1000+ Claims in the Quran - Invalid Unless Proven, Surah 26
18 May 2014
SURAH 26: Ash-Shu'ara' (The Poets)
(Mecca, 615 - 616 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 26/1: "Ta' Sin Mim". Some Arab letters (called abbreviated letters) start a number of the surahs - most of them definitely have no meaning, a few may or may not have one, but even in the cases they may have a meaning, that meaning in case has no connection to the contents of the actual surah. Nobody knows why they are there. Clear language? (There are no such letters in the Bible.)
###003 26/2a: “These are verses of the Book that makes (things) clear.” In other words: Told and explained in clear words. But all the same Muslims as a last way out, explains – and in religious blindness often honestly believe – that errors are not errors, but are camouflaging hidden meanings or allegories. In addition there are some hundred points in the book where the exact meaning is unclear - either literally unclear (many) or there are two or more possible meanings (300+), often varying wildly (some places because the meaning has been expressed unclearly, other places because the Arab alphabet was not complete when the Quran was written down - the vowels and the so-called diacritical points used in Arab to signify some letters (and also the normal points, like f.x. the comma), were not yet existing - and the reader has to guess these, and then there are many cases where the meaning varies according to what letters you guess are meant. To take an English sample: If you have the consonants h and s and know they represent a word, this word may be "has" or "his" or "house" or "hose").
Also see the chapter "Literal language in the Quran - according to the Quran" in "1000+ Comments on the Quran".
More down to the Earth: Muslims often explains away mistakes, etc. in the Quran with the claim that what is written there is not what is meant - it is a parable or an allegory or something. A book where you have to guess what is literally meant and what are parables - and what the parables in case mean - definitely is not easy.
######That the Quran tells - directly or indirectly, but clearly - that the texts in the Quran is clear, explained by Allah, and to be understood literally, you find f.x. these places: 3/7b, 3/138a, 6/114ca, 11/1b, 15/1b, 17/12h, 18/1d-e, 18/2a, 19/97b, 20/113b+c, 24/34, 24/54j, 26/2a, 27/1b-d, 28/2, 36/69e, 37/117c, 39/28b, 41/3da, 43/2a, 43/3c, 43/29b, 44/2b-c, 44/13d, 44/58b, 54/17a, 54/22b, 54/32a+b, 54/40a, 65/11f, and 75/19 Worth remembering each time a Muslim or Islam tries to "explain" away errors, etc. by claiming the text means something different from what it says. In such cases either the Muslim/Islam lies when he/she claims the text means something different from what it says (the claim often is that it is a parable or something), or the Quran lies when it says that the book uses clear texts where nothing else is indicated.
The listed points are all collected under 3/7b and 44/58b.
Or perhaps Allah is so clumsy and helpless when he explains things, that he needs help from humans to explain what "he really means"? (Nonsense to say the least about such claims lying under such "explanations".)
BUT WHO CAN EXPLAIN SOMETHING BETTER AND MORE CORRECTLY AND COMPLETELY THAN AN OMNISCIENT GOD?
004 26/2b: “These are verses of the Book that makes (things) clear.” A book with so many mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, so much unclear language, etc., makes very little clear in reality.
005 26/4b: “If (such) were Our (Allah’s*) Will, We could send down to them (non-Muslims*) from the sky a Sign, to which they would bend their necks in humility.” Really a super boast? - especially since Muhammad never was able to show even a valid mini-proof? Or a true statement from a “benevolent” god who did not do it because he wanted the majority of humans going to Hell? Or just some bragging from the maker of the Quran, whoever he be, to consolidate his power?
A SAMPLE OF MODERN ISLAM'S "ARGUMENTS.
###006 26/4d: "- - - a Sign, to which they (people*) would bend their necks in humility". Comment A26/4: "Inasmuch as the spiritual value of man's faith depends on its being an outcome of free choice and not of compulsion, the visible and audible appearance of a 'message from the skies' would, by its obviousness, nullify the element of free choice and, therefore, deprive man's faith in that message of all its moral significance'.
###This is not even rubbish and gobbledygook, politely speaking, and an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie). Choices made by a person's free will, has got to be made on basis of what the person know, and the more he or she knows about something, the more likely it is that correct choice about that thing is made. Therefore the addition of correct information - f.x. real proof for that a god exists - can have no negative significance morally for the person's decisions or choices.
On the contrary: Withholding of essential, correct information forcing the person to make decisions or choices on basis of serious lack of central information easy for a god to provide, is morally a very doubtful deed by that god. Worse: ####################Top Muslim scholars know enough about logic and moral to know that this is the case, and even so they are capable of producing "explanations" like this, trying to cheat less educated people. But then al-Taqiyya is not only permitted when it comes to defend or forward Islam, but is advised if it gives a better effect. ####How much in the Muslim scholars' arguments are al-Taqiyyas or Kitmans (lawful half-truths) like this one?
The facts above are so well known, that there is no chance Muhammad Asad did not know it. The only possible conclusion is that he - like so many others - is lying to defend and/or promote his religion.
#####But what is the real value - and what is the real truth - of a religion which has to rely on dishonesty? And how much more in such a religion and its claims and "arguments" are lies? Not to mention: Is there any reliability left concerning that religion?
007 26/5a: "- - - a newly-revealed message - - -". Were the verses and surahs really revealed? - and in case from whom, as with so many errors, etc. they were not from a god.
008 26/5b: "- - - message from (Allah) - - -". Wrong. No god ever was involved in a book so full of mistaken facts and other mistakes like the Quran.
009 26/5c: "- - - (Allah) Most Gracious - - -". See 1/1a above.
010 26/5d: "- - - they (skeptics*) turn away therefrom (from new verses from Muhammad*)". They had good reason for this if they were among these who understood that something was very wrong in Muhammad's new religion.
011 26/6f: “- - - the truth of what they (unbelievers*) mocked at!” At best the Quran represents partly the truth - too many mistakes, etc.
012 26/7b: “Do they (non-Muslims*) not look at the earth - how many noble things of all kinds We (Allah*) have produced therein?” Yes, we see a lot of noble things - and also a lot of ignoble and terrible things, like Darfur, women’s and non-Muslims’ life in some Muslim areas, terrorists, catastrophes, etc - in the world. And we see a religion partly relying on dishonesty and terror. But we see no proof of any god - and definitely not of a god who has proved he is Allah.
013 26/8c: "Verily, in this (the natural products claimed made by Allah*) is a Sign: but most of them (non-Muslims*) do not believe". Very naturally as for one thing the "sign" is invalid as long as it is not proved made by Allah - and who except cheats and deceivers use invalid "proofs"? And for another thing already then a number of his contemporaries saw that something was very wrong in this new religion - f.x. his claimed quotes/stories from the Bible.
014 26/9b: "- - -(Allah is*) - - - the Exalted in Might - - -". A might often claimed, but never proved in or outside the Quran. Not once.
015 26/10-66: The story of Moses here roughly is the same as in the Bible, except for that many details are different (but remember that when you meet the story in the Quran about Moses and the fish and the wise man, that story is not from the Bible). These details he either has got from somewhere - and the only source for information about Moses was the Bible + made up legends, etc. - or they are made up. But there is one fundamental difference: In the Bible there is no religious strife between Moses and the Egyptian - the message simply was: "Let my people go!" In the Quran the religion has got an important role. Also here it is the question about from where Muhammad got this information, as it like said is not from the only known real(?) source, and as he cannot - like Muslims claim - have gotten it from the god, as no god was ever involved in a book of a quality like the Quran, with all its mistaken facts, contradictions, etc., etc.
There also is another fundamental difference; In the Bible the god involved is Yahweh, in the Quran it is Allah. (In spite of the Quran's claims, these two gods are not the same one - too many things are too deeply different between them and between their teachings, for this to be true. The Quran likes to claim that the reason is that the Bible is falsified, but both science and Islam thoroughly have proved that this never documented lose claim also is not true: Among some 44ooo relevant manuscripts or fragments, they have found not one proved falsification. Neither has Islam been able to explain how tens of thousands or more of papers, spread on 3 continents, could have been identically falsified, and falsified in ways modern science are unable to find traces from. (This part simply is one more of Muhammad's lies in the Quran - in this case the only way he had to save his new religion and his own position at the top of it.))
016 26/11a: "The people of the Pharaoh: will they not fear Allah?" The people of Egypt were polytheists. It is likely at least many of them had heard about Yahweh, the god of their Jewish slaves, but Allah they had never even heard about - perhaps al-Lah (or in case more likely his earlier names al-Ilah or the even older Il), but not Allah. There is not even a trace found from monotheism under Ramses II - the pharaoh of Moses. (Islam prefers to talk about other pharaohs - preferably older ones - because science knows Ramses II did not drown, but science is not in doubt, except that a few suspect Exodus took place some years later than 1235 BC, and then under the son of Ramses II, Merneptah.)
017 26/11b: "The people of the Pharaoh: will they not fear Allah?" There is no trace of religious preaching by Moses in this story in the Bible, and definitely nothing about Allah.
018 26/16c: "- - - the Lord and Cherisher of the worlds". Strange as the old Jews did not reckon their god to be for the entire world, only for the Jews (though there are points also in OT telling Yahweh was for all). Islam will have to document that Moses said this - it also is not in the Bible.
019 26/21: "- - - my (Moses'*) Lord (here indicated to be Allah*) - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which says Moses' god 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 here add that the claim also contradicts science and Islam - neither science nor Islam has ever found traces from a religion like Islam, a god like Allah, or a book like the Quran older than 610 AD.
020 26/24b: "- - - the Lord and Cherisher of the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth, and all between - - -". Strange as the Jews did not reckon their god to be for the entire world, only for the Jews (though there are points also in OT telling Yahweh was for all). Islam will have to document that Moses said this - it also is not in the Bible.
021 26/26b: "(Moses) said (to Ramses II*): "Your Lord (Allah*) and the Lord of your fathers from the beginning." This contradicts reality, as we know Allah never was the god of the old Egyptians - there never was any monotheism, except Akn-Aton and his sun god (and on top of all the old al-Lah (older name al-Ilah and even older Il) was the moon god once upon a time (it also is possible that the moon god Hubal (see second part of 1/1d) is in this line - see just below), at least during the time he was named al-Ilah). And for another it contradicts the Bible: Moses never tried to pretend Yahweh was the god of the Egyptians according to the Bible, or discussed religion at all - his only topic according to the Bible was: "Let my people go".
We may add that originally Hubal was the moon god in Arabia, and some sources say the Kabah originally was his temple and dedicated to him. But when Muhammad was born, al-Lah - sometimes named Allah - may have taken over as Arabia's main god. It is a bit ironic that a building dedicated to an old moon god (be it Hubal or al-Lah/Allah - because also Allah had been a moon god and the crescent moon still is his symbol) was and is the most holy place on Earth for a claimed only and claimed omnipotent god - and as ironic is the fact that if Muhammad had been born earlier, Islam's god might have been named Hubal, not Allah (Muhammad simply took over the claimed mightiest of the pagan Arab gods, and earlier Hubal was reckoned to be the most powerful one - and the moon god like al-Lah had been and perhaps still was).
########We have not mentioned much about al-Lah/Allah's position in the Kabah before Muhammad. The reason is that it is quite unclear. There are the two gods mentioned as the main god for the Quraysh tribe = the main god main god the Kabah: Hubal, the moon god, and al-Lah/Allah - also a moon god, at least in southern parts of Arabia. There are clear indications, but no proofs, for that these two really and simply were two names for the same god - perhaps with Hubal as his "personal" name and al-Lah/Allah his title (al-Lah/Allah means "the god", or in this case "the main god").
There also are indications for that there were connections between Hubal and the Ba'al known from f.x. the Bible - same god and similar name, but in another variety of religion (The name Ba'al was named for some gods in that region). If this is true, the Quran and Islam are way beyond the Milky Way when they forward claims like Zachariya prayed to Allah/Hubal/Ba'al, or that Jesus preached about Allah/Hubal/Ba'al, as in those times such connections would be known, even if they are forgotten today, and Ba'al represented the Devil to the Jews of those times.
022 26/28b: "- - - Lord of the East and the West, and all between!". Strange as the Jews did not reckon their god to be for all and everything, only for the Jews (though there are points also in OT telling Yahweh was for all). Islam will have to document that Moses said this - it also is not in the Bible.
#023 26/29c: “If thou (Moses*) dost put forward any god other than me (the pharaoh*), I will certainly put you in prison.” Wrong – in Egypt one had many gods. Even more: According to one of Islam’s tries to explain away the mistake of placing the Persian king Xerxes’ man Haman at Ramses II’s court - and hundreds of years wrong - the high priest (Ha-Amon) of one of the main gods – Amon – even was present and one of the pharaoh’s main advisers at this meeting (a “fact” that in case makes this sentence impossibly illogical - but then it is typical for Muslims' explaining away mistakes in the Quran, that the "explanations" "explain" some aspects of a mistake, but collides with others). It is impossible that Ramses II said this if at the same time a high priest - Haman/Ha-Amon - of a main god was present. Or the other way around: If Ramses II said this, Islam’ "explanation" about Haman as Ha-Amon is proved wrong. Make your choice - but science knows that Amon was a top god among many others in Egypt, so it is highly unlikely Ramses II said what the Quran claims, unless Islam has real proofs.
The religious part - and other details - in this debate are not from the Bible. (According to the Bible the only thing Ramses II now said about the god of the Jews, was a short sentence saying that he did not know him and would not respect him (2. Mos. 5/2), and he said pretty little about Yahweh later, too).
As it is proved ever so well that Egypt had many gods (may be 3ooo included local ones and different names for the same god), this quote is historical nonsense. And as Islam claims that the high priest for the god Amon - Ha-Amon - is the explanation for the name Hamon mentioned in the Quran, either the quote or the Islamic "explanation" is "viss-vass" and dishonesty.
024 26/35: "His (Moses'*) plan is to get you out of your land - - -". What is the basis for this claim? - there was nothing indicating that Moses had such plans. Besides: This is not from the Bible, so from where did Muhammad get his "information"? As no god was involved in the Quran, the only alternatives are legends, apocryphal (made up) scriptures, fairy tales or fantasy.
Plus a historical fact: Ramses II was one of the mightiest Pharaohs ever. There was no chance that a group - even a large group - of badly armed slaves could topple him and his armies and take over the power.
025 26/40a: "- - - that we (the Egyptians*) may follow the sorcerers (in religion) if they win?" This contradicts the Bible - there it was no question of following this or that religion, only "let my people (the Jews*) go". Also see 26/35 above.
026 26/40b: "- - - that we (the Egyptians*) may follow the sorcerers (in religion) if they win?" Such a demand is nonsense compared to what we know about the religion of Egypt at that time. It also is psychological nonsense - it takes more than this to make the whole population of a country change religion (if the "wrong" part won). For one thing it had fundamental grips on the population - even a royal decree about changing to another religion would not work - see Akn-Aton's try even if that was not just at this time. And for another the magicians would have the same religion as the people, so why then a silly demand like this? (Some Muslims claims it is meant the forwarding of the worship of the pharaoh, but the pharaoh was not the main god in Egypt.)
027 26/41c: "Of course - shall we (the sorcerers*) have a (suitable) reward if we win". For one thing this is not from the Bible (see 26/35 above), and for another thing hardly anybody spoke like that to one of the mightiest pharaohs ever.
028 26/42c: “- - - ye (the sorcerers*) shall in that case (if you win over Moses*) be (raised to posts) nearest to my person (Ramses II).” It is highly unlikely that the mighty pharaoh Ramses II said this to a flock of sorcerers – and especially for winning over an after all small opponent. But it sounds good in a religious speech to uncritical believers.
NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!
###029 26/46-47: "Then did the sorcerers fall down, prostrate in adoration, Saying 'We believe in the Lord of the Worlds - - -". For one thing this is not from the Bible. But much more serious in this connection, is that this is one of the proofs for that Muhammad knew he was lying each time he explained away his inability to produce any miracle as a proof for his god and for his own connection to a god, with that Allah did not want because it would make no-one believe in Allah anyhow. Here Muhammad is telling - early in his career and before many of those "explaining" away - about a minor miracle which made all those sorcerers suddenly become ardent believers in just Allah. Also see 26/51 below.
NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!
030 26/49e: “- - - I (Pharaoh Ramses II) will cause you (Moses and others*) to die on the cross!” But the old Egypt did not use crucifixion as punishment. Similar claim in 7/124 – 20/71.
031 26/51: "Only, our (the Pharaoh's sorcerers*) desire is that our Lord (indicated to be Allah*) will forgive us our faults, that we may become foremost among the Believers". ##################THE MOST SERIOUS POINT HERE IS THAT MUHAMMAD CLAIMS THAT THE SORCERERS BECAME EAGER MUSLIMS BECSUSE OF MINOR MIRACLES PERFORMED BY MOSES. THIS WAS AS EARLY AS 615 OR 616 AD. T H I S P R O V E S T H A T M U H A M M A D A T L E A S T L A T E R K N E W H E W A S L Y I N G E A C H T I M E H E C L A I M E D T H A T T H E R E A S O N F O R T H A T A L L A H D I D N O T U S E M I R A C L E S O R O T H E R R E A L P R O O F S, W A S T H A T I T W O U L D N O T M A K E A N Y B O D Y B E L I V E A N Y H O W !!!!!!!
032 26/52a: "By inspiration We (Allah*) told Moses - - -". All the other things aside: The word "inspiration" is not mentioned in the Bible in connections like this. Yahweh gave his messages either by direct contact, by visions, or by means of dreams (4. Mos. 12/6-8). But this was the method by which Muhammad claimed he got most of his information and orders from his god, and then it had value that his followers believed this was the normal way of contact with their god for prophets - and thus that Muhammad was a normal prophet with normal contact with his god. You will find several claims in the Quran saying that different prophets received their information etc. by inspiration. A number of places - like here - this information is added without having any meaning or value for the story - obviously for some reason outside the story, like telling the audience about the claimed normal way for the god to contact his claimed prophets.
To get his verses and surahs "by inspiration", was a very convenient way to receive it: Not possible for anyone to check, and very easy to subtract or add points or more - - - and easy to make up verses and more. This religious part of the story about Exodus is not from the Bible - but by adding it, Muhammad made it fit one of his 3 - 4 standard receipts for tales in the Quran.
033 26/53-58: This is not from the Bible. Where is it from?
#####034 26/56: (A26/30): "Thus the Quran illustrates the psychological truth that, as a rule, a dominant nation is unable really to understand the desire for liberty on the part of the group or groups which it oppresses, and therefore attributes their rebelliousness to no more than unreasonable hatred and blind envy of the strong". Something to think over for Muslims who through the times suppressed and worse so many? And who have as an official goal in the Quran to conquer and suppress every country and every non-Muslim.
###########And one more and related point: Most Muslims are unable to understand why the religion/they are disliked and sometimes hated. They are unable to see that memories of a horrible history, added to a partly immoral moral code, an aggressive and suppressive ideology, glorification of oppression of all non-Muslims, and haughtiness, etc. are among the real reasons. They are so used to their own ways of thinking and of their own moral code, etc. that they are unable to see that much of it far from is laudable, and honestly believe they are the best and with the best religion and best rules. Living that far from "do to others like you want others do to you", they are unable to see the reality, and believe that they are victims of unjust dislike and hate.
Read f.x. relevant pages on Internet, and see all the promises from Muslims that Islam will conquer and suppress "Italy and all Europe", etc., etc. Are there rational reasons for non-Muslims to react? - especially if they know there is a real possibility for this to come true, because of the inhuman war ideology behind Islam? - and even more so if they know enough about Islam to know that the Quran with all its errors is not from any god, and the religion thus a made up pagan one, under which they risk becoming slaves?
#035 26/59a: "- - - but We (Allah*) made the Children of Israel inheritors of such things (riches, etc. - see 26/58 just above*) - - -". Also the Bible says the god (via Moses) saw to that the Jews received some riches when leaving Egypt (2. Mos. 12/36). Muslims today have a tendency to blame the Jews for dishonesty and robbing in this connection, but is such an accusation right, fair, or honest when both the Bible and the Quran indicate that this was the work of the god?
Besides: We have till this date not met one Muslim saying that perhaps this was fair payment for centuries of slave work. And also we have seen not one Muslim comparing this to the Quran's rules for "lawful and good" stealing/looting.
036 26/66: “But We (Allah*) drowned the others (the Egyptians).” Wrong, at least for Ramses II himself - he did not die from drowning, and he did not die until some years later. The Bible has a similar mistake, but the Bible is written by humans, and humans can have mistaken one of Ramses II's generals or one of his 67 sons (the number varies from one source to another, as it in reality is unclear) for the pharaoh - an omniscient god does not make such mistakes.
#037 26/63a: “Then We (Allah*) told Moses by inspiration: ‘Strike the sea with thy rod’. So it divided, and each separate part became like the huge, firm mass of a mountain”. According to science the Jews started the exodus (if it ever happened - and if it did, it happened ca. 1235 BC during the reign of Pharaoh Ramses II - one of the greatest pharaohs ever - and some years before Ramses II’s death (Muslims often wants to change this – preferably to around 1500-1600 BC - because we know Ramses II did not drown, but science is clear on this point)) from Goshen in the north east of Egypt – to be specific: In the Nile delta. They travelled south roughly parallel to what is now the Suez Canal, and to the west of it. Then they turned south east, before they again headed south - still roughly parallel to what is now the Suez Canal, but now to the east of where the canal now is. Then they continued south parallel to the Red Sea. Before the Suez Canal came, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea, here was unbroken low and quite flat land with some scattered lakes, the biggest of which were the Bitter Seas.
According to science the Jews may have been cornered against one of the seas during the above mention leg towards southeast, a sea named the Timsah Sea – or Yam Suph in Hebrew (meaning the Sea of Reeds). In the old Hebrew scriptures the Jews were cornered against Yam Suph, which can mean the Red Sea (the most frequently used translation) or the Sea of Reeds – both names are possible. The Sea of Reeds was a shallow sea - as for the exact depth our sources are vague, but quite likely just a few meters at most. (The longest reed we have been able to find, is a special kind of rice growing in the Tonle Sap Lake in Cambodia. It can be up to 5-7 m. The reeds growing in Egypt are shorter, and to get the name “Sea of Reeds”, the lake had to be shallow enough for the reeds to get their “heads” above the water over at least a large part of the lake). To guess: From one or two and up to a few - perhaps 3 to 5 - meters deep as indicated above, or perhaps a bit more at the deepest places.
In such shallow seas there simply was not deep enough water to make “each separate part - - - like the huge, firm mass of a mountain”. Wrong in case – and it is likely this is the case, even if the more dramatic Red Sea most often is used as a translation. This because for Moses it had been plain stupidity to march south along the western side of the Red Sea when he wanted to go east to Sinai, and then have to cross that sea to reach his destination, with all those people, equipment, animals, etc. in boats they did not have. (The Bible tells they were 600ooo men, which means some 2 mill. included women and children – a number which is mathematically possible (though not likely) after the 430 years the Bible says the Jews lived in Egypt - but it is likely many other slaves claimed they were Jews and came along to get out of bondage, and thus added considerably to the number of real Jews. 2. Mos. 12/38 indicates so.)
038 26/67c: "- - - most of them (here likely the Jews*) do not believe (here indicated in Islam*)". Not very strange - they saw a lot was wrong in Muhammad's new religion.
#####039 26/67d: (YA3173): "- - - people who are blind in their obstinate resistance to the Truth, accomplish their own destruction - - -". Worth thinking over as all the errors in the Quran, etc. and also the fact that Muhammad sometimes speaks in the book, and even at least a few lies the book, proves 100% and more that it is an unavoidable truth that something is seriously wrong with the Quran - and hence with Islam. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)
040 26/68b: "- - - (Allah is*) the Exalted in Might - - -". Perhaps, but in case he has never clearly shown it (besides - the story with Moses according to the Bible was about Yahweh's miracles, and Yahweh and Allah are so different that they cannot be the same god - at least Islam will have to prove it, not only give loose words for it).
041 26/70-86: This is not from the Bible (actually not the rest of section 5, too). From where did Muhammad get this information, as no god gave him the Quran and all its errors and worse?
042 26/72-73: "Do they (false gods*) listen to you (Terah in the Bible, Azad in the Quran - father of Abram/Abraham*) when ye call (on them), Or do you good or harm?" But if you ask the same question about Allah, he has not done one single of those things in a provable way during his entire claimed existence - not once - just listen to Islam's silence about this. Besides it is not said in the Bible that Abraham's people were polytheists.
###043 26/74c: “They (Abraham's people*) said: ‘Nay, but we found our fathers doing thus (what we do)”.
(A26/38): “(Zamakhshari): ‘- - - ancient usage and precedence in time are no proof of (a concept’s) soundness”. Razi, for his part, states that (this*) verse represents ‘one of the strongest (Quranic) indications of the immorality (Arab “fasad”*) inherent in (the principle of) "taqlid", i. e. the blind, unquestioning adoption of religious concepts or practices on basis of one’s uncritical faith in no more than the “authority” of a scholar or a religious leader.”
But the book skips the fact that this also goes for Muslims: 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. And also for them it is highly immoral just to accept a religion or something just because their fathers and others believe in it.
But there hardly is a major religion more authoritative and with a clearer demand for blind belief than Islam. Or with stronger and more ruthless indoctrination.
Also see 6/108b and 23/1b above.
044 26/77: “- - - the Worlds - - -“. The Quran tells there are 7 (flat) worlds – Hadiths adds that they are placed one on top of the other, and names them. Wrong. See 65/12.
045 26/77-82: This is not from the Bible, like so much of the "biblical" stuff in the Quran. Here is listed a lot of things Abraham claims his god - here meant to be Allah - does. But the Bible disagrees: According to the Bible Abraham's god was Yahweh, not Allah.
046 26/79-81: A number of the natural occurrences Muhammad frequently and without ever proving anything, claimed for Allah. Claims without proofs are just cheap words.
047 26/81: "- - - (Allah will cause me*) to live (again) - - -". See 7/158i above.
048 26/84a: "- - - honorable - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is as compared to the book's own and partly immoral moral code.
049 26/86: "Forgive my (Abram/Abraham's*) father, for that he is among those astray". Contradicting the Bible - in the Bible there is no conflict between Abram - later Abraham - and his father. There also is no conflict between Abraham and the others.
As for forgiving from Allah: See 2/187d above.
050 26/89a: "But only he (will prosper) that brings to Allah a sound heart - - -". Correct only if Allah exists, if Allah sent down the Quran, and if the Quran tells the full and only truth. Wrong if not.
051 26/93b: "Besides Allah? Can they (other gods*) help you or help themselves?" A rhetoric question leading up to a perhaps correct answer. But another central point: Also Allah has never proved neither his existence nor his power - a main reason why Islam have to stress the ideal of blind belief, etc. so strongly. But blind belief in all other aspects of life is the easiest way to be cheated.
And "besides Allah"? - non-Muslims do not have gods besides Allah, but instead of Allah.
052 26/97b: "By Allah (an oath*), we (non-Muslims*) were truly in error manifest". Only true if Allah exists, is a major god and is correctly described in the Quran. Definitely not true if they follow an existing god (if such one do exist).
053 26/98a: "- - - (Allah is*) the Lord of the Worlds (plural and wrong*) -- -". Often claimed, never proved - not even Allah's very existence is proved.
054 26/99b: "- - - guilt". Who are the guilty seducers if the Quran is a made up book? - and remember here that all the mistakes, etc. in that book prove absolutely that no god was involved in making or delivering it.
055 26/100: "- - - we (lost sinners according to the Quran*) have none to intercede for (us) - - -". We are back to the plain fact that the difference between the Quran and its ethical and moral rules are so many and so fundamental that even if you do not qualify for the Quran's paradise, you may well qualify for NT's (and the other way around.) One of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and for that Jesus and Muhammad are not in the same league even.
056 26/104c: "(Allah is*) Most Merciful". Not if he made the surahs from Medina, some of the immoral Islamic moral code, or the most unjust parts of the sharia laws.
057 26/108: "(Noah said*) So fear Allah, and obey me". This was one of Muhammad's mantras, and then it was psychologically wise to make it "clear" that this was normal for prophets to say - though you do not find it in the Bible concerning Noah, and also not concerning many biblical known, "real prophets". A very nice slogan for any dictator.
058 26/109b: "- - - my (Noah's*) reward is only from (Allah*) - - -". Another parallel to Muhammad, legitimizing Muhammad as a claimed prophet (though a not true claim). see 26/108 above.
059 26/110: "So fear Allah and obey me". Identical to 26/108 above.
###060 26/113a: "Their (non-Muslims'*) account is only with my (Noah's*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". = It is for Allah only to punish the "unbelievers". Similar to Muhammad's early words - see 26/107 and 26/108 above. But guess if Muhammad changed his mind when he gained raw power!
###061 26/113b: (A26/50): "Noah's answer embodies a cardinal principle of Quranic ethics and, hence, of Islamic law: No human being has the right to sit in judgment on another person's faith and hidden motifs - - -". But this is just what Muslims too often have been and are doing the moment it is clear you are a non-Muslim, not to mention if you are a Muslim wanting to leave the religion. The opposite also in reality is Islam's official point of view - all non-Muslims shall be suppressed and pay extra tax (even pay "with willing submission and feel themselves subdued" (9/29)).
062 26/113c: "- - - if ye could but understand". The trouble is that if you really understand the Quran - not only the superficial words telling nice things about the religion, but really study what the texts - demands, deeds, moral code, etc. - really tell, you understand and see all the mistakes, etc. and see that this book is not connected to any god.
####063 26/115b: "I (Noah/Muhammad*) am sent only to warn in public". Parallel to Muhammad - these were his words this early on. (Many of the stories in the Quran are parallels to Muhammad's at the time it was told - legitimating that his situation was normal for prophets, and thus that he was a normal prophet.) Reality changed later when he became powerful - then force and terror entered the picture".
064 26/116c: "- - - thou (Noah*) shalt be stoned - - -". There is no mentioning of punishment by stoning in the Bible, until in much later times. Also Noah was never threatened with stoning in the Bible. And no religious quarrel mentioned for Noah there.
065 26/119: “- - - in the Ark filled (with all creatures).” Wrong. No boat could take that many thousands of animal and bird pairs (millions if you included insects and similar) + food for them. And even more so not a wooden boat - not possible to build big enough and strong enough for the necessary size. See 11/40.
066 26/121c: "- - - but most of them (people - and now we are back to Muhammad's time just here*) do not believe". Not strange, at least for the ones who already then saw that something was seriously wrong - f.x. was Noah’s story told by Muhammad quite different from what really was written in the old scriptures.
067 26/123a: "The 'Ad people - - -". A tribe from old Arab folklore. It may or may not have existed - some traces may indicate that a tribe with this name once lived, but the rest of what you find about them in the Quran, you only find in the Quran. From where did Muhammad get the stories? As the Quran with all its mistakes is not from a god, the only alternatives are legends, folklore, fairy tales, or fantasy.
068 26/124a: "- - - Hud - - -" The name of a claimed self proclaimed prophet said to be working among the 'Ad tribe in the very old Arabia. You only find him in the Quran. Like many of the other claimed prophets in Quran, he mirrors Muhammad's life up to the time of Muhammad's life when the story was told, and with doom for non-Muslims (stories in the Quran often ends with doom or becoming Muslims for non-Muslims). As for where Muhammad got his information about Hud from, see 26/123a above.
069 26/125a: The self proclaimed prophet (according to the Quran) Hud said: "I am to you a messenger worthy of all trust". This was one of the essences of Muhammad's own preaching. In the tales about claimed former prophets in the Quran, you normally find parallels to Muhammad's life and teachings - it seems to have been essential to him to show that his was a very normal life for prophets (and thus that he was a normal prophet).
070 26/126: The claimed prophet Hud said: "So fear Allah and obey me". This was a very central sentence to Muhammad and it seems to have been essential for him to tell his followers that this was a normal demand from prophets - you find similar sentences from the mouth of claimed former prophets here and there in the Quran - f.x. see 26/108 and 26/110 above. It seems that Muhammad needed to show everybody he was a normal prophet
071 26/127a: "No reward do I (Hud*) ask of you for it - - -". Also this was one of Muhammad's (wrong) claims about himself - see 26/125 and 26/126 above. At least for Muhammad this claim was enormously wrong, as he at least claimed total power over his followers, enormous riches (which he according to Islamic books mostly used for bribes to attract and keep followers + not a little to wage war) and lots of women - typical for some false prophets throughout history and even today, whereas real prophets seldom had or wanted much riches and as seldom had more than one wife if any at all (a man like Solomon with all his wives is reckoned to be a powerful king, not a prophet, except in the Quran - the same goes for David (though the word prophet is mentioned)). Also see 26/209a above.
072 26/130: (A26/58) "- - - a Quranic prohibition, valid for all times, of all unnecessary cruelty in war, coupled with the positive, clearly-implied injunction to subordinate every act of war - as well as the decision to wage war as such - to moral considerations and restraints". Anyone knowing something about Muslim war history and also of treatment of prisoners of war and of suppressed people and slave taking after many wars and raids, are able to comment on this kind of claims from present-day Muslim scholars, but we do not like to use so impolite words as the ones necessary to correct or characterize these claims, perhaps except the word hypocrisy.
073 26/131: "Now fear Allah and obey me (Hud*)". See f.x. 26/108, 26/110 and 26/126 above.
074 26/132-134: Different never proved or documented claims. See 11/7a above.
075 26/139e: "- - - most of them (non-Muslims*) do not believe". At least some of them - f.x. the Jews - because they saw something were wrong in this new religion.
076 26/140b: "(Allah is*) the Exalted in Might - - -". But during 1400 years there was not one single proof for that claimed might - only claims based on the words of a man with doubtful moral and who on top of that liked power and was not adverse to lying (f. e. "Miracles will make no-one believe anyhow"), and deception (f.x. "War is deception") .
077 26/141a: "- - - the Thamud - - -". Another tribe from old Arab folklore which may or may not have existed (there are indications for their existence, but what you read about them in the Quran, you only find in that book - from where did Muhammad get the information about them as the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is from no god, and no reliable sources existed?).
078 26/142c: "Will ye (the Thamud people*) not fear (Allah)?". The claimed 3 Arab prophets mentioned in the Quran (Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb) all are said to have operated in the time between Noah and Moses. Noah - if he ever lived - is likely to have lived several thousand years ago (perhaps - perhaps - around 3600 BC), and Moses around 1300-1400 BC. And the fact that the last one of the 3 - Shu'ayb - is indicated to be 4. generation after Lot (some 2ooo- 1800 BC), indicates that he lived around 1700 BC (Hud and Salih then likely before Abraham as there likely was sometime between them and Shu'ayb). If you are able to believe in Muslims at that time, you are free to do so, but neither science nor Islam has found any traces of that religion anywhere earlier than 610 AD - some 2300 years after Shu'ayb - when Muhammad started his preaching.
079 26/144: "So fear Allah, and obey me (Salih*)". See f.x. 26/108, 26/110 and 26/126 above
080 26/145a: "No reward do I (Salih*) ask of you for it - - -" See f.x. 26/109a and 26/127a above.
081 26/145c: "- - - my (Salih's*) reward is only from (Allah*) - - -". Another parallel to Muhammad, legitimizing Muhammad as a claimed prophet. see 26/108 above.
082 26/145d: “- - - (Allah is*) Lord of the Worlds.” Often claimed in the Quran, never documented anywhere. Words are cheap.
083 26/146-150: The claimed prophet Salih lists good things the Thamud people have, and tells them that if they want to have it and live in peace, they will have to believe in Allah. Claims - not a thing proved.
084 26/153a: "Thou (Salih*) art only one of those bewitched!" If this is said to "prove" to Muhammad's followers that such words as Muhammad himself met, just were normal for prophets, it is psychologically quite cleverly done.
085 26/154a: "- - - bring us (people) a Sign, if thou (Salih*) tellest the truth!" The same demands Muhammad met from followers and from opponents, and thus "legitimizing" Muhammad - see f.x. 26/153 just above. Muhammad never was able to prove anything at all. Only claims, statements and evasions.
086 26/158a: "But the penalty sized them". Always when some ones are not good Muslims they are penalized in the end (or become good Muslims a few times) - good for the moral of the believers, especially the naive ones and the ones wanting to believe such tales - in both cases good psychology.
087 26/158d: "- - - most of them (non-Muslims*) do not believe". At least some of them - f.x. the Jews - because they saw something was wrong in this new religion.
088 26/160a: "The people of Lut (Lot*) - - -". Here is referred to the people of the towns Sodom and Gomorra. They were not the people of Lot, as he was from very far off (Ur of the Chaldeans in what now is south Iraq), and it is clear from both the Bible and from the Quran that he also was not naturalized into the communities - but to make good its claim that prophets were sent to their own people, Muhammad needed this way of saying it. But Lot lived in that neighborhood - likely near Sodom.
089 26/160b: "The people of Lut (Lot*) rejected the messengers" - just like Muhammad was rejected in Mecca at the start. The message: To be rejected is normal for prophets - like Muhammad - but they will be punished.
090 26/161a: “- - - their (the people of Sodom and Gomorrah*) brother Lot - - -“. Wrong. Lot was a stranger to the two towns, and it is very clear both from the Quran and the Bible that he did not mingle well with those locals. He came - together with Abraham - from Ur in Chaldea (in south Iraq). He was no “brother” to them – not even in the figurative meaning of the word. (The word here obviously is used to make Lot and the mentioned people fit the pattern the Quran claims is universal: That the prophets come from the people they are to teach. But here that is incorrect). Also see 11/92 just above and 27/56 – it is very clear Lot was no brother of theirs - also not a naturalized "brother". (“Drive out the followers of Lut (Lot*) from our city - - -“.)
091 26/161ba: "(Lot said*): 'Will ye not fear (Allah)?" Lot - if he ever lived - lived around 2ooo - 1800 BC. You are free to believe he preached about Allah at that time if you are able to, but neither science, nor Islam has been able to find any trace at all of Islam older than ca. 610 AD - some 2500 years later.
092 26/162b: "I (Lot*) am to you a messenger (not said in the Bible*) worthy of all trust". See f.x. 26/125a above.
This part of the story about Lot is far away from the one in the Bible. From where is this information? (We remind you that the Quran is so full of errors, etc., that it is not from any god, and thus no information that way.
093 26/164c: "- - - my (Lot's*) reward is only from (Allah*) - - -". Another parallel to Muhammad, legitimizing Muhammad as a claimed prophet. see 26/108 above.
094 26/164d: “- - - (Allah is*) Lord of the Worlds.” Often claimed in the Quran, never documented anywhere. Words are cheap.
095 26/171: "- - - an old woman - - -". She cannot have been too old as she was Lot's wife according to both the Bible and the Quran.
096 26/173: "We (Allah*) rained down on them (Sodom and Gomorrah*) a shower (of brimstone - see 11/82c)- - -". Also other places in the Quran it is said brimstones - the Bible says burning sulfur (1. Mos. 19/24). A small, but clear contradiction. Also it is physically impossible to rain brimstones from a volcano, like some places claimed - brimstone is a sedimental kind of stone and only made in water. Besides the main volcanic period in Arabia ended some 400ooo years ago.
097 26/174c: "- - - most of them (non-Muslims*) do not believe". At least some of them - f.x. the Jews - because they saw something was wrong in this new religion.
098 26/175b: "(Allah is*) the Exalted in Might - - -". Often claimed, never proved.
099 26/175c: "(Allah is*) Most Merciful". See f.x. 26/104c above.
100 26/178b: "- - - trust - - -". See 2/2b above.
101 26/180c: "- - - my (Shu'ayb's*) reward is only from (Allah*) - - -". Another claimed parallel to Muhammad, legitimizing Muhammad as a claimed prophet. see 26/108 above.
102 26/180d: “- - - (Allah is*) Lord of the Worlds.” Often claimed in the Quran, never documented anywhere. Words are cheap.
103 26/184: "- - - Him (Allah*) Who created you (people*) - - -". See 6/2b and 21/56c above.
104 26/187: "Now cause a piece of the sky to fall down - - -". Also other prophets got requests for proofs they were unable to fulfill - Muhammad was a normal prophet on this point, too, is the underlying message.
105 26/189d: “The Message of the Quran” here comments the catastrophe that killed the Madyan people, and the connected darkness told about in the Quran, in this way (A26/77): “This may refer either to the physical darkness which often accompanies volcanic eruptions and earthquakes (as shown in 7/91, an earthquake overtook the people of Madyan) - - -“. #####This is not – repeat: NOT – true connected to earthquakes. It is not unusual if a volcano blows out a lot of ash that it becomes dark, but unusual if it only or mainly emits lava, #####and it is totally untrue for earthquakes. Dishonesty or al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) - here in case to defend the religion.
If we check 7/91, the footnote number 73 says: “Like the 'harrah' once inhabited by the Thamud tribe, the adjoining region of Madyan shows ample evidence of volcanic eruptions and earthquakes”. This is everything that is said about volcanic activity. The main volcanism stopped some 400ooo years ago (even though there has been a little activity later). Not to mention this fact is dishonesty. And how do you see evidence for earthquakes in a volcanic area? There often are earthquakes connected to volcanic eruptions, but such earthquakes for one thing never are really strong - seldom over force 3 or 4 = not much destruction or visible disturbance. And for another if there are minor visible disturbances, how to see if it is from a quake and not from the volcano? Dishonesty.
Then if you go to 7/91 itself, it says: “Thereupon an earthquake overtook them: and they lay lifeless, in their very homes, on the ground.” Not one single word about volcanism.
They started with earthquake. But as earthquakes never kills 100% (normally max 10% and hardly ever more that 30%, except combined with low quality high-rise buildings), the footnote added a hint of the possibility of a volcanic eruption. Then in footnote A78 to 26/189 this has evolved to “- - - volcanic eruptions and earthquakes (which, as shown in 7/91, overtook the people of Madyan.)” One know there is no darkness connected to earthquake, and adds "volcanism" to make the Quran sound true, instead of stopping up in such a serious case as the perhaps next life, and ask "what does this mean?". It is more essential to make the Quran sound true, than to find out what is the truth.
########This is a kind of dishonesty and a kind of intellectual corruption that one meets far too often in Islamic religious literature, included in literature pretending to be on a scientific level. Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and its brothers are busy sometimes in Islam - you have to check everything (this also go for so-called "refuting" of arguments or facts adverse to the Quran or Islam - you have to check everything to see what is true and what not).
The next life – if it exists – is a far too serious topic to cheat people about. And if you have to cheat or “al-Taqiyya” or lie – or use pressure or threats - to attract people to your religion, or to make its members stay inside, it is height time to stop up and start thinking why you have to lie or cheat or use pressure. In such cases the chances are high for that something is seriously wrong and the religion not true. A true religion can afford to be honest, so if you have to cheat or make lies or use pressure, that indicates that something is wrong to use an understatement.
#######If your religion cannot afford total honesty, it is a clear indication for that it is not a true religion. And this alone is nearly a proof for that you are heading a wrong way – if there is a next life. (If not, the way you are heading does not matter – except as a cheap way to a good earthly life for your religious leaders.)
And there is a final, nearly as serious fact: If the persons writing – or like “The Message of the Quran” 2008, revising it – such literature are intelligent ones (and they clearly are), #######there is no way they do not themselves see that they are manipulating the truth. They are doing this in a cold and psychologically well planned way – efficient to lure and to cheat the naïve and the little educated and the ones who on beforehand wants to believe, but methods easily recognizable for persons trained in critical thinking. Why do they have to use such methods? - ######and what is a religion(?) needing such methods worth?
106 26/190c: "- - - most of them (non-Muslims*) do not believe". At least some of them - f.x. the Jews - because they saw something was wrong in this new religion.
107 26/192b: “Verily, this (the Quran*) is a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds (Allah*)”. Something similar to the Quran and all its errors is indicated. If is true that it is a revelation, Allah is not omniscient. Something definitely is wrong.
108 26/192c: “- - - (Allah is*) Lord of the Worlds.” Often claimed in the Quran, never documented. Words are cheap.
#109 26/193a: “With it (the Quran*) came the Spirit of Faith and Truth”. If truth came down with the Quran, it must have been mutilated later. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact - on the contrary, all the errors in the book prove that it maximum is partly true. NB: This is one of the places where Quran mentions "the Holy Spirit", (though the Arab "Al ruh al Amin" normally refers to the archangel Gabriel - but Muslims often mix the two, and many do not even know the difference and believe they are the same. This even though Muslim top scholars know the Bible, and no-one really knowing the Bible would mix the two; for one thing it indirectly, but very clear is told in the texts that the two are two different beings, and for another the writers of the Bible knew the difference between angels and spirits.)
##As for Gabriel there is a strange fact in the Quran: He is never mentioned in the surahs from Mecca. Not until after he came to Medina did Muhammad start claiming he got his information(?) and messages(?) from Gabriel. If Muhammad really had got - or even only believed he got - the claimed messages from an angel, and even a central one, this had been such a strong agument that there is no chance Muhammad had not told about this - and often - during the first difficult 13 years in Mecca. What is the explanation?
#####110 26/193-196b: (A26/85 – in 2008 edition AA26/83): “With it (the Quran) came down the Spirit and the Truth – to thy heart and mind that thou mayst admonish in the perspicuous Arabic tongue. ####Without doubt it is (announced) in the revealed Books of former peoples.” Wrong. What is sure here - absolutely sure - is that the Quran is NOT announced in the Bible. It is totally wrong - so wrong that not even Islam looks for such announcements. They try to find foretelling about Muhammad, but not about the Quran - most likely because there is no point in the Bible which can be twisted to a foretelling for that book. This claim thus is not only totally wrong, but also totally dishonest. (Do you understand why it is so complicated to use Islamic sources? - every detail has to be checked to see if it may be true or not.)
###What is absolutely sure is that the Quran is not announced in the Bible. (####And in spite of Islam's and the Quran's claims about the opposite (7/157), this also goes for Muhammad - he is not even mentioned, not even indirectly, in the Bible.) The claim that the Quran is announced in the Bible is so hopeless that it is unnormal to meet it even from the most fanatical Muslims - there is nothing in the Bible even for them to "hang" such a claim on.
"The Religion of Truth"?? ######How much is really true in a religion using such methods? And is a religion based at least partly on dishonesty reliable?
111 26/195: "- - - In the perspicuous Arabic tongue". Was that the best language to choose if Allah intended to reach all humanity? Around 610 AD a rather small and isolated language mainly of primitive nomad tribes, with an unfinished alphabet which even today makes it impossible to know exactly what was meant many places. Latin or Greek or Persian had reached many more, and as they had complete alphabets, it had been possible to write exactly what was meant - unlike in the at that time unfinished Arab alphabet.
#####112 26/196b: “Without doubt it (the Quran*) is (announced) in the revealed Books (the Torah, the Bible*) of former peoples.” There is very much doubt about that, as the basic elements of the teachings are too different – especially compared to NT and “the new covenant” which is the fundamental one for Christianity. It is plainly wrong - it is absolutely sure that the Quran is not announced in the Bible or in any relevant Jewish scriptures. Also see the chapter about "Muhammad in the Bible" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran", and 26/193-196b above..
Flatly stated: It is incorrect that the Quran without doubt is revealed in the Bible (not even Muslims claim this today - and if you run across the claim, their references are not to "documentation" about the Quran revealed in the Bible, but to claimed references to Muhammad there (they only are possible to see if you cherry-pick words, quote them out of context, and add wishful thinking and a huge dash of al-Taqiyya and/or Kitman - lawful lies and lawful half-truths)). Even this often met claim that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible, as you understand is wrong. And as said the basic thoughts are too different between the Bible and the Quran: Both books cannot come from the same god. This is especially easy to see if you compare the Quran to NT.
Some Muslim scholars say it is the basic ideas of the Quran which is foretold in the Bible. Please read the Bible and especially NT, and the Quran and compare - and weep (you will not be tempted to laugh - except a black laugh).
113 26/197a: “Is it not a Sign to them that the Learned of the Children of Israel knew it (as true)?”
This sentence is dishonest - one of the places where Muhammad lied in the Quran. It is not proved, but Islam claims that one or some learned Jew(s) accepted Muhammad as a prophet. But only a few of the thousands of learned Jews in case. If the story is true, an honest sentence had said: “- - - a few of - - -” or at most “- - - some of - - -”. There is quite a difference between "- - - the Learned of - - -" and "- - - a few of the Learned of - - -". Dishonesty in a presumed holy book does not give a favorable impression. And why is dishonesty necessary? - and how many other points in the book stems from dishonesty?
As the great majority of the Jews - learned as not learned - denied that Muhammad could be a prophet even as they were robbed of their possessions, slaughtered in wars, and murdered “en masse” as helpless prisoners, or made slaves, it is absolutely sure that what the Jews - learned or not - meant about him, was no sign for Muhammad or Allah. This even more so as to become Muslim was the only way to keep one’s riches and later one’s life, as Muhammad gained power in Medina, and still most Jews refused him. Some “renegade” swallows make no summer.
A true religion easily can live on - and tell - the truth or what one honestly believes is the truth after honest examination. If a religion or any other story needs to use lies or half-truths or even al-Taqiyyas (the lawful lie) or Kitman (the lawful half-truth), not to mention institutionalizes al-Taqiyya and Kitman and Hilah, deceit, and disuse of even oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2) as means to defend and forward the religion, one must ask why are lies necessary? - and the natural following up question: How much more of what they tell about their religion in reality is lies?
In the Quran and also in Hadith, it is claimed there were one or a very few learned Jew(s) who accepted Muhammad as may be a prophet. The stories might even be true. But we are back to the old truth: “One swallow makes no summer”. It is absolutely sure that the Jews as a group - learned or not - did not accept his teachings for the truth even in the face of death (f.x. the Qurayza tribe - the last big Jewish tribe in Medina), one or a few exceptions may be expected. The same is the truth today.
There also is another fact here: Islam from Mecca (610 - 622 AD) is quite different from Islam from Medina (622 - 632 AD) - a fact NEVER mentioned by Muslims. Therefore, even if some Jewish and/or Christian scholars should have been inclined towards Islam of Mecca - there only is Islam's words for this - it tells little or nothing about how such scholars viewed Islam of Medina in say 632 AD.
No, an al-Taqiyya or at best a Kitman was and is no valid sign. ####But it definitely is a sign telling a lot about Muhammad, about the Quran, and about Islam.
"The Religion of Dishonesty"?
114 26/198: "Had We (Allah*) revealed it (the Quran *) - - -". No god would ever destroy his reputation by being involved in a book of a quality like the Quran. If it is revealed, it is not from a god.
115 26/199: "- - - had he (another prophet than Muhammad - a non-Arab*) recited it (the Quran*) to them (people*), they would not have believed in it". With that much wrong in the Quran, they had had reason for doubt.
116 26/204: "Do they (non-Muslims*) then ask for Our (Allah's*) Penalty to be hastened on?" Muhammad's opponents sometimes asked him for demonstrations as proofs. He never was able to do this, too - only more or less believable fast words for explaining things away, like always.
117 26/205-206: “Seest thou? If We (Allah*) do let them enjoy (this life) for a few years (anything is “few” compared to eternity*), Yet there comes to them at length the (punishment) which they were promised!” Even if you think it is unjust that non-Muslims do well and you not, calm down – it just is a result of Allah’s Plan and his endless wisdom, and rest assured; they will be punished in the next life and you come out on top. But is it true?
##118 26/209: “- - - and We (Allah) never are unjust”.
A man correctly telling that a woman has been indecent, is lying to Allah if he cannot produce 4 witnesses - even if an omniscient Allah has to know he is speaking the truth.
A woman who has been raped, is forbidden to tell who it was, unless she can produce 4 MALE witnesses WHO HAS ACTUALLY SEEN THE ACT. If she cannot produce 4 such witnesses, and all the same tells who the rapist, is she shall have 80 whiplashes for slander.
##A woman who is raped and cannot produce 4 MALE witnesses (who on top of all will be punished for not helping her if they witness about what they saw) that saw the very act, is to be strictly punished – may be stoned – for indecency - if she is unable to hide that she has been raped - . Probably the most unjust and amoral law we have ever seen in a “modern” society.
It is 100% permitted for an owner to rape his female slaves or captives of war (may be this is why Muslims so often rape women during conflicts - f.x. earlier in Bangladesh and earlier and now in Africa). The Quran even directly tells that it is no sin to rape also your married slaves or prisoners of war, as long as they are not pregnant. NB: As for raping a captive there is an even more disgusting fact: It has to be done in the name of Allah - during or after a jihad ("holy war" - practically all conflicts are declared jihad).
##It is glorious and the Muslims’ right to steal, rob, plunder, rape, enslave, and to kill non-Muslims during and after jihad - and almost any conflict is declared jihad (holy war). It is “lawful and good” (8/69).
There are more if you look. Pleas never tell us that Allah as described in the Quran never is unjust. These 5 points - and more - are morally horrible. Some of it actually the most unjust we have ever seen in any law. And steal and rape and enslave and torture in the name of a god perhaps the most disgusting.
#119 26/210-211: “No evil ones have brought down this (Revelation). It would neither suit them - - -“. May be no evil spirits have brought down the Quran. But is definite that no omniscient god has done so – too many mistakes, etc. It also is definite that no good or benevolent god or spirit did it – far too inhuman, full of hate and suppression, acceptance of dishonesty, and blood – not to mention the wretched ethic and moral in the book. All the same it is possible it was not sent down by bad or evil forces (even bad supernatural forces would be too intelligent to make a book with so many mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, etc., as they had to know they would be found out sooner or later and lose their credibility - though a possibility is that the god demanded a low quality book in order to permit the Devil to make such a trap - f.x. may be the god wanted it to be possible for humans to understand something was wrong and thus evade the trap) – it simply is possible, and even likely, that it was made by one or more men (all the wrong science and "knowledge" in accordance with the local beliefs in and around Arabia at that time, and a lot more points in that direction). But what is absolutely sure, is that an Islam like the one one finds in the surahs from Medina suits evil spirits and forces very well: Inhumanity, stealing, blood, hate, war. Just ask Muslims what they think about the Mongols attacking them in the east. The religion in Mongolia under and after Gjenghis Khan basically was quite similar to Islam on these points. When Islam used their war machine and inhumanity in f.x. India and other places, they according to all Muslims were heroes. Then they met Mongols who did just the same to Muslims - - and the Mongols were terrible monsters - ask Muslims what they think about Hulagu Khan (took Bagdad in 1258 AD). But then the southern Mongols became Muslims and continued in the same way like before, but now against non-Muslims - - - and now they were great heroes according to Islam. Ask them if the f.x. remember the name Timur Lenk (Tamerlane).
Islam as described in the surahs from Medina, definitely suits evil forces/spirits.
120 26/211a: "- - - it (the Quran*) would neither suit them (the dark forces*) - - -". At least partly wrong. Please read the surahs from Medina - they on top of all according to Islam's rules for abrogation (making verses invalid when they conflict) are the dominant ones as they are the youngest ones - and then read this sentence once more: There are lots and lots of things in the Quran which suits the dark forces ever so well.
#121 26/211b: “- - - nor would they (non-Muslims*) be able (to produce it) (something similar to the Quran*)”. Wrong. In spite of all the glorious words Muslims use about the Quran, it is not good literature. There are lots and lots of mistakes and contradictions. There is lots of wrong logic. There are numbers of linguistic errors. There are lots and lots of unclear points. There hardly is anything original in the book - the stories are taken from the Bible (mostly via legends, etc.) and a few other old books, from made up religious tales, from folklore and from legends and fairy tales and just changed a little. Also in thinking and in laws and morality there was little new - if any; there were a few changes compared to the old Arabia, but those ideas came from neighboring cultures. And the same stories are told again and again - most boring. Also good writers - not the original composer - polished the Arab language in the book for some 250 years (until ca. 900 AD).
Claims like that the Quran is good literature you can tell to the naïve, uneducated illiterate savages of the old (and for that case modern) times. Skip it when you are talking to an educated modern person who knows the Quran (far too few does – many had been disgusted) and knows a little about literature. The Quran may be intelligent religious tales for its time, but it is not and was not a good piece of literature. Boring, repetitive, a melee of this and that – no logical system in the tales, the tales all “borrowed” from others and well known, no new thoughts, boringly told, etc. For similar claims see 17/88
There would be no problem for a good or medium writer to collect stories and write something similar - or better. (F.x. Harry Potter is much better told.) But for what? - no matter how well written, not one single believing Muslim had admitted it was better than the Quran, as that had meant the Quran was and is not from a god.
#####122 26/216a: (YA3234): "'Disobey thee (Muhammad*) - - -' implies that they did something wrong, for the Prophet (Muhammad*) commanded what was right and forbade what was wrong.'" Thus hate mongering, war mongering, murder of opponents, stealing/robbing, lying, deceiving and breaking oaths when that is better, extortion, enslaving, raping, raids for riches, is right in Islam. Muhammad did and commanded all this and more.
123 26/216c: “I (Muhammad*) am free (of responsibility) for what ye (“infidels”*) do!” This was in Mecca ca. 615 – 616 AD. The tone rapidly grew more unfriendly after 622 AD when he grew military strong – and the teachings needed some “adjustments” to fit a war religion = contradictions and abrogations: 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).
124 26/217a: "- - - put thy trust in (Allah*) - - -". Rather risky as long as nothing ever was documented about him - not even if he exists or if he in reality belongs to the white or the dark side (he does not belong to the white side if he is behind the Quran - too much is wrong in that book, and too many of the moral codes, etc. are immoral (just compare them to "do unto others like you want others do unto you" and see for yourself.
125 26/220: "For it is He (Allah*) who heareth and knoweth all things". Remember that - for better or worse. Also see 2/233h above.
126 26/222a: "They (the evil ones*) descend on every lying, wicked person - - -". Just a few words: Al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, "war is betrayal", broken words/promises/oaths, stealing/robbing/looting, raping, enslaving, extorting, torturing, murder, war mongering, discrimination mongering, hate mongering, mass murder, war - and there are more. No more comments.
Is this quote the real explanation behind this war and hate and apartheid religion?
127 26/222b: "They (the evil ones*) descend on every lying, wicked person - - -". We may here mention that Muhammad sometimes lied - even in the Quran, and even accepted the breaking of oaths if that gave better results. Also not a little of the rest of his moral code qualifies for the word "wicked".
128 26/223: "- - - most of them (non-Muslims/bad people*) are liars". But most non-Muslims do not belong to a religion which accepts dishonesty and worse as an integrated and accepted part of the religion. This claim is quite an ironical one when coming from Muhammad/Islam - the religion which even they themselves seldom call "the Religion of Honesty".
129 26/225: “Seest thou not how they wander distracted in every valley?”
"The Message of the Quran", comment to 26/100 (26/98 in the Swedish edition – which seems slightly more honest and a little less "corrected" towards orthodoxy): “The idiomatic phrase "hama fi widyan" (lit., “he wandered (or “he roamed”) through valleys”) is used, as most of the commentators point out, to describe a confused aimlessness – and often self-contradictory – play with words and thoughts. In this context it is meant to stress the difference between the precision of the Quran, which is free from all inner contradictions - - - and the vagueness often inherent in poetry”.
The point here is that the texts in the Quran are said to be precise – which it has to be if the claim that it is made by a perfect god shall have any meaning. And a precise language always means exactly what is said - - - which means that something written in such an imprecise language like in the reality in the Quran cannot come from a god. Or if we pretend that the texts are precise like Islam claims, they have to be understood literally if nothing else is said - not claimed to be allegories, etc. at once it is clear that the information or meaning is wrong.
But it is ironic to get such a description of a book containing 1700+ wrong fact, 300+ and more unclear points, etc.
As for inner contradictions: Our Book A - "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - lists no less than 300+ such inner contradictions, and the list is not complete. In addition there are the external contradictions. Serious here are questions like: "When one sees this many errors, how many other errors do we not see?" - and: "No omniscient god makes errors or contradictions. Then who made the Quran?"
130 26/226: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) say what they practice not". But this was Muhammad's way of life, too. There often are abysses between words and reality in the Quran. Just read it, and read on one side the glorious words about him, and on the other side the realities behind what he said, and behind his demands and deeds and rules. Glorious words are cheap and ideal for propaganda - realities are realities and the real truth.
Worse: Even today there at places are oceans between nice words and reality here and there in Muslim societies - f.x. the Islamic star slogan "no compulsion in religion", what about practicing that some places?
131 26/227c: "- - - and defend themselves only after unjustly attacked - - -". We do not think it is necessary to comment this in a world where all the 4 (5 if you add Shi'ia) Islamic law schools for centuries judged that if an opponent was a non-Muslim society, that was reason enough to declare jihad (= holy war in self defense) - this law was never even questioned until around 1930 AD. A world where jihad can be declared "in the widest meaning of self defense" - which means in all and every case (at least we have never heard about a conflict where Muslims is the one part, where the word Jihad has not been mentioned). And a world where nearly all terrorists are Muslims.
4642 + 131 = 4773 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".