1000+ Comments on the Quran: Surah 52 -- AT-TUR (The Mount)

Revelation: Mecca, 621-22 AD

(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 of girls and women - free and captured - and see if you agree. Always when there is a distance between words and corresponding demands and deeds, we personally believe in the demands and deeds. Glorious words are cheap, demands and deeds are reliable. Glorifying words and claims are too cheap for anyone to use and disuse - when you read, judge from realities, not from propaganda.

002 51/1a: "By the Mount - - -". Allah is swearing by Mount Sinai - normally when a sentence in the Quran starts with "by", it is an oath. One of the 100% proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same gods, because Yahweh strictly says you shall not swear (Matt. 5/34), and as this is said via Jesus, it also proves that Jesus and Muhammad does not belong in the same group. Further the Bible makes it clear that if you all the same swear, you have to keep your oath, whereas Allah permits even oaths to be broken - pay expiation if it was a serious oath - another proof for the same.

003 52/1b: "- - - the Mount - - -". = Mount Sinai (the Arab word "At-Tur" = the mountain, in the Quran only is used about Mount Sinai).

004 52/1-6: These verses make up one big oath where Allah swears that his Day of Doom will come and that no-one can avert it (52/7-8). One problem is that in Islam oaths can be broken - pay expiation if necessary. Another is that Allah can do nothing here unless he exists and if he in case is not a major god.

005 52/2a: "By a Decree - - -". Allah swearing by a decree. See 52/1a and 52/1-6 above.

006 52/2b: (YA5038): “- - - by a Decree Inscribed - - -“. Is this figurative or mysticism? That is anybody’s guess - Islam does not know.

007 52/2c: "By a much-frequented Fane (or house - see 52/4b-c below*) - - -". Allah swearing by fane/house. See 52/1a and 52/1-6 above.

008 52/4a: (YA5039): “- - - by a much-frequented Fane - - -“??? One guesses that this may mean the Kabah, or any mosque, or the Tabernacle, or the temple in Jerusalem - - - one guesses. Also see 52/4b just below.

009 52/4b: (YA5039): “- - - by a much-frequented Fane - - -“. In the latest edition of Yusuf Ali, this problem - see 54/4a just above - is edited away, and the text changed to "- - - by the much-frequented House (of worship) - - -". This expression normally is used for the Kabah Mosque in Mecca. A very simple way of eliminating a problem, don't you think so? But it seems that in the clear language claimed used in the Quran, the Arab word used here can mean both? - though it still is not clear that it is the Kabah which really is meant.

010 52/5a: “By (Allah is swearing*) the Canopy (heaven*) Raised High - - -”. There is no canopy/material heaven, only optical illusions. What does it mean that Allah swears by something he should know do not exist??

011 52/5b: "By the Canopy raised high - - -". Allah swearing by the sky. See 52/1a and 52/1-6 above.

012 52/6a: “And by the Ocean filled with Swell - - -.” Allah is swearing by the Ocean. See 52/1a and 52/1-6 above.

013 52/6b: (A52/4): “And by the Ocean filled with Swell - - -.” But the Arab original “al-bahri ‘l-masdjur” means: “By the flaming sea”. If there is something you can never say about water, it is that is aflame – ok, at sundown and sunrise a bit of it may look slightly like aflame, but as Islam after 1400 years – with good reason as it just is a mirage or reflection – has not embraced that “answer”, it clearly is meant something else. But what? Again: Clear speech?

014 52/7a: "Verily - - -". See f.x. 2/2b above.

015 52/7b: "Verily the Doom of thy Lord (Allah*) will indeed come to pass - - -". One of the very many never documented claims in the Quran - nothing of any consequence is documented there. In the Bible at least a lot is proved by witnesses and by some deeds if the books tell the truth - not so in the Quran.

016 52/7c: "Verily the Doom of thy Lord (Allah*) will indeed come to pass - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which says the Doom belongs to Yahweh, not to Allah. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

017 52/7d: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

018 52/8: "- - - there is none can avert it (Allah's decisions*) - - -". Allah has the final word about everything, according to the Quran.

019 52/9a: "On the day when the Firmament will be in dreadful commotion - - -". The Day of Doom.

020 52/9b: "- - - the Firmament - - -". The sky - most often used about the night sky.

021 52/11a: "Then woe that Day (of Doom*) to those that treat (Truth) as Falsehood - - -". But who are they? - Muslims believing in a book with so much wrong and false that it clearly is not from a god? - or non-Muslims able to see that something is seriously wrong in what the Quran claims is the truth - - - and some of them perhaps find a true religion if such one exists?

022 52/11b: "- - - That Day - - -". The Day of Doom.

023 52/11c: “- - - those who treat (Truth (the Quran*)) as Falsehood - - -”. At least it is not the full truth - see 13/1g and 40/75 and others.

024 52/11d: “- - - those who treat (Truth (the Quran*)) as Falsehood - - -”. How is it possible to treat a claimed holy book so full of mistakes etc. that it clearly is from no god, as anything else?

025 52/11e: “- - - those who treat (Truth (the Quran*)) as Falsehood - - -”. One of Muhammad's many unsympathetic names for non-Muslims.

026 52/11f: "- - - Falsehood - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses this word, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code, and that when it is used in religious connection, it means everything not in accordance with the Quran.

027 52/13a: "That Day - - -". The Day of Doom.

028 52/13b: "That Day shall they (non-Muslims*) be thrown down to the Fire of Hell irresistibly". It is not possible for Allah to do this unless he exists and is a major god. Also see 3/77b above. 

029 52/14: "- - - the Fire - - -". Hell.

030 52/15: "Is it (Hell*) then a fake - - -". Skeptics accused Muhammad to teach a faked religion (and all facts indicate they were right - the Quran not only indicates, but proves that the book is from no god), and here Muhammad is trying to take a revenge on them - he even succeeded among naive and/or strong believers and wishful thinkers, then and till this day.

031 52/16: "- - - ye (non-Muslims*) but receive the recompense for your own deeds". This is not true if Allah predestines absolutely everything like the Quran claims many places. (Islam tries to explain this problem away by claiming man has free will or partly free will, but this is not possible to combine with full predestination even for an omniscient and omnipotent god - see f.x. comment A6/141 to verse 6/149 above.

032 52/17a: "- - - the Righteous - - -". Muslims.

033 52/17b: "- - - Righteous - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral and ethical codes.

034 52/17c: "- - - Gardens - - -". The Quran's and Islam’s Paradise - see 10/9f above.

035 52/17-24: A description of life in Muhammad's Paradise: Good food, good drinks, lazy life, houris/lots of sex (for men), your children around you (how is that possible as there will be hundred generations?), luxury, servants, etc., etc., like a royal life in the dreams of poor, naive, and primitive warriors - - - and universes away from Yahweh's Paradise, where you "will become like the angels (Mark 12/25). Yahweh and Allah the same god? - no chance!! One of the at least 200% proofs.

036 52/18: "(Muslims in Paradise are) Enjoying the (bliss) which their Lord (Allah*) hath bestowed on them". Only possible is Allah exists and is a major god.

037 52/19-20: (To them (Muslims in Paradise*) will be said) ’Eat and drink ye, with profit and health, because of your (good) deeds.’ They will recline (with ease) on Thrones (of dignity) arranged in ranks; and We shall join them to Companions (the famous houris*), with beautiful big and lustrous eyes.” What more can a poor, virile young – or old – uneducated and uncultivated and uncultured man from the desert dream about? Also see 10/9f and 52/17-24 above.

038 52/20a: "They (Muslims in Paradise*) will recline (with ease) on Thrones (of dignity) arranged in ranks - - -". Those ranks must be enormous - - - and stereotype and monotonously boring. And very different from the Paradise described in the Bible where you "become like the angels in Heaven" - f. x. Matt 22/30. The same Paradise and the same god? No chance. Too much is fundamentally different. As said: The big differences between the two paradises proves at least 200% that they do not belong to the same god - and thus that yahweh and Allah are not the same god no matter how strongly the Quran and Muhammad claim so. (Because someone says something, it is not necessarily true - and even more so when the one/ones saying so is/are very unreliable.)

##039 52/20b: “- - - and We (Allah*) shall join them to Companions, with beautiful big and lustrous eyes.” The famous houris. Like 37/48 and 42/25 above – see them. The introduction of houris by Muhammad into Islam seems to come from old Persian pagan religion.

040 52/21a: "- - - those who believe - - -". Muslims.

041 52/21b: "- - - Faith - - -". Islam.

**042 52/21c: "- - - to them (Muslims in Paradise*) shall we join their families - - -". According to Hadiths there are at least 4 or 6 gardens in Paradise - one better than the other. Plus there are the higher heavens for the really good Muslims. It would take quite a co-incidence that every member of the big and extended families of that time - and for that case partly today - to merit the same garden in Paradise. What then? We have never met any Muslim mentioning this problem, or being able to give a good explanation if we mention it. One thing is to reach Paradise. Another to reach the same garden in paradise. With 6 or more gardens, a family very easily can become very scattered.

043 52/21d: "- - - to them (Muslims in Paradise*) shall we join their families - - -". But what about the families of the family in the next generation - and the next generation - and the next generation - and generations number 50 and 100? A big mêlée at best?

044 52/21-22: See 10/9f and 40/18 above, and add good food and fruits.

045 52/23: “They shall there exchange, one with another, a (lowing) cup free of frivolity, free of all taint of ill.” A good cup of wine in Paradise - - - but likely without alcohol(?)

046 52/24: “Round about them (Muslims and their houris*) will serve (devoted) to them, youths (handsome) as pearls well guarded”. These are the servants in Paradise – forever young, handsome men. There is said nothing about from where they come, and as normal in the Quran it is said not a word about how secondary persons in a story feel or like life, or how Paradise is for them. The central persons - you and the ones similar to you - are in Paradise "rich" and on top, and that is what counts – others are of little interest. Empathy with underdogs does not exist in the Quran.

And there is another aspect to these handsome youths. The Quran frowns strongly at homosexuality, but all the same it at least some places is silently accepted. Are these youths a silent temptation - or more - in such a connection?".

047 52/27a: "- - - Allah has been good to us (Muslims in Paradise*) - - -". This is what the Quran claims. As so much is wrong in the Quran included some clear lies, the big question is if this not documented claim is true.

048 52/27b: "- - - the Penalty of the Scorching Wind - - -". An unclear expression. Some Muslims try to explain it, but end up just with presumptions. The famous clear language in the Quran - so clear that it is claimed to be a proof for that the book is made by a god (nearly the only "proof" Muslims and Islam have - and it is highly invalid like the others). As for penalty see 3/77b above.

049 52/28a: "Truly - - -". See f. x. 2/2b and 49/13b above.

050 52/28b: (A52/15 – in 2008 edition A52/16): “Truly, we (Muslims in Paradise*) did call unto Him (Allah*) from of old: truly it is He, the Beneficent, the Merciful.” But here we run into the troubles with the old Arab consonant alphabet: Have we guessed the correct vowels? There are two Arab words: “annahu” (“that he is”), favored by f.x. the Medina school, and “innahu” (“he is” or “verily, he is”), favored by f.x. Kuhfa and Basrah. One gives the above quoted meaning, the other: “Verily we did invoke Him (alone) ere this: (and now He has shown us) that He alone is truly benign - - -.” The first case; it is he, the second; that he (alone) is benign. A small detail, but significant enough to make debates. Would not a god be clear also on details?

051 52/28c: "(Allah*) the Beneficent, the Merciful". See 1/1a above.

052 52/29a: "- - - proclaim thou (Muhammad*) the praises (of thy Lord (Allah*)) - - -". See 1/1a above and see if you think he deserves it - if he exists.

053 52/29b: "- - - thou (Muhammad*) - - -". A historical anomaly.

054 52/29c: "- - - nor are you (Muhammad*) one possessed". This may be wrong, as n the old times it was rather common to believe that a person with a mental disorder, was possessed by a bad spirit. And modern medicine strongly suspects Muhammad had TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) - TLE will explain very much in case.

055 52/30: "A Poet!" Muhammad protested strongly to being a poet - and not unlikely true. But so what? - you can easily make up stories without being a poet. Thus when he uses this argument to "explain" he therefore cannot have made up the Quran, the argument is logically meaningless.

056 52/31: "Say thou (Muhammad*) - - -". A historical anomaly.

057 52/32a: "Is it that their (non-Muslims*) faculty of understanding urge them to this (not believe Muhammad*) - - -?" No doubt true for many of them, as they saw things were very wrong in Muhammad's new religion - f.x. the Bible at many points said very different things from what Muhammad claimed it said.

058 52/32b: "- - - a people transgressing beyond bounds - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims.

059 52/32c: "- - - transgressing - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses this word (or the corresponding "transgressor"), it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code, and that when it is used in religious connection, it means everything not in accordance with the Quran.

#060 52/33a: "He (Muhammad*) fabricated the (message (the Quran*))." Already at that time many saw that something was seriously wrong with the Quran. As the religion is not from a god - built on a book not from a god - there only remain the possibilities: From a cold brain. From a mentally sick brain. From dark forces. Or from a combination of these.

061 52/33b: "Nay, they (skeptics to Muhammad's teachings*) have no faith". Wrong. Many of them had deep and honest fait, but not in Muhammad and his claimed Allah. (But the Quran claims that only Muslims have faith).

062 55/33c: "- - - faith - - -". Islam. Only Islam is faith in the Quran.

063 52/34a: "Let them (non-Muslims*) produce a recital like unto it (like the Quran*) - - -".

For one thing it has been done many times - each and every time a new sect or religion emerges, it is because someone has produced a new teaching - a new "Quran" of some sort (normally the same book, but different understanding of points). And according to our information there have been some 3ooo Muslim sects through the times (and some were chocked in blood by other Muslims).

For another: Anybody knowing the Quran and knowing good literature, knows that many a good writer could have written a markedly better "copy" of the Quran - the Quran is not good literature by a long way, in spite of what Islam claims. But why bother? - no matter how well written such w book had been, not one believing Muslim had admitted that it was any good - admitting would be to admit that something might be wrong with the Quran. But for anyone knowing a little about literature, the claim that the Quran is so well written that it cannot be made or superseded by any man, and thus must be made by a god, is not only a joke, but a sad joke.

#064 52/34b: This verse also i another sample of one of Muhammad's techniques of debating: Any opposition or skeptical are demanded to prove their words, whereas Muhammad never proves anything of any essence - he just put forth words and claims and never - never - documents anything. This even though his demands for proofs from all others proves that he finds proofs essential and of value.

065 52/34c: "- - - the truth - - -". See 2/2b and13/1g above.

066 52/35a: “Were they (people*) created of nothing - - - ?” A rhetoric question here stating that man was created from nothing – 19/67 says the same. But: This is contradicted by 6/2, 7/12, 17/61, 32/7, 38/71, and 38/76 that tell man/Adam was made from clay, 15/26, 15/26, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from sounding clay, 55/14 that tells man/Adam was made from ringing clay, 37/11 that tells man/Adam was made from sticky clay, 23/12, that tells man/Adam was made from essence of clay, 15/26, 15/28, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from mud, 3/59, 22/5, 35/11, 40/67, that tell man/Adam was made from dust, 20/55 that tells man/Adam was made from earth, 96/2 that tells man/Adam was made from a clot of congealed blood, 16/4, 75/37, 76/2, 80/19, that tell man/Adam was made from semen (without explaining from where the semen came), 21/30, 24/45, and 25/54 that tell man/Adam was made from water (NB! NB! Not in water, but from water!), 70/39 that tells man/Adam was made from “base material" (Also see verse 6/2 in the chapters about the 1000+ mistakes in the Quran.) (Strictly reckoned this contradicts 29 other verses. And in this case minimum 29 contradictions.)

067 52/35b: “Were they (people*) created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators?” For comment see 52/34b above.

068 52/35c: (YA5069): “Were they created of (“min”*) nothing - - -“. But the Arab preposition “min” has more meanings: “of”, “by”, “with”, “for”. Which give at least these extra interpretations: 2) “Were they created by nothing - - -“. 3) “Were they created for nothing (for no purpose) - - -“. Would a god use so indistinct a language?

069 52/36a: "Or did they (other gods*) create the heavens and the earth?" Another of Muhammad's rhetoric questions intended to have only one possible answer. But any believer in any religion might answer "yes" on just as correct a basis as any Muslim: Claims and beliefs and not one proof. Because in addition to this obvious "yes", there is a counter-question Muhammad never permitted: Did Allah really create it and where are the proofs in case? Muhammad always behaved like his claimed "truth" was true and needed no proofs - both of which are wrong - - - unless proved.

070 52/36b: “- - - heavens - - -.” Plural and wrong. See 2/22d.

071 52/36c: "Nay, they (non-Muslims*) have no faith!" F.x. the Jews in and around Medina in very many cases had so firm belief, that they preferred to flee or to be murdered instead of to leave their belief - - - whereas Muslims in similar situations use al-Taqiyya (lawful lie), etc., which at least do not indicate any stronger belief. The Jews faced the consequences to stand by their belief also in danger, Muslims flee the consequences in dangerous positions by lying and pretending - al-Taqiyya, etc. Who had the strongest belief?

072 52/36d: (A52/20 - in English 2008 edition A52/22): "This is a 'reductio ad absurdum' of their (non-Muslims'*) unwillingness to admit the existence of a conscious Primary Cause (a creating god*) underlying all creation." It should here be remarked that "reductio ad absurdum" frequently gives conclusions which looks logical, but are absurd. Think f.x. of the often used sentence when someone does something wrong: "What if everybody did like you". This rhetoric question seems to give an ominous answer - if it was not for the fact that it is absurd to believe that everybody would do the same bad - or foolish - thing. Worse: As for Islam you do not need any "reductio ad absurdum" to see that things are seriously wrong - f.x. all the mistaken facts in the Quran proves it.

073 52/37: More or less similar to 52/36a and 52/36c above.

074 52/38a: "Or have they (non-Muslims*) a ladder, by which they can (climb up to heaven and) listen (to its secrets)?" If nothing else, then at least this verse confirms Muhammad's very wrong astronomy in the Quran.

075 52/38b: This verse is more or less similar to 52/36a and 52/36c above.

076 52/38c: "Then let (such a) listener (a skeptic*) of theirs (non-Muslims'*) produce a manifest proof". As mentioned before: Every opponent to Muhammad have to produce proofs - confirming that Muhammad found proofs of value. But Muhammad himself never proved anything central in his new religion - never. This in spite of that his repeated demands for proofs shows that he reckoned proofs to be both of essence and of value.

077 52/39: “Or has He (Allah*) only daughters and ye have sons?” It was most unbelievable for the strongly masculine society of the Arabs that a god could want daughters - and treated as a proof for it being a lie that Allah has descendant(s). It tells a lot about Islam’s view concerning women. This argument is never even mentioned when it comes to Jesus – he after all was male and should fit in the picture Muhammad painted.

078 52/40a: "Or is it that thou (Muhammad*) dost ask for a reward - - -". Muhammad liked to claim he asked for no reward from his followers - and unbelievably his followers believed and still believe it, even though they saw his demand for power, his demands for wealth (mostly used for bribes, but he also had 3 estates) and all his women.

079 52/40b: "- - - thou (Muhammad*) - - -". A historical anomaly.

080 52/41: "- - - the Unseen is in their (non-Muslims'*), and they write it down?" This is a bit unclear, but is likely to be a rhetoric question about if the non-Muslims could see the future ("the Unseen") and thus make prophesies about it. As mentioned before, the language in the Quran often is not very clear. 

081 52/42a: "Or do they (non-Muslims*) intend a plot (against thee (Muhammad*)) - - -". There were some plots against Muhammad. F.x. he once was given poisoned sheep's meat. He did not die from it, but some times later he complained that he had pain from it. He also died rather fast, and there are rumors about that he died from poisoning. It may here also be relevant to mention that of the 11 first leaders who succeeded Muhammad, only one - abu Bakr - died naturally.

082 52/42b: "Those who defy God (Allah*) are themselves involved in a plot". Only if Allah exists and is a major god.

083 52/43a: "Or have they (non-Muslims*) a god other than Allah?" Many had - some might even have a true god, like Yahweh perhaps was and is (for sure if one believes either the Bible or the Quran on this point - though the Quran wrongly mixes him with Allah).

084 52/43b: "Exalted is Allah far above the things they (non-Muslims*) associate with Him!" Perhaps - if he exists, and if the Quran tells the true story about him. And also: On the other hand the old Jewish and Christian god Yahweh has proved his power if either the Bible or the Quran tells the truth about this - Allah has proved not a thing.

085 52/43c: "- - - (other gods) they (non-Muslims*) associate with Him (Allah*) - - -". See 2/255a and 25/18a above.

086 52/44: “Were they (non-Muslims*) to see a piece of the sky falling (on them), they would only say:’ Clouds gathered in heaps!” The sky is an optical illation (or actually two). A piece of an optical illation cannot fall. (It is clear from the text that it is not meant clouds, and it is clear from other places in the Quran that meteorites (shooting stars) are known - it really is a piece of the sky which is meant. Any god had known better.)

087 52/45a: “So (Muhammad/Muslims*) leave them (“infidels”*) alone until they encounter that Day - - -.” Leave them alone till the Day of Doom. But neither Muhammad nor his successors left them alone as soon as Islam was military strong enough. And has Islam at any time ever after left their surroundings alone in periods when Islam was military strong? 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).

088 52/45b: "- - - that Day of theirs - - -". The Day of Doom.

089 52/46a: "The Day - - -". The Day of Doom.

090 52/46b: "- - - no help shall be given them (non-Muslims*)". Contradicted by the Bible, at least as far as followers of Yahweh go - to them Yahweh, not Allah, is the good and reliable helper according to that book. 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.

091 52/47a: “And verily, for those who do wrong, there is another punishment besides this (that in the long run they will lose – and meet the other punishment: Hell*)” A comforting thought at the difficult end of the Mecca period - so just leave them alone and let Allah punish them. (A confirmation of 52/45, really).

092 52/47b: "- - - verily - - -". See f.x. 2/2b or 49/13b above.

093 52/47c: "- - - those who do wrong - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims.

094 52/47d: "- - - wrong - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

095 52/47e: "- - - another punishment besides this (besides getting no help on the Day of Doom*) - - -". Some say this indicates punishment in this life - even though such punishment has never been proved (many claims, never a proved case) - and a few that this refers to Hell itself.

096 52/47f: "- - - most of them (non-Muslims*) understand not." It is very clear that this often repeated sentence is wrong - it is clear that at least many understood that something was most seriously wrong in Muhammad's new religion.

097 52/48a: "Now await in patience the command of thy (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". Be patient, obedient and willing and wait for the next orders - here on Earth from Muhammad (and his successors). A very convenient order for Muhammad - and a most cheap one if Allah did not exist.

098 52/48b: "- - - for verily thou art in our eyes - - -". The carrot and the stick: Be good and willing and obedient, and you will receive rewards, be bad or disobedient or unwilling and end in Hell.

099 52/48c: "- - - verily - - -". see f.x. 2/2b and 49/13b above.

100 52/48d: (YA5082): “- - - while thou (Muhammad or Muslims*) standest forth (in prayer*) - - -.” But the Arab word “taqumu” normally means “rising up from sleep” – a meaning Muslim commentators often interpreting here. Not a 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.)

101 52/49a: "- - - parts of the night - - - at the retreat of the stars - - -". This refers to 2 of the 5 fixed prayers a day which the Quran demands. These fixed prayers are so essential to Allah, that he made them one of the 5 pillars of Islam. Yahweh on the other hand did not mind such formalism at all - pray when there was a reason or a need or a wish. This fundamental difference is one of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

and one more detail - but an essential detail: What is the idea of prayers in the Quran if Allah predestines everything long before, and according to his Plan which nobody and nothing can change? Also prayers then cannot change that Plan, and just are waste of time and effort - yes and some self-deception.

102 52/49b: "- - - praise thou Him (Allah*) - - -". See 1/1a above and see if you think he deserves it - - - if he exists.

103 52/49c: "- - - at the retreat of the stars - - -". = In the early morning.

Surah 52: Sub-total: 103 + 17.576 = 17.679 comments.



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.

>>> Go to Next Surah

>>> Go to Previous Surah

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".