1000+ Claims in the Quran - Invalid Unless Proven, Surah 52

 

SURAH 52: AT-TUR (The Mount)

(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 52/1-6: These verses make up one big oath where Allah swears that his Day of Doom will come and that no-one can avert it (52/7-8). One problem is that in Islam oaths can be broken - pay expiation if necessary - and thus this is of little value. Compare this to Yahweh's and Jesus' rules! Another problem is that Allah can do nothing here unless he exists and or if he in case is not a major god.

003 52/2b: (YA5038): “- - - by a Decree Inscribed - - -“. Is this figurative or mysticism? That is anybody’s guess - Islam does not know.

004 52/4a: (YA5039): “- - - by a much-frequented Fane - - -“??? One guesses that this may mean the Kabah, or any mosque, or the Tabernacle, or the temple in Jerusalem - - - one guesses. Also see 52/4b just below.

005 52/4b: (YA5039): “- - - by a much-frequented Fane - - -“. In the latest edition of Yusuf Ali, this problem - see 52/4a just above - is edited away, and the text changed Muslim leaders to: "- - - by the much-frequented House (of worship) - - -". This expression normally is used for the Kabah Mosque in Mecca. A very simple way of eliminating a problem, don't you think so? But it seems that in the clear language claimed used in the Quran, the Arab word used here can mean both? - though it still is not clear that it is the Kabah which really is meant, though it is more likely after the change in the text. But is this honesty?.

###### Add al Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, lawful deceit, lawful disuse/breaking of even oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2) to this. ############How reliable is a dishonest religion?

006 52/5a: “By (Allah is swearing*) the Canopy (heaven*) Raised High - - -”. There is no canopy/material heaven, only optical illusions. What does it mean that Allah swears by something he should know do not exist?

Oxford Student's Dictionary of English: "Canopy - a cover that hangs or spreads above something". Empty space is no cover = there is no canopy up there.

007 52/6b: (A52/4): “And by the Ocean filled with Swell - - -.” But the Arab original “al-bahri ‘l-masdjur” means: “By the flaming sea”. If there is something you can never say about water, it is that is aflame – ok, at sundown and sunrise a bit of it may look slightly like aflame, but as Islam after 1400 years – with good reason as it just is a mirage or reflection – has not embraced that “answer”, they clearly knows that it means something else. But what? Again: Clear speech? And honesty?

008 52/7a: "Verily - - -". It definitely is no proved verity/truth. See f.x. 2/2b above.

When used in the Quran words like "true", "truth", "truly", "sure" "surety", "surely", "verity", "verily", etc. are claims, not proved facts. Also see 2/2b + 13/1g and 67/9c - 2 strong ones - and as for contradictions to the Bible also 40/20b. Also the latter half of the comments to 41/39a is very relevant. These and similar words cannot be taken at face value unless they are proved.

009 52/7b: "Verily the Doom of thy Lord (Allah*) will indeed come to pass - - -". One of the very many never documented claims in the Quran - nothing of any consequence is documented there. In the Bible at least a lot is proved by witnesses and by some deeds, if the books tell the truth - not so in the Quran.

010 52/8: "- - - there is none can avert it (Allah's decisions*) - - -". Allah has the final word about everything, according to the Quran. Well, again there is the question about Yahweh. - and if Allah really exists?

011 52/11a: "Then woe that Day (of Doom*) to those that treat (Truth) as Falsehood - - -". But who are they? - Muslims believing in a book with so much wrong and false that it clearly is not from a god? - or non-Muslims able to see that something is seriously wrong in what the Quran claims is the truth - - - and some of them in addition perhaps find a true religion if such one exists?

012 52/11d: “- - - those who treat (Truth (the Quran*)) as Falsehood - - -”. How is it possible to treat a claimed holy book so full of mistakes etc. that it clearly is from no god, as anything else?

013 52/11f: "- - - Falsehood - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses this word, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code, and that when it is used in religious connection, it means everything not in accordance with the Quran.

014 52/13b: "That Day shall they (non-Muslims*) be thrown down to the Fire of Hell irresistibly". It is not possible for Allah to do this unless he exists and is a major god. Also see 3/77b above.

015 52/15: "Is it (Hell*) then a fake - - -". Skeptics accused Muhammad of teaching a faked religion (and all facts indicate they were right - the Quran not only indicates, but proves that the book is from no god), and here Muhammad is trying to take a revenge on them - he even succeeded among naive and/or strong believers and wishful thinkers, then and till this day.

The fact is that Muhammad was unable to prove also Hell - thus it may well be a fake, especially as so much else is wrong in the Quran.

###Also the big differences between the Bible's and the Quran's hells are more than big and fundamental enough to prove that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - if they had been, also their hells had been more or less identical.

016 52/16: "- - - ye (non-Muslims*) but receive the recompense for your own deeds". This is not true if Allah predestines absolutely everything like the Quran claims many places. (Islam tries to explain this problem away by claiming man has free will or partly free will, but this is not possible to combine with full predestination even for an omniscient and omnipotent god - see f.x. comment A6/141 to verse 6/149 above.

You may just forget the Islamic claim that full predestination for Allah is possible to combine with even a little part of free will for man - Islam's claimed answer just is mysticism and hardly even that. The two claims are mutually excluding each other, and it is long since proved that when two claims mutually exclude each other, maximum one of them can be true. Another good proof is that the entire Islam during 1400 years has been unable to find even a way to "explain away" - not even "explain", but "explain away" - this very revealing point.

#####In a way worse: Also at least the educated "intelligenzia" in Islam knows ever so well that when two points are mutually excluding each other, maximum one of them can be true. All the same they say nothing. Dishonesty.

#####When a religion needs to use dishonesty - yes, perhaps partly is built on and rests on dishonesty - is it then a religion or a "religion"?

017 52/17-24: A description of life in Muhammad's Paradise: Good food, good drinks, lazy life, houris/lots of sex (for men), your children around you (how is that possible as there will be hundred generations?), luxury, servants, etc., etc., like a royal life in the dreams of poor, naive, and primitive warriors - - - and universes away from Yahweh's Paradise, where you "will become like the angels (Mark 12/25). Yahweh and Allah the same god? - no chance!! One of the at least 200% proofs.

018 52/18: "(Muslims in Paradise are) Enjoying the (bliss) which their Lord (Allah*) hath bestowed on them". Only possible is Allah exists and is a major god.

019 52/19-20: (To them (Muslims in Paradise*) will be said) ’Eat and drink ye, with profit and health, because of your (good) deeds.’ They will recline (with ease) on Thrones (of dignity) arranged in ranks; and We shall join them to Companions (the famous houris*), with beautiful big and lustrous eyes.” What more can a poor, virile young – or old – uneducated and uncultivated and uncultured man from the desert dream about? Also see 10/9f and 52/17-24 above.

020 52/20a: "They (Muslims in Paradise*) will recline (with ease) on Thrones (of dignity) arranged in ranks - - -". Those ranks must be enormous - - - and stereotype and monotonously boring. And very different from the Paradise described in the Bible where you "become like the angels in Heaven" - f.x. Matt 22/30. The same Paradise and the same god? No chance. Too much is fundamentally different. As said: The big differences between the two paradises proves at least 200% that they do not belong to the same god - and thus that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, no matter how strongly the Quran and Muhammad claim so. (Because even if someone says something, it is not necessarily true - and even more so when the one/ones saying so is/are very unreliable.)

##021 52/20b: “- - - and We (Allah*) shall join them to Companions, with beautiful big and lustrous eyes.” The famous houris. Like 37/48 and 42/25 above – see them. The introduction of houris by Muhammad into Islam seems to come from old Persian pagan religion, where they were named paaris.

One of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - their paradises are too different. And the fact that Jesus prohibited polygamy in any form - and also rape (sex where the woman/houri has no choice) - is one of the really strong proofs for that Jesus and Muhammad did not belong to the same religion, not to mention the same line of prophets.

##022 52/21c: "- - - to them (Muslims in Paradise*) shall we join their families - - -". According to Hadiths there are at least 4 or 6 gardens in Paradise - one better than the other. Plus there are the higher heavens for the really good Muslims. It would take quite a co-incidence if every member of the big and extended families of that time - and for that case partly today - to merit the same garden in Paradise. What then? We have never met any Muslim mentioning this problem, or being able to give a good explanation if we mention it. One thing is to reach Paradise. Another to reach the same garden in paradise. With 6 or more gardens, a family very easily can become very scattered.

One of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - their paradises are too different (according to the Bible, Paradise is one for all). If Yahweh and Allah had been the same god, their Paradise had been one and the same.

023 52/21d: "- - - to them (Muslims in Paradise*) shall we join their families - - -". But what about the families of the family in the next generation - and the next generation - and the next generation - and generations number 50 and 100? A big mêlée at best?

024 52/24: “Round about them (Muslims and their houris*) will serve (devoted) to them, youths (handsome) as pearls well guarded”. These are the (never proved) servants in Paradise – forever young, handsome men. There is said nothing about from where they come, and as normal in the Quran it is said not a word about how secondary persons in a story feel or like life, or how Paradise is for them. The central persons - you and the ones similar to you - are in Paradise "rich" and on top, and that is what counts – others are of little interest. Empathy with underdogs (f.x. women, houris, servants, slaves) does not exist in the Quran . Well, some to the poor Muslims (but do not give too much) and to orphans, but but for that you find no empathy. Does not exist in the Quran.

And there is another aspect to these handsome youths. The Quran frowns strongly at homosexuality, but all the same it at least some places is silently accepted. Are these handsome youths a silent temptation - or more - in such a connection?".

Yet another proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god: One more serious difference between their paradises. There are no servants in Yahweh's Paradise according to the Bible. (There cannot be servants in a perfect paradise, because to be servants is not perfect for the servants, and a paradise which is not perfect for everyone living there, is not a perfect paradise. Similar can be said about houris, who have to be sex-dolls for even the most selfish, rough, and primitive warrior. Yahweh's Paradise f.x. is no extended harem like Allah's.)

025 52/27a: "- - - Allah has been good to us (Muslims in Paradise*) - - -". This is what the Quran claims. As so much is wrong in the Quran included some clear lies, the big question is if this not documented claim, is true.

026 52/27b: "- - - the Penalty of the Scorching Wind - - -". An unclear expression. Some Muslims try to explain it, but end up just with presumptions. The famous clear language in the Quran - so clear that it is claimed to be a proof for that the book is made by a god (nearly the only "proof" Muslims and Islam have - and it is highly invalid like the others). As for penalty see 3/77b above.

027 52/28a: "Truly - - -". Definitely not a proved truth - only a not proved claim. See f.x. 2/2b and 49/13b above.

When used in the Quran words like "true", "truth", "truly", "sure" "surety", "surely", "verity", "verily", etc. are claims, not proved facts. Also see 2/2b + 13/1g and 67/9c - 2 strong ones - and as for contradictions to the Bible also 40/20b. Also the latter half of the comments to 41/39a is very relevant. These and similar words cannot be taken at face value unless they are proved.

028 52/28b: (A52/15 – in 2008 edition A52/16): “Truly, we (Muslims in Paradise*) did call unto Him (Allah*) from of old: truly it is He, the Beneficent, the Merciful.” But here we run into the troubles with the old Arab consonant alphabet: Have we guessed the correct vowels? There are two Arab words: “annahu” (“that he is”), favored by f.x. the Medina school, and “innahu” (“he is” or “verily, he is”), favored by f.x. Kuhfa and Basrah. One gives the above quoted meaning, the other: “Verily we did invoke Him (alone) ere this: (and now He has shown us) that He alone is truly benign - - -.” The first case; it is he, the second; that he (alone) is benign. A small detail, but significant enough to make debates. Would not a god be clear also on details?

029 52/29c: "- - - nor are you (Muhammad*) one possessed". This may be wrong, as in the old times it was rather common to believe that a person with a mental disorder, was possessed by a bad spirit. And modern medicine strongly suspects Muhammad had TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) - TLE will explain very much in case.

030 52/30: "A Poet!" Muhammad protested strongly to being a poet - and not unlikely true. But so what? - you can easily make up stories without being a poet. Thus when he uses this argument to "explain" he therefore cannot have made up the Quran, the argument is logically meaningless.

031 52/32a: "Is it that their (non-Muslims*) faculty of understanding urge them to this (not believe Muhammad*) - - -?" No doubt true for many of them, as they saw things were very wrong in Muhammad's new religion - f.x. the Bible at many points said very different things from what Muhammad claimed it said.

059 52/32c: "- - - transgressing - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses this word (or the corresponding "transgressor"), it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code, and that when it is used in religious connection, it means everything not in accordance with the Quran.

#032 52/33a: "He (Muhammad*) fabricated the (message (the Quran*))." Already at that time many saw that something was seriously wrong with the Quran. As the religion is not from a god - built on a book not from a god - there only remain these possibilities: From a cold brain. From a mentally sick brain. From dark forces. Or from a combination of these.

033 52/33b: "Nay, they (skeptics to Muhammad's teachings*) have no faith". Wrong. Many of them had deep and honest fait, but not in Muhammad and his claimed Allah. (But the Quran claims that only Muslims have faith).

034 52/34a: "Let them (non-Muslims*) produce a recital like unto it (like the Quran*) - - -".

For one thing it has been done many times - each and every time a new sect or religion emerges, it is because someone has produced a new teaching - a new "Quran" of some sort (normally the same book, but different understanding of points). And according to our information there have been some 3ooo Muslim sects through the times (and some were chocked in blood by other Muslims). The most well-known Muslim(?) such producer, was Musaylima ibn Habib - who was killed by the Muslims in 634 AD for this.

For another: Anybody knowing the Quran and knowing good literature, knows that many a good writer could have written a markedly better "copy" of the Quran - the Quran is not good literature by a long way, in spite of what Islam claims. But why bother? - no matter how well written such w book had been, not one believing Muslim had admitted that it was any good - admitting would be to admit that something might be wrong with the Quran. But for anyone knowing a little about literature, the claim that the Quran is so well written that it cannot be made or superseded by any man, and thus must be made by a god, is not only a joke, but a sad joke.

#035 52/34b: This verse also is another sample of one of Muhammad's techniques of debating: Any opposition or skeptical ones are demanded to prove their words, whereas Muhammad never proves anything of any essence - he just put forth words and claims and never - never - documents anything central. This even though his demands for proofs from all others proves that he finds proofs essential and of value.

036 52/34c: "- - - the truth - - -". See 2/2b and13/1g above.

037 52/35c: (YA5069): “Were they created of (“min”*) nothing - - -“. But the Arab preposition “min” has more meanings: “of”, “by”, “with”, “for”. Which give at least these extra interpretations: 1) “Were they created by nothing - - -“. 2) "Were they created with nothing - - -". 3) “Were they created for nothing (for no purpose) - - -“. Would a god use so indistinct a language?

038 52/36a: "Or did they (other gods*) create the heavens and the earth?" Another of Muhammad's rhetoric questions intended to have only one possible answer. But any believer in any religion might answer "yes" on just as correct a basis as any Muslim: Claims and beliefs and not one proof. Because in addition to this obvious "yes", there is a counter-question Muhammad never permitted: Did Allah really create it and where are the proofs in case? Muhammad always behaved like his claimed "truth" was true and needed no proofs - both of which are wrong - - - unless proved. A very dishonest way of argumentation.

###039 52/36d: (A52/20 - in English 2008 edition A52/22): "This is a 'reductio ad absurdum' of their (non-Muslims'*) unwillingness to admit the existence of a conscious Primary Cause (a creating god*) underlying all creation." It should here be remarked that "reductio ad absurdum" frequently gives conclusions which looks logical, but are absurd - often because the user do not include all possible things which may influence the result. Think f.x. of the often used sentence when someone does something wrong: "What if everybody did like you". This rhetoric question seems to give an ominous answer - if it was not for the fact that it is absurd to believe that everybody would do the same bad - or foolish - thing. ############Worse: As for Islam you do not need any "reductio ad absurdum" to see that things are seriously wrong - f.x. all the mistaken facts in the Quran proves it.

######As for the necessity of a conscious Primary Cause (something which started the first movement in the universe, and thus started the "chain" reactions, it is used as a strong argument by Islam (and others) for that a god must exist and have started things to happen. But there are at least two possible explanations for the "first cause" which only needs nature and no god. One is a (or more) force field in imbalance - this is a possibility. The other is the spontaneous reactions in the atomic world. These are a surety and an established fact. They happen in great quantities each and every day and second, and can easily have been what started things to happen. A number of those reactions f.x. produces heath, which easily can make things happen in the macroscopic world. Thus no god was necessary to start things. = this "proof" for Allah is invalid. In addition there may be more possible explanations than these two.

#############Also: Use "reductio ad absurdum" on the Quran and all its wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, points of unclear language, etc., and you will get the clear conclusion: "It is absurd to believe this book is from an omniscient god".

#############A serious PS: At least the two mentioned possible causes for a start is well known also to any Muslim scientist and to many more Muslims with a minimum of education, but all the same Islam uses this "argument". May be there are reasons why Islam and its followers seldom claim that "Islam is the Religion of Honesty"?

040 52/38a: "Or have they (non-Muslims*) a ladder, by which they can (climb up to heaven and) listen (to its secrets)?" If nothing else, then at least this verse confirms Muhammad's very wrong astronomy in the Quran.

###041 52/38c: "Then let (such a) listener (a skeptic*) of theirs (non-Muslims'*) produce a manifest proof". As mentioned before: Every opponent to Muhammad has to produce proofs - confirming that Muhammad found proofs of value. But Muhammad himself never proved anything central in his new religion - never. This in spite of that his repeated demands for proofs shows that he reckoned proofs to be both of essence and valuable. Explanation?

042 52/40a: "Or is it that thou (Muhammad*) dost ask for a reward - - -". Muhammad liked to claim he asked for no reward from his followers - and unbelievably his followers believed and still believe it, even though they saw his demand for power, his demand for obedience, his demands for wealth (mostly used for bribes, but he also had 3 estates) and all his women.

043 52/41: "- - - the Unseen is in their (non-Muslims'*) hands, and they write it down?" This is a bit unclear, but is likely to be a rhetoric question about if the non-Muslims could see the future ("the Unseen") and thus make prophesies about it, but it also may mean that they because of what is quoted do not believe they need divine revelations (A52/23 - A 68/26). As mentioned before, the language in the Quran often is not very clear.

044 52/42b: "Those who defy God (Allah*) are themselves involved in a plot". Only if Allah exists and is a major god. Or what if God really is Yahweh, and Yahweh really exists, like the Bible says?

045 52/43a: "Or have they (non-Muslims*) a god other than Allah?" Many had - some might even have a true god, like Yahweh perhaps was and is (for sure if one believes either the Bible or the Quran on this point - though the Quran wrongly mixes him with Allah - - - without a proof like normal for Muhammad).

046 52/43b: "Exalted is Allah far above the things they (non-Muslims*) associate with Him!" Perhaps - if he exists, and if the Quran tells the true story about him. And also: On the other hand the old Jewish and Christian god Yahweh has proved his power if either the Bible or the Quran tells the truth about this - Allah has proved not a thing.

047 52/43c: "- - - (other gods) they (non-Muslims*) associate with Him (Allah*) - - -". See 2/255a and 25/18a above.

048 52/47a: “And verily, for those who do wrong, there is another punishment besides this (that in the long run they will lose – and meet the other punishment: Hell*)” A comforting thought at the difficult end of the Mecca period - so just leave them alone and let Allah punish them. (A confirmation of 52/45, really). (But who is it who really does wrong?)

049 52/47b: "- - - verily - - -". It definitely is no proved verity/truth. See f.x. 2/2b or 49/13b above.

When used in the Quran words like "true", "truth", "truly", "sure" "surety", "surely", "verity", "verily", etc. are claims, not proved facts. Also see 2/2b + 13/1g and 67/9c - 2 strong ones - and as for contradictions to the Bible also 40/20b. Also the latter half of the comments to 41/39a is very relevant. These and similar words cannot be taken at face value unless they are proved.

050 52/47d: "- - - wrong - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

051 52/47e: "- - - another punishment besides this (besides getting no help on the Day of Doom*) - - -". Some say this indicates punishment in this life - even though such punishment has never been proved (many claims, never a proved case) - and a few that this refers to Hell itself. Like so often the text in the Quran is unclear.

052 52/47f: "- - - most of them (non-Muslims*) understand not." It is very clear that this often repeated sentence is wrong - it is clear that at least many understood that something was most seriously wrong in Muhammad's new religion.

053 52/48a: "Now await in patience the command of thy (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". Be patient, obedient, and willing and wait for the next orders - here on Earth from Muhammad (and his successors). A very convenient order for Muhammad - and a most cheap one if Allah did not exist.

054 52/48b: "- - - for verily thou art in our eyes - - -". The carrot and the stick: Be good and willing and obedient, and you will receive rewards, be bad or disobedient or unwilling and end in Hell.

055 52/48c: "- - - verily - - -". It definitely is no proved verity/truth. see f.x. 2/2b and 49/13b above.

When used in the Quran words like "true", "truth", "truly", "sure" "surety", "surely", "verity", "verily", etc. are claims, not proved facts. Also see 2/2b + 13/1g and 67/9c - 2 strong ones - and as for contradictions to the Bible also 40/20b. Also the latter half of the comments to 41/39a is very relevant. These and similar words cannot be taken at face value unless they are proved.

7626 + 55 = 7681 remarks.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

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".