Friday, January 2, 2026

Claim: Allah stopped speaking after the death of Waraqa ibn Nawfal.

 Claim: Allah stopped speaking after the death of Waraqa ibn Nawfal.

In early Islamic sources, Waraqa ibn Nawfal—Khadijah’s cousin and a learned Christian—played a decisive role at the beginning of Muhammad’s prophetic experience. After the first alleged revelation in the cave of Hira, Muhammad was frightened and confused. Khadijah took him to Waraqa, who interpreted the experience and reassured him by identifying the being encountered as the same spirit who came to Moses.

Significantly, shortly after Waraqa’s death, the Islamic sources themselves record a complete cessation of revelation (fatrat al-wahy). During this period, Muhammad received no messages, became deeply distressed, and even contemplated suicide according to early reports. Revelation only resumed later, without Waraqa’s presence.

Theological and Historical Implication

From a critical perspective, this raises a serious question:

  • If Allah is eternal, omniscient, and independent, why would divine communication cease immediately after the death of a human interpreter?

  • Why would “revelation” require reassurance, explanation, and validation from a Christian figure before continuing?

The pause after Waraqa’s death strongly suggests that the early formation and continuation of the message was dependent on human mediation, rather than on a consistently self-authenticating divine source.

Contrast with Biblical Revelation

In contrast, the Bible presents God as continuously speaking across generations—before, during, and after prophets—without dependence on a single human validator:

“The word of the LORD endures forever.” (Isaiah 40:8)

Biblical revelation does not collapse or pause because a single counselor or interpreter dies; it is grounded in God’s unchanging nature, not human scaffolding.

Conclusion

The historical silence following Waraqa’s death is not a minor detail. It challenges the claim of uninterrupted, self-sustaining divine revelation and points instead to human influence at the foundation of early Islam.


A Critical Examination of the Moon-God Theory, Pre-Islamic Arabia, and Qur’anic Theology

 

A Critical Examination of the Moon-God Theory, Pre-Islamic Arabia, and Qur’anic Theology

By Shimba Theological Institute


Introduction

Among critics of Islam, a recurring claim asserts that Allah was originally a female deity, a moon goddess who later underwent a theological “gender reassignment” into a masculine monotheistic god. This claim is often linked to pre-Islamic Arabian religion, the so-called “moon-god theory,” and the Qur’anic mention of three female figures—al-Lāt, al-ʿUzzā, and Manāt.

This article does not merely repeat popular polemics. Instead, it critically examines the historical, linguistic, archaeological, and theological claims behind the assertion and evaluates whether they withstand academic scrutiny.


1. Pre-Islamic Arabia: Polytheism and the Kaaba

Pre-Islamic Arabia was unquestionably polytheistic. According to Islamic and non-Islamic sources alike, the Kaaba housed numerous idols representing tribal deities. Among them were:

  • al-Lāt

  • al-ʿUzzā

  • Manāt

The Qur’an itself acknowledges their worship:

“Have you considered al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā? And Manāt, the third, the other?”
— Qur’an 53:19–20

Importantly, the Qur’an explicitly rejects the belief that these goddesses were daughters of Allah:

“Is the male for you and for Him the female?”
— Qur’an 53:21

This polemic indicates that Muhammad confronted existing pagan theology, not that Allah emerged from it.


2. The Moon-God Theory: Origins and Problems

The “Allah as a moon god” theory gained popularity through 19th–20th century Orientalist speculation and later Christian apologetics.

Key Problems with the Theory:

  1. No inscriptional evidence proves that Allah was ever a moon deity.

  2. Arabian moon gods (e.g., Sin, Wadd) are named and distinct from Allah.

  3. The Qur’an condemns celestial worship, including the moon:

“Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon…”
— Qur’an 41:37

If Allah were originally a moon god, this condemnation would be theologically incoherent.


3. Linguistic Claim: Is “Allah” Feminine?

A common argument claims that Allah is linguistically feminine because the name ends with ه (hāʾ). This argument is linguistically incorrect.

Arabic Grammar Facts:

  • Feminine nouns in Arabic are typically marked by tāʾ marbūṭa (ة), not hāʾ (ه).

  • The word Allah (الله) does not contain a feminine ending.

  • Classical Arabic grammar treats Allah as grammatically masculine, though semantically transcendent of gender.

The Qur’an itself denies biological gender to God:

“He neither begets nor is born.”
— Qur’an 112:3

Thus, the linguistic argument for Allah’s femininity fails.


4. Crescent Moon Symbol: Theology or Politics?

The crescent moon commonly seen on flags of Muslim-majority nations is often cited as evidence of moon worship.

Historical Reality:

  • The crescent became associated with Islam centuries after Muhammad, particularly under the Ottoman Empire.

  • The Qur’an never endorses the crescent as a religious symbol.

  • Early Islam used no universal religious iconography.

Therefore, the crescent moon is political and cultural, not theological.


5. Were Allah’s “Daughters” Evidence of a Goddess Origin?

The Qur’an records pagan Arabs calling angels or deities “daughters of Allah,” but this is portrayed as blasphemy, not doctrine.

“They have attributed to Him daughters—exalted is He.”
— Qur’an 16:57

Rather than proving Allah was once female, the text demonstrates Islam’s rejection of goddess theology.


6. Biblical and Theological Contrast

From a Judeo-Christian perspective, God is:

  • Personal

  • Relational

  • Consistently revealed across history

The Bible never presents God as evolving from a goddess, nor as absorbing pagan deities.

“Before Me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after Me.”
— Isaiah 43:10

This sharply contrasts with Islam’s historical emergence within a polytheistic environment, a tension the Qur’an itself reflects.


Conclusion

The claim that “Allah was originally a woman” collapses under historical, linguistic, and theological analysis.

What the evidence actually shows is:

  • Pre-Islamic Arabia was polytheistic

  • Islam emerged by rejecting goddess worship

  • Allah was not a moon deity

  • The linguistic argument for femininity is incorrect

  • Crescent symbolism is post-Qur’anic

For serious theological critique, accuracy is more powerful than sensationalism. Effective apologetics must confront Islam at its strongest points, not its weakest caricatures.


References

  • القرآن الكريم (The Qur’an)

  • Ibn Hisham, Sirat Rasul Allah

  • W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca

  • G.R. Hawting, The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam

  • Arthur Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’an

  • F.E. Peters, The Children of Abraham

  • Encyclopaedia of Islam, entries on Allah, al-Lāt, al-ʿUzzā, Manāt

  • Gesenius’ Hebrew and Arabic Grammar (comparative linguistics)


Bibliography

  • Hawting, G.R. The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam. Cambridge University Press.

  • Peters, F.E. Muhammad and the Origins of Islam. SUNY Press.

  • Jeffery, Arthur. The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’an. Baroda.

  • Watt, W. Montgomery. Islamic Revelation in Its Historical Context. Edinburgh University Press.

  • The Holy Bible, ESV/NIV

  • The Qur’an (Sahih International Translation)



Jesus is Alive, Muhammad is Dead: A Biblical and Quranic Perspective

Jesus is Alive, Muhammad is Dead: A Biblical and Quranic Perspective
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

When we examine the claims of Islam and the Bible side by side, a striking contrast emerges in how both scriptures portray the fate of prophets. The Quran teaches that all prophets—from Adam to Muhammad—experienced death, were buried, and underwent the natural process of bodily decay. According to Islamic teaching, even Muhammad, the final prophet, passed away, was buried, and his body decomposed like any other human being.

Yet, the narrative around Jesus (Isa) in the Quran diverges dramatically. Quran 4:157–158 states:

“And [for] their saying, ‘Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.’ And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but it was made to appear to them so. And indeed, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.”

Here, Allah appears to exempt Jesus from the universal human experience of death and decay. While Muhammad dies, rots, and is buried, Jesus is lifted directly to heaven, untouched and uncorrupted. This selective treatment raises a fundamental question about consistency: why would Allah allow worms to consume one prophet but not another?

The Bible provides further insight and clarity. Psalm 16:10 (NKJV) declares:

“For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.”

The Psalm explicitly predicts that the Messiah’s body would not decay—affirming that Jesus’ resurrection and ascension were foretold long before the events recorded in the Gospels. Acts 2:31 reiterates this truth, explaining Peter’s sermon to the crowd:

“…he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.”

From a biblical perspective, Jesus’ survival from decay is not inconsistent; it is a fulfillment of prophecy. His ascension and eternal life are part of a divine plan that distinguishes Him from all other prophets.

The contrast becomes even more stark when considering the Islamic narrative of the virgin birth. Maryam conceives Isa without a human father, emphasizing divine intervention (Quran 3:47, 19:20–21). Yet, when Muhammad suffers and dies, the Quran treats him as an ordinary human, subject to mortality (Quran 33:40). This raises the question of selective miraculous intervention: extraordinary protection for one, natural mortality for another.

Logic and fairness demand clarity. The Bible presents Jesus as fully human and fully divine, fulfilling prophecy and defeating decay. Islam, while venerating Jesus, creates an inconsistency by exempting Him from a reality all other prophets—including Muhammad—share.

In conclusion, a careful comparison shows:

  • Muhammad, like all humans, dies and decays.

  • Jesus, as predicted in Scripture, rises from death and does not see corruption.

  • This distinction is not arbitrary; it is part of the biblical narrative of salvation.

The call for Muslims and all seekers of truth is simple: examine the scriptures carefully, consider the consistency of divine action, and reflect on the unique role Jesus holds in biblical prophecy. Understanding these differences illuminates a profound theological truth: Jesus is alive today, reigning in heaven, while Muhammad remains a mortal man who experienced death like any human.

The truth is not complicated—it is consistent, logical, and biblically sound.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute



An Academic Reassessment of Muhammad as Uswa Ḥasana (Qur’an 33:21)

 An Academic Reassessment of Muhammad as Uswa Ḥasana (Qur’an 33:21)

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

This brief analysis critically examines the claim that Muhammad represents the uswa ḥasana (“excellent pattern of conduct”) by evaluating his marital and sexual history through primary Islamic sources—Qur’an and Ṣaḥīḥ Hadith.

Muhammad’s early marriage to Khadijah bint Khuwaylid occurred within a socially conventional framework: she was a wealthy widow who proposed marriage and supported him financially. However, following his rise to political and military authority in Medina, his marital practices expanded in ways that raise serious ethical concerns.

The marriage to ʿĀʾisha is particularly controversial. Canonical Hadith state she was married at six and the marriage consummated at nine (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 5134; Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1422), an act incompatible with contemporary moral standards and difficult to reconcile with claims of timeless moral exemplarity.

Muhammad’s marriage to Zaynab bint Jaḥsh—formerly the wife of his adopted son Zayd ibn Ḥāritha—was preceded by Qur’anic abrogation of adoption laws (Qur’an 33:4–5), followed by a direct command for Muhammad to marry her (33:37). A well-known report attributed to ʿĀʾisha comments, “I see that your Lord hastens to fulfill your desires” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 4788), highlighting internal early-Muslim discomfort with this episode.

Further, sources record Muhammad’s marriage to Ṣafiyya bint Ḥuyayy shortly after the Battle of Khaybar, where her father, husband, and tribe were killed (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1365). Other women—such as Juwayriyya bint al-Ḥārith, Rayḥāna bint Zayd, and Māriya al-Qibṭiyya—entered his household as war captives or concubines, practices explicitly permitted within the Qur’anic framework of slavery (e.g., Qur’an 33:50; 66:1).

Qur’an 33:50 grants Muhammad privileges unavailable to other Muslim men, including exemption from the four-wife limit and permission to take any woman who “offers herself” to him—raising questions about moral equality and prophetic restraint.

In total, Islamic tradition attributes to Muhammad eleven wives alongside concubines, without recorded repentance or moral critique within the text itself. When these practices—child marriage, sexual slavery, and prophetic privilege—are presented as divinely sanctioned and eternally normative, they challenge the coherence of the claim that Muhammad’s life constitutes a universally applicable moral ideal.

The question remains unavoidable: Can conduct rooted in 7th-century power, conquest, and privilege credibly function as an eternal moral standard for humanity?

WERE JINNS, DEMONS, EVIL SPIRITS AND ALL CREATED BY ALLAH?

Thursday, March 11, 2021
WERE JINNS, DEMONS, EVIL SPIRITS AND ALL CREATED BY ALLAH?

  1. Why did Allah create Satan?

  2. Why did Allah create unclean Jinns?

  3. Why did Allah create evil spirits?

  4. Why did Allah create wild beasts?

ANSWERS TO THESE FOUR QUESTIONS ABOVE ARE FOUND IN THE WORKS OF THE JINNS.


THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD MEETS THE JINNS AT NIGHT

Allah (S.W.T.) clearly assured us that the message given to the Prophet (S.A.W.) was for human beings, for Jinns, and even for demons. In the Qur’an and in the Hadith of the Prophet (S.A.W.), there is clear evidence proving that the Prophet (S.A.W.) met them and taught them religion. At times, the Jinns gave better answers than human beings on religious matters.

An example is when Surat ar-Rahman was recited to them. A hadith narrated by Jabir bin Abdallah (R.A.A.) and recorded by Tirmidhi says:

"Indeed I recited it (meaning Surat ar-Rahman) to the Jinn, and they responded better than you. Every time I reached the words of Allah (S.W.T.), ‘Then which of the favors of your Lord will you deny?’ they replied: ‘None of Your blessings, our Lord, do we deny. To You belongs all praise.’”

This means the Jinn responded with gratitude, while when the Prophet recited to human beings, they said nothing. He then told them: “Your brothers among the Jinn have given a better answer than you.” Another proof that the Prophet (S.A.W.) was also sent to them is the story of some Jinn who, after listening to the Qur’an, believed and returned to their people to invite them to Islam.


ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE

Jinns, demons, or evil spirits (fallen angels) are invisible beings. They are like angels, except that they were cast out of heaven with Satan after rebellion. They were thrown down to earth awaiting the day of final judgment. Therefore, Jinns, demons, and evil spirits are the result of angelic rebellion.

It is the same as saying a bandit is simply a violent form of a thief.

The Bible does not say that God created Jinns, demons, or evil spirits, because the God of the Bible did not create sin, evil, hatred, wickedness, or any form of iniquity.

Satan and his Jinns know very well that the lake of fire (hell) is prepared for them. That is why they work hard to ensure they do not go there alone. Satan is a liar and deceiver; he uses witches, sorcerers, astrologers to plant Jinns, steal people’s destinies, or capture people in demonic bondage.


TYPES OF JINNS AND THEIR WORKS

There are many kinds of Jinns. Some of them and their works include:

  1. Murafari – blocks financial and educational success.

  2. Latifu – brings poverty and misery; money is wasted.

  3. Jahari – used to steal wealth and stop businesses from thriving.

  4. Hasinani – linked with drunkenness, drugs, and violence.

  5. Jube – causes barrenness.

  6. Subiani – causes accidents, stops women’s menstruation, and feeds on their blood, causing severe pains.

  7. Sumil – destroys pregnancies.

  8. Waidadat – makes men pierce ears, plait hair, and behave effeminately.

  9. Alibadiri – spirit of death, strikes suddenly.

  10. Anzura – blocks young men and women from marriage.

  11. Maimuna – breaks marriages by trapping married men.

  12. Makata – causes repeated deaths in families.

  13. Faziur – spirit of letters; once you read them, you’re ensnared.

  14. Subha – causes pride and arrogance.

  15. Maulan – causes madness and foul odors.

  16. Al-maul – makes people beggars.

  17. Zuhura/Zohari – violent Jinn.

  18. Araba – makes one obsessed with incense.

  19. Farkh – sent especially against Christians to test their salvation.

  20. Baradi – destroys marriages.

  21. Shamsu – takes on human appearance in any form.

  22. Abuni – spirit of anger.

  23. Kaimu – reveals people’s stars (destinies).

  24. Tajuruni – spirit of occult wealth that requires sacrifices.

  25. Al-taliki – causes mysterious disappearances.

  26. Naluju – rules over languages.

  27. Janatusi – causes sleep for Christians at dawn to stop prayers.

  28. Riyaron – makes one work alone without help.

  29. Zaitun – makes girls arrogant.

  30. Ruyati – rules over bad dreams.

  31. Al-rahabu – causes electrical faults.

  32. Hadharaji – cuts off heads to collect blood.

  33. Anazihaji – takes souls of those who die in sin.

  34. Nghruk – causes disasters.

  35. Munkara – lives in graves.

  36. Takadhuru – gives wealth with conditions.

  37. Rabindi – stirs trouble among Muslims.

  38. Balishebe – causes incurable diseases.

  39. Sajiduri – brings sudden money that quickly disappears.

  40. Rumiran – spirit of lies.

  41. Lairlihabi – causes fear, hopelessness, and discouragement.

  42. Rohani – brings torment and violence.

  43. Betrah – linked to vanity and excessive adornment.

  44. Hanshari – used by Arabs to guard their shops.

  45. Walihuni – circles around houses guarding businesses.

  46. Kurasih – causes fainting spells.

  47. Tarik – removes peace in homes and workplaces.

  48. Atha – Arabian idol-god.

  49. Munakir – causes mysterious disappearances.

  50. Malik – spirit of business ownership.

  51. Ghatabu – causes seductive eyes in women.

  52. Khatuh – witchcraft using nails, hair, and clothes.

  53. Fanken – linked to Swahili dialects.

  54. Zamzam – spirit of perfumes and covenant-binding.

  55. Mukitala – tests people’s spiritual protection.

  56. Laufili – causes laziness.

  57. Al-khah – feeds on clotted blood.

  58. Abasaa – spirit of jealousy, anger, arrogance.

  59. Aherumi – causes recurring fevers.

  60. Muba – causes contagious diseases.

  61. Kamariram – protects bandits.

  62. Zubiran – spirit of lies and gossip.

  63. Abadi – promotes theft, prostitution, robbery.

  64. Muzamili – linked to Arabian rituals.

  65. Ruhadi – spirit of theft, prostitution, poverty.

  66. Usuran – linked to robbery and poverty.

  67. Tubuyali – makes one steal only household items.

  68. Zirach – spirit of theft, prostitution, robbery, poverty.

  69. Ashuran – causes infertility and women’s sickness.


HOW TO BE FREE FROM JINNS

The way to overcome these Jinns is simple: BE SAVED and stand firm in the Word of God. If you are born again, mention the name of the specific Jinn, and it must respond. Then set it ablaze with the fire of the Holy Spirit. Use the Blood and Name of Jesus to destroy them.

Mark 16:17–18 says: “These signs shall follow those who believe: In My Name they will cast out demons…”

Every Christian has the authority to cast out demons—not because of personal power or spirituality, but because Jesus has given His authority to us.

If you are not saved, do not attempt to cast them out, or they will harm you. See a church leader, pray a prayer of repentance, and then begin to burn them out in the power of Jesus. Surely, they will flee and leave your business, work, marriage, and children free.


Today we have learned about the types of Jinns and how to destroy them by the Name of the Living Jesus.

Max Shimba Ministries
March 11, 2021



Muhammad Died in Aisha’s Arms

Muhammad Died in Aisha’s Arms: A Historical, Scholarly, and Ethical Analysis

By: Dr. Maxwell Shimba


1. Introduction

The life of Prophet Muhammad is central to understanding Islam and its social, cultural, and religious development. One of the most debated issues is the narration that the Prophet died in the arms of his wife, Aisha. This narration appears in Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, translated by Guillaume, where Aisha is reported to have said:

"The Prophet died in my arms during my turn: I have not wronged anyone regarding him. It was due to my ignorance and the extreme youth that the Prophet passed away in my arms."
(Guillaume, 1955, p. 682)

Analyzing this narration reveals an intersection of history, culture, and ethical debate concerning the marriage of the Prophet and Aisha. It provides a basis for historical and scholarly analysis but also raises questions about the reliability of sources and the moral context of that time.


2. Aisha’s Age and Marriage to Prophet Muhammad

Historical reports claim that Aisha was married at the age of six and the marriage was consummated when she was nine. These narrations are found in primary Islamic sources:

  • Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 5133

  • Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1422

"Aisha said: The Prophet consummated his marriage with me when I was nine years old."

However, some modern scholars question the reliability of these reports. Jonathan A.C. Brown notes:

"The age of Aisha at marriage is widely debated. Some early sources suggest she was very young, but contextual evidence may point to a higher age at consummation."
(Brown, 2009, p. 145)

Other scholars, such as Muhammad Hamidullah, argue that early sources indicate that Aisha’s age could have been higher than commonly assumed. This generates both historical and ethical debates: Should historical records be interpreted literally, or are there reliability concerns due to transcription errors or politically motivated narratives?


3. Aisha’s Contribution to Islamic History

Regardless of her age, Aisha’s contribution to Islamic history is significant. She played a role in:

  • Islamic Law (Sharia): Aisha contributed extensively to the interpretation of fiqh, including legal and ethical issues.

  • Hadith and Teaching: She transmitted hundreds of hadith that have served as a foundation for Islamic education.

  • History and Politics: Aisha participated in historical events, including the Battle of Jamal following the Prophet’s death.

This demonstrates that her position was not diminished by her age. She exemplified knowledge, courage, and social and religious influence.


4. Historical Context

Understanding Aisha’s age and her marriage requires consideration of the historical context of 6th–7th century Arabia. Marriages of young girls were common in many historical societies, and according to some scholars, such marriages were not considered immoral at the time.

Historical reports: Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and Al-Tabari report a young age for Aisha.
Modern interpretations: Contemporary scholars question these reports due to additional witnesses and conflicting historical records.

Thus, understanding the context helps clarify historical reasons rather than judging solely from a modern ethical perspective.


5. Scholarly and Ethical Debate

This narration has sparked significant scholarly debate:

  • Proponents of a young age: Argue that early sources reflect historical reality and should be taken as credible.

  • Proponents of a higher age: Claim that historical evidence shows Aisha may have been older, considering life context and family records.

This debate is important for ethical and scholarly interpretation. Scholars recommend careful scrutiny of the narration, considering context and moral analysis of 7th-century Arabia.


6. Modern Interpretation and Comparative Analysis

This debate also informs contemporary religious interpretation and social analysis. Scholars examine:

  • Women’s contribution in religion: Aisha as a teacher and narrator of hadith.

  • Relationship between history and ethics: Should historical records shape modern ethical judgments?

  • Comparative religion: Similar marriages in other ancient religious contexts provide a framework for ethical analysis.


7. Conclusion

The narration stating that Prophet Muhammad died in Aisha’s arms is significant for understanding Islamic history. While reports of her age vary, Aisha’s contribution is undeniable; she played a critical role in hadith transmission, law, and historical events.

Scholarly analysis encourages:

  • Careful study of history, considering multiple sources.

  • Examination of historical and ethical context.

  • Modern interpretation of the implications of historical narratives.


References

  • Guillaume, A. (1955). The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah. Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan.

  • Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 5133.

  • Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1422.

  • Brown, J.A.C. (2009). Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet’s Legacy. Harvard University Press.

  • Hamidullah, M. (1974). The Life and Character of the Prophet Muhammad. Islamic Book Service.

  • Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani. Fath al-Bari.

  • Al-Tabari. Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk.



The Problem of Free Will in Islamic Theology

The Problem of Free Will in Islamic Theology:

Divine Decree, Human Agency, and the Case of Adam

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute


Abstract

This article examines the concept of free will in Islamic theology (ʿaqīdah), with particular attention to the doctrine of al-qaḍāʾ wa al-qadar (divine decree and predestination). Using Qur’anic texts, Sahih Hadith—especially Sahih al-Bukhari 6614—and classical Sunni theology, the study argues that Islam, at its doctrinal core, does not affirm genuine human free will. Instead, it presents a deterministic framework in which human actions, including sin, are decreed by Allah prior to their occurrence. The narrative of Adam’s sin and expulsion from Paradise serves as a paradigmatic case exposing this theological tension.


1. Introduction: Free Will as a Theological Necessity

Free will is foundational to moral responsibility, justice, accountability, and punishment. Any religious system that affirms divine judgment must logically sustain human moral agency. This article asks a critical question:

Does Islam, as defined by its authoritative texts, affirm true human free will—or does it teach theological determinism?

While popular Islamic discourse claims a balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, a close reading of primary sources reveals a decisive imbalance in favor of absolute divine causation.


2. Predestination (Qadar) as a Pillar of Islam

Belief in al-qadar, both good and evil, is one of the six pillars of Islamic faith. According to Sahih Muslim:

“You believe in Allah… and in al-qadar, its good and its bad.” (Sahih Muslim 8)

Islamic theology teaches that:

  • All events are written (al-lawḥ al-maḥfūẓ),

  • All actions are created by Allah,

  • Nothing occurs outside Allah’s will.

The Qur’an states:

“But you do not will unless Allah wills.” (Qur’an 76:30)

This verse alone establishes a hierarchical causality where human will is not autonomous but derivative—and ultimately overridden.


3. Sahih al-Bukhari 6614: Adam as a Theological Case Study

The most revealing text on Islamic determinism is Sahih al-Bukhari 6614, which records a debate between Adam and Moses:

Moses said: ‘O Adam! You are our father. You disappointed us and caused us to be expelled from Paradise.’
Adam replied: ‘O Moses! Allah chose you for His message and wrote the Torah for you with His own hand. Do you blame me for an action which Allah had written for me forty years before He created me?’
So Adam defeated Moses in the argument.

Key Theological Implications

  1. Adam explicitly denies moral responsibility, appealing to divine predestination.

  2. Muhammad affirms Adam’s argument, stating: “Adam defeated Moses.”

  3. Sin is presented not as a free moral failure, but as a pre-written divine act.

This is not an isolated narration—it is Sahih, canonical, and authoritative in Sunni Islam.


4. Adam’s Sin: Created, Caused, and Punished

According to Islamic doctrine:

  • Allah created Adam,

  • Allah decreed Adam’s sin,

  • Allah caused the circumstances of the sin,

  • Allah expelled Adam for committing what was decreed.

This raises a profound theological contradiction:

How can Allah justly punish an act He eternally willed, authored, and necessitated?

If Adam could not have done otherwise, then punishment becomes judicially incoherent.


5. Islamic Theological Schools and the Failure of Reconciliation

5.1 Ashʿarite Theology (Mainstream Sunni Islam)

The Ashʿarites teach:

  • Allah creates all acts,

  • Humans only “acquire” (kasb) actions.

However, kasb does not grant causal power—only nominal participation. This reduces human responsibility to a theological fiction.

5.2 Muʿtazilites (Minority, Historically Rejected)

The Muʿtazilites argued for real free will, but were condemned as heretical. Their theology was politically and doctrinally defeated, leaving determinism as the orthodox position.


6. Moral Responsibility Without Moral Freedom?

Islam insists on:

  • Judgment Day,

  • Reward and punishment,

  • Heaven and Hell.

Yet without genuine free will:

  • Sin becomes divinely scripted,

  • Repentance becomes preprogrammed,

  • Punishment becomes morally arbitrary.

The Qur’an itself intensifies the dilemma:

“Allah misguides whom He wills and guides whom He wills.” (Qur’an 14:4)

“If We had willed, We could have given every soul its guidance.” (Qur’an 32:13)

Guidance and misguidance are not human decisions—they are acts of Allah.


7. Comparative Theological Observation

In biblical theology:

  • God permits sin but does not cause it,

  • Humans are morally responsible agents,

  • Judgment presupposes freedom (Deut. 30:19).

In contrast, Islamic theology:

  • Attributes both good and evil directly to Allah,

  • Denies autonomous human will,

  • Punishes humans for divinely authored acts.


8. Conclusion: Determinism as an Inescapable Outcome

This study concludes that Islamic theology, by its own authoritative sources, does not affirm true free will. The case of Adam—validated by Sahih al-Bukhari 6614—demonstrates that sin, failure, and punishment occur within a fully predetermined divine script.

The theological cost is severe:

  • Moral responsibility collapses,

  • Divine justice becomes problematic,

  • Human accountability becomes symbolic rather than real.

Islam’s doctrine of al-qadar ultimately leads not to a balance of sovereignty and freedom, but to theological determinism.


Author

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Founder & Theologian
Shimba Theological Institute



Only Jesus Gives Eternal Life

Only Jesus Gives Eternal Life: A Theological Challenge to Allah and Muhammad

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba – Shimba Theological Institute


Abstract

The question of who possesses the authority to grant eternal life lies at the heart of both Christian and Islamic theology. In Christian Scripture, Jesus Christ speaks with unambiguous authority, declaring: "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand" (John 10:28, NIV). This statement is not merely a promise; it is a divine claim to the ultimate power over life and death. In contrast, the Qur’an—Islam’s sacred text—presents no parallel claim from Allah or Muhammad. This paper examines the theological implications of this absence, exploring the Christological identity of Jesus as God Almighty in Christian doctrine and challenging the Islamic narrative that denies His divine nature.


1. The Explicit Claim of Jesus in the Bible

In John 10:28, Jesus asserts:

"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand."

This declaration carries three theological weight points:

  1. Source of Eternal Life – Jesus claims personal agency in granting eternal life. He does not say He will “show” the way, but that He is the giver.

  2. Irrevocability – The eternal life He gives is secure; it cannot be taken away by any spiritual or physical power.

  3. Divine Authority – The ability to grant eternal life belongs to God alone (Deuteronomy 32:39). Thus, for Jesus to make such a claim without blasphemy implies His divine nature.

The apostle John reinforces this in 1 John 5:11–12:

"God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life."


2. The Absence of an Equivalent Claim in the Qur’an

An examination of the Qur’an reveals no verse in which Allah or Muhammad personally declares the power to give eternal life in the same direct manner as Jesus. While the Qur’an affirms resurrection (e.g., Surah 36:78–79; 22:7), the emphasis is on Allah resurrecting the dead for judgment—not on the personal bestowal of eternal life as a guaranteed gift to believers.

Muhammad, as depicted in Islamic tradition, never claims to be the source of eternal life. In fact, the Qur’an reminds Muhammad of his mortality:

"Indeed, you are to die, and indeed, they are to die" (Surah 39:30).

This distinction is stark:

  • Jesus: Claims eternal life is in Himself (John 14:6; John 11:25).

  • Muhammad: Is subject to death, awaiting the same resurrection as his followers.


3. Theological Implications and Challenge

If eternal life is the highest divine gift and the true hallmark of God’s salvific work, then the failure of Allah or Muhammad to speak with Jesus’ direct assurance raises serious theological questions for Islam:

  1. Authority Gap – Why does Muhammad never claim the ability to grant eternal life if he is the “seal of the prophets”? If his mission was the final revelation, why does it lack this ultimate assurance?

  2. Christological Exclusivity – Jesus’ claim to give eternal life is either ultimate truth or ultimate blasphemy. The Qur’an affirms Jesus as a prophet but denies His deity (Surah 5:72). Yet if He is merely a prophet, His statement in John 10:28 would constitute a violation of strict monotheism under Islamic logic.

  3. Soteriological Assurance – In Islam, salvation is dependent upon Allah’s will on Judgment Day (Surah 46:9). In Christianity, salvation is assured now through Christ (John 5:24). This fundamental difference points to Christianity’s unique offer of certainty, as opposed to Islam’s uncertainty.


4. The Divine Identity of Jesus

The Old Testament consistently teaches that only God gives life (Deuteronomy 32:39; Job 33:4; Psalm 36:9). Therefore, Jesus’ self-ascription of this divine role confirms His equality with the Father (John 10:30). The unity of power (“no one will snatch them out of my hand”) mirrors the Old Testament depiction of God as the sole shepherd of His people (Ezekiel 34:11–16).

From a theological standpoint, Jesus’ words cannot be reduced to metaphor. His authority over eternal destiny transcends the role of any prophet and identifies Him with the very nature of Yahweh.


Conclusion

The inability of the Qur’an or Muhammad to match the direct and personal assurance given by Jesus in John 10:28 exposes a crucial doctrinal deficiency in Islamic theology. Eternal life is not merely about resurrection but about union with God secured by the One who is Himself life (John 1:4; 14:6). Jesus’ words demand recognition of His divinity and His role as the sole source of salvation.

Thus, the challenge stands: if Allah and Muhammad cannot speak as Jesus spoke, it is because neither is God incarnate. Jesus Christ alone gives eternal life—therefore, Jesus Christ alone is God Almighty.



Muhammad’s Role as a False Prophet

Muhammad as a False Prophet in Light of Matthew 24:11

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

The words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 24:11—“And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many”—have provoked significant theological reflection throughout Christian history. The text explicitly forewarns the church that deception will characterize the end times, not through isolated impostors, but through influential figures who possess wide-reaching impact. The plural “false prophets” allows for a diversity of historical fulfillment. However, it is not unreasonable, when examined through the lenses of Scripture, history, and theology, to consider Muhammad—the founder of Islam—as a prime exemplar of the category Jesus delineated.

1. Christ’s Warning About Deception

In Matthew 24:5, Jesus declares: “For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.” This verse links directly with verse 11, where the mechanism of deception is prophetic claim. It is important to note that deception here is not necessarily accomplished by denying Christ’s existence altogether, but by distorting His person and work. Islam exemplifies this precise distortion. While affirming Jesus as the Messiah (al-Masih), Islam simultaneously denies His Sonship, His crucifixion, and His resurrection—doctrines foundational to the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). Thus, Islam’s recognition of Jesus as “Christ” is qualified and emptied of salvific significance, thereby fulfilling the warning of Jesus: agreement in name but denial in essence.

2. Muhammad’s Role as a False Prophet

Deuteronomy 13:1–5 provides a crucial criterion for discerning a false prophet: if one arises and advocates turning away from the true God, such a prophet is to be rejected. Muhammad’s teaching led multitudes away from the biblical revelation of God in Christ, redirecting worship toward an altered monotheism centered on Allah, who categorically denies the Father-Son relationship. While Islam claims continuity with Abrahamic faith, its doctrine of Christ fundamentally contradicts apostolic witness. The denial of the crucifixion (Qur’an 4:157), the rejection of Christ’s divinity (Qur’an 5:72), and the substitution of Muhammad’s prophetic role as final and ultimate (“Seal of the Prophets,” Qur’an 33:40) reveal a departure from biblical revelation consistent with the marks of false prophecy identified in Scripture.

3. Muhammad and the Spirit of Antichrist

The Johannine epistles provide further theological clarity. 1 John 2:22 states: “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.” Similarly, 1 John 4:3 describes the spirit of the antichrist as denying Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Islam, under Muhammad’s teaching, affirms Jesus’ existence but denies both His Sonship and redemptive incarnation, placing it within the Johannine framework of antichrist. Muhammad’s role is thus not only that of a false prophet but also of an antichristic figure, insofar as his doctrine directly opposes the central truth of the Gospel: that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19).

4. The Scope of Deception

Jesus warned that “many” would be deceived. Historically, Islam’s global expansion has confirmed this prophetic concern. Today, Islam is the second largest religion in the world, encompassing nearly two billion adherents—almost half the number of Christians. The sheer magnitude of those persuaded by Muhammad’s teachings underscores the eschatological relevance of Christ’s words. This is not a marginal deception but a massive religious movement, illustrating the gravity of false prophecy on a global scale.

Conclusion

While Matthew 24:11 leaves the category of “false prophets” open and plural, Muhammad’s life and teaching align with the biblical criteria of such deception. His message denies the crucifixion, resurrection, and divine Sonship of Christ, while presenting himself as the final and ultimate prophet of God. Such claims stand in direct opposition to apostolic doctrine and bear the hallmarks of both false prophecy and the antichrist spirit described in the New Testament. Therefore, from a Christian theological standpoint, it is both reasonable and consistent with Scripture to identify Muhammad as one of the false prophets anticipated by Jesus in Matthew 24:11 and as a manifestation of the antichrist described in 1 John.



Muhammad as a False Prophet in Light of Matthew 24:11

Muhammad as a False Prophet in Light of Matthew 24:11: A Theological Examination

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute


Abstract

The words of Jesus in Matthew 24:11, “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many,” remain one of the most pressing eschatological warnings to the Christian church. This paper argues that Muhammad, the founder of Islam, exemplifies this prophetic warning by fulfilling the criteria of false prophecy and antichrist outlined in Scripture. Through biblical exegesis, theological analysis, and historical reflection, this study demonstrates that Muhammad’s denial of Christ’s Sonship, crucifixion, and resurrection positions him as one of the “false prophets” prophesied by Christ and as a representative of the antichrist spirit described by John.


1. Introduction

Throughout history, the Christian church has wrestled with identifying the false prophets and deceivers forewarned by Jesus. The advent of Islam in the 7th century introduced a religious system that rapidly expanded across the Middle East, North Africa, and beyond, claiming prophetic legitimacy through Muhammad. Given the scope of Islam’s influence, it is essential to examine Muhammad within the biblical framework of prophecy, deception, and antichrist. This article contends that Muhammad aligns precisely with the biblical description of a false prophet and must be understood as one of the agents of deception predicted by Christ in Matthew 24:11.


2. Exegesis of Matthew 24:11 and Related Texts

2.1. Matthew 24:5 and 24:11 in Context

Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) contains eschatological warnings about deception and false prophets. Verse 5 states: “For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.” This statement is not limited to individuals claiming personal messiahship but also extends to those who invoke Christ’s identity while corrupting His mission and nature. Verse 11 complements this by identifying the rise of multiple false prophets who would lead many astray.

2.2. Deuteronomy 13:1–5 as a Prophetic Criterion

Deuteronomy outlines that a prophet who leads the people away from the true worship of Yahweh must be rejected, even if accompanied by signs and wonders. This Old Testament framework shapes the New Testament understanding of false prophecy. Any teaching that diminishes or redirects worship away from the revealed God—fulfilled in Christ—is inherently false.

2.3. Johannine Criteria for Antichrist

The Johannine epistles provide sharper contours. 1 John 2:22 identifies the antichrist as one who denies Jesus as the Christ and denies the Father and the Son. 1 John 4:3 adds that the spirit of the antichrist denies the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Muhammad’s message aligns with both criteria: he affirmed Jesus as “al-Masih” (Messiah) but denied His divine Sonship, incarnation, and crucifixion.


3. Muhammad as a False Prophet

3.1. The Denial of Christ’s Crucifixion

The Qur’an categorically denies the crucifixion of Jesus (Qur’an 4:157), replacing the historical and theological cornerstone of Christianity with an alternative narrative. By doing so, Muhammad undermines the apostolic proclamation that Christ died for sins and rose again (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). This substitution constitutes the very “deception” Jesus foretold: acknowledging Christ in name while rejecting His redemptive work.

3.2. The Rejection of Divine Sonship

The Qur’an explicitly denies Jesus as the Son of God (Qur’an 5:72). This rejection not only conflicts with the Gospel accounts (Matthew 3:17; John 3:16) but directly fulfills the Johannine description of antichrist. Muhammad’s teaching strips Christ of His unique identity as the incarnate Word (John 1:14), reducing Him to a mere prophet.

3.3. The Self-Exaltation of Muhammad as “Seal of the Prophets”

By declaring himself the “Seal of the Prophets” (Qur’an 33:40), Muhammad places his revelation above that of Christ and the apostles. This self-exaltation mirrors the scriptural motif of false prophets who claim divine authority while opposing God’s true revelation.


4. Historical Reflections

4.1. Early Christian Responses to Islam

Church fathers and medieval theologians recognized the threat of Islam as a counterfeit revelation. John of Damascus (8th century), one of the earliest Christian apologists against Islam, labeled it a Christian heresy, emphasizing its denial of Christ’s divinity and redemptive work. Thomas Aquinas later critiqued Islam’s rejection of reasoned theological truths in Summa Contra Gentiles. Their writings underscore the church’s consistent recognition of Islam as a theological deception.

4.2. Islam’s Global Deception

Today, Islam encompasses nearly two billion adherents, making it the second largest religion worldwide. This reality highlights the gravity of Jesus’ prophecy: “and shall deceive many.” Muhammad’s influence cannot be viewed as peripheral but as a central fulfillment of Christ’s eschatological warning.


5. Muhammad and the Antichrist Spirit

The New Testament presents antichrist not solely as an individual but also as a spiritual force operating through multiple figures and systems. Muhammad’s role as the architect of a faith that denies Christ’s divine nature, crucifixion, and resurrection aligns precisely with this spirit. Thus, Muhammad may rightly be considered both a false prophet and a manifestation of the antichrist spirit.


6. Conclusion

The biblical data, when placed in conversation with history and theology, support the conclusion that Muhammad fulfills the description of a false prophet prophesied by Jesus in Matthew 24:11. His teachings distort the identity of Christ, deny the essentials of the Gospel, and have deceived multitudes across centuries. Furthermore, his denial of the Sonship and crucifixion of Christ situates him within the Johannine definition of the antichrist. While Matthew 24:11 leaves room for multiple false prophets, Muhammad stands as one of the most historically significant fulfillments of this prophecy.


References

  • The Holy Bible (ESV, NIV, KJV)

  • The Qur’an (Yusuf Ali Translation)

  • John of Damascus, Heresies (Book 100: On the Ishmaelites).

  • Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I.

  • Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (The New American Commentary).

  • F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John.

  • Norman L. Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross.



TRENDING NOW