Sunday, July 19, 2026

The Arab Tribes that Arabized North Africa

The Tribes That Arabized North Africa and the Sahel Through Migration, Settlement, and Intermarriage

The Arabization of North Africa was not a single conquest completed during the seventh century. It was a long and uneven historical process that continued for more than a thousand years through military expansion, tribal migration, settlement, trade, religious education, political power, intermarriage, and the gradual adoption of Arabic by Indigenous communities.
When Muslim armies entered Egypt in the 640s and continued westward across Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, they introduced Islam and Arabic government. However, the conquerors were greatly outnumbered by the existing populations. Egypt was mainly inhabited by Coptic-speaking Egyptians, while the Maghreb was populated largely by Amazigh communities. Nubians, Saharan peoples, and numerous Sahelian societies occupied the lands farther south.
The region did not suddenly become ethnically Arab. Instead, Arabic first spread through mosques, courts, military settlements, scholarship, commerce, and government. Rural Arabization accelerated later when entire tribal communities arrived with their wives, children, herds, customs, genealogies, and Bedouin dialects.
The Early Arab Settlers
The first settlers included members of tribes such as Quraysh, Kinana, Tamim, Azd, Kinda, Lakhm, Judham, Kalb, Qays, Juhayna, and Bali. Many served as soldiers, governors, religious scholars, or administrators.
They established themselves around important centers including Fustat in Egypt and Kairouan in Tunisia. Some received land, while others entered commercial networks or married local women. Their children inherited both local and Arabian ancestry, but many increasingly identified with the Arabic language, Islam, and the social prestige of Arab genealogies.
Intermarriage was central to this process. Arab settlers were often predominantly male during the earliest stages, making marriage with Coptic, Amazigh, Nubian, and other local women common. Their descendants became part of new Arabic-speaking communities without losing all connections to Indigenous ancestry.
Banu Hilal and Banu Sulaym
The greatest Bedouin migration into the Maghreb occurred during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The powerful Banu Hilal and Banu Sulaym confederations moved westward from Egypt into Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco.
Unlike the earlier soldiers who concentrated in cities, these groups migrated as entire pastoral societies. Historical traditions describe them traveling with their families, livestock, tents, warriors, and tribal institutions. Their settlement greatly expanded the use of Bedouin Arabic across the countryside and steppe.
The Banu Hilal included major branches such as Riyah, Athbaj, Jusham, Zughba, and Adi. Some settled in Tunisia and eastern Algeria, while others continued into western Algeria and Morocco.
The Banu Sulaym became especially influential in Libya and southeastern Tunisia. Numerous Libyan tribes preserve Sulaymi or Hilali genealogical traditions. These migrants fought some local groups, formed alliances with others, and frequently married into Amazigh communities.
Over generations, the distinction between immigrant and local became increasingly blurred. Many communities became Arabized Amazigh, while others described themselves as Arab despite having mixed ancestry. The spread of tribal Arabic therefore did not require the physical replacement of the Indigenous population.
The Ma’qil and Beni Hassan
Beginning around the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Ma’qil confederation became influential in southern Morocco, western Algeria, the Sahara, and eventually Mauritania. Among its most important branches were the Beni Hassan.
The Beni Hassan expanded through the western Sahara and established political and military dominance over numerous Sanhaja Amazigh communities. Their Arabic dialect developed into Hassaniya, now widely spoken in Mauritania, Western Sahara, southern Morocco, and neighboring Saharan regions.
This Arabization occurred through both conflict and social mixing. Beni Hassan lineages married Sanhaja women, established alliances with religious communities, absorbed local customs, and transmitted Arabic through pastoral networks. Many modern Hassaniya-speaking communities therefore reflect a mixture of Arabian, Amazigh, and sub-Saharan African ancestry.
Egypt and the Nile Valley
Arab migration into Egypt did not end after the initial conquest. Tribes continued arriving from Arabia and neighboring regions over many centuries. Juhayna, Bali, Hawwara, Lakhm, Judham, and other groups settled in Upper Egypt, the eastern desert, the Nile Valley, and areas leading toward Sudan.
Coptic gradually lost its position as the everyday language of much of Egypt as Arabic became necessary for administration, education, religious advancement, taxation, commerce, and social mobility.
Intermarriage further accelerated the process. Arab tribal communities married Egyptian women, while Arabic-speaking descendants became incorporated into towns and villages. Many people eventually adopted Arab tribal identities even when their ancestry remained predominantly Egyptian.
Arabic did not simply replace Egypt’s population. It became the language through which much of the existing population expressed a transformed identity.
Sudan and the Continuing Movement South
Arabization moved southward from Egypt into Nubia and Sudan gradually, particularly after the weakening of the medieval Nubian Christian kingdoms.
Tribes associated with Juhayna became especially important. Ja’aliyyin, Shaigiya, Rufa’a, Kababish, Shukriyya, Baggara, and other Arabic-speaking communities developed through combinations of migration, local ancestry, pastoral expansion, political alliances, and intermarriage.
Many Sudanese Arab groups preserve traditions of Arabian descent, but their populations also demonstrate deep continuity with Indigenous Nubian and northeastern African peoples. Historical accounts emphasize that communities classified as Arab and African in Sudan were often connected by generations of intermarriage.
In Darfur, many Arab pastoral groups arrived relatively late. Some substantial migrations took place during the eighteenth century, while later droughts and political upheavals encouraged additional movement between Chad, Sudan, Niger, and surrounding regions.
Chad and Niger
Arabic-speaking pastoralists continued spreading across the central Sahel through seasonal migration, trade, marriage, and settlement. Groups collectively described as Chadian Arabs or Baggara became established across Chad, Sudan, the Central African Republic, and neighboring territories.
The Awlad Sulayman also became influential across Libya, Chad, and Niger. Originally connected to the Libyan interior, branches moved southward through Saharan caravan routes and later established communities in the Sahel.
These migrations were rarely simple movements from Arabia directly into Africa. Tribes often moved repeatedly over centuries. A group might migrate from Arabia to Egypt, from Egypt to Libya, from Libya into Tunisia or the Sahara, and generations later from the Sahara into Chad, Niger, or Sudan.
Marriage connected incoming pastoralists with local Toubou, Kanembu, Fur, Nubian, Tuareg, and other Sahelian populations. As Arabic became important in commerce and Islamic education, some mixed communities adopted Arab identity while others maintained separate ethnic identities but used Arabic as a second language.
Arabization Continued After the Medieval Period
Arab migration did not stop with the Banu Hilal, Banu Sulaym, or Ma’qil. Smaller movements continued throughout the Ottoman period, the colonial era, and modern times.
Pilgrims traveled between West Africa, Egypt, and Arabia. Merchants established themselves along caravan routes. Religious scholars moved between Islamic centers. Soldiers and administrators relocated under Ottoman rule. Pastoral tribes crossed borders that did not yet exist, moving wherever grazing land and water were available.
Even after European colonial powers created modern frontiers, migration continued between Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan, Chad, and Niger. Colonial borders divided tribal territories but did not entirely prevent families from maintaining relationships across them.
During the twentieth century, employment also produced new population movements. Oil development in Libya attracted workers from Egypt, Tunisia, Sudan, Chad, and Niger. Egyptian teachers, officials, laborers, and professionals settled temporarily or permanently in several Arab and African countries. Sudanese and Chadian communities moved across borders because of trade, drought, conflict, and employment.
These migrations did not always involve people recently arriving from the Arabian Peninsula. They often involved already Arabized populations moving from one part of North Africa or the Sahel to another.
Marriage and the Expansion of Arab Identity
Intermarriage remained one of the strongest engines of Arabization. Arab tribal men married women from Amazigh, Coptic, Nubian, Saharan, and Sahelian communities. Local men and families also entered Arab tribal alliances, adopted Arabic, or claimed prestigious Arab genealogies.
Marriage could provide protection, access to land, participation in trade networks, or membership in a politically powerful confederation. Children raised in Arabic-speaking households often inherited Arab tribal identity even when much of their ancestry came from local populations.
In some societies, identity followed the father’s lineage. A child whose father belonged to an Arab tribe could be considered Arab regardless of the mother’s ancestry. Over many generations, this system allowed Arabic-speaking tribal identity to expand more rapidly than the number of original Arabian migrants.
However, the process also worked in both directions. Arab newcomers adopted Indigenous foods, clothing, farming practices, music, architecture, and social customs. North African Arab culture therefore became distinct from the culture of Arabia.
How Arabization Continues Today
The region is still undergoing forms of Arabization, although modern Arabization is usually driven less by tribal conquest and more by education, urbanization, government policy, mass media, religious institutions, and migration.
People moving from Amazigh-speaking or other Indigenous rural communities into major cities often adopt Arabic as their principal public language. Children may attend Arabic-language schools, watch Arabic television, use Arabic on social media, and marry Arabic-speaking partners. Within one or two generations, the family may retain only limited knowledge of its original language.
Arabic also functions as a language of wider communication across parts of Chad, Sudan, Mauritania, and Niger. Communities may adopt Chadian Arabic, Sudanese Arabic, or Hassaniya for trade and communication without necessarily identifying ethnically as Arab.
At the same time, Arabization is no longer uncontested. Amazigh cultural and linguistic revival movements in Morocco and Algeria have achieved official recognition for Tamazight. Nubian, Coptic, Tuareg, Toubou, and other communities also work to preserve their languages and historical identities.
North Africa and the Sahel should therefore not be understood as regions where Arabs simply replaced everyone who came before them. They are regions where repeated migrations created deeply mixed societies.
Modern Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians, Libyans, Egyptians, Mauritanians, Sudanese, Chadians, and Nigeriens may identify as Arab, Amazigh, African, Nubian, Sahrawi, Tuareg, or several identities simultaneously. Arabization changed the languages and identities of millions, but beneath those identities remain the combined histories of Arabia, the Nile Valley, the Maghreb, the Sahara, and the Sahel.
Sources
Ibn Khaldun, Kitab al-Ibar
Jamil M. Abun-Nasr, A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period
Hugh Kennedy, The Great Arab Conquests
Nehemia Levtzion and Randall Pouwels, The History of Islam in Africa
A. J. Arkell, A History of the Sudan
UNESCO, General History of Africa

How the Crucifixion Revealed the Deity of Jesus Christ

 "Truly This Was the Son of God!" — What the Roman Centurion Learned at the Cross


How the Crucifixion Revealed the Deity of Jesus Christ
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Matthew 27:54 (KJV):
"Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God."
One of the most astonishing confessions in the entire New Testament did not come from one of Jesus' disciples, a Jewish priest, or a religious scholar. It came from a hardened Roman centurion—a military officer who had just supervised the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
This raises an important theological question:
What did this Roman soldier witness that convinced him Jesus was the Son of God?
The answer reaches far beyond the physical crucifixion. The centurion encountered undeniable evidence that the man hanging on the cross was unlike any other human being. Every event surrounding Jesus' death revealed His divine identity.
1. The Centurion Had Witnessed Hundreds of Executions
Roman centurions were professional executioners.
They had crucified thieves, rebels, murderers, and political enemies. Death by crucifixion was familiar to them. They had seen people curse, scream, beg for mercy, and die in hatred.
But Jesus was completely different.
Instead of cursing His executioners, Jesus prayed:
"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34)
The centurion had never seen a condemned man pray for those who were murdering him.
Such divine forgiveness pointed to a supernatural character.
2. Jesus Demonstrated Absolute Authority While Dying
Even while nailed to the cross, Jesus exercised authority that belongs only to God.
He promised eternal life to the repentant thief:
"Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43)
No prophet ever claimed authority to admit someone into Paradise by his own word.
Jesus did.
Only God possesses authority over eternal destiny.
3. Jesus Controlled the Moment of His Death
Ordinary victims of crucifixion slowly died from exhaustion or suffocation.
Jesus did not simply die.
Scripture says:
"He yielded up the ghost." (Matthew 27:50)
John records Jesus saying beforehand:
"No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself." (John 10:18)
This is an extraordinary claim.
Jesus was not overcome by death.
He voluntarily surrendered His life.
Death obeyed Him.
4. Nature Responded to Its Creator
As Jesus hung upon the cross, extraordinary cosmic events occurred.
Darkness covered the land.
The earth shook violently.
Rocks split apart.
Tombs opened.
The temple veil was torn from top to bottom.
Creation itself reacted.
Why?
Because the One through whom all things were created (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16) was accomplishing redemption.
The centurion understood that these were not ordinary natural events.
5. Jesus Fulfilled Ancient Prophecy
Everything occurring at Calvary fulfilled prophecies written centuries earlier.
His hands and feet were pierced (Psalm 22:16).
Soldiers cast lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18).
He was mocked (Psalm 22).
He was given vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21).
Not one of His bones was broken (Psalm 34:20).
This was not coincidence.
This was divine fulfillment.
6. The Temple Veil Was Torn by God
Matthew records:
"The veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom."
The veil separated sinful humanity from God's holy presence.
Its tearing from top to bottom symbolized God's action—not man's.
The sacrifice of Jesus had opened direct access to God.
Only the true Lamb of God could accomplish this.
7. Jesus Died Like No Other Man
Even His final words demonstrated divine majesty.
"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit."
Unlike every other human being, Jesus willingly entrusted His spirit because He possessed authority over life itself.
The centurion realized this was no defeated criminal.
This was a King.
Did the Centurion Fully Understand the Trinity?
Probably not.
As a Roman soldier, he likely did not yet possess a complete theological understanding of the Trinity.
However, he recognized something unmistakable:
Jesus possessed a divine identity unlike any man he had ever seen.
His confession was the beginning of theological revelation.
Later New Testament writers would explain more fully what the centurion had only begun to perceive.
Why "Son of God" Means Equality with God
Some people mistakenly think the title "Son of God" means Jesus is merely a created being.
The Jews themselves understood otherwise.
When Jesus called God His Father,
"the Jews sought the more to kill him... because he said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18)
In first-century Judaism, claiming unique Sonship meant sharing the Father's nature.
Just as a human son possesses human nature,
the eternal Son possesses the divine nature.
This explains why Jesus accepted worship, forgave sins, claimed eternal existence, and declared:
"Before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58)
The divine name revealed to Moses belonged to Him.
Jesus Is Not Only the Son of God—He Is God Manifested in Flesh
The New Testament repeatedly affirms this truth.
John 1:1 — "The Word was God."
John 1:14 — "The Word was made flesh."
Colossians 2:9 — "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
Hebrews 1:8 — The Father declares of the Son, "Thy throne, O God..."
Titus 2:13 — Jesus is called "the great God and our Saviour."
John 20:28 — Thomas worshipped Jesus, saying, "My Lord and my God."
The Bible does not merely teach that Jesus resembles God.
It teaches that Jesus is God incarnate.
The Greatest Sermon Was Preached at the Cross
Ironically, one of the first public confessions of Jesus' divine identity after His death came from a Gentile soldier.
Not from Caiaphas.
Not from Pilate.
Not from the religious elite.
But from the very man assigned to oversee His execution.
Standing beneath the cross, the centurion looked upon Jesus and declared:
"Truly this was the Son of God."
The cross became more than an instrument of death.
It became the greatest revelation of God's love, holiness, justice, and glory.
Final Reflection
The Roman centurion came to execute a criminal.
He left having encountered the King of kings.
He arrived to witness an execution.
He departed having witnessed divine revelation.
The One hanging on the cross was not merely another victim of Roman justice.
He was the eternal Word made flesh, the Savior of the world, the Lamb of God, the Lord of glory, and God manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).
The confession of the centurion still echoes through history:
"Truly this was the Son of God."
And the whole testimony of Scripture answers:
Yes—Jesus is the eternal Son of God, sharing the very nature of the Father, worthy of all worship, because He is God revealed in human flesh.

Saturday, July 18, 2026

Qur'anic Contradiction? A Flood During the Time of Moses


Qur'anic Contradiction? A Flood During the Time of Moses

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the recurring criticisms of the Qur'an concerns its retelling of biblical history. While Muslims maintain that the Qur'an confirms previous divine revelation (Qur'an 5:46-48), several passages appear to present events differently from the biblical record.

A notable example concerns the "flood" (al-ṭūfān) mentioned in connection with Pharaoh during the time of Moses.

The central question is:

Did God send a flood upon Egypt during the Exodus?

According to the Bible, the answer is no. However, several Qur'anic passages, together with classical Islamic commentaries, have been understood as describing precisely such an event.

The Flood in the Days of Noah

The Qur'an repeatedly describes the great flood in the time of Noah:

"Indeed, We sent Noah to his people... then the Flood seized them while they were wrongdoers." (Qur'an 29:14)

"We delivered him and those with him in the Ark, and We drowned those who rejected Our signs." (Qur'an 7:64)

These passages clearly refer to Noah's Flood.

The Same Word Appears in the Story of Moses

When describing God's judgments upon Pharaoh, the Qur'an states:

"So We sent upon them the flood (al-ṭūfān), the locusts, the lice, the frogs, and the blood—clear signs..." (Qur'an 7:133)

Later the same chapter says:

"So We took vengeance upon them and drowned them in the sea..." (Qur'an 7:136)

The Arabic word al-ṭūfān is the same term used elsewhere for Noah's flood.

This raises an important historical question:

Was Egypt struck by a flood before Pharaoh drowned in the Red Sea?

Classical Muslim Commentaries

Many classical Muslim scholars interpreted al-ṭūfān as an actual flood or overwhelming rain.

Ibn Kathir

Ibn Kathir records reports from Ibn Abbas and other early authorities explaining the event as:

  • Heavy rainfall;

  • Water covering the land;

  • Crops being destroyed;

  • The people pleading with Moses to pray for relief.

He also quotes Muhammad ibn Ishaq, who writes that the flood spread across the land and prevented the Egyptians from farming.

Al-Tabari

Al-Tabari likewise explains the plague as a devastating flood caused by heavy rain that submerged Egyptian property before being removed in response to Moses' prayer.

Tafsir Ibn Abbas

The commentary attributed to Ibn Abbas states that continuous rain fell day and night, flooding Egypt before the subsequent plagues arrived.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn

Al-Jalalayn similarly explains that floodwaters entered people's homes and rose to their necks for several days before subsiding.

Taken together, these classical commentaries understand al-ṭūfān as a literal flood that struck Egypt.

The Biblical Record

The biblical account presents a different sequence.

According to Exodus, the ten plagues were:

  1. Water turned to blood

  2. Frogs

  3. Gnats

  4. Flies

  5. Death of livestock

  6. Boils

  7. Hail

  8. Locusts

  9. Darkness

  10. Death of the firstborn

(Exodus 7–12)

Nowhere does Exodus describe a nationwide flood inundating Egypt before the crossing of the Red Sea.

The only overwhelming body of water associated with Pharaoh's destruction is the sea that drowned his army after Israel crossed safely (Exodus 14).

The Nine Signs

Another issue concerns the number of signs given to Moses.

The Qur'an says:

"Indeed We gave Moses nine clear signs." (Qur'an 17:101)

and

"Nine signs to Pharaoh and his people." (Qur'an 27:12)

Many classical Muslim commentators include the flood among these nine signs.

However, the biblical narrative records ten plagues before the Exodus.

This difference has generated long-standing debate between Muslim and Christian scholars regarding whether the Qur'an is referring to the biblical plagues, a different set of miracles, or a selective list rather than a complete enumeration.

A Christian Evaluation

From a Christian perspective, the biblical account is internally consistent.

The Book of Exodus never records a flood devastating Egypt during Moses' ministry. Instead, the major water judgment was the destruction of Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea after Israel's departure.

Since several classical Islamic commentators understood Qur'an 7:133 to describe a literal flood preceding the Exodus, Christians argue that this creates a historical tension between the Qur'anic narrative and the biblical record.

Muslim scholars, however, often respond that al-ṭūfān may refer more broadly to an overwhelming calamity, torrential rain, or another form of disaster rather than a global flood like Noah's. They therefore reject the claim that the Qur'an confuses Noah's Flood with the plagues of Moses.

The discussion ultimately depends on how one interprets the Arabic term al-ṭūfān and whether one accepts the biblical or Qur'anic account as historically authoritative.

Conclusion

The appearance of al-ṭūfān in the story of Pharaoh remains an important point of discussion in Christian-Muslim apologetics.

Christians contend that:

  • Exodus contains no plague of a nationwide flood.

  • Classical Muslim commentators interpreted al-ṭūfān as a literal flood.

  • The Qur'an lists nine signs where Exodus records ten plagues.

  • These differences raise questions about the historical relationship between the Qur'an and earlier biblical revelation.

Muslim interpreters, on the other hand, argue that the Arabic term can describe an overwhelming disaster without implying Noah's universal flood and that the Qur'an need not be read as reproducing the biblical list of plagues exactly.

These differing interpretations continue to be a significant subject of scholarly dialogue between Christian and Muslim theologians.


Did Muhammad Know How to Read and Write?

 

Did Muhammad Know How to Read and Write?

A Critical Analysis of Sahih al-Bukhari 5669 and the Islamic Doctrine of Muhammad's Illiteracy

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the central claims of traditional Islam is that Muhammad was al-ummī ("unlettered" or "illiterate"). Muslim apologists frequently argue that Muhammad's alleged inability to read or write proves that the Qur'an could not have originated from him, thereby establishing its divine origin.

However, one of the most authentic Islamic traditions appears to raise serious questions about this narrative.

In Sahih al-Bukhari 5669, during Muhammad's final illness, he declares:

"Come, let me write for you a statement after which you will never go astray."

This statement deserves careful examination because it appears inconsistent with the repeated Islamic assertion that Muhammad could neither read nor write.

The Plain Reading of the Hadith

The hadith presents Muhammad requesting writing materials so that he could write a document.

The wording does not state:

  • "Bring someone to write."

  • "Let one of my scribes write."

  • "I will dictate."

Instead, the natural reading is:

"Let me write for you..."

In ordinary language, when someone says, "Let me write this," listeners naturally understand that the speaker intends to perform the writing.

Literacy Normally Includes Reading

Writing and reading are closely related skills.

A person who writes:

  • recognizes letters,

  • understands words,

  • forms sentences,

  • communicates through written language.

Therefore, the statement naturally raises an important question:

If Muhammad intended to write a document, on what basis can it still be maintained that he was completely unable to read or write?

The Islamic Response

Muslim scholars generally answer that Muhammad intended only to dictate the document while another person physically wrote it.

However, this explanation is not stated in the hadith itself.

Rather, it represents an interpretation intended to preserve the traditional doctrine of Muhammad's illiteracy.

The text itself simply records:

"Let me write for you..."

The burden therefore rests upon those making the alternative interpretation to demonstrate from the text that dictation—not personal writing—is intended.

Why This Matters

The doctrine of Muhammad's illiteracy is frequently presented as one of the strongest evidences for the divine origin of the Qur'an.

If historical evidence suggests Muhammad may have possessed literacy, then one apologetic argument for the Qur'an's miraculous origin becomes significantly weaker.

Even if one concludes that the hadith is ambiguous, ambiguity itself challenges the certainty with which the doctrine is often presented.

The "Pen and Paper" Incident

The historical episode becomes even more significant because Umar ibn al-Khattab interrupted the request by saying:

"The Book of Allah is sufficient for us."

As a result, Muhammad never produced the written statement.

Ibn Abbas later lamented:

"The greatest disaster was what prevented the Messenger of Allah from writing that document because of their disagreement."

This raises an important historical question.

If the document was intended to prevent future error, why was it never written?

Historical Questions

Several questions naturally arise from this account.

If Muhammad truly could not write:

  • Why did he say, "Let me write"?

  • Why did no companion correct him by saying he could not write?

  • Why does the hadith never state that another person would write on his behalf?

If Muhammad intended only to dictate:

  • Why is the wording not explicit?

  • Why has this clarification become necessary only in later theological interpretation?

The Doctrine of Al-Ummi

The Qur'an describes Muhammad as al-ummī in several passages.

Scholars have proposed multiple meanings:

  • illiterate,

  • unscriptured,

  • Gentile,

  • one outside the Jewish scriptural tradition.

Because the Arabic term has more than one possible meaning, some contemporary scholars argue that translating it exclusively as "illiterate" may oversimplify the evidence.

Consequently, the doctrine that Muhammad absolutely could neither read nor write is not as straightforward as it is often presented.

Conclusion

Sahih al-Bukhari 5669 presents an important historical question regarding Muhammad's literacy.

While Muslim scholars generally interpret the passage as referring to dictation, the wording itself has led critics to argue that it naturally suggests Muhammad intended to write personally.

This tension invites further historical and textual investigation.

Whether one accepts the traditional explanation or not, the hadith demonstrates that the question of Muhammad's literacy is more complex than simplistic apologetic claims often acknowledge.


Debate Questions

  1. If Muhammad could not write, why did he say, "Let me write for you"?

  2. Why does the hadith never say that Muhammad intended merely to dictate?

  3. Why did none of the companions respond by saying, "Messenger of Allah, you cannot write"?

  4. If the Qur'an was sufficient, why did Muhammad still intend to produce another written statement?

  5. Why did Ibn Abbas describe the incident as "the greatest disaster" if nothing essential was lost?

  6. Is the traditional interpretation based on the wording of the hadith itself, or on later theological assumptions?

  7. Does the Arabic text explicitly state that Muhammad was only dictating?

  8. If al-ummī can have meanings other than "illiterate," should Muslims avoid claiming that Muhammad's inability to read and write is established beyond dispute?

  9. Does this hadith demonstrate that the historical evidence regarding Muhammad's literacy is open to scholarly discussion?

  10. Should historical conclusions be based on the plain wording of primary sources or on later doctrinal interpretations?


Was Jesus a Muslim? A Biblical Response to the Claim that Jesus Merely "Submitted to God"



Was Jesus a Muslim? A Biblical Response to the Claim that Jesus Merely "Submitted to God"

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the most common claims made by Muslim apologists is that Jesus was a Muslim because He submitted Himself to the will of God. They argue that since the word Islam means "submission," anyone who submits to God is, by definition, a Muslim.

This argument sounds persuasive until one asks a simple but essential question:

What is the will of God according to Jesus Himself?

Rather than accepting later religious definitions, Christians must look to the words of Christ. If Jesus defines God's will, then His definition—not anyone else's—is authoritative.

The Bible gives a clear answer.

Jesus Defined the Will of God

Jesus declared:

"And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40, KJ21)

Notice carefully what Jesus says.

The will of God is not described here as merely following religious rituals, reciting prayers, or identifying with a particular religious community.

Instead, Jesus says the Father's will is:

  • To see the Son.

  • To believe in the Son.

  • To receive everlasting life through the Son.

  • To be raised by Jesus on the last day.

This is Jesus' own definition of God's will.

The Work God Requires

Jesus further explained this truth:

"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent." (John 6:29)

The work God desires is faith in Jesus Christ.

The foundation of salvation is not simply acknowledging that God exists. It is believing in the One whom the Father sent.

Throughout the New Testament, genuine faith is presented as an ongoing trust in Christ that produces obedience, perseverance, and transformed living. Saving faith is not merely intellectual agreement but wholehearted reliance upon Jesus as Lord and Savior.

If Submission Means Obeying God...

If Muslims argue that Jesus was a Muslim because He submitted to God's will, another question naturally follows:

Did Jesus teach people to submit to Himself?

The answer from Scripture is yes.

Jesus repeatedly called people to:

  • Believe in Him.

  • Follow Him.

  • Receive eternal life through Him.

  • Honor Him.

  • Trust Him.

He never directed people to seek eternal life apart from Himself.

Instead He declared:

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me." (John 14:6)

Therefore, according to Jesus, submission to God's will necessarily includes submission to the Son.

Can Someone Reject Jesus' Identity Yet Claim to Obey God?

This raises an important theological question.

If God's will is to believe in His Son, can someone reject the Son's identity and still claim complete submission to God?

Jesus Himself answered:

"He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him." (John 5:23)

And again,

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father." (1 John 2:23)

According to the New Testament, honoring God cannot be separated from honoring His Son.

Does the Qur'an Teach the Same Jesus?

The Jesus described in the Bible is:

  • The eternal Word made flesh (John 1:1–14).

  • The unique Son of God (John 3:16).

  • The Savior of the world (John 4:42).

  • The Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2:8).

  • The One who forgives sins (Mark 2:5–12).

  • The Judge of all humanity (John 5:22–27).

  • The giver of eternal life (John 10:28).

The Qur'an, however, explicitly rejects Jesus as the Son of God and denies His crucifixion and resurrection.

These are fundamentally different theological claims. Christians therefore maintain that the biblical revelation of Jesus and the Qur'anic portrayal of Jesus are not identical.

Questions for Muslim Scholars

If submission to God is the defining characteristic of true religion, then consider these questions:

  1. Jesus said God's will is to believe in the Son (John 6:29, 40). Do you believe in Jesus exactly as He revealed Himself?

  2. If Jesus gives eternal life, why should anyone seek salvation apart from Him?

  3. Jesus promised to raise believers on the last day. Can any prophet besides Jesus make that promise?

  4. Why does Jesus repeatedly make Himself the object of saving faith if He was merely a prophet?

  5. Jesus said no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). Do you accept or reject His words?

  6. If honoring the Father requires honoring the Son (John 5:23), can rejection of the Son still be called submission to God?

  7. If Jesus defines God's will, should believers follow His definition or a later religious interpretation?

Conclusion

The claim that Jesus was a Muslim because He submitted to God overlooks Jesus' own teaching about what God's will actually is.

According to Christ, the Father's will is that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will receive everlasting life.

Biblical submission is therefore not merely surrender to the idea of one God; it is faithful obedience to God's revealed plan of salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ.

To submit to the Father is to receive the Son.

To reject the Son is to reject the Father's revealed will.

Jesus did not merely teach people to submit to God in the abstract—He called them to believe in Him, follow Him, and receive eternal life through Him alone.

The question facing every reader is therefore not whether Jesus submitted to God, but whether we will submit to Jesus Christ, whom the Father sent to be the Savior of the world.


Are the Angels in Islam the Same as the Angels Revealed in the Bible?


Are the Angels in Islam the Same as the Angels Revealed in the Bible?

One of the traditions frequently discussed in Islamic literature is the statement attributed to Muhammad:

"The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or pictures."

— Sahih al-Bukhari 3322 (see also Sahih Muslim 2106)

This tradition raises an important theological question. If these are truly the holy angels of the one true God, why would the presence of one of God's own creatures prevent them from entering a house to carry out God's commands?

According to the Holy Bible, angels are spiritual beings who serve God with absolute obedience.

"Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word." (Psalm 103:20, KJV)

The Bible nowhere teaches that God's holy angels are unable to enter a location because a dog is present. Instead, Scripture presents angels as powerful servants who carry out God's will without being hindered by ordinary creatures.

Furthermore, the Bible teaches that God's creation was originally declared "very good."

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." (Genesis 1:31)

Dogs are part of that created order. While the Bible occasionally uses dogs symbolically to describe moral uncleanness or wicked people in certain contexts (for example, Philippians 3:2 and Revelation 22:15), it never teaches that the physical presence of a dog prevents God's angels from carrying out divine assignments.

Indeed, throughout Scripture, angels appear in dangerous environments, battle evil spiritual forces (Daniel 10:13; Revelation 12:7–9), rescue God's servants (Acts 12:7–11), and minister wherever God sends them. Their authority comes from God Himself, not from the absence of particular animals.

This creates a significant theological contrast between the biblical portrait of angels and the description found in certain Islamic traditions. If an angel's mission can supposedly be interrupted merely because a dog is inside a house, one may reasonably ask whether these beings possess the unrestricted authority consistently attributed to God's angels in Scripture.

For Christians, the ultimate standard is the Bible. The biblical God is sovereign over all creation.

"For by him were all things created... all things were created by him, and for him." (Colossians 1:16)

Nothing in creation—including dogs—can frustrate God's purposes or prevent His heavenly messengers from fulfilling His commands.

Therefore, Christians may conclude that the description of angels found in Sahih al-Bukhari 3322 differs substantially from the biblical revelation concerning God's holy angels. This difference is one of many theological distinctions between the Bible and later Islamic tradition.

At the same time, Christians are called to distinguish between evaluating religious claims and judging people. The New Testament teaches that spiritual deception—not ordinary Muslims themselves—is the real enemy.

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers..." (Ephesians 6:12)

Our response should therefore be one of truth spoken in love. We should pray that our Muslim friends and neighbors come to know the Lord Jesus Christ, who declared:

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)

May God grant all people the wisdom to test every spiritual claim against His revealed Word (Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1) and to embrace the salvation found in Jesus Christ alone.


JESUS IS GOD: The Biblical Revelation of the Divine Nature of Jesus Christ


JESUS IS GOD: The Biblical Revelation of the Divine Nature of Jesus Christ

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The identity of Jesus Christ remains the most important question in human history. Christianity stands or falls on the answer to one question asked by Jesus Himself:

"But who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15)

The New Testament consistently presents Jesus Christ not merely as a prophet, teacher, or messenger, but as God incarnate—the eternal Son of God who entered human history to redeem fallen humanity. The doctrine of Christ's deity is not based on a single isolated verse but on the unified testimony of Scripture. From Genesis to Revelation, God progressively revealed His plan to send the divine Redeemer who would conquer sin, Satan, and death.

This article examines the biblical evidence demonstrating that Jesus Christ is truly God while remaining fully human.

The Promise of the Divine Redeemer

God announced His plan of salvation immediately after Adam and Eve sinned.

Genesis 3:15 declares:

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will crush your head, and you will strike His heel."

This first Messianic prophecy foretells a coming Deliverer who would defeat Satan. Throughout the Old Testament, God gradually revealed that this Deliverer would be far more than an ordinary man.

Centuries later, the prophet Isaiah proclaimed:

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

Matthew 1:23 explains that Immanuel means:

"God with us."

The Messiah would therefore be God dwelling among humanity.

Isaiah further revealed the divine identity of this promised Child:

"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given...and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6–7)

A child would be born in time, yet He would be called Mighty God, demonstrating the union of genuine humanity with eternal deity.

The Incarnation: God Became Flesh

The New Testament identifies Jesus as the fulfillment of these ancient prophecies.

The eternal Son of God assumed human nature without surrendering His divine nature. He was not half God and half man; He was fully God and fully man in one Person.

This truth explains why the virgin birth was essential. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and therefore entered the world without inherited human sin while remaining genuinely human.

Titus 2:13 Identifies Jesus as God

The Apostle Paul writes:

"...looking for the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:13)

Paul explicitly calls Jesus:

  • Our Great God

  • Our Savior

There is no distinction between two persons in this verse. Jesus Himself is identified as both God and Savior.

God the Father Calls the Son "God"

Hebrews chapter 1 presents one of the clearest testimonies concerning Christ's deity.

Hebrews 1:6 states:

"Let all God's angels worship Him."

Only God is worthy of worship.

Even more remarkable is Hebrews 1:8:

"But unto the Son He says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.'"

Here God the Father directly addresses His Son as God.

This passage alone destroys the claim that Jesus is merely a created being.

The Father Commands Humanity to Worship the Son

Psalm 2 speaks prophetically of the Messiah.

Verses 10–12 command the rulers of the earth:

"Kiss the Son...Blessed are all who take refuge in Him."

The Son is presented as worthy of the same honor and submission due to God Himself.

Jesus Declared Himself to Be the Messiah

At Jacob's Well, Jesus spoke with the Samaritan woman.

She said:

"I know that Messiah is coming."

Jesus answered:

"I who speak to you am He." (John 4:25–26)

Jesus openly identified Himself as Israel's promised Messiah.

Jesus Claimed the Divine Name "I AM"

Perhaps no statement shocked the Jewish leaders more than Jesus' declaration:

"Before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58)

This statement echoes Exodus 3:14 where God revealed His covenant name to Moses:

"I AM WHO I AM."

The Jews immediately understood Jesus' claim because they attempted to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:59).

Jesus was not merely claiming preexistence.

He was claiming the very divine identity of Yahweh.

Jesus Claimed Equality with God

Jesus declared:

"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

The Jewish leaders immediately responded:

"You, being a man, make Yourself God." (John 10:33)

Notice that Jesus did not deny their understanding.

Instead, He continued defending His divine identity.

Likewise, John records:

"...He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." (John 5:18)

The Jewish authorities clearly recognized that Jesus was claiming equality with God.

The Son of Man in Daniel's Vision

Jesus frequently called Himself "the Son of Man."

This title was not merely a reference to His humanity.

It pointed directly to Daniel 7:13–14, where one "like a Son of Man" comes before the Ancient of Days and receives:

  • everlasting dominion,

  • universal authority,

  • and worship from all nations.

During His trial before the Sanhedrin, Jesus declared:

"You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:61–64)

The high priest immediately accused Him of blasphemy because Jesus identified Himself as Daniel's divine Son of Man.

Jesus Existed Before Creation

In His High Priestly Prayer Jesus prayed:

"Father, glorify Me...with the glory which I had with You before the world existed." (John 17:5)

No created being possessed divine glory before creation.

Jesus claimed eternal existence with the Father.

Jesus Accepted Worship

Scripture consistently teaches that only God deserves worship.

Examples include:

  • Exodus 34:14

  • Deuteronomy 6:13

  • Matthew 4:10

Whenever angels or apostles received worship, they immediately rejected it (Acts 14:11–18; Revelation 19:10; Revelation 22:8–9).

Jesus never rejected worship.

Instead, He accepted it repeatedly:

  • Matthew 14:33

  • Matthew 28:9

  • Matthew 28:17

  • Luke 24:52

  • John 9:38

  • John 20:28

Thomas declared:

"My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28)

Jesus accepted this confession without correction.

If Jesus were not God, accepting worship would have been sinful.

Instead, He received it because it rightly belonged to Him.

The Son Gives Life and Judges the World

Jesus declared:

"For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will...that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father." (John 5:21–23)

Only God possesses the authority to:

  • give eternal life,

  • raise the dead,

  • judge humanity,

  • receive equal honor with the Father.

Jesus claimed all four.

The command to honor the Son exactly as the Father demonstrates the equality of both Persons within the Godhead.

Peter's Confession

When Jesus asked His disciples:

"Who do you say that I am?"

Peter answered:

"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16:16)

Jesus declared this confession came directly from the Father.

The true identity of Christ is revealed by God Himself.

Conclusion

The biblical evidence is overwhelming.

Jesus Christ is:

  • the promised Messiah,

  • Immanuel—God with us,

  • the Mighty God of Isaiah,

  • the eternal "I AM,"

  • the Son worshipped by angels,

  • the One called "God" by the Father,

  • the giver of life,

  • the Judge of all humanity,

  • the One worthy of the same honor given to the Father.

The doctrine of Christ's deity is not the invention of later church councils; it is rooted in the testimony of the prophets, affirmed by Jesus Himself, proclaimed by the apostles, and confirmed by the Father.

The Christian faith rests upon this glorious truth:

Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man—the eternal Son of God who became flesh to redeem sinners through His death and resurrection.

As the Apostle Paul declared:

"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:9)

And as the Apostle John concluded:

"We are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." (1 John 5:20)

May every reader respond as Thomas did after witnessing the risen Christ:

"My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28)

Soli Deo Gloria.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute



THE LIE OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION

  THE LIE OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION We believe that when you carefully follow this topic, you will obey the word of the true God, live it, and...

TRENDING NOW