Thursday, July 10, 2025

Muhammad’s “Satanic Portion” and the Four Surgeries: A Critical Analysis

Muhammad’s “Satanic Portion” and the Four Surgeries: A Critical Analysis

Introduction

The biography (Sīra) and hadith literature regarding the life of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, contain a remarkable narrative that is rarely discussed in mainstream Islamic apologetics. The narrative asserts that Muhammad underwent multiple “surgeries” by the angel Jibril (Gabriel), during which a portion described as the “share of Satan” was removed from his heart. This account, referenced in authoritative Islamic sources, raises significant theological and philosophical questions about the nature of prophethood and the concept of sinlessness (ismah) in Islam.

The Four Surgeries in the Life of Muhammad

According to the traditional sources, the Prophet Muhammad was subjected to the removal of the “share of Satan” on four separate occasions:

  1. At the age of three

  2. At the age of ten

  3. At the age of forty

  4. At the age of forty-three, prior to the event of Isra’ and Mi’raj (the Night Journey and Ascension)

Primary Source: The Hadith of Anas bin Malik

A narration from Anas bin Malik reports:

“The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was playing with other boys when the Angel Jibril (Gabriel) came to him, took him, laid him down, split open his chest, and removed his heart. He then extracted a portion of clotted blood and said, ‘This is the share of Satan in you.’ He washed (the heart) in a golden vessel filled with Zamzam water, then returned it to its place and sealed it up.”

(Reference: Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 147, Hadith No. 713)

Theological Questions Arising from the Narrative

This account raises several critical questions:

1. How did Satan’s portion enter Muhammad’s heart?

The narrative presupposes that a portion belonging to Satan resided in Muhammad’s heart, thus necessitating a surgical intervention by Gabriel. This contradicts the Islamic doctrine of the innate purity (fitrah) of prophets.

2. Since when can Satan be expelled or cleansed by washing with water?

The notion that the influence of Satan can be physically removed by washing with Zamzam water anthropomorphizes Satan and suggests a material impurity, which is inconsistent with both Islamic and Christian demonology.

Comparative Analysis: Jesus and Muhammad

In a hadith reported by Abu Huraira, Muhammad said:

“Every human being is touched by Satan at birth. Satan touches the side of every child of Adam as he is born, except for Mary and her son (Jesus). Satan attempted to touch them but found a veil [preventing him].”

(Referenced in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)

This contrast is significant. According to the hadith, Jesus (Isa ibn Maryam) is uniquely exempt from Satan’s touch, while even Muhammad himself was not spared. This raises a fundamental question for Muslim readers:
If Jesus was never touched by Satan, and Muhammad needed four supernatural surgeries to remove Satan’s share, should not Jesus be recognized as superior in purity and spiritual status?

Conclusion

The hadith regarding Muhammad’s “satanic portion” and its removal by Gabriel introduces serious theological difficulties regarding the Islamic view of prophetic purity and the nature of evil. The peculiar idea of “washing” Satan with Zamzam water diminishes the spiritual gravity of the struggle against evil, reducing it to a physical or ritual act.
For those seeking a prophet untouched by Satan, as even the Islamic tradition concedes, it is Jesus Christ alone who fits that description.


With respect,
Max Shimba, servant of Jesus Christ
For Dr. Maxwell Shimba Ministries Org
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.
May 6, 2016

Generated image

Clarity and Ambiguity in the Qur’an: Theological Tension and Interpretive Inconsistency

Journal of Comparative Theology and Islamic Studies
Vol. XX, No. X, 2025, pp. XX-XX


Clarity and Ambiguity in the Qur’an: Theological Tension and Interpretive Inconsistency

Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This article examines the internal tensions within the Qur’an concerning its self-proclaimed clarity and its simultaneous acknowledgement of ambiguity. Through a close reading of Qur’an 54:17 and Qur’an 3:7, and engagement with classical and contemporary exegesis, the study investigates the implications of these apparent inconsistencies for Islamic hermeneutics, theology, and religious epistemology. The article concludes that the Qur’anic text maintains a dynamic but unresolved tension between universality and mystery, which fundamentally shapes its interpretive tradition and its claims to religious authority.


Introduction

The Qur’an’s unique status as the central scripture of Islam hinges on its perceived clarity and role as a universal guide. However, a close reading of the Qur’an reveals a significant hermeneutical tension: the text repeatedly claims accessibility and ease of understanding (Qur’an 54:17), yet simultaneously attests to the presence of ambiguous verses whose meanings are known only to God (Qur’an 3:7). This article critically examines the nature and impact of this tension, arguing that the Qur’anic discourse on clarity and ambiguity is both a theological challenge and a driving force behind Islamic interpretive diversity.


Qur’anic Self-Characterization: Clear or Ambiguous?

Qur’an 54:17 states: “And We have certainly made the Qur’an easy to remember, so is there anyone who will be mindful?” This assertion, repeated several times throughout Surah al-Qamar (54:22, 32, 40), suggests that the Qur’an is both pedagogically accessible and intended for universal comprehension. The language of “ease” (yassarnā) and “remembrance” (dhikr) underscores a scriptural ideal: a text meant for internalization and practical application by all believers.

Yet, the narrative shifts in Qur’an 3:7:

“It is He Who has sent down to you the Book; in it are verses that are precise—they are the foundation of the Book—and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation, they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah. But those firm in knowledge say, ‘We believe in it. All is from our Lord.’”

Here, the Qur’an distinguishes between “muhkam” (clear and decisive) verses and “mutashābih” (ambiguous or allegorical) verses, introducing a paradigm wherein some scriptural content is intentionally left obscure. The implications are profound: whereas the former set of verses constitutes the “mother of the Book” (umm al-kitāb), the latter set is regarded as a potential source of fitna (discord) when pursued with ulterior motives.


The Exegetical Tradition: Navigating Ambiguity

Classical tafsir literature is replete with discussions concerning the nature of these ambiguous verses. Early exegetes such as Al-Tabari (d. 923) and Ibn Kathir (d. 1373) maintain that while the core theological and legal teachings of the Qur’an are manifest, certain metaphysical matters (e.g., descriptions of God, eschatological imagery) are deliberately veiled, serving as a test of faith and interpretive discipline (Tabari, Tafsir, on 3:7; Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim). The Ash‘ari and Mu‘tazili schools offered distinct hermeneutical strategies—ranging from literal affirmation without modality (bi-la kayf) to extensive metaphorization—thereby engendering diversity, and at times, controversy within Islamic thought (Watt, 1973).

Contemporary scholars, such as Fazlur Rahman (1980) and Abdullah Saeed (2006), contend that this dynamic reflects both the universalizing ambitions of the Qur’an and its preservation of divine mystery. Rahman asserts that the Qur’an’s message is, in principle, comprehensible to all, but that certain passages necessarily transcend human cognition due to their metaphysical subject matter. Saeed emphasizes that the category of mutashābih serves to both invite interpretive humility and safeguard doctrinal orthodoxy.


Theological and Epistemological Ramifications

The juxtaposition of clarity and ambiguity within the Qur’an has generated significant debate concerning religious epistemology and authority. If the Qur’an is both clear and cryptic, to what extent can the individual believer be held accountable for their interpretation? Can theological pluralism be justified on the basis of scriptural ambiguity, or does this undermine claims to objective religious truth? Critics—both within and outside the Islamic tradition—have argued that this duality is sometimes invoked apologetically to avoid difficult questions or to neutralize interpretive dissent (Bucaille, 1976; Wansbrough, 1977).

Furthermore, the ambiguity inherent in the Qur’anic text has contributed to the proliferation of divergent sectarian readings—most notably between Sunni, Shi‘a, and Sufi traditions—each laying claim to the “clear” message while accusing others of exploiting ambiguity for polemical ends (Ayoub, 1984).


Conclusion

The Qur’an’s simultaneous assertion of clarity and admission of ambiguity is not merely a rhetorical device, but a constitutive feature of its textual and theological identity. This unresolved tension has inspired both a rich exegetical tradition and enduring controversy. Ultimately, the Qur’an presents itself as a text to be approached with both intellectual engagement and epistemic humility. Its claim to universality, juxtaposed with its admitted mystery, ensures that interpretation will remain a perennial endeavor within the Islamic tradition.


References

  • The Qur’an (Translations: Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Saheeh International)

  • Al-Tabari, Jāmiʿ al-bayān fī taʾwīl āy al-Qurʾān

  • Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim

  • Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur’an. University of Chicago Press, 1980

  • Abdullah Saeed, Interpreting the Qur’an: Towards a Contemporary Approach. Routledge, 2006

  • W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic Philosophy and Theology. Edinburgh University Press, 1973

  • Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur'an and Science. 1976

  • John Wansbrough, Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation. Oxford University Press, 1977

  • Mahmoud Ayoub, The Qur’an and Its Interpreters: Volume I. SUNY Press, 1984



THE QURAN ADMITS THAT ISLAM IS A RELIGION FOR ARABS ONLY

 Saturday, November 2, 2013

THE QURAN ADMITS THAT ISLAM IS A RELIGION FOR ARABS ONLY

In this article, I present evidence that Islam is a religion meant exclusively for Arabs.

Muslims, without rest, have consistently claimed that Islam will one day rule the entire world. However, in doing so, they contradict the words of Allah as revealed in the Qur’an. Therefore, it is fair to say that they are unbelievers (kafirs).

Qur’an 10:47"And for every nation there is a messenger. When their messenger comes, judgment is made between them with justice, and they are not wronged."

Now look at this verse as well:

Qur’an 14:4"And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise."

If these verses are true, then Islam is not for nations or communities that are not Arab. The Qur’an states that every people has received a message from God in their own language so they may understand it. The Qur’an was revealed in Arabic so that the Arabs would understand what Allah was saying.

This concept of Allah sending down a book in each people's language is crucial and is repeated often. It is foundational to this discussion.

Qur’an 16:36"And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], 'Worship Allah and avoid Taghut (false gods).' And among them were those whom Allah guided, and among them were those upon whom misguidance was [deservedly] decreed. So travel through the earth and observe how was the end of the deniers."

Qur’an 5:48"And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ."

Qur’an 36:5-6"A revelation of the Exalted in Might, the Merciful. That you may warn a people whose forefathers were not warned, so they are unaware."

These verses are complete and clearly explain that the message came specifically for the Arabs. Allah in the Qur’an says that every people has had their own prophet sent to them to warn them in their own language, and that He sent Muhammad to those who had not yet received guidance and whose ancestors had not been warned—that is, the Arabs. In this way, they would have no excuse to say they never received any message.

Continue reading in the Qur’an:

Qur’an 6:156"Lest you say, 'The Scripture was only sent down to two groups before us, but we were unaware of their teachings.'"

Qur’an 6:157"Or lest you say, 'If only the Scripture had been revealed to us, we would have been better guided than they.' So there has [now] come to you a clear evidence from your Lord and a guidance and mercy. Then who is more unjust than one who denies the verses of Allah and turns away from them? We will recompense those who turn away from Our verses with the worst of punishment for their having turned away."

The Qur’an clearly states that it was revealed to the Arabs. Those who are not Arabs cannot understand the Qur’an—those are Allah's words. Muslims insist that no translation of the Qur’an can be accurate. Therefore, the Qur’an can never be made fully understandable to non-Arab nations or communities and was not sent for them.

Another proof that the Qur’an was revealed only for Arabs is found in the following verses:

Qur’an 26:198-199"And if We had revealed it to one among the non-Arabs, and he had recited it to them, they would still not have believed in it."

Just as Arabs have the right not to believe in any book that was not revealed in their language—meaning Arabic—non-Arab communities equally have the right not to believe in the Qur’an, a book written in Arabic. That is why the Qur’an says that Allah will send a messenger for every language so that the people can understand him for themselves.

To make sure there is no misunderstanding, Allah gives this verse:

Qur’an 5:19"O People of the Book! Our Messenger has indeed come to you, making things clear to you after an interval without messengers, lest you say, 'There came to us no bringer of good tidings and no warner.' But now there has come to you a bringer of good tidings and a warner. And Allah is Most Capable of all things."

According to the Qur’an, all people have received revelation. The above verse says the Qur’an was sent to those who had never received revelation before, so they could not say, “We never received a prophet or a warner.”

This matter is very clear, but Allah wants it to be clear even to someone with no understanding. That’s why He specifies the actual geographical locations to which Muhammad was sent as a prophet of Allah.

Qur’an 6:92"And this is a blessed Book which We have revealed, confirming what was before it, that you may warn the Mother of Cities (Mecca) and those around it. Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in it, and they are maintaining their prayers."

Today, we have learned that the Qur’an was sent only for the Arabs and not for all nations. Now, I’m sure some Muslims will bring other verses that claim Islam is for all mankind. If Muslims do so, then they must acknowledge that those verses contradict the ones above.

Therefore, either the Qur’an is a bundle of contradictions and falsehoods, or it is only for the Arabs of Mecca and its surroundings, just as Allah—the god of Muslims—says.

In His service,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Copyright © Max Shimba Ministries 2013

Generated image

MUHAMMAD: THE FALSE PROPHET


A Critical Examination of Prophethood in Light of Biblical and Islamic Claims

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba | Max Shimba Ministries Org.

Abstract

This article examines the prophetic claims of Muhammad in contrast with biblical prophets. While all biblical prophets had direct encounters and conversations with God, the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, according to Islamic sources and the Qur’an, never claimed a direct conversation with Allah. Instead, his call to prophethood is rooted in psychological experiences and familial assurance, particularly from his wife, Khadija. This paper analyzes Islamic texts and compares Muhammad’s experience with the biblical paradigm of authentic prophethood, concluding with a call to re-examine the basis of Muhammad’s authority.


Introduction

Throughout history, the role of a prophet has carried profound religious and spiritual significance. The biblical tradition, both Old and New Testament, affirms that true prophets have a direct encounter or dialogue with God (cf. Exodus 3:1–21; 1 Kings 19; Acts 18:9). However, the claim of Muhammad as a prophet in Islam raises critical questions, especially when contrasted with the prophetic narratives of the Bible. This paper revisits these claims and scrutinizes the basis of Muhammad’s prophethood using both Islamic and Christian sources.


The Meaning of the Word “Prophet”

The Swahili term “mtume” is derived from the concept of a “messenger” or “one who is sent.” In biblical context, an apostle or prophet is not only sent by God but also engages in direct communion with the Divine (see Exodus 3:4; 1 Samuel 3:4; Isaiah 6:8). This standard of direct encounter forms a critical criterion for authentic prophethood.


Muhammad’s Prophetic Experience: An Analysis

1. Muhammad Was Not Sent by God

There is no verse in the Qur’an that unequivocally states Muhammad spoke directly with Allah, the one who allegedly appointed him as a prophet.[1] Unlike Moses, Elijah, or Paul—each of whom had direct divine conversations (Exodus 3:1–21; 1 Kings 19; Acts 18:9)—Muhammad’s revelations came through intermediary experiences, most notably the angel Jibril (Gabriel), and never a personal encounter with Allah.

2. Muhammad Was Appointed by His Wife

Islamic tradition reports that following his first revelatory experiences in the cave of Hira, Muhammad returned home in terror and confusion, fearing for his sanity and well-being. It was Khadija, his wife, who reassured him, allegedly declaring,

“Rejoice, O son of my uncle, and be of good heart. By Him in whose hand is Khadija’s soul, I hope that you will be the Prophet of this people.”
(Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah)

Thus, Muhammad’s prophethood was initially affirmed by familial encouragement rather than a direct, public commission from God.

3. Muhammad’s Experiences with Demonic Forces

Islamic sources themselves narrate that Muhammad was plagued by experiences that he interpreted as being under the influence of evil spirits (jinn or shayatin) from childhood and during his first “revelation.”

  • Born with Satan:
    Abu Huraira narrated that, “The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was accompanied by a devil since his birth…”
    (Fath al-Bari, Volume 6, p. 389)

  • Tormented by Spirits:
    After his first experience in the cave, Muhammad was reported to have said,

    “I fear for myself, I am afraid that something may happen to me,”
    and fell into convulsions and fever, fearing possession by demons.
    (Kitab al-Kubra an-Nisa, p. 12)


The Biblical Model: Prophets Who Spoke With God

All authentic prophets in the biblical narrative spoke with God directly:

  1. Moses: Spoke with God face to face (Exodus 3:1–21).

  2. Elijah: Dialogued with God on Mount Horeb (1 Kings 19).

  3. Paul: The risen Christ appeared and spoke to him (Acts 18:9).

No biblical prophet received their commission through mere intermediaries or through psychological crises alone.


Critical Questions for Islamic Prophethood

If Muhammad never spoke directly with Allah, how can his prophetic authority be substantiated? What is the basis of his calling? How can one trust a messenger who was plagued by doubts and fears, whose prophetic claim was affirmed by his wife rather than God?


Conclusion

The evidence from both the Qur’an and Islamic traditions themselves casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of Muhammad’s prophethood when compared to the biblical model. The absence of direct communication with God, psychological disturbances, and familial affirmation rather than divine calling are issues that must be addressed by those who seek truth. Christians are called to place their faith in Jesus Christ—the Living and Supreme God—who has spoken clearly in history.


References

  1. Qur’an: Nowhere does the Qur’an record a direct conversation between Muhammad and Allah.

  2. Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah: The earliest biography of Muhammad, reports the reassurance given by Khadija.

  3. Fath al-Bari (فتح الباري), Commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 389.

  4. Kitab al-Kubra an-Nisa (كتاب الكبرى النساء), p. 12.

  5. The Bible:

    • Exodus 3:1–21 (Moses and God)

    • 1 Kings 19 (Elijah and God)

    • Acts 18:9 (Paul and God)

  6. Sahih al-Bukhari: Collection of hadiths

  7. The Holy Qur’an: Multiple translations and tafsir

  8. Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir: Early Islamic biography

  9. W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca

  10. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith


Bibliography

  • Ibn Ishaq. Sirat Rasul Allah.

  • Al-Asqalani, Ibn Hajar. Fath al-Bari.

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

  • The Holy Qur’an. Various translations.

  • The Holy Bible. Various translations.

  • Ibn Sa’d. Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir.

  • William Lane Craig. Reasonable Faith.

  • W. Montgomery Watt. Muhammad at Mecca.

  • Max Shimba Ministries Org. “Muhammad is a False Prophet.”

  • “Kitabu cha Wakeze Mtume Wakubwa na Wanawe.”

  • Other standard reference works in Islamic and biblical scholarship.


In His Service,
Max Shimba Ministries Org.
©2015 All Rights Reserved



 Generated image

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



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