Jesus is God Al Hadi according to the Quran

The Prophethood of Muhammad

 

The Prophethood of Muhammad: A Critical Theological Evaluation

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

The claim of Muhammad to be a prophet presents serious theological and historical difficulties when evaluated against the biblical standards of true prophecy. According to Scripture, a prophet of God is one who faithfully communicates divine truth, proclaims holiness, and often reveals future events in accordance with God’s will (Deuteronomy 18:20–22; Jeremiah 23:16–22). Yet when the life and teachings of Muhammad are examined critically, his so-called “prophecies” and religious innovations fail to meet these fundamental criteria.

---

1. Superstitions Elevated to Divine Law

Islamic sources themselves preserve practices and rulings that resemble superstition or cultural taboos more than divine wisdom. For example:

• Camel urine as medicine – “Some people from the tribe of ‘Ukl … drank milk and urine of the camels (as a medicine)” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 794).

• Black dogs declared evil – “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘The black dog is a devil’” (Sunan Ibn Majah, Book 9, Hadith 3504).

• Adult breastfeeding ruling – A hadith records Muhammad’s directive that adult men could establish kinship through breastfeeding: “Go back to Abu Hudhaifa and tell him that Salim should suckle from her (his wife) so that he will become unlawful for her to marry, and thus their problem would be solved” (Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Hadith 3425).

Such prescriptions reflect folkloric or situational solutions elevated to religious law, rather than timeless revelation from a holy God.

---

2. Moral Contradictions and Exploitation of Women

The ethical record of Muhammad’s life presents contradictions with biblical holiness.

• Child marriage – Aisha herself reported: “The Prophet married me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine years old” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 7, Book 62, Hadith 64).

• Concubinage through war captives – The Qur’an sanctions sexual relations with female captives: “…lawful to you are … those your right hands possess” (Qur’an 4:24; see also 33:50).

• Women deemed inferior – Muhammad said: “Is not the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man? … This is the deficiency in her mind” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 3, Book 48, Hadith 826).

Such practices institutionalize the degradation of women rather than upholding their dignity as bearers of God’s image (Genesis 1:27).

---

3. Cultic Self-Exaltation

Unlike biblical prophets who pointed people to God alone, Muhammad often required prayers and devotion directed toward himself. The Qur’an commands: “Indeed, Allah and His angels send blessings upon the Prophet. O you who have believed, ask [Allah to confer] blessing upon him and ask [Allah to grant him] peace” (Qur’an 33:56).

Moreover, he consistently tied obedience to himself with obedience to God: “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah” (Qur’an 4:80). Such conflation between God’s authority and a man’s authority is characteristic of cult leaders, not prophets of the living God.

---

4. Violence and Religious Coercion

Muhammad’s prophetic role was also tied to military conquest and coercion.

• The Qur’an sanctions violence against unbelievers: “When the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them …” (Qur’an 9:5).

• Muhammad himself said: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 2, Hadith 25).

This militant vision contradicts the biblical model of a prophet who calls people to repentance through truth and holiness, not by compulsion or sword.

---

5. The Contrast with Jesus Christ

When compared with Jesus Christ, the differences between the two figures are stark and theologically decisive.

• Holiness and Purity – Jesus lived a sinless life (Hebrews 4:15) and never sought to gratify personal desires at the expense of others. Muhammad’s example, however, includes indulgence in multiple wives, child marriage, and sanctioned sexual relations with captives.

• Treatment of Women – Jesus honored women, lifting them to full dignity as disciples and witnesses (John 4:27; Luke 8:1–3; John 20:11–18). Muhammad reduced women’s testimony to half a man’s and legalized polygamy and concubinage.

• Self-Exaltation vs. Humility – Jesus directed all glory to the Father (John 8:50), washing the feet of His disciples (John 13:14–15). Muhammad demanded prayers for himself and tied obedience to him with obedience to God.

• Message of Peace vs. Sword – Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence (Matthew 26:52) and taught love for enemies (Matthew 5:44). Muhammad, by contrast, declared he was commanded to fight until Islam was universally acknowledged.

• Salvation vs. Law – Jesus brought the good news of salvation through grace (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8–9). Muhammad offered submission to a legal code that enslaves rather than liberates.

In the biblical framework, Jesus is not merely another prophet but the final revelation of God’s truth and the fulfillment of all prophecy (Hebrews 1:1–2). He is the eternal Word made flesh (John 1:14), the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29), and the only mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5).

---

Conclusion

A sober and scholarly examination of Muhammad’s prophetic claims, when tested against the Bible’s standard of prophecy, reveals profound deficiencies. His teachings elevate superstition, endorse morally troubling practices, diminish women, centralize cultic loyalty around himself, and employ violence for religious ends.

In contrast, Jesus Christ embodies the perfect prophet, priest, and king, revealing the fullness of God’s love, truth, and redemption. Rather than being the “seal of the prophets” (Qur’an 33:40), Muhammad represents a distortion of divine revelation, whereas Jesus Christ stands as the true and final Word of God.

For Christians, therefore, the answer to Muhammad’s claim is clear: he was not a prophet of God, but a false prophet whose message diverges from the holiness of God. The true revelation of God is found in the person of Jesus Christ, who alone offers forgiveness, eternal life, and reconciliation with the Father.

---

📚 References:

• Qur’an (Surah 4:24, 4:80, 9:5, 33:40, 33:50, 33:56).

• Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Ibn Majah.

• The Holy Bible (Genesis 1:27; Deuteronomy 18:20–22; Jeremiah 23:16–22; John 1:14; John 3:16; John 13:14–15; John 20:11–18; Matthew 5:44; Matthew 26:52; Hebrews 1:1–2; Hebrews 4:15; Ephesians 2:8–9; 1 Timothy 2:5).

 

The Prophethood of Muhammad: A Critical Theological Evaluation

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

---

Abstract

This paper critically evaluates the prophetic claims of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, in light of biblical standards of prophecy and the ethical requirements of divine revelation. Drawing upon primary Islamic sources—the Qur’an and Hadith—this study demonstrates that Muhammad’s teachings elevate superstition, institutionalize misogyny, legitimize violence, and centralize devotion around himself, thereby diverging from the prophetic pattern established in the Old Testament and fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The contrast between Muhammad and Jesus highlights that Muhammad cannot be considered a true prophet of God but rather a counterfeit leader whose message obscures divine truth.

---

Introduction

Throughout history, prophets have been understood as God’s chosen instruments, communicating His truth and guiding people toward holiness. The Bible defines a prophet as one who speaks in God’s name, proclaims His word faithfully, and whose predictions or teachings align with divine revelation (Deuteronomy 18:20–22; Jeremiah 23:16–22). Islam, however, regards Muhammad as the “seal of the prophets” (Qur’an 33:40).

This paper examines Muhammad’s prophetic claim by analyzing his teachings and actions through the lens of both biblical revelation and Islamic sources. The goal is to assess whether Muhammad can legitimately be regarded as a prophet of God or whether his prophethood represents a distortion of divine truth.

---

Methodology

This study employs a comparative theological method, drawing upon primary Islamic texts (the Qur’an and canonical Hadith collections) alongside biblical revelation. The analysis is structured around four thematic areas: (1) superstition and pseudo-revelation, (2) moral and ethical contradictions, (3) cultic self-exaltation, and (4) violence and coercion. A final section contrasts Muhammad with Jesus Christ, the ultimate revelation of God, thereby situating Muhammad’s claims within a Christian apologetic framework.

---

Analysis

1. Superstition and Pseudo-Revelation

Muhammad’s teachings frequently elevate cultural practices to divine law. Examples include:

• Camel urine as medicine (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 794).

• Black dogs declared devils (Sunan Ibn Majah, Book 9, Hadith 3504).

• Adult breastfeeding ruling (Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Hadith 3425).

These rulings reflect folkloric customs rather than divine revelation, contrasting sharply with the biblical prophets who proclaimed timeless truth rooted in God’s holiness.

2. Moral and Ethical Contradictions

Muhammad’s personal conduct and rulings raise serious ethical concerns:

• Child marriage – Marriage to Aisha at age six, consummated at nine (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 7, Book 62, Hadith 64).

• Concubinage through war captives – Permitted in Qur’an 4:24 and 33:50.

• Women deemed deficient – Their testimony valued as half that of a man (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 3, Book 48, Hadith 826).

Such practices contradict the biblical vision of human dignity (Genesis 1:27) and holiness.

3. Cultic Self-Exaltation

Muhammad centralized devotion around himself:

• Believers commanded to send blessings upon him (Qur’an 33:56).

• Obedience to him equated with obedience to God (Qur’an 4:80).

This self-elevation reflects authoritarian control rather than prophetic humility. By contrast, biblical prophets consistently directed worship exclusively to God.

4. Violence and Religious Coercion

Muhammad’s mission incorporated violence and compulsion:

• Violence against unbelievers (Qur’an 9:5).

• Fighting until universal Islamic submission (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 2, Hadith 25).

Such coercion stands in direct opposition to Jesus’ teaching of peace and love for enemies (Matthew 5:44; Matthew 26:52).

---

5. The Contrast with Jesus Christ

The comparison between Muhammad and Jesus is decisive:

• Sinlessness vs. moral indulgence – Jesus was without sin (Hebrews 4:15); Muhammad engaged in ethically problematic practices.

• Elevation of women vs. degradation of women – Jesus honored women as disciples and witnesses (John 20:11–18); Muhammad institutionalized their subordination.

• Humility vs. self-exaltation – Jesus washed His disciples’ feet (John 13:14–15); Muhammad demanded prayers for himself.

• Peace vs. violence – Jesus rejected coercion (Matthew 26:52); Muhammad embraced it (Sahih Bukhari 1:2:25).

• Salvation by grace vs. legalistic submission – Jesus offered salvation through faith and grace (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8–9); Muhammad presented obedience to law as the path to divine favor.

In the biblical framework, Jesus Christ is not merely a prophet but the final and complete revelation of God (Hebrews 1:1–2), the eternal Word made flesh (John 1:14), and the only mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5).

---

Conclusion

A critical evaluation of Muhammad’s prophetic claims demonstrates that he does not meet the biblical standard of a prophet. His teachings promote superstition, misogyny, coercion, and self-glorification, diverging sharply from the prophetic tradition of Scripture.

In contrast, Jesus Christ fulfills the prophetic role perfectly, embodying holiness, humility, peace, and ultimate revelation. Whereas Muhammad’s message reflects distortion and counterfeit revelation, Christ reveals the fullness of God’s truth and redemption.

Thus, from a Christian theological perspective, Muhammad cannot be regarded as a true prophet but must be understood as a false prophet. The final Word of God is found not in Muhammad but in Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Savior of the world.

---

References

• The Qur’an (Surah 4:24, 4:80, 9:5, 33:40, 33:50, 33:56).

• Hadith Collections: Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Ibn Majah.

• The Holy Bible: Genesis 1:27; Deuteronomy 18:20–22; Jeremiah 23:16–22; John 1:14; John 3:16; John 13:14–15; John 20:11–18; Matthew 5:44; Matthew 26:52; Hebrews 1:1–2; Hebrews 4:15; Ephesians 2:8–9; 1 Timothy 2:5.

The Parable of the Two Builders: An Analogy Between Christianity and Islam

The Parable of the Two Builders: An Analogy Between Christianity and Islam
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Jesus’ parable of the two builders (Matthew 7:24–27) provides a profound metaphor for distinguishing between enduring truth and fragile deception. The wise man who built his house upon the rock represents those who anchor their lives upon Christ, the eternal foundation. Conversely, the foolish man who built his house upon sand exemplifies those who construct belief systems upon unstable human authority. This parable offers an illuminating lens through which to compare the theological foundations of Christianity and Islam.

Christianity stands upon the unshakable rock of Jesus Christ—His person, His work on the cross, and His resurrection. Scripture declares, “For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). The Church is built upon Christ, whom Peter confessed as the Son of the living God, to which Jesus responded, “On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).

The Fathers of the Church echoed this conviction. Augustine of Hippo affirmed, “Christ is the Rock, not Peter; the Church is not founded upon a man, but upon Christ, who gave to Peter the name of Rock” (Retractationes, Book I). Similarly, John Chrysostom taught that the storms in Jesus’ parable signify persecutions and heresies, yet the house built on Christ remains firm, for “the Rock is unshakable, and whoever builds upon it will not fall” (Homily on Matthew 24). Tertullian, writing against heresies, emphasized that Christianity’s truth endures because it is anchored in the eternal Logos, not in human philosophy: “That Rock was Christ, and on Him the Church is founded” (Prescription Against Heretics, ch. 22). Thus, both Scripture and early Christian testimony underscore that the permanence of the Church rests on Christ’s divine person.

History confirms this truth. Despite persecution under the Roman Empire, opposition from Islam, challenges from atheism, and the rise and fall of world ideologies, Christianity has endured. Bibles have been burned, Christians martyred, and churches destroyed, yet the faith has not diminished. Its resilience lies not in human power but in divine reality, for Jesus Christ is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

Islam, by contrast, reveals the characteristics of a house built upon sand. Its entire structure rests upon the claims of one man, Muhammad, and the Qur’an attributed to him. Unlike Christianity, which is grounded in centuries of fulfilled prophecy (Luke 24:27; John 5:39), Islam depends on the testimony of a single individual without corroboration from the broader biblical witness. The Apostle Paul warned against any alternative gospel, declaring, “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). Such words highlight the danger of religions constructed upon human innovation rather than divine revelation.

The violent responses to criticism often witnessed in Islamic contexts betray not confidence in divine truth but insecurity in a fragile foundation. Chrysostom contrasted Christian endurance with worldly instability, reminding believers that “nothing is stronger than the house founded on the Rock, for it cannot be overthrown, neither by flood nor storm” (Homily on Matthew 24). By contrast, a house built on sand requires force, coercion, and censorship to survive. The followers of Christ are called to endure suffering with meekness (“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” – Matthew 5:10), while truth itself stands unshaken: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).

As the information age progresses, Islam faces increasing scrutiny. Historical inquiry, textual criticism, and ethical reflection expose weaknesses in its foundational claims, eroding its credibility. In contrast, Christianity has always welcomed honest investigation, for truth does not fear inquiry but shines through it. The Apostle Peter urged believers to “always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). Augustine affirmed this same confidence: “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.”

Thus, the parable of the two builders is more than a simple illustration; it is a prophetic picture of spiritual reality. Christianity, built upon the eternal Rock who is Christ, will endure eternally. Islam, constructed upon the shifting sands of human claims, will ultimately collapse with a great fall (Matthew 7:27).

 

The Parable of the Two Builders: An Analogy Between Christianity and Islam

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Jesus’ parable of the two builders (Matthew 7:24–27) provides a profound metaphor for distinguishing between enduring truth and fragile deception. The wise man who built his house upon the rock represents those who anchor their lives upon Christ, the eternal foundation. Conversely, the foolish man who built his house upon sand exemplifies those who construct belief systems upon unstable human authority. This parable offers an illuminating lens through which to compare the theological foundations of Christianity and Islam.

Christianity: The House Built on the Rock

Christianity stands upon the unshakable rock of Jesus Christ—His person, His work on the cross, and His resurrection. The Apostle Paul affirms, “For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). Jesus Himself declared, following Peter’s confession of His divinity, “On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).

The Fathers of the Church consistently echoed this conviction. Augustine of Hippo clarified, “Christ is the Rock, not Peter; the Church is not founded upon a man, but upon Christ, who gave to Peter the name of Rock”.¹ John Chrysostom, in his Homilies on Matthew, explained that the storms in Jesus’ parable signify persecutions and heresies, yet the house built on Christ remains immovable: “The Rock is unshakable, and whoever builds upon it will not fall.”² Tertullian similarly argued against heretical distortions, reminding his readers that “That Rock was Christ, and on Him the Church is founded.”³

History bears out this theological truth. Despite persecution under the Roman Empire, opposition from Islam, challenges from atheism, and the rise and fall of world ideologies, Christianity has endured. Bibles have been burned, Christians martyred, and churches destroyed, yet the faith has not collapsed. Its resilience lies not in human ability but in divine reality, for Jesus Christ is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

Islam: The House Built on Sand

By contrast, Islam exhibits the characteristics of a house built upon sand. Its entire structure rests upon the claims of one man, Muhammad, and the Qur’an attributed to him. Unlike Christianity, which is grounded in centuries of fulfilled prophecy (Luke 24:27; John 5:39), Islam depends exclusively on the testimony of a single individual without corroboration from the broader biblical witness. The Apostle Paul warned against such innovations: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8).

The fragility of this foundation is revealed in the frequent defensive hostility displayed when Islamic teachings are questioned. The violent responses to criticism suggest not confidence in divine truth but insecurity in human claims. Chrysostom contrasted Christian endurance with worldly instability, observing that “nothing is stronger than the house founded on the Rock, for it cannot be overthrown, neither by flood nor storm.”⁴ Conversely, a house built on sand requires compulsion, censorship, and violence to maintain its stability.

Followers of Christ, by contrast, are called to endure persecution with meekness: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:10). Truth, unlike error, does not require force to preserve itself. As Jesus declared, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).

Truth in the Age of Scrutiny

As the information age progresses, Islam faces increasing scrutiny. Historical inquiry, textual criticism, and ethical reflection expose weaknesses in its foundational claims, eroding its credibility. Christianity, however, has always welcomed honest investigation, for truth does not fear inquiry but shines brighter under examination. The Apostle Peter urged believers to “always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). Augustine echoed this sentiment: “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.”⁵

Thus, the parable of the two builders is more than a moral lesson—it is a prophetic picture of spiritual reality. Christianity, built upon the eternal Rock who is Christ, will endure eternally. Islam, constructed upon the shifting sands of human claims, will ultimately collapse with a great fall (Matthew 7:27).

---

References

---

Would you like me to expand this further into a publishable journal-style article (with abstract, keywords, and conclusion), or keep it as a strong apologetic essay format?

1. Augustine, Retractationes, Book I, Ch. 21. ↩

2. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily 24. ↩

3. Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 22. ↩

4. Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily 24. ↩

5. Although often paraphrased, the sentiment is attributed to Augustine; cf. Sermon 23A. ↩

The Finished Work of Christ and the Misconception of Prophetic Finality in Islam

 The Finished Work of Christ and the Misconception of Prophetic Finality in Islam

Author: Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract:
This article critically examines the Islamic assertion that Muhammad is the final prophet and that his message perfects prior revelation. Through a detailed exegetical analysis of John 19:30 (tetelestai) and the Quranic affirmation of earlier scriptures, the study highlights profound theological and hermeneutical inconsistencies in the Islamic claim of prophetic finality. It demonstrates that Muhammad’s role cannot logically supersede Jesus’ completed salvific mission, nor can it reconcile with the Quran’s acknowledgment of the gospel and prior prophets.

---

Introduction
The doctrine of prophetic finality (Khatam an-Nabiyyin) occupies a central role in Islamic theology, claiming that Muhammad’s advent completes and perfects God’s monotheistic revelation initiated with Adam and transmitted through Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (Quran 33:40; 5:48). Yet, this position raises an inherent theological paradox: Christianity asserts that Jesus’ redemptive work was fully accomplished, epitomized in his final exclamation on the cross: tetelestai (“It is finished”) (John 19:30). This article interrogates the Islamic claim of finality in light of canonical Christian texts, the linguistic and theological import of tetelestai, and the Quran’s explicit affirmation of the Torah and Gospel.

---

Jesus’ Declaration: Completion, Not Defeat
In the Greek New Testament, tetelestai conveys more than cessation—it signals the perfect completion of God’s salvific plan. Christ’s pronouncement marks the fulfillment of Old Testament messianic prophecies and the comprehensive enactment of divine redemption. Theologically, this declaration precludes the necessity of subsequent prophetic intervention to “finish” what had already been accomplished. Any assertion of additional prophetic succession therefore implies the incompleteness of Christ’s mission, a proposition directly contrary to the scriptural record.

---

Islamic Theology and Prophetic Finality
Islamic doctrine presents Muhammad as a universal prophet, whose message addresses all humanity across temporal and geographic boundaries (Quran 2:129, 5:48). This universality is juxtaposed against the historically localized ministries of prior prophets, including Jesus. From the Islamic perspective, Muhammad perfects prior revelation, correcting human deviation and codifying divine law. However, if Jesus’ mission was indeed complete as John 19:30 affirms, Muhammad’s purported role as final prophet introduces a theological contradiction: it assumes a deficiency in Christ’s work, undermining the Christian understanding of salvation.

---

The Quran’s Affirmation of Previous Scriptures
Significantly, the Quran repeatedly affirms the Torah and Gospel as authentic revelations (Quran 3:3; 5:46; 10:94). This creates an internal tension for Islamic theology: the Quran positions Muhammad’s mission as a confirmation of prior scriptures, yet the claim of finality presupposes that these scriptures, including the gospel, were somehow incomplete or in need of correction. If Muhammad merely affirms the gospel, how can he simultaneously supersede it? This hermeneutical tension challenges the coherence of the Islamic concept of prophetic finality.

---

Critical Analysis
A rigorous historical-theological analysis exposes the dissonance between Islamic claims and both the biblical narrative and Quranic affirmation of previous prophets. Muhammad’s finality cannot reconcile with Jesus’ completed salvific mission without contradicting canonical texts. Islamic scholarship often relies on selective exegesis to validate prophetic finality, yet a holistic reading of the Quran and biblical texts demonstrates that Jesus’ work stands as complete and divinely sanctioned. From a Christian theological standpoint, any subsequent prophetic claim seeking to perfect or supersede Christ’s work is not only redundant but theologically untenable.

---

Implications for Interfaith Dialogue
This study underscores the necessity of careful textual and theological analysis in interfaith discourse. Claims of prophetic finality must be critically examined in light of primary sources. Understanding the intrinsic completion of Jesus’ mission challenges the Islamic assertion of Muhammad as the final prophet and encourages a more historically and theologically consistent engagement between Christian and Islamic perspectives.

---

Conclusion
Jesus’ declaration tetelestai affirms the completeness of God’s salvific plan, rendering any subsequent prophetic mission unnecessary from a Christian standpoint. The Islamic assertion that Muhammad is the final prophet, intended to perfect prior revelation, is both textually and theologically problematic. The Quran’s affirmation of previous scriptures further complicates this claim, exposing a hermeneutical inconsistency. Therefore, Muhammad’s supposed finality cannot be reconciled with the historical and theological reality of Christ’s finished work.

---

References

• The Holy Bible, New International Version. John 19:30.

• Quran, Surahs 2, 3, 5, 33.

• Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah. Yale University Press, 1994.

• Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Zondervan, 1994.

• Lings, Martin. Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources. Inner Traditions, 1983.

• Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Islamic Life and Thought. Routledge, 2001.

Christ’s Finished Work and the Misconception of Prophetic Finality in Islam: An Intertextual and Hermeneutical Analysis

 Christ’s Finished Work and the Misconception of Prophetic Finality in Islam: An Intertextual and Hermeneutical Analysis

Author: Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract
This article examines the Islamic assertion that Muhammad is the final prophet (Khatam an-Nabiyyin) and that his mission perfects prior revelation. By integrating intertextual analysis of John 19:30 (tetelestai), classical Christian patristic sources, and Quranic exegesis (tafsir), the study highlights inconsistencies in Islamic claims regarding prophetic finality. It argues that Muhammad’s purported finality cannot reconcile with the completed salvific work of Christ or the Quran’s affirmation of the Torah and Gospel, exposing a hermeneutical tension in Islamic theology.

---

Introduction
Islamic theology asserts that Muhammad’s prophetic mission is universal, eternal, and final, completing the divine plan initiated with Adam and transmitted through Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (Quran 33:40; 5:48)^[1][2]. Christianity, however, affirms that Jesus Christ’s redemptive work reached definitive completion with his crucifixion and resurrection, summarized in his final utterance: tetelestai (“It is finished”) (John 19:30)^[3]. Patristic scholars, including Augustine (Enchiridion) and John Chrysostom (Homilies on John), interpret this term as denoting the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and the perfect completion of God’s salvific plan^[4][5]. This paper evaluates Islamic claims of prophetic finality against this theological framework, highlighting intertextual and hermeneutical inconsistencies.

---

Jesus’ Declaration: Tetelestai as Fulfillment
The Greek term tetelestai conveys the perfection and completion of divine purpose. Patristic interpretations emphasize that Christ’s mission fully satisfied the law and fulfilled messianic prophecy^[6]. Augustine observes that Jesus’ death consummated redemption for all humanity, leaving no further prophetic intercession necessary^[7]. The declaration is universal, historical, and divinely ratified, affirming that any claim of subsequent prophetic necessity, such as that proposed by Islamic theology, misrepresents the nature of Jesus’ work.

---

Islamic Conceptions of Finality in Classical Tafsir
Classical tafsir literature, including Ibn Kathir (Tafsir al-Quran al-Azim) and Al-Tabari (Jami’ al-bayan), underscores Muhammad’s finality as universal and eternal^[8][9]. The Quran itself affirms the authority of prior revelations: “And We sent down the Book in truth, confirming that which came before it” (Quran 3:3)^[10]. Other passages confirm the Torah and Gospel as guidance (Quran 5:46; 10:94)^[11][12]. Tafsir interpretations often assert human corruption of prior scriptures, yet these interpretations cannot negate the Quranic acknowledgment of divine preservation (tanzil) and the legitimacy of Jesus’ ministry^[13]. If Muhammad’s mission were to “perfect” prior revelation, it would imply incompleteness in both the Torah and the Gospel, which contradicts the Quran’s affirmation of their divine origin.

---

Intertextual Analysis: Gospel Affirmation vs. Prophetic Finality
The Quran repeatedly positions Muhammad’s mission as confirming, not superseding, prior revelation. Classical Islamic commentators, including Al-Qurtubi, assert that Muhammad upholds the moral and legal principles of previous scriptures but introduces correction where human alteration allegedly occurred^[14]. However, this interpretive framework creates a paradox: affirming Jesus’ salvific work while claiming finality inherently contradicts the gospel’s universality and the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. Patristic commentators such as Cyril of Alexandria stressed that any attempt to “complete” Christ’s mission would undermine the divine plan, a principle incompatible with Islamic claims of finality^[15].

---

Hermeneutical Implications
The Islamic assertion of finality reflects selective exegesis privileging Quranic authority over historical and textual consistency. Jesus’ tetelestai constitutes a universal, historically verified, and theologically complete declaration of redemption. Any reinterpretation implying incompleteness introduces a hermeneutical tension. Furthermore, the Quran’s recognition of prior scriptures amplifies this tension, demonstrating an internal inconsistency in Islamic theology regarding prophetic succession.

---

Conclusion
This study concludes that Muhammad’s purported finality cannot reconcile with the completed salvific work of Christ. Jesus’ declaration tetelestai affirms the perfection of God’s plan, and the Quran’s acknowledgment of the Torah and Gospel confirms this completion. Islamic claims regarding Muhammad’s finality, therefore, present both theological and textual inconsistencies, revealing a misinterpretation of Christian doctrine and a selective hermeneutical approach to scripture.

---

References

1. Quran 33:40.

2. Quran 5:48.

3. The Holy Bible, John 19:30, New International Version.

4. Augustine of Hippo. Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love, Ch. 21.

5. Chrysostom, John. Homilies on John, Homily 86.

6. Origen. Commentary on John, Book 10.

7. Augustine, City of God, Book 22, Ch. 30.

8. Ibn Kathir. Tafsir al-Quran al-Azim, Vol. 4.

9. Al-Tabari. Jami’ al-bayan fi tafsir al-Quran, Vol. 3.

10. Quran 3:3.

11. Quran 5:46.

12. Quran 10:94.

13. Al-Tabari, Vol. 3, Commentary on 5:48.

14. Al-Qurtubi. Tafsir al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Quran, Vol. 3.

15. Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on John, Book 12.

16. Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah. Yale University Press, 1994.

17. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Zondervan, 1994.

18. Lings, Martin. Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources. Inner Traditions, 1983.

19. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Islamic Life and Thought. Routledge, 2001.

 

Music, Prophecy, and the Question of God: A Theological Critique of Islam’s Ban on Music

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

Music has long served as a vehicle of divine revelation, spiritual joy, and prophetic utterance within the Judeo-Christian tradition. In striking contrast, Islamic jurisprudence—rooted in both Qur’anic interpretations and Prophetic hadith—often condemns musical expression as sinful or demonic. This article interrogates these theological disjunctions, contrasting the Biblical theology of music with the Islamic prohibition of instruments, and argues that the divergent positions reveal fundamental incompatibilities between the God of the Bible and Allah of the Qur’an. Drawing upon patristic writings, classical tafsīr, and canonical hadith collections, this study advances the claim that music is not merely ornamentation but an essential expression of divine-human communion—a reality rejected by Islamic orthodoxy.

---

1. Introduction: Music as Theological Proof

In interfaith dialogues, one often appeals to metaphysical arguments regarding the nature of God. Yet cultural and liturgical practices can offer equally decisive insights. Music, in particular, is not peripheral but central to how a faith conceives divine-human relations. The God of Israel reveals Himself amid song (Exod. 15:1–2), prophecy (1 Sam. 10:5), and worship (Ps. 150), whereas Islamic sources routinely depict Allah as prohibiting instruments, likening music to adultery, wine, and vanity (Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ 5590). This polarity cannot be ignored if one is to conduct serious comparative theology.

---

2. Music in the Biblical Canon

From the earliest stages of Israelite history, music emerges as both prophetic and sacramental. When Saul was anointed king, he encountered “a company of prophets…with harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre, prophesying” (1 Sam. 10:5, ESV). Here, the prophetic word is inseparable from musical accompaniment. Similarly, Elisha summoned a musician before prophesying: “As the musician played, the hand of the LORD came upon him” (2 Kgs. 3:15).

The Psalter, the prayer book of Israel, is suffused with commands to employ musical instruments in worship. Psalm 150 offers a catalogue of instruments—trumpet, lute, harp, timbrel, strings, pipe, cymbals—insisting that “everything that has breath praise the LORD” (Ps. 150:6). Far from rejecting instruments, God sanctifies them as conduits of praise.

Early Christian voices echo this vision. Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus, II.4) interprets music as a reflection of the Logos, arguing that Christ Himself is the “New Song” harmonizing creation. Augustine (Confessions, IX.6) confessed that sacred music moved him to tears, describing it as a form of prayer that lifts the soul heavenward. Thus, patristic theology firmly linked music with divine communion.

---

3. Islam and the Prohibition of Music

In stark contrast, Islamic orthodoxy demonstrates deep ambivalence toward music. While the Qur’an does not explicitly outlaw instruments, exegetes such as Ibn Kathīr (Tafsīr, commentary on Qur’an 31:6) interpret “idle talk” (lahw al-ḥadīth) as music, warning that it leads believers astray. Al-Qurṭubī concurs, asserting that music constitutes a diversion from the remembrance of Allah (Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī, vol. 14).

More explicit is the hadith corpus. In Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (5590), Muhammad declares: “There will be among my followers people who will consider as permissible illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks, and the use of musical instruments.” Here, instruments are grouped with fornication and drunkenness, marking them as grave moral transgressions. Muslim jurists such as Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328) intensified this stance, equating music with satanic deception (Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, vol. 11).

Islamic spirituality thus presents revelation without music. Unlike the prophets of Israel, who prophesied with instruments, Muhammad’s revelations came in states of physical trembling, heavy breathing, or while under the coverings of Aisha (Muslim 2432; Bukhārī 3728)—modes devoid of musical accompaniment or joyful worship.

---

4. Intertextual Theological Critique

The disjunction here is not incidental but ontological. The God of the Bible employs music to reveal His Spirit; Allah, by contrast, condemns music as corruption. One cannot harmonize these positions without negating one tradition. To argue that Yahweh and Allah are identical requires ignoring the radical divergence in how each conceives human creativity, worship, and prophecy.

The prophets, psalmists, and early Church Fathers testify that music is a gift—a miracle distinguishing humanity from the beasts. No donkey composes psalms, no ox crafts symphonies. Music is uniquely human because it reflects the imago Dei. To silence music is to silence an essential expression of divine image-bearing.

Thus, if one bans music, one opposes the Creator’s design. The Christian tradition sees Satan as the perverter of worship (Ezek. 28:13–17, interpreted by many Fathers as describing Lucifer’s fall from being a musical being of heaven). By this measure, a deity who bans instruments, condemns musicians, and likens melody to fornication cannot be the God who commands, “Sing to Him a new song; play skillfully with a shout of joy” (Ps. 33:3). Rather, such a deity aligns with the adversary of sacred song.

---

5. Conclusion

Music, therefore, becomes a theological litmus test. The God of the Bible affirms music as prophecy, prayer, and praise. Allah of Islam condemns it as corruption. The gulf between these positions cannot be bridged by appeals to common monotheism. This divergence reveals not merely different emphases but fundamentally different deities. To worship the God who inhabits the praises of His people (Ps. 22:3) is to reject the pseudo-god who silences them.

---

References

• Augustine. Confessions. Trans. Henry Chadwick. Oxford: OUP, 1991.

• Clement of Alexandria. Paedagogus. ANF, vol. 2.

• Ibn Kathīr. Tafsīr al-Qur’an al-ʿAẓīm. Cairo: Dār al-Ḥadīth.

• al-Qurṭubī. Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1967.

• Ibn Taymiyya. Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā. Medina: King Fahd Press, 1995.

• al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.

• Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj. Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.

---

✍️ Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

 

Jesus is God and We Must Worship Him: Apostolic Confession, Patristic Witness, and Interfaith Theological Discourse

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

The confession of Jesus Christ as God remains the central tenet of Christian faith and the cornerstone of Christian worship. This article re-examines the apostolic testimonies of Christ’s divinity, situates them within early patristic theology, and engages with both interfaith critique—especially Islamic tafsīr traditions denying Christ’s divinity—and contemporary theological debates. By analyzing texts such as John 20:28 and Titus 2:13, alongside patristic witnesses like Athanasius, Augustine, and Chrysostom, this paper asserts that the worship of Jesus as God is not merely a later theological construction, but rather the original faith of the apostles.

---

1. Apostolic Confession of Christ’s Divinity

The apostle Thomas’s declaration to the risen Christ, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28, NIV), remains one of the clearest and most profound affirmations of the deity of Jesus in the New Testament. Unlike earlier christological titles such as Messiah or Son of Man, Thomas’s confession explicitly identifies Jesus with theos, thereby collapsing the distinction between the worship due to Yahweh and the reverence given to Christ.

Jesus’ response to Thomas—“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29)—universalizes this confession, extending it beyond the apostolic circle to all subsequent Christians. This provides not only a hermeneutical foundation for faith in unseen realities (cf. Heb. 11:1) but also establishes an ecclesiological standard: the Christian community exists precisely as those who confess Jesus as both Lord and God.

---

2. Pauline Witness and Eschatological Expectation

Pauline theology confirms this confession. Titus 2:13 describes the believer’s eschatological hope as “the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” Here, the Greek grammar (τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) conforms to the Granville Sharp rule, identifying one referent: Jesus Christ as both theos and sōtēr. Patristic exegesis—most notably by Chrysostom—recognized the unity of divine and salvific identity in this passage, countering later Arian claims that attempted to divide Christ’s status from God’s essence.

---

3. Patristic Continuity: From Apostles to Nicene Orthodoxy

The patristic era consistently interpreted John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 as affirmations of Christ’s deity. Athanasius of Alexandria, in his Orations Against the Arians (Orat. II.22), argued that Thomas’s confession was not hyperbolic reverence but literal acknowledgment of Christ’s consubstantiality with the Father. Augustine, in De Trinitate (Book I), used Thomas’s confession to demonstrate that the church’s worship of Christ was already present in the apostolic witness, not a later development.

Furthermore, the Nicene Creed (325 CE), which declared Christ as “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,” formalized this apostolic and patristic consensus against Arian denials.

---

4. Interfaith Engagement: The Qur’anic Rejection of Christ’s Divinity

Islamic theology explicitly rejects the worship of Jesus as God. The Qur’an asserts: “They have certainly disbelieved who say, ‘Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary’” (Qur’an 5:72). Classical tafsīr sources such as al-Tabari (Jāmi‘ al-bayān on 5:72) and Ibn Kathīr (Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘Aẓīm) interpret this as a repudiation of Christian confession, reducing it to shirk (associationism).

However, such Islamic critiques fail to account for the textual and historical rootedness of Christ’s worship within the apostolic era itself. The Christian response is not innovation, but continuity: from Thomas’s confession, through Paul’s letters, to Nicene orthodoxy. Whereas Islamic theology frames the divinity of Christ as a corruption of prophetic monotheism, Christian theology insists it is the fullest revelation of God’s self-disclosure.

---

5. Conclusion: The Necessity of Worshiping Jesus as God

To deny Jesus’ divinity is to deny the very core of the apostolic kerygma. The earliest Christian witnesses worshiped Him, the fathers of the church defended His divinity, and the ecumenical councils formalized it as dogma. Interfaith discourse must therefore grapple not with a later theological accretion, but with the earliest Christian experience of Christ as God incarnate. The question is not whether Christians may worship Jesus, but whether they can be Christians at all without doing so.

---

References

• Primary Sources

  • Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV).

  • Athanasius of Alexandria, Orations Against the Arians.

  • Augustine, De Trinitate.

  • John Chrysostom, Homilies on Titus.

  • The Nicene Creed (325 CE).

• Islamic Sources

  • Al-Tabari, Jāmi‘ al-bayān ‘an ta’wīl āy al-Qur’ān.

  • Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘Aẓīm.

• Secondary Sources

  • Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

  • Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

  • Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978.

 

Living Before God: Divine Intimacy, Fear of the Lord, and Daily Discipline

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

From the beginning of creation, humanity has held a unique place within God’s order of life. Unlike any other creature, man possesses the capacity to converse with God, to discern His will, and to live in a covenantal relationship with Him. This divine-human dialogue is grounded in man’s endowed faculties: ears to hear, eyes to see, intellect to comprehend, language to communicate, and above all, free will to respond. In this sense, man is both participant in, and steward of, God’s revealed purposes.

God’s intention has never been merely to create humanity, but to cultivate in man a companion who walks with Him, fears Him, and shuns evil. This is the heart of God’s economy of salvation: a continual invitation for man to offer his heart, to be purified and equipped by God, and to live in reverent fellowship with Him.

Theological Reflection on Divine Companionship

Scripture testifies to the relational nature of God. From Adam walking in the Garden with the Creator (Genesis 3:8), to Abraham called “a friend of God” (James 2:23), to Christ inviting His disciples into intimate communion (John 15:15), the divine project is consistently marked by God’s desire for companionship. This companionship, however, is not casual familiarity but covenantal intimacy—a relationship marked by fear of the Lord, obedience, and holiness.

As God Himself declares, only when humanity offers its heart to Him does the divine intention of creation reach fulfillment. The human heart purified and sanctified becomes the dwelling place of God (Ezekiel 36:26–27). Fear of God and shunning of evil thus emerge as inseparable virtues. One who truly lives before God cannot but be restrained in word and deed, discerning what is pleasing to the Lord, and avoiding all that is loathsome in His sight (Proverbs 8:13; Ecclesiastes 12:13).

The Discipline of Living Before God

The practical expression of this theological truth lies in the discipline of living continually before God. To live before God is not to abandon life’s ordinary duties but to sanctify them through conscious awareness of His presence. God does not call believers to forsake their daily responsibilities in the name of spiritual devotion, but rather to infuse those responsibilities with divine mindfulness.

Prayer, contemplation, meditation on Scripture, and the singing of hymns are not restricted to sacred times but can permeate daily tasks. Whether cooking, working, or resting, the believer is invited to cultivate an interior posture of peace before God. This is the essence of Paul’s admonition: “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17). Such constant communion does not suspend normal life but transfigures it into a life lived in the presence of God.

When circumstances allow, one must enter into focused prayer and meditation. When circumstances do not permit extended devotion, the believer’s heart can still inwardly draw near to God, offering silent prayers and reflections amidst labor. This rhythm of devotion and duty ensures that the heart is continually oriented toward God’s presence, allowing His Word to purify, discipline, and guide daily living.

Conclusion

The heart of Christian spirituality lies not in mere outward performance of rituals, nor in the neglect of ordinary responsibilities under the guise of devotion, but in the integration of divine presence into every aspect of life. God desires companions who walk with Him—those who fear Him, shun evil, and allow their hearts to be continually examined and purified by His Spirit.

Living before God, therefore, is not an occasional act but a lifelong discipline, shaping the believer into one who embodies reverence, obedience, and intimacy with the Creator. In this lies the true fulfillment of humanity’s vocation: to converse with God, to share His heart, and to walk faithfully with Him until eternity.