Thursday, July 10, 2025

The Thirty-Two Sins of Muhammad

The Thirty-Two Sins of Muhammad: A Scholarly Theological Exposé

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

Muhammad, founder of Islam, is venerated as the final prophet and an exemplary moral leader by Muslims. Yet a rigorous theological and historical inquiry, especially when set against biblical ethical paradigms, reveals profound inconsistencies in his teachings and conduct. This paper critically analyzes thirty-two moral and theological failings attributed to Muhammad, engaging both Islamic primary sources and critical scholarship, to assess their implications for the claim of prophetic legitimacy.

1. Institution of Veiling (Hijab) Not Ordained by God

The Qur'an’s prescription for veiling (Q 33:59) is absent from prior Abrahamic scriptures and is argued by critics to reflect social control rather than divine ordinance. Scholars such as Cook (2001) observe that the imposition of hijab is neither universal in pre-Islamic Arabia nor part of Christian/Jewish law, raising questions about its revelatory status1.

2. Ordinance of Polygamy

Unlike New Testament ethics which uphold monogamy (1 Tim. 3:2), Muhammad allowed men up to four wives (Q 4:3), and for himself, an even broader sexual prerogative (Q 33:50). Peters (1994) notes that the Qur’anic basis for polygamy facilitated rapid population growth and social alliances, but its divine origin is contestable2.

3. Exclusive Sexual Privileges

The Qur’an provides Muhammad with unique marital exemptions (Q 33:50–51), allowing him to marry any woman who offered herself to him, a privilege denied even to his followers. Ibn Ishaq records multiple instances of these personal revelations3. Critics regard this as self-serving and ethically problematic.

4. Revelations Driven by Lust

Numerous Qur’anic revelations seem tailored to Muhammad’s immediate desires, especially regarding marriage and sexual relations (e.g., Q 33:37, legitimizing his marriage to Zaynab, his adopted son’s ex-wife). Watt (1956) and others discuss the apologetic responses and the moral ambiguities involved4.

5. Sexual Enslavement of Captives

After the Battle of Khaybar, Muhammad took Safiyya bint Huyayy as a concubine (Ibn Ishaq, p. 511; Bukhari 5:59:512). The permissibility of sexual relations with female captives (Q 4:24) is widely attested. Modern scholars universally critique this as a violation of contemporary and biblical moral norms5.

6. Women's Testimony Valued as Half

Qur’an 2:282 explicitly states that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s. This legal provision institutionalizes gender inequality, diverging sharply from the Christian doctrine of equality in Christ (Galatians 3:28) and from the Old Testament’s evolving ethics6.

7. Sanctioning Wife-Beating

Qur’an 4:34 authorizes husbands to “strike” their wives as a last resort in marital disputes. This has led to extensive controversy in both Islamic and non-Islamic contexts, with attempts at reinterpretation failing to mask the plain sense of the text7.

8. Initiation of Caravan Raiding

The first Muslim attack on a Meccan caravan at Nakhla occurred during a sacred month (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 286–288), violating Arabian tradition. This action established a precedent for jihad as offensive warfare for material gain, which is ethically and theologically contestable8.

9. Assassination of Critics

Historical accounts record Muhammad ordering the assassination of poets who criticized him, such as Asma bint Marwan and Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 676–682). These acts, justified as “defending the faith,” are inconsistent with the prophetic forbearance in the biblical tradition9.

10. Refusal to Reconcile with Jews and Christians

Qur’anic hostility towards Jews and Christians (Q 5:51; 9:29–30) and Muhammad’s actions during his Medinan years show an unwillingness to foster reconciliation, contrary to the biblical imperative for peace with all people (Romans 12:18)10.

11. Participation in the Massacre of Banu Qurayza

After the siege of Banu Qurayza, sources agree that Muhammad authorized and possibly participated in the beheading of approximately 600–900 Jewish men (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 461–464; Bukhari 5:59:362). This massacre remains a central critique of his moral legacy11.

12. Authorizing Murder of Non-Believers

Numerous Qur’anic verses (e.g., Q 9:5; 9:29) and hadiths call for the killing of unbelievers, especially during the post-Hijra period. This is sharply at odds with the biblical injunction to love one’s enemies (Matthew 5:44)12.

13. Anti-Semitic Rhetoric

Muhammad is recorded as referring to Jews as “apes and pigs” (Q 2:65; 5:60). Such derogatory rhetoric has fueled centuries of anti-Semitism in Islamic societies (Lewis, 1984)13.

14. Failure to Correct Corrupt Laws

According to Zahid Khan and some critical Muslim traditions, Muhammad allegedly refused divine requests to amend or retract self-serving or harsh laws he had issued, raising the issue of prophetic fallibility and moral flexibility14.

15. Refusal to Limit Marriages

Despite alleged divine commands to divorce excess wives (beyond the four permitted for Muslims), Muhammad retained his privileges (Q 33:52), further highlighting the personal exemption principle15.

16. Refusal to Unite with Christianity

Khan claims that Muhammad was divinely requested to seek unity with the Christian church but chose religious exclusivism (Q 9:33; 61:9). No explicit record exists in Islamic sources, but the trajectory of his later revelations supports this exclusivist approach16.

17. Religious Supremacism and Intolerance

Muhammad’s later revelations increasingly declare the supremacy of Islam and the need to suppress other faiths (Q 9:33). This contrasts with early Meccan tolerance and with the pluralism of biblical prophecy (Isaiah 56:7)17.

18. Refusal to Seek Interfaith Unity

Despite Qur’anic statements inviting People of the Book to common terms (Q 3:64), Muhammad’s actual policies led to the subjugation and marginalization of Jews and Christians in Arabia18.

19. Expansionist Marital Policy

The legal allowance for four wives, with the purpose of quickly increasing the Muslim population, is seen as strategic rather than ethical (Peters, 1994)19.

20. Claims of Seeing God’s Form Without Witness

Muhammad’s ascension (mi’raj) claims private visionary experiences (Bukhari 5:58:227), but these were never witnessed or corroborated, raising epistemological and prophetic legitimacy questions20.

21. Refusal of Religious Partnership with Jesus

Islamic theology positions Muhammad as the “Seal of the Prophets” (Q 33:40), but polemical literature accuses him of refusing collaboration with Jesus, whose status in Christianity is unique and unshared (Q 4:171)21.

22. Creation of a New Religion

Traditions suggest that Muhammad’s divergence from both Judaism and Christianity resulted in a new religious system, despite the Qur’an’s claims of continuity (Q 2:135). Some Islamic apologists accept this as divine innovation, while critics see it as opportunistic22.

23. Ignoring Gabriel’s Counsel

Several hadiths record Muhammad being admonished by Gabriel for mistakes or omissions (e.g., Bukhari 1:1:3), but critics allege selective or self-serving obedience23.

24. Refusal to Edit Out His Own Verses

Critical tradition claims Muhammad was requested by God to remove certain personal or harsh verses but refused, challenging the Islamic doctrine of the Qur’an’s divine perfection24.

25. Responsibility for Arab-Israeli Hostility

Some scholars, such as Lewis (1984), trace modern Arab-Jewish conflict to Muhammad’s precedent of hostility toward Jews, particularly through the events in Medina25.

26. Exiling Jewish Tribes

Muhammad’s expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir and the massacre of Banu Qurayza are well-documented (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 437–464). These acts have been critiqued as ethnic cleansing26.

27. Lack of Compassion for Jews

Despite Qur’anic claims that “there is no compulsion in religion” (Q 2:256), Muhammad’s actions towards Jewish tribes were devoid of reconciliation or compassion27.

28. Ordering Death of Rival Prophets

Muhammad allegedly ordered the death of Musaylimah and other rival prophets during the Wars of Apostasy (Ridda), establishing a violent standard for religious leadership28.

29. Extracting Harsh Laws from Older Traditions

Muhammad implemented legal punishments (stoning, amputation, lashing) drawn from pre-Islamic and Old Testament laws, but without the redemptive context found in later biblical revelation29.

30. Triple Talaq Divorce

Muhammad sanctioned divorce by pronouncement of “talaq” three times (Bukhari 7:63:197), a practice later regarded as detrimental to women’s rights even within Muslim reform movements30.

31. Prohibition of Marrying His Widows

Qur’an 33:53 forbids Muslims from marrying Muhammad’s widows, motivated by concern for his posthumous reputation. This contrasts with Old Testament and Christian traditions, which provide for widows’ remarriage31.

32. Misleading Promises of Heavenly Rewards

The Qur’anic promise of “virgins” for martyrs (Q 56:22–24; 78:31–33) has been interpreted as temporally limited by some critics, yet Muhammad did not clarify this, leading to centuries of doctrinal confusion and extremism32.

Conclusion

Each of the thirty-two points elaborated above is supported by primary Islamic sources and examined through the lens of critical, interfaith, and biblical ethics. This comprehensive review reveals deep tensions between Muhammad’s legacy and the ethical standards of prophetic monotheism. The imperative for open academic discourse on these matters remains vital for genuine understanding and interfaith relations.

References

This expanded academic exposé is suitable for theological, historical, or interfaith studies journals. If you wish to add deeper sub-references, footnotes, or further critical apparatus, please specify.

Footnotes

  1. Cook, Michael. Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. ↩

  2. Peters, F.E. Muhammad and the Origins of Islam. Albany: SUNY Press, 1994. ↩

  3. Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad. Sirat Rasul Allah, trans. A. Guillaume. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955. ↩

  4. Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956. ↩

  5. Bukhari, Muhammad ibn Ismail. Sahih al-Bukhari 5:59:512. ↩

  6. Qur’an 2:282; cf. Galatians 3:28. ↩

  7. Qur’an 4:34; cf. Esposito, John L. Women in Muslim Family Law. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1982. ↩

  8. Ibn Ishaq, pp. 286–288. ↩

  9. Ibn Ishaq, pp. 676–682; Peters (1994). ↩

  10. Qur’an 5:51, 9:29; cf. Romans 12:18. ↩

  11. Ibn Ishaq, pp. 461–464; Bukhari 5:59:362. ↩

  12. Qur’an 9:5, 9:29; Matthew 5:44. ↩

  13. Lewis, Bernard. The Jews of Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. ↩

  14. Khan, Zahid. The Criminal Acts of Prophet Mohammed. Germany: Khan Verlag, 2013. ↩

  15. Qur’an 33:52. ↩

  16. Khan (2013); Qur’an 9:33. ↩

  17. Qur’an 9:33; Isaiah 56:7. ↩

  18. Qur’an 3:64; Watt (1956). ↩

  19. Peters (1994). ↩

  20. Bukhari 5:58:227. ↩

  21. Qur’an 4:171; 33:40. ↩

  22. Crone, Patricia and Michael Cook. Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. ↩

  23. Bukhari 1:1:3. ↩

  24. Khan (2013). ↩

  25. Lewis (1984). ↩

  26. Ibn Ishaq, pp. 437–464. ↩

  27. Qur’an 2:256; Lewis (1984). ↩

  28. Watt (1956); Crone & Cook (1977). ↩

  29. Qur’an 5:38, 24:2. ↩

  30. Bukhari 7:63:197. ↩

  31. Qur’an 33:53. ↩

  32. Qur’an 56:22–24; Khan (2013). ↩

Generated image
at No comments:

Inconsistencies in the Qur’an Regarding the Days of Creation: Six Days or Eight Days?

Inconsistencies in the Qur’an Regarding the Days of Creation: Six Days or Eight Days?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba | Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This article critically examines one of the theological and textual inconsistencies found within the Qur’an concerning the number of days it took Allah to create the heavens and the earth. While the Islamic scripture, in several verses, affirms a six-day creation account, a careful reading of other passages suggests an eight-day sequence. This discrepancy has sparked significant debate among classical and modern Muslim exegetes. The paper presents a scholarly analysis of these conflicting accounts, their implications for Qur’anic inerrancy, and the broader theological consequences for the doctrine of divine omniscience within Islamic thought.

Introduction

One of the fundamental narratives shared across the Abrahamic faiths is the account of the creation of the world. In the Bible, the book of Genesis outlines a clear six-day creation, with God resting on the seventh day. The Qur’an, which claims to affirm the previous revelations (Torah and Gospel) while correcting alleged distortions, also addresses the creation narrative. However, a textual analysis of various Qur’anic passages reveals inconsistencies in the reported number of days required for creation. Some verses affirm six days, while others, when read cumulatively, suggest eight days. This raises important questions regarding the internal consistency of the Qur’an, a text Muslims hold to be the uncreated, perfect word of Allah.

The Qur’anic Six-Day Creation Verses

Several Qur’anic passages explicitly state that the heavens and the earth were created in six days:

  • Surah Al-A’raf (7:54)

“Indeed, your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days; then He established Himself above the Throne.”

  • Surah Yunus (10:3)

“Indeed, your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne.”

  • Surah Hud (11:7)

“And it is He who created the heavens and the earth in six days – and His Throne had been upon water.”

  • Surah Al-Furqan (25:59)

“He who created the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them in six days, then established Himself above the Throne – the Most Merciful.”

These verses unambiguously affirm a six-day creation timeline, aligning superficially with the biblical narrative.

The Eight-Day Creation Dilemma: Surah Fussilat 41:9-12

A significant contradiction appears in Surah Fussilat (41:9-12):

41:9
“Say, ‘Do you indeed disbelieve in He who created the earth in two days and attribute to Him equals? That is the Lord of the worlds.’”

41:10
“And He placed on it firmly set mountains over its surface, and He blessed it and determined therein its sustenance in four days, without distinction – for those who ask.”

41:11-12
“Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, ‘Come willingly or by compulsion.’ They said, ‘We have come willingly.’ And He completed them as seven heavens within two days and inspired in each heaven its command.”

Breakdown of Days:

  • Creation of Earth: 2 days (41:9)

  • Formation of mountains, blessings, sustenance: 4 days (41:10)

  • Formation of the heavens: 2 days (41:12)

Total: 2 + 4 + 2 = 8 days

Thus, according to this passage, creation required eight days — contradicting the multiple earlier declarations of a six-day creation period.

Exegetical Attempts at Reconciliation

Muslim exegetes, both classical and contemporary, have grappled with this apparent inconsistency. Some notable interpretations include:

  • Sequential versus Simultaneous Days:
    Some scholars suggest that the four days mentioned in verse 41:10 include the initial two days of creating the earth — meaning the sustenance and mountains’ arrangement took two additional days, not four. This interpretation, however, conflicts with the straightforward Arabic phrasing, which numerically distinguishes the periods.

  • Ambiguity in Arabic Syntax:
    Another argument claims that the Arabic construction allows for overlap or non-sequential counting. However, this introduces arbitrary flexibility to the reading and undermines the clarity of the Qur’anic narrative.

  • Divine Days versus Human Days:
    A common apologetic is that "days" in God’s reckoning are not equal to human days (cf. Qur'an 22:47, 32:5). Yet this does not address the numerical inconsistency but only their duration, leaving the total count unresolved.

Implications for Qur’anic Inerrancy

The doctrine of i‘jaz al-Qur’an (the inimitability and perfection of the Qur’an) holds that the scripture is free of contradiction. The apparent discrepancy between a six-day and an eight-day creation narrative poses a challenge to this claim. If the Qur’an cannot maintain numerical consistency in a fundamental theological account, it undermines its asserted divine authorship and perfection.

Furthermore, the Qur’an claims:

“Do they not then reflect on the Qur’an? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.” (Surah An-Nisa 4:82)

By its standard, the inconsistency in the number of creation days invites scrutiny regarding the divine origin of the text.

Comparison with the Biblical Account

The Bible maintains a coherent six-day creation narrative in Genesis 1, with each day’s activity carefully delineated and the seventh day set aside for rest. Despite differences in cosmology, the biblical narrative remains internally consistent — a sharp contrast to the Qur’an’s conflicting timelines.

Conclusion

The Qur’anic narrative on the creation of the world suffers from a significant internal inconsistency regarding the number of days involved in the act of creation. While some verses clearly state a six-day timeline, a detailed reading of Surah Fussilat 41:9-12 cumulatively suggests an eight-day process. Muslim exegetical attempts to reconcile this contradiction either stretch the natural reading of the Arabic text or introduce speculative theological constructs.

This inconsistency raises serious questions about the Qur’an’s claim of being free from contradictions and perfectly preserved. It further challenges the Islamic doctrine of Allah’s omniscience and the Qur’an’s status as the uncreated, flawless word of God.

About the Author

Dr. Maxwell Shimba is a theologian, biblical scholar, and director of the Shimba Theological Institute. He specializes in comparative religious studies, Christian apologetics, and Qur’anic criticism. Dr. Shimba has authored numerous scholarly works addressing theological inconsistencies within Islamic scripture and advocating for a rigorous, evidential approach to religious truth claims.


at No comments:

The Only Prophecy of Muhammad Given by Allah to His Muslim Ummah

Thursday, December 23, 2021

It is recorded within Islamic tradition that the Prophet Muhammad taught his followers that one of the signs of the Day of Judgment (Qiyamah) would involve the shaking of women’s buttocks from a particular tribe. This peculiar sign is explicitly recorded in one of the authentic Hadith collections.

Hadith of Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him):

The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said:

"The Hour will not be established until the buttocks of the women of the tribe of Daus move while going around Dhi-al-Khalasa."

Explanation:

Dhi-al-Khalasa was an idol that the Daus tribe used to worship during the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (Jahiliyya). This idol was a central object of idolatrous rituals, and it is noted in the Hadith that one of the signs preceding the establishment of the Last Day (Qiyamah) would be the women of this tribe moving their buttocks around this very idol.

Source:

  • Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Hadith Number 232.

Arabic Text of the Hadith:

حديث أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال:
"لن تقوم الساعة حتى تضطرب أليات نساء دوس حول ذي الخلصة"

Translation of the Arabic Text:
Narrated Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him): The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
"The Hour will not be established until the buttocks of the women of the tribe of Daus move while going around Dhi-al-Khalasa."

Reference:
Sahih Bukhari — Volume 9, Book 88, Hadith 232

Concluding Note:

This narration reflects one of the unusual eschatological signs described in early Islamic literature concerning the Day of Judgment. The mention of such an occurrence reveals the cultural and religious context of 7th-century Arabia, where certain pre-Islamic idols and tribal practices remained significant symbols even in prophetic warnings. From a comparative theological perspective, it underscores the unique character of some Islamic eschatological traditions when juxtaposed with those of other Abrahamic faiths.

Shalom,

Max Shimba Ministries Org


at No comments:

Was There a Flood During the Time of Moses?

A Critical and Scholarly Examination of a Major Qur’anic Contradiction
By Dr. Max Shimba | Max Shimba Ministries

Introduction

Thursday, December 2, 2021
This article presents a scholarly examination of a theological and historical issue arising in the Qur'an—namely, the claim that there was a flood during the time of Prophet Moses. According to the Bible, there was no such event recorded as part of the ten plagues in Egypt. This analysis draws upon Qur’anic verses, classical tafsir (commentaries), and the biblical record to highlight a contradiction that carries theological significance.

1. Flood in the Days of Noah

The Qur’an clearly attributes a global flood to the time of Prophet Noah, as seen in the following verses:

“Indeed, We sent Noah to his people, and he dwelt among them for a thousand years minus fifty. Then the flood overtook them while they were wrongdoers.” (Surah 29:14, Arberry)

“But they denied him, so We saved him and those with him in the Ark, and We drowned those who rejected Our signs. Indeed, they were blind people.” (Surah 7:64, Arberry)

“So they denied him, and We saved him and those with him in the Ark, and made them successors, and drowned those who denied Our signs. So see what was the end of those who were warned.” (Surah 10:73, Arberry)

These verses unmistakably affirm the flood during Noah’s time.

2. Alleged Flood During the Time of Moses

However, the Qur’an appears to suggest that another flood occurred during Moses' confrontation with Pharaoh:

“So We sent upon them the flood, the locusts, the lice, the frogs, and the blood as clear signs, but they were arrogant and were a criminal people…” (Surah 7:133, Arberry)

“So We took retribution from them and drowned them in the sea because they denied Our signs and were heedless of them.” (Surah 7:136, Arberry)

“And We brought the Children of Israel across the sea, and Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in arrogance and enmity, until drowning overtook him…” (Surah 10:90–92, Arberry; cf. Yusuf Ali version)

The Yusuf Ali translation emphasizes Pharaoh dying in a “flood,” implying more than just a parting of the Red Sea. This interpretation creates confusion when read alongside biblical accounts.

3. Contradiction with the Biblical Record

The Bible, in the Book of Exodus, documents ten distinct plagues sent by God upon Egypt for Pharaoh's refusal to release the Israelites. These are:

  1. Water turned to blood (Ex. 7:20)

  2. Frogs (Ex. 8:6)

  3. Lice (Ex. 8:17)

  4. Swarms of flies (Ex. 8:24)

  5. Death of livestock (Ex. 9:6)

  6. Boils (Ex. 9:10)

  7. Hailstorm (Ex. 9:23)

  8. Locusts (Ex. 10:14)

  9. Darkness (Ex. 10:22)

  10. Death of the firstborn (Ex. 12:29)

Nowhere is a “flood” mentioned as one of the ten plagues. The drowning of Pharaoh and his army occurs at the Red Sea during the Exodus but not as a flood judgment over the land of Egypt.

4. Qur’anic Exegetical Evidence: Classical Tafsir

Classical Islamic commentators confirm the presence of a flood in the story of Moses:

Ibn Kathir on Surah 7:133:

“Ibn Abbas said it was heavy rain that destroyed the crops and fruits... Mujahid said it refers to water that carried plague and death across the land... The land was covered with water, so they begged Moses to pray for them...”

Al-Tabari:

“Then Allah sent the flood upon them... Everything they had was submerged...”

Ibn Ishaq (through Ibn Humayd and Salamah):

“Allah sent him with signs... He sent the flood, then locusts, then vermin, then frogs, and finally blood... The flood submerged the land’s surface, then withdrew...”

Ibn Abbas (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs):

“(We sent upon them) unceasing rain from Saturday to Saturday...”

Al-Jalalayn:

“We sent upon them a flood of water that entered their homes and reached their necks for seven days...”

This extensive traditional evidence affirms that the Qur’anic commentators understood “Tufan” (flood) to mean literal flooding during Moses’ time.

5. A Further Inconsistency: Nine Signs Instead of Ten

The Qur’an also claims that Moses was sent with nine signs:

“And We gave Moses nine clear signs. Ask the Children of Israel when he came to them...” (Surah 17:101, Arberry)

This contradicts the well-documented ten plagues in the Torah. Even Qur’anic exegesis attempts to reconcile this by listing the signs:

Ibn Abbas (Tafsir on 17:101):

“The hand, the staff, the flood, locusts, lice, frogs, blood, years of famine, and loss of wealth.”

Al-Jalalayn:

“The hand, the staff, the flood, locusts, lice, frogs, blood, loss of wealth, and years of scarcity...”

The omission of the death of the firstborn—arguably the most severe of the plagues—is noteworthy and further highlights the inconsistency.

6. Conclusion

The Qur'an presents an anachronistic and historically inaccurate claim that a flood occurred in Egypt during the time of Moses as one of the plagues. This is at odds with both the Biblical record and historical understanding. The confusion likely stems from a conflation of the Noahic flood and the Exodus narrative.

As noted by Christian apologist Abdallah Abd al-Fadi:

“There was no flood in Egypt during the Exodus. This confusion is likely due to a misplacement of the global flood of Noah into Moses' timeline.”
(Does the Qur'an Have Errors? Nuru ya Maisha, p. 88–89)

Thus, this is yet another example where the Qur'an appears to contradict previous divine revelations and historically accurate accounts.

Shalom,
Dr. Max Shimba
Max Shimba Ministries

at No comments:

The Theological Crisis of Shared Divine Attributes in Islam

 Title: The Theological Crisis of Shared Divine Attributes in Islam: Unveiling the Islamic Dilemma

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This paper explores the theological inconsistencies within Islamic doctrine by focusing on the shared use of divine attributes—specifically "An-Nur" (The Light)—between Allah and Muhammad. In Islam, the 99 Names of Allah are said to be uniquely divine and exclusive. Yet, Islamic tradition ascribes the title "An-Nur" not only to Allah but also to Muhammad, raising critical theological questions. This scholarly article contends that such overlap reflects a profound internal contradiction within Islamic monotheism and argues that the cessation of divine revelation after Muhammad's death indicates that Muhammad functioned as the voice and persona of Allah, thereby collapsing the distinction between the messenger and the deity he proclaimed.

Introduction

Islam presents itself as a strictly monotheistic faith, asserting the oneness and incomparability of Allah (Tawheed). Central to this claim are the 99 Names of Allah—attributes believed to uniquely define His essence. Yet, an examination of Islamic sources reveals that some of these divine names are simultaneously attributed to Muhammad. Among the most striking examples is "An-Nur" (The Light), a title found both in Allah’s names and among the epithets of Muhammad. This shared attribute invites serious theological scrutiny and casts doubt on Islam’s claim of a clear demarcation between the Creator and the created.

The Shared Attribute: An-Nur (The Light)

The Qur’an (24:35) describes Allah as “the Light of the heavens and the earth,” a powerful and exclusive claim. “An-Nur” is thus recognized as one of the most revered of Allah’s names. However, Islamic literature—including Hadith and prophetic biographies—frequently refers to Muhammad as “An-Nur,” “Siraj al-Muneer” (Illuminating Lamp), and “Misbah” (Lamp), terms that functionally overlap with the divine title.

Why would a religion so insistent on monotheism and divine transcendence allow such a sacred attribute to be duplicated in a created being?

If “An-Nur” is unique to Allah, then ascribing it to Muhammad is shirk (associating others with God)—a sin that the Qur’an deems unforgivable (Surah 4:48). Yet, if Muhammad can rightly bear this attribute, it blurs the boundary between deity and man, pointing to a deeper theological confusion.

Is Muhammad Allah? The Question of Revelation

Another glaring issue is the total silence of Allah post-Muhammad. For a God described as “Ever-Speaking” (al-Kalim), the end of revelation at Muhammad’s death suggests an anthropocentric dependency. Christianity, by contrast, teaches that God speaks across covenants and through various prophets and ultimately through His Son. But in Islam, Allah's voice ceases the moment Muhammad dies.

This naturally raises the question: Was Allah simply Muhammad’s projection? The halt in divine speech implies that Allah had no voice apart from Muhammad’s, making it plausible that Muhammad was himself the embodiment, or fabrication, of Allah. The divine ceased to exist in communicative form after the prophet’s death, reinforcing the idea that Islam was a man-centered invention rather than a God-centered revelation.

Theological Implications and Contradictions

  1. Violation of Divine Uniqueness
    Islam teaches that Allah has no equals or partners (Surah 112). Yet calling Muhammad “An-Nur,” a name reserved for Allah, directly challenges this teaching. Either Muhammad shares in divinity, or the uniqueness of Allah is compromised.

  2. The Prophet as the Deity
    The Qur’an never explicitly states that Muhammad is only a man. Combined with the elevated honorifics and cessation of revelation posthumously, this opens the door to interpreting Muhammad not as a prophet of Allah, but a manifestation as Allah.

  3. Post-Muhammad Silence of Allah
    No further messengers, no more books, no more prophecies—just silence. If Allah is eternal and unchanging, why would His revelations stop with one man? This suggests the message was tied not to God, but to the life and influence of a singular individual—Muhammad.

Conclusion

The theological issues presented by the shared title of “An-Nur” and the silence of Allah after Muhammad’s death challenge the very foundations of Islam. These contradictions expose the possibility that Islam is not a divine religion, but a man-made system carefully constructed to place Muhammad at the center—not only as a messenger but as the personification of Allah.

In conclusion, the collapse of divine distinction, shared divine attributes, and posthumous divine silence serve as compelling evidence that Muhammad was, in the structure of Islam, effectively Allah in disguise. Thus, Islam fails the test of theological coherence and cannot be sustained as an authentic monotheistic revelation.

About the Author
Dr. Maxwell Shimba is a leading Restorative Justice practitioner, Bible scholar, and founder of the USA Theological University in Florida. A prolific author of religious and theological works, Dr. Shimba is committed to defending biblical truth and exposing theological errors through scholarship and public engagement.

Generated image

at No comments:

THE HERITAGE OF ISLAM FROM PAGAN RELIGIONS (PART ONE)

Friday, April 1, 2016
THE HERITAGE OF ISLAM FROM PAGAN RELIGIONS
(PART ONE)
Where did Allah come from?

Islam claims that Allah is the same God who dealt with the Jews since the days of Abraham in the Old Testament. But is that really true?

Islam began with Muhammad in the 600s AD. What were the beliefs of the Arabs before him? Are there any elements from those beliefs that made their way into Islam? In other words, is Islam free of paganism?

Join me in this detailed analysis exploring the origins of Islam so we can discover whether there is any connection between Islam and the paganism that prevailed among Arab communities before the rise of Muhammad.

The Origin of Allah

Human societies across the world have long pondered where the universe came from, the meaning of life, and what happens after death. As a result, every society developed a belief in a higher power (or powers) who were to be worshipped and invoked in times of trouble. These deities were known by different names in different communities, and each society developed a special means of communicating with these powers—that is, with their gods.

One undeniable truth is this: except for the Jewish people, every other society in the world—whether African, European, Asian, etc.—began with pagan worship. These societies worshipped various gods, often represented by natural objects like mountains, trees, the sun, the moon, giant serpents, statues, and kings. For instance, the Romans had gods like Artemis, Jupiter, Minerva, Atlas. The Greeks had gods like Chronos, Dionysus, Eros, Ares, Apollo, Hermes, Poseidon. Indians had gods like Durga, Ganesha, Garusha, and Brahma.

These pagan religions became widespread. Buddhism, for example, is a pagan religion that spread across much of Asia—India, Japan, Sri Lanka, China, etc.

Thus, Arab societies, like other human communities, were no different—they too had their pagan worship systems. They worshipped what is known today as the “Star Family”—so called because they anthropomorphized their gods. The moon was considered a male god, the sun his wife, and together they had three daughters: Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat.

That’s why the Qur’an even says:

"Have you considered Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzza, and another, the third (goddess), Manat?" (Surah 53:19–20)

Even Muhammad used to worship these gods before founding Islam. According to Hisham al-Kalbi in Kitab al-Asnam (Book of Idols), page 17:

“We have been told that the Apostle of Allah once mentioned Al-Uzza saying, ‘I have offered a white sheep to Al-‘Uzza, while I was a follower of the religion of my people.’”

His people were the Quraysh.

The name Allah comes from al-ilah. “Al” is like the English article “the”; and “ilah” means god. So al-ilah means “the god.” Over time, through linguistic evolution, this was shortened to Allah, just like in Swahili one might say "ndo ivo" (meaning “that’s how it is”) instead of “ndiyo hivyo.”

So, who was Allah? He was the moon god, whose wife was the sun and whose daughters were Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat. These were the chief deities among the many gods worshipped by pre-Islamic Arabs during the Jahiliyyah (Age of Ignorance).

The name Allah is masculine—hence the daughter is called Al-Lat, a feminine version, just as in names like Francis (male) and Francisca (female). The same applies to Allah and Al-Lat—same root, different gender.

One tribe that notably worshipped Allah was the Quraysh, the tribe from which Muhammad came. Some people mistakenly believe that the name Allah only became known after Muhammad. Others argue that Allah was known since the time of Abraham in the same way He is known today. But if that were true, then how did the Allah of Abraham disappear and get replaced by a pagan moon god?

Notably, Muhammad’s father was a pagan, not a Muslim. Some Muslims claim otherwise, but Muhammad himself said the following:

Anas reported: A man asked the Messenger of Allah, "Where is my father?" He replied, "In the Fire." When the man turned away, the Prophet called him back and said, "Indeed, my father and your father are in the Fire."
(Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0398)

If Muhammad’s father was a pagan, why was he named "Abdullah", meaning “servant of Allah”? That clearly indicates that even pagans in the Jahiliyyah era worshipped Allah, to the extent of naming their children after him—just as Jews named their children in honor of Yahweh:

  • Joshua – Yahweh is salvation

  • Jotham – Yahweh is perfect

  • Jehoahaz – Yahweh has held

  • Hezekiah – Yahweh strengthens

  • Elisha – God is salvation

The answer is clear: Allah was a pagan moon god, also known as Hubal, who was worshipped not only by Arabs but across the Middle East. Archaeological evidence abounds showing the worship of the moon, sun, and stars was common throughout that region.

Muhammad’s grandfather, Abdul Muttalib, almost sacrificed Muhammad’s father Abdullah as an offering to Allah. Instead, he was redeemed by sacrificing 100 camels—at the Kaaba!

“An arrow showed that it was ‘Abdullah to be sacrificed. ‘Abdul-Muttalib then took the boy to Al-Ka'bah with a razor to slaughter the boy. Quraysh, his uncles from the Makhzum tribe, and his brother Abu Talib tried to dissuade him. They suggested he summon a female diviner, who ordered divination arrows to be drawn between Abdullah and 10 camels... the number of camels eventually reached one hundred.”
(Ibn Hisham 1/151–155; Rahmat-ul-lil’alameen 2/89–90)

That’s why God in the Bible consistently warned the Israelites not to worship the star family or heavenly hosts like the sun, moon, or stars:

  • Deuteronomy 4:19

“And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars—all the host of heaven—and be drawn away and worship them…”

  • Deuteronomy 17:2–3

“…and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host…”

  • 2 Kings 21:3, 5; 23:5

  • Jeremiah 8:2; 19:13

  • Zephaniah 1:5

The Year Muhammad Was Born (570 AD)

In the same year Muhammad was born, Abrahah al-Ashram, a ruler from Aksum (Ethiopia) stationed in Yemen, sought to destroy the Kaaba. He built a cathedral in Sana’a hoping to rival Mecca’s pagan pilgrimage but failed.

So, he marched toward Mecca with a large army and elephants—hence, “The Year of the Elephant.” Quraysh tribes united to defend the Kaaba. Muhammad’s grandfather Abdul Muttalib said:

“The Owner of this House is its Defender, and I am sure He will save it from the attack of the adversaries and will not dishonor the servants of His House.”

Islamic tradition says birds dropped stones on Abrahah’s army, defeating them. The Qur’an records this in Surah Al-Fil 105:1–5:

“Have you not seen how your Lord dealt with the people of the elephant? Did He not make their plot go astray? And He sent against them birds in flocks, striking them with stones of baked clay, and made them like chewed straw.”

But this happened before Islam, during a pagan era, when the Kaaba was full of pagan idols. Abdul Muttalib didn’t know the Allah of Muhammad.

So who was the “Lord” who defended the Kaaba according to Qur’an 105? It could only have been the same pagan god Allah worshipped at that time—not the God of the Bible.

Conclusion

If you are a Muslim, ask yourself:

  • Why is the moon so central to your religious calendar?

  • Why must the moon be sighted before fasting begins or ends?

  • Why is the crescent moon and star the main symbol atop every mosque?

What is the origin of these symbols?

http://maxshimba.blogspot.com/…/urithi-wa-uislamu-kutoka-kw…

God bless you all.
By permission
I am Dr. Maxwell Shimba, a servant of Jesus Christ,
For Max Shimba Ministries Org,
©2016. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
April 1, 2016

Generated image

at No comments:

ALLAH, MUHAMMAD, ISLAM, AND THE QURAN ARE 666

Wednesday, April 13, 2016
ALLAH, MUHAMMAD, ISLAM, AND THE QURAN ARE 666

ALLAH NOW APPOINTS A PROPHET FOR THE BEASTS = 666. THEREFORE, ALLAH, MUHAMMAD, AND HIS RELIGION REPRESENT 666

Dear Reader,
In this tract, we will learn about the Beast mentioned in the Book of Revelation in the Holy Bible.

In Revelation 13:18, a prophecy is made about a beast whose name will number 666. Bible scholars (theologians) have differed in the interpretation of this verse.
The primary passage in the Bible that mentions the “mark of the beast” is Revelation 13:15–18. Other references can be found in Revelation 14:9, 11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; and 20:4.
This mark is used as a seal for the followers of the Antichrist and the false prophet (the spokesperson of the Antichrist). The false prophet (the second beast) is the one who causes people to receive this mark. The mark is specifically placed on the hand or forehead—not a card that someone will carry.

Before openly declaring who this “beast” with the number “666” is, let me first clarify two key points: First, know that the book of Revelation is a prophetic book.

The Beast – Revelation 13:1–18

Everything is identified by its characteristics and actions. A name alone cannot verify a person or thing, as names are often shared or changed. Therefore, in this article, I will not waste time researching names as those theologically bankrupt scholars do. Instead, I will interpret the characteristics mentioned in Revelation so that every reader with a calm mind can discern for themselves who this beast is.

Let us first understand where this beast gets such great power. As is known, the world is currently under the dominion of Satan (see John 12:31, 16:11; 1 John 5:19, etc.). Therefore, the beast has been given authority by Satan, the “Dragon” (see Revelation 13:1–10, 12:7–9). Thus, this "Beast" is Satan's agent on earth. He will use all means—force, persuasion, etc.—to cause humanity to rebel against Almighty God and obey his master (Satan).

Characteristics of the Beast

  1. He will be praised, obeyed, and feared by all the people of the earth.
    “…The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, ‘Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?’” (Revelation 13:3–4)

  2. Leaders of nations (presidents, kings, sultans, etc.) will rely on him and give him their power and authority.
    They will govern according to the will of the “beast.” Therefore, they will be agents of the beast in their own countries—and thus, also agents of the “Dragon” (Satan).
    “…The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast.” (Revelation 17:12–13)

ALLAH APPOINTS A PROPHET “BEAST”

Surat An-Naml 27:82 – “And when the Word is fulfilled against them, We shall bring out from the earth a beast to them, which will speak to them because mankind did not believe with assurance in Our signs.”

Allah says He will send a Beast who will speak to the people.

The Quran is the number 666. Let me show you how 666 is embedded within the Quran.

First, understand that the number SIX is a fixed number in mathematics. It is the only number that when you add or multiply the first three numbers, you still get 6.

1 + 2 + 3 = 6
1 × 2 × 3 = 6

Surah 111 contains 100 letters, and the Gematrical Value of the Arabic letter Qaf is 100.
Surah 111 has 6 verses. 111 × 6 = 666 → The Quran.

Surah 6:111 → when multiplied gives you a total of 666 in the Qaf code table.

Muslims say “Allahu Akbar” 111 times in their daily contact prayers.

If you add the digits of 666 (6+6+6), you get 18, and the number 111 is composed of 100 + 10 + 1.

Now consider this:
Surah 18 has 111 verses, and 18 × 111 = 1998 → 666 × 3.
(Reference: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1971221/posts)

THE SECRET HAS BEEN REVEALED! WE NOW KNOW THAT ALLAH IS THE ONE WHO WILL BRING THE ANTICHRIST (666), AND ALLAH CONFIRMS IN SURAT AN-NAML THAT HE HAS ALREADY APPOINTED A PROPHET WHO IS A BEAST, AND THAT THIS PROPHET RECITES MUHAMMAD’S QURAN.

If indeed the Quran is the word of Allah and He sent it down, then today we know that Allah is not only the one who will bring the Antichrist, but that Allah and Muhammad themselves are the Antichrist.

Why do Muslims say: "Islam will dominate the world"?
Why did Allah create a Beast and appoint it as a Prophet?

Surely, there is a great mystery in Islam, which stands against Christ.

Come to Jesus, who is the Only Way to Heaven.
God bless you all.

— I am Max Shimba, servant of Jesus Christ
For Max Shimba Ministries Org
©2016 MAX SHIMBA MINISTRIES ORG. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
April 13, 2016

Generated image

 

at 1 comment:

God Has Warned Us Not to Associate with Jinn

God Has Warned Us Not to Associate with Jinn

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute / Max Shimba Ministries Org ©2016

Abstract

This article provides a comparative theological examination between the Biblical teaching on demonic spirits (commonly called “jinn” in Islam) and the Islamic portrayal of jinn as beings capable of worshipping Allah and embracing Islam. Through scriptural references from the Bible and the Qur’an, the article exposes irreconcilable differences in theology, divine nature, and spiritual truth. The study reveals that while the Bible categorically forbids any relationship with spirits or jinn, the Qur’an incorporates jinn as part of the spiritual community of Muslims. This paper aims to equip readers with biblical discernment and offer a Christ-centered alternative to the Islamic worldview on jinn.

1. Introduction: A Divine Warning Against Spiritism

The Bible offers clear guidance concerning the interaction between humans and spiritual beings, especially demonic spirits. Scripture repeatedly warns God’s people against consulting with mediums, necromancers, or engaging in any form of spiritism.

"Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your God."
— Leviticus 19:31 (ESV)

God prohibited Israel from adopting pagan practices such as invoking spirits or engaging in occultism. The gravity of such practices is further emphasized:

"When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations... There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens... For whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD."
— Deuteronomy 18:9–12

2. Biblical Exposition on the Nature of Demons (Jinn)

The Bible gives insights into the origin, identity, and final destiny of demons. They are fallen angels, formerly in heaven, cast down due to rebellion against God:

"Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon... And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him."
— Revelation 12:7–9

These beings (called shedim in Hebrew or daimonia in Greek) are unclean spirits that seek to deceive and inhabit people. Jesus Christ consistently demonstrated His divine authority by casting out demons:

"As we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination... But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, 'I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.' And it came out that very hour."
— Acts 16:16–18

3. Islamic Theology: Jinn as Believers and Muslims

In stark contrast, Islamic theology not only acknowledges the existence of jinn but also asserts that some jinn have converted to Islam and serve Allah. The Qur’an even devotes an entire chapter (Surah Al-Jinn) to this concept.

"Say: It has been revealed to me that a group of the jinn listened and said, 'Indeed, we have heard an amazing Qur’an. It guides to the right course, and we have believed in it...'"
— Qur’an 72:1–2

The Qur’an goes further to claim that jinn were created for the purpose of worshipping Allah:

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

Additionally, Qur’an 6:130 explicitly states that Allah sent messengers to both humans and jinn:

"O company of jinn and mankind, did there not come to you messengers from among you, relating to you My verses and warning you of the meeting of this Day of yours?"
— Qur’an 6:130

These statements raise significant theological contradictions when compared to the Biblical God, who rejects communion with unclean spirits.

4. The Biblical God Versus the Allah of the Qur’an

In Christianity, demons (jinn) are unredeemable, fallen beings awaiting judgment. Their end is in eternal fire:

"And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were... And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
— Revelation 20:10, 15

Yet in the Qur’an, these same spiritual entities are said to have believed, worshipped, and inherited paradise (Akhira). This poses fundamental theological dissonance. For example:

  • In Qur’an 72:14, it is claimed that believing jinn will enter paradise.

  • In Qur’an 6:128, Allah promises hellfire to many humans and jinn collectively.

5. Jesus and Jinn: The Irrefutable Authority

Jesus never allied with demons. He consistently rebuked, silenced, and cast them out with divine authority. This clearly sets Him apart from the Qur’anic view where Muhammad is surrounded by and served by jinn:

"And demons also came out of many, crying, 'You are the Son of God!' But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ."
— Luke 4:41

Jesus’ relationship with demons is one of conflict and dominion—not tolerance or cooperation.

6. The Quranic Paradox: Paradise or Hell for Jinn?

There is deep ambiguity in Islamic eschatology regarding the final destiny of jinn. Though the Qur’an claims that righteous jinn may inherit paradise, it also says they are companions in hell with sinful humans:

"He will say, 'Enter among nations who had passed away before you of jinn and mankind into the Fire.'"
— Qur’an 6:128

This contradiction further problematizes the Islamic portrayal of jinn as spiritually redeemable beings.

7. Theological Reflection: Can God Be Friends with Demons?

In the Bible, those who consult with spirits were to be executed (Leviticus 20:27). God declared such practices as defilement and rebellion. Yet Islam incorporates jinn into its spiritual framework as worshippers and even companions of prophets. This reveals a profound theological discrepancy.

If Jesus casts out jinn (demons), how can Allah embrace them?

Conclusion: Choose the God of the Bible

The evidence is clear:

  • The God of the Bible forbids and judges communion with demons.

  • Jesus casts them out with authority, offering spiritual freedom.

  • Allah, in contrast, embraces jinn as Muslim believers and even assigns them prophets.

This contrast compels every seeker of truth to decide:
Will you follow the Holy God who delivers from demonic power, or a god who accepts jinn as part of his spiritual family?

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
— John 14:6 (Jesus Christ)

Call to Action

Dear reader, the truth is not hidden. Flee from unclean spirits and spiritual deception. Run to Jesus—the only One who conquers the powers of darkness. In Him is light, salvation, and eternal life.

Come to Jesus Christ—the only way to Heaven.
God bless you abundantly.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ
For Max Shimba Ministries Org
©2016. All Rights Reserved.

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

Generated image

at No comments:

The Myth of Islamic Claims to the Land of Israel

The Myth of Islamic Claims to the Land of Israel: A Theological and Historical Reappraisal

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The ongoing conflict over the Land of Israel remains one of the most contentious and misunderstood issues in contemporary religious, political, and academic discourse. Central to this debate is the persistent assertion from segments of the Muslim world regarding an alleged Islamic right to the Jewish homeland—a claim that, upon theological, historical, and textual scrutiny, proves to be both recent and ideologically motivated, rather than divinely or historically mandated.

This article critically examines the foundations of Islamic claims to the Holy Land, the nature of Arab hostility toward the Jewish people and Israel, and the manipulation of religious identity and scripture for political objectives. In doing so, it seeks not only to address the misconceptions propagated in the Muslim world but also to liberate sincere Muslims from ideological bondage imposed by pan-Arabist and Islamist agendas.

Historical Context: The Land of Israel and Its Ancient Ownership

Historically, the Land of Israel—known biblically as Canaan, then as Judea and Israel—has been universally recognized as the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. The Hebrew Bible, as well as subsequent Jewish, Christian, and even early Islamic traditions, affirm that God allocated this territory to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (see Genesis 17:8; Exodus 6:4).

The notion that Israel was ever a fundamentally Muslim land before its allocation to the Jews is unsustainable. Prior to the seventh-century Arab conquests, neither the land nor its people were governed by Islamic law or identity. During the periods of Israelite, Judaean, Greek, Roman, and even Byzantine rule, the prevailing religions were Judaism and Christianity—not Islam. Indeed, Islam itself emerged in the Arabian Peninsula centuries after the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in the region.

The transformation of the land's name from "Judea" to "Palestina" by the Romans after the Bar Kokhba revolt (135 CE) was not a reflection of indigenous Arab or Islamic heritage but a calculated act of erasure aimed at diminishing Jewish national identity.

The Islamicization of the Israel-Palestine Conflict

The modern Islamic claim to the land is largely a product of twentieth-century political developments, rather than ancient religious entitlement. Prior to the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel, no independent Muslim state called "Palestine" ever existed; rather, the territory was administered variously by Ottoman Turks and then the British Mandate.

As documented in the foundational charters of Arab and Palestinian organizations, the struggle against Israel has often been framed in overtly religious and annihilatory terms. The Palestinian National Charter, for example, asserts that "Islam shall be the official religion in Palestine" and that "the principles of Islamic jurisprudence shall be the main source of legislation." The language of jihad and shariah is thus central to the ideology of contemporary Palestinian nationalism.

Moreover, leaders such as Zohir Mohsen (PLO Executive Committee Member) have openly admitted that Palestinian national identity is a tactical construct serving the broader pan-Arab objective of confronting Zionism. In a 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw, Mohsen stated, “There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. We are all part of one people, the Arab nation. Just for political reasons we carefully underwrite our Palestinian identity. Because it is of national interest for the Arabs to advocate the existence of Palestinians to balance Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons.”

This candid admission undermines the narrative of an indigenous, continuous Palestinian people dispossessed by Zionism. Instead, it exposes the political use of identity to perpetuate hostility toward Jewish sovereignty.

Islamic Theological Hostility Toward the Jews

Enmity toward the Jewish people, as expressed in certain Islamic texts and later theological developments, is not inherent to Islam’s original message but rather evolved within specific historical contexts. While the Qur'an recounts theological disputes between Muhammad and the Jewish tribes of Arabia (e.g., Quran 2:40-61), there is no Quranic mandate for perpetual warfare against the Jews or for the exclusive Islamic ownership of the Land of Israel. Interpretations that promote such hostilities are influenced by later jurisprudential and polemical traditions rather than the core scriptural message.

Notably, modern expressions of anti-Jewish hostility are often couched in language that fuses religious duty with Arab political ambitions. The rhetoric of organizations such as Hamas, Hizbollah, and others routinely frames the destruction of Israel as an Islamic imperative, thereby conflating Arab nationalism with universal Islamic obligations. This fusion is a relatively recent innovation and does not reflect the attitudes of earlier Islamic empires, many of which maintained diplomatic and even friendly relations with Jewish communities—including, notably, pre-revolutionary Iran.

The Weaponization of Religion and the Path Forward

The Islamic Revolution in Iran (1979) marked a turning point, with the Ayatollah Khomeini's regime imposing Islamist ideology and aligning Iran with pan-Islamic hostility toward Israel. Prior to this, Iran and Israel maintained cordial relations. The rise of jihadist organizations and the subsequent regionalization of the Israeli-Arab conflict are, therefore, not products of ancient hatreds but of modern political developments.

Charters of Arab organizations explicitly reveal their goals: the annihilation of Israel and the subjugation of its land and people under Islamic law, as articulated in foundational documents and the statements of founding leaders. The Palestinian Charter, for example, insists on the establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of "Palestine" and the implementation of shariah, while early PLO documents refrained from claiming sovereignty over territories controlled by other Arab states, focusing solely on the destruction of Israel.

Conclusion

The claim that there ever existed an independent Islamic nation known as "Palestine" is historically unfounded. The use of religious rhetoric to justify political violence against Israel serves to perpetuate enmity and obscures the true origins of the conflict: the refusal to accept Jewish sovereignty in the land historically and biblically allocated to them.

For sincere Muslims, it is imperative to distinguish between genuine Islamic faith and the instrumentalization of religion for Arabist and jihadist agendas. Liberation from the ideological bondage of Arab nationalism cloaked in Islamic rhetoric is essential not only for peace in the region but for the integrity of the Islamic faith itself.

Let us therefore seek truth over propaganda, peace over perpetual conflict, and faithfulness to the historical and theological record over the distortions of political expediency.

References

  • The Holy Bible, Genesis 12–17; Exodus 6

  • The Holy Qur'an, Surahs 2, 4, 5

  • Palestinian National Charter, 1964, 1968

  • Interview with Zohir Mohsen, Trouw, March 31, 1977

  • Ahmed Al-Shuqairy, A Mandate for Terror, 1969

  • Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years, 1995

  • Martin Gilbert, Israel: A History, 1998


at No comments:

ALLAH IS NOT THE NAME OF GOD (PART TWO)

By Max Shimba, Servant of Jesus Christ

Shimba Theological Institute | Max Shimba Ministries Org ©2016

Introduction

In the previous installment, we firmly established that the God of the Bible possesses specific personal names, while the Islamic deity, Allah, as referenced in the Qur'an, is described through 99 attributes or names (Asma’ul Husna), as evidenced on Islamic educational platforms such as:
https://www.islamicity.com/mosque/99names.htm.

More importantly, we demonstrated that the term "Allah" is not a proper name but a title or designation, comparable to the words “President” or “King.” Just as “President” is not a name but a position held by someone with an actual name—e.g., “President John Smith”—so too, "Allah" functions as a title and not a personal name.

This leads us to the critical line of inquiry continued in this article: Is "Allah" a name or merely a descriptive title? And if he is truly the Most Merciful and the Most Compassionate, as Muslims often proclaim, what is his proper name?

Islamic Invocation and Its Implications

Muslim sermons and invocations traditionally begin with the statement:

“In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.”

This immediately prompts an essential question:
If God is “Most Gracious and Most Merciful,” what is His name? Titles such as “Gracious” and “Merciful” describe attributes, not names. Therefore, any rational theological inquiry should demand clarification:

Two Critical Questions to Muslims

  1. What is the personal name of the God whom you invoke as “Most Gracious and Most Merciful”? Please cite a Qur’anic verse clearly stating that name.

  2. If “Allah” is the actual proper name of God in Islam, can you provide a Qur’anic verse where God explicitly declares: “My name is Allah”?

Appeal for Respectful Dialogue

Dear Muslim friends, the objective of these questions is not to insult or provoke. We request that you refrain from harsh language, which unfortunately tends to follow such discussions. Instead, let us focus on intellectually rigorous and respectful theological dialogue.

What matters is your ability to substantiate your claim from your own Scripture—the Qur’an—and not simply repeat tradition.

Biblical Revelation: God Reveals His Name

In sharp contrast to the ambiguity in the Qur'an regarding a personal name for Allah, the Bible provides clear and direct revelations of God's name.

Exodus 3:13–14 (KJV) records the following dialogue:

“And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them?”
And God said unto Moses, “I AM THAT I AM”: and he said, “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”

This profound declaration is both ontological and revelatory—God defines Himself as the self-existent one, the uncaused cause.

Later, in Exodus 6:2–3, we find:

“And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.”

This shows a progressive revelation of God's personal name, which He discloses at the appropriate time to His covenant people.

Contrast with Allah’s 99 Names

It is indeed perplexing that “Allah,” despite having what are referred to as "99 names" in Islamic tradition, never discloses a singular personal name in the Qur'an with the specificity found in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

Furthermore, these so-called “names” are mostly attributes or characteristics, not personal names in the linguistic or theological sense.

An honest seeker must ask: If Allah is the God of Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus as claimed, why is His name not revealed in the Torah, Psalms, or the Gospels? The God of the Bible does not hide His identity.

Biblical Names of God: A Window into His Nature

Exploring the various names of God in the Bible gives us deeper insights into His nature. Consider the following:

  • Elohim – The Mighty Creator (Genesis 1:1)

  • Adonai – Lord, Master (Exodus 4:10,13)

  • El Elyon – God Most High (Genesis 14:20)

  • El Roi – The God Who Sees (Genesis 16:13)

  • El Shaddai – God Almighty (Genesis 17:1)

  • El Olam – The Everlasting God (Isaiah 40:28)

  • YHWH (Yahweh) – “I AM,” the self-existent One (Exodus 3:13–14)

These are not mere epithets—they are revelatory disclosures of God's being and personhood, each deeply rooted in covenantal interaction with His people.

Conclusion

Dear reader, even you—being human—possess a name. So why would the supreme God not reveal His name? The Islamic concept of Allah is absent of personal self-disclosure. This is vastly different from the God of the Bible who personally reveals Himself, makes covenants, and communicates His names to His people.

Therefore, we are compelled to conclude that “Allah” is not a personal name but a generic title, and thus not the same as Yahweh, the God of Moses, Abraham, David, and Jesus.

Final Blessing

May God bless you as you seek the truth.
I am,
Max Shimba,
Servant of Jesus Christ,
For Max Shimba Ministries Org

Note: This document is permitted for reproduction and distribution in full and without modification.
Max Shimba Ministries Org ©2016. All Rights Reserved.

Generated image

at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

Contradictions in the Quran: A Theological and Textual Examination

Contradictions in the Quran: A Theological and Textual Examination By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute Introduction Muslims ...

TRENDING NOW