Islamic Disuse and Twisting, Etc. of Sciences:
History or Claimed History

 

H:   History or claimed history

  • Ha.  History older than Moses (born ca. 1415 BC if the Bible is correct).

  • Hb.  Moses (ca. 1415 -1285 BC if the Bible is correct).

 

Hb1.  (From “A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understand The Quran” – BIGUQ):

“I (the god*) will raise up for them (the Bible says “for you” – the Jews*) a prophet like you (Moses*) from among their (again the Bible says “your” – the Jews’*) brothers - - -“ (5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18). We are back to Islam’s hopeless claims that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible. If you read the Bible, you will see how hopeless the claims really are – so far out that even Islam hardly had backed them if it was not because Muhammad in the Quran claimed he was foretold there, and both in OT and NT (7/157, 61/6). Thus Islam HAS to find him – if not the Quran is wrong and thus not from a god - - - and Islam a made up religion.

Islam in just this case use only one word as the basis for the claim here, the word “brother”. This only can refer to the Ismaelites – the Arabs – they claim. One thing is that the Arabs and Islam never were able to prove they really were descendants of Ishmael – according to the Bible his descendants settled “near the border of Egypt” (1. Mos. 25/18 – written at a time when there was no reason for not giving correct fact about this). More serious – because any Muslim scholar have easy access to the following facts – are:

·    These verses (5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18)  are from a speech Moses made to his Jews – about them and about their future, and no Ishmaelites were included in his audience or in the future he spoke about.

·    The word “brother” is used at least 99 times in OT and at least 227 times in NT – not one of those times meaning Arabs.

·     Moses used the word “brother” at least 31 times during his speech which makes up 5. Mos. – not one of those times indicating Arabs, but each time clearly speaking to and about the Jews (and naturally; the brother of a Jew is another Jew).

·     Arabs and Arabia are mentioned many times in the Bible – without exception in neutral words or as enemies, never as even friends, not to mention close relatives.

·    Jews are mentioned many times in the Quran – but never as brothers of the Arabs (one time as brothers of bad people/hypocrites).

These are at least circumstantial proofs “en masse” for that Moses definitely was not thinking about an Arab prophet when he foretold here. So many and so clear circumstantial proofs, that the cumulative effect is at least one absolute proof of mathematical strength.

As said this claim is so far out, that Muslim scholars hardly had used it, if they were not forced to do so.

Cherry-picking and some twisting of words and facts are standard Muslim technique – just like in this case.

The Bible also says that Moses used the words “a prophet like me” and Yahweh (not Allah) the words “a prophet like you (Moses*)”. Islam claims that this means that the future man should be a man similar to Moses as a person, and further they claim that Muhammad had many traits similar to Moses’ and that Jesus had many traits dissimilar to Moses (between any 2 persons who have ever lived you will find similarities and dissimilarities, and if you cherry-pick similarities and dissimilarities you will get exactly the result you want – totally invalid as a proof).

But what Moses really said was that the future man would be a prophet – like Moses was a prophet (Muhammad was not even a real prophet even if he used that heavy title sometimes – he was unable to make prophesies, this according to both himself in the Quran (he “did not know the unknown” or “the unseen (f.x. 6/50, 7/188)”), and according to Aishah in Hadiths). Other similarities or dissimilarities was not indicated by Moses. But as said: Cherry-picking and some twisting is an often used way for Islam and for Muslims to find “arguments”.

There are more about this in www.1000mistakes.com , book A, in the chapter “Muhammad in the Bible?”

Hb2.  (From “A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understand The Quran” – BIGUQ):

“I (indicated to be Allah*) will put my words in his (the prophet foretold by Moses*) mouth - - -“. BIGUQ claims that this is proved by the claimed sending down of the Quran. But for one thing it is not proved that this is what the Bible meant (he f.x. easily could have meant Jesus – who fits Moses’ description) – and Islam’s claim only because of this is invalid as a proof (“a proof is one or more proved facts - - -“). And for another thing: The main thing all the errors, etc. in the Quran prove, is that no god made it, and thus that the Quran is not the words of any god.

 

Hc.  From Moses (ca. 1285 BC) to Jesus (ca. 0). For Jesus see main chapter J.

Hc1.  (Claimed proof from ETT).

The city of Iram (may originally perhaps be even older). This city is mentioned in 89/6-8, and in a way which shows that the city was a well known name to the Arabs even before the start of Islam (surah 86 is from shortly after Muhammad started his mission). Muhammad uses the name as part of a warning, and it would not be a warning unless the name told the listeners a story. His listeners knew the name and the story.

Iram was one of the many, many cities and towns which did not make it into the written history – only into the folklore.

Then in 1973 the old Syrian town Ebla was excavated. There they found mentioned the town or city Iram (and also the names Sodom and Gomorrah) – nothing else, nothing about big pillars, or anything. Just an obscure mentioning of an obscure town. (A small detail: Iram was – according to National Geographic – not on the list of trade partners with Ebla, like Muslims wrongly claim, but just on another list of not described  places).

What is worse: There is no proof – not even any clear indications – for that it is the same Iram which is mentioned in the Quran. Only the same or a very similar name.

The finding in Ebla of the name – more or less together with the names Sodom and Gomorrah – may merit a “perhaps” from ETT, but it has nothing to do with a proof for the Quran. That Muhammad used a name known in the old Arab folklore, and then it turns out that there once really existed a town with that name – not necessarily the same town/city which was mentioned in the old folklore and then in the Quran, but at least the same name – proves nothing about a divine origin of the Quran, like many Muslims claim. It only proves that there ones was a town/city or that name, and that – if it is the same town/city – there was a basis for the old folklore. That Muhammad in case knew the folklore and the name, proves nothing about divine knowledge.

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”. In this case it f.x. is not proved that it is the same Iram which is mentioned in the Quran. Only this alone makes the name in Ebla invalid as a proof for anything concerning the Quran. In addition f.x. the fact that the name Iram was known both to the Jews and the Arabs before Muhammad started his mission (if not the Jews warning to the Arabs had had no effect or value –  some Jews used the fate of Iram as a warning to the Arabs), proves that no divine information was necessary for using the name Iram.

“Summa summarum”: The name Iram proves nothing concerning the claimed divine origin of the Quran. (These are facts known at least to Muslim scholars. The fact that they all the same claim it is a proof, only proves that they have no real proofs – if they had had real proofs for the claimed divine origin of the Quran, they had not had to twist/omit facts to make a story look like what could be claimed is a proof, though the strongest word which can be correctly used, is “perhaps”. But then the truth neither is alpha nor omega for Islam when it comes to defend or promote the religion. The fact that no Muslim scholars stand up and correct all the wrongly claimed “miracles” claimed connected to Muhammad, tells a lot about honesty and search for the truth in Islam.

Hc2.  (From “A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understand The Quran” – BIGUQ):

BIGUQ claims that Isaiah 42/11 connects Muhammad to Moses’ prophesy. This part of Isaiah (42/1-17) talks about a good future because of the awaited prophet, and about happiness and praises of Yahweh because of this. Among the ones who will have a reason to rejoice, are (the descendants of) Kedar – Ishmael’s second son. That they were among the ones who would get a better life because of the Jewish prophet foretold by Moses, according to BIGUQ. Muhammad claimed to be a descendant of Ishmael.

·     According to the Bible (1. Mos. 25/18) the descendants of Ishmael settled a little east of where the Suez Canal now runs. It is highly unlikely that Muhammad (and the Arabs) really are the descendants of Ishmael.

·     This even more so as Arabia was settled already a few thousand years before Ishmael, and there thus were tens of thousands of forefathers, so that even if it should happen that Ishmael was a forefather of them, his part of the Arab blood would be only a tiny part of a per cent of a per cent. (Unlike the Jews the Arabs mingled and intermarried with other people.)

·     This is confirmed by modern DNA analyzes. It shows that the Arabs are not of a homogenous stock. They are the descendants of people who drifted in from all around + sporadic children left behind by traders (remember that sex and alcohol were “the two delicious things” in the old Arabia before Islam), and not least slaves – the Arabs at times imported slaves from as far as China, and not forget millions of Negroes from Africa - at least the female slaves, included the Negroes got their part of sex – willing or raped or in between. The children born by the slave women – and some children fathered by male slaves – sooner or after generations became Arabs. It is quite possible f.x. Muhammad had more f.x. Negro blood from earlier slaves, than blood from Ishmael.  But Muhammad would not be the first one who made up respectable forefathers – “borrowed feathers” is nothing new.

·     Even if it should happen that Muhammad had a small drop of Ishmael’s blood – f.x. through a slave girl in the deep past - it is nowhere proved that he was a descendant of Kedar, and thus relevant for BIGUQ’s indication here.

No matter this gives no proved connection between Moses’ prophesy and Muhammad. On the contrary: The fact that Muslims have to use claims like this, proves that they have very few real facts – if they had, they had not used as feeble “connections” like this one.

Hd.  From Jesus (ca. 33 AD) to Muhammad (born ca. 570 AD). For Muhammad see main ch. M.

He.  History after Muhammad (dead 632 AD).

Hf.  Predictions about history, etc. after Muhammad (also see “Prophesies”).

Hf1.  (Sample from “Examine The Truth” - ETT).

ETT claims that “Islam condemns terrorism and genocide”.  Perhaps of Islam, but not the Quran, and what the Quran accepts and even advices, many Muslims do. F.x. for one thing the Quran (as said) in case does not do so (on the contrary; “use all means”), and for another Muslims in case have not lived according to that claimed condemnation through the times. Just read the surahs from Medina and read Islamic history, and you will see the reality.

ETT also claims that the time for Hitler, etc. is pinpointed in the Quran. This is a claim, not a proved fact, and conclusions thus invalid as proofs. One also here should remember that claims about “the end will come shortly” has been made hundreds of times through history – like ETT here - but not one of those claims has come true. One should also remember that there nowhere is hinted to Hitler in the book – the claim thus needs strong proofs – proofs, not claims or “explanations” - for that it is he who is meant, to become a proof. One also should remember that there are many other bloody persons in history, included very many Muslims, who can have been meant – there literary are thousands of possible ones. And a loose claim based on as loose guesswork and with thousands of possible answers, is about as far as it is possible to come from a valid proof. (“A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one answer”.)

 

Hg.  Predictions about the Day of Doom (also see “Prophesies”).

Hg1.  (Sample from “Examine The Truth” - ETT).

“And (remember) when your Lord (here indicated to mean Allah*) declared that He would certainly keep on sending against them , till the Day of Resurrection, those who would afflict them with a humiliating  torment”. ETT tells that “them” refers to 7/159 and thus to Jews – and thus Hitler. But it refers to 7/163: “- - - the town standing close by the sea”. This town is a mystery in the Quran and in Islam, as nobody knows which town Muhammad referred to. That the inhabitants were Jews, thus only is one of many possibilities – and thus the entire bottom under ETT’s claim here disappears.

Besides even if Muhammad provably had meant the Jews, Hitler is not a proof for that the Quran is right here: There is a “natural background noise” of cruelty and strife for power – many use cruel means to gain power (just look at f.x. Muhammad ),  and they use cruelty against many others than the Jews. (This also goes for Hitler – he by far caused the death of many more non-Jews than Jews).

To make Hitler a proof for that the Quran is right here, ETT will have to prove that Hitler was not from “the background noise”, and in addition that he was sent (not proved) by Allah (not proved) to terrorize the Jews particularly (not proved – and likely disproved as he killed many more non-Jews). ETT also will have to prove that Muhammad really meant Hitler here – if not Hitler is just a coincidence or one among many possibilities.

I no case this is a valid proof.

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”. In this case the underlying “facts” are not proved + several conclusions are possible. The claim is invalid as a proof – the strongest word possible to use is that it is a possibility that Hitler was sent by an avenging god, but the word “proof” is out of the question.

The same goes if one wants to call this a prophesy. Hitler is in no way indicated in the text – only the fact that Jews had troubles – a conclusion Muhammad easily could make from the Jews’ history there and then. One also should remember that Muhammad himself very clearly stated in the Quran that he was “unable to know the unseen” = unable to make prophesies (and Aishah said the same about him in the Hadiths). All the same Muslims make up prophesies claimed to come from him. Not one of the claimed prophesies are proved to be real prophesies from Muhammad (and the same goes for claimed miracles).

Hg2.  (From ExamineTheTruth):

“There will be callers at the gates of Hell; whoever responds to them they throw them into it” - - - “They will be of our people (Arabs? Muslims?*) speaking our language (Arab*)”. (Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. V, pp. 197). This ETT claims is a prophesy for al-Qaeda.

But for one thing ETT first have to prove that this really is – and was meant as – a prophesy. And here one must remember that both Muhammad in the Quran and Aishah in Hadiths – and Islam today – said/says that Muhammad was unable to make prophesies.  Then he/she will have to prove it really was said by Muhammad – it is ever so clear that very many of the Hadiths are made up stories. (This claimed “proof” is based on a Hadith.) And finally he/she must prove Muhammad in case meant al Qaeda – there are numbers of alternatives, f.x. the Assassins. Unless all these 3 points are proved, this is invalid both as a proof for anything at all and as a claimed prophesy.

There also is another point here: There are billions of facts in real life. If a man says thousands and tens of thousands of things, and these are compared to the billions, there has got to be some similarities – quite many in real numbers. There is no reason to suspect a prophesy or miracle unless what a person says comes true notably more often than the laws of chance and laws or probability dictate. And Muhammad’s words – what Muslims in suitable cases invariably claims are foretelling – became partly in true notably fewer times than sheer chance or probability would indicate (Muhammad was knowledgeable, but with little real fantasy).


>>> Go to Next Part

>>> 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".