Thursday, July 24, 2025

An Academic Critique of Internal Contradictions in the Quran with Reference to Eschatological Descriptions of Hell’s Sustenance

Title: An Academic Critique of Internal Contradictions in the Quran with Reference to Eschatological Descriptions of Hell’s Sustenance

Author: Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

Muslim apologists frequently assert that the Quran is of divine origin based on its internal consistency. This claim is derived from verses such as Surah 4:82, which challenges readers to identify discrepancies as a test of divine authorship. However, a critical literary and theological analysis of the Quran’s eschatological descriptions—particularly regarding the food of Hell—raises important questions concerning internal coherence. This article investigates the multiplicity of descriptions concerning Hell's sustenance in the Quran and assesses whether such variances constitute theological contradictions or can be explained as thematic diversity. The findings contribute to the broader discourse on the Quran’s divine claim of inerrancy and consistency.

1. Introduction

The Quran explicitly states in Surah 4:82:

“Do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.” (Quran 4:82, Sahih International)

This verse has been pivotal in Islamic apologetics, serving as a self-verifying test of divine origin. Muslim scholars have historically contended that the absence of contradiction in the Quran is evidence of its perfection and divine authorship (Al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Tabari; Al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur’an).

Nonetheless, when examining the Quran's descriptions of Hell and its inhabitants' conditions, apparent inconsistencies arise—particularly regarding the sustenance of the damned. This article focuses on these inconsistencies to determine whether they breach the Quran’s self-imposed test of inerrancy.

2. Descriptions of Food in Hell: A Textual Analysis

Three primary passages describe what the inhabitants of Hell will consume:

2.1 Bitter Thorny Plant – Dhaari’

Surah 88:6: “No food will there be for them but a bitter dari’.”
The term “dari’” refers to a thorny desert plant, commonly identified with Al-Shubrum, which is both inedible and harmful (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Azim).

2.2 Pus from Wounds – Ghislin

Surah 69:36: “Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds.”
The word ghislin is interpreted by many exegetes (e.g., Al-Jalalayn) as a fluid composed of bodily excretions or pus, indicating extreme degradation.

2.3 Fruit of the Tree of Zaqqum

Surah 37:64–66: “For it is a tree that springs out of the bottom of Hellfire. The shoots of its fruit-stalks are like the heads of devils. Truly they will eat thereof and fill their bellies therewith.”
The tree of Zaqqum, often interpreted as a symbol of spiritual and physical corruption, offers a grotesque image of nourishment (Al-Qurtubi, Tafsir, vol. 15).

3. Theological and Logical Implications

From a purely theological standpoint, each of these descriptions could be interpreted metaphorically to signify various stages or types of punishment. However, the language employed is not explicitly metaphorical. Instead, it describes the physical act of eating, suggesting literal experiences in the afterlife.

3.1 Contradiction or Multiplicity?

Islamic apologists often argue that these are not contradictions but complementary descriptions (Al-Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb). Yet, the Quranic text offers these descriptions in the context of exclusivity:

“No food will there be for them but a bitter thorny plant” (88:6)
“Nor hath he any food except corruption from wounds” (69:36)

The Arabic terms “illa” (except) and “laisa lahu ta’am illa” (he has no food except) emphasize exclusivity and mutual exclusion. This raises a hermeneutical dilemma: how can multiple exclusive foods coexist in a logically coherent description of eschatological reality?

3.2 The Failure of the Quran’s Internal Test?

Given that Surah 4:82 offers a self-imposed falsifiability test—i.e., the presence of any contradiction would negate its divine origin—the co-existence of mutually exclusive descriptions challenges the claim of perfect consistency. Scholars such as W.M. Watt (1961) and John Wansbrough (1977) have long noted that literary tension and chronological layering within the Quran may reflect evolving redaction rather than singular authorship.

4. Comparative Perspective and Scriptural Consistency

In contrast, biblical eschatology—though also diverse in metaphor—maintains internal coherence without using absolute exclusive terminology. For instance, descriptions of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" or "lake of fire" (Matthew 13:42, Revelation 20:14) differ in imagery but are unified in tone and purpose without suggesting mutually exclusive realities.

5. Conclusion

The Quran’s descriptions of Hell's sustenance, when examined through the lens of exclusivity and internal coherence, raise significant theological questions. The presence of multiple, mutually exclusive food types—each presented as the only food available—presents a serious challenge to the claim found in Surah 4:82. While theological flexibility and metaphorical readings may offer partial explanations, the linguistic and logical exclusivity embedded in the verses limits interpretive maneuverability.

Thus, this case study illustrates how a close, scholarly critique of internal Quranic content may contest the assertion of absolute consistency and divine authorship. It invites further interfaith, philosophical, and textual dialogue regarding the Quran’s nature and origin.

References

Al-Tabari, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān ʿan Ta’wīl Āy al-Qur’ān. Cairo: Dar al-Ma’arif.
Al-Qurtubi, Al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān. Beirut: Dar Ihya Turath al-Arabi.
Al-Razi, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb (Tafsir al-Kabir). Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath.
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Azim. Riyadh: Darussalam.
Al-Jalalayn, Tafsir al-Jalalayn. Translated by Feras Hamza. Amman: Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute, 2008.
Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Mecca. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.
Wansbrough, John. Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation. Oxford University Press, 1977.
Quranic references from The Quran, translated by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Author’s Note:
Dr. Maxwell Shimba is a biblical theologian and scholar of comparative religious studies at the Shimba Theological Institute. His research focuses on textual integrity, inter-religious critique, and theological coherence within Abrahamic scriptures.

Contradictions in the Qur’an – Part 4

Shimba Theological Institute
New York, NY
Department of Comparative Theology
Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Th.D.

Contradictions in the Qur’an – Part 4

A Theological and Textual Examination of Internal Inconsistencies

Introduction

Muslim theologians have long insisted that the Qur’an is internally consistent and wholly free from contradiction. This belief is not merely a theological position but one embedded in the Qur’an itself:

Surah 4:82 – “Do they not then reflect on the Qur'an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would have found therein much contradiction.” (Yusuf Ali)

This claim forms a central pillar of the Qur'an’s argument for divine authorship. According to this verse, any meaningful contradiction within the text itself would undermine the assertion that the Qur'an originates from God. In this segment of our ongoing series, we turn our attention to descriptions of the food in Hell (Jahannam) to examine whether multiple and differing portrayals present a case of internal contradiction.

Subject of Investigation: The Nature of Food in Hell

The Qur'an offers vivid imagery of the torments awaiting those consigned to Hell, including descriptions of the sustenance provided therein. However, these descriptions are varied and, arguably, conflicting.

1. Bitter Thorny Plant (Dhaari‘)

Surah 88:6 – “No food will there be for them but a bitter Dhari’.”
The term “Dhari’” has been interpreted by classical commentators (e.g., Ibn Kathir, Al-Jalalayn) as referring to a thorny desert plant—dry, bitter, and inedible. Some exegeses interpret it as the poisonous plant known as al-Shubruq.

2. Corrupted Pus from Wounds

Surah 69:36 – “Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds.”
This disturbing description—variously translated as "filthy pus" or "discharges from wounds"—represents an entirely different and grotesque kind of sustenance.

Surah 69:31 (contextual background): “Burn him in the blazing Fire.” This precedes the mention of the pus, suggesting that punishment includes more than fire—there is also detestable nourishment.

3. Devilish Fruit from the Tree of Zaqqum

Surah 37:64–66 – “For it is a tree that springs out of the bottom of Hellfire: The shoots of its fruit-stalks are like the heads of devils: Truly they will eat thereof and fill their bellies therewith.”
Here, the food of Hell is said to come from the tree of Zaqqum, a recurrent symbol in Islamic eschatology. Its fruit is described in demonic imagery, emphasizing spiritual as well as physical torment.

Analysis of the Discrepancy

The central issue lies in the Quran presenting multiple, seemingly exclusive descriptions of the only food available in Hell. If Surah 88:6 declares that “no food will there be except bitter thorny plants,” how can Surah 69:36 claim instead that the food consists of pus? Moreover, how does the tree of Zaqqum in Surah 37 integrate with these accounts?

There are three interpretive options, each with theological implications:

Literal Exclusivity: If taken literally and exclusively, these verses cannot all simultaneously be true unless different groups in Hell receive different forms of torment. However, this explanation is not present in the Qur'anic text itself and thus requires extrapolation not explicitly supported.
Metaphorical Reading: Some commentators propose metaphorical interpretation—Dhari’, Zaqqum, and pus all symbolize intense suffering rather than being literal foods. While plausible, this undermines the vividness and specificity of the descriptions, which are otherwise presented in concrete terms.
Cumulative Punishment: Another apologetic attempt suggests a cumulative model—each description represents one facet of Hell’s torment, applied variously to different sinners. However, this again assumes something not stated in the texts that use exclusivist phrasing such as “no food except…”

Theological Implications

If the Qur’an claims, per Surah 4:82, that divine authorship implies absence of contradiction, and yet it exhibits conflicting descriptions of the same eschatological reality, one must ask whether these contradictions are reconcilable without significant eisegesis (reading into the text).

While one might argue that literary or thematic diversity does not amount to contradiction, the specificity and exclusivity of the language in these verses suggest more than poetic variety. The claim of “no food except…” logically negates alternatives unless multiple groups are being described—something the Qur'an itself does not clarify in these contexts.

Conclusion

While the type of food in Hell may seem doctrinally minor, the implications are weighty. If the Qur’an presents mutually exclusive descriptions of the same phenomenon without qualification, and if it states that such contradictions would prove the text is not divine, then this becomes a theological and philosophical problem.

Final Assessment: The varying depictions of Hell’s food in Surahs 88:6, 69:36, and 37:64–66 constitute a textual inconsistency unless heavily reinterpreted. According to Surah 4:82, this opens the Qur'an to legitimate critical scrutiny regarding its claim of divine origin.

Prepared by:
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Senior Fellow in Comparative Scripture
Shimba Theological Institute, New York, NY

Contradictions in the Qur’an – Part 3

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

The Qur’an’s Consistency Claim

A foundational claim in Islamic theology is the inerrancy and internal consistency of the Qur’an. Muslims point to Surah 4:82 as textual evidence of the Qur’an’s divine origin:

"Do they not consider the Qur’an with care? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy." — Surah 4:82

This verse presents a challenge to the reader: examine the Qur’an, and if contradictions are found, its divine origin is invalidated. Classical Islamic scholars have reiterated this as an apologetic stance affirming the Qur’an’s perfection.

Forgiveness of Sins: A Theological Inconsistency?

The specific issue under scrutiny in this analysis concerns the Qur’an’s statements regarding divine forgiveness. Does Allah forgive all sins without exception, or are there sins He categorically does not forgive?

Affirmation: Allah Forgives All Sins

One passage strongly emphasizes universal forgiveness:

"Say, O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful." — Surah 39:53

This verse has been frequently quoted to promote the Qur’anic message of hope and mercy. The language here is inclusive: “Allah forgives all sins.” It presents divine forgiveness as comprehensive and unconditional for the repentant.

Limitation: Allah Does Not Forgive Shirk (Associating Partners with Him)

In contrast, other passages limit this forgiveness:

"Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly gone far astray." — Surah 4:116
"Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth..." — Surah 4:48

These verses explicitly state an exception: Shirk (polytheism or associating others with Allah) is unforgivable unless the person repents before death. The implication is clear — while many sins can be forgiven, shirk is treated as categorically different and, in the absence of sincere repentance, is unforgivable.

A Theological Tension

This leads to a theological tension. Surah 39:53 appears to affirm that all sins can be forgiven without exception. However, Surahs 4:48 and 4:116 introduce an exception that directly contradicts the former’s absoluteness.

Muslim apologists and exegetes (e.g., Al-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir) have attempted to resolve this issue by interpreting Surah 39:53 as applying only to sins committed before shirk or only to those who repent prior to death. However, the phrase “Allah forgives all sins” in 39:53 is unqualified, making the restriction introduced later appear inconsistent unless read with heavy interpretive framing.

Conclusion

The juxtaposition of these verses introduces a genuine interpretative difficulty for the doctrine of divine forgiveness in the Qur’an. If the Qur’an claims that it contains no contradiction (Surah 4:82), then the universal declaration of forgiveness in 39:53 appears incompatible with the conditional exclusion found in 4:48 and 4:116.

Whether this constitutes a theological inconsistency or a nuance in divine justice remains a matter of perspective. From an academic standpoint, however, this serves as a legitimate example of internal tension within the Qur’anic text, calling into question its claim of absolute consistency.

Contradictions in the Qur’an – Part 2

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

Abstract

Islam asserts that the Qur’an is a divine, unalterable revelation entirely free of contradiction. The internal standard set forth in Surah 4:82 claims that if the Qur’an had been from any source other than Allah, it would contain discrepancies. Yet, careful analysis of the Qur’anic text reveals apparent inconsistencies, particularly in the mode and timeline of its revelation. This article examines one such contradiction—whether the Qur’an was revealed all at once or gradually over time—and evaluates its implications for the doctrine of inerrancy.

Introduction: The Qur’an’s Test of Consistency

Islamic theology maintains that the Qur’an's lack of contradiction is proof of its divine origin. The Qur’an declares:

Surah 4:82
“Do they not consider the Qur’an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.”

This verse serves as an internal test for divine authorship. Islamic scholars, both classical and contemporary, have emphasized the Qur’an’s uniformity as a hallmark of its authenticity. However, any observable contradiction would, by this criterion, undermine the Qur’an’s claim of being the literal Word of God.

The Discrepancy in the Revelation Timeline

A critical inconsistency arises concerning how and when the Qur’an was revealed. The Qur’an appears to assert both that it was revealed all at once on a specific night, and that it was revealed gradually over time.

1. Revelation in a Single Night – The “Night of Power”

The Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes that the entire revelation occurred on a specific, blessed night:

Surah 97:1 – “Indeed, We sent it [the Qur’an] down during the Night of Decree.”
Surah 44:3 – “Indeed, We sent it down during a blessed night. Indeed, We were to warn [mankind].”

These verses clearly indicate a complete revelation on a specific night, understood by Muslim tradition as Laylat al-Qadr (the Night of Power) during Ramadan.

2. Gradual Revelation Over Time

In contrast, other passages affirm that the Qur’an was revealed in stages, spanning years:

Surah 17:106 – “(It is) a Qur’an which We have divided (into parts), that you might recite it to the people over time. And We have sent it down progressively.”

This verse, among others, affirms that the Qur’an was revealed piecemeal, in direct response to situations during Muhammad’s prophetic ministry over 23 years.

Theological and Hermeneutical Tension

This presents a textual contradiction. Was the Qur’an revealed in a single night, as Surahs 97 and 44 explicitly state? Or was it revealed gradually over decades, as Surah 17:106 and Islamic historiography attest?

Muslim commentators often attempt to reconcile this by suggesting that the Qur’an was pre-revealed in its entirety to the “Preserved Tablet” (al-Lawh al-Mahfuz) or to the “lowest heaven” on the Night of Power, and then revealed in portions to Muhammad over time. However, this interpretation is extra-Qur’anic—it relies on later theological developments, not on the Qur’anic text itself. The Qur’an does not mention this two-step process.

From a hermeneutical standpoint, this introduces ambiguity and undermines the Qur’an’s repeated claim to be clear and detailed (Arabic: mubīn, see Surah 12:1; 16:89).

Contradiction in Light of Surah 4:82

Returning to the Qur’an’s own standard:

“Had it been from other than Allah, they would have found in it much discrepancy.” (Surah 4:82)

The above contradiction—concerning the method and timeline of revelation—is not semantic or metaphorical. It is a direct conflict between two claims, both asserting how the Qur’an was delivered to humanity. Such a contradiction challenges the Qur’an’s internal test of divine origin.

Conclusion

This analysis has highlighted a fundamental inconsistency in the Qur’an’s account of its own revelation: whether it was sent down in one night or revealed gradually over time. This is not a trivial matter of interpretation but strikes at the very foundation of the Qur’anic claim to divine origin and consistency.

If the Qur’an sets its own standard for authenticity—complete internal consistency—then this contradiction must be addressed. According to Surah 4:82, such a discrepancy would be evidence that the Qur’an is not from Allah. As such, this inconsistency provides a serious theological and textual challenge to the doctrine of Qur’anic inerrancy.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
New York, NY

Contradictions in the Qur’an – Part 1

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

The Qur’an claims to be a divine revelation wholly free of internal contradictions. Surah 4:82 asserts that a divine scripture must be without discrepancy, and Islamic commentators have historically reinforced this view. However, a closer textual analysis reveals problematic inconsistencies—most notably in the Qur’an’s designation of multiple individuals as the "first Muslim." This paper will examine the claim of internal consistency in the Qur’an through theological, textual, and logical lenses, presenting a critical analysis of whether such contradictions undermine the Qur’an’s divine origin.

Introduction

One of the foundational claims of Islamic theology is the Qur’an’s complete internal coherence and divine authorship. The Qur’an states:

Surah 4:82
“Do they not consider the Qur’an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.”

This verse has been widely interpreted by classical and modern Islamic scholars as a definitive proof of the Qur’an’s inerrancy. Tafsir Ibn Kathir comments that the Qur’an contains no inconsistencies or contradictions because it is a revelation from "the Most-Wise, Worthy of all praise." Similarly, Yusuf Ali interprets the verse to affirm the Qur’an’s divine authorship on the basis of its coherence across time, subjects, and contexts.

The Islamic Claim of Qur'anic Consistency

The assertion of coherence is central to Islamic apologetics. Yusuf Ali, in his commentary, claims:

“The Qur’an claims to be a revelation from Allah, and the challenge is that if it were from any other source, it would contain many inconsistencies and contradictions, which no one can deny in any human composition. But in the Qur’an, no such inconsistencies exist.”

This argument implies that even a single contradiction within the Qur’anic text would serve as evidence against its divine origin.

A Case Study: Who Was the First Muslim?

An instructive example of apparent inconsistency lies in the Qur’an’s identification of the "first Muslim", a title that seems to be attributed to multiple individuals:

1. Muhammad as the First Muslim

Surah 39:12 – “And I (Muhammad) am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam.”
Surah 6:163 – “No partner hath He: this am I commanded, and I am the first of those who bow to His will.”

2. Moses as the First Believer

Surah 7:143 – “When Moses recovered, he said: ‘Glory be to Thee! To Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe.’”

3. Abraham as the First Muslim

Surah 2:132 – “And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; ‘Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam.’”

This raises a fundamental contradiction: How can three distinct individuals, living centuries apart, all be described as the "first Muslim"?

Theological Implications

From a theological standpoint, this contradiction is not merely semantic. The Qur’an is asserting priority in faith and submission to God—a foundational identity marker in Islam. The term Muslim (one who submits to Allah) is used retroactively for pre-Islamic prophets, yet simultaneously, Muhammad is declared the first to submit.

Islamic scholars have attempted to resolve this by suggesting that each figure was the “first Muslim” in their own time, but this interpretation is not textually grounded in the Qur’an itself. The Qur’an does not qualify these statements with temporal clauses. Each verse makes an absolute claim.

Logical and Hermeneutical Concerns

From a hermeneutical perspective, the claim of "firstness" in multiple contexts without clarification leads to logical incoherence. If the Qur’an was revealed by an all-wise, all-knowing deity, such semantic confusion should not exist, especially in a book whose clarity is constantly emphasized (Surah 12:1; 16:89).

Moreover, this inconsistency directly challenges the claim of Surah 4:82. If even one contradiction exists in the Qur’anic narrative, then—by the Qur’an’s own standard—it would not be from Allah.

Conclusion

The assertion that Muhammad, Moses, and Abraham were each the "first Muslim" presents a textual contradiction in the Qur’an. According to Surah 4:82, the presence of contradiction indicates that the text cannot be from God. Thus, this specific inconsistency undermines the Qur’an’s claim of divine authorship and perfect consistency.

While Muslims maintain that the Qur’an is a flawless and inerrant revelation, critical textual analysis—when conducted with intellectual honesty and academic rigor—reveals that this claim does not withstand scrutiny. Further study is needed to assess whether these inconsistencies are isolated anomalies or indicative of broader textual and theological fragmentation.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Orlando, Florida

The Church Is Not a Building: A Biblical and Theological Reflection on Ecclesiology

Title: The Church Is Not a Building: A Biblical and Theological Reflection on Ecclesiology
Author: Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Affiliation: Shimba Theological Institute, New York, NY

Abstract
Many contemporary Christians mistakenly equate the term "church" with a physical structure. However, a biblical understanding reveals a much deeper and spiritually significant meaning. This paper explores the etymological roots, biblical context, and theological implications of the term “church,” highlighting the distinction between institutional edifices and the true spiritual body of Christ. The study further examines the dichotomy between the universal and the local church as taught in the New Testament.

Introduction

The term “church” in modern discourse is often used to refer to a building or a denominational institution. This understanding, however, deviates significantly from the biblical usage and meaning of the term. In its original context, the Greek word ekklesia—translated as “church”—does not refer to a physical structure but to “an assembly” or “those who are called out.” Thus, theologically, the Church is fundamentally a community of believers and not a man-made structure.

1. Etymological and Scriptural Basis

The Greek term ekklesia derives from ek (“out of”) and kaleo (“to call”), meaning "those who are called out." Biblically, the term was used to denote assemblies of believers rather than physical buildings. For instance, Romans 16:5 states, “Greet the church that meets in their house.” Here, the Apostle Paul is clearly referring to the body of believers meeting in a home, not to a constructed temple or formal structure. This aligns with the earliest expressions of Christian community, which gathered in homes, caves, or open spaces rather than designated buildings.

2. The Church as the Body of Christ

The Church is primarily understood as the Body of Christ, with Jesus Himself as the Head. This is affirmed in Ephesians 1:22-23, which declares: “And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.” This metaphor signifies spiritual unity, divine purpose, and mutual dependence among believers.

Furthermore, the Body of Christ consists of all believers from the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) until the return of Christ. This body is composed of two interrelated dimensions:

The Universal Church: Includes all who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and have received the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13).
The Local Church: Refers to smaller congregations or gatherings, such as those mentioned in Galatians 1:1–2, where Paul writes to “the churches of Galatia.” These were not denominational constructs but assemblies of believers gathered for worship, teaching, fellowship, and service.

3. Ecclesiological Implications

Church buildings, denominations (e.g., Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic), and traditions should not be mistaken for the Church in its biblical sense. These are expressions of local congregations within the larger body. The universal Church consists of all those who belong to Christ, regardless of denominational affiliation. However, believers are exhorted to engage in fellowship within local churches to fulfill the biblical mandate of edification and communal support as described in 1 Corinthians 12.

Conclusion

The biblical definition of the Church transcends architecture and denominational boundaries. According to Scripture, the Church is the collective body of believers who have trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation. These believers constitute the universal Church and are called to gather in local assemblies for mutual encouragement, discipleship, and worship. Therefore, the Church is not a building or a religion—it is a spiritual organism composed of the redeemed people of God.

As such, Christian identity and spiritual growth should not be confined to ecclesiastical structures but nurtured within the fellowship of believers in the Spirit of Christ.

References

The Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV).
Bauer, W. (2001). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.
Grudem, W. (1994). Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Zondervan.
Bonhoeffer, D. (1954). Life Together: The Classic Exploration of Christian Community. Harper & Row.
Stott, J. (1999). The Living Church: Convictions of a Lifelong Pastor. IVP Books.
Carson, D. A., & Keller, T. (2012). The Gospel as Center: Renewing Our Faith and Reforming Our Ministry Practices. Crossway.

Correspondence:
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Founder and Director, Shimba Theological Institute
New York, NY, USA
Email: info@shimbatheological.org

Was Muhammad Prophesied in the New Testament as the Helper or the Holy Spirit? A Theological and Historical Analysis

Title:
Was Muhammad Prophesied in the New Testament as the Helper or the Holy Spirit? A Theological and Historical Analysis

Author:
Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Servant of Jesus Christ, the Great God (Titus 2:13)
Shimba Theological Institute, New York, NY

Abstract

Some Islamic apologists claim that Muhammad was prophesied in the New Testament, specifically in the Gospel of John (chapters 14–16), as the "Helper" or "Comforter" (Greek: Paraklētos), also known as the Holy Spirit. This article critically examines these claims by analyzing the biblical text and historical Christian interpretation. It demonstrates that such assertions are inconsistent both with the internal biblical evidence and with traditional Islamic theology.

Introduction

A recurring claim among some Islamic scholars and da’wah proponents is that the Paraklētos—translated as "Helper" or "Comforter" in the Gospel of John—refers to the prophet Muhammad. This interpretation, however, diverges from both Christian theological understanding and the internal coherence of the Gospel narrative. The relevant passages in question are John 14:16–26, 15:26, and 16:5–15.

This paper provides a theological rebuttal to such claims and outlines why the Paraklētos must be identified as the Holy Spirit, not Muhammad, as understood consistently throughout Christian history.

Scriptural Analysis: Gospel of John 14–16

The relevant passages read:

John 14:26 – “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things...”
John 15:26 – “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father—He will bear witness about me.”
John 16:13–14 – “When the Spirit of truth comes... He will glorify me, for He will take what is mine and declare it to you.”

Inconsistencies with the Islamic Interpretation

If these passages were truly about Muhammad, then logically Muslims would need to affirm the following five propositions:

Muhammad glorified Jesus
- John 16:14: “He will glorify me.”
- Yet, in Islam, Jesus is considered a prophet subordinate to Muhammad, not glorified above him.
Muhammad was sent by God in Jesus’ name
- John 14:26: “...whom the Father will send in my name.”
- No Islamic teaching affirms that Muhammad was sent in Jesus' name.
Muhammad was sent by Jesus
- John 16:7: “...for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.”
- Islam does not teach that Muhammad was sent by Jesus, which would imply Jesus’ divine authority over Muhammad.
Muhammad took from Jesus’ knowledge and made it known
- John 16:15: “All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that He will take what is mine and declare it to you.”
- Islam does not claim that Muhammad relied on the teachings or revelation of Jesus for his message.
Muhammad dwelt within the disciples
- John 14:17: “...He dwells with you and will be in you.”
- Muhammad, a human prophet, did not spiritually indwell anyone, whereas the Holy Spirit is described as indwelling believers.

Thus, for the Islamic interpretation to be valid, Muslims would have to accept a Christology and pneumatology inconsistent with Islamic doctrine.

Historical Testimony

Before the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), early Church Fathers had already identified the Paraklētos as the Holy Spirit. For instance, Archelaus of Mesopotamia (c. 262–278 A.D.) in his Disputation with Manes (ch. 34–35, pp. 208–209) clearly refers to the Helper as the Holy Spirit.

This interpretation predates Islam by centuries and shows no evidence that Christians understood this prophecy to refer to a future human prophet.

Scholarly References

Geisler, Norman L., and Ron Rhodes. When Cultists Ask: A Popular Handbook on Cultic Misinterpretations. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997, pp. 182–183.
Geisler, Norman L., and Thomas Howe. When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992, pp. 419–420.
Archelaus. The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 6. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson.

Conclusion

The claim that Muhammad is the Paraklētos of John 14–16 is theologically untenable and historically unsupported. The internal logic of the Gospel of John, the consistent witness of early Christian writers, and the contradictions with Islamic doctrine all point to the identification of the Helper as the Holy Spirit, not a future prophet. Consequently, any serious theological reflection must reject the Muslim reinterpretation as an anachronistic and doctrinally flawed imposition on the New Testament text.

Shalom,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Servant of Jesus Christ, Our Great God and Savior (Titus 2:13)
Shimba Theological Institute
New York, NY

WERE THESE EXTRAORDINARY TRAITS OF MUHAMMAD PROPHETIC?

WERE THESE EXTRAORDINARY TRAITS OF MUHAMMAD PROPHETIC?
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

Many Muslims uphold Muhammad as the final and most exemplary prophet of God, whose character and actions reflect divine revelation. However, a critical and historical analysis of Islamic texts reveals a troubling picture. This paper investigates whether certain controversial traits and actions attributed to Muhammad align with the qualities expected of a true prophet of God. The findings are drawn directly from canonical Islamic sources and contrasted with Christian theological perspectives.

1. Muhammad’s Involvement in Adultery with a Slave Girl

According to Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Vol. 6, p. 367), Muhammad was found by his wife Hafsa engaging in intimate relations with her Coptic maidservant, Mariyah. Hafsa reportedly rebuked him harshly. In response, Muhammad promised not to engage with the slave girl again.

Question: Is it consistent with prophetic character to be caught in such a scandal within one’s household?

2. Muhammad and Prostitution Allegations

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Hadith 4458, narrates that Muhammad sent Ali to punish a male companion who had sexual relations with a female slave owned by Muhammad without his permission. Ali found the girl bleeding, indicating recent intercourse. Muhammad instructed that she not be punished until she healed.

Observation: The very ownership of sex slaves and managing their sexual engagements calls into question the prophetic integrity as understood in biblical standards.

3. Muhammad and Alleged Homosexual Behavior

In Hadith 16,245, narrated by Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan, it is claimed that Muhammad sucked on the tongue and kissed the lips of his grandson Al-Hassan. This was followed by the assertion that whoever Muhammad did this to would not be punished in hellfire. Similar narrations claim he did so to Ali during illness.

Critical Reflection: Such intimate acts, especially justified with spiritual reward, raise moral and theological concerns regarding the nature of prophetic purity and propriety.

4. Muhammad and Alcohol Consumption

In Sahih Muslim 3753, it is reported that Muhammad asked for and drank strong wine, which led to intoxication.

Query: How could a prophet, whose followers are later forbidden alcohol, justify being intoxicated himself? Is this reflective of divine conduct?

5. Muhammad’s Affliction with Magic and Sorcery

Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 54, Hadith 490 and Vol. 7, Book 71, Hadith 658, report that Muhammad was bewitched to the point of delusion. Tafsir by Sheikh Abdullah Saleh Al-Farsy (pp. 977–978) also recounts this incident.

Theological Dilemma: If sorcery is condemned as kufr (disbelief), how could God allow His prophet to be overpowered by it? Was the magic from Allah or from outside forces? What prophet in biblical history was ever bewitched in such a manner?

6. Muhammad's Uncertainty About His Eternal Fate

In Qur’an 46:9, Muhammad is quoted as saying:

“Say: I am not something original among the messengers, and I do not know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which is revealed to me.”

Implication: A prophet of God uncertain about his salvation and that of his followers stands in sharp contrast to Jesus Christ, who declared with authority:

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

7. Satan Allegedly Converts to Islam

According to a claim in The Origin of Jinn (p. 20), Muhammad is reported to have converted Satan to Islam.

Theological Question: How can the sworn enemy of God—Satan—be considered a Muslim? If this is true, then Islam becomes the only religion where Satan is accepted as a believer.

Final Reflections

These accounts raise serious theological and moral concerns about the legitimacy of Muhammad’s prophethood. According to both biblical standards and general moral reasoning, the life and character of a prophet should reflect holiness, consistency, and moral clarity. In contrast, Muhammad’s biography—according to Islamic sources—shows inconsistencies, moral failures, and spiritual confusion.

Key Theological Questions for Muslims:

(a) If sorcery is a form of disbelief, what is the connection between Allah and magic if He allowed His prophet to be bewitched?

(b) Were the witches who bewitched Muhammad Muslims or pagans?

(d) Which other prophet in religious history was ever bewitched and deluded?

(e) Which prophet was unsure of his own salvation and the fate of his followers?

Conclusion: Why Follow a Prophet With Demonic Traits?

Considering the above, one must ask: Why abandon Jesus Christ—the Way, the Truth, and the Life—for a prophet whose own conduct and confessions contradict divine holiness and certainty?

“...while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13)

Come to Jesus, the Living Savior and the True God.

Blessings to you all.
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Was Muhammad Really Illiterate?

Was Muhammad Really Illiterate? A Critical Examination of the Traditional Islamic Claim

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

One of the most widely asserted claims in Islamic theology is that Prophet Muhammad was illiterate, and that this illiteracy serves as proof of the divine origin of the Qur’an. This paper critically evaluates the historical, linguistic, and hadith-based evidence surrounding this claim. It also questions the theological implications of asserting Muhammad’s illiteracy as a miracle, demonstrating that both the premise and the conclusion are flawed. Further analysis is provided on the interpretation of the Arabic term ummiyy (ٱلْأُمِّيّ) and its contextual meaning, including a re-examination of hadiths that suggest Muhammad was capable of reading and writing.

1. Introduction

Muslims commonly argue that the illiteracy (ummiyy) of Prophet Muhammad is miraculous, positing that the literary excellence of the Qur’an could not have originated from an unlettered man. This reasoning, however, presumes two unverified claims: first, that Muhammad was indeed illiterate in the strict sense of being unable to read or write; and second, that the Qur’an was revealed in a purely oral form without any textual interaction by Muhammad. This paper questions both claims.

2. The Traditional Understanding of 'Ummiyy' (ٱلْأُمِّيّ)

In Islamic theology, Surah 7:157 refers to Muhammad as al-nabiyy al-ummiyy (ٱلنَّبِيُّ ٱلْأُمِّيُّ), usually translated as "the unlettered Prophet." However, the Arabic term ummiyy does not unambiguously mean “illiterate.” According to Edward William Lane in An Arabic-English Lexicon (1863, p. 92), ummiyy can also mean "gentile", especially when contrasted with Jewish or scriptural communities. This is supported by Surah 62:2, which describes Muhammad as being sent “to the ummiyyīn,” often interpreted as “to the gentiles.”

“It is He who has sent among the unlettered [ummiyyīn] a Messenger from themselves…” (Qur’an 62:2, Sahih International).

Thus, a textual-linguistic analysis suggests that ummiyy may refer to Muhammad’s lack of scriptural background (non-Jewish), rather than a lack of literacy. The conflation of ummiyy with “illiterate” lacks strong philological support.

3. Hadith Evidence Questioning Illiteracy

3.1 Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (Sahih al-Bukhari 2699)

One of the strongest arguments against Muhammad’s illiteracy arises during the drafting of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. The hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari (2699) records that the Prophet instructed Ali to strike out the phrase *“Messenger of Allah”* after the Quraysh objected. When Ali refused, Muhammad is said to have taken the treaty and made the change himself:

“So Allah's Messenger took the document and wrote…”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, 2699)

This moment contradicts the belief that Muhammad could neither read nor write. If he personally modified a treaty document, that indicates at least rudimentary literacy.

3.2 Final Illness and Request for Writing Tools (Sahih al-Bukhari 114; Sahih Muslim 1637a)

During Muhammad’s final illness, he is reported to have requested writing materials to leave a directive for his followers:

“Bring me a pen and paper so I may write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, 114; Sahih Muslim, 1637a)

Although the Prophet’s request was interrupted and unfulfilled, the hadith strongly suggests his intent to write personally, undermining the assumption that he was incapable of writing.

4. Theological Implications and Logical Fallacy

Muslim apologists often argue that the Qur'an's existence as a literary work authored by an illiterate man is evidence of divine origin. However, this reasoning is circular and self-defeating:

First, it presupposes illiteracy as fact.
Second, it assumes that human literacy or illiteracy limits divine inspiration.
Third, it ignores the Qur'an’s posthumous compilation by literate scribes like Zayd ibn Thabit and others under Caliphs Abu Bakr and Uthman.

If Muhammad merely received and orally transmitted divine revelation, then his literacy status becomes irrelevant to the Qur’an’s composition. Furthermore, reliance on a claim of illiteracy to validate divine origin ignores better theological criteria, such as truthfulness, historical accuracy, and moral coherence.

5. Conclusion

The claim that Muhammad was illiterate is not conclusively supported by linguistic analysis or early Islamic sources. The use of ummiyy in the Qur’an likely refers to non-Jewish background rather than illiteracy. Additionally, key hadiths suggest Muhammad could read and write. Therefore, Muhammad’s supposed illiteracy should not be considered evidence for the divine origin of the Qur’an.

References

Lane, Edward William. An Arabic-English Lexicon. London: Williams & Norgate, 1863.
The Qur’an. Surah 7:157; 62:2. Translations: Sahih International.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 2699.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 114.
Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 1637a.
Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Mecca. Oxford University Press, 1953.
Guillaume, Alfred. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah. Oxford University Press, 1955.

Author Bio
Dr. Maxwell Shimba is the founder and director of the Shimba Theological Institute. His academic interests include Islamic apologetics, comparative theology, and historical-critical analysis of religious texts.

Did Prophet Muhammad and His Companions Consume Wild Boar? Yes, they did

Title: An Inquiry into an Unconventional Hadith: Did Prophet Muhammad and His Companions Consume Wild Boar?

By Dr. Max Shimba | Max Shimba Ministries

Abstract:
This article critically examines a rare and controversial narration attributed to Al-Tabar, recorded in Al-Kitaab, Third Edition, Page 136, Hadith 41. The narration claims that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his companions consumed the meat of a wild boar during a time of exhaustion and hunger. This paper investigates the hadith’s content, chain of transmission, theological implications, and compatibility with Islamic dietary law (ḥalāl and ḥarām distinctions).

Introduction

Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) draws heavily from two foundational sources: the Qur'an and the Hadith (sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad). The Qur'an explicitly forbids the consumption of pork (Surah al-Baqarah 2:173, Surah al-Ma'idah 5:3, Surah al-An'am 6:145). Therefore, any narration that claims the Prophet of Islam consumed pork raises significant theological and historical questions.

The narration in question is reportedly recorded by Al-Tabar and transmitted via Ibn Ali Bakouri, who attributes it to a statement of ‘Aisha, the wife of the Prophet, regarding an incident in which the Prophet and his companions, after a long journey, allegedly consumed wild boar meat at the house of a woman named Fatimah.

The Hadith Text and Translation

Arabic Original (As Quoted):
والحديث رواه الطبر ، وردَّه ابن علي بكوري ، فسمع أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقولون: سئم نبي الله وأصحابه من السفر الطويل. وصلوا إلى بيت فاطمة صديقة رفاقها. قال رسول الله: هل عندك ما تأكل؟ أجابت فاطمة بنعم. فسأل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا كان لك فريسة. فاطمة تجيب عندي خنزير بري. فأكل نبي الله وأصحابه لحم الخنزير البري حتى شبعوا.

English Translation:
The hadith is narrated by Al-Tabar and received by Ibn Ali Bakouri, who heard the companions of the Prophet of Allah say: The Prophet of Allah and his companions were weary from a long journey. They arrived at the house of Fatimah, a friend of their companions. The Prophet asked, "Do you have anything to eat?" Fatimah replied, "Yes." The Prophet asked again, "Do you have any prey?" Fatimah answered, "I have a wild boar." Then the Prophet of Allah and his companions ate wild boar meat until they were full.

Textual and Source Analysis

Upon preliminary review, several red flags emerge:

The Source – Al-Tabar:
The reference to “Al-Tabar” is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the author refers to Al-Ṭabarī (the famous 9th-century historian and exegete) or another lesser-known narrator. No such hadith is found in Al-Ṭabarī’s Tārīkh al-Rusul wa al-Mulūk or his Tafsīr. The name “Ibn Ali Bakouri” is also absent from any well-known isnād (chain of narration) records among Sunni or Shi'a traditions.
Contradiction with Qur'anic Law:
The Qur’an forbids the consumption of pork unequivocally (Qur’an 2:173; 5:3; 6:145; 16:115). Even in situations of necessity (darura), the Qur’an allows eating what is forbidden only when there is no alternative and when it is done out of survival, not desire (2:173). However, the tone of the narration here lacks the severity or desperation of such a context.
Isnād and Matn Critique:
This hadith does not appear in any of the six major hadith collections (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawood, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Sunan al-Nasa’i, Sunan Ibn Majah), nor does it appear in known da‘if (weak) compilations. The isnād (chain of narrators) is both obscure and unverifiable, thus failing the criterion of sahih (authentic) or even hasan (acceptable).
Terminology and Anachronism:
The use of the phrase "wild boar" (khinzīr barrī) is highly unusual in classical Arabic hadith literature. Moreover, the name “Fatimah,” while common, may imply a conflation with Fatimah al-Zahra (daughter of the Prophet), which further complicates the narrative.

Theological and Doctrinal Implications

If accepted as authentic, this narration would directly contradict the Prophet’s teachings and Qur’anic revelation. However, Islamic theology maintains that the Prophet was protected (ma‘sūm) from sin and from violating divine law knowingly. The consumption of pork—wild or domesticated—is strictly ḥarām. To suggest the Prophet did otherwise undermines both his prophetic authority and the integrity of the Qur’anic revelation.

Conclusion

Upon textual, contextual, and theological scrutiny, this narration must be classified as fabricated (mawdū‘) or inauthentic. It is unsupported by any reliable chain of transmission and stands in stark contradiction to foundational Islamic teachings. It may represent a later polemical insertion or a forgery designed to provoke controversy.

Scholars and students of comparative religion must approach such claims with academic rigor and a critical eye toward historical methodology, isnād science, and theological coherence.

References

The Qur'an: Surah al-Baqarah 2:173, Surah al-Ma'idah 5:3, Surah al-An'am 6:145, Surah al-Nahl 16:115
Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh al-Rusul wa al-Mulūk, ed. M. J. de Goeje
Al-Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Lisan al-Mizan
Goldziher, Ignaz. Muslim Studies, Vol. 2

Shalom,
Dr. Max Shimba
Max Shimba Ministries
www.maxshimbaministries.org