The God Who Can Be a Mosquito But Refuses to Be a Man? A Challenge to Allah’s Character

The God Who Can Be a Mosquito But Refuses to Be a Man? A Challenge to Allah’s Character

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

One of the most puzzling and revealing passages in the Qur'an comes from Surah Al-Baqarah 2:26, where it states:

“Indeed, Allah is not ashamed to set forth an example — even of a mosquito or something smaller…”

Now pause for a moment and reflect — the Qur'an claims that Allah is not ashamed to compare Himself to, or use as an example, the lowliest of insects. A mosquito. An insignificant, irritating, disease-carrying creature. Yet, this same Allah, according to Islamic theology, utterly refuses to incarnate or manifest Himself in human form, claiming it would be beneath Him.

But Why?

If Allah has no shame in associating His message or signs with a mosquito, how then is it shameful to enter into His own creation as a man?
Would it not be more honorable for God to reveal Himself in the dignity of human form — as Christians believe He did in Jesus Christ, the Son of God — than to liken Himself to the basest of creatures?

The Problem of Consistency

Islamic scholars often argue that God cannot take human form because it would limit His majesty. Yet the Qur'an itself shows Allah setting examples even with insects and lesser things. Is the form of a man not higher than a mosquito?
If Allah has no issue using the lowest creatures for parables, why deny humanity the honor of beholding the Almighty in flesh?

This reveals a troubling inconsistency in Islamic theology:

• A God who can lower Himself to the level of insects, yet denies human incarnation.

• A deity concerned with appearances before men, but unconcerned with coherence in divine character.

Contrast with the God of the Bible

The Bible boldly declares:
“The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.” (John 1:14)
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” (Colossians 1:15)

The Christian God is not afraid of condescension — He is the God who humbles Himself to be born as a man, to walk among His creation, to suffer, and to redeem. That is power. That is majesty. That is love.

A Challenge to Islamic Thought

If Allah truly is sovereign, limitless, and merciful — what stops him from taking human form? And if he fears ‘shame’ in doing so, why does he claim to have no shame in being likened to a mosquito?

The inconsistency exposes a limitation in Islamic theology’s understanding of God’s nature. A God who can be a mosquito should certainly be able to become a man — and indeed, the true and living God did just that in Jesus Christ.

I leave you with this: Which image reveals greater love and power — the God who might be likened to an insect, or the God who humbled Himself to walk among us and give His life for our salvation?

Choose wisely. Eternity depends on it.

---

Jesus Christ: The Son of God — A Divine Truth Beyond Debate

Jesus Christ: The Son of God — A Divine Truth Beyond Debate

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Throughout history, one of the most profound and debated declarations in religious thought is this: Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This isn’t a title born of human speculation, nor a later invention of Christian theology. It is a divine identity, established by the testimony of Scripture, affirmed by the prophets, and revealed by God Himself.

The Biblical Witness

The Holy Bible consistently affirms the divine sonship of Jesus. At His baptism, God audibly declared:
“This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17)

At the transfiguration, God spoke again from heaven:
“This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him.” (Matthew 17:5)

Furthermore, the apostle John confirmed the eternal nature of the Son:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)

What Does 'Son of God' Mean?

Many critics, particularly in Islamic thought, misunderstand the term ‘Son of God’, assuming it implies a biological relationship. However, in biblical theology, ‘Son of God’ denotes divine nature and eternal relationship within the Trinity — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It signifies:

• Pre-existence before creation (John 17:5)

• Divine authority over all things (Matthew 28:18)

• Unique relationship with the Father (John 5:18-23)

• Participation in creation itself (Colossians 1:16-17)

The Testimony of Prophecy

Long before His earthly birth, the prophets spoke of a divine Son:
“For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given… and His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)

This Son would not be a mere mortal prophet but Mighty God Himself incarnate.

Why It Matters

The Sonship of Jesus is not a side issue — it is the cornerstone of salvation. If Jesus were only a man, His death could not atone for the sins of the world. Only the sinless, divine Son could bridge the chasm between a holy God and fallen humanity.

“Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” (1 John 2:23)

The Sonship of Christ is the dividing line between eternal life and eternal loss.

Conclusion

Jesus is not merely a prophet or a teacher. He is the Son of the living God, the Savior of the world, and the King of kings. Any doctrine that denies His Sonship denies God’s revelation and strips the Gospel of its power.

As Jesus Himself asked:
“Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15)

The only correct answer, like Peter’s, must be:
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16)

I, Dr. Maxwell Shimba, affirm this eternal truth and invite you to encounter the Son of God who alone offers eternal life.

---

Scientific & Theological Debate: Refuting Sahih Muslim 2643b

Claim from Sahih Muslim 2643b:

"The creation of any one of you is like this: that semen is collected in the womb of the mother for forty nights…"

Scientific Fact:
Modern embryology has thoroughly mapped out human conception and fetal development. Here’s what real biology tells us:

• Semen does not remain ‘collected in the womb for forty days’.
  Semen’s job is to deliver sperm to fertilize an egg. This happens typically within 24 hours after intercourse — sperm cells reach the fallopian tubes within minutes and fertilization occurs there, not in the womb (uterus).

• Once an egg is fertilized, it becomes a zygote, travels down the fallopian tube, and implants into the uterine wall within 6-12 days — not 40 days of “semen collection.”

• There’s no scientific or biological process where semen remains ‘collected’ for 40 nights as suggested by this hadith. It’s a demonstrably false pre-modern belief.

Theological Question:
If Allah is truly Al-‘Alīm (The All-Knowing), why would He reveal scientifically flawed biological claims through Muhammad?
And if Muhammad was indeed a true prophet of the one true God, how could he preach something so biologically inaccurate and inconsistent with observable human development?

In contrast, the Bible is scientifically neutral on embryology. It acknowledges life’s mystery in the womb without making faulty biological claims:
“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.” — Psalm 139:13 (ESV)

It poetically speaks of God’s sovereign work in the womb without detailing flawed stages.

Final Thought:
If Muhammad made such provably false statements about human creation, should his prophethood not be questioned?
And if Allah’s supposed revelation contradicts established science, is this truly from an all-knowing, all-wise deity — or a man’s guesswork in a pre-scientific era?

Truth is not afraid of scrutiny. Test every claim. The evidence points to Christ as the flawless, sinless, miracle-working Lord — not Muhammad.

#ScienceVsHadith #TruthMatters #JesusIsLord

---

Would you like a short social media version of this too?

A Scientific and Rational Challenge to Sahih Muslim 2643b

In Sahih Muslim 2643b, it is narrated that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said:

"There is no disease that Allah has created, except that He also has created its treatment."

At first glance, this sounds optimistic — but let's test it against modern medical science and observable reality.

Scientific Refutation:

If every disease truly had a cure created by Allah, why do countless diseases remain incurable even in the 21st century?
What about:

• HIV/AIDS — no definitive cure, only management therapies.

• Cancers — many types remain terminal and uncurable.

• Neurodegenerative diseases — like Alzheimer’s and ALS, with no known cure.

• Genetic disorders — like Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy or Huntington's Disease, irreversible and fatal.

If Allah created cures for these, where are they?
Humanity has been relentlessly searching through science, yet millions still die painfully each year.

Theological Question:

If Allah, as per Islamic belief, is All-Knowing and All-Merciful, why withhold those cures for millennia while millions suffer?
What kind of divine justice or mercy is this?
And what does it say about Muhammad's prophethood if such claims, stated as divine truths, collapse under empirical scrutiny?

In contrast, Jesus Christ didn’t make medical claims — He healed supernaturally, instantly curing the blind, the paralyzed, and even raising the dead, as verified in multiple eyewitness accounts (Mark 5:41-43, John 11:43-44).

Moreover, the Bible never pretends that every disease has an earthly cure — it acknowledges the fallen nature of humanity and offers eternal life in a perfect, healed world through Christ.

So, dear reader: who truly speaks with divine authority?

• A prophet whose sayings fail under modern evidence?

• Or the sinless, miracle-working Jesus Christ, whose words and power transcend time and science?

The choice is yours.

#TruthTested #ScienceVsHadith #JesusIsLord

---

For Christ’s sake — what kind of teaching is this?

Sahih al-Bukhari 6807 says:

“Whoever guarantees what is between their legs (private parts) and jaws (tongue), I (Muhammad) will guarantee them Paradise.”

Really? Is that what paradise is built on — controlling private parts? What a tragic misuse of religion to police women and reduce salvation to bodily control.

Meanwhile, Jesus Christ — the sinless Son of God — never promised heaven for fleshly restraint but called us to purity of heart and a transformed life.
He valued women, honored them, spoke to them, and revealed His resurrection to them first!

Jesus was sinless.
He is the only true hope for eternity.

No paradise is worth a life of oppression. No faith should enslave half its people.
Come to the One who said: “If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” (John 8:36)

#TruthMatters #JesusIsLord #WomenMatter #FreedomInChrist

---

A Debate of Dignity: Islam’s Controversial Hadith vs. the Sinless Christ

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

For heaven’s sake — what kind of teaching is this?

Let’s look closely at a shocking narration from Sahih al-Bukhari 6807, one of Islam’s most authoritative hadith collections. It reads:

Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd:
The Prophet (Muhammad) said, “Whoever can guarantee (the chastity of) what is between his jaws (i.e. his tongue) and what is between his legs (i.e. his private parts), I guarantee him Paradise.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari 6807)

Now, pause and reflect: is this the foundation for eternal life — control over tongue and private parts? How tragic that an entire religious promise of Paradise can be reduced to carnal restraint and silence. Worse, this has historically been used to suppress, shame, and control women’s bodies within strict, male-dominated systems.

Why should women’s dignity be a transactional key to a man’s paradise? Is this religion or control in disguise? While the Islamic tradition has continually placed undue emphasis on female modesty as a measure of male piety, this narration reveals a concerning mindset — one deeply rooted in legalistic, performance-based religion.

Meanwhile, Jesus Christ stands in total contrast.

The Bible teaches that salvation isn’t earned by physical restraint or legalistic rituals but is a gift of grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Jesus, the only sinless man to walk the earth (1 Peter 2:22), never spoke of paradise as a reward for restraining private parts. Instead, He called people to purity of heart, compassion, and spiritual rebirth.

Why is this important? Because if Jesus were not sinless, there would be no hope of salvation for humanity. Adam and Eve’s disobedience in Eden (Genesis 3) brought sin into the world, but it was the sinless Jesus who offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice for sin (2 Corinthians 5:21).

The Bible records:

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.”
(Hebrews 4:15)

While some religious systems promise paradise based on controlling desires, Jesus offers eternal life based on a transformed heart and a living relationship with God.

Final Word

No faith should ever diminish a woman’s worth or reduce divine reward to control over fleshly impulses. Christ uplifted women, valued them, healed them, spoke to them publicly, and first revealed His resurrection to them (John 20:16-18). In His kingdom, there is neither male nor female — all are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

This is the eternal dignity and purity of the Gospel, which no hadith or human tradition can replace.

I weep for those still enslaved by doctrines of fleshly control and invite them to know the liberating, sinless Savior: Jesus Christ.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Response to Muhammad Amin Alhassan

Response to Muhammad Amin Alhassan

By Max Shimba

Brother Muhammad Amin, with all due respect — it seems you’ve misunderstood my point. I did not ignore Qur’an 20:10. In fact, I clearly stated that you cannot fully grasp the entire account of Moses’ calling if you isolate one verse, which is precisely what you attempted when quoting Qur’an 20:11-12 while overlooking the context in Qur’an 20:10.

You accused me of disregarding the mention of the fire, yet ironically, it was your own citation that left out Q 20:10 — the very verse that references Moses seeing a fire. I merely pointed out that if your claim is that the Qur'an omits the burning bush narrative found in the Bible, you need to be consistent in presenting the whole context when quoting from your own scripture.

Let’s be clear:

Qur’an 20:10
“When he saw a fire, he said to his family, ‘Wait here; indeed, I have perceived a fire. Perhaps I can bring you a torch or find guidance at the fire.’”

This corresponds to the biblical account in Exodus 3:2, where Moses encounters a bush that burns without being consumed. The difference, however, is that the Qur’an omits the miraculous detail of the bush not being consumed, which is central to the biblical narrative — a detail that powerfully signified God’s holy presence.

So my argument was never that the Qur'an didn’t mention fire — it was that the Qur'an presents a different, less detailed, and theologically less significant account compared to the Torah. That was my point, and it remains valid.

If we are to engage in honest comparison, both scriptures should be read in full context — and when we do so, the Bible offers a clearer, richer, and historically attested account of Moses’ encounter with God at the burning bush.

Respectfully,
Max Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Refuting the False Doctrine of Quranic Supremacy Over the Torah and Gospel

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

I recently came across a post by Muhammad Amin Alhassan claiming that when Jesus referred to the Law in Matthew 5:17, He wasn’t referring to the Bible we have today, but to an imagined "true Torah" supposedly lost and replaced by scribes — a claim often repeated in Islamic theology. Muhammad Amin then uses Qur’an 5:48 to assert that the Qur'an was sent to correct these alleged corruptions.

Let’s set the record straight with the evidence of Scripture and history.

---

What Did Jesus Mean in Matthew 5:17?

Jesus said:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” — Matthew 5:17

At the time of Jesus, the Torah was the written Scriptures of Moses (Genesis to Deuteronomy), carefully preserved by Jewish scribes and religious leaders, read aloud in synagogues, and recognized by every Jew, including Jesus Himself.

If Muhammad Amin claims this was a "corrupted" Torah, then he faces a serious problem:
Where is this so-called true Torah?

Neither Muhammad nor his followers have ever produced this alleged original Torah. No ancient manuscripts, no textual witnesses, no preserved divine book other than the one historically recognized by Jews and early Christians — the same Old Testament that still exists today.

---

Did the Qur'an Affirm or Replace the Bible?

Muhammad Amin cites Qur’an 5:48, claiming the Qur'an was revealed to correct the so-called corruptions. However, this very verse contradicts the Islamic assertion of corruption. Notice it says:

“...confirming the Scripture that came before it...”

How can the Qur'an confirm a text it claims is corrupted? You can’t confirm what’s been falsified. Either the Torah and the Gospel were reliable at Muhammad’s time or they weren’t. The Qur'an repeatedly affirms the Torah and Gospel that existed in the 7th century — long after the time of Christ:

• Qur’an 5:43: “But how do they make you their judge while they have the Torah, in which is the judgment of Allah?”

• Qur’an 5:47: “Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.”

These verses prove that the Torah and Gospel were intact and authoritative when the Qur'an was revealed. Islam’s later claim of textual corruption is a desperate backpedal when the Qur'an’s own words contradict that narrative.

---

The Biblical Verdict

The Bible warns against anyone trying to bring a different gospel or alter God’s Word:

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” — Galatians 1:8

Muhammad's teachings, which contradict the message of Jesus' death, resurrection, and divine identity, fall under this warning.

---

Conclusion: A Fabricated Claim

Muhammad Amin’s assertion that Jesus referred to a Torah different from the one preserved in the Bible is historically baseless and theologically bankrupt. The Qur'an affirms the Scriptures that existed in its time, and those are the same Torah and Gospel we have today. The claim that the Qur'an corrects previous revelations is an invention of Islamic apologetics, not a truth supported by evidence.

Salvation is through Jesus Christ alone — the fulfillment of both the Law and the Prophets. No later revelation can nullify what God has accomplished through His Son.

Shalom,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Debating False Doctrines: Does Sickness Erase Sins?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Islamic Tradition:
According to Sunan Ibn Majah 3469, the Prophet Muhammad supposedly said:

“No calamity befalls a Muslim, nor sickness, nor anxiety, nor sorrow, nor harm, nor distress — not even a thorn that pricks him — but that Allah expiates some of his sins thereby.”

This hadith teaches that physical suffering, illness, and emotional hardship automatically erase a person’s sins in Islam.

The Christian Position:
This concept directly contradicts the revealed Word of God in the Bible, which teaches that forgiveness of sins comes only through repentance and faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, not through personal suffering or illness.

---

Why This Hadith Is a False Doctrine

1. Suffering Alone Does Not Remove Sin

Nowhere in the Bible does God teach that human suffering, sickness, or distress erases sins. In fact, Scripture warns us not to believe in human works or personal trials as a means of salvation:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” — Ephesians 2:8-9

Salvation and the forgiveness of sins are not earned by enduring sickness or trouble — they are granted through the redemptive work of Jesus on the cross.

---

2. Only the Blood of Christ Removes Sin

The Bible is clear that only the shed blood of Jesus Christ atones for sin:

“Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission [forgiveness] of sins.” — Hebrews 9:22

Physical pain or disease does not cleanse a soul before God. Only Christ’s sacrifice on the cross satisfies divine justice and offers forgiveness.

---

3. Suffering in the Bible Has a Different Purpose

While suffering exists in Christian theology, it serves purposes such as testing faith (James 1:2-4), producing perseverance (Romans 5:3-5), or bringing a person to repentance — but it does not itself remove guilt or sin. The sinner must confess, repent, and believe in Jesus:

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” — 1 John 1:9

---

Conclusion: False Assurance Is Dangerous

This hadith gives Muslims a false sense of assurance — implying that enduring hardships automatically cleanses sin without the need for repentance, faith, or a Savior. It misleads people into trusting in suffering rather than seeking forgiveness through God’s appointed Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

The Bible firmly rejects this doctrine. Sin is deadly and cannot be wiped away by pain or sickness. Only the grace of God through Christ’s sacrifice can save.

---

Final Word:
If you’re a Muslim reading this, don’t settle for false promises that suffering alone will erase sin. Come to the cross of Jesus Christ, where the true and eternal forgiveness is found.

Shalom,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

A Response to Muhammad Amin Alhassan: Truth, Context, and the Biblical Account

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

I appreciate Muhammad Amin Alhassan’s effort to defend the Qur’an’s rendition of Moses’ calling, but as always, claims must be weighed against historical, textual, and theological integrity — not clever wording and assumptions.

Let’s address his points clearly:

1. The Claim of “Inadequacies” in the Torah and Gospel

Muhammad Amin asserts that the Qur'an came to address supposed "inadequacies" in the Torah and the Gospel. This is a foundational claim in Islamic theology — yet it lacks evidence. Both the Torah and the Gospel were affirmed by Jesus Himself as the unchanging Word of God (Matthew 5:17-18), and archaeological manuscript evidence (Dead Sea Scrolls, Codex Sinaiticus, etc.) confirms that the core narratives have remained consistent for centuries before the Qur’an’s 7th-century emergence. If the Qur’an presents different details, it’s not a correction — it’s a contradiction.

---

2. The Burning Bush: Bible vs. Qur’an

Muhammad Amin claims I ignored Qur’an 20:10, which mentions Moses seeing a fire. I’m well aware of that verse. The issue isn’t whether Moses saw a fire — both scriptures agree on this. The problem lies in the theological weight and personal revelation attached to the fire.

In Exodus 3:2-6, it’s explicitly stated that “the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush,” and this is affirmed as the LORD’s presence: “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”

The Qur'an, however, merely presents Allah’s voice from the direction of a fire without the covenantal, personal identity that characterizes the biblical God. There’s no continuity of personal relationship — just a command.

---

3. Valley of Tuwa vs. Mount Sinai

Muhammad Amin argues that the Qur’an adds detail by naming Valley Tuwa while the Bible names Mount Horeb/Sinai. This is a misunderstanding of biblical geography.

Mount Horeb (or Sinai) is the universally acknowledged biblical site where Moses encountered God. Saying it happened in Tuwa instead is neither a clarification nor a correction — it’s an unsupported claim introduced centuries later without archaeological or historical verification.

Also, Amin’s attempt to equate the two by suggesting that “a valley is part of a mountain” is a weak evasion. The Bible is clear: the encounter took place on holy ground at the mountain of God (Exodus 3:5). Unlike the Qur’an’s generic valley claim, the Bible roots the event in an identified sacred location central to Hebrew theology and history.

---

4. Geographical Specifics?

The Qur’an claims Moses was called from the right side of the valley (Q 28:30). Yet this does not align with any documented biblical tradition or known topography. It’s an assertion made in the 7th century without evidence.

Moreover, claiming that Muhammad wasn’t present when these things happened (Q 28:44) doesn’t lend credibility to the Qur'anic version — it only admits that Muhammad relied on oral tales circulating in his region.

---

5. The Sin of Idol Worship

While Amin debates details of geography, he ignores a glaring issue in his own tradition: the veneration of the Black Stone in Mecca, a practice inherited from pre-Islamic pagan rituals. Even Sahih Bukhari (Book 64, Hadith 401) admits that Muhammad kissed this stone — an act of ritualistic stone-reverence condemned by the God of the Bible (Exodus 20:4-5). The very idea of touching or kissing a sacred object for blessing mirrors idolatrous practices, not biblical faith.

---

Final Thoughts

Rather than offering a “correction,” the Qur’an’s version of Moses' call is a fragmented retelling without the rich theological depth and covenantal context found in the Bible. The Bible offers a consistent, historically anchored narrative of a God who personally reveals Himself by name and through relationships — not just distant commands.

As Christians, we invite Muslims to investigate the Torah and the Gospel as they stand, not through the lens of later reinterpretation, but on their own divinely preserved testimony.

“I am the LORD. That is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.” (Isaiah 42:8)

Shalom,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---