1000+ Comments on the Quran: Some Unavoidable Conclusions about the Quran
20 June 2012
The Quran is not from eternity like many Muslims like to claim. There are angels speaking in the book (f.x. 19/64 and 37/161-166). Thus the book must be made after the first angels came into life. (This point may be tried nullified by claims like that angels have no minds of their own, and that Allah thus knew what they would say).
The Quran cannot have been made until after Muhammad was born, because Muhammad is speaking in the book some - at least some 8 - places, but likely a number more. F.x. it clearly is Muhammad who is talking here:
Surah 1: This is Muhammad praying to Allah - a god does not pray to himself. (It is very ironical that this surah, which is reckoned to be the essence of the Quran - like John 3/16 is reckoned to be the essence of N.T. - is not from Allah).
6/104: "- - - I (Muhammad*) am not (here) to watch over your doings".
6/114: "Shall I (Muhammad*) seek for judge other than Allah". Unbelieveable dishonesty: A. Yusuf Ali here - without any comment - puts the word "Say" in front of the sentence to hide that it is Muhammad who is speaking. In his book "The Meaning of the Holy Quran" - a commentary edition of the Quran - he does the same, also without any comment. Things like this tell volumes about the honesty in Islam and among even highly educated Muslims. Impressive! Some "Religion of the Truth"!!
27/91: "For me (Muhammad*), I have been commanded to - - -".
42/10: "- - - in Him (Allah*) I (Muhammad*) trust, and to Him I turn". Also this case it tells a lot about Muslims and honesty as both Dawood and Pikthall here without comment put in the word "Say" in front of this sentence, so as to hide that it is not Allah who is talking.
This point cannot be explained away by claiming that Allah billions of years earlier knew what Muhammad was to say, unless man has no free will. If man has free will - completely or partly - he always can change his mind once more, and then slowly or fast the laws of chaos - immaterial laws - will make it impossible for a god to say: "Now I know what he is going to say or do" on beforehand. In the immaterial parts of existence there are some limits even an omniscient god cannot cross. (An easily understood example of this is that if one adds one mathematical 1 to another mathematical 1, the only possible correct answer even for a god is the mathematical 2 - one may use different names or signs for the answer, but the only possible result is the mathematical 2. To foretell what a man is going to say or do in the future if he has full or partly free will, is another such case - which Islam admits f.x. in the book "The Message of the Quran" by Muhammad Asad, comment 6/141 (6/143 in the English 2008 edition) to verse 6/149: "In other words, the real relationship between Allah's knowledge of the future (and, therefore, the ineluctability of what is to happen in the future) on one side, and man's free will on the other - two propositions which, on the face of it (!!*), seem to contradict one another - is beyond man's comprehention - - -". The book tries to explain that as Allah says so in the Quran, it must be true anyhow - a most lame "explanation", especially as one know the Quran is full of mistakes, and such a claim thus is impossible.
We may add that some translators of and some comments to the Quran tries to hide this problem, by adding the word "say", trying to indicate that Allah has told Muhammad to say this (like many other places in the Quran), sometimes telling they have added it "because the contents demands it". They are quite right: The contents demands it, if they want to "explain" away what the Quran really says.
As Muhammad speaks in the Quran (see the point just above) and the book thus cannot be older than Muhammad, it cannot be the copy of an old "mother book" in Heaven.
As Muhammad speaks in the Quran (see point 2 above), this means that if it is the copy of a "mother book" in Heaven, that "mother book" first must have copied Muhammad's words, and then given a copy to him. = the "Mother Book" was not old in case.
As Muhammad speaks in the Quran (see point 2 above), at least these parts of the Quran/claimed "mother book" cannot have been in the claimed copies of the claimed "mother book" claimed given to the old prophets - claimed or real - before Muhammad. (There nowhere in the Bible is any referance to such books given to the different prophets - only a few of them even are associated with books, and then with the Jewish scriptures, not something like the Quran. According to the Bible f.x. Moses received only the 10 commandments in writing, and then was told the law, which he himself later wrote down in what sometimes was called "the Book of Covenance" (f.x. 2. Mos.24/7) - later part of the 5 "Books of Moses").
The fact that many of the mistakes in the Quran is in accordance with wrong scientific, historical, and other real facts one believed was correct science in and around Arabia at the time of Muhammad - mostly borrowed from Greek and Persian science of that time - shows that the Quran was made around the time of Muhammad.
No omniscient and omnipotent god is confined to knowledge from a small space of time or a small area on Earth like in point 6.
The fact that many of the mistakes in the Quran is in accordance with wrong scientific, historical, and other real facts one believed was correct science in and around Arabia at the time of Muhammad, very little from other places and nothing from really distant places like advanced cultures in the Americas, shows that it is made in or near Arabia.
No omniscient and omnipotent god for all the world is confined to a small part of Earth like in point 8 - what we today call "the Middle East".
The fundamental thoughts in the Bible - and especially in NT and "the New Covenant" (f.x. Luke 22/20) are so different from the ones in the Quran, that Yahweh is not the same god as Allah like the Quran claims - not unless he is strongly schizophrenic. The "facts" told about f.x. Allah and his Paradise and many other things, also often are so different from the corresponding ones in the Bible - and especially in NT - that this confirm that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. Just for the record: The Quran's claims about Allah being the same god as Yahweh never was anything but just that: Undocumented and unproved claims. (The Bible says there only is one real god. Muhammad said there only is one god. And as Muhammad accepted that the old Jewish and Christian god existed, the conclution had to be that Allah and Yahweh just were two names for the same god. That is the "rationale" behind Muhammad's claim. By high-jacking Yahweh, Muhammad also got old roots for his new religion.)
Muhammad was no real prophet. He only "borrowed" this imposing and impressive title. A "prophet" unable to make prophesies, is no real prophet. (As "prophet" is a good title, several definitions have been made to enable different sects' and religions' leaders to be called prophets. But a prophet unable to make reliable prophesies, is no prophet - a messenger or something, ok, but not a prophet.) That Muhammad was no real prophet becomes even more clear, if we look at the original title for a prophet; a "seer" - one who was able to see the unseen (f.x. 1. Sam. 9/9) - this becomes even more clear, as both Muhammad himself in the Quran (f.x. 6/50a, 7/188b, 10/20, 11/31a (here it is about Noah, but a parallel to Muhammad), 72/26) and Aishah in in Hadiths clearly state that Muhammad had not the power of seeing the unseen.
If Muhammad was a messenger for something, it was not for an omniscient god - no god makes hundreds and more mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, cases of helpless language not possible to understand clearly, etc.
If Muhammad was a messenger for some supernatural beings or forces, they were not good or benevolent ones. No good and benevolent forces have a moral code like what Muhammad preached in Medina. Read the surahs, compare it with "Do against others like you want others to do against you", and weep - or laugh. The same goes for f.x. Muhammd's code of war. Actually these codes may indicate the involvement of dark forces - some of them are horrible.
14. We have problems believing that the theory that the dark forces/Iblis is behind the Quran, is the correct one. The reason for our skeptisism is that not even a devil would use a book that full of mistaken facts, contradiftions, other mistakes, etc. for a bait to lure people to his Hell - this even though f.x. the immoral moral code, the glorifying of brutality, the permission to dishonesty, rape, etc. may indicate such a maker. The only possible explanation is if a god made all the errors a condition for permitting the Devil to make this kind of religion of hate, dishonesty, suppression, and war for Hell - it should be easy for man to see that it was fake and a trap.
The Quran normally does not warn Muhammad about unexpected problems ahead - but agrees with his words and actions and often sanctify them afterwards. Allah seems to be no good guide here.
Muhammad lies several places in the Quran, when he f.x. tells that even if he had produced miracles or other real proofs for Allah or his own connection to a god, it would make no-one believe anyhow. It tells something about Muslims that they are willing to believe such a claim - especially as Muhammad told Moses' first small miracles made all the wizzards of Pharaoh Ramses II without exception become Muslims, and he knew about Jesus' miracles and that many became believers because of those miracles. Muhammad was too intelligent and knew too much about people not to know he was telling lies here.
Muhammad believed in dishonesty when this gave better result than honesty. Even oaths should be broken if that would give a better result - pay expiation to Allah afterwards if necessary. Both Muhammad himself and his nearest co-workers broke even oaths according to the Quran and/or the Hadiths.
Muhammad believed in cheating. We think the star sample is his cheating of the 30 man strong peace delegation from Khaybar whom he had promised safe return - he killed all of them except one who managed to get away. And afterwards he declared: "War is deceit". (Source: Ibn Ishaq: "The life of Muhammad". and Hadiths).
The real heavyweight: No omniscient god would send down a book full of mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic and of unclear language, etc. It simply is slander, heresy and an insult against any god to blame him for being the maker of the Quran.
If Muhammad had f.x. TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) like modern medical science suspects, this combined with his lust for power, for wealth (at least for bribes), and for women, explains the Quran.
If Muhammad or a close co-worker is the real maker of the Quran, then every detail around it fits reality.
To "save" the Quran - prove that may be it is from a god - and thus that Muhammd may be had contact with something supernatural, and also prove that Islam may be is not a made up religion, ALL our comments about mistakes, etc. in the Quran have to be proved wrong, because an omniscient god does not make mistakes. It is not enough that one or two or some dozen or some hundreds are proved wrong - ALL our comments must be proved - PROVED - wrong. In addition ALL points and verses in the Quran must be proved correc - which may be even more difficult. If this is done, one has proved that the Quran may be tells the truth. But it only takes on clear mistake to prove that the book is not from an omniscient god, because an omniscient god does not make mistakes - and thus that something is seriously wrong with Muhammad, with the Quran, and with Islam.
And the only possible final conclusion: No god was involved in the Quran - it is both blasphemy, slander, and an insult against a god to claim he has been involved in a book of a quality like the Quran, so full of errors, etc. -- and thus something is seriously wrong with the book, and therefore also with Muhammad and with Islam.
The pertinent final question is: If the Quran is a made up book and Islam thus a made up religion, where will all the Muslims end if there is a next life run by one or more real god(s) - especially if he/they is/are good and benevolent god(s) not impressed by followers of a brutal religion of war?
#You will find pages on Internet trying to refute especially "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". Please read them, but check their claims, information and "information" - laugh at their mistakes and naivety, be stupefied at the lack of real knowledge, weep at the dishonesty (Islam is the only of the big religions which not only accepts, but often advises the use of dishonesty - al-Taqiyya, Kitman, deceit and even broken words/oaths (see separate chapters in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran) - to promote or defend "the Religion of Truth" (quite an ironic slogan for a religion partly relying on dishonesty)).
As for "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" and all the mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic and of unclear language, etc. in that book: One or a few mistakes, etc. could be accepted even from an omniscient god, as the ones writing it down might have made errors (the Quran is claimed sent down by Allah, but necessarily copied by humans). But to be able to believe such a god have such a bad command of the language, that humans have to explain away mistakes, etc. with "what he really meant" or "parable", etc. hundreds of times and more + hundreds of contradictions and cases of invalid logic and of unclear language, etc., takes a blindness, naivety or wishful thinking far beyond the incredible and deep into the unbelievable.
Another fact about the language: Muslims like to boast of how elegant Arab is used in the Quran - they even claim it is so elegant that it must be made by the god! (There exists no proofs for Allah, and they try to find such ones wherever there is a possibility.) And thank you very much for a nice language - it was polished for some 250 years (from ca. 650 AD to ca. 900 AD) by some of the best brains Islam had. But the elegance of the language just is the wrapping - it does not help very much with an elegant and exquisite wrapping paper, if the contents are low quality and/or invalid. (A holy book clearly not backed by a god, is invalid as a basis for a true religion. Such a book at best is a collection of legends or fairy tales and a basis for superstition - and for power for the leaders - or at worst a tool for dark forces.)
Please give the address http://www.1000mistakes.com to all information pages, debate pages and other pages relevant for Islam - the ones you use, the ones you know about, the ones you happen to run across - not for our benefit, but because this page contains lots of information which may benefit:
Muslims unsure about Islam.
Muslims thinking about leaving Islam.
Non-Muslims thinking about converting to Islam.
Non-Muslims seeking information about Islam.
Non-Muslims debating with Muslims - Muslims f.x. sometimes are not 100% honest in such debates.
Muslims looking for facts concerning Islam.
As for debate pages, the address should be mentioned every now and then, because as new "letters" are posted, they "cover up" a posted address, and it drifts into oblivion if it is not repeated.
At the time of writing just this (21. Aug. 10), we have up to between 6ooo and 7ooo hits a day - yesterday f.x. 6611 hits. The average of course is lower, but all the same we reach a lot of people. With your help we may reach a lot more - this is information which should reach as many as possible.
>>> Go to Previous Surah
This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".