Would Moses Condemn Muhammad?

A Comprehensive Theological and Legal Analysis of Muhammad’s Violations of the Mosaic Law

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

---

8. Patristic Commentary: The Early Church on Prophets, Law, and Novel Revelation

8.1. Early Christian Attitudes Toward Prophetic Succession

a) Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 CE)

• In Against Heresies (Book IV, ch. 33), Irenaeus emphasizes the unity and consistency of God’s revelation:
  “The law and the prophets and the evangelists and the apostles…proclaimed one and the same God, perfect, just, and good.”

• Irenaeus repeatedly asserts that true prophets confirm and do not contradict the Torah:
  “The coming of the Son of God was prepared by the Law and the Prophets.”

b) Tertullian (c. 155–240 CE)

• In Prescription Against Heretics (ch. 6–7), Tertullian warned:
  “No man is wise, no man is holy, except the man who is a disciple of the Law and the Prophets.”

• Tertullian sees any later prophet or teacher who seeks to “introduce another rule of faith” as a heretic and a corrupter of God’s original message.

c) Origen (c. 184–253 CE)

• In his Contra Celsum (Book V), Origen defends the continuity and completeness of Mosaic revelation, insisting that all new claims must be measured by the “pattern given in the Law and Prophets.”

d) John of Damascus (c. 676–749 CE)

• In Fount of Knowledge (Book II: Heresies), John of Damascus, who lived after the rise of Islam, directly addressed Muhammad, calling him “the false prophet” who “having no miracles to show for himself, says that God gave him this written book [the Qur’an].”

• John accuses Muhammad of introducing doctrines “in direct contradiction to the Law and the Prophets,” and saw Islam as a post-Christian heresy, judged by the standards of biblical revelation.

---

8.2. Patristic Summary

The Church Fathers—unanimous in their respect for the Mosaic Law—set a hermeneutical rule:
Any prophet or teacher whose doctrine contradicts, adds to, or subtracts from the Mosaic Law is to be rejected.
For them, Jesus fulfilled rather than abrogated the Law (Matt. 5:17–18). All later claims of prophecy must align with the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).

---

9. Rabbinic Commentary: Talmud, Midrash, and Medieval Jewish Thought

9.1. The Talmud: Testing Prophets and Prophecy

a) Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 90a–99b

• The Talmud is clear that the Torah is eternal and unchangeable (Sanhedrin 99a):
  “He who says, ‘The entire Torah is from Heaven except one verse…’—such a one has despised the word of the Lord.”

• Sanhedrin 90a–93b: If a prophet’s message contravenes the Torah, even if accompanied by miracles, he is a false prophet and liable to death.

  • “If he seeks to uproot even a single commandment, he is a false prophet.”

b) Maimonides (Rambam, 1135–1204)

• In his Mishneh Torah, Laws of Foundations of the Torah, ch. 9–10:

  • “If a prophet arises and performs a sign or wonder and says that God sent him to add to or to detract from a commandment…he is a false prophet.”

  • “Even if he performs a sign, listen not to him.”

• In Epistle to Yemen, Maimonides identifies Muhammad as a “madman” who “added to and took away from the Torah” and thus cannot be accepted by the people of Israel.

c) Rashi (1040–1105)

• On Deut. 13:2: “Even if he gives you a sign or a wonder…you shall not listen… For the Lord your God is testing you.”

• Rashi affirms that the test of a prophet is absolute loyalty to the Torah, regardless of signs or wonders.

9.2. Midrashic and Later Rabbinic Thought

• Midrash Tanchuma, Re’eh 13: “There will arise prophets who will say, ‘Let us go after other gods.’ The sign is not a proof, for the Law is above signs.”

• Rabbi Saadia Gaon (882–942): In The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Gaon maintains that only Moses had direct, unmediated prophecy; all others are subordinate and must conform to his Law.

9.3. Jewish Evaluation of Later Claimants

• General rabbinic opinion (from Maimonides to modern times) is that any claimant to prophecy who advocates abrogation or alteration of the Torah is a navi sheker (false prophet).

• Notably, both Islam and Christianity are viewed as forms of sheker (false doctrine) where they diverge from Mosaic law. (See Letter to Yemen, Maimonides; Kuzari by Judah Halevi.)

---

9.4. Rabbinic Summary

Jewish tradition is explicit:
The Torah is perfect, eternal, and unchangeable.
Any prophet, no matter what signs he claims or performs, who seeks to alter the Torah or its commandments is to be rejected and, under Mosaic jurisdiction, put to death.

---

10. Synthesis: The Voice of Moses, the Fathers, and the Sages

The combined witness of the Mosaic Law, the Patristic Fathers, and the Rabbinic Sages establishes a consistent rule of judgment:

• The Law of Moses is the absolute standard by which all future claims of revelation are measured.

• Muhammad’s teachings—introducing new laws, rituals, and a different concept of God—would be judged by Moses, the Church Fathers, and the rabbis alike as a clear breach, meriting condemnation.

• The patristic and rabbinic consensus is unwavering: fidelity to Torah is the litmus test for prophetic authenticity.

---

11. Conclusion

The biblical, patristic, and rabbinic traditions are united:

• The Torah is inviolable;

• Any prophet contradicting or abrogating it is a false prophet, regardless of signs or claims;

• Muhammad, by his teaching and example, would have been judged and condemned under Mosaic Law, and declared false by the spiritual heirs of Moses in both the Synagogue and the Church.

---

Expanded Bibliography

Patristic Sources:

• Irenaeus, Against Heresies

• Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics

• Origen, Contra Celsum

• John of Damascus, Fount of Knowledge

Rabbinic and Medieval Jewish Sources:

• Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 90a–99b

• Rashi, Commentary on the Torah

• Maimonides, Mishneh Torah and Epistle to Yemen

• Saadia Gaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions

• Midrash Tanchuma

• Judah Halevi, Kuzari

Islamic Sources:

• The Qur’an

• Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah

• Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim

Modern Scholarship:

• Mark Durie, Revelation? Do We Worship the Same God?

• Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics

---

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

How Did the Satanic Verses Enter Muhammad’s Mouth?

Friday, August 26, 2016

Introduction

Muslims are often quick to tell others that God allowed the Bible to be corrupted. Their underlying claim is that the Qur’an, as it exists today, is a reliable word of God, unlike the Bible. While the Bible indeed has many variant manuscripts with minor differences, the evidence for doctrinal corruption is weak. In contrast, the Qur’an itself demonstrates significant evidence of alteration, according to sources such as Ubayy, abrogated verses, ‘Uthman’s recension, and other problems. However, perhaps the greatest doctrinal difference brought forth by Muslims themselves concerns the so-called “Daughters of Allah.”

---

Summary

The Christian website Answering Islam states:
“One of the most embarrassing events in Muhammad’s life occurred when Satan inserted his words into Muhammad’s mouth, and Muhammad spoke Satan’s words as if they were from God. This incident has been recorded in Islamic literature by several early Muslim authors and is mentioned in both the Hadith and the Qur’an. Later Muslims, ashamed that their self-declared prophet spoke the words of Satan, have tried to deny that this event happened. Many excuses and denials have been made by these later Muslims to cover up the grave sin of Muhammad.”

It is important to note that the event of the “Satanic Verses” is not a fabrication by non-Muslims. It is recorded in the oldest available Islamic sources, contemporary with Muhammad’s lifetime. No one should think this is a tale invented by critics of Islam; it is found directly in early Islamic records.

This is one of the most controversial subjects within Islam. Satan caused Muhammad to utter his (Satan’s) words as if they were from God.

---

What Did the Qur’an Say Originally?

Surah An-Najm (The Star), Surah 53:19-20 states:
“Have you considered al-Lat and al-‘Uzza, and another, the third (goddess), Manat?”

Allah was already famous in Arabia before Islam, known as a deity with three daughters: al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat (note that “al-” means “the” in Arabic). Four early biographers of Muhammad wrote that these verses were originally followed by:

“These are the exalted cranes (intercessors) whose intercession is to be hoped for.”

Interpretation: The Daughters of Allah were believed to be celestial beings who could intercede on behalf of others. The “exalted cranes” was a metaphor for them. Alternate translations for “to be hoped for” (“turtaja”) include “whose intercession is approved” (“turtada”). (From Alfred Guillaume’s translation of The Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq, p.166.)

Later, this passage was removed and replaced with:

“Is the male for you and the female for Him? That, then, is an unjust division.” (Surah 53:21-22 today)

Interpretation: Those who believed Allah had three daughters were unjust to Allah, preferring sons for themselves while attributing only daughters to Allah.

These are the so-called “Satanic Verses.” In modern times, Salman Rushdie used this phrase in the title of his fictional novel, but this writing does not discuss the contemporary controversy. For the original Satanic Verses, how can any fair-minded person, Muslim or not, determine which verses were present originally? The remainder of this article provides direct and indirect evidence that the Satanic Verses were indeed present, as well as nine Islamic objections.

---

The Four Early Biographers of Muhammad: Direct Evidence

While not everything early Muslims said about Muhammad is necessarily true, Islamic scholars generally accept things attributed to Muhammad that are confirmed by at least three sources. We know the Satanic Verses did not originate from non-Muslim sources but from four distinct early Muslim biographers. Notably, three of these authors wrote before the major Sunni hadith collections.

1. Al-Wahidi/Waqidi (d. 207/823 CE) – Asbab al-Nuzul

“One day, the chiefs of Mecca gathered beside the Ka‘bah and discussed their city’s affairs; Muhammad appeared and sat near them in a friendly manner, beginning to recite Surah 53. When he reached the verses: ‘Have you considered al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat, the third, the other?’ the devil suggested words of reconciliation he had long desired, placing in his mouth words eagerly awaited from God: ‘These are the exalted cranes, whose intercession is to be hoped for.’ The Quraysh rejoiced at this acceptance of their deities, and as Muhammad concluded the Surah, the entire gathering prostrated together. That evening Gabriel visited him and, after Muhammad recited the Surah, said, ‘What have you done? You recited to the people what I did not bring to you!’ Muhammad was grieved…”

2. Ibn Sa‘d (d. 230/845 CE) – Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir

Ibn Sa‘d, familiar with al-Wahidi’s work, was himself a biographer and author of a 15-volume history.

3. Ibn Ishaq (d. 145/767 or 151/773 CE) – Sirat Rasul Allah

“[The emigrants] remained in [Ethiopia] until they heard that the people of Mecca had accepted Islam. This was because Surah An-Najm had been revealed and recited by Muhammad. A believer and a polytheist listened in silence as he said: ‘Have you considered al-Lat and al-‘Uzza?’ All listened intently; when believers heard the ‘satanic suggestion,’ some reverted to idolatry, saying: ‘By Allah, we will serve them so they may bring us closer to Allah.’ Satan taught these two verses to all idolaters, who grasped them easily. This distressed the Prophet until Gabriel visited and complained…” (Transmission chain: Yazid bin Ziyad → Muhammad bin Ishaq → Salama → Ibn Hamid → Ibn Ishaq)

4. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 923 CE) – History of the Prophets and Kings, vol. 6, pp. 108-110

“When the Messenger of God saw his people turning away, he wished in his heart for a revelation that would reconcile them. Upon reaching: ‘Have you considered al-Lat and al-Uzza, and Manat, the third, the other?’ Satan interjected, because of his inner deliberations, the words: ‘These are the exalted cranes whose intercession is to be hoped for.’ The Quraysh rejoiced, believing their gods were affirmed, and the Muslims, trusting their Prophet, did not doubt him. Later Gabriel came and said: ‘Muhammad, what have you done? You recited to the people what I did not bring to you…’”

---

Other Early Islamic Scholars Who Mentioned This Event

• Abu Ma’shar of Khorasan (787–885 CE)

• Ibn Abi Hatim

• Ibn al-Mundhir

• Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (773–852 CE)

• Ibn Mardawayh

• Musa ibn ‘Uqba

• Zamakhshari’s commentary on Surah 22:52 (1070–1143 CE)

(Sources: The Book of the Major Classes, translated by S. Moinul ‘Haq)

---

Indirect Evidence from the Qur’an and Hadith

Sahih al-Bukhari (d. 870 CE) records that when Muhammad recited Surah An-Najm, both pagans and Muslims prostrated (vol. 3, book 19, nos. 173 & 176; vol. 6, book 60, nos. 385–386; Abu Dawud vol. 1, book 2, chapter 481, no. 1401). Pagans are not known to have prostrated for any other Qur’anic recitation. Why this one, unless the recitation included affirmation of their deities?

Surah 22:52 says:
“We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he desired, Satan threw [some suggestion] into his desire; but Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in, then Allah makes precise His verses.”

Surah 17:73–75 states:
“They almost lured you away from what We have revealed to you, so that you would invent something else against Us; then they would have taken you as a friend. And if We had not strengthened you, you would almost have inclined to them a little. Then We would have made you taste double punishment in life and double after death. Then you would not find for yourself against Us a helper.”

Note: Although some claim that Surah 17:73–75 was revealed during the “Isra and Mi’raj,” both Tabari and Ibn Sa’d state it was revealed around the time of the Satanic Verses. Muslims even have a specific word for satanic whispering, “waswas,” echoing this concept.

---

Nine Common Muslim Objections and Scholarly Responses

Objection 1: Only eleven early authorities mention the Satanic Verses; others, such as Imam Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Nasai, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Ibn Hisham, do not.

Response: Many hadiths are not found in every collection. For example, Bukhari contains long hadiths absent from Muslim. Ibn Hisham, who used Ibn Ishaq’s work, omitted the Satanic Verses section because he considered it problematic. If he was too embarrassed to include it, this omission is not proof of its non-occurrence.

Objection 2: The alleged Satanic Verses do not fit with the rest of Surah 53.

Response: The current text replaced the original, and parts of a surah were sometimes revealed at different times. We do not know if the entirety of Surah 53, post verse 22, was written at once. Verses 51–53 seem out of place, as they address Muhammad personally.

Objection 3: Surah 53:19–21 may have been revealed before the verses about Satanic whisperings.

Response: Tabari and Ibn Sa’d say they were revealed simultaneously with Surah 17:73–75. Exact timings are uncertain, but even if revealed earlier, this does not negate the content. If Muslims trust the Qur’an, including Surah 17:73–75 and 22:52, they must accept that Satan can insert words into revelation.

Objection 4: The Satanic Verses contradict monotheism, which Muhammad consistently taught.

Response: Muhammad is not shown to have been perfectly consistent. Bukhari (vol. 4, book 54, no. 490; vol. 8, book 53, no. 400) records he was bewitched for a time. These biographers were still Muslims, indicating that people followed Muhammad even if he erred.

Objection 5: Many verses state that Muhammad could not speak falsely, so this story is incompatible.

Response: The claim is that Satan, not Muhammad, produced the false verses. The Qur’an’s preservation does not preclude temporary satanic interference that is later corrected by God. Also, abrogation (nasikh) is a Qur’anic principle, with some verses lost after being abrogated (cf. Sahih Muslim vol. 1, book 244, no. 1433). Thus, the Qur’an’s textual preservation is debated.

Objection 6: Tabari may have been an unreliable collector of reports.

Response: Even if so, three other biographers wrote about the event, two before Tabari. Dismissing all as unreliable is not tenable. Tabari was not uncritical; for example, he expressed doubts about some reports from people of the Torah (Woman in the Qur’an, Tradition, and Their Interpretation, Barbara Freye Stowasser, p. 28).

Objection 7: The strongest hadiths do not mention this story explicitly.

Response: Bukhari (vol. 3, book 19, nos. 173, 176; vol. 6, book 60, nos. 385–386) and Abu Dawud (vol. 1, book 2, no. 1401) document the unusual prostration at the recitation of Surah 53. This strongly suggests something unique occurred.

Objection 8: Shaykh al-Albani criticized the isnad (chain of transmission) for these reports.

Response: According to Answering Islam, al-Albani has been shown to contradict himself on isnad criticism. See Al-Albani Unveiled by Sayf ad-Din Ahmed Ibn Muhammad Amirul Islam for many examples.

Objection 9: Non-Muslims bring up this story to attack Muhammad and Islam.

Response: The event was not invented by non-Muslims but recorded by early Muslims. Ignoring criticism merely because it opposes one’s views is not the path of truth. Christians are called to expose false prophets out of love, desiring Muslims to turn from error and find salvation in the true Jesus Christ.

---

Where Do We Go from Here?

Muslims themselves are not unanimous on whether Satan’s words entered the Qur’an.

• Option 1: If Muhammad did speak as a prophet concerning the intercession of Allah’s daughters, he was a false prophet for that time.

• Option 2: If Muhammad never uttered the Satanic Verses, all four early biographers must have conspired in error. Some people may choose to follow something even if they believe their leader spoke Satan’s words.

Either way, Islam teaches that Allah allowed his word to be substantially altered and allowed even sincere followers to be led astray. The Qur’an (Surah 43:44–45) claims all previous prophets shared the same message, and Surah 41:43 claims nothing was sent to Muhammad that was not previously sent to other prophets. Thus, either:

• a) Allah allowed his prior revelations to be corrupted, or

• b) The Qur’an is itself a corrupted message.

In both cases, Islam concedes that Allah cannot be trusted to preserve his word against substantial doctrinal change.

---

Trust in God

The Almighty God is able to preserve His message. People should trust in God more.

Trust that God has preserved His word. Surah 5:46–48 states that Jesus confirmed the Torah in his time, and that God gave the Scriptures to Jews and Christians, which could be used to discern truth even during Muhammad’s life. Surah 3:48 and 5:110–111 show Jesus had both the Torah and the Gospel. Jesus’ disciples were inspired. The Bible says, “The word of God endures forever” (Isaiah 59:21; 40:8; Psalm 119:89). God’s word was never corrupted in the past and has been preserved without major error to this day (Isaiah 55:11; 1 Peter 1:23–25; Psalm 119:89, 91, 144, 160).

Trust that God desires you to know the truth and come to Him. God does not wish for anyone to perish (Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 2 Peter 3:9). All are called to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 1:8).

Do not put your trust in mortal men. “Do not be wise in your own eyes” (Proverbs 3:7). Instead, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight” (Proverbs 3:5–6). Do you believe God can direct your ways if you acknowledge Him?

Trust in Jesus: He came from God, and God’s message is preserved. Jesus is not a thief or a robber (John 10:8–10). Believe that Jesus gave His life as a ransom (Matthew 20:28), as a sin offering (Romans 8:3), by the blood He shed on the cross (Hebrews 10:19).

Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved (Acts 16:31). “…‘Whoever believes in him will not be put to shame’” (Romans 10:11). So trust God and believe He leads faithfully. He did not allow His word to be corrupted, so the Bible can be trusted. Give your life to Jesus, and He will give you peace and joy.

---

www.MuslimHope.com
www.maxshimbaministries.org
August 26, 2016

---

The Satanic Verses

Journal of Comparative Religious Studies

---

Title

“The Satanic Verses: Textual History, Islamic Tradition, and the Question of Qur’anic Integrity”

---

Abstract

The “Satanic Verses” incident represents one of the most controversial topics in Islamic historiography and interfaith polemics. Rooted in the earliest Islamic sources, the narrative claims that the Prophet Muhammad, at one point, recited verses in honor of pre-Islamic deities, which were subsequently abrogated and denounced as satanic interference. This article critically examines the historical evidence for the event, the textual variations in the Qur’an, early Islamic responses, and theological implications for the doctrines of revelation and scriptural integrity. Through the analysis of primary Islamic sources—biographies, hadith collections, and exegetical literature—this study contributes to the ongoing discourse on the transmission and preservation of sacred texts in Abrahamic religions.

---

Keywords

Qur’an, Satanic Verses, Muhammad, textual criticism, Islamic tradition, abrogation, scriptural integrity, polemics, revelation, early Islam.

---

1. Introduction

Within Islamic polemics and apologetics, the question of the reliability and preservation of holy scriptures remains central. Muslims often assert the divine preservation of the Qur’an, contrasting it with alleged textual corruption in the Bible. Yet, a critical review of Islamic historiography reveals episodes—such as the so-called “Satanic Verses”—that challenge simplistic notions of textual purity. This article investigates the “Satanic Verses” narrative, its documentation in Islamic sources, and its wider doctrinal consequences.

---

2. Background: The Satanic Verses Narrative

The term “Satanic Verses” refers to an incident recounted by numerous early Muslim authorities, wherein Satan is said to have inspired the Prophet Muhammad to utter verses affirming the intercessory power of three pre-Islamic goddesses: al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat. These verses were later abrogated and replaced within the Qur’anic corpus. The narrative, while highly contentious in Islamic thought, remains extensively documented in Islamic historical literature.

---

3. Primary Sources and Early Islamic Historiography

3.1 Qur’anic Context

Surah An-Najm (53:19–20) states:

“Have you considered al-Lat and al-‘Uzza, and another, the third [goddess], Manat?”¹

Historical biographers recount that this passage was originally followed by a now-excised verse:

“These are the exalted cranes (gharāniq), whose intercession is to be hoped for.”²

This interpolation was later condemned as a product of satanic interference and removed, replaced with the current verses (53:21–22):

“Is the male for you and the female for Him? That, then, is an unjust division.”

3.2 Early Islamic Biographers

Four principal early Muslim biographers preserve the episode:

• al-Wahidi / al-Waqidi (d. 207/823 CE): In Asbab al-Nuzul, describes how Muhammad’s conciliatory recitation led to the Meccan leaders’ approval, until Gabriel later rebuked him for reciting words not divinely revealed.³

• Ibn Sa’d (d. 230/845 CE): In Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, corroborates the occurrence and details communal reactions.⁴

• Ibn Ishaq (d. 145/767 CE): In Sirat Rasul Allah, reports that both Muslims and polytheists were momentarily reconciled by the verses, only for Muhammad to later retract them as satanic suggestion.⁵

• al-Tabari (d. 923 CE): In Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk, provides a detailed account of Muhammad’s inner conflict, Satan’s intervention, and Gabriel’s subsequent correction.⁶

3.3 Other Acknowledgements

Several other prominent scholars and exegetes—including Abu Ma’shar, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Hajar, Ibn Mardawayh, Musa ibn ‘Uqba, and Zamakhshari—reference or discuss the incident, indicating its prevalence in the early Islamic tradition.⁷

---

4. Indirect Evidence: Qur’an and Hadith

4.1. Canonical Hadith

Sahih al-Bukhari and Abu Dawud document that, after Muhammad’s recitation of Surah An-Najm, both Muslims and pagans prostrated—a unique occurrence, suggesting the inclusion of conciliatory content.⁸

4.2. The Qur’an on Satanic Interference

Two passages are cited as allusions to this episode:

• Surah 22:52: “We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that, when he desired, Satan threw [some suggestion] into his desire; but Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in, then Allah makes precise His verses...”

• Surah 17:73–75: Addresses external attempts to sway Muhammad from divine revelation, with warnings of grave consequences.

---

5. Muslim Responses and Scholarly Critique

5.1. Common Muslim Objections

• Lack of unanimity in the isnad (transmission chain): Some hadith collectors omit the incident, or question its reliability.

• Contradiction with Qur’anic monotheism and Muhammad’s inerrancy: Verses such as 15:9 and 41:42 are cited as evidence for the Qur’an’s incorruptibility.

• Redaction in Islamic sources: Later redactors like Ibn Hisham are known to have removed the episode from earlier biographies out of theological discomfort.⁹

5.2. Academic Responses

Scholarly consensus recognizes the multiplicity of independent early attestations, the early dating of the reports (predating major Sunni hadith collections), and the narrative’s consistency across biographical and exegetical sources. The practice of abrogation (naskh) within the Qur’an further supports the possibility of excised revelations.¹⁰

---

6. Theological and Scriptural Implications

The Satanic Verses episode, if accepted, raises questions regarding the doctrine of revelation, prophetic impeccability (isma), and the Qur’an’s textual preservation. If Muhammad could temporarily utter non-divine words as revelation, it suggests a more dynamic—and vulnerable—process of scriptural transmission than traditional Islamic dogma permits.

Conversely, if the incident is rejected, one must explain the widespread early Muslim attestation and the textual traces in both Qur’anic and hadith literature.

The episode further intersects with the broader polemic between Islam and Christianity regarding the reliability and corruption of sacred texts, highlighting both shared anxieties and divergent doctrines of scriptural integrity.

---

7. Conclusion

The “Satanic Verses” incident, deeply embedded in early Islamic literature, presents a significant case study in the history of religions. It compels both Muslims and non-Muslims to reckon with the realities of textual transmission, historical memory, and the complex evolution of doctrinal orthodoxy. Ultimately, the episode invites renewed reflection on the nature of divine communication, the limits of human agency in revelation, and the enduring quest for religious certainty.

---

References

---

Correspondence:
[Author Name], [Affiliation], [Email]

---

Acknowledgments:
The author thanks the staff at Max Shimba Ministries and the editorial board of the Journal of Comparative Religious Studies for their input.

---

For further reading:

• www.MuslimHope.com

• www.maxshimbaministries.org

---

This article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

---

If you need further customization (citations, additional sections, author bio, journal formatting, etc.), let me know your academic/religious field and target journal style!

Footnotes

1. Qur’an 53:19–20. ↩

2. Guillaume, A. (Trans.). (1955). The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 166. ↩

3. al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul. ↩

4. Ibn Sa‘d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir. ↩

5. Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah. ↩

6. al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk (History of the Prophets and Kings), vol. 6, pp. 108–110. ↩

7. See S. Moinul Haq (Trans.), The Book of the Major Classes. ↩

8. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 3, book 19, nos. 173, 176; vol. 6, book 60, nos. 385–386. Abu Dawud, vol. 1, book 2, no. 1401. ↩

9. Ibn Hisham, al-Sira al-Nabawiyya (redacted biography). ↩

10. Sahih Muslim, vol. 1, book 244, no. 1433 (on abrogation). ↩

Muhammad’s Attitude Towards Children

Muhammad’s Attitude Towards Children: A Critical Scholarly Examination

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Servant of Jesus Christ
www.maxshimbaministries.org

Introduction

The subject of religious leadership and moral conduct, particularly in relation to the treatment of children, remains central to interfaith dialogue and the comparative study of world religions. This paper critically examines the character and actions of the Prophet Muhammad, as depicted in Islamic primary sources, in relation to children. It juxtaposes these findings with the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the New Testament. The analysis intends to offer a clear perspective for those seeking to understand the ethical frameworks within which these two prominent religious figures operated.

---

1. Muhammad’s Stance on the Killing of Children: A Hadith Analysis

A significant moral and theological concern arises from narrations regarding the conduct of Muhammad in the context of warfare and the treatment of non-combatants, particularly women and children. In Sahih Muslim, one of the most authoritative collections of Hadith, Sa'b b. Jaththama reports:

"The Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) was asked about the women and children of polytheists being killed during the night raids. He said: 'They are from them (i.e., they are part of them).'"
(Sahih Muslim, Hadith 4322; see also Sahih Bukhari 52:256)

This narration indicates a disturbing moral ambiguity regarding the permissibility of collateral damage involving children in armed conflict, a position seemingly at odds with modern concepts of human rights and the protection of innocents during war (see: Peters, R. (1996). Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam. Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers).

The Execution of Singing Girls

Following the conquest of Mecca, sources in early Islamic historiography report that Muhammad ordered the execution of two female singers, Fartana and her companion, for satirizing him in song:

"The two singing-girls, Fartana and her friend, used to sing satirical verses about the Messenger of Allah. The Prophet ordered that they be put to death, and they were executed."
(Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, ed. A. Guillaume, p. 819)

This episode is recorded in the earliest and most respected biography of Muhammad, and it highlights the grave consequences faced by even young women and girls who fell afoul of the Prophet's authority (see: Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 819; also referenced in al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, Vol. 8).

---

2. Muhammad’s Marriage to Aisha: Historical Context and Ethical Considerations

Among the most contentious aspects of Muhammad’s biography is his marriage to Aisha, which, according to several Hadith sources, occurred when she was very young:

"Aisha reported: The Prophet married me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine years old."
(Sahih Muslim 3310; Sahih al-Bukhari 5133, 5134, 5135, 5158; Sunan Abu Dawud 2116)

Aisha herself is quoted as saying:

"The Prophet married me when I was six years old, and had sexual intercourse with me when I was nine years old."
(Sunan Abu Dawud 2116)

Scholarly debate continues regarding the historical and cultural context of this marriage. However, contemporary ethical standards, informed by modern understandings of child development and consent, regard such actions as morally indefensible and legally criminal (see: Spencer, R. (2006). The Truth About Muhammad. Regnery Publishing; Barlas, A. (2002). "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. University of Texas Press).

---

3. The Teachings of Jesus Concerning Children

By contrast, the Gospels portray Jesus Christ as embodying a profoundly compassionate attitude toward children, emphasizing their inherent dignity and spiritual significance:

"Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
(Matthew 19:14; cf. Matthew 18:1-4; Mark 9:33-37; Mark 10:13-16)

Jesus not only welcomed children but also used their example to illustrate the humility and purity required to enter the Kingdom of God. He publicly blessed children and affirmed their place in the community of believers (see: France, R. T. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew. Eerdmans; Nolland, J. (2005). The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Eerdmans).

---

4. Comparative Ethical Reflection

From an ethical and theological standpoint, the contrast is stark:

• Muhammad is depicted in Islamic tradition as permitting or at least not preventing the killing of children in war and entering into a marital relationship with a prepubescent girl.

• Jesus, in the Christian tradition, is portrayed as a protector and lover of children, elevating them as exemplars of the qualities needed for entry into God’s kingdom.

Such divergent portraits compel the conscientious seeker to critically evaluate which model truly embodies the spirit of divine love and moral uprightness. The choice between following a figure who, according to some sources, permitted harm to children, or one who cherished and blessed them, is ultimately a personal and spiritual decision.

---

Conclusion: A Call for Moral Discernment

In light of these historical and scriptural records, I urge readers to examine the evidence thoughtfully. Consider whether Muhammad’s actions align with the standards of prophetic conduct expected of a messenger of God, or whether the example of Jesus, who loved and blessed children, represents the higher ethical path.

The choice is yours:

• To follow Muhammad, who, according to these sources, permitted the killing and sexual exploitation of children,
  or

• To follow Jesus, who loved, blessed, and welcomed children into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Servant of Jesus Christ
www.maxshimbaministries.org

---

References

1. Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Hadith 4322; also Sahih Bukhari 52:256.

2. Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, ed. A. Guillaume, p. 819.

3. Sahih Muslim 3310; Sahih al-Bukhari 5133, 5134, 5135, 5158; Sunan Abu Dawud 2116.

4. The Holy Bible, New Testament: Matthew 18:1-4; 19:13-15; Mark 9:33-37; 10:13-16.

5. France, R. T. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew. Eerdmans.

6. Nolland, J. (2005). The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Eerdmans.

7. Peters, R. (1996). Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam. Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers.

8. Spencer, R. (2006). The Truth About Muhammad. Regnery Publishing.

9. Barlas, A. (2002). "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. University of Texas Press.

---

CELEBRATING THE MAWLID (BIRTHDAY) OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD

CELEBRATING THE MAWLID (BIRTHDAY) OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD: PAGAN ROOTS AND ABSENCE IN THE QURAN

Max Shimba Ministries Org.

---

Introduction

This article examines the historical, textual, and scholarly perspectives on the celebration of the Mawlid (Prophet Muhammad’s birthday). It interrogates the origin, lack of scriptural basis, and the critical stance of renowned Islamic scholars, arguing that the practice is an innovation (bid‘ah) rooted in pagan custom rather than Islamic revelation.

---

1. The History of Mawlid

Historical records indicate that neither the Prophet Muhammad nor his Companions celebrated the Mawlid. The earliest reports of the celebration emerge centuries after the Prophet's death, primarily among the Fatimid (Ismaili Shi‘a) dynasty in Egypt (Calvert, 2010; Schimmel, 1987).

Al-Hafidh al-Sakhawi (d. 902 AH) records:

“The celebration of the Mawlid was not practiced by the pious predecessors (Salaf al-Salih) of the first three generations. It was introduced after them.”
(al-Sakhawi, Subul al-Huda wa al-Rashad, Vol. 1, p. 439)

Al-Maqrizi (d. 845 AH) provides a historical account:

“The Fatimid rulers inaugurated the Mawlid festival along with others, such as Mawlid of ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan, Husayn, and their living Imam, as well as other seasonal festivals.”
(al-Maqrizi, al-Khitat, Vol. 1, p. 490)

Further, Shaykh ‘Ali Mahfudh notes:

“The first to introduce Mawlid in Cairo were the Fatimid rulers in the 4th century AH. They created six Mawlids.”
(Mahfudh, al-Ibda‘ fi Madhahir al-Ibtida‘, p. 251)

Sunni Adoption

Sheikh Abdulla Saleh Farsy states:

“The first official Mawlid recited by Sunnis was organized by King Mudhaffar ad-Din in northern Iraq, a brother-in-law to Sultan Salahuddin al-Ayyubi. This event was unprecedented in size and splendor.”
(Farsy, Tafsiri ya Mawlid Barzanji, p. iv)

---

2. Absence of Scriptural Evidence

There is no authentic evidence from the Quran or the sahih hadith specifying the exact date of the Prophet's birth or instructing Muslims to commemorate it.

Safi-ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri writes:

“Muhammad… was born on Monday, 9th Rabi‘ al-Awwal, in the Year of the Elephant… corresponding to April 20 or 22, 571 CE.”
(Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum, p. 62)

Sirajur Rahman adds:

“The event of the Elephant occurred in Muharram, fifty-five days before the Prophet’s birth, suggesting the birth fell between 25th Safar and 25th Rabi‘ al-Awwal.”
(Rahman, Al-Mustafa, p. 11)

The Quran remains silent on the Prophet’s exact birth date and does not prescribe any celebration of his birth (Nasr, 2003).

---

3. Scholarly Critique and the Question of Innovation (Bid‘ah)

Notable classical and contemporary scholars have denounced the Mawlid as an innovation with pagan undertones:

• Imam al-Shatibi (d. 790 AH): Criticized the Mawlid as an innovation in his magnum opus.
  (al-Shatibi, al-I‘tisam, Vol. 1, p. 34)

• Imam al-Fakihani (d. 734 AH): Authored a treatise refuting the legitimacy of Mawlid.
  (al-Fakihani, Risalah fi Mawlid al-Nabi)

• Imam Ibn al-Hajj al-Maliki (d. 737 AH): Explicitly categorized Mawlid as bid‘ah.
  (Ibn al-Hajj, al-Madkhal, Vol. 2, pp. 11–12)

• Abu ‘Abdillah al-Haffar al-Maliki: Asserted the absence of Mawlid celebration among the Prophet’s Companions or their successors.
  (al-Haffar, al-Mi‘yar al-Mu‘rab, Vol. 7, p. 99)

• Abu At-Tayyib Shams al-Haq al-‘Aẓimabadi and his teacher Bashiruddin Qannuji authored a monograph refuting the practice.
  (Qannuji, Ghayat al-Kalam fi Ibtal Amal al-Mawlid wal-Qiyam)

The Prophet himself is reported to have said:

“Whoever introduces into our religion that which is not from it, it will be rejected.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 2697; Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1718)

---

Key Questions for Reflection

1. Where in the Quran are Muslims instructed or permitted to celebrate the Mawlid?

2. Where in the Quran is the birth or lifespan of Muhammad mentioned in detail?

3. Why do Muslims celebrate the Mawlid when it is absent from the Quran and authentic hadith?

4. Who is the ultimate authority for Muslims: Allah, Muhammad, the Quran, authentic hadith, or established schools of law?

---

References

• al-Fakihani, Abu’l-‘Abbas Ahmad. Risalah fi Mawlid al-Nabi (Treatise on the Prophet’s Birthday).

• al-Haffar, Abu ‘Abdillah. al-Mi‘yar al-Mu‘rab.

• al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Abu Bakr Ahmad. Tariq Baghdad.

• al-Maqrizi, Taqi al-Din Ahmad. al-Khitat (The Plans), Vol. 1, Cairo, 1999.

• al-Mubarakpuri, Safi-ur-Rahman. Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar), Darussalam, 2002.

• al-Sakhawi, Shams al-Din Muhammad. Subul al-Huda wa al-Rashad, Vol. 1.

• al-Shatibi, Abu Ishaq. al-I‘tisam, Vol. 1, Beirut: Dar Ibn ‘Affan, 1997.

• Farsy, Abdulla Saleh. Tafsiri ya Mawlid Barzanji, Zanzibar.

• Ibn al-Hajj al-Maliki, Muhammad. al-Madkhal, Vol. 2, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1981.

• Mahfudh, ‘Ali. al-Ibda‘ fi Madhahir al-Ibtida‘, Cairo, 1970.

• Mubarakpuri, Safi-ur-Rahman. Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar), Darussalam, 2002.

• Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, et al. The Study Quran, HarperOne, 2015.

• Qannuji, Bashiruddin. Ghayat al-Kalam fi Ibtal Amal al-Mawlid wal-Qiyam.

• Rahman, Sirajur. Al-Mustafa, Ansaar Muslim Youth Organisation, 1993.

• Schimmel, Annemarie. And Muhammad is His Messenger: The Veneration of the Prophet in Islamic Piety, University of North Carolina Press, 1987.

• Calvert, John. Sayyid Qutb and the Origins of Radical Islamism, Columbia University Press, 2010.

• Qur’an: Various translations, e.g., M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, Oxford University Press.

• Hadith Collections: Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim.

---

For further scholarly study, readers are encouraged to consult the original Arabic sources and the listed academic works.

---

Prophet Muhammad as a Sinner

Prophet Muhammad as a Sinner: An Academic and Theological Analysis

Introduction

While the Christian Scriptures declare Jesus Christ to be sinless (Hebrews 4:15; 2 Corinthians 5:21), both the Qur’an and the Hadith present a markedly different portrait of the Prophet Muhammad. This article systematically examines canonical Islamic sources to highlight instances where Muhammad is depicted as a sinner—requiring forgiveness, participating in violence, and engaging in morally questionable acts. The analysis will compare these findings with the Christian concept of the sinlessness of Christ, raising theological and ethical questions about the implications for soteriology in Islam and Christianity.

1. Muhammad’s Participation in Raids and the Acquisition of Spoils

1.1 Historical Context

Early Islamic history documents several military raids (ghazawat) led or sanctioned by Muhammad, during which the property of others was seized and captives were taken. According to Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495, “When Allah made the Prophet rich through victories, one-fifth of the war booty was placed in the treasury.” Likewise, Sahih Muslim, Volume 2, Book 5, Chapter 401, Number 2348, states that Muhammad’s family shared in the spoils of war.

The first recorded act of plundering by Muslims, known as the Nakhla Raid, occurred during the sacred months, a period traditionally respected for the cessation of hostilities. During this raid, Muhammad’s followers attacked a Quraysh caravan, killed a man, and enslaved the survivors, seizing their property (see Watt, 1956, Muhammad at Mecca, p. 136). Muhammad himself later led the significant Battle of Badr, where further spoils were gained (Qur’an 8:1, 8:41).

At the conquest of the Jewish settlement of Khaybar, Muhammad and his followers again obtained considerable wealth and took women as captives (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 59, No. 512; Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 510–515). Notably, after the siege of Banu Qurayza, between 700–900 men were executed, and women and children were taken as slaves (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 464–466; al-Tabari, History, vol. 8, pp. 35–40).

1.2 Moral and Theological Assessment

From an ethical standpoint, such actions are considered grave sins by Christian standards, as they involve violence, theft, and the violation of the dignity and rights of others (Exodus 20:13, 15; Matthew 5:44). The New Testament’s Jesus, by contrast, is presented as rejecting violence (Matthew 26:52) and commanding love even for enemies.

2. Muhammad’s Admission of Sin and the Command to Seek Forgiveness

2.1 Qur’anic Directives

The Qur’an explicitly records Allah instructing Muhammad to seek forgiveness for his sins. Surah Ghafir (40:55) states:

“So be patient, [O Muhammad]. Indeed, the promise of Allah is truth. And ask forgiveness for your sin and exalt [Allah] with praise of your Lord in the evening and the morning.” (Sahih International translation)

Similarly, Surah al-Fath (48:1–2) reads:

“Indeed, We have given you, [O Muhammad], a clear conquest. That Allah may forgive for you what preceded of your sin and what will follow and complete His favor upon you and guide you to a straight path.”

2.2 Hadith Testimony

The Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, Book 4, Chapter 268, Number 1695, records Muhammad’s prayer:

“I have wronged myself and made repentance for my sins. Forgive my sins...”

Other hadiths reinforce this, including Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 1, Book 2, Chapter 13, Number 19, and Vol. 8, Book 75, Number 319, where Muhammad repeatedly asks for forgiveness. In several narrations, he admits to seeking forgiveness over seventy times a day (Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 75, Number 319).

2.3 Punitive Actions

Grave punishments for criminals are reported in the hadiths, such as amputating hands and feet, gouging out eyes, and denying water until death (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, Book 82, Numbers 794-796; Fiqh us-Sunnah, Vol. 1, p. 133). Such acts, in a Christian moral framework, would be considered inhumane and sinful.

3. Theological Implications: The Problem of Sin and Atonement in Islam and Christianity

The frequent Qur’anic and hadith references to Muhammad’s need for forgiveness and the acts attributed to him contrast sharply with the Christian doctrine of Christ’s sinlessness. In Christian theology, Jesus claims to pay the penalty for humanity’s sins (John 1:29; Romans 5:8; 1 Peter 2:22–24), providing a unique model for redemption.

In Islam, no teaching asserts that Muhammad or anyone else pays for the sins of others; rather, forgiveness is based on Allah’s mercy, with no objective atonement (Qur’an 39:53). This raises questions about the justice of God and the means by which sins are actually remitted.

4. Contemporary Reflections

Modern events have shown some Muslims justifying acts of violence by citing the Prophet’s actions as precedent, particularly in regions such as Sudan, Nigeria, and Indonesia. Conversely, when Christians perpetrate violence, it is often condemned as contrary to Christ’s teachings. Rarely is similar criticism leveled against Muslims who emulate the Prophet’s example in violence.

It is vital for honest interfaith dialogue to confront these realities. Acts of violence, especially against those who worship God, should be unequivocally condemned regardless of the religious identity of the perpetrator. The model set by a religion’s founder profoundly impacts its adherents’ morality and worldview.

Conclusion

The evidence from both the Qur’an and hadith literature unmistakably portrays Muhammad as a sinner who repeatedly seeks forgiveness for his transgressions. His participation in violence, acquisition of spoils, and admission of sin set him apart from the Christ of the New Testament, who is depicted as sinless and the redeemer of humanity.
The ultimate question for Muslims remains: “Who pays for your sins?” Christianity offers an answer in Christ. Islam, by contrast, leaves the question open, relying on Allah’s discretion rather than atonement.

The invitation stands: Come to the living Jesus, the true Savior, who alone offers forgiveness and eternal life.

---

Reflection:
Take action.
Be saved.

Max Shimba Ministries Org.
May 26, 2015

---

References

• The Holy Bible, New International Version

• The Qur’an, Sahih International Translation

• Sahih al-Bukhari, various volumes and hadith numbers as cited above

• Sahih Muslim, various volumes and hadith numbers as cited above

• Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah

• Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari

• Fiqh us-Sunnah, Sayyid Sabiq, Vol. 1

• Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Mecca. Oxford University Press, 1956.

• Peters, F.E. Muhammad and the Origins of Islam. State University of New York Press, 1994.

---

Correspondence:
Max Shimba Ministries Org.
[Contact via Email]
[Share to X]
[Share to Facebook]
[Share to Pinterest]

---

Zul-Qarnain and the Setting of the Sun in Surah 18:85-86: An Academic Analysis

Zul-Qarnain and the Setting of the Sun in Surah 18:85-86: An Academic Analysis

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The narrative of Zul-Qarnain and the setting of the sun as described in the Qur’an (Surah 18:85–86) has long been a subject of debate, especially regarding its compatibility with astronomical realities. This paper critically examines the literal meaning of the Qur’anic text, the historical context of its interpretation among early Muslims, and the responses by Muslim scholars to challenges raised by this passage.

1. The Text of Surah 18:85-86

Surah Al-Kahf (18:85-86) states (various translations):

“So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of dark mud, and he found near it a people...”
(Sahih International, 18:85-86)

A straightforward reading seems to suggest that Zul-Qarnain witnessed the sun setting in a muddy or dark spring. This passage has been the subject of much theological, philosophical, and scientific scrutiny.

2. Astronomy and the Early Islamic World

It is often overlooked that Abbasid-era Islamic rulers and scholars, both Arabs and Persians, made significant advancements in astronomy. They named many stars and corrected astronomical tables inherited from ancient Egyptians (such as Ptolemy’s tables). Nevertheless, modern astronomy is unequivocal: the sun is vastly larger than Earth, and Earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. The sun never physically “sets” in a spring of muddy water.

3. Who Was Zul-Qarnain?

The identity of Zul-Qarnain remains debated. Islamic sources offer four main theories:

1. Alexander the Great: The majority opinion identifies Zul-Qarnain (“the one with two horns”) as Alexander the Great. There is an apocryphal legend that Alexander was a god who possessed two ram’s horns. This idea is not supported by historical facts, and the practical challenges (such as wearing a helmet with two horns) make this legend dubious. Nonetheless, many Muslims historically have believed that Surah 18 refers to Alexander.

2. Cyrus I of Persia: Another theory suggests that Zul-Qarnain was Cyrus I, whose kingdom comprised two principal peoples, the Medes and the Persians. There is, however, little evidence connecting the “two horns” to him.

3. A King of Yemen: Some traditions associate Zul-Qarnain with a Yemeni king who wore a helmet adorned with two ram’s horns.

4. An Unknown Figure: Some scholars suggest Zul-Qarnain was simply an unknown person, but explanations involving unnamed historical figures risk incoherence.

Conclusion: Ultimately, regardless of Zul-Qarnain’s identity, the narrative’s claim that the sun sets in a muddy spring contradicts established scientific knowledge.

4. Interpretations and Muslim Responses

View 1: Literal Interpretation – The Sun Sets in a Muddy Spring

Early Muslims, including the classical historian al-Tabari, understood the verse literally. Al-Tabari (d. 923 CE), for example, in his History (Vol. 1, p. 234) states that Zul-Qarnain “witnessed the setting of the sun in its resting place, in a black, foul-smelling spring.” Similar interpretations appear throughout al-Tabari’s works (see also Vol. 5, pp. 173–174; Vol. 1, p. 371).

Additionally, al-Tabari recounts that, according to ancient lore, the earth rests on a great fish (History, Vol. 1, p. 220), reflecting the mythological worldview that pervaded the ancient Near East.

View 2: The Sun Seemed to Set in the Lake of Ithaca, Macedonia

Some have suggested that the verse refers to Alexander observing the sun setting over a lake in Macedonia (Ithaca). However, this is inconsistent with known Greek and Phoenician geography, since Greeks had colonies far west of Macedonia, including in Spain and Sicily, centuries before Alexander. Greek writers such as Aristotle mention explorers from Sardinia, which is much farther west. Thus, no educated Greek or Macedonian would have believed the sun literally set in Macedonia.

View 3: “Spring of Muddy Water” Refers to the Atlantic Ocean

Another interpretation is that the “spring” refers to the Atlantic Ocean. Yet the Atlantic is neither muddy nor black, but blue-green, and it is an ocean, not a spring. Alexander the Great, Cyrus I, and the Yemeni kings never reached the Atlantic’s edge, nor does the Qur’an mention such a journey.

View 4: Refers to the Black Sea

Some posit that the spring refers to the Black Sea. Yet, there is no evidence Cyrus I ever traveled to the regions east of the Black Sea. Additionally, the Black Sea is not a “spring,” and even ancient Egyptians and Greeks knew the sun did not set in the Black Sea.

View 5: Refers to the Aegean Sea

If the reference were to the Aegean, Persians were well acquainted with Greeks across that sea, and would not have believed that the sun set there.

View 6: Refers to the Red Sea

If the “spring” was the Red Sea, Yemenis (Sabaeans) were familiar with Abyssinians (Ethiopians) across the water, so the claim would again be implausible.

View 7: Metaphorical Interpretation

Some propose the description is metaphorical. However, the Qur’an does not indicate the story is allegorical or parabolic, and the earliest Muslim interpreters did not treat it as such. Therefore, if it was meant metaphorically, the Qur’an failed to clarify its figurative intent, misleading its audience.

View 8: A Dream Narrative

Others suggest Muhammad was narrating a dream or vision. However, neither the Qur’an nor early Islamic sources present the story as a vision or dream. If millions believe a passage is literal, but the author failed to clarify its true nature, this calls into question the reliability of the narrative.

5. Conclusion

Regardless of Zul-Qarnain’s identity—Alexander the Great, Cyrus I, or another—the Qur’an presents the sun as setting in a muddy spring as a literal occurrence. Even a millennium before Muhammad, educated people knew the sun does not set in Spain or any earthly body of water. Early Muslims, including the companions and successors of Muhammad, interpreted this passage literally.

If Allah, the God of Islam, revealed this information, and it was factually incorrect, then this is a clear error. If, instead, the Qur’an was authored by Muhammad or his contemporaries, the mistake is explained by the worldview of the time. Alternatively, if the Qur’an’s God does not exist, then the question of error or deception is moot.

References and Bibliography

Qur’an Translations and Commentaries

1. Arberry, Arthur J. The Koran Interpreted. Macmillan Publishing Co., 1955.

2. Dawood, N.J. The Koran. Penguin Books, 1956–1999.

3. Malik, Farooq-i-Azam. English Translation of the Meaning of AL-QUR’AN: The Guidance for Mankind. The Institute of Islamic Knowledge, 1997.

4. Pickthall, Mohammed Marmaduke. The Meaning of the Glorious Koran. Dar al-Islamiyya (Kuwait), n.d.

5. Rodwell, J.M. The Koran. Ivy Books/Ballantine, 1993.

6. Shakir, M.H. The Qur’an. Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc., 12th U.S. Edition, 2001.

7. Sher Ali, Maulawi. The Holy Qur’an. Islam International Publications Limited (Ahmadiyya), 1997.

8. Yusuf ‘Ali, Abdullah. The Holy Qur-an: English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary. King Fahd Holy Qur-an Printing Complex, Al Madina, Saudi Arabia, 1410 A.D.

Historical and Secondary Sources

• Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1958.

• Yar-Shater, Ehsan, General Editor. The History of al-Tabari: An Annotated Translation. State University of New York Press, 1989–.

Classical Islamic Sources

• Al-Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir. Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk (History of the Prophets and Kings). Various volumes and translations.

Patristic and Classical Sources

• Tertullian. A Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 49.

---

Prepared by Dr. Maxwell Shimba,
Shimba Theological Institute

---

For further reading on the development of early Islamic cosmology and its interaction with Greek, Persian, and ancient Near Eastern traditions, see the above sources and the works of David A. King (Islamic Astronomy), as well as contemporary studies in Qur’anic exegesis and the history of science in the medieval Islamic world.

Islam and the Gospel

Islam and the Gospel: An Academic Exposé of Theological Contradiction

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

The relationship between Islam and Christianity, especially in their foundational texts, is marked by profound doctrinal divergence. While both faiths invoke Abrahamic heritage and affirm certain shared figures, the Quran's portrayal of Jesus Christ, Christian doctrine, and Christian believers is not merely different—it is fundamentally antagonistic to the heart of the Gospel. This article systematically examines Quranic statements about Jesus and Christians, demonstrates their incompatibility with Christian revelation, and exposes the Quran’s polemical agenda as irreconcilable with the New Testament message of redemption.

---

Introduction

Since the advent of Islam in the 7th century, Muslims have asserted continuity with the Biblical tradition. However, the Quran repeatedly contradicts the central claims of Christianity. This article examines the most significant of these contradictions, analyzes their theological import, and shows that, contrary to the claims of Islamic apologetics, the Quran does not affirm the Gospel but rather sets itself in opposition to its most foundational truths.

---

1. The Crucifixion of Jesus: History and Revelation Denied

Quranic Claim

"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 [another] was made to resemble him to them."
Quran 4:157

Christian Teaching

The crucifixion of Jesus Christ is the historical and theological core of the Gospel:

• “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 15:3)

• All four Gospels (Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, John 19) attest to the crucifixion, as does the testimony of secular historians such as Tacitus and Josephus.

Analysis

The Quranic denial of the crucifixion constitutes a repudiation of the Gospel itself. The Christian doctrine of atonement—Jesus' sacrificial death for sin—is not an optional belief, but “of first importance.”
If Christ was not crucified, there is no salvation, no resurrection, and no Christianity (see 1 Corinthians 15:17).

Scholarly Consensus

Historians, both secular and religious, agree on the historical certainty of Jesus’ crucifixion. Noted historian Bart Ehrman writes:

“One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.”
The Quran’s denial is a unique and much later claim, unsupported by historical evidence.

---

2. The Identity of Jesus: Muslim Prophet or Divine Savior?

Quranic Claim

“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].’”
Quran 3:52

Christian Teaching

Jesus never called himself a Muslim. The Gospel records Jesus as the unique Son of God (John 3:16), the Word made flesh (John 1:14), and the only Savior of mankind (Acts 4:12).

Analysis

To retroactively call Jesus and his disciples “Muslims” is anachronistic and historically untenable. It is an attempt by the Quran to subsume Christian revelation into a new, incompatible framework.

---

3. The Quran’s View of Christians: Condemnation and Hostility

Christians Are Deluded

Quran 9:30: "The Christians say, 'The Messiah is the son of Allah.' That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?"

Christians Lie About God

Quran 10:68: "They have said, 'Allah has taken a son.' Exalted is He; He is the [one] Free of need. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. You have no authority for this [claim]. Do you say about Allah that which you do not know?"

Christians Are Disbelievers, Destined for Hell

Quran 5:72: "They have certainly disbelieved who say, 'Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary'... the Fire will be his refuge."

Christians Should Be Fought and Subjugated

Quran 9:29: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah...among the People of the Book...until they give the jizya [tax] willingly while they are humbled."

Christians Are Enemies

Quran 5:51: "O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies...they are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you—then indeed, he is [one] of them."

Christians Worship Mary and Jesus

Quran 5:116: "[And beware the Day] when Allah will say, 'O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, "Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?"'"

---

4. Contradiction with the Gospel of Jesus Christ

The Gospel’s Teaching

The New Testament presents a radically different message:

• Salvation is through Christ alone (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).

• God is love and desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; John 3:16).

• Christians are called to love, not to subjugate (Matthew 5:44).

• Jesus is the Son of God (Matthew 16:16–17; John 20:31).

On the Deity of Christ

The Quran’s repeated denials of Christ’s Sonship and deity (e.g., 5:72; 9:30; 10:68) are not mere misunderstandings; they are explicit rejections of the apostolic proclamation (see 1 John 2:22–23).

On Christian Worship

The charge that Christians worship Mary is a straw man. Nowhere in the canonical Gospels or apostolic writings is Mary worshiped or elevated to divine status.
Christian Trinitarian doctrine is monotheistic, affirming one God in three Persons—not the polytheism alleged by the Quran.

---

5. Theological Consequences and Historical Outcomes

The Quran’s polemic against Christians results not only in theological separation but also in social and political animosity:

• The doctrine of fighting and subjugating Christians (Quran 9:29) became the basis for centuries of Islamic dhimmitude, whereby Christians in Muslim lands were made second-class citizens, subject to extra taxation and legal discrimination.

• The explicit injunction not to take Christians as friends or allies (Quran 5:51) institutionalizes hostility, contrary to the Gospel’s call for peace and reconciliation (Romans 12:18).

---

6. Conclusion: The Incompatibility of Islam with the Gospel

It is impossible, with academic and theological integrity, to affirm both the Quran and the Gospel.
The Quran denies the crucifixion, the deity and Sonship of Jesus, and the very heart of the Christian message. It misrepresents Christian worship and openly declares Christians to be deluded, disbelievers, and enemies of God.

Christians must recognize that Islam, as defined by its primary text, is not a friendly neighbor but a system of belief that stands in direct opposition to the saving truth of the Gospel.
For the faithful follower of Jesus Christ, allegiance to the Gospel means exposing error and holding fast to the apostolic faith delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3).

---

References

• The Holy Bible (ESV, NIV, KJV)

• The Quran (Sahih International Translation)

• Ehrman, Bart D., Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

• Cragg, Kenneth, The Call of the Minaret

• Wood, David, The Quran vs. the Bible: A Critique of Islam’s Sacred Texts

• White, James R., What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Quran

• McDowell, Josh, The Resurrection Factor

• Josephus, Flavius, Antiquities of the Jews

• Tacitus, Cornelius, Annals

---

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

THE FALSEHOOD OF ISLAM

THE FALSEHOOD OF ISLAM: A Comparative Scriptural Investigation

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba | Shimba Theological Institute

---

Introduction

We believe that if you carefully follow this topic, you will heed the Word of the true God, live it, and practice it. A true Christian does not return to religious debates with pagans, who are among the Antichrists known as Muslims. This is a scriptural investigation comparing the message of the Holy Qur’an and the Holy Bible, from someone who lived in a mosque and by God’s grace came to know the truth. Welcome, and we wish you fruitful reading.

---

BEGINNING

We greet you again in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Once more, our God, whose name is YEHOVAH, has granted us grace to share these words of life—the TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD, THE BIBLE.
First, I wish to clarify that this platform is not for religious purposes, but to sound the trumpet so that the unique and true children of God can flee from worship contrary to God’s will.
We do not care what religion, nation, or language you are from; our aim is to examine the Holy Scriptures and uncover their truth.
May the Lord bless you as you seek the truth.

---

DO CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS WALK THE SAME PATH?

Amos 3:3
Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?
Even a five-year-old child could answer NO!

---

Reason No.1: THEY ARE A RELIGION, WE ARE THE CHURCH

Islamic Reference:

Qur’an 5:2–3 (Surat al-Ma’ida):
"O you who have believed, do not violate the rites of Allah or the sacred month or the sacrificial animals or the garlands or those coming to the Sacred House seeking bounty from their Lord and [His] pleasure... This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion..."

Qur’an 4:171 (Surat An-Nisa):
"O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth..."

Biblical Reference:

Matthew 16:16, 18:
Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus replied... 'On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.'

Acts 2:41, 47:
Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day... And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

1 Corinthians 3:23:
And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

Acts 11:26:
...The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

---

Reason No.2: THE ONE TRUE GOD

Muslim preachers often compare Qur’anic and Biblical verses to claim that Allah is the same as Jehovah. Let us examine both the Qur’an and the Bible to see if this claim holds.

Exodus 20:1–3:
And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the LORD your God... You shall have no other gods before Me.”

The warning means there are other “gods” worshipped by people. The Hebrew “Elohim” and Greek “Theos” appear thousands of times in the Bible, but there are also mentions of false gods:

• Dagon (Judges 16:23)

• Baal (1 Kings 18:21)

• Artemis (Acts 19:24–28)

Similarly, the Qur’an refers to other gods worshipped in Mecca:
Qur’an 53:19–23 (Surat An-Najm):
Have you considered al-Lat and al-‘Uzza and Manat, the third, the other one? ...These are nothing but names you have named, you and your fathers...

Thus, different gods are worshipped by different groups. The prophets served Jehovah, but Muhammad worshipped Allah. Is Allah the same as Jehovah?

Deuteronomy 6:4:
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Isaiah 45:18, 21:
...I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Psalm 86:10:
For you are great and do marvelous deeds; you alone are God.

John 17:3:
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

1 Corinthians 8:4:
...There is no God but one.

---

Reason No.3: ALLAH IS NOT JEHOVAH GOD

Qur’an 15:30–39 (Surat al-Hijr):
Describes the story of Iblis refusing to bow to Adam and Allah granting him respite until the Day of Resurrection.

Qur’an 51:56 (Surat adh-Dhariyat):
I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.

---

Reason No.4: ALLAH SWEARS BY HIS CREATION, JEHOVAH DOES NOT

Qur’an 92:1–3 (Surat Al-Layl):
By the night as it envelops and by the day as it appears...

Qur’an 91:1–7 (Surat Ash-Shams):
By the sun and its brightness... By the soul and Him who proportioned it...

Yet, Jehovah does not swear by creation:

Isaiah 44:24:
I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.

Isaiah 45:22–23:
...For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn...

Hebrews 6:13:
For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself...

Jehovah swears by Himself, never by creation.

---

Reason No.5: THEIR GOD DENIES JESUS CHRIST

Qur’an 19:35 (Surat Maryam):
It is not befitting for Allah to take a son; exalted is He!

Qur’an 112:1–4 (Surat Al-Ikhlas):
He begets not, nor is He begotten...

The Bible teaches:

1 John 2:22–26:
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son...

Colossians 1:13–15:
He has rescued us from the dominion of darkness... The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

John 3:16–17:
For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son...

---

Reason No.6: GOD’S NAME

Qur’an 17:110 (Surat Al-Isra):
Say, “Call upon Allah or call upon the Most Merciful. Whichever [name] you call—to Him belong the best names...”

The name Allah appears 2,866 times in the Qur’an, but the Bible reveals God’s name as Jehovah:

Exodus 6:2–3:
God spoke to Moses and said, “I am the LORD [YHWH]... I appeared to Abraham... as God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them.”

Psalm 83:18:
That men may know that You, whose name alone is the LORD [YHWH], are the Most High over all the earth.

NB: “God” is a title, not a personal name.

---

Reason No.7: THE MESSAGE IS DIFFERENT

While Islamic apologists claim the prophets taught the same message as Muhammad, the evidence is otherwise:

Qur’an 41:6 (Surat Fussilat):
Say, “I am only a man like you, to whom it has been revealed that your god is one God...”

Qur’an 29:46–47 (Surat Al-Ankabut):
...Our God and your God is one; and to Him we submit.

However, the Bible teaches distinct revelation through Jesus Christ and the apostolic church.

---

Reason No.8: ANGELS—GABRIEL OR MICHAEL?

Islam claims Gabriel (Jibril) is the chief angel:

Qur’an 81:19–21 (Surat At-Takwir):
Indeed, the Qur’an is the word of a noble messenger [Jibril], having power and with the Owner of the Throne, secure [in position]...

The Bible presents Michael as the chief angel:

Jude 1:9:
But even the archangel Michael... said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

Therefore, the chief angels differ.

---

Reason No.9: THE CHOSEN CITY—MECCA OR JERUSALEM?

Qur’an 27:91 (Surat An-Naml):
I am commanded only to worship the Lord of this city [Mecca]...

Qur’an 3:96 (Surat Al-Imran):
Indeed, the first House [of worship] established for mankind was that at Mecca...

Jehovah chose Jerusalem:

2 Chronicles 6:4–6:
...But I have chosen Jerusalem for my Name to be there...

---

Reason No.10: PURITY AND HOLINESS

Qur’an 53:32 (Surat An-Najm):
...So do not claim yourselves to be pure. He is most knowing of who fears Him.

Qur’an 12:53 (Surat Yusuf):
And I do not acquit myself. Indeed, the soul is a persistent enjoiner of evil...

Jehovah commands His people to be holy:

Isaiah 43:3:
For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel...

Leviticus 11:44:
Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy...

1 Peter 1:15–16:
Be holy, because I am holy.

---

Reason No.11: PARADISE—ISLAMIC OR CHRISTIAN?

Luke 20:34–36:
The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy... will neither marry nor be given in marriage...

Islamic Paradise (Jannah) is described as a place of physical pleasures:

Qur’an 39:20:
But those who fear their Lord will have chambers, above them chambers built high...

Qur’an 47:15:
The description of Paradise... rivers of water... milk... wine... honey... and therein are for them purified spouses...

Sunan Ibn Majah, vol. 5, p. 546, Hadith 4337:
Each man will marry seventy-two wives in Paradise...

Christian heaven, in contrast, is spiritual (Romans 14:17; Revelation 7:16–17).

---

Reason No.12: THE FINAL DESTINY OF ALLAH AND HIS FOLLOWERS

Qur’an 51:56:
And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.

Qur’an 6:128:
The Fire is your residence, wherein you will abide eternally...

Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 6, hadith 371, p. 353:
Allah will place His foot in Hell and it will say “Enough! Enough!”

Biblical teaching is different:
Matthew 25:41, 46; Revelation 20:10, 21:8:
The lake of fire is prepared for the devil and his angels, and the wicked will be eternally separated from God.

---

Conclusion

It is evident from the Qur’an, Bible, and Islamic Hadith that Allah, worshipped by Muslims, is not the same as Jehovah, the God worshipped by Christians. If you, as a Muslim, realize this truth, I urge you by the grace of Christ to receive Jesus into your life and escape the worship of Satan, saving your soul from eternal death.

Welcome to Jesus Christ our Lord.

Revelation 3:20:
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock...

---

REFERENCES

The Holy Bible

• New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

• All scripture citations per standard Bible referencing.

The Qur’an

• Saheeh International. Riyadh: Dar Abul-Qasim, 1997.

• All surah/ayah citations per standard Qur’anic referencing.

Hadith Collections

• Sunan Ibn Majah

• Sahih al-Bukhari

---

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary. Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, 2001.

• Pickthall, M. Marmaduke. The Meaning of the Glorious Koran. Penguin Classics, 2000.

• Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. Yale University Press, 1997.

• Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. IVP Academic, 1988.

• Lings, Martin. Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources. Inner Traditions, 2006.

• Geisler, Norman L., and Abdul Saleeb. Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross. Baker Books, 2002.

• Kateregga, Badru D. and David W. Shenk. A Muslim and a Christian in Dialogue. Herald Press, 1997.

---

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

The Term “God” in Arabic is Ilāh

The Term “God” in Arabic is Ilāh: A Scholarly Examination of the Shahada, Qur’anic Text, and Theological Implications

By Max Shimba

---

Abstract

This article investigates the linguistic and theological distinctions between the Arabic terms ilāh (god) and Allāh (Allah) within the context of Islamic doctrine, particularly the Shahada (Islamic declaration of faith). Drawing from the Qur’an, authoritative hadith, and academic sources, it examines how these terms are used and their implications for interfaith discourse.

---

1. Introduction

In Islamic theology, the Shahada—“Lā ilāha illā Allāh Muhammadur Rasūl Allāh”—is central, representing the cornerstone of Muslim belief. It can be found explicitly in the Qur’an (e.g., 3:18), as well as in canonical hadith collections such as Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 4, Book 56, No. 725). The meaning and translation of key terms within the Shahada are crucial to understanding Islamic monotheism and its distinction from other faiths.

---

2. Linguistic Analysis of the Shahada

The Arabic phrase lā ilāha illā Allāh can be broken down as follows:

• lā (لا): “There is no,” “not,” “none” (Wehr, 1976).

• ilāha (إِلَـٰهَ): “god,” “deity,” “object of worship.” This is a generic noun (Lane, 1863).

• illā (إِلَّا): “except,” “but.” A contraction of in-lā (Wehr, 1976).

• Allāh (اللّٰه): Proper noun; the unique name for the one God in Islam. Not translated; considered linguistically and theologically unique (Peters, 2003).

Thus, the phrase translates as:
“There is no god except Allah.”

---

3. Academic and Lexical Sources

3.1. Lexicographical Evidence

• Hans Wehr, “A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic” (1976): Defines ilāh as “a god, deity, object of worship.”

• Edward William Lane, “An Arabic-English Lexicon” (1863): Notes ilāh as a generic term, while Allāh is used exclusively for the God of Islam.

• Al-Tafsir.com (Saudi Government’s Official Portal): Confirms that ilāh is generic, while Allāh is not translated and has no equivalent in other languages.

3.2. Theological and Qur’anic Context

• The Qur’an 3:18: “Allah bears witness that there is no deity except Him…” (Sahih International translation).

• Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 56, Hadith 725: Records the Shahada and its significance in Islamic faith.

• Tafsir al-Jalalayn: Explains that ilāh denotes any object of worship, but Allāh is unique and incomparable.

---

4. Theological Implications

4.1. The Uniqueness of Allah

The Qur’an states in Surah al-Ikhlas (112:4): “And there is none comparable to Him.” Islamic theology maintains that Allāh is sui generis, without partner, equal, or likeness (Nasr, 2003). To equate Allah with deities of other religions—such as the Christian concept of God, Buddha, or traditional African gods—contradicts Islamic monotheism (tawhid).

4.2. Polemics and Interfaith Discourse

The issue of translating Allāh as “God” in other languages is a subject of ongoing theological debate (see Reynolds, 2010; Peters, 2003). While Arabic-speaking Christians may use “Allah” for God, Islamic doctrine maintains a theological distinction: ilāh can refer to any deity, while Allāh refers uniquely to the one God of Islam.

---

5. Conclusion

A careful analysis of the Shahada and relevant Arabic terms demonstrates a clear distinction:

• ilāh = a generic term for “god” or “deity”

• Allāh = the unique, untranslatable proper name for the God of Islam

Therefore, the assertion that “Allah is not simply ‘God’” but is uniquely identified in Islamic theology is well-supported by both textual and academic evidence.

---

6. References

• The Qur’an, Surah Al-Imran 3:18, Surah Al-Ikhlas 112:4 (Sahih International translation)

• Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 725

• Hans Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, 4th ed., 1976

• Edward William Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, 1863

• Juan Eduardo Campo (ed.), Encyclopedia of Islam, 2009

• John L. Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, 2011

• Gabriel Said Reynolds, The Qur'an and Its Biblical Subtext, 2010

• F. E. Peters, The Monotheists: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conflict and Competition, 2003

• Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity, 2003

• Al-Tafsir Portal: http://www.altafsir.com/

• Tafsir al-Jalalayn

---

Author:
Max Shimba, Restorative Justice Practitioner, Bible Scholar, and Founder of USA Theological University, Florida

---