Thursday, July 10, 2025

Insults Among Muslims: A Sacred Ritual According to the Late Muhammad?


Tuesday, November 29, 2016


Insults Among Muslims: A Sacred Ritual According to the Late Muhammad?

An Academic and Theological Commentary
Max Shimba Ministries Org

Introduction

This commentary seeks to address the phenomenon of verbal abuse and the use of insults within certain religious communities, focusing specifically on the Islamic tradition as referenced in hadith literature. The analysis draws upon both Islamic sources and Christian perspectives, with the aim of fostering an informed and respectful discussion on the matter. The commentary concludes with recommendations for a Christian response, grounded in the teachings of the Gospel.

Insults in Islamic Tradition

It is not uncommon for Christians to encounter derogatory remarks or insults from some Muslims concerning matters of faith. To better understand this phenomenon, we turn to primary Islamic sources.

Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

“Whoever is given to insulting others, indeed Satan has whispered into his mouth.”
(Fat'hul Baari, Volume 10, Page 176)

This narration clearly indicates that, within the Islamic tradition, the act of insulting others is regarded as the result of satanic influence. According to this hadith, those who insult others are viewed as being under the sway of Satan, who uses their mouths as instruments for his own purposes.

Additional Islamic References

Further examination of Islamic sources reveals additional references to Satan's influence in the daily lives of believers. For example, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:

“Satan comes to one of you during prayer and blows (whispers) into his posterior, causing the person to think that he has passed wind, even though he has not. In such a case, he should not leave his prayer unless he hears a sound or perceives an odor.”
(Kitabu cha Mkweli Mwamiu, Volumes 1–2, Hadith No. 74, p. 42)

This narration underscores the belief that Satan is not only involved in provoking insults but also actively seeks to distract and mislead believers during their acts of worship. There are additional mentions in Islamic tradition suggesting that Satan may reside in the nostrils of Muslims or otherwise seek to disturb their bodily functions during prayer.

The Christian Response

From a Christian theological standpoint, the occurrence of insults and verbal abuse—interpreted here as evidence of spiritual bondage—should not surprise believers. Instead, it is viewed as a call to respond with evangelistic zeal and intercessory concern. Christians are urged not to retaliate, but rather to persist in sharing the message of the Gospel (Injil) with those engaged in such behaviors, in the hope that they may awaken spiritually and become liberated from what is perceived as satanic influence.

Thus, the Christian response is characterized not by animosity or surprise, but by a sense of mission and compassion. The ultimate aim is transformation—bringing those considered spiritually lost into the freedom and grace offered through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Implications and Christian Duty

In light of the aforementioned Islamic references, this commentary concludes that Christians bear a significant responsibility to present the Gospel to Muslims, whom the author describes as being under spiritual bondage due to these influences. The hope expressed is that, through receiving the Gospel, such individuals may be delivered from negative spiritual influences and cease to be "instruments" or "playthings" of Satan.

Conclusion

While this reflection is admittedly polemical in its approach, its purpose is to highlight what are perceived as spiritual dynamics at play in certain interreligious encounters. The Christian is therefore encouraged to approach such situations not with hostility, but with a sense of spiritual mission, seeking the transformation and liberation of those believed to be lost, through the power of the Gospel.

Author's Note

The above is a scholarly translation and contextual arrangement of the original Swahili text. The content reflects the theological and polemical position of the author and should be approached with sensitivity and an appreciation for the principles of interfaith dialogue. All references to Islamic sources are cited as they appear in the original document, and interpretations are provided from the perspective of Christian ministry.


Max Shimba Ministries Org



Challenging the Omniscience of Allah

Challenging the Omniscience of Allah: A Critical Theological Analysis

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute


Abstract

The Islamic doctrine traditionally asserts that Allah is omniscient, possessing perfect and complete knowledge of all things, past, present, and future. However, certain passages in the Quran, when examined critically and in their Arabic context, appear to suggest a process of discovery or testing on Allah’s part, implying limits to His knowledge. This paper scrutinizes these verses, especially Surah al-Baqarah 2:143, and corroborating statements from Sahih Hadith, to interrogate the classical claim of Allah’s omniscience. The analysis situates the discussion within broader Abrahamic theology, comparing the Quranic depiction of divine knowledge with the biblical and Christian tradition.


Introduction

The nature of God’s knowledge is central to the theology of monotheistic religions. While the Bible affirms the omniscience of YHWH (Psalm 139:1–6; Hebrews 4:13), Islamic orthodoxy asserts the same for Allah. Nevertheless, critical examination of the Quran reveals verses that may undermine this doctrine. This article focuses on such instances, raising important questions about the consistency and coherence of Allah's omniscience as presented in Islamic scripture and hadith.


1. Quranic Passages Suggesting a Lack of Omniscience

1.1 Surah al-Baqarah 2:143

The verse states:

“We decreed the Qiblah which you faced before, that We may know who follows the Apostle and who turn away in haste…”
(Quran 2:143, Ahmed Ali translation)

The Arabic:

“…وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الْقِبْلَةَ الَّتِي كُنتَ عَلَيْهَا إِلَّا لِنَعْلَمَ مَن يَتَّبِعُ الرَّسُولَ مِمَّن يَنقَلِبُ عَلَىٰ عَقِبَيْهِ…”

Critical Analysis:

The expression “لِنَعْلَمَ” (“so that We may know”) indicates a purpose clause. The plain reading suggests that Allah needed to create a test in order to gain knowledge—knowledge He would not otherwise have had. This language implies a form of epistemic limitation on Allah’s part, which stands in contrast to the doctrine of exhaustive foreknowledge.

1.2 Similar Passages in the Quran

  • Quran 3:140:
    “…so that Allah may know those who believe…”

  • Quran 29:2-3:
    “Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, ‘We believe’, and that they will not be tested? We did test those before them, so that Allah may know those who are true and those who are false.”

In each case, the verb “يَعْلَمَ” (“may know”) is used in a manner that indicates discovery after a process, not prior omniscience.


2. Interpretations from Classical Tafsir

Many classical Muslim exegetes (mufassirun) attempt to resolve this apparent theological problem. Al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, and others argue that “so that We may know” is to be understood metaphorically, meaning “so that it may be known” to others or “so that it becomes manifest.” However, this is a theological gloss and not the most immediate sense of the Arabic phrase. The Quran’s repeated use of testing for knowledge remains problematic.


3. Evidence from Sahih Hadith

3.1 Allah’s Regret or Surprise

  • Sahih al-Bukhari 6619:
    “Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains.”

Here, Allah “wonders,” a term implying surprise or lack of foreknowledge.

  • Sahih Muslim 2751:
    “Allah laughs at two men, one of whom kills the other yet both enter Paradise.”

Laughter and wonder, in this anthropomorphic sense, are not typically attributed to an omniscient being in classical theism.


4. Comparison with the Christian Tradition

The Christian Bible repeatedly affirms God’s perfect knowledge:

  • Psalm 147:5:
    “Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.”

  • 1 John 3:20:
    “…God is greater than our heart, and He knows everything.”

Unlike the Quran, there is no verse in the New Testament or Old Testament where God tests in order to learn something previously unknown to Him.


5. Academic Discussion

Modern Islamic scholars (see: Fazlur Rahman, “Major Themes of the Quran”; W.M. Watt, “Islamic Philosophy and Theology”) admit that anthropomorphic language is present in the Quran, but tend to allegorize it. Nonetheless, such approaches raise questions about textual clarity and doctrinal consistency.


Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented, the Quran and certain Sahih Hadith contain passages that, at least prima facie, suggest Allah acquires knowledge through tests and events. While Islamic tradition strives to harmonize these with divine omniscience, the explicit wording remains challenging for the doctrine of Allah’s absolute knowledge. In contrast, the Christian scriptural portrayal of divine omniscience is unambiguous and consistent.


References & Bibliography

  1. The Holy Quran (trans. Ahmed Ali, Saheeh International, Yusuf Ali, Pickthall).

  2. Al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Tabari (commentary on Quran 2:143, 3:140, 29:2-3).

  3. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

  4. Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith no. 6619.

  5. Sahih Muslim, Hadith no. 2751.

  6. Rahman, Fazlur. Major Themes of the Qur’an, University of Chicago Press, 2009.

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

  8. Griffith, Sidney H. The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the People of the Book in the Language of Islam, Princeton University Press, 2013.

  9. Stump, Eleonore, and Kretzmann, Norman. “Eternity,” The Journal of Philosophy, 1981.

  10. The Holy Bible, Psalm 147:5; 1 John 3:20; Hebrews 4:13.


Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
For publication or scholarly debate, correspondence is welcome.



 Generated image

MUHAMMAD WAS A GREAT SINNER TO THE EXTENT OF SEEKING FORGIVENESS A HUNDRED TIMES A DAY


MUHAMMAD WAS A GREAT SINNER TO THE EXTENT OF SEEKING FORGIVENESS A HUNDRED TIMES A DAY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MUHAMMAD AND JESUS IN RELATION TO SINLESSNESS AND FORGIVENESS

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute


Introduction

The question of sinlessness is central to the identity and authority of any religious figure who claims to mediate between humanity and God. This article examines the admissions of sinfulness by the Prophet Muhammad as reported in Islamic tradition, contrasts it with the biblical testimony concerning the sinlessness of Jesus Christ, and discusses the theological implications for forgiveness and salvation.


Muhammad’s Repeated Pleas for Forgiveness

According to Islamic primary sources, Prophet Muhammad frequently sought forgiveness from God, indicating a consciousness of sin. The hadith recorded in Sahih Muslim states:

“Al-Agharr al-Muzani, who was one of the Companions, reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: ‘There is sometimes a shade upon my heart, and I seek forgiveness from Allah a hundred times a day.’”
(Sahih Muslim, Book 35, Hadith 6522)

The expression “a shade upon my heart” is understood by classical and modern Islamic scholars as an acknowledgment of spiritual imperfection or a lingering sense of guilt. Notably, Muhammad’s need to seek forgiveness a hundred times a day stands as a testament to his acute awareness of his own moral shortcomings.

The Qur’an, on the other hand, exalts Muhammad’s character, stating:

“And indeed, you are of a great moral character.”
(Qur’an 68:4, translation by Muhammad Knut Bernström)

This verse has been interpreted to emphasize Muhammad’s exemplary nature. Yet, the persistent seeking of forgiveness recorded in authentic hadith traditions seems to be in tension with the claim of moral perfection, raising important theological questions.


Universal Sinfulness According to the Bible

Christian doctrine asserts that all humans are sinners. The Apostle Paul affirms:

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
(Romans 3:23, ESV)

This universal declaration of sinfulness includes all individuals—prophets and common people alike. If Muhammad is to be included in this universal category, then his repeated pleas for forgiveness are to be expected from a biblical perspective.


Did Muhammad’s Sins Receive Forgiveness?

In his book End of the Line, Reza Safa reports a tradition where Muhammad’s wife Khadija asked him if his sins were forgiven. Muhammad replied that he was not sure whether his own sins were forgiven. This uncertainty is significant because it reveals a lack of assurance regarding divine pardon, even for Islam’s preeminent prophet.


The Sinlessness of Jesus Christ

In stark contrast, the New Testament asserts unequivocally the sinlessness of Jesus Christ. The Epistle to the Hebrews declares:

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.”
(Hebrews 4:15, NIV)

Because Jesus was without sin, He was uniquely qualified to serve as the savior and mediator between God and humanity. The Bible teaches that through His sacrificial death on the cross, Jesus took upon Himself the sins of the world (cf. 1 Peter 2:22-24; 2 Corinthians 5:21).


Theological Implications

The significance of these facts is profound. Jesus’ sinlessness enables Him to forgive sins and offer salvation, something Muhammad, by his own admission and Islamic testimony, could not claim for himself. The assurance of salvation and forgiveness in Christianity is grounded in the perfection of Christ, whereas Muhammad’s example is one of continual repentance without certain assurance.


Conclusion

In conclusion, both Islamic and Christian scriptures acknowledge the reality of human sinfulness. However, only in the person of Jesus Christ does the claim of absolute sinlessness stand, qualifying Him as the savior of humanity. Muslims and all people are therefore invited to come to the Living Jesus, who has the authority and power to forgive sins and grant eternal life.


References

  1. Sahih Muslim, Book 35, Hadith 6522. Available at: Sunnah.com

  2. The Holy Qur’an, 68:4. Translation by Muhammad Knut Bernström.

  3. Safa, Reza F. End of the Line.

  4. The Holy Bible, Romans 3:23 (ESV).

  5. The Holy Bible, Hebrews 4:15 (NIV).

  6. The Holy Bible, 1 Peter 2:22-24 (ESV); 2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV).


Bibliography

  • Bernström, Muhammad Knut (trans.). The Qur’an: A Contemporary Translation.

  • Safa, Reza F. End of the Line.

  • The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) and New International Version (NIV).

  • Sahih Muslim, English translation.

  • Sunnah.com for authenticated hadiths.


By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute


Generated image

 

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

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.



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



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

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

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

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 Akbar111 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

 

BREAKING VIDEO: IDF pounding Hezbollah training compounds

  BREAKING VIDEO: IDF pounding Hezbollah training compounds. The targets included a Radwan Force training facility used for weapons drills ...

TRENDING NOW