Friday, June 13, 2025

Mohammad’s Myths vs. Biblical and Scientific Reality: A Scholarly Debate on Laughter, Heart, and Divine Truth

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

In evaluating the truth-claims of any religion, the alignment between its teachings and observable reality is paramount. Islam claims universal and timeless guidance, yet the saying of Muhammad, “Do not laugh a lot. Much laughter kills the heart” (Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 253), offers a notable case study in the divergence between Islamic tradition, Biblical wisdom, and scientific fact. This article exposes the theological, scientific, and anthropological shortcomings of this hadith, challenging Muslims to reconsider the very foundation of what constitutes divine revelation.

Section I: Examining the Hadith—Origins, Transmission, and Canonical Status

Textual Source:
The hadith is found in Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 253, a respected collection by Imam al-Bukhari, and also appears in other Sunni compilations (e.g., Sunan Ibn Majah 4183). The Arabic reads:

لا تُكْثِرُوا الضَّحِكَ فَإِنَّ كَثْرَةَ الضَّحِكِ تُميتُ الْقَلْبَ

"Do not laugh a lot. Much laughter kills the heart."

Transmission:

Reported by Abu Hurayra, one of the most prolific hadith transmitters.
Regarded as hasan (good) by many hadith scholars, and widely quoted in Islamic ethics.

Canonical Authority:

Frequently cited in Islamic sermons (khutbah), Sufi treatises on spiritual discipline, and mainstream Sunni jurisprudence.
Used to promote zuhd (asceticism), somberness, and emotional restraint in piety.

Section II: Comparative Scriptural Analysis

1. The Biblical Testimony: Laughter as Healing

The Bible provides a radically different view, grounded in both Old and New Testament theology:

Proverbs 17:22

“A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.”

Ecclesiastes 3:4

“A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.”

Genesis 21:6

“And Sarah said, ‘God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me.’”

Luke 6:21 (Jesus speaking):

“Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.”

Analysis:

Laughter is depicted as a divine gift, a natural response to God’s blessings, and essential to emotional and spiritual well-being.
The “merry heart” is not a spiritual liability, but a source of resilience, healing, and communion with others.

Patristic Witness:

Early Church Fathers (e.g., John Chrysostom, Augustine) often affirmed the goodness of laughter in moderation, seeing joy as a fruit of the Spirit (cf. Galatians 5:22).

2. Interreligious Parallels and Contrast

Judaism: Rabbinic literature celebrates humor and joy as essential to study, prayer, and resilience, e.g., “When Adar enters, joy increases” (Taanit 29a).
Christianity: Saints and theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis, regard joy and laughter as signs of grace.
Buddhism: Laughter is considered a sign of enlightenment in Zen traditions (“the laughing Buddha” motif).
Hinduism: Laughter yoga (Hasyayoga) is a respected spiritual practice.
Contrast: Only in certain strands of ascetic Islamic, monastic, or ultra-orthodox religious expression do we find strong warnings against mirth—never an absolute prohibition as in this hadith.

Section III: Scientific and Medical Evidence—Laughter as Therapy

1. Psychological and Physiological Research

A. Laughter and Cardiovascular Health

American Heart Association (2020): “Laughter reduces artery inflammation and increases HDL (good cholesterol).”
Harvard Health Publishing (2019): “Laughter improves blood vessel function and increases blood flow, which can help protect against heart attacks.”

B. Neurochemical Effects

Laughter triggers endorphin release, lowering stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline (Berk, L.S. et al., 1989).
Boosts dopamine and serotonin, alleviating depression and anxiety (Mora-Ripoll, 2010).

C. Immunology and Longevity

Studies from Loma Linda University (Bennett, 2003): Laughter strengthens the immune response, increasing infection-fighting antibodies.
Elderly populations with a sense of humor have lower mortality rates (Martin, R.A., 2002).

D. Social and Cognitive Benefits

Laughter is a social glue, facilitating trust, empathy, and group cohesion.
Used therapeutically for pain management and trauma recovery (Journal of Holistic Nursing, 2011).

E. World Health Organization

WHO officially endorses “laughter therapy” as a tool in mental health programs worldwide.

2. Direct Scientific Debunking of the Hadith

Nowhere in reputable medical literature is there any evidence that “much laughter kills the heart.”
If anything, excessive laughter (such as in rare medical conditions like gelastic seizures) is a neurological disorder, not a moral or spiritual failing.
The overwhelming evidence is clear: Laughter heals, it does not kill.

Section IV: Historical and Sociocultural Analysis—Origins of Somberness in Islam

1. The Context of Muhammad’s Arabia

The Arabian Peninsula during Muhammad’s era was marked by frequent tribal conflict, poverty, and survivalism.
Somberness was often equated with seriousness and dignity; frivolity was discouraged among tribal leaders.
Many hadiths promote ascetic discipline, frowning upon music, dancing, and even smiling in excess (cf. Sahih Muslim 4925: “Do not laugh too much for much laughter deadens the heart.”).

2. Later Islamic Spirituality

Sufism: Despite some mystical orders advocating joy and ecstatic expressions, mainstream Islamic law (Sharia) codified this hadith into behavioral norms, especially for scholars, jurists, and mosque leaders.
Legal Manuals: Ihya Ulum al-Din (al-Ghazali), Riyadh as-Salihin (an-Nawawi), and Adab al-Dunya wa’d-Din (al-Mawardi) all quote this hadith approvingly.

3. Comparison to Christian and Jewish Ethics

By contrast, Christian and Jewish authorities integrated laughter into worship, liturgy, and social customs, recognizing its capacity to reflect the joy of God.

Section V: Theological Debate—Questioning the Authority and Consistency of Muhammad’s Words

1. Is this Divine Guidance or Human Projection?

If Allah is All-Knowing and All-Wise, why would He allow His final prophet to utter and enshrine a saying that is patently false by the standards of reason, science, and even basic human happiness?
Does this reflect divine omniscience—or merely the psychological disposition and cultural preferences of Muhammad himself?

2. Internal Contradictions within Islam

Quran 80:39: “Faces that Day will be joyful, laughing, rejoicing at good news.”
Even the Qur’an acknowledges laughter and joy in paradise—so why would laughter be deemed “deadly” for the heart on earth?

3. Apologetic Rationalizations—A Response

Modern apologists often claim the hadith means “excessive, heedless laughter” that leads to spiritual negligence—not any and all laughter. But the plain text and centuries of interpretation do not qualify it; the statement is universal, unnuanced, and absolute.
This post hoc rationalization reveals an embarrassment of inconsistency—the need to reinterpret Muhammad’s words to match observable reality.

Section VI: The Verdict of Revelation, Reason, and Reality

The Bible, Science, and Human Experience Are United:

Laughter is not a spiritual toxin, but a God-given tonic.
Scientific research affirms what Scripture has proclaimed for millennia—joy and laughter are “good medicine.”

The Legacy of Prophetic Error

Muhammad’s myth has led to centuries of cultural suppression of joy and emotional expression in large parts of the Islamic world, with measurable effects on mental health and communal happiness (see Pew Research, 2017).
This is not the fruit of the Spirit, nor the intention of a benevolent Creator.

Conclusion: Will Muslims Reconsider?

If a religion’s teachings are found to be out of harmony with God’s creation and medical science, then the faithful must re-examine the source of those teachings. The evidence is overwhelming: Muhammad’s statement on laughter is unscientific, unscriptural, and ultimately detrimental to the human spirit. True revelation should lead to human flourishing—not unnecessary sorrow.

Will Muslims embrace the joy that God created them for, or cling to a tradition that deadens the heart in the very name of religion?

References

Hadith and Islamic Law:
- Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 253, Sahih Muslim 4925, Sunan Ibn Majah 4183, Riyadh as-Salihin 362.
Scriptural References:
- Proverbs 17:22, Ecclesiastes 3:4, Genesis 21:6, Luke 6:21, Galatians 5:22.
Medical and Scientific Literature:
- Berk, L.S. et al. (1989). “Neuroendocrine and stress hormone changes during mirthful laughter.” Am J Med Sci.
- Mora-Ripoll, R. (2010). “The therapeutic value of laughter in medicine.” Alt Ther Health Med.
- Martin, R.A. (2002). “Is laughter the best medicine?” Humor: International Journal of Humor Research.
- American Heart Association (2020), Harvard Health Publishing (2019).
- Forbes Article
World Health Organization (WHO):
- “Laughter therapy in community health.”
Sociocultural and Pew Data:
- Pew Research Center (2017): “Global Attitudes on Happiness, Joy, and Well-Being.”
Jewish and Christian Literature:
- Babylonian Talmud, Taanit 29a; Augustine, Confessions IX.10.23; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II Q168 A4.
Islamic Jurisprudence:
- Ihya Ulum al-Din, Book XXI; Adab al-Dunya wa’d-Din, Al-Mawardi.

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
"For the joy of the Lord is your strength." (Nehemiah 8:10)

Muhammad and the Possession of 80,000 Demons: A Theological Exposé

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Did Muhammad Live Under Demonic Possession?

Many people, including a vast number of Muslims, are unaware of the disturbing accounts within Islamic tradition that suggest Muhammad, the founder of Islam, was possessed and controlled by as many as 80,000 demons (jinn) throughout his life. This reality has profound theological implications and calls for serious reflection by anyone who seeks the truth about spiritual freedom in Christ versus bondage in other systems.

80,000 Demons in the Body of Muhammad

As recorded by Daniel Mwankemwa, and echoed by former Islamic scholars, it is said:
"Muhammad was possessed by 80,000 demons who dominated, guided, and commanded him throughout his life."

The text continues:

"Scholars maintain that when Muhammad began preaching Islam, God sent Gabriel to warn him because he was engaged in evil works. Gabriel urged Muhammad, 'Go to the Christians to learn and be saved.' But the demons within Muhammad refused to let him go and prevented him from receiving salvation through Christ.
These demons were so numerous and pervasive that they blocked every avenue through which God's message could reach Muhammad: 40,000 demons settled in his spirit to block the word of God, 30,000 in his mind to blind his reasoning, and 10,000 in his eyes to obscure the truth. Thus, Muhammad was rendered spiritually deaf, blind, and resistant to the Gospel."

(From the book "Save Us from the Evil One, The World of Jinn" by Joshua Kanani Chabu, a graduate of Al-Azhar University, Cairo, UK.28)

The Influence of Jinn on Muslim Women

But the demonic oppression in Islam is not limited to Muhammad alone. The same source reports that Muslim women, particularly when visiting mosques, are often "entered by jinn."
On page 34, a jinn named Arafu is described:

"A jinn whose task is to 'please women.' When a Muslim woman is fully committed to her Islamic faith, she may be possessed by a 'male jinn' who provides her with intense pleasure, such that for thirty days she has no desire for her husband. This jinn is one of those that entered her during her conversion to Islam. The tradition even records that when women pray in mosques, they do so without undergarments—an old custom with sinister origins. Aisha, one of Muhammad’s wives, spoke of it. Fathers are even encouraged to honor women who have been possessed by these jinn. Female jinn, on the other hand, are assigned to please Muslim men."

The Power of Jesus Christ Over Demons

What a sharp contrast with the ministry of Jesus Christ! When Christ walked this earth, He gave His followers the authority to cast out demons and set the captives free:

“Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.” (Matthew 10:8)

The Gospels tell of Christ's encounter with the demoniac of the Gadarenes, a man possessed by a legion of demons (Mark 5:1–13). Jesus asked, "What is your name?" and the demons replied, "Legion, for we are many." But with a word, Jesus cast them out and the man was set free!

Theological Reflection: Why Did Muhammad Remain in Bondage?

I must ask, and I invite you to ponder deeply: Why did Muhammad choose to remain tormented by 80,000 demons until his death, instead of seeking deliverance through the name and power of Jesus Christ?
Even today, why do Muslim women reject Christ, knowing that they risk demonic possession, even to the extent of engaging in disturbing rituals within their places of worship?

Jesus stands ready to deliver all who call upon Him. The tragedy is not only in Muhammad’s bondage but also in the millions who remain under the influence of these dark powers, refusing the freedom only Christ can offer.

Reflect on this: If the spiritual foundation of Islam is so deeply entwined with demonic presence and activity, what does that mean for its message, its prophet, and its followers?

Shalom,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Max Shimba Ministries Org.

The Problem of Prophetic Authenticity: Muhammad, Satanic Influence, and the Crisis of Revelation

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The question of prophetic authenticity is central to the legitimacy of any religious movement. In the Islamic tradition, Muhammad is upheld as the "Seal of the Prophets" (Qur’an 33:40), and his revelation is considered final and infallible by the majority of Muslims. Yet, critical scholarship and Islamic historical sources themselves reveal troubling episodes that cast doubt upon this claim—most notably, the so-called "Satanic Verses" incident. This article examines the theological, historical, and logical implications of Muhammad’s confessed encounters with Satanic influence, using Islamic sources and academic analysis to challenge the foundation of his prophethood.

1. The "Satanic Verses" and Muhammad’s Confession

The "Satanic Verses" episode is attested in multiple early Islamic sources, including al-Tabari’s Tarikh (History), Volume 6:111, as referenced in the image above. According to these accounts, Muhammad allegedly recited verses acknowledging pagan deities (al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat) as "exalted cranes whose intercession is to be hoped for" (see al-Tabari 6:107-111; Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 165). Later, Muhammad claimed that these verses were not from God but were "whispered" to him by Satan.

“I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken.”
— Muhammad, al-Tabari 6:111

This confession raises immediate concerns: If Muhammad, the supposed messenger of Allah, could be deceived by Satan, how many other revelations may have been similarly compromised? Furthermore, how can followers be confident in the authenticity of any revelation Muhammad delivered?

2. Theological Problems: Can God’s Prophet Be Deceived?

The Qur’an itself asserts that God's messengers are protected from Satanic influence:

“And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he spoke [or recited], Satan threw into it [some misunderstanding]. But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in; then Allah makes precise His verses. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (Qur’an 22:52)

Ironically, this verse admits the possibility that Satan can, at least temporarily, influence even God's chosen messengers. This stands in stark contrast to the Biblical standard for prophets, where false prophecy is a sign of disqualification (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).

a. Did Muhammad Receive Other Verses from Satan?

If the most significant Qur’anic surahs were vulnerable to corruption by Satanic suggestion, how can the Islamic community trust that other verses have not been similarly compromised? The lack of a mechanism for verifying the divine origin of each revelation, beyond Muhammad's own assertion, makes the entire corpus of the Qur’an open to suspicion.

b. Why Did Allah Not Prevent This?

If Allah is truly all-powerful and all-knowing, why did he allow his final prophet to be so easily deceived by Satan? Should divine omnipotence not guarantee the protection of revelation? The fact that Allah only "abolishes" the satanic verses after their recitation does not inspire confidence in the infallibility of the process.

3. The Confusion Between Gabriel and Satan: A Tragic Dilemma

One of the greatest ironies is Muhammad’s failure to distinguish between Jibreel (Gabriel), the messenger of God, and Satan, the enemy of God. If both can appear and communicate in similar ways, how can the prophet—and by extension, his followers—have any assurance of the source of revelation? This confusion undermines the credibility of all subsequent Islamic teachings.

Did Jibreel and Satan look alike to Muhammad?
Why did Muhammad not test the spirits as instructed in Biblical tradition? (1 John 4:1)

The episode reveals a theological crisis: If even the prophet cannot reliably distinguish between divine and demonic communication, no Muslim can be certain of the Qur’an’s authenticity.

4. Scholarly and Historical References

Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, Vol. 6 (trans. W. Montgomery Watt and M.V. McDonald, SUNY Press, 1987)
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah (The Life of Muhammad, trans. A. Guillaume, Oxford University Press, 1955)
Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir
Qur’an 22:52 (admission of Satanic interference)
Deuteronomy 18:20-22 (Biblical test of prophecy)
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 1, Hadith 3 (Muhammad's encounters with spirits)

Numerous classical Muslim historians did not shy away from these troubling reports, though later apologetics tried to suppress or reinterpret them. Orientalist scholars such as William Muir, Alfred Guillaume, and others have discussed the devastating theological implications for Islam.

5. Conclusion: A Tragedy for Islamic Theology

The admission—found within Islam’s own canonical sources—that Muhammad could (and did) speak under the influence of Satan, fabricating words in the name of God, is a fatal blow to the credibility of his prophethood. If Satan could infiltrate divine revelation once, how can the entire Qur’an or hadith corpus be trusted? Why did Allah, purportedly all-powerful, not intervene until after the event?

This crisis remains unresolved. The integrity of Islamic revelation is thus irreparably undermined by its own historical tradition—a great tragedy for those seeking certainty in the words attributed to God.

References

Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, Vol. 6, pp. 107-111
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 165
The Qur’an 22:52
Deuteronomy 18:20-22
Guillaume, A., The Life of Muhammad
Muir, W., The Life of Mahomet
Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 3

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

*For further reading, students and scholars are encouraged to review the classical Islamic commentaries (Tafsir), original historical sources, and comparative theological studies.

The Deity of Jesus Christ: An Academic and Theological Exposition

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

The identity of Jesus Christ as God incarnate stands at the heart of Christian doctrine and has been a foundational confession of the Church since its inception. The assertion that Jesus is truly God is not only central to orthodox Christology but is repeatedly attested to in the New Testament Scriptures, supported by prophetic anticipation in the Old Testament, and confessed in the earliest creeds. This article systematically presents 20 biblical evidences supporting the deity of Jesus, examining them in depth and engaging with scholarly sources to reinforce the historical and theological veracity of this claim.

Introduction

The question of Jesus' divinity is not a peripheral issue but rather the cornerstone of Christian faith. C.S. Lewis once stated, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—or he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice." (Lewis, Mere Christianity, 1952). The following evidence seeks to demonstrate, from a biblical and theological perspective, that Jesus is indeed God, a truth affirmed by the earliest Christian communities and foundational to Christian doctrine.

1. The Fullness of God Dwells in Jesus Bodily

"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." (Colossians 2:9)

Paul's declaration is unequivocal: the entirety of God's nature, essence, and being is found in Jesus Christ, not in a partial or symbolic manner but in bodily reality. The Greek word theotēs (θεότης) used here denotes the very "essence of God," not merely divine qualities (O'Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary).

2. Emmanuel: "God With Us"

"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel (which means, God with us)." (Matthew 1:23; cf. Isaiah 7:14)

Matthew identifies Jesus with the prophetic title "Immanuel," explicitly interpreted as "God with us." This is not merely a statement about God's presence, but a declaration that in Jesus, God Himself has come to dwell among humanity.

3. Universal Worship and Subjection at the Name of Jesus

"At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth." (Philippians 2:10)

Paul applies to Jesus the universal worship language used of Yahweh in Isaiah 45:23, a clear identification of Jesus with the God of Israel.

4. "If You Have Seen Me, You Have Seen the Father"

"Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9)

Jesus' claim here transcends the role of a mere prophet or representative. He identifies Himself as the visible manifestation of the invisible Father (cf. Hebrews 1:3).

5. Jesus: The Creator of All Things

"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:3; cf. Colossians 1:16)

Both John and Paul declare that Jesus is not a created being, but the very agent of creation itself—a prerogative reserved for God alone (cf. Genesis 1:1).

6. Jesus’ Use of the Divine "I AM"

"Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58)

Jesus appropriates the divine name revealed in Exodus 3:14 (ego eimi), an explicit claim to eternality and deity. His audience understood the implication and sought to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:59).

7. Jesus Received Worship

"And they worshipped him, saying, 'Truly you are the Son of God.'" (Matthew 14:33; Hebrews 1:6)

Only God is worthy of worship (Deuteronomy 6:13; Revelation 22:8-9). Jesus never rebukes those who worship Him, affirming His divine status.

8. Old Testament Passages Applied Directly to Jesus

The author of Hebrews applies Psalms and other OT texts, addressed to Yahweh, directly to Christ (Hebrews 1:8-12; Psalm 102:25-27). This transfer of divine attributes and roles underscores the early Church's recognition of Jesus' deity.

9. "I and the Father are One"

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

The unity Jesus claims is not simply of purpose but of essence (hen in Greek is neuter, denoting unity of nature). The reaction of His hearers, who sought to stone Him for blasphemy, indicates their understanding of His claim (John 10:31-33).

10. Jesus Shares God’s Glory

"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." (John 17:5)

Jesus claims pre-existent, co-eternal glory with the Father, a direct affirmation of His deity (cf. Isaiah 42:8; God does not share His glory).

11. Thomas Calls Jesus "My Lord and My God"

"Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God!'" (John 20:28)

Jesus affirms Thomas’s confession rather than correcting him, demonstrating that the apostolic witness considered Jesus divine.

12. Pre-Existence Before Incarnation

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." (Philippians 2:6-7)

The kenosis hymn asserts that Jesus existed in the "form of God" before His incarnation, voluntarily assuming humanity.

13. Jesus Forgives Sins—A Divine Prerogative

"But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins..." (Mark 2:10)

Only God can forgive sins (Isaiah 43:25; Psalm 51:4). Jesus’ authority to forgive directly manifests His deity.

14. The Visible Image of the Invisible God

"He is the image of the invisible God." (Colossians 1:15; cf. Hebrews 1:3)

Jesus is not simply God’s representative, but the exact representation and visible manifestation of God.

15. The Father Calls Jesus "God"

"But of the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.'" (Hebrews 1:8; cf. Psalm 45:6)

The Father Himself addresses the Son as "God," using language reserved for Yahweh.

16. Prayer Offered to Jesus

"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13; cf. Joel 2:32; Acts 7:59)

Praying to Jesus (as in Stephen’s prayer at his martyrdom) demonstrates the early Christian conviction of His divinity.

17. Jesus as Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." (Revelation 1:17, 2:8, 22:13; cf. Isaiah 44:6)

Titles and prerogatives of Yahweh in Isaiah are claimed by Jesus in Revelation, emphasizing His eternality and supremacy.

18. Jesus as the Source of Creation

"These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation." (Revelation 3:14)

The Greek arche can mean "source" or "origin," not merely "beginning," signifying Jesus as the very originator of all creation.

19. Jesus Commands Prayer "In My Name"

"Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son." (John 14:13-14)

To pray in Jesus’ name is to recognize His authority and divine mediation, a role assigned to God alone.

20. John’s Prologue: Jesus as the Pre-Existent Divine Word

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)

The most explicit identification of Jesus with God comes in John’s prologue, establishing His full divinity and eternal existence.

Conclusion

The cumulative weight of the biblical evidence, as systematically presented above, leaves no room for reductionist or purely human understandings of Jesus. The earliest Christian writers, the apostolic community, and the New Testament itself consistently and unambiguously confess Jesus as God. This affirmation is not a later doctrinal development but is woven into the fabric of Christian Scripture and experience.

In the words of the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.), which remains the touchstone of orthodoxy:
"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father."

May all who seek truth encounter the reality of Jesus, not only as the greatest of prophets or a profound teacher but as the eternal God, worthy of worship and devotion.

References

Bauckham, R. (2008). Jesus and the God of Israel. Eerdmans.
O'Brien, P.T. (1982). Colossians, Philemon (Word Biblical Commentary).
Wright, N.T. (1996). Jesus and the Victory of God. Fortress Press.
Harris, M.J. (1992). Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Baker.
Hurtado, L.W. (2003). Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Eerdmans.
Brown, R.E. (1977). Jesus: God and Man. Macmillan.
The Holy Bible, ESV, NIV, NASB.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

If you would like a summary, discussion questions, or infographic layout based on this article, just let me know!

PROOF THAT ISLAM IS FALSE

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

In interfaith dialogues and theological debates, one of the most crucial tasks is to examine claims to divine revelation with careful scrutiny. The Quran makes bold assertions regarding its relationship to previous scriptures, particularly the Bible (the Taurat and Injil). However, a critical evaluation reveals deep contradictions at the heart of Islam's claims, thus exposing the falsity of its doctrine. This post offers a theological analysis showing why Islam cannot stand as the true revelation of God.

1. The Quran Affirms the Bible as Divine Revelation

The Quran repeatedly acknowledges the authority and truth of the previous scriptures given by God to the Jews and Christians:

“…Those unto whom We gave the Scripture [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] know that it is revealed from your Lord in truth…”
(Quran Surah 6:114)

Here, the Quran affirms that the previous revelations – the Torah and the Gospel – were genuine and divinely revealed, existing as true guidance before the coming of Muhammad. This admission is found not only in Surah 6:114 but also in Surah 3:3, Surah 5:46-48, and Surah 10:94, where Muhammad himself is told to consult “those who have been reading the Book before you” if he has any doubts.

2. The Quran Claims That God’s Words Cannot Be Changed

Islamic doctrine holds that the words of Allah are unalterable:

“And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower.”
(Quran Surah 6:115)

“There is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah.”
(Quran Surah 6:34)

This is a foundational principle. If Allah’s words are unchangeable, then the previous scriptures – the Torah and the Gospel – remain intact and trustworthy as revelations from God.

3. Islam Contradicts the Bible on Essential Doctrines

Despite the Quran’s affirmation of the Bible, it fundamentally contradicts the core message of the Gospel – the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Quran:
- Denies the crucifixion of Jesus.
  
  “They killed him not, nor crucified him, but it was made to appear to them…” (Quran Surah 4:157)
Bible:
- Affirms the crucifixion as the central act of redemption.
  
  “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures…” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)
  “They crucified Him…” (Mark 15:25)

This is not a minor disagreement but a direct contradiction on the most pivotal event in the Christian faith.

4. The Dilemma and the Inescapable Conclusion

If the Quran is true, then the Bible must also be true and uncorrupted, since the Quran repeatedly testifies to the authenticity and preservation of the earlier scriptures.

If the Bible is true, then Islam is false because the Bible’s core message – especially the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus – is absolutely contradicted by the Quran.

Yet, if Muslims argue that the Bible is corrupted, they must then admit the Quran’s error in affirming the Bible’s reliability and preservation. This undermines the Quran’s own claim of being a confirmation and guardian of previous revelations (Quran 5:48).

5. Islam Is Self-Refuting

Thus, the logic is simple and devastating:

The Quran affirms the Bible.
The Quran claims God’s Word cannot be changed.
The Quran contradicts the Bible on essential doctrine.
Therefore, if the Quran is true, the Bible is true. But the Bible contradicts the Quran.
Therefore, Islam is self-refuting.

Conclusion:
The internal inconsistency of Islam regarding the status of the Bible and its own contradictory teachings demonstrate that Islam cannot be a true revelation from the One True God. Christianity stands as the only faith grounded in the consistent and historical revelation of God’s Word.

For more in-depth theological resources and interfaith apologetics, visit Shimba Theological Institute.

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Let me know if you need references, graphics, or further scholarly expansion!

Scholarly Expansion: The Self-Refuting Nature of Islam

1. The Quran’s Witness to Previous Scriptures: A Closer Examination

The Quran’s testimony to the previous scriptures is not a marginal claim, but a repeated assertion that forms a core pillar of its self-identity:

Surah 2:41:

“And believe in what I have sent down, confirming that which is with you (the People of the Book)…”
Surah 3:3:

“He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.”
Surah 10:94:

“So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you…”

Classical Islamic exegesis (tafsir), such as that of Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari, acknowledge these verses refer to the actual texts in the hands of Jews and Christians in the Prophet’s time—not hypothetical, lost, or secret texts. Therefore, the Quran appeals to the integrity and public presence of the Bible as then extant.

2. The Doctrine of Inalterability: Scriptural and Theological Weight

The unchangeability of God’s word is affirmed emphatically:

Surah 18:27:

“And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord. None can change His words…”

This is not just a claim about abstract decrees, but specifically about previous “Books” (kutub), which the Quran repeatedly claims to confirm.

Islamic Scholarship Admits the Challenge:

Tafsir al-Jalalayn:

“None can alter His words,” meaning both His promises and His revealed Books.
Al-Razi:

“There can be no replacement or corruption (tahrif) of God’s word.”

Yet, the doctrine of tahrif (corruption of previous scriptures) arose only centuries later among Muslim polemicists as a response to Christian and Jewish critique—contradicting the Quran’s plain statements.

3. Historical and Textual Criticism: The Integrity of the Bible

Archaeological and manuscript evidence demonstrates that the Torah and the Gospels in circulation during Muhammad’s time are textually consistent with those available today:

Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd century BC – 1st century AD):
Demonstrate the stability of the Hebrew Bible text centuries before Christ and Muhammad.
Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (4th century AD):
Show the content of the New Testament is fundamentally unchanged from the era before Islam.

No credible historical evidence supports the claim that Christians or Jews corrupted the text after the Quran’s revelation.

4. Central Doctrinal Contradictions

The Crucifixion:

Quran (4:157):
“They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear to them.”
Bible:
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, and that He was raised…”
(1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

The historical consensus among secular and religious historians—Jewish, Christian, and even most secular Islamic historians—is that Jesus was, in fact, crucified. Muslim denials have no historical support and were unknown among the earliest Christian heresies.

5. Theological Implications: What Is at Stake?

A. God’s Integrity and Consistency

If Allah truly revealed the Torah and Gospel, and if His words cannot be changed, then for the Quran to contradict those revelations is to make Allah inconsistent—or for the Quran to be in error.

B. The Doctrine of Abrogation (Naskh)

Some Muslims claim that later revelations abrogate (cancel) earlier ones. However, this cannot apply to previous scriptures external to the Quran itself—especially when the Quran claims to confirm those earlier revelations, not cancel them (see Surah 5:48).

C. The Failure of Tahrif Arguments

Muslim apologists often claim the Bible was “textually corrupted” (tahrif al-nass) or only “misinterpreted” (tahrif al-ma’na). But the Quran never clearly claims this, and the burden of proof for such claims is on the accuser—one that is not met by historical evidence.

6. Scholarly Conclusions from Comparative Theology

Christianity stands on the unbroken testimony of both Old and New Testaments, corroborated by archaeology, manuscript evidence, and fulfilled prophecy.
Islam self-refutes by both affirming and denying the core message of the Bible. It stands alone in world religions in claiming to “confirm” the Bible, yet systematically denying its most central truths.

Therefore:

If the Quran is correct about the Bible’s integrity, Islam is false due to contradiction.
If the Quran is wrong about the Bible’s integrity, Islam is false due to a historical error and a failed claim to divine knowledge.

7. Final Challenge and Invitation

No serious scholar—Christian, Jewish, or secular—accepts the doctrine of a wholesale textual corruption of the Bible after the 7th century.
We invite all seekers of truth to examine the Scriptures and history honestly. The Christian Gospel alone stands vindicated by prophecy, history, manuscript evidence, and spiritual coherence.

Islam, by its own testimony, falls.

For further reading:

Samuel Green, “The Gospel According to Islam”
Gordon D. Nickel, “The Gentle Answer to the Muslim Accusation of Scriptural Falsification”
James R. White, “What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an”
“Tafsir al-Jalalayn” and “Tafsir al-Tabari” (for Islamic exegesis)

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

BACA IS NOT MECCA: A Theological Refutation

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Wednesday, January 12, 2022

Introduction: The Claim Examined

Muslim apologists frequently argue that the Bible prophesies or references the city of Mecca, asserting that “Baca” in Psalm 84:6 is a cryptic mention of Mecca, called “Bakkah” in the Qur’an (Surah 3:96). At first glance, the similarity in the two names seems striking—but a careful, honest reading of the biblical and Qur’anic texts exposes this as a misguided and unsustainable claim.

The Biblical Context of “Baca”

Let us look directly at the relevant passage:

“Blessed are those whose strength is in you,
who have set their hearts on pilgrimage.
As they pass through the Valley of Baca,
they make it a place of springs;
the autumn rains also cover it with pools.”
(Psalm 84:5-6, NIV)

This passage describes pilgrims journeying to the sanctuary of the Lord—a context steeped in Jerusalem Temple worship, not an Arabian setting. The entire psalm radiates a longing for the dwelling place of Yahweh, repeatedly referencing “your house,” “your altar,” and “Zion” (Jerusalem), not Mecca or the Ka‘bah.

Contradictory Details

Let us weigh the evidence:

God’s Dwelling Place:
The sanctuary in Psalm 84 is where God’s presence is said to dwell (v.1, v.4). Nowhere in Islamic doctrine is Allah believed to literally “dwell” in the Ka‘bah; this concept is utterly foreign to Islamic theology, which strictly rejects all forms of anthropomorphism. By contrast, the Old Testament consistently presents the Temple in Jerusalem as the locus of God’s special presence among His people (1 Kings 8:10-13, 27).
The Altar:
Psalm 84 mentions drawing near to the altar (v.3). There is no altar in Mecca’s Ka‘bah as part of any sacrificial system, but the altar is central to both tabernacle and temple worship in ancient Israel (Exodus 27:1-8). The Qur’an never describes Bakkah as a place of sacrifice or an altar to Yahweh.
Inhabitants and Roles:
The psalmist blesses those who “dwell in your house” (v.4)—a reference to the priests and Levites residing within the temple precincts. The Ka‘bah is empty, uninhabited, and guarded, not lived in or managed by priests with biblical duties. There were doorkeepers for the Temple (2 Kings 25:18); no such official role exists for the Ka‘bah in Islamic tradition.
Destination: Zion, Not Mecca:
The pilgrimage in Psalm 84 has a clear destination: Zion, one of Jerusalem’s hills and a synonym for the city itself (v.7). It is geographically, historically, and theologically nonsensical to suggest the pilgrims of Israel would make a detour through Arabia on their way to Jerusalem!
Hebrew vs. Arabic Terms:
While Hebrew “Baca” (בכא) and Arabic “Bakkah” (بكة) sound similar, this is a superficial connection. The root of “Baca” is linked to weeping (“the Valley of Weeping”) or to balsam trees common to dry places, not to a specific city. The word for “pilgrimage” in Psalm 84:5 is not “hag” (Hebrew חג), related to festival, but from a root meaning “highway” or “path,” simply denoting the journey to Jerusalem.

The Valley of Baca: Real or Figurative?

Whether Baca refers to a literal valley near Jerusalem or is a poetic expression for hardship and sorrow, its purpose is clear: it marks a stage on the route to Jerusalem. Some Jewish sources place it north of the city. Nowhere in the Bible is there any implication that Baca is remotely connected with Mecca, which is over 1,000 kilometers to the south and across the Sinai wilderness. Nor does the biblical narrative allow for such an implausible detour.

The Error of Superficial Similarity

The attempt to equate “Baca” with “Bakkah” relies only on a similarity of sound, not on substantive historical, geographical, or theological data. Many locations in the Ancient Near East bear similar names (e.g., Wadi al-Baka in Sinai, a valley called Baca in Galilee), yet no one claims these are Mecca.

Why the Confusion?

The primary reason for such claims is the effort to retrofit Islamic revelation into biblical prophecy—a recurring theme among some Islamic polemicists. The motive is clear: if Islam can claim biblical roots, its status as a true continuation of Abrahamic faith is bolstered. But this effort here is contradicted by the biblical evidence itself.

Conclusion: The Claims Do Not Stand

A close, honest reading shows that Baca of the Bible is not the Bakkah of the Qur’an. The biblical psalm speaks of Israelite pilgrims journeying to Jerusalem’s Temple, not of any pre-Islamic sanctuary in Arabia. Attempts to conflate the two are unsupported by scripture, history, or theology. In fact, such efforts demonstrate the dangers of forcing a text to fit a predetermined theory, rather than letting the text speak on its own terms.

Let fair-minded seekers of truth see this as a cautionary example. The Christian and Jewish scriptures do not mention or anticipate Mecca as a place of pilgrimage—neither in Psalm 84 nor anywhere else.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Why Did Allah Never Speak to Muhammad Directly?

A Theological Challenge to Islamic Claims of Prophethood

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the most striking theological contrasts between the biblical prophets and Muhammad—the founder of Islam—lies in the mode of their calling and revelation. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Bible, a consistent pattern emerges: the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob calls, appoints, and converses directly with His chosen prophets. From Abraham to Moses, from Isaiah to Jeremiah, divine encounters and direct communication underscore the authenticity of their prophetic office.

By contrast, Muhammad—the central figure of Islam—never claimed a single direct conversation with Allah. Instead, all of his revelations, according to Islamic sources, were mediated by the angel Jibreel (Gabriel). This peculiar pattern raises profound theological questions: Why would Allah, who claims absolute power and self-sufficiency, need an intermediary to communicate with his purported final prophet? Why is there not a single verse in the Qur’an in which Allah directly appoints or converses with Muhammad, as with the prophets of the Bible?

The Quranic Admission: Allah Spoke to Moses Directly

The Qur’an itself admits a special status for Moses:

Surah 4:164 – "Messengers we have told you about, and messengers we never told you about. And God spoke to Moses directly." (Rashad Khalifa translation)

This verse acknowledges a unique privilege accorded to Moses, one not shared with Muhammad. If Muhammad is regarded as the ‘seal of the prophets’ and the greatest messenger, as Muslims assert, why is he denied this direct audience with Allah?

The Biblical Pattern: Direct Divine Appointment

A survey of the Old Testament demonstrates that each prophet is called by God directly. Consider these examples:

Abraham: "The LORD said to Abram, 'Leave your country, your people and your father’s household...'" (Genesis 12:1)
Moses: "God called to him from within the bush, 'Moses! Moses!'" (Exodus 3:4)
Samuel: "The LORD called Samuel..." (1 Samuel 3:4)
Isaiah: "Then I heard the voice of the LORD saying, 'Whom shall I send?'" (Isaiah 6:8)
Jeremiah: "The word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you... I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.'" (Jeremiah 1:4-5)

In every instance, it is God Himself who initiates, commissions, and converses with the prophet. No intermediary is necessary.

The Islamic Dilemma: An Absent Voice

In stark contrast, Muhammad’s revelations were, without exception, relayed by Jibreel. The Qur’an is silent on any direct speech from Allah to Muhammad. Not only is there no record of Allah speaking directly to Muhammad, but there is also no account in the Qur’an where Allah commands Jibreel explicitly to relay a message; the claims of angelic mediation rest on tradition rather than explicit Quranic instruction.

Theological Problems with Mediation

This raises troubling questions for Islamic theology:

If Allah is omnipotent and transcendent, why rely on a messenger to speak to Muhammad?
How can Muhammad be considered the “seal” and greatest of prophets if denied what was given to Moses and others?
Why would Allah, who claims not to need any partners or helpers (“Say: He is Allah, the One and Only”—Surah 112:1), consistently depend on Jibreel for the most crucial task—delivering His final revelation?
Where in the Qur’an does Allah ever instruct Jibreel to deliver the message? Such explicit divine commissioning is entirely absent.

The Prophetic Test: Authenticity through Divine Encounter

The office of a prophet is validated by direct encounter with God. The lack of such in Muhammad’s life challenges the very foundation of his prophethood. The prophets of old could declare with authority, “Thus says the LORD.” Muhammad, by contrast, could only claim, “Jibreel said...” This is a radical departure from the established prophetic model.

Conclusion: Is Muhammad’s Prophethood Bogus?

The Islamic narrative leaves us with an inescapable theological dilemma. If direct divine appointment and communication are hallmarks of true prophecy, then Muhammad’s absence of such experience, by the Quran’s own admission, renders his claim to prophethood questionable at best and bogus at worst. Moses and other biblical prophets were authenticated by direct encounters with God. Muhammad stands alone, never hearing the voice of Allah, never receiving a direct commission.

To Muslim readers:
How can you place your eternal trust in a prophet who never spoke to the God who supposedly sent him? How can Muhammad be the greatest of prophets if denied the most basic prophetic privilege?

A call to reconsider:
It is time to re-examine the claims of Muhammad’s prophethood with intellectual honesty and theological rigor. The evidence is clear: in the matter of divine communication, Muhammad does not meet the standard set by the biblical prophets.

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Muhammad and the Violation of the Seventh Commandment: A Theological and Scholarly Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Muhammad and the Violation of the Seventh Commandment: A Theological and Scholarly Critique

“You shall not commit adultery.” — Exodus 20:14

Introduction: The Seventh Commandment in Judeo-Christian Ethics

The Seventh Commandment, “You shall not commit adultery,” is a cornerstone of biblical morality, signifying the sanctity of marriage and sexual purity as divinely instituted values. Within both the Old and New Testaments, the prohibition against adultery is explicit and repeatedly affirmed (cf. Leviticus 18:20; Matthew 5:27-28). Its violation was considered a grave sin, incurring severe consequences under Mosaic Law.

Quranic Law on Adultery

The Qur’an equally condemns adultery. In Surah An-Nur (24:2), it is stated:

“The woman and the man guilty of fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment.”

This passage demonstrates a strict legalistic approach to punishing adulterers, prescribing public flogging and calling for no mercy.

The Prophet Muhammad’s Contradictions: Historical and Hadith Accounts

Despite the Quran’s severe position on adultery, an analysis of Islamic sources and classical commentaries reveals multiple narratives in which the Prophet Muhammad himself appears to have transgressed this very commandment.

1. The Incident with Mariyah al-Qibtiyya

According to Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Vol. 6, p. 367) and various hadith collections, there is an account involving Muhammad, his wife Hafsa bint Umar, and his Coptic concubine, Mariyah al-Qibtiyya. One day, while Hafsa was away, Muhammad engaged in an intimate encounter with Mariyah in Hafsa’s room. Upon returning and discovering the event, Hafsa confronted Muhammad, who responded by swearing never to touch Mariyah again—a vow later annulled (Qur’an 66:1-2).

Despite this being an explicit case of sexual relations outside the context of marriage, neither Muhammad nor Mariyah were subjected to the Quranic punishment of flogging. This raises a significant theological question: Was Muhammad above the very law he claimed to deliver?

2. Sexual Exploitation of Female Slaves

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, No. 4458 reports an instance where Muhammad’s female slave was shared sexually with another man, upon which Muhammad instructed Ali ibn Abi Talib to punish her only after her menstrual bleeding stopped, as she was found to be bleeding at the time.

The use of concubines and female captives as sexual objects is explicitly allowed in the Qur’an (Qur’an 4:24), stating:

“...And [forbidden to you are] married women except those your right hands possess...”

This clause is used to legitimize sexual relations with captive women, outside the covenant of marriage, an idea that is entirely foreign to biblical ethics and the prophetic tradition of the Old and New Testaments (cf. Genesis 2:24; Hebrews 13:4).

3. Homoeroticism and Gender Norms in Hadith

Certain hadiths, including Musnad Ahmad 16245 and Sahih Bukhari 1:4:152, allege that Muhammad engaged in intimate acts with young boys, such as sucking their tongues or kissing their mouths, and even displaying his nakedness to them. Such reports, if authentic, point to gross violations of sexual ethics, as recognized in both biblical and natural law.

4. Questionable Marital Ethics

Further, Muhammad is reported to have stated that a wife must submit to her husband's sexual demands at any time, regardless of circumstances (see Mkweli Mwaminifu, J. 1-2, Hadith No. 462, p. 204), thereby reducing women to mere sexual objects and undermining the mutual respect foundational to biblical marriage.

The Qur’an and the Legitimization of Sexual Deviance

The Qur’an, in some passages, describes paradise as a place of sensual reward involving young boys and beautiful women (Qur’an 52:24; 56:17; 76:19), a depiction that stands in stark contrast to the biblical vision of heaven as a place of holiness and communion with God (cf. Matthew 22:30; Revelation 21:27).

Theological and Ethical Critique

From a biblical and theological perspective, Muhammad’s actions—as reported in authoritative Islamic sources—constitute a clear violation of the Seventh Commandment. The New Testament goes even further, equating lustful intent with adultery (Matthew 5:28), and upholding sexual purity as a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).

The moral inconsistency is therefore profound:

The same figure who instituted harsh penalties for adultery is himself portrayed as transgressing those boundaries without repercussion.
The Quran and hadith allow for sexual relations with concubines, captives, and even hint at acceptance of same-sex acts, all of which are condemned in the Bible (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; Hebrews 13:4).
The Prophet of Islam seems to operate above the law, violating the ethical standards he imposed on others.

Biblical Response to False Prophets

Jesus warned his followers:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

A true prophet must exemplify the law and character of God. The behaviors attributed to Muhammad in the hadith literature disqualify him by biblical standards. As Christians, we affirm that only Christ is the fulfillment of the law and the model of perfect holiness (Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22).

Conclusion

A thorough, scholarly examination of Muhammad’s life—measured by the standard of the Seventh Commandment—reveals clear transgressions according to both the letter and the spirit of God’s law. Far from being above the law, a true prophet is called to embody it. The evidence from Islamic sources themselves is a powerful indictment, inviting Muslims and non-Muslims alike to reconsider the moral claims of Muhammad’s prophethood in light of biblical revelation.

Shalom,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Titus 2:13

References:

The Holy Bible, NIV, Exodus 20:14; Matthew 5:27-28; Hebrews 13:4
The Qur’an, 4:24; 24:2; 52:24; 56:17; 66:1-2; 76:19
Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 6
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38
Musnad Ahmad 16245
Sahih Bukhari 1:4:152
Mkweli Mwaminifu, J. 1-2
“Life of the Prophet” by Sheikh A.S. Farsy
Matthew 7:15

Muhammad and the Violation of the Fifth Commandment: A Theological and Scholarly Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The Ten Commandments, as recorded in the book of Exodus, form the ethical bedrock of Judeo-Christian civilization. Among them, the Fifth Commandment stands as a cornerstone of social stability and divine expectation:
"Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land the LORD your God is giving you." (Exodus 20:12, ESV)

This commandment is repeatedly emphasized throughout Scripture (Deuteronomy 5:16; Ephesians 6:2), highlighting the importance of honoring one’s parents with respect, kindness, and dignity. In contrast, the life and teachings of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, present a significant departure from this divine mandate.

Muhammad’s Disregard for Parental Honor

It is a well-established fact in Islamic tradition that Muhammad was orphaned at a young age, having lost both his mother, Amina, and his father, Abdullah. However, rather than honoring their memory, the hadith literature shockingly records Muhammad condemning both parents as unbelievers (kuffar), thus consigning them to hellfire.

Hadith Evidence: Muhammad Declares His Mother a Disbeliever

Sahih Muslim, one of the most authentic collections of hadith, records the following narration:

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, "I asked my Lord's permission to pray for forgiveness for my mother, but He did not permit me. I asked His permission to visit her grave, and He permitted me." (Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Hadith 2130)

Classical Islamic exegesis, such as in ‘Awn al-Ma’bud, confirms the reason for this divine prohibition:

“His saying, ‘He did not permit me,’ means that she was a disbeliever and it is not allowed to ask forgiveness for a disbeliever.”
Thus, by Islamic sources, Muhammad’s own mother died as a “kafir”—an unbeliever—for whom even the Prophet was not permitted to pray.

The Fate of Muhammad’s Father

Similarly, Sahih Muslim also narrates:

Anas reported: A man said, “O Messenger of Allah, where is my father?” He replied, “In the Fire.” When he turned away, he called him back and said, “My father and your father are in the Fire.” (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Hadith 0398)

Here, Muhammad unequivocally declares that his father, Abdullah, is in hellfire.

The Theological Implications

From a Judeo-Christian perspective, this attitude is a grave violation of the Fifth Commandment. While the Bible commands believers to honor their parents regardless of their faith, Muhammad’s testimony amounts to a posthumous curse, denying them even basic dignity or remembrance in prayer. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find Jesus ever dishonoring His mother Mary, despite the hardships He faced. In fact, Jesus on the cross ensured Mary’s care (John 19:26-27).

Critical Questions and Pagan Associations

Why does Muhammad explicitly state that both his parents are in hellfire?
Why is his father named ‘Abdullah’ (servant of Allah) if he was a pagan?
Does this not suggest that ‘Allah’ was worshipped in pre-Islamic pagan Arabia, even before Muhammad’s prophethood?

The etymology and usage of the name ‘Abdullah’ point toward the pre-Islamic veneration of Allah as a pagan deity, sometimes identified with the moon god ‘al-ilah’ or ‘Hubal,’ widely worshipped throughout the Middle East. This pre-Islamic use of “Allah” is akin to Hebrew names honoring Yahweh (Joshua, Hezekiah, etc.), but the context for Allah is demonstrably pagan.

Historical sources indicate that Abdul Muttalib, Muhammad’s grandfather, nearly sacrificed Abdullah to Allah, only to substitute him with a hundred camels—another clear example of pagan ritual practices (see Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq).

A Tragic Contrast: Jesus and Mary vs. Muhammad and His Parents

In the New Testament, the mother of Jesus, Mary, is presented as blessed and honored (Luke 1:48). No canonical Gospel or Christian teaching ever depicts Mary as dying in sin or being condemned by her son. By contrast, the Islamic texts assert that Muhammad’s own parents died as disbelievers—an indictment that not only tarnishes the memory of his family but directly violates the Fifth Commandment.

Conclusion

Muhammad’s explicit statements about his parents, recorded in authentic hadith literature, show a clear disregard for the biblical command to honor father and mother. Instead of upholding the dignity of his parents, he condemned them as kuffar, even declaring their punishment in the afterlife. This theological position not only separates Muhammad from the prophetic tradition of the Bible but exposes a fundamental divergence in the understanding of divine law and familial piety.

As Christian theologians, it is critical to assess these issues with both scholarly rigor and fidelity to biblical ethics. The evidence presented here demonstrates that Muhammad, by his own testimony and by Islamic sources, broke the Fifth Commandment, and thus cannot be upheld as a moral exemplar according to biblical standards.

References:

The Holy Bible, Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 6:2
Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Hadith 2130; Book 001, Hadith 0398
‘Awn al-Ma’bud, Commentary on Hadith
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah
John 19:26-27; Luke 1:48

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
“Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13)

Did Muhammad Break the Ninth Commandment?

An Academic and Theological Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The Ninth Commandment is a cornerstone of Judeo-Christian ethics, demanding truthfulness and forbidding false testimony:

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:16, ESV)

This commandment upholds the value of truth and the sanctity of reputation. In this scholarly debate, we critically examine whether the Prophet Muhammad, founder of Islam, upheld or violated this commandment in his teachings, actions, and legacy.

Framing the Debate

Christian Theological Position:
Truth is not merely a social virtue but a divine attribute. Jesus Christ identified Himself as “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Lying, false witness, and deception are repeatedly condemned throughout Scripture (Proverbs 12:22; Revelation 21:8).

Islamic Position:
The Qur’an encourages honesty (Qur’an 2:42: “And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know [it]”). However, Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) and certain hadiths introduce nuanced discussions about truth-telling and permissibility of deceit in specific circumstances.

Scholarly Critique: Did Muhammad Bear False Witness?

1. Use of Deception in Hadith and Sira

Several authentic hadiths and early Islamic sources record instances where Muhammad allegedly sanctioned or utilized deception:

Taqiyya and Kitman: Although more common in Shia jurisprudence, the concepts of concealing faith or intent for self-preservation or strategic advantage are referenced in Islamic tradition. Sunni sources also recognize exceptions to absolute truth-telling.
Hadith Example: War and Deception

“The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.’”
(Sahih Bukhari 52:269; Sahih Muslim 1739)
Assassination of Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf:
According to Sahih Bukhari (Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith 369) and Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Muhammad approved a plot in which one of his followers deceived Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf, leading to his assassination.

Muhammad said: “Who will rid me of the son of Ashraf?” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “I will deal with him for you, O Messenger of Allah.” … He was given permission to lie for the sake of the mission.

2. Theological Perspective: Is Deception Ever Justified?

The Bible’s Standard: The Bible offers almost no exceptions for bearing false witness, even in difficult circumstances. Truth is integral to God’s nature (Numbers 23:19).
Muhammad’s Example: The permission to lie in certain contexts (war, reconciliation between people, to one’s spouse) is found in Sahih Muslim (Book 32, Hadith 6303):

“It is not a lie to be used in war, to bring reconciliation between people, or to a wife to please her.”

3. Accusations Against Others

Jews and Christians:
Muhammad repeatedly accused Jews and Christians of corrupting their scriptures and hiding the truth about his prophethood (Qur’an 2:75-79; 3:71), though these accusations lack corroborating historical evidence outside the Islamic narrative.
Charges of Polytheism and Deception:
Islamic sources allege that Jews and Christians are “people of the book” who “conceal” or “distort” the Word of God (Qur’an 4:46; 5:13-15). From a critical perspective, this could be seen as bearing false witness against whole religious communities without substantiated proof.

Islamic Response

Defenders of Muhammad argue that:

Context is critical: “Deception” cited in war is akin to military strategy, not the sort of malicious lying prohibited by the Ninth Commandment.
The Prophet’s general teachings emphasize truthfulness and justice (Qur’an 33:70; 4:135).
The permission to lie in exceptional circumstances (war, reconciliation, family harmony) is not the same as “bearing false witness” in the legal or malicious sense.

Scholarly Rebuttal

Scriptural Consistency: The Biblical commandment makes no exception for “strategic” or “expedient” lying.
Ethical Absolutism: Jesus intensifies the call to truthfulness (Matthew 5:37), and the Apostles warn against any form of lying (Colossians 3:9; 1 John 2:21).
Historical Impact: Muhammad’s legacy of sanctioning deception in certain contexts has been cited by critics as a precedent for double standards within Islamic jurisprudence.

Conclusion

Did Muhammad break the Ninth Commandment?
From a strict Judeo-Christian perspective, the answer appears to be yes: the prophetic record in hadith and sira literature shows instances where deception and false accusation were permitted or practiced.

However, Islamic theology interprets these acts contextually, maintaining Muhammad’s integrity within its own ethical framework.

Final Question for Debate:

Can a prophet of God ever be justified in bearing false witness, or does true prophethood require absolute adherence to the divine standard of truth—without exception?

References

The Holy Bible, Exodus 20:16; John 14:6; Proverbs 12:22; Matthew 5:37.
The Qur’an: 2:42, 2:75-79, 3:71, 4:46, 4:135, 5:13-15, 33:70.
Sahih Bukhari 52:269; 59:369.
Sahih Muslim 1739; 6303.
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah.

Prepared by Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute. For further study and debate, contact info@shimbatheological.org

Muhammad and the Violation of God’s Commandments: A Theological Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The Ten Commandments represent the moral and theological foundation of the Judeo-Christian tradition, given by God to the Israelites shortly after their exodus from Egypt (Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21). These commandments summarize the 613 mitzvot of the Old Testament Law and are divided into two categories: duties to God (the first four) and duties to fellow humans (the remaining six). Of paramount importance is the First Commandment, which declares:

“You shall have no other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:3, NKJV)

This commandment rejects all forms of idolatry and syncretism, affirming the uniqueness and exclusivity of the God of Israel—YHWH or Jehovah—as the only true God.

In examining Muhammad’s teachings and claims as found in the Quran, one encounters profound theological divergences that directly contradict the biblical commandments. This paper will focus on Muhammad’s breaking of the First Commandment, thereby challenging his prophetic authenticity from a biblical perspective.

The First Commandment and the Identity of God

The God of the Bible repeatedly reveals Himself by name:

“I am the LORD (YHWH); that is My name!” (Isaiah 42:8)
“They will know that My name is Jehovah.” (Jeremiah 16:21)

The personal name of God, YHWH, is central to biblical revelation and distinguishes Him from all false deities. Nowhere in the Torah, Psalms, or Gospel does God identify Himself as “Allah.” The assertion that the God of Israel, the Father of Jesus Christ, is the same as Allah in the Quran is theologically and historically unsupported by primary scriptural evidence.

Muhammad’s Violation of the First Commandment

Quranic Syncretism and the Denial of Jehovah

In Surah Al-Ankabut 29:46, the Quran states:

“And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best... and say, ‘We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. Our God and your God is One; and to Him we are Muslims.’”

Here, Muhammad proclaims that Allah is the same as the God worshipped by Jews and Christians. However, this equivalence is unsubstantiated:

The Quran never refers to God as YHWH or Jehovah.
The biblical texts (Torah, Psalms, Gospel) never declare “Allah” as God’s name.
Jesus consistently refers to “the Father” and uses the divine name “I AM” (John 8:58), never “Allah.”

This Quranic claim constitutes a syncretism that blends distinct theological identities, directly contradicting the exclusivity demanded by the First Commandment.

Theological Inconsistency and the Nature of Allah

The Quran describes paradise in terms that contradict both Old and New Testament morality. For example, Surah Muhammad 47:15 describes rivers of wine in paradise:

“A description of the Paradise promised to the righteous: in it are rivers of unaltered water, rivers of milk, rivers of wine delicious to those who drink...”

Yet, Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:90 says:

“O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling... are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful.”

If wine is the “work of Satan” in one verse, why does Allah reward believers with rivers of wine in another? Such internal contradiction undermines the consistency and moral holiness attributed to the God of the Bible (cf. Isaiah 5:11, Galatians 5:19-21). The God of Scripture condemns drunkenness and promises no such sensual rewards in the afterlife.

The Problem of the Divine Name

Is “Allah” the Biblical God?

Scholarly and intertextual evidence demonstrates that YHWH is never rendered as “Allah” in the Hebrew or Greek scriptures. The name “Allah” is linguistically linked to the pre-Islamic Arabian pantheon, where it designated a high god among many, rather than the exclusive, covenantal God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Nowhere in the Torah (Pentateuch) does God say, “My name is Allah.”
Nowhere in the Psalms or Prophets is God addressed as “Allah.”
Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus call God “Allah.” Instead, He uses “Father” (Greek: Pater; Aramaic: Abba).

This distinction is not semantic but theological—indicating a fundamentally different understanding of God’s identity, character, and revelation.

Critical Analysis and Theological Implications

Given these facts, the following questions arise for Muslim apologists:

Where in the Torah, Psalms, or Gospel does God declare His name as “Allah”?
Why does the Quran reject the name Jehovah/YHWH, if it claims to be a continuation of the Abrahamic faith?
How can Allah permit what he elsewhere forbids (wine), whereas the biblical God is consistently holy and morally unchanging (Malachi 3:6)?
If Muhammad taught a different God and broke the First Commandment by denying the exclusive revelation of YHWH, how can he be considered a true prophet by biblical standards?

Conclusion: Muhammad as a False Prophet

By breaking the First Commandment—teaching a different deity, promoting syncretism, and contradicting biblical revelation—Muhammad stands in opposition to the commandments of God as given in Scripture. According to the biblical test of a prophet (Deuteronomy 13:1-5), anyone who leads people to worship a god other than YHWH is to be rejected, regardless of signs or wonders.

As such, Muhammad’s prophetic claims are theologically invalid from a biblical perspective. He neither upholds the First Commandment nor affirms the exclusive identity of the God of Israel. Christians and Jews, therefore, are compelled by their scriptures to regard him as a false prophet.

“You shall have no other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:3)

Shalom,

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Servant of Jesus Christ, our Great God (Titus 2:13),
Shimba Theological Institute

References:

The Holy Bible, New King James Version (NKJV)
The Quran (Sahih International Translation)
Ismail, A., The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity (2015)
Peters, F.E., The Children of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity, Islam (1982)
Anderson, N., Islam in Comparative Religion (1965)
Exodus 20:1-17, Deuteronomy 5:6-21, Isaiah 42:8, Jeremiah 16:21, John 8:58, Malachi 3:6

Muhammad and the Violation of the Third Commandment:

An Expanded Theological and Scholarly Assessment

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The Ten Commandments are foundational to Judeo-Christian ethics and theology. The third commandment, in particular, underscores the seriousness with which God’s name is to be treated:

“You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7, ESV)

This commandment has historically been interpreted as a prohibition against the misuse, trivialization, or profanation of the divine name, establishing a clear boundary between what is sacred and what is secular or profane.

Jewish Perspective on the Divine Name

In Jewish tradition, the reverence for the name of God (YHWH) is paramount. The Tetragrammaton is considered so holy that it is not pronounced in daily speech, replaced instead with “Adonai” (Lord) or “HaShem” (The Name). The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10:1) and Talmud (Kiddushin 71a) elaborate on the grave sin of blasphemy or casual usage of the divine name. Rabbinic tradition interprets Exodus 20:7 as not only forbidding false oaths but also prohibiting any irreverent use of the divine name (see: Rashi on Exodus 20:7; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah 6:2).

Christian Theological Reflection

Christian tradition upholds the sanctity of God’s name. The Lord’s Prayer itself begins, “Hallowed be Thy name” (Matthew 6:9), underscoring the principle that God’s name is to be revered and sanctified in all circumstances. Martin Luther, in his Large Catechism, writes that this commandment forbids any use of God’s name for swearing, lying, or cursing, and demands that it be invoked only in truth, prayer, and praise (Luther, Large Catechism, I. 54-56).
John Calvin further emphasizes that any “profanation” of the divine name, especially in contexts of violence or injustice, is an affront to the divine character (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.8.22).

Islamic Practice: The Invocation of “Allahu Akbar”

Contextual Use and Misuse

In Islam, the phrase “Allahu Akbar” (“God is Greatest”) is a central liturgical formula, used in daily prayers (Salah), call to prayer (Adhan), and various rituals. However, its use is not confined to worship but extends to moments of emotional intensity—including warfare, political protest, and, regrettably, acts of violence and terrorism.
Notably, radical groups have weaponized this phrase, uttering it before and during violent acts, thus tying the divine name directly to human acts of destruction.

Muhammad’s Precedent

Islamic sources attribute to Muhammad numerous injunctions to invoke “Allahu Akbar” in diverse situations—including battle (see: Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 2955; Sahih Muslim, Hadith 872) and moments of surprise or distress (Riyad as-Salihin, Book 17, Hadith 1320). This habitual invocation risks desacralizing the divine name by frequent and indiscriminate use, often detached from genuine reverence.

Theological Critique

1. The Principle of Sanctity

If “Allah” is indeed the same as the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, then His name must be treated with the same reverence as YHWH in Jewish and Christian traditions. The casual, political, or violent invocation of the divine name directly contravenes the principle of sanctity established in the Ten Commandments (cf. Leviticus 19:12; Ezekiel 36:21).

2. Ethical Implications

The biblical God consistently condemns the use of His name for false, manipulative, or violent ends (Jeremiah 23:25-27; Matthew 7:21-23). The invocation of “Allahu Akbar” during violence not only misrepresents God’s character but weaponizes the sacred for profane ends. As Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann notes, the commandment “forbids trivializing the name of the God who is holy” (Brueggemann, The Book of Exodus, p. 865).

3. Comparative Theology

While Islamic theology asserts the transcendence and uniqueness of Allah (tawhid), it lacks the strong biblical prohibitions against misusing the divine name. The Qur’an, while prohibiting false oaths (Qur’an 2:224), does not explicitly prohibit the casual or violent use of Allah’s name. The Hadith literature even records Muhammad encouraging repeated invocation of God’s name in various secular contexts, further weakening the distinction between sacred and profane.

Scholarly and Interfaith Perspectives

The Problem of Religious Violence and the Divine Name

Contemporary scholars (e.g., Miroslav Volf, Allah: A Christian Response; Mark Durie, Revelation? Do We Worship the Same God?) argue that the invocation of the divine name in acts of violence is a critical area for interfaith reflection. Volf notes that “the name of God must never be invoked to justify what is contrary to God’s own nature as revealed in love and holiness” (Volf, 2011).

Historical Examples

Throughout history, the misuse of God’s name has been associated with religious violence—not only in Islam but also in Christian and Jewish contexts. However, the biblical commandment stands as an eternal critique of such abuses. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks remarks that “to invoke the name of God for violence is to violate the Third Commandment and to commit the ultimate blasphemy” (Sacks, Not in God’s Name, 2015).

Conclusion

The expanded evidence from scriptural, theological, and historical perspectives confirms that Muhammad’s encouragement of indiscriminate invocation of “Allahu Akbar”—especially in contexts of violence or triviality—constitutes a clear violation of the third commandment. This practice desacralizes the divine name, making it a tool for human agendas rather than a means of true worship and reverence.

The God of the Bible demands that His name be kept holy, invoked only in prayer, praise, and truth, and never profaned for vain or evil purposes. Therefore, the use of “Allahu Akbar” as a slogan for violence or political gain stands condemned by the standard set forth in the Ten Commandments.

Shalom,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Servant of Jesus Christ, Our Great God (Titus 2:13)

References and Scholarly Sources

Primary Texts:
- The Holy Bible, Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 19:12; Matthew 6:9; Ezekiel 36:21; Jeremiah 23:25-27; Matthew 7:21-23
- The Qur’an: 2:224, 4:43, 16:91 (on oaths)
- Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 2955; Sahih Muslim, Hadith 872
- Riyad as-Salihin, Book 17, Hadith 1320
Jewish Commentary:
- Rashi on Exodus 20:7
- Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah 6:2
- Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 71a
Christian Commentary:
- Martin Luther, Large Catechism, I. 54-56
- John Calvin, Institutes, II.8.22
Scholarly Works:
- Walter Brueggemann, The Book of Exodus: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections (The New Interpreter’s Bible)
- Timothy George, Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad? (Zondervan, 2002)
- Miroslav Volf, Allah: A Christian Response (HarperOne, 2011)
- Mark Durie, Revelation? Do We Worship the Same God? (City Harvest, 2016)
- Jonathan Sacks, Not in God’s Name: Confronting Religious Violence (Schocken, 2015)
- Safi Kaskas and David Hungerford, The Qur’an with References to the Bible (2015) [for intertextual analysis]

Muhammad and the Violation of the Second Commandment: A Scholarly Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This article explores the biblical Second Commandment in relation to Islamic ritual and tradition as established by Muhammad. By engaging biblical, Qur’anic, and Hadith sources, as well as critical academic scholarship, the discussion seeks to demonstrate that several core Islamic rituals represent a continuity of pre-Islamic idolatrous practice, thereby constituting a violation of the Second Commandment from a Judeo-Christian theological perspective. This analysis is contextualized within the history of religions and comparative theology.

Introduction

The Second Commandment, which prohibits the making and veneration of images or physical objects in worship (Exodus 20:4-5; Deuteronomy 5:8-9), is fundamental to biblical monotheism. The command is clear and categorical:

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image... You shall not bow down to them nor serve them" (Exodus 20:4-5, NKJV).

Historically, the struggle against idolatry is a central theme in the Old Testament (e.g., Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 27:15; 2 Kings 17:12-16; Isaiah 44:9-20; Jeremiah 10:1-16). The New Testament continues this prohibition, warning that "flee from idolatry" (1 Corinthians 10:14; cf. Acts 17:29-30; 1 John 5:21).

In contrast, Islamic tradition, as practiced in the rites of the Hajj and Umrah, enshrines certain acts—such as circumambulating, kissing, and bowing before the Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad), and the Sa’i between Safa and Marwah—which are both physical and symbolic. This essay interrogates these rituals in light of the Second Commandment and argues that they constitute a form of religious syncretism and a re-adoption of pre-Islamic Arabian religiosity.

Islamic Rituals: Continuity With Pre-Islamic Practices

1. The Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad)

The Black Stone embedded in the eastern corner of the Kaaba is not only touched and kissed by millions of Muslim pilgrims but also given special veneration. The Hadith literature confirms this as a sunnah of Muhammad:

"I saw the Messenger of Allah touch the (Black) Stone and then place his lips on it and wept for a long time." (Sunan Ibn Majah 2944; cf. Sahih Bukhari 1520).

Further, the Prophet is reported to have said, “Touching them (the Black Stone and the Yemeni Corner) atones for sins” (Tirmidhi 959; Ibn Majah 2950). This confers a redemptive value to the act, transforming it from a symbolic gesture to one of theological import.

Historical Origins:
Prominent Islamic historians, such as Al-Azraqi (Akhbar Makkah, 9th c.), and Western scholars (Patricia Crone, Gerald Hawting), document that the Black Stone and the Kaaba were objects of veneration in Arabia centuries before Muhammad. Al-Azraqi notes that pagan Arabs performed tawaf and touched the Black Stone, regarding it as a sacred relic.

W. Montgomery Watt, in Muhammad at Mecca (1953), writes:

“Most of the features of the pre-Islamic pilgrimage were retained by Islam, with only slight modifications.”

Similarly, Karen Armstrong in Islam: A Short History (2000), admits:

“Many of the customs associated with the Hajj, such as running between Safa and Marwah and the stoning of the devil, were pre-Islamic.”

2. The Ritual of Sa’i: Safa and Marwah

The Qur’an (2:158) validates the running between Safa and Marwah, describing them as “symbols of Allah.” Yet, these hills were ancient sites of idol worship. As documented in Sahih Bukhari (vol. 2, hadith 711), the Companions themselves were uncomfortable with these rituals because of their association with Jahiliyyah (the Age of Ignorance), but were reassured by Muhammad.

As Karen Armstrong further observes:

“Even though the idols were removed, the sites themselves remained objects of veneration, given new religious meaning by Islam.”

3. The Stoning of Satan at Mina

This act is based on the legend that Abraham was tempted by Satan at these spots and drove him away by throwing stones. The ritual is found in both Hadith (Sahih Muslim 1219) and Sira literature. But, as John L. Esposito notes in Islam: The Straight Path (1998), such rituals are “pagan in origin, Islamized by the Prophet but essentially retained in their outward form.”

Biblical Counterpoint:
Christianity rejects the notion of combating spiritual evil through physical acts (Ephesians 6:10-18), instead emphasizing spiritual resistance through faith, prayer, and adherence to the word of God.

Scholarly Arguments and Critical Perspectives

1. Syncretism and Religious Innovation (Bid‘ah)

Despite Islamic claims of pure monotheism (tawhid), Islamic practice displays unmistakable elements of syncretism. As G. R. Hawting argues in The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam (1999), the boundaries between monotheism and inherited Arabian religiosity in early Islam were far from clear.

Ignaz Goldziher, a pioneer in Islamic studies, noted:

“The Muhammadan cult… is based on a foundation of ancient heathen rites which were practiced by the Semitic races from time immemorial.” (Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law, 1981).

2. Scriptural Contradictions and the Problem of Authority

Islamic sources claim the Black Stone is from Paradise (Tirmidhi 877) and that it will testify for those who touch it on Judgment Day. This quasi-miraculous status attributed to a physical object is antithetical to biblical theology, which insists that no created object can mediate divine favor (Isaiah 44:9-20; Romans 1:21-25).

3. Christian and Jewish Responses

Christian theologians, such as John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.xi), condemned any form of physical object veneration as the essence of idolatry. Jewish sources likewise identify the worship or veneration of stones as abominations (Deuteronomy 16:22; Mishnah Avodah Zarah 4:5).

Theological Assessment: Does Islam Break the Second Commandment?

While Muslim theologians have vigorously denied any accusation of idolatry (shirk), the evidence indicates that:

The veneration of the Black Stone, the circumambulation of the Kaaba, and ritual acts at Safa, Marwah, and Mina are all rooted in pre-Islamic idolatrous practices.
These practices confer special status on physical objects, actions explicitly forbidden by the Second Commandment.

As scholar Samuel Zwemer writes in The Cross Above the Crescent (1941):

“Despite Islam’s professions of aniconism, its pilgrimages and reverence for stones, tombs, and relics reveal a deep-seated tendency towards material mediators in worship.”

Jesus Christ’s words in John 4:21-24 stand as the decisive Christian answer:

“...the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem... God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Conclusion: Christian Engagement and Missional Implications

Given the overwhelming evidence from both Islamic and non-Islamic sources, it is clear that Muhammad’s establishment of Islamic ritual was not a total rejection of idolatry but a transformation and rebranding of existing pagan customs. For Christians, the Second Commandment remains inviolable, and true worship is entirely detached from physical objects.

The Christian’s duty is to present this biblical truth compassionately and courageously to Muslims and others, inviting them to the pure worship of the living God through Christ alone (Romans 10:9-13; Acts 4:12).

Bibliography

The Holy Bible (NIV, ESV, NKJV).
The Qur’an (Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Saheeh International translations).
Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Ibn Majah, Jami’ at-Tirmidhi.
Guillaume, A., The Life of Muhammad (Oxford University Press, 1955).
Crone, Patricia, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (Princeton, 1987).
Watt, W. Montgomery, Muhammad at Mecca (OUP, 1953).
Armstrong, Karen, Islam: A Short History (Modern Library, 2000).
Hawting, G. R., The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam (Cambridge, 1999).
Goldziher, Ignaz, Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law (Princeton, 1981).
Esposito, John L., Islam: The Straight Path (OUP, 1998).
Zwemer, Samuel, The Cross Above the Crescent (Pickering & Inglis, 1941).
Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Mishnah Avodah Zarah.
Al-Azraqi, Akhbar Makkah.

Shalom,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Titus 2:13