Max Shimba Ministries

Monday, July 14, 2025

The Imminent Return of Christ in the Johannine and Synoptic Traditions: A Theological and Eschatological Reflection

Author:

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Servant of Jesus Christ, Our Great God and Savior (Titus 2:13)

Abstract

This paper examines the eschatological theme of the second coming of Jesus Christ as presented in the Johannine and Synoptic gospel traditions, with particular attention to Revelation 22:7, 12, John 6:37; 14:1–3, and Matthew 24:29–37. The study employs exegetical and theological methods to unpack the biblical texts' eschatological motifs and ethical demands for Christian living. It argues that the return of Christ, as an imminent and decisive event in salvation history, serves as both a source of hope for the redeemed and a summons to holiness in the present age. The paper concludes by emphasizing the necessity of spiritual readiness and doctrinal fidelity in anticipation of the eschaton.

Keywords:

Second Coming, Eschatology, Johannine Tradition, Synoptic Tradition, Revelation, Christian Ethics, Divine Judgment, Hope, Holy Living

1. Introduction

The doctrine of the second coming of Jesus Christ has held a central place in Christian theology from its apostolic origins. Throughout the New Testament, particularly within the Johannine writings and the Synoptic Gospels, the imminent return of the Messiah is portrayed as a definitive moment in salvation history — one that brings consummation to divine promises and issues forth in judgment and redemption. This paper seeks to explore select biblical passages that articulate this eschatological hope, offering a theological reflection on their implications for contemporary Christian ethics and ecclesial life.

2. Methodology

This study employs a textual and theological exegesis approach, analyzing the literary and theological features of selected biblical texts in their canonical contexts. Primary focus is given to Revelation 22:7, 12, John 6:37; 14:1–3, and Matthew 24:29–37, with comparative references to Old Testament prophetic literature (e.g., Isaiah, Joel, Daniel). Secondary theological reflections draw upon patristic insights and contemporary eschatological scholarship to elucidate the texts' ongoing relevance.

3. Exegesis and Theological Reflection

3.1 Revelation 22:7, 12

The final chapter of the Apocalypse underscores the urgency and certainty of Christ’s return. The repeated declaration, “Behold, I am coming quickly” (Rev 22:7, 12), uses the Greek term ταχύ (tachy), denoting both swiftness and inevitability. These verses frame the return of Christ not as an abstract possibility, but as an impending historical and cosmic event. The promise of recompense according to one’s deeds (v. 12) highlights a key ethical dimension of eschatological expectation: the necessity of persevering in righteousness and adherence to prophetic revelation.

3.2 John 6:37 and 14:1–3

John’s Gospel offers both soteriological assurance and eschatological hope. In John 6:37, Jesus asserts that “all that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out.” This reflects the dual themes of divine election and the security of salvation. Furthermore, in John 14:1–3, Christ comforts His disciples with the promise of an eternal dwelling prepared for them, affirming His return: “I will come again and take you to Myself, so that where I am, there you may be also.” The Johannine emphasis on personal relationship with Christ carries eschatological significance, assuring believers of their final union with God.

3.3 Matthew 24:29–37

The Synoptic apocalypse in Matthew 24 presents dramatic cosmic signs: “The sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken” (v.29). These motifs resonate with Old Testament prophetic imagery (cf. Joel 2:30–31; Isaiah 13:10) and signify the upheaval accompanying the eschaton. The coming of the Son of Man on the clouds (v.30) directly references Daniel 7:13–14, wherein a divine figure receives eternal authority and dominion. The subsequent gathering of the elect (v.31) delineates the ultimate vindication of God’s people and the fulfillment of redemptive history.

4. Theological and Ethical Implications

The biblical witness to the second coming of Christ presents a dual reality: it is both a day of judgment for the unrepentant and hope for the faithful. The ethical thrust of these texts is unmistakable — believers are called to vigilance, holy living, and fidelity to the teachings of Christ. The virtue of hope (1 Thess 1:10) is portrayed not as passive expectation but as active moral and spiritual preparation. This future-oriented faith shapes present conduct and communal identity within the ecclesial body.

5. Conclusion

This paper has explored the eschatological expectation of Christ’s imminent return as articulated in the Johannine and Synoptic traditions. It affirms that the second coming is not a distant mythos but a central, imminent event in the divine economy, carrying both cosmic and personal consequences. For believers, it necessitates unwavering hope, doctrinal integrity, and a life characterized by holiness and compassionate witness. As Titus 2:13 declares, Christians are to “wait for the blessed hope — the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” In every generation, this expectation calls the church to faithful readiness.

References

The Holy Bible. English Standard Version. Crossway, 2016.
Bauckham, Richard. The Theology of the Book of Revelation. Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Eerdmans, 1999.
Wright, N. T. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. HarperOne, 2008.
Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Revised Edition. Eerdmans, 1993.
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Theology of Hope. Fortress Press, 1993.

Civilizational Divergence: A Comparative Historical Analysis of Western Christendom and the Islamic World from 1492 to the Space Age

Abstract:

This article examines the comparative trajectories of Western Christendom and the Islamic world from the late 15th century to the modern era, focusing on the interplay of religion, scientific innovation, and socio-political structures. While the Christian West ventured into transoceanic exploration, industrialization, and space travel, the Islamic world, dominated by the Ottoman Empire and other Muslim polities, often remained preoccupied with internal power dynamics and religious orthodoxy. The study explores key historical moments—from Columbus’ 1492 voyage to the 1969 Moon landing—and investigates the cultural, theological, and institutional factors contributing to the disparities in scientific and technological advancement between these civilizations. The paper argues for a nuanced understanding of civilizational progress, recognizing both periods of brilliance and stagnation within each tradition, and calls for a balanced historiographical approach in comparative civilizational studies.

Keywords:

Western Christendom, Islamic Civilization, Ottoman Empire, Scientific Innovation, Industrial Revolution, Space Exploration, Comparative History, Religion and Modernity, Technological Advancement

Introduction

The historical interaction between Western Christendom and the Islamic world has shaped much of the modern global order. From military conquests and theological disputes to cultural exchanges and economic rivalries, these two great civilizations have profoundly influenced one another and the broader course of human history. However, the trajectories of their development, particularly regarding scientific innovation and technological progress, diverged markedly from the late 15th century onward.

This paper seeks to trace that divergence through a comparative analysis of key historical milestones, examining how religious worldviews, political institutions, and socio-cultural priorities shaped the capacity of each civilization to embrace innovation and exploration. Rather than adopting a polemical stance, this study employs a historical-critical methodology to contextualize periods of civilizational ascendancy and decline within their appropriate socio-religious frameworks.

1. 1492 and the Dawn of Global Exploration

The year 1492 is a watershed moment in global history. As Christopher Columbus, under the commission of the Catholic Monarchs of Spain, embarked on his transatlantic voyage, the Christian West was undergoing the Renaissance—a period marked by rediscovery of classical knowledge and renewed emphasis on human agency and empirical inquiry. In contrast, the Islamic world, under the leadership of the Ottoman Empire, was consolidating its control over Southeastern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.

While the Ottomans were a formidable military and cultural force, their focus remained largely inward, emphasizing religious orthodoxy, dynastic consolidation, and control of existing trade routes rather than maritime exploration. The comparative lack of Islamic participation in the Age of Exploration is indicative of differing civilizational priorities during this period.

2. The Industrial Revolution and Technological Modernity

By the early 18th century, the Industrial Revolution began to reshape Western societies. The invention of the steam engine in 1712 by Thomas Newcomen—and later improved by James Watt—marked the beginning of mechanized industry and a new phase of economic and technological expansion. This period saw Christian Europe transform its societies through innovations in transportation, manufacturing, and communications.

Conversely, many parts of the Islamic world struggled to adapt to these changes. The Ottoman Empire, beset by internal power struggles and administrative conservatism, resisted widespread industrialization. Theological constraints and the prioritization of religious orthodoxy over empirical inquiry contributed to a comparative stagnation in scientific development.

3. The 20th Century: Flight, Space, and Modern Civilization

The 20th century further amplified this divergence. In 1903, the Wright brothers—sons of a Christian minister—achieved the first powered human flight, marking the dawn of modern aviation. This event symbolized the culmination of centuries of scientific inquiry and mechanical innovation in the Christian West.

By mid-century, the United States achieved another historic milestone with the Apollo 11 Moon landing in 1969, carrying both technological achievement and religious symbolism. While Western nations engaged in a space race emblematic of Cold War rivalries, much of the Islamic world grappled with post-colonial nation-building, political instability, and ongoing theological debates.

4. Contemporary Reflections: Demographics, Religion, and Innovation

In the contemporary era, while Western nations explore Mars and harness advanced digital technologies, many Islamic-majority societies continue to navigate tensions between religious tradition and modernity. Islam’s rapid demographic growth has been frequently cited as a sign of global vitality; however, critics note the relative scarcity of globally recognized scientific and technological breakthroughs from these regions.

It would be reductive, however, to attribute this solely to religious doctrine. A complex interplay of colonial legacies, geopolitical conflicts, and institutional constraints also accounts for these disparities. As such, both Western and Islamic civilizations have experienced alternating periods of intellectual brilliance and stagnation.

Conclusion

This study underscores the necessity for balanced historical analysis in assessing the comparative development of civilizations. While the Christian West forged paths in scientific and technological innovation from the Age of Exploration to the Space Age, the Islamic world’s priorities often lay elsewhere, shaped by internal religious, political, and social imperatives.

Recognizing these differences without resorting to cultural essentialism allows for a more nuanced understanding of how civilizations rise, flourish, and falter. Future studies should further explore how both religious and secular ideologies influence patterns of innovation and the complex ways in which historical memory shapes contemporary identity and progress.

Sunday, July 13, 2025

CONTROVERSY: THE QUR'AN AND MUHAMMAD CLAIM ALLAH CREATED SEVEN EARTHS

Thursday, November 25, 2021
THE QUR’AN, ALLAH, AND MUHAMMAD CONTRADICT SCIENCE: ALLAH CREATED SEVEN EARTHS ACCORDING TO THE QUR’AN

Introduction: Where Are These Seven Earths?

A surprising assertion for many readers is that the Qur'an teaches Allah created seven Earths:

"It is Allah who has created seven heavens and of the Earth the like thereof..."
—Surah At-Talaq 65:12, translation by F. Malik

But what exactly are these seven Earths? Are they continents on this single planet? Are they other planets like Earth? Before evaluating the scientific credibility of this claim, we must define what is meant by "seven Earths," especially as Muhammad and early Muslims understood them. The teachings about seven Earths are found in the early Islamic sources: Hadith and Qur'anic commentaries (Tafsir).

1. Evidence from Hadith Literature

Sahih Al-Bukhari

Narrated by Abu Salama ibn 'Abd al-Rahman:
The Prophet said, "Anyone who wrongfully takes a span of land, his neck will be encircled with seven Earths on the Day of Resurrection."
(Vol. 4, Book 54, Hadith 417; see also 418, 420; Vol. 3, Book 43, Hadiths 632-634)
Narrated by Abdullah:
A Jewish rabbi told Muhammad that Allah would place the heavens, Earth, trees, and creation on different fingers. The Prophet confirmed it by smiling and reciting Surah 39:67.

Sahih Muslim

Abu Salama had a dispute over land and went to Aisha. She responded by citing the Prophet:
"Anyone who seizes even a hand-span of land unjustly will have seven layers of Earth wrapped around his neck."
(Book 10, Hadith 3925)

Al-Tirmidhi

Abu Hurayrah narrated a long hadith in which the Prophet described the seven heavens and seven Earths, each separated by a 500-year journey. He explained that even if a rope were dropped from the top, it would fall under the knowledge and authority of Allah.

Ahmad and Al-Tirmidhi

These Hadiths show Muhammad was not passively relaying common beliefs but was actively teaching a cosmic structure with seven heavens above and seven flat Earths below.

2. Additional Islamic Sources

Ubayy ibn Ka’b on Surah 7:172

Ubayy reported that Allah made a covenant with the descendants of Adam and invoked the seven heavens and seven Earths as witnesses to that covenant.

Abu Sa’id al-Khudri

The Prophet said that if the phrase “There is no god but Allah” were placed on one side of the scale, and the seven heavens and seven Earths on the other, the phrase would outweigh them.

Ya’la ibn Murrah

The Prophet said that if someone wrongfully took land, Allah would dig him down through the seven Earths and bind them around his neck on the Day of Judgment.

3. Legal and Devotional Texts

Fiqh-us-Sunnah

Reports include prayers invoking "Lord of the seven heavens and all they shade, Lord of the seven Earths and all they carry."
The Prophet taught supplications where believers call on Allah as the "Creator of the heavens and Earths" to seek protection.

4. Early Muslim Historians and Commentators

Ibn Abbas (Tafsir)

Interpreted Surah 65:12 as affirming seven layered flat Earths, like domes or levels.

Al-Tabari

Described the cosmos as layered: heavens and Earth within a cosmic structure (haykal) resembling tent cords surrounding land and sea, with Earth as seven flat islands.

Ibn Kathir

Affirmed the literal understanding of seven flat Earths and rejected metaphorical interpretations such as seven continents.

Al-Kisa’i

Described each of the seven Earths by name and their inhabitants:
- Ramaka: barren wind and punished nation.
- Khalada: torture tools and self-cannibalizing nation.
- Arqa: deadly quilled birds and corrupt people.
- Haraba: massive snakes and bat-like creatures.
- Malthamu: stones of sulfur hanging on unbelievers.
- Sijjin: hellish records and bird-like people.
- Ajiba: home of Iblis and a black dwarf nation called Khasum.

Sheikh Al-Albani

A modern scholar who supported the existence of seven Earths based on Qur’an and Hadith, criticizing those who reject it under Western scientific influence. He referred to Qur’anic verse:

"It is Allah who created seven heavens and the Earth the like thereof." (65:12)

Analysis and Scientific Conflict

The evidence from early Islamic sources shows that Muhammad and his companions believed in literal seven Earths, flat and layered, not spherical planets or metaphorical meanings. These were not symbolic but part of their cosmological framework, derived from or parallel to ancient Near Eastern and Judaic cosmologies.

From a modern scientific perspective, this belief contradicts astronomy, geology, and planetary science. There is no evidence of seven flat Earths beneath our world, each inhabited by distinct peoples or creatures. These ideas reflect ancient cosmology, not divine revelation.

Conclusion

Given the overwhelming weight of early Islamic sources and interpretations, it is inescapable to conclude that:

The Qur'an’s teaching of seven heavens and seven Earths is a reflection of pre-scientific cosmology.
Muhammad himself believed and taught that the universe was structured in seven layers of heavens and Earths, with vast distances and fantastical creatures.
This model is not only scientifically incorrect but is also presented as divinely revealed truth.
Thus, this undermines the Qur'an’s claim to scientific or divine perfection and further challenges the prophetic authority of Muhammad.

Therefore, the Qur'an’s description of the universe is rooted in ancient myth and cannot be reconciled with modern scientific understanding. This raises serious theological implications about the authenticity of the Qur'an and the prophethood of Muhammad.

Shalom,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
For Max Shimba Ministries

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.