Saturday, July 18, 2026

Jesus Is Not a Muslim: A Biblical and Theological Examination of the Identity of Christ and the Claims of Islam

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

One of the central claims of Islam is that Jesus (Isa), along with Abraham, Moses, Noah, and every biblical prophet, was a Muslim who preached submission to Allah. This assertion forms the foundation of the Qur'an's reinterpretation of biblical history. However, when examined through the historical, textual, and theological witness of the Bible, this claim proves unsustainable. The Jesus revealed in Scripture proclaimed Himself as the eternal Son of God, identified God as His Father, accepted worship, foretold His crucifixion and resurrection, and commissioned His followers to proclaim salvation through Him alone. These teachings fundamentally contradict the portrait of Jesus presented in the Qur'an.

This article argues that Jesus was not a Muslim in the Islamic sense, that Allah as described in the Qur'an is not the God revealed in the Bible, and that the Qur'an presents a radically different theological narrative from the one consistently taught by the biblical prophets.

Introduction

Islam claims continuity with Judaism and Christianity while simultaneously rejecting the central doctrines of both faiths. The Qur'an repeatedly asserts that Jesus was merely a prophet who submitted to Allah and never claimed divine sonship.

This creates a historical question:

Does the Jesus described in the New Testament resemble the Jesus of the Qur'an?

The evidence overwhelmingly answers No.

1. Jesus Never Called God "Allah"; He Called Him Father

The defining characteristic of Jesus' ministry was His unique relationship with God as Father.

Jesus taught His disciples:

"Our Father in heaven..."
(Matthew 6:9)

He declared:

"My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working."
(John 5:17)

At His baptism, the Father proclaimed:

"This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
(Matthew 3:17)

Jesus never described Himself as merely another servant among many prophets. Instead, He consistently distinguished His sonship from the relationship believers have with God.

The Qur'an explicitly rejects divine fatherhood.

Surah 112 declares:

"He neither begets nor is born."

Thus, the God proclaimed by Jesus cannot be identical to the Allah who explicitly denies being Father.

2. Jesus Claimed Divine Equality

Islam insists Jesus never claimed deity.

The New Testament records otherwise.

Jesus declared:

"I and the Father are one."
(John 10:30)

His Jewish audience immediately understood the implication:

"Because you, being a man, make yourself God."
(John 10:33)

Likewise,

"Before Abraham was, I AM."
(John 8:58)

Jesus deliberately identified Himself with the divine name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14.

No prophet before Him ever made such claims.

3. Jesus Accepted Worship

Biblical prophets consistently rejected worship.

Peter refused it.

Paul refused it.

Angels refused it.

Jesus never did.

Examples include:

Matthew 14:33

Matthew 28:9

John 9:38

Thomas confessed:

"My Lord and my God!"
(John 20:28)

Jesus accepted this confession without correction.

A mere prophet would have condemned such worship as blasphemy.

4. Jesus Is the Son of God

The title "Son of God" is not a later invention.

It appears throughout the Gospels.

The Father proclaimed it.

The apostles proclaimed it.

Demons recognized it.

The Roman centurion confessed it.

John summarizes his Gospel:

"These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."
(John 20:31)

The Qur'an categorically denies this doctrine.

Both claims cannot simultaneously be true.

5. Jesus Predicted His Own Death and Resurrection

Perhaps the greatest contradiction between Christianity and Islam concerns the crucifixion.

Jesus repeatedly predicted:

"The Son of Man must suffer many things... be killed... and after three days rise again."
(Luke 9:22)

Again,

"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
(John 2:19)

The apostles preached:

Christ died.

Christ was buried.

Christ rose again.

Paul writes:

"He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification."
(Romans 4:25)

Yet the Qur'an states:

"They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him—it only appeared so."
(Qur'an 4:157)

If Jesus truly foretold His death and resurrection, then the Qur'an directly contradicts Jesus Himself.

6. The Cross Is Central to God's Plan

Long before Christ's birth, Scripture foretold His suffering.

Psalm 16:10 declares:

"You will not abandon my soul to Sheol, nor let Your Holy One see corruption."

Isaiah 53 describes the suffering servant who bears the sins of many.

Jesus fulfilled these prophecies.

Peter proclaimed:

"God raised Him from the dead."

The resurrection validates every claim Jesus made.

If the crucifixion never occurred, the fulfillment of biblical prophecy collapses.

Yet history overwhelmingly supports the crucifixion.

Virtually all mainstream historians—including many who are not Christians—accept Jesus' crucifixion as one of the best-attested events of the ancient world.

7. Salvation Through Christ Alone

Jesus declared:

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

Notice the destination:

The Father.

Not Allah.

Jesus never invited humanity to submit to Allah.

He invited sinners to come to Himself.

Throughout John's Gospel He says:

Believe in Me.

Come to Me.

Follow Me.

Abide in Me.

The focus is Christ Himself.

8. The God of the Bible Is Distinct from Allah of the Qur'an

The biblical revelation portrays God as:

Father
Son
Holy Spirit
Loving
Redeemer
Covenant Keeper

The Qur'an presents Allah as:

Not Father
Denying divine sonship
Rejecting the crucifixion
Rejecting the Trinity
Rejecting Christ's divine identity

These are not minor differences.

They concern the very identity of God.

Two descriptions that affirm mutually exclusive truths cannot refer to the same theological revelation in the same sense.

9. The Qur'an's Reinterpretation of Jesus

The Qur'an was written approximately six centuries after the New Testament.

Rather than confirming the apostolic witness, it revises it by denying:

Jesus' divine sonship
His crucifixion
His resurrection
His atoning sacrifice
His unique mediatorship

From the standpoint of historic Christian theology, this later account is incompatible with the earlier biblical testimony.

Christian scholars therefore conclude that the Qur'an does not preserve the apostolic teaching about Jesus but presents a different theological portrait.

Conclusion

The historical Jesus of the New Testament cannot accurately be described as a Muslim according to the theological meaning that Islam gives the term. He proclaimed God as His Father, affirmed His unique identity as the Son of God, accepted worship, foretold His death and resurrection, and declared Himself to be the exclusive way to the Father. These teachings stand in direct tension with the Qur'an's presentation of Jesus.

For Christians, the decisive authority is the apostolic witness preserved in the canonical Scriptures. Consequently, the biblical evidence supports the conclusion that Jesus is not a Muslim but the incarnate Son of God, crucified, risen, and exalted as Lord. The Qur'an's account represents a fundamentally different theological narrative rather than a continuation of the biblical revelation.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

"Sexy Fruits?" A Critical Examination of the Qur'anic Claim That Fruits Exist in Male–Female Pairs

Does Qur'an 13:3 Reveal Divine Knowledge—or Ancient Botanical Error?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

One of the most frequently promoted "scientific miracles" of the Qur'an is the claim that modern science has only recently discovered what the Qur'an allegedly revealed 1,400 years ago—that fruits possess male and female characteristics.

Muslim apologists often cite Qur'an 13:3:

"And of every kind of fruit He made two pairs."

Some translations go even further:

"He made therein two sexes." (Sher Ali)
"He placed therein two spouses (male and female)." (Pickthall)
"He made them into pairs—males and females." (Rashad Khalifa)

According to many Islamic writers, this verse demonstrates miraculous scientific foreknowledge.

But does it?

Or does it actually expose a profound misunderstanding of basic plant biology?

The evidence deserves careful examination.

What Exactly Is the Qur'an Claiming?

The crucial question is straightforward.

Is the Qur'an speaking about fruits themselves?

Is it speaking about fruit-bearing plants?

Most Muslim translations plainly refer to fruits, not merely plants.

If the verse literally means every fruit has a male fruit and a female fruit, the statement is scientifically false.

There are no:

male apples
female apples
male oranges
female strawberries
male grapes
female peaches

A fruit has no biological sex.

A fruit does not fertilize another fruit.

A fruit is itself the mature ovary produced after fertilization has already taken place in the flower.

This is elementary botany.

Fruits Do Not Reproduce

Science teaches that reproduction occurs in the flower before the fruit develops.

The fruit is the result of reproduction—not the reproductive organ itself.

This raises an obvious question.

If fruits themselves are male and female, which fruit pollinates another fruit?

None.

Because fruits never pollinate anything.

Flowers do.

The Flower—Not the Fruit—is the Sexual Organ

The reproductive organs of flowering plants are located inside the flower.

The flower may contain:

male organs (stamens)
female organs (pistils)
both together

The fruit develops only after fertilization has already occurred.

Therefore:

Calling fruits male and female confuses the reproductive structure with the reproductive product.

Would an all-knowing Creator confuse the flower with the fruit?

Most Fruit-Bearing Plants Are Not Male–Female Pairs

Perhaps Muslims will argue that the Qur'an really refers to fruit-bearing plants.

Even then, the problem remains.

Modern botany overwhelmingly demonstrates that most flowering plants are hermaphroditic, meaning each flower contains both male and female reproductive organs.

Approximately 70% of flowering plants are hermaphroditic.

Only a small minority are truly dioecious—having separate male and female plants.

That completely undermines the claim that "every fruit" exists as male and female pairs.

Consider the Evidence

Apples

Apple blossoms are "perfect flowers."

Each flower contains both male and female organs.

There are no male apple trees and female apple trees.

Every healthy apple tree can produce fruit.

Where are the male and female pairs?

Peaches

Peach flowers are hermaphroditic.

One flower contains both reproductive systems.

Again:

Where is the pair?

Oranges

Orange blossoms are primarily hermaphroditic.

The same flower possesses both male and female reproductive structures.

Again:

No separate male and female plants.

Grapes

Most cultivated grape vines are hermaphroditic.

They fertilize themselves.

No male vine.

No female vine.

No pair.

Coconut

Every coconut palm bears both male and female flowers.

There is no male coconut tree.

There is no female coconut tree.

Yet coconuts are fruits.

Olive

The Qur'an repeatedly mentions olives.

Yet olive trees produce perfect flowers containing both reproductive organs.

Many olive varieties are self-fertile.

Again:

No male tree.

No female tree.

Pomegranate

The Qur'an also mentions pomegranates.

The pomegranate tree bears both male and female flowers on the same plant.

No male tree.

No female tree.

Again, no pair.

The Date Palm Exception

There is one important fruit tree that ancient Arabs knew well.

The date palm.

Date palms are indeed dioecious.

There are separate male trees and female trees.

Ancient farmers manually transferred pollen from male trees to female trees.

Even Muhammad himself discussed date-palm pollination.

This raises an important historical possibility.

Could the author of the Qur'an have generalized from the familiar date palm and assumed all fruit-bearing plants functioned similarly?

If so, that would perfectly explain the mistake.

It would also explain why the statement reflects seventh-century agricultural knowledge rather than timeless divine knowledge.

Can the Verse Be Reinterpreted?

Some modern translators avoid the biological difficulty.

Instead of "male and female," they suggest the verse merely means:

sweet and sour
black and white
large and small

But this interpretation creates new problems.

Do apples come in only two colors?

No.

Do oranges come in only two varieties?

No.

Do grapes exist in only two types?

Certainly not.

There are countless varieties, colors, sizes, flavors, and cultivars.

Why would an omniscient God describe botanical diversity as consisting of only two categories?

The Scientific Miracle Claim Falls Apart

Ironically, the very verse promoted as scientific evidence actually demonstrates scientific confusion.

Science does not teach:

every fruit is male or female
every fruit-bearing plant has male and female counterparts
every species exists in only two reproductive forms

Modern botany teaches something far more complex.

Plant reproduction includes:

hermaphroditic flowers
monoecious plants
dioecious plants
self-pollinating species
cross-pollinating species
species employing multiple reproductive strategies

The Qur'anic description is far too simplistic to qualify as miraculous scientific insight.

Questions Every Muslim Should Consider

If Allah created plants,

why would He describe fruit reproduction inaccurately?

If Allah possesses perfect knowledge,

why confuse flowers with fruits?

If Allah knows every species,

why speak as though all fruit-bearing plants exist as male and female pairs?

Why does the Qur'an never describe hermaphroditic flowers—the overwhelmingly dominant reproductive system among flowering plants?

Why does the verse resemble what an ancient observer might assume after watching date palms rather than what modern botany actually demonstrates?

If this is miraculous knowledge,

where is the miracle?

Can an Omniscient God Make Elementary Botanical Errors?

Islam insists that Allah possesses absolute knowledge.

An omniscient Creator would know:

where reproduction occurs
how flowers function
that fruits are products—not reproductive sexes
that most flowering plants are hermaphroditic
that many fruit-bearing plants never exist as male–female pairs

Yet Qur'an 13:3 has repeatedly required reinterpretation because its plain reading conflicts with established botanical science.

Whenever scientific knowledge advances, apologists often revise the meaning of the text.

But genuine divine revelation should not require constant adjustment to match modern discoveries.

It should already be accurate.

Final Reflection

The Qur'an concludes this passage by inviting readers to reflect.

That invitation should be taken seriously.

Reflection means examining claims against observable reality.

When we do so, the assertion that "every kind of fruit" exists in male–female pairs does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Instead of revealing miraculous botanical knowledge centuries ahead of science, the verse appears to reflect the limited agricultural understanding available in the seventh century.

If even a basic description of plant reproduction is inaccurate, a deeper question naturally follows:

If Allah is truly all-knowing, why does the Qur'an describe the natural world in a way that repeatedly conflicts with the science of the very creation He is supposed to have designed?

For those committed to following truth wherever it leads, that question deserves thoughtful and honest consideration.

"Everything in Pairs"? A Scientific and Theological Reassessment of Qur'an 51:49

An Academic Critique of the Universal Pairing Claim

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

One of the most frequently cited verses in Islamic apologetics is Qur'an 51:49:

"And of everything We created pairs so that perhaps you may remember."

Many Muslim apologists present this verse as evidence of miraculous scientific knowledge, arguing that modern biology and physics confirm the Qur'an's assertion that all creation exists in complementary pairs. This article critically evaluates that claim from the perspectives of biology, genetics, physics, philosophy of science, and theology. It argues that the universal interpretation of Qur'an 51:49 is neither scientifically sustainable nor theologically coherent when measured against observable reality. Rather than demonstrating miraculous foreknowledge, the verse reflects an ancient observational generalization that fails under modern scientific scrutiny.

Introduction

Scientific miracles have become one of the most common apologetic strategies employed to defend the divine origin of the Qur'an. Among these alleged miracles is the claim that everything in creation exists in pairs.

Muslim commentators frequently argue that this verse encompasses:

male and female
positive and negative charges
day and night
matter and antimatter
attraction and repulsion
complementary biological systems

The argument proceeds as follows:

Since modern science allegedly confirms universal pairing, Muhammad could not have known this without divine revelation.

The problem with this argument is simple:

Universal claims require universal evidence.

One verified exception is sufficient to falsify an unrestricted proposition.

The Meaning of "Everything"

The Arabic expression includes the phrase:

"min kulli shay'in"

literally,

"from every thing."

Classical Muslim commentators generally understood this as a universal description of creation.

The wording is comprehensive rather than selective.

If interpreted literally, the verse asserts a universal principle applicable throughout creation.

The scientific question therefore becomes:

Is everything actually created in pairs?

Modern biology answers:

No.

Scientific Problems with Universal Pairing

1. Asexual Reproduction

Large numbers of living organisms reproduce without male-female pairing.

Examples include:

bacteria
archaea
many protists
numerous fungi
many plants
rotifers
certain insects
numerous reptiles

These organisms reproduce by:

binary fission
budding
fragmentation
vegetative propagation
parthenogenesis

None of these mechanisms require complementary male-female pairs.

2. Female-Only Species

Several vertebrate species consist entirely of females.

Examples include certain whiptail lizards.

These animals reproduce through parthenogenesis, producing genetically viable offspring without fertilization.

A scientific question naturally follows:

If an entire species consists only of females, where is the "pair" required by the universal interpretation of Qur'an 51:49?

3. Hermaphroditic Organisms

Many organisms possess both male and female reproductive organs simultaneously.

Examples include:

earthworms
many snails
numerous flowering plants

Such organisms are not divided into separate male and female populations.

Instead, one organism possesses both reproductive functions.

This challenges the notion that biological existence universally depends upon distinct paired sexes.

4. Sequential Sex Change

Some animals change biological sex during life.

Examples include:

clownfish
wrasses
groupers

In clownfish colonies, the dominant breeding female dies, and the dominant male transforms into a female.

Scientific questions emerge:

Was this individual originally created as one member of a fixed pair?
Or does biological sex itself demonstrate remarkable flexibility inconsistent with simplistic pairing?

5. Thousands of Biological Sexes

Perhaps the greatest biological challenge comes from fungi.

The fungus Schizophyllum commune possesses over 28,000 mating types.

Instead of two reproductive categories, this organism has thousands.

Its reproductive biology directly contradicts the idea that reproduction universally depends upon two complementary sexes.

This is not a rare organism.

It is among the most widespread fungi on Earth.

Question:

If one organism possesses more than 28,000 mating types, how can "everything is created in pairs" be maintained as a universal biological law?

Problems from Physics

Muslim commentators often expand the verse beyond biology.

They argue that physics also demonstrates universal pairing.

However, this interpretation also encounters difficulties.

Gravity possesses no negative gravitational charge.

There is:

no repulsive gravitational polarity analogous to electric charge.

Likewise:

dark matter has no established paired opposite.
spacetime curvature possesses no complementary partner.
numerous physical constants have no paired equivalents.

Positive and negative electric charge cannot legitimately be generalized into a universal principle governing all physical reality.

Philosophical Problems

The verse commits what philosophers call an overgeneralization.

Observation of numerous paired phenomena does not justify concluding that every created thing exists in pairs.

Scientific reasoning proceeds differently.

Science asks:

Can the hypothesis survive falsification?

The universal hypothesis:

"Everything exists in pairs"

fails immediately when verified exceptions exist.

One exception is logically sufficient.

Modern biology provides hundreds.

Theological Questions

The issue is not merely scientific.

It is theological.

If God is omniscient,

His descriptions of creation should perfectly correspond to reality.

This raises several questions.

Question 1

If Allah intended only many things rather than all things,

why did the Qur'an employ universal language?

Question 2

If "pairs" is merely metaphorical,

why is the verse repeatedly presented by Muslim apologists as scientific evidence?

Question 3

Can a statement be promoted simultaneously as literal scientific revelation and metaphorical symbolism whenever counterexamples appear?

Question 4

If exceptions are permitted,

at what point does the universal claim lose explanatory value?

Question 5

Would an omniscient Creator overlook entire categories of organisms that reproduce without male-female pairing?

Question 6

Why does modern biology reveal reproductive systems vastly more diverse than the binary framework often presented as proof of Qur'anic scientific accuracy?

Question 7

If fungi possessing over 28,000 mating types existed long before the seventh century, how does the universal "pairs" interpretation adequately account for such diversity?

Question 8

Should scientific discoveries reshape our interpretation of Scripture, or should Scripture itself already reflect accurate knowledge of creation if it is claimed as a scientific miracle?

The Christian Perspective

The Bible never attempts to establish a universal biological law stating that every created thing exists in male-female pairs.

Instead, Scripture distinguishes between theological purpose and scientific description.

When Genesis records:

"male and female created He them"

the context concerns humanity and the divine institution of marriage—not an exhaustive scientific taxonomy of every organism.

Biblical revelation therefore avoids making sweeping biological assertions that later discoveries would overturn.

Conclusion

Qur'an 51:49 remains a profound literary statement about order, complementarity, and the observable patterns of creation if understood as poetic or rhetorical language. However, elevating the verse into a universal scientific proposition creates substantial difficulties.

Modern biology documents numerous organisms that reproduce asexually, species composed entirely of females, hermaphroditic organisms, sequential sex changers, and fungi with thousands of mating types. Physics likewise does not uniformly exhibit binary pairing across all phenomena. These observations indicate that the claim "everything is created in pairs," when interpreted as a universal scientific law, is not supported by contemporary scientific evidence.

Consequently, the apologetic argument that Qur'an 51:49 constitutes a scientific miracle is significantly weakened. A more cautious theological reading would recognize the verse as expressing a general observation about aspects of creation rather than an exhaustive scientific description of every created reality. Distinguishing between theological symbolism and empirical science provides a more coherent framework than insisting upon a literal universality that observable evidence does not sustain.

Jesus Is Not a Muslim

A Biblical Response to the Islamic Claim About Jesus

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

Among the most repeated claims in Islamic apologetics is that Jesus (Isaa) was a Muslim. Muslims argue that because Jesus submitted to God, He was therefore a Muslim. This claim sounds persuasive until one examines what the word Muslim actually means in Islamic theology and compares it with the historical Jesus revealed in the Bible.

The evidence is overwhelming.

Jesus was born a Jew, lived as a Jew, worshiped as a Jew, fulfilled the Jewish Scriptures, and revealed Himself as the divine Messiah promised to Israel. He never identified Himself as a Muslim, never followed Islamic law, never faced Mecca, never observed Ramadan, never recited the Shahada, and never acknowledged Muhammad as God's messenger.

The Islamic narrative collapses under historical and theological examination.

Jesus Never Recited the Shahada

The defining confession of Islam is the Shahada:

"There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah."

According to Islamic teaching, one enters Islam by sincerely declaring this testimony.

Yet Jesus never spoke these words.

Why?

Because Muhammad would not be born for nearly six centuries after Jesus.

No Gospel records Jesus proclaiming Muhammad as God's messenger.

No disciple ever preached Muhammad.

No apostle anticipated Muhammad.

The first-century Church knew nothing of Islam.

If confessing Muhammad is essential to being a Muslim, then Jesus Himself never qualified under Islam's own definition.

Jesus Worshiped the God of Israel

Jesus consistently worshiped the God revealed throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.

He quoted:

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one."
(Mark 12:29)

This is the Jewish confession from Deuteronomy 6:4.

The God Jesus worshiped was the covenant God who revealed His divine name to Moses.

Exodus 3:15 declares:

"The LORD (YHWH)... this is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations."

Jesus never introduced Allah as a newly revealed deity.

Instead, He identified Himself with Israel's covenant God.

Jesus Called God "Father"

One of the greatest differences between Christianity and Islam is how Jesus related to God.

Jesus constantly called God:

"My Father."

He taught His followers to pray:

"Our Father who art in heaven..."

Islam rejects God as Father in any personal sense.

The Qur'an repeatedly denies that Allah has a Son and rejects the Father-Son relationship central to the Gospel.

The Jesus of the Bible speaks a language completely foreign to Islamic theology.

Jesus Claimed Divine Authority

Jesus did far more than preach submission.

He forgave sins.

He accepted worship.

He declared Himself Lord of the Sabbath.

He claimed authority over life and death.

Most astonishingly He declared:

"Before Abraham was, I AM."
(John 8:58)

His Jewish audience understood exactly what He meant.

They attempted to stone Him for blasphemy because He was identifying Himself with the divine name revealed in Exodus.

A mere prophet—or a Muslim in the Islamic sense—would never make such claims.

Jesus Accepted Worship

Throughout the Gospels people worshiped Jesus.

The blind man worshiped Him.

The disciples worshiped Him.

After the resurrection, Thomas declared:

"My Lord and my God!"

Jesus accepted that confession.

No prophet of God ever accepted worship.

Angels refused worship.

Peter refused worship.

Paul refused worship.

Jesus accepted it because He is worthy of it.

Jesus Never Practiced Islam

Islam teaches several defining religious obligations.

Jesus practiced none of them.

He never:

recited the Shahada.
prayed toward Mecca.
performed the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca.
fasted during Ramadan.
recognized Muhammad as a prophet.
taught the Five Pillars of Islam.
followed Sharia.

Instead, Jesus observed the Jewish feasts commanded in the Law of Moses.

He celebrated Passover.

He attended the Temple.

He taught in synagogues.

His entire earthly ministry took place within Judaism.

Jesus Is the Son of God

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to the Islamic claim is Jesus' own identity.

The New Testament repeatedly declares Him to be:

the Son of God,
the Word made flesh,
the Savior of the world,
the image of the invisible God.

Islam rejects each of these doctrines.

If Islam is correct, then the New Testament misrepresents Jesus.

If the New Testament is historically reliable, then the Islamic portrait of Jesus is false.

Both cannot be true simultaneously.

Jesus Is the Only Way

Jesus did not present Himself as merely another prophet.

He declared:

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

That statement leaves no room for later prophets who claim to supersede His revelation.

If Jesus is the only way, then no later religious system can replace Him.

The Historical Problem

The historical Jesus lived in first-century Judea.

Islam arose in seventh-century Arabia.

Attempting to redefine Jesus as a Muslim requires projecting a religion that did not yet exist back into history.

That is not historical scholarship.

It is theological revisionism.

The earliest Christian writings unanimously present Jesus as the crucified and risen Son of God—not as a Muslim prophet awaiting Muhammad.

The Verdict

The claim that Jesus was a Muslim is not supported by history, the New Testament, or the practices of Jesus Himself.

Jesus was not a follower of Islam.

He never confessed Muhammad.

He never preached the Qur'an.

He never practiced Islamic worship.

He revealed the God of Israel, fulfilled the Hebrew Scriptures, and identified Himself as the promised Messiah and Son of God.

The question is therefore not whether Jesus was a Muslim.

The real question is this:

Will we believe the Jesus who walked the roads of Galilee, or the Jesus reconstructed six centuries later by the Qur'an?

History gives one answer.

Scripture gives one answer.

Jesus Himself gives one answer.

Jesus is not a Muslim. He is the Jewish Messiah, the eternal Son of God, and the Savior of the world.

The Special Privileges of Muhammad in Qur'an 33:50

The Special Privileges of Muhammad in Qur'an 33:50: A Textual and Theological Examination of Prophetic Exceptionalism

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

Among the passages of the Qur'an that have generated sustained discussion in comparative theology, Qur'an 33:50 occupies a unique position. Unlike legal regulations directed toward the Muslim community as a whole, this verse explicitly grants permissions to the Prophet Muhammad that the text itself declares are exclusive to him and unavailable to other believers.

The passage therefore raises an important theological question. If Muhammad is presented within Islam as the supreme model (uswah hasanah) whose life provides the normative example for all Muslims (Qur'an 33:21), how should one understand legal privileges that are expressly denied to those who are commanded to imitate him?

This study examines Qur'an 33:50 within its literary context, analyzes relevant classical Islamic commentaries, considers the testimony of authentic hadith literature, and evaluates the theological implications of prophetic exceptionalism. The purpose is not merely to note the existence of these privileges—which classical Muslim scholarship openly acknowledges—but to ask whether such exceptions create tension within the Islamic understanding of prophetic authority, divine justice, and universal law.

Qur'an 33:50: A Textual Analysis

Qur'an 33:50 states in part:

"O Prophet! Indeed, We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their bridal gifts, those whom your right hand possesses from what Allah has granted you, the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, the daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts who emigrated with you, and any believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet and if the Prophet desires to marry her—this is exclusively for you, excluding the other believers."

The structure of the verse is noteworthy.

It enumerates several categories of women whom Muhammad is permitted to marry before concluding with an explicit legal limitation:

"This is only for you, excluding the believers."

The Arabic phrase (khāliṣatan laka min dūni al-mu'minīn) unmistakably indicates exclusivity. The privilege belongs solely to Muhammad and does not constitute part of the general legal framework governing the Muslim community.

Consequently, the issue under discussion is not whether Muhammad possessed unique legal permissions. The Qur'an itself explicitly affirms that he did.

The Tension with the General Marriage Legislation

Elsewhere the Qur'an establishes what classical Islamic jurisprudence understands as the general limit for Muslim men:

"Marry women of your choice, two, three, or four..." (Qur'an 4:3)

Throughout Islamic legal tradition this verse forms the basis for limiting Muslim men to four wives simultaneously.

Muhammad, however, exceeded this limitation.

Rather than requiring conformity to the general legislation, Qur'an 33:50 functions as a divine exemption that removes him from restrictions imposed upon other believers.

The legal contrast is therefore evident.

For ordinary Muslims:

maximum of four wives;
no marriage by simple self-offering;
identical legal framework.

For Muhammad:

exemption from numerical limitation;
permission to accept a woman who offers herself without the ordinary legal requirements;
privileges explicitly unavailable to others.

The distinction is not inferred by critics but stated within the Qur'anic text itself.

The Unique Provision of Self-Offering

Among the permissions granted in Qur'an 33:50, one provision is especially distinctive.

The verse allows:

"A believing woman, if she offers herself to the Prophet and if the Prophet wishes to marry her..."

In ordinary Islamic marriage, jurists generally require legal procedures including guardianship, contractual agreement, and the payment of mahr (bridal gift).

The permission described here constitutes a unique legal category.

Classical Muslim exegetes consistently recognize that this privilege belonged exclusively to Muhammad.

The Qur'an itself reinforces this interpretation by concluding that the permission is:

"Exclusively for you, not for the believers."

Thus, the text establishes an exception not merely in degree but in legal category.

Classical Islamic Exegesis

Far from denying these special permissions, classical Islamic scholarship consistently affirms them.

Ibn Kathir

Ibn Kathir explains that the permission allowing a believing woman to offer herself in marriage without the ordinary legal requirements was a special concession granted solely to the Prophet.

He explicitly distinguishes between what was lawful for Muhammad and what remained unlawful for the rest of the Muslim community.

Al-Tabari

Al-Tabari likewise records early authorities who interpreted the verse as establishing unique legal privileges for Muhammad.

His commentary includes reports concerning women who offered themselves to the Prophet and emphasizes that such arrangements were exclusive to him.

The remarkable feature of the classical tradition is not disagreement but consensus.

The exclusivity is accepted as part of orthodox Islamic interpretation.

The Testimony of Aisha in Sahih al-Bukhari

An additional dimension emerges from an authentic narration recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari (Hadith 4788).

After the revelation of Qur'an 33:51, Aisha reportedly said:

"I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes."

The significance of this narration lies in several observations.

First, the statement comes from Muhammad's wife, someone with intimate knowledge of his domestic life.

Second, it directly concerns the same sequence of revelations regulating Muhammad's marriages.

Third, it records an observation that revelation appeared closely connected with Muhammad's personal circumstances.

Within Islamic theology this narration is generally understood as an expression of Aisha's jealousy rather than a denial of revelation.

Nevertheless, from the perspective of comparative theological analysis, the statement naturally raises the question of why multiple revelations within this section repeatedly concern privileges benefiting the Prophet personally.

A Pattern Within Surah Al-Ahzab

When the surrounding passages are considered together, a discernible pattern appears.

Qur'an 33:50 grants exclusive marital privileges.

Qur'an 33:51 grants Muhammad discretion regarding the scheduling of his wives.

The accompanying hadith records Aisha observing that revelation seemed remarkably responsive to Muhammad's personal circumstances.

Whether one accepts traditional Islamic explanations or not, these passages collectively invite theological reflection regarding the relationship between revelation and prophetic personal life.

Muslim Responses

Classical and contemporary Muslim scholars have offered several explanations.

One argument maintains that Muhammad's marriages served political, humanitarian, and tribal purposes, strengthening alliances and providing care for widows.

Another emphasizes that God, as sovereign Lawgiver, possesses absolute authority to grant exceptions to whomever He wills.

Others interpret Aisha's remark as an emotional expression arising from marital jealousy rather than as a theological judgment.

These explanations represent important components of the traditional Islamic understanding and deserve careful consideration.

Even so, they do not entirely remove the central theological question.

Why are these exceptions concentrated around matters that directly affect the Prophet's personal and domestic life?

Biblical Comparison

A comparison with the biblical tradition highlights a significant contrast.

In Scripture, prophetic authority is ordinarily accompanied by heightened accountability.

Moses is prohibited from entering the Promised Land because of his disobedience (Numbers 20:12).

Nathan publicly rebukes David despite David's royal authority (2 Samuel 12).

Most significantly, Jesus Christ embraces voluntary self-denial, teaches sacrificial discipleship, and receives no marital or legal exemptions that elevate Him above the moral obligations He proclaims.

Within the biblical narrative, prophetic office consistently carries greater responsibility rather than expanded personal privilege.

This difference provides an important point of comparison in interfaith theological dialogue.

The Central Theological Question

The existence of Muhammad's special privileges is not disputed within classical Islamic scholarship.

The deeper issue concerns their theological significance.

Can the supreme example for humanity simultaneously function under legal provisions unavailable to everyone else?

If divine law is intended to express universal moral principles, what is the theological justification for exemptions that directly benefit the messenger entrusted with delivering that law?

Do such exceptions strengthen prophetic authority by demonstrating God's sovereign freedom, or do they raise questions regarding the relationship between revelation and personal interest?

These questions emerge from the Qur'anic text itself and continue to be discussed in comparative theology.

Conclusion

Qur'an 33:50 explicitly establishes legal privileges that apply exclusively to Muhammad and not to other believers. Classical commentators such as Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari openly acknowledge this exclusivity, while authentic hadith—including Aisha's statement in Sahih al-Bukhari—adds an important historical dimension to the discussion.

The primary issue is therefore not whether these exceptional permissions existed, but how they should be interpreted.

From the standpoint of comparative theology, Qur'an 33:50 raises enduring questions concerning prophetic exceptionalism, the universality of divine law, and the relationship between revelation and the personal life of the Prophet.

These are legitimate scholarly questions that deserve careful examination. They cannot be resolved merely by observing that God may grant exceptions. Rather, they require a coherent theological explanation of why the messenger entrusted with communicating divine law repeatedly appears as its principal beneficiary in matters of marriage and domestic regulation.

For Christian theology, this discussion points toward a fundamental distinction between the prophetic model presented in Scripture and the prophetic model presented in the Qur'an. Whereas the biblical prophets—and supremely Jesus Christ—are portrayed as submitting themselves to the demands of God's law without personal legal privilege, Qur'an 33:50 presents a prophet who receives explicit exemptions unavailable to his followers. Whether this represents a manifestation of divine sovereignty or a challenge to the coherence of prophetic authority remains one of the significant questions in comparative Islamic-Christian theology.

DID QUR'AN 2:243 APPROPRIATE THE BIBLICAL TRADITION OF EZEKIEL 37?

A Textual, Historical, and Theological Assessment of Literary Dependence

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the recurring questions in Qur'anic studies is whether certain Qur'anic narratives preserve independent divine revelation or whether they reflect the adaptation of earlier Jewish and Christian traditions. Among the passages frequently discussed is Qur'an 2:243, which recounts a brief story of a multitude who fled death, were commanded by Allah to die, and were subsequently restored to life.

The brevity of the Qur'anic account has led both classical Muslim exegetes and modern scholars to propose numerous explanations regarding its historical setting and meaning. In contrast, Ezekiel 37:1–14 presents one of the most detailed resurrection narratives in the Hebrew Bible, complete with historical context, symbolic interpretation, and theological purpose.

The central question is therefore not whether both passages concern resurrection. Rather, the question is whether the Qur'anic narrative represents an independent revelation or whether it reflects the literary adaptation of an earlier biblical tradition.

This study examines both texts through historical, literary, and theological analysis while critically evaluating the claim that Qur'an 2:243 reproduces and significantly reshapes an earlier biblical narrative.

Qur'an 2:243: An Anonymous and Compressed Narrative

Qur'an 2:243 states:

"Have you not considered those who left their homes in thousands, fearing death? Allah said to them, 'Die'; then He restored them to life. Surely Allah is full of bounty to mankind, but most people are ungrateful."

Several literary observations immediately emerge.

The narrative contains no identifiable historical setting. The people remain anonymous. No geographical location is mentioned. No prophet is identified. The cause of their fear is left unexplained, and the mechanism of both death and restoration is entirely absent from the text.

Unlike many biblical historical narratives, the Qur'an offers no internal explanation concerning the event's significance beyond a general exhortation concerning gratitude.

Consequently, the passage raises more questions than it answers.

Dependence upon Later Tafsir

The ambiguity of Qur'an 2:243 becomes evident in classical Islamic exegesis.

Major commentators such as Ibn Kathir, al-Tabari, al-Qurtubi, and others offer differing reconstructions of the story.

Among the proposed explanations are:

the people fled an epidemic;
they fled military service;
they escaped jihad;
they feared divine judgment;
a prophet later prayed for their restoration;
the event occurred in different historical periods.

These explanations frequently contradict one another concerning chronology, location, numbers, causes, and participants.

This diversity demonstrates an important hermeneutical fact.

The Qur'anic text itself does not provide sufficient information for its own interpretation. Its meaning depends substantially upon later exegetical traditions, traditions that themselves fail to reach consensus.

Ezekiel 37: A Fully Developed Prophetic Vision

The biblical account presents an entirely different literary structure.

Ezekiel is transported by God into a valley filled with dry bones.

The narrative unfolds progressively.

The prophet observes:

bones scattered throughout the valley;
bones joining together;
tendons forming;
flesh covering the skeletons;
skin enclosing the bodies;
breath entering them;
an exceedingly great army standing alive.

Unlike Qur'an 2:243, every stage of the resurrection is narrated with remarkable precision.

Even more significantly, the vision immediately explains itself.

God declares:

"These bones are the whole house of Israel."

The symbolism is therefore explicit.

The vision represents Israel's national restoration following exile rather than merely demonstrating divine power over physical death.

The text contains its own interpretation.

No external commentary is necessary to understand its central theological message.

Literary Comparison

The similarities between the two passages are obvious at a general level.

Both involve:

divine authority over death;
restoration to life;
resurrection imagery;
theological instruction.

Yet these similarities become increasingly superficial upon closer examination.

The differences are considerably more substantial.

Ezekiel 37	Qur'an 2:243
Historical prophetic vision	Anonymous narrative
Detailed literary development	Extremely compressed account
Symbolic interpretation provided	No interpretation provided
Historical covenant context	No covenant context
National restoration of Israel	General moral lesson
Self-interpreting text	Requires later tafsir

The literary sophistication of Ezekiel contrasts sharply with the compressed and unexplained nature of the Qur'anic narrative.

The Question of Literary Dependence

Scholars of comparative religion have long recognized that many Qur'anic narratives parallel biblical and post-biblical Jewish traditions.

The issue is therefore not whether similarities exist.

The issue is how those similarities should be explained.

Three possibilities are commonly proposed.

1. Independent Revelation

Classical Islamic theology maintains that Allah independently revealed both accounts.

The similarities therefore reflect a common divine source.

This explanation assumes the very conclusion that historical inquiry seeks to evaluate.

2. Shared Religious Tradition

Some historians argue that both texts draw from broader Jewish oral traditions circulating throughout the ancient Near East.

This hypothesis acknowledges literary relationships without requiring direct borrowing.

3. Literary Adaptation

Another possibility is that the Qur'anic narrative represents a secondary adaptation of an earlier biblical tradition.

Under this model, the longer and historically situated biblical account existed first, while the Qur'anic version reflects a shortened retelling that removes historical detail, symbolic interpretation, and covenantal context.

From a literary perspective, this explanation accounts for the Qur'an's compressed narrative while explaining why later Muslim commentators struggled to reconstruct missing historical details.

Does the Qur'an Preserve or Transform Earlier Revelation?

From a Christian theological perspective, the comparison raises an important question.

If the Qur'an confirms previous revelation (cf. Qur'an 5:46–48), why does it repeatedly present narratives that are abbreviated, altered, or detached from their original covenantal setting?

Ezekiel's prophecy is inseparable from God's covenant with Israel.

Its purpose is not merely to demonstrate resurrection.

It proclaims God's faithfulness to His covenant people.

Qur'an 2:243 removes that covenantal framework entirely and transforms the narrative into a generalized moral lesson about fear and gratitude.

Such theological transformation raises legitimate questions concerning whether the Qur'an preserves earlier revelation or reinterprets it according to a different theological agenda.

Did Allah "Steal" the Biblical Story?

The provocative question—whether Allah "stole" the biblical story—should be approached with scholarly precision.

From an academic standpoint, terms such as "stole" are rhetorical rather than analytical and do not, by themselves, establish literary dependence.

A more precise scholarly question is whether the Qur'an appropriates, adapts, or reworks earlier biblical traditions.

The literary evidence demonstrates that Qur'an 2:243 bears conceptual similarities to themes already present in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Whether one interprets this as divine confirmation, shared tradition, or literary adaptation depends largely upon one's theological presuppositions.

From the standpoint of Christian apologetics, however, the cumulative pattern throughout the Qur'an—where biblical narratives frequently appear in abbreviated, modified, or recontextualized forms—can reasonably be argued to indicate adaptation rather than faithful preservation.

Responding to Muslim Objections

Muslim apologists commonly respond that brevity should not be confused with incompleteness.

Certainly, concise narratives are common in ancient literature.

However, brevity does not explain why the Qur'an omits essential historical information while later commentators disagree fundamentally about the narrative itself.

Others argue that Qur'an 2:243 and Ezekiel 37 describe entirely different events.

This remains possible.

Nevertheless, the existence of significant thematic overlap naturally invites comparative literary investigation.

The burden then falls upon the interpreter to explain why the Qur'anic account lacks the historical clarity and theological completeness found in the earlier biblical narrative.

Conclusion

The comparison between Qur'an 2:243 and Ezekiel 37 reveals substantially different approaches to revelation.

Ezekiel presents a historically situated prophetic vision, rich in literary detail, theological symbolism, covenantal significance, and internal interpretation.

Qur'an 2:243 presents a highly compressed narrative lacking historical context, identifiable participants, explanatory detail, and explicit interpretation.

As a result, later Islamic exegetes produced multiple and often conflicting reconstructions in an effort to supply what the Qur'anic text leaves unstated.

From a Christian apologetic perspective, this pattern raises a significant question: does the Qur'an faithfully preserve previous revelation, or does it adapt earlier biblical traditions into shorter narratives that reflect a different theological framework?

While historical scholarship cannot prove theological claims about divine inspiration, the literary evidence supports the conclusion that Qur'an 2:243 is more plausibly understood as a reworking of an earlier biblical resurrection tradition than as an independent, self-explanatory revelation.

Accordingly, the more academically responsible question is not whether the Qur'an "stole" the story, but whether it appropriated and reshaped biblical material in ways that fundamentally altered its original historical and theological meaning. That question remains a legitimate subject of ongoing scholarly debate and invites careful textual analysis rather than rhetorical assertion.

TEMPORARY MARRIAGE (MUT'AH) IN ISLAM

TEMPORARY MARRIAGE (MUT'AH) IN ISLAM:

A Theological Examination of Qur'an 4:24, the Hadith Literature, and the Biblical Doctrine of Marriage

A Christian Apologetic Study

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

INTRODUCTION

Marriage is one of the most profound institutions established by God for humanity. It is not merely a legal arrangement, social contract, or cultural tradition, but a sacred covenant reflecting God's holy character and His relationship with His people. Consequently, a religion's doctrine of marriage reveals its understanding of holiness, morality, sexuality, and divine revelation.

One of the most significant theological differences between Islam and biblical Christianity concerns the Islamic doctrine of temporary marriage (Nikāḥ al-Mut'ah). While the overwhelming majority of Sunni Muslims maintain that Mut'ah was later prohibited, classical Islamic sources record that it was explicitly permitted during part of Muhammad's ministry. In contrast, Twelver Shi'a Islam continues to regard Mut'ah as a legitimate form of marriage based principally on Qur'an 4:24 and related traditions.

This study examines the Qur'anic text, classical tafsir, and authentic hadith concerning temporary marriage before comparing them with the biblical doctrine of marriage. The central question is whether temporary marriage is compatible with the biblical understanding of holiness and God's design for human sexuality.

WHAT IS MUT'AH?

Mut'ah (Arabic: نكاح المتعة) is a marriage contracted for a predetermined period. The duration may range from hours to years, depending upon the agreement of the parties.

Unlike permanent marriage, Mut'ah includes:

a fixed duration;
an agreed financial payment (mahr);
automatic termination when the agreed period expires;
no divorce proceedings at the conclusion of the contract.

The temporary nature of the relationship distinguishes Mut'ah from the lifelong covenant presented in Scripture.

DOES QUR'AN 4:24 PROVIDE A BASIS FOR TEMPORARY MARRIAGE?

Qur'an 4:24 states:

"So for whatever you enjoy (istamta'tum) from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation."

Many Muslim commentators have understood the verb istamta'tum as referring to lawful marital relations in general. However, numerous early Islamic authorities also connected this verse with Mut'ah.

Among the most influential Sunni commentators, Ibn Kathir explains:

"This verse was revealed concerning Mut'ah marriage."

He then cites traditions stating that Muhammad later prohibited the practice.

This immediately raises an important theological question:

If Qur'an 4:24 originally authorized temporary marriage, why would a practice instituted by divine revelation later require permanent prohibition?

If Allah's moral law reflects His eternal character, can an institution regarded as morally acceptable at one time become permanently forbidden at another?

THE HADITH RECORD: WAS MUT'AH PERMITTED?

Several authentic hadith preserved in Sahih Muslim record that Muhammad explicitly allowed temporary marriage.

Jabir ibn Abdullah states:

"We practiced temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah, and during the time of Abu Bakr and Umar."

(Sahih Muslim 1405c)

Another narration reports:

"Allah's Messenger permitted temporary marriage for us..."

(Sahih Muslim 1406a)

Another account describes companions negotiating with a woman over the payment offered in exchange for a temporary marriage lasting three nights.

(Sahih Muslim 1406g)

These narrations are generally accepted within Sunni hadith collections as authentic historical reports describing a period during which Mut'ah was permitted before later prohibition.

THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE ISLAMIC SOURCES

The historical record raises several important questions for theological discussion.

1. Why would God authorize temporary sexual relationships?

If God's moral nature is immutable, should divine revelation ever authorize a marriage intentionally designed to end after a predetermined period?

2. Does temporary marriage fulfill the biblical meaning of covenant?

Biblical marriage establishes an enduring covenant, not a temporary contract.

Can a relationship intended to terminate after days or weeks truly represent the permanence associated with covenant fidelity?

3. Can temporary marriage be distinguished from legalized sexual gratification?

The contractual exchange of payment, followed by predetermined termination, invites comparison with transactional relationships.

What theological criteria distinguish Mut'ah from a temporary sexual arrangement apart from its legal form?

4. Why did Muhammad first permit and later prohibit Mut'ah?

If the practice was morally acceptable because Allah permitted it, on what theological basis did it later become permanently forbidden?

Conversely, if it was morally problematic, why was it permitted in the first place?

5. Does changing legislation reflect an unchanging divine standard?

The Bible consistently grounds morality in God's immutable holiness.

Does the development of Islamic legislation concerning Mut'ah suggest progressive legal adaptation, or does it raise questions concerning the consistency of divine moral revelation?

THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE

Scripture presents marriage as a permanent covenant established by God.

Genesis 2:24 declares:

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

Several characteristics define biblical marriage:

One man and one woman.
Exclusive fidelity.
Public covenant.
Lifelong commitment.
Rooted in holiness.
Reflecting God's covenant with His people.

Marriage is therefore far more than a legal contract; it is a sacred covenant established before God.

JESUS CHRIST REAFFIRMED GOD'S ORIGINAL DESIGN

Jesus rejected attempts to lower God's moral standard.

He declared:

"What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

(Matthew 19:6)

Rather than introducing temporary forms of marriage, Jesus appealed to creation itself.

His teaching consistently points back to God's original intention:

permanence;
covenant faithfulness;
lifelong union.

No New Testament text introduces a category of temporary marriage.

HOLINESS AND SEXUAL ETHICS IN THE BIBLE

Biblical holiness reflects God's own character.

"Be holy, for I am holy."

(Leviticus 19:2; 1 Peter 1:16)

Hebrews 13:4 teaches:

"Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure."

Within biblical theology:

sexual intimacy belongs within covenant marriage;
holiness requires fidelity rather than convenience;
self-control is valued over temporary gratification.

Marriage is therefore understood as an enduring covenant rather than a time-limited arrangement.

JESUS' ETHIC OF INNER HOLINESS

Jesus elevated—not lowered—the moral standard.

He taught:

"Everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

(Matthew 5:28)

Rather than creating legal mechanisms to accommodate desire, Jesus called His followers to inward transformation through repentance, purity, and obedience.

The emphasis is not merely external legality but inward holiness.

COMPARING THE TWO FRAMEWORKS

The contrast between the biblical and Islamic discussions of marriage can be summarized as follows:

Biblical Marriage	Mut'ah (Temporary Marriage)
Lifelong covenant	Time-limited contract
Permanent union	Predetermined termination
Reflects God's covenant	Ends automatically by agreement
Emphasizes enduring fidelity	Temporary by design
Rooted in creation	Connected in Islamic sources with later legal prohibition

For Christian theology, these differences raise fundamental questions about whether temporary marriage can adequately reflect the covenantal nature of marriage revealed in Scripture.

CONCLUSION

The doctrine of Mut'ah remains one of the most debated aspects of Islamic marital law. Classical Sunni sources acknowledge that Muhammad permitted it for a period before later prohibiting it, while Twelver Shi'a jurisprudence continues to regard it as lawful. This diversity itself has long been a subject of theological discussion within Islam.

From the perspective of biblical Christianity, however, marriage is consistently presented as a permanent covenant instituted by God from creation and reaffirmed by Jesus Christ. Scripture contains no parallel concept of a marriage intentionally entered with a predetermined end date.

Accordingly, Christian theology raises serious questions regarding whether temporary marriage is compatible with the biblical vision of holiness, covenant fidelity, and God's unchanging moral character. These questions invite careful examination of the coherence of the respective theological systems and encourage readers to compare the claims of the Qur'an, the hadith literature, and the Bible in light of their foundational understandings of divine revelation, holiness, and marriage.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

WHERE IS ALLAH?

WHERE IS ALLAH?
A THEOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF ALLAH'S LOCATION, PRESENCE, AND TRANSCENDENCE IN THE QUR'AN

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the most fundamental questions in theology is remarkably simple:

Where is God?

The answer to this question shapes every other doctrine—creation, revelation, worship, prayer, salvation, and God's relationship with humanity.

The Bible consistently presents God as both transcendent (above creation) and immanent (actively present within creation). Christianity teaches that although God reigns in heaven, His presence fills heaven and earth, and through the Holy Spirit He dwells within believers.

The Qur'an, however, appears to present several different descriptions of Allah's relationship to space and creation. In some passages Allah appears enthroned above creation. In others He is described as "nearer than the jugular vein." Elsewhere angels ascend to Him from earth, implying spatial distance. These descriptions have generated centuries of debate among Muslim theologians.

This study examines these Qur'anic texts and asks whether they can be reconciled into a coherent doctrine of divine presence.

The Qur'an Places Allah Upon the Throne

One of the most repeated Qur'anic descriptions of Allah is that He established Himself upon the Throne.

"Then He established Himself upon the Throne."

This formula appears repeatedly (e.g., Qur'an 7:54; 10:3; 13:2; 20:5; 25:59; 32:4; 57:4).

The Arabic expression istawā 'ala al-'arsh naturally conveys the idea of establishing oneself over or upon the Throne. Early Muslim scholars differed on whether this should be understood literally or figuratively, but the repeated association of Allah with the Throne raises an obvious theological question:

If Allah is on the Throne, where is the Throne?

The Throne Was Upon the Waters

Qur'an 11:7 states:

"He created the heavens and the earth in six days, and His Throne was upon the water."

Unlike other verses, this text gives a specific location for the Throne.

It was upon the waters.

This statement appears descriptive rather than metaphorical.

If the Throne had a location before the creation of heaven and earth, several questions naturally follow:

Was Allah also located there?
Does the Throne still occupy a location?
If not, when did it move?
Where is it now?

The Qur'an does not answer these questions explicitly.

Allah Is Said to Be Nearer Than the Jugular Vein

One of the most famous verses reads:

"We are nearer to him than his jugular vein." (Qur'an 50:16)

Many Muslim commentators explain this in different ways.

Some interpret the "We" as referring to Allah Himself.

Others argue that the verse refers to His angels.

Still others interpret it as referring to Allah's perfect knowledge rather than His actual presence.

The verse itself does not explicitly clarify which interpretation is intended.

If Allah Himself is literally nearer than the jugular vein, this suggests extraordinary immediacy rather than spatial distance.

Yet Angels Ascend to Allah

Other Qur'anic passages appear to describe Allah as existing in a location above creation.

Qur'an 32:5 says:

"He directs affairs from heaven to earth; then they ascend to Him."

Likewise, Qur'an 70:4 says:

"The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day whose measure is fifty thousand years."

These texts naturally imply movement from earth toward Allah.

If Allah is already equally present everywhere, several questions arise:

Why must angels ascend?
Why must affairs return to Him?
What destination are they traveling toward?
Why is travel necessary if Allah is already immediately present everywhere?

The language of ascent appears to imply spatial distinction between heaven and earth.

Can Allah Be Both Everywhere and Located?

Islamic theology has historically offered several approaches.

The Ash'ari School

Many Ash'ari theologians rejected assigning Allah a physical location. They interpreted references to the Throne metaphorically, emphasizing Allah's transcendence beyond space.

The Athari (Traditionalist) Position

Many Athari scholars affirmed that Allah is above His Throne "in a manner befitting His majesty," while rejecting any comparison with created beings. They generally avoid asking "how" (bilā kayf), maintaining that the exact mode is beyond human comprehension.

The Maturidi School

Maturidi theologians similarly emphasized Allah's transcendence and often interpreted spatial language in ways that avoided attributing created limitations to Him.

These differing approaches illustrate that the question of Allah's "location" has been a subject of significant theological discussion within Islam rather than a matter of universal agreement.

Does the Qur'an Teach Omnipresence?

The Bible teaches that God is present everywhere.

David declares:

"Where shall I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, You are there." (Psalm 139:7–10)

God Himself declares:

"Do I not fill heaven and earth?" (Jeremiah 23:24)

These texts affirm God's universal presence while maintaining His transcendence.

By contrast, the Qur'an does not explicitly state that Allah "fills heaven and earth." Instead, it speaks of Allah's knowledge, authority, and power extending over creation, while also describing Him in relation to the Throne and the heavens. Whether this amounts to omnipresence in the Christian sense is a matter of theological interpretation among Muslims.

Does Allah Live Inside Believers?

The New Testament introduces an even more intimate doctrine.

The Holy Spirit dwells within believers.

Jesus said:

"We will come to him and make Our home with him." (John 14:23)

Paul writes:

"Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?" (1 Corinthians 3:16)

Again,

"Christ in you, the hope of glory." (Colossians 1:27)

The Christian doctrine is therefore not merely that God knows believers.

God lives within them through the Holy Spirit.

The Qur'an, by contrast, speaks of Allah being near, hearing, seeing, and knowing, but it does not teach that Allah Himself indwells believers in the same way the New Testament describes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

The Theological Tension

The Qur'an appears to affirm several ideas simultaneously:

Allah is above the Throne.
His Throne was upon the waters.
Affairs ascend to Him.
Angels travel to Him.
He is nearer than the jugular vein.

Muslim theologians have proposed various interpretive frameworks to harmonize these passages. Critics, however, argue that the texts create unresolved questions about whether Allah is to be understood as spatially located, universally present, or present through His knowledge and authority rather than His essence.

Questions Worth Considering

These questions have been discussed by Muslim and Christian theologians alike:

If Allah is on the Throne, where is the Throne?
If Allah is nearer than the jugular vein, what does "near" mean?
Why do angels ascend if Allah is equally present everywhere?
Why do affairs return to Allah if He is already immediately present?
Is Allah's nearness one of essence, knowledge, authority, or something else?
Does the Qur'an teach omnipresence explicitly, or is this inferred through later theology?
Can Allah be both beyond creation and described in spatial terms without tension?

The Biblical Answer

Biblical Christianity presents a unified vision of God's transcendence and immanence.

God reigns from heaven.

God fills heaven and earth.

God is present everywhere.

God dwells within His people through the Holy Spirit.

There is no contradiction between God's sovereignty over creation and His intimate presence with believers. Christianity understands God as not limited by space while also affirming His real personal presence.

Conclusion

The question, "Where is Allah?", has prompted centuries of theological reflection within Islam. The Qur'an contains passages describing Allah's Throne, His nearness, and the ascent of angels and affairs to Him. Muslim scholars have developed different interpretive traditions to explain how these descriptions fit together, ranging from metaphorical readings to affirmations that Allah is above the Throne "without asking how."

From a Christian theological perspective, these texts invite further examination regarding the nature of divine presence and whether they present a doctrine comparable to the Bible's teaching that God is both transcendent and universally present, and that He indwells believers through the Holy Spirit. The comparison highlights significant differences between Islamic and Christian conceptions of God's relationship to creation and humanity, making the question of divine presence a central point of dialogue and debate between the two faiths.

Gabriel, the Holy Spirit, and the Question of Revelation: A Theological Examination of Alleged Internal Tensions in the Qur'an

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the principal claims made by Islam is that the Qur'an is the final, perfect, and internally consistent revelation from God. The Qur'an itself repeatedly challenges skeptics by asserting that if it were from anyone other than God, they would find many contradictions within it (Qur'an 4:82). Consequently, the question of internal consistency is not peripheral but central to Islamic theology.

This study examines three significant textual tensions arising from Qur'an 2:97 and 16:101–103. Rather than assuming contradiction at the outset, this article asks whether these passages can be harmonized without introducing theological difficulties elsewhere within the Qur'an and Islamic tradition.

The discussion is conducted from the perspective of comparative theology and biblical criticism, inviting readers to consider whether the Qur'anic narrative consistently explains the source, continuity, and linguistic character of divine revelation.

The Relevant Texts

Qur'an 2:97

"Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel—for indeed he has brought it down upon your heart by the permission of Allah, confirming what came before it, and as guidance and good news for the believers."

Qur'an 16:101–103

"When We substitute one revelation for another... they say, 'You are only a fabricator.'

Say: The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord in truth...

We know indeed that they say, 'It is only a human being who teaches him.' The tongue of the one they refer to is foreign, while this Qur'an is clear Arabic."

These passages generate three major theological questions.

I. Who Actually Brings Revelation?

Gabriel or the Holy Spirit?

Qur'an 2:97 explicitly attributes revelation to Gabriel.

Qur'an 16:102 attributes the same revelation to the Holy Spirit.

Muslim commentators generally resolve this by identifying Gabriel as the Holy Spirit.

However, this explanation immediately raises broader theological questions.

Debate Questions

If Gabriel is the Holy Spirit, why does the Qur'an consistently distinguish between Allah, His Spirit, and His angels in other contexts?

If Gabriel is merely another name for the Holy Spirit, why is "Spirit" used independently in numerous passages?

Why is Gabriel mentioned only by name in a few places, whereas "the Spirit" appears throughout the Qur'an with broader functions?

Does the Qur'an explicitly state anywhere that Gabriel and the Holy Spirit are identical, or is this an interpretive conclusion developed later?

The Problem Created by Islamic Apologetics

Some Muslim apologists also argue that the "Comforter" promised by Jesus in John 14–16 refers to Muhammad rather than the Holy Spirit.

This creates an important theological difficulty.

Christian Scripture explicitly identifies the Comforter as the Holy Spirit.

If Muslims insist that:

the Holy Spirit is Gabriel, and
the Comforter is Muhammad,

then an obvious question emerges.

Challenge

Can the Holy Spirit simultaneously be Gabriel in the Qur'an while being identified with Muhammad in Islamic polemics against Christianity?

If not, then one of these interpretations must be abandoned.

If yes, then how are these identities reconciled?

II. Confirmation or Replacement?

Qur'an 2:97 states that the Qur'an confirms previous revelation.

Qur'an 16:101 describes one revelation replacing another.

The Arabic verb often translated "replace" (baddalna) has generated extensive discussion among Muslim scholars.

Many argue it means updating rather than contradiction.

Yet this explanation raises further questions.

What Does Confirmation Mean?

If the Qur'an confirms previous revelation, then one would expect agreement with earlier Scriptures.

Yet the Qur'an frequently differs from the biblical text concerning:

the crucifixion of Jesus (Qur'an 4:157),
the sonship of Christ,
the covenant,
the priesthood,
salvation,
the identity of Isaac and Ishmael in key narratives,
the nature of God.

These are not merely minor differences.

They concern central theological doctrines.

Debate Questions

How can a revelation simultaneously confirm previous Scripture while reversing many of its central teachings?

If earlier revelation was corrupted, why does the Qur'an repeatedly instruct people to consult the Torah and Gospel (e.g., Qur'an 5:43–47; 10:94)?

If the previous Scriptures remained authoritative in Muhammad's day, what exactly required replacement?

If they were no longer reliable, why appeal to them at all?

The Question of God's Perfect Revelation

Some Muslim scholars explain replacement as progressive updating.

Yet this raises philosophical questions concerning divine perfection.

If God's eternal word exists with Him, then:

Did God's heavenly revelation itself change?

If revelation requires continual updating,

does this imply imperfection in previous revelation?

If not,

why replace it?

The biblical doctrine presents progressive revelation as unfolding one redemptive plan without denying or correcting previous divine truth.

The Qur'anic concept appears to many critics to involve correction rather than fulfillment.

III. Is the Qur'an Pure Arabic?

Qur'an 16:103 states:

"This is clear Arabic."

Many translators also render the phrase as "pure Arabic."

The immediate context responds to critics who claimed Muhammad learned from a foreign individual.

The argument appears straightforward.

The alleged teacher spoke a foreign language.

The Qur'an does not.

Therefore, he could not be its source.

Yet the Qur'an Contains Numerous Foreign Loanwords

Historical linguistics recognizes that many Qur'anic terms originated outside Arabic before becoming part of Qur'anic vocabulary.

Examples frequently discussed include:

Injil (Greek)
Fir'awn (Egyptian)
Taurat (Hebrew)
Sijjil (Persian)
Istabraq (Persian)
Firdaws (Persian)
Qistas (Greek)
Mishkat (possibly Ethiopic)

The late scholar Arthur Jeffery documented hundreds of such words in his classic study The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an.

Modern linguists generally acknowledge that the Qur'an contains loanwords that had entered pre-Islamic Arabic.

Thus, many Muslim scholars understand "clear Arabic" to mean eloquent or intelligible Arabic rather than linguistically "pure" Arabic.

Debate Questions

If "clear Arabic" merely means understandable Arabic, why does Qur'an 16:103 contrast it with the foreign speech of the alleged human teacher?

Would not a bilingual foreigner also be capable of speaking understandable Arabic?

Does the force of the argument depend upon linguistic purity rather than mere clarity?

Another Tension: Is the Qur'an Clear?

Muslim apologists frequently argue that the Qur'an is perfectly clear.

Yet Qur'an 3:7 acknowledges that some verses are ambiguous (mutashabihat).

It declares that only Allah fully knows their ultimate interpretation.

This raises another important theological question.

Debate Questions

How can the Qur'an simultaneously claim to be a clear book while acknowledging that significant portions possess meanings known only to Allah?

If essential doctrines depend upon verses whose meanings are disputed, in what sense is the Qur'an fully clear?

Broader Theological Reflections

These observations invite broader reflection concerning the nature of revelation.

The Bible presents revelation as historically progressive yet internally coherent, culminating in Jesus Christ without overturning God's previous self-disclosure. The New Testament portrays fulfillment rather than contradiction, continuity rather than correction.

The Qur'an, by contrast, presents itself as confirming previous revelation while differing from it on major theological issues. It attributes revelation to Gabriel in one passage and to the Holy Spirit in another, leading later commentators to equate the two. It describes revelation as both confirming earlier Scripture and replacing previous revelation. It defends the Qur'an as clear Arabic while employing vocabulary that historical linguistics traces to multiple neighboring languages.

Whether these features constitute genuine contradictions or can be satisfactorily harmonized remains a matter of ongoing scholarly debate. However, they unquestionably raise important interpretive questions that deserve careful examination.

Questions for Muslim Scholars

Does the Qur'an explicitly identify Gabriel as the Holy Spirit, or is this an interpretive tradition?
If Gabriel is the Holy Spirit, how should passages referring simply to "the Spirit" be understood?
How can the Qur'an confirm previous Scripture while contradicting major biblical doctrines?
If previous revelation was corrupted, why does the Qur'an appeal to it as authoritative?
If revelation required replacement, does this imply incompleteness in earlier revelation?
If the Qur'an is perfectly clear, why does it acknowledge passages whose meanings are known only to Allah?
If the Qur'an is linguistically unique, why does it incorporate numerous recognized loanwords from surrounding languages?

Conclusion

The Qur'an repeatedly challenges its readers to examine its internal consistency. Such an invitation naturally includes careful textual, historical, linguistic, and theological analysis. The questions explored in this article are not intended as rhetorical dismissals but as substantive issues for scholarly discussion.

For Christian theology, divine revelation reaches its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God, whose life, death, and resurrection are presented as the climax of God's redemptive plan. From this perspective, later claims to revise or supersede that revelation invite careful scrutiny.

Whether one concludes that the passages discussed above represent contradictions, tensions requiring interpretation, or examples of progressive revelation, they remain important topics for serious dialogue between Christians and Muslims. Honest engagement with these texts can deepen understanding of the distinct theological claims made by both faiths and encourage rigorous examination of the foundations upon which those claims rest.

DOES SURAH 17:59 IMPLY THAT ALLAH LIES?

A Textual and Theological Examination of Miracles in the Qur'an

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Introduction

One of the fundamental attributes of God in both Judaism and Christianity is absolute truthfulness. Scripture repeatedly affirms that God cannot lie because truth belongs to His very nature (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). If a religious text attributes contradictory statements to God, then an important theological question naturally arises: Can such a deity truly possess the divine attribute of perfect truthfulness?

This study examines one of the most difficult passages in the Qur'an—Surah 17:59—and asks whether it creates an irreconcilable contradiction concerning Allah's sending of miracles. The analysis will rely primarily on the Qur'an itself before comparing its claims with the testimony of the Bible.

The purpose is not to mock Muslims but to examine whether the Qur'an presents a coherent doctrine concerning divine revelation and miracles.

I. Surah 17:59 — Allah's Explanation for the Absence of Miracles

The central passage reads:

"Nothing prevented Us from sending the signs except that the former peoples denied them. We gave Thamud the she-camel as a visible sign, but they wronged her. We send signs only as a warning."
(Qur'an 17:59)

Several major translations convey essentially the same meaning.

According to the verse:

Allah had been sending miraculous signs.
Former nations rejected those miracles.
The people of Thamud rejected the miraculous she-camel.
Because of this rejection, Allah states that He refrains from sending miraculous signs.

The obvious question is whether this statement is absolute or merely situational.

II. The She-Camel as the Final Example

The Qur'an repeatedly describes the miraculous she-camel given to the people of Thamud.

"This is the she-camel of Allah—a sign for you..."
(Qur'an 7:73)

The miracle was extraordinary.

According to Islamic tradition and Qur'anic commentators, the camel emerged miraculously from solid rock. Yet the people killed it despite witnessing the miracle.

Surah 17:59 cites this very event as the reason why Allah ceased sending miraculous signs.

The natural reading of the passage suggests a change in divine policy regarding miracles.

III. The Historical Timeline

The Prophet Salih ministered to the people of Thamud centuries before Jesus.

Islamic tradition itself confirms there were no prophets between Jesus and Muhammad.

Muhammad declared:

"There was no prophet between me and Jesus."

Therefore the sequence becomes:

Salih
Jesus
Muhammad

If Allah truly stopped sending miracles after Thamud, then every prophet after Salih should have ministered without miracles.

However, this is precisely where the problem emerges.

IV. Jesus Performs Numerous Miracles

The Qur'an repeatedly attributes spectacular miracles to Jesus.

For example:

"I heal the blind and the leper and give life to the dead by Allah's permission."
(Qur'an 3:49)

Likewise:

"We gave Jesus son of Mary clear signs."
(Qur'an 2:87)

Additional miracles include:

Speaking as an infant (3:46)
Creating birds from clay (3:49)
Healing the blind
Healing lepers
Raising the dead
Knowing hidden things
Receiving a table from heaven (5:112–115)

These are among the greatest miracles recorded in the Qur'an.

Yet they occur after Allah supposedly stopped sending miracles.

V. The Central Difficulty

The theological problem is straightforward.

Surah 17:59 states that Allah refrained from sending miraculous signs because previous nations rejected them.

Yet Surah 2:87 and Surah 3:49 explicitly state that Allah empowered Jesus with numerous miracles.

Both propositions cannot simultaneously describe an unchanging divine policy unless Surah 17:59 is interpreted in a more limited sense.

If Surah 17:59 means Allah permanently ceased sending miraculous signs, then the miracles of Jesus create an apparent contradiction.

If it refers only to Muhammad's contemporaries, then the wording requires further explanation because the verse itself grounds the refusal in a historical principle extending back to Thamud.

This tension has generated extensive discussion among Muslim commentators.

VI. Muhammad's Refusal to Perform Miracles

The issue becomes even more significant when Muhammad's opponents requested miraculous signs.

They challenged him:

"We will never believe you until you cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth..."

(Qur'an 17:90–93)

Instead of producing miracles comparable to Moses or Jesus, Muhammad replies:

"Glory be to my Lord! Am I anything but a human messenger?"

The Qur'an records numerous similar requests:

6:37
10:20
13:7
13:27
20:133
21:5
25:7–8

In each case, miraculous demonstrations are either declined or redirected.

Surah 20:133 responds:

"Has there not come to them clear evidence of what was in the former Scriptures?"

Rather than presenting new miracles, attention is directed toward previous revelations.

VII. Muslim Explanations

Classical Muslim commentators generally reject the interpretation that Allah permanently ceased performing miracles.

Instead, many argue that Surah 17:59 refers specifically to miracles demanded by Muhammad's opponents.

According to this interpretation:

Allah refused to grant certain requested miracles because previous nations had rejected similar signs and were consequently destroyed.

This explanation avoids an outright contradiction but raises additional questions.

If miracles continued through Jesus—and Islamic tradition also attributes miracles to Muhammad—why present the Thamud incident as the reason for withholding miraculous signs from Muhammad's critics?

The passage remains difficult and continues to invite theological discussion.

VIII. The Biblical Contrast

The Bible presents miracles differently.

Miracles are not portrayed as divine experiments abandoned because of human unbelief.

Instead, miracles consistently function as confirmations of God's revelation.

Moses performed miracles.

Elijah performed miracles.

Elisha performed miracles.

Jesus performed miracles.

The apostles performed miracles.

Even when many rejected these miracles, God continued authenticating His messengers.

Scripture explains:

"God also testified by signs and wonders and various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit."
(Hebrews 2:4)

Unlike Surah 17:59, biblical revelation never suggests that God ceased authenticating His servants because earlier generations rejected miraculous evidence.

IX. Divine Truthfulness

The central theological issue is not merely miracles but the nature of God.

The Bible repeatedly affirms:

"God is not a man, that He should lie."
(Numbers 23:19)

"It is impossible for God to lie."
(Hebrews 6:18)

"God, who cannot lie..."
(Titus 1:2)

If a sacred text attributes internally inconsistent declarations to God, then questions naturally arise regarding its claim to divine inspiration.

For Christian theology, God's truthfulness is not simply one attribute among many—it is essential to His very nature.

Conclusion

Surah 17:59 presents one of the Qur'an's most challenging theological passages concerning miracles.

On its surface, the verse appears to explain that Allah ceased sending miraculous signs because previous nations rejected them, citing the destruction of Thamud as the decisive example.

Yet the Qur'an later attributes extraordinary miracles to Jesus, all performed "by Allah's permission" (3:49), and Islamic tradition also credits Muhammad with miracles outside the Qur'an.

This creates an apparent tension that Muslim exegetes seek to resolve through contextual interpretation. Whether those explanations successfully harmonize the relevant passages remains a matter of theological debate.

From a Christian perspective, this discussion highlights a significant contrast between the Qur'an and the Bible. The Bible consistently presents God as perfectly truthful and unwavering in His purposes. Divine miracles continue throughout biblical history as confirmations of God's revelation rather than being discontinued because of human unbelief.

Ultimately, the question is not merely whether miracles occurred but whether the character attributed to God is internally consistent. Christians affirm that the God revealed in Scripture "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). Consequently, any religious text that appears to attribute contradictory declarations to God invites careful examination regarding its claim to be divine revelation.

For both Christians and Muslims, the pursuit of truth requires examining sacred texts with honesty, careful exegesis, historical awareness, and a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads.