Max Shimba Ministries

Sunday, July 13, 2025

Allah and Muhammad Declared That the Bible Is Truth

Allah and Muhammad Declared That the Bible Is Truth: A Theological Examination

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

Muslim apologists often claim that the Bible has been corrupted over time. However, a careful examination of the Qur'an and early Islamic traditions reveals that both Allah and Muhammad acknowledged the Torah and the Gospel (Injeel) as divine revelations and sources of truth. This paper presents a systematic compilation of Qur'anic verses and Hadith references affirming the authenticity of the earlier Scriptures, thereby challenging the popular claim of biblical corruption within Islamic polemics.

1. Affirmation of Earlier Revelations in the Qur'an

The Qur'an repeatedly emphasizes the continuity of divine revelation, placing the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel within the same sacred lineage as the Qur'an. Several passages explicitly command belief in the Scriptures given to previous prophets.

Qur'an 2:136

“Say [O believers], ‘We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him.’”

Qur'an 2:4

“And who believe in what has been sent down to you [Muhammad], and in what was sent down before you, and they believe with certainty in the Hereafter.”

These verses affirm the revealed status of the earlier Scriptures and command Muslims to believe in them without distinction.

2. Qur'anic Testimony to the Validity of the Torah and Gospel

The Qur'an not only acknowledges the previous Scriptures but also presents them as ongoing authorities for the People of the Book.

Qur'an 3:2–3

“Allah – there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of existence. He has sent down upon you [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.”

Qur'an 4:136

“O you who have believed, believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book that He sent down upon His Messenger and the Scripture which He sent down before.”

These passages confirm both the Qur'an and the prior Scriptures as authoritative revelations from the same divine source.

3. Command to Judge by the Torah and Gospel

In a striking affirmation, the Qur'an instructs the People of the Book to judge by their Scriptures, implying their reliability and authority at the time of Muhammad.

Qur'an 5:47

“And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.”

Qur'an 5:68

“Say, ‘O People of the Scripture, you have no ground to stand upon unless you uphold the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.’”

These verses would have been meaningless if the Scriptures had been corrupted, for no Prophet of God would command judgment by a falsified text.

4. The Qur'an’s Recognition of the People of the Book

Several Qur'anic passages acknowledge the People of the Book and recognize the unity of God worshipped by both communities.

Qur'an 29:46

“And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best… and say, ‘We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him.’”

This intertextual acknowledgment presumes the Scriptures of the People of the Book retained their validity.

5. Confirmation of the Torah by Muhammad

The Hadith literature provides a remarkable episode where Muhammad personally affirmed the truth of the Torah.

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4434

“A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) to Quff. They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah who sat on it and said: ‘Bring the Torah.’ It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: ‘I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.’”

This authentic narration affirms Muhammad’s recognition of the Torah’s authority.

6. Waraqa bin Nawfal and the Gospel

Another significant testimony comes from the early Islamic tradition, which records the involvement of Waraqa bin Nawfal, a Christian relative of Khadijah, in translating the Gospel into Arabic.

Sahih al-Bukhari 4953

“Waraqa had been converted to Christianity in the pre-Islamic period and used to write the Gospel in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write.”

The reverence shown to the Gospel here reflects its perceived sacred status in early Islamic narratives.

7. Jesus’ Confirmation of the Torah

Even within the Qur'anic portrayal of Jesus, he is presented as confirming the Torah and announcing further divine guidance.

Qur'an 61:6

“And when Jesus son of Mary said: ‘O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who shall come after me, whose name is Ahmad.’”

This testimony reflects continuity, not corruption, of the previous Scriptures.

Conclusion

The Qur'anic affirmations and early Islamic traditions reveal a consistent acknowledgment of the Torah and Gospel as authentic, divine revelations. These texts are portrayed as valid during the lifetime of Muhammad and even commanded as legal authorities for their respective communities. This evidence fundamentally challenges the later Islamic polemic that the Bible has been irredeemably corrupted. A faithful reading of the Qur'an and Hadith requires acknowledging the Torah and Gospel as reliable Scriptures within the Islamic prophetic tradition.

References

The Qur'an: Surahs 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 21, 29, 61
Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 4953
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4434

Muhammad and Satanic Influence in Islamic Texts

Muhammad and Satanic Influence in Islamic Texts: A Critical Examination

Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This paper critically examines key Islamic primary sources and early biographical materials that suggest episodes of satanic influence upon Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. By analyzing authenticated hadith collections, classical biographies, and relevant Qur'anic verses, this study investigates claims of satanic intervention in the prophetic experiences of Muhammad, contrasting these accounts with Biblical theology. The study also draws theological parallels between the character of Allah in the Qur'an and the Biblical description of Satan, providing a foundation for further interfaith apologetic dialogue.

A. The Nature of Muhammad’s Revelations

1. Divine Inspiration as a Ringing Bell

In Sahih Al-Bukhari (Vol. 4, Book 54, Hadith no. 438), Aisha narrates how Muhammad described the mechanism of divine inspiration. He confessed that sometimes it resembled the sound of a ringing bell — a description of supernatural communication that finds no parallel in Biblical prophetic tradition:

“The Angel sometimes comes to me with a voice which resembles the sound of a ringing bell, and when this state abandons me, I remember what the Angel has said, and this type of Divine Inspiration is the hardest on me…”

This peculiar phenomenon warrants scrutiny, particularly in light of Muhammad’s own aversion to bells elsewhere in Islamic tradition.

B. Bells and Satanic Associations

In Sunan Abu Dawud (Book 34, Hadith no. 4218), Muhammad explicitly condemns the use of bells, claiming:

“Women cannot wear bells on their legs. There is a devil along with each bell.”

The contradiction between the medium of Muhammad’s claimed revelation and his own assertion of bells’ satanic association raises a critical theological dilemma.

C. Satanic Revelation in Early Islam

1. Satan as the Source of Revelation

According to Umdah al-Ahkam (Vol. 3, Hadith no. 460), a disturbing tradition suggests:

“Allah was Satan in the form of an angel that revealed to me the verses and his book the Quran and I am his prophet.”

Though this narration is contested in isnād authenticity by many Muslim scholars, its very circulation within early Islamic discourse reveals theological anxieties about the source of Muhammad’s revelations.

2. The Incident of the Satanic Verses

The most infamous episode appears in The Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq (pp. 165–167) and is corroborated by al-Tabari and others. Muhammad, while reciting Surah an-Najm (Qur'an 53:1-20), allegedly spoke favorably of pagan deities al-Lāt, al-‘Uzzā, and Manāt:

“These are the exalted cranes (gharānīq) whose intercession is to be hoped for.”

This utterance, later acknowledged by Gabriel as satanic interpolation, profoundly impacted early Islam. Qur'an 22:52 later attempted to theologically sanitize the event:

“Never did We send a Messenger or a Prophet before you, but when he did recite the revelation, Satan threw some (falsehood) in it. But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in…”

Theologically, this episode undermines the Islamic claim of incorruptible prophetic transmission.

D. Paradoxical Marriages in Paradise

In Sunan Ibn Majah (Zuhd 39), Muhammad claimed:

“Everyone that Allah admits into Paradise will be married to seventy-two wives: two of them houris and seventy of his inheritance from the dwellers of Hell…”

This disturbing eschatological teaching suggests sexual relations between Paradise dwellers and women from Hell, challenging the moral coherence of Islamic paradise and further implicating a potential collusion between Hell and Heaven.

E. Allah as “The Best of Deceivers”

In Qur'an 3:54, Allah is described as:

“The best of deceivers (makireena).”

Biblical theology reserves the title of deceiver for Satan alone (Revelation 12:9):

“And the great dragon was hurled down — that ancient serpent called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world.”

The moral character of a deity self-described as a deceiver starkly contrasts with the immutable, holy nature of the God of the Bible.

F. Muhammad’s Encounter with a Possessed Woman

According to Sunan Al Daraqutni (Vol. 1, p. 739):

“A woman possessed by the devil claimed, ‘I am Allah,’ and Muhammad, frightened, fled from her.”

The prophet’s reaction to demonic possession, coupled with the entity’s claim of divinity, raises disturbing implications about Muhammad's perception of the supernatural.

G. Muhammad’s “Satan” Abandoning Him

In Sahih Bukhari (Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith no. 475), it is recorded:

“O Muhammad! I think that your Satan has forsaken you, for I have not seen him with you for two or three nights.”

This was in reference to the temporary lapse in Muhammad’s revelations, leading to the subsequent Qur'anic reassurance (Qur'an 93:1-3). The accusation that Muhammad was accompanied by a personal Satan was not refuted, but instead dismissed by an appeal to revelation — a weak apologetic defense.

Conclusion

The Islamic primary sources themselves, when examined critically and comparatively, demonstrate troubling accounts of satanic influence on Muhammad's prophetic claims. The contradictions within Islamic tradition, particularly regarding divine communication, the Satanic verses incident, and the moral attributes ascribed to Allah, call into question the reliability of Muhammad’s prophethood. The Biblical standard of prophetic consistency, moral holiness, and unassailable divine nature stands in sharp contrast to the theological inconsistencies evident in early Islam.

References

Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 54, Hadith no. 438
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 34, Hadith no. 4218
Umdah al-Ahkam, Vol. 3, Hadith no. 460
Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, pp. 165-167
Qur'an 22:52, The Noble Qur’an
Sunan Ibn Majah, Zuhd 39
Qur'an 3:54, The Noble Qur’an
Revelation 12:9, The Holy Bible
Sunan Al Daraqutni, Vol. 1, p. 739
Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith no. 475

IS MELCHIZEDEK AND JESUS THE SAME PERSON? (PART ONE)

Monday, April 17, 2017

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Servant of Jesus Christ

The Meaning of a Priest

The word “priest” in the New Testament carries the meaning of a king's son or a servant. According to the Scriptures, all priests are required to have an altar and to offer sacrifices. No one in the Scriptures had the authority to offer sacrifices on behalf of the people before God except the appointed priests.

What is the Difference Between a Prophet and a Priest?

The role of prophets is to serve God on behalf of the people. In contrast, the role of a priest is to serve the people before God.

Who is Melchizedek?

The name Melchizedek appears in the Bible ten times (Genesis 14:18, Psalm 110:4, and in the Book of Hebrews — 5:6, 5:10, 6:20, 7:1, 7:10, 7:11, 7:15, 7:17). Melchizedek, whose name means “King of Righteousness,” was the king of Salem (Jerusalem) and a priest of God Most High (Genesis 14:18–20; Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:6–11, 6:20–7:28). His sudden appearance and disappearance in the Book of Genesis is rather mysterious.

Melchizedek first met Abraham after Abraham had defeated Kedorlaomer and his three allies. Melchizedek presented bread and wine to Abraham and his weary men as a sign of friendship. He blessed Abraham in the name of El Elyon (God Most High) and praised God for granting Abraham victory in battle (Genesis 14:18–20).

We observe two titles associated with Melchizedek — first, as a king, and second, as a priest of the Most High God. Salem was the region over which this king reigned, according to this passage. The word Salem means peace. Therefore, Melchizedek was the ruler of a place whose name signifies peace. As a priest, he blessed Abraham and received tithes from him (verses 19–20).

The Priesthood of Jesus

We do not read about the priesthood of Jesus until the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament. Here, the author exalts Him as the unique and eternal High Priest. He alone is our High Priest; there is no other. He has already shed His blood on our behalf, and His blood remains effective for eternity.

Hebrews 6:20 declares,
"Where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

The phrase “in the order of” typically signifies a hereditary priestly office. However, no successors were ever mentioned from the time of Melchizedek to Christ — a consideration that logically leads to the conclusion that Melchizedek and Christ may indeed be one and the same person. Thus, “in the order of” is uniquely and perpetually entrusted to Him alone.

Hebrews 7:3 and its Implications

Hebrews 7:3 states:
"Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever."

The question arises whether the writer of Hebrews meant this literally or figuratively.

If the descriptions in Hebrews are literal, it is difficult to see how they could apply completely to anyone other than the Lord Jesus Christ. No earthly king could “remain a priest forever,” and no ordinary human being is “without father or mother.”

If Genesis 14 describes a divine manifestation of God’s presence, then it implies that God the Son appeared to bless Abraham (Genesis 14:17–19), manifesting as the King of Righteousness (Revelation 19:11,16), the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6), and the Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5).

Abraham offered Melchizedek a tithe (a tenth) of all the possessions he had recovered. Through this act, Abraham acknowledged Melchizedek as a priest whose spiritual authority was greater than his own.

Melchizedek in Psalm 110 and Hebrews

In Psalm 110 — a Messianic psalm composed by David (see Matthew 22:43) — Melchizedek is presented as a type of Christ. This theme is reiterated in the Book of Hebrews, where both Melchizedek and Christ are described as kings of righteousness and peace.

By highlighting Melchizedek’s unique priesthood as a typology, the author of Hebrews demonstrates that Christ’s new priesthood surpasses the old Levitical order and the priesthood of Aaron (Hebrews 7:1–10).

The Theory of Christophany

Some scholars propose that Melchizedek was a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus Christ — a Christophany. This is a plausible interpretation, considering that Abraham had previously received similar visitations. For instance, in Genesis 17, Abraham encountered and conversed with the Lord (El Shaddai) in human form.

Melchizedek as a Type

If the descriptions of Melchizedek are to be understood as typological, then the references to having no genealogy, no beginning or end, and an eternal ministry serve to emphasize the extraordinary nature of the individual who met Abraham. In this case, the deliberate silence in the Genesis narrative regarding Melchizedek’s genealogy and lifespan serves a theological purpose — to connect Melchizedek to Christ as a type.

Shalom,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Servant of Jesus Christ

Is Melchizedek and Jesus the Same Person?

Is Melchizedek and Jesus the Same Person? A Biblical and Theological Comparative Study

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Abstract

The enigmatic figure of Melchizedek in the Old Testament has invited extensive theological reflection, especially in relation to the person of Jesus Christ. Both figures occupy priestly and royal offices, yet their genealogical records, ministries, and eternal offices provoke inquiry into their relationship. This paper investigates the biblical presentation of Melchizedek and Jesus, examining whether they are the same person or if Melchizedek serves as a typological foreshadow of Christ. Through a systematic comparison of their roles, characteristics, and scriptural descriptions, the study concludes that Melchizedek is a type of Christ, prefiguring His priestly and kingly ministry, but is not the same person as Jesus.

Introduction

The Book of Genesis often meticulously records genealogies and origins of individuals and nations. Yet, Melchizedek appears without any genealogical information, without parental records, and exits the biblical narrative without further explanation (Gen. 14:18-20). The Epistle to the Hebrews revisits this character to elucidate the unique priestly ministry of Jesus Christ, likening it to Melchizedek’s (Heb. 5:6, 7:1-3).

The question arises: Is Melchizedek and Jesus the same person? This paper examines the biblical data, Jewish objections, and Pauline responses to arrive at a theological conclusion.

Comparative Analysis

1. Jerusalem and the Kingdom

Melchizedek is described as the King of Salem, which is later identified with Jerusalem (Gen. 14:18). He was both king and priest — an unusual combination under the Mosaic covenant.

Conversely, Jesus is revealed as the King of the New Jerusalem, descending from heaven (Rev. 21:1-2). This alignment signifies that both figures rule over realms of peace — one earthly (Salem) and one eschatological (New Jerusalem).

2. High Priesthood

Melchizedek was both King and High Priest of God Most High (Gen. 14:18-20; Ps. 110:4). His priesthood was not inherited through Levi, as the Levitical order did not yet exist.

Similarly, Jesus is a High Priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 6:20; 7:15-17). His priesthood, like Melchizedek’s, is independent of genealogical descent from Levi, originating instead from divine appointment.

3. King of Peace

Melchizedek’s title as "King of Salem" translates as "King of Peace" (Heb. 7:2). Isaiah identifies the Messiah as the "Prince of Peace" (Isa. 9:6), a title fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ, who reconciles God and humanity.

4. Without Beginning or End

Hebrews 7:3 describes Melchizedek as “without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.” This description highlights his mysterious, timeless nature.

Jesus Christ claims eternal pre-existence: “Before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58). His divine nature is also affirmed in His prayer to the Father: “Glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world began” (John 17:5).

5. Genealogical Objection and Pauline Response

Jewish authorities questioned the legitimacy of Jesus’ priesthood, noting He was from Judah, not Levi (Heb. 7:14). Paul responds by appealing to Melchizedek’s example — a legitimate priest outside the Levitical line (Heb. 5:6, Ps. 110:4). The Genesis narrative intentionally lacks Melchizedek’s genealogy to prefigure the Messiah’s priestly office.

6. Son of God and Typology

Hebrews 7:3 states Melchizedek “was made like the Son of God.” This suggests typology rather than incarnation. While some might argue that a person with no recorded genealogy must be divine (1 Tim. 6:16; Ps. 90:2), Hebrews 7:4 refers to him as “this man,” indicating a historical human figure.

The absence of recorded parentage signifies theological symbolism, not literal divinity — as seen in Esther 2:7, where Queen Esther’s orphaned status omits her parents’ details. Thus, the absence of Melchizedek’s genealogy serves to foreshadow the eternal priestly nature of Christ, not to suggest identity.

Conclusion

This study affirms that Melchizedek and Jesus are not the same person, though Melchizedek functions as a profound type of Christ. He prefigures Jesus' dual role as king and priest, His eternal priesthood, and His ministry of peace and righteousness. The Epistle to the Hebrews uses Melchizedek’s character strategically to establish the legitimacy of Christ’s superior, non-Levitical priesthood.

Psalm 110:4 declares: “The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.’” The typological relationship between Melchizedek and Jesus underscores the continuity of God’s redemptive plan and the uniqueness of Christ’s eternal office.

Bibliography

The Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV)
Genesis 14:18-20
Psalm 110:4
Isaiah 9:6
Matthew 1
Luke 3
John 7:27; 8:58; 17:5
Hebrews 5:6-11; 6:20–7:28
Revelation 21:1-2
1 Timothy 6:16
Psalm 90:2
Esther 2:7

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