1000+ Claims in the Quran - Invalid Unless Proven, Surah 96
18 May 2014
SURAH 96: AL-'ALAQ (The Clinging Clot)
(Mecca, 610 AD. Verses 6-19 later)
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 96/1a: "- - - thy (Muhammad's? Muslims'?*) Lord (Allah*) and Cherisher - - -". He cannot be a lord/god unless he exists, and he cannot be a cherisher unless he in addition is something powerful - good or bad.
003 96/1b: "(Allah*) Who Created - - -". Often claimed in the Quran - never proved. If you read the Quran you only find words and claims and statements - nothing else.
##004 96/2a: “(Allah*) Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood - - -”. Neither man (see 6/2) nor a man (see 75/37) was made out of blood - congealed or not – even though some of the old Greeks believed so, and from whom Muhammad may have stolen this idea. But the start of a human or an animal - the sperm cell and the egg cell and then the zygote - is so small that it is not to be seen with your eyes only, in the blood and gore in a carcass or in a slaughtered animal. Muhammad believed that the semen was a seed which planted in a woman grew into a clot of blood that grew into a fetus. It may be worth mentioning that the statement in this verse, is like Aristotle’s theory. But any god had known better. Who composed the Quran? And why do Muslims never mention that so many of the “facts” in the Quran are in accordance with Greek and Persian (wrong) science at that time? And also:
This is contradicted by 6/2, 7/12, 17/61, 32/7, 38/71, and 38/76 that tell man/Adam was made from clay, 15/26, 15/26, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from sounding clay, 55/14 that tells man/Adam was made from ringing clay, 37/11 that tells man/Adam was made from sticky clay, 23/12, that tells man/Adam was made from essence of clay, 15/26, 15/28, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from mud, 3/59, 22/5, 35/11, 40/67, that tell man/Adam was made from dust, 20/55 that tells man/Adam was made from earth, 16/4, 75/37, 76/2, 80/19, that tell man/Adam was made from semen (without explaining from where the semen came), 21/30, 24/45, and 25/54 that tell man/Adam was made from water (NB! NB! Not in water, but from water!), 70/39 that tells man/Adam was made from “base material”, and not to mention the greatest contradiction in this case: 19/9 and 19/67 which both tell that man/Adam was created from nothing.
(Also see verse 6/2 in the chapter about the 1000+ mistakes in the Quran.) (Strictly reckoned this contradicts 30 other verses. And in this case also minimum 30 contradictions.)
#005 96/2b: “(Allah*) Created man out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood - - -”. The Quran believes that semen is a kind of seed that can start growing when “planted” in a woman. It becomes a clot of blood, then a small something, then a fetus and then little by little a baby. For a man without a microscope like Muhammad, it may be the best of explanations. But nature knew better - and an omniscient god had known better. Is this a proof for that babies are made by nature and not by someone "omniscient" who obviously does not know what he is talking about?
Besides who does this point to as the composer of the Quran?
006 96/4: "He (Allah*) who taught (the use of) the Pen - - -". The good deeds of Allah is often claimed, but never proved. Unproved claims are cheap. Like here. Wrong unless Islam proves the opposite.
007 96/5: "(Allah*) taught man that which he knew not (= gave him knowledge*)". Not if the "knowledge" he gave was like in the Quran - too much of it is lack of knowledge or wrong knowledge.
008 96/8b: "- - - to thy (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) is the Return (of all) (at the Day of Doom". Wrong unless Allah exists and in addition is a major god - none of which is ever proved.
##009 96/11: “- - - if he (a man*) is on (the road of) Guidance?” Is there guidance in a book with more than 1700+ points with mistaken facts, at least 200+ likely mistaken facts, more than 100 linguistic mistakes in the Arab edition according to linguists, lots of loose statements and lots of invalid “signs” and “proofs” - the hallmark of cheaters and deceivers? Not to mention 400+ contradictions, 100+ abrogations and 300+ cases of unclear language in the Quran – the claimed lack of which is Islam’s only strongly claimed (but never proved) proof for divine origin of the book!! - No; no real guidance. No evidence and no good guidance. Similar claims in 28/49 – 34/6 – 45/20 – 32/5 and a number of other places.
010 96/12: "- - - Righteousness - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.
011 96/13: “- - - if he (a man*) denies (Truth (the Quran*)) - - -”. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. See 13/1g and 40/75. Really it is proved that much is wrong in that book.
012 96/14: "- - - Allah doth see - - -". But if it is true that Allah sees - and knows - everything, why then does he have to test people?! Or is it in reality Muhammad who needs an explanation for why he wants them to go on raids and to war for him?
013 96/15: "- - - We (Allah*) will drag him (non-Muslim*) by the forelock - - -". Once again: Not unless Allah exists, and not unless he has power - good or bad. Muhammad was never able to prove anything of any essence about his new religion. ("Leading by the forelock" is an Arab saying meaning that the one leading has full control over the other one - one more Arabism in the book).
014 96/16: "A lying, sinful forelock!" If one takes into account al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), acceptance of the use of deceit, "break even your oaths if that pays", the immoral parts of the Islamic moral code, the immoral and/or unjust parts of sharia, the permission to break even oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2), and the immoral and/or rotten parts of Islam's rules for raids, terror and war - may be this sentence means the Muslims?
015 96/19b: "- - - bow down in adoration (to Allah*) - - -" The only case where there is a reason for that, is if he exists and is a god.
016 96/19c: "- - - bring thyself (Muslim/Muhammad*) the closer (to Allah*)". Not possible unless Allah exists and is something supernatural - white or black. You cannot bring yourself closer to something which does not exist.
9273 + 16 = 9289
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".