Friday, June 13, 2025

BACA IS NOT MECCA: A Theological Refutation

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Wednesday, January 12, 2022

Introduction: The Claim Examined

Muslim apologists frequently argue that the Bible prophesies or references the city of Mecca, asserting that “Baca” in Psalm 84:6 is a cryptic mention of Mecca, called “Bakkah” in the Qur’an (Surah 3:96). At first glance, the similarity in the two names seems striking—but a careful, honest reading of the biblical and Qur’anic texts exposes this as a misguided and unsustainable claim.

The Biblical Context of “Baca”

Let us look directly at the relevant passage:

“Blessed are those whose strength is in you,
who have set their hearts on pilgrimage.
As they pass through the Valley of Baca,
they make it a place of springs;
the autumn rains also cover it with pools.”
(Psalm 84:5-6, NIV)

This passage describes pilgrims journeying to the sanctuary of the Lord—a context steeped in Jerusalem Temple worship, not an Arabian setting. The entire psalm radiates a longing for the dwelling place of Yahweh, repeatedly referencing “your house,” “your altar,” and “Zion” (Jerusalem), not Mecca or the Ka‘bah.

Contradictory Details

Let us weigh the evidence:

  1. God’s Dwelling Place:
    The sanctuary in Psalm 84 is where God’s presence is said to dwell (v.1, v.4). Nowhere in Islamic doctrine is Allah believed to literally “dwell” in the Ka‘bah; this concept is utterly foreign to Islamic theology, which strictly rejects all forms of anthropomorphism. By contrast, the Old Testament consistently presents the Temple in Jerusalem as the locus of God’s special presence among His people (1 Kings 8:10-13, 27).

  2. The Altar:
    Psalm 84 mentions drawing near to the altar (v.3). There is no altar in Mecca’s Ka‘bah as part of any sacrificial system, but the altar is central to both tabernacle and temple worship in ancient Israel (Exodus 27:1-8). The Qur’an never describes Bakkah as a place of sacrifice or an altar to Yahweh.

  3. Inhabitants and Roles:
    The psalmist blesses those who “dwell in your house” (v.4)—a reference to the priests and Levites residing within the temple precincts. The Ka‘bah is empty, uninhabited, and guarded, not lived in or managed by priests with biblical duties. There were doorkeepers for the Temple (2 Kings 25:18); no such official role exists for the Ka‘bah in Islamic tradition.

  4. Destination: Zion, Not Mecca:
    The pilgrimage in Psalm 84 has a clear destination: Zion, one of Jerusalem’s hills and a synonym for the city itself (v.7). It is geographically, historically, and theologically nonsensical to suggest the pilgrims of Israel would make a detour through Arabia on their way to Jerusalem!

  5. Hebrew vs. Arabic Terms:
    While Hebrew “Baca” (בכא) and Arabic “Bakkah” (بكة) sound similar, this is a superficial connection. The root of “Baca” is linked to weeping (“the Valley of Weeping”) or to balsam trees common to dry places, not to a specific city. The word for “pilgrimage” in Psalm 84:5 is not “hag” (Hebrew חג), related to festival, but from a root meaning “highway” or “path,” simply denoting the journey to Jerusalem.

The Valley of Baca: Real or Figurative?

Whether Baca refers to a literal valley near Jerusalem or is a poetic expression for hardship and sorrow, its purpose is clear: it marks a stage on the route to Jerusalem. Some Jewish sources place it north of the city. Nowhere in the Bible is there any implication that Baca is remotely connected with Mecca, which is over 1,000 kilometers to the south and across the Sinai wilderness. Nor does the biblical narrative allow for such an implausible detour.

The Error of Superficial Similarity

The attempt to equate “Baca” with “Bakkah” relies only on a similarity of sound, not on substantive historical, geographical, or theological data. Many locations in the Ancient Near East bear similar names (e.g., Wadi al-Baka in Sinai, a valley called Baca in Galilee), yet no one claims these are Mecca.

Why the Confusion?

The primary reason for such claims is the effort to retrofit Islamic revelation into biblical prophecy—a recurring theme among some Islamic polemicists. The motive is clear: if Islam can claim biblical roots, its status as a true continuation of Abrahamic faith is bolstered. But this effort here is contradicted by the biblical evidence itself.

Conclusion: The Claims Do Not Stand

A close, honest reading shows that Baca of the Bible is not the Bakkah of the Qur’an. The biblical psalm speaks of Israelite pilgrims journeying to Jerusalem’s Temple, not of any pre-Islamic sanctuary in Arabia. Attempts to conflate the two are unsupported by scripture, history, or theology. In fact, such efforts demonstrate the dangers of forcing a text to fit a predetermined theory, rather than letting the text speak on its own terms.

Let fair-minded seekers of truth see this as a cautionary example. The Christian and Jewish scriptures do not mention or anticipate Mecca as a place of pilgrimage—neither in Psalm 84 nor anywhere else.


Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Why Did Allah Never Speak to Muhammad Directly?

A Theological Challenge to Islamic Claims of Prophethood

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the most striking theological contrasts between the biblical prophets and Muhammad—the founder of Islam—lies in the mode of their calling and revelation. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Bible, a consistent pattern emerges: the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob calls, appoints, and converses directly with His chosen prophets. From Abraham to Moses, from Isaiah to Jeremiah, divine encounters and direct communication underscore the authenticity of their prophetic office.

By contrast, Muhammad—the central figure of Islam—never claimed a single direct conversation with Allah. Instead, all of his revelations, according to Islamic sources, were mediated by the angel Jibreel (Gabriel). This peculiar pattern raises profound theological questions: Why would Allah, who claims absolute power and self-sufficiency, need an intermediary to communicate with his purported final prophet? Why is there not a single verse in the Qur’an in which Allah directly appoints or converses with Muhammad, as with the prophets of the Bible?

The Quranic Admission: Allah Spoke to Moses Directly

The Qur’an itself admits a special status for Moses:

Surah 4:164 – "Messengers we have told you about, and messengers we never told you about. And God spoke to Moses directly." (Rashad Khalifa translation)

This verse acknowledges a unique privilege accorded to Moses, one not shared with Muhammad. If Muhammad is regarded as the ‘seal of the prophets’ and the greatest messenger, as Muslims assert, why is he denied this direct audience with Allah?

The Biblical Pattern: Direct Divine Appointment

A survey of the Old Testament demonstrates that each prophet is called by God directly. Consider these examples:

  • Abraham: "The LORD said to Abram, 'Leave your country, your people and your father’s household...'" (Genesis 12:1)

  • Moses: "God called to him from within the bush, 'Moses! Moses!'" (Exodus 3:4)

  • Samuel: "The LORD called Samuel..." (1 Samuel 3:4)

  • Isaiah: "Then I heard the voice of the LORD saying, 'Whom shall I send?'" (Isaiah 6:8)

  • Jeremiah: "The word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you... I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.'" (Jeremiah 1:4-5)

In every instance, it is God Himself who initiates, commissions, and converses with the prophet. No intermediary is necessary.

The Islamic Dilemma: An Absent Voice

In stark contrast, Muhammad’s revelations were, without exception, relayed by Jibreel. The Qur’an is silent on any direct speech from Allah to Muhammad. Not only is there no record of Allah speaking directly to Muhammad, but there is also no account in the Qur’an where Allah commands Jibreel explicitly to relay a message; the claims of angelic mediation rest on tradition rather than explicit Quranic instruction.

Theological Problems with Mediation

This raises troubling questions for Islamic theology:

  • If Allah is omnipotent and transcendent, why rely on a messenger to speak to Muhammad?

  • How can Muhammad be considered the “seal” and greatest of prophets if denied what was given to Moses and others?

  • Why would Allah, who claims not to need any partners or helpers (“Say: He is Allah, the One and Only”—Surah 112:1), consistently depend on Jibreel for the most crucial task—delivering His final revelation?

  • Where in the Qur’an does Allah ever instruct Jibreel to deliver the message? Such explicit divine commissioning is entirely absent.

The Prophetic Test: Authenticity through Divine Encounter

The office of a prophet is validated by direct encounter with God. The lack of such in Muhammad’s life challenges the very foundation of his prophethood. The prophets of old could declare with authority, “Thus says the LORD.” Muhammad, by contrast, could only claim, “Jibreel said...” This is a radical departure from the established prophetic model.

Conclusion: Is Muhammad’s Prophethood Bogus?

The Islamic narrative leaves us with an inescapable theological dilemma. If direct divine appointment and communication are hallmarks of true prophecy, then Muhammad’s absence of such experience, by the Quran’s own admission, renders his claim to prophethood questionable at best and bogus at worst. Moses and other biblical prophets were authenticated by direct encounters with God. Muhammad stands alone, never hearing the voice of Allah, never receiving a direct commission.

To Muslim readers:
How can you place your eternal trust in a prophet who never spoke to the God who supposedly sent him? How can Muhammad be the greatest of prophets if denied the most basic prophetic privilege?

A call to reconsider:
It is time to re-examine the claims of Muhammad’s prophethood with intellectual honesty and theological rigor. The evidence is clear: in the matter of divine communication, Muhammad does not meet the standard set by the biblical prophets.


By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Muhammad and the Violation of the Seventh Commandment: A Theological and Scholarly Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute


Muhammad and the Violation of the Seventh Commandment: A Theological and Scholarly Critique

“You shall not commit adultery.” — Exodus 20:14

Introduction: The Seventh Commandment in Judeo-Christian Ethics

The Seventh Commandment, “You shall not commit adultery,” is a cornerstone of biblical morality, signifying the sanctity of marriage and sexual purity as divinely instituted values. Within both the Old and New Testaments, the prohibition against adultery is explicit and repeatedly affirmed (cf. Leviticus 18:20; Matthew 5:27-28). Its violation was considered a grave sin, incurring severe consequences under Mosaic Law.

Quranic Law on Adultery

The Qur’an equally condemns adultery. In Surah An-Nur (24:2), it is stated:

“The woman and the man guilty of fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment.”

This passage demonstrates a strict legalistic approach to punishing adulterers, prescribing public flogging and calling for no mercy.

The Prophet Muhammad’s Contradictions: Historical and Hadith Accounts

Despite the Quran’s severe position on adultery, an analysis of Islamic sources and classical commentaries reveals multiple narratives in which the Prophet Muhammad himself appears to have transgressed this very commandment.

1. The Incident with Mariyah al-Qibtiyya

According to Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Vol. 6, p. 367) and various hadith collections, there is an account involving Muhammad, his wife Hafsa bint Umar, and his Coptic concubine, Mariyah al-Qibtiyya. One day, while Hafsa was away, Muhammad engaged in an intimate encounter with Mariyah in Hafsa’s room. Upon returning and discovering the event, Hafsa confronted Muhammad, who responded by swearing never to touch Mariyah again—a vow later annulled (Qur’an 66:1-2).

Despite this being an explicit case of sexual relations outside the context of marriage, neither Muhammad nor Mariyah were subjected to the Quranic punishment of flogging. This raises a significant theological question: Was Muhammad above the very law he claimed to deliver?

2. Sexual Exploitation of Female Slaves

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, No. 4458 reports an instance where Muhammad’s female slave was shared sexually with another man, upon which Muhammad instructed Ali ibn Abi Talib to punish her only after her menstrual bleeding stopped, as she was found to be bleeding at the time.

The use of concubines and female captives as sexual objects is explicitly allowed in the Qur’an (Qur’an 4:24), stating:

“...And [forbidden to you are] married women except those your right hands possess...”

This clause is used to legitimize sexual relations with captive women, outside the covenant of marriage, an idea that is entirely foreign to biblical ethics and the prophetic tradition of the Old and New Testaments (cf. Genesis 2:24; Hebrews 13:4).

3. Homoeroticism and Gender Norms in Hadith

Certain hadiths, including Musnad Ahmad 16245 and Sahih Bukhari 1:4:152, allege that Muhammad engaged in intimate acts with young boys, such as sucking their tongues or kissing their mouths, and even displaying his nakedness to them. Such reports, if authentic, point to gross violations of sexual ethics, as recognized in both biblical and natural law.

4. Questionable Marital Ethics

Further, Muhammad is reported to have stated that a wife must submit to her husband's sexual demands at any time, regardless of circumstances (see Mkweli Mwaminifu, J. 1-2, Hadith No. 462, p. 204), thereby reducing women to mere sexual objects and undermining the mutual respect foundational to biblical marriage.

The Qur’an and the Legitimization of Sexual Deviance

The Qur’an, in some passages, describes paradise as a place of sensual reward involving young boys and beautiful women (Qur’an 52:24; 56:17; 76:19), a depiction that stands in stark contrast to the biblical vision of heaven as a place of holiness and communion with God (cf. Matthew 22:30; Revelation 21:27).

Theological and Ethical Critique

From a biblical and theological perspective, Muhammad’s actions—as reported in authoritative Islamic sources—constitute a clear violation of the Seventh Commandment. The New Testament goes even further, equating lustful intent with adultery (Matthew 5:28), and upholding sexual purity as a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).

The moral inconsistency is therefore profound:

  • The same figure who instituted harsh penalties for adultery is himself portrayed as transgressing those boundaries without repercussion.

  • The Quran and hadith allow for sexual relations with concubines, captives, and even hint at acceptance of same-sex acts, all of which are condemned in the Bible (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; Hebrews 13:4).

  • The Prophet of Islam seems to operate above the law, violating the ethical standards he imposed on others.

Biblical Response to False Prophets

Jesus warned his followers:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

A true prophet must exemplify the law and character of God. The behaviors attributed to Muhammad in the hadith literature disqualify him by biblical standards. As Christians, we affirm that only Christ is the fulfillment of the law and the model of perfect holiness (Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22).

Conclusion

A thorough, scholarly examination of Muhammad’s life—measured by the standard of the Seventh Commandment—reveals clear transgressions according to both the letter and the spirit of God’s law. Far from being above the law, a true prophet is called to embody it. The evidence from Islamic sources themselves is a powerful indictment, inviting Muslims and non-Muslims alike to reconsider the moral claims of Muhammad’s prophethood in light of biblical revelation.

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


References:

  • The Holy Bible, NIV, Exodus 20:14; Matthew 5:27-28; Hebrews 13:4

  • The Qur’an, 4:24; 24:2; 52:24; 56:17; 66:1-2; 76:19

  • Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 6

  • Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38

  • Musnad Ahmad 16245

  • Sahih Bukhari 1:4:152

  • Mkweli Mwaminifu, J. 1-2

  • “Life of the Prophet” by Sheikh A.S. Farsy

  • Matthew 7:15



Muhammad and the Violation of the Fifth Commandment: A Theological and Scholarly Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The Ten Commandments, as recorded in the book of Exodus, form the ethical bedrock of Judeo-Christian civilization. Among them, the Fifth Commandment stands as a cornerstone of social stability and divine expectation:
"Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land the LORD your God is giving you." (Exodus 20:12, ESV)

This commandment is repeatedly emphasized throughout Scripture (Deuteronomy 5:16; Ephesians 6:2), highlighting the importance of honoring one’s parents with respect, kindness, and dignity. In contrast, the life and teachings of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, present a significant departure from this divine mandate.

Muhammad’s Disregard for Parental Honor

It is a well-established fact in Islamic tradition that Muhammad was orphaned at a young age, having lost both his mother, Amina, and his father, Abdullah. However, rather than honoring their memory, the hadith literature shockingly records Muhammad condemning both parents as unbelievers (kuffar), thus consigning them to hellfire.

Hadith Evidence: Muhammad Declares His Mother a Disbeliever

Sahih Muslim, one of the most authentic collections of hadith, records the following narration:

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, "I asked my Lord's permission to pray for forgiveness for my mother, but He did not permit me. I asked His permission to visit her grave, and He permitted me." (Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Hadith 2130)

Classical Islamic exegesis, such as in ‘Awn al-Ma’bud, confirms the reason for this divine prohibition:

“His saying, ‘He did not permit me,’ means that she was a disbeliever and it is not allowed to ask forgiveness for a disbeliever.”
Thus, by Islamic sources, Muhammad’s own mother died as a “kafir”—an unbeliever—for whom even the Prophet was not permitted to pray.

The Fate of Muhammad’s Father

Similarly, Sahih Muslim also narrates:

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

Here, Muhammad unequivocally declares that his father, Abdullah, is in hellfire.

The Theological Implications

From a Judeo-Christian perspective, this attitude is a grave violation of the Fifth Commandment. While the Bible commands believers to honor their parents regardless of their faith, Muhammad’s testimony amounts to a posthumous curse, denying them even basic dignity or remembrance in prayer. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find Jesus ever dishonoring His mother Mary, despite the hardships He faced. In fact, Jesus on the cross ensured Mary’s care (John 19:26-27).

Critical Questions and Pagan Associations

  1. Why does Muhammad explicitly state that both his parents are in hellfire?

  2. Why is his father named ‘Abdullah’ (servant of Allah) if he was a pagan?

  3. Does this not suggest that ‘Allah’ was worshipped in pre-Islamic pagan Arabia, even before Muhammad’s prophethood?

The etymology and usage of the name ‘Abdullah’ point toward the pre-Islamic veneration of Allah as a pagan deity, sometimes identified with the moon god ‘al-ilah’ or ‘Hubal,’ widely worshipped throughout the Middle East. This pre-Islamic use of “Allah” is akin to Hebrew names honoring Yahweh (Joshua, Hezekiah, etc.), but the context for Allah is demonstrably pagan.

Historical sources indicate that Abdul Muttalib, Muhammad’s grandfather, nearly sacrificed Abdullah to Allah, only to substitute him with a hundred camels—another clear example of pagan ritual practices (see Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq).

A Tragic Contrast: Jesus and Mary vs. Muhammad and His Parents

In the New Testament, the mother of Jesus, Mary, is presented as blessed and honored (Luke 1:48). No canonical Gospel or Christian teaching ever depicts Mary as dying in sin or being condemned by her son. By contrast, the Islamic texts assert that Muhammad’s own parents died as disbelievers—an indictment that not only tarnishes the memory of his family but directly violates the Fifth Commandment.

Conclusion

Muhammad’s explicit statements about his parents, recorded in authentic hadith literature, show a clear disregard for the biblical command to honor father and mother. Instead of upholding the dignity of his parents, he condemned them as kuffar, even declaring their punishment in the afterlife. This theological position not only separates Muhammad from the prophetic tradition of the Bible but exposes a fundamental divergence in the understanding of divine law and familial piety.

As Christian theologians, it is critical to assess these issues with both scholarly rigor and fidelity to biblical ethics. The evidence presented here demonstrates that Muhammad, by his own testimony and by Islamic sources, broke the Fifth Commandment, and thus cannot be upheld as a moral exemplar according to biblical standards.

References:

  • The Holy Bible, Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 6:2

  • Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Hadith 2130; Book 001, Hadith 0398

  • ‘Awn al-Ma’bud, Commentary on Hadith

  • Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah

  • John 19:26-27; Luke 1:48

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
“Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13)



Did Muhammad Break the Ninth Commandment?

An Academic and Theological Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute


Introduction

The Ninth Commandment is a cornerstone of Judeo-Christian ethics, demanding truthfulness and forbidding false testimony:

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:16, ESV)

This commandment upholds the value of truth and the sanctity of reputation. In this scholarly debate, we critically examine whether the Prophet Muhammad, founder of Islam, upheld or violated this commandment in his teachings, actions, and legacy.


Framing the Debate

Christian Theological Position:
Truth is not merely a social virtue but a divine attribute. Jesus Christ identified Himself as “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Lying, false witness, and deception are repeatedly condemned throughout Scripture (Proverbs 12:22; Revelation 21:8).

Islamic Position:
The Qur’an encourages honesty (Qur’an 2:42: “And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know [it]”). However, Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) and certain hadiths introduce nuanced discussions about truth-telling and permissibility of deceit in specific circumstances.


Scholarly Critique: Did Muhammad Bear False Witness?

1. Use of Deception in Hadith and Sira

Several authentic hadiths and early Islamic sources record instances where Muhammad allegedly sanctioned or utilized deception:

  • Taqiyya and Kitman: Although more common in Shia jurisprudence, the concepts of concealing faith or intent for self-preservation or strategic advantage are referenced in Islamic tradition. Sunni sources also recognize exceptions to absolute truth-telling.

  • Hadith Example: War and Deception

    “The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.’”
    (Sahih Bukhari 52:269; Sahih Muslim 1739)

  • Assassination of Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf:
    According to Sahih Bukhari (Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith 369) and Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Muhammad approved a plot in which one of his followers deceived Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf, leading to his assassination.

    Muhammad said: “Who will rid me of the son of Ashraf?” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “I will deal with him for you, O Messenger of Allah.” … He was given permission to lie for the sake of the mission.

2. Theological Perspective: Is Deception Ever Justified?

  • The Bible’s Standard: The Bible offers almost no exceptions for bearing false witness, even in difficult circumstances. Truth is integral to God’s nature (Numbers 23:19).

  • Muhammad’s Example: The permission to lie in certain contexts (war, reconciliation between people, to one’s spouse) is found in Sahih Muslim (Book 32, Hadith 6303):

    “It is not a lie to be used in war, to bring reconciliation between people, or to a wife to please her.”

3. Accusations Against Others

  • Jews and Christians:
    Muhammad repeatedly accused Jews and Christians of corrupting their scriptures and hiding the truth about his prophethood (Qur’an 2:75-79; 3:71), though these accusations lack corroborating historical evidence outside the Islamic narrative.

  • Charges of Polytheism and Deception:
    Islamic sources allege that Jews and Christians are “people of the book” who “conceal” or “distort” the Word of God (Qur’an 4:46; 5:13-15). From a critical perspective, this could be seen as bearing false witness against whole religious communities without substantiated proof.


Islamic Response

Defenders of Muhammad argue that:

  • Context is critical: “Deception” cited in war is akin to military strategy, not the sort of malicious lying prohibited by the Ninth Commandment.

  • The Prophet’s general teachings emphasize truthfulness and justice (Qur’an 33:70; 4:135).

  • The permission to lie in exceptional circumstances (war, reconciliation, family harmony) is not the same as “bearing false witness” in the legal or malicious sense.


Scholarly Rebuttal

  • Scriptural Consistency: The Biblical commandment makes no exception for “strategic” or “expedient” lying.

  • Ethical Absolutism: Jesus intensifies the call to truthfulness (Matthew 5:37), and the Apostles warn against any form of lying (Colossians 3:9; 1 John 2:21).

  • Historical Impact: Muhammad’s legacy of sanctioning deception in certain contexts has been cited by critics as a precedent for double standards within Islamic jurisprudence.


Conclusion

Did Muhammad break the Ninth Commandment?
From a strict Judeo-Christian perspective, the answer appears to be yes: the prophetic record in hadith and sira literature shows instances where deception and false accusation were permitted or practiced.

However, Islamic theology interprets these acts contextually, maintaining Muhammad’s integrity within its own ethical framework.

Final Question for Debate:

Can a prophet of God ever be justified in bearing false witness, or does true prophethood require absolute adherence to the divine standard of truth—without exception?


References

  1. The Holy Bible, Exodus 20:16; John 14:6; Proverbs 12:22; Matthew 5:37.

  2. The Qur’an: 2:42, 2:75-79, 3:71, 4:46, 4:135, 5:13-15, 33:70.

  3. Sahih Bukhari 52:269; 59:369.

  4. Sahih Muslim 1739; 6303.

  5. Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah.


Prepared by Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute. For further study and debate, contact info@shimbatheological.org

Muhammad and the Violation of God’s Commandments: A Theological Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The Ten Commandments represent the moral and theological foundation of the Judeo-Christian tradition, given by God to the Israelites shortly after their exodus from Egypt (Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21). These commandments summarize the 613 mitzvot of the Old Testament Law and are divided into two categories: duties to God (the first four) and duties to fellow humans (the remaining six). Of paramount importance is the First Commandment, which declares:

“You shall have no other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:3, NKJV)

This commandment rejects all forms of idolatry and syncretism, affirming the uniqueness and exclusivity of the God of Israel—YHWH or Jehovah—as the only true God.

In examining Muhammad’s teachings and claims as found in the Quran, one encounters profound theological divergences that directly contradict the biblical commandments. This paper will focus on Muhammad’s breaking of the First Commandment, thereby challenging his prophetic authenticity from a biblical perspective.


The First Commandment and the Identity of God

The God of the Bible repeatedly reveals Himself by name:

  • “I am the LORD (YHWH); that is My name!” (Isaiah 42:8)

  • “They will know that My name is Jehovah.” (Jeremiah 16:21)

The personal name of God, YHWH, is central to biblical revelation and distinguishes Him from all false deities. Nowhere in the Torah, Psalms, or Gospel does God identify Himself as “Allah.” The assertion that the God of Israel, the Father of Jesus Christ, is the same as Allah in the Quran is theologically and historically unsupported by primary scriptural evidence.


Muhammad’s Violation of the First Commandment

Quranic Syncretism and the Denial of Jehovah

In Surah Al-Ankabut 29:46, the Quran states:

“And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best... and say, ‘We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. Our God and your God is One; and to Him we are Muslims.’”

Here, Muhammad proclaims that Allah is the same as the God worshipped by Jews and Christians. However, this equivalence is unsubstantiated:

  • The Quran never refers to God as YHWH or Jehovah.

  • The biblical texts (Torah, Psalms, Gospel) never declare “Allah” as God’s name.

  • Jesus consistently refers to “the Father” and uses the divine name “I AM” (John 8:58), never “Allah.”

This Quranic claim constitutes a syncretism that blends distinct theological identities, directly contradicting the exclusivity demanded by the First Commandment.

Theological Inconsistency and the Nature of Allah

The Quran describes paradise in terms that contradict both Old and New Testament morality. For example, Surah Muhammad 47:15 describes rivers of wine in paradise:

“A description of the Paradise promised to the righteous: in it are rivers of unaltered water, rivers of milk, rivers of wine delicious to those who drink...”

Yet, Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:90 says:

“O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling... are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful.”

If wine is the “work of Satan” in one verse, why does Allah reward believers with rivers of wine in another? Such internal contradiction undermines the consistency and moral holiness attributed to the God of the Bible (cf. Isaiah 5:11, Galatians 5:19-21). The God of Scripture condemns drunkenness and promises no such sensual rewards in the afterlife.


The Problem of the Divine Name

Is “Allah” the Biblical God?

Scholarly and intertextual evidence demonstrates that YHWH is never rendered as “Allah” in the Hebrew or Greek scriptures. The name “Allah” is linguistically linked to the pre-Islamic Arabian pantheon, where it designated a high god among many, rather than the exclusive, covenantal God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

  • Nowhere in the Torah (Pentateuch) does God say, “My name is Allah.”

  • Nowhere in the Psalms or Prophets is God addressed as “Allah.”

  • Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus call God “Allah.” Instead, He uses “Father” (Greek: Pater; Aramaic: Abba).

This distinction is not semantic but theological—indicating a fundamentally different understanding of God’s identity, character, and revelation.


Critical Analysis and Theological Implications

Given these facts, the following questions arise for Muslim apologists:

  1. Where in the Torah, Psalms, or Gospel does God declare His name as “Allah”?

  2. Why does the Quran reject the name Jehovah/YHWH, if it claims to be a continuation of the Abrahamic faith?

  3. How can Allah permit what he elsewhere forbids (wine), whereas the biblical God is consistently holy and morally unchanging (Malachi 3:6)?

  4. If Muhammad taught a different God and broke the First Commandment by denying the exclusive revelation of YHWH, how can he be considered a true prophet by biblical standards?


Conclusion: Muhammad as a False Prophet

By breaking the First Commandment—teaching a different deity, promoting syncretism, and contradicting biblical revelation—Muhammad stands in opposition to the commandments of God as given in Scripture. According to the biblical test of a prophet (Deuteronomy 13:1-5), anyone who leads people to worship a god other than YHWH is to be rejected, regardless of signs or wonders.

As such, Muhammad’s prophetic claims are theologically invalid from a biblical perspective. He neither upholds the First Commandment nor affirms the exclusive identity of the God of Israel. Christians and Jews, therefore, are compelled by their scriptures to regard him as a false prophet.

“You shall have no other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:3)


Shalom,

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Servant of Jesus Christ, our Great God (Titus 2:13),
Shimba Theological Institute


References:

  • The Holy Bible, New King James Version (NKJV)

  • The Quran (Sahih International Translation)

  • Ismail, A., The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity (2015)

  • Peters, F.E., The Children of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity, Islam (1982)

  • Anderson, N., Islam in Comparative Religion (1965)

  • Exodus 20:1-17, Deuteronomy 5:6-21, Isaiah 42:8, Jeremiah 16:21, John 8:58, Malachi 3:6



Muhammad and the Violation of the Third Commandment:

An Expanded Theological and Scholarly Assessment

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute


Introduction

The Ten Commandments are foundational to Judeo-Christian ethics and theology. The third commandment, in particular, underscores the seriousness with which God’s name is to be treated:

“You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7, ESV)

This commandment has historically been interpreted as a prohibition against the misuse, trivialization, or profanation of the divine name, establishing a clear boundary between what is sacred and what is secular or profane.


Jewish Perspective on the Divine Name

In Jewish tradition, the reverence for the name of God (YHWH) is paramount. The Tetragrammaton is considered so holy that it is not pronounced in daily speech, replaced instead with “Adonai” (Lord) or “HaShem” (The Name). The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10:1) and Talmud (Kiddushin 71a) elaborate on the grave sin of blasphemy or casual usage of the divine name. Rabbinic tradition interprets Exodus 20:7 as not only forbidding false oaths but also prohibiting any irreverent use of the divine name (see: Rashi on Exodus 20:7; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah 6:2).


Christian Theological Reflection

Christian tradition upholds the sanctity of God’s name. The Lord’s Prayer itself begins, “Hallowed be Thy name” (Matthew 6:9), underscoring the principle that God’s name is to be revered and sanctified in all circumstances. Martin Luther, in his Large Catechism, writes that this commandment forbids any use of God’s name for swearing, lying, or cursing, and demands that it be invoked only in truth, prayer, and praise (Luther, Large Catechism, I. 54-56).
John Calvin further emphasizes that any “profanation” of the divine name, especially in contexts of violence or injustice, is an affront to the divine character (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.8.22).


Islamic Practice: The Invocation of “Allahu Akbar”

Contextual Use and Misuse

In Islam, the phrase “Allahu Akbar” (“God is Greatest”) is a central liturgical formula, used in daily prayers (Salah), call to prayer (Adhan), and various rituals. However, its use is not confined to worship but extends to moments of emotional intensity—including warfare, political protest, and, regrettably, acts of violence and terrorism.
Notably, radical groups have weaponized this phrase, uttering it before and during violent acts, thus tying the divine name directly to human acts of destruction.

Muhammad’s Precedent

Islamic sources attribute to Muhammad numerous injunctions to invoke “Allahu Akbar” in diverse situations—including battle (see: Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 2955; Sahih Muslim, Hadith 872) and moments of surprise or distress (Riyad as-Salihin, Book 17, Hadith 1320). This habitual invocation risks desacralizing the divine name by frequent and indiscriminate use, often detached from genuine reverence.


Theological Critique

1. The Principle of Sanctity

If “Allah” is indeed the same as the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, then His name must be treated with the same reverence as YHWH in Jewish and Christian traditions. The casual, political, or violent invocation of the divine name directly contravenes the principle of sanctity established in the Ten Commandments (cf. Leviticus 19:12; Ezekiel 36:21).

2. Ethical Implications

The biblical God consistently condemns the use of His name for false, manipulative, or violent ends (Jeremiah 23:25-27; Matthew 7:21-23). The invocation of “Allahu Akbar” during violence not only misrepresents God’s character but weaponizes the sacred for profane ends. As Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann notes, the commandment “forbids trivializing the name of the God who is holy” (Brueggemann, The Book of Exodus, p. 865).

3. Comparative Theology

While Islamic theology asserts the transcendence and uniqueness of Allah (tawhid), it lacks the strong biblical prohibitions against misusing the divine name. The Qur’an, while prohibiting false oaths (Qur’an 2:224), does not explicitly prohibit the casual or violent use of Allah’s name. The Hadith literature even records Muhammad encouraging repeated invocation of God’s name in various secular contexts, further weakening the distinction between sacred and profane.


Scholarly and Interfaith Perspectives

The Problem of Religious Violence and the Divine Name

Contemporary scholars (e.g., Miroslav Volf, Allah: A Christian Response; Mark Durie, Revelation? Do We Worship the Same God?) argue that the invocation of the divine name in acts of violence is a critical area for interfaith reflection. Volf notes that “the name of God must never be invoked to justify what is contrary to God’s own nature as revealed in love and holiness” (Volf, 2011).

Historical Examples

Throughout history, the misuse of God’s name has been associated with religious violence—not only in Islam but also in Christian and Jewish contexts. However, the biblical commandment stands as an eternal critique of such abuses. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks remarks that “to invoke the name of God for violence is to violate the Third Commandment and to commit the ultimate blasphemy” (Sacks, Not in God’s Name, 2015).


Conclusion

The expanded evidence from scriptural, theological, and historical perspectives confirms that Muhammad’s encouragement of indiscriminate invocation of “Allahu Akbar”—especially in contexts of violence or triviality—constitutes a clear violation of the third commandment. This practice desacralizes the divine name, making it a tool for human agendas rather than a means of true worship and reverence.

The God of the Bible demands that His name be kept holy, invoked only in prayer, praise, and truth, and never profaned for vain or evil purposes. Therefore, the use of “Allahu Akbar” as a slogan for violence or political gain stands condemned by the standard set forth in the Ten Commandments.

Shalom,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Servant of Jesus Christ, Our Great God (Titus 2:13)


References and Scholarly Sources

  • Primary Texts:

    • The Holy Bible, Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 19:12; Matthew 6:9; Ezekiel 36:21; Jeremiah 23:25-27; Matthew 7:21-23

    • The Qur’an: 2:224, 4:43, 16:91 (on oaths)

    • Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 2955; Sahih Muslim, Hadith 872

    • Riyad as-Salihin, Book 17, Hadith 1320

  • Jewish Commentary:

    • Rashi on Exodus 20:7

    • Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah 6:2

    • Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 71a

  • Christian Commentary:

    • Martin Luther, Large Catechism, I. 54-56

    • John Calvin, Institutes, II.8.22

  • Scholarly Works:

    • Walter Brueggemann, The Book of Exodus: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections (The New Interpreter’s Bible)

    • Timothy George, Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad? (Zondervan, 2002)

    • Miroslav Volf, Allah: A Christian Response (HarperOne, 2011)

    • Mark Durie, Revelation? Do We Worship the Same God? (City Harvest, 2016)

    • Jonathan Sacks, Not in God’s Name: Confronting Religious Violence (Schocken, 2015)

    • Safi Kaskas and David Hungerford, The Qur’an with References to the Bible (2015) [for intertextual analysis]



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

  1. The Qur’an: Surahs 3:3, 4:171, 5:46-47, 5:68, 6:115, 18:27

  2. The Bible: John 1:1, 1:14, 8:58, Mark 3:11

  3. Metzger, B. (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration.

  4. Bruce, F.F. (1988). The Canon of Scripture.

  5. Wood, D. (2012). “The Islamic Dilemma: Quran, Gospel, and the Dilemma of Revelation.”

  6. Reynolds, G. (2018). The Qur’an and the Bible: Text and Commentary. Yale University Press.

  7. 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

TRENDING NOW