Friday, June 13, 2025

Muhammad and the Violation of the Second Commandment: A Scholarly Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This article explores the biblical Second Commandment in relation to Islamic ritual and tradition as established by Muhammad. By engaging biblical, Qur’anic, and Hadith sources, as well as critical academic scholarship, the discussion seeks to demonstrate that several core Islamic rituals represent a continuity of pre-Islamic idolatrous practice, thereby constituting a violation of the Second Commandment from a Judeo-Christian theological perspective. This analysis is contextualized within the history of religions and comparative theology.

Introduction

The Second Commandment, which prohibits the making and veneration of images or physical objects in worship (Exodus 20:4-5; Deuteronomy 5:8-9), is fundamental to biblical monotheism. The command is clear and categorical:

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image... You shall not bow down to them nor serve them" (Exodus 20:4-5, NKJV).

Historically, the struggle against idolatry is a central theme in the Old Testament (e.g., Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 27:15; 2 Kings 17:12-16; Isaiah 44:9-20; Jeremiah 10:1-16). The New Testament continues this prohibition, warning that "flee from idolatry" (1 Corinthians 10:14; cf. Acts 17:29-30; 1 John 5:21).

In contrast, Islamic tradition, as practiced in the rites of the Hajj and Umrah, enshrines certain acts—such as circumambulating, kissing, and bowing before the Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad), and the Sa’i between Safa and Marwah—which are both physical and symbolic. This essay interrogates these rituals in light of the Second Commandment and argues that they constitute a form of religious syncretism and a re-adoption of pre-Islamic Arabian religiosity.

Islamic Rituals: Continuity With Pre-Islamic Practices

1. The Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad)

The Black Stone embedded in the eastern corner of the Kaaba is not only touched and kissed by millions of Muslim pilgrims but also given special veneration. The Hadith literature confirms this as a sunnah of Muhammad:

"I saw the Messenger of Allah touch the (Black) Stone and then place his lips on it and wept for a long time." (Sunan Ibn Majah 2944; cf. Sahih Bukhari 1520).

Further, the Prophet is reported to have said, “Touching them (the Black Stone and the Yemeni Corner) atones for sins” (Tirmidhi 959; Ibn Majah 2950). This confers a redemptive value to the act, transforming it from a symbolic gesture to one of theological import.

Historical Origins:
Prominent Islamic historians, such as Al-Azraqi (Akhbar Makkah, 9th c.), and Western scholars (Patricia Crone, Gerald Hawting), document that the Black Stone and the Kaaba were objects of veneration in Arabia centuries before Muhammad. Al-Azraqi notes that pagan Arabs performed tawaf and touched the Black Stone, regarding it as a sacred relic.

W. Montgomery Watt, in Muhammad at Mecca (1953), writes:

“Most of the features of the pre-Islamic pilgrimage were retained by Islam, with only slight modifications.”

Similarly, Karen Armstrong in Islam: A Short History (2000), admits:

“Many of the customs associated with the Hajj, such as running between Safa and Marwah and the stoning of the devil, were pre-Islamic.”

2. The Ritual of Sa’i: Safa and Marwah

The Qur’an (2:158) validates the running between Safa and Marwah, describing them as “symbols of Allah.” Yet, these hills were ancient sites of idol worship. As documented in Sahih Bukhari (vol. 2, hadith 711), the Companions themselves were uncomfortable with these rituals because of their association with Jahiliyyah (the Age of Ignorance), but were reassured by Muhammad.

As Karen Armstrong further observes:

“Even though the idols were removed, the sites themselves remained objects of veneration, given new religious meaning by Islam.”

3. The Stoning of Satan at Mina

This act is based on the legend that Abraham was tempted by Satan at these spots and drove him away by throwing stones. The ritual is found in both Hadith (Sahih Muslim 1219) and Sira literature. But, as John L. Esposito notes in Islam: The Straight Path (1998), such rituals are “pagan in origin, Islamized by the Prophet but essentially retained in their outward form.”

Biblical Counterpoint:
Christianity rejects the notion of combating spiritual evil through physical acts (Ephesians 6:10-18), instead emphasizing spiritual resistance through faith, prayer, and adherence to the word of God.

Scholarly Arguments and Critical Perspectives

1. Syncretism and Religious Innovation (Bid‘ah)

Despite Islamic claims of pure monotheism (tawhid), Islamic practice displays unmistakable elements of syncretism. As G. R. Hawting argues in The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam (1999), the boundaries between monotheism and inherited Arabian religiosity in early Islam were far from clear.

Ignaz Goldziher, a pioneer in Islamic studies, noted:

“The Muhammadan cult… is based on a foundation of ancient heathen rites which were practiced by the Semitic races from time immemorial.” (Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law, 1981).

2. Scriptural Contradictions and the Problem of Authority

Islamic sources claim the Black Stone is from Paradise (Tirmidhi 877) and that it will testify for those who touch it on Judgment Day. This quasi-miraculous status attributed to a physical object is antithetical to biblical theology, which insists that no created object can mediate divine favor (Isaiah 44:9-20; Romans 1:21-25).

3. Christian and Jewish Responses

Christian theologians, such as John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.xi), condemned any form of physical object veneration as the essence of idolatry. Jewish sources likewise identify the worship or veneration of stones as abominations (Deuteronomy 16:22; Mishnah Avodah Zarah 4:5).

Theological Assessment: Does Islam Break the Second Commandment?

While Muslim theologians have vigorously denied any accusation of idolatry (shirk), the evidence indicates that:

The veneration of the Black Stone, the circumambulation of the Kaaba, and ritual acts at Safa, Marwah, and Mina are all rooted in pre-Islamic idolatrous practices.
These practices confer special status on physical objects, actions explicitly forbidden by the Second Commandment.

As scholar Samuel Zwemer writes in The Cross Above the Crescent (1941):

“Despite Islam’s professions of aniconism, its pilgrimages and reverence for stones, tombs, and relics reveal a deep-seated tendency towards material mediators in worship.”

Jesus Christ’s words in John 4:21-24 stand as the decisive Christian answer:

“...the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem... God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Conclusion: Christian Engagement and Missional Implications

Given the overwhelming evidence from both Islamic and non-Islamic sources, it is clear that Muhammad’s establishment of Islamic ritual was not a total rejection of idolatry but a transformation and rebranding of existing pagan customs. For Christians, the Second Commandment remains inviolable, and true worship is entirely detached from physical objects.

The Christian’s duty is to present this biblical truth compassionately and courageously to Muslims and others, inviting them to the pure worship of the living God through Christ alone (Romans 10:9-13; Acts 4:12).

Bibliography

The Holy Bible (NIV, ESV, NKJV).
The Qur’an (Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Saheeh International translations).
Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Ibn Majah, Jami’ at-Tirmidhi.
Guillaume, A., The Life of Muhammad (Oxford University Press, 1955).
Crone, Patricia, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (Princeton, 1987).
Watt, W. Montgomery, Muhammad at Mecca (OUP, 1953).
Armstrong, Karen, Islam: A Short History (Modern Library, 2000).
Hawting, G. R., The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam (Cambridge, 1999).
Goldziher, Ignaz, Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law (Princeton, 1981).
Esposito, John L., Islam: The Straight Path (OUP, 1998).
Zwemer, Samuel, The Cross Above the Crescent (Pickering & Inglis, 1941).
Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Mishnah Avodah Zarah.
Al-Azraqi, Akhbar Makkah.

Shalom,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Titus 2:13

MUHAMMAD LUSTED AFTER ANOTHER MAN’S WIFE: A Theological Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

It is written in various Islamic sources that the Prophet Muhammad once cast his eyes upon and desired the wife of another man—an incident referenced in Tafsir Fath al-Qadir, Volume 4, page 404. Such a report is not merely a matter of historical curiosity; it stands as a profound theological concern that raises serious questions about Muhammad’s claim to prophethood and his representation of the Almighty God.

Translation of the Original Statement

The honorable Prophet (s.a.w.w.) set his eyes upon and lusted after another man’s wife (a married woman) (Na’uzubillah—God forbid). [Tafsir Fath al-Qadir, Volume 4, page 404]

Theological Expansion and Critique

The behavior attributed to Muhammad in this account starkly contrasts with the character of God as revealed in the Scriptures. The God of the Bible is holy, just, and pure—He abhors covetousness, adultery, and every form of moral compromise. The Ten Commandments explicitly state: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” (Exodus 20:17). Jesus further deepens this ethic by teaching, “Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).

How then can a true prophet of the Almighty, one who claims to represent the will and character of the living God, act in direct contradiction to the most basic moral standards set by God Himself? The prophets of the Bible, though human and fallible, were called to a higher standard of holiness, serving as exemplars of God’s righteousness to His people. The very office of a prophet demands integrity, self-control, and an unwavering commitment to the commands of God.

This account of Muhammad not only exposes a serious moral flaw but also undermines his prophetic credentials. It suggests that Muhammad’s behavior was guided by personal desire rather than by the Spirit of the Most High. Such conduct cannot be reconciled with the nature of God, who is described as “of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wickedness” (Habakkuk 1:13).

Furthermore, this episode stands in stark contrast to the character of Jesus Christ, who not only resisted temptation but also taught and modeled the highest standards of sexual purity and sacrificial love. Jesus never desired what belonged to another, nor did He seek to gratify His flesh at the expense of God’s commandments. His life was the perfect reflection of the holiness of God, making Him the true and ultimate Prophet, Priest, and King.

Conclusion

The incident of Muhammad coveting another man’s wife, as preserved in Islamic sources, is not a trivial matter. It is one of many evidences that Muhammad’s life and teachings do not reflect the holiness, love, and justice of the Almighty God. Rather, it exposes him as a man led by personal passions, and thus, by biblical standards, a false prophet. As Christians, we are called to discern the true from the false by examining the fruit and character of those who claim to speak for God (Matthew 7:15-20; 1 John 4:1).

For this reason, Muhammad cannot be regarded as a true messenger of the Most High, for his actions fail to manifest the unblemished holiness and righteousness that are the very essence of the Almighty.

References:

Tafsir Fath al-Qadir, Volume 4, p. 404
Exodus 20:17
Matthew 5:28
Habakkuk 1:13
Matthew 7:15-20
1 John 4:1

If you want this adapted for other uses (infographic, debate, or a book chapter), let me know!

THE ISLAMIC DILEMMA: A THEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

THE ISLAMIC DILEMMA: A THEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

The interplay between the Qur’an and the Gospels presents a significant theological conundrum within Islam, often referred to as the “Islamic Dilemma.” This dilemma centers on the Qur’an’s affirmation of the previous Scriptures—specifically the Gospel (Injil)—and its subsequent contradictions with the actual teachings found within those Scriptures. This article critically examines the dilemma, referencing Islamic texts, Christian scriptures, and scholarly interpretations to demonstrate the theological and logical inconsistencies inherent in Islamic claims regarding the integrity and authority of the Gospels. The analysis further exposes the resultant predicament for Muhammad and Islamic doctrine.

1. Introduction

Islamic theology claims continuity with the Abrahamic tradition, asserting that Allah revealed the Torah to Moses, the Psalms to David, the Gospel to Jesus, and the Qur’an to Muhammad. This claim, however, is fraught with contradictions when the actual content of the Gospels is compared with Islamic doctrine. The "Islamic Dilemma" emerges from the Qur’an's simultaneous affirmation and rejection of the foundational Christian claims about Jesus Christ.

2. The Qur’an’s Affirmation of the Gospel

The Qur’an repeatedly affirms that the Gospel was revealed by Allah as a source of guidance and light:

Surah 3:3: “He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.”
Surah 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, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.”
Surah 5:47: “So let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.”

Here, the Qur’an not only recognizes the Gospel as divinely inspired but commands Christians to judge by it, suggesting the Gospel’s continued validity during Muhammad’s era.

3. The Contradictions: Christology in the Gospels vs. the Qur’an

3.1. Jesus in the Gospels

The Gospels emphatically declare the divinity and sonship of Jesus Christ:

John 8:58: “Before Abraham was, I am.”
Mark 3:11: “Whenever the impure spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, ‘You are the Son of God.’”
John 1:1, 14: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.”

3.2. Jesus in the Qur’an

Islam categorically denies the divinity and sonship of Christ:

Surah 4:171: “The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah... So believe in Allah and His messengers, and do not say ‘Three’; desist—it is better for you. Allah is only one God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son.”
Surah 5:72: “They have certainly disbelieved who say, ‘Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary’… Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire.”

Thus, while the Gospel proclaims Jesus as God and the Son of God, the Qur’an rejects these central Christian tenets. This irreconcilable contradiction is at the heart of the Islamic dilemma.

4. The Islamic Response: Corruption Theory

Facing this contradiction, Muslim apologists typically assert that the Gospels have been corrupted (tahrif). Yet, the Qur’an explicitly states:

Surah 6:115: “And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His words...”
Surah 18:27: “And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord. None can change His words…”

If, according to the Qur’an, none can alter the words of Allah, it becomes theologically incoherent to argue that the Gospel—which the Qur’an recognizes as Allah’s Word—has been corrupted.

Furthermore, the Qur’an challenges the Jews and Christians to judge by their own scriptures (Surah 5:47, 5:68), implying the continued authenticity of these texts during Muhammad’s time.

Manuscript Evidence

Modern textual criticism reveals that the manuscripts of the Gospels predate Muhammad by centuries, and there is no evidence of a widespread post-Christian corruption. The content Christians had in the 7th century is virtually identical to what exists today. (See Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, and F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture.)

5. The Lost Gospel Argument

Some Muslims contend that the original Gospel was lost. However, the Qur’an itself contradicts this notion by referencing the Gospel in the possession of Christians at the time of Muhammad, commanding them to judge by it:

Surah 5:47: “So let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.”

This passage presupposes the accessibility and authenticity of the Gospel among the Christian communities of the 7th century.

6. The Muhammad Dilemma: The Prophet’s Reliance on the Gospel

Muhammad’s references to the Gospel and his affirmation of its authority raise serious theological dilemmas. If the Gospel was corrupted or lost, then Muhammad’s command to Christians to follow it becomes either ignorant or deceptive—attributes inconsistent with prophethood. If the Gospel was intact and true, then Islam’s denial of its central message (Christ’s divinity, crucifixion, and resurrection) renders Islam a self-contradictory faith.

7. Logical Flow of the Dilemma

If the Gospels are true: Islam is false, because its core claims contradict the Gospel (e.g., Christ’s divinity and atonement).
If the Gospels are false: The Qur’an is false, because it affirms the Gospels as revelation.
If the Gospels are corrupted: The Qur’an is false, because it teaches no one can change Allah’s words.
If the Gospels are lost: The Qur’an is false, because Muhammad affirmed the existence and validity of the Gospel among Christians of his time.

Either way, Islam cannot stand without undermining its own foundational claims.

8. Conclusion: The Inescapable Dilemma

The so-called “Islamic Dilemma” is an unavoidable theological predicament for Islam and for Muhammad as its prophet. If the Qur’an is to be believed, the Gospels were once the Word of God, but their content irreconcilably contradicts Islamic doctrine. The standard Muslim response—the corruption theory—lacks Qur’anic support and is refuted by manuscript evidence. The only resolution for Muslims is to reject either the integrity of their own scripture or the legitimacy of Christian claims, but not both.

The academic and theological challenge is clear: Islam cannot both affirm and deny the Gospel. Any attempt to reconcile the two results in internal contradiction, exposing the dilemma of Muhammad’s teaching and, by extension, the doctrinal integrity of Islam itself.

References

The Qur’an: Surahs 3:3, 4:171, 5:46-47, 5:68, 6:115, 18:27
The Bible: John 1:1, 1:14, 8:58, Mark 3:11
Metzger, B. (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration.
Bruce, F.F. (1988). The Canon of Scripture.
Wood, D. (2012). “The Islamic Dilemma: Quran, Gospel, and the Dilemma of Revelation.”
Reynolds, G. (2018). The Qur’an and the Bible: Text and Commentary. Yale University Press.
Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 367 (affirming Gospel as revelation).

For further study, students are encouraged to examine primary source manuscripts, the history of textual transmission, and patristic references to the Gospel predating Islam. The tension between the Qur’an’s recognition of the Gospel and its rejection of Christian doctrine remains a profound theological and historical challenge for Islamic apologetics.

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

JESUS CHRIST WAS NEVER A MUSLIM – PART IV

Addressing Dietary Laws, Circumcision, and the Messiah Title

By Dr Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

(1) Did Jesus Follow Islamic Dietary Laws?

Muslim Claim:
Muslims point out that Jesus didn’t eat pork and kept certain dietary restrictions, similar to Islamic halal requirements, so He must have been a Muslim.

Biblical Reality:
Jesus observed the dietary laws of the Torah as all devout Jews did (see Leviticus 11). Abstaining from pork and unclean foods was commanded for all Israelites long before Islam existed.

Key Point:
Jesus followed Jewish kosher laws, not Islamic halal laws. Kosher pre-dates halal by over a millennium.
Furthermore, in Mark 7:18-19, Jesus began to reveal that it is not food but what comes from the heart that defiles a person. This shift is entirely non-Islamic.

(2) Was Jesus Circumcised According to Islamic Custom?

Muslim Claim:
Muslims highlight that Jesus was circumcised, a practice also found in Islam.

Biblical Truth:
Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day (Luke 2:21), in fulfillment of the covenant God made with Abraham (Genesis 17:10-12), as all Jewish males were.

Key Point:
Circumcision is a sign of the Abrahamic covenant, not a marker of Islam. It is foundational to Jewish identity and predates Islam by two thousand years.

(3) Is “Messiah” Just Another Term for Prophet in Islam?

Muslim Claim:
Islam acknowledges Jesus (Isa) as al-Masih (the Messiah), but only as a prophet, not the divine Son of God.

Scriptural Reality:
In the Bible, “Messiah” (Hebrew: Mashiach, Greek: Christos) means “Anointed One,” and refers to the Savior promised to Israel, not merely a prophet.

Key Point:
Jesus fulfilled specific Messianic prophecies (see Isaiah 9:6, Micah 5:2, Daniel 9:25-26).
The New Testament presents Jesus as Son of God and Redeemer, not just a messenger (see John 1:1-14, John 20:31).

The Quranic “Isa” is fundamentally different from the Jesus of the Bible, stripped of His divinity, atoning death, and resurrection.
Accepting Jesus only as a prophet is to deny His true identity and mission.

Summary and Final Thoughts

Jesus’ dietary practices and circumcision were thoroughly Jewish, rooted in the Torah, not in later Islamic law.
The title “Messiah” is deeply Messianic and redemptive in the Bible—far beyond the Islamic concept of a prophet.
Islamic attempts to appropriate Jesus rely on retroactive claims and redefinitions that strip Him of His biblical identity and mission.

Jesus is the Messiah, Son of God, and Savior—not a Muslim prophet.

Shalom,
Dr Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

The Apostleship of Paul According to the Noble Qur’an

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The figure of the Apostle Paul stands at the center of much debate in both Christian and Muslim circles. While many Muslims today reject Paul’s apostleship, claiming he was a false teacher and not a true messenger, this perspective is both theologically and historically uninformed. By examining the Scriptures—both the Bible and the Qur’an—as well as classical Islamic scholarship and the hadith, we can gain a deeper understanding of Paul’s divine mission.

How Do Messengers Receive Revelation?

We begin with the foundational understanding of how prophets and apostles receive divine revelation. In Numbers 12:6, the Almighty declares the nature of prophetic communication. Was Paul among those who received revelation in such a manner? Acts 16:9 tells us, "During the night Paul had a vision..." Clearly, Paul was a recipient of divine visions, aligning with the criteria for messengers outlined in the Hebrew Scriptures.

To Whom Was Paul Sent?

God explicitly states Paul's commission in Acts 9:15:
"But the Lord said to Ananias, 'Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.'"
Further confirmation is found in Acts 13:2:
"While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.'"
Paul himself affirms his apostleship in Galatians 1:1:
"Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead."
And again in Colossians 1:1:
"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother."

Here, Paul stands firm, not as a self-appointed leader, but as one commissioned directly by Christ and God Himself.

The Requirement of Faith in All Messengers

Islamic faith, as summarized in the classical creed (Swifat ul I’iman Mufaswalu), is built on six articles:

Belief in Allah
Belief in His Angels
Belief in His Books
Belief in His Messengers
Belief in Divine Destiny
Belief in the Last Day

Our focus is on the fourth article: faith in the messengers. Islam teaches there have been approximately 124,000 prophets, but only 25 are explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an. Surah 4:164 states:
"Of some messengers We have already told you the story; of others We have not—and to Moses Allah spoke directly."
Surah 2:136 likewise commands:
"Say: 'We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the descendants, and what was given to Moses and Jesus, and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we submit.'"

Paul himself, as he testifies in Philippians 3:5, was an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin—a direct descendant of Jacob (Ya’qub). Therefore, the Qur’an implicitly includes Paul among those whom Muslims are called to respect as a true messenger.

The Testimony of the Qur’an and the Early Muslim Scholars

It is crucial to recognize that the rejection of Paul as an apostle is a recent development in Islamic polemics. In Surah 36:13-14 (Ya-Sin), we read:
"And set forth to them the parable of the people of the city, when the messengers came to it. When We sent to them two messengers, but they denied them both, so We strengthened them with a third; and they said, 'Indeed, we have been sent to you as messengers.'"
Many respected Qur’anic commentators, such as Sheikh Balwani and Yusuf Ali, identify this city as Antioch and name the three messengers as John, Simon, and Paul (Yuhanna, Shim‘on, and Boulos). Ibn Kathir, a renowned Islamic scholar, affirms in his tafsir (Qur’anic commentary) that these messengers, including Paul, were sent to the people of Antioch.

Additionally, in Ibn Hisham’s biography of the Prophet Muhammad (Sirat Nabawiya, vol. 4, p. 140), the Prophet is recorded as listing Paul among the apostles of Jesus, specifically sent to the Romans.

The Qur’an’s Directive for Guidance

When Muslims have doubts regarding matters not explicitly detailed in the Qur’an, they are instructed in Surah 10:94:
"So if you are in doubt about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you..."
Thus, the Qur’an itself encourages Muslims to consult the People of the Book—Jews and Christians—about the prophets, most of whom are found in the Bible.

Conclusion: Rejecting Paul is Rejecting the Faith

Rejecting Paul’s apostleship is not only a departure from biblical revelation but also from the plain teachings of the Qur’an and classical Islamic scholarship. To oppose Paul is to oppose the faith itself and, ultimately, to challenge the wisdom of God. Satan uses subtle snares to divert believers from the truth. Instead of following contemporary polemics, we are called to heed the testimony of Scripture, the guidance of the Qur’an, and the consensus of early Muslim scholars.

Shalom.

This theological reflection affirms that both the Bible and the Qur’an, along with the earliest Islamic scholars, recognize the apostleship of Paul. Contemporary opposition is a modern innovation, not rooted in sacred Scripture or tradition.

Muhammad: Not a Prophet—For He Never Spoke to God

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Today, I invite you to reflect on a crucial issue that many overlook: every true prophet and apostle in the Bible had direct communication with God. However, the Prophet of Islam—Muhammad—never once spoke to God. This fundamental difference raises a pressing question: if Muhammad never conversed with the One who allegedly sent him, how can his claim to prophethood be trusted?

Let us consider the biblical standard for a prophet:

Prophets Who Spoke Directly With God

Moses – “God called to him from within the bush, ‘Moses! Moses!’” (Exodus 3:1-21)
Elijah – Engaged in conversation with God repeatedly (1 Kings 19, entire chapter).
Jeremiah – “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you...” (Jeremiah 1:5)
Jonah – “The word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time...” (Jonah 3:2)
Paul – The Lord Jesus appeared and spoke to Paul (Acts 18:9); Paul affirms his apostleship as being “sent, not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead” (Galatians 1:1).

Scripture is clear: every biblical prophet had direct, personal encounters with God. Paul himself was chosen, called, and sent by God—not by a mere intermediary.

Romans 1:1 – “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God.”

Contrast this with Muhammad, who—according to Islamic sources—received his messages not from God Himself, but through the angel Jibril (Gabriel). Even the Qur’an and Hadith literature admit: Muhammad never met or spoke with Allah directly.

The Disturbing Origins of Muhammad's “Prophethood”

Let us examine Muhammad’s background as recorded in Islamic sources:

1. His Birth and Early Life

According to Abu Huraira, “The Prophet Muhammad was accompanied by a devil since birth” (Fat’hul Baary, Vol. 6, p. 389). Is there any evidence that this demon was cast out? If so, Muslims should present it.

2. His First “Revelation” in the Cave

When Muhammad first received his “call” in the cave, he was seized with terror and ran to his wife, Khadija, confessing he feared for his mind and sanity, and that he was being afflicted by evil spirits (See The Life of Prophet Muhammad by Sheikh A. Farsy, p. 17).

Questions:

If Gabriel came from Allah, why did Muhammad believe he was tormented by demons after this encounter?
Why did Muhammad confess that Gabriel confused and disturbed his mind?

3. His Experience with Sorcery

Muhammad’s wife Aisha narrated that a Jewish man named Labiid bin Al’answan cast a spell on Muhammad, causing him to hallucinate and behave irrationally (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, pp. 38-39).

Questions:

Can a true prophet of God be bewitched and lose control of his faculties?
Where was Allah when Muhammad was bewitched?
Where is the record of deliverance from this spell?

The Unique and Problematic Nature of Muhammad’s Prophethood

Is it reasonable to believe that God, the Sovereign Creator, would appoint a messenger whose life was so entangled with demonic oppression, confusion, and sorcery? No biblical prophet ever displayed such characteristics or confessed such experiences.

Key Differences:

Muhammad never spoke directly to the God who supposedly sent him.
He was accompanied by a demon from birth (according to Hadith).
He confessed to being afflicted by demons at the onset of his prophethood.
He admitted to being mentally disturbed and manipulated by spirits.
He acknowledged being bewitched and incapacitated by sorcery.

If any prophet or apostle in the Torah, Psalms, or Gospel exhibited such disturbing traits, let Muslims produce the evidence. None exists.

Conclusion: Only Jesus is the True Way

Dear reader, Muhammad does not qualify as a true prophet of God according to biblical standards. I invite you to turn to Jesus Christ, the only Way, the Truth, and the Life—the only one through whom we can truly approach the living God.

Shimba Theological Institute
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Max Shimba Ministries

Feel free to use or adapt this post for your theological blog or publications.

Prophet Muhammad’s Literacy According to Hadith: A Theological and Scholarly Reappraisal

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

The conventional Islamic narrative claims that Prophet Muhammad was “ummi,” usually translated as “illiterate.” This dogma undergirds much of the apologetic argument for the Qur’an’s miraculous nature, positing that an illiterate man could not have produced such a text unaided. However, a closer examination of canonical hadith literature challenges this assertion. Multiple authentic narrations—ranging from the famous deathbed incident to reported actions involving reading and writing—suggest that Muhammad possessed at least a basic proficiency in literacy. This article presents the evidence, explores the theological implications, and questions the motives for modern Muslim apologetic evasions of these sources.

I. Introduction: The Myth of Muhammad’s Illiteracy

Muslim tradition asserts the Prophet Muhammad could neither read nor write, citing the Qur’anic epithet “al-ummi” (الأمي). However, a thorough and honest reading of the hadith corpus exposes a more nuanced reality. Several narrations, considered authentic by major Islamic authorities, demonstrate both his ability to write and to command the written word. This article will analyze these hadiths and pose a theological challenge to the continued perpetuation of the illiteracy claim.

II. Primary Hadith Evidence of Muhammad’s Literacy

A. The Deathbed Incident (Sahih al-Bukhari 114, 4431)

One of the most explicit and frequently cited proofs of Muhammad’s literacy occurs during his final illness. Sahih al-Bukhari records:

Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
"When the Prophet was on his deathbed and in the house there were men among whom was 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, the Prophet said, 'Come, let me write (أكتب / aktub) for you a statement after which you will not go astray.'"
(Sahih al-Bukhari, 114; also see 4431)

The verb “aktub” here unambiguously means “to write.” The Prophet’s request for pen and paper implies he could physically write, not merely dictate. If he were genuinely illiterate, such a request would be absurd.

B. The Slave Girl and Writing in Sahih Muslim (537)

The narration of Mu’awiyah bin Al-Hakam involves a slave girl questioned by Muhammad:

The Prophet asked her, “Where is Allah?” and “Who am I?” Some versions note that the Prophet “wrote” (kataba) instructions or words—again, directly associating Muhammad with the act of writing.
(See Sahih Muslim 537; variant readings and commentaries)

C. Muhammad’s Treaties and Letters

Multiple hadith and early Islamic sources report that Muhammad sent written letters to the kings and rulers of his era, with his own seal. For example, Sahih al-Bukhari (Hadith 2938, 4424) reports:

“The Prophet wrote (kataba) a letter to Caesar...”

The consistent use of the verb "kataba"—meaning “wrote” rather than “dictated”—is linguistically significant. Even if scribes were involved, the Prophet’s engagement with writing and written correspondence demonstrates at minimum a familiarity with written language.

D. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah

Sahih al-Bukhari 2731, 3183, 4195, and Muslim 1784 recount Muhammad's role in the writing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. In some reports, the Prophet corrects scribes and is involved in editing the text, indicating at least some functional literacy.

"Take it out, erase it, and write: ‘This is what Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, has agreed with...’"
(Sahih al-Bukhari, 2731)

III. Theological Debate: Why Elude the Evidence?

If the Prophet could read and write, why has the doctrine of his illiteracy become so essential in Islam? Several theological motivations can be identified:

To Bolster the Qur’an’s Miraculous Status:
The doctrine claims the Qur’an’s literary excellence is impossible from an unlettered man, thereby proving divine origin.
To Fulfill Misinterpreted Prophecies:
Some claim “al-ummi” refers to a prophet foretold in the Torah as “the unlettered prophet.”
To Shield from Christian and Jewish Critique:
By portraying Muhammad as illiterate, apologists avoid accusations of scriptural borrowing from the Bible and Jewish texts.

Yet the hadith evidence itself is undeniable and canonical. If Muslims trust the hadith for doctrine and law, why evade or reinterpret those that contradict a convenient narrative? Is faith so fragile that it must reject its own traditions to maintain apologetic coherence?

IV. Additional Hadith and Historical Evidence

Beyond the above, further sources underscore Muhammad’s engagement with reading and writing:

Signing and Stamping Documents:
Muhammad’s personal seal was affixed to letters; reports indicate he supervised or sometimes wrote himself (see Ibn Sa’d, “Tabaqat,” and other sira literature).
Reading Jewish Scriptures:
Several traditions mention Muhammad reading or examining written documents from Jews and Christians, sometimes calling for them to bring their scriptures (see Sunan Abu Dawud 4449).

V. Conclusion: The Call for Intellectual Honesty

The evidence from sahih hadith and early Islamic tradition compels us to admit the strong likelihood that Muhammad possessed at least basic literacy. The continued denial of this fact—despite authentic narrations—is a distortion of Islamic history for apologetic purposes. If faith is based on truth, then the tradition must confront its own sources with honesty.

Questions for Muslim Apologists:

Why are these explicit hadiths elided or explained away in modern discourse?
If the Prophet could write, what is lost for Islamic faith? Or is the fear that such admission would undermine cherished dogma?
Should not the true mark of faith be the courage to follow the evidence, even when it challenges tradition?

References

Sahih al-Bukhari 114, 4431, 2731, 3183, 4195
Sahih Muslim 537
Sahih al-Bukhari 2938, 4424
Sunan Abu Dawud 4449
Ibn Sa’d, “Tabaqat al-Kubra”
Other canonical hadith and early Islamic historiography

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute
For theological inquiry and critical engagement with Islamic tradition.

Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth: A Scholarly Theological Call for Muslims to Accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The phrase “weeping and gnashing of teeth” appears multiple times in the New Testament as a vivid warning from Jesus Christ Himself regarding the eternal fate of those who reject Him. While Muslims honor Jesus (Isa) as a prophet, Islam categorically denies His divine Sonship, atonement, and saving Lordship. This article challenges Muslims, in the spirit of academic and theological inquiry, to reconsider the claims of Jesus Christ in light of both biblical testimony and eschatological warnings, for the sake of their own eternal destiny.

I. The Biblical Concept: Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth

In the Gospels, Jesus repeatedly warns of a place or condition where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Greek: klauthmos kai brugmos tōn odontōn) for those cast out of God’s kingdom:

Matthew 8:12: “But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Matthew 13:41-42: “The Son of Man will send out His angels… and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Matthew 22:13; 24:51; 25:30: Similar warnings are repeated in parables and eschatological discourse.
Luke 13:28: “There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out.”

The imagery is of deep regret, conscious torment, and exclusion from the presence and blessings of God. Theologically, it signifies the final judgment upon all who refuse to acknowledge and confess Christ as Lord (cf. Romans 10:9-10; John 14:6).

II. Islamic Denial of Jesus’ Sonship and the Consequence

The Qur’an explicitly denies that Jesus is the Son of God (Qur’an 4:171; 5:72, 116), calling it “blasphemy” and equating it with shirk (associating partners with Allah). Yet, the Bible proclaims:

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

“Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.” (1 John 4:15)

By refusing to confess Jesus’ divine Sonship, Muslims (and all others who deny Him) remain outside the covenant of salvation. The stark warning of Jesus is thus highly relevant: Unbelief leads to outer darkness, to “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

III. The Reality of Judgment and Jehannam

The biblical concept of “weeping and gnashing of teeth” parallels the Islamic notion of Jahannam (Hell), described in the Qur’an as a place of fire, regret, and eternal punishment (Qur’an 2:206; 3:191; 39:16; 67:6-11). However, the key difference is the means of escape: In the Bible, salvation is by faith in Christ (cf. John 3:16-18).

A. Jesus’ Exclusive Claim

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6)

“Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

These words are exclusive and final. No prophet, ritual, or law can substitute for the redemptive work of Christ.

B. The Universal Call

Jesus calls all, including Muslims, to come to Him:

“Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

The offer is open, but the warning is also clear: rejection brings everlasting regret and separation.

IV. A Theological Challenge to Muslims: Re-Examine Your Beliefs

Honest Inquiry: The Qur’an itself encourages seeking the truth and consulting the “People of the Book” (Qur’an 10:94; 5:47). Are you willing to examine the Gospels and the testimony of Jesus Himself?
Historical Testimony: The New Testament, written within a generation of Jesus’ ministry, affirms His crucifixion, resurrection, and divinity—facts acknowledged by secular historians (Tacitus, Josephus) and early Christian martyrs.
Salvation’s Assurance: Islam offers no assurance of forgiveness; the Bible offers full pardon and eternal life to all who confess Jesus as Lord and believe in their heart God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9-13).

V. Invitation: Accept Jesus and Escape the Coming Judgment

The warnings of “weeping and gnashing of teeth” are not mere metaphors, but solemn declarations from the mouth of Christ. For Muslims and all who have not yet confessed Jesus as the Son of God, the time for repentance is now.

Dear Muslim reader, examine the evidence, seek the truth, and consider Jesus’ words:

“He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3:36)

Confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Escape the destiny of regret and outer darkness. Enter into the joy, peace, and light of God’s Kingdom.

References

The Holy Bible, New King James Version (NKJV)
The Qur’an, translations by Yusuf Ali and Saheeh International
F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
Nabeel Qureshi, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith
Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba,
Shimba Theological Institute

For further theological inquiry or to discuss the claims of Jesus Christ, you are invited to correspond with the Shimba Theological Institute. The door is open. The choice is yours—eternal life in Christ, or weeping and gnashing of teeth outside His Kingdom.

Did Jesus Ever Call Himself the “Servant of Allah”?

A Scholarly Challenge to the Quran’s Claims in Light of Pre-Islamic Gospel Evidence

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The Qur’an makes several assertions about Jesus (ʿĪsā) that are not only absent from the canonical Gospels but, in many cases, contradict the historical and textual evidence available from pre-Islamic Christian sources. Qur’an 19:30 presents Jesus as speaking from the cradle, declaring, “Indeed, I am the servant of Allah.” This article invites a rigorous academic debate and challenges Muslim scholars, apologists, and theologians to provide verifiable, pre-Islamic, non-Quranic textual exhibits where Jesus refers to himself as the "servant of Allah," calls Allah his "Father," or in any way substantiates the specific Islamic claims about his identity and mission.

1. Text of Qur’an 19:30 and Its Claim

“He [Jesus] said: ‘Indeed, I am the servant of Allah. He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.’”
(Qur’an 19:30, Sahih International)

This verse ascribes to Jesus the explicit statement that he is the “servant (ʿabd) of Allah” (عبد الله), a theological construct central to Islamic Christology. The same surah continues to outline Islamic teachings about Jesus, none of which are present in the Gospel record.

2. The Challenge: Where in the Gospel Did Jesus Ever Say This?

A. Examining the Pre-Islamic Christian Texts

Canonical Gospels:

In all four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), Jesus never uses the phrase “I am the servant of Allah.”
The New Testament Greek uses “theos” (God), and Jesus consistently refers to God as “Father”—not as “Allah.”
No passage records Jesus speaking from the cradle or making prophetic pronouncements as an infant (a motif unique to later apocryphal traditions and the Qur’an).

Non-Canonical Early Christian Writings (Before Islam):

No extant Gospel or apostolic tradition pre-dating the Qur’an contains the phrase “Jesus is the servant of Allah,” or Jesus calling God “Allah.”
Early apocryphal texts (e.g., Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of James) include legendary infancy narratives but never use Islamic terminology, nor do they present Jesus as the “servant of Allah.”

B. On the Use of “Allah” as God’s Name in Christian Scripture

The term “Allah” is the Arabic rendering of “God,” but its theological content in Islam is distinct from the Judeo-Christian understanding of God as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
In the earliest Syriac and Aramaic Christian communities, God is called “Alaha” (ܐܠܗܐ) or “Elohim” (אֱלֹהִים) but never “Allah” in the precise Qur’anic sense.

C. Jesus’ Own Words About His Relationship with God

Jesus refers to God as “Father” over 165 times in the New Testament (see John 5:17-18, Matthew 6:9, Mark 14:36).
Jesus says, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).
Jesus never says, “I am the servant of Allah.”
Nowhere does Jesus refer to “Allah” as his Father.

D. Historical and Linguistic Incongruities

The Quran’s retroactive ascription of Islamic terminology and concepts to Jesus is anachronistic, as the word “Allah” was not used in first-century Palestine by Jews or Christians in the way it is employed in Islam.
The Gospels are rooted in a Jewish monotheistic context that used “Abba” (Father) and “YHWH” (the LORD), not “Allah.”

3. Qur’an as an Ahistorical Rewriting? A Call for Muslim Exhibits

A. Challenge to Islamic Apologetics

If the Qur’an is truly a continuation of prior revelation, there must be pre-Islamic, extra-Qur’anic, textual exhibits where Jesus explicitly makes these claims.
Where is the evidence from any manuscript, papyrus, parchment, or Christian oral tradition prior to the 7th century that Jesus declared himself “the servant of Allah” or called Allah his Father?

B. Review of Early Christian Writings

Patristic Writings: Church Fathers such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, who were closest in time to Jesus and the apostles, never mention such words attributed to Jesus.
Jewish Historical Records: Josephus and other first-century Jewish historians do not record Jesus making such declarations.
Roman Sources: No Roman or Greek historian prior to Islam attributes to Jesus a servant relationship to Allah.

4. Analysis: Are the Quranic Claims Fabricated?

A. Fabrication or Borrowed Legends?

The assertion that Jesus spoke as an infant is found only in late, non-canonical apocryphal texts (e.g., Arabic Infancy Gospel, written centuries after Christ and likely after the rise of Islam).
The Qur’an’s depiction of Jesus often mirrors and sometimes modifies these legendary sources, which lack apostolic authority and were never recognized by mainstream Christianity.

B. Theological Implications

Invented Testimony: If the Qur’an cannot produce a single pre-Islamic exhibit for its claims about Jesus, then it stands as a book promoting narratives unsupported by historical evidence.
Contradiction of the Gospel Record: The core Christian confession about Jesus’ identity (as Son, not merely servant) is not only different but irreconcilable with the Islamic claim.

5. Conclusion and Debate: The Qur’an as a False Doctrine Promoting Inventions

A. Summary

No pre-Islamic Gospel, canonical or apocryphal, records Jesus as the “servant of Allah.”
No manuscript or oral tradition predating the Qur’an calls Allah the Father of Jesus, nor does Jesus call God “Allah.”
The claims in Qur’an 19:30 and related verses have no historical, textual, or theological precedent outside of the Qur’an itself.

B. The Scholarly Challenge

We challenge Muslim apologists and scholars to produce:

Any documented Gospel or historical Christian source written before the birth of Muhammad, containing Jesus’ own declaration as the “servant of Allah.”
Any pre-Islamic Christian record of Jesus referring to Allah as his Father.
Any verifiable, objective exhibit that supports the Qur’an’s claims about Jesus outside of Islamic scripture.

If such evidence cannot be produced, it is intellectually honest and academically necessary to conclude:

The Qur’an has fabricated claims about Jesus that are not rooted in history.
Islamic Christology is built on retroactive invention, not revelation.
Therefore, the Qur’an must be critically examined and exposed as a doctrine that promotes legends as truth, without verified historical evidence.

References

The Holy Bible, New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)
Infancy Gospel of Thomas; Protoevangelium of James (non-canonical)
Early Church Fathers: Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews
Bruce, F.F., The Canon of Scripture.
Reynolds, Gabriel Said, The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext.
Cragg, Kenneth, Jesus and the Muslim: An Exploration.

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

This article is an open invitation to academic debate. Muslims are challenged to provide exhibits or retract the false claim that Jesus called himself the “servant of Allah” or ever referred to Allah as his Father, according to any source preceding the Qur’an.

Did Muhammad Break the Fourth Commandment?

A Theological and Scholarly Debate

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The Ten Commandments, central to the moral code of Judaism and Christianity, are considered by many as divine laws directly revealed by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Fourth Commandment, as found in Exodus 20:8, reads:

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” (Exodus 20:8, NKJV)

This commandment was given not only as a religious ordinance but as an everlasting covenant (Exodus 31:16–17). It is a test of obedience and reverence towards God, with profound spiritual and communal implications.

The Sabbath in the Bible

The Sabbath, observed from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, is deeply rooted in the act of creation (Genesis 2:2–3) and reaffirmed in the Decalogue (Exodus 20:8–11; Deuteronomy 5:12–15). The Sabbath was intended as a day of rest, worship, and sanctification.

Muhammad’s Stance on the Sabbath

The Qur’an acknowledges the Sabbath:

"And you had already known about those who transgressed among you concerning the Sabbath, and We said to them, 'Be apes, despised.'" (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:65, Sahih International)

In this verse, Allah refers to a group among the Jews who violated the Sabbath, resulting in divine punishment. The Qur’an recognizes the sanctity of the Sabbath but paradoxically, neither Muhammad nor his followers observed the Sabbath as a holy day. Instead, Islam instituted Friday (Jumu'ah) as the special day of communal prayer (Qur’an 62:9).

The Shift from Sabbath to Jumu'ah

Islamic tradition holds that the "best day" is Friday, not Saturday (Sahih Muslim 854). This deliberate move is not found in the Torah, the Prophets, nor the New Testament, where Jesus Himself kept the Sabbath (Luke 4:16).

Debate Point:
If the Sabbath was never abrogated in Scripture and was reinforced by the prophets and Jesus, what theological basis did Muhammad have to nullify its observance and replace it with Friday?

Scholarly and Theological Critique

1. Consistency with Divine Law

Biblical Consistency: The Sabbath is a sign between God and His people "forever" (Exodus 31:16–17). Nowhere in the Bible does God authorize a change of the Sabbath.
Islamic Inconsistency: While the Qur’an rebukes those who break the Sabbath, Muhammad himself neither observed nor commanded the keeping of the Sabbath, instead creating a new sacred day. This constitutes a break from the pattern established by Moses and observed by Jesus.

2. Historical Perspective

Jewish Tradition: The Sabbath is a perpetual covenant (see also Ezekiel 20:12, 20).
Christian Practice: While some branches of Christianity moved worship to Sunday, this was centuries after Christ and is a subject of considerable theological debate (see Bacchiocchi, S., "From Sabbath to Sunday", 1977).
Islamic Rejection: Islam claims to be a continuation of Abrahamic faith, yet rejects the Sabbath—central to Abrahamic law—demonstrating a rupture rather than continuity.

3. Qur’anic Admission of the Sabbath

Islam’s own scriptures testify to the seriousness of breaking the Sabbath (Surah 4:154, Surah 7:163–166), recounting the story of the Jews who were transformed into apes for Sabbath violations. Yet, Muslims today do not rest or worship on Saturday, nor did Muhammad command them to do so.

Contemporary Questions for Muslims

If Allah considered Sabbath-breaking a grievous sin, why do Muslims not observe the Sabbath?
On what authority did Muhammad change the designated day of worship from Saturday to Friday?
Can Islam be considered a faithful continuation of the Mosaic law when it abrogates or alters one of the Ten Commandments?

Scholarly References

Bacchiocchi, S. From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity. Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977.
Samuele Bacchiocchi, Divine Rest for Human Restlessness, Biblical Perspectives, 1998.
The Holy Bible, Exodus 20:8–11; Deuteronomy 5:12–15; Ezekiel 20:12, 20; Luke 4:16.
The Qur’an, Surah Al-Baqarah 2:65, Surah An-Nisa 4:154, Surah Al-A'raf 7:163–166, Surah Al-Jumu'ah 62:9.
Hadith Collections: Sahih Muslim 854; Sahih Bukhari 893.

Conclusion

The evidence indicates that Muhammad broke the Fourth Commandment by neither observing nor commanding the observance of the Sabbath, thereby contradicting the eternal law given by God in the Torah. While Islam claims reverence for previous prophets, this fundamental departure raises theological and scholarly challenges about Islam’s claim to continuity with the Abrahamic tradition.

Final Debate Challenge

Is it possible for a prophet who claims to restore the true faith to disregard such a central command of God, or does this action mark a significant theological deviation? Scholars and students of comparative religion must honestly confront this question in the pursuit of truth.

Shalom,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute