How can you say Muhammad committed shirk when he taught that oaths should only be made by Allah and not by anyone else?

In Islamic teachings, swearing by anyone other than Allah is considered shirk, or associating partners with Allah. Muhammad explicitly forbade such practices, as noted in various Hadiths where he instructed his followers not to swear by their forefathers or idols. However, there are recorded instances where Muhammad himself swore by another man's father, which presents a contradiction to his own teachings. This violation of his own prohibition suggests a lack of consistency in his message. Furthermore, the severity of committing shirk is emphasized in Islamic texts, where it is stated that swearing by anything other than Allah is a serious offense. The Hadiths highlight that such actions can lead to disbelief, indicating that the act of swearing by a father, as Muhammad did, could be seen as a significant transgression. This inconsistency not only undermines the authority of Muhammad's teachings but also raises questions about his role as a prophet who should embody the principles he preached. Ultimately, the contradiction between Muhammad's teachings and his actions leads to a critical examination of his prophethood. If he could violate the very principles he set forth, it calls into question the reliability of his guidance and the authenticity of his role as a messenger of Allah. This inconsistency is a key point for Christians to consider when discussing the nature of Muhammad's prophethood and the implications of his teachings on shirk.