Friday, June 13, 2025

THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS CHRIST: A BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL EXPOSITION

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The doctrine of the pre-existence of Jesus Christ stands as one of the cornerstone affirmations of classical Christian theology. This doctrine asserts that Jesus existed as a distinct, divine Person before His incarnation in Bethlehem. Far from being a late theological invention, the pre-existence of Christ is rooted in the explicit teachings of Scripture, both in the Old and New Testaments, and has been consistently affirmed by the historic Christian Church. The aim of this article is to present an exhaustive biblical, expository, and theological defense of the pre-existence of Jesus, drawing upon key passages, lexical analysis, and patristic interpretation.

I. The Direct Claims of Jesus: "Before Abraham Was, I AM" (John 8:58)

A. Textual Analysis

John 8:58 (ESV):
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

Here, Jesus uses the Greek phrase ἐγώ εἰμι (egō eimi), which is directly translated "I AM." This declaration is not merely a statement of longevity but an explicit reference to the Divine Name revealed to Moses in the burning bush.

Exodus 3:14 (LXX):
Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν — “I AM the Being” or “I AM WHO I AM.”

Strong’s Concordance numbers for these Greek terms:

ἐγώ (G1473): "I"
εἰμι (G1510): "am, to be, exist"

The identical form is employed by Jesus, signaling a direct identification with the God who appeared to Moses. For the Jewish audience, this was unmistakably a claim to eternal, self-existent deity, as their response in John 8:59 (picking up stones to stone Him) demonstrates—they saw this as blasphemy unless Jesus was, in fact, God.

II. Old Testament Witness to the Pre-Existence of the Messiah

A. The Angel of the LORD

In several Old Testament appearances, the Angel of the LORD speaks as God, receives worship, and exhibits divine authority (Genesis 16:7–13; Exodus 3:2–6; Judges 13:18–22). Many early Church Fathers recognized these Christophanies (pre-incarnate appearances of Christ) as manifestations of the eternal Word.

B. The Son in Psalm 2 and Proverbs 30:4

Psalm 2:7: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you."
Proverbs 30:4: "Who has ascended to heaven and come down?... What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know!"

The Hebrew word for "Son" (בֵּן, ben, Strong’s H1121) anticipates an eternal relationship within the Godhead.

III. New Testament Affirmations of Christ’s Pre-Existence

A. The Prologue of John

John 1:1–3
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Word (λόγος, logos, Strong’s G3056): the pre-incarnate Christ.
Was (ἦν, ēn, Strong’s G2258): denotes continuous, timeless existence.

B. Paul’s Christological Hymns

Philippians 2:5–7
"Who, being in very nature God [μορφῇ Θεοῦ, morphē Theou, Strong’s G3444, G2316], did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant..."

"Being" (ὑπάρχων, hyparchōn, Strong’s G5225): existing prior to incarnation.
"Form of God" (morphē Theou): intrinsic, essential nature, not external form only.

Colossians 1:16–17
"For by him all things were created... all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

Paul affirms not only Christ’s agency in creation but His pre-existence as prior to all things (πρὸ πάντων, pro pantōn).

IV. Theological and Patristic Consensus

From the earliest centuries, orthodox Christian theologians and creeds have confessed the pre-existence of the Son:

Nicene Creed (325 AD): “...begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God...”
Athanasius: “There never was a time when He was not.”

V. Expository and Concordance Study: The "I AM" Statements

Throughout John’s Gospel, Jesus frequently uses the "I AM" (egō eimi) formula, further establishing His pre-existent, divine identity:

John 6:35, 8:12, 10:7, 11, 11:25, 14:6, 15:1
Each "I AM" (Strong’s G1473, G1510) echoes the self-disclosure of Yahweh in the Old Testament.

VI. The Uncaused Existence of Christ: Philosophical and Theological Implications

Unlike creatures, whose existence is contingent and caused, God alone exists a se—of Himself and from Himself. Jesus’ self-identification as "I AM" (Exodus 3:14, John 8:58) affirms His aseity (self-existence), eternality, and full deity. In metaphysical terms, He is the uncaused Cause, the One through whom all else came to be.

VII. Conclusion

The pre-existence of Jesus Christ is not a peripheral doctrine but a central affirmation of the Christian faith. Both the Old and New Testaments bear witness that Christ is not a mere creature but the eternal, uncreated Son who entered human history for our salvation. His self-identification as "I AM" places Him squarely within the unique identity of Yahweh, the one true God.

References

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance: G1473 (ἐγώ, I), G1510 (εἰμί, am), G2258 (ἦν, was), G3444 (μορφή, form), G2316 (Θεός, God), G3056 (λόγος, Word), G1121 (βιβλίον, book), H1121 (בֵּן, son).
Primary Texts: John 1:1–3; 8:58; 17:5; Exodus 3:13–14; Philippians 2:5–11; Colossians 1:15–20; Hebrews 1:1–3; Proverbs 30:4; Psalm 2.
Patristic Sources: Nicene Creed, Athanasius, Augustine.
Secondary Literature: Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel; Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ; N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God.

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute
For further theological resources, visit [Shimba Theological Institute].

Jesus as God the Creator: A Theological Analysis in Light of Quranic and Biblical Witness

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The doctrine of Christ’s divinity stands as the cornerstone of Christian theology. One of the most profound attributes of divinity, acknowledged across the Abrahamic faiths, is the power of creation. In this scholarly article, I examine both the Quranic and Biblical attestations to Jesus’ creative power, revealing how the unique ascription of creative authority to Jesus in both scriptures is a compelling testament to His divine identity.

Allah's Question in the Quran: The Creator vs. the Non-Creator

The Quran itself raises a profound rhetorical question concerning the distinction between the Creator and those who do not create:

Quran 16:17:
"Is then He Who creates like one who does not create? Will you not then take heed?"

Here, Allah challenges the reader: Is it possible to equate the Creator with the created? The Qur'anic context makes clear that the power to create is a defining attribute of God, an exclusive prerogative that distinguishes the Divine from all creatures.

Jesus’ Creative Acts in the Quran

The Quran attributes creative acts to Isa (Jesus) that mirror those ascribed to God in the Old Testament:

Quran 3:49:
"And [Isa, Jesus] will be a messenger to the Children of Israel, [who will say]: 'Indeed, I have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I will create for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, then I will breathe into it and it will become a bird by Allah’s permission. I heal those born blind and the lepers, and I give life to the dead by Allah’s permission…'"

This passage outlines a series of miracles performed by Jesus:

Creating a living bird from clay by breathing into it,
Healing the blind and lepers,
Raising the dead.

It is significant to note that the act of forming a living creature from clay, then imparting life by breath, directly echoes the Genesis creation narrative:

Genesis 2:7:
"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Thus, both the Bible and the Quran attribute the creative act—especially breathing life into clay—as the unique prerogative of God, now performed by Jesus.

The Meaning of "By Allah’s Permission"

Muslim apologists often argue that the phrase "by Allah’s permission" (bi-idhni Allah) demotes Jesus to the status of a mere servant or prophet. However, theologically, the concept of "permission" or "authority" does not negate inherent power. In Johannine theology, Jesus Himself emphasizes a similar relational dynamic:

John 5:30:
"I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge…"

Here, Jesus expresses voluntary submission to the Father, not lack of divine power. The self-humbling of Christ—kenosis (Philippians 2:6-8)—demonstrates His willingness to operate within the limitations of human flesh, without divesting Himself of His divine essence. Likewise, Jesus’ miracles, performed "by permission," reflect His incarnational humility rather than an absence of deity.

The Pre-Existence and Divine Authority of Jesus

John's Gospel explicitly asserts the divine creative role of the Logos (the Word), identified with Jesus:

John 1:1-3:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made."

This passage leaves no doubt that Jesus is the Agent of creation, co-equal and consubstantial with God the Father. This creative power is not borrowed, but intrinsic.

The Quranic Dilemma: Creator vs. Non-Creator

Returning to the Quranic principle:

Quran 16:17:
"Is then He Who creates like one who does not create?"

The Quranic argument is unequivocal: Only God creates. Therefore, if Jesus creates, as the Quran itself testifies, He partakes in the divine essence and prerogative. The Quran, in attempting to honor Jesus as a prophet, inadvertently confesses His divine creative power—an attribute exclusive to God alone.

Conclusion: Jesus as the Divine Creator

Both the Bible and the Quran, when read without apologetic prejudice, bear witness to the divine creative power of Jesus. The Quran’s testimony that Jesus creates life from clay and imparts the breath of life mirrors the Genesis account of God’s unique creative act. The New Testament reveals this same Jesus as the eternal Word through whom all things were made. No mere prophet, angel, or creature can claim the power to create ex nihilo or impart life—such power belongs to God alone.

Therefore, the only consistent theological conclusion, based on the evidence from both scriptures, is that Jesus is God the Creator, worthy of worship and honor.

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

References

The Holy Bible, Genesis 2:7; John 1:1-3; John 5:30; Philippians 2:6-8
The Quran, Surah 3:49; 15:28; 16:17; 22:5

This article is freely distributable in its original form. For scholarly citation and educational use only.

THOMAS DECLARES JESUS AS GOD, AND JESUS DOES NOT DENY BEING CALLED GOD

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

The declaration of the apostle Thomas in John 20:28—“My Lord and my God!”—stands as a pivotal confession within Christian theology, directly affirming the divine nature of Jesus Christ. This confession occurs in the context of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, specifically addressing Thomas’s prior skepticism about the reality of the resurrection. Upon witnessing the risen Christ, Thomas’s exclamation is not merely an expression of astonishment but a theologically loaded acknowledgment of both the lordship (kyrios) and deity (theos) of Christ.

The Textual Foundation: John 20:28-29

"Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God!' Jesus said to him, 'Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'"
(John 20:28-29, ESV)

Significantly, Jesus does not rebuke or correct Thomas for addressing Him as “God.” On the contrary, Jesus affirms Thomas’s faith and pronounces a blessing on future believers who will confess His divinity without the benefit of physical sight. Had Jesus not been truly divine, such acceptance would have constituted either deception or blasphemy—both of which are antithetical to Jesus’ sinless nature, as attested in Hebrews 4:15 (“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.”).

The Theological Significance

The response of Jesus to Thomas is crucial in Trinitarian theology. Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus shy away from His divine identity. In fact, this episode echoes earlier Johannine affirmations, notably in the prologue:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1),
and
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." (John 1:14).

The Christological declaration by Thomas, therefore, brings the narrative arc of John’s Gospel full circle: from the Word who was God, to the incarnate Word who is recognized as God by His disciples.

Patristic and Conciliar Testimony

The confession of Thomas is not an isolated theological datum. The early Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and Augustine, cited this passage as proof of Christ’s divinity. The Nicene Creed (325 AD), which continues to define orthodox Christian belief, proclaims Jesus as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousios) with the Father." This creed, forged amid the Arian controversy, directly reflects the high Christology evident in Thomas’s confession.

Christ’s Acceptance of Divine Titles

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus receives and accepts divine titles and worship. In Matthew 14:33, the disciples worship Jesus, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” In Matthew 28:17, after the resurrection, “they worshipped him.” In both instances, Jesus accepts worship due to God alone (cf. Deuteronomy 6:13, Matthew 4:10). Moreover, Jesus applies to Himself the divine name “I AM” (ego eimi) in John 8:58, alluding to the divine name revealed in Exodus 3:14 (“I AM WHO I AM”).

Christ’s Sinlessness and the Implication for His Acceptance

The integrity of Jesus’ character underpins the argument for His divinity. Jesus is portrayed as sinless (2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:22). If He were not God and yet accepted worship and the ascription of divinity, He would have been guilty of the highest blasphemy—a charge never made by even His fiercest opponents, who accused Him of blasphemy only for "making Himself God" (John 10:33), not for accepting worship.

Apostolic Testimony

Other New Testament writers echo Thomas’s confession. Paul, in Titus 2:13, refers to Jesus as “our great God and Savior.” Peter uses similar language in 2 Peter 1:1. The author of Hebrews writes, “But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...’” (Hebrews 1:8).

Conclusion

The confession of Thomas, “My Lord and my God,” is theologically indispensable. Jesus’ acceptance of this title, without correction or rebuke, affirms the New Testament’s consistent witness to His divinity. The sinless Christ could not receive false adoration. Instead, He confirms that faith in His divine nature is the foundation of Christian belief. Thus, the testimony of Thomas, bolstered by the unanimous voice of Scripture and the historic creeds of the Church, stands as incontrovertible evidence: Jesus is indeed Lord and God.

References:

The Holy Bible, ESV
Athanasius, On the Incarnation
Augustine, On the Trinity
The Nicene Creed
Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John
Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity

Christianity and the Essence of God: A Theological Critique of Islam’s Claims

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The question of divine authenticity between Christianity and Islam is one that has shaped theological discourse for centuries. At its core, this question is not about the existence of religion, but about the revelation and nature of God. According to biblical theology, God’s desire has always been for a relationship with humanity, not the establishment of a man-made religion. The Bible records God’s initiative to reconcile creation to Himself, while Islam—despite its claims—presents a framework fundamentally at odds with the revealed character of God. This article explores why Christianity, and not Islam, is consistent with the essence and self-disclosure of the Almighty God.

I. God’s Essence: Relationship, Not Religion

A. God’s Desire for Relationship

From the opening chapters of Genesis, the Bible reveals that God’s primary intention is relational, not ritualistic or religious. Adam and Eve walked with God in the garden (Genesis 3:8), symbolizing intimacy, trust, and direct communion. Even after the Fall, God pursued humanity through covenants and prophetic revelation, culminating in the Incarnation—God becoming flesh in Jesus Christ (John 1:14).

Genesis 3:8: “And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day…”
Jeremiah 31:33: “…I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
John 17:3: “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”

B. Religion as Human Construct

Contrary to biblical revelation, religion is often the human attempt to reach God through rituals, laws, and systems. The New Testament asserts that it is not through works or religion, but through grace and faith in Christ that reconciliation is achieved (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Colossians 2:20-23 criticizes “self-imposed religion” and ritualistic observances that lack spiritual power.

II. Christianity: The Divine Initiative of Reconciliation

Christianity is rooted in God’s self-revelation and initiative. The Torah and the Gospel are unique in that their authenticity was confirmed by God’s own voice from heaven.

A. Divine Approval of the Torah and Gospel

Exodus 19:9: “And the LORD said to Moses, ‘Behold, I am coming to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you…’”
Matthew 17:5: “A voice from the cloud said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him!’”

These instances show direct divine endorsement—God publicly and audibly affirms the message and messenger. Nowhere in the Quranic tradition is there a parallel event where Allah audibly endorses Muhammad in front of witnesses.

B. Reconciliation as the Heart of the Gospel

2 Corinthians 5:18-19: “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation…”

Christianity is a message of restoration, forgiveness, and peace with God. The work of Christ is redemptive and reconciling, establishing a relationship—not a religion—between God and man.

III. Islam: A Theological and Historical Critique

A. The Quran’s Content and Orientation

Unlike the Bible’s narrative of reconciliation, the Quran repeatedly emphasizes struggle, conflict, and legalistic submission.

Quran 9:29: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah…”
Quran 8:12: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

While the Bible calls believers to love even their enemies (Matthew 5:44), the Quran’s primary orientation in many passages is towards conflict and subjugation, not reconciliation.

B. Absence of Divine Endorsement

Nowhere in the Quran or Hadiths does Allah speak audibly to Muhammad in the presence of others, nor does he publicly endorse Muhammad as his messenger, in contrast to the biblical pattern.

Quran 42:51: “It is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil…”

The relationship between Allah and Muhammad is one of distance and mediation through the angel Jibril, whereas the biblical God speaks directly and openly to His chosen servants.

C. Islam’s Borrowed Narratives and Theological Discontinuity

Historical and textual criticism shows that much of the Quran’s content borrows from pre-existing Judeo-Christian and apocryphal sources, often with significant alterations and theological distortions (see W. Montgomery Watt, “Muhammad at Mecca”, and Sidney Griffith, “The Bible in Arabic”).

Sura 5:46: “And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel…”

Yet, the Quran simultaneously denies key doctrines of the Gospel (e.g., Jesus’ divinity and crucifixion), placing it in theological conflict with its supposed source.

IV. Satan, War, and Reconciliation

A. The Spirit of Reconciliation vs. War

The Bible identifies Satan as the originator of conflict, chaos, and destruction (John 8:44; Revelation 12:9). Whenever a religious system is marked by perpetual conflict and absence of true reconciliation, it departs from the spirit and essence of the biblical God.

James 3:17-18: “But the wisdom from above is…peaceable, gentle…And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.”

B. The Fruit of Each Message

Christianity’s message produces reconciliation, love, and peace—signs of God’s kingdom. Islam, in its earliest expansions and in much of its doctrine, produces conquest, division, and religious striving.

V. Conclusion: Christianity Alone Aligns with God’s Essence

In summary, theological and historical evidence demonstrates that Christianity—not Islam—is aligned with the essence, revelation, and intent of Almighty God. Christianity stands upon the public, divine approval of God (Exodus 19:9; Matthew 17:5) and fulfills God’s purpose for relationship and reconciliation, not mere religion.

Islam, on the other hand, offers a system of human striving, lacking the audible and public affirmation of God, and diverging from the message of reconciliation. Its historical borrowing, theological contradictions, and spirit of conflict further distance it from the revealed nature of the Almighty God.

References

The Holy Bible, NIV
The Quran
W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca
Sidney Griffith, The Bible in Arabic
N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God
Kenneth Cragg, The Call of the Minaret

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba,
Shimba Theological Institute

The Divine Identity of Jesus Christ: An Intertextual Theological Analysis of Forgiveness and the Incarnation

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The question of Jesus Christ's divinity occupies a central position in Christian theology and is a point of contention in Muslim-Christian dialogues. While Islamic sources—namely the Qur’an, Allah, Muhammad, and Jibril—deny Jesus' divinity, their very testimonies, when examined carefully, inadvertently affirm attributes that, according to both scriptural traditions, belong to God alone. Among these is the authority to forgive sins, an act that is foundationally and uniquely reserved for God. This article will critically examine this attribute and its Christological implications through a comparative theological lens, employing both biblical and Qur’anic texts.

The Authority to Forgive Sins: A Divine Prerogative

The Qur’an explicitly declares that forgiveness of sins is the exclusive right of God. In Surah Ghafir (40:2-3), it is written:

"The revelation of the Book is from Allah, the Exalted in Power, the All-Knowing. The Forgiver of sin, Acceptor of repentance, Severe in punishment, Owner of abundance. There is no deity except Him; to Him is the final return."

Here, the Qur’an affirms that only God can forgive sins. This divine prerogative, as understood in Islamic theology, is beyond the scope of any human agent.

In parallel, the Gospel narrative presents an episode where Jesus explicitly exercises the authority to forgive sins, thereby eliciting accusations of blasphemy from the religious authorities of His time. In Mark 2:5-11, the text recounts:

"When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, 'Son, your sins are forgiven.' Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 'Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?' And immediately Jesus, perceiving in His spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, 'Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven," or to say, "Rise, take up your bed and walk"? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins'—He said to the paralytic—'I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.'"

This narrative is not merely an account of healing but a profound theological assertion of divine identity. Jesus’ forgiveness of sins, an act understood even by His opponents as uniquely divine, serves as a direct demonstration of His divinity.

The Incarnation: Concealing the Majesty of the Divine

A common objection to Christ’s divinity arises from His humanity—His hunger, fatigue, sorrow, and mortality. Critics argue that the assumption of human nature diminishes His divine authority. However, Christian theology holds that the incarnation does not diminish but rather veils divine majesty for the purpose of redemptive accessibility.

This principle is not foreign to the biblical narrative. In Exodus 19:20-21 and Exodus 33:18, 20, God reveals Himself in ways that are both awesome and perilous to humanity, underscoring the necessity of mediation for the sake of human survival:

"You cannot see My face, for man shall not see Me and live." (Exodus 33:20)

Thus, the incarnation is understood as an act of divine accommodation. In the New Testament, this theological reality is affirmed:

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)
"Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh..." (1 Timothy 3:16)
"When Christ came into the world, He said, 'A body you have prepared for me...'" (Hebrews 10:5)
"...but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." (Philippians 2:7)

The incarnation, therefore, is not a subtraction of divinity but the necessary veil (cf. Hebrews 10:20) that allows sinful humanity to approach God without being consumed by His holiness.

The Title "Son of God" and Its Ontological Implications

The designation "Son of God" has often been misconstrued as implying inferiority or created status. However, the term arises from the act of incarnation—the eternal Word taking on human nature. John 1:14 asserts:

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father..."

This is not a change in essence but a change in role or manifestation, akin to water taking the form of ice: the substance remains the same, though the form is adapted for a particular purpose. Thus, Jesus as the "Son" is the incarnate manifestation of the eternal divine nature, His humanity serving as the redemptive "veil" (cf. Hebrews 10:20).

Affirmations of Christ's Deity in Christian Scripture

The New Testament repeatedly affirms the divinity of Jesus:

"Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:7-10)
"…our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:13)
"Thomas answered Him, 'My Lord and my God!'" (John 20:28)

These declarations are not metaphorical but ontological, directly ascribing the nature and identity of God to Jesus Christ.

Conclusion: The Exclusivity of Christ’s Salvific Role

Given the evidence from both Christian and Islamic texts, the case for the divinity of Jesus is compelling when viewed through the lens of His unique prerogative to forgive sins and the necessity of the incarnation for human salvation. Scripture attests:

"And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

Thus, Christian doctrine maintains that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man—the only mediator and Savior for humanity.

May God bless you as you seek to understand and embrace the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
For Shimba Theological Institute

Theological Refutation of Islam: The Divine Ethic of Enemy Love as the Criterion of True Revelation

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The manner in which a religious tradition instructs its adherents to treat enemies is a powerful indicator of its divine or human origins. In particular, the ethical directives of Jesus Christ regarding love for enemies stand in stark contrast to the martial injunctions found in the Quran. This article presents a theological critique of Islam’s claim to divine origin, focusing especially on Surah 9:14 (Q9:14) and its implications, while contrasting these with the teachings of Jesus as preserved in the New Testament. The conclusion is drawn that Allah, as depicted in the Quran, is not the God of the Bible, and therefore the prophets and apostles before Muhammad were not Muslims.

1. The Biblical Ethic of Enemy Love

One of the hallmarks of the New Testament is Jesus’ radical command to love one’s enemies. As recorded in Matthew 5:44, Jesus declares, “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”1 This theme is reiterated throughout the New Testament and has its antecedents in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament):

Luke 6:27-28: “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.”2
Proverbs 25:21-22: “If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink, for you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you.”3
Romans 12:20: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”4

These teachings reflect the essential nature of God as “merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.”5 The ethic of enemy love is not marginal, but central to the Christian revelation, culminating in Christ’s self-sacrificial death for sinners and enemies alike (Romans 5:8).6

2. The Quranic Ethic: Surah 9:14 and Divine Violence

In contrast, the Quran repeatedly sanctions violent struggle against non-believers, particularly in the Medinan surahs. Surah 9:14 reads:

“Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people.”7

All major English translations render the message similarly, authorizing fighting, punishment, humiliation, and the satisfaction of the believing community.8 The exegetical tradition (tafsir) reinforces this interpretation. Ibn Kathir, for example, comments that this verse means Allah “will punish them at your hands, you are the ones who will inflict punishment upon them.”9 The message is echoed throughout other surahs (Q2:190-193; Q8:12-13; Q9:5, 29), establishing a pattern that stands at odds with the radical nonviolence of Jesus.10

Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) historically codified these commands into laws concerning jihad (offensive and defensive war), as attested by classical scholars such as al-Tabari and al-Mawardi.11 Attempts by modern apologists to recontextualize these verses do not erase the traditional, literal understanding embedded in both Sunni and Shia orthodoxy.12

3. Allah and the God of the Bible: Theological Incompatibility

A. God as Father

The Bible reveals God as Father—a personal, relational deity (Matthew 6:9; Romans 8:15).13 The Quran, in contrast, emphatically denies God’s fatherhood (Q5:18; Q6:101; Q19:88-93).14 This theological distinction is foundational.

B. God as Love

While the Bible asserts that “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16), the Quran never makes this ontological claim about Allah. Allah is described as “the Loving” (al-Wadud; Q11:90, Q85:14), but love is not presented as His essence.15

C. God Incarnate in Christ

Christianity proclaims that God was incarnate in Jesus Christ (John 1:1-18; Colossians 2:9). The Quran explicitly rejects the divinity and crucifixion of Christ (Q4:157-158).16 Therefore, the God revealed in Jesus is not the Allah described in the Quran.

4. The Prophets and Apostles: Not Muslims, Not Proclaimers of Islam

The claim that the biblical prophets and apostles were Muslims collapses under both historical and textual scrutiny:

The Hebrew prophets and New Testament apostles never professed faith in the Qur’anic Allah or recited the shahada.17
The ethical framework of the Hebrew Bible, while containing accounts of divinely sanctioned war, never commands perpetual violence against all non-believers. These wars were judicial, historically circumscribed, and ultimately aimed at redemption.18
The New Covenant inaugurated by Jesus is defined by reconciliation, peacemaking, and the abolition of ethnic, cultural, and religious hostilities (Ephesians 2:14-16; Galatians 3:28).19

5. Conclusion: Islam as a Contradiction of Divine Revelation

The Qur’anic teaching to “fight them… punish them by your hands… disgrace them” (Q9:14) is incompatible with the divine ethic of enemy love that Jesus proclaimed. The true measure of divine revelation is the perfection of love, mercy, and forgiveness—attributes uniquely revealed in the triune God of the Bible.20 Thus, Allah of the Quran is not the same as the God of the Bible, and Islam cannot be the final or true revelation from the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus.

Endnote:
The invitation stands for all to come to Jesus Christ, who alone reveals the heart of God, brings peace, and heals the wounds of both friend and enemy.

Footnotes

Matthew 5:44, English Standard Version (ESV).
Luke 6:27-28, ESV.
Proverbs 25:21-22, ESV.
Romans 12:20, ESV.
Exodus 34:6, ESV.
Romans 5:8, ESV; cf. John Stott, The Cross of Christ, IVP, 1986, pp. 77-82.
Quran 9:14, Sahih International translation; see also Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Muhammad Sarwar, Mohsin Khan, Arberry.
See image and comparative English translations; cf. The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, Pickthall.
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim, commentary on Q9:14.
Quran 2:190-193, 8:12-13, 9:5, 29.
Al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an, on Q9:14; al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya.
See David Cook, Understanding Jihad, University of California Press, 2005, ch. 1–2.
Matthew 6:9; Romans 8:15, ESV.
Quran 5:18, 6:101, 19:88-93; see also Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an: A New Translation.
1 John 4:8, 16, ESV; Quran 11:90, 85:14; cf. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Study Quran, commentary on al-Wadud.
John 1:1-18, Colossians 2:9, ESV; Quran 4:157-158.
See Kenneth Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, Oxford University Press, 2000.
See Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?, Baker, 2011, ch. 14.
Ephesians 2:14-16; Galatians 3:28, ESV.
John 13:34-35, 1 John 4:8, Matthew 5:44.

Endnotes and References

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV).
The Qur’an, various translations (Sahih International, Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Arberry, Mohsin Khan, Muhammad Sarwar).
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim.
Al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an.
Al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya.
David Cook, Understanding Jihad, University of California Press, 2005.
Kenneth Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, Oxford University Press, 2000.
Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?, Baker, 2011.
John Stott, The Cross of Christ, IVP, 1986.
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, ed., The Study Quran, HarperOne, 2015.
Samuel Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, American Tract Society, 1912.
Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an: A New Translation, Oxford University Press, 2004.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

The Theology of Satan’s Procreation in Islam: A Critical Scholarly Challenge

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

Among the more curious features of classical Islamic exegesis is the tradition concerning the procreation of Satan (Iblis) and the divine orchestration behind it. This narrative, found in works such as Tafsir Al-Qurtubi on Q18:50, presents Satan as a being created by Allah with both male and female sexual organs, capable of self-propagation and the continual spawning of demonic offspring. This article undertakes a critical, theological, and scholarly examination of this tradition, interrogating its sources, logic, and implications for Islamic theodicy and divine purpose.

The Narrative in Question: Source and Content

According to Tafsir al-Qurtubi on Qur’an 18:50:

Mujahid said: “Satan inserted his male private part into his female private part and laid five eggs, this is the origin of his offspring.”
Another report states: “Allah created for him a male private part in his right thigh and a female private part in his left thigh. Satan has sexual intercourse (using these organs), lays 10 eggs every day, and from each egg 70 devils are born.”

Such narrations are echoed by other classical scholars (e.g., Al-Tabari, Al-Kalbi, Ibn Kathir) and find resonance in various hadith and folkloric traditions, despite not being mentioned explicitly in the Qur’an itself.

The Theological Problem: Why Did Allah Create Satan’s Procreative Power?

1. Purpose and Divine Wisdom

The first and most fundamental question is:
Why would Allah, described as All-Wise (Al-Hakim), All-Knowing (Al-‘Alim), and the Most Merciful (Ar-Rahman), purposefully create within Satan the biological capacity for self-propagation?

If Satan’s sole role is to mislead humanity and rebel against the divine, does the provision of a sexual apparatus and the subsequent multiplication of devils serve any redemptive, just, or wise end?

a. Theodicy and the Problem of Evil

Islamic theodicy argues that all things Allah creates are ultimately for good, even if their immediate effects appear evil. But the creation of thousands of new devils daily, whose existence serves to increase evil, temptation, and suffering, seems contrary to the divine attributes of mercy and justice.

b. Comparison with Christian Theology

In Christian theology, Satan is not depicted as self-propagating or laying eggs. The demonic realm consists of fallen angels—unique creations—without the concept of sexual reproduction or endless demonic multiplication. This avoids the implication that God is continuously manufacturing evil entities.

2. Textual Authenticity and Intellectual Coherence

a. Scriptural Silence

The Qur’an itself never states that Satan self-propagates by laying eggs or through sexual intercourse. This doctrine emerges from extraneous tafsir and weak or fabricated hadiths, raising questions about its canonical status.

b. Anthropomorphism and Mythology

The description of Satan’s anatomy and procreation borrows heavily from ancient Near Eastern mythologies and anthropomorphic imaginations. It brings the divine creative act to the level of fable, blurring the lines between theology and folklore.

3. Quantifying Satan’s Offspring: How Many?

If, as claimed, Satan lays 10 eggs per day and from each egg 70 devils are born, then:

10 eggs × 70 devils = 700 devils/day
In one year: 700 × 365 = 255,500 devils
Over 1,400 years (since Islam’s advent): 255,500 × 1,400 ≈ 357,700,000 devils

These numbers become absurd when extended to the scale of world history, raising further theological and rational dilemmas.

4. The Challenge to Islamic Thought: What is the Benefit?

a. Divine Intention vs. Satanic Autonomy

If Allah intentionally created Satan’s procreative ability, then the proliferation of devils is a direct result of divine will, not merely the outcome of Satan’s rebellion. Does this implicate Allah in the proliferation of evil? What possible divine benefit or wisdom could justify the ongoing creation of more and more devils?

b. Human Accountability and Justice

If humans are held responsible for succumbing to satanic temptation, while Allah simultaneously increases the number of tempters, can divine justice be maintained? Does this not create an imbalance where the test of faith is perpetually stacked against humanity?

5. A Call for Re-examination

Islamic theologians must grapple with the narrative’s origins and implications. A doctrine that places the multiplication of evil within the creative prerogative of Allah calls into question divine justice, mercy, and wisdom. Unless this narrative is rejected as folkloric, Islam faces a profound theological challenge:
What conceivable benefit or higher wisdom is served by the exponential, daily increase of Satan’s offspring?

Conclusion

The account of Satan’s sexual self-propagation, as recorded in Tafsir al-Qurtubi and echoed in other classical sources, exposes a significant theological tension within Islam. The lack of clear Qur’anic basis, the problematic implications for theodicy and justice, and the anthropomorphic absurdity of the narrative together demand a critical scholarly response.

Islamic scholars are challenged to either provide a coherent, divinely beneficial explanation for this doctrine or, alternatively, to repudiate it as a mythological accretion unworthy of divine revelation.
Such re-examination is essential not only for the internal coherence of Islamic theology but also for its credibility in dialogue with other world religions and rational inquiry.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

References:

Al-Qurtubi, Tafsir al-Qurtubi, commentary on Q18:50.
Al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Tabari.
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir.
Watt, W. Montgomery. Islamic Philosophy and Theology (Edinburgh University Press, 1985).
Smith, Jane I. An Historical and Theological Inquiry into Islamic Theodicy (Oxford, 2001).

The Theological Incompleteness of the Quran and Islam’s Reliance on Biblical Revelation

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

Within Islamic theology, the Quran is venerated as the final, unaltered, and most complete revelation from God. Muslims assert that it is a “muhaymin” (guardian or confirmer) over previous scriptures (Quran 5:48). However, a critical and scholarly examination reveals significant gaps in the Quran’s content—particularly regarding foundational narratives, historical details, and doctrinal essentials that are indispensable for any comprehensive religious worldview. This raises profound theological questions: If the Quran is indeed complete and final, why do Muslims recurrently resort to the Bible to supplement their beliefs? What are the implications for the coherence and sufficiency of Islamic doctrine?

I. The Missing Foundations: What the Quran Leaves Unanswered

The Quran, while referencing many biblical figures and events, is notoriously silent on fundamental details that are explicitly found in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament. Consider the following:

Identity and Lineage:
The Quran mentions Adam, but does not name his wife (Eve). It speaks of Abraham, but omits the number and names of his sons, only emphasizing Ishmael and Isaac. It references Jacob, but never lists the names of his twelve sons—the patriarchs of the tribes of Israel.
The Ten Commandments:
Nowhere in the Quran is the Decalogue, the list of Ten Commandments, given as a unit. Although fragments of the ethical code appear, the unique and formative role of the Decalogue in religious history is missing.
Historical Narratives:
The exile of Israel to Babylon, the experiences of Daniel, the return from exile, and many prophetic narratives are alluded to but left almost entirely unexplained or omitted in the Quranic text.
The Gospel Message:
The Quran commands belief in the “Injil” (Gospel) given to Jesus, but fails to preserve or articulate the content of this message. It neither recounts the Sermon on the Mount nor the parables and teachings central to Christian faith.

These are not minor omissions—they are foundational to understanding God’s unfolding plan, the nature of humanity, the covenant, and the requirements of divine law.

II. Theological Implications: The Necessity of the Bible in Islamic Thought

Given these omissions, Islamic scholarship has long relied on “Isra’iliyyat”—Jewish and Christian traditions—to fill gaps in Quranic narratives. Classic tafsir (Quranic exegesis), such as those by Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari, are replete with references to Biblical material. This raises a theological crisis:

The Quran’s Claim to Completeness:
The Quran repeatedly claims to be “a clarification of all things” (Quran 16:89) and “perfected” (Quran 5:3). Yet, its dependence on earlier revelation for context and content contradicts this claim. If the Quran is truly self-sufficient, why is recourse to the Bible necessary, either for exegesis or basic religious knowledge?
The Doctrine of Tahrif (Corruption):
Muslims often claim that the Bible has been corrupted (tahrif), yet continually turn to it for clarification of stories and doctrines that the Quran leaves ambiguous or unexplained. This reliance is both inconsistent and self-defeating: If the Bible is corrupt, its testimony should be irrelevant. If it is needed, then the Quran is incomplete without it.

III. The Quran as a Dependent Text: Evidence from Islamic Practice

Throughout Islamic history, the practice of borrowing from the Bible is ubiquitous. Whether discussing the lives of the prophets, the creation narrative, or the moral law, Islamic tradition continually seeks validation and completion from the Bible.

Examples:

The Names of the Prophets’ Wives and Children:
In every major Islamic commentary, details absent from the Quran are imported from Genesis, Exodus, and other biblical books.
The Structure of Sharia:
Islamic law incorporates elements of Mosaic law, including rituals, dietary rules, and penal codes—all originally expounded in the Torah, not the Quran.
Eschatology and Christology:
Concepts such as the Messiah, the Day of Judgment, and the final resurrection are understood in light of New Testament teaching, not by Quranic exposition alone.

IV. Theological and Logical Consequences

1. Sufficiency and Finality Challenged:

The Quran cannot, by itself, answer the basic questions of faith, history, and doctrine. If a “final revelation” is truly final, it should not require constant supplementation from a previous, supposedly obsolete, or corrupted text.

2. Epistemological Insecurity:

Muslims face a dilemma: either trust the Bible and undermine their doctrine of tahrif, or reject it and remain without answers to crucial religious questions.

3. Christological Vacuum:

The Quran’s affirmation of Jesus as Messiah (Quran 3:45; 4:171) is left theologically empty unless interpreted through the New Testament, which the Quran does not preserve or explain.

V. Conclusion: Why We Need the Bible—And Why the Quran Alone Is Inadequate

In summary, the Quran’s self-declared sufficiency is theologically and textually untenable. Its silence on essential issues leaves Islam dependent upon the very Bible it claims to supersede. Thus, the Bible remains indispensable—not only for Christians and Jews but for any honest seeker who desires to understand the very roots of the Quranic narrative.

If the Quran were the only book of God, religious knowledge and salvation history would be irreparably impoverished. The reliance of Islam on the Bible is both unavoidable and fatal to its claim of scriptural finality. The Bible is needed for everything; the Quran, without the Bible, is left with nothing but unanswered questions.

References

Quran 16:89 – “And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things…”
Quran 5:3 – “This day I have perfected for you your religion…”
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim (exegesis using biblical material)
Al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan (reliance on “Isra’iliyyat”)
Bible, Genesis 1-50; Exodus 1-40; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba,
Shimba Theological Institute

THE PARENTS OF MUHAMMAD WERE UNBELIEVERS AND DIED AS UNBELIEVERS

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

Dear reader,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MUHAMMAD CONFESSES THAT HIS FATHER IS IN HELL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOREOVER,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because Muhammad died with more sins than any other creature.

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

MUHAMMAD ASKED FOR FORGIVENESS ONE HUNDRED TIMES A DAY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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