Allah Wears Clothes Like His Creatures

Allah Wears Clothes Like His Creatures: A Theological Inquiry

By Max Shimba Ministries Org.
Monday, August 3, 2015

---

Introduction

Dear brethren,

This matter presents yet another theological dilemma concerning the Islamic concept of Allah. The Allah of Islam, who has claimed in various Qur'anic verses that He has no likeness and cannot be compared to anything in existence, surprisingly contradicts Himself in certain hadith literature by implying that He wears garments, possesses physical attributes such as hands, eyes, and ears — essentially, attributes analogous to His creation.

In this paper, we shall examine this issue critically, drawing upon authoritative Islamic sources to demonstrate how such descriptions contradict the fundamental Islamic claim of Allah’s absolute incomparability (tanzīh) and transcendence.

---

Textual Evidence from Islamic Sources

Let us proceed directly to the evidences drawn from the hadith collections revered in Islam:

1. Allah Wears Clothes

In an authentic Hadith Qudsi, Allah is quoted as saying:

"Al-Kibriyā’ ridā’ī, wa al-‘aẓamah izārī."
"Pride is My upper garment and greatness is My lower garment."¹

This statement presents a profound theological problem. If Allah is said to wear an upper and lower garment — metaphorically or literally — it implies a physical form upon which these garments rest. This raises critical philosophical and theological concerns about the supposed incorporeal nature of Allah. If Allah has garments, does He then have a body to adorn them? And if He has a body, is He not then comparable to created beings, contradicting His own claim in the Qur'an:

لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ
"There is nothing like unto Him." (Qur'an 42:11)

Thus, the claim of Allah’s transcendence is undermined by this hadith.

---

2. Allah Has Eyes, Hands, Ears, and Feet

In another well-known Hadith Qudsi recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari, Allah says:

“…And My servant does not draw near to Me with anything more beloved to Me than the religious duties I have obligated upon him; and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. And when I love him, I become his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, and his foot with which he walks.”²

In this passage, Allah claims to possess ears, eyes, hands, and feet, once again implying anthropomorphic attributes. While Islamic scholars have classically attempted to interpret such narrations metaphorically (ta’wīl) or consign their meaning to Allah (tafwīḍ), the explicit wording of these narrations leaves significant ambiguity.

If one upholds the literal reading, as many traditionalists (Ahl al-Hadith) have, it would imply that Allah possesses bodily attributes akin to His creation, directly violating the Qur'anic proclamation of uniqueness and incomparability.

---

The Theological Dilemma

Dear readers, it is now evident that according to Islamic hadith literature, Allah is described in terms familiar to human beings — wearing garments, possessing sensory organs, and bodily limbs. This undermines the claim that Allah is utterly unlike His creation and exposes a serious doctrinal contradiction within Islamic theology.

If Allah is attributed with garments and physical traits, how then can He be fundamentally different from created beings? This conundrum raises difficult questions for the doctrine of divine transcendence in Islam and warrants deeper examination.

---

Conclusion

This analysis reveals profound inconsistencies within Islamic theology regarding the nature of Allah. While the Qur'an categorically denies that anything resembles Allah, several authentic hadith narrations attribute to Him anthropomorphic characteristics. These contradictions cannot be dismissed lightly, as they touch upon the very essence of divinity and the nature of God as understood within Islam.

---

References

---

Bibliography

1. Al-Bukhari, Muhammad ibn Ismail. Sahih al-Bukhari. Translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Riyadh: Darussalam, 1997.

2. Abu Dawud, Sulaiman ibn al-Ash‘ath. Sunan Abu Dawud. Translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab. Riyadh: Darussalam, 2008.

3. Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj. Sahih Muslim. Translated by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui. Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1976.

4. The Qur'an. Translated by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

5. Watt, W. Montgomery. Islamic Philosophy and Theology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1985.

---

Max Shimba Ministries Org © 2015. All Rights Reserved.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

---

Would you like me to prepare a PDF layout or a clean formatted DOCX version as well? I can assist with that too.

Footnotes

1. Abu Dawud, Sunan Abu Dawud, Book of Sunnah, Hadith no. 4090; also reported in Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Birr wa al-Silah, Hadith no. 2620. ↩

2. Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 76: Book of Softening the Hearts, Hadith no. 6502; also in Kitab al-Riqaq. ↩

Does Allah Have Hands Like Created Beings?

 Title: Does Allah Have Hands Like Created Beings? An Analytical Examination of Islamic Texts

Author: Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Published by: Max Shimba Ministries Org.

Date: August 3, 2015

Introduction
This paper explores a provocative theological inquiry: Does Allah, as depicted in Islamic scripture and tradition, possess hands and eyes similar to those of created beings? By examining select Qur'anic verses and Hadith narrations, and juxtaposing them with Islamic theological positions, this study seeks to critically analyze whether the anthropomorphic descriptions in Islamic texts imply a corporeal deity.

Qur'anic Passages Referencing the Hands of Allah
One of the primary passages frequently cited is:

Az-Zumar (39:67):
"They did not appraise Allah with true appraisal, while the earth entirely will be within His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above what they associate with Him."

Additionally, Al-Ma'idah (5:64) states:
"The Jews say, 'Allah's hand is chained.' Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills."

Other relevant verses include:

Yasin (36:83): "So exalted is He in whose hand is the realm of all things, and to Him you will be returned."

Ali 'Imran (3:26): "Say, 'O Allah, Owner of Sovereignty, You give sovereignty to whom You will and You take sovereignty away from whom You will. You honor whom You will and You humble whom You will. In Your hand is [all] good. Indeed, You are over all things competent.'"

Sad (38:75): "[Allah] said, 'O Iblis, what prevented you from prostrating to that which I created with My hands? Are you arrogant, or are you among the exalted?'"

Hadith Evidence
According to narrations in Sunni compilations, Abu Huraira reported that the Prophet Muhammad said:

"Allah created Adam with His own hands and wrote the Torah for Moses with His own hands."

Another hadith states:
"Allah descends to the nearest heaven and stretches out His two hands, saying…"

Theological Commentary
Islamic theologians from various schools—Ash'ari, Maturidi, Hanbali, and others—have engaged extensively with these anthropomorphic expressions. The traditional Sunni creed acknowledges Allah’s 'hands' and 'face' as mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah but asserts that these attributes are unique to Allah and bear no resemblance to human characteristics.

A popular theological analogy explains: A table and a person both have 'legs,' but the nature of these legs differs. Similarly, Allah's 'hands' are befitting His majesty and beyond human comprehension.

Additional Qur'anic Descriptions: Eyes of Allah
The Qur'an also references Allah's 'eyes':

Hud (11:37): "And construct the ship under Our eyes and Our revelation…"

Another hadith states:
"The Dajjal is one-eyed, and your Lord is not one-eyed."

These descriptions, like those of Allah's 'hands,' are interpreted by theologians within the framework of bilā kayf (without asking how) and tanzīh (declaring Allah's incomparability).

Do These Attributes Imply Corporeality?
Max Shimba Ministries contends that anthropomorphic language, if taken literally, challenges Islamic claims of Allah's absolute transcendence. If Allah possesses 'hands' and 'eyes' in any form comparable to creation, this could imply corporeality.

Conclusion
This analysis reveals significant anthropomorphic language within the Qur’an and Hadith. Traditional Islamic theology resolves this tension through principles of tanzīh and bilā kayf, affirming the attributes without likening them to human attributes. However, literalist interpretations risk portraying Allah as a corporeal being, conflicting with Islamic assertions of divine incomparability.

References

1. The Qur'an: Az-Zumar (39:67), Al-Ma'idah (5:64), Yasin (36:83), Ali 'Imran (3:26), Sad (38:75), Hud (11:37)

2. Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim compilations of hadith via Abu Huraira

3. Al-Ash'ari, Kitab al-Luma' (The Book of Flashes)

4. Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu' al-Fatawa

5. Al-Ghazali, Ihya Ulum al-Din

About the Author
Dr. Maxwell Shimba is the founder of Max Shimba Ministries Org., a theologian and religious commentator focusing on comparative religion, biblical theology, and critical Islamic studies.

© 2015 Max Shimba Ministries Org. All rights reserved.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial use only.

Anthropomorphic Descriptions of Allah in Islamic Texts

 Title: Anthropomorphic Descriptions of Allah in Islamic Texts: A Critical Examination

Author: Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Max Shimba Ministries Org ©2015

---

Introduction

Dear brothers and sisters,

I begin by addressing what I consider a significant theological dilemma for our Muslim friends, particularly those who, through the lineage of Adam, assert that Allah has no likeness. Today, I intend to provide several examples as evidence that Allah, as portrayed in Islamic texts, possesses anthropomorphic attributes akin to those of human beings. Let us embark on this inquiry together, examining this matter through the Quran, Hadith, and classical Islamic literature.

---

1. Allah Acknowledges Having a Face (Wajh)

The Quran explicitly refers to the 'face' of Allah:

"To Allah belong the East and the West. So wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah. Indeed, Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing." (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:115)

In this verse, Allah is said to possess a 'face' (Arabic: wajh), which implies an anthropomorphic feature. Is having a 'face' not a characteristic of created beings?

Additionally:

"Everything will perish except His Face." (Surah Al-Qasas 28:88)

Again, Allah claims that only His 'face' will remain after the annihilation of all else. This explicit claim implies that Allah has a literal face.

---

2. Allah’s Eyes and Tears

Classical Islamic literature also attributes eyes and tears to Allah. In Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, it is reported:

"At one time, the Eyes of Allah ached, and the angels went to visit Him. Allah shed tears over the Flood of Prophet Nuh (Noah) until His Eyes became red." (Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, Volume 1, p. 141)

Although some Muslims may dismiss this narration as weak (da’if) and not found within the Quran, it still represents a documented claim in classical Islamic theology.

---

3. Allah’s Eyes and the 'Kafir' Inscription

Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

"There was no Prophet sent but that he warned his people about the one-eyed liar (Dajjal). Behold! He is one-eyed, and your Lord is not one-eyed. And between his eyes is written 'Kafir' (disbeliever)." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 245, Volume 9)

Here, Muhammad distinguishes between the Dajjal, who has one eye, and Allah, who does not have one eye, implying Allah has two.

---

4. Allah Hears and Sees

The Quran attributes hearing and sight to Allah:

"Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice. Excellent is that which Allah instructs you. Indeed, Allah is Ever-Hearing and Ever-Seeing." (Surah An-Nisa 4:58)

Having faculties such as hearing and sight are attributes of sentient beings, further indicating anthropomorphic qualities ascribed to Allah.

---

Conclusion

It is evident from the foregoing scriptural and classical citations that Allah is consistently described with anthropomorphic features — a face, eyes, the capacity to weep, and sensory faculties such as hearing and sight. This presentation poses a serious theological issue for those who deny any resemblance or likeness between Allah and His creation.

May the Lord bless you all abundantly.

In His Service,

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Max Shimba Ministries Org ©2015

---

References:

1. Quran 2:115 (Surah Al-Baqarah)

2. Quran 28:88 (Surah Al-Qasas)

3. Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, Volume 1, p. 141

4. Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 245, Volume 9

5. Quran 4:58 (Surah An-Nisa)

Bibliography:

• Al-Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Karim. Al-Milal wa al-Nihal. Beirut: Dar al-Ma'arif.

• Al-Bukhari, Muhammad ibn Ismail. Sahih al-Bukhari. Cairo: Dar al-Turath.

• The Quran. Translations by Sahih International.

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but altering it is not allowed.

Contradictions within the Qur'an

Contradictions within the Qur'an: Do Qur'anic Verses Contradict Each Other?

Maxwell Shimba Ministries Org
Monday, August 3, 2015

Introduction

The Qur'an, revered by Muslims as the literal word of God (Allah), claims consistency and perfection in its message. However, a careful comparative reading of its various surahs (chapters) reveals statements that appear contradictory, particularly concerning how Muslims are instructed to treat non-Muslims, especially the "People of the Book" (Christians and Jews). This article seeks to examine a series of Qur'anic verses and analyze the apparent inconsistencies in their directives, questioning the reliability of the text as a divine revelation.

---

Textual Analysis

In Surah Al-Baqara (2:109), the Qur'an states:

"Many of the People of the Book wish, through envy, to lead you back to unbelief, now that you have embraced the faith and the truth has been made plain to them. Forgive them and bear with them until Allah makes known His will. He has power over all things."
(Qur'an 2:109, Abdel Haleem Translation)

This verse addresses Christians and Jews, referred to as "People of the Book," suggesting that some of them envy Muslims and wish to turn them away from Islam. However, it counsels Muslims to forgive and be patient with them until Allah reveals His final judgment.

Similarly, in Surah Al-Imran (3:20):

"If they turn away, your duty is only to convey the message."
(Qur'an 3:20, Yusuf Ali Translation)

This verse instructs Muslims to merely warn non-believers, indicating that it is not the responsibility of Muslims to force others into belief.

From these two verses, one can deduce:

1. It is the duty of Muslims to preach their religion but not to compel people to believe.

2. Allah, in His own time, will reveal His will to those who disbelieve.

3. Muslims are only responsible for conveying warnings to non-believers.

However, other Qur'anic verses present a starkly different message:

• In Surah An-Nisa (4:101):

  "The disbelievers are your sworn enemies."
  (Qur'an 4:101, Pickthall Translation)

• In Surah At-Tawba (9:3):

  "Announce to those who disbelieve a painful punishment."
  (Qur'an 9:3, Sahih International Translation)

• In Surah Al-Anfal (8:39):

  "Fight them until there is no [more] persecution, and religion is for Allah [alone]."
  (Qur'an 8:39, Sahih International Translation)

These verses appear to transition from patient tolerance to active hostility, including the declaration of enmity, threats of severe punishment, and commands for armed conflict until Islam reigns supreme.

---

Critical Questions

This textual divergence raises several crucial theological and logical questions:

1. Was it the same entity who gave Muhammad the words in 2:109, 3:20, and those in 4:101, 9:3, and 8:39 — or were there multiple sources?

2. Why would one verse command tolerance and mere warning, while another instructs hostility and warfare?

3. Is this not indicative of forgetfulness — a human trait — which should not be attributed to an omniscient and omnipotent God?

4. If it is indeed the same deity, are these verses compatible or contradictory?

5. If they are compatible, how can such opposing commands be reconciled logically and theologically?

6. If they contradict one another, does this not serve as evidence that the Qur'an is not from the true God, especially since the Qur'an itself establishes consistency as a criterion for divine authenticity?
   (cf. Qur'an 4:82: "Do they not then consider the Qur'an carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradiction.")

An infallible God cannot issue conflicting instructions, forget His prior declarations, or contradict Himself. Contradictions are a characteristic of human imperfection, not divine revelation.

---

Conclusion

These apparent contradictions within the Qur'an pose a significant theological problem. The God of the Bible, by contrast, is consistent in character and purpose. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into the world to offer redemption for humanity’s sins, not through coercion but through love, grace, and truth.

Therefore, I warmly invite Muslims to turn to the God of the Bible, who alone offers eternal salvation through Jesus Christ.

May God bless you abundantly.

---

References

• Abdel Haleem, M. A. S. (2005). The Qur'an: A New Translation. Oxford University Press.

• Yusuf Ali, A. (1934). The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary. Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an.

• Pickthall, M. M. (1930). The Meaning of the Glorious Koran. Alfred A. Knopf.

• Sahih International (1997). The Qur'an: Arabic Text with English Translation.

• The Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV). (2011). Zondervan.

• Qur'an 4:82 — on the principle of consistency as evidence of divine origin.

---

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)

---