(The “complete” list is in Part II, Chapter 1, Subchapter 4, Sections 1 through 8.)
Comments in this book numbered by 3 numbers (included 00 or 0) a few places followed by one small letter = clear cases. Comments numbered by 00 or 0 followed by 1, 2 or 3 letters (big or small) = likely cases.
Contents of this Section:
It is very clear from the following verses and notes that Islam claims the Quran is sent down from a god – revealed by the god to Muhammad - and to his followers via Muhammad. Muslims also claim the book is clear and that everything is easy to understand - - - except when there are points that clearly are wrong. Then the texts suddenly are allegories and/or must be understood from a special context – or “cannot be understood correctly unless you have the full overview over the whole book”.
001 2/24: “But if ye cannot – and of surety ye (non-Muslims*) cannot (produce a surah of the same quality like in the Quran*) - - -“. The surahs are no good literature – more or less copies of Arab folklore, legends, fairy tales, and stuff Muhammad had been told from the Bible or (mainly) from apocryphal (made up) "biblical" stories. In addition the composition and presentation of the texts belong in primary school. Many a good writer could collect such stories and do a much better job (on these points f. ex. the Bible is far better written). The Arab language itself is said to be excellent – but when you know that the language was polished for some 250 years by top intelligent and top learned men, until it got its somewhat final form around 900 AD (the Arab alphabet was not completed until then), that point tells nothing about the original Qurans from around 650 – caliph Uthman’s and others’. The claim is wrong.
002 2/97: “- - - he (Gabriel*) brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah’s will - - -“. No omniscient god sends down a book with that many mistakes and that much invalid logic. Besides: See 16/102 just above.
00a 5/59: “- - - the revelation (the Quran*) that hath come to us (Muhammad) - - -“. Well, one of the central questions about Islam is if there really were revelations (with that many mistaken facts, etc.) – and if there were: From whom. There are these alternatives:
A combination of some points also is possible. Also see 22/54,
A small extra point: In the book “The Message of the Quran”, certified by Al-Azhar Al-Sharif Islamic Research Academy in Cairo (one of the 2-3 top universities in the Muslim world on such subjects) in a letter dated 27. Dec. 1998, it is admitted rather reluctantly that there are no proofs for Allah, and that it is not possible to prove him. An additonal point here is that if there are no ptoof for Allah and impossible to ptove him, automatically there also is no proof for, and impossible to prove Muhammad's claimed connection to Allah.
003 6/104: “Now have (the Quran*) come to you (Muslims*), from your Lord (Allah*), proofs - - -”. Wrong. In all the Quran there is not on single valid proof for Allah or for Islam - or for Muhammad being a real messenger (he definitely was no prophet, as he had not – and did not even claim or pretend to have – the ability to make prophesies). Not one single proof that proves any god at all. There MAY BE are a few exceptions in the tales taken from the Bible, but they in case talk about Yahweh, and Islam in case will have to prove that Allah and Yahweh really is the same god - a statement only based on unproven claims in the Quran and in Hadith, and a statement that have never in any way been documented. All the other statements are only based on thin air and cheap words - words that any priest in any religion can use about his or her god(s). They are worth nothing as proofs.
The Quran some places talks about “proofs” and many places where it talks about “signs”. They all have that in common that they without exception are without value as proofs for Allah of for Muhammad's connection ro a god. After all a proof is one or more PROVEN facts that can give ony one conclution - and the Quran and Islam NEVER proves the claims they build their "signs" and "proofs" for Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god on. NEVER. If f. ex. heaven and earth shall be proofs for Allah, Islam first has to prove that it really was Allah that made them - not only say so. If rain shall be a proof for Allah, Islam first has to prove that it really is Allah that makes and directs the rain, not just say so, because this any religion can say - valueless as a proof (Baal makes the rivers run downwards. Allah cannot make them run upwards. ERGO: Baal is the real god and Allah just an impostor. Etc., etc., etc. Valueless “proofs“.) If life on Earth is to be a proof for Allah, Islam first have to prove that it really was Allah that created it - not just use empty statements any priest in any religion can use free of charge. Etc., etc., etc.
The Quran is very good at demanding proofs from all other religions, but it never, NEVER, offers any valid proofs about Allah or the Quran or Muhammad’s connection to a god itself when it comes to disputed “truths” (it offers “proofs“ and “signs“, but they are not valid). And it is extra thought-provoking that the times it says that this and this is a proof, and the many, many times it says that this and this is a sign, the statements are without exception just statements taken out of thin air or in other ways not built on proved facts - nothing that a judge would accept as proofs in a neutral, good quality court. Nothing. Any god would know the statements were without value as real proofs, and not call them - or hint that they are - proofs. It is just cheap words and demagogy that any priest in any religion can use. Sorry, but that is the very plain truth - and in reality even worse: Who use loose statements, invalid arguments and invalid proofs? - cheats and impostors! It actually tells something about a god if he is trying to cheat simple and simpleminded, uneducated people - not to mention what it tells about him if he did not understand that one time humans would get enough knowledge to see through the cheating, and even more so if Allah did not understand what effect such “proofs” made up of mistakes and bluffing would have on educated, thinking persons when they discovered they were untrue.
For similar claims see 2/41 – 2/91 - 2/117 – 2/147 – 2/176 – 2/213 – 3/3 – 3/7 - 3/60 – 4/105 – 4/113 – 4/140 – 5/15 – 6/91 – 6/92 - 6/104 – 6/114 – 6/155 – 7/52 – 10/94 – 10/108 – 11/17 – 12/2 – 13/36 – 15/9 – 16/64 – 17/73 – 17/82 – 17/105 – 17/106 – 18/27 – 18/29 – 20/113 – 21/10 – 21/45 - 22/54 – 23/90 – 24/1 - 24/25 – 25/1 – 25/6 - 28/47 – 38/53 – 32/2 – 32/3 – 35/31 – 38/29 – 39/1 – 39/2 – 39/23 – 39/41 – 40/2 – 41/2 – 42/17 – 43/78 – 55/2 – 64/8 – 69/43 – 76/23.
Besides: Have you ever noticed that the one who needs to boast – loudly and frequently – about how truthful he is, is the cheater and deceiver, and the one boasting about his knowledge is the mediocre to rather ok, but not top intelligent and learned one? – the really honest and the really intelligent and knowledgeable persons never need to boast about those things. Real honesty and real intelligence makes itself felt after some time of close connection – if there is a need for boasting, something is wrong. And as it here are lots of claims about speaking the truth, we may quote the Nazi-German Minister for Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels: “If you tell a lie often enough, people starts believing it is true.” (There is a lot of similarity between the ideology behind Nazism and the one behind slam).
004 13/1: “- - - the Book: that which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord (Allah*) - - - “. That is the question, to quote Hamlet. Did a god really produce and reveal a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, and invalid “proofs“, etc.? No. And when no god revealed it, he also did not reveal it to Muhammad. An alternative is that the Devil impersonated Gabriel and in other cases told Muhammad “by inspiration” (to quote “The Meaning of the Quran” by Yusuf Ali), and that it thus was revealed by him. Another alternative is that it all stems from a sick brain – TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) + lust for power may easily explain everything. Yet another alternative is that it was not revealed, but made up – The fact that many of the mistakes that are in accordance with the wrong science of the time and area of Muhammad, and also the fact that Muhammad was not stupid enough to believe everything that is said in the Quran, may indicate that it is made up. (As for the last argument: F. ex. the claim that miracles would not make some people believe, Muhammad was too intelligent and knew too much about people to believe himself – and f. ex. Jesus was a good proof of the opposite: A lot did not believe in spite of everything, but quite a number came to believe because of what they saw and heard and witnessed. The same was the conclusion of the story that Muhammad himself told about the magicians and Moses: They came (according to Muhammad’s own words) to believe after a small miracle.) For similar also see 2/231 – 3/3 – 4/136 – 5/48 – 5/59 - 5/64 – 5/67 – 6/7 – 7/2 – 7/3 – 10/2 – 13/19 – 16/89 – 18/1 - 16/102 – 25/33 – 27/6 – 33/2 – 34/6 – 35/24 – 35/31 – 39/2 - 47/2.
005 13/38: “For each period is a book revealed”. Hardly. Homo Sapiens - modern man - is may be 200ooo years old (and there were humans or humanoids long before that). There is no trace of any book or of monotheism from all those years up to the next major step, that happened may be 60ooo+ (64ooo?) years ago. At that time something happened – nobody knows what – that started Homo Sapiens on his course towards Modern Man (it is likely it happened somewhere in the western part of Asia, perhaps in the southern Caspian area). Then no book up to the next major step: Agricultural Man 15ooo years ago, give or take a few thousand years – probably somewhere in the Middle East. No book and no trace of monotheism anywhere in the world. The next step: Towns. No books to regulate the life or religion for Homo Urbanus (man in town) – not until long time after towns and even cities had started to pop up, and still no trace of monotheism of any kind, not to mention Allah. The first traces of real monotheism – and later a book about a monotheistic god – came with the Jews (the name is used in a wide understanding chronologically). And even then it is highly unlikely that they had books before the period in Egypt (that Abraham had a book or books, is so unlikely that Islam will have to prove it if they will insist on that – it is extremely unlikely that a nomad of that time even knew how to read.) Also the Zoroastrians had a book, but that Muhammad did not know – at least not until late in his life. After that – and before the Quran – science knows about only one or two books (depending on whether you reckon the “Bible” of the Jews + NT to be one or two books) as basis for monotheism – add one if you include the Zoroastrians. (There also was a small, young monotheistic sect in Arabia at the time of Muhammad, but to our knowledge they had no holy book.)
During most those periods and aeons there is found no traces of such other such a book or of monotheism in any kind of science: Archaeology (with a ?-mark for Akn-Aton and his sun), literature, folklore, history, art, architecture. Islam will have to produce very strong proofs for the opposite – till now they just have produced cheap statements and even cheaper words - - - and not one real proof.
Worse: When there finally came a book after Muhammad’s heart, it only covered a tiny part of the world and a short periode of time – whereas the Quran states that every people in all times have had their prophets (and a book).
Worst: Islam tells that the reason why “the Book” had to be rejuvenated at intervals, was that the world and the societies changed (in addition to the never proved or documented claim that the Bible is falsified). But the world and the cultures and the societies have changed more the last 300 years – yes, even the last 100 years – than in all the 200ooo or more years before. Why do we not need a new book after all these changes? – if Allah is omniscient, he 13.7 billion or more years ago (when the universe was created) knew that at least parts of the Quran would be hopelessly inadequate (f. ex. some laws) and too dangerous (f. ex. atomic, chemical and bacteriological weapons combined with a most ruthless and inhuman war religion), not later than around 1950 AD. Ours is a period that really needs a book teaching love and peace among humans and nations – not hate and suppression and inhumanity and war (like f. ex. the Quran and the religion of Gjingis Chan and a few other war religions).
**00b 13/39: “- - - with Him (Allah*) is the Mother of the Book (the presumed original book of which the Quran is said to be a copy*)“. Mere humans like us think it is unlikely in the extreme that an omnipotent and omniscient god has a book awash with mistakes, contradictions, logiacally invalid claims, etc. as a revered Mother Book in his Heaven. There also are a lot of problems to explain, if it was made by the god a long time ago - not to mention if it is an unmade book that has existed forever, like many Muslims insists:
Also see 13/1.
00c 16/102: “- - - the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation - - -“. Muhammad Azad: “The Message of the Quran” tells that the Arab word “ruh al-qudus” (= the Holy Spirit) is used 3 times in the Quran (2/87, 5/110 – both connected to Jesus – and here), and that here it means the angel Gabriel. The Holy Spirit in Arab = Gabriel?! Besides: See 2/97.
006 25/33: “- - - We (Allah) reveal to thee (Muhammad or the Muslims) the truth and the best explanations (thereof).” The best explanations are never - never - built on a lot of mistaken facts. The Quran also many places states that belief in Islam is built on intelligence, intellectual capacity, and knowledge. Is it?
Sometimes it seems like it is built on sheer blind belief and suppression of the true facts. (“The Message of the Quran” even tells that it is primitive not to be able to see that the Quran is made of a god, without any proofs - and another place that it is a no good believer that search for real proofs. The sorry truth is that it is primitive and naïve to believe only because something is said or written. Words are cheap.)
A book with lots of mistakes, contradictions, twisted arguments, as twisted logic, and dictated by a man of very suspect morality, defending and enlarging his platform of power – his self-proclaimed religion – is no reliable guidance and of suspected truth. More proofs are needed to make this believable.
007 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 god or spirit did it – far too inhuman, full of hate and suppression 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 – it simply is possible, and even likely, that it was made by one or more men (all the wrong science and a lot more point 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, blood, hate, war. Just ask Muslims what they think about the Mongols attacking them in the east. The religion in Mongolia under and after Djingis Khan basically was quite similar to Islam. When Islam used their war machine and inhumanity in India and other places, they according to all Muslims were heroes. Then they met Mongols that did just the same to Muslims - - and the Mongols were terrible monsters. 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. ex. remember the name Timur Lenk (Tamerlane).
Islam as described in the surahs from Medina, definitely suits evil forces/spirits.
*00d 30/43: “- - - the right Religion (Islam*) - - -”. Is it possible that the right religion can be based on a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, etc. repeated or made by an Arab salesman, highwayman, murderer (he let opponents and others murder), torturer and rapist (he - at an age of nearly 60 - at least raped the newlywed, 17 year old Safijja after he had let her husband Kinana be tortured to death, and Raihana bint Amr after he had murdered the male part of her family and made the rest slaves.) Source for this information: Muhammad Ibn Ishaq: “Life of the Prophet Muhammad” - the in Islam most respected of the old (dead 768 AD) writers about Muhammad. (It was written for the second Abbasside caliph in Baghdad, Mansur, around 750 AD). Neither Arab salesmen, nor highwaymen, nor torturers, nor murderers, nor rapists have the best of reputations for being honest (even if Islam insists he was, but Islam hardly is the most reliable source on just that point). This Arab salesman, highwayman, torturer, murderer and rapist and inhuman warlord, was even unable to produce one single small proof for his story. But he (?) produced lots of loose statements and invalid “signs” and “proofs”.Similar claim in 12/40. And what about his institutionalizing al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) and his telling (in Hadiths) that even oaths can be broken - is that part of the right religion?
This kind of a man is the only source Islam is built on.
Can this be the Right Religion?
00e 36/5: “It (the Quran*) is a Revelation - - -“. Well, in case from whom? – not from an omniscient and/or good god. Perhaps from himself or some other humans? (cfr. how well the religion fitted as a platform of power for him and for helping him also in his private troubles - in what pretends to be the Mother Book, revered by Allah) – or from some dark forces? (cfr. the inhumanity, dishonesty, hate, blood, war, etc. – it fits f. ex. a devil very well – and it makes it nearly impossible for Muslims to search for a true religion if such one exists but Islam is wrong - - - also this is nice for a devil and his wish to populate a possible hell).
00f 37/164: Here according to most Islamic scholars angles that are talking. That at least means the Quran cannot have existed since eternity, like many Muslims like to believe: It must have been made, and made after at least some angels had been created – if not the angels could not have spoken in the book.(There also are some 8 places where Muhammad is speaking - an impossibility if the "Mother Book" in Heaven which the Quran is said to be a copy of is really old.)
**008 42/13: “The same religion (Islam*) has He (Allah*) established for - - - Abraham, Moses, and Jesus”. Neither the Quran, nor Hadith, nor Islam has brought the slightest valid proof for this - only words and claims. And at least when it comes to Jesus, it is wrong. The teachings of Jesus and the ones of Muhammad are too different fundamentally.
Of course Muslims say that the Bible is falsified and that scriptures have disappeared. But they have yet to prove the first and to prove that scriptures documenting all the points Islam says are wrong in other religions have disappeared and none reliable and impossible to misunderstand ones have reappeared among the 13ooo with relevance + the may be 32ooo with references to the Bible, that exists. “Strong claims need strong proofs.” This even more so as science by means of all the old scriptures which are found has proved that the Bible is not falsified – a fact that is extra clear for NT.
***009 43/4: “- - - it (the Quran*) is in the Mother of Books, in Our (Allah’s*) presence, high (in dignity) - - -”. This is one of the places in the Quran where Muhammad claims the Quran is taken from (a copy of) the Mother Book in Allah’s own home/Heaven. (Also see 13/39). But no book containing hundreds of mistakes, hundreds of contradictions, hundreds of loose claims and statements, lots of invalid logic, lots of invalid “signs” and lots of invalid “proofs” easy for anybody with good and wide education too see through, etc., is copied from a revered Mother Book, high in dignity and esteem, in the perfect Heaven, the home of a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient god.
010 46/9: “I (Muhammad) am no bringer of a newfangled doctrine - - -”. Muhammad pretended Islam was the continuation - or the uncorrupted - religion of the Jews and the Christians. That is not true - especially in the NT it is clear that the teachings fundamentally are so different, that it can not be the same god - at least if he is not mentally ill. See 29/46 and 12/111.
011 56/80: “A Revelation (the Quran*) from the Lord of the Worlds (Allah*) - - -”. Can it really be so? See 41/12 - and 40/75. Impossible – no omniscient god would make/deliver a book with so many mistakes – not to mention keep it in his own Heaven as a revered Mother Book (43/4). Can this really be a revelation from a god? Or the other way around: Can something producing so many mistakes, contradictions, so much invalid logic be lord of even one world? Also see 2/131 – 6/155 – 7/196 – 8/41 – 11/14 – 13/1 - 13/19 – 13/37 – 14/1 – 15/1 – 16/102 – 20/4 – 26/109 – 26/127 – 26/192 – 31/21 – 32/2 – 34/6 – 36/5 – 43/43 – 45/2 – 46/2 - 47/9.
***012 61/9: “- - - the Religion of Truth that may proclaim over all religion - - -”. 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 (“war is betrayal”), incitement to hate, incitement to suppression of all opponents, assassination of opponents, murder of opponents, mass murder, rape, betrayal, (f. ex. 30 opponents from Khaibar invited to peace 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 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 others. May be so, but he definitely was no better either, and he pretended (?) to represent a good god.The last part of the quotation also tells volumes about Islam. Similar claim in 9/29. And as for the truth - the Quran at best is partly true.
013 69/51: “But, verily; it is Truth of assured certainty“. Hardly - too many mistakes, etc. - - - but words are cheap. For similar claims also see 2/109 – 2/147 – 5/48 – 5/75 – 6/73 – 8/7 – 9/30 – 9/33 - 9/48 – 9/60 – 10/2 – 10/32 – 10/34 – 13/1 - 21/18 - 10/35 – 10/36 – 10/94 – 11/17 – 14/22 - 17/81 - 17/105 – 21/109 – 22/54 – 23/71 – 28/3 – 28/53 – 32/3 – 33/4 – 34/6 – 34/49 – 36/70 – 37/21 – 37/52 -40/62 - 40/75 – 41/41 – 41/53 – 42/18 – 42/24 – 43/29 – 43/87 – 46/16 - 46/30 – 46/34 – 47/2 – 47/3 – 50/19 – 56/57 – 56/92 – 57/16 – 67/21 - 73/11 – 85/19 – 92/16 – 103/3.
Besides: Have you ever noticed that the one who most needs to boast – loudly and frequently – about how truthful he is, is the cheater and the swindler, and the one boasting about his knowledge is the medium to rather ok, but not top intelligent and educated one? – the really honest and the really knowledgeable persons never need to boast about those things. Real honesty and real intelligence and knowledge make itself felt after some time of close connection – if there is a need for boasting, something is wrong.
Remember also the Hitler Nazi Minister for Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels: “If you tell a lie often enough, people starts believing it is true.” (There are many similarities between the ideology of the Nazi and the ideology of Islam).
014 4/82: “Had it (the Quran*) been from other than Allah, they would surely therein found much discrepancy.” What a proof!!! In addition to all the mistakes, contradictions, etc. there is so much discrepancy in the Quran, that Islam has a special rule how to solve such problems - the so called rule of abrogation: If there is discrepancy between two (or more) places in the Quran, the youngest one normally is the correct one - the omniscient Allah so often had to change his mind or got new information that forced him to change his words, that one needs a special rule how to behave in such cases (this is one of the reasons why it is essential for Islam to know the age of the surahs and verses, or at least which is older than which). And there is so much discrepancy between the Quran and modern knowledge that it is clear that either Islam has a lot of good explaining to do, or the Quran is not made by an omniscient god. (Islam has a lot of explanations, but much of it is invalid or highly dubious - use your brain and knowledge when you listen or read, and you will see this is true). The quoted sentence really is an indirect, but strong proof from the Quran itself that the Quran is not sent down from an omniscient god - and a reason why Muslims cannot afford to admit there is one single mistake in the book, no matter how unlikely explanations they have to use to “explain” the mistakes: If there are mistakes, there is something fundamentally wrong with the religion.
(It should be mentioned that some Muslims denies there is a rule of abrogation (an omniscient god should not need to adjust or further specify his own rules - it spoils the picture of perfection), but anyone can read and see for him/herself: Many points are adjusted, extended or given new limits - larger or smaller - in the Quran. We have never counted, but we have red numbers from ca. 100 (actually from 4 - 5 from strong believers) till more than 500 places depending on how strictly you judge – only 9/5, “the Verse of the Sword”, is said by Muslim scholars to abrogate 124 milder verses).
In addition one has all the mentioned mistakes – they are discrepancies compared to the reality. For similar claim see 39/23
6/151: “Come, I (Muhammad*) will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from - - - (f. e x.*) be good to your parents”. This very obviously is wrong and a bit of a contradiction compared to other places in the Quran – Muhammad very obviously meant exactly the opposite; that you were ordered to be god to your parents. An omniscient god would not make such a mistake. Who made the Quran? PS: This is one of the verses Muslim scholars (but not always imams or laymen) admits must be wrong - - - and omniscient gods do not make mistakes.
Also Muslim scholars as mentioned agree that here the text is wrong – it is absolutely contrary to what the Quran says about this all other places. Which give you an unbeatable proof against any Muslim boasting that the book being without any mistakes at all. A proof and a fact sanctioned by Islam! (And besides: If here is a mistake, how many more are there?) Just remember: 6/151 (6 in Scandinavian = sex, and 151 has sex in both ends (1 + 5 = 6, and 5 + 1 = 6). Easy to remember.
016 16/103: “- - - this (the Quran*) is in Arabic, pure and clear”. Wrong in many ways: There are alien words, there are orthographical mistakes, there are grammatical errors and there are lots and lots of places where even today Islam does not know the exact meaning of words or verses (the last partly because the book originally was written by means of an unfinished alphabet).
017 18/2: “(He (Allah*) hath made it) Straight (and Clear) - - -”. The tales “per se” are plain and easy. But a book that full of mistaken facts and other mistakes, f. ex. linguistic ones, (and perhaps religious ones, too - why should they be exceptions?) is neither straight nor clear.
*018 26/211: “- - - 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 are lots of wrong logic. There are numbers of linguistic errors. There hardly is anything original in the book - the stories are taken from the Bible and a few other old books, from made up religious tales, from folklore and from 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 the ideas came from neighbouring 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).
There would be no problem for a good or medium writer to write to collect stories and write something similar - or better.
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, etc. For similar claims see 17/88
*019 39/28: “(It is) a Quran in Arabic, without any crookedness - - -”. For one thing we have never been able to understand why it is a good thing that the Quran is in Arab if Allah wanted to be the god for all earth – well, even the Arabs tell it is a difficult language and difficult to translate (though language experts say the claim is blown up – perhaps as an extra defence to avoid having to explain what they cannot explain, perhaps as an artificial back up for the demand that Muslims must read the Quran in Arabic - and say it is just a medium difficult language).
They further insist it is impossible to translate it, like indicated above (just like the Japanese used to say before they learnt other languages well). That is rubbish. What one human brain is able to think, another human brain at the same level of knowledge and intelligence is able to understand if it gets things explained.
Of course there is the fact that languages have special words, etc. that you do not find in other languages - that is the case for all languages, and nothing special for Arab, like some uneducated Muslims like to claim (and some of them even believe it, we think). Take f. ex. the Norwegian very simple word “tran”. That word exists in few other languages. F. ex. English has to say “cod liver oil” – and French something similar. In Arab one would have to say something like “oil from the liver of the North Atlantic fish that in English is called cod” – but the main thing is that even if they need an explanation that Norwegians in this case do not need, it tells 100% exactly and correctly the same and correct meaning. Or take the Inuit – they are said to have 42 different words for different kinds of snow and snow conditions – Arab hardly has more than a couple. But it would not be too difficult to explain to an Arab that this Inuit word means that the snow is wet, this that it is laying full of water, this that the snow is dry, this that it is or has been wind driven, this that it is frozen hard, this that it is sticky (so you can make snow balls f. ex.), this that it is powdery, etc.
And it is just the same with Arab: Arab f. ex. has a word for “2-years-old she-camel”. “Solch ein Wort gibt es nicht in Deutch” (“such a word does not exist in German”) – but it is no problem to explain to a German that one is talking about a female camel that is 2 years old. As said: What one human brain can think, another human brain at the same level can understand with a little explanation.
Besides: To demand that an Afghan farmer shall read the Quran in Arab just means that you demand he shall be explained all those different words and different meanings on beforehand – because that is the only way he can understand them when he reads them later. Just the same words and the same explanations – but a lot more words, because he may not know on beforehand exactly which words that may give him extra insight.
In addition the Arab alphabet at that time was unfit for writing down exactly what was said – the alphabet at that time was very incomplete. (That was one of the reasons why there were so many varieties of the Quran in earlier times. Now there mainly are 2 of the earlier 14 “canonized” ones that are used – one (Warsh) in parts of Africa, and one (Hafs) in the rest of the world – though they call it “ways of reading” to hide that the reality is “varieties”. Those two expressions in this case are exactly identical). If Allah wanted to reach many, the natural language in that area had been Greek or perhaps Latin or Persian. Or why not Bahasa Indonesia? - one of the easiest languages in the world to learn and with as many potential Muslims as in Arabia, and with good connections to surrounding countries. In case of a western language or Persian they also could have written down the book correctly, as those languages already had perfected alphabets. Then they had not had the problem of not knowing what was really said and written. Now Muslims only can make unfounded – or wrong – statements claiming that the Quran of today is correct to the last letter and last comma, even though not all letters – nor the comma – did even exist around 650 AD in Arab.
Many Muslims even believe what they say. With a complete alphabet it could really have been correct. But the fact of the incomplete alphabet of that time, makes the claim a joke. But without crookedness? With all the mistakes and contradictions?!! With all the invalid “signs” and “proofs”? With all the loose statements? Such “facts” normally are the hallmarks of crookedness.
020 54/32: “But We (Allah*) have indeed made the Quran easy to understand - - -”. This in a way is very correct – the language is plain and simple mostly, and the Quran itself makes it clear that one is to understand it literally (though many Muslims claim that verses with mistakes are allegories – it is an easy way to use to flee from difficult questions).
But it is all the same at least partly wrong – partly because there are so many places it is difficult to guess which word is really meant. Separate books are needed to explain the Quran - there are many such ones. And if you read any of the good ones, you will find that even today there are points in the book Islam has not been able to understand, and even many more points they still do not know the exact meaning of - or which one of two or more meanings is the correct one. But it is easy to see that Muhammad meant it was easy and not complicated to understand - and an omniscient god had been able to compose a book that was possible to understand and impossible to misunderstand or not understand, just like Muhammad claimed and surely believed and intended. Who composed the Quran? For similar claims see 42/3 – 41/42 - 54/17 – 54/22 – 54/40.
*021 6/92: “Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in this (Book) (the Quran*), - - -”. Wrong. There are many who believe in a next life, but do not believe in the Quran - f. ex. Jews and Christians, but also many others.
*022 6/154: “The Quran*) is explaining all things in detail”. It is explaining far from all things, and definitely not in sufficient details - among other facts there are not enough laws in the Quran to run an advanced society, which is why Muslims have had to make supplements. For similar claims see 6/38 – 7/52 – 10/39 – 12/2 – 12/111 – 22/8.
*023 10/82: “And Allah by His Words (the Quran*) prove and establish His Truth, - - -”. Wrong. The words of the Quran proves nothing about Allah, until it first is proved that it really was made by Allah, and that Allah really has made and done what the Quran says. It is at best partly the truth only - too many mistakes, contradictions, etc. For similar claims see 2/22 – 3/70 – 5/48 – 6/57 – 7/181 – 8/6 – 10/33 – 10/82 – 11/20 – 13/17 – 23/70 – 34/53 – 47/3 – 54/55.
*024 17/12: “- - - all things have We (Allah*) explained in detail”. Wrong. A lot of things are not explained in detail - f. ex. Muslim laws has had to be supplemented with many more paragraphs than the ones in the Quran and in Hadith - and still Muslim law are far from perfect concerning modern life and societies, and even concerning daily life. And just? - A man telling that a woman has behaved indecently is lying to Allah according to Allah and the Quran, if he cannot produce 4 witnesses, THIS EVEN IF HE SPEAKS THE FULL TRUTH, AND THE OMNISCIENT ALLAH OF COURSE KNOWS THIS. And much worse: A raped woman is to be punished if she cannot produce 4 MEN to witness that it really was rape - normally absolutely impossible. Those two points in the Quran are the most horribly unjust and inhuman paragraphs we have ever seen or heard about in any civilized (?) law. Is sharia civilized? Is Allah good or/and just? For similar claims see 15/1 -16/89 – 24/34 – 26/2 – 27/1 – 36/69 - 43/2 – 44/2.
025 31/2: “These are Verses of the Wise Book”. A book with lots and lots of mistakes and with lots and lots of unfounded statements based on nothing except unproven, cheap words is no wise book and no book “full of wisdom”. It may be symptomatic that the name of this surah, Luqman, is the name of a wise man in an Arab fairy tale, not a real one. For similar claims see 2/231- 10/1 – 10/37 – 17/99 – 28/2 – 31/20 - 32/2 – 35/25 - 36/2 – 43/4 – 54/5.
00g 39/41: “He, then, that receive guidance (see 39/41c*) benefits his own soul - - -“. How can it benefit your soul to steal/loot, hate, rape, murder, mass murder (many, many cases in Muslim history), enslave, etc? It benefits your pocket – and gives Muhammad and his successors many and cheap warriors – but your soul? Wrong. For similar claims see 2/2 – 2/5 – 2/120 – 10/35 – 12/111 – 16/64 - 16/89 - 18/55 – 22/54 - 27/2 – 31/3 – 41/44 – 45/11 – 46/30 – 47/32 – 68/7 – 71/13 – 87/3.
**026 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
*027 6/92: (The Quran is*) “confirming (the revelations) which came before it (the Bible*)”. Wrong. There are so many fundamental differences, that the Quran is no confirmation of the Bible. See f. ex. 2/89 and 3/3 for further explanation. Similar claims in 26/196 - 35/31 – 46/12 – 46/30. See separate chapter about the Bible further down.
**028 10/37: “This Quran is not such as can be produced by other than Allah - - -”. Very wrong. Many a good writer can write stories as good as and better than the collection of surahs in the Quran. In spite of what Islam says, the Quran is not very good literature. The same stories are repeated again and again. They frequently are not even well told. Honestly large parts of the book are rather dull reading. And the fabled high quality Muhammad’s Arab language? - what Muslims never mention, is that it took some 250 years to perfect the language (many Muslims do not even know this and protest loudly when told) - it was not until around 900 AD that it had got something like today’s language. It also existed in much more than one text. For one thing even Muhammad (according to Hadith) said it was sent down in 7 varieties that all were true ones - even if details were different. For another thing some of the old, original texts existed in the Muslim world for a long time after the “official” one was finished around 650 AD (at some time there were at least 14 canonized varieties). For still another thing the texts may have been slightly changed through the time - at least very old Qurans found in Yemen in 1972, had “small, but significant differences” from the modern edition. The dominating Quran today (after Hafs), is the edition that was the official one in Egypt when first printed in 1924, according to what we have read. Also see Preface (list).
029 13/37: “Thus We (Allah*) revealed it (the Quran*) to be a judgement of authority in Arabic.” A book with that many mistakes and contradictions, that much invalid logic, that inhuman moral and without ethical or moral philosophy, is no basis for “judgement of authority”. If Muslims disagree, they will have to bring strong proofs to be believed. Similar claims in 2/101 – 4/170 – 6/115 – 9/48 -11/14 – 12/1 – 16/123 – 24/46.
030 16/64: “(The Quran was sent down*) for the express purpose, that thou (Muhammad*) shouldst make clear to them things - - -”. How is it possible to make things clear by means of a book full of mistakes, contradictions, and invalid/false “proofs“?
031 21/50: “And this (the Quran*) is a blessed message which We (Allah*) have sent down”. How many ways is it possible to ask the question: Can it be true that an omniscient god has sent down a book with such a number of mistaken facts, contradictions and other wrongs - f. ex. linguistic and perhaps religious - mistakes? Not to mention: How likely is it that a book of such a miserable quality, at least concerning wrong facts, contradictions and invalid proofs, and as medium a quality as literature, can have a prominent place as the revered Mother Book in the home of an omniscient and omnipotent god? It simply is impossible. Similar claims in 21/50 – 36/17 – 38/1 – 38/7 – 42/52 – 56/81
032 40/70: “Those who reject the Book (the Quran or may be the not falsified Bible, like Islam claims – as always without any documentation*) which We (Allah*) sent - - -“. No omniscient god sent down the Quran – too many mistakes, etc. (and science has shown that the content of the modern Bibles is the same as in the first ones, and concequently is not falsified – Islam’s claims are just that; claims.)
It is a most open question who is furthest away from the truth – Muslims or (some?) non- Muslims. It is clear from all the mistaken facts, contradictions, and other wrongs, that the Quran is not made by an omniscient god – and the inhumanities in the Quran also proves it is not made by any good or benevolent power (when someone claims and states good things, but demands and does bad ones, the demands and deeds are much more reliable for judging his character, than the very cheap words). And if Islam is a made up religion, based on a made up book – what then with all the Muslims who have been denied the possibility to look for a real religion (if such one exists)? – their only hope is that also Hell is a fiction, if not they are in for a rude awakening in the possible next life. Similar claims in 2/91 - 3/137 – 7/96 – 16739 – 29/68 – 35/3 – 77/19 – 77/24 – 77/28 – 77/34 – 77/37 – 77/40 – 77/45 – 77/47 – 77/49 – 98/6.
033 50/1: “- - - by the Glorious Quran - - -”. A book with that many mistakes, contradictions, etc., and with so many hallmarks of cheating and deceiving (loose statements, invalid “signs” and “proofs”) is not glorious. By the way the expression is an oath - swearing by the Quran. Hope the rest is true, if not it is a false swearing. Though in Islam in some cases false oaths are permitted - or can be forgiven if paid for). Similar claims in 50/1 – 85/21
034 2/89: “- - - when there comes to them (Jews in Medina*) that (texts that later became the Quran*) which they should have recognized (indicating they should have recognized the texts from Muhammad in their OT/Torah*)”. Wrong – the underlying basic thinking and a lot of details are so different, that the only thing possible to recognize, is that something is very wrong. The Quran has nothing to do with the real Bible - and science has proved the reason is not that the Bible is falsified, in spite of all not documented Islamic claims.
035 2/146: “- - - but some of them (Jews, Christians*) conceals the truth (the teachings of the Quran*) - - -“. With that many mistaken facts and that much wrong logic, it at best is partly the truth. See 2/89 just above and 40/75.
036 4/174: “- - - there hath come to you (Jews, Christians*) a convincing proof (the Quran*) from your Lord (Allah*) - - -“. With that many mistakes, wrong logic, etc., etc. the Quran is not very convincing, and its “proofs”/”signs” no more convincing. See 2/99.
037 16/36: “- - - those who denied (the Truth)”. With all the mistakes in the Quran, it is impossible to believe that the book or Islam represents the full truth and only the truth. (That is one of the main reasons why Islam can accept not a single mistake in the Quran - if there are mistakes, something is wrong with the book - - - - and consequently with the religion). Similare claims in 6/5 – 21/24 – 22/53.
038 27/76: “- - - this Quran doth explain to the Children of Israel most of the matters in which they disagree”. Very wrong. For one thing the Quran is so different to the Mosaic religion (and even more different from Christianity), that it clearly is not the same. For another: A book with that many mistakes, etc. can explain very little.
*039 28/48: “- - - When the Truth (the Quran*) has come to them (the Quraysh - the leading tribe in Mecca*) - - -”. If it was not because the word “truth” is so central and so disused in Islam, we had stopped commenting on it long time ago, but the Quran with all its errors can be only partly the truth. See all the mistakes - some small, some big blunders, some repeated many times and really cemented, but even one mistake is impossible for an omniscient god. Is Allah not omniscient? Or did someone else compose the Quran? If Allah is not omniscient, that means something is wrong with the religion. If Muhammad or another human composed it, it is a false religion.
And if it is a false religion and there somewhere exists a real, true one, to which Islam blocks the road for its believers - - - what then for all the Muslims?
040 35/42: “- - - their flight (from righteousness (= the teachings of Muhammad*)) - - -”. Any teaching based on a book containing large numbers of mistakes, contradictions, and invalid “proofs” and “signs”, and on top off all is only told by one single man of dubious morality and character (womanising, rape, robbery, extortion, murder and mass murder - and lust for power - all this and more are well documented by Islam itself, though glossed over) - such a teaching does not represent righteousness. This even more so that it strongly incites to hate, suppression, killing and war - not very righteous or good). Similar claims in 6/111 – 17/41 – 17/46 – 71/6.
041 51/9: “Through which (non-Muslims*) are deluded (away from the Truth)”. As for truth, see 40/75. Similare claims in 5/75 – 6/95 – 9/30 - 10/34 – 40/62.
042 54/18: “The Ad (people) rejected (truth (the teachings of the Quran*)) - - -.” Those teachings at best only are partly true – too many mistakes, etc.
043 2/24: “But if ye cannot – and of surety ye (non-Muslims*) cannot (produce a surah of the same quality like in the Quran*) - - -“. The surahs are no good literature – more or less copies of Arab folklore, legends, fairy tales, and stuff Muhammad had been told from the Bible and (mainly) from apocryphal (made up) stories. In addition the composition and presentation of the texts belong in primary school level. Many a good writer could collect such stories and do much better (on these points f. ex. the Bible is far better written). The Arab language itself is said to be excellent – but when you know that the language was polished for some 250 years by top intelligent and top learned men, until it got its somewhat final form around 900 AD (the Arab alphabet was not completed until then), that point tells nothing about the original Qurans from around 650 AD – caliph Uthman’s and others’. The claim is wrong.
044 3/9: “- - - a Day about which there is no doubt - - -“. Wrong. Once the end of the world will come. But that it will happen like told in the Quran, well, there is a good reason for doubt, as so much else is wrong in that book.
045 3/61: “- - - now after (full) knowledge hath come to thee - - -”. With so many mistakes in the Quran, it is at best partly knowledge.
00h 13/31: “If there ever was a Quran with which mountains were moved - - - (it would be this one)“. Well, hitherto the Quran itself has not moved even one grain of sand. Well, it has guided or misguided many humans, and they have done things, but the Quran itself has done nothing. Similar claim in 59/21.
00i 14/27: “- - - with the Word (the Quran*) that stands firm - - -.” Can words with that many mistakes and bent logic, etc. stand firm on other platforms than cheating, brain washing, pressure and power?
046 16/125: “- - - the Way of thy Lord (Allah*) - - -“. The Quran does not represent the way of an omniscient god – not a good one at least: Too many mistakes, etc. and too much inhumanity.
047 17/106: “We (Allah*) have revealed it (the Quran*) by stages.” Muhammad revealed the Quran little by little and often in connection with things that happened or actual situations – but mostly after things had happened or there were problems - not before so that trouble could have been avoided. An impolite observer could have asked if the explanation was that the maker of the verses did not know what was about to happen, but then used a god’s almighty authority to clean up things afterwards – this even more so as when Muhammad personally was involved, the god (?) more or less always took his side.
048 18/1: “(Allah*) hath allowed therein no Crookedness.” In a book that full of mistaken facts and other mistakes, there is a lot of crookedness. Especially the use of invalid “signs” and “proofs” smell.
049 18/56: “- - - in order therewith to weaken the truth (the teachings of Muhammad/the Quran*), - - -”. To repeat the reality: With so many mistakes in the Quran, it can maximum be partly true.
050 20/2: “We (Allah*) have not sent down the Quran to thee to be (an occasion) for thy distress - - -“. The main fact is that Allah (if he exists) did not send it down at all – no omniscient god makes that many and that obvious mistakes, etc.
051 22/7: “- - - there can be no doubt about it - - -”. With all the mistakes in the Quran, there is every reason for doubt about quite a lot of things.
052 26/6: “- - - the truth of what they (unbelievers*) mocked at!” At best the Quran represents partly the truth - too many mistakes.
053 26/193: “With it (the Quran*) came the Spirit of Faith and Truth”. If truth came down with the Quran, it must have been mutilated later.
054 31/22: “- - - the most trustworthy hand-hold (the Quran and Allah*) - - -“. But a book with so many mistakes, etc. - and even some shining lies (like that miracles will not make a lot of people believe) – is not trustworthy.
055 33/8: “- - - the (custodians (those whom the Quran reckons to be prophets or other teachers of religion*)) of Truth (the teachings of Islam*) - - -”. The teachings of Islam as represented by the Quran, at best is partly true - see all the mistakes (and contradictions and invalid “proofs” and “signs“, etc.).
056 33/34: “And recite - - - Allah and His Wisdom (= the Quran*) - - -“. There is limited wisdom in a book full of mistakes, and in addition: How to pick what is wisdom – if any – among all the mistakes, twisted words and logic, and even some outright lies?
057 36/12: “- - - of all things we have taken account (in the Quran*) - - -”. Not all things by far are taken account of in the Quran. Look f. ex. at all the extra paragraphs that are necessary in Muslim laws.
058 36/69: “- - - this is no less than a Message and a Quran - - -.” At least it is far less than a true message and a true Quran which the Quran itself indicates – far too many mistakes, twisted arguments and too much invalid logic + some clear lies. Etc.
059 39/22: “In one whose heart has opened to Islam, so that he has received enlightenment (the contents of the Quran*) from Allah - - -”. With all the mistakes, invalid “signs”, etc. in the Quran, it at best partly gives enlightenment. Whereas the mistakes, etc., give the opposite of enlightenment.
060 39/55: “And follow the Best of (the courses) revealed to you (the teachings of the Quran*) from your Lord - - -“. A book overflowing of mistakes, contradictions, twisted arguments and logic, and even obvious lies (like that miracles would make no-ones believers), is not the best pilot.
061 43/44: “The (Quran) is indeed the message, for thee and for the people - - -.” Definitely not – too much is wrong. Or if it after all is a message – from whom?
062 44/4: “In that (night) (when the first surah is said to be sent down*) is made distinct every affair of wisdom”. As for wisdom in the Quran - see 40/75 and 41/12 and many others.
*063 47/16: “- - - those (Muslims*) who have received Knowledge (the Quran*) - - -”. The Quran at best represents bits and pieces of knowledge, and it is difficult for uneducated people to know what is true and what not. See 40/75 and 41/12 and others.
064 50/37: “Verily in this is a Message (the Quran*) - - - (that is*) (the truth) - - -.” See 40/75. There simply is no message in it, until Islam really proves that Allah really did all what it claims.
065 51/5: “(The Quran swears in 51/1 to 51/4 that) Verily what ye (Muslims*) are promised (in the Quran*) is true - - -“. With so many mistakes, etc. – and even obvious lies – in that book, also this hardly is true. It at least will need solid proofs.
066 53/28: “- - - conjecture avails nothing against Truth (the Quran*)”. Actually that is the question concerning the Quran: How much is true and how much is conjecture - and how much is not even that?
067 56/51: “- - - and treat (truth (the Quran*)) as Falsehood! - -”. The Quran at best is partly true. Similar claim in 56/92
00j 10/32b: “- - - apart from Truth, what remains but error?” It is very clear that much of what is said in the Quran is not true – and then “what remains but error”?
NB: If you find any mistakes anywhere, please inform us. If it is a real mistake, it will be corrected.
NB, NB, NB:
1. Read first the 2 small chapters "Some Essentials for how the Quran is to be read and understood" (VII-10-1) and "The Quran is to be understood literally if nothing else is indicated" (VII-10-2).
2. http://www.1000mistakes.com is blocked by many Muslim authorities. To debate with persons in such areas, cut and paste what you want from the pages and send it under titles different from http://www.1000mistakes.com.
3. http://www.1000mistakes.com is one of 9 pages which Muslim organisetions warned especially against in 2008 and 2009 - it could make especially procelytes lose their belief in Islam; correct and "down-to-the-earth" information works. In this connection it is worth noting that in the "warning" http://www.1000mistakes.com was one of 3 which neither was accused of bringing wrong facts, nor of being a hate page.
4. Comment 141 (to verse 6/149) in “The Message of the Quran” (see point 5) explains (translated from Swedish) about Allah's claimed omniscience vs. man's claimed free will:
“With other words: The real connection between Allah’s knowledge about the future (and consequently about the unavoidable in what is to happen in the future*) on one side and man’s relatively (!!*) free will on the other – two statements that seems to contradict each other – lies outside what is possible for humans to understand, but as both statement are made from Allah (in the Quran*) both must be true”. Unbelievable. Blind belief is the only correct and intelligent way of life, even in the face of the utterly impossible!!
5. And an afterthought: In the book “The Message of the Quran”, certified by Al-Azhar Al-Sharif Islamic Research Academy in Cairo (one of the 2-3 top universities in the Muslim world on such subjects) in a letter dated 27. Dec. 1998, it is admitted rather reluctantly that there are no proofs for Allah, and that it is not possible to prove him. An additonal point here is that if there is no proof for Allah and impossible to prove him, automatically there also is no proof for, and impossible to prove Muhammad's claimed connection to a god. And if there is no Allah and/or no connection between Muhammad and a god, what then is Islam?
6. Further: All the mistakes, contradictions, etc. in that book prove 100% that the Quran is not made by an omniscient god - no god makes such and so many mistakes, etc. If then Islam is a made up religion, what then about all the Muslims who have been prohibitted from looking for a real religion (if such one exists)? And where will they in case wake up after living and practising such an inhuman war religion like Islam is according to the Quran (and to Hadiths), if there is a second life somewhere? - Hell or Paradise?
7. NB and PS: No matter how sure you are about something, if it is not proved, it is not knowledge, only belief or strong belief, and can be wrong. Only what is proved or possible to prove is knowledge.
(As http://www.1000mistakes.com is blocked in many Muslim areas - which shows they are afraid of it and lack arguments (if they had real arguments for http://www.1000mistakes.com is wrong, blocking was unneccessary) - "cut and paste" whatever you want from it and send if you want to inform or to debate there. Remember to omit the name http://www.1000mistakes.com).
PS: If we are blocked centrally - f. ex. by spam (there is too much at times already from unfriendly sources) we will reopen with new address somewhere else, and announce the new address om f. ex. http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam. Also if your comments to us do not reach us, any comments posted on the thread "What is it with http://www.1000mistakes.com ?" (or make a page containing "1000 mistakes" in the title yourself if you want) on that forum will be read by us - it is a big international debate page.