Monday, December 8, 2025

Christianity vs. Islam: When You Judge a Tree by Its Fruit

Jesus gave the simplest test for truth: “A tree is known by its fruit.”
Not by slogans, not by emotions, not by political spin—by results.

And when you run that test honestly, without fear, without pressure, without pretending, the difference between Christianity and Islam is not just noticeable.
It’s staggering.

The Fruit of Christianity: Life, Light, and Transformation

Say whatever you want about Christians, but history refuses to lie.

Wherever real, Bible-believing Christianity spreads, something incredible happens:

Hospitals appear
Schools and literacy explode
Art, music, and culture thrive
Women and children gain dignity and protection
Freedom rises
Families stabilize
Violence drops
The environment itself changes—literally

It’s as if the land breathes again. The soil becomes productive, rivers run clean, communities grow peaceful. It resembles the echoes of Eden.

Why?
Because love your neighbor, forgive, serve, humble yourself, and do unto others actually work.
The teachings of Jesus don’t just sound good; they produce good.

The Fruit of Islam: A Very Different Harvest

Now take the same test and apply it to Islam.

Muhammad’s biography—even Islamic sources—presents a very different picture: war campaigns, slavery, caravan raids, tribal massacres, and the controversial marriage to a six-year-old girl.

And historically, wherever Islam becomes dominant, the “fruit” consistently includes:

Harsh treatment of women
Continuous internal conflict
Suppressed freedoms
Widespread poverty
Cultural stagnation
Violence normalized
Land degradation and desertification
Communities governed by fear instead of love

It’s as if the ground itself withers. The rain stops, animals migrate, and life becomes harder—not easier.

Coincidence?
The pattern has been repeating for 1,400 years.

The Hard Question Every Muslim Must Face

One day, every human being will stand before a Holy and Just God.

And then comes the unavoidable question:

What happens when the victims of Muhammad—little girls, enslaved women, massacred tribes—stand before God?

Will God simply ignore their cries?
Will He excuse everything with a wave of His hand?

If Allah welcomes a man with such actions into paradise without justice, then we must ask:

Is that God… or is it something else pretending to be God?

True justice demands accountability.
True righteousness demands holiness.
True divinity cannot call evil “good.”

The Final Divide: Two Paths, Two Fruits, Two Destinies

Those who genuinely follow Jesus walk in:

Light
Life
Freedom
Peace
Love
Forgiveness
Redemption

Those who remain under Muhammad’s teachings continue bearing the fruit of:

Conflict
Oppression
Fear
Darkness

The contrast could not be clearer.
God Himself could write it in flaming neon across the sky, and it still wouldn’t be more obvious.

The tree you follow determines the fruit you live with—
and the destination where you end.

Why Did Muhammad Consider Aisha Mature at Six but Fatimah “Too Young”?

A Critical Question for the 21st Century Muslim
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute**

One of the greatest challenges facing Islam in the modern world is the issue of moral consistency. Muslims are taught to imitate Muhammad (Qur’an 33:21), yet when we examine the earliest Islamic sources honestly and critically, deep ethical contradictions emerge.

One of the most troubling examples comes from the age of Aisha at marriage compared to Muhammad’s treatment of his own daughter Fatimah.

According to the most authentic Sunni texts, Muhammad married Aisha at six and consummated the marriage at nine (Sahih al-Bukhari 5133, 5134). Muslims defend this by saying:

“She matured early.”
“It was normal for that culture.”
“It was the Sunnah.”

However, we find a stunning contradiction inside Islam’s own sources: when Abu Bakr and Umar—the very men who later became Caliphs—wanted to marry Muhammad’s daughter Fatimah, he refused. Why?
Because she was “too young.”

This statement comes from Sunan an-Nasa’i 3221 (Vol. 4, Book 26, Hadith 3223)—the same hadith collection Muslims consider among the six major canonical books of Islam.

This raises a profound moral question:

Why was Aisha mature enough at six, but Fatimah “too young” at about twelve?

Fatimah was no small child. Historically and chronologically, she was:

Born before the Hijrah,
Significantly older than Aisha,
Likely around twelve at the time Abu Bakr and Umar requested her hand.

Yet Muhammad rejected their proposals, saying in summary:

“She is too young.”

If six is acceptable, how can twelve be too young?

This exposes an inconsistency in Muhammad’s own moral reasoning. It also completely undermines modern Muslim attempts to justify child marriage based on “following the Prophet.”

If Muhammad himself did not allow his companions to follow his example even in the 7th century, how can any Muslim today insist it is a Sunnah to be imitated in the modern world?

The Problem Muslims Must Address

Muslims argue constantly that:

Aisha’s marriage was normal for the time.
It is part of the Sunnah and must be obeyed.
Muhammad’s actions cannot be questioned.

Yet Muhammad forbade Abu Bakr and Umar from following that exact Sunnah with his own daughter.

If this practice was good, why deny it?
If it was moral, why reserve it only for himself?
If it was acceptable, why prevent two of Islam’s most righteous men from doing the same?

The contradiction is glaring:

✔ Muhammad married a six-year-old → acceptable

✘ Abu Bakr and Umar requested to marry a twelve-year-old → rejected

Reason: “She is too young.”

This reveals a double standard rooted not in divine command, but in personal preference.

Muslims in the 21st Century Must Answer Honestly

Muslims cannot hide behind the phrase “This is our religion.”
Every religious claim must stand the test of:

Moral reasoning
Historical consistency
Human dignity
Universal ethics

Modern Muslims who defend child marriage because “the Prophet did it” must first reconcile the fact that he did not allow the closest men to him to imitate him.

If Muhammad himself refused this Sunnah, who are Muslims today to revive it?

This inconsistency is not a Christian invention.
It is documented inside Islam’s own canonical texts.

Annex: Relevant Hadith Sources

1. Sunan an-Nasa’i 3221 (Vol. 4, Book 26, Hadith 3223)

(Exact wording may vary by translator)

Narrated by Umm Salamah:
When Abu Bakr and then Umar asked permission to marry Fatimah, the Messenger of Allah said:
“She is too young.”

2. Sahih al-Bukhari 5133

“The Prophet married her (Aisha) when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine…”

3. Sahih Muslim 1422a

“Aisha reported that Allah’s Messenger married her when she was seven… and consummated the marriage when she was nine…”

Final Reflection

The question is simple:

If Muhammad himself refused to let people imitate his marriage to a child, why should Muslims defend it today?

This is not an attack on Muslims.
It is a call to moral clarity, historical honesty, and the courage to confront contradictions within the Islamic tradition.

The truth will always stand, and truth does not fear examination.

Miriam, Mary, and Maryam: Understanding the Differences Across Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute

The names Miriam, Mary, and Maryam appear prominently across the three major Abrahamic faiths—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Although their names share a common linguistic origin and their stories resonate with themes of faith, obedience, and divine purpose, these three women lived in different centuries, in different lands, and under different covenants. A careful study of Scripture, history, and language is essential to correctly understand their identities.

This article provides an expanded comparative study of these women, exploring their backgrounds, theological significance, timelines, and the commonly debated question surrounding Maryam’s genealogy in the Qur’an.

1. The Linguistic Connection: One Name, Many Forms

All three names—Miriam (מִרְיָם) in Hebrew, Maria / Mariam in Greek, and Maryam (مَرْيَم) in Arabic—come from the same Semitic root. This explains why the names look and sound similar even across cultures.

Possible meanings of the name

Scholars have proposed several meanings for the root M-R-Y-M:

“beloved”
“rebellious”
“bitter”
“gift of God”

Regardless of meaning, the name was extremely common in ancient Israel. Just as names like John or David repeat frequently in English-speaking cultures today, Miryam was common among Jewish women for centuries.

Thus, similarity of names must never be mistaken for identity of persons.

2. Miriam: Prophetess and Leader of the Exodus (c. 13th–15th century BCE)

Historical Period

The life of Miriam is set during the Exodus, which most scholars date between 1446 BCE (early date) and 1260–1230 BCE (late date). Regardless of which dating model one follows, Miriam lived over 1,300 years before Jesus and 1,900 years before Muhammad.

Biblical References

Exodus 2:1–10 – Miriam watches over the infant Moses
Exodus 15:20–21 – She leads Israel’s women in praise after the Red Sea crossing
Numbers 12 – Her prophetic authority and correction
Micah 6:4 – God lists Miriam alongside Moses and Aaron as leaders

Role in Jewish Tradition

Miriam is honored as:

a prophetess
a spiritual leader of Israel
a symbol of female courage
one of the three great leaders of the Exodus (Moses, Aaron, Miriam)

Rabbinic tradition even speaks of “Miriam’s well,” miraculously providing water for Israel during the wilderness journey.

Theological Significance

Miriam’s story teaches:

God uses women in leadership
Prophetic authority includes accountability
Worship and deliverance are inseparable themes in Israel's story

3. Mary: Mother of Jesus (1st Century CE)

Historical Period

Mary lived in Nazareth in the early 1st century CE, around the time of the Roman Empire. Her life is located 1,400 years after Miriam.

New Testament References

Luke 1–2 – Annunciation, Magnificat, birth of Jesus
Matthew 1–2 – Lineage and birth narrative
John 19:25–27 – At the foot of the Cross
Acts 1:14 – Praying with the early Church

Christian Theology and Mary

Mary is revered as:

Theotokos (Mother of God) – Council of Ephesus, 431 CE
The Virgin Mother – affirming the supernatural birth of Jesus
A model of faith and submission (“let it be to me according to Your word”)

Why Mary Is Central in Christianity

Christians honor Mary primarily because of her relationship to Jesus—the Son of God. Her “yes” becomes a pivotal moment in salvation history. She is not worshiped but deeply respected for her role in God’s redemptive plan.

4. Maryam: The Qur’anic Portrait (7th Century CE)

Historical and Textual Context

The Qur’an was revealed in 7th-century Arabia, but Maryam (the mother of Isa/Jesus) is understood to have lived in the 1st century CE—the same period as the New Testament Mary.

Qur’anic References

Surah Maryam (19) – The story of her purity, pregnancy, and birth of Isa
Surah Aal Imran (3:35–47) – The “Family of Imran” and the Annunciation
Surah Anbiya (21:91) – Virgin birth affirmed

Maryam’s Status in Islam

Maryam is considered one of the most honored women in Islam:

Only woman mentioned by name in the Qur’an
Given an entire chapter
Exalted as “chosen” and “purified” (3:42)
A model of devotion and chastity

Yet, the Qur’an rejects some Christian Marian doctrines

Islam respects Mary but:

Denies Jesus’ divinity
Denies Mary’s title “Mother of God”
Rejects any form of Marian worship or intercession

Thus, Maryam in Islam and Mary in Christianity share similarities but belong to two distinct theological worlds.

5. The Controversy: Did the Qur’an Confuse Miriam (sister of Moses) with Maryam (mother of Jesus)?

This question arises from certain Qur’anic verses describing Maryam as:

“sister of Aaron” (Surah Maryam 19:28)
“daughter of Imran” (Surah Aal Imran 3:35–36)

Since Miriam, sister of Moses, was literally:

daughter of Amram (Imran in Arabic)
sister of Aaron

…some argue that the Qur’an mistakenly places Mary 1,400 years earlier.

Christian and Jewish Critics Say

The Qur’an confuses:

Miriam (sister of Moses, 13th–15th century BCE)
Mary (mother of Jesus, 1st century CE)

Muslim Scholars Respond With Three Explanations

Honorific or spiritual lineage – calling Maryam “sister of Aaron” as a title meaning “righteous woman from the priestly line of Aaron.”
Genealogical identification – “daughter of Imran” is not literal but refers to being from the tribe or household of Imran.
She had a brother named Aaron – some classical tafsir suggests this was a common name.

Historical Analysis (Dr. Maxwell Shimba)

While Muslim scholars defend the idiomatic or genealogical usage, the linguistic and historical evidence shows:

In Jewish culture, calling someone “sister of Aaron” meant literal family connection
No known Jewish or Christian tradition calls Mary “daughter of Amram/Imran”
The name Imran appears nowhere in early Christian genealogy of Mary
The confusion likely results from name repetition common in Israelite tradition combined with Arabic rhetorical style

Thus, from a historical-critical standpoint, the Qur’anic phrasing reflects either:

a literary parallel,
a misinterpretation of Jewish oral traditions, or
a blending of genealogical categories.

6. Comparative Timeline

Figure	Religious Text	Approx. Date	Key Role
Miriam	Torah (Exodus–Numbers)	c. 1446–1230 BCE	Sister of Moses, Prophetess, Exodus leader
Mary	New Testament	c. 5 BCE – 30 CE	Mother of Jesus, central to Christian theology
Maryam	Qur’an	Described in 1st century CE; revealed in 7th century CE	Mother of Isa in Islam; model of purity

7. Theological Lessons from Each Woman

From Miriam

Courage in hostile political systems
Prophetic leadership
Praise in deliverance

From Mary

Faithful obedience to God’s call
Willingness to carry the Messiah
Quiet strength in suffering

From Maryam

Piety and devotion
Chastity and humility
Trust in God amidst societal shame

Each woman teaches unique lessons applicable to believers today.

8. Final Reflection: Clarity Brings Respect

Confusion over names has led to unnecessary inter-religious conflict. As scholars and Christians, we must handle texts with care, respect, and intellectual honesty. The similarities between Miriam, Mary, and Maryam show the interconnectedness of Abrahamic faiths—but their differences reveal the distinct traditions each faith maintains.

Understanding these women accurately helps us:

honor their unique contributions
interpret Scripture faithfully
engage in healthier interfaith dialogue
correct historical misunderstandings

Above all, it reminds us that God works through faithful women across generations, from the shores of the Red Sea to the humble town of Nazareth.

Miriam, Mary, and Maryam — Three Women, Three Stories

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute

The figures of Miriam, Mary, and Maryam appear at key moments in the Scriptures of the Abrahamic faiths. Though their names are variants of the same Hebrew root (Miryam / Maryam), each woman occupies a different historical place, theological role, and religious memory. Below I set out the main differences — with time markers, scriptural roles, and why the names have sometimes been confused — so pastors, students, and curious readers can see both the overlap and the sharp distinctions.

1) Names and language: one root, many forms

The Hebrew name Miryam (מִרְיָם) is the underlying form. In Greek it becomes Maria (Μαρία / Μαριάμ), in Latin Maria, and in Arabic Maryam (مَرْيَم). Because the same name was used repeatedly in Israelite history, and because Arabic and Hebrew share close linguistic ties, the forms can look identical — but identical names do not mean identical persons. (See Qur’anic usage and classical transliterations.) (Quran.com)

2) Miriam — sister of Moses and Aaron (Old Testament / Torah)

Time factor (traditional placement): Associated with the Exodus era — commonly dated by various scholars either to the 15th century BCE (c. 1446 BCE) or the 13th century BCE (c. 13th century BCE), depending on the Exodus model one follows. The exact historical dating remains debated among historians and archaeologists. (Biblical Archaeology Society)

Scriptural role and portrait:

Miriam appears in Exodus and Numbers: she watches over the infant Moses at the Nile, leads the women in the Song of the Sea after the crossing, and later challenges Moses (Num 12). Jewish and Christian traditions remember her as a prophetess and an early female leader in Israel. (מדרש אמנות)

Theological significance:

In Jewish reading she is a leader, a prophet-like figure, and a symbol of communal memory and criticism when she is punished (leprosy incident) and restored. Her role is primarily national and communal rather than salvific in the sense Christians attach to Mary. (TheTorah.com)

3) Mary — mother of Jesus (Christian New Testament)

Time factor (historical placement): Mary of Nazareth lived in the 1st century CE (circa early 1st century), the historical setting of Jesus’ life. Christian claims about her—Mother of God (Theotokos), perpetual virginity, Assumption—developed over the first several centuries of the Church and were formalized in councils and piety in late antiquity and the medieval period. (Catholic Answers)

Scriptural role and portrait:

In the Gospels Mary is the young Jewish woman chosen to bear Jesus. Luke, Matthew and later Christian reflection emphasize her faith, fiat (“let it be to me”), witness at the Cross, and place in the early Christian community. (Catholic Answers)

Theological significance:

Christianity venerates Mary in distinctive ways (e.g., titles like Theotokos, Mother of God, and liturgical feasts such as the Assumption). Marian theology situates her uniquely in salvation history as the mother of the Messiah — a role not claimed for Miriam of the Exodus. (Wikipedia)

4) Maryam — Quranic Mary (Islam)

Time factor (textual placement): Maryam is presented in the Qur’an (7th century CE revelation to Muhammad). That is the era when the Qur’anic account was revealed and circulated; Maryam’s life — as mother of Jesus (ʿĪsā) — is placed historically in the 1st century CE (like the New Testament Mary). The Qur’an, however, uses names and genealogical phrases that echo Israelite traditions. (Quran.com)

Scriptural role and portrait in Islam:

Maryam (Mary) is one of the most honored women in Islam — the Qur’an gives an entire chapter her name (Sūrat Maryam) and praises her piety, chastity, and chosenness; she is uniquely named among women in the Qur’an. The Qur’an affirms the virgin birth and elevates Maryam as an exemplar of devotion. (Quran.com)

5) Why some readers say the Qur’an “confuses” Miriam and Maryam — and a careful explanation

A frequent objection raised in interfaith discussion is that several Qur’anic passages call Maryam “daughter of Imrān” and even “sister of Aaron,” which some readers interpret as conflating Mary (mother of Jesus) with Miriam (sister of Moses/Aaron), who lived roughly a millennium earlier.

What the Qur’an actually says:

The Qur’an refers to Maryam as “Maryam bint ʿImrān” (Mary, daughter of Imrān) and uses the expression “sister of Aaron” in one or more places. Those phrases mirror Hebrew/Aramaic genealogical patterns and honorific idioms. (Quran.com)

How Muslim exegetical tradition explains it:

Classical tafsīr (Qur’anic commentary) offers several readings: (1) the Qur’an uses a typological or honorific comparison — calling Mary “sister of Aaron” to place her in the pious lineage of Aaronic/Levitical sanctity; (2) “daughter of Imrān” might refer to her belonging to the house/lineage of Imrān (a respected ancestor), not a literal father-daughter link to Moses’ father; (3) some traditions suggest Mary had a brother with the name ‘Aaron’ (or that “sister of Aaron” is a Jewish-style way to indicate a shared descent). In short, Muslim scholars generally deny any historical confusion and interpret the wording as either figurative, genealogical, or idiomatic. (English Tafsir)

How some critics read it:

Critics who expect a strictly literal one-to-one modern biography argue the expression mistakenly places Mary in the wrong century. The discussion has been long-standing and is handled differently by Muslim, Christian, and secular scholars. Careful study requires attention to idiom, historical usage of names, and the Qur’an’s rhetorical methods. (Islamic Awareness)

6) Summary comparison table (quick view)

Miriam (Miryam) — Old Testament / Torah figure; sister of Moses and Aaron; Exodus era (traditional scholarly dates c. 15th–13th century BCE); national leader/prophetess. (מדרש אמנות)
Mary (Maria / Mary of Nazareth) — New Testament; mother of Jesus; 1st century CE; central to Christian doctrine and devotion (Theotokos, Assumption, etc.). (Catholic Answers)
Maryam — Qur’anic figure; the mother of ʿĪsā (Jesus) in Islam; presented in 7th-century revelation but narratively set in the 1st century CE; uniquely honored in the Qur’an and Islamic devotion. (Quran.com)

7) Practical pastoral and scholarly takeaways (from Shimba Theological Institute)

Names repeat; context matters. Identical or similar names in ancient texts do not automatically identify the same person — genealogical labels, honorifics, and typological usages are common.
Respect textual genres. The Torah, the Gospels, and the Qur’an use different literary conventions: legal-narrative, gospel-evangelical, and theological-poetic respectively. Each needs to be read on its own terms.
Dialogue needs nuance. When discussing supposed “contradictions” (for example, “sister of Aaron”), avoid simple accusations; instead allow for linguistic, cultural, and exegetical explanations before concluding error.
Chronology matters — but with humility. Dating ancient events (like the Exodus) is debated; cite ranges and be honest about uncertainty rather than forcing a false precision. (Biblical Archaeology Society)

8) For further reading (selected sources)

Jewish Women’s Archive — Miriam (biographical summary and role). (Jewish Women's Archive)
Torah.com and other Judaic studies pieces on Miriam’s leadership and the narrative shape of Exodus/Numbers. (TheTorah.com)
Qur’an (Surah Maryam and Surah ʿAl ʿImrān) with classical tafsīr for notes on “daughter of Imrān / sister of Aaron.” (Quran.com)
Scholarly discussions and interfaith treatments that examine the language and possible causes of the perceived “confusion.” (See articles collected at academic journals and balanced tafsīr treatments.) (SciELO)

Closing reflection (from Dr. Maxwell Shimba)

The three—Miriam, Mary, and Maryam—teach different lessons. Miriam teaches communal courage and prophetic challenge; Mary (Christian tradition) models the human “yes” to God that opens the doorway of salvation history; Maryam (Qur’anic portrait) models piety and chastity and stands as an honored exemplar for believers. Confusions of name should prompt careful philology and charity, not hasty polemics. If we study each woman on her own textual terms and honor the traditions that preserve her, we will gain a richer, truer picture of God’s work through women across the ages.

ALLAH SAYS THE EARTH IS LIKE A CARPET—SO ALLAH DID NOT CREATE THE EARTH

Wednesday, October 26, 2016
ALLAH SAYS THE EARTH IS LIKE A CARPET—SO ALLAH DID NOT CREATE THE EARTH

Understand that verse numbers vary across different Qur’an editions. The following verse numbers are taken from the (revised) Yusuf ‘Ali edition. I have corrected capitalization.

THE EARTH IS SUPPOSEDLY LIKE A CARPET

Surah 20:53
"He Who made the earth for you like a carpet (spread out)…"

THE STRANGE CLAIM: ALLAH CREATED THE EARTH LIKE A “CARPET”
Surah 50:7
"And the earth—We have spread it out, and placed thereon firmly-set mountains…"

Yusuf ‘Ali’s footnote 4946 says: “Compare xiii.3; xv.19 and footnote 1955.”

THE EARTH IS FLAT AND SPREAD OUT

Surah 67:15
"It is He Who has made the earth manageable for you…". Some translations use “level.”

Yusuf Ali’s footnote 5571:
“Zalul is used in ii.71 for a trained animal who can be controlled: here it describes the earth, and I have translated it as ‘manageable.’…”

THE CLAIM THAT THE MOON GIVES LIGHT

Surah 71:15-16
"Do you not see how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another, and made the moon a light among them, and made the sun a lamp?"

Even if someone claims this is figurative language, nothing here reflects modern astronomy.

THE QUR’AN CLAIMS THE MOON EMITS LIGHT—A SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC ERROR.

THE EARTH IS A CARPET AGAIN

Surah 71:19
"And Allah has made the earth for you like a carpet (spread out)…"

Yusuf ‘Ali footnote 5718: “Compare xx 53.”

THE EARTH IS A WIDE FLAT EXPANSE WITH MOUNTAIN PEGS

Surah 78:6-7
"Have We [Allah] not made the earth as a wide expanse, and the mountains as stakes?"

Yusuf ‘Ali footnote 5890 says:
“See footnote 2038 to xvi.15. Compare also xiii.3 and xv.19. A wide open expanse can be compared to a carpet, with mountains as pegs.”

ZUL-QARNAIN IN SURAH 18 AND ASTRONOMY

Surah 18:85-86
"One (road) he followed, until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of murky (black, muddy) water, and near it he found a people. We said: ‘O Zul-qarnain! You have the authority either to punish them or treat them kindly.’"

“Murky” is also translated as “black,” “muddy,” or “dirty.” Some translations say “a spring of water.” M. H. Shakir translated it as “a black sea.”

Surah 18:89-90
"Then he followed another road, until he reached the rising place of the sun; he found it rising on a people for whom We had provided no shelter from it."

Muslim commentators differ on the identity of Zul-qarnain (the man with two horns):

Some say Alexander the Great
Others say Cyrus of Persia
Others say a king from Yemen

But it does not matter. According to the Qur’an, Zul-qarnain literally traveled to the place where the sun rises and where it sets. This assumes a flat-earth cosmology.

Most importantly, the Qur’an claims:

He reached the place where the sun sets in a muddy spring.

Ask any astronomer whether the sun sets in a muddy spring, and they will say: “No.”

CONCLUSION

The Qur’an teaches the following:

The earth is flat, spread out like a carpet.
Mountains act as pegs that fasten the earth down.
The sun travels along its own track, sets in a muddy spring at night, and rises from a specific physical location in the morning.
The heavens contain “hanging lamps” (stars).
Muhammad taught early Muslims that these things were literal truths, not metaphors.

Allah has failed to demonstrate that he created the earth—he cannot even describe its shape correctly.

Therefore, Allah did not create the earth.

By Max Shimba, servant of Jesus Christ

MUHAMMAD WAS GIVEN PROPHETHOOD BY HIS WIFE KHADIJA

Saturday, October 29, 2016
MUHAMMAD WAS GIVEN PROPHETHOOD BY HIS WIFE KHADIJA

When he was in the cave, he was played with by Satan:
In the book titled “The Great Wives of the Prophet and His Children” written by Sheikh Abdullah Saleh Al-Farsy, page 12, we read these words:

“Then the Prophet became afraid and returned to his wife and told her what had happened; and right there a great fever came upon him and he asked to be covered with clothes. Immediately he began trembling violently, hallucinating and saying, ‘I fear for myself that Satan has played with me, destroyed my mind, and deceived me.’
Lady Khadija immediately interrupted him and said: ‘Stop that; that is not what will happen. You cannot be played with by devils. Satan cannot play with a person who has your qualities. You take good care of your relatives, you carry the burdens of even people who are not yours, you show people your good traits which none possesses. You do this and you do that. Rejoice my dear; calm your heart. By Allah! I see that you have already become a prophet.’”

In this incident that happened to Muhammad while he was in the cave, Muslims all over the world claim that this is the moment Muhammad (peace be upon him) received wahyi (revelation) and was given prophethood and apostleship.

But when you reflect on this message, you will notice that even he himself did not know what had happened to him in the cave. That is why we read that when he arrived home, his wife Lady Khadija covered him with a cloth thinking he had a fever. Muhammad explained to his wife that what had happened to him was caused by “Satan”; he did not mention any angel as Muslims try to make us believe today.

Because if it had been an angel—as we read in the Bible—the angel would not have hesitated to identify himself to Muhammad. This is the first point.

In the end, Lady Khadija is the one who appointed her husband Muhammad into prophethood.

Today you have learned that Muhammad was given prophethood by his wife.

It is I, Max Shimba, servant of Jesus Christ
www.maxshimbaministries.org
October 29, 2016

Is Muhammad a True Prophet?

A Scholarly Critical Examination from Islamic Sources**
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This chapter critically examines the prophethood claims of Muhammad using only authoritative Islamic sources—primarily the Qur’an, the Hadith literature, and the earliest biographical work, Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq. The objective is not to rely on external or polemical material but to allow Islam’s own textual witnesses to speak. The analysis evaluates Muhammad’s experiences, behaviours, and proclaimed revelations in relation to the biblical concept of prophetic authenticity. Key concerns emerge around Muhammad’s early life dedication, susceptibility to spiritual influences, alleged satanic inspiration, psychological instability, moral contradictions, and actions inconsistent with biblical prophetic paradigms. The evidence is arranged thematically and documented with precise citations, allowing scholars and readers to independently verify each component.

**1. Dedication of Muhammad at Birth to Hubal

(Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, p. 70)**

Ibn Ishaq records that immediately after Muhammad’s birth, his grandfather `Abd al-Muttalib carried the infant to the center of the Ka’ba, stood before the idol Hubal, and offered a prayer of thanksgiving to Allah for the child’s birth.
This act places Muhammad’s earliest religious association within a polytheistic framework, contrary to biblical prophetic origins, which are invariably marked by devotion to the God of Israel from birth.

Reference: Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, trans. A. Guillaume, p. 70.

**2. The Satanic Verses: Satan Placed Words in Muhammad’s Mouth

(Ibn Ishaq, pp. 165–167)**

The most serious challenge to Muhammad’s prophetic claims arises from the satanic verses incident. According to Ibn Ishaq:

Muhammad desired reconciliation with pagan Quraysh.
In that emotional state, Satan “put upon his tongue” words praising the pagan goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat.
Quraysh rejoiced, believing he had validated their gods.
Muhammad and the Muslims prostrated together with the pagans.
Gabriel later rebuked Muhammad, stating: “You have recited something I did not bring from God.”
Muhammad was “grieved” and “feared God greatly.”
A new revelation (Qur’an 22:52) affirmed that Satan had interfered with every prophet’s desires.

This narrative acknowledges:

Direct satanic influence on Muhammad’s prophetic speech.
Doctrinal correction of a false revelation.
Retraction of verses publicly proclaimed as divine.

Such an episode has no precedent in biblical prophetic tradition, where God explicitly commands prophets to distinguish His words from those of false spirits (Jer. 23:16–32).

**3. The Mode of Revelation: Jibril Physically Strangled Muhammad

(Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, pp. 108–110)**

Muhammad’s first encounter with Gabriel is described with striking psychological and physical trauma:

Gabriel seized Muhammad three times.
Each time, he “pressed him so hard that he could not bear it.”
Muhammad fled in terror to Khadija crying “Cover me! Cover me!”
He confessed: “I fear that something may happen to me.”

In contrast, biblical angelic encounters never involve strangulation or physical harm to prophets. Instead, they begin with the reassurance: “Fear not.”

**4. Muhammad’s Suicidal Attempts

(Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 9, pp. 83–85, Hadith 6982)**

Following the cessation of revelation after Waraqa’s death, Muhammad experienced a period of profound despair:

He repeatedly attempted suicide by throwing himself off mountains.
Each time, Gabriel intervened at the last moment to stop him.

Suicidal ideation is incompatible with biblical prophetic vocation, where prophets are upheld, strengthened, and protected by God even under duress.

**5. Jibril Surgically Opened Muhammad’s Chest and Removed “Satan”

(Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 116)**

Hadith literature records a supernatural surgery performed on Muhammad as a child:

Gabriel tore open Muhammad’s chest.
He removed a black clot, saying: “This was the measure of Satan in you.”
He washed the heart in Zamzam water.

The implication is significant: Muhammad required satanic extraction, unlike biblical prophets, who are filled with the Spirit of God from youth (e.g., Samuel, Jeremiah).

**6. Muhammad Was Bewitched and Lost Cognitive Control

(Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, p. 254, Hadith 3175)**

Aisha reports:

Muhammad was under a spell.
He imagined doing things he had not done.

This raises theological issues: a prophet whose perceptions are manipulated by sorcery contradicts biblical standards where prophets are safeguarded from such deception (Num. 23:23).

**7. Muhammad Had a Jinn Companion

(Sahih Muslim, Vol. 8, p. 302)**

Muhammad stated:

Every person has a jinn companion.
He too had one.
He claimed his jinn only commanded him to do good.

Biblically, prophets are accompanied by the Spirit of the Lord, not jinn spirits.

**8. Marriage to Aisha at Age 6; Consummation at Age 9

(Sahih Muslim Vol. 4, p. 355)**

Aisha states:

Muhammad married her at age 6.
Consummated the marriage at age 9.
Muhammad was 54 years old.

Such conduct conflicts with biblical morality and the standards required of spiritual leaders (1 Timothy 3:1–7).

**9. Marriage to the Divorced Wife of His Adopted Son

(Qur’an 33:37)**

Muhammad married Zaynab bint Jahsh after Zayd, his adopted son, divorced her. The Qur’an itself records God commanding this marriage—an action inconsistent with biblical restrictions on familial boundaries.

**10. Muhammad Did Not Possess the Secrets of God

(Qur’an 6:50)**

Muhammad himself declares that he lacks:

Knowledge of the unseen
Authority to perform miracles
Divine secrets reserved by God

True biblical prophets such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel were explicitly entrusted with God’s secret counsel.

**11. Muhammad Confessed Personal Sinfulness

(Qur’an 40:55; 47:19; 48:1–2; 49:1–3)**

The Qur’an requires Muhammad to:

Seek forgiveness for his sins
Confess faults
Repent

Hadith sources confirm:

Muhammad said there is “a shade over my heart” and he seeks forgiveness 100 times daily (Sahih Muslim 2702).
His opening prayer asks God to “wash away my sins” like a soiled garment (Sahih Bukhari 744).

In biblical theology, prophets are morally exemplary and do not exhibit persistent moral darkness or inherent spiritual obstruction.

Conclusion

From an academic and theological standpoint, based entirely upon Islamic textual evidence, the following conclusions emerge:

Muhammad’s life displays spiritual influences inconsistent with divine protection—including satanic interference, enchantment, and a personal jinn companion.
His revelations include demonstrable errors, later corrected by new revelations.
His psychological profile as depicted in Islamic sources involves suicidal tendencies, severe fear, and trauma.
His moral actions—particularly concerning marriage and family boundaries—conflict with biblical prophetic ethics.
His own confession of ignorance, sinfulness, and lack of divine secrets places him below the standard of biblical prophets.

Therefore, based on the internal evidence of Islam’s own authoritative sources, Muhammad does not meet the theological, moral, or spiritual qualifications of a true prophet of God.

ALLAH DOES NOT KNOW MATHEMATICS OR ARITHMETIC

Thursday, October 27, 2016
ALLAH DOES NOT KNOW MATHEMATICS OR ARITHMETIC

One of the things that proves that Allah is not Almighty God is the major mathematical errors found in the Qur’an, which he allegedly sent down to Muhammad with the help of Jibril. His inheritance laws are spread out in several chapters such as Al-Baqarah, Al-Ma’idah, and Al-Anfal. But in more detail, they are set forth in Surat al-Nisā’.

Surat al-Nisā’ 4:11
“Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, a portion equal to that of two females. If there are more than two females, they shall receive two-thirds of what the deceased has left. But if there is only one female, she shall receive half. And for the parents, each of them shall receive a sixth of what he left if the deceased has a child. If he has no child and his parents are his only heirs, then his mother shall receive a third. But if he has siblings, then his mother shall receive a sixth. This is after any bequest that has been made or any debt has been paid. Your fathers and your children—you do not know which of them is more beneficial to you. This is an ordinance from Allah, and surely Allah is All-Knowing and All-Wise.”

Surat al-Nisā’ 4:12
“And your share is half of what your wives leave if they have no child. But if they have a child, then your share is a quarter of what they leave, after any bequest they may have made or debt they owed. And your wives shall receive a quarter of what you leave if you have no child. But if you have a child, then they shall receive an eighth of what you leave, after any bequest you may have made or debt you owe. And if a man or a woman whose inheritance is being distributed has no child nor parents, but has a brother or sister from the mother’s side, then each of them shall receive a sixth. But if they are more than that, they shall share in a third, after any bequest has been made or debt paid, without causing harm. This is a command from Allah, and Allah is All-Knowing and Most Forbearing.”

Surat al-Nisā’ 4:176
“They ask you for a ruling. Say: Allah gives you this ruling concerning a person who dies leaving no child: if he has a sister, she shall have half of what he leaves. And he shall inherit from her if she has no child. If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves. If there are brothers and sisters together, then the male shall receive a portion equal to that of two females. Allah clarifies this to you so that you do not go astray, and Allah is All-Knowing of all things.”

Although Allah claims that he has clarified these laws plainly and without doubt, when you read these verses they are full of confusion and contradictions.

Qur’an 4:11 says that if the child is a single daughter, her portion is half. But that same verse claims that the brother receives twice the portion of the sister. Mathematically, this means the brother takes everything. This is a mathematical disaster for Allah.

Beyond that, when you include the mother and father in this inheritance system, Allah leaves them stranded, because the calculations become too difficult for him.

That is why I ask: Who taught Allah mathematics or arithmetic?

THIS IS A VERY GREAT DISASTER FOR MUSLIMS.

Friday, December 5, 2025

Neuroplasticity, Spiritual Formation, and Holistic Redemption in Christ

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

Human beings occupy a unique place in God’s creation. Made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27), humans are embodied, relational, and rational creatures, endowed with the capacity for moral discernment, spiritual communion, and cognitive growth. Traditional Christian anthropology has long emphasized the spiritual and moral dimensions of the human person. Yet contemporary insights from neuroscience, particularly the concept of neuroplasticity, reveal that humans are also biologically designed for change, growth, and adaptation throughout life.

This chapter explores the theological, pastoral, and ethical implications of neuroplasticity. It integrates five core themes: the embodied nature of humanity, the synergy of grace and self-discipline, holistic redemption, ethical and pastoral responsibility, and the humble dialogue with science. Together, these themes present a vision of human transformation that is holistic, Scripture-grounded, and informed by science, offering practical insights for spiritual formation, counseling, education, and restorative ministries.

1. The Anthropological Principle: Embodied Humanity and Neuroplastic Potential

Human beings are embodied, biological creatures, not disembodied souls. Genesis 1:26–27 affirms that humans are made in the image of God, and this image encompasses potential for growth, change, and adaptation. Neuroscience now confirms that the human brain is not static; through neuroplasticity, it continuously forms new neural connections, reorganizes circuits, and adapts to experience, learning, and intentional practice.

This neurobiological flexibility reflects the God-given capacity for transformation, aligning with biblical imperatives for renewing the mind (Romans 12:2) and becoming a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17). Spiritual disciplines, moral engagement, and relational interaction are thus not only spiritually formative but also neurologically reinforcing, demonstrating the integrated design of the embodied human being.

In practical terms, this understanding calls for a holistic anthropology: theology, psychology, and neuroscience converge to affirm that humans are dynamic, malleable, and capable of continual growth, both spiritually and cognitively.

2. Synergy of Grace and Self-Discipline: Spiritual Practices as Neuro-Sanctification

Sanctification, or the process of spiritual growth, occurs at the intersection of divine grace and human effort. Spiritual disciplines—prayer, meditation, Scripture reading, worship, repentance, and community participation—are not merely symbolic or moral exercises. They function as real agents of transformation, reshaping the neural architecture, strengthening attention, emotional regulation, and moral judgment.

Neuroplasticity provides a scientific framework for understanding how spiritual disciplines operate. Repeated engagement in prayer or meditation activates neural regions associated with focus, empathy, and self-regulation. Scripture study and memorization stimulate memory circuits and moral reasoning. Worship and communal practices engage relational and emotional networks, enhancing both spiritual and neural growth.

This convergence can be termed “neuro-sanctification”—the embodied, neurological manifestation of spiritual transformation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Believers cooperate with grace through disciplined practice, experiencing changes that are simultaneously spiritual, cognitive, and emotional, confirming the integrative design of God’s redemptive work.

3. Holistic Redemption: Soul, Mind, Brain, and Community

Redemption in Christ is inherently holistic. While salvation addresses the soul, it also impacts the mind, brain, emotions, and social relationships. Romans 12:2 commands believers to be transformed by the renewing of the mind, affirming that redemption is cognitive as well as spiritual. Trauma, habitual sin, and maladaptive thought patterns are not outside the scope of Christ’s work; they are part of the human experience He came to redeem.

Neuroplasticity demonstrates that repeated spiritual and moral practices, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can reshape neural pathways, promoting lasting emotional, cognitive, and behavioral transformation. Social and communal formation also plays a vital role. Galatians 6:2 exhorts believers to bear one another’s burdens, and Ephesians 4:15–16 emphasizes the interconnectedness of the body of Christ. By engaging relational networks, believers experience both personal and communal restoration, aligning with God’s intention for holistic redemption.

Holistic redemption, therefore, integrates spiritual, cognitive, emotional, and social dimensions, highlighting that salvation and restoration extend beyond abstract morality into the tangible architecture of the human brain and relational life.

4. Ethical and Pastoral Implications

Understanding the interplay of neuroplasticity and spiritual formation carries significant ethical and pastoral responsibilities. Ministries, pastoral care, discipleship programs, and restorative justice initiatives must attend to brain, mind, community, and environment.

Holistic Approach: Ministries should integrate prayer, worship, Scripture, counseling, and community support, recognizing that spiritual, cognitive, and emotional dimensions are interconnected.
Intentionality and Integrity: Leaders must ethically design practices that foster voluntary growth, respect autonomy, and cultivate moral and neural transformation without manipulation.
Evidence-Informed Design: Christian education, counseling, and discipleship can incorporate insights from neuroscience to enhance attention, emotional regulation, and moral formation.
Environmental and Communal Considerations: Safe, supportive, and relationally rich environments are essential for sustainable growth, reflecting the communal and social dimension of redemption.
Restorative and Trauma-Informed Ministries: Programs addressing sin, brokenness, or crime should integrate spiritual, psychological, and cognitive approaches, fostering holistic change in line with God’s restorative purposes.

Pastoral care and mentorship that align with neuroplastic principles encourage repetition, reflection, relational accountability, and spiritual discipline, producing lasting neural, moral, and spiritual transformation.

5. Dialogue with Science and Humility

While neuroplasticity provides profound insights into human potential, it must be approached with humility. Neuroscience is not proof of Christianity, nor does it answer ultimate spiritual or theological questions. It is a resource, a creation gift, and a pointer to God’s design, offering practical guidance for ministry, education, and spiritual formation.

Christian leaders should engage science responsibly:

Recognize the Limits: Neuroscience explains mechanisms of thought, emotion, and behavior but cannot address ultimate questions of salvation, the soul, or divine action.
Embrace Interdisciplinary Cooperation: Theology and neuroscience can inform each other, particularly in designing practices that support cognitive, moral, and spiritual growth.
Maintain Humility: Science is a tool for ministry, not a replacement for Scripture or revelation. Its insights complement, not supplant, theological understanding.

Through this humble dialogue, the church can leverage neuroplasticity as a gift for enhancing spiritual formation, counseling, education, and restorative practices, while preserving the primacy of divine truth.

Conclusion

The convergence of neuroplasticity and theology offers a comprehensive vision of human transformation. Embodied, malleable, and relational, humans are designed for growth across spiritual, cognitive, emotional, and social dimensions. Spiritual disciplines, pastoral care, and community engagement are real instruments through which divine grace operates, reshaping minds, brains, and lives.

Holistic redemption in Christ is thus multidimensional, extending beyond the soul into the mind, body, and community. Ministries must ethically and intentionally integrate this understanding, designing practices that foster neural, moral, and spiritual formation. At the same time, dialogue with science demands humility, recognizing the limits of empirical knowledge while celebrating the insights God has made available through creation.

By embracing neuroplasticity as a gift and resource, the church can cultivate believers who are transformed in mind, spirit, and community, participating actively in the redemptive work of Christ, and embodying the fullness of the image in which they were created.

References

Genesis 1:26–27, Holy Bible (KJV)
Romans 12:2, Holy Bible (KJV)
2 Corinthians 5:17, Holy Bible (KJV)
Galatians 6:2, Holy Bible (KJV)
Ephesians 4:15–16, Holy Bible (KJV)
Doidge, Norman. The Brain That Changes Itself. Viking, 2007.
Newberg, Andrew, and Mark Robert Waldman. How God Changes Your Brain. Ballantine Books, 2009.
Churchland, Patricia. Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain. MIT Press, 1986.
Siegel, Daniel J. The Mindful Therapist: A Clinician’s Guide to Mindsight and Neural Integration. W. W. Norton, 2010.
St. Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology. “Theology and Neuroscience.” SAET, 2023.

Dialogue with Science and Humility: Neuroplasticity as a Resource for Theology

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

The convergence of theology and neuroscience offers profound insights into human nature, spiritual formation, and moral development. Among these insights, neuroplasticity—the brain’s capacity to reorganize itself in response to experience, learning, and environment—has emerged as a key concept. However, while neuroplasticity provides compelling data about human cognition and behavior, it must be approached with humility in theological reflection. Neuroscience is a tool, not a proof of Christian truth. It is a resource, a creation gift, and a pointer to human potential, offering opportunities for cooperation between scientific inquiry and theological understanding.

Neuroplasticity as a Creation Gift

Scripture affirms that God has made humans in His image (Genesis 1:26–27), endowing them with remarkable capacities for learning, growth, and transformation. The discovery of neuroplasticity illuminates the biological dimension of this divine design. The brain’s adaptability is a tangible expression of God’s creative wisdom, enabling humans to learn, recover, and grow throughout life. Spiritual disciplines, moral formation, and relational engagement interact with this neural flexibility, demonstrating that God’s design supports holistic transformation—mind, body, and spirit.

Yet, neuroplasticity should not be construed as evidence proving the existence of God or validating doctrinal claims. Rather, it is a creation-based resource, showing the potential inherent in the creatures God has made. It invites theologians, pastors, and spiritual leaders to integrate scientific insights into practices that foster growth, healing, and virtue while maintaining a clear distinction between empirical observation and theological truth.

Science as a Partner, Not a Proof

Christian theology and neuroscience operate in distinct epistemological domains. Theology addresses questions of ultimate meaning, divine action, morality, and eternal destiny; neuroscience investigates mechanisms of cognition, emotion, and behavior. When engaging with neuroplasticity, theologians must adopt a posture of humility: neuroscience informs us about how the mind and brain operate, but it does not answer metaphysical or spiritual questions such as the nature of the soul, the reality of God, or the efficacy of prayer in divine action.

This distinction preserves intellectual integrity. Treating neuroplasticity as a partner allows theologians to draw insights about human potential, growth, and resilience, and to design spiritually and psychologically informed ministries. It encourages respectful dialogue with scientists, fostering interdisciplinary cooperation while guarding against scientism—the reduction of theological truths to empirical findings.

Applications in Ministry and Education

Recognizing neuroplasticity as a resource has practical implications for ministry, pastoral care, and education:

Spiritual Formation: Faith practices such as prayer, meditation, Scripture memorization, worship, and service can be intentionally structured to engage both spiritual and neural pathways, enhancing growth and resilience.
Pastoral Counseling: Awareness of the brain’s adaptability helps pastors and counselors understand the potential for change in behaviors, emotional patterns, and thought processes, supporting holistic care.
Christian Education: Teaching methods that encourage repetition, reflection, and experiential learning align with neuroplastic principles, enhancing cognitive and moral formation.
Restorative Justice and Discipleship: Programs aimed at rehabilitation can integrate spiritual, cognitive, and social approaches, fostering transformation that is both measurable and spiritually grounded.

Humility in the Integration of Theology and Neuroscience

While neuroplasticity enriches our understanding of human development and spiritual formation, humility is essential. Neuroscience offers descriptive insights about neural processes, not normative truths about salvation, virtue, or divine action. Theology provides the framework for interpreting the meaning, purpose, and ethical implications of these insights.

By maintaining this humility, Christian leaders, educators, and scholars can responsibly integrate scientific understanding without overstepping its bounds. Neuroplasticity becomes a tool for enhancing ministry, guiding pastoral care, and deepening spiritual formation, while theology retains its role as the authoritative lens for understanding God, humanity, and ultimate purpose.

Conclusion

Dialogue with science, grounded in humility, allows neuroplasticity to function as a resource for theological reflection rather than a proof of Christian faith. It reveals the potential God has embedded in human beings, providing guidance for holistic formation, counseling, education, and spiritual mentoring. By cooperating with scientific insights, the church can cultivate minds, hearts, and behaviors aligned with God’s purposes, while acknowledging the limits of empirical knowledge. True integration respects both the gifts of creation and the sovereignty of divine revelation, fostering a faith that is informed, wise, and transformative.

References

Genesis 1:26–27, Holy Bible (KJV)
Romans 12:2, Holy Bible (KJV)
Doidge, Norman. The Brain That Changes Itself. Viking, 2007.
Newberg, Andrew, and Mark Robert Waldman. How God Changes Your Brain. Ballantine Books, 2009.
St. Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology. “Theology and Neuroscience.” SAET, 2023.
Churchland, Patricia. Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain. MIT Press, 1986.