1000+ Claims in the Quran - Invalid Unless Proven, Surah 61


SURAH 61: AS-SAFF (The Ranks)

(Medina, 625-626 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 61/1c: "- - - the Praise and Glory of Allah". Read 1/1a and see if he deserves it - - - if he exists.

003 61/1d: "- - - He (Allah*) is the Exalted in Might - - -". He in case never clearly has proved it. Never in all history or prehistory - (remember here: The never documented Islamic claim that Allah = Yahweh is wrong - the teachings are fundamentally too different and the differences cannot be explained by Islam’s also never proved claims about falsification of the Bible, as science has proved this to be untrue.

004 61/1e: “- - - (Allah is*) the Wise.” Not if he is behind the Quran.

005 61/3a: "- - - in the sight of Allah - - -". Only possible if Allah exists and is something supernatural - white or black.

006 61/4a: "Truly - - -". Definitely not a proved truth - only a not proved claim. In a book with so many mistaken facts and other mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, etc. like in the Quran, there are some words which cannot be taken at face value without extra proofs - in this case "truly", but there are others. Also see 2/2b above.

##007 61/4b: “Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array as if they were a solid cemented structure”. The ones who say the Quran is as good as the Bible, not to mention NT, have never read the Quran - which we can say even if we are not very Christian.

A god loving mass slaughter and murderers!!!

If that is a good god, I do hope I never meet a bad one.

And this is the icon and ideal of Islam!

Will you like to live in a Muslim society in a world ruled by such a religion?

And remember: War and hate is only one part of Islam.

But a mighty incitement and war propaganda mixed with romancing of war – and everyone at this time knew about spoils of war and slaves and free women to rape, etc.

But Allah never gave even one valid proof for that he was a god and loved war and warriors.

##008 61/4c: “Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array as if they were a solid cemented structure”. Muslims claiming the Quran confirms the Bible, have never tried to find sentences like this in NT. This is one of the at least 200% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - not to mention that Jesus and Muhammad are not in the same line of anything at all of any consequence. Antipodes is a suitable word for most of the essential facts of their lives and teachings.

009 61/5c: “- - - I (Moses*) am the Messenger of Allah (sent) to you (Jews*) - - -.” Allah or Yahweh? The Quran uses the name Allah for the god of the old Jews many places, claiming it is the same god. Often we have not “arrested” it, but the claim is not correct, as the teachings basically are far too different. Simply contradicted by the Bible. 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.

010 61/5d: "- - - wrong - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

011 61/5e: "- - - Allah guides not - - -". Allah cannot guide anyone unless he exists and is something supernatural.

012 61/5g: "- - - transgressor - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses this and related words, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code, and when it is used in religious connections, it means everybody not accepting Islam - or at least the ones opposing it.

013 61/6a: "- - - Jesus, the son of Mary - - -". Wrong name. See 5/110a above.

###014 61/6d: “- - - (Jesus said*) I am the Messenger of Allah - - -”. Contradicted by the Bible and by reality. If Jesus had said something like this about the known polytheistic god al-Lah from a not too distant foreign country, for one thing he had not got many followers, and for another: The clergy had at once had had an excuse for having him killed – and long before they really did (and this even more so if it is correct that Hubal was another name for al-Lah/Allah - see 1/1d above). This verse is composed by someone not knowing the religious and political realities in Israel around 30 AD. Similar claims in 4/157 - 5/72 – 5/117. 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.

####But remember that we now are in times of written history. There were no book like the Quran, no god like Allah, and no religion like Islam anywhere in or near the Roman Empire (of which Israel was a part) at the time of Jesus - not until more than 600 years later. But we know for sure that at that time Yahweh and the Mosaic religion ruled the Jews at that time. The Quran is very wrong here - documented by written history.


#####015 61/6f: “- - - (Jesus said: I am*) giving the Glad Tiding of a Messenger to come after Me, whose name shall be Ahamad (another form of the name Muhammad*) - - -”. This is quite a funny verse, as you meet Muslims who insist it is copied from the Bible. Worse: You find it quoted in books like it was from the Bible, without a word about the fact that it only is to be found in the Quran. But there is not anything remotely like this in the Bible, and neither in the some 12ooo - 13ooo relevant scriptures or fragments found through the times older than 610 AD – included some 300 from the Gospels, and also not in the some 32ooo other relevant known manuscripts older than 610 AD (when Muhammad started his preaching) with quotes from the Bible. #####It is only found in the Quran. #####Also you do not find a single case in OT where a prophesy about distant future mentions a clear name (sometimes title or something, but never a clear name). But here - o wonder! - is most conveniently the unmistakable name given - an Arab version of the name Muhammad even!

And it is worth remembering that it is quite common for makers of new sects or religions to connect themselves to a mother religion and bend that one some to fit one's purpose - or even high-jack (parts of) it. The founder of the Amaddijja-Muslims is really one of the latest examples, and Mormons tell Jesus visited America during his last days on earth. Such things give roots, credence and weight to a movement.

Jesus told his disciples that the Holy Spirit (also named the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of the Lord, or only the Spirit, etc. – like Allah and like Muhammad it has more than one name) should come shortly - which it did. And he told he himself should return once upon a time “to judge the living and the dead“. But not a single word about any other - and not to mention one with a foreign name the Jews would question.

We know of one place where Muhammad is mentioned: In the Barnabas Gospel - a most apocryphal (made up) book - according to one of our sources it may even be written at the caliph’s court in Baghdad (not very strange if it then mentions Muhammad), but it also may be one of the many falsifications made by Muslims in Spain from around 800 AD on. You need to make up proofs only if you have no real ones. Muslims sometimes tell you this “gospel” is a real one.

But the standard explanation Muslims follow - without proofs: The Bible is falsified and names indicating Muhammad taken out by bad conspiracies - people in that area has a strong tendency to look for and believe in conspiracy theories (We have a private theory that the reason is that they never in their history have been used to relatively reliable information). But in that case:

The life of the first Christians had been entirely different - and their time scale had been entirely different if any of them had heard about another prophet to be expected before the return of Jesus “to judge the living and the dead”. (They would know the return of Jesus would take much longer time than they now believed, to give the “prophet” time to work. They thought Jesus would be back in a short time - some years.)

The contents of the NT had been different - not least the letters had been different. It simply is a fairy tale made up to strengthen Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet - like some other self-proclaimed prophets. (Rather ironic, as he did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies – he did not even claim or pretend he had it – he was no real prophet. A messenger for someone or something perhaps, but not a real prophet).

The Muslims only back their claim on one Greek word used in the Bible: “parakletos” which means “helper” – Jesus before he left Earth, promised to send his disciples a helper – the Holy Spirit (which arrived some days later – at Whitsun - according to the Bible (a story that is not negated in the Quran)).

Islam claims “parakletos” is a misspelling for another Greek word “periklytos”, which means “the highly praised”. In Aramaic “the highly praised” means “Mawhamana” of which the second part of that word as a verb is “hamida” (= to praise) and as a noun “hamd” (law or praise). If you then continue to Arab the names Muhammad and Ahmad (another version of the name Muhammad) both derives from “hamida” or “hamd” according to Islam. Which to Islam and all Muslims is a strong proof for that “parakletos” in reality is misspelled and means “Muhammad” in the Gospel after John (f. x. John 14/16). Not a very convincing proof to say the least of it – and in addition:

The word “periklytos” that Islam claims is misspelled – the only possibility they have to get the answer they want and desperately need (they need it desperately, because the Quran clearly tells that Muhammad is foretold also in the NT - - - and he is not there) – does not exist at all in the Bible, not to mention in the NT. It is not used one single time.

The word “periklytos” also is not found one single time in all the some 12-13ooo relevant manuscripts and fragments science knows from before 610 AD. Neither in one single place or time, nor in one single of the many manuscripts.

Worse: Neither is it found in any of the some 300 copies or fragments of Gospels older than 610 AD or in other manuscripts referring to the Gospels.

Neither is it found in quotes from the Bible found in some 32ooo other old manuscripts.

The word “periklytos” simply never was used in the old scriptures which became the Bible. The word that is used everywhere is “parakletos” – “helper” (and a helper was what the disciples needed). This goes for each and every known copy.

Beside: How could it be possible to falsify – like Islam claims – the same word the same way in thousands and tens or hundreds of thousands of manuscripts – and how to find each and every “periklytos” in each and every of the many different manuscripts – spread over all those countries? – and on top of all: In a time with little travel and hardly any media. Islam has a tough job proving their claim – and remember: It is the ones making claims who have to prove them, not others to disprove it. This often is forgotten when Muslims throw loose claims and statements around.

There also are huge numbers (some 32ooo) of non-religious manuscripts or fragments which refer to the Bible. Whenever this word pops up in those manuscripts it without exception is written "parakletos". Islam must explain how it was possible to find and to falsify all these papers, and not least how it was possible to erase the ink and write another word in such a way that it is impossible for modern science to find traces of falsifications.

Arabs think it is logical that parakletos and periklytos may be mixed – in the old Arab alphabet and scriptures this just meant that someone had guessed the not written vowels wrong. But not so for Greek, as Greek already and a long time before, had a complete alphabet where all letters were written. This kind of misspelling therefore is not logical in Greek. (NT was originally written in Greek.)

They also sometimes claim the Gospels were written in Aramaic, and that the misspelling happened before it was translated to Greek. This in spite of that even Muslim scholars know the Gospels originally was written in Greek, and that this "explanation" is a made up one. 

Muslims try to explain that it could not be a question of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit already was present. And the Holy Spirit was present or visited Jesus. But it was not part of the disciples – and that was what happened at Whitsun, according to the Bible: They each got personal contact with the Spirit, and that is quite a change of a situation.

Muslims also say that as two different names for the Spirit is used (the Spirit of Truth and the Holy Spirit (you actually also have the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God (1. Mos. 1/2), the Spirit of the Lord, and only the Spirit)) it proves that John does not mean the Holy Spirit, when he uses the name “the Spirit of truth” – “the Spirit of truth” must mean the Muhammad who lies to his followers in the Quran (“miracles will make no-one believe”, f.x.) and advised his people to even break their oaths if that gave a better result. In addition to all the other wrong logic here, this claim is just as logical as to claim that the 99 names of Allah means there are 99 different gods, or the 5-6 (actually he had many more) or more names of Muhammad means there were 5-6 or more of him. The spirit simply is named by different names (at least 6) – and in addition it is absolutely clear that in the whole Bible there only is one spirit with a special connection to Yahweh.

There only is one conclusion – the conclusion science has made long ago – possible to make in this: This Islamic claim – like many others: It either is a lie (an al-Taqiyya?) or wishful thinking. And still “the raisin in the sausage” is not mentioned:

Jesus promised his disciples a helper – a parakletos. If he had meant Muhammad, how could Muhammad be their helper when they were all dead 500 years before he was even born?? It simply is nonsense or wishful thinking.

Further the spirit according to the same verses in the Bible that Muslims quote, could not be seen. Muhammad was not difficult to see.

And another “raisin”: Also in the same verses it is said that the Spirit should be with them forever. Muhammad definitely was not with them forever – he was not even with them.

Not to mention: How do you make Jews and Christians agree on what and how to falsify the Bible? - f.x. the foretelling about Messiah/Jesus? - and when did they do it? Muslims like to blame Nicaea, but for one thing the agenda for that meeting is well known, and "adjustments" of the Bible was not even mentioned (but some Muslims in 2009 or 2010 screamed that they could prove that 56 points (if we remember the number correctly) in the Bible had been changed at that meeting - the word "proofs" sometimes come easy to some Muslims), and as bad: There was not one single representative for the Mosaic (Jewish) religion present.

In the thousands of manuscripts older than 610 AD - the first point of time when Christians - and also the Jews - could get a reason for such a falsification - how was it possible to erase the word parakletos with the primitive means of that time, and fill in the word periklytos instead, in such a way that modern science are unable to find physical traces from the erasing, unable to find chemical differences in the ink that was used, and unable to see any difference of the letters (all people written differently)?

The Bible has 4-5 times as much text as the Quran. One has to use the same writing material, and only that, because - what they did not know - today we easily can find the age of the writing material. In the two books there only is one sentence - six words in Psalm 37/29 - which is identical = everything had to be erased and written again. How to write 4-5 times as much texts on the same parchment, papyrus or whatever?

Where smaller quotes in other relevant scriptures had to be falsified: How to place on average 4-5 times as much texts on a patch of erased "paper" and still use the same size so as not to show that "here is something wrong"?

When falsifying, how to make the handwriting identical to the old one?

When falsifying, how to get exactly the same ink? - differences are easy to see today. 

How to find each and every scripture and letter on 3 continents to falsify?

How to make each and every owner accept to have their cherished holy papers and books falsified?

How afterwards make them believe in scriptures they knew were falsified?

How to find enough scribes to do such an enormous job? - it f.x. takes months just to handwrite one Bible. 

Who paid for this enormous operation? - the church of those times was not very rich.

How to perform such an enormous operation without starting tongues wagging and cause owners to hide their holy scriptures to save them from such destruction?

Hoe to perform such an enormous operation without one single historian got a whiff about it and noticed something?

Search and you will find more such hopeless questions.

There only is one conclusion – the conclusion science has made long ago – possible to make is this: This Islamic claim – like many others – either is a lie (an al-Taqiyya?) or wishful thinking. Well, one more: This whole scenario is a hopelessly naive "explanation". Muhammad also never tried to explain thing, he only stated the claim - many times. And people believed it!!


Wishful thinking? – or a bluff? – or a lie/al-Taqiyya? At least science long ago as mentioned has proved from the old manuscripts that it is not true – the Bible never was falsified on. Worse: Islam has proved the same because they, too, have been unable to find such a proved falsification in spite of intensive searching. (But Islam HAS to find him somewhere there, if not the Quran is wrong on this for Islam very essential point - and then something is seriously wrong with Islam). Also see 7/157.

(We should mention that also the apocryphal (made up) “Gospel of Barnabas” sometimes still is used as an argument, because there Muhammad is clearly mentioned (no surprise if the theory that it is made at the court in Baghdad is correct. The same if it is one of the many Islamic forgeries from Spain from around 800 AD and somewhat later). The sorry fact, though, is that a made up gospel is a made up gospel (there are a number of them) – and it tells something about Islam’s lack of arguments that they continue to insist that may be it is not made up, and therefore is a proof for Muhammad, when science is unanimous: It is one of the false ones. The only thing the “Gospel of Barnabas” in reality proves, is that Islam has no real documentation for their claim that Muhammad is mentioned in the NT, as they have to resort to this kind of argumentation).

And the most solid proof for that the Bible is not falsified, comes from Islam itself. If they had found one single solid proof for falsification of the Bible among all the many thousands of old manuscripts that exist, THEY HAD SCREAMED TO HOLY HEAVEN ABOUT IT – and no-one has till now heard such a scream – not even after 1400 years!!!.


016 61/6g: (A61/7 – partly omitted and the text changed in 2008 edition): “But when he came to them with Clear Signs - - -.” Who is this “he”? In verse 61/6e-f the book tells about Jesus, and the natural interpretation is “he” = Jesus, but it is not clearly said. An alternative according to Islam, is “he” = Muhammad (as they claim he had clear signs). Both options are possible (but typical for the less honest 2008 edition of “The Message of the Quran”, they only mention the Muhammad alternative – “good” arguments are more essential than moral integrity and honesty also in religion - at least in some religions).

017 61/6h: "- - - Clear Signs - - -". Invalid as proofs for Allah. See 2/39b above.

###018 61/6i: (YA5436): "The mission of Jesus was to his own people, the Jews". This is a claim you often and with strength meet from many Muslims and from the official Islam - and it is quite possible to find quotes from the Bible seemingly confirming this claim - - - if you cherry-pick your quotes and omit the points which very clearly tell a different story, the most central of which in this connection we think is his final order to his disciples - never mentioned by Muslims or by Islam: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father (God/Yahweh*) and of the Son (Jesus*) and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you". (Matt.28/18-20 - similar in Mark 16/15-16 and Luke 24/47. There are more such indications in the Bible - even a few in OT. But in Islam the main "moral aspect" is not to find the truth, but to defend what they on beforehand believe is the truth, even by means of lies and by lies of omission - the reign of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), etc. in cases where "it is necessary" to win the "points" - not to find out what is the truth, but to win the "points".

#####This in spite of the price all Muslims may have to pay if the Quran is a made up book, and if there all the same is a next life.

Some Muslims use the argument that Jesus only worked in Israel ("forgetting" about Samaria). But in the same way Muhammad only worked in Arabia.

019 61/7a: "Who doth greater wrong than one who invents falsehood against Allah?" What about someone who invents a book and claims it is from Allah? - is that bad also if Allah does not exist? - what if the invented book in case denies people access to a real god (if such one exists) - is that as bad or worse?

Or what about doing wrong to Yahweh if he exists and is the real god?

020 61/7b: "- - - falsehood - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. And when used in religious connection it means anything not in accordance with the Quran, even though much is wrong in the Quran.

021 61/7c: "And Allah guides not those who do wrong". Allah cannot guide anyone very well as long as he uses a guidebook full of mistakes and with a partly immoral moral code.

022 61/7d: "- - - guides - - -". True guidance by means of a guidebook full of mistakes is not possible.

023 61/7e: "- - - do wrong - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. It f.x. was - AND IS - very wrong not to steal/rob, enslave, suppress, discriminate and kill for Allah or Muhammad according to that "moral" code.

024 61/8c: "- - - Allah's Light (the Quran*) - - -". No book with so many mistakes, etc. is a light to anyone, and even more so as no book of this quality is from a god - it is heresy and an insult to the god to claim this.

025 61/8d: "- - - but Allah will complete (the revelation of His Light (the Quran*)) - - -". As this was told ca. 625 AD, the Quran was not complete yet. But was a book with that many errors, etc. really from a god? Impossible.

##026 61/9a: “It is He (Allah*) Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -”. With all those mistakes in the claimed message, it is obvious that also this claim needs proofs – especially since an illness like temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) easily can explain his fits, his sights (?) and his other experiences (?) – TLE often gives religious illusions like this (source among others BBC). Add some personal “inspiration” or cunning to solve personal and domestic problems, and add the contemporary wrong knowledge and science, and you have the Quran exactly – with all its mistakes and other weaknesses. No omniscient god sent a messenger bringing such messages.

##027 61/9b: “It is He (Allah*) Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad*) with Guidance - - -”. A teaching based on a book containing unbelievable perhaps 3ooo+ mistakes, loose statements, contradictions, invalid “signs” and “proofs” + at least some clear lies and statements telling that Muhammad did not respect even his oaths too much, is not much of a guidance.

#####028 61/9f: “- - - the Religion of Truth - - -”. See 13/1g and 40/75. It is also worth to remember that normal people of today - and earlier times – would be reluctant with trusting or believing in a man with a CV like Islam tells Muhammad had: Robbery, extortion, women, lies, broken oaths, incitement to hate, incitement to suppression of all opponents, assassination of opponents, murder of opponents, mass murder, rape, betrayal, (30 opponents from Khaybar invited to debate under promise of safe return - but 29 murdered on the slightest excuse, the last one managed to flee), incitement to war - and lust for women and for power. We have met Muslims excusing him with that he was a hard man living in a hard time, and that he was no worse than other warlords. May be so, but he definitely was no better either, and he pretended (?) to represent a good and benevolent god. And as for the truth - the Quran at best is partly true, as proved by all the errors, etc. in the book.

That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact - actually all the errors, etc. in it prove the claim wrong. Besides: Islam is the only one of the big religions accepting the use of dishonesty in many cases - yes, even advices you to use it "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion.

For errors, etc. - included at least some lies - see "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran", Book A. How much in the Quran is truth and how much is not?

And not least: Islam is the only one of the big religions which by means of all the mistakes, contradictions, etc. proves that no god is behind its claimed holy book, and thus no god behind the religion - and thus that things are seriously wrong with the religion: A religion without a god behind it, is a made up and pagan religion.

(For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

029 61/9g: "- - - Truth - - -". See 2/2b, 13/1g and 40/75 above.


NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!


#####030 61/9h: “- - - the Religion of Truth, that may proclaim over all religion - - -”. This part of the quotation also tells volumes about Islam. Personally if we meet a man - or a god - telling he is benevolent, but who in reality has harsh demands and deeds and codes of conduct, included official goals to suppress and reduce everybody not agreeing with him, to semi slaves, we any day and any hour believe his demands and deeds and codes - and officially declared intentions - more than his soothing words. Similar claim in 9/29.

No compulsion in religion? (2/256). Well, at least such a claim , true or not, is a good slogan.

Another curiosum: The Quran hardly ever and Islam seldom if ever claim that "Islam is the Religion of Honesty".


NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!


######031 61/10b: "Shall I (Muhammad*) lead you to a bargain - - -". = Fight and be killed for Muhammad (and Allah if he exists) and go to Paradise. A bargain for the believers if the Quran is true and from a god - and cheap warriors for Muhammad (and his successors), especially if the bargain is not from a god (and at least the Quran and Muhammad are not - for the Quran the proof is among other things all the mistaken facts and other errors, and for Muhammad that he preached a book and a teaching consequently not from a god).

032 61/10c: "- - - (Allah can*) save you (people/Muslims*) from a grievous Penalty - - -". Only if he exists and is a god.

033 61/11b: “That ye (people*) believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) ("strive" in the Quran normally means take part in raids or war*)in the cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: that will be best for you, if ye but knew!” War agitation. The real “Religion of Peace.”

034 61/11d: "- - - Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". Muhammad's standard mantra for gluing himself to his platform of power; his god.

####Note how close Muhammad attaches himself to the power of his claimed god - in plain words: "Obey me - Muhammad". You find this many, many places in the Quran. Power was the main thing Muhammad sought - and riches to gain more power. The Quran clearly indicates that power - and respect - meant even more for him than women. And he was eager for (young) women - willing ones and not willing ones - and at least one child.

But there never was a valid proof for that Muhammad represented a god. Only his claims - and the Quran proves strongly that Muhammad did not recon honesty to be a number one moral rule.

035 61/11g: "- - - in the Cause of Allah - - -". When so much is wrong in the Quran, and when the book pretends to be, but is not with all its mistakes, from any god, is this right? Or was it in the cause of Muhammad? - or perhaps in the cause of some dark forces, like the moral code of the book may indicate?

036 61/12a: “(If you go to war and/or are killed for Muhammad*) He (Allah*) will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of eternity - - -.” There once was a cheap book named “All this and Heaven too”. It is similar here: all the rape and stealing and slaves you can manage – and for those good, benevolent deeds for your as benevolent god: The Paradise with more luxury and more women. Nice and attractive for naïve, poor and virile – not to say virulent – uncivilized young and not young men.

As for forgiving from Allah: See 2/187d above.

037 61/12b: "- - - forgive - - -". Allah can forgive nobody, unless he exists and is a god.

Another point is that to forgive - or for that case to punish or reward or fulfill prayers - means for Allah to change his Plan considering the sinner/person, something which according to the Quran is something nobody and nothing can make him do. See 2/187d above.

038 61/12c: "- - - sin - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. We also may mention that just this word often covers very different deeds, acts, words, and thoughts in the Quran and Islam, than in more normal religions (Islam is a religion of war - in spite of its loud slogans), not to mention how much its meaning in the Quran often differs from the basic of all human moral; "do against others like you want others do against you". Read the surahs from Medina and weep.

One small remark: As Yahweh's religion and f.x. moral code at many points are totally different from Allah's, you may qualify for Yahweh's Paradise even if Muslims condemn you to Hell - if both exist. One more of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

039 61/12d: “(If you go to war and/or are killed for Muhammad*) He (Allah*) will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of eternity - - -.” Try to find something even remotely similar to this in the NT!! The same god? Make a bet.

040 61/12f: "- - - beautiful mansions - - -". Muhammad's Paradise was and is a luxury copy of an emperors life on Earth - but helplessly boring for f.x. intellectual persons, if the descriptions in the Quran are correct.

Allah's paradise is totally different from the Bible's and Yahweh's one. A total proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - if they had been, their paradises had been one and the same.

041 61/13a: "And another (favor will He (Allah*) bestow) - - -". The old, black fact once more: One of the many never proved promises in the Quran which cannot be honored unless Allah exists and is a god.

042 61/13b: “(And in war you will get*) help from Allah and a speedy victory.” See 61/12a above – and in addition you will not have to fight much, for the victory will be easy. Yes, "the religion of Peace#.

043 61/13e: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -“. Permission to steal/rob, suppress, rape, enslave, keep harems, murder, etc. which are central parts of the Quran – is that “Glad Tidings”? Direct orders to go to war and kill and suppress and enslave and loot and destruct – or be killed or mutilated yourself - is that “Glad Tidings”? Direct orders to concentrate only on religious knowledge (indirectly also) – is that “Glad Tidings”? Total destruction of all advanced countries and cultures they met in Africa, Europe and Asia at least as far east as what was then India – destruction it took the locals at least 200 years to overcome (if ever) – is that “Glad Tidings”? The inhumanity in the war religion – is that “Glad Tidings”? The reduction of women to third class citizens – if really citizens – (Islam’s claim that women were/are better off under Islam than before only is true for some parts of what is now the Muslim area, mainly in towns in parts of Arabia – and even there it had not necessarily been true today if it was not for the suppressing factor of Islam) – is that “Glad Tidings”? The enslavement and suppression and mass murders/slaughtering of non-Muslims – was and is (see Muslims at waging war and terror even today) that “Glad Tidings”? What a war religion did and does to the societies and the personal soul – is that “Glad Tidings”? The suppression of thinking – all non-religious philosophy, and all religious non-conform (to Islam) thinking – is that “Glad Tidings”? Well, yes, for some Muslims – the ones of the warriors who survived in good health and became rich from looting, and the ones of the leaders who became rich in wealth and women from looting/slave taking and taxation plus became powerful, then and today.

For everyone else it was everything from “Bad Tidings” to terror – and still is (just look at the backward societies it resulted in once the riches from looting came to an end – and even worse when the hard taxation or pogroms of non-Muslim underlings, reduced the number and/or economy of those underlings. Look f.x. at the development in India, China, Brazil of today – especially India and China were far behind the Islamic countries 60 years ago, but what has been happening during these years? Take away the oil, the money from outside the area and the ideas from outside, more or less forced on the clergy and the leaders from media and others – what has really happened in the Islamic area since f.x. 1950 compared to many other places?

Yes: For everyone else included most Muslims it was and still is everything from “Bad Tidings” to terror.

Especially so if Islam is a made up religion. And even more so if there somewhere is a true religion that Islam blocks its members from even looking for.

The very best one can say about the Quran and “Glad Tidings”, is that for some parts of it partly were glad tidings because they grew rich and/or powerful, and that for some others parts of it brings peace to the soul – like strong believers gain from ANY of the main religions.

For all others – included the majority of Muslims – it as said was “Bad Tidings”. And as said especially so if Islam is a made up religion. Which it seems to be from the proofs of the Quran and the words and life of Muhammad.

This claim about "glad tidings" is contradicted by stark and black reality and history.

044 61/14b: "- - - Jesus the son of Mary - - -". Wrong name. See 5/110a above.

045 61/14c: “- - - said Jesus - - - to the Disciples,’ Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?’” If Jesus had said this about a known pagan god in a neighboring country (al-Lah in Arabia), he for one thing had got few followers, and for another had been killed by the Jewish clergy much earlier. Contradicted by reality - especially if it is correct that Hubal was another name of al-Lah/Allah (see 1/1d above). Also see 61/6a-f + 3/51 in the full list in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". Similar claim in 3/52.

But of course the disciples – also here according to the Quran - were good Muslims. 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. ###Also remember that we now are in times of written history, and we know for sure there was no book like the Quran, no god like Allah and no religion like Islam anywhere in that area - and we know for as sure that the religion of the Jews at that time was a strong Mosaic (Jewish) one. The Quran is totally wrong here.

046 61/14d: “Said the Disciples, ’We are Allah’s helpers”. See 61/14a, 61/6 (all comments) above.

047 61/14g: "- - - We (Allah) gave power to those who believed - - - and they became the ones who prevailed". Wrong as far as the "Sons of Israel" goes. Just a minor percent of them believed in Jesus - the great majority stayed - and stay - on in the Mosaic religion. The Christian religion expanded in the pagan areas, but not much in Israel/Judah. (But beware of that depending on what time-span you choose, it is easy to claim that the Jews lost Israel - or regained it).

8204 + 47 = 8251 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".