PART II, CHAPTER 5 (= II-5-0-0)

OTHER TYPES OF MISTAKES AND ERRORS 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)

For the fact mistakes and errors based on themes, see Part II, Chapter 1, Subchapter 3, Sections 1 through 16.

MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE? - CLAIMS IN THE QURAN IN THE QURAN - THE HOLY BOOK OF MUHAMMAD, MUSLIMS, ISLAM, AND ALLAH

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.

(We are not religious people, but in this chapter we build on the Bible, to be able to debate with Muslims and with Islam which on these topics builds everything on the reliability of that book – except when they want pre-determined answers, becuse if not the Bible is unreliable and falsified.)

It is not unusual for self proclaimed “prophets” starting new sects or religions to try to legitimate themselves by attaching themselves to canonized texts. May be that is what Muhammad did, too. There are stories connecting him to learned men, and this is tried to be used as proofs for that he is a prophet in the Jewish successions of prophets. And of course if he figures in the Bible (which the Quran indicates) that must be an excellent proof for his legitimacy. And not to forget: The Quran really says – many places - he is mentioned in the Bible, and then Islam HAS to find him there, because they have no proofs for his legitimacy and connection to a god – only his own words. But also because mistakes in the Quran mean that something is wrong with both Muhammad and the religion. (That is a main reason why Islam can accept no mistake in the Quran - no matter how obvious the mistake is that Islam tries to explain it away, even though many of the “explanations” are downright pathetic.)

The two places in the Quran that most clearly says he is foretold in the Bible are:

Surah 7/verse 157:

“Those who follow the Messenger (Muhammad*), the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) – in the Law (the 5 first parts of the OT are often called "the Law" even though the law only is a minor part of it*) and the Gospel (first 4 parts of NT*) - - -.” And:

Surah 61/verse 6:

“- - - Jesus, the son of Mary said: ‘O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah (sent) to you , confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving the glad Tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad (another version of the name Muhammad*) - - -.”

Islam needs to find foretelling in the Bible for 2 reasons:

1. There does not exist one single documentation or any other proof for that Muhammad had any connection to a god – there only are his words. And Muhammad was no saint or reliable gentleman, in spite of the glossy picture Islam tries to paint of him – the man that legitimized al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and adviced his followers to break their oats if that would give a better result, is not too reliable. A prophesy about him in the Bible would strongly indicate something.
2. And: If there is no prophesy about him both in the OT and the NT that means that there are serious mistakes in the Quran, and it can not have been made/sent down/revered in Heaven by a god - - - and if there is no Allah involved, Islam is a made up religion and Muhammad a cheater and deceiver.

Because of this they have to find prophesies about him in both OT and NT – no matter how! – it is much better to believe in Islam on twisted and invalid arguments, than to try to find out whether the Quran is true or not.

There only are two places in the Bible Muslim scholars really try to prove anything: That the word “brother” in 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 means “Arabs” (brothers of the Jews), and that Jesus’ words that the apostles would get the Holy Spirit as a helper in the Gospel after John in reality was a foretelling about Muhammad 600 years later. There are more points, but those even Muslim scholars admit are weak, and they mostly are used towards Muslims and others with little real knowledge of the Bible, of historical facts, and of the involved religions.

What is absolutely sure, is that there nowhere in the Bible is a prophesy that clearly foretells that Muhammad is to come. And another fact that is as clear is that there are no clear prophesies about a prophet (per definition Muhammad is no prophet – see the chapter about Muhammad) from Arabia or any other country in that area. There even are no clear hints about any of these two things things.

What remains are some points where – by stretching imagination a little or a lot – it is possible to say “if we understand this and this so and so, this may be understood like this and this, and it may mean that we can see Muhammad in this text – at least perhaps”. So far the argument is fair – but remember it still is a claim only.

But what then happen is that they jump from claiming “this is a possibility” to claiming that “this is a fact” without any more proofs, documentations or indicia – a logically completely invalid step, that of course makes the claimed conclusion as invalid logically. We see three reasons for this logical nonsense:

1. Islam and its Muslims is/are in a fix: As said above: If they do not find Muhammad in the Bible like the Quran says clearly and more than ones, something is wrong with the Quran, and then it is not made by a god, and then Muhammad – willing or unwilling – is decieved (by dark forces dressed up like the angel Gabriel? - or by an illness like TLE?) or a deceiver and Islam a made up religion.
2. It is much better to live “safely” in a religion may be an illusion, than to check if it is the truth or not – even if it is a further fact that if it is wrong, may be it is better to find out in this life and have a possibility to search for a true religion (if such one do exist), than to wake up in something that is very far from the Muslim Paradise in a possible next life.
3. It is very difficult for a person to face that fundamental facts (of any kind) which you have taken for a cornerstone in life and on which you partly or completely have built your life on – things you have taken for self-evident facts for all your life, simply because it was what your parents and the others around you believed. Ethically, morally and intellectually wrong - - - but easy. To quote “The Message of the Quran” once more (in this case translated from Swedish): “Because of this one think it is a matter of fact that these materialistic thoughts are valid simply and only because it is what the older ones believed, and each new generation uncritically accepts, without asking questions, to their ascendants’ beliefs. This fact - - - points to the morally wrong (or worse) act it is to accept an ethical or intellectual claim as true without any other motif/reason than that it has been seen as true by earlier generations”. (Comment 66 to surah 28).
4. Muslims seldom are trained in critical and logical thinking – too dangerous for the religion and too dangerous for many of the political regimes. Because of this their ways of thinking sometimes are hap-hazard and wrong – just look at how conspiracy theories are flourishing in most Muslim countries and areas, and not as “may be” but as “sure facts”.

Here are some of the theories about where to find Muhammad in the Bible – arranged according to where the points appear in the Bible. (We use New International Version – NIV – because that is the newest translation and consequently likely to be the most reliable, as science learns a little more about the old languages every year).

THE OLD TESTAMENT (OT).

Genesis (1. Mos.) 17/20:

“As for Ishmael, I (Yahweh*) have heard you (Abraham*): I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation”. This some Muslims call the first foretelling about Muhammad and the great nation of Arabia. But they omit to mention that this foretelling was fulfilled already a couple of generations later as told in 1. Mos.25/13 – 16: “These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, listed in the order of their birth: - - - (12 names*) - - -. These were the sons of Ishmael, and these are the names of the twelve tribal rulers according to their settlements and camps.” (Some translators say princes instead of rulers, and nations instead of tribes.)

Well, here are the 12 rulers and the great nation – 12 tribes after all meant power in a sparsely populated land. But how Muslims are able to see Muhammad in this, we have not found out.

Genesis (1. Mos.) 21/21:

“While he (Ishmael*) was in the desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt”. Paran is on the Sinai Peninsula. But there also is a place with that name near Mecca (well, actually it is Faran, not Paran, but Islam has mainly switched to calling it Paran for obvious reasons - and they hardly ever mention this) – and the Muslims do not say that perhaps it was this Paran the Bible speaks about. They simply declare that the name proves it was this place, and that the Paran in Sinai there is no reason to talk about. It is like declearing that Stalin in all his brutality was an American because there is a town in USA named Moscow (there really is).

But when they quote the Bible and 1. Mos. and use it for a “proof”, it is dishonesty bordering something very distasteful not also to mention 1. Mos. 25/18: “His (Ishmael’s*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur.” Which was a very natural place, as Ishmael’s mother, Hagar, was from Egypt. It also made it easy for her to find a wife from Egypt for her son, like the Bible tells she did – whereas deep inside the Arabian peninsula, that had been quite another task.

The Bible – which Muslims themselves use as the witness in this case – here proves with the same strenght that Ishmael, his mother and his descendant had nothing to do with Mecca or Arabia. They lived in vest Sinai near the border of Egypt. (To be near the border of Egypt, it had to be in the western part of Sinai). Actually this also gives one more proof – from a source and a place in the Bible which the Muslims themselves use as a decisive witness – for that all the tales about Hagar and Ishmael living in - and Abraham therefor visiting - Mecca, just is a made up story. It also fits the fact that Abraham for long periodes lived in Sinai according to the same Bible that Islam here uses for a claimed proof. And it is reasonably near Mt. Paran in Sinai.

Deuteronomy (= 5. Mos.) 18/15 and 18/18:

NB: This is one of the two “heavy” points according to Islam – the only “heavy” one in OT. (The other one is about the Holy Spirit in NT)

These two - 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 - in reality are the same and identical, and we will treat them like that (Islam does the same). In 18/15 Yahweh says to the Jews via Moses: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me (Moses*) from among your (the Jews’*) brothers. You must listen to him”. In 18/18 Yahweh says to Moses: “I will rise up for them (the Jews*) a prophet like you from among their brothers, and he will tell them everything I command him.”

The two central expressions according to Islam, are “your/their brothers” and “a prophet like you (Moses*)”. We take one point at a time:

“- - - your/their brothers - - -“.

Islam and most/all Muslims claim this is figurative speech (correct) and must point to Muhammad, because he (claimed to be – see chapter about Muhammad) is claimed to be a descendant – even a direct descendant (as normal for Islam without the slightest documentation) – of Abraham and Ishmael – the brother of Isaac – and that the Arabs because they (claim to be) the descendants of Ishmael are the brothers of the Jews (descendants of Isaac) – “it is the only possible meaning”. But:

1. The word brother(s)/brethren/brotherhood is used in the figurative meaning at least 255 times in the Bible – included some 19 times in 5.Mos. (Facts that are seldom mentioned and never by Muslims). They - brother(s)/brethren/brotherhood - always speak about specific groups, (and with only one borderline case – in the NT there are a few places where the entire world is included (as humans – and as potential Christians)) - about Jews in OT and Christians and/or Jews in NT.
2. In OT it in addition always as mentioned above is used about fellow Jews only – it is clear from the context and often said directly. We have found only 5 exceptions, but there may be one or two more. In 1. Mos.13/8 Abraham uses the word to Lot (Lot in reality was his nephew), in 1.Mos. 25/18 it is told that Ishmael and his sons and near descendants chose to be hostile towards the rest of the family – the later Jews – even though they at that time were closely related – brothers – (a disgusting thing to do according to the ethics of that distant past), and in 4.Mos. 20/14, 5.Mos.2/2, and 5.Mos. 2/8 it is used about the Edomites (descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob).

   The Jews after a fashion reckoned the Edomites to be (distant) relatives (as said descendants after Esau, the brother of Jacob, the last of the three patriarks Abraham, Isac and Jacob, that started the history of Israel) – and thus included in a larger, but defined and closed group. In contrast they did not reckon Ishmaelite as relatives. For one thing Ishmael’s mother was a foreigner (from Egypt). For another thing Ishmael was outside the covenant Yahweh made when he renewed the covenant he had had with Abraham and made the renewed covenant with his son Isaac (but Esau was inside, as the son of Isaac) as mentioned in 1.Mos. 17/19-21: “I (Yahweh*) will establish my covenant with him (Isaac*) as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him - - - But my covenant I will establish with Isaac - - -.” For a third the Ishmaelite that Arabs claim later became the Arabs, lived so far off that the relationship even for natural reasons was all but severed. For the fourth and worse: The Ishmaelite chose to be enemies of the Jews – 1.Mos. 25/18: “And they (the Ishmaelite*) lived in hostility toward all their brothers” – see some lines further up in this point. And for the fifth and perhaps most essential besides being outside the covenant: Ishmael and his mother were expelled from the family and tribe (which easily may explain their hostility, but all the same it was hostility in a time when the safety of a person and a family mainly depended on the strength of that family - and no matter they were expelled from the tribe that became Israel 2 generations later).

   All the other times the word was used about fellow Jews.

3. In all the few mentioned cases of borderline exception the name of the opposite part was specified, whereas Moses very clearly did not specify that the brothers he talked about in 18/15 and 18/18 were not Jews – on the contrary it is clear for anyone who are not burdened with strong wishful thinking or desperate need, that he was talking to and about Jews and using a most normal expression for fellow Jews.
4. In the NT the word also always (with the exception mentioned in point 1 above) is used about fellows in a group – either fellow Jews or fellow Christians.
5. There is not one single place in the entire Bible where Arabs are mentioned as brothers or even as more distant relatives. With the single exception of 1.Mos. 25/18 where the word is used to stress the Ishmaelites' bad conduct (see point 2 above) this also goes for the claimed forefathers of the Arabs.
6. The word brother(s)/brethren/brotherhood also is used figuratively in the Quran – at least 32 times – and the Quran follows just the same rule as the Bible: Brothers are belonging to a group – Muslims to Muslims (god or less god), Arabs to Arabs, tribe people within the tribe, (even Lot/Lut they try to pretend belonged to the locals), the bad to the bad. Even the one and single time where Jews clearly are mentioned (59/11) in this connection it is not said that Arabs or Muslims are the brothers of Jews, but that the hypocrites (no specification of nationality, so likely all hypocrites) are the brothers of the Jews (belonging to the group “the bad ones”). Not one single time it is said or even hinted that the Arabs are the brothers of the Jews. A fact no Muslim ever mentions (and few know).
7. Arabia and Arabs are mentioned a few times in OT, f. ex. 2. Chronicles 9/14 and 22/1, Isaiah 21/13, Jeremiah 25/24, Ezekiel 30/5. They always are mentioned in neutral words – like paying tribute to King Solomon – or in negative connections, f. ex. as enemies. Not one place is there said or hinted anything about relationship, not to mention kinship and absolutely not a comma about brotherhood. For some reason or other Muslims never mention this fact, either – but then of course it is more essential to win the debate than to find out what is right. After all al-Taqiyya – the lawful lie – is both a right and a duty to Muslims when it comes to defending or promoting the religion. The religion they believe in because other believes in it and have told them to believe in from blind faith - - - because the others believe in it from blind fait, and the clergy and others do not want to question their beliefs and their small or big platforms of power.
8. Muslims claim – as normal without documentation – that the Quran are the words of Allah, and that Muhammad thus spoke the words of the god, which is one of the criteria (he misses on others - see below) for being the prophet Moses spoke about (f. ex. Jeremiah 1/9 in addition to 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18-19). This could have been right - - - if Islam proves that the Quran really is from a god (actually all the mistakes and other wrong points proves 100% that it is not from a god – no god would do such a sorry work). Besides: Even if it was correct that they were the words of a god, it would only be a criterion, not a proof – many of the Jewish prophets spoke the words of the god, according to both the Bible and the Quran, but they were not the prophet Moses spoke about. Muslims presents the unproven claim in triumph like a proof.
9. Muslims also dismiss in what connection these two verses were said. They themselves tell others strictly that you cannot take a verse – or more – from the Quran and make conclusions or statements from that – a standard demand from any Muslim, especially when he meets arguments that are difficult to answer, an often used last way out. But for themselves that rule is invalid and they quote these two verses from 5.Mos. very much out of the context.

   Because the context clearly tells that Moses was speaking to and about the Jews, and verses 18/1-2 even specifies who the “brothers” were – he had used the same word just seconds earlier in the same speech to the same people and in the same contexts: The Levi tribe “shall have no inheritance from among their brothers (= the 11 other tribes*). The Lord (Yahweh*) is their inheritance (they should be priests and be paid for that*) - - -“. Then seconds later he use the same word without specifying that now he is speaking about other brothers (which he had had to do not to confuse his listeners if he had meant Arabs or Israelites or someone else) – for the simple reason that he continued speaking about the same 11 tribes (by the way: Jesus was from the Judah tribe).

10. There are more contexts: Moses spoke about a prophet. Muhammad in reality was not a prophet. A prophet is a person with close enough connections to a god, so that the god tells him/her or informs him/her about the future on topics the god wants humans to know. (To be more spesific: A prophet makes prophesies. He makes prophesies so often and/or so essential ones that prophesying is a marked part of his mission. And he at least mostly makes correct prophesies - if not he is a false prophet).This is the gift of prophesying. No-one is a real prophet without having the gift of being able to/forced to making prophesies. A messenger, perhaps, or a lot of other things, but you are not a real prophet unless you are able to make prophesies.

    Muhammad did not have that gift. It is very clear from the Quran that he neither had the gift, nor ever claimed or pretended to have it – not one single time in the entire book.

    Oh, there were a few times according to traditions, when things he said, later came true, and also some pep-talk which always are optimistic and comes true if one succeeds in what one tries to do. It is like that with anybody that speaks much – pep-talk and other talk – that alt least some things has to come true for simple statistical reasons – and the rest mostly is forgotten. But the main things are:

    1. They were never claimed to be prophesies when they were said.
    2. Muhammad never claimed to have the gift of being able to make prophesies.
    3. Muhammad only “borrowed”/stole the imposing and impressing title, he was no real prophet. He did not even pretend to be a prophet – he only used the title.

    And when he in reality was no prophet – not even a pretender – he could not be the future prophet Moses told about. (We know there exist "softer" definitions for who is a prophet, like "a person speaking on behalf of a god" - it is an imposing title and many wants to use it. But a real prophet has to be able to make prophesies).

11. Then there is 5.Mos. 18/20 – the next-door neighbour to the for Islam essential 18/18: “But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.” These are criteria for singling out false prophets. In his famous and infamous “Satanic Verses” Muhammad promoted the three pagan goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat – 3 daughters of the Arab main pagan god al-Lah (the same god that Muhammad renamed to Allah). To promote pagan goddesses definitely is something Yahweh had “not commanded him to say”. And promoting the pagan goddesses meant Muhammad also could no be speaking in the name of Allah just then, but in the name of the pagan al-Lah – another god.

    According to this verse – in the same chapter that Islam is using as a strong and reliable proof – it as you see is documented that according to definition Muhammad is a false prophet (also f. ex. all that is wrong in the Quran documents the same). And no false prophet could be the prophet Moses spoke about. The same for a "not real prophet".

12. And one more context just seconds later in the same speech of Moses (5.Mos. 18/21). Moses said: “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord (Yahweh*) does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken”. Muhammad never even made real prophesies and a lot of what he said else in the Quran, pretending to repeat the words of a god, most obviously is not true – just look at all the mistaken facts and all the other wrong points in the book. According to 5.Mos. 18/21 (another verse in the Bible Muslims never mention) this proves – on top of the other proofs – that Muhammad was no prophet. Consequently also for this reason he cannot have been the prophet Moses talked about.
13. As mentioned the word “brother” etc. are used many times in the Bible. It even is used in exactly the same sentence in at least one more for Israel crucial case, and by the same man, Moses, and speaking to the same people – the Jews. 5.Mos. 17/15: “- - - be sure to appoint over you the king your Lord your God (Yahweh*) chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place over you, one who is not a brother Israelite.” One more verse and one more context Muslims never mention – it is permitted to guess why. No further comments necessary.

Conclusion – and it is so obvious a conclusion that it is not necessary to stress that it is the only one that is logically possible: These verses has nothing to do with Muhammad – it simply is Moses talking to his people about his people. Even each and every of some of these points above prove that 100% - not to mention when one takes all together.

Another obvious conclution: Islam has used "cherry picking" of the lines they could use, omitted the parts of the same context that proved their claims wrong, and than twisted the words and contexts a little to arrive at the claims they are searching for.

Deuteronomy (5. Mos.) 18/15 + 18/18 continued:

“- - - a prophet like me (Moses*) - - -“ / “- - - a prophet like you (Moses*) - - -.”

Muslims claim that there are so many likenesses between Moses and Muhammad, that Muhammad has to be the prophet Moses spoke about. And that there are so many differences between Moses and Jesus that it cannot be Jesus.

The trouble is that no matter what two men you choose in all this world and through all times – choose any two you like – you will find similarities and you will find differences (though it is typical that Islam only looks for similarities between Moses and Muhammad, and for differences between Moses and Jesus – they are not trying to find out what is right, only to get the answer they need.) Such similarities and differences may be interesting, but they have no value as proofs it they are not “sine qua non” – facts that make other answers impossible.

Here are two central words: “prophet” and “Moses”. But the main word is “prophet” – “Moses” is just for comparison or measure. And of course Muslims debate the measure, not the fundamental word – wise of them, as Muhammad was not a real prophet (see the chapter about Muhammad). Yes he was not even pretending to have the gift of a prophet (see the previous piece above) – he only "borrowed" that impressing title. Perhaps he was a messenger for someone or something, but no real prophet.

And the thing to compare if you are to compare one prophet with another, is if he/she is as good and as powerful in making prophesies – and correct prophesies – as the other. Muhammad obviously here falls true completely, as he did not have that gift at all. And a man – no matter how charismatic – who was no real prophet, could not be the prophet Moses talked about.

(On the other hand Jesus could be. Both according to the Quran and to the Bible he was a prophet at least as great as Moses - even if Hadiths place Jesus in 2. Heaven ans Moses in 5.).

All other details in reality are without interest in this case as this is the “sine qua non”. The rest is just so much hot air.

A small PS: In John 5/46 Jesus says: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me”. Even the Quran states that Jesus was a prophet that spoke the truth.

Deuteronomy (5.Mos.) 33/2:

“The Lord (Yahweh/God*) came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south - - -.” This is not Yahweh, according to some Arabs, but Muhammad and his warriors. This in spite of:

1. Muhammad never was in Sinai – at least not after he got “myriads” of followers (most likely never unless it was before he started his religion in 610 AD, and it is not said he ever went there).
2. The same goes for Seir – a place mentioned several times in the Pentateuch in OT (f. ex. Numbers (4. Mos.) 10/12, 12/16, 13/3, 13/26 and 5. Mos. 1/1) as the place where the Edomites settled near the Dead Sea. Muhammad hardly ever went there, except perhaps he passed it on his way to Syria when working on caravans in younger years, and some Muslims then says it refers to battle King David won at a place with the same/similar name - - - but in 5. Mos. 33/2 it is Moses who was speaking, and he lived 100-200 years earlier and never heard about that battle. (Some also wants it to be the village Sa’ir near Jerusalem, but Moses never entered Palestine – and neither did the tent he used for a temple, in which he had the contact with his god – the god (not the prophet – the Lord in the Bible always means Yahweh/God) that came “from Sinai and Sair and Paran).
3. And the same also goes for Mt. Paran – a mountain and an area in Sinai. This mountain Muslims admittedly has “moved” to Arabia, near Mecca (a mountain and an area with a similar name - Faran, but Muslims now mostly claim the name is Paran), but till now we have not read any real scientist that is in doubt: The Mt. Paran is in Sinai. This mountain and area is mentioned many times in the Bible (4. Mos.10/12, 12/16, 13/3, 13/26, 5. Mos. 1/1) and science as said is in no doubt. (We may add that Yahweh according to the Bible, in Sinai manifested himself to the Jews and to Moses as a column of smoke by day and one of fire/light by night. He could well shine in the night from Mt. Paran. Muslims wants it to mean that Muhammad’s religion shone from the mountain with the similar name near Mecca – but neither Muhammad nor Islam had any special connection to that mountain, not to mention that the Israelis in Sinai would not be able to see him if he shone from Mt. Faran in Arabia. Sorry – Muslims will have to bring proofs, not only claims).

The name “Bozrah” is mentioned sometimes – it is not present day Basra, but Al-Busairah in Edom, south of the Dead Sea.

And as said: The word “the Lord” in the Bible always means God/Yahweh (or in NT sometimes Jesus) – and Muhammad was no god and no Jesus. Also because of this it is not possible it can be Muhammad that is meant - in the OT the word "Lord" always and without exceptions means Yahweh.

There also is another interpretation: That it all is symbolic. In this case “came from Sinai” means the appearance of Moses - but the sentence really reads “The Lord came from Sinai”, and in the OT the expression “the Lord” always and without exception means God/Yahweh. It was Yahweh that came up from Sinai – it is not possible to misunderstand that - - - not unless you absolutely want to.

Other Muslims claim that “The Lord came from Sinai” refers to that revelations from the god came from Sinai. But to combine that and the next line with the claim that then Seir refers to a battle King David won a place called Seir does not give meaning – to talk about revelations and then have a battle – something entirely different – in the middle of the tale, is illogical. Especially as the text in reality was Yahweh that “dawned over them from Seir”, and then even more so, as then it is said to turn symbolic again: Paran is calimed to symbolize Muhammad.

Consequently some Muslims (f. ex. Badawi) claim that the line “and dawned over them from Seir” refers to the appearance of Jesus. Sinai then refers to the appearance of Moses, Seir to the appearance of Jesus (and the next line to the shining of Muhammad and his religion) – in that case Seir must refer to the village Sa’ir near Jerusalem, according to them, because it is clear that Jesus never visited or had any other connection with the mountain and area of Seir. Which is not even preposterous, as the Bible many places describes Seir as the area where the Edomites (descendants of Esau) lived, and they lived far south of Jerusalem – very far.

As you may guess, all this is just one mess of guesswork, “ad hock” proposals and wishful thinking to get the “right” answers, instead of seeking for truth.

The last of these three lines that make up the claimed foretelling of Muhammad, is “- - - he (Yahweh* - the only subject that is referred to) shone forth from Mount Paran”. There only is one possible meaning to this according to some Muslims – also here normally not Islam, but some Muslims – and that is that the glory of Allah shone in the form of Muhammad’s glorious religion from Paran (or Faran) in Arabia.

It nearly always are possible to make figurative stories out of literal ones – Muslims are experts on that, as that is their normal last ditch defence to nearly anything that is wrong in the Quran – things that used to be the plain truth, switches to allegories or similar as soon as reality or science proves that it is wrong, “and the allegory must be understood differently and is absolutely right if we understand it like this and this”.

Here Moses is reminding his Jews about how Yahweh – in his incarnations, a column of smoke by day and one of fire/light by night according to the Bible – accompanied them from Sinai (a mountain on the Sinai peninsula where the Jews stopped for some time on their march from Egypt) via Seir (another mountain and an area also on Sinai peninsula) and sometime along the route among other places shone in the night from Mt. Paran (also a mountain and an area on the Sinai peninsula).

But such a description of facts does not prove Muhammad, and Muslims need proofs. – then make a parable out of it and “understand” it the way you like best - - - and as normal for Muslims based only on undocumented claims. And twist the facts enough to get the answer you need.

But the trouble is that also Paran is mentioned several times in the Bible (see point 3 in the first half of this piece). According to the Bible it is not absolutely clear exactly where it was – the different translations give 2 possible locations (near the Red Sea or near the river Jordan and some days walk from the mount Seir – which makes the Red Sea location most likely, as that mountain is in west Sinai). But it is absolutely clear that it was along the route the Jews followed after Egypt, and they lived in and marched through Sinai, without one single reference to Arabia at all – not until under King Solomon some 200 years later (2. Chron. 9/14).

And actually: If it had been true that Moses had marched all his at least 2 million people (600ooo men + women and children according to the Bible) and all their animals all the way through the arid desert on Arabian peninsula all the way down to Paran or Faran near Mecca in Arabia and then the same hot and dry way back– believe it if you want – these 3 lines only reminds the Jews on that Yahweh’s manifestation had been together with them all the way from Egypt until Palestine (Moses made this speech “east of Jordan” (5. Mos. 1/5) which means near the border of Palestine – “in the fortieth year” (5. Mos. 1/3), which means shortly before he died and Joshua lead the Jews into the future Israel). All the story tells about "the Lord", and "the Lord" = Yahweh witout exceptions in OT. If Islam still insists, they will have to produse some proofs, not only loos claims.

Psalms 45/2-5:

“Gird your sword upon your side, O mighty one; clothe yourself with splendour and majesty. In your majesty ride forth victoriously in behalf of truth, humility and righteousness; let your right hand display awesome deeds. Let your sharp arrows pierce the hearts of the king’s enemy - - -“.

This is Muhammad riding to war and battle, Muslims says.

But saying it, they for some reason or other omit verse 45/1, that shoves that this is someone singing for some king – “I recite my verse for the king” – and Muhammad was no king. And strangely enough they also omit verse 6, that shows that the one the singer is asking to kill the king’s enemies, and the “mighty one” that is to “ride forth victoriously”, is God/Yahweh.

Muhammad was no god. And it is questionable if a man who stole and lied/broke his oath, raped, enslaved, tortured, extorted, murdered, and incited to hate and suppression, not to mention glued himself to a god as his platform of power, rode forth “in behalf of truth, humility and righteousness”.

Psalms 149/6 – 7:

“May the praise of God be in their mouth and a double-edged sword in their hands, to inflict vengeance on the nations and punishment on the people - - -.”

This for sure is Muhammad and his men!! - - according to some Muslims. But why do they skip verse 2 that tells that this is Jews praising their god (Yahweh) and their king – perhaps David or Solomon?: “Let Israel rejoice in their Maker (Yahweh*); let the people of Zion be glad in their king - - -“.

Muhammad had very little to do with Zion and was little praised by Israel.

Song of Songs (Song of Solomon) 5/16:

This is a love song – nearly a duet between a woman (the Beloved) and a man (the Lower), but with a few lines here and there from “Friends”. Perhaps the most poetic piece in the entire Bible. In chapter 5, verse 16 the woman sings: “His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my lover, this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem”. With Solomon involved, it naturally happened in Jerusalem.

The Hebrew word for “altogether lovely” is “machmad”. Muslims claim that it can be translated to “praise” = Ahmad = Muhammad (= the praised one) and is a proof for Muhammad in the Bible. (You will NEVER find a scientist of any kind of science that will accept that a possibility = proof. Not any other reasonable intelligent person either.) And that the real meaning of the lines is: “His mouth is sweetness himself, he is Muhammad. This is my lover, this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem”.

But:

1. Verses 1/5-6 tells she was a dark woman. It is known only one dark woman in Muhammad’s harem – the concubine Marieh. But she was a slave from Egypt, not a woman from Jerusalem.
2. It is very clear from several places in the song that this happened in Jerusalem. Muhammad never visited Jerusalem – and definitely not after his rich first wife Kadiah died and he could go looking for women.
3. Verses 3/7, 3/9, 3/11, and 8/12 tell clearly that this happened at the time of King Solomon – some 1600 years before Muhammad.
4. Verse 8 tells that the woman was from Lebanon. None of Muhammad’s wives were from Lebanon, as far as we have been able to find out.

Actually point 3 is alone enough to prove Muhammad is not involved: some 1600 years before him is a long time.

Also: The word “machmad” appears 13 times in the OT. (Kings 20/6, 2 Chronicles 36/19, Isaiah 64/11, Lamentation 1/19, 1/11, 2/4, Ezekiel 24/16, 24/21, 24/25, Hosea 9/6, 9/16, Joel 3/5 + here). Exchange the word for Muhammad, and get some strange prose – or poetry. The argument simply is made up. Muslims always stress that reading the Quran, you cannot pick sentences here and there – you have to see the complete picture to get the meanings right. But they all too often do the opposite themselves; if a twisting of a word or a sentence taken out of the complete story can be used to construct a meaning they want.

Isaiah 1/7:

“When he (the lookout in the tower*) sees chariots with teams of horses, riders on donkeys or riders on camels, let him be alert, fully alert.”

This must be a prophesy about Muhammad’s arrival, Muslims say – though rarely Muslim scholars speaking to educated persons. It f. ex. could be a million others.

And verse 9 tells why scholars seldom speak about this "proof" forMuhammadin the Bible: The ones arriving are refugees from Babylon – hardly any Muhammad among them. Especially as Babylon fell 1000 years before Muhammad.

Isaiah 21/13-15:

One translation, taken from an Islamic page on Internet (NB: It may well be correct, even if NIV translates it somewhat differently – old Hebrew has the same weak point as old Arab in that they mainly only wrote the consonants, which – like in Arab and f.ex. the Quran – means that there may be different interpretations some places. In such cases NIV normally uses the most common interpretation in the text, and mentions the alternative in foot notes).

“The burden upon Arabia. In the forest of Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim. The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, They prevented with their bread him that fled. For they fled from the swords, From the drawn sword, and from the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war”. (This in fact is the King James Version, but as the NIV is a much younger translation and consequently made from better knowledge about the old languages, it is likely NIV is more exact than KJV).

NIV’s translation:

“The caravans of Dedanites, who camp in the thickest of Arabia, bring water for the thirsty, you who live in Tema, bring food for the fugitives. They flee from the sword, from the drawn sword, from the bent bow and from the heath of the battle.”

This indisputably is a foretelling about Muhammad!! some Muslims say. There were no other famous flight in Arabia, and therefore it HAS to be about him.

But:

1. There is nothing that says it is about a famous flight – it may have been about some more local conflict, though essential enough for the victims. Also see the point just below.
2. Verse 21/9 - just a few lines before the ones Islam quotes - tells this episode has to do with the fall of Babylon - a fact that Muslims conveniently "forgets" - something that happened more than 1000 years before Muhammad. Now the name Babylon often is used as an expression for a bad or degenerated community, but even if you here say that Babylon represents the Quraysh tribe and Mecca, it does not fit, as Muhammad did not flee because of the fall of Mecca. Mecca and the Quraysh still were very powerful when Muhammad fled in 622 AD.
3. These refugees are fleeing from war. Muhammad fled not from war, but from persecution.
4. We know that Muhammad did not visit the area of Tema during his flight – it is far too far north (approximately 400 km north of Mecca and more than 300 km north of Medina, whereas Muhammad followed a rather direct though hither-and-thither (to avoid his persecutors) route between Mecca and Medina). Strangely Muslims never mention this, even though at least their scholars know it very well.
5. The essential fact here: Isaiah lived and wrote during the time of the Assyrians. The Assyrians started invasion of Arabia in 732 BC – also a fact Muslim scholars know very well. Isaiah simply wrote about and made a prophesy about the coming war.
6. One more essential fact: The time frame! – even one more fact Muslim scholars know, but cold-bloodedly omits in order to twist the information: The very next verses (21/16-17) of Isaiah continues: “This is what the Lord (Yahweh*) says to me: “Within one year, as a servant bound by contract would count it, all the pomp of Kedar will come to an end. The survivors of the bowmen, the warriors of Kedar, will be few”. Here it is directly said that this prophesy is to be fulfilled within a year – not some 1300 years later and concerning Muhammad.

To cherry-pick a few lines that can be twisted to give the answer you want if you stretch your imagination enough, and then omit lines just before telling it talks about something entirely differrent, and the very next line that proves what you say is a lie – there is only one expression for that: Dishonesty. Well, one or two more: Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) – expressions you only find in Islam of the major religions. (As for al-Taqiyya and Kitman: see chapter about al-Taqiyya).

Isaiah 53:

This is too long to quote, but some Muslims are sure the person is Muhammad. Read the chapter – it is about half a page – and laugh (or weep). This man has no similarity to Muhammad – f. ex. verse 9: “- he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.” Muhammad was a mass murderer, rapist and warlord and one of his slogans was: “War is deceit” according to Ibn Ishaq.

But the description may fit Jesus.

Isaiah 63:

This is too long to quote. But Muslims say the mighty one obviously is Muhammad. But read it – it is God/Yahweh speaking to and about the people of Israel!

Muhammad so definitely was no god – and absolutely not Yahweh.

Habakuk 3/3:

“God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran”.

Now both the Bible and science says Mount Paran is in Sinai. But Islam says near Mecca even though the correct name of that mountain according to Muslim sources is Faran, and then the Holy One – the god – must mean Allah and Teman must indicate Islam. But Teman is mentioned more places in the Bible, and Teman is not the best of places:

In Jeremiah 49/7: Yahweh asks “Is there no longer wisdom in Teman?” (Well, if one were sarcastic one could agree that Teman must mean Islam).

In Jeremiah 49/20 – 22 Yahweh says: “Therefore, hear what the Lord (Yahweh*) has planned against Edom, what he has purposed against those who live in Teman: The young of the flock will be dragged away; he (Yahweh*) will completely destroy their pasture because of them. - - - In that day the hearts of Edom’s warriors will be like the hearts of a woman in labour”.

It is clear that Teman is a place in Edom (near the Dead Sea) with pastures and more – it is not a religion. But it is clear that it will be destroyed - may be it fits Islam anyhow?

In Ezekiel 25/13 Yahweh tells he will lay waste Edom (near the Dead Sea), included the place Teman.

In Amos 1/12 Yahweh says: “I will send fire upon Teman”. It clearly is a place – a village or a town – not a religion (It is difficult to send fire upon an idea).

In Obadiah, verse 9 Yahweh says: “Your warriors, O Teman, will be terrified and in Esau’s mountains (Edom*) will be cut down in slaughter because of your violence against your brother Jacob”. Islam has one they can say was the brother of Isaac (Ishmael , but none that was the brother of Jacob except Esau (Ishmael was not Jacob'd brother)– and besides if Teman was Islam, the Muslims had been dead by now –“cut down in slaughter”.

Actually nothing of this fits Islam’s history.

And to make a long story short: The Bible indicates that Teman was a town near Jericho. And in no case it can have been Islam – the history is totally different.

Haggai 2/7:

Yahweh says: “I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations will come - - -“. In Arabic “the desire of all nations” = “Hemdah” = “the praised one” that semantically = Muhammad. (the root is the verb Hamada that is the root of many words actually). But all the same the words are not freely interchangeable – no Muslim would call Muhammad Hamada - - - except when they here are looking for “proofs” for their “prophet” – proofs they dearly need, because they have none.

In Surah 1, verse 2: “Praise (al-hamadi (from Hamada)) be to Allah” – you would be stoned if you said that Hamada/Hemdah = Muhammad and said “Muhammad be to Allah”. In Daniel 11/37 one have “He (a king*) will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one (god*) desired (Hemdah*) by the women - - -“. Try to change Hamda for Muhammad here – and mix Muhammad up with pagan gods!

Even if the root of the words is the same (Arab often have word roots consisting of 3 consonants, and then by filling in with different vowels they get different words and different meanings), the words are not freely interchangeable – except when wishful twisting of words and roots of words may give a "proof" for Muhammad’s divine contact.

THE NEW TESTAMENT (NT).

In the New Testament, the situation is even more difficult for Islam – there are fewer verses that are possible to twist to mean foretelling about Muhammad. And even the main claim needs a lot of twisting of the facts to arrive at the answer they want and desperately need because the Quran states that Muhammad also is foretold in the Injil – the Gospels. (Surah 7/157 and f.ex. surah 61/6). The same goes for Hadiths – they clearly state that he is mentioned in the Bible.

Also here we will arrange the claims according to what succession the relevant verses have in the Bible.

John 1/19-23:

“Now this was John’s (John the Baptist*) testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites (from the Levi tribe – the priest tribe*) to ask him who he was. (20) He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, ‘I am not the Christ (Messiah*).’ They asked him, ‘Then who are you? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the Prophet?’ He answered, ‘No.’ Finally they said, ‘Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?’ John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, ‘I am the voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord’’”.

Well, this has to be about Muhammad – a voice in the desert and a “straight way” (an expression often used by Muhammad)! This even though all the rest is about Jesus and is proclaiming his divinity and has to be lies – this cherry-picked small piece must be true, according to some Muslims.

But how could John the Baptist – the messenger for Jesus, and he who proclaimed Jesus’ divinity – “make the way straight for Muhammad” some 580 years later? – without once even giving a hint about Arabia or anything? There is no connection between the two anywhere. Wrong.

And finally: As mentioned before the word "Lord" used in the Bible as a name for a religious "person" ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION refers to Yahweh or (sometimes) Jesus. There is no exception from this rule.

John 14/15-26 and 16/7-8:

As two parts of the Gospel after John (John 14/15-26 and 16/7-8) are so essential to the main claim from Islam, we first quote this in its full length. (words marked * are added by us for clarification):

John 14/15-26:

"(15) If you love me (Jesus*), you will obey what I command. (16) And I will ask the Father (Yahweh*), and he will give you (the disciples*) another Counsellor (Greek: Parakletos*) to be with you forever - (17) the Spirit of the truth (one of at least 5 names for this Spirit*). The world cannot accept him, because they neither see him nor know him. But you know him, for he lives with you (but not in you*) and he will be in you (afterwards*). (18) I will not leave you (the disciples*) as orphans, I will come to you. (19) Before long the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. (20) On that day (when the Counsellor comes*) you (the disciples*) will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. (21) Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.(22) Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, *but, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?” (23) Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. (24) He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me (= it in reality is Yahweh who is speaking*) (25) All this I have spoken while still with you. (26) But the Counsellor (Parakletos*), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

John 16/7-8:

(7) “But I (Jesus*) tell you (the disciples*) the truth: It is for your good I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counsellor (Parakletos*) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (8) When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgement - - -.”

The claim from Islam is that the Counselor (Parakletos = helper, councelor, adviser) John here speaks about is Muhammad. He is speaking about a future prophet, they say, and there is no other alternative than Muhammad. To make that claim stick, they claim that the word “parakletos” is wrongly spelled – it surely shall be “periklytos” (as normal for Islam they do not even try produce documentation for the claim, even though there are thousands of old documents). “Periklytos” may be translated to Aramaic - Aramaic, not Arab - and one gets the word Mawhamana, which can be translated to Ahmad or Muhammad in Arab.

Pathetic.

And worse: The word used in Syriac (a language used by the church in the area at the time of Muhammad and before) is “menahhemana”. This “obviously” in reality means “mawhemana” and is another wrong spelling Muslims say. And it refers to Muhammad they say.

The strange thing is that Syriac “menahhemana” means “'the life giver' and especially 'one who rises from the dead'” (Professor A. Guillaume in “The Life of Muhammad“, 2007, page 104). Then who rose people from death and gave them life? And who rose from the death himself? – not Muhammad, but Jesus. Irony?

Well, periklytos means “the glorious one” or “the praised one” – and Islam jumped on this word, because the name Ahmad – another form of the Arab name Muhammad, which also looks somewhat similar to Mawhamana – also means “the praised one”. This without doubt and very obviously was a prophesy about Muhammad!! – the problem was to explain it. And the only possible way was by making some twists, including claiming that all the old manuscripts had spelled the word wrongly. It HAD to be about Muhammad – if for no other reason, then because the Quran says he is mentioned also in the Gospels, and there is no other real possibility. (Also: It is said that Muhammad's original name was Amin – from his mother's name Amina – and that the name Muhammad came later. If this is correct, where does that bring this claim?)

But:

1. Muhammad was no real prophet (he did not have the gift of prophesying – he did not even pretend to have it or claim to have it – see the chapter about Muhammad). He only “borrowed” that title so laden with meaning and prestige.
2. The word “Parakletos” you will find some places in the Bible. The word “Periklytos” does not exist anywhere in that book – not one single place. Wrong unless proven right.
3. There are thousands of old manuscripts from before Muhammad (610 AD – the start of his career). We have seen numbers up to 50ooo, but most likely there are some 13ooo relevant manuscripts or fragments. Some of these even are manuscripts or fragments of the Gospels – also here we have seen different numbers (up to 5ooo), but it seems that some 300 is the correct one and that some 70 are complete or reasonably complete. This including f. ex. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus in British Museum, London. The word “periklytos” is not used in one single of them – not one single time. In addition there are huge numbers of old manuscripts with references to the Bible. Also here you will find different numbers, but it looks like some 30ooo is the correct one. In not one single of them you will find the word "periklytos" as a reference to or a quote from the Bible. It simply does not and did not exist in the Bible anywhere or at any time. (An extra good proof for that this is true, is that if it had existed, Islam had screamed to holy heaven about it – but they are silent, except for their persistent and – as normal - not documented claims.Well, they waguely mention the counsil in Nicaea (now Iznik in Turkey) in 325 AD, but even if it had been true, it does not explain why all the manuscripts older than 325 AD also are claimed to be "wrong" - and falcified in so clever a way that even modern science are unable to find traces of falsifications. Worse: The complete agends for that coouncil is known, and there is not a hint about wishes to change the contents of any texts. (Besides: How do you make bishops change biblical texts? - or ayatollas change verses in the Quran?)
   1. The agenda of the council in Nicaea in 325 AD according to Wikipedia:

      The Arian (a heretic group*) question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i. e. are the Father and Son one in purpose only or also one in beilg.

   2. The date of celebration of the Easter observation.
   3. The Meletian schism.
   4. The validity of baptism by heretics.
   5. The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.

      As you see: Not one word about changes in any biblical texts.

   6. In addition there were promulgated 20 new church laws:
   7. 1. Prohibition of self-castration.
   8. 2. Establishing of a minimum term for catechumen.
   9. 3. Prohibition of rhe presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspition.
   10. 4. Ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least 3 provincial bishops and conformation by the metropolitan.
   11. 5. Provision for 2 provincial synodes to be held anually.
   12. 6. Exceptional authority acknowledged for the patriarchs of Alexandria and Rome, for their respective regions.
   13. 7. Recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem.
   14. 8. Provision for agreement with the Novationists.
   15. 9 - 14. Provisions for mild procedure against the lapses during the persecution under Licinius (an emperor*).
   16. 15 - 16. Prohibition of the temoval of priests.
   17. 17. Prohibition of ursury among the clergy.
   18. 18. Precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving Holy Communion, the Eucharist.
   19. 19. Decleration of the invalidity of baptism bu Paulianheretics.
   20. 20. Prohibition of kneeling during litutgy on Sundays and in the 50 days of Eastertide (the pentecost).
   21. As you see: No trace of changing texts in the Bible. As said before: To make mainstream bishops change texts in the Bible, is just as easy as making mainstream ayatollas change texts in the Quran - both are believeing too strongly and both are too conservative to change even a comma. Islam's claim simply is redicolous in the ears of anyone who knows a little about Nicaea, but it is the only posibility they have for the claims of falsification of the Bible that may sound right for the not informed - included 99.9% of the Muslims. But even if it had been true, it had been impossible to falcify without a trace all the manuscripts older than 325 AD, and it had been impossible to falsify all the manusctipts from the OT owned by Jews.
4. Islam – and the Quran – as mentioned above claims the Bible must be falsified (also on many other places). They do not explain how in the old days with slow travel and no mass communication it was possible not only to falsify all the thousands of manuscripts spread over large parts of Europe, North Africa and Asia, but to make exactly the same falsifications in each and every one of them. Unless Islam explains – we do not even ask for proofs, but only for a logically valid explanation - when and how this was done (it was not in Nicaea - the agenda and the actual debates there are too well known), there is only one possible conclusion to make: Another al-Taqiyya (lawful lie). This even more so as in addition to these manuscripts, there are lots and lots of others that refer to the Bible (some 30ooo?), and also in these references there is not on single time a reference to "periclytos" - not one single. How did the guilty ones trace all these papers and falsify all of them in exactly the same way all of them? Not to mention: How did they erase the word "paracletos" in all these manuscripts + the above mentioned 13ooo (the ones of them older than 325 AD) and insert "periklytos" in such a way that modern science is unsble to see the falsifications?
5. A very good proof for that no such falsifications are ever forund, is the fact that if it had been found anywhere or any time, Islam had published it with very capital letters. But there are nothing but undocumented claims or even claims contradicting the documentations - like the claims about falsifications during the council in Nicaea.

   In one word: Nonsence. And science has long since showed that Islam's claims that the Bible is falsified are wrong. If Muslims still claims something else, they will have to produce proofs (not only cheap claims).

6. The next “explanation” one meets is that the man translated the NT from Hebrew made a mistake and used the wrong word. But the NT never was translated – it written originally in Greek!
7. A claim parallel to the point above: The mistake came from the incomplete alphabet – Hebrew like Arab only wrote the consonants, and then the reader had to put in – or guess (one of the problems with the original Quran) - the vowels. The two words have the same consonants: p-r-k-l-t-s. Add a-a-e-o and you get parakletos; add e-i-y.o and you get periklytos. But once again: NT was written in Greek, and Greek had a complete alphabet – this possibility for a mistake simply did not exist in Greek. The problem also did not exist in spoken Hebrew – only in written, and the first writers of course took the words - like spoken – from their own heads. Both these facts are well known to Muslim scholars, and all the same they tell these arguments to their less educated congregations and listeners!! Wrong.
8. But all the same the writer of the NT could have made such a mistake! Also wrong. For one thing there were around a dozen different men who wrote the NT – and then all the ones that used the word, had to make just the same mistake. Just try to explain that! Besides there were lots of people that understood both those two languages – a lot of Jews, as Greek was the second language in the Roman Empire after Latin, and a number of the bureaucrats that was or had been stationed in Palestine to mention two groups. They would quickly find the serious mistakes and whisper about correction or scream about mistakes – depending on whether they were friends or foes. Also this argument from Muslims is wrong.
9. Then we return to the text. Jesus was speaking to his disciples and promised them a helper – a Parakletos. If that had meant Muhammad, what a helper could he be to the disciples more than 500 years after they were dead!!?? Just and only this question alone kills this claim from Islam – it is an absolute impossibility. And worse: Islam’s scholars know this very well. Very wrong.
10. “- - - another Comforter (Parakletos/Periklytos?) - - -.“ To use the meaning Periklytos here, means in case that also Jesus is a Periklytos, because a new one is coming instead of Jesus. But Jesus is never called a Periklytos – the word does not exist anywhere in the Bible, not today and not in any of the some 13ooo relevant old scriptures and fragments or some 30ooo references. Wrong – unless Islam produces a proof (but had one existed, Islam had produced it centuries ago).
11. “- - - but you (the disciples*) know him (the Comforter*) - - -“. None of the disciples ever knew Muhammad – but they had knowledge of the Spirit, as they had been companions of Jesus. Wrong.
12. “- - - for he (the Comforter*) lives with you - - -“. It is hopelessly inadequate to say Muhammad never lived with the disciples. Wrong at lest to the third power.
13. The “parakletos” is to “be with you forever”. Muhammad was with no-one forever – he was for one thing born 550 years too late to be a “parakletos” or even a “periklytos” for the disciple, and for another thing for another thing he existed far from forever. Wrong.
14. “The Spirit - - -“. The “parakletos” was a spirit, not a man. Muhammad here is wrong.
15. “The Spirit of truth - - -.” The man who institutionalized “al-Taqiyya” (the lawful lie) and “Kitman” (the lawful half-truth) – and practised it himself, the man who institutionalized that even oaths can be broken if that gives a better result (though you should give Allah something afterwards as an excuse according to the Quran, if you had meant the oath) – and practised it himself, the man who had as a slogan that “War is deceit/betrayal” (Ibn Ishaq), that man neither was, nor had much contact with “the Spirit of truth”. Wrong also because of this.
16. “The world - - - neither sees him - - -“. No human – like Muhammad - is invisible (but a spirit may be). Wrong.
17. “- - - he - - - will be in you - - -.” To be flippant: The only humans Muhammad ever was in, was a lot of women. Wrong.
18. “I (Jesus*) will not leave you (the disciples*) as orphans - - -.” They had been orphans for the rest of their lives if they had had to wait for Muhammad 500-600 years later. Wrong.
19. “On that day (when the Parakletos comes*) you (the disciples*) will realize - - -.” The day of the comming of the Comforter/Parakletos obviously was a day in the lives of the disciples – Muhammad was not. One more proof for that Islam's claim is wrong.
20. Islam says: It cannot be the Holy Spirit that was Parakletos, because it is clear that the Holy Spirit already was there, and Jesus talked about something that should come. Of course the spirit was in and around Jesus – and around the disciples – at least sometimes. But Jesus told that it should be in them and part of them, which it had not been before. That was what happened at Whitsun, according to the Bible – the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, which was quite a new situation. Invalid argument. Wrong.
21. Islam says: It cannot have been about the Holy Spirit, because Jesus told about the Spirit of truth. But in all the NT there exists only one special spirit connected to Yahweh. Only one. No mistake possible. Wrong argument. Also see next paragraph just below.
22. Islam says: The Holy Spirit and the Spirit of truth are two different beings – they even have different names! – and Allah has 99 names (but there are not 99 gods according to Islam), Muhammad a few, Jesus some, most humans two or three. The Spirit has at least 5 different names (The Holy Spirit, The Spirit of Truth, The Holy Ghost, The Spirit of God ans just The Spirit). In addition: See the point just above. Invalid proof.
23. Islam says: But they cannot be the same as the name “the Holy Spirit” is neutrum (sexless), whereas the name “the Spirit of truth” is masculinum (male). Wrong, but this is easier to show with grammar from other languages, as nouns only have one grammatical gender in English. Take the German word “ein Madchen” (a girl). The particle “ein” shows that the word grammatically is masculinum (femininum/female: “eine”), but a girl very obviously is femininum. Or take the good old Atlantic steamer “Queen Elisabeth”. In Norwegian she is “ein baat” (a boat of any size) and “ein” also in Norwegian is masculinum. But she also is “eit skip” (a ship). But the particle “eit” means neutrum/sexless. And further she is “ei skute” (another word for a ship). And “ei” means femininum/female gender. Well, even in good old England “Queen Elisabeth” in reality is without any sex or gender. But grammatically it (the ship) normally is a “she” also in England. The grammatical gender of a noun simply is no proof for the real – if any – sex or gender of the being or thing behind the noun. An indication, yes often. A proof, no.
24. One relevant comment from Acts 1/4-5: Jesus said to his disciples shortly before his ascension to Heaven: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift (the Comforter/Parakletos*) my Father (Yahweh*) promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit".
    1. The Comforter should come “in a few days”. Muhammad came some 577 years later (this happened year 33 AD (or a few years earlier if the international years are a few - 4 to 6 - years late) – Muhammad started his preaching in 610 AD).
    2. Here Jesus calls the Spirit the Holy Spirit. Shortly before he called it the Spirit of truth – and he talked about the same spirit, because of (like said before) there is only one single spirit in the entire NT and the entire Bible connected to Yahweh. Another proof for what is said just above - - - and for that the two names means the same.

There are more indications/proofs in the Bible for that the Comforter was the Holy Spirit and for that the Comforter could not be Muhammad – there simply are too many verses in the Bible that “collide” with that claim. But what we have written above is far more than enough to disapprove the claim from Muslims and from Islam.

Sorry for all these explanations, but there were so many claims to meet, and all of them had to be answered.

Just 2 more comments:

1. The Bible is a large book – our copy of NIV is more than 700 pages with very small print. In such a large book it is impossible not to find some words that look similar to some word or words in any given other language – or at least can be given similarity with some twisting. But it is a very far cry from there to to use superficial or even twisted + superficial seemingly similarity as proofs – at least in an honest debate. There also is a difference between a possibility and a proof. And even more so if you are honestly trying to find what is true. (But then Islam “knows” what is true and goes all out to find “proofs” - by whatever means necessary often. Blind belief and dishonesty is better than trying to find out what is true and what not).
2. If the first Christians had expected another prophet later, for one thing they had lived their lives differently (exprcting Jesus to return in months or a few years, they planned and lived accordingly - if they had expected another prophet in the meantime, they had planned for a longer wait), and even more: The texts in the NT – especially in the letters – had been different.

But in spite of all the words above, there in reality only is one or a few facts you need to kill the reality in these claims – that these verses in the NT foretells the prophet Muhammad:

1. Muhammad was no real prophet – he did not have the gift of real prophesying, and did not even himself claim he had that gift ot pretend to have it. He only “borrowed” an imposing and impressive title. And as he was no real prophet – a messenger for someone or something perhaps, but no prophet - he of course was not the prophet that Moses talked about. (Jesus never spoke about another prophet later – no place in the entire NT)
2. Jesus promised his disciples a helper in som days. Muhammad lived 600 years later – he could not help them.
3. The Parakletos/Counsellor was invisible and to be within the disciples. Muhammad neither was invisible, nor within the disciples.

Short and simple and to the point. (Remember that when someone needs many words and many arguments to prove something simple, the reason often is that he/she leads you by the nose so that you shall not see mistakes or invalid logic here and there. You often meet Muslims using that technique.

BUT IS MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE ALL THE SAME?

THE BLACK ALTERNATIVE.

There are persistent, non-religious argumentations for that Muhammad and Islam in reality represents dark supernatural forces. We are not going to enter this debate heavily, but there are two reasons why we are unable to get rid of the suspicions in our minds, and the same two reasons make it impossible and irresponsible not to mention the possibility:

1. If some dark forces – f. ex. the Devil - dressed up like Gabriel, or if they worked on his mind – f. ex. by means of an illness like TLE like BBC proposed (20. March 2003) which often gives religious experiences like the ones Muhammad had – or in dreams, Muhammad had had no chance of detecting that he was cheated.
2. The bloody and inhuman surahs from Medina that turned Islam into the inhuman and harsh war religion it became – and is today according to the Quran - for the ones living strictly according to the not abrogated parts of the Quran, which are dominated by just the surahs from Medina - fits a devil much better than it fits a good, benevolent god.

Because of that we mention a few facts:

1. Jesus several places said false prophets would arise, and that they would deceive many. Muhammad indisputably was no real prophet as he did not have the gift of prophesying – and no other person has led so many into a sect or religion fundamentally based on inhumanity (suppression, discrimination, hate, slavery, “good and lawful” rape, “good and lawful” stealing/robbing, “good and lawful” and even the best services to the god (?); war, to mention some points). Muhammad fits that picture too well for comfort.
2. The Apostle Paul mentioned that Satan sometimes disguises himself as an angel of light. Muhammad met an angel of light – Gabriel - - - or someone or something masquerading like Gabriel.
3. Paul also said that a time would give heed to “doctrines of devils”. As mentioned above the surahs from Medina look much more like doctrines from devils than like doctrines from a good and benevolent god – not to mention the Satanic Verses.
4. Paul also predicted that a time would come when people would not seek and listen to sound doctrines, but listen to fables. And too many Muslims today and before do/did not look for the truth, but only seeking (“proofs” for) what they want to hear. And is it a coincidence that most of the tales in the Quran are documented to be “borrowed” from fairy tales, legends and fables? Even most of the ones seemingly from OT and some seemingly from OT are documented in reality to come not from the Bible, but from made up tales and fables – apocryphal scriptures and legends often.

If you read the Bible you will find a lot more dark statements, facts and prophesies that may fit Muhammad and Islam.

We just mention this.

Different arguments:

Claim:

"In 1. Genesis 12/1-3 a promise is made to Abraham that he would be blessed and that all the nations would bless him and be blessed by him. It is only the descendants of Ishmael - Muhammad and the Muslims - that have fulfilled the promise that should bless him, since they are the ones who bless Abraham by praying for him and his family. Ergo these verses must indicate Muhammad."

What the Bible really says:

"The Lord (Yahweh*) had said to Abram (later Abraham*), 'Leave your country, your father's hpushold and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.'" It is Yahweh who is doing the blessing - there is nowhere talk about people's blessing of him is any indication of anything. We mention that to make up arguments is an indication of lack of real arguments.

Claim:

"Moses and Jesus were national prophets and could not fulfill Allah's/Yahweh's promise that the nations would be blessed in Abraham. Ergo 1. Genesis 12/1-3 must indicate Muhammad."

What the Bible really says:

As for Moses: "- - - I (Yahweh*) have raised you (Moses*) up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the Earth." Even Moses was a message to the world according to the Bible. As for Jesus: Read the orders he gave his disciples before he left them, ordering them to go into all the world and make all people to his disciples by baptizing them in the name of Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Not exactly aimind at just the small Israel. (Jesus personally worked just in one country, but so did the religious leader Muhammad). The claim is invalid.

Claim:

"Allah/Yahweh promised to make Ishmael agreat nation.(Genesis 16/10, 17/18, 21/13.) Part of being a great nation includes receiving God' commandments. Ergo only nations receiving special commandments can be indicated, which must mean Arabia and Muhammad."

Answer:

There have through the history been many great nations without special commandments from a monotheistic god. The claim is invalid. (Though may be - there are no great nations among the Muslim ones. Some rich ones, but no great ones. Does that prove that Muhammad is out of the question?)

POST SCRIPTUM FOR CHAPTER II/5:

There was little reason to squander much time on these claims, if it was not because they are not so central in Islamic propaganda, as they do need “proofs” for Muhammad and for Allah. But most of the claims are too far out ones, and even the two main ones do not hold water. Christians and as far as we know Jews normally do not even bother to discuss this – most of the claims and the logic are too far out. The better part of the claims belong in a conspiracy theory and not even there if you are not so entirely out of real arguments, that you have to disclose how desperate you really are to try to save the Quran from being wrong, and to try to find arguments for that Muhammad was a prophet and not an impostor. But the arguments they have to use at least shows the level of their “facts” – or lack of facts – that are behind the claims and statements.

At least when talking to learned, intelligent people, Islam had had better drop this argumentation altogether - it is too revealing (but they really have no choice: As the Quran tells Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, both in OT and NT - they HAVE to find something, because if not there are two more mistakes in the Quran. And really serious ones. Plus the only hope for a kind of proof for a divine connection is lost if they drop these claims – there are no other possible documentations or proofs).

Flatly stated: Muhammad also is not in the Gospels. If not Islam produces something better than wrong and not documented claims, this debate just is a waste of time, except that it permits Muslims not really to have to face a serious question – and except that the claims are useful propaganda for Islam towards little educated non-Muslims and pagans, and even more towards Muslims that strongly wants to believe and to have their belief cemented. There only exist undocumented claims and as unproved statements – and if documents or other proofs had existed, Islam had produced them at least a thousand years ago. But there exist lots of old documents proving the opposite of what Islam claims.

Besides: When f. ex. Moses said there was going to come “a prophet like me”, and the Muslims claim that is a foretelling about Muhammad, that is a joke: In addition to all the other points - how could Muhammad be “a prophet like Moses” when he in reality was no prophet at all?! (See chapter I/7).

Muhammad was no real prophet – he only “borrowed” the title.

A “forgotten” fact.

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. 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.

Please inform all and everybody and all relevant fora - f. ex. Internet pages for debate or information - about the address http://www.1000mistakes.com. It is information that is urgently needed by many, not least by Muslims. No god made a book with so many mistakes and other wrongs - and if the Quran and Islam are made up by humans or dark forces, where are the followers of this inhumanly dark and brutal war religion heading for in a possible next life?