Wednesday, December 3, 2025

Two Hearts in One Chest?

“Two Hearts in One Chest?”

A Theological and Scientific Appraisal of Qur’an 33:4

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute, New York, NY

Abstract

Qur’an 33:4 states that God “has not placed two hearts in any person’s chest.” Read straightforwardly, the verse appears to make an empirical claim about human anatomy, while the classical exegetical tradition typically treats it as a rhetorical denial aimed at Arab idioms and certain pre-Islamic practices. This article evaluates the verse on two fronts: (1) its literary-historical intent and the range of traditional interpretations; and (2) the biological record on “two hearts,” from human anomalies and surgical cases to animals with multiple cardiac pumps. I then pose a series of theological and scientific questions intended to sharpen debate across confessional lines and to clarify what, exactly, the verse is—and is not—asserting.

1) Text and Immediate Context

Qur’an 33:4 (Al-Aḥzāb) in a widely used modern English rendering reads:

“Allah does not place two hearts in any person’s chest; nor does He regard your wives as your mothers [by your saying ‘you are as my mother’s back’], nor your adopted sons as your [biological] sons…” (Quran.com)

Classical and modern tafsīr link 33:4–5 to two reforms: (a) invalidating ẓihār (a pre-Islamic formula likening a wife to one’s mother to dissolve marital obligations) and (b) correcting adoption/naming customs associated with Zayd ibn Ḥāritha, whose case is further discussed in 33:37. (QuranX, Islam Stack Exchange, Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research)

Notably, al-Jalālayn says the opening clause refutes those who boasted they had “two hearts” (i.e., superior intellect/resolve), situating the line as a rhetorical denial rather than a literal foray into anatomy. Maudūdī’s Tafhīm likewise reads it as an emphatic negation placed alongside the reforms of ẓihār and adoption. (QuranX, Surah Quran)

2) Linguistic Considerations

The verse says “God has not placed two hearts in any man/person (min rajulin) within his chest.” On its face, it universalizes to any human. Yet in idiomatic Arabic, “two hearts” functioned as a figure of speech for divided allegiance or an alleged mental superiority. Thus, the line plausibly means: a person cannot be of two minds in ultimate loyalty, dovetailing with the adjoining legal-ethical reforms. This reading is consistent with major tafsīr. (QuranX, Quran.com)

Still, because the verse uses concrete anatomical wording, questions arise about scope: Is the statement (a) purely idiomatic; (b) a generalization about natural human anatomy; (c) a theological axiom about undivided devotion; or (d) more than one of these at once?

3) Biology: What Do We Know about “Two Hearts”?

3.1 Humans

Naturally occurring two complete hearts in a single human being (from conception) is not a recognized viable phenotype in medical literature. Congenital anomalies can produce complex hearts (incorrect chambering, duplication of parts, situs disorders), but not a fully duplicated, independent second heart. (Circulation Journals, Translational Pediatrics)
Conjoined twins can present with two hearts within a shared thoracic complex, but that is two individuals biologically. (This article focuses on single individuals.)
Heterotopic heart transplantation (a “piggy-back” procedure) can result in one patient living with two hearts (the native and the donor heart) functioning simultaneously for years or decades—a medical reality since the late 20th century. Clinicians and case reports explicitly describe “living with two hearts.” (Temple Now, PMC, Oxford Academic)

Implication: If 33:4 were read as a strict, timeless anatomical claim, heterotopic transplants form an interesting boundary case: a single person with two functional hearts in one chest by medical intervention.

3.2 Animals

Multiple “hearts” (or heart-like pumps) do occur in other species:

Octopuses and squids: typically three hearts—one systemic heart and two branchial hearts that pump blood across the gills. (Natural History Museum)
Hagfish: one principal heart plus several accessory pumps (some accounts enumerate up to five “hearts” when counting auxiliaries). (The Lancet, Labroots)
Earthworms: often misdescribed as having “five hearts,” but these are aortic arches—contractile vessels, not homologous to a vertebrate heart. (CK-12 Foundation, A-Z Animals)

Popular science outlets continue to highlight animals with multiple pumping organs, underscoring that “more than one heart” is a real, well-documented non-human adaptation. (WorldAtlas, The Times of India)

4) Theological Readings and Points of Tension

Rhetorical/Idiomatic Reading (dominant in tafsīr):
The verse negates the metaphor of dual hearts to insist upon undivided loyalty and to anchor legal reforms. On this reading, the statement is not a propositional claim about anatomy, and neither conjoined twins nor heterotopic transplants are relevant. (QuranX, Surah Quran)
Literal-Anatomical Reading (minor but possible):
If taken as a universal claim about creation, then (a) natural human development indeed does not produce two separate hearts; yet (b) modern surgery can place two hearts in one chest with both beating—raising the question whether the verse intended to preclude such a state “for any human” in principle, or speaking of how God originally fashions humans (pre-intervention). (PMC)
Meta-Ethical Reading (allegiance):
The “one heart” motif functions as a theological axiom: God does not design humans to sustain ultimate dual loyalties. This coheres with the immediate legal corrections (ẓihār, adoption naming) as acts that required cleaving false equivalences (wife ≠ mother; adopted son ≠ biological son) to restore moral clarity. (My Islam)

5) A Structured Challenge: Questions for Debate

A. Theological Questions

Scope of Universality: Does “any person” (min rajulin) intend all humans across all times and conditions, or only natural formation absent postnatal intervention? How do exegetes justify one scope over the other from the Arabic and the context? (Quran.com)
Genre and Intent: If the clause is rhetorical, what markers in 33:4–5 signal metaphor rather than empirical claim? How does this affect Muslim claims that Qur’anic statements routinely align with scientific discovery? (QuranX)
Coherence with Reforms: In what way does “one heart” theologically underwrite the reforms on ẓihār and adoption—i.e., is the verse primarily about moral non-equivalence (you cannot treat X as if Y), rather than about biology? (Surah Quran, Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research)
Providence and Technology: If God says no person has two hearts, how should a Muslim theologian account for heterotopic transplants that produce precisely that state? Is the verse restricted to original creation (fitra), allowing technology to create exceptions, or is it timeless and exceptionless? (Temple Now, PMC)
Hermeneutical Consistency: When should verses be read metaphorically versus literally? What criteria—language, context, consensus (ijmāʿ), or scientific data—decide the matter?

B. Scientific Questions

Definitional Rigor: What counts as a “heart”? Vertebrate single pump vs. invertebrate multiple pumps; accessory vs. principal hearts (e.g., hagfish). How should claims about “two hearts” control for homology and function? (The Lancet, CK-12 Foundation)
Human Boundary Cases: Do conjoined twins (two hearts in shared anatomy) or heterotopic recipients falsify a blanket, literal reading? If not, why not? (Temple Now, PMC)
Developmental Biology: Are there any documented human cases of cardiac duplication (a truly second, independent heart) compatible with postnatal life? Current literature points to complex malformations, not full duplication. What would such a case imply for scriptural interpretation? (Circulation Journals)
Comparative Physiology: Given that octopuses have three hearts and hagfish have multiple pumps, how should theology engage non-human diversity in God’s creation without retrofitting texts into scientific concordism? (Natural History Museum, The Lancet)
Surgical Theology: Does the success of two-heart physiology in heterotopic transplants suggest that “two hearts” is biophysically viable for humans (with assistance), thus challenging readings that treat the state as inherently impossible? (PMC)

6) Synthesis and Position

Historically and exegetically, 33:4 functions as a rhetorical and ethical pivot: “two hearts” negates divided allegiance and undergirds reforms to marriage and adoption practices. This is well attested in classical tafsīr. (QuranX, Surah Quran)
Empirically, no naturally developed human is known to possess two fully independent hearts; however, medicine can—and does—produce a two-heart state in one chest via heterotopic transplantation, sometimes for decades. Thus, a strictly literal, exceptionless reading that outlaws the very possibility is difficult to maintain without narrowing the claim to natural formation only. (PMC, Temple Now)
Comparative biology demonstrates that multiple hearts are a real feature of God’s broader creation (octopus, hagfish, etc.), underscoring that the Qur’anic clause, if read as a universal biological principle, cannot extend beyond humans without qualification. (Natural History Museum, The Lancet)

7) Conclusion

A careful, scholarly reading suggests Qur’an 33:4 is best understood as rhetorical theology in service of moral-legal reform, not as a blanket scientific assertion about anatomy. Nevertheless, because the verse uses anatomical language, it invites empirical scrutiny and, with modern cardiothoracic practice, yields borderline counterexamples (two hearts in one person post-transplant). Theologically, Muslim scholars can preserve the verse’s integrity by anchoring it in idiom and intention (undivided allegiance, rejection of false equivalences), while acknowledging that medical technology can generate physiological states that the verse was not addressing. From a debate standpoint, the key is clarifying scope and genre—and resisting the urge to stretch the text into a universal scientific maxim.

Selected References

Qur’an text and translations with notes: Qur’an 33:4–5. (Quran.com)
Classical exegesis (al-Jalālayn; summaries of Ibn Kathīr/Maudūdī): (QuranX, Surah Quran, Quran.com)
Context of reform (ẓihār; adoption; Zayd/Zaynab discussions): (Islam Stack Exchange, Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research)
Heterotopic (“two hearts”) transplantation cases: (PMC, Temple Now)
Multiple hearts in animals (octopus, hagfish; earthworm aortic arches): (Natural History Museum, The Lancet, CK-12 Foundation, A-Z Animals)
Popular overviews of multi-heart species (for accessible context): (WorldAtlas, The Times of India)

Correspondence:
Shimba Theological Institute · New York, NY

A Critical Analysis of Qur’an 21:107

A Critical Analysis of Qur’an 21:107:

"We have not sent you (O Muhammad) except as a mercy to all the worlds"

Introduction

The Qur’an makes a striking claim in Surah al-Anbiyā’ 21:107: “And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds (لِّـلْعٰلَمِيْنَ).” Muslim tradition interprets this verse as affirming Muhammad’s universal mission and his embodiment of divine mercy. However, when critically examined in light of historical evidence, linguistic analysis, and theological comparison with Biblical revelation, several issues arise. The verse reveals inconsistencies in the Qur’an’s presentation of Muhammad, raises questions about the meaning of “mercy,” and introduces the problematic term ‘worlds’ (plural), which lacks scriptural or historical coherence.

1. The Concept of “Mercy” in Qur’an 21:107

In Islamic exegesis (tafsīr), the Arabic term raḥmah (mercy) is often interpreted as divine compassion manifested through Muhammad’s mission. Classical commentators like al-Ṭabarī (d. 923) and Ibn Kathīr (d. 1373) describe this mercy as Muhammad’s role in guiding humanity to Islam, thereby saving them from eternal punishment. However, this interpretation is inconsistent with historical evidence.

Historical Violence: The biography of Muhammad (sīrah) and hadith literature record numerous acts of warfare, executions, and forced conversions (see Ibn Hishām, Sīrat Rasūl Allāh; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ). These raise the question: in what sense can such actions be defined as “mercy”?
Contrast with Jesus Christ: In Christian theology, Jesus embodies mercy through sacrificial love and forgiveness (John 3:16; Matthew 5:44). Unlike Muhammad, Jesus never employed violence as a means of spreading faith.

Thus, the Qur’anic claim that Muhammad was “mercy” requires scrutiny when juxtaposed with historical accounts of his actions.

2. The Plural “Worlds” (لِّـلْعٰلَمِيْنَ)

The Qur’an frequently refers to God as “Lord of the worlds” (Rabb al-‘Ālamīn) (Qur’an 1:2). However, this raises critical issues:

Ambiguity of “Worlds”: In both Hebrew (olam) and Greek (kosmos) biblical texts, the world is consistently singular in reference to creation. The idea of multiple “worlds” is absent in the Bible, which speaks of “heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1) but not “worlds.”
Historical Incoherence: Neither Jewish nor Christian Scripture, nor extra-biblical ancient literature, records the existence of multiple “worlds” to which a prophet might be sent. Muhammad himself lived in a geographically limited context in Arabia and never interacted with other “worlds” or civilizations beyond his immediate environment.
Later Cosmological Influence: Some Muslim theologians interpret “worlds” as encompassing humans, jinn, angels, and all of creation (al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb). However, this is a post-hoc theological rationalization. Historically, Muhammad did not address angels or extraterrestrial beings; his preaching was confined to the Arabian Peninsula.

This linguistic and theological vagueness undermines the claim of universal “mercy.”

3. Mercy or Terror?

The critical question is whether Muhammad’s mission resulted in mercy or coercion.

Mercy in the Qur’an? The Qur’an repeatedly commands fighting against non-believers (Qur’an 9:5; 9:29). Far from universal mercy, these verses promote hostility toward Jews, Christians, and polytheists.
The Sword versus the Cross: Historical expansion of Islam through jihad contrasts starkly with the New Testament’s call for evangelism through persuasion and love (Matthew 28:19–20).

Thus, what the Qur’an frames as “mercy” may in fact be more accurately described as political conquest.

Conclusion

Qur’an 21:107 asserts that Muhammad was sent as a “mercy to the worlds,” yet historical, linguistic, and theological analysis exposes the fragility of this claim. The plural “worlds” has no biblical or historical foundation, and the violent aspects of Muhammad’s mission contradict the very essence of mercy. In contrast, the biblical portrait of Jesus Christ presents true mercy—self-giving love, forgiveness, and redemption for all humanity. Therefore, Qur’an 21:107 serves less as evidence of divine revelation and more as an example of Muhammad’s self-ascribed prophetic authority.

References and Bibliography

al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad ibn Ismā‘īl. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Cairo: Dār al-Ḥadīth, 1996.
al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad ibn Jarīr. Jāmi‘ al-Bayān fī Ta’wīl Āy al-Qur’ān. Cairo: Dār al-Ma‘ārif, 1954.
Ibn Hishām, ‘Abd al-Malik. Sīrat Rasūl Allāh. Edited by Wüstenfeld, G. Göttingen: 1858.
Ibn Kathīr, Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Umar. Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘Aẓīm. Riyadh: Dār al-Salām, 1999.
al-Rāzī, Fakhr al-Dīn. Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1981.
Crone, Patricia, and Michael Cook. Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, 2016.
Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.

Jesus is God: The Alpha and the Omega

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The Christian faith affirms that Jesus Christ is not merely a prophet, teacher, or moral guide, but God Himself—the eternal Alpha and Omega. The titles "Alpha and Omega" (Revelation 1:8; 22:13) highlight His divine nature, His sovereignty over history, and His eternal existence as the beginning and the end of all things. The biblical witness consistently identifies Christ as the eternal God who enters human history for the redemption of mankind.

Jesus as the Alpha and Omega

The title Alpha and Omega is rooted in the Greek alphabet, where Alpha is the first letter and Omega the last. In Revelation, Jesus appropriates this divine title to Himself, thus affirming His eternal nature:

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:8, NKJV).

Only God is eternal, uncreated, and sovereign over time. By identifying Himself with this title, Jesus places Himself within the very identity of YHWH, affirming His deity.

Jesus in the Old Testament Witness

Even the Old Testament, though anticipating the Messiah, reveals God as the One who fights for His people and grants them victory:

“For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight against your enemies to give you victory.” (Deuteronomy 20:4, not Jeremiah 29:13).

This verse underscores God’s covenantal presence and salvific power. The New Testament reveals Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of this promise, for He is Emmanuel, “God with us” (Matthew 1:23). In Him, God personally goes before His people, conquering not only earthly enemies but sin, death, and the powers of darkness (Colossians 2:15).

Jesus as God Incarnate

The New Testament provides unambiguous testimony to Christ’s divine nature:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” (John 1:1, 14).
“He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:17).
“I am the First and the Last; I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive forever and ever!” (Revelation 1:17–18).

These passages affirm Jesus’ identity as the eternal God who became man, lived among His creation, died, and rose again.

Theological Implications

The confession that Jesus is God, the Alpha and Omega carries profound implications for faith and life:

Trust: Believers are invited to put their absolute confidence in Christ, knowing that the One who is the beginning and the end is also their sustainer.
Love: In Jesus, God’s eternal love is made visible. His sacrificial death demonstrates the fullness of divine love (John 15:13).
Victory: Just as the LORD gave victory to Israel, Christ gives ultimate victory to all believers through His death and resurrection.

Thus, to proclaim Jesus as the Alpha and Omega is to affirm both His eternal Godhood and His saving work in human history.

References

The Holy Bible, New King James Version (NKJV).
Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to New Testament Christology. Paulist Press, 1994.
Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Eerdmans, 2008.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Zondervan, 1994.
Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Fortress Press, 1996.

✍️ Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

I Love Jesus: A Theological and Spiritual Reflection

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The declaration “I love Jesus” is more than a personal confession of faith; it is a profound theological affirmation rooted in Scripture, history, and Christian experience. To love Jesus is to acknowledge His divine personhood, His saving work, and His ongoing presence in the life of the believer. Love for Christ is not a sentimental attachment but a response to divine grace, grounded in the reality that “we love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). This article seeks to provide an academic and spiritual reflection on the meaning of loving Jesus and its implications for Christian discipleship.

The Biblical Foundation of Loving Jesus

The New Testament consistently places love for Jesus at the center of Christian life. In John 14:15, Christ Himself declares, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Love for Jesus is therefore inseparable from obedience to His word. The Apostle Paul also reminds us that love for Christ is the driving force of the believer’s life: “The love of Christ compels us” (2 Corinthians 5:14). To love Jesus is to participate in the covenantal relationship inaugurated by His death and resurrection, whereby believers are united with Him in faith and transformed into His likeness (Romans 8:29).

The biblical witness also presents love for Jesus as the ultimate measure of discipleship. When the risen Christ asked Peter three times, “Do you love me?” (John 21:15–17), He revealed that authentic ministry and service must flow from a heart of love for the Savior. Thus, to love Jesus is to embrace a life of devotion, obedience, and mission.

Theological Implications of Loving Jesus

Loving Jesus carries profound theological significance. First, it acknowledges His divinity. As Thomas confessed after the resurrection, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). To love Jesus is to love God Himself, for Jesus is the visible manifestation of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). Second, love for Christ affirms His redemptive work. The believer’s affection is directed not only toward His person but also toward His saving acts—His incarnation, sacrificial death, and glorious resurrection. Third, it shapes Christian anthropology: to love Jesus is to find one’s identity, purpose, and destiny in Him.

Theologically, this love transcends human emotion. It is rooted in agape—the selfless, divine love that transforms the believer’s will, affections, and actions. Such love is both given and sustained by the Holy Spirit, who pours the love of God into our hearts (Romans 5:5).

The Practical Expression of Loving Jesus

An academic reflection on the phrase “I love Jesus” must also consider its practical outworking. Love for Christ cannot remain abstract; it manifests itself in concrete expressions of discipleship. These include:

Obedience to His Word – True love for Jesus is demonstrated through faithful adherence to His teachings.
Worship and Devotion – Love finds expression in adoration, prayer, and fellowship with the Lord.
Love for Others – Jesus taught that love for Him must be reflected in love for our neighbors (Matthew 22:37–39).
Mission and Service – To love Jesus is to share His gospel and embody His compassion in the world.

Conclusion

To say “I love Jesus” is to embrace the essence of Christian existence. It is both an intimate confession and a cosmic truth, binding the believer to the eternal Word made flesh. This love is not merely emotional but theological, ethical, and missional. It is sustained by grace, nurtured by Scripture, and empowered by the Spirit. Ultimately, the believer’s love for Jesus is a reflection of God’s prior love manifested in Christ, a love that calls us to live faithfully, serve sacrificially, and hope expectantly for the consummation of all things in Him.

References

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV).
Augustine, Confessions.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, Vol. IV/1: The Doctrine of Reconciliation.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship.

Sermon: Man Is a Spirit

Scripture Readings:

Genesis 1:26–27
Genesis 2:7
John 4:23–24
1 Thessalonians 5:23

Introduction

Beloved, today we are going to look at one of the greatest revelations about our true identity: Man is a spirit. When God created us, He made us more than flesh and blood. We are not simply physical beings having spiritual experiences; we are spiritual beings living in a physical body. Understanding this truth will transform how we live, how we worship, and how we walk with God.

1. The Spirit Man Created in Genesis 1

In Genesis 1:26–27, the Bible says:
“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion…’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

Notice here, man is created in the image of God. And John 4:24 tells us, “God is Spirit.” Therefore, if we are created in His image, then first and foremost, we are spirit. This is not about our bodies or our souls—it is about the eternal spirit God placed within us. That spirit is the real “you,” the part of you that can connect directly with God.

God gave this spirit-man dominion over everything He had created—the fish, the birds, the animals, and the earth itself. Spirit comes before flesh. Authority comes from the spirit, not from the body.

2. The Body and Soul Formed in Genesis 2

In Genesis 2:7, the Scripture says:
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

Here we see the full picture:

Body from the dust (the physical container).
Spirit from the breath of God.
Soul came alive, which is the seat of our mind, emotions, and will.

So man is tripartite—spirit, soul, and body (1 Thess. 5:23). But your spirit is the core of your being; it is eternal, made in God’s likeness.

3. Worship in Spirit and Truth

Jesus said in John 4:23–24, “The true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Your body may clap, your soul may rejoice, but true worship flows from the spirit. Why? Because only your spirit can directly commune with God, who is Spirit. This is why worship is not about rituals, songs, or places—it is about spirit-to-Spirit connection with the living God.

4. The Spirit Is Not Limited by Time, Space, or Matter

The body is bound by time, space, and physical laws. But your spirit is not. Your spirit will live forever. Even after the body returns to dust, the spirit continues—either in the presence of God or separated from Him.

This is why Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:16: “Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day.” The spirit man does not age the way the body does, for it is eternal.

This is also why prayer, intercession, and worship transcend physical boundaries. In the Spirit, you can touch heaven while standing on earth. In the Spirit, you can enter the throne room of God without leaving your room.

5. Living as Spirit-Conscious People

If man is a spirit, then we must live spirit-led lives. Too often, people are body-conscious or soul-conscious—they live by feelings, desires, and earthly appetites. But Scripture calls us to walk by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16).

When you live spirit-conscious:

You will not be dominated by fear, because the spirit is eternal.
You will not be controlled by the flesh, because the spirit rules the body.
You will not be bound by circumstances, because the spirit is greater than time and space.

Conclusion

Man is a spirit, with a soul, living in a body. God created us to have dominion, to worship Him in spirit and in truth, and to live beyond the limits of flesh. Beloved, let us rise up and walk in the reality of our true identity. We are not just earthly beings—we are eternal spirits, children of the Most High God.

Call to Action

Renew your mind daily with the Word of God, so your soul aligns with your spirit.
Discipline your body, so it serves the spirit and not the other way around.
Commit yourself to worship and prayer in the Spirit, for that is your true connection to God.

✨ Closing Prayer:
Father, thank You for creating us in Your image and breathing into us the breath of life. Help us to live spirit-conscious lives, to walk in the authority You gave us, and to worship You in spirit and truth. May our spirit always lead our soul and body in obedience to You. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

Scholarly Rebuttal Outline: Trinity and Mary in the Qur’an

1. Qur’anic Claim

Surah al-Ma’idah 5:116 suggests Christians worship a trinity of Allah, Jesus, and Mary.
This forms the basis of the Qur’an’s alleged critique of Christianity.

2. Historical Christian Doctrine

Trinity: One God in three persons — Father, Son, Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14).
Mary: Blessed among women, honored as Theotokos (Mother of God in Christ’s humanity), never divine.
Evidence:
- Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) – Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Mary absent.
- Athanasian Creed – Confirms Trinitarian orthodoxy.
- Church Fathers (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius) – No doctrine of Mary as God.
Conclusion: Qur’anic claim is historically and theologically false.

3. Logical/Theological Analysis

God is truth (Titus 1:2; Numbers 23:19).
If the Qur’an were revelation from God, it could not misrepresent Christian belief.
Qur’an’s misrepresentation = logical impossibility for a true omniscient God.

4. Implications for Islam

Allah in the Qur’an:
- Misrepresents historical and theological facts.
- Demonstrates either ignorance or deception.
Muhammad as prophet:
- Claims false revelation.
- Therefore cannot be a messenger of the true God (Deuteronomy 18:20–22).

5. Scriptural Affirmation of Truth

Bible confirms:
- God cannot lie (Titus 1:2).
- God revealed Himself as Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
- Jesus Christ is the eternal Word and Savior (John 1:1–14).

6. Debate Strategy

Ask the Muslim scholar: “Have any Christians ever taught that Mary is God?”
Cite historical evidence: Church councils, creeds, writings of early Church Fathers.
Expose the logical flaw: Omniscient God would not misrepresent human belief.
Contrast with Scripture: Highlight God’s truthfulness and Christ’s divine revelation.
Conclude firmly: Qur’an misrepresents, Allah cannot be God, Muhammad cannot be true prophet, only Jesus is Savior and God.

7. Optional Closing Question

“If God cannot lie, how can the Qur’an claim Christians worship Mary, when history and theology clearly prove they do not?”

Debate Closing Statement: The False Trinity of the Qur’an

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to close with clarity.

The Qur’an in Surah al-Ma’idah 5:116 accuses Christians of worshiping a Trinity made of Allah, Jesus, and Mary. But let history and theology bear witness: no Christian council, no creed, no Church Father, no denomination has ever taught such a thing.

The true Christian confession has always been: One God in three persons — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Mary is honored as the mother of Jesus in His humanity, but never as God. To claim otherwise is to misrepresent two thousand years of Christian faith.

Now, here is the problem for Islam: If Allah is truly God, He should know what Christians believe. If the Qur’an is truly revelation, it should represent the Christian doctrine truthfully. But the Qur’an does not. It fabricates a false trinity and puts false words in the mouth of Jesus. That is not divine revelation; that is error.

And if the Qur’an contains error, then Allah is not all-knowing, and Muhammad is not a prophet of the true God. By contrast, the Bible tells us that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), His Word is truth (John 17:17), and His revelation is perfect (Psalm 19:7).

Therefore, the conclusion is unavoidable: The Qur’an is false, Muhammad is a false prophet, and Allah is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

But there is good news. The true God has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, the eternal Word made flesh, who died for our sins and rose again. He is alive, He reigns, and He saves all who call upon His name.

So I leave you with a challenge:

Follow the book that misrepresents history, or follow the Savior who conquered death.
Trust in a prophet who lied, or trust in the Son of God who is the Truth.

As for me, I will stand with the Triune God — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — the only true and living God, forever praised.

Thank you.

Sermon: The False Trinity of the Qur’an

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

Beloved in Christ, today we expose a great deception that has confused many. The Qur’an, in Surah al-Ma’idah 5:116, accuses Christians of worshiping a trinity of Allah, Jesus, and Mary. It claims that our Lord Jesus told people to take His mother as a deity. Let me say it clearly: this is a lie from the pit of hell!

No Christian in history, no Church Father, no council, no denomination—Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant—has ever declared Mary as God. She is blessed among women, yes; she is the mother of our Lord in His humanity, yes; but she is a servant of God, not part of the Godhead.

The True Trinity

The Bible is clear: One God in three persons — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Jesus commanded baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).
Paul blessed the Church with “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit” (2 Corinthians 13:14).

Mary’s name is never in this divine formula. The Trinity is eternal, holy, and perfect — and Mary is a created being redeemed by her own Son.

The Qur’an’s Error

Now, if the Qur’an truly came from God, it could not misrepresent the faith of Christians. God is all-knowing. God is truth. God cannot lie.

But the Qur’an does lie. It puts words in the mouth of Jesus that He never spoke. It fabricates a false trinity. And by doing so, it exposes itself as a counterfeit revelation.

This means that Allah, the god of the Qur’an, is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The god of the Qur’an is a deceiver. And Muhammad, who spread this deception, is not a prophet of God but a false prophet—for the Bible says in Deuteronomy 18:20: “But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak…that prophet shall die.”

The Call to Truth

Church, the truth remains unshaken:

God the Father — the Creator of heaven and earth.
God the Son — Jesus Christ, eternal Word made flesh, our Savior and Redeemer.
God the Holy Spirit — the Comforter, our Guide, our Seal of salvation.

This is the holy Trinity, the true God, revealed in Scripture, worshiped by the Church, and confessed by the saints throughout the ages.

Therefore, let us boldly proclaim: The Qur’an is false. Muhammad is not a prophet. And Allah is not the true God. The living God is revealed in Jesus Christ our Lord — the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Conclusion & Proclamation

Brothers and sisters, lift your voices in faith:

We do not worship Mary.
We do not worship a false trinity.
We worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — one God in three persons, blessed forever.

Let the world hear it: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One” (Deuteronomy 6:4), and that one Lord has revealed Himself fully in Jesus Christ.

Amen and Amen!

The Misrepresentation of the Trinity in the Qur’an

The Misrepresentation of the Trinity in the Qur’an:

A Theological Refutation of the Claim that Mary is Part of the Godhead

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the most startling and historically inaccurate assertions in the Qur’an is its depiction of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. In Surah al-Ma’idah 5:116, the Qur’an records Allah as allegedly questioning Jesus:

“And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, ‘O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?’”

This verse implies that Christians worship a triad consisting of Allah, Jesus, and Mary. The theological problem with this portrayal is obvious: at no point in the two millennia of Christian doctrine—whether in Scripture, Patristics, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant theology—has Mary ever been considered a member of the Trinity. This Qur’anic statement is not only a misrepresentation of Christian faith but also evidence that the Qur’an is not divine revelation. A true God would not misrepresent the faith of His people.

The Christian Doctrine of the Trinity

Christianity has always confessed one God in three co-eternal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). From the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. to the Athanasian Creed, this Trinitarian confession has been universally held. Mary, while venerated as the Theotokos (“Mother of God” in the sense of giving birth to Christ in His humanity), has never been elevated to divine status within orthodox Christianity.

Even in the highest forms of Marian devotion within Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, Mary remains a creature, a servant of God, and never a deity. To suggest otherwise is to invent a caricature of Christian theology.

The Qur’an’s Error

The Qur’an’s reference to Mary as a member of the divine triad demonstrates either:

A profound misunderstanding of Christian doctrine on Muhammad’s part.
A deliberate distortion intended to ridicule Christian belief.

Both options disqualify the Qur’an as divine revelation. For if Allah were truly omniscient, He would not misrepresent what Christians believed. This is a theological impossibility—God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Numbers 23:19).

Thus, if the Qur’an asserts that Christians worship Mary as part of the Godhead, when no Christian sect in history has ever held such a belief, then the Qur’an has borne false witness. This exposes both the Qur’an and Muhammad as unreliable and false.

Patristic and Historical Witness

The writings of the early Church Fathers (e.g., Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, Augustine) consistently articulate the Trinitarian doctrine. The Cappadocian Fathers (Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen) refined Trinitarian theology, distinguishing between essence (ousia) and persons (hypostases). At no point is Mary included.

Even apocryphal and heretical sects never suggested Mary was divine. The Qur’anic accusation is, therefore, not based on history, but on a fabricated polemic.

Theological Consequence: Allah as a False Deity

If the Qur’an misrepresents Christian theology, then Allah—the speaker of the Qur’an—is a deceiver. The Bible clearly teaches that Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44). Therefore, the god of the Qur’an cannot be the true and living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but a counterfeit spirit.

If Muhammad proclaimed this distortion as revelation, he stands exposed not as a prophet of God but as a false prophet (Deuteronomy 18:20–22).

Conclusion

Christians never claimed Mary is part of the Trinity. The Qur’an’s portrayal of Mary as a deity reveals historical ignorance and theological falsehood. Since God cannot err, lie, or misrepresent, the Qur’an cannot be divine. Consequently, Muhammad is not a prophet of the true God, and the Qur’an must be rejected as revelation.

The true Trinity remains: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—the eternal God who saves.

📖 References

Holy Bible, ESV.
Nicene Creed (325 A.D.); Athanasian Creed.
Augustine, De Trinitate.
Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit.
Al-Ma’idah 5:116, The Qur’an.

Apostle Paul vs. Muhammad: Who Stands as the True Messenger?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba | Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction
Muslims often accuse the Apostle Paul of being a false apostle, a corrupter of Scripture, and even claim he was the one who first called Jesus “God” and established Christianity as we know it today. These are serious allegations that warrant a careful, scriptural response. In this study, we shall weigh the lives, callings, teachings, and spiritual fruit of both Paul and Muhammad by the standards of divine revelation. Who truly stands as a legitimate apostle of God?

1. The Birth and Heritage of Paul and Muhammad

Paul’s Birth and Heritage

Paul declares in Acts 22:3, “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia…” Tarsus was a significant city under Roman rule, famous for its intellectual culture and skilled artisans. As such, Paul was born not only into Jewish nobility but was also a Roman citizen by birth (Acts 22:25-28). Paul traces his lineage to the noble tribe of Benjamin, making him a true descendant of Abraham—the patriarch through whom all nations were to be blessed (Genesis 12:1-4; 22:15-18, Romans 11:1). Paul himself describes his credentials:

“…circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee.” (Philippians 3:4-5)

Muhammad’s Birth and Heritage

Muhammad was born in 570 AD in Mecca, in the Arabian Peninsula. The Qur’an (41:44) acknowledges his Arab descent. According to Qur’an 34:44, no scripture or prophetic warning had ever been given to his people before him, meaning both Muhammad and his Arab contemporaries were born into spiritual ignorance, with no revealed book or knowledge of the true God. Islamic tradition records that pre-Islamic Arabs worshipped many idols and even objects such as attractive loaves of bread.

Theological Reflection:
Paul was born into a lineage of God’s covenant people, trained in the knowledge and worship of the one true God. In contrast, Muhammad emerged from a people who had neither knowledge of God nor His revelation.

2. The Education of Paul and Muhammad

Paul’s Education

Paul testifies,

“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city [Jerusalem]. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors.” (Acts 22:3)

Gamaliel was one of the most respected teachers of Jewish law (Acts 5:34). Paul excelled above his peers in zeal and knowledge (Galatians 1:14) and went on to author thirteen epistles by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 6:11; 2 Peter 3:15-17).

Muhammad’s Education

The Qur’an itself acknowledges that Muhammad was “unlettered” (Qur’an 7:157, 62:2), unable to read or write. Islamic sources confirm that neither Muhammad nor his tribe, the Quraysh, were educated in reading or writing.
His lack of formal knowledge led to teachings that diverge from common sense and sound doctrine, such as the recommendation to use dust for ritual purification (Qur’an 5:6) or the infamous hadith instructing followers to fully submerge a fly in a drink, asserting that one wing carries disease and the other cure (Mishkat al-Masabih, vol. 2, p. 152).

Theological Reflection:
Whereas Paul was equipped with both spiritual and academic formation, Muhammad’s lack of knowledge is not presented in the Qur’an as a sign of humility, but as a limitation—contrary to biblical standards for prophetic leadership (Ezekiel 13:3).

3. The Faith of Paul and Muhammad

Paul’s Faith

Paul was raised as a devout Jew, strictly adhering to the Law and the prophets before his conversion (Galatians 1:13; Acts 26:4-5). Even after his encounter with Christ, he continued teaching from the Law and the Prophets to prove Jesus is the Messiah (Acts 28:23).

Muhammad’s Faith

Before Islam, Muhammad was a pagan among the Quraysh, worshipping the 360 idols of the Kaaba, including the black stone and deities like al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat (Qur’an 53:16-23).

Theological Reflection:
Paul’s faith was rooted in the progressive revelation of the one true God; Muhammad’s was rooted in polytheistic traditions before claiming prophetic status.

4. The Calling to Apostleship

Paul’s Calling

Paul was directly commissioned by the risen Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-8). Christ’s command was later confirmed to Ananias in a vision (Acts 9:11-15), and Paul’s apostleship was validated by his preaching before nations and kings (Galatians 1:17; Acts 9:19-20, 17:16-22, 18:19, 28:16-30; Romans 15:24-28).

Muhammad’s Calling

According to early Islamic biographies, Muhammad received his calling through a mysterious encounter in a cave, where an unknown being (later identified as Gabriel) commanded him to “read.” Terrified, Muhammad returned home trembling and feared he was possessed or bewitched. His wife Khadijah and her cousin Waraqa bin Nawfal reassured him that he was a prophet, essentially bestowing the prophetic title upon him. There is no direct divine commissioning as seen with biblical prophets, and Muhammad himself doubted the nature of his experience.

Theological Reflection:
True prophetic calls in Scripture are direct, clear, and bring assurance, not confusion or terror. God forbids divination and fortune-telling (Deuteronomy 18:10-12), practices that surround Muhammad’s alleged calling.

5. Signs and Miracles

Paul’s Miracles

“God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.” (Acts 19:11-12)

Muhammad and Miracles

The Qur’an explicitly denies that Muhammad performed miracles, instead claiming that miracles belong to Allah alone and are given at His discretion (Qur’an 29:50). Islamic sources further report that Muhammad was himself afflicted by sorcery (Bukhari, Sahih Muslim).

Theological Reflection:
Biblical prophets are validated by signs and wonders; Muhammad performed none, and even suffered affliction by sorcery—contrary to the pattern of God’s messengers.

6. Reception of Revelations (Visions/Wahy)

Paul

Paul received clear visions and direct messages from the Lord (Acts 16:9-10, 18:9, 26:19).

Muhammad

Muhammad described his experiences of “wahy” (revelation) as physically distressing, often likening them to the ringing of bells, leaving him disoriented (see Islamic sources).

7. The Danger of Rejecting the Apostle Paul

Peter warns,

“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters… His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction…” (2 Peter 3:15-18).

Rejecting Paul’s apostleship and gospel is tantamount to rejecting the very foundation of salvation in Christ, bringing condemnation (Romans 2:16).

Conclusion
Those who deny the apostleship of Paul and the gospel he preached are described by Scripture as ignorant, unstable, and doomed to judgment. In every measure—heritage, education, faith, divine calling, miracles, revelation—Paul stands as a true apostle, whereas Muhammad’s claim is undermined by history and theology alike.

Come to Jesus, the true Savior!

Muhammad is found wanting before Paul.
It is all bluster—nothing more.

Shalom.

For further studies, visit Shimba Theological Institute or contact Dr. Maxwell Shimba.