1000+ Claims in the Quran - Invalid Unless Proven, Surah 12
18 May 2014
Surah 12 : YUSUF (JOSEPH)
(Mecca, 621 AD)
As this surah mainly is about Joseph - practically the only coherent surah in the entire Quran - you will find most of the material under "Jews" (= the chapter below).
001 "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful". Please read the surahs from Medina, the immoral parts of the Muslim moral code, the unjust/immoral parts of sharia, and the Quran's rules for lying, thieving/looting, enslaving, raids and wars, plus the rules for treatment of girls and women - free and captives - and see if you agree. Always when there is a distance between words and corresponding demands and deeds, we personally believe in the demands and deeds. Glorious words are cheap, demands and deeds are reliable. Glorifying words and claims are too cheap for anyone to use and disuse - when you read, judge from realities, not from propaganda.
###002 12/1b: (A12/2) “These are the Symbols (or Verses (already 2 meanings in the text*)) of the Perspicuous (Arab: “mubin”) Book.” But the word “mubin” may refer either to the noun’s quality (then “mubin” literally means something which is clear, obvious, manifest, etc.) or to its function (then “mubin” literally means something that is making something clear or obvious or -“. Most Islamic scholars mean it refers to Joseph’s ability to give interpretations of dreams. “The book makes the story it tells clear”. There is no small distinction between those two meanings. Muslims will tell you both meanings are included. But the language is unclear here like many places in the Quran.
BUT WHAT PERHAPS IS THE MOST ESSENTIAL POINT HERE, IS THAT THE QURAN ITSELF MEANS THAT EVERYTHING IS EXPLAINED, AND THUS THAT IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD LITERALLY LIKE IT IS TOLD AND EXPLAINED. THIS PROVES THAT ISLAM'S AND MUSLIMS' CLAIMS THAT ERRORS AND OTHER NO-GOOD POINTS ARE ALLEGORIES, ETC. ARE WRONG.
By the way: ##########Pure Arab also is the language spoken in Heaven, according to some Islamic literature. This without consideration for that the Arab of Muhammad was a language mainly for primitive nomadic tribes - Heaven hardly was that primitive. When the language change, f.x. the meaning of words change or new words are added, do Arab get messages from Heaven about this? Or does Heaven follow language changes in Arabia? (Some Muslim sects - notably the Ammaddiyya - even have “proved” Arab also is the original language on Earth, believe it or not.)
As we have said before: Do not laugh - it is impolite.
003 12/2b: “We (Allah*) has sent it down as an Arabic Quran - - -.” It is not pure and perfect Arab like it often is claimed - nothing like if a god had made it, and not to mention like if it is the language of Heaven; in that case there should have been no grammatical mistakes and no words imported from Arabia's neighbors on Earth (not to mention the situation today) - there are lots of grammatical errors and imported words, according to language experts. Besides: Did Heaven have a grammar before the Arabs finally made one in the years between 650 and 900 AD? (Irony aside and to be fair: Just this claim that Arab is the language used in Heaven, hardly is a mainstream claim.)
And did also Heaven just have an incomplete alphabet around 650 AD, like Arabia had, when the first official Quran was written?
But we are unable to see the glorious thing with using Arab for his holy book, if Allah intended to reach all the world - f.x. Latin or Greek or Persian had reached far more people. But the really big drawback is that around 650 AD Arab only had a rudimentary alphabet, consisting mainly of the consonants - the rest had to be guessed by the reader. Which even today means there are some hundreds of places (300+?) in the book where one does not know the exact meaning for sure. When a Muslim next time use the standard claim that the Quran of today is "exactly Muhammad's words to the last comma", do not laugh - it is impolite. (The comma did not even exist in Arab at that time).
004 12/2e: "- - - in order that ye (people*) may learn wisdom". Beware that when the Quran talks about wisdom, knowledge, etc., it normally is talking about knowledge and wisdom concerning the Quran and Islam only - though Muslims nowadays often try to tell you differently. The time before Islam f.x. both normally and officially is named "the Time of Ignorance", even though the populations in a number of areas/countries were more - some places much more - educated and enlightened before Islam conquered them than afterwards.
005 12/2f: “We (Allah*) have sent it down as an Arabic Quran, in order that ye may learn wisdom". But:
There is little wisdom in a book where so much is wrong like in the Quran.
Beware that when the Quran and Islam talk about wisdom, normally they talk only about religious and related knowledge. All other kinds of knowledge were "foreign" and disliked. All the same the Muslim area had a period of science from ca. 820 AD till ca. 1095 AD (ca. 100 years more in the far west), but it was more in spite of Islam than because of Islam - and it was the religious establishment (the religious scholars helped by the imams, etc.) who "killed" it.
For the world this may have been a good thing - what had happened to the world if a war and apartheid religion like Islam had had the industrial revolution with much resources and the best weapons, instead of the West? The West did things one afterwards can say was not good - but a similar Islamic conquest had been sure if they had had the upper military hand, the examples from Sind and India and Armenia and Africa and the Greeks in Turkey tell a grave tale about how bloody it likely would have been - and the Quran tells how suppressing and intolerant. Belgium and Congo is a sunshine story in that connection. Besides: The moral thinking and the moral shifts which happened in the West, and which f.x. made an end to slavery and after all made ending colonization somewhat easier, had not been possible under Islam - Islam simply has no moral or ethical philosophy which makes changes in thinking possible. They only have Muhammad's words and deeds which in principle are forever, except that ideas and thoughts and knowledge from outside the Muslim area forces their way in - but frequently against strong opposition from Islam. (And influence from the outside had not existed - at least not much - if Islam had been the strong power in the world for 300 years, instead of the West.)
Strong things have been said about the West and its power. But think over this alternative.
#######006 12/2g: "- - - before this (the surahs of the Quran*), thou too (Muslims*) wast among those who knew it (the religion?*) not". Comment A12/3: "(The Arab words "la'allakum ta'qilun" here*) are meant to impress upon everyone who listens to or reads the Quran that its appeal is directed, primarily, to man's reason, and that the "feeling" alone can never provide a sufficient basis of faith". Muhammad understood psychology and used similar claims rather frequently - impressing on his followers that "you are intelligent who understand and follow my teachings" - to be told they are wise and intelligent is flattering, especially for uneducated and/or naive persons. ##########But if Islam had been based on knowledge and peoples' intelligence and reason, it had disappeared fast and become a bloody comma and a sample of peoples' incredible ability to believe in spite of knowledge and facts, and their as incredible ability to be blind to everything they do not want to see. Islam rests on the gut feeling that what my parents and everyone else told me was right when I was a child and later, and what all my surroundings and imams claim is the truth, is the truth - "taqlid" simply - and the mistakes in the Quran are just that the others do not know anything or do not understand that the "explanations" mean there are no mistakes anyhow, and the facts other points to are just lies from "Muslim-haters", and, therefore, there is no reason to check or think over facts not consistent with Islam. The same goes for its partly horrible moral code.
(There is much in that moral code - and Islam only have a moral code, no moral philosophy, as everything has to be done like Muhammad said or did - which is far from the basis for all real inter-human moral: "Do unto others like you want others do unto you".)
007 12/3a: (A12/3 – in 2008 edition A12/5): “We (Allah*) do relate unto thee (Muslims*) the most beautiful of stories - - -.” Here is a linguistic-technical reasoning which simply is too complicated for lay persons, so we do not quote it here, but according to f.x. Zamakhshari a more correct meaning is something like #############“- - - a story with the best explanations - - -.” There is a wide river between these two meanings. But to repeat it: The language in the Quran is clear and easy to understand – and impossible to misunderstand - - - according to Islam. And these variants like always also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.
ESSENTIAL HERE: THE CORRECT MEANING IS THAT THE QURAN HAS THE BEST EXPLANTIONS - HOW THEN CAN MERE NORMAL HUMANS CLAIM THEY CAN EXPLAIN BETTER THAN ALLAH/THE QURAN AND "EXPLAIN AWAY" ERRORS, CONTRADICTIONS, ETC.?
###008 12/3b: "- - - the most beautiful of stories - - -.” Please read the Quran. How many of the stories are beautiful, even seen from a religious point of view? Then read it ones more, and now you use your brain and omit all the glossy and glorious words, and read only the reality which is told by the demands and deeds and introduced rules, etc. in the book - the glossy words are the propaganda, the demands and acts and deeds and rules are the true and real stories. How many beautiful stories are left now - if any? The moral in the Quran some places is a mixture of "ugly", "horrible", and "inhuman".
009 12/3c: "- - - We (Allah*) reveal to thee (Muhammad*) this (portion of the) Quran - - -". No omniscient god ever revealed a book of a quality like the Quran - too much is wrong.
010 12/3d: "- - - reveal - - -". Was it really revealed, and in case by whom or what? It was not from a god - too much is wrong in the book. Then the alternatives are: Dark forces (f.x. Iblis/the Devil dressed up like Gabriel (Muhammad would not have a chance to see the difference)), an illness (f.x. TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy - like modern medical science suspects), or one or more cold human brain(s) (f.x. Muhammad's own).
011 12/3e: "- - - before this (the Quran*), thou (Muslims*) were among those who knew it not". One may wonder: What is best: Not to know something which is wrong,, or to "know" something which is wrong? - especially if it is about a claimed "holy book" which clearly is not from a god?
NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!
012 12/3f: "- - - before this (the surahs of the Quran*), thou too (Muslims*) wast among those who knew it (the religion?*) not". Comment A12/3: "(The Arab words "la'allakum ta'qilun" here*) are meant to impress upon everyone who listens to or reads the Quran that its appeal is directed, primarily, to man's reason, and that the "feeling" alone can never provide a sufficient basis of faith". Muhammad understood psychology and used similar claims rather frequently - impressing on his followers that "you are intelligent who understand and follow my teachings" - to be told they are wise and intelligent is flattering, especially for uneducated and/or naive persons. #####But if Islam had been based on knowledge and peoples' intelligence and reason, it had disappeared fast and become a bloody comma and a sample of peoples' incredible ability to believe in spite of knowledge and facts, and of their as incredible ability to be blind to everything they do not want to see. Islam rests on the gut feeling that what my parents and everyone else told me when I was a child and later was right, and what all my surroundings and imams claim is the truth, is the truth - simply on "taqlid" to use an Arab word - and the mistakes in the Quran are just that the others do not know anything or do not understand that the "explanations" mean there are no mistakes anyhow, and the facts others point to are just lies from "Muslim-haters", and, therefore, there is no reason to check or think over facts not consistent with Islam. The same goes for its partly horrible moral code.
(There is much in that moral code - and Islam only have a moral code, no moral philosophy, as everything has to be done like Muhammad said or did - which is far from the basis for all real inter-human moral: "Do unto others like you want others do unto you".)
NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!
013 12/6d: "For thy (Muhammad's? people's?*) Lord (Allah*) is full of knowledge and wisdom". Perhaps wisdom, but little knowledge if the Quran is representative.
014 12/6e: "For thy Lord is full of knowledge and wisdom". The Quran here indicates that the god involved was Allah. This is contradicted by the Bible, which tells that the god of the old Jews was Yahweh. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.
We may add that also history as far back as it goes, tells that the Jews' god was Yahweh - and written history goes quite far back in those areas, except in the then backward Arabia.
015 12/7-18: The main story about Joseph and his brothers is like in the Bible, but not the details. This actually is the case for the entire story about Joseph. (From where did Muhammad get these new details which partly even contradict the Bible? As the Quran is not from a god, also these details are not from a god. Then there remain the alternatives; dark forces, illness, mental old tales, or making up things.)
016 12/11-12: "They (Joseph's half-brothers*) said: 'O our father (Jacob*)! Why dost you not trust us with Joseph - seeing we are indeed his well-wishers? Send him with us tomorrow - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells Jacob - not understanding how much his other sons disliked Joseph - sent Joseph to check if everything was ok with his brothers and the animals. (1. Mos. 37/13-14). Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.
017 12/15d: "- - - We (Allah*) put into his (Joseph's*) brain (this Message): 'Of a surety thou shalt (one day) tell them (your half-brothers*) - - -". There is nothing like such a message - not even an indication for any message at all - in the Bible. Where did Muhammad get this from?
018 12/18c: "- - - it is Allah (alone) Whose help can be sought......'" Often claimed, never proved.
019 12/19-20: (Also see 12/19a-d above.) Here is something wrong - or one more contradiction. Verse 19 tells that “travelers” found Joseph in the well where his brothers had thrown him down, and took him for a slave and concealed him. Verse 20 tells his brothers sold him for a few dirhams (small silver coins). Both cannot be true.
020 12/20c: “The brethren (of Joseph*) sold him (Joseph*) for a miserable price – for a few dirham”. Dirham was a small silver coin - but serious here: Dirhams did not exist until some 2500 years later. (The Bible says 20 shekels = ca. 200g silver.(1.Mos. 37/28)). Science tells this was a normal price for a young male slave at that time, not "a miserable price". Well, in verse 19 he was found, here in 20 he was bought. See 12/19a and 12/19-20 above.
######021 12/20aa: "- - - dirhams - - -". These silver coins did not exist at that time - the first ones were minted some 2500 years later. Worse: They did not exist at the time of Muhammad, too, and thus this word cannot have been used by Muhammad when he dictated this surah (at the time of Muhammad time the Arabs mainly used the Greek drachme. The first dirhams were copies of Persian coins where the words "In the name of Allah" were added, and made under caliph Utman. The first "real" dirhams were made under Abdalmalik in 695 AD. The Persian coins may have been called dirhams - a word derived from drachme - but it is ever so clear that even they did not exist at the time of Joseph some 2ooo+ years earlier.)) ################### THE QURAN IS "MUHAMMAD'S EXACT WORDS DOWN TO THE LAST COMMA", like many Muslims claim? Also see 12/20c below.
(In Arabia at the time of Muhammad one used Greek drachms. The first dirhams were copies of Persian coins where the words "In the name of Allah" were added, and made under caliph Utman. The first "real" dirhams were made under Abdalmalik in 695 AD. The Persian coins may have been called dirhams - a word derived from drachme - but it is ever so clear that even they did not exist at the time of Joseph some 2ooo+ years earlier.)
022 12/21c: "The man (the Aziz/Potiphar*) in Egypt who bought him, said to his wife: 'Make his (Joseph's*) stay - - -". See 12/8b above.
023 12/21f: "And Allah hath full power and control over His (Allah's*) affairs - - -". Allah decides everything, and nothing can change his Plan. Full predestination. Often claimed, never proved.
024 12/21h: "And Allah hath full power and control over His (Allah's*) affairs; but most among mankind know it not". With a good reason if Allah does not exist - and hopefully wrong if he exists, but belongs to the dark forces (he definitely is not a god - not to mention a good and benevolent god - if he is behind the Quran and all its errors and partly immoral moral code, etc.).
025 12/22aa: "When Joseph attained full manhood - - -". When he was sold he was 17 (1. Mos. 37/2), and thus an adult as one reckoned it in the old times.
026 12/22b: "- - - We (Allah*) gave him (Joseph*) power and knowledge: thus do We reward those who do right". If you are naive enough to believe that doing right results in power and knowledge, just go on believing it. Also see 12/22c just below.
###027 12/24b: "- - - evil and shameful deeds - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. In cases like here the Quran also is unintended irony and black comedy: Sex out of wedlock is "evil and shameful", whereas to rape captive or slave girls or women - or for that case to take slaves, and destroy their - fellow humans' - lives, is "lawful and good" (8/69). Some religion!
028 12/25c: "They (she and Joseph*) both raced each other to the door, and she tore his shirt from the back - - -". This is not from the Bible - like much else in this story. From where did Muhammad get it?
029 12/25-27: Wrong. Such tears could be indications, but they are not a "sine qua non" - other explanations might be possible, and thus the tear was no proof - at most an indication. But Muhammad normally was not difficult on the word "proof".
030 12/26-27: "If it be that his (Joseph's*) shirt is rent from the front, then is her (the wife of Joseph's owner*) tale true, and he is a liar! But if it be that his shirt is torn from the back, then is she the liar, and he is telling the truth!" One thing is that this logic at best is valid as an indication, not as a proof - but as mentioned Muhammad was very liberal with the use of the word "proof", as you see all over the Quran. But may be worse: This is not from the Bible - where did Muhammad get this from?
#031 12/30-34: This is not from the Bible. From where did Muhammad get it? (There many places are reason for using this question in the Quran - and Muslims claims:"From Allah". But as it is clear no god was ever involved in a book of a quality like the Quran, only these possibilities remains: From dark forces - and the hate and blood and acceptance of dishonesty, not to mention the partly immoral moral code, etc. may indicate this. Or a mental illness - modern medical science believe Muhammad had TFL (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy), as both his religious "experiences" and the seizures Islam describes he had, indicates this. Or made up tales - Muhammad had a reputation for being a little naive when it came to discerning truth from made up tales, and the fact that most of the tales in the Quran are known apocryphal (made up) tales, legends, folk tales, and fairy tales from the old Arabia and its surroundings, may indicate this. Or Muhammad himself or some accomplice(s) made it all up - the very many cases of wrong facts which were believed to be correct at the time of Muhammad, which you find in the Quran, the fact that all stories, legends, etc. in the Quran are from or around Arabia, the fact that "everything" fitted Muhammad's position at the time when the surahs were released (nothing really pointed forwards - wishes, etc. yes, but no real facts about the future), and all the times Muhammad personally got help from Allah (like so many a self proclaimed prophet), may indicate this. Or may be a combination of 2 of more of these possibilities. (Just for the record: When mentioning this, we often lump the fairy tales, etc., together with the scheming, cold brain.))
032 12/32d: What was the logic of for the Aziz/Potiphar to agree to put Joseph in prison when it was proved he was not guilty? (A contradiction to the Bible where this was not proved and there the story is logical). This after all was at a moment where the wife should have been careful. (Muslims have a kind of explanation, but only a kind of). But imprisonment is necessary for the rest of the story.
Well, the Quran implies Joseph was put to prison by the woman because he still did not want her. A spiteful woman could do so, but any sane husband then would ask questions - - - and there would be rumors in addition he would sooner or later hear, as you bet the other ladies would wag their tongues.
033 12/33c: "- - - the ignorant - - -". Normally in the Quran a name for non-Muslims But Muslims at the time of Joseph? - some 2500 years before Muhammad and the first traces of Islam?
But it is quite telling that the Quran - and Islam - uses the expression "the ignorant" for persons not believing in Islam, no matter how well educated, intelligent, and knowledgeable they were about any other subjects. When the Quran speaks about knowledge, only knowledge about Islam and related subjects counted and for many still counts. Everything else was "foreign knowledge" and to be dismissed at best and fought against at worst - a good thing for the rest of the world, because this was one of the reasons why the war and suppression culture Islam stagnated, and gave the rest of humanity the chance to outpace it.
##034 12/37d: "- - - people (of old Egypt*) - - - that (even) deny the Hereafter". This is a real screamer - ######if there ever was a people who really believed in a Hereafter, it was the old Egyptian one.
035 12/39b: "- - - Allah, the One, Supreme and Irresistible - - -". Similar are frequently claimed in the Quran, but never proved anywhere. Besides: According to the Bible, only Yahweh is the supreme.
036 12/40a: "- - - ye (pagans*) worship nothing but names which ye have named - ye and your fathers (Joseph said*) - - -". And if the Quran is a made up book, the situation is just the same for Muslims - and the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. at least is from no god.
037 12/40b: "- - - for which Allah hath sent down no authority - - -". Allah does not have the power for sending down authority to anyone at all, if he does not exist - hardly so even if he exists, but belongs to the dark forces (all the mistakes in the Quran proves that he is no god if he was involved in that book, and quite a number of the points in the Quran and in its moral code and law, fit the dark forces better than they do a good and benevolent god).
038 12/40f: "He (Allah*) hath commanded that ye (Egyptians*) worship none but Him - - -". For one thing there nowhere are traces from such an order or god or religion in Egypt at the time of Joseph, and for another there is no such religious debate in the Bible. From where did Muhammad get the information about it?
Another point is that there never was found any trace from a religion like Islam, a god like Allah or a book similar to the Quran anywhere in Egypt (or anywhere else in the world) until well after 610 AD when Muhammad started his mission.
#039 12/40g: “(Islam*) is the right religion - - -”. Can a religion based on a book with so many mistakes, and with not a single valid proof for anything essential, really be a “right religion”? Simply no. Especially not when all the book rests only on the words of a man with very doubtful moral – thieving/robbing, womanizing, raping, enslaving, murdering, lying – even not respecting his own oaths - etc., and the book on top of all clearly is not from any god, with all those errors.
040 12/40h: "- - - but most men understand not - - -". That may just have been Muhammad's problem; too many men understood too much about his new religion.
041 12/47-48 Joseph correctly foretold the pharaoh that there would come 7 years with big and good harvests, but they would be followed by 7 years with little and bad harvests. So far the Bible and the Quran more or less agree. But the Qurans adds that afterwards there would be another year with plenty of food - see 12/49a and 12/40b below - which is not mentioned in the Bible.
042 12/49a: “Then will come after that (period) a year in which the people will have abundant water - - -“. But the Arab word that is used her, and that is translated with “abundant water” is “yughathu” or “yughath” which in reality is said to mean “to be relieved by rain” (Joseph Al-Fadi (Christian)). As also “The Message of the Quran” has this translation (translated from Swedish): “- - - a year when the people will be blessed by rain - - -“, and has a similar comment to the word, and as we have met this translation before, we judge that Yusuf Ali has “stretched” his transcription a little (in case the true meaning is “rain”, it tells something). In Egypt one has little and no rain – it is the flood in the Nile which brings water - - - which means the Quran once more is wrong. (“The Message of the Quran" elegantly explains that it must mean rain further south in Africa, that made the Nile big, but this is not what the book says). Also see 12/49b just below.
043 12/50-51: Joseph does not want to leave the prison unless he is deemed not guilty. This is not from the Bible - the only known source for information about this incident, except legend and fairy tales, as the Quran is not from any god with all its mistakes, etc. Besides it is nonsense, since he already was judged not guilty. And a time anomaly.
044 12/52b: “- - - Allah will - - -”. See 12/51e+f above.
045 12/52c: “- - - Allah will never guide - - -”. Not unless he exists, and not unless he has a better guide-book than the Quran with all its mistakes, etc.
046 12/52d: "- - - Allah will never guide the false ones". Muhammad had as slogans "War is deceit" and "War is betrayal" - did Allah guide him in such falseness? And what about al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc.? - or broken oaths (2/225a, 5/89a+b, 16/91e, 66/2a)?
#####047 12/53aa: "- - - the (human) soul is certainly prone to evil - - -". A good proof for this is how easy it was - and is - to get Muhammad's followers to obey the evil parts of the Quran's moral code - stealing/robbing, raping, enslaving, torturing, suppressing, killing, etc.
048 12/56a: "We (Allah*) bestow Our Mercy on whom We please - - -". There was one under-laying question where there was no rational answer: Why do many bad persons and many non-Muslims have a good life, whereas many Muslims had a difficult life no matter how pious they were and no matter how powerful and benevolent the "right" god was?
There may be rational answers to this, but no simple rational answers - and a number of them would be disliked, like 'They work more than you', 'They are cleverer than you', 'They are more intelligent and/or educated than you' etc. An intelligent and populist leader should be careful with such answers.
Muhammad came up with the ideal answer. It is irrational, but looks rational, at least for the naive ones, and it fits all situations: 'It is Allah who in his great and unfathomable wisdom who for some reason has decided it so - "on whom We please". Besides it only looks like a good life, because - cool down and sooth yourself and be glad - in the next lift they will be punished hard, whereas you will be rewarded if you keep on being good and obedient'.
Who can ask questions about an omniscient and benevolent god's fairness and wisdom? And who - at least among the ones who are small inside - does not like to "know" that "they" will be punished? - sometimes it helps nearly as much to know that, as to "know" you yourself will be rewarded.
049 12/56c: "- - - We (Allah*) suffer not , to be lost, the reward of those who do good". If he exists and is a major god. And if the Quran has described him correctly.
050 12/56d: "- - - do good". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.
051 12/57a: "But verily the reward of the Hereafter is the best - - -". Well, if:
There really is a hereafter.
The hereafter is correctly described.
You believe in an existing Allah - and not a made up one.
And no matter if there is a next life or not, it was an efficient way for Muhammad - and for many another self proclaimed prophet - to build a platform of power, and a cheap way to pay his warriors.
052 12/58-68; Everything happened like Joseph had said. And his brothers came to Egypt to buy food. There were some intermezzos because Joseph did not want to tell whom he was, but all the same wanted contact with his family. The main story is like in the Bible, though details vary. Those details either are from legends, etc. or made up ones, as there are no other sources (as the Quran with all its errors is not from a god who could have told it, like Muslims like to claim).
053 12/64c: "- - - he (Allah*) is the Most Merciful - - -". Skipping the fact that the Bible tells his god was Yahweh, not Allah - the two gods and their teachings fundamentally are too different, so they cannot be the same god no matter what the Quran and Islam claim (like normal without the slightest documentation) - see 1/1a above. Was and is Allah merciful?
054 12/66d: "- - - be Allah the Witness and Guardian!" Neither of which is possible unless he exists. And if he exists, but belongs to the dark forces, he in both cases is unreliable. Just for the record: He is no god if he is behind the Quran with all its errors.
055 12/67d: "- - - none can command except Allah - - -". Often claimed, never proved.
056 12/69d: Joseph told Benjamin: “Behold! I am thy (own) brother - - -“. It does not fit verses 70 – 77 that he told it at this time. The story simply fizzles out in case - literature not even worthy a story for a magazine for teen-age girls.
057 12/76d: "- - - at length he (Joseph*) brought it (the beaker*) out of his brother's (Benjamin's*) baggage". What had happened here if Benjamin had known Joseph was his brother like said in 12/69d? The logic in the tale is wrong.
The ones claiming the Quran is good literature know very little about good literature.
058 12/76g: "He (Joseph*) could not take his brother (Benjamin*) by the law of the king - - -". This is rubbish to use polite words. One thing is that Joseph was not after his brother Benjamin - Benjamin had not wronged him. He was after his half-brothers - to frighten them (hardly any more). But the main point is that in a full dictatorship like the old Egypt, the king/pharaoh AND his highest officers could - and can - do almost what they wanted, included detain a man or more. At most they had to find an excuse. F.x. Joseph could use the excuse he according to the Bible used to hold back in prison his half-brother Simeon from the first trip (1. Mos. 42/12-24). This storey is told by someone who did not know what he was talking about, or someone who did not have a more creative mind - - - and to believe it, also the listeners had to be little bright or little knowledgeable.
059 12/80c: "The leader among them (the brothers*) - - -". Like so many low quality books, the Quran often is short on real and controllable facts - like in this story f.x. the names of the brothers. (Shortage on controllable facts is typical for low quality literature). Their leader likely was Reuben - the oldest one and the same one who according to the Bible (like here not named in the Quran) tried to save Joseph originally.
060 12/83d: "For He (Allah*) is indeed full of knowledge and wisdom". If the Quran is a typical sample of his knowledge, he far from is full of it - lots of mistaken facts, etc.
061 12/84b: “And his (Jacob’s*) eyes became white with sorrow - - -“. Eyes cannot become white (and more or less blind) from sorrow. That happens because of illness or physical malfunction in the eye – sometimes related to age, but that in case it takes some time. Any god had known – Muhammad perhaps not. Then who made the Quran?
062 12/87a: Jacob said: “O my sons! Go ye (to Egypt*) and enquire about Joseph and his brother - - -". Jacob stayed at home (in Canaan), and his sons vent to Egypt (the 3. trip). But the fact (both according to the Bible and to the Quran) that Jacob stayed at home, is contradicted by:
00a 12/94-95: “When the Caravan left (Egypt), their father said: ‘I do indeed scent the presence of Joseph: nay, think me not a dotard’. They (his sons*) said: ‘By Allah! Truly thou art in thine old wandering mind.’”
How could Jacob smell the scent and how could he talk to his sons when they were hundreds of miles and kilometers away?
063 12/87d: "- - - hope of Allah's soothing Mercy - - -". Please read the some 22-24 surahs from Medina and see if you long for this kind of mercy.
064 12/87e: "- - - despair of Allah's soothing Mercy - - -". See 12/87b just above.
065 12/87h: "- - - faith". = Islam. This word always means Islam when the Quran talks about religion. Though it is highly unlikely in the extreme that Jacob was a Muslim, no matter what Muslims and the Quran claims - and for more reasons than one.
066 12/90f: "- - - never will Allah suffer the reward to be lost, of those who do right". If he exists and is a major god. And if the Quran has described him correctly. (But the Quran with all its mistakes, etc., and with Muhammad's lust for power, is very unreliable.)
067 12/92c: "- - - Allah will forgive you (the brothers*) - - -". Allah can forgive no-one unless he exists and in addition is a god (not f.x. from the dark forces - we are unsure of the value of forgiveness from someone from those forces).
Another point is that to forgive - or for that case to punish or reward or fulfill prayers - means for Allah to change his Plan considering the sinner/person, something which according to the Quran nobody and nothing can make him do. See 2/187d above.
068 12/94b “When the Caravan left (Egypt), their father (Jacob*) said (to his sons?*) - - -“. But 12/87 says: “O my (Jacob’s*) sons! Go ye (to Egypt*) and enquire about Joseph and his brother - - -“. Jacob simply did not come along to Egypt at that trip – he stayed at home. Thus Jacob could not talk to his sons when they left Egypt. A mistake and a contradiction of the real(?) situation. (This also is clear from 12/96: “When the bearer of the good news came (to Jacob’s home*) - - -.”) Jacob could say nothing to his sons at least until they were back home with him. But the first sentence of 12/95 may refer to his sons.
069 12/96a: "When the bearer of the good news came (to Jacob's home in Canaan*) - - -". Only now Jacob could get any news - see 12/94 above which this refers to.
070 12/96b: "- - - he (Jacob*) forthwith regained clear sight". No-one loses his eyesight - partly or totally - from sorrow. And no blind - partly or totally - regains his eyesight because a sorrow disappears. Also this part of the tale is not from the Bible.
071 12/98b: "Soon I (Jacob*) will ask my Lord (here indicated to be Allah*) for forgiveness for you". Why - if Allah predestines everything, the brothers only did what Allah forced them to do, and is there then a reason for asking for forgiveness? - and besides: If Allah has predestined everything according to a plan nobody and nothing can change, like the Quran states many places, why spend time and effort on prayers, when they can change nothing?
072 12/98c: "- - - He (Allah*) is indeed Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." May be he is "oft-forgiving", but read the Quran and you will see it is far from "70 times 7" like Jesus said. And read the surahs from Medina - they are the youngest ones and thus the ones which are little abrogated (the milder ones form Mecca to a large degree are abrogated = made invalid), and see if he is Most Merciful - or much merciful at all. also see 1/1a above.
073 12/99c: “- - - he (Joseph*) provided a home for his parents - - -“. Not possible, as his mother (Rachel) died already when Benjamin was born – he could provide a home only for his father. (Islam explains or “explains” this with claiming that he reckoned the sister of his mother (Leah - also wife of Jacob) to be his mother, but there is nothing neither in the Quran nor in the Bible saying so. But then it is quite normal for Islam to make claims without facts.) One more small detail here. Jacob first married Leah, and later her sister Rachel. But Muslims cannot be married to 2 sisters at the same time, which Jacob was for a long time. How then could Jacob be a good and devoted Muslim? - the "mother book" in Heaven they claim he, too, got a copy and the laws from, had not changed.
074 12/101e: "Take Thou (Allah) my (Joseph's*) soul - - - (as a Muslim)". Believe it if you want - but remember how many mistakes, errors, etc. there are in the Quran, and that there does not exist one single trace from Islam or similar anywhere in the world older than 610 AD. Not one single (except the two building on the Bible, and they - and especially the Christian one - are so far from Islam, that the claimed relationship mostly just are claims, and the rest superficial points).
075 12/102a: "- - - which We (Allah*) revealed unto thee (Muhammad*) - - -". No god revealed the Quran - too much is wrong in the book.
076 12/102c: "- - - by inspiration - - -". Muhammad claimed he got his verses by inspiration - at least a large part of them. A convenient claim - and impossible to check. It is symptomatic that the word is not used one single time in the Bible in connection to giving information from Yahweh to his prophets. (There you only find direct contact, visions and dreams).
077 12/103: "Yet no faith will the greater part of mankind have - - -". As mentioned before, only Muslims have faith. Not right faith, but faith. Which indicates that the others do not have wrong faith, but no faith.
078 12/104a: “And no reward dost thou (Muhammad*) ask of them (people/Muslims*) for this (the new religion*) - - -“. No, nothing except 20% of all stolen/robbed values and slaves from raids and wars, 100% of all values taken from victims who surrendered without fighting, plenty of women and lots and lots of absolute and undisputed power/dictatorship, and lots and lots of free warriors – he only had to pay them with promises about paradise and promises about rich spoils of war stolen from humans and countries. And the “poor-tax” - zakat - (normally 2,5%not of your income, but of your possessions each year if you were not too poor) – which he far from only spent for the poor – and the jizya – the tax from non-Muslims (free for the ruler to say how much – and that sometimes meant really much, and the land-tax - often 50% of what the land produced). Much of this as said was spent for waging more wars and for “gifts”/bribes to make neighboring Arabs good Muslims + some was given to the poor.
And the price for their riches was neighboring cultures and humans and lives they destroyed – to gain more power for him and riches and slaves for his warriors. It is indisputably clear from the Quran that he at least liked women and power and that he needed riches for bribes - f.x. up to 100 camels to a chief. You must steal a lot to be able to give lots of such bribes - and who cares about the victims?! Long live the Quran's moral code! Similar claims in 25/57a – 34/47 - 38/86 – 42/23.
079 12/104b: "- - - a Message for all creatures - - -". There have been a number of such ones through the times - most of them have been false ones. Self-proclaimed prophets and political "reformers" - there have been legion of them through the centuries and millennia.
080 12/105c: "Yet they (non-Muslims*) turn away from them (the "signs" of Allah)!" At least a number of them saw that the claimed signs were - and still are - invalid and some even plainly wrong.
081 12/106: "- - - associating (others (other gods*) as partners) with Him (Allah*)!" See 25/18a below.
082 12/108b: "I (Muhammad*) do invite you unto Allah - on evidence clear as seeing with one’s eyes",
Muhammad here indirectly, but very clearly once more makes it clear that evidences are heavy arguments and essential.
He also makes it clear that evidence you see with your own eyes, are clear evidences.
The only evidences which really prove a god, are supernatural beings or acts.
Muhammad never was able to prove one single of his claims about Allah or his own connection to a god - in spite of that he here admits and states that evidences are heavy and essential arguments. Not one essential point did he prove.
He was frequently asked for proof, but had only fast-talk and sometimes even lies to offer to explain it away - in spite of here and other places arguing that evidences are heavy arguments - f.x. Moses' miracles made all sorcerers Muslims - and in spite of claiming proofs from everybody else.
Whenever he was asked for valid arguments or evidence/proofs, he claimed that evidences had no value - no-one would believe anyhow - - - in spite of that he here and other places argues with that his "signs" and "proofs" should decide you. (This was some of his obvious lies in the Quran - so obvious that there is no chance he did not know it himself (he was intelligent), see f.x. his tales about the pharaoh's sorcerers, who he claimed fast became strong believers in Moses' god because of a minor evidence.)
And another argument was the glorification of blind belief and the stupidity in needing proofs - in spite of that all and everybody in reality knows that the most sure way to be cheated, is believing blindly.
Whenever Islam today is asked for proofs, they tell how un-intellectual and stupid it is not to see that intuition and inspiration is the sure way to knowledge and how silly it is to ask for proofs (they have nothing to offer, and what then to say?) - in spite of that every not too naive soul on Earth knows fast-talk is a sign of danger.
And another argument is the glorious blind belief vs. the little reliability of the imbecile science - and the stupidity of needing proof, in spite of as mentioned that everybody know that the sure way to be cheated every now and then, is to believe blindly in this or that.
"A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". For one thing Muhammad never proved it really was Allah who was behind what Muhammad claimed were "signs" or "proofs", and for another a number of his claims may have more than one explanation/conclusion.
Some other quotes about proofs and invalid or made up proofs:
And we may add from Peer Gynt in his original language: "Naar utgangspunktet er som galest, blir resultatet tidt originalest" - freely translated: "When you conclude from wrong claims/wrong facts/invalid "proofs"/etc., you get wrong - "original" - conclusions".
083 12/108c: "Glory to Allah!" Please read 1/1a above and see if he deserves it - if he exists.
084 12/108d: "- - - join gods with Allah - - -". See 25/18a.
085 12/109a: “Nor did We (Allah*) send before thee (Muhammad*) (as Messengers) any but men - - -.” But this is clearly contradicted by:
3/42: “Behold the angels (plural*) said (when they came to tell Mary she was going to have the baby Jesus*)”.
6/130: “O ye assembly of Jinns and men! Came there not unto you messengers (from Us, Allah*) from amongst you - - -.” A rhetoric question demanding the answer “yes” – yes, there came Jinn messengers from Allah to the Jinns, and human messenger from Allah to the humans according to the Quran.
11/69: “There came Our (Allah’s*) Messengers to Abraham - - -“. It is clear from the following verses that these messengers were angels.
11/77: “When Our (Allah’s*) Messengers (it is clear from the text they were angles – they f. ex ate no food*) came to Lut (Lot*) - - -.”
11/81: “(The Messengers (angels from Allah*)) said: O Lut (Lot*)! We are Messengers from thy Lord!”
19/17b: “- - - We (Allah*) sent to her our angel (singular – to tell Mary she was going to have the baby Jesus*), and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.”
19/19: “He (the angel*) said: ‘Nay, I am only a messenger from thy (Mary’s*) Lord - - -“.
22//75: “Allah chooses Messengers from both angels and from men - - -“.
Well, 3/42 - 6/130 - 11/69 – 11/77 – 11/81– 19/17b – 19/19 – 22/75 all say that not all were men. A nice little contradiction to 12/109 – 16/43 – 21/7 – 25/20 which all says all messengers were men.
086 12/109c: "(Prophets*) whom We (Allah*) did inspire - - -". Muhammad claimed he got most of his messages from Allah via inspiration - a very convenient way, at least if you like to make up or add "messages". He, therefore, many places in the Quran claims that this was the normal method also for earlier prophets. But the method is not at all mentioned in the Bible.
087 12/109d: “Do they (non-Muslims*) not travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those before them?” Mecca was a business centre with connections from at least Egypt and Constantinople to black East Africa and to India and even China - and north to Syria, the East Roman Empire, and Persia. There were many ruins in all that wide area, even if they were scattered. All ruins were empty of people, because Allah had killed them because they refused to become Muslims, according to Muhammad, and the same with all the places which had become empty but where now new tribes lived - and with tribes and people from old folklore. If Muhammad was right, Yahweh had better hurry up not to end too far behind Allah in the field of killing - not to say the killing fields.
088 12/109h: "Will ye (non-Muslims*) not then understand?". May be that was just what they did - understood that something was really wrong.
089 12/110b: "But never will be warded off Our (Allah's*) punishment from those who are in sin." We are back to the old fact: This only is true if Allah exists and is a major god - and if the Quran has described him correctly without the help from any god.
090 12/111a: “This (the Quran*) is - - - instruction for men endued with understanding (flattery*).” It may be so – many Muslim thinkers and learned men were and are intelligent men. But to what avail? – when you give even the most intelligent persons wrong information from the start, their conclusions inevitably become just mistakes and errors, no matter how intelligent they are. To quote late Henrik Ibsen in “Peer Gynt”: “Naar utgangspunktet er som galest, blir resultatet tidt originalest” – which means something like ”when the facts you use are really wrong, the result frequently becomes very ’original’”. Also: "Correct facts multiplied by one student give a better answer than false facts multiplied by a number of wise men".
091 12/111b: “It is not a tale invented - - -”. When there are so many mistakes in a book, what do you expect the reader to believe? It also is a sorry fact that the one who strongest and most often claims he is speaking the truth, is the cheat and deceiver. The Quran very many places claims it is speaking the truth - but it only claims, never proves any central point.
Worse: At least some places in the Quran Muhammad tells tales there is no chance he did not know were made up ones - lies. F.x. that proofs from Allah would make nobody believe anyhow. He knew too much about people to believe that, and on top told the story about that all the pharaoh's sorcerers became believing Muslims because of a small proof performed by Moses.
##092 12/111c: “- - - a confirmation of what went before (the Bible) - - -”. When there are so many and so serious mistakes in a book, it is not to be expected that the reader can believe too much. Just the story about Josef is taken from the Bible (which “went before“). But the story is much changed (maybe he in reality has retold local legends about Josef, slightly based on the Bible) - it is no confirmation. On the background of all the documented mistakes in the Quran, which one is easiest to believe, if any - the Quran or the Bible? Not to mention the fact that many of the stories in the Quran are easy to recognize from known legends, fairy tales, apocryphal (made up) books, etc, from the time of Muhammad. And at least some of the details in this story in the Quran are illogical - like Solomon listening to the speech of ants. More to the point: There are too many and too fundamental differences in the teachings - the Quran does not confirm the Bible.
093 12/111d: “- - - a detailed exposition of all things - - -“. Wrong. There are many things necessary for normal life – not to mention modern life – that is not made clear, and even more so for details. F.x. the Muslim laws on inheritance were far from clear in the Quran, and in many, many things Islam have no guiding lines from Allah – they have to extrapolate from other or similar things said or done in the Quran or in Hadiths.
#################BUT A VERY ESSENTIAL POINT HERE IS THAT MUHAMMAD CLAIMS THE QURAN IS "A DETAILED EXPOSITION OF ALL THINGS". HOW THEN CAN MUSLIMS FOR ONE THING CLAIM THAT ALLAH OFTEN DOES NOT MEAN WHAT HE SAYS (WHEN THEY WANT TO EXPLAIN AWAY ERRORS, ETC.)? AND HOW CAN THEY FOR ANOTHER THING CLAIM THEY ARE ABLE TO EXPLAIN "WHAT HE REALLY MEANS" AFTER HE HAS EXPLAINED EVERYTHING IN DETAIL? - ARE THEY BETTER AT EXPLAINING THINGS AND BETTER AT KNOWING WHAT ALLAH HIMSELF IN HIS CLUMSINESS IS UNABLE TO SAY AND EXPLAIN?
2891 + 93 = 2984 remarks.
Not formed like questions for proofs, but what needs to be proved normally easy to see all the same. And: References you do not find here, go to "1000+ Comments on the Quran".
>>> Go to Next Surah
<<< 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".