1000+ Comments on the Quran: Surah 12 --  YUSUF (JOSEPH)

Revelation: MMecca 621 AD

(See general comments on Surahs here: Introduction)


 

The quotes and comments

(In this chapter there are extremely many historical anomalies and cases of texts which could not have been written in the claimed "Mother Book" before it happened if predestination is not total (= no free will for man, prayers no value or effect, etc. - and we do not even mention all cases.)

001  "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful". Please read the surahs from Medina, the immoral parts of the Muslim moral code, the unjust/immoral parts of sharia, and the Quran's rules for lying, thieving/looting, enslaving, raids and wars, plus the rules for treatment of girls and women - free and captured - and see if you agree. Always when there is a distance between words and corresponding demands and deeds, we personally believe in the demands and deeds. Glorious words are cheap, demands and deeds are reliable. Glorifying words and claims are too cheap for anyone to use and disuse - when you read, judge from realities, not from propaganda.

002 12/1a: "Alif Lam Ra'". See 11/1a.

***003 12/1b: (A12/2) “These are the Symbols (or Verses (already 2 meanings in the text*)) of the Perspicuous (Arab: “mubin”) Book.” But the word “mubin” may refer either to the noun’s quality (then “mubin” literally means something which is clear, obvious, manifest, etc.) or to its function (then “mubin” literally means something that is making something clear or obvious or -“. Most Islamic scholars mean it refers to Joseph’s ability to give interpretations of dreams. “The book makes the story it tells clear”. There is no small distinction between those two meanings. Muslims will tell you both meanings are included. But the language is unclear here like many places in the Quran.

Pure Arab also is the language spoken in Heaven, according to some Islamic literature. This without consideration for that the Arab of Muhammad was a language mainly for primitive nomadic tribes - Heaven hardly was that primitive. When the language change, f.x. the meaning of words change or new words are added, do Arab get messages from Heaven about this? Or does Heaven follow language changes in Arabia? (Some Muslim sects - notably the Ammaddiyya - even have “proved” Arab also is the original language on Earth, believe it or not.)

004 12/1c: “- - - the Perspicuous Book (the Quran*)”. A book with this many mistakes, invalid logical points, etc, hardly is perspicuous.

005 12/2a: “We (Allah*) has sent it down as an Arabic Quran - - -.” An Arabic "holy book" meant something to Muhammad - he felt that the lack of such a book made the Arabs inferior to Jews and Christians.

006 12/2b: “We (Allah*) has sent it down as an Arabic Quran - - -.” It is not pure and perfect Arab like it often is claimed - nothing like if a god had made it, and not to mention like if it is the language of Heaven; in that case there should have been no grammatical mistakes and no words imported from Arabia's neighbors on Earth (not to mention the situation today) - there are lots of grammatical errors and imported words, according to language experts. Besides: Did Heaven have a grammar before the Arabs finally made one in the years between 650 and 900 AD? (Irony aside and to be fair: Just this claim that Arab is the language used in Heaven, hardly is a mainstream claim.)

But we are unable to see the glorious thing with using Arab for his holy book, if Allah intended to reach all the world - f. ex. Latin or Greek or Persian had reached far more people. But the really big drawback is that around 650 AD Arab only had a rudimentary alphabet, consisting mainly of the consonants - the rest had to be guessed by the reader. Which even today means there are some hundred places in the book where one does not know the meaning for sure. When a Muslim next time use the standard claim that the Quran of today is "exactly Muhammad's words to the last comma", do not laugh - it is impolite. (The comma did not even exist in Arab at that time).

007 12/2c: “We (Allah*) has sent it (the Quran) down - - -“. No omniscient god has sent down a book with this many mistakes, contradictions, cases of wrong logic, etc. Which means that either Allah is not omniscient, or that someone else has made the Quran.

008 12/2d: "- - - an Arabic Quran - - -". A historical (and place - what did it tell the rest of the world, especially in old times and distant places, not to mention before Arabia was populated and the Arab language slowly came into existence?) anomaly. See 4/13d above.

009 12/2e: "- - - in order that ye (people*) may learn wisdom". Beware that when the Quran talks about wisdom, knowledge, etc. it normally is talking about knowledge and wisdom concerning the Quran and Islam only - though Muslims nowadays often try to tell you differently. The time before Islam f.x. both normally and officially is named "the Time of Ignorance", even though the populations in a number of areas/countries were more - some places much more - educated and enlightened before Islam conquered them than afterwards.

010 12/2f: “We (Allah*) have sent it down as an Arabic Quran, in order that ye may learn wisdom". But:

There is little wisdom in a book where so much is wrong like in the Quran.

Beware that when the Quran and Islam talk about wisdom, normally they talk only about religious and related knowledge. All other kinds of knowledge were "foreign" and disliked. All the same the Muslim area had a period of science from ca. 820 AD till ca. 1095 AD (ca. 100 years more in the far west), but it was more in spite of Islam than because of Islam - and it was the religious establishment (the religious scholars helped by the imams, etc.) who "killed" it.

For the world it may have been a good thing - what had happened to the world if a war and apartheid religion like Islam had had the industrial revolution with much resources and the best weapons, instead of the West? The West did things one afterwards can say was not good - but a similar Islamic conquest had been sure if they had had the upper military hand, the examples from Sind and India and Armenia and Africa and the Greeks in Turkey tell a grave tale about how bloody it likely would have been - and the Quran tells how suppressing and intolerant. Belgium and Congo is a sunshine story in that connection. Besides: The moral thinking and the moral shifts which happened in the West, and which f.x. made an end to slavery and after all made ending colonization somewhat easier, had not been possible under Islam - Islam simply has no moral or ethical philosophy which makes changes in thinking possible. They only have Muhammad's words and deeds which in principle are forever, except that ideas and thoughts and knowledge from outside the Muslim area forces their way in - but frequently against strong opposition from Islam. (And influence from the outside had not existed - at least not much - if Islam had been the strong power in the world for 300 years, instead of the West.)

Strong things have been said about the West and its power. But think over this alternative.

011 12/2g: "- - - before this (the surahs of the Quran*), thou too (Muslims*) wast among those who knew it (the religion?*) not". Comment A12/3: "(The Arab words "la'allakum ta'qilun" here*) are meant to impress upon everyone who listens to or reads the Quran that its appeal is directed, primarily, to man's reason, and that the "feeling" alone can never provide a sufficient basis of faith". Muhammad understood psychology and used similar claims rather frequently - impressing on his followers that "you are intelligent who understand and follow my teachings" - to be told they are wise and intelligent is flattering, especially for uneducated and/or naive persons. But if Islam had been based on knowledge and peoples' intelligence and reason, it had disappeared fast and become a bloody comma and a sample of peoples' incredible ability to believe in spite of knowledge and facts and their as incredible ability to be blind to everything they do not want to see. Islam rests on the gut feeling that what my parents and everyone else told me was right when I was a child and later, and what all my surroundings and imams claim is the truth, is the truth - and the mistakes in the Quran are just that the others do not know anything or do not understand that the "explanations" mean there are no mistakes anyhow, and the facts other points to are just lies from "Muslim-haters", and, therefore, there is no reason to check or think over facts not consistent with Islam. The same goes for its partly horrible moral code.

(There is much in that moral code - and Islam only have a moral code, no moral philosophy, as everything has to be done like Muhammad said or did - which is far from the basis for all real inter-human moral: "Do unto others like you want others do unto you".)

012 12/3a: (A12/3 – in 2008 edition A12/5): “We (Allah*) do relate unto thee (Muslims*) the most beautiful of stories - - -.” Here is a linguistic-technical reasoning which simply is too complicated for lay persons, so we do not quote it here, but according to f.x. Zamakhshari a more correct meaning is something like “- - - a story with the best explanations - - -.” There is a wide river between these two meanings. But to repeat it: The language in the Quran is clear and easy to understand – and impossible to misunderstand - - - according to Islam. And these variants like always also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

###013 12/3b: "- - - the most beautiful of stories - - -.” Please read the Quran. How many of the stories are beautiful, even seen from a religious point of view? Then read it ones more, and now you use your brain and omit all the glossy and glorious words, and read only the reality which are told by the demands and deeds and introduced rules in the book - the glossy words are the propaganda, the demands and acts and deeds and rules are the true and real stories. How many beautiful stories are left now - if any? The moral in the Quran some places is a mixture of "ugly", "horrible", and "inhuman".

014 12/3c: "- - - We (Allah*) reveal to thee (Muhammad*) this (portion of the) Quran - - -". No omniscient god ever revealed a book of a quality like the Quran - too much is wrong.

015 12/3d: "- - - reveal - - -". Was it really revealed, and in case by whom or what? It was not from a god - too much is wrong in the book. Then the alternatives are: Dark forces (f.x. Iblis/the Devil dressed up like Gabriel (Muhammad would not have a chance to see the difference), an illness (f.x. TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy - like modern medical science suspects), or one or more cold human brain(s) (f.x. Muhammad's own).

016 12/3e: "- - - before this (the Quran*), thou (Muslims*) were among those who knew it not". One may wonder: What is best: Not to know, or to "know" something which is wrong? - especially if it is about a claimed "holy book" which clearly is not from a god.

017 12/3f: "- - - before this (the surahs of the Quran*), thou too (Muslims*) wast among those who knew it (the religion?*) not". Comment A12/3: "(The Arab words "la'allakum ta'qilun" here*) are meant to impress upon everyone who listens to or reads the Quran that its appeal is directed, primarily, to man's reason, and that the "feeling" alone can never provide a sufficient basis of faith". Muhammad understood psychology and used similar claims rather frequently - impressing on his followers that "you are intelligent who understand and follow my teachings" - to be told they are wise and intelligent is flattering, especially for uneducated and/or naive persons. But if Islam had been based on knowledge and peoples' intelligence and reason, it had disappeared fast and become a bloody comma and a sample of peoples' incredible ability to believe in spite of knowledge and facts, and of their as incredible ability to be blind to everything they do not want to see. Islam rests on the gut feeling that what my parents and everyone else told me was right when I was a child and later, and what all my surroundings and imams claim is the truth, is the truth - and the mistakes in the Quran are just that the others do not know anything or do not understand that the "explanations" mean there are no mistakes anyhow, and the facts others point to are just lies from "Muslim-haters", and, therefore, there is no reason to check or think over facts not consistent with Islam. The same goes for its partly horrible moral code.

(There is much in that moral code - and Islam only have a moral code, no moral philosophy, as everything has to be done like Muhammad said or did - which is far from the basis for all real inter-human moral: "Do unto others like you want others do unto you".)

018 12/4a: "- - - Joseph said to his father (Jacob*) - - -". 2 historical anomalies. See 4/13d above.

019 12/4b: "- - - I (Joseph*) did see eleven stars and the sun and the moon: I saw them prostrate themselves to me!" In the Bible Joseph did not see, but dream this - and more (1. Mos. 37/37/9 (and 37/6-7)).

020 12/5a: "Said (the father (Jack*)): 'My dear little son (Joseph by then was 17 - 1. Mos. 37/2)! Relate not thy vision (dream in the Bible - see 12/4b just above*) to thy brothers - - -". According to the Bible Joseph first told his brothers, and then his father only afterwards (1. Mos. 37/9 and 1. Mos. 37/6-7, + 1. Mos. 37/10).

021 12/5b: "- - - for Satan is to man an avowed enemy!". The Bible does not mention such words from Jacob.

022 12/6a: (A12/10): “Thus will thy (Joseph’s*) Lord (Allah according to the Quran*) teach thee the interpretations of stories (“ahadith”*) - - -.” The literal meaning of “ahadith” ( singular “Hadith”) is “sayings” or “tidings” – "things you are told -“. Most Islamic scholars mean it refers to Joseph’s ability to give interpretations of dreams. But with just a slightly different pronunciation of “Hadith” you get the meaning “a happening”, “an event” – and this in case gives the sentence the meaning that Joseph was thought how to understand the real meaning of or behind what was really said and done in real life according to M. Azad, based on Razi. Azad also thinks this is the more correct meaning. Two very different skills, in case. And these variants naturally also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Clear meanings in the Quran?

023 12/6b: “Thus will thy (Joseph’s*) Lord (Allah according to the Quran*) teach thee the interpretations of stories (and events) - - -.” There is nothing like this verse in the Bible - and as the Bible was the only source of information (?) about this story, as long as it is clear the Quran is form no god (too much is wrong) - from where did Muhammad get this version?

024 12/6c: "- - - thee (Joseph') - - - Jacob - - - Abraham - - - Isaac - - -". 4 historical anomalies. See 4/13d above.

025 12/6d: "For thy (Muhammad's? people's?*) Lord (Allah*) is full of knowledge and wisdom". Perhaps wisdom, but little knowledge if the Quran is representative.

026 12/6e: "For thy Lord is full of knowledge and wisdom". The Quran here indicates that the god involved was Allah. This is contradicted by the Bible, which tells that the god of the old Jews were Yahweh. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

027 12/7a: "Verily - - -". See 2/2b above.

028 12/7b: "Verily, in Joseph and his brethren are Signs (or Symbols) for Seekers (after Truth)". But what does it symbolize if the god was Yahweh like the Bible says, and not Allah?

029 12/7c: "Joseph and his brethren - - -". Benjamin was Joseph's only full brother - both sons of Rachel, Jacob's favorite wife. The other 10 had different mothers (Rachel's sister, Leah, was the mother of Reuben, Simon, Levi, Issachar, and Zebulon - Bilha (slave of Rachel) of Dan and Naphtali - Zilpah (slave of Leah) of Gad and Asher. 81. Mos. 35/23-26.))

030 12/7d: “- - - Sign(s) - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

031 12/7e: "- - - (- - - Truth) - - -". See 2/2b above.

032 12/7-18: The main story is like in the Bible, but not the details. This actually is the case for the entire story about Joseph. (From where did Muhammad get these new details which partly even contradict the Bible? As the Quran is not from a god, also these details are not from a god. Then there remain the alternatives; dark forces, illness, old tales, or making up things.)

033 12/8a: "They (Joseph's brothers - here except Benjamin*) said: "Truly Joseph and his brother (Benjamin*) are loved more by our father (Jacob*) - - -". A number of historical anomalies. See 4/13d above.

034 12/8b: "They (Joseph's brothers - here except Benjamin*) said: "Truly Joseph and his brother (Benjamin*) are loved more by our father (Jacob*) - - -". How could this end up in the claimed "Mother Book" (of which the Quran is a copy according to Muhammad) billions of years before it was said or happened? One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 3 reasons - 2 of them unavoidable - for this:

When something is changed, automatically the future is changed.

The laws of chaos will be at work and change things, if even a tiny part is made different.

The so-called "Butterfly Effect"; "a butterfly flapping its wing in Brazil may cause a storm in China later on" or "a small bump may overturn a big load".

This that Allah predestines everything like the Quran claims and states many places, is an essential point, because besides totally removing the free will of man (in spite of the Quran's claims of such free will, or some Muslims' adjusted "partly free will for man" - to adjust the meanings where the texts in the Quran are wrong, is typical for Islam and its Muslims) - it also removes the moral behind Allah's punishing (and rewarding) persons for what they say and do - Allah cannot reward or punish people for things he himself has forced them to say or do, and still expect to be believed when he (Muhammad?) claims to be a good or benevolent or moral or just god. Also see 2/51b and 3/24a above.

And as mentioned above, full predestination also makes prayers to Allah meaningless, as everything already is predestined according to Allah's Plan - a Plan which no prayer ("nobody and nothing") can change.

035 12/8c: "Joseph and his brother - - -." This refers to Benjamin, Joseph's only full brother and the youngest of Jacob's sons. They were the 2 sons of Rachel - Jacob's favorites wife.

036 12/9a: "Slay ye (Joseph's half brothers*) Joseph or cast him out to some (unknown) land - - -". See 12/8b above.

037 12/9b: "- - - Joseph - - - his father (Jacob*) - - -". 2 historical anomalies. See 4/13d above.

038 12/9c: "- - - righteous - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is meant to be in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

039 12/10a: "Said one of them (Joseph's half-brothers*): 'Slay not Joseph - - -". According to the Bible this was Reuben - who wanted to help him (1. Mos. 37/21-22). (The Quran often is short on fact details).

040 12/10b: "Said one of them: (Joseph's half-brothers*): 'Slay not Joseph - - -". See 12/8b above.

041 12/11a: "They (Joseph's half-brothers*) said: 'O our father (Jacob*)!" Some historical anomalies. See 4/13d above.

042 12/11b: "They (Joseph's half-brothers*) said: 'O our father (Jacob*)! - - -". See 12/8b above.

043 12/11-12: "They (Joseph's half-brothers*) said: 'O our father (Jacob*)! Why dost you not trust us with Joseph - seeing we are indeed his well-wishers? Send him with us tomorrow - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells Jacob - not understanding how much his other sons disliked Joseph - sent Joseph to check if everything was ok with his brothers and the animals. (1. Mos. 37/13-14). Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

044 12/12a: "Send him (Joseph*) with us (his half-brothers*) tomorrow - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

045 12/12b: "Send him (Joseph*) with us (his half-brothers*) tomorrow - - -". See 12/8b above.

046 12/13a: "(Jacob) said: 'It really saddens me that ye (Joseph's half-brothers*) should take him (Joseph*) away". At least 3 historical anomalies. See 4/13d above.

047 12/13b: "(Jacob) said: 'It really saddens me that ye (Joseph's half-brothers*) should take him (Joseph*) away". See 12/8b above.

048 12/13c: "- - - wolf - - -". Such a debate is contradicted by the Bible - see 12/11-12 above. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

049 12/14a: "They (Joseph's half-brothers*) said - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

050 12/14b: "They (Joseph's half-brothers*) said: 'If the wolf - - -'". See 12/8b above.

051 12/15a: "So they (Joseph's half-brothers* took him (Joseph*) away - - -". Contradicted by the Bible - see 12/11-12 above. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

052 12/15b: "So they (Joseph's half-brothers* took him (Joseph*) away - - -". At least 2 historical anomalies. See 4/13d above.

053 12/15c: "So they (Joseph's half-brothers* took him (Joseph*) away - - -". See 12/8b above.

054 12/15d: "- - - We (Allah*) put into his (Joseph's*) brain (this Message): 'Of a surety thou shalt (one day) tell them (your half-brothers*) - - -". There is nothing like such a message - not even an indication for any message at all - in the Bible. Where did Muhammad get this from?

055 12/15e: "- - - surety - - -". See 2/2b above.

056 12/16a: "Then they (Joseph's half-brothers*) came to their father in the early part of the night - - -". Some historical anomalies.

057 12/16b: "Then they (Joseph's half-brothers*) came to their father in the early part of the night - - -". See 12/8b above.

058 12/16c: "Then they (Joseph's half-brothers*) came to their father in the early part of the night weeping". You have to be a good actor to fake weeping - and a top one to fake tears (normally one need chemicals, f.x. onion juice, to be able to fake tears). 10 men out of a group of 10 that good actors? Statistically impossible.

059 12/17a: "They (Joseph's half-brothers*) said: "O our father (Jacob*)- - -". Historical anomalies. See 4/13d above.

060 12/17b: "They (Joseph's half-brothers*) said: "O our father (Jacob*)! We went racing - - -". See 12/8b above.

061 12/17c: "- - - truth - - -". See 2/2b above.

062 12/18a: "They (Joseph's half-brothers*) stained his (Joseph's*) shirt with false blood". See 12/8b above.

063 12/18b: "They (Joseph's half-brothers*) stained his (Joseph's*) shirt with false blood. He (Jacob*) said - - -". Historical anomalies. See 4/13d above.

064 12/18c: "- - - it is Allah (Alone) Whose help can be sought......'" Contradicted by the Bible, which tells that the god involved was Yahweh. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

065 12/19a: The men from the caravan found Joseph in the well, and “So they concealed him as a treasure”. But the very next verse contradicts this story. See 12/20 below.

066 12/19b: "He (the man from the caravan*) said: 'Ah there! Good news!”. See 12/8b above.

067 12/19c: (YA1654): “Ah there! Good news (“bushra”*)”. But the Arab word “bushra” also may be a proper name. Then in case the exclamation was: “Ah there, Bushra!” A detail – but does an omnipotent and omniscient god make even the details unclear?

068 12/19d: "- - - here is a (fine) young man!" Another contradiction to the Bible. There the brothers got the good idea of making money from selling him to a passing caravan and took him up from the cistern and did so (1. Mos. 37/26-28). But also see next verse 12/20 - it contradicts 12/19, as the caravan could not both find him and hide him but his brothers sell him. It seems like someone knew main points of the story, but were not good enough story teller to retell it logically. More in 12/19-20 just below.

069 12/19e: "- - - Allah - - -". See 12/18c above.

070 12/19-20: (Also see 12/19a-d above.) Here is something wrong - or one more contradiction. Verse 19 tells that “travelers” found Joseph in the well where his brothers had thrown him down, and took him for a slave and concealed him. Verse 20 tells his brothers sold him for a few dirhams (small silver coins). Both cannot be true.

071 12/20a: “The brethren (of Joseph*) sold him (Joseph*) - - -". Historical anomalies. See 4/13d above.

072 12/20b: “The brethren (of Joseph*) sold him (Joseph*) - - -". See 12/8b above.

073 12/20c: “The brethren (of Joseph*) sold him (Joseph*) for a miserable price – for a few dirham”. Dirham was small silver coins - the value at that time is not known. (The Bible says 20 shekels = ca. 200g silver.(1.Mos. 37/28)) In verse 19 he was found, here in 20 he was bought. See 12/19a and 12/19-20 above.

074 12/21a: "The man in Egypt who bought him - - -". Joseph was sold as a slave in Egypt, according to the Bible to a mighty man called Potifar, according to the Quran to a man called the Aziz. But as “the Aziz” simply means “the Great One”, it may be a title – perhaps for Potifar.

After some time the wife of his owner wanted to seduce him. Joseph refused – and everything was found out. According to the Bible his owner got angry and put him in prison. According to the Quran Joseph proved he was not guilty, but was all the same put in prison on a very lame and not logical “reason” – lame and illogical, but necessary for the rest of the story.

(As for Joseph’s age when he was brought to Egypt, Yusuf Ali in “The Meaning of the Holy Quran” says he was 16 or 17 or may be even 18. (The Bible says he was 17 - 1. Mos. 37/2)).

075 12/21b: "The man in Egypt who bought him, said to his wife - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

076 12/21c: "The man in Egypt who bought him, said to his wife: 'Make his (Joseph's*) stay - - -". See 12/8b above.

077 12/21d: "- - - may be he (Joseph*) will bring us much good, or we shall adopt him as a son". Not much likely a rich and mighty man saying such things on buying a lowly slave.

078 12/21e: "- - - may be he (Joseph*) will bring us much good, or we shall adopt him as a son". This is not from the Bible - like a number of other details in the story of Joseph. From where did Muhammad get this?

079 12/21f: "And Allah hath full power and control over His (Allah's*) affairs - - -". Allah decides everything, and nothing can change his Plan. Full predestination.

080 12/21g: "And Allah hath full power and control over His (Allah's*) affairs - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells that the god of Joseph was Yahweh, not Allah. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

081 12/21h: "And Allah hath full power and control over His (Allah's*) affairs; but most among mankind know it not". With a good reason if Allah does not exist - and hopefully wrong if he exists, but belongs to the dark forces (he definitely is not a god - not to mention a good and benevolent god - if he is behind the Quran and all its errors and partly immoral moral code, etc.).

082 12/22d: "- - - Joseph - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

083 12/22b: "- - - We (Allah*) gave him (Joseph*) power and knowledge: thus do We reward those who do right". If you are naive enough to believe that doing right results in power and knowledge, just go on believing it. Also see 12722c just below.

084 12/22c: "- - - do right - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

085 12/23a: "- - - she (the wife of Joseph's owner*) sought to seduce him (Joseph*) - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

086 12/23b: "- - - she (the wife of Joseph's owner*) sought to seduce him (Joseph*) - - - and said: 'Now come - - -'". See 12/8b above.

087 12/23c: "Truly - - -". See 2/2b above.

088 12/23d: "- - - do wrong - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

089 12/24a: "And (with passion) did she (the wife of Joseph's owner*) desire him (Joseph*) - - -2. Historical anomalies. See 4/13d above.

***090 12/24b: "- - - evil and shameful deeds - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. In cases like here the Quran also is unintended irony and black comedy: Sex out of wedlock is "evil and shameful", whereas to rape captive or slave women - or for that case to take slaves - and destroy their - fellow humans' - lives, is "good and lawful". Some religion!

091 12/25a: "They (she and Joseph*) both raced each other to the door - - -". Historical anomalies. See 4/13d above.

092 12/25b: "They (she and Joseph*) both raced each other to the door, and she tore his shirt from the back - - -". See 12/8b above.

093 12/25c: "They (she and Joseph*) both raced each other to the door, and she tore his shirt from the back - - -". This is not from the Bible - like much else in this story. From where did Muhammad get it?

094 12/25-27: Such tears could be indications, but they are not a "sine qua non" - other explanations might be possible, and thus the tear was no proof - at most an indicium. But Muhammad normally was not difficult on the word proof.

095 12/26a: "He (Joseph*) said - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

096 12/26b: "He (Joseph*) said: 'It was she - - -". See 12/8b above.

097 12/26c: "- - - one of her (the wife of Joseph's owner's*) household - - - bore witness - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

098 12/26d: "- - - one of her (the wife of Joseph's owner's*) household - - - bore witness (thus) - 'If it was she - - -". See 12/8b above.

099 12/26-27: "If it be that his (Joseph's*) shirt is rent from the front, then is her (the wife of Joseph's owner*) tale true, and he is a liar! But if it be that his shirt is torn from the back, then is she the liar, and he is telling the truth!" One thing is that this logic at best is valid as an indicium, not as a proof - but as mentioned Muhammad was very liberal with the use of the word "proof", as you see all over the Quran. But may be worse: This is not from the Bible - where did Muhammad get this from?

100 12/27a: "- - - she (the wife of Joseph's owner*) - - - he (Joseph*) - - -". Historical anomalies. See 4/13d above.

101 12/27b: "- - - his (Joseph's*) shirt is torn - - -". See 12/8b above.

102 12/28a: "- - - when he (Joseph's owner*) saw his (Joseph's*) shirt - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

103 12/28b: "- - - when he (Joseph's owner*) saw his (Joseph's*) shirt - - - (he*) said: 'Behold - - -". See 12/8b above.

104 12/28c: "Truly - - -". See 2/2b above.

105 12/29a: "O Joseph, pass this over! (O wife), ask forgiveness for thy sin, for truly thou hast been at fault!" Not only contradicted by the Bible, but incompatible with this story in the Bible. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

106 12/29b: "O Joseph, pass this over! (O wife), ask forgiveness for thy sin, for truly thou hast been at fault!" Can anyone please tell us what the logic of putting Joseph in prison is?! This (and also the ladies with the knives) is not from the Bible - in the Bible the story is logical - not so in the Quran - - - far from good literature. (But Joseph had to end in prison - logic or no logic - because of the rest of the story).

107 12/29c: "O Joseph, pass this over! (O wife), ask forgiveness for thy sin, for truly thou hast been at fault!" See 12/8b above.

108 12/29d: "- - - Joseph - - - (O wife (of Joseph's owner*)) - - -". Historical anomalies. See 4/13d above.

109 12/29e: "- - - truly - - -". See 2/2b above.

110 12/30a: "Ladies said in the City (of Ramses II*) - - -". A historical anomaly.

111 12/30b: "Ladies said in the City (of Ramses II*): 'The wife - - -". See 12/8b above.

112 12/30c: "- - - truly - - -". See 2/2b above.

#113 12/30-34: This is not from the Bible. From where did Muhammad get it? (There many places are reason for using this question in the Quran - and Muslims claims:"From Allah". But as it is clear no god vas ever involved in a book of a quality like the Quran, only these possibilities remains: From dark forces - and the hate and blood and acceptance of dishonesty, not to mention the partly immoral moral code, etc. may indicate this. Or a mental illness - modern medical science believe he had TFL (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy), as both his religious "experiences" and the seizures Islam describes he had, indicates this. Or made up tales - Muhammad had a reputation for being a little naive when it came to discerning truth from made up tales, and the fact that most of the tales in the Quran are known apocryphal (made up) tales, legends, folk tales, and fairy tales from the old Arabia and its surroundings, may indicate this. Or Muhammad himself or some accomplice(s) made it all up - the very many cases of wrong facts which were believed to be correct at the time of Muhammad, which you find in the Quran, the fact that "everything" fitted Muhammad's position at the time when the surahs were released (nothing really pointed forwards - wishes, etc. yes, but no real facts about the future), and all the times Muhammad personally got help from Allah (like so many a self proclaimed prophet), may indicate this. Or may be a combination of 2 of more of these possibilities. (Just for the record: When mentioning this, we often lump the fairy tales, etc., together with the scheming, cold brain.))

114 12/31a: "When she (the wife of Joseph's owner*) heard of their (women in the city*) malicious talk - - -". A historical anomaly.

115 12/31b: "- - - she (the wife of Joseph's owner*) sent for them (women in the city*) and prepared a banquet for them - - -". See 12/8b above.

116 12/31c: (A27 – in 2008 edition A28): “- - - she (the wife of the Aziz (in reality likely a title = “the mighty one”, not a name – the name in the Bible is Potifar*)*) sent for them (the slandering ladies*) and prepared a banquet for them - - -.” What the Arab texts really tells she did, was “to prepare a place where one reclines – (“muttaka’”)” – or “a cushioned couch”. But this is not clear enough language – hence the “explaining translations”: “banquet”, “sumptuous repast”, or similar used by them. Clear language?

117 12/31d: "When they (some women*) saw him (Joseph*), they - - - cut their hands - - -". There is little logic in the point here: Why giving them knives before showing them Joseph? (Some Muslims say it was to cut fruit, but when you cut fruit, you cut the fruit and lay down the knife mostly – few had had the knife in their hands at any given moment, and fewer so distracted or stupefied that they would cut themselves). And it is not a natural reaction to be so stupefied by a face, that all and every of them cut their fingers – one or at most two could have done so, though unlikely, but not more. The story is unlikely for at least one more reason: If Joseph was so attractive, this would have been in the grapevine, and they had been prepared for it. (It is permitted to use your brain and your knowledge when reading a story, not only your eyes.)

118 12/31e: "Allah preserve us (some women in Egypt*)!" This tells indirectly, but clearly that the women were Muslim. But Islam was totally unknown in Egypt around 1700-1800 BC (Joseph lived something like a century after Abraham, his great grandfather, who lived around 1800-2000 BC according to science - if they were not both fiction. Or to recon the other way: Exodus was ca. 1335 BC. Then the Jews had lived in Egypt for 430 years according to the Bible (2. Mos. 12/40-41). This happened(?) a few years before the Jews moved to Egypt - if the numbers are correct it must have happened around 1770 BC. In Egypt people (likely except the Jews partly) were polytheists - no trace of monotheism is found at this time. (There was Akn Aton and his sun god, but not just then).

Muhammad claimed Islam had existed to all times and in all places - obviously wrong.

119 12/31f: "This (Joseph*) is none other than a noble angel!" Not from the Bible - then from where?

120 12/32a: "She (the wife of Joseph's owner*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

121 12/32b: "She (the wife of Joseph's owner*) said: 'There before you (some women from the city*) is the man - - -". See 12/8b above.

122 12/32c: "And now, if he (Joseph*) doth not my (the wife of Joseph's owner's*) bidding (have sex with her*), he shall certainly be cast in prison". The only thing which is certain here is that no wife in even a pre-Arabic Egypt would say a thing like this in public, and certainly not after a narrow escape from her husband shortly before.

123 12/32d: What was the logic of for the Aziz/Potifar to agree to putting Joseph in prison when it was proved he was not guilty? (A contradiction to the Bible where this was not proved and there the story is logical). This after all was at a moment where the wife should have been careful. (Muslims have a kind of explanation, but only a kind of). But imprisonment is necessary for the rest of the story.

Well, the Quran implies Joseph was put to prison by the woman because he still did not want her. A spiteful woman could do so, but any sane husband then would ask questions - - - and there would be rumors in addition he would sooner or later hear, as you bet the other ladies would wag their tongues.

124 12/33a: "He (Joseph*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

125 12/33b: "The prison is more to my (Joseph's*) liking - - - (etc.*) - - -". Not from the Bible. From where?

126 12/33c: "- - - the ignorant - - -". Normally in the Quran a name for non-Muslims But Muslims at the time of Joseph? - some 2000 - 2500 years before Muhammad and the first traces of Islam?

But it is quite telling that the Quran - and Islam - uses the expression "the ignorant" for persons not believing in Islam, no matter how well educated, intelligent, and knowledgeable they were about any other subjects. When the Quran speaks about knowledge, only knowledge about Islam and related subjects counted and for many still counts. Everything else was "foreign knowledge" and to be dismissed at best and fought against at worst - a good thing for the rest of the world, because this was one of the reasons why the war and suppression culture Islam stagnated, and gave humanity the chance to outpace it.

127 12/34a: "- - - verily - - -". See 2/2b above.

128 12/34b: "- - - verily, He (Allah*) heareth and knoweth (all things)". See 2/233b above.

129 12/35a: "Then it occurred to the men (which ones?*), after they had seen the Signs (that it was best) to imprison him for a time." No real reason is given. All which is reported her, is that the ladies thought he was very handsome (not specified in the Bible), but that is no "sign". But as said - his (Joseph's) imprisonment, logical or not, was necessary for the rest of the story.

According to the Quran – but not to the Bible – there was some drama because Joseph demanded to prove his innocence (illogical as he was proved – according to the same Quran - innocent already before he ended in prison).

130 12/35b: "- - - Signs - - -". What signs? There are told about no signs in this story.

131 12/36a: "- - - him (Joseph*) - - - two young men (the pharaoh's servants*) - - -". Historical anomalies.

132 12/36b: "Said one of them (the servants*): 'I see myself - - -". See 12/8b above.

133 12/36c: "Said the other (servants*): 'I see myself - - -". See 12/8b above.

134 12/37a: "He (Joseph*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

135 12/37b: "He (Joseph*) said: Before any food - - -". See 12/8b above.

136 12/37c: "- - - Allah - - -". Just for the record: According to the Bible, Joseph's god was Yahweh, not Allah.

##137 12/37d: "- - - people (of old Egypt*) - - - that (even) deny the Hereafter". This is a real screamer - if there ever were a people who really believed in a Hereafter, it was the old Egyptian one.

138 12/38a: "- - - I (Joseph*) - - - Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - - -". 4 historical anomalies.

139 12/38b: "- - - partners - - - to Allah - - -". For one thing the Bible here talks about Yahweh, not Allah. But also see 45/18a below.

140 12/39a: "O my (Joseph's*) two companions - - -". Historical anomalies.

141 12/39b: "- - - Allah, the One, Supreme and Irresistible - - -". Similar are frequently claimed in the Quran, but never proved anywhere.

142 12/39c: "- - - Allah, the One, Supreme and Irresistible - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells that Joseph's god was Yahweh, not Allah. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

143 12/40a: "- - - ye (pagans*) worship nothing but names which ye have named - ye and your fathers - - -". And if the Quran is a made up book, the situation is just the same for Muslims - and the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. at least is from no god.

144 12/40b: "- - - for which Allah hath sent down no authority - - -". Allah does not have the power for sending down authority to anyone at all, if he does not exist - hardly so even if he exists, but belongs to the dark forces (all the mistakes in the Quran proves that he is no god if he was involved in that book).

145 12/40c: "- - - Allah - - -". Once more: According to the Bible Joseph's god was Yahweh, not Allah.

146 12/40d: "- - - the Command is for none but Allah - - -". Similar often claimed, never proved.

147 12/40e: "- - - the Command is for none but Allah - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which says the command is for Yahweh. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

148 12/40f: "He (Allah*) hath commanded that ye (Egyptians*) worship none but Him - - -". For one thing there nowhere are traces from such an order at that time, and for another there is no such religious debate in the Bible. From where did Muhammad get the information about it?

*149 12/40g: “(Islam*) is the right religion - - -”. Can a religion based on a book with so many mistakes, and with not a single valid proof for anything essential, really be a “right religion”? Simply no. Especially not when all the book rests only on the words of a man with very doubtful moral – thieving/robbing, womanizing, raping, enslaving, murdering, lying – even not respecting his own oaths - etc., and the book on top of all clearly is not from any god, with all those errors.

150 12/40h: "- - - but most men understand not - - -". That may just have been Muhammad's problem; too many men understood too much about his new religion.

151 12/41a: "O my (Joseph's*) two companions of the prison". Historical anomaly.

052 12/41b: “- - - he will hang from a cross - - -”. Egypt at the time of Joseph did not use execution by crucifixion. (In the Bible he was hanged - 1. Mos. 40/22). Any god had known - Muhammad not. Who made the Quran?

153 12/42a: "- - - he (Joseph*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

154 12/42b: "But Satan made him (the servant of the Pharaoh - the cupbearer*) forget - - -". How could Satan make him forget - or do anything - if Allah predestines every detail of your life and according to his unchangeable Plan, like the Quran states many times?

155 12/43a: "The king (=pharaoh*) of (Egypt) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

156 12/43b: "The king (=pharaoh*) of (Egypt) said: '- - - Expond to me - - -'". How could this end up in the claimed "Mother Book" (of which the Quran is a copy according to Muhammad) billions of years before it was said or happened? One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 3 reasons - 2 of them unavoidable - for this:

When something is changed, automatically the future is changed.

The laws of chaos will be at work and change things, if even a tiny part is made different.

The so-called "Butterfly Effect"; "a butterfly flapping its wing in Brazil may cause a storm in China later on" or "a small bump may overturn a big load".

This that Allah predestines everything like the Quran claims and states many places, is an essential point, because besides totally removing the free will of man (in spite of the Quran's claims of such free will, or some Muslims' adjusted "partly free will for man" - to adjust the meanings where the texts in the Quran are wrong, is typical for Islam and its Muslims) - it also removes the moral behind Allah's punishing (and rewarding) persons for what they say and do - Allah cannot reward or punish people for things he himself has forced them to say or do, and still expect to be believed when he (Muhammad?) claims to be a good or benevolent or moral or just god. Also see 2/51b and 3/24a above.

And as mentioned above, full predestination also makes prayers to Allah meaningless, as everything already is predestined according to Allah's Plan - a Plan which no prayer ("nobody and nothing") can change.

157 12/44a: "They (the chiefs*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

158 12/44b: "They (the chiefs*) said: ' A confused medley of a dream - - -". See 12/43b above.

159 12/45a: "But then the man who had been released (the cupbearer*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

160 12/45b: "But then the man who had been released (the cupbearer*) - - - said: I will tell you (Pharaoh*) - - -". See 12/43b above.

161 12/46a: "O Joseph!" (He (the cupbearer*) said) - - -". A historical anomaly.

162 12/46b: "O Joseph!" (He (the cupbearer*) said) 'O man of truth! - - -". See 12/43b above.

163 12/47a: "(Joseph*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

164 12/47b: "(Joseph*) said: 'For seven years - - -'". See 12/43b above.

165 12/47-48 Joseph correctly foretold the pharaoh that there would come 7 years with big and good harvests, but they would be followed by 7 years with little and bad harvests. So far the Bible and the Quran more or less agree. But the Qurans adds that afterwards there would be another year with plenty of food - see 12/49a and 12/40b below - which is not mentioned in the Bible.

166 12/49a: “Then will come after that (period) a year in which the people will have abundant water - - -“. But the Arab word that is used her, and that is translated with “abundant water” is “yughathu” or “yughath” which in reality is said to mean “to be relieved by rain” (Joseph Al-Fadi (Christian)). As also “The Message of the Quran” has this translation (translated from Swedish): “- - - a year when the people will be blessed by rain - - -“, and has a similar comment to the word, and as we have met this translation before, we judge that Yusuf Ali has “stretched” his transcription a little (in case the true meaning is “rain”, it tells something). In Egypt one has little and no rain – it is the flood in the Nile which brings water - - - which means the Quran once more is wrong. (“The Message of the Quran" elegantly explains that it must mean rain further south in Africa, that made the Nile big, but this is not what the book says). Also see 12/49b just below.

167 12/49b: (A12/44 – in 2008 edition A12/48): “Then will come after that (period) a year in which the people will have abundant water - - -.” Here the language in the Quran is so unclear – read “directly wrong” - that A. Yusuf Ali’s religion has subdued his moral and intellectual integrity. The Arab verb that is used – “yughath” – derives either from the noun “ghayth” = “rain”, or from another noun “ghawth” = “deliverance from distress”. There is no way that it can mean “water”. The “clear language” offers 2 choices – one wrong, one not a good description, so the pious Muslims used a 3. and dishonest one as Egypt did not get rain but flooding of the Nile (or actually a “Kitman” – a lawful half-truth – as the rain much further south in Africa causes the flood - - - but that is not what the Quran is talking about.) Well, to be polite and forget the dishonesty – al-Taqiyya (which Kitman is a version of) – the lawful lie - after all is lawful in Islam, and even a duty to use if necessary to defend or promote Islam (and curiously enough also permitted to use f.x. to cheat women – something for women to remember sometimes - - - f.x. that a marriage is a possible way for a Muslim man to get residence permit in a rich country – it happens now and then - and it is permitted to use al-Taqiyya also f.x. to save your money). And these variants inevitably also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

168 12/49c: (A12/44 – in 2008 edition A12/48): “Then will come after that (period) a year in which the people will have abundant water - - -.” This is not from the Bible - from where did Muhammad get it?

269 12/50a: "So the king (Pharaoh*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

270 12/50b: "So the king (Pharaoh*) said: 'Bring ye him unto me". See 12/43b above.

171 12/50c: "So the king (Pharaoh*) said: 'Bring ye him unto me". This is not from the Bible. According to the Bible Joseph already was brought to the Pharaoh, and spoke directly to him (1. Mos. 41/14-15). But this twist was necessary for Muhammad to be able to add his illogical continuation of this part of the tale to the story - illogical because Joseph according to the Quran (12/26-29) was proved innocent (but not according to the Bible - his imprisonment has a logic in the Bible, but also this lacks logic in the Quran; a proved innocent man imprisoned for years).

172 12/50d: "Joseph said - - -". A historical anomaly.

173 12/50e: "- - - their (the ladies at the banquet in 12/30-32) snare". What snare? The wife of Joseph's owner may be said to have made a snare, but not the mentioned ladies.

174 12/50-51: Joseph does not want to leave the prison unless he is deemed not guilty. This is not from the Bible - the only known source for information about this incident, except legend and fairy tales, as the Quran is not from any god with all its mistakes, etc. Besides it is nonsense, since he already was judged not guilty according to the ladies) - - -". A historical anomaly.

175 12/51a: "(The king (Pharaoh*)) said (to the ladies) - - -". A historical anomaly.

176 12/51b: "(The king (Pharaoh*)) said (to the ladies): What was your affair - - -". See 12/43b above.

177 12/51c: "(The king (Pharaoh*)) said (to the ladies): What was your affair when ye did seek to seduce Joseph - - -". One thing is that this tale is not from the Bible, and thus of unknown origin. Worse just here is that the Quran here contradicts itself, as these ladies also according to the Quran (12/30-35) did not try to seduce him to anything.

p>178 12/51d: “What was your (the ladies’*) affair when you ye did try to seduce him (Joseph*) - - -“. According to 12/23 it only was the wife of the Aziz who tried this. Mistake and contradiction. (The wife invited some women friends to show them how handsome – not to say beautiful – Joseph was. With dramatic effect: They hurt themselves with knives in a scene credible only in third class novels for children, not for adults - but they did not try to seduce him (12/30-32 above)).

*179 12/51e: The women from Potiphar’s (this name is from the Bible - the Aziz (title or job?) in the Quran) - or actually his wife's - banquet, said: “Allah preserve us”. The name and the god Allah did not exist in the old polytheistic pantheon in Egypt - and definitely not among the upper class (from slaves and traders they might have heard about Yahweh, but not Allah, and hardly even al-Lah that early). Their gods were Ptah, Osiris, Aton, Amon, and other ones. Actually there is found not one single trace of monotheism among the upper class (and also not in lower classes) in Egypt in the old times. (Except Akn-Aton and his sun god). Similar claim in 12/52.

180 12/51f: "- - - Allah - - -". According to the Bible, the involved god was Yahweh, not Allah.

181 12/52a: "This (say I) - - -". No matter whether it is Joseph or the wife of his owner who says this (see 12/52e below), it is a historical anomaly.

182 12/52b: “- - - Allah will - - -”. See 12/51e+f above.

183 12/52c: “- - - Allah will never guide - - -”. Not unless he exists, and not unless he has a better guide-book than the Quran with all its mistakes, etc.

184 12/52d: "- - - Allah will never guide the false ones". Muhammad had as slogans "War is deceit" and "War is betrayal" - did Allah guide him in such falseness? And what about al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth)? - or broken oaths (2/225a, 5/89a+b, 16/91e, 66/2a)?

185 12/52e: (A12/47 – in the 2008 edition A12/51): “This (say I), in order that he (the Aziz*) may know that I have never been false to him in his absence, and that Allah will never guide the snare of the false ones. Nor do I absolve my own self - - -.” All this is well and good. But who says this? Is it the wife, like f.x. Ibn Kathir and Rashid Rida guess? – or is it Joseph, like among others Tabari, Baghawi, and Zamakhshari believe? The clear (?) language in the Quran does not give one single reliable clue – it is anybody’s guess. Clear and unmistakable texts?

186 12/52f: "- - - the false ones - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. You f.x. are not sinning if you find it necessary to be false to defend or promote Islam. Or if you are false to cheat a woman or defend your money - al-Taqiyya and Kitman are permitted in all these cases and some more.

187 12/53a: "- - - evil - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

188 12/53b: "- - - His (Allah's*) Mercy - - -". See 1/1a above.

189 12/53c: "- - -(Allah*) is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful". See 1/1a above.

190 12/54a: "So the king said - - -". A historical anomaly. It might also look like Muhammad did not know that the title for the king of Egypt was not king, but pharaoh.

191 12/54b: "So the king said: 'Bring him (Joseph*) onto me - - -". See 12/43b above.

192 12/54c: "So the king said: 'Bring him (Joseph*) onto me - - -". This is contradicted by the Bible - see 12/50c above. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

193 12/55: "(Joseph) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

194 12/56aa: "- - - Joseph - - -". A historical anomaly.

195 12/56a: "We (Allah*) bestow Our Mercy on whom We please - - -". There was one under-laying question where there was no rational answer: Why do many bad persons and many non-Muslims have a good life, whereas many Muslims had a difficult life no matter how pious they were and no matter how powerful and benevolent the "right" god was?

There may be rational answers to this, but no simple rational answers - and a number of them would be disliked, like 'They work more than you', 'They are cleverer than you', 'They are more intelligent than you' etc. An intelligent and populist leader should be careful with such answers.

Muhammad came up with the ideal answer. It is irrational, but looks rational, at least for the naive ones, and it fits all situations: 'It is Allah who in his great and unfathomable wisdom who for some reason has decided it so - "on whom We please". Besides it only looks like a good life, because - cool down and sooth yourself and be glad - in the next lift they will be punished hard, whereas you will be rewarded if you keep on being good and obedient'.

Who can ask questions about an omniscient and benevolent god's fairness and wisdom? And who - at least among the ones who are small inside - does not like to "know" that "they" will be punished? - sometimes it helps nearly as much to know that, as to "know" you yourself will be rewarded.

196 12/56b: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Mercy - - -". See 1/1a above.

197 12/56c: "- - - We (Allah*) suffer not , to be lost, the reward of those who do good". If he exists and is a major god. And if the Quran has described him correctly.

198 12/56d: "- - - do good". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

199 12/57a: "But verily the reward of the Hereafter is the best - - -". Well, if:

There really is a hereafter.

The hereafter is correctly described.

You believe in an existing Allah - and not one made up.

And no matter if there is a next life or not, it was an efficient way for Muhammad - and for many another self proclaimed prophet - to build a platform of power, and a cheap way to pay his warriors.

200 12/57b: "- - - verily - - -". See 2/2b above.

201 12/57c: "- - - those who believe - - -". Muslims.

202 12/57d: "- - - righteousness". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

203 12/58-68; Everything happened like Joseph had said. And his brothers came to Egypt to buy food. There were some intermezzos because Joseph did not want to tell whom he was, but all the same wanted contact with his family. The main story is like in the Bible, though details vary. Those details either are from legends, etc. or made up ones, as there are no other sources (as the Quran with all its errors is not from a god who could have told it, like Muslims like to claim).

204 12/58a: "Then came Joseph's brethren (to Egypt*): they entered his (Joseph's*) presence - - -". See 12/43b above.

205 12/58b: "Then came Joseph's brethren (to Egypt*): they entered his (Joseph's*) presence - - -". Historical anomalies.

206 12/59c: "- - - when he (Joseph*) had furnished them (his half-brothers*) - - -". Historical anomalies.

207 12/59d: The part of the story this and the next verse cover, is a lot more dramatic in the Bible (1. Mos. 42/9-24).

208 12/60a: "Now if ye (Joseph's half brothers*) bring him not to me, ye shall have no measure (of corn) from me (Joseph*), nor shall ye (even) come near me". In the Bible the breath is death penalty (1. Mos. 42/20).

209 12/60b: "- - - him - - -". Benjamin - Joseph's only full brother.

210 12/61a: "They (Joseph's half-brothers*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

211 12/61b: "They (Joseph's half-brothers*) said: 'We shall certainly - - -". See 12/43b above.

212 12/62a: "And (Joseph) told his servants - - -". A historical anomaly.

213 12/62b: "- - - so that they should know it only when they returned to their people - - -". According to the Bible it was discovered already the first night after the departure (1. Mos. 42/27).

214 12/63a: "- - - they (Joseph's half-brothers*) said: "O our father (Jacob*) - - -". Historical anomalies.

215 12/63b: "- - - they (Joseph's half-brothers*) said: "O our father (Jacob*) - - -".

216 12/64a: "He (Jacob*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

217 12/64b: "- - - Allah - - -". According to the Bible Jacob's god was Yahweh, not Allah.

218 12/64c: "- - - he (Allah*) is the Most Merciful - - -". Skipping the fact that the Bible tells his god was Yahweh, not Allah - the two gods and their teachings fundamentally are too different, so they cannot be the same god no matter what the Quran and Islam (like normal without the slightest documentation) claim - see 1/1a above. Was and is Allah merciful?

219 12/64d: "- - - he (here indicated Allah*) is Most Merciful of those wh show mercy". The Bible disagrees, and will claim the most merciful one is Yahweh, not Allah.

220 12/65a: "Then when they (Joseph's half-brothers*) opened their baggage (back home*), they found their stock-in-trade had been returned to them". See 12/62b above.

221 12/65b: "- - - when they (Joseph's half-brothers*) - - -". Historical anomaly.

222 12/65c: "They (Joseph's half-brothers*) said: 'O our father (Jacob*)! - - -". See 12/43b above.

223 12/65d: "What more can we (Joseph's family in Canaan*) desire? This our stock-in-trade has been returned to us: so we shall get (more) food for our family - - -". To react in this way to the mystery, they had to have simple minds and brains. In the Bible the reaction is entirely different and more logical - at least for reasonably intelligent and not too primitive brains (1. Mos. 42/28 and 42/35).

224 12/66a: "(Jacob) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

225 12/66b: "They (Joseph's half-brothers*) swore their solemn oath - - -". A historical anomaly.

226 12/66c: "They (Joseph's half-brothers*) swore their solemn oath - - -". See 12/43b above.

227 12/66d: "- - - be Allah the Witness and Guardian!" Neither of which is possible unless he exists. And if he exists, but belongs to the dark forces, he in both cases is unreliable. Just for the record: He is no god if he is behind the Quran with all its errors.

228 12/66e: "- - - Allah - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells that Jacob's god was Yahweh, not Allah. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

229 12/67a: "Further he (Jacob*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

230 12/67b: "Enter not by one gate - - - (etc.*)". Not from the Bible.

231 12/67c: "- - - Allah - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells that Jacob's god was Yahweh, not Allah. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

232 12/67d: "- - - none can command except Allah - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which says that Yahweh is the best C-in-C, not Allah. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

233 12/67e: "- - - in Him (here intended to be Allah*) I (Jacob*) put my trust - - -". Risky if he does not exist, or if he belongs to the dark forces and just have cheated people into a false religion.

234 12/68a: "- - - when they (Joseph's half-brothers) entered in the manner their father (Jacob*) had enjoined - - -". Historical anomalies.

235 12/68b: "- - - when they (Joseph's half-brothers) entered in the manner their father (Jacob*) had enjoined - - -". See 12/43b above.

236 12/68c: "- - - Allah - - -". According to the Bible, the involved god was Yahweh, not Allah.

237 12/68d: "- - - knowledge - - -". See 26/83a below.

238 12/69a: "When they (Joseph's half-brothers*) came - - -". A historical anomaly.

239 12/69b: "When they (Joseph's half-brothers*) came into Joseph's presence - - -". See 12/43b above.

240 12/69c: Joseph told Benjamin: “Behold! I am thy (own) brother - - -“. Contradicted by the Bible, which says Joseph did not tell this until later. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

241 12/69d: Joseph told Benjamin: “Behold! I am thy (own) brother - - -“. It does not fit verses 70 – 77 that he told it at this time. The story simply fizzles out in case - literature not even worthy a story for a magazine for teen-age girls.

242 12/69-79: The main story follows the Bible, the details differ. See 12/58-68 above.

243 12/70a: "- - - when he (Joseph*) had furnished them (his half-brothers + Benjamin*) - - -". Historical anomalies.

244 12/70b: "Than shouted out a Crier - - -". A historical anomaly.

245 12/71a: "They (Joseph's half-brothers and brother*) said, turning towards them (their followers*) - - -". Historical anomalies.

246 12/71b: "They (Joseph's half-brothers and brother*) said, turning towards them (their followers*): 'What is it you miss?". See 12/43b above.

247 12/72a: "They (the Egyptians*) said - - -". Historical anomaly.

248 12/72b: "- - - for him who produces it, is (the reward of) a camel load - - -". This is not from the Bible.

249 12/73a: "(The brothers) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

250 12/73b: "(The brothers) said: 'By Allah! Well ye know - - -". See 12/43b above.

251 12/74: "(The Egyptians) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

252 12/74-75: "'What then shall be the penalty of this, if ye are (proved) to have lied?' They said: 'The penalty should be that he in whose saddlebag it is found, should be held (as bondsman) - - -". The Bible tells something else - 1. Mos. 44/9 (though the Egyptian softens it in 44/10).

253 12/75a: "They (the brothers?*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

254 12/75b: "They (the brothers?*) said: The penalty should be - - -". See 12/43b above.

255 12/75c: (A70 – in 2008 edition A74): ”They said: ’The penalty should be - - -.” But who said this? If it was the Egyptians, that was the law one had to follow. If it was Joseph’s brothers, it was an offer to the Egyptians, but not a consequence of a law one had to obey. The Quran does not give a clue – and some Muslim scholars guess this, others that. Would an omniscient god use a language that so often is unclear, has double or even multiple meanings, and that so frequently demands guesswork? – at least anyone who use the often unclerar language in the Quran as a proof for a god, is far out in the wilderness.

256 12/75d: "- - - wrongdoers - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

257 12/76a: "So he (Joseph*) began (the search) - - -". A historical anomaly.

258 12/76b: "So he (Joseph*) began (the search) - - -". According to the Bible, Joseph was not present, but had sent his steward (1. Mos. 44/4-5).

259 12/76c: "So he (Joseph*) began (the search) - - - (and found the beaker*)". This is where the tale fizzles out - if not before (see 12/69d above). If Benjamin had known Joseph was his/their brother, if not before then now he had talked - not to mention during the threatening continuation of the tale like the Quran tells it.

260 12/76d: "- - - at length he (Joseph*) brought it (the beaker*) out of his brother's (Benjamin's*) baggage". What had happened here if Benjamin had known Joseph was his brother like said in 12/69d? The logic in the tale is wrong.

The ones claiming the Quran is good literature know very little about good literature.

261 12/76e: "Thus did We (Allah*) plan for Joseph". To plan this did not need any god.

262 12/76f: "- - - Allah - - -". The Bible tells that the god involved was Yahweh, not Allah.

263 12/76g: "He (Joseph*) could not take his brother (Benjamin*) by the law of the king - - -". This is rubbish to use polite words. One thing is that Joseph was not after his brother Benjamin - Benjamin had not wronged him. He was after his half-brothers - to frighten them (hardly any more). But the main point is that in a full dictatorship like the old Egypt, the king/pharaoh AND his highest officers could - and can - do almost what they wanted, included detain a man or more. At most they had to find an excuse. F.x. Joseph could use the excuse he according to the Bible used to hold back in prison his half-brother Simeon from the first trip (1. Mos. 42/12-24). This storey is told by someone who did not know what he was talking about, or someone who did not have a more creative mind - - - and to believe it, also the listeners had to be little bright or little knowledgeable.

264 12/76h: "(Allah is*) the All-Knowing". See 2/233h above.

265 12/77a: "They (the brothers*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

266 12/77b: "They (the brothers*) said: 'If he (Benjamin*) steals - - -'". See 12/43b above.

267 12/77c: “If he (Benjamin*) steals, there was a brother of his (Joseph*) who did steal before (him)”. Here something is wrong: The youth Joseph was not accused of stealing. (Some Muslims explain the sentence with that it was a lie they uttered to create more distance between themselves and Benjamin. Or that they were blinded by hate to Joseph and Benjamin, and said it from spite. These about the only possible "explanations" one can use to get out of this mistake(?), but neither the Quran nor the Bible indicates that they tried to do this. Also neither the Bible nor the Quran indicates that they had negative feelings for Benjamin.)

268 12/77d: "- - - Joseph - - -". A historical anomaly.

269 12/77e: "- - - Allah - - -". According to the Bible Joseph's god was Yahweh, not Allah.

270 12/77f: "- - - the truth - - -". See 2/2b above.

271 12/078a: "They (the brothers*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

272 12/078b: "They (the brothers*) said: 'O exalted one! - - -". See 12/43b above.

273 12/079a: "He (Joseph*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

274 12/079b: "He (Joseph said: 'Allah forbid - - -'". According to the Bible Joseph's god was Yahweh, not Allah.

275 12/079c: "- - - act wrongfully - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

276 12/80a: "- - - they (the brothers*) - - -". A historical anomaly.

277 12/80b: "- - - they (the brothers*) held a conference in private". How could this end up in the claimed "Mother Book" (of which the Quran is a copy according to Muhammad) billions of years before it was said or happened? One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 3 reasons - 2 of them unavoidable - for this:

When something is changed, automatically the future is changed.

The laws of chaos will be at work and change things, if even a tiny part is made different.

The so-called "Butterfly Effect"; "a butterfly flapping its wing in Brazil may cause a storm in China later on" or "a small bump may overturn a big load".

This that Allah predestines everything like the Quran claims and states many places, is an essential point, because besides totally removing the free will of man (in spite of the Quran's claims of such free will, or some Muslims' adjusted "partly free will for man" - to adjust the meanings where the texts in the Quran are wrong, is typical for Islam and its Muslims) - it also removes the moral behind Allah's punishing (and rewarding) persons for what they say and do - Allah cannot reward or punish people for things he himself has forced them to say or do, and still expect to be believed when he (Muhammad?) claims to be a good or benevolent or moral or just god. Also see 2/51b and 3/24a above.

And as mentioned above, full predestination also makes prayers to Allah meaningless, as everything already is predestined according to Allah's Plan - a Plan which no prayer ("nobody and nothing") can change.

278 12/80c: "The leader among them (the brothers*) - - -". Like so many low quality books, the Quran often is short on real and controllable facts - like in this story f.x. the names of the brothers. (Shortage on controllable facts is typical for low quality literature). Their leader likely was Reuben - the oldest one and the same who according to the Bible (like here not named in the Quran) tried to save Joseph originally.

279 12/80d: "- - - Allah - - -". Just to remind you: According to the Bible the involved god was Yahweh, not Allah.

280 12/80e: "- - - Joseph - - -". A time anomaly.

281 12/80f: "- - - He (here indicated Allah*) is the best to command". Incompatible with the Bible, which says this is Yahweh, not Allah.

282 12/81a: "(Reuben? - see 12/80c above - continued) - - -". A historical anomaly.

283 12/81b: "(Reuben? - see 12/80c above - continued:) 'Turn ye (the rest of the brothers*) back to your father (Jacob*) and say - - -". See 12/80b above.

284 12/83a: "Jacob said - - -". According to the Bible the brothers made 2 trips to Egypt before Jacob emigrated there. In the Quran there seems to be 3 trips: 1. trip arrives in 12/58, home 12/63. 2. trip arrives in 12/69, home in 12/83 to tell Jacob that Benjamin was a thief. 3. trip arrives in 12/88, home in 12/96-97. Contradiction and not a small one really, as the whole story gets a mix-up.

285 12/83b: "Jacob said - - -". A historical anomaly.

286 12/83c: "- - - may be Allah will bring them (Joseph and Benjamin*) back to me - - -". The Quran some places makes it clear that Jacob did not believe Joseph was dead - a prophet like Jacob could not be wrong. In the Bible it is clear Jacob believed Joseph was dead (1. Mos. 42/38 - Jacob says Benjamin is the only son of Rachel left). (Just for the record: When 1.Mos. 43/14 says "your other brother and Benjamin", it is meant Simeon and Benjamin.)

287 12/83d: "For He (Allah*) is indeed full of knowledge and wisdom". If the Quran is a typical sample of his knowledge, he far from is full of it - lots of mistaken facts, etc.

288 12/84a: "- - he (Jacob*) turned away from them (his sons*) - - -". Historical anomalies.

289 12/84b: “And his (Jacob’s*) eyes became white with sorrow - - -“. Eyes cannot become white (and more or less blind) from sorrow. That happens because of illness or physical malfunction in the eye – sometimes related to age. Any god had known – Muhammad perhaps not.

290 12/85a: "They (the brothers*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

291 12/85b: "They (the brothers*) said: 'By Allah! - - -". See 12/80b above.<(p>

292 12/85c: The brothers swear "by Allah". But according to the Bible the involved god was Yahweh, not Allah.

293 12/85d: "- - - Joseph - - -". A historical anomaly.

294 12/86a: "He (Jacob*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

295 12/86b: "- - - Allah - - -". But according to the Bible the god involved was Yahweh, not Allah.

296 12/87a: Jacob said: “O my sons! Go ye (to Egypt*) and enquire about Joseph and his brother - - -". Jacob stayed at home (in Canaan), and his sons vent to Egypt (the 3. trip). But the fact (both according to the Bible and to the Quran) that Jacob stayed at home, is contradicted by:

00a 12/94-95: “When the Caravan left (Egypt), their father said: ‘I do indeed scent the presence of Joseph: nay, think me not a dotard’. They (his sons*) said: ‘By Allah! Truly thou art in thine old wandering mind.’”

How could Jacob smell the scent and how could he talk to his sons when they were hundreds of kilometers away?

297 12/87b: Jacob said: “O my sons! Go ye (to Egypt*) and enquire about Joseph and his brother - - -". It is clear from some places in the Quran that Jacob did not believe Joseph was dead. But this is contradicted by the Bible, which says he believed he was dead (1. Mos. 42/38). Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

298 12/87c: "- - - Joseph - - -". A historical anomaly.

299 12/87d: "- - - hope of Allah's soothing Mercy - - -". Please read the some 22-24 surahs from Medina and see if you long for this kind of mercy.

300 12/87e: "- - - despair of Allah's soothing Mercy - - -". See 12/87b just above.

301 12/87f: "- - - Allah - - -". Contradicted by the Bible which tells that Jacob's god was Yahweh, not Allah. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

302 12/87g: "- - - those who have no faith". Here intended to mean non-Muslims, even though traces from Muslims are not found anywhere in the world until some 2500 years later.

303 12/87h: "- - - faith". = Islam. This word always means Islam when the Quran talks about religion. Though it is highly unlikely in the extreme that Jacob was a Muslim, no matter what Muslims and the Quran claims - and for more reasons than one.

304 12/88a: "- - - when they (the brothers*) came back into (Joseph's) presence - - -". Historical anomalies.

305 12/88b: "- - - when they (the brothers*) came back into (Joseph's) presence, they said: O exalted one! - - -". See 12/80b above.

306 12/88c: "- - - we (the brothers*) have (now) brought but scanty capital - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which says Jacob told them to bring a double amount of silver on their second trip (1. Mos. 43/12-15). Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

307 12/88d: "- - - scanty capital - - -". Why, if Joseph had returned their capital the first time?

308 12/89a: "He (Joseph*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

309 12/89b: "Know ye (the brothers*) how ye dealt with Joseph and his brother (Benjamin*) - - -". Neither the Quran nor the Bible tells they had done anything to Benjamin.

310 12/90a: "They (the brothers*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

311 12/90b: "They (the brothers*) said: 'Art thou indeed Joseph?'". See 12/80b above.

312 12/90c: "- - - Joseph - - -". A historical anomaly.

313 12/90d: "- - - Allah - - -". According to the Bible Joseph’s god was Yahweh, not Allah.

314 12/90e: "- - - righteous - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

315 12/90f: "- - - never will Allah suffer the reward to be lost, of those who do right". If he exists and is a major god. And if the Quran has described him correctly. (But the Quran with all its mistakes, etc., and with Muhammad's lust for power is very unreliable.)

316 12/90g: "- - - do right". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

317 12/91a: "They (the brothers*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

318 12/91b: "They (the brothers*) said: 'By Allah! - - -". See 12/80b above.

319 12/91c: "They (the brothers*) said: 'By Allah! - - -". They swear by Allah - expressions starting by "by" in the Quran, normally are oaths. But according to the Bible, their god was Yahweh, not Allah.

320 12/91d: "- - - sin - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. We also may mention that just this word often covers very different deeds, acts, words, and thoughts in the Quran and Islam, than in more normal religions (Islam is a religion of war - in spite of its loud slogans), not to mention how much its meaning in the Quran often differs from the basic of all human moral; "do against others like you want others do against you". Read the surahs from Medina and weep.

321 12/92a: "He (Joseph*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

322 12/92b: "- - - Allah will forgive you (the brothers*) - - -". According to the Bible, Joseph's god was Yahweh, not Allah.

323 12/92c: "- - - Allah will forgive you (the brothers*) - - -". Allah can forgive no-one unless he exists and in addition is a god (not f.x. from the dark forces - we are unsure of the value of forgiveness from someone from those forces).

324 12/92d: "- - - He (Allah*) is the Most Merciful - - -". See 1/1a above.

325 12/92e: "- - - He (Allah*) is the Most Merciful of those who show mercy!" Well, there is the disturbing question of Yahweh and his mercy.

326 12/93a: "Go with this my (Joseph's*) skirt - - -". This story is not in the Bible. If Allah really made the Quran, it may be true. If not also this part of the Quran is made up, as there existed no other source who should tell the maker of the Quran this story some 2400 years later - except perhaps legends and fairy tales - - - and perhaps black forces.

327 12/93b: "Then come ye (the brothers*) (here) to me (Joseph*) together with all your family". Historical anomalies.

328 12/94a: "When the Caravan left (Egypt) - - -". A historical anomaly.

329 12/94b “When the Caravan left (Egypt), their father (Jacob*) said (to his sons?*) - - -“. But 12/87 says: “O my (Jacob’s*) sons! Go ye (to Egypt*) and enquire about Joseph and his brother - - -“. Jacob simply did not come along to Egypt at that trip – he stayed at home. Thus Jacob could not smell something they or the caravan were carrying. A mistake and a contradiction of the real(?) situation. (This also is clear from 12/96: “When the bearer of the good news came (to Jacob’s home*) - - -.”) Jacob could say nothing to his sons at least until they were back home with him. but the first sentence of 12/95 may refer to his sons.

330 12/94-95a: "When the caravan left (Egypt), their father said: 'I do indeed scent the presence of Joseph - - -." Contradicted by the Quran telling Jacob stayed at home and impossibly could scent anything in the caravan of his sons travelling from Egypt. See 12/87a and 12/94 above. Some Muslims claim Jacob knew by some sort of ESP (ExtraSensory Perception) - f.x YA1770. Such comments need no comments.

331 12/94-95b: "When the caravan left (Egypt), their father said: 'I do indeed scent the presence of Joseph - - -." This tale is not from the Bible. From where did Muhammad get it?

332 12/95a: “They (Jacob’s sons) said (= answered when the caravan left Egypt*): ‘By Allah (?*)! Truly thou art in thine old wandering mind.’” See 12/94 above.

333 12/95b: "They (Jacob's people*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

334 12/95c: "They (Jacob's people*) said: 'By Allah! - - -". See 12/80b above.

335 12/95d: "They (Jacob's people*) said: 'By Allah! - - -". They were swearing by Allah - expressions starting by "by" in the Quran, normally are oaths.

336 12/95e: "- - - Allah - - -". Just for the record, we repeat that according to the Bible, the god of Jacob was Yahweh, not Allah.

337 12/96a: "When the bearer of the good news came (to Jacob's home in Canaan*) - - -". Only now Jacob could get any news - see 12/94 above which this refers to.

338 12/96b: "- - - he (Jacob*) forthwith regained clear sight". No-one loses his eyesight - partly or totally - from sorrow. And no blind - partly or totally - regains his eyesight because a sorrow disappears. Also this part of the tale is not from the Bible.

339 12/96c: "He (Jacob*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

340 12/97a: "They (the brothers*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

341 12/97b: "They (the brothers*) said: 'O our father! - - -". See 12/80b above.

342 12/98a: "He (Jacob*) said - - -". A historical anomaly.

343 12/98b: "Soon I (Jacob*) will ask my Lord (here indicated to be Allah*) for forgiveness for you". Why - if Allah predestines everything, the brothers only did what Allah forced them to do, and is there then a reason for asking for forgiveness? - and besides: If Allah has predestined everything according to a plan nobody and nothing can change, like the Quran states many places, why spend time and effort on prayers, when they can change nothing?

As for the value of prayers in Islam, also see 62/9c. And if you combine 62/9c with 67/9c - a strong one - you get something thought-provoking. (And relevant here: Muslims often are thought that a question or problem can have 2 or more true and correct solutions - Islam is forced to teach this, because if not, many of the mistakes and contradictions in the Quran become too obvious. But this ONLY is true if parallel true solutions are possible. In cases where 2 or more possible solutions are mutually excluding each other, maximum 1 of the mutually excluding ones can be true. It should be a bit thought provoking for Muslims, that just this "small" difference in theoretical thinking and teaching, was one of the reasons (there were several of course) for why Europe and the West exploded into the Technical Revolution, while the Muslim area stagnated). Two star examples are: 1) Full predestination is not possible even for an omnipotent god to combine with even the smallest piece of free will for man - the two are mutually excluding. The same for full and unchangeable predestination long time before, combined with any claimed effect of prayers - the two are mutually excluding each other.)

344 12/98c: "- - - He (Allah*) is indeed Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." May be he is "oft-forgiving", but read the Quran and you will see it is far from "70 times 7" like Jesus said. And read the surahs from Medina - they are the youngest ones and thus the ones which are little abrogated (the milder ones form Mecca to a large degree are abrogated = made invalid), and see if he is Most Merciful - or much merciful at all. also see 1/1a above.

345 12/98d: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

346 12/99a: Jacob and his entire household then went to Egypt to Joseph. All together they were 70 persons + the wives of his sons according to the Bible (1. Mos. 46/27). And - -

347 12/99b: "- - - Joseph - - -". A historical anomaly.

348 12/99c: “- - - he (Joseph*) provided a home for his parents - - -“. Not possible, as his mother (Rachel) died already when Benjamin was born – he could provide a home only for his father. (Islam explains or “explains” this with claiming that he reckoned the sister of his mother (Leah - also wife of Jacob) to be his mother, but there is nothing neither in the Quran nor in the Bible saying so. But then it is quite normal for Islam to make claims without facts.) One more small detail here. Abraham first married Leah, and later her sister Rachel. But Muslims cannot be married to 2 sisters at the same time, which Jacob was for a long time. How then could Abraham be a good and devoted Muslim? - the "mother book" in Heaven they claim he, too, got a copy and the laws from, had not changed.

349 12/99d: (A12/92 – in 2008 edition A12/96): “(Joseph*) provided a home for his parents - - -.” What does this mean? The Bible tells and the Quran does not object to that his mother Rachel died in childbirth when Benjamin was born, and he only had his father Jacob. Muslims “may, therefore, assume that the “mother” implied in the term “parents” was another of Jacob’s wives - - -.” It is not uncommon to call a foster mother for “mother”. In some cultures it even is common to use the words “mother” and “father” as a respectful title when speaking with old people. But a pet name, a respectful name/title, does not make someone your parent. The very least that should have been done by Allah if he claimed to use a language “clear and easy to understand” was to say “his father and step-mother”. (The likely explanation is that Muhammad when he told this, forgot or did not know that Joseph’s mother was dead).

350 12/99e: "- - - Allah". As mentioned before, according to the Bible Jacob's and Joseph's god was Yahweh, not Allah.

351 12/100a: (A12/95 – in 2008 edition A12/98, A12/99): “- - - and they Jacob and his family*) fell down in prostration, (all) before him (Joseph*) - - -.” Here is a big conundrum inside a riddle surrounded by a puzzle for Islam. A pious prophet like Jacob impossibly could prostrate himself before a human. And an as pious prophet like Joseph impossibly could have accepted it. Something has to be wrong in the text. This even though the Arab text “wa-kharru lahu sudjdjadah” literally means “- - - and they fell down before him in (alternatively “like in”) prostration (or “praying to him” according to the Swedish copy)”. Islam has no good explanations that we have found. According to ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas the “him” in “before him” must refer to Allah – which it most clearly does not do. Razi explains that Joseph’s dream was not fully fulfilled, etc. Actually here the text is very clear – and the only thing Muslim scholars agree on, is that the literal meaning must be wrong, and this without having a good alternative meaning.

352 12/100b: “- - - parents - - -“. See 12/99 just above.

353 12/100c: “- - - and they Jacob and his family*) fell down in prostration, (all) before him (Joseph*) - - -.” This or something similar is not to be found in the Bible.

354 12/100d: "- - - Allah - - -". According to the Bible, their god was Yahweh, not Allah.

356 12/100e: "Verily - - -". See 2/2b above.

357 12/100f: "For, verily, He (Allah*) is full of knowledge and wisdom". See f.x. 12/83c above.

358 12/100g: "For, verily, He (Allah*) is full of knowledge and wisdom". Not if he made the Quran - too much is wrong.

359 12/100h: "- - - knowledge - - -". See 26/83a below.

360 12/101a: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

361 12/101b: "- - - Thou (Allah*) Creator of the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth!". Often claimed, never proved - and even wrongly described.

362 12/101c: “- - - heavens - - -“. Plural and wrong. See 2/22d.

363 12/101d: "Thou (here indicated Allah*) art my (Joseph's*) Protector in this world and in the Hereafter". Not possible unless Allah exists and is a god.

364 12/101e: "Take Thou (Allah) my (Joseph's*) soul - - - (as a Muslim)". Believe it if you want - but remember how many mistakes, errors, etc. there are in the Quran, and that there does not exist one single trace from Islam or similar anywhere in the world in the world older than 610 AD. Not one single (except the two building on the Bible, and they - and especially the Christian one - are so far from Islam, that the claimed relationship mostly just are claims, and the rest superficial points.

365 12/101f: "Take Thou (Allah) my (Joseph's*) soul (at death) as one submitting to Thy (here indicated Allah's*) Will (as a Muslim) - - -". For one thing there is nothing even remotely similar to this in the Bible, and for another: This text is incompatible with the Bible to say the least of it - according to the Bible Joseph's god was Yahweh, not Allah, and according to facts neither science, nor Islam has found one single trace of Muslims/Islam older than 610 AH - Joseph (if he is not fiction) lived 2ooo-2500 years earlier.

366 12/101g: "- - - the righteous". Good Muslims according to "Quran-speak".

367 12/101h: "- - - righteous - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

368 12/102a: "- - - which We (Allah*) revealed unto thee (Muhammad*) - - -". No god revealed the Quran - too much is wrong in the book.

369 12/102b: "- - - which We (Allah*) revealed unto thee (Muhammad*) by inspiration - - -". And who can control from where the inspirations come? - not from a god, because too much is wrong. - but from other forces? - or from an illness like TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy)? - or from helpers? - or from his own wishes? - or some from here and some from there? - there at least are some stuff in the Quran which does not fit a holy book (f. ex. surah 111), and a lot which fit Muhammad very well. "- - - by inspiration - - -" is a most convenient claim.

370 12/102c: "- - - by inspiration - - -". Muhammad claimed he got his verses by inspiration - at least a large part of them. A convenient claim - and impossible to check. It is symptomatic that the word is not used one single time in the Bible in connection with giving information from Yahweh to his prophets. (There you only find direct contact, visions and dreams).

371 12/103: "Yet no faith will the greater part of mankind have - - -". As mentioned before, only Muslims have faith. Not right faith, but faith. Which indicates that the others do not have wrong faith, but no faith.

372 12/104a: “And no reward dost thou (Muhammad*) ask of them (people/Muslims*) for this (the new religion*) - - -“. No, nothing except 20% of all stolen/robbed values and slaves from raids and wars, 100% of all values taken from victims who surrendered without fighting, plenty of women and lots and lots of absolute and undisputed power/dictatorship, and lots and lots of free warriors – he only had to pay them with promises about paradise and promises about rich spoils of war stolen from humans and countries. And the “poor-tax” - zakat - (normally 2,5% - 10% not of your income, but of your possessions each year if you were not too poor) – which he far from only spent for the poor – and the jizya – the tax from non-Muslims (free for the ruler to say how much – and that sometimes meant really much). Much of this as said was spent for waging more wars and for “gifts”/bribes to make neighboring Arabs good Muslims + some was given to the poor.

And the price for their riches was neighboring cultures and humans and lives they destroyed – to gain more power for him and riches and slaves for his warriors. It is indisputably clear from the Quran that he at least liked women and power and that he needed riches for bribes - f.x. up to 100 camels to a chief. You must steal a lot to be able to give lots of such bribes - and who cares about the victims?! Long live the Quran's moral code! Similar claims in 25/57a – 34/47 - 38/86 – 42/23.

373 12/104b: "- - - a Message for all creatures - - -". There have been a number of such ones through the times - most of them have been false ones. Self-proclaimed prophets and political "reformers" - there have been legion of them through the centuries.

374 12/105a: “- - - Sign(s) - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

375 12/105b: “- - - heavens - - -“. Plural and wrong. See 2/22d.

376 12/105c: "Yet they (non-Muslims*) turn away from them (the "signs" of Allah)!" At least a number of them saw that the claimed signs were - and still are - invalid and some even plainly wrong.

377 12/106: "- - - associating (others (other gods*) as partners) with Him (Allah*)!" See 25/18a below.

###378 12/107a: "Do they feel secure from the coming against them - - - the wrath of Allah - - -". Psychology - a leading question leading up to an expected "no" as an answer - Muhammad understood people. But yes: So much is wrong, etc. in the Quran, that it is clear there is no god behind it. Muhammad does not get the answer he tried to pressure from us (and all others). There is no doubt that Islam is a made up religion.

379 12/107b: "- - - the (final) Hour - - -". = The Day of Doom".

##380 12/108a: “- - - evidence clear - - -“. There is not one single clear evidence neither for Allah nor for Muhammad being a prophet in all the Quran. Not one. (There may be some exceptions for evidences for a god in points taken from the Bible, but those in case are proofs for Yahweh, not for Allah – those two gods cannot be the same one, unless that god is mentally ill – schizophrenic – as the teachings are fundamentally too different, especially like one meets Yahweh in “the new covenant” in NT – f. ex. Luke 22/20). Also see 2/99. NB: Islam admits they have no real proofs for Allah, and that it is impossible for them to find any. (If they had had one, you bet they had brandished it all over.)

A small tit-bit here: There does not even exist a reliable proof for the existence of Muhammad. Oh, it is likely he is a historical person, but no reliable proof exists - you will find scientists honestly believing he is a made up person created to become the "salvator" in a new religion emerging in Arabia around 600 AD.

381 12/108b: "I (Muhammad*) do invite you unto Allah - on evidence clear as seeing with one’s eyes",

Muhammad here indirectly, but very clearly makes it clear that evidences are heavy arguments and essential.

He also makes it clear that evidence you see with your own eyes, are clear evidences.

The only evidences which really prove a god, are supernatural beings or acts.

Muhammad never was able to prove one single of his claims about Allah or his own connection to a god - in spite of that he here admits and states that evidences are heavy and essential arguments. Not one essential point did he prove.

He was frequently asked for proof, but had only fast-talk and sometimes even lies to offer to explain it away - in spite of here and other places arguing that evidences are heavy arguments - f.x. Moses' miracles made all sorcerers Muslims - and in spite of claiming proofs from everybody else.

Whenever he was asked for arguments, he claimed that evidences had no value - no-one would believe anyhow - - - in spite of that he here and other places argues with that his "signs" and "proofs" should decide you. (This was some of his obvious lies in the Quran - so obvious that there is no chance he did not know it himself (he was intelligent).)

And another argument was the glorification of blind belief and the stupidity in needing proofs - in spite of that all and everybody in reality knows that the most sure way to be cheated, is believing blindly.

Whenever Islam today is asked for proofs, they tell how un-intellectual and stupid it is not to see that intuition and inspiration is the sure way to knowledge and how silly it is to ask for proofs (they have nothing to offer, and what then to say?) - in spite of that every not too naive soul on Earth knows fast-talk is a sign of danger.

And another argument is the glorious blind belief vs. the little reliability of the imbecile science - and the stupidity of needing proof, in spite of as mentioned that everybody know that the sure way to be cheated every now and then, is to believe blindly in this or that.

382 12/108c: "Glory to Allah!" Please read 1/1a above and see if he deserves it - if he exists.

383 12/108d: "- - - join gods with Allah - - -". See 25/18a.

384 12/109a: “Nor did We (Allah*) send before thee (Muhammad*) (as Messengers) any but men - - -.” But this is clearly contradicted by:

3/42: “Behold the angels (plural*) said (when they came to tell Mary she was going to have the baby Jesus*)”.

6/130: “O ye assembly of Jinns and men! Came there not unto you messengers (from Us, Allah*) from amongst you - - -.” A rhetoric question demanding the answer “yes” – yes, there came Jinn messengers from Allah to the Jinns, and human messenger from Allah to the humans according to the Quran.

11/69: “There came Our (Allah’s*) Messengers to Abraham - - -“. It is clear from the following verses that these messengers were angels.

11/77: “When Our (Allah’s*) Messengers (it is clear from the text they were angles – they f. ex ate no food*) came to Lut (Lot*) - - -.”

11/81: “(The Messengers (angels from Allah*)) said: O Lut (Lot*)! We are Messengers from thy Lord!”

19/17b: “- - - We (Allah*) sent to her our angel (singular – to tell Mary she was going to have the baby Jesus*), and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.”

19/19: “He (the angel*) said: ‘Nay, I am only a messenger from thy (Mary’s*) Lord…”

22//75: “Allah chooses Messengers from both angels and from men - - -“.

Well, 3/42 - 6/130 - 11/69 – 11/77 – 11/81– 19/17b – 19/19 – 22/75 all say that not all were men. A nice little contradiction to 12/109 – 16/43 – 21/7 – 25/20 which all says all messengers were men.

(8 contradictions).

385 12/109b: “Nor did We (Allah*) send before thee (Muhammad*) (as Messengers) any but men - - -.” Contradicted by the Bible which also tells there were female prophets (the Bible do not use "messenger" as a title - every one of them were "prophets" or some places "seers"), like Miriam (the sister of Moses), Huldah (2. Chr. 34/22), and Anna (Luke 2/36). One more difference between Yahweh and Allah. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

386 12/109c: "(Prophets*) whom We (Allah*) did inspire - - -". Muhammad claimed he got most of his messages from Allah via inspiration - a very convenient way, at least if you like to make up or add "messages". He, therefore, many places in the Quran claims that this was the normal method also for earlier prophets. But the method is not at all mentioned in the Bible.

387 12/109d: “Do they (non-Muslims*) not travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those before them?” Mecca was a business centre with connections from at least Egypt and Constantinople to black East Africa and to India and even China. There were many ruins in all that wide area, even if they were scattered. All ruins were empty of people, because Allah had killed them because they refused to become Muslims, according to Muhammad, and the same with all the places which had become empty but where now new tribes lived - and with tribes and people from old folklore. If Muhammad was right, Yahweh had better hurry up not to end too far behind Allah in the field of killing - not to say the killing fields.

388 12/109e: "But the home in the Hereafter is best - - -". See 12/57 above.

389 12/109f: "- - - those who do right". = Muslims.

390 12/109g: "- - - do right". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is meant in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

391 12/109h: "Will ye (non-Muslims*) not then understand?". May be that was just what they did - understood that something was really wrong.

392 12/110a: "- - - safety - - -". See 2/2b above.

393 12/110b: "But never will be warded off Our (Allah's*) punishment from those who are in sin." We are back to the old fact: This only is true if Allah exists and is a major god - and if the Quran has described him correctly without the help from any god.

394 12/110c: "- - - Our (Allah's*) punishment - - -". See 3/77b above.

395 12/110d: "- - - sin - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. We also may mention that just this word often covers very different deeds, acts, words, and thoughts in the Quran and Islam, than in more normal religions (Islam is a religion of war - in spite of its loud slogans), not to mention how much its meaning in the Quran often differs from the basic of all human moral; "do against others like you want others do against you". Read the surahs from Medina and weep.

396 12/111a: “This is - - - instruction for men endued with understanding.” It may be so – many Muslim thinkers and learned men were and are intelligent men. But to what avail? – when you give even the most intelligent persons wrong information from the start, their conclusions inevitably become just mistakes and errors, no matter how intelligent they are. To quote late Henrik Ibsen in “Peer Gynt”: “Naar utgangspunktet er som galest, blir resultatet tidt originalest” – which means something like ”when the facts you use are really wrong, the result frequently becomes very ’original’”. Also: "Correct facts multiplied by one student give a better answer than false facts multiplied by a number of wise men".

397 12/111b: “It is not a tale invented - - -”. When there are so many mistakes in a book, what do you expect the reader to believe? It also is a sorry fact that the one who strongest and most often claims he is speaking the truth, is the cheat and deceiver. The Quran very many places claims it is speaking the truth - but it only claims, never proves any central point.

**398 12/111c: “- - - a confirmation of what went before (the Bible) - - -”. When there are so many and so serious mistakes in a book, it is not to be expected that the reader can believe too much. Just the story about Josef is taken from the Bible (which “went before“). But the story is much changed (maybe he in reality has retold a local legend about Josef, slightly based on the Bible) - it is no confirmation. On the background of all the documented mistakes in the Quran, which is easiest to believe, if any - the Quran or the Bible? Not to mention the fact that many of the stories in the Quran are easy to recognize from known legends, fairy tales, apocryphal (made up) books, etc, from the time of Muhammad. And at least some of the details in this story in the Quran are illogical - like Solomon listening to the speech of ants. More to the point: There are too many and too fundamental differences in the teachings - the Quran does not confirm the Bible.

399 12/111d: “- - - a detailed exposition of all things - - -“. Wrong. There are many things necessary for normal life – not to mention modern life – that is not made clear, and even more so for details. F.x. the Muslim laws on inheritance were far from clear in the Quran, and in many, many things Islam have no guiding lines from Allah – they have to extrapolate from other or similar things said or done in the Quran or in Hadiths.

400 12/111e: “- - - a Guide - - -“. See 12/111d just above.

401 12/111f: "- - - a Mercy - - -". See 1/1b above.

402 12/111g: "- - - such as believe". = Muslims.

------------------------------------------------------------------

As mentioned above we have not pointed to all historical anomalies and all the texts which could not be written in the book if Allah has full predestination like the Quran claims many places, unless there is no free will for man. In this surah there already are far too many - and boring - as it is. If you go looking, you will find more - and the same in reality goes for all the Quran.

Surah 12: Sub-total: 402 + 7636 = 8038 comments.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

NB: If you find any mistakes anywhere, please inform us. If it is a real mistake, it will be corrected. Please also inform us if we have overlooked points or errors.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(A6/92 - English 2008 edition A6/93): "- - - it is in the nature of man to regard the beliefs which have been implanted in him(!) from his childhood, and which he now shares with his social environment, as the only true and possible one - - -". He forgot(?) to mention that this also goes for Muslims.

10/32: "- - - apart from the Truth, what (remains) but error?"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

#####8/69a-d: "- - - lawful and good - - -". If these words and the context they are taken from ("- - - enjoy what (loot, slaves, and women* + destruction and murder) ye took in war (normally of aggression*), lawful and good - - -") were all you knew about the Quran and Islam, this alone would be enough to remove them from the civilized world, and transfer it to the dark, harsh, and inhuman Medieval ages or earlier. This even more so as this is not "abrogated" (made invalid) by today's Islam, but on the contrary are preached many places all over even today in some Islamic fora and groups and countries. (And even practiced during armed conflicts - Bangladesh, East Timor, East Africa, and Indonesia a "short" time ago. Low intensity active in f.x. Indonesian New Guinea and parts of Africa even now (2010).)

Just remember that most Muslims are ok. Only a minority is militant - 1-2% according to Muslims (but 2% of 1.2 billion = 24 million). Then according to international science some 30% (= some 360 million) are willing to help the militants actively or with money, or at least "understand" them. The rest - the majority - are ok. (But our problem is to know who is who.)

But what is absolutely sure, is that apologists telling that "there are verses in the Quran which can be misused by terrorists", are talking nonsense. According to the Quran it is very clear it is the peaceful Muslims who are not good Muslims, and the activists who are laudable and obeying Muhammad and Allah.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

From 6/149a: "You meet this lack of moral backbone and the ability in Islam and in Muslims to overlook or explain away even the strongest facts, at every point in the Quran where there are mistakes, contradictions or other proofs for that something is wrong in the Quran, and thus with Muhammad and with his religion - proofs they are unable to face for that Islam as told in the Quran is not a religion, but a superstition".

"Religious 'knowledge' nearly always in reality only is belief - often strong belief, but only belief". (In Islam exactly nothing of any consequence is proved - on the contrary: Much is proved wrong and thus that it is from no omniscient god.)

A world dominated by Islam is quite possible - Islam is expanding. Will it end up like North Pakistan or Afghanistan or like Saudi Arabia without oil - or somewhere in between? - and this because of a religion which itself proves that something is seriously wrong with its teaching, and also that there is no god behind its "holy" book (no omniscient god makes mistakes), and thus not behind the religion.

A nice future for our grandchildren?


>>> Go to Next Surah

>>> Go to Previous Sura

This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".