(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:
00a 3/161: “No prophet could (ever) be false to his trust.” Some of Mohammad’s highwaymen (this was in 625 AD when the Muslims lived from stealing/robbing and extortion) were dissatisfied and told Mohammad cheated when splitting the spoils. Then this verse arrived very conveniently from the veneered Mother Book in Heaven written by Allah billions of years before or existed from eternity. Islam says it proved Mohammad did not cheat. That may be correct if Allah was omniscient and made the Quran, but not if Mohammad or someone else did so.
There also is another and much more serious fact: Through the times most – not to say nearly all – self proclaimed prophets have been false prophets.
Most of the false prophets have been (and are) men, and in religion they have found a way to money, women, esteem, and power – the 4 normal reasons for impostors. Some are mentally special or ill – Muhammad is among those if he had TLE (see the chapter “What is TLE – Temporal Lobe Epilepsy”). Some really believe they are prophets, others just are cheats – if Muhammad had TLE, he may honestly have believed he had some connection to a god, but it also is very clear from the Quran that he at least sometimes knew he was cheating; some of the arguments he used in the book, any intelligent person knew were lies (f. ex. that miracles would not make many doubters believe), and Muhammad was an intelligent man. And some of them simply were/are cold and calculating – sometimes even psychopathic - - - and when one looks at Muhammad’s cold-blooded treatment of victims and opponents, his total disregard for the life and well-being of everybody that stood between him and power and riches (to use for bribing greedy warriors and chiefs to come to his religion and his army), and his clever psychological (every clever salesman knows much about human nature and psychology) manipulation of his uneducated, naïve early followers, it is easy to believe Muhammad belonged to these – may be combined with the effect of the possible TLE or something.
*001 7/157: “- - - the unlettered Prophet (Muhammad*), whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures)”. You often meet Muslims claiming or stating that Mohammad is foretold in the Bible. But we have never been able to find a complete list of where he is said to be mentioned – obviously because the educated Muslims mainly speaks about 2: 5. Mos. 18/15 + 18 are mentioned in OT (and one about the Holy Spirit in NT). But there it is talk about a Jew (one translation says to the Jews “one from your own people, from your fellow countrymen”, another talks about a brother - but the brother of a Jew is a Jew, not an Arab, and the same for a fellow countryman of a Jew – he is a Jew. It may talk about Jesus, but not about Muhammad. Actually the word “brother/brothers/brethren/brotherhood” is used figuratively at lest 255 times in the Bible, practically always about a closed group (Practically always Jews in OT – one exception for one country-to-country speech, one for Lot and some 3 about Edomites, as far as we se. And practically always Christians and/or Jews in NT, except a few places where everybody are potential brothers in Jesus) and never specifically including Arabs. The only (some 5 - 6) times we have found Arabs mentioned in OT, the tale is either neutral, like telling they paid tribute to King Solomon, or they were enemies – never anything like brothers.The word also is used figuratively some 30 times in the Quran - NEVER indicating that Muslims could be brothers of the Jews (except if they are no good Muslims - hypocrites).
What is worse: In the part of the Book of Moses where one find the two quotes Muslims use as flagship regarding OT, Deuteronomy (= 5. Mos.), you find the word brother/brothers used no les than 13 or 14 times in chapters 18 – 24 (the debated two are in chapter 18 – 18/15 and 18/18). The only one that is not about Jews, are mentioned specially by name – Edomites – and all the other 12 – 13 cases clearly are about Jews, the context is very clear (also not one single word is mentioned about Arabs or Ishmaelites). There further is an interesting verse just after the two debated ones, 18/21. This one tells that the hallmarks for real prophets are that they make prophesies, and prophesies that come true. Muhammad never made prophesies. There were a few times when things he said were remembered because they came true ot partly true – like always in any person’s life – but never real prophesy. It even is very clear from the Quran that Muhammad did not even pretend or claim to have the gift of prophesying. The definition of a prophet is a person with the gift of prophesying, and who practise it. Muhammad did not have that gift - he never even pretended or claimed to have it - and consequently was no prophet – he only had “borrowed” that impressive title. How could he be “a prophet like Moses” when he was no real prophet? The claim is not even wishful thinking, but rubbish. (Muslims never mention this verse).
How can Muhammad be a "prophet like Moses" when Muhammad was no real prophet?!
And last, but not least as mentioned: The word brother/brothers/brethren/brotherhood also frequently is used in the Quran (more than 30 times figuratively) – and in just the same way as in the Bible: About members of a group – here either Arabs or Muslims as groups. And as far as we can see, real Arabs are never any kind of brothers to Jews also in the Quran. We have found one small exception – hypocrites of any breed may be brothers to Jews (!). Impressive in this case.
Islam always demands that points in their stories must be read and understood in the full context – especially when they run into trouble explaining some difficult points. But in this case the context completely destroys their wishful thinking and desperate need for a proof for Muhammad in the OT – desperate because the Quran declares he is foretold there, and no clear foretelling is to be found – so they drop their own rules and quote two words far out of context and then declare that the brother of a Jew is an Arab, even in a context where it is obvious that Moses talked to and about Jews, and where the context also directly tells that it could not be Muhammad he was talking about, because he talked about a future prophet, whereas not even Muhammad himself pretended to have the gift of prophesying. He was in reality no prophet - may be a messenger, but not a prophet - he only used that imposing title. Moses’ foretelling of a future great prophet may have been talking about Jesus, who very clearly was a prophet both according to the Bible and to the Quran. But he could impossibly have talked about Muhammad who among other facts as said in reality was no prophet – he only “borrowed” that nice title without even pretending to have the gift the title in reality demanded.
But without caring about or even mentioning such facts, Islam very straight forward and straight facedly claims that when Jews talk about brothers in 5. Mos. 18/15 + 18 they talk about Arabs and foretell Muhammad because that is the only person Moses here can have spoken about. What that chapter really is about, is that Moses tells his Jews (we use the word Jews because of convenience – we know the word first was coined centuries later) things about their future - that the Levites shall not have any inheritance among their brothers (5. Mos. 18/1 – never mentioned by Muslims) – the rest of the Jews – and f. ex. that will raise up a prophet like (as great as) himself from among their brothers – from among the Jews.
5.Mos. 18/18 - in reality it says just the same as 5. Mos. 18/15.
John 1/21 - but that is talking about John the Baptist. He says he is not the prophet. And Islam omits John 1/26-27 where John the Baptist tells that “the Prophet” was standing among the people just then - and definitely not was expected some 600 years later. (Jesus existed, but had not started his mission yet. John the Baptist was half a year older than Jesus, and said what he said 540 years before Muhammad was born.)
From the NT the main claim is John 14/16 where Jesus tells his disciples: “And I will ask the Father (God/Yahweh*), and He will give you another Counsellor to be with you forever”. To give the disciples Muhammad had no meaning – he was born some 500 years after they were dead, and could be of no help to them. He also could not be with them forever. But that is what Muslims claim, as they do need a quotation from the NT, because the Quran tells he is foretold also to the Christians, and this is the only place where the texts can be twisted enough – because it takes a lot of twisting (see the chapter about the claim that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible. (The verse really is foretelling the Holy Spirit - it arrived some days later according to the Bible.)
Strangely enough Islam never mentions the next verse (John 14/17) that continues: “- the Spirit of truth (Muhammad neither was a spirit, nor the truth (he cheated and made lies – cfr. al-Taqiyya, and his point of view concerning even his oaths). The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you”. Try to make this fit the very visible Muhammad!! Also see separate chapter about the claims that Muhammad was foretold in the Bible.
“The Message of the Quran” solves the problem very simply: It tells that a verse in the Quran explains what the NT tells about Muhammad (surah 61, verse 6). The problem is that the Bible says nothing remotely similar to surah 61/6. (An elegant explanation is that it shall have been mentioned in the non-existing Gospel Islam needed to make up to explain how the child Jesus could learn the Gospel(s) before they were written - a Gospel that Mary and others 100% sure had taken care of if it was not a fairy tale, because it would really have cemented an even more a special connection between Jesus and Yahweh/God). Actually this non-existing Gospel may have existed, but somewhat later - as a gospel is the story of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, it could not me written until after Jesus was dead - and resurrekted - some 33 years old.
The relevant part of surah 61/6 says: “(Jesus said*): - - - I am giving glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after Me, whose name shall be Ahmad (= another version of the name Mohammad*)”. But nothing remotely like this is to be found in the Bible. Islam of course explains that with falsification of the Bible - that is the standard and cheap explanation whenever there is divergence between the Quran and the Bible. But a falsification would not work among all the thousands that had heard Jesus talking - and then the life and time scale (they expected Jesus back any month or year - if there was to come another prophet first, it would be likely to take at least a generation or more before Jesus would return, to give the other prophet time for his work) of the first Christians, not to mention the contents of all the letters written by persons that really knew the story, had been different. Surah 61/6 smells too much of something made up to give Mohammad credence. If a Muslim insists it is true, he has to produce heavy proofs. (And science on top of everything has shown that the Bible never was falsified).
Finally there is a Greek word, “Parakletos”. This word in the Greek Gospel (the Gospels originally were written in Greek) after John is what they use as an explanation .Muslims say must be misspelled, because if you take another word, “Periklytos” that is rather similar and translate it to Aramaic, you get a word that in Arab can be interpreted as Mohammad. Very convincing (but remember that Arabs since prehistoric times have lived in cultures where theories of conspiracies have been rife - perhaps because they never have had information they could rely on, and then they have made up guesses and stories. The situation actually to a large degree is the same in modern Muslim countries - and even more so in the ones that still are not much modern. Go to most of the Muslim countries and you can immerse yourself in such stories and theories). Also see 61/6 and see the chapter “Muhammad in the Bible.” And finally: To claim that words may have been misunderstood is natural for Muslims, as the old Arab alphabeth lacked the vovels, and one had to guess them. But NT was written in Greek originally, and the Greek alphabeth was complete, and this source for misunderstanding did not exist.
As for his illiteracy: You find the claim that he could not read several places in the Quran – f. ex. 7/158 – and in Hadiths. Nobody knows and nobody will ever know the truth about this, but there are good arguments for disbelief of the claim.
002 11/2: “(Say) ‘Verily, I am (sent) unto you (people*) from Him (Allah*) - - -“. According to Ibn Warraq the word “(Say)” does not exist in the Arab original. That means that here it is Muhammad who speaks. There are a few places like that in the Quran (8 according to Ibn Warraq). But how is it possible that Muhammad speaks in a book (pretended to be (?)) made by Allah or existed since eternity – and sent down by Allah? (Some Muslims say the word is just forgotten – but how many more words may then have been forgotten in the Quran?)
003 12/104: “And no reward dost thou (Muhammad*) ask of them (people/Muslims*) for this (the new religion*) - - -“. No, nothing except 20% of all stolen/robbed values and slaves from raids and wars, 100% of all values taken from victims that surrendered without fighting, plenty of women and lots and lots of absolute and undisputed power/dictatorship, and lots and lots of free warriors – he only had to pay them with promises about paradise and promises about rich spoils of war stolen from humans and countries. And the “poor-tax” (normally 2,5% - 10% not of your income, but of your possessions if you were not too poor) – that he far from only spent for the poor – and the zakat – the tax (free for the ruler to say how much – and that sometimes meant really much) from non-Muslims (though neither the 20% nor the 100% was all for his personal use – much as said was spent for waging more wars and for “gifts” to make neighbouring Arabs good Muslims + some was given to the poor),
And the price was neighbouring cultures and humans and lives they destroyed – to gain more power for him and riches and slaves for his warriors. It is indisputably clear from the Quran that he at least liked women and power. Similar claims in 25/57 – 34/47 - 38/86 – 42/23.
004 19/36: “Verily Allah is my (Muhammad’s*) Lord and your (Muslims’*) Lord - - -“. This is a serious one: Here clearly it is Muhammad himself – Muhammad the man - that is speaking. How is that possible in a book made by a god before the universe was created or may be one which has existed since eternity, and a copy of a revered Mother Book sent down from Heaven by Allah? (There are a few mistakes (?) like this in the Quran – see 6/104 -6/114 – 11/2-3 – 19/36 – 27/91 – 42/10 – 51/50-51 – in 6/116 and 11/2-3 the translator has cheated and added the word “say” to the Arab text to hide the “mistake” – honesty in religion? – or “al-Taqiyya? – A. Yusuf Ali is a good translator and as far as we can judge a reasonably honest one. But he was a devoted Muslim, and he has a tendency to use “goodwill” towards Islam when writing. Our guess is that he has been thinking that this must just have been forgotten and added it because of that. But even that is not honesty when translating. Similar claim in 3/51.
***005 27/91: “For me (Muhammad*), I have been commanded to serve the Lord (Allah*) of this City (Mecca - from 615-616 AD when Muhammad still lived there*) - - - “. This is another serious one: It is Muhammad who is speaking once more - - - in a book presumed to be copy of a “mother book” in Paradise, a book that may be existed from eternity or perhaps was made by Allah. Pikthall and Dawood both camouflage this very revealing mistake (there are a few more where either angles or Muhammad speaks or may be speaking) by adding the word “say:”, but that is not in the original, according to Ibn Warraq, “Why I am not a Muslim”, p.175. Dishonest by Pikthall and by Dawood in case. But then it happens you meet dishonesty when Muslims tries to “explain” things - even in books you should believe were intellectually of high quality and moral. (Like Al-Azhar University, Cairo, certifying that the Big Flood could be explained by the filling up of the Mediterranean Sea. They know very well that both the time and the way it happened prohibit that explanation - some 4 – 5 million years ago and “slowly” over a period of perhaps 100 years).
Anyhow a nice moment for Muhammad – he liked power. (Just look at how he glued himself to his platform of power; his god).
006 33/21: “Ye (Muslims*) have in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the final Day - - -“. Wrong. Thieving/robbing, womanizing, raping, lying, betraying, extorting, suppressing, murdering, hate mongering, war mongering, mass murder, raids and wars of aggression – that is no “beautiful pattern” according to any human moral or ethical codex, except in some war religions, included Islam, and it tells volumes about Islam that this man is their greatest hero and shining idol.
007 33/45: “O Prophet! - - -“. But was Muhammad really a prophet? A prophet is a person that has the gift of being able to make distinct and correct prophesies – and does it. Then there is the difference between the real and the false prophet – because there were lots of false prophets, as it was (and still is) an easy way to make a good living if you are clever. According to the Bible the distinction between a real prophet and a false one, is that the real prophet made prophesies and they came true, whereas what the false ones make of prophesies do not come true (except sometimes by coincidence). Muhammad did not even try to make prophesies or pretend he could make such ones. There are a few times where what he said happened to come true or partly true by coincidence – and were remembered by his followers just because it came true, whereas what he said that did not come true, were not remembered. It is like that with each and every human being; we say and we talk so much, that sometimes something has got to be correct now and then – In Scandinavia they even have a special expression for it: To “gaa troll i ord” – which means something like a troll makes your words come true – but it has no implication of you being clairvoyant or a prophet. Muhammad did not even try to make real prophesies – one of the two-three absolute requirements for being a prophet. (And then he did not even test the second requirement: Did his prophesies mostly/always come true?) He simply was too smart to try to show off with things he knew he was unable to do. And then of course he also lacked the other requirement: Prophesies that came true.Muhammad simply has none of the three requirements for being a prophet:
Muhammad simply was no prophet – he did not have that gift. He just stole or “borrowed” a distinguished title. As a prophet he only was an impostor – an eloquent leader, but unable to do what makes you a prophet: To make prophesies – and prophesies that regularly come true.
He may have been a messenger; if it is true that he had a message. But no prophet. Islam likes to tell that to be a messenger is something much more than being a prophet. But to be a prophet, you have to have special gifts, whereas to be a messenger simply means that you more or less passively bring messages from one place to another – an errand boy. But another question in case is: A messenger boy for whom? – for himself? – for other humans? – for some dark forces? Two things are 100% sure:
The fact that all the mistaken facts in the Quran that are in accordance with wrong “science” in Arabia (mainly from old Greece and Persia) at the time of Muhammad, clearly indicates that the Quran is made by one or more humans there and then. But if there was a god involved, he was not omniscient, and the inhuman surahs from Medina most clearly show he definitely was not a good or benevolent one. - - - But may be his messages came from a devil in disguise?
008 34/50: “If I (Muhammad*) am astray, I only stray to the loss of my own soul - - -“. This is outmost and extremely wrong – if Muhammad was astray (and too much point in that direction) it is to the loss of each and every Muslim’s soul. Because then Islam is a false religion. This is one more place where Muhammad knew ha was lying – he was too intelligent not to see this.
***009 68/4: “And thou (Muhammad or Muslims*) (standest) on an exalted standard of character - - -”. Well: Seen in the Quran:
And not least:
All this is from Muslim sources - what Islam itself tells about him, though in more glossy words. There is no excuse for becoming angry, because it is 100% true according to Islam itself.
Yes, we think many will call this “an exalted standard of character”. But not many of those would be non-Muslims. And how many of the Muslims can say it and feel honest?
010 81/19: “Verily, this is the word of a most honourable Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -.” If a man that is a thief/robber, extorter, womanizer, child molester (Aishah through many years from she was 9 years old), rapist, betrayer, torturer, murderer, mass murderer, war monger and more, is a “most honourable Messenger” - - - well, in that case we will not like to meet a normal messenger, not to mention a dishonourable one. It may seem that Islam have a somewhat special standard for ethics and moral.
00b 4/136: “Believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -”. There is nowhere proved that Muhammad was the messenger of a god.
011 6/104: “- - - I (Muhammad*) am not (here) to watch over your doings”. This verse is directly quoted from Muhammad – it is Muhammad who is speaking completely on his own. How come – in a book from eternity and a copy of the revered Mother Book in Allah’s own heaven from long before Muhammad was born?
012 6/163: “- - - I (Muhammad*) am the first of those who bow to His (Allah’s*) will.“ How is that possible if the Quran is correct and lots of people had been Muslims before him, and bowed to Allah? (Though in reality it is highly likely he was right: That he was the first one ever). Similar claim in 6/14. Some Muslims explains that it is meant the first in a special land or something, but that is not what the Quran says.
00c 15/6: “O thou (Muhammad*) to whom the Messages is being revealed”. See 15/1a. Similar claim in 43/43.
013 33/40: “(Muhammad was*) the Seal of the Prophets - - -.” See 33/28 above and 33/45 below:
How could Muhammad be the seal of the prophets (the last prophet), when he in reality was not a prophet? – he neither had, nor pretended to have, nor claimed to have the gift of prophesying!!!
00d 34/3: “But most surely, (I – Muhammad) by my Lord (Allah*) - - -“. The expression “by my Lord” here is an oath, but then Muhammad very clearly and several times (Hadiths) said that even tough it was not a good thing normally to break an oat if you had meant it when you said it (if not it was/is more or less ok.), it was no big sin to break it if you had a reason – yes, in some cases it even is the right thing to do. This – often called al-Taqiyya or the lawful lie (it do not have to be a broken oath - it can be an ordinary lie) - is a problem even today: When can you believe what a Muslim says and when not? Actually it also is a problem for Muslims; they have no reasonably sure way to strengthen their words when they need to do so, because even an oat is not reliable – with clear precedence from Muhammad (he f. ex. promised an unarmed peace delegation from Khaibar safe return - - - and murdered all of them (29 of 30) - one who managed to get away, adding: “War is betrayal” to quote Ibn Ishaq.)
00e 34/28: “We (Allah*) have not sent thee (Muhammad*) but as a universal (Messenger) - - -“. If he was universal, why are then everything only from Arabia? – even when correct information existed other places (f. ex the form of the Earth), in the Quran you find wrong knowledge, and the made up and wrong legends and fairy tales that circulated in Arabia? No god had done such mistakes. You will find similar comments many places in the Quran – f. ex.16/89 and 51/50. Mostly they are from the Mecca period, and are thoroughly abrogated – killed – by harsher surahs from the Medina periode (f. ex. by 9/5). Also see 2/119.
*00f 35/24: “Verily We (Allah*) have sent thee (Muhammad*) - - -”. Verily Muhammad and the Quran repeats and repeats and repeats this (most often in the words “Allah and his Messenger”) - worthy of an certain German “Minister of Propaganda” between 1933 and 1945 we think it was, a very honest and reliable man named Joseph Goebbels, whose slogan was: “Repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it”. Here it has been repeated zillions of times through the time, and millions of Muslims believe in it - but then no Muslim society has ever trained their subjects in critical thinking, or for thinking realism. On the contrary: Life in Muslim societies often has trained them in the sick kind of thinking that is: Believing that most acts and most information you do not like are lies that gives reason for conspiracy theories + blind belief in Islam and the mullah and the imam. One thing is all the mistakes in the Quran that tells it is not reliable and most likely is invented. More serious is that in spite of being asked again and again and again Muhammad was unable to prove anything at all - a hallmark of a lie – or more lies - is that proofs are impossible, one have to use fast-talk and evasions, both of which there are plenty of in the Quran. And when there is a question of proving anything? – there still is plenty of fast-talk in Islam.
But worst of all are all the invalid claims and statements, and the “signs”, “proofs” and fast-talk - those are the hallmarks of any smart cheater or false prophet that for natural reasons are unable to produce proofs. 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 both 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). Similar claims in 2/117 – 9/33 – 33/45 – 34/28 – 48/8 – 61/9 – 62/2 – 73/15.
00g 36/3: “Thou (Muhammad*) art indeed one of the messengers - - -.” Only 2 things are sure:
014 41/43: “Nothing is said to thee (Muhammad*) that was not said to the messengers before thee (f. ex. Jesus and the old Jewish prophets*) - - -.” Wrong. As science thoroughly has proved that the Bible is not falsified (mistakes perhaps, falsifications no) – and especially not NT – it is very clear that what Muhammad claimed to have been told, often is far from what the real (?) prophets and patriarchs had been told. And this is strengthened by the fact that it very often is very clear that Muhammad took his “biblical” stories not from the Bible, but from religious legends that circulated in the area, and which Muhammad believed were from the Bible - - - and then later had only one way out to explain the errors compared to the real Bible: He was right and the Bible falsified!!!. As for the quotation above, it is not true that nothing was said to Muhammad that was not said to earlier (real) prophets – a fact that Islam even confirms sometimes – f. ex. in the statement from Muhammad that he was the first “messenger/prophet” that got permission from the god to steal and rob and rape, which the god according to the Quran confirms is “god and lawful”.
015 42/15: “I (Muhammad*) believe in the Book (the Quran*) that Allah has sent down - - -.” No omniscient god has sent down a book with that many mistakes, etc., not to mention revered it in his own home as “the Mother Book”.
016 42/52: “- - - and verily thou (Muhammad*) dost guide (men) to the Straight Way - - -“. It is not possible to guide anyone straight from a book that crooked.
017 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 cannot be the same god - at least if he is not mentally ill. See 29/46 and 12/111. And science has long since found out that the Bible is not changed since the first traces we have of texts – in stark contradiction to Islam’s and the Quran’s repeated claims. It simply is the Quran that is different, and the likely reason is that the maker of the Quran did not know the Bible well – and in addition clearly used legends and fairy tales instead of real texts from the Bible in his book.
018 53/56: “This is a Warner (Muhammad*), of the (series of) Warners of the old”. Muhammad impressed and impressed and impressed on his followers that he was one of a long series – though the greatest of all – of prophets (even though he per definition was no prophet, as he did not have the gift of making prophesies – he just “borrowed” that prestigious title), as that gave him “weight” and prestige. And to belong to the one timeless “right” religion, also gave his teachings weight among the ones that believed it. (Science have never found any traces of a religion like Islam anywhere or any time before 610 AD – if they had, you bet Islam had told about it.) But he in case definitely did not belong to the same series as the Jewish prophets, included Jesus – the teachings were too different. AND they made prophesies - real prophesies -. Muhammad not.
019 60/1: “- - - the (Prophet (Muhammad*)) - - -.” But Muhammad was no real prophet. The definition of a prophet is a person that:
A few things Muhammad said, came true – like it has to do for a person saying many things through many years – and most of what he said that did not come true, was forgotten (also this is what normally happens). The main things here are that Muhammad never indicated that anything of what he said was meant as prophesies, he never indicated, not to mention pretended to or claimed, that he had the gift of prophesying, that it nowhere is documented that all/most of what he said about the future came true (point 2), and finally both he and Islam said and says that there were no miracles connected to Muhammad “except the Quran” – prophesying is a kind of miracle. (This fact also is a solid proof for that all the miracles connected to Muhammad mentioned in there Hadiths, are made up stories). Also see 30/40a and 30/46a.
Muhammad in reality simply was no real prophet. Perhaps a messenger for someone or something or for himself – or perhaps an apostle – but not a real prophet. He only “borrowed” that impressive and imposing title. It is up to anyone to guess why.
*020 37/37b: “- - - and he (Muhammad*) confirms (the Messages of) the Messengers (before him (= from Jews and Christians*))”. Wrong. There are too fundamental differences between especially NT and the Quran. The Quran is not confirming the Bible in spite of Muhammad’s words – the fundamental differences between the teachings simply are too big – especially compared to NT and the “new covenant” Jesus caused. See 29/46 and others. Actually this claim is to be found several places in the Quran.
Also see separate main chapter about this.
021 2/136: “- - - the revelations (the Quran*) given to us (Muhammad/Muslims*)”. Were they really given? – and were they really revelations? Under no circumstances did they/the Quran come from an omniscient god – not that full of mistakes, etc., and not from a benevolent god, as there is too much blood and worse.
00h 5/15: “- - - there hath come to you (Jews, Christians*) from Allah a (new) light (Muhammad*) - - -“. Well, that is one of the questions: Did a man so morally degenerated and preaching a religion based on a book with so many mistakes and so much wrong logic and so much suppression and blood, really represent a god?
00i 8/5: “Just as thy Lord (Allah*) ordered thee (Muhammad*) out of your house in truth - - -“. That is one of the main questions – was Muhammad ordered? – and in case by whom? (The surahs from Medina makes one think more about the Devil than about a good god.)
022 14/1: “- - - in order that thou (Muhammad – by means of the Quran*) mightest lead mankind out of the depths of darkness and into light - - -“. No book with that many mistakes can lead anyone into light. The same goes for any religion so suppressing, inhuman and full of hate, discrimination, blood and war, and “all power to Muhammad/the leader”.
00j 33/46: “(Muhammad be*) as a lamp spreading light.” Did Muhammad spread most light or most darkness? A rhetoric question needing no answer.
023 34/50: “If I (Muhammad*) am astray, I only stray to the loss of my own soul - - -“.
00k 35/5: “- - - (not) let the Chief Deceiver deceive you about Allah.” The Quran here talks about the Devil. But one question: Muhammad is the absolute and unquestioned chief of the Muslims. If Islam is a false religion – is Muhammad then the Chief Deceiver? The question is not ridiculous – the Quran surely is neither made by an omniscient god (too much is wrong in the Quran), nor by a good god (too much dishonesty, discrimination, inhumanity, hate, blood and war), and then the alternatives are: Made by man – rational or ill (f. ex. TLE will explain much) - or made by some dark forces – f. ex. the Devil dressed up like Gabriel.
024 39/33: “And he (most likely Muhammad, as it is written with “h”, not “H”*) who brings the Truth - - -“. The Quran at best is partly true – also see f. ex. 40/75 and 41/12. Similar claim in 37/37
025 43/29: “- - - a Messenger (Muhammad*) making things clear.” No messenger preaching what is in the Quran, makes things clear – too many mistakes, too many contradictions, and too much unclear logically, etc.
026 43/87: “If thou (Muhammad or Muslims*) ask them, Who created them, they will certainly say, Allah - - -”. Wrong – if they mentioned a god, they would mention their own (In Arabia this might mean the pagan al-Lah f. ex.). See f. ex. 43/9 - and many others.
027 46/4: “Bring me (Muhammad*) a Book (revealed) before this (as a proof*) - - -“. Wrong. A book in itself proves nothing – it is as easy to falsify a book as it is to falsify speech. F. ex. the Quran can well be a falsification – made by Muhammad or someone.
028 53/2: “Your Champion (Muhammad*) is neither astray nor being misled.” All the mistakes, etc. proves that he at least was somewhat astray. Though all the hallmarks of a cheat, deceiver and swindler may indicate that may be he was not misled - those last 3 words may be true, as may be he was misleading.
00l 53/3: “Nor does he (Muhammad*) say (aught) of (his own) desire”. It will take strong proofs to prove that surahs like no. 66 or no. 111 are worthy of and belongs in a revered Mother Book in Paradise - one that may be has existed since eternity. And also to prove they are worthy a book revered by an omniscient and omnipotent god. And what about "the Mother Book"/the Quran solving Muhammad's domestic problems?
029 62/2: “(Muhammad was to*) instruct them (the Unlettered Arabs*) in Scripture and Wisdom - - -” To instruct them in scripture, he hardly could be an analphabetic himself, but that aside: See 40/75 and 41/12.
00m 69/44 – 46: “And if the Messenger (Muhammad*) were to invent any sayings in our name, We (Allah*) should certainly size him by his right hand, and We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart”. Not if you – Allah – do not exist. Or if you are far from omnipotent if you exist.
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.