1000+ Claims in the Quran - Invalid Unless Proven, Surah 23
18 May 2014
SURAH 23: Al-Mu'minum (The Believers)
(Mecca, 621-622 AD)
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 23/1b: (YA2865): “The Believers must (eventually) win through - - -.” It may be worth mentioning that communism once said the same - their system was superior and had to win in the long run. The Nazi said the same - better system and better quality humans (Islam, its policy, moral code, etc. sometimes is compared to Nazism - f.x. C. G. Young). Also the South States (of U.S.) said the same - they were better quality and better warriors than the "merchants" in the North States.
But also see 23/1d just below - maybe it is not meant Muslims will win through physically but psychologically.
#####003 23/1d: (A23/11): “- - - a Quranic allusion to the fact that people often reject a new ethical proposition on no better grounds than that it conflicts with their “inherited” habits of thoughts and ways of life. Indirectly, this allusion implies a condemnation of all blind "taqlid", i. e. an unthinking acceptance of religious doctrines or assertions which are not unequivocally supported by divine revelations, the explicit teachings of a prophet, or the evidence of the unprejudiced reason”.
#####But the book skips the fact that this also goes for Muslims, especially as the Quran with all its errors is no revelation from any god: If they are strongly indoctrinated, they may react strongly to arguments and facts they do not like – and without thinking over – or being mentally able to think over – even true facts.
Did you see the extra point here? The definition for this "problem" is handmade so as not to include Islam.
Read and you will see: The book here has tailor-made a definition to fit Islam. It has forgotten (?) that for one thing that reason is unable to find the right answer without full and correct information – and the Quran is full of mistakes - that claims about divine revelations are 15 to the dozen in some religious circles and invalid as proofs without documentation (something Muhammad and Allah were unable to produce) – and that the same goes for any self proclaimed prophet, and especially so if his teachings are very much wanting and he himself a questionable person (like the real Muhammad was). Not to mention "the evidence of the unprejudiced reason" - a meaningless expression in a culture where unprejudiced reason does not exist. This expression in reality in Islam is a claim for "our indoctrinated belief on basis of blind belief". But definitions or claims like this frequently are used in Islam and many Muslims really believe this is ok. logic - - - which make straight thinking difficult for them.
004 23/2b: "- - - prayers - - -". If it is true what the Quran clearly states many places, that Allah predestines absolutely everything in life according to his Plan which nobody and nothing can change - and predestines it years and decades and more in advance - what is then the meaning and benefit from prayers in Islam, or for that case pilgrimage? - it can change nothing anyhow.
005 23/3: "(Those) Who avoid vain talk - - -". In the Quran "vain talk" mostly means any debate that can give you information which makes you doubt Muhammad - a not unusual point of view in religion, and especially in fringe or extreme sects. It is not the truth which is essential, but not to doubt the sect or religion.
#006 23/5+6a: “(Those Muslims are good*) Who abstains from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, ####or (the captives) whom your right hand possess - for (in their case) they are free from blame”. Catch a girl and make her your captive - and you are free from any blame if you rape her - or gang-rape her - or make more women your captives and rape them, too - or exchange girls with your mates every half hour or day or week. A slave is a slave - and spoils of war you take “just and good” and you "enjoy lawful and good", according to the Quran and Islam. We sometimes wonder if this is the reason for so much mass rape sometimes when Muslims wage war - Darfur and Bangladesh are/were examples to remember. Forget that the women are humans - take them captive and you are free to rape them without any blame. That you are destroying their lives, is on no consequence or interest. Really a good religion. And we do not mention the words empathy and sympathy - they are words you hardly find in the Quran. Probably one of the most rotten points in any claimed somewhat civilized pretended moral code.
But it brought Muhammad cheap highwaymen and later cheap warriors.
It is verses like this - and worse - which make people with normal moral codes - codes in reasonable nearness to "do to others like you want others do to you" - sometimes want to puke over the Quran and over Islam. Impolite words - but understandable. And true.
007 23/5+6b: “(Those Muslims are good*) Who abstains from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, ####or (the captives) whom your right hand possess - for (in their case) they are free from blame (if they rape them - included children!!)”. Part of the basis for the sharia laws.
008 23/5+6c: "- - - except - - - (the captives) whom their right hand possess - for (in their case) they (Muslim men/warriors*) are free from blame (if they rape the women or girls*) - - -". ###This is not the most rotten and (im)moral rule and sharia law in Islam, but one of them. Rape anyone who is not free to say no, and anyone you manage to make your captive, at least if she is made captive in the name of Allah (taken captive during anything named Jihad).
####009 23/5+6d: "- - - except - - - (the captives) whom their right hand possess - for (in their case) they (Muslim men/warriors*) are free from blame (if they rape the women or girls*) - - -". No comments - and non necessary. Except perhaps: Would you like to be raped? - "do to others like you want others do to you"! On some points Islam has a very sorry moral code. So sorry that human Muslims should see the inhumanities themselves.
010 23/6a: "- - -(those*) whom your right hand possess - - -". An old Arab - and Muslim - expression for slaves - also your captives were your slaves. You were - and are - free to f.x. rape them. One more of the 100+% sure proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion or line of prophets (even if we omit the fact that Muhammad was no real prophet - he only "borrowed" that impressive title (he did not have the gift of making prophesies "to know the unseen".))
011 23/6b: “(Good Muslims*) abstain from sex except with those joined to them in marriage bonds, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess (here = slave girls or women*) – for (in their case) they are free from blame - - -:” To rape captive women and slave women was/is completely ok (with one exception; it was prohibited if they were pregnant – but most likely not if they were pregnant with your child). Take a woman captive in a “holy” war – and anything was named “holy war” – jihad - as long as the victims were non-Muslims, not to mention if they were Pagans – and you could freely rape her with Allah’s blessing, because it was “lawful and good”. And even slave raids theoretically could be defined as holy war - “jihad” - as the victims were non-Muslims, and all the 4 Islamic law schools accepted the fact that the "enemies" were non-Muslims as "bona fide" reason for declaring jihad. It was – and is (rape is very common in armed conflicts where Muslims are involved) – a nice life for the warriors. But it tells something about both Islam and some Muslims - something ugly. "The Religion of Inhumanity"?
F.x. during the Bangladeshi war of freedom it is officially estimated that the Pakistani soldiers made 200ooo babies by raping women and children - MUSLIM women and children. And to make 200ooo babies one needs may be 30 times as many rapes (only 10% or so of women are in the "dangerous" period at a given time + multiple rapes over a few moths only give maximum one pregnancy + many rapes do not give pregnancy even in the "dangerous" period + rape of too young and of children do not give pregnancy). This is modern Islamic culture and moral codes.
Well, other sources tell that "only" 200ooo women were raped, though many gang raped and/or kept as sex slaves for a duration. Roughly may be 10ooo rapes a day during those 8-9 months.
This is modern Islam and modern Islamic culture.
012 23/7-11: These (good Muslims) go to Paradise - - - if the Quran is from a god and in addition tells the truth on this point. Also see 10/9f above.
##013 23/8b: "- - - covenants - - -". A covenant is an agreement between minimum 2 parts, who both confirm that they agree to something. In Islam there was never proved that Allah agreed to anything - Muhammad was never able to prove even his existence, let alone his agreement to a covenant. If Allah - existing or not existing - has not agreed to a covenant, it is not a covenant. Muslims may have promised Allah this and this, but without acceptance from Allah to the "deal", it just was promises to Allah, not a covenant with Allah.
##014 23/9b: "- - - those who strictly guard their prayers - - -". The Quran has a central dogma which is confirmed many places in the Quran and in Hadiths: Allah predestines everything in this world - everything. This he does long time before it happens - years and decades and even more; 5 months before you are even born he according to Hadiths f.x. decides when you are going to die, and whether you are going to end in Heaven or Hell. And his predestinations he makes according to his unchangeable Plan - a Plan nobody and nothing can change. This dogma was fine for Muhammad when he wanted to recruit warriors, which he needed lots and lots of after Islam was changed from a peaceful religion to a religion of war in 622 - 624 AD (Allah changed his mind about the value of peace and humanity contra war and power and terror and apartheid and stolen riches and slaves?)
But this is incompatible with at least 2 other central dogmas in the religion: Free will for man and prayers - and for that case with the dogmas for forgiving and for the results of good and bad deeds, etc.:
The debated one is the dogma of free will for man. If Allah predestines everything, free will for man is an illusion, and humans are just puppets-on-a-string playing in Allah's theater. But if that is the case, how can Allah punish sinners who have been forced by him to do what they did? - or for that case reward "good" persons who also just were playing their forced role? Muhammad needed the dogma of free will for man, to be able to claim Allah was a just and good god who rewarded and punished justly. He needed that dogma and he launched it and he used it - - - but he never was able to explain how it could possibly be combined with the dogma about full predestination. And Islam has never been able to explain it - even today it is unexplained and unexplainable for Muslims. We quote A6/141 (English 2008 edition 6/143,comment to verse 6/149): “In other words, the real relationship between Allah’s knowledge of the future (and, therefore, the ineluctably of what is to happen in the future) on one side, and man’s free will, on the other – two propositions which, on the face of it, seem to contradict one another – is beyond man’s comprehension; but since both are postulated by Allah, both must be true.
Simply the ultimate pinnacle of clear speech. And the ultimate victory not for blind faith, but for blind faith based on naivety and intellectual unconsciousness. IT ALSO IS THE ULTIMATE DEFEAT FOR THE CLAIM THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO COMBINE THE CLAIM THAT MAN HAS FREE WILL WITH THE CLAIM THAT ALLAH DECIDES EVERY DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE. (Some Muslims try to "explain it with that the Quran just means partly free will, but that is just a joke. For one thing the Quran is very clear when it several places tells that Allah predestines everything, and then there is no room left for any even partly free will for man. And for another: Even partly free will for man will make reliable precognition and reliable predestination impossible for Allah - the laws of chaos will see to that. Full predestination for Allah is impossible even for gods to combine with even partly free will for man. In the immaterial realms of life there are things impossible even for omnipotent gods.
Then there is the other conundrum: Full predestination and prayers. What is the mission of prayers - and for that case pilgrimage (hajj) and good deeds - if everything is predestined long before? If everything is predestined years and decades before, and according to a Plan nobody and nothing can change, also prayers can change nothing and have no value or meaning, and just are wasted time and effort.
Worse: If it is Allah who has predestined that you have to make a prayer and pray for so and so, what meaning and value does it then have for Allah, when he knows that your prayer just is a repetition of what he decided you should pray for and what to say in your prayer? Such a "prayer" - or "good deed" or "hajj" - tells nothing about you, and has little value for any sentient being, included for a god.
Also read about "regular prayers" - f.x. 22/78j.
We repeat: MUSLIMS SCHOLARS ALL ARE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE VERY UNCLEAR SITUATION FULL PREDESTINATION, WHICH IS WHAT THE QURAN VERY CLEARLY AND MANY TIMES IN THE QURAN STATES, VERSUS FREE WILL FOR MAN, ETC. THEY ADMIT THAT THE TWO ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO COMBINE (THEY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUDING EACH OTHER, AND ACCORDING TO PROVED LAWS OF LOGIC "MAXIMUM ONE OF THEM MAY BE TRUE" - ALSO FOR GODS), BUT THEY AS SAID LAMELY CLAIM THAT "ALL THE SAME IT MUST BE TRUE, BECAUSE ALLAH SAYS SO (IN THE QURAN*)" (!!!!).
015 23/11a: "(Muslims*) will inherit Paradise - - -". If Allah exists and is a god, and if the Quran tells the full and only truth.
016 23/12: “Man We (Allah*) did create from a quintessence (of clay)”. We have never understood what a quintessence of clay is, but it is absolutely sure it is wrong: For one thing man was not created - according to science he developed from earlier primates. For another thing - even if one had accepted Islam’s statement that man is created, Adam in no way could have been created in many ways - see 6/2. And for a third thing: Man is not created from only one or a few minerals like in clay. Besides: This is contradicted by 6/2, 7/12, 17/61, 32/7, 38/71, and 38/76 that tell man/Adam was made from clay, 15/26, 15/26, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from sounding clay, 55/14 that tells man/Adam was made from ringing clay, 37/11 that tells man/Adam was made from sticky clay, 15/26, 15/28, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from mud, 3/59, 22/5, 35/11, 40/67, that tell man/Adam was made from dust, 20/55 that tells man/Adam was made from earth, 96/2 that tells man/Adam was made from a clot of congealed blood, 16/4, 75/37, 76/2, 80/19, that tell man/Adam was made from semen (without explaining from where the semen came), 21/30, 24/45, and 25/54 that tell man/Adam was made from water (NB! NB! Not in water, but from water!), 70/39 that tells man/Adam was made from “base material”. (Also see verse 6/2b in the book about the 1000+ mistakes in the Quran.) (Strictly reckoned this contradicts 29 other verses. But minimum 11 contradictions.)
017 23/13: “Then We (Allah’) placed him (the future baby*) as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest - - -“. Wrong. Muhammad believed sperm was a kind of seed that could grow to become a human being (and if the man climaxed first, it became a boy, whereas if the woman climaxed first it became a girl, according to him in Hadiths). The reality is that the sperm is not planted in a woman, but unifies with an egg cell and the resulting zygote then starts growing. Also see 6/2b above and 53/45-46 below.
#018 23/14a: “Then We (Allah*) made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood - - -”. Wrong. And doubly wrong:
The sperm is not made into a clot of congealed blood.
Sperm (1 cell from it) combines with an egg cell and becomes a zygote.
Muhammad did not know better, as this was what one believed in Arabia at his time - without a microscope it is impossible to see exactly what happens. But a god had known. There is a saying that “the taste is the proof of the cake”, and this is tasty. Muhammad and the Quran and Islam and Muslims had and have very busy time to find “explanations” - some of them rather unlikely - to “explain” why Allah/Muhammad did not produce one single real proof for that a supernatural being was involved, even though many friends and as many foes asked sincerely for it. But Allah did not even have to make the slightest miracle to prove his existence. All he had to do was to tell the truth in all the cases - like this one - where the Quran now is proved to be wrong. If Allah really did exist, and if he really was/is omniscient - why then did he make up so many wrongs, when correct information sooner or later had proved something?
As it is, all scientific "facts" in the Quran are in accordance with what was believed to be the truth in Arabia at that time (much of it actually was Greek or Persian "knowledge".)
A disturbing fact is that even today Muslim scholars try to tell that in one step of development the fetus is a clot of congealed blood(!!!). F.x. YA2872.
Like it is now, all these facts are incredibly strong proofs for that there was no omniscient god involved in creating the Quran - and what then about Islam? - is it a made up, false religion? Not to mention: What will then in case happen in a possible next life to all humans - Muslims - who have had their chances to look for a real religion (if such one exists) blocked by Islam?
#019 23/14b: “- - - then We (Allah*) made a (fetus) lump; We made of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh”. Wrong - 100% wrong: Flesh is made first, and then bones develop inside the flesh of the fetus. It must be remarked that Muhammad’s tale about how a baby is made, is in accordance with old Greek medical beliefs – f.x. the famous doctor Galen and Aristotle – which was known in the Middle East at the time of Muhammad (facts Muslim scholars know very well, but never mention.) Any god had known better. Then who made the Quran?
020 23/14c: "- - - Allah, the best to create!" Often claimed, never proved. See f.x. 6/2b, 11/7a and 21/56c above.
021 23/16: "Again (after death*) - - - will ye (people*) be raised up". This is a claim you find in more or less every religion - and if religions are all made up, this may be one of the two rationales behind them; a comfortable soothing against the meaninglessness of a life on Earth without any higher or lasting meaning (the other one is that it may be that it is a cultural glue which makes a group closer knit together, and thus stronger in the fight for survival). Allah has never proved that he has the power of resurrection, but Yahweh has - if the old books tell the truth. (f.x. 1. Kings 17/22, 2. Kings 4/34-35, Mark 5/11, John 11/44, Luke 7/15, Matt. 27/52, Acts 9/40, Acts 20/10, and the Quran 5/110i).
022 23/17a: “And We (Allah*) have made, above you, seven tracts (= seven heavens*) - - -”. Wrong. There are no seven (material) heavens. All the same you find these claims about 7 heavens/firmaments/tracts in 2/29d+e, 17/44a, 23/86a, 41/12a+b, 65/12a, 67/3a+b and 71/15a+b - all together the Quran mentions "heavens" in plural at least 199 times; there is no doubt the Quran means there are 7 heavens (and as the stars are fastened to the lowermost of them - f.x. 67/5a - they have to be material ones - if not, the stars could not be fastened to it). In 67/3 you also are told they are places one above the other, which means they of course are built successively higher above the Earth - which also is clear from most places in the Quran where the place of the heavens are indicated. Some modern Muslims try to place the heavens in space, deep space included. But among others 67/3 prohibits this, as "up" and "down" ("one above the other") has no meaning as part of the real space. And: The blood of the Muslims in Paradise would start boiling in that low pressure + how to breathe, etc.? Also the "fact" that the stars fastened to the lowest heaven are used for shooting stars (for weapons to chase away spying jinns and bad spirits) also show where the Quran's heavens are claimed to be - shooting stars only are found in the Earth's atmosphere.
By the way: 67/12b also claims there are 7 Earths, and gives their names according to Islam.
023 23/17b; (YA2876): We simply quote: “Thara’iq"; tracts, roads, orbits, or paths in the visible heaven. These seven (tracts, heavens*) are clearly marked to our eyes (??*), in the immense space that we see around us. We must go to astronomy to form any plausible theories to these motions. But their simplest observation gives us a sublime view of beauty, order, and grandeur in the universe. The assurance given in the next clause, that Allah cares for us and all His Creation, calls out attention to Allah’s goodness, which is further illustrated in the subsequent verses.” #####A lot of words to avoid explaining anything about the 7 material heavens with the stars fastened to the lowest one (37/6-7, 41/12), and with stars used as shooting stars to chase away spying jinns and bad spirits, which is what the Quran in reality is speaking about. Here things are clear, but is made unclear and wrapped up in verbal wool to tuck away wrongs which the Quran clearly states many places, but are unable to "explain away".
Dishonesty by evasion.
024 23/17c: "- - - We (Allah*) are never unmindful of (our) Creation". If he exists - and if he in case has created.
025 23/18a: "And We (Allah*) send down from the sky - - -". A claim just like from any other relevant god in any other religion. As long as it is not proved Allah really does this, such a claim is worth exactly zero as a proof or indication for Allah - just as much as the similar claim from strong believers in other religions. Also see 11/7a above.
A telling tale here is that the Quran another place tells that Allah breaks the clouds to pieces (to make raindrops). The exact opposite of what happens when raindrops are formed. The maker of the Quran was not much omniscient - was he a god or a human?
026 23/18b: "- - - We (Allah*) certainly are able to drain it (water*) off (with ease)". Allah or nature? See 11/7a above.
027 23/23a: "(Further We (Allah*) sent a long line of prophets for your (Muhammad’s*) instruction)". The problem is that Muhammad does not fit in the long line of Jewish prophets. To do that, his teachings, etc. would have had to build on the earlier prophets' teachings and messages from Yahweh, which it to a far too large degree does not do - and Muhammad's claim that the reason is that the Bible is falsified, is proved wrong both by science and by Islam. Besides many of the divergences are so fundamental, that they could not have been explained by some falsifications anyhow. Muhammad and his teaching simply differ too much from the old Jewish prophets - he does not fit into that line. To compare f.x. him and Jesus (the last one "before" Muhammad) hardly is possible.
028 23/23-28: Noah is from the Bible, but a lot of the details in the Quran about his story are not. From where did Muhammad get these details? - not from a god, as no god made a book with so many mistakes like the Quran, and the only other source about Noah is the Bible - perhaps except legends and fairy tales.
029 23/24d: "- - - his (Noah's*) wish is to assert his superiority over you (people*) - - -". This is a very common wish from founders of new sects and religions - f.x. Muhammad was in a similar situation, and he made himself the superior when he gained power, (though just in this case and in some other cases in the Quran from before Muhammad thought he would ever gain much power, it is likely meant as irony: "Hear how stupid their accusations are towards one who just want to teach religion" - and to put himself in line with most of the old Jewish prophets, who most of them had no political or military power. It is very typical for Muhammad to make prophets and other "positive" figures to be a copy of his own situation, at the time the different verses were published, and thus "show" his followers that his situation was typical for prophets (and thus that Muhammad was a typical prophet).
030 23/24f: “- - - if Allah had wished - - - He could have sent down angels (as prophets*) - - -” But for some reasons he either did not wish that, even if that had been far more efficient - or he was not able to (or some human was bluffing?). A NB: Why does the Quran some places tell that Allah cannot prove Islam or Muhammad by sending down angels because that would mean it was the Last Day? Here he tells he could send down if he wanted, and other places he sends them down in the thousands to do battle together with Muslims, or to note down good or bad deeds, or to help. One or a few more would mean nothing for him. Is something a bluff or fast-talk?
031 23/24i: “- - - (moreover) we (non-Muslims*) have never heard (anything like) this from our forebears of old!” (A23/11): "(This is*) a Quranic allusion to the fact that people often reject a new ethical position on no better grounds than that it conflicts with their inherited habits of thoughts and ways of life. Indirectly, this allusion implies a condemnation of all blind "taqlid", i.e., an unthinking acceptance of religious doctrines or assertions - - -". The bad fact is that this also goes for Muslims, and even more so as no god revealed a book with so many and grave errors like the Quran.
032 23/25b: "He (Noah*) is only a man possessed - - -". Muhammad was accused of this, and then it was a psychologically good idea to "show" his followers that this was normal for prophets. But in a way the ones suspecting Muhammad to lack something mentally, may be they were right - according to medical science the illness Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE) would explain his claimed religious experiences very well.
033 23/26b: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) accuse me (Noah*) of falsehood!". Muhammad was accused of this, and then it was a psychologically good idea to "show" his followers that this was normal for prophets. But at least when it comes to Muhammad, his critics may have been right: All the mistaken facts, etc. proves that something was - and is - wrong.
034 23/27a: "So We (Allah*) inspired him (Noah*) - - -". There nowhere in the Bible is told that the prophets or others got information or orders from the god by inspiration. But as this was the way Muhammad claimed he got most of his verses, it was good psychology to claim that also the old prophets got their orders from the god this way = Muhammad is a normal prophet. You meet this many places in the Quran.
035 23/27d: "- - - and the fountains of the earth gush forth (and make the Big Flood*) - - -". The Quran tells (11/44) that the Ark ended on Mount Al-Judi in Turkey. (According to Wikipedia it lies in Anatolia in Turkey (some sources say in Syria) - Mt. Ararat lies there, and is the mountain mentioned in the Bible). This mountain is 2089 m high. There is no way water in Turkey could be that high unless the flood was universal - it had streamed away to not flooded places in case (a fact Islam knows very well, and all the same tries to explain that the flood only was regional - a clear al-Taqiyya (lawful lie)). But there is no way fountains of the Earth could have gushed forth that much water - not even 10% of it - not even if it was assisted by heavy rain (and there are limits to how much rain the atmosphere can contain and release). And absolutely not without leaving any traces from collapsed enormous chambers or something where the water had been. Something is wrong here.
The Quran also does neither explain from where all the water came, nor to where it drained. To cover Mt. al-Judi one needed roughly as much extra water as there today are in all oceans, etc. on Earth. To cover the highest mountains one needed roughly 4 times more water than exists on Earth today. There is nowhere that much water could come from or return to, and no mechanism which can explain what happened.
There is an interesting fact here which religious people never mention - most simply do not know about it: Around 3600 BC there was an enormous flood in Mesopotamia (where Noah likely lived - if he ever lived). It was found in 1929 by the British archeologist C. Leonard Woolley - a well known one. This may well be the Big Flood - for people surviving it in that flat countryside, it may have looked like covering the entire world. Also the age may roughly correspond to the time of Noah. The reason why it never is mentioned as an alternative explanation for the Big Flood, may be that even though it was enormous and must have lasted for some time, it far from was as big as the Bible and the Quran mention, and then it in case proves that at least central details are wrong in the books. The Bible, which is written by humans, may well survive the exaggeration, but it is more difficult for the Quran, as any god had known the reality.
#036 23/27e: (Said by Allah to Noah*)”- - - take thou aboard pairs of every species, male and female - - -”. Impossible. There simply are too many animals + necessary food for any ark or boat or ship to take two of each. Even a modern supertanker fixed up for such a job, had been far too small - and the ark was a wooden boat. See 11/40. And who did the feeding, watering and cleaning for all these animals? And who gathered them and gathered the food for all of them - and how was the food stored so as not to spoil?
A curiosa: On an island near Hong Kong is built an exact and full scale replica of Noah's ark, according to the Bible's measures. It is way too big if only a couple of each of - even for flocks of each of - the domesticated animals + a few humans were on board, but way too small for taking on board 2 of each animal + food for them.
Muslims try to tell that most likely Allah meant only the domesticated animals. But that is not what the Quran says (and the Ark as said far too big). And the Quran is to be understood literally, if nothing else is said - see 3/7. Besides: Islam tells the Ark stranded on a 2089 m high mountain in Anatolia in Turkey (Mt. Al-Jedi - some sources say it is in Syria)), and in that case there had to be so much water on Earth that all animals had drowned if they were not in the ark - and this even more so if the water covered all mountains when the flood was at its maximum. Some of each kind of animals HAD to be in the ark to survive that kind of flood.
037 23/28a: "Praise be to Allah - - -". The Bible disagrees here, and wants it to be Yahweh. More essential: Neither science nor Islam has ever found any trace about Allah older than 610 AD. Noah - if he ever existed - may have lived 3ooo-6ooo BC - perhaps, perhaps, around 3600 BC. (You will find exact years some places - do not believe the rest of what those sources tell you, too. Exact years for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or anything older in the religions, are bluffs).
038 23/30d: "- - - thus do We (Allah*) try (men)". But why does an omniscient god have to try men? - especially as he according to the Quran predestines everything, and thus knows everything on beforehand?
039 23/32a: "Ye (nobody knows who*) have no other god but Him (Allah*)". A never proved claim. See 2/255a and 6/106b above.
040 23/33b: "He (the unknown prophet*) is no more than a man like yourself: he eats of that which ye (Noah's contemporaries*) eat, and drinks of what ye drink". This was one of the arguments Muhammad met at home. Here he indicates that this was a normal argument from disbelievers towards prophets (it is not a normal or heavy one in the Bible), and thus that Muhammad is a normal prophet. There are quite a number of similar cases in the Quran. But they - and this - are not from the Bible.
041 23/34a: "(The chiefs said*) If ye (people after the time of Noah*) obey a man like yourself (a la Muhammad*), behold, it is certain that ye will be lost". This was said by non-Muslims. If the Quran is not made by a god - and no god ever made a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, etc., not to mention revered it in his own Heaven - those non-Muslims may be right. Also this is not from the Bible.
042 23/35b: "Does he (the claimed Muslim prophet*) promise that when ye (people*) die and ye become dust and bones, ye shall be brought forth (again)?" Remember here that what Muhammad promised and Islam promises, is that Allah shall find all the pieces and juices - all atoms and molecules - you were made from, and put everything together again and then wake you up to the claimed next life. The old Arabs knew about a possible waking up of your soul, but this process with putting everything together and waking you up bodily, was a bit hard to swallow - it still is for people knowing something about chemistry, physics, etc. - especially as a life free from the cumbersome body like in NT, is a far more attractive alternative for a possible next life. (But in Islam's Paradise most of the pleasures are bodily ones, and then Muhammad needed bodily resurrection - very different form NT where Jesus tells that in Paradise you become like the angels (f.x. Luke 20/36) - the same god and the same Paradise? - impossible.
But a copy of Muhammad's experiences like so much in the Quran - - - "proving" Muhammad's problems were normal for prophets, and that Muhammad thus was a normal prophet - though the greatest one. Not from the Bible.
043 23/38b: "He (the unknown prophet*) is only a man who invents a lie against Allah, but we (people*) are not the ones to believe in him!". Who - who - in his right mind are able to believe people not believing in Allah, but in other gods, said this? This simply is imbecility.
044 23/38c: "He (the unknown prophet*) is only a man who invents a lie against Allah, but we (people*) are not the ones to believe in him!" Exchange "Allah" with "al-Lah" and this is exactly what the people in the old Mecca told Muhammad. Therefore, when Muhammad claimed older prophets had been told the same, his followers could believe Muhammad's situation was normal for prophets and Muhammad a normal prophet.
045 23/41a: “And the Blast overtook them (people some generations after Noah?*) with justice (and killed them*), and we made them as rubbish of dead leafs - - -”. Excellent literature! - either the Quran without remark or explanation has changed from talking about Noah, or Muhammad has mixed up his stories; there was no blast during the Big Flood, neither in the Bible no in the Quran. Most likely here he has switched from one story to another in the middle of the tales. The ones claiming that the Quran is excellent literature, either do not know the Quran, or they know nothing about literature.
PS: Yahweh caused little killing between Noah and Abraham, but Allah seems to have been busy most of the time.
046 23/44a: "Then sent We (Allah*) Our messengers in succession - - -". Muhammad claimed that through all times and to all people Allah had sent his prophets. Neither science nor Islam has ever found the slightest traces from such prophets - even though Hadiths claims there have been at least 124ooo of them. When you see what traces the few Jewish prophets left - and Muhammad left even though he was no real prophet (had not the gift/ability to make prophesies) - such a claim does not sound trustworthy.
047 23/44b: "- - - every time there came to a people their messenger, they accused him of falsehood - - -". Not correct according to the Bible - some were accepted. But a convenient way for Muhammad to "explain" away all the disbelievers and all the problems to his followers. (Even the Quran contradicts this - f.x. Solomon was not accused of falsehood, and in the Quran Solomon is a prophet).
##048 23/44c: "- - - so away with a people that will not believe!" Guess if this was and is a good sentence for semi-civilized warriors and terrorists!
049 23/48: “- - - and they (Pharaoh and his chiefs*) became the ones who were destroyed (drowned*))”. But at least the pharaoh (Ramses II) was not destroyed/drowned. Ramses II did not die by drowning. And we know he died only years after the (possible) exodus in ca 1235. BC - - - if it ever happened.
050 23/49a: “And We (Allah*) gave Moses the Book - - -“. Wrong. Moses never got something even remotely similar to the Quran or the Bible, according to the Bible. What he clearly got according to both the Bible and the Quran, was the 10 Commandments. That was all he physically got according to the Bible. But he was told the Laws – later part of the Books of Moses – and wrote them down later himself (sometimes called "the Book of Covenant"). Science tells that what is called The Books of Moses are centuries younger.
051 23/50a: "And We (here indicated Allah*) made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign". But according to the Bible and also according to the scientific fact that Allah (or al-Lah) was not believed in in Israel at that time, whereas Yahweh was the totally dominant one among the Jews, the involved god was Yahweh. Thus Mary and Jesus were signs for Yahweh, not for Allah.
052 23/51d: "- - - I (Allah*) am well acquainted with (all) that ye do". Allah knows everything - and predestines everything. If he exists and is a god.
But if he knew everything, why then did he have to test and test even his followers?
053 23/52b: "- - - verily, this Brotherhood of yours (prophets'*) is a single Brotherhood - - -". Wrong. One may say that the prophets from the Bible, included Jesus and perhaps his disciples and Paul belonged to a brotherhood - clearly the same god, clearly the same teaching - except that "the New Covenant" represented more mildness from Yahweh - the words and teachings and foretelling corresponded to each other, etc., all in the same line of traditions. Muhammad was totally outside that line on every essential point - different god, different teaching, fundamentally different religion, different traditions, outside the foretelling of the older prophets (not only himself, but also what he said and told), very different code of moral, no empathy - even a very different paradise.
In spite of Muhammad's repeated claims: He did not belong in the same line of prophets as the Biblical ones - not even in the same religion. No matter whether he is claimed to be a real or a false prophet, his teachings and his god are too different from that of the Biblical prophets and from Yahweh - he is not in that line of prophets. It is not a single brotherhood.
054 23/52c: "- - - I (Allah*) am your (the prophets'*) Lord and Cherisher - - -". Wrong - see 23/52b just above - unless Islam brings solid proofs for their undocumented - like always - claim. He may have been Muhammad’s god or made up god, but he was not the god of the Biblical prophets, included Jesus - too much is different in the teachings and the traditions. (compare f.x. the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad yourself - they are so different that they are not even at the same religious planet.
055 23/52d: "- - - fear Me (Allah*) - - -". No reason for that unless he exists and is something powerful - white or dark.
056 23/53b: "But people have cut of their affair (of unity) - - - into sects - - -". We may mention that according to our information there have been some 3ooo Muslim sects through the times, including the now existing ones like Shi'ia, Sunni, Amaddiyya, wahhabism, to mention some of the biggest existing ones. A number of those sects were chocked in blood - no compulsion in religion?
057 23/54a: “But leave them (“infidels”*) in their confused ignorance for a time”. This was in 621 or 622 AD, shortly before his – Muhammad’s – flight to Medina. When he in Medina started to become military strong enough, it was finish with leaving them alone (already then there were small tendencies to the emergence of sects - in one case Muhammad f.x. had his warriors destroy a competing mosque) – and there came a lot of contradictions and abrogations in the teachings and in the religion – changing from peace to inhumanity and war. This verse is contradicted and often “killed” (abrogated) by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 5/73, 8/12, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 29 contradictions).
058 23/54b: "- - - ignorance - - -". As for words related to knowledge, see 26/83a below.
059 23/56b: "- - - they do not understand". One of Muhammad's standard "explanations" for why many did not believe in him. It still is one of the standard Muslim "explanations away" for that many see things are very wrong in the Quran. This even though the real fact often is that "they" really understand.
060 23/59b: "- - - join - - - (in worship) partners with their Lord (Allah*) - - -". See 25/18a below.
061 23/60b: "And those who dispense their charity with their hearts full of fear, because they will return to their Lord - - -" In the Quran charity is because of fear, or to gain merit in Heaven, not because of love of or empathy with your fellow humans - not to mention the total lack of empathy with your victims. This tells a lot about the Quran and about Islam. The same do the facts that in the Quran you never meet the question of loving your fellow humans, except your nearest ones, and no empathy for humans outside your nearest ones, not to mention outside Islam. There is a possible exception for children without parents, but it is more a duty than empathy. This lack of love and empathy are two of the significant differences between the Quran and especially NT. It - and in this case perhaps especially the lack of empathy in the Quran and in Islam - also is a frightening aspect with Islam. It de-humanizes all non-Muslims (just see f.x. the debate around 2010 in conservative Muslim circles about whether non-Muslims have half the value compared to Muslims as human beings or less) and large parts even of Muslims - like women and also Muslims from other sects.
062 23/60c: "- - - because they (Muslims*) will return to their Lord (Allah - on the Day of Doom*)". Which they will not do unless Allah and Islam are real and not made up, and not unless the Quran is correct about everything.
063 23/61a: "It is these (Muslims*) who hasten in every good work - - -". A claim Islam will have to prove, especially on background of black historical facts.
064 23/61b: "- - - good work - - -". Beware that when words like this are used in the Quran, it is meant relative to the Quran's partly immoral moral code - the best of works was f.x. to wage war for Muhammad/Allah.
065 23/62a: "On no soul do We (Allah*) place burdens it cannot bear - - -". Wrong. There f.x. are self murder also in Islam - a few of them may even be camouflaged as self murder terrorists. And there are persons fleeing from their families. And persons with mental problems so big that it hurts or destroys them mentally. They are unable to bear their burdens.
145 23/62b: "- - - a record - - -". Why does an omniscient god need a record?
066 23/63: "But their (non-Muslims'*) hearts are in confused ignorance of this - - -". To claim things about an opponent without checking if it is true, is as far as we know called "3. degree of insincerity" - - - but in debate and in propaganda it often works, if you look for victory and not for finding the truth. Muhammad uses this technique frequently - just look for it and you will find it.
067 23/64c: "Until We (Allah*) seize in Punishment those of them (bad people*) who received the good things of this world - - -". This is a subject Muhammad often returned to: The reason why what he claimed were bad people could have a good life, whereas good Muslims often had a miserable one, was that the wise Allah in his deep wisdom and for reasons mere humans could not understand, had decided it so. But be soothed - he will punish them in the next life if not before, and then you will be the better off. "Schadenfreude" (good spirit because of other's difficulties) helps quite a lot - good psychology.
068 23/67a: "In ignorance - - -". This was one of Muhammad's standard "explanations" for why opponents did not believe in him - and it is a standard "explanation" today. This even when debating with persons knowing much more than they, also about the Quran. It is a safe road to flee.
069 23/67c: "- - - talking nonsense about the (Quran) - - -". There is no reason talking nonsense about the Quran - there are more than enough mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, inhuman aspects, lack of empathy, unclear language, etc., etc. to talk about.
070 23/67d: "- - - like one telling fables by night". Not irrelevant as much of the Quran is taken from fables, legends, apocryphal (made up) scriptures, and fairy tales (the exact sources for most of the tales in the Quran are known). This sentence is unintended irony against the Quran itself.
071 23/68a: "- - - the Word (of Allah*) - - -". As the Quran is not from any god - it would be heresy and slander to blame the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. on a god - it is not the words of Allah (not unless Allah is something very different from an omniscient god).
072 23/68c: "- - - has anything (new) come to them that did not come to their fathers of the old?" What the Quran really means here, is that the Quran teaches fundamentally just the same religion as the old Jewish scripture and the Christian ones. ####This is so obviously wrong that we do not bother to throw away time on commenting on it, except that we remind you that both science and Islam thoroughly have proved that the Bible and the Torah, etc. are not falsified, in spite of Muhammad's repeated, but never documented claims.
073 23/69a: "Or do they (non-Muslims*) not recognize their Messenger (Muhammad*), that they deny him?" It is difficult to recognize a self proclaimed "messenger" one understands is telling so much which is wrong, like Muhammad did, that he cannot be a messenger - at least not from a god. It is difficult to recognize such a man as a messenger from a god. Also see 63/5a below.</
074 23/70b: "Or do they (non-Muslims*) say, 'He (Muhammad*) is possessed'?" According to f.x. BBC there are good medical reasons to believe he was possessed, at least by a mental illness. Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE) fits his symptoms and visions well.
075 23/70c: “Nay, he (Muhammad*) has brought them the Truth (the Quran*) - - -”. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. At very best bits and pieces of what Muhammad brought may be true - see all the mistakes. Also see 13/1g above and 40/75 below.
##076 23/70d: “- - - but most of them (the non-Muslims*) hate the Truth”. Wrong. It in reality seems that the ones really seeking the truth, mostly are non-Muslims. Muslims, not to mention many of their religious leaders, seem to be seeking - or inciting to and glorifying - blind belief in spite of and contradicting real knowledge; they seem to be the ones hating the truth in all cases where the truth is not what their religion says.
We ourselves started to study the Quran some years ago to learn about the religion of the Muslim immigrants, and thus better understand their culture. The main thing we have found till now, is that real truths show that there are enormously many mistakes in the Quran, not to mention contradictions, invalid “signs” and “proofs” - hallmarks of deceivers and cheats - etc., so many that it impossibly can come from an omniscient god. And so many mistakes that it is impossible to trust what is said in the book, unless one has solid extra proofs, or at least confirmation from other, reliable sources.
And also that Muhammad in at least some cases has had to know he was not saying the truth - some things he says, contradicts the fact that he was a wise man understanding people. He simply was lying some times. But then one of his slogans was: “War is deceit”, and he also told that the result counted more than even keeping even one’s oath sworn in the name of Allah. Not to mention al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), and Hilah (lawful pretending/circumventing). Sorry.
077 23/71a: “If the Truth (as told in the Quran*) had been - - -”. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. At most bits and pieces of the Quran are true. See all the mistakes, and also 13/1g above and 40/74 below.
078 23/71c: “If the Truth (as told in the Quran*) had been in accord with - - -". If the truth had been in accordance with the wrong facts in the Quran, neither the Earth nor any living being had existed.
079 23/71g: "- - - admonition - - -". Is there much real admonition in a war religion built on a book full of mistakes, dictated by a man liking power and even according to central Islamic literature believing in the use of dishonesty when that paid better (f.x. broken oaths).
080 23/72b: "Or is it that thou (Muhammad*) asks them for some recompense?" Hypocrisy. Muhammad liked to claim and to pretend he demanded nothing from his followers, and it tells volumes about man's ability not to see what he does not want to see, that many a Muslim honestly believe him. It is incredible, but in their blind belief they also are blind to facts like he demanded huge sum of money and valuables - mainly for waging war and for "gifts"/bribes to attract or keep followers - lots of women, and nearly unlimited power and full dictatorship over his followers. And in spite of Muslims tales of how poor he was when he died, at that time he had estates in Medina, in Khaybar, and in Fadang (but he had said that his riches should be inherited by Islam, so that his daughter, Fatima - his only remaining living child - and his wives inherited nearly nothing, and this is the fact Muslims have twisted to a fantasy claim about how poor he was when he died).
Another relevant word for this quote: Dishonesty.
081 23/72d: "He (Allah*) is the Best of those who give sustenance". Well, there is the always recurring question: Yahweh? And what about your own toil + nature?
082 23/71c: “If the Truth (as told in the Quran*) had been in accord with - - -". If the truth had been in accordance with the wrong facts in the Quran, neither the Earth nor any living being had existed.
083 23/73c: "- - - thou (Muhammad*) callest them (people*) to the Straight Way - - -". Perhaps - but where is that straight way leading as the Quran, the guide-book full of mistakes, etc., is not from any god? Not to mention if the real maker of the Quran was a dressed up Iblis/the Devil, like one of the theories for its creation says? Cfr. here that according to the Bible the easy road leads to Hell. There it is the difficult - narrow - road which leads to Paradise. Not the god and not the same religion.
084 23/74c: "- - - (non-Muslims*) are deviating from that Way". But it is a way which does not exist unless Allah exists, and as many non-Muslims see that things are seriously wrong with the Quran and thus with Islam, they also see that there are small chances for that Allah exists. Very small.
085 23/74d: "- - - those who believe not in the Hereafter - - -". Practically all religions had and have a "hereafter". Not identical to the Islamic one, admittedly, but so much is wrong in the Quran, that also the description of the Paradise may be wrong (it actually is to be hoped - Islam's Paradise is a primitive, unfair and little inspiring one, except perhaps for primitive souls: Plenty of sex, good food and clothes and pleasant weather for the men, more diffuse rewards for women). F.x. the Christian Paradise is very different - very. (F.x. Mark 12/25). One more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god or the heads of even similar religions (if the old books tell the truth on this point).
086 23/78: "It is He (Allah*) Who has created for you (the faculties of) hearing, sight, feeling and understanding - - -". One more in the long line of never documented claims about natural phenomena claimed for Allah - just like believers from other religions claim it for their god(s). Loose words and as loose claims are that cheap as long as you are able to flee from proving anything. Also see 11/7a above.
087 23/79a: "It is He (Allah*) who gives life and death - - -". This is a claim you meet several times in the Quran, and we find it an interesting one - interesting because neither Allah nor Muhammad ever was able to prove one millimeter of the claim - like all other central claims in the Quran - whereas Yahweh several times proved he had the power, if the old books tell the truth.
088 23/79b: “And He (Allah*) has multiplied you through the earth - - -”. To say the least of it: That is something the nature and we have managed ourselves absolutely without any help - and with pleasure. Proofs for the claims, Muslims?
089 23/79c: "- - - to Him (Allah*) shall ye (people*) be gathered back (at the Day of Doom*)". Often claimed, but not true unless Allah exists and is a major god, and unless the Quran tells the truth about everything.
090 23/80a: "It is He (Allah*) Who gives life and death - - -". See 6/2b, 11/7a, 21/56c and 23/78 above.
091 23/80b: "- - - to Him (Allah*) (is due) the alternation of Night and Day - - -" See 11/7a and 23/78 above.
092 23/80c: "- - - will ye (non-Muslims*) not then understand!" The problem is that when you read the Quran with an open mind, it is too easy to do exactly that; to understand that something is seriously wrong with the book, and that it consequently cannot be from a god.
093 23/82c: "What! When we die and become dust and bones, could we really be raised again?" See 23/35b above.
094 23/83: "They (Muhammad's tales*) are nothing but tales of the ancient". This to a large degree is correct, as a large part of Muhammad's tales in the Quran are old tales - fables, legends, folk tales, apocryphal (made up) stories from the Bible, fairy tales - known in Arabia at his time, which were given suitable twists to fit his new religion - no god would need to do that.
095 23/84a: "To whom belong the Earth and the beings therein?" Here Muhammad uses a trick you often see him use - and Muslims used it freely ever after, included today: To take a never proved claim, treat it as a fact and use it as basis for claims and arguments. Here the underlying, never proved claim is that Allah is the owner of everything. This question and its intended answers are totally invalid as long as the underlying presumption is not proved; that Allah really is the owner. But who uses dishonest tricks and debate technique like this? - not an omniscient god who has all facts at least.
096 23/84b: "- - - receive admonition". How much real admonition is there in a book so full of mistakes that it is not from any god? And so full of belief in dishonesty, suppression, stealing, rape, war, and blood, that if there all the same had been a god behind it, it had not been a good and benevolent god, to say the least of it.
097 23/84-85: "Say: 'To whom belong the earth and all beings therein? - - -.' They (non-Muslims*) will say, 'To Allah'". Wrong. We would say that nobody knows if the beings do not belong to anybody. Religious non-Muslim persons would name their god(s) as owner(s) if they meant there was such an owner. But Muhammad is relying on a trick here - one which only could be used in Arabia (would a god for the entire world have used one valid only in that small part of the world?) as the main god of the old Arabs was named al-Lah (sometimes named al-Lah even then, but a polytheistic one). So when the old Arabs answered "al-Lah" it sounded similar to "Allah", and Muhammad had his "proof". It is a similar trick Islam uses today, when they in the west call Allah "God" - the name "God" camouflages some of the real differences between Allah and Yahweh, as the word "God" automatically makes Jews and Christians think about Yahweh and forget to think over: Are there differences?
Just to mention another small point: Perhaps the Earth and all things belong to the old Arab moon god Hubal (see second part of 1/1d)? The point is that it is unclear if Hubal just is another name for al-Lah/Allah. Islam protests strongly, but there are indications for that they are wrong. There exists no sure knowledge, though, neither pro nor contra.
#098 23/86a: “Who is the Lord of the seven heavens - - -?” Wrong. There are no 7 heavens (and remember: They had to be material ones, because according to the Quran, the stars are fastened to the lowest heaven (37/6-7, 41/12), and you can fasten nothing to something non-material). All the same you find these claims about 7 heavens/firmaments/tracts in 2/29d+e, 17/44a, 23/17a, 23/86a, 41/12a+b, 65/12a, 67/3a+b and 71/15a+b - all together the Quran mentions "heavens" in plural at least 199 times; there is no doubt the Quran means there are 7 heavens (and as the stars are fastened to the lowermost of them - f.x. 67/5a - they have to be material ones - if not the stars could not be fastened to it). In 67/3 you also are told they are places one above the other, which means they of course are built successively higher above the Earth - which also is clear from most places in the Quran where the place of the heavens are indicated. Some modern Muslims try to place the heavens in space, deep space included. But among others 67/3 prohibits this, as "up" and "down" ("one above the other") has no meaning as part of the real space. Also what about breathing for Abraham up there? - and the low air pressure would make his blood start boiling. Etc.
By the way: 67/12b also claims there are 7 Earths, and gives their names according to Islam.
It is some irony to see such a huge scientific mistake used as verification for Allah. And it is not the only time a "proof" for Allah simply is scientifically wrong.
099 23/86b: "- - - the Lord (indicated Allah*) of the Throne (of Glory) Supreme - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which means Yahweh is the one and supreme power, not Allah. 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.
100 23/87c: "Will ye (non-Muslims*) not then be filled with awe?" There is little reason to be filled by awe because of not documented claims from a book as unreliable and full of error like the Quran, unless the claims first are proved.
101 23/88b: "Who is it in Whose hands is the governance of all things - - -". See 11/7a above.
102 23/89c: "Then how are ye deluded?" Who are deluded if the Quran is a made up book? - not to mention it is made by the dark forces? - and it at least is from no god with all its errors, contradictions, etc.
103 23/90a: “We (Allah*) have sent them (non-Muslims*) the Truth (the Quran*) - - -”. Either Allah is not omniscient or someone else has made the Quran – it at best is partly true only. Too many mistaken facts, etc.
104 23/90c: "- - - falsehood". See 2/2b above. Also beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.
105 23/91a: “No son did Allah beget - - -”. Perhaps not. But if Islam still says that Allah = Yahweh, it is sure that the Bible says that Jesus called Yahweh his father many times and to MANY listeners. (And we have found far fewer mistakes in the Bible - and especially in NT - than we have found in the Quran, even though we red also the Bible with critical eyes). And: Also the Quran tells Jesus was honest. And finally: Both science and Islam have clearly shown that the Bible is not falsified - in spite of Islam's never documented claim. (According to our latest leafing through the Bible, Yahweh is called the father of Jesus minimum 204 times and Jesus the son of Yahweh minimum 89 times in that book. Roughly half the times this is said by Jesus).
106 23/91d: "Glory to Allah". Read 1/1a and see if he deserves glorification.
107 23/92b: "- - - too high is He (Allah*) for the partners they (non-Muslims*) attribute to Him!" This is a claim Muhammad often repeats in the Quran, but never proves - neither that Allah is too high (yes, not even that he exists), nor that he did not want company - if he exists. Also see 25/18a below.
108 23/95a: "And We (Allah*) are certainly able to show thee (Muhammad*) (in fulfillment) that against which they are warned". A good claim, but never provably showed - as so often in the Quran there only are words. See 14/19d above.
109 23/97b: "- - - I (Muhammad*) seek refuge with Thee (Allah*) - - -". Risky unless Allah exists. Not to mention if he exists, but belongs to the dark forces.
110 23/98: "And I (Muhammad*) seek refuge with Thee (Allah*) - - -". Risky unless Allah exists. Not to mention if he exists, but belongs to the dark forces.
Also a time anomaly.
111 23/99a: "(In Falsehood will they (non-Muslims*) be) until, when death comes to one of them, he says: 'O My Lord! Send me back (to life) - - -". This only is true if the Quran is made by a god. If it is made by no god, the story may be different - and an interesting question in case is: What then about the Muslims? Especially so as parts of their moral code and laws will horrify any god who really is benevolent, not just claims to be so.
Also remember that f.x. all the wrong facts in the Quran prove that the book is not from any omniscient god.
112 23/102: "- - - those whose balance (of good deeds) is heavy - - -". In Islam the main thing for being admitted to Paradise, is the balance between good and bad deeds, as opposed to especially Christianity, where the mercy of Yahweh and forgiveness counts a lot more heavily than in the Quran.
As for forgiving from Allah: See 2/187d above.
113 23/105b: "Were not MY (Allah's*) Signs (Quran-speak for "proofs for Allah"*) rehearsed to you - - -?" A long list of claimed, but only invalid signs were rehearsed, but not one real one - and the use of invalid proofs are a hallmark for impostors only.
114 23/105c: "- - - falsehood - - -". Just in this case: It is natural to treat the use of invalid "signs" misused like "proofs" as falsehood. Also Allah is not going to ask such questions if he does not exist.
115 23/109b: "- - - Thou (Allah*) art the Best of those who show mercy!" Please read the surahs from Medina - as they are the youngest ones, they are the ones which counts when verses conflict, according to Islam's own rules - and the harshest paragraphs in the sharia laws, and see if you agree. Allah in reality is a harsh god, and we any day believe more in what a man or a god demands and does, than in what he or his followers claim - words are cheap.
116 23/110a: "- - - My (Allah's*) Message (the Quran*) - - -". The Quran may well be Allah's message, but in that case he is no omniscient god - too much is wrong in the book.
117 23/110b: In this verse Muhammad is "proving" that the reception he got, will be strongly revenged by Allah in the next life - and that he himself was right. The problem is that words and claims are so cheap, and Muhammad never had even one proof for any of his central religious claims.
118 23/111b: "- - - they (the Muslims*) are indeed the ones that have achieved Bliss - - - " If the Quran tells the full truth and only the truth.
#119 23/112: (YA2948): “He (Allah*) will say - - -“. Here is an interesting small – or big – detail when you think about all the claims about how exactly like Muhammad’s words the Quran is: A. Yusuf Ali refers directly to the difference between 2 “ways of reading”. One is the Hafs version after Kufah, the other is Warsh after Basrah – #####Islam uses the expression “ways of reading” (“qira’ah”) and pretends that that is something different from versions, #####which it is not. Islam just use another word to conjure away the fact that there exist and existed different versions of the book – there once were 14 “canonized” ones + a number of others (28 accepted all together, included the 4 most used before Uthman - 2 are widely used (especially Hafs) and 4 more a little used today). We quote: “The Hafs reading is “Qala”, “He will say”. This follows the Kufah Qira’ah. The Basrah Qira’ah reads “Qul”, “Say” (in the imperative).” In itself this is a minor detail – though far more than “correct to the last comma” like Muslims often claim (in the first case the quote is from Allah, in the second case Allah is ordering someone (Muhammad?) to speak) – but it documents that the different versions of the Quran still exist and are used. (Actually the two that are in daily use today (+ 4 a little), are Warsh in parts of Africa, and Hafs in the rest of the world - the others (at least the canonized ones) you may find in universities for higher Islamic studies.)
120 23/115a: "- - - We (Allah*) created you (people*) - - -". See 21/56c above.
121 23/115b: "- - - (all people will*) be brought back to Us (Allah*) (for account (on the Day of Doom*)) - - -". Only true if Allah exists, is a major god, and is correctly described in the Quran.
122 23/116a: “Therefore exalted be Allah, the King, the Reality - - -“. If there is one thing which is not proved in Islam, it is the reality of Allah. Everything in Islam rests only on blind belief - "taqlid" - in a tale told by a man with very dubious moral, but a strong wish for power and for wealth for bribes - - - and women – a man using his religion as his platform of power (like many others). And a self proclaimed prophet unable to make prophesies (= a stolen or “borrowed” title).
123 23/116b: "- - - there is no god but He (Allah*) - - -". See 2/255a and 6/106b above and 25/18a below.
124 23/116c: "- - - there is no god but He (Allah*) - - -". Well, there is the impertinent, but very pertinent question: What about Yahweh?
125 23/117a: "- - - if anyone invokes, besides Allah, any other god - - -". A camouflaged way of telling that of course everyone invokes Allah - but some are bad and invokes other gods, too. The plain truth is that few, if any at all, who invoke another god also invoke Allah. In the old Arabia they may have invoked al-Lah, which was the same god Muhammad took over from the pagans, gave a slightly new name (well, not totally new) and a new past + a new role. But when the pagans invoked al-Lah, they invoked the old pagan god, not Muhammad's new Allah. Anyhow this only was possible in Arabia as it was there the names were so like that this "mishearing" was possible - another Arabism.
126 23/117b: "- - - he (another god*) has no authority - - -". According to the Quran with all its mistakes this is so. But what if also this is a mistake? And what about Allah? - he has never proved his authority, yes, not even his existence - not even in a book full of wrong facts and other errors. Hundreds of claims, but not one proof.
127 23/117d: “- - - the Unbelievers will fail to win through!” – but not the Muslims, as they are much better quality according to the Quran's apartheid teaching - - - if the Quran speaks the truth and only the truth and is from a god. A pep-talk.
128 23/117f: “- - - the Unbelievers will fail to win through!” The sorry truth is that it is possible Islam will win - because of its militancy, its terrorism, its terror against all who wants to leave the religion, its apartheid ideology, and its demand for blind belief and obedience. It will in case be a poor life economically - stagnant industry and agriculture + a population explosion (Muslims are told many children = in a way to be rich). And the intellectual and cultural life? - please do not mention it (remember f.x. hardly one single new idea which could benefit humanity in some 900 years from 1095 AD on). Something like a Saudi Arabia without oil?
A tempting future for you and your grandchildren?
By the way: Have you ever reflected over that except for the countries with oil, most Muslim countries are from low middle via poor to very poor countries. Oh, of course they blame Europe and USA, but countries like India, China, and many others were in exactly the same positions - or worse off. What is happening there - and in parts of South America, etc. Compare it to Muslim countries the last 70 years.
A tempting future for you and your grandchildren?
129 23/118b: "For Thou (Allah*) art the Best of those who show Mercy!". Islam is a war religion (in spite of loud claims of being "the Religion of Peace" (though hardly ever "the Religion of Honesty") - read the surahs from Medina before you protest. NT represents the religion of love. Does this say something in this slightly ridiculous (see 1/1a and judge yourself) claim in this verse?
A main reason why Islam is relatively peaceful now, is that they became military inferior to the west in the 18. century, and still are.
4277 + 129 = 4406 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".