Islamic Disuse and Twisting, Etc. of Sciences:


M.  Muhammad


M1.  (Claim from ETT).

Muhammad in 30/3 says that the Roman Empire soon will be victorious (in their war with Persia). In a way correct – they won in the end. But what Muslims never mention is that the Arab word which is translated with “soon” – “bedd” - means “between 3 and 9 years”, whereas it took 12 or more years (depending on which battle Muhammad referred to). Not correct – and as it was one of the rather few cases where he was partly right, his total “hits” were well below the number of such he should have had from sheer chance and probability – but as said Muhammad was not a man of great imagination (even though he surely was intelligent and a knower of humans).

M2:  “Allah has confirmed His Messenger’s (Muhammad’s*) vision with truth: ‘You will enter (the Kabah mosque*) in safety, Allah willing, - - - He knew what you did not know and ordained, in place of this, an imminent victory” (48/27). MI/SMQ claims that this is a prophesy about the capture of Mecca in 630 AD. But this was written in 628 AD and simply was pep-talk before the try to go to Kabah that year – the march which ended with the agreement of Hudaybiyah. This pep-talk also may have had value the next year, when they were permitted to enter Kabah. The capture of Mecca did not take place until even one more year later.

But even if MI/SMQ had been right about that it was not a pep-talk, it cannot have been a prophesy, because Muhammad himself in the Quran very clearly and at least 7 places in the Quran (6/50, 7/188, 10/20, 27/65, 46/9, 72/21, 81/24) states that he was unable to make prophesies – “see the unseen” or “know what is hidden” - or miracles (f.x. 71/21 + quite a number where he states he just is a man or a messenger = without the power of making miracles),  and Aishah as clearly said the same about him in the Hadiths. (But it is very typical for Muslims that even though they know these facts ever so well, they make up and spread stories about Muhammad’s prophesies and miracles – each time indirectly saying that the Quran must be lying on all these points. Well, it is nice of them to confirm lies in the Quran.)

M3.  (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).

“The Romans have been defeated - - - but after their defeat they will be victorious in a few years’ time” (30/1-4). This is a point you will meet rather often from Muslims – it is one of the star samples of claimed prophesies from Muhammad.

The background was a long war between the East Roman Empire and the Persian Empire. In the beginning the Romans lost a number of battles, and this refers to one of those lost ones – one does not know for sure which one.

Two essential points here: The Arab word “bedd” which here is translated with “a few (years)” is a word which means “between 3 and 9 (years)”. And: MI/SMQ says this verse is from around 620 AD, which is wrong, because this surah is from 615 or 616 AD (but by “adjusting” history a little, it is possible for MI/SMQ to claim the “prophesy” is correct). Because the Romans under the clever emperor Heraclius managed to turn the tide and win the war. But it took a lot more than “ bedd” – 3 to 9 – years. Depending on which battle Muhammad talked about, it took 12 years or more.

This was a long war. It started slowly in 602 AD, and during the first two decades the Romans mainly were the losers. The tide started to turn in 622, but the Romans were not finally victorious until in 628 AD = at least 12 years after this Hadith was published. If Muhammad referred to a battle lost in 613 AD like Muslims often like to claim (to be able to claim that the first major battle the Romans won – in east Anatolia in the fall of 622 AD were within Muhammad’s “3 to 9 – “bedd” - years), they were not victorious until 15 years later – more if Muhammad in reality reacted to an earlier lost battle.

M4.  (From “A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understand The Quran” – BIGUQ):

“If we compare the life of Muhammad before his mission as a prophet and his life after he began his mission, we will conclude that it is beyond reason to think Muhammad was a false prophet, who claimed prophethood to attain material gains, greatness, glory, or power”.

Before Muhammad started his mission, he was economically well off because of his wife’s business. He further had one woman – a lot older than him. History shows that for one thing one woman was not enough for him, and more essential: He preferred his women to be much younger than him (with the exception of his first wife, all his long time wives (11) were from 20 to 36 years younger than him – Aishah even a lot more). According to Islamic sources – far from always reliable – he was reasonably respected in the community, but that was it as for respect. And he definitely was not powerful.

History and the Quran shows that what he wanted above all was power and respect – and women and riches. The riches he wanted not so much for personal use, but for bribes to buy and keep followers = power. Compared to many other eastern potentates he lived simple, but not as simple and poor as Muslims/Islam like(s) to claim. When he died he had estates in Fadang, Khaybar, and Medina, all his wives each had her own small house, and he had a large income from looting/stealing, taxes, and “gifts” from persons who wanted something – if nothing else, then a good future in this or the claimed next life (perhaps what we today call corruption).

BIGUQ thus are very wrong when it claims that Muhammad had no motifs for pretending to be a prophet. (BIGUQ uses mainly some Hadiths as “proofs” for their claims. But Hadiths are even more unreliable than the Quran – and cherry-picked Hadiths by far more so. Not valid as proofs unless there are real proofs in addition.)

M5.  (From “The Message of the Quran, comment 62/1 (to verse 62/2)).

“The designation of the Prophet (Muhammad’) as a man ‘from among themselves’ is meant, in this context, to stress the fact that he, too, was unlettered (ummi) in the primary sense (= had not learnt to read and write - a claim science is skeptical to*) of this word, and could not, therefore, have ‘invented’ the message of the Quran or ‘derived’ its ideas from earlier scriptures”. This is wrong at least to the 2. power and dishonesty at least to the 3. There is no connection between knowing how to read and write, and the ability to make up tales. Tellers of tales made up good stories, legends, fairy tales, etc., etc., for perhaps a million years before writing was even invented. Similar goes for the claim that as he could not read, he could not have got his “information” and ideas from the Bible, but has to have got it directly from Allah. You do not have to be able to read yourself to get information about religions and other things - a lot of what anybody even today get of information, is verbal. And this was even more so the case in the old times when telling of tales, histories, legends, fairy tales, etc. was a popular pastime in long evenings - in Arabia like in most primitive cultures. The argument and the claim is even more stupid as the tales in the Quran mostly are not even from the Bible, but from tales and legends and folklore (that is why they are different from the Bible - not falsifications of the Bible like Muhammad claimed, but the use of verbal tales based on, but different from the Bible).

The mildest word possible to use for claims and arguments used here - and often used by Muslims - is rubbish. This even more so as the facts we have pointed to here, are so well known, that there is no chance at all for that Muslim scholars do not know them, and all the same they use the claims and arguments - - - and uneducated or lower intelligent (or wishful) believers even believe them!

The only thing use of such claims and “arguments” prove, is that Muslims have no real proofs or arguments. If they had, they would not have to use stupidity like this for “proofs”.


“Since Muhammad did not know how to read and write (modern religious science strongly doubts that this is true, but is a claim to “prove” he could not have made up the Quran*), he must have repeated exactly what he has been told (from Allah*)”. This is such a naïve “proof” that it is unbelievable that an intelligent man like Muhammad used it – but likely he knew his uneducated listeners. Even more unbelievable is that Muslims of today still use this claim – and some even believe in it.

It is the brain which makes up stories, not the pen or the paper – not even the mouth, but the brain. And Muhammad had a brain – and a clever one.

A nonsense “proof”.

>>> Go to Next Part

>>> Go to Previous Part

This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".