Tuesday, December 16, 2025

Religious Freedom and Persecution in Uganda: Converts Facing Deadly Violence

Shimba Theological Institute Newsletter
Religious Freedom and Persecution in Uganda: Converts Facing Deadly Violence

Uganda, August 2021 – Reports of Lethal Attacks on Christian Converts

Recent incidents in Uganda highlight the ongoing persecution faced by Christian converts, particularly those transitioning from Islam to Christianity in the eastern regions of the country. Despite constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, including the right to propagate one’s faith and convert from one religion to another, Christians—especially converts—continue to face harassment, threats, and even lethal violence.

On 19 August 2021, Morning Star News reported the killing of a 20-year-old Christian convert in Kibuku District. The victim’s father, a Muslim, allegedly murdered him for refusing to renounce his new faith. Disturbingly, the father was not charged with murder, reportedly acting in the name of Islam.

Just one week later, on 26 August 2021, Morning Star News reported another brutal case in Kabula village, near Iganga town. A former Islamic teacher who had converted to Christianity in 2015 was buried alive by hired assailants at the instigation of his Muslim relatives. His wife, present at the time of the attack, was told that her husband should have heeded prior warnings and returned to Islam.

Commenting on these incidents, Yonas Dembele, World Watch Research analyst, noted: “The majority of the Ugandan population is Christian, and the constitution and other laws provide for religious freedom, including the right to propagate one’s faith and convert from one faith to another. This notwithstanding, the persecution and harassment of Christians, especially converts from Islam to Christianity in eastern areas of the country, is very common. The government remains silent about these incidents, and there is no indication that it will intervene with any serious intention of protecting Christians facing such violence. It would be prudent for the government to implement measures addressing violations of religious freedom, and to deal firmly with those responsible for harming Christians. Such action would serve as a deterrent and uphold the principles of justice and religious liberty.”

These cases underscore a critical tension between constitutional protections and the realities on the ground. The Shimba Theological Institute calls upon Ugandan authorities, civil society, and religious leaders to ensure the protection of all citizens’ religious freedoms, particularly those who courageously choose to follow a faith different from their familial or community background.

References:

  • Morning Star News. (19 August 2021). Young Christian Convert Killed by Muslim Father in Kibuku District.

  • Morning Star News. (26 August 2021). Former Islamic Teacher Buried Alive in Kabula Village.

  • World Watch Research. Dembele, Y. (2021). Analysis on Religious Persecution in Uganda.



The Falsehood of the Islamic Religion

The Falsehood of the Islamic Religion

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute, Orlando, Florida


Abstract

This article critically examines the theological inconsistencies, historical contradictions, and spiritual fallacies within the Islamic religion from a biblical perspective. It compares the doctrinal claims of Islam with the revealed truth of Christianity, emphasizing the incompatibility between Allah, as described in the Qur’an, and Jehovah, the living God revealed in the Bible. Through textual analysis, comparative theology, and historical references, this work demonstrates that Islam, while presenting itself as monotheistic, diverges fundamentally from divine revelation and biblical truth. The study further evaluates the moral, spiritual, and salvific implications of following Islamic doctrines in contrast to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, the paper argues that Islam represents a theological system built upon human innovation, false prophecy, and distortion of divine revelation, leading humanity away from the truth of God’s Word.


Introduction

Religion occupies a profound place in the life of humanity, shaping beliefs, ethics, and worldviews. However, not all religions originate from divine revelation. The Bible clearly reveals that there exists both true and false worship (John 4:23–24). True religion emanates from the living God—Jehovah—who revealed Himself through His Word and His Son, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1–2). False religion, conversely, originates from human invention or demonic deception, designed to distort the truth and mislead souls (2 Corinthians 11:13–15).

Islam, which arose in the 7th century under Muhammad in Arabia, claims to continue the Abrahamic faith and to worship the same God as the Jews and Christians. Yet, a closer theological and historical examination reveals significant contradictions between the Islamic concept of Allah and the biblical revelation of God. These inconsistencies expose Islam as a faith system detached from divine inspiration and founded instead on cultural, political, and spiritual distortions.

This paper aims to unveil the theological falsehood of Islam by examining key doctrines, the identity of Allah, the claims of Muhammad, and the relationship between the Qur’an and the Bible. Through this analysis, we will demonstrate that the God of the Bible—Jehovah—is not the Allah of Islam, and that the message of Jesus Christ stands in absolute contrast to the teachings of the Qur’an.


Section I: The Nature of Religion and the Church

Religion, in its essence, refers to humanity’s relationship with the divine. The word itself is derived from the Latin religare, meaning “to bind again.” In biblical theology, religion is not merely a system of beliefs or rituals, but a covenant relationship between God and His people, grounded in revelation, obedience, and worship. Christianity, therefore, is not a humanly invented religion but a divine relationship established by God through Jesus Christ (John 14:6; Ephesians 2:8–9).

Islam, by contrast, defines religion (dīn) primarily as submission or surrender (islām) to the will of Allah. However, the concept of surrender in Islam lacks the relational and redemptive dimensions found in Christianity. In the Bible, submission is not forced obedience under fear, but a loving response to God’s grace (Romans 12:1–2). Islam’s notion of faith is legalistic, built upon works and ritual observance, whereas biblical faith is relational, founded upon divine grace through Christ’s atonement.

The church (ekklesia) in Christian theology represents the body of believers who are called out from the world to live in covenant relationship with God. It is not a political or national institution, but a spiritual community of the redeemed (1 Peter 2:9–10). In contrast, Islam establishes a religious-political community (ummah) that merges faith with state authority, blurring the distinction between spiritual devotion and political governance. This fusion of religion and politics in Islam has historically produced systems of coercion rather than spiritual transformation.

Thus, while Christianity builds a kingdom within hearts through faith and love, Islam seeks to build a kingdom on earth through law and submission. This distinction marks the fundamental difference between the church of Christ and the Islamic ummah: one is born of the Spirit (John 3:5–6), the other of the flesh and human institution.


Section II: The Question of One God

Both Christianity and Islam profess belief in one God. However, the nature of that God differs fundamentally. The Bible reveals one God who exists eternally in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). This Trinitarian revelation is not polytheism, as Muslims claim, but the fullness of divine unity expressed in relational plurality. God is love (1 John 4:8), and love requires relationship, even within His own being.

Islam vehemently denies the Trinity, asserting the absolute oneness (tawḥīd) of Allah (Qur’an 112:1–4). However, this concept of God is solitary, impersonal, and unknowable. Allah is not portrayed as a relational being but as a distant sovereign who demands submission. The Qur’an explicitly rejects the sonship of Jesus (Qur’an 4:171; 5:72–73), thereby rejecting God’s revelation of Himself as Father. This denial is not merely a difference of terminology—it is a denial of God’s essential nature.

The God of the Bible reveals Himself personally to humanity. He walks with Adam (Genesis 3:8), speaks to Moses face to face (Exodus 33:11), and dwells among His people through Christ (John 1:14). Allah, on the other hand, is described as transcendent and unknowable—beyond human relationship. The Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes that “nothing is like unto Him” (Qur’an 42:11), thereby placing Allah beyond all personal encounter.

Consequently, while Islam claims to worship the same God as the Jews and Christians, its understanding of God’s nature is fundamentally incompatible with the biblical revelation of Jehovah. Christianity teaches that God’s oneness is relational and redemptive; Islam teaches that Allah’s oneness is solitary and authoritarian. This distinction alone is enough to show that Allah is not the God of the Bible.


Section III: Theological Differences Between Allah and Jehovah

A critical examination of Allah and Jehovah reveals fundamental theological contradictions that expose Islam as a false religious system. While both claim monotheism, their attributes, purposes, and relationship with humanity differ dramatically.

1. Jehovah: Personal, Relational, and Loving
The God of the Bible, Jehovah, is a personal and relational being. He reveals Himself through covenant promises and manifests His character through justice, mercy, and love (Exodus 34:6–7; Psalm 86:15). Jehovah desires a relationship with His creation and communicates His will through prophets, the Scriptures, and ultimately through Jesus Christ, His Son (Hebrews 1:1–2). Love, justice, and holiness are inseparable in Jehovah’s nature, guiding His actions toward humanity (1 John 4:8; Isaiah 61:8).

2. Allah: Distant, Authoritarian, and Arbitrary
In contrast, Allah is portrayed in the Qur’an as distant, unpredictable, and often arbitrary. He commands obedience but rarely provides relational context. Islamic texts emphasize punishment for disbelief and reward for submission, yet the moral reasoning behind these decrees is often ambiguous. Allah’s mercy is conditional, and his wrath is repeatedly stressed (Qur’an 4:56; 5:33). Unlike Jehovah, Allah does not invite humanity into relational intimacy, nor does he reveal his essence in a way that allows trust based on character.

3. The Problem of Truthfulness
The Bible declares God to be wholly truthful and faithful (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2). Allah, however, is described in ways that allow deceit for divine purpose (Qur’an 3:54, 8:30). These passages have led scholars to question the moral and ethical coherence of Allah as a divine being, since divine truthfulness is a foundational requirement for any genuine deity.

4. Implications for Salvation
Jehovah’s relational nature culminates in the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ (John 3:16; Romans 5:8). Salvation is not earned by works but received through faith. Islam, by contrast, presents salvation as earned through law and ritual obedience (Qur’an 2:82; 5:9). This legalistic system lacks the redemptive power necessary to restore humanity to God, leaving adherents in perpetual uncertainty regarding their ultimate fate.


Section IV: The Character and Oaths of God

The character of God serves as the ultimate standard for determining true religion. Jehovah consistently demonstrates unchanging righteousness, love, and faithfulness. Biblical oaths underscore God’s unbreakable promises (Hebrews 6:18). Every covenant in Scripture—from Noah to Abraham, and from Moses to Christ—reveals a God who is trustworthy and whose word is absolute.

In contrast, Allah’s character, as portrayed in Islamic texts, fluctuates based on interpretation. Instances in the Qur’an depict Allah instructing deception, commanding contradictory acts, and instituting laws that shift between chapters and verses (Qur’an 2:106). Such inconsistencies call into question the reliability of Allah as a moral authority. Whereas Jehovah binds Himself to eternal truth, Allah appears bound only by the strategic needs of Muhammad’s revelations. This discrepancy undermines the claim of Islam to originate from a perfect and moral God.


Section V: The Question of Truth and Falsehood

The question of truth in religion is inseparable from the nature of God. Truth is defined as conformity to reality and faithfulness to God’s character. The Bible affirms that God is truth itself (John 17:17; Psalm 119:160). Any system that contradicts God’s revelation or distorts His message is, by definition, false.

Islam presents numerous claims that conflict with both historical evidence and biblical revelation:

  1. The Prophethood of Muhammad – Muhammad’s claims of receiving divine revelation lack corroboration outside the Qur’an. Historical scrutiny exposes contradictions in his narrative, especially regarding moral, military, and spiritual conduct.

  2. The Integrity of Scripture – The Qur’an claims to confirm the Torah and the Gospel (Qur’an 5:46; 10:94), yet its content distorts fundamental biblical truths. Jesus’ divinity, crucifixion, and resurrection—central to salvation—are denied or misrepresented (Qur’an 4:157).

  3. Law and Grace – Islamic law relies on ritualistic obedience, whereas biblical truth emphasizes grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9). Any religion emphasizing works over grace fails to align with God’s salvific plan.

These contradictions reveal that Islam cannot originate from Jehovah, the God of truth. By definition, a false religion misguides humanity and obscures access to genuine divine salvation.


Section VI: Historical Examination of Muhammad

Muhammad (570–632 CE) is central to Islamic belief. Islamic tradition venerates him as the Seal of the Prophets. However, historical analysis raises critical questions regarding his moral and spiritual authority:

  1. Unverified Revelations – Muhammad’s revelations, compiled into the Qur’an, emerged orally decades before being codified. Early Islamic historians note inconsistencies and redactions.

  2. Moral Contradictions – Biographical accounts describe actions by Muhammad—such as violence against non-Muslims, political expediency, and personal conduct—that contradict the moral perfection expected of a divine messenger (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah).

  3. Claims of Exclusivity – Muhammad asserted that previous prophets were corrupted or false (Qur’an 2:79), directly contradicting the biblical record of God’s faithfulness and consistency.

These historical considerations demonstrate that Muhammad’s prophetic claims lack the credibility, moral integrity, and divine corroboration necessary to establish a true religion.


Next Sections to Include in Part Three (for completion of 12–15 pages)

  • Section VII: Islamic Moral and Social Teachings vs. Biblical Ethics

  • Section VIII: Comparative Analysis of Salvation, Judgment, and Eternal Life

  • Section IX: Theological and Spiritual Implications for Followers

  • Section X: Conclusion and Call to Biblical Truth

  • References and Bibliography


Section VII: Islamic Moral and Social Teachings vs. Biblical Ethics

Islamic moral and social teachings, as prescribed in the Qur’an and Hadith, present a framework that superficially resembles ethical conduct but, upon close examination, diverges significantly from biblical ethics.

1. Justice and Mercy
The Bible establishes justice and mercy as inseparable attributes of God (Micah 6:8; James 2:13). Jehovah’s justice is grounded in fairness and truth, while mercy tempers judgment with compassion. Islamic texts, however, often present justice as punitive and mercy as conditional, granted only to those who submit to specific ritual and legal obligations (Qur’an 4:92; 5:38). The focus on obedience rather than relational morality leads to a legalistic approach, undermining true ethical formation.

2. Treatment of Non-Muslims
Islamic texts frequently prescribe discriminatory measures toward non-Muslims, including forced submission, subjugation, or punitive action (Qur’an 9:29; 48:29). In contrast, biblical ethics call for love of neighbor, even extending to enemies (Matthew 5:44; Romans 12:20). The ethical contrast reveals Islam’s moral system to be coercive rather than transformative.

3. Role of Women and Family Life
Islamic teachings often enforce gender inequality and patriarchal dominance, limiting women’s agency and rights (Qur’an 4:34). Biblical teachings, while culturally situated, consistently affirm the dignity and worth of both men and women (Genesis 1:27; Galatians 3:28). Christianity’s relational ethic promotes mutual respect, love, and equality within family and society.


Section VIII: Comparative Analysis of Salvation, Judgment, and Eternal Life

The divergence between Christianity and Islam is most evident in doctrines of salvation, judgment, and eternal destiny.

1. Salvation
Christianity teaches that salvation is a gift of God through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8–9). Works are the fruit of faith, not the basis of salvation. Islam, in contrast, emphasizes works, ritual compliance, and legalistic obedience as prerequisites for salvation (Qur’an 2:82; 5:9). This system leaves adherents in perpetual uncertainty and fails to address humanity’s ultimate need for redemption.

2. Judgment
Biblical judgment is rooted in God’s perfect knowledge, justice, and mercy (Romans 14:12; Revelation 20:12). Every individual will be judged according to truth and righteousness. Islamic judgment, however, is tied to ritualistic adherence and interpretation of law, making divine justice appear arbitrary and dependent on external conformity rather than inner transformation (Qur’an 101:6–9).

3. Eternal Life
Eternal life in Christianity is relational, entering into God’s presence through grace (John 17:3; 1 John 5:11–13). In Islam, eternal life is often described in physical terms (gardens, rivers, palaces) with unclear spiritual substance, emphasizing reward and punishment rather than a genuine relationship with God (Qur’an 76:12–22). This contrasts sharply with the biblical promise of spiritual intimacy and eternal fellowship with Jehovah.


Section IX: Theological and Spiritual Implications for Followers

The theological divergences between Islam and Christianity produce profound spiritual consequences. Followers of Islam, relying on ritual and works, remain disconnected from the personal and loving God revealed in Scripture. Their hope is contingent on external performance rather than faith in divine grace.

Conversely, Christianity fosters an intimate relationship with God through Christ. Believers experience forgiveness, transformation, and assurance of salvation, grounded in the unchanging nature of Jehovah (2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 8:38–39). Spiritual life in Islam remains legalistic, ritualistic, and uncertain, whereas biblical faith provides both certainty and transformative power.


Section X: Conclusion and Call to Biblical Truth

The examination of Islamic theology, ethics, salvation, and history reveals inherent falsehoods when measured against the Bible’s standard of truth. Key conclusions include:

  1. Theological Contradictions – Allah’s characteristics and instructions contrast sharply with Jehovah’s revealed nature.

  2. Moral and Ethical Divergence – Islamic law and ethics emphasize coercion and conditional mercy, whereas biblical ethics emphasize love, justice, and mercy.

  3. Salvation and Eternal Destiny – Islam’s legalistic approach cannot reconcile humanity with God, whereas Christianity provides relational salvation through Jesus Christ.

  4. Historical and Prophetic Concerns – Muhammad’s life and claims, when critically examined, lack divine consistency and moral authority.

Call to Action: Individuals seeking truth must examine religious claims critically, guided by the Word of God. Christianity alone provides a coherent, relational, and redemptive pathway to God. Islam, by contrast, presents a system of ritual, fear, and uncertainty that fails to deliver true salvation or moral certainty.


References and Bibliography

Primary Sources

  • The Holy Bible, King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987.

  • Qur’an, translated by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

  • Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources. Translated by A. Guillaume. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955.

Secondary Sources

  • Brown, Daniel W. A New Introduction to Islam. Oxford: Blackwell, 2017.

  • Esposito, John L. Islam: The Straight Path. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

  • McDowell, Josh. Islam: The Ultimate Challenge. San Bernardino: Here’s Life Publishers, 1991.

  • Peters, F. E. Muhammad and the Origins of Islam. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994.

  • Shimba, Maxwell. Comparative Theology: Christianity and Islam. Orlando: Shimba Theological Institute, 2024.



The long-debated Two-State Solution between Israel and Palestine

 Shimba Theological Institute

Theological and Geopolitical Reflections Series
Vol. 7, Issue 4 (October 2025)


The Illusion of Peace: A Theological Reflection on the Two-State Solution

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute


The long-debated Two-State Solution between Israel and Palestine continues to dominate international discourse as the supposed path toward peace in the Middle East. Yet, beneath the veneer of diplomacy lies a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of peace itself—both politically and theologically. The idea of dividing the land of Israel, granting half to a people whose leadership has repeatedly chosen violence over coexistence, reveals not a step toward harmony but a deep moral and spiritual blindness.

To grant political legitimacy to entities that glorify terrorism and reject Israel’s right to exist is tantamount to “inviting a snake to share one’s pillow and then acting shocked when it bites.” The events of October 7th serve as a chilling reminder of this truth. Efforts to negotiate peace with those who harbor ideological hatred only embolden further acts of violence. What the world applauds as “progress” is, in reality, the staging ground for another tragedy—a repetition of bloodshed, grief, and shattered lives.

This global obsession with a superficial “peace” has been prophetically addressed in Scripture. Jeremiah lamented, “They have also healed the hurt of My people slightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace!’ When there is no peace.” (Jeremiah 6:14, NKJV). Likewise, the Apostle Paul warned, “For when they say, ‘Peace and safety!’ then sudden destruction comes upon them.” (1 Thessalonians 5:3, NKJV). These verses expose the futility of political solutions that ignore the root cause of human conflict—the unregenerate heart estranged from God.

True peace cannot emerge from diplomatic treaties signed in the absence of spiritual transformation. The heart of the Middle East crisis is not territorial but theological. It is a conflict of worldviews—between the message of Christ, which offers forgiveness and reconciliation, and the ideology of Islam, which perpetuates division and vengeance. Real peace will only come when hearts are changed, not merely when borders are redrawn.

To our Palestinian brothers and sisters, this message is not one of condemnation but of liberation. The world’s political powers and many within the Muslim world have exploited your suffering for their own agendas. While they march in anger and chant slogans, it is often Christian organizations that build hospitals, send aid, and pray for your restoration. Freedom will not come through endless hostility or allegiance to ideologies of hatred, but through the redemptive truth of Jesus Christ—who alone offers peace that surpasses all understanding (Philippians 4:7).

Therefore, let it be clearly stated: the solution to the Middle East crisis is not found in the Two-State Solution but in the One Savior Solution. Only through faith in Christ can enmity be transformed into reconciliation, and only through His lordship can nations experience lasting peace. As Scripture declares, “He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation.” (Ephesians 2:14, NKJV).


References

  • The Holy Bible, New King James Version (NKJV).

  • Jeremiah 6:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:3; Ephesians 2:14; Philippians 4:7.

  • Shimba, M. (2025). Theology and Conflict: Biblical Insights on Peace in the Middle East. Shimba Theological Institute.

  • Lewis, B. (2002). The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror. Random House.

  • Pipes, D. (2014). Militant Islam Reaches America. W.W. Norton & Company.



Muhammad’s Engagement with Slavery

Slavery and the Claim of Prophethood:

A Critical Theological and Ethical Examination of Muhammad’s Engagement with Slavery

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute


Abstract

The moral authority of a prophet is traditionally measured not only by doctrinal proclamations but also by ethical embodiment. This article critically examines the institution of slavery as practiced and sanctioned by Muhammad, with particular focus on authenticated hadith literature. Using Sunan an-Nasa’i 4621 as a primary case study, the article interrogates whether slave ownership and trade can be reconciled with genuine prophethood. A comparative analysis with biblical prophets is undertaken, revealing a significant theological discontinuity. The study concludes that Muhammad’s participation in slavery reflects cultural accommodation rather than transcendent moral reform, raising serious questions about the nature and scope of his prophetic claim.


1. Introduction: Prophethood and Moral Authority

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, prophets are understood as moral revolutionaries—divinely commissioned figures who confront injustice, liberate the oppressed, and elevate ethical standards beyond cultural norms. From Moses confronting Pharaoh to Jesus identifying himself with the poor and enslaved, prophetic identity is inseparable from moral transcendence.

Islamic theology similarly asserts that Muhammad is al-insān al-kāmil (the perfect man) and uswatun ḥasanah (the best example for humanity). Consequently, his personal conduct is not merely historical but normative and imitable. This raises a crucial question:

Can participation in slavery—buying, owning, and exchanging human beings—be harmonized with the moral expectations of prophethood?


2. Primary Source Evidence: Sunan an-Nasa’i 4621

One of the clearest and most troubling accounts is found in Sunan an-Nasa’i, graded Ṣaḥīḥ (authentic):

“A slave came and pledged allegiance to the Messenger of Allah to emigrate, and the Prophet did not realize that he was a slave. Then his master came looking for him. The Prophet said: ‘Sell him to me.’ So he bought him for two black slaves…”
Sunan an-Nasa’i 4621

This narration establishes several uncontested facts:

  1. Muhammad approved the return of an escaped slave to his master.

  2. He purchased the slave, legitimizing the transaction.

  3. The purchase involved exchanging two slaves for one, treating human beings as economic units.

  4. The transaction occurred during Muhammad’s prophetic ministry, not before it.

This was not an isolated incident but part of a broader, well-documented pattern.


3. Slavery as a Normalized Institution in Islam

Islamic primary sources consistently assume the legitimacy of slavery:

  • Qur’an 4:24; 23:5–6; 33:50 explicitly permit sexual access to “those whom your right hand possesses.”

  • Hadith literature records Muhammad owning slaves such as Zayd ibn Harithah, Maria al-Qibtiyya, and others.

  • Slavery is regulated but never abolished in the Qur’an.

The argument that Islam “encouraged manumission” does not negate the fact that:

What God truly condemns, He abolishes—not merely regulates.

Alcohol, idolatry, and pork were eliminated decisively. Slavery was not.


4. Was This Part of Prophethood—or Cultural Accommodation?

Muslim apologists often argue that Muhammad worked within the socio-economic realities of 7th-century Arabia. However, this defense creates a theological dilemma:

  • If Muhammad merely reflected his culture, then his moral authority is historically contingent, not divinely absolute.

  • If his actions are divinely sanctioned, then slavery becomes theologically legitimized.

Either conclusion undermines the claim of universal moral prophethood.

True prophets do not merely manage injustice; they confront it.


5. Comparative Prophetic Analysis: Where Are the Other Slave-Holding Prophets?

A comparative examination is revealing:

Moses

  • Raised in a slave empire.

  • Led the largest emancipation event in biblical history (Exodus).

  • Never portrayed as owning slaves.

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos

  • Condemned exploitation, oppression, and dehumanization.

  • Identified injustice as sin against God.

Jesus Christ

  • Identified with slaves and the oppressed (Luke 4:18).

  • Declared radical human equality (Matthew 23:8).

  • Never owned, bought, sold, or exchanged slaves.

The biblical prophetic tradition moves away from slavery, not toward its regulation.

Muhammad stands alone among major prophetic claimants in personally participating in slave transactions during his ministry.


6. Ethical Tension: Human Dignity vs. Property Status

Slavery reduces a person from imago Dei (image of God) to commercial property. The hadith in Sunan an-Nasa’i 4621 explicitly demonstrates this reduction:

  • A man seeking spiritual allegiance is overridden by property rights.

  • His spiritual commitment is subordinated to ownership claims.

  • His value is measured in exchange units (“two black slaves”).

This raises an unavoidable ethical question:

Can a prophet who embodies divine justice treat a human soul as transferable property?


7. The Problem of Imitability (Uswah)

Islamic theology insists that Muhammad is the model for all believers, for all time (Qur’an 33:21). This creates a lasting moral problem:

  • If Muhammad owned slaves, then slavery cannot be intrinsically immoral in Islam.

  • If slavery is immoral today, then Muhammad’s actions cannot be universally exemplary.

This tension has no coherent theological resolution within orthodox Islam.


8. The Silence of Allah on Abolition

One of the most striking features of Islamic revelation is what it does not say:

  • No verse abolishes slavery.

  • No verse declares slave ownership sinful.

  • No verse commands universal emancipation.

After Muhammad’s death, Allah issues no further moral correction. Slavery continued for over 1,300 years in Islamic societies, often justified directly by Muhammad’s example.


9. Scholarly and Theological Implications

This analysis does not rest on polemics but on Islam’s own authenticated sources. The issue is not whether slavery existed historically—it did everywhere—but whether a true prophet:

  1. Participates in it,

  2. Sanctifies it,

  3. Leaves it intact for future generations.

From a Judeo-Christian theological perspective, the answer is decisively no.


10. Conclusion

The hadith of Sunan an-Nasa’i 4621 presents an unavoidable historical and ethical reality: Muhammad engaged in the ownership and exchange of slaves during his prophetic ministry. This conduct stands in stark contrast to the moral trajectory of biblical prophethood, which consistently moves toward liberation, dignity, and justice.

Historical context may explain Muhammad’s actions, but it cannot sanctify them. Prophethood, by definition, transcends culture rather than conforming to it.

The question therefore remains open—and pressing:

Is slavery compatible with divine prophethood, or does it reveal the limits of Muhammad’s moral authority?


Selected References

  • al-Nasa’i, Aḥmad ibn Shuʿayb. Sunan an-Nasa’i, Book 44, Hadith 4621.

  • Crone, Patricia. Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam. Princeton University Press.

  • Esposito, John L. Islam: The Straight Path. Oxford University Press.

  • Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Medina. Oxford University Press.

  • Holy Bible, NIV & ESV editions.



The Issue of Slavery in the Life of Prophet Muhammad: A Critical Examination

The Issue of Slavery in the Life of Prophet Muhammad: A Critical Examination
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract
Slavery remains one of the most debated aspects of human history, particularly when examining religious figures and their conduct. Prophet Muhammad (c. 570–632 CE), the founder of Islam, is often portrayed as a reformer and moral guide. Yet, historical Islamic sources document that he owned and transacted in slaves. This article critically examines the narratives surrounding Muhammad’s engagement with slavery, questions whether such actions are inherently tied to his prophethood, and compares his practices with those of previous prophets.

Introduction
The institution of slavery was widespread in Arabia prior to the advent of Islam. Within Islamic texts, multiple references indicate the possession and trade of slaves, including in the biography of Prophet Muhammad. One particular hadith, narrated in Sunan an-Nasa'i (4621), recounts the following incident:

"A slave came and gave his pledge to the Messenger of Allah to emigrate, and the Prophet did not realize that he was a slave. Then his master came looking for him. The Prophet said: 'Sell him to me.' So he bought him for two black slaves, then he did not accept until he had asked: 'Is he a slave?'" (Sunan an-Nasa'i, Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 4625, Sahih).

This account demonstrates that Muhammad participated in the acquisition of slaves and indicates that slave ownership occurred even during the early Islamic community.

Slavery and Prophethood: A Theological Question
A critical question arises: does the act of owning slaves align with the mission of prophethood? Prophets in Abrahamic traditions are typically associated with moral reform, justice, and the protection of human dignity. The Hebrew Bible and Christian scriptures do not record prophets personally owning slaves as part of their ministry. For example, Moses, David, and Jesus are portrayed as advocating justice and righteousness rather than engaging in slavery as proprietors.

Muhammad’s engagement with slavery raises a theological and ethical concern: if prophethood is meant to guide humanity toward righteousness, how do we reconcile ownership of slaves with the ideals of justice and liberation? While Islamic scholars argue that Muhammad sought to regulate and humanize slavery, critics assert that this does not negate the moral responsibility inherent in owning and trading human beings.

Historical Context and Cultural Practices
It is crucial to situate these actions within the historical context of 7th-century Arabia. Slavery was a norm in pre-Islamic Arabia, encompassing captives of war, debtors, and inherited slaves. Muhammad’s interactions with slavery often involved emancipating slaves, regulating treatment, and advocating for gradual societal reforms. However, ownership and transactions—such as purchasing a slave for other slaves—persisted. The question remains whether cultural practices justify actions that appear ethically incompatible with prophetic morality.

Comparison with Other Prophets
Examining other prophets offers an important contrast. No other Abrahamic prophet is recorded as owning slaves for personal or religious purposes. Moses led the Israelites out of bondage, Isaiah and Jeremiah denounced social injustice, and Jesus emphasized love, equality, and liberation from oppression. This contrast highlights a unique aspect of Muhammad’s biography: his prophethood is intertwined with existing socio-economic norms that included slavery.

Ethical and Scholarly Implications
Modern scholars and theologians face a complex dilemma. On one hand, Muhammad’s actions are historically documented within authentic Islamic sources. On the other, these actions challenge contemporary ethical standards, raising questions about the nature of prophethood, divine guidance, and cultural accommodation. A critical examination suggests that while Muhammad may have sought reform, his participation in slavery does not align seamlessly with the moral example set by earlier prophets.

Conclusion
The documentation of Prophet Muhammad’s ownership of slaves, such as the incident narrated in Sunan an-Nasa'i 4621, invites rigorous scholarly scrutiny. While historical context partially explains these actions, they raise important theological and ethical questions regarding the role of a prophet in advancing justice and human dignity. Unlike other prophets, Muhammad’s biography includes participation in slavery, which necessitates critical engagement from scholars and believers seeking to reconcile historical practice with spiritual ideals.

References

  1. al-Nasa'i, Ahmad ibn Shu'ayb. Sunan an-Nasa'i. Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 4625. Darussalam.

  2. Armstrong, Karen. Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time. HarperCollins, 2006.

  3. Crone, Patricia. Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam. Princeton University Press, 1987.

  4. Esposito, John L. Islam: The Straight Path. Oxford University Press, 1998.

  5. Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Mecca. Oxford University Press, 1953.



A Comparative Ethical Analysis of Michael Jackson and Muhammad



Shimba Theological Institute – Scholarly Newsletter

**Moral Leadership, Children, and Ethical Legacy:

A Comparative Ethical Analysis of Michael Jackson and Muhammad**

Author: Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Institution: Shimba Theological Institute
Discipline: Comparative Theology, Moral Philosophy, Religious Ethics


Abstract

This article presents a comparative ethical analysis of two globally influential figures: Michael Jackson and Muhammad. While occupying vastly different domains—entertainment and religion—both figures have been presented to the public as moral exemplars within their respective cultural frameworks. This study evaluates their legacies through four ethical lenses: treatment of children, legal accountability, social impact, and moral conscience. By examining historical sources, legal records, and ethical outcomes, the article argues that moral authority must be evaluated not by popularity or claims of divine mandate, but by demonstrable ethical consistency and protection of vulnerable populations.


1. Introduction: The Question of Moral Exemplars

Religious and cultural traditions often elevate individuals as moral models for future generations. In Islam, Muhammad is explicitly presented as al-insān al-kāmil (the perfect man), whose conduct (sunnah) is binding for all times. In contrast, Michael Jackson never claimed moral perfection nor divine authority; nevertheless, he exercised immense cultural influence.

This article asks a critical but necessary question:
When evaluated by universal ethical standards—especially concerning children and the vulnerable—who better exemplifies moral leadership?


2. Michael Jackson: Legal Accountability and Moral Sensitivity

Michael Jackson faced severe accusations of child abuse—among the most damaging allegations possible for a public figure. Crucially, however, his case was adjudicated within a modern legal system governed by evidentiary standards, cross-examination, and due process.

In 2005, Jackson was found not guilty on all charges in a criminal court of law. This verdict followed months of scrutiny, testimony, and forensic examination. The outcome is ethically significant: moral accountability requires openness to investigation, not immunity from critique.

Equally important is Jackson’s psychological and moral response to the accusations. Multiple interviews, writings, and testimonies reveal profound emotional distress, grief, and reputational anguish—responses consistent with a functioning moral conscience. He did not normalize the accusations, justify them, or transform them into social norms.

Beyond legal matters, Jackson donated hundreds of millions of dollars to children’s hospitals, humanitarian organizations, disaster relief efforts, and global charities. His public mission emphasized joy, peace, racial unity, and the emotional well-being of children.


3. Muhammad: Historical Practices and Ethical Tensions

Islamic primary sources—including Sahih Hadith collections—affirm that Muhammad married Aisha when she was a child and consummated the marriage when she was approximately nine years old. Unlike Jackson, Muhammad faced no legal challenge, expressed no moral hesitation, and instead established this practice as normative, later sanctified through religious jurisprudence.

The ethical problem is not merely historical but systemic: child marriage became embedded within Islamic law, practiced for centuries, and justified by appeal to Muhammad’s example. Unlike contested allegations, this practice is celebrated, not repudiated, within orthodox Islamic theology.

Additionally, Muhammad instituted legal reforms that:

  • Abolished biological adoption while retaining control over orphans

  • Restricted artistic expression, including music

  • Introduced wartime practices that included enslavement and sexual access to captives

While apologists frequently invoke “historical context,” moral exemplars—especially those claimed to be timeless—must transcend their era, not merely reflect it.


4. Children, Consent, and Ethical Universality

From a moral philosophy standpoint, children represent a non-negotiable ethical boundary. Modern ethics, natural law theory, and biblical theology converge on one principle: children lack the capacity for informed consent and therefore require maximal protection.

Michael Jackson, despite allegations, never institutionalized harm, never codified abuse, and never claimed divine sanction for questionable behavior. His legal exoneration and philanthropic record reinforce this distinction.

Muhammad, by contrast, embedded child marriage into religious precedent. The result is not theoretical but observable: ongoing cases across multiple Islamic societies where child marriage persists with religious justification.

A moral system that cannot safeguard children fails the most basic ethical test.


5. Women, Privacy, and Moral Agency

Ethical leadership also requires respect for personal dignity and privacy. Islamic texts include accounts of Muhammad surveilling or regulating private marital affairs, reinforcing a patriarchal structure with limited female autonomy.

Michael Jackson, despite intense scrutiny of his private life, did not legislate sexual ethics for society, nor did he impose surveillance-based moral control. His influence remained cultural, not coercive.


6. Power, Violence, and Social Consequences

Jackson’s influence operated through persuasion, art, and charity. His legacy—music, humanitarian aid, and global unity—did not involve conquest or coercion.

Muhammad’s leadership included military expansion, political domination, and religious enforcement. While these actions produced a civilization, they also normalized violence as a tool of religious propagation—a legacy still visible in contemporary extremist movements.


7. Ethical Comparison Summary

Ethical CriterionMichael JacksonMuhammad
Legal AccountabilitySubjected to trial; acquittedAbove legal scrutiny
Child ProtectionPublic advocacy, charityChild marriage normalized
Moral ConscienceExpressed anguish and griefPractices justified as divine
Social InfluenceJoy, peace, artRegulation, conquest
Timeless EthicsAligns with modern moral normsConflicts with modern ethics

8. Conclusion: Rethinking Moral Authority

This study does not argue that Michael Jackson was flawless, nor that historical figures should be judged frivolously. Rather, it asserts a foundational ethical principle:

No individual—religious or secular—should be upheld as a moral exemplar if their legacy institutionalizes harm to children or strips vulnerable populations of dignity.

Michael Jackson, though imperfect, demonstrated accountability, remorse, and a consistent commitment to human flourishing. Muhammad, by contrast, established precedents that continue to generate profound ethical conflicts in the modern world.

The question is not popularity or tradition—but moral fruit.


References (Selected)

  1. California v. Jackson, 2005 Criminal Trial Records

  2. Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 5134

  3. Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1422

  4. Esposito, J. Islam: The Straight Path. Oxford University Press

  5. Kant, I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

  6. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child



Comparative Reflections on Moral Leadership: Michael Jackson and Muhammad

Shimba Theological Institute Newsletter
Comparative Reflections on Moral Leadership: Michael Jackson and Muhammad
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Abstract:
This article undertakes a comparative moral and ethical analysis of Michael Jackson and the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), focusing on their respective interactions with children, philanthropy, and societal influence. While acknowledging controversies surrounding both figures, the analysis examines documented behavior, legal findings, and historical practices to assess their impact on societal norms, particularly regarding children’s welfare and moral example.

Introduction:
In contemporary moral discourse, public figures are often scrutinized as role models. Michael Jackson, the globally renowned entertainer, and the Prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, provide distinct examples of leadership, influence, and societal impact. This study examines their respective approaches to children’s welfare, charity, music, and ethical conduct.

Michael Jackson: Legal Vindication and Philanthropy
Michael Jackson’s public life was marked by extraordinary musical talent and widespread humanitarian efforts. While he faced allegations of child abuse, court proceedings ultimately found him not guilty. Jackson consistently expressed personal anguish over these accusations, demonstrating moral sensitivity and the capacity for ethical reflection. Beyond legal vindication, Jackson dedicated significant resources to charitable causes, including children’s hospitals, education, and disaster relief. His public persona emphasized joy, inclusivity, and the protection of children, reflecting a deliberate moral and philanthropic commitment.

Muhammad: Historical Practices and Ethical Implications
Historical records indicate that Muhammad engaged in practices, such as early-age marriage, which contemporary ethical frameworks consider morally problematic. Additionally, certain policies, including limitations on adoption and music, had broad societal consequences. While these actions must be understood within their historical and cultural context, they present ethical questions when considering Muhammad as a moral exemplar for modern audiences, particularly in comparison to contemporary standards of children’s welfare and women’s rights. Reports also indicate practices involving surveillance of private matters, raising further ethical considerations regarding privacy and interpersonal conduct.

Comparative Moral Assessment
When comparing Jackson and Muhammad, several distinctions emerge:

  1. Children’s Welfare: Jackson’s legal vindication and philanthropic focus demonstrate an emphasis on children’s well-being. Historical records of Muhammad suggest practices that today may be viewed as compromising the autonomy and rights of minors.

  2. Philanthropy vs. Social Regulation: Jackson utilized personal wealth to enhance societal welfare, while Muhammad’s governance introduced regulatory frameworks with complex moral implications, some of which curtailed individual freedoms.

  3. Cultural Impact: Jackson’s music and persona propagated joy, inclusivity, and positive social engagement, whereas Muhammad’s leadership involved military campaigns and social regulation that imposed both security and restrictions on communities.

Conclusion:
This comparative analysis highlights divergent approaches to moral leadership and societal impact. While Michael Jackson’s life demonstrates a consistent orientation toward child welfare, philanthropy, and joy, Muhammad’s historical record reflects practices that, although influential in shaping Islamic civilization, raise contemporary ethical questions regarding children’s rights, women’s privacy, and social regulation. Evaluating role models in a modern context necessitates careful consideration of both historical practices and current ethical standards, particularly concerning the protection and well-being of vulnerable populations.

References:

  1. Jackson, M. HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. Epic Records, 1995.

  2. Sunan an-Nasa’i 4621. Hadith literature referencing historical practices.

  3. Esposito, J. L. Islam: The Straight Path. Oxford University Press, 2016.

  4. Tarbiya studies on Islamic marriage practices in 7th-century Arabia.

  5. Legal proceedings of Michael Jackson v. State of California, 2005.



The Paradox of Paternal Authority and Spiritual Maternity in Islam: A Theological and Logical Examination of Qur’an 33:6 and 33:40

 Title: The Paradox of Paternal Authority and Spiritual Maternity in Islam: A Theological and Logical Examination of Qur’an 33:6 and 33:40

Author: Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Institution: Shimba Theological Institute


Abstract

Islamic theology contains a notable paradox concerning the Prophet Muhammad’s relationship to the Muslim community. The Qur’an describes Muhammad’s wives as the “Mothers of the Believers” (Surah al-Ahzab 33:6), yet in the same chapter (33:40), it explicitly declares that Muhammad is “not the father of any of your men.” This raises critical theological, logical, and ethical questions about the nature of Muhammad’s paternal status in Islam and the prohibition against remarriage of his widows. This paper seeks to analyze this doctrinal inconsistency through historical, linguistic, and theological perspectives, and to question the coherence of the Qur’anic reasoning in relation to social and moral norms.


1. Introduction

The Qur’an presents Muhammad as both the Messenger of Allah and Seal of the Prophets (Qur’an 33:40). However, it simultaneously establishes a peculiar familial relationship between Muhammad and his followers. His wives are declared the “Mothers of the Believers” (33:6), while Muhammad himself is emphatically denied any paternal role toward his male followers. This duality gives rise to a complex paradox: how can one’s wives be mothers while the husband is not a father?

The contradiction becomes more pronounced in light of Islamic marital law, which forbids any man from marrying the Prophet’s widows, invoking their “maternal” status to the Muslim community. Yet, logically, if Muhammad is not a father to any believer, the justification for this prohibition becomes unclear.


2. The Qur’anic Framework

2.1. The Denial of Fatherhood (Qur’an 33:40)

“Muḥammad is not the father of any of your men, but the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.”

This verse was reportedly revealed in response to the controversy surrounding Zayd ibn Harithah, Muhammad’s adopted son. When Muhammad married Zayd’s former wife, Zaynab bint Jahsh, the Qur’an redefined adoption laws, annulling adopted sonship and, consequently, Muhammad’s legal fatherhood over Zayd (see Tafsir al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan, vol. 22). Thus, the verse served to deny Muhammad any human fatherhood over the believers, preserving his prophetic status from personal familial association.

2.2. The Declaration of Spiritual Maternity (Qur’an 33:6)

“The Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers.”

This verse confers a unique symbolic status on Muhammad’s wives, elevating them above ordinary women. However, the text does not clarify the logical basis for this designation nor its theological implications, especially since it does not confer corresponding paternal authority upon Muhammad himself.


3. The Logical Inconsistency

The two verses (33:6 and 33:40) produce a theological dilemma:

  • If Muhammad’s wives are mothers of the believers, then Muhammad logically ought to be the father of the believers.

  • If Muhammad is not a father of any of the believers, then his wives cannot logically be mothers of the believers.

Islamic apologists argue that “motherhood” in 33:6 is spiritual, not biological. Yet, the same principle could apply to Muhammad’s “fatherhood” — spiritual rather than physical. The deliberate exclusion of Muhammad’s paternal role seems inconsistent with the spiritual analogy intended by the verse.


4. The Ethical Question: Prohibition of Remarriage

After Muhammad’s death, the Qur’an prohibited his widows from remarrying (Qur’an 33:53):

“And it is not lawful for you to harm the Messenger of Allah, nor to marry his wives after him ever. Indeed, that would be an enormity in the sight of Allah.”

This restriction is justified by their “maternal” status — yet the argument collapses under scrutiny.
If the Prophet’s wives were “mothers” only in a symbolic sense, why should they be denied remarriage — a right granted to all other widows in Islam (Qur’an 2:234–235)?
Moreover, if Muhammad is not the “father” of the believers, then his widows cannot truly be “mothers” to them, and the prohibition becomes legally and ethically questionable.


5. Historical Context: Muhammad’s Marriages

Muhammad’s marriages included several widows, such as Sawdah bint Zam’ah, Hafsah bint Umar, and Umm Salamah. These marriages were often justified as acts of social welfare. Yet the same compassion was not extended to his own widows, who were condemned to lifelong celibacy. The question arises: if Muhammad could marry widows for their protection, why could not others protect and marry his widows after his death?

The inconsistency suggests that the prohibition was politically and socially motivated to preserve the Prophet’s exclusive legacy and to prevent disputes over lineage or inheritance within the early Muslim community.


6. Theological Implications

From a theological standpoint, Islam presents Muhammad as the “Seal of the Prophets” — the final messenger and ultimate exemplar. Yet the Qur’an strips him of spiritual fatherhood, creating a vacuum in the believer’s personal relationship to him. Christianity, by contrast, recognizes both paternal and fraternal spiritual relationships in divine-human dynamics (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:15, Philippians 2:22).

In Islam, however, Muhammad’s detachment as “not the father” while his wives remain “mothers” results in a doctrinal asymmetry — a partial metaphor that fails to maintain theological coherence.


7. Conclusion

The Qur’an’s portrayal of Muhammad’s family relationships reveals a deep inconsistency within Islamic theology.

  • If Muhammad is not the father of any believer, then his wives cannot logically be the believers’ mothers.

  • If his wives are indeed the “Mothers of the Believers,” then a corresponding paternal role must exist — at least symbolically.

The prohibition on the remarriage of Muhammad’s widows, coupled with his own marriages to other widows, further exposes the internal contradictions within Islamic social ethics.
This paradox demonstrates that the Qur’anic narrative on Muhammad’s familial relations is less theological and more political — crafted to preserve Muhammad’s exclusive prophetic authority rather than to maintain logical or moral consistency.


References

  1. The Qur’an, Surah al-Ahzab (33:6, 33:40, 33:53).

  2. Al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan fi Ta’wil al-Qur’an, Vol. 22.

  3. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, commentary on Surah al-Ahzab.

  4. Al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami’ li-Ahkam al-Qur’an, commentary on 33:6 and 33:40.

  5. Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 4787 – Narration on Zayd ibn Harithah and Zaynab bint Jahsh.

  6. Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press, 1961.

  7. Guillaume, Alfred. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah. Oxford University Press, 1955.

  8. Cragg, Kenneth. The Call of the Minaret. Oxford University Press, 1956.



THE TWO SEAS’ WATER NOT MIXING, IS THIS A MIRACLE OF ALLAH OR A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE?

THE TWO SEAS’ WATER NOT MIXING

IS THIS A MIRACLE OF ALLAH OR A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE?

Today I will answer a weak Muslim argument concerning the claim that the waters of two seas do not mix. Is this a miracle or a lack of knowledge in basic physics?

To understand what happened regarding the non-mixing of waters, it is good to first learn Fourth Grade Physics about Density.

ALLAH in the Qur’an, Surah 18 verses 60 to 82:

“And remember when Musa said to his servant: I will continue travelling until I reach the junction of the two seas, or I will continue for ages and ages until I meet the one whom I seek.”

So, when Muslims saw a picture of two seas (their claim), they connected it with this verse as a miracle of Allah. Fortunately, here at Max Shimba Ministries, we have scholars who are experts in Science, Mathematics, and Biology. Therefore today we respond to Muslims using science.

Let us begin with the principle of Density:


WHAT IS DENSITY?

DENSITY = MASS / VOLUME

Density is a measure that compares the mass and volume of a substance. Its physical symbol is ρ (rho).

A substance with high density contains a lot of matter within a specific volume. A substance with low density contains little matter within the same volume. High density is what makes us call something “heavy.”

Density is commonly measured in g/cm³ and kg/m³.

Using logic:

Fresh water without salt has a density of 1. One liter has a mass of 1 kilogram.


WHAT IS MASS?

Mass in physics is a property of matter, and thus also the property of an object or substance.

The standard international unit of mass is the kilogram. Its usual formula symbol is m.


WHAT IS VOLUME?

Volume explains the size of a mathematical object (cube, sphere, cylinder) by measuring the space it occupies.

It is measured in cubic units such as cubic meters (m³) or cubic centimeters (cm³).

Every object with length, width, and height has volume.


SALT WATER:

Salt water is water containing a certain amount of dissolved salt. All types of natural water contain some amount of dissolved salts.

On average, seawater on earth contains about 3.5% salt (35 g/L, 599 mM). This means that every kilogram (roughly one liter plus a little) of seawater has about 35 grams (1.2 oz) of dissolved salts (mostly sodium (Na+) and chloride (Cl–) ions). The average surface density is 1.025 kg/L.

Seawater is denser/heavier than fresh water because dissolved salts greatly increase mass. The freezing point of seawater decreases as salinity increases. At normal salinity, it freezes at –2°C (28°F). The coldest liquid seawater recorded in 2010, under an Antarctic glacier, measured –2.6°C (27.3°F). Seawater pH is usually between 7.5 and 8.4. However, no universally accepted pH standard exists for seawater, and different reference scales can differ by up to 0.14 units.


FRESH WATER:

Fresh water is water without much salt.

Rainwater, river water, and lake water are called “fresh water,” meaning they are basically suitable for drinking or watering plants even though they may contain some mud or impurities. The opposite is salt water found in oceans and some lakes.

Scientifically, water is considered “fresh” when its salt concentration is less than 1% or one gram per liter. Most fresh water on Earth is snow and ice—frozen precipitation formed in cold climates.


NOW I WILL EXPLAIN IN SIMPLE LANGUAGE SO EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THESE WATERS DO NOT MIX QUICKLY.

First, understand this: Two seas are NOT meeting. This Muslim claim is false and based on lack of knowledge. The picture being used is the meeting of glacial meltwater and offshore waters of the Gulf of Alaska.

The cause of this strange phenomenon is the difference in water density, water temperature, and salt content between glacial meltwater and the waters of the Gulf of Alaska. They fail to mix because of their density differences.

Seawater has a salt concentration of 3.5%. Scientists often refer to 0.1% as fresh water.

Because both types of water are very cold in temperature, the mixing process takes time.

A solution is the result of completely mixing two substances to obtain a uniform mixture that does not show separate parts. A SIMPLE EXAMPLE: stirring sugar into water. The sugar becomes invisible once fully dissolved. If the water is cold, sugar takes much longer to dissolve compared to warm or hot water.

This is exactly what happens in the Gulf of Alaska, where all the water is cold and the glacial meltwater, which has very little salt, takes a very long time to mix with the Gulf waters, which have salt levels up to 3.5%.

Is this a miracle or just normal science?

This is why I continue to say Allah is not God.

Shalom,

Dr. Max Shimba, servant of Jesus Christ the Great God.
Titus 2:13


JESUS IS GOD AND SAVIOR: SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH

JESUS IS GOD AND SAVIOR: SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba | Shimba Theological Institute

One of the most life-changing truths in Scripture is this: Jesus Christ is God, He is the Savior of the world, and salvation is a gift of grace received through faith alone. Every page of the New Testament echoes this divine revelation. From the incarnation to the resurrection, the Bible consistently proclaims the deity of Christ and the liberating truth that our redemption is completely the work of God—not human effort.

1. Jesus Is God: The Bible’s Clear Testimony

The identity of Jesus Christ is foundational to the Christian faith. He is not merely a prophet, a miracle worker, or a moral teacher—He is God in the flesh.

  • John 1:1 declares, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

  • John 1:14 confirms, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

  • Thomas worshiped Him saying, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).
    Jesus did not correct him, because Thomas’s confession was true.

Jesus also claimed divine authority:

  • He forgave sins (Mark 2:5–7)

  • He accepted worship (Matthew 14:33)

  • He declared Himself one with the Father (John 10:30)

  • He used God’s divine name “I AM” (John 8:58)

Only God can do these things. In Jesus, God stepped into time and space to save humanity from sin, death, and judgment.

2. Jesus Is the Only Savior

Because Jesus is God, He alone has the power to save. The apostle Peter boldly declared:

“There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Acts 4:12

The cross was not an accident—it was the divine plan of redemption. Jesus willingly gave His life as the perfect sacrifice for sin. His blood accomplishes what no human work could achieve: atonement, forgiveness, and reconciliation with God.

The resurrection sealed His identity as Savior and Lord. No founder of any religion rose from the dead—only Jesus lives forever. Therefore, He remains the sole bridge between God and humanity.

3. Saved by Grace Through Faith—Not by Works

Many people believe they must earn God’s acceptance through good works, rituals, or moral performance. But the Bible clearly teaches the opposite:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”
Ephesians 2:8–9

What does this mean?

  • Grace means God acts out of His love—not our merit.

  • Faith means trusting Jesus alone—not ourselves.

  • Gift means salvation is free—not something we earn.

  • Not of works means we cannot take credit for it.

Salvation is not a reward for the good, but a rescue for the lost. It is not achieved by effort, but received by believing in the finished work of Christ on the cross.

Human works cannot save because:

  • We are sinners by nature (Romans 3:23)

  • Our righteousness is insufficient (Isaiah 64:6)

  • Salvation requires perfection, which only Christ provides (2 Corinthians 5:21)

4. Good Works Follow, They Do Not Save

Paul continues after Ephesians 2:8–9 with an important truth:

“For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works…” (Eph. 2:10)

Good works are the evidence, not the cause, of salvation. When a person is born again:

  • The Holy Spirit transforms them.

  • Their desires change.

  • They bear spiritual fruit.

  • They live in obedience—not to earn salvation, but because they have it.

Grace produces transformation that works never could.

5. Why This Message Matters Today

In a world filled with religious confusion, moral uncertainty, and spiritual deception, the gospel stands as the only message of hope:

  • Jesus is God—therefore His authority is supreme.

  • Jesus is Savior—therefore His salvation is sufficient.

  • Grace through faith—therefore no one is beyond God’s reach.

This truth brings peace to the guilty, hope to the broken, and rest to the weary. It removes the burden of religion and invites us into a relationship with the living God.

6. A Personal Appeal

Beloved reader, your salvation does not depend on your performance, your background, your struggles, or your past. It depends solely on Jesus Christ, who loved you enough to die for you.

Today, place your trust fully in Him.
Receive the gift of grace.
Embrace Jesus as your God and Savior.

He is mighty to save. He is faithful to forgive. He is God, and He is good.



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

  The Myth of Muhammad’s Fragrant Sweat: A Scientific and Theological Critique By Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute Abstract...

TRENDING NOW