Friday, June 13, 2025

The Deity of Truth: A Theological Critique of the Islamic Concept of Allah as a “Deceiver”

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

Throughout history, the nature and character of God have been central to the world’s great monotheistic faiths. However, while both Islam and Christianity profess belief in one God, the conception of God’s character, particularly regarding truthfulness and deception, diverges significantly between the Bible and the Qur’an. This article offers a rigorous theological critique of the Islamic concept of Allah in light of key biblical doctrines, exposing critical incompatibilities and affirming the unique deity of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture.

I. The God of the Bible: The Impossibility of Deceit

In biblical theology, God’s truthfulness is not merely an attribute but an essential aspect of His very being. The Bible insists repeatedly that God cannot lie or act contrary to His own righteous nature:

“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”
Numbers 23:19, KJV ¹

Paul reiterates this foundational truth:

“In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.”
Titus 1:2, KJV ²

The writer of Hebrews declares the impossibility of God lying:

“…in which it is impossible for God to lie…”
Hebrews 6:18, ESV ³

These verses collectively reveal that truthfulness is intrinsic to the divine identity. The impossibility of deceit is not a voluntary limitation, but a logical necessity of God’s nature as the ultimate moral being.

II. The Qur’anic Depiction of Allah: The “Best of Deceivers”?

A profound challenge to the biblical doctrine arises in the Qur’an, which describes Allah using terms associated with deception. Consider Surah 3:54:

“And they (the disbelievers) planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners.”
Qur’an 3:54, Sahih International ⁴

The key Arabic word here is makara, which has a semantic range that includes “to plot,” “to scheme,” “to deceive,” or “to act with guile.” Notably, more literal translations render it:

“And they cheated/deceived and Allah cheated/deceived, and Allah is the best of the cheaters/deceivers.”
Qur’an 3:54, M. A. Samira ⁵

Classical Islamic commentaries do not dispute the usage of makara in this sense; rather, they interpret Allah’s “deception” as a righteous response to the deception of others. However, from a biblical perspective, such attribution of deceit—even in response to evil—stands in direct contradiction to the holy nature of God.

Other Qur’anic passages echo this troubling attribute:

“And (the unbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed against them: and Allah is the best of schemers.”
Qur’an 8:30, Pickthall ⁶

The repeated use of makara for Allah’s actions raises critical theological questions: Can the one true God ever justifiably engage in deception? Does moral relativism apply to the divine nature?

III. Satan: The Biblical Paradigm of Deception

In stark contrast to the Qur’anic depiction, the Bible ascribes all deception, cunning, and falsehood to Satan, the great adversary of God and humanity:

“…that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world…”
Revelation 12:9, KJV ⁷

Jesus further clarifies the origin of all lies:

“You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
John 8:44, ESV ⁸

Scripture is consistent and absolute: deception is wholly incompatible with the holy nature of God and is the very signature of Satan.

IV. The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ: Sinlessness and Divinity

Remarkably, both the Bible and the Qur’an bear witness to the sinlessness and unique holiness of Jesus Christ:

Biblical Testimony

“He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.”
1 Peter 2:22, ESV ⁹
“Which of you convicts me of sin?”
John 8:46, ESV
“…Holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.”
Hebrews 7:26, ESV
Qur’anic Testimony

“He said: ‘I am only a messenger of thy Lord, to announce to thee the gift of a holy son.’”
Qur’an 19:19, Yusuf Ali ¹⁰

No other prophet—neither Moses, Abraham, Muhammad, nor any other—is described as “holy” or sinless in such absolute terms in either scripture.

Jesus, furthermore, declares Himself to be the personification of truth:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one comes to the Father except through me.”
John 14:6, ESV ¹¹

If perfect truthfulness is the mark of God, and Jesus alone fulfills this without the stain of sin or deceit, then by biblical and Qur’anic testimony, Jesus alone is qualified to be called God.

V. Theological Implications and Critical Reflection

The Qur’an’s depiction of Allah as the “best of deceivers” presents a profound theological crisis. If the standard of deity is set by the biblical revelation—utter moral perfection and incapacity for falsehood—then the Qur’anic Allah cannot be identified as the same God as YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God of the Bible cannot lie. The Qur’anic Allah can and does.

This contrast is not a matter of semantics but of the very essence of God. As C.S. Lewis argued, “If God is not good, then He is not God at all.”¹² Any being who deceives, regardless of motivation, cannot be the God of truth and light.

Furthermore, the evidence points unerringly to Jesus Christ, who, according to both sacred texts, is uniquely sinless and absolutely true. As such, the only logical and theological conclusion is that Jesus is indeed God incarnate, and that the standard of deity is met in Him alone.

Conclusion

The integrity of God’s character stands or falls on the issue of truthfulness. The biblical God is a God who cannot lie; the Qur’anic Allah is described as a deceiver. By the standards set in Scripture, only Jesus Christ—the sinless, holy, and truthful Son—is truly God. To worship any other is to exchange the truth of God for a lie.

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Footnotes

For further engagement or scholarly dialogue, please contact Shimba Theological Institute.

Would you like further expansion on any specific subtopic, additional rebuttals to common Islamic objections, or more references from classical Islamic sources?

Numbers 23:19, King James Version (KJV). ↩
Titus 1:2, KJV. ↩
Hebrews 6:18, English Standard Version (ESV). ↩
Qur’an 3:54, Sahih International. See also Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, and Arberry translations for similar renderings. ↩
Qur’an 3:54, M.A. Samira, Literal Translation from Arabic. ↩
Qur’an 8:30, Pickthall. Arabic: وَمَكَرُوا وَمَكَرَ اللَّهُ وَاللَّهُ خَيْرُ الْمَاكِرِينَ ↩
Revelation 12:9, KJV. ↩
John 8:44, ESV. ↩
1 Peter 2:22, ESV. See also Isaiah 53:9 (LXX and Hebrew). ↩
Qur’an 19:19, Yusuf Ali: غُلَامًا زَكِيًّا (“a holy son”). ↩
John 14:6, ESV. ↩
Paraphrased from C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (HarperCollins, 1952), Book 2, Chapter 2. ↩

Theological and Scientific Critique of Consanguineous Marriages in Islam:

An Academic Analysis of Quran 33:50 and Its Societal Impact

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This article presents a critical theological and scientific analysis of the Islamic allowance of consanguineous marriages, as derived from Quran 33:50 and the prophetic practices of Muhammad. Through exegetical engagement with Islamic texts and interdisciplinary consultation with genetic science, this paper aims to challenge the doctrinal and practical legitimacy of intra-family marriages, highlighting the resultant negative consequences for contemporary Muslim societies.

1. Introduction

Marriage customs are foundational to the ethical, cultural, and biological health of societies. Across history, religious traditions have shaped the parameters of permissible marital unions. In Islam, the Quran and the Hadith corpus provide explicit guidelines concerning the permissibility of marrying relatives, a practice embodied by Muhammad himself. This article critically interrogates the theological rationale behind these allowances and presents a comprehensive analysis of the deleterious effects of such practices, particularly in the light of modern genetics and global health.

2. Quranic Permission for Consanguineous Marriage

Quran 33:50 states:

“O Prophet! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have paid their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to you, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts, who emigrated with you…”
(Sahih International translation)

This verse explicitly permits Muhammad to marry his cousins and by extension, it has shaped Islamic jurisprudence regarding the lawfulness of cousin marriage (consanguinity). Islamic law (fiqh) remains distinctive among world religions for its wide acceptance of intra-familial unions, especially first-cousin marriages (see: Sahih Bukhari 62:27). Muhammad’s own marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh, his paternal cousin (see Quran 33:37), established a direct prophetic precedent.

3. Theological Implications: A Comparative Critique

While Islam authorizes cousin marriages, both Judaism and Christianity, particularly in their later doctrinal and canonical developments, imposed increasing restrictions on such unions. For instance, Leviticus 18:6-18 enumerates prohibited degrees of kinship for marriage, based on the principle of kedushah (holiness/separation). The Christian tradition, especially post-early church councils, further expanded prohibitions on consanguinity to protect both spiritual and physical well-being.

This theological divergence is not arbitrary; it reflects a teleological concern for the integrity and flourishing of the human family as an image-bearing community (Genesis 1:27; 2 Corinthians 6:17). The Islamic position, as reflected in both scripture and prophetic practice, appears more permissive, arguably due to the tribal social structure of 7th-century Arabia, yet this raises ethical and theological questions in the context of God’s design for human health and diversity.

4. Muhammad’s Example and Its Enduring Influence

The personal example of Muhammad, who married Zaynab bint Jahsh (his cousin), serves as the behavioral model for Muslims, as Muhammad is described as uswa hasana—the “beautiful pattern” (Quran 33:21). This prophetic endorsement has perpetuated the practice among Muslims globally. According to the United Nations Population Fund, consanguineous marriage rates in Muslim-majority countries remain significantly higher than in non-Muslim regions, with cousin marriages comprising up to 50% of all unions in some communities (UNFPA, 2022).

5. Scientific and Biological Consequences of Consanguinity

Modern genetics offers a stark warning regarding the practice of marrying close relatives. Consanguineous marriages dramatically increase the risk of congenital disorders and genetic diseases due to the increased probability of inheriting autosomal recessive conditions.

5.1 Genetic Risks

Higher Incidence of Birth Defects: Research shows that children born to first-cousin unions have a 2–3 times higher risk of congenital malformations, intellectual disability, and hereditary diseases (Bittles, A.H., 2001, The Lancet).
Increased Infant Mortality: Studies indicate higher infant and child mortality rates among populations practicing regular consanguinity.
Long-Term Health Burden: Communities with persistent intra-family marriage exhibit higher rates of genetic illnesses (e.g., thalassemia, cystic fibrosis, spinal muscular atrophy).

5.2 Societal and Ethical Impact

The social normalization of consanguineous marriages in Muslim-majority countries perpetuates a cycle of genetic illness and poses ethical questions about the stewardship of human life and health. The World Health Organization and medical ethicists recommend against cousin marriages due to these well-documented risks.

6. Conclusion: Theological and Scientific Responsibility

The Quranic allowance for cousin marriage (Quran 33:50), modeled by Muhammad, has had a lasting and measurable impact on the health of Muslim societies. From a theological perspective, this raises questions about the nature of divine legislation and its consonance with the well-being of humanity. Scientifically, the evidence is unequivocal: intra-family marriages carry grave genetic risks that are neither compatible with the biblical ethos of life preservation nor with modern principles of bioethics.

A Call to Reconsideration

For the sake of public health, theological integrity, and future generations, it is incumbent upon religious scholars, community leaders, and policymakers to reconsider and reformulate marital norms in light of both scriptural evidence and scientific reality. True religion should not perpetuate harm but should uphold the flourishing of the human family in all its diversity.

References

The Holy Quran, 33:50, 33:37, 33:21
Sahih Bukhari 62:27
The Holy Bible, Leviticus 18:6-18, Genesis 1:27, 2 Corinthians 6:17
Bittles, A.H. (2001). "Consanguinity and its relevance to clinical genetics." The Lancet, 358(9294), 861-862.
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Consanguineous Marriages Report, 2022.
World Health Organization, "Genetic Diseases and Consanguinity," Fact Sheet, 2021.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Challenging the Islamic Narrative: Is Islam Truly the Fastest Growing and Oldest Religion?

A Theological and Historical Debate

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The claim that Islam is both the oldest and fastest-growing religion in the world is frequently asserted in Muslim apologetics. Islamic tradition contends that Adam, the first human being, was a Muslim, thereby extending the roots of Islam back to the very beginning of humanity—approximately 6,000 years ago. In contrast, Christianity, as per Muslim narratives, was founded only 2,000 years ago, yet it currently has more adherents worldwide. This article aims to critically examine and debate the veracity of Islamic claims regarding the age and growth of Islam in comparison to Christianity, employing historical data, demographic trends, and theological perspectives.

1. Islamic Claims: Islam from Adam?

Islamic doctrine asserts that all prophets, from Adam to Muhammad, preached "Islam" (submission to the one God). The Qur’an claims, “He [Allah] has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty. It is the religion of your father, Abraham” (Qur’an 22:78), and further, “Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam” (Qur’an 3:19). On this basis, many Muslims maintain that Islam is not merely 1,400 years old (from Muhammad), but as old as humanity itself.

Critical Analysis

This theological assertion, however, is problematic when scrutinized through the lens of historical and textual criticism. No credible archaeological or textual evidence exists to demonstrate that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, or Jesus practiced Islam in the sense understood today (Shahada, Salat, Zakat, Sawm, Hajj). Rather, these figures are situated in different cultural, historical, and theological contexts, each with distinct beliefs, rituals, and scriptures. The retrojection of Islam onto all previous prophets is a theological assertion, not a historical fact.

2. Christianity: Historical Growth and Impact

Christianity, according to most historians, began in the first century AD, with Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples, and rapidly spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. Unlike the Islamic narrative, Christianity’s origins and explosive growth are well-documented in both secular and ecclesiastical history.

Statistical Evidence

Christianity has approximately 2.9 billion adherents (Pew Research Center, 2024), making it the largest religion on earth.
Islam, with around 1.9 billion adherents, is the second largest.
Christianity achieved this growth in less than 2,000 years, compared to Islam’s claim of 6,000 years of existence.

3. The Fallacy of the "Fastest-Growing Religion" Claim

Muslims often claim that Islam is the "fastest-growing religion." This statement is misleading for several reasons:

A. Historical Longevity vs. Membership

If Islam has truly existed since Adam (6,000 years), why does it lag behind Christianity, which is demonstrably younger, in total adherents? Logically, a religion with a 4,000-year head start should have more followers, not fewer. The numbers do not support the narrative of continuous, uninterrupted Islamic faith from Adam onward.

B. Growth Rate Misconceptions

Claims about Islam being the fastest-growing religion often conflate natural population growth in Muslim-majority countries with actual religious conversions. Most demographic studies reveal that the primary driver of Muslim population growth is birth rate, not conversion.

A 2015 Pew Research Center report states:
"Muslims are projected to grow more than twice as fast as the overall world population between 2015 and 2060. But much of this is due to higher fertility rates, not mass conversions."

C. Christianity’s Global Spread

Unlike Islam, Christianity’s growth is marked by massive global missionary efforts and conversions, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In terms of cross-cultural adoption and religious transformation, Christianity has had the most dramatic impact in human history.

4. Theological and Philosophical Objections

A. Redefining "Islam"

Muslim apologists redefine "Islam" as "submission to God," then retroactively apply it to all righteous figures. But this is not what is meant by "Islam" today—a faith defined by the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and specific rituals. Historical Judaism, Christianity, and the ancient faiths of the Near East had fundamentally different beliefs and practices.

B. Contradictions in the Islamic Narrative

If Islam was the original and universal faith, why do we see no evidence of Islamic practices before Muhammad—no mosques, no Qur’an, no record of the Shahada, no Ramadan, no Hajj to Mecca among ancient Israelites or Christians? To claim continuity without evidence is to make an untestable assertion.

5. Conclusion: A Call for Intellectual Honesty

This debate reveals a fundamental weakness in the Islamic apologetic narrative:

Historically, Christianity is younger yet outpaces Islam in both adherents and global influence.
Demographically, Islam’s growth is primarily due to higher birth rates, not conversions.
Theologically, the claim that all prophets were "Muslims" is unsupported by evidence and amounts to anachronistic revisionism.

Therefore, if the criterion for a "fastest-growing" religion is based on total adherents over time, Christianity—not Islam—holds that distinction.

I challenge my Muslim counterparts to present verifiable evidence, not mere assertions, if they wish to maintain their claim. Until then, the logical, historical, and statistical case rests solidly with Christianity.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

References:

Pew Research Center, “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050,” 2015; updated data, 2024.
The Qur’an, Surah 3:19, 22:78.
The Bible, Acts 2:41-47; Matthew 28:19-20.
Academic literature on religious demographics and historical origins.

Who Was the First Muslim?

A Critical Theological and Logical Analysis of Inconsistencies in Islamic Doctrine

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the most foundational claims in Islam is that it is not a new religion but the very faith of all prophets from Adam to Muhammad. The Qur’an frequently asserts that “Islam” (submission to God) is the primordial and only valid religion in the eyes of Allah, and that all prophets were “Muslims.” Yet, a deep reading of the Qur’anic text produces a remarkable conundrum: multiple prophets, at different times, are each called “the first Muslim.” This apparent contradiction is not merely a superficial textual overlap, but rather, strikes at the core of Islamic self-understanding and scriptural coherence.

In this article, I challenge Islamic scholars and apologists to provide clarity on a matter that, on its face, demonstrates profound internal inconsistency in Islamic doctrine. If Adam was the first human being—and also the first Muslim—how can Moses, Abraham, and Muhammad each also claim the status of “the first Muslim” in their respective eras? This inquiry is vital, not only for the intellectual integrity of Islamic theology but also for those who seek the truth in the Abrahamic traditions.

The Qur’anic Passages

Let us examine the Qur’anic verses cited in the attached illustration:

Adam: “The First Muslim”
- Quran 20:115: “And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he forgot; and We found not in him determination.”
- Note: This verse does not explicitly call Adam the first Muslim, but Islamic exegesis often does.
Noah, Abraham, and Moses: “The First Muslim”
- Abraham: Quran 2:132: “And Abraham instructed his sons... ‘Indeed Allah has chosen for you this religion, so do not die except while you are Muslims.’”
- Moses: Quran 7:143: “And when Moses came at the appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he asked... I am the first of the believers (Muslimin).”
- Noah: Quran 10:72: Noah is also described as submitting to Allah, sometimes rendered as “Muslim.”
Muhammad: “The First Muslim”
- Quran 39:12: “And I am commanded to be the first of the Muslims (awwala al-muslimeen).”

Logical and Theological Problems

1. Chronological Inconsistency

If Adam is truly the first human—and by extension, the first “Muslim”—it is logically impossible for later figures such as Abraham, Moses, or Muhammad to also be the “first” Muslims. The term “first” is absolute, not relative. Once a position is occupied, it cannot be claimed by another, unless the designation is entirely symbolic or contextually limited, which itself undermines any claim to absolute theological truth.

2. Contextual Ambiguity

Islamic apologists sometimes argue that each prophet is “the first Muslim” of their own people or time. However, the Qur’an does not consistently use qualifying language to support this. Instead, the statements are often universal:

Moses: “I am the first of the believers.” (Quran 7:143)
Muhammad: “I am commanded to be the first of the Muslims.” (Quran 39:12)

This lack of specificity introduces theological ambiguity. If each prophet is only “the first Muslim” in a restricted sense (i.e., within their own era or community), then the title loses its doctrinal weight and devolves into a meaningless redundancy, applicable to any prophet at any time.

3. The Nature of Islamic Continuity

Islam claims that its message is unchanged from Adam through Muhammad. If all prophets are Muslims, then Adam is not only the first human but necessarily the first Muslim. Subsequent prophets, being his descendants, are by default following the path already laid out. To retroactively call Abraham, Moses, or Muhammad “the first Muslim” creates a contradiction: it cannot be both that Adam was the first and that others after him can also be the first. If they are “first” in restoring a lost faith, then Islam is not a continual revelation, but an intermittent, revivable tradition—which contradicts the Islamic claim of unbroken continuity.

4. Textual Eisegesis and Doctrinal Inflation

Islamic tradition often reads later doctrine into earlier scripture (eisegesis). The term “Muslim” in Arabic simply means “one who submits.” While it can be used generically, Islam claims it as the exclusive identity of all who follow its tenets. However, the Qur’anic application of “the first Muslim” to different figures appears more as a rhetorical flourish than a precise theological term. If so, the very claim that all prophets were “Muslims” is rendered linguistically and doctrinally suspect.

5. Implications for Islamic Salvation History

If the Qur’an’s terminology cannot withstand logical scrutiny, what does this mean for its reliability as a divinely revealed text? If “the first Muslim” can mean multiple things, or apply to multiple people at different times without clear contextual boundaries, then the theological framework of Islam suffers from internal incoherence.

Conclusion: A Call for Honest Reappraisal

The question of “Who was the first Muslim?” is not a mere academic curiosity, but a fundamental test of scriptural integrity and doctrinal consistency. The fact that Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad are all called “the first Muslim” at various points in the Qur’an is not a trivial matter—it exposes a core inconsistency at the heart of Islamic self-definition.

I call upon Islamic theologians, apologists, and believers to confront this contradiction with intellectual honesty. How can Islam claim to be the primordial faith if it cannot even maintain consistency in designating its first adherent? Does this multiplicity of “first Muslims” point to a deeper confusion about the nature of Islamic revelation and history?

Until such questions are satisfactorily addressed, the claim that Islam is a seamless, internally consistent faith cannot be credibly sustained.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Challenging the Islamic Narrative on Women: A Theological and Scholarly Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The value and dignity of women have been central questions throughout human history and across religions. The Islamic tradition, particularly as articulated in certain hadiths, has often been critiqued for its portrayal of women in ways that seem to denigrate their moral and spiritual status. One such narration is found in Sahih Muslim 1403a, which states:

“The woman advances and retires in the shape of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart.”
(Sahih Muslim 1403a, sunnah.com)

This article aims to challenge this narrative, analyzing it in light of biblical theology, Christian ethics, and reasoned academic discourse. We contrast it with the teachings of Christ and the broader Christian tradition regarding the human person, sexuality, and the intrinsic worth of women.

1. The Islamic Hadith: Context and Implications

The cited hadith from Sahih Muslim presents several theological and ethical problems:

Reduction of Women to Objects of Temptation:
Women are portrayed as agents of temptation, likened to the devil, whose mere presence is a cause for male lust and a threat to spiritual integrity.
Blame Shifting and Moral Evasion:
The responsibility for a man's lust is shifted away from the man and onto the woman, suggesting that the antidote to temptation is the act of marital intercourse, rather than personal moral discipline or spiritual renewal.
Spiritual Devaluation:
The hadith implicitly denies women spiritual agency, reducing their role to a test or a snare rather than co-bearers of the image of God.

These implications run contrary to the ethical, psychological, and theological advances made in both modern scholarship and ancient Judeo-Christian traditions.

2. The Biblical and Christian Worldview: Women, Temptation, and the Mind

Contrast the above with the Christian Scriptures, which uphold a radically different vision for women and human sexuality:

A. Women as Image-Bearers

From the beginning, Scripture affirms the full dignity and equality of women:

Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Here, both men and women are declared bearers of the Imago Dei, possessing inherent value and moral agency.

B. The Heart of Temptation: Responsibility and Renewal

Jesus’ teaching is both searching and liberating. He does not externalize the source of temptation, nor does He blame women:

Matthew 5:27–28:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

The locus of sin is within—the heart and mind—not in the body of another. This is a radical internalization of ethical responsibility. Lust is not provoked by the mere presence or form of a woman, but by the condition of the human heart.

C. The Discipline of the Mind

Paul the Apostle further clarifies the Christian approach to intrusive or sinful thoughts:

Romans 12:2:
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..."

Philippians 4:8:
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest... think on these things."

2 Corinthians 10:5:
"...bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ..."

The Christian ethic is not to flee to a physical remedy (such as intercourse) but to actively renew the mind and bring thoughts into submission to Christ.

D. The Prayer for Purity

Psalm 139:23–24:
"Search me, O God, and know my heart... And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting."

The pursuit of purity is a spiritual journey of inward transformation, not an external circumvention of temptation.

3. Academic and Ethical Critique of the Islamic Narrative

A. Psychological Analysis

Modern psychology affirms that sexual temptation originates internally. External stimuli may trigger, but never cause, lustful thoughts; responsibility lies within the individual. The Islamic hadith, by externalizing the blame, stunts personal growth and moral maturity.

B. Historical and Theological Context

The Quran itself at times upholds the dignity of women (e.g., Quran 33:35), yet the hadith literature—compiled centuries later—often undermines this by introducing misogynistic elements inconsistent with the Quran’s loftier principles and utterly alien to biblical revelation.

C. The False Prophet and the Dignity of Women

Jesus, regarded in Islam as a prophet, but in Christianity as Lord and Savior, never spoke of women in such dehumanizing terms. The fruits of the so-called “final prophet’s” teachings in the hadith betray a moral and spiritual regression.

Isaiah 26:3:
"Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee."

Peace and purity are the results of a mind anchored in God, not of fleeing to carnal remedies or blaming others.

4. Conclusion: Towards a Theological Recovery of Human Dignity

A theology that reduces women to objects of temptation and blames them for men’s failings is not merely antiquated—it is fundamentally contrary to the gospel of Christ and to reason. True spiritual life, according to Christian revelation, is a matter of inward transformation by the Spirit, personal responsibility, and the mutual upholding of the dignity of all people—men and women alike.

The Christian tradition calls us to:

Reject misogynistic narratives that demonize women.
Embrace inward renewal and personal accountability for our thoughts and actions.
Affirm the equal dignity and spiritual potential of both sexes, as co-heirs of grace (1 Peter 3:7).

In the final analysis, only a renewed mind, submitted to the Lordship of Christ and rooted in the knowledge of God, can overcome the “carnal mind” and lead to life and peace (Romans 8:6).

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

References

Sahih Muslim 1403a (sunnah.com/muslim:1403a)
The Holy Bible (KJV): Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah, Matthew, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 Peter
The Quran (33:35)
Scholarly works on psychology of temptation and gender ethics

The Deceptive Nature of Allah: A Theological Critique Exposing Allah as Satan According to Biblical Theology

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The critical examination of the Islamic conception of Allah, especially in comparison to the biblical revelation of God, reveals substantial theological dissonance. One of the most controversial attributes ascribed to Allah in the Qur’an is that he is the "best of deceivers" (Arabic: makr). In Christian theology, the title "deceiver" is reserved for Satan, the adversary of God and man. The present article seeks to expose, through scholarly critique and theological exposition, how the Qur’anic portrayal of Allah aligns more closely with the biblical description of Satan than with the God of the Bible, thereby raising serious doubts about the credibility of Islam.

1. The Biblical Identity of Satan as the Deceiver

The Bible is unequivocal in its depiction of Satan as the deceiver. Jesus Himself identifies Satan as “a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). In Revelation 12:9, Satan is described as “the great dragon… that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray.” The very character of Satan is deception; his mission is to mislead humanity away from the truth of God.

Relevant Biblical References:

John 8:44: “You belong to your father, the devil… there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
2 Corinthians 11:14: “And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.”
Revelation 12:9: “…Satan, who leads the whole world astray.”

2. Allah as “The Best of Deceivers” in the Qur’an

The Qur’an describes Allah as the “best of planners” or “best of deceivers” (khayru al-makirin). The Arabic word makr specifically refers to cunning, plotting, and deceptive strategy.

Qur’anic Evidence:

Surah Al-Imran 3:54: “And they (the disbelievers) planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners (makirin).”
Surah Al-Anfal 8:30: “And [remember] when those who disbelieved plotted against you… but Allah plotted. And Allah is the best of planners.”

Islamic exegesis (Tafsir) often admits that makr denotes plotting or cunning, even deception.

3. Allah Praying: The Crisis of Divine Self-Sufficiency

As cited in the provided evidence (Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 643), Islamic sources report that “Allah prays” for or upon Muhammad. This is theologically problematic:

To whom does Allah pray?
Prayer, by definition, is the act of supplication or worship directed to a higher power. If Allah prays, he is necessarily acknowledging one greater than himself, which undermines his supposed transcendence and omnipotence.
Biblical God Never Prays:
The God of the Bible receives prayer but never prays or supplicates. He is the eternal, self-sufficient “I AM” (Exodus 3:14), the uncreated Creator.

4. Theological Implications: Allah and Satan—A Comparative Analysis

A. Shared Attributes of Deception

Biblical Satan:
Master deceiver, father of lies, seducer, and opposer of the truth.
Qur’anic Allah:
Declares himself the “best of deceivers,” admits to plotting and misleading, even permitting the use of lies (taqiyya) for self-preservation.

B. The Incompatibility with Biblical Theology

The God of the Bible is described as “Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5).
He “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2).
Deception is utterly contrary to His nature.

If the god of the Qur’an openly claims attributes that, according to the Bible, belong to Satan, then it follows that:

Allah is not the God of the Bible.
Islam is predicated upon a foundation that is theologically antithetical to biblical revelation.
Islam, therefore, cannot be trusted as a divine faith, for it enshrines the very qualities the Bible condemns.

5. Historical and Doctrinal Ramifications

Throughout history, religions have been judged by the character of their deity. A god who is deceitful, who prays to another, and who aligns with the qualities ascribed to the enemy of humanity in Christian doctrine cannot be considered the true God. This exposes Islam as, at best, a human or even satanic fabrication designed to mislead.

Supporting Scholarly References

Ibn Kathir (Tafsir): Acknowledges that “makr” means cunning and deception.
Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (Ceslas Spicq): Contrasts biblical and Quranic conceptions of God’s character.

6. Conclusion: Islam as a Fraudulent Faith

In light of the foregoing, the Qur’anic Allah's self-declaration as a deceiver and the admission that he “prays” (thereby acknowledging a higher power) presents a theological crisis that is insurmountable. By biblical standards, Allah's attributes are those of Satan, not the true God. Therefore, Islam, being based on such a conception of deity, is revealed as a fraud, unworthy of trust or faith.

Final Scriptural Warning:

“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked.” (Galatians 6:7)

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

References:

The Holy Bible, NIV.
The Qur’an, Saheeh International.
Al-Adab Al-Mufrad, Book 31, Hadith 643.
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir.
Theological Lexicon of the New Testament.

This article is for scholarly and theological debate purposes and invites critical engagement from all religious and academic communities.

Linguistic Critique: The Invented “Yahya” of the Quran

The question of prophetic names is not a trivial matter in the Abrahamic religious tradition. Names encode historical, theological, and linguistic continuity across texts and centuries. The abrupt appearance of “Yahya” (يحيى) in the Quran, purportedly as the equivalent of the biblical John the Baptist, demands a rigorous linguistic investigation. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that “Yahya” is a uniquely Islamic fabrication, with no credible linguistic, historical, or textual precedent prior to the Quran.

A. Semitic Transmission of the Name “John”

The name John the Baptist enters Arabic through a continuous and well-documented chain of Semitic languages and biblical translations:

Hebrew: The original name, יוֹחָנָן (Yochanan), meaning “Yahweh is gracious,” is widely attested in the Hebrew Bible and post-biblical literature.
Greek: This becomes Ἰωάννης (Ioánnēs) in the Septuagint and New Testament Greek manuscripts.
Syriac: In the Syriac Peshitta—a foundational Christian text for the Middle East—the name is rendered ܝܘܚܢܢ (Yuḥanan), closely mirroring the Hebrew original.
Arabic (Pre-Islamic and Early Christian): When Christianity spread into the Arabic-speaking world, early translators rendered the name as يوحنا (Yūḥannā), a direct linguistic descendant of the Hebrew and Syriac forms.¹

This transmission is attested in ancient biblical manuscripts, liturgical texts, and hagiographies used by Arab Christians long before the rise of Islam. The “Yūḥannā” form is confirmed in the Arabic versions of the Gospels, in inscriptions, and in the works of pre-Islamic Arab poets familiar with Christian themes.²

B. The Absence of “Yahya” in Pre-Islamic Tradition

No evidence exists for “Yahya” as a personal name in pre-Islamic Arabia, in any Jewish, Christian, or pagan records. Neither the Dead Sea Scrolls, rabbinic literature, early Arabic poetry, nor Christian liturgy record any prophet or notable figure by this name.

Early Arabic Christian texts—such as the Sinai Arabic Codex 151 (9th century, based on earlier traditions), Arabic lectionaries, and the Diatessaron—uniformly use “Yūḥannā.”³ Not a single extant document predating the Quran or contemporary with its earliest period refers to John the Baptist as “Yahya.”

Even Islamic sources, such as Al-Tabari and Al-Qurtubi, acknowledge the name’s novelty and attempt to justify it theologically, rather than linguistically or historically.⁴ Their explanations are apologetic, not evidential, relying on the idea of divine invention rather than etymological continuity.

C. Theoretical Origins: Misinterpretation and Linguistic Error

Several modern scholars propose that Muhammad, with limited exposure to Christian doctrine and the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures, may have misunderstood the context of the name John. The Hebrew root חיה (ḥ-y-y), meaning “to live,” occasionally features in honorific titles or descriptions of spiritual status (e.g., “he lives before the Lord” or “living in the Spirit”).⁵ It is conceivable that Muhammad or his informants (sometimes called "Waraka ibn Nawfal" or unnamed storytellers in Islamic tradition) confused such an epithet with a proper noun and coined “Yahya.”

Other Quranic examples of apparent misrenderings or conflations support this hypothesis:

The confusion of Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron (Quran 19:28).[6]
The appearance of “Haman” as a minister of Pharaoh in Egypt, though Haman is a Persian character in the Book of Esther.[7]
The unique Arabic rendering of Enoch as “Idris,” unattested in biblical or Jewish tradition.[8]

These linguistic innovations are not evidence of authentic transmission but of a secondary, derivative, and often erroneous borrowing from biblical tradition.

D. Quranic Claim of Uniqueness: Historical and Linguistic Error

The Quranic assertion in Surah Maryam 19:7—

“We have not assigned to any before [this] name.” (Quran 19:7)

—is not merely a claim to novelty but is a historically and linguistically demonstrable error. The name John (Yochanan/Yūḥannā) was not only well known but highly venerated in all relevant linguistic and religious communities for centuries before Muhammad.⁶

The introduction of “Yahya” is thus an unmistakable break in the tradition of name transmission—a rupture that cannot be explained by any process of natural linguistic evolution or scriptural fidelity.

E. Testimony of Arabic Lexicography

Classical Arabic lexicons compiled before and after the Quran make no mention of “Yahya” as a name, outside the Quranic context.⁷ Edward William Lane’s monumental Arabic-English Lexicon records “Yūḥannā” as the Christian name for John and only lists “Yahya” as the Islamic name for the Quranic prophet—derivative, not original.⁸

F. Modern Academic Consensus

Leading contemporary scholars confirm that the Quranic “Yahya” is an invented form:

Sidney H. Griffith states: “The Arabic Yūḥannā is the only form attested for John the Baptist among the Christian Arabs; Yahya is a Quranic innovation.”⁹
Gabriel Said Reynolds notes: “The introduction of ‘Yahya’ in the Quran is unprecedented and appears to be a product of confusion with the verb ḥ-y-y (to live), rather than any known tradition.”¹⁰

G. Comparative Table: Name Transmission Across Languages

Language/Tradition	Name for John the Baptist	Source/Attestation
Hebrew	Yochanan	Hebrew Bible, Josephus
Greek	Ioannes	New Testament
Syriac	Yuḥanan	Peshitta
Coptic	Iōannēs	Coptic Bible, Church Fathers
Arabic (Christian)	Yūḥannā	Sinai Arabic Codex, lectionaries
Arabic (Quranic)	Yahya	Quran only (post-7th century CE)

Conclusion of Linguistic Critique

The linguistic evidence is unassailable: “Yahya” is a Quranic novelty, unknown in Jewish, Christian, or even pre-Islamic Arabic sources. Its introduction represents a rupture in the careful transmission of prophetic names—a rupture that points unmistakably to the Quran’s status as a secondary, often erroneous, reimagining of biblical tradition. The name’s uniqueness is not a sign of divine revelation, but of Muhammad’s unfamiliarity with the traditions he sought to appropriate.

Footnotes and References

Would you like this expanded into a full academic paper format (with abstract, introduction, etc.), or would you like to focus on further linguistic examples, additional philological details, or more interfaith citations? Let me know your desired direction!

Sidney H. Griffith, The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the “People of the Book” in the Language of Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), 67–70. ↩
J.C. Lamoreaux, “John the Baptist in Early Arabic Christian Tradition,” in Christian–Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, vol. 1, ed. David Thomas (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 405–412. ↩
Sinai Arabic Codex 151, transcribed ca. 867 CE, contains the Four Gospels in Arabic using the form “Yūḥannā” for John the Baptist throughout; see Agnes Smith Lewis, The Four Gospels in Arabic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1894). ↩
Al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Tabari, vol. 16, p. 67 (on Quran 19:7); Al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami' li-Ahkam al-Qur'an, vol. 11, p. 80. ↩
Edward Ullendorff, “Yohanan – Yahya: The Muslim View of John the Baptist,” Journal of Semitic Studies 6, no. 2 (1961): 197–202. ↩
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 5; see also Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, ch. 13. ↩
Al-Firuzabadi, Al-Qamus al-Muhit; Al-Jawhari, Al-Sihah. ↩
Edward William Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, Part 8, s.v. “يوحنا,” (London: Williams & Norgate, 1863–1893). ↩
Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, 68. ↩
Reynolds, The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext, 157. ↩

The Ontology of Allah’s Attributes: A Scholarly Theological Critique and Debate

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The doctrine of the attributes of Allah stands as one of the most complex and, at times, controversial aspects within Islamic theology, especially within Sunni orthodoxy. While Muslims affirm that Allah is unique, uncreated, and eternal, they also affirm that Allah possesses attributes—such as speech, knowledge, power, hand, face, and others—that are likewise described as uncreated and eternal. However, Sunni theologians also emphasize that these attributes are “not Allah Himself.” This paradox has generated profound debates throughout Islamic history, and yet the internal logic of this position demands rigorous philosophical and theological scrutiny.

The Sunni Doctrine Explained

Sunni Islamic theology, particularly as articulated by the Ash’ari and Maturidi schools, holds the following positions:

Allah Exists, Is Uncreated and Eternal: Allah is the unique, necessary, uncreated, and eternal being.
Attributes Are Uncreated and Eternal: Allah’s attributes (Sifaat) are likewise uncreated and eternal, existing “with” Allah, but are not Allah Himself.
Attributes Are Not Identical to Allah: While Allah cannot exist without His attributes, these attributes are ontologically distinct—they are not Allah, yet neither are they separate beings.
Attributes Must Not Be Anthropomorphized: Muslims are forbidden to liken Allah to creation, even when the attributes (such as “hand,” “face,” “speech”) are described using anthropomorphic terms in the Qur’an and Hadith.

The Critical Questions

This doctrine raises several crucial philosophical and theological questions, which will be posed as part of this debate:

A. Can Something Exist, Be Uncreated and Eternal, Yet Not Be God?

If the attributes of Allah—such as His knowledge, speech, or face—are themselves uncreated, eternal, and exist alongside Allah, are we not then positing multiple eternals? Islamic monotheism (tawhid) is uncompromising: there can be no partner, associate, or “second eternal” alongside Allah. Yet, if Allah’s attributes are not Allah but are uncreated and eternal, then we are presented with a kind of plurality within the divine essence. How does Sunni theology reconcile absolute divine unity (tawhid) with the real existence of multiple uncreated and eternal attributes that are not identical to Allah?

B. Can Allah Exist Without His Attributes?

The Quran and Hadith often speak of Allah’s hand, face, speech, knowledge, and will. If Allah’s attributes are not Allah, can Allah exist without them? If not, does it not follow that what is “not Allah” is nevertheless necessary for Allah’s very being? This undermines the classical doctrine of divine simplicity and unity. Are Muslims then claiming that the essence of Allah is dependent on what is “not Allah”?

C. If Allah’s Attributes Are Not Allah, What Remains When They Are Removed?

This is the heart of the analogy presented above. If every attribute—knowledge, will, power, hand, face, speech, etc.—is “not Allah,” then what is left that constitutes Allah? The logical conclusion is that nothing identifiable or knowable remains. Without attributes, an entity cannot be described, known, or even conceptualized. Are Muslims left worshipping a void, a “zero,” if all attributes are “not Allah”?

Philosophical and Theological Implications

1. The Problem of Divine Plurality

If all of Allah’s attributes are uncreated and eternal, but “not Allah,” Islamic theology is forced into a problematic position: either these attributes are themselves divine (leading to a kind of polytheism or “divine plurality”), or they are created (which Sunni Islam rejects). This tension mirrors, and in fact, exacerbates, the very objection that Muslims have historically raised against the Christian doctrine of the Trinity—namely, that it introduces plurality within the divine essence. Yet, classical Christianity maintains one essence with three persons, not multiple uncreated “not-Gods” alongside God.

2. The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity

Classical theism (Jewish, Christian, even many early Islamic philosophers like Ibn Sina) affirms that God is absolutely simple—there are no parts, components, or composition in God. However, the Sunni doctrine of the attributes introduces a real distinction between Allah and His attributes. This undermines the simplicity and unity that tawhid claims to preserve.

3. The Knowability of God

If Allah’s attributes are not Allah, yet these are the only means by which Allah is described, related to, or known, then Allah becomes utterly unknowable. All meaningful language about Allah, in this system, refers not to Allah Himself but only to things that are “not Allah.” This is a deep problem for any claim of divine self-revelation, worship, or relationship.

Conclusion: The Dilemma Summarized

The Sunni assertion that Allah’s attributes are “not Allah” but are uncreated and eternal leads inevitably to one of the following theological dilemmas:

Either: There exists a multiplicity of eternals alongside Allah, undermining the very heart of Islamic monotheism.
Or: Allah is ultimately unknowable, without any positive attributes, making worship and relationship with Allah impossible.
Or: The doctrine is internally inconsistent and cannot sustain rational or theological scrutiny.

In summary, if every attribute by which Allah is known is “not Allah,” what, then, is left that can be called “Allah”? Is this not an admission that the Allah of such theology is, in fact, a philosophical abstraction—an empty zero—rather than the living God revealed in Scripture and encountered in worship?

Invitation to Muslim Scholars

This article is written not as a polemic but as a challenge and invitation to Muslim scholars and laypersons alike: Can you present a coherent and rational account of Allah’s attributes that preserves true monotheism, divine simplicity, and the knowability of God? Or does this doctrine collapse into logical and theological incoherence?

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Where Are the Names of the Disciples of Isa bin Maryam in the Quran?

Where Are the Names of the Disciples of Isa bin Maryam in the Quran?
An Academic Challenge to Islam, Allah, and the Quran
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The Quran asserts its role as a confirmation of the previous scriptures, specifically the Torah (Tawrat) and the Gospel (Injeel). This claim is foundational in Islamic theology, where Muslims believe that the Quran verifies, protects, and clarifies the earlier revelations. However, a close academic scrutiny reveals significant omissions, particularly concerning key details about Isa bin Maryam (Jesus), whose ministry and followers are richly documented in the canonical Gospels. This article raises a direct challenge: Where are the names of the twelve disciples (apostles) of Isa bin Maryam in the Quran?

The Theological Foundation

1. The Claim of Quranic Completeness and Confirmation

The Quran boldly declares itself as a “clear explanation of all things” (Quran 16:89) and “confirming what was before it of the Scripture” (Quran 5:48). Muslims are taught that the Quran provides guidance, light, and a criterion for judgment. If this is so, it must preserve or at least acknowledge the foundational facts that the Injeel (Gospel) records without ambiguity.

2. The Names of the Apostles in the Bible

In the Christian Scriptures, the twelve apostles are individually named in multiple places (e.g., Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13). Their names—Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot—are historical, unambiguous, and verifiable within the biblical record.

The Quranic Silence

1. Absence of Names in the Quran

While the Quran mentions the “Hawariyyun” (disciples) of Isa (Quran 3:52, 5:111-115, 61:14), it never lists their names, nor does it provide any biographical details. This is a stunning omission, especially considering the Quran’s claim to confirm previous revelation and provide “clarification of all things.”

2. The Islamic Dilemma

If the Quran confirms the Injeel, why does it not confirm this basic and universally recognized detail—the names of Jesus’s closest companions? Are the names not important to God? Or was this knowledge unavailable to Muhammad, the purported recipient of the Quranic revelation?

3. Theological Implications

The absence is not a trivial gap; it strikes at the heart of the Quran’s claim to completeness and divine authorship. If Allah truly revealed the Injeel and then sent down the Quran to confirm it, the expectation is that at least such fundamental historical truths would be preserved. Instead, the Quran only alludes vaguely to the “disciples” without identifying them.

Scholarly Challenge

To Muslim scholars, apologists, and clerics: Provide the twelve names of the disciples of Isa bin Maryam from the Quranic text.

Cite the chapter (surah) and verse (ayah) where these names are found.
Show how the Quran fulfills its own standard of confirming the Gospel.

If such names cannot be produced from the Quran, then:

How can one maintain that the Quran confirms the Gospel?
Is the Quran truly “complete” as it claims (Quran 6:115, 16:89)?
Or does this omission prove that the Quran is a man-made document, lacking essential historical details known to all biblical and historical sources?

The Bible’s Superiority in Preserving Revelation

In contrast, the Christian Bible—both Old and New Testaments—has preserved detailed genealogies, names, places, and historical facts across centuries. The specificity of the biblical record stands in stark contrast to the generalities and omissions of the Quran.

Conclusion

The inability of the Quran to provide the names of the twelve disciples of Isa bin Maryam is not merely an academic oversight but a theological indictment. It exposes the incompleteness and human origin of the Quran, which falls short of the standard it claims for itself.
Unless verifiable evidence from the Quran is produced, this silence stands as proof that the Quran is not the infallible Word of God, unlike the Bible.

References:

Quran 3:52, 5:111-115, 61:14 (on the Hawariyyun)
Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16 (on the names of the apostles)
Quran 5:48, 6:115, 16:89 (on Quranic claims to completeness and confirmation)

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Theological and Scientific Critique of Islamic Teachings on Human Procreation: Surah At-Tariq 86:6-7 and Sahih Muslim 2644

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The intersection between religious revelation and scientific knowledge is a point of continuous discussion within theology, philosophy, and the natural sciences. Islam, through the Quran and Hadith, claims to present ultimate truth regarding human existence, including matters of creation and procreation. However, a critical examination of these sources—specifically, Surah At-Tariq (Quran 86:6-7) and Sahih Muslim 2644—reveals fundamental scientific errors that undermine such claims. This article seeks to provide a scholarly theological analysis alongside a scientific evaluation of these texts, illustrating why the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad lack scientific validity in this domain.

Quranic Statement on Human Procreation: Surah At-Tariq 86:6-7

“He was created from a fluid, ejected, emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.”
— (Quran 86:6-7, Sahih International)

Theological Context

Classical and contemporary Islamic commentators have interpreted this passage as describing the origin of human reproductive fluid (sperm). The "backbone and the ribs" (min bayni al-sulbi wa al-tara'ib) have been understood by many to refer to anatomical regions of the human body, often taken literally by classical exegesis.

Scientific Analysis

Modern biology and embryology have thoroughly mapped the processes of human conception:

Origin of Sperm: Sperm is produced in the testicles (testes) of the male, which are anatomically located in the scrotum, not between the backbone and ribs.
Origin of Ova: The female gamete (egg) is produced in the ovaries, which are also not located between the ribs and the backbone but rather in the pelvic region.
Location of Fertilization: Fertilization typically occurs in the fallopian tubes, which are anatomically distant from both the backbone and the ribs.

No modern anatomical or physiological source equates the production or ejection of reproductive fluids with the area "between the backbone and the ribs." This is a clear misrepresentation of human biology.

Hadith Statement on Sperm in the Womb: Sahih Muslim 2644

"When the drop of (semen) remains in the womb for forty or forty-five nights, the angel comes..."
— (Sahih Muslim 2644)

Theological Context

This hadith claims that after semen remains in the womb for 40 or 45 days, an angel descends to decree the future characteristics of the embryo—its fate, actions, lifespan, and sustenance.

Scientific Analysis

Modern science provides the following facts:

Lifespan of Sperm: Sperm can survive inside the female reproductive tract for a maximum of 5-7 days under optimal conditions. After this, all sperm cells die.
Embryological Development: Within 24 hours of fertilization, the sperm cell and egg cell combine to form a zygote, which then begins rapid cell division. By day 40, the embryo has already undergone significant development, including organogenesis (the formation of organs).
Implantation: The embryo implants in the uterine wall approximately 6-10 days after fertilization—not after 40 or 45 days.

The idea that sperm or a "drop" of semen remains unchanged in the womb for 40 or 45 days is unequivocally false according to embryology. No credible scientific source supports this claim.

Combined Theological and Scientific Critique

1. Theological Inerrancy versus Scientific Error

If, as Muslims claim, the Quran and authentic Hadith are the literal words of Allah and the infallible teachings of Muhammad, then scientific errors contained therein are deeply problematic. The infallibility claimed by Islam cannot be reconciled with demonstrable errors in anatomy and embryology.

2. Consequences for Islamic Claims of Scientific Miracles

Some modern Islamic apologists attempt to reinterpret such verses metaphorically or claim they "miraculously" anticipated modern discoveries. However, the plain language of these passages, as well as classical exegesis, reveals that the original understanding was literal and in line with ancient pre-scientific beliefs.

3. Comparison with Modern Science

Quran: Claims sperm originates from a region between the backbone and ribs—scientifically false.
Hadith: Claims sperm remains in the womb for 40/45 days—scientifically false.
Science: Demonstrates clear, observable, and repeatable biological processes that contradict the above.

Conclusion: Islam and Scientific Reliability

The examples analyzed above from both the Quran and Hadith demonstrate a fundamental disconnect from the realities discovered by modern science. Far from providing advanced knowledge or scientific miracles, these texts reflect the limited understanding of ancient peoples.

Therefore, the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad cannot be considered reliable sources of scientific knowledge about human procreation. Instead, they serve as historical documents revealing the pre-scientific context of 7th-century Arabia.

This realization challenges Islamic claims of divine scientific insight and calls for honest reflection within the theological and academic community regarding the nature and limits of religious texts.

References:

Quran 86:6-7 (Sahih International)
Sahih Muslim 2644 (USC-MSA English Reference)
Moore, K.L., Persaud, T.V.N., & Torchia, M.G. (2013). The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. Elsevier.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) – Embryology Resources
Brown, F. (2009). A Critique of the Scientific Miracles in the Quran. Skeptic Magazine.