PART II, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter 3, Section 6 (= II-1-3-6)

MISTAKES AND ERRORS - MISTAKEN FACTS - IN THE QURAN, THE HOLY BOOK OF MUHAMMAD, MUSLIMS, ISLAM, AND ALLAH. A SHORTLIST OF SUCH MISTAKES AND ERRORS IN THE QURAN ARRANGED BY THEMES

Mostly one of each or similar kind for overview. 16 sections.

(The “complete” list is in Part II, Chapter 1, Subchapter 4, Sections 1 through 8.)

SOME CLEAR MISTAKES AND ERRORS ABOUT JESUS IN THE QURAN - THE HOLY BOOK OF MUHAMMAD, MUSLIMS, ISLAM, AND ALLAH:

(PART II, CHAPTERS 1 - 10 included subchapters = MEGA MISTAKES, MISTAKES, ERRORS, CONTRADICTIONS, INVALID LOGIC, ABROGATIONS, ETC. IN THE QURAN - THE HOLY BOOK OF MUHAMMAD, MUSLIMS, ISLAM, AND ALLAH. AT LEAST 100% PROOF FOR THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG - NO OMNISCIENT GOD MAKES MISTAKES)

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:

0. Around Jesus' birth. (NB: THIS IS AN INTRODUCTION FROM SCIENCE, NOT FROM THE QURAN.)

1. The prehistory of Jesus according to the Quran.

2. The Baby and Chils Jesus according to the Quran.

3. The Prophet Jesus according to the Quran.

NB! NB! NB! This part is more or less identical here and in the separate chapter about Jesus. (The reason very simply is that so much of what the Quran writes about him, is wrong. Not wrong only compared to the Bible, but wrong compared to what we know for fact about the time and the situation). In the separate chapter about Jesus, there just is added a little for the benefit of those who do not know history and/or the Bible.

We have chosen to include this material both places – like we frequently have done when material is relevant for more than one theme - so as to make it easier for readers to find all they search on the topic they look for. But if this should ever become a printed book, it will be bad economy to print it twice – it may be better to print just the separate chapter, and then refer the reader of this shortlist of the mistaken facts, to that chapter.

NB: THE VERSES IN THIS CHAPTER ARE ARRANGED ACCORDING TO THE "NARURAL PROGRESS" OF THE STORY AND NOT ACCORDING TO SURAH AND VERSE NUMBERS.

0. Around Jesus' birth. (From science, NOT from the Quran.)

Science have long known that the birth of Jesus was not in the year 1. One did not start reconing time from the birth of Jesus until much later, and the monk who a few hundred years later tried to pinpoint the year of his birth, missed a little.

The Bible connects his birth to a counting of all people in the Roman empire. We know from history that this was initiated by the empeor Caesar Augustus and took place in the years 8 to 6 BC. Hence Jesus cannot have been born later than the year 5 BC (his parents may have stayed on for some time f. ex. because of Mary's pregnacy). Further we know from history that King Herodes - the local regent under the Romans - also called Herodes the Great, who is central in the story, died in the year 4. BC(there also is another King Herodes later - his son Herodes Antipas). It thus is very clear that Jesus was born some years BC. Science believes he was born in 6 BC or 5 BC.

Also central in the story about his birth is the "Star of Betlehem". According to the Gospel after Mattew it appeared 3 times.

In the year 7 BC there was a tripple conjunction: Jupiter and Saturn in the star constellation the Phishes in May, September and December.(3 times is possible because as seen from Earth planets sometimes seemingly stop and run backwards before they continue their course - this is an illution caused by the movement of Earth.) Actually the sun, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn and Phishes were on a line. This may have been the first appearance.

The "world" center for astronomy, astrology - closely connected in the old time - and matemathics at that time was Babylon in now Iraq. The Jewish religion and its prophesies about a future prophet and king was well known there, simply because many Jews lived there.

Now in astrology Jupiter was connected to king or even devine king. Saturn was connected both to righteousness and to Palestine, and Phishes was connected to the Jews. This told the astrologers - the magians - that big things might be brewing connected to Jews and Palestine.

Then in 6 BC also Mars entered the picture - Jupiter, Saturn and Mars were all wihitin 8 degrees from each others and still in Phishes. Mars symbolized power, and told the magians (from greek "magloi" = wice men) that the stars foretold a mighty king.

Then 17. of April 6 BC Jupiter disappears behind the crescent moon - and reappears. Also the moon was a mighty symbol as it represented the moon god - El or al-Lah (later renamed Allah by Muhammad) - f. ex. in the neighbouring Arabia. This reappearance may be the second appearance of the star. And as seen from Babylon this happened in the sky in the direction of Jerusalem. To the magians this all may have foretold a mighty king connected to the Jews - and they knew the prophesies of Moses about a future mighty Jewish prophet.

Finally Chinese sources tell about new star in 5 BC. It is not clear whether it was a comet or a nova. It was rising in the east - to the magians a sign telling that now it was about to happen. If the 3 "wice men" or "kings" - magians - now left Babylon for Jerusalem, the trip would take something like 70 days - approximately the same time it would take a comet to seemingly cross that distance. Just in accordance with the Gospel after Mattew: "- - - the star went before them - - -." If it instead was a nova, this would have had its fixes place among the stars, but to the south as seen from Jerusalem when the magians arrived there - Betlehem lies south of Jerusalem.

(Sources: Mainly David Huges: "The Star of Betlehem Mystery" and Mark Kidger: "The Star of Betlehem.)

1. The prehistory of Jesus according to the Quran:

There was a man who prepared Israel for Jesus – John the Baptist – half a year older than Jesus only, but as Jesus only started his preaching 30 years old, John anyhow had time to talk about one who was to come shortly. The Quran does not tell much about him, but there is a little: His father was told by an angel that he was to have a son, and that - - - (see 19/7 just below):

001 19/7: “- - - his name shall be Yahya (John*): on none by that name We (Allah*) have conferred distinction before”. But Johanan (Hebrew for John), son of Kareah, was a distinguished man in 2. Kings, 25/23. In addition our sources say that the word “distinction” is not in the Arab edition, but added by Yusuf Ali to circumvent an obvious mistake, as the name John was far from unknown in Hebrew. (Yusuf Ali’s comment 2461). Other translators – f. ex. Muhammad Azad in “The Message of the Quran” – say in his comment to the point that the exact translation is (translated from Swedish): “We (Allah*) have never before named anybody with his (John the Baptist’s*) name before”. But the name John is mentioned 27 times in OT = before John the Baptist – it was a quite common name. From relevant history also were the priest-king John Hyrcanus and the general John the Essene. There both were many Johns and men of distinction named John before John the Baptist. Simply wrong.

*002 3/35: ”Imran’s wife said”. This is one of the two most famous mistake in the Quran. The book here is talking about the mother of Mary, the future mother of Jesus (see also 3/36 in the Quran: “I have named her Mary”). But Imran was the father of Aaron, Moses and Miriam, who lived some 1200 years earlier. Muhammad did not know the Bible very well, and it is clear that he thought Mary was the sister of Aaron and Moses. In 19/28 this is directly said, when talking about Mary: “O sister of Aaron” - the most famous mistake. (It also is mentioned in 66/12) It is likely that the reason for this mistake is that in Arab Mary and Miriam are written the same way: Maryam. With his limited knowledge of the Bible he believed it was the same woman. Any god had known better. We may add that some Muslims say it is not the same Imran, but scientists agree on that Muhammad meant the same man - the Imran that according to the Quran was chosen by Allah like Adam, Noah and Abraham (see 3/33 in the Quran) - the father of Aaron, Moses - - - and Maryam/Miriam/Mary. That Muhammad really was wrong here, and thought Mary was the sister of Aaron and Moses, is documented by the fact that according to Hadith (the other Muslim source of information about their religion and about Muhammad) Muhammad was corrected, and he tried to find explanations to repair the mistake (without success). He also did not add information showing that he and Allah for some reason was right in his mistaken statement.

You will meet Muslims telling that the Quran does not mean that Mary really was the sister of Aaron (they say it was meant figuratively - one of the two most commonly used ways of explaining away things that are difficult or impossible to understand in Islam. The other is "you cannot judge or understand the meaning from just some verses, you have to see the whole surah (or the whole Quran)", even though the Quran itself tells that the book mainly is to be understood literally, and even though they themselves often make much out of one or a few words), and that the book does not mean that she was the daughter of Imran - only a descendant of him. Islam should after so many hundreds of years have found better “explanations” - “explanations” that on top of all is said to be contradicted by the fact that already Mohammad himself tried to correct the mistake, but without success as mentioned. But there is no other explanation they can try to use. Also see 19/28 in the full overview over the mistaken fact.

It may be added that what the Quran tells about this grandmother of Jesus, is unknown to the Bible, which was written some years after Jesus died, but claimed known to Muhammad 600 years later - - - and also known to the legends that “lived” in the Middle East. If it had been true, it had guaranteed not been forgotten in the Gospels, as it had made the link between Jesus and God/Yahweh stronger. Islam accuses – without the slightest documentation as normal for Islam – Christians for falsification of NT (in stark contradiction to what all science says), but the accusation is that they have made Jesus more holy, not less, which is the case if this story were true and had been omitted from the Bible (it never was there according to science).

The Quran also tells that Mary served in the temple of Jerusalem, under the tuition of Zachariah (father of John the Baptist - and a relative of Mary according to the Bible), and - -

003 3/37: “Every time he (Zakariyya*) entered (her) chamber to see her, he found her supplied with sustenance. He said: ‘O Mary! Whence (comes) this to you?’ She said: “From Allah: for Allah provides sustenance to whom He pleases without measure’ “. This means that she by a miracle got her food from the god. This is a made up fairy tale. There is not one single chance that a miracle like this had been omitted from the NT - this even more so if Islam had been right in their statements that Christians (and Jews) had falsified the Bible (Muhammad was not well versed in the Bible, and frequently made mistakes when he referred to it or took stories from it (but he often took from made up fairy tales/legends, believing they really were from the Bible - it is likely he never saw a Bible (perhaps OT - the Jewish scriptures - but not NT). He always explained such mistakes with that he was right, and that the unholy Jews and Christians had falsified the Bible). Actually just this story is one of the many stories the Quran has not “borrowed” from the Bible at all, but from one of the made up religious legends that flourished at that time. These mistakes were the reason why the Jews did not accept him when he came to Yathrib/Medina - the Jews said his teachings were wrong and that he consequently was a false prophet. (Muslims have a tendency(!) not to mention this fact, but to instead tell a, to Muhammad, more flattering, but dishonest - as at least their scholars know this - story: He was not accepted because the Jews were angry because Allah had called a non-Jew for a prophet. But in reality Muhammad's teachings were heresy to the Jews.)

But if Christians had falsified the Bible, their main object would have been to strengthen Jesus’ position and his connections to Yahweh - the Jewish and Christian god. There is no chance at all that they had omitted a wonder connected to his mother, telling about a direct connection between Yahweh and her - and thus to Jesus. (That she served in the Temple, which is told in the Quran, also is new to the Bible – and had never been omitted there if it was true).

It also tells something that when Muhammad differs from the Bible, his/the Quran’s stories often correspond with proven untrue religious fables and legends (often apocryphal scriptures – and often Gnostic). This tells it is not the Bible that is wrong, but that the Quran may have used fairy tales as sources.

Then came the time for the pregnancy with Jesus. As in the Bible the first information came from an angle, but the story got a twist (to back up Muhammad’s new religion?). She was frightened by the angel – in the shape of a man and said:

*004 19/18: “- - - I (Mary, mother of Jesus*) seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah”. It is highly unlikely that a Jew should seek refuge from a then highly polytheistic god from another country. As one see from what later happened to Jesus, the monotheism and Yahweh were strong in Israel at that time. If the Quran tells the truth when it tells that Mary was working in the Temple, it is absolutely impossible - she had got into serious troubles if she addressed any other god than Yahweh (but then the Quran most likely is wrong also on this point - We have found nothing about Mary working in the Temple in the Bible or any other source, and if it had been true, most Christian sources had mentioned it, as it would mean one more connection between Jesus and Yahweh. (Actually it is taken from the apocryphal - made up - “’Proto gospel’ after Jacob” - - - but Muslims tell the difference between the Quran and the Bible is because the bad non-Muslims have falsified the latter one – not because Muhammad ever so often used twisted fairy tales as basis for stories in the Quran.)) Our Muslim sources also do not mention if there exists any other reliable source for this statement in the Quran - which Islam frequently/always does not do when they have no sources, only statements built on nothing. Simply a fairy tale shined up and used as a true story. By Allah or by Muhammad, and presumably sent down from Allah and copy from the Mother Book in Heaven, a book perhaps made by Allah, but most likely - according to Islam - never made, but existed from eternity (impossible as angels speak at least one place in the book, which means they had to be created before the book was made - and also Muhammad speaks in the Quran (at least some 8 places) and what does that indicate?). A Mother Book from eternity and revered by the god in his home - - - quoting from the made up Proto Gospel after Jacob ca. 615 AD. Believe it if you want.

According to the Quran, Mary also was told her future son’s name:

*005 3/45: “- - - his name will be Christ Jesus - - - “. His name was only Jesus. The word Christ was not even a name, but a title of honour, and it only emerged years after his death - originally in what is now Turkey. But Muhammad did not know the Bible well. (Christ or Christos in Greek means the same as Messiah in Hebrew – the anointed one (which indicates “king”, because new kings in the old Israel were anointed). Because of this some editions of the Bible use Christ instead of Messiah in NT, but the name - or title really - Christ in reality did not exist connected to Jesus, until well after his death). But the Gospels originally were written in Greek, and at a time when that title had emerged.

Well, Mary got pregnant and nobody noticed it throughout her whole periode of pregnancy. How big is the chance for that to happen? – it does happen (mostly if the woman is very fat), but the chances are slim to say the least of it. And when her time came, she went out and Jesus was born in the field under a palm tree – quite different from the story in the Bible. Mary was depressed and afraid, but then:

2. The Baby and Child Jesus according to the Quran.

***006 19/24+25:” But (a voice) (the new-born baby Jesus*) cried from beneath the (palm-tree): ’Grieve not! For thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee; ’And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree (normally date palms are some 50 cm or more wide and strong – impossible for a human to shake*): it will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee”. This story is “borrowed” from chapter 20 in an apocryphal “proto gospel” said to be after some Mathew. “Borrowed” by Muhammad or Allah, but presumably sent down as a copy from the Mother Book in Heaven. Believe the last if you want. There are few if any original stories in the Quran - mostly they are “borrowed” from different sources, but often changed a little to fit Muhammad's teaching. In this special case one also finds the story in “The Childbirth of Mary and the Salvador’s Childhood” if we remember the name correctly, and it has perhaps entered the Quran via “The Arab Childhood Gospel” (source; among others Ibn Warraq. We are well aware of that Muslims uses bad words about Ibn Warraq, but he is one of our few non-Muslim sources simply because we till now never have seen Muslims able to document him wrong on any point). As said before: Muhammad took stories from such fairy tales, and then accused the Bible of being falsified when it did not tell the same made up legends and tales.

Mary came home and her family was negative, to say the least of it (19/27). The absolutely newborn Jesus – a few hours old at most – had to defend his mother:

**007 19/30a: “I (baby Jesus*) am indeed a servant of Allah, - - -”. See 3/51. And he continued:

**008 19/30b: “(Allah has*) given me revelations and made me (the baby Jesus*) a prophet - - -”. Even Islam (f. ex. the learned Ikrimah, quoted by Tabari) accepts the impossibility in that a baby is a prophet, but the explaining it away is vague and hypothetical. A very clear mistake. This even more so as there is not one single chance that this wonder had been forgotten in or omitted from NT if it had been true.

**009 19/30-33: The newly born baby Jesus is continuing talking and discussing in his cradle. Also this are “borrowed” from apocryphal (made up) Child Gospels - in this case as far as we know via “The Arab Child Gospel” - called “The first Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ” – an apocryphal scripture from 2. century. There is not a single chance that a wonder like that had been omitted from the Bible, as it would have strengthened Jesus’ position quite a lot. This even more so as there are not many tales about Jesus as a child, and this story would have made that part of his life less blank. Once more a fairy tale used like a true story by Allah or Muhammad. Even a book like “The Message of the Quran” is not able to defend this as a true story, but it only offers speculations and presumptions to explain away the impossibility.

A very clearly not true story - a clear mistake.

We have never met a Muslim explaining why the Quran often took its stories from well known, but made up legends and fairy tales, and then explained the differences from the Bible by insisting that the Bible is faked. And the use of old stories clearly is the reason why the old Arabs cided Muhammad for "just telling old tales" - and they were right, as he simply copied old stories.

Not much is said about the childhood of Jesus neither in the Bible nor in the Quran. In the Bible his childhood mostly seems to have been a normal childhood with a few exceptions, but in the Quran he was early prepared for being or becoming a prophet by studying the Gospel:

**010 3/48: “And Allah will teach him (the child Jesus*) - - - the Gospel”. One thing is that the word “Gospel” is in singular - there are 4 Gospels. It is not uncommon to use “Gospel” in singular, but it seems that Muhammad did not know there were more than one. But the real screamer is that the Gospels did not exist at that time - could not exist, as they are the story of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, and thus could not be written until after his death and resurrection. The oldest one is written some 25 years after his death (or may be a little earlier, according to new science - source: New Scientist). Show us one single god that did not know that. But as said before: Muhammad did not know the Bible well. Also see 3/3.

We may add that many a Muslim will tell you that the Quran is not talking about the 4 known Gospels, but about an older one they claim has disappeared. And they may be partly right on one point - it may be that once there was another and older Gospel, though not so old that Jesus could read it, neither as a child, nor as an adult. 3 of the Gospels are so similar, that it is clear there is a connection, and one of the possible explanations is that they all took material from an older Gospel. But strangely Muslims never mention the other possible explanation: That the two youngest simply took material from the oldest of the 3. And as strangely the Imams never tell their congregation what a Gospel really is. The for Muslims damaging points are:

1. A Gospel is the history of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, with the main point being his death and resurrection – the final proof for his connection to something supernatural. There had been lots of proofs before according to both the Bible and to the Quran – his many miracles. But his resurrection made any dispute about or denial of the involvement of something supernatural impossible. But as the main points in all Gospels are his trial, his death, and his resurrection, no Gospel could exist until after his death. And no tale not including his trial, death and resurrection is a Gospel, because then the very point that makes it a Gospel – his resurrection and thus the final proof of something supernatural being involved, and of his final victory over the dark forces – is not there. (Also see point 3 below).It is known that Muhammad did not really know the Bible, and especially not NT, and it seems like he used the word “Gospel” without really knowing what it meant. Also modern Muslims – at least the ones with little education – have vague ideas about what a Gospel is, and just states that there must have been an older one that Jesus read, which as you see is an impossibility. (Of course some then try the all-conquering argument that Allah knew and could tell - - - but then we once more are up against the fact that full clairvoyance for Allah combined with free will for man, also is an impossibility, a fact that even Islamic scholars admit, though most reluctantly, and with the very lame addition that “all the same it must be true, because it is told in the Quran” (!!!))
2. We know that if there ever existed an older Gospel, we automatically know that also this was written after Jesus’ death, so Jesus could not have studied it. This because a Gospel as said is the story of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection (which most Muslims do not seem to know), and thus cannot have be written until after his death and resurrection - and thus we know it in case was not written until after the year 33 AD. (Actually more likely ca. 27-28 AD. It is known that Jesus most likely was 33 when he died, but the international chronology most likely is a few years wrong – quite likely 5 – 6 years late).
3. If there ever was such an older Gospel, that means that it was even closer in time to what happened, and thus makes the 3 mentioned Gospels even more reliable as they in case took their material from a Gospel written very shortly after Jesus died, and thus at a time when what happened was even more fresh in the minds of people and society and the writer. But still impossible for Jesus to study, as it did not - could not - exist until after his death.

(We may add that “Gospel” means “good news” or “glad news” or “glad tidings”. You meet the word used like that in some Bibles and other literature, but then it normally is written “gospel” not “Gospel”.) Similare claims in 5/46 – 5/110 – 57/27.

There is mentioned only one more miracle - and what is really told about his childhood in the Bible, is not mentioned in the Quran - (in addition to his talking and arguing when he was just hours old) from his childhood:

*011 3/49: “I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave”. Also this wonder had never been omitted from NT if it had been true - see 3/37. But actually it is taken from the made up legends in one of the “fairy tale” Child Gospels (this one came from the Thomas Child Gospel - also called “The Thomas‘ Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ“- an apocryphal (= made up) one from 2. century ). A god had known the Child Gospels were made up – Muhammad obviously not. Besides: What does it tell the world that the Quran uses a made up story as an indirect proof for Allah? And what does it tell about the reliability of Muhammad’s many statements when there is divergence between the Bible and the Quran that the reason is that the Bible is falsified, when it is clear that the reason is that the Quran is quoting from fairy tales?

3. The Prophet Jesus according to the Quran.

***012 61/6: “- - - (Jesus said*) I am the Messenger of Allah - - -”. If Jesus had said something like this about the known polytheistic god al-Lah from a not too distant foreign country, for one thing he had not got many followers, and for another: The clergy had at once had had an excuse for haveing him killed – and long before they really did. This verse is composed by someone not knowing the religious and political realities in Israel around 30 AD. Similar claims in 4/157 - 5/72 – 5/117.

All the same Jesus – according to the Quran – was a servant of Allah:

013 4/172: “Christ disdaineth not to serve and worship Allah.” In 3/51 is implicated in the explanation why this is wrong - see the full list. The only possible exception is if Yahweh and Allah really is the same god. But only Islam states that, and the teachings of Yahweh (especially in NT) are so different at essential points from the teachings of Allah, that they cannot be the same god unless he is mentally ill (schizophrenic). Islam will in case have to prove what they say.

And of course he according to the Quran wanted good Muslims for disciples:

014 61/14: “- - - said Jesus - - - to the Disciples,’ Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?’” See 61/6a + 61/6b + 3/51 in the full list. Similar claim in 3/52.

And of course they – also here according to the Quran - were good Muslims:

015 5/111: “(the Disciples*) said: “We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to Allah as Muslims”. Made up story - see 3/51 for explanation. Similar claims in 3/52 - 61/14.

But also the disciples wanted proofs (in addition to all the miracles Jesus did according to both the Bible and the Quran):

016 5/114: “Send us (Jesus and the Disciples*) from heaven a Table set (with viands), - - -”. A made up story - there is no chance that such a miracle that clearly shows Jesus’ connection to Yahweh, would be omitted from the Bible. Not one single chance. Even if Muhammad had been right and Christians had falsified the NT, this is the kind of stories they would have added, not omitted. Some Muslims say this may refer a little to “The Prayer of God” - "give us our daily bread" - in the Bible. Much more likely it is a contorted version of the last Easter dinner.

The Quran tells nearly nothing about Jesus as a preacher or about his teachings. The main points for Muhammad were that Jesus was a good Muslim and that even though Jesus was a great prophet – and a real prophet according to both the Bible and to the Quran – he in reality was no match to the greatest: Muhammad.

00a 5/75: “Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; - - -”. The Bible says something else – that Jesus called Yahweh his father, and far from always only his spiritual father - and as the Bible is written relatively short time after Jesus’ death, and on this point on the basis of thousands of witnesses who could tell what Jesus said, and protest if the narrators quoted Jesus falsely, it is likely that the Bible is more reliable here, than the Quran. The Quran is written 600 years later, and offers only unfounded statements without any proof or even indicia backing up the statements. This even more so as the only Islamic source for the statements, was a man with low quality moral, and a man who claimed to be the greatest prophet of all times, something he definitely could not be if Jesus was a relative of Yahweh.

As mentioned Jesus himself frequently called Yahweh his father - and Jesus is reliable also according to the Quran. A sticky fact Islam cannot accept (as said the Quran/Mohammad cannot accept that Jesus may be is the son of Yahweh, because then Muhammad is not the greatest of “prophets” – and the defence of Muhammad also is essential, as he in reality was a dubious and immoral character). Similar claims in 3/59 - 4/171 – 19/34.

*00b 43/81: “If (Allah) Most Gracious had a son, I (Muhammad*) would be the first to worship”. Some proof!! But for that: There still is Jesus calling Yahweh father. And any neutral professor of history would say that according to all normal rules, the Bible should be more reliable than the Quran as a source of correct history: Very much closer in time to Jesus, thousands of witnesses, many narrators, versus one single narrator without good sources 600 years later - and even a man of dubious character and with strong motif to reduce Jesus, to become the greatest prophet himself - and a man clearly lusting for power (just read the Quran and the Hadits - it is clear to see.). And a man that definitely had not been accepted as a reliable witness in any country with a reliable judicial system. (The real and historic Muhammad was something quite different from the glossy semi-saint Islam and Muslims claims – a claim made necessary because all Islam only is built on this man’s words).

017 5/116a: “Didst thou (Jesus*) say unto men, ‘worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah’?” Jesus was not involved with Allah - see 3/51 in the complete list for explanation. As for a divine Jesus, that is not explicitly said in the Bible, but many places it is understood that he was (f. ex. if Yahweh really was his father in some way). But when it comes to Mary, Islam is right - saints are not a part of the teaching of the Bible (on the other hand also some Muslims have saints, notably the Shiites). And all the same the Quran is extremely wrong here: Mary never was part of the Trinity. See 5/116b just below.

018 5/116b: Mohammad believed the Trinity consisted of God/Yahweh, Jesus and Mary. Wrong. Both Muhammad and the Quran were wrong in the extreme when he/they thus believed Mary was part of the Trinity. It consists (?) of God/Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit – also called the “Holy Ghost” or the “Spirit of truth”, the "Spirit of God", or only “the Spirit”. Muhammad never understood the Holy Spirit, even though he used it a few (3) times in the Quran – and some Muslims refer to the Holy Spirit in the Quran as another name for the arch angel Gabriel (!). Also see 5/117. Similar claim in 61/6

00c 5/46: “We (Allah*) sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law (of Moses*)”. According to the Bible Jesus was not sent to change the old laws – that was not his main purpose. All the same that was what he did – changed some and even nullified some of them, especially many of all the additions made through the times by Jewish religious thinkers and leaders. This was more or less formalized his last Easter, when the new covenant was introduced. (This covenant is never mentioned by Islam, and most Muslims without religious education have not even heard about it. This even though it is one of the main and most central facts in the Christian religion.) Similar claim in 61/6.

When it comes to foretelling about Muhammad, which is mentioned in the Quran, it seems that just this was and is more essential to Islam and Muslims, than to Muhammad himself, because he did not return to that topic often (or may be he was careful because he suspected or knew it was not true?). For Islam and Muslims it is an essential question, however, because Islam has not one single valid proof neither for Allah nor for Muhammad’s connection to a god – a real foretelling had been if not a proof, then at least a good indication. Besides the Quran tells that Muhammad is easy to find both in OT and NT, and then Islam has to find him “come Hell or high water” – if not the Quran is wrong and then something is wrong with the religion. An indication of how essential this claim is to the Muslim clergy, is that in Hadiths – f. ex. Al-Bukhari – you find “quotations” about Muhammad presumably taken from the Bible and presumably quoted from the Bible at about the time of Muhammad (and thus it is impossible even for Islam to claim that the Bible is falsified afterwards) , that are not from the Bible, but the commentators do not whisper one word about that the quotes are wrong, but just letting readers who do not know the Bible (= f. ex. 99.9% of the Muslims) believe it is a “bona fide” and correct quote). Al-Taqiyya.

***019 61/6c: “- - - (Jesus said: I am*) giving the Glad Tiding of a Messenger to come after Me, whose name shall be Ahamad (another form of the name Muhammad*) - - -”. This is quite a funny verse, as you meet Muslims that insists it is from the Bible. But there is not anything remotely like this in the Bible, and neither in the some 13ooo relevant scriptures or fragments found through the times older than 610 AD – included some 300 from the Gospels. It is only to be found in the Quran. Also you do not find a single case in OT where a prophesy about distant future which mentions a clear name. but here - o wonder! - is most conveniently the unmistakable name given.

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

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

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

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

1. The life of the first Christians had been entirely different - and their time scale had been entirely different if any of them had heard about another prophet to be expected before the return of Jesus “to judge the living and the dead”. (They would know the return of Jesus would take much longer time than they now believed, to give the “prophet” time to work).
2. The contents of the NT had been different - not least the letters had been different. It simply is a fairy tale made up to strengthen Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet - like some other self-proclaimed prophets. (Rather ironic, as he did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies – he did not even claim or pretend he had it – he was no real prophet. A messenger for someone or something perhaps, but not a real prophet).
   1. The Muslims only backs their claim on one Greek word used in the Bible: “parakletos” which means “helper” – Jesus before he left Earth, promised to send his disciples a helper – the Holy Spirit (which arrived some days later – at Whitsun - according to the Bible (a story that is not negated in the Quran)).
   2. Islam claims “parakletos” is a misspelling for another Greek word “periklytos”, which means “the highly praised”. In Aramaic “the highly praised” means “Mawhamana” of which the second part of that word as a verb is “hamida” (= to praise) and as a noun “hamd” (law or praise). If you then continue to Arab the names Muhammad and Ahmad (another version of the name Muhammad) both derives from “hamida” or “hamd” according to Islam. Which to Islam and all Muslims is a strong proof for that “parakletos” in reality is misspelled and means “Muhammad” in the Gospel after John (f. ex. John 14/16). Not a very convincing proof to say the least of it – and in addition:
   3. The word “periklytos” that Islam claims is misspelled – the only possibility they have to get the answer they want and desperately need (they need it desperately, because the Quran clearly tells that Muhammad is foretold also in the NT - - - and he is not there) – does not exist at all in the Bible, not to mention in the NT. It is not used one single time.
   4. The word “periklytos” also is not found one single time in all the some 13ooo relevant manuscripts and fragments science knows from before 610 AD. Neither in one single place or time, nor in one single of the many manuscripts.
   5. Neither is it found in quotes from the Bible found in some 30ooo other old manuscripts.
   6. The word “periklytos” simply never was used in the old scriptures that became the Bible. The word that is used everywhere is “parakletos” – “helper” (and a helper was what the disciples needed). This goes for each and every known copy.
   7. Beside: How could it be possible to falsify – as Islam claims – the same word the same way in thousands and tens or hundreds of thousands of manuscripts – and how to find each and every “periklytos” in each and every of the many different manuscripts – spread over all those countries? – and on top of all: In a time with little travel and hardly any media Islam has a tough job proving their claim – and remember: It is the ones making claims that have to prove them, not others to disprove it. This often is forgotten when Muslims throw loose claims and statements around.
   8. There also are huge numbers (30ooo ?) of non-religious manusctipts or fragments which refer to the Bible. Whenever this word pops up in those manuscripst it without exception is written "parakletos". Islam must explain how it was possible to find and to falsefy all these "papers", and not least how it was possible to eraze the ink and write another word in such a way that it is impossible for modern science to find traces of falsifications.
   9. Arabs think it is logical that parakletos and periklytos may be mixed – in the old Arab alphabet and scriptures this just meant that someone had guessed the not written vowels wrong. But not so for Greek, as Greek already and a long time before had a complete alphabet where all letters were written. This kind of misspelling therefore is not logical in Greek.
   10. Muslims try to explain that it could not be a question of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit already was present. And the Holy Spirit was present or visited Jesus. But it was not part of the disciples – and that was what happened at Whitsun according to the Bible: They each got personal contact with the Spirit, and that is quite a change of a situation.
   11. Muslims also say that as two different names for the Spirit is used (the Spirit of Truth and the Holy Spirit (you actually also have the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God (1. Mos. 1/2) and only the Spirit)) it proves that John does not mean the Holy Spirit, when he uses the name “the Spirit of truth” – “the Spirit of truth” must mean the Muhammad that lies to his followers in the Quran (“miracles will make no-one believe”, f. ex.) and advised his people to use al-Taqiyya or even break their oaths if that gave a better result. In addition to all the other wrong logic here, this claim is just as logical as to claim that the 99 names of Allah means there are 99 different gods, or the 5-6 or more names of Muhammad means there were 5-6 or more of him. The spirit simply is named by different names (at least 5) – and in addition it is absolutely clear that in the whole Bible there only is one spirit with a special connection to Yahweh.
   12. There only is one conclusion – the conclusion science has made long ago – possible to make in this: This Islamic claim – like many others – either is a lie (an al-Taqiyya?) or wishful thinking. And still “the raisin in the sausage” is not mentioned:
   13. Jesus promised his disciples a helper – a parakletos. If he had meant Muhammad, how could Muhammad be their helper when they were all dead 500 years before he was even born?? It simply is nonsence or wishful thinking.
   14. Further the spirit according to the same verses in the Bible that Muslims quote, could not be seen. Muhammad was not difficult to see.
   15. And another “raisin”: Also in the same verses it is said that the Spirit should be with them for ever. Muhammad definitely was not with them for ever – he was not even with them.

Wishful thinking? – or a bluff? – or a lie/al-Taqiyya? At least science long ago has proved from the old manuscripts that it is not true – the Bible never was falsified on this point either. (But Islam HAS to find him somewhere there, if not the Quran is wrong on this for Islam very essential point - and then something is seriously wrong with Islam). Also see 7/157.

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

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

But one question that was very central to Muhammad was: Was Jesus the son of God?

00d 9/30b: “- - - the Christians call Christ the son of God - - - (in this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old (the Jews?*) used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: - - -”. We are back to the old facts: Jesus himself called God “father”. There were lots of witnesses to this. It was written down a few years later. The Quran vehemently denies it. The Quran has neither witnesses nor any other proofs. The Quran was written more than 600 years later and all the same offers only claims and statements. Muhammad had a lot to gain if Jesus was not the son of God - if Jesus is closely related to God, Muhammad obviously is not the greatest of prophets (irony; he in reality was no real prophet as he did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies - he never even claimed or pretended to have it), and though Muslims may be right that Muhammad personally did not care all too much about money except for using it as bribes, there is no doubt that he liked power and that he spent large sums for “buying” followers (his lust for power is easy to see from the texts in the Quran and the Hadits). The end of the quote is rather sympathetic (?!). Similar statements in 2/116 – 4/171 – 10/68 – 17/111 – 18/4 – 18/5 -19/88-89 – 23/91 – 25/2.The reason for this quote may be three-fold:

1. Muhammad’s obsession with that there only was one god.
2. The fact that if Jesus in some way was the son of God/Yahweh, Muhammad very obviously was not the greatest of prophets.
3. If Jesus was the son of the god, would be difficult to make people listen to Muhammad and not to the Bible – tales about falsified Bible or not.

If Muhammad partly believed in his own religion, point 1 may have been the main one. If he did not – and very clearly he knew that parts of it were not true (f. ex. the explanations why he could not make miracles) – parts 2 and 3 were the main ones (minding his platform of power).

Because of that it was very essential that - -

**00e 43/59: “He (Jesus*) was no more than a servant - - -”. Possible. But there is still the funny fact that thousands heard him call Yahweh “father”. Whereas only one man - and a man of very questionable character and ethics - says the opposite. And that even a man who had much to gain from Jesus being not the son of God. And this even as much as 600 years later without any kind of documentation.

- - - a servant who said things like:

020 43/64: “(Jesus said): For Allah, He is my Lord and your Lord - - -”. See 43/63. We may add that starters of new religions or sects often try to “high-jack” well known persons or situations to use it in their teachings. This may look like such a case.

**021 43/63a: “(JesuS said*): therefore fear Allah - - -”. As said before: If Jesus had been a missionary for the known polytheistic god al-Lah from a not too far of country, he for one thing had got very few followers in the at that time strictly monotheistic Israel, and for another thing he had been killed by the clergy long before - especially if he all the same got a big following like he really had. This is a tale told by someone who knew the religious and political situation in Israel around year 30 AD badly.

022 43/63b: “(Jesus said*): fear Allah and obey me - - -.” This is really is Muhammad’s slogan – he wanted power, that much is easy to see from the Quran, and religion/Allah was his Platform of Power. And many places in the Quran it becomes clear that Muhammad wants everyone to believe he was a “normal” (but top) prophet (actually he was no real prophet, as he did not have the gift of making prophesies – see chapter about Muhammad), and then it was nice if Jesus used the same words like Muhammad and showed this was normal ways for prophets to talk. But one of the really – and one of many - fundamental differences between Jesus and Muhammad (and for that case between f. ex. Buddha and Muhammad), was that Jesus was absolutely not interested in power on this Earth. Consequently this slogan that Muhammad very frequently used to secure his power, was meaningless for Jesus. (The Quran does not oppose this fact: That Jesus preached, but he did not seek power on Earth.)

Also the verse below can be taken as part of a strategy for reducing Jesus from something special to something ordinary – at least an ordinary prophet – to make it easier for Muhammad to be number one (another obvious example: During Muhammad’s claimed trip to heaven, Jesus lived in the lowest of the prophets’ heavens – heaven number 2. Whereas other known prophets from the Bible lived higher up and closer to the god, and Muhammad was to be given place in the 7. heaven, the closest one to the deity):

023 2/136: “We (Allah*) make no difference between one or another of them (prophets*) - - -“. There is one distinction at least Yahweh makes: Between real and false prophets. The criterion for being a real prophet, is that you make prophesies – and that the prophesies come true. If not he is a false prophet (5. Mos. 18/21). Muhammad made during all his life not one real prophesy. (There were a few sayings that were remembered because they happened to become true or partly true – the others were forgotten like normal in such cases – but no real prophesies. He never – no place in the Quran and hardly in any of all the Hadiths – even claimed to have the gift of making prophesies). Was he then really a prophet – or did he simply “borrow” an impressive title? He simply was not a prophet. A messenger for someone or something perhaps – or an apostle, but no prophet. But if either the Quran or the Bible or both speak the truth concerning this, Jesus clearly was. The Quran, though, reduces Jesus as much as possible, and simply skips the question of Muhammad’s right to the title – as so often the book treats things for a fact without the slightest proof or documentation.

Finally there is the death and resurrection of Jesus. If that really happened, Jesus clearly was at least one division higher up than Muhammad. So according to the Quran it did not happen.

024 5/116: Mohammad believed the Trinity consisted of God/Yahweh, Jesus and Mary. Wrong. Both Muhammad and the Quran were wrong in the extreme when he/they thus believed Mary was part of the Trinity. (It consists (?) of God/Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit – also called the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of God, or only the Spirit). Muhammad also never understood the Holy Spirit, even though he used it a few times in the Quran – and some Muslims refer to the Holy Spirit in the Quran as another name for the arch angel Gabriel(!) as it is “known” that Gabriel brought surahs and verses, but it is also said in the Quran that the Spirit brought some. Wrong conclusion: Gabriel must be identical to the Spirit. Also see 5/117. Similar claim in 5/73

*025 4/156: “- - - they uttered against Mary a grave false charge (that Jesus was crucified and dead*)”. There were so many witnesses, included many that knew Jesus, and included so many that hated him and definitely had made revolt if he was not executed – the Jewish clergy and scholars like the later Muslim clergy and scholars were powerful - that this charge was definitely not false. If Islam says something else, they will have to provide good proofs, not only bring forth lofty claims and statements taken out of thin air 600 years later. Because that is all the Quran has got to offer: A few lofty statements backed by nothing - no proofs and not even any indicia indicating that all those witnesses - and the rulers and the hateful Jewish clergy - were wrong. Words are very cheap - - - and the only fact Islam can produce is that neither Muhammad nor Islam can accept that Jesus died and was resurrected - in that case he clearly was a greater prophet and/or had closer connections to the god than Muhammad, and that is taboo for Muslims. It simply is unacceptable for them.

*026 4/157: “- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear for them - - -”. See 4/156. In addition: If no one else made sure that it was no impostor and that the killing really took place, the angry and spiteful Jewish clergy ans scholars would see to that. This claim is made up by someone that could not accept that Muhammad was not the greatest prophet (even though Muhammad in reality was not really a prophet – he did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies). If Islam wants to say something else, they will have a lot of explanation and proving to do - this even more so as the Quran always demands proofs for what non-Muslims say about their religion, but it NEVER itself offers any real proofs for Islam or Allah. In spite of all the “signs” it boasts of, not one single of those “signs” - with the possible exception of some taken from the Bible - proves any god at all, and definitely not one single one proves anything about Allah or the teachings of Muhammad. Words are very cheap, and there is not one single of those “signs” that can not as well and as easy be used by priests or believers or "prophets" of all other religions: Manito did this, Thor did that, Kali made something, Osiris something else, Baal created the Earth, and al-Uzza is great. Islam always only claims that Allah did this and this and that this is a “sign” or a “proof” for Allah. But they NEVER prove that it really was Allah that did this and this. Because of that each and every such “sign” and “proof” are intuitively and logically and even judicially invalid as an indication or a proof – and for the same reason any priest in any religion can say exactly the same valueless words about his god(s). The claims are totally invalid as indications or indicia, not to mention as proofs. There is not one single valid proof for Allah or for the teachings of Muhammad anywhere - - - or for the undocumented claim that Jesus was not crucified and died. Similar claims f. ex in. 4/156 (above).

No matter – it is reckoned as a fact that Jesus really was a historical person. He was heard and seen by so many after his death and resurrection, that it is possible the story may be true – that he really existed after his execution.

But he was never heard or seen after his final farewell to his disciples.

And honestly: If the god took him up to himself bodily and alive, like some Muslims explains this fact away with, that is as good a proof for his connection to something supernatural as anything else. Whereas for Muhammad not one single such proof exists.

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.