest she succumb to temptation, reflects not divine law but clerical anxiety. Ironically, this creates a parody of morality itself: a universe in which fruit is feared, women are hyper-policed, and men are excused from responsibility. What emerges is not holiness but hypocrisy—a distortion of justice, equity, and divine order.

By contrast, the biblical and Christian theological tradition presents a radically different anthropology. The body is created good (Genesis 1:31), sexuality is sanctified within covenantal marriage (Hebrews 13:4), and moral responsibility is not gendered but universal (Galatians 3:28). Instead of reducing women to potential vectors of temptation, Scripture calls both men and women to holiness, accountability, and mutual honor. It is this vision of equality, justice, and embodied dignity that exposes the absurdity of clerics who fear cucumbers more than corruption, and bananas more than sin.

Conclusion:
The cucumber and banana fatwas should not merely amuse us; they should alert us to the depth of theological distortion that occurs when patriarchal anxieties replace divine revelation. At stake is not the morality of fruit but the integrity of human dignity, especially that of women, who deserve liberation from the crushing weight of such arbitrary and unequal moral codes. True holiness cannot be legislated through fear of vegetables but must be grounded in a biblical vision of the body as God’s temple, where freedom, dignity, and grace prevail.

— Shimba Theological Institute

---

The Capture of Saddam Hussein: A Historical and Theological Reflection

The Capture of Saddam Hussein: A Historical and Theological Reflection
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract:
The capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003 represented a pivotal moment in modern Middle Eastern history, marking a symbolic and strategic turning point in the Iraq War. This article examines the circumstances of his apprehension, the implications for political authority and justice, and a theological reflection on the moral dimensions of leadership and tyranny. Through a multidisciplinary lens, the study situates Hussein’s fall within a broader narrative of accountability, divine justice, and the impermanence of human power.

Introduction:
Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq from 1979 to 2003, was widely recognized as one of the most authoritarian leaders of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. His rule was characterized by centralized power, systematic oppression, and violent suppression of political dissent. International attention to Hussein intensified following the Gulf War of 1990–1991 and the subsequent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The eventual discovery of Hussein after months on the run represented both a tactical success for coalition forces and a symbolic moment illustrating the collapse of despotism.

The Capture:
On a day to be remembered in December 2003, United States forces successfully located Saddam Hussein near his hometown of Tikrit, Iraq. Hussein had been hiding in a rudimentary underground enclosure—colloquially termed a “spider hole”—under a modest farmhouse. This six-foot-deep cavity contained only minimal survival provisions: a small fan and an air vent. Contrary to the fearsome image projected throughout his regime, Hussein appeared disheveled, armed solely with a pistol, and did not resist arrest.

The stark contrast between the simplicity of his hiding place and the grandeur of the palaces he once inhabited symbolically reflected the transience of earthly power. Where once Hussein exercised absolute authority over millions, he was now reduced to isolation and desperation, concealed beneath the soil of the nation he had once controlled. This juxtaposition of former grandeur and present vulnerability provides a compelling illustration of the Biblical principle found in Proverbs 16:18: “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.”

Political and Strategic Significance:
The capture of Saddam Hussein had profound implications for both Iraq and international geopolitics. Strategically, it represented the culmination of months of intelligence gathering, surveillance, and military coordination, demonstrating the effectiveness of modern counterinsurgency operations. Politically, it provided a critical opportunity for Iraq to transition toward post-authoritarian governance, though the ensuing years would reveal the immense complexities of nation-building in a post-dictatorial society.

Moreover, Hussein’s apprehension served as a cautionary exemplar to authoritarian regimes worldwide: no matter the concentration of power, accountability is inevitable. The global dissemination of images depicting Hussein’s confinement underscored the symbolic power of transparency in governance and the moral imperative for justice.

Theological Reflection:
From a theological perspective, the capture of Saddam Hussein invites reflection on the moral responsibilities of leadership and the consequences of oppression. Scripture consistently emphasizes that God holds rulers accountable for their actions (Romans 13:1-4). Hussein’s concealment beneath the earth—a literal descent into darkness—can be interpreted symbolically as divine justice manifesting in human history. While human agencies executed the operation, the event resonates with the Biblical motif that even the most formidable tyrants are subject to moral and cosmic accountability.

Furthermore, Hussein’s fall serves as a reminder of the limits of human dominion and the dangers of pride and corruption. Leadership, when exercised without justice, compassion, or accountability, ultimately invites downfall. Theologically, it reinforces the Biblical vision of righteous governance, wherein power is exercised in service to justice, protection of the vulnerable, and alignment with divine moral order (Micah 6:8).

Conclusion:
The December 2003 capture of Saddam Hussein stands as both a historical and moral watershed. Historically, it marked the culmination of a coordinated military and intelligence operation, reshaping the trajectory of the Iraq War. Symbolically and theologically, it represents the impermanence of tyrannical power and the ethical obligations inherent in leadership. Hussein’s descent from palatial authority to subterranean concealment underscores the broader truth that human power, however absolute it may appear, is finite and accountable.

As historians, theologians, and political scientists continue to examine the Iraq War and its aftermath, the lessons of Saddam Hussein’s capture remain instructive: justice, humility, and moral responsibility are essential for sustainable leadership, and the consequences of neglecting these principles are inevitable. This event endures not only as a historical milestone but as a reminder of the ethical dimensions of governance in a world governed by both human and divine law.

---