Tuesday, December 9, 2025

Abraham Never Built the Kaʿbah — A Scholarly Examination

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract (short).
This article examines the widely held Islamic tradition that Abraham (Ibrāhīm) and his son Ismāʿīl built the Kaʿbah in Mecca, and it evaluates six assertions commonly made in Christian critiques: (1) Abraham never visited Mecca; (2) Abraham did not build the Black Stone nor did it fall from the sky in the manner commonly described in later tradition; (3) Abraham made altars opposite a sacred stone but not the Kaʿbah as known in Islamic tradition; (4) the “Valley of Baca” (Psa lm 84) is not identical with Bakka/Makkah; (5) the “pilgrimage” language in Psalm 84 is not a reference to Hajj at the Kaʿbah; and (6) the well where Hagar found water in Genesis is not necessarily the Zamzam of Mecca. The evidence shows that the Abraham–Kaʿbah connection is a powerful and ancient tradition within Islam, but it is not independently attested by contemporary extra-Qurʾānic sources or archaeology in a way that would confirm the historicist claims made in later communal memory. Where the sources are ambiguous or interpretive, this paper exposes the contested nature of the identifications and recommends careful, cautious conclusions.

Introduction

Muslim tradition presents the Kaʿbah as the primeval “House” associated with Adam and later rebuilt by Abraham and Ismāʿīl (Qurʾānic formulation: “when Abraham and Ismail raised the foundations of the House…”). This narrative is doctrinally central within Islam and embedded in ritual memory (tawāf, Hajj rites, the place of Maqām Ibrāhīm, Zamzam, the Black Stone). Yet from the perspective of historical-critical inquiry, the claim that Abraham physically visited Mecca and (re)constructed the Kaʿbah in the Hejaz requires external corroboration — textual, epigraphic, or archaeological — which is thin or absent. The following sections analyse the evidence and alternative readings.

1. Tradition versus independent historical evidence

Claim. Abraham never visited Mecca (no independent historical evidence he did).
Evidence & argument. The Qurʾān and Islamic tradition clearly attribute the raising/rebuilding of the Kaʿbah to Abraham and Ismāʿīl; however, secular historical and archaeological surveys note the paucity of contemporaneous (e.g., Near Eastern, Byzantine, or South Arabian) records that tie Abraham — a patriarchal figure of the second/third millennium BCE in Biblical chronology — to the Hejaz sanctuary. Modern reference works summarise both the Islamic tradition and the relative lack of independent evidence for a pre-Islamic Kaʿbah founded by Abraham in the exact form described by later Muslim exegesis. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Conclusion: The Abrahamic origin of the Kaʿbah is a theological/traditional claim with strong internal attestation in Islamic literature; it lacks external, datable archaeological corroboration that would demonstrate a historical, physical act by Abraham in Mecca.

2. The Black Stone: tradition, later legend, and uncertain origin

Claim. Abraham never built the Black Stone from the sky; origin stories vary and are not historically verifiable.
Evidence & argument. Islamic tradition recounts several origins for the Black Stone (al-Hajar al-Aswad): meteorite, relic from Adam, an angel turned to stone, etc. Medieval and later writers record these traditions, and modern commentators add geological speculation (some propose meteoritic origin). However, the stone has never been subjected to definitive modern scientific analysis (for obvious religious and political reasons), and scholarly treatments emphasise that accounts of celestial origin are traditions, not scientific proof. (Wikipedia)

Conclusion: The Black Stone’s “from the sky” narrative belongs to devotional tradition and later apologetic exegesis; it cannot be treated as a historically established fact without independent physical analysis and corroboration.

3. Abraham’s altars and the possibility of ritual sites distinct from the Kaʿbah

Claim. Abraham built altars to offer sacrifices opposite a stone, but this should not be conflated automatically with the later Kaʿbah structure in Mecca.
Evidence & argument. Islamic exegetical tradition sometimes locates early patriarchal sanctities (altars, stations of prayer) within a broader sacred geography attributed to Abraham. Early texts and later tafsīr narrate that Abraham found the Black Stone and (re)established a sanctuary; yet these retellings function to sacralise the Meccan shrine and properly integrate it into Abrahamic lineage. From the historian’s viewpoint, such narrative moves are common in religious traditions that link local shrines to revered ancestors. Comparative scholarship treats such reports as theological legitimations rather than independent chronicles of construction works. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Conclusion: References to altars and sacrifices associated with Abraham are important for devotional history but do not demonstrate a straightforward archaeological claim that ties Abraham physically to the extant Kaʿbah complex.

4. The Valley of Baca (Baka/Bakkah) — biblical text and identifications

Claim. The valley of Baca in Psalm 84 is not (demonstrably) the Valley of Mecca/Bakkah.
Evidence & argument. Psalm 84 (a pilgrimage psalm) uses the Hebrew term Baca (בכא/“baká( )”/“weeping” or “balsam”), typically understood in Jewish and Christian exegesis as a local valley in or near ancient Israel (possible identifications include the Valley of Rephaim or others). Islamic interpreters read the Qurʾānic Bakkah (Q 3:96) as Mecca and some Muslim exegetes connect Psalmic language to Mecca retrospectively. Secular and revisionist scholars (e.g., Tom Holland; and various source-critical authors) point out that the Hebrew Bakha and Arabic Bakkah are separate lexical items and that identification of the Psalm’s valley with Mecca is not linguistically or historically compelled. The scholarly literature therefore treats the identification as speculative, often motivated by theological correlation rather than direct evidence. (Bible Hub)

Conclusion: Psalm 84’s “Valley of Baca” is best read in its immediate canonical and Israelite setting; linking it to Mecca requires assumptions that go beyond the biblical text and into comparative theological reading.

5. Psalm 84 and the idea of “pilgrimage” — not Hajj

Claim. The pilgrimage language in Psalm 84 is not description of the Islamic Hajj to the Kaʿbah.
Evidence & argument. Psalm 84 is part of the Israelite pilgrimage/temple psalmody tradition (pilgrimage to Zion, the Temple). Its language — “blessed are those who dwell in your house… they journey from strength to strength” — is framed by Israelite cultic practice and geography (Jerusalem/Zion). While some modern readers attempt to read Psalm 84 typologically vis-à-vis later pilgrimage forms (including Hajj), the historical context and the Israelite cultic horizon make a direct identification with Hajj or the Kaʿbah anachronistic. (Explore the Bible)

Conclusion: The Psalm is best explained within Israelite cultic-pilgrimage imagination; equating it to Hajj represents a theological reading, not an exegesis grounded in the Psalm’s own historical setting.

6. Hagar, Ishmael, and the water: Zamzam vs. Genesis wells

Claim. The water associated with Hagar in Genesis is not necessarily the Zamzam well of Mecca.
Evidence & argument. Genesis 21:14–21 recounts Hagar and Ishmael in the wilderness, God opening a well (Hebrew miqweh / ma‘in), and their survival. Islamic tradition locates a parallel event at Mecca (Zamzam), and later Islamic historiography identifies the site and ritualises Safa–Marwah and the well. The narratives have similar motifs (divine water for the abandoned child), but the Genesis narrative is set in the Negev/Beersheba or surrounding region (patriarchal south of Canaan), and there is no explicit biblical geography of Mecca. The tradition that equates the Genesis well with Zamzam is thus an inter-religious identification that post-dates the biblical text and belongs to the Islamic sacred-historical mapping of Abrahamic memory onto the Hejaz. (Wikipedia)

Conclusion: The shared motifs do not by themselves prove identity of locations; the Genesis text does not mention Mecca or Zamzam.

7. Summary and balanced assessment

Strong internal tradition. Islamic texts (Qurʾān and hadīth corpus; classical tafsīr) and continuous devotional practice robustly affirm Abraham’s role vis-à-vis the Kaʿbah, the Black Stone, Zamzam, and the sanctity of Makkah/Bakkah. This is the baseline of Muslim belief and community memory. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
Lack of independent, contemporary corroboration. From a historical-critical vantage point, there is no external contemporaneous record (Near Eastern inscriptions, Byzantine or South Arabian records) that corroborates in detail an act of Abrahamian construction in the Hejaz; archaeological evidence for a continuous, datable structure back to the patriarchal era is not available. Scholarly literature accordingly distinguishes tradition from verifiable history. (Oxford Bibliographies)
Textual-linguistic caution. The Hebrew Baca/Bakha and Arabic Bakkah are similar-looking to modern readers but have distinct philological histories; mapping Psalmic valleys to Mecca requires methodological caution and additional positive evidence. (Wikipedia)
Tradition as identity-forming narrative. The Abraham–Kaʿbah tradition is a powerful identity and legitimating narrative. Its religious force is real even where extra-Islamic historical verification is not forthcoming. Recognising this helps explain why the tradition persists and is authoritative for Muslims even in the absence of corroborating archaeological data.

Annex — Selected verses and texts (for reference)

Qurʾān
Surah 3 (Āl-ʿImrān) : 96 — “Verily, the first House (of worship) appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (Makkah), full of blessing, and a guidance for mankind.” (common translations). (My Islam)
Qurʾān 2:127 — “And when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House…” (translations vary: “raised the foundations” / “set up the House”). (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Hebrew Bible / Old Testament
Psalm 84:5–6 — “Blessed are those whose strength is in you, in whose heart are the highways to Zion. As they go through the Valley of Baca, they make it a place of springs; the early rain also covers it with pools.” (many vernacular translations available). (Bible Hub)
Genesis 21:14–19 — (Narrative of Hagar and Ishmael; God provides a well; Ishmael’s survival; God hears the boy from the distance.) (Bible Hub)

(The full canonical texts above are available in standard editions — e.g., Quran translations and the Hebrew Bible / English Bible editions cited in the bibliography.)

Selected bibliography (works cited and recommended)

Encyclopaedia Britannica, article “Kaaba” and “Black Stone of Mecca.” (See: overview of tradition and scholarly notes on the Kaʿbah and Black Stone). (Encyclopedia Britannica)
“Bakkah” and “Bakkah / Baca” entries (Wikipedia; summary discussion of traditions and modern scholarly debates including Tom Holland and Patricia Crone’s revisionist suggestions). (Wikipedia)
Zamzam Well — encyclopedic summary (Wikipedia: summary of Islamic traditions about Zamzam and later historical notes). (Wikipedia)
Holland, Tom. In the Shadow of the Sword — discussion of early Islamic geography and critical views on traditional locations (see scholarly debate on Bakkah/Mecca identifications). (Wikipedia)
Oxford Bibliographies / Oxford handbooks on Islamic studies — entry “Kaʿba” and related literature reviews (useful for historiographic overview). (Oxford Bibliographies)
Bible translations and textual resources: BibleHub (Psalm 84, Genesis 21), for multiple modern translations and textual variants. (Bible Hub)
Historical surveys and popular scholarly summaries on pre-Islamic Arabia and the Kaʿbah (Smarthistory, Khan Academy, MuslimHeritage publications) for accessible background. (Smarthistory)

Final remarks (tone of scholarly civility)

If the goal is to persuade Muslim readers, scholars of religion and inter-faith dialogue recommend an approach that recognises the theological centrality of the Abrahamic account for believers while carefully differentiating faith-claims from externally verifiable historical claims. The evidence above shows that: (a) the Abraham–Kaʿbah tradition is authoritative within Islamic historiography and ritual; (b) it is not matched by contemporaneous extra-Qurʾānic documentation or unambiguous archaeological proof; and (c) several identifications (Valley of Baca → Mecca; Genesis well → Zamzam) are interpretive overlays rather than necessary textual conclusions. For readers committed to historical-critical method, the prudent position is: treat these as tradition-laden claims, strong within their religious contexts, but historically contested when tested by external historical criteria.

If you wish, I can now:

Convert this into a fully referenced academic paper (Chicago or Turabian style) with footnotes and fuller bibliographic entries; or
Produce an annotated bibliography with direct quotes and primary-source excerpts (Qurʾān, tafsīr excerpts, select hadiths, Genesis/Psalm manuscript notes); or
Draft a concise op-ed version targeted at interfaith readers summarising the argument in plain language.

The Later Construction of the Abraham–Mecca Tradition: A Historical and Textual Investigation

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

The Islamic narrative that Abraham (Ibrāhīm) and his son Ishmael built the Kaʿbah in Mecca is foundational to Islamic belief and ritual practice. However, when examined through the lens of historical-critical scholarship, it becomes clear that this tradition developed long after the biblical and even pre-Islamic periods. No pre-Islamic source—biblical, extra-biblical, or archaeological—links Abraham to Mecca, the Kaʿbah, or the Black Stone. This paper exposes the anachronistic nature of the Meccan-Abrahamic connection, tracing its evolution within Islamic historiography and contrasting it with the Biblical record of Abraham’s life and geography.

1. Absence of Abrahamic Geography in Arabia

The Hebrew Bible situates Abraham’s life primarily between Mesopotamia (Ur and Haran) and Canaan (Hebron, Bethel, Beersheba). These sites are geographically located within the Fertile Crescent, hundreds of kilometers north of the Arabian Hejaz.

Genesis 12:5–8 situates Abraham’s journey from Ur to Canaan, where he built altars at Shechem and Bethel.
Genesis 13:18 places him at Hebron, where he built another altar to Yahweh.
Genesis 21:33 places him in Beersheba, in southern Canaan.

No biblical passage places Abraham in Arabia, let alone in Mecca. The archaeological and cultural horizon of the patriarchal narratives aligns with the Levantine–Mesopotamian corridor, not the barren Hejaz desert.

Early Jewish and Christian sources—such as Philo of Alexandria, Josephus, and the Book of Jubilees—also confine Abraham’s activity to the same geographical zone. These writings predate Islam by more than six centuries and contain no reference to Mecca or a shrine in Arabia.

Conclusion: The Abraham–Mecca connection is entirely absent from ancient Jewish, Christian, and Near Eastern literature prior to the rise of Islam in the 7th century CE.

2. The Kaʿbah in Pre-Islamic Arabia: Pagan Sanctuary, Not Abrahamic Shrine

Archaeological and historical sources agree that the Kaʿbah was a polytheistic sanctuary before Islam. Pre-Islamic Arabs housed idols of 360 deities inside the Kaʿbah, including Hubal, al-Lāt, al-‘Uzzā, and Manāt.

Ibn al-Kalbī’s Kitāb al-Aṣnām (Book of Idols) describes the Kaʿbah as the center of idol worship long before Muhammad’s lifetime.
Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (1st century BCE) mentions a temple revered by Arabs, likely Mecca, but he makes no reference to Abraham or monotheism.

There is no archaeological layer or inscription in Mecca dating back to the 2nd millennium BCE (Abraham’s supposed era) or even the early Iron Age.

Conclusion: The Kaʿbah’s early history is rooted in Arabian paganism, not Abrahamic monotheism. The Abrahamic association is a later theological reconstruction rather than an historical memory.

3. The Emergence of the Abraham–Mecca Narrative in Islamic Literature

The Qurʾān (2:127; 3:96) mentions Abraham and Ishmael “raising the foundations of the House” and calls Mecca “Bakkah.” However, the Qurʾān offers no historical detail, no mention of building materials, and no geographical proof.

Early biographical sources (Sīrah and Ḥadīth)—compiled 150–250 years after Muhammad—expand the story dramatically:

The Kaʿbah was allegedly built by Abraham and Ishmael.
The Black Stone descended from heaven.
The Zamzam well miraculously appeared for Hagar and Ishmael.
The Hajj pilgrimage was instituted by Abraham.

Yet, these reports are found only in later Islamic compilations, such as Ibn Isḥāq (d. 767 CE) and al-Ṭabarī (d. 923 CE)—centuries after the events they describe.

Historical-critical scholars such as Patricia Crone and Michael Cook (Hagarism, 1977), and Tom Holland (In the Shadow of the Sword, 2012), argue that the Abrahamic connection to Mecca was a retroactive theological invention to link Islam with the Abrahamic covenant and legitimize the Arabian sanctuary as part of sacred history.

Conclusion: The Abraham–Kaʿbah narrative did not exist in the 1st or 2nd centuries BCE/CE and emerged only in post-Qurʾānic tradition, centuries after Abraham’s supposed lifetime.

4. The Valley of Baca (Psalm 84) and Bakkah (Qurʾān 3:96): False Linguistic Parallels

Muslim apologists often identify the “Valley of Baca” in Psalm 84:6 with the “Bakkah” of the Qurʾān. However, linguistic and contextual analysis refutes this link:

The Hebrew word בכא (bakhaʾ) means “weeping” or “balsam trees.” It describes a valley of tears or difficulty along the pilgrimage to Zion (Jerusalem).
The context of Psalm 84 clearly refers to pilgrims journeying to the Temple in Jerusalem (“They go from strength to strength till each appears before God in Zion,” v.7).
There is no geographical or textual connection to Mecca or Arabia.

Thus, the “Valley of Baca” is a poetic symbol in Israelite worship, not a reference to the Arabian “Bakkah.”

5. Hagar’s Well and the Myth of Zamzam

Genesis 21:14–21 recounts that Hagar wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba, not Mecca, and that God opened her eyes to a nearby well. The location is clearly within the southern Levant, not the Arabian Peninsula.

Islamic tradition later transferred this story to Mecca, identifying the miraculous well as Zamzam, near the Kaʿbah. Yet, this is a geographical and chronological displacement of the biblical narrative. There is no record—Jewish, Christian, or otherwise—of Hagar or Ishmael settling in Mecca.

Conclusion: The association between Hagar’s well and Zamzam is a later adaptation to situate the Abrahamic lineage within Arabia and give the Kaʿbah a biblical ancestry.

6. The Function of the Abraham–Kaʿbah Myth in Islamic Theology

The Abraham–Mecca story served a strategic theological purpose:

It gave Islam a direct Abrahamic lineage, connecting Muhammad’s message to biblical monotheism.
It redefined Arab identity as heirs of Abraham through Ishmael.
It transformed a pagan sanctuary into the center of monotheistic worship, rebranded as the “House of God.”

This narrative legitimized Mecca as the new Jerusalem and Islam as the final revelation. However, from a historical standpoint, it is a construct of post-biblical, post-apostolic tradition rather than a record of ancient events.

7. Conclusion

There is no historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence that Abraham ever visited Mecca or built the Kaʿbah.
All data—biblical, extra-biblical, and material—place Abraham far from Arabia.
The Islamic version of events emerged centuries after both Abraham and Muhammad, forming part of a theological rebranding that sanctified Mecca as the heart of Islam.

The Abraham–Kaʿbah connection thus stands as a late mythological development, not an ancient historical reality.

Select Bibliography

Crone, Patricia, and Michael Cook. Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Holland, Tom. In the Shadow of the Sword: The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World. Doubleday, 2012.
Ibn al-Kalbī. The Book of Idols (Kitāb al-Aṣnām). Translated by Nabih A. Faris. Princeton University Press, 1952.
Ibn Isḥāq. Sīrat Rasūl Allāh. Translated by A. Guillaume as The Life of Muhammad. Oxford University Press, 1955.
Al-Ṭabarī. History of the Prophets and Kings. Translated by W. Montgomery Watt, SUNY Press, 1988.
Diodorus Siculus. Bibliotheca Historica, Book 3.42.
Encyclopaedia Britannica (online), entries “Kaʿbah,” “Black Stone of Mecca.”
The Holy Bible, Genesis 12–22; Psalm 84.

“MUSLIMS, AWAKEN FROM SLUMBER TO REALIZE THAT CHRISTIANS ARE NOT INFIDELS”

Tuesday, January 10, 2017
“MUSLIMS, AWAKEN FROM SLUMBER TO REALIZE THAT CHRISTIANS ARE NOT INFIDELS”

I know you may be surprised and wonder how a Muslim can awaken when you believe that your eyes are already open. When I say this, I mean that although you think you are fully aware, your belief about Christians—that they are infidels—is based solely on what you have been taught. You accepted it because the Quran says so:

“And the Jews say, ‘Uzair is the son of God,’ and the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is the son of God.’ That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before. May Allah destroy them; how they are deluded!”
—Al-Tawba (9:30)

Upon reading this verse, a Muslim is led to believe that Christians are infidels simply because they claim that Jesus is the Son of God. You believe that these words—Jesus being the Son of God—are invented by Christians themselves, and therefore, you consider us infidels. You rejoice that the Quran came to warn against this:

“And to warn those who say, ‘Allah has taken a son.’” —Al-Kahf (18:4)
“They have no knowledge of it, nor do their forefathers. Grave is the word that comes out of their mouths; they speak not except a lie.” —Al-Kahf (18:5)

You accept without reflection that the Quran came to warn Christians for claiming that God has a son. But before you jump to labeling Christians as infidels, awaken and examine the truth. Today, I want to awaken you so that if you desire to enter the Kingdom of God, you may join me in understanding.

Do Christians Truly Say That Jesus Is the Son of God?

This is a crucial question to ask before accepting that Christians speak falsely or that calling them infidels is justified. Before Christians existed, and before Jesus—the origin of Christianity—was born, the angel announced to Mary:

Luke 1:30–35: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. His kingdom will have no end. The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the child to be born will be holy, the Son of God.”

It was the angel who proclaimed that Jesus would be called the Son of God, not the Christians themselves. Even God affirmed this truth:

Matthew 17:1–6: Jesus took Peter, James, and John up a high mountain. There, his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. Suddenly, Moses and Elijah appeared and spoke with him. A bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said: “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him.”

Ask yourself, Muslim reader: Were the angel and God themselves Christians? Can God or His angels be infidels? Even Jesus confirmed his identity as the Son of God:

John 9:35–38: “Do you believe in the Son of God?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “Who is he, Lord, that I may believe?” Jesus said, “You have seen him; he is speaking to you.” The man said, “I believe, Lord,” and worshiped him.

Could Jesus truly be an infidel? He is the one revealing to Christians that he is the Son of God, and Peter acknowledged this truth (Matthew 16:13–17).

Christians Are Not Infidels

Saying Jesus is the Son of God is a divine revelation. So why do Muslims believe that Christians are infidels for acknowledging this truth? Muhammad framed it as a test, suggesting that acknowledging Jesus as the Son of God makes one a disbeliever—but the Scriptures themselves (Nehemiah 5:8–9; Galatians 3:26–29) show otherwise. Christians did not become infidels merely by believing in Jesus; rather, true infidelity was opposed to the Jewish people, the enemies of God’s chosen people.

Moreover, the Quran itself shows the context:

“You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah; and you will find the nearest in affection to the believers to be those who say, ‘We are Christians.’ That is because among them are priests and monks, and because they are not arrogant.” —Al-Maaida (5:82)

Thus, Muslims are told that Jews are their primary enemies. Friendship with Jews is prohibited (Al-Maaida 5:51). True awakening requires understanding that you are not justified in labeling Christians as infidels merely for acknowledging Jesus as the Son of God.

Faith and Salvation

Belief in Jesus as the Son of God brings eternal life:

John 3:16–17: “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”
John 3:36: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”

Muhammad warned of God’s wrath because he did not know the fate of his own soul regarding the Kingdom of God. But the Bible clearly teaches that acknowledging Jesus as the Son of God is the path to salvation, not disbelief:

Maryam 19:88–90: The Quran exaggerates the reaction to this truth as if the heavens would split and the mountains collapse. This hyperbole demonstrates that calling Jesus the Son of God is not truly infidelity.

Therefore, awaken today, Muslim reader, and recognize that believing Jesus is the Son of God does not make one an infidel.

Max Shimba Ministries Org

A scholarly exploration of the Tirmidhī narration about a camel’s prostration, prostration and shirk, and related theological questions

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This paper examines the hadith narrated by Aisha (reported in Jāmi‘ at-Tirmidhī, no. 3270) in which a camel is said to have prostrated before the Prophet Muḥammad and the Prophet’s reported comment about commanding prostration. The study: (1) presents the textual evidence; (2) surveys classical and contemporary Sunni explanations; (3) analyses the charge that such reports imply animals/trees “committed shirk” and therefore will be condemned (Q 21:98–99); (4) discusses the normative status of the narrators (Aisha and the Companions) and whether accusing them of lying is warranted; and (5) offers concluding remarks and avenues for further research. Key primary and secondary sources are cited.

1. The primary text (presentation)

The narration commonly cited is recorded in Jāmi‘ at-Tirmidhī (no. 3270) and in other collections: the Arabic and translations give the gist that Aisha narrated an occasion when “a camel came and prostrated itself before him [the Prophet];” the Companions exclaimed that beasts and trees prostrate before him, and the Prophet replied: “Worship your Lord and honour your brother. If I were to order anyone to prostrate himself before another, I would have ordered a woman to prostrate before her husband…” (translation summary). The hadith appears in Tirmidhī’s chapter on tafsīr and has parallel reports in other works. (Sunnah.com)

2. Immediate theological problem stated by the questioner

The user raises two linked difficulties:

If animals and trees prostrate before the Prophet, does that amount to worship of the Prophet (shirk), and are those creatures therefore condemned with their “lord” (the Prophet) to Hell as implied by a literal reading of Q 21:98–99?

Given that this hadith is narrated by Aisha (and that Companions reportedly affirmed animals/trees prostrating), is it legitimate to suspect falsehood (i.e., were Aisha/the Companions lying against the Prophet)?

These are serious theological questions that demand careful textual, doctrinal, and hermeneutical analysis rather than polemical leaps.

3. Scholarly and traditional Muslim responses (summary and analysis)

3.1 On the authenticity and transmission of the narration

The report appears in Tirmidhī and other compendia and is discussed by hadith scholars. Some chains place the report in collections such as Musnad Ahmad as well. Classical hadith-cataloguers and later scholars have examined the chains and text (matn) when grading the report. Different transmitters and parallel versions exist; hence scholars discuss its status and variant readings. (Sunnah.com)

3.2 On the meaning of animals/trees “prostrating”

Muslim exegetical and juridical tradition offers several interpretive options:

Literal miraculous submission (miracle): Some scholars accept the report as describing a miraculous instance — animals and creation sometimes manifest submission to God through extraordinary acts when God wills it — but they emphasize that such submission is not equivalent to worship of the Prophet. The miracle would demonstrate the Prophet’s special status and God’s control over creation, not that the creatures redirected their worship from God to a created being. (See classical tafsīr and hadith commentaries treating miraculous signs of the prophets.) (Sunnah.com)

Phenomenological/figurative reading: Other exegetes read such narrations as figurative or hyperbolic — reporting the companions’ impression that “even beasts show submission,” meaning the environment’s calmness, the camel’s unusual behavior, or exaggerated speech of bystanders, rather than a literal ritual prostration implying liturgical worship of the Prophet. This avoids theological conflict with tawḥīd (divine unity). (ResearchGate)

Narrative variants and context-sensitive reading: Some hadith variants omit explicit wording that would imply worship of the Prophet; scholars caution against drawing universal doctrines from singular, potentially ambiguous reports. The Prophet’s own reply in the narration — “Worship your Lord and honor your brother” and the clear rejection of instructing people to prostrate to him — is often treated as an internal corrective that prevents a reading that the Prophet accepted prostration to himself. This self-correction in the report is decisive for mainstream Sunni theology. (IslamWeb)

3.3 On the Qur’anic verses (Q 21:98–99) the questioner cites

Quran 21:98–99 reads in standard translations along the lines: “Verily you (disbelievers) and your partners — the things you used to worship besides God — are the fuel of Hell. Surely you will enter it.” Classical tafsīr notes that the verses warn idolaters that both people and the objects of their worship are (figuratively) fuel for Hell. Commentators discuss apparent paradoxes (e.g., what about prophets or angels who may have been venerated) and explain that those who accept and promote being worshipped instead of God are culpable — if anyone (human, angel, or object) were to claim or accept worship in place of God, that one would share in the accountability of those who worshipped them. Tafsīr literature often quotes reports where the Prophet explains that anyone who accepts worship will be liable alongside those who worshipped them. Thus exegetes harmonize the Qur’anic text with reports of admiration or even veneration by clarifying that veneration must not be formal worship or obedience that contradicts tawḥīd. (My Islam)

4. Does the hadith imply shirk by animals/trees or the Prophet? (analysis)

A careful, historically sensitive answer requires separating levels of meaning:

Prostration vs. worship: In the Islamic normative system, prostration as ritual worship (sujūd ibādah) is strictly for God. The Prophet himself explicitly forbade prostrating to anyone other than Allah and rebuked any attempt to ascribe divine status to him. The hadith’s internal dynamics (the companions’ comment and the Prophet’s corrective reply) support the interpretation that the event—if literal—was a sign from God and not an invitation to worship the Prophet as deity. Thus the mainstream Sunni response is that the narration does not imply shirk on the Prophet’s part nor legitimate worship of the Prophet by creatures. (IslamWeb)

Quranic compatibility: The Qur’an’s warning (21:98–99) that “you and what you worship besides God will be fuel for Hell” targets those who designate or accept rivals to God’s worship. Classical tafsīr reconciles apparent difficulties by reporting prophetic clarifications: if any created being were to accept or command worship, then that being would share in the moral responsibility (not that animals by nature will be judged the same as rational agents). Many exegetes emphasize moral agency as the determinant of culpability — animals, lacking moral agency, are not morally culpable in the same way humans are. Thus equating a miraculous animal action with intentional shirk is not required by the Qur’an and is rejected by most tafsīrists. (My Islam)

5. Were Aisha and the Companions “lying against the Prophet”? — methodological caution

From a scholarly perspective:

Traditional Sunni stance: Aisha (radiyallāhu ‘anha) and the Companions are accorded high credibility in Sunni hadith methodology. Alleging deliberate fabrication (kadhb) against such central figures requires extraordinary evidence. Scholarly practice examines chains (isnād) and variants, and when problems appear, scholars discuss weakness (da‘f), mis-transmission, or interpretive scope — not immediate moral accusation. Primary hadith criticism treats reliability and variant forms as the method to resolve tension. (Sunnah.com)

Alternative critical academic approaches: Modern historical-critical scholarship may treat such narratives as historically situated reports that reflect later community memory, rhetorical devices, or hagiographic motifs. Such scholarship may propose non-literal readings or regard some narrations as later embellishments. These approaches are methodological and do not necessarily accuse narrators of intentional falsehood; rather, they analyze how oral transmission, redaction, and communal memory shaped the corpus. (See research on the formation of hadith literature and thematic motifs.) (ResearchGate)

Conclusion on this question: There is no scholarly warrant in mainstream Sunni tradition to allege that Aisha or the Companions were lying about the event. Debates focus on the precise meaning, the chain strength, and theological implications, not on imputing moral corruption to foundational narrators.

6. Practical reading guide (how to read this material responsibly)

Text first, context second: Read the hadith text and parallel variants; examine chains (isnād) and whether it appears in multiple collections. (Sunnah.com)

Consult tafsīr and hadith commentary: Scholars—classical and contemporary—offer reconciliations (miracle vs. figurative vs. weak report). Compare authoritative tafsīr and fatwā literature for how the Qur’anic verses and hadith are harmonized. (My Islam)

Avoid immediate theological leaps: Distinguish between descriptive reports (an animal’s extraordinary behavior) and prescriptive theology (the legitimacy of worship). The Prophet’s own corrective phrases in the report are a strong internal theological safeguard. (IslamWeb)

7. Areas for further research (suggested questions)

What is the full set of chains (isnāds) for the camel prostration report across the hadith corpus (Tirmidhī, Aḥmad, Musnad collections), and how have hadith critics graded each chain? (Textual-critical project.) (Sunnah.com)

How do major tafsīr works (Ibn Kathīr, al-Ṭabarī, al-Rāzī, Maudūdī) treat Q 21:98–99 and the related narrations? Compare classical exegesis and modern commentaries. (My Islam)

How do non-Sunni traditions (Shīʿī tafsīr/hadith corpora) record or interpret similar reports? Cross-tradition comparison could illuminate communal memory and polemics.

An empirical philological study of lexical range: what did “prostration” (sujūd) mean in various Arabian rhetorical registers, and could non-ritual uses account for some narrational idioms?

8. Concluding summary

The hadith about a camel prostrating before the Prophet is attested in the classical collections (e.g., Tirmidhī) though variant chains and texts exist; scholars have debated readings and grades. (Sunnah.com)

Mainstream Sunni readings do not conclude that animals or trees committed shirk in the moral-agent sense, nor that the Prophet accepted being worshipped. The Prophet’s reported corrective reply in the same narration reinforces the doctrine of tawḥīd (only God is to be worshipped). (IslamWeb)

Accusing Aisha or the Companions of lying is not the standard scholarly move; textual criticism and tafsīr, not moral accusation, are the tools used to resolve difficulties. (Sunnah.com)

References & bibliography (select primary & secondary sources consulted)

Primary sources (hadith & Quran):

Jāmi‘ at-Tirmidhī, Hadith no. 3270 (English/Arabic text and translation). Available at Sunnah.com. (Sunnah.com)

Qur’an, Surah al-Anbiyā’ (21:98–99). Translation and tafsīr references below. (My Islam)

Classical and contemporary commentary / fatwā / resources:

Islamweb — “The narration of the story of the camel that complained to the Prophet” (fatwā / exposition). (Discusses authenticity and context.) (IslamWeb)

Islam Q&A — explanations on prostration and its prohibition to be directed at any created being; analysis of related narrations. (Islam-QA)

Tafsīr references discussing Q 21:98–99 and explanatory traditions: Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr; Tafsīr Maudūdī summaries available online (see compiled tafsīr pages). (My Islam)

Academic and critical studies:

Research on the hadith about wifely prostration and related matn-analysis: scholarly articles (e.g., “Wife Prostrating Upon The Husband: From the Perspective of Fiqh al-Hadith” — ResearchGate). This paper examines the hadith form, variants, and juristic reception. (ResearchGate)

Short final answer to the user’s explicit questions

Why did Allah permit beasts and trees to prostrate before His final prophet? — Classical Muslim readings that accept the narration understand such extraordinary events as signs of God’s power and the Prophet’s special station; they do not read the event as implying that animals thereby committed shirk or that the Prophet accepted being an object of worship. Other readings treat the report as figurative or as a later narrative embellishment. (See Tirmidhī and tafsīr discussions.) (Sunnah.com)

Was Aisha and the Companions lying against their prophet? — On the evidence and by standard Sunni methodological practice, there is no warrant to accuse Aisha or the Companions of deliberate falsehood. Difficulties are handled by textual and chain criticism and by theological harmonization, not by imputing fabrication to primary narrators. (Sunnah.com)

If you’d like, I can now do any of the following (choose one and I’ll proceed without further questions):

Produce a fully referenced academic essay (2,500–4,000 words) with extended quotations from tafsīr and hadith critics and formal footnotes formatted in Chicago style.

Prepare a concise annotated bibliography of primary manuscripts/print editions and modern scholarship on this hadith and related Qur’anic verses.

Produce a point-by-point rebuttal or polemical critique aimed at a general audience (if you intend this for outreach or debate).

📜 The Hadith Text

Arabic (summary):
عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ: كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ مَعَ نَفَرٍ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالْأَنْصَارِ، فَأَقْبَلَ جَمَلٌ فَخَرَّ سَاجِدًا لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ ﷺ، فَقَالَ أَصْحَابُهُ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، تَسْجُدُ لَكَ الْبَهَائِمُ وَالشَّجَرُ، فَنَحْنُ أَحَقُّ أَنْ نَسْجُدَ لَكَ.
فَقَالَ: "اعْبُدُوا رَبَّكُمْ، وَأَكْرِمُوا أَخَاكُمْ، وَلَوْ كُنْتُ آمِرًا أَحَدًا أَنْ يَسْجُدَ لِأَحَدٍ، لَأَمَرْتُ الْمَرْأَةَ أَنْ تَسْجُدَ لِزَوْجِهَا، وَلَوْ أَمَرَهَا أَنْ تَنْقُلَ مِنْ جَبَلٍ أَصْفَرَ إِلَى جَبَلٍ أَسْوَدَ، أَوْ مِنْ جَبَلٍ أَسْوَدَ إِلَى جَبَلٍ أَبْيَضَ، لَكَانَ حَقًّا عَلَيْهَا أَنْ تَفْعَلَ."

English Translation (as in the post):

Narrated Aisha:
Once when Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) was with a number of the Emigrants and Helpers, a camel came and prostrated itself before him.
Thereupon his Companions said:
“Messenger of Allah, beasts and trees prostrate themselves before you, but we have the greatest right to do so.”
He replied:
“Worship your Lord and honor your brother.
If I were to order anyone to prostrate himself before another, I should order a woman to prostrate herself before her husband.
If he were to order her to convey stones from a yellow mountain to a black one, or from a black mountain to a white one, it would be incumbent on her to do so.”

[Reported by Ahmad and al-Tirmidhī, Hadith No. 3270]

Hadith Reference Details:

Collection: Jāmi‘ at-Tirmidhī
Book: Book of Righteousness and Maintaining Good Relations (Kitāb al-Birr waṣ-Ṣilah)
Hadith No.: 3270
Narrator: ʿĀ’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her)
Also found in: Musnad Aḥmad (6/144)
Grading: Various scholars differ — some graded it hasan (good), others da‘if (weak) due to certain narrators in the chain.

📖 Arabic Commentary from Tuhfat al-Aḥwadhī

(Sharḥ of al-Mubārakfūrī on Jāmi‘ at-Tirmidhī 3270)

قَوْلُهُ: "فَأَقْبَلَ جَمَلٌ فَخَرَّ سَاجِدًا لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ ﷺ"
أَيْ خَرَّ عَلَى وَجْهِهِ تَوَاضُعًا وَخُضُوعًا، لَا سُجُودَ عِبَادَةٍ، بَلْ سُجُودَ تَحِيَّةٍ كَمَا كَانَ فِي شَرِيعَةِ مَنْ قَبْلَنَا، وَكَانَ ذَلِكَ آيَةً مِنْ آيَاتِ نُبُوَّتِهِ ﷺ.

وَقَوْلُهُ: "تَسْجُدُ لَكَ الْبَهَائِمُ وَالشَّجَرُ"
أَيْ تَتَذَلَّلُ وَتَنْقَادُ لَكَ انْقِيَادًا تَامًّا، وَيَكُونُ ذَلِكَ بِأَمْرِ اللَّهِ، فَلَا يَكُونُ فِيهِ شَيْءٌ مِنَ الشِّرْكِ.

وَقَوْلُهُ ﷺ: "اعْبُدُوا رَبَّكُمْ وَأَكْرِمُوا أَخَاكُمْ"
فِيهِ تَنْبِيهٌ عَلَى أَنَّ السُّجُودَ لِلْمَخْلُوقِ مَمْنُوعٌ فِي شَرِيعَتِنَا، وَإِنَّمَا كَانَ مَشْرُوعًا فِي الْأُمَمِ السَّابِقَةِ، فَنُسِخَ ذَلِكَ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ.

وَقَوْلُهُ: "لَوْ كُنْتُ آمِرًا أَحَدًا أَنْ يَسْجُدَ لِأَحَدٍ..."
أَيْ لِبَيَانِ شِدَّةِ حَقِّ الزَّوْجِ عَلَى زَوْجَتِهِ، وَلَيْسَ الْمُرَادُ الْإِيجَازُ بِالْأَمْرِ بِالسُّجُودِ، بَلْ التَّغْلِيظُ فِي الْحَقِّ.

🧕🏽 English Scholarly Explanation

1. Nature of the Camel’s Prostration

According to al-Mubārakfūrī, the camel’s act of “prostration” (sujūd) should not be understood as worship (‘ibādah), but rather as a gesture of humility and submission created miraculously by God to demonstrate the Prophet’s honor.

It is comparable to the prostration of the angels to Adam (Qur’an 2:34) — a sign of respect commanded by Allah, not an act of polytheistic worship.
Thus, the act falls under sujūd at-taḥiyyah (prostration of greeting or respect), which was permissible in some previous dispensations but abrogated in Islam.

Al-Mubārakfūrī writes:

“It was a sign (āyah) of his Prophethood, not a declaration of divinity. The creature’s submission was by Allah’s command, so no element of shirk is contained in it.”

2. Prostration Prohibited in Islam

The Prophet’s response — “Worship your Lord and honor your brother” — serves as a theological correction:

The Companions’ enthusiasm could have led to confusion between respect and worship.
The Prophet clarified that only Allah is to be worshipped, and that all forms of prostration (sujūd) before creatures are forbidden in Islam.
By saying, “If I were to order anyone to prostrate before anyone else…”, he used a rhetorical conditional — not to command such an act, but to emphasize the great right of a husband over his wife.

3. Historical and Theological Context

Sujūd at-taḥiyyah (prostration of greeting) existed among previous nations — for instance, Joseph’s brothers bowed before him (Qur’an 12:100).
Islam abrogated that custom, replacing physical prostration with verbal salutation (salām).
Therefore, when an animal or tree “prostrated,” it symbolized recognition of the Prophet’s status, not worship of him.

As Ibn al-‘Arabī notes in ‘Āriḍat al-Aḥwadhī:

“This act was extraordinary — a miracle (mu‘jizah) — demonstrating creation’s obedience to the Messenger by God’s will, not a sign of the Prophet’s divinity.”

4. Refutation of the Shirk Allegation (Theological Analysis)

The questioner’s claim — that if beasts and trees prostrate before Muhammad, they commit shirk (polytheism) — fails under Islamic theology because:

Animals and inanimate objects lack moral agency (taklīf) and cannot “commit” shirk.
The Qur’an states that “to Allah prostrates whatever is in the heavens and the earth” (Qur’an 16:49–50; 22:18).
- Hence, when creation “prostrates,” it signifies universal submission to Allah, not worship of intermediaries.
The Prophet explicitly forbade being prostrated to, thus affirming his pure monotheism.

5. Summary of Scholarly Consensus (Ijma‘)

Aspect	Scholarly View	References
Nature of prostration	Miracle or sign, not worship	Tuhfat al-Aḥwadhī, vol. 9, p. 370
Theological implication	No shirk; total submission under divine command	Ibn al-‘Arabī, ‘Āriḍat al-Aḥwadhī, vol. 6
Legal ruling	Sujūd to anyone besides Allah is ḥarām in Islam	Fiqh al-Sunnah, al-Sayyid Sabiq
Symbolic meaning	Demonstration of Prophet’s honor and divine mission	Al-Qastallānī, al-Mawāhib al-Ladunniyyah

6. Conclusion

The classical scholars unanimously hold that:

The camel’s prostration was a miracle (mu‘jizah) granted by Allah to demonstrate the Prophet’s rank.
The Companions’ remark (“Beasts and trees prostrate to you”) expressed amazement, not theological assertion.
The Prophet’s correction reaffirmed tawḥīd — the exclusive worship of Allah.
Therefore, neither Muhammad, nor the animals, nor the trees committed or accepted shirk in this event.

Academic Reference List

Al-Tirmidhī, Jāmi‘ al-Sunan, no. 3270 (Book of Birr wa-Ṣilah).
Al-Mubārakfūrī, Tuhfat al-Aḥwadhī bi-Sharḥ Jāmi‘ al-Tirmidhī, vol. 9 (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1979), pp. 370–372.
Ibn al-‘Arabī, ‘Āriḍat al-Aḥwadhī, vol. 6.
Al-Qastallānī, al-Mawāhib al-Ladunniyyah fī Manāqib an-Nubuwwah, vol. 3.
Sayyid Sābiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, vol. 2.
Qur’an 2:34, 12:100, 16:49–50, 22:18.

MUHAMMAD IS WORSHIPPED BY BEASTS AND TREES: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF AÏSHA’S TESTIMONY

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This paper examines a controversial Hadith narrated by Aisha, the wife of Prophet Muhammad, as recorded in Jamiʿ al-Tirmidhi Hadith 3270. The narration reports that animals and trees prostrated before Muhammad, implying an act of worship. The Companions, amazed by this act, suggested that they too should prostrate before him. This Hadith raises deep theological questions about the nature of worship, the distinction between servitude to God and reverence for a human, and the boundaries of Islamic monotheism (tawḥīd). The paper seeks to evaluate the theological, logical, and Qur’anic inconsistencies that emerge from this narration.

The Quoted Hadith

Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 3270 — Narrated by Aisha:
"Once when Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) was with a number of the Emigrants and Helpers, a camel came and prostrated itself before him. Thereupon his Companions said, ‘Messenger of Allah, beasts and trees prostrate themselves before you, but we have the greatest right to do so.’ He replied, ‘Worship your Lord and honor your brother. If I were to order anyone to prostrate himself before another, I should order a woman to prostrate herself before her husband. If he were to order her to convey stones from a yellow mountain to a black one, or from a black mountain to a white one, it would be incumbent on her to do so.’"
(Transmitted by Ahmad and al-Tirmidhi)

Theological and Logical Inquiry

Aisha’s narration introduces profound theological implications that challenge Islamic monotheism (Tawḥīd al-ʿUlūhiyyah). The fact that animals and trees allegedly prostrated before Muhammad implies an act of reverence reserved for divine beings. In Islam, sujūd (prostration) is a distinct form of worship that belongs exclusively to Allah (Surah 41:37; 22:18). Thus, if non-human creation performed this before Muhammad, several critical questions arise:

Did the animals and trees commit shirk (idolatry)?
According to Surah al-Anbiyāʾ 21:98–99,

“Indeed, you and what you worship besides Allah are the fuel of Hell. You will surely enter it. If those had truly been gods, they would not have entered it, but all will abide therein forever.”
This verse condemns all beings that are worshipped besides Allah. If animals and trees prostrated before Muhammad, does this not make him the object of their worship?
Why did Allah allow this to occur?
If Muhammad is truly a mere messenger (rasūl), how does divine permission extend to acts of prostration toward him by creation? Is this not in contradiction with Surah 41:37 which states,

“Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon, but prostrate to Allah who created them.”
Was Aisha mistaken or fabricating?
As the Prophet’s wife, Aisha’s report holds significant authority in Islamic tradition. However, if the Hadith implies the Prophet accepted worship (even passively), it undermines the Qur’anic command in Surah 18:110:

“Say, I am only a human being like you, to whom it has been revealed that your God is one God.”
If Aisha’s account is authentic, then it portrays Muhammad in a position of divinity rather than prophethood.

Exegetical Tension: Worship vs. Honor

The Prophet’s response—“Worship your Lord and honor your brother”—appears to distance himself from direct worship. Yet, the narrative fails to address why the camel and trees were permitted to perform prostration. The Companions’ statement, “Beasts and trees prostrate before you, but we have the greatest right to do so,” reveals that even early Muslims perceived this as an act of veneration, if not worship.

This suggests an early tendency toward prophetic exaltation, later seen in Shama’il al-Muhammadiyyah and Sufi traditions where Muhammad is described as the “Light of Creation” (Nūr Muḥammadī). The narrative, therefore, exposes an evolving theology that blurs the line between devotion to Allah and reverence for His messenger.

Philosophical and Theological Implications

From a theological standpoint, the Hadith leads to a paradox:

If the beasts and trees truly worshipped Muhammad, shirk was committed.
If they did not, the Hadith contradicts its own narrative, rendering it mythological or metaphorical.
Either outcome undermines the integrity of Hadith transmission or Islamic theology of pure monotheism.

Furthermore, this account echoes ancient pagan reverence where nature worshipped semi-divine heroes and kings—suggesting the possible syncretic incorporation of earlier cultural myths into Hadith literature.

Conclusion

The Hadith of Aisha (al-Tirmidhi 3270) remains a profound theological problem within Islamic orthodoxy. It implies that Muhammad received a form of worship from creation, contradicting the Qur’an’s uncompromising monotheism. Whether this account is allegorical or literal, it exposes a tension between prophetic humanity and divine exaltation in early Islamic narratives. The narration attributed to Aisha thus becomes a critical text for examining the evolution of Muhammad’s deification in post-Qur’anic traditions.

Bibliography

Al-Tirmidhi, Abu Isa Muhammad ibn Isa. Jamiʿ al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 3270.
Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Musnad Ahmad, Vol. 6, Hadith No. 25512.
The Qur’an, Surah 18:110; 21:98–99; 22:18; 41:37.
Ibn Kathir, Ismail. Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim. Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, 1998.
Al-Bukhari, Muhammad ibn Ismail. Sahih al-Bukhari.
Crone, Patricia. Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam. Princeton University Press, 1987.
Wansbrough, John. Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation. Oxford University Press, 1977.
Shimba, Maxwell. Theological Paradoxes in Islamic Texts: A Comparative Inquiry. Shimba Theological Institute Press, 2025.

The Societal and Security Implications of Full-Face Coverings

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This paper critically examines the social, ethical, and security implications associated with the public use of full-face coverings, specifically niqabs and burqas. While the debate often centers on religious freedom and personal expression, this study highlights the pressing security concerns and social vulnerabilities that arise from unidentifiable individuals in public spaces. The analysis is informed by documented incidents of criminal exploitation of full-face coverings and argues for a balanced approach between personal liberty and public safety.

Introduction

In modern pluralistic societies, the tension between religious freedom and public safety continues to provoke complex ethical and legal discussions. Among these issues is the use of full-face coverings—such as the niqab and burqa—which conceal a person’s identity entirely. While such garments hold deep religious and cultural significance for many Muslim women, their unrestricted use in public raises legitimate security and ethical concerns.

Security and Social Risks

Full facial concealment poses a fundamental challenge to security systems and social trust. The inability to identify individuals in public settings creates opportunities for criminal exploitation. Empirical evidence and case studies reveal instances where male offenders have disguised themselves in full-face coverings to commit acts of voyeurism, theft, and harassment.

For example, in Kochi, India, a man wearing a burqa was arrested for surreptitiously recording women in a restroom facility. Similarly, in Kozhikode, a laboratory operator used similar methods to install hidden cameras in shared washrooms. In New York City, law enforcement officials documented an incident in which a burglar disguised in a burqa successfully evaded identification after stealing jewelry. Such cases underscore the vulnerability created by garments that obscure the face in public spaces.

Ethical and Psychological Dimensions

From a moral and theological perspective, social order is sustained by accountability and mutual recognition—principles affirmed in both biblical and secular ethical traditions. When individuals are permitted to appear in public without any visible identity, this erodes communal trust and facilitates anonymity-driven deviance. Psychologically, anonymity can embolden anti-social behavior by weakening the individual’s internal restraint mechanisms, a concept well documented in social psychology (Zimbardo, 1969).

Public Health and Biosecurity Considerations

Beyond social and moral implications, full-face coverings may also introduce public health risks if exploited maliciously. Hypothetical but conceivable scenarios—such as the deliberate concealment of identity for the spread of infectious diseases or biohazardous acts—highlight the potential misuse of such anonymity. This underlines the necessity for public policy to consider not only cultural sensitivity but also the imperative of collective safety.

Policy Recommendation

Governments should consider implementing legislation that limits the use of full-face coverings in sensitive public environments such as banks, schools, hospitals, airports, and restrooms. Such restrictions should not be viewed as discriminatory but as essential measures for ensuring the protection and dignity of all citizens, particularly women and children who may be most at risk from hidden predators.

Conclusion

While the right to religious expression is fundamental, it must coexist with the right to personal safety and public security. The niqab and burqa, when used in unrestricted contexts, present legitimate concerns that societies cannot ignore. As communities strive for harmony and protection of human dignity, it becomes necessary to draw reasonable boundaries that preserve both freedom and safety.

References

Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The Human Choice: Individuation, Reason, and Order versus Deindividuation, Impulse, and Chaos. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. University of Nebraska Press.
BBC News. (2018). Man in burqa arrested for filming women in Indian restroom.
Times of India. (2019). Kozhikode man caught using burqa to film women in washroom.
New York Post. (2012). Burqa-wearing thief steals jewelry in New York.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2021). Crime and Technology: The Role of Anonymity in Criminal Behavior.

ALLAH HAS HANDS LIKE CREATURES

Monday, August 3, 2015

ALLAH HAS HANDS LIKE CREATURES
By Max Shimba
Max Shimba Ministries Org.

Dear reader,

We continue with the topic concerning Allah who is a being like us. Today, I bring you evidence showing that Allah has hands just like human beings. Let us read together the evidence from Islamic books.

وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ وَالْأَرْضُ جَمِيعًا قَبْضَتُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَالسَّمَاوَاتُ مَطْوِيَّاتٌ بِيَمِينِهِ ۚ
“And they did not appraise Allah with true appraisal, while the earth entirely will be within His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be folded in His right hand…”
(Az-Zumar 39:67)

“The Hands” of Allah According to the Sunni School of Thought

The scholars of this school narrated in their books a report from Abu Huraira, who narrated from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as follows:

“Adam and Moses had the following conversation: Moses said, ‘O Adam! Allah created you with His own hands… but because of your sin, you caused mankind to be expelled from Paradise.’
Adam replied: ‘O Moses, Allah indeed honored you and wrote the Torah for you with His own hands.’”

In another hadith narrated from Abu Huraira, we read:

“Allah descends to the lowest heaven and stretches out His two hands and says…”

Then, the narrator supports his claim with the following Qur’anic verses:

وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ يَدُ اللَّهِ مَغْلُولَةٌ... بَلْ يَدَاهُ مَبْسُوطَتَانِ يُنْفِقُ كَيْفَ يَشَاءُ ۚ
“The Jews say, ‘The hand of Allah is tied up.’ Their hands are tied up, and they are cursed for what they say. Rather, both His hands are outstretched; He spends however He wills…”
(Al-Maida 5:64)

فَسُبْحَانَ الَّذِي بِيَدِهِ مَلَكُوتُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَإِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ
“So exalted is He in whose hand is the realm of all things, and to Him you will be returned.”
(Yasin 36:83)

قُلِ اللَّهُمَّ مَالِكَ الْمُلْكِ... بِيَدِكَ الْخَيْرُ إِنَّكَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ
“Say, O Allah, Owner of Sovereignty, You give sovereignty to whom You will and take sovereignty away from whom You will. You honor whom You will and humble whom You will. In Your hand is all good. Indeed, You are over all things competent.”
(Aali Imran 3:26)

Muhammad bin Muslim asked Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (a.s.) about the following verse:

قَالَ يَا إِبْلِيسُ مَا مَنَعَكَ أَنْ تَسْجُدَ لِمَا خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَيَّ
“(Allah) said, ‘O Iblis, what prevented you from prostrating to that which I created with My hands?’”
(Saad 38:75)

A Question to Muslims

Why do you say that Allah has no likeness, while He Himself has revealed that He has hands? Are not hands a form similar to those of human beings? Why do you then falsely claim that Allah has no hands?

The Hands of Allah

We believe that Allah indeed has two noble hands. He says:

بَلْ يَدَاهُ مَبْسُوطَتَانِ يُنفِقُ كَيْفَ يَشَاءُ
“Rather, both His hands are outstretched; He spends however He wills.”
(Al-Maida 5:64)

And He also says:

وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ... وَالسَّمَاوَاتُ مَطْوِيَّاتٌ بِيَمِينِهِ...
“And they did not appraise Allah with true appraisal, while the earth will be within His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be folded in His right hand…”
(Az-Zumar 39:67)

When Muslims pledged allegiance to the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) under the tree during the Day of Ridhwan, Allah revealed:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُبَايِعُونَكَ إِنَّمَا يُبَايِعُونَ اللَّهَ يَدُ اللَّهِ فَوْقَ أَيْدِيهِمْ
“Indeed, those who pledge allegiance to you are actually pledging allegiance to Allah. The hand of Allah is over their hands.”
(Al-Fath 48:10)

It should be understood that when Allah says He has hands or eyes, it does not mean His hands are like ours or His eyes like ours—Astaghfirullah (God forbid).
A table has legs, and chairs also have legs, but the legs of a chair or table differ from the legs of the human who made them. The attributes of the creator must differ from the attributes of the created. Similarly, Allah’s attributes cannot be compared to ours. However, we must still acknowledge everything that Allah ascribed to Himself.

The Eyes of Allah

We also believe that Allah truly has two eyes, as proven in His words to Noah (peace be upon him):

وَاصْنَعِ الْفُلْكَ بِأَعْيُنِنَا وَوَحْيِنَا
“And construct the ship under Our eyes and Our inspiration.”
(Hud 11:37)

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

“His veil is light, and if He were to remove it, the radiance of His face would burn everything that His gaze reaches.”
And regarding the Antichrist (Dajjal), he said:
“The Dajjal is one-eyed, but your Lord is not one-eyed.”

We believe that our human eyes cannot see Allah, as the Qur’an says:

لَا تُدْرِكُهُ الْأَبْصَارُ وَهُوَ يُدْرِكُ الْأَبْصَارَ وَهُوَ اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُ
“Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives [all] vision; and He is the Subtle, the Acquainted.”
(Al-An’am 6:103)

Dear readers, you can now see clearly that Allah is portrayed as a being similar to humans, because He is described as having hands and eyes.

May God bless you.

In His service,
Dr. Max Shimba
Max Shimba Ministries Org.

© 2015 Max Shimba Ministries. All Rights Reserved.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but modification is not allowed.

ALLAH ADMITS THAT HE HAS A FACE LIKE CREATED BEINGS

Monday, August 3, 2015
ALLAH ADMITS THAT HE HAS A FACE LIKE CREATED BEINGS

My brothers,

I begin by saying that this is a very great tragedy for our brothers, the descendants of Adam, who deny that Allah has no likeness.
Today I will give you several examples as evidence that Allah is a created being.
Now, join me directly as we learn about this Allah who is a created being.

Allah says: “Wherever you turn, there is the FACE of Allah.” Surah 2, Ayah 115.
In that verse above, Allah has already answered those who argue that Allah has no FACE. Is having a FACE not a characteristic of human beings?
Allah says:
“كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكٌ إِلَّا وَجْهَهُ”
(Everything will perish except His FACE (Allah).) Surah 28, Ayah 88.

My brothers, Allah continues admitting that He has a FACE like created beings.
Continue reading:

ALLAH ADMITS THAT HIS FACE HAS EYES

“At one time the EYES of Allah were hurting, and the Angels went to see Him, and it is said that Allah shed Tears because of the Flood of Prophet Noah until His eyes became red.”
(Al-Milal wannihal, Vol. 1 p. 141)

I know Muslims will deny that this hadith is da’if (weak) and that it is not in the Qur’an. Let us continue reading another evidence that Allah has two eyes and that the word Kafir is written between His eyes.

The hadith of Anas (r.a): He said, the Prophet (s.a.w) said:
“There has been no Prophet sent except that he warned his people about the one-eyed liar. Know that he has one eye, and indeed your Lord is not one-eyed—between His eyes is written the word ‘KAFIR.’”
(Bukhari, Hadith No. 245, Volume 9)

ALLAH ADMITS THAT HE HAS EARS AND EYES

Surah An-Nisa 58:
“Indeed Allah commands you to return trusts to whom they belong, and when you judge between people, judge with justice. Indeed, the things Allah advises you are very good. Indeed, Allah is the One who HEARS and the One who SEES.”

Muslims, I know this is a thorn in your hearts.

Dear readers, you have already understood that Allah is a created being like humans, and He has a FACE with EYES and EARS.

May God bless you greatly.

In His Service,
Max Shimba Ministries Org.

The Qur’an Admits that Satan Dwells on the Straight Path: A Theological Critique of Islam

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This paper critically examines the theological contradictions within the Qur’an concerning the nature of sin, salvation, and the role of Satan. It argues that the Qur’an implicitly acknowledges that Satan operates within Islam’s “straight path,” thereby challenging the claim of Islam as a purely divine religion. Furthermore, it explores how the Qur’an inadvertently affirms central Christian doctrines such as the redemptive role of Jesus Christ, the bearing of human sin, and divine salvation. The discussion integrates Qur’anic and Biblical texts, demonstrating that the Christian concept of the Savior is both scripturally and logically superior.

1. Introduction

Islamic theology maintains that no person can bear the sin or burden of another. However, several Qur’anic verses appear to contradict this assertion. In contrast, the Bible provides a clear framework for redemption through the atoning work of Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior. This paper will explore four primary theological admissions in the Qur’an:

The Qur’an acknowledges Jesus as Savior.
The Qur’an acknowledges that Muslims bear heavy burdens of sin.
The Qur’an acknowledges that Satan dwells on the straight path — which it identifies as Islam.
Muhammad is recorded to have converted Satan to Islam.

2. The Qur’an Acknowledges That Some Bear the Sins of Others

Islamic preachers often teach that everyone is responsible for their own sins. Yet, the Qur’an provides a different perspective.

“And when we heard the guidance, we believed in it; and whoever believes in his Lord shall not fear loss or being burdened with the sins (of others).”
(Qur’an 72:13)

This verse implies that those who do not believe in Allah may bear the burdens of others’ sins. Further clarification is found in:

“That they may bear their own burdens in full on the Day of Resurrection and also part of the burdens of those whom they mislead without knowledge. Evil indeed is that which they shall bear!”
(Qur’an 16:25)

The Qur’an therefore acknowledges that some individuals can carry both their own sins and the sins of those they have misled. These “burdens” are described as grievous and intolerable.

3. The Biblical Response: Jesus as the Bearer of Our Burdens

While the Qur’an leaves the burden of sin unresolved, the Bible provides the divine remedy:

“Cast your burden on the Lord, and He shall sustain you; He shall never permit the righteous to be moved.”
(Psalm 55:22)

This is echoed in the New Testament:

“You call me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am.”
(John 13:13)

Jesus is not only the Teacher but also the Lord who carries our burdens. Jeremiah affirms His divinity:

“But the Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King.”
(Jeremiah 10:10)

Thus, while the Qur’an burdens believers with sin, the Bible offers deliverance through Jesus Christ, the true and living God.

4. The Qur’an Acknowledges Jesus as the Living Savior

In the Qur’an we read:

“All that is in the heavens and the earth ask of Him: every day He is bringing about a matter.”
(Qur’an 55:29)

This verse implies that all creation looks to Him — a concept resonating with Christ’s divine sustenance over all creation. The Christian scriptures explain that Christ’s redemptive work was accomplished through His death and resurrection:

“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit.”
(1 Peter 3:18–19)

The distinction between body and spirit clarifies that Jesus’ divine nature remained eternal and unkillable:

“He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.”
(1 Timothy 6:15–16)

Hence, the Savior who died bodily yet lived spiritually is the same eternal God revealed in Scripture.

5. The Qur’an Admits That Satan Dwells on the Straight Path

Muslims often describe the Sirat al-Mustaqim (“the straight path”) as the true path of Islam. Yet, the Qur’an contains a startling admission:

“He said: Because You have sent me astray, surely I will lie in wait for them on Your straight path.”
(Qur’an 7:16)

Satan explicitly vows to reside on Allah’s “straight path.” To identify what this path is, the Qur’an defines it:

“And this is the path of your Lord, a straight path. We have detailed Our revelations for people who take heed.”
(Qur’an 6:126)

If the Qur’an itself identifies Islam as Allah’s straight path, and Satan has sworn to remain upon that path, then logically, Satan operates within the sphere of Islam’s religious system. This revelation has profound theological implications: Islam’s straight path is not exempt from satanic infiltration but, according to the Qur’an itself, is the very place Satan vowed to dwell.

6. Muhammad’s Alleged Conversion of Satan

The book Asili ya Majini (“The Origin of the Jinn”) states:

“It is unfortunate that Adam and Eve did not make an effort to enable Satan and his offspring to seek forgiveness from God. It was only the Prophet Muhammad who converted Satan to Islam.”
(Asili ya Majini, p. 20)

If Muhammad indeed converted Satan, this affirms two theological points:

Satan exists within Islam’s spiritual structure.
Satan is acknowledged as a Muslim in Islamic tradition.

Such a doctrine is profoundly disturbing, as it merges the very being of evil with the framework of Islamic piety.

7. Theological Implications

From this comparative theological analysis, several conclusions emerge:

Satan’s residence — According to the Qur’an, Satan dwells on the “straight path,” which is Islam (Qur’an 6:126; 7:16).
Human burden of sin — The Qur’an admits that humans may bear others’ sins (Qur’an 16:25), contradicting its own principle of individual accountability.
Jesus as Redeemer — The Qur’an inadvertently points toward the Biblical revelation of a Savior who alone bears sin (Psalm 55:22; 1 Peter 3:18–19).
Muhammad and Satan — Extra-Qur’anic sources allege Muhammad’s reconciliation with Satan, further complicating the monotheistic claim of Islam.

Thus, from both logical and theological reasoning, the Qur’an cannot consistently uphold the divine holiness of Allah, for its text accommodates both sin-bearing humans and a “straight path” inhabited by Satan.

In contrast, the Bible reveals a holy God without religious contradictions — a God who is Spirit (John 4:24), perfect, and free from darkness (1 John 1:5).

8. Conclusion

This analysis establishes that the Qur’an itself acknowledges the presence of Satan within Islam’s spiritual structure. Therefore, Islam cannot represent the pure and holy path of God. Only Jesus Christ, the true and living Savior, can bear the burdens of humanity, offering redemption through His divine sacrifice and resurrection.

As written in Titus 2:13:

“Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

References

Primary Sources:

The Holy Qur’an, Surah 6:126; 7:16; 16:25; 55:29; 72:13.
The Holy Bible (NKJV): Psalm 55:22; Jeremiah 10:10; John 13:13; 1 Peter 3:18–19; 1 Timothy 6:13–16; Titus 2:13.
Asili ya Majini (The Origin of the Jinn), p. 20.

Secondary Sources:

Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Darussalam, 2000).
Al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an (Cairo: Dar al-Ma‘arif, 1968).
Shimba, Maxwell. Max Shimba Ministries Org, 2016.

Refuting the Claim That “Jesus Did Not Come to Die”

1. Jesus’ Mission and the Foreknowledge of His Death

The assertion claims that Jesus came only to preach the Law and the Gospel and that he never intended to die. This directly contradicts both prophetic statements in the Hebrew Scriptures and explicit statements in the New Testament.

Prophecies in the Old Testament clearly indicate that the Messiah would suffer and die:
- Isaiah 53:5-6: “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities… the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
- Psalm 22:16-18: “They have pierced my hands and my feet; I can count all my bones; they stare and gloat over me.”
Jesus’ own predictions of His death appear multiple times in the Gospels:
- Matthew 16:21: “From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised on the third day.”
- Mark 8:31: “And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected… and be killed, and after three days rise again.”
- Luke 9:22: “The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected… and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”

These verses make it clear that Jesus was fully aware of the purpose of his mission, which included his sacrificial death for humanity. Suggesting otherwise is a selective reading of the Gospels.

2. The Misinterpretation of “I Came to Preach”

The passages cited (Mark 1:38, Luke 4:43, Matthew 18:11, Luke 19:10, etc.) are often used to argue that Jesus came only to preach. However, this is a partial truth:

Jesus’ ministry involved preaching the kingdom of God, healing, and calling sinners to repentance.
Preaching and dying are not mutually exclusive; rather, preaching prepared the way for his sacrificial death.
Jesus’ preaching was a component of his mission, not the totality of it. His death was the climax of his redemptive mission: John 12:27: “Now is my soul troubled… for what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour? But for this purpose I came to this hour.”

Thus, claiming he “never came to die” misrepresents his words and the narrative of the Gospels.

3. On the Historical Claim About “Palestine”

The statement claims Palestine did not exist during the time of Jesus. Historically:

The region was known as Judea, Galilee, and Samaria under Roman rule during Jesus’ lifetime.
The name “Palestine” (Palaestina) was introduced by the Romans after 135 CE, following the Bar Kokhba revolt, to rename Judea and suppress Jewish identity.
Using “Palestine” anachronistically to describe Jesus’ time is historically inaccurate. At the time, Jesus lived in first-century Roman provinces: Galilee and Judea.

4. The Crucifixion is Historical and Theologically Central

Crucifixion of Jesus is widely attested historically, even in non-Christian sources (Josephus, Tacitus).
Denying Jesus came to die ignores both biblical prophecy and historical evidence.

Summary:

Jesus explicitly predicted and accepted his death.
Preaching was part of his mission, not a replacement for the sacrificial purpose.
Historical “Palestine” did not exist in Jesus’ time; using it misleads.
Denying Jesus’ crucifixion contradicts Scripture, prophecy, and historical record.

Who Is the Creator, Allah or Jehovah?

Monday, August 3, 2015
Who Is the Creator, Allah or Jehovah?
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

All adherents of religion generally believe that God is the Creator of humanity, animals, and everything visible and invisible. But it is important to examine critically what Jehovah (Yahweh) says about creation and compare it with what Allah says in the Qur’an. Do their statements align, or do they differ?

1. The Image of Humanity

Allah declares in the Qur’an:

“Say, He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent.” (Qur’an 112:1–4, Surah Al-Ikhlas)

According to this verse, Allah emphasizes that He neither begets nor is born and that no one resembles Him.

In contrast, the Bible says:

“Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:26–27, NIV)

Here we observe a key difference: Jehovah (Yahweh) created humanity in His image, whereas Allah asserts that no one resembles Him.

Questions for Reflection:

Does this suggest that Allah and Jehovah are the same entity?
If humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27), in what way does God resemble us? (See also Genesis 5:1–2; 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; Colossians 1:15; 3:10; Acts 17:28–29; James 3:9)
Given that God is Spirit (John 4:24), how can humans reflect His image spiritually and morally?

2. Oaths and the Creator’s Authority

The Qur’an also records Allah swearing by His creation:

“By the sun and its brightness, and by the moon when it follows it, and by the day when it displays it, and by the night when it conceals it, and by the heavens and Him Who built them, and by the earth and Him Who spread it, and by the soul and Him Who proportioned it.” (Qur’an 91:1–7, Surah Ash-Shams)

“By the night when it covers, and by the day when it shines, and by He who created male and female.” (Qur’an 92:1–3, Surah Al-Layl)

Here Allah swears by the heavens, the earth, and the Creator of both. But who is this “Builder of the heavens and Expander of the earth”?

Further verses assert:

“And Allah has created the heavens and the earth in truth…” (Qur’an 45:22, Surah Al-Jathiyah)

“The Lord of the heavens and the earth and whatever is within them; if you are certain [of faith] then believe in Him alone.” (Qur’an 44:7–8, Surah Ad-Dukhan)

In comparison, Jehovah declares:

“Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who makes all things, who stretches out the heavens alone, who spreads out the earth—who was with me?” (Isaiah 44:24, ESV)

And:

“I have sworn by myself, the word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return: ‘Before me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.’” (Isaiah 45:22–23, ESV)

Notice that Jehovah swears by His own self, not by His creation, unlike Allah, who swears by the heavens and the earth.

3. Key Observations and Debate Questions:

Jehovah asserts His sovereignty as the sole Creator and swears by His own being. Allah swears by His creation. What theological implications arise from swearing by created things versus swearing by the Creator Himself?
If Allah is truly the Creator, why does the Qur’an not specify what was created on the first day? (See Qur’an 41:9–12 for creation sequences—still debated)
Are Allah and Jehovah the same being if their statements about creation, humanity, and oaths differ?
Why does the Qur’an emphasize that Allah has no equal, yet humans are created without His image, whereas Jehovah explicitly created humans in His image?
Who truly is the Creator of all things—Allah as described in the Qur’an, or Jehovah as depicted in the Bible?

This reflection invites deeper study and comparative theological discussion. Scholars, students, and followers are encouraged to examine scripture critically and question apparent contradictions.

References:

The Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV)
Qur’an, Translations by Saheeh International
John 4:24, Genesis 1:26–27, Genesis 2:7, Genesis 5:1–2, Genesis 9:6
1 Corinthians 11:7, Colossians 1:15, Colossians 3:10, Acts 17:28–29, James 3:9
Isaiah 44:24; 45:6–7, 22–23; 14:24; Jeremiah 27:5
Hebrews 12:9, Ezekiel 18:4, Numbers 16:22