Can divine speech be manifested in created form without losing its divine origin as revelation?

 

Divine Speech and Divine Manifestation: A Comparative Debate on Revelation in Islam and Christianity

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

A central issue in Islamic–Christian theological dialogue is not merely what God has revealed, but how divine reality is expressed within the created order. Both Islam and Christianity affirm that God communicates with humanity, yet they differ on the ultimate form of that communication.

At the heart of this discussion lies a critical theological principle:

Divine speech can be manifested in created form without losing its divine origin as revelation.

This principle raises deeper questions that shape both Islamic theology and Christian Christology.

---

1. The Core Theological Principle Under Debate

If divine speech originates from God, then a foundational question emerges:

• Can that divine speech enter time and space without ceasing to be divine in origin?

• Can the eternal be expressed in temporal form without becoming something other than divine revelation?

• Does manifestation in creation necessarily imply reduction in divinity, or only adaptation in form?

Islamic theology answers this by affirming that the Qur’an is the Word of Allah expressed in human language. Christianity extends the same conceptual logic further by claiming that the Word became flesh in Jesus Christ.

Thus, both traditions operate—at different levels—within the framework of divine self-expression in created reality.

---

2. The Islamic Position: Revelation as Manifested Speech

In Islam, Allah is absolutely transcendent, yet He communicates through kalam Allah (divine speech). The Qur’an is understood as:

• The Word of God

• Revealed in Arabic language

• Recited, written, and memorized in temporal form

This leads to an important theological affirmation:

Divine revelation is eternal in source but manifested in created linguistic and physical form.

This raises further questions within the Islamic framework:

• If divine speech can be expressed in written pages, does that written form fully contain divine authority?

• If divine meaning is carried through temporal language, how close can that expression be to divine reality itself?

• Does limitation in form necessarily imply limitation in origin?

These questions highlight a key principle: manifestation does not negate origin.

---

3. The Christian Position: The Logos as Incarnate Expression

Christian theology affirms a parallel but more radical claim:

“The Word became flesh” (John 1:14)

Here, divine self-expression is not only linguistic but personal and embodied. The Logos is understood as:

• Eternally divine in nature

• Personally distinct yet fully God

• Manifested in human history as Jesus Christ

This raises corresponding theological questions:

• If divine speech can take written form without ceasing to be divine revelation, why is it logically impossible for divine Word to take human form?

• If God can reveal Himself through language, can He not also reveal Himself through personhood?

• Does embodiment diminish divinity, or does it represent a higher mode of self-disclosure?

Christian theology answers that incarnation is not a loss of divinity, but its fullest expression within creation.

---

4. The Central Debate: Consistency of the Principle

At the center of this comparative discussion lies one crucial issue:

If divine expression can enter creation without losing its divine origin in one form, is it philosophically consistent to deny that possibility in another form?

Both traditions affirm at least one of the following:

• Islam: Divine Word becomes tangible as revelation (Qur’an)

• Christianity: Divine Word becomes tangible as person (Christ)

The disagreement is therefore not whether divine manifestation is possible, but:

• What limits, if any, exist on divine self-expression?

• Is revelation restricted to text, or can it extend to embodied life?

• Does divine communication require medium limitation, or only purpose-driven form?

---

5. Further Theological Questions for Debate

This discussion naturally leads to deeper philosophical inquiries:

1. If God is omnipotent, why would He be unable to express Himself beyond linguistic revelation?

2. If divine truth can be preserved in human language, can it also be preserved in human nature?

3. Does the mode of manifestation change the divine origin, or only the mode of perception?

4. If revelation is already “divine in origin but created in expression,” what principle prohibits a higher form of expression?

5. Is the distinction between “Word as text” and “Word as flesh” a difference in essence—or in degree of manifestation?

---

Conclusion

The doctrine of divine Word in both Islam and Christianity demonstrates a shared intellectual foundation: God communicates Himself within creation without losing transcendence.

The key divergence lies in the extent of that communication:

• Islam emphasizes divine speech as textual revelation (Qur’an)

• Christianity extends divine self-expression to incarnational reality (Christ)

Therefore, the central issue is not whether divine manifestation occurs, but how far divine self-expression is understood to extend within creation.

The principle remains at the center of the debate:

Divine speech can be manifested in created form without losing its divine origin as revelation.

The disagreement between Islam and Christianity is ultimately about the scope of that manifestation, not the possibility of it.

---

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

If Angels Do Not Enter a House with Dogs, How Does the Angel of Death Enter?

 

A Theological Question for Muslims: If Angels Do Not Enter a House with Dogs, How Does the Angel of Death Enter?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

One of the most well-known traditions in Islam is the statement attributed to Muhammad:

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

This narration is found in Sahih al-Bukhari 3322 and Sahih Muslim 2105, two of the most authoritative hadith collections in Sunni Islam.

According to many classical Islamic scholars, these are generally understood to refer to the angels of mercy and blessing, who refrain from entering a house containing dogs or certain images. At the same time, Islamic tradition teaches that the Angel of Death (Malak al-Mawt) enters every home at the appointed time to take the soul, in accordance with Allah's decree (Qur'an 32:11).

This raises an important theological question.

A Logical Question

If the angels do not enter a house containing a dog, then how does the Angel of Death enter that same house?

If Jibril (Gabriel), one of the greatest angels who brings revelation from God, is said not to enter because of a dog, then why would another angel—the Angel of Death—be able to enter without restriction?

Is the Angel of Death exempt from the Prophet's statement?

If so, where does the Qur'an or authentic hadith explicitly make that exception?

If no exception exists, does this create an apparent inconsistency within Islamic theology?

The Dilemma

Muslims commonly affirm both beliefs:

Belief #1

The angels do not enter a house containing a dog.

(Sahih al-Bukhari 3322; Sahih Muslim 2105)

Belief #2

The Angel of Death enters every home to take every person's soul at the appointed time.

(Qur'an 32:11)

These beliefs appear to create a theological tension.

Suppose a Muslim family keeps a dog inside the house.

When one of the family members dies:

• Does the Angel of Death remain outside?
• Does he enter despite the hadith?
• Is the Angel of Death not included among "the angels" mentioned by Muhammad?
• If there is an exception, why is it not stated in the hadith itself?

These are legitimate theological questions deserving thoughtful answers.

Another Question

If dogs prevent angels from entering a house, why would Allah create a situation in which His own appointed messenger of death could supposedly be hindered from carrying out a divine command?

Surely no created animal should be capable of preventing an angel from fulfilling Allah's decree.

If the Angel of Death can enter regardless of the presence of a dog, then the hadith cannot be understood as applying to all angels.

If the hadith refers only to a specific category of angels, where is that limitation explicitly stated by Muhammad?

A Biblical Contrast

The Bible never teaches that God's holy angels are prevented from entering a home because a family owns a dog.

Throughout Scripture, angels carry out God's commands without being obstructed by animals, objects, or circumstances.

God's sovereignty is absolute.

His messengers accomplish His will without limitation.

As the Psalmist declares:

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

Likewise, Hebrews 1:14 describes angels as:

"ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation."

The biblical picture is one of angels who obey God completely and are never portrayed as being prevented from entering a home because of the presence of a household pet.

Final Thought

This discussion is not about attacking Muslims but about examining the internal consistency of theological claims.

If every soul must be taken by the Angel of Death, and if angels do not enter houses containing dogs, then Muslims should carefully explain how these two teachings harmonize.

Is the Angel of Death exempt?

If he is, where is that exception found?

If he is not exempt, how does he fulfill his divine mission?

These questions invite sincere reflection and careful study.

"Test all things; hold fast what is good." — 1 Thessalonians 5:21

 

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

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

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

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

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

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

The Promise of the Divine Redeemer

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

Genesis 3:15 declares:

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

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

Centuries later, the prophet Isaiah proclaimed:

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

Matthew 1:23 explains that Immanuel means:

"God with us."

The Messiah would therefore be God dwelling among humanity.

Isaiah further revealed the divine identity of this promised Child:

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

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

The Incarnation: God Became Flesh

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

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

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

Titus 2:13 Identifies Jesus as God

The Apostle Paul writes:

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

Paul explicitly calls Jesus:

• Our Great God
• Our Savior

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

God the Father Calls the Son "God"

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

Hebrews 1:6 states:

"Let all God's angels worship Him."

Only God is worthy of worship.

Even more remarkable is Hebrews 1:8:

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

Here God the Father directly addresses His Son as God.

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

The Father Commands Humanity to Worship the Son

Psalm 2 speaks prophetically of the Messiah.

Verses 10–12 command the rulers of the earth:

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

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

Jesus Declared Himself to Be the Messiah

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

She said:

"I know that Messiah is coming."

Jesus answered:

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

Jesus openly identified Himself as Israel's promised Messiah.

Jesus Claimed the Divine Name "I AM"

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

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

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

"I AM WHO I AM."

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

Jesus was not merely claiming preexistence.

He was claiming the very divine identity of Yahweh.

Jesus Claimed Equality with God

Jesus declared:

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

The Jewish leaders immediately responded:

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

Notice that Jesus did not deny their understanding.

Instead, He continued defending His divine identity.

Likewise, John records:

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

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

The Son of Man in Daniel's Vision

Jesus frequently called Himself "the Son of Man."

This title was not merely a reference to His humanity.

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

• everlasting dominion,
• universal authority,
• and worship from all nations.

During His trial before the Sanhedrin, Jesus declared:

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

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

Jesus Existed Before Creation

In His High Priestly Prayer Jesus prayed:

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

No created being possessed divine glory before creation.

Jesus claimed eternal existence with the Father.

Jesus Accepted Worship

Scripture consistently teaches that only God deserves worship.

Examples include:

• Exodus 34:14
• Deuteronomy 6:13
• Matthew 4:10

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

Jesus never rejected worship.

Instead, He accepted it repeatedly:

• Matthew 14:33
• Matthew 28:9
• Matthew 28:17
• Luke 24:52
• John 9:38
• John 20:28

Thomas declared:

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

Jesus accepted this confession without correction.

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

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

The Son Gives Life and Judges the World

Jesus declared:

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

Only God possesses the authority to:

• give eternal life,
• raise the dead,
• judge humanity,
• receive equal honor with the Father.

Jesus claimed all four.

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

Peter's Confession

When Jesus asked His disciples:

"Who do you say that I am?"

Peter answered:

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

Jesus declared this confession came directly from the Father.

The true identity of Christ is revealed by God Himself.

Conclusion

The biblical evidence is overwhelming.

Jesus Christ is:

• the promised Messiah,
• Immanuel—God with us,
• the Mighty God of Isaiah,
• the eternal "I AM,"
• the Son worshipped by angels,
• the One called "God" by the Father,
• the giver of life,
• the Judge of all humanity,
• the One worthy of the same honor given to the Father.

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

The Christian faith rests upon this glorious truth:

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

As the Apostle Paul declared:

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

And as the Apostle John concluded:

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

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

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

Soli Deo Gloria.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

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

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

What is the will of God according to Jesus Himself?

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

The Bible gives a clear answer.

Jesus Defined the Will of God

Jesus declared:

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

Notice carefully what Jesus says.

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

Instead, Jesus says the Father's will is:

• To see the Son.
• To believe in the Son.
• To receive everlasting life through the Son.
• To be raised by Jesus on the last day.

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

The Work God Requires

Jesus further explained this truth:

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

The work God desires is faith in Jesus Christ.

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

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

If Submission Means Obeying God...

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

Did Jesus teach people to submit to Himself?

The answer from Scripture is yes.

Jesus repeatedly called people to:

• Believe in Him.
• Follow Him.
• Receive eternal life through Him.
• Honor Him.
• Trust Him.

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

Instead He declared:

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

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

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

This raises an important theological question.

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

Jesus Himself answered:

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

And again,

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

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

Does the Qur'an Teach the Same Jesus?

The Jesus described in the Bible is:

• The eternal Word made flesh (John 1:1–14).
• The unique Son of God (John 3:16).
• The Savior of the world (John 4:42).
• The Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2:8).
• The One who forgives sins (Mark 2:5–12).
• The Judge of all humanity (John 5:22–27).
• The giver of eternal life (John 10:28).

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

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

Questions for Muslim Scholars

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

1. Jesus said God's will is to believe in the Son (John 6:29, 40). Do you believe in Jesus exactly as He revealed Himself?
2. If Jesus gives eternal life, why should anyone seek salvation apart from Him?
3. Jesus promised to raise believers on the last day. Can any prophet besides Jesus make that promise?
4. Why does Jesus repeatedly make Himself the object of saving faith if He was merely a prophet?
5. Jesus said no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). Do you accept or reject His words?
6. If honoring the Father requires honoring the Son (John 5:23), can rejection of the Son still be called submission to God?
7. If Jesus defines God's will, should believers follow His definition or a later religious interpretation?

Conclusion

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

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

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

To submit to the Father is to receive the Son.

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

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

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

Women Are Deficient in Intelligence and Religion!

 Women Are Deficient in Intelligence and Religion!

Muhammad is smiling while holding two brains and saying: Women are half as intelligent!

Sahih al-Bukhari 304 clearly states:

“Women are deficient in intelligence and religion.”

A woman’s testimony is not equal to that of a man because women are supposedly weaker in intellect. Women are also said to be deficient in religion because of their reduced participation in prayer and fasting.

This is Islam’s respect for women.

Women are portrayed as fundamentally incomplete, intellectually inferior, and religiously deficient.

Those who still point to hadiths like this and claim that Islam honored women are either lying or blind. Calling women intellectually deficient is not a divine teaching, it is patriarchal arrogance.

Women are not half-human.

This insult can no longer be accepted.

#Bukhari304 #WomenDeficient #WomenHalfBrain #IslamExposed #ExMuslim

Did Muhammad Know How to Read and Write? The answer is Yes

 Did Muhammad Know How to Read and Write? The answer is Yes

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

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

The Plain Reading of the Hadith

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

The wording does not state:

"Bring someone to write."

"Let one of my scribes write."

"I will dictate."

Instead, the natural reading is:

"Let me write for you..."

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

Literacy Normally Includes Reading

Writing and reading are closely related skills.

A person who writes:

recognizes letters,

understands words,

forms sentences,

communicates through written language.

Therefore, the statement naturally raises an important question:

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

The Islamic Response

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

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

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

The text itself simply records:

"Let me write for you..."

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

Why This Matters

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

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

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

The "Pen and Paper" Incident

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

"The Book of Allah is sufficient for us."

As a result, Muhammad never produced the written statement.

Ibn Abbas later lamented:

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

This raises an important historical question.

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

Historical Questions

Several questions naturally arise from this account.

If Muhammad truly could not write:

Why did he say, "Let me write"?

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

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

If Muhammad intended only to dictate:

Why is the wording not explicit?

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

The Doctrine of Al-Ummi

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

Scholars have proposed multiple meanings:

illiterate,

unscriptured,

Gentile,

one outside the Jewish scriptural tradition.

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

This tension invites further historical and textual investigation.

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

Debate Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qur'anic historical Contradiction: A Flood During the Time of Moses in Egypt

Qur'anic historical Contradiction: A Flood During the Time of Moses in Egypt

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

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

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

The central question is:

Did God send a flood upon Egypt during the Exodus?

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

The Flood in the Days of Noah

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

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

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

These passages clearly refer to Noah's Flood.

The Same Word Appears in the Story of Moses

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

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

Later the same chapter says:

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

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

This raises an important historical question:

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

Classical Muslim Commentaries

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

Ibn Kathir

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

Heavy rainfall;
Water covering the land;
Crops being destroyed;
The people pleading with Moses to pray for relief.

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

Al-Tabari

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

Tafsir Ibn Abbas

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

Tafsir al-Jalalayn

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

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

The Biblical Record

The biblical account presents a different sequence.

According to Exodus, the ten plagues were:

Water turned to blood
Frogs
Gnats
Flies
Death of livestock
Boils
Hail
Locusts
Darkness
Death of the firstborn

(Exodus 7–12)

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

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

The Nine Signs

Another issue concerns the number of signs given to Moses.

The Qur'an says:

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

and

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

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

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

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

A Christian Evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Christians contend that:

Exodus contains no plague of a nationwide flood.
Classical Muslim commentators interpreted al-ṭūfān as a literal flood.
The Qur'an lists nine signs where Exodus records ten plagues.
These differences raise questions about the historical relationship between the Qur'an and earlier biblical revelation.

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

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