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.

---

The Theological Parallels Between Allah and the Ancient Deities Baal, Molech, and Satan

The Theological Parallels Between Allah and the Ancient Deities Baal, Molech, and Satan: A Historical and Textual Analysis

Throughout history, religious belief systems have often evolved through the assimilation, reinterpretation, or repurposing of older mythologies and deities. It has long been suggested by Christian apologists and historians that certain theological and ritualistic aspects of Islam bear a striking resemblance to pre-Islamic pagan practices and to ancient Semitic deities such as Baal, Molech, and representations of Satan in the biblical tradition. In this study, we will explore one such correlation: the handling of child death in Islam and its theological implications in comparison to the cultic practices of Baal and Molech.

1. Islamic Traditions on the Death of Children

Islamic hadith literature contains several narrations concerning the fate of children who die young. Among these, the Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said:

“There is no woman among you who has three children die, resigning them to Allah, who will not enter the Garden.”
— Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 148 (sunnah.com)

Similarly, another hadith states:

“There is no Muslim, three of whose children die before reaching puberty, but Allah will admit him to Paradise by virtue of His mercy towards them.”
— Sunan an-Nasa’i 1873 (sunnah.com)

These traditions underscore a theological economy wherein the death of innocent children serves as a means of spiritual benefit for the bereaved, almost functioning transactionally: the child dies, and the parent is promised Paradise.

2. Parallels to Ancient Baal and Molech Worship

In the Hebrew Bible, Baal and Molech are depicted as Canaanite deities associated with child sacrifice. The worship of Baal often involved fertility rituals, including child offerings in times of crisis to appease the god and secure blessings. Molech, specifically, was known for the gruesome practice of child immolation:

“They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing.”
— Jeremiah 32:35 (NIV)

Both Baal and Molech demanded the lives of children under the premise of securing divine favor, blessing, or deliverance — a theological framework strikingly echoed in these Islamic hadiths where the death of children guarantees eternal reward.

While Islam explicitly forbids human sacrifice, the underlying theological structure of associating the death of innocent children with divine reward appears hauntingly familiar to the transactional relationship ancient Near Eastern deities maintained with their worshipers.

3. Theological Implications and Satanic Parallels

In biblical theology, Satan is characterized as a destroyer, a deceiver, and the one who delights in the destruction of innocence (cf. John 8:44; Revelation 12:9–10). Any religious system that frames the death of innocent children as divinely beneficial raises profound ethical and theological concerns. From a Christian theological perspective, the god who benefits from or rewards human suffering — particularly the death of innocent children — reflects not the character of the God revealed in Christ, but one more akin to the adversarial nature of Satan himself.

The Quran and hadith's positioning of Allah as one who promises Paradise in exchange for the deaths of children arguably aligns him more with the ancient images of Baal and Molech than with the benevolent, life-affirming God of the Bible. Notably, both Baal and Molech were regional deities of the pre-Islamic Arabian Peninsula and greater Levant, cultures with which early Islam was in continuous contact.

4. Historical Syncretism and the Identity of Allah

Scholars such as Arthur Jeffery (The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an, 1938) and others have argued that Allah as worshiped by Muhammad was a transformation of a pre-Islamic moon deity of Mecca, linguistically and theologically intertwined with earlier Semitic deities. The semantic overlaps, cultic practices (including the pilgrimage to the Kaaba, which housed 360 idols before Islam), and transactional theology concerning death and divine favor point to a syncretic inheritance rather than a unique monotheistic revelation.

Conclusion

When viewed through a historical-theological lens, the depiction of Allah in certain hadith traditions—particularly those concerning the spiritual utility of child deaths—shares unsettling similarities with the cultic practices of Baal and Molech. Such parallels warrant rigorous comparative theological inquiry. The transactional view of child death in Islamic eschatology resonates far more with ancient Semitic paganism than with the compassionate, life-giving God of biblical Christianity.

Thus, from a scholarly perspective, these hadiths serve not only as a window into the religious worldview of early Islam but also as a potential echo of older, darker religious traditions repackaged in monotheistic terminology.

---

The Echoes of Baal and Molech in Islamic Theology

The Echoes of Baal and Molech in Islamic Theology: A Comparative Analysis of Child Death Traditions in Islam and Ancient Near Eastern Religion

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

---

Abstract

This paper explores theological and ritualistic parallels between ancient Semitic deities—specifically Baal and Molech—and Islamic theology as preserved in early hadith literature. Particular focus is given to narrations concerning the death of children and their eschatological utility in Islam, drawing comparisons with the cultic child sacrifices historically offered to Baal and Molech for divine favor. This comparative analysis raises ethical and theological questions about the character of Allah within Islamic tradition and suggests a pattern of religious syncretism that merits careful scholarly scrutiny.

---

1. Introduction

Religious belief systems often emerge within cultural environments steeped in myth, ritual, and inherited theological frameworks. Islam, though claiming to be a pure monotheistic revelation, arose in a seventh-century Arabian context saturated with diverse polytheistic traditions and vestiges of ancient Near Eastern religious practices. This paper investigates one unsettling theological parallel: the way the death of children is portrayed as spiritually advantageous in both Islamic eschatology and ancient Semitic fertility cults.

---

2. Islamic Hadith on Child Death and Paradise

The hadith collections of Islam contain numerous narrations where Muhammad addresses the fate of children who die before reaching puberty. Two notable examples include:

• Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 148
  “There is no woman among you who has three children die, resigning them to Allah, who will not enter the Garden.” A woman asked, “And if it is two?” He replied, “And if it is two.”

  (Source)

• Sunan an-Nasa’i 1873
  “There is no Muslim, three of whose children die before reaching puberty, but Allah will admit him to Paradise by virtue of His mercy towards them.”

  (Source)

In these traditions, child death becomes a conduit for the parent's guaranteed admittance into Paradise, portraying death as a transactionally beneficial event rather than a tragedy to be lamented. This view introduces complex ethical and theological questions, particularly when juxtaposed with the explicit biblical prohibitions against child sacrifice and transactional suffering.

---

3. The Cult of Baal and Molech: Historical Context

The ancient Near East was rife with deities demanding human sacrifice, particularly of children. Baal, a Canaanite storm and fertility god, was often worshiped through rituals seeking rain and harvest, sometimes including the offering of children during times of drought or crisis. Molech (also spelled Moloch), a god of the Ammonites, is infamously associated with child immolation:

“They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing.”
— Jeremiah 32:35 (NIV)

The practice involved offering children in fiery sacrifices to secure divine intervention or blessing. Scholars such as John Day (Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament, 1989) have argued convincingly that this practice was widespread in the ancient Levant and directly condemned by Yahweh through the Hebrew prophets.

---

4. Theological Parallels and Ethical Implications

While Islam categorically forbids literal human sacrifice, the theological economy found in these hadith—where a child’s death translates into spiritual profit for the parent—reflects a transactional relationship between human suffering and divine favor remarkably similar to the cultic patterns of Baal and Molech.

The distinction is technical rather than conceptual: whereas Baal and Molech demanded the child's life as an offering, Allah is portrayed as rewarding the parent for the passive loss of the child. Yet in both frameworks, the death of the innocent becomes an instrument for achieving divine benefit.

From a biblical-Christian ethical standpoint, this theological structure is profoundly problematic. The God of the Bible abhors child sacrifice (cf. Leviticus 18:21, 20:2–5) and portrays children as blessings to be cherished (cf. Psalm 127:3–5), not as instruments for transactional spiritual gain.

---

5. Historical Syncretism and the Origins of Allah

Multiple scholars have noted that pre-Islamic Arabian religion featured a high god named Allah worshiped alongside lesser deities (known as the daughters of Allah: al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat). Arthur Jeffery, in The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an (1938), documented that many Quranic terms and concepts were borrowed from Syriac, Hebrew, and pre-Islamic Arab paganism.

The Kaaba in Mecca, Islam's holiest site, housed 360 idols before being claimed by Muhammad. It functioned as a religious hub for various pagan Arab tribes — many of whom offered sacrifices (animal and occasionally human) to secure favor from their gods, including Allah. The transactional theology of death and divine favor in Islam thus appears as a theological residue of pagan religious economy, refined within a monotheistic framework.

---

6. Conclusion

While Islam positions itself as a pure, uncorrupted monotheism, critical examination of its hadith traditions reveals theological structures eerily reminiscent of ancient pagan practices. The transactional view of child death as a means of securing Paradise bears disturbing parallels to the sacrificial economies of Baal and Molech.

This theological overlap, coupled with historical evidence of syncretism in early Islam, suggests that Allah's character in certain Islamic traditions reflects echoes of older Semitic deities repurposed within a monotheistic framework. From a biblical and ethical standpoint, this raises significant challenges to the Islamic claim of theological continuity with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

---

Bibliography

• Arthur Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1938.

• John Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

• The Holy Bible, New International Version.

• Al-Adab Al-Mufrad, Imam Bukhari. sunnah.com

• Sunan an-Nasa’i, Imam an-Nasa’i. sunnah.com

---

A Theological Critique of Sin, Divine Mercy, and the Nature of God in Islam and Christianity

In Islamic theology, a noteworthy hadith recorded in Sahih Muslim (Hadith no. 2749) narrates from Abu Ayyub Khalid bin Zaid (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) reportedly said:

"If you did not commit sins, Allah would replace you with people who would commit sins and then seek His forgiveness, so that He could forgive them."

This statement raises profound theological questions regarding the nature of God in Islam, the purpose of sin in human life, and the relationship between divine mercy and human failure. From a Christian theological perspective, this narration appears to imply a deity whose mercy is actualized and perpetuated through the continued moral failure of His creation. It suggests a transactional dynamic where sin is, in some sense, necessary for the manifestation of divine forgiveness.

Such a notion stands in sharp contrast with the biblical portrayal of God's holiness and human sanctification. In the New Testament, particularly in Romans 6:1–2, the Apostle Paul firmly addresses a similar issue:

“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”

Here, Paul repudiates any suggestion that sin should be tolerated or perpetuated for the purpose of magnifying divine grace. In Pauline theology, the redemptive work of Christ delivers believers from both the penalty and dominion of sin. Grace is not a license to persist in wrongdoing, but a transformative power that enables believers to live in righteousness.

The Problem of Divine Mercy Dependent on Sin

From a classical theistic perspective, the idea that God would create people to sin so He might forgive them presents serious theological difficulties. It implies a deity whose mercy is reactive rather than essential to His immutable nature. In Christian doctrine, God’s mercy is an inherent attribute of His being (Exodus 34:6-7), not contingent upon the moral failure of His creatures. The forgiveness extended through Christ’s atonement is a redemptive response to human sin, but it does not necessitate the continuous presence of sin to validate God's merciful character.

Furthermore, classical Christian theology, as formulated by Augustine, Aquinas, and others, affirms that while God permits sin within the framework of human free will, He neither causes sin nor requires it to manifest His attributes. To suggest otherwise, as the hadith seems to do, would risk aligning the divine will with the perpetuation of moral evil — a notion that borders on theological fatalism.

The Satanic Parallel: The Role of the Tempter

Theologically, one could argue that the logic of this hadith resembles the role traditionally ascribed to Satan in both biblical and Qur'anic narratives — namely, to entice humanity into sin. In Christian theology, Satan is depicted as the tempter (Matthew 4:3), whose purpose is to alienate humanity from God through sin. The notion of a deity who would actively will the creation of sinners for the purpose of exercising forgiveness appears incompatible with the biblical depiction of a holy God who abhors sin (Habakkuk 1:13) and desires the sanctification of His people (1 Thessalonians 4:3).

Conclusion

In summary, this hadith, when juxtaposed with the biblical testimony, reveals a fundamental theological divergence between Islamic and Christian conceptions of divine holiness, mercy, and the purpose of human moral agency. Where Christianity emphasizes deliverance from sin through the transformative power of grace, Islam, at least as represented in this narration, appears to accommodate a cyclical relationship between sin and forgiveness, potentially undermining the finality and efficacy of divine grace.

From a Christian apologetic standpoint, such a portrayal might be interpreted as compromising the moral transcendence of God and inadvertently attributing to Him a role closer to that of the tempter — a role universally condemned in biblical theology. This distinction underscores the importance of a coherent and morally consistent doctrine of God in religious thought.

---

The Qur'anic Cosmology of Stars as Weapons Against Demons

Title:

The Qur'anic Cosmology of Stars as Weapons Against Demons: A Theological and Scientific Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba | Shimba Theological Institute

---

Introduction

On Thursday, November 25, 2021, I encountered a striking and troubling doctrinal claim within Islamic scripture — a claim that exposes a profound theological and scientific incongruity in the Qur'an’s cosmology. According to several verses in the Qur'an, stars were created by Allah not only for adornment in the sky but also as missiles to hurl at demons (jinn or shayatin) who attempt to eavesdrop on the heavenly assembly. This assertion raises serious questions about the Qur'an’s compatibility with both established scientific knowledge and sound theological reasoning.

This article seeks to translate, examine, and expand upon these Qur'anic claims, highlighting their inconsistencies and providing a critical Christian theological response.

---

Qur'anic Verses on Stars as Missiles

Surah 67:5 (Al-Mulk)

"And We have certainly beautified the nearest heaven with lamps and have made them (as missiles) to drive away the devils and have prepared for them the punishment of the Blaze."

Surah 37:6–8 (As-Saffat)

"Indeed, We have adorned the nearest heaven with an adornment of stars, and as protection against every rebellious devil, so they may not listen to the exalted assembly (of angels) and are pelted from every side."

Additional references can be found in:
Surah 15:16–18, Surah 55:33–35, among others.

---

Theological and Scientific Implications

The Qur'anic claim suggests that stars function as physical weapons used by Allah to strike demons attempting to access the heavens. In this worldview:

• Stars serve not merely as astronomical bodies but as divine artillery.

• The purpose of these celestial objects includes both cosmic decoration and metaphysical warfare.

However, this notion collapses under both theological scrutiny and modern scientific understanding.

---

Scientific Incompatibility

From a scientific standpoint:

• Stars are massive luminous spheres of plasma held together by gravity, undergoing nuclear fusion reactions in their cores.

• The nearest star to Earth, the Sun, is approximately 93 million miles (150 million kilometers) away.

• To suggest that stars could be thrown or used as missiles is categorically absurd by any standard of astrophysics. The laws of thermodynamics, gravitational theory, and astronomical observation uniformly contradict this assertion.

• Moreover, if even a small celestial body like an asteroid could devastate a planet, the concept of weaponizing entire stars is ludicrously unfeasible.

This presents a significant problem for the Qur'an’s claim to divine origin since a true Creator would possess and communicate accurate knowledge of the universe He created.

---

Theological Inconsistency

From a Christian theological perspective:

• God is omniscient, omnipotent, and sovereign over both the natural and spiritual realms (Job 38:4-7; Psalm 8:3-4; Colossians 1:16-17).

• Nowhere in the Bible are stars depicted as literal missiles used against spiritual beings.

• Scripture presents the stars as signs, for seasons, and as declarations of God's glory (Genesis 1:14-18; Psalm 19:1).

• In fact, the Bible consistently differentiates between the material and the spiritual realms, and while angels and demons interact with the physical world (Job 1-2; Luke 8:30-33), such interactions are not through physical projectiles hurled from astronomical bodies.

The Qur'an's cosmology reflects an ancient, pre-scientific, mythological worldview akin to pre-Islamic Arab folklore, where celestial phenomena were attributed to deities and metaphysical conflicts.

---

Spiritual Error and Pagan Continuity

This doctrine also mirrors animistic and polytheistic traditions, where heavenly bodies were believed to possess personalities or be active participants in spiritual warfare. The Qur'an, while claiming monotheism, here retains elements of mythic cosmology inconsistent with true monotheism.

In Christian doctrine:

• Spiritual battles occur in the unseen realms (Ephesians 6:12).

• God's sovereignty is exercised through His Word, His angels, and His Spirit — not through throwing physical stars.

Thus, the Qur'anic depiction not only lacks theological coherence but undermines Islam's claim of preserving the pure monotheism of Abrahamic faith.

---

Conclusion

The claim that Allah uses stars as missiles against demons is both scientifically untenable and theologically flawed. It reveals a primitive cosmological understanding embedded within the Qur'an that fails both modern scientific scrutiny and Biblical theology.

As Christian theologians and apologists, it is imperative to critically engage these claims and present the rational, coherent, and biblically grounded worldview of the living God — the Creator of heaven and earth, whose creation declares His glory and whose sovereignty extends over both the seen and unseen realms without resorting to mythical cosmologies.

Shalom.
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

THE QURAN SAYS MUSLIMS BEAR THE BURDEN OF SIN

Wednesday, April 13, 2016
THE QURAN SAYS MUSLIMS BEAR THE BURDEN OF SIN

1. THEIR BURDEN OF SIN IS EXTREMELY HEAVY – “QURAN 16:25”

2. SATAN CONFESSES THAT HE IS THE ONE WHO PLACED ISLAM IN ITS PATH

Dear reader,

Muslims often claim that no one can carry the burden of another person’s sin. However, that claim is contradicted by several verses in the Quran.

“When we heard the guidance, we believed in it; and whoever believes in his Lord will not fear any loss or being burdened with the sins (of another).” (Quran 72:13)

The Quran says that one who believes in the Almighty God should not fear being burdened with the sins of another.

But, are there people who can bear the sins of others?
Read Quran Surah An-Nahl (16), verse 25:
“There are those who mislead others so that they will bear the burdens of those they misled on the Day of Judgment, and also carry their own burdens. Surely, evil is the load they carry!”

Allah, through the Quran, tells all Muslims that this burden of sin they carry is extremely evil and they have been misled to bear it until the Day of Judgment.

NOW, if carrying sin on the Day of Judgment is extremely evil, where can we offload that burden?

READ Psalm 55:22
“Cast your burden on the LORD, and He shall sustain you; He shall never permit the righteous to be moved.”

THE BIBLE RESPONDS TO MUSLIMS, telling them to cast their burden on the LORD. That’s why all Christians have realized this truth.
CONTINUE READING John 13:13
“You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am.”

Jesus says, "You call me Teacher and Lord, and you say well."
Now continue reading:

Jeremiah 10:10
“But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth will tremble, and the nations shall not be able to endure His indignation.”

Jeremiah 10:10 responds to Muslims that this LORD is the true God.

Now Muslims wonder how Jesus can be God and still die on the cross. Let us continue:

Quran 55:29
“All that are in the heavens and the earth ask of Him. Every day He is (engaged) in some affair.”

The Quran itself responds clearly that everything in heaven and on earth asks from Him.
Dear Muslim, are you still wondering?

Now look at what happened and what was fulfilled on the cross:

READ 1 Peter 3:18–19
“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison.”

The Word of God says His body was put to death but His spirit was made alive.
Now there is no longer room for confusion because what was killed was only His body, but His spirit was not killed.

Scripture says God is Spirit, so what was put to death was just His body—His Spirit was made alive.

1 Timothy 6:15–16
“...He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.”

Now we see that Jesus made a good confession.
READ verse 13 of 1 Timothy 6:
“I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate...”

For further evidence, read:

Luke 18:31
Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished.”

BUT, our Muslim brothers say the cross is the symbol of Satan. Let's begin with:

Quran 7:16
“Satan said: Because You have put me in error, I will sit in wait for them on Your Straight Path.”

SATAN TELLS ALLAH: “Because You led me astray, I will surely lie in wait for them on Your Straight Path.”

SATAN SWEARS TO STAND ON THE STRAIGHT PATH OF ALLAH.

Now what is this Straight Path of Allah where Satan swore to sit?

Quran 6:126
“And this (Quran) is the Straight Path of your Lord. We have detailed the verses for people who take heed.”

So, SATAN IS SITTING ON THE STRAIGHT PATH, which is ISLAM, as shown in Quran 7:16.
Because Satan has taken his seat on the Straight Path, it means Satan has a religion, or do you disagree?

MUHAMMAD CONVERTS SATAN TO ISLAM
According to the book “The Origin of the Jinn”, page 20, it says:
“It is unfortunate that Adam and Eve did not make efforts to enable Satan and his offspring to ask forgiveness from Allah. It was only the Prophet Muhammad who converted Satan to Islam.”

This is not surprising, because we already read in Surah Al-An'am that Satan resides on the Straight Path of Allah. And that Straight Path is Islam, Quran 6:126:
“And this religion of Islam is the Straight Path of your Lord.”

Dear brethren, once again we’ve learned that Satan is the leader of the religion of Islam.
Satan is the one who sits on the Straight Path and has become a Muslim, as we read in The Origin of the Jinn, page 20.

This is yet another disaster in the religion of Allah, where we now understand that Satan sits on the Straight Path and was converted to Islam by Muhammad.

God bless you abundantly.

I am Max Shimba, a servant of Jesus Christ,
For Max 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.
April 13, 2016

---

 

MUHAMMAD AND ALLAH BREAK THE TORAH BY PERMITTING THE CONSUMPTION OF CAMEL MEAT AND DRINKING CAMEL URINE AND MILK

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba | Max Shimba Ministries Org ©2016

Friday, September 2, 2016

The Islamic prohibition on eating pork is often emphasized as a sign of religious piety. However, there exists a theological contradiction in that Muslims permit the consumption of camel meat and even camel urine and milk, despite these being explicitly prohibited in the Torah.

The Torah’s Prohibition on the Camel

In Leviticus 11:4, which outlines the dietary laws given by Yahweh (Jehovah) to Moses, the camel is classified as an unclean animal:

“Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or have divided hooves you are not to eat the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.” (Leviticus 11:4)

This biblical directive clearly declares the camel to be unclean and thus forbidden for consumption. If, as Islam claims, Allah is the same God who revealed the Torah to Moses, then why does Islam contradict this divine command by allowing Muslims to consume camel products?

Contradictions in Islamic Practice

Muslims often highlight the prohibition of pork as a sign of religious purity. Yet, many consume animals such as camels, lizards, and hyenas—some of which are also considered unclean or detestable in Jewish law. The consumption of camel meat, in particular, contradicts the Torah.

Further compounding this theological issue is the Islamic allowance—encouraged even by the Prophet Muhammad—for drinking camel urine and milk. Such practices would be considered an abomination according to the Torah’s purity laws.

Hadith Evidence Supporting the Use of Camel Urine and Milk

According to authentic hadiths, Muhammad permitted and even prescribed the drinking of camel milk and urine for medicinal purposes:

• Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Numbers 589 & 590 (pp. 398–399)

• Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 623 (p. 418)

• Ibn Majah, Volume 5, Book 31, Number 3503 (p. 38): "Indeed, in the urine of camels there is healing."

• Sunan al-Nasa’i, Volume 1, Hadiths 308–309 (pp. 255–256)

• Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261 (p. 162)

In one incident, Muhammad instructed a group of individuals to follow his camel herder and drink from the camels’ milk and urine as a cure. When some of them later rebelled and killed the herder, Muhammad ordered their hands and feet be cut off and their eyes gouged out—punishments that raise further ethical and theological questions.

Scholarly Critique and Theological Questions

This raises an important question: if the Torah, believed by both Jews and Christians to be divinely inspired, prohibits the consumption of camels, how can Islam, which claims continuity with previous revelations, justify such a practice? If Muhammad and Allah permit what God once declared unclean, are they not violating the eternal law revealed to Moses?

This is not a small matter. It calls into question the consistency and integrity of the Islamic claim to be a continuation of the Abrahamic tradition. It also raises significant doubts about the compatibility between the revelations of Moses and those attributed to Muhammad.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the consumption of camel meat, urine, and milk—endorsed in Islam and by Muhammad himself—stands in direct opposition to the commandments in Leviticus. This contradiction exposes a major theological rift between the Judeo-Christian scriptures and Islamic teachings.

We invite every seeker of truth to come to the living Jesus Christ—our eternal high priest and savior—who fulfills, not abolishes, the law of Moses.

May God bless you all.

In His Service,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Max Shimba Ministries Org ©2016. All Rights Reserved.

Permission is granted to copy and distribute this article in its original form. Modification is not permitted.

---

 

The Theological Inconsistencies in Muhammad’s Claim of Chaining a Demon

 Title:

The Theological Inconsistencies in Muhammad’s Claim of Chaining a Demon: A Critical Examination of Sahih al-Bukhari 3423
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract
This scholarly investigation critically evaluates the hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari 3423, in which Muhammad claims he captured a strong demon (ifrit) during prayer and nearly chained it to a pillar of the mosque for public viewing. Drawing from Quranic texts, Islamic hadith literature, and theological logic, this paper questions the plausibility and spiritual value of such an event. It examines the theological motivations behind the narration, the implications for Islamic doctrine on jinn, and whether such claims reflect authentic spiritual authority or imaginative narratives.

---

Introduction

In Sahih al-Bukhari 3423, Muhammad is quoted as claiming he overpowered an ifrit (a powerful rebellious jinn) during his prayer, with the intent to tie it to a mosque pillar so others might witness it. He later states he released it out of deference to the prayer of Solomon in Qur’an 38:35. This episode raises numerous theological concerns regarding the nature of jinn, the purpose of such an encounter, and whether such experiences serve divine purposes or promote mythologized self-glorification.

---

1. The Claim of Binding a Demon: A Theological Analysis

Muhammad’s claim that he was able to physically subdue and bind a jinn (demon) contradicts both Islamic and biblical precedent concerning spiritual hierarchies and the unseen realm. In Qur’an 38:35, Solomon asks Allah for a kingdom “not befitting anyone after me,” which included dominion over jinn. Muhammad, by invoking this verse, inadvertently places himself in tension with Solomon’s exclusive request.

If Solomon's authority over jinn was a unique divine endowment, then Muhammad’s ability to overpower and display a demon would violate that exclusivity, undermining the Quran’s assertion of Solomon’s unparalleled kingship. Therefore, Muhammad’s release of the demon not out of mercy or spiritual discernment but seemingly to preserve the uniqueness of Solomon’s prayer appears forced and theologically inconsistent.

Moreover, the idea of chaining a spiritual being so it becomes visible to physical eyes contradicts the Islamic doctrine that jinn are ghayb (unseen), as confirmed in Qur’an 7:27:

“Indeed, he (Satan) sees you, he and his tribe, from where you do not see them.”

This raises the logical problem: if jinn are by nature invisible to human perception, then binding one to a pillar for public viewing suggests either a miraculous materialization (which Muhammad does not claim), or fabrication.

---

2. Spiritual Gain: What Would Seeing a Demon Accomplish?

The supposed public display of a chained demon in the mosque lacks theological or redemptive purpose. In both Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, signs and wonders are meant to inspire faith, repentance, or divine awe. Displaying a demon, a cursed entity, in a place of worship neither glorifies God nor edifies believers.

Furthermore, Islam’s teachings about tazkiyah (spiritual purification) and humility in worship contradict the sensationalism of exhibiting a captured demon. There is no precedent in the Quran or hadith where spiritual maturity is gained by physically seeing evil spirits. Rather, the focus is on resisting evil through prayer, fasting, and the remembrance of Allah.

Hence, the question remains: what divine purpose would have been served by a mosque audience witnessing a chained ifrit? The answer appears to be none. The story seems more mythopoeic, bolstering Muhammad’s image as spiritually powerful rather than conveying a redemptive truth.

---

3. Why Did Muhammad Encounter a Demon?

According to the hadith, the demon came to “cut off” Muhammad’s prayer. However, this claim raises questions: if Muhammad was the most perfect of creation (al-insan al-kamil), and the one protected by Allah (ma’sum), why would Allah allow a jinn to attack him during such a holy act?

The Quran teaches that the righteous are under divine protection:

“Indeed, My servants – no authority will you have over them, except those who follow you of the deviators.” (Qur’an 15:42)

So either Muhammad was vulnerable to demonic interruption in prayer (contradicting divine protection), or the story is a fabricated spiritual legend intended to magnify Muhammad's supposed power over the unseen realm.

---

4. Do Demons Attend Mosque Prayers?

According to several Islamic traditions, jinn—including disbelieving ones—can infiltrate human spaces, including mosques. Sahih Muslim 540 suggests that yawning in prayer is caused by Shaytan, and he "laughs" when one yawns. But the Quran consistently portrays mosques as places purified for Allah’s worship (Qur’an 72:18):

“And the mosques are for Allah, so do not invoke anyone along with Allah.”

If demons can attack prophets in a mosque, during prayer, then the theological premise that mosques are sacred, protected spaces is undermined.

---

5. Are Demons from the Jinn?

Islamic theology considers demons a subset of jinn. The Quran mentions that Iblis (Satan) was one of the jinn (Qur’an 18:50):

“He was one of the jinn, and he rebelled against the command of his Lord.”

Hence, “demon” and “jinn” in this context are nearly interchangeable, particularly when describing rebellious and harmful entities.

---

6. Are Jinn Not Muslims? Contradictions in Islamic Literature

The Quran presents jinn as morally responsible beings capable of both faith and disbelief:

“And among us are the righteous, and among us are [others] not so; we were [of] divided ways.” (Qur’an 72:11)
“Say, it has been revealed to me that a group of the jinn listened and said, ‘Indeed, we have heard an amazing Quran.’” (Qur’an 72:1)

Yet this creates internal theological tensions. If some jinn are Muslims, then depicting all jinn (or all ifrit) as inherently demonic is misleading. Moreover, the portrayal of an ifrit being bound like a circus animal for display contradicts the notion of jinn as free-willed and spiritually responsible agents.

---

Conclusion:

Muhammad’s claim of capturing a demon during prayer and nearly displaying it to his followers in the mosque is fraught with theological and logical inconsistencies. It undermines Islamic teachings on the uniqueness of Solomon’s dominion, the nature of the unseen realm, the sanctity of mosques, and the spiritual integrity of divine encounters. The story, rather than elevating Muhammad’s prophetic character, instead aligns more with myth-making—a self-aggrandizing narrative designed to bolster his spiritual prestige without offering any genuine theological or redemptive benefit to his followers.

The inconsistency in the claim affirms that such narration is better understood as a fabrication, myth, or legend rather than an authentic act of divine authority.

---

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Founder, Shimba Theological Institute

WHY DID MUHAMMAD OWN AFRICAN SLAVES AND CAPTIVES?

 Monday, April 11, 2016

Dear reader,

Today, let us briefly remind ourselves about the conduct of Muhammad, the prophet of Allah.

"Anas bin Malik narrated: The Messenger of God was on a journey and had a Black slave named Anjasha, and he was driving the camels..."
– Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73 (Good Manners), Chapter 95, Hadith 182, p.117.

"Anas narrated: ... And Anjashah, the slave of the Prophet [Muhammad], was driving the camels..."
– Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73 (Good Manners), Chapter 111, Hadith 221, p.142.

"Jabir bin ‘Abdullah narrated: A man among us declared that his slave would be freed after his death. The Prophet called for that slave and sold him."
Footnote: “The one who promised freedom was in hardship, so the Prophet sold the slave on his behalf and allowed him to revoke his promise of posthumous freedom.”
– Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 45 (The Book of Mortgaging in Places Occupied by Settled Population), Chapter 9, Hadith 711, p.427.

"Then a man named Rifa’a bin Zaid... brought a slave named Mid’am to the Messenger of Allah."
– Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 78 (The Book of Oaths and Vows), Chapter 33, Hadith 698, p.455.

"The Sale of a Mudabbar (i.e., a slave promised freedom after the master’s death)."
(433) Jabir narrated: The Prophet sold a Mudabbar (on behalf of a master still alive who needed money)."
– Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34 (The Book of Sales), Chapter 112, before Hadith 433, p.238.

"A man from the Ansar made his slave a Mudabbar and had no other property except him. When the Prophet heard of this, he said (to his companions), ‘Who will buy him for me?’ Nu’aim bin An-Nahham bought him for eight hundred Dirhams."
– Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 79 (The Book of Expiation for Unfulfilled Oaths), Chapter 7, Hadith 707, p.464.

"‘Ammar narrated: I saw the Messenger of God and there was no one there except five slaves, two women, and Abu Bakr (i.e., these were the only people who converted to Islam at that time)."
– Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57 (The Companions of the Prophet), Chapter 6, Hadith 12, p.8.

"[Ibn Az-Zubair] sent [‘Aisha] ten slaves whom she freed as expiation for her unfulfilled vow. ‘Aisha freed even more slaves for the same purpose until she had freed forty. She said, ‘If I had known, I would have clarified what I should do if I failed to fulfill my vow when I made it, so it would have been easier for me to fulfill it."
Footnote: “‘Aisha had not specified what she would do if she failed to fulfill her vow, which is why she freed so many slaves to make it easier to satisfy the vow.”
– Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56 (The Morals and Good Deeds of the Prophet and His Companions), Chapter 2, Hadith 708, p.465.

"And ‘Ata disliked looking at female slaves being sold in Mecca unless he intended to buy them."
– Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 74 (The Book of Asking Permission), Chapter 2, Hadith 246, p.162.

---

Sexual Relations with Slaves and Captives:

"Is it permissible to travel with a slave girl without knowing if she is pregnant? Al-Hasan saw no harm in an owner kissing or fondling his slave girl with desire.
**Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘If a slave girl eligible for sexual relations is gifted to another man, or sold, or freed, her former master must not have intercourse with her until she has had one menstrual period, to ensure she is not pregnant. This is not necessary for virgins.’
‘Ata said, ‘There is no harm in fondling a pregnant slave girl with desire without intercourse. Allah said: "Except with their wives or those their right hands possess—for (then) they are not to be blamed."’"
Footnote: “Pregnant and by someone else, not the current owner.”
– Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34 (The Book of Sales), Chapter 113 after Hadith 436, p.239-240.

"Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri said that while he was with the Prophet of Allah, he asked him, ‘O Messenger of Allah! We acquire captive women as part of our war booty and we are interested in their price. What is your view on coitus interruptus?’
The Prophet replied, ‘Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that Allah has decreed to exist will fail to exist.’"
– Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34 (The Book of Sales), Chapter 111, Hadith 432, p.237.

"Ibn Muhairiz narrated: I entered the mosque and saw Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri and sat beside him. I asked him about Al-‘Azl (i.e., coitus interruptus). Abu Sa’id said, ‘We went with the Messenger of Allah on the campaign of Banu Al-Mustaliq, and we captured some Arab women and we desired them, and celibacy became hard on us. We wanted to engage in coitus interruptus. So we asked the Prophet, and he said, ‘It is better not to do that, because if a soul is destined to exist, it will exist until the Day of Resurrection.’"
– Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59 (The Book of Military Expeditions), Chapter 31, Hadith 459, p.317. This is also stated in Volume 8, Book 77 (The Book of Qadr), Chapter 3, Hadith 600, p.391.

In other words, whatever is destined to happen will happen, so do not interfere unnaturally. Muhammad never rebuked or prohibited sexually disturbing captives or slaves owned by someone.

---

May God bless you all.

It is I,
Max Shimba, servant of Jesus Christ,

For Dr. Maxwell Shimba
MAX SHIMBA MINISTRIES ORG ©2016. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but altering it is not allowed.
April 9, 2016

WHY DID MUHAMMAD ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE?

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

1. Muhammad Attempted Suicide
2. Muhammad Climbed Mountains to Throw Himself Off
3. Aisha Testifies Muhammad Was Bewitched

---

Dear Reader,

As we study the Holy Bible, we find that God appointed His prophets and messengers out of love and grace. However, when I examined Islamic scriptures and historical sources related to the prophet Muhammad, I encountered very disturbing reports, particularly concerning his mental state and supernatural experiences. I will now present Islamic sources directly so that Muslims cannot claim I am misrepresenting their texts.

I. MUHAMMAD ATTEMPTED SUICIDE DUE TO SPIRITUAL DISTRESS

According to Sahih al-Bukhari, after the first revelatory experience, Muhammad was deeply disturbed and attempted to commit suicide due to the suspension of revelation (wahy). He climbed to the top of mountains intending to throw himself off:

“The Prophet said: ‘Will they expel me?’ … Later, after Waraqa bin Nawfal passed away, the revelation stopped for a time, and Muhammad became so distressed that he would go to the top of mountain peaks to throw himself off. But each time he reached the summit, the Angel Jibril would appear and reassure him saying: ‘You are truly the Messenger of Allah.’ Then he would calm down and return home. But when the period of silence lengthened, he would repeat the attempt.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book of Interpretation, Hadith 6982)

Question: Where in the Torah, Psalms, or Gospel do we ever read of any biblical prophet attempting suicide as Muhammad did?

II. MUHAMMAD’S SUICIDAL TENDENCIES RECURRED MULTIPLE TIMES

The narration reveals that these suicidal attempts occurred repeatedly whenever divine revelation ceased:

“The Prophet became so sorrowful due to the cessation of revelation that he repeatedly climbed mountaintops to throw himself off. But whenever he reached the peak, Jibril would appear and say, ‘Indeed, you are the true Messenger of Allah,’ which would calm him down…”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, Book of Invocations, p. 234)

This repeated behavior reflects profound emotional instability that is alarming, especially for someone considered a prophet of God.

III. AISHA CLAIMS MUHAMMAD WAS BEWITCHED

Even more concerning is the testimony of Aisha, Muhammad’s favorite wife, who claimed he was under a magical spell:

“Narrated Aisha: Allah’s Messenger was bewitched to the extent that he believed he had done things which he had not done. One day, he prayed to Allah, and then said: ‘O Aisha, do you know that Allah has answered me concerning what I asked Him?’”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, Book of Medicine, Hadith 6391)

Aisha confirms that Muhammad was deluded, thinking he had sexual relations with his wives when he had not. This aligns with another narration:

“The Prophet remained under the effect of that spell for several days, believing he had approached his wives though he had not.”
(Al-Furqan 25)

How is it possible that a prophet of Allah could be bewitched while the all-powerful Allah looked on and did nothing?

IV. MUHAMMAD DECLARED HIMSELF INSANE

Another disturbing confession from Muhammad is found in Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir by Ibn Sa’d:

“O Khadijah, I see lights and hear voices. I fear I am mad (possessed or insane).”
(Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, translated by S. Moinul Haq, Vol. 1, p. 225)

In some translations, he is quoted as saying: “I fear I am going mad.”

Could this fear have been rooted in the traumatic experience of his first “revelation,” where he was seized and violently pressed by a being in the cave?

V. MUHAMMAD’S FIRST ENCOUNTER: TRAUMA OR REVELATION?

In The Life of Prophet Muhammad by Sheikh Abdullah Saleh Al-Farsy (pp. 16–17), we read about Muhammad’s first encounter with what he later believed to be the angel Jibril:

“One day, during the month of Ramadan (17th, on a Monday, in the 40½th year of his life), the Prophet saw a man standing before him. He said, ‘Read!’ The Prophet replied, ‘I do not know how to read.’ The man seized him, pressed him hard, and repeated: ‘Read!’ This happened three times before the man recited the verses of Surah al-Alaq (96), which Muhammad then memorized. Frightened, he returned home. Khadija thought he had a fever and covered him. After he calmed down, he told her everything. She went to her cousin Waraqa bin Nawfal, who confirmed that Muhammad had seen the same angel who appeared to Moses and Jesus.”

This traumatic experience suggests not peaceful divine inspiration, but an oppressive and fearful encounter, inconsistent with biblical revelation.

VI. ACCORDING TO ANOTHER SOURCE, MUHAMMAD WAS TEMPTED BY SATAN IN THE CAVE

According to Wives and Children of the Prophet, also by Sheikh Abdullah Saleh Al-Farsy (p. 12), it is suggested that Muhammad may have been subjected to satanic manipulation during his early experiences in the cave.

---

BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON SUICIDE

According to the Bible, suicide is never a prophetic characteristic. The act of taking one’s own life is condemned as self-murder, a violation of God's sovereign authority over life and death.

The Bible mentions four individuals who committed suicide:

1. Saul – 1 Samuel 31:4

2. Ahithophel – 2 Samuel 17:23

3. Zimri – 1 Kings 16:18

4. Judas Iscariot – Matthew 27:5

Each of these men was wicked or spiritually compromised. Suicide in Scripture is a grave sin, and those who die without salvation face eternal judgment (Revelation 21:8).

---

CONCLUSION

Now, to all Muslims: Show me in the Torah, the Psalms, or the Gospels, any prophet who attempted to commit suicide like Muhammad, or was bewitched, or confessed madness. Such attributes are not characteristics of God’s prophets as revealed in the Bible.

The invitation stands: Come to Jesus Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). No prophet, no angel, no vision compares to the living Son of God.

May the Lord bless you.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Servant of Jesus Christ
Shimba Theological Institute
Max Shimba Ministries Org ©2016. All Rights Reserved

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

---