1000+ Comments on the Quran: Surah 2 -- Al-Baqarah (The Heifer or The Cow)

Revelation: Medina, 622-624 AD (the first full surah in Medina)

(See general comments on Surahs here: Introduction)


 

The quotes and comments

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 slaves and for treatment of girls and women - free, captives and slaves - and see if you agree. Always when there is a distance between words and corresponding demands, deeds and introduced rules and moral, we personally believe in the demands, deeds, moral and rules. Glorious words are cheap, demands, deeds, etc. are more reliable. Glorifying words and claims anyone can use and disuse. When you read, read what was demanded, advised and done, and the introduced rules and moral, and distrust the glorious words - judge from realities, not from propaganda.

002 2/1: "Alif Lam Mim". Many of the surahs start with such mysterious Arab letter called al-muqatta'at or abbreviated letters. No-one understands why they are there or what they mean. (There are a few cases where they maybe or maybe not make a word, but in those cases the possible word has no relevance to that surah. Clear language?)

*003 2/2a: “This is the Book (the Quran*); in it is guidance sure - - -". As you will see, there are a lot of mistaken facts, contradictions, and unproved arguments, etc. in the Quran. This means that the guidance is far from sure.

*004 2/2ab: “This is the Book (the Quran*); in it is guidance sure - - -". Contradicting the Bible: The fundamental thoughts, ethics and morality are too different - at most one of those two books can be sure guidance.

*005 2/2ac: “This is the Book (the Quran*); in it is guidance sure, without doubt - - -”. All the mistakes etc. in the Quran produce a lot of doubt - also about the rest of the text. Like in so much Islamic literature also things said in the Quran cannot be trusted without reliable extra proofs - too much is wrong.

006 2/2b: "- - - sure - - -". In a book like the Quran where there are so many mistaken facts, other errors, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, etc., there are some words - like this one - which cannot be taken at face value unless there are real proofs. Be especially aware of strong words like "the truth" or "sure" etc., as they normally just are claims, not proved facts. Similar goes for words like f.x. "indeed" strengthening a claim or a statement; the strengthening often is just a word, not a reality - often not even what it is meant to strengthen is a reality. Perhaps even more essential: If the Quran is a made up book, these words are not only dubious, but wrong - - - which they often are anyhow in many cases in the Quran.

007 2/2c: "- - - without doubt - - -". See 2/2b just above.

008 2/2d: "- - - those who fear Allah - - -". = Muslims

009 2/3a: "(Muslims*) believe in the unseen - - -". As there exists no proof for anything of any consequence, the Quran glorifies blind belief (and ridicules wishes for real knowledge or proofs). In a question as serious as a possible next life, it takes a lot of naivety not to ask questions and to evaluate the reliability and credibility of sources. If a religion is true, this is the most essential question in life (if not it does not matter - - - unless there is a true religion somewhere else). In all other aspects of life, you are advised to use your brain and knowledge, because if not you are cheated easily - but in the claimed most essential aspect of all, Islam demands blind belief, blind acceptance and obedience, no difficult questions and no evaluation of any argument skeptical to unproved claims in the religion. This tells something about the Quran and Muhammad and Islam.

010 2/3b: "- - - spend out of what We (Allah*) have provided for them (Muslims*) - - -". According to the Quran everything you have are gifts from Allah. In a way a parallel to 11/7a below.

011 2/4a: "- - - the Revelation - - -". Was it really revelation? - there never was a proof, only claims. And if it was, then from whom? No god - too much is wrong in the book. Hardly even a devil - for the same reason - - - unless the god gave him permission to lure more people to hell, on the condition that his trap should be easy to discover. An illness? - modern science suspects TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) which can give just such religious experiences and illusions. Remaining possibility: Cold human planning.

012 2/4b: "- - - the Revelation (the Quran*) sent to thee (Muhammad*) - - -". A historical anomaly - this reference would not tell any reader before 610 AD anything - and the book claims to be very old. See 4/13d below.

013 2/4c: "- - - the Revelation (the Quran*) sent to thee (Muhammad*) - - -". No omniscient ever sent down revelations so full of errors like the texts in the Quran.

*014 2/4d: “- - - the Revelation (the Quran*) sent to thee (Muhammad*), and sent before thy time (= the Torah/Bible*) - - -.” The Quran claims the Jews and the Christians received scriptures similar to the Quran, but falsified them into the scriptures one finds in the Bible. Wrong. The Quran is not the same as the Torah or the Bible, and science has proved far beyond any reasonable or judicial doubt that the Bible never was falsified - some mistakes, but no falsifications. Islam has proved the same even stronger, by being unable to find one single proved falsification among 300 known copies of or fragments from the Gospels, some 12ooo from other parts of the Bible and some 32ooo other manuscripts with quotes from or reference to the Bible. It also is very clear that Islam has not the slightest documentation for their repeated claims – guess if they had been quick to produce it if they had had even a tiny wee bit of a proof!!

015 2/4e: "- - - (Muslims*) have the assurance of the Hereafter" If Allah exists. If he is behind the Quran. And if the Quran in addition tells the full truth and only the truth on this point.

016 2/5a: "They (the believers*) are on (true) guidance - - -”. With so many mistaken facts, the guidance at best is partly true.

017 2/5b: "They (the believers*) are on (true) guidance - - -”. Contradicting the Bible. The teachings - especially in NT - are fundamentally so different that the Quran cannot be a true guide if the NT is a true guide.

018 2/5c: "- - - (true) - - -". See 2/2b above.

019 2/5d: "They (the believers*) are on (true) guidance (the Quran*) from their Lord (Allah*) - - -". Wrong - no god has ever sent down a book with so many errors.

020 2/5e: "- - - it is these (good Muslims*) who will prosper". See comments to 2/4d above.

021 2/6a: "- - - those who reject faith (Islam*) - - -". One of Muhammad's many - for Muslims - negative names for non-Muslims. Also see 2/99f, 8/55b and 57/27f below.

022 2/6b: "- - - those who reject faith (Islam*) - - -". Contradiction to the Bible - to reject Islam is not to reject faith in Yahweh/God.

 

023 2/6c: "As to those who reject faith (Islam*), it is the same to them whether thou (Muhammad*) warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe". This is from the earliest period of Medina, and Muhammad had not really started his harsh regime yet (how harsh it was when he dictated just this verse, depends on just when during these some 2 years (622-624 AD) it was dictated). The Jews in Medina would not listen to his teachings.

024 2/6d: "- - - they (non-Muslims, here mainly Jews*) will not believe". Muhammad told his audience this was because "they" were bad people. The real reason was that the Jews in Medina would not listen to his teachings, because they saw the big differences between his new religion and their scriptures, and of course saw that there was much wrong in his claims that it was the same god and the same religion.

02 2/6e: "- - - faith - - -" = Islam. Islam is the only thing which is faith to Muslims.

026 2/6-7: “As to those who reject faith - - - Allah hath set a seal on their hearts - - -”. Absolutely the opposite of what Yahweh and Jesus say.

More samples of this:

2/26: “- - - He (Allah*) causes many to stray - - -”. Yahweh would go far out of his way to save straying ones, and absolutely not do the opposite.

2/89: “Allah is the enemy to those who reject Faith”. Whereas Yahweh leaves his flock in a safe place to try to save the lost one.

2/213: “For Allah guides whom He will to the path that is straight”. Whereas Yahweh goes far out of his way to guide everyone he can to Paradise.

4/89: “For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way”. Yahweh according to NT would never throw anyone out of the right way - and would go far out of his way to lead those on a wrong track back to the right one.

4/121: “We (Allah*) shall leave him (the one on a track not to Paradise*) in the path he has chosen, and land him in Hell”. It is mathematically sure Yahweh and Allah is not the same god.

5/41: “Let not those grieve thee, who race each other to Hell”. No comment necessary. But see the comment just above.

5/68: “But sorrow thou not over (these) people without a Faith”. 180 degrees opposite of what is the point of view of Yahweh/Jesus.

6/39: “- - - whom Allah willeth, He leaveth to wander: whom He willeth, He placeth on the way that is straight”. NT would want everyone to follow the right path.

6/45: “Of the wrongdoers ("unbelievers") the last remnants were cut off. Praise be to Allah - --”. (The last 4 words tell miles about the difference between Islam and Jesus/Yahweh.)

There are many, many more like this in the Quran. And it hardly is easy to find a better way to show how different the two gods are - in one case praise Allah for the ones going to Hell, and on the other side the one who goes far out of his way to search for the ones straying (f.x. Luke 15/8-10 + 15/11-31 and 18/12-14 + 20/8-13).

It is impossible that the same god is behind so different rules and laws.

. Jesus says: Love your fellow man and woman. The Quran says: Love your fellow Muslim - at least if he is not bad. And:

Jesus brought many proofs for himself and for Yahweh if either the Bible or the Quran tells the truth on this point. Muhammad was asked for a many times proof. He was never able to prove anything at all, and had to find ways of “explaining it all away” so as to evade the question or demand - sometimes he even lied in the Quran to evade such requests (f.x. telling that proofs/miracle would make no-one believe anyhow).

An additional point: There exists a letter dated 27. Dec. 1998, in which it is admitted rather reluctantly that there are no proofs for Allah, and that it is not possible to prove him. An additional point here is that if there are no proof for Allah and impossible to prove him, automatically there also is no proof for, and impossible to prove Muhammad's claimed connection to Allah.

*027 2/7a: "Allah hath set a seal on their (non-Muslims'*) hearts - - -". The Quran many places like here makes it clear that when someone does not believe in Islam, the reason is that Allah makes belief impossible for them. Not a very benevolent and goodhearted god - and very dissimilar from Yahweh/God; f.x. "the lost sheep" in NT.

#028 2/7b: “Allah hath set seal on their (non-Muslims*) hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).” Do they really incur it when it is according to Allah’s plan (see 6/107)? - and when Allah destroys their possibilities for seeing that they are wrong (if they are wrong)? Some Muslims (f.x. A2/7) even claim - like mostly without documentation - that "it is a natural law instituted by Allah" that if you lie, after some time you lose the ability to see the truth (thought-provoking for Islam and it's al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), and Muhammad's advices in the Quran about breaking even your oaths if that gives a better result?), which is untrue, as it only becomes easier to resort to lies. What kind of god is this? One more Muslim loose claim (f.x. Azad: If you reject Allah, "the result (is*) that the spiritual faculties become dead - - -". Some claim from a culture and a religion which brought forth not one single new idea benefiting humanity at least 850 years from 1095 AD and "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad; al-Ghazali and his killing of philosophy/new thinking - use of spiritual faculties - (by means of his book "On the Incoherence of the Philosophers").

***029 2/7c: “Allah hath set seal on their (non-Muslims*) hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).” Guess if this contradicts the basic thoughts of the NT (New Testament)!!. Compare it to "the lost sheep" (Matt.18/12), "the lost coin" (Luke 15/8-10), "the lost son" (Luke 15/11-31), "the 11. hour" (Matt. 20/8-13), etc. Yahweh with a few exceptions never closed hearts, ears, or eyes of sinners, blocking the road to Paradise for them - and never in NT and the new covenant (f.x. Luke 22/20). Yahweh and Allah the same god? - only if he is strongly schizophrenic. Too deep and too fundamental differences.

030 2/7d: "- - - great is the penalty they (non-Muslims*) (incur)". See 3/77b above.

**031 2/9a: "- - - those who believe - - -". = Muslims - according to the Quran only Muslims really believe (but also in other religions there are strong believers - but in other gods. The fact that belief is universal, and the fact that all are sure that just their religion is the right one, should make the "believers" stop a moment and think - some ones among all those who are so sure that only they are right, may be - have to be - wrong).

032 2/9b: (The ones not believing in Allah) "only deceive themselves, and realize (it) it not!" Correct - - - but only if Allah exists, and if his religion really is like in the Quran, a book which is not made by a god, as no god makes a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, etc. But if the book is a made up one, it is the Muslims who deceive themselves - and try to deceive others. If this is the case: Where do Muslims end if there is a next life?

033 2/9c: "- - - and realize it (see 2/9b just above*) not!" If the Quran is a made up book - and at least with all those mistakes it is not from any god - there is a good reason for not realizing they are wrong, as they blindly believe in that book.

**034 2/10a: "In their hearts is a disease - - -". Not to believe in Islam = to be sick in your mind or heart. What is the case for Muslims if the Quran is a made up book?

035 2/10b: "- - - Allah has increased their disease (see 2/10a) - - -". = Making it impossible for them to find the road to Heaven. See 2/7c above.

**036 2/10c: "- - - Allah has increased their disease (see 2/10a) - - -". It is Allah who decides if you are going to Hell or not. This decision is made already 5 months before you are born according to Hadiths, and is impossible to change - and Islam is unable to explain how their claimed free will then can work so as to transfer the blame for that a person ends in Hell, from Allah to the deeds of that person with the claim that he is diseased. Without such an explanation Allah is a horrible and unjust god, but Islam only have the lame and as normal not proved claim: "It has to be true, as Allah says so in the Quran"(!!!*) (Asad: "The Message of the Quran", comment 6/141 - in the English 2008 edition 6/143).

037 2/10d: "- - - and grievous is the penalty they (non-Muslims*) (incur) - - -." Do they really deserve to be punished for what Allah decided 5 months before they were even born, and without being permitted by Allah to change their destiny? Allah is a hard and unfaith god it seems too often.

038 2/10e: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) are false (to themselves)". This was one of Muhammad’s claimed explanations why non-Muslims did not believe him. The real reason frequently was that they saw something was wrong with Muhammad's new religion.

039 2/11: "Make not mischief on earth". Is a war religion like Islam with all its brutality, stealing/looting, raping, inhumanity and blood the right one to ask others make no mischief?

040 2/12a: “Of a surety, they (non-Muslims*) are the ones who make mischief”. A clear distinction – and the raids Muslims already were making – and more to follow – was no mischief? Wrong. And an as serious question: Is there a moral lesson to learn? - Muslims today are making a lot of mischief, but they are so used to their own somewhat "special" and often immoral code of moral that they are unable to see what immoralities they are doing - "they realize (it) not".

041 2/12b: "- - - a surety - - -". See 2/2b above.

042 2/13a: "Believe as the others believe - - -". This is an invalid argument, as the fact that some or even many believe, does not prove their belief is true. The argument merits that one looks into the belief and check if it may be true or not. To follow believers without checking their belief, is just to go along with the flock of sheep, and as sheep are not the most intelligent of animals, they not always end at the best places. And honestly: If you just follow the sheep in blind belief, you deserve whatever you get.

043 2/13b: "Shall we (non-Muslims*) believe as the fools believe?". Already at that time many saw that something was seriously wrong with Muhammad's new religion. But Muhammad became economically and military too strong for them.

044 2/13c: "- - - a surety - - -". See 2/2b above.

045 2/13d: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) are the fools, but they do not know". Who are the fools - non-Muslims or Muslims - depends entirely on whether the Quran is a made up book or not. Islam also tells (f.x. A2/35) that: "By their blind arrogance they depress the good and encourage the evil". Anyone used to normal moral and ethical philosophy, may be excused for believing this is about Muslims living according to especially the surahs from Medina".

046 2/14: "- - - those who believe - - -". Muslims. See 2/9 above

047 2/15a: "Allah (if he exists and has made Islam*) will throw back their (hypocrites*) mockery on them, and give them rope in their trespasses - - -". One of the big questions for Muslims (and other religious people) is: 'I am a religious and good person, but he not; why does he have a good life and I not?' This is Islam's standard answer to this conundrum: 'Because Allah gives them rope and is going to punish them even harder in the next life'. A "good" and "informative" claim as it is impossible to prove it wrong. (Of course it really is Islam's job to prove their words, but it is normal for them to turn the table and demand opposing proofs from you all the same.)

048 2/15b: "- - - they (non-Muslims/hypocrites*) will wander like blind ones - - -". Yes, if Islam is a real religion - but who wander blindly if the Quran and Islam are made up? - and where will all Muslims then end up if there is a next life? After all the Quran with all its errors, etc. is not from any god.

*049 2/16a: “These are they who have bartered guidance for error - - -”. = Non-Muslims. Proof is needed, especially as “guidance” refers to the Quran - - - a book with lots of mistakes. The added irony is that if the Quran is a made up book - and with all its errors it at least is not from any god - it is the Muslims who are in a brutal error. Also see 2/99f, 8/55b and 57/27f below.

050 2/16b: "- - - guidance - - -". See 2/2b above and 7/92a and 16/107 below. Also beware that if the Quran is made up, words like this are not doubtful, but wrong./p>

051 2/16c: "- - - error - - -". See 2/2b above.

052 2/16d: "- - - but their (non-Muslims'*) traffic is profitless, and they have lost true direction". If the Quran tells the truth and if they should not happen to believe in a real god. Also see the "added irony" in 2/16a above.

053 2/16e: "- - - the true direction." The Quran only represents the true direction if Allah exists, is a major god and tells the full and only truth in the Quran.

054 2/16f: "- - - true - - -". See 2/2b above.

0515 2/17: "Allah took away their (non-Muslims') light and left them in darkness". Yes, a book that full of errors, may mean only darkness.

056 2/18: “Deaf, dumb, and blind – they (“infidels”, apostates*) will not return (to Islam*)". Yes, they have to be deaf, dumb, and blind if they question all which is wrong in the Quran. A reason for looking down on them. Though a bit ironic that the Quran demands deaf and blind belief.

057 2/19a: To refuse to hear the thunderclaps is claimed to be a similitude of the non-Muslims refusing to hear the call of the Quran. But it is an even better similitude of all the Muslims refusing to see clear facts no matter how true they are - refuse to accept, refuse to see, explaining away by the hundreds and more.

058 2/19b: "- - - rejecters of Faith - - -". One of Muhammad's many - for Muslims - negative names for non-Muslims. Also see 2/99f, 8/55b and 57/27f below.

059 2/19c: "- - - Faith - - -". = Islam - only Islam is faith in the Quran.

*060 2/20a: "And if Allah willed - - -". This is a kind of statement you often met in the Quran; Allah is so powerful, that he can do anything - - - if he just will! But Allah never - never - would and never will. Such words are cheap, and may be it tells something that they often are used by insecure youths and immature adults needing to brag to prove something or to prove themselves when they in reality have little reality to offer - in other words; is it a bluff?

061 2/20b: “And if Allah willed, He could take away their (non-Muslims*) faculty of hearing and seeing; for Allah hath power over all things”. But for 1400 years non-Muslims have had no reduction neither in seeing, nor in hearing.

062 2/20c: "- - - Allah hath power over all things". Often claimed in the Quran - never proved anywhere.

*063 2/21a: "(Allah*)- - - your Guardian-Lord - - -". Yes - if the Quran is not made up - with those many mistakes, contradictions, etc. it is not made by any god - even not if Allah exists, if he is a major god, and if his religion after all is in accordance with the Quran. Nothing of this is proved, even though many asked for proof - Muhammad was unable to deliver any.

064 2/21b: “(Allah*) created you - - -” Reality shows that you exist. But the rest is an unproved statement. See 6/2b and 11/7a below.

#065 2/21c: "- - - to learn righteousness - - -". The question is if it is possible to learn righteousness from a religion and a law which both partly is resting on very immoral moral and ethics? - thieving/robbing, raping, extortion, murder, lying (al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth)), deceiving, breaking even of oaths, discrimination and suppression a la strong apartheid (literally speaking), an ideology which in many ways reminds one about Nazism or Djingis Khan's religious ideology (both also literally speaking), and mass murder, not to mention hate mongering and war mongering - the last one at least to the 2. or 3. power (once more literally speaking). But MB: Remember that very far from all Muslims build their lives on these parts of the Quran - - - but this is what the Quran represents.

066 2/21d: "- - - righteousness - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

067 2/22a: “(Allah*) has made the earth - - -”. The Earth is there, but nothing is proved about who made it - it just is part of nature. Islam often high-jack natural phenomena and pretend they prove Allah, but any and all such claims are logically invalid as long as it is not proved it is Allah who is behind it. Actually Islam has got not one single valid proof for Allah - and not for Muhammad being connected to a god.

068 2/22b: “(Allah*) has made the earth your couch - - -”. May be Allah, may be another god, may be nature. Who can really know and not just believe without a proof?

069 2/22c: “- - - the heavens - - -“. Plural and wrong – referring to the 7 heavens of the Quran - - - and of wrong Greek and Persian astronomy at the time of Muhammad. See 2/29d+e - 17/44a – 23/17a – 23/86a – 41/12a - 65/12a – 67/3a+b - 71/15a+b - 71/15-16a+b – 78/12a-b, and not least 31/10b+c (another heavenly mistake). Also see 2/22d just below).

*070 2/22d: “- - - and the heavens (plural and wrong – see 2/22c just above*) your canopy - - -”. The heaven/sky is no canopy. The “heaven” we see at daytime, really is an illusion caused by bending and splitting of the sunlight, and the “smooth” heaven we see at night, also is an illusion, as we are unable to see the third dimension at those distances, and get the impression that the stars all are at the same distance from us. Any god had known this, but Mohammad not. Also see 67/3a+b and 67/5a+b+d below. Muslims tend to explain the heavens (plural and wrong) with vague claims about space and stars and galaxies - but each time they then “forget” to explain f.x. how the stars are fastened to the lowermost of the 7 heavens the Quran tells exists. And they forget the moon (and the sun?) among the heavens – beyond the stars! They also sometimes tell that the 7 heavens = 7 layers in the atmosphere and the 7 earths 7 layers in the Earth. No comments - but think about stars like Aldebaran - a giant star - fixed to a layer in our atmosphere below our moon. Or "people" living on these earths like the Quran claims, inside the Earth. A joke - or at least two.

*071 2/22e: “(Allah sends down*)- - - rain from the heavens (plural and wrong*) - - -". Rain is one of the many, many natural phenomena Muhammad high-jacked without any proof as an indication or a proof for his god - logically absolutely invalid as long as it is not proved that it really is Allah who sends it down. See 2/22c above and 11/7a below.

072 2/22f: "- - - heavens - - -". See 2/22c above.

073 2/22g: “(Allah*) brought forth therewith fruits for your sustenance - - -”. Nature brings forth fruits - but nowhere has it showed that a god - not to mention Allah - is involved. A logically invalid proof if it is not first proved that it really is Allah who makes the fruits. Also see 11/7a above.

074 2/22h: “- - - when ye (people*) know (the truth (the Quran*))”. The Quran with all its mistakes, errors, contradictions, etc. at most represents partly the truth, as you will see. See f.x. 13/1g and 40/75 below.

075 2/22i: "- - - (the truth)". See 2/2b above and 13/1g + 40/75 below..

**076 2/23a: “- - - what We (Allah*) have revealed (the Quran*) - - -“. Wrong. No omniscient god has made or cherished (cfr. the "mother book" – f.x. 13/69b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) a book with that many mistaken facts, contradictions, and other errors + much unclear language. Either it is not made by Allah or Allah is not omniscient – if he exists.

**077 2/23b: “- - - what We (Allah*) have revealed (the Quran*) - - -“. Much of Muhammad's claimed revelations contradict the Bible, and especially NY and its New Covenance.

078 2/23c: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Servant - - -". Here Muhammad.

079 2/23d: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Servant - - -". No omniscient god brings a book that full of errors, etc., not to mention revere it in his "home" as a "mother book" like the Quran claims (13/39, 43/4, 85/21-22) - Muhammad thus is no servant of an omniscient god. Perhaps servant of someone or something, included of himself, but not of any omniscient god.

**080 2/23e: "- - - then produce a surah like (these*) - - -." An Arabism - this is demanded in Arabia in 622 - 624 AD (as it refers to "Our servant" Muhammad).

**081 2/23f: "- - - then produce a surah like (these*) - - -." This is one of the star arguments for that the Quran must be made by a god, according to Muslims. But in spite of all the glorious words from Islam, the Quran is not a good piece of litterateur: The composition is lousy to say the least of it - things repeated and repeated, contents mixed in one melee to say the least of this, too, just to mention 2 central points. There is no structure concerning the information. It is not well told - quite dull and boring (just read it yourself and see - you will find our remarks dull and boring, too, because we have to answer the same remarks again and again and again). The style of the language is said to be excellent - - - but it was originally written in an unfinished alphabet (lacking vowels, the points used to mark some Arab letters (diacritical points), and the signs one use when writing - even the comma), and because of this the language was polished and polished by the best Muslim brains for some 250 years, until around 900 AD when the alphabet finally was completed - no wonder the language formally is nice, but it was not like that in the start.

There also are no original ideas or stories - all is "borrowed" from surrounding religions and cultures, except some which is "taken" from old pagan Arab religion, legends, and even fairy tales. And so on. There would be no problem for a good writer to collect stories, legends and fairy tales and make better literature of it. Or to be more blunt: No neutral knower of good literature will be in the slightest doubt about that many a good writer can write a similar book like the Quran quite a lot better - viewed as literature the Quran is not good (but why bother with writing a new one? - no matter how well it is written, not one single believing Muslim will admit it is better than the present one - that would mean that something is wrong with Allah's power of explaining, and thus with Muhammad and with Islam, and few have the moral backbone to face such a possibility). This Islamic "proof" is invalid - or they will have to prove it. Also see 2/24a below. Similar claims in 10/38, 11/13, and 17/88.

082 2/23g: "- - - witness or helpers - - -". I this case helpers means other gods than Allah.

083 2/23h: "- - - helpers (it there are any) besides Allah". See 25/18a below.

###084 2/23i: "- - - if your (doubts) are true". As the Quran by means of all its mistakes, etc. proves 100% and more that things are seriously wrong with the book, it at the same time proves that our doubts are true. The Quran is the only "holy" book of a big religion which clearly proves that things are seriously wrong with the basics of its teachings and thus with its religion - and with its claimed prophet.

085 2/24a: “But if ye cannot – and of surety ye (non-Muslims*) cannot (produce a surah of the same quality like in the Quran*) - - -“. The surahs are no good literature – more or less copies of Arab and neighboring countries' folklore, legends, fairy tales, and stuff Muhammad had been told from the Bible - but mainly not from the Bible itself, but from apocryphal (made up) stories and legends based on the Bible only. In addition the composition and presentation of the texts belong in primary school. Many a good writer could collect such stories and do much better (on these points f.x. the Bible is far better written). The Arab language itself is said to be excellent – but when you know that the language was polished for some 250 years by top intelligent and top learned men, until it got its somewhat final form around 900 AD (the Arab alphabet was not completed until then), that point tells nothing about the original Quran's from around 650 – caliph Uthman’s and others’. The claim is wrong. Also see 2/23f above.

086 2/24b: "- - - a surety - - -". See 2/2b above.

087 2/24c: "- - - the Fire whose fuel is Men and Stones - - -". Hell.

088 2/24d: "- - - the Fire whose fuel is - - Stones - - -". Just for the formality: Stones does not burn until the temperature is too high even for a Hell - the "inmates" would be vaporized in seconds.

089 2/24e: "- - - (fire*) which is prepared for (non-Muslims*) - - -". Hell.

090 2/24f: "- - - those who reject Faith". One of Muhammad's many negative - for Muslims - names for non-Muslims. Also see 2/99f, 8/55b and 57/27f below.

091 2/24g: "- - - reject Faith." Correction: Reject the Quran. Many have faith in something. Some ones may be even in something not proved wrong. (F.x. all the mistakes in the Quran prove 100% that it is not from an omniscient god.)

092 2/24h: "- - - Faith." Here meant only Islam.

093 2/25a: "- - - glad tidings - - -". The Quran represents glad tidings if - and only if - it correctly represents a real god. If not at the very best one can say that the Quran brought some glad tidings for all the bad ones, wanting loot and slaves and power, and for some ones longing for a strong religion - - - if it was not because the Quran itself proves 100% that something is very wrong in the book. And definitely not glad tidings to their fellow humans who became their victims - a point Muslims never mention (empathy with non-Muslim fellow humans does not exist in the Quran). So wrong that it neither can be made nor revered by any god – not even by a small mini god. Too much is wrong in the book. Also see 61/13e below.

094 2/25b: "- - - those who believe - - -". "Quran-speak" for Muslims.

095 2/25c: "- - - righteousness - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

096 2/25d: “- - - (Muslims’*) portion is the Gardens - - -”. Well, it at least is stated like that. Where is the proof or at least the indicia? Islam and the Quran all too often just claim things without proving or documenting - knowing the real morality of Muhammad and also his lust for power, this is not very reassuring. And if the Quran is made up - what then will be every Muslim's portion if there is a next life? Also see 2/25f below.

097 2/25e: “- - - their (Muslims’*) portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow." This is the most frequently used Arabism (see 4/13d below) in the Quran.

098 2/25f: “- - - their (Muslims’*) portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: ‘Why, this is what we were fed before’, for they are given things in similitude - - -”. The fruits and food in the Muslim heaven are the same as in this life – just plenty and only the best. As said: An Earth-like paradise. Plus plenty of water and women – heavenly for people - men - from a desert. But what about people from other parts of the world with other kinds of climate and other kinds of fruits? - many fruits used by the Arabs would be unknown to them, and the other way around. Also see 2/25d above. An extra tit-bit: Of the 4 rivers in Paradise, 2 continue on Earth according to Hadiths - the Nile and the Euphrates(!!!)

099 2/25g: “- - - their (Muslims’*) portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow". An Arabism (4/13d below) - the most used one. Water was very essential in Arabia - not so all other places.

100 2/25h: (A2/17): “- - - for they shall be given something that will recall that (past).” The exact translation: “something resembling it”. "Various interpretations, some of them quite esoteric and highly speculative, have been given to this passage. - - - (A likely meaning is*) ‘It is this that we (Muslims*) have been promised during our life on earth as a requital for faith and righteous deeds”. But a number of other interpretations are possible. Unclear language - worthy a god?

101 2/25i: "- - - companions pure - - -". These are the famous houris - the beautiful and willing women whom nobody knows where come from. How is Paradise for them? - having to serve and be sex toys for uneducated, self centered, rough and worse warriors for eternity? (The Quran does not mention sex, but it is clearly implicated, and be sure that was what eager young - and not young - primitive warriors were dreaming about during lonesome nights on raids for money and slaves. (Most of Muhammad's many raids were for money and slaves - and extortion afterwards. See separate list about his raids and wars.)) The Quran never mention one word about how they - or the male servants -enjoy life in Paradise. The Quran and Islam do not give a damn about such others, only the good Muslims - and mainly the warriors - from Earth.

**102 2/25j: What the Muslim Paradise has to offer, is an Earth-like life, but like a primitive and poor man's picture of a royal life with plenty of good things to eat and drink (but never needing to visit the toilet according to Hadiths!), laziness, nice weather, and plenty of women for the men - not a stimulating or interesting "life" in the long run. Is this the best Paradise an omniscient god has to offer?

###103 2/25k: "- - - companions pure - - -". These are the famous houris - the beautiful and willing women whom nobody knows where come from. This is not only contradicted in the Bible, it simply is incompatible with the Bible and its clear message that marriages, etc. does not exist in Heaven, as every saved soul "will become like the angels". One of the many proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are totally different gods - if one of them exists. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one.

104 2/25l: "- - - they (god Muslims*) abide therein (Paradise*) (for ever)". If Allah exists. If he is behind the Quran. And if the Quran in addition tells the full truth and only the truth on everything concerning this point. But beware that 11/108c may indicate that the Quran's paradise is not quite forever. Islam does not know, but claims - as normal without documentation - that it in case means that the good Muslims will be transferred to an even better place. An easy way out of a problem - but not mentioned in the Quran.

##105 2/26a: "Allah disdained not to use the similitude - - -". The Quran sometimes use similitude, but other places in the book (3/7b, 6/114c-d, 11/1b, 16/103f, 18/1d, 18/1-2, 18/2a+b, 19/97b, 27/1b, 28/2, 41/3a+b+c+d, 43/2a+b, 44/2a+b, 44/58b-e, 54/17a, 54/32a+b, 54/50a) it is made very clear that mainly the book is to be read literally, and that the language is meant to be open and clear and easy to understand, and that "only those ill at heart go looking for hidden meanings - hidden meanings it only is for Allah to understand". In clear language: The Quran is to be understood literally if not something else is specified, and further; the language in the book is in plain and easily understood words and it is wrong to go searching for hidden meanings. All the same one of the standard ways for Muslims to explain away difficult points, is to say: No, this cannot be understood literally - it is a similitude, and means something very different. How come that an omniscient god telling he uses a plain and easily understood where you shall not look for hidden meanings, all the same ever so often needs to have lowly humans explain "what really is meant"? The truth is that such claims are heresy and insults to the god. And honestly: Are Muslims able to believe in their own "explanations" and claims, when there on average is one mistake, contradiction or something for every 2 or 3 verses? - it simply is too much to be able to believe in - simply an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie - something you only find in Islam of the big religions, and which is permitted to use in several wide areas (f.x. to cheat women), and which is adviced to use in defending or promoting Islam "if necessary". See 2/26h below.

106 2/26b: "Those who believe - - -". = Muslims. Only Muslims believe.

***107 2/26c: "Those who believe, know it is the truth from their Lord (Allah*) - - -". Correction: Those who believe strong enough, believes so strong that they think it is knowledge - religious "knowledge" newer is real knowledge, just so strong belief that one mistakes it for knowledge. Only what is proved or provable is real knowledge. But as "knowledge" is a much stronger word than "belief" it often is disused by Islam (and by other religious persons and institutions).

108 2/26d: "- - - truth - - -". See 2/2b above and 13/1g and 40/75 below.

109 2/26e: "- - - it (the Quran*)is the truth from their (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". Wrong. So full of all kinds of errors, contradictions, etc. like the Quran is, it at best can be partly the truth and, and definitely not from any god.

110 2/26f: "- - - those who reject Faith - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative - for Muslims - names for non-Muslims. Also see 2/99f, 8/55b and 57/27f below.

111 2/26g: "- - - Faith - - -". "Quran-speak" for Islam.

*112 2/26h: “- - - He (Allah*) causes many to stray - - -.” The main point here is that it is Allah who causes it. Can Allah then be a benevolent god when straying means you will end in Hell? There is quite a difference between this and "the lost sheep" in NT (the shepherd - God/Jesus - lost a sheep (similitude for a human) and went far out to find it) . This is one of the places where there are worlds between the basic ideas of Allah and of God/Yahweh - so fundamental differences that it is clear that Muhammad's claim that Allah = Yahweh is wrong - - - unless the god is highly schizophrenic.(See f.x. Luke 15/8-10 and 15/11-31 or Matt. 18/12-14 and 20/8-13).

All this means Allah is deceiving persons. We also here touch Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) and lawfully breaking of even oaths (and what then about normal promises?) which is something which is special for Islam. You find this kind of accepted dishonesty in no other of the major religions – and in few of the minor ones.

Actually al-Taqiyya and Kitman are not explicitly introduced in the Quran. It is based on conclusions Islamic scholars have made from things said and done about (dishonest) planning or cheating, honesty, breaking of oaths (introduced in the Quran), etc. in the book and in Hadiths. See the verses below. Institutionalizes by Muhammad and his Quran, but formalized by the scholars.

The Quran and Islam tell that in principle you should be honest. But in many cases where dishonesty will give a better result, you are permitted to lie (Al-Taqiyya, Kitman) and even to deceive - done by Muhammad, and thus permitted - or make false oaths or to break oaths you have made (2/225a, 5/89a+b, 13/42, 27/50 and some more)). In some cases Allah will say it is ok because it is a minor thing or because you did not really mean your oath, and in other cases he will say; “ok – if you pay me some money or give me a gift for expiation afterward”. And then in some cases it is not only permitted, but obligatory to use it if necessary: To defend or promote Islam.

Al-Taqiyya and Kitman can be used at least in these cases (for broken oaths there are given no real limitations if the broken oath will give a better result. By implication this also goes for ordinary words or promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal promise or a normal given word).

To save your or others' health or life.

To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem or position.

To make peace in a family.

When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one’s oath.

To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get work permit or residence permit in a rich country.)

To deceive opponents/enemies.

To betray enemies.

To secure one’s money (very clear from Hadiths).

To defend Islam. (Advised if necessary to succeed.)

To promote Islam. (Advised if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive some ones – actually also in the long run too if the opposite part does not know about this side of Muslims and of Islam, or if he/she is naïve.

But the serious side effect is that people quickly learn that one can never know for sure when to believe a Muslim in serious questions: Is he honest or is he using f.x. an al-Taqiyya?

And there is another side effect: Muslims have difficulties being believed even when they are telling the full truth – for very good reasons the opposite parts are reluctant to fully believe them, as may be they tell the truth or maybe they just are practicing al-Taqiyya or Kitman.

And yet another side effect: How can Muslims know when to believe their leaders and others? (This may be one of the reasons for why Muslims produce so may conspiracy theories - they go looking for "the real truth" behind what is told, no matter if the tale is an al-Taqiyya or the plain, sterling truth).

And all these side effects – which really over time may be the main effects – are made worse because Muslims have no way of strengthening their words by swearing, as oaths from Muslims are without much value, because they are permitted false oaths and to break their oaths – it is no sin to do so if you did not really mean the oath or have a reason for breaking it, and especially not if you give Allah a gift for expiation afterwards (necessary in serious cases).

113 2/26i: “- - - He (Allah*) causes many to stray - - -”. As said in 2/26g Yahweh would go far out of his way to save straying ones, and absolutely not do the opposite: To cause someone to stray. Not the same god.

114 2/26j: "- - - the right path - - -". The road to the Quran's and Islam's paradise - see 10/9f below.

##115 2/26k: "- - - but He (Allah*) causes not to stray, except those who forsake (the path (to Paradise*)- -)". Here we are back to one of the impossible problems in Islam: How can man have free will if Allah decides everything, absolutely every minor detail even? - or the other way round. Islam blames any bad things on yourself - may be after you listened to the devil - in order to be able to tell that Allah is a good and kind and benevolent god. But how is that possible when it is an absolute truth in Islam that absolutely nothing happens unless Allah wills so and unless it is according to his Plan and predestination? If Allah also wills the bad things, he is no good god. So Muslims blame your free will - but free will only is an illusion if Allah decides everything. But as Allah is bad if he sends people to Hell without giving them a fair chance, Muhammad was - and Muslims are - forced to claim free will for man in spite of Allah's deciding everything. Freely quoted: "We cannot explain this contradiction, but both have to be true as it is said in the Quran" (A6/141 - in English 2008 edition 6/143), is the only explanation Muslim scholars are able to give - a book full of errors, contradictions, etc. is the only "proof" they have to give. The total capitulation of mind and intelligence for blind belief.

116 2/27a: "Those who break Allah's Covenant (= the Quran*) after it is ratified (= leave Islam after they have become Muslims*) - - - these cause loss only to themselves". Strange then that Muslims punish them - often severely and even by death, or at least by mental punishment or extrication and expulsion from society. "Let there be no compulsion in religion" often only goes for mainstream Muslims in Islam.

####117 2/27b: "- - - Allah's Covenant - - -". Are there any real proofs for such a covenant? The Boers in South Africa once made a covenant with Yahweh - - - but forgot to ask Yahweh if he agreed. Is this a similar case? - - - if Allah exists.

118 2/27c: "- - - what Allah has ordered to be joined - - -". Are there any real proofs for such orders?"

#119 2/27d: "- - - (bad Muslims/non-Muslims*) do mischief on earth - - -". And what do good Muslims do when they go raiding, suppressing, stealing/robbing, raping, killing, etc. like the Quran claims are the best of deeds if done in the name of Allah? (In the name of the god - an extra disgusting fact).

120 2/28a: "How can ye (non-Muslims and those who want to leave Islam*) reject the faith in Allah?" There are several answers, among them: Muhammad never gave even a valid indication, not to mention a proof for that Allah even exists. He also never proved Allah's power - only gave claims based on nothing - and juvenile boasts like "if Allah willed" - and Allah never willed. Muhammad gave the world a book full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. - far from something reliable. Muhammad was not a reliable man according to the Quran, Hadiths, and to Islamic history - a too high risk to gamble on, as Hell is too bad if he was lying and especially if there is another (or more) true religion(s) one looses if one goes to Islam. Muhammad wanted power - the Quran simply may have been his very successful means to gain power (and women) - and where then will I end if I believe in him, and the story was a hoax? - a far too likely possibility as it is clear the Quran is not from a god (no god makes that many and big mistakes, contradictions, etc.). And deception which has happened hundreds of times through the times - caused by hundreds of self proclaimed, but false prophets, though none as successful as Muhammad.

121 2/28b: "How can ye (non-Muslims and those who want to leave Islam*) reject the faith in Allah?" Contradicted by the Bible - especially NT. Your faith should be in Yahweh, a different god in spite of the Quran's claims. 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.

122 2/28c: "- - - He (Allah*) gave you life - - -". One more of the many valueless loose claims there are so many of in the Quran - valueless because it nowhere is proved that it is done by a god, not to mention by Allah. Any priest or layman in any religion can claim just the same cheap claims for his god(s)- words are that cheap. But this claim all the same is interesting, as Yahweh (not the same god as Allah in spite of the Quran's never proved claims, as you will see other places in this book) several times proved his existence and his power according both to the Quran and to the Bible - if at least one of them speaks the truth on this point. Whereas Allah has proved exactly nothing - not even his own existence. Also see 6/2b and 21/56c below.

123 2/28d: "- - - He (Allah*) gave you life - - -". According to the Bible this was done by Yahweh/God.

14 2/28e: “(Allah*) will cause you to die - - -”. To die is a natural process - unless Islam proves anything else. Also see 2/28b just above and 11/7a below - only Yahweh in case has proved power stronger than the death (if the stories are correct).

155 2/28f: "- - - (Allah*) will again bring you (persons*) to life (after death*) - - -". Muhammad/Allah were many times asked for proofs for thing like this, but were unable to prove neither this nor anything else - nothing of any consequence is proved even by simple witnesses in Islam. Until documented these are just some more cheap words. There are many cheap words in the Quran. Yahweh many times proved his ability to resurrect the dead (f.x. 1. Kings 17/22, 2. Kings 4/35, Mark 5/71, John 11/44, Luke 7/15, Matt. 27/52, Acts 20/10) if the Bible tells the truth, Allah was never able to prove anything.

126 2/28g: "- - - (Allah*) will again bring you (persons*) to life (after death*) - - -". According to the Bible it is Yahweh/God who performs the resurrection.

130 2/29a: “(Allah*) hath created for you all things that are on earth - - -”. All things on Earth are either natural or manmade - there is no proof for it being made by a god, and thus it proves no god - not to mention a special god Allah. Also see 11/7a below.

131 2/29b: “(Allah*) hath created for you all things that are on earth - - -”. According to the Bible this was done by Yahweh/God.

132 2/29c: “- - - heavens - - -“. Plural and wrong – there are no 7 heavens. See 2/22c.

133 2/29d: “- - - He (Allah*) gave order and perfection to the seven firmaments (=heavens*) - - -”. See 2/22c above and 11/7c below.

134 2/29e: “- - - He (Allah*) gave order and perfection to the seven firmaments (= heavens*) - - -”. Here one definitely needs good proofs, because this statement is very wrong - there exist no seven firmaments, only one, and even that one is an illusion, not a material heaven. But you find these claims about 7 heavens/firmaments/tracts f.x. in 2/29d+e, 17/44a, 23/17a, 23/86a, 41/12a-f, 65/12a, 67/3a+b, 67/5d, 71/15a+b, 71/15-16a+b, 78/12a-b - all together the Quran mentions "heavens" in plural at least 199 times; there is no doubt the Quran means there are 7 heavens (and as the stars are fastened to the lowermost of them - f.x. 67/5a+d - they have to be material ones - if not the stars could not be fastened to it). In 67/3 you also are told they are places one above the other, which means they of course are built successively higher above the Earth - which also is clear from most places in the Quran where the place of the heavens is indicated. Some modern Muslims try to place the heavens in space, deep space included. But among others f.x. 67/3 prohibits this, as "up" and "down" ("one above the other") has no meaning as part of the real space.

By the way: 67/12b also claims there are 7 Earths, and give their names according to Islam.

*135 2/29f: “- - - He gave order and perfection to the seven firmaments - - -”. Firmament is another word for the heaven we see, though mostly used for the night sky. The Quran many places tells about the seven heavens or firmaments or tracts (the word “heavens” or similar is used in plural in the Quran at least 199 times) - there is no doubt that according to the Quran there are 7 (material) heavens. (Islam also “knows” who inhabit the different heavens - f. ex. Jesus in the 2. heaven, Joseph in 4., Aaron in 5., Moses in 6., and Abraham - and Muhammad - in the 7. heaven, and Allah above the 7. heaven, to mention some. This is not said in the Quran, though).

There also is no doubt that the Quran believes the heavens are material - if not it was not possible to build it or to fix the stars to the lowermost heaven, like the Quran states several places. And also the physical resurrected good Muslims need something physical to walk on in their heaven. No god had believed this - but Muhammad did, as this was what one believed in the Middle East at the time of Muhammad. The seven heavens are taken from old Greek astronomy - or perhaps from Persian astronomy, which also believed in 7 heavens. Any god, but not Muhammad, would have known it was very wrong. Islam has several “explanations” concerning this very obvious mistake, but we have never seen or heard any Muslim mention even the possibility that Muhammad’s picture about astronomy could be explained by his believing in Greek or Persian astronomy.

Muslims also sometimes explains that 7 in old Arab was a synonym for “many” (and 70 for “very many“), and that the Quran consequently does not mean 7 but many. But honestly “many” is at least as wrong as “7” (and 7 heavens as said was the astronomy of that time).

*136 2/29g: "He (Allah*) hath perfect knowledge". Not if the Quran is representative for his knowledge - too many mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, etc. not to take it the other way around: If Allah has perfect knowledge about all things, this proves that he did not make the Quran and all its errors.

137 2/30a: "- - - create a viceregent - - -". Not from the Bible.

138 2/30b: The angels questioning the wisdom of creating man. Not from the Bible.

139 2/30-35: The story of the creation of Adam and Eve (her name is not mentioned in the Quran, only in the Bible) is roughly like in the Bible, but in nearly all details different from the story in the Bible. Normally the Bible would be reckoned to be a more reliable source, partly because it is much older and thus nearer to what may be happened, partly because it is built on strong traditions, whereas the Quran only builds on Muhammad's words - and the historical Muhammad in addition was not a most reliable man, as we have mentioned other places. But in this case it is likely both are wrong - Adam and Eve most likely have never existed, but are just legends (may be borrowed from Persia (via Israel?))

140 2/31a: "And He (Allah*) thought Adam the nature of all things - - -". Not from the Bible.

141 2/31b: "And He (Allah*) thought Adam the nature of all things - - -". There are more than 12 million just of different living beings in the fauna in the world. Then there is the flora, and there are all the "dead" things in the world. Allah far from thought Adam "the nature of all things". This is one of the very many points Islam is busy "explaining" - though there are many other points which are more difficult and more essential to explain away.

142 2/31c: "- - - then He (Allah*) placed them (all things*) before the angels - - - ". Not from the Bible.

143 2/31+33: "- - - then He (Allah*) placed them (all things*) before the angels - - - (and shortly after said): "O Adam! Tell them (the angels*) their (the things'*) natures". See 2/31 just above.

144: 2/32a: "- - - of knowledge we (the angels*) have none - - -". Not from the Bible.

145 2/32b: "- - - in truth - - -". See 2/2b above.

146 2/32c: "- - - it is Thou (Allah*) who are perfect in knowledge and wisdom". In that case he is not the maker of or one who reveres the Quran in his Heaven.

147 2/33a: "O Adam! Tell them (the angels*) their natures". See 2/31 above.

148 2/33b: "O Adam! Tell them (the angels*) their natures". Not from the Bible.

149 2/33c: "- - - I (Allah*) know the secrets of heaven and earth - - -". Not if he made the Quran.

150 2/33d: "- - - I (Allah*) know the secrets of heaven and earth - - -". Why then 2/233h and 35/38b below?

151 2/33e: "- - - I (Allah*) know what ye reveal and what ye conceal- - -". According to the Quran Allah knows absolutely everything. But why then 2/233h or below? But also see 35/38b below.

152 2/34a: "Bow down to Adam". Not from the Bible.

153 2/34b: "Bow down to Adam", and they (the angels*) bowed down (to Adam*) - - -". Not from the Bible.

154 2/34c: "- - - they (the angels*) bowed down (to Adam*) - - -". Which means they accepted him as being superior to them.

155 2/34d: (A2/26) “- - - they (the angels*) all prostrated themselves, save Iblis (the future Devil*) - - -". Not from the Bible.

###156 2/34e: (A2/26) “- - - they (the angels*) all prostrated themselves, save Iblis (the future Devil*) - - - and thus he became one of those who deny the truth”. There is an added mystery here: It is indicated here that Iblis was an angel, but angles were created from light, whereas it many places in the Quran is said that Iblis was created from fire = Iblis was a Jinn. Also the fact that he was able to refuse Allah’s order makes Islamic scholars question his being an angel, because angels are totally obedient. That aside:

(It is) “absolutely clear that at the time of that command he (Iblis*) was indeed one of the heavenly host. Hence we must assume that his “rebellion” has a purely symbolic significance and is, in reality, the outcome of a specific function assigned to him by Allah. (This is what many Muslim scholars believe, as Allah has absolute power, and nothing happens unless according to his plan.) If this is true, and Allah is behind also the Devil and Hell - where then is the good and benevolent god?”

This is a touchy point for some Muslims: If Iblis was able to refuse to obey, Allah is not omnipotent. If on the other hand Hell is part of Allah’s design, Allah far from is a pure and benevolent god. Muhammad Asad:"The Message of the Quran", tends to believe it is part of Allah’s design – the omnipotence is more essential than benevolence – but we have never seen a clear answer to the enigma. The real significance of this scene thus is unclear.

Also very different from the Bible.

157 2/34f: (YA49): “Not so Iblis (the later Devil*).” But the Arab text actually says: “They (the angles*) bowed down, except Iblis.” This in case means that Iblis was an angel, whereas the Quran several other places tell he was a jinn (made from fire, whereas angles were made from light). Clear text?

158 2/34g: "- - - Faith". = Islam.

159 2/35: (A2/27): “O Adam, dwell thou and thy wife in this garden - - -.” Exact translation: “the garden”. “There is a considerable difference of opinion among the commentators as to what is the meaning here by ‘garden’: a garden in the earthly sense, or the paradise that awaits the righteous in the life to come, or some special garden in the heavenly regions?” The text is not specific, and the meaning unclear. This unclear text is combined with 2/36 which talks about that Adam had to go down from the Garden of Eden (this name is from the Bible) to indicate something more heavenly - - - and conveniently "forget" that in 2/30 it is unmistakably stated that Adam was to be a "vice regent on earth" - ergo he was placed on Earth, ergo the Garden of Eden had to be on Earth. (Many scientists believe the Garden of Eden - if it existed - lay in the wetlands in what today is southeast Iraq.) There is a little (an understatement) too much of such dishonest "logic" in Muslim "information".

160 2/36a: "Get ye down, all (ye people)- - -". Here is a mystery: Arab is one of the languages which has singular, dual or Latin "dualis" (when speaking about/to 2), and plural. Here the Quran do not use dual, even though both the Bible and the Quran speaks only about 2 persons - it uses plural, which in Arab means at least 3 persons (and the words even indicate a group). From where did the others come? - or did Muhammad make a slip? - and in case: How many more slips are there in the book? (Some Arab sources "forget" to mention this mistake, others "explain" that the meaning is "all mankind" - but that is not what the Quran says.)

161 2/36b: "- - - with enmity between yourselves (humans*)". Contradiction. The Bible says enmity between humans and the snake (who was the partner(?) of the devil in making Eve take fruits from the forbidden tree). If Islam claims there only were 2 persons, this means there were enmity between Adam and Eve - no source indicates this - - - and there hardly had been children if the two were enemies.

142 2/36c: (A2/30): “- - - on earth you shall have your abode and your livelihood for a while!” We quote from “The Message of the Quran”: “With this sentence the address changes from the hitherto-observed dual form (a grammatical form for plural that exists in some languages, included Arab, which means the subjects are 2*) to the plural (in Arab = minimum 3): A further indication that the moral of the story relates to the human race as a whole.” An indication - mainly because this is the only explanation Islam has for this - but not clear language. Another comment: Muhammad Asad has the same tendency like many Muslims explaining or promoting their religion: This sentence is an order to Adam and perhaps to his descendants that they will have to live on Earth for some time. If you want to include a moral aspect in Allah’s words, this in case is an interpretation that may be right or wrong, but which is not part of what is said.

143 2/36d: The only similarity between the Bible's and the Quran's story of the expulsion from the Garden, is that the Devil caused it and that a fruit tree was involved. One of the differences is worth noting: Allah forgave their sin, and thus Islam has no "inherited sins" for its followers.

164 2/37a: “Then learnt Adam from his Lord (Allah*) words of inspiration - - -“. Muhammad had his messages from Allah in the same way he claimed Adam got them - Muhammad's way of getting information must be normal? - after some time it at least might seem so for his followers, as all "messengers" got messages that way, at least according to Muhammad.

165 2/37b: “Then learnt Adam from his Lord (Allah*) words of inspiration - - -“. Not from the Bible - the word "inspiration" is never used in such a connection in the Bible - it is hardly used at all.

166 2/37c: "- - - his (Adam's*) Lord (Allah*) turned towards him; for He is Oft-Forgiving". This indicates that Allah forgave him (Eve is forgotten here), which has as a result that Islam do not have the dogma about inherited sin.

167 2/37d: "(Allah is*) - - - Most Merciful". See 1/1a above.

168 2/38a: "- - - sure - - -". See 2/2b above.

169 2/38b: "- - - guidance from Me (Allah*) - - -". This cannot be a reference to the Quran if the god was omniscient - no god uses a book with so much wrong contents as a guidebook. See 7/192a and 16/107 below.

170 2/38c: "- - - My (Allah's*) guidance - - -". See 2/38b just above.

171 2/39a: “But those who reject Faith (see 2/39d below*) and believe Our (Allah’s*) Signs, they shall be Companions of the Fire - - -”. Just as well or as little documented as what was said about heaven in 2/25 above. Just words anyone can use - obey Baal or Zeus and go to Heaven, and disobey him and go to Hell. Anyone can say anything as long as he can evade demands for proofs. Also see 3/77b below.

171a 2/39b: "- - - those who reject Faith - - -". Ome of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims.

 

147 2/39c: “- - - Signs - - -“ also written “Sign”, “His Signs”, “Our (Allah’s*) Signs” or “My (Allah’s*) Signs” or other variations. In “Quran-speak” it means an indication or a proof for Allah’s existence and/or the Quran’s connection to a god (and thus Muhammad's connection to a god). In reality it proves absolutely nothing, as without exception they only are lose statements or as loose claims just hanging in empty air, all built on nothing, because it never is proved or documented that Allah really said or did or created what the Quran in each case claims he said or did or created, and then uses as a “sign”. Or they rest on other claims which are not proved. According to all human thinking, all judicial laws, and also according to the even more strict laws of logic, such “proofs” flatly and simply are invalid and without any value.

After all a valid proof is: “One or more proved facts which can give only one logical conclusion”, and in the Quran all “signs” without exception builds on claimed “facts” which neither the book nor Islam proves – or are able to prove (well, there may be a few exception in the “signs” taken from the Bible, but they in case prove Yahweh, not Allah – we know that Muslims and the Quran like to say that those two just are different names for the same god, but that is not true unless the god is strongly ill mentally (schizophrenic), as the teachings fundamentally are too different (more about this other places in this book and in “1000+ Mistakes in the Quran”.)).

The same goes for claimed "proofs" in the Quran - extra ironic in those few cases where the claimed proofs are not only invalid, but wrong.

In addition there is the fact that any priest in any religion can claim exactly the same for his god(s) as Muslims claim for Allah, in absolutely all cases where the words “sign(s)” or "proof(s)" in the Quran are not borrowed from the Bible, as long as no real proof or no real documentation is demanded brought forth – words are that cheap. “Baal makes the sun rise in the east. Allah cannot make it rise in the west. Then Baal is the real god and Allah a fake one.” Infantile “proofs”? - but this is the kind of level you find on the “signs” and “proofs” in the Quran (This example is taken from the Quran – Abraham is proving his god Allah, but of course with Allah as the hero. Totally invalid as a proof).

###As said the claims logically are absolutely without any value as indication/proof for a deity, not to mention for a specific god – f.x. Allah. And it documents an interesting fact: Islam has got not one single proof neither for Allah, nor for verification of the Quran, nor for Muhammad’s connection to a deity. IF THEY HAD HAD ONE SINGLE SUCH PROOF – EVEN A SMALL ONE – YOU BET THEY HAD TOLD ABOUT IT AND USED IT! Islam is only built on lose words and as loose and unproven claims - - - made by a man whose words hardly would have been accepted as “bona fide” proofs in Old Bailey, London. The underlying claims that the so-called signs have a value as proofs or at least indications for Allah simply are wrong unless Islam first proves that Allah really was/is behind the “signs” or "proofs".

You find the words "sign(s)" and "proof(s)" used many places in the Quran. Beware that they all - or at least most of them - are quranspeak for "Proof for Allah" - - - and that not one of them is a valid proof for neither Allah nor for Muhammad's connection to a god, let alon to Allah - if he exists.

173 2/39d: "- - - Faith - - -". = Islam.

174 2/39e: "- - - Companions of the Fire - - -". Also see 2/99f, 8/55b and 57/27f below. Non-Muslims bound for Hell.

175 2/40a: "- - - Children of Israel - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/121a above and 4/13d below.

176 2/40b: "- - - your (Jews'*) Covenant with Me (the god - here indicated Allah*)". The Quran admits here and other places that the Jews had a covenant with their god. It was broken and mistreated - and renewed - many times. But it is nowhere even in the Quran really said it was ever terminated - and definitely not in the Bible. And if it was never terminated (though Muslims say the opposite), at least formally it is active and valid even today. It may be a point here that Jesus renewed it (f.x. Luke 22/20).

177 2/41a: “And believe in what I (Allah*) reveal (the Quran*) - - - “. An omniscient god has not revealed a book with so many mistakes and other errors.

178 2/41b: “And believe in what I (Allah*) reveal (the Quran*) - - - “. The moral rules and a number of other things in the Bible, and especially in NT, strongly contradicts the never documented claim that the Quran confirms the Bible.

**179 2/41c: “(The Quran*), confirming the revelation (the OT - Old Testament*) which is with you (Jews*) - - -”. The Quran is not confirming OT and absolutely not NT - the fundamental thoughts and teachings are too different especially compared to NT and the new covenant (Matt. 26/28, Mark 14/24, Luke 22/20) – the new covenant which Muslims never mention, and except for the educated ones have never been told about.

180 2/41d: "- - - reject Faith - - -". Correction: The Jews were not rejecting faith, only Muhammad and his new religion, in which they saw much was wrong compared to their now proved not falsified old scriptures.

181 2/41e: "- - - Faith - - -". In the Quran this always means Islam.

182 2/41f: "- - - nor sell My (Allah's*) Signs for a small price". See 3/77a below.

183 2/41g: “- - - sell My (Allah’s*) Signs - - -”. See 2/39b above.

184 2/42a: ”- - - and cover not Truth with falsehood - - -”. This is a standard Muslim expression claiming that the Bible is falsified (the only way Muhammad could and Islam can explain away all the divergences from the Bible's real texts - Muhammad relied on verbally told and retold apocryphal (made up) texts, legends, etc. which he told were from the Bible or from his god (which he claimed was the same god as Yahweh), as he did not know the Bible, but these texts often were different from the real ones in the Bible) - which science and even more Islam has shown is not true. (Also see 40/75.)

185 2/42b: "- - - Truth - - -". See 2/2b - with all its mistakes the Quran at best is partly true only.

186 2/42c: "- - - Truth (the Quran/Islam*) - - -". The contents of the Bible clearly contradicts the claim that the Quran and thus Islam is the truth.- the fundamentals of the teachings are so different, that the Quran cannot be the truth if the Bible is so - and remember that both science and Islam have proved that the Bible is not falsified, the "explanation" Muslims normally use for the differences between the two books. The teachings, morality, etc. not to mention the gods, are so different that it is not possible that the Quran can represent the truth, if the Bible is true - and the Bible and also Yahweh after all to some extent are proved if the old texts are reliable, whereas for the Quran and Allah exactly nothing of the central claims are proved. In addition there also is the impertinent fact that the ones who overuse words like "truth" and similar words like what is done in Muhammad's book, are the cheats and charlatans and deceivers.

187 2/42ca: "- - - falsehood - - -". See 2/2b above and 13/1g and 40/75 below.

###188 2/42d: “- - - nor conceal the Truth when you know (what it is)”. The contents of this and the entrance above: This is said by Muslims aimed at the Jews who did not want to misunderstand 5 Mos. 18/15 (and 18/18) to mean that this verse foretells Muhammad - (translated from Swedish): “A prophet from among your own people, from your brothers, the Lord, your God, let come to you. Listen to him”. That means God is saying: “I will let a prophet come forth from among your brothers - - -”.Muslims say “brothers” here mean the Arabs, and that the Bible here talks about Muhammad. But very honestly: The brother of Jews is another Jew, especially as it is said he shall come “from among your own people” - the Jews’ own people. (We use the word Jew, because that is the normal word today, even if the word is much younger than the time of Moses. Also Yusuf Ali uses it). This simply may be foretelling about Jesus, but Muslims has “adjusted” the meaning.

That Moses with "brothers" meant fellow Jews, becomes even more clear when one knows that 5. Mos. is a long speech Moses made to and about his fellow Jews (see 5. Mos. 1/1), and that he during this speech used the word "brother/brothers" figuratively at least 29 places meaning their fellow Jews (+ 2 places meaning the descendants of Esau, to whom the Jews recognized relationship. It is here worth mentioning that these in two cases Esau's descendants were specified, and they are the only 2 places in that speech where it is not clear that Moses by the word "brothers" meant fellow Jews - and nowhere are Arabs said to be relatives of the Jews - nowhere in all the Bible) - several places he even uses the expression "brother Israelites".

Actually the word “brother” or similar is used in figurative meaning at least 98 times in OT according to our last leafing through the Bible, nearly always meaning another Jew or other Jews (1 exception: A king talks to another king. A very few other exceptions: About Lot’s people and about Edomites - descendants of Esau, the brother of the patriarch Jacob), and absolutely never about Arabs. Arabs and Arabia are mentioned something like 15 times in the OT – without exception either in neutral forms or as enemies, never as friends or relatives (see further down). Worse – and never mentioned by Muslims: The word "brother" is used in the Quran at least 30 times, and always about fellow (Muslim) Arabs (one exception, where the main point is that the bad hypocrites stick together). There simply exists no place neither in the Bible nor in the Quran expressing brotherhood between Jews and Arabs (but many to the contrary). Besides 5. Mos. 15. and 18. continues into 21. (NEVER mentioned by Muslims) which explains that one will recognize the Lord’s prophet on that they make prophesies, and correct prophesies. Muhammad never made real prophesies – he did not even pretend to or claim to have that gift, not one single time in all the Quran. Aishah also tells in the Hadiths (Al-Bukhari) that "the ones claiming Muhammad could foretell the future, were wrong".(He simply was no real prophet, but borrowed that imposing and impressive title.) On the contrary he was busy explaining away why he was unable to make miracles (prophesying is a kind of miracle - seeing the unseen (in the oldest times the name for a prophet even was "a seer")). Muhammad thus could not – also because of 5. Mos. 18/21. – be Yahweh’s promised prophet. And as he in reality was no prophet at all – he had as mentioned not that gift, and could neither be "a prophet like me (Moses*)" – he absolutely could not be a special prophet as he in reality was no prophet (well, there are made other definitions for a prophet, but without being able to make true prophesies you are no real prophet), and the claim is out of the question.

It simply is a case of a word (brother) that is possible to give more than one meaning, and a religion in dire need from lack of proofs for their presumed god and their presumed prophet, and from sheer necessity because they falsely were promised to find proof or at least indications in the Bible, cling to a meaning which is not intended in the Bible, and foreign to the Bible’s normal use of the word, and then quote it out of context (f.x. 5. Mos. 18/21 even makes Muhammad impossible as an explanation here), but full of wishful thinking.

Also the word "Arabs" or similar is not at all mentioned in the 5 Books of Moses (except that he lived in Midian some years - - - and fought the Midianites a bit later - Midian is on the west of the Arabian peninsula, though Midianites also spread to parts of Sinai). But you can find it at least these places in OT:

1. Mos. 31/2-10: (if you here read "Arabs") (enemies of the Jews).

Judges 6/1: Midianites (if you here read "Arabs") (enemies of the Jews).

1. Kings 10/15 (revenue to King Solomon).

2. Chr. 9/14 (revenue - tax? - to King Solomon.

2. Chr. 17/11 (tribute to King Jehoshaphat of Jerusalem).

2. Chr. 21/16 (enemies of the Jews).

2. Chr. 22/1 (enemies of the Jews).

2. Chr. 22/7 (enemies of the Jews).

Neh. 2/19 (enemies of the Jews).

Neh. 4/7 (enemies of the Jews).

Neh. 6/1 (enemies of the Jews).

Isaiah 13/20 (just mentioned - in a neutral way).

Isaiah 21/13 (a prophesy against Arabia).

Isaiah 21/14 (from the same prophesy as just above).

Jer. 25/24 (must drink the cup of Yahweh's Wrath).

Ez. 27/21 (made business with the city of Tyre).

 

Ez. 30/5 (another prophesy against Arabia).

All together 17 times, always either in neutral words, in negative words or in strongly negative words (enemies). There nowhere any hint of friendship, not to mention brotherhood. As bad: Also in the Quran there are nowhere any words about brotherhood between Jews and Arabs.

To be complete: The word also is mentioned in NT in Acts 2/11, Gal. 1/17 and Gal. 4/25, each time in neutral form. And a small PS to completeness: Muslim sources claim that the word "nomad" in Jer. 3/2 really should have been translated "Arab" - in case a neutral mentioning. They also claim that the name "Kedar" in f.x. Song 1/5, Is. 60/7 = "Arab". Now Kedar was the second son of Ishmael (1. Chr. 1/29), who all lived near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18), so it is unlikely they were the forefathers of the Arabs (this even more so as Arabia was settled earlier - may be as early as 3ooo-4ooo BC (earlier along the coast - the Neolithic period there is reckoned from ca. 5ooo BC)) - if Ishmael ever lived, he lived around 1800 BC) - but the descendants of Ishmael in case were enemies of the Jews (1. Mos. 25/18).

**Islam will have to produce strong proofs if they want anyone to believe that Moses meant Arabs and Muhammad in 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18. After all it is they who produce this unlikely claim, and then it is up to them to prove it – not up to others to disprove it. (But then Islam lives on unproved claims and statements and blind belief - demand proofs from a Muslim in a debate, and you often win the debate, because he has not one single real proofs about central claims - a lot of arguments, but not one of them based on real proofs when you debate central religious facts - or claimed facts).

To be blunt: The claim not true. One simply has carefully cherry-picked a couple of quotes, taken them out of context, omitted all the points in the texts proving the claims are wrong, and finally twisted the surrounding facts to make the quotes fit the answer Islam desperately - and the word is literally meant - needs, as the Quran as mentioned claims Muhammad is mentioned both in OT and in NT and he simply is not there, a fact they cannot afford to admit, because this will prove that things are much wrong with the Quran and thus with Islam. Muslims often claim that you cannot understand texts in the Quran unless you know all the Quran or at least all the relevant surahs. But they themselves frequently cherry-pick sentences, omit the contexts and texts proving the claimed meaning of the quotes wrong, and with some twisting get "strong" evidence for what they want to believe, is true.

*189 2/42e: “- - - nor conceal the Truth when you know (what it is)”. A bit ironic: The non-Muslims - here primarily the local Jews - shall tell the truth, whereas Muslims can use al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), deceit (because the good idol Muhammad used it), and even broken oaths. And doubly ironic as the Jews told the truth when they told what OT said - it was Muhammad who relied on incorrect apocryphal (made up) tales, legends and even fairy tales, and thus got on to a wrong track.

190 2/42f: "- - - Truth - - -". See 2/2b above.

191 2/43a: "- - - practice regular charity - - -". This is one of the few positive aspects with Islam (though actually here it is said to the Jews) - its demand for charity. But the ideal is weakened by the fact that what you give to your wife, children, and other close relatives - in other religions and cultures reckoned to be a duty, not charity - counts as much as help giving to strangers. And then why help others, when you instead can help your nearest family? - may be one reason why the big NGOs for help were not started in Muslim areas. There also is another difference to NT: In the Quran you are told to help others to gain merit with Allah. In NT you are told to help others from empathy and sympathy, and to gain merit in heaven. (You find no empathy and little sympathy in the Quran, and what is there, is practically only for Muslims).

192 2/43b: "- - - those who bow down (in worship)". = Muslims.

193 2/44a: "Do ye enjoin right conduct on the people, and forget (to practice) it yourselves - - -". - demand right to build mosques and minarets in non-Muslim countries, but destroy churches in Pakistan, not to mention; where are the churches in Saudi Arabia?

194 2/44b: "- - - right conduct - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is as compared to its own partly immoral moral code.

195 2/44c: "Will ye (Jews*) not understand?". Most likely that just was the problem: The Jews understood that Yahweh and Allah could not be the same god - and that something was wrong with Muhammad's new religion. Much wrong.

#196 2/45: “Nay, seek (Allah’s) help with patient perseverance - - -”. Then you win in the end. NB: This is an expression and a word non-Muslims should never forget is impressed and impressed on Muslims - keep going, and in the end your opponent grows tiered and you win. This too often has been correct.

197 2/45-46: "- - - a lowly spirit who bear in mind the certainty that they are to meet their Lord (Allah*) - - -". = A Muslim.

198 2/46a: “(Muslims*) bear in mind the certainty that they are to meet their Lord (Allah*), and that they are to return to Him (at the Day of Doom*)”. Muslims want to - and do - believe this. But they only have the words of an often brutal and at least sometimes unreliable robber baron and warlord for it. A statement without a proof - something not valid, and of no value except for for politicians and cheaters. No judge had accepted such a statement as a proof in a criminal case. And a possible next life is much more essential than f.x. a petty burglary case in a court. The claim only may be true if Allah exists, if he is a major god and if he speaks through the Quran. At least that it is a certainty is wrong.

199 2/46b: "- - - certainty - - -". See 2/2b:

200 2/47a: "O Children of Israel! Call to mind the (special)favor which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others (for My Message (this seems not to be in the original Arab text, but added by the translator - may be to reduce the value of the message))." This refers to the Covenant Yahweh made with Abraham and later renewed with the Jews several times - the last time mentioned in the relevant books around 30 AD by Jesus ("the New Covenant" - f.x. Luke 22/20). This has at least one serious implication which Muslims NEVER mention when they scold the Jews for haughtily, etc. believing they will be saved, or at least have a special relationship to Yahweh: This old covenant has never been terminated (though Muslims like to say the opposite), and it is the old covenant Jews rely on, not their relationship to Abraham. Broken and disused and renewed, but never terminated: It has been disused and maltreated, but Yahweh never has ended it. Religious Jews and Israel therefore acted because of the covenant and because they saw a lot of mistakes in the Quran, not because of haughtiness, stupidity, etc. And as you see even the Quran accepts that Israel/the Jews have a special standing onto Yahweh - superstition or not.

201 2/47b: "- - - Children of Israel! - - -". A historical anomaly: The first "children of Israel" were the 12 sons of Jacob, who lived - if he ever lived - around 1800 - 1700 BC. Earlier readers - f.x. Abraham if he knew how to red - would not understand this reference in his claimed Quran. See 4/13d below.

202 2/48a: "- - - a day when one soul shall not avail another - - -". The Day of Doom.

203 2/48b: (At the Day of Doom no help is possible for your soul), "nor shall intercession be accepted (by Allah*) for her (your soul*) - - -". Wrong - it is clearly said other places that intercession is possible if Allah permits it - and it is clear there that he may permit it in some cases. Also see 2/48c just below.

204 2/48c: (At the Day of Doom no help is possible for your soul), "nor shall intercession be accepted (by Allah*) for her (your soul*) - - -". Wrong - other places it is clearly stated that Muhammad will on that day have wide rights to intercede - the only one with wide such rights. If we are cynical and believe Muhammad made the Quran and the religion himself, this is a nice trick for gaining more power - anyone who did not feel sure he/she would end in Paradise would do anything to please Muhammad in this life to make him intercede for them in the next one.

205 2/49a: “- - - We (Allah*) delivered you from the people of Pharaoh (who*) - - - slaughtered your sons - - -“. Actually this is in accordance with what the Bible tells (The Quran tells the baby Moses was put to the Nile (20/39) but do not give a reason for such a crime. The Bible tells that it was because of a royal order to kill all Jewish boy babies). But it contradicts two verses in the Quran that told not that it was done, but that Pharaoh would start doing it during the confrontation with Moses. (Similar in 7/141 and 14/6).

206 2/49b: “- - - We (Allah*) delivered you from the people of Pharaoh - - -". A historical anomaly if the claimed "Mother Book" was copied before ca. 1335 BC when this happened - earlier people would not understand the reference. Also see 4/13d below.

207 2/49c: For the ones not knowing the Bible well: Times changed for the Jews (we know this name was not coined until much later, but it is normal to use it). They were made slaves and set to hard and grueling work, but as they all the same multiplied, the Pharaoh ordered all Jewish male babies to be killed. This according to the Bible - read Exodus (= 2.Mos.) 1/8-22 in OT (at the same time you will see which book of the Bible and the Quran is best literature also on this point).

208 2/49d: "- - - a tremendous trial from your Lord (Allah according to the Quran*)". Why did a predestining, omniscient god knowing everything send his followers through trials?

209 2/49: "- - - a tremendous trial from your Lord - - -". Contradicting the Bible - according to the Bible this was not a trial from Yahweh, but from the Egyptians.

210 2/50a: “- - - We (Allah*) divided the sea for you (Moses and his Jews*) - - -“. From other places in the Quran (and in most translations of the Bible) it is told that this was the Red Sea. But in the Hebrew original the name is Yam Suph, which as well can mean “The Sea of Reeds” (this also is confirmed in many footnotes in NIV (“New International Version” of the Bible)). The Sea of Reeds (also called the Timsah Sea) used to be a big lake where the Suez Canal now runs – not far from the Bitter Seas. The name tells it was just a shallow lake – the longest reeds we have been able to find, is a kind of rice that can be up to 5 - 7 m long and grows in the big sea Tonle Sap in Cambodia, and the reeds growing in this area of Egypt are shorter - - - and the water cannot be deeper than the reeds get their “heads” above the water to get that name.

Also look at the map: Goshen where the Jews settled was in the river delta of the Nile. To get to Sinai they had to go south-south-east. It would be stupidity beyond any credibility to go so far west that they ended at the western side of the Red Sea instead of walking all the way on dry land, and thus force such a huge number of people and animals to cross the sea by boats they did not have (remember they did not know about the opening of the sea – fire/smoke-column or not (= the pathfinder/Yahweh according to the Bible)). After all they according to the Bible were 600ooo men + women + children + animals and belongings = some 2.ooo.ooo humans at least. (Theoretically it is quite possible for 70 – 100 (depending on how many wives his 11 sons in the group had) persons that came with Jacob + Joseph and his family, to become may be 2.ooo.ooo “Jews” 430 years later.)

Science tells that – if the Exodus took place – the “Jews” quite likely were overtaken as they marched or camped along that lake, just like the Hebrew name in the OT may indicate.

211 2/50b: "- - - drowned Pharaoh's people - - -". A historical anomaly (see 4/13d below) if the "Mother Book" was the same from the start: No reader or listener would understand this reference if they lived before ca. 1335 BC - f.x. Abraham or Lot or Noah - not to mention if they lived f.x. in South America.

212 2/50c: "- - - drowned Pharaoh's people - - -". Allah could not have written this in his "Mother Book" millions of years before it happened, unless predestination was/is total: F.x. the pharaoh could have made another decision or a lot of other things could have happened. Only if Allah predestines everything 100%, he could have written this in his book long before, and be sure it was correct. Also see 2/51b below.

212 2/50d: Un-Arabic word: furqaan (original Hebrew?) - from pwrqn, Syriac = Salvation.

213 2/51a: "- - - ye (Jews) took the calf (for worship) - - -". During Moses' absence when he received the 10 Commandments, the Jews made a calf from gold to use as a god (according to history a custom in Egypt - though mostly not from gold).

214 2/51b: "- - - in his (Moses'*) absence ye (the Jews*) took the calf (for worship), and did grievous wrong". How come that this could be written in the claimed "Mother Book"? Muslims do not quite agree on how old the claimed "Mother Book" is - either it is made by Allah before man was even created, or it has existed since eternity and is never made. In both cases it in case is older than Adam, and unchangeable - the word of Allah is unchangeable. And in both cases it is claimed written long before the time when the different stories in the Quran took place and long before the persons were even born.

But to tell a story where people are involved, millennia’s and more before it happens or to quote persons eons before something is said, only - only - is possible if Allah really predestines everything in absolutely all details - just like the Quran claims many places. Not the most miniscule detail can be changed from what he predestines, because if even the smallest detail is changed, the laws of chaos will throw the foreseen act or words wide off the track. This in case is a 100% proof for that in Islam man has no free will - if he had, he could always change his mind once more about whatever it was - - - and what Allah foresaw or predestined suddenly was wrong. Man just is a puppet on a string.

Even Islam admits that it is not possible to understand how Allah can predestine everything, and man at the same time has free will. We quote Muhammad Asad, "The message of the Quran (A6/141 - in the English 2008 edition A6/143): "- - - the real relationship between Allah's knowledge of the future (and, therefore, the ineluctability of what is to happen in the future) on one side, and man's free will, on the other - two propositions which, on the face of it, seem to contradict one another - is beyond man's comprehension - - -" (but the book continues lamely that all the same it has to be true, because Allah says so in the Quran - the brain giving in to blind belief). Actually predestination contra man's free will is a version of the "time travel paradox" - a paradox which is proved unsolvable. And actually in the non-material realms of life there are things impossible also for an omniscient and omnipotent god. The perhaps easiest way to show this, is to make a god add one mathematical 1 with another mathematical 1. The only possible answer even for a god is 2. Predestination versus free will of man is another such non-material unsolvable case - unsolvable even for a god. Therefore, if Allah predestines everything, man has no free will, no matter what the Quran claims - just one more of the many mistakes in that book - or what Islam and its Muslims want to believe.

But if man has no free will, Allah has no moral right to punish - or reward - him/her for what he or she does. We again quote from the same remark from "The Message of the Quran": "- - - the very concept of morality and moral responsibility presupposes free will on man's part". Which means that if Allah predestines everything and man thus has no free will, it is immoral for Allah to punish man for his/her deeds or words which he/she/they has/have been forced to act by Allah's predestination. (But Muhammad needed predestination to make his warriors believe war was not dangerous, and he needed free will of man to make his followers believe Allah was fair when threatening with Hell.)

Then we finally are back to the quote from the Quran at the start of this remark: For this quote to be correct in a book claimed to be thousands and millions and even billions of years old, there only is one possible explanation: Allah predestines absolutely every detail in the world and in your life. If what the Quran here tells is correct, this means full predestination and no free will for man. There is no alternative to this.

Which means Allah is an extremely unjust god rewarding some of his marionettes and damning others to Hell because he has forced them to do bad things.

Another effect of the predestined texts in the Quran - written long before things happened, and copies sent down to all the many (124ooo?) claimed prophets and messengers for Islam, is that those prophets plainly could read about future persons and stories - though in many cases with references they could not understand. This is an inevitable effect of the "fact" that the claimed "Mother Book" naturally was/is unchangeable, and so was and is the words of Muhammad, and of the fact that all books claimed sent down by Allah, was copies of the Mother Book (and copies of one book naturally are identical - here = the Quran, which was and is claimed to be such a copy). Noah could read about Abraham and Jacob and Joseph, Abraham could read about what he himself was going to do, what battles he was going to win, etc., and about f.x. Moses and Jesus - and Muhammad. Etc., etc., etc. There is no indication about such an effect in the Quran, though, and also Islam and Muslims never mention it.

Perhaps Muhammad and Allah did not think about this inevitable result from giving prophets of the very old, copies of the claimed "Mother Book" - similar to the Quran?

(Muslims will here claim that the Quran tells the different prophets got different books, as the Quran tells they were sent new books. That the Quran says new books were sent down, is correct. But as it also implies that those books were copies of the claimed "Mother Book", an unchangeable book from a god whose word was/is unchangeable, this only can mean new copies of the same book - and copies of one and the same book are similar, and in this case similar to the Quran, as also the Quran is claimed to be a copy of that book.) One more and big contradiction in the Quran.

The point quoted on top of this comment is one of the many in the Quran which impossibly could have been written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b, 85/21-22 below) in the far distant past, unless Allah predestines everything 100%. We will point to a number of other such points, but far from all - only some of the most obvious ones. All incidents and quotes where humans are involved and could have changed something, is a case which could not have been written into the claimed "Mother Book" a really long time ago if Allah did not predestine absolutely everything. Just go looking and you will find - but you will find no real explanation from Islam or its Muslims.

One final point: Islam tells that Allah (and his angels) reveres the claimed "Mother Book" in his Heaven. It is highly unlikely Allah would revere his own work - only Pagans revere things they have made themselves. Which means that the other claimed explanation for the existence of the Quran must be the true one: The Quran is never made, but has existed since eternity. But in that case it is even more impossible to have in the Quran things which was to happen or to be said much later, unless the predestination is absolute - With a much larger time-scale the chances for that things might happen or be said which would change the future is much larger.

*215 2/53a: “- - - We (Allah*) gave Moses the scripture - - -”. Historical anomaly (see 4/13d below).No reader or listener would understand this reference before ca. 1335 - 1330 BC when this happened (if it happened). But the books the Quran claims were sent down to Allah's prophets, all were copies of the same "Mother Book" in Heaven, which is claimed to be so old that may be it has existed since eternity, and thus all copies of it are similar, as there can be no change in the claimed "Mother Book" or in Allah's words if he made it. Thus Abraham and Lot and Noah could read about Moses and the prophets and Jesus and Muhammad if this claim is true - good and reliable (?) foretelling. But nowhere in the Quran is it told this happened. Something is wrong.

*216 2/53b: “- - - We (Allah*) gave Moses the scripture - - -”. The books named after Moses (the 5 first in the Bible - the Torah) are not written by Moses and not even at the time of Moses. Moses lived (if he is not a fiction) around 1300-1200 BC (if the Exodus from Egypt really took place, it took place ca. 1235 BC during the reign of Pharaoh Ramses II according to science), and those books were written not earlier than ca. 800 BC - perhaps as late as 500 BC - also this according to science. (But remember there is a difference between writing down a story later, and falsifying a story, like Muslims claims - without and even against documentation. It also is likely there were written documents). What Moses got according to the Bible, were the 10 Commandments written in stone + he was told the law (parts of what later was called the Book (or Books) of Moses - in 2/53 called the Scriptures) which he himself wrote down afterward (this sometimes is called "the Book of Covenant" - f.x. 2. Mos. 24/7). A god had known this, whereas Muhammad knew nothing about their real age, and had to guess. (To be exact: The Bible says that Yahweh told Moses the law – nothing material except the two stone tablets where the ten Commandments were inscribed, were brought down from the mountain – and that he himself wrote down the laws afterward. OT also says that when Solomon moved the Ark of Covenant into the Temple in Jerusalem (1.Kings 8/9), it only contained the two stone tablets. There is nothing about “the Books of Moses”, though the OT makes it clear that the laws existed in writing and were found again later – but science is unanimous that the Books of Moses (you also see it written in singular) are written much later. If Muslims claim something else, they will have to produce proofs.) The law really only is part of the Torah/Books of Moses, but the name often is used for the complete "books of Moses".

*217 2/53c: “- - - We (Allah*) gave Moses the scripture - - -”. A historical anomaly. See 2/136i above and 4/13d below.

218 2/53d: (A2/38) Does the Arab text here mean: “- and (thus) a standard (the 10 Commandments*) by which to discern the true from the false - - -”? Or perhaps: “- - - and (thus) human reason by which to discern the true from the false - - -“? And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning. Clear meaning in the Arab texts?

219 2/53e: (YA68) “- - - the Scriptures and the Criterion - - -.” The scriptures must mean the 10 commandments (and the Law, that Islam says he got at the same time, but in the Bible it is said he was told the law and wrote it down himself later – not given as a scripture), but is the “Criterion” just another word for the Commandments or is it something else – miracles or some other signs or scriptures? Islam does not know. Clear texts?

220 2/53f: "- - - guided aright". If the Quran here had referred to the Biblical texts, perhaps this had been correct. But the Quran always refer to claims about something similar to the Quran itself, which it claims the bad Jews and Christians have falsified to get the Bible - never a proof, only lots of claims (which science - and even more so Islam - has proved wrong).

221 2/54a: (A2/39) Moses said: “- - - turn, then, in repentance to your (the Jews’) Maker and mortify yourselves - - -.” Or may be “- - - kill you - - -.” Or may be “- - - kill one another - - -.” The language is too unclear to tell what is the real meaning – at least 3 different ones. (M. Asad has preference for the first meaning, because of other texts in the Quran). And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning.

222 2/54b: "And remember Moses said to his people - - -". A historical anomaly - no reader of or listener to the timeless copy of the "Mother Book" - the Quran - would understand this reference before ca. 1330 - 1335 BC if not the book was different then - and can a copy of the claimed "Mother Book" be different from time to time? Also see 2/1326i abode and 4/13d below.

223 2/54c: "- - - (the wrongdoers) - - -". Here it may mean the ones who have sinned against the god, but normally this word is "Quran-speak" for non-Muslims - not a neutral word.

224 2/54d: "- - - for He (in reality Yahweh, but here indicated Allah*) is - - - Most Merciful". Most Merciful is one of Allah's claimed 99 names, but see 1/1a above and see if you agree.

225 2/55a: (The Jews said): "O Moses! We shall never believe in thee until we see Allah Manifestly." Even if we omit the fact that the Bible talks about Yahweh, not about Allah like the Quran claims, this is in stark contradiction to the Bible which tells that first all the Jews unanimously promised: "We will do everything the Lord (Yahweh*) has said." (2.Mos. 19/8). And shortly afterwards Yahweh himself told he would descend down to Mount Sinai (2.Mos. 19/10-11), whereas the Jews themselves were reluctant and afraid to witness what happened (2.Mos. 20/18). Muhammad had little knowledge about the Bible, etc. This also have some small consequences later in the Quran, as Muhammad once or twice refers to this episode and tells his own troubles are alike the claimed disbelief Moses here met (wrong according to the Bible) - a way to "prove" that he was in a similar position to Moses. Also see 2/108a below.

226 2/55b: (The Jews said): "O Moses! We shall never believe in thee until we see Allah Manifestly." See 2/51b above.

227 2/55c: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/136i above and 4/13d below.

228 2/55-56: Moses and his people: Taken from Talmud (Jewish religious scriptures). This surah arrived(?) shortly after Muhammad fled to Medina where there lived a lot of Jews, which did that he slowly learnt more about the Jewish scriptures.

229 2/56a: "Then We (Allah*) raised you up after your death - - -". Because the Jews had demanded to see the god, they were punished by being killed, but then resurrected afterwards it is said. Muslim scholars disagree about whether it was physical death or some kind of mental death only - as known the original Arab texts far from are clear many times (in spite of claims about the opposite). It should be unnecessary to mention that this tale is in contradiction with the Bible. (Even more so as in the Bible the Jews did not ask to see the god - see 2/55 above). This is not from the Bible.

230 2/56b: "Then We (Allah*) raised you up after your death - - -". Not from the Bible. It actually is a mystery what the Quran means here.

231 2/56c: "Then We (Allah*) raised you up after your death - - -". See 7/158i and 21/56c below.

232 2/57a: "And We (the god) gave you the shade of clouds - - -". If the Jews during the period of 40 years they wandered in the hot desert had had abnormally much clouds, it had been mentioned - such a thing is a miracle in Sinai, just ask the Arabs. This claim is not from the Bible.

233 2/57b: "And We (the god) gave you the shade of clouds - - -". Not from the Bible.

234 2/58a: "And remember We (Allah*) said: 'Enter this town - - -'". Contradiction: "And remember it was said to them (the Jews*): 'Dwell in this town - - - (7/161)". There is a distinction between to enter a town and to live in a town. (Arab scholars agree on that it is the same incident which is referred - f.x. YA1136. They use one of their standard "explanations": It is a parable. But for one thing there is no indication in the Quran for that this is meant as a parable any of the two places, and for another thing the mistake does not have more logical meaning as a parable.

235 2/58b: "Enter this town - - -". But does the Arab word here mean "town" (in that case perhaps Shittim (Num. 25/1-9)) or "land" (in this case likely Israel). Unclear language.

236 2/58c: Verse 58 is not from the Bible - no similar text there.

237 2/59a: It is unclear what this verse refers to, but it may be the Jews in Shittim (Num. 25/1-9). Also see 2/58a+b just above.

230 2/59b: "The transgressors (here the Jews*) changed the word from that which had been given them - - -". The Quran many times tells that the Jews and Christians received a book similar to the Quran, but falsified it to get the Bible - the Bible thus is a falsification of a book similar to the Quran, according to Muhammad (it was his only possible way of explaining away the differences between what Muhammad claimed the Bible said and what it really said - science has long since proved it wrong - there may be mistakes in the Bible, but no falsifications. Islam has proved the same even stronger than science, by not finding one single case of real falsification among the some 44ooo (?) relevant old manuscript. Guess if they had screamed about it if they had found even a single provable case of falsification in the Bible! And even worse: By using known falsifications from outside the Bible - f.x. the "gospel" of Barnabas - they are telling that "these are the best arguments we have" (if they had had any better, they had used that instead)).

If we had used known faked Hadiths as arguments against Islam, Muslims had not respected neither us nor our arguments very much - about just as little as we who have some knowledge about this, respects them and their arguments when they use known made up stories against Jews or Christians.

239 2/59c: "- - - transgressors - - -". Normally "Quran-speak" for non-Muslims. Not a very sympathetic name. Also see 2/99f, 8/55b and 57/27f below.

240 2/60a: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/136i above and 4/13d below.

241 2/60b: "- - - Moses prayed for water - - -". A historical anomaly if the old claimed Quran prophets of the old got from Allah according to the Quran of today, was similar to the one of today - and copies of the same claimed "Mother Book" should be similar. No reader of or listener to that Quran would understand this reference earlier than ca. 1330 BC - f.x. Abraham - and not to mention one from f.x. the Sioux Indians on the American plains (all people got a prophet from Allah sooner or later according to the Quran). Also see 4/13 d below.

242 2/60c: 12 springs gushing forth - copied from pre-Islamic legends. Contradicting the Bible, but quite likely based on a mix up of Biblical texts. 2. Mos. 15/27 says: "Then they (the Jews) came to Elim, where there were 12 springs - - -", and later in Rephidim: "(Yahweh said*)"'Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink'. So Moses did in the sight of the elders of Israel (and a spring appeared*)". 2 different incidents mixed up in the Quran it seems. The old problem: Muhammad did not know the Bible and took his(? - he may have had helpers) stories from tales, legends and fairy tales circulating in Arabia.

243 2/60d: "- - - the sustenance provided by Allah - - -" According to the Quran, everything you have, is given you by Allah (besides: In the Bible it is said to be Yahweh).

244 2/60e: "- - - and do not mischief on (the face of the) earth". Read the Quran's moral code, its code of war, etc., and then read this quote once more.

245 2/61a: "O Moses!" A historical anomaly - see 2/60a above and 4/13d below.

246 2/61b: (The Jews said): "O Moses! We cannot endure one kind of food (always) - - -." See 2/51b above.

247 2/61c: (YA74) “Go ye (Jews*) to any town - - -.” But the Arab word “Misr” (town) here also may mean “the Egypt of Pharaoh” = in this case “any country fertile like Egypt.” Clear language? (Muslims like to claim cases like this means Arab was a rich language, but vagueness is something very different from rich.

248 2/61d: "- - - signs of Allah - - -". See 2/39b above.

#249 2/61e: "- - - slaying His (Allah's*) Messengers without a just cause". Here is one of the many fundamental differences between The Bible - especially if you compare to NT and the new covenant - and the Quran: The Bible says "you shall not kill, whereas the Quran says "you shall not kill without a just cause" - and the Quran's moral codex which should regulate what is just and what is unjust, on top of this is pretty immoral at some points.

250 2/61f: "- - - slaying His (Allah's*) Messengers without a just cause". Does there exist a just cause for slaying real prophets for a real god?

251 2/61g: "(The Jews*) went on - - - slaying His Messengers - - -". Similar things is said several places in the Quran. But read through the Bible and see how many - or few - of the named prophets who in reality were killed. (There also were unnamed prophets, but the percentage should be similar).

252 2/61h: Verse 2/61 is not from the Bible, even if some of the contents agree.

253 2/62a: “Those who believe (in the Quran) - - -". Muslims.

254 2/62b: “Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabeans – any who believe in Allah (= God/Yahweh here*) and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord (go to Heaven*) - - -“. Contradicted - and abrogated - by:

3/85: “If anyone desired a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him - - -.” Yes: “No compulsion in religion.” (From Mecca, but hardly defensive – see 3/28 below).

5/17: “In blasphemy (and will be punished according to 5/73* - that Jesus is divine is to put another god by Allah’s side, which is the ultimate and unforgivable sin according to 4/48 and 4/116. It also makes Jesus a greater prophet than Muhammad, which Muhammad and Islam could not accept) are those who say that Allah is Christ, son of Mary (see 5/110a below).”This had omitted the Christians – like Muhammad obviously intended - - - if it was not because Christians do not say God = Jesus. Muhammad did not understand the Trinity.

5/72: “Whoever joins other gods with Allah – Allah will forbid him the Garden - - -.” This blocks the road at least for Christians, as according to Islam Jesus (and Maria!) are joined gods (and parts of the Trinity – Muhammad never understood neither the Trinity (he believed it consisted of the god, Jesus and Mary!!), nor the Holy Spirit (though he used the Holy Spirit a few times in the Quran).

5/73: “They do blaspheme who say Allah (God/Yahweh) is one of a Trinity - - - a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” Which sentences the Christians to Hell.

8/38: “Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief (become Muslims*)), their past would be forgiven them, but if they persist, the punishment for those before them is already (a matter of warning for them)".

9/17: “It is not for such as join gods with Allah (= God/Yahweh here*) - - -. - - - in Fire shall they dwell”. No hope for Christians with their Jesus, who according to Islam is wrongly looked at by Christians as a god – in spite of 2/62.

9/29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day, nor holds that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his Prophet (Muhammad*), not acknowledge the religion of the Truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians mainly), until they pay the jizya (“infidel”-tax where Islam has set no upper limit, and which frequently through the history has been very high*) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”. Conquer the infidels and then let them live like the Negroes under apartheid in South Africa or in the southern states in USA in the early 1900s - - - the ones who were not taken into slavery – especially the women. Yes, no compulsion – neither by the sword first, nor by destroyed economy and social life, etc. after the defeat and later.

3/85 (625 AD): “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never it will be accepted of him (Allah*) - - -”. It may be worth mentioning that surah 2 “arrived” at a time (622 - 624 AD) when Muhammad for one thing hoped to have the Jews accept his religion, and for another thing still were not military strong. In 625 AD he had given up the hope of being accepted by the Jews (there were few, if any Christians or Sabeans in Medina), and his group of warriors were bigger and more trained in combat = he was military stronger. The tone had become more threatening.

(7 contradictions).

255 2/62c: "- - - Jewish (scriptures) - - -". A historical anomaly for readers and listeners in old times - from the start of humanity and Allah's first claimed prophets and at least up to the start of Jewism. Abraham is the first man one with reasonable reason can call a Jew, and he lived (?) around 2000 - 1800 BC, and then f.x. Noah or claimed Muslims from before 2000 BC(!) would be unable to understand this reference. Also see 4/13d below.

256 2/62d: "- - - Christians - - -". A historical anomaly if the books/Qurans (copies of the "Mother Book" in Heaven like the Quran is claimed to be) is similar to the timeless and claimed unchanging Quran of today. We do not know exactly when this word was coined, but around 50 AD (in Asia Minor). Thus no user of the claimed Qurans which were sent down to the claimed prophets for Allah, would understand this reference before ca. 50 AD. See 4/13d below.

257 2/62e: "- - - righteousness - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, they are meant in accordance with the Quran's own partly immoral moral code.

258 2/62f: "- - - the Sabeans - - -". There are at least 3 possible explanations for whom the Sabeans were:

A semi-Christian group in Iraq - it still exists near Basra (some 2ooo members today).

At the time of Muhammad there also was a Gnostic group at Harran called Sabeans.

But the by far most likely explanation is the old kingdom of Saba (Sabah, Sheba) in what is now Yemen (cfr. the Queen of Saba/Sabah/Sheba). The fact that they mainly were Christians, makes this even more likely.

Muslims nearly always only mention one or both of the 2 first when talking about this, and when they mention the country of Sheba, we have never seen them mention that they were Christians. Sheba was made Christian via the Christian Abyssinia (now approximately Ethiopia) which conquered them ca. 350 AD (and then conquered by Persia ca.579 AD). When they are mentioned specially, the reason may be that perhaps the teachings and/or rituals varied a little from the Christians the Arabs met further north - or simply that they lived in another place (south) than the other Christians desert Arabs met, who lived in north-west in Sham = the lands at the inner end of the Mediterranean Sea. It is anybody’s guess why Muslims do not like to mention the Christian Sheba - perhaps they were made Muslims in ways not constituent with "let there be no compulsion in religion" (often wrongly quoted by Muslims to "there is no compulsion - - -")? - lots of Arabs were made Muslims that way.

259 2/63a: "- - - We (Allah*) raised above you (the towering height of) Mount (Sinai) - - -." But what the Arab original text really says, is: "- - - We (Allah*) raised the mountain above you - - -" - i. e. it was held over them like a roof or a cloud. There is nothing like this in the Bible. (The story in reality is from a legend). It tells something that the translated text is modified, and in a way which makes it less unbelievable to educated westerners used to critical thinking - but it is a dishonest translation.

260 2/63b: "- - - We (Allah*) raised above you (the towering height of) Mount (Sinai) - - -." Not from the Bible.

261 2/63c: "- - - what We have given you - - -". According to the Quran, everything you have, are gifts from Allah.

262 2/64: "The Grace and Mercy of Allah (in reality Yahweh*)- - -". See 1/1a above.

263 2/65a: People transformed to apes. Not a story found in the Bible.

264 2/65b: People transformed to apes - copied from a popular Arab legend of those times - a group of Jews did not respect the Sabbath and were punished by being transformed to apes. But: Nothing like this in the Bible.

265 2/65c: "- - - you who transgressed - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims.

266 2/65-66: “We (Allah*) said to them ’Be ye apes, despised and rejected’. So We made it an example to their own time and to their posterity, and a lesson for those who fear Allah”. That humans are changed into apes is an extraordinary statement. An extraordinary statement needs an extraordinary proof. The Quran here offers no proof at all - like normal.

267 2/66: "- - - those who fear Allah". Muslims.

268 2/67: "- - - Moses said - - -". A historical anomaly - see 4/13d below. No user of the claimed timeless Quran would understand a reference to Moses until ca. 1335 BC.

269 2/67-71a For this story see 2/51b above.

270 2/67-71b: There is nothing like this about Moses in the Bible. (There is an order for sacrificing a red (the color given) heifer in 4. Mos. 19/2, but both the story, the circumstances and the purpose are totally different.) It may be a contorted copy of 4. Mos. 19/1-9, or it may be taken from a legend. Muslims often claim it must be read like a parable - a Muslim standard "explanation" when explaining away mistakes or difficult points - but the Quran does not say so.

271 2/68: "They (the people of Moses) - - - he (Moses*) - - -". Two histiorical anomalies - see 2/136i above and 4/13d below.

272 2/69: "They (the people of Moses) - - - he (Moses*) - - -". Two histirical anomalies - see 2/136i above and 4/13d below.

273 2/70a: "They (the people of Moses) - - - ". A historical anomaly - see 2/136i above and 4/13d below.

274 2/70b: "- - - guidance - - -". The Quran claims that Moses got similar instructions/book like Muhammad (= a Quran) - but there is little reliable guidance in a book full of mistakes, etc. like the Quran.

275 2/70c: "- - - if Allah wills". See 14/19d below. But beware that just here and some other places in the Quran it may be the standard Muslim reservation meaning something like "I want to do so-and-so if Allah permits".

276 2/71: "He (Moses) - - - they (the people of Moses*)". Two historical anomales - see 2/136i above and 4/13d below.

277 2/72: "- - - ye (some people*) slew a man - - -". See 2/51b above.

278 2/73a: “Allah said: ‘Strike the (body) with a piece of the (heifer) (see 2/67-71 above*)’. Thus Allah bringeth the dead to life - - -". This story is not from the Bible - and from what other places can Muhammad have got it, as the Quran with all its mistakes is not from any god?

279 2/73b: “Allah said: ‘Strike the (body) with a piece of the (heifer) (see 2/67-71 above*)’. Thus Allah bringeth the dead to life - - -“. It is not possible to wake up a dead person this way. Islam will have to produce a solid proof – especially as this story is not in the Bible, and thus is taken from a legend, as the Bible is the only source telling about Moses. Actually it so obviously is not true, that Muslims claim it is a parable or that there was a miracle - neither of which the Quran says.

280 2/73c: "Thus Allah bringeth the dead to life - - -". Even if we skip the fact that according to the Bible Allah was not involved with Moses - his god was Yahweh - this is an interesting claim, as the Quran several places claims Allah has the power of resurrection, but never documents it - there only are the claims like here. (Whereas there are at least 8 cases of resurrection in the Bible - 1. Kings 17/22, 2. Kings 4/34-35, Matt. 9/25 (and Mark 5/41 and Luke 8/55), John 11/44, Luke 7/15, Matt 27/52, Acts 20/10, and Jesus.

281 2/73d: "- - - His (Allah's) signs - - -". Wrong. There are no clear signs for Allah in the Quran or anywhere else. This is one of Islam's problems. See 2/39b above.

282 2/74a: "- - - others (other rocks*) which sink for fear of Allah". Animism - something normally found in primitive religions and in fairy tales.

283 2/74b: "And Allah is not unmindful of what ye (people*) do". This is a combined "carrot and whip" you find many places in the Quran in different forms: Allah sees everything and will reward the god and punish the bad (just remember that "god" and "bad" are in accordance with the Quran's partly immoral moral code).

**284 2/75a: "- - - (- - - men of Faith) - - -". = Muslims - only Muslims have faith according to the Quran.

285 2/75b: “- - - seeing that a party of them (the Jews and/or Christians*) heard the word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it - - -.” Wrong. Science have shown very clearly that the Bible is not falsified – and consequently that it has never been something like the Quran, which here is claimed or indicated. If Islam means something else, they will have to bring proofs, not only loose claims and even looser statements. If Islam had had even a small proof, the world had been forced to hear it every two hours or more – at least. (The fact is, however, that Islam has proved even stronger than science that the claims about falsification of the Bible is wrong, by for one thing being unable to explain how it would be technically possible to falsify may be a few hundred thousand (some 44ooo has survived till today, and there must have been many more) manuscripts on 3 continents in exactly the same ways, for another how it was possible to do it so perfect that modern science is unable to find traces from the falsifications, for a third how it was possible to make Jews, Christians, and different sects to agree on making exactly the same falsifications (f.x. about Jesus), and for the fourth there is no credible claims for when all these falsifications should have been done, and for the fifth - and very essential; by the fact that Islam - and science - has been unable to find even one single proved falsification of a relevant manuscript.

As for "when" Muslims often mention the council on Nicaea in 325 AD. But even if that had been true, that council could not falsify all the older manuscripts. Even more essential: This council represented only the mainstream Christians - no Jews and no sects - so that only the mainstream Christians in case could agree to which falsifications to make. Still more essential: The agenda for the council is well known. There is not anything about "correcting" texts in the Bible. And finally may be the most essential: It is just as easy to make mainstream bishops change texts in the Bible, as it is to make ayatollahs change texts in the Quran - and for the same reason.

We f.x. have seen on Internet men with imposing titles blasting headlines like "57 points falsified in the Bible in Nicaea". At best it is al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) - and besides 57 falsifications is far - far - too little to make the Bible similar to the Quran. At least a few thousand points would have to be falsified to transfer a book similar to the Quran into the Bible, like Islam claims is the case.(Actually the Quran is so different from the Bible, that only a few points and even fewer details are the same - and also the literally style is totally different - it had had to be total rewriting, not falsification

*We may add that Islam and Muslims here try to use the Bible to prove their words – f.x. Jeremiah 23/36: “Ye have perverted the words of the living God.” This one is dishonesty on at least two levels:

Level 1:It is for one thing quoted out of context, and - level 2 - for another thing it is twisted. Jeremiah tells: “If a prophet or a priest or anyone else (incorrectly*) claims, ‘This is the oracle of the LORD (Yahweh*), I (Yahweh*) will punish that man and his household. - - - But you must not mention ‘the oracle of the LORD’ again because (if you do*) every man’s word becomes his oracle and so you distort (pervert*) the words of the living God”. (NIV). There is an abyss between this meaning and the meaning Islam put into the above slightly twisted cherry-picked quotation from the Bible. Dishonest and slightly disgusting – and quite revealing about some Muslim methods and lacks of real facts and arguments.

*Muhammad lived to lose all his children except one daughter (Fatima - who died some months later) - a punishment for claiming to represent Yahweh alias Allah?

Even if it had been true – even if Jeremiah had said that the Jews had perverted (though “perverted” is a stronger word than “distorted”) this did not tell one millimeter about distorting claimed old Quranic texts, like here is indicated - only Biblical ones.

Knowing that this is taken from the widely distributed and highly praised “The Message of the Quran”, canonized or at least certified by the foremost Islamic intellectual institutions in the world, cases like this gives us a bad taste on their behalf: To resort to intellectual dishonesty of this kind is distasteful - and it is humiliating for Islam when found out.

And for what reason? Just in order to be right, instead of to try to find out what is right. This in spite of the fact that the price if they are wrong, is the loss of the soul of each and every Muslim - - - if there is a Hell in the perhaps next life. Also see 2/130a, 3/24d and 3/77a below.

286 2/75c: "- - - (the Jews and Christians*) perverted it (the Quran Muhammad claimed they had received from their god, but which he claimed they had perverted into the Bible*) after they understood it". This is what Muhammad claimed about the Bible - to claim the Bible was falsified, was his only way out if he wanted to save his religion and thus his platform of power.

287 2/75d: “- - - seeing that a party of them (the Jews and/or Christians*) heard the word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it - - -.” Contradicted by the Bible (which both science and Islam have proved is not falsified) by the fact that it tells exactly what most Christians (and Jews for OT) tell it says. 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.

288 2/76a: "- - - men of Faith - - -". = Muslims - only Muslims have faith according to the Quran.

####289 2/76b: "- - - what Allah hath revealed to you - - -". This rather obscure sentence many Muslim scholar claims refer to the Islamic claim that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, here likely referred to 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 (and conveniently omitting f.x. 18/1-2 and 18/20-21). The Quran clearly states that Muhammad is mentioned on both the OT and in the Gospels (NT) and easy to find there, and then Islam HAS to find him there, because if not the Quran is wrong and a book from a god cannot be wrong - so if there is a mistake, this proves it is not from a god.

What is absolutely sure, is that Muhammad is not easy to find anywhere in the Bible - he is nowhere openly mentioned. Then Islam has to look for him in hidden places, in spite of the Quran's claim that he is easy to find both in OT and in NT. And the most frequent claim in OT is 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18, where Moses in a speech to Jews tells them that once there shall come a prophet like himself "from among their brothers". It is clear from the context that he meant from among the Jews, but Islam - the religion of the truth and the religion which claims you cannot understand the Quran unless you see the verses in context - drops the contexts and claims: "The Arabs are the brothers of the Jews - this is about Muhammad!"

We may add that they also drop a few other facts:

The word "brother" or similar is used figuratively far more than 300 times in the Bible (at least 351 times according to our latest leafing through the book), and not one of these in connection with Arabs - practically always about members of a closed group (mainly Jews in OT - a few times including their recognized relatives the Edomites - and mainly fellow Christians in NT, though in NT a few times meaning all humanity as potential Christians).

Of these the word at least is used at least 99 times in OT (see below in this comment) - also here mainly about members of a closed group: The Jews, sometimes included the Edomites as mentioned just above - and not a word about Arabs in such connections. Except for 1 reference to Lot (Abraham talking to his nephew - a very closed group) and 6 references to Edomites, which the Jews reckoned to be (distant) relatives as they were descendants of Esau, brother of Jacob and son of Isaac and thus inside the extended group, there are 5 exceptions from the rule that "brother" is about Jews in OT: The nomad Jacob talking to some shepherds (a closed group as he too was a shepherd and intended to mean "good friends"), 3 cases of one king talking to a fellow king (a very closed group) where the word means "good friends", and the sons of Ishmael who after all at that time were so closely related to the sons of Isaac, that they made a closed group (this relationship later was dismissed by the Jews for several reasons, the main of which may have been the enmity the sons of Ishmael showed towards their relatives, but also the fact that they were 3/4 Egyptian - both Ishmael's mother, Hagar (1. Mos. 16/1), and his wife (1. Mos. 20/20) were from Egypt - and thus not Jews, not to forget they were outside the covenant Yahweh made with Isaac which were to be the lasting covenant with Yahweh (1. Mos. 21/12), and also not to forget the fact that they lived so far off - near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) - that the connection for natural reasons (strengthened by their enmity) was severed and forgotten. But not one word about the slightest relationship to Arabs - this even more so as it is highly unlikely the Arabs are descendants of Ishmael, as his descendants as mentioned settled near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) and not in Arabia. (Also science tells "it is practically sure Abraham never came to Mecca" - and then Ishmael had no connection there). In addition modern DNA science has shown that what we call Arabs, was - and is - not a coherent tribe, but a mixture of people from neighboring countries who drifted into Arabia and its desert and settled there when the domestication of the camel around 3ooo-2500 BC made life for humans possible there, and later on. Before that only a few tribes lived in the coastal areas and hardly any in the desert in inland Arabia.

5. Mos. is a speech Moses made to and about his fellow Jews included some about their future. He used the words "brother/brothers" at least 31 times in his speech. With 2 exceptions (2/4 and 2/8) it is about members of the closed group the Jews - in spite of the wishful claims from Islam. Also the 2 exceptions are from a closed group including the Jews, but a somewhat extended one, as they include Edomites - descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob (Esau also was called Edom). Esau was within the linage of the covenant which according to the Bible was promised by Yahweh, as he was the son of Isaac, through whom Yahweh according to the Bible said that linage should go (1. Mos. 21/12) and thus recognized as distant relatives of the Jews. Ishmael, from which the Arabs claim (most likely wrongly, as Ishmael and his descendants as mentioned settled near the border of Egypt and not in Arabia according to the Bible 1. Mos.25/18 - and in addition was outside this linage, and once more in addition placed themselves outside the group/family (1. Mos. 25/18)) they were and even more so became members of the outside. And not one word about the slightest relationship to Arabs in all the speech or anywhere else in the whole Bible - and also nowhere in the Quran.

The word is used 3 times in 5. Mos. 18, the short chapter Islam takes its quotes from (verses 2, 15 and 18), each time clearly meaning "your fellow Jews" like nearly all the other places in his speech. Not one word about the slightest relationship to Arabs.

Worse: Arabs and Arabia is mentioned something like 15 times (see below in this comment) in OT according to our latest leafing through the book. Without exception the connection is neutral or negative or even very negative (enemies) - not one single positive connection, not to mention any close relationship, let alone brotherhood.

Even worse: The words "brother" "brethren", and "brothers" also are used figuratively at least 33 times in the Quran (see further down in this comment) - not one time linking Jews and Arabs. (There is one after a fashion exception: Hypocrites and Jews are linked - but that is something else). Also here the word is used within closed groups - like in the Bible. And not one word in all the Quran about Jews and Arabs being brothers. Not even a whisper.

Worst: Moses in his speech said "a prophet like me". But Muhammad was no real prophet. The definition of a prophet was a person who could see at least parts of the unseen, and thus a person who:

Have the gift of and close enough connection to a god for making prophesies.

Makes prophesies that always or at least mostly come true.

Makes so frequent and/or essential prophesies, that it is a clear part of his mission.

A few things Muhammad said, came true – like it has to do for any person saying many things through many years – and most of what he said which did not come true, was forgotten (also this is what normally happens if it is nothing spectacular). But he did not guess the future correctly often - actually he statistically and according to the laws of probability should have "hit the mark" far more often by sheer chance than he did - there just are a few cases where Muslims will claim he foretold something correctly, and few if any of them are "perfect hits". But then the Quran makes it pretty clear that even though he was intelligent, he had little fantasy and that he also was nearly unable to make innovative thinking. (Dearly all his tales and his ideas in reality were "borrowed" ones - though often twisted to fit his new religion. Definitely not a problem any omniscient god would have had).

The main things here are that Muhammad never indicated that anything of what he said was meant as prophesies, that he never indicated, not to mention claimed, that he had the gift of prophesying, that it nowhere is documented that all/most of what he said about the future came true (point 2 above), and finally that both he and Islam said and says that Muhammad was unable to see the unseen (extra revealing here is that the old Biblical title for a prophet, was "a seer" - one who saw the unseen (see further down)) and also that there were no miracles connected to Muhammad “except the Quran” (prophesying is a kind of miracle - seeing what has not yet happened). (This fact that Islam admits there were no miracle connected to Muhammad "except the revelation of the Quran" also is a solid proof for that all the miracles connected to Muhammad mentioned in the Hadiths, are made up stories). We also should add that his favorite wife (and infamous child wife) Aishah, according to Hadiths (f.x. Al-Bukhari) states that anyone saying Muhammad could foresee things, were wrong.

Verse 7/188b also is very relevant here: "If I (Muhammad*) had knowledge of the Unseen (= what is hidden and what has not happened yet*), I should have - - -". IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT MUHAMMAD DID NOT HAVE THE PROPHETS' ABILITY TO SEE "THE UNSEEN" - he was no real prophet.

Also relevant here is as said that the original title of the Jewish prophets was not "prophet", but "seer" - one who saw at least parts of the unseen. (F.x. 1. Sam. #9/9, 1. Sam. 9/11, 1. Sam. 9/18, 1. Sam. 9/19, 2. Kings. 17/13, 1. Chr. 9/22, 1. Chr. 26/28, 1. Chr. 29/29, 2. Chr. 9/29, 2. Chr. 16/7, 2. Chr.16/10, 2. Chr. 19/2, 2. Chr. 29/25, Amos 7/12, Mic. 3/7 - some places the two titles even are used side by side in transition periods). Muhammad thus so definitely was no seer - prophet - even according to his own words; he had no "knowledge of the unseen".

Many liked - and like - the title prophet, and there have been made other definitions for this title - the most common of these are "one who brings messages from a god", or "one who represents a god", or "one who acts/talks on behalf of a god". But the fact remains: Without being able to prophesy, he or she is no real prophet. A messenger for someone or something or himself - ok. An apostle - ok. But not a real prophet.

***This is a fact no Muslim will admit: Muhammad in reality simply was no real prophet or seer. Perhaps a messenger for someone or something or for himself – or perhaps an apostle – but not a real prophet. He only “borrowed” that impressive and imposing title. It is up to anyone to guess why. It also is anybody's guess why he more often used the far less imposing title "Messenger" - a messenger boy is something far smaller than a prophet. Did he know or suspect that it was not true, and that explanations for the lack of prophesies from a self proclaimed prophet would be difficult to explain? Like the reason why he so seldom claims he is found in the Bible, may have been that he knew or suspected it was not true?

Besides: To belong in a special line of prophets, the teachings and the prophesies of course must be in line with the other prophets in that line, because a god follows a steady course and teaching (one of the proofs for that something is wrong with the Quran - Allah changes too much back and forth in his claimed teachings, and especially so if he had been identical to Yahweh: From rather harsh up to Jesus, then mild under the new covenant, then harsher, but reasonably mild under Muhammad in Mecca, and finally a full and partly immoral and unjust war god in Medina from ca. 622 - 624 AD when Muhammad started to need warriors to gain riches (mainly for bribes) and power). If not, one either belongs to another line - another god with another teaching/religion - or one simply is a false prophet (there have been many more false prophets than real ones through the times). Muhammad's religion was far from both the OT and even much further from NT, and in addition he was unable to make prophesies - even if he had been a prophet, he is far too far from the teaching of Yahweh and Yahweh’s Jewish prophets. He is not in that line of prophets and not speaking for the same god - too much is different. The Quran simply may be one of the many apocryphal - made up - manuscripts/books more or less loosely built on biblical traditions and "adjusted" to fit the religious teaching of sects more or less distant from the mother religion - the Quran in case is one of the more distant ones.

Also see 30/40h below.

The claim in reality is logical rubbish and taken far out of the context. But it is the only "real" claim they try to cling to (there are some others, but they are even more far out) - they have to, because if not the Quran is wrong and thus not from a god and Islam a made up religion. Also see the chapter "Muhammad in the Bible" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - https://www.1000mistakes.com - and 2/77a and 7/157e below.

If the Quran simply belongs among the apocryphal books, many things are easy to understand, and it at least belongs in that line and tradition, even if it is further "out" than most of the others. Muhammad also fits the picture of the leader of an apocryphal sect, admittedly more immoral and bloody than most of the others.

The word "brother", "brothers", "brotherhood" used figuratively in OT:

1. Mos. 13/8: Abraham said so to Lot, his nephew. A much closed group.

2(?) 1. Mos. 25/18: Ishmael’s sons lived in hostility to "all their brothers". This may mean they fought each other or that they were hostile to the Jews - in both cases they at this time were members of a much closed group: Close relatives Ishmael was the brother of Isaac. From the context we think the latter meaning is intended. But this relationship for several reasons over time drifted into nothing. It also is highly unlikely the Arabs are descendants of Ishmael, as the only somewhat reliable source about these - the Bible - tells they settled near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) and not in Arabia (not to mention in Mecca). Also science says "it is practically sure that Abraham never was in Mecca" - so Ishmael had no connection that way, too. And not least: Ishmael and his descendant were outside the covenant between the Jews and Yahweh - a covenant made to Isaac (1. Mos.21/12). At the time the Books of Moses were written - at least 1000 years before Muhammad - there also was no reason for the writer to place Ishmael and his sons a wrong place.

3 1. Mos. 29/4: Here in the meaning "dear friends" indicating peaceful intention. The nomad Jacob to some fellow shepherds.

4 3. Mos. 21/10: Fellow Jews - fellow priests even.

5 4. Mos. 20/3: Fellow Jews.

6 4. Mos. 20/14: Moses to the Edomites (= fellow descendants of Isaac and reckoned to be (distant) relatives of the Jews).

7 5. Mos. 1/16: Fellow Jews.

8 5. Mos. 1/16: Fellow Jews ("brother Israelites").

9 5. Mos. 1/28: Fellow Jews (the spies into Canaan).

10 5. Mos. 2/4: Edomites - fellow descendants of Isaac.

11 5. Mos. 2/8: Edomites - fellow descendants of Isaac.

12 5. Mos. 3.18: Fellow Jews ("brother Israelites").

13 5. Mos. 3/20: Fellow Jews.

14 5. Mos. 10/9: Fellow Jews - the 11 other tribes of Jews are the brothers of the Levites (12. tribe).

15 5. Mos. 15/2: Fellow Jew "- - - fellow Israelite or brother - - -" = fellow Jew = brother.

16 5. Mos. 15/7: Fellow Jews ("your (Jewish*) brothers").

17 5. Mos. 15/7: Fellow Jews ("your poor brother (Jew*)").

18 5. Mos. 15/9: Fellow Jews (your needy (Jewish*) brother).

19 5. Mos. 15/11: Fellow Jews.

20 5. Mos. 17/15: Fellow Jew (their king had to be "from among your own brothers" = a Jew).

21 5. Mos. 17/15: Fellow Jew (take no king who is not a Jew - "not a brother Israelite").

22 5. Mos. 18/2: Fellow Jews (Levites "shall have no inheritance among their brothers" - among the 11 other Jewish tribes).

23 5. Mos. 18/15: Fellow Jew ("a prophet like me (Moses*) from among your own brothers" - note the similarity of the expression with f.x. 17/15 and 18/2 - also see the texts of the two under 17/15).

24 5. Mos. 18/18: Fellow Jew ("a prophet like you (Moses*) from among their own brothers". Identical to 18/15, except here Yahweh is speaking.

25 5. Mos. 19/18: Fellow Jew - this is from Moses' speech to and about his Jews like all in 5. Mos.

26 5. Mos. 19/19: Fellow Jew - see 19/18 just above.

27 5. Mos. 20/8: Fellow Jew.

28 5. Mos. 22/1: Fellow Jew.

29 5. Mos. 22/2: Fellow Jew.

30 5. Mos. 22/3: Fellow Jew.

31 5. Mos. 22/4: Fellow Jew.

32 5. Mos. 23/7: Edomites - see 4.Mos 20/14 above.

33 5. Mos. 23/19: Fellow Jew.

34 5. Mos. 23/20: Fellow Jew ("a brother Israelite").

35 5. Mos. 24/7: Fellow Jew ("his brother Israelite").

36 5. Mos. 25/3: Fellow Jew.

 

37 5. Mos. 33/16: Fellow Jews ("Joseph" here means the tribe - actually the 2 half-tribes Manasseh and Ephraim - and thus figurative meaning).

38 5. Mos. 33/24: Fellow Jews - the other 11 Jewish tribes.

39 Joshua 1/14: Fellow Jews - ahead of the other Jews.

40 Joshua 1/14: Fellow Jews - help other Jews.

41 Joshua 14/8: Fellow Jews - the other spies to Canaan.

42 Joshua 22/3: Fellow Jews.

43 Joshua 22/4: Fellow Jews.

44 Joshua 22/7: Fellow Jews.

45 Joshua 22/8: Fellow Jews.

46 Judges 1/3: Fellow Jews (the tribe of Simonites were the "brothers" of the tribe of Judah.

47 Judges 1/17: Fellow Jews - see Judges 1/3 just above.

48 Judges 9/3: Fellow Jews - Abimelech was the "brother" of the people in Shechem.

50 Judges 9/18: Fellow Jews - see Judges 9/3 just above.

51 Judges 18/8: Fellow Jews - other members of the Jewish tribe Dan.

52 Judges 18/14: Fellow Jews - see Judges 18/8 just above.

53 Judges 20/23: Fellow Jews - Benjamites were the brothers of the other 11 Jewish tribes.

54 Judges 20/28: Fellow Jews - see Judges 20/23 just above.

55 Judges 21/6: Fellow Jews - see Judges 20/23 above.

56 1. Sam. 30/23: Fellow Jews - David's men.

57 2. Sam. 1/26: Fellow Jew - a close Jewish friend of David.

58 2. Sam. 2/26: Fellow Jews.

59 2. Sam. 2/27: Fellow Jews.

60 2. Sam. 19/12: Fellow Jews.

61 2. Sam. 19/41: Fellow Jews - the Judah tribe was the brother of the other Jewish tribes.

62 2. Sam. 20/9: Fellow Jew.

63 1. Kings 9/13: An exception: Greetings between 2 kings - but a closed group: Kings.

64 1. Kings 12/24: Fellow Jews.

65 1. Kings 13/30: Fellow Jew.

66 1. Kings 20/32: Similar to 1. Kings 9/13.

67 1. Kings 20/32: Similar to 1. Kings 9/13.

68 1. Chr. 13/2: Fellow Jews.

69 1. Chr. 15/16: Fellow Jews - fellow Levites actually.

70 1. Chr. 15/17: Fellow Jews (fellow Levites).

71 1. Chr. 15/17: Fellow Jews - the Merarites of Levi.

72 1. Chr. 15/18: Fellow Jews.

73 1. Chr. 23/30: Fellow Jews (fellow Levites).

74 1. Chr. 24/31: Fellow Jews (fellow Levites).

75 1. Chr. 24/31: Fellow Jew (fellow Levite).

76 1. Chr. 28/2: Fellow Jews - David's men and underlings.

77 2. Chr. 11/4: Fellow Jews.

78 2. Chr. 19/10: Fellow Jews.

79 2. Chr. 29/15: Fellow Jews (fellow Levites).

80 2. Chr. 30/7: Fellow Jews.

81 Ezra 3/8: Fellow Jews.

82 Ezra 6/20: Fellow Jews (the priests).

83 Ezra 7/18: Fellow Jews ("your brother Jews").

84 Ezra 8/24: Fellow Jews.

85 Nehemiah 5/1: Fellow Jews ("their Jewish brothers").

86 Nehemiah 5/8: Fellow Jews ("our Jewish brothers").

87 Nehemiah 5/8: Fellow Jews.

88 Nehemiah 10/29: Fellow Jews.

89 Nehemiah 13/13: Fellow Jews.

90 Isaiah 66/5: Fellow Jews (must be Jews as believing in Yahweh, at least officially).

91 Isaiah 66/20: Fellow Jews - bringing them from other countries they have lived.

92 Jeremiah 7/15: Fellow Jews - from the Jewish tribe Ephraim.

93 Jeremiah 22/18: Fellow Jews.

94 Ezekiel 11/14: Fellow Jews - your brothers included all Israel.

95 Hosea 2/1: Fellow Jews.96 Amos 1/11: Edom (descendants of Esau - see 4. Mos. 20/14 above) will be punished for sins against Jews.

97 Obadiah 1/12: Similar to Amos 1/11 just above.

 

98 Micah 5/5: Fellow Jews.

99 Zech. 10/14: Fellow Jews - Judah and Israel (the southern and the northern Jewish country).

There may be a few more. For one thing we may have overlooked one or a few, and for another there are a number of cases where it is not clear whether it is meant literary or figurative, and these cases we have omitted if we were not pretty sure it was meant figuratively.

Also worth noticing here is that the few times - f.x. only 2 in Moses' speech = 5. Mos. - when Jews are not intended, the intended group always are named or clearly indicated. No Arab are named or intended anywhere in his speech - or anywhere else neither in the Bible nor in the Quran in such connection.

Are anybody able to find Arab brothers of the Jews here? - especially when you know there are no such ones also in the Quran, and that the some 15 times Arabs and Arabia are mentioned in OT, they either are mentioned in neutral words, in negative words, or as enemies, and never as friends, not to mention close friends or relatives.

In the Quran the word "brother"/"brothers"/"brethren"/"brotherhood" is used figuratively at least these places:

01 2/220: Fellow Muslims (orphans).

02 3/103: Fellow Muslims.

03 3/156: Fellow non-Muslims.

04 3/168: Fellow Muslims (but some of them hypocrites).

05 5/106: Fellow Muslims.

06 7/65: Fellow members of the 'Ad tribe.

07 7/73: Fellow members of the Thamud tribe.

08 7/85: Fellow members of the Madyan tribe.

09 7/202: Fellow non-Muslims.

10 9/11: Fellow Muslims.

11 11/50: Fellow members of the 'Ad tribe.

12 11/61: Fellow members of the Thamud tribe.

13 11/84: Fellow members of the Madyan tribe.

14 15/47: Fellow Muslims in Paradise.

15 17/27: Spendthrifts = brothers of Satan.

16 21/92a: Fellow Muslims.

17 21/92b: Fellow Muslims.

18 26/106: Fellow members of Noah's tribe.

19 26/124: Fellow members of the 'Ad tribe.

 

20 26/142: Fellow members of the Thamud tribe.

 

21 26/161: Fellow members of "Lot's people" (he was not of them, but the rule all the same is valid as the Quran pretends he was).

22 27/45: Fellow member of the Thamud tribe.

23 29/26: Fellow member of the Madyan tribe.

24 33/5: Fellow Muslims.

25 33/6: Fellow Muslims.

26 33/18: Fellow Muslims - though hardly the strongest believers.

27 46/21: Fellow members of the 'Ad tribe.

28 49/10a: Fellow Muslims.

29 49/10b: Fellow Muslims.

30 49/12: Fellow Muslim.

31 50/13: See 26/161 above.

32 59/10: Fellow Muslims.

33 59/11: Hypocrites are the brothers of Jews and Christians.

Also in the Quran there are some cases where it is unclear whether the word is meant literally or figuratively. We have omitted the ones where we are not reasonably sure it is meant figuratively.

As you see it nearly always is talk of members of a closed group - like in the Bible. The only two exceptions are spendthrifts who are brothers of Satan/Iblis - impossible to read like "the Arabs are the brothers of the Jews" - and "hypocrites are the brothers of the Jews, the Christians and the Sabeans" ("the People of the Book") - also very difficult to read like "the Arabs are the brothers of the Jews".

To complete the lacking connection between "brother" and "Arabs":

The word "Arab" or similar is not at all mentioned in the 5 Books of Moses (except that he lived in Midian/Madyan some years - Midian is on the Arab peninsula). But you can find it at least these places in OT:

Judges 6/1: Midianites (if you here read "Arabs") (enemies of the Jews).

1. Kings 10/15 (revenue to King Solomon).

2. Chr. 9/14 (revenue - tax? - to King Solomon).

2. Chr. 17/11 (tribute to King Jehoshaphat of Jerusalem).

2. Chr. 21/16 (enemies of the Jews).

2. Chr. 22/1 (enemies of the Jews).

Neh. 2/19 (enemies of the Jews).

Neh. 4/7 (enemies of the Jews).

Neh. 6/1 (enemies of the Jews).

Isaiah 13/20 (just mentioned - in a neutral way).

Isaiah 21/13 (a prophesy against Arabia).

Isaiah 21/14 (from the same prophesy against Arabia as just above).

Jer. 25/24 (the kings of Arabia must drink the cup of Yahweh's Wrath).

Ez. 27/21 (made business with the city of Tyre).

 

Ez. 30/5 (another prophesy against Arabia).

All together 15 times, always either in neutral words, in negative words or in strongly negative words (enemies). There nowhere any hint of friendship, not to mention brotherhood. As bad: Also in the Quran there are nowhere any words about brotherhood between Jews and Arabs, as shown above.

####There only is one conclusion possible: The Arab brothers in Moses' speech to and about his fellow Jews, is a made up claim invented by Islam to save their "holy" book and their religion. To be right is more essential to Islam and its leaders, than to find out what is really the truth, and al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) is an ok means to use. This no matter what price all Muslims will have to pay if there is a next life and the Quran is a made up book and Islam thus a made up religion - and the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is from no god to say the least of it.

290 2/76c: "- - - that they (non-Muslims*) can engage you (Muhammad/Muslims*) in arguments - - -". How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" and thus copied n the Quran? See 2/51b above.

291 2/76d: "- - -do ye (Muslims*) not understand (their (non-Muslims'*) aim)?" What is indicated here, is that non-Muslims just try to cheat you to leave Islam, not to tell you the truth. This even today is what many Muslims believe.

292 2/77a: "Know they not that Allah knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal?". This is a rather obscure verse, but Muslims frequently claim it is about the old Islamic claim that Muhammad was mentioned in the Bible, but that the Jews and the Christians have falsified it or at other points refuse to see what they claim is the real, though obscure, meaning of some verses in the book. Once more the old facts:

1. Islam has not one single valid proof for Allah - it does not exist, even though uneducated or dishonest Muslims often try to claim the opposite. Serious Muslim scholars admit this, though they normally do not tell their congregations.

2. Islam has not one single valid proof for Muhammad's connection to a god - which is the likely reason why they cling so strongly to the claimed "miracles" connected to Muhammad in the Hadiths, even though the Quran very clearly proves Muhammad was not connected to any miracle (then friends and foes did not have to ask for proofs, and he himself did not have to explain away his/Allah's lack of miracles - even the learned scholars of Islam admits that "the only miracle connected to Muhammad, is the Quran". The lack of proof for his connection to a god, also is a main reason why Muslims reacts so strongly to skepticism to Muhammad - he is the weak link in Islam, but if this link is broken, Islam is a false religion. They thus cannot afford the slightest doubts about Muhammad or his integrity. After all for Islam belief is more essential than to find out if the belief may be true.

3. Muslims feel dire need to find proofs for both Allah and for Muhammad's connection to a god. No matter how strong the belief, it is not the same as a proof.

4. In addition the Quran in clear words tells that Muhammad is foretold both in OT and NT, and then Muslims HAVE to find him no matter what or how - if not something is wrong with the Quran and hence with the religion.

5. It is very clear that Muhammad is not openly mentioned anywhere in the Bible - not even Muslims claim that.

 

6. Consequently they go searching for him hidden in the texts - and it is so urgent for them to find him, that wishful thinking is far more central than objectivity.

For more see separate chapter in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com .Also see 2/76b above and 7/157e below..

293 2/77b: "Know they not that Allah knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal?" This also may instead be the warning you often meet in the Quran: Do not try to cheat - Allah sees everything. Also see 2/233h above and 35/38b below..

284 2/78a: "There are among them (non-Muslims*) illiterates, who know not the Book (in this case may be the Bible*), but (see therein their own) desires - - -". The Quran forgets(?) to mention that this also was the case for many a "Muslim" - Muhammad's bribes and the possibility of looting/stealing/raping/enslaving for many a warrior counted as much as real belief - often more.

295 2/78b: "- - - they (illiterate non-Muslims*) do nothing but conjecture". Perhaps. But are illiterate - and literate - Muslims any better? As a book full of errors like the Quran is not from any god, what are the Muslims then doing?

*296 2/79a: “Then woe to those who write the Book (here the Bible?*) with their own hands - - -.” See 2/75b, 2/76b and 2/77a above and especially 2/130a and 7/157e below. (And as no god made a book with so many mistaken facts and other mistakes like you find in the Quran: What if it is a falsification, only said to be from Allah? - is it then "Woe to" Muhammad? - he f.x. got nearly no (7) children with all his wives and other women (at least 36) and lost nearly all (6) the few children he got - only one daughter (Fatime) survived him, and only by a short time. "Woe to Muhammad"? And also there is no proof for whether he ended in Hell or Paradise - if such ones exist.)

*297 2/79b: “Then woe to those who write the Book (here the Bible?*) with their own hands - - -.” Contradicting at least parts of the Bible, as for parts of it the book itself tells who are the writers (and for the rest both science and Islam has proved it is not falsified, which is what this verse claims. But claims about falsifications was Muhammad's only way out to save his religion and thus his platform of power - and as known Muhammad was not too strong on honesty (al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie - Kitman - the lawful half-truth - deception, and even the breaking of words/oaths).

298 2/79c: "- - - those who write the Book (here the Bible?) with their own hands - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative and distaste inducing - for Muslims - names for non-Muslims.

299 2/79d: "- - - write the Book (here the Bible) with their own hands - - -". = Falsify the Bible, like Muhammad claimed had happened - as normal without the slightest documentation as basis for his claim. The only way he could save his religion and platform of power, when it turned out that the Bible far from said what he claimed.

300 2/79e: "- - - write the Book (here the Bible) with their own hands - - -". This claim about falsification is contradicted by the Bible itself - the texts are the same as in the original scriptures (with exception for divergences normal for hand copied old scriptures). 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.

301 2/79f: "- - - to traffic it (the claimed falsified Quran - f.x. the Bible*) for a miserable price". See 3/77a and 2/130a below.

302 2/80a: "And they say: 'The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days'". How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before, and thus copied n the Quran? See 2/51b above.

303 2/80a: "The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days". Muhammad here is misquoting the catholic dogma of Purgatory. It is not a question of days to say the least of it. On the other hand he for once perhaps were right in his real or made up skepticism, as this dogma is not from the Bible (but in case he only was partly right, as you find this just in parts of Christianity).

304 2/80b: "- - - He (Allah) never breaks a promise - - -". As long as there is not documented one single promise in 1400 years clearly from Allah, it is no wonder if he has broken none. But there also is not one single clearly proved case of Allah keeping a promise. (Guess if Islam had advertised it if it had happened!!)

305 2/80c: "Or is it that ye (non-Muslims*) say of Allah what ye do not know?". All the mistakes, etc. in the Quran may indicate that know was just what they did.

306 2/81a: "- - - those who seek gain in Evil - - -". One of Muhammad's many distaste and stronger inducing names for non-Muslims. But see 2/82b just below.

307 2/81b: "- - - Evil - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. It f.x. was - and is - very evil not to go to war to steal, rob, extort, enslave, and kill for Allah/Muhammad.

308 2/81c: "- - - companions of the Fire - - -". Non-Muslims bound for Hell. Also see 2/99f, 8/55b and 57/27f below.

309 2/81d: "- - - the Fire - - -". Hell.

310 2/81e: "- - - therein (Hell*) they (non-Muslims*)shall abide forever". If the Quran tells the full and only truth - - - except that some verses (6/128a, 11/107b, 43/74d, 51/13c, 78/23) in the Quran may indicate that there is a time limit for Hell, at least for Muslims, those of them who all the same ended in Hell. This point is unclear, though. (11/108c may indicate the same for the Quran's paradise.)

311 2/82a: "- - - those who have faith - - -". Muslims.

312 2/82b: "- - - righteousness - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

313 2/82c: "- - - therein (Heaven*) shall they (good Muslims*) abide (for ever)". If Allah exists. If Allah is behind the Quran. And if the Quran tells the full and only truth at least on this point. And not to forget: 11/108c may indicate it is not quite forever - an unsolved question for Islam, which they, however, have managed to flee from by claiming this in case just means they will be transferred to an even better place, something which is not said in the Quran.

314 2/83a: "- - - the Children of Israel - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/121a above and 4/13d below.

315 2/83b: "- - - worship none but Allah - - -". A strong contradiction to the Bible, which says "none but Yahweh". This contradiction clearly arises from the fact that Muhammad (wrongly - the main thoughts and ideas are too different in the Quran compared to the Bible, and especially compared to NT and its New Covenance (f.x. Luke 22/20)) claimed Yahweh just was another name for Allah.

316 2/83c: "- - - treat with kindness - - - orphans - - -". One of Islam's positive sides is its care for orphans - frequently mentioned in the Quran, perhaps because Muhammad was an orphan himself (his father died before he was born, his mother when he was 6).

317 2/83d: "- - - treat with kindness - - - those in need - - - and practice regular charity". The Quran's point of view on charity is a plus-point. This point is, however, blunted by the fact that the main thing is to gain merit in heaven, not empathy with the needy fellow human being, and by the fact that you gain as much merit from helping your own family members as from helping strangers. (At least from Scandinavia it has been reported in the papers that Muslims give little or nothing to international help/relief work - with the possible exception of to pure Muslim organizations working among Muslims.)

318 2/83e: "Then did ye (Jews*) turn back - - -" = Leave the Islam alone. Most likely the claim refers to that Jews would not accept Muhammad, which is claimed to mean leaving the real religion the Jews once believed in - - - according to Muhammad's claims - as always never any proofs for his claims. (Remember here that Islam never has brought one single valid proof for falsification of the old Jewish scriptures or the Bible - only claims. Whereas science has proved beyond any reasonable and unreasonable doubt that nothing is falsified. This also Islam has done by never having found one single documented falsification among the some 44ooo relevant old documents).

219 2/85a: "After this it is ye (Jews*) - - - who slay among yourselves - - -. How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before, and thus copied n the Quran? See 2/51b above.

320 2/85b: "- - - the same people (Jews*), who slay among yourselves - - -". When Muhammad arrived in Medina, the town was in a permanent state of civil war, and with Jews on both sides of the fighting. Thus it could happen that Jew fought - and killed - Jew (actually also the Bible has a number of cases where Jews fought Jews). But how come that this is told in a book claimed to be written long time before - may be even existed since eternity - if man has free will? The moment the book was written, on-one could change his mind or anything about anything - f.x. agree with the enemy to stop fighting - because then the book would be wrong - - - and thus free will for man cannot exist - or full clairvoyance and omniscience for Allah cannot exist.

But NB: Also the Arabs fought among themselves.

321 2/85ba: "- - - grievous penalty". See 3/77b below.

322 2/85c: "For Allah is not unmindful of what ye (people*) do". The carrot and the stick - be good and obedient and go to Paradise, or be bad or disobedient to Muhammad and end in Hell. Remember here that "good" and "bad" is meant according to the Quran's partly immoral moral code - it f.x. was/is very good to steal/rob, extort, suppress, enslave, destroy and kill in the name of Allah for Muhammad/Allah, and give Muhammad his 20%, but very bad to refuse this. (Actually such misdeeds are even more disgusting when done in the name of and as a sermon/service to a god - and we do not tell what we mean about people or a religion calling this a good and benevolent god, as we do not use that kind of words).

323 2/85d: Un-Arabic word: qiaama - from qymt, Syriac = “resurrection“. (also 2/113, numerous times).

324 2/86a: "These are the people who buy the life of this world at the price of the Hereafter - - -". This is one of Muhammad’s standard claims: People who will not believe in him, do so because they are bad or stupid. It also explains why many of them lived a better life than many Muslims - they had "bought" a good life on Earth on the expense of the next life. So be comforted - they will be punished and you win in the next life.

325 2/86b: "- - - their (see 2/86a just above*) penalty shall not be lightened - - -". See 3/77b below.

326 2/87a: “We (Allah*) gave Moses the Book - - -”. A contradiction of the Bible, which tells that Moses only got the 10 commandments. In addition he was told the laws, which he later wrote down, and which even later became parts of what was named "the Books of Moses".

227 2/87b: “We (Allah*) gave Moses the Book - - -”. See 2/53a above.

328 2/87c: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly - see 2/136i above and 4/13d below.

*329 2/87d: “We (the god*) gave Jesus - - - clear (signs) - - -”. Yes, if the Bible speaks the truth, Jesus had clear signs. But the Jew Jesus was speaking about the Jewish (and Christian) god Yahweh. Now Muslims like to tell that Allah and Yahweh is the same god, but that is not possible unless that god is mentally ill. There is so big difference between Yahweh, especially as we meet him in NT and its New Covenant - f.x. Luke 22/20 (the teachings on which the Christian religion is based), and the hard and bloody and unforgiving warrior god we meet especially in the some 22-24 surahs from Medina, that it is not possible it can be the same one - not unless he at least is deeply schizophrenic.

330 2/87e: "- - - Jesus the son of Mary - - -". See 5/110a below.

331 2/87f: "- - - Jesus - - -". A historical anomaly - see 2/136j above and 4/13d below.

332 2/87g: "- - - the Holy Spirit." This is one of the places the Holy Spirit is clearly mentioned in the Quran (at least here and in 2/253, 5/110, 16/102, 17/85, and 26/193 - the last one not 100% sure, though). All the same Muhammad believed the trinity consisted of God/Yahweh, Jesus and Mary!! Also beware that many Muslims who has not read the Bible, believe the Holy Spirit = the arch angel Gabriel (Gabriel was said to bring Muhammad messages, the Holy Spirit was said a few times to bring Muhammad messages - ergo the Spirit = Gabriel. You also other places in Islamic literature will see that not all Muslims have studied the laws of logic.) Anyone who reads the Bible with an open mind, will see that the Holy Spirit is something special.

333 2/88a: "They (the Jews in Medina*) say: "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah's Word; we need no more)". The big problem here for Muhammad was that the Jews knew their old scriptures, and saw that so much was wrong in Muhammad's teachings and what he claimed the Bible said, compared to what the old scriptures really said, that they understood something was very wrong. Because of this they did not want his teachings - a fact Muhammad had to explain away, like here where he claims the reason is that they are bad people simply.

334 2/88b: "They (the Jews in Medina*) say: "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah's Word; we need no more)". How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before, and thus copied n the Quran? See 2/51b above.

335 2/88c: "Nay, Allah’s curse is on them (non-Muslims, here likely the Jews of Medina*) for their blasphemy: little do they believe". The Quran here claims that the reason why they did not believe in Muhammad, was that Allah had cursed them - psychologically a much better story for Muhammad to tell his followers than the plain reality: The Jews understood from their knowledge of the old scriptures how wrong Muhammad's teachings and his claim that Yahweh and Allah was the same god were. As everyone knows, Muhammad claimed that the discrepancies between the Torah, etc. and the Quran were because the Jews and Christians had falsified the books - his only possible way out if he wanted to save his religion and his own position. Science and even more so Islam later have proved this claim wrong by being unable to prove one single falsification among literally tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts (the numbers wary some, but some 300 Gospels or fragments of Gospels, some 12ooo scriptures or fragments from the Bible, and some 32ooo other manuscripts with quotes from the Bible, all older than 610 AD when Muhammad started his new religion, and there thus was a reason for falsifying Muhammad and his teachings out - Islam has been unable to prove any point at all in them falsified. Like so often with Islam, there have been - and are - claims, but only claims. (If there had been real proofs, the world had been told about it frequently and in big letters.)

336 2/88d: "- - - blasphemy - - -". To disbelieve in the Quran is not blasphemy unless Allah really exists and is a major god, and unless the Quran really is a holy book telling the truth, not a perhaps made up book - at least not from a god - full of mistakes.("Perhaps" because it may - may - genuinely come from supernatural sources, but in case from dark forces with all its partly immoral moral, lack of ethics and empathy, etc. which corresponds well to f. ex. arts of the Quran's moral code.)

337 2/88e: "- - - little do they (Jews*) believe". Wrong. They really did believe, but in the old scriptures, not in Muhammad's new religion. Something which was far from strange as they saw how different the two religions were, in spite of Muhammad's claims that they were the same religion and the same god. And many proved their beliefs by fleeing or meeting death, rather than accepting the new religion.

*338 2/89a: “And when there comes to them (Jews in Medina*) a Book (the Quran*) from Allah - - -”. A book with that many mistakes, contradictions, invalid “proofs” etc., is not from an omniscient god.

*339 2/89b: “- - - (a Book (the Quran*)) confirming what is with them (Jews and Christians*) (the Torah and the Bible) - - -”, which means that the Quran claims to confirm the Torah and other holy Jewish scriptures and the rest of the Bible. But too many fundamental principles and thoughts are different - the Quran is no confirmation of neither the Torah, etc., nor of the Bible, not to mention of the New Testament (NT) on which the Christian religion is built. F.x. “You shall not kill” vs. “You shall not kill without a good reason”, the value of and finding again “the lost sheep”, vs. “You shall not mourn the wrongdoers that ends in Hell”, “Love your enemy” vs. “Kill the enemy wherever you find him”, and “Love your enemy” vs. incitement to and orders for war and hate and discrimination of “infidels”, just to mention some of the deep differences. Not to mention “my empire is not of this world” and "give onto God what belongs to God, and onto the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor" - the last meaning money (f.x. Matt.22/21) - (translated from Swedish), compared to: Fight for Allah and Muhammad till all non-Muslims "are utterly suppressed and pay extra tax - jizya - with willing submission". The same god? - you bet! Also see the chapter in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" about this and about if Yahweh and Allah are the same god.

In addition there are three more points telling that the Bible is not related to the Quran (even if the Quran has taken much stuff from the Bible (even though often only made up stuff from legends and fairy tales just inspired from the Bible):

The style and composition are very different. For the Bible to be a falsified version of the Quran or the claimed "mother book" in Heaven, it could not only have been falsified - it had to be totally re-written.

The Bible contains some 4 times as much stuff as the Quran. Thus the Bible thus cannot just be a falsification of the Quran, but has in original much stuff the Quran do not touch - a totally different book, not a falsified copy.

The Bible has lots and lots of prophesies, the Quran hardly any real one (even the one about Jesus telling that a prophet named Ahmad - Muhammad - is to be expected, is of the typically helpless kind you get from sly brains with too little knowledge (here overdone by using an unmistakeable name, which no Jewish prophet ever did when foretelling distant future*)). Even more: Many of the prophesies in the Bible were fulfilled, and this after the stories were written down - the falsifiers had to be good prophets themselves?. (Especially points 1 and 3 are heavyweights here.)

Also see 2/89c and 2/89d below.

340 2/89c: “- - - (a Book (the Quran*)) confirming what is with them (Jews and Christians*) (the Torah and the Bible) - - -”. The contents of the Bible - and especially the NT - is so different from the Quran, that it contradicts this claim. Yhe never documented claim from Muhammad also is thoroughly proved wrong by science and even more so by Islam - none of them has been able to find one single proved falsification among some 44ooo relevant manuscripts and fragments. Nobody also have been able to explain how so many papers spread over 3 continents could be falsified in exactly the same way, and in such a way that modern science is unable to find any traces of any falsification - - - or how to make Jews and Christians agree on how to falsify OT!

341 2/89d: "- - - that which they (Jews, Christians*) (should) have recognized - - -". This is contradicted by the fact that the texts of the Bible are so fundamentally different from in the Quran, that it only is possible to recognize very superficial likenesses. 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.

342 2/89e: "- - - those without Faith - - -". = Non-Muslims - only Muslims have faith according to the Quran (though as Muhammad here speaks about Jews, he may mean their holy scriptures, but in what he claimed was the original, not falsified forms of those scriptures). Also see 2/99f, 8/55b and 57/27f below.

343 2/89f: “- - - when there comes to them (Jews in Medina*) that (texts which later became the Quran, from Muhammad*) which they should have recognized (indicating they should have recognized the texts from Muhammad in their OT/Torah) - - -". Wrong – the underlying basic thinking and lots and lots of details are so different, that the only thing possible to recognize, is that something is very wrong. Also the books themselves seen as totalities are so very different that there are nearly no similarities between them, except for that some of the stories in them superficially are alike. The same god? - only the low-intelligentsia is able to ask that question (if the god is not seriously mentally ill).

344 2/89g: “- - - when there comes to them (Jews in Medina*) that (texts texts later became the Quran*) which they should have recognized - - -". Some Muslims wants also this to refer to the claim that 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 talks about Muhammad. See 2/75b, 2/76b, 2/77a above and not least 7/157e below.

345 2/89h: “Allah is the enemy to those who reject Faith”. Whereas Yahweh leaves his flock in a safe place to try to save the lost ones. Quite a difference between the two books. And between the two claimed gods.

346 2/89i: "- - - but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith". What then with all the Muslims if the Quran is a made up book and Islam thus no real religion/faith? - and it is not from any god with all those mistakes, contradictions, etc. In that case they have no real faith, only superstition. But if Allah does not exist, he cannot punish anyone. On the other hand: If there then exists a real god and a real Paradise somewhere, Muslims do not belong there either.

347 2/89j: "- - - those without Faith - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative - to Muslims - names for non-Muslims. Also see 2/99f, 8/55b and 57/27f below.

348 2/90a: "Miserable is the price for which they (here likely the Jews*) have sold their souls - - -". Muhammad claimed non-Muslims did not want to listen to him because they had falsified the scriptures and in addition wanted a good life on Earth, and thus that they had "sold" the life in Paradise in a next life for a good life on Earth. Also see 3/77a below.

349 2/90b: "- - - sold their souls - - -". Contradicted at least by the Bible which claims that the Bible will save their souls. 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.

350 2/90c: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) deny (the revelation) which Allah has sent down (= the Quran)- - -". No god sent down a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, etc.

351 2/90d: "- - - (the revelation) - - -". were they really revelations, and in case from whom? As no god would be involved in a book of that quality, only 2-3 possibilities in case remain: From a dark force or a fictive one from an illness (f. ex. TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy - like modern medical science suspects). It of course also can have come from a cold, scheming brain, but in that case it was no revelation.

As for Iblis - the Devil - being behind the revelations(?) we personally are skeptical to that, even though the very special "moral" code, etc. in the Quran may indicate this. The reason is that not even a devil would use a book with that much wrong contents as the basis for his teachings - he had to know he would be found out sooner or later. There is a possibility, though, if the god only permitted the devil to launch his book on the condition that there should be so many mistakes, etc., that man should have a reasonable chance to see the trap if he used his "small grey ones". As for the delivery that would make no problem - Muhammad would have no chance to see the difference between the real Gabriel which he in this case never met, and the Devil dressed up like Gabriel.

And then of course there remains the possibility that the Quran is a pure human product. This in reality is the most likely explanation - strongly indicated f.x. by the fact that many of the errors are in accordance with human knowledge in Arabia and its surroundings at the time of Muhammad.)

352 2/90e: "- - - they deny (the revelation) which Allah has sent down, in insolent envy that Allah of His Grace should send it to (a not Jew*) - - -". Muhammad claimed that one reason why the Jews did not believe in him, was that they disliked that a non-Jew had been sent as a prophet. The real reason was that there were so many and so fundamental differences between Muhammad's teachings, and the Jews not falsified (according to modern science) books, that they saw that it impossibly could be the same religion - and this even before Islam really had become a war religion.

353 2/90f: "- - - His (Allah's*) servants (here included Muhammad*) - - -". Hardly. See 63/5a below. (Servant here is synonymous with messenger).

354 2/90g: "- - - thus they (here the local Jews mainly*) have they drawn on themselves Wrath upon Wrath". Correct - Muhammad's wrath. He made them flee or enslaved or killed them a few years later.

355 2/90h: "And humiliating is the punishment of those who rejects Faith". See 3/77b below.

356 2/90h: "And humiliating is the punishment of those who rejects Faith". Strongly contradicted by the Bible, which claims that the Bible represents the faith leading to salvage. 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.

357 2/90i: "- - - Faith - - -". The word "fait" in the Quran always means Islam.

358 2/91a: “Believe in what Allah hath sent down (= the Quran*)”. Is it really Allah that has sent down a book with so many mistaken facts? Simply no - not if he was omniscient.

359 2/91b: "We (the Jews of Media*) believe in what was sent down to us". = the Torah and the other old scriptures (= OT and some more).

360 2/91c: “- - - yet they (the Jews of Medina*) reject all besides - - -". = They rejected Muhammad's new religion. Not strange as he in his naive lack of knowledge claimed it was the same religion, whereas they easily saw how different the Mosaic (Jewish*) religion was from Muhammad's new one. (Christians saw it even easier, but there were not many Christians in Medina.)

361 2/91d: “- - - yet they (the Jews of Medina*) reject all besides, even if it be the Truth (the Quran*)”. A book with so many mistaken facts is at best only partly the truth. Also see 13/1g and 40/75 below.

362 2/91e: “- - - yet they (the Jews of Medina*) reject all besides, even if it be the Truth (the Quran*)”.How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before? See 2/51b above.

363 2/91f: "- - - Truth (the Quran/Islam*) - - -". The contents of the Bible clearly contradicts the claim that the Quran and thus Islam is the truth.- the fundamentals of the teachings are so different, that the Quran cannot be the truth if the Bible is so - and remember that both science and Islam have proved that the Bible is not falsified, the "explanation" Muslims normally use for the differences between the two books. The teachings, morality, etc. not to mention the gods, are so different that it is not possible that the Quran can represent the truth, if the Bible is true - and the Bible and also Yahweh after all to some extent are proved if the old texts are reliable, whereas for the Quran and Allah exactly nothing of the central claims are proved. In addition there also is the impertinent fact that the ones who overuse words like "truth" and similar words like what is done in Muhammad's book, are the cheats and charlatans and deceivers.

364 2/91g: “- - - confirming what is with them (the Torah, etc., (= OT*) and the Bible*)”. The Quran is no confirmation of neither the Torah nor the Bible - see 2/89b above + 2/139a-c and 3/3e+f below. The fundamentals of the religions are too different.

365 2/91h: "Why then have ye (Jews - Christians did not slew prophets, as there were no prophets after this religion grew powerful*) slain the messengers - - -". This is a wrong way of telling it. The Jews did not "slay the prophets", they slew some of the prophets, or actually a few of the prophets. Besides only a few Jews did this - all the others were and are not guilty.

366 2/92a: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/136i above and 4/13d below.

367 2/92b: "- - - ye (Jews*) worshipped the Calf - - -". In the desert after fleeing from Egypt - during Moses' absence - the Jews made a golden calf as their god (after traditions in Egypt - at least one such calf has been found by archeologists, though not from gold. The "rationale" behind it is the "ox-god" Apis in Egypt). We may add that this and some of the other comments we write, are elementary for members of the 3 big monotheistic religions, but as we also have many readers from other religions who sometimes do not know too much about details in the mentioned 3 religions - f.x. India with all its Hindus lays around country no. 5 of our readers - we try to explain also what may be diffuse for them.

368 2/92c: "- - - the Calf - - -". This refers to the golden calf during Exodus around 1235 BC - a historical anomaly. See 4/13d below.

369 2/93a: "- - - We (Allah*) raised above you (the Jews*) - - - Mount (Sinai) - - -". Not in the Bible. See 2/63a above.

 

***370 2/93b: “We (Jews in Medina*) hear and we disobey”. Muhammad claimed Jews said this. But in case it was Muhammad's teaching and laws they disobeyed, not the OT's. It is very clear from the Books of Moses that the Jews agreed to obey the laws (after a few "misses"). That later generations forgot the promise, is another story and not relevant to just this verse.

***371 2/93c: “We (Jews in Medina*) hear and we disobey”. Muhammad Asad adds (A2/77): “Even if they did not say those words, their later behavior justifies this quote”. But words which are not said, are not said, and cannot be quoted in honesty, only in dishonesty – would a god resort to such arguments? And how come that this quote is in the Quran – may be billions of years old and infallible and revered by Allah – if they did not say it? - and how many other made up arguments do you in case find in the Quran?

372 2/93d: “We (Jews in Medina*) hear and we disobey”. A historical anomaly if the Quran was sent down to earlier prophets like Muhammad claimed - no-one before 622 AD would understand this reference, no-one through perhaps nearly 200ooo years.

373 2/92e: "- - - the Calf - - -". This refers to the golden calf during Exodus around 1235 BC - a historical anomaly. See 4/13d below.

374 2/93f: "Vile indeed are the behests of your (non-Muslims' - here likely Jews'*) Faith if ye have any faith". If one compares the moral code and the moral philosophy of the two, it is a very open question which one is the vilest. That is to say it is impossible to compare the moral philosophies of the two as Islam never has had a moral philosophy, but only the question: "What did Muhammad do in similar cases?".

375 2/93g: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

***376 2/94a: “If the last Home, with Allah (Yahweh*), be for you (Jews*) specially, and not for anyone else, then seek for ye death, if ye are sincere - - -“. Wrong - and a contradiction of the Bible. A Jew (or a Christian) cannot seek death to go to Heaven, because self murder – also indirectly – is a serious sin (destroying the gift from God - your life) = end in Hell. Any god had known – but obviously not Muhammad. Worse: Muslim scholars today know this, but use the argument anyhow in their congregations. Al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie.

377 2/94b: "- - - the last Home - - -". Here Paradise.

378 2/95a: “But they (Jews*) will never seek for death, on account of the (sins) which their hands have sent on before them.” The reason in reality is the one mentioned in 2/94a just above. And Muslim scholars of today know it.

379 2/95b: "- - - the (sins) which their (people's*) hands have sent before them". Sins one has done in this life, which at the Day of Doom will be taken into account when the diction is made whether to send you to Hell or Paradise. Well, at least this is what Muslims claim - forgetting (?) that according to Hadiths Allah decides whether you are to end in Hell or Paradise already 5 months before you even are born.

380 2/95c: "And Allah is well-acquainted with the wrongdoers" See 2/233h below.

381 2/95d: "- - - wrongdoers - - -". Normally in the Quran this is a name - and one producing antipathy - for non-Muslims. Also see 2/99f, 8/55b and 57/27f below.

382 2/96: "For Allah sees well what they (non-Muslims, here likely Jews*) do". See 2/85c above and 2/233h and 35/38b below.

383 2/97a: "- - - an enemy to Gabriel - - -" = Jews, as it was said that it often was Gabriel who brought them bad news. (But as Gabriel was the one who brought Muhammad Quranic texts, it also may mean "enemies of the Quran/Islam").

384 2/97b: “Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel – for he brings down the (revelation (= the Quran*)) (at least what is not brought by “inspiration”*) - - -“. Contradicted by other points in the Quran telling he also got many in dreams or during fits - Gabriel at least was not the only source.

385 2/97c: “- - - he (Gabriel*) brings down the (revelation (the Quran*)) to thy heart by Allah’s will - - -“. No omniscient god sends down a book with that many mistakes and contradictions and that much invalid logic, etc.

386 2/97d: “- - - he (Gabriel*) brings down the (revelation (the Quran*)) to thy heart by Allah’s will - - -“. Not from the Bible - there Gabriel did not have a totally special position when it came to bringing messages, like he has in the Quran.

387 2/97e: "- - - (revelation) - - -". But was it really revelations?- and in case from whom? As no god ever was involved in, not to mention revered in his own "home", a book of a quality like the Quran. That leaves 2 - 3 possibilities: A dark force or an illness - f. ex. TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) like modern medical science suspects. As for dark forces, we personally are skeptic to this claim, even though the partly immoral moral code and some other aspects of the religion might indicate so - not even a devil would build his religion on a book so full of errors as the Quran, as he had to know he would be found out sooner or later. There is one possibility, though: The almighty and omnipotent god may have permitted the devil to lure more people into Hell, but on the condition that so much should be wrong, that any intelligent person could see the trap if he/she engaged "the small grey ones".

And of course there is the alternative that the book is completely man-made. The fact that so many of the mistakes are in accordance with what one believed to know in and around Arabia at that time, the fact that there is nothing from outside what we now call the Middle East in a religion claiming to be for all the world, the fact that when problems happened, the claimed god's claimed comments and solutions came afterwards instead of before so as to avert the problems, and f.x. the fact that the god several times "helped" Muhammad - also Muhammad personally - (something which happens a little too often for self proclaimed "prophets"), indicate a man-made Quran.

388 2/97f: “- - - a confirmation of what went before (Torah + Bible*)”. Wrong. See 2/89b and 2/139a-c above and 3/3e+f below.

389 2/97g: “- - - a confirmation of what went before (Torah + Bible*)”. 100% contradicted by the Bible by the fact that the fundamental texts in those two books - the Bible and the Quran - are so totally different, that one simply is not a confirmation of the other (on the contrary actually - the proved not falsified Bible and on some points proved correct, shows that something is seriously wrong in the Quran.

390 2/97h: "- - - guidance (the Quran*) - - -". See 7/192a and 16/107 below.

*391 2/97i: “- - - glad tidings - - -“. Wrong. At the very best one can say that the Quran brought some glad tidings to all the bad ones, wanting loot and slaves and power, and to some ones longing for a strong religion - - - if it was not because the Quran itself proves 100% that something is very wrong in the book. So wrong that it neither can be made nor revered by any god – not even by a small mini god. Too much is wrong in the book. Also see 2/25a above and 61/13e below.

392 2/98a: "Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and Messengers (included Muhammad*) - - - lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith". Included an enemy to those who opposes Muhammad.

393 2/98b: "Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and Messengers (included Muhammad*) - - - lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith". Psychologically a good claim if Muhammad wanted followers and warriors - who wants to be friends of Allah's enemies? And of course enemies of Allah are ok and a good deed to rob and enslave and kill.

394 2/98c: "- - - Messengers (included Muhammad*) - - -". See 63/5a below.

395 2/98d: “- - - Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith”. If he exists. And if the Quran speaks the truth, the full truth, and only the truth.

396 2/98e: "- - - Faith - - -". = Islam. Only Islam is faith in the Quran. But see 2/2b above and 2/98f just below.

397 2/98f: "- - - those who reject Faith". One of Muhammad's many - to Muslims - distaste inducing names for non-Muslims. Also see 2/99f, 8/55b and 57/27f below.

398 2/99a: “We (Allah*) have sent down to thee (people*) manifest Signs - - -“. The Quran is overloaded with what it says are “signs” (indicated to be proofs) and “Clear Signs” or like here “manifest Signs” (indicated to be strong proofs) – and not one single of them proves anything about Allah or the Quran or Muhammad, as the book NEVER proves, only claims, that Allah did this or that which it then calls a “sign” or a “clear sign” or a “proof” (there may be some exceptions for signs taken from the Bible, but those in case prove Yahweh, not Allah – and only Islam claims that Yahweh and Allah is the same god (which they cannot be, unless the god is schizophrenic – they are too different, especially when Yahweh is acting according to the New Covenant from NT (f. ex. Luke 22/20), which came some 580 years before Muhammad started his preaching, but which Muslims never mention). Especially claims for “Clear Signs” are so obviously wrong, that it is impossible not to include them in the columns: “Mistaken facts”. They are not signs – and definitely no clear signs - for a god, and even if they were, they absolutely were no clear signs for Allah,

because any priest in any religion can make just the same claims for his god or gods – words are that cheap as long as no proofs are required - - - also for Muhammad.

399 2/99b: "- - - manifest - - -". See 2/2b above.

400 2/99c: “- - - none reject them (the claimed signs of Allah - though not a single one of them are logically valued proofs for Allah, as there nowhere is proved that Allah is behind them*) but those who are perverse”. The distance between the good Muslims and the bad non-Muslims grows - the latter ones even are perverse!!! (Not to mention the situation if they do not even belong to the People of the Book - Jews, Christians and Sabeans (Sabah/Sheba was a Christian country approximately in what now is Yemen - they had become Christians via East Africa, and perhaps a little different from the Greek Catholic the Arabs met other places - Islam often uses other explanations for the Sabeans, though - see 2/62f above).

There is little reason not to suppress or rob or rape or kill perverted “animals”!!??

401 2/99d: “- - - none reject them (the claimed signs of Allah - though not a single one of them are logically valued proofs for Allah, as there nowhere is proved that Allah is behind them*) but those (non-Muslims*) who are perverse”. Wrong. There is at least one more group: The ones who see that something is seriously wrong in the Quran, and f.x. that not one of the claimed signs is logically valid, as it never - never - is proved that it really is Allah who makes the claimed signs. There only are words and claims so cheap that any believer in any religion can use it for any god or gods he/she believes in. Also see 2/99e just below.

*402 2/99da: “We have sent down to thee (people*) manifest Signs (ayat); and none reject them but those who are perverse - - -“. Wrong. To question “signs” that are not proved coming from Allah, and thus logically invalid as signs, not to mention as proofs, is not a sign of being perverse – on the contrary; blindly to believe in it without even asking questions is a strong indication of being naive or even stupid, especially when one knows how morally degenerated the only source for the Quran – Muhammad – was. - and when one knows the terrible price for believing in a perhaps made up religion, if there is a next life and a Paradise belonging to another, real god. Also see 2/99d just above.

403 2/99e: "- - - those who are perverse". In the Quran this normally is a name for non-Muslims. Names like this have a strong negative value, and it is rather likely that was why Muhammad used them - to highlight the great distance between "us" of good quality and "them". There are several names of this category in the Quran - this is one of the strongest together with "enemies of Allah". Such a cleft between "us" and "them" is quite normal to create in extreme sects - - - and in war religions. For "Übermench" (a Nazi-German word for superior humans - Islam in a number of ways is similar to Nazism (and that is not our words)) it is natural to suppress and ok to disuse or kill "Untermench" (a Nazi-German word for inferior humans). Also see 8/55b and 57/27f below.

402 2/99f: "- - - perverse - - -". See 2/2b above.

405 2/100: "Nay, most of them (non-Muslims*) are faithless". Wrong according to normal definitions - many of them had a faith, but different from Islam. And the Quran only defines Islam as faith - everything else is un-faith. (But what if the Quran is a made up book? - or comes from dark forces?)

*406 2/101a: “And when there came to them a Messenger (Muhammad*) from Allah - - -”. Can a man making so many mistakes in the book he dictated - presumably on behalf of Allah - really be a messenger of an omniscient god? Or if he made no mistakes, and the Quran is faked - is he then from Allah? An omniscient god simply did not send down a book with that many mistakes, etc. Which means Muhammad was not sent by a god - at least not an omniscient one.

*407 2/101b: “And when there came to them a Messenger (Muhammad*) from Allah, confirming what was before them (the Bible*) - - -”. A historical anomaly. The Quran claims that copies of the claimed "Mother Book" in Heaven has been sent down to all prophets and messengers Allah has sent to all people in the world to all times - and as the Quran also is such a cop, those other claimed copies must have been similar to the Quran, because the claimed "Mother Book" is claimed to be very old, perhaps so old that it is never written, but has existed since eternity. Then all copies must be similar. But no user of the claimed timeless Quran claimed sent down to all these claimed prophets for Allah throughout time (at least for the 160ooo - 200ooo years of Homo Sapiens alone - which the maker of the obviously did not know) before 610 AD when Muhammad started his religion, could understand this reference. But no omniscient god would give meaningless references without explaining what they meant. Also see 4/13d below.

408 2/101c: "- - - confirming what (the Bible*) was with them (Jews and Christians*) - - -". See 2/97e above.

409 2/101d: "- - - a Messenger (here clearly meant Muhammad*) - - -". See 9/88b and 63/5a below.

410 2/101e: "- - - a Messenger (Muhammad*) from Allah - - -". Wrong. Muhammad may have been a messenger for something or someone, included for himself, but not from a god. No god sends messages that full of errors, etc.

411 2/101f: “(Muhammad was*) confirming what (the Bible, etc.*) was with them (the Jews and the Christians*)”. Wrong. See 2/89b above and 2/139a+b and 3/3e+f below.

412 2/101g: “- - - a party of the People of the Book (here Jews – the People of the Book = Jews, Christians and Sabeans, and “the Book” in this case is the Bible*) threw away the Book of Allah (the Quran?*), as if (it had been something) they did not know!” The Quran here tells that the Jews recognized the Quran from the OT. That is wrong – there are so fundamental differences and so many points which are different between the Quran and the Bible - even the OT - that the only thing that is possible to know, are that something is utterly wrong. One of the proofs for this, is that the absolute majority of the thousands of Jews in the region refused to accept Islam – even in the face of ruin or slavery or death. Also see 2/89b above and 2/130a+b and 3/3e+f below.

413 2/101h: “- - - a party of the People of the Book (here Jews – the People of the Book = Jews, Christians and Sabeans, and “the Book” in this case is the Bible*) threw away the Book of Allah (the Quran?*), as if (it had been something) they did not know!” How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before? See 2/51b above.

414 2/101i: “- - - the People of the Book - - -". A historical anomaly. The Quran claims that copies of the claimed "Mother Book" in Heaven has been sent down to all prophets and messengers Allah has sent to all people in the world to all times (124ooo or perhaps more according to Hadiths) - and as the Quran also is such a copy, those other claimed copies must have been similar to the Quran, because the claimed "Mother Book" is claimed to be timeless and very old, perhaps so old that it is never written, but has existed since eternity. Then all copies must be similar. But no user of the claimed timeless Quran claimed sent down to all these claimed prophets for Allah throughout time (at least for the 160ooo - 200ooo years of Homo Sapiens alone, which the maker of the Quran obviously did not know) before "the Book" was made. It is unclear when the first Jewish scriptures which later became parts of the Bible, were written, but hardly before 800 BC, and the earliest mentioning of a book in the Bible (the Book of Covenance (2. Mos. 24/7) - likely just the laws which later became parts of "the Books of Moses") was during the time Moses - and if Moses was 80 years old when the Exodus took place ca. in 1235 BC according to science, and lived till he was 120, he lived from ca. 1315 BC to ca. 1195 BC. The Book of Covenance according to the Bible was made shortly after the Exodus, and thus must have been made ca.1235 - 1230 BC. Before this, and likely not until much later, no prophet or anybody else could understand this reference. The name "the People of the Book" simply was unknown at that time. But no omniscient god would give meaningless references without explaining what they meant. Also see 4/13d below.

415 2/101j: (YA102) “They (Jews*) threw away the Book of Allah - - -.” Does this in this special case indicate the Quran or the Bible (OT)? – it is not clear. Both meanings are possible according to YA - but from what happened later, the Jews hardly had thrown away the Bible. Quite likely the Quran.

Clear language in the Quran?

416 2/101k: "- - - the Book of Allah - - -". If here is indicated the Quran, which is most likely, we must remark that this is wrong - no omniscient god was ever involved in a book so full of errors, helpless language (the language may be stylish, but the meanings far too often unclear) etc. like the Quran.

417 2/101l: "- - - as if (it (the Quran*) had been something) they (the Jews*) did not know!" When one knows how different the Quran, included its fundamental ideas and thoughts, is from the Bible, and one in addition knows that the Jews knew their own Biblical scriptures, there is little doubt that the plain truth is that they really did not know the Quran in this meaning.

418 2/102a: "- - - the evil ones - - -". See "The Midrash Yalkut", chapter 44 to find this story.

419 2/102b: "- - - the evil ones - - -". In this case it seems to be meant evil, supernatural beings.

420 2/102c: "- - - Solomon - - -". Son of King David and following him as king over the Jews in the 900s BC. A historical anomaly. See 4/13d below.

421 2/102d: "- - - teaching (Solomon's*) men magic - - -". This is not from the Bible.

422 2/102e: (A83): “- - - and such things as came down at Babylon to the angels Harut and Marut.” This meaning you get if you among the consonants in the Arab original text use the vowels a-a-a-y and get the word “malakayn” = the two angels. If you instead guess that the correct vowels are a-i-a-y and get the word “malikayn” = the two kings, you get this meaning: “- - - and such things as came down to the two kings Harut and Marut.” There is a difference between 2 angels and 2 kings. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning. Facts and problems like these Muslims strongly deny when they say the Quran is exact and correct “to the last comma” (the comma did not even exist in Arab at the time of Muhammad). A clear language?

423 2/102f: (A83): “- - - and such things as came down at Babylon to the angels Harut and Marut.” A historical anomaly as no user of the claimed timeless Quran would understand this reference at least until the rise of Babylon in the eighteenth century BC - and then Homo Sapiens (modern man) already was may be 190ooo years old according to science, and all societies through all times got prophets with books from Allah - a Quran - according to the Quran.

424 2/102g: "But they (Harut and Marut*) could not thus harm anyone except by Allah's permission". And is Allah a good and benevolent god if he permits humans to be harmed?

425 2/102h: “- - - the buyers of (magic) - - -“. Magic is just superstition - any god had known this.

426 27102i: "- - - if they (the Jews of Medina*) but knew!" But that was exactly what they did - they knew their old books, and when Muhammad said his was the same religion, they knew something was wrong. They knew it so clearly that most of them preferred to flee, to become slaves or to be murdered, instead of changing to the new religion.

427 2/103a: "If they (the Jews in Medina*) had kept their Faith - - -". That was just what they did - and refused to accept Muhammad's new religion. It cost them enormously much - Muhammad killed or enslaved a large part of them, and suppressed the rest. But the fact that they preferred this to accepting Islam, makes a lie to the claims that the Jews confirmed that Islam was to be recognized in the old Jewish scriptures. One Jew or a few Jews, may be. But not "the" Jews.

428 2/103b: "- - - evil - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

429 2/103c: "- - - their (Jews' and perhaps Christians'*) Lord (here indicated Allah*) - - -". Wrong. Their god was and is Yahweh. See 29/46ec below.

430 27103d: "- - - if they (the Jews of Medina*) but knew!" But that was exactly what they did - they knew their old books, and when Muhammad said his was the same religion, they knew something was wrong. They knew it so clearly that most of them preferred to flee, to become slaves or to be murdered, instead of changing to the new religion.

431 2/104a: "- - - ye of Faith!". Muslims - only Muslims have faith according to the Quran.

###432 2/104b: "Say not (to the Messenger (Muhammad*)) words of ambiguous import, but words of respect - - -". Muhammad wanted respect. Power and respect (and women).

433 2/104c: "- - - (- - - the Messenger) - - -". See 63/5a below.

434 2/104d: "- - - (- - - the Messenger) - - -". A historical anomaly - see 2/101b above and 4/13d below.

435 2/104e: "- - - those without Faith - - -". = non-Muslims. Only Islam is faith in the Quran - one of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims. Also see 8/55b and 57/27f below.

436 2/104f: "- - - a grievous punishment". See 3/77b below.

*437 2/105a: "- - - those without Faith - - -". See 2/104b above. Also see 8/55b and 57/27f below.

438 2/105b: "- - - the People of the Book - - -". = Jews, Christians and Sabeans - the last ones most likely were from the mainly Christian south Arabia, Saba/Sabah/Sheba, now approximately Yemen (but see 2/62f above). Also see 2/11f above and 4/13d below.

439 2/105c: "- - - the People of the Book - - -". See 2/101f above and 4/13d below.

440 2/105d: "- - - anything good (in this case the Quran*) should come down to you (Muhammad*) from your Lord (Allah*)". No god ever sent down a book of a quality like the Quran - it simply is heresy and slander, not to mention an insult, to blame a god for something with so many errors, etc.

**441 2/105e: “But Allah will choose for His special Mercy whom He will - - -“. Muhammad Asad here explains that this is stating that Jews and Christians refused to believe in Muhammad and his Quran, because Muhammad was from the “outside”. The Quran, Islam and Muslims repeats and repeats this unproved claim and disuses it as an “explanation”, whereas the real main reason why they (the Jews and the few Christians*) did not accept Muhammad's new religion, simply was that there were such a number of and such fundamental differences from the Bible, that something obviously was very wrong when Muhammad claimed it was the same religion. Besides, the Jews – the absolute majority of non-Arabs in the area – believed they had a covenant with Yahweh, and both the Quran and modern time Islam and Muslims are dishonest enough never to mention this fact as a main reason for why the Jews were not interested in Muhammad’s teachings: The covenant and the very different religion were the two reasons why they were not interested in Islam – not what the Quran and Islam claims and claims and claims (as normal for them absolutely without any proof or documentation): – that the reason was that Muhammad was not a Jew.

442 2/105f: "- - - Allah is the Lord of grace abounding". See 1/1a above - can this claim be true?

####443 2/106a: “None of our revelations do We (Allah*) abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar”. Well, this is a contradiction – and an abrogation – in itself. (Note: Some Muslims prefer – like here in the Quran – the word “substitute”, as it is a less “loaded” word for them, but in these cases the meaning is exactly identical – only one word is from daily English, the other is derived from Latin (like perhaps also "substitute" originally)). This actually is one of the verses behind the theory of and use of abrogation in Islam. It may also be one of the reasons – may be the main reason – why abrogated verses were included in the Quran originally – they should not be forgotten. But abrogation is absolutely necessary in Islam, because there is so much contradiction, that the situation would be impossible unless they could be eliminated by making a number of the claims and statements, etc. in the Quran invalid. Se separate chapter about abrogation in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". The Quran actually contradicts this point by:

6/115: “- - - none can change His (Allah’s) Words - - -“. Well, he is contradicting himself, as he clearly changes it himself when something forces him to – try and fail? Or change his mind about more blood and injustice from 622 AD on? – or because of other problems or things he has learnt?

10/64: “Hereafter, no change can there be in the Words of Allah.” For one thing this sentence has serious effect for the ones who say that predestination in the Quran is not real predestination – if Allah has said/thought/written something, no free will of man can change anything - - - which means there is no free will in that connection, and it is predestined as sure as carved in stone. But more relevant just here is that there were many and sometimes large changes in Allah’s words after this “revelation” in ca. 621 AD - Islam changed from quite peaceful to a full-fledged war religion.

There may be reasons for questions when Allah has to abrogate his own words - sometimes even shortly after they are said. Did he not know better? Did he change his mind after thinking things over? Did he change his mind after learning how Muhammad’s congregation reacted to his words? Did he have to fail and learn? This tells something fundamental about Allah - if he exists. Because of this you will meet Muslims telling you that nothing is abrogated in the Quran - abrogation is not worthy an omniscient god (very right), and that what he sometimes did they say, was to make his words more specific. In some cases they may be right - - - but also that is to abrogate!! - and was he not intelligent enough to see the problem or to express himself clearly the first time? Besides it is wrong, as it far from always is possible to explain it away that way. Or to explain it away at all. It is completely clear from the Quran itself that abrogation is accepted and practiced (see the 3 verses quoted), and the texts prove it is a reality. It also is very clear that abrogations is an integrated reality in f.x. Islamic law.

(2 abrogations).

444 2/106b: "- - - abrogate - - -". = to make invalid. A lot - hundreds - of the verses in the Quran are abrogated; f.x. 2/256: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (abrogated by no less than ca. 30 different later verses).

445 2/106c: "- - - knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?". An easy claim - but never clearly proved, not one single time, in 1400 years.

446 2/107a: "- - - to Allah belonged the dominion of the heavens (plural and wrong) and the earth - - -". Another never proved claim. Friends and enemies asked Muhammad for proofs, but he never was able to prove anything at all. Actually we do not know that this verse is true - it may be true or it may not be true - we only have the words of a book we know contains many mistakes, handed down from a man we would not trust very much as a witness if we were judges in a court. Proofs are urgently needed. And there are many points like this in the Quran - many.

447 2/107b: "- - - to Allah belonged the dominion of the heavens (plural and wrong) and the earth - - -". Contradicting the Bible which claims it belongs to Yahweh (which Muhammad wrongly claimed was another name for the same god - the teachings are fundamentally too different for this to be true).

448 2/107c: “- - - heavens - - -“. Plural and wrong (no 7 heavens). See 2/22d.

449 2/107d: “And beside Him (Allah*) ye have neither patron nor helper.” But contradicted at least by this:

9/71: “The Believers, men and women, are protectors of one another - - -.”

41/31: “We (the angels*) are your protector in this life and in the Hereafter”.

(2 contradictions).

*450 2/107e: “And besides Him ye (people*) have neither patron nor helper.” Further from 2/107c: Well, Jesus told many times and in front of lots of witnesses that he could help, and even the Quran admits that Jesus was honest.

451 2/108a: “Wouldst ye (Muslims*) question your Messenger (Muhammad*) as Moses was questioned of old?” The Quran says that if it was wrong to ask Moses to show people their god, then it is wrong to ask Muhammad for proofs. Muhammad’s logic is not perfect - there is a difference between asking to see a god and asking for proofs of his existence - but it was a way to evade the questions. Besides: According to the Bible, it was Yahweh who chose to come down, not the Jews who asked him - on the contrary it frightened them. (1.Mos. 19/7-11 + 19/18).Also see 2/55 above - though some Muslims claim this refers to all the work Moses had settling disputes before he delegated power to others (1.Mos. 18/17-24) and in this case also this is an acceptable explanation.

452 2/108b: “Wouldst ye (Muslims*) question your Messenger (Muhammad*) as Moses was questioned of old?” A historical anomaly if the Quran was timeless and sent down to all old prophets throughout times (at least 160ooo - 200ooo years for Homo Sapiens) - this is about Muhammad, and no user of the Quran could understand this reference until after 610 AD when Muhammad started his mission.

453 2/108c: "- - - Messenger - - -". See 63/5a below.

454 2/108d: "- - - Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/101b above and 4/13d below.

455 2/108e: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/136i above and 4/13d below.

456 2/108f: “But whoever changeth from Faith to Unbelief, hath strayed without doubt from the even way (the road to Paradise*)”. Wrong. With all the mistakes, contradictions, and wrong logic, etc. in the Quran, there is a most real doubt, and reasons for doubt, for that Islam can be “the even way” to Paradise – this even more so when one knows that the only source for the stories in the Quran, was the morally very degenerated man and self proclaimed prophet Muhammad (who did not even have the gift of being able to make prophesies, but used the nice title all the same) – nearly all self proclaimed prophets through the time have turned out to be false prophets wanting something in this life – normally money, respect, women and/or power - without caring too much for the means they used. Muhammad at least wanted women, respect and power - and riches for bribes to attract and keep followers according to the Quran. (But where do all Muslims end in a possible next life if Islam is a wrong way and they discover it too late?)

457 2/108g: “But whoever changeth from Faith (Islam*) to Unbelief, hath strayed without doubt from the even way (the road to Paradise*)”. Wrong: This only is the case if the Quran is from a god and in addition tells the full truth and only the truth, and thus far from "without doubt".

458 2/108h: "- - - without doubt - - -". See 2/2b above.

459 2/108i: "- - - the even way". The claimed road to the Quran's paradise - see 10/9f below.

460 2/109a: "- - - the People of the Book - - -". A historical anomaly - no user of the claimed timeless Quran, claimed sent down to all prophets through the times, could understand this expression until it was coined by Muhammad some time after 610 AD, or at least not until the Jews got their first scripture ca. 1335 BC (according to science). Also see 2/101f above and 4/13d below.

461 2/109b: "- - - from selfish envy". The real reason was that they - the Jews - saw that Islam and the Mosaic religion were far too different to be representing the same god like Muhammad claimed, and thus saw that something was seriously wrong. But Muhammad needed another explanation to save his religion and his position and platform of power.

462 2/109c: “- - - after the Truth (the Quran*) hath become manifest - - -“. The Quran at best is partly the truth – too many mistakes, too many contradictions, too mush twisted logic, etc. Also see 2/2b above and 13/1g and 40/75 below.

463 2/109d "- - - Truth (the Quran/Islam*) - - -". The contents of the Bible clearly contradicts the claim that the Quran and thus Islam is the truth.- the fundamentals of the teachings are so different, that the Quran cannot be the truth if the Bible is so - and remember that both science and Islam have proved that the Bible is not falsified, the "explanation" Muslims normally use for the differences between the two books. The teachings, morality, etc. not to mention the gods, are so different that it is not possible that the Quran can represent the truth, if the Bible is true - and the Bible and also Yahweh after all to some extent are proved if the old texts are reliable, whereas for the Quran and Allah exactly nothing of the central claims are proved. In addition there also is the impertinent fact that the ones who overuse words like "truth" and similar words like what is done in Muhammad's book, are the cheats and charlatans and deceivers.

367 2/109e: "- - - manifest - - -". See 2/2b above and 13/1g and 40/75 below.

464 2/109f: “- - - but forgive and overlook - - -“. These soft words from the period Muhammad tried to win the Jews for his religion the first 1-2 years after he came to Medina, soon were abrogated by harsh words. This verse is contradicted and often “killed” by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 5/73, 8/12, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 29 contradictions).

465 2/109g: “- - - but (Muslims*) forgive and overlook (Jews and Christians*) - - -.” But that was long before 9/5 and other hard verses. This verse is abrogated – made invalid - by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/38, 3/85, 3/148, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 8/12, 8/38, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many bloody threat, but also verses advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 28 abrogations).

466 2/109h: “- - - Allah hath power over all things.” Perhaps - and perhaps not. At least he has never shown his power, not even when asked several times by his followers - and by skeptics - for a proof of his existence. Muhammad glossed it over with fast words - not all of them logically even true (f.x. that a real proof of a god would make no-one believe anyhow - rubbish to be polite, a clear lie to be realistic), and Muhammad was too intelligent and knew too much about people not to know it was untrue.

2/110a: "- - - charity - - -". One of the positive sides of the Quran is its stressing on charity. But the effect is reduced by 2 facts: The main thing is not to help, but to gain merit in Heaven - not empathy, but selfishness. And: You get just the same merit from helping your nearest as when you help strangers - then why help strangers? (In Scandinavia it f.x. is the experience that Muslims give little or nothing to the big help or aid organizations - perhaps to the Muslim ones mainly helping Muslims, but not to others).

467 2/110b: "- - - whatever you have sent forth for your souls before you - - -". This simply means that your good (and bad) deeds are transferred to merits waiting for you at the Day of Doom.

***468 2/110c: “- - - Allah sees well what all that ye do.” May be true. Or may be a smart trick by a cunning someone to keep you obeying at all times? It is not possible to know just on basis of a loose statement: To believe - yes. To believe strongly - yes. To know - no. One of the many never proved claims in the Quran. And a psychologically wise one if it was Muhammad's intention to keep his followers "good and obedient" at all times.

469 2/110d: “- - - Allah sees well what all that ye do.” See 2/233h and 35/38b below.

###470 2/111a: "Say (to Jews and Christians*): "Produce your proofs if you are truthful". Islam often demands proofs. Islam itself never offers any proofs for its central claims and statements. IT IS VERY PERTINENT TO DEMAND PROOFS FROM ISLAM AND FROM MUSLIMS, PARTLY BECAUSE THEY MOSTLY USES ONLY LOOSE CLAIMS AND AS LOOSE STATEMENTS, AND PARTLY BECAUSE THEY FREQUENTLY THEMSELVES DEMAND PROOFS. And not to forget: Partly because they never have real proofs for any of the central points in a religion - only claims, statements and quotes resting on no proofs.

471 2/111b: "- - - Jews - - -". A historical anomaly. No-one of the users of the claimed timeless and much copied "Mother Book" (= similar to the Quran according to the Quran, as also the Quran is claimed to be a copy of that book) could understand this word until it was coined. As mentioned Homo Sapiens - modern man - developed some 160ooo - 200ooo (perhaps ca. 195ooo) years ago according to science. The Quran claims that all people everywhere and to all times have been sent prophets or messengers from Allah, which means Allah has sent his representatives for at least that long - and may be much longer, as there were other races of humans for a long time before - Homo Neandertalis, Homo Habilis, and Homo Erectus just to mention 3 of many. All these prophets and messengers according to the Quran got a copy of the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21/22) - a copy of which also the Quran is, which means that the books the claimed prophets and messengers got from Allah if the Quran tells the truth, were similar to the Quran. We have not found exactly when the name "Jew" came into use, but it derived from "Judah" - the 4. son of the Jewish patriarch Jacob. The kingdom of Judah started when Solomon's kingdom was split in 2 - Judah and Israel - after Solomon's death, and it thus is likely the word is from around or a little before 900 BC. This means that all the claimed prophets/messengers from Allah for may be some 192ooo years could not understand what the word "Jew" - and MANY others in the Quran - meant and thus what information the word/words included.

This in addition to the tiny fact that the earliest groups of humans who learnt how to read and write, did not do so until some millennia ago - very large groups not until one or a few millennia ago. Yes, large groups not until a few hundred years ago. To them a copy similar to the Quran only could be a decoration on a shelf.

The claim about these copies of the claimed "Mother Book" to all claimed Muslim prophets through all times and all places on Earth is meaningless. But no omniscient god would give meaningless references without explaining what they meant.

Any god had known this - Muhammad not. Then who made the Quran?

Also see 4/13d below.

472 2/111c: "- - - Christians - - -". A historical anomaly. No-one of the users of the claimed timeless and much copied "Mother Book" (= similar to the Quran according to the Quran, as also the Quran is claimed to be a copy of that book) could understand this word until it was coined. As mentioned Homo Sapiens - modern man - developed some 160ooo - 200ooo (perhaps ca. 195ooo) years ago according to science. The Quran claims that all people everywhere and to all times have been sent prophets or messengers from Allah, which means Allah has sent his representatives for at least that long - and may be much longer, as there were other races of humans for a long time before - Homo Neandertalis, Homo Habilis, and Homo Erectus just to mention 3 of many. All these prophets and messengers according to the Quran got a copy of the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21/22) - a copy of which also the Quran is, which means that the books the claimed prophets and messengers got from Allah if the Quran tells the truth, were similar to the Quran. We have not found exactly when the name "Christians" came into use, but it derived from Greek "Christos", "the anointed one" (Jesus), the same meaning as Hebrew "Messiah", and was coined in Asia Minor (this was long before the Turks conquered the area and settled there, and is likely to have happened around 50 AD, give or take a little. This means that all the claimed prophets/messengers from Allah for may be some 193ooo years could not understand what the word "Christian" - and MANY others in the Quran - meant and thus what information the word/words included (it had to be a complete mystery, as there is nothing in the word itself which tells it is the name of a religion or tells anything about that religion - and only the ones who knew Hebrew and Jewish history could even guess it had to do with a kind of king, as anointing was the traditional Jewish way of installing a king - and how many claimed prophets of Allah knew Hebrew and Jewish traditions in f.x. El Salvador or Alaska or Mexico or Peru until well after 1492 AD?)).

This in addition to the tiny fact that the earliest groups of humans who learnt how to read and write, did not do so until some millennia ago - very large groups not until one or a few millennia ago. Yes, large groups not until a few hundred years ago. To them a copy similar to the Quran only could be a decoration on a shelf.

The claim about these copies of the claimed "Mother Book" to all claimed Muslim prophets through all times and all places on Earth is meaningless. But no omniscient god would give meaningless references without explaining what they meant.

Any god had known this - Muhammad not. Then who made the Quran?

Also see 4/13d below.

473 2/112a: "- - - doer of good - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. The best of good deeds f.x. are to go to war and steal and rape and enslave and murder in the name of the god - the last fact makes it extra disgusting.

474 2/112b: "- - - he (the good Muslim*) will get his reward with his Lord (Allah*) - - -". If Allah exists. If he is behind the Quran. And if the Quran tells the full and only truth here.

#475 2/112c: "- - - on such (that there is a risk for that the Muslims will not go to Paradise*) shall be no fear - - -". There is a real reason for fear for this as the Quran is not from any god - only a god can reliably promise Paradise.

476 2/112d: "- - - nor shall they (Muslims*) grieve". See 2/112c just above.

477 2/113a "The Jews - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/111b above and 4/13d below.

478 2/113b: "The Jews say - - - (etc.*) - - -". How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before? See 2/51b above.

479 2/113c: "- - - Christians - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/111c above and 4/13d below.

480 2/113d: "- - - the Christians say: 'The Jews have naught (to stand) upon". Wrong. Christians do not say that, only that they lack Yahweh's new offer. They say that with Jesus there has come something new, which the Jews have not seen. Perhaps like Islam claims that as times changes, Yahweh found reason for launching a milder side of his thinking - f.x. during Pax Romanum (a 272 years long period of peace) it could have a chance to grow strong enough to survive when harsher times came once more.

##481 2/113e: “Yet they (Jews and Christians*) (profess to) study the same Book”. Wrong for two reasons: One: Jews only have the Old Testament (OT) and some other scriptures, Christians also have NT. Two: The Christian religion is built on NT, with OT mainly as historical background – a fact which opponents often forget or “forget”.

Jews study only OT and their other scriptures. Christians build their religion on the much milder and more human NT and the new covenant (f.x. Luke 22/20) – a covenant Muslims never mention - with OT mainly as historical background. This is a fact that often as said is forgotten or “forgotten” when one talks about the Christian religion - especially when one wants to paint the religion as black as possible.

482 2/113f: "- - - the (same) Book (the Bible*) - - -". A historical anomaly. The Bible as we know it is from after Christ, and the very first relevant small book in this connection if we use a lot of goodwill, is "the Book of Covenance" (2. Mos.24/7) from around 1235 - 1230 BC according to science. Nobody before that would understand this reference if the claimed copies of the claimed "Mother Book" 0f which the Quran is one, were sent down to claimed prophets and messengers for Allah throughout all times and to all people, were like the copy named "the Quran". Referring to f.x. 6/67 "For every Message is a limit of time - - -", or 13/38 "For each period is a Book (revealed)", Muslims claim that the copies are changed from time to time - which in case means that the claimed book it is a copy of, the claimed "Mother Book" in Heaven, is changed from time to time (if not the books - f.x. the Quran - are not copies of that book, not to mention no exact copies of it).

But that the claimed "Mother Book" is changed now and then, is an impossibility. One thing is claims like f.x. 10/64 "- - - no change can there be in the Words of Allah". By far more central here are the claims that the "Mother Book" - and thus the copy named the Quran - is written by Allah before man was created, or perhaps it has existed since eternity. Such a book naturally is and has been unchangeable since it was created or since eternity. Thus the mentioned verses (6/67 and 13/38) and others cannot mean that new versions of the "Mother Book" are made and copied, but simply that new similar copies are sent down from time to time.

This in case had an interesting side effect in the old times: Prophets and their listeners could learn about future situations, happenings, persons, etc. which at their time had not happened yet, simply by reading their copy of the claimed "Mother Book"/Quran. Abraham could read about Moses and David and Jesus and Muhammad. Jacob could read about his son Joseph. Etc., etc., etc.

This only was possible if Allah's predestination was absolute - like the Quran often claims - and man just puppets on strings.

There is no mentioning of such reading of their future neither in the Quran nor in Hadiths. Which is a clear indication for that one more central claim in the Quran needs a good explanation.

Also see 4/13d below.

***483 2/113g: "- - - the ones who know not - - -". Most likely this refers to the Pagan Arabs - like so often the Quran is not clear, in spite of strong claims for being clear and easy to understand. Remember here that when the Quran speaks about knowledge, it means religious knowledge - knowledge about the Quran and Islam. The Pagans could be full of knowledge, but as they did not accept Muhammad and his new teachings, they were "the ones who know not". Symptomatic here also is the Islamic name for the times before Islam: "The Time of Ignorance". This in clear contradiction to that f.x. in Persia the learned people had much more knowledge than the backward Arab tribes - but they did not know about or dismissed Islam.

484 2/114a: "And who is more unjust than he who forbids that in places for the worship of Allah, Allah's name should be celebrated?" This refers to that the Muslims those years (622 to 629 AD) were denied access to Kabah in Mecca. (And it is symptomatic that shortly after they gained control over it themselves, they denied access to it for everyone else. F.x. if Allah = Yahweh like the Quran claims, it should be permitted to worship Yahweh there.)

485 2/114b: "And who is more unjust than he who forbids that in places for the worship of Allah, Allah's name should be celebrated?" This refers to that the Muslims those years (622 to 629 AD) were denied access to Kabah in Mecca - - - and thus one more historical anomaly - no-one before 622 AD could know about this, but if they had got a copy of the claimed "Mother Book", it was referred to there. See 4/13d below.

486 2/114c: "For them (see 2/114a just above*) there is nothing but disgrace in this world, and in the world to come, an exceeding torment". See 3/77b below.

487 2/115a: "To Allah belong the East and the West - - -". One of the many not documented loose claims in the Quran - claims any believer in any religion can make on behalf of his god(s) as long as he can refuse to prove anything.

488 2/115b: "- - - whithersoever ye (people*) turn, there is the Presence of Allah - - -". Perhaps, but he has never been provably noticed - and words are cheap.

489 2/115c: “For Allah is All-Pervading, All-Knowing”. Looking at the miserable state the facts and the “signs” in the Quran are in, strong proofs for this are urgently needed. Also see 2/233h and 35/38b below.

**490 2/116a: “They say; ‘Allah has begotten a son”, (which the Quran vehemently denies*). But Jesus often called God/Yahweh father, and thus contradicted the Quran - there were many, many witnesses to this. If he spoke the truth - and even the Quran says he was honest - this in case means the Quran is wrong here. (Yahweh is called the father of Jesus at least 204 times in the Bible, and Jesus the son of Yahweh at least 87 times, according to our latest leafing through the Bible - and we hardly have found all places). And remember: In spite of undocumented claims from Islam, science has shown that the Bible is not falsified. The same Islam has proved even more thoroughly by not finding any falsifications n all the tens of thousands relevant old manuscripts, not to mention how strongly they prove the same by having to resort to made up scriptures like f.x. "the 'gospel' of Barnabas (which may be one of the many "scriptures" Muslims in Spain made up during the 00s and 900s AD. There also is a possibility that it was made not in Spain, but in Baghdad. Remember here Islam's rules for al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie: Al-Taqiyya is permitted in several cases, and not only permitted, but should be used "if necessary" to defend or to forward Islam) - a very good proof for that they lack true facts and arguments, as you do not stoop to bluffs and dishonesty if you have good facts.

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.

**491 2/116b: “They say; ‘Allah has begotten a son”. "They" here refers to the Christians. A historical anomaly if similar claimed copies of the claimed "Mother Book" were used before ca. 30 AD like the Quran claims - nobody could understand what it referred to. See 2/111c above and 4/13d below.

492 2/116ba: "- - - to Him (Allah*) belongs all that is in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and on earth - - -." One more of the many loose claims in the Quran. There exists no proof for neither Allah nor for what belongs to him if he exists. Muhammad was never able to prove anything - only claims and statements given by a man with doubtful moral.

493 2/116c: "- - heavens - -". Wrong - this refers to the 7 material heavens the Quran believes in, and there are no 7 such ones. See 2/22c, 2/29d+e, 17/44a, 23/17a, 23/86a, 41/12a, 65/12a, 67/3a+b, 71/15a+b, 71/15-16a+b, 78/12a-b, and not least 31/10b+c.

 

494 2/116d: “(And on earth:) - - - everything renders worship to Him (Allah*).” From other places in the Quran one knows that “everything” is meant literally – every living being and all inanimate things. As one never observes any other living beings, not to mention inanimate things, than Muslims worship Allah, and the same for inanimate things, and the nature thus shows that the claim is not true, this is one of the claims that must be deemed untrue unless Islam proves it. Proves, not only states or claims. (To quote remark A120 in Abdullah Yusuf Ali: “The Meaning of the Quran”: “- - - everything in heaven and earth celebrates the glory of Allah”. But like normal for Muslims it only is a claim – no documentation, no proof, and no real explanation).

495 2/117a: “To Him (Allah*) is due the primal origin of the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth - - -”. To Allah or to the nature? Science believes more in nature, and Allah never proved the opposite - or anything at all. One of the very many never proved claims used to try to glorify Allah in the Quran.

496 2/117b: “To Him (Allah*) is due the primal origin of the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth - - -”. Contradicted by the Bible which claims this was Yahweh's work (in this case both can be wrong). 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.

497 2/117c: "- - - heavens - - -". See 2/22c, 2/29d+e, 17/44a, 23/17a, 23/86a, 41/12a, 65/12a, 67/3a+b, 71/15a+b, 71/15-16a+b, 78/12a-b, and not least 31/10b+c.

####498 2/117d: "He (Allah*) saith to it: 'Be", and it is". Islam denies that Jesus was the son of the god, among other reasons because sex is not worthy a god. But may be the god said: "Be a son", and Jesus was."

499 2/118a: “Say those without knowledge: ‘Why speaketh not Allah unto us? Or why cometh not unto us a Sign?” As said first in this quotation: So say those without knowledge - and who wants to be said to be reckoned to be without knowledge? This is one of the many fast-talks Muhammad had to use to get away from questions and demands for proving what he told - he was unable to prove anything of any consequence concerning his religion, and blind faith was the demand. But who has least knowledge - the ones in blind faith, or the ones knowing that in most aspects of life, the most sure way to be cheated, is to be blind and to be naive?

500 2/118b: "- - - those (opponents of Muhammad = here around 622 - 624 AD*) - - -". A historical anomaly - see 4/13d below.

501 2/118c: "- - - those without knowledge - - -". One of Muhammad's many degrading names for non-Muslims.

502 2/118d: "- - - knowledge - - -". See 26/83a below.

503 2/118e: “We (Allah*) have indeed made clear the Signs unto any people who hold firmly to Faith - - -.” There simply are no valid clear signs – proofs – for Allah anywhere in the Quran or anywhere else. See 2/99a, 2/99b and 2/99c above.

504 2/118f: "- - - indeed - - -".

505 2/118g: "- - - people who hold firmly to Faith - - -.” = Muslims.

506 2/118h: "- - - Faith - - -". = Islam - only Islam is faith in the Quran. Also see 2/2b above.

507 2/119a: "Verily - - -". See 2/2b above.

508 2/119b: “Verily, We (Allah*) have sent thee (Muslims/people*) in truth a bearer of glad tidings and a warner (= Muhammad) - - -.” No omniscient god has sent a bearer of tidings in which so much is wrong.

509 2/119c: "- - - thee (Muhammad*) - - -". A historical anomaly - see 2/101b above and 4/13d below.

510 2/119d: "- - - in truth - - -". See 2/2b above and 13/1g and 40/75 below.

511 2/119e: “- - - glad tidings - - -“. That the Quran is “glad tidings” at very best is only partly true. See 2/25a and 2/97c above and 61/136 below.

512 2/119f: "- - - a warner (Muhammad*) - - -". At this time - ca. 622 - 624 AD - Muhammad still was only a preacher and a warner. But shortly after he started gaining economical and military power, and then it did not take long before he also became an enforcer.

513 2/119g: "- - - a warner (Muhammad*) - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/101b above.

514 2/119h: "- - - the Companions of the Blazing Fire". The sinners/non-Muslims bound for Hell. Also see 3/77b below.

515 2/119i: "- - - the Blazing Fire". Hell.

516 2/120a "The Jews - - -". See 2/111b above and 4/13d below.

517 2/120b: "- - - Christians - - -". See 2/111c above and 4/13d below.

518 2/120c: “The Guidance of Allah (the Quran*) - - -". No omniscient god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran - too much is wrong.

519 2/120d: “The Guidance of Allah (the Quran*) – that is the only Guidance”. A book with so many mistakes and contradictions, so much invalid logic, and so much inhumanity is not at all a guidance – more likely a misguidance. Also a contradiction of the Bible.

520 2/120d: “The Guidance of Allah (the Quran*) – that is the only Guidance”. Contradicted by the Bible which clearly states that the only reliable religious guidance comes from Yahweh/God - in spite of the Quran's strong, but never documented claims quite another god with quite another religion than Allah. 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.

521 2/120e: "Wert thou to follow their (Jews' and Christians'*) desires (that you leave Islam*) after the knowledge which have reached you (after you have become a Muslim*), then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor Helper against Allah". - and shortly neither against Muhammad or Muslims (it became dangerous to leave Islam).

522 2/120f: "- - - knowledge - - -". See 26/83a below.

2/121a: "- - - Children of Israel - - -". See 2/122 below.

523 2/121b: "Those to whom We (Allah*) have sent the Book (the Quran*) - - -". No god has sent a book this full of mistakes, contradiction, invalid logic, etc.

524 2/121c: "Those to whom We (Allah*) have sent the Book (the Quran*) study it as it should be studied, they are the ones that believe therein - - -". Correct - - - but only if it really is sent down by a god - see 2/121a just above.

525 2/121d: "- - - those who reject faith therein (in the Quran) - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims.

526 2/121e: "- - - those who reject faith therein (in the Quran) - the loss is their own". Not if the Quran is a made up book and Islam thus a made up religion. And even more so if they instead happen to believe in a real god (if such one exists).

527 2/121f: "- - - faith - - -". = Islam - only Islam is faith according to the Quran. Also see 2/2b above.

528 2/122: "- - - Children if Israel - - -". A historical anomaly. "Israel" was a name the old Jewish Patriarch Jacob got from Yahweh according to the Bible (1. Mos. 32/28) in his middle age. The word thus has to be younger than this - say maximum from ca. 1700 - 1800 BC. and this name/reference was without any meaning to any user of the claimed copies of the claimed "Mother Book" (similar to the Quran) sent down to Allah's claimed prophets and messenger even before this. Jacob must have lived - if he ever lived - around 1700 - 1800 BC, and thus none of the claimed earlier prophets/messengers from Allah the previous perhaps 191ooo years (until ca. 160ooo - 200ooo years before now for Homo Sapiens alone, which the maker of the Quran obviously did not know), could understand what this meant. But no omniscient god would give meaningless references without explaining what they meant.

529 2/123a: “(The Day when) one soul shall not avail another - - -". = The Day of Doom.

530 2/123b: “(The Day when) one soul shall not avail another - - - nor shall intercession profit her (the soul*) - - -.” An absolute law: No intercession possible. But:

20/109: “On that Day (Day of Doom*) shall no intercession avail, except for those whom permission has been granted by (Allah) - - -.” Here it is possible if Allah permits.

34/23: “No intercession can avail in His (Allah’s*) Presence (= on the Day of Doom*), except for whom He has granted permission.” Intercession ok if Allah permits.

43/86: “And those whom they invoke (“gods”, "saints*) besides Allah have no power of intercession – only he (has*) who bears witness to the Truth - - -.” According to the Quran the prophets and messengers are to be called forth “to witness to the truth”. “He” therefore must be referring to each and every prophet and messenger who according to this verse have power to intercede.

Muhammad according to Al-Bukhari and according to 43/86 just above has the right to intercede.

Intercession is not impossible in spite of 1/123 – it only takes permission.

(4 contradictions.)

531 2/124a: "And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord - - -." This refers to Abraham being ordered to sacrifice his son. The Bible tells it was Isaac - "his only son" (Ishmael and his Egyptian mother Hagar had been sent away from the home of Abraham, and Isaac was the only one Abraham had left) - whereas Islam claims it was Ishmael. As the Bible makes it clear that Hagar and Ishmael settled near the border of Egypt, Ishmael also was far off when this happened - highly unlikely that Abraham traveled all the way to fetch him for a sacrifice (Islam claims Hagar and Ishmael settled in Mecca - even further off).

532 2/124b: "- - - Abraham - - -". A historical anomaly. The Quran claims that all prophets and messengers for Allah all over the world and to all times received a copy each of the claimed "Mother Book" in heaven. As also the Quran is claimed to be such a copy, all the other copies must have been similar to the Quran - if not they could not be a copy of the same claimed timeless book. Now Homo Sapiens - modern man - goes back 160ooo-200ooo (195ooo?) years - and there were people long before that. Abraham lived - if he ever lived - some 1800-2ooo BC. No claimed prophet/messenger/reader of the claimed parallel to the Quran living before Abraham, would understand anything about what a reference to Abraham meant. But no omniscient god would give meaningless references without explaining what they meant.

533 2/124c: (Allah said): "I will make you an Imam (priest) to the Nations". What the Bible says (1.Mos. 22/18): "- - - and through your offspring all nations will be blessed - - -". One should here add 1.Mos. 21/12: (Yahweh said to Abraham): "- - - it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned". The quote from the Quran is a contradiction to the Bible.

534 2/124d: (Abraham begged Yahweh): "And also (Imams) from my offspring!" There is nothing like this in the Bible. Contradiction.

535 2/124e: (Abraham begged Yahweh): "And also (Imams) from my offspring!" How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before? See 2/51b above.

536 2/124f: "- - - evildoers". In the Quran this normally is a (very negative) name for non-Muslims. Muhammad frequently used such names. Similar often is done in extreme sects and religions to create a distance between "us" good ones, and all the other bad and low quality ones. Among other effects this makes it easier for the leader to control the flow of information which could/can make his followers start asking questions - for one thing there will be less contact, and for another his followers will be more reluctant to believe what others tell - Muhammad understood psychology and people. Besides it breaks down the reluctance to behave badly against "the low quality and bad ones" - necessary in a war religion. As said: Muhammad knew how to handle people.<"p>

537 2/125a: "Remember We (Allah*) made the House a place of assembly for men and a place of safety - - -". Believe it or not, but in all Islam there does not exist one single real proof for that the god did this. It only is a claim - like everything else of any consequence in Islam. Also see 2/127a below.

538 2/125b: "Remember We (Allah*) made the House a place of assembly for men and a place of safety - - -". This claimed oasis of safety is never mentioned in the Bible.

("The House" - see a little further down).

539 2/125c: "- - - a place of safety - - -". In and around the Kabah mosque in Mecca bloodshed and fighting is prohibited - though the prohibition has been broken a few times, included by Muhammad in 630 AD, and in an armed attack by a militant group some years ago. Allah in none of those cases did intervene.

540 2/125d: “- - - the Station of Abraham (Maqam-e-Ibrahim*)- - -“. This in reality is a mark in a stone in Mecca. The Quran indicates and Islam says that it is a mark from Abraham’s feet when he made the Kabah. Let the fact that Abraham never was in Mecca (unless Islam proves it – see 2/127a below) alone: No – absolutely no – worker building a house ever stood at one and the same place long enough to make a mark in a natural stone visible 1400 years later. It has never happened any time or any place in the world. This flatly is a fairy tale and strongly contradicted both by reality and by the intelligence of any human able to think for him-/herself. Now, Islam tells the mark (actually 2 - one for each foot) is a result of a miracle, as they claim the stone turned so soft that Abraham's feet sank into it. (They also claim that the stone is from Jannah - the gardens of Heaven). Believe it if you want to.

Well, Islam has till now even proved that Abraham even ever visited Mecca, a place that was very prohibiting for him and his big flocks of animals - "a barren desert" to quote Muslims, and his claimed first trip even was before the Zamzam well even was found, and thus there was no water at all according to Islam - laying behind forbidding desert lands through which he had to lead all his sheep, goats, cows, etc. and find food and water for them - and he had many as he was a rich man (Islam claims that later visits only were by camels - but as there was no first visit, there also was no second one). And on top of all a place very far from where he lived and a place without any attractions for a big owner of cattle, etc. Believe it whoever wants - but go to a doctor if you believe this and the rest of that story (big stone mosque built by 2 nomads, Ishmael bringing a big stone - far too big to lift (builders normally are more practical minded) - for his father to stand on, and a stone shining so strongly that Allah had to switch off its light according to Hadiths) without reasonable proofs.

Just for the records: Science tells that "it is practically sure Abraham never visited Mecca". That he on top should have built a big mosque there - even a so big one that when the rich Mecca around 600 AD remade it, they could not afford to make it as big as the old foundations showed, according to Hadiths - is reckoned by science to be a fairy tale.

##541 2/125e: "We (Allah*) covenanted with Abraham and Ishmael - - -". The Bible is contradicting: (1.Mos.17/21) Yahweh says: "But my covenant I will make with Isaac". And many years later to Isaac's son Jacob (and now Ishmael is totally out of the picture) similar words like the ones which were said to Abraham 2 generations earlier (1.Mos. 28/14): "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring". There is no doubt according to the Bible with which branch of Abraham's descendants the god covenanted. Even if the Arabs really were descendants of Ishmael, they had belonged to the wrong branch of the family - they were not the offspring of Jacob, and not even of Isaac. And it is likely this might be the reality - at the time when the Torah was written, there was no reason for the writers to place Ishmael and his descendants at the border of Egypt (1.Mos. 25/18) if he really lived in Arabia - Muhammad and his competing religion still was 1000 years into the unknown future when it was written. But for Muhammad the situation was different: It is quite common for emerging sects and religions to "high-jack" parts of a mother religion - it gives "weight" and tradition to the new sect/religion. For Muhammad it would pay to "take over" a known name like Ishmael. It obviously also would pay for him to take over the claimed center of the religious word - even a made up claim works if people believe in it.

Another fact: Modern DNA-analysis has shown that the Arabs are no coherent tribe. They are a mixture of many nations - not strange lying at a crossroad with travelers passing thought, and where sex and alcohol were "the two delightful things" until Muhammad took over. And also Arab tradesmen brought brides and slaves back home even long before Muhammad, not to mention all the slave women who were brought home after the robberies made the Arabs rich enough to afford more/many women. The "Arab Blood" is strongly diluted and mixed up, and even was never a homogenous tribe originally.

What the Bible really says about Ishmael in relevant connections is:

(1. Mos. 16/7): The pregnant Hagar fled from Abraham and Sarah (then named Sarai - not mentioned in the Quran), and "The angel of the Lord found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur". Shur was a desert area east of the Gulf of Suez in Egypt. Shur extended southwards past the northern end of the Red Sea, "opposite Egypt" = roughly east of where the Suez Canal now runs and a little down the east side of the Red Sea. 1): Hagar may have headed towards her home country Egypt. 2): Abraham had to be far west - and very far from Arabia/Mecca - for her to find that road, as that road run inland from the Mediterranean Sea (far inland but in that region).

(1. Mos. 21/12-13): "But God/Yahweh said to him (Abraham*), 'Do not be so distressed about the boy (Ishmael*) and your maidservant (Hagar - Ishmael's mother*). Listen to what Sara (Abraham's wife*) tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of your maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring".

 

(1. Mos. 20/1): "Now Abraham moved - - - into the region of Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. Kadesh was a town West of the southern end of the Dead sea, between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, and a bit more than halfway to the Mediterranean Sea. The desert of Shur was west of Kadesh direction Egypt and near the Gulf of Suez in Egypt and southwards past the northern end of the Red Sea.. (You will meet Muslims claiming Kadesh was in or near Mecca, and others claiming it was near Petra in Jordan - necessary to be able to move the Paran desert area to the Faran Mountain and the Faran Wilderness on the Arab peninsula, rename it Paran like the Muslims have done, and claim this Paran/Faran is the Paran of the Bible? (- even though there is no doubt where the Paran of the Bible was - there is a little too much of this kind of dishonesty in Islam.)) But to tell Abraham settled between Shur, near Egypt, and Jordan or Mecca is not even comical - Muslims often are very clever at finding solutions they want to find, but forgetting or "forgetting" details - or big things - making the claimed solution wrong or invalid.) The point here is that Abraham now was living in Negev in the west, not so very far from the Mediterranean Sea area, and in the region where the road to Shur and on to Egypt crossed. The Bible tells when Abraham made major moves, and it does not mention that Abraham left this region until after Isaac was born and after Hagar and Ishmael (who must have been something like 14 - 16 years by then - he was born when Abraham was 86 years (1. Mos. 16/16) and circumcised when Abraham was 99 and Ishmael 13 years old (1. Mos. 17/24-25), and this was a bit later) had left Abraham's camp. Which indicates that Hagar and Ishmael left his camp in this area - something which may correspond well with that they took the road to Shur and on to the border of her homeland, Egypt, and settled there like the Bible tells: 1. Mos. 25/18: ""His (Ishmael's*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt". The desert of Shur is well known, but this Havilah (there is another connected to the Garden of Eden) is not clearly located, but is believed to have been in the southern part of Palestine. (We may add that Muslim sources we find on Internet - f.x. www.jamaat.net/compl/arabsinthebible.html - admits that "the wilderness of Paran" = Faran in Arabic.)

(1. Mos. 21/18): "- - - I (Yahweh*) will make him into a great nation". See further down.

(1. Mos. 21/14): "She (Hagar) went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba", which meant that she had to leave Abraham somewhere in what is now the south of Israel (Beersheba itself is some 70 miles (ca. 115 km) south of Tel Aviv) in a part of the Negev desert bordering or part the Paran area bordering Sinai - Sinai as you most likely know is a peninsula to the southwest of Israel, bordering Egypt (the Arabian peninsula is to the southeast and with the Acaba Bay between it and the Sinai peninsula).

(1. Mos.21/15): "When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes". It would not be possible for Hagar to walk to Mecca - hundreds of miles through hot desert - with the only water she had was one water skin. (Besides there was no sane reason for her to walk that way - this even more so as she was not from Arabia, and had absolutely no known connection to that area, but was from Egypt = in the west.)

(1. Mos. 21/21): "While he (Ishmael*) lived in the desert of Paran, his mother (Hagar*) got a wife for him from Egypt". Muslims dearly wants Paran to mean Paran in Arabia (the name really was Faran, but has become Paran because Muslims wanted it to be a reference from the Bible), but Paran Desert was an area south of Canaan - and south of Beersheba - bordering North Sinai and reaching towards Elath. The name of the area today is el-Tih. The Desert of Paran also contained the Mountain of Paran mentioned in 5. Mos. 33/2. As Paran bordered Canaan, Moses sent his 12 spies into Canaan from here (from in or near the town of Kadesh) - if he had sent them from Paran/Faran in Arabia, they first would have had to cross hundreds of miles - and kilometers - of forbidding desert to reach Canaan. And how far would Hagar have had to travel to find a wife from Egypt to him? (It is typical for Muslim argumentation to produce claims where details - or not details - are omitted to get the (made up) argument they want - you meet this technique a bit too often. It is one of the problems we meet when studying Islamic literature - all information has to be checked, because you never know what is true and what is f.x. an al-Taqiyya (lawful lie), a Kitman (lawful half-truth), or even just wishful thinking helped by invalid logic (Muslims often jumps from "this may be a possibility" or even weaker to "it is like this") to make things fit the Quran. It may seem like many Muslims in addition are little trained in the use of the laws of logic and in critical thinking.))

But the Muslims' high-jacking of Paran has one good effect: They have placed lots of pictures from Paran/Faran in Arabia on Internet. Paran/Faran itself is a mountain, and the wilderness is lying near and mainly north of Mecca, and Abraham would have had to cross the large desert now called the Paran Wilderness by Muslims to reach Mecca - and live in it, as Mecca used to be similar to this at that time. Open some of the pages and look at the pictures: How tempted would Abraham be to go into hundreds of miles of this with all his cattle? Exactly not at all. (This in addition to that it is well known where the real Paran from the Bible was).

(1. Mos. 25/16): "These (the 12 sons of Ishmael*) are the names of the 12 tribal rulers - - -" = the great nation mentioned in 1. Mos.21/18 - Muslims never mention this verse. (But there is a large difference between a promise to make them a great nation and a covenant. Also remember that a great nation at that time was something different from today - f.x. Abraham with his 318 men beat the combined forces of 4 kings in battle near Dan (1. Mos. 14/14-15))

(1. Mos. 25/18): "His (Ishmael's*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur (see above*), near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur (= eastwards*)". One more verse Muslims never - never - mention.

(1. Mos. 25/18): "And they (the sons of Ishmael) lived in hostility toward all their brothers". Also this a verse Muslims never mention - perhaps because they want it to have been a good relationship so that there still could be a brotherhood when Moses made his speech in 5. Mos. 500 - 700 years later, and when Muhammad came some 2500 years later - - - if the Arabs are descendants from among many others Ishmael.

There are two ways to understand this sentence: They lived in hostility towards each other, or they lived in hostility towards the sons of their uncle Isaac. As it is said in 1. Mos. 21/18 that they - the 12 tribes descending from Ishmael - became a great nation, the second meaning is the likely one. May be partly for this reason, the descendants of Ishmael are never in the Bible reckoned by the Jews to be relatives, or at least very, very distant such ones.

All this points to that Hagar and Ishmael left the camp of Abraham in west Negev, took the road towards Shur, direction Egypt and settled near the border of Egypt, likely north the desert Shur - i.e. between Shur and the Mediterranean Sea somewhere - - - pretty far from Arabia and Mecca, and in nearly exactly the opposite direction.

One final and partly different point: As mentioned costal Arabia was settled around 5ooo BC (or earlier). The interior was settled 1ooo years or a bit more later. By 1800 BC the peninsula had a reasonably big population. Even if Ishmael took all his 12 sons and moved to Arabia, how big percent of the total population of Arabia would they make up? In other words: How big percent of the forefathers of the Arabs of today, or at the time of Muhammad, did Ishmael represent? - a small number behind a lot of zeroes behind a comma. Even in the unlikely case that Ishmael had settled in Arabia and not near Egypt, Arabs 2400 years later (Muhammad) or 3800 years later (today) were/are not the descendants of Ishmael, but the descendants of all the people living in Arabia in the old times, of which Ishmael in case had made up only a miniscule part of a percent (for the Jews the picture is a bit different, because of the restrictions on marrying outside the group - a restriction often broken, but all the same relatively effective). This in addition to all later mixing with people from the outside, included hundreds of thousands (likely a some millions) slave girls imported to a miserable life in the harems of Arabs before and after Muhammad.

Also see 2/127a below.

We may add that Muslim sources we find on Internet - f.x. www.jamaat.net/compl/arabsinthebible.html - admits that "the wilderness of Paran" = Faran in Arabic.

542 2/125f: “- - - the Station of Abraham (Maqam-e-Ibrahim*)- - -“. A historical anomaly - see 4/13d. It is unclear when this expression was used the first time, but naturally not before Abraham at the outmost, and likely much later. See 2/124a+c above and 4/13d below.

543 2/125g: "- - - the House - - -". Kabah mosque in Mecca. The Quran claims one place the foundation was made by Abraham and Ishmael, another place that the original building was made by the two. There are too many reasons why this is not true - see 2/127a below.

544 2/125h: "- - - the House - - -". Kabah mosque in Mecca - a building and a town never mentioned in the not falsified Bible - which it should have been if the building and town were so holy and central to the god - - - if Yahweh and Allah had been the same god.

545 2/125i: “- - - We covenanted with Abraham and Ishmael, that they should sanctify my House (Kabah in Mecca*)”. Not mentioned in the Bible - and as the Bible tells even about the altar, the grave, etc. Abraham built, it is highly unlikely they forgot to mention a huge temple. Besides: Abraham and Ishmael had nothing to do with the building of the Kabah - see 2/127a below.

546 2/125j: "- - - Abraham - - -". See 2/124a+c above and 4/13d below.

547 2/125k: "- - - Ishmael - - -". The oldest son of Abram/Abraham. His mother was Sarai's/Sarah's slave Hagar. Muslims sometimes quote 1. Mos. 16/3: "(Sarai/Sarah*) gave her (Hagar) to her husband (Abram/Abraham*) to be his wife". Like so often Muslims cherry-pick quotes and omit what does not fit their wishes: The contents of 1. Mos. 16/2-9 and 1. Mos. 21/10 makes it very clear that this just is a polite way of describing the physical facts and that she never became his wife - she simply remained Serai's/Sarah's slave for another may be 15 years.

Also a historical anomaly: Similar comment to 2/124a+c above and 4/13d below.

548 2/125l: "- - - they should sanctify my House (Kabah in Mecca*) - - -." The Quran claims Abraham was in what was to become Mecca because he had left Hagar and Ishmael there years before - a claim never documented (and wrong according to the Bible), but which according to A: "The Message of the Quran" used to be an old Arab tradition (do an omniscient god have to listen to legends?). This is contradicting the Bible (1.Mos. 21/14): "She (Hagar*) went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba". Beersheba was and is in the south part of Palestine - far from Arabia and Mecca.

What is more: According to the Bible (1. Mos. 25/18) Hagar - who was from Egypt - and her son settled near Egypt, not Arabia: "- - - his descendants settled in the area from Havila to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur" (1.Mos. 25/18).

Islam never mentions the last part of this, and explains Beersheba away with claiming that all desert south of Beersheba used to be called "the wilderness of Beersheba" and the Paran desert they explain away with that there was a mountain in near Mecca named Paran - or originally Faran if our sources are correct - and what is the difference between "desert" and "mountain" - or between "Paran" and "Faran"? - voila: It must have happened in Arabia!! (It normally is called the wilderness or the desert of Paran by Muslims today - and on Internet you find a lot of claims for that this was the Biblical Paran.)

The problem is that Arabia and Arabs are mentioned at least 15 times in OT (see 2/42d above) - so the makers of the OT clearly knew the difference between Beersheba and Arabia - and Egypt - and especially when so large distances were involved. Also they knew what a desert was, and the difference between a desert and a mountain. The Mormons claim Jesus visited USA - they have yet to prove it. Muslims claim Abraham visited Mecca - they have yet to prove it. But of course such claims make good anchors to "solid religious ground" as long as they can evade questions for proofs.

Also see 2/125e above and 2/127a below.

549 2/125m: "- - - My (Allah's*) House (the Kabah mosque in Mecca*). Never mentioned in the Bible, which it should have been if it was the central point on Earth also for Yahweh.

550 2/125n: "- - - those who compass it (the Kabah mosque*) around - - -". The rites for pilgrims in Mecca are pretty primitive and childish. The reason may be that Muhammad simply took them over from the earlier primitive pagan local religion in Mecca and Arabia.

551 2/125-132: This is too long to quote, but it is clear that according to the Quran Abraham was a devote Muslim and bowed to Allah in Islam long before Muhammad. These verses thus clearly contradict the verse 6/14 and some others in one of the two possible meanings of that verse. See 6/14 below. Not to mention that it contradicts the OT where Abraham is said to believe in Yahweh.

552 2/126a: “- - - Abraham said: ‘Make this (Mecca*) a City Of Peace - - -.” Wrong. Abraham never was in Mecca, unless Islam produces solid proofs for it. See 2/125d above and 2/217a below.

553 2/126b: “- - - Abraham said: ‘Make this (Mecca*) a City Of Peace - - -.” This is not from the Bible, the only known source for information about Abraham. And as the Quran also is not from a god - too much is wrong in the book - from where did Muhammad get these pieces of information? The only sources possible are legends, fairy tales or fantasy.

554 2/126c: “- - - Abraham said: ‘Make this (Mecca*) a City Of Peace - - -.” This is quite a contradiction, both with reality, as at the time of Muhammad 2500 years later, Mecca was not a really old city, and with the Quran. The Quran tells that Hagar run around in this empty desert valley where Mecca once in the r future became situated, finding neither people nor water after being left by Abraham when Abraham already was some 101 years old. And here Abraham all the same talks about "this City" Mecca!

555 2/126d: "- - - Abraham - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/124a+c above and 4/13d below.

556 2/126e: "- - - make this (Mecca*) a City of Peace - - -". This is a special historical anomaly (see 4/13d below), as not even Abraham could understand what this referred to - Mecca is much younger than Abraham, and the city did not exist at his time. A clear mistake (notice that he said "this" not "what will come here" or something similar).

557 2/126f: "- - - make this (Mecca*) a City of Peace - - -". the mentioning Mecca is a clear historical anomaly no matter if we reckon that it was from Abraham's time or from its real start. See 4/13d below.

 

558 2/126g: "- - - for a while I (Allah*) will grant them (non-Muslims*) their pleasure, but will soon drive them to the torment of Fire (Hell*) - - -". This was Muhammad’s standard explanation for why non-Muslims often had a better life than Muslims: Allah in his endless wisdom had decided it like this. But sooth yourself and be satisfied and glad: They will be punished in the next life - and you will be on top.

559 2/126h: "- - - but will soon drive them to the torment of Fire - - -". See 3/77b below.

560 2/126: "- - - the Fire - - -". Hell.

561 2/126j: "- - - (indeed) - - -". See 2/2b above.

##562 2/127a: “And remember that Abraham and Ishmael raised the foundations of the House (Kabah*) (with this prayer): - - - “. Abraham never built the foundation of Kabah (and a contradiction; other verses say he built the building, not only the foundation of it) - and there are several reasons for this:

He was born in Ur in Chaldea (if he really existed) in what is now south Iraq. Together with his father, (Terah according to the Bible (1. Mos. 11/26-32), Azar in the Quran (6/74)), he later travelled northwest up along the Euphrates valley to Haran in what is now north Iraq. Years later - after his father was dead - he continued south-southwest to Canaan and the town Sikem in what is now Israel (Sikem is north of Jerusalem. It is now named Nablus). That is to say he travelled along the so-called Fertile Crescent - the natural route when you travel with flocks of animals. The alternative was to take a shortcut through the Arab desert, but few of his numerous sheep and goats and cows would survive such a trip. He never visited Mecca on his way from Ur to Sikem. (Besides this was too early in the story - Ishmael was not born yet, and he is a part of the building of the Kabah according to the Quran).

Abraham then settled in the western part of Canaan (now approximately Israel), whereas his nephew Lot settled in the Jordan valley and in the Arabah Valley south of the Dead Sea further east. Later Abraham moved south to Negev in Sinai. Negev today is most known for its desert, but not all was desert. All this is according to the Bible, but the Quran has no conflicting information, except that his father had another name, and that he quarreled with his father about Allah, which is not told in the Bible (on the contrary - they lived together till Terah died). The point is that between Canaan and Mecca and also between West Negev and Mecca are hundreds and hundreds of miles or kilometers of the tough and dry and hot Arab desert. Abraham was rich and had huge flocks of animals. He could not take those huge flocks of sheep, etc., through Lot's area and then through that desert, and especially so when there was no reason for doing it.

Abraham lived hundreds of miles from Mecca - and had to cross harsh terrain to get to and from (see 2/125d above). Nobody builds a big temple for himself and his family at a place they can never or nearly never visit.

Abraham was a nomad. Nomads do not have the know-how and technology to build large stone buildings.

Hadiths tell than when Mecca restored the Kabah some years before Muhammad took over, they rebuilt it smaller than Abraham's(?) foundations. Which means that the nomad Abraham and his son built so big, that it was too big and too expensive for the full city of Mecca to rebuild in the same size. A nomad and his son building that big a temple for himself and his small family, even though he lived hundreds of miles away and at the very best hardly ever could visit the place? Of course you are free to believe it if you want.

Abraham and Lot split up for practical reasons - Lot moved east whereas Abraham moved west (1. Mos. 13/11-12). Arabia and the place which was to become Mecca many generations later was to the east - much further east and south than even Lot settled.

(1. Mos. 14/6): "- - - in the Hill country of Seir, as far as El Paran near the desert". Seir was the hilly country east of the southern end of the Dead Sea. To the west of this was the Arabah Valley (running from Elath to the Dead Sea), and across that valley you met the Paran Desert - quite a long way from Mecca.

Abraham simply was not involved in the building of Kabah, and it is highly unlikely he ever visited Mecca and even the Arab peninsula. It looks like a fairy tale made up to give weight to Kabah and to Islam. And not least to give weight to Muhammad, who 2500 years later could tell he was direct descendant from Abraham - without the slightest written paper from all those years. 2500 years of mostly an-alphabetic nomads without any written history. Believe it if you want – and if you know who were all your forefathers the year 500 BC (= ca. 2500 years ago), as after 2500 years you have, and Muhammad had a large number of them (something like 80 generations give you quite a number of forfeiters, not only one - Abraham - like Muhammad claimed).

 

It also is worth adding that Muslims say that Mecca was where Abraham’s (or actually Sarah’s) slave, Hagar, and his and her child Ismail (Ishmael) were sent away from Abraham’s camp, that the two lived there, and that Abraham frequently visited them later. There is no source of information for this. The OT says they lived in Negev, which is weeks by camel from Mecca - and much, much longer for large flocks of sheep, goats, and cattle (American cowboys driving flocks of cattle to the railway, made 10-12 miles – 16-20 km - a day. The nomads in the south hardly moved any faster - - - if they could find water). In addition to the long time it would take, many animals hardly would survive the long trek through the harsh Arab desert with little food and hardly any water. And there was in addition no reason for him and his family to take such a dangerous and meaningless trip with their animals to a barren and dry valley. And as he never visited Mecca, he could not have left Hagar and Ismail there (this even more so as the Bible mention that Ishmael lived near the border of Egypt and got his wife from Egypt (see below) - - - and science and Islam both have proved that the Bible is not falsified (Islam has delivered a very strong proof by being unable to find even one clear falsification among all the tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts) - the easy way out for Muslims when the Bible mentions things they do not like). If Islam wants to insist that he ever visited Mecca, they have to produce strong proofs, as it is extremely unlikely - and “special statements demands special proofs”. It is highly likely this just is a story made up or “borrowed” from f.x. Arab folklore to give the teachings of Muhammad credence.

One more fact: The Bible – a book which Islam insists is correct every time there is some text they like, but which may be the truth other times, too - says (1. Mos. 21/21): “While he (Ishmael*) was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt”. Except for religious Muslims who strongly wishes this to be a reference to Paran or Faran near Mecca, all serious scientists say that this was Paran in or bordering Sinai - - - which also made it easier for his mother (who was from Egypt) to find him a wife from Egypt even though that made his children ¾ Egyptian and only ¼ descendants of Abraham’s stock (there is mentioned only one wife for Ishmael). Also remember that the old Egyptians were not Arabs, even if modern Egyptians often are called Arabs - where is the pure Arab blood of Ishmael's descendant?

Further (1. Mos. 25/18): “His (Ishmael’s) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur”. The border of Egypt means near the Red Sea or north of the Red Sea up to the Gulf of Suez. Just where scientists place Paran - it run from there and towards Elath. (It is a bit ironic that Islam say the Bible has the name correct, (but claim it is meaning Faran in Arabia), but all the rest of the information about place, wife from (neighboring) Egypt, etc. wrong. Though if you go looking, you will find that according to Islam, the Bible never has a mistake and is reliable when what it says fits Islam. Only when it tells things or facts that contradicts Islam, the Bible is falsified - or like here one simply omits the contradicting facts - - - which one safely can do, as hardly any Muslim knows the Bible well enough to see the cherry-picking of information, unless he has higher religious education). And NB: This was written 1000 or more years before Muhammad, and thus with no reason to place Ishmael far from Arabia if it was not the truth.

There also is another fact: The Bible reports on what Abraham built: He built an altar at Shechem (1. Mos. 12/6-7), an altar at Betel (1. Mos. 12/8), and an altar at Mamre, near Hebron (1. Mos. 13/18) - altars simply were a regular heap of natural, not artificially formed stones - - - and that is it. This is all the Bible tells he built (except for Sarah's grave, but that was not a building, but a cave (1. Mos. 23/19)). Then the Quran claims he suddenly built a huge temple (mosque), a big stone building which for one thing is far outside the know-how of a nomad to build, and for another thing is situated far away from all places Abraham ever was (as far as we can find the nearest he ever was Mecca, was Hebron, a good number of miles (multiply wit 1.6 to get km) south of Bethlehem. And not least: The building of this big temple is not at all mentioned in the Bible, even if it had to take a number of years to build it - Solomon with his enormous resources and his army of highly qualified builders (though no jinns, etc. like the Quran claims) used 7 years to build his temple (1. Kings 6/38), and a big church in medieval Europe could take up to 30 years. These years of building the Kabah is not in any way mentioned in the Bible - neither the building, nor the years it took, nor when it was done. Actually the time and resources it took also is not mentioned in the Quran - it just is indicated (though not directly said) that the Kabah was built during one or a few short visits to Mecca, and nothing about the skill and resources needed and the time it takes for building such a big temple/mosque. No comments - and none necessary.

Besides:To go all the way to Mecca as mentioned was too forbidding for a man with large flocks of animal – and there never was a reason to go there for Abraham. On the contrary: Little food for his animals, no water in Mecca before the Zamzam was found later (?) – and Ishmael living “near the border of Egypt”. He never was in Mecca and consequently never built the Kabah – the big temple that he anyhow did not have the know-how to build, and worse; could not use, because he lived the better part of 1000 km away (this even more so as he could not travel "as the crow flees", but had to go as the cow grazes). And one he did not need as it was far too big for his small family - 2 sons included Ishmael, one wife and some workers. This claim, too, is a clear contradiction to the Bible.

Also remember that science clearly says: "It is practically sure that Abraham never visited Mecca" (and the claim that he built the Kabah, they do not even bother to comment on). And: The ones writing OT some 9oo-1400 or may be a bit more before Muhammad started his preaching - even if they had falsified the scriptures, they had no reason to falsify Abraham out of Arabia as Muhammad and his religion was unknown to them. And: Abraham as said had his pastures in the west whereas Lot had chosen the eastern area (1. Mos. 13/11-12) - i.e. according to the agreement between them Lot's pastures were around and south of the Dead Sea towards Acaba, whereas Abraham grazed his cattle in the western parts of Canaan and later in Negev, both nearer the Mediterranean Sea. Which means that to visit Mecca, Abraham had to move all his cattle from the Mediterranean region and all the way through Lot's area down to Ababa, and then through the forbidding desert to Mecca - a place in or near the Faran Wilderness, a wilderness which now Muslims now have renamed Paran (Muslim sources on Internet admits that the real Arab name was Faran - but you f.x. meet Muslims claiming that Faran just is the Arab name, and that it is named Paran by others - - - a well chosen "explanation" as Muslims saw the name Paran in the Bible, and said: This sounds very like Faran - it must mean Faran. And then they started to tell that Paran, yes, that was in Arabia near Mecca! And foreigners not knowing the real name, used - and uses - the new Arab name Paran as they did not and do not know it is wrong - very few non-Arabs know that the correct name of that wilderness is Faran). Just take a look at the pictures from Faran/Paran, Arabia (they today use only the name Paran to be able to claim that Ishmael was there according to the Bible) and see how tempting this area was for a nomad with lots and lots of animals - Abraham was rich. No rich nomad in his right mind would even think of moving hundreds and hundreds of miles - and more in kilometers - from good pastures in the west to dry desert - Mecca did not even have a well, because this according to the Quran was before the Zamzam well was found.

The scientists are right: Abraham never was in Mecca - and to comment on the claim that he built the Kabah is not even worth to bother about.

And see 2/125e above.

563 2/127b: "- - - Abraham - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/124a+c above and 4/13d below.

564 2/127c: "- - - Ishmael - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/125k above and 4/13d below..

565 2/127d: "- - - Abraham and Ishmael raised the foundation of the House (Kabah mosque in Mecca*) - - -". This is never mentioned in the Bible, which it should have been if Yahweh and Allah had been the same god, and if the Kabah was so central and holy for this god like described in the Quran.

566 2/127e: "- - - Thou (Allah*) art the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing". So do not try to cheat - and also see 2/233h and 35/38b below.

567 2/128a: "Make of us (Abraham and Ishmael*) - - -". 2 historical anomalies. See 2/124a+c and 2/125k above and 4/13d below.

568 2/128b: "Make of us (Abraham and Ishmael*) Muslims - - -". This was some 2500 years before Muhammad and 2500 years before the first time Muslims appeared. In addition science has found not one single trace of a religion similar to Islam (if you omit Jews and Christians who are some percent similar) anywhere in the world older than 610 AD when Muhammad started his preaching. Worse: Also Islam has been unable to find traces from such a religion. It should be unnecessary to mention that this claim also contradicts the Bible.

569 2/128c: "(Allah is*) - - - Most Merciful". See 1/1a above.

570 2/129a: “Our Lord (Allah*)! Send amongst them (Muslims/Arabs*) a Messenger (Muhammad*) of their own - - -". This is not from the Bible.

571 2/129b: “Our Lord (Allah*)! Send amongst them (Muslims/Arabs*) a Messenger (Muhammad*) of their own who shall rehearse Thy Signs - - -”. It is symptomatic that Muhammad never ever was able to produce one single real and indisputable “sign”, even though he was asked for it many times.(Also a contradiction to the Bible.)

572 2/129c: “Our Lord (Allah*)! Send amongst them (Muslims/Arabs*) a Messenger of their own (Abraham said*) - - -". You find nothing like this in the Bible (the nearest may be 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 - Moses making a speech to his followers about among other things their future) - but it is "gefundenes Fressen" for followers of Muhammad - an indication for something. But from where is this indication? As the Quran is not from a god, the most likely source is Muhammad's brain, but the possibility that it came from dark forces or human helpers/advisers cannot be totally omitted.

573 2/129d: "- - - Messenger - - -". See 63/5a below.

574 2/129e: “- - - Thy (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

575 2/129f: "- - - Thou (Allah*) art the Exalted in Might - - -". Often claimed, never clearly proved - not once in 1400 years.

576 2/129g: "- - - Thou (Allah*) art - - - the Wise". Not if he made the Quran with all its mistakes, etc.

577 2/130a: “- - - the religion of Abraham (= Islam*) - - -.” (Falsification?*) The Quran often claims that Islam = the religion of Abraham. But it always was an only is a claim – no proof, no documentation - not even a try to explain, except the undocumented and not proved claim that everyone who say something else are lying, and that other scriptures which science deems more reliable (not proved 100% for each separately, but far more likely to be true - and 100% seen all together) are falsifications, even though science has shown that they are not falsified – may be are not everything true in the Bible, too, but science has clearly shown it is not falsified. Actually when you see all the tens of thousands of manuscripts together (some 300 copies or fragments of the Gospels, some 12ooo copies or fragments from the Bible, some 32ooo manuscripts with quotations from the Bible - all from before 610 AD) - each and every saying the same except for normal variations for hand-written documents, and not one of them with marks from "doctoring" the text, the proof is more than 100% - especially when you remember that also Islam, in spite of 1400 years of more or less intensive search for proofs, has found exactly nothing - they even are so hard up that they use apocryphal - known false - scriptures for arguments! - like if we had used Hadiths Islam and others know are false ones.) If Islam claims something, they will have to produce proofs, not only claims which are not even based on a likely theory about how all the thousands of different manuscript shall have had so many chapters and verses falsified in exactly the same way – spread over all the world one knew at that time. All which Islam offers, is a stubborn claim – not even a theory about how it should be possible to falsify everything, or about why all the thousands of old manuscripts that science knows, show it is not falsified. Not to mention how to make Jews and Christians make just the same falsifications - f.x. about foretelling about Jesus. For comparison: Islam's claims about falsifications of the Bible are not proved even 0,01%. They only are claims. Claims with 0.00% proof - nothing at all.

No proof of falsification. No documentation of falsification even though there exist thousands of documents. Only a stubborn claim based on nothing but a book with lots of mistakes, dictated by a man with questionable moral and a lust for power and riches for bribes and women, to say the least of it.

Actually the very best proof for that there are no falsifications in the Bible is produced not by science, but by Islam: The fact that they have been unable to find even one falsification in accordance with their claims in all those tens of thousands of relevant manuscripts - is a 110% proof for that there is not one falsification in all those papers. If there had been, Islam had found them - and yodeled loudly about it. Also see 2/75b above and 3/24d and 3/77a below.

578 2/130b: “- - - Abraham - - -". A historical anomaly, comments like in 2/124a+c above and 4/13d below.

579 2/130c: "- - - such (persons*) who debase their souls with folly - - -". One more of Muhammad's discriminating names for non-Muslims.

580 2/130d: "- - - the Righteous". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

***581 2/131: “- - - Lord of the Worlds”. The Quran tells about 7 (flat) worlds (65/12) – one above the other according to Hadith. Wrong (One small detail: In Abdullah Yusuf Ali (the same Yusuf Ali, but revised after his death): “The Meaning of the Holy Quran”, 11. edition, the word is changed from “the Worlds” to “the Universe” – one my guess why. And in 2009 AD: We bought a newer edition of Ali's "The Holy Quran". The same informative "correction" is done here - even though the word "universe" in our meaning of the word hardly even existed in languages like Arab around 650 AD, and according to our sources is not used here. Falsifications of translations to become more "correct" are informative - at least to the second power.

A curiosum here is that in our latest edition of A. Yusuf Ali: "The Holy Quran" the expression is changed to "- - - the Lord - - - of the Universe". A much bigger word than "the Worlds" - and a word which according to our sources does not exist in the Quran, and absolutely is not used here. If the Arab text here is "doctored", it is not the only case in translations of the book.

582 2/132a: "- - - Abraham - - -". A historical anomaly - see 2/124a+c above and 4/13d below.

583 2/132b: "- - - Jacob - - -". The last of the 3 main Jewish patriarchs. He was the grandson of Abraham - - - and not a single reader of the claimed copies of the timeless "Mother Book" could understand a reference to him until well after he was born. Parallel to 2/124a+c above. Also see 4/13d below.

584 2/132c: "Allah hath chosen the Faith for you - - -". Not possible unless Allah exists and is a major god.

585 2/132d: "Allah hath chosen the Faith for you - - - Islam". Strongly contradicted by 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.

586 2/132e: "- - - the Faith - - -". Islam - only Islam is faith according to the Quran. (A contradiction to f.x. the Bible).

587 2/132f: (Both Abraham and Jacob said before they died):"Die not except in the Faith of Islam". To say the least of it: Strongly contradicted by 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. And one may add: This is one of the kinds of stealing from "mother" and other religions which is quite normal in emerging sects and "daughter" religions - can this have been the case here?

588 2/132g: (Both Abraham and Jacob said before they died):"Die not except in the Faith of Islam". What then if Islam is a made up religion? - as the Quran is full of errors, it at least is from no god, so this is a real possibility. F.x. where will the believers in a brutal war religion believing in dishonesty, end if that religion is made up (f.x. by a cold or sick brain wanting power and riches and women), if there instead is a real and benevolent god at "the other side"?

589 2/132h: "(Jacob said) - - - die not except in the Faith of Islam". Jacob at least was no Muslim, as he was married to two sisters (Leah and Rachel) at the same time, which is strictly forbidden for Muslims. (This in addition to that the only real source for knowledge about the old patriarchs - the Bible - tells a very different story).

590 2/133a: "- - - Jacob - - -". historical anomaly. See 2/132c above and 4/13d below.

591 2/133b: (The sons of Jacob promised him before he died): "- - - the One (True) God (Allah*): to Him we bow (in Islam)". One more contradiction to the Bible. Further comments unnecessary - except: See 2/132c+d above.

592 2/133c: "- - - (the god) of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac - - -". This was said when Jacob died according to the Quran (you do not find this in the Bible). At that time Ishmael's descendants already were 3/4 Egyptian (both Ishmael's mother and wife were from Egypt (1.Mos. 20/21)) and they were living in hostility to the descendants of Isaac and Jacob (1.Mos. 25/18). They also were outside the covenant line through Isaac (1.Mos. 20/12). If you know a little about people, how likely is it that Ishmael was mentioned here?. (But Muhammad needed "quotes" like this to connect his new religion to an old one.)

593 2/133d: "- - - Abraham - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/124a+c above and 4/13d below.

594 2/133e: "- - - Ishmael - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/125i above and 4/13d below.

595 2/133f: "- - - Isaac - - -". A historical anomaly. Isaac was the second son of Abraham and the son through whom the covenant with Yahweh should pass, according to the Bible (1. Mos. 21/12). He also was the second of the 3 main Jewish patriarchs. If he ever lived, he lived around 1700 - 1900 BC. And we are back to the old fact that as the claimed "Mother Book" in Heaven of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy, was made before man was created or even to have existed since eternity and never created, the many copies claimed by the Quran to be sent down to thousands of claimed prophets and messengers for Allah through all times have to be similar to the Quran, as they are copies of the same everlasting book. But no reader of such a Quran could understand references to Isaac - and to many others in the Quran - until after Isaac at least was born - - - and Homo Sapiens had existed perhaps 191ooo years before that and according to the Quran had been sent prophets, etc. with such books all the time and all places - and in addition there were all the older races of humans. There is no meaning in sending down claimed holy books full of references the readers could not understand (this on top of the fact that except for the last few millennia even prophets could not read). Also see 4/13d below.

596 2/133g: (The sons of Jacob promised him before he died): "- - - the One (True) God (Allah*) - - -", See 2/255a below.

597 2/133h: "- - - (True) - - -",'. See 2/2b above.

598 2/134: "They (the forefathers*) shall reap the fruits of what they did, and ye of what ye do!" Islam does not have the concept of "the inherited sin" - Adam and Eve fell from grace, but all the same were forgiven, according to the Quran".

599 2/135a: "They say: 'Become Jews or Christians - - -'". How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before? See 2/51b above.

600 2/135b: "- - - Jews - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/111b above and 4/13d below.

601 2/135c: "- - - Christians - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/111c above and 4/13d below.

602 2/135d: “- - - the Religion of Abraham - - -". There is nowhere any indication for that Abraham's religion was Islam. There only are Muhammad's claims. (According to the Bible his god was Yahweh, not Allah.)

603 2/135e: “- - - the Religion of Abraham, the True (religion*) - - -“. According to the Quran, Abraham was a Muslim. But looking at all the other mistakes and twisted logic and stories in the Quran and at the (not falsified) texts in the Bible, Islam will have to produce real proofs for that that was true. Also see 2/130a above.

604 2/135f: "- - - Abraham - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/124a+c above and 4/13d below-

605 2/135g: "- - - True - - -". See 2/2b above. In this case the claim hardly is true at all, unless Islam brings some proofs.

606 2/135h: (Abraham) "joined not gods with Allah". According to the Bible Abraham's god was Yahweh. (Islam likes to claim - but like always never prove - that Yahweh = Allah, but the basics of those two teachings are fundamentally so different that this is impossible, unless the god is mentally ill). Also see 2/132a above and 2/255a below.

607 2/135i: (Abraham) "joined not gods with Allah". Neither do Jews or Christians. They only have one god. If Muhammad - and Muslims - does/do not understand the Trinity (Muhammad here was completely lost, mixing Mary into it), that is his/their problem - Christians understand it and know there only is one god, Yahweh (even though less than 10% of the Christians know this name, and only calls him God.) Also see 2/255a, 6/106b and 25/18a below.

608 2/136a: “- - - the revelations (the Quran*) - - -". Was it really a revelation? - and in case from whom? A book of a quality like the Quran is not from any god - too much is wrong. Then remain dark forces or an illness.

As for dark forces Muhammad would not have one chance to see the difference between the angel Gabriel and the Devil dressed up like Gabriel. Also the partly immoral moral code, the war religion, etc. might indicate an explanation like this. But we personally are reluctant to believe this, because not even a devil would use a book with so many errors as his "holy" book - he had to know he would be found out sooner or later and loose credence. There is one possibility, though: If the god permitted him to try to lure or cheat more humans to Hell - say the god f.x. wanted fewer of the stupid ones in his Paradise - but on the condition that so much should be wrong, that any intelligent person should be able to see the trap and evade it. Well, it is a possibility.

When it comes to illness, the one modern medical science suspects, is TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. (See f.x. BBC, Thursday, 20 March 2003 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2865009.stm - broadcast 17 April 2003 on BBC Two)). This illness can give just the kind of "religious experiences", "religious visions" - or hallucinations - etc. and the physical fits and seizures it is claimed Muhammad had.

And of course it is possible it all came just from a cold brain wanting power, riches for bribes, and women - but then it was no revelation. This has been the case for many a self proclaimed "prophet" - there have been many of them through the times. Actually this is the most likely explanation in the case Muhammad, because so many of the mistakes were what one believed in in Arabia at the time of Muhammad, because even though the Quran claims Allah is a universal god, everything was about Arabia and neighboring areas, because when there were problems or something, the comments came afterward - a god could have commented on it before to tell them the right thing to do or to avoid the problems, because Allah so often helped Muhammad also in family trouble and other private problems - typical for many false "prophets", and not to forget because of all the mistakes which were in accordance with (wrong) science there at the time of Muhammad. If this was combined with TLE, Muhammad might at least partly believe in his religion himself.

609 2/136b: “- - - the revelations (the Quran*) given to us (Muhammad/Muslims*)”. Were they really given? Under no circumstances did such revelations/the Quran come from an omniscient god – not that full of mistakes, etc. Also see 2/136a just above.

610 2/136c: "- - - the revelation given to us (Muhammad*), and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes (the 12 Jewish tribes*) and that given to Moses and Jesus, and given to (all) the Prophets (Hadiths mention the number 124ooo prophets during all times and all places!) - - -". The Quran as you see claims that all prophets to all times each has got their copy of the Quran - or to be more correct a copy of the same revered "mother book" in Heaven which the Quran is a copy of according to Islam. It must have been informative for the claimed Inuit prophets in North Canada to read about the blessed shade from the sun and the fruits and camels everyone knew, or for one in the really old England to read about the blessed rain.

Science has found exactly not one trace from neither the claimed prophets, nor the claimed Islamic religion, nor from any of the claimed books - mot even a reference. Whereas from the Bible there are more than 40ooo manuscripts, fragments or quotations older than 610 AD - manuscripts only referring to but not quoting the Bible, not included. Worse: Also Islam has found not one proved falsification strengthening their claims - a 110% proof for that there are no falsifications, because if there had been, Islam had found them and screamed and bellowed about them

Believe this Islamic claim whoever wants.

611 2/136d: "- - - Abraham - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/124a+c above and 4/13d below.

612 2/136e: "- - - Ishmael - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/125i above and 4/13d below.

613 2/136f: "- - - Isaac - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/133f above and 4/13d below.

614 2/136g: "- - - Jacob - - ". A historical anomaly. See 2/132c above and 4/13d below.

615 2/136h: "- - - the Tribes - - -". A historical anomaly. This refers to the 12 Jewish tribes, each founded by one of Jacob's 12 sons. The comments are parallel to f.x. Abraham (2/124a+c) or Jacob (2/132c) - no user of the claimed parallels to the Quran could understand this reference until these tribes came into existence. As it takes some time to grow from a person to a family to a tribe, one may guess that this reference had no meaning for readers/listeners until around 1600 BC at the earliest. For f.x. Noah or Abraham this expression had no meaning.

616 2/136i: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. If the Bible gives his age correctly and if science gives the time of the Exodus correctly, Moses lived from ca. 1315 BC to ca. 1195 BC. The Quran claims that humans to all times and all places have been sent prophets or messengers for Allah, and that each has got a copy of the claimed "Mother Book" in Heaven = similar to the Quran, which also is claimed to be a copy of that claimed timeless book. But no user of those "Qurans" could understand references to Moses until after they knew about him - which they for one thing could not do until well after he was born, and for another thing not until information about him had reached them, which took a long time to f.x. Bolivia or Siberia or the Philippines or New Zealand. For claimed prophets there references to Moses - and many and much other - had exactly no meaning. No omniscient god would send down a book where large parts of the text had no meaning to more than 100ooo of his prophets.

617 2/136j: "- - - Jesus - - -". A historical anomaly. Born just over 2ooo years ago. For most of our readers Jesus needs no presentation. For the benefit of Muslims we add that the information about him in the Quran frequently varies quite a lot from the one in the Bible - and both science and Islam has thoroughly proved that the Bible is not falsified, in spite of what Muhammad liked to claim - but only claim. As for readers from other religions (we f.x. have many Hindu readers): We think Jesus is so well known, that most of you at least have a rough picture about his life. The Quran claims that humans to all times and all places have been sent prophets or messengers for Allah, and that each has got a copy of the claimed "Mother Book" in Heaven = similar to the Quran, which also is claimed to be a copy of that claimed timeless book. But no user of those "Qurans" could understand references to Jesus until after they knew about him - which they for one thing could not do until after he was born, and for another thing not until information about him had reached them, which took a long time to f.x. Chile or Finland or Korea or Australia's Outback. For claimed prophets in older times and in many places references to Jesus - and many and much other - had exactly no meaning. No omniscient god would send down a book where large parts of the text had no meaning to 124ooo or more of his prophets.

618 2/136k: "- - - (all) Prophets (included Muhammad*) - - -". But Muhammad was no real prophet. The definition of a prophet was a person who could see at least parts of the unseen, and thus a person who:

Have the gift of and close enough connection to a god for making prophesies.

Makes prophesies that always or at least mostly come true.

Makes so frequent and/or essential prophesies, that it is a clear part of his mission.

A few things Muhammad said, came true – like it has to do for any person saying many things through many years – and most of what he said which did not come true, was forgotten (also this is what normally happens if it is nothing spectacular). But he did not guess the future correctly often - actually he statistically and according to the laws of probability should have "hit the mark" far more often by sheer chance than he did - there just are a few cases where Muslims will claim he foretold something correctly, and few if any of them are "perfect hits". But then the Quran makes it pretty clear that even though he was intelligent, he had little fantasy and that he also was nearly unable to make innovative thinking (nearly all his tales and his ideas in reality were "borrowed" ones - though often twisted to fit his new religion).

The main things here are that Muhammad never indicated that anything of what he said was meant as prophesies, that he never indicated, not to mention claimed, that he had the gift of prophesying, that it nowhere is documented that all/most of what he said about the future came true (point 2 above), and finally that both he and Islam said and says that Muhammad was unable to see the unseen (extra revealing here is that the old Biblical title for a prophet, was "a seer" - one who saw the unseen (f.x. 1. Sam. 9/9)) and also that there were no miracles connected to Muhammad “except the Quran” (prophesying is a kind of miracle - seeing what has not yet happened). (This fact that Islam admits there were no miracle connected to Muhammad "except the revelation of the Quran" also is a solid proof for that all the miracles connected to Muhammad mentioned in the Hadiths, are made up stories). Also see 30/40a and 30/46a, and we also should add that his favorite wife (and infamous child wife) Aishah according to Hadiths (f.x. Al-Bukhari) states that anyone saying Muhammad could foresee things, were wrong.

Verse 7/188b also is very relevant here: "If I (Muhammad*) had knowledge of the Unseen (= what is hidden and what has not happened yet*), I should have - - -". IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT MUHAMMAD DID NOT HAVE THE PROPHETS' ABILITY TO SEE "THE UNSEEN" - he was no real prophet.

Also relevant here is that the original title of the Jewish prophets was not "prophet" but "seer" - one who saw at least parts of the unseen. (F.x. 1. Sam. 9/9#, 1. Sam. 9/11, 1. Sam. 9/18, 1. Sam. 9/19, 2. Kings. 17/13, 1. Chr. 9/22, 1. Chr. 26/28, 1. Chr. 29/29, 2. Chr. 9/29, 2. Chr. 16/7, 2. Chr.16/10, 2. Chr. 19/2, 2. Chr. 29/25, Amos 7/12, Mic. 3/7 - some places the two titles even are used side by side). Muhammad thus so definitely was no seer - prophet - even according to his own words; he had no "knowledge of the unseen".

Many liked - and like - the title prophet, and there have been made other definitions for this title - the most common of these are "one who brings messages from a god", or "one who represents a god", or "one who acts/talks on behalf of a god". But the fact remains: Without being able to prophesy, he or she is no real prophet. A messenger for someone or something - ok. An apostle - ok. But not a real prophet.

###This is a fact no Muslim will admit: Muhammad in reality simply was no real prophet or seer. Perhaps a messenger for someone or something or for himself – or perhaps an apostle – but not a real prophet. He only “borrowed” that impressive and imposing title. It is up to anyone to guess why.

It also is remarkable that Muhammad relatively seldom used the title "prophet" about himself in the Quran. He mostly used the title "Messenger", even though messenger in reality means an errand-boy (Muslims try to make this title something big and imposing, but this is the meaning of it). "Prophet" on the other hand is a heavy and impressive title telling a lot about the person. May the reason for why he did not use it so often, be that he knew he did not have what it took to merit that title, and was a little careful using it, so as not to provoke questions or comments? (And is this also the reason why Muslims try to pretend that "messenger" is something more impressive and heavy than "prophet"?)

Also see 30/40h below.

*619 2/136l: “- - - we (Muslims) make no difference between one and another of them (prophets*) - - -“. There is one distinction Muslims make: Between Muhammad and all the others. And there is at least one Yahweh makes: Between real and false prophets. The criterion for being a real prophet, is that you make prophesies – and that the prophesies come true, plus that you make so many or so essential prophesies that prophesying clearly is part of your mission. If not you are a false prophet (5. Mos. 18/21). Muhammad made during all his life not one real prophesy. (There were a few sayings that were remembered because they happened to become true (but far fewer than there mathematically and statistically should have been according to the laws of statistics and of probability for a man speaking that much) – the others were forgotten like normal in such cases – but no real prophesies. He never – no place in the Quran and hardly in all the Hadiths – even claimed to have the gift of making prophesies). Was he then really a prophet? – or did he simply “borrow” an impressive title? He simply was not a prophet. A messenger for someone or something perhaps – or an apostle - but no prophet. But if either the Quran or the Bible or both speak the truth concerning this, Jesus clearly was. The Quran, though, reduces Jesus as much as possible (he was the main competitor to Muhammad and had to be reduced if Muhammad was to be the greatest), and simply skips the question of Muhammad’s right to the title – as so often the book treats things for a fact without the slightest proof or documentation. And: A contradiction to the Bible.

620 2/137a: "So if they (Jews and Christians*) believe as ye (Muslims*) believe, they are indeed on the right path - - -". Strongly contradicted by the Bible - The teaching of the Bible and especially the NT is not even compatible with the Quran. 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.

621 2/137b: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

622 2/137c: “- - - (Muslims are*) on the right path - - -“. Can a “path” based on a book full of mistakes and dictated by a man of very doubtful moral, and clearly not from a god, really be said to be “the right path”? And as Allah cannot be the same god as Yahweh - too different teachings - this also is a contradiction to the Bible, as Islam is not on the same "path" as the Bible and especially not NT and its new covenant preaches; one is a religion of blood and war and suppression (that Islam is the religion of peace simply is an al-Taqiyya - a lawful lie (something you only find in Islam of the big religions) - read the surahs from Medina and weep), partly based on dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, etc.), the other of love and peace.

623 2/137d: "- - - if they (people*) turn back (= leave Islam*), it is they (Jews and Christians*) who are in schism (are wrong*)". As normal the Quran relies on claims it hardly ever documents or proves - but as Yahweh and Allah cannot be the same god (far too different teachings) this at least is an open contradiction to the Bible. Besides: Relying on a book with that much wrong, it is much more likely Muslims are wrong than the others.

624 2/137e: "- - - Allah will suffice thee (Muhammad/Muslims*) against them (non-Muslims*) - - -". Only if he exists and in addition is a major god.

625 2/137f: “He (Allah*) is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing”. See 2/233h and 35/38b below.

626 2/138a: "(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah - - -". A bit strange sentence, as Islam does not use baptism. The entrance to Islam is not baptism, but to repeat that you believe there is no god but Allah and in that Muhammad was his prophet. (Also other translations are used for this point - like "hue" or "color" instead of "baptizing" (as Christians in the region may have used colored water for baptizing). The famously clear and not to be misunderstood language in the Quran.

627 2/138b: "(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah; and who can baptize better than Allah?" According to the Bible Yahweh can - consequently a contradiction to the Bible. And we remind you: In spite of Islam's never documented claim that Allah = Yahweh, that claim is true, as the basics of those two teachings are too different. Another fact is that Islam does not use baptizing.

628 2/139a: “Will ye (Jews and Christians) dispute with us about Allah, seeing that He is our Lord and your Lord - - -”. Islam likes to pretend or state without any proof that Allah and Yahweh/God is the same god. But both the gods and their teachings are very different - as said before especially if you compare the bloody god of war Allah was turned into in and after 622 AD after Muhammad came to need warriors for highwaymen and later for wars, with the far milder and more benevolent God we meet in NT. The Quran makes a lot of statements, but not one single proof, even though it should be easy for Allah to prove something - at least his own existence. Besides: Read history (drop glorifying propaganda and judge from acts and deeds and demands and introduced rules a, moral, etc.- "do against others like you want others do against you") - Muslim history like ibn Ishaq if you want - and the Hadiths, and also the Quran, and see what kind of a man Muhammad really was! We do not accept the word of a man with that kind of moral and ethical standards, without proofs - there has to be limits to being naïve. Also: Contradiction to the Bible.

629 2/139b: "- - - seeing that He (Allah*) is our (Muslim's*) Lord and your (non-Muslim's*) Lord - - -". At least for Jews and Christians this is impossible to see, as Yahweh and Allah is not the same god. Also see 29/46ec below.

630 2/139c: “- - - (Allah*) is our (Muslims’*) Lord and your (non-Muslim’s*) Lord - - -“. As this claim only is based on other, not proved claims, and especially as there exists other possibilities than Islam where at least some are based on stronger traditions, this is an invalid statement, unless it is proved. After all if the old books tell the truth, the Bible proves a number of things concerning Yahweh, whereas the Quran was unable to prove even a comma. Plus: Severe contradiction to the Bible, as Allah cannot be the same god as Yahweh - fundamentally too different teachings. Also see 29/46ec below.

631 2/139d: “- - - (Allah*) is our (Muslims’*) Lord and your (non-Muslim’s*) Lord - - -“. Contradicted by the Bible, where it is Yahweh/God who is the god for Jews and Christians at least. And perhaps in reality for all others. 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.

632 2/139e: "- - - we (Muslims*) are responsible for our doings and ye (non-Muslims*) for your - - -". But that was long before 9/5 and other hard verses. This verse is abrogated – made invalid - by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/38, 3/85, 3/148, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 8/12, 8/38, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many a bloody threat, but also verses advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 28 abrogations).

633 2/139f: "- - - that we (Muslims*) are sincere (in our faith) in Him (Allah*)". This is completely without any consequence as a proof for the religion - any strong believer in any religion is sincere in his faith, and it means nothing and proves nothing about the one and only essential question for a religion: Is the religion a real religion with a real god (or gods) behind it? Or is it a superstition? As there is no god behind the Quran - too much is wrong in the book for a god to be involved - it is very easy to believe Islam is not a real religion but a superstition. The fact that Allah in no way clearly has proved his existence, plus the knowledge of what kind of a person Muhammad really was, make this belief more or less a certainty.

634 2/140a: "Or do you say that Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the tribes were Jews - - -". As the word "Jew" did not exist at that time (it derives from the name of one of the sons of Jacob and the tribe he founded, the Judah tribe), technically the Quran may be right in this "leading - or rhetoric - question" . But using the wider and quite normal definition of the word: Jews = people belonging to the Jewish religion, there is little doubt that according to the Bible they all were Jews - even Ishmael (but he is outside Yahweh's line, as that one goes via Isaac (his brother) and Jacob (1. Mos. 21/12)), if he lived and believed like his father (like Islam claims he did). It must in case be a bitter truth for Arabs to know they are claiming (as usual no proofs) to be descendants from a Jew(!) (But in its rhetoric way the Quran here contradicts the Bible). For the record: The name "Christians" is even much younger than the word "Jew" - it of course derives from "Christos", the Greek version of "Messiah" = the anointed one. It was coined some decades into "our time". See 2/140b just below.

635 2/140b: "Or do you say that Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes were Jews or Christians?" Well, no-one say they were Christians - Christianism is a softer religion than the Mosaic (Jewish) one and did not arrive until with Jesus. If we presume that Jesus really was from Yahweh, which both the Bible and the Quran claims (except that the Quran calls the god Allah and claims Allah = Yahweh), one may wonder why the god choose to soften his teaching just then. One possible explanation is that Islam is right on this one point: When times changes there can be adjustments in the one god's teachings to inch it closer to what the god really wants. May be Yahweh saw that the widespread and long "Roman Peace" (nearly 300 years) - Pax Romanum - finally gave a more peaceful and benevolent "edition" of his religion a chance to take hold and survive - grow strong enough to survive in spite of the rougher times which would come. But if this is the explanation, it is highly unlikely and illogical that he later should want to return to a harsh, selfish, and bloody war religion like Islam - far more inhuman, dark and bloody than also the Mosaic one even in the harshest parts of OT.

636 2/140c: "- - - Abraham - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/124a+c above and 4/13d below.

537 2/140d: "- - - Ishmael - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/125i above and 4/13d below.

638 2/140e: "- - - Isaac - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/133f above and 4/13d below.

639 2/140f: "- - - Jacob - - ". A historical anomaly. See 2/132c above and 4/13d below.

640 2/140g: "- - - the Tribes - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/136i above and 4/13d below.

641 2/140h: "- - - Jews - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/111b above and 4/13D BELOW.

642 2/140i: "- - - Christians - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/111c above and 4/13d below.

643 2/140j: "Say: Do you know better than Allah?" No - not if Allah exists and is omniscient. But we many times know better than all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran - a book that is not from a god, as no god - omniscient or not - would make so many mistakes, errors, contradictions, cases of wrong logic or helpless language, etc. Conclusions:

No – if Allah really exists and is omniscient and contacted Muhammad. All of which seems to be extremely doubtful judging from all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran.

Perhaps – if Allah really exists, but is not omniscient, but contacted Muhammad – which Muhammad only claimed, never proved, even though it should be possible for Allah.

Yes, compared to the Quran – if Allah really exists, but did not contact Muhammad. Modern science knows a lot more than Muhammad did – and are not going all out for power, etc. = more reliable.

Yes, definitely – if Allah does not exist and just was a fiction from a perhaps sick man (TLE?) building himself a platform of power.

644 2/140k: "Who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah". Here is one more reference to Muhammad's claim that the reason for divergences between his teachings and the Bible, was that the Bible was falsified - the only way he had to explain away those differences, which in reality were caused by his believing in the apocryphal (made up) stories, legends, fairy tales. etc. which flourished in and around Arabia. And to repeat it: Science has long since proved that the claim is wrong - there may be mistakes in the Bible, but not falsifications: The some 300 copies or fragments of the Gospels, some 12ooo from the rest of the Bible, and some 32ooo quotes from the Bible in other manuscripts older than 610 AD (when Muhammad started) all are in full accordance with the present Bible - IF NOT ISLAM HAD SCREAMED ABOUT IT. Also none of them have marks modern science can find from being falsified - and modern science is very good at finding falsifications, as it is a common crime today. But maybe there is an answer to the question: If someone twists the religion of a (perhaps) existing god to make a new religion giving the twister power, riches and perhaps women - well, perhaps that hypothetical god would think this was more unjust - - - perhaps showing it by making him sterile, and letting all the children who at least officially were his, die in a young age (even the last one and the only one who survived him - Fatime - only survived him by half a year)? Who knows?

And even if science have proved that the Bible is not falsified, Islam has delivered an even stronger proof for this, by being unable to document even one single clear falsification among all those tens of thousands of relevant manuscripts - if there had existed even one such falsification, Islam had found it and as said above screamed about it. Islam’s deep silence on this point is an even stronger proof than the one from science for that there are no falsifications - mistakes perhaps, but no falsifications.

645 2/140l: “But Allah is not unmindful of what ye do”. Based on just a statement made up of words, that may be a hope. Only if it was proved, it had been a certainty. But Muhammad never was able to prove anything at all about Allah or the rest of his teachings. Not one thing.

646 2/140m “But Allah is not unmindful of what ye do”. See 2/233h and 35/38b below.

647 2/141: "Of their (the old Jewish patriarchs*) merits there is no question in your case". In clear speech: The Jews are wrong when they claim they will have an easier way to Paradise because they are the descendants of the old patriarchs. The problem is that the reason why the Jews believed this, was not that they were descendants of good ancestors, but the belief/fact(?) that they had a covenant with Yahweh - disused and battered, but never nullified - Yahweh even had promised it to be everlasting (f.x. 1. Mos.17/7 and /13). (Islam claims it is terminated - as normal without any documentation - but only Islam. And Islam has to claim so in order to take over the role as The Special Religion.) Worse: Muslim scholars know this most well, and all the same they go on using this twisted reality to be able to dethrone the Jews. Muslims may be right that the Jews no longer have a special status - also Jesus indicated that all believers in Yahweh had more or less the same right to come to Paradise, and thus the Jews do not have a special status any longer, as they in case have to share it with Christians, who also believe in Yahweh - but if the Muslim scholars are right, they are right in a dishonest way as Yahweh nowhere has terminated his promise like Muslims claim, this even more so as there nowhere is indicated that something as bloody, unjust and discriminating like Islam should take over the Jewish position. And f.x. how can a religion be a religion of truth, if it uses dishonesty?

648 2/142a: "What hath turned them from the qiblah (the direction you face when praying*) to which they were used". When Muhammad finally after some 16 months in Medina understood the Jews would not accept his religion, he changed the "qiblah" from direction Jerusalem to direction Mecca, to demonstrate the difference between the Jews and his own religion and followers.

649 2/142b: "What has turned them (Muslims*) from the qiblah to which they were used?" A historical anomaly. Muhammad changed the qiblah in Medina. No user of the claimed older copies of the claimed "Mother Book" could understand this sentence until after this had happened. See 4/13d below.

650 2/142c: "- - - the qiblah - - -". The direction you face when praying.

651 2/142d: "- - - to Allah belong both East and West - - -". Similar things are said many places in the Quran, but never proved, neither in nor outside the Quran - there only are claims and words, both of which are cheap.

652 2/142e: "He (Allah - in reality here Muhammad and his Quran*) guideth whom He will - - -". As no god included Allah - if he exists - was behind a book of such a miserable level of knowledge, it is not Allah who in case is the guide, but the maker of the Quran - be it dark powers or humans.

653 2/142f: "He (Allah - in reality here Muhammad and his Quran*) guideth whom He will - - -". A book full of mistakes, etc. is no guide book.

654 2/142g: "- - - a Way that is straight". That a way is straight, is no valid argument if it does not go in the correct direction - and as no god made the Quran, no god constructed Islam's claimed road (here intended to mean the road to the Quran's and Islam's Paradise - see 10/9f below.

655 2/143a: "Thus have We (Allah*) made of you an ummah justly balanced - - -." According to M. Asad: "The Message of the Quran" the exact translation of the Arab text here is: "a community of the middle way". The Arabs had business connections as far as India and China already at this time - and there they met Buddhists. For Buddhism "the middle way" is the central concept. Can this be an idea from Buddhism? - Muhammad "borrowed" ideas from wherever he found them.

656 2/143b: "- - - an ummah justly balanced - - -". Look at the partly immoral moral code of the Quran and on the partly unjust sharia laws, and see how just it really was - and is.

657 2/143c: "- - - ummah - - -" Muslim homeland or united nation or empire - as you see you there might "be witnesses over all nations".

658 2/143d: "- - - witnesses over the nations - - -". Why does an omniscient god so often in the Quran need witnesses?

659 2/143e: "- - - the Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/101b above and 4/13d below.

660 2/143f: "- - - Messenger (Muhammad*)- - -". See 63/5a below.

661 2/143g: "- - - a witness over yourselves - - -". See 2/143d above.

662 2/143h: "- - - qiblah - - -". See 2/142b above.

663 2/143i: "- - - only to test - - -". Why does an omniscient god who on top of all decides everything in a human's life according to the Quran, need to test his followers? If he did not know the answer, then he is not omniscient and the other way around.

664 2/143j: "- - - (- - -the Faith) - - -". = Islam - only Islam is faith in the Quran. All others either are false or falsified ones.

665 2/143k: "Indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

666 2/143l: "- - - guided - - -". See 2/2b above.

667 2/143m: "- - - guided by Allah (the Quran*) - - -". As the Quran is from no god - too much is wrong - thus its guidance(?) is not from a god.

668 2/143n: "And never would Allah make your (Muslims'*) faith of no effect", If Allah exists. If he is behind the Quran And if the Quran in addition tells the full and only truth on this point. If not this is wrong.

669 2/143o: "For Allah is to all people most surely full of kindness - - -". Wrong: Not to the victims of Islam internal and external in/outside Islam. And not if he does not exist - Muhammad was unable to prove anything at all, and had only loose claims and as loose statements to offer - - - and central Islamic literature shows he was not always a reliable man.

670 2/143p: "- - - most surely - - -". See 2/2b above./p>

671 2/143q: "(Allah is*) full of kindness, Most Merciful". See 1/1a above.

672 2/144a: "We (Allah*) see the turning of thy (Muslim's*) face (for guidance) to the heavens (plural and wrong*) - - -". As the Quran is not from Heaven, there is little help in looking that way if you live according to that book - too much is wrong in the Quran.

673 2/144b: "Turn then thy (Muslim's*) face in the direction of the Sacred Mosque - - -". One of the basis sentences for rules and laws under Sharia.

674 2/144c: "- - - (for guidance (= the Quran*)) - - -". There is not much guidance in a book like the Quran - too much is wrong.

675 2/144d: “- - - heavens - - -“. Plural and wrong. See 2/22d.

676 2/144e: "- - - qiblah - - -". See 2/142b above.

677 2/144f: "- - - the Sacred Mosque - - -". The Kabah mosque in Mecca.

*678 2/144g: "The people of the Book - - -". = Jews, Christians and Sabeans (see 2/62f above).

679 2/144h: "The people of the Book - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/101g above and 4/13d below.

*680 2/144i: “The people of the Book know very well that that (the reason for changing the qiblah = direction of praying*) is the truth from their Lord”.

Jews and Christians definitely do not know this - and neither did the Sabeans know it (Sabeans likely lived in Sabah, in what now is Yemen. They had become Christians via influence from Christians in East Africa. (Though Islam says the Sabeans were a sect in Arabia – though with very vague ideas about why.) See 2/62f above.)

As the Quran contains a lot of mistakes, it is a question if also the rest is wrong.

As the Quran contains a lot of mistakes, it also is a question if this is from our Lord, Yahweh. Actually it is not.It even is a question if a god was involved in the Quran at all - a god does not make mistakes, not to mention such a number of mistakes - or loose statements and false “signs“ and “proofs“ - the hallmarks of cheats and deceivers. No god made such a quality book. Thus also Allah is not involved - if he exists and is a major god.

681 2/144j: "The people of the Book (Jews, Christians, Sabeans*) know well that that (the change of the qiblah*) is the truth from their Lord". Wrong. Their Lord is Yahweh, and Yahweh did not order this (well, except if he wanted to keep Muslims away from his followers).

682 2/144k: "- - - the truth from their (Jews' and Christians' mainly*) Lord". The Quran's intention here is to tell that the Quran is the truth and confirming the Bible. Both are wrong - and both contradict the Bible. A book with so many errors, etc. like the Quran at best is partly true. And the fundamental thoughts and lots and lots of fundamental details are so different between the Bible and the Quran, that the Quran in no way is confirming the Bible.

683 2/144l: "- - - truth - - -". See 2/2b above and 13/1g and 40/75 below.

684 2/144m: "Nor is Allah unmindful of what they (Jews, Christians, Sabeans*) do". If Allah exists. If he is behind the Quran. And if the Quran tells the full and only truth on this point.

685 2/145a: "- - - the People of the Book (here the Bible*) - - -". = Jews, Christians and Sabeans (the last ones likely were the inhabitants of the mainly Christian Saba/Sabah/Sheba, though Islam prefer to explain it was some Christians in what is now Iraq (a small sect exists even today - some 2ooo members), or an Arab sect which believed in one god only, and which existed at the time of Muhammad) - see 2/62f above.

686 2/145b: "The people of the Book - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/101g above and 4/13d below.

687 2/145c: “- - - Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

688 2/145d: "- - - qiblah - - -". See 2/142b above.

689 2/145e: "- - - knowledge - - -". See 26/83a below.

690 2/145f: "- - - after knowledge hath reached you (persons*) - - -". As the Quran normally does not mean "real" knowledge, but knowledge about the Quran and Islam (also called Islamic knowledge - vs. everything not related to the religion was "foreign knowledge" and opposed) sentences like this does not mean after you have got education or something - it really means "after you have got information about Islam" or "after you have become a Muslim".

691 2/145g: "If thou (a person*), after (becoming a Muslim*), wert to follow (Jews or Christians*) - then wert thou indeed (clearly) in the wrong". Only if Allah exists, if the Quran is from a god, and if it in addition speaks the full truth and only the truth. And definitely not in the wrong if Yahweh exists and is a real god.

692 2/145h: "- - - their (Jews, Christians, Sabeans (see 2/62f above)*) (vain) desires - - -". It is vain only if Yahweh does not exist - and both the Bible and the Quran claims that this old, originally Jewish, god do exist.

693 2/145i: "- - - (if you leave Islam to follow the Bible*) - then wert thou indeed (clearly) in the wrong". Not unless the Bible is wrong. And in no way if the Quran is a made up book.

694 2/145j: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

695 2/145k: "- - - (clearly) - - -". See 2/2b above.

696 2/145l: "- - - wrong". See 2/2b above.

*535 2/145+146: “If thou, after the knowledge (of the new qiblah = what direction to face when you are praying*), wert to follow their (the People of the Book‘s*) (vain) desire - then wert thou indeed (clearly) in the wrong. The People of the Book know this as they know their own sons.” But it is most obvious that this is not true - neither Jews nor Christians know this - - - and especially not Christians, who have no qiblah (churches mostly make their congregation face east, but there is no qiblah).

697 2/146a: "The People of the Book - - -". This is an expression you often meet in the Quran and in Islam. "The Book" her is the Bible, and The expression means the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabeans (see 2/62f above). Later sometimes also the Zoroastrians were included, as it was discovered that also they had a book and a religion to a degree compatible with Islam - something a god had known from the very beginning. But normally the expression means the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabeans only.

698 2/146b: "The people of the Book - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/101g above and 4/13d below.

699 2/146c: “The people of the Book know this (the qiblah, or "him" - Muhammad - as the Arab word has double meaning - see 2/146c just below (a clear language)*) as they know their own sons.” Wrong in both cases. They know their Bible - and know and that something is wrong with the Quran, and thus with the qiblah and with the tales about Allah. The Bible simply says a lot of other thing than the Quran claims it says, and therefore it is easy to see that something is wrong when one reads Muhammad’s claims about what it tells.

700 2/146d: The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons.” But “this” instead may mean “him” – the Arab word has double meaning. Then the meaning becomes: “- - - know him (Muhammad) as - - -.” A tiny wee bit different. As mentioned before: A clear and distinct language.

701 2/146e: “- - - but some of them (Jews, Christians*) conceals the truth which they themselves know (the claim that the teachings of the Bible was falsified and should be like the one of the Quran*)“. Science (and not to mention Islam) has long since showed that this claim is wrong - and besides; with that many mistaken facts and that much wrong logic, the Quran itself at best is partly the truth. See 40/75 below.

702 2/146f: “- - - conceal the truth (the teachings of the Quran*) which they (Jews, Christians*) themselves know.” One more claim about falsified Bible - and the added claim that the ones believing in the Bible know it is falsified. You have to know very little about people and especially about religious people, to be able to believe that someone is able to believe in a religion he/she knows is falsified - Muhammad was intelligent and he knew and understood people, and this simply is one of the places in the Quran where he knew he was lying.

There also are so many and so fundamental differences between the Quran and the Bible – especially the NT – that the only thing that is possible to know from the texts of the Quran, is that something is very wrong, also in Islamic claims like this (as normal from Islam; a not proved claim).

703 2/146g: "- - - the truth - - -". See 2/2b above.

704 2/147a: ”The Truth - - -”, see 2/2b above and 13/1g and 40/75 below.

705 2/147b: “The Truth (the Quran*) is from thy (people’s*) Lord (Allah*) - - -”. With so many mistakes in the Quran, it is not from a god, as gods do not make mistakes.

706 2/147c: “The Truth (the Quran*) is from thy (people’s*) Lord (Allah*), so be not at all in doubt”. With that many mistakes and that much wrong logic, etc., there is every reason for doubt.

707 27147d: "- - - (no) doubt - - -". See 2/2b above.

708 2/148a: (YA153) “- - - a goal to which Allah turns him (a person*) - - -.” Or – depending on how you understand the Arab pronoun “huwa” in the original – may be: “- - - To each is a goal to which he turns”. Clear and not to be misunderstood?

709 2/148b: "- - - strive together (as in a race) - - -". Wrong. A race is a peaceful competition - Islam is a war religion, and based on an apartheid, not to say Nazi, ideology - read the surahs from Medina before you protest to this.(But to be fair: Surah 2 "came" during the years 622-624 AD. If just this verse "arrived" very early in this period, it may have "arrived" before the religion became a through and through war religion. But at least ever after 624 AD it had been only wrong.)

710 2/148c: "- - - all that is good". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, the reference point is its own partly immoral moral code.

711 2/148d: "- - - Allah will bring you (Muslims*) together". This most likely refers to the Day of Doom, but this - as normal in the Quran not documented - claim depends on if Allah exists (nothing is proved about this), if Allah is behind the Quran (but no god makes a book of a quality like the Quran - full of mistakes), and if the Quran speaks the full and only truth at least on this point.

712 2/148e: "For Allah hath power over all things". A claim. Muhammad never was able to prove it.

713 2/149a: "- - - turn thy (Muslim's*) face in the direction of the Sacred Mosque - - -". One of the basis sentences for rules and laws under Sharia.

714 2/149b: "- - - the Sacred Mosque - - -". The Kabah in Mecca.

715 2/149c: “- - - that (the new qiblah) is indeed the truth from thy Lord”. Wrong. With so many mistakes in the Quran, it is an open question if this is the truth or not - at best it is partly the truth. It is worth mentioning that Muslims states that the direction towards Kabah was Abraham’s qiblah. We have been unable to find out why they say so - there is no reliable source telling that Abraham even had a qiblah, not to mention that it in case was direction Mecca, a place he hardly had ever heard about (it was only during the last few generations before Muhammad that Mecca had grown to a reasonable wealthy town of some size).

716 2/149d: "- - - indeed - - -".

717 2/149e: "- - - the truth - - -". See 2/2b above and 13/1g below.

718 2/149f: "- - - Truth (the Quran/Islam*) - - -". The contents of the Bible clearly contradicts the claim that the Quran and thus Islam is the truth.- the fundamentals of the teachings are so different, that the Quran cannot be the truth if the Bible is so - and remember that both science and Islam have proved that the Bible is not falsified, the "explanation" Muslims normally use for the differences between the two books. The teachings, morality, etc. not to mention the gods, are so different that it is not possible that the Quran can represent the truth, if the Bible is true - and the Bible and also Yahweh after all to some extent are proved if the old texts are reliable, whereas for the Quran and Allah exactly nothing of the central claims are proved. In addition there also is the impertinent fact that the ones who overuse words like "truth" and similar words like what is done in Muhammad's book, are the cheats and charlatans and deceivers.

719 2/149g: “- - - that (the new qiblah) is indeed the truth from thy Lord”. This is told via Muhammad and the Quran. There is no god behind the Quran - it is heresy, slander and an insult to blame a god for a book where so much is wrong, contradictions, invalid logic, unclear language, etc. - and thus there is no god behind Muhammad's preaching, too. It simply is not from any "Lord".

720 2/149h: "And Allah is not unmindful of what you do". A claim - like all other religious Muslim claims never proved. It is a reminder: Be a good and obedient Muslim - and do not try to cheat.

721 2/150a: "- - - turn thy (Muslim's*) face in the direction of the Sacred Mosque - - -". One of the basis sentences for rules and laws under Sharia.

722 2/150b: "- - - the Sacred Mosque - - -". The Kabah in Mecca.

723 2/150c: "- - - the Sacred Mosque - - -". The Kabah in Mecca. Neither the mosque nor the qiblah is mentioned in the Bible, which they should have been if Allah and Yahweh had been the same god, and this mosque and/or the qiblah was as important for the god and the religion as the Quran claims.

724 2/150d: "- - - them that are bent om wickedness - - -". The non-Muslims are bent on wickedness - also one of Muhammad's many negative, or stronger, names for them. No comments - and none necessary. You will find a lot of negative and very negative comments about non-Muslims in the Quran. (One of the reasons why Muslims are reluctant to mingle with others - who want to mingle with bad - or worse – people?

725 2/150e: "- - - them that are bent om wickedness - - -". One of Muhammad's many distaste and distance inducing names for non-Muslims.

726 2/150f: "- - - ye (persons*) may (consent to) be guided (by the Quran*) - - -". How can anyone be - at least rightly - guided by a book with so many mistakes, contradictions, mistakes of logic, etc.? Flatly no.

727 2/151a: "- - - We (Allah*) has sent among you a Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". No omniscient god has sent a messenger - without any proofs at all - telling so much which was and is wrong.

728 2/151b: "- - - a Messenger of your (Arabs'*) own (Muhammad*) - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/101b above and 4/13d below.

729 2/151c: "- - - Messenger - - -". See 63/5a below.

730 2/151d: “- - - rehearsing to you (Muslims*) our (Allah’s*) Signs - - -”: See 2/39b above.

731 2/151e: "- - - instructing you in Scripture - - -". Remember here that among the uneducated in the old times - and not only in Arabia - the written word was believed to be much more reliable than the verbal one. They simply did not understand that it is as easy to lie with the pen as with the mouth.

732 2/151f: "- - - Wisdom - - -". There is not much wisdom in a book full of mistakes, etc.

733 2/151g: "- - - (Allah is*) sanctifying you (Muslims*) - - -". Only possible if he exists and in addition is a god.

734 2/151h: "- - - in Scripture and Wisdom, and in new Knowledge." So "new" "knowledge" (the Quran) that it is clear much of it is wrong. And is it then wisdom? But psychologically it was wise to talk about knowledge - who especially among uneducated, naive primitives is not influenced by idols - hardly heroes, but idols - telling them they have knowledge?

735 2/151i: "- - - knowledge - - -". See 26/83a below.

736 2/152a: "- - - I (Allah*) will remember you (Muslims*)". If Allah exists. If he is behind the Quran. And if the Quran tells the full and only truth on this point.

737 2/152b: "- - - Faith". = Islam - only Islam is faith according to the Quran.

738 2/153a: "- - - ye who believe - - -". Muslims.

739 2/153b: “Seek help with patient Perseverance and Prayer, for Allah is with those who patiently persevere.” Keep struggling and the enemy gives in - non-Muslims should never forget that this is hammered into all Muslims - - - and too often correct, especially when fighting democracies, as democracies have difficulties keeping on struggling for a long time if they are not forced to - there always are fractions who want the struggle or fighting to be terminated.

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.)

740 2/153c: "- - - Allah is with those who patiently persevere". See 2/253b just above.

741 2/154a: “And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: ‘They are dead’. Nay, they are living (and enjoy a luxury life with lots of sex in Paradise*) - - -.” Go to war – the worst which can happen to you is a quick way to a royal Earth-like life with a royal harem - see 10/9f below. (The possibility of becoming an invalid is never mentioned - never).

742 2/154b: “And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: ‘They are dead’. Nay, they are living - - -". One of the many, many never proved claims in the Quran. And as the Quran with all its errors, etc. is from no god, it is highly unlikely it has reliable information about this.

743 2/154c: “- - - those who are slain in the way of Allah - - -". Those who were slain "for Allah", nearly always were slain in raids or wars, raids and wars nearly always initiated by Muhammad. This strongly contradicts the moral and ethics of NT. (OT is more war-like, but for smaller scale and not at least for different reason from in the Quran - get a country for the Jews compared with suppressing all the world).

744 2/155a: "- - - We (Allah*) shall test you (Muslims*) - - -." Why did Allah need to test the Muslims if he was omniscient and on top of all decides everything, according to the Quran? - but if Muhammad or someone just made up the religion, this is a nice whip to maintain discipline.

745 2/155b: "- - - glad tidings - - -". May be for the many who grew rich from stealing/robbing, enslaving, etc., and for many who believed they had found salvation in this war religion based on a book ripe with mistakes, etc. But definitely not for all the victims for Islam's aggression and brutality - victims Islam even today is not developed and mature enough to feel any sympathy, not to mention empathy, with - and why should they? - as non-Muslims are not completely human, then why should they?

746 2/155c: "- - - patiently persevere - - -". A word and an expression the Quran imprints and imprints and imprints on Muslims: Persevere - and in the end the enemy grows tired and you win. A WORD NON-MUSLIMS SHOULD NEVER FORGET.

747 2/156a: "To Allah we (Muslims*) belong - - -". - - - if he exists - nothing was ever proved. There only are claims and a demand for blind belief from a man who permitted al-Taqiyya (lawful lie), Kitman (lawful half-truth), and advised even breaking your - and his own - oaths if that gave a better result. A man who used deceit and betrayal (cfr. the peace delegation from Khaybar). And a man who on top of all wanted respect and power, riches (at least for bribes) and women - religion often is a mighty platform of power.

748 2/156b: "- - - and to Him (Allah*) is our return (at the Day of Doom*)". Another never documented claim - there are hundreds of them in the Quran. (Some undocumented claims could be ok - "he just tells how things are" might be the reaction if he had at least proofs for some of what he told, and in addition was a reliable person. But in the Quran absolutely nothing of the central claims is proved - - - and Muhammad was far from very reliable - al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), betrayal, broken oaths even.)

749 2/157a: "- - - blessings from Allah - - -". If Allah exists. If he is behind the Quran. And if the Quran tells the full and only truth on this point.

750 2/157b: "- - - Mercy (from Allah*) - - -". See 1/1a and see how strongly you believe in a merciful Allah.

751 2/157c: "- - - they (god Muslims*) are the ones that receive guidance." You do not receive real guidance from a book as full of mistakes, etc. etc. as the Quran. Also see 7/192a and 16/107 below.

 

752 2/158a: "- - - Safa and Marwah - - -". 2 hillocks in Mecca.

753 2/158b: (A128) “Behold! Safa and Marwah are among the symbols of Allah". Comment similar to 2/150c.

754 2/158c: (A128) “Behold! Safa and Marwah are among the symbols of Allah. So if those who visit the House (Kabah*) in the Season or at other times should encompass them around, it is no sin in them”. These two hillocks were religious symbols also in pagan times before Islam, and Hadiths (f.x. Al-Bukhari) explains this verse with that many Muslims thought that if they followed the old rituals and visited them, they paid tribute to the old gods, but that Muhammad then in this verse told them that it was no sin – on the contrary it is to pay respect to Allah. The ritual simply is to hasten between (not necessarily around) them 7 times symbolizing Hagar’s claimed search for water after Abraham had left her and their son Ishmael (Islam claims it was here it happened - utterly improbable in reality - see 2/127a above).But the question is: Is this ritual obligatory or a “supererogatory act of piety”? (Zamakhshari and Razi). The text on this point is unclear. Today it is reckoned to be an integrate part of the pilgrimage, but the text as said is unclear. And it is thought provoking that this ritual like the others in Mecca simply is taken over from the old pagan earlier religion - nothing created for or by Islam and Allah, just primitive rituals, some superficial symbolism, nothing spiritual - nothing worthy a claimed omniscient and omnipotent god. Nothing created by a spiritual god. And what does the taking over more or less completely the rituals of a pagan religion indicate?

755 2/158d: "- - - the House - - -". The Kabah mosque in Mecca.

756 2/158e: "- - - compass around them (the hillocks Safa and Marwah*) - - -". The religious ceremonies and rituals are pretty primitive and superficial in Islam - it is symptomatic that they mostly are taken over from primitive pagan religions - mainly the old Arab ones. (Muhammad simply took over most of the rituals of the old Arab religion, and as simply just told that now they were not pagan rites any more)."

757 2/158f: "- - - to (do*) good - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code - though in this case it is likely it indicates giving to the poor or something (but normally the best deed in the Quran is to wage raids and wars for Muhammad and his successors in the name of Allah - including stealing, raping, enslaving, killing).

758 2/158g: "- - - be sure that Allah is He Who recogniseth and knoweth." Another never proved claim - but a good whip for obedience for Muhammad.

759 2/159a: “Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We (Allah*) have sent down - - -”. = Non-Muslims, and most often "the People of the Book" - Jews and Christians (the 3. group, the Sabeans - see 2/62f above - are not often specified in the Quran).

760 2/159b: “Those who conceal the clear (Signs) - - -”. No danger - not one single valid or clear sign/proof for Allah is sent down (unless it is omitted from the Quran). But it is VERY typical for the Quran to talk about “signs” as they were proved facts - and more or less proofs of Allah. (And at the same time often accept nothing about other gods without demanding proofs).

761 2/159c: “Those who conceal the clear (Signs) (of Allah*)- - -". One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims, here Jews and Christians (who had falsified the Bible he wrongly claimed).

762 2/159d: “Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We (Allah*) have sent down - - -”. No god sends down invalid signs - and even more so not if they are intended to be proofs. They are invalid as proofs f.x. because it never is proved that it really is Allah who is behind them.

763 2/159e: "- - - clear - - -". See 2/2b above.

764 2/159f: "- - - Guidance (the Quran*) - - -". A book full of mistakes, is not much of a guide-book.

765 2/159g: "- - - the People of the Book - - -". See 2/146a above.

766 2/159h: "- - - the People of the Book - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/101g above and 4/13d below.

767 2/159i: "- - - on them (in reality all Jews and Christians, but see 2/146a above*) shall be Allah's curse - - -." Also in the Bible there are a few curses, but not like in the Quran, where one can get the impression that the main arguments for being good and for not being bad except warlike and suppressive toward non-Muslims, are: If you are good you get shade, good food, and many women in Paradise, if you are bad you get Allah's curses and Hell. So there are plenty of curses in the Quran. And there also is little of "turn the other cheek".

768 2/160a: “Except those who repent and make amends and openly declare (the Truth)”. With so many mistakes in the Quran, the book at the very best is partly true. See 40/75.

769 2/160b: "- - - (the Truth (the Quran/Islam*)) - - -". No matter how often one repeats or claims that something is true, it is not true unless it really is true. But of course repetitions may make people believe it is true - cfr. Goebbels: "Repeat a lie often enough, and people start believing it is true". It also is thought-provoking that the man who really needs to make people blindly believe in this way, is the cheat or deceiver. What is absolutely sure and easy to check, and thus a truth, is that there are many mistakes, etc. in the Quran (which is what is referred to in this case), so that at best it only is partly the truth.

770 2/160c: "- - - (the Truth (the Quran/Islam*)) - - -". The contents of the Bible clearly contradicts the claim that the Quran and thus Islam is the truth.- the fundamentals of the teachings are so different, that the Quran cannot be the truth if the Bible is so - and remember that both science and Islam have proved that the Bible is not falsified, the "explanation" Muslims normally use for the differences between the two books. The teachings, morality, etc. not to mention the gods, are so different that it is not possible that the Quran can represent the truth, if the Bible is true - and the Bible and also Yahweh after all to some extent are proved if the old texts are reliable, whereas for the Quran and Allah exactly nothing of the central claims are proved. In addition there also is the impertinent fact that the ones who overuse words like "truth" and similar words like what is done in Muhammad's book, are the cheats and charlatans and deceivers.

771 2/160d: "- - - I (Allah) am - - - Most Merciful". See 1/1a above.

7872 2/161a: "Those who reject Faith - - -". One of Muhammad's many to Muslims negative names for non-Muslims.

773 2/161b: "Those who reject Faith, and die rejecting - on them is Allah's curse, and the curse of angels, and of all mankind". For the ones of these who believe in the Bible, the Bible strongly contradicts this, as it tells that instead to believe in the Bible, is the road to salvation.

774 2/161c: "- - - Faith - - -". = Islam - only Islam is faith in the Quran.

775 2/161d: "- - - curse - - -". See 2/159d.

776 2/161e: "- - - and (the curse) of all mankind". Wrong: At most the curse of all Muslims - and if Islam is a made up religion with a made up god, such a curse is invalid.

7877 2/162a: "They (non-Muslims*) will abide therein (in the curse*) - - -". This is of no consequence unless Allah exists and is a god.

778 2/162b: "- - - their (non-Muslims*) penalty will not be lightened - - -". See 3/77b below.

779 2/163a: "And your (Muslims'*) God is One God - - -". See 2/255a, 6/106b and 25/18abelow.

780 2/163b: "- - - there is no god but He (Allah*) - - -". One more claim without proofs or documentation - like more or less always in the Quran. Claims are cheap. Besides we are back to the problem with Yahweh, which contradicts this point. The Quran accepts that this originally Jewish god existed (exists?). Reality - the deep and fundamental differences in the teachings - proves they cannot be the same god, in spite of the Quran's many, but never documented claims. And whenever there are divergences between claims and reality, we always believe in reality. Also science has proved that the Quran's never documented claims for explanation for these differences - falsifications of the Bible - are wrong, and Islam has proved the same even more strongly by not finding a single proved falsification among the tens of thousands of relevant manuscripts. If Allah exists, thus there has to be at least two gods. But Allah has never proved his existence - there only is Muhammad's words for him - a man who wanted power and more, and who used his religion as his platform of power - like so many self proclaimed prophets have done and do. And the same man who institutionalized al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth) (even though it only was formalized later), personally practiced deception and betrayal, and advised that one should even break ones oaths if that gave a better result. Also see 2/255a, 6/106b and 25/18a below.

781 2/163c: "(Allah is*) Most Gracious, Most Merciful". See 1/1a above.

2/164a: “In the creation of the heavens (plural and wrong*) - - - are Signs for a people that are wise.” Wrong. Without a proof for that it really was the work of Allah, the sign is invalid. And about some flattery of the reader - see 2/164c 13/3j below.

782 2/164b: “- - - heavens - - -“. Plural and wrong. See 2/22d.

783 2/164c: “- - - in the alternation of the night and the day - - - indeed are Signs for a people that are wise”. Wrong. This alternation is a natural effect of the rotation of the Earth in the sunlight. It is no sign of Allah - or any other god - unless Islam first proves that the shining of the sun and the rotation of the Earth in the sunshine are initiated by Allah. Proves, not just states or claims, because words and statements are ever so cheap, and can be used by any priest, any “prophet” and any “god” - yes, by any believer, free of charge as long as no proofs are required.

784 2/164d: “- - - in the sailing of the ships across the ocean - - - indeed are Signs for a people that are wise.” Wrong - and indeed no god ever built a ship, and indeed Allah never proved he made the winds - though “prophets” of some gods said the first and many - included Muhammad - said the last. Words are cheap also for prophets. Pepped up by some flattery of the listener/reader; - he is wise if he believes! The reality is that he is naive if he believes without documentation.

685 2/164e: "- - - the rain which Allah sends down - - -". Once more a natural phenomenon Muhammad is giving his god the credit for - and like absolute always in such cases in the Quran, without any proof. Any follower of any religion can say just the same about his own god(s) - unproved words are that cheap and mean nothing. Also see 11/7a below.

*786 2/164f: “- - - the rain which Allah sends down from the skies and the life which He gives to an earth which is dead”. Any god had known it was alive with roots or seeds, not dead - it only looked so. There f.x. is a difference between "dead" and "hibernating".

787 2/164g: “- - - in the beasts of all kinds that He (Allah*) scatters through the earth - - - indeed are Signs for a people that are wise.” Indeed, this people from different religions have tried for x years to prove what their god(s) - not just Allah - did. Till this day none has proved one iota of it - perhaps with the exception of in the Bible - - - if the Bible is true. Included some flattery - see 2/164d above and 13/3j below.

788 2/164h: “- - - in the change of the winds - - - are Signs for a people who are wise.” Actually it is no bad slogan - who wants to admit he is not wise? But it is all just and only words. Where are the proofs? Change of the winds is very natural - deriving from differences in the air pressure, temperatures, and from hindrances - but it costs nothing to say “my god did it”. Flattery added - see 2/164d above and 13/3j below.

*789 2/164i: “- - - (in*) the clouds which they (the winds*) trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth - (here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise”. And here also are possibilities to bluff naïve, uneducated people - especially if they are susceptible to flattery. Or if they are blind from religion and wishful thinking. But bluff is one of the hallmarks of deceivers and cheaters. Added some flattery – it often works (see 2/164c above and 13/3jbelow).

790 2/164j "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above,

791 2/164k: “- - - Sign(s) - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

792 2/164l: "- - - people that are wise". Flattery of this kind you find many places in the Quran. It works especially well on persons who are not too wise. See 13/3j below.

793 2/164m: "- - - wise - - -". See 2/2b above.

792 2/165a: "Yet there are men (not women? - men are what counts in the Quran) who take (for worship) others beside Allah - - -". See 25/18a below.

795 2/165b: "- - - take (for worship) others beside Allah - - -". Wrong. Non-Muslims do not take other god(s) beside of Allah. One simply does not believe in him and take another/others instead of him - there is quite a difference between "beside" and "instead of". Also see 25/18a below.

796 2/165c: "- - - (other gods*) as equal (with Allah) - - -".

All pagan gods are more or less equal to Allah if Allah just is a dressed up pagan god - remember here that Allah = the former Arab pagan god al-Lah, which Muhammad dressed up. Muhammad claimed Allah was a real god - but Muhammad claimed very much, and he was a man believing in the use of lies if that gave better results (al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth), in deceit, and even in the breaking of words/promises/oaths if that paid better, so how much is really true in what he told and preached?

All made up gods are more or less equal to Allah if Allah is a made up god. And remember here that the Quran at least is not from any god, and thus simply is made up - by dark forces or by man are the only alternatives as no god would be involved in a book of a quality like the Quran with all its errors, etc.

All real gods are better than Allah if Allah is a made up god or a dressed up pagan god. There is little doubt that most gods are made up, but there still remains the possibility of f.x. Yahweh - the old, originally Jewish, god even the Quran admits existed (though it tries to high-jack him by wrongly claiming - without the slightest proof - that Yahweh just is another name for Allah).

Only if Allah really is a real god, one may ask which god is the most powerful and wise. Allah here has a problem: He never was able to prove even that he existed. There only are claims and words for his power and wisdom - as opposed to f.x. Yahweh who proved himself many times if the old books, included the Quran, tell the truth. Because of lack of proofs, Allah here at best can be reckoned to be a pretending top god. But as Yahweh exists also according to the Quran, Allah cannot really pretend to be the only god - Yahweh perhaps may if Allah is not real, but not Allah as the existence of Yahweh is accepted (though tried to camouflage). Also see 2/255a and 25/18a below.

Allah also in case is no good god. There are lots of rosy and glorious words about Allah in the Quran, but so it was about King Chaka among the Zulus, about Djingis Khan in Mongolia, Tamerlane/Timur Lenk among the Turks, about Hitler in Germany, Stalin in the Soviet Union, Mao in China - and Muhammad in Arabia. The reality is that facts and demands and deeds often tell quite another story than glorious propaganda and blindness, and whenever there is discrepancy - to say the least of it in this case - between demands, facts, deeds, and introduced rules on one side, and big and shining words on the other, we believe in the facts, demands, deeds and rules. (Scratch out the glorifying words in the Quran, and see what stories the book really tells about Allah and about Muhammad).

As Yahweh is accepted, Allah - if he exists - cannot be the only god. And he only is the main god if he dominates Yahweh - and all other gods if any more exist. It is little likely that he is the dominating god, however, as he has been unable to prove even his existence. Whereas f.x. Yahweh as said has proved himself many times if the old books, included the Quran, tell the truth.

797 2/165d: "- - - Faith - - -". = Islam - only Islam is faith in the Quran. Other religions often use the expression "the right faith" or similar about their own religion. But Islam is in little doubt: Only Islam is "faith".

798 2/165e: "- - - the unrighteous - - -". In the Quran normally a name for non-Muslims - as so often one with very negative overtones.

799 2/165f: "- - - unrighteous - - -". Remember that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

800 2/165g: "- - - to Allah belongs all power - - -." Claim - as normal not proved, as Muhammad was unable to prove anything at all - only fast-talk for why he could not prove anything. One more of the ones any follower of any religion can claim for his god(s), as unproved words are that cheap.

801 2/165h: "- - - Allah will strongly enforce the Penalty". See 3/77b below.

802 2/166: "- - - they (leaders*) would see the Penalty, and all relations between them (= with their followers*) would be cut off". Trying to escape penalty.

803 2/167a: "Nor will there be a way for them (sinners, non-Muslims*) out of the fire." Well, there is a possibility in the beginning, as may be some of the not too bad ones may be called out from the flames. Also in the Quran there are indications for that may be Hell is not quite forever (6/128c, 11/107b, 43/74d, 51/13c, 78/23).

804 2/167b: "- - - the Fire - - -". Hell.

805 2/168a: "O ye people!" This is said to the Arabs by Muhammad around 622 - 624 AD. A clear historical anomaly for any prophet reading his claimed copy of the claimed "Mother Book" a la the Quran, before Muhammad started his preaching. See f.x. 4/13d below.

806 2/168b: "Eat of what is on earth, lawful and good - - -". Muhammad in many ways took after he Jews, but not so much when it came to food taboos. The remaining taboos mainly are meat from pigs and donkeys (the prohibition given in Hadiths) and blood, and also animals not killed in a correct way, plus meat "over which the name of other gods has been mentioned".

807 2/168c: "- - - do not follow in the footsteps of Satan - - -". An interesting sentence, as one of the two remaining theories (after the Quran proved wrong the claim that it is from a god, included from the claimed god Allah) for how the Quran was made, is that it was made by dark forces (which some facts may indicate). (The other remaining theory is that it is made by man)./p>

808 2/169a: "For he (the Devil*) commands you to what is evil and shameful - - -". This is one of the - surely unintended - hints about who may have made the Quran, as the Quran and also sharia all too often command or permit deeds which are horrible and evil and shameful according to any normal code of ethics or moral - Islam's is not normal on too many points (see the golden rule: "Do against others like you want others do against you"). But all the same we are not quite able to believe it is made by the Devil - partly because we hardly believe in neither gods nor devils, but mainly because not even a devil would be so stupid as to make his unholy book containing so much which is wrong, because he had to know he would be found out sooner or later and lose credibility. There is the possibility, though, that the god permitted the Devil to try to cheat more humans into Hell by means of a false religion, but on the condition that the teachings should have so many errors that normal intelligent people should be able to see through the bluffs and evade the trap.

809 2/169b: "- - - you - - " This is said to the Arabs by Muhammad around 622 - 624 AD. A clear historical anomaly for any prophet reading his claimed copy of the claimed "Mother Book" a la the Quran, before Muhammad started his preaching. See f.x. 4/13d below.

810 2/169c: "- - - say of Allah that of which ye (people*) have no knowledge". If one overlooks all the glorious words in the Quran, and reads the rest, one gets a lot of knowledge about both Allah and Muhammad. Much of it is very negative.

811 2/169d: "- - - knowledge - - -". See 26/83a below.

812 2/170a: "Follow what Allah hath revealed (= the Quran)." No omniscient god ever revealed a book with so many mistakes, etc. as the Quran.

812 2/170b: "- - - revealed - - -". Was it really revealed?- - and in case by whom? As no god ever was involved in a book in which everything but the language is in a sorry state (which also the language might have been in the beginning, and which it still is when it comes to being clear and unmistakeable), there only remain two alternatives in case: Dark forces or man - sick or not.

813 2/170c: "'Follow what Allah hath revealed.' - - - 'Nay! We (non-Muslims*) will follow the ways of our fathers'. What! even though their fathers were void of wisdom and guidance?" A thought-provoking verse when one knows Islam demands everybody shall follow the Quran - today "the ways of their fathers" - a book so full of mistakes, errors, contradictions, invalid logic, etc. that there is no reliable wisdom and guidance to find, only a traditional way of the fathers.

814 2/170d: "- - - they say - - -" This is said about the Arabs by Muhammad around 622 - 624 AD. A clear historical anomaly for any prophet reading his claimed copy of the claimed "Mother Book" a la the Quran, before Muhammad started his preaching. See f.x. 4/13d below.

815 2/170e: "We shall follow the ways (religion*) of our fathers". Exactly what the Muslims are doing. Also see 26/74c below.

816 2/170f: "We shall follow the ways (religion*) of our fathers". Well, at least the Jews and the Christians do not say this, but that they follow the Bible.

817 2/170g: "We shall follow the ways (religion*) of our fathers". How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before? See 2/51b above.

818 2/170h: "- - - their fathers were void of wisdom - - -". They at least seem to have had enough wisdom to see that something was seriously wrong with the Quran.

819 2/170i: "- - - wisdom - - -". For words like "wisdom", "knowledge", etc. see 26/83a below.

820 2/170j: "- - - guidance - - -". Guidance here is synonymous with the Quran and Islam. See 7/192a and 16/107 below.

821 2/171a: "- - - those who reject Faith - - -". One of Muhammad's negative names for non-Muslims.

822 2/171b: "- - - those who reject Faith are as if one was deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of all wisdom". Here it may be relevant to think of what happened in the religious Muslim middle ages: All knowledge not related to religion little by little were frozen out or forbidden. From 1095 AD on (partly because of the book "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" by "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad", Al-Ghazali) there did not come one single new idea or thought which could benefit humanity for some 850 years from central and eastern Muslim area (in the western area the freeze came ca. 100 years later). No more comment.

A ps. about al-Ghazali: Full name Abu Hamed Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali (1058 AD - Des. 1111 AD). To be very short he vehemently rejected science and philosophy (thinking), partly because persons like Aristotle, Socrates, etc. were non-Muslims, and their ideas thus could corrupt Islam. It instead was Allah who made everything happen. Not strange that no new ideas came for the better part of a millennium from Muslim area.

823 2/171c: "- - - listen to nothing but calls and cries - - -". The Bible strongly contradicts claims saying that listening to the Bible is like "listening to nothing but calls and cries". On the contrary it says that to listen to it, is the way to salvation.

824 2/171d: "- - - Faith - - -". = Islam - only Islam is faith in the Quran.

825 2/171e: "- - - wisdom - - -". For words like "wisdom", "knowledge", etc. see 26/83a below.

826 2/172a: "- - - ye who believe - - -". Muslims.

827 2/172b: "O ye who believe!" This is said to the Arabs by Muhammad around 622 - 624 AD. A clear historical anomaly for any prophet reading his claimed copy of the claimed "Mother Book" a la the Quran, before Muhammad started his preaching. See f.x. 4/13d below.

828 2/172c: “Eat of the good things that We (Allah*) have provided for you - - -”. In many religions their god(s) provide(s) the food or the ways of producing the food, but no god or priest or prophet has ever proved the claim. Neither does Muhammad. And why should Allah be more reliable than other gods - he was asked for proofs, but was unable to give anything but fast words himself- - - he has not even proved his existence, which would be very easy for him to do if he was real. Did Muhammad create the Quran? - and his god?

829 2/173a: “He (Allah*) hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the meat of swine, and that on which another name hath been invoked besides that of Allah”. Wrong. You also are forbidden to eat meat from animals you kill by strangulation, or such which are gored to death, and Hadiths – f.x. Al-Bukhari - very clearly prohibits you from eating meat from donkey.

830 2/173b: “He (Allah*) hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the meat of swine, (etc.*) - - -". Partial contradiction: In the NT most of these prohibitions are lifted.

831 2/173c: "- - - the flesh of swine - - -". This is the most well known prohibited food in Islam. You will meet a lot of fast talk about why, but the plain truth is that nobody knows why. The most common guess is sickness/trichinosis. Another is that as pigs to a degree eat human food, leaders in the old found them too expensive and had a taboo put on them. Still another is that pigs like to wallow in mud (to cool themselves down), and thus is dirty food. Still another that meat from pig once was used in religious ceremonies and became holy, and thus a taboo for man. But nobody really knows.

#832 2/173d: "But if one is forced by necessity (to eat forbidden food*), without willful disobedience - - - then he is guiltless". If no sin is intended and some situation - hunger, threat, or something - forces you to eat forbidden food, you are making no sin. Non-Muslims should remember that this also is the case if Muslims are cheated into eating forbidden food. There are those who cheat Muslims - or Jews - into eating f.x. sausages with meat from pigs. But if the victim honestly believes it is not forbidden food, he or she is not sinning anyhow, and the cheating is to no avail. Such cases tell nothing about Islam or Muslims - only that the cheater is not a good or reliable friend. There is no reason for such stunts, this even more so as also Muslims are humans, and there is no reason for hurting their personal feelings in ways like this. One may know ever so well that even the Quran proves that something is wrong with the religion, but all the same you should be able to remember that also Muslims are of just the same human stock like you and me - and that to be impolite often tells more about the impolite one than about his victim to cheat them in such a way. You may well debate with him or her about the food taboos, but cheating is crossing a line which tells something about you, not about your victim - and it also is impolite and it is against normal rules for respect of fellow humans. Do not do it - even more so as it has not any of the effects you are aiming for in such cases.

833 2/173e: "For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful". See 2/2b above.

834 2/174a: "Those who conceal Allah's revelations in the Book - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims.

835 2/174b: "Those who conceal Allah's revelations in the Book - - - grievous will be their Penalty". Ones more the claim that the Bible is falsified - even though it was and is impossible to do that without leaving lots of traces modern science would find, even though it was impossible to arrange it over that an enormous area, and even though Islam have found not one single proof for it (THEY HAD SCREAMED TO THE SKY IF THEY HAD). But it was Muhammad's only way out to explaining away all the differences between his teachings and the Bible - - - and he promises severe punishment or the claimed perpetrators. Also see 2/75b above.

8366 2/174c: "- - - Allah's revelations (the Quran*) - - -". No god ever revealed a book like the Quran - too much is wrong in it

837 2/174d: "- - - revelations - - -". See 2/136a above and 4/47c, 5/59e and 13/1f below.

838 2/174e: "- - - Allah's revelations in the Book (the Quran*) - - -". The Quran with all its errors is from no god.

839 2/174f: "- - - a miserable profit - - -". One of Muhammad's claims was that the reason why Jews and Christians had - as he claimed - falsified the Bible, was to earn money or other kinds of good things in this life, but that they made a bad deal, because this meant they lost Paradise in the claimed next life.

840 2/174g: "- - - a miserable profit - - -". See 3/77a below.

841 2/174h: "- - - they (bad non-Muslims*) swallow into themselves naught but Fire - - -". This just is a complicated way to tell they will end in Hell.

842 2/174i: "- - - Fire - - -". Here = Hell.

843 2/174j: "- - - grievous will be their (non-Muslims*) Penalty". See 3/77b below.

844 2/175a: "They are the ones who buy Error in place of Guidance and Torment in place of Forgiveness." Who?? This depends entirely on whether the Quran is true or not. If it is a made up book - and with all its errors it at least is from no god - it is the Muslims, alone or among others.

845 2/175b: "They are the ones who buy Error in place of Guidance and Torment in place of Forgiveness." One of Muhammad's many distaste and worse inducing names for non-Muslims.

846 2/175c: "- - - Error - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

847 2/175d: "- - - Guidance - - -". No book as full of errors as the Quran, is much of a guide.

848 2/175e: "- - - the Fire - - -". Hell.

849 2/176a: “- - - Allah sent down the Book - - -”. With so many mistaken facts and other errors, it is impossible that the Quran is sent down by a god.

850 2/176b: “- - - Allah sent down the Book (the Quran*) in truth - - -”. With that many mistakes and other dubious arguments, it at best is partly true.

851 2/176c: "- - - in truth - - -". See 2/2b above and 13/1g and 40/75 below..

852 2/176d: "- - - truth - - -". That the Quran is the truth, is contradicted by the Bible. See 2/42c 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.

853 2/176e: "- - - those who seek causes of dispute in the Book (the Quran*) are in schism - - -". About a book containing this number of errors, a claim like this merits no comments.

854 2/176f: "- - - those who seek causes of dispute in the Book (the Quran*) are in schism - - -". There are at least two ways of understanding this. It may be a warning against non-Muslims - in that case it is one more of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims. Or it may be a warning against debating "difficult" points in the Quran - these you instead should overlook.

855 2/177a: "It is not righteousness that ye (Muslims*) turn your faces towards East or West - - -". Even though you should face Mecca when you are praying, to do this is not in itself righteousness - and not an absolute demand from Allah, as he may listen even if you face other directions.

856 2/177b: "- - - righteousness - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

857 2/177c: "- - - it is righteousness - to believe in Allah - - -". Only if the Quran is from a god and in addition tells the full truth and only the truth.

858 2/177d: “- - - to believe in Allah and the last day, and the Angles, and the Book, and the Messengers (included Muhammad*) - - -“. If it is not righteousness to believe in Muhammad, Islam may fall. Everything in Islam is built on Muhammad, but Muhammad with all his doubtful moral and deeds at the same time is the weak spot in Islam (why do you think they can afford nothing negative - even the not glossed up truths - and no skeptical questions about him?)

859 2/177e: “- - - to believe in Allah and the last day, and the Angles, and the Book, and the Messengers - - -“. Muslim scholars say this is like accepting the “heavenly revelations” as facts – clearly Islam’s meaning also today, even though absolutely nothing is proved or documented, and it all rests well on blind belief in what a morally very suspect and perhaps mentally sick (TLE?) person once told. And one thought provoking fact: In all other aspects of life naivety and blindness is the most sure way to be cheated by deceivers and swindlers - but in such a serious case as religion Islam glorifies and advices and demands blind belief and acceptance as the claimed only rational thing.

860 2/177f: "- - - the Last Day - - -". The Day of Doom.

861 2/177g: "- - - the Book - - -". Here the Quran.

862 2/177h: “- - - to believe in Allah - - - and the Messengers (included Muhammad of course*)- - -“. A strengthened version of Muhammad's standard mantra to glue himself to his god and thus to his platform of power.

863 2/177i: "- - - Messengers (included Muhammad*) - - -". See 63/5a below.

864 2/177j: "- - - the Messengers - - -". Hadiths mention there have been at least 124ooo messengers/prophets for Islam all over the world through the times, included Muhammad. But except for the Jewish ones - and Muhammad(?) - no trace has been found from any of them. And as for Muhammad, see 63/5a below.

865 2/177k: "- - - to spend of your (Muslims*) substance (for charity*) - - -". The demand for charity is one of Muhammad's positive sides - no person is so "special" that he has no good sides. But the effect is reduced by the fact that the main thing with charity is not to help others, but to gain merit in Heaven, and the "fact" that you gain as much merit from helping your wife or children or parents, as from helping strangers - - - then why help strangers? (Oh, it is done, and not a little, but for many helping strangers is not high on the priority list. From Scandinavia we f.x. have seen reports in the newspapers telling that when there is collection of money for the big international aid or relief organizations or for help after big catastrophes, Muslims give little or nothing. (For all we know the picture may be different when collecting for help to Muslims.))

866 2/177l: "- - - ransom for slaves - - -". To free a slave - at least a Muslim slave - was a good thing (even though the freed slave still belonged to your extended family if nothing else was said). But you will meet many a Muslim boasting that Islam intended to abolish slavery. One thing is that they made no progress in 1200-1400 years - until they were forced backwards into it by western ideas and western power (the last one - Mauritania - as unbelievably late as 1982, and worse: It did not become a punishable crime there until in 2007!!!). But worse: The claim is rubbish. Muhammad was a slave owner, a slave taker, a slave dealer - it is mentioned both in the Quran and in Hadiths - and anything Muhammad said and did was just and right and could - and in religious principle still can - be done by anyone without the slightest bad conscience.

867 2/177m: "- - - charity - - -". One of the positive sides of the Quran is its stressing of charity. The point is weakened, though, by the fact that the main purpose of charity is not to help fellow humans, but to gain merit in Heaven, and also by the fact that you gains as much merit from helping your wife or children, as from helping strangers - then why help strangers?

868 2/177n: "- - - fulfill the contracts which ye (Muslims*) have made - - -". Positive. But there is at least one sentence in the Quran telling it is bad to cheat fellow Muslims, which indirectly may be understood like it is not as bad to cheat non-Muslims.

869 2/177o: "- - - be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity - - -". This is a fact non-Muslims should never forget: Muslims are imprinted and imprinted and imprinted that if you keep going, you win in the end, if for no other reason than because the opponent tires and gives in. (One of the weak spots for democracy - there always are many who tire or for other reasons oppose what should have been done).

870 2/177p: "- - - the people of truth - - -". = Muslims, as the Quran claims Islam is the religion of truth (a bit ironic for a religion believing in al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), deceit, and even breaking of words/promises/oaths like Muhammad did and advised)".

871 2/177q: "- - - truth - - -". See 2/2b above and 13/1g below.

872 2/177r: "- - - truth - - -". See 2/42c above.

873 2/177s: Grammatical mistake: aaaman should be tu’minuu.

874 2/177t: Grammatical mistake: aata should be tu’tuu (2 times).

875 2/177u: Grammatical mistake: aqaama should be tuqimuu.

876 2/177v: Grammatical mistake: sasbriina should be saabiruuna (because its position in the sentence - and plural should be masculine). 5 grammatical mistakes in one verse.

877 2/178a: "- - - ye who believe - - -". Muslims.

 

878 2/178b: “The law of equality - - -". An eye for an eye, etc. This is in accordance with the OT, but contradicts the NT and its New Covenance.

879 2/178c: “The law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder” - take revenge (though to forgive is a good deed - or accept money instead of revenge). Rather similar to OT, much harsher than NT.

880 2/178d: “The law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain - - - etc.” This is one of the verses underlying the sharia laws.

881 2/178e: "- - - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman". There were great differences socially in the Islamic society, AND REMEMBER THAT AS THE QURAN IS CLAIMED GIVEN BY THE GOD, NOTHING CAN BE CHANGED. The practicing and the understanding of the verses may change a little, but the Quran is forever the one and only moral code and the one and unchangeable law - what all fundamentalists - and terrorists - return to. Would you like to live under such rules? - especially if you know the reason for the rules is a book not connected to any god (no god was ever involved in delivering a book with so much errors, and no good god was involved in such a harsh, bloody, suppressing and egocentric war religion)?

882 2/178f: (A2/148): “But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain - - -.” But the literal text only says “and he to whom (something) is remitted by his brother”. Then the question is: Who does the word “his” really refer to? – the brother of the victim or the brother of the murderer? – or for that case a “brother” in faith? Islam is still debating it – quite naturally, as the question and its answer can have really serious effects in a murder case. This one honestly should have been clearly stated, and it is most unlikely that a god would leave this as unclear as is the case here.

883 2/178g: "- - - a Mercy from your (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*)". See 1/1a above.

884 2/178h: "- - - grave penalty". See 3/77b below.

885 2/179a: “The law of equality - - -". An eye for an eye, etc. This is in accordance with the OT, but contradicts the NT and its New Covenance.

886 2/179b: "In the Law of Equality there is (saving of) Life for you - - -". There may be some truth in this. In the old culture of revenge, the revenge could be far more than "equality". All the same it is a long way to "turn the other cheek".

887 2/180a: "It is prescribed, when death approaches any of you, if he leave any goods, that he make a bequest - - -." One of the verses on which the sharia laws are built.

888 2/180b: "It is prescribed, when death approaches any of you, if he leave any goods, that he make a bequest - - -." But why? - Muhammad did not do so himself, and in spite of popular Muslim tales - and some Hadiths - he left considerable values when he died (estates in Medina, Khaybar and Fadang among other things)- - - which made some strife between Muhammad's daughter Fatime, who wanted her inheritance, and the new caliph Abu Bakr, who told that as Muhammad had said what he owned should follow the caliphate, he would not give it to her. The same he told her husband Ali after she died.

889 2/180c: "It is prescribed, when death approaches any of you, if he leave any goods, that he make a bequest - - -." One of the verses on which the sharia laws are built.

890 2/181a "If anyone changes the bequest after hearing it, the guilt shall be on those who make the change". One of the verses on which the sharia laws are built.

891 2/181b: "For Allah hears and knows (all things). The final threat in many a religion; we cannot know what you do always. But just you wait till the god decides! It is frequently used in the Quran. Also see 2/233h and 35/38b below.

892 2/182a: "- - - wrongdoing - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. Compare parts of the Quran's moral code to the gold standard: "Do towards others like you want others do towards you", and weep.

893 2/182b: "- - - Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." See 1/1a above.

894 2/183a: "- - - ye who believe - - -". Muslims.

895 2/183b: "Fasting is prescribed for you - - -." But beware it is not total fasting - you can eat, etc. when it is dark - - - but the omniscient Allah who made a religion for all the world, "forgot" to mention what to do in the far south and far north, where there it at times only are night or only day - a real problem as the Muslim year is ca. 11 days shorter than the natural year, and thus Ramadan - the month for fasting - drifts along the real year, and sometimes is in winter and sometimes in summer. (Islam has decided how to do it - to go by the time in Mecca - but it is not in the Quran).

8896 2/183c: "Fasting is prescribed for you - - -." This is not from the Bible. And if it is so essential for the god that he prescribed it, it should have been mentioned also in the Bible if Yahweh and Allah had been the same god (there is fasting among f.x. Catholics, but a very different one).

897 2/183d: "Fasting is prescribed for you - - -." This is one of the points behind the sharia laws.

898 2/183e: "- - - that ye (Muslims*) may (learn) self-restraint - - -". Or does the Arab text here in reality mean (translated from Swedish): "- - - may be ye shall fear Allah"?. The original Arab Quran far from always is clear and distinct, and all reasonable possible meanings are correct - according to Muslims - even in cases where the possible meanings vary wildly.

899 2/184a: This is one of the verses behind sharia laws.

900 2/184b: “But he that will give more, of his own free will – it is better for him.” But the Arab expression “alladhina yutiqunahu” may be “able to do it” or “can afford it”. In this translation it tends towards "ability to afford". But if one thinks the other one is the correct, the meaning may be this: “Whoever does more good than he is bound to do, do good unto himself thereby - - -.” To do god is a much wider word than to give. Clear language in the Quran?

901 2/185a: "Ramadan" - the month for fasting. See 2/183b above. As the Muslim year is ca. 11 days shorter than the natural year, Ramadan drifts along the natural year in cycles of about 33 years, and can thus be at any time of the natural year, depending on which natural year.

902 2/185b: "Ramadan is the (month) in which was sent down the Quran - - -". This strongly contradicts what is said other places in the Quran, that it was sent down little by little. Some Muslims will explain that "what Allah really meant" - which he knows better than a simple omniscient god, like so often - is that the first part of it was sent down then. But that is not what the Quran says here.

903 2/185c: "Ramadan is the (month) in which was sent down the Quran - - -".A historical anomaly for any prophet before Muhammad reading his copy similar to the Quran of the claimed "Mother Book" - which copy and when? See 4/13d below.

904 2/185d: "- - - sent down the Quran - - -". Wrong. In no case can it have been sent down if the Quran's geography and astronomy is correct - see 67/5c below. The Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is not from any god - a god does not make mistakes. It is either from humans or from dark forces. But if it is from humans it was sent neither up nor down, and if it was from dark forces, it was sent up, as Hell at least according to Hadiths, is below our flat 7 Earths.

905 2/185e: "- - - (the Quran is) a guide to mankind - - -". A book with that much errors, that partly immoral moral code, and that harsh a war religion, is neither a good nor a reliable guide - this even more so as no god ever sent down a book of a quality like the Quran.

906 2/185f: "- - - (the Quran is) a guide to mankind - - -". No book full of mistakes is a reliable guide for anything.

907 2/185g: “- - - clear (Signs) - - -“. There exist no clear sign (proof for Allah or Muhammad) in all the Quran, and nowhere else – see 2/39b above..

908 2/185h: "- - - clear (Signs) for guidance - - -". As the claimed signs never are proved to be from Allah - any believer in any religion can claim them for his/her god(s) as long as no proofs are given - those "signs" have little or no value as guidance.

909 2/185i: "- - - (- - - right and wrong) - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in reference to the book's own partly immoral moral code - and to its own partly immoral and unjust sharia laws.

910 2/185j: "- - - He (Allah*) does not want to put you to difficulties". Immoral parts of moral codes may mean difficulties for people with a conscience. Partly immoral and unjust may mean difficulties to anyone - f.x. to the woman who is punished because she cannot bring 4 male witnesses to that she really was raped - one of the most unjust and immoral laws which has ever existed anywhere. And being sent to war to be mutilated or killed means difficulties to everyone, included his family and children.

911 2/185k: "- - - He (Allah*) has guided you (via the Quran)". As the Quran is not from a god, and thus also not from the claimed god Allah, it is not Allah who gives the claimed guidance.

912 2/185l: "- - - He (Allah*) has guided you (via the Quran)". There is little reliable guidance in a book with that many mistakes, etc.

913 2/185m: "- - - and perchance that ye shall be grateful". For a book like the Quran? - full of errors. Or for a leader with a morality like Muhammad?.

914 2/186a: "When My servants ask thee - - -" = When Allah's followers (Muslims) ask thee, Muhammad - - -.

915 2/186b: "- - - thee (Muhammad*) - - -". A historical anomaly - see 2/101b above and 4/13d below.

917 2/186d: "I (Allah*) listen to the prayers of every suppliant when he calleth on Me - - -". Only if Allah exists. And if he in addition is a god. And if he is behind the Quran. And if the Quran tells the full and only truth about this.

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.)

918 2/186e: "- - - that they (Muslims*) may walk the right way." You cannot walk the right way with a guide-book like the Quran - too much is wrong in it.

919 2/186f: "- - - the right way". The road to the Quran's and Islam's paradise - see 10/9f below.

920 2/187a: "Permitted to you, on the night of the fast, is the approach of your wives - - -". This is not mentioned in the Bible (sex is an integrated part in Islam - at least for the man. Not so much so in the Bible).

921 2/187b: "- - - what Allah hath ordained - - -". Allah or nature? The Quran and Muhammad never were able to prove anything at all of the central points. There only were and are words and claims. Yahweh at least proved a number of things if the old books tell the truth - Allah nothing. Also see 11/7a below.

922 2/187c: "- - - the night of the fast - - -". As there is not this kind of fast in the Bible, there also are no nights of fast - a bit strange if Yahweh and Allah is claimed to be the same god and fast so central in the religion as it is in Islam.

923 2/187d: "- - - (Allah*) forgave you - - -". Allah can forgive nobody unless he for one exists and for two is a god, neither of which is documented.

924 2/187e: "- - - until the white streak o dawn appear to you distinct from the blackness of the night - - -". This and the similar moment in the evening are two essential moments for sharia laws and other rules during fast. For Muhammad this was ok marks - in the tropics with its quick change from night to day and the other way round it just takes minutes. What he did not think about - did not know about - was the situation on higher latitudes, where the transition may take an hour or more or even does not happen during summer and winter in the highest latitudes. Something any god had known.

925 2/187f: (YA196): “- - - the black thread - - -“ – does it indicate “- - - all three things (eat, drink, sex*) must stop during fast - - -“? – or: “What is permitted is well enough, but seek the higher things ordained for you.” The Arab text is unclear. Just choose what you think is the meaning.

The black (and the white) thread is the Quran's way of defining when it is day and when it is night - and thus when you f.x. can start eating during fast: You hold up a black and a white thread. If the black one is easiest to see, it is day, but if the white is best visible it is night.

926 2/187g: "Those are the limits (set by) Allah - - -". Allah may have set them if he exists and is a major god. But who has set them if not?

927 2/187h: "Those are the limits (set by) Allah - - -". A point here is that if these are limits set by Allah, why then do we not find all the same limits in the not falsified (proved both by science and by Islam) Bible if Yahweh and Allah is the same god like the Quran claims?

928 2/187i: “- - - Allah makes clear His Signs to men - - -“. There exists no clear sign (proof for Allah or Muhammad) in all the Quran – see 2/39b above.

929 2/188: "- - - nor use it (property*) as bait for judges - - -." Do not bribe anyone - - - but Muhammad used bribes large scale to get and keep followers. Islam advocates honesty - - - up to a limit (al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), "war is deceiving" - and "everything" is war, and "break even your oath if that gives a better result - pay expiation if necessary". A problem for any non-Muslim (and Muslim) who do not know when to believe a Muslim in serious cases, and a problem for Muslims who really tells the truth, but are not believed.

*930 2/189a: “They (the new moons*) are but signs to mark fixed periods of time in (the affairs of) men, - - -”. Wrong - the new moons simply is a natural phenomenon caused by the moon's route around Earth. Man often uses it to calculate time, but it is not made for that purpose. If Islam insists on that, they will have to prove it. And that it is made for pilgrimage is such a nonsense, that we do not comment on it.

931 2/189b: "Enter houses through proper doors - - -". This may refer to superstition - there existed superstition about using normal doors in special cases some places in the world f.x. to bring out dead persons. But Muslims say it here is a proverb meaning "Act honest", and in this case the Muslim explanation may well be true.

932 2/190a: "Fight in the cause of Allah - - -". A clear order. And a convenient order for Muhammad (and for his successors), as this here on Earth in reality meant "fight for Muhammad when he wants".

933 2/190b: "Fight in the cause of Allah - - -". This way of thinking is incompatible with at least NT, and one of the proofs for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god - unless he is strongly schizophrenic. (Also in OT the fighting was not for the god, but to make room for a Jewish nation).

934 2/190c: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you - - -". This is one of the fundamentals behind the sharia laws concerning war - except that soon it was not necessary that "they" were fighting the Muslims - most Muslim wars and raids were wars of aggression (mainly for riches, slaves, power and spreading Islam). Later all the 4 main "law schools" agreed on that the fact that the other part was non-Muslim, was enough reason for declaring jihad - holy war - against them. This point of view was not even questioned in Islam until around 1930, and then because of influence from western thinking.

935 2/190d: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you - - -". This is nice on the paper and in propaganda. The reality is that practically all Muhammad's raids and wars were wars of aggression - included Badr, Uhud, and The Trench (battles of defense in a war of aggression started and kept alive by Muhammad's raiding of caravans, etc.). As far as we have been able to find out, this was the general picture all the way up through the history, until Europe became too strong for them. In addition: All the 4 law schools in Islam agreed on that the fact that an opponent - or not even an opponent, but a land Muslims wanted to conquer - was Pagan, was reason enough to declare Jihad = Holy War of Defense (theoretically Jihad only can be a war of defense, but the way Islam or at least a large percentage of Muslims define "defense", this restriction is just a joke - though convenient to use in debates and propaganda).

936 2/190e: “- - - but do not transgress limits (in war*) - - -.” This “do not transgress limits” is contradicted – and mostly abrogated – rather strongly: This verse is contradicted and often “killed” by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 5/73, 8/12, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 29 contradictions - and abrogated by more or less the same verses).

937 2/190f: "- - - Allah loveth not transgressors". Does he then love Muslims with their partly immoral moral code, partly unjust and immoral laws, not to mention their bloody war and looting religion?

938 2/190g: "- - - transgressors - - -". Normally one of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims.

###939 2/191a: “And slay them (the non-Muslims*) wherever ye catch them - - -”. A straight, no-nonsense order - not to be misunderstood. Very good words for terrorists.

###940 2/191b: “And slay them (the non-Muslims*) wherever ye catch them - - -”. Incompatible with the Bible and especially with NT. There is not the same god behind two so different books.

941 2/191c: “- - - and turn them (the ones that fights you - it is not said who are the initial attackers*) out from where they have turned you out - - -”. A sentence ordering revenge or to retake what is lost to the enemy before - it may be a dilemma for f.x. Greece, Balkan, Sicily, South Italy included Rome, Spain, and other places, which for centuries were under Islam. And a good verse for f.x. terrorists in Spain (but also for others). That Muslims retake land they have once conquered seems to be right and just - no matter that they, themselves, once took it from someone else. But that Hindus in India wants to rule themselves their now “small” country - remember that India once (until 1947) was what now are Pakistan, India and Bangladesh - instead of being ruled and misruled by Muslims, is very bad; hate the Hindus. And most of the Middle East, included Egypt and Turkey once were partly Christian. But when Christians for a hundred years once more dominated parts of the area, Christians were the worst people ever. Hate them and kill them. And the Buddhists in Indonesia: When they do better than “we” - hate them and kill them (pogroms in Indonesia especially against Chinese did cost more than 200ooo lives last century - may be as many as 650ooo - the mass murders in East Timor when they pulled free not included). And when the Christians in East Timor had had too much of Muslim suppression and demanded to become free: Murder tens of thousands (estimated 102.800 included dead from hunger and "over-death" from illness according to Wikipedia) of them - it is lawful and just. And when Muslims in Indonesia do not kill in East Timor, they bomb Hindus and Christians in Bali and other places. Not to mention the not too secret, though distant dreams of retaking Spain and Southeast Europe “because it used to be Muslim land, and we should turn out the ones who took it from us” - oh, yes, We have heard it. (But strangely we have heard this about Spain, but not about Balkan which also once was under Islam.)

As for East Timor that history is rather thought provoking. Indonesia is a quite civilized country, and all the same they behaved like that - and similar against their own Chinese who had been Indonesians for generations. Worse: Some of it was done by the regular army or could have been stopped by the army (the same goes for the Pakistani inhumanities in Bangladesh in that war). That means we cannot expect agitated Muslims or Muslim regular armies to behave much better other places even today - this after all just was a few decades ago.

And it hardly is strange that to re-conquer is a dream, as the official goal for Islam is to dominate the entire world, and to suppress and tax all non-Muslims. Just read the Quran and see - it is said there. And it is said in modern literature for Muslims - though not in Muslim literature meant for non-Muslims.

942 2/191d: “- - - tumult and oppression is worse than slaughter; - - -” - but only oppression of Muslims (non-Muslims should and shall be oppressed and subdued - - - by Muslims). It is better to kill the non-Muslims than to live suppressed by them - even the Quran clearly states that in Muslim states the non-Muslim of course have to accept suppression, lack of power of all kinds, and to pay extra and often heavy head tax - jizya. But then the Quran as clearly states that Muslims are better beings than non-Muslims. (See separate chapter in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran").

There also is the question of who defines what is suppression.

943 2/191e: “- - - tumult and oppression is worse than slaughter; - - -”. Incompatible with especially NT. Yahweh and Allah is not the same god, and Islam only distantly related to the two other main monotheistic religions in the area. Actually the Quran simply seems to just be a special case of the apocryphal books, used in the same way as the other apocryphal books as basis for a teaching. Admittedly Islam is the most successful of the apocryphal sects/religions - and likely the one furthest from the mother religion(s), with the possible exception of some extreme sects.

943 2/191f: “- - - fight them (non-Muslims - in this case originally the old regime that still ruled in Mecca most likely*) not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there, but if they fight you there, slay them.” Even at sacred ground it is just to kill. Of course if there really is no way to calm down a situation, what has to be done has to be done. But as a general order as the only answer to use, it tells something about Islam. Proof for what it tells? - when conquering Mecca in 630 AD, Muhammad had one of his opponents murdered in the Kabah mosque itself, and he was not even fighting; the Muslims just murdered him there on Muhammad's specific order.

Honest words for your money.

944 2/191g: "- - - the Sacred Mosque - - -". See 2/150c above.

945 2/191h: "- - - if they (non-Muslims*) fight you (Muslims*), slay them." Incompatible with especially NT - and one more proof for that Jesus did not represent the same god as Muhammad.

*946 2/191i: “- - - such is the reward (to be killed*) for those who suppress faith (Islam*)”. Honest words - and sugar for terrorists, especially as the terrorists themselves decide who are suppressors “in the widest meaning of the word”. Anyone who tells you the Quran has to be disused to incite to hate, war and terrorism - tell them to read the book just once (but without religious or political blindness). Strictly speaking: It is the ones who do not want war - included terrorism - who are wrong according to the Quran.

If non-Muslims dominate Muslim area - hate them and kill them, so Muslims can dominate and suppress and tax the survivors fair and just. The Muslim way of fair play?

*947 2/191j: “- - - such is the reward (to be killed*) for those who suppress faith (Islam*)”. Incompatible with the Bible - even in OT the fighting was not for the religion, but to establish a Jewish national territory.

948 2/191k: Verse 2/191 is one of theones which bakes the foundation for sharia laws concerning treatment of non-Muslims.

949 2/191l: "- - - those who suppress faith (Islam*)". One of Muhammad's many distaste and hate inducing names for non-Muslims.

950 2/192: "- - - Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful". See 1/1a above.

##951 2/193a: "And fight them (non-Muslims*) until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah". More clear words for your money.

##952 2/193b: "And fight them (non-Muslims*) until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah". Even if we omit the "faith in Allah" this one is incompatible with the Bible, and especially with HT. Another proof for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god - the ways of thinking, the fundamental ideal and the morality, etc. are too different. At least a Milky Way away from "turn the other cheek".

##953 2/193c: "And fight them (non-Muslims*) until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah". This is one of the basics under the sharia laws for fighting and for treatment of non-Muslims.

***954 2/193d: "And fight them (non-Muslims*) until - - - there prevail - - - faith in Allah." This is one of the essences in verse 193. Worth remembering and to beware of. Especially as the exact and correct translation according to A: "The Message of the Quran" is: "- - - and religion belongs to Allah (alone)"(!!)

955 2/193e: "- - - and there prevail justice - - -". Take a look at the Quran's moral code and the sharia laws. Some of it is ok, but some is from bad to worse, and some is downright horrible and has nothing to do with justice or moral. Compare parts of it to "do onto others like you want others shall do onto you", and you have only two options: To weep or to laugh.

956 2/193f: "- - - (fight*) those (non-Muslims*) who practice oppression". Oppression cannot be accepted according to the Quran - - - except that Muslims shall oppress all non-Muslims, also this according to the Quran.

957 2/193g: "- - - let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression". Beware that when Muslims are ruled by non-Muslims, at least parts of them very easily find reasons to claim they are oppressed.

958 2/193h: "- - - let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression". Beware that Muslims practicing oppression of non-Muslims shall not be met by hostility, but by "willing submission".

959 2/194a: "The prohibited month - - -". An Arabism. Arabia had 4 months - number 1, 7, 11, and 12 - which were holy and in which f.x. fighting was prohibited. This was one of many traditions Muhammad or Allah took over from the old Arab pagan religion. Muhammad, Allah and Islam took over many old Arab traditions, laws and rules, many of them from the old pagan Arab religion, but few from other cultures and none from distant cultures. To be blunt: The taking over of many pagan rules, does not indicate a real god behind the Quran, and the taking over of mainly Arab traditions, etc. does not indicate an international god in case there after all is on.

960 2/194b: (YA209): “The prohibited month - - -.” But Arabia had 4 prohibited months (number 1,7,11,12), when f.x. warfare was/is prohibited – not one. Can here be meant the month of Hajj – the pilgrimage (“Dhu al Hijjah”) – or may be the following month (“Muharram”) that often was called “al Haram” = the prohibited or sacred? Islam does not know. Clear language?

961 2/194c: "- - - the law of equality". This law said - then and today - that if something bad was done to you or your family, you had the right to take revenge in the same way. This was better than the old rule - or lack of rule - in Arabia, where the revenge easily was more severe than the original bad deed, and then demanded a revenge the opposite way and everything escalating. It also was similar to the rule in OT (from where Muhammad may be got the idea) and it’s "an eye for an eye". But it is a very long way to NT's "turn the other cheek" = forgive. (Though it should be mentioned that even if "the law of equality" is the law in Islam, to instead forgive is reckoned to be a good deed.)

962 2/194d: "- - - the law of equality." This is one of the main pillars under laws concerning crime in Islam. It is rather similar to "an eye for an eye" in OT, but far from NT.

963 2/194e: “If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him - - -”. Take revenge. Incompatible with at least NT. It is a long way from here to "turn the other cheek" (f.x. Matt. 5/39). Very different gods.

964 2/194f: "- - - know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves". See the end of the comment to 2/194b above.

965 2/195a: “And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, - - - “. This may or may not mean: Give money to the war for Islam. It is likely that it means this, as the same text translated from a Swedish Quran, (NB: Certified by Al-Azahr Al-Sharif Islamic Research Academy, Cairo) reads: “Give to (the fight for) the cause of Allah”. (It is no secret that many - very many - Muslims give money and help to such fight, included to terrorist organizations. This even though reports in newspapers in Scandinavia indicate that Muslims give little or nothing to international relief or help organizations.)

966 2/195b: "- - - your own hands - - -". In the Quran this expression and similar ones often are used symbolically for your deeds and what you do. The meaning here is that if you give little to "good causes", Allah sees it and will punish you.

967 2/195c: "- - do good - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is meant in accordance with the Quran's own partly immoral moral code. Remember f.x. that the best deed according to the Quran, was to go to war for Muhammad/Allah.

968 2/195d: "- - - Allah loveth those who do good". See 2/195b just above.

969 2/196a: "Hajj or umrah". Typical Quranic Arabisms. Hajj and umrah simply are pagan Arab religious traditions took over and integrated in his new religion. For some reason or other (?) the claimed international god Allah utilized a lot of pagan Arab traditions, a few traditions etc. from neighbouring areas, and nothing from distant lands - - - and very little if anything from himself.

970 2/196b: "Hajj or umrah". Hajj is pilgrimage to Mecca during the holy month of Ramadan. Umrah is more or less the same at other times of the year, but can also be made during Ramadan - the contents are nearly the same as for Hajj. We may add that the religious ceremonies are quite primitive and mostly simply taken over from old Arab paganism. Some superficial symbolism can be found, though.

971 2/196c: (YA215): “This is for those whose household is not in (the precincts of) the Sacred Mosque (Kabah*) - - -.” To quote Yusuf Ali: “There is disagreement among jurists whether residents of Mecca are allowed to make 'tamattu’ (a religious act) or not.” Very clear.

972 2/196d: "- - - the Sacred Mosque - - -". The Kabah in Mecca.

973 2/196e: "- - - Allah is strict in punishment". See 3/77b below.

974 2/197a: " - - - Hajj - - -". A religious tradition Muhammad simply too over from the old Arab pagan religion. One of the Arabisms in the Quran and in Islam.

975 2/197b: (A2/180): “For Hajj are the months well known.” The three forbidden/holy months around the time of the pilgrimage? – or the month of Hajj each year? Nobody knows even after 1400 years of study. Clear language in the Quran?

976 2/197c: "- - - wickedness - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

977 2/197d: "And whatever good ye (Muslims*) do, (be sure) Allah knoweth it". If Allah exists and is behind the Quran - and if the Quran tells the truth on this point.

978 2/197e: "- - good - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is meant in accordance with the Quran's own partly immoral moral code. Remember f.x. that the best deed according to the Quran, was to go to war and steal, rob, suppress and kill for Muhammad/Allah.

979 2/197f: "- - right conduct - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is meant in accordance with the Quran's own partly immoral moral code. Remember f.x. that the best deed and the most right conduct according to the Quran, was to go to war and steal, rob, suppress and kill for Muhammad/Allah. What is right conduct in Islam, sometimes varies quite a lot from what is right conduct in normal religions (Islam is at some points abnormal, as it is a war religion, and has to serve this purpose - see the book about Jihad/Holy War (Book B) under https://www.1000mistakes.com ).

980 2/197g: "So fear Me (Allah*), O ye that are wise". A wise advise if Allah exists, the very opposite if he does not - and even worse if there in addition is a real god somewhere, one Muslims have been prohibited from even thinking about.

981 2/197h: "- - - O ye that are wise". Notice the flattery - see 13/3j below. Muhammad often used this kind of flattery in the Quran.

982 2/198a: "It is no crime if you seek of the bounty of your Lord (during pilgrimage)." It is ok to combine the pilgrimage to Mecca with business/making money.

 

983 2/198b: "- - - when you (Muslims*) pour down from (Mount) Arafat - - -". When you walk down from (Mount) Arafat.

984 2/198c: "- - - (Mount) Arafat - - -". A mountain near Mecca.

985 2/198d: "- - - The Sacred Monument - - -". A place named Muzdslifah halfway between Mount Arafat and the valley of Mina in Mecca. Muhammad prayed here, and it has become a holy monument to Muslims.

986 2/198e: "- - - celebrate His (Allah's*) praises as He has directed you - - -." There are very fixes rites during the pilgrimage in Mecca - and rather honest: They are primitive and superficial, with superficial symbolism - simply taken over from the old pagan rites. An omniscient, omnipotent god should have been able to find rites which gave more.

987 2/198f: "- - - celebrate His (Allah's*) praises as He has directed you - - -." As it is not Allah who has sent down the Quran - no god ever was involved in a book of that quality - Allah is not the one who directs via the Quran (the alternatives are: Dark forces, an illness like TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy - or one or more humans, with Muhammad as the most likely one in case).

988 2/198g: "- - - celebrate His (Allah's*) praises as He has directed you - - -." Actually this sentence is a bit strange - or funny - as most, if not all, the rites during Hajj in Mecca are taken over from the older pagan Arab religion - pagan rites simply.

989 2/198h: "- - - before this (before you became Muslims*), ye went astray". As most of Muhammad's followers used to be Pagans, it is not unlikely this was true. The question is, however, if they were better off as Muslims, as there is no god behind the Quran - no god sent down a book with so many errors, etc., so maybe they still are pagans. But beware that what really is meant here, is that Muhammad (wrongly) claimed everybody once upon a time were Muslims, but that the religion through generation was contorted and forgotten, and that the pagans thus had gone astray from Islam. There only is Muhammad's claims for this - and f.x. no trace of a religion similar to Islam found neither by science, nor by Islam.

990 2/199a: "Then pass on a quick pace from the place whence it is usual for the multitude so to do - - -". This refers to how to practice the rites in Mecca during pilgrimage.

991 2/199b: "- - - ask for Allah's forgiveness". Allah can forgive nobody unless he exists and in addition is a god, none of which is proved.

992 2/199c: "For Allah is Oft-Forgiving - - -". See 2/299b just above.

993 2/199d: "For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful". See 2/2b above.

994 2/200a: "- - - the holy rites - - -". There are three remarkable facts concerning the Islamic rites in Mecca during Hajj, and both the 2 first make it clear that this is an Arabism: For one thing they simply are Arab pagan rites from the old times taken over by Muhammad - which means that the old pagan religion in Arabia had all the correct rites. For another they all were Arab rites - hardly one single of the rites came from any other place on the globe. The universal god had not thought any other people the right rites - not even the Jews and the Christians had been thought the correct rites in spite of their long connection to the god - - - remember that Muhammad claimed it was the same god. And for a third: The rites are very primitive and superficial - and with very primitive and superficial symbolisms. Was that all an omniscient god was able to give his followers?

995 2/200b: "- - - the holy rites - - -". If the rites (see 2/200a just above*) are holy to Allah, they also should have been mentioned in thee Bible if Allah had been the same god as Yahweh. They are not. Not even the very town of Mecca is mentioned.

996 2/200bc: (A185): “- - - celebrate the praise of Allah, as ye used to celebrate the praises of your fathers - - -.” Like the praise of your fathers/parents used? – or like the praise of their forefathers as it was the custom in pagan times there? (When there were get-togethers, time sometimes was spent praising ones forefathers’ big deeds, etc.) Islam does not know. Clear language in the Quran?

997 2/200d: “- - - celebrate the praise of Allah, as ye used to celebrate the praises of your fathers - - -.” No matter what is the answer to the unsolvable question in 2/200b+c above, it is clear that Islam just took over the old Pagan rites - another Arabism. Was that all an omnipotent, omniscient god had to offer?

998 2/200e: "Give us (unbelievers*) (thy (Allah's*) bounties) in this world! But they will have no portion in the Hereafter". This is the way the Quran tries to explain the unfairness there seems to be in the fact that many non-Muslims and not good Muslims have a good life, whereas many Muslims have a poor life - "they" get the good things now, but will meet the punishment in the next life, whereas "we" prefer to get the good life in Paradise. You meet varieties of this "explanation" many places in the Quran.

999 2/201a: "- - - there are men who say - - -". In this case most likely hypocrites and bad Muslims.

1000 2/201b: "- - - the Fire - - -". Hell.

1001 2/201-202: "And there are men (hardly ever women in the Quran, except when women are the topic*) who say: 'Give us good in this world and good in the Hereafter, and defend us from the Fire!' To these will be allotted what they have earned - - -". Also Muslims wants a good time in this world, but (unsaid here) the next life is the essential. And in which part of Paradise - there are several (at least four or six gardens for normal good Muslims and warriors, and then there are the higher heavens for the extra good ones), one better than the other - or in which part of Hell if you after all have not been good enough or obedient enough (there are 7 parts according to Hadiths - one worse than the other) - depends on how you have lived in this life. Which contradicts:

Allah decides everything (and how can he reward or punish you for his own decisions? - See 3/154 and 14/22b below).

Allah predestines everything - even the smallest details in your life - according to his own Plan. And this Plan nothing and no-one can change. (How can he reward or punish you for being forced to live according to his Plan? Here we touches one of Islam's impossible dilemmas: If Allah decides and even predestines everything like the Quran claims time and again and again, then man in reality has no free will, and there is no moral justification for Allah to punish - or for that case to reward - man for what he does or not does. And a claimed good god cannot punish if there is no acceptable reason for punishment - no-one is guilty for things they have been forced to say or do or not do. Because of this Muhammad needed free will for man, so that man could become responsible for his acts and thus be tempted by Muhammad with Paradise if he was a good and obedient Muslim, and threatened by him with Hell if he did not behave according to what the Quran and Muhammad wanted. But Muhammad never was able to explain how both could be possible - Islam even today is unable to explain this. He - and Islam forever after - only claimed it was and is so and expected/expects blind belief in the claim. Islam of today lamely "explains" (we quote A6/141 - A6/143 in 2008 English edition): "- - - the real relationship between Allah's knowledge of the future (and therefore the ineluctability of what is to happen in the future) on one side, and man's free will on the other - two propositions which, on the face of it seem to contradict one another - is beyond man's comprehension; but since it is postulated by Allah (in the Quran*) both must be true." The ultimate surrender to blind belief - in the immaterial parts of existence there after all are things which are impossible even for an omnipotent god. But Muhammad needed predestination to claim that war and battles were not dangerous - you did not die until you were destined to die anyhow. But he also needed free will for man partly to have means of ruling his followers (be good and obedient and go to Heaven - if you are bad or disobedient you end in Hell) - and partly to "explain" why Allah had the moral right to reward and punish; we again quote A6/141 (A6/143 in English 2008 edition): "- - - the very concept of morality and moral responsibility presupposes free will on man's part". So Muhammad needed both predestination and free will for man, and used both for everything it was worth and a lot more - but neither he nor later Islam has ever been able to explain how the combination was/is possible. (Actually it is proved impossible, as the combination is a version of "the Time Travel Paradox - a paradox which is proved unsolvable).

1002 2/202a: "To these (In this case most likely hypocrites and bad Muslims*) will be allotted what they have earned". See 3/77b below.

1003 2/202b: "- - - Allah is quick in account". = Allah is quick in punishment.

1004 2/203a: "- - - the Appointed Days". In the Pagan times in Arabia the people used to stay on in Mecca during pilgrimage for 2-3 days after the official part, and used the time to among other things praise their ancestors. The rituals of the pilgrimage takes 10 days, and the finish is marked by the slaughtering - sacrifice - of animals, named "Festival of Sacrifices" ('id al-adha'), which takes place on the 10. of the Muslim month Dhu 'l-Hijjah. "The Appointed Days thus means the 11., 12. and 13. of that month (but remember that the Muslim year is some 11-12 days shorter than the natural year, so during a period of ca. 33 years every religious special day wanders through the full natural year). It must be added that Muslims during these days shall not praise their ancestors, but Allah. It tells something about the pilgrimage ceremonies that this praising - after the real pilgrimage is finished - seems to be the most spiritual part of the Hajj. Was an omniscient god unable to give 10-13 full days no more spiritual contents? (This also is another Arabism (see 4/13d below), as it simply is another Arab pagan old tradition adopted by Muhammad.)

1005 2/203b: "- - - Ye (Muslims*) will surely be gathered unto Him (Allah - at the Day of Doom*)". If he exists. If he is a major god. If he is behind the Quran and thus can have told so. And if the Quran tells the full and only truth on this point. This claim is often claimed, but never proved - one of the many any believer in any religion can claim for his/her god(s) as long as no proofs are required. At least not sure.

1006 2/203c: "- - - Ye (Muslims*) will surely be gathered unto Him (Allah - at the Day of Doom*)". Contradicted by the Bible, which claims it is Yahweh who will do the gathering at the Day of Doom. 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.

1007 2/203d: "- - - surely - - -". See 2/2b above.

1008 2/204a: (A6/187): “There is the type of man whose speech about this world’s life may dazzle you - - -.” Some person(s) contemporary with Muhammad? – a general picture? Islam does not know, but debates it. Clear language in the Quran?

1009 2/204b: (A6/187): “There is the type of man whose speech about this world’s life may dazzle you - - - yet he is the most contentious of enemies.” = Do not believe in what they say who disagree with Muhammad - they may have good arguments and facts, but all the same surely must be wrong, and just try to lure you away from Islam and Muhammad. This is a kind of argument you often meet in extreme, fringe sects like Islam was at that time. The leaders want to keep their followers separated from others, so as not to get trouble with facts not fitting their sect/religion.

1010 2/204c: "There is the type of man whose speech of this world’s life (as a preparation for the claimed next one?*) may dazzle thee (humans, Muslims*), and he calls Allah to witness about what is in his heart; yet he is the most contentious of enemies". Does this description fir Muhammad?

1011 2/204d: (A6/189): “- - - yet he is the most contentious of enemies.” Here Islam simply is guessing wildly about who "he" is. The text is too unclear, and the possibilities are too many. Clear language in the Quran?

1012 2/205a: "- - - he - - -". See 2/204d just above.

##1013 2/205b: "- - - his aim everywhere is to spread mischief - - -". To tell things which may make anyone question the Quran is "to spread mischief". We have a modern example of this point of view: In an intern document intended for Islamic institutions, but which was leaked to Internet, it is said about disagreement with the Quran, and especially about www.1000mistakes.com and 7-8 other Internet pages, that (giving information which could influence the belief of Muslims and make them doubt Islam) "is a criminal offence which cannot be tolerated" (but of course proselyting for Islam is tolerated and much more). So much for freedom of speech under Islam.

1014 2/205c: "But Allah loveth not mischief". All the Muslim raids and wars and conquests through history, have made a lot of mischief and worse for hundreds of millions of humans. Did Allah love this?

1015 2/206a: "When it is said to him (the one giving you doubts about the Quran*), 'Fear Allah', he is lead by arrogance to (more) crime". It is a crime to give information which may make anyone question the Quran (see also 2/205b above) and besides he is a doubtful kind of a man who you should not listen to or rely on. An argument meant to produce distance between Muslims and people with information and facts contradicting or destroying Muhammad's claims.

1016 2/206b: "- - - him - - - he - - -". See 2/204d above.

1017 2/206c: "Enough for him (the one giving you doubts about the Quran*) is Hell - - -". See 3/77b below.

1018 2/206d: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

1019 2/207a: “And there is the type of man who gives his life to earn the pleasure of Allah; and Allah is full of kindness to (His) devotees”. The ideal way of living is to die for Allah/Muhammad.

And at the same time Muhammad and all later Muslim leaders or terrorist leaders have cheap, ferocious fighters. If Allah does not exist, it was/is an even more profitable deal for Muhammad and his successors.

1020 2/207b: "- - - Allah is full of kindness - - -". See 1/1a above.

1021 2/207c: "- - - Allah is full of kindness to (His) devotees". Is he? - if he exists? Life under Islam is a harsh, stagnant life for too many, especially mentally. But there is one exception: The ones who needs a religion to lean to - and beware that these are not only from the weak ones; science has found that the need for religion is in the genes of a minor percent of all humans - there is a longing, and finding a religion gives them a feeling of a fulfilled life. Science even has found one of the implicated gens, named VMAT2 (Ill. Vitenskap 1/2006, p. 70-71 (Norway)). The percentage is unclear, but we have seen numbers up to 10%. Mostly it does not matter what religion, as long as they do believe in it, which is one of the reasons why you meet people in any religion - included Islam - who are sure their religion is the one and only, and feel they live a perfect life in it.

Well, of course there is one more exception: Leaders who get power and sometimes riches - and women.

1022 2/208a: "- - - ye who believe - - -". Muslims.

1023 2/208b: “O ye who believe! Enter into Islam wholeheartedly; and follow not in the footsteps of Satan - - -.” An interesting sentence as one of the theories about who made the Quran, is just that it is made by dark forces (the other two are: Made by an illness (like TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) or by man - or by a mixture of two or three of these three. No god could be involved in a book with so many errors.)

1024 2/208c: (A191): “O ye who believe! Enter into Islam wholeheartedly; and follow not in the footsteps of Satan - - -.” Is it the Muslims that shall follow the religion wholeheartedly? – or people who believed in the Bible that should enter Islam? (Zamakhshari, Razi). Muslim scholars are guessing.

1025 2/209a: “If ye (Muslims*) backslide after the clear (Signs) have come to you - - -”. It is not possible to backslide after clear signs which never arrived - the only thing that ever arrived in Mecca or Medina or other places, were unproved words and claims - and words and claims which any man, woman or priest can produce about any god or claimed god.

1026 2/209b: "- - - backslide - - -". Leave Islam.

1027 2/209c: "- - - clear (Signs) - - -". There nowhere exists any clear sign for or from Allah. See 2/39b above.

1028 2/209d: "- - - Allah is Exalted in Power - - -". He in case never clearly has proved that power.

1029 2/209e: "- - - Allah is - - - Wise". Not if he made the Quran - too much is wrong.

1030 2/210a: "- - - until Allah comes - - -". This he cannot do unless he exists.

1031 2/210b: "- - - and the question is (thus) settled?" When Allah comes at the Day of Doom it is too late to become a good Muslim - your future is settled. (Actually it is settled long time ago if Allah predestines everything according to his unchangeable Plan.)

###1032 2/210c: "But to Allah do all questions go back (for decision)". Here we are back to the predestination: Allah decides everything, and he decides it according to his unchangeable Plan. And then we are back to the question of man's free will: If Allah decides everything, man's claimed free will is just an illusion. But if man's free will is an illusion, how then can Allah punish humans? - not to mention how can he punish for it and still be a benevolent, fair and good god? This is an unsolvable problem for Islam. The lay members of Islam are fed good words about the free will of man and that Allah is able to see the future no matter and thus only reacts to what you do. Fast words are cheap and if the naive or the strong believers want to believe these logical impossibilities, it is easy to make them believe it. But the moment Allah "writes down" your future, your free will is gone - if not Allah's knowledge may turn out to be wrong. Or if you really have free will, Allah can never know the future for sure, because you always can change your mind once more. Most Muslims happily overlook or are not aware of this impossibility, but among the scholars you meet it (though they never debate it with their lay followers if they can avoid it). We quote from Azad: "The Message of the Quran", surah 6, comment 143 (to verse 149):

"In other words, the relationship between Allah's knowledge of the future (and, therefore, the ineluctably of what is to happening the future) on one side, and man's free will, on the other - two propositions which, on the face of it, seem to contradict one another - is beyond man's comprehension; but since both are postulated by Allah (in the Quran*), both must be true. The very concept of "Allah" presupposes omniscience; and the very concept of morality and moral responsibility presupposes free will on man's part."

This is a version of the "Time Travel Paradox" - a paradox which is proved unsolvable. But instead of facing this fact, Islam makes the ultimate surrendered to blind belief - even blind belief in the impossible. (Actually they have to - or face the fact that something is wrong. A fact which is too difficult to meet, because that means something is seriously wrong with the religion). But they are giving in to a claim in a book full of mistakes, dictated by the man who institutionalized al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth) - formalized later, but the foundations for it were introduced by Muhammad - and advocated breaking even your oaths if that gave a better result, not to mention that he practiced deceit ("war is deceit" or "war is betrayal" - and "everything" is war). Further comments should be unnecessary.

1033 2/210d: "But to Allah do all questions go back (for decision)". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells that what is decided by a god, is decided by Yahweh - a quite another god in spite of the Quran's claims, as the teachings of the two are far too different to be made by the same 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.

#1034 2/211a: “Ask the Children of Israel how many clear (signs) We (the god) have sent them.” Yes, if the Bible speaks the truth - quite a number. But this in case proves the Jewish/Christian god Yahweh, not Allah - as said f.x. in 29/47f below it is impossible that the two can be the same, even though Muslims like to pretend/say so - too fundamental differences. (A small curiosity: A newspaper in Kuala Lumpur, capital of the Muslim country Malaysia, was forbidden to use the name Allah for the Christian God. (This has been done infrequently through history) “Allah is the name of the Muslim god, and cannot be used about the Christian one, (Yahweh or normally only called God by Christians*)”. Q.E.D: Allah is not Yahweh according to this Islamic country. And one more case where Muslims demand one rule for themselves - they use "God" for "Allah" in media meant for non-Muslims, as this camouflages some of the differences - and another for non-Muslims. (Later PS: This judgment later was overturned by the High Court, but all the same it shows something fundamental).

1035 2/211b: "- - - the Children of Israel - - -". A historical anomaly - see 2/122 above and 4/13d below.

1036 2/211c: "But if anyone, after Allah's favor has come to him, substitutes (something else), Allah is strict in punishment". If you enter Islam and then leave (substitutes Allah with another god), the punishment is strict - if Allah exists and behaves according to Muhammad's teaching. But Muslims do not leave the punishment to Allah - they punish in this world, and often severely. What then if Islam is a made up religion? - the real Muhammad was a man of doubtful morality wanting power, and such men have used religion as a platform of power many a time.

1037 2/211d: "- - - after Allah's favor has come to him (a human*) - - -". After he has been introduced to Islam or may be after he has accepted it.

1038 2/211e: "- - - Allah is strict in punishment". See 3/77b below.

1039 2/212a: “But the righteous (good Muslims*) will be above them (all others*) on the Day of Resurrection - - -.” Of course – as the Muslims of course are the best. One more thing: Statements like this "explain" away why many non-Muslims and bad Muslims live a good life, whereas many good Muslims live a poor one.

But there is one difficult point here: This claim just is a claim - nothing is ever documented. F.x. the Bible offers some real proofs - if the books tell the truth. The Quran only offers claims and invalid "signs" and "proofs" - and who uses invalid signs and proofs? - the cheat, the deceiver, the swindler.

1040 2/212b: "- - - righteous - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is meant in accordance with the book's own partly immoral moral code.

1041 2/212c: "- - - Allah bestows His abundance without measure on whom He will". Another "explaining away" of the fact that many non-Muslims or bad Muslims had - and have - a good life, whereas good Muslims often not: It is for Allah in his unfathomable wisdom to decide, not for a mere human to understand - - - but no matter; the good Muslim - you - will be on top in the claimed next life.

 

1042 2/213a: “Mankind was one single nation - - -.” Mankind never was a single nation. Some 160ooo-200ooo (195ooo?) years ago PERHAPS one tribe, as there then seems to have been a "bottleneck" when humans nearly died out, but never one nation - and absolutely not within these last few millennia. Contradicting all scientific knowledge concerning this.

1043 2/213b: "- - - Allah sent Messenger (to homo sapience when they were only one tribe(?) - see 2/213a just above*) - - -". Muhammad claimed that all people through all times all over the world have received prophets/messengers (f.x. 4/47, 16/36, 30/47, 35/24 and indirectly 22/34 and 22/67) - the number 124ooo is mentioned in Hadiths. Neither science nor Islam has found any traces from them.

1044 2/213c: “- - - glad tidings - - -“. Wrong. See 2/97e above and 61/13 below.

1045 2/213d: “He (Allah*) sent the Book (copies of the claimed "Mother Book" - f.x. 13/39b - similar to the Quran*) - - -”. No omniscient god ever did send a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, and invalid proofs, etc.

1046 2/213e: “He (Allah*) sent the Book (the Quran*) in truth, - - -”. With so many mistaken facts at best it is only partly the truth. See 13/1g and 40/75 below. And it is not a truth that it is sent from a god - too much is wrong in it.

1047 2/213f: "- - - the People of the Book (here the Bible*) - - -". = Jews, Christians and Sabeans (likely the inhabitants of the mainly Christian Saba/Sheba - approximately Yemen today. See 2/62f above).

1048 2/213g: "- - - the People of the Book (here the Bible*) - - -". A historical anomaly - see 2/101g above and 4/13d below.

1049 2/213h: "- - - the People of the Book (mainly Jews and Christians*) - - - did not differ among themselves (about Islam*), except through selfish contumacy". A psychologically much better "explanation" for Muhammad to give his followers and others than the plain fact: They saw that much was wrong in Muhammad's new religion.

1050 2/213i: “- - - Clear Signs - - -“. There are no clear signs – proofs for Allah or Muhammad - in all the Quran or any other places. See 2/39b above.

1051 2/213j: “Allah by His Grace guided - - -". If the Quran is not from Allah, it is not Allah who does the guiding.

1052 2/213k: “Allah by His Grace guided the believers (by means of the Quran*) - - -“. A book with that many mistakes and invalid proofs, etc. is no guidance.

1053 2/213l: "- - - guided - - -". See 2/2b above and even more 7/192a and 16/107 below.

1054 2/213m: “Allah by his Grace guided the believers to the Truth, - - -”. Allah’s presumed book containing so many mistakes, is not the truth. At best the book is partly true.

1055 2/213n: "- - - the Truth - - -". See 2/2b above.

1056 2/213o: "- - - the Truth - - -". Contradicted by the Bible. See 2/42c above. 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.

1057 2/213p: “For Allah guides whom He will - - -”. Whereas Yahweh goes far out of his way to guide everyone he can to Paradise.

1058 2/213q: “For Allah guides whom He will to the path that is straight”. According to the Quran this means the road to the Muslim Paradise - see 10/9f below.

1059 2/214a: "Or do ye think that ye shall enter the Garden (of Bliss) without such (trials) - - -". Why are trials necessary if Allah is omniscient? - and even more so if he decides everything on beforehand - predestines everything?

1060 2/214b: "Or do ye think that ye shall enter the Garden (of Bliss) without such (trials) - - -". You cannot expect to enter Paradise except after trials. Incompatible with the Bible and especially NT where the only condition is that you are forgiven your sins.

1061 2/214c: "- - - the Garden (of Bliss) - - -". The Quran's and Islam's paradise - see 10/9f below.

1062 2/214d: "- - - (trials) - - -". But why does an omniscient, predestining god need to use trials?

1063 2/214e: "- - - the Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". See 63/5a below.

1064 2/214f: "- - - the Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". A historical anomaly, See 2/101b above.

1065 2/214g: "- - - those of faith - - -". Muslims.

1066 27214h: "Verily - - -". See 2/2b above.

1067 2/214i: "Verily, the help from Allah is (always) near!" Often claimed, never proved. Not one single time in all history and prehistory is there proved that Allah has given anyone help - claims yes, proved case never. Guess if Islam had told about it if such a case had happened!

1068 2/215a: "Whatever ye spend (in charity/alms*) that is good, is for parents and kindred and orphans and those in want and for wayfarers". Abrogated in the meaning making "wider" - may be by a god not able to make the perfect rules at his first try? - by:

9/60: Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth (Muhammad often used "gifts"/bribes to keep new followers'); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah; and for the wayfarer - - -". ("those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth) = new Muslims*)

Charity is one of the positive sides with Islam. But it has 2 "special" points which reduces its effect: For one you do not help others out of compassion or empathy or even sympathy, but to gain merit in Heaven. The lack of compassion and empathy - and not too much sympathy - makes the Quran an even colder book and Islam an even colder religion. And for another you get the same merit from Allah whether you help your nearest family or strangers - then why help strangers? (How many of the big international - not inter-Muslim, but international - help or aid organizations have started in Muslim areas? Or another example: After the tsunami in 2004 many needed help - mostly Muslims, but some Buddhists and Hindus and a "few" others. The country who donated most compared to its number of inhabitants, was the mainly Christian Norway - nearly 50 US dollar on average from each and every inhabitant and immigrant and baby and old one just the first very few days and weeks. How much did the golden Gulf states give their Muslim brothers and sisters before they were forced by international opinion to give more? Another fact: In some Scandinavian papers this year (2010 AD) it was reported that when there were collection to help or aid organizations, Muslims give little or nothing (an exception may be for organizations working explicit among Muslims).

1069 2/215b: "- - - whatever ye (Muslims*) do that is good - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like "good" and similar, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

1070 2/215c: "- - - and Allah knoweth it (your good deeds*) well". If he exists, is a major god, and if the Quran tells the full and only truth in this case. (The intended meaning here is that Allah knows everything and will reward your good deeds - which only is possible if he exists, etc.)

####1071 2/216a: “Fighting is prescribed for you (Muslims*) - - -.” A more direct verbal incitement is difficult to find, unless it is accompanied by threats and/or promises of wealth, power/status and women – in this and/or the next life - - - like it is in the Quran.

###1072 2/216b: “Fighting is prescribed for you (Muslims*) - - -.” Incompatible with the Bible. Incompatible with OT except for making and safeguarding a Jewish national territory, totally incompatible with NT perhaps in sheer self defence. (Christians have sinned against this, but the Bible is clear: "You shall not kill".)

***1073 2/216c: “Fighting is prescribed for you (Muslims*), and ye dislike it.” Not all of his followers liked to go to war.

1074 2/216d: “- - - it is possible that ye dislike a thing (fighting*) which is good for you - - -.” Go to war – it is good for you whether you like it or not (implicit meaning; at least Allah will favor you in the next life.) Incitement with added incentives of looting, raping, and enslaving, etc.

1075 2/216e: “- - - But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you (to fight in war*), and that you love a thing (peace*) that is bad for you.” No comments except a question: Did you ever meet a person telling that Islam is a peaceful religion? - "the Religion of Peace"?

1076 2/216f: "- - - god for you - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like "good" and similar, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. Like here.

1077 2/216g: "- - - bad for you - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

1078 2/216h: “- - - Allah knoweth - - -". Only if he exists and in addition is a god, neither of which is ever proved.

1079 2/216i: “- - - Allah knoweth (what is good for you and whether you went to war or not*) - - -“. Incentive for war with added threat of punishment in the next life if not. And one point of some weight: Here on Earth it was Muhammad who told what Allah thought was wise and good.

1080 2/217a: "- - - fighting - - -". Incompatible with NT, perhaps with the exception of in clear self defence (and with OT except for making and defending a country for the Jews). Practically all raids and wars of Muhammad, were acts of aggression, mainly to gain riches and power, and later to spread Islam. See separate chapter in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran".

1081 2/217b: "- - - the Prohibited Months - - -". The old Arabia had 4 holy months a year (number 1, 7 , 11, and 12 in the Islamic somewhat artificial year) in which among other things fighting was prohibited and a grave sin. Muslims broke those rules, but later Muhammad adopted them into Islam. (Strange how many of the old pagan rites which were correct religion according to the Quran - even more so as neither Jews nor Christian ever had been instructed in many of those rules, which is very strange if Yahweh and Allah had been the same god (the same god should mean the same rules). Also strange is that a claimed god for all the world found no rites in other pagan religions than the Arab one which were according to his taste - even though all peoples in the world according to the Quran have had education by prophets teaching Islam and its rituals).

1082 2/217c: "- - - the Prohibited Months - - -". Ad Arabism - a pagan Arabic tradition Muhammad incorporated in his new religion.

##1083 2/217d: “Fighting therein (in the holy months - see 2/217a just above*) is a grave (offense); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque - - -”. Muhammad’s highwaymen had attacked and plundered a caravan from Mecca during a holy month and Muhammad received a storm of critic. But his/Allah’s reply was that as Mecca denied the Muslims access to the Kabah (this was before Muhammad had taken Mecca), they were bad people. And then even a grave sin made by Muhammad was no big sin as they were worse sinners according to his claim. Convenient. Read by a terrorist today: Whatever you do against someone not obeying Islam - or worse; opposing it - is no sin.

This logic which seems ok on the surface, but which is deeply wrong, you often meet: "What I do wrong is not wrong if also you do something wrong". But what you do wrong, is as wrong no matter what good or bad things your opponent does - and this even more so if you pretend to represent a benevolent god. (Another thing is that it may be easier to defend your own bad behavior, if you can blame the opponent for something - but your own bad deeds still are just as bad all the same).

Verse 216 and 217 tell that very few things are holy if the interests of Muhammad/Islam can be strengthened by breaking it.

To go a little deeper into the story behind this verse: Muhammad's men robbed a caravan and killed some men doing so, at the end of a holy month. Muhammad had to find a way to justify the crime - not mainly the crime of stealing and murdering, but the even more serious crime of breaking the peace during a holy month. This was shortly after they had fled to Yathrib/Medina, and they were locked out from Mecca. Muhammad used this as an excuse - the age-old: "If you are bad, that makes us good, even when we are bad". The problem is that no matter how bad an opponent is, that does not make your own bad deeds one iota less bad. (There may be some exceptions for self defense, but this was not self defense in any meaning of the word - it simply was a cold-blooded raid for riches to use as an easier way to an easier life, than the poor life they could gain by a grueling work as workers on the fields around Yathrib/Medina.)

And to repeat the impolite question: The holy months were a pure pagan Arab tradition which Islam took over. How come that an universal god - at least for whole Earth - so often found traditions from the heathen Arabia to be just what he wanted, and not often had ideas himself - not to mention nearly never found good ideas from other places in the world except from Arabia and its neighbors? - f.x. also the traditions of Hajj and the traditional celebrations around Kabah are practically identical to the superficial and honestly pretty childish traditions from before Islam.

*1084 2/217e: "- - - the Sacred Mosque - - -". Kabah in Mecca - also taken over from the old pagan religion.

*1085 2/217f: "- - - the Sacred Mosque - - -". See 2/150c above.

1086 2/217g: “Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter”. Unrest and oppression against the Muslims are no good - it is better that the Muslims in case kill the opponents (in this case it was about the old regime in Mecca - still not overrun - but other verses in the Quran make the order general. See 2/191a-d). Nice “food” for terrorists - the West is suppressing Muslims they say, and as everybody there pay taxes (not true - and the ones who do, have to) to their Islam-suppressing regimes, everybody is guilty, and deserves to be killed. Words are cheap, and it always is possible to twist reality enough to find what excuses you want.

1087 2/217h: "- - - they (who have left Islam*) will be Companions of the Fire - - -" See 3/77b below.

1088 2/217i: "- - - Companions of the Fire (Hell*) - - -". Non-Muslims bound for Hell.

1089 2/218a: "- - - those who believed - - -". Here: The first Muslims.

1090 2/218b: “- - - those (Muslims*) who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of Allah - they have the hope of the Mercy of Allah: - - -”. Many of the first Muslims in Mecca had to flee from the town and had a rough time. But general meaning: Fight for Allah and be likely to go to Paradise (and if you are killed for Allah, you are sure to go there). That is to say: If Allah exists:

There exists a letter dated 27. Dec. 1998, where it is admitted rather reluctantly that there are no proofs for Allah, and that it is not possible to prove him. Actually that is part of a wider fact: It is not possible for humans to prove a god. This only a god can do (by doing something supernatural). And this is very clear: Neither Allah nor Muhammad produced a single proof for Allah, in spite of many requests. (But Jesus did give many proofs for Yahweh and for himself according to both the Quran and the Bible - if at least one of them speaks the truth.)

1091 2/218c: “- - - those (Muslims*) who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of Allah - they have the hope of the Mercy of Allah: - - -”. Especially as practically all Muhammad's raid and war were acts of aggression, this is incompatible with especially NT. (Perhaps war in self defence is permitted in NT. In OT this clearly is permitted, as was war to make room for a Jewish nation. In contrast Muhammad's and Muslims' raids and wars nearly always were acts of aggression for riches, captives, land, power and spreading Islam - f.x. most of Arabia and large areas outside Arabia was converted to Islam by the sword (and even more areas by different kinds of pressure backed by the sword).

1092 2/218d: "- - - the path of Allah - - -". The road to the Quran's and Islam's paradise - see 10/9f below.

1093 2/218e: "- - - the Mercy of Allah - - -". See 1/1a above.

1094 2/218f: "- - - Allah is Oft-Forgiving - - -". Allah could not and cannot forgive unless he exists and in addition is a god - neither of which was ever proved. There only is the word of a man with doubtful moral and according to central Islamic literature believing in the use of dishonesty if that gave a better result - a man also with strong personal motifs for making people believe, as that gave him respect, power and riches (at least for bribes) - and women.

1095 2/218g: "- - - Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful". See 1/1a above.

1096 2/219a: “They (Muslims*) ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning wine and gambling. Say: ‘In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit.” It still (622 – 624 AD) was permitted, though. But Allah changed his mind and it was prohibited later - - - and this verse thus was abrogated.

1097 2/219b: “They (Muslims*) ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning wine and gambling. How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before? See 2/51b above.

1098 2/219c: “Thus does Allah make clear to you His Signs - - -“. There is not one clear sign – proof for Allah or Muhammad – in all the Quran (or anywhere else). See 2/39b above. The fact that here is used a point which later was abrogated as a claimed sign, also tells something.

1099 2/220a: "They (Muslims*) ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning orphans". One of the (few?) good things with Islam, is its concern for orphans. The reason may simply be that Muhammad was an orphan himself. His father died before Muhammad was born, and his mother when he was 6. Even though he was lucky enough to get good foster fathers - first his grandfather, and later an uncle who both are told to have treated him with love - he knew what it was to be an orphan.

1100 2/220b: "- - - Allah knows the man who means mischief (here towards orphans*) from the man who means good" Such things - how an orphan was treated - was impossible fully to check for humans - but remember that Allah sees everything - god or bad. A warning and a carrot.

1101 2/220c: “And if Allah had wished - - -". This is one of the many places where Muhammad tells what Allah could have done if he just had wanted. But he happened never to want. Have you heard children and youths and others trying to impress others? Informally(?) it is called bragging or boasting in other connections. Also see 14/19d below.

1102 2/220d: “And if Allah had wished, He could have put you into difficulties (if you do not behave yourself*)”. Well, most people run into difficulties sometimes. Perhaps it was caused by Allah - - -?

1103 2/220e: "He (Allah*) is indeed Exalted in Power - - -". One more of the never proved or documented claims - he never clearly proved this claimed power. There are so many of these claims - and so easy to find. Look and you will find more - also other places than in the Quran.

1104 2/220f: "He (Allah*) is - - - Wise". Not if he made the Quran - too much is wrong.

1105 2/221a: “Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters (is this word in the Arab text?)), until they believe”. Contradicted – and abrogated – by: 5/5: “(Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book”. Then at least Christian women should not be accepted according to 2/221, as they use religious icons, etc., and there is the Trinity. If the word “idolaters” are not in the Arab text (text in ( ) sometimes is explanation, sometimes specification – and sometime a “help” to the text to sound more correct). Muslim men can marry all Christian and Jewish women.

1106 2/221b: “Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe - - -”. According to Sharia - Muslim law - a man in reality is permitted to marry a non-Muslim woman - at least Jews and Christians - but a woman cannot marry a non-Muslim man. (Not even a Muslim slave girl can be married to a non-Muslim - the marriage is void and automatically annulated.) There are no restrictions on keeping non-Muslim girls and women as sex-slaves/concubines.

1107 2/221c: “(To marry*) a slave woman who believes (in Islam*), is better than to marry an unbelieving woman, even though she is alluring to you.” Well, this may tell as much about the value of non-Muslims.

1108 2/221d: (A2/208): “- - - a slave woman - - -.” Does it in this special case mean an ordinary slave woman? – or a slave woman of Allah = a Muslim woman? – or a slave woman who is Muslim? In this case the distinctions may count quit a lot - - - but the book is silent.

1109 2/221e: "(For your daughters to marry*) a man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever - - -". Here Islam is more liberal towards slaves than f.x. in the old USA - - - or Islam is more fanatic towards other religions.

1110 2/221f: "- - - the Garden (of Bliss) - - -". The Quran's and Islam's paradise - see 10/9f below.

1111 2/221g: "Unbelievers - - -". One of Muhammad's many to Muslims negative names for non-Muslims.

1112 2/221h: “But Allah - - - makes his Signs clear to mankind - - -“. There is not one clear sign – proof for Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god – in all the Quran or elsewhere, as it nowhere is proved that Allah makes the signs. See 2/39b above.

1113 2/221i: “But Allah - - - makes his Signs clear to mankind - - -“. This he cannot do unless he at least exists.

1114 2/221j: "- - - celebrate His (Allah's*) praise". See 1/1a and see if you think he deserves any praise - if he exists.

1115 2/222a: “They (Muslims*) ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning women’s courses (menstruation*). Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean.” Menstruating women are ritually unclean. There is no physiological reason for this rule.

1116 2/222b: “They (Muslims*) ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning women’s courses (menstruation*). Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean.” This is not from the Bible.

1117 2/222c: “They (Muslims*) ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning women’s courses (menstruation*). Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean.” One of the points behind the sharia laws.

1118 2/222d: "(When your women are ritually clean, you can have sex with them*) in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah". No comment - and none necessary - except: There is no doubt that Allah decides and predestines absolutely everything.

 

1119 2/222e: "(When your women are ritually clean, you can have sex with them*) in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah". This is not from the Bible.

1120 2/222f: "(When your women are ritually clean, you can have sex with them*) in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah". This is one of the points behind the sharia laws concerning women - one of the points which make even formally free women semi-slaves under their men, here both in literal and figurative meaning .

1121 2/222g: "- - - Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly - - -". If he exists. If he is behind the Quran. And if the Quran tells the full and only truth here.

1122 2/223a: “Your wives are as a tilth (field, garden*) unto you; so approach your tilth when and how ye will - - -”. Approach your “tilth”, not approach your woman/women or fellow human being(s) or dear one(s). And approach her/them when and how you will - when and how she/they will, is not mentioned.

1123 2/223b: "And know that ye (Muslims*) are to meet Him (Allah*) (in the Hereafter) - - -". If he exists. If he is behind the Quran. And if the Quran tells the full and only truth here. And not least: If he is a major god after all.

1124 2/223c: "- - - good tidings - - -". Wrong. See 2/97g above and 61/13e below.

1125 2/223d: "- - - those who believe - - -". Muslims.

1126 2/224a: "And do not make Allah's (name) an excuse in your oaths against doing good - - -." Some of the old Arabs had found a nice way to avoid tasks they did not like: They told they had made an oath never to do such things, and could not break their oath. Muhammad did not like this, as they sometimes made such oaths against things he wanted them to do.

1127 2/224b: "And do not make Allah's (name) an excuse in your oaths against doing good - - -." If breaking your oath (the use of Allah's name by swearing by Allah - the only one Muslims shall swear by) gives a better result, you are advised to break your oath, like Muhammad did and said he would do any time under such circumstances, according to the Quran and Hadiths. Pay expiation if there is a reason for that.

1128 2/224c: "And do not make Allah's (name) an excuse in your oaths against - - - acting rightly - - -." Break your oaths if you find this will give a better result. Pay expiation if you think the break needs this.

1129 2/224d: "And do not make Allah's (name) an excuse in your oaths against - - - making peace between persons - - -." Break your oath if you find this will give a better result. Pay expiation if you think this is necessary. In cases of making peace - and also f.x. when you want to cheat women - also al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) are permitted, if you think this will give better result than honesty.

##1130 2/224e: To quote Asad: "The Message of the Quran", footnote A2/212 (to this verse): "- - - there are several authentic Traditions (= Hadiths*) to the effect that the Prophet Muhammad said: 'If anyone takes a solemn oath (easier ones are little binding*) (that he would do or refrain from doing such-and-such a thing), and thereupon realizes that something else would be a more righteous course (or give better result*)) then let him do what is more righteous (or gives a better result*), and let him break his oath and then atone for it". Definitely not compatible with the Bible.

###1131 2/224f: The problems with verse 2/224 - and a few similar verses + some similar Hadiths - of course are for one thing that it never is possible quite to trust a Muslim's word in serious cases - he may see no sin in lying - and for another thing a Muslim has no reasonably reliable way of strengthening his words if he is not believed, no matter if what he says is the full truth. Also see 2/225a below. (That it also contradicts the Bible on this point, is highly unnecessary to say.

1132 2/224g: "- - - Allah is one who heareth and knoweth all things". Here it seems to mean that Allah understands what you really meant when you swore an oath, and thus can forgive - against expiation - the not too strongly meant oaths (and even those if there is a reason for breaking them). But oaths also have another side: The humans. How can anyone know when a Muslim is telling the truth and when not, when not even an oath is very serious to break, if he thinks there is a reason for doing so? And how can a Muslim telling the plain truth strengthen his words in order to be believed, when the opposite part knows about al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), the advices about breaking even oaths if that gives a better result, Muhammad's practicing (and thus permitting all Muslims to do the same) of deceit, etc.?

Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya and Kitman can be used at least in these cases (for broken oaths there are given no real limitations if the broken oath will give a better result. By implication this also goes for ordinary promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal promise):

To save your or others' health or life.

To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem.

To make peace in a family.

When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one’s oath.

To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get residence or work permit in a rich country (we have personally seen such cases).)

To deceive opponents/enemies.

To betray enemies.

To secure one’s money (very clear from Hadiths).

To defend Islam. (Advised used if necessary to succeed.)

To promote Islam. (Advised used if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive some ones – actually also in the long run if the opposite part does not know about this side of Muslims and of Islam, or if he/she is naïve. But in the long run: No-one can quite trust a Muslim/Muslims/Islam in serious questions.

1133 2/225a: “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your heart”. If you swear an oath without thinking it over - or not enough over – you are not bound by it. But how are other people to know if the oath you have made is binding for you or not - or if you will break it? Besides; you may break also a more serious oath if that will give a better result, but you may have to pay expiation to Allah for it. See f.x. 2/224e-f above.

1134 2/225b: "- - - He (Allah*) is Oft-Forgiving - - -". Allah can forgive nothing unless he really exists and in addition is a god - none of which is ever proved.

1135 2/225c: "- - - He (Allah*) is Oft-Forgiving, Most forbearing". See 1/1a above.

1136 2/226a: “For those who take an oath for abstention from their wives (preparing for divorce*), a waiting for four months is ordained; if they then return (all is ok and the marriage goes on*)”. If the man still wants divorce after the 4 months, it takes place. Divorce is very simple for men in Islam (but also possible, though more complicated, for women). But if a man breaks his oath by taking back his wife before the divorce is irrevocable, Allah forgives that broken oath.

1137 2/226b: “For those who take an oath for abstention from their wives (preparing for divorce*), a waiting for four months is ordained; if they then return (all is ok and the marriage goes on*)”. This is one of the points behind the sharia laws.

1138 2/226c: "- - - He (Allah*) is Oft-Forgiving - - -". Allah can forgive nothing unless he really exists and in addition is a god - none of which is ever proved.

1139 2/226d: "- - - Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful". See 1/1a above.

1140 2/226-227: The background for these two verses according to Muslim scholars, were an old and inhuman practice which sometimes was used: If a man disliked his wife - or one of his wives - enough, he could swear an oath saying he would not touch her any more. Then the marriage in reality was finished, but as it was not formally terminated, the wife still was bound to him and could not go on with her life - in a way she became just a slave belonging to him and having to work for him - like a servant or - yes - a slave. The intention of these verses is said to be to put an end to that misuse of marriages.

1141 2/227a: "- - - divorce - - -". Morally incompatible with the Bible, though it one place seems that Jesus reluctantly accepted it judicially "for the sake of your hard hearts". Morally there is no doubt it is strictly prohibited in NT, though, and thus incompatible with the Quran.

1142 2/227b: "- - - Allah heareth and knoweth all things". According to the Quran Allah registered absolutely every detail which happened on Earth (and in Heaven) - a never proved claim which sometimes makes one wonder about this and that - f.x. demands that have no meaning if Allah knows the answer already. Also see 2/233h and 35/38b below.

1143 2/228a: “Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves (having sex*) for three monthly periods”. This to be sure who is the father if there is a child. One of the points behind the sharia laws.

1144 2/228b: “And the woman shall have rights similar to the rights against them (men*), according to what is equitable - - -“. But beware: This is said in connection with a possible restart of a marriage where there is separation, and covers just ad only that - women have far from similar rights (a married woman in Islam is some place between a free human and a slave to her husband - where she is on that scale varies from one Muslim area to another).

1145 2/228c: “And the woman shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them“. Which means that women are one step – small or big – below men as judicial persons (in reality also as human beings). Also see 2/228b just above.

1146 2/228d: "He (Allah*) is Exalted in Power - - -". Even one more of the never proved or documented claims - he never proved this claimed power. There are so many of these claims - and so easy to find. Look and you will find more - also other places than in the Quran.

1147 2/228e: "He (Allah*) is - - - Wise". Not if he made the Quran - too much is wrong.

1148 2/229a: “A divorce is only permissible twice (during the same marriage*) - - -.” Twice should be enough, but divorce is very easy in Islam, and may be it happens in fits of anger – and then regret afterward. (If they happened to want to get together again after an irrevocable divorce, that only was possible if the woman married another man, had sex with him, and then divorced him).

1149 2/229b: “A divorce is only permissible twice (during the same marriage*) - - -.” To say the least of it: Incompatible with NT - a divorce there hardly is permissibly in the NT at all.

1150 2/229c: "It is not lawful for you (men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives, included the dower you gave her (in connection with a divorce*)) - - -". This is a woman's personal property which a husband at least lawfully cannot make any demands on. In reality she often has to spend it for the family or give it to her father. (The same goes for money she inherits - at least concerning spending it on the family.)

1151 2/229d: "These are the limits ordained by Allah - - -". But as the Quran is not from any god - it is an insult and slander and heresy and worse to accuse a god for being involved in a book of a quality like the Quran with all its mistakes - then who is it who really ordained this?

1152 2/229e: "These are the limits ordained by Allah - - -". If Allah had ordained limits, those limits at least should have been given also in the Bible if Allah had been the same god as Yahweh - and remember here that both science and Islam has proved the Bible is not falsified, so that falsification cannot be the explanation why it is not in the Bible. (Besides: It is Muslims who claim the Bible is falsified, and thus Muslims' job to prove their claim - which they have never done).

1153 2/229f: "If any do transgress the limits set by Allah, such persons wrong (themselves as well as others)". Only if Allah exists and is a major god.

***1154 2/230a: “So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, remarry her until after she has married another husband (and “fulfilled” that marriage*) and he has divorced her.” This situation is not often to meet, but it does happen as divorces are a bit too easy in Islam. It is a most shameful deed in those cases to force the woman to prostitute herself to be permitted to go back to her husband - this even more so as it normally is the husband who has demanded the divorce in such cases.

***1155 2/230b: “So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, remarry her until after she has married another husband (and “fulfilled” that marriage*) and he has divorced her.” One of the distasteful points behind some paragraphs in the sharia laws.

***1156 2/230c: “So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, remarry her until after she has married another husband (and “fulfilled” that marriage*) and he has divorced her.” To force a woman to prostitute herself to be permitted to return to her husband, is so foreign to the Bible, that there is no compatibility at all on this point between the two books.

1157 2/230d: "Such are the limits ordained by Allah - - -". As the Quran with all its errors, etc. is from no god, the claimed limits also are not from a god. Then from whom?

1158 2/230e: "Such are the limits ordained by Allah - - -". If Allah had ordained limits, those limits at least should have been given also in the Bible if Allah had been the same god as Yahweh - and remember here that both science and Islam has proved the Bible is not falsified, so that falsification cannot be the explanation why it is not in the Bible. (Besides: It is Muslims who claim the Bible is falsified, and thus Muslims' job to prove their claim - which they have never done).

1159 2/231a: “When ye divorce women (not irrevocably*) - - - either take them back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms - - - (do not make life difficult for them*)”. On this point the Quran is ok. Also this is one of the points behind the sharia laws.

1160 2/231b: “When ye divorce women (not irrevocably*) - - - either take them back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms - - - (do not make life difficult for them*)”.

1161 2/231c: "- - - ('iddah) - - -". After a divorce a woman had to wait 3 months and 10 days - the "'iddah" - before she remarried. This in order to know who the father of the child was if she was pregnant.

1162 2/231d: "- - - either take them (your former wives*) back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms (after divorce*) - - -". One plus for Islam compared to the older Arabia: In the pre-Islamic times in Arabia you could reduce your disliked wife's status to a slave like one and keep her as more or less your sexless slave.

1163 2/231e: “Do not treat Allah’s Signs as a jest - - -”. Once more: These just are invalid signs (they prove nothing as they are based on loose claims based on nothing or on other not proved claims or statements) treated like solid proofs - they all are invalid by all and any law of logic, as there nowhere is proved that it really is Allah who caused the effect (an exception may be the ones "borrowed" from the Bible, but they in case prove Yahweh, not Allah). Anyone reading the Quran will find a large number of them - they are easy to find. No omniscient god would use invalid “signs” or “proofs” - that is the way of cheats, deceivers, etc.

1164 2/231f: “- - - the fact that He (Allah) sent down to you the Book - - -”. Is it a fact that a god has sent down a book with so many mistaken facts? Impossible.

*1165 2/231g: “- - - the Book and Wisdom, - - -”. A book with so many mistaken facts is no book of wisdom. At best partly a book of wisdom. (But which parts are wisdom and which not?)

1166 2/231h: "- - - Allah is well acquainted with all things". If he made the Quran, that book with all its mistakes, etc. proves the opposite. Also see 2/233h and 35/38b below.

1167 2/232a: "When ye (Muslims*) divorce women - - -". Not from the Bible and at least morally incompatible with at least NT.

1168 2/232b: "When ye (Muslims*) divorce women, and they fulfill the term of their ('iddah), do not prevent them from marrying their (former) husbands - - -". One of the points behind the sharia laws.

1169 2/232c: "- - - ('iddah) - - -". After a divorce a woman had to wait 3 months and 10 days - the "'iddah" - before she remarried. This in order to know who the father of the child was if she was pregnant.

1170 2/232d: "- - - do not prevent them (divorced women) from marrying their (former) husbands - - -". The main goal for this verse was too quick divorces which the two regretted - may happen when anger flares and divorce is as easy as in Islam - and the family of the woman wanted to say no. There also is a Hadith mentioning a family who tried to prevent a sister/daughter return to her husband and which may have been the direct cause for this verse.

1171 2/232e: "- - - (those*) who believe in Allah and the Last Day". Muslims.

1172 2/232f: "- - - Allah knows - - -". A warning - do what is right. But this statement only is correct if Allah exists and if the Quran tells the full and only truth on this point. Also see 2/233h and 35/38b below.

1173 2/233a: “A woman shall give suck to their offspring for two whole years, if the father desires to complete the term”. A long time – and the husband - or slave owner if she is a slave or concubine - decides, not the woman.

1174 2/233b: “A woman shall give suck to their offspring for two whole years, if the father desires to complete the term”. A point behind the sharia laws.

1175 2/233c: “A woman shall give suck to their offspring for two whole years, if the father desires to complete the term. But he shall bear the cost of their food and clothing on equitable terms". A point behind the sharia laws.

1176 2/233d: “No mother shall be treated unfairly on account of her child.” If the mother does her part of the upbringing ok, and the child all the same turns out to be a rascal, the mother (and also the father on the same conditions) cannot be held accountable for what an offspring does. The same goes for the father. One point in plus for both parents.

1177 2/233e: "If they (the parents*) decide on veaning - - - (or*) - - - on a foster-mother for your offspring, there is no blame on you, provided you pay (the mother) what offered - - -". A point behind the sharia laws.

1178 2/233f: (A2/219): “If they both decide on weaning - - -.” But the Arab word here – “fisal” – also may mean separation, a meaning “The Message of the Quran” uses here – separation of the child from its mother. Both meanings are "correct" in this very distinct Quran language.(It is called "different ways of reading", but is in reality different versions - - - which cannot be admitted, because the Quran is claimed to be exact and clear in everything.)

1179 2/233g: (A2/220): “- - - provided ye paid (the mother) what ye offered - - -.” Or does it mean “- - - provided you ensure, in a fair manner, the safety of the child - - -“? Or perhaps “- - - provided you, in a fair manner, surrendered the child - - -“? Just go on guessing – Islam is guessing, too. A clear language in the Quran, yes.

1180 2/233h: "But fear Allah and know that Allah sees well what ye do". This is the last resort; "You know that may be you can cheat us, but there is a god working together with us, and him you cannot cheat. Be good and obedient - and go to war - and he will reward you. Be disobedient or cheat, and he will punish you." This is a carrot and a stick - or a whip - which costs nothing for a leader, but which is efficient if the underlings believe in it - the ultimate means of total control and dictatorship. True or not does not matter - what counts is what the underlings believe.

But one impertinent question: If Allah knows everything and even predestines everything according to his own unchangeable Plan like the Quran frequently states, why - why - does he then need to test his followers, f.x. by sending them to war for Muhammad to may be become invalids or be killed? - if he knows everything, he cannot learn anything from testing them. There is no logic in it. And this even more so if Allah as said on top of all really predestines everything you do.

But if this was Muhammad who needed the carrot and the whip, the logic appears.

This kind of whip (and carrot) is much used by Muhammad in the Quran.

1181 2/233i: "- - - know that Allah sees well what ye (Muslims*) do". See 2/2b, 2/233h, and 35/38b above.

1182 2/234a: "If any of you (Muslims*) die and leave widows behind, they shall wait concerning themselves four months and ten days". Part of the sharia laws. This is not from the Bible.

1183 2/234b: "- - - widows - - - shall wait concerning themselves (= having sex*) four months and ten days - - -". This to make sure who was the father if there happened to be a pregnancy.

1184 2/234c: "And Allah is well acquainted with what ye do". See 2/233h above and 35/38b below.

1185 2/234d: It is quite revealing for the Quran that in this verse it talks to you - the dead man - not to the woman it concerns.

1186 2/235a: "There is no blame on you (Muslims*) if ye make an offer of betrothal or hold it in your hearts. - - - but do not make a secret contract with them except in terms honorable, nor resolve on the tie of marriage till the term prescribed is fulfilled". One of the points behind the sharia laws.

1187 2/235b: "- - - nor resolve on the tie of marriage till the term (see 2/234a above) is fulfilled". Also this to make sure who was the father in case there was a pregnancy - the temptation may be too big.

1188 2/235c: "- - - Allah is Oft-Forgiving - - -". Allah can forgive nothing if he for one thing does not exist, and for another he in addition to existing has to be a god. None of these is proved.

1189 2/235d: "- - - Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Forbearing". See 1/1a above.

1190 2/236a: “There is no blame on you if ye divorce women before consummation (= sex*) or the fixation of their dower; but bestow on them (a suitable gift) - - -.” This is not from the Bible. For one thing divorces are strongly frowned at in the Bible, and for another a dower is not part of the religious ceremonies concerning marriage in the Bible.

1191 2/236b: “There is no blame on you if ye divorce women before consummation (= sex*) or the fixation of their dower; but bestow on them (a suitable gift) - - -.” A marriage may be a casual affair – at least for the man. But remember: The Quran nearly always debates from the man’s point of view.

1192 2/236c: “There is no blame on you if ye divorce women before consummation (= sex*) or the fixation of their dower; but bestow on them (a suitable gift) - - -.” One of the points behind the sharia laws.

1193 2/236d: "- - - to do the right thing". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with the book's own partly immoral moral code.

1194 2/237a: "And if ye (Muslims*) divorce them before consummation (sex*), but after the fixation of the dower, then half of the dower (is due to them) - - -". Not from the Bible. See 2/236a above.

1195 2/237b: "And if ye (Muslims*) divorce them before consummation (sex*), but after the fixation of the dower, then half of the dower (is due to them) - - -". One of the points behind the sharia laws.

1196 2/37c: "- - - righteousness - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with the book's own partly immoral moral code.

1197 2/237d: "For Allah sees well what ye do". See 2/233h above and 35/38b below.

1198 2/238a: (YA271): “- - - the Middle Prayer - - -.” Muslim authorities differ as to the correct meaning, as the Arab expression “al Salat al wusta” as well may mean “the best or most excellent prayer” and thus may indicate the Asr prayer in the middle of the afternoon, not in the middle of the day. Clear language?

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.)

1199 2/238b: (YA271): “- - - the Middle Prayer - - -.” Incompatible with the Bible. The Bible neither have fixed times for prayers, nor a fixed minimum number for such - which it should have had as the 5 prayers a day are essential to Allah - should have if Yahweh and Allah had been the same god.

1200 2/239a: "- - - celebrate Allah's praises in the manner He has thought you (Muslims - via the Quran*) - - -". As the Quran with all its many mistakes is not from a god, this automatically means that it was not a god who thought you this.

1201 2/239b: "- - - celebrate Allah's praises in the manner He has thought you (Muslims - via the Quran*), which ye knew not (before)". If books similar to the Quran had been sent down to all the earlier prophets before - 124ooo or more according to the Hadiths - included all the Jewish prophets included Jesus, why then did nobody know how to pray in a correct way before? F.x. Jesus instructed his disciples how to pray - but in a very different way from what Muhammad told. Strange if they both represented the same god like Islam claims.

1202 2/240a: “Those of you who die and leave widows behind should bequest for their widows a year’s provision and residence - - -.” A widow has the right to stay in her home and have food, etc. for at least one year - - - if her husband has prepared things so. But what about widows who cannot remarry – f.x. because of age or illness? What rights do they have after one year?

1203 2/240b: “Those of you who die and leave widows behind should bequest for their widows a year’s provision and residence - - -.” Part of the background for the sharia laws.

1204 2/240c: "- - - but if they (your widows*) leave (the residence), there is no blame on you (their dead husband*) for what they do with themselves, provided it is reasonable". If it is not reasonable, you - the dead one - are to blame. No comments.

1205 2/240d: "He (Allah*) is Exalted in Power - - -". Even one more of the never proved or documented claims - he never clearly proved this claimed power. There are so many of these claims - and so easy to find. Look and you will find more - also other places than in the Quran.

1206 2/240e: "He (Allah*) is - - - Wise". Not if he made the Quran - too much is wrong.

1207 2/241a: “For divorced women provision (should be made) on a reasonable (scale). This is the duty of the righteous.” Positive for the woman as far as it goes in reality. Nothing is said about what is and who decides what is “reasonable".

1208 2/241b: “For divorced women provision (should be made) on a reasonable (scale). This is the duty of the righteous.” Part of the background for the sharia laws.

1209 2/241c: "- - - the righteous". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with the book's own partly immoral moral code.

1210 2/242a: "Thus doth Allah make clear His Signs - - -". This refers to the rules for how to provide for a divorced or widowed woman (see 2/240-2/241 above). How can judicial rules make clear Allah's never valid "signs"?

1211 2/242b: "- - - His (Allah's*) Signs - - -". There exists no valid signs (proofs) for Allah in all the Quran or anywhere else - and this one is even more than most of them "hanging in the air".

1212 2/243a: (A232): “Didst thou not turn thy vision to those who abandoned their homes, though they were thousands (in number) for fear of death?” Where? Who? When? – a lot of questions and no answers, as this is the total of information the Quran gives, and there is no known connection – not even to a fairy tale. Clear information in the book? It is definitely not from the Bible. May the resurrection (see 7/158i below) indicate a fairy tale?

1213 2/243b: "Allah said to them (nobody knows who - see 2/243a just above*): 'Die:' then He restored them to life". See 7/158i below.

1214 243c: "- - - Allah is full of bounty to mankind - - -". See 1/1a above.

###1215 2/244a: “Then fight in the cause of Allah - - -". An order not possible to misunderstand - from the good idol Muhammad leading the claimed "religion of peace".

###1216 2/244b: “Then fight in the cause of Allah - - -". Nearly all armed conflicts Muhammad had, were acts of aggression. Totally incompatible at least with NT. As for OT, it permitted war, but for the limited purpose to create and defend a Jewish state, whereas most of Muhammad's conflicts were raids for riches and some for power and/or spreading his new religion + in some cases for revenge.

###1217 2/244c: “Then fight in the cause of Allah - - -". One of the sentences behind the sharia laws - a central part of them in this case (and also a central part of the Quran's sometimes immoral or highly immoral rules).

###1218 2/244d: “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah heareth and knoweth all things.” An order not possible to misunderstand + incitement + hint about reward for war and hint about punishment if you do not go to war. The religion of peace?

1219 2/244e: "- - - know - - -". See 2/2b above.

1220 2/244f: "- - - Allah heareth and knoweth all things." One of the innumerable not documented claims you find in the Quran - but some of them (like this one) acted as good "whips" for obedience and discipline from their followers to leaders (included Muhammad). But also see 2/233h above and 35/38b below.

1221 2/245a: “Who is he that will loan Allah a beautiful loan - - -” In the Quran the expression “loan Allah a beautiful loan” normally means to risk your life – or lose it – in war, but sometimes it also may mean to give money to Muhammad, mainly for war purposes.

1222 2/245b: “Who is he that will loan Allah a beautiful loan, which Allah will double unto his credit and multiply many times?” In the Quran the expression “loan Allah a beautiful loan” as said just above normally means to risk your life – or lose it – in war, but sometimes it also may mean to give money to Muhammad, mainly for war purposes. In both cases no repayment is promised in this world – only in the next. A most cheap way in this world for Muhammad to finance his wars and get willing warriors – especially if the religion is made up and Allah does not exist or if there is a god, but a different one from the god you meet in the Quran, and who consequently is not bound by Muhammad’s words.

1223 2/245c: "It is Allah that giveth (you (humans*)) want or plenty - - -". It is Allah who decides everything about your life - included being poor or rich - according to the Quran. This is the Quran's standard "explanation" for why some are rich and some not.

1224 2/245d: "- - - to Him (Allah*) shall be your (Muslims'*) return (at the Day of Doom*)". Often claimed, never proved. And: If he exists. If he is behind the Quran. And if the Quran tells the full and only truth on this point.

1225 2/245e: "- - - to Him (Allah*) shall be your (Muslims'*) return (at the Day of Doom*)". Strongly contradicted by the Bible, which tells that it is to Yahweh and his Day of Doom you return. 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.

1226 2/246a: "- - - the Children of Israel - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/122 above and 4/13d below.

1227 2/246b: "- - - after (the time of) Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/136i above and 4/13d below

1228 2/246c: "- - - the Prophet (that was) among them (the Jews*) - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d below. Also note how often the Quran is vague on information - here like many other places it had been much better to give the name (here Samuel according to the very often much more concise Bible). Not good literature.

1229 2/246d: (The Jews said): "Appoint for us a King that we might fight in the cause of Allah”. This story is told a wee bit differently from in the Bible (1. Sam. 8/4-5).

1230 2/246e: "- - - fight in the cause of Allah". Not in the Bible - not even "- - - in the cause of Yahweh" is found there, yes nowhere except in figurative meaning. Incompatible with especially NT.

1231 2/246f: "- - - fight in the cause of Allah". Even though this is (pretended to be) said to the Jews, it is one of the points behind the laws for war in the sharia laws.

1232 2/246g: “How could we refuse to fight in the cause of Allah.” The Quran pretends Jews are saying this to one of their prophets (Samuel), but it really is included as a pep talk to Muslims inspiring them to war. The text is somewhat(!) changed compared the one in the Bible, from where the story comes (1. Sam., chapter 8) - these words simply are not from the Bible.

###1233 2/246h: "But when they were commanded to fight, they (Jews*) turned back, except a small band among them". It is unclear what this refers to - if it is not made up. It is not from the Bible. But Muhammad Azad has an interesting comment: "- - - (it is*) a reminder to the believers (= Muslims*) of all times that "fighting in Allah's cause" (as defined in the Quran(!*)) is an act of faith". Is it possible to give terrorists and others a better "carte blanche"? And who will after such a clear statement deny that even today Islam is a religion of war?

1234 2/246i: "But Allah has full knowledge about those who do wrong". Why then does he have to test them - and others?

1235 2/246j: "- - - those who do wrong". One of Muhammad's many distaste provoking names for non-Muslims.

1236 2/246k: "- - - those who do wrong". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with the book's own partly immoral moral code.

1237 2/247a: "Their (the Jews'*) Prophet - - -". In this case Samuel - the Quran often is not good on exact facts and information, note f.x. how often the book is vague on names, times, etc. Not good literature.

1238 2/247b: "Their (the Jews'*) Prophet (Samuel*)- - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d below.

12439 2/247c: “Allah hath appointed Talut (Saul in the Bible*) king over you (Jews shortly before 1000 BC*)”. Most likely it was Yahweh (God) who did so, or what? Allah and Yahweh is not the same god no matter what Islam wants – the fundamental differences of the teachings are too big and too many. Not unless the god is mentally ill – and of course only if he exists.

1240 2/247d: "Allah hath chosen him (King Talut/Saul*) above you (Jews*), and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: Allah granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth". Except for the bodily prowess, do you see the parallels to what Muhammad claimed about himself? There are many such parallels in Muhammad's tales. It was a way to illustrate that what he - Muhammad - met in his society, was similar to what was normal for prophets to meet and experience, and thus that Muhammad was a normal prophet (though the greatest of them all).

1241 2/247e: "- - - Allah granteth His authority - - -". Impossible unless he really exists, something which has never been proved.

1242 2/247f: "- - - He (Allah*) knoweth all things". Not if he made the Quran.

1243 2/248a: "- - - their (the Jews'*) Prophet - - - ". Here = Samuel. One of the Qurans weaknesses as literature is that it often has vague details - like here omitting a well known name (most likely because Muhammad did not know it or forgot it when he was telling this story). Other times it has a lot of details - details there is no chance that Muhammad knew, but which were to be found in known legends, fairy tales, etc. at that time, or in wrong science, history, etc. one believed in in "the Middle East" at the time of Muhammad. Not to mention the cases where there is no known source - where did he get the information from as the Quran with all its mistakes, etc., is not from any god?

1244 2/248b: "- - - their (the Jews'*) Prophet - - - ". Here = Samuel. A historical anomaly - see 4/3d below.

1245 2/248c: “- - - Sign - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. And as the contents of this verse are miles from what the Bible tells, it is an impressive "sign" - this even more so as the Ark of Covenance was a hard fact which it is likely the Jewish traditions and writers may have got historically correct. Also see 2/39b above.

1246 2/248d: “- - - there shall come to you (the Jews) the Ark of Covenant”. Samuel cannot have said this, as by then the Jews already had got the Ark - see 2/248e just below. Contradiction to the Bible - and a double such one as for one thing the Quran is some 300 years late, and for another thing the delivery is wrong.

1247 2/248e: “- - - there shall come to you (the Jews) the Ark of Covenant”. Well, according to the Bible the Ark of Covenant did not come to the Jews – they built it themselves in accordance with a description they got from Yahweh. That was done around 1330 BC under Moses = some 300 years before Samuel, whom the Quran talks about. (We must add that this is a well known part of the Bible, and most Jews and Christians at once see that something is wrong. May be because of that some Muslims claim that the translation is wrong; it was not the Ark that was sent, but a heart containing mental relics from Moses and Aaron. It is not a normal explanation to meet, as it takes some twisting of the original text to find this "translation". But it is a typical Islamic case of fleeing from having to meet facts one does not like: If the mistake is too obvious, search for another meaning - if necessary by twisting the words - or call it an allegory or something). Everything said about the ark in this verse is nonsense compared to the Bible.

Also see 2/248e just below.

1248 2/248f: (When the Ark - a somewhat large chest (2.5 cubits long, 1.5 cubits wide, 1.5 cubits high - 2. Mos. 37/1 - and as 1 cubit was some 45 centimeters, this means some 112 cm by some 67 cm by some 67 cm) - will be brought, it will contain) "the relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron". Wrong. Even if the only other source is the Bible, it is so extremely unlikely that the Jews put such things in the ultra-holy Ark of Covenant - this even more so as the Jews did not believe in saints - this Islam will have to produce very strong proofs to make us believe this. There also is the fact according to the Bible that when Solomon later brought the Ark of Covenance to his new temple, it is specified in the Bible that it only contained the two stone tablets with the Commandments (1. Kings 8/9).

1249 2/248g: “- - - there shall come to you the Ark of the Covenant - - - carried by angles - - -”. This needs strong proof, especially since the Bible has a much more likely explanation: Yahweh gave instructions and measures, and according to 2.Mos.37/1-9 it then was made by a man named Bezalel.

1250 2/248h: “- - - a Symbol (= Sign*) - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above. This even more so as the likely god was Yahweh. As the claim in this case is way of what the only perhaps reliable - at least on this point - source, this "Sign" in addition in reality is a parody, if not Islam brings proofs. You can bet high money and more on that if the ark had been brought by angels, such a miracle had been mentioned in the Bible! And to claim that an obviously wrong "fact" is a proof or a symbol, only can be called a parody. Another thing: So highly unlikely as it is that the Bible had forgotten a miracle like angels bringing the ark, this is a strong indication for that also this point is not only contradicted by the Bible, but incompatible with 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.

There is something symbolic in that the Quran uses a wrong fact as a thus valueless symbol.

1251 2/248i: "- - - if ye (Jews ca. 1000 BC*) indeed have faith". Beware that Muhammad claimed the old prophets were teaching Islam (but that the religion later was falsified). That Samuel preached Islam needs strong proofs to be believed, and that the Bible is falsified, simply is thoroughly proved wrong by science, and even more so by Islam who both have been unable to find one single proved falsification in all the tens of thousands (ca. 44ooo?) relevant old manuscripts.

1252 2/248j: Conclusions about verse 2/248 in the Quran: It tells that Saul (wrongly called Talut in the Quran) has become a king, and that the Ark of Covenant was going to be brought to the Jews. But Saul was king shortly before 1000 BC, whereas the Ark of Covenant was made - not brought, but made - under Moses somewhere around 1330 BC (according to science the Exodus - if it is not fiction - took place ca. 1335 BC (under Pharaoh Ramses II) and the Ark was made not too long afterward). The Quran is some 300 years wrong - in addition to wrong way of "delivery". There are so clear references to the Ark in the Bible, that even if the Bible is the only source for it, Islam will have to bring strong proofs to make us believe it was brought by angels during the reign of Saul/Talut, containing relics from Moses and Aaron and their families.

1253 2/249a: "When Talut (King Saul*) set forth with his armies, he said: 'Allah (more likely Yahweh*) will test you at the stream - - -". This seems to be a mix-up of two stories in the Bible: Saul's wars with the Philistines, and Gideon's earlier war with the Midianites. Gideon had an episode where he chose his soldiers according to how they drank from the Jordan river - Judges 7/7 (he was to wise a general to ask his soldiers go thirsty into battle) - about Saul you find in 1.Samuel (David vs. Goliath in 1. Sam 17/4-48). There is no similar episode involving King Saul. The Quran here has wrong man and wrong time.

12554 2/249b: "When Talut (King Saul*) set forth with his armies, he said - - -". How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before? See 2/51b above.

1255 2/249c: The way the story is told in 2/249 has little to do with the Bible, and worse: For a test for whom were fit for taking part in the battle, it is meaningless, as the soldiers were told on beforehand which criteria would be used - criteria each and every one of them could fulfill. It might be a test for who wanted to come along, but not for who were fit for coming along.

1256 2/249d: "But they (Saul's - or Gideon's? - men*) all drank of it - - -". How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before? See 2/51b above.

1257 2/249e: “How oft, by Allah’s will, hath a small force vanquished a big one? Allah is with those who steadfastly persevere.” May be not exactly an incitement, but quite a pep-talk. And NB: It is used even today - and with an effect. The words are not from the Bible, though.

1258 2/249f: “How oft, by Allah’s will, hath a small force vanquished a big one? Allah is with those who steadfastly persevere.” This contradicts the Bible. According to the Bible the Jews had no "small force". They had their full army on a hill, facing the Philistine army on a neighboring hill with a valley in between (1. Sam. 17/3). This situation remained for many (40) days (1. Sam. 17/1) before the youth David happened to be sent with food to his 3 brothers in Saul's army (1. Sam. 17/17-18) and there killed the giant Goliath, who had been calling on the Jews for a duel man-to-man to decide the war (in the old times it did happen that one or a few from each army was elected to fight it out as proxies for the whole armies - much less bloodshed). A bit different from the story in the Quran.

1259 2/249g: "- - - persevere ". A word non-Muslims should never forget is imprinted and imprinted on Muslims - and it works, especially as democracies are weak when it comes to prolonged managements (there always are shortsighted persons who want an end to struggling).

1260 2/250a: "- - - Goliath - - -". A historical anomaly - see 4/13d below.

1261 2/250b: "- - - help us (Jews*) against those who reject faith". There is nowhere in the Bible indicated that this was a war of religion. It was an old-fashioned war for land and power and loot and slaves.

1262 2/250c: "- - - help us (Jews*) against those who reject faith". Do you see the parallel Muhammad here makes to his own warlike intentions? You will find many such parallels in the Quran - Muhammad needed "proofs" for that his situation and what he did, was normal for prophets, and thus that he really was a prophet like he claimed.

1263 2/251a: “By Allah’s will they (the Jews) routed them (the Philistines); and David slew Goliath - - -”. A story borrowed from the Bible - with a twist - used as pep talk for Muslim warriors - telling it was their own god, Allah, who did the work.

1264 2/251b: The Jews’ (or Israelis‘) King Saul/Talut and David beat the Philistines in battle ("routed them") and felled Goliath. But according to the Bible, there was no battle - only the duel between David and Goliath. (1. Sam. 17/45-51)

1265 2/251c: “And did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, the earth would be full of mischief - - -.” In addition to the religion (and the loot), here is another "rationale" reason for why Allah and Muhammad calls you to go to war. We should point to that there are other ways for an omniscient god to run a world - peaceful ones. Only a war religion would believe in that war and suppression is the only way.

1266 2/251d: "- - - the Worlds - - -". But the 7 worlds this refers to (65/12b) do not exist.

1267 2/252a: “These are all Signs of Allah - - -”. If they were signs, they in this case were signs of the Jewish god Yahweh, not of Allah. See 2/87.

The Quran is built on claims like this and on statements, “signs” and “proofs”, not one of them proved (as we said before: With the possible exception of some signs from the Bible which in case may be prove Yahweh). Plus it is built on a lot of psychology and knowledge about human nature. As for the never proved claims, signs, etc. there is an awful lot of them, and they are easy to find once you go looking for them.

Besides in this case: How can they be valid signs if the story is wrong?

1268 2/252b: “- - - Signs of Allah - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b and 2/252a above.

1269 2/252c: "We (Allah*) rehearsed them (the "signs" for Allah*) - - -". No god is involved in a religion based on a book full of mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, etc., and thus no god was involved in this claimed rehearsing.

1270 2/252d: "We (Allah*) rehearsed them (the "signs" for Allah*) to thee (Muhammad*) - - -". No god sent down a book full of mistakes, etc. to any representative - it is slander, insult and heresy to blame a god for such.

1271 2/252e: "- - - in truth - - -". See 2/2b above.

1272 2/252f: "- - - Verily - - -". See 2/2b above.

1273 2/252g: "- - - Verily thou (Muhammad*) art one of the Messengers". But in case for whom? No god - too many errors, etc. in the Quran. Perhaps dark forces? No a devil would make a book with so much wrong like the Quran if he could decide himself, as sooner or later people would see the mistakes, etc. and he would lose credibility, but what if that was the god's condition for permitting him to try to lure more people to Hell? Or an illness - like TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) like modern medical science suspects (BBC 2 the 17. April 2003 - http://news.bbc.co.uk./2/hi/science/nature/2865009.stm ). Or simply for a man - f.x. himself? Or a combination of these?

1274 2/252h: "- - - Verily thou (Muhammad*) art one of the Messengers - - -". But Muhammad was no real prophet. The definition of a prophet was a person who could see at least parts of the unseen, and thus a person who:

Has the gift of and close enough connection to a god for making prophesies.

Makes prophesies that always or at least mostly come true.

Makes so frequent and/or essential prophesies, that it is a clear part of his mission.

A few things Muhammad said, came true – like it has to do for any person saying many things through many years – and most of what he said which did not come true, was forgotten (also this is what normally happens if it is nothing spectacular). But he did not guess the future correctly often - actually he statistically and according to the laws of probability should have "hit the mark" far more often by sheer chance than he did - there just are a few cases where Muslims will claim he foretold something correctly, and few if any of them are "perfect hits". But then the Quran makes it pretty clear that even though he was intelligent, he had little fantasy and that he also was nearly unable to make innovative thinking (nearly all his tales and his ideas in reality were "borrowed" ones - though often twisted to fit his new religion).

The main things here are that Muhammad never indicated that anything of what he said was meant as prophesies, that he never indicated, not to mention claimed, that he had the gift of prophesying, that it nowhere is documented that all/most of what he said about the future came true (point 2 above), and finally that both he and Islam said and says that Muhammad was unable to see the unseen (extra revealing here is that the old Biblical title for a prophet, was "a seer" - one who saw the unseen (f.x. 1. Sam. 9/9)) and also that there were no miracles connected to Muhammad “except the Quran” (prophesying is a kind of miracle - seeing what has not yet happened). (This fact that Islam admits there were no miracle connected to Muhammad "except the revelation of the Quran" also is a solid proof for that all the miracles connected to Muhammad mentioned in the Hadiths, are made up stories). Also see 30/40a and 30/46a, and we also should add that his favorite wife (and infamous child wife) Aishah according to Hadiths (f.x. Al-Bukhari) states that anyone saying Muhammad could foresee things, were wrong.

Verse 7/188b also is very relevant here: "If I (Muhammad*) had knowledge of the Unseen (= what is hidden or what has not happened yet*), I should have - - -". IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT MUHAMMAD DID NOT HAVE THE PROPHETS' ABILITY TO SEE "THE UNSEEN" - he was no real prophet.

Also relevant here is that the original title of the Jewish prophets as mentioned was not "prophet" but "seer" - one who saw at least parts of the unseen. (F.x. 1. Sam. 9/9#, 1. Sam. 9/11, 1. Sam. 9/18, 1. Sam. 9/19, 2. Kings. 17/13, 1. Chr. 9/22, 1. Chr. 26/28, 1. Chr. 29/29, 2. Chr. 9/29, 2. Chr. 16/7, 2. Chr.16/10, 2. Chr. 19/2, 2. Chr. 29/25, Amos 7/12, Mic. 3/7 - some places the two titles even are used side by side). Muhammad thus so definitely was no seer - prophet - even according to his own words; he had no "knowledge of the unseen".

Many liked - and like - the title prophet, and there have been made other definitions for this title - the most common of these are "one who brings messages from a god", or "one who represents a god", or "one who acts/talks on behalf of a god". But the fact remains: Without being able to prophesy, he or she is no real prophet. A messenger for someone or something - ok. An apostle - ok. But not a real prophet.

***This is a fact no Muslim will admit: Muhammad in reality simply was no real prophet or seer. Perhaps a messenger for someone or something or for himself – or perhaps an apostle – but not a real prophet. He only “borrowed” that impressive and imposing title. It is up to anyone to guess why.

Also see 30/40h below.

1275 2/253a: "- - - to one of them Allah spoke - - -". It here refers to Moses, but it is a clear contradiction to the Bible that the god spoke to no more than one Biblical person directly - he also spoke directly to others, f.x. Jesus (but Jesus has to be reduced so as not to compete with Muhammad) and some of the Jewish prophets, f.x. Samuel (1. Sam. 3/4-14).

1276 2/253b: "- - - others (other messengers*) He (Allah*) raised to degrees (of honor) - - -". Here we find an interesting piece of translation. According to our sources the exact translation of the Arab original is: "and some he raised even higher". Translators dearly wants this to refer to Muhammad - and it well may, as it is Muhammad himself who dictated the text to his listeners. But it is not clear - and "higher" may mean physically or spiritually. Remember that according to the Bible 2 or 3 of the prophets (Elijah (2. Kings 2/11) and Jesus (NT) and perhaps Enoch (Gen. 5/24)) were raised up to Heaven alive. By adding the words "(of honor)", the translators omits the physical possibilities - and as in Islam Muhammad of course is worth more than Jesus, it is quite likely it is Muhammad who is meant(!). (This in spite of that both according to the Quran and to the Bible Jesus had a different and closer contact to the god than Muhammad).

*1277 2/253c: “- - - to Jesus- - - We (Allah*) gave Clear (Signs) - - -.” Hardly Allah in case. The god of Jesus was Yahweh. (Jesus simply had got few followers and been killed much earlier if he had preached about a known pagan god (al-Lah) from a neighboring pagan country - the religious situation in Israel at that time makes the Quran's claim here impossible.)

*1278 2/253d: “- - - to Jesus the son of Mary - - -" See 5/110a below.

1279 2/253e: "- - - Jesus - - -". A historical anomaly - see 4/13d below.

1280 2/253f: "- - - the holy spirit - - -" This is one of the few times the Spirit - also named the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of God/Yahweh, the Spirit of the Lord - like Allah and like Muhammad it has several names) - is mentioned in the Quran (you also find it in 2/87, 5/110, 16/102, 17/75 likely in 26/193). Muhammad had very vague ideas about it and f.x. believed the Trinity consisted of Yahweh, Jesus and Mary (!). Muslims often claim it is another name for the angel Gabriel - and idea no-one who ever read the Bible with an open mind would get. And in addition to everything else which makes the claim ridicules, the old Jews knew well the difference between angels and spirits, and in the entire Bible there is not one single case where the two are mixed or mistaken. (But never think that a religious person will believe facts if they do not fit his belief).

1281 2/253g: “If Allah had so willed - - -". One of the many places telling that Allah could do big things "if he only willed". But he happened never to "will". Just like people trying to impress their surroundings - it often is called boasting.

1282 2/253h: “If Allah had so willed, succeeding generations would not have fought among each other - - -”. Is it then f.x. the will of Allah that Muslims have fought and killed and murdered and raped and suppressed also each other for 1400 years? Not to mention what they have done to outsiders? In that case Allah is no good and benevolent god - if he exists.

1283 2/253i: “- - - after Clear (Signs) had come to them (people) - - -.” Wrong. See 2/39b above.

1284 2/253j: “If Allah had so willed, they would not have fought each other, but Allah fulfilled His Plan”. See 2/253f above and 14/19d below. Allah decides everything and does so according to his unchangeable Plan, according to the Quran.

1285 2/253k: "- - - but Allah fulfilleth His plan". According to the Quran Allah decides absolutely everything which happen in the world, and he decides it in accordance with his predestined Plan. Here: Has it been Allah’s Plan not to fulfill his Plan (which is to conquer and suppress the rest of the world) for some 1400 years?

1286 2/253l: "- - - but Allah fulfilled His plan”. Predestination is central in the Quran. But full predestination like the Quran many places claims, means that man in case has no free will - both at the same time are impossible even for a god. See 3/154, 6/149a, 14/22b below.

1287 2/254a: "- - - ye who believe - - -". Muslims.

1288 2/254b: "Spend out of (the bounties) We (Allah*) have provided for you (Muslims*)- - -". This is a theme you often meet in the Quran: You shall spend of your money for Allah. Some places it means for charity, but very often it is for the fighting and wars for the religion - or actually most often it was raids etc. for looting, enslaving and power, etc. Muhammad more or less continually was fighting, and it cost money to wage war. (It is said that during the 10 years in Medina he had 82 armed conflict - http://www.1000mistakes.com lists the names and purpose of 63 of them (mostly raids were for wealth and slaves or prisoners for extortion). 82 in 10 years means one every 6 weeks approximately, nearly all of them initiated by Muhammad - the great idol for Islam. Really the religion of peace.)

1289 2/254c: "Spend out of (the bounties) We (Allah*) have provided for you (Muslims*)- - -". Also this claim you often meet in the Quran: It is Allah who has given you everything you have.

1290 2/254d: “- - - before the Day comes when no bargaining (will avail), (etc.*) - - -". The Day of Doom.

1291 2/254e: “- - - before the Day comes when no bargaining (will avail), nor friendship, nor intercession.” Among others: Intercession is impossible. And: “(The Day (of Doom) when) one soul shall not avail another - - - nor shall intercession profit her (the soul*) - - -.” An absolute law: No intercession possible. But:

20/109: “On that Day (Day of Doom*) shall no intercession avail, except for those whom permission has been granted by (Allah) - - -.” Here it is possible if Allah permits.

34/23: “No intercession can avail in His (Allah’s*) Presence (= on the Day of Doom*), except for whom He has granted permission.” Intercession ok if Allah permits.

43/86: “And those whom they invoke (“gods”, saints*) besides Allah have no power of intercession – only he (has*) who bears witness to the Truth - - -.” The word “he” cannot refer to Allah as this refers to witness(es) for Allah. But according to the Quran the prophets and messengers are to be called forth “to witness to the truth”. “He” therefore must be referring to each and every prophet and messenger (or at least to Muhammad) - - - who then according to this verse have power to intercede.

It also is clear that Muhammad has power to intercede on the Day of Doom. It simply was one of his weapons for power and followers: Be good friends with Muhammad, so that he may be will intercede for you at the Day of Doom.

Intercession is possible in spite of 2/253 – it only takes permission or Muhammad (who is granted permission).

(4 contradictions.)

1292 2/254f: “ Those who rejects Faith (Islam*) - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative and distance inducing names for non-Muslims.

1293 2/254g: “ Those who rejects Faith (Islam*) - they are the wrongdoers”. If you read the Quran, you many, many times will find the non-Muslims called wrongdoers. You meet persons claiming that "the wrongdoers" means criminals, etc., but in the Quran "wrongdoers" mainly refers to non-Muslims (or even worse; apostates who has left Islam like here). It simply is one of Muhammad's most frequently used names for non-Muslims. No comment necessary.

1294 2/254h: "- - - Faith - - -" = Islam - only Islam is faith in the Quran. Some religion when they want to stress the value of their own religion, they talk about the correct or right faith - Islam is so high above all others that "faith" only means Islam./p>

1295 2/254i: "- - - wrongdoers - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

1296 2/255a: "There is no god but He (Allah*) - - -". (Also see 6/106b and 25/18a below). But:

Both according to the Quran and to the Bible the old Jewish god (Yahweh) existed.

Both according to the Quran and to the Bible Yahweh has proved his existence and his power many times, included via Jesus - there (according to both books if one or both of them tells the truth on this point) is no doubt about his existence and his power.

 

The Quran claims that Allah and Yahweh is the same god. But this is not true, as the teachings fundamentally are far too different, especially if you compare the Quran with NT and the New Covenant via Jesus - a covenant Muslims never are told about by their imams or mullahs (f.x. Luke 22/20). The same goes for the underlying ethics and moral (parts of it is very twisted in the Quran compared to the most basic rule;"do onto others what you want others do onto you") and the stressing of the value of empathy (empathy hardly is to be found in the Quran, and non-existing towards victims and non-Muslims), etc., not to mention that this also goes for the view on thieving (looting), lying (f.x. al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie), killing, etc. The only possible exception is if the god is strongly schizophrenic. (See separate chapter about this in tp://www.1000mistakes.com (planned completed in the final edition in 2011 or at latest in 2012 and copied in this book). Demand proofs from the next Muslim telling you that Yahweh is the same god as Allah.

The Quran tries to explain away the differences between the Bible and the Quran, and thus the differences in the teachings, by claiming - as normal for Muhammad without a single document or proof - that the Bible is falsified. But this is not true, as science long since has proved there is no falsification. May be some mistakes - f.x. in Genesis - but no falsification. What is even more convincing it the fact that also Islam has proved the same, and most strongly, by not being able to find one single documented falsification among all the tens of thousands relevant old manuscripts.(There exist some 300 copies or fragments of the Gospels older than 610 AD, 12ooo other manuscripts or fragments from other parts of the Bible and 32ooo other documents/fragments with quotes or references from the Bible from before 610 AD (before that there was no reason to falsify anything to expel Islamic teaching) - parts of this also older than 325 AD and council that year in Nicaea. (The numbers can vary some from one source to another, but around these ones.) All have exactly the same and invariable texts within minor variations normal for hand-copied documents, and not one shows any traces of being tampered with - falsified - in ways that modern science can find. And modern science is good at finding falsifications, as it a frequent kind of crime. No scratching out of text, no other tries of removing old text, no putting in new words, no new words written with another kind of ink, no new words with another handwriting, etc. Islam also never even has tried to explain how it could be possible to make identical falsifications in 40-45ooo and more different manuscripts spread over the whole known world and wider - and how it was possible for Jews and Christians to agree on identical falsifications. Muslims often claim the falsifications were done at the mentioned meeting of bishops in Nicaea in 325 AD. But for one thing the agenda for that meeting is well known and nothing like this was on that agenda. For another ting a lot of manuscripts are older than 325 AD exist - not one of them falsified. And for a third: It is exactly as difficult to get bishops change the Bible, as it is to make ayatollahs change the Quran. (Muslims also claims that the OT was falsified when it "had to be rewritten" when the Jews returned from Babylon. But for one thing not all Jews were deported to Babylon (f.x. 2. Kings 25/12), and you bet the ones who remained took care of their holy scriptures - religion is a comfort in difficult times. And for another thing also the Jews in exile had managed to keep some copies of the scriptures (f.x. Ezra "was a teacher well versed in the Laws of Moses" = the Books of Moses (Ezra 7/6) - which meant they had the books). And for a third: Jews lived in many countries also at that time, and in each and every synagogue, there always was and is at least one copy of the scriptures - in addition to what was owned by members of the congregations. The OT simply never was rewritten - there never was a reason for that.) There simply never were any falsifications of any part of the Bible - as proved by science. But it is as said even better proved by Islam: If there had existed one single falsification, Islam had found it and screamed about it. Nobody has ever heard such a scream.

As Yahweh clearly existed if the old books tell the truth, and as clearly was/is not the same god as Allah, and as Islam's "explanation" ("falsification") for the case is wrong, Islam here has a problem when claiming there only is one god. Even if we omit all other (claimed) gods, there still remains Yahweh, whose existence they have admitted.

This problem grows even more interesting when one remember that Yahweh has proved his existence and power many times if either the Bible or the Quran or both tell the truth on this point, whereas Allah has proved exactly nothing - there only are words and claims from a man with a very doubtful moral (even according to Muslim books, included the Quran - take away the glorious words and see what remains) behind the claims for Allah's existence and power.

And: If there then exists one, but only one god - who is most likely to exist? - Yahweh or Allah?

1297 2/255b: "(Allah*) - - - the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal". Perhaps if he exists.

1298 2/255c: “His are all the things in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and on earth - - - (etc.*) - - -". Several claims about Allah - often repeated, never proved. There only are Muhammad's words - and Muhammad was not among the most reliable of persons, according even to Islamic literature (skip the glorifying words and read what he demanded and did and what moral and other rules he stood for, and get more correct information about him - glorifying words are cheap and are used by all dictators, included Muhammad).

1299 2/255d: “- - - the heavens - - -“. Plural and wrong. See 2/22c above.

1300 2/255e: "Who is there can intercede in His (Allah's*) presence except as He permiteth?" Perhaps one or more - especially if Allah is a made up god - - - and he only exists in a book so full of mistakes, etc. that it is from no god, told by an unreliable man wanting power, riches - at least for bribes - and women, and using his religion for his platform of power, like so many a self proclaimed prophet through the times.

1301 2/255f: (A2/247): “He (Allah*) knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) Before or After or Behind them.” That is how A. Yusuf Ali understands what literally means: “- - - that which is between their hands and that which is behind them”. Islam does not have the faintest idea about the real meaning, and the scholars makes guesswork in many – and contradicting and conflicting – ways. “- - - between the hands - - -“ may f.x. mean this world - - - or may be the next. And what “- - - is behind them” may mean this world because it is to be left - - - or may be it means the next live because it is an allusion to the hidden world. And a number of other unclear ideas. And it is heavyweights like Mujahid, ‘Ata, Ad-Aahhak, Al-Kalbi, Razi, Zamakhshari and others who are guessing. Clear language, easy to understand?

1302 2/255fg: (A2/248): “His (Allah’s*) Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth - - -.” Literally: “His seat (of power) - - -.” But what is the intended meaning? – “His dominion” or “His sovereignty”? (Zamakhshari). – or “His knowledge”? (Muhammad ‘Abduh), - or “His majesty and glory”? (Razi), - or something else? Who knows? More clear language in the Quran.

1303 2/255h: “- - - over the heavens - - -“. Plural and wrong. See 2/22d.

1304 2/255i: "For He (Allah*) is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory)". One thing is the question if he really exists - there never was the slightest proof or valid sign for him. But see 1/1a above and see if he really deserves glory - - - if he exists.

##1305 2/256a: “Let there be no compulsion in religion - - -“. Beware that this is the real words of the verse - Muslims often claim it says "there is no compulsion in religion" or similar claims. There is an ocean between the wish or whatever "let there be no - - - ", and the (wrong) claim "there is no - - -". A small(?) al-Taqiyya - or perhaps a Kitman? (lawful lie and lawful half-truth respectively - accepted dishonesty you only find in Islam of the big religions). Also see 2/256b just below.

###1306 2/256b: “- - - no compulsion in religion - - -“. This “flagship” for “proving” the peaceful Islam, disused daily by most Muslims and very frequently by Islam itself, is very wrong, because it is abrogated (made invalid) by at least these verses (ca. 30 all together) from the more bloody and inhuman later Medina surahs: 2/191 – 2/193 – 3/28 – 3/85 – 4/91 - 5/33 – 5/72 – 5/73 - 8/12 – 8/38-39 – 8/39 - 8/60 – 9/3 - 9/5 - 9/14 – 9/23 – 9/29 – 9/33 - 9/73 – 9/123 – 14/7 – 25/36 - 25/52 – 33/61 – 33/73 – 35/36 - 47/4 – 66/9 (also see further down) (as for 5/33: Remember that practically all the wars and raids Muhammad fought, were wars of aggression, even if he called it jihad – even Badr, Uhud and the Trench (Medina) were battles of defense in a war of aggression, started and kept alive by Muhammad’s raids. Non-Muslims thus should not defend themselves and their belongings, according to 5/33).

In addition to this there are other kinds of compulsion than the sword – economy, brutal taxes, social stigma, “Berufsverbot” (good jobs prohibited), physical insecurity, etc. And all of them were backed by the sword – “conform and obey and pay or else - - -“!!

It must be added that some Muslims say this nonsense ("there is no compulsion in religion") in good faith. But not one single Muslim educated in his religion, does not know he is lying each time he says that there is no compulsion in religion under Islam, as he knows 2/256 here is wrongly quoted and on top of that is abrogated (made invalid) – but then defending and promoting Islam are the two cases where Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth), are not only lawful, but advised to use in Islam, if it is necessary to use it to reach the result you wish. (A small PS: One or two of the verses abrogating 2/256 may or may not be a little older than 2/256 itself, but there once was a long debate in Islam if an older verse could abrogate a younger, and the conclusion was that this sometimes was possible). Surah 2 is from 622-624 AD - early Medina.

Besides Muslims mentioned normally misquote the verse, and tell you it says: "There is no compulsion in religion". What it really says is: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" - a wish or a demand, not a fulfilled fact. And in addition as said: An abrogated - invalid - verse.

If this verse had not been abrogated, it had been “Glad Tidings”. Yes, even if Muslims had been honest and told the verse is abrogated by at least some 30 harsh later verses it had helped – at least it had helped the moral standard of Muslims to be that honest.

But NB! NB! As mentioned the surah says: “Let it be - - -.” It only is a demand or – judging also from 2/255 – more likely a wish. It is not something which existed or exists. It is a hope or a goal for the future, it is not something that one have already – and all the same most Muslims quote it like this: “There is no compulsion in Religion” - - - a small, little “Kitman” (lawful half-truth – an expression special for Islam together with “al-Taqiyya", the lawful lie) makes the Quran and the religion sound much more friendly and tolerant. But not one single of them mention the fact that this verse is contradicted and in most cases abrogated by at least these 29 verses:

**2/191: “And slay them (your opponents*) wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression (from them*) is worse than slaughter (of them*) - - -.”

***2/193: ”And fight them (your opponents*) on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah (“No compulsion in religion”*) - - -.”

3/28: “Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah - - -.” Social pressure, but may be meant defensive originally, as it is from 625 AD - before Muhammad gained full control in 630 AD. It is offensive today.

3/85: “If anyone desired a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him - - -.” Yes: “No compulsion in religion.” (Hardly defensive – see 3/28 just above).

3/148: “- - - and help us against those who resist Faith”. This is from 625 AD – the Medina period. It can be meant as defensive or offensive help. After 630 the possible defensive use was gone – Islam became powerful, and only the offensive aspect is left, and it contradicts not only 2/256, but some more verses, too.

4/81: “- - - so (Muslims*) keep clear of them (“infidels” or hypocrites*) - - -.” (626 AD) Social pressure, etc. also is pressure – especially when everybody knows it is backed by the sword if you protest.

**4/91: “- - - if they (“infidels”*) withdraw not from you, and (instead) send you guarantees of peace (remember that in nearly all the conflicts, the Muslims were the aggressors*) besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever you get them - - -.” No comments about “No Compulsion in Religion”.

5/33: “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and his Messenger (Muhammad*) - - - is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from the opposite sides, or exile from the land.” Remember that this surah is from 632 AD, and that practically all raids and wars were wars of attack from the Muslims – even the battles of Badr, Uhud and Medina/the Trench were battles in a war of aggression started and kept alive by Muhammad and his raids for robbing and extortion – so mostly the victims who “fought war against Allah and his Messenger” were fighting in desperate and sheer self defense to defend themselves against the on-slaughter of Islam - - - and to defend themselves obviously was a great sin. Muslims attacked for gaining loot, land, slaves, power - - - and force Islam on their neighbors. In spite of Islam’s peaceful words, the surrounding Arabs often only got two choices: Become Muslims or fight/die. “No compulsion in religion”.

5/72: “They (Christians*) do blaspheme who say: ‘God is Christ the son of Mary.’ - - - and the Fire will be their abode.” A serious warning also is a compulsion.

5/73: “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity - - -.” This was to put two other gods at the side of Allah – two times the ultimate sin. Also a warning about blasphemy is a compulsion.

8/12: “I (Allah*) will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite ye all their fingertips off them (making them unable to use a bow*).” Remember: Nearly all skirmishes, raids, battles and wars at least for 110 years (till the Battle of Tours, France, against Carl Martell in 732 AD) and actually much longer, were wars of aggression started by the Muslims): “No compulsion in religion.”.

**8/38-39: “Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief (become Muslims*)), their past would be forgiven them, but if they persist, the punishment for those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight with them until there is no more tumult and oppression, and there prevail justice (sharia?*) and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere”. Well, to say the least of it: This contradicts and abrogates and kills 2/256 - and more.

***8/39: “And fight them (the Unbelievers) until there is no more tumult and oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere - - -.” Is it possible to get a more direct order about wars of religion and of suppression of the vanquished “infidels”? And if “justice” means sharia, that is not too god for the non-Muslims, to be polite.

**8/60: “Against them (the non-Muslims*) make ready your strength to the utmost of your power - - - to strike terror into (the hearts of) the (attacked – the Muslims nearly always were the aggressors in spite of peaceful words today*) enemies of Allah - - -.” War for the religion – and for riches and slaves and power – but “no compulsion in religion.”

9/3 (631 AD): “And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith”. Muslims may say it is meant figuratively and for the next life. But it is said in connection to 9/5, which indicates this life.

***9/5: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans (unbelievers*) wherever ye find them, and size them, beleaguer them, and lay in wait for them in every strategy (of war)” This is the famous and infamous “Verse of the Sword” – from the “Religion of Peace” which at least preaches “No compulsion in religion”. But then to preach peace often is a good strategy of war. (Also see 9/5 in the chapter “Abrogations”.) PS: "Every strategy of war" also sanctifies terrorism and even the most horrible methods of killing and molesting.

**9/14: “Fight them (the “infidels”*), and Allah will punish them by your hand (you are fighting on behalf of Allah*), cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them - - -.” No comments necessary. A peaceful religion with no religious overtones in their wars and plans, stratagems and teachings? And why does Allah need primitive help from humans if he is omnipotent?

****9/23: “Take not for protectors your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred if they love infidelity above Faith (Islam*): if any of you do so, they do wrong.” Social pressure – and for that case economical pressure (often used against non-Muslim underlings in the form of high taxes, no good jobs permitted, etc.) – also is “Compulsion in Religion” – which does not exist in Islam (?)

**9/29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day, nor holds that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his Prophet (Muhammad*), not acknowledge the religion of the Truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians mainly), until they pay the jizya (“infidel”-tax where Islam has set no upper limit, and which frequently through the history has been very high*) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”. Conquer and suppress the infidels and then let them live like Negroes under apartheid in South Africa or in the southern states in USA in the early 1900s - - - the ones who were not taken into slavery – especially the women. Yes, no compulsion – neither by the sword first, nor by destroyed economy and social life, etc. after the defeat. True?

9/33: “It is He (Allah*) Who hath sent his Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of the Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest it”. With plain words: Accept Islam's hegemony whether you like it or not – as there is “no Compulsion in Religion.”

9/73: “O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them.” The highest leader and of course his followers should strive hard against the “infidels” – but “No Compulsion in Religion”. Well, at least the claim is good propaganda which proves how "peaceful" the Quran is.

9/123: “O ye who believe! Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about and let them find firmness in you - - -.” If you are a good Muslim, then fight the non-Muslims – but “no compulsion” – not in religion.

25/36: “’Go ye both (Moses and Aaron*) to the people who have rejected our Signs’. And those (people) We (Allah*) destroyed with utter destruction.” A clear message.

25/52: “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Quran)”. As you see: Peace in religion is not included when you strive against the “infidels”.

***33/61: “They (hypocrites - not good enough Muslims – or non-Muslims*) shall have a curse on them whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).” If you are not good enough Muslims you are to be killed without mercy. A most clear order. Only do not mention it, because the propaganda line is: “The Religion of Peace” and “No compulsion in Religion”. NB: This also is one of the verses behind the demand for expulsion from all the society (not only the religious parts) and even killing of Muslims leaving Islam.

33/73: (Because man – the Arabs – undertook the Trust of the Quran/Islam) “With the result that Allah has to punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the unbelievers, men and women (why? - not all humanity undertook it*) - - -.” And Muslims works on behalf of Allah.

35/36: “But those who reject (Allah) – for them will be the Fire of Hell”. Not exactly compulsion on the surface, but at least a clear threat and a stigma. We include it because this threat and stigma are repeated often, so it makes up a considerable psychological compulsion anyhow for anyone.

47/4: “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them) - - -.” Yes, unbelievers have to be killed or subdued. AND: According to our sources the words "(in fight)" do not exist in the Arab original - which makes the text one hec of a lot more sinister.

66/9: “O Prophet. Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them.” No pardon for “infidels” – compulsion makes more new Muslims than no compulsion - - - and loot is loot if Muhammad has to be firm against the ones that are stubborn in their infidelity.

(2/256 is abrogated by at least these 29 points – and in reality by more).

2/256 is the most disused verse in all the Quran – and all the worse as each and every educated Muslim, and a large percentage of the uneducated ones know it is totally abrogated and totally invalid - and often wrongly quoted.

###1307 2/256c: “Let there be no compulsion in religion”. This is the flagship for all Muslims who want to impress non-Muslims about how peaceful and tolerant Islam is. But NB! NB! Note that the surah says: “Let it be - - -.” It is an order or – judging also from 2/255 – more likely a wish, it is not something that they had or have. It is a hope or a goal for the future, it is not something that exist – and all the same most Muslims quote it like this: “There is no compulsion in Religion” - - - a small, little “Kitman” (lawful half-truth – an expression and a way of thinking special for Islam together with “al-Taqiyya, (the lawful lie)) makes the Quran and the religion sound much more friendly and tolerant than the reality. But not one single of them mentions that 2/256 is totally abrogated and killed by many verses - see 2/256b just above.

1308 2/256d: "Truth stands clear from Error". Clear. But only if you do not refuse to see errors - like millions of Muslims have demonstrated (because to admit errors in a text pretending coming from an omniscient god, means to admit that it is not from a god and thus that something is very wrong, and such a fact is too difficult to face - it is better and easier blindly to believe in spite of proofs and facts, than to check: Can this be wrong? After all it is what your life is built on, and it takes a lot of backbone to ask such questions about the fundamentals of your life, not to mention to face the possibility that you have built your life, morality, ethics, etc. on made up and false "facts" and false values - yes, that the very culture and religion and moral code of Islam may be built on such a basis.

##1309 2/256e: "Truth stands clear from Error". When one knows how much error there is in the Quran, this unintended irony really makes one start thinking.

1310 2/256f: "- - - Truth - - -". Beware that when Islam uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code, so beware of f.x. al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) and Kitmans (lawful half-truths), etc. Also see 2/2b above and 13/1g and 40/75 below.

1311 2/256g: "- - - Truth - - -". Contradicted by the Bible. See 2/42c above. 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.

1312 2/256h: "- - - Evil - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code - remember f.x. that the best of good deeds is to go to war or on raids for Allah and in his name steal and rape and suppress and enslave and kill (the fact that it is done in the name of their presumed god, makes it all even more despicable).

1313 2/256i: "- - - the most trustworthy hand-hold - - -". Only if Allah exists, if he is a god, if he has sent down the Quran, and if the Quran in addition tells the full and only truth about this.

1314 2/256j: "- - - hand-hold, that never breaks - - -". If it does not exist, it does not break.

1315 2/256k: "- - - trustworthy - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code - remember f.x. that the best of good deeds is to go to war or on raids for Allah and in his name steal and rape and suppress and enslave and kill (the fact that it is done in the name of their presumed god, makes it all even more despicable).

1316 2/256l: "- - - (a*) hand-hold, that never breaks". Only if Allah exists, if he is a god, if he has sent down the Quran, and if the Quran in addition tells the full and only truth about this.

1317 2/256m: "And Allah heareth and knoweth all things". See 2/233g and 35/38b above.

1318 2/257a: "Allah is the Protector of those who have faith - - -". Only if Allah exists, if he has sent down the Quran, and if the Quran in addition tells the full and only truth about this.

1319 2/257b: "- - - those who have faith - - -". Muslims.

1320 2/257c: "- - - faith - - -". = Islam - only Islam is faith in the Quran.

1321 2/257d: "- - - from the depths of darkness He (Allah*) will lead them forth into light." Only if the Quran is from a real god - and no real god makes that many mistakes, etc.

1322 2/257e: "- - - lead them (Muslims*) forth into light." There is not much religious light in a book so full of errors that it clearly is not from a god.

1323 2/257f: “Of those who reject faith the patrons are the Evil Ones (the Devil and his helpers*)”. Can human vermin be worse?

1324 2/257g: "- - - Evil - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

1325 2/257h: “Of those who reject faith the patrons are the Evil Ones (the Devil and his helpers*)”. This may be true if the Quran is from a god tells the truth on this point. It may even be true even if the Quran is a made up book, because others, too, may believe in made up religions. But it is not true if there somewhere exists a true religion - then it is not true for the believers in that religion. It also is not true if no god exists.

1326 2/257i: "- - - those who reject faith - - -". Non-Muslims.

1327 2/257j: "- - - from the light they (the evil ones - the Devil*) will lead them (non-Muslims and bad Muslims*) into the depth of darkness". See 2/257h above.

1328 2/257k: "- - - from the light they (the evil ones - the Devil*) will lead them (non-Muslims and bad Muslims*) into the depth of darkness". For Jews and Christians the Bible disagree.

1329 2/257l: "They (non-Muslims and bad Muslims*) will be Companions of the Fire - - -". = will go to Hell. For Jews and Christians the Bible disagrees. Also see 3/77b below.

1330 2/257m: "- - - the Fire - - -". Hell.

1331 2/257n: "- - - to dwell therein (Hell*) (for ever)". There are some verses in the Quran which may indicate that Hell is not quite forever, at least not for (bad) Muslims. See 6/128c, 11/107b, and 43/74d below. (11/108c may indicate that also Paradise is not forever.)

1332 2/258a: This verse is not from the Bible, and there also is nothing similar in that book. (From where did Muhammad get this information, as the Quran with all its errors is not from a god and thus the only source for information about Abraham was the Bible, legends, fairy tales and fantasy?)

1333 2/258b: "- - - Abraham - - -". A historical anomaly - see 4/13d below.

1334 2/258c: "My (Abraham's*) Lord (here claimed to be Allah*) is He who giveth life and death." Variations of this interesting claim you meet several places in the Quran - interesting because Allah and Muhammad never were able to prove anything like this, whereas Yahweh proved it at least 9 times in the Bible (1. Kings 17/22, 2. Kings 4/35, Mark 5/41, John 11/44, Luke 7/15, Matt. 27/52, Acts 9/40, Acts 20/10 + Jesus) and at least one or two times in the Quran - if the books are reliable on this point. As for Jesus: As it is clear - if at least one of the book tells the truth about this - that the old Jewish god really had power over death, there is no real reason why Jesus could not be killed and resurrected, except that then he clearly was something Muhammad was not, and with connections Muhammad had not, and Muhammad thus impossibly could be the greatest of the prophets. Jesus, therefore, had to be "played down" to make him smaller than the claims about Muhammad.

1335 2/258d: “But it is Allah that causeth the sun to rise from the east - - -”. Abraham is said to use this as a (also for other reasons totally invalid) proof for Allah. But for one thing it is not the sun which rises, but the Earth which turns. For another thing this is a totally natural process whish in no way is proved made by a god - not to mention by Allah. But any priest of Baal - or others - could say as much: 'Baal makes the sun rise in the east. Allah cannot make it rise in the west - which means Baal is proved to be the real god and Allah a fake one!'. Both claims are equally cheap, equally stupid - and totally invalid as proofs + logically total nonsense, as long as it is not proved the god really was/is behind the phenomenon. Did a god use such "proofs"?

Another pressing question is this: What on Earth is the quality of the brains and the knowledge of the followers you can dupe with so hopelessly naive arguments like this?

1336 2/258e: "- - - confounded - - -". The man had to be very little intelligent to be confounded by a claim like this.

1337 2/258f: "- - - faith". = Islam - only Islam is faith in the Quran. Another point: This is from a story about Abraham - anyone who believes that Islam existed at the time of Abraham (ca. 1800 - 2ooo BC - and some 2500 years before Muhammad), are free to do so. The same goes for those who want to believe that Abraham's religion was Islam. But they should check their naivety quotient.

1338 2/258g: "Nor doth Allah give guidance (via the Quran*) to - - -". As the Quran is not from a god in spite of strong claims (but only claims) from Muhammad and others, the "guidance" via the Quran is not from Allah.

1339 2/258h: "- - - guidance - - -". There is not much reliable guidance in a guide-book that full of mistakes, etc. like the Quran is. Also see 2/2b above and 7/192a and 40/75 below.

1340 2/258i: "- - - a people unjust". = Non-Muslims. Muhammad often uses names with negative value like here for non-Muslims. This may be one of the reasons why Muslims often believe they are superior to non-Muslims and/or are reluctant to mingle with "bad" people. Worth remembering also when Muslims complain about "negative press" or other negative information about Muslims or Islam - the Quran today had been judged "racism", fascism, and discriminating to such a degree that it no-nonsense had been judged unlawful if it had been a modern novel - or even as a religious book if Islam had been a new religion today.

<>1341 2/258j: "- - - unjust". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

 

#1342 2/258-260. (YA302): This is too much to quote, but we quote some of A. Yusuf Ali’s remark, which is very enlightening as to the Islamic claim that the language in the Quran is crystal clear: “The three verses 258 – 260 have been the subject to much controversy as to the exact meaning to be attached to the incidents and persons alluded to, whose names are not mentioned. In such matters, where the Quran has given no names and the Prophet has himself given no indication, it seems to me useless to speculate - - -.” Yes, the Quran always is crystal clear, according to Muslims.

1343 2/259a: A man died for 100 years and woke up. This actually is taken from one of the old Jewish fables well known in Arabia at the time of Muhammad. The story is not from the Bible.

1344 2/259b: "He (a man*) said: 'Oh! How shall Allah bring it (ever) to life - - -". How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before? See 2/51b above.

1345 2/259c: A man died for 100 years, and when he woke up nothing of his outfit, included food and a donkey, had changed. A good proof for the power of Allah, if it had been documented or in other ways proved Allah had done this - - - but words are very cheap, and it is nearly as cheap to invent or borrow a story somewhat similar to the story about "The 7 Sleepers". One more story Islam will have to prove to make us believe. (Also see 2/259a just above and 7/158i below.)

1346 2/259d: (YA304): “- - - by a hamlet, all in ruins - - -.” Does this refer to Ezekiel’s vision of dry bones (Bible: Ezekiel 37/1-10), to Nehemiah’s destroyed Jerusalem (Bible: Nehemiah 2/11-20), to one of the legends concerning Uzayr/Ezra, or to something else? Islam does not know. (Also see 2/259a+b above.) Clear texts?

1347 2/259e: "- - - a sign - - -". Wrong. See 2/39b above.

1348 2/259f: "- - - the bones, how We (Allah*) bring them together and clothe them in flesh". The Quran claims that the dead are resurrected in flesh, as contradicted with the Bible/NT which claims it only is the soul which is resurrected. This is one of the differences between the two books which is so fundamental - in reality how is the life in Paradise - that this alone proves that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and their religions not even fundamentally the same one, no matter how many undocumented claims the Quran makes. 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.

1349 2/259g: "I know - - -". See 2/2b above.

1350 2/259h: "- - - Allah hath power over all things". Often claimed, never proved - also not here as it is not proved Allah really did what this old Jewish legend told. Legends often have good stories - but zero reliability.

1351 2/260a: Neither this verse nor anything similar is to be found in the Bible.

1352 2/260b: "- - - Abraham - - -". A historic anomaly. See 4/13d below.

1353 2/260c: "Show me (Abraham*) how thou (Allah*) givest life to the dead". An interesting sentence, as Allah never - never - showed neither this nor anything else - Yahweh proved it if the old books tell the truth, but never Allah (except in borrowed legends).

1354 2/260d: "Show me (Abraham*) how thou (Allah*) givest life to the dead". How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before? See 2/51b above.

1355 2/260e: (A2/257): “Take four birds; tame them to turn to thee (Abraham*); put a portion of them on every hill, and call to them - - -.” But the Arab expression “surhunna ilayka” simply means “make them incline towards thee”. And then the meaning really is: “- (tame them and) place them (separately and alive) on every hill, and call to them - - -.” And that is a very different story. Clear (fairy) tale? Besides - from where did Muhammad get this story? It is not in the Bible - the only source for knowledge about Abraham as the Quran is not from a god, and thus not a source about things like this.

1356 2/260f: "- - - Allah is Exalted in Power - - -". - which he in case never has proved.

1357 2/260g: "- - - Allah is - - - Wise - - -". Not if he made the Quran.

1358 2/261a: "The parable of those who spend their substance in the way of Allah is that of a grain of corn (Americans; beware that here is not meant maize - this even more so as maize did not exist in "the old world" at that time): it grows seven ears, and each ear hath a hundred grains". There mainly are two ways to "spend in the way of Allah": To help the poor and to help the religion - included to wage war (war cost a lot, and even though you can get rich from looting, that is afterwards, whereas the expenses is before and during the war or raid - one simply needs money to start a war, even if one can steal much during and after the war). So spend of your money and get rich profit in the next life - if there is a next life, if Allah exists, and if the Quran in addition tells the full and only truth about everything. (If there is not a Muslim paradise, Muhammad got lots of money and warriors for his raids and wars for free - which is not unusual for self proclaimed prophets.) It must be added that this verse is a clever piece of work, if the intention was to get money and to recruit warriors - good psychology (Muhammad understood people).

1359 2/261b: "Allah giveth manifold increase to whom He pleaseth - - -". This may refer to the promised good life in Paradise, or it may be a version of the standard Islamic explanation why many non-Muslims live a good life, whereas many Muslims are badly off: Allah in his deep and not understandable wisdom has decided it like that. (As so often the book which claims it is clear and easy to understand, is not clear).

1360 2/261c: "- - - Allah careth for all - - -". If Allah exists. If he is a god. If he is behind the stories of the Quran. And if the Quran in addition tells the full and only truth on this point.

1361 2/261d: "- - - He (Allah*) knoweth all things." See 2/233h and 35/38b above.

1362 2/262a: “Those who spend their substance in the cause of Allah (mainly helping the poor, financing the spreading or consolidation of the religion or – mostly in that time – financing war*) - - - for them their reward is with their Lord (Allah*) - - -.” At least paying back only with words was a very cheap way for Muhammad to finance his wars and the growth of his power. If there then is a god – or a devil – repaying in the next world, the givers got their money’s value in their next life - in an ironical way if he was/is met by a devil. If there was no Allah in the claimed next life, one has to quote Muhammad in Ibn Ishaq in “Life of the Prophet”: “War is betrayal” - - - also behind the lines.

1363 2/262b: "- - - on them (good Muslims*) shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve (in the presumed next life*)". If Allah exists. If he is a god. If he is behind the stories of the Quran. And if the Quran in addition tells the full and only truth on this point. But what if the Quran is a made up book? - - as it is not from any god with all its errors, this is a real possibility

1364 2/263: "- - - He (Allah*) is Most Forbearing". See 1/1a above.

1365 2/264a: "- - - ye who believe - - -". Muslims.

1366 2/264b: "Cancel not your charity by reminders of your generosity - - -". Do not boast about your generosity - the reward for generosity is for the next life, and if you use your generosity to gain esteem in this life, you "spend" your merit for this, and will get little or no merit for your charity in the (possible) next one.

1367 2/264c: "And Allah guideth not those who reject faith". But if the Quran is not from him - and no god made a book with that many errors - does he then guide Muslims? Simply no - and what then about a possible next life in case?

1368 2/264d: "- - - (the Quran*) guideth - - -". See 7/192a and 16/107 below.

1370 2/264f: "- - - faith - - -". = Islam - only Islam is faith in the Quran.

1371 2/265a: “And the likeness of those who spend their substance, seeking to please Allah (the best is to spend it for financing war or for spreading or consolidating Islam in other ways*), is a garden, high and fertile: heavy rain falls on it but makes its yield a double increase of harvest - - - Allah seeth whatever we do.” Much of this was for financing war/raids. Financing war is half the war – also here incitements are valuable. And the reward is promises - words - about what you will get in the next life. No matter what is the truth about the next life, this was a cheap way for Muhammad to raise money and get warriors.

1372 2/265b: "Allah seeth well whatever ye do". See 2/233h and 35/38b above.

1373 2/266: “Thus doth Allah make clear to you (people*) (his) Signs”. There are no clear signs for Allah or Muhammad in the Quran – not one. See 2/39b above. Besides we do not quite see how this verse explains how Allah makes his claimed signs clear. Nobody likes to have his property destroyed - but what does this explain?

1374 2/267a: "- - - ye who believe". = Muslims - only Muslims are believers in the Quran.

1375 2/267b: "- - - the fruits of the earth, which We (Allah) have produced for you (people*) - - -". Allah or nature? This is one of the many, many places in the Quran where Muhammad without any proofs claims natural phenomena as "proofs" for and/or glorification of his god. Totally without any value as long as all of it just is claims and words - claims and words any believer in any religion can make free of charge on behalf of his god(s) as long as he can evade all requests for proofs. It is worth nothing as long as it is not proved it really is produced by Allah. Actually we get a bad feeling when we meet invalid "signs" and "proofs" - the use of invalid arguments is the hallmark of deceivers and such people.

1376 2/267c: "- - - Allah - - - Worthy of all Praise". See 1/1a and see if you agree.

1377 2/268a: "- - - to conduct unseemly". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is as compared to the book's own partly immoral moral code - where f. ex. stealing, raping, enslaving, and killing in the name of Allah are "good and lawful" (morally and ethically it is even more despicable when it is and has to be done in the name of their god - it tell something extra deprived and black about the religion.)

1378 2/268b: "Allah promiseth - - -". But nowhere in history is there a real proof for that Allah has kept even one single promise (and neither for that he really has given a promise).

1379 2/268c: "Allah promiseth you - - - bounties". At least if you go to war and can steal it yourself in his name (it is a lot extra despising to do it in the name of their god - what kind of god and what kind of culture is this?)

1380 2/268d: "Allah promiseth you (Muslims*) - - -". Invalid if he does not exist - - - and remember that his claimed book, the Quran, is not from any god - too much is wrong.

1381 2/268e: "- - - Allah careth for all - - -". If he exists. If he is a god. If he is behind what is told in the Quran. And if the Quran tells the full and only truth on this point.

1382 2/268f: "- - - He (Allah*) knoweth all things". Se2/233h above and 35/38b below.

1383 2/269a: “He (Allah*) granteth wisdom to whom He pleaseth - - -”. Wisdom is a result of genes/intelligence and knowledge (with a possible exception for Yahweh). Many gods say they provided it - not one single of them has proved it till this date, with the possible exception of Yahweh. Words and lose statements are much cheaper than proofs.

1384 2/269b: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

1385 2/269c: "- - - but none will grasp the Message (Islam*) but men with understanding". The whip: Of course I want to be a man of understanding, so I have to grasp it - at least to pretend so. The carrot: I have to grasp it, because I want to be a man of understanding. The threat: I cannot oppose, because then people will believe I am not a man of understanding. Good psychology - Muhammad understood human nature.

1386 2/270a: "- - - be sure Allah knows it all". - and will reward you for it. The carrot. Also see 2/233h above and 35/38b below.

1387 2/270b: "But the wrongdoers will have no help". As far as the word "wrongdoers" means Jews and Christians, the Bible contradicts this claim.

1388 2/270c: "- - - wrongdoers - - -". Normally "Quran-speak" for non-Muslims. The Quran has a number of such names for non-Muslims with psychologically negative meaning - not exactly forwarding for co-existence between Muslims and non-Muslims (and also not reducing their superiority complex versus non-Muslims). Simply one of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims - an often used one.

1389 2/271a: "- - - (charity*) will remove from you some of your (stains of) evil." Charity as a means for gaining merit with Allah is quite central in Islam. The effect, though, is dampened by the fact that the main thing is the merit you gain, not to help fellow humans, and by the fact that you can as well give to your wife or children, etc., as to strangers - the merit you gain will be the same. And then why help strangers? As for gaining merit, charity also is way behind waging war "for Allah and for Muhammad" in gaining merit.

1390 2/271b: "- - - (charity*) will remove from you (Muslims*) some of your (stains of) Evil". Good deeds may work as a kind of expiation simply. The Quran preaches something of the same as Catholicism (especially in the older times): If you do bad things, you just can pay expiation and go to Paradise anyhow.

1391 2/271c: "And Allah is well acquainted with what ye do". In this case the carrot. But also see 2/233h above and 35/38b below.

1392 2/272a: “It is not required of thee (O Messenger (Muhammad*)) to set them on the right path - - -.” This verse is contradicted and often “killed” by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 5/73, 8/12, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 29 contradictions).

***1393 2/272b: "- - - thee (O Messenger (Muhammad*)) - - -". See 63/5a below.

***1394 2/272c: "- - - thee (O Messenger (Muhammad*)) - - -". A historical anomaly. See 2/101b above and 4/13d below.

1395 2/272d: "- - - Allah sets on right path whom He pleaseth". This is one of the really serious differences between the Quran and NT: Allah "sets on right path whom he pleases", whereas Yahweh sets on right path each and everyone who honestly wants to walk that path - and he is glad for each ac everyone (f.x. "the lost sheep" (Matt. 18/12-14), "the lost coin" (Luke 15/8-10), "the lost son" (Luke 15/11-31), "the 11. hour (Matt. 20/11-13)). Is Yahweh and Allah the same god? Simply no. Too much of the fundamentals - and the morality - in the teachings are too different.

1396 2/272e: "- - - the right path - - -". The road leading to Islam's paradise - see 10/9f below.

1397 2/272f: "- - - the right path - - -". That the Quran represents the right path, is strongly contradicted by the (not falsified) Bible, and especially by NT. 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.

1398 2/272g: "Whatever good ye (Muslims*) give, shall be rendered back to you, and ye shall not be dealt with unjustly". Once more the old fact: This claim only may be correct if Allah exists and is a major god.

1399 2/272h: "- - - good - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

1400 2/272i: "- - - unjustly". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is relative to its own partly immoral moral code.

1401 2/273: "- - - Allah knoweth it well". If he exists. If he is a god. If he is behind the stories in the Quran. And if the Quran in addition retells the stories 100 correctly.

1402 2/274a: "- - - their (good Muslims'*) reward with their Lord (Allah*) - - -". If he exists. If he is a god. If he is behind the stories in the Quran. And if the Quran in addition retells the stories 100 correctly.

1403 2/274b: "- - - on them (good Muslims*) shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve (in the possible next life*)". If Allah exists. If he is behind the stories in the Quran. And if the Quran in addition retells the stories 100 correctly.

1404 2/275a: (YA324): “- - - those who devour usury”. That usury is prohibited is most clear. But what is the definition for usury? “When it comes to the definition of usury there is room for differences of opinion” – even when it comes to a topic that is so central in real life, the texts in the Quran is not clear “as the Prophet left this world before the details of the question were settled” – and Islam has no real moral philosophy, only Muhammad’s (sometimes quite immoral) words and thus it is impossible to find out. And here there even are no such words from Muhammad.

1405 2/275b: "Those who after receiving direction from their Lord (Allah*), desist, shall be pardoned for the past - - -". Allah only can pardon if he exists and if he in addition is a god.

11406 2/275c: "- - - but those who repeat (the offence) are Companions of the Fire: they will abide therein (for ever)." See 3/77b below.

1407 2/275cd: "- - - Companions of the Fire - - -". = The ones destined to go to Hell".

1408 2/275e: "- - - the Fire - - -". Hell.

1409 2/275f: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) will abide therein (Hell*) (for ever)". 6/128a, 11/107b, 43/74d, 51/13c, and 78/23 indicate that may be Hell is not quite forever - at least not for Muslims. (And 11/108c may indicate the same for Paradise.)

1410 2/276a: "- - - (Allah*) will give increase (in reward*) for deeds of charity - - -". One of the plusses in Islam is its insistence on charity. The point is weakened, though, by two facts: Charity is not mainly to help the needy, but to gain merit in Heaven - there is no empathy or compassion. And you get just the same merit from helping your nearest family members as from helping strangers - and then strangers easily ends far down on the priority list (reports in newspapers in Scandinavia f.x. indicate that Muslims give little or nothing to the international help or relief NGOs - an exception may be the organizations working especially among Muslims).

1411 2/276b: "- - - He (Allah*) loveth not creatures - - - wicked". What does this mean for Muslims? - a number of the deeds the Quran demands or permits from Muslims, are wicked, and in some cases worse than wicked. Compare them to "do against others like you want others do against you", and see for yourself.

1412 2/277a: "Those who believe - - -". = Muslims - only Muslims believe according to the Quran.

1413 2/277b: "Those who believe, and do deeds of righteousness, and establish regular prayers and regular charity, will have their reward with their Lord". Well, this only to remind you that the Quran contains lots of nice claims and promises - you find plenty if you look in the book - but Muhammad was able to prove not one single of them. All was just words - included some fast ones and many which sounds like cheap ones - - - plus a lot wrong ones.

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.)

1414 2/277c: "- - - righteousness - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is meant in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

1415 2/277d: "- - - regular charity - - -". One of the positive points of the Quran, it it’s weight-laying on charity. As mentioned other places the moral and personal value is reduced, though, by 2 facts: The main reason for charity is not empathy or something with the ones needing help, but to gain merit in Heaven. And you get just the same merit from helping your nearest ones, as from helping total strangers - then why help strangers?.

1416 2/277e: "- - - (good Muslims*), will have their reward with their Lord (Allah*) - - -". If he exists. If he is a god. If he is behind the stories in the Quran. And if the Quran in addition retells the stories 100% correctly.

1417 2/277f: "- - - on them (good Muslims*) shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve (in the possible next life*)". If Allah exists. If he is a god. If he is behind the stories in the Quran. And if the Quran in addition retells the stories 100 correctly.

1418 2/278a: "- - - ye who believe!" = Muslims - only Muslims believe according to the Quran.

1419 2/278b: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

1420 2/278c: "- - - believers - - -". See 2/278a above.

1421 2/279a: "- - - Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". Muhammad's standard mantra to glue himself to his platform of power; his god.

1422 2/279b: "- - - Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". See 63/5a.

1423 2/279c: "- - - Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". A historical anomaly - see 2/101b above and 4/13d below.

1424 2/279d: "- - - and ye (Muslims*) shall not be dealt with unjustly". No, not if the Quran is from a god, and in addition tells the full truth and only the truth.

1425 2/179e: "- - - unjustly - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

1426 2/280: "- - - charity - - -". One of the positive points of the Quran, it it’s weight-laying on charity. As mentioned other places the moral and personal value is reduced, though, by 2 facts: The main reason for charity is not empathy or something with the ones needing help, but to gain merit in Heaven. And you get just the same merit from helping your nearest ones, as from helping total strangers - then why help strangers?. (It is not that none of them helps strangers, but it for many is far from 1. priority.)

1427 2/281a: "- - - fear the Day when ye (people*) shall be brought back to Allah". This will only happen if Allah exists and if the Quran has told the full and only truth about this.

1428 2/281b: "- - - the Day when ye (people*) shall be brought back to Allah". = The Day of Doom.

1429 2/281c: "- - - the Day when ye (people*) shall be brought back to Allah". Contradicted by the Bible which tells that one is brought back to 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.

1430 2/281d: "- - - none of you shall be dealt with unjustly". There is no justice in the sadistic never-ending torture in Hell, compared to the sins most sinners have made. Also see 2/279d above.

1431 2/281e: "- - - unjustly - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

1432 2/282a: "- - - ye who believe!" = Muslims - only Muslims believe according to the Quran.

1433 2/282b: When ye (Muslims*) deal with each other, in transaction involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing". One of the softer points behind the Sharia laws.

1434 27282c: "Let him who incurs the liability dictate - - - (etc*)". One of the points behind the Sharia laws.

1435 2/282d: “And get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women.” Women have half the value of the man – or even less, as there has to be at least one man.

1436 2/282e: "But if it be a transaction which ye carry out on the spot among yourself, there is no blame on you if you reduce it not to writing". One of the points behind the sharia laws.<(p>

1437 2/282f: "And Allah is well acquainted with all things". See 2/255a and 2/272b above.

1438 2/283a: "If ye (Muslims*) are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possetion (may serve the purpose)". One of the points behind the sharia laws.

1439 2/283b: "And Allah knoweth all that ye do". See 2/233h above and 35/38b below.

1440 2/284a: "To Allah belongeth all that is in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and on earth". Often claimed in the Quran, never proved anywhere.

1441 2/284b: “- - - heavens - - -“. Plural and wrong. See 2/22d.

1442 2/284c: "Whether ye (people*) show what is in your minds or conceal it, Allah calleth you to account for it". Allah sees everything, so be obedient and good and do not try to cheat. But also see 2/233h above and 35/38b below.

1443 2/284d: "He (Allah*) forgiveth whom He pleaseth - - -". Similar to 2/272d above.

1444 2/284e: "He (Allah*) forgiveth whom He pleaseth - - -". Allah can forgive exactly nobody unless he exists and in addition is a god.

1445 2/284f: "For Allah hath power over all things". He in case never has proved this.

1446 2/285a: "The Messenger (Muhammad*) believeth in what hath been revealed (the Quran*) - - -". It is really revealed? - and in case from whom? As no god was involved - too much in the book is wrong - there only are 3 alternatives: Dark forces, an illness (f. ex. TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) or one or more humans (f.x. Muhammad).

1447 2/285b: "The Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". See 63/5a below.

1448 2/285c: "The Messenger (Muhammad*) believeth in what hath been revealed (the Quran*) to him from his Lord (Allah*) - - -". The Quran is not from a god - too many mistakes, contradiction, etc.

1449 2/285d: "The Messenger (Muhammad*) believeth in what hath been sent down (the Quran*) to him from his Lord (Allah*), as do the men of faith". Yes, but it must be the men of blind faith, not the men of knowledge and intelligence - too much is wrong in the book.

1450 2/285e: "- - - faith - - -". = Islam - only Islam is faith according to the Quran.

1451 2/285f: "Each of them (messengers and good Muslims*) believe in Allah - - - and His Messengers (among them Muhammad*) - - -". A variety of Muhammad's standard mantra for gluing himself to his platform of power; his god.

1452 2/285g: "- - - Messengers (among them Muhammad*) - - -". See 63/5a below.

1453 2/285h: "- - - His (Allah's*) books - - -". Remember that the Quran claims (without any proof and in reality wrongly) that Allah and Yahweh is the same god. Here it is books in plural, which must mean the Bible and the Quran. The Bible is reckoned to be the book of Yahweh, even though nearly all of it is written by humans. The Quran is claimed to be from Allah, but no book of that quality was ever delivered by any god - not to mention revered by a god and his angels in his own "home" as the "mother book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22).

1454 2/285i: "We (Muhammad and good Muslims*) make no distinction (they say) between one and the other of His (Allah's*) Messengers". "Ergo" Jesus is just an ordinary messenger or prophet. But also see 2/285i just below.

1455 2/285j: "We (Muhammad and good Muslims*) make no distinction (they say) between one and the other of His (Allah's*) Messengers”. Wrong - and a contradiction to several places in the Quran and to reality: In the Quran Muhammad is the only messenger who really counts, and he has a very special status both in the Quran and in Islam.

1456 2/285k: "We (Muslims*) hear and we obey: - - -". It is worth remembering that the one they heard was Muhammad, and the one they had to obey was Muhammad. Very nice for Muhammad - a man liking power and respect.

1457 2/285l: "- - - to Thee (Allah*) is the end of all journeys". = One ends up at Allah's at the Day of Doom. But this only is true if Allah really exists, if he is behind what is told in the Quran. and if the Quran in addition tells the full and only truth about this.

1458 2/285m: "- - - to Thee (Allah*) is the end of all journeys". Contradicted by the Bible. There the end is to 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.

1459 2/286a: "On no soul doth Allah place a burden greater than it can bear." Wrong: Also among Muslims you find self murder, persons who flee from their families, persons resorting to crime or prostitution to survive (according to our information Arab has 26 words for "prostitute", and language science tells that when there are many different names words for something, this means that the "something" is central for users of that language), persons who succumb to mental illness from unbearable pressure, etc.".

1460 2/286b: (A278): ”O our Sustainer! Lay not on us (Muslims*) a burden like that which Thou didst lay on those before us - - -.” Muslims like to tell this refers to heavy burdens placed on the Jews by the Law of Moses. But in reality the Quran neither says about whom it is speaking or what kind of burden (f.x. forefathers’ burden of paganism and/or sins).

#1461 2/286c: “(Pray:) ‘Our Lord! - - -‘“. The word "(Pray:)" does not exist in the original Arab text – Yusuf Ali has added it to “camouflage” the fact that this is Muhammad praying to Allah - in a book claimed to be billions of years old or made by a god. Honesty? How is it possible to explain that Muhammad is praying to Allah in a book made by Allah or may be never made, but existed since eternity? (There are some 8 places like this in the Quran concerning Muhammad and one or two concerning angels).

1462 2/286d: "- - - error - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

1463 2/286e: "- - - (Allah*) grant us forgiveness". There only are 2 who can forgive - the victim and a god. Is Allah an existing god? - if not he cannot forgive.

1464 2/286f: "- - - (Allah's*) mercy - - -". See 1/1a above.

1465 2/286g: "- - - Thou (Allah*) is our (Muslims'*) Protector - - -". Only if he exists. If he is a god. If he is behind the stories in the Quran. And if the Quran in addition retells the stories 100% correctly.

1466 2/286h: "Thou (Allah*) art our (Muslims'*) Protector - - -". Only if Allah exists and in addition is a major god.

1467 2/286i: "- - - help us (Muslims*) against those who stand against Faith (Islam*)". In "Quran-speak" this includes help in war - a fitting end of the longest chapter in the holy book of "the religion of peace".

1468 2/286j: "- - - those who stand against Faith - - -". One of Muhammad's many distaste or stronger inducing names for non-Muslims.

1469 2/286j: "- - - Faith - - -". = Islam - only Islam is faith according to the Quran.

Surah 2: Sub-total 1469 + 21 = 1490 comments.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For the mistakes also see "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" ( http://www.1000mistakes.com ), and for Jihad: "1000+ points on Jihad and on the greed, lust, distaste-mongering, apartheid-mongering, hate-mongering and war-mongering used building up to Jihad in the Quran and in Hadiths" ( http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php ). And for tit-bits from this page see http://www.1000quran-comments.com .

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.

If you spread our address, more people will get this information. On debate pages remember to repeat it now and then - if not it "drifts" out of view. http://www.1000mistakes.com and http://www.1000quran-comments.com .

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

#####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.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

(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 - - -". This goes for Muslims more than for any other, because the imprinting is much stronger.

"Religious "knowledge" nearly always in reality only is belief - often strong belief, but only belief". (In Islam exactly nothing of any consequence is proved.)

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".