Max Shimba Ministries

Sunday, July 13, 2025

Under Which Priesthood Does Muhammad Serve?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute
Originally written: Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Introduction

Since the establishment of the covenant between God and the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai, the biblical record consistently portrays a divine pattern whereby God communicates and relates to humanity through the ministry of priests. In this arrangement, there existed a High Priest (Kuhani Mkuu) and subordinate priests who operated under his authority.

According to the Old Testament (Tanakh), among the twelve tribes of Israel, God specifically chose the tribe of Levi to serve as priests.

Deuteronomy 10:8 (NKJV)
“At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister to Him and to bless in His name, to this day.”

This Levite priesthood was tasked with the care of the tabernacle (the Tent of Meeting), the sacred articles, and everything pertaining to the rituals of Israel’s worship.

Numbers 1:50 (NKJV)
“But you shall appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of the Testimony, over all its furnishings, and over all things that belong to it; they shall carry the tabernacle and all its furnishings; they shall attend to it and camp around the tabernacle.”

At the head of this Levitical order was Aaron, who was anointed as the first High Priest of Israel.

The New Testament Shift: The Priesthood of Melchizedek

With the coming of Jesus Christ, a new covenant was established, along with a new priesthood. The writer of Hebrews affirms that Jesus did not serve under the Levitical priesthood but rather after the order of Melchizedek—a mysterious figure who appears in Genesis 14 and is referenced in Psalm 110:4.

Hebrews 7:15-17 (NKJV)
“And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies: ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’”

Unlike the Levitical priesthood, which was based on hereditary descent and legal prescriptions, Christ’s priesthood is eternal and grounded in divine decree.

Christ as the Eternal High Priest

Consequently, Jesus is the sole High Priest in this New Covenant era, fulfilling the role eternally:

Hebrews 7:24 (NKJV)
“But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood.”

And under His eternal priesthood, all true ministers of God today—whether pastors, evangelists, or spiritual leaders—serve as priests under the authority of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:9 (NKJV)
“But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.”

This passage affirms the priestly status of all believers under the New Covenant, with Jesus as the unchallenged and eternal High Priest.

Theological Inquiry Concerning Muhammad

This brings us to a critical theological examination concerning Muhammad, the founder of Islam. According to Islamic claims, Muhammad served as a prophet and spiritual leader. However, examining his ministry through a biblical-theological lens raises important questions regarding his priestly authority and divine legitimacy.

Key Questions:

Was Muhammad a priest?
The biblical framework for priesthood requires either ordination under the Levitical order (Old Covenant) or under the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ (New Covenant). There is no record or claim, even within Islamic sources, of Muhammad being a priest in any biblical or Levitical sense.
If he was a priest, under which priesthood did he serve? Was it under the Levitical priesthood, or under Jesus Christ?
Since the Levitical priesthood ceased with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D. and was already declared obsolete in light of Christ’s eternal priesthood (Hebrews 8:13), and given that Muhammad was neither a Levite nor a follower of Jesus Christ’s priestly order, he cannot be classified under either.
If not, from which god did his authority originate?
This is a pivotal theological question. If Muhammad did not serve under the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the revealed order of priesthood established in both the Old and New Testaments, one must critically question the divine source of his spiritual authority.
Dear Muslim brethren, who is your priest?
Every spiritual system requires a mediatorial figure between humanity and the divine. In biblical theology, Jesus is the only mediator between God and mankind (1 Timothy 2:5). If Muhammad is not a priest after God’s established orders, and Islam rejects the priesthood of Christ, it leaves a significant theological vacuum regarding mediation and priestly representation before God.

Conclusion

The priesthood of Jesus Christ stands supreme, eternal, and exclusive in the New Covenant era. The claims of any subsequent prophet, including Muhammad, must be measured against the divine priestly order established in Scripture. The absence of a recognized, biblically sanctioned priestly role for Muhammad raises critical questions about his theological legitimacy within the framework of revealed Judeo-Christian tradition.

Abiria chunga maisha yako (Passengers, take care of your life)!
There is no one like Jesus!

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Contradictions in the Qur’an: A Critical Examination – Part 1

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

Muslim apologists often claim the Qur'an is a flawless, divinely authored scripture without contradictions, inconsistencies, or discrepancies. This assertion is rooted in Surah 4:82 and reiterated by classical Islamic scholars such as Ibn Kathir and contemporary translators like Yusuf Ali. However, a closer critical textual analysis reveals internal inconsistencies within the Qur'an’s narrative framework. This study focuses on one category of such contradictions: the identity of the 'first Muslim' according to different passages, which reveals a significant inconsistency within the text.

1. Introduction

The Qur'an, revered by Muslims as the final, unaltered word of God, explicitly claims to be free from contradiction. Surah 4:82 states:

"Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."
(Surah 4:82, Yusuf Ali Translation)

Classical exegete Ibn Kathir asserts that this verse establishes the Qur'an’s divine origin, claiming it contains no inconsistencies, conflicting statements, or discrepancies because it is a revelation from the Most-Wise, Most-Praised. Similarly, Yusuf Ali in his commentary emphasizes the Qur’an’s claim of textual coherence as a testament to its divine authorship.

This study examines this claim by evaluating a notable contradiction within the Qur'an: the conflicting identification of who was the first Muslim.

2. The Claim of Consistency in the Qur'an

Both classical and modern Islamic scholars affirm the Qur'an's consistency based on Surah 4:82. Yusuf Ali states:

“The Qur'an claims to be a revelation from Allah, and the challenge is that if it were from any other source, it would contain many inconsistencies and contradictions, which no one can deny exist in any human composition. But in the Qur'an, no such inconsistencies exist. It is the perfect and coherent Book of Allah, remaining free from any contradiction, regardless of how many years it was revealed or the diverse subjects it covers.”

This view represents the majority position in classical Islamic thought.

3. Contradictory Claims About the First Muslim

Despite the claims of consistency, a careful reading of the Qur'an reveals conflicting statements regarding who was the first Muslim. Several verses appear to assign this title to different figures:

Muhammad
Surah 39:12

“And I (Muhammad) am commanded to be the first of those who submit (as Muslims).”

Surah 6:163

“No partner has He; this am I commanded, and I am the first of those who submit.”

Moses
Surah 7:143

“When Moses came at the appointed time and place, and his Lord spoke to him, he said, ‘O my Lord, show Yourself to me, so I may look at You.’ … when he recovered, he said: ‘Glory be to You! I turn to You in repentance, and I am the first to believe.’”

Abraham
Surah 2:132

“And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; ‘O my sons! Allah has chosen the Faith for you; so do not die except in the Faith of Islam.’”

Each verse proclaims the subject as the 'first Muslim' or the first to submit to God’s will in Islam. This creates a theological and textual contradiction, as it is logically impossible for multiple, historically sequential figures to each be the first Muslim.

4. Analysis of the Contradiction

This inconsistency raises critical questions about the claim made in Surah 4:82. If the Qur'an is entirely free from discrepancy, how can it declare multiple individuals, separated by centuries in Islamic tradition, as the ‘first’ Muslim?

One may attempt to harmonize these verses by suggesting the phrase ‘first Muslim’ is metaphorical, contextual, or refers to a particular community or event. However, the straightforward reading in each passage indicates a definitive and literal first claim, making such reconciliations appear forced and exegetically weak.

Moreover, the Qur’an portrays Islam not as a religion founded by Muhammad, but as the primordial faith of submission to God (as practiced by Abraham, Moses, and others). While this theological perspective could allow for contextual uses of 'first Muslim' in specific situations, the verses lack the necessary qualifiers, leading to an unavoidable tension within the text.

5. Implications for the Qur’an’s Claim of Consistency

If, according to Surah 4:82, the presence of discrepancies would disqualify the Qur'an’s divine authorship, then these conflicting declarations undermine the very standard it sets for itself. As the Qur’an itself provides multiple claimants for the title of first Muslim, it contradicts its claim of perfect internal consistency.

This issue is not merely a matter of hermeneutics but strikes at the heart of the Qur'an’s self-authenticating claim of inerrancy.

6. Conclusion

This analysis demonstrates that, contrary to the Qur'an’s claim in Surah 4:82 and the assertions of classical and modern Islamic scholarship, internal contradictions do exist within the text. The case of multiple figures being designated as the first Muslim illustrates a clear textual inconsistency.

As such, the Qur'an’s claim to be entirely free of contradiction must be reconsidered in light of these findings. This study represents the first installment in a broader critical examination of Qur'anic consistency, which will continue in subsequent analyses.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Was Muhammad Really Illiterate?

Was Muhammad Really Illiterate? A Critical Examination of the Islamic Claim of Muhammad’s Illiteracy and Its Use as Evidence for the Divine Origin of the Qur’an

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

Many Muslims argue that the Prophet Muhammad’s alleged illiteracy serves as proof that the Qur’an must be divinely inspired, claiming that it would be impossible for an illiterate man to produce a text of such literary and rhetorical sophistication. However, both internal Islamic sources and linguistic evidence raise significant questions about whether Muhammad was truly illiterate. This paper critically examines the Islamic claim of Muhammad’s illiteracy, the meaning of the Arabic term ummiyun, and considers historical hadith evidence that suggests Muhammad may have possessed reading and writing skills. Ultimately, this study argues that Muhammad’s literacy or illiteracy is irrelevant to claims of divine authorship, as the Qur’an was compiled in written form only after his death.

Introduction

The claim of Muhammad’s illiteracy is one of the traditional apologetic positions used by Muslim scholars to affirm the miraculous nature of the Qur’an. The popular reasoning posits: how could an unlettered man produce a literary masterpiece such as the Qur’an unless aided by divine revelation? (Nasr, 2003). This belief is largely built upon the interpretation of certain Qur’anic verses and early Islamic traditions. However, closer examination of primary sources and linguistic evidence problematizes this assertion.

The Qur’an’s Compilation and the Irrelevance of Muhammad’s Literacy

It is universally acknowledged within Islamic historiography that the Qur’an was revealed orally to Muhammad and memorized by his followers before it was compiled into a written codex after his death during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and completed under Uthman (al-Bukhari, Hadith 4986). Therefore, whether Muhammad was literate has no direct bearing on the production of the Qur’anic text. As Denny (2006) observes, "The Qur'an itself was a product of oral tradition long before it became a book."

Thus, even if Muhammad had been illiterate, it would not automatically prove divine authorship of the Qur'an, as the text's preservation and composition were human activities undertaken by literate companions.

The Linguistic Ambiguity of the Term Ummiyun

One of the primary textual bases for the claim of Muhammad’s illiteracy is found in Surah 7:157, where Muhammad is referred to as al-nabiyy al-ummiy (ٱلنَّبِىَّ ٱلْأُمِّىَّ). Traditionally, ummiy is translated as unlettered or illiterate. However, authoritative lexicographical works, such as Edward Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon, reveal that ummiy also means gentile, or one not belonging to the People of the Book (Lane, 1863, p. 92).

This understanding is contextually supported by Surah 62:2, which speaks of Muhammad being sent to the ummiyun (ٱلْأُمِّيِّينَ), conventionally rendered as the unlettered, but which can reasonably be read as the gentiles, contrasting them with Jews and Christians. Watt (1953) notes that in pre-Islamic usage, ummiyun often denoted those outside the Judeo-Christian scriptural tradition.

Therefore, the evidence does not conclusively affirm that Muhammad was illiterate, but rather may simply identify him as a non-Jewish, non-Christian Arab.

Hadith Evidence Suggesting Muhammad’s Literacy

In addition to linguistic analysis, several authentic hadith reports imply Muhammad possessed at least basic literacy:

The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (Sahih al-Bukhari 2699)
When negotiating with the Meccans, Muhammad is reported to have taken a treaty document and altered its text himself after a dispute about his prophetic title. The hadith records:

"Allah’s Messenger took the document and wrote: 'This is what Muhammad bin Abdullah has agreed upon…'" (al-Bukhari, 2699).

If accurate, this account directly contradicts the claim that Muhammad was incapable of writing.

The Event of the Pen and Paper Before His Death (Sahih al-Bukhari 114; Sahih Muslim 1637a)
Before his death, Muhammad reportedly asked for writing materials to write a statement to prevent the community from going astray:

"Bring me paper so that I may write for you a statement after which you will never go astray." (al-Bukhari, 114).

The wording here implies his capacity to write, undermining claims of complete illiteracy.

Conclusion

The claim of Muhammad’s illiteracy as a miraculous proof for the divine origin of the Qur’an is both theologically and historically problematic. First, Muhammad’s literacy status is irrelevant since the Qur’an was compiled as a written book only after his death. Second, linguistic evidence reveals that ummiyun more appropriately refers to a gentile, not necessarily an illiterate person. Third, credible hadith traditions suggest Muhammad was at least capable of reading and writing.

Therefore, the argument from illiteracy is neither a reliable proof of the Qur'an’s divine origin nor a historically uncontested fact. Rather, it is a theological assertion unsupported by conclusive textual or historical evidence.

References

al-Bukhari, M. I. (n.d.). Sahih al-Bukhari. Hadith No. 114, 2699, 4986.
Denny, F. M. (2006). An Introduction to Islam. Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Lane, E. W. (1863). An Arabic-English Lexicon. Williams & Norgate.
Nasr, S. H. (2003). The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity. HarperOne.
Watt, W. M. (1953). Muhammad at Mecca. Oxford University Press.
Sahih Muslim. (n.d.). Hadith 1637a.

There Is No Scientific Knowledge in the Qur'an: Part One

There Is No Scientific Knowledge in the Qur'an: A Critical Examination of Surah 21:30 and the Myth of Quranic Science

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

In recent decades, a popular apologetic trend within segments of the Muslim world has been the assertion that the Qur’an contains miraculous scientific knowledge that predates modern discoveries by over a millennium. This claim, largely popularized by figures such as Dr. Zakir Naik and the late Dr. Maurice Bucaille, suggests that various Qur’anic passages anticipate concepts in contemporary science, thus allegedly proving its divine origin. One of the most frequently cited verses in this regard is Surah Al-Anbiya (21):30.

This essay seeks to critically examine this claim, demonstrate its methodological weaknesses, and establish that Surah 21:30 does not, in fact, predict the Big Bang theory or any other scientific cosmology. Furthermore, it highlights how such readings are often retrospective and contrived, reflecting more the ingenuity of modern interpreters than the content of the text itself.

Surah 21:30 in Context

The verse in question reads as follows:

“Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?”
(Surah 21:30, Yusuf Ali Translation)

Muslim apologists claim this verse refers to the Big Bang theory — the modern scientific model explaining the origin of the universe from an initial singularity, which then expanded to form space, time, and matter.

However, a careful examination reveals several issues with this assertion:

The Text Says Nothing About a Singularity:
The Big Bang theory posits that the universe began from a state of infinite density and temperature — a singularity — approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Yet the Qur’anic text speaks only of the heavens and earth being joined together and then separated. It makes no mention of a singularity, nor does it describe a state of infinite density, temperature, or cosmic expansion.
Heavens and Earth as Premodern Cosmological Terms:
In ancient Near Eastern cosmology — including in the Qur’an — the terms heavens and earth typically refer to the visible sky (firmament) and the land below. These are understood within a geocentric worldview where the earth is stationary and the heavens are physical domes or layers above it. The concept of space-time or cosmic inflation is entirely alien to this worldview.
Parallel with Genesis 1:6-7:
The Qur’anic description is notably similar to Genesis 1:6-7 where God separates the waters above from the waters below, creating the sky (firmament) in between. Both texts describe a primordial unity or indistinction between the heavens and earth that is then divided — a common motif in ancient creation myths (e.g., the Babylonian Enuma Elish).

The Apologetic Misappropriation of Modern Science

Zakir Naik and Maurice Bucaille represent a strand of apologetics known as concordism, where ancient scriptures are forced into alignment with modern scientific discoveries through selective reinterpretation. Bucaille’s book The Bible, The Qur’an and Science became influential in this regard, claiming that Surah 21:30 mirrors the Big Bang. However, several methodological problems arise:

Anachronism:
Bucaille reads contemporary cosmological concepts into a 7th-century text written within a pre-scientific worldview. The original audience would have had no conception of an expanding universe or cosmic singularity.
Selective Translation and Interpretation:
The Arabic word “ratq” (رَتْقًا), translated as “joined together” or “sewn up,” simply means closed up or united. The word “fataqna” (فَفَتَقْنَاهُمَا) means to split or tear apart. This language lacks the scientific specificity needed to accurately describe the Big Bang’s mechanics.
Ignoring Established Historical Cosmology:
The Qur’an reflects the cosmological assumptions of its time, which, like other ancient Near Eastern texts, conceived the universe as a three-tiered structure: heavens above, earth below, and waters beneath. There is no evidence in Islamic exegetical tradition before modernity suggesting that Surah 21:30 implied a cosmic singularity or expansion.

The Problem of Retroactive Interpretation

Modern Muslim apologists often retroactively assign modern scientific meanings to Qur’anic passages after such discoveries have already been made. This method lacks predictive power — a genuine prophecy or scientific miracle would describe future discoveries in clear, unambiguous terms before their discovery.

For example:

If Surah 21:30 truly described the Big Bang, it should have detailed the cosmic singularity, spacetime expansion, cosmic background radiation, or the formation of matter and antimatter — none of which are mentioned.
The verse’s focus on water as the origin of life reflects ancient biological thought rather than molecular biology, evolutionary theory, or abiogenesis as understood today.

Further Examples of Erroneous ‘Quranic Science’

Similar misappropriations abound in other areas:

Seven Earths (Surah 65:12) — contradicts modern planetary science, which recognizes one earth and no stratified seven-layered flat earth cosmology as suggested in medieval tafsir.
Sperm coming from between the backbone and the ribs (Surah 86:6-7) — biologically inaccurate as sperm originates from the testes.
Mountains as pegs preventing earthquakes (Surah 78:6-7) — contradicts geological evidence that mountains are formed by tectonic activity and are not stabilizing pegs.

Conclusion

Upon close scrutiny, Surah 21:30 does not contain miraculous scientific knowledge. Rather, it reflects ancient cosmological ideas similar to those found in other Near Eastern traditions. The attempt to reconcile it with the Big Bang theory or other modern scientific discoveries involves anachronistic interpretations, selective reading of the text, and concordist apologetics lacking academic rigor.

The claim of scientific miracles in the Qur’an thus appears to be a product of modern reinterpretation efforts rather than intrinsic features of the text itself. It remains crucial for honest religious scholarship to recognize the historical and cultural context of sacred texts without forcing them into artificial harmony with contemporary science.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

There Is No Scientific Knowledge in the Quran – Part Two

There Is No Scientific Knowledge in the Quran – Part Two: A Critical Examination of Embryology in Surah 23:12–14

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

Claims regarding miraculous scientific foreknowledge in the Quran have long been propagated by Islamic apologists, with embryology often presented as a key example. This paper critically evaluates the embryological claims in Surah 23:12–14, contextualizing them within the framework of ancient Greek embryological knowledge and comparing them with established modern scientific evidence. The study demonstrates that not only are the Quranic descriptions of embryological development derivative of pre-Islamic sources such as Aristotle and Galen, but they also contain scientifically inaccurate statements inconsistent with contemporary embryological understanding.

Introduction

In modern Islamic apologetics, much has been made of the assertion that the Quran contains prescient scientific facts unknown in the 7th century CE, which allegedly confirm its divine origin. Among the most frequently cited examples is its supposed description of human embryological development in Surah 23:12–14. Muslim scholars and popular preachers assert that the Quran’s account mirrors modern embryology in remarkable detail. However, a careful examination of both the historical and scientific context reveals that these claims are unfounded.

This paper seeks to situate the Quranic text within the historical continuum of ancient embryological theories and juxtapose its content against current embryological knowledge, thereby dispelling the notion of its miraculous scientific accuracy.

Textual Analysis of Surah 23:12–14

The passage in question reads:

“And indeed We created man from an essence of clay; then We placed him as a drop in a secure lodging; then We made the drop into a hanging thing (alaqah), then We made the hanging thing into a chewed lump (mudghah), then We made out of the chewed lump bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We developed it into another creation. So blessed be Allah, the best of creators.” (Quran 23:12–14)

Proponents of Quranic scientific miracles typically focus on two key features:

The assertion of development in stages.
The depiction of the embryo attaching to the uterus (a safe lodging).

However, as this analysis will demonstrate, these concepts were neither novel in the 7th century nor scientifically precise by contemporary standards.

Historical Context: Embryological Knowledge Before Islam

Aristotle (384–322 BCE)

In On the Generation of Animals, Aristotle presents a systematic explanation of embryological development. He identified sequential stages of formation and growth, observing that certain organs and structures arise before others. In Book IV, 734a, Aristotle describes how the heart forms first, followed by other vital organs and tissues. He also noted the importance of a safe environment within the mother’s womb for the developing embryo.

Aristotle’s observations, though not fully accurate by modern standards, demonstrate an advanced awareness of staged development and uterine attachment, concepts widely circulated in Greco-Roman medicine centuries before the Quran.

Galen (129–c. 200 CE)

Perhaps more directly influential was the Greek physician Galen, whose treatise On the Natural Faculties and On the Formation of the Fetus detail human development stages. Galen described the embryo as initially a formless substance, subsequently developing into a form resembling a chewed lump and later solidifying into bones. Crucially, Galen maintained that bones form first and are then “clothed” in flesh — an idea echoed verbatim in the Quranic text.

Given the transmission of Greco-Roman medical texts through Syriac and Persian intermediaries, it is historically plausible that Muhammad or his contemporaries encountered Galenic embryology either directly or indirectly through oral tradition.

Scientific Inaccuracies in the Quranic Account

Modern embryology, based on centuries of anatomical and genetic research, has demonstrated that:

The mesoderm — a primary germ layer — gives rise to both bone and muscle tissues simultaneously, not sequentially as suggested in the Quran.
Bones do not initially form and then acquire flesh. Instead, cartilaginous models of bones and muscle masses develop in parallel during embryogenesis, with ossification (bone hardening) occurring later.

Moreover, the term mudghah (chewed lump) is anatomically imprecise and does not reflect any scientifically identifiable stage of human embryonic development. While it might subjectively resemble the visual appearance of somite segmentation, this is an imprecise and primitive description, inconsistent with modern embryological classification.

The Quranic account's reliance on visually and texturally based analogies (hanging thing, chewed lump, clothed bones) reflects observational limitations of pre-scientific cultures rather than inspired or miraculous knowledge.

Derivation, Not Revelation: The Greek Medical Legacy in the Quran

The linguistic and conceptual parallels between Galen’s embryological model and the Quranic text have led several historians of medicine to conclude that the Quran’s account was derived from pre-existing medical traditions. Scholars such as Edward Gibbon and W. Montgomery Watt note the extensive cross-cultural interactions between Arabian, Persian, and Byzantine societies, particularly through the translation movements in the pre-Islamic Near East.

It is historically implausible to assert that Muhammad, operating within a milieu already influenced by Hellenistic medicine, could produce a unique or divinely inspired account of embryology when the same concepts — including the sequential formation of bones and flesh — appear in Galenic writings composed centuries earlier.

Conclusion

The claim that the Quran contains miraculous scientific knowledge regarding embryology is not substantiated upon critical examination. The description in Surah 23:12–14 reflects the rudimentary and derivative understanding of human development available in Greco-Roman antiquity. Far from being divinely revealed insights into biological science, the Quranic embryological narrative appears to be a rearticulation of ideas previously established by figures such as Aristotle and Galen.

Additionally, the Quranic sequence of embryonic development is scientifically inaccurate, particularly in its assertion that bones form before flesh. Modern embryology, grounded in detailed anatomical observation and molecular biology, has decisively demonstrated that musculoskeletal structures develop concurrently from the mesoderm.

Consequently, the embryological descriptions in the Quran do not offer evidence of miraculous foreknowledge but rather reveal the limitations of 7th-century Arabian knowledge and its dependence on earlier Hellenistic medical traditions.

References

Aristotle. On the Generation of Animals, Book IV.
Galen. On the Natural Faculties, trans. Brock, A. J. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916).
Needham, Joseph. A History of Embryology. (Cambridge University Press, 1934).
Gutas, Dimitri. Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early Abbasid Society (2nd–4th/8th–10th centuries). (Routledge, 1998).
Sadler, T.W. Langman’s Medical Embryology. (14th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer, 2019).
Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Medina. (Oxford University Press, 1956).

There Is No Scientific Knowledge in the Quran: A Critical Examination — Part Three

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba | Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

In recent decades, there has been a growing trend among some Islamic apologists to claim that the Quran contains scientifically miraculous knowledge that predates modern discoveries. This apologetic strategy, often termed scientific apologetics, attempts to validate the divine origin of the Quran by aligning its verses with contemporary scientific understanding. However, upon closer inspection, these claims frequently fall short under historical, textual, and scientific scrutiny. In this segment, I will critically examine one such claim regarding geological knowledge in the Quran, compare it with antecedent biblical literature, and then briefly outline a framework for categorizing the Quran’s so-called scientific statements — many of which either reflect pre-existing beliefs, are misinterpreted, or are scientifically erroneous.

The ‘Mountains as Pegs’ Claim in the Quran

A frequently cited example of “miraculous science” in the Quran is found in Surah 78:6–7:

"Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, and the mountains as pegs?" (Surah An-Naba, 78:6–7)

Muslim apologists assert that this verse reflects advanced geological knowledge, suggesting that mountains possess deep roots beneath the surface of the earth, thus stabilizing it — a notion compatible with the modern understanding of isostasy and tectonic plates. However, this interpretation demands scrutiny on several grounds.

1. The Idea Was Not Unique to the Quran

The concept of mountains having roots was neither novel nor miraculous at the time of the Quran’s compilation. The Hebrew Bible, written centuries before Muhammad, contains similar imagery. Consider the following examples:

Job 28:9 (NIV):
“People assault the flinty rock with their hands and lay bare the roots of the mountains.”
Jonah 2:6 (NIV):
“To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in forever.”

In these passages, the metaphorical concept of mountains having roots was already well-established within the biblical tradition. These references predate the Quran by over a millennium and suggest that such imagery was part of the wider ancient Near Eastern cosmology rather than an instance of divine revelation unique to Muhammad.

2. The Misapplication of Modern Geology

While modern geology indeed confirms that mountain ranges have subterranean roots, this should not be retroactively read into ancient texts unless those texts explicitly articulate such a concept in scientific terms. The Quran’s use of pegs (awtād) is metaphorical, in line with prevailing ancient worldviews where mountains were imagined as stakes or tent pegs holding down the earth’s flat expanse — a cosmological motif common in pre-Islamic Arab poetry and folklore.
Moreover, early tafsir (commentaries) by Muslim scholars such as Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari interpreted these verses metaphorically as well, seeing mountains as stabilizing features but not offering scientific explanations akin to plate tectonics or geological isostasy.

Categories of Alleged Scientific Knowledge in the Quran

When reviewing the full corpus of alleged scientific miracles in the Quran, we find that these claims fall into three distinct categories:

Category 1: Verses Misinterpreted to Align with Modern Science

Many Quranic verses are made to say things they do not explicitly state through forced or selective interpretation. A well-known example is the claim that the Quran describes the Big Bang in Surah 21:30:

“Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We split them apart?”

Islamic apologists interpret this as a description of the Big Bang, despite the text’s original intent likely referring to the separation of the earth and heavens in the ancient Near Eastern cosmology of a flat earth covered by a solid firmament.

Category 2: Knowledge Widely Known Prior to the Quran

Numerous scientific facts attributed to the Quran were already well known in surrounding cultures and civilizations before the 7th century CE. For instance, notions about embryology, which Muslims often cite as a Quranic miracle, can be traced to earlier Greek medical authorities such as Hippocrates (c. 460–370 BCE) and Galen (c. 129–210 CE). The embryological sequence mentioned in Surah 23:12–14 mirrors concepts in Galenic medicine more closely than any revelation from an omniscient source.

Category 3: Scientifically Erroneous Statements

A number of Quranic verses make claims that are flatly contradicted by modern scientific knowledge. Among these:

Surah 18:86 claims the sun sets in a muddy spring:

“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy water...”

Scientifically, the sun neither sets in any earthly body of water nor is the sun’s setting a local event.
Surah 67:5 equates stars with meteorites:

“And We have certainly beautified the nearest heaven with lamps (stars) and have made from them what is thrown at the devils...”

This suggests that stars (billions of light years away) serve as projectiles against devils, a notion incompatible with contemporary astrophysics.
Surah 86:7 locates the origin of semen “between the backbone and the ribs”:

“Emitted from between the backbone and the ribs.”

Human semen is produced in the testes, which anatomically reside in the scrotum, and not between the spine and ribs. Even accounting for poetic language, this description misrepresents human reproductive anatomy.

Conclusion

Upon careful textual, historical, and scientific analysis, the claim that the Quran contains miraculous scientific knowledge does not withstand academic scrutiny. Not only do purported scientific verses either reflect ideas already present in earlier biblical or Greco-Roman texts, but many are also forced reinterpretations or scientifically erroneous. As such, these apologetic arguments fail to provide compelling evidence for the Quran’s divine origin.

A genuinely divine text would be expected to transcend the limitations of its historical and cultural milieu, offering knowledge demonstrably inaccessible to its contemporaries. The Quran, by contrast, mirrors the cosmology, anthropology, and embryology of the 7th-century Arabian world — a clear indication of its human authorship.

The conversation about science and scripture must remain honest, historically grounded, and free from anachronistic projections of modern knowledge onto ancient texts. In light of these observations, the assertion that the Quran contains scientifically miraculous knowledge remains unsupported.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Founder & Director, Shimba Theological Institute
Orlando, Florida

The Myth of the Two Seas Not Mixing in the Qur'an

The Myth of the Two Seas Not Mixing in the Qur'an: A Scientific and Theological Response

Author:
Maxwell Shimba, Servant of Jesus Christ, the Great God (Titus 2:13)

Date:
May 16, 2018

Abstract

This paper addresses the widely circulated claim among some Muslim apologists that the Qur’an contains a miraculous statement regarding the phenomenon of two bodies of water not mixing. By examining the Qur’anic passage in question alongside basic physical science — particularly concepts from physics such as density, salinity, and temperature — this study aims to demonstrate that the phenomenon is not a miracle but rather a well-understood natural occurrence. Furthermore, this article critiques the theological implications of attributing natural processes to divine miracles without scientific understanding.

Introduction

Among certain Islamic apologetic circles, there has persisted a claim that the Qur'an miraculously foretold a scientific phenomenon whereby two bodies of water meet but do not mix. This claim is often linked to Surah Al-Kahf (18:60-82), where it is mentioned:

“And remember when Moses said to his servant: 'I will not give up until I reach the junction of the two seas or continue for a long period.'” (Qur'an 18:60)

Many Muslim commentators have associated this verse with images showing the meeting of two distinct water bodies — typically a glacier-fed stream and a saltwater bay, claiming it as a miraculous confirmation of divine revelation. In this paper, we will scrutinize this claim using elementary physics and hydrology, demonstrating that this is not a miracle but a scientifically explainable event.

Defining the Scientific Concepts

Density

In physics, density (symbolized as ρ, the Greek letter rho) is a measure that compares the mass of a substance to its volume. The formula for density is:

\text{Density (ρ)} = \frac{\text{Mass (m)}}{\text{Volume (V)}}

Objects or substances with higher density have more matter packed into a given volume than those with lower density. The standard units for measuring density are g/cm³ or kg/m³.

For example, freshwater has a density of 1.0 kg/L at 4°C, while seawater, due to its higher salt content, typically has a density of around 1.025 kg/L.

Mass

Mass is a fundamental property of matter indicating the quantity of material present in a body. It is commonly measured in kilograms (kg).

Volume

Volume refers to the three-dimensional space occupied by a substance or object. In physics, it is measured in cubic meters (m³) or cubic centimeters (cm³).

Salinity and Water Classification

Seawater

Seawater is a solution containing dissolved salts, primarily sodium chloride (NaCl). On average, the world’s oceans have a salinity of 3.5%, meaning there are approximately 35 grams of dissolved salts per liter of seawater. This increases the density of seawater compared to freshwater.

Salinity affects not only the density but also the freezing point of water. For example, seawater typically freezes at around -2°C (28°F) depending on salinity levels. Additionally, seawater’s pH typically ranges from 7.5 to 8.4.

Freshwater

Freshwater, such as that found in rivers, lakes, and rainfall, has significantly less dissolved salt, typically under 0.1% salinity. Because of its lower salinity, freshwater has a lower density and different thermal properties compared to seawater.

Scientific Explanation of the Phenomenon

The famous images often circulated by Islamic preachers — showing what appears to be two distinct water bodies refusing to mix — are typically photographs taken from the Gulf of Alaska, where glacial meltwater meets offshore saltwater.

The explanation for this occurrence is not miraculous but rather based on simple, observable scientific principles:

Density Difference:
Freshwater from melting glaciers is less dense than the saline seawater. This difference in density inhibits immediate mixing.
Temperature Gradient:
Both water bodies are extremely cold, which slows down the rate of diffusion and mixing.
Salinity Difference:
The stark contrast in salt content between glacial meltwater (very low salinity) and seawater (approximately 3.5% salinity) results in different physical properties, which delay mixing.
Kinetic Energy:
The process of mixing solutions, especially in liquids at low temperatures, takes longer because of reduced molecular motion.

A useful analogy is dissolving sugar in water: sugar dissolves quickly in hot water due to high molecular movement but much slower in cold water. Similarly, cold freshwater and cold seawater mix slowly because of limited molecular interaction.

Thus, what appears to be two water bodies not mixing is simply a gradual, natural mixing process dictated by physics, not a supernatural event.

Clarifying Misconceptions

It is important to clarify that this phenomenon does not involve two seas as the Qur'anic verse suggests. The images used by Muslims to illustrate this claim depict the confluence of glacial freshwater and seawater, not the meeting of two seas.

Furthermore, the notion of water bodies having permanent barriers between them contradicts oceanographic knowledge. All water bodies eventually mix over time, though the rate of mixing depends on temperature, salinity, and density.

Theological Reflection

While Islamic apologetics often seeks to attribute unexplained natural phenomena to divine intervention, it is essential to distinguish between true miracles and scientifically explainable occurrences. Claiming natural events as miracles where science offers clear explanations reflects a lack of scientific understanding.

From a Christian theological perspective, God is the Creator of the laws governing nature (Colossians 1:16-17). To attribute every unexplained event to miraculous intervention rather than understanding His creation through the lens of science diminishes the richness of both theology and natural philosophy.

Conclusion

The claim that the Qur'an contains miraculous knowledge about two bodies of water not mixing is unfounded when examined scientifically. The observed phenomenon in places like the Gulf of Alaska is a natural result of differences in density, temperature, and salinity, and is well-explained by elementary physics and hydrology.

This study reaffirms the importance of sound scientific understanding in interpreting natural events and cautions against attributing divine intervention to phenomena that are part of the natural order established by God.

References

Millero, F. J. (2013). Chemical Oceanography. CRC Press.
Pinet, P. R. (2019). Invitation to Oceanography. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
The Qur'an, Surah 18:60-82
The Holy Bible, Titus 2:13; Colossians 1:16-17

If Allah Is God, Why Would He Need a Wife to Have a Son? A Critical Theological and Qur’anic Analysis

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Max Shimba Ministries Org

Abstract

This paper critically examines the Qur’anic assertion in Surah 6:101 regarding the impossibility of God having a son without a consort and juxtaposes it against the Christian doctrine of the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ. The article interrogates the conceptual limitations within the Qur’anic anthropomorphic framing of divine procreation and contrasts it with the biblical understanding of the incarnation, where the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ from the Virgin Mary was an act of divine sovereignty unbound by human biological requirements. Through exegetical, theological, and philosophical inquiry, this work challenges the Islamic contention and offers a robust defense of the divinity and sonship of Jesus Christ within Christian thought.

Introduction

The identity and nature of God, and the concept of divine sonship, have been central points of divergence between Christianity and Islam. The Qur’an explicitly rejects the notion of God begetting a son, employing human analogies of procreation to argue against Christian claims of Jesus’ divine sonship. One of the clearest articulations of this is found in Surah 6:101:

“[He is] the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.”

This rhetorical question presupposes that for God (Allah) to have a son, He would need a female consort. This anthropomorphic limitation reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ. This paper aims to unpack this Qur’anic presumption and contrast it with the theological reality of the incarnation and divine sonship in biblical theology.

The Qur’anic Argument Against Divine Sonship

In several passages, the Qur’an vehemently denies that God can have a son (cf. Surah 4:171; 5:72-73; 19:88-92). The underlying argument in 6:101 is predicated on an anthropocentric understanding of begetting: that begetting necessitates a sexual partner, implying biological procreation.

This anthropomorphism is problematic for several reasons:

Conceptual Limitation:
The Qur’anic assertion limits the capacity of divine action to human biological frameworks. It fails to account for the possibility that a sovereign, omnipotent God could bring forth a Son in a non-sexual, transcendent manner.
Inconsistency with Islamic Belief in the Virgin Birth:
The Qur’an affirms the virgin birth of Jesus (Surah 3:45-47; 19:16-21). In Surah 19:20, Mary asks, “How can I have a son when no man has touched me?” and is told that it is a decree from Allah. If God can cause a virgin to conceive without a man, then by the Qur’an’s own standards, it is possible for God to bring forth a Son without a consort.

This presents a theological inconsistency: on the one hand, denying divine sonship on the grounds of no consort (6:101), while on the other affirming a miraculous birth without a male counterpart.
Category Error:
The Qur’an conflates begetting in the human, physical sense with generation in the eternal, metaphysical sense. Christian theology never teaches that God the Father begot Jesus through physical intercourse. Rather, it asserts the eternal generation of the Son — that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, a relationship existing outside of time, space, and physical process.

The Christian Doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ

In Christian theology, the title Son of God is not indicative of biological descent but denotes the unique and eternal relationship between the Father and the Son within the Trinity. As articulated in the Nicene Creed (325 AD):

“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father.”

This doctrine maintains:

Eternal Generation: The Son’s origin is from the Father, but not in a temporal or physical sense.
Consistent with Divine Nature: God is spirit (John 4:24) and does not procreate as humans do.
Incarnation by Divine Fiat: The conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary was by the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), not through physical union.

Thus, the Christian claim is metaphysical and relational, not biological. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist in an eternal relationship of mutual indwelling and love.

The Problem of Qur’anic Anthropomorphism

The Qur’an frequently anthropomorphizes divine action to fit human paradigms — a practice that leads to theological inconsistencies:

Creation without Means: Allah is described as creating by command, “Be, and it is” (Surah 3:47). If God can create ex nihilo (from nothing) by mere will, why impose human limitations regarding sonship?
Virgin Birth of Jesus: If Mary can conceive Jesus without a husband by divine decree, it is illogical to deny God’s capacity to have a Son simply due to a lack of a consort.

The Qur’anic reasoning in 6:101 thus exposes a theological inconsistency within Islamic thought: asserting divine omnipotence in some cases while denying it in others based on anthropocentric assumptions.

A Philosophical Perspective on Divine Sonship

From a philosophical standpoint, the Christian concept of divine sonship reflects a metaphysical relationship rather than a physical act. The notion of eternal generation signifies:

Ontological Equality: The Son shares the same divine essence (homoousios) as the Father.
Relational Distinction: The Father begets, the Son is begotten, and the Spirit proceeds — relationships within the Trinity reflecting roles, not inequality or temporality.
Transcendent Causality: The begetting of the Son is an eternal act of divine self-revelation, unbounded by time, space, or material processes.

Conclusion

The Qur’anic objection in Surah 6:101 against God having a Son without a consort reflects a misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ. By imposing human biological categories upon divine action, the Qur’an inadvertently limits the omnipotence it elsewhere ascribes to God.

Christian theology asserts that Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, was not begotten through a consort but exists eternally in relation to the Father. His incarnation through the Virgin Mary was a miraculous act of divine will, consistent with the omnipotence and transcendence of God.

The inconsistency within Islamic theology, affirming the virgin birth while denying the possibility of divine sonship on biological grounds, highlights the inadequacy of the Qur’anic critique. A proper understanding of divine nature necessitates moving beyond anthropomorphic limitations to grasp the metaphysical depth of the Christian claim: that in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God entered human history for the salvation of mankind.

References

The Qur’an, Surah 6:101; 3:45-47; 19:16-21.
The Holy Bible, Luke 1:35; John 1:1-14; John 4:24.
The Nicene Creed (325 AD).
Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Part I, Question 33.
Gerald O’Collins, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus.
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics.

A Critical Inquiry into the Creation of Jinn: On Which Day Were They Created According to Islamic Theology?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba | Max Shimba Ministries Org

Shalom.

One of the central claims of Islamic theology is the belief in the existence of jinn, beings created from smokeless fire, distinct from humans who are made from clay, and angels who are made from light. The Qur'an asserts:

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

While this passage establishes the intended purpose for both human and jinn existence, it leaves unanswered a critical question: On which day of creation were the jinn created?

This is a fundamental theological issue that deserves close examination because it reveals significant gaps and ambiguities within Islamic cosmology — especially when compared to the detailed, orderly chronology of creation provided in the Bible.

The Order of Creation in Islamic Tradition: A Missing Element

Islamic scripture, notably the Qur'an, mentions the creation of the heavens, the earth, and all that is in between in six days:

"Indeed, your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days..."
(Qur'an 7:54)

However, what is conspicuously absent in the Qur'an is a clear, sequential account of what was created on each of those six days — unlike the Genesis narrative in the Bible (Genesis 1:1–31), which meticulously records each day's creative acts.

This leads to the following pressing question for Muslim scholars and apologists:
On which specific day did Allah create the jinn?

While hadith literature and tafsir (commentaries) offer varying opinions, none present a definitive, consistent, or universally accepted day within the six-day framework. Some Islamic scholars suggest the jinn were created before mankind, citing passages such as:

"And the jinn We created before from scorching fire."
(Qur’an 15:27)

Yet even here, the exact timing remains ambiguous. Was it on the first day, second day, or sometime before the six days of creation began? The Qur’an remains silent on this matter.

The Biblical Contrast: A Clear Chronology

In stark contrast, the Bible presents a coherent, day-by-day account of creation. Genesis 1 details the order of creation from light, the firmament, dry land, vegetation, celestial bodies, animals, and finally mankind on the sixth day. There is no mention of beings such as jinn, since such a category does not exist in Biblical theology — only angels and humans are recognized as sentient, moral beings.

This contrast underscores a theological deficiency in the Qur'an’s creation narrative. While the Bible provides believers with a structured, understandable cosmology, the Qur'an leaves its adherents with unresolved ambiguities, raising questions about the consistency and completeness of its account.

A Challenge to Muslim Scholars

Therefore, we respectfully challenge our Muslim counterparts:

Provide us with a definitive, Qur'an-based account specifying on which day of the six-day creation Allah created the jinn.
If the Qur'an is, as it claims, a clear and detailed book of guidance (Qur’an 16:89), why does it omit such a crucial element of its cosmology? Is it reasonable to believe in a text that establishes the purpose of a created being (worship) without establishing when that being came into existence within its cosmological framework?

This theological inconsistency invites further scrutiny into the reliability of Islamic cosmology and raises broader questions about the internal coherence of Qur'anic revelation.

Shalom,

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Max Shimba Ministries Org

A Theological and Textual Inquiry into Allah’s "Prayer" upon Muhammad in Qur’an 33:56

The Qur’an, regarded by Muslims as the literal word of Allah, contains numerous passages that have historically generated theological and exegetical discussions within both Islamic and interfaith scholarship. One such verse is Qur’an 33:56, which reads in the Hilali-Khan translation:

“Allah sends His Salat (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy) on the Prophet (Muhammad), and also His angels do. O you who believe! Send your Salat on him, and greet him with the Islamic way of greeting.” (Qur’an 33:56)

Other translations, such as that of Qaribullah, render the phrase as:

“Allah and His angels praise and venerate the Prophet. Believers, praise and venerate him.”

This raises a profound theological question: what does it mean for Allah — the supreme, self-sufficient, transcendent deity of Islamic monotheism — to perform salat (prayer, blessings, or praise) upon a created being, namely Muhammad?

1. The Lexical and Theological Tension: What is Salat?

The Arabic word salat (صلاة) typically refers to prayer or ritual supplication. In Islamic theology, salat is the prescribed act of worship offered by human beings to God five times daily. However, when attributed to Allah Himself in this verse, it generates a semantic and theological challenge: if salat is understood as prayer or invocation, then upon whom does Allah pray? To whom does the Almighty direct His act of salat?

Islamic exegetes such as Al-Tabari and Al-Qurtubi have grappled with this issue. Many have attempted to resolve the dilemma by redefining salat in this context as sending blessings, mercy, or honour. Yet, the consistency of the word’s usage elsewhere in the Qur’an — particularly when referring to acts performed by creatures toward God — leaves open the question of how it could signify something categorically different when ascribed to Allah.

2. Does Allah Engage in Worship or Intercessory Acts?

If salat fundamentally denotes worship, praise, or supplication, then attributing it to Allah suggests a form of veneration or communicative act directed toward another. This poses a theological problem for Islamic tawhid (absolute monotheism), which asserts that Allah is utterly self-sufficient (Al-Samad, Qur’an 112:2) and dependent on no one.

Thus, the critical question emerges:

If Allah is offering salat, then to whom is this act directed?
Is Allah engaging in an act akin to worship or intercession, and if so, to what or to whom?
If the meaning of salat changes contextually when attributed to Allah, does this not risk semantic equivocation within divine speech?

3. The Elevation of Muhammad in Islamic Devotion

The same verse commands believers to likewise send salat upon Muhammad, effectively placing the Prophet in a unique position of continual veneration, both by the Creator and His creation. This has led some scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim, to question whether this form of praise and exaltation of Muhammad blurs the strict Creator-creation distinction foundational to Islamic theology.

It has also fueled polemical critiques from Christian and Jewish theologians throughout history, suggesting that Islamic practice risks elevating Muhammad to a quasi-divine status, effectively incorporating an intermediary figure between humanity and God, much like saints or demi-gods in other religious traditions.

4. Conclusion: A Theological Dilemma

This verse, when read plainly, suggests that Allah performs an act — salat — toward Muhammad, alongside His angels, and then commands His followers to do the same. This raises unavoidable theological and philosophical questions:

Does Allah, the utterly transcendent Being, engage in acts of praise or veneration?
If so, to what higher reality is this act directed?
If salat means different things when performed by Allah versus when performed by His creatures, what grounds this difference linguistically and theologically?
And does this continual exaltation of Muhammad suggest a mediating role that potentially conflicts with the strict monotheism claimed by Islamic doctrine?

Such questions invite further critical reflection within Islamic theology, Qur’anic hermeneutics, and comparative religious studies. They also underscore the importance of precise definitions and consistency in attributing actions to the divine within any monotheistic framework.