Friday, June 13, 2025

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.

Debate Article: The Paradox of Women’s Prayers in Islam – A Theological Challenge

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Opening Statement

Islamic tradition, as preserved in various hadith collections, raises significant questions about the theological standing and spiritual agency of women in Islam. One such hadith, found in Sunan Ibn Majah 950, asserts:

"Muhammad said the prayer is annulled by the passing of a dog, a donkey, or a woman."

This statement not only equates a woman’s presence with animals considered impure in Islamic law but also implies that her very presence can invalidate a man’s communication with Allah. This foundational assumption brings forth deep theological dilemmas regarding the spiritual equality and ultimate fate of Muslim women. This article, structured as a debate, challenges Muslim scholars and believers to offer coherent answers to the following pressing questions.

Point 1: The Contradiction in Worship – Are Women’s Prayers Heard?

Challenge:
If the mere presence of a woman can annul a man’s prayer, as indicated by the hadith, what does this imply about the efficacy and validity of a woman’s own prayer? Can a woman, whose existence is said to disrupt the worship of men, be assured that her own acts of worship are accepted by Allah? How can Muslim women maintain faith that their prayers will be heard, if the Prophet of Islam declared their presence inherently problematic to the act of prayer?

Scholarly Counterpoint:
Islamic orthodoxy claims both men and women are obligated to pray, and the Quran commands all believers—male and female—to engage in worship and obedience to Allah (Quran 33:35). However, the hadith presents a contradiction. If a woman can nullify a prayer simply by being present, does her prayer not risk nullification from her own existence or the presence of other women? How does Islamic theology reconcile this inconsistency?

Point 2: Islam—A Religion for Men Alone?

Challenge:
Is Islam, at its core, a religion that centers men and marginalizes women? The testimony of the hadith above, along with many others, seems to relegate women to a spiritual status inferior to men—where her presence, voice, or even body is regarded as a source of fitnah (temptation) or spiritual pollution. Is this the egalitarian vision claimed by many apologists, or does Islam fundamentally prioritize men’s access to the divine?

Scholarly Counterpoint:
Proponents may argue that Islam honors women and affords them spiritual rights. Yet, the ritual exclusion in mosques, the secondary status in public prayers, and the legal disadvantages in matters of testimony, inheritance, and divorce paint a different picture. How does Islamic tradition justify these practices while claiming to uphold equality before God?

Point 3: Promises of the Akhirah—What Awaits Muslim Women?

Challenge:
According to popular hadith and the broader Islamic eschatological imagination, righteous men in Paradise are promised 72 virgins (houris) as part of their reward (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 2562). But what is the reward for Muslim women in the afterlife? Is there a comparable promise, or does the vision of paradise cater exclusively to male desires? Does the Quran or authentic hadith literature ever promise believing women any concrete, individual reward that parallels what is described for men?

Scholarly Counterpoint:
Islamic scholars often claim that women will "be satisfied" in paradise and receive what their "hearts desire" (Quran 41:31). However, the texts are strikingly silent on details or specific promises for women, while being explicit for men. Does this not reveal a patriarchal conception of salvation and bliss, in which women are largely invisible or, at best, accessories to male pleasure?

Point 4: The Double Standard of Ritual Purity

Challenge:
If women annul men’s prayers by their mere passage, does this principle apply in reverse? Can a man’s presence annul a woman’s prayer? If not, what is the theological rationale for this double standard? Does the presence of a man carry intrinsic spiritual purity denied to women? Does this not contradict the claim of universal spiritual equality before Allah?

Scholarly Counterpoint:
There is no parallel tradition where men’s presence is said to invalidate women’s prayers. This asymmetry points to a theological anthropology in Islam where men are normative and spiritually authoritative, while women are sources of ritual defect and pollution. How can this be reconciled with the Quranic assertion that "the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous" (Quran 49:13), regardless of gender?

Conclusion: The Challenge for Muslim Apologists

The foregoing questions present a profound challenge for Islamic theology:

How can Muslim women have confidence in their prayers if their very presence is considered an impediment to men’s prayers?
Why does Islamic eschatology privilege men with explicit sensual rewards, while offering women vague promises of satisfaction?
What justification is there for the double standard of ritual purity and prayer validity?

Call for Response:
We call upon Muslim theologians, scholars, and apologists to respond with clear, textually grounded answers. Let them demonstrate, using the Quran and authentic hadith, that Islam provides true spiritual equality for women, both in this life and in the life to come. Until such answers are offered, the questions of spiritual agency, ritual participation, and the destiny of women in Islam remain unresolved and deeply problematic.

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Refuting the Muslim Denial of Jesus’ Divinity: A Scholarly Affirmation of Christ’s Godhood

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

A recurring objection among Muslim apologists is that the Bible, according to their selective citations, allegedly denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. As evidenced in the image above, verses are isolated from their literary, historical, and theological context to argue that Jesus is not God. Such arguments are not only theologically shallow but demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and Christology as revealed in both the Old and New Testaments.

This article provides a scholarly refutation of these claims and affirms the biblical and theological foundation of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

1. Jesus’ Relationship with the Father Does Not Deny His Divinity

The argument that Jesus calling the Father "the only true God" (John 17:3) or referring to "my God and your God" (John 20:17) somehow denies His divinity is based on a misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology. In Christian doctrine, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons, yet one in essence (homoousios).

When Jesus speaks of the Father as God, He does so in accordance with His incarnate role as the Son who has humbled Himself (Philippians 2:6-8). The distinction of Persons does not imply a denial of essence or divinity. In fact, Jesus’ frequent references to God as His Father (e.g., John 5:18; 10:30) were understood by His Jewish contemporaries as a claim to equality with God:

"For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18, NIV)

Key Point:

Allah never called himself Father in the Quran. Jesus’ unique address of God as Father is not just relational; it is ontological, signifying His participation in the very being of God.

2. Jesus’ Humility Does Not Contradict His Deity

Verses such as "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) and "I can do nothing by myself" (John 5:30) reflect the doctrine of the kenosis—the self-emptying of the Son (Philippians 2:6-7). In His incarnation, Jesus voluntarily accepted the limitations of humanity without ceasing to be God. Early Church Fathers, from Athanasius to Augustine, consistently taught that Jesus’ subordination in function (not essence) was due to His incarnate mission.

Key Point:

Functional subordination in the economy of salvation is not ontological subordination. Jesus, as the God-Man, acts in perfect unity with the Father (John 10:30, “I and the Father are one”).

3. Jesus’ Omniscience and Omnipotence in the Context of the Incarnation

Citing Mark 13:32 ("no one knows... not even the Son") as proof against Jesus’ divinity ignores the theological nuance of the incarnation. As the eternal Logos, Jesus possesses all divine attributes (Colossians 2:9), but as the incarnate Son, He sometimes chose not to exercise His divine prerogatives (see also Luke 2:52).

Gregory Nazianzus observed: “As man He was baptized, but He absolved sins as God... He is carried up to the temple as an infant, and He is worshiped there as God.”

4. Jesus Worshipped and Prayed as the Incarnate Son

Jesus’ prayer (Matthew 26:39; Luke 6:12) is a necessary feature of His genuine humanity and His role as the perfect mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). Far from denying His divinity, His prayer life reveals His role as the Second Adam who succeeds where the first Adam failed (Romans 5:19).

5. Jesus’ “Goodness” and the Claim of Divinity

The passage “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18) is not a denial of His deity. Rather, Jesus challenges the questioner to reflect on the implications of calling Him “good”—a divine attribute. If the questioner truly understood Jesus’ identity, he would recognize that Jesus is indeed “good” because He is God (see John 10:11, “I am the Good Shepherd”).

6. Authority and the Giver

Matthew 28:18 states that “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” This is not a denial of Christ’s divinity, but a proclamation of His exaltation post-resurrection (Philippians 2:9-11). The eternal Son, in union with the Father and Spirit, has all authority intrinsically; as the God-Man, He receives authority as the last Adam and universal Lord.

7. Jesus as Prophet, Servant, and Man

Acts 2:22 and 1 Timothy 2:5 affirm the true humanity of Jesus. Orthodox Christian doctrine holds that Jesus is fully God and fully man (the hypostatic union, John 1:14). To call Him a prophet or servant does not deny His divinity, but acknowledges the mystery of the incarnation.

8. The Death of Christ and Divine Immortality

The objection “Jesus died — but God is immortal” is answered by the doctrine of the two natures of Christ. The divine nature did not die, but the human nature suffered death; this is the core of Christian soteriology (see Hebrews 2:9-14).

9. Jesus’ Direct Claims to Deity

Muslim apologists ignore or distort the many direct and indirect claims to deity by Jesus:

John 8:58: “Before Abraham was, I AM.” (cf. Exodus 3:14)
John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.”
John 20:28: Thomas declares, “My Lord and my God!” and Jesus accepts the title.
Revelation 1:17-18; 22:13: Jesus identifies Himself as the Alpha and Omega—the eternal God.

Early Church Evidence:

The earliest Christian hymns and prayers (Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20) ascribe worship and divine titles to Jesus. The apostolic witness is unequivocal:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh.” (John 1:1, 14)

Conclusion

The argument that “according to the Bible, Jesus is not God” is a misrepresentation born from reading the text without reference to context, doctrine, or the totality of biblical revelation. Nowhere does Jesus deny His divinity; rather, He affirms it consistently, both in word and deed. The Christian confession that “Jesus is Lord” (Romans 10:9; Philippians 2:11) remains the foundation of Christian faith and is irrefutable from the biblical text.

In contrast, the Quran never refers to Allah as “Father,” nor does it capture the intimate, ontological relationship between the Father and the Son as revealed by Jesus Christ. This unique revelation is at the heart of the Christian gospel.

References

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel
Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God
Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines
The Nicene Creed (325 AD)
The Bible: John 1:1-14; John 5:18; John 8:58; John 10:30-38; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:3-8; Revelation 1:8, 17-18; 22:13

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

FROM THE QURAN: JESUS CREATES, HEALS, AND RAISES THE DEAD, BUT MUHAMMAD AND ALLAH DID NOT HAVE SUCH POWER

The Quran itself openly acknowledges that Jesus is far more than a mere prophet. If you carefully examine the following verse, you will see that Jesus created, which is a unique attribute of God alone. Jesus raised the dead and healed the sick. However, nowhere do we read that Muhammad performed such miracles. Let us read from the Quran:

Quran 5:110
“When Allah will say: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Holy Spirit. You spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and [remember] when I taught you writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and when you made out of clay the shape of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission; and you healed the blind and the leper by My permission; and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear proofs, but those who disbelieved among them said, ‘This is nothing but obvious magic.’”

Dear brethren, today we have learned that Jesus was not an ordinary man. He performed deeds that only God Himself is able to do. This evidence is clearly found in the Quran. The claim that Jesus was just a Prophet like the others collapses after reading this verse, which reveals the divine glory manifested in Jesus. Has there ever been any Prophet or Messenger who created?

Let us also examine the following Hadith from Al-Bukhari:

Ibn 'Abbas said, “That indicated the death of the Messenger of Allah which Allah had informed (him of).” 'Umar said, “I do not understand it except as you understand it.” Aisha said: During his illness, which ultimately led to his death, the Prophet kept saying, “O Aisha, I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 713)

From this Hadith, we observe that the Prophet of Allah was afflicted by poison administered by a Jewish woman. This Hadith gives us clear evidence that the Prophet of Allah was praying for healing from Allah. The critical question here is: What happened to Muhammad after these prayers to Allah?

Let us read further:

In the following Hadith, we read that even Gabriel came to pray for the health of the Prophet, yet these prayers did not result in Muhammad’s healing.

From Ibn Sad, page 265:
The Prophet of Allah became ill and Gabriel prayed for him, saying, “In the name of Allah, I pray for your health and seek to protect you from all evil, from every envious one, and from all harm, and Allah will heal you.”

Did the Prophet of Allah recover after these prayers? According to our first Hadith, the Prophet did not recover despite prayers from the Angel Gabriel. Yet in the Quran, we read that Jesus had the power to heal, raise the dead, and create—abilities neither Gabriel nor the Prophet Muhammad possessed.

Dear brethren,
Why follow a Prophet who lacked the power to heal?
Why listen to an angel who could not heal, even though he was sent by Allah?
Why would Allah send Gabriel to pray for Muhammad, knowing full well that Muhammad would not recover?

These are a few questions you should consider. Is Allah truly God? If He is God, why did He fail to heal His own Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)?

The Bible says the following in the Gospel of Mark:

Mark 16:17-18
“And these signs will accompany those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Christians have been given authority to pray for the sick in the Name of Jesus—something which does not exist in Islam. The Bible declares that, in the Name of Jesus, we cast out demons, heal the sick, raise the dead, and perform many wonders. Jesus gave us His Name, which is above every name—the only Name that can cast out demons, heal, resurrect, and perform mighty works. Jesus was not just a prophet or ordinary man. His deeds are continually manifested through His followers.

I urge you to accept Jesus, who had the power to raise the dead, heal the sick, and create. These statements are confirmed in the Quran, and the Bible affirms them as well.

If Allah is truly God, why did he send Gabriel to pray for Muhammad when he knew that Muhammad would die?