Thursday, December 4, 2025

ALLAH REVEALS A VERSE CLAIMING THAT HE DWELLS IN MAKKAH AND NOT IN HEAVEN

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Thursday, September 29, 2016

ALLAH REVEALS A VERSE CLAIMING THAT HE DWELLS IN MAKKAH AND NOT IN HEAVEN

According to the Qur’an, Allah acknowledges and confesses that the true God is above—dwelling in heaven. However, in order to divert the Muslims, he commands them to direct their faces toward the place where he himself resides—namely, Makkah.

What Does It Mean to Swear an Oath?

To swear, to take an oath, or to make a solemn vow means to affirm something by invoking the Name of Almighty God, especially when the matter being sworn by lacks clear or visible evidence. The one who swears declares that the statement is as true and reliable as claimed, and therefore the hearer is expected to believe it—because the ultimate guarantor of the oath is God Himself, the only One who knows the truth or falsehood of what is hidden in the human heart.

A Qur’anic Verse That Demonstrates That Allah Lives in Makkah and Not in Heaven

The following passage establishes, according to the Qur’an, that Allah resides in the city of Makkah:

Surat al-Balad (Qur’an 90:1–2) translated by Sheikh Ali Muhsin Al-Barwani:

“I swear by this City!”
“And you are a dweller of this City.”
(Source: quranitukufu.net/090.html)

QUESTIONS:

Why does Muhammad swear by the city of Makkah?
Who is the one dwelling in the city of Makkah by whom Muhammad is swearing?

The Qur’an indicates that Muhammad is swearing by Allah—the one who dwells in Makkah.

After Allah “revealed” a verse claiming that He dwells in Makkah, Muhammad further emphasizes this idea in the hadith by prohibiting Muslims from looking toward heaven during prayer. Instead, he requires them to direct their faces toward Allah’s earthly dwelling.

BULUGH AL-MARĀM

Hadith 194 – Narrated by Jabir ibn Samurah:

“The Messenger of Allah said: People who raise their eyes toward the sky while in prayer must stop, otherwise their sight will not return to them.”

Yet, According to the Qur’an (Surat al-Mulk 67:17), Revealed in Makkah, We Read:

“Do you feel secure from Him who is in heaven…?”

Contrast With the Bible

The Bible consistently affirms that the true God is above in heaven:

John 11:41
“So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes upward and said, ‘Father, I thank You that You have heard Me.’”

The true and living God is above—in heaven. Yet the Allah of Islam is described as dwelling in Makkah, which is why Muslims travel there to perform prayer rituals.

A Loving Invitation

You are welcome to come to Jesus Christ. He loves you deeply.

Max Shimba Ministries Org.
September 29, 2016

Adultery and Islamic Hadith Literature: A Critical Theological Analysis

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

1. Introduction

Within Islamic theology, the Hadith literature occupies a central position as a secondary but authoritative source for shaping doctrine, ethics, law (Sharia), and Muslim conduct. Among the most cited compilers are Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari, considered by Sunni Islam as the most authentic collections after the Qur’an. Because of this elevated status, the ethical and doctrinal content found in these books can have profound implications for Islamic moral instruction.

One of the most contentious ethical themes present in these texts concerns the Islamic conceptualization of adultery (zina) and its theological inevitability. The following analysis examines two canonical hadiths that assert that every human being has a fixed and unavoidable portion of adultery, allegedly decreed by Allah. These texts raise serious questions regarding moral responsibility, divine justice, and the concept of sin, especially when contrasted with the biblical view of holiness, human agency, and divine righteousness.

This chapter critically examines these hadiths from an academic, theological, and comparative-religion perspective.

2. Primary Hadith Texts Describing "Inevitable" Adultery

2.1 Sahih Muslim, Book 33 (Destiny), Hadith 6421

In the chapter entitled “The measure of the son of Adam in regard to adultery,” Abu Huraira narrates:

“Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he of necessity must commit. The adultery of the eye is the lustful look, and the adultery of the tongue is the licentious speech; the heart desires and yearns, which the parts may or may not put into effect.”

This passage presents three theological claims:

Allah has predetermined a fixed portion of adultery for every person.
This adultery is described as something one “of necessity must commit.”
Adultery is broadly defined to include:
- Lustful looking (zina of the eyes),
- Lustful speech (zina of the tongue),
- Internal desire,
- Actual physical adultery.

2.2 Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 77 (Divine Will), Hadith 609

A similar narration is attributed to Ibn ʿAbbas through Abu Huraira:

“Allah has written for the son of Adam his inevitable share of adultery whether he is aware of it or not… The adultery of the eye is looking (at what is unlawful), the adultery of the tongue is uttering (what is unlawful), the inner self wishes and longs for adultery, and the private parts either fulfill that act or refrain from it.”

This second reference reinforces the first and emphasizes the inevitability and pre-written nature of each individual’s involvement in adultery.

3. Doctrinal Implications of the Hadith Claims

3.1 The Concept of Divine Decree (Al-Qadar)

These hadiths locate adultery within the larger Islamic doctrine of al-qadar—the belief that all events are pre-written by Allah. The explicit statement that adultery is “written,” “fixed,” and “inevitable” suggests that human moral agency is overshadowed by divine determinism.

In classical Islamic theology, the tension between divine decree and human freedom is well-known. However, these particular hadiths push the argument further by assigning a mandatory divine portion of a moral sin to every human being.

3.2 Ethical Consequences

If Allah decrees adultery as:

inevitable,
fixed, and
something a man must commit,

then several ethical problems arise:

Human responsibility is undermined.
If sin is divinely mandated, accountability becomes philosophically incoherent.
Moral agency collapses.
A predetermined moral failure cannot be genuinely considered a sin in any meaningful sense.
Divine justice becomes contradictory.
Punishing individuals for actions they were divinely compelled to perform contradicts universal principles of justice.

3.3 Redefinition of Adultery

The hadiths also expand the definition of adultery to include internal temptation, desire, and involuntary reactions such as looking. This redefinition results in:

A blurring of categories between temptation and sin,
Assigning guilt to normal human cognition,
Presenting desire as something divinely decreed rather than morally chosen.

This sweeping definition stands in sharp contrast to biblical teaching, which distinguishes:

Temptation (which is not sin),
Consent to sin,
The act of sin itself.

4. Comparative Theological Reflection (Islam vs. Bible)

4.1 Human Responsibility in Scripture

The Bible consistently affirms that:

Sin is a human choice (Genesis 4:7),
God does not tempt or compel anyone to sin (James 1:13–15),
Moral responsibility is inseparable from free will (Joshua 24:15).

In Christian theology, God is holy (Leviticus 11:44; 1 Peter 1:16) and cannot “fix a portion of sin” for anyone. Sin arises not from divine decree but from human desire misaligned with God’s will.

4.2 Jesus’ Teaching

Jesus’ teaching on adultery (Matthew 5:27–28) acknowledges that lustful intent is sinful, but He never teaches that such sin is:

Inevitable,
Divinely assigned, or
Necessitated by God.

Instead, Christ calls believers to holiness empowered by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16–17).

4.3 Divine Justice and Holiness

The biblical view of divine holiness is incompatible with a deity who ordains moral transgression. Holiness in Scripture means:

God is morally perfect,
His commands are righteous,
Human beings are responsible moral agents.

These fundamental biblical doctrines clash directly with the theological implications of the hadiths cited.

5. Academic Assessment

From an academic, historical, and theological standpoint, these hadiths reflect:

An internal Islamic struggle to reconcile deterministic theology with moral ethics,
A worldview where divine decree overrides human moral agency,
A significant departure from Judeo-Christian views of holiness, free will, and sin.

Furthermore, the presence of such teachings in Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari—sources held by Sunni Islam to be second only to the Qur’an—raises critical questions about the moral framework guiding Islamic anthropology and ethics.

These hadiths have been used throughout Islamic history to defend deterministic understandings of human behavior, often leading to theological interpretations that minimize personal accountability.

ALLAH IS NOT YEHOVAH “YAHUH” (יְהוָה), THE ALMIGHTY GOD

Friday, September 9, 2016

ALLAH SWEARS BY YEHOVAH, WHO CREATED MALE AND FEMALE
ALLAH IS NOT YEHOVAH “YAHUH” (יְהוָה), THE ALMIGHTY GOD
(PART FIVE)

Who created male and female?

QURAN 92:1–3

By the night when it covers,
By the day when it appears,
And by Him Who created the male and the female…

If a person swears by someone else, is he God or a human being? And who exactly is the Creator mentioned here? Allah swears “by Him who created,” and creation is an attribute of God. Therefore, Allah Himself is not the Creator in this verse.

Who is this One who created the male and the female, the One by whom the Allah of Islam swears? Continue reading… from the Holy Bible:

Jeremiah 27:5
“I made the earth, humankind, and the animals on the face of the earth by my great power and my outstretched arm; and I give it to anyone I please.”

Here we read that Yehovah, the God of the Bible, is the One who created everything— including the male and the female— the very beings by whom the Allah of Islam swears. Therefore, Jehovah created male and female, and Allah swears by Him. Now you decide: who is truly God?

Can God swear by another being? Keep learning…

Hebrews 6:13
“When God made His promise to Abraham, since He had no one greater by whom to swear, He swore by Himself.”

Jehovah declares that there is no one greater than Himself by whom He could swear. Yet Allah in the Qur’an swears by the One who created male and female.

Thus, today we understand that the Creator is Jehovah, and Allah swears by Jehovah, the God of the Bible and of Christians.

Therefore, Allah is not the Almighty God.

God bless you richly,
Max Shimba
© Max Shimba Ministries 2013

Exposing the kissing of the Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad) as a pagan practice with no theological consistency

THE KISSING OF THE BLACK STONE IN ISLAM: A THEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL EXPOSITION OF PAGAN CONTINUITY

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This article evaluates the Islamic practice of kissing, touching, or venerating the Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad) located in the Kaaba. Through historical analysis, hadith literature, Qur’anic silence, and comparative studies of Near Eastern paganism, this study demonstrates that the Black Stone ritual is not monotheistic, lacks divine sanction, and is an uninterrupted survival of pre-Islamic Arabian paganism. By examining the prophetic statements attributed to Muhammad—particularly the hadith describing the Black Stone as a creature that will have eyes, a tongue, and speak on the Day of Judgment—this article raises essential theological questions about the nature of worship, idolatry, and divine consistency.

1. Introduction

Among all Islamic rituals, none is more strikingly contradictory to monotheistic claims than the kissing of the Black Stone during the Hajj. Millions of Muslims annually struggle—sometimes violently—to touch, stroke, or kiss a physical object believed to possess spiritual power.

Yet, neither the Torah, nor the Psalms, nor the Gospel, nor any previous prophetic Scriptures ever command the veneration of stones. Rather, the Bible explicitly condemns such acts as pagan idolatry (Deut. 16:21; Lev. 26:1; 2 Kings 23:10).

Islamic tradition, however, preserves rituals inherited directly from Arabian pagan worship of sacred stones, trees, and idols. Even the Qur’an acknowledges that the Kaaba and its rites existed before Islam (Qur’an 8:35; 106:1–4), when pagans circled the Kaaba naked, blowing whistles and clapping as religious rites.

Thus, the question arises: Why does Islam retain a central ritual rooted in the very pagan practices it claims to abolish?

2. The Hadith Evidence: The Black Stone Will Have Eyes and a Tongue

The following hadith—graded hasan (good) by Imam al-Tirmidhi—states:

Ibn Abbas narrated:
“The Messenger of Allah said about the Black Stone:
‘By Allah! Allah will raise it on the Day of Resurrection with two eyes by which it sees and a tongue that it speaks with, testifying to whoever touched it in truth.’”
— Jami‘ at-Tirmidhi 961

This narration raises profound theological contradictions:

A stone will have eyes and a tongue.
This contradicts Islamic claims that objects are not divine, conscious, or living.
The stone will testify for or against worshippers.
This attribute resembles pagan divine intermediaries, not monotheistic purity.
Touching a physical object earns spiritual merit.
This concept is fundamentally foreign to the monotheism claimed in Islam.

The hadith therefore makes the Stone a supernatural creature, endowed with consciousness and eschatological authority—functionally similar to idols in other pagan religions.

3. Historical Origins: The Pagan Roots of Stone Worship in Arabia

Before Islam, the Arabs widely practiced stone-veneration:

Tribes kept stone idols (e.g., al-Lat, al-Uzza, Manat).
Many tribes carried portable stones from the Kaaba to serve as household gods.
Pilgrims venerated stones, circled shrines, and performed kissing rituals.

According to early Islamic historians (Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari):

The Black Stone was part of pre-Islamic idol rituals.
The Quraysh performed tawaf long before Islam.
Muhammad himself participated in pagan rituals before declaring prophethood.

Thus, the Black Stone ritual predates Islam by centuries.

4. The Qur’an’s Silence and Theological Problem

Critically:

The Qur’an never commands Muslims to kiss the Black Stone.
It never states that the stone has spiritual power.
It never says the stone is from God.
It never explains why the stone is necessary for salvation or worship.

This exposes a deep inconsistency:
If the Black Stone were essential to Islamic faith, why is it absent from the Qur’an?

All authority for the ritual comes from hadith, not Scripture.

5. Biblical and Theological Critique: Stone Veneration as Paganism

The Bible clearly condemns the veneration of stones:

Leviticus 26:1 – “Do not set up an image or a sacred stone.”
Deuteronomy 16:22 – “Do not erect a sacred stone, for the Lord your God hates them.”
Isaiah 44:9–20 mocks those who worship objects made of created matter.

True monotheism forbids:

attributing supernatural powers to objects,
believing a stone can intercede,
performing rituals to earn divine favor through a physical object.

Therefore, kissing a stone is not merely unnecessary—it is theologically incompatible with the monotheism of previous prophets.

6. Umar ibn al-Khattab’s Confession: The Stone Has No Power

The second caliph, Umar, famously admitted:

“I know that you are a stone that can neither harm nor benefit.
If I had not seen the Prophet kiss you, I would not kiss you.”
— Sahih al-Bukhari 1597

This statement confirms:

The stone has no power—yet Muslims kiss it anyway.
The practice imitates the Prophet, not God.
Even the earliest Muslim leaders struggled to justify it.
It contradicts Qur’anic teachings that only Allah benefits or harms.

7. Critical Theological Questions for Islam

Below are expanded academic questions exposing the contradictions:

1. If Allah is all-powerful, why must humans kiss a stone to receive spiritual testimony or blessings?

2. Why would a merciful God endow a stone with eyes and a tongue? What is its metaphysical purpose?

3. How is kissing a stone fundamentally different from pagan idol-veneration condemned in the Bible?

4. Why does the Qur’an remain silent on a ritual so central to Islamic identity?

5. If touching the stone “in truth” earns spiritual merit, does this not introduce a form of works-based salvation mediated through a physical object?

6. What is the mechanism by which a stone recognizes sincerity, truth, falsehood, or faith?

7. If the Black Stone will speak on Judgment Day, does it share in divine attributes?

8. Why does Islam condemn polytheists for venerating stones, while requiring Muslims to venerate one specific stone?

9. If the Stone truly came from heaven, why did Muhammad replace its pagan function rather than abolish it entirely?

10. How is Muhammad’s continuation of pagan stone rituals compatible with the Abrahamic faith he claimed to restore?

8. Conclusion

The practice of kissing the Black Stone is not grounded in divine revelation, biblical monotheism, or rational theology. Instead, it represents a direct continuity of Arabian pagan practices, re-packaged within Islamic ritual. The hadith granting the Stone eyes, a tongue, and eschatological authority reveals a theological contradiction incompatible with true monotheism.

Islam’s attempt to purge paganism is undermined by its preservation of one of the most distinctive pagan symbols of pre-Islamic Arabia.

Wednesday, December 3, 2025

Jesus’ Confession to Martha: The Revelation of His Divinity in John 11:23–27 (Peshitta Translation)

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The narrative of John 11, centered around the death and resurrection of Lazarus, offers one of the most profound theological confessions of Jesus’ identity. The dialogue between Yeshua and Martha, the sister of Lazarus, not only addresses the hope of eschatological resurrection but also reveals the immediate and personal reality of divine life in Christ. The Peshitta Holy Bible Translation, with its distinctive rendering, preserves a striking Christological statement: “I AM THE LIVING GOD, The Resurrection and The Life” (John 11:25). This confession situates Jesus not merely as a teacher or prophet, but as God Himself—the divine source of both resurrection and eternal life.

The Context of Martha’s Expectation

Martha, grieving her brother’s death, expresses a conventional Jewish belief in the resurrection of the dead at the eschaton: “I know that he shall rise in the resurrection in the last day” (John 11:24). This reflects the Pharisaic teaching rooted in texts like Daniel 12:2 and later Jewish eschatology. For Martha, resurrection is a future hope, distant and cosmic. Yet, Jesus shifts her focus from the future to the present, from abstract belief to Himself as the embodiment of life.

Jesus’ Divine Confession: “I AM THE LIVING GOD”

The Peshitta rendering—“I AM THE LIVING GOD, The Resurrection and The Life” (John 11:25)—goes beyond the more familiar translations that state, “I am the resurrection and the life.” By explicitly identifying Himself as “THE LIVING GOD,” Jesus affirms His divine nature in continuity with the great “I AM” declarations of the Gospel of John (cf. John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I AM”). The phrase recalls the self-revelation of God to Moses in Exodus 3:14 (“I AM WHO I AM”), situating Jesus within the identity of Yahweh Himself.

This confession is not merely metaphorical. Jesus does not claim to possess resurrection or life as an external gift from God. Rather, He is the very source of life, both physical and eternal. Resurrection is not simply an event in the distant future but a reality embodied in His person. His words, therefore, constitute an unambiguous confession of divinity—a declaration that He is the Living God who holds authority over life and death.

Faith as the Response to Divine Revelation

Jesus continues: “Whoever trusts in me, even if he dies, he shall live. And everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25–26). Here, faith in Christ becomes the decisive factor in participation in resurrection life. The juxtaposition of death and life underscores the paradox of Christian existence: physical death does not negate eternal life for those who are in Christ.

Martha’s response is a confession of faith that mirrors the Johannine purpose statement (John 20:31): “Yes, my Lord, I do believe that you are The Messiah, The Son of God, who has come into the world” (John 11:27). Her affirmation binds together Jesus’ messianic role, His divine Sonship, and His incarnation. Thus, Martha becomes the first to explicitly confess both the Messiahship and the divinity of Jesus within the framework of Johannine narrative theology.

Theological Implications

Christological Fulfillment – The Peshitta’s rendering “I AM THE LIVING GOD” makes explicit what is implicit in Greek texts: Jesus is not merely pointing to God; He is God incarnate.
Resurrection as Present Reality – Resurrection is not confined to eschatology but is embodied in Christ. Believers experience eternal life already in the present through Him (cf. John 5:24).
Faith and Eternal Life – The dialogue demonstrates that eternal life is not achieved by eschatological speculation or religious law, but through trusting in Jesus’ divine identity and work.
Christological Revelation in Suffering – The moment of grief becomes the stage for the highest revelation of Jesus’ divinity, showing that divine truth is often disclosed amid human weakness and loss.

Conclusion

In John 11:23–27, as preserved in the Peshitta Holy Bible Translation, Jesus makes an unambiguous confession of His divinity to Martha: “I AM THE LIVING GOD, The Resurrection and The Life.” This declaration transcends Jewish expectations of a future resurrection and places the fullness of divine life in the person of Christ. Martha’s confession affirms this revelation, bearing witness that Jesus is indeed “The Messiah, The Son of God, who has come into the world.”

The narrative thus functions as both a Christological climax and a theological foundation for Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus, grounding resurrection hope not merely in a future event but in the Living God revealed in Him.

The Case for Two Human Hearts: A Scientific and Theological Exploration

“The Case for Two Human Hearts: A Scientific and Theological Exploration”

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

Abstract

The human heart has long been viewed as both a biological pump and a metaphorical seat of emotion, morality, and spirit. While anatomy textbooks traditionally describe the heart as a singular organ, developments in medical science and comparative biology have revealed that “two hearts” is not merely a metaphorical or poetic notion, but a possible and real biological condition under specific circumstances. This article explores the scientific evidence supporting the idea of humans possessing two hearts—from congenital anomalies, conjoined twin cases, and heterotopic transplantation procedures—to philosophical and theological implications. It also situates the discussion within the broader humanities, emphasizing how “two hearts” serves as a fruitful intersection of science, symbolism, and theology.

1. The Heart in Human Understanding

In the humanities, the heart symbolizes far more than anatomy. Across cultures, it is the locus of love, will, and conscience. Ancient Hebrews used lēb (heart) to describe the center of thought and decision (Proverbs 4:23), while Greek philosophy often tied the heart to the soul (psychē). In Christian theology, the heart is both physical and spiritual—“with the heart one believes” (Romans 10:10). Thus, to speak of “two hearts” is not only to speak of anatomy but also of dualities within human experience: reason and emotion, body and spirit, faith and doubt.

2. Scientific Foundations for “Two Hearts” in Humans

2.1 Congenital Anomalies

Though exceedingly rare, embryological malformations can produce cardiac duplications. Case reports describe cardiac duplication or “cardiac twinning,” where partial duplication of cardiac structures occurs in utero. While many cases are not viable postnatally, they nonetheless demonstrate that the biological blueprint for “two hearts” can emerge within human development. This undermines categorical statements that “no human has two hearts.”

2.2 Conjoined Twins

Thoracopagus twins (conjoined at the chest) sometimes present with two hearts in a shared thoracic cavity. Though they are two individuals, anatomically it constitutes two functioning hearts in one body-space. From a symbolic-humanities perspective, this demonstrates that the “two-heart” phenomenon is part of the human biological spectrum.

2.3 Heterotopic Heart Transplantation

Perhaps the strongest scientific case is the heterotopic transplant procedure, colloquially known as the “piggyback heart.” In such operations, surgeons implant a donor heart alongside the native heart, allowing both to function simultaneously. Patients have lived for decades with two hearts beating in one chest, experiencing full physiological integration of both organs. Medical literature confirms that blood flow can be shared or divided between the two hearts, showing not only possibility but long-term viability.

3. Comparative Biology: Lessons from Nature

If humans can, under rare circumstances, sustain two hearts, it is not anomalous in the wider natural order:

Octopuses and squids have three hearts, one systemic and two branchial.
Hagfish possess one principal heart and multiple accessory pumps.
Earthworms and similar invertebrates utilize multiple contractile “hearts” (aortic arches).

Nature demonstrates that multiple-heart physiology is a viable evolutionary pathway. Thus, humans with two hearts—whether by malformation or surgical intervention—are not contrary to biology but a rare reflection of broader physiological diversity.

4. The Humanities of Two Hearts: Symbol and Meaning

The notion of “two hearts” resonates with perennial human questions:

The divided self: Augustine wrote of the restless heart torn between God and sin. Shakespeare dramatized inner conflict as “two hearts” within one breast.
Dual allegiance: Theology speaks of the struggle between faith and flesh, spirit and world.
Medical miracle as metaphor: Patients with two hearts physically embody the coexistence of weakness and strength, mortality and extended life through medical grace.

Thus, “two hearts” in humans bridges the empirical reality of science and the existential reality of human struggle.

5. Theological Implications

Doctrine of Creation: If God permitted the possibility of two hearts through congenital variation and medical science, then this condition is not outside divine providence but within the spectrum of human potential.
Resurrection and Renewal: Dual hearts may serve as a signpost to the eschatological promise—that the human body can be transformed, sustained, and even transcended.
Metaphorical Theology: Biblically, God promises to remove a “heart of stone” and give a “heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26). The reality of humans with two hearts symbolizes that transformation—science embodying scripture in living metaphor.

6. Questions for Interdisciplinary Debate

Medical Science: What are the long-term cognitive, circulatory, and emotional effects of sustaining two hearts? Do such patients experience heightened resilience or symbolic duality in self-identity?
Philosophy of Mind: Does a “two-heart” condition challenge reductionist accounts of human identity, given that the heart is deeply tied to self-concept in the humanities?
Theology: Could living with two hearts enrich spiritual interpretations of divided allegiance, sanctification, or divine healing?

7. Conclusion

While rare, science demonstrates that humans can possess two hearts—through congenital anomalies, conjoined twin physiology, and especially heterotopic transplantation. Far from being an impossibility, “two hearts in one chest” is a biological reality for certain individuals. Theologically and philosophically, this condition powerfully symbolizes humanity’s divided yet redeemed nature: the heart of flesh and the heart of spirit, weakness and renewal, mortality and hope.

Therefore, the humanities and sciences together support the plausibility and meaning of “two hearts” in humans—an idea that challenges strict interpretations of scripture but enriches the dialogue between faith, science, and the human condition.

Correspondence:
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute — New York, NY

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.