Friday, June 13, 2025

THE PARENTS OF MUHAMMAD WERE UNBELIEVERS AND DIED AS UNBELIEVERS

Thursday, December 29, 2016
THE PARENTS OF MUHAMMAD WERE UNBELIEVERS AND DIED AS UNBELIEVERS

Dear reader,

SO, THE MOTHER OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD DIED AN UNBELIEVER
Muhammad’s mother, Amina, died as an unbeliever. We read:

عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ((اسْتَأْذَنْتُ رَبِّي أَنْ أَسْتَغْفِرَ لأُمِّي فَلَمْ يَأْذَنْ لِي ، وَاسْتَأْذَنْتُهُ أَنْ أَزُورَ قَبْرَهَا فَأَذِنَ لِي )) مسلم

Reported by Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
“I asked my Lord for permission to seek forgiveness for my mother, but He did not permit me. I asked for permission to visit her grave, and He permitted me.” (Muslim)

It is explained in the book ‘Awn al-Ma’bud:
“His statement ((but He did not permit me)) means (his mother) was an unbeliever, and it is not allowed to seek forgiveness for an unbeliever.”

This is yet another calamity for Muslims. The parents of Muhammad both died with great sins and as UNBELIEVERS.

Why did this Allah hate Muhammad’s parents so much?
Do you know that Muhammad’s father also died an UNBELIEVER and is in Hell?
Indeed, there are many strange things in Islam.

BUT WE DO NOT READ THAT THE MOTHER OF JESUS DIED IN SIN.

MUHAMMAD CONFESSES THAT HIS FATHER IS IN HELL

This is a HUGE CALAMITY for Muslims. Muhammad’s father, named Abdullah (meaning “servant of Allah”), is confirmed to be in Hell/burning in the fire.

These are not my words nor am I slandering Muhammad’s father; these are the words of Muhammad himself.
Read the evidence here:

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

The question Muslims should ask themselves is: why was Muhammad’s father, a pagan, named ‘Abdullah’?

And since ‘Abdullah’ means ‘servant of Allah’, it is clear evidence that pagans during the time of ignorance (Jahiliyyah) used to worship Allah, to the point that they named their children in honor of Allah—just as the Jews would name their children in honor of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
For example:

Joshua – Yahweh is salvation
Jotham – Yahweh is perfect
Jehoahaz – Yahweh has held
Hezekiah – Yahweh strengthens
Elisha – God is salvation, etc.

The answer is clear: Allah was a pagan god worshipped before Islam came. This god was the “moon god,” known as “al-ilah.” Another name for him was “Hubal.” This pagan god was worshipped throughout the Middle East, not just by the Arabs.

MOREOVER,

Why does Muhammad admit his father is in Hell?
Where did this Abdullah/Abdallah get the name that contains Allah?
Does this mean Allah, a pagan god, existed before Muhammad?

And that is why Muhammad’s father, Abdullah, was nearly sacrificed by Muhammad’s grandfather, Abdul Muttalib. Abdul Muttalib wanted to sacrifice his son as an offering to Allah. But Abdullah’s uncle saved him, and instead, 100 camels were sacrificed. And it should be noted that this sacrifice took place at the Kaaba (which we will discuss further later).

We are told:
The arrow showed that Abdullah was to be sacrificed. Therefore, Abdul Muttalib took the boy to the Kaaba with a razor to slaughter him. The Quraish, his uncle from the Makhzum tribe, and his brother Abu Talib tried to dissuade him. They suggested he consult a female diviner. She instructed that divining arrows be drawn between Abdullah and ten camels… finally, the number of camels reached one hundred. (Ibn Hisham 1/151-155; Rahmat-ul-lil’alameen 2/89, 90).

That’s why the God of the Bible warned the Israelites so much about the pagan practices of the nations around them, especially regarding worship of the star family or the host of heaven. For example, He says:

“And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.” (Deuteronomy 4:19)

“If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the LORD your God gives you, a man or a woman who does evil in the sight of the LORD your God, in transgressing His covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshipped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded...” (Deuteronomy 17:2-3)

“He rebuilt the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he erected altars for Baal, made an Asherah as Ahab king of Israel had done, and worshipped all the host of heaven and served them.” (2 Kings 21:3)

“He built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the LORD.” (2 Kings 21:5)

“He removed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah and in the places all around Jerusalem, and those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun, to the moon, to the constellations, and to all the host of heaven.” (2 Kings 23:5)

“And they will spread them out before the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven, which they have loved, and which they have served, and which they have gone after, and which they have sought, and which they have worshipped. They will not be gathered or buried; they will be as dung on the face of the earth.” (Jeremiah 8:2)

“...and the houses of Jerusalem and the houses of the kings of Judah shall be defiled like the place of Topheth—all the houses on whose roofs they have burned incense to all the host of heaven, and poured out drink offerings to other gods.” (Jeremiah 19:13)

“...and those who worship the host of heaven on the housetops, and those who worship and swear oaths by the LORD but who also swear by Milcom...” (Zephaniah 1:5)

In the year 570 AD, the very year Muhammad was born, there was a ruler of the Aksumite empire of Ethiopia who was stationed in Yemen. He was called Abrahah al-Ashram. It is said he was envious of Mecca because of the many people who made pilgrimage (a pagan pilgrimage), so he built a great church in Sana’a, Yemen, hoping to attract pilgrims, but they did not come.

As a result, he decided to invade Mecca to destroy the Kaaba. He traveled with his army atop many elephants—hence, that year became known as the “Year of the Elephant.”

The Quraysh clans united to try to save the Kaaba. Abdul Muttalib (Muhammad’s grandfather) told people to hide in the mountains while he and some others stayed near the Kaaba.

But because of the size and power of Abrahah’s army, Abdul Muttalib said:
“The Owner of this House will defend it, and I am sure He will save it from the enemy's attacks and will not allow His servants to be humiliated.”

Tradition says that as Abrahah approached the Kaaba, a large flock of birds appeared, pelting the army with stones until they were wounded. Thus, Abrahah’s mission failed, and he returned wounded.

Now, the question is, if at that time Muhammad was still an infant, Islam had not yet started, and at the Kaaba there were hundreds of pagan gods, who was the “Owner of the House” Abdul Muttalib spoke of?

It is clear this was a pagan god, the moon god, worshipped and served by Abdul Muttalib—meaning the “moon god.”

An even bigger question is that the Quran says in Surah Al-Fil (The Elephant) 105:1-5:

“Have you not considered how your Lord dealt with the companions of the elephant? Did He not make their plan go astray? And He sent against them birds, in flocks, Striking them with stones of hard clay, And He made them like eaten straw.”

The question is:
These events took place before Islam, in the time of paganism. The servant of the pagan god, Abdul Muttalib, said the Owner of the House would defend it.

So, who was the Owner of the House mentioned by Abdul Muttalib, and who is the Lord mentioned by the Quran in this surah? Or should we say there were two gods working together to throw stones at Abrahah and his elephants?

Abdul Muttalib did not know the Allah of Muhammad, so in any case, he could not have mentioned him (if indeed the Allah of Muhammad was different from that of Abdul Muttalib).

All the evidence shows that the moon god worshipped by Abdul Muttalib is the one who protected the Kaaba from Abrahah’s elephants. Therefore, this Quranic verse cannot claim to refer to a god different from that one!

Therefore, the Kaaba is a pagan house.
Therefore, the father of Muhammad is in Hell.
Therefore, all Muslims who go on pilgrimage will enter Hell.
Therefore, Allah is a pagan god.

Indeed, Islam is a religion of pagans; that is why Muhammad admitted that his father is in Hell.

I invite you to the Most High, the Living God, JESUS OUR SAVIOR.
God bless you all.
It is I, Dr. Maxwell Shimba, servant of Jesus Christ,
For Max Shimba Ministries Org,
MAX SHIMBA MINISTRIES ORG ©2016. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

DO YOU KNOW WHY MUSLIMS SEND BLESSINGS UPON MUHAMMAD EVERY DAY?

Because Muhammad died with more sins than any other creature.

In his book "End of the Front Line," Reza Safa F writes, citing a hadith where Muhammad’s wife Khadija asked him to seek forgiveness for his sins, Muhammad replied that he himself was not sure his own sins had been forgiven! How could he forgive someone else’s sins?

MUHAMMAD ASKED FOR FORGIVENESS ONE HUNDRED TIMES A DAY:

In “Sahih Muslim, Book 35, Hadith 6522,” it says that the Prophet Muhammad was so sinful that he would ask Allah for forgiveness a hundred times every day.
Quote:
“Today is today, whoever says tomorrow is a liar.”
My brothers and sisters, the more I study Islam, the more doubts I have, because there is nothing good at all in this religion of Muhammad and Jibril (Gabriel). Tell me, if a person asks for forgiveness one hundred times a day, what kind of sins do you think he has committed to be so afraid like this?

“Al-Agharr al-Muzani, who was one of the companions of the (Prophet), reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: ‘Sometimes there is a veil upon my heart, and I seek forgiveness from Allah one hundred times a day.’”

Notice that the tradition not only says that Muhammad was very sinful, but that he felt a shadow, a bad feeling, over his heart. In Muhammad’s case, this is difficult because the Qur’an says that he is an example in his life and actions:

So, how could Muhammad have a shadow over his heart?
How did he get this distress while he was supposedly receiving revelation from Allah?
Is it possible that this revelation was itself the source of the distress filling his heart?

Qur’an 68:4:
"Your life and your deeds are [an example]." (Mohammed Knut Bernstöm, Qur’an)

All people have sinned
The Bible says that all people have sinned. This includes the Prophet Muhammad—he was sinful like everyone else, but Muhammad himself admitted that his sins were not forgiven even though he asked for forgiveness a hundred times a day.

Dear reader, why should we follow or listen to Muhammad, who admitted that his sins were not forgiven?
Why did Allah fail to forgive Muhammad’s sins?
Does Allah have the power to forgive sins?
Muhammad is the only prophet who died with sin, and the wages of sin is death in Hell. Romans 6:23:
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Because the sinner is condemned to death. “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).
This means separation from God in Hell forever. “Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

Therefore, why die in your sins like Muhammad and be separated from God in Hell?

My friend:
I ask you the most important question of your life. Your eternal joy or eternal sorrow depends on the answer to this question. Here it is: Are you saved?
This is not a question about how good you are, nor whether you are a church member, but: Are you saved? Are you sure that you will go to heaven when you die?

Make sure you are saved. If you lose your soul, you will lose heaven and lose everything. Please, let God save you right now.

God bless you greatly.
It’s me, Max Shimba, a servant of Jesus Christ,
For Max Shimba Ministries Org,
MAX SHIMBA MINISTRIES ORG ©2016. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

CHRISTIANS, BEWARE OF THE GREETING GIVEN TO YOU BY MUSLIMS

It has become a common practice to hear, or to see, a Muslim greeting a Christian with “Sam aleykum” (سم عليكم). A Christian, who may not know any better, quickly responds, “Wa'alaykum Salaam,” believing wholeheartedly that they have received a greeting identical to the one Muslims exchange amongst themselves, namely, “Assalaam aleykum” (السلام عليكم), which means “May the peace of Allah be upon you.”

My fellow Christian, understand that a Muslim, knowing you are a Christian, will never greet you with “Assalaam Aleykum”—that is, wishing you the peace of the god they worship. Instead, the Muslim will greet a Christian by saying:

Sam Aleykum (سم عليكم), meaning in Swahili, “Death be upon you.” When addressing several Christians, this is the form used.
If addressing a single Christian, they will say, Sam Alaika (سم عليك), meaning “Death be upon you.”

Unaware, the Christian happily responds, thinking a good greeting has been given, when in fact, a curse has been pronounced (“You deserve death...”).

Therefore, from today, when you are greeted by a Muslim with “Sam aleykum,” respond by saying:

Wa ‘alaykum Faqatu (عليكم فقة), meaning, “May that death return to you.”

Even if the greeting given is the standard “Assalaam aleykum” (meaning “peace of Allah be upon you”), do not respond in kind, because the peace Muslims offer (that of the world) is different from the peace Jesus gave to His disciples, when He said:

Salaamu'n Lakum (سلام لكم), meaning “Peace be upon you.”

There is a difference between the “salaam” of Jesus and that of Muslims. Jesus said:

“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives.” (John 14:27)

Therefore, be very cautious with their greetings.

Theological and Academic Expansion

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

1. Historical Background and Linguistic Analysis

The act of greeting in Semitic cultures, both ancient and modern, holds significant spiritual and social weight. The phrase “Assalaam aleykum” (peace be upon you) is derived from the Arabic root slm, meaning “peace.” Historically, both Jews and Christians from the Middle Eastern region have used similar greetings—shalom aleichem in Hebrew, and salaam alaykum in Arabic.

However, the claim that Muslims intentionally use “Sam aleykum” or “Sam alaika” (interpreted as “death be upon you”) when greeting non-Muslims is controversial and debated among scholars. Linguistically, “Sam” (سم) can mean “poison” or “death” in Arabic, but in everyday Muslim practice, the standard greeting, even towards non-Muslims, remains “Assalaam aleykum.” Academic sources, including Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon, affirm this.

The Hadith literature does mention incidents in which enemies of the Prophet Muhammad would substitute “Sam” for “Salaam” as a form of mockery or curse (see Sahih Bukhari, Book 56, Hadith 759). In response, Muhammad advised his followers simply to respond, “Wa ‘alaykum” (“And upon you”). However, the teaching and mainstream practice among Muslims worldwide is to use “Assalaam aleykum” as a greeting of peace, and there is no universal doctrine promoting the curse form towards Christians.

2. Theological Comparison: The Peace of Christ vs. Worldly Peace

Jesus’ teaching on peace is distinctively spiritual. In John 14:27, Jesus declares:

“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives.”

The peace of Christ (eirene in Greek, shalom in Hebrew) is not simply the absence of conflict or a polite social exchange. It is an inner, abiding peace with God, rooted in reconciliation through Christ’s sacrificial work. It is unconditional, transcendent, and not dependent on outward circumstances.

The greeting “Assalaam aleykum” is, in Islamic theology, a supplication for safety, wellness, and harmony, but its theological center is different from that of Christianity. For Muslims, peace is a social, communal value but is tied to submission (Islam) to Allah’s will. For Christians, peace is the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit, a fruit of salvation (see Romans 5:1, Galatians 5:22).

3. Missiological and Social Implications

A. Discernment in Greetings

Christians are called to discernment (1 John 4:1), especially regarding spiritual matters. While cultural sensitivity and courtesy are commendable, Christians must understand the origins and intentions of spiritual practices. However, accusations or suspicion without evidence can breed unnecessary hostility.

B. Responding to Greetings Biblically

Jesus taught His followers to bless even those who curse them (Luke 6:28). The early Christians were taught, “If someone wishes you peace, let your peace return to them” (Matthew 10:12-13). Thus, the Christian response to greetings—even from those of other faiths—should reflect the spirit of Christ: grace, truth, and love.

4. Academic Perspective: Interfaith Relations

Academically, it is important to approach such claims with critical investigation. While polemical writings have historically exaggerated or misinterpreted Muslim practices, primary sources do not support the view that Muslims systematically curse Christians in greetings. Interfaith dialogue and scholarship emphasize mutual respect and the promotion of peace (see Esposito, “Islam: The Straight Path,” Oxford, 2021).

5. Conclusion: The Christian Distinctive

Christians are ambassadors of Christ’s peace (2 Corinthians 5:20). The peace offered by Jesus is not simply a formulaic phrase but a living reality, distinguishing Christian life from religious formalism. While Christians should exercise discernment, they must also exemplify the love and peace of Christ, even in their responses to greetings from people of other faiths.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” (Colossians 4:6)

Footnotes:

Lane, E.W. An Arabic-English Lexicon. London: Williams & Norgate, 1863.
Sahih Bukhari, Book 56, Hadith 759.
Esposito, John L. Islam: The Straight Path. Oxford University Press, 2021.
The Holy Bible, New International Version.

Prepared by Dr. Maxwell Shimba,
Shimba Theological Institute

ALLAH HAS SAID IN THE QURAN THAT CHRISTIANS AND JEWS DO NOT NEED TO CONVERT TO ISLAM IN ORDER TO ENTER PARADISE

This is a great tragedy for Muslims.

Contradiction in the Quran

Will this be accepted by them or not?

The Quran says that God accepts the good deeds of a believer:

"And whoever does good deeds while being a believer, no denial will there be for his effort, and surely We will record it for him." (Qur'an 21:94, Arberry)

The Quran places Jews and Christians in this group:

"Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans—those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness—will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve." (Qur'an 2:62)

"Indeed, those who have believed [in the Oneness of Allah and His Messenger Muhammad SAW and all that was revealed to him from Allah], and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians—whoever believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness—no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve." (Qur'an 5:69)

These passages seem quite clear: Jews and Christians do not need to become Muslims to be saved. They only need to believe that God exists, that there will be a Day when He will resurrect and judge humanity ("the Last Day"), and to do what is right.

Yet this directly contradicts other statements which say that Islam is the only religion accepted and even speaks against embracing the faiths of Judaism and Christianity!

"And they say, 'None will enter Paradise except one who is a Jew or a Christian.' These are their wishful thinking. Say, [O Muhammad], 'Produce your proof, if you should be truthful.' Yes, [on the contrary], whoever submits his face in Islam to Allah while being a doer of good will have his reward with his Lord. And no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve..." [See Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol.1, Page 154]. "The Jews say the Christians follow nothing [true]; and the Christians say the Jews follow nothing [true]; though both recite the Scripture. Thus the polytheists speak the same as they do. But Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ." (Qur'an 2:111-113)

"Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam. And those who were given the Scripture did not differ except after knowledge had come to them—out of jealous animosity between themselves. And whoever disbelieves in the verses of Allah, then indeed, Allah is swift in [taking] account." (Qur'an 3:19)

"Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allah]. And he was not of the polytheists." (Qur'an 3:67)

"So is it other than the religion of Allah they desire, while to Him have submitted [all] those within the heavens and earth, willingly or by compulsion, and to Him they will be returned? Say, 'We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants [Al-Asbat], and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted [in Islam].' And whoever desires other than Islam as religion—never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers." (Qur'an 3:83-85)

"...This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion..." (Qur'an 5:3)

Moreover, the Quran says that Jews and Christians are condemned for believing in the divinity of God's messengers like Jesus and Ezra:

"They have certainly disbelieved who say, 'Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary.' But the Messiah said, 'O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.' Indeed, he who associates others with Allah—Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers. They have certainly disbelieved who say, 'Allah is the third of three.' And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment." (Qur'an 5:72-73)

"The Jews say, 'Ezra is the son of Allah'; and the Christians say, 'The Messiah is the son of Allah.' That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?" (Qur'an 9:30)

Given the above, how can the Quran promise Jews and Christians a reward from their Lord for believing and doing good while they are not Muslims and hold to the divinity of specific messengers?

To avoid this problem, some Muslims interpret the word "Islam" not as the religion itself, but as a reference to submission, which is its literal meaning. By this understanding, anyone who submits to God is a Muslim, whose path is essentially Islam even if they call themselves Jews or Christians.

The main issue with this claim is that this is not how the Quran defines Islam—as merely general submission—but as a religion distinct from Judaism and Christianity, as Q. 2:111 and 3:67 show. It is even specifically introduced as a religion in Q. 3:19 and 83-85.

Indeed, the Quran claims that the name Muslim was given to prophets long before Muhammad:

"And strive for Allah with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty. [It is] the religion of your father, Abraham. Allah named you Muslims before [in former scriptures] and in this [revelation] that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over the people. So establish prayer and give zakah and hold fast to Allah. He is your protector; and excellent is the protector, and excellent is the helper." (Qur'an 22:78)

This is how some early Muslim commentators explained these writings:

"(He has named you Muslims before and in this [Qur'an])"

Narrated by Imam Abdullah bin Al-Mubarak from Ibn Jurayj, from ‘Ata’ from Ibn Abbas regarding Allah’s saying...

"(He named you Muslims before)"

"This refers to Allah, exalted is He." This was also the opinion of Mujahid, `Ata', Ad-Dahhak, As-Suddi, Muqatil bin Hayyan, and Qatadah. Mujahid said: "Allah named you Muslims before, in the previous scriptures and in Adh-Dhikr [the reminder, the Quran]."

For more detail, see: [Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Surah Al-Isra’ 39 to the end of Surah Al-Mu’minun, summarized by a group of scholars under Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: July 2000], Vol. 6, pp. 625-626; emphasis added]

So, the Quran teaches that even before Muhammad, the prophets and believers were called "Muslims"! In other words, their religion was not Judaism or Christianity but Islam, and that is why they were called Muslims. This also explains why Q. 3:67 calls Abraham a Muslim and shows that the Quran does not define "Islam" in merely a general sense, such that anyone who submits to God is, in fact, a Muslim regardless of whether he calls himself a Jew, Christian, Hindu, etc. For more on this, see: http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/muslims_before.htm

Others may argue that the Quran is only referring to those Jews and Christians who affirm the absolute oneness of God, or the Islamic concept of tawhid, and not those who embrace the divinity of prophets such as Jesus. The problem with this claim is that these verses do not provide such a qualification, i.e., that only those Jews and Christians who believe in Islamic tawhid will receive a reward from their Lord. Furthermore, it is a matter of historical record that Orthodox Jews and Christians uphold the unity of God, despite Muslims’ dissatisfaction with those groups' doctrine of God and their criticism of such teachings as the Christian Trinity.

Moreover, the Quran warns against accepting only some prophets and books of Allah, and rejecting others:

"Then is it only a part of the Scripture that you believe in, and do you disbelieve in the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you except disgrace in worldly life; and on the Day of Resurrection they will be sent back to the severest torment. And Allah is not unaware of what you do." (Qur'an 2:85)

"Indeed, those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and wish to discriminate between Allah and His messengers and say, 'We believe in some and disbelieve in others,' and wish to adopt a way in between—" (Qur'an 4:150)

Historically, the Jewish religion has rejected John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and Muhammad as messengers from God, while Christianity rejects Muhammad as a true prophet/messenger. Furthermore, Jews do not accept the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ or the Quran, just as Christians reject the Quran as revelation. So how can people remain in these religions without violating the earlier Quranic statements? And how can God promise that such people have nothing to fear but will receive a reward from Him?

Furthermore, by rejecting some prophets and books, such people have become unbelievers (kuffar). The Quran emphatically says that Allah will not accept the good deeds of unbelievers:

"It is not for the polytheists to maintain the mosques of Allah while witnessing against themselves with disbelief. For such their deeds have become worthless, and in the Fire shall they abide." (Qur'an 9:17)

"[Their situation] is like those before you: they were mightier than you in power and more abundant in wealth and children. They had their share [of enjoyment] in their portion, so you have enjoyed your share as those before you enjoyed their share; and you have engaged in vanities as they engaged in vanities. It is those whose deeds have become worthless in this world and in the Hereafter, and it is they who are the losers." (Qur'an 9:69)

"They will say, 'Did there not come to you your messengers with clear proofs?' They will say, 'Yes.' They will reply, 'Then supplicate [yourselves], but the supplication of the disbelievers is nothing but in vain.'" (Qur'an 40:50)

Again, how can one remain a Jew or Christian and have their righteous deeds accepted while rejecting some of the prophets and scriptures which the Quran says must be fully embraced and believed?

All quotations taken from the Hilali-Khan translation of the Quran.

Shalom,

Dr. Maxwell Shimba for Max Shimba Ministries

THE PROSTRATION (“SIJIDA”) OF MUSLIMS AS THE MARK OF THE ANTICHRIST: A BIBLICAL FOREHEAD PROPHECY

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

THE SIJIDA (PROSTRATION) OF MUSLIMS AS THE MARK OF THE ANTICHRIST: EVIDENCE FROM BIBLICAL FOREHEAD PROPHECY

The act of prostration, or sijida, observed in Islamic worship, has been identified by some as a visible sign that may correspond to the biblical "mark of the beast," as referenced in the Book of Revelation. According to this perspective, the so-called "False Prophet"—a figure described in Christian eschatology—induces people to receive this mark upon their foreheads.

The principal biblical passage discussing the "mark of the beast" is found in Revelation 13:15-18, while supplementary references include Revelation 14:9, 14:11, 15:2, 16:2, 19:20, and 20:4. This mark operates as a seal upon the followers of the Antichrist and the False Prophet (the spokesman for the Antichrist). The False Prophet is the one who compels people to receive this mark—interpreted here as sijida—on their foreheads.

The mark of the beast, according to the book of Revelation, will be granted only to those who worship the Antichrist—here identified with Allah, the deity of Islam in this controversial perspective. In the eschatological end-times, this mark will serve as a credential or permit, without which no one may buy or sell (cf. the advent of Islamic banking systems). Only those who worship the Antichrist—that is, Muslims—will receive it.

Notably, the False Prophet is described as the one who compels the followers of Allah to take this mark. Importantly, this mark is placed on the forehead, not carried as a card or physical token. The pertinent question then arises: which prophet and which religion bear this mark of sijida?

Shalom,
Maxwell Shimba, servant of Jesus Christ

Scholarly and Theological Expansion

1. Biblical Forehead Prophecy: Scriptural Foundation

The Book of Revelation is replete with apocalyptic imagery and symbolism, none more contested or discussed than the “mark of the beast” (Greek: charagma tou thēriou). Revelation 13:16-17 reads:

"And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." (NKJV)

The mark, placed upon the forehead, functions as a visible identifier, denoting allegiance to the beast—a figure widely recognized in Christian eschatology as the Antichrist. Other passages reinforce this theme (see Revelation 14:9-11, 15:2, 16:2, 19:20, and 20:4). Theologically, the forehead symbolizes the mind, will, and open allegiance; it is the seat of identity and devotion (cf. Deuteronomy 6:8).

2. Historical and Comparative Religious Context

The practice of prostration in prayer (sijida) is integral to Islamic worship. During the salah, Muslims touch their foreheads to the ground, often resulting in a visible callous or mark (zabiba) on the forehead, regarded by some as a sign of devoutness.

In comparative religious studies, physical markers of religious allegiance—such as tefillin in Judaism or the sign of the cross in Christianity—function symbolically to demarcate the faithful. However, in Revelation, the mark is specifically tied to eschatological apostasy and false worship.

3. Theological Interpretation: The Mark as Eschatological Allegiance

Within Christian eschatology, particularly in dispensational and futurist readings, the mark on the forehead is not merely literal but spiritual—a public, visible, and embodied loyalty to the Antichrist. Scholarly debate abounds regarding the nature of this mark: is it a literal implant, a symbol, or a public religious act?

The identification of Islamic sijida with the biblical mark is a controversial interpretation advanced by some Christian polemicists. Proponents argue:

The act of touching the forehead to the ground in allegiance to a non-Christian deity constitutes the visible “mark” of rebellion against Christ.
The growing prominence of Islamic finance (Islamic banking), which aligns with religious law, prefigures the economic dimension of the prophecy—where commerce is contingent upon religious allegiance.

However, other scholars caution against conflating scriptural prophecy with contemporary religious practices, emphasizing the dangers of supersessionism and religious stereotyping (see Craig Koester, Revelation and the End of All Things, 2018).

4. Academic and Interfaith Dialogue: Spectrum of Views

In academic discourse, interpretations of Revelation range widely:

Evangelical and Dispensationalist writers often literalize the mark, viewing it as a future physical or technological identifier (e.g., RFID chips).
Historico-critical scholars, such as Elaine Pagels, interpret the mark symbolically as participation in the imperial cult or societal conformity (Pagels, Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation, 2012).
Islamic scholarship rejects all connections between Islamic practice and Antichrist prophecy, emphasizing the monotheistic continuity of Islam with Abrahamic faiths (see Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization, 2003).

5. Conclusion: The Forehead Mark—A Prophetic Warning

While the direct identification of Muslim sijida as the "mark of the beast" remains controversial and debated, the symbolism of the forehead in biblical prophecy remains clear: it is the locus of public allegiance, identity, and worship. Christians are warned to guard their minds and allegiance, resisting false prophets and counterfeit worship (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).

References & Footnotes

Koester, Craig R. Revelation and the End of All Things. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018.
Pagels, Elaine. Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation. New York: Viking, 2012.
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2003.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version (NKJV).

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

The Covenants of Scripture: Abrahamic, Davidic, Mosaic, and New—A Theological and Academic Examination

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The concept of “covenant” is foundational to biblical theology, shaping the entire narrative of God’s redemptive work. From Genesis to Revelation, the divine covenants serve as the backbone for understanding Israel’s election, the coming of the Messiah, and the ultimate purpose of salvation history. The four central covenants—Abrahamic, Davidic, Mosaic, and New—are unique, interrelated, and, importantly, culminate in the New Testament, which Christians recognize as the final and ultimate testament of God. This article will examine each covenant’s theological basis, biblical witness, and implications for Christian doctrine. Furthermore, this article will engage with Islamic claims, demonstrating that the Quran is neither God’s testament nor a fulfillment of any prior biblical covenant, and that Islam is never mentioned within the biblical covenantal framework.

1. The Abrahamic Covenant

Nature and Foundation

The Abrahamic Covenant is the foundational, unconditional promise God made to Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 12:1–3; 15:18–21). This covenant is marked by God’s unilateral commitment: God alone passes between the divided pieces in Genesis 15:17, signifying the irrevocability of His promises.
Key elements include the promise of land, a great nation, and a universal blessing—fulfilled in the people of Israel and ultimately through the Messiah (cf. Galatians 3:8).

Theological Implications

The Abrahamic Covenant forms the basis for Israel’s ongoing election:

“As regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:28–29, ESV).

It is reaffirmed to Isaac (Genesis 26:3) and Jacob (Genesis 28:13), underlining its perpetual nature. The New Testament sees Christ as the Seed (Galatians 3:16) through whom the blessings to all nations are realized.

2. The Davidic Covenant

Nature and Foundation

The Davidic Covenant, likewise unconditional, centers on God’s promise to David of an everlasting dynasty, throne, and kingdom (2 Samuel 7:12–16). This covenant is forward-looking, pointing to a Messianic King from David’s line whose reign is eternal (Isaiah 9:7; Luke 1:32–33).

Theological Implications

The Davidic Covenant establishes the legitimacy of Jesus Christ as the promised King:

“The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign… and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:32–33).

It also grounds eschatological hope: the Messiah will one day rule from Zion (Psalm 2:6; Revelation 20:4–6).

3. The Mosaic Covenant

Nature and Foundation

Distinct from the previous covenants, the Mosaic Covenant is conditional, established at Sinai and mediated through Moses (Exodus 19–24). Its central tenet is the principle of blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (Deuteronomy 28). Its temporality is highlighted by Paul:

“Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come…” (Galatians 3:19).

Theological Implications

The Mosaic Covenant exposes sin and points to humanity’s need for grace (Galatians 3:24). Crucially, it does not annul or replace the Abrahamic promise (Galatians 3:17). Rather, it functions as a “guardian” until the coming of Christ.

4. The New Covenant

Nature and Foundation

The New Covenant, prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31–34 and Ezekiel 36:26–28, is unconditional and inaugurated by the death and resurrection of Jesus (Luke 22:20). Its distinctive blessings include a new heart, the indwelling Spirit, and complete forgiveness of sins. The New Testament identifies Jesus as its mediator (Hebrews 8:6–13).

Theological Implications

The New Covenant fulfills and supersedes all prior covenants. It is already transforming lives (2 Corinthians 3:6), but awaits national fulfillment in Israel’s restoration (Romans 11:25–27). The New Testament—literally, “New Covenant”—is the final, ultimate testament from God to humanity (Hebrews 9:15–17). No further covenant or testament is anticipated or recognized in Christian faith.

5. The Finality of the New Testament and the Quranic Challenge

The New Testament: God’s Last Testament

Jesus’ declaration, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20), marks the inauguration of the final testament. The Greek word diathēkē (διαθήκη) is best translated as both “covenant” and “testament,” and is used consistently for God’s binding commitments throughout Scripture. The Book of Hebrews repeatedly stresses the superiority and finality of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:13; 10:9).

“He sets aside the first to establish the second” (Hebrews 10:9).

The canon of Christian Scripture is closed with the New Testament; no later “revelation” can be considered a continuation or fulfillment of God’s covenantal work.

The Quran and Islam: Outside the Biblical Covenantal Framework

The Quran, written in the 7th century CE, never presents itself as a covenant in the biblical sense. Islam does not continue or fulfill any prior biblical covenant. Rather, it introduces a radically different theological system, detached from the structure and promises of Abrahamic, Davidic, Mosaic, or New Covenants.

Nowhere does the Quran claim that Islam is a fulfillment or continuation of the Abrahamic, Davidic, Mosaic, or New Covenants. In fact, the Quran misinterprets and alters the narratives of these covenants (cf. Surah 2:124–141), yet never claims to be a testament in the biblical sense, nor does it provide any ceremony of ratification as seen in Genesis 15 or Exodus 24.

Modern Islamic apologetics often retroject Islam into the story of Abraham, yet the Bible nowhere speaks of a future prophet or testament after the Messiah. The New Testament affirms its own finality:

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8).

Islam’s claim to covenantal continuity is, therefore, theologically and historically unfounded. The Bible’s covenants are unique, historically grounded, and find their telos—end and fulfillment—in Christ.

Conclusion

The Abrahamic, Davidic, Mosaic, and New Covenants form the divinely revealed progression of God’s redemptive plan. Each covenant, though unique, points forward to and is fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah, the mediator of the New and everlasting Covenant. The New Testament stands as God’s last, authoritative testament. The Quran, emerging centuries later, is not a divine testament, does not constitute a covenant, and is nowhere mentioned or anticipated by biblical revelation. Thus, Islam stands outside the covenantal history that unites the Old and New Testaments. True hope, blessing, and forgiveness are found in the covenants of Scripture, consummated in the Lord Jesus Christ.

References

Waltke, Bruce K. An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.
Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.
Schreiner, Thomas R. The King in His Beauty: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
Wright, N.T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013.
The Holy Bible: ESV, NASB, NIV, and KJV versions used for scriptural references.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

JESUS IS JEHOVAH: A Comparative Academic and Theological Analysis

Introduction

The identification of Jesus as Jehovah (Yahweh)—the God of Israel—stands at the heart of historic Christian belief. However, this claim is highly contested and interpreted differently within Islamic, Jewish, and secular scholarship. An academically robust discussion must not only examine the internal logic and scriptural claims of Christianity, but also fairly engage the perspectives and arguments of other traditions and critical scholars. This chapter presents a multi-angled exploration, outlining the Christian position while interacting with major objections and interpretations from other worldviews.

1. Old Testament Prophecies: Messianic Expectations in Dialogue

1.1 Christian Perspective

Christians point to Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6, and Micah 5:2 as prophecies foretelling the incarnation of God. As shown previously, the titles “Immanuel” (“God with us”), “Mighty God,” and “from everlasting” are taken as clear pointers to the divine nature of the coming Messiah.

1.2 Jewish Scholarship

Jewish exegesis, both ancient and modern, interprets these prophecies differently:

Isaiah 7:14: Most Jewish interpreters argue that the prophecy referred to a contemporary event in Isaiah’s time, with “Immanuel” likely being a child born as a sign to King Ahaz, rather than a distant messianic figure. The Hebrew word almah is understood as “young woman,” not necessarily “virgin.”1
Isaiah 9:6: While Christians see this as a messianic and divine prophecy, Jewish commentators like Rashi and Ibn Ezra have argued that the “child” refers to Hezekiah or another historical king, and that the grand titles are either royal hyperbole or ascriptions to God, not the child himself.2
Micah 5:2: Some rabbinic texts do associate this passage with the Messiah but stress that “from of old” (mi-yemai olam) refers to ancient Davidic lineage or God’s foreknowledge, not the Messiah’s pre-existence as God.3

1.3 Islamic Perspective

Islamic theology does not accept any claim that God would incarnate or become human. Muslims revere Jesus (Isa) as a great prophet and Messiah, born miraculously of Mary (Qur’an 3:45–47), but strictly reject his divinity (Qur’an 5:72–73). Muslim apologists often argue that the Old Testament prophecies are misread by Christians, and that Jesus himself never claimed to be God in a manner consistent with later Trinitarian dogma.

The Qur’an (4:171) explicitly instructs:
“Say not ‘Three’: desist—it will be better for you; for Allah is One God…”

Muslim exegetes often claim that the “Immanuel” prophecy points only to a sign of God’s nearness or support, not incarnation, and that Jesus’ miracles demonstrate prophetic authority, not divinity.

1.4 Secular and Critical Scholarship

Secular biblical scholars, employing historical-critical methods, often argue:

Many Old Testament passages cited as messianic prophecies are better understood in their original historical contexts, not as predictions of Jesus specifically.
The Christian reading is often seen as a case of “pesher” or typological exegesis, where early Christians reinterpreted Hebrew texts in light of their experiences of Jesus.4
Some scholars argue that ideas of a divine or semi-divine Messiah were not widespread in Second Temple Judaism, though recent studies (e.g., Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham) have shown that early Jewish Christians very early attributed divine status to Jesus in ways that require serious historical explanation.5

2. New Testament Declarations: Competing Interpretations

2.1 Christian Position

Christian doctrine, as previously outlined, affirms that the New Testament writers—especially John and Paul—directly identify Jesus as God (Theos) and the pre-existent Logos through whom all things were made (John 1:1–14; Colossians 1:15–20; Hebrews 1:1–4).

2.2 Jewish Objections

Judaism maintains strict monotheism (the Shema: Deut. 6:4). Jewish polemic from the second century onward rejected any notion that a human could be worshipped as God. The Talmudic tradition often portrays Jesus as a controversial figure, but never as divine, and argues that worship of Jesus is a violation of the first commandment.6

2.3 Islamic Objections

Islamic apologetics claim:

The New Testament never records Jesus directly saying, “I am God, worship me.”
The “Son of God” language is understood metaphorically or as a title for pious people, not as ontological equality with God. Qur’an 9:30–31 denounces any belief in divine sonship for Jesus.

Muslim scholars like Shabir Ally or Zakir Naik highlight the “subordination” statements in the Gospels (e.g., John 14:28: “the Father is greater than I”) as evidence against Jesus’ divinity.

2.4 Secular/Critical Analysis

Bart Ehrman and other secular historians argue that the divinity of Jesus is a development within the early church, not necessarily Jesus’ own claim. Ehrman suggests the earliest Christian writings (such as Mark’s Gospel) portray Jesus as a divinely appointed human, while later texts (such as John’s Gospel) present a higher Christology.7
Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham, as noted, challenge this, showing that worship of Jesus as divine began remarkably early among Jewish monotheists, suggesting the roots of this belief are not merely later mythologization but foundational to Christian identity.8

3. Jesus’ Divine Claims: Theological and Interfaith Debates

3.1 “I Am” Sayings

Christian: Jesus’ use of “I AM” (Greek: ego eimi) in John 8:58 is understood as a direct claim to divinity, referencing the divine name in Exodus 3:14.
Jewish: Contemporary Jewish readers and some scholars view this as a claim to special authority or pre-existence in God’s plan, but not as a direct assertion of being YHWH.9
Muslim: Muslims argue that “I am” could mean “I have been” (i.e., predestination), or refer to Jesus’ status as Messiah, not to divinity.

3.2 Worship and Forgiveness

Christian: Jesus accepts worship (Matthew 14:33), forgives sins (Mark 2:5–11), and claims all authority (Matthew 28:18)—all actions reserved for God.
Jewish and Muslim: Both traditions consider these stories as later Christian embellishments or misunderstandings, insisting that true monotheism prohibits the worship of any but God. Jewish tradition highlights that no Jewish prophet ever accepted worship, and Islam notes that Jesus always points away from himself to God in heaven (see Mark 10:18, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.”).

3.3 The Father’s Testimony

Christian: Hebrews 1:8, where the Father calls the Son “God,” is seen as explicit and definitive.
Jewish: Hebrew poetry can attribute divine characteristics to kings as God’s agents (cf. Psalm 45:6–7), but always within the strict bounds of monotheism.10
Muslim: Qur’anic teaching insists that any such attribution is either metaphorical or a textual corruption.

4. Secular, Historical, and Interfaith Dialogue

4.1 Historical Development

Secular historians recognize that the identification of Jesus as God is the most remarkable and distinctive aspect of early Christianity. The rapid emergence of “binitarian” or “incipient Trinitarian” devotion among Jewish Christians is unique among world religions and demands explanation.11 Secular scholars debate whether this was based on genuine experiences of Jesus (e.g., resurrection appearances) or was an adaptation of Hellenistic religious ideas.

4.2 Interfaith Dialogue

Christian theologians like N.T. Wright argue that the New Testament redefines Jewish monotheism around Jesus, rather than breaking from it.12
Jewish-Christian dialogue today explores Jesus as a historical Jew and attempts to reclaim him for Jewish thought while still rejecting divine status.
Islamic-Christian dialogue stresses the unity and transcendence of God (tawhid) and invites Christians to monotheism as defined by the Qur’an, while many Christians seek to clarify the Trinitarian doctrine as consistent with monotheism (not tritheism).

Conclusion

The question of whether Jesus is Jehovah is not only central to Christian theology but is also a defining point of difference between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The Christian case draws on a rich tapestry of prophecy, apostolic testimony, and theological reflection, asserting that the fullness of God is revealed in Christ. Jewish and Islamic scholarship, as well as secular critical scholarship, challenge these readings on exegetical, theological, and historical grounds.

For the serious seeker, the issue invites further study, honest engagement with sources, and respect for the mystery at the heart of the world’s great monotheistic traditions.

Footnotes

Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), on Isaiah 7:14.
Rashi and Ibn Ezra, commentaries on Isaiah 9:6, in The Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (Philadelphia: JPS, 1985).
Michael Fishbane, The JPS Bible Commentary: Haftarot (Philadelphia: JPS, 2002), on Micah 5:2.
Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973), 37–51; James Kugel, How to Read the Bible (New York: Free Press, 2007), 669–710.
Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 133–193; Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 1–51.
Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (New York: New Press, 2012), 102–115.
Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: HarperOne, 2014), 69–135.
Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 205–301; Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 69–113.
Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 105–116.
Robert Alter, The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W.W. Norton, 2007), 156–157, on Psalm 45:6–7.
Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 39–51.
N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 650–672.

Does the Qur’an Command the Worship of Jesus?

A Linguistic and Contextual Analysis of Surah At-Tawbah 9:31

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The relationship between Jesus (the Messiah, son of Mary) and Allah in Islamic scripture remains a central point of debate in interfaith dialogue. While the mainstream Muslim position is clear that Jesus is regarded as a prophet and not divine, a close and literal reading of Surah At-Tawbah 9:31 introduces compelling questions. In this article, we will analyze whether the Qur’an, by its very grammar and structure, actually places Jesus alongside Allah as one who is to be worshiped.

The Verse in Question

Surah At-Tawbah 9:31 reads:

“They take their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from Allah, and also the Messiah, son of Mary, whereas they were commanded to worship none but the One True God.” (9:31)

A critical point is the phrase: “apart from Allah, and also the Messiah, son of Mary.”

The Power of Conjunction: The Meaning of "And"

The word “and” (Arabic: wa) is universally recognized as a conjunction that connects equal entities, persons, or objects. In this context, the conjunction grammatically unites Allah and the Messiah, son of Mary. The verse thus lists both Allah and the Messiah as those distinct from rabbis and monks, suggesting they share a unique status as “lords.”

If the intent of the verse was merely to condemn the worship of any being except Allah, it would have sufficed to mention Allah alone. Instead, the addition of “and the Messiah, son of Mary” implies that the Messiah, too, is not to be placed in the category of created beings wrongly taken as lords, but rather is set apart with Allah as a legitimate object of worship.

Reading the Verse Literally

A plain, literal reading yields:

They (Jews and Christians) take their religious leaders as lords apart from Allah and also the Messiah.
This means: Rabbis and monks are wrongly elevated, but Allah and the Messiah are not among those false lords; they are the exception.
Therefore, the text suggests that the only true Lords—those to be worshiped—are Allah and the Messiah.

This interpretation is reinforced by the wording: “whereas they were commanded to worship none but the One True God.” The reference to “the One True God” immediately after mentioning both Allah and the Messiah opens the possibility that, in this context, both are subsumed under this divine identity.

Implications for Christian-Muslim Dialogue

For Christians, this reading resonates powerfully with the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus, the Messiah. The verse, by grammatical necessity, identifies both Allah and the Messiah as those who should be recognized as lords, in contrast to the false lordship attributed to rabbis and monks.

For Muslims, such an interpretation presents a challenge to the classical doctrine of tawhid (absolute monotheism), yet it arises directly from the conjunction “and” and the logical structure of the verse. The literal sense does not support the exclusion of Jesus from divinity but, in fact, does the opposite.

Counterpoints and Response

It is true that most Islamic commentators, both classical and modern, have interpreted this verse as a condemnation of Christians who wrongly worship Jesus, rather than as an endorsement. However, such interpretations may be influenced by pre-existing theological commitments, rather than a strict adherence to the grammatical and logical flow of the text itself. A fresh, unbiased reading demands that we allow the verse to speak for itself: Allah and the Messiah are both set apart as legitimate Lords to be worshipped.

Conclusion

A careful and honest reading of Surah At-Tawbah 9:31, considering the power of the conjunction “and,” shows that the verse elevates both Allah and the Messiah, son of Mary, above all other lords, and implicitly commands their worship. The text, therefore, provides scriptural evidence within the Qur’an itself that Jesus is to be worshiped as Lord, alongside Allah. This reading has profound implications for Christian-Muslim dialogue and invites renewed reflection on the identity of the Messiah in Islamic theology.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

References

The Qur’an, Surah At-Tawbah 9:31
Basic Arabic Grammar
Discussions on conjunctions and logical structure in Semitic languages

Where Does the Quran Say Allah Gave the Torah Directly to Moses?

A Theological and Textual Challenge to Islamic Claims

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

Among the persistent demands of Muslim apologists in interfaith dialogues is the challenge to Christians to produce a verbatim statement from Jesus in the Bible: "I am God; worship Me." This demand for explicit wording is often used to undermine the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, despite the abundance of scriptural testimony to Jesus' divine nature through explicit and implicit statements, titles, and actions.

Curiously, this same criterion, when turned toward the foundations of Islamic claims regarding the Torah (Tawrat), exposes a significant textual and theological gap. Muslims universally affirm that Allah revealed the Torah directly to Moses, yet upon close inspection, the Qur’an does not contain a single verse where Allah directly and explicitly says to Moses, "I gave you the Torah." Instead, the relevant verses are indirect or constructed through conjunctions and narrative summary, not through direct divine address.

This article, therefore, poses a critical question to Muslim theologians and apologists: Where in the Qur’an does Allah, in His own words, say to Moses, "I gave you the Torah"? If such explicitness is the standard for Christian claims, let it be applied fairly and equally to the Islamic claim regarding the Torah and Moses.

1. Qur’anic Passages Commonly Cited

Surah 5:44

“Indeed, We revealed the Torah, in which was guidance and light...”
(Qur’an 5:44)

This verse is clear that Allah claims to have revealed the Torah, but it is entirely silent about the recipient. There is no direct reference to Moses in this verse, nor does Allah say, "O Moses, I have given you the Torah." It is a general statement about the Torah, not its transmission.

Surah 32:23

“And We certainly gave Moses the Scripture, so do not be in doubt over his meeting. And We made it [i.e., the Torah] guidance for the Children of Israel.”
(Qur’an 32:23)

Here, Allah says He gave “the Scripture” (al-kitab) to Moses. However, the Arabic does not specify “the Torah” in this clause; rather, it uses the generic word “scripture” and then, in a separate sentence, states that the Torah was made a guidance for the Children of Israel. The structure is conjunctive, not directly attributive. The Torah is not directly named as that which was given to Moses in the same breath.

Surah 7:144–145

“[Allah] said, ‘O Moses, I have chosen you over the people with My messages and My words to you...’ And We wrote for him on the tablets something of all things...”
(Qur’an 7:144–145)

Again, there is reference to “tablets” and “messages,” but the term "Torah" does not occur here, nor is there an explicit divine declaration: "I have given you the Torah."

Surah 6:154

“Then We gave Moses the Scripture, making complete [Our favor] upon the one who did good and as a detailed explanation of all things...”
(Qur’an 6:154)

As in 32:23, the text speaks of “the Scripture” (al-kitab), but not “the Torah” (al-Tawrat). The connection between "the Scripture" and "the Torah" is made by tradition, not by the explicit words of the Qur’an itself.

2. The Polemic of Explicitness: Applying the Muslim Standard

Muslim polemics demand that Christians provide a direct, first-person quotation from Jesus saying, “I am God,” for the claim of His divinity to be valid. This standard is rigid and rarely applied consistently to Islamic doctrines. If we apply the same standard, we must ask:
Where does Allah say, in His own words, "O Moses, I gave you the Torah"?
Or, at the very least:
Where does the Qur’an record a conversation where Allah says to Moses, "I am giving you the Torah"?

Despite repeated references to "scripture" (al-kitab), "tablets," and "guidance," the Qur’an never contains the verbatim phrase: "O Moses, I gave you the Torah." Instead, Muslim belief that Moses received the Torah is inferred through exegesis, secondary hadith sources, and traditional interpretations, rather than on the basis of explicit Qur’anic language.

3. Theological and Hermeneutical Implications

The absence of an explicit, direct statement from Allah to Moses regarding the Torah challenges the consistency of Muslim polemics. If Muslim doctrine rests upon inference, analogy, and interpretive tradition to assert that Moses received the Torah, then, by the same hermeneutical allowance, Christians are justified in affirming the divinity of Jesus through explicit and implicit biblical testimony, even where the exact phrase “I am God” is absent.

Furthermore, the persistent demand for verbatim statements from Christian scripture is revealed to be arbitrary, selective, and ultimately self-refuting when the foundational claims of Islam itself cannot meet this bar.

4. Conclusion: A Call for Consistency

Until and unless Muslim scholars can produce a verse from the Qur’an in which Allah, addressing Moses, says, "I gave you the Torah," the Islamic claim that Moses received the Torah directly from Allah must be recognized as an inference rather than an explicit, verbatim divine statement. Consistency demands that either both traditions be allowed the interpretive space to affirm their beliefs, or both be rejected on the basis of the absence of explicit wording.

Let those who demand, "Where did Jesus say, 'I am God'?" also be willing to answer,
"Where did Allah say to Moses, 'I gave you the Torah'?"
until then, the standard remains one of double measure.

References

Qur’an 5:44, 32:23, 6:154, 7:144–145 (Sahih International and Yusuf Ali translations)
Abdul Rahman Squires, “The Torah in the Qur’an,” Muslim Apologetics
Gerald R. Hawting, The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam (Cambridge: CUP, 1999)
John Wansbrough, Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation (Oxford: OUP, 1977)

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

ISLAM IS A MAN-MADE RELIGION AND DID NOT EXIST BEFORE MUHAMMAD

A Critical Theological and Historical Analysis

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The claim that Islam predates Muhammad and has been the original faith since Adam is central to Islamic theology. Islamic orthodoxy posits a universalist view: all prophets were Muslims, all past revelations are part of the continuum of Islam, and thus, Islam is as old as humanity itself.¹ Yet, this claim merits rigorous examination against the backdrop of ancient textual evidence, religious self-identification, and historical consciousness.

This paper critically examines whether Islam, as a religious identity and doctrinal system, existed before Muhammad. Special emphasis is placed on primary sources, historical method, and direct engagement with major Islamic apologetic arguments.

The Islamic Universalist Claim

The Core Assertion

Muslim theologians assert that "Islam" is not limited to the system established by Muhammad, but is instead the primordial faith of all genuine prophets and their followers.² The Quran itself declares:

"Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam."
(Quran 3:19)

And regarding Abraham:

"He was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but a true Muslim (hanifan musliman), and was not of the polytheists."
(Quran 3:67)

Based on such verses, Muslims believe that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus all preached "Islam" and were "Muslims."³

Apologetic Argument

Islamic apologetics often claims:

The message of submission (Islam) is universal and found in earlier revelations.
Practices such as ritual purity, prostration, and fasting are evidence of continuity between Islam and previous faiths.
The Torah and Gospel were originally Islamic, though later corrupted.

Methodological Framework

Criteria for Analysis

Primary Sources: Only documents demonstrably written before Muhammad (i.e., before the 7th century CE) will be considered.
Terminological Evidence: Explicit use of "Islam" (الإسلام) or "Muslim" (مسلم) as religious identity.
Doctrinal Substance: Beyond practices, doctrinal and theological content must reflect Islam as later defined.

1. Textual Silence on "Islam" and "Muslim" Prior to Muhammad

A. Hebrew Bible / Old Testament

Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible do we find the term "Islam" or "Muslim." Abraham is called the "friend of God" (Isaiah 41:8), a recipient of the covenant (Genesis 17), and the progenitor of Israel—not a "Muslim." The central theme is covenant, not submission.⁴ Even in post-exilic literature (e.g., Daniel, Ezra), the concept of "Islam" as later articulated is absent.

B. New Testament

Jesus and his followers never identify as "Muslims" or claim to follow a religion called "Islam." Early Christians referred to themselves as members of "the Way" (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23), and later as "Christians" (Acts 11:26). Paul explicitly refers to himself as a "servant of Christ Jesus" (Romans 1:1), not as a "Muslim."⁵

C. Second Temple and Greco-Roman Literature

No usage of "Islam" or "Muslim" is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo of Alexandria, Josephus, or any pre-Islamic Arabian inscriptions.⁶ Jewish and Christian sects of the period—Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Nazarenes, Ebionites—had well-defined self-identities, none of which included the terms or concepts later associated with Islam.

2. The Argument from Shared Practices

Islamic apologetics often points to shared ritual practices—ablution, prostration, fasting—as evidence of pre-Islamic Islam. However, this argument is fundamentally flawed:

Ablution: Ritual washing is central to Levitical law (see Leviticus 15), as well as to ancient Egyptian and Zoroastrian practice.⁷ It does not define a religious identity.
Prostration: Prostration is an ancient gesture of worship seen in Daniel 6:10 (Jewish), Matthew 26:39 (Christian), and in Hindu and Buddhist traditions.
Fasting: Fasting predates Islam by centuries and is prominent in Judaism (Leviticus 16:29-31; Esther 4:16) and Christianity (Matthew 6:16-18).

These practices are not unique to Islam, nor do they imply Islamic self-identity. Religious universals cannot serve as evidence for a specific faith.

3. Doctrinal and Theological Distinctions

A. Judaism

The center of Jewish theology is covenant (ברית, berit) and Torah obedience, not universal submission.⁸ God is known as Yahweh, not Allah; the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) is the core confession, not the Shahada.

B. Christianity

Christian faith revolves around the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the new covenant (Luke 22:20). Early Christians confessed "Jesus is Lord" (Romans 10:9), not "there is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah."

C. Islam

Islam, as established by Muhammad, is defined by the Five Pillars, the Quran, and the Sunnah. The doctrine of tawhid (absolute monotheism) and the prophethood of Muhammad are non-negotiable tenets unknown to previous revelations.⁹

4. Historical and Archaeological Evidence

No archaeological inscription, manuscript, or papyrus prior to the 7th century contains reference to "Islam" as a religious system or to its followers as "Muslims."¹⁰

Pre-Islamic Arabia: Inscriptions reference gods like Hubal, Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat—not Allah in a monotheistic Islamic sense.¹¹
Christian and Jewish Writings: Non-Islamic sources do not recognize Islam or Muslims prior to Muhammad.

5. Islamic Apologetics: Critical Engagement

A. Retrojection and Reinterpretation

Islamic polemics often retroject later concepts into ancient texts. For instance, calling Abraham a "Muslim" or claiming "Islam" means generic submission. However, historical-critical scholarship rejects such anachronisms, as self-identity in ancient texts is contextually bound.¹²

B. Alleged Corruption of Previous Scriptures

Muslim apologists assert that Jews and Christians corrupted their scriptures, hence the absence of explicit references to Islam.¹³ However, textual criticism and manuscript evidence (Dead Sea Scrolls, Codex Sinaiticus, etc.) demonstrate remarkable fidelity in the transmission of biblical texts long before the advent of Islam.¹⁴ There is no textual gap where "Islam" was erased or altered.

C. "Hanif" and Primordial Monotheism

The term hanif in the Quran refers to pre-Islamic monotheists, often linked to Abraham. Yet, outside the Quran, there is no evidence that such a community called itself "Muslim" or that their faith matched Islam doctrinally or ritually.¹⁵

6. Summary Table: Key Figures and Self-Identity

Figure	Self-Designation	Faith/Practice	Pre-Islamic Source
Adam	Man, created being	Covenant, not "Islam"	Genesis 1–5
Abraham	Hebrew, Friend of God	Covenant, circumcision	Genesis 12–25
Moses	Prophet of Yahweh	Torah obedience	Exodus–Deuteronomy
David	King, Psalmist	Covenant, worship of Yahweh	Samuel, Psalms
Jesus	Messiah, Son of God	Gospel, love, new covenant	Gospels, Paul

None referred to their faith as "Islam" or themselves as "Muslim" by any credible pre-Islamic text.

Conclusion

The proposition that Islam, as a religious identity, existed prior to Muhammad is not supported by historical, textual, or archaeological evidence. All available sources point to Islam as a distinct, post-7th-century religious phenomenon.

No use of the term "Islam" or "Muslim" in any pre-Islamic scripture.
Shared rituals are universal, not uniquely Islamic.
Doctrinal substance of pre-Muhammad faiths is distinct from later Islamic teaching.

It is, therefore, both academically and theologically sound to affirm that Islam is a man-made religion that began with Muhammad, not a timeless faith existing since Adam.
To argue otherwise is to engage in retrospective reinterpretation, unsupported by the historical record.

References and Footnotes

For Max Shimba Ministries Org
September 02, 2016
Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

If you wish to include an annotated bibliography or interact further with Islamic polemical responses (for example, in dialogue form or debate context), let me know!

See: Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization (HarperOne, 2003), pp. 17–19. ↩
W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman (Oxford University Press, 1961), p. 23. ↩
The Quran, 3:19; 3:67; 5:44–48. ↩
Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation Commentary (JPS, 1989), pp. 86–88. ↩
Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 256–258. ↩
Philip R. Davies, Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures (Westminster John Knox, 1998), pp. 77–80. ↩
Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (Routledge, 1966), pp. 41–45. ↩
Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 220–224. ↩
John L. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path (Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 21–23. ↩
Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 202–206. ↩
F.E. Peters, The Children of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity, Islam (Princeton University Press, 2004), p. 173. ↩
Richard E. Rubenstein, Aristotle's Children (Harvest Books, 2004), pp. 109–110. ↩
Yusuf al-Qaradawi, An Introduction to Islam (Islamic Inc., 1997), pp. 78–80. ↩
Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 41–44. ↩
Angelika Neuwirth, The Qur'an and Late Antiquity (Oxford University Press, 2019), p. 45. ↩