Thursday, July 10, 2025

The Qur'anic Cosmology of Stars as Weapons Against Demons

Title:

The Qur'anic Cosmology of Stars as Weapons Against Demons: A Theological and Scientific Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba | Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

On Thursday, November 25, 2021, I encountered a striking and troubling doctrinal claim within Islamic scripture — a claim that exposes a profound theological and scientific incongruity in the Qur'an’s cosmology. According to several verses in the Qur'an, stars were created by Allah not only for adornment in the sky but also as missiles to hurl at demons (jinn or shayatin) who attempt to eavesdrop on the heavenly assembly. This assertion raises serious questions about the Qur'an’s compatibility with both established scientific knowledge and sound theological reasoning.

This article seeks to translate, examine, and expand upon these Qur'anic claims, highlighting their inconsistencies and providing a critical Christian theological response.

Qur'anic Verses on Stars as Missiles

Surah 67:5 (Al-Mulk)

"And We have certainly beautified the nearest heaven with lamps and have made them (as missiles) to drive away the devils and have prepared for them the punishment of the Blaze."

Surah 37:6–8 (As-Saffat)

"Indeed, We have adorned the nearest heaven with an adornment of stars, and as protection against every rebellious devil, so they may not listen to the exalted assembly (of angels) and are pelted from every side."

Additional references can be found in:
Surah 15:16–18, Surah 55:33–35, among others.

Theological and Scientific Implications

The Qur'anic claim suggests that stars function as physical weapons used by Allah to strike demons attempting to access the heavens. In this worldview:

Stars serve not merely as astronomical bodies but as divine artillery.
The purpose of these celestial objects includes both cosmic decoration and metaphysical warfare.

However, this notion collapses under both theological scrutiny and modern scientific understanding.

Scientific Incompatibility

From a scientific standpoint:

Stars are massive luminous spheres of plasma held together by gravity, undergoing nuclear fusion reactions in their cores.
The nearest star to Earth, the Sun, is approximately 93 million miles (150 million kilometers) away.
To suggest that stars could be thrown or used as missiles is categorically absurd by any standard of astrophysics. The laws of thermodynamics, gravitational theory, and astronomical observation uniformly contradict this assertion.
Moreover, if even a small celestial body like an asteroid could devastate a planet, the concept of weaponizing entire stars is ludicrously unfeasible.

This presents a significant problem for the Qur'an’s claim to divine origin since a true Creator would possess and communicate accurate knowledge of the universe He created.

Theological Inconsistency

From a Christian theological perspective:

God is omniscient, omnipotent, and sovereign over both the natural and spiritual realms (Job 38:4-7; Psalm 8:3-4; Colossians 1:16-17).
Nowhere in the Bible are stars depicted as literal missiles used against spiritual beings.
Scripture presents the stars as signs, for seasons, and as declarations of God's glory (Genesis 1:14-18; Psalm 19:1).
In fact, the Bible consistently differentiates between the material and the spiritual realms, and while angels and demons interact with the physical world (Job 1-2; Luke 8:30-33), such interactions are not through physical projectiles hurled from astronomical bodies.

The Qur'an's cosmology reflects an ancient, pre-scientific, mythological worldview akin to pre-Islamic Arab folklore, where celestial phenomena were attributed to deities and metaphysical conflicts.

Spiritual Error and Pagan Continuity

This doctrine also mirrors animistic and polytheistic traditions, where heavenly bodies were believed to possess personalities or be active participants in spiritual warfare. The Qur'an, while claiming monotheism, here retains elements of mythic cosmology inconsistent with true monotheism.

In Christian doctrine:

Spiritual battles occur in the unseen realms (Ephesians 6:12).
God's sovereignty is exercised through His Word, His angels, and His Spirit — not through throwing physical stars.

Thus, the Qur'anic depiction not only lacks theological coherence but undermines Islam's claim of preserving the pure monotheism of Abrahamic faith.

Conclusion

The claim that Allah uses stars as missiles against demons is both scientifically untenable and theologically flawed. It reveals a primitive cosmological understanding embedded within the Qur'an that fails both modern scientific scrutiny and Biblical theology.

As Christian theologians and apologists, it is imperative to critically engage these claims and present the rational, coherent, and biblically grounded worldview of the living God — the Creator of heaven and earth, whose creation declares His glory and whose sovereignty extends over both the seen and unseen realms without resorting to mythical cosmologies.

Shalom.
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

THE QURAN SAYS MUSLIMS BEAR THE BURDEN OF SIN

Wednesday, April 13, 2016
THE QURAN SAYS MUSLIMS BEAR THE BURDEN OF SIN

THEIR BURDEN OF SIN IS EXTREMELY HEAVY – “QURAN 16:25”
SATAN CONFESSES THAT HE IS THE ONE WHO PLACED ISLAM IN ITS PATH

Dear reader,

Muslims often claim that no one can carry the burden of another person’s sin. However, that claim is contradicted by several verses in the Quran.

“When we heard the guidance, we believed in it; and whoever believes in his Lord will not fear any loss or being burdened with the sins (of another).” (Quran 72:13)

The Quran says that one who believes in the Almighty God should not fear being burdened with the sins of another.

But, are there people who can bear the sins of others?
Read Quran Surah An-Nahl (16), verse 25:
“There are those who mislead others so that they will bear the burdens of those they misled on the Day of Judgment, and also carry their own burdens. Surely, evil is the load they carry!”

Allah, through the Quran, tells all Muslims that this burden of sin they carry is extremely evil and they have been misled to bear it until the Day of Judgment.

NOW, if carrying sin on the Day of Judgment is extremely evil, where can we offload that burden?

READ Psalm 55:22
“Cast your burden on the LORD, and He shall sustain you; He shall never permit the righteous to be moved.”

THE BIBLE RESPONDS TO MUSLIMS, telling them to cast their burden on the LORD. That’s why all Christians have realized this truth.
CONTINUE READING John 13:13
“You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am.”

Jesus says, "You call me Teacher and Lord, and you say well."
Now continue reading:

Jeremiah 10:10
“But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth will tremble, and the nations shall not be able to endure His indignation.”

Jeremiah 10:10 responds to Muslims that this LORD is the true God.

Now Muslims wonder how Jesus can be God and still die on the cross. Let us continue:

Quran 55:29
“All that are in the heavens and the earth ask of Him. Every day He is (engaged) in some affair.”

The Quran itself responds clearly that everything in heaven and on earth asks from Him.
Dear Muslim, are you still wondering?

Now look at what happened and what was fulfilled on the cross:

READ 1 Peter 3:18–19
“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison.”

The Word of God says His body was put to death but His spirit was made alive.
Now there is no longer room for confusion because what was killed was only His body, but His spirit was not killed.

Scripture says God is Spirit, so what was put to death was just His body—His Spirit was made alive.

1 Timothy 6:15–16
“...He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.”

Now we see that Jesus made a good confession.
READ verse 13 of 1 Timothy 6:
“I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate...”

For further evidence, read:

Luke 18:31
Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished.”

BUT, our Muslim brothers say the cross is the symbol of Satan. Let's begin with:

Quran 7:16
“Satan said: Because You have put me in error, I will sit in wait for them on Your Straight Path.”

SATAN TELLS ALLAH: “Because You led me astray, I will surely lie in wait for them on Your Straight Path.”

SATAN SWEARS TO STAND ON THE STRAIGHT PATH OF ALLAH.

Now what is this Straight Path of Allah where Satan swore to sit?

Quran 6:126
“And this (Quran) is the Straight Path of your Lord. We have detailed the verses for people who take heed.”

So, SATAN IS SITTING ON THE STRAIGHT PATH, which is ISLAM, as shown in Quran 7:16.
Because Satan has taken his seat on the Straight Path, it means Satan has a religion, or do you disagree?

MUHAMMAD CONVERTS SATAN TO ISLAM
According to the book “The Origin of the Jinn”, page 20, it says:
“It is unfortunate that Adam and Eve did not make efforts to enable Satan and his offspring to ask forgiveness from Allah. It was only the Prophet Muhammad who converted Satan to Islam.”

This is not surprising, because we already read in Surah Al-An'am that Satan resides on the Straight Path of Allah. And that Straight Path is Islam, Quran 6:126:
“And this religion of Islam is the Straight Path of your Lord.”

Dear brethren, once again we’ve learned that Satan is the leader of the religion of Islam.
Satan is the one who sits on the Straight Path and has become a Muslim, as we read in The Origin of the Jinn, page 20.

This is yet another disaster in the religion of Allah, where we now understand that Satan sits on the Straight Path and was converted to Islam by Muhammad.

God bless you abundantly.

I am Max Shimba, a servant of Jesus Christ,
For Max Shimba Ministries Org

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
April 13, 2016

Generated image

MUHAMMAD AND ALLAH BREAK THE TORAH BY PERMITTING THE CONSUMPTION OF CAMEL MEAT AND DRINKING CAMEL URINE AND MILK

Friday, September 2, 2016

The Islamic prohibition on eating pork is often emphasized as a sign of religious piety. However, there exists a theological contradiction in that Muslims permit the consumption of camel meat and even camel urine and milk, despite these being explicitly prohibited in the Torah.

The Torah’s Prohibition on the Camel

In Leviticus 11:4, which outlines the dietary laws given by Yahweh (Jehovah) to Moses, the camel is classified as an unclean animal:

“Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or have divided hooves you are not to eat the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.” (Leviticus 11:4)

This biblical directive clearly declares the camel to be unclean and thus forbidden for consumption. If, as Islam claims, Allah is the same God who revealed the Torah to Moses, then why does Islam contradict this divine command by allowing Muslims to consume camel products?

Contradictions in Islamic Practice

Muslims often highlight the prohibition of pork as a sign of religious purity. Yet, many consume animals such as camels, lizards, and hyenas—some of which are also considered unclean or detestable in Jewish law. The consumption of camel meat, in particular, contradicts the Torah.

Further compounding this theological issue is the Islamic allowance—encouraged even by the Prophet Muhammad—for drinking camel urine and milk. Such practices would be considered an abomination according to the Torah’s purity laws.

Hadith Evidence Supporting the Use of Camel Urine and Milk

According to authentic hadiths, Muhammad permitted and even prescribed the drinking of camel milk and urine for medicinal purposes:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Numbers 589 & 590 (pp. 398–399)
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 623 (p. 418)
Ibn Majah, Volume 5, Book 31, Number 3503 (p. 38): "Indeed, in the urine of camels there is healing."
Sunan al-Nasa’i, Volume 1, Hadiths 308–309 (pp. 255–256)
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261 (p. 162)

In one incident, Muhammad instructed a group of individuals to follow his camel herder and drink from the camels’ milk and urine as a cure. When some of them later rebelled and killed the herder, Muhammad ordered their hands and feet be cut off and their eyes gouged out—punishments that raise further ethical and theological questions.

Scholarly Critique and Theological Questions

This raises an important question: if the Torah, believed by both Jews and Christians to be divinely inspired, prohibits the consumption of camels, how can Islam, which claims continuity with previous revelations, justify such a practice? If Muhammad and Allah permit what God once declared unclean, are they not violating the eternal law revealed to Moses?

This is not a small matter. It calls into question the consistency and integrity of the Islamic claim to be a continuation of the Abrahamic tradition. It also raises significant doubts about the compatibility between the revelations of Moses and those attributed to Muhammad.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the consumption of camel meat, urine, and milk—endorsed in Islam and by Muhammad himself—stands in direct opposition to the commandments in Leviticus. This contradiction exposes a major theological rift between the Judeo-Christian scriptures and Islamic teachings.

We invite every seeker of truth to come to the living Jesus Christ—our eternal high priest and savior—who fulfills, not abolishes, the law of Moses.

May God bless you all.

In His Service,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Max Shimba Ministries Org ©2016. All Rights Reserved.

Permission is granted to copy and distribute this article in its original form. Modification is not permitted.

Generated image

The Theological Inconsistencies in Muhammad’s Claim of Chaining a Demon

Title:

The Theological Inconsistencies in Muhammad’s Claim of Chaining a Demon: A Critical Examination of Sahih al-Bukhari 3423
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract
This scholarly investigation critically evaluates the hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari 3423, in which Muhammad claims he captured a strong demon (ifrit) during prayer and nearly chained it to a pillar of the mosque for public viewing. Drawing from Quranic texts, Islamic hadith literature, and theological logic, this paper questions the plausibility and spiritual value of such an event. It examines the theological motivations behind the narration, the implications for Islamic doctrine on jinn, and whether such claims reflect authentic spiritual authority or imaginative narratives.

Introduction

In Sahih al-Bukhari 3423, Muhammad is quoted as claiming he overpowered an ifrit (a powerful rebellious jinn) during his prayer, with the intent to tie it to a mosque pillar so others might witness it. He later states he released it out of deference to the prayer of Solomon in Qur’an 38:35. This episode raises numerous theological concerns regarding the nature of jinn, the purpose of such an encounter, and whether such experiences serve divine purposes or promote mythologized self-glorification.

1. The Claim of Binding a Demon: A Theological Analysis

Muhammad’s claim that he was able to physically subdue and bind a jinn (demon) contradicts both Islamic and biblical precedent concerning spiritual hierarchies and the unseen realm. In Qur’an 38:35, Solomon asks Allah for a kingdom “not befitting anyone after me,” which included dominion over jinn. Muhammad, by invoking this verse, inadvertently places himself in tension with Solomon’s exclusive request.

If Solomon's authority over jinn was a unique divine endowment, then Muhammad’s ability to overpower and display a demon would violate that exclusivity, undermining the Quran’s assertion of Solomon’s unparalleled kingship. Therefore, Muhammad’s release of the demon not out of mercy or spiritual discernment but seemingly to preserve the uniqueness of Solomon’s prayer appears forced and theologically inconsistent.

Moreover, the idea of chaining a spiritual being so it becomes visible to physical eyes contradicts the Islamic doctrine that jinn are ghayb (unseen), as confirmed in Qur’an 7:27:

“Indeed, he (Satan) sees you, he and his tribe, from where you do not see them.”

This raises the logical problem: if jinn are by nature invisible to human perception, then binding one to a pillar for public viewing suggests either a miraculous materialization (which Muhammad does not claim), or fabrication.

2. Spiritual Gain: What Would Seeing a Demon Accomplish?

The supposed public display of a chained demon in the mosque lacks theological or redemptive purpose. In both Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, signs and wonders are meant to inspire faith, repentance, or divine awe. Displaying a demon, a cursed entity, in a place of worship neither glorifies God nor edifies believers.

Furthermore, Islam’s teachings about tazkiyah (spiritual purification) and humility in worship contradict the sensationalism of exhibiting a captured demon. There is no precedent in the Quran or hadith where spiritual maturity is gained by physically seeing evil spirits. Rather, the focus is on resisting evil through prayer, fasting, and the remembrance of Allah.

Hence, the question remains: what divine purpose would have been served by a mosque audience witnessing a chained ifrit? The answer appears to be none. The story seems more mythopoeic, bolstering Muhammad’s image as spiritually powerful rather than conveying a redemptive truth.

3. Why Did Muhammad Encounter a Demon?

According to the hadith, the demon came to “cut off” Muhammad’s prayer. However, this claim raises questions: if Muhammad was the most perfect of creation (al-insan al-kamil), and the one protected by Allah (ma’sum), why would Allah allow a jinn to attack him during such a holy act?

The Quran teaches that the righteous are under divine protection:

“Indeed, My servants – no authority will you have over them, except those who follow you of the deviators.” (Qur’an 15:42)

So either Muhammad was vulnerable to demonic interruption in prayer (contradicting divine protection), or the story is a fabricated spiritual legend intended to magnify Muhammad's supposed power over the unseen realm.

4. Do Demons Attend Mosque Prayers?

According to several Islamic traditions, jinn—including disbelieving ones—can infiltrate human spaces, including mosques. Sahih Muslim 540 suggests that yawning in prayer is caused by Shaytan, and he "laughs" when one yawns. But the Quran consistently portrays mosques as places purified for Allah’s worship (Qur’an 72:18):

“And the mosques are for Allah, so do not invoke anyone along with Allah.”

If demons can attack prophets in a mosque, during prayer, then the theological premise that mosques are sacred, protected spaces is undermined.

5. Are Demons from the Jinn?

Islamic theology considers demons a subset of jinn. The Quran mentions that Iblis (Satan) was one of the jinn (Qur’an 18:50):

“He was one of the jinn, and he rebelled against the command of his Lord.”

Hence, “demon” and “jinn” in this context are nearly interchangeable, particularly when describing rebellious and harmful entities.

6. Are Jinn Not Muslims? Contradictions in Islamic Literature

The Quran presents jinn as morally responsible beings capable of both faith and disbelief:

“And among us are the righteous, and among us are [others] not so; we were [of] divided ways.” (Qur’an 72:11)
“Say, it has been revealed to me that a group of the jinn listened and said, ‘Indeed, we have heard an amazing Quran.’” (Qur’an 72:1)

Yet this creates internal theological tensions. If some jinn are Muslims, then depicting all jinn (or all ifrit) as inherently demonic is misleading. Moreover, the portrayal of an ifrit being bound like a circus animal for display contradicts the notion of jinn as free-willed and spiritually responsible agents.

Conclusion:

Muhammad’s claim of capturing a demon during prayer and nearly displaying it to his followers in the mosque is fraught with theological and logical inconsistencies. It undermines Islamic teachings on the uniqueness of Solomon’s dominion, the nature of the unseen realm, the sanctity of mosques, and the spiritual integrity of divine encounters. The story, rather than elevating Muhammad’s prophetic character, instead aligns more with myth-making—a self-aggrandizing narrative designed to bolster his spiritual prestige without offering any genuine theological or redemptive benefit to his followers.

The inconsistency in the claim affirms that such narration is better understood as a fabrication, myth, or legend rather than an authentic act of divine authority.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Founder, Shimba Theological Institute

Generated image

WHY DID MUHAMMAD OWN AFRICAN SLAVES AND CAPTIVES?

Monday, April 11, 2016

Dear reader,

Today, let us briefly remind ourselves about the conduct of Muhammad, the prophet of Allah.

"Anas bin Malik narrated: The Messenger of God was on a journey and had a Black slave named Anjasha, and he was driving the camels..."
– Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73 (Good Manners), Chapter 95, Hadith 182, p.117.

"Anas narrated: ... And Anjashah, the slave of the Prophet [Muhammad], was driving the camels..."
– Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73 (Good Manners), Chapter 111, Hadith 221, p.142.

"Jabir bin ‘Abdullah narrated: A man among us declared that his slave would be freed after his death. The Prophet called for that slave and sold him."
Footnote: “The one who promised freedom was in hardship, so the Prophet sold the slave on his behalf and allowed him to revoke his promise of posthumous freedom.”
– Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 45 (The Book of Mortgaging in Places Occupied by Settled Population), Chapter 9, Hadith 711, p.427.

"Then a man named Rifa’a bin Zaid... brought a slave named Mid’am to the Messenger of Allah."
– Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 78 (The Book of Oaths and Vows), Chapter 33, Hadith 698, p.455.

"The Sale of a Mudabbar (i.e., a slave promised freedom after the master’s death)."
(433) Jabir narrated: The Prophet sold a Mudabbar (on behalf of a master still alive who needed money)."
– Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34 (The Book of Sales), Chapter 112, before Hadith 433, p.238.

"A man from the Ansar made his slave a Mudabbar and had no other property except him. When the Prophet heard of this, he said (to his companions), ‘Who will buy him for me?’ Nu’aim bin An-Nahham bought him for eight hundred Dirhams."
– Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 79 (The Book of Expiation for Unfulfilled Oaths), Chapter 7, Hadith 707, p.464.

"‘Ammar narrated: I saw the Messenger of God and there was no one there except five slaves, two women, and Abu Bakr (i.e., these were the only people who converted to Islam at that time)."
– Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57 (The Companions of the Prophet), Chapter 6, Hadith 12, p.8.

"[Ibn Az-Zubair] sent [‘Aisha] ten slaves whom she freed as expiation for her unfulfilled vow. ‘Aisha freed even more slaves for the same purpose until she had freed forty. She said, ‘If I had known, I would have clarified what I should do if I failed to fulfill my vow when I made it, so it would have been easier for me to fulfill it."
Footnote: “‘Aisha had not specified what she would do if she failed to fulfill her vow, which is why she freed so many slaves to make it easier to satisfy the vow.”
– Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56 (The Morals and Good Deeds of the Prophet and His Companions), Chapter 2, Hadith 708, p.465.

"And ‘Ata disliked looking at female slaves being sold in Mecca unless he intended to buy them."
– Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 74 (The Book of Asking Permission), Chapter 2, Hadith 246, p.162.

Sexual Relations with Slaves and Captives:

"Is it permissible to travel with a slave girl without knowing if she is pregnant? Al-Hasan saw no harm in an owner kissing or fondling his slave girl with desire.
**Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘If a slave girl eligible for sexual relations is gifted to another man, or sold, or freed, her former master must not have intercourse with her until she has had one menstrual period, to ensure she is not pregnant. This is not necessary for virgins.’
‘Ata said, ‘There is no harm in fondling a pregnant slave girl with desire without intercourse. Allah said: "Except with their wives or those their right hands possess—for (then) they are not to be blamed."’"
Footnote: “Pregnant and by someone else, not the current owner.”
– Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34 (The Book of Sales), Chapter 113 after Hadith 436, p.239-240.

"Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri said that while he was with the Prophet of Allah, he asked him, ‘O Messenger of Allah! We acquire captive women as part of our war booty and we are interested in their price. What is your view on coitus interruptus?’
The Prophet replied, ‘Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that Allah has decreed to exist will fail to exist.’"
– Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34 (The Book of Sales), Chapter 111, Hadith 432, p.237.

"Ibn Muhairiz narrated: I entered the mosque and saw Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri and sat beside him. I asked him about Al-‘Azl (i.e., coitus interruptus). Abu Sa’id said, ‘We went with the Messenger of Allah on the campaign of Banu Al-Mustaliq, and we captured some Arab women and we desired them, and celibacy became hard on us. We wanted to engage in coitus interruptus. So we asked the Prophet, and he said, ‘It is better not to do that, because if a soul is destined to exist, it will exist until the Day of Resurrection.’"
– Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59 (The Book of Military Expeditions), Chapter 31, Hadith 459, p.317. This is also stated in Volume 8, Book 77 (The Book of Qadr), Chapter 3, Hadith 600, p.391.

In other words, whatever is destined to happen will happen, so do not interfere unnaturally. Muhammad never rebuked or prohibited sexually disturbing captives or slaves owned by someone.

May God bless you all.

It is I,
Max Shimba, servant of Jesus Christ,

For Dr. Maxwell Shimba
MAX SHIMBA MINISTRIES ORG ©2016. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but altering it is not allowed.
April 9, 2016

Generated image

WHY DID MUHAMMAD ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute | Max Shimba Ministries Org ©2016

1. Muhammad Attempted Suicide
2. Muhammad Climbed Mountains to Throw Himself Off
3. Aisha Testifies Muhammad Was Bewitched

Dear Reader,

As we study the Holy Bible, we find that God appointed His prophets and messengers out of love and grace. However, when I examined Islamic scriptures and historical sources related to the prophet Muhammad, I encountered very disturbing reports, particularly concerning his mental state and supernatural experiences. I will now present Islamic sources directly so that Muslims cannot claim I am misrepresenting their texts.

I. MUHAMMAD ATTEMPTED SUICIDE DUE TO SPIRITUAL DISTRESS

According to Sahih al-Bukhari, after the first revelatory experience, Muhammad was deeply disturbed and attempted to commit suicide due to the suspension of revelation (wahy). He climbed to the top of mountains intending to throw himself off:

“The Prophet said: ‘Will they expel me?’ … Later, after Waraqa bin Nawfal passed away, the revelation stopped for a time, and Muhammad became so distressed that he would go to the top of mountain peaks to throw himself off. But each time he reached the summit, the Angel Jibril would appear and reassure him saying: ‘You are truly the Messenger of Allah.’ Then he would calm down and return home. But when the period of silence lengthened, he would repeat the attempt.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book of Interpretation, Hadith 6982)

Question: Where in the Torah, Psalms, or Gospel do we ever read of any biblical prophet attempting suicide as Muhammad did?

II. MUHAMMAD’S SUICIDAL TENDENCIES RECURRED MULTIPLE TIMES

The narration reveals that these suicidal attempts occurred repeatedly whenever divine revelation ceased:

“The Prophet became so sorrowful due to the cessation of revelation that he repeatedly climbed mountaintops to throw himself off. But whenever he reached the peak, Jibril would appear and say, ‘Indeed, you are the true Messenger of Allah,’ which would calm him down…”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, Book of Invocations, p. 234)

This repeated behavior reflects profound emotional instability that is alarming, especially for someone considered a prophet of God.

III. AISHA CLAIMS MUHAMMAD WAS BEWITCHED

Even more concerning is the testimony of Aisha, Muhammad’s favorite wife, who claimed he was under a magical spell:

“Narrated Aisha: Allah’s Messenger was bewitched to the extent that he believed he had done things which he had not done. One day, he prayed to Allah, and then said: ‘O Aisha, do you know that Allah has answered me concerning what I asked Him?’”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, Book of Medicine, Hadith 6391)

Aisha confirms that Muhammad was deluded, thinking he had sexual relations with his wives when he had not. This aligns with another narration:

“The Prophet remained under the effect of that spell for several days, believing he had approached his wives though he had not.”
(Al-Furqan 25)

How is it possible that a prophet of Allah could be bewitched while the all-powerful Allah looked on and did nothing?

IV. MUHAMMAD DECLARED HIMSELF INSANE

Another disturbing confession from Muhammad is found in Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir by Ibn Sa’d:

“O Khadijah, I see lights and hear voices. I fear I am mad (possessed or insane).”
(Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, translated by S. Moinul Haq, Vol. 1, p. 225)

In some translations, he is quoted as saying: “I fear I am going mad.”

Could this fear have been rooted in the traumatic experience of his first “revelation,” where he was seized and violently pressed by a being in the cave?

V. MUHAMMAD’S FIRST ENCOUNTER: TRAUMA OR REVELATION?

In The Life of Prophet Muhammad by Sheikh Abdullah Saleh Al-Farsy (pp. 16–17), we read about Muhammad’s first encounter with what he later believed to be the angel Jibril:

“One day, during the month of Ramadan (17th, on a Monday, in the 40½th year of his life), the Prophet saw a man standing before him. He said, ‘Read!’ The Prophet replied, ‘I do not know how to read.’ The man seized him, pressed him hard, and repeated: ‘Read!’ This happened three times before the man recited the verses of Surah al-Alaq (96), which Muhammad then memorized. Frightened, he returned home. Khadija thought he had a fever and covered him. After he calmed down, he told her everything. She went to her cousin Waraqa bin Nawfal, who confirmed that Muhammad had seen the same angel who appeared to Moses and Jesus.”

This traumatic experience suggests not peaceful divine inspiration, but an oppressive and fearful encounter, inconsistent with biblical revelation.

VI. ACCORDING TO ANOTHER SOURCE, MUHAMMAD WAS TEMPTED BY SATAN IN THE CAVE

According to Wives and Children of the Prophet, also by Sheikh Abdullah Saleh Al-Farsy (p. 12), it is suggested that Muhammad may have been subjected to satanic manipulation during his early experiences in the cave.

BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON SUICIDE

According to the Bible, suicide is never a prophetic characteristic. The act of taking one’s own life is condemned as self-murder, a violation of God's sovereign authority over life and death.

The Bible mentions four individuals who committed suicide:

Saul – 1 Samuel 31:4
Ahithophel – 2 Samuel 17:23
Zimri – 1 Kings 16:18
Judas Iscariot – Matthew 27:5

Each of these men was wicked or spiritually compromised. Suicide in Scripture is a grave sin, and those who die without salvation face eternal judgment (Revelation 21:8).

CONCLUSION

Now, to all Muslims: Show me in the Torah, the Psalms, or the Gospels, any prophet who attempted to commit suicide like Muhammad, or was bewitched, or confessed madness. Such attributes are not characteristics of God’s prophets as revealed in the Bible.

The invitation stands: Come to Jesus Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). No prophet, no angel, no vision compares to the living Son of God.

May the Lord bless you.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Servant of Jesus Christ
Shimba Theological Institute
Max Shimba Ministries Org ©2016. All Rights Reserved

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but altering it is not allowed.

Generated image

Is Muhammad or Jibril the Spirit of Truth / the Holy Spirit?

A Biblical and Theological Refutation of Islamic Claims

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute | Max Shimba Ministries

Date: April 10, 2016

Introduction

This article addresses a recurring claim by many Muslims: that Muhammad, or in some interpretations, the angel Jibril (Gabriel), is the "Spirit of Truth" mentioned by Jesus in the Gospel of John 16:12–14. This assertion, according to Islamic apologetics, implies that Muhammad was prophesied in the Christian Bible. However, a close and contextual reading of the relevant biblical texts, especially in the Gospel of John, clearly demonstrates that the Spirit of Truth refers not to Muhammad or any angelic being, but to the Holy Spirit—God Himself.

Muslim Claim: Who is the Spirit of Truth?

Many Muslims often ask: Who is the Spirit of Truth that Jesus promised in John 16:12–14? When questioned, they claim that the Spirit of Truth refers either to Muhammad or to the angel Jibril. However, such interpretations fall apart under scriptural scrutiny.

John 16:13 (KJV) says:
"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

In the context of John chapters 14–16, Jesus is clearly speaking to His disciples shortly before His crucifixion, referring to the Holy Spirit, whom He will send after His ascension. The Spirit of Truth is identified as divine, active within the lives of the disciples, and present within them—not as a future prophet or angel who comes 600 years later.

Scriptural Evidences from the Gospel of John

Below are 15 scriptural evidences from the Gospel of John proving that Muhammad is not the Spirit of Truth and Jibril is not the Holy Spirit.

1. John 1:32

"And John bore record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him [Jesus]."

The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at His baptism in visible form. Muhammad neither descended from heaven like a dove nor was present at Jesus' baptism. Moreover, Muhammad came over six centuries later and was never seen by John the Baptist.

2. John 1:33

"And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, 'Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.'"

John the Baptist testifies that Jesus is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Muhammad never baptized anyone, and certainly not with the Holy Spirit.

3. John 3:5

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

No one can enter God's Kingdom unless they are born of the Spirit. Muhammad does not impart the Holy Spirit, nor does he bring spiritual rebirth.

4. John 3:6

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Muhammad was born of the flesh, and never claimed to be born of the Spirit. In contrast, the Holy Spirit is the one who begets spiritual life.

5. John 3:8

"The wind bloweth where it listeth... so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

The Spirit is likened to the wind—unpredictable and sovereign. Muhammad was a man confined to a specific time, place, and culture. He does not fit this spiritual description.

6. John 3:34

"For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him."

Jesus received the fullness of the Spirit without measure. Muhammad, however, claimed revelations from Jibril (not the Spirit Himself) and did not claim to have divine omniscience or omnipotence.

7. John 4:24

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

God is Spirit—not Muhammad, not Jibril. The Holy Spirit is a divine person, not a mortal prophet or a created angel.

8. John 6:63

"It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

Only the Spirit gives life. Muhammad does not and cannot give eternal life. Jesus' words are Spirit and life, a divine quality absent in Muhammad’s teachings.

9. John 7:39

"But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified."

This verse refers to the future indwelling of the Holy Spirit for all believers in Jesus. It does not refer to Muhammad, who was never promised to believers in Christ.

10. John 14:16–18

“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;
Even the Spirit of truth... ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.”

Jesus refers to a Person who will dwell within believers—not someone who would come 600 years later to deliver external messages. Muhammad never dwelled in the hearts of the disciples.

11. John 14:26

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Jesus identifies the Comforter as the Holy Spirit. Not a man. Not Muhammad. The Holy Spirit comes in Jesus’ name, not his own.

12. John 15:26

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth... he shall testify of me."

The Spirit testifies of Christ. Muhammad denied the divine sonship of Jesus and did not bear witness to Him. Therefore, he disqualifies himself as the Spirit of Truth.

13. John 16:13

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth... and he will shew you things to come."

The Spirit was to come shortly after Christ’s ascension, guiding the apostles directly—not centuries later to a different audience, in a different language, and denying Christ’s deity.

14. John 16:15

"All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

The Spirit reveals the things of Christ. Muhammad never claimed to be indwelt by Christ, nor did he teach from Christ’s authority or glorify Him.

15. John 20:21–22

"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost."

Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to His disciples directly—not through Muhammad, who was not born until centuries later. This marks the clear fulfillment of Jesus' promise.

Conclusion: The Spirit of Truth is Not Muhammad or Jibril

Through careful exegesis of the Gospel of John, we conclude decisively and biblically:

Muhammad is not the Spirit of Truth.
Jibril is not the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is God—the Third Person of the Trinity, promised by Jesus, given to His disciples at Pentecost, and continuing to dwell in believers today.

Jesus did not leave His disciples to wait 600 years for a mortal man to deliver final truth. He gave them the Holy Spirit—immediately, eternally, and personally.

In His Service,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Founder, Max Shimba Ministries
Shimba Theological Institute
© Max Shimba Ministries 2016. All Rights Reserved.
Permission granted to copy and distribute this article without modification.

Generated image

WHY DOES ALLAH HATE CHRISTIANS AND JEWS?

Introduction

Dear reader,

Today, I would like us to reflect on a serious theological issue: the apparent hatred found within Islam, particularly in the Qur’an, directed at Christians and Jews. Many people mistakenly assume that the God of the Bible, full of love, is the same as Allah of the Qur’an. This, however, is a grave misconception.

The God revealed in the Bible is characterized by love and grace, while the Allah of the Qur’an, as we shall demonstrate, promotes hostility, hatred, and division. The Qur’an, which is the central text of Islam, shows that Allah commands his followers to harbor animosity toward Christians and Jews.

1. Allah Forbids Friendship with Christians and Jews

Qur’an, Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:51
"O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people."

If Allah is the same as Yahweh, the loving God of the Bible, why then does he forbid friendship with people of other faiths?

Compare this to the commandment of Jesus Christ:

Luke 6:35 (Holy Bible – SNT)
"But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked."

Clearly, the teachings of Jesus and the commands of Allah are diametrically opposed. The God of the Bible teaches us to love even our enemies. Allah promotes hatred.

2. Allah Forbids Muslims from Loving Christians – Even Close Family

Surah Al-Mujādilah 58:22
"You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day having affection for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred..."

This verse teaches that Muslims must not love those who do not follow Islam, even if they are family members. Such a position is starkly different from the teachings of the Bible, which emphasizes compassion, mercy, and familial responsibility.

3. Allah Orders Muslims Not to Associate with Jews and Christians

Surah An-Nisa 4:144
"O you who have believed, do not take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do you wish to offer Allah a clear case against yourselves?"

This kind of command encourages religious segregation and conflict. By contrast, the Bible repeatedly encourages unity, peace, and love for all people.

4. Allah Warns Against Trusting Non-Muslims

Surah Al-Imran 3:118
"O you who have believed, do not take those outside your religion as confidants. They will not fail to ruin you; they wish you would have hardship. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, and what their hearts conceal is greater..."

Again, this verse reflects a deep mistrust and animosity toward non-Muslims, which contradicts the character of God in the Bible who instructs us to walk in love and truth.

5. Allah Declares Disbelievers as Open Enemies

Surah An-Nisa 4:101
"And when you travel throughout the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer [especially] if you fear that those who disbelieve may harm you. Indeed, the disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy."

This verse classifies all non-Muslims as enemies, further fueling religious division. Yet the God of the Bible declares:

John 10:10-11
"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep."

The Lord Jesus brings life, not death. He heals, unites, and restores. The contrast is undeniable.

6. Allah Commands Muslims to Fight and Kill Disbelievers

Surah At-Tawbah 9:123
"O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous."

Violence is normalized and even glorified under this command. Conversely, Jesus taught that "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:9).

7. Allah Declares Christians and Jews as Enemies Until They Convert

Surah Al-Mumtahanah 60:4
"...We disbelieve in you, and there has appeared between us and you animosity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone..."

This eternal hatred is entirely contrary to the heart of God revealed in Christ, who loves unconditionally and calls all people to repentance through grace.

Jesus the Giver of Abundant Life

Jesus, the Son of God, said:

John 10:10
"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life and have it abundantly."

Satan's agenda has always been destruction. But Jesus came to bring life in its fullness—restoring, healing, and blessing every area of life: family, business, health, and relationships.

If the enemy has stolen or destroyed anything in your life, remember: Jesus came so you may have life—life in abundance.

Final Exhortation

Dear beloved,

Do not allow hatred to rule your heart. Choose the path of love, peace, and salvation through Jesus Christ. The character of Allah, as seen in the Qur’an, bears no resemblance to the loving God revealed in the Holy Bible. Allah’s attributes reflect those of Satan—the deceiver, the divider, the destroyer. But Jesus Christ is the Good Shepherd, the Savior, and the Author of Life.

If you feel convicted and want to surrender your life to Jesus, reach out to us. We will help you take the most important step in your life.

Jesus loves you.

In His service,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ
Shimba Theological Institute | Max Shimba Ministries Org

All rights reserved. Reproduction of this article is permitted only in its complete form without modification.
© April 7, 2016

Generated image

Muhammad Apasuliwa na Kutolewa Shetani: Tathmini ya Kimaandishi na Kihistoria

Hakika! Hapa chini nimekuandikia upya maandishi yako kwa mtindo wa kitaaluma na kwa Kiswahili fasaha, nikihakikisha mtiririko wa hoja, matumizi ya vyanzo, na lugha inayofaa kwa wasomi na wasomaji wa dini na historia ya Uislamu:

Muhammad Apasuliwa na Kutolewa Shetani: Tathmini ya Kimaandishi na Kihistoria

Utangulizi
Tukio la upasuaji wa Mtume Muhammad ili kutolewa sehemu ya “shetani” ni miongoni mwa masimulizi yanayopatikana katika vitabu vya hadithi na siira (maandishi ya maisha ya Mtume). Tukio hili limejadiliwa na wanazuoni wa Kiislamu na wasio Waislamu kutokana na uzito na athari zake katika mafundisho kuhusu isma (kutokukosea kwa manabii) na dhana ya usafi wa ndani wa Mtume.

Taarifa ya Kihistoria kuhusu Upasuaji wa Mtume Muhammad
Kwa mujibu wa masimulizi yaliyopokewa na Anas bin Malik na kuandikwa katika Sahih Muslim (Juzuu ya 1, uk. 147, hadithi namba 713), inasimuliwa kuwa Mtume Muhammad alipasuliwa mara nne tofauti:

Mara ya kwanza, akiwa na umri wa miaka mitatu.
Mara ya pili, akiwa na umri wa miaka kumi.
Mara ya tatu, akiwa na umri wa miaka arobaini.
Mara ya nne, alipokuwa anaandaliwa kwa tukio la Israa, akiwa na umri wa miaka arobaini na tatu.

Katika simulizi hili, Anas bin Malik anaeleza:

“Mtume wa Allah (s.a.w) alikuwa akicheza pamoja na watoto. Malaika Jibril (a.s) alimfikia, akamchukua na kumtupa chini, akapasua kifua chake, akauchukua moyo wake, akatoa ndani yake kipande cha damu na kusema: ‘Hii ni sehemu ya shetani (nimeitoa) kutoka kwako.’ Kisha akaosha moyo wake katika chombo cha dhahabu kilichokuwa na maji ya Zamzam, akaurudisha na kuufunga mahali pake.”

Maswali ya Kitaaluma Yanayoibuka:

Sehemu hii ya shetani iliingiaje kwenye moyo wa Muhammad?
Tukio hili linaibua hoja kuhusu hali ya kiroho na usafi wa Mtume kabla ya upasuaji, jambo linaloweza kuathiri dhana ya utakatifu na ulinzi wa manabii katika Uislamu.
Tangu lini shetani anasafishwa kwa maji?
Dhima ya kutumia maji ya Zamzam kama njia ya kumsafisha shetani inatia shaka kimantiki na kimafundisho. Inapingana na imani za kidini kuhusu asili ya shetani kama roho na siyo uchafu wa mwili unaoweza kuoshwa.

Ulinganisho na Hadithi kuhusu Yesu (Isa bin Mariam):
Katika hadithi nyingine iliyosimuliwa na Abu Huraira, Mtume Muhammad alisema:

“Kila mwanadamu anapozaliwa, shetani huingia katika mbavu zake kwa vidole vyake, isipokuwa Isa bin Mariam. Alijaribu kumwingia lakini akakuta pazia.”
(Sahih Bukhari na Sahih Muslim)

Hadithi hii inamtaja Yesu pekee kama asiyeweza kuguswa na shetani tangu kuzaliwa, akimpiku hata Muhammad katika hali ya utakatifu.

Hitimisho
Masimulizi haya yanaleta changamoto kubwa katika teolojia ya Kiislamu kuhusu dhana ya utakatifu wa manabii na mbinu za kuondoa ushawishi wa shetani. Pia, yanaleta ulinganisho wa moja kwa moja kati ya Yesu na Muhammad, ambapo Yesu anaonekana kuwa na cheo cha kipekee katika usafi wa kiroho.

Imeandikwa na: Max Shimba, mtumwa wa Yesu Kristo
Kwa ajili ya Max Shimba Ministries Org
MAX SHIMBA MINISTRIES ORG ©2016. Haki zote zimehifadhiwa.
Kila mtu anaruhusiwa kunakili na kusambaza nakala halisi za hati hii, lakini kubadilisha hairuhusiwi.
Mei 6, 2016

Generated image

Muhammad’s “Satanic Portion” and the Four Surgeries: A Critical Analysis

Introduction

The biography (Sīra) and hadith literature regarding the life of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, contain a remarkable narrative that is rarely discussed in mainstream Islamic apologetics. The narrative asserts that Muhammad underwent multiple “surgeries” by the angel Jibril (Gabriel), during which a portion described as the “share of Satan” was removed from his heart. This account, referenced in authoritative Islamic sources, raises significant theological and philosophical questions about the nature of prophethood and the concept of sinlessness (ismah) in Islam.

The Four Surgeries in the Life of Muhammad

According to the traditional sources, the Prophet Muhammad was subjected to the removal of the “share of Satan” on four separate occasions:

At the age of three
At the age of ten
At the age of forty
At the age of forty-three, prior to the event of Isra’ and Mi’raj (the Night Journey and Ascension)

Primary Source: The Hadith of Anas bin Malik

A narration from Anas bin Malik reports:

“The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was playing with other boys when the Angel Jibril (Gabriel) came to him, took him, laid him down, split open his chest, and removed his heart. He then extracted a portion of clotted blood and said, ‘This is the share of Satan in you.’ He washed (the heart) in a golden vessel filled with Zamzam water, then returned it to its place and sealed it up.”

(Reference: Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 147, Hadith No. 713)

Theological Questions Arising from the Narrative

This account raises several critical questions:

1. How did Satan’s portion enter Muhammad’s heart?

The narrative presupposes that a portion belonging to Satan resided in Muhammad’s heart, thus necessitating a surgical intervention by Gabriel. This contradicts the Islamic doctrine of the innate purity (fitrah) of prophets.

2. Since when can Satan be expelled or cleansed by washing with water?

The notion that the influence of Satan can be physically removed by washing with Zamzam water anthropomorphizes Satan and suggests a material impurity, which is inconsistent with both Islamic and Christian demonology.

Comparative Analysis: Jesus and Muhammad

In a hadith reported by Abu Huraira, Muhammad said:

“Every human being is touched by Satan at birth. Satan touches the side of every child of Adam as he is born, except for Mary and her son (Jesus). Satan attempted to touch them but found a veil [preventing him].”

(Referenced in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)

This contrast is significant. According to the hadith, Jesus (Isa ibn Maryam) is uniquely exempt from Satan’s touch, while even Muhammad himself was not spared. This raises a fundamental question for Muslim readers:
If Jesus was never touched by Satan, and Muhammad needed four supernatural surgeries to remove Satan’s share, should not Jesus be recognized as superior in purity and spiritual status?

Conclusion

The hadith regarding Muhammad’s “satanic portion” and its removal by Gabriel introduces serious theological difficulties regarding the Islamic view of prophetic purity and the nature of evil. The peculiar idea of “washing” Satan with Zamzam water diminishes the spiritual gravity of the struggle against evil, reducing it to a physical or ritual act.
For those seeking a prophet untouched by Satan, as even the Islamic tradition concedes, it is Jesus Christ alone who fits that description.

With respect,
Max Shimba, servant of Jesus Christ
For Dr. Maxwell 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.
May 6, 2016

Generated image

Clarity and Ambiguity in the Qur’an: Theological Tension and Interpretive Inconsistency

Journal of Comparative Theology and Islamic Studies
Vol. XX, No. X, 2025, pp. XX-XX

Clarity and Ambiguity in the Qur’an: Theological Tension and Interpretive Inconsistency

Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This article examines the internal tensions within the Qur’an concerning its self-proclaimed clarity and its simultaneous acknowledgement of ambiguity. Through a close reading of Qur’an 54:17 and Qur’an 3:7, and engagement with classical and contemporary exegesis, the study investigates the implications of these apparent inconsistencies for Islamic hermeneutics, theology, and religious epistemology. The article concludes that the Qur’anic text maintains a dynamic but unresolved tension between universality and mystery, which fundamentally shapes its interpretive tradition and its claims to religious authority.

Introduction

The Qur’an’s unique status as the central scripture of Islam hinges on its perceived clarity and role as a universal guide. However, a close reading of the Qur’an reveals a significant hermeneutical tension: the text repeatedly claims accessibility and ease of understanding (Qur’an 54:17), yet simultaneously attests to the presence of ambiguous verses whose meanings are known only to God (Qur’an 3:7). This article critically examines the nature and impact of this tension, arguing that the Qur’anic discourse on clarity and ambiguity is both a theological challenge and a driving force behind Islamic interpretive diversity.

Qur’anic Self-Characterization: Clear or Ambiguous?

Qur’an 54:17 states: “And We have certainly made the Qur’an easy to remember, so is there anyone who will be mindful?” This assertion, repeated several times throughout Surah al-Qamar (54:22, 32, 40), suggests that the Qur’an is both pedagogically accessible and intended for universal comprehension. The language of “ease” (yassarnā) and “remembrance” (dhikr) underscores a scriptural ideal: a text meant for internalization and practical application by all believers.

Yet, the narrative shifts in Qur’an 3:7:

“It is He Who has sent down to you the Book; in it are verses that are precise—they are the foundation of the Book—and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation, they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah. But those firm in knowledge say, ‘We believe in it. All is from our Lord.’”

Here, the Qur’an distinguishes between “muhkam” (clear and decisive) verses and “mutashābih” (ambiguous or allegorical) verses, introducing a paradigm wherein some scriptural content is intentionally left obscure. The implications are profound: whereas the former set of verses constitutes the “mother of the Book” (umm al-kitāb), the latter set is regarded as a potential source of fitna (discord) when pursued with ulterior motives.

The Exegetical Tradition: Navigating Ambiguity

Classical tafsir literature is replete with discussions concerning the nature of these ambiguous verses. Early exegetes such as Al-Tabari (d. 923) and Ibn Kathir (d. 1373) maintain that while the core theological and legal teachings of the Qur’an are manifest, certain metaphysical matters (e.g., descriptions of God, eschatological imagery) are deliberately veiled, serving as a test of faith and interpretive discipline (Tabari, Tafsir, on 3:7; Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim). The Ash‘ari and Mu‘tazili schools offered distinct hermeneutical strategies—ranging from literal affirmation without modality (bi-la kayf) to extensive metaphorization—thereby engendering diversity, and at times, controversy within Islamic thought (Watt, 1973).

Contemporary scholars, such as Fazlur Rahman (1980) and Abdullah Saeed (2006), contend that this dynamic reflects both the universalizing ambitions of the Qur’an and its preservation of divine mystery. Rahman asserts that the Qur’an’s message is, in principle, comprehensible to all, but that certain passages necessarily transcend human cognition due to their metaphysical subject matter. Saeed emphasizes that the category of mutashābih serves to both invite interpretive humility and safeguard doctrinal orthodoxy.

Theological and Epistemological Ramifications

The juxtaposition of clarity and ambiguity within the Qur’an has generated significant debate concerning religious epistemology and authority. If the Qur’an is both clear and cryptic, to what extent can the individual believer be held accountable for their interpretation? Can theological pluralism be justified on the basis of scriptural ambiguity, or does this undermine claims to objective religious truth? Critics—both within and outside the Islamic tradition—have argued that this duality is sometimes invoked apologetically to avoid difficult questions or to neutralize interpretive dissent (Bucaille, 1976; Wansbrough, 1977).

Furthermore, the ambiguity inherent in the Qur’anic text has contributed to the proliferation of divergent sectarian readings—most notably between Sunni, Shi‘a, and Sufi traditions—each laying claim to the “clear” message while accusing others of exploiting ambiguity for polemical ends (Ayoub, 1984).

Conclusion

The Qur’an’s simultaneous assertion of clarity and admission of ambiguity is not merely a rhetorical device, but a constitutive feature of its textual and theological identity. This unresolved tension has inspired both a rich exegetical tradition and enduring controversy. Ultimately, the Qur’an presents itself as a text to be approached with both intellectual engagement and epistemic humility. Its claim to universality, juxtaposed with its admitted mystery, ensures that interpretation will remain a perennial endeavor within the Islamic tradition.

References

The Qur’an (Translations: Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Saheeh International)
Al-Tabari, Jāmiʿ al-bayān fī taʾwīl āy al-Qurʾān
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim
Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur’an. University of Chicago Press, 1980
Abdullah Saeed, Interpreting the Qur’an: Towards a Contemporary Approach. Routledge, 2006
W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic Philosophy and Theology. Edinburgh University Press, 1973
Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur'an and Science. 1976
John Wansbrough, Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation. Oxford University Press, 1977
Mahmoud Ayoub, The Qur’an and Its Interpreters: Volume I. SUNY Press, 1984

THE QURAN ADMITS THAT ISLAM IS A RELIGION FOR ARABS ONLY

Saturday, November 2, 2013

THE QURAN ADMITS THAT ISLAM IS A RELIGION FOR ARABS ONLY

In this article, I present evidence that Islam is a religion meant exclusively for Arabs.

Muslims, without rest, have consistently claimed that Islam will one day rule the entire world. However, in doing so, they contradict the words of Allah as revealed in the Qur’an. Therefore, it is fair to say that they are unbelievers (kafirs).

Qur’an 10:47 – "And for every nation there is a messenger. When their messenger comes, judgment is made between them with justice, and they are not wronged."

Now look at this verse as well:

Qur’an 14:4 – "And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise."

If these verses are true, then Islam is not for nations or communities that are not Arab. The Qur’an states that every people has received a message from God in their own language so they may understand it. The Qur’an was revealed in Arabic so that the Arabs would understand what Allah was saying.

This concept of Allah sending down a book in each people's language is crucial and is repeated often. It is foundational to this discussion.

Qur’an 16:36 – "And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], 'Worship Allah and avoid Taghut (false gods).' And among them were those whom Allah guided, and among them were those upon whom misguidance was [deservedly] decreed. So travel through the earth and observe how was the end of the deniers."

Qur’an 5:48 – "And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ."

Qur’an 36:5-6 – "A revelation of the Exalted in Might, the Merciful. That you may warn a people whose forefathers were not warned, so they are unaware."

These verses are complete and clearly explain that the message came specifically for the Arabs. Allah in the Qur’an says that every people has had their own prophet sent to them to warn them in their own language, and that He sent Muhammad to those who had not yet received guidance and whose ancestors had not been warned—that is, the Arabs. In this way, they would have no excuse to say they never received any message.

Continue reading in the Qur’an:

Qur’an 6:156 – "Lest you say, 'The Scripture was only sent down to two groups before us, but we were unaware of their teachings.'"

Qur’an 6:157 – "Or lest you say, 'If only the Scripture had been revealed to us, we would have been better guided than they.' So there has [now] come to you a clear evidence from your Lord and a guidance and mercy. Then who is more unjust than one who denies the verses of Allah and turns away from them? We will recompense those who turn away from Our verses with the worst of punishment for their having turned away."

The Qur’an clearly states that it was revealed to the Arabs. Those who are not Arabs cannot understand the Qur’an—those are Allah's words. Muslims insist that no translation of the Qur’an can be accurate. Therefore, the Qur’an can never be made fully understandable to non-Arab nations or communities and was not sent for them.

Another proof that the Qur’an was revealed only for Arabs is found in the following verses:

Qur’an 26:198-199 – "And if We had revealed it to one among the non-Arabs, and he had recited it to them, they would still not have believed in it."

Just as Arabs have the right not to believe in any book that was not revealed in their language—meaning Arabic—non-Arab communities equally have the right not to believe in the Qur’an, a book written in Arabic. That is why the Qur’an says that Allah will send a messenger for every language so that the people can understand him for themselves.

To make sure there is no misunderstanding, Allah gives this verse:

Qur’an 5:19 – "O People of the Book! Our Messenger has indeed come to you, making things clear to you after an interval without messengers, lest you say, 'There came to us no bringer of good tidings and no warner.' But now there has come to you a bringer of good tidings and a warner. And Allah is Most Capable of all things."

According to the Qur’an, all people have received revelation. The above verse says the Qur’an was sent to those who had never received revelation before, so they could not say, “We never received a prophet or a warner.”

This matter is very clear, but Allah wants it to be clear even to someone with no understanding. That’s why He specifies the actual geographical locations to which Muhammad was sent as a prophet of Allah.

Qur’an 6:92 – "And this is a blessed Book which We have revealed, confirming what was before it, that you may warn the Mother of Cities (Mecca) and those around it. Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in it, and they are maintaining their prayers."

Today, we have learned that the Qur’an was sent only for the Arabs and not for all nations. Now, I’m sure some Muslims will bring other verses that claim Islam is for all mankind. If Muslims do so, then they must acknowledge that those verses contradict the ones above.

Therefore, either the Qur’an is a bundle of contradictions and falsehoods, or it is only for the Arabs of Mecca and its surroundings, just as Allah—the god of Muslims—says.

In His service,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Generated image

MUHAMMAD: THE FALSE PROPHET

A Critical Examination of Prophethood in Light of Biblical and Islamic Claims

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba | Max Shimba Ministries Org.

Abstract

This article examines the prophetic claims of Muhammad in contrast with biblical prophets. While all biblical prophets had direct encounters and conversations with God, the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, according to Islamic sources and the Qur’an, never claimed a direct conversation with Allah. Instead, his call to prophethood is rooted in psychological experiences and familial assurance, particularly from his wife, Khadija. This paper analyzes Islamic texts and compares Muhammad’s experience with the biblical paradigm of authentic prophethood, concluding with a call to re-examine the basis of Muhammad’s authority.

Introduction

Throughout history, the role of a prophet has carried profound religious and spiritual significance. The biblical tradition, both Old and New Testament, affirms that true prophets have a direct encounter or dialogue with God (cf. Exodus 3:1–21; 1 Kings 19; Acts 18:9). However, the claim of Muhammad as a prophet in Islam raises critical questions, especially when contrasted with the prophetic narratives of the Bible. This paper revisits these claims and scrutinizes the basis of Muhammad’s prophethood using both Islamic and Christian sources.

The Meaning of the Word “Prophet”

The Swahili term “mtume” is derived from the concept of a “messenger” or “one who is sent.” In biblical context, an apostle or prophet is not only sent by God but also engages in direct communion with the Divine (see Exodus 3:4; 1 Samuel 3:4; Isaiah 6:8). This standard of direct encounter forms a critical criterion for authentic prophethood.

Muhammad’s Prophetic Experience: An Analysis

1. Muhammad Was Not Sent by God

There is no verse in the Qur’an that unequivocally states Muhammad spoke directly with Allah, the one who allegedly appointed him as a prophet.[1] Unlike Moses, Elijah, or Paul—each of whom had direct divine conversations (Exodus 3:1–21; 1 Kings 19; Acts 18:9)—Muhammad’s revelations came through intermediary experiences, most notably the angel Jibril (Gabriel), and never a personal encounter with Allah.

2. Muhammad Was Appointed by His Wife

Islamic tradition reports that following his first revelatory experiences in the cave of Hira, Muhammad returned home in terror and confusion, fearing for his sanity and well-being. It was Khadija, his wife, who reassured him, allegedly declaring,

“Rejoice, O son of my uncle, and be of good heart. By Him in whose hand is Khadija’s soul, I hope that you will be the Prophet of this people.”
(Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah)

Thus, Muhammad’s prophethood was initially affirmed by familial encouragement rather than a direct, public commission from God.

3. Muhammad’s Experiences with Demonic Forces

Islamic sources themselves narrate that Muhammad was plagued by experiences that he interpreted as being under the influence of evil spirits (jinn or shayatin) from childhood and during his first “revelation.”

Born with Satan:
Abu Huraira narrated that, “The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was accompanied by a devil since his birth…”
(Fath al-Bari, Volume 6, p. 389)
Tormented by Spirits:
After his first experience in the cave, Muhammad was reported to have said,

“I fear for myself, I am afraid that something may happen to me,”
and fell into convulsions and fever, fearing possession by demons.
(Kitab al-Kubra an-Nisa, p. 12)

The Biblical Model: Prophets Who Spoke With God

All authentic prophets in the biblical narrative spoke with God directly:

Moses: Spoke with God face to face (Exodus 3:1–21).
Elijah: Dialogued with God on Mount Horeb (1 Kings 19).
Paul: The risen Christ appeared and spoke to him (Acts 18:9).

No biblical prophet received their commission through mere intermediaries or through psychological crises alone.

Critical Questions for Islamic Prophethood

If Muhammad never spoke directly with Allah, how can his prophetic authority be substantiated? What is the basis of his calling? How can one trust a messenger who was plagued by doubts and fears, whose prophetic claim was affirmed by his wife rather than God?

Conclusion

The evidence from both the Qur’an and Islamic traditions themselves casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of Muhammad’s prophethood when compared to the biblical model. The absence of direct communication with God, psychological disturbances, and familial affirmation rather than divine calling are issues that must be addressed by those who seek truth. Christians are called to place their faith in Jesus Christ—the Living and Supreme God—who has spoken clearly in history.

References

Qur’an: Nowhere does the Qur’an record a direct conversation between Muhammad and Allah.
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah: The earliest biography of Muhammad, reports the reassurance given by Khadija.
Fath al-Bari (فتح الباري), Commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 389.
Kitab al-Kubra an-Nisa (كتاب الكبرى النساء), p. 12.
The Bible:
- Exodus 3:1–21 (Moses and God)
- 1 Kings 19 (Elijah and God)
- Acts 18:9 (Paul and God)
Sahih al-Bukhari: Collection of hadiths
The Holy Qur’an: Multiple translations and tafsir
Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir: Early Islamic biography
W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith

Bibliography

Ibn Ishaq. Sirat Rasul Allah.
Al-Asqalani, Ibn Hajar. Fath al-Bari.
Al-Bukhari, Muhammad ibn Ismail. Sahih al-Bukhari.
The Holy Qur’an. Various translations.
The Holy Bible. Various translations.
Ibn Sa’d. Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir.
William Lane Craig. Reasonable Faith.
W. Montgomery Watt. Muhammad at Mecca.
Max Shimba Ministries Org. “Muhammad is a False Prophet.”
“Kitabu cha Wakeze Mtume Wakubwa na Wanawe.”
Other standard reference works in Islamic and biblical scholarship.

Generated image

Insults Among Muslims: A Sacred Ritual According to the Late Muhammad?

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Insults Among Muslims: A Sacred Ritual According to the Late Muhammad?

An Academic and Theological Commentary
Max Shimba Ministries Org

Introduction

This commentary seeks to address the phenomenon of verbal abuse and the use of insults within certain religious communities, focusing specifically on the Islamic tradition as referenced in hadith literature. The analysis draws upon both Islamic sources and Christian perspectives, with the aim of fostering an informed and respectful discussion on the matter. The commentary concludes with recommendations for a Christian response, grounded in the teachings of the Gospel.

Insults in Islamic Tradition

It is not uncommon for Christians to encounter derogatory remarks or insults from some Muslims concerning matters of faith. To better understand this phenomenon, we turn to primary Islamic sources.

Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

“Whoever is given to insulting others, indeed Satan has whispered into his mouth.”
(Fat'hul Baari, Volume 10, Page 176)

This narration clearly indicates that, within the Islamic tradition, the act of insulting others is regarded as the result of satanic influence. According to this hadith, those who insult others are viewed as being under the sway of Satan, who uses their mouths as instruments for his own purposes.

Additional Islamic References

Further examination of Islamic sources reveals additional references to Satan's influence in the daily lives of believers. For example, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:

“Satan comes to one of you during prayer and blows (whispers) into his posterior, causing the person to think that he has passed wind, even though he has not. In such a case, he should not leave his prayer unless he hears a sound or perceives an odor.”
(Kitabu cha Mkweli Mwamiu, Volumes 1–2, Hadith No. 74, p. 42)

This narration underscores the belief that Satan is not only involved in provoking insults but also actively seeks to distract and mislead believers during their acts of worship. There are additional mentions in Islamic tradition suggesting that Satan may reside in the nostrils of Muslims or otherwise seek to disturb their bodily functions during prayer.

The Christian Response

From a Christian theological standpoint, the occurrence of insults and verbal abuse—interpreted here as evidence of spiritual bondage—should not surprise believers. Instead, it is viewed as a call to respond with evangelistic zeal and intercessory concern. Christians are urged not to retaliate, but rather to persist in sharing the message of the Gospel (Injil) with those engaged in such behaviors, in the hope that they may awaken spiritually and become liberated from what is perceived as satanic influence.

Thus, the Christian response is characterized not by animosity or surprise, but by a sense of mission and compassion. The ultimate aim is transformation—bringing those considered spiritually lost into the freedom and grace offered through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Implications and Christian Duty

In light of the aforementioned Islamic references, this commentary concludes that Christians bear a significant responsibility to present the Gospel to Muslims, whom the author describes as being under spiritual bondage due to these influences. The hope expressed is that, through receiving the Gospel, such individuals may be delivered from negative spiritual influences and cease to be "instruments" or "playthings" of Satan.

Conclusion

While this reflection is admittedly polemical in its approach, its purpose is to highlight what are perceived as spiritual dynamics at play in certain interreligious encounters. The Christian is therefore encouraged to approach such situations not with hostility, but with a sense of spiritual mission, seeking the transformation and liberation of those believed to be lost, through the power of the Gospel.

Author's Note

The above is a scholarly translation and contextual arrangement of the original Swahili text. The content reflects the theological and polemical position of the author and should be approached with sensitivity and an appreciation for the principles of interfaith dialogue. All references to Islamic sources are cited as they appear in the original document, and interpretations are provided from the perspective of Christian ministry.

Max Shimba Ministries Org

Challenging the Omniscience of Allah

Challenging the Omniscience of Allah: A Critical Theological Analysis

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

The Islamic doctrine traditionally asserts that Allah is omniscient, possessing perfect and complete knowledge of all things, past, present, and future. However, certain passages in the Quran, when examined critically and in their Arabic context, appear to suggest a process of discovery or testing on Allah’s part, implying limits to His knowledge. This paper scrutinizes these verses, especially Surah al-Baqarah 2:143, and corroborating statements from Sahih Hadith, to interrogate the classical claim of Allah’s omniscience. The analysis situates the discussion within broader Abrahamic theology, comparing the Quranic depiction of divine knowledge with the biblical and Christian tradition.

Introduction

The nature of God’s knowledge is central to the theology of monotheistic religions. While the Bible affirms the omniscience of YHWH (Psalm 139:1–6; Hebrews 4:13), Islamic orthodoxy asserts the same for Allah. Nevertheless, critical examination of the Quran reveals verses that may undermine this doctrine. This article focuses on such instances, raising important questions about the consistency and coherence of Allah's omniscience as presented in Islamic scripture and hadith.

1. Quranic Passages Suggesting a Lack of Omniscience

1.1 Surah al-Baqarah 2:143

The verse states:

“We decreed the Qiblah which you faced before, that We may know who follows the Apostle and who turn away in haste…”
(Quran 2:143, Ahmed Ali translation)

The Arabic:

“…وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الْقِبْلَةَ الَّتِي كُنتَ عَلَيْهَا إِلَّا لِنَعْلَمَ مَن يَتَّبِعُ الرَّسُولَ مِمَّن يَنقَلِبُ عَلَىٰ عَقِبَيْهِ…”

Critical Analysis:

The expression “لِنَعْلَمَ” (“so that We may know”) indicates a purpose clause. The plain reading suggests that Allah needed to create a test in order to gain knowledge—knowledge He would not otherwise have had. This language implies a form of epistemic limitation on Allah’s part, which stands in contrast to the doctrine of exhaustive foreknowledge.

1.2 Similar Passages in the Quran

Quran 3:140:
“…so that Allah may know those who believe…”
Quran 29:2-3:
“Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, ‘We believe’, and that they will not be tested? We did test those before them, so that Allah may know those who are true and those who are false.”

In each case, the verb “يَعْلَمَ” (“may know”) is used in a manner that indicates discovery after a process, not prior omniscience.

2. Interpretations from Classical Tafsir

Many classical Muslim exegetes (mufassirun) attempt to resolve this apparent theological problem. Al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, and others argue that “so that We may know” is to be understood metaphorically, meaning “so that it may be known” to others or “so that it becomes manifest.” However, this is a theological gloss and not the most immediate sense of the Arabic phrase. The Quran’s repeated use of testing for knowledge remains problematic.

3. Evidence from Sahih Hadith

3.1 Allah’s Regret or Surprise

Sahih al-Bukhari 6619:
“Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains.”

Here, Allah “wonders,” a term implying surprise or lack of foreknowledge.

Sahih Muslim 2751:
“Allah laughs at two men, one of whom kills the other yet both enter Paradise.”

Laughter and wonder, in this anthropomorphic sense, are not typically attributed to an omniscient being in classical theism.

4. Comparison with the Christian Tradition

The Christian Bible repeatedly affirms God’s perfect knowledge:

Psalm 147:5:
“Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.”
1 John 3:20:
“…God is greater than our heart, and He knows everything.”

Unlike the Quran, there is no verse in the New Testament or Old Testament where God tests in order to learn something previously unknown to Him.

5. Academic Discussion

Modern Islamic scholars (see: Fazlur Rahman, “Major Themes of the Quran”; W.M. Watt, “Islamic Philosophy and Theology”) admit that anthropomorphic language is present in the Quran, but tend to allegorize it. Nonetheless, such approaches raise questions about textual clarity and doctrinal consistency.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented, the Quran and certain Sahih Hadith contain passages that, at least prima facie, suggest Allah acquires knowledge through tests and events. While Islamic tradition strives to harmonize these with divine omniscience, the explicit wording remains challenging for the doctrine of Allah’s absolute knowledge. In contrast, the Christian scriptural portrayal of divine omniscience is unambiguous and consistent.

References & Bibliography

The Holy Quran (trans. Ahmed Ali, Saheeh International, Yusuf Ali, Pickthall).
Al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Tabari (commentary on Quran 2:143, 3:140, 29:2-3).
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith no. 6619.
Sahih Muslim, Hadith no. 2751.
Rahman, Fazlur. Major Themes of the Qur’an, University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Watt, W. Montgomery. Islamic Philosophy and Theology, Edinburgh University Press, 1985.
Griffith, Sidney H. The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the People of the Book in the Language of Islam, Princeton University Press, 2013.
Stump, Eleonore, and Kretzmann, Norman. “Eternity,” The Journal of Philosophy, 1981.
The Holy Bible, Psalm 147:5; 1 John 3:20; Hebrews 4:13.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
For publication or scholarly debate, correspondence is welcome.

Generated image