Tuesday, December 9, 2025

Muhammad as a False Prophet in Light of Galatians 1:8

Muhammad as a False Prophet in Light of Galatians 1:8

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

In Galatians 1:8, the Apostle Paul delivers one of the strongest warnings in the New Testament:

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed.” (NASB)

Paul affirms the finality and sufficiency of the gospel: salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from works of the Law (Galatians 2:16). Any attempt to modify or distort this gospel, even through supposed angelic revelation, falls under divine condemnation. Paul’s immediate concern was with the Judaizers who were undermining the sufficiency of Christ by requiring Gentile converts to adopt Mosaic law. Yet the principle applies universally: no subsequent prophet, teacher, or angelic messenger may introduce a rival gospel.


Muhammad and the False Gospel

When considered against Paul’s benchmark, the message of Muhammad fits precisely into the category of “another gospel.” The Qur’an:

  • Denies Jesus as the Son of God (Qur’an 4:171),

  • Rejects His deity (Qur’an 5:72–73),

  • Denies His crucifixion and atonement (Qur’an 4:157).

In doing so, Islam dismantles the essence of the Christian gospel: that God, in the person of His Son, reconciled humanity to Himself through the cross and resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:18–21; Romans 10:9). By presenting a Jesus who is merely a prophet and not the incarnate Son of God, Muhammad proclaimed a message fundamentally opposed to apostolic teaching.

Moreover, Muhammad claimed angelic mediation through Jibril (Gabriel), precisely the kind of revelation Paul warns against in Galatians 1:8. Hence, by apostolic authority, Muhammad’s message stands condemned as a false gospel.


Biblical Parallels: John’s Warning Against Antichrists

The Apostle John further reinforces this point in his letters. In 1 John 2:22, he writes:

“Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.”

Similarly, in 1 John 4:2–3, John provides a theological test:

“Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist.”

And again in 2 John 7, he warns:

“Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.”

Muhammad’s denial of Christ’s Sonship, deity, and incarnation places him squarely within John’s category of antichrist. Thus, not only Paul’s standard in Galatians 1:8 but also John’s test in 1 John identify Muhammad’s gospel as false, deceptive, and antithetical to the truth revealed in Christ.


Historical Christian Responses to Muhammad

From the earliest centuries of Islam, Christian thinkers recognized the incompatibility of Muhammad’s message with the gospel.

  • John of Damascus (c. 675–749), in De Haeresibus, described Islam as the “heresy of the Ishmaelites” and Muhammad as a false prophet who borrowed from Christianity and Judaism while distorting their truths.^1

  • Peter the Venerable (1092–1156), in Summa totius haeresis Saracenorum, described Islam as a Christian heresy aimed at seducing believers away from Christ.^2

  • Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), in Summa Contra Gentiles, argued that Muhammad offered no divine confirmation of his message through miracles or prophecy, but rather spread his doctrine by violence, making it a counterfeit revelation.^3


Christian Apologists on Muhammad’s Message

Modern Christian apologists continue this line of analysis:

  • Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, in Answering Islam, demonstrate how Islam presents a radically different Jesus—a prophet subordinate to Muhammad rather than the eternal Son of God.^4

  • Josh McDowell emphasizes that Christianity and Islam are mutually exclusive: if Christ is the divine Son who died and rose again, then Islam’s denial of these truths makes it a false gospel.^5

  • William Lane Craig has also noted that Islam’s Christology not only contradicts biblical revelation but logically undermines its own claim to continuity with the biblical prophets.^6


Conclusion

When evaluated in light of Scripture, history, and apologetics, Muhammad fulfills the role of the false prophets predicted by Jesus (Matthew 24:11, 24) and condemned by Paul (Galatians 1:8). His denial of Christ’s Sonship and deity places him under John’s category of “antichrist,” while his claim to angelic revelation brings him under Paul’s anathema.

The consistent judgment of the church—from the early fathers to modern apologists—affirms that Muhammad proclaimed “another gospel,” one that leads away from the saving truth of Christ. Therefore, in the words of Paul, Muhammad and the message he proclaimed must be regarded as accursed.

The task of the church remains the same as in Paul’s time: to hold fast to the one true gospel—the good news of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, crucified and risen for the redemption of the world.


References

  1. John of Damascus, De Haeresibus, in The Fathers of the Church, trans. Frederic H. Chase (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1958).

  2. Peter the Venerable, Summa totius haeresis Saracenorum, in Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, ed. David Thomas (Leiden: Brill, 2009).

  3. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Ch. 6–7.

  4. Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002).

  5. Josh McDowell, A Ready Defense (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993).

  6. William Lane Craig, “The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity,” in Philosophia Christi 5, no. 1 (2003): 53–72.



THE COMPANIONS OF MUHAMMAD WERE THIEVES

Friday, July 26, 2019
THE COMPANIONS OF MUHAMMAD WERE THIEVES

  1. The companions stole camels and sheep.

  2. Muhammad led that stealing and robbery.

  3. The companions cooked the meat and Muhammad distributed it.

Sahih al-Bukhari Book 44 Hadith 668

ENGLISH / ARABIC
Narrated ‘Abaya bin Rafa’a bin Raft’ bin Khadij:

My grandfather said, “We were in the company of the Prophet at Dhul-Hulaifa. The people felt hungry and captured some camels and sheep (as booty). The Prophet was behind the people. They hurried and slaughtered the animals and put their meat in pots and started cooking it. (When the Prophet came) he ordered the pots to be upset and then he distributed the animals (of the booty), regarding ten sheep as equal to one camel. One of the camels fled and the people ran after it till they were exhausted. At that time there were few horses. A man threw an arrow at the camel, and Allah stopped the camel with it. The Prophet said, ‘Some of these animals are like wild animals, so if you lose control over one of these animals, treat it in this way (i.e. shoot it with an arrow).’

My grandfather said, ‘We may meet the enemies in the future and have no knives; can we slaughter the animals with reeds?’
The Prophet said, ‘Use whatever causes blood to flow, and eat the animals if the name of Allah has been mentioned on slaughtering them. Do not slaughter with teeth or fingernails and I will tell you why: It is because teeth are bones (i.e. cannot cut properly) and fingernails are the tools used by the Ethiopians (whom we should not imitate for they are infidels).’”

ARABIC
(Arabic text preserved as in original)

Classification:
Sahih

References:

  • al-Bukhari Book of Partnership #668

  • al-Bukhari 2488

  • Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 3, Book 44, Hadith 668

  • Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 3, Book of Partnership, Hadith 668

Link:
https://muflihun.com/bukhari/44/668

Shalom

Max Shimba, servant of Jesus Christ our God and Savior. Titus 2:13



The First Organ Created in Adam: A Theological Examination

The First Organ Created in Adam: A Theological Examination

By Dr. Max Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute


Abstract

This paper critically examines an Islamic narrative claiming that the first organ created in Adam was his male organ (genitalia). The discussion draws upon Islamic textual sources and theological implications surrounding divine creation, anthropomorphism, and the integrity of prophetic traditions. The purpose is to explore the logical, moral, and theological inconsistencies inherent in the claim, especially regarding the divine act of creation as attributed to Allah through Islamic traditions.


Introduction

Within Islamic literature, there exists a peculiar narration suggesting that the first body part created in Adam was his male organ (dhakari or penis). This claim appears in certain Islamic commentaries and traditional works, such as Kitabu cha Mkweli Mwaminifu (The Book of the Truthful Believer), Volume 3 and 4, 18th Edition, 1432 A.H. (2011). According to this source, Allah is said to have created Adam’s genital organ first, before forming the rest of his body.

The narration attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and transmitted by Mujahid states:

“The first thing created in the body of Adam (peace be upon him) was his private part. Then it was said to him: ‘O Adam, this is a trust. Do not use it except in the place where you are commanded.’”

This account raises significant theological, moral, and philosophical questions about the Islamic understanding of creation and divine purpose.


Doctrinal Analysis

According to the narration, Allah created Adam’s genital organ prior to his soul or other body parts. Such a concept provokes several theological inquiries:

  1. Why would Allah create Adam’s genital organ before creating his soul or consciousness?
    The order of creation as presented in this narration challenges the rational sequence of divine creation as understood in both biblical and classical theistic traditions. In Judeo-Christian theology, man’s form and soul were created simultaneously as an expression of divine image and purpose (Genesis 1:26–27). The Islamic narration, however, introduces an element of physical prioritization that appears anthropomorphic and lacks divine rationality.

  2. Where was Adam’s organ placed after its creation, and for how long did it exist before the rest of his body was formed?
    The narration does not address the spatial or temporal context of this creation. This silence leads to absurd implications—suggesting that a disembodied organ existed independently of the human being it was meant to belong to.

  3. If the organ was created first, does this imply that Allah handled and preserved it physically?
    Such an implication attributes to Allah physical interaction with a human sexual organ, which contradicts the Islamic claim that Allah is beyond form, body, or human likeness (tanzīh). The theological inconsistency here is profound and undermines the transcendence (tawḥīd) claimed by Islam.

  4. Is it theologically acceptable or morally appropriate to ascribe to God the act of creating and holding a human sexual organ prior to the creation of the human being?
    From both philosophical and ethical standpoints, this narration introduces a disturbing anthropomorphism incompatible with divine holiness and immateriality.


Comparative Theological Reflection

From a Christian theological perspective, the biblical account of Adam’s creation is profoundly spiritual and purposeful. God formed man in His own image, breathing into him the breath of life (Genesis 2:7). Every part of human anatomy was created in perfect harmony and order, symbolizing divine wisdom rather than carnal emphasis.

In contrast, the Islamic narration under discussion diminishes the sanctity of creation by emphasizing a reproductive organ as the primary object of divine craftsmanship. This notion not only contradicts rational order but also conflicts with moral and metaphysical coherence expected in divine creation.


Conclusion

The claim that the first organ created in Adam was his male organ presents deep theological contradictions and moral absurdities. It undermines the transcendence of Allah, challenges the logical order of creation, and introduces anthropomorphic notions inconsistent with divine holiness.

Therefore, such narrations must be approached critically, and their theological validity questioned within both Islamic hermeneutics and philosophical theology. True divine revelation, as preserved in the Holy Bible, presents creation as an act of divine intelligence, dignity, and purpose—not a carnal or anthropomorphic experiment.


Bibliography

  • Kitabu cha Mkweli Mwaminifu, Vol. 3–4, 18th Edition (1432 A.H. / 2011).

  • The Holy Bible, Genesis 1:26–27; Genesis 2:7.

  • Al-Jazaeri, Abu Bakr. Aysar al-Tafasir.

  • Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith Collections.

  • Al-Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir. Tafsir al-Tabari.

  • Shimba, Maxwell. Theology and Logic in Comparative Religion. Shimba Theological Institute Press, 2024.



Was Adam’s First Created Organ His Genitalia?

Was Adam’s First Created Organ His Genitalia? A Theological Debate and Challenge to Islamic Anthropology

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute, Orlando, Florida


Abstract

This academic debate paper challenges an Islamic narration that claims the first organ created in Adam was his genital organ (dhakari). The discussion examines the logical, theological, and moral implications of this claim, its sources in Islamic literature, and its inconsistency with divine transcendence. Through critical questioning, the article invites scholars of comparative religion to reconsider how Islamic anthropological narratives align—or conflict—with the nature and holiness of God as understood in biblical revelation.


Introduction

In certain Islamic sources, it is alleged that the very first organ created in Adam was his male organ. This claim originates from traditional narrations attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, as cited in Kitabu cha Mkweli Mwaminifu (The Book of the Truthful Believer), Volumes 3 and 4, 18th Edition (1432 A.H. / 2011). According to this narration, the Prophet is quoted as saying:

“The first thing created in the body of Adam (peace be upon him) was his private part. Then it was said to him: ‘O Adam, this is a trust; do not use it except in the place where you are commanded.’”

The theological implications of this narration are profound and problematic. If Allah truly created Adam’s sexual organ before his head, brain, heart, or soul, then what does this say about divine wisdom, purpose, and moral order?

This article presents a scholarly debate challenging the internal coherence and divine logic behind this Islamic claim.


Debate I: The Order of Creation — Logic or Absurdity?

Question 1: Why would Allah create the genital organ before creating Adam’s mind, heart, or soul?
Creation, according to all rational and theological principles, follows divine order and purpose. The human reproductive organ serves a social and biological function; it cannot exist meaningfully apart from the body, consciousness, or moral responsibility. Thus, creating it first renders it purposeless.

Question 2: What function could Adam’s genital organ serve before the rest of his body existed?
An organ without a body cannot fulfill reproductive, aesthetic, or moral functions. The claim collapses into absurdity when viewed biologically or philosophically.

Question 3: Does this narration suggest that Allah’s creative priority was sexual rather than spiritual?
If the first creative act in humanity was focused on sexuality rather than intellect or spirit, what does this imply about Allah’s priorities and understanding of holiness?

In contrast, the Bible presents a coherent order of creation rooted in divine image and reason:

“Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Genesis 2:7).


Debate II: Theological Contradictions in Divine Nature

Question 4: Where was Adam’s organ placed after its creation, and for how long did it exist before the rest of his body was formed?
If it existed independently, it raises metaphysical absurdities—how can a partial being precede the whole?

Question 5: Did Allah handle or hold the organ?**
This question, though uncomfortable, is unavoidable. The narration implies that Allah physically created, held, and possibly placed the genital organ before creating Adam. But Islam teaches that Allah has no body, form, or human likeness. This contradiction violates tanzīh (the doctrine of God’s transcendence).

Question 6: Is it theologically permissible to attribute to Allah the act of creating and holding a human sexual organ prior to forming the human being?
Such anthropomorphic imagery corrupts the transcendence of deity, reducing divine action to carnal craftsmanship.

Question 7: Does this narration inadvertently depict Allah as engaging in a physical act inconsistent with divine purity?
If the Creator is without body or form, how could He engage physically with the organ of reproduction before creating its host?


Debate III: The Philosophical and Moral Dimension

Question 8: Why emphasize the genitalia over the mind or heart as the first created organ?
This ordering appears to sexualize creation, prioritizing the flesh over the intellect. It diminishes the sacredness of human creation and divine intentionality.

Question 9: What does this say about the Islamic understanding of human dignity?
If Adam’s identity begins with his genital organ, does this not reduce humanity’s divine image to a biological function rather than a spiritual being?

Question 10: Can a narration of this nature be reconciled with the holiness, omniscience, and immateriality of God?
If not, does this not call into question the authenticity and divine inspiration of such hadith?


Debate IV: The Comparative Biblical Perspective

The biblical account stands in sharp contrast to the Islamic narration. The Book of Genesis portrays God as a transcendent and moral Creator, forming man holistically and spiritually:

“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” — Genesis 1:27

In Scripture, the order of creation reflects divine intellect, not sensuality. God breathed into man the breath of life, signifying that spiritual nature precedes physical function. Sexuality is later introduced as a divine gift for procreation within moral boundaries—not as the first act of creation.


Debate V: Implications for Islamic Theology

Question 11: If the narration is true, what does this reveal about Muhammad’s theological understanding of creation?
Would this not imply a lack of divine wisdom and an anthropocentric imagination rather than revelation?

Question 12: If false, why does such a narration exist and persist in Islamic texts?
This invites scrutiny into the nature of hadith transmission and whether certain narrations reflect cultural taboos rather than divine truth.

Question 13: Can Muslims maintain belief in a transcendent Allah while accepting a narration that portrays Him engaging physically with Adam’s sexual organ?
The contradiction here is irreconcilable unless the narration is dismissed as apocryphal or heretical.


Conclusion: A Call for Rational Theological Reformation

The claim that Adam’s first created organ was his genitalia is logically untenable, theologically contradictory, and morally questionable. It reduces divine creation to carnal absurdity, conflicts with the principle of divine transcendence, and stands in opposition to the rational, ordered creation revealed in the Bible.

This debate invites Muslim scholars to reexamine their textual sources and encourages theologians of all faiths to uphold a conception of God consistent with holiness, rationality, and moral coherence. True creation begins with divine wisdom and ends with divine purpose—not with anthropomorphic invention.


Bibliography

  • Kitabu cha Mkweli Mwaminifu, Vol. 3–4, 18th Edition (1432 A.H. / 2011).

  • The Holy Bible, Genesis 1:26–27; Genesis 2:7.

  • Abu Bakr al-Jazaeri, Aysar al-Tafasir.

  • Al-Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir. Tafsir al-Tabari.

  • Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari (Hadith Collection).

  • Shimba, Maxwell. Comparative Theology and Divine Logic. Orlando: Shimba Theological Institute Press, 2024.



THE CHARACTER OF A FOOL

 Tuesday, May 3, 2022

THE CHARACTER OF A FOOL

Psalm 53:1; Psalm 107:17; Psalm 74:22; Psalm 10:4; Proverbs 10:23; Romans 3:10

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and their ways are evil;
there is none who does good.

NOW READ ABOUT THE FOOL HERE:

The Shahada: “La ilaha illallah Muhammadur Rasulullah” (Qur’an 3:18; also see Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 725).
“There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”
This is the Shahada recited by Muslims or by anyone wishing to become a Muslim.

The four words “la ilaha illallah” mean as follows:

  • la = no, not, none, neither

  • ilaha = god, deity, object of worship

  • illa = except, but (a contraction of in-lâ, literally “if not”)

  • Allah = Allah

Therefore, beginning with Allah, Muhammad, and those who recite the Shahada — according to the Psalmist’s biblical definition — all are described as fools, for they deny the true God of the Bible.

Shalom.

Absorbed Into the Secret Place

Title: Absorbed Into the Secret Place
Text: Psalm 91:1-2; Matthew 6:6; Mark 1:35

Introduction:
Shimba Family, today I want to speak to you about something deeply personal and profoundly powerful—the secret place. We often celebrate the miracles of Jesus, His healings, His teachings, and the wonders He performed. But there is another aspect of His life that is just as important, and it is one we can all learn from: His private communion with the Father.

Psalm 91:1 tells us:
"He who dwells in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty."
This secret place is a spiritual refuge, a place of intimacy where we can connect with God undistracted, just as Jesus did.


I. Jesus’ Pattern of Withdrawal
Mark 1:35 says:
"Now in the morning, having risen a long while before daylight, He went out and departed into a solitary place; and there He prayed."

Shimba Family, notice these key truths:

  1. Intentional Withdrawal: Jesus intentionally stepped away from the crowds and the demands of ministry.

  2. Solitude: He chose places where no one could disturb Him, allowing Him to focus fully on God.

  3. Consistency: This was a repeated practice, not a one-time event.

Even His disciples struggled to understand why He would disappear like this, but Jesus knew that the secret place was the source of His strength, guidance, and power.


II. The Secret Place as a Source of Power
Shimba Family, ministry, work, and life can be overwhelming. But the secret place is where we are renewed. It produces:

  1. Clarity of Vision: In private prayer, God speaks, and we understand His will.

  2. Strength for Opposition: Like Jesus facing the Pharisees, the secret place equips us to handle life’s challenges with peace and wisdom.

  3. Protection: Psalm 91 reminds us that dwelling in the secret place places us under God’s protective shadow.


III. How Shimba Family Can Enter the Secret Place

  1. Set Aside Time Daily: Follow Jesus’ example; even a few minutes in the morning or a quiet moment in the day can draw you closer to God.

  2. Remove Distractions: Phones, noise, and obligations can wait. The secret place requires focus.

  3. Pray Sincerely, Not for Show: Jesus taught us that prayer is for God, not for human recognition.

  4. Listen: Prayer is not just talking; it’s hearing God’s voice and receiving His guidance.


IV. The Rewards of the Secret Place
Shimba Family, when you dwell in the secret place, your life aligns with God’s purpose. You will experience renewed strength, clarity, and protection. Just as Jesus emerged from His private prayer ready to minister with power and love, you too will emerge empowered to live boldly and faithfully.


Conclusion:
Shimba Family, the secret place is not a suggestion—it is a necessity. The miracles, victories, and guidance we desire are birthed in the quiet, private moments with God. Make it your priority to withdraw, to pray, and to dwell in the secret place.

Call to Action:
Today, let each of us commit to being absorbed into the secret place. Start small if you need to—five or ten minutes of undistracted prayer—but let it grow into a daily discipline. Watch as God strengthens, guides, and protects each member of the Shimba Family in powerful ways.



DO YOU KNOW THE FIRST INFIDEL IN THE WORLD?

DO YOU KNOW THE FIRST INFIDEL IN THE WORLD?

By Dr. Max Shimba, Servant of Jesus Christ the Great God (Titus 2:13)

Introduction

Who are the infidels?
Do you know who the first infidels in the world were?

The term “kafiri” (infidel or unbeliever) is not originally Islamic—it appears in the Holy Bible long before Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, was born, and long before Islam or the Qur’an existed. The word kafiri existed in Scripture centuries before the Arabs of the 7th century (such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali) emerged as followers of Islam.

Thus, Muslims merely found the word already in use among the people who read and taught from the Holy Bible.

In fact, nowhere in the Qur’an are Christians called kafirs (infidels). Rather, the Qur’an describes Christians as those who fear God and are learned (Surat al-Ma’idah 5:82).

To confirm that the word kafiri is biblical, let us examine several scriptural references.


Biblical References to the Word “Infidel”

  • Ezekiel 34:28–31 – God Himself assures Israel that they shall no longer be prey to the infidels (the nations).

  • Nehemiah 5:8–9; 5:17; 6:16

  • Lamentations 1:3; 1:10; 5:2

  • 1 Timothy 1:8–11

  • Jude 1:4

  • 1 John 4:1–6

These texts demonstrate that the term “infidel” or “unbeliever” was in use long before Muhammad’s birth, before the Qur’an was written, and before the rise of Islam.


The Meaning and Use of “Kafiri”

The word kafiri is Arabic and literally means “a rejecter” or “one who opposes.”
In other words, it refers to a person who rejects or opposes the word of God.

Whenever there is an initial divine statement (a preceding statement), and a later person or doctrine contradicts it, the contradictor becomes a kafiri—a rejecter of divine truth.

Today, Muslims often refer to Christians as kafirs, saying, “These infidels trouble us” or “Let us fight the infidels.” But biblically and historically, that accusation is misplaced.


Questions for Reflection

  1. Between Christians and Muslims, who truly fits the description of kafiri (one who rejects divine truth)?

  2. Between Christian faith and Islam, which came first in history?

  3. Between Jesus Christ and Muhammad, who contradicted the other’s teaching?


A Brief Historical Context: Jesus and Muhammad

Jesus Christ is the founder of the Christian faith.
According to Hebrews 12:2, He is “the author and finisher of our faith.”

It has been over 2,000 years (since A.D. 33) since Jesus ascended into heaven, while the Islamic calendar (Hijri year 1436 at the time of writing) begins with Muhammad’s movement centuries later. Muhammad was born around A.D. 570—well after the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Therefore, Jesus and the Christian message preceded Muhammad and Islam.
The teachings of Jesus are the preceding (original) statements, while Muhammad’s later assertions are contradictory statements—making them, by definition, kafiri (opposing truths).


The Foundational Christian Statement: Jesus is the Son of God

In John 9:35–38, Jesus Himself declares that He is the Son of God.
This is an original divine claim—a preceding statement.

If any later teaching declares, “Jesus is not the Son of God,” that is a contradictory statement—an act of rejection of divine revelation—and thus the speaker is, by definition, a kafiri.


Who First Declared That Jesus Is the Son of God?

According to Luke 1:26–35, it was not a human being who first called Jesus the Son of God, but God Himself, speaking through the angel Gabriel.

This declaration is confirmed again in:

  • Matthew 3:13–17 – At Jesus’ baptism, the Father declares, “This is my beloved Son.”

  • Matthew 17:1–5 – At the Transfiguration, the same divine voice affirms the Sonship of Jesus.

These are divine preceding statements, proclaimed by God long before Muhammad’s birth (A.D. 570) or the beginning of Islam (A.D. 610).

Therefore, when the Qur’an or any Islamic teaching denies that Jesus is the Son of God, such denial opposes God’s original declaration and falls under the biblical definition of kafiri—a rejecter of divine truth.


The First Infidel in the World

When God created humanity, He gave a clear command:

Genesis 2:16–17 – “You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

This is the original divine statement.
But then the serpent contradicted God, saying:

Genesis 3:1–4 – “You will not certainly die.”

Here, the serpent (Satan) directly opposed God’s word—making Satan the first infidel (kafiri) in the world.

Thus, anyone who rejects God’s revelation—such as denying that Jesus is the Son of God—aligns with the same spirit of rebellion as Satan and becomes a kafiri.


The Qur’an’s Contradiction

The Qur’an states in Surat al-An‘am 6:101:

“He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have a son when He has no wife?”

This verse misunderstands the divine nature, reducing it to human reasoning. It assumes that God needs a physical wife to have a Son—an anthropomorphic limitation foreign to biblical theology.

The Bible, however, teaches that believers are children of God not by flesh or blood, but by faith and divine adoption (John 1:12–13).

Hence, the Qur’anic view opposes the earlier divine revelation and becomes, by biblical definition, a kafiri statement.


Children of God vs. Children of the Devil

1 John 3:10 declares:

“In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest.”

Those who reject their identity as children of God demonstrate spiritual parentage under the devil.

Similarly, Islamic tradition (Hadith Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4) refers to Muhammad’s wives as “Ummul Mu’minin”—the Mothers of the Faithful.
But does calling them “mothers” literally mean they gave birth to all Muslims? Of course not.

This exposes the inconsistency of literalizing divine sonship while metaphorically interpreting human motherhood in Islam.


Conclusion

Christianity predates Islam.
Therefore, Islamic doctrines that oppose the preexisting truths of the Gospel are, by theological and historical definition, kafiri—rejections of divine revelation.

Consequently, Islam, Allah, Muhammad, and Jibril (Gabriel)—by their denial of Jesus’ divine Sonship—stand in contradiction to the Word of God and thus fall under the biblical category of kafiri (infidels).

Reflect deeply—and take a stand for truth.
May you be blessed abundantly.

Dr. Max Shimba
Servant of Jesus Christ, the Great God (Titus 2:13)



SHIMBA THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER

SHIMBA THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER

Volume 7, Issue 4 — October 2025
ISSN: 2950-4125


Christian Teen Murdered by His Brother for Converting to Christianity in Uganda

A Case Study in Religious Persecution and the Challenge of Faith Freedom in Eastern Africa
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute


Abstract

This report examines a recent case of religiously motivated violence in Uganda, where a Muslim high school student fatally stabbed his younger brother following the latter’s conversion to Christianity. The incident underscores the growing tension between constitutional religious freedoms and sociocultural pressures within some Ugandan communities. Through a factual account and theological reflection, this article seeks to highlight the urgent need for protection of religious converts and the promotion of peaceful coexistence among adherents of different faiths.


1. Introduction

Religious freedom remains a fundamental human right enshrined in the Constitution of Uganda and affirmed in international human rights conventions. However, despite these legal guarantees, incidents of persecution continue to emerge, particularly against Muslim converts to Christianity. On September 1, 2025, in Mbale City, Eastern Uganda, a tragic event unfolded when Akram Kairoki, a Muslim student, allegedly murdered his younger brother Shafiki Wasike for renouncing Islam and embracing the Christian faith.


2. The Incident

According to Morning Star News (October 1, 2025), the victim, Shafiki Wasike, aged 19, was a recent convert to Christianity. His conversion occurred on August 31, 2025, after attending an open-air evangelistic meeting organized by Bible Evangelism Ministries. The event featured a public debate between Pastor David Wabomba and a Muslim debater, Sheik Abudallah, focusing on the theological distinctions between Christianity and Islam.

Pastor Wabomba reported that after the debate, Wasike accepted Christ as his Savior and expressed deep joy about his new faith. However, later that evening, his brother, Akram, began sending threatening messages, accusing him of bringing shame upon their Muslim family and the broader Islamic community. Despite the threats, Wasike remained firm in his newfound faith.

Tragically, the following morning, while the two brothers were walking to school, Kairoki allegedly stabbed Wasike twice, once in the chest and once near the ribs. Eyewitnesses and classmates — Jonathan Kabaale, Ronald Mukhwana, and John Michael Musamali — rushed to the scene and attempted to save him by transporting him to a nearby hospital. Before succumbing to his wounds, Wasike reportedly said, “Why should my brother stab me? I have done nothing wrong to him. It is only changing my faith and joining the Christian faith.”


3. Police Investigation and Legal Proceedings

Following an intensive manhunt, Ugandan police arrested the suspect in Nakwigalo Cell, Busolwe Town Council, Butaleja District. According to Rogers Taitika, police spokesperson for the Elgon Region, the suspect has been charged with murder and awaits trial at Mbale City Police Station. Police officials have reiterated that under Ugandan law, individuals aged 15 and above can face prosecution for serious criminal offenses.


4. Funeral and Family Reaction

Wasike was laid to rest on September 8, 2025, at the family’s ancestral home in Kabwagasi Town Council. Pastor Wabomba, who officiated the funeral, reported that several family and clan members refused to participate in the burial, declaring Wasike an infidel for converting to Christianity. This rejection illustrates the deep-rooted cultural stigma and ostracism faced by religious converts in some communities within Uganda.


5. Religious Freedom and Persecution in Uganda

Uganda’s legal framework protects religious liberty, including the right to change one’s faith and to propagate religious beliefs. However, practical realities in certain regions — especially in eastern Uganda, where Muslim populations are more concentrated — reveal ongoing persecution against converts. Christian organizations and advocacy groups have documented several such incidents, raising concerns about the state’s enforcement of constitutional guarantees.

From a theological standpoint, this case reflects Jesus’ warning in Matthew 10:21-22, “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” Such passages illuminate the spiritual cost of discipleship and the courage required to confess Christ in hostile environments.


6. Theological Reflection

The martyrdom of converts like Shafiki Wasike reminds the Christian community of the enduring price of faith. His death echoes the apostolic suffering described in the early Church, where conversion often resulted in family conflict and societal rejection. Yet, as Scripture affirms in Romans 8:35-39, “Nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ.”
The Church, both local and international, bears a moral obligation to advocate for such victims, offer support to converts, and engage in interfaith dialogue rooted in truth and compassion.


7. Conclusion and Recommendations

The case of Shafiki Wasike serves as a solemn reminder of the fragility of religious freedom and the cost of discipleship in certain parts of the world.
Recommendations:

  1. Strengthen legal protection for converts through active enforcement of constitutional rights.

  2. Enhance interfaith dialogue to promote tolerance and peaceful coexistence.

  3. Provide pastoral care and discipleship training for new converts facing persecution.

  4. Encourage Christian advocacy networks to monitor and report incidents of religious violence.


References

  • Morning Star News. “Christian Teen Murdered by Brother for Converting to Christianity.” October 1, 2025.

  • Uganda Constitution, Chapter Four: Protection and Promotion of Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms.

  • The Holy Bible (Matthew 10:21-22; Romans 8:35-39).


About the Author

Dr. Maxwell Shimba is the Founder and President of Shimba Theological Institute, a research and theological training center committed to advancing Christian scholarship, defending faith freedom, and promoting interreligious understanding. His academic work focuses on theology, religious liberty, and restorative justice.



Abraham Never Built the Kaʿbah — A Scholarly Examination

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

  1. 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)

  2. 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)

  3. 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)

  4. 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



TRENDING NOW