Do the hadith in which Allah says 'I fell ill and you did not visit Me, I was hungry and you did not feed Me' plagiarize Jesus' words and contradict Allah's transcendence?

The wording is deliberately striking, but it does not mean that Allah literally becomes ill, hungry, or thirsty. The hadith explains that serving a suffering believer is treated as serving Allah's cause, while the apparent similarity to Matthew 25 establishes at most a shared moral image, not plagiarism.

Why the criticism sounds serious

The objection has two parts. First, the hadith resembles Jesus' words in Matthew very closely: "I was hungry and you gave me food," and "I was sick and you visited me." Second, Islam teaches that Allah is independent of creation, so attributing sickness, hunger, or thirst to Him seems to contradict that doctrine.

"O son of Adam, I fell ill and you did not visit Me." He will say, "My Lord, how could I visit You when You are the Lord of the worlds?" He will say, "Did you not know that My servant so-and-so was ill and you did not visit him? Did you not know that if you had visited him, you would have found Me with him? ... O son of Adam, I asked you for food and you did not feed Me ... I asked you for drink and you did not give Me drink."

Sahih Muslim 2569

"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me."

Matthew 25:35-36

What the hadith actually means

The hadith itself prevents a literal interpretation. The servant replies that Allah cannot be visited in the manner of a sick person, and Allah then identifies the sick person as "My servant." The point is not that Allah suffers through the believer, but that neglecting a vulnerable person is a grave failure in one's duty to Allah. Visiting that person would have earned Allah's pleasure and nearness.

This is an established Arabic and scriptural way of expressing honor, responsibility, and divine concern. The Quran calls the Ka'bah "My House" and speaks of people who "lend Allah a good loan," although Allah owns everything and needs nothing. Such language does not imply literal limitation or need.

"Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, nor is there to Him any equivalent."

Quran 112:2-4

Classical commentators such as al-Nawawi therefore understood the hadith as an attribution of the believer's condition to Allah by way of honor and emphasis, not ascribing human weakness to Him. Allah remains free of all need and unlike creation.

Does the similarity prove borrowing?

No. The similarity is real, and it may reflect a shared prophetic moral teaching: care for the hungry, sick, and vulnerable. In Islamic belief, earlier prophets were sent by the same God, so agreement in moral instruction is not surprising. Even from a purely historical perspective, similar wording alone does not establish plagiarism; it could reflect common tradition, parallel teaching, or a shared source.

Thus, the passage does not show that the hadith contradicts divine transcendence. Nor does it prove that Islam copied Jesus. It presents a forceful metaphor: whoever serves a suffering believer is serving Allah's command, and whoever neglects that person has failed before Allah.