Tuesday, December 9, 2025

The Injeel in the Quran: A Counterfeit Gospel

The Injeel in the Quran: A Counterfeit Gospel

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The foundation of the Christian faith rests on the historical truth and theological centrality of the Gospel—the Good News that Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, died for the sins of humanity, was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1–4). This saving message, proclaimed by the apostles, is the essence of Christianity and the basis of salvation: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9, KJV).

In contrast, the Quran presents an alternate narrative regarding the Gospel (Injeel). While it claims to affirm the revelation of the Injeel to Jesus (Surah 5:46), the Quran simultaneously denies the core tenets of the biblical Gospel, namely the crucifixion, resurrection, and divine Sonship of Christ. This creates an irreconcilable contradiction between the Christian Scriptures and the Quranic claims.

The Quranic Denial of Crucifixion

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are indispensable to Christian theology. Paul emphasizes that “if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17, KJV). Yet, the Quran explicitly denies this historical reality:

“That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’—but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them…” (Surah 4:157, Yusuf Ali).

By rejecting the crucifixion, the Quran undermines the doctrine of atonement, leaving no theological basis for the forgiveness of sins. In contrast, the Bible repeatedly testifies that Jesus “was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” (Romans 4:25, KJV).

The Quranic Denial of the Sonship of Christ

Another central teaching of the New Testament is that Jesus is the Son of God, coequal with the Father (John 10:30; Hebrews 1:1–3). At His baptism, God the Father declared, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17, KJV).

Yet, the Quran emphatically denies this truth:

“It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him!” (Surah 19:35, Yusuf Ali).
“Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah…” (Surah 4:171, Yusuf Ali).

This denial stands in direct opposition to the biblical witness. If Jesus is not the Son of God, then His role as Savior and Mediator is nullified, contradicting His own claims: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6, KJV).

The Warning Against “Another Gospel”

The Apostle Paul sternly warned believers against accepting any message that distorts the Gospel of Christ:

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another… But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:6–8, KJV).

By denying the crucifixion, resurrection, and divine Sonship of Christ, the Quran presents precisely “another gospel,” which Paul condemns. This indicates that the Quran cannot be from the God of the Bible, and Muhammad cannot be regarded as a prophet of the true God since his message contradicts the apostolic witness.

Conclusion

The Injeel of the Quran is not the true Gospel but a counterfeit narrative that contradicts the essential truths of Christianity. The God revealed in Jesus Christ is not the Allah of the Quran, and Muhammad cannot be considered a genuine prophet of God since his teachings deny the very foundations of salvation history.

The authentic Gospel remains unchanging: Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). Any denial of this truth is a rejection of God’s revelation, for “there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” but the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12, KJV).

References

  • The Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV).

  • The Quran. Translations by Abdullah Yusuf Ali.

  • 1 Corinthians 15:1–4; Romans 4:25; Ephesians 2:8–9; John 14:6; Acts 4:12.

  • Surah 4:157; Surah 4:171; Surah 5:46; Surah 19:35.


at No comments:

The Contradiction of Muhammad’s Alleged Heavenly Journey and the Obligation of Prayer

The Contradiction of Muhammad’s Alleged Heavenly Journey and the Obligation of Prayer

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the most defining pillars of Islamic practice is Salat (ritual prayer). Muslims today pray five times a day as a central act of worship and as a sign of obedience to Allah. The traditional narrative links this fivefold obligation to Muhammad’s alleged heavenly journey (al-Isra’ wal-Mi’raj), in which Allah is said to have commanded prayer. Yet, when we examine the Qur’an—the supposed revealed word of Allah—we encounter an unexpected contradiction. The Qur’an clearly speaks of three daily prayer times, not five. This chapter explores the origins of this discrepancy, the role of Hadith in reshaping Islamic ritual practice, and the theological implications of Muslims following Muhammad’s word over Allah’s.

The Qur’anic Mandate: Three Daily Prayers

The Qur’an frequently exhorts believers to establish prayer (aqim al-salat), but the specific times mentioned are strikingly few.

  • Morning Prayer (Fajr)

    “So glorify Allah when you enter the morning and when you enter the evening.”
    (Surah Ar-Rum 30:17)

  • Evening Prayer (Maghrib)

    “Establish prayer at the two ends of the day and at the approach of the night.”
    (Surah Hud 11:114)

  • Night Prayer (Isha)

    “Establish the prayer at the decline of the sun until the darkness of the night, and the recitation of dawn.”
    (Surah Al-Isra 17:78)

From these passages, a clear pattern emerges: three obligatory times of prayer—morning, evening, and night. Early commentators such as al-Tabari and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi acknowledged these verses but later reconciled them with the Hadith tradition to justify five prayers.

The Qur’an itself never explicitly commands five daily prayers. Therefore, the fivefold system rests entirely on post-Qur’anic tradition.

The Hadith Narrative: Muhammad’s Negotiated Revelation

According to Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the five prayers originated in Muhammad’s alleged journey through the heavens. Initially, Allah demanded fifty prayers a day. Muhammad, descending from heaven, was advised by Moses to request reductions. After several rounds of bargaining, Allah settled on five.

Several issues emerge from this narrative:

  1. Allah’s Inconsistency – A supposedly omniscient deity first commands fifty prayers, then reduces them upon negotiation, which undermines divine perfection.

  2. Moses’ Superior Wisdom – Moses, not Muhammad, appears as the wise counselor, making the ritual obligation more practical.

  3. Contradiction with the Qur’an – While the Qur’an prescribes three prayers, the Hadith insists on five.

This reveals the Hadith’s role as a corrective to the Qur’an, raising the question: Which holds ultimate authority—Allah’s revelation or Muhammad’s tradition?

Historical Development of Islamic Prayer

Early Islamic history provides additional evidence of threefold prayer. Scholars such as Joseph Schacht and Patricia Crone note that early Muslims likely adapted prayer patterns from Jewish communities in Arabia, where morning and evening prayers were common. Christians, too, practiced regular prayer at set hours, often three times daily (cf. Daniel 6:10; Acts 3:1).

The fivefold system appears to have solidified later, under the influence of Hadith codification in the 8th–9th centuries CE. The reliance on oral traditions, many collected over a century after Muhammad’s death, reveals how ritual practice in Islam evolved to emphasize Muhammad’s authority over and above the Qur’an.

Theological Contradictions

The discrepancy between the Qur’an and the Hadith creates several theological dilemmas:

  1. Authority Crisis – If Allah revealed three prayers in the Qur’an, but Muhammad later imposed five through Hadith, then Muhammad becomes a co-legislator with Allah.

  2. Reliability of Revelation – A perfect God should not contradict Himself. If the Qur’an is final revelation, it should not require supplementation by Hadith.

  3. Muslim Obedience – In practice, Muslims obey Muhammad’s words (Hadith) more than Allah’s (Qur’an). This elevates Muhammad to near-divine authority.

This duality resembles a form of ditheism—the recognition of two sources of law, Allah and Muhammad, both competing for supremacy.

Comparative Perspective: Prayer in Judaism and Christianity

Understanding Islamic prayer in a broader religious context highlights its derivative nature.

  • Judaism: The Hebrew Bible records Daniel praying three times a day (Daniel 6:10). Rabbinic Judaism later established Shacharit (morning), Mincha (afternoon), and Maariv (evening), a threefold pattern strikingly similar to the Qur’an’s prescriptions.

  • Christianity: Early Christians continued Jewish prayer cycles, often praying morning, noon, and evening. Acts 3:1 records Peter and John going to the temple “at the hour of prayer,” which was the ninth hour (afternoon). Monastic communities expanded this into seven canonical hours, but the threefold system remained a biblical base.

  • Islam: The Qur’an reflects the same threefold tradition. The fivefold prayer system introduced later via Hadith appears as an expansion, lacking Qur’anic foundation.

Thus, Islam’s practice is best understood as a divergence from the Jewish-Christian pattern, driven more by Hadith tradition than divine revelation.

Hadith Reliability and Its Problems

The reliance on Hadith for five daily prayers exposes a broader issue: the questionable reliability of Hadith literature. Compiled over a century after Muhammad’s death, Hadith collections were subject to fabrication, political influence, and sectarian conflict.

Even Muslim scholars such as al-Bukhari rejected hundreds of thousands of reports as spurious before producing his “authentic” collection. Yet, the very fact that Hadith are needed to supplement or even override the Qur’an raises questions about whether Islam’s central rituals rest on divine authority at all.

Conclusion

The contradiction between the Qur’an’s instruction of three daily prayers and the Hadith’s imposition of five highlights a central flaw within Islamic theology. If Allah’s Qur’an is truly sufficient, why must Hadith dictate central acts of worship? The Mi’raj story, far from being evidence of divine majesty, exposes inconsistency, negotiation, and human intervention in shaping Islam’s most fundamental practices.

In the end, Muslims are faced with a choice: obey Allah’s Qur’an, which commands three prayers, or obey Muhammad’s Hadith, which commands five. The overwhelming preference for Hadith demonstrates that in practice, Muslims follow Muhammad over Allah. This undermines the claim of Islam as a purely monotheistic religion and reveals the human construction at its core.

πŸ“– References

  • The Qur’an: Surah Hud 11:114; Surah Al-Isra 17:78; Surah Ar-Rum 30:17–18; Surah Taha 20:130.

  • Sahih Bukhari, Book 8, Hadith 345.

  • Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 309.

  • Joseph Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (Oxford University Press, 1950).

  • Patricia Crone & Michael Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (Cambridge University Press, 1977).

  • W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca (Oxford University Press, 1953).


at No comments:

Christian Theological Reflection: Prayer Fulfilled in Christ

Christian Theological Reflection: Prayer Fulfilled in Christ

The contrast between the Qur’an, Hadith, and the Christian faith reveals more than a historical or textual contradiction—it demonstrates the unique sufficiency of Jesus Christ. In Islam, prayer is a ritual burden, shaped by human tradition and inconsistent revelations. In Christianity, prayer is the fruit of a reconciled relationship with God through Christ.

Jesus Himself modeled prayer, not as a mechanical ritual, but as intimate communion with the Father. He withdrew to pray (Luke 5:16), taught His disciples to pray simply and directly (Matthew 6:9–13), and interceded for His followers (John 17). Prayer, in the Christian vision, is not about rigid times or quantities, but about living continually in God’s presence (1 Thessalonians 5:17).

Moreover, through His death and resurrection, Christ opened direct access to God:

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
(1 Timothy 2:5)

Unlike Muhammad’s story—where Allah’s command had to be negotiated down through Moses—Christ is Himself the final Mediator. He fulfilled the law, including all ritual obligations, and granted believers bold access to God’s throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16).

Thus, prayer in Christianity is not a ritualistic duty to earn divine favor, but a privilege of children approaching their Father (Romans 8:15). The believer prays in freedom, empowered by the Holy Spirit, not compelled by burdensome regulations.

Final Conclusion

The Qur’an prescribes three prayers, while Hadith imposes five, revealing internal contradiction and the elevation of Muhammad’s authority above Allah’s. This duality undermines Islam’s claim of pure monotheism and exposes its dependence on human tradition rather than divine revelation.

By contrast, Christianity offers a coherent and liberating vision of prayer. In Christ, believers are freed from ritual legalism and invited into unbroken fellowship with God. Prayer becomes not a burdensome obligation negotiated between prophets and God, but a joyful response to divine love made possible by the cross.

Therefore, where Islam binds its followers to the conflicting commands of Qur’an and Hadith, Christ calls His people to the freedom of direct communion with God—“in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

πŸ“– Extended References (Christian Perspective)

  • The Holy Bible: Daniel 6:10; Matthew 6:9–13; Luke 5:16; John 4:24; John 17; Acts 3:1; Romans 8:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:17; 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 4:16.

  • Andrew Murray, With Christ in the School of Prayer (1885).

  • Timothy Keller, Prayer: Experiencing Awe and Intimacy with God (2014).


at No comments:

Was Muhammad Demonically Influenced? A Critical Examination

Was Muhammad Demonically Influenced? A Critical Examination

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The question of Muhammad’s spiritual experiences has been debated for centuries. While Muslims hold him as the “Seal of the Prophets,” many early reports—including those from Islamic sources—raise serious questions about the origin of his revelations. This article critically examines the nature of Muhammad’s experiences, his own confessions of fear and confusion, and the moral consequences of his teachings, in light of biblical and historical evidence.

Muhammad’s Early Experiences: Poet or Possessed?

Islamic historical records state that when Muhammad first received “revelation” in the Cave of Hira, he was left terrified, trembling, and even contemplating suicide. The Qur’an itself records Muhammad’s accusers labeling him as majnun (possessed by jinn) and a poet:

  • “By your Lord’s grace, you are not mad [majnun].” (Qur’an 68:2)

  • “Or do they say, ‘He is possessed’ (majnun)? Nay, he has brought them the truth.” (Qur’an 23:70)

Sahih Hadith and the Sirah (biography of Muhammad) recount how Muhammad feared he was possessed when he first encountered the spirit in Hira. Ibn Ishaq, the earliest biographer of Muhammad, writes that Muhammad said:

“I thought I was possessed by a jinn, and I wished to throw myself down from a mountain.” (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, trans. Guillaume, p. 106)

The Manifestations: Convulsions, Snorting, and Foaming

The Hadith record peculiar physical symptoms when Muhammad received revelation. These include twitching, foaming at the mouth, and roaring like a camel. Sahih al-Bukhari narrates:

“Sometimes the revelation comes to me like the ringing of a bell… and sometimes the angel comes to me in the form of a man and talks to me and I grasp whatever he says.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 2)

Another narration states:

“Revelation would descend upon him on an extremely cold day, and yet sweat would be dripping from his forehead.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 2)

These symptoms bear closer resemblance to spirit possession described in the New Testament (cf. Mark 9:17–18) than to the orderly and peaceful communication between God and His prophets.

Moral Contradictions in Muhammad’s Life

If Muhammad was indeed sent by God, his life and teachings should align with divine holiness. However, troubling actions attributed to him include:

  1. Child Marriage – Marriage to Aisha, reportedly at age six, consummated at age nine (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 7, Book 62, Hadith 64).

  2. Domestic Violence – Qur’an 4:34 permits men to “strike” their wives if they are disobedient.

  3. Contradiction of Prior Revelation – Muhammad affirmed the Torah and the Gospel (Qur’an 5:46–48), yet his teachings directly contradicted them, especially concerning the crucifixion of Jesus (Qur’an 4:157).

Would a holy God endorse such actions and contradictions?

The Biblical Warning: Another Gospel

The Apostle Paul warned against any “other gospel” preached, even by an angel:

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)

Muhammad’s teachings deny Christ’s divinity, crucifixion, and resurrection—all essential doctrines of salvation. By biblical standards, Muhammad introduced “another Jesus” and “another gospel” (2 Corinthians 11:4).

Conclusion

The evidence from the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira shows Muhammad himself feared possession, while his physical manifestations resembled demonic influence. His moral life and teachings raise serious doubts about divine origin, especially when weighed against the holiness of God revealed in the Bible. For these reasons, Muhammad cannot be considered a true prophet of God. Instead, the biblical warning of deception through false prophets and false gospels appears directly relevant to his case.

References

  • The Qur’an (68:2; 23:70; 5:46–48; 4:157).

  • Ibn Ishaq. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah. Trans. A. Guillaume. Oxford University Press, 1955.

  • Sahih al-Bukhari. Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 2; Vol. 7, Book 62, Hadith 64.

  • The Holy Bible, King James Version.

  • Paul, Galatians 1:8; 2 Corinthians 11:4; Mark 9:17–18.

πŸ“– Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute


at No comments:

Islam and the Prophetic Fulfillment of Revelation 13

Islam and the Prophetic Fulfillment of Revelation 13

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The Book of Revelation, particularly chapter 13, presents a prophetic vision of the end times, centering on the emergence of the Beast, the Mark of the Beast, false witnesses, and the worship of the image of the Beast. Within Christian eschatology, these symbols are understood as a climactic manifestation of rebellion against God. A close comparative reading of Islamic texts—both the Qur’an and the Hadith—reveals striking parallels between the characteristics of the Beast in Revelation and Islamic eschatological teachings. This article critically examines these correlations to argue that Revelation 13 prophetically unveils Islam as the system of the Beast.

1. The Beast in Islam and Revelation

In Revelation 13:1, John describes the rise of the Beast from the sea, endowed with blasphemous authority and global power. Islam’s eschatology contains its own reference to “the Beast” (Dabbatul-ard), as found in Qur’an 27:82–83, where a beast emerges to speak to mankind in the end times. Islamic tafsirs interpret this beast as a divine eschatological sign, yet in the Johannine framework, it directly parallels the Beast of Revelation who deceives nations. Rather than being a sign from God, this Islamic Beast may be understood as part of the apocalyptic rebellion prophesied in Scripture.

2. The False Witness and the Denial of Christ

Revelation 13:11–14 speaks of the second Beast who deceives by false testimony and miraculous pretenses. In Islam, the Qur’an insists upon false claims concerning Jesus: Qur’an 16:84–85, 4:159, and Sahih al-Bukhari 2476, 3448 collectively deny the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, affirming instead a distorted Christology. This corresponds to the “false witness” of Revelation, which deceives humanity into rejecting the true Son of God. The Islamic claim that Jesus was not crucified directly contradicts the Gospel and serves as the central false testimony of Islamic doctrine, fitting the Johannine apocalyptic narrative.

3. The Mark of the Beast

One of the most chilling symbols of Revelation 13 is the χξϛ (666), the mark of the Beast that permits economic and social participation while marking allegiance to the Antichrist system (Revelation 13:16–18). Parallels are drawn with Qur’an 55:41, which declares that sinners will be recognized by their marks, and with Sunan Ibn Majah 4066 and Jami at-Tirmidhi 3187, which detail eschatological markings upon the unbelievers. In this sense, the Islamic “mark” system anticipates a religiously enforced identification akin to Revelation’s prophecy, highlighting Islam’s role as the ideological framework of the Beast.

4. The Image of the Beast

Revelation 13:14–15 proclaims that the Beast’s image is set up and receives worship, even animating the image to speak. In Islamic eschatology, Hadith traditions provide a disturbing resonance. At-Tirmidhi vol. 2, 961 and Sunan Ibn Majah 2944 describe images or objects associated with Islamic rituals that compel submission and obedience. This enforced veneration reflects Revelation’s warning of the “image of the Beast,” where devotion is transferred from God to a false religious system, solidifying Islam’s identification within apocalyptic prophecy.

Conclusion

The composite picture painted by Revelation 13—the Beast, the False Witness, the Mark, and the Image—finds uncanny parallels in Islamic scripture and tradition. While Islam presents these figures as signs of divine authority, a Christian eschatological reading reveals them instead as the very fulfillment of apocalyptic warnings. Revelation 13 does not merely predict a vague future enemy; it identifies Islam as the embodiment of the Beast system, deceiving nations, denying the Son of God, and preparing humanity for the climactic confrontation between Christ and Antichrist.

Therefore, Revelation 13 is not a distant or abstract prophecy—it is a precise unveiling of Islam’s role in the eschatological rebellion against the true and living God.


at No comments:

The Anthropomorphic Dilemma: Allah’s “Shin” and the Question of Divine Uniqueness

The Anthropomorphic Dilemma: Allah’s “Shin” and the Question of Divine Uniqueness

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the most complex theological tensions in Islamic theology lies in the doctrine of tanzΔ«h—the absolute transcendence of Allah—contrasted with anthropomorphic descriptions of Him found in the Qur’an and Hadith literature. Muslims are taught that Allah is utterly unlike His creation: “There is nothing like unto Him” (Qur’an 42:11). Yet, paradoxically, several Qur’anic verses and Hadith traditions attribute to Allah physical attributes and organs, such as hands (Qur’an 38:75), a face (Qur’an 55:27), eyes (Qur’an 11:37), and even a shin (Qur’an 68:42). This raises a profound theological question: if Allah possesses what is described as a “shin,” how can He simultaneously claim to be wholly unlike human beings, who also possess shins?

This article critically examines this contradiction, placing the Qur’anic notion of Allah’s “shin” under scrutiny while contrasting it with classical Islamic theology, Jewish and Christian theological anthropology, and logical-philosophical inquiry.

The Qur’anic Description of the “Shin”

The critical verse is found in Surah al-Qalam (68:42):

“[Remember] the Day when the shin will be uncovered, and they will be invited to prostration but they will not be able.”

Classical commentators (e.g., al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Qurtubi) debated whether the “shin” (sāq) in this passage refers literally to an organ of Allah or metaphorically to a sign of severe distress. Some schools of thought, particularly the Athari and early Hanbali traditions, insisted on affirming the attribute bi-lā kayf (“without asking how”), meaning that Allah does indeed have a shin but it is unlike the human shin. AshΚΏarΔ« and MāturΔ«dΔ« theologians, however, leaned toward metaphorical interpretations, claiming it was an Arabic idiom for hardship.

Yet, regardless of interpretation, the text introduces anthropomorphic imagery, which cannot easily be reconciled with the absolute claim of divine incomparability.

The Problem of Anthropomorphism

The central contradiction lies in the following tension:

  1. Allah declares absolute dissimilarity from creation (Qur’an 42:11).

  2. Allah is described with human organs (hands, eyes, face, shin).

  3. Human beings also possess these very organs.

If Allah’s shin is literal, then He shares a common attribute with humanity, thereby undermining His transcendence. If it is metaphorical, then why employ anthropomorphic language at all, when such language inevitably leads to confusion, anthropomorphism, and internal contradiction?

Christian theology faced similar tensions in Old Testament anthropomorphisms (e.g., “the hand of God”), but these were ultimately resolved in the doctrine of the Incarnation: God took on human form in Jesus Christ while remaining fully divine. Islam, however, denies incarnation while still attributing physical features to Allah. This results in a theological impasse: an anthropomorphic deity who is simultaneously claimed to be beyond all human likeness.

Comparative Theological Reflection

  • Jewish Tradition: Rabbinic interpretation often treated anthropomorphic references in the Torah as metaphorical or symbolic, pointing to God’s actions rather than His physical form.

  • Christian Tradition: Anthropomorphisms find their fulfillment in Christ, who is the “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). Here, divine embodiment is not a contradiction but the core of the Incarnation.

  • Islamic Tradition: Islamic theology vacillates between literalism (bi-lā kayf) and metaphorical reinterpretation (ta’wΔ«l), leaving unresolved the inherent tension between transcendence and anthropomorphism.

Philosophical Analysis

From a philosophical standpoint, the problem can be framed as follows:

  • Premise 1: Allah claims absolute transcendence and dissimilarity.

  • Premise 2: Allah is described with human-like organs such as a shin.

  • Premise 3: Humans possess shins, hands, and faces.

  • Conclusion: Either Allah is not utterly unlike humans, or the Qur’an introduces contradictory statements.

The principle of non-contradiction (Aristotle, Metaphysics, IV.3) demands consistency. If Allah’s shin is literal, He shares features with creation. If figurative, then the Qur’an’s anthropomorphic language appears misleading or incoherent, especially when taken by literalist traditions.

Conclusion

The description of Allah as possessing a “shin” epitomizes the anthropomorphic dilemma within Islamic theology. While theologians have attempted to resolve the issue either through metaphorical interpretation or the doctrine of bi-lā kayf, the contradiction remains: if Allah is unlike humans, why attribute to Him organs that are distinctly human? Christianity resolves this tension through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, while Islam remains trapped in a paradox between transcendence and anthropomorphism. This inconsistency undermines the Islamic claim of a perfectly coherent doctrine of God.

References and Bibliography

Primary Sources

  • Qur’an 42:11, 55:27, 68:42, 11:37, 38:75

  • Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim – collections affirming Allah’s physical attributes.

Classical Tafsir

  • Al-Tabari, JāmiΚΏ al-Bayān ΚΏan TaΚΎwΔ«l Δ€y al-Qurʾān.

  • Ibn Kathir, TafsΔ«r al-Qur’ān al-ΚΏAαΊ“Δ«m.

  • Al-Qurtubi, Al-JāmiΚΏ li-AαΈ₯kām al-Qur’ān.

Secondary Literature

  • Wolfson, H. A. The Philosophy of the Kalam. Harvard University Press, 1976.

  • Watt, W. Montgomery. Islamic Philosophy and Theology. Edinburgh University Press, 1985.

  • Hoover, Jon. Ibn Taymiyya’s Theodicy of Perpetual Optimism. Brill, 2007.

  • Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext. Routledge, 2010.

  • Thomas, David. Christian Doctrines in Islamic Theology. Brill, 2008.


at No comments:

The Prohibition of Friendship with Non-Muslims in Islam: A Critical Examination of Qur’anic Teaching and Theological Implications

 Here’s a structured academic-style article draft expanded and arranged in a scholarly tone, as by Dr. Maxwell Shimba from Shimba Theological Institute, with references and bibliography in journal format:

The Prohibition of Friendship with Non-Muslims in Islam: A Critical Examination of Qur’anic Teaching and Theological Implications

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the most contentious issues in Christian-Muslim dialogue concerns the Qur’anic injunctions regarding relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, especially in the context of friendship, loyalty, and trust. Several Qur’anic passages explicitly warn Muslims not to take Christians, Jews, or other non-believers as awliya (friends, protectors, or allies). The exegetical and theological implications of these passages have historically shaped Islamic attitudes towards interfaith relations. This article critically examines these injunctions, their interpretations, and their moral implications, particularly in light of deception (taqiyya) and duplicity, which bear striking resemblance to what Scripture identifies as satanic qualities.

Qur’anic Injunctions Against Friendship with Non-Muslims

The Qur’an repeatedly instructs Muslims to avoid deep bonds of friendship and alliance with non-Muslims. For example:

  • “O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians as awliya (friends or allies). They are allies of each other. And whoever among you takes them as allies is surely one of them. Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.” (Qur’an 5:51, Sahih International).

  • “Let not the believers take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. And whoever does that has nothing to do with Allah, unless you guard yourselves against them cautiously (except by way of precaution).” (Qur’an 3:28, Sahih International).

The Arabic term awliya carries a range of meanings including “friends,” “protectors,” “patrons,” and “allies.” In classical tafsir (commentary), scholars such as Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari emphasized that these verses are prohibitive, warning Muslims against emotional or political loyalty to Jews, Christians, pagans, or other groups outside Islam.

The Principle of Deception (Taqiyya)

The Qur’an (3:28) introduces a notable clause—“unless you guard yourselves against them cautiously”—which has been interpreted by Muslim jurists as legitimizing deception under certain conditions. This doctrine, later developed as taqiyya, allows Muslims to conceal their true beliefs or intentions when under threat, or in situations where showing friendship to non-Muslims might serve protective or strategic purposes.

Thus, the Islamic teaching can be summarized as follows:

  1. Muslims are forbidden to take non-Muslims as sincere friends.

  2. If forced by circumstance, they may outwardly pretend friendliness while inwardly harboring rejection or even hostility.

  3. This duplicity is considered permissible as a safeguard for faith and community.

Such an approach not only discourages genuine interfaith trust but also promotes suspicion and hidden animosity.

The Satanic Characteristics of Deception

Theologically, this approach raises profound moral concerns. Christianity identifies deception, lying, and hatred as the very attributes of Satan. In John 8:44, Jesus describes Satan as “a liar and the father of lies.” Similarly, 2 Corinthians 11:14 warns that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, using deception as his primary weapon.

When Muslims are taught to conceal their true intentions, feign friendship, and harbor inward hostility, these behaviors echo what Scripture characterizes as satanic attributes:

  1. Deception – Satan deceived Eve in the Garden (Genesis 3:4–5).

  2. Duplicity – Satan masquerades as light while working evil (2 Corinthians 11:14).

  3. Hatred – Satan fosters enmity and discord among humanity (Ephesians 6:12).

Thus, the Qur’anic teaching that authorizes deception towards non-Muslims appears ethically and spiritually problematic, aligning with the properties of Satan rather than the God of truth and love revealed in Christ.

The Christian Contrast

In contrast, the Christian Scriptures command believers to love all people, including enemies: “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). The Apostle Paul exhorts believers to live peaceably with all (Romans 12:18) and to extend kindness and compassion universally (Ephesians 4:32).

Unlike the Qur’an, which allows hostility hidden beneath pretended friendship, the Bible calls for integrity, transparency, and sincerity in relationships. True friendship and genuine love are not contingent upon religious identity but flow from the nature of God Himself, who “so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son” (John 3:16).

Conclusion

The Qur’anic prohibition against befriending non-Muslims, coupled with the sanctioning of deception (taqiyya), raises serious ethical and theological challenges. It fosters division, distrust, and enmity, while aligning with traits Scripture attributes to Satan—deception, duplicity, and hatred. By contrast, the Gospel of Christ promotes universal love, honesty, and reconciliation. This divergence underscores the incompatibility between the Islamic doctrine of conditional, deceptive friendship and the Christian ethic of genuine love and truth.

References

  • Al-Tabari. Jami‘ al-Bayan fi Ta’wil al-Qur’an. Cairo: Dar al-Ma‘arif, 1968.

  • Ibn Kathir, Isma‘il ibn ‘Umar. Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 2000.

  • The Qur’an. Sahih International Translation. Riyadh: Dar-us-Salam, 1997.

  • The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV). Crossway Bibles, 2001.

  • Firestone, Reuven. Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

  • Cook, David. Understanding Jihad. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.

  • Geisler, Norman L., and Abdul Saleeb. Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.


at No comments:

The Prohibition of Friendship with Non-Muslims in Islam

The Prohibition of Friendship with Non-Muslims in Islam: A Critical Examination of Qur’anic Teaching and Theological Implications

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the most contentious issues in Christian-Muslim dialogue concerns the Qur’anic injunctions regarding relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, especially in the context of friendship, loyalty, and trust. Several Qur’anic passages explicitly warn Muslims not to take Christians, Jews, or other non-believers as awliya (friends, protectors, or allies). The exegetical and theological implications of these passages have historically shaped Islamic attitudes towards interfaith relations. This article critically examines these injunctions, their interpretations, and their moral implications, particularly in light of deception (taqiyya) and duplicity, which bear striking resemblance to what Scripture identifies as satanic qualities.

Qur’anic Injunctions Against Friendship with Non-Muslims

The Qur’an repeatedly instructs Muslims to avoid deep bonds of friendship and alliance with non-Muslims. For example:

  • “O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians as awliya (friends or allies). They are allies of each other. And whoever among you takes them as allies is surely one of them. Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.” (Qur’an 5:51).1

  • “Let not the believers take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. And whoever does that has nothing to do with Allah, unless you guard yourselves against them cautiously (except by way of precaution).” (Qur’an 3:28).2

The Arabic term awliya carries a range of meanings including “friends,” “protectors,” “patrons,” and “allies.” Classical exegetes such as Ibn Kathir emphasize that these verses are prohibitive, warning Muslims against political or emotional loyalty to Jews and Christians, while Al-Tabari underscores that taking them as protectors is tantamount to betraying Islamic faith itself.3

The Principle of Deception (Taqiyya)

The Qur’an (3:28) introduces a notable clause—“unless you guard yourselves against them cautiously”—which Muslim jurists have interpreted as legitimizing deception under certain circumstances. This doctrine, known as taqiyya, was historically systematized within Shi‘a Islam but also finds application among Sunnis in cases of necessity.4 It allows Muslims to conceal their true beliefs or intentions when under threat, or in situations where outward friendship with non-Muslims might serve protective or strategic purposes.5

Thus, the Islamic teaching can be summarized as follows:

  1. Muslims are forbidden to take non-Muslims as sincere friends.

  2. If forced by circumstance, they may outwardly pretend friendliness while inwardly harboring rejection or hostility.

  3. This duplicity is considered permissible as a safeguard for faith and community.

Such a framework not only discourages genuine interfaith trust but also normalizes suspicion and hidden animosity in religious encounters.

The Satanic Characteristics of Deception

Theologically, this teaching raises profound moral concerns. Christianity identifies deception, lying, and hatred as the very attributes of Satan. Jesus describes Satan as “a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44).6 The Apostle Paul similarly warns that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, using deception as his primary weapon (2 Corinthians 11:14).7

When Muslims are taught to conceal their true intentions, feign friendship, and harbor inward hostility, these behaviors echo what Scripture characterizes as satanic attributes:

  1. Deception – Satan deceived Eve in the Garden (Genesis 3:4–5).8

  2. Duplicity – Satan masquerades as light while working evil (2 Corinthians 11:14).7

  3. Hatred – Satan fosters enmity and discord among humanity (Ephesians 6:12).9

The Qur’anic teaching that authorizes deception towards non-Muslims therefore appears ethically and spiritually problematic, aligning with the properties of Satan rather than the God of truth and love revealed in Christ.

The Christian Contrast

In contrast, the Christian Scriptures command believers to love all people, including enemies: “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).10 The Apostle Paul exhorts Christians to live peaceably with all (Romans 12:18)11 and to extend kindness and compassion universally (Ephesians 4:32).12

Unlike the Qur’an, which permits hostility hidden beneath pretended friendship, the Bible calls for integrity, transparency, and sincerity in all relationships. True friendship and genuine love are not contingent upon religious identity but flow from the nature of God Himself, who “so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son” (John 3:16).13

Conclusion

The Qur’anic prohibition against befriending non-Muslims, coupled with the sanctioning of deception (taqiyya), raises serious ethical and theological concerns. It fosters division, distrust, and enmity, while embodying traits Scripture attributes to Satan—deception, duplicity, and hatred. By contrast, the Gospel of Christ promotes universal love, honesty, and reconciliation. This divergence underscores the incompatibility between the Islamic doctrine of conditional, deceptive friendship and the Christian ethic of genuine love and truth.

Bibliography

  • Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002).

Would you like me to format this in full Chicago/Turabian style (with shortened subsequent citations and full bibliographic entries at the end), or is this footnote + bibliography hybrid style good for your academic purposes?

Footnotes

  1. Qur’an 5:51, Sahih International Translation (Riyadh: Dar-us-Salam, 1997). ↩

  2. Qur’an 3:28, Sahih International Translation (Riyadh: Dar-us-Salam, 1997). ↩

  3. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 2000), vol. 2, 231; Al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan fi Ta’wil al-Qur’an (Cairo: Dar al-Ma‘arif, 1968), vol. 6, 289. ↩

  4. Reuven Firestone, Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 116–117. ↩

  5. David Cook, Understanding Jihad (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 56–57. ↩

  6. John 8:44, The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Crossway Bibles, 2001). ↩

  7. 2 Corinthians 11:14, ESV. ↩ ↩2

  8. Genesis 3:4–5, ESV. ↩

  9. Ephesians 6:12, ESV. ↩

  10. Matthew 5:44, ESV. ↩

  11. Romans 12:18, ESV. ↩

  12. Ephesians 4:32, ESV. ↩

  13. John 3:16, ESV. ↩

at No comments:

The Question of Salvation in Islam and Christianity

The Question of Salvation in Islam and Christianity

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

One of the most pressing theological issues between Islam and Christianity is the question of salvation and assurance of eternal life. The Qur’an itself acknowledges uncertainty in this matter, even concerning the Prophet Muhammad. In Surah al-Ahqaf (46:9), Muhammad declares:

“I am not something original among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which is revealed to me, and I am only a clear warner.”

This verse raises a critical point: Muhammad himself confessed ignorance of his ultimate destiny and that of his followers. From a doctrinal standpoint, this suggests that Islam does not guarantee salvation even to its founder, let alone to his adherents.

Further, the Qur’an explicitly states in Surah Maryam (19:71):

“There is none of you but will come to it [Hell]; this is upon your Lord an inevitability decreed.”

Islamic commentators have long debated whether this means that all Muslims will inevitably enter Hell, if only temporarily, before possibly being delivered. Yet the plain text offers no assurance of escape, highlighting a stark contrast with the Christian promise of eternal life.

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ declares with absolute authority:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).

Unlike Muhammad’s uncertainty, Christ provides an unambiguous assurance of salvation through His sacrificial death and resurrection. The Apostle John affirms:

“These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13).

Thus, the Christian Gospel offers not only the possibility but the certainty of eternal life for those who believe in Christ. Islam, by contrast, leaves its followers under the shadow of uncertainty and even warns of an inevitable encounter with Hell.

Conclusion

The Qur’an’s admission of Muhammad’s ignorance about salvation (Qur’an 46:9) and its universal warning of Hell for all people (Qur’an 19:71) stand in profound tension with the Christian doctrine of assurance in Christ. While Islam offers no guarantee of paradise, the Gospel of Jesus Christ promises forgiveness, reconciliation with God, and eternal life to all who believe in Him. Therefore, there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ.

πŸ“š References

  • The Qur’an, Surah al-Ahqaf 46:9; Surah Maryam 19:71.

  • The Holy Bible, John 14:6; 1 John 5:13.

  • Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim.

  • Al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan fi Ta’wil al-Qur’an.


at No comments:

If All Are Born Muslim, Why the Need for Religion and Prophets?

If All Are Born Muslim, Why the Need for Religion and Prophets?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

Islamic theology affirms that every human being is born a Muslim, naturally disposed to recognize and submit to Allah. This claim is grounded in the Qur’anic doctrine of fitrah (innate disposition), a belief that every child is born with an instinctive orientation toward monotheism. Yet this doctrine introduces serious theological and logical difficulties. If all humanity—including Adam—was already born in submission, what then is the need for religion, prophets, and revelation? The following study critically examines the coherence of Islam’s fitrah doctrine and contrasts it with the biblical doctrine of creation, fall, and redemption.

The Fitrah in the Qur’an

The Qur’an teaches that mankind is created in a state of natural submission:

“So set your face toward the religion, inclining to truth. [Adhere to] the fitrah of Allah upon which He has created [all] people. No change should there be in the creation of Allah. That is the correct religion, but most of the people do not know” (Qur’an 30:30).

Here, Islam asserts that submission to Allah is woven into human nature itself. Consequently, Adam is presumed to have been “born Muslim,” not by choice or revelation, but by creation. This implies that divine guidance is already embedded within man’s nature from birth.

The Redundancy of Prophets in Islam

If mankind is already born in a state of submission, the question arises: why the need for prophets and scriptures at all? Prophets are traditionally viewed as guides who recall mankind to truth. But if the fitrah is uncorrupted and sufficient, such guidance becomes redundant. On the other hand, if guidance is still required, this implies that the fitrah is inadequate to preserve submission.

This paradox undermines Islamic theology:

  • If the fitrah is sufficient, then the Qur’an, prophets, and Muhammad are unnecessary.

  • If the fitrah is insufficient, then the Qur’an contradicts itself by claiming all people are already born in submission.

Infants, Judgment, and the Problem of Salvation

The Islamic position leads to further inconsistency. If all infants are born Muslim by default, then they already fulfill the divine requirement without knowledge of Muhammad or the Qur’an. Islamic tradition often holds that children who die before maturity enter Paradise based on their fitrah. But this undermines the necessity of Islam’s religious system, since revelation is not required for their salvation. If salvation is attainable without prophetic revelation for infants, why not for all humanity?

This exposes a deep theological dilemma: either revelation is essential for salvation, in which case the fitrah doctrine collapses, or revelation is non-essential, rendering Muhammad and the Qur’an unnecessary.

The Biblical View: Creation, Fall, and Redemption

Christianity presents a more coherent account of humanity’s condition. The Bible teaches that Adam was indeed created in fellowship with God but fell into sin through disobedience (Genesis 3). This fall disrupted man’s natural communion with God, introducing death and alienation. Unlike the Islamic doctrine of fitrah, the Bible affirms that mankind is not born in unbroken submission but in a fallen state (Romans 5:12; Psalm 51:5).

Therefore, prophets in Scripture do not merely remind humanity of an innate submission but reveal God’s redemptive plan. This plan culminates in Jesus Christ, who restores mankind to fellowship with God through His death and resurrection (Romans 5:18–19; 1 Corinthians 15:22). Christianity thus explains both the need for revelation and the necessity of salvation in a way that is logically consistent and theologically complete.

The Necessity of Christ

Where Islam struggles with the redundancy of prophets under the fitrah doctrine, Christianity maintains coherence in affirming the necessity of Christ. Humanity is not simply misled but fallen. Thus, a mere reminder is insufficient; restoration requires atonement. Jesus fulfills this role uniquely—performing miracles, revealing God perfectly, dying for sin, and rising again (John 11:25; Hebrews 9:26–28). Unlike Muhammad, whose role is limited to instruction, Jesus provides actual redemption.

Scholarly Implications

The doctrine of fitrah reveals a structural weakness in Islamic apologetics. By claiming that all people are born Muslim, Islam undercuts its own need for prophets and scripture. The Qur’an and Muhammad’s mission become either redundant or contradictory. Christianity, however, avoids this problem by offering a coherent anthropology: man was created good, fell into sin, and requires redemption through Christ. This framework accounts for both the necessity of revelation and the uniqueness of salvation history.

From an academic standpoint, this paradox within Islam underscores the superiority of the biblical worldview. Islam attempts to explain the human condition through innate submission, but the reality of sin, moral corruption, and the universal need for redemption point toward the Christian gospel as the only consistent answer. Thus, while Islam’s doctrine of fitrah falters under scrutiny, the Christian narrative demonstrates theological integrity, historical grounding, and salvific necessity.


at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

TRENDING NOW