Tuesday, December 23, 2025

The Intrinsic Nature of God’s Love

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The declaration of Scripture, “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16), stands not as a description of God’s behavior alone, but as an ontological statement of His very essence. Love is not merely one of God’s many attributes, nor a quality that He assumes in relation to creation, but the intrinsic essence of His being. Just as His holiness and glory are not created nor dependent upon the existence of the world, but eternally existent in and of Himself, so too is love. To deny that love is the essence of God is to misunderstand the fundamental nature of divine reality.

The Ontological Ground of Love

Theologically, love cannot exist independently of God. The modern world often conceives of love as a human construct, an emotional response, or an abstract virtue. Yet such conceptions fail to capture the biblical truth that love exists because God exists. God does not possess love as a quality external to Himself; rather, He is love in His eternal essence. This means that love, like holiness and glory, is not contingent, temporal, or derivative—it is self-existent because God is self-existent (Exod. 3:14, “I AM WHO I AM”).

Within the doctrine of divine simplicity, God is not composed of parts; His essence is identical with His attributes. Thus, His love is not one aspect among many, but the fullness of His being. Just as His holiness is not created but eternally radiant from His nature, and His glory not borrowed but eternally shining from His existence, so His love is uncreated, eternal, and unchanging.

Love in the Trinity

The eternal nature of divine love is most profoundly revealed in the Trinity. Before creation existed, before a single creature could receive love, God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existed in perfect fellowship of love. Augustine writes that within the Trinity, the Father is the Lover, the Son is the Beloved, and the Spirit is the bond of love. This eternal communion demonstrates that love is not dependent on creation; it is ontologically prior to all things. The existence of love in God Himself affirms that love is eternal because God is eternal.

The Manifestation of God’s Love

Although love is intrinsic to God’s essence, it is not static but active. God’s love flows outward in creation and redemption as an expression of His being. Creation itself is an act of love, not because God needed the world, but because His love is so abundant that it freely overflows into existence. Redemption through Christ is the highest manifestation of this love: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son” (John 3:16). Christ’s atonement reveals the eternal reality of divine love breaking into history, not as a new act, but as the eternal love of God manifest in time.

Theological Implications

Love as Divine Essence, Not Attribute: To treat love as a mere attribute risks reducing God to a composite being who has love rather than is love. The doctrine of divine simplicity insists that God is identical with His attributes; hence, to know God is to know love in its purest form.
Love as Eternal and Self-Existent: Since love is grounded in God’s being, it neither originates from human experience nor evolves through history. Instead, it is eternal, necessary, and unchanging.
Love as the Basis of Christian Life: If God’s very essence is love, then Christian existence must flow from this reality. Believers are not called merely to imitate a quality of God but to participate in His divine essence (2 Pet. 1:4). To love, therefore, is to reflect the very being of God who indwells us through His Spirit.

Conclusion

The love of God is not an attribute among many but His very essence—intrinsic, eternal, and uncreated. Just as God’s holiness and glory exist eternally because God Himself is eternal, so His love exists because God is. To confess “God is love” is to confess that the very ground of reality, the eternal “I AM,” is love itself. This love is revealed in the eternal communion of the Trinity and manifested supremely in the redemptive work of Christ. Thus, all love that is true and holy finds its origin not in human emotion but in the eternal God, who is blessed forever. Amen.

The Purity of Water in Islamic Tradition: A Critical Examination of Hadith and Qur’anic Teachings

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The concept of ritual purity (ṭahārah) occupies a central role in Islamic jurisprudence, shaping both the spiritual and practical life of Muslims. Among the most frequently cited sources on this matter is a hadith regarding the well of Budāʿah, in which the Prophet Muhammad is reported to have declared that water remains pure regardless of external impurities. This pronouncement, preserved in Sunan Abī Dāwūd (No. 67), has been pivotal in Islamic debates on ritual cleanliness, but it also invites theological and scientific scrutiny when measured against Qur’anic injunctions and broader prophetic traditions.

The Hadith of the Well of Budāʿah

Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī narrated:

“It was said, O Messenger of Allah, shall we perform ablution from the well of Budāʿah, which dead dogs, menstrual rags, and putrid things are thrown into? The Messenger of Allah replied: ‘Water is pure and nothing makes it impure.’” (Sunan Abī Dāwūd, 67; also transmitted in al-Tirmidhī and al-Nasā’ī).

This hadith has been used to establish the principle that large bodies of water cannot be rendered impure, even when polluted by external contaminants. However, it raises significant theological, legal, and ethical questions when juxtaposed with Qur’anic verses that emphasize both physical and spiritual cleanliness.

Qur’anic Injunctions on Purity

The Qur’an repeatedly underscores the necessity of purity and warns against contamination, both literal and figurative:

Qur’an 2:222: “Indeed, Allah loves those who are constantly repentant and loves those who purify themselves.”
Qur’an 5:6: “O you who believe! When you rise to pray, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, wipe over your heads, and wash your feet up to the ankles…”
Qur’an 74:4: “And your clothing purify.”
Qur’an 9:108: “…within it are men who love to purify themselves, and Allah loves those who purify themselves.”

These verses suggest that both ritual and physical cleanliness are not only encouraged but commanded. It is therefore problematic to reconcile the notion that water filled with carcasses and waste could still be considered “pure” in a hygienic or ritual sense.

Comparative Hadith Literature

Additional hadith illustrate a similar tension. For example:

Prohibition of Urinating in Standing Water
Abū Hurayrah reported:

“The Messenger of Allah said: ‘None of you should urinate in standing water and then wash in it.’” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 239; Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 282).

This tradition contradicts the Budāʿah hadith by acknowledging that human waste does indeed render water unsuitable for ritual purification.

Avoidance of Impurity
The Prophet is also reported to have said:

“Beware of the three acts that cause you to be cursed: relieving yourselves in shaded places, in pathways, and in watering places.” (Sunan Abī Dāwūd, 26).

This indicates that Muhammad recognized the dangers of contaminating communal resources and discouraged practices that spread impurity.

Cleanliness as Half of Faith
Abū Mālik al-Ashʿarī narrated:

“The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Purification is half of faith.’” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 223).

Here, cleanliness is elevated to a fundamental principle of Islamic piety, suggesting that hygiene cannot be divorced from spiritual devotion.

Scholarly and Theological Analysis

From an academic perspective, the hadith of the well of Budāʿah introduces a theological inconsistency when held against other Islamic sources. On one hand, Muhammad proclaimed water to be impervious to impurity, even when visibly defiled by dead animals and waste. On the other hand, he prohibited urination in stagnant water, condemned unhygienic practices, and emphasized purification as integral to faith.

Moreover, when examined through the lens of modern hygiene and water science, the Budāʿah hadith raises significant concerns. The presence of decomposing carcasses and menstrual cloths would undeniably render water unfit for consumption or ritual use by any rational standard of sanitation. Thus, this hadith not only contradicts other prophetic reports but also undermines the Qur’anic principle that God loves those who keep themselves pure.

Conclusion

The Islamic tradition contains both affirmations of absolute water purity, as seen in the hadith of Budāʿah, and explicit prohibitions against polluting water. This tension reveals an inconsistency within the hadith corpus that challenges both theological coherence and practical application. When measured against the Qur’an’s repeated call for purity—both ritual and physical—the Budāʿah hadith appears out of harmony with broader Islamic values. Such critical examination is essential for understanding how Islamic jurisprudence developed and how it continues to face challenges of textual reliability, theological integrity, and scientific validity.

📚 References

The Qur’an, Surahs 2:222, 5:6, 9:108, 74:4.
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Hadith Nos. 239.
Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Hadith Nos. 223, 282.
Sunan Abī Dāwūd, Hadith Nos. 26, 67.
Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī; al-Nasā’ī, parallel reports.

The Silence of Allah: A Scholarly Challenge to Islamic Claims of Divine Self-Disclosure

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

Muslim apologists frequently challenge Christians by demanding verbatim biblical statements from Jesus such as, “I am God; worship me.” Their argument hinges upon the absence of explicit self-claims of divinity in these exact words. However, when the same standard is applied to Islam, a glaring inconsistency emerges. Nowhere in the Qur’an does Allah ever declare directly to Muhammad, “I am Allah; worship me.” This article explores the theological implications of such silence, arguing that by Muslim reasoning itself, Allah cannot be regarded as God, and Muhammad’s prophetic claims are rendered invalid.

Introduction

The question of divine self-disclosure lies at the heart of theological debate between Christianity and Islam. Muslims often ask Christians to produce explicit words from Jesus affirming His divinity. However, Islam itself suffers from the very deficiency it critiques. Nowhere in the Qur’an is Muhammad given a direct, personal declaration from Allah that confirms His identity as God and commands exclusive worship.

1. The Islamic Argument Against Jesus

Islamic polemics rest on the absence of verbatim phrases in the New Testament. The typical challenge is: “Where did Jesus ever say, ‘I am God, worship me’?” (cf. Ahmad Deedat, Zakir Naik). The assumption is that without an explicit declaration, Jesus’ divinity is invalid.

Yet, this reasoning disregards numerous scriptural affirmations:

Jesus accepted worship (Matthew 14:33; John 9:38).
Jesus identified Himself with the divine name “I AM” (John 8:58).
The apostles and early Church universally proclaimed Him as Lord and God (John 20:28; Philippians 2:6–11).

If this strict standard is binding, it must also be applied to Islam.

2. The Qur’anic Silence of Allah

The Qur’an consistently refers to Allah in the third person: “Indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him” (Qur’an 3:51). Yet, these statements are usually placed in the mouths of prophets, not Allah directly declaring to Muhammad:

“Indeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me, so worship Me and establish prayer for My remembrance” (Qur’an 20:14).

Here, it must be noted: this statement is allegedly spoken to Moses at the burning bush, not to Muhammad. Crucially, Muhammad never receives such a direct self-revelation from Allah.

Thus, the Qur’an contains no moment where Allah addresses Muhammad personally with the words: “I am Allah; worship Me.”

3. Implications for Muhammad’s Prophethood

If Muslims insist that Jesus is not divine because He did not utter specific words, then the same logic must be applied to Muhammad:

Muhammad never heard Allah’s voice proclaiming His identity.
No direct statement of self-revelation was ever given.
Therefore, Muhammad had no divine guarantee of Allah’s existence or authority.

By Islamic reasoning itself, Allah cannot be proven to be God, and Muhammad’s claim to prophethood collapses. This creates a theological paradox: the very argument Muslims use against Christianity becomes the undoing of Islam.

4. The Christian Perspective on Divine Revelation

Unlike Allah’s silence, the God of the Bible revealed Himself throughout salvation history with direct self-claims:

To Moses: “I am the LORD your God… You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:2–3).
To the prophets: “I am God, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:5).
Through Christ: “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).

The biblical model is consistent: God does not leave His identity ambiguous. In contrast, Islam’s Qur’an fails to provide Muhammad with any such direct divine declaration.

Conclusion

By applying the same standards Muslims demand of Christians, Islam collapses under its own weight. If explicit self-declaration is required for divinity, then Allah’s silence disqualifies Him from being God, and Muhammad’s message loses legitimacy. The Christian God reveals Himself clearly and personally, culminating in Jesus Christ, who is worshipped as Lord and God. Islam, therefore, stands as a system built upon a deity who never affirmed Himself to His prophet.

Bibliography

The Qur’an, translations by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Saheeh International, and Pickthall.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV).
Ahmad Deedat, Is Jesus God? (Islamic Propagation Centre International, 1981).
Zakir Naik, The Concept of God in Major Religions (Islamic Research Foundation, 1997).
F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Eerdmans, 2003).
N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress Press, 1996).

Allah Never Said to Muhammad: “I Am God, Worship Me” — A Scholarly Debate Challenge to Islam

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

Muslims repeatedly challenge Christians with the demand: “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am God, worship me’?” This polemical strategy, championed by Islamic preachers such as Ahmad Deedat and Zakir Naik, seeks to undermine the divinity of Jesus by appealing to the absence of verbatim declarations in the Gospels. Yet, when this standard is applied to Islam itself, a fundamental contradiction emerges. Nowhere in the Qur’an does Allah ever speak directly to Muhammad with the explicit words: “I am Allah; worship Me.” This absence undermines the credibility of Allah’s identity and Muhammad’s prophethood when judged by Islam’s own argumentative criteria.

1. The Muslim Polemical Argument Against Jesus

The Islamic argument is straightforward: if Jesus is truly God, then He should have explicitly declared, in unambiguous words, “I am God, worship Me.” Because such a phrase does not exist in the New Testament, Muslims assert that Jesus never claimed divinity.

This claim, however, fails on several grounds:

Jesus accepted worship (Matthew 14:33; John 9:38), a prerogative belonging only to God in Jewish monotheism.
Jesus identified Himself with the divine name “I AM” (John 8:58; cf. Exodus 3:14).
The apostles confessed His deity: Thomas declared, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).
The early Church universally worshipped Jesus as divine (Philippians 2:6–11).

Thus, though the exact Muslim-demanded phrase is absent, the substance of Jesus’ divinity is explicit.

2. The Qur’an’s Lack of Direct Divine Self-Revelation to Muhammad

If Muslims apply this same standard to their own religion, an uncomfortable reality emerges: Allah never once tells Muhammad, “I am Allah; worship Me.”

The Qur’an often attributes declarations to Allah in the third person:

“Indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him” (Qur’an 3:51).
“So know that there is no deity except Allah” (Qur’an 47:19).

But in none of these instances is Muhammad personally addressed with a first-person, divine self-revelation.

The one verse that appears similar is Qur’an 20:14:

“Indeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me, so worship Me and establish prayer for My remembrance.”

Yet this was allegedly spoken to Moses at the burning bush, not to Muhammad. Muhammad, the supposed final prophet, never once received a direct “I am God” declaration.

3. The Logical Consequences for Islam

If Muslims reject the divinity of Jesus because He did not use their demanded formula, then consistency requires rejecting the deity of Allah and the prophethood of Muhammad, since:

Allah never personally identified Himself to Muhammad.
Muhammad received no divine confirmation in the Qur’an that his source was truly God.
By Muslim reasoning, Allah is disqualified as God and Muhammad becomes a false prophet ad infinitum.

The argument Muslims wield against Christianity thus backfires fatally upon Islam itself.

4. Contrast with Biblical Divine Self-Revelation

The God of the Bible repeatedly and unambiguously revealed Himself throughout salvation history:

To Moses: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt… You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:2–3).
Through Isaiah: “I am the LORD, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:5).
Through Christ: “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).

This continuity of divine self-revelation stands in stark contrast to the silence of Allah toward Muhammad.

5. The Debate Challenge to Islam

If Muslims insist that Jesus must say “I am God, worship Me” to be divine, then by the exact same standard:

Where in the Qur’an did Allah ever say to Muhammad: “I am Allah; worship Me”?
Where is the verbatim self-declaration to Muhammad that establishes Allah’s divine identity?

The answer is: nowhere. Islam’s God never spoke these words to Muhammad.

Therefore, by Islam’s own argumentative framework:

Allah cannot be proven to be God.
Muhammad cannot be proven to be a prophet.

Conclusion

The silence of Allah in the Qur’an is deafening. By demanding explicit divine declarations from Christians, Muslims have trapped themselves in a standard that their own faith cannot meet. The God of the Bible speaks directly, clearly, and repeatedly to His people. Allah never once tells Muhammad, “I am God, worship Me.” On Islamic grounds, therefore, Allah fails the test of divinity, and Muhammad’s prophethood collapses. Christianity, in contrast, rests on a God who reveals Himself fully and finally in Jesus Christ, the eternal Word made flesh.

Bibliography

The Qur’an, translations by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Saheeh International, and Pickthall.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV).
Ahmad Deedat, Is Jesus God? (Islamic Propagation Centre International, 1981).
Zakir Naik, The Concept of God in Major Religions (Islamic Research Foundation, 1997).
F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Eerdmans, 2003).
N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress Press, 1996).
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Crossway, 2008).

The Danger of Following a Blind Man: Muhammad in Theological and Historical Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba – Shimba Theological Institute

1. Introduction: The Principle of Blind Leadership

In biblical wisdom literature, Jesus warns, “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit?” (Luke 6:39). This timeless principle applies to any religious leader who lacks the light of truth and divine revelation. When the leader himself is in darkness—spiritually blind—his followers inevitably walk toward destruction. The Qur’an itself acknowledges that Muhammad did not know the truth before supposed “revelations” came to him (Qur’an 42:52), and Islamic traditions reveal that he initially feared his experiences were demonic (Sahih Bukhari 6982). This raises serious theological concerns about the trustworthiness of his spiritual guidance.

2. Muhammad’s Spiritual Blindness

Biblically, spiritual blindness is not merely ignorance—it is the inability to discern the truth of God’s salvation in Christ. Muhammad denied the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus (Qur’an 4:157), directly rejecting the central truth of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). This rejection alone places him among those whom Scripture describes as “the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 4:4).
His teachings replaced the certainty of salvation in Christ (John 10:28) with the uncertainty of works-based religion, where even he confessed he was unsure of his own eternal fate (Sahih Bukhari 5:266). Thus, he was leading without sight toward an unknown destination.

3. The Historical Consequences of Following Muhammad

A blind guide not only misdirects spiritually but also leads to physical and societal calamity. History records that after gaining political and military power in Medina, Muhammad shifted from peaceful persuasion to violent conquest. Islamic sources confirm the military subjugation of Arabian tribes, executions of dissenters (e.g., Banu Qurayza massacre), and institutionalized slavery—all justified under his claimed divine mandate.
The result was not the peace of Christ (“My peace I give to you” – John 14:27), but the spread of faith by the sword, producing a system where coercion and fear replaced the liberty of the Gospel (Galatians 5:1).

4. Theological Warning

To follow Muhammad is to follow a leader who denied the Light of the World (John 8:12) and replaced it with a path of human works, uncertain mercy, and earthly conquest. The Bible’s warning is clear: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him” (2 John 1:10). Spiritual blindness in a leader is not a private flaw—it is a public danger. Those who follow such a leader share in the same destiny of destruction unless they turn to the One who opens blind eyes (John 9:39–41).

Conclusion

History, theology, and Scripture converge on this truth: following Muhammad is following a man who walked in spiritual darkness, denied the saving work of Christ, and instituted a system that perpetuated both spiritual and societal bondage. The danger is not only the loss of earthly freedom but also eternal separation from God. The call is urgent—abandon blind guides and follow the true Shepherd, Jesus Christ, who alone can say, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).

Why Did Muhammad Turn Away from the Blind? A Theological Challenge to His Prophetic Claim

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The Qur’an recounts a striking incident in Surah 80:1–2: “He (Muhammad) frowned and turned away, because the blind man came to him.” This passage has raised significant theological and historical questions regarding Muhammad’s prophetic authority and character. Unlike the prophets and apostles of the Bible, who demonstrated divine power through acts of healing—including restoring sight to the blind—Muhammad neither healed the afflicted nor treated them with compassion in this particular episode. This paper critically evaluates the implications of this account and challenges the Islamic claim of Muhammad’s prophethood.

The Biblical Tradition of Healing the Blind

In the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, healing the blind stands as a powerful sign of divine authority. The prophet Elisha, though not directly performing sight restoration, participated in miracles demonstrating God’s power over life and death (2 Kings 4–6). More profoundly, Jesus Christ fulfilled the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 35:5: “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened.” The Gospels consistently testify to Jesus’ miraculous healing of the blind (e.g., Mark 10:46–52; John 9:1–12). Moreover, the apostles, empowered by the Holy Spirit, continued this ministry of healing (Acts 9:17–18; Acts 14:8–10). Thus, the biblical prophetic tradition not only proclaimed God’s truth but also tangibly demonstrated His power through signs of mercy and restoration.

Muhammad’s Response in Contrast

Against this background, the Qur’anic account in Surah 80 presents Muhammad’s conduct as antithetical to prophetic compassion. Faced with a blind man—traditionally identified as ʿAbdullāh ibn Umm Maktūm—Muhammad “frowned and turned away.” Rather than offering healing, comfort, or dignity, Muhammad distanced himself, preferring instead to engage with wealthy pagan leaders. This choice of social preference contradicts the biblical model of prophetic concern for the marginalized, epitomized in Jesus’ ministry to the poor, the sick, and the outcast.

Theologically, this raises a fundamental question: If Muhammad were truly a prophet of God, why did he not embody divine compassion by healing the blind, as seen in the ministries of Christ and the apostles? Why did he prioritize the influential elite over the vulnerable? The absence of healing miracles in Muhammad’s ministry undermines his claim to continuity with the prophetic tradition recognized in the Bible.

Implications for Prophetic Authenticity

The Qur’anic narrative of Muhammad turning away exposes a critical weakness in Islamic claims about his prophethood. True prophets of God not only declare divine revelation but also manifest the power of God through acts of compassion and miraculous signs that authenticate their message. Muhammad’s inability to heal the blind—and his decision to avoid him—suggests a human weakness inconsistent with the prophetic office. Instead of demonstrating God’s power over infirmity, Muhammad displayed social favoritism and human limitation.

This stands in stark contrast to Jesus Christ, who declared, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor… recovery of sight for the blind” (Luke 4:18). Where Christ brought light, healing, and hope, Muhammad’s response was withdrawal, silence, and rejection.

Conclusion

The episode in Qur’an 80:1–2 provides compelling evidence for questioning Muhammad’s prophetic legitimacy. A prophet who cannot heal the blind—either physically or spiritually—cannot stand in continuity with the biblical line of prophets culminating in Christ. Instead of demonstrating divine authority, Muhammad’s actions reveal human weakness, social bias, and an absence of miraculous authentication. Thus, Muhammad’s failure to heal or even dignify the blind man challenges the Islamic claim of his prophethood and underscores the superiority of Jesus Christ as the true Prophet, Messiah, and Savior.

Two Reasons Why Mohammed Is Not a Prophet

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute, New York, NY

Introduction

The claim of Mohammed’s prophethood has been a central theological point of contention between Islam and Christianity. While Muslims revere Mohammed as the “Seal of the Prophets,” a closer examination of both scriptural evidence and historical tradition raises serious doubts about this assertion. In particular, two issues stand out: (1) the so-called Seal of Prophethood represented by a physical mole, and (2) the method by which Mohammed received his alleged revelations. Both diverge sharply from the biblical model of authentic prophecy.

1. The “Seal of Prophethood” and the Hairy Mole

Islamic tradition maintains that Mohammed bore a large, raised, hairy mole on his back, which was interpreted by his followers as the “Seal of Prophethood.” This physical mark was taken as a sign of divine calling and authority. However, such a notion finds no precedent in biblical prophecy.

In Scripture, prophets are not authenticated by physical traits but by their spiritual election and their faithfulness in delivering God’s Word. Moses, despite his speech impediment, was chosen by God because God equips those He calls (Exodus 4:10–12). Likewise, David was selected not for outward appearance but for the condition of his heart (1 Samuel 16:7). The biblical pattern demonstrates that God’s call is rooted in inner character and divine commission, not in physical anomalies.

Thus, the reliance on a bodily mark—a mole—as proof of prophetic status departs from the biblical framework and reduces prophecy to a superstition rooted in external signs rather than divine election and spiritual authority.

2. The Method of Revelation

A second issue lies in the manner in which Mohammed reportedly received his revelations. According to Islamic tradition and Qur’anic testimony (Qur’an 2:97; 16:102; 26:192–195), Mohammed did not hear directly from God but relied on the mediation of an angel, identified as Jibreel (Gabriel).

This sharply contrasts the biblical prophetic model. Scripture consistently records prophets receiving God’s Word directly, often introduced with the authoritative declaration: “Thus says the Lord” (Isaiah 1:10; Jeremiah 1:4; Ezekiel 1:3). Amos 3:7 reinforces this principle: “Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.” The absence of an intermediary is crucial, for biblical prophecy emphasizes the immediacy of God’s voice to His chosen messengers.

Even more troubling are the Islamic accounts of Mohammed’s initial encounter with the angel. Tradition reports that Mohammed was physically seized and choked, leaving him shaken, fearful, and doubtful of the experience. This violent initiation stands in stark opposition to the biblical record. When God called Samuel, it was a gentle, persistent summons (1 Samuel 3:4–10). When Moses encountered God in the burning bush, it was profound, awe-inspiring, yet peaceful (Exodus 3:1–6). Divine encounters in Scripture inspire reverence and holy fear but not physical harm or confusion.

Furthermore, the Qur’an itself acknowledges that Mohammed did not converse directly with Allah (Qur’an 53:10–11), underscoring the lack of immediacy that characterizes true biblical prophecy.

Conclusion

The claims of Mohammed’s prophethood collapse when tested against the biblical model. A prophet authenticated by a mole, who never spoke directly to God, and who received messages through traumatic and mediated encounters, cannot be reconciled with the prophetic standards established in Scripture. Genuine prophecy is confirmed not by external marks or coercive experiences but by direct, unmistakable communication from God and the faithful transmission of His Word.

Therefore, Mohammed’s claim to prophethood cannot be sustained. Rather than revealing divine truth, his message represents a distortion of it. The God of the Bible does not validate His messengers with moles or choking—His truth is communicated with clarity, authority, and unmistakable divine presence.

📖 Pictured is the so-called “Seal of the Prophets” as described in Islamic tradition, believed to have appeared on the back of Mohammed, a middle-aged illiterate man.

Reference: Description of the Seal of Prophethood – Link

Muhammad’s Urine and the Claim of Protection from Hellfire: A Critical Examination

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the most striking and controversial narrations attributed to Prophet Muhammad is the claim that drinking his urine grants protection from hellfire. This report, found in Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti’s al-Khasāʾiṣ al-Kubrā (vol. 2, p. 253), references an incident in which a slave girl allegedly consumed the Prophet’s urine, to which he replied: “Surely she has protected herself from the hellfire with a great wall.” The narration is attributed to reliable transmitters, including al-Tabarani and al-Bayhaqi, through the testimony of Ḥukaymah bint Umaymah.

This claim raises profound theological, ethical, and rational questions. Can bodily excretions, such as urine, possess salvific power? Is this consistent with the message of God in the Abrahamic tradition? Does such a statement support the credibility of Muhammad as a prophet of God?

Critical Theological Assessment

From a biblical and theological standpoint, the notion that urine could protect one from divine judgment is entirely alien. The God of the Bible associates salvation with holiness, righteousness, and faith in His Word—not with the consumption of human waste. Scripture explicitly teaches that nothing unclean or impure can bring salvation:

“But nothing unclean will ever enter it [the New Jerusalem], nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” (Revelation 21:27, ESV).
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing.” (John 6:63).

By contrast, this hadith not only contradicts divine holiness but also diminishes the dignity of God’s supposed prophet by attributing spiritual efficacy to bodily waste.

Historical Context of Al-Suyuti’s Report

Al-Suyuti (d. 1505 CE) was a renowned jurist and hadith compiler, known for gathering reports that exalted Muhammad’s person. His al-Khasāʾiṣ al-Kubrā is a collection of “special virtues” of the Prophet, often uncritically compiling extraordinary claims, many of which exaggerate his supernatural attributes. While some scholars within Islam argue that these reports should not be taken literally, their presence in authoritative texts reveals the tendency within Islamic tradition to elevate Muhammad beyond human limitations.

However, from an academic perspective, such narrations undermine, rather than strengthen, the credibility of Muhammad as a prophet. If salvation is reduced to the drinking of urine, then the entire moral and spiritual framework of revelation collapses into absurdity.

A False Claim of Prophethood

The claim that Muhammad’s urine could save from hellfire cannot come from the true God, the Creator of heaven and earth. The biblical prophets never associated salvation with bodily waste. Instead, they consistently proclaimed repentance, holiness, and faith in God as the way to eternal life. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, declared:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6).

If Muhammad taught or endorsed a doctrine wherein urine could grant eternal protection, then such a teaching reveals a false prophet who substituted human absurdities for divine truth.

Conclusion

The hadith reported by al-Suyuti in al-Khasāʾiṣ al-Kubrā (2:253) must be rejected as an invention inconsistent with divine revelation. It contradicts the holiness of God, the biblical witness, and rational morality. Far from proving Muhammad’s elevated status, it exposes the problematic nature of his prophetic claims. The true way of salvation is not found in bodily excretions but in Jesus Christ, who alone is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).

References

Al-Suyuti, Jalal al-Din. al-Khasāʾiṣ al-Kubrā. Vol. 2. Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyya, n.d.
Al-Tabarani, Sulayman ibn Ahmad. al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr. Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-ʿArabi, n.d.
Al-Bayhaqi, Ahmad ibn Husayn. Shuʿab al-Imān. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1990.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version.
Ibn Ishaq. Sirat Rasul Allah. Trans. A. Guillaume. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955.
Schacht, Joseph. An Introduction to Islamic Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964.
Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Mecca. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953.

A Critical Examination of Muhammad’s Claims About Allah’s Image

Anthropomorphism in Hadith: A Critical Examination of Muhammad’s Claims About Allah’s Image

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The theological portrayal of God’s nature has always been a point of contention between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. The Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes the transcendence and incomparability of Allah, declaring “There is nothing like unto Him” (Qur’an 42:11). In contrast, several hadiths attributed to Muhammad depict Allah in highly anthropomorphic terms—sometimes even resembling a human being. This creates a theological contradiction between the Qur’anic presentation of Allah as wholly unlike creation and Muhammad’s descriptions of Allah in hadith literature.

One such hadith is found in Sahih Muslim 2612e, which records Muhammad as saying: “When any one of you fights with his brother, he should avoid his face, for Allah created Adam in His own image.” The implication of this narration is that Allah possesses an “image” (ṣūrah) comparable to Adam’s form, thus raising the question: did Muhammad inadvertently ascribe human attributes to Allah, contradicting the Qur’an itself?

The Qur’an’s Theology of Transcendence

The Qur’an is explicit in denying anthropomorphism:

“Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives [all] vision” (Qur’an 6:103).
“There is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing” (Qur’an 42:11).
“He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him” (Qur’an 112:3–4).

These verses emphasize Allah’s absolute otherness, rejecting the idea that He could resemble creation in form or image.

Anthropomorphic Hadiths in Islam

In contrast, hadith literature introduces strikingly anthropomorphic descriptions of Allah:

Allah in Adam’s Image (Sahih Muslim 2612e): Adam was created in Allah’s image, implying similarity.
Allah’s Physical Form (Sahih al-Bukhari 7439): Muhammad described Allah as “a young man with curly hair, wearing a green garment.”
Allah’s Measurements: Some narrations even claim Adam’s height (60 cubits, about 90 feet) was modeled after Allah’s form (Sahih al-Bukhari 3326).

Such depictions suggest that Muhammad’s descriptions of Allah were inconsistent with the Qur’an’s rejection of corporeality.

Biblical Parallels and Distinctions

The Bible indeed declares that humanity was created in God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:26–27). However, Christian theology interprets this not as a physical resemblance, but as a reflection of God’s moral, spiritual, and rational nature. The divine image in humanity refers to qualities such as reason, relational capacity, and dominion—not physical form (cf. Colossians 3:10, Ephesians 4:24).

Thus, while Christianity acknowledges that man is made in God’s image, it resists crude anthropomorphism. By contrast, Muhammad’s hadithic statements lean towards corporeal anthropomorphism, even detailing Allah’s youthful appearance and bodily dimensions.

Theological Contradictions in Muhammad’s Claims

The hadiths raise serious questions about Muhammad’s knowledge and his prophetic claims:

Contradiction with the Qur’an: If Allah has an image like Adam, this nullifies the Qur’anic teaching of Allah’s transcendence.
Confusion of Divine Attributes: Muhammad portrays Allah both as incomprehensible (via the Qur’an) and as corporeal (via hadith), producing theological inconsistency.
Prophetic Reliability: If Muhammad misrepresented Allah by attributing anthropomorphic qualities to Him, this undermines his credibility as a prophet who claims to deliver divine revelation.

Conclusion

The Islamic hadith tradition, by presenting Allah in anthropomorphic and even corporeal terms, stands in tension with the Qur’an’s insistence on divine incomparability. In contrast, the Bible presents a consistent theological framework: man is created in God’s image, not in physical form, but in spiritual and moral essence.

Muhammad’s contradictory statements raise significant doubts about his prophetic claims. If Allah is indeed transcendent as the Qur’an insists, then Muhammad’s portrayal of Allah as a man with youthful features cannot be reconciled with authentic divine revelation.

References

The Qur’an: Surah 6:103; 42:11; 112:3–4.
Sahih Muslim 2612e.
Sahih al-Bukhari 7439, 3326.
Genesis 1:26–27; Colossians 3:10; Ephesians 4:24.
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim.
Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari.
Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim.
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 15.

📚 Bible vs 📙 Quran – A Comparison

1. Authorship

Bible: Written by 40+ known authors (prophets, kings, fishermen, doctors, etc.) over 1,400 years, across 3 continents (Asia, Africa, Europe), in 3 languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek).
Quran: Attributed to one man (Muhammad), compiled by his followers after his death, with uncertain textual history and no independent witnesses.

2. Size (Word Count)

Bible: 773,746 words (English KJV count).
Quran: 77,430 words (Arabic).
➡️ The Bible is about 10 times larger.

3. Chapters (Structure)

Bible: 1,189 chapters (Old Testament – 929; New Testament – 260).
Quran: 114 surahs (chapters).

4. Verses

Bible: 31,102 verses.
Quran: About 6,236 verses (including Bismillah counts, sometimes disputed).

5. Content

Bible: Covers creation, history, prophecy, law, poetry, wisdom, gospels, letters, and revelation. Contains 3,000+ fulfilled prophecies and detailed history spanning thousands of years.
Quran: Mostly repetitive commands, borrowed stories, and legal rulings. Very few prophecies, no coherent timeline, and many contradictions.

6. Message

Bible: Unified story of God’s love, pointing to salvation through Jesus Christ from Genesis to Revelation.
Quran: Emphasizes submission to Allah, without a consistent theme of redemption or grace.

✅ Conclusion:
The Bible is a vast, multi-authored, historically grounded, prophetic, and spiritually deep collection of writings inspired by God. The Quran is a much smaller, one-man narrative, limited in scope, and incomparable to the richness and authority of the Bible.

📚 The Bible vs 📙 The Quran – A Debate

Opening Statement

You cannot compare the Bible and the Quran. One is the Word of God through many witnesses across centuries; the other is the word of one man, written down by others after his death.

1. Authorship

Bible: Written by 40+ known authors (prophets, kings, shepherds, doctors, fishermen) over 1,400 years, on 3 continents, in 3 languages. Despite diversity, it speaks one consistent message: God’s plan of salvation through Jesus Christ.
Quran: Attributed to one man—Muhammad, who never wrote it down himself. Compiled years after his death, with no external witnesses. Even Islamic tradition admits verses were lost, altered, or forgotten.

Question: Which is more reliable—many voices agreeing over centuries, or one man with no witnesses?

2. Word Count

Bible: 773,746 words.
Quran: 77,430 words.
➡️ The Bible is 10 times larger, offering greater history, prophecy, teaching, and wisdom.

3. Chapters & Verses

Bible: 1,189 chapters, 31,102 verses.
Quran: 114 surahs, 6,236 verses.
➡️ The Bible is a library; the Quran is a pamphlet by comparison.

4. Content

Bible: Covers creation, law, prophecy, poetry, history, gospels, and letters. Contains 3,000+ fulfilled prophecies and accurate history verified by archaeology.
Quran: Repeats itself, borrows from Jewish and Christian writings, and lacks detailed prophecies or historical verification.

Challenge: Can Muslims point to even one clear fulfilled prophecy in the Quran?

5. Message

Bible: A unified story of love, grace, and redemption. From Genesis to Revelation, it points to Jesus Christ as Savior.
Quran: A book of law, threats, and submission. No Savior, no cross, no assurance of forgiveness—only fear and uncertainty.

Closing Statement

The Bible is God’s masterpiece: many authors, one message, centuries in the making, yet perfectly unified. The Quran is the word of one man, small in size, repetitive in message, and empty of salvation.

So, the real question is: Why settle for one man’s words when you can have the living Word of God?