Friday, June 26, 2026

MUHAMMAD CONFESSES THAT ALLAH IS NOT THE GOD OF THE GOSPEL AND TORAH BUT A PAGAN GOD

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

MUHAMMAD CONFESSES THAT ALLAH IS NOT THE GOD OF THE GOSPEL AND TORAH BUT A PAGAN GOD

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?
Is Allah a pagan god?
Dear readers, once again, the Prophet of Allah has confessed that Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God, and that Allah is a pagan god.

In this article, we will examine various pieces of evidence showing that Allah is not the God of Adam, Moses, and all the prophets mentioned in the Holy Bible.

Based on Surah Al-Kafirun, which was revealed in Mecca, Muhammad clearly confesses with his own mouth that Christians and Jews do not worship the Allah whom Muslims worship.

Surah 109

Say: O disbelievers!
I do not worship what you worship.
Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
And I will not worship what you worship.
Nor will you worship what I worship.
For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.

This Surah has many problems that make it clear that the claim made by Muslims that Christians and Muslims worship the same God is false and lacks evidence.

FIRST PROBLEM: Who is this Surah addressing?
(a) The People of the Book (Jews, Christians, and possibly the Sabeans)?
(b) The disbelievers of Mecca?
The Quran fails to clarify which group Muhammad was addressing.

SECOND PROBLEM:
Even if it refers to group (a) or (b), Surah 109 is full of contradictions against other Quranic verses which claim that Christians, Jews, and others worship the same God worshiped by Muslims.

Surah Al-Baqara 2:62
“Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans – those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness – will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.”

Surah 2:139
“Say: Do you argue with us about Allah while He is our Lord and your Lord? For us are our deeds, and for you are your deeds. And we are sincere to Him.”

Surah 3:64
“Say: O People of the Book, come to a word that is equitable between us and you – that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah.”

Surah Al-Ankabut 29:46
“And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is One; and we are Muslims to Him.”

According to the verses above, Muhammad claims that the God of Christians, Jews, and Muslims is one.

Therefore, the evidence we’ve seen shows that group (b) – the pagans – also worshipped the Allah of the Muslims, though they worshipped other gods too.

Surah 29:61–63
61. If you ask them, “Who created the heavens and the earth and subjected the sun and the moon?” they will surely say, “Allah.”
62. Allah extends provision for whom He wills of His servants and restricts it for him. Indeed Allah is, of all things, Knowing.
63. And if you ask them, “Who sends down rain from the sky and gives life thereby to the earth after its lifelessness?” they will surely say, “Allah.” Say, “Praise to Allah”; but most of them do not reason.

Surah An-Nahl 16:35
“And those who associate others with Allah say: ‘If Allah had willed, we would not have worshipped anything besides Him, neither we nor our forefathers, nor would we have forbidden anything without His command.’”

From the verses above, it is clear that the pagans repeated or believed the same things that Allah told Muhammad.

Surah Al-An’am 6:107
“And had Allah willed, they would not have associated [anything with Him]. And We have not appointed you over them as a guardian, nor are you a manager over them.”

Final Note:

Surah Az-Zumar 39:3
“Unquestionably, for Allah is the pure religion. And those who take protectors besides Him [say]: ‘We only worship them that they may bring us nearer to Allah in position.’ Indeed, Allah will judge between them concerning that over which they differ. Indeed, Allah does not guide he who is a liar and disbeliever.”

The above verse shows that the god of the pagans is Allah, and their other gods were just mediators to draw them nearer to Allah. Therefore, Allah was the supreme deity of the pagans.

There is one verse in the Quran that speaks about people who believe in Allah as the creator of all things:

Surah Luqman 31:25
“If you ask them, ‘Who created the heavens and the earth?’ they will surely say, ‘Allah.’ Say: ‘Praise be to Allah!’ But most of them do not know.”

Whether this verse refers to group (a), (b), or both, it clearly shows that Muhammad acknowledged the same Allah who was worshipped by the pagans of Mecca.

To summarize:

Christians and Jews are claimed to worship Allah.
Pagans and Muslims also worshipped Allah, though the pagans had other gods too.

If that is the case, how does Surah 109 claim that the disbelievers did not worship the god Muhammad worshipped?
To say that this verse refers only to idol worshippers (pagans) is false for the following reasons:

How do Muslims know this verse was revealed only to pagans?
Even if the verse was directed only to pagans, the Quran itself says they acknowledged Allah, so they must have worshipped what Muhammad worshipped.

It is true that Muhammad did not worship all their gods, but the truth remains: both Muhammad and the pagans worshipped the same deity, Allah, as stated in Surah 109:3.

For example, the Quran claims that Muhammad did not worship what the pagans worshipped besides Allah:

Surah Yunus 10:104
“Say: O people, if you are in doubt as to my religion, then know that I do not worship what you worship besides Allah. But I worship Allah who causes your death.”

Surah Ghafir 40:66
“Say: I have been forbidden to worship those whom you invoke besides Allah when clear proofs have come to me from my Lord.”

These verses show that the pagans did worship Allah – along with their other pagan gods.

Therefore, we have thoroughly learned today that Muhammad worshipped Allah, who was the pagan god. Muhammad’s father was named Abdullah, which means slave of Allah. It is known that Muhammad is considered the first Muslim, is he not?
If that is true, where did Muhammad’s father get the name Abdullah if not from the Allah worshipped by the pagans?

Indeed, the Allah worshipped by pagans is the same Allah worshipped by Muhammad.

In His Service,
Max Shimba Ministries

Contradictions in the Qur’an: Can the Words and Decrees of Allah be Changed?

Contradictions in the Qur’an: Can the Words and Decrees of Allah be Changed?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba – Shimba Theological Institute

Islamic theology holds that the Qur’an is the unaltered and perfect word of Allah, free from any inconsistency. Surah 4:82 presents this as an apologetic challenge:

“Do they not consider the Qur’an carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.”

Classical commentators such as Ibn Kathir affirm that Allah declares the Qur’an to be free from contradictions, errors, or inconsistencies because it is a revelation from Al-Hakim (the All-Wise). Likewise, Yusuf Ali insists that “no reasonable person” can find any contradiction in it, regardless of its progressive revelation over many years.

However, when we turn to the Qur’an’s own statements about the immutability of Allah’s decrees, an internal theological conflict emerges.

1. The Words of Allah Cannot Be Changed — Surah 6:34

“Rejected were the messengers before you, but with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah.”

This verse appears to affirm divine immutability: Allah’s decisions and revelations are unchangeable.

2. Allah Abrogates and Replaces His Words — Surah 2:106

“None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar; know you not that Allah has power over all things?”

Here, Allah explicitly claims the right to replace earlier revelations with new ones, a principle codified in Islamic jurisprudence as naskh (abrogation).

The Theological Fracture
If Surah 6:34 is taken at face value, no one—including Allah—can alter His words or decrees. Yet Surah 2:106 teaches that Allah does precisely that—removing or replacing prior revelations. Classical exegetes such as Ibn Kathir acknowledge this as the foundation for the doctrine of abrogation, in which former commands are annulled by later ones. This creates a direct tension: if Allah’s decrees are eternal and immutable, how can He Himself cancel and replace them without violating His own standard of immutability?

The tension between these passages is not merely semantic—it strikes at the core of the Qur’an’s self-claim in Surah 4:82 to be free from “discrepancy.” For if Allah’s word is both unchangeable and changeable, the Qur’an embodies the very contradiction it denies.

Was Islam the Religion of Abraham? Was the Kaaba the First House of Worship? And Is Muhammad a True Prophet?

A Critical Examination of Quran 3:95–96 and 6:75–79

Introduction

Islamic theology frequently asserts that Islam is not a novel religion of the 7th century but rather the primordial faith of Abraham (Ibrāhīm). This claim is explicitly stated in the Qur’an (3:95), which exhorts believers to follow “the religion of Abraham,” and further identifies the Kaaba as “the first House of Worship appointed for mankind” (3:96). In Qur’an 6:75–79, Abraham is depicted as moving through a series of celestial recognitions—from star, to moon, to sun—before rejecting them as lords and setting his face toward the Creator.

However, these claims raise several theological, historical, and textual problems. This study interrogates three fundamental questions:

Was Islam the religion of Abraham?
Was the Kaaba the first house of worship for humankind?
Is Muhammad a true prophet?

Each will be considered with attention to historical evidence, scriptural testimony, and logical coherence.

1. Was Islam the Religion of Abraham?

The Qur’an identifies Abraham as neither Jew nor Christian but rather a ḥanīf (pure monotheist) and Muslim (cf. 3:95; 6:161). Yet a careful historical-critical evaluation shows several difficulties:

a. Absence of Pre-Qur’anic Records.
There are no extant Jewish, Christian, or extra-biblical writings before Muhammad (570 CE) that equate Abraham’s faith with Islamic practices. Neither the Torah, the Psalms, nor the Gospels record Abraham reciting the Shahada, performing salāt, giving zakāt, fasting in Ramadan, or making pilgrimage to the Kaaba.

b. The Sons of Abraham.
Abraham’s eight sons (Ishmael, Isaac, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, Shuah) do not appear in the biblical or historical record as practitioners of anything resembling Islam. Instead, Israel’s covenantal identity centered upon the priesthood of Levi (Exodus–Numbers), the law of Moses, and temple-centered worship—none of which align with Islamic practices.

c. Continuity of Israelite Religion.
If Islam were Abraham’s religion, one would expect to see it preserved in the covenantal life of Israel. Instead, Israel was commanded to build the tabernacle and later the Jerusalem temple, both sanctioned by God (Exodus 25–40; 1 Kings 8), with no mention of Mecca or the Kaaba.

Thus, the claim that Islam was Abraham’s religion appears to lack any historical corroboration outside the Qur’an and later Islamic tradition.

2. Was the Kaaba the First House of Worship?

Qur’an 3:96 designates the Kaaba as “the first house appointed for mankind.” Yet several questions arise:

a. Silence of Earlier Scriptures.
Neither Adam, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, nor Jesus is recorded as traveling to or worshiping at Mecca. Instead, Israel’s worship was tied to Sinai, Shiloh, Jerusalem, and the temple.

b. Contradictory Divine Commands.
If the Kaaba was indeed the primordial sanctuary, it is inexplicable why God commanded Moses to build the tabernacle at Sinai (Exodus 25:8) rather than direct Israel toward Mecca. Similarly, Solomon’s temple dedication (1 Kings 8) presents Jerusalem—not Mecca—as the chosen dwelling place of God’s name.

c. Absence from Jewish and Christian Tradition.
No Jewish prophetic text, nor any Christian apostolic writing, references the Kaaba. The silence is especially striking given the prominence of Jerusalem in salvation history.

Hence, the claim of Kaaba primacy stands without historical evidence in the wider scriptural tradition.

3. Is Muhammad a True Prophet?

Finally, the question of Muhammad’s prophethood must be addressed in light of both historical context and theological claims.

a. Pre-Prophetic Paganism.
Before his self-proclaimed prophethood, Muhammad participated in Meccan pagan culture. Historical sources (Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari) confirm his involvement in the placement of the Black Stone in 605 CE. This act—enshrining a cultic stone linked to Arabian polytheism—raises questions about continuity between pre-Islamic paganism and Islamic veneration of the Black Stone.

b. Selective Idol Destruction.
When Muhammad conquered Mecca (630 CE), he destroyed the 359 idols surrounding the Kaaba yet retained the Black Stone, centralizing it in Islamic ritual. This selective purification suggests continuity rather than rupture with earlier paganism.

c. Abraham in the Qur’an.
Qur’an 6:76–78 presents Abraham as mistakenly calling a star, moon, and sun “my Lord.” From a biblical perspective, however, Abraham never fell into astral worship. Rather, Genesis consistently portrays him as called directly by Yahweh (Genesis 12:1–3). The Qur’anic portrayal, therefore, is in tension with the biblical narrative and implies a pagan stage in Abraham’s development—contradicting the Qur’an’s own claim that he was not among the pagans (3:95).

d. Christological Contrast.
Whereas the Bible culminates in the revelation of God in Christ (John 1:14; Hebrews 1:1–3), the Qur’an redirects attention away from Christ’s divinity, presenting Muhammad as the final prophet. Yet the prophetic test of Deuteronomy 18:20–22—whether a prophet speaks in accordance with God’s prior revelation—suggests that Muhammad fails, since his message contradicts both the Torah and the Gospel.

Conclusion

The Qur’anic claims that Islam was the religion of Abraham and that the Kaaba was the first house of worship lack substantiation from any source outside the Qur’an and later Islamic tradition. Neither Abraham nor his descendants practiced Islamic rituals; Israelite worship never pointed toward Mecca; and the Kaaba plays no role in biblical salvation history.

Furthermore, Muhammad’s association with pre-Islamic pagan practices, the preservation of the Black Stone, and the divergence of his message from biblical revelation raise significant doubts about his claim to prophethood.

Thus, a critical reading of Qur’an 3:95–96 and 6:75–79—measured against the weight of historical and scriptural evidence—suggests that Muhammad was not continuing the faith of Abraham but rather reinterpreting it in light of 7th-century Arabian religious dynamics.

UTATU MTAKATIFU

Je, Fundisho la Utatu ni Upagani kama Waislamu na Mashahidi wa Yehova Wanavyodai?

Na Dr. Maxwell Shimba

UTANGULIZI

Miongoni mwa mafundisho yanayoshambuliwa sana katika Ukristo ni fundisho la Utatu Mtakatifu. Waislamu, Mashahidi wa Yehova, pamoja na makundi mbalimbali yasiyokubali uungu wa Kristo, hudai kuwa fundisho hili ni la kipagani, la kibinadamu, au lilianzishwa karne nyingi baada ya Kristo.

Hoja yao kubwa ni kwamba neno "Utatu Mtakatifu" (Trinity) halipatikani ndani ya Biblia. Kwa sababu hiyo husema kuwa Wakristo wameongeza fundisho ambalo halikufundishwa na Yesu wala mitume.

Lakini swali muhimu ni hili:

Je, kukosekana kwa neno "Utatu" ndani ya Biblia kunathibitisha kuwa fundisho hilo si la kibiblia?

Jibu ni hapana.

Kuna maneno mengi ya kiteolojia ambayo hayapatikani moja kwa moja katika Biblia lakini yanaelezea ukweli wa Biblia. Mfano:

Omnipotence (Mwenye nguvu zote)
Omniscience (Mjuzi wa yote)
Omnipresence (Aliyepo kila mahali)

Maneno haya hayakuandikwa katika Biblia lakini yanafafanua sifa ambazo Biblia inamhusisha Mungu. Vivyo hivyo, neno Utatu linafafanua ukweli wa kibiblia kwamba kuna:

Baba ni Mungu.
Mwana ni Mungu.
Roho Mtakatifu ni Mungu.
Hata hivyo Mungu ni mmoja.

MAANA YA UTATU MTAKATIFU

Utatu Mtakatifu ni fundisho kwamba:

Mungu mmoja wa milele yupo katika nafsi tatu za milele:

Baba
Mwana
Roho Mtakatifu

Hawa si miungu watatu bali ni Mungu mmoja katika nafsi tatu.

Kanisa la Kikristo halifundishi:

Miungu watatu.
Mungu mmoja anayebadilika kutoka Baba kuwa Mwana na kisha Roho.
Baba ndiye Mwana au Roho Mtakatifu.

Bali linafundisha:

Baba ni Mungu.
Mwana ni Mungu.
Roho Mtakatifu ni Mungu.
Mungu ni mmoja.

JE, UTATU NI UPAGANI?

Wakosoaji hudai kwamba Utatu ulitokana na dini za kipagani.

Lakini madai haya hayana ushahidi wa kihistoria.

Mabaraza ya kanisa kama:

Nicea (325 BK)
Constantinople (381 BK)

hayakuanzisha Utatu. Yalithibitisha tu kile ambacho kanisa tayari lilikuwa linaamini kutokana na Maandiko.

Mitume waliandika:

"Mkiwabatiza kwa jina la Baba na la Mwana na la Roho Mtakatifu."
(Mathayo 28:19)

Aya hii iliandikwa karne nyingi kabla ya Mtaguso wa Nicea.

BABA NI MUNGU

Biblia inafundisha wazi:

"Neema na iwe kwenu na amani zitokazo kwa Mungu Baba yetu."
(Wafilipi 1:2)

Hakuna ubishi katika Ukristo kwamba Baba ni Mungu.

MWANA NI MUNGU

Yohana 1:1 inasema:

"Hapo mwanzo kulikuwako Neno, naye Neno alikuwako kwa Mungu, naye Neno alikuwa Mungu."

Yohana 1:14:

"Naye Neno alifanyika mwili."

Wakolosai 2:9:

"Katika yeye unakaa utimilifu wote wa Mungu kwa jinsi ya kimwili."

Kristo si kiumbe tu bali ni Mungu aliyefanyika mwili.

ROHO MTAKATIFU NI MUNGU

Matendo 5:3–4:

Petro anamwambia Anania:

"Kwa nini umemwambia uongo Roho Mtakatifu?... Hukuwadanganya wanadamu bali Mungu."

Roho Mtakatifu:

Hunena.
Huhuzunika.
Hufundisha.
Huongoza.
Huchagua.
Hupenda.

Hizi ni sifa za nafsi, si nguvu zisizo na utu.

USHAHIDI WA AGANO LA KALE

Neno la Kiebrania Elohim linalotumiwa kwa Mungu mara nyingi ni neno la uwingi.

Mwanzo 1:26:

"Na tumfanye mtu kwa mfano wetu."

Isaya 48:16:

"Bwana MUNGU amenituma, na Roho wake."

Isaya 63:10:

"Wakamhuzunisha Roho wake Mtakatifu."

Agano la Kale linaonyesha tofauti kati ya Baba, Neno la Mungu, na Roho wa Mungu.

UTATU KATIKA UBATIZO WA YESU

Mathayo 3:16–17:

Yesu yuko mtoni.
Roho anashuka kama hua.
Baba ananena kutoka mbinguni.

Nafsi zote tatu zinaonekana kwa wakati mmoja.

Hili linaondoa dhana kwamba Baba, Mwana na Roho ni mtu mmoja anayebadilisha sura.

UTATU KATIKA AGIZO KUU

Mathayo 28:19:

"Mkiwabatiza kwa jina la Baba, na la Mwana, na la Roho Mtakatifu."

Yesu hakusema:

majina.

Alisema:

jina.

Jina moja, nafsi tatu.

JE, YESU ALIKUWA MWANADAMU TU?

Mashahidi wa Yehova hutumia:

Yohana 8:40
1 Timotheo 2:5

kuonyesha kwamba Yesu alikuwa mwanadamu.

Biblia inafundisha mambo mawili:

Yesu ni Mungu.
Yesu ni mwanadamu.

Hii ndiyo inaitwa umojawili wa Kristo (Hypostatic Union).

Yesu alijaribiwa katika ubinadamu wake, lakini asili yake ya uungu haikubadilika.

JE, ROHO MTAKATIFU NI NGUVU TU?

Mashahidi wa Yehova hufundisha kwamba Roho Mtakatifu ni nguvu ya Mungu.

Lakini Roho:

Husema (Matendo 13:2)
Hufundisha (Yohana 14:26)
Hushuhudia (Yohana 15:26)
Huhuzunika (Waefeso 4:30)
Huchagua (1 Wakorintho 12:11)

Nguvu haiwezi kuzungumza, kuhuzunika au kuchagua.

Roho Mtakatifu ni nafsi ya Mungu.

HOJA YA UISLAMU DHIDI YA UTATU

Qurani inakosoa watu wanaosema:

"Mwenyezi Mungu ni mmoja katika watatu."

Lakini Utatu wa Kikristo haufundishi:

Miungu watatu.
Mungu, Mariamu, na Yesu.
Mungu mmoja katika sehemu tatu.

Ukristo unafundisha Mungu mmoja katika nafsi tatu za milele.

Kwa hiyo hoja za Kiislamu mara nyingi hupinga maelezo ambayo si fundisho rasmi la Ukristo.

JE, UTATU ULIZALIWA NICEA?

La.

Baraza la Nicea mwaka 325 BK halikuanzisha Utatu.

Lilipinga mafundisho ya Arius aliyedai kwamba Kristo aliumbwa.

Mababa wa kanisa kabla ya Nicea walizungumza kuhusu Baba, Mwana na Roho Mtakatifu.

Mifano ni:

Ignatius wa Antiokia.
Justin Martyr.
Irenaeus.
Tertullian.

Hivyo Utatu ulikuwepo kabla ya Nicea.

UMUHIMU WA FUNDISHO LA UTATU

Utatu si jambo la kifalsafa pekee.

Ni msingi wa:

wokovu,
maombi,
ibada,
ubatizo,
ushirika wa waamini.

Baba anatuma.

Mwana anaokoa.

Roho Mtakatifu anatakasa.

HITIMISHO

Fundisho la Utatu Mtakatifu si upagani.

Si fundisho la Nicea.

Si uvumbuzi wa Athanasius.

Si mafundisho ya Paulo.

Ni ufunuo wa Maandiko Matakatifu kwamba:

Baba ni Mungu.
Mwana ni Mungu.
Roho Mtakatifu ni Mungu.
Mungu ni mmoja.

Kama vile Yesu alisema:

"Mimi na Baba tu umoja."
(Yohana 10:30)

Na mtume Paulo akahitimisha:

"Neema ya Bwana Yesu Kristo, na pendo la Mungu, na ushirika wa Roho Mtakatifu ukae nanyi nyote."
(2 Wakorintho 13:14)

Kwa hiyo, Utatu Mtakatifu si tatizo la Biblia bali ni siri ya ukuu wa Mungu ambayo Maandiko yanaifunua na waamini wanaikubali kwa imani.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Max Shimba Ministries

Hili sasa linafaa kama sura ya kitabu, makala ya kitaaluma, somo la seminari, au chapisho la kitheolojia. Pia linaweza kupanuliwa kuwa sura kamili ya kitabu cha apologetiki kuhusu Utatu Mtakatifu.

THE HOLY TRINITY

Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Paganism as Muslims and Jehovah’s Witnesses Claim?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

INTRODUCTION

Among the doctrines most frequently attacked in Christianity is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and various groups that deny the deity of Christ often argue that the Trinity is a pagan concept, a human invention, or a doctrine created centuries after Christ.

Their primary argument is that the word “Trinity” does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Therefore, they conclude that Christians have introduced a doctrine that neither Jesus nor the apostles taught.

The critical question is this:

Does the absence of the word “Trinity” in the Bible prove that the doctrine is unbiblical?

The answer is No.

Many theological terms are not found explicitly in Scripture, yet they accurately describe biblical truths. Examples include:

Omnipotence
Omniscience
Omnipresence

Although these terms do not appear in the biblical text itself, they express truths clearly taught by Scripture concerning God. In the same way, the term Trinity summarizes the biblical revelation that:

The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there is only one God.

THE MEANING OF THE HOLY TRINITY

The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is one eternal God who exists in three eternal Persons:

The Father
The Son
The Holy Spirit

These are not three gods but one God existing eternally in three distinct Persons.

Christianity does not teach:

Three separate gods.
One God who merely changes forms or modes.
That the Father is the Son or the Holy Spirit.

Rather, Scripture teaches:

The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
God is one.

IS THE TRINITY PAGAN?

Critics often claim that the Trinity originated from pagan religions. However, this assertion lacks historical evidence.

Church councils such as:

The Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325)
The Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381)

did not invent the Trinity. Rather, they affirmed what the Church had already believed based upon Scripture.

Jesus Himself declared:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
(Matthew 28:19)

This statement was written centuries before the Council of Nicaea.

THE FATHER IS GOD

Scripture clearly teaches:

“Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
(Philippians 1:2)

There is no dispute within Christianity regarding the deity of the Father.

THE SON IS GOD

John 1:1 declares:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John 1:14 states:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

Colossians 2:9 says:

“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”

Christ is not merely a created being; He is God incarnate.

THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD

Acts 5:3–4 records Peter saying to Ananias:

“Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?... You have not lied to men but to God.”

The Holy Spirit:

Speaks.
Teaches.
Guides.
Grieves.
Chooses.
Loves.

These are personal attributes, not characteristics of an impersonal force.

THE TRINITY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Hebrew word Elohim, one of the primary names for God, is grammatically plural.

Genesis 1:26 states:

“Let Us make man in Our image.”

Isaiah 48:16 says:

“The Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.”

Isaiah 63:10 says:

“They rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit.”

The Old Testament provides indications of distinction within the Godhead.

THE TRINITY AT THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

Matthew 3:16–17 presents all three Persons simultaneously:

Jesus is baptized in the Jordan.
The Spirit descends like a dove.
The Father speaks from heaven.

This event demonstrates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons.

THE GREAT COMMISSION

Matthew 28:19 declares:

“Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Jesus said “name” (singular), not “names” (plural).

One divine name, three divine Persons.

WAS JESUS MERELY HUMAN?

Jehovah’s Witnesses frequently cite passages such as:

John 8:40
1 Timothy 2:5

to argue that Jesus was merely a man.

Scripture teaches two truths simultaneously:

Jesus is fully God.
Jesus is fully man.

This doctrine is known as the Hypostatic Union.

Christ experienced genuine humanity while retaining His full deity.

IS THE HOLY SPIRIT MERELY A FORCE?

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force.

However, the Holy Spirit:

Speaks (Acts 13:2)
Teaches (John 14:26)
Testifies (John 15:26)
Grieves (Ephesians 4:30)
Exercises will (1 Corinthians 12:11)

An impersonal force cannot speak, choose, or grieve.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit is a divine Person.

THE ISLAMIC OBJECTION TO THE TRINITY

The Qur’an criticizes those who say:

“Allah is one of three.”

However, historic Christianity does not teach:

Three gods.
God, Mary, and Jesus as a triad.
One God divided into parts.

Christian theology teaches one God existing eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Therefore, many Islamic objections address concepts that do not represent orthodox Christian doctrine.

WAS THE TRINITY INVENTED AT NICAEA?

No.

The Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 did not create the doctrine of the Trinity.

It primarily responded to the teachings of Arius, who denied the full deity of Christ.

Early Christian writers before Nicaea—including:

Ignatius of Antioch
Justin Martyr
Irenaeus
Tertullian

spoke of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in divine terms.

The doctrine existed long before the councils.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TRINITY

The Trinity is not merely an abstract theological concept.

It forms the foundation of:

Salvation
Worship
Prayer
Baptism
Christian fellowship

The Father sends.

The Son redeems.

The Holy Spirit sanctifies.

CONCLUSION

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not paganism.

It was not invented at Nicaea.

It was not created by Athanasius.

It was not introduced by Paul.

Rather, it is the biblical revelation that:

The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
God is one.

As Jesus declared:

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

And the Apostle Paul concluded:

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”
(2 Corinthians 13:14)

The Holy Trinity is therefore not a contradiction of Scripture but a profound mystery revealed by God Himself—a truth embraced by the Church throughout the centuries.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Max Shimba Ministries

This revised English version is suitable for publication as a theological article, seminary textbook chapter, apologetics handbook, or a full-length book on the doctrine of the Trinity.

WHY DOES THE QUR’AN CALL MARY “THE SISTER OF AARON”?

Dismantling the Islamic Confusion Between Miriam and Mary

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Introduction

One of the most discussed historical problems in the Qur’an concerns the identity of Mary, the mother of Jesus. The Qur’an appears to confuse Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron who lived approximately 1,400 years earlier.

The Bible clearly distinguishes these two women:

Miriam was the sister of Moses and Aaron and lived during the Exodus around the 15th century BC.
Mary, the mother of Jesus, lived during the first century AD.

Yet the Qur’an appears to merge these two separate women into one person.

The Qur’anic Text

The Qur’an says:

“O sister of Aaron! Your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste.”
(Qur’an 19:28)

The Qur’an also states:

“And Mary, the daughter of Imran.”
(Qur’an 66:12)

The problem becomes obvious when we compare this with the Bible.

According to Scripture:

Moses' father was Amram.
Aaron's sister was Miriam.

The Hebrew name Amram corresponds to the Arabic Imran.

The Bible states:

“The name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed… and she bore to Amram Aaron, Moses, and Miriam.”
(Exodus 6:20)

Thus:

Daughter of Amram (Imran) = Miriam.
Sister of Aaron = Miriam.

Yet the Qur’an gives these same family relationships to Mary, the mother of Jesus.

The Historical Gap of 1,400 Years

Miriam lived approximately:

1400–1300 BC.

Mary, the mother of Jesus, lived approximately:

4 BC to AD 30.

The chronological gap is nearly 1,400 years.

No historian places Mary and Aaron in the same family generation.

The New Testament identifies Mary as:

“Mary… of whom was born Jesus.”
(Matthew 1:16)

Luke identifies Mary as a relative of Elizabeth, who descended from Aaron’s priestly line (Luke 1:5, 36), but Mary herself is never called Aaron’s sister.

The Islamic Explanation

Muslim scholars commonly argue that “sister of Aaron” was merely a title meaning a righteous descendant of Aaron.

They often appeal to a narration found in Sahih Muslim in which Muhammad reportedly explained that people were named after prophets and righteous individuals.

However, this explanation faces several difficulties:

1. The Qur’an also calls Mary “daughter of Imran.”

The combination of:

daughter of Imran,
sister of Aaron,

matches Miriam exactly.

2. No evidence exists that Mary’s father was named Imran.

Christian sources consistently identify Mary's father as Joachim according to early Christian tradition.

3. The Qur’an places the family of Imran alongside Jesus and Mary.

This further strengthens the impression that Miriam and Mary have been merged into one figure.

Biblical Distinctions

The Bible carefully distinguishes the two women.

Miriam

Sister of Moses and Aaron.
Daughter of Amram.
Lived during the Exodus.
Prophetess of Israel.

Mary

Mother of Jesus.
Lived during the Roman period.
Betrothed to Joseph.
Present during the birth, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection narratives.

There is no confusion whatsoever in the biblical record.

The Testimony of Early Critics

Even during Muhammad’s lifetime, Christians noticed this problem.

According to Sahih Muslim, Christians from Najran questioned Muhammad regarding the passage.

Muhammad's explanation was that people named children after earlier prophets and righteous individuals.

However, the text itself does not explicitly say that Mary merely belonged to Aaron’s lineage. Instead, it directly addresses her as:

“O sister of Aaron.”

Combined with the title “daughter of Imran,” the language strongly resembles the family of Moses.

Theological Implications

This issue raises important questions:

Did the author of the Qur’an possess complete knowledge of biblical history?
Why are Miriam’s family relationships assigned to Mary?
Why does the Qur’an not clarify the distinction?

For Christians, the Bible demonstrates remarkable historical consistency regarding biblical figures and genealogies.

The New Testament never confuses:

Abraham and David,
Moses and Jesus,
Miriam and Mary.

Conclusion

The Qur’an identifies Mary as:

the daughter of Imran,
the sister of Aaron.

These are precisely the family relationships of Miriam, the sister of Moses.

Since Miriam lived approximately 1,400 years before Mary, critics argue that the Qur’an confuses these two women.

Muslim explanations generally appeal to figurative language or ancestral connections. However, many Christian scholars maintain that the simplest reading of the text suggests a historical confusion between Miriam and Mary.

The issue remains one of the most significant historical discussions in Christian-Muslim apologetics and continues to be debated by scholars today.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

MUSLIMS DO NOT WORSHIP THE GOD OF ABRAHAM

MUSLIMS DO NOT WORSHIP THE GOD OF ABRAHAM:

THE GOD OF ABRAHAM IS JESUS CHRIST

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Introduction

One of the most common claims made in modern interfaith dialogue is that Christians and Muslims worship the same God because both religions claim Abraham as their spiritual father. However, this assertion must be examined in light of biblical revelation. According to Scripture, the God of Abraham revealed Himself fully in Jesus Christ. Since Islam explicitly denies the deity of Christ, the question arises: can Muslims truly worship the God of Abraham while rejecting the very One whom Abraham knew and anticipated?

The Bible presents a clear answer. The God of Abraham is Jesus Christ, and any religious system that denies Christ's divine identity cannot claim to worship the biblical God of Abraham.

Abraham Rejoiced to See Christ

Jesus declared:

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” (John 8:56)

This remarkable statement teaches that Abraham had a prophetic understanding of the coming Messiah. Abraham looked forward to Christ's day and rejoiced in it. Jesus did not portray Himself as a prophet who merely followed Abraham; rather, He presented Himself as the object of Abraham's faith.

The Jews listening to Jesus were astonished because Jesus was not yet fifty years old, yet He claimed to have existed before Abraham.

Jesus answered:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58)

This statement is one of the strongest declarations of Christ's deity in the New Testament.

The Meaning of "I AM"

Jesus did not say, “Before Abraham was, I was.” Instead, He used the divine title “I AM.”

In Exodus 3:14, God revealed Himself to Moses:

“I AM THAT I AM.”

The Greek expression used in John 8:58 (ego eimi) echoes the divine name revealed to Moses. The Jewish audience immediately understood the significance of Christ's words because they picked up stones to kill Him for blasphemy (John 8:59).

Jesus was claiming eternal existence and divine identity.

Therefore, the God who spoke to Moses from the burning bush is the same divine Person who stood before the Jews in Jerusalem.

Abraham Encountered the LORD

The Old Testament records several appearances of God to Abraham.

Genesis 18 states:

“And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre.”

Abraham spoke directly with the LORD, ate with Him, and worshiped Him. Christian theology has historically understood these appearances as pre-incarnate manifestations of Christ, often called Christophanies.

Jesus Himself said:

“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son... he hath declared him.” (John 1:18)

Thus, the visible manifestations of God in the Old Testament point to the eternal Son.

Jesus Declared That He Is the Only Way to the Father

Jesus said:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)

If no one comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ, then any religion that rejects Jesus as God and Savior cannot possess the full knowledge of the Father.

The Apostle John wrote:

“Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” (1 John 2:23)

This is a decisive biblical statement. One cannot reject the Son and still claim to know the Father.

The Islamic View of Jesus

Islam acknowledges Jesus as a prophet but denies His deity, crucifixion, sonship, and resurrection. The Quran specifically rejects the belief that Jesus is God.

However, the New Testament repeatedly affirms:

Jesus is God (John 1:1).
Jesus is the Creator (Colossians 1:16).
Jesus is worshiped (Matthew 14:33).
Jesus forgives sins (Mark 2:5–7).
Jesus receives divine titles (Revelation 1:8).
Jesus is called "God" by Thomas (John 20:28).

Because Islam rejects these essential truths, it rejects the identity of the God revealed in Scripture.

Abraham's Faith Was Christ-Centered

Paul wrote:

“And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham.” (Galatians 3:8)

The gospel was announced beforehand to Abraham. His faith pointed forward to Christ.

Jesus declared:

“Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” (John 8:56)

Abraham's hope was centered on the coming Messiah.

The Testimony of the Apostles

The apostles consistently taught that Jesus is the God of Israel.

Thomas confessed:

“My Lord and my God.” (John 20:28)

Paul wrote:

“Christ... who is over all, God blessed for ever.” (Romans 9:5)

Titus 2:13 calls Jesus:

“Our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.”

The biblical revelation leaves no room for a concept of God that excludes Christ.

Conclusion

The God of Abraham revealed Himself through Jesus Christ. Jesus declared:

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

Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day, believed God's promises, and looked forward to the coming Messiah. The New Testament teaches that whoever denies the Son does not have the Father.

Therefore, from a biblical and Christian theological perspective, the rejection of Jesus as God means a rejection of the God whom Abraham worshiped. The God of Abraham is the eternal "I AM" revealed in Jesus Christ.

As Jesus Himself said:

“If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24)

The central issue is not merely Abraham, but the identity of Jesus Christ. According to Scripture, Jesus is the Lord of Abraham, the God of Israel, and the eternal I AM.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

THE MYTH OF SEVEN EARTHS:

A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF QURANIC COSMOLOGY

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God." — Hebrews 11:3

Introduction

Among the numerous cosmological statements found within the Quran, few are as problematic as the assertion that Allah created "seven heavens and of the earth the like thereof" (Quran 65:12). Islamic apologists frequently attempt to reinterpret this verse in light of modern astronomy, suggesting that the passage refers to geological layers, continents, planets, dimensions, or even parallel universes. However, such explanations often arise from modern apologetic necessity rather than the historical understanding of the text.

The doctrine of seven earths reflects an ancient cosmological worldview shared by many civilizations of Late Antiquity. Rather than revealing supernatural scientific knowledge, the Quran appears to adopt the cosmological assumptions prevalent in the seventh-century Middle East.

The Quranic Statement

The Quran states:

"Allah is He Who created seven heavens and of the earth, the like thereof." (Quran 65:12)

The plain reading suggests a correspondence between seven heavens and seven earths. Classical Muslim commentators overwhelmingly interpreted this literally.

Classical Islamic Interpretation

According to traditional Islamic scholarship, the seven earths were viewed as actual worlds or layers.

Ibn Kathir wrote:

"The earths are seven, one above another, with distances separating them."

Al-Tabari similarly interpreted the verse as referring to seven distinct earths comparable to the seven heavens.

Several hadith reinforce this understanding.

Muhammad reportedly stated:

"Whoever wrongfully takes a span of land, Allah will make him wear around his neck seven earths on the Day of Resurrection."

(Sahih al-Bukhari 2452)

Another narration describes enormous distances between each heaven and earth, portraying a multilayered universe characteristic of ancient cosmology.

These descriptions do not resemble modern astronomy but instead mirror pre-scientific cosmological traditions.

Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology

The concept of multiple heavens and multiple earths predates Islam.

Ancient Mesopotamian religions envisioned layered heavens and underworlds. Jewish apocalyptic literature spoke of seven heavens. Greek cosmology described concentric celestial spheres surrounding the earth.

The Talmud, Persian traditions, and various Near Eastern religious systems likewise contained concepts of multiple heavens and multiple earths.

The Quran appears to participate within this intellectual environment rather than introducing a new scientific understanding of the universe.

The Scientific Problem

Modern astronomy has discovered:

One Earth orbiting the Sun.
Eight major planets in the solar system.
Thousands of exoplanets.
Billions of galaxies.
No evidence of seven physical earths.

Earth is a single planet with unique environmental conditions capable of sustaining life. No scientific model recognizes seven stacked earths or seven parallel terrestrial worlds corresponding to the Quranic description.

Attempts to identify the seven earths as:

Geological strata,
Tectonic layers,
Continents,
Dimensions,
Parallel universes,

lack textual support from classical Islamic sources.

These interpretations appear to be retrospective attempts to harmonize ancient scripture with modern science.

The Failure of Scientific Foreknowledge Claims

Many Muslim apologists claim that the Quran contains miraculous scientific knowledge. Yet the seven-earth cosmology presents a significant challenge to such claims.

If the Quran were revealing advanced astronomical knowledge, one might expect:

A heliocentric system.
The existence of galaxies.
Planetary orbits.
The vast scale of the universe.

Instead, the cosmology reflects the worldview of Late Antiquity, characterized by layered heavens and multiple earths.

The text appears to accommodate the scientific understanding available to seventh-century Arabia.

Biblical Cosmology Compared

The Bible does not teach the existence of seven earths.

Scripture repeatedly speaks of:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)

The Bible presents a singular earth created by God.

Isaiah declares:

"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it." (Isaiah 45:18)

Likewise, the New Testament speaks of one earth under God's sovereign rule.

The biblical worldview avoids the elaborate cosmological structures found in later religious traditions.

Theological Implications

The doctrine of seven earths raises serious questions concerning the Islamic doctrine of Quranic perfection.

If the Quran contains scientifically inaccurate cosmology, then its claims of divine omniscience become difficult to defend.

Muslim theologians often argue that the Quran speaks phenomenologically or metaphorically. Yet classical scholars understood these passages literally for over a thousand years.

If modern reinterpretation is necessary to preserve scientific credibility, this suggests that the original meaning conflicts with contemporary knowledge.

Conclusion

The Quranic concept of seven earths appears to reflect ancient cosmological beliefs rather than divine scientific revelation. Classical Islamic commentators understood the verse literally, while modern reinterpretations attempt to reconcile the text with contemporary science.

From a Christian apologetic perspective, the seven-earth doctrine serves as evidence that the Quran participates in the worldview of seventh-century Arabia rather than presenting supernatural scientific knowledge.

The issue challenges the Islamic assertion that the Quran contains miraculous scientific foreknowledge and invites critical examination of its claims to divine origin.

References

Quran 65:12
Sahih al-Bukhari 2452
Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Tafsir al-Tabari
Genesis 1:1
Isaiah 45:18
Hebrews 11:3
Modern astronomical literature on planetary science and cosmology

This chapter presents the argument as a Christian apologetic critique, allowing readers to engage with both the Islamic texts and the scientific objections while recognizing that Muslims and Christian scholars may reach different conclusions regarding the interpretation of these passages.

THE SAMARITAN OF THE QURAN: AN ANACHRONISM IN THE DAYS OF MOSES?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

Can a Samaritan exist during the time of Moses?

Can a people group that emerged centuries after the Assyrian conquest of Israel suddenly appear in the wilderness of Sinai during the Exodus?

If the Quran is the eternal and infallible word of God, why does it place a "Samaritan" at Mount Sinai nearly seven hundred years before Samaria itself existed?

These questions have generated considerable debate among historians, biblical scholars, and critics of Islam. The Quranic narrative of the golden calf introduces a mysterious figure called al-Samiri, commonly translated as "the Samaritan," who allegedly led Israel into idolatry during Moses' absence.

The account appears in Surah Ta-Ha:

"He said, 'What then is your case, O Samiri?' He said, 'I saw what they did not see, so I took a handful from the footsteps of the messenger and cast it.'" (Quran 20:95–96)

But who was this Samiri?

And could such a person have existed during the days of Moses?

Question One: Did Samaritans Exist During the Time of Moses?

According to biblical history, the answer is no.

The Samaritans were associated with the region of Samaria, a territory that did not exist during the Exodus. The city of Samaria became the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel under King Omri approximately 880 BCE.

Moses, according to biblical chronology, lived approximately during the thirteenth or fifteenth century BCE, depending on the dating system used.

This creates a chronological gap of several centuries.

How could a Samaritan appear before Samaria existed?

The Bible records the development of Samaria long after Moses:

"And he bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver." (1 Kings 16:24)

The Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom in 722 BCE further contributed to the emergence of the Samaritan population described in later Jewish history.

Thus, historical evidence places the Samaritan community many centuries after Moses.

Question Two: Who Made the Golden Calf According to the Bible?

The biblical account identifies Aaron as the craftsman of the golden calf.

"And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf." (Exodus 32:4)

Aaron later attempted to justify his actions before Moses.

"And I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf." (Exodus 32:24)

The Bible nowhere mentions a Samaritan.

No mysterious outsider appears.

No Samiri is introduced.

The responsibility falls upon Aaron and the people of Israel.

The Quran, however, transfers the blame primarily to al-Samiri.

Why does the Quran replace Aaron with an unknown figure absent from the biblical account?

Question Three: Did Ancient Jewish Sources Know of a Samiri?

No ancient Jewish writings from the Second Temple period identify a Samaritan as the creator of the golden calf.

The writings of Josephus.

The Talmud.

The Midrash.

The Dead Sea Scrolls.

None mention a Samiri.

If this individual played such a significant role in Israel's history, why is he absent from all earlier Jewish records?

Question Four: Why Does the Quran Call Him "al-Samiri"?

The Arabic term "al-Samiri" has traditionally been understood by many Muslim commentators as "the Samaritan."

Classical commentators such as Ibn Kathir and al-Tabari discuss the Samiri as the instigator of the calf worship.

Yet these commentators generally do not address the historical problem of placing a Samaritan centuries before Samaria existed.

Modern Muslim apologists have proposed several explanations:

Samiri was merely a personal name.
Samiri belonged to an unknown tribe.
The word has a lost meaning unrelated to Samaria.

However, these explanations lack strong historical evidence.

No independent ancient source identifies such a tribe.

No archaeological evidence supports this interpretation.

No biblical text mentions such an individual.

Question Five: Does the Quran Confuse Different Historical Periods?

Critics argue that the Quran occasionally combines persons or events from different historical eras.

The Samaritan episode is often cited alongside other debated passages.

For example:

Haman appears in the story of Pharaoh (Quran 28:6, 38), although Haman is known from the Book of Esther in Persia many centuries later.
Mary the mother of Jesus is called the "sister of Aaron" (Quran 19:28), which some critics interpret as a confusion with Miriam, the sister of Moses.

From a critical historical perspective, these examples raise the question:

Did the author of the Quran rely upon oral traditions circulating in late antiquity?

Biblical and Historical Evaluation

The biblical account presents a consistent historical framework:

Moses leads Israel from Egypt.
Aaron constructs the calf.
Samaria does not yet exist.
The Samaritan people emerge centuries later.

The Quranic account introduces an individual whose identity appears historically problematic.

If the term truly means "Samaritan," then the narrative contains a chronological inconsistency.

If it does not mean Samaritan, then the burden remains to demonstrate who the Samiri was and why no historical evidence for him exists.

Theological Implications

If the Quran is understood as the literal and perfect speech of God, critics ask:

Why would God introduce a figure unknown to earlier revelation?

Why would the historical timeline appear inconsistent?

Why does the Quran differ substantially from the biblical account?

Christian scholars often argue that such discrepancies indicate that the Quran reflects traditions circulating in Arabia during the seventh century rather than direct divine revelation.

Muslim scholars, by contrast, maintain that the Quran preserves historical knowledge lost from earlier scriptures.

The debate ultimately concerns the nature of revelation itself.

Conclusion

The figure of al-Samiri remains one of the most debated historical questions in the Quran.

The biblical record places responsibility upon Aaron.

History places the rise of the Samaritans centuries after Moses.

Ancient Jewish literature knows nothing of a Samaritan at Sinai.

These factors have led many Christian scholars to conclude that the Quranic account contains an anachronism.

Whether one accepts this conclusion depends largely upon one's understanding of revelation, history, and scriptural authority.

For Christian apologetics, the story of the Samiri represents a significant challenge to the historical reliability of the Quran and raises important questions concerning its claim to divine origin.

References

Quran 20:85–97
Exodus 32:1–35
1 Kings 16:24
2 Kings 17:24–41
Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Tafsir al-Tabari
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews
Sahih al-Bukhari
Sahih Muslim
James D. G. Dunn, Jews and Christians
F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture

This chapter presents the historical criticism from a Christian apologetic perspective. Muslim scholars offer alternative interpretations of the term al-Samiri, and readers should recognize that the question remains debated between Islamic and Christian scholars.

CELESTIAL BODIES, ORBITS, AND COSMOLOGICAL ERRORS IN THE QURAN

A Critical Examination of Quranic Astronomy

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

For many decades Islamic apologists have argued that the Quran contains scientific miracles that prove its divine origin. Particular attention has been given to passages concerning the sun, moon, stars, and celestial motions. Modern Muslim writers frequently claim that these verses anticipated contemporary astronomy centuries before modern science.

However, a careful examination of the Quranic texts, the classical tafsir literature, and the hadith traditions reveals that the cosmological worldview reflected in these passages corresponds far more closely to the understanding of the ancient Near East and seventh-century Arabia than to modern astrophysics.

The question is not whether the verses possess poetic beauty. Rather, the question is whether they contain miraculous scientific knowledge unavailable to the people of Muhammad's time.

If the Quran is the direct speech of an omniscient God, one would expect its cosmological descriptions to agree with reality.

1. The Sun Running to Its Resting Place

The Quran states:

"And the sun runs to its resting place. That is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing."
(Quran 36:38)

Several early Islamic scholars interpreted the verse literally.

According to the hadith:

"The sun goes and prostrates itself underneath the Throne and seeks permission to rise again."
Sahih Bukhari 3199

The problem is straightforward.

The sun does not travel across the sky and disappear beneath the earth. It does not stop beneath a throne. It does not request permission to rise.

The apparent movement of the sun across the sky is caused by Earth's rotation.

Modern astronomy demonstrates:

Earth rotates on its axis.
Earth orbits the sun.
The sun itself moves through the Milky Way.
Sunrise and sunset are observational phenomena caused by Earth's rotation.

The hadith explanation reflects an observational geocentric worldview rather than scientific reality.

2. Does the Sun Chase the Moon?

The Quran says:

"It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. Each swims in an orbit."
(Quran 36:40)

Islamic apologists often claim this verse describes orbital mechanics.

However, several difficulties emerge.

The moon orbits Earth.

Earth orbits the sun.

The sun does not literally chase the moon.

They are not traveling around Earth on separate tracks as ancient observers imagined.

Furthermore, solar eclipses occur precisely because the moon passes between Earth and the sun.

The moon can "overtake" the sun from Earth's perspective during an eclipse.

The verse appears to assume that the sun and moon move around Earth in separate paths.

3. The Moon Following the Sun

Another passage states:

"And the moon follows the sun."
(Quran 91:2)

From Earth's perspective this appears true.

Scientifically, however, the moon does not follow the sun.

The moon orbits Earth.

Earth and moon together orbit the sun.

The description reflects visual observation rather than astronomical reality.

4. The Moon as a Light

The Quran states:

"He made the moon a light and the sun a lamp."
(Quran 71:16)

Muslim apologists argue that this distinguishes reflected light from emitted light.

Yet classical commentators generally understood the moon to possess its own illumination.

The Quran never explicitly states that moonlight is reflected sunlight.

Ancient civilizations also recognized that the moon shone differently from the sun without understanding reflection scientifically.

Thus the passage lacks the precision one would expect from divine revelation.

5. Stars as Missiles Against Demons

The Quran declares:

"We adorned the lowest heaven with lamps and made them missiles for the devils."
(Quran 67:5)

Similarly:

"We have made them missiles to drive away the devils."
(Quran 37:6–10)

The difficulty is obvious.

Stars are enormous thermonuclear bodies.

Many stars exceed the size of our sun.

Some are millions of times larger than Earth.

Meteors occasionally enter Earth's atmosphere, but stars themselves are not thrown at demons.

The Quran appears to confuse stars with shooting stars or meteors.

Modern astronomy finds no evidence that meteors are weapons used against spiritual beings attempting to overhear heavenly conversations.

6. The Lowest Heaven Decorated with Stars

The Quran teaches:

"Indeed We have adorned the nearest heaven with stars."
(Quran 67:5)

Modern astronomy reveals that stars exist throughout the observable universe.

Many stars are located billions of light years away.

Galaxies extend far beyond our Milky Way.

The concept of stars being attached to the lowest heaven reflects an ancient layered-heaven cosmology rather than modern astrophysics.

7. Seven Heavens and Cosmic Structure

The Quran repeatedly refers to seven heavens.

Examples include:

Quran 67:3
Quran 71:15
Quran 65:12

Ancient Mesopotamian, Jewish, and Near Eastern cosmologies often described multiple heavens.

Modern science has discovered no evidence of seven physical heavens.

The atmosphere, outer space, galaxies, and cosmic structures do not conform to a seven-layered universe.

The number appears theological or symbolic rather than scientific.

8. The Sun Setting in a Muddy Spring

The Quran states:

"He found it setting in a muddy spring."
(Quran 18:86)

Classical commentators such as al-Tabari often understood this literally.

The problem is obvious.

The sun does not set into any body of water.

The sun is approximately 93 million miles from Earth.

Its apparent setting is caused by Earth's rotation.

The passage reflects human observation rather than divine astronomical knowledge.

Scientific Reality

Modern astronomy demonstrates:

Earth rotates on its axis.
Earth orbits the sun.
The moon orbits Earth.
Stars are distant suns.
Meteors are rocky objects.
The universe contains billions of galaxies.
The observable universe has no seven physical heavens.
The sun does not set into springs or bodies of water.
The sun does not prostrate beneath a throne.

These discoveries emerged through observation, mathematics, and scientific investigation.

Questions for Islamic Apologists

If Allah created the universe, why are the descriptions compatible with seventh-century cosmology?
Why does the hadith place the sun beneath Allah's throne every night?
Why are stars described as missiles against devils?
Why does the Quran never explain gravity?
Why does the Quran never state that Earth rotates?
Why does the Quran never explicitly teach heliocentrism?
Why does the Quran describe stars as decorations of the lowest heaven?
Why do eclipses occur if the sun cannot overtake the moon?
Why did classical Muslim scholars interpret many of these passages literally?
If these verses truly contain modern science, why were modern discoveries made by astronomers rather than derived from the Quran itself?

Debate Challenges

Challenge 1

Can any Muslim scholar produce a pre-modern tafsir that clearly teaches:

Earth's rotation,
heliocentrism,
gravitational orbits,
galaxies,
stellar fusion,
or the true nature of stars?

Challenge 2

If the Quran contains scientific miracles, why do the "scientific" interpretations only appear after modern discoveries?

Challenge 3

Would an unbiased reader in the seventh century conclude from these verses that Earth orbits the sun?

Challenge 4

Why do many early Islamic scholars interpret these passages literally if the intended meaning was modern astronomy?

Challenge 5

If God intended to reveal advanced science, why employ language that consistently resembles ancient cosmology?

Conclusion

The celestial descriptions found in the Quran reflect the observational astronomy available to the people of seventh-century Arabia. The sun appears to move across the sky. The moon follows its phases. Stars decorate the heavens. Meteors appear to shoot across the night sky.

Such descriptions possess literary and theological significance. However, they do not provide scientifically accurate explanations of celestial mechanics.

The attempt to reinterpret these passages as modern astrophysics often requires reading contemporary scientific concepts back into ancient texts. The evidence suggests that the Quran reflects the cosmological understanding of its historical environment rather than supernatural scientific knowledge.

References

Quran 18:86
Quran 36:38–40
Quran 37:6–10
Quran 67:3–5
Quran 71:15–16
Quran 91:1–2
Sahih Bukhari 3199
Sahih Muslim 159a
Al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Tabari
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute