Max Shimba Ministries

Thursday, January 1, 2026

Provocative Questions on Adam’s Wife and the Quran’s Omissions

Why does the Quran never mention the name of Adam’s wife, while the Bible clearly names her Eve? If it claims to affirm previous scriptures, isn’t this a glaring omission?
If the Quran claims to be a complete and detailed revelation that supersedes prior books, why leave out the name of one of the first humans, the very mother of humanity?
Does the omission of Adam’s wife’s name suggest selective storytelling, rather than the perfect, complete knowledge that Allah claims to convey?
How can the Quran claim to confirm the Torah and the Gospel while leaving out such a foundational detail known to all earlier revelations?
If Allah is omniscient and every detail of creation is under His knowledge, why leave such a critical figure nameless?
Could the absence of Adam’s wife’s name indicate a theological or ideological motive, rather than historical accuracy?
If Muhammad were a perfect messenger conveying God’s knowledge, why omit a universally known fact from the prior scriptures?
Does this omission reflect a lack of concern for genealogy and human history, which are otherwise detailed in both the Bible and other historical accounts?
If the Quran is meant to guide humanity perfectly, how can it leave a major character in the origin story undefined?
Could the Quran’s omission of Eve’s name undermine its claim of being a faithful continuation of the Torah and Gospel?
Why provide details about Adam but completely erase his wife’s identity? Is this consistent with divine justice and omniscience?
If the Quran claims to be a book of clarity and guidance, why deliberately omit such a basic, well-known fact?
Does the lack of her name suggest that the Quran was written without full knowledge of the prior scriptures?
How does the Quran’s silence on Adam’s wife reconcile with the Biblical account that emphasizes her role in the Fall?
If Allah intended to preserve the truth of previous scriptures, why change or erase this specific historical fact?
Could the omission reflect a broader pattern of vagueness in the Quran when it comes to women’s roles and identities?
If the Quran truly supersedes prior books, why not give Adam’s wife the recognition she receives in the Bible?
Does the Quran omit her name to make the story more abstract and less tied to human history?
If the Quran is infallible, why leave such a universally known fact about the origins of humanity ambiguous?
Could this omission be evidence that Muhammad or the early compilers relied on oral traditions rather than direct divine revelation?
Why mention Adam in detail but leave the mother of all humans nameless? Is this consistent with a God who values every human life?
If the Quran is meant to be the ultimate guide for humanity, how can it omit such a critical figure without creating confusion or incomplete understanding?
Why does Allah’s revelation in the Quran provide exhaustive details about some events but intentionally leaves out basic, universally known facts from creation history?
Does the Quran’s silence on Eve’s name suggest a selective editing process influenced by cultural, social, or political factors in 7th-century Arabia?
How can the Quran claim divine perfection when such a glaring omission exists, one that any careful reader of the prior scriptures would immediately notice?

The Qur’an, the Ten Commandments, and the Failed Claim of Biblical Verification

An Academic and Theological Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

The Qur’an repeatedly claims to confirm, verify, and affirm the earlier Scriptures—the Torah and the Gospel (e.g., Qur’an 2:41; 3:3; 5:46–48). However, a critical examination of Qur’anic content reveals a profound theological and structural disjunction between the Qur’an and the Bible. One of the clearest demonstrations of this failure is the Qur’an’s inability to present the Ten Commandments—the very heart of Mosaic covenant theology—in their chronological, covenantal, and theological form as found in the Hebrew Bible. This article argues that the Qur’an neither preserves nor accurately reflects the Decalogue, thereby undermining its own claim of scriptural verification.

1. The Centrality of the Ten Commandments in Biblical Theology

In biblical theology, the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21) are not merely moral suggestions. They are:

Directly spoken by God (Exod. 20:1)
Covenantal in nature (“I am the LORD your God…”)
Chronologically ordered
Universally binding within the Mosaic covenant
The foundation of Israel’s law, ethics, worship, and identity

The Decalogue begins with the self-revelation of Yahweh and grounds morality in God’s redemptive act (“who brought you out of Egypt”). Ethics flow from redemption—not from abstract moralism.

Any text claiming to affirm the Torah must preserve this structure, theology, and content.

2. The Qur’an’s Claim of Scriptural Verification (Taṣdīq)

The Qur’an states:

“He sent down the Torah and the Gospel previously, as guidance for mankind” (Qur’an 3:3)
“Confirming what was before it” (Qur’an 2:41)
“Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein” (Qur’an 5:47)

These verses presuppose:

The existence of authentic Torah and Gospel texts
Their authority
Their theological continuity with the Qur’an

Yet the Qur’an simultaneously fails to reproduce the most fundamental legal and theological core of the Torah: the Ten Commandments.

3. The Absence of the Ten Commandments in the Qur’an

3.1 No Complete, Chronological Decalogue

Nowhere in the Qur’an is there:

A single, unified list of Ten Commandments
A chronological structure
A covenantal introduction (“I am the LORD your God…”)
A Sinai narrative where God directly speaks the commandments as in Exodus

Muslim apologists often cite Qur’an 6:151–153 or 17:22–39 as “Islamic Ten Commandments.” This claim collapses under scholarly scrutiny.

These passages:

Are fragmented moral injunctions
Lack covenantal framing
Are not numbered
Are not presented as a divine covenant
Mix moral, social, and ritual commands inconsistently

They are not the Decalogue.

3.2 Loss of Covenant Theology

The biblical Ten Commandments are rooted in relationship:

“I am the LORD your God…”

The Qur’an replaces covenant with submission to absolute will. Allah never enters a redemptive covenant with Israel in the Qur’anic narrative; instead, Israel is portrayed primarily as disobedient, corrupted, and rejected.

Thus, the ethical framework shifts from grace-based obedience to law-based submission.

This is a theological rupture, not a continuation.

4. Contradictions Between Qur’anic Ethics and the Decalogue

Several core commandments are altered or diluted:

Biblical Commandment	Biblical Emphasis	Qur’anic Treatment
No other gods	Exclusive covenant	Tawḥīd without covenant
No graven images	Absolute prohibition	Inconsistent application
Sabbath	Covenant sign	Completely absent
God as Father	Relational	Explicitly denied (Qur’an 5:18; 112:3)

A text that denies God’s Fatherhood cannot affirm Mosaic or Christian theology.

5. The Qur’an’s Internal Contradiction

The Qur’an faces an irreconcilable dilemma:

If the Torah and Gospel were true and authoritative, then the Qur’an contradicts them.
If they were corrupted, then the Qur’an falsely claims to confirm them.

Both positions cannot be simultaneously true.

This creates a self-refuting epistemology.

6. Theological Implications

The absence of the Ten Commandments in their biblical form demonstrates that:

The Qur’an does not preserve Mosaic revelation
Qur’anic ethics are derivative and selective
Qur’anic “confirmation” is rhetorical, not textual
Islam presents a different God, a different covenant, and a different moral foundation

Thus, Islam is not a continuation of biblical faith but a theological reconfiguration detached from biblical history.

7. Conclusion

The Ten Commandments are the spine of biblical revelation. Any scripture claiming to affirm the Bible must preserve them in content, structure, and theology. The Qur’an does none of these.

Therefore, the Qur’anic claim to verify or confirm the Bible is historically, theologically, and textually indefensible.

The Qur’an does not affirm the Bible; it replaces it, revises it, and contradicts it.

This failure exposes the Qur’an’s claim of divine continuity as a theological assertion unsupported by evidence.

Author

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Founder & President, Shimba Theological Institute
Bible Scholar | Theologian | Restorative Justice Advocate

Provocative Core Question (Primary Version)

Where is the Sahih Hadith in which Muhammad explicitly declares that Paul the Apostle was a false Nabi (prophet) and a false Rasul (messenger)?

If Islam claims doctrinal continuity with the Gospel and insists that Paul corrupted the message of Jesus, then this accusation must be grounded in authentic, early Islamic sources—not later polemics.

So I ask Muslims plainly:

Produce one Sahih Hadith—Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, or Ibn Majah—where Muhammad names Paul and condemns him as a false prophet or messenger.

If such a Hadith exists and meets the standards of Sahih authentication, I will publicly embrace Islam.

If it does not exist, then the claim that Paul falsified Christianity is a later theological invention, not a prophetic declaration.

More Aggressive / Confrontational Version

Muslims frequently claim that Paul corrupted the teachings of Jesus, yet Muhammad himself is completely silent about Paul.

So here is my challenge:

Show me a single Sahih Hadith where Muhammad identifies Paul by name and declares him a false prophet, a false messenger, or a corruptor of Jesus’ Gospel.

No blogs.
No YouTube imams.
No modern scholars.
No weak (da‘if) narrations.

Only Sahih Hadith.

If Muhammad never condemned Paul, then who gave Muslims the authority to do so—Allah or later theologians?

Academic / Scholarly Version

Islam claims to affirm the Gospel (Injil) while rejecting Pauline Christianity. However, such a rejection demands primary-source evidence from Muhammad himself.

Therefore, the question is simple and methodological:

Where in the Sahih Hadith corpus does Muhammad:
- Name Paul the Apostle?
- Accuse him of falsifying the message of Jesus?
- Declare him a false Nabi or Rasul?
If no such Hadith exists:
- On what epistemological basis does Islam reject Paul?
- How can Islam claim to “confirm” the Gospel (Qur’an 5:46–48) while rejecting its chief first-century interpreter?

Silence in Sahih Hadith is not evidence—it is a theological vacuum.

Logical Trap Version (Short & Sharp)

If Paul corrupted Christianity, Muhammad—Allah’s final messenger—should have said so.

So:

Where is the Sahih Hadith where Muhammad condemns Paul?

If none exists, then:

Either Paul was not a corrupter
Or Muhammad failed to warn the world

Which one is Islam willing to admit?

Debate-Ready One-Liners

“No Sahih Hadith against Paul = no Islamic authority to reject Paul.”
“If Paul was the greatest corrupter of Jesus, why did Muhammad never mention him?”
“Islam rejects Paul without prophetic evidence—only post-Qur’anic opinion.”
“Silence from Muhammad is louder than modern Muslim accusations.”

Closing Provocation (Optional)

Until Muslims produce a Sahih Hadith where Muhammad condemns Paul, the rejection of Pauline Christianity remains un-Islamic, un-prophetic, and historically unsupported.

Moderate Islam: The Most Successful Public Relations Campaign in Religious History

A Historical and Theological Provocation
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction: A Performance the World Is Expected to Believe

The modern world is asked—no, pressured—to believe in a carefully staged drama: radical Muslims are the villains, moderate Muslims are the saviors, and Western society must applaud the distinction without asking uncomfortable questions. This performance is repeated after every act of Islamic violence. Blood dries, cameras roll, and familiar lines are delivered: “That’s not real Islam.”

But history is not persuaded by slogans, and theology does not bow to public relations.

1. A Distinction Unknown to Classical Islam

There is no historical precedent in classical Islam for the radical–moderate divide. Islamic jurisprudence does not recognize “extremism” as deviation when actions are rooted in Qur’an, Hadith, and the example of Muhammad. The earliest Muslims—those closest to Islam’s founder—expanded by conquest, enforced submission, and legislated religious hierarchy without apology.

To call this “radical” today is to accuse early Islam itself of extremism—an accusation no orthodox Muslim would dare affirm.

Thus, the modern distinction is not theological. It is political camouflage.

2. Condemning Violence While Defending the Texts That Command It

The so-called moderate Muslim occupies a peculiar position: condemning violent outcomes while refusing to confront violent sources. Qur’anic passages advocating warfare, subjugation, and supremacy are neither revoked nor authoritatively reinterpreted. Instead, critics are accused of “misunderstanding context,” a context that somehow never seems to invalidate the text.

This creates a moral paradox: violence is rejected in practice but preserved in principle.

History teaches us that ideas preserved in principle eventually return in practice.

3. The Strategic Silence of Moderation

Moderate Islam is loud in condemnation and silent in reform. It speaks fluently to Western media but hesitates before its own mosques, scholars, and jurists. Public outrage is carefully calibrated; doctrinal clarity is endlessly postponed.

Why? Because confronting the foundations risks unraveling the entire structure.

Christianity survived reform because its center is Christ, not conquest. Islam, built upon the prophetic authority of Muhammad as both religious and military leader, cannot reform without reexamining its core.

Moderation, therefore, becomes delay, not transformation.

4. Institutional Infiltration Without Theological Transparency

Across Western democracies, Muslims identified as “moderate” occupy positions of influence—politics, military, academia, media, and human rights organizations. This in itself is not a crime; pluralism allows participation. The concern arises when loyalty is demanded outwardly but ambiguity is maintained inwardly.

When questioned about Sharia, apostasy laws, blasphemy, or Islamic governance, answers become evasive, conditional, or deferred. The problem is not participation—it is duplicity.

A worldview that cannot speak plainly about its end goals is not misunderstood; it is strategic.

5. Why Radicals Are Theologically Honest

Radical Islam, for all its brutality, possesses a dangerous clarity. It reads the texts plainly, follows classical jurists faithfully, and proclaims its objectives openly. This is precisely why it terrifies—and why it exposes the fiction of moderation.

Radicals are not theological rebels; they are literalists.

Moderates, by contrast, benefit from the radicals’ actions while disowning them rhetorically, allowing the system to advance without accountability.

6. Christianity’s Uncomfortable Advantage: Truthfulness

Christian theology places God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ, whose kingdom is not advanced by the sword, whose disciples are forbidden from coercion, and whose truth survives scrutiny. Christianity does not fear examination because its center is moral consistency.

Islam fears scrutiny because its foundations are inseparable from power.

Conclusion: Enough Theater

The radical–moderate narrative is no longer convincing to serious historians, theologians, or informed observers. It is a damage-control strategy, not a doctrinal reality.

The question facing the modern world is not whether Muslims are peaceful or violent as individuals, but whether Islam as a system can exist without deception, coercion, or supremacy.

Until that question is answered honestly, moderation will remain what it has always been: a mask worn in public and removed in private.

Truth does not require acting lessons. It requires courage.

About the Author

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Founder and President, Shimba Theological Institute
Bible Scholar | Christian Apologist | Historian of Religion | Advocate of Truth-Centered Dialogue

Rewritten Primary Question (Qur’an-Only Challenge)

Where in the Qur’an does Allah explicitly declare that Apostle Paul was a false Nabī (prophet) or Rasūl (messenger), or that he corrupted the Injīl (Gospel) or the earlier Scriptures?
I am requesting evidence from the Qur’an alone—not Hadith, Tafsir, Sīrah, or later Islamic tradition.
If Muslims can produce a single explicit Qur’anic verse stating that Paul was a false messenger or that he altered the Biblical text, I am prepared to accept Islam.
If no such Qur’anic evidence exists, then the accusation that Paul corrupted Christianity is itself un-Qur’anic, theologically baseless, and contrary to Allah’s own testimony regarding the previous Scriptures.

Concluding Challenge Statement

Until Muslims can present explicit Qur’anic evidence that Apostle Paul was a false messenger or that he corrupted the Gospel, such claims remain theological innovations, not Qur’anic doctrine.
A faith that claims to restore truth must first remain faithful to its own Scripture.

ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF UNBELIEVERS

ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF UNBELIEVERS

So it turns out that unbelievers are Muslims
So it turns out that Allah is an unbeliever
So it turns out that Muhammad is an unbeliever

Dear reader,

There is no dispute in this matter, that the religion which proves that they are unbelievers is Islam itself.

What Does the Word Kafir Mean?

The word kafir comes from the word kafara, meaning to oppose God, to conceal, to reject, or to blaspheme. Therefore, a kafir is a person, or a being, or a spirit, or an angel, or gods who blaspheme, reject, or deny.

ALLAH IS WRITTEN “KAFIR” BETWEEN HIS EYES

The hadith of Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) says that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
“There is no Prophet who was sent except that he warned his people about the one-eyed liar. Understand that he has one eye, and indeed your Lord does not have one eye; between his eyes is written the word ‘KAFIR.’” (Bukhari, Hadith No. 245, Volume 9).

Already Muslims are shocked after reading that, so it turns out that Allah has a SEAL between his eyes saying that he is a KAFIR.

EVIDENCE OF OPPOSING GOD IN ISLAM

The Shahada: LA ILAHA ILLALLAH Muhammadur Rasulullah, Qur’an 3:18, and also read here (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 725).

There is no god except Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. This is the Shahada that Muslims recite, or that a person who wants to become a Muslim recites.

This Shahada in Surah Al-Imran states that there is no god except Allah. This is a trap that the Devil uses for Muslims, and they deny the existence or the presence of God. Furthermore, Muslims deny and/or conceal the truth that Jesus is God.

Therefore, according to the conclusive testimony above of the SHAHADA LA ILAHA ILLALLAH Muhammadur Rasulullah and the meaning of the word kafir, today we have learned that the Allah of the Muslims, his prophet, and all Muslims oppose the existence of God and succeed in becoming UNBELIEVERS according to the meaning of kafir in Islam.

Let me put the meaning of that SHAHADA word by word:

The four words “lâ ilâha illâ allâh” mean as follows:

lâ = NO, not, none, neither
ilâha = GOD, a god, deity, object of worship
illâ = EXCEPT, but (illâ is a contraction of in-lâ, literally “if not”)
allâh = ALLAH, allâh

As we have read above the meaning of those four words, you will discover that the word ILAHA means GOD, and the word ALLAH has no translation and remains ALLAH (verify through Al-Tafsir, the Tafsir Department of the Government of Saudi Arabia / http://www.altafsir.com/).

That is the trap itself. Remember Allah has no one to be likened to or compared with. Therefore, to liken Allah to the god of Buddha, or the god of Rastafari, or the god of the Bantu is BLASPHEMY. Allah himself says that he has no equal nor comparison. So then, Allah is not God.

Allah says:

لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ البَصِيرُ

“There is nothing like Him. And He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.”

Ash-Shuuraa – 11

Therefore, Allah is an unbeliever. Muhammad is an unbeliever, and all Muslims are unbelievers because all of them deny the existence of God by reciting the Shahada.

Let us read the Bible and see what it says about a person who says there is no God:

The Bible says: Psalm 14:1; “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.”

You have already received the answer about anyone (and/or any being whatsoever) who says there is no God.

Today we have learned from Islam that UNBELIEVERS are MUSLIMS and not Christians who acknowledge God.

May God bless you very much,

Welcome to Jesus who is alive and the Great God,
May God bless you very much,
In His Service,

Max Shimba Ministries Org.

MAX SHIMBA MINISTRIES ORG ©2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
AlTafsir.com – Tafseer Holy Quran from all Tafseer Schools, Quran Translations, Quran…
AlTafsir.com – Tafseer Holy Quran from all Tafseer Schools, Quran Translations, Quran Recitations, Quran Interpretation (Tafseer), Quran Syntax, Quran Asbab…
ALTAFSIR.COM | BY INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY GROUP – ITG

Allah Has One Eye — So Allah Is an Infidel

Allah Has One Eye — So Allah Is an Infidel

The hadith of Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) says that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

“There is no prophet who was sent except that he warned his people about the one-eyed god. Understand! He has one eye, and indeed your Lord does not have one eye. Between his eyes is written the word Kafir (Infidel).”
(Bukhari, Hadith No. 245, Volume 9)

Today I have now understood why Muslims always oppose the belief that Jesus is God. It is because Jesus came having both eyes, whereas their god Allah has only one eye, and in the place of the other eye is written the word Kafir.

Muslims will never accept Jesus as God until the day they see someone come with only one eye—then they will accept him.

O Muslim, stop struggling and relying on a being who has only one eye. Come to Jesus, the great God, who has both eyes and who is able to see everywhere—even into the hearts and minds of people. Abandon that one-eyed one, because he cannot see far, and that is why he could not even raise the dead or perform miracles.

Shalom
Max Shimba Ministries Org
www.maxshimbaministries.org
June 22, 2014

IN THE QURAN, CHRISTIANS ARE NOT CALLED INFIDELS (KAFIR)

IN THE QURAN, CHRISTIANS ARE NOT CALLED INFIDELS (KAFIR)

Who are the infidels (kafiri)?
Do you know who the first infidels were?

The word kafiri is a word that is found in the Holy Bible even before Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, was born, before Islam existed, and before Muhammad or the Quran were written by the four Arabs. The word kafiri exists in the Bible with a simple meaning; Muslims found it already being used by those who used the Holy Bible.

In the Quran, I have not seen Christians being called INFIDELS (MAKAFIRI). Rather, the entire Quran calls Christians God-fearing people and scholars. Surat Al-Maidah 5:82.

To prove that the word KAFIRI is found in the Bible, let us look at a few verses in the Bible.

EZEKIEL 34:28–31
These verses are God Himself assuring the children of Israel that they will not be captives of the INFIDELS, thus showing that the word was used even before Islam existed.

NEHEMIAH 5:8–9
NEHEMIAH 5:17
NEHEMIAH 6:16
LAMENTATIONS 1:3
LAMENTATIONS 1:10
LAMENTATIONS 5:2
1 TIMOTHY 1:8–11
JUDE 1:4
1 JOHN 4:1–6

These words were spoken before Muhammad was born, before the Quran was written by the four Arabs—namely Sayyidina Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali—and before Islam existed.

LET US SEE HOW THE WORD KAFIRI IS USED

The word KAFIRI is an Arabic word meaning opposer in Swahili.

That is, one who opposes the words of Almighty God. This word existed in the Bible, as we have seen in some of the verses above.

For there to be an opposing statement (kafiri), there must first be a preceding statement. Therefore, the statement that comes later in opposition is called, in Arabic, KAFIRI.

Muslims are often heard saying, “These INFIDELS are troubling us,” or “let us stop them,” or “let these INFIDELS be beaten,” and these statements are directed at us CHRISTIANS.

COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS

Between CHRISTIANS and MUSLIMS, who are the INFIDELS (MAKAFIRI)?
Between the CHRISTIAN FAITH and the ISLAMIC RELIGION, which one existed first on earth?
Between JESUS and MUHAMMAD, who opposed the earlier statement of the other?

A BRIEF HISTORY BETWEEN JESUS AND MUHAMMAD

Lord Jesus is the founder of the Christian faith.
Hebrews 12:2

This is the year 2022 since the Lord Jesus ascended to heaven, and it is the year 1436 in the Islamic calendar. I am writing this lesson about KAFIRI because Muhammad was born in the year 570 and is the founder of the Islamic religion after Jesus.

This proves that Jesus existed on earth before Muhammad—no one disputes this.

Therefore, the statements of Jesus are the preceding statements, and the statements of the Christian faith are the preceding statements.

The statements of Muhammad and Muslims are therefore statements of opposition.

John 9:35–38
The statement that He is the Son of God was spoken by Jesus Himself in the verses above.

That is a preceding statement. If a statement is later found saying that Jesus is not the Son of God, that is a statement of opposition—meaning it is KAFIRI.

WHO FIRST SAID THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD?

Luke 1:26–35
According to the verses above, no human being first declared that Jesus is the Son of God. Rather, it was God Himself, through the angel Gabriel who was sent, who said that Jesus is the Son of God.

Matthew 3:13–17
Matthew 17:1–15

This is a preceding statement that came from God Himself declaring that JESUS IS HIS SON, before Muhammad was born, before the Quran was written, and before Islam was established, since Islam began in the year 610.

This is a preceding statement from God. If a statement is then found from our Muslim brothers saying that Jesus is not the Son of God, that person is an opposer—in Arabic, a KAFIRI.

WHO WAS THE FIRST KAFIRI?

When God created all things, He then created man and gave him instructions.

GENESIS 2:16–17
This is a preceding statement of Almighty God. Whoever opposes this statement is an opposer—that is, a KAFIRI.

Let us see whose statement opposed the preceding statement of God.

GENESIS 3:1–4
God said, “If you eat the fruit, you will surely die.” Then the serpent, Satan, Iblis, came and said, “YOU WILL NOT SURELY DIE.” This is a statement of opposition—this one is a KAFIRI.

Therefore, if you hear someone saying that Jesus is not the Son of God, that person is a KAFIRI.

WHAT DOES THE QURAN SAY?

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 statement of the Quran is strange. Does it mean that for God to have a child He must have a wife? This is a physical, human way of thinking. Thus, the Quran opposes the first statement which says that we are children of God—not physically nor by blood, but that all who received Him were made children of God.

But the Word of God says:

1 JOHN 3:10
“In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil also.”

The verse is clear: if you deny that you are a child of God, then you have a father—because the devil also has children.

In the authentic Hadith book Sahih Muslim, Volume 4, the wives of Muhammad—Khadijah, Zainab, and Salama—are all called “Ummul Mu’minin,” meaning MOTHERS OF THE BELIEVERS. Does this mean that all Muslims are obligated to call Muhammad’s wives their mothers?

COMPREHENSION QUESTION:
By calling the wives of Muhammad their mothers, does it mean that they actually gave birth to all Muslims?

Christianity existed on earth before Islam. Therefore, the statements of Islam oppose the preceding statements of Christianity—meaning, in Arabic, opposers (KAFIRI).

THEREFORE, MUSLIMS, ALLAH, MUHAMMAD, AND JIBRIL ARE INFIDELS (MAKAFIRI).

Reflect and take action.

Be greatly blessed.

Dr. Max Shimba
for Max Shimba Ministries

THE GREAT CHARACTERISTIC OF A KAFIR IS DENYING THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD

THE GREAT CHARACTERISTIC OF A KAFIR IS DENYING THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD

KAFIR IS NOT AN INSULT BUT SIMPLY A NAME THAT MEANS AN OPPONENT OF FAITH OR RELIGION, OR ONE WHO GOES AGAINST THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD THAT EXISTED BEFORE THE QURAN.

THEREFORE, MUSLIMS ARE KAFIRS BECAUSE THEY DENY THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD.

SHALOM AGAIN,

Once again, we thank Jehovah God for granting us this grace once more so that we may bring this message of the Bible and its truths to you concerning the characteristics of a Kafir. Many people do not know who a Kafir is or what the characteristics of a Kafir are.

Many people hate, and others even fight, simply because they have been called a kafir.

Many follow the crowd blindly without knowing the real meaning of the word Kafir. After looking it up on Wikipedia, you will find that the word Kaffir is an Arabic word meaning “non-believer,” that is, an unbeliever/opponent or protester against a certain religion or faith. Furthermore, it is explained in the Qur’an that a Kafir is a person who blasphemes and/or opposes the words of the Almighty God.

The Bible, which existed 632 years before the Qur’an was written and before the birth of Muhammad, tells us that Jesus is the Son of God.

Therefore, according to the testimony of the word KAFIR meaning an opponent of a certain faith or religion, anyone who comes after these verses of Luke 1:30–35 THAT CONFESS THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD MUST BE A KAFIR, because he opposes the words of Jehovah the Almighty God who created everything, spoken 632 years before the Qur’an. Allah knew that Jesus was called the Son of God and said nothing for 632 years. But after the birth of Muhammad, Allah opposes the words of Jehovah in the Bible that Jesus is the Son of God. THIS CHARACTER OF OPPOSING WHAT EXISTED BEFORE IS ONE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A KAFIR. ALLAH AND MUSLIMS HAVE SUCCEEDED IN TAKING ON THIS CHARACTERISTIC OF A KAFIR.

Let us first read that verse where Jesus is called the Son of God.

JESUS CHRIST: HE IS THE SON OF GOD.
Luke 1:30–31, 35

“And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus.’
The angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore also that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.’”

You have read for yourself that the Child who was prophesied to be born would be called the Son of God. Strangely enough, Allah did not oppose this. I wonder why these Muslims claim that Allah is Jehovah, while it is known that Jehovah calls Jesus the Son of God.

Now after reading the Bible, I decided to open the Qur’an which came later—meaning nearly 632 years after the Bible existed. Let us read the Qur’an:

Now Muslims say that Isa is Jesus and that He was not the Son of God:

ISA A.S.: HE IS NOT GOD MADE FLESH.

Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:72–73

“They have certainly disbelieved who say, ‘Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary,’ while the Messiah said, ‘O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’ Indeed, he who associates others with Allah—Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.
They have certainly disbelieved who say, ‘Allah is the third of three.’ And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.”

Qur’an, Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:75:

“The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger. Messengers passed away before him. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how We make the signs clear to them; then see how they are deluded.”

So, Isa bin Maryam is nothing and is turned away. Are there any other verses in the Qur’an that call other prophets “nothing” and say they are turned away? Furthermore, WHY DID ALLAH OPPOSE THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD WHILE KNOWING THAT JEHOVAH, WHO IS THE ALMIGHTY GOD, HAD ALREADY CALLED JESUS THE SON OF GOD 632 YEARS BEFORE ALLAH REVEALED THE QUR’AN? WHERE WAS THIS ALLAH ALL THESE YEARS? Truly, a kafir is just a kafir.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN 4:1–6

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: 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. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and now is already in the world. You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world; therefore they speak of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

First: The Bible teaches us that the Antichrist is the one WHO DENIES THAT JESUS CHRIST HAS COME IN THE FLESH—that is, that He is the Son of God. Read (2 John 1:7). And here we see that Muslims are number one in denying this. So then, who is the Antichrist if not you Muslims? Moreover, you still insist that JESUS IS NOT THE CHRIST, claiming that this Christ belongs to Paul, and there also the Bible confirms to us that you Muslims are indeed the Antichrists—see and confirm for yourself in (1 John 2:22).

I REPEAT AGAIN THAT KAFIR IS NOT AN INSULT BUT SIMPLY A NAME MEANING AN OPPONENT OF FAITH OR RELIGION, OR ONE WHO GOES AGAINST THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD THAT EXISTED BEFORE THE QURAN.

IT IS LIKE CALLING SOMEONE A DEVOUT PERSON, AN ADULTERER, OR A FOOTBALL PLAYER—IT IS A NAME THAT DESCRIBES A CERTAIN CHARACTERISTIC. NOW THE CHARACTERISTIC OF MUSLIMS WHO DENY THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD IS THAT THEY ARE KAFIRS.

I extend my condolences to those who deny that Jesus is the Son of God, because now we recognize them as kafirs.

May God continue to teach us His truth.

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

MUHAMMAD’S PARENTS WERE UNBELIEVERS, AND THEY DIED AS UNBELIEVERS

MUHAMMAD’S PARENTS WERE UNBELIEVERS, AND THEY DIED AS UNBELIEVERS

Dear reader,

SO IT TURNS OUT THAT THE MOTHER OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD DIED AN UNBELIEVER

Amina, the mother of Muhammad, died an unbeliever. We read:

Narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
“I sought permission from my Lord to ask forgiveness for my mother, but He did not grant me permission. And I sought His permission to visit her grave, and He granted me permission.” (Muslim)

It is explained in the book ‘Awn al-Ma’abuud:

“His statement (Muhammad) ‘but He did not grant me permission’ means that (his mother) was an unbeliever, and it is not permissible to ask forgiveness for an unbeliever.”

This is another calamity for Muslims. Both of Muhammad’s parents died with very great sins, and while they were UNBELIEVERS.

Why did this Allah hate the parents of Muhammad so much?

Do you know that Muhammad’s father also died while he was an UNBELIEVER and is in Hell?

Indeed, there are very strange things in Islam.

BUT WE DO NOT READ THAT THE MOTHER OF JESUS DIED WITH SIN.
MUHAMMAD ADMITS THAT HIS FATHER IS IN HELL

This is a VERY GREAT CALAMITY for Muslims. Muhammad, whose father was called Abdullah, meaning “servant of Allah,” it has been confirmed that he is in Hell/fire, burning.
These are not my words, nor am I accusing Muhammad’s father; rather, these are the words of Muhammad himself.

Read the proof here.

It was reported by Anas: Indeed, a man said: O Messenger of Allah, where is my father? He said: He is in the Fire. When he turned to leave, he called him back and said: Indeed, my father and your father are in the Fire. (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0398).

And the question we would like Muslims to ask themselves is this: why was Muhammad’s father, who was a pagan, called ‘Abdullah’?

And since ‘Abdullah’ means ‘servant of Allah,’ this is clear evidence that the pagans of the period of ignorance (Jahiliyyah) were worshiping Allah to the extent of giving their children names in honor of Allah—just as the Jews also gave their children names in honor of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

For example:
Joshua – Yahweh is salvation;
Jotham – Yahweh is perfect;
Jehoahaz – Yahweh has held;
Hezekiah – Yahweh has strengthened;
Elisha – God is salvation, etc.

The answer is clear. Allah was a pagan god worshiped before Islam came. And this god was a ‘moon god,’ that is ‘al-ilah.’ Another of his names was ‘Hubal.’ This pagan god was worshiped throughout the Middle East, not only by the Arabs.

FURTHERMORE,

Why does Muhammad admit that his father is in Hell?
Where did this Abdullah/Abdallah get this name that contains Allah?
Does it mean that Allah, who is a pagan god, existed before Muhammad?

And that is why Muhammad’s father, Abdullah, narrowly escaped being sacrificed by Muhammad’s grandfather, Abdul Muttalib. Abdul Muttalib wanted to sacrifice his son as an offering to Allah. But Abdullah’s uncle rescued him, and eventually 100 camels were sacrificed instead. And it should be known that these sacrifices took place at the Kaaba (we will look at this later).

We are told that:

The arrow indicated that Abdullah was the one who was to be sacrificed. So Abdul Muttalib took the young man to the Kaaba along with a razor to slaughter him. Quraysh, his uncles from the Makhzum clan, and his brother Abu Talib, however, tried to dissuade him. They suggested that he consult a female soothsayer. She instructed that divination arrows be drawn between Abdullah and ten camels … until the number of camels reached one hundred. (Ibn Hisham 1/151–155; Rahmat-ul-lil‘alameen 2/89, 90).

That is why the God of the Bible strongly warned the children of Israel about the pagan practices of the surrounding nations regarding the worship of the host of heaven or the family of stars. For example, He says:

“… lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and worship them and serve them, which the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.” (Deuteronomy 4:19)

“If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the LORD your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God, in transgressing His covenant, … and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded…” (Deuteronomy 17:2–3)

“For he rebuilt the high places that Hezekiah his father had destroyed; he erected altars for Baal, and made an Asherah, as Ahab king of Israel had done, and worshiped all the host of heaven and served them.” (2 Kings 21:3)

“And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the LORD.” (2 Kings 21:5)

“And he did away with the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had appointed to burn incense on the high places in the cities of Judah and in the surrounding areas of Jerusalem; those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and the moon, to the constellations and all the host of heaven.” (2 Kings 23:5)

“… and they shall spread them before the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven, which they have loved and served and after which they have walked and which they have sought and worshiped; they shall not be gathered nor buried; they shall be like dung on the face of the ground.” (Jeremiah 8:2)

“… and the houses of Jerusalem and the houses of the kings of Judah, which are defiled, shall be like the place of Topheth—all the houses on whose roofs they burned incense to all the host of heaven and poured out drink offerings to other gods.” (Jeremiah 19:13)

“… those who bow down on the roofs to the host of heaven; those who bow down and swear to the LORD and yet swear by Milcom.” (Zephaniah 1:5)

In the year 570 AD, the same year Muhammad was born, there was a ruler of the Aksumite Empire of Ethiopia who ruled Yemen. He was called Abrahah al-Ashram. It is said that he was jealous of the city of Mecca because many people were going there on pilgrimage (that is, a pagan pilgrimage), so he built a large church in Sana’a, Yemen, hoping to attract many people, which did not happen.

As a result, he decided to go and attack Mecca with the aim of destroying the Kaaba. He traveled with many people on a large group of elephants—hence the year came to be known as the Year of the Elephant.

The Quraysh clans united to try to save the Kaaba. Abdul Muttalib (Muhammad’s grandfather) told the people to flee and hide in the mountains while he and some others remained near the Kaaba.

But because of the size and strength of Abrahah’s army, Abdul Muttalib said:

“The Owner of this House is its Protector, and I am certain that He will protect it from being attacked by enemies, and they will not disgrace the servants of His House.”

Traditions say that when Abrahah advanced toward the Kaaba, a large group of birds appeared and began dropping stones on them like rain until they were wounded. Thus, his intention to destroy the Kaaba failed, and instead he returned injured.

Now the question is this: at that time Muhammad was still an infant, and therefore Islam had not yet begun; and it is known that at the Kaaba there were hundreds of pagan gods. So who is the Owner of the House mentioned by Abdul Muttalib?

It is clear that this was a pagan god, namely Allah, who was worshiped and served by Abdul Muttalib—the moon god.

And the even bigger question is that the Qur’an says in Surah Al-Fil (or The Elephant) 105:1–5:

“Have you not seen how your Lord dealt with the companions of the elephant? Did He not make their plan go astray? And He sent against them birds in flocks, striking them with stones of baked clay, and He made them like eaten straw!”

The question is:

These events happened when Islam did not exist, but rather during paganism. The servant of the pagan god, Abdul Muttalib, said that the Owner of that House (the Kaaba) would defend it.

So who was the Owner of the House mentioned by Abdul Muttalib, and who is “your Lord” mentioned by the Qur’an in this surah? Or should we say there were two gods who cooperated to stone Abrahah and his elephants?

Abdul Muttalib did not know Muhammad’s Allah; therefore, in no way could he have referred to Him (if indeed Muhammad’s Allah is different from Abdul Muttalib’s).

All circumstances show that the moon god, worshiped by Abdul Muttalib, is the one who protected the Kaaba from Abrahah’s elephants. Therefore, this verse of the Qur’an has no ability to claim that it refers to a different god!

So then the Kaaba is a pagan house.
So then Muhammad’s father is in Hell.
So then all Muslims who go on pilgrimage will enter Hell.
So then Allah is a pagan god.

Indeed, Islam is a pagan religion; that is why Muhammad admitted that his father is in Hell.

I invite you to the Great Living God, JESUS OUR SAVIOR.
May God bless you greatly.

It is I, Dr. Max Shimba, servant of Jesus Christ, the Great God. Titus 2:13

For Max Shimba Ministries Org,
MAX SHIMBA MINISTRIES ORG ©2016. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.