Divine Uncertainty in Qur’an 47:28: A Theological Inquiry into Allah’s “Installation”

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This article investigates the peculiar expression in Qur’an 47:28, where Allah is portrayed as “installing” or “setting” (imlāʾ) something within the disbelievers, which raises profound questions about divine certainty, omniscience, and intentionality in the Qur’anic text. The study employs comparative theological analysis, hermeneutical exegesis, and linguistic critique to uncover whether the verse implies divine uncertainty or a reactive, rather than sovereign, mode of action in Allah’s dealings with human beings.

---

1. Introduction: The Problem of Divine Intention in Qur’an 47:28

Qur’an 47:28 states:

“That is because they followed what angered Allah and disliked what pleased Him, so He made their deeds fruitless.”
(Qur’an 47:28, Sahih International)

However, several classical and modern translations also render key verbs in ways that suggest installation, deliberate placement, or allowance — terms which carry semantic connotations of gradual process, testing, or even hesitation. The Arabic phrase fa-ahbaṭa a‘mālahum (“so He made their deeds fruitless”) and related interpretive commentaries imply an intervention that occurs after observation, not by predetermined decree.

This raises critical theological questions:

• If Allah’s omniscience is perfect, why must He “install” or “set” reactions after observing human choices?

• Does this imply that Allah’s judgment is contingent upon unfolding events?

• How can an all-knowing deity “test” what He already knows with absolute certainty?

---

2. Linguistic and Exegetical Analysis of “Installation” (إملاء)

The Arabic term imlāʾ (from the root m-l-y) occurs in several Qur’anic passages (e.g., 3:178; 7:183), often translated as “granting respite,” “installing,” or “allowing delay.” This verb is sometimes used to describe Allah’s extended patience toward sinners before punishment.

Yet, the morphology of the word suggests process rather than finality. It depicts a deity who acts through stages, waiting, observing, and then implementing outcomes based on human response.

In classical tafsīr works (e.g., Tafsir al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Qurtubi), scholars attempted to reconcile this with Allah’s omniscience by claiming that imlāʾ refers to divine testing (ibtilāʾ). However, testing presupposes uncertainty about the test’s result — a philosophical contradiction to omniscience.

This invites deeper inquiry:

• Why does Allah “grant time” or “install” disbelief rather than instantaneously decreeing it?

• Does imlāʾ reflect a temporal learning process within Allah’s actions?

• Can a timeless being operate within temporal delay?

---

3. Theological Implications: Is Allah Reactive or Proactive?

The Qur’an often portrays Allah as reacting to human behavior: rewarding faith, cursing disbelief, or altering decrees based on obedience (Qur’an 13:39; 8:53). In Qur’an 47:28, this reactive tendency is evident — Allah responds to their dislike of what pleases Him by nullifying their deeds.

In contrast, the Biblical God declares, “I am the Lord, I change not” (Malachi 3:6) and “Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18). The Biblical framework depicts omniscience as an eternal constancy, not adaptive reaction.

Hence, the question arises:

• Does the Qur’an’s Allah act sequentially, responding to events as they occur?

• If so, can divine knowledge in Islam be truly eternal and unchanging?

• Does Allah’s “installation” of delay suggest dependence on human decision-making to complete His will?

---

4. The Problem of Divine Psychology: Is Allah Testing Himself?

If Allah’s “installation” implies that He must observe before judging, this introduces a divine cognitive process resembling human reasoning. This anthropomorphic depiction contradicts the classical Islamic doctrine of tanzīh (absolute transcendence), which asserts that Allah is beyond time, space, and human emotion.

Yet, Qur’an 47:28 and related verses describe Allah as being angered, pleased, or testing believers. Such human-like emotions raise theological tension:

• Can an immutable being become “angry” or “pleased”?

• Is Allah’s decision-making process an evolving response rather than a predetermined decree?

• If Allah installs disbelief or guidance progressively, is He learning from human actions?

---

5. Comparative Reflection: Divine Certainty in the Bible vs. Qur’an

In the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, God’s foreknowledge precedes creation itself (Isaiah 46:10; Romans 8:29). There is no notion of divine installation or delay because God’s decrees are absolute, not observational.

By contrast, the Qur’anic Allah’s behavior appears inconsistent with omniscient sovereignty. He “tests” to know (Qur’an 47:31), “changes” decrees (Qur’an 13:39), and “installs” or “grants time” (Qur’an 47:28; 3:178).

Thus, the philosophical debate centers on whether the Qur’anic portrayal of Allah reflects epistemic limitation — an unfolding divine consciousness tied to time and human action — or whether these are merely metaphors misunderstood by interpreters.

---

6. Conclusion: A Call for Re-examining Qur’anic Theism

Qur’an 47:28 exposes deep theological ambiguity. The “installation” language challenges the coherence of Allah’s omniscience, sovereignty, and immutability. The Qur’an’s God appears to operate within temporal frameworks, responding to human choices rather than governing from eternal certainty.

This invites broader philosophical and theological questions:

• If Allah must install, test, or wait, can He be truly omniscient?

• Is the Qur’an’s deity engaged in temporal trial and error?

• Does this reveal an evolving concept of God in early Islamic theology?

• Or does it point to a fundamentally human authorship behind the Qur’an, reflecting psychological projection rather than divine omniscience?

---

References

1. The Qur’an, Surah 47:28, 3:178, 7:183, 13:39, 8:53, 47:31.

2. Al-Tabari, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al-Qurʾān.

3. Al-Qurtubi, Al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān.

4. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-ʿAzim.

5. Cragg, Kenneth. The Event of the Qur’an: Islam in Its Scripture. Oxford University Press, 1971.

6. Parrinder, Geoffrey. Jesus in the Qur’an. Sheldon Press, 1965.

7. The Holy Bible (KJV): Malachi 3:6; Acts 15:18; Isaiah 46:10; Romans 8:29.

The First Christmas Was Celebrated by Angels

 

The First Christmas Was Celebrated by Angels

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute, 

---

Abstract

This article explores the biblical and theological foundation of Christmas as first celebrated by the angels at the birth of Jesus Christ. Drawing upon Luke 2:8–15, it contends that the heavenly hosts were the original worshipers of Christ’s incarnation, thereby providing divine precedent for human celebration of Christmas. Through exegetical and doctrinal analysis, the study argues that angelic worship of the newborn Christ validates Christmas as a sacred and God-approved commemoration.

Keywords: Christmas, angels, incarnation, worship, theology, Luke 2:8–15

---

1. Introduction

The celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, commonly known as Christmas, is one of the most significant events in Christian tradition. However, few realize that this celebration was first conducted not by human beings but by the angels of heaven. According to the Gospel of Luke, the angels of God were the first to proclaim and glorify God for the birth of Christ. This theological truth establishes that Christmas, at its core, is an act of divine worship rather than a mere human invention.

---

2. The Angelic Celebration of Christ’s Birth

The biblical foundation for the angelic celebration is found in Luke 2:8–15:

“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, ‘Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.’ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men.’” (Luke 2:8–14, KJV)

This passage marks the first divine worship service conducted on earth. The angels, rejoicing and praising God for the incarnation of His Son, established the original Mass of Christ—from which the term Christmas is derived. The angelic chorus was therefore the first Christmas celebration in history.

---

3. Theological Implications of Angelic Worship

The angelic proclamation signifies more than heavenly rejoicing; it represents divine approval of Christ’s birth as a universal event of joy. The message declared by the angel—“good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people”—underscores the universality of salvation through Christ. Thus, celebrating the birth of Jesus is not merely permissible; it is theologically mandated by heaven’s own example.

The angels’ worship validates Christmas as a sacred act of adoration directed toward the incarnate Son of God. As the angels glorified God, believers are likewise called to rejoice in the gift of salvation manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. To reject or neglect this celebration is to ignore the joy proclaimed by the heavenly hosts.

Furthermore, spiritual beings opposed to God cannot rejoice in the incarnation, for the coming of Christ signifies the defeat of demonic power. The Apostle John confirms: “The Son of God appeared for this purpose—to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8, NASB). Therefore, joy at the birth of Christ is a distinguishing mark of divine alignment and faithfulness.

---

4. The Meaning and Etymology of Christmas

The word Christmas originates from the combination of Christ and Mass. The term Mass refers to the Eucharistic celebration or worship in the Christian tradition. Hence, Christ-Mass literally means “the worship of Christ.”

According to Luke 2:13–14, the angels’ act of praising God at the birth of Jesus constitutes the first Mass or act of worship dedicated to Christ. This divine origin of worship establishes Christmas as an inherently sacred observance. Consequently, every believer who celebrates Christmas partakes in a worshipful tradition inaugurated by heaven itself.

---

5. Conclusion

The birth of Jesus Christ was first celebrated by the angels, making Christmas an event of divine initiative. The angels’ act of praise in Luke 2:8–15 represents the original and pure form of Christmas worship. Therefore, when humanity celebrates Christmas, it participates in a heavenly tradition that glorifies God and honors the incarnation of His Son.

What the angels of God performed was holy; thus, when believers commemorate the same, they engage in a holy act pleasing to the Creator. The true essence of Christmas lies in worship—adoring God for His indescribable gift of salvation through Jesus Christ.

---

References

The Holy Bible, King James Version. (1611). Luke 2:8–15; 1 John 3:8.

Shimba, M. (2018, December 25). Krisimasi ya Kwanza Ilifanywa na Malaika [The First Christmas Was Celebrated by Angels]. Shimba Theological Institute.

Titus 2:13 — “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

---

Correspondence:
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

MUHAMMAD IS WORSHIPPED BY BEASTS AND TREES: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF AÏSHA’S TESTIMONY

 

MUHAMMAD IS WORSHIPPED BY BEASTS AND TREES: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF AÏSHA’S TESTIMONY

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

This paper examines a controversial Hadith narrated by Aisha, the wife of Prophet Muhammad, as recorded in Jamiʿ al-Tirmidhi Hadith 3270. The narration reports that animals and trees prostrated before Muhammad, implying an act of worship. The Companions, amazed by this act, suggested that they too should prostrate before him. This Hadith raises deep theological questions about the nature of worship, the distinction between servitude to God and reverence for a human, and the boundaries of Islamic monotheism (tawḥīd). The paper seeks to evaluate the theological, logical, and Qur’anic inconsistencies that emerge from this narration.

---

The Quoted Hadith

Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 3270 — Narrated by Aisha:
"Once when Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) was with a number of the Emigrants and Helpers, a camel came and prostrated itself before him. Thereupon his Companions said, ‘Messenger of Allah, beasts and trees prostrate themselves before you, but we have the greatest right to do so.’ He replied, ‘Worship your Lord and honor your brother. If I were to order anyone to prostrate himself before another, I should order a woman to prostrate herself before her husband. If he were to order her to convey stones from a yellow mountain to a black one, or from a black mountain to a white one, it would be incumbent on her to do so.’"
(Transmitted by Ahmad and al-Tirmidhi)

---

Theological and Logical Inquiry

Aisha’s narration introduces profound theological implications that challenge Islamic monotheism (Tawḥīd al-ʿUlūhiyyah). The fact that animals and trees allegedly prostrated before Muhammad implies an act of reverence reserved for divine beings. In Islam, sujūd (prostration) is a distinct form of worship that belongs exclusively to Allah (Surah 41:37; 22:18). Thus, if non-human creation performed this before Muhammad, several critical questions arise:

1. Did the animals and trees commit shirk (idolatry)?
   According to Surah al-Anbiyāʾ 21:98–99,

   “Indeed, you and what you worship besides Allah are the fuel of Hell. You will surely enter it. If those had truly been gods, they would not have entered it, but all will abide therein forever.”
   This verse condemns all beings that are worshipped besides Allah. If animals and trees prostrated before Muhammad, does this not make him the object of their worship?

2. Why did Allah allow this to occur?
   If Muhammad is truly a mere messenger (rasūl), how does divine permission extend to acts of prostration toward him by creation? Is this not in contradiction with Surah 41:37 which states,

   “Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon, but prostrate to Allah who created them.”

3. Was Aisha mistaken or fabricating?
   As the Prophet’s wife, Aisha’s report holds significant authority in Islamic tradition. However, if the Hadith implies the Prophet accepted worship (even passively), it undermines the Qur’anic command in Surah 18:110:

   “Say, I am only a human being like you, to whom it has been revealed that your God is one God.”
   If Aisha’s account is authentic, then it portrays Muhammad in a position of divinity rather than prophethood.

---

Exegetical Tension: Worship vs. Honor

The Prophet’s response—“Worship your Lord and honor your brother”—appears to distance himself from direct worship. Yet, the narrative fails to address why the camel and trees were permitted to perform prostration. The Companions’ statement, “Beasts and trees prostrate before you, but we have the greatest right to do so,” reveals that even early Muslims perceived this as an act of veneration, if not worship.

This suggests an early tendency toward prophetic exaltation, later seen in Shama’il al-Muhammadiyyah and Sufi traditions where Muhammad is described as the “Light of Creation” (Nūr Muḥammadī). The narrative, therefore, exposes an evolving theology that blurs the line between devotion to Allah and reverence for His messenger.

---

Philosophical and Theological Implications

From a theological standpoint, the Hadith leads to a paradox:

• If the beasts and trees truly worshipped Muhammad, shirk was committed.

• If they did not, the Hadith contradicts its own narrative, rendering it mythological or metaphorical.

• Either outcome undermines the integrity of Hadith transmission or Islamic theology of pure monotheism.

Furthermore, this account echoes ancient pagan reverence where nature worshipped semi-divine heroes and kings—suggesting the possible syncretic incorporation of earlier cultural myths into Hadith literature.

---

Conclusion

The Hadith of Aisha (al-Tirmidhi 3270) remains a profound theological problem within Islamic orthodoxy. It implies that Muhammad received a form of worship from creation, contradicting the Qur’an’s uncompromising monotheism. Whether this account is allegorical or literal, it exposes a tension between prophetic humanity and divine exaltation in early Islamic narratives. The narration attributed to Aisha thus becomes a critical text for examining the evolution of Muhammad’s deification in post-Qur’anic traditions.

---

Bibliography

1. Al-Tirmidhi, Abu Isa Muhammad ibn Isa. Jamiʿ al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 3270.

2. Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Musnad Ahmad, Vol. 6, Hadith No. 25512.

3. The Qur’an, Surah 18:110; 21:98–99; 22:18; 41:37.

4. Ibn Kathir, Ismail. Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim. Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, 1998.

5. Al-Bukhari, Muhammad ibn Ismail. Sahih al-Bukhari.

6. Crone, Patricia. Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam. Princeton University Press, 1987.

7. Wansbrough, John. Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation. Oxford University Press, 1977.

8. Shimba, Maxwell. Theological Paradoxes in Islamic Texts: A Comparative Inquiry. Shimba Theological Institute Press, 2025.

The Holy Spirit as Parakletos: Our Divine Helper

 

The Holy Spirit as Parakletos: Our Divine Helper

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

---

1. Introduction

The term Parakletos—translated as “Comforter,” “Counselor,” or “Helper”—is a profound Greek word that encapsulates the multifaceted ministry of the Holy Spirit. Biblical references such as Isaiah 11:2 and John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7 all point to this divine function. The term “Paraclete,” derived from parakletos, refers to the Holy Spirit as the One called alongside believers to assist, comfort, and guide them in their Christian journey.

When Jesus was about to depart from the world, His disciples were deeply troubled, fearing the loss of His comforting presence. Yet, He promised to send another Helper—the Holy Spirit—who would dwell with them and within them, assuring them of divine companionship and spiritual strength. The Holy Spirit also “bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children,” thus affirming our salvation (Romans 8:16).

---

2. The Promise of the Helper (John 14:14–17)

Before His departure, Jesus introduced the Holy Spirit to His disciples through a series of profound teachings that reveal the Spirit’s divine nature and purpose:

“If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.
If you love Me, keep My commandments.
And I will pray to the Father, and He shall give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever;
even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him.
But you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.”
— John 14:14–17 (NKJV)

This passage encapsulates the heart of Jesus’ promise: the enduring presence of the Holy Spirit as the continuing manifestation of divine guidance and truth. The “Helper” (Parakletos) is both a personal and active agent of God’s will within believers.

---

3. Theological Analysis of the Term Parakletos

The Greek word parakletos carries multiple layers of meaning—Advocate, Comforter, Counselor, and Intercessor. Scholars have explored its historical and religious origins across various traditions, including Jewish, Qumranic, and Mandaean literature. While linguistic studies reveal its antiquity, the Christian concept of Parakletos represents a new revelation: the indwelling presence of the Spirit of God as the believer’s divine Companion.

In the New Testament context, the Holy Spirit is depicted as a Shepherd (Job 33:23), an Advocate (1 John 2:1), and an active Helper guiding believers after Christ’s physical departure. Although Jesus would soon be absent in body, through the Spirit, His followers continue to experience His presence. Unlike “the world,” which neither perceives nor understands the Spirit, true believers discern this indwelling reality through intimate relationship and obedience.

---

4. Obedience as the Expression of Love

A recurring theme in John’s writings is that love for Christ must manifest in obedience. Jesus declares, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Love is not an abstract sentiment but an active demonstration of faith through adherence to His teachings (1 John 2:7–11). Genuine discipleship is thus inseparable from obedience, for one cannot claim to love Christ while disregarding His word.

As the narrative of John 14 progresses toward Jesus’ impending crucifixion, the contrast between light and darkness intensifies. The obedience of the Son to the Father’s will—culminating in the Cross—becomes the ultimate model for believers. Through this act of divine submission, Jesus fulfills the Father’s redemptive plan, and the Spirit continues this work within the hearts of believers.

---

5. The Attributes and Ministry of the Holy Spirit

The Scriptures present a rich and comprehensive theology of the Holy Spirit’s personhood and work:

1. Parakletos – The Comforter, the One who is with us (John 14:16, 26; 15:26)

2. Knows the deep thoughts of God (1 Corinthians 2:10–11)

3. Speaks to believers (Acts 13:2; Hebrews 3:7)

4. Teaches and enlightens (John 14:26; 1 Corinthians 2:13)

5. Acts as a spiritual Parent, ensuring we are not orphans (John 14:18)

6. Guides into all truth (John 16:13)

7. Dwells within believers (1 Corinthians 3:16; Romans 8:9, 11; Ephesians 2:22)

8. Intercedes for us in prayer (Romans 8:26–27)

9. Can be grieved or insulted (Ephesians 4:30; Hebrews 10:29)

10. Testifies of Christ (John 15:26)

11. Possesses intellect and emotion (Romans 8:27; 15:30)

12. Makes divine decisions (1 Corinthians 12:11)

13. Searches the deep things of God (1 Corinthians 2:9–10)

14. Groans and cares deeply for believers (Romans 8:26)

These attributes demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force but a divine Person possessing will, intellect, and emotion. He is actively involved in the sanctification, empowerment, and preservation of believers.

---

6. Conclusion

The Holy Spirit, as Parakletos, remains the believer’s perpetual Companion, guiding, comforting, and empowering the Church throughout the ages. His presence ensures that the absence of Christ’s physical body does not mean spiritual abandonment. Through Him, the divine relationship continues in vitality and intimacy.

The Spirit searches the deep things of God, intercedes for humanity, and leads believers into the fullness of truth. Thus, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is central to Christian theology, worship, and life—affirming that God’s presence is not distant, but eternally near.

---

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

“MUSLIMS, AWAKEN FROM SLUMBER TO REALIZE THAT CHRISTIANS ARE NOT INFIDELS”

 Tuesday, January 10, 2017

“MUSLIMS, AWAKEN FROM SLUMBER TO REALIZE THAT CHRISTIANS ARE NOT INFIDELS”

I know you may be surprised and wonder how a Muslim can awaken when you believe that your eyes are already open. When I say this, I mean that although you think you are fully aware, your belief about Christians—that they are infidels—is based solely on what you have been taught. You accepted it because the Quran says so:

“And the Jews say, ‘Uzair is the son of God,’ and the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is the son of God.’ That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before. May Allah destroy them; how they are deluded!”
—Al-Tawba (9:30)

Upon reading this verse, a Muslim is led to believe that Christians are infidels simply because they claim that Jesus is the Son of God. You believe that these words—Jesus being the Son of God—are invented by Christians themselves, and therefore, you consider us infidels. You rejoice that the Quran came to warn against this:

“And to warn those who say, ‘Allah has taken a son.’” —Al-Kahf (18:4)
“They have no knowledge of it, nor do their forefathers. Grave is the word that comes out of their mouths; they speak not except a lie.” —Al-Kahf (18:5)

You accept without reflection that the Quran came to warn Christians for claiming that God has a son. But before you jump to labeling Christians as infidels, awaken and examine the truth. Today, I want to awaken you so that if you desire to enter the Kingdom of God, you may join me in understanding.

---

Do Christians Truly Say That Jesus Is the Son of God?

This is a crucial question to ask before accepting that Christians speak falsely or that calling them infidels is justified. Before Christians existed, and before Jesus—the origin of Christianity—was born, the angel announced to Mary:

Luke 1:30–35: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. His kingdom will have no end. The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the child to be born will be holy, the Son of God.”

It was the angel who proclaimed that Jesus would be called the Son of God, not the Christians themselves. Even God affirmed this truth:

Matthew 17:1–6: Jesus took Peter, James, and John up a high mountain. There, his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. Suddenly, Moses and Elijah appeared and spoke with him. A bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said: “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him.”

Ask yourself, Muslim reader: Were the angel and God themselves Christians? Can God or His angels be infidels? Even Jesus confirmed his identity as the Son of God:

John 9:35–38: “Do you believe in the Son of God?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “Who is he, Lord, that I may believe?” Jesus said, “You have seen him; he is speaking to you.” The man said, “I believe, Lord,” and worshiped him.

Could Jesus truly be an infidel? He is the one revealing to Christians that he is the Son of God, and Peter acknowledged this truth (Matthew 16:13–17).

---

Christians Are Not Infidels

Saying Jesus is the Son of God is a divine revelation. So why do Muslims believe that Christians are infidels for acknowledging this truth? Muhammad framed it as a test, suggesting that acknowledging Jesus as the Son of God makes one a disbeliever—but the Scriptures themselves (Nehemiah 5:8–9; Galatians 3:26–29) show otherwise. Christians did not become infidels merely by believing in Jesus; rather, true infidelity was opposed to the Jewish people, the enemies of God’s chosen people.

Moreover, the Quran itself shows the context:

“You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah; and you will find the nearest in affection to the believers to be those who say, ‘We are Christians.’ That is because among them are priests and monks, and because they are not arrogant.” —Al-Maaida (5:82)

Thus, Muslims are told that Jews are their primary enemies. Friendship with Jews is prohibited (Al-Maaida 5:51). True awakening requires understanding that you are not justified in labeling Christians as infidels merely for acknowledging Jesus as the Son of God.

---

Faith and Salvation

Belief in Jesus as the Son of God brings eternal life:

John 3:16–17: “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”
John 3:36: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”

Muhammad warned of God’s wrath because he did not know the fate of his own soul regarding the Kingdom of God. But the Bible clearly teaches that acknowledging Jesus as the Son of God is the path to salvation, not disbelief:

Maryam 19:88–90: The Quran exaggerates the reaction to this truth as if the heavens would split and the mountains collapse. This hyperbole demonstrates that calling Jesus the Son of God is not truly infidelity.

Therefore, awaken today, Muslim reader, and recognize that believing Jesus is the Son of God does not make one an infidel.

Max Shimba Ministries Org

How can Ishmael’s African lineage be reconciled with the claim that Muhammad was purely Arab?

 A Scholarly Debate on Ishmael’s Lineage and the Ethnic Origins of Muhammad

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

---

Introduction

The Islamic tradition holds that the Prophet Muhammad is a direct descendant of Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Hagar. This genealogical claim is foundational to Islamic identity, as it connects Muhammad—and therefore Islam—to the Abrahamic covenantal line. However, when examined through both scriptural and historical lenses, this claim raises several inconsistencies. A critical question arises: if Ishmael’s mother was Egyptian and his wife was also Egyptian, does this not imply that his descendants—if traceable—would be African rather than Arabian?

This academic inquiry aims to provoke a theological and historical debate by juxtaposing the biblical narrative with Islamic claims. The purpose is not to diminish faith but to invite reasoned dialogue rooted in textual integrity and historical truth.

---

1. The Biblical Account: Ishmael’s African Connection

According to Genesis 16:1–12 and Genesis 21:9–21, Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, was an Egyptian handmaiden of Sarah. Later, as Genesis 21:21 records, Hagar took a wife for Ishmael from the land of Egypt. This means Ishmael was the child of an Egyptian mother and married an Egyptian woman—making both his maternal and marital lines African in origin.

Rabbinic commentary in Genesis Rabbah 53:15 reinforces this by citing the proverb:

“Throw a stick into the air, and it will always fall on its end.”
In context, this saying means that Hagar, being Egyptian, naturally chose an Egyptian wife for her son.

Thus, if Ishmael’s lineage continued biologically, his offspring would have carried Egyptian (African) blood.

---

2. The Islamic Claim: Muhammad as a Descendant of Ishmael

Islamic tradition asserts that Muhammad descended from Ishmael through his son Kedar (Qidar). This claim, however, lacks direct historical documentation before Islam emerged in the 7th century CE. There exists no continuous genealogical record linking Ishmael to Muhammad. The genealogy is largely retrospective—constructed after Muhammad’s lifetime to affirm his prophetic legitimacy within the Abrahamic line.

Critical Questions:

1. Where is the documented genealogical chain from Ishmael to Muhammad found before the 7th century?

2. How can Ishmael’s African lineage be reconciled with the claim that Muhammad was purely Arab?

3. If Arabs claim descent from Ishmael, does this not also imply that they share African ancestry through Hagar?

4. Why do many Muslims reject any notion that Muhammad could have had African blood when their own tradition connects Ishmael to Egypt?

---

3. Historical and Ethnological Analysis

The term Egyptian in the biblical sense refers to people of North African descent, part of the Hamitic line (Genesis 10:6). Therefore, Ishmael’s genealogy is partly Hamitic through Hagar and his Egyptian wife, and partly Semitic through Abraham. Any claim of pure Semitic descent through Ishmael ignores this dual heritage.

Furthermore, ancient Arab tribes such as the Qedarites were nomadic groups in northwestern Arabia, but their ethnic composition was not uniform. Archaeological and linguistic evidence suggests significant African influence and intermarriage in those regions.

If we accept the Islamic claim that Muhammad descended from Ishmael, logic dictates that Muhammad’s ancestry was at least partially African. Yet, this conclusion is often rejected in Islamic discourse, revealing a contradiction between faith-based genealogy and ethnological reality.

---

4. The Debate: A Call for Consistency

Muslims must face one of two possibilities:

1. If Muhammad is indeed a descendant of Ishmael, then by scriptural and historical reasoning, he carried African (Egyptian) blood.

2. If Muhammad was not African, then the claim that he descended from Ishmael collapses, since Ishmael’s lineage is inextricably tied to Egypt.

Therefore, the question remains:

“Can Islam uphold Muhammad’s Ishmaelite heritage without acknowledging his African ancestry?”

If not, then perhaps the genealogical claim itself was theological rather than historical—a symbolic link to Abraham to grant Muhammad prophetic legitimacy.

---

5. Scholarly Conclusion

This debate exposes a fundamental tension in Islamic historiography: the desire to connect Muhammad to Abraham through Ishmael, while distancing him from Africa through Hagar.
But the biblical record is unambiguous—Hagar and Ishmael’s line began in Egypt.

Hence, the argument concludes:

• Either Muhammad was an African by descent through Ishmael,

• Or he had no genealogical connection to Ishmael at all.

Until verifiable historical evidence bridges this 2,500-year genealogical gap, the claim remains a theological assertion rather than a historical fact.

---

Final Provocative Question:
If Islam insists on an Abrahamic lineage through Ishmael, will it also embrace the African heritage inherent in that lineage—or continue to deny it in pursuit of an Arabized identity?

---

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Abraham Never Built the Kaʿbah

 

Abraham Never Built the Kaʿbah — A Scholarly Examination

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract (short).
This article examines the widely held Islamic tradition that Abraham (Ibrāhīm) and his son Ismāʿīl built the Kaʿbah in Mecca, and it evaluates six assertions commonly made in Christian critiques: (1) Abraham never visited Mecca; (2) Abraham did not build the Black Stone nor did it fall from the sky in the manner commonly described in later tradition; (3) Abraham made altars opposite a sacred stone but not the Kaʿbah as known in Islamic tradition; (4) the “Valley of Baca” (Psa lm 84) is not identical with Bakka/Makkah; (5) the “pilgrimage” language in Psalm 84 is not a reference to Hajj at the Kaʿbah; and (6) the well where Hagar found water in Genesis is not necessarily the Zamzam of Mecca. The evidence shows that the Abraham–Kaʿbah connection is a powerful and ancient tradition within Islam, but it is not independently attested by contemporary extra-Qurʾānic sources or archaeology in a way that would confirm the historicist claims made in later communal memory. Where the sources are ambiguous or interpretive, this paper exposes the contested nature of the identifications and recommends careful, cautious conclusions.

---

Introduction

Muslim tradition presents the Kaʿbah as the primeval “House” associated with Adam and later rebuilt by Abraham and Ismāʿīl (Qurʾānic formulation: “when Abraham and Ismail raised the foundations of the House…”). This narrative is doctrinally central within Islam and embedded in ritual memory (tawāf, Hajj rites, the place of Maqām Ibrāhīm, Zamzam, the Black Stone). Yet from the perspective of historical-critical inquiry, the claim that Abraham physically visited Mecca and (re)constructed the Kaʿbah in the Hejaz requires external corroboration — textual, epigraphic, or archaeological — which is thin or absent. The following sections analyse the evidence and alternative readings.

---

1. Tradition versus independent historical evidence

Claim. Abraham never visited Mecca (no independent historical evidence he did).
Evidence & argument. The Qurʾān and Islamic tradition clearly attribute the raising/rebuilding of the Kaʿbah to Abraham and Ismāʿīl; however, secular historical and archaeological surveys note the paucity of contemporaneous (e.g., Near Eastern, Byzantine, or South Arabian) records that tie Abraham — a patriarchal figure of the second/third millennium BCE in Biblical chronology — to the Hejaz sanctuary. Modern reference works summarise both the Islamic tradition and the relative lack of independent evidence for a pre-Islamic Kaʿbah founded by Abraham in the exact form described by later Muslim exegesis. Encyclopedia Britannica+1

Conclusion: The Abrahamic origin of the Kaʿbah is a theological/traditional claim with strong internal attestation in Islamic literature; it lacks external, datable archaeological corroboration that would demonstrate a historical, physical act by Abraham in Mecca.

---

2. The Black Stone: tradition, later legend, and uncertain origin

Claim. Abraham never built the Black Stone from the sky; origin stories vary and are not historically verifiable.
Evidence & argument. Islamic tradition recounts several origins for the Black Stone (al-Hajar al-Aswad): meteorite, relic from Adam, an angel turned to stone, etc. Medieval and later writers record these traditions, and modern commentators add geological speculation (some propose meteoritic origin). However, the stone has never been subjected to definitive modern scientific analysis (for obvious religious and political reasons), and scholarly treatments emphasise that accounts of celestial origin are traditions, not scientific proof. Wikipedia+1

Conclusion: The Black Stone’s “from the sky” narrative belongs to devotional tradition and later apologetic exegesis; it cannot be treated as a historically established fact without independent physical analysis and corroboration.

---

3. Abraham’s altars and the possibility of ritual sites distinct from the Kaʿbah

Claim. Abraham built altars to offer sacrifices opposite a stone, but this should not be conflated automatically with the later Kaʿbah structure in Mecca.
Evidence & argument. Islamic exegetical tradition sometimes locates early patriarchal sanctities (altars, stations of prayer) within a broader sacred geography attributed to Abraham. Early texts and later tafsīr narrate that Abraham found the Black Stone and (re)established a sanctuary; yet these retellings function to sacralise the Meccan shrine and properly integrate it into Abrahamic lineage. From the historian’s viewpoint, such narrative moves are common in religious traditions that link local shrines to revered ancestors. Comparative scholarship treats such reports as theological legitimations rather than independent chronicles of construction works. Encyclopedia Britannica+1

Conclusion: References to altars and sacrifices associated with Abraham are important for devotional history but do not demonstrate a straightforward archaeological claim that ties Abraham physically to the extant Kaʿbah complex.

---

4. The Valley of Baca (Baka/Bakkah) — biblical text and identifications

Claim. The valley of Baca in Psalm 84 is not (demonstrably) the Valley of Mecca/Bakkah.
Evidence & argument. Psalm 84 (a pilgrimage psalm) uses the Hebrew term Baca (בכא/“baká( )”/“weeping” or “balsam”), typically understood in Jewish and Christian exegesis as a local valley in or near ancient Israel (possible identifications include the Valley of Rephaim or others). Islamic interpreters read the Qurʾānic Bakkah (Q 3:96) as Mecca and some Muslim exegetes connect Psalmic language to Mecca retrospectively. Secular and revisionist scholars (e.g., Tom Holland; and various source-critical authors) point out that the Hebrew Bakha and Arabic Bakkah are separate lexical items and that identification of the Psalm’s valley with Mecca is not linguistically or historically compelled. The scholarly literature therefore treats the identification as speculative, often motivated by theological correlation rather than direct evidence. Bible Hub+1

Conclusion: Psalm 84’s “Valley of Baca” is best read in its immediate canonical and Israelite setting; linking it to Mecca requires assumptions that go beyond the biblical text and into comparative theological reading.

---

5. Psalm 84 and the idea of “pilgrimage” — not Hajj

Claim. The pilgrimage language in Psalm 84 is not description of the Islamic Hajj to the Kaʿbah.
Evidence & argument. Psalm 84 is part of the Israelite pilgrimage/temple psalmody tradition (pilgrimage to Zion, the Temple). Its language — “blessed are those who dwell in your house… they journey from strength to strength” — is framed by Israelite cultic practice and geography (Jerusalem/Zion). While some modern readers attempt to read Psalm 84 typologically vis-à-vis later pilgrimage forms (including Hajj), the historical context and the Israelite cultic horizon make a direct identification with Hajj or the Kaʿbah anachronistic. Explore the Bible+1

Conclusion: The Psalm is best explained within Israelite cultic-pilgrimage imagination; equating it to Hajj represents a theological reading, not an exegesis grounded in the Psalm’s own historical setting.

---

6. Hagar, Ishmael, and the water: Zamzam vs. Genesis wells

Claim. The water associated with Hagar in Genesis is not necessarily the Zamzam well of Mecca.
Evidence & argument. Genesis 21:14–21 recounts Hagar and Ishmael in the wilderness, God opening a well (Hebrew miqweh / ma‘in), and their survival. Islamic tradition locates a parallel event at Mecca (Zamzam), and later Islamic historiography identifies the site and ritualises Safa–Marwah and the well. The narratives have similar motifs (divine water for the abandoned child), but the Genesis narrative is set in the Negev/Beersheba or surrounding region (patriarchal south of Canaan), and there is no explicit biblical geography of Mecca. The tradition that equates the Genesis well with Zamzam is thus an inter-religious identification that post-dates the biblical text and belongs to the Islamic sacred-historical mapping of Abrahamic memory onto the Hejaz. Wikipedia+1

Conclusion: The shared motifs do not by themselves prove identity of locations; the Genesis text does not mention Mecca or Zamzam.

---

7. Summary and balanced assessment

1. Strong internal tradition. Islamic texts (Qurʾān and hadīth corpus; classical tafsīr) and continuous devotional practice robustly affirm Abraham’s role vis-à-vis the Kaʿbah, the Black Stone, Zamzam, and the sanctity of Makkah/Bakkah. This is the baseline of Muslim belief and community memory. Encyclopedia Britannica+1

2. Lack of independent, contemporary corroboration. From a historical-critical vantage point, there is no external contemporaneous record (Near Eastern inscriptions, Byzantine or South Arabian records) that corroborates in detail an act of Abrahamian construction in the Hejaz; archaeological evidence for a continuous, datable structure back to the patriarchal era is not available. Scholarly literature accordingly distinguishes tradition from verifiable history. Oxford Bibliographies+1

3. Textual-linguistic caution. The Hebrew Baca/Bakha and Arabic Bakkah are similar-looking to modern readers but have distinct philological histories; mapping Psalmic valleys to Mecca requires methodological caution and additional positive evidence. Wikipedia+1

4. Tradition as identity-forming narrative. The Abraham–Kaʿbah tradition is a powerful identity and legitimating narrative. Its religious force is real even where extra-Islamic historical verification is not forthcoming. Recognising this helps explain why the tradition persists and is authoritative for Muslims even in the absence of corroborating archaeological data.

---

Annex — Selected verses and texts (for reference)

Qurʾān
Surah 3 (Āl-ʿImrān) : 96 — “Verily, the first House (of worship) appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (Makkah), full of blessing, and a guidance for mankind.” (common translations). My Islam
Qurʾān 2:127 — “And when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House…” (translations vary: “raised the foundations” / “set up the House”). Encyclopedia Britannica

Hebrew Bible / Old Testament
Psalm 84:5–6 — “Blessed are those whose strength is in you, in whose heart are the highways to Zion. As they go through the Valley of Baca, they make it a place of springs; the early rain also covers it with pools.” (many vernacular translations available). Bible Hub
Genesis 21:14–19 — (Narrative of Hagar and Ishmael; God provides a well; Ishmael’s survival; God hears the boy from the distance.) Bible Hub

(The full canonical texts above are available in standard editions — e.g., Quran translations and the Hebrew Bible / English Bible editions cited in the bibliography.)

---

Selected bibliography (works cited and recommended)

• Encyclopaedia Britannica, article “Kaaba” and “Black Stone of Mecca.” (See: overview of tradition and scholarly notes on the Kaʿbah and Black Stone). Encyclopedia Britannica+1

• “Bakkah” and “Bakkah / Baca” entries (Wikipedia; summary discussion of traditions and modern scholarly debates including Tom Holland and Patricia Crone’s revisionist suggestions). Wikipedia+1

• Zamzam Well — encyclopedic summary (Wikipedia: summary of Islamic traditions about Zamzam and later historical notes). Wikipedia

• Holland, Tom. In the Shadow of the Sword — discussion of early Islamic geography and critical views on traditional locations (see scholarly debate on Bakkah/Mecca identifications). Wikipedia

• Oxford Bibliographies / Oxford handbooks on Islamic studies — entry “Kaʿba” and related literature reviews (useful for historiographic overview). Oxford Bibliographies

• Bible translations and textual resources: BibleHub (Psalm 84, Genesis 21), for multiple modern translations and textual variants. Bible Hub

• Historical surveys and popular scholarly summaries on pre-Islamic Arabia and the Kaʿbah (Smarthistory, Khan Academy, MuslimHeritage publications) for accessible background. Smarthistory+2Khan Academy+2

---

Final remarks (tone of scholarly civility)

If the goal is to persuade Muslim readers, scholars of religion and inter-faith dialogue recommend an approach that recognises the theological centrality of the Abrahamic account for believers while carefully differentiating faith-claims from externally verifiable historical claims. The evidence above shows that: (a) the Abraham–Kaʿbah tradition is authoritative within Islamic historiography and ritual; (b) it is not matched by contemporaneous extra-Qurʾānic documentation or unambiguous archaeological proof; and (c) several identifications (Valley of Baca → Mecca; Genesis well → Zamzam) are interpretive overlays rather than necessary textual conclusions. For readers committed to historical-critical method, the prudent position is: treat these as tradition-laden claims, strong within their religious contexts, but historically contested when tested by external historical criteria.