The Eschatological Destiny of Muhammad and His Followers in Islamic and Biblical Perspective

 

The Eschatological Destiny of Muhammad and His Followers in Islamic and Biblical Perspective: A Comparative Analysis

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

This article offers a scholarly and theological analysis of Islamic eschatology regarding the destiny of Muhammad and his followers, juxtaposed with the Christian promise of eternal life through Jesus Christ. Utilizing primary Islamic sources, notably the Hadith literature, and biblical texts, this study explores the doctrinal implications of the afterlife in both traditions. The article concludes by highlighting the divergent eschatological promises of Allah and Elohim (Yahweh) and discusses their theological and soteriological consequences.

---

Introduction

The concept of life after death is central to both Islamic and Christian theology. However, the respective eschatological promises presented by the Qur’anic Allah and the Biblical Elohim exhibit significant doctrinal divergences. While Christian theology affirms immediate assurance of salvation and eternal life upon faith in Jesus Christ (John 5:24; 1 John 5:11-13), Islamic traditions, particularly Hadith literature, depict a complex and uncertain postmortem journey even for devout Muslims, including Muhammad himself.

This study examines key Hadith narratives to evaluate Muhammad’s eschatological expectations and contrasts them with the Biblical assurance of eternal life, drawing a theological distinction between Allah and Elohim.

---

Islamic Eschatology in Hadith Literature

One of the most revealing Hadiths concerning the eschatological destiny of Muhammad is found in Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 1, Book 12, Hadith 770):

“Then Allah will come to them again and say, ‘I am your Lord.’ They will say, ‘You are our Lord.’ Allah will call them, and As-Sirat (a bridge) will be laid across Hell and I (Muhammad) shall be the first amongst the Apostles to cross it with my followers... and some of them will fall and stay in Hell forever.” (Al-Bukhari, 1997)

This Hadith explicitly states that Muhammad himself awaits the Day of Judgment to cross As-Sirat into Paradise, a fate that contrasts sharply with Biblical prophets who, according to Scripture, secured their eternal destinies during their earthly lives (Psalm 23:6; Isaiah 38:17-18).

Furthermore, Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 1, Book 8, Hadith 345) narrates Muhammad’s claim of a visionary ascent into heaven where he allegedly encountered Adam, Moses, Jesus, and Abraham while still alive. Yet, paradoxically, Islamic eschatology postpones his final admission into Paradise until the Day of Judgment.

---

Biblical Theology of Salvation and Eternal Life

In contrast, the Bible emphasizes the immediacy and certainty of salvation for believers. Isaiah 38:17-18 and Psalm 51:12 articulate Old Testament assurances of forgiveness and eternal life within one’s earthly existence. The New Testament expands on this doctrine:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life and shall not come into judgment but has passed from death into life." (John 5:24, NKJV)

Jesus' declaration underscores the immediacy of eternal life for believers without the intermediary of hellfire or a postmortem bridge. Moreover, in John 4:10 and John 7:38, Jesus promises the 'living water' (Holy Spirit) to believers in their earthly lives, affirming salvation as a present reality.

---

Doctrinal Contradictions and Theological Implications

The cited Hadiths suggest that even monotheistic Muslims are consigned to Hell temporarily, to be identified and rescued by angels based on the marks of prostration (sujud). Sahih al-Bukhari states:

"He will order the angels to take out of Hell those who worshipped none but Him alone… So they will come out of the Fire as mere skeletons. The Water of Life will be poured on them." (Al-Bukhari, 1997)

This conditional posthumous mercy starkly contrasts with Christian soteriology, which offers the assurance of immediate postmortem communion with God (Luke 23:43). The theological implication is clear: the Qur’anic Allah provides no definitive assurance of eternal life before death, unlike the Biblical Elohim.

---

Conclusion

This comparative analysis reveals a profound theological and eschatological divergence between Islamic and Christian doctrines of the afterlife. The Hadith literature portrays a precarious postmortem future for even the most devout Muslims, including Muhammad. In contrast, the Bible guarantees eternal life and salvation in the present life for those who accept Jesus Christ. This doctrinal contrast necessitates a critical reflection on the nature of divine promises and their implications for believers.

---

References

• Al-Bukhari, M. I. (1997). Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 1). Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir.

• Holy Bible, New King James Version (NKJV). (1982). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

• Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV). (2011). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

• Cragg, K. (1999). The Call of the Minaret. Oxford University Press.

• Watt, W. M. (1979). Islamic Revelation in the Modern World. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

---

Note: The theological claims made in this article are based on an academic analysis of canonical texts and should be understood within the context of interreligious dialogue and theological inquiry.

WHO IS THE CREATOR — ALLAH OR YEHOVAH?

Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Max Shimba Ministries Org ©2015. All Rights Reserved

Introduction

Every religious adherent believes in the existence of a supreme being responsible for the creation of humanity, animals, the visible and invisible worlds. However, it is worth examining what both Yehovah, the God of the Bible, and Allah, the deity described in the Qur’an, claim about creation. Do their statements align or conflict? Whose image was man created in?

This paper aims to provide a comparative theological examination between the Biblical and Qur’anic declarations regarding the Creator, presenting a scholarly analysis of both sources to ascertain the nature of the divine being responsible for creation.

---

Allah’s Declaration about Himself

The Qur’an makes the following assertion:

Qur’an 112:1-4 (Suratul Al-Ikhlas)

“Say: He is Allah, the One and Only. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him.”

According to this passage, Allah affirms that he neither begets nor is begotten and explicitly states that no one is like him.

---

Yehovah’s Declaration about Himself

Conversely, the Bible records:

Genesis 1:26-27 (KJV)

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Here, Yehovah declares that mankind was made in His image and likeness. This sharply contrasts with the Qur’anic claim where Allah declares that no one is like him.

---

Additional Biblical Texts Affirming Man’s Divine Likeness

• Genesis 5:1-2

• Genesis 9:6

• 1 Corinthians 11:7

• Colossians 1:15; 3:10

• Acts 17:28-29

• James 3:9

While some might inquire how God resembles humanity, the Scriptures clarify that God is spirit (John 4:24), and He breathed into man the breath of life (Genesis 2:7). He is also the Father of our spirits (Hebrews 12:9) and claims ownership over all souls (Ezekiel 18:4; Numbers 16:22).

---

Swearing by Creation: Allah versus Yehovah

Allah’s Oaths

The Qur’an records several instances of Allah swearing by His creation:

Qur’an 91:1-7 (Suratul Ash-Shams)

“By the sun and its brightness, by the moon as it follows it, by the day as it displays it, by the night as it covers it, by the heaven and Him who built it, by the earth and Him who spread it out, and by the soul and Him who perfected it.”

Qur’an 92:1-3 (Suratul Al-Layl)

“By the night as it envelops, by the day as it appears, and by Him who created male and female.”

Here, Allah swears by the created order, something foreign to the Biblical God, Yehovah.

---

Yehovah’s Solemn Oaths

Isaiah 45:22-23 (KJV)

“Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.”

Hebrews 6:13-16 (KJV)

“For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.”

Unlike Allah, Yehovah swears solely by Himself, as He alone is supreme and uncreated (see also Isaiah 14:24; Genesis 22:16).

---

Creator of the Heavens and the Earth: Allah’s and Yehovah’s Claims

Qur’an 45:22 (Surat Al-Jathiyah)

“And Allah created the heavens and the earth with truth…”

Qur’an 44:7-8 (Surat Ad-Dukhan)

“The Lord of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them, if you should be convinced. There is no deity except Him; He gives life and causes death — your Lord and the Lord of your first forefathers.”

---

Isaiah 44:24 (KJV)

“Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.”

Isaiah 45:6-7, 11-12; Jeremiah 27:5
Further affirmations declare Yehovah as the sole Creator of heaven and earth.

---

Conclusion

The theological distinctions between the Biblical Yehovah and the Qur’anic Allah are significant. While both claim to be the Creator, their nature, method of swearing, and relationship to humanity fundamentally differ. Yehovah creates man in His image, swears by Himself alone, and consistently affirms His personal involvement in creation. Allah, conversely, denies resemblance to His creation and swears by created things, marking a clear divergence in divine nature and theology.

---

References

1. The Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV)

2. The Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali Translation

3. John 4:24

4. Genesis 1:26-27; 2:7; 5:1-2; 9:6

5. Isaiah 44:24; 45:6-7, 11-12; 14:24

6. Hebrews 6:13-16; 12:9

7. Ezekiel 18:4

8. Numbers 16:22

9. 1 Corinthians 11:7

10. Colossians 1:15; 3:10

11. Acts 17:28-29

12. James 3:9

---

In His Service,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Max Shimba Ministries Org ©2015

---

Did Prophet Muhammad Pray with His Shoes On in the Mosque?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Max Shimba Ministries

---

Introduction

It is often observed that Muslims criticize Christians for praying while wearing shoes inside their churches. The question arises — did the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, himself pray with his shoes on while inside the mosque? In this paper, we examine this issue using primary Islamic sources and authenticated Hadith compilations to evaluate the practice of the Prophet and the instruction he gave regarding footwear during prayer.

---

Prophet Muhammad’s Practice of Praying with Shoes

According to several Hadith reports, Prophet Muhammad indeed prayed with his shoes on inside the mosque. This is evident in the narration found in the book Al-Ulu wal-Marjan:

“Permission to pray with shoes.”

Anas bin Malik (R.A) narrated from Sa‘id bin Yazid Al-Azdi (R.A), who said:
“I asked Anas bin Malik (R.A), ‘Did the Prophet (S.A.W) pray while wearing his shoes?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’”
— (Al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 383, Vol. 1)

This narration explicitly indicates that Prophet Muhammad performed prayers while wearing his shoes, and a specific chapter title in this collection grants permission for such a practice.

---

Instructions Regarding Cleanliness of Shoes

The Prophet not only prayed with his shoes on but also gave instructions to his followers concerning the cleanliness of their footwear before prayer. This is recorded in Bulugh al-Maram min Jam’i Adillatil Ahkam:

Hadith No. 171:

Abu Sa‘id Al-Khudri (R.A) reported that the Messenger of Allah (S.A.W) said:
“When any one of you comes to the mosque, let him look at his shoes. If he finds filth (najasah) on them, let him wipe them off and then pray in them.”
— (Reported by Abu Dawood, Ibn Khuzaymah graded it Sahih)

The commentary explains that if someone steps on filth with their shoes, they can purify them by rubbing them against the ground or soil until the impurity is removed.

---

Further Instruction Regarding Shoes and Safety in the Mosque

An additional narration shows that Prophet Muhammad expected worshippers to have their shoes available during prayer for practical reasons. In a situation involving a scorpion inside the mosque, the Prophet instructed:

“Whoever amongst you sees a scorpion while praying should kill it with his left shoe.”
— (Mkweli Mwaminifu, Vol. 1-2, Hadith No. 188, p. 88)

This command implies that Muslims would have their shoes on or immediately accessible even while engaged in prayer.

---

Discussion

The consistent theme from these narrations is that the Prophet of Islam not only allowed but also performed prayer while wearing shoes, as long as they were clean. The practice of removing shoes before prayer was a later custom influenced by differing cultural and environmental factors, particularly as mosques began using rugs and carpets.

Consequently, it appears inconsistent when Muslims criticize Christians for praying while wearing shoes in church buildings, especially when the founder of their own faith engaged in the practice and instructed others to do so.

The critique here is not merely about footwear etiquette but about the double standards in religious polemics. If the Prophet prayed in shoes and permitted it conditionally, it undermines the argument that Christian practices of praying with shoes are impure or disrespectful.

---

Conclusion

This study of primary Islamic texts confirms that Prophet Muhammad did pray in his shoes within the mosque and allowed his followers to do the same, provided their shoes were clean. Thus, the polemic against Christians praying with shoes appears to be unfounded, especially in light of these authenticated narrations.

---

References

1. Al-Bukhari, Muhammad ibn Ismail. Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, Hadith No. 383.

2. Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani. Bulugh al-Maram min Jam’i Adillatil Ahkam. Hadith No. 171.

3. Abu Dawood, Sulayman ibn Ash‘ath. Sunan Abi Dawood.

4. Ibn Khuzaymah, Muhammad ibn Ishaq. Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah.

5. Mkweli Mwaminifu, Vol. 1-2, Hadith No. 188, p. 88.

6. Al-Ulu wal-Marjan, p. 179.

---

Bibliography

• Al-Bukhari, Muhammad ibn Ismail. Sahih al-Bukhari. Darussalam Publishers.

• Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani. Bulugh al-Maram min Jam’i Adillatil Ahkam. Darussalam Publishers.

• Abu Dawood, Sulayman ibn Ash‘ath. Sunan Abi Dawood. Darussalam Publishers.

• Ibn Khuzaymah, Muhammad ibn Ishaq. Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah. Dar al-Ma’rifah.

• Mkweli Mwaminifu. Nairobi: East African Islamic Publishers.

• Al-Ulu wal-Marjan. Cairo: Dar al-Hadith.

---

Was It Pharaoh’s Wife or Pharaoh’s Daughter Who Rescued Moses?

A Contradiction Within the Quran

By Dr. Max Shimba
Max Shimba Ministries

---

Introduction

This issue represents a significant theological discrepancy within Islamic scripture — a contradiction between the historical record preserved in the Hebrew Bible and the later narrative presented in the Quran. The core question is simple yet deeply consequential for scriptural integrity:

Who rescued Moses from the Nile — Pharaoh’s daughter or Pharaoh’s wife?

---

The Biblical Account

According to the Holy Bible, when Pharaoh sought to kill all Hebrew male infants, God intervened to save Moses by causing Pharaoh’s daughter to adopt the child and raise him as her own. The account is clearly detailed in the book of Exodus:

"And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi. And the woman conceived, and bore a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months. And when she could no longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river’s brink. And his sister stood afar off, to see what would be done to him. And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself at the river; and her maidens walked along by the river’s side; and when she saw the ark among the flags, she sent her maid to fetch it. And when she had opened it, she saw the child: and behold, the babe wept. And she had compassion on him, and said, 'This is one of the Hebrews' children.' Then said his sister to Pharaoh's daughter, 'Shall I go and call thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee?' And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, 'Go.' And the maid went and called the child’s mother. And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, 'Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages.' And the woman took the child, and nursed it. And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, 'Because I drew him out of the water.'"
— Exodus 2:1–10 (KJV)

This is affirmed again in the New Testament:

"And when he was cast out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son."
— Acts 7:21 (KJV)

---

The Quranic Account

Over two millennia later, the Quran presents a conflicting version of this historical episode, asserting that it was Pharaoh's wife — not his daughter — who rescued and adopted Moses. The Quran states:

"And We inspired the mother of Moses, saying: 'Suckle him, and when thou fearest for him, then cast him into the river and fear not, nor grieve. Lo! We shall bring him back unto thee, and shall make him (one) of Our messengers.' And the family of Pharaoh took him up, that he might become for them an enemy and a sorrow. Lo! Pharaoh and Haman and their hosts were ever sinning. And the wife of Pharaoh said: 'A comfort for me and for thee! Kill him not. He may be of use to us, or we may adopt him as a son.' And they perceived not."
— Surah 28:7–9 (Pickthall Translation)

Here, it is explicitly Pharaoh's wife who intervenes and claims the infant Moses.

---

Evaluating the Contradiction

Given that the Hebrew Bible, authored by Moses himself (according to longstanding Jewish and Christian tradition), was written far closer to the time of these events, it would logically hold greater historical reliability. The Israelites, as direct participants and custodians of their national history, would certainly have accurately preserved the identity of Moses' rescuer.

Additionally, the Quran itself instructs Muslims to consult the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) regarding earlier revelations and sacred history:

"And if you (Muhammad) are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto you, then ask those who read the Scripture (that was) before you. Verily the Truth from your Lord has come unto you. So be not of the doubters."
— Surah 10:94 (Pickthall)

"And verily We gave unto Moses nine clear signs. Ask the Children of Israel how he came unto them, and Pharaoh said unto him: 'Lo! I deem thee one bewitched, O Moses.'"
— Surah 17:101 (Shakir)

Further, the Quran claims that Jesus himself confirmed the authority of the Hebrew Torah available in his day:

"He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel." ... "'And (I have come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you. I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. So fear God and obey me.'"
— Surah 3:47, 49 (Khalifa)

"And in their footsteps, We sent Jesus son of Mary, confirming the Torah that came before him; and We gave him the Gospel, wherein is guidance and light, and confirming the Torah that preceded it, a guidance and an admonition for the righteous."
— Surah 5:46 (Khalifa)

---

Conclusion

Given the corroborative testimony of the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and even Quranic endorsements of these scriptures, it becomes clear that the biblical account — which identifies Pharaoh’s daughter as Moses' rescuer — is historically and theologically sound.

In contrast, the Quran’s claim that it was Pharaoh’s wife represents a critical historical error, undermining its claim to confirm previous scriptures.

As a result, we must conclude that:

• The Holy Bible remains historically consistent and theologically reliable.

• The Quran’s contradiction on this matter reveals its fallibility as a later historical source.

Shalom.

Dr. Max Shimba
Max Shimba Ministries

---

The Twenty Versions of the Qur'an, all are in Arabic and not the same

Tuesday, November 30, 2021

The Twenty Versions of the Qur'an: A Critical Examination

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Max Shimba Ministries Org.

---

Introduction

In this study, I intend to present factual evidence regarding the existence of multiple versions of the Qur'an, a topic that has long been suppressed within Islamic circles. Contrary to the widely held belief that there exists only one Qur'an, historical sources and Islamic hadith literature record the existence of twenty different versions of the Qur'an. Among these, seven have been explicitly acknowledged in the most trusted hadith collections attributed to the Prophet Muhammad.

This paper will outline the twenty known versions, their respective transmitters (Qurrā’), and raise critical theological and historical questions that challenge the claims of a singular, unchanged Qur'anic text.

---

The Seven Primary Qur’anic Readers (Qurrā’) and Their Versions

Islamic tradition acknowledges seven principal Qur'anic readers, each of whom is said to have transmitted the Qur'an with two distinct narrations (versions). These readings, or Qirā’āt, have been historically accepted as authoritative, though variations exist among them in pronunciation, word choices, and occasionally meaning.

The seven primary readers and their two versions each are as follows:

1. Nāfiʿ (from Medina; d. 169 AH / 785 CE)

   • Warsh

   • Qālūn

2. Ibn Kathīr (from Mecca; d. 119 AH / 737 CE)

   • Al-Bazzi

   • Qunbul

3. Abū ʿAmr al-ʿAlāʾ (from Damascus; d. 154 AH / 770 CE)

   • Al-Dūrī

   • Al-Sūrī

4. Ibn ʿĀmir (from Basra; d. 118 AH / 736 CE)

   • Hishām

   • Ibn Dhakwān

5. Ḥamzah (from Kufah; d. 156 AH / 772 CE)

   • Khalaf

   • Khallād

6. Al-Kisā’ī (from Kufah; d. 189 AH / 804 CE)

   • Al-Dūrī

   • Abū’l-Ḥārith

7. Abū Bakr ʿĀṣim (from Kufah; d. 158 AH / 778 CE)

   • Ḥafṣ

   • Ibn ʿAyyāsh

---

The Additional Three Readers and Their Narrations

In addition to the seven primary readers, Islamic scholars recognize three supplementary readers, each transmitting two additional versions:

1. Abū Jaʿfar

   • Ibn Wardān

   • Ibn Jamāz

2. Yaʿqūb al-Ḥāshimī

   • Ruways

   • Rawḥ

3. Khalaf al-Bazzār

   • Isḥāq

   • Idrīs al-Ḥaddād

Though Islamic authorities affirm these as authentic, it is evident that there are at least twenty versions of the Qur'an preserved through oral transmission, each with its distinct variations.

---

Critical Questions for Theological Reflection

The existence of these multiple readings and narrations raises several important theological and historical questions that remain largely unaddressed in contemporary Islamic discourse:

1. Among these many Qur’anic readers, whose version is truly authoritative and correct?
   If Allah revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, why are there numerous readers with differing versions, while the Prophet himself is not cited as a transmitter of any specific reading among these twenty?

2. If Allah revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad alone, how did other individuals come to possess different versions of the same divine revelation?
   How can such variations be justified if the Qur'an is claimed to be a singular, unaltered, and perfect book in the Arabic language?

3. If the Qur'an exists in only one Arabic form as frequently claimed, how can it be recited in twenty different forms within the same language?
   Do these discrepancies not contradict the assertion of a perfectly preserved revelation?

4. Among these twenty versions of the Qur'an, which one is the original, authentic, and true version?
   By what criteria do Islamic scholars or believers determine the authenticity of one version over another?

5. Which version did Prophet Muhammad himself recite and memorize?
   Is there evidence to confirm the exact version he followed, given that Islamic tradition ascribes the preservation of the Qur'an primarily to his personal recitation?

---

Conclusion

This investigation highlights a critical issue within Islamic textual history—the presence of multiple accepted Qur'anic versions transmitted by various readers, each with distinct narrations. While Muslim scholars have attempted to explain these variations as acceptable within the tradition of Qirā’āt, this diversity raises serious theological implications for the claim of a single, unchanged Qur'an.

It is evident that Islam harbors numerous concealed complexities, and the refusal to openly address them continues to obscure the religion's historical development. The acknowledgment of twenty Qur'anic versions is, therefore, not merely a scholarly observation but a profound theological dilemma for the claims of Islamic orthodoxy.

May God bless you and open your eyes to truth.

In His service,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Max Shimba Ministries Org.

---

The Case of Adam’s Sons: Missing Names and Details

The Incompleteness and Unreliability of the Quran: A Critical Analysis of Textual Gaps and Hadith Dependency

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

The Quran, revered by Muslims as the final and perfect revelation of Allah, asserts itself as a complete, clear, and detailed book for guidance. However, a closer academic analysis exposes significant textual gaps, ambiguities, and the need for external sources — primarily the Hadith — to clarify essential doctrines, laws, and historical narratives. This paper critically examines one such case: the narrative of Adam’s sons, their identities, actions, and familial relations, as well as the Quran’s silence on critical details. Furthermore, it interrogates whether the Quran itself mandates the use of Hadith, concluding it does not. This article contends that the Quran is incomplete for doctrinal and historical instruction and ultimately unreliable as a self-sufficient religious text.

---

Introduction

The Islamic tradition holds that the Quran is “a book wherein there is no doubt, a guidance for the righteous” (Quran 2:2). It frequently claims to confirm prior scriptures (Torah, Psalms, Gospel) and asserts to be a comprehensive record of divine will. Yet, modern and classical scholars have long debated its sufficiency and clarity when detached from the Hadith corpus. Among the most glaring examples of these deficiencies is the narrative of Adam's sons. Unlike the Bible, which clearly identifies them as Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:1-8), the Quran omits their names and key contextual details.

---

The Case of Adam’s Sons: Missing Names and Details

In the Quran, the story of Adam's sons is briefly mentioned in Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:27-31):

“And recite to them the story of Adam's two sons, in truth, when they both offered a sacrifice, and it was accepted from one of them but not from the other. Said (the latter), ‘I will surely kill you.’ Said (the former), ‘Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous.’” (5:27)

This passage confirms neither the names of these sons nor their mother’s identity. By contrast, in the Bible — considered part of the prior revelations Islam claims to affirm — their names are Cain and Abel, and their mother is Eve (Genesis 4:1-2).

The Quran fails to mention:

• The names of Adam’s sons.

• The identity of their mother.

• The specific type of sacrifices offered.

• The motive behind the rejection and murder.

• The actual act of killing.

These vital details are instead supplied by Hadith literature and the Tafsir (commentaries), drawn largely from Biblical narratives and Jewish oral traditions (Isra'iliyyat). This dependence suggests the Quran alone is insufficient for understanding even basic historical events it mentions.

---

Who Killed Whom? According to the Quran

Within Surah 5:27-31, it’s indicated that one son killed the other due to jealousy after a sacrifice was accepted by Allah from one but rejected from the other. However, the names of the perpetrator and victim are entirely absent. Islamic exegetes universally agree, based on Hadith and Biblical borrowing, that Qabil (Cain) killed Habil (Abel).

But importantly — the Quran itself never names them. This silence is critical. A supposedly clear and detailed book (Quran 12:111; 16:89) leaves out core identifiers in a pivotal moral narrative.

---

The Identity of Their Mother in the Quran

Similarly, the Quran does not mention Eve (Hawwa) by name anywhere. She is only indirectly referred to as Adam’s "mate" (Quran 7:19, 20:117). This contrasts sharply with the Bible’s clarity in Genesis 3:20. Islamic scholars compensate for this by relying on Hadith and Jewish traditions.

---

Is the Use of Hadith Authorized by the Quran?

Despite the indispensable role of Hadith in explaining Quranic ambiguities, the Quran itself never instructs Muslims to refer to Hadith for religious or legal authority. The Quran insists it is “fully detailed” (6:114, 12:111) and “complete” (5:3).

Yet, Islamic jurisprudence and theology lean heavily on Hadith collections (e.g., Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim) for:

• Details on daily prayers (number, method, timings)

• Ritual acts like Hajj and Zakat

• Criminal law

• Historical narratives like Adam’s sons

This reliance reveals a contradiction: a text claiming completeness yet requiring supplementary literature for interpretation and application.

Nowhere in the Quran does Allah command Muslims to read, follow, or preserve Hadith literature. The word ‘Hadith’ in the Quran typically refers to a “narration” or “story” and is even warned against in several verses when it distracts from Allah’s revelations (e.g., 31:6).

---

Quran’s Claim to Affirm Prior Books and Its Failure

The Quran claims to affirm and confirm the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel (e.g., 5:46, 5:48). Yet, it diverges significantly in both narrative details and theological conclusions. The Adam’s sons narrative is a prime example — lacking names and details found clearly in Genesis 4.

Further, the Quran denounces the Bible as corrupted (e.g., 2:79), while simultaneously claiming to confirm it. This creates a theological inconsistency: affirming a revelation it accuses of being unreliable, while depending on it indirectly through Hadith and Isra'iliyyat traditions.

---

Conclusion

This academic review of the Quran’s handling of the Adam’s sons narrative demonstrates a broader issue: the Quran is incomplete as a self-sufficient religious text. Its gaps necessitate external sources, especially Hadith, for clarification. Moreover, nowhere does the Quran command the preservation or authority of Hadith literature.

The logical conclusion is that Islam’s foundational text cannot stand independently. It is neither a fully detailed account nor a consistent confirmation of prior scriptures, as it claims. This renders the Quran an unreliable and incomplete source for comprehensive theological, legal, or historical guidance.

---

References

1. Quran 2:2, 5:3, 5:27-31, 6:114, 12:111, 16:89, 31:6

2. Genesis 4:1-8, 3:20

3. Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim

4. Al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Tabari

5. Al-Qurtubi, Tafsir al-Qurtubi

6. Goldziher, Ignác. Muhammedanische Studien (1889)

7. Wansbrough, John. Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation (1977)

---

Who Are the Disciples of Isa bin Maryam in the Qur'an?

The Incompleteness of the Qur'an in Its Account of the Disciples of Jesus: A Critical Examination

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba | Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This article examines the Qur'an's treatment of the disciples of Isa bin Maryam (Jesus, son of Mary), assessing its claims of affirming previous scriptures while demonstrating significant omissions and inconsistencies when compared to the Biblical record. The absence of crucial historical, theological, and narrative details regarding Jesus’ disciples, including their names, actions, and key events like the Last Supper, raises critical concerns about the Qur'an’s reliability as a purported continuation and confirmation of earlier divine revelation. This analysis contends that the Qur'an is neither a complete nor a dependable source for understanding the life and mission of Jesus and His disciples and consequently undermines its own claim of safeguarding and affirming the Torah and the Gospel.

---

Introduction

Muslim theology, grounded in Qur'anic claims, posits that the Qur'an was revealed to confirm and preserve the integrity of prior divine revelations — namely the Torah (Tawrat), the Psalms (Zabur), and the Gospel (Injil). Yet, a critical comparative textual analysis reveals profound gaps and narrative inconsistencies, particularly in its account of Isa bin Maryam (Jesus) and His disciples. Unlike the Bible, which provides a historically traceable and theologically rich account of Jesus' followers, including their names, deeds, and interactions, the Qur'an is strikingly silent on essential details, leaving foundational elements of the Christian narrative either absent or ambiguously rendered.

This paper systematically reviews the Qur'anic references to the disciples of Jesus, examines their shortcomings, and interrogates the implications for the Qur'an's claim of confirming prior scriptures.

---

1. Who Are the Disciples of Isa bin Maryam in the Qur'an?

The Qur'an refers to the disciples of Jesus using the Arabic term al-Hawariyyun (الحواريون) in a few scattered verses:

• Surah Al-Imran 3:52:

"But when Jesus felt [persistence in] disbelief from them, he said, 'Who are my supporters for the cause of Allah?' The disciples said, 'We are supporters for Allah. We have believed in Allah and testify that we are Muslims [submitting to Him].'"

• Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:111:

"And [remember] when I inspired to the disciples, 'Believe in Me and in My messenger.' They said, 'We have believed, so bear witness that indeed we are Muslims [in submission to Allah].'"

Nowhere in the Qur'an are the names of the disciples given. In stark contrast, the Bible lists them clearly (Matthew 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:13–16), identifying the Twelve Apostles as Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot. The Qur'an’s failure to preserve these names is a significant omission if it claims to affirm prior revelation.

---

2. The Denial and Betrayal of Jesus: Absent in the Qur'an

The Qur'an contains no account of a disciple denying Jesus three times — a pivotal event recorded in all four canonical Gospels regarding Peter (Matthew 26:69–75; Mark 14:66–72; Luke 22:54–62; John 18:15–27). Nor does the Qur'an record the betrayal by Judas Iscariot, who sold Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, as described in Matthew 26:14–16.

Though Surah An-Nisa 4:157 makes a vague reference to the alleged crucifixion:

"And [for] their saying, 'Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.' And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but it was made to appear to them so."

This cryptic statement lacks detail — it neither names Judas nor explains the betrayal. Early Islamic traditions and apocryphal sources attempted to fill this void, but the Qur'an itself offers no information, leaving a significant historical and theological gap.

---

3. The Number of Jesus' Disciples in the Qur'an

The Qur'an does not specify how many disciples Jesus had. The Bible, on the other hand, is explicit, affirming the number twelve (Luke 6:13; Matthew 10:1-4). For a text that claims to safeguard previous revelation (Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:46–48), the absence of such a basic historical fact is both puzzling and problematic for its credibility.

---

4. The Qur'an and the Last Supper

One of Christianity’s most foundational events, the Last Supper, is entirely missing in narrative form from the Qur'an. The closest passage is Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:112–115, which references a request by the disciples for a table spread with food from heaven:

"When the disciples said, 'O Jesus, Son of Mary, can your Lord send down to us a table [spread with food] from the heaven?'..."

While this incident is sometimes interpreted by Muslim commentators as a parallel to the Last Supper, it fundamentally differs in context and content. The biblical Last Supper involved Jesus foretelling His betrayal and instituting the Eucharist, symbolizing His imminent sacrifice — none of which is acknowledged or preserved in the Qur'an.

---

5. Implications for the Qur'an’s Claim of Confirming Previous Scriptures

The Qur'an repeatedly asserts its role as a guardian and confirmer of previous scriptures:

• Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:48:

"And We have revealed to you the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it."

However, as demonstrated above, the Qur'an fails to preserve or affirm the most basic elements of Jesus’ narrative and ministry. Essential details such as the names of the disciples, the betrayal by Judas, Peter’s denial, the exact number of the disciples, and the institution of the Last Supper are either absent or altered.

This disconnect exposes a severe theological and historical inconsistency: if the Qur'an was divinely intended to validate the Torah and the Gospel, how can it neglect such core historical facts, known and cherished across Jewish and Christian traditions for centuries before Islam?

---

Conclusion

The Qur'an’s scant and incomplete treatment of the disciples of Isa bin Maryam reveals significant deficiencies in its historical preservation and theological affirmation of earlier scriptures. Its failure to name the disciples, recount foundational events such as Peter’s denial, Judas' betrayal, and the Last Supper — coupled with ambiguous and altered narratives — undermines its claim as a reliable and complete continuation of divine revelation.

From an academic and theological standpoint, these omissions reinforce the view that the Qur'an, while borrowing selectively from biblical tradition, does not meet the evidentiary standards required to authenticate or supersede prior scriptures. As such, it cannot credibly position itself as a confirming revelation of the Torah and the Gospel, having neglected essential historical and theological knowledge enshrined within them.

---

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Qur'anic Misrepresentation of Yahya (John the Baptist)

The Missing Baptism: A Critical Theological Challenge to the Qur'anic Representation of Yahya (John the Baptist)

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba | Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

While the Qur'an claims to affirm the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel, significant theological practices such as baptism — foundational in the biblical narrative through the ministry of John the Baptist — are conspicuously absent from the Islamic scripture and practice. This article critically examines the portrayal of Yahya (John the Baptist) in the Qur'an, his omission as a baptizer, and the broader Islamic rejection of baptism, exposing this as a fundamental failure of the Qur'an to substantiate its claim as a confirmation of prior divine revelation. Moreover, it interrogates the credibility of Muhammad’s prophethood against the biblical and prophetic tradition, highlighting Islam’s theological gaps and inconsistencies.

---

Introduction

Islam asserts that the Qur'an was sent as a confirmation of the scriptures before it — namely the Torah (Tawrat), Psalms (Zabur), and Gospel (Injil). However, one of the profound practices attested to in both the Old and New Testaments — baptism — finds no place in the Qur'an nor in the practice of Prophet Muhammad. Even more perplexing is the Qur'anic mention of Yahya (John the Baptist), a figure known exclusively in biblical history for his ministry of baptism, without a single reference to his baptizing mission. This theological inconsistency raises critical questions about the reliability of the Qur'anic narrative and its authenticity as divine revelation.

---

The Absence of Baptism in the Qur'an

The Bible unmistakably records John the Baptist as “the voice of one crying in the wilderness” (Isaiah 40:3; Matthew 3:3), who baptized multitudes and notably Jesus Christ himself (Matthew 3:13-17). Baptism was a profound symbol of repentance and spiritual renewal, central to John’s prophetic office.

Yet, the Qur'an — despite mentioning Yahya multiple times (Qur'an 19:7-15; 3:39) — is entirely silent on his role as a baptizer. This omission is deeply problematic. If the Qur'an is truly a confirmation of the Gospel, why does it fail to affirm one of the most public, prophetic, and messianic acts in Christian theology: the baptism of Jesus by John?

Furthermore, baptism is absent as a religious rite in Islam. No command, narrative, or practice of baptism exists in the Qur'an, nor was Muhammad himself baptized, a stark divergence from the prophetic pattern in which Jesus partook of baptism, and His disciples continued the practice (Acts 2:38-41).

This silence leads to a series of theological and historical questions:

• Why does Yahya not baptize in the Qur'an if he is the same historical person as John the Baptist?

• Why is baptism neither preserved nor practiced in Islam if the Qur'an claims to affirm the Gospel?

• Why did Muhammad, whom Muslims claim to be the seal of prophets, not undergo baptism?

• Why is there no record of baptism among Muhammad’s followers in the earliest Islamic community?

These questions reveal severe discontinuity between the biblical and Qur'anic narratives, undermining the Qur'an’s claim to authenticate prior revelations.

---

The Puzzling Name ‘Yahya’ — A Non-Historical Anomaly

Another significant concern is the name ‘Yahya’ itself. The Qur'an names John the Baptist as Yahya, a designation absent from the Hebrew Bible, Jewish historical records, or even Christian texts. The biblical and historical name is Yochanan in Hebrew, translated John in English, and Yuhanna in Arabic — a name preserved in the Arabic Bible to this day.

This anomaly raises pressing historical and philological questions:

• What is the origin of the name Yahya?

• Why is it unknown in Jewish and Christian records, including ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and even early Arabic Christian writings?

• Why did the Qur'an introduce a non-historical name while claiming to recount the same prophetic history?

Such discrepancies suggest that the Qur'anic authors may have lacked direct knowledge of biblical texts or relied on altered oral traditions, further casting doubt on the Qur'an's claim of confirming prior scripture.

---

Theological Incoherence: If Yahya Was a Muslim, Why No Baptism in Islam?

Muslim exegetes claim all biblical prophets were Muslims, including Yahya. If so, why was Yahya’s defining prophetic act — baptism — neither continued nor affirmed in Islam? Why did Prophet Muhammad, regarded as the seal of the prophets, not institute baptism as part of Islamic ritual, especially when he claimed to follow the prophetic traditions?

The Qur'an’s failure to even acknowledge baptism exposes a theological inconsistency:

• If Yahya was a Muslim prophet, as Islam claims, why did he baptize while other Muslim prophets allegedly did not?

• Why did this practice, supposedly divinely sanctioned, vanish entirely by the time of Muhammad?

• How does the absence of baptism reconcile with Islam’s claim of confirming the Gospel when baptism was central to Jesus’s ministry (Mark 1:9-11) and commanded to His disciples (Matthew 28:19)?

This theological incoherence suggests either a historical break between Islam and authentic biblical tradition or that Islam emerged independently, borrowing selectively from biblical narratives without preserving their core theological meanings.

---

Conclusion: An Unsubstantiated Claim of Continuity

The absence of baptism in Islam — both in scripture and practice — alongside the historically untraceable name ‘Yahya’ and the omission of John the Baptist’s defining ministry, exposes a fatal flaw in the Qur'an’s claim to confirm previous revelations. Muhammad’s prophetic credentials further suffer when contrasted against biblical standards, as he neither underwent baptism nor acknowledged it as a divine ordinance.

This glaring omission reveals that the Qur'an is neither a faithful confirmation of the Gospel nor a continuation of the authentic prophetic tradition. Instead, it selectively appropriates biblical figures while detaching them from their historical and theological contexts.

In this light, the Qur'an’s claim to divine origin becomes increasingly untenable. It fails to meet the very standards it sets for itself — to affirm the prior books — and thereby exposes itself, and Muhammad, as inconsistent with the tradition it professes to uphold.

---

References

• The Holy Bible, New International Version.

• The Qur'an (Translations by Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, and Sahih International)

• Encyclopaedia Judaica, “John the Baptist”

• Geisler, Norman L. & Saleeb, Abdul. Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross

• Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah

---

The Meaning of John 17:3 in Christian Theology

The Meaning of John 17:3 in Christian Theology: A Response to Muslim Claims Regarding the Divinity of Jesus Christ

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract
This article examines John 17:3—a verse frequently cited by Muslim apologists to argue against the divinity of Jesus Christ. It provides a theological and exegetical analysis of John 17:3–5 within the broader context of the Gospel of John, addresses Islamic objections, and demonstrates that, rather than denying His divinity, Jesus affirms His pre-existence and possession of divine glory, thereby supporting orthodox Christian claims regarding His deity.

---

Introduction

In contemporary interfaith dialogue, particularly in exchanges between Christian and Muslim apologists, John 17:3 has become a central proof-text for those seeking to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. Many Islamic preachers and authors contend that, in this passage, Jesus explicitly distinguishes Himself from the “only true God,” thereby allegedly renouncing any claim to deity. This article critically examines such claims and provides a thorough theological interpretation of the passage, emphasizing the necessity of contextual and canonical readings of Scripture.

---

The Contested Passage: John 17:3–5

The Gospel of John 17:3–5 reads (NIV):

“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.”

Muslim critics often isolate verse 3 to argue that Jesus disclaims divinity by distinguishing Himself from “the only true God.” However, a careful examination of verses 4 and 5 reveals a more nuanced and profound Christology.

---

Exegetical and Theological Analysis

1. Pre-Existence of Christ

In John 17:5, Jesus prays, “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” Here, Jesus explicitly claims pre-existence—an attribute unique to God in both biblical and Islamic theology. The assertion that Christ existed “before the world began” directly parallels the prologue of John’s Gospel (“In the beginning was the Word…” John 1:1) and affirms that Jesus possesses an existence that precedes creation itself. Within Christian doctrine, the pre-existence of Christ is foundational to His deity (cf. Philippians 2:5–7; Colossians 1:15–17).

Scholarly Perspective

Craig S. Keener notes that “pre-existence was not attributed to ordinary humans or even prophets; this is an explicitly divine prerogative in Second Temple Judaism.” (Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2003).

2. The Claim to Divine Glory

Jesus’ request, “glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began,” is highly significant. In Isaiah 42:8, God declares, “I will not yield my glory to another.” Thus, for Jesus to claim shared glory with the Father before creation is a declaration of ontological unity with God. No mere human, prophet, or angel can make such a claim without committing blasphemy. Jesus' prayer, therefore, is not a denial but an implicit affirmation of His divine status.

Theological Insight

F. F. Bruce writes, “The glory which the Son requests to be restored to him is no less than the divine glory which belonged to him in the eternal fellowship of the Godhead.” (Bruce, The Gospel of John, 1983).

3. Sinlessness of Christ

Even within Islamic tradition, Jesus (‘Isa) is regarded as uniquely sinless among humankind (see Sahih Bukhari 4:55:641; Quran 19:19). If Jesus was merely a man, His request for divine glory would constitute blasphemy—unless He is truly who He claims to be: the eternal Son, worthy of the same honor as the Father (cf. John 5:23).

---

Addressing the Muslim Interpretation

Muslim apologists assert that Jesus' words in John 17:3 (“that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”) represent a categorical denial of divinity. However, this interpretation overlooks several critical hermeneutical and theological points:

• Contextual Integrity: Verses 4 and 5 provide indispensable context, revealing Jesus’ pre-existence and shared divine glory.

• Johannine Christology: The entire Gospel of John is replete with statements affirming Christ’s divinity (e.g., John 1:1, 8:58, 10:30).

• Unity and Distinction: Trinitarian theology posits that the Son is distinct in person from the Father but shares in the same divine essence (homoousios). Thus, Jesus' distinction from the Father in John 17:3 is not a denial of deity but an affirmation of Trinitarian relationality.

---

Implications for Eternal Life

John 17:3 states that eternal life consists in knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ. Rather than diminishing Jesus’ status, this places faith in Christ as essential for salvation—an emphasis echoed elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. John 14:6; 1 John 5:20). The unique and inseparable roles of the Father and the Son in granting eternal life further affirm the co-equal divinity of Jesus.

---

Conclusion

The claim that John 17:3 constitutes a denial of Christ’s divinity does not withstand careful exegetical scrutiny. On the contrary, the passage, read in context and in light of biblical theology, affirms Jesus’ pre-existence, participation in divine glory, and essential unity with the Father. Christian doctrine thus finds robust support in these verses, while the common Muslim interpretation rests on an atomistic and contextually flawed reading.

---

Bibliography

• Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

• Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003.

• Köstenberger, Andreas J. John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.

• Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

• The Holy Bible, New International Version.

• The Quran, Surah 19:19.

• Sahih Bukhari 4:55:641.

---

Invitation
This study invites all sincere readers to consider the claims of Jesus Christ. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). True and abundant life is found only in Him. I welcome all to embrace the living Christ for eternal life and fulfillment.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
April 28, 2015

MUHAMMAD IS DEAD, BUT JESUS LIVES

Friday, August 26, 2016Jesus Rose from the Tomb!

Today, Jesus is alive, but Prophet Muhammad has been dead for a long time. There is a profound difference between Muhammad and Jesus: Muhammad is dead, but Jesus lives today and will live forever and ever.

Prophet Muhammad was born around 570 CE in the city of Mecca and died at the age of approximately 62 on June 8, 632, in Medina, present-day Saudi Arabia, where his tomb remains. In summary, Muhammad died, was buried, and his remains are still in his grave today.

In contrast, Jesus was born around four years before the common era. He died on the cross around the age of 30 in Jerusalem. His body was placed in a tomb, but its current location is irrelevant, because God raised Him from the dead after three days! Forty days later, God took Him up to heaven, where He sits at the right hand of God on the throne.

Jesus is alive today and will never die again! This is the fundamental difference between Muhammad and Jesus. Muhammad is dead, but Jesus lives today, eternally and forever.

The Apostle John recounts:
“When I saw Him (Jesus), I fell at His feet as though dead. But He laid His right hand on me and said, ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, and the Living One. I was dead, and now look, I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.’” (Revelation 1:17-18)

Here, Jesus claims that He is the First and the Last, implying that no one will come after Him. Therefore, the Islamic claim that Muhammad is the last prophet is erroneous, because no one comes after Jesus. He is the Alpha and the Omega—the Unique One.

Comparing Jesus and Christianity with Muhammad and Islam

Jesus / Christianity	Muhammad / Islam
Jesus’ birth and life were foretold by over 300 prophecies.	Muhammad’s birth was not prophesied by any scriptures.
Jesus’ birth was miraculous, as even the Qur’an affirms.	Muhammad was born like any ordinary man.
According to Hebrews 4:15, Jesus “was tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.” He lived a sinless life.	Muhammad was a sinner like all other humans. He lied, deceived, broke promises, and engaged in sexual immorality. The Qur’an never claims Muhammad was sinless.
Jesus performed miracles, which were recognized even by his Jewish opponents (although they accused him of doing so by Satan’s power). These miracles affirmed his divine claims.	Muhammad did not perform miracles, except for his claim of receiving the Qur’an as a revelation. There is little to substantiate this claim outside of his own words.
Jesus is God.	Muhammad was an ordinary man.
Jesus lived out his teachings, exemplifying his doctrine in his own life, especially love.	Muhammad preached and taught, but often failed to live up to his own teachings.
Jesus committed no evil acts.	Muhammad engaged in violence, killed his enemies, raided caravans, and plundered Bedouin tribes, taking spoils of war.
Jesus never used violence to persuade anyone to follow his teachings. He said, for example, in John 7:17, “Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.”	Muhammad often used violence to force people to become Muslims. Even the Qur’an speaks of violence against unbelievers.
Jesus taught his disciples about love and truth. Nowhere in the Gospels did he instruct his followers to harm, kill, or rob anyone.	Muhammad taught his followers to kill and rob in his name.
Jesus was pure in thought, word, and deed.	Muhammad had up to twenty wives and concubines, the youngest being nine years old.
Jesus died for the sins of others.	Muhammad died for his own sins, as any other human being.
Jesus died for us.	Muhammad killed others for his own benefit.
Jesus foretold his own death and resurrection.	Muhammad died suddenly and unexpectedly, with little preparation for his followers.
Jesus rose from the dead, witnessed by many throughout the Bible. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:6, “Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.”	Muhammad’s body decayed and remains in his tomb. Though there are later legends of Muhammad’s ascension, neither the Qur’an nor early Islamic traditions affirm this.
Jesus never contradicted himself.	Muhammad frequently changed his statements, sometimes praising Jews, other times condemning them. In the so-called “Satanic Verses” (later removed from the Qur’an), Muhammad momentarily affirmed the worship of Allah’s three daughters, then retracted it, becoming even more vehement against Christian claims about the Son of God.

The Bible versus the Qur’an

The Bible consists of 66 books, written by about 40 different authors over several millennia. These writers came from every walk of life, from kings like David and Solomon to simple shepherds like Amos. Despite their vast differences in time, culture, and status, the Bible presents a unified message—God’s character, and what is right and wrong, is consistently clear throughout. Among these 66 books, there are hundreds of prophecies, including about 300 specifically concerning Jesus, which were fulfilled in detail in his life. There are also prophecies about Israel and neighboring nations such as Assyria, Babylon, and Persia, many of which have come to pass.

All this serves as strong evidence of the Bible’s divine origin. As it says, “…for prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21) Without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it is difficult to imagine how these diverse books could fit together so seamlessly, like pieces of a puzzle.

The Qur’an, on the other hand, was written by one man over his lifetime. It contains no specific prophecies that can be verified. While it sometimes claims to affirm the Bible, it often contradicts or rejects key elements of the biblical narrative.

www.maxshimbaministries.org

---