Islamic Disuse and Twisting, Etc. of
25 Nov 2012
1: Other Themes
1.1. (Sample from “Examine The Truth” - ETT).
“Cure for bubonic plague: kill the rat and keep the cat”. ETT’s claims about bubonic plague being prevented by Muhammad/the Quran, are so feebly connected to the Quran, that we really do not understand why he/she includes this “proof” here – there is nowhere in the Quran mentioned anything about such intentions from Muhammad. Besides the claim is nonsense: Bubonic plague – f.x. during The Great Plague around 1350 AD (also called the Black Death) – on mainland Europe spread with an average speed of 9 miles/15km a day. Rats do not move that fast. Which means that there were other so-called vectors (means of spreading) – and ones moving faster than rats. Which again means that even if Muhammad had wanted to stop a bubonic plague, this “cure” had been invalid. This claim is totally invalid even as an indication – not to mention as a proof - for that Muhammad had hidden knowledge. This especially as there nowhere is mentioned that eradicating a bubonic plague was his intention.
Islam and its Muslims often have problems with the rules for making logically correct conclusions, and they also often seem to be unable to - or do not want to - see the difference between words like “a coincidence”, “possible”, “perhaps”, “probably”, “likely”, etc., etc., and the word “proof”. If they like a point, they use it or twist it and name it “a proof”. But a definition for a proof is: “A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”. Here for one thing it is not a proved fact that Muhammad was talking about any illness at all, and for another the likely reason for that Muhammad did not like rats, is the same reason why humans normally do not like rats: They steal food and they sully food and they destroy things – and they may bite. They even can kill f.x. hens – and babies. Thus at least 2 possible conclusions – and likely more.
1.2. (From “The Way to Truth”).
“The Quran is the word of Allah and an undeniable proof for Muhammad’s prophethood”. This only may – may – be true if the Quran and all its mistakes tell the truth, the full truth, and only the truth.
But remember: “A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion” - - - but not one single central claim in the Quran is proved – and many of the facts and claims can give more than one conclusion. Thus this claim is invalid – it is built on claims, not on a proved fact - and the same naturally goes for the claimed proof, and for the same reason. Not to mention for all the errors.
And one more point: If the Quran and all its errors is the word of Allah, Allah is very far from omniscient. Further Muhammad himself in the Quran says he is unable “to know what is hidden” (6/50) and “to know the unknown” (7/188) = unable to make prophesies. His child wife Aishah says the same about him in Hadiths. This proves he was no prophet, as a person unable to make prophesies, is not much of a prophet. May be he was a messenger, but not a prophet. And in case a messenger for whom? As no god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran – full of errors, mistaken facts, contradictions, unclear language, etc. there remain 3 possibilities: The dark forces (Muhammad had no chance to see the difference between a dressed up devil and Gabriel), a sick brain (modern science suspects TLE – Temporal Lobe Epilepsy – and also psychopathy is mentioned), or a cold, scheming brain (f.x. Muhammad’s). Nothing about the underlying claims are proved, and several conclusions about the reason for his preaching and behavior are possible. “A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”. Definitely no valid proof here.
The minimum required here for making this claim a valid is:
1): Proof for that the Quran really are the words of Allah. This never was proved – there only are Muhammad’s words for it, and as Muhammad accepted the use of dishonesty (he f.x. lies at least a few times in the Quran), deceit, etc., and even broken words/promises/oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2) as working tools, included used it himself, his words are unreliable unless there are additional proofs.
2): Proofs for that the Quran tells the truth about his prophethood, in spite of that very much is wrong in that book, and in spite of having no kind of a prophet’s powers, etc.
1.3. (From ExamineTheTruth):
“There is no scientific research which states this (a statement negative to Islam*). Therefore this statement is false.” Wrong. One more demonstration of that Muslims often are weak on logic and on realities. Lack of proof for that a claim is true, is not a proof for that it is false – not unless so much research is done with the same result, that the sum of the results can be called a circumstantial proof. But this takes quite a lot of research series.
1.4. (From “A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understand The Quran” – BIGUQ):
“The phenomenal growth of Islam (is a proof for that Islam is from a god*)”. Muslims claims that Islam is a fast growing religion, and that this proves it is from a god. One thing is that the claim that this means it is from a god, is just that; a claim, not a proved fact. “A proof is one or more proved facts - - -“. This thus is invalid as a proof. It also is symptomatic that Muslims never mention the many who leave Islam – many of them after a careful consideration of if the Quran can be true or not.
1.5. (From email@example.com – a non-existing address, the net said, when we tried to answer.)
“He (Allah*) intended a creature (man*) which had free will to choose the right and wrong”. This is a not proved claim. Besides it collides face on with the fact that the Quran several places states that Allah predestines every detail in everybody’s life, and predestines according to his Plan, which nobody and nothing – f.x. man’s claimed free will – can change. To combine free will of man with full predestination is impossible even for a god. (They are mutually excluding each other, and when two statements are mutually excluding each other, maximum one of them can be true.)
1.6. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
“In the 7th century, the Quran pointed out that fingertips of human bore an important characteristic: ‘Yes, We (Allah*) are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers” (75/3-4).
· ICCI here does not inform of any characteristic for finger tips.
· The Quran nowhere inform about any characteristic for finger tips.
· ICCI will have to prove what characteristic – prove, not claim – Muhammad really meant, if any at all.
There are at least two more likely explanations for this quote:
· Muhammad wanted to stress that Allah was able to restore even the most extreme parts of the body.
· A warrior without finger tips had problems with handling a bow. “Be sure – Allah is able to restore you to a good warrior”.
Invalid proof. For one thing the conclusion is built partly on presumptions, not on proved facts, and for another at least 3 conclusions/explanations are possible. (“A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”).
1.7. (From The House of the Crescent Moon – HCM.)
Muhammad said: #####“The effect of the evil eye is a fact”. NB: This is not from the Quran, but from Hadiths (Sahih al Bukhari 7/71, number 636), but the fact that Islam quotes such things, tells a lot both about Muhammad and about Islam. Also as it is very wrong that this is a proved fact, it is no proof for divine knowledge in the Quran (on the contrary it proves that things were wrong with Muhammad and is wrong with the Quran and with Islam – science has been unable to find proofs for even the existence of “the evil eye”.)
1.8. (From The House of the Crescent Moon – HCM.)
“The promises of Allah are always true. The words of Allah are always true”.
· There never was a proved case of Allah giving a promise – lots of claims, but never a proved case.
· There never was a proved case of Allah keeping a promise – lots of claims, but never a proved case.
· As long as there are no proved cases for anything, the quote above is an unproved claim, not a proof. And who uses unproved claims and pretends they are proofs? – the one without real arguments or real proofs, the charlatan, the cheat, thedeceiver, the swindler..
1.9. Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
This man is well liked by many Muslims. He was a medical (not mentioned by many Muslims) doctor who practiced in the Middle East and was the doctor of the high society. What Muslims practically never mention, is that he became a Muslim – many even only stress that he was a doctor (of religion? – or history? – or what?) and that he was French and member of the French Academy = A well educated Christian “proving” that the Quran is right in most or all things (honesty does not count too much for some Muslims when defending or promoting Islam – another fact worth remembering).
He wrote the book “The Bible, The Quran and Science”. As he was interested in Islam, the book is colored some by this, and it lacks some from being 100% reliable – not an overstatement. You will meet Bucaille and his book as a claimed golden proof/witness for Islam from Muslims.
1.10. Misuse of the theory of probability.
This is one of the more distasteful one, because any knower of the laws of probability knows that the “miracle scholars” here are leading, or trying to lead people by the nose, and all the same not one Islamic scholar has tried to correct the very obvious disuse.
The arguments go like this: If you have to guess about something and there are two possible answers and there are equal chance for the two, you will guess correctly 50% of the times if you have to guess one time, 25% (50% of 50%) of the times. With 3 times guessing there is 12.5% chance of being right all 3 times (50% of 50% of50%) – etc. Here the “Miracle scholars” are right, BUT ONLY IN THE FEW CASES WHERE THERE REALLY IS EXACTLY 50% CHANCE FOR GUESSING CORRECTLY. This is one of the points where you are led by your nose: In very many cases that chance is different from 50% - often very different.
The “miracle hunters” continue the arguments: If we ask if Muhammad could have guessed this and this correctly, there only are two possible answers: Yes or no. Which means there in each case is a 50% chance for that Muhammad has guessed this and this. And this is another point where you are led by your nose, because ALSO THIS CLAIM ONLY IS CORRECT IF THERE IS AN EXACT 50% CHANCE OF GUESSING CORRECTLY (like f.x. the chance of getting uneven numbers when throwing an honest dice). You very often have an idea of what the correct answer is, and then your chance of guessing correctly suddenly is greater – often much greater - than 50%.
Further there are the other aspect of laws of probability – aspects every human, included the miracle scholars, knows, even though many do not know the name of the law. If you live in Sahara and someone in June asks you: “Will it rain next Saturday”, the chances for that you answer “no” is more or less 100%, because you know the chances for no rain are more or less 100% - not even in London the chances would be 50%. But when disusing the law of probability, for some reason or other the miracle scholars “forget” such aspects of those laws. We are back to the sorry old fact that they are not hunting for the truth, but for “miracles” – true or untrue – which may make the Quran look true. And remember: Such kind of dishonesty is no sin in Islam, as the religion permits f.x. al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) in many (some 8 - 10) and wide cases, and when it comes to promoting or defending the religion, this is not only permitted, but advised to use “if necessary” to succed. (Islam is the only one of the big religions which permits and partly relies on the use of dishonesty.)
Then there are the cases where you directly know the answer. When a miracle hunter ask you: “Could Muhammad have guessed that there is a difference between the sun and the moon? – yes or no”, and then claims there only is a 50% for the answer “yes” because there just 2 possible answers – and this nonsense you really meet from Muslims – it is a parody on science, a parody on the law of probability, a parody on the rules of logic, and a parody on the laws for logical deductions. BUT IT WORKS – many persons with little education or strong wishes to believe, are taken in by such semi-logic dressed up in scientific words and phrases.
But again: Why would Islam need to use such dishonesty if they had real facts to show for themselves? Also dishonesty proves only one thing: That something is wrong.
1.11. “The Quran is a book of signs (a word which in the Quranic language normally is a synonym for “proof”*) not of science”.
a. Correction: The Quran is not a book of signs, but of claimed, invalid signs, because each and every “sign” are signs which can be claimed by any believer in any religion on behalf of any god, just as easily and cheaply as Muhammad claimed it on behalf of Allah. They thus are invalid as signs for any particular god, and perhaps for any god at all, as most of the claimed signs just are natural phenomena only claimed to be “signs”. Islam and the Quran here is “on par” with many pagan religions.
b. Correction: Muslims indicate that – partly because of point a – people should be blind believers in Islam. But if there is a god behind the creation of man, his second most valuable gift after life itself, is your brain. And if your brain is a gift from a god, he did not give you that kind of a gift except for that he wanted you to use it. When Islam – like lots of Pagan religions – demands blind belief, this just is another way of saying: “Forget the god’s intention with his gift, and believe blindly in our claimed but never proved gods, instead of in one of the many other claimed but never proved gods – and forget about Yahweh, because we claim he is the same god as Allah, even though this provably is not true (both the two gods and their teachings are too different and too fundamentally different for this to be true*)”. But unless in blind belief no person with a brain and some knowledge would believe in a religion based on a book full of errors, contradictions, invalid logic, at least a few lies, etc., and a book dictated by a man of very doubtful reliability and moral but with much riches (for bribes and women) and power to gain from making people believe in his new religion, (which is why it is more serious to talk negatively about Muhammad than about Allah in Islam – Muhammad is the weak point in the religion) – not if that person is able to think rationally. (And if there is no god, and thus your brain is not from a god, Islam is wrong also in that case.)
c. Not one of the “signs” or “proofs” about central religious points in the Quran is proved (“a proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”). They all can be used by any believer in any religion and for more or less any god. They thus are without any value for proving Muhammad, the Quran, or Allah.
That the Quran is easy to understand - the texts meant literally and clear - is mentioned at least these places: 3/7, 3/138, 11/1b, 15/1 18/2, 19/97, 20/113, 24/34, 24/54, 26/2, 27/1, 28/2, 36/69, 37/117, 41/3, 43/2, 44/2, 44/58, 54/17, 54/22, 54/32, 54/40, and 75/19. Allah also according to the Quran tells that it is he who is the teacher behind the texts in the book, and the one who explains everything. As Allah this clearly states that the Quran is written in a clear, plain, and easy to understand language + as he some places states that the ones seeking hidden meanings in the Quran, are the ones “sick at heart” and hypocrites + not least as Allah some places tells that it is he who has explained the texts in the Quran: What human being can explain things more correct, more exact and not to misunderstand than a god - it is very clear that Muslims’ claims that errors, etc. in the Quran are not errors, but similitude, parables, allegories, or simply means something else than the texts in the book say, etc., where wise humans have to explain Allah’s helpless words, information, and explanations, are wrong.
Also see all the mistakes, etc. in Book A in http://www.1000mistakes.com.
>>> Go to Previous Part
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".