1000+ Comments on the Quran: Surah 61 -- AS-SAFF (The Ranks)

Revelation: Medina, 625-626 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 61/1a: "Whatever is in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and on earth, let it declare the Praise and Glory of Allah - - -". "Whatever" mot "whoever" - animism, a phenomenon normally found in pagan religions, and mostly in the primitive ones, plus in fairy tales. 

003 61/1b: “- - - heavens - - -“. Plural and wrong. See 2/22d.

004 61/1c: "- - - the Praise and Glory of Allah". Read 1/1a and see if he deserves it - - - if he exists.

005 61/1d: "- - - He (Allah*) is the Exalted in Might - - -". He in case never clearly has proved it. Never in all history or prehistory - (remember here: The never documented Islamic claim that Allah = Yahweh is wrong - the teachings are fundamentally too different and the differences cannot be explained by Islam’s also never proved claims about falsification of the Bible, as science has proved this to be untrue.

006 61/1e: “- - - (Allah is*) the Wise.” Not if he is behind the Quran.

007 61/2a: "O ye who believe!" Muslims.

008 61/2b: “O ye who believe! Why say ye that which ye do not?” = "Why do you say something and do something else?" or "why do you not keep your words?.

009 61/2c: (A61/1): “O ye who believe! Why say ye that which ye do not?” Is this to Muslims who left Muhammad before the battle of Uhud? – or to hypocrites? – or to others? Your guess is as good as anybody else’s. Clear language.

010 61/3a: "- - - in the sight of Allah - - -". Only possible if Allah exists and is something supernatural.

011 61/3b: "- - - ye say that which ye do not." See 61/2b+c above.

012 61/4a: "Truly - - -". In a book with so many mistaken facts and other mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, etc. like in the Quran, there are some words which cannot be taken at face value without extra proofs - in this case "truly", but there are others. Also see 2/2b above.

**013 61/4b: “Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array as if they were a solid cemented structure”. The ones who say the Quran is as good as the Bible, not to mention NT, have never read the Quran - which we can say even if we are not very Christian.

A god loving mass slaughter and murderers!!!

If that is a good god, I do hope I never meet a bad one.

And this is the icon and ideal of Islam!

Will you like to live in a Muslim society in a world ruled by such a religion?

And remember: War and hate is only one part of Islam.

But a mighty incitement and war propaganda mixed with romancing of war – and everyone at this time knew about spoils of war and slaves and free women to rape, etc.

**014 61/4c: “Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array as if they were a solid cemented structure”. Muslims claiming the Quran confirms the Bible, have never tried to find sentences like this in NT. This is one of the at least 200% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - not to mention that Jesus and Muhammad are not in the same line of anything at all of any consequence. Antipodes is a suitable word for most of the essential facts of their lives and teachings.

015 61/5a: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly.

016 61/5b: “Why do ye (Jews*) wex and insult me, though ye know that I (Moses*) am the Messenger of Allah (sent) to you (Jews*) - - -.” This sentence is not from the Bible. But it makes Moses' life look like a parallel to Muhammad's life, and thus document that Muhammad's life was a normal one for prophets - and thus that Muhammad was a normal prophet. If you read the Quran, you will see that this is done to all the prophets Muhammad tells about in the Quran, with the partly exception of Jesus (the story of Jesus was too well known, and not all of it could thus be "adjusted").

017 61/5c: “- - - I (Moses*) am the Messenger of Allah (sent) to you (Jews*) - - -.” Allah or Yahweh? The Quran uses the name Allah for the god of the old Jews many places, claiming it is the same god. Often we have not “arrested” it, but the claim is not correct, as the teachings basically are far too different. Simply 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.

018 61/5d: "- - - wrong - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

019 61/5e: "- - - Allah guides not - - -". Allah cannot guide anyone unless he exists and is something supernatural.

020 61/5f: "- - - rebellious transgressors". One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims.

021 61/5g: "- - - transgressor - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses this and related words, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code, and when it is used in religious connections, it means everybody not accepting Islam - or at least the ones opposing it.

022 61/6a: "- - - Jesus, the son of Mary - - -". Wrong name. See 5/110a above.

023 61/6b: "- - - Jesus - - - Mary - - - Children of Israel - - -". 3 historical anomalies.

024 61/6c: "- - - Children of Israel - - -". Literally "Children of Jacob" - the Jewish patriarch who was renamed Israel by Yahweh (1. Mos. 32/28).

***025 61/6d: “- - - (Jesus said*) I am the Messenger of Allah - - -”. Contradicted by the Bible and by reality. If Jesus had said something like this about the known polytheistic god al-Lah from a not too distant foreign country, for one thing he had not got many followers, and for another: The clergy had at once had had an excuse for having him killed – and long before they really did. This verse is composed by someone not knowing the religious and political realities in Israel around 30 AD. Similar claims in 4/157 - 5/72 – 5/117. 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.

026 61/6e: “- - - (Jesus said that he came for*) confirming the Law (of Moses*) - - -.” What he according to the Bible said, was that he had not come to finish that law, but to fulfill the law and to save souls – which was not the same as he should confirm the old laws or was prohibited from changing them or finish them. What he actually did according both to the Bible and to the Quran, was to change parts of the laws of Moses, and according to the Bible, he was making a new covenant between man and Yahweh which itself “de facto” changed or terminated many of those old laws – a covenant Muslims never mention. To find the essence of it, read about “the Last Supper” in the Bible. (There were at least 12 witnesses to that supper, and they told about it to many afterwards.) F.x. Luke 22/20.

But did he really change anything? He said (Matt. 22/37-39): "'Love the Lord your God (Yahweh*) with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind'. This is the first and the greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments". If this is the sum of the law, Jesus did not change it - he just adjusted some details and strengthened the law.

#####027 61/6f: “- - - (Jesus said: I am*) giving the Glad Tiding of a Messenger to come after Me, whose name shall be Ahamad (another form of the name Muhammad*) - - -”. This is quite a funny verse, as you meet Muslims who insist it is copied from the Bible. Worse: You find it quoted in books like it was from the Bible, without a word about the fact that it only is to be found in the Quran. But there is not anything remotely like this in the Bible, and neither in the some 12ooo - 13ooo relevant scriptures or fragments found through the times older than 610 AD – included some 300 from the Gospels, and also not in the some 32ooo other relevant known manuscripts older than 610 AD (when Muhammad started his preaching) with quotes from the Bible. It is only to be found in the Quran. Also you do not find a single case in OT where a prophesy about distant future mentions a clear name (sometimes title or something, but never a clear name). But here - o wonder! - is most conveniently the unmistakable name given - an Arab version of the name Muhammad even!

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

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

We know of one place where Muhammad is mentioned: In the Barnabas Gospel - a most apocryphal (made up) book - according to one of our sources it may even be written at the caliph’s court in Baghdad (not very strange if it then mentions Muhammad), but it also may be one of the many falsifications made by Muslims in Spain from around 800 AD on. You need to make up proofs only if you have no real ones. Muslims sometimes tell you this “gospel” is a real one.

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

The life of the first Christians had been entirely different - and their time scale had been entirely different if any of them had heard about another prophet to be expected before the return of Jesus “to judge the living and the dead”. (They would know the return of Jesus would take much longer time than they now believed, to give the “prophet” time to work. They thought Jesus would be back in a short time - some years.)

The contents of the NT had been different - not least the letters had been different. It simply is a fairy tale made up to strengthen Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet - like some other self-proclaimed prophets. (Rather ironic, as he did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies – he did not even claim or pretend he had it – he was no real prophet. A messenger for someone or something perhaps, but not a real prophet).

The Muslims only back their claim on one Greek word used in the Bible: “parakletos” which means “helper” – Jesus before he left Earth, promised to send his disciples a helper – the Holy Spirit (which arrived some days later – at Whitsun - according to the Bible (a story that is not negated in the Quran)).

Islam claims “parakletos” is a misspelling for another Greek word “periklytos”, which means “the highly praised”. In Aramaic “the highly praised” means “Mawhamana” of which the second part of that word as a verb is “hamida” (= to praise) and as a noun “hamd” (law or praise). If you then continue to Arab the names Muhammad and Ahmad (another version of the name Muhammad) both derives from “hamida” or “hamd” according to Islam. Which to Islam and all Muslims is a strong proof for that “parakletos” in reality is misspelled and means “Muhammad” in the Gospel after John (f. x. John 14/16). Not a very convincing proof to say the least of it – and in addition:

The word “periklytos” that Islam claims is misspelled – the only possibility they have to get the answer they want and desperately need (they need it desperately, because the Quran clearly tells that Muhammad is foretold also in the NT - - - and he is not there) – does not exist at all in the Bible, not to mention in the NT. It is not used one single time.

The word “periklytos” also is not found one single time in all the some 13ooo relevant manuscripts and fragments science knows from before 610 AD. Neither in one single place or time, nor in one single of the many manuscripts.

Worse: Neither is it found in any of the some 300 copies or fragments of Gospels older than 610 AD or in other manuscripts referring to the Gospels.

Neither is it found in quotes from the Bible found in some 32ooo other old manuscripts.

The word “periklytos” simply never was used in the old scriptures that became the Bible. The word that is used everywhere is “parakletos” – “helper” (and a helper was what the disciples needed). This goes for each and every known copy.

Beside: How could it be possible to falsify – as Islam claims – the same word the same way in thousands and tens or hundreds of thousands of manuscripts – and how to find each and every “periklytos” in each and every of the many different manuscripts – spread over all those countries? – and on top of all: In a time with little travel and hardly any media. Islam has a tough job proving their claim – and remember: It is the ones making claims that have to prove them, not others to disprove it. This often is forgotten when Muslims throw loose claims and statements around.

There also are huge numbers (some 32ooo) of non-religious manuscripts or fragments which refer to the Bible. Whenever this word pops up in those manuscripts it without exception is written "parakletos". Islam must explain how it was possible to find and to falsify all these papers, and not least how it was possible to erase the ink and write another word in such a way that it is impossible for modern science to find traces of falsifications.

Arabs think it is logical that parakletos and periklytos may be mixed – in the old Arab alphabet and scriptures this just meant that someone had guessed the not written vowels wrong. But not so for Greek, as Greek already and a long time before had a complete alphabet where all letters were written. This kind of misspelling therefore is not logical in Greek.(NT was originally written in Greek.)

Muslims try to explain that it could not be a question of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit already was present. And the Holy Spirit was present or visited Jesus. But it was not part of the disciples – and that was what happened at Whitsun according to the Bible: They each got personal contact with the Spirit, and that is quite a change of a situation.

Muslims also say that as two different names for the Spirit is used (the Spirit of Truth and the Holy Spirit (you actually also have the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God (1. Mos. 1/2), the Spirit of the Lord, and only the Spirit)) it proves that John does not mean the Holy Spirit, when he uses the name “the Spirit of truth” – “the Spirit of truth” must mean the Muhammad that lies to his followers in the Quran (“miracles will make no-one believe”, f. x.) and advised his people to even break their oaths if that gave a better result. In addition to all the other wrong logic here, this claim is just as logical as to claim that the 99 names of Allah means there are 99 different gods, or the 5-6 or more names of Muhammad means there were 5-6 or more of him. The spirit simply is named by different names (at least 6) – and in addition it is absolutely clear that in the whole Bible there only is one spirit with a special connection to Yahweh.

There only is one conclusion – the conclusion science has made long ago – possible to make in this: This Islamic claim – like many others – either is a lie (an al-Taqiyya?) or wishful thinking. And still “the raisin in the sausage” is not mentioned:

Jesus promised his disciples a helper – a parakletos. If he had meant Muhammad, how could Muhammad be their helper when they were all dead 500 years before he was even born?? It simply is nonsense or wishful thinking.

Further the spirit according to the same verses in the Bible that Muslims quote, could not be seen. Muhammad was not difficult to see.

And another “raisin”: Also in the same verses it is said that the Spirit should be with them forever. Muhammad definitely was not with them forever – he was not even with them.

Not to mention: How do you make Jews and Christians agree on how to falsify the Bible? - f.x. the foretellings about Messiah/Jesus? - and when did they do it? Muslims like to blame Nicaea, but for one thing the agenda for that meeting is well known, and "adjustments" of the Bible was not even mentioned (but some Muslims in 2009 or 2010 screamed that they could prove that 56 points (if we remember the number correctly) in the Bible had been changed at that meeting - the word "proofs" sometimes come easy to some Muslims), and as bad: There was not one single representative for the Mosaic (Jewish) religion present.

In the thousands of manuscripts older than 610 AD - the first point of time when Christians - and also the Jews - could get a reason for such a falsification - how was it possible to erase the word parakletos with the primitive means of that time, and fill in the word periklytos instead, in such a way that modern science are unable to find physical traces from the erasing, unable to find chemical differences in the ink that was used, and unable to see any difference of the letters (all people written differently)?

There only is one conclusion – the conclusion science has made long ago – possible to make is this: This Islamic claim – like many others – either is a lie (an al-Taqiyya?) or wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking? – or a bluff? – or a lie/al-Taqiyya? At least science long ago as mentioned has proved from the old manuscripts that it is not true – the Bible never was falsified on this point either. Worse: Islam has proved the same because they, too, have been unable to find such a proved falsification in spite of intensive searching. (But Islam HAS to find him somewhere there, if not the Quran is wrong on this for Islam very essential point - and then something is seriously wrong with Islam). Also see 7/157.

(We should mention that also the apocryphal (made up) “Gospel of Barnabas” sometimes still is used as an argument, because there Muhammad is clearly mentioned (no surprise if the theory that it is made at the court in Baghdad is correct. The same if it is one of the many Islamic forgeries from Spain from around 800 AD and somewhat later). The sorry fact, though, is that a made up gospel is a made up gospel (there are a number of them) – and it tells something about Islam’s lack of arguments that they continue to insist that may be it is not made up, and therefore is a proof for Muhammad, when science is unanimous: It is one of the false ones. The only thing the “Gospel of Barnabas” in reality proves, is that Islam has no real documentation for their claim that Muhammad is mentioned in the NT, as they have to resort to this kind of argumentation).

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

#019a 61/6e: (A61/6) Here is a claim which is nearly as interesting as the claim that the word "Parakletos" must be "Periklytos" in spite of no proofs for and lots of proofs against the claim - when you really need something, the truth and proofs can go whistling a jitterbug. And almost as revealing when it comes to show what arguments - and "honesty" - Islam are willing to resort to to "prove" their claims instead of having to face difficult facts. We quote:

"An even more unequivocal prediction of the advent of the Prophet Muhammad - mentioned by name, in its Arabic form - is said to be forthcoming from the so-called Gospel of St. Barnabas (a co-worker with Paul on his first missionary journey), which, though now regarded as apocryphal, was accepted as authentic and was read in the churches until the year 496 of the Christian era, when it was banned as "heretical" by a decree of Pope Gelasius. However, since the original text of that Gospel is no available (having come down to us only in an Italian translation dating from the late sixteenth century), its authenticity cannot be established with certainty (note the wording*)".

There is a number of things we do not know about this "gospel", but most of what is known, is so well known that there is not a chance that a highly educated Muslim scholar does not know it:

The age is not known, but science has found that it cannot have been written earlier than the 8. century.

There are references in old manuscripts to an older letter or something named after Barnabas. It is lost, but it is clear that it had no connection to the claimed "Gospel of Barnabas" and that it was not at all a gospel. It also is not clear if it was real or apocryphal, but likely also this one was apocryphal.

The origin of the "gospel" is not known. One leading theory is that it is one of the many false "Christian" manuscripts produced by Muslims in Spain around the 8. and 9. century to "prove" Islam and "disprove" Christianity. Another is that it was manufactured at the court in Bagdad - in this case it may be as young as the 14. century or even a little later. 

One of the very first - if not the first - pieces of information about the "gospel" of Barnabas, was a report from someone who had travelled in Muslim area - North Africa if we remember correctly - which told that "the Muslims had a gospel unknown to the Christian Europe, and which was very different from the ones in the Bible.

It is quite normal for Muslims to talk about the older Barnabas paper as if it were the "gospel" of Barnabas - never mentioning that they were different papers, that the "Gospel" of Barnabas is too young, or that at least the "gospel" and likely both is/were apocryphal (= made up manuscripts).

The Swedish 2002 edition also this information - strangely enough omitted in the conservatively more "correct" English 2008 edition: "Concerning the - - - translation to Italian (from Arab*), which is kept in the National Library in Vienna, experts there have said they are sure that it is a copy of a work written in late Middle Age (which may indicate that the theory that it is written at the court in Baghdad may be correct*), quite likely with the intention to produce a link, admittedly a made up one, between Christianity and Islam, but without any connection to the real Gospel of Barnabas" (see the comment just above - the old scripture here referred to, was not a Gospel, but it is normal for Muslims to claim things like this*). The interesting aspect here is that it is told that it for one thing is no connection between the old Barnabas scripture and the much younger made up claimed "'Gospel' of Barnabas" and that the claimed "'Gospel' of Barnabas" really is much younger and a made up one - and not only a made up one, but made up for a purpose: To make a link between Christian and Islamic scriptures (making Islam come out on top). This is even more interesting as the claimed "'Gospel' of Barnabas" had a pretty wide circulation in Islamic areas, and is there treated like it was authentic, even though it here is documented that also the Islamic scholars know it is not - a kind of "honesty" you too often find in Islamic religious debate. 

Even if this "gospel" had existed and was read in the very old church - if modern science has found it is a made up and false scripture, it was a false scripture also in the old times, and the fact that the old priests in case were cheated, is no argument for that it may be authentic - false is false.

As for predictions in the Bible, there never is given clear names in foretelling into a medium or more distant future (if you protest and remind us about Messiah, Messiah was a title, not a name). But in this claimed "gospel" Muhammad is mentioned by his real, Arabic name - voila! - what a proof for Muhammad and Islam!! (- not very surprising if it is produced by Muslims in Spain or Baghdad or somewhere, wanting to prove Muhammad and his religion in a clumsy and too clear way).

None of these facts are mentioned in the quotation above, even though the facts are so well known that there is no chance a highly educated Muslim scholar working on stuff like this, did not know about it. And all the same the underlying indication in his words is that it is likely his "information" is true, only that it is not possible to prove it.

Are you surprised when we tell that studying Islamic religious literature is difficult and time consuming, because all "information" has to be checked, as too much is untrue or half truths - al-Taqiyyas and Kitmans. The normal rules and moral codes for honesty in religion - or honesty at all - are not accepted in Islam. Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Muhammad's advices about breaking even of oaths if that gave better results, etc. in many cases overrides normal expectations for honesty, and especially when it comes to defending or promoting Islam (but also when it f. x. comes to cheating a woman - which women should remember, especially if their "sweetheart" is a Muslim needing work permit or a "Green Card" or a residence permit (Muslim divorce is simple after he has got it) - or saving your money).

028 61/6g: (A61/7 – omitted and the text changed in 2008 edition): “But when he came to them with Clear Signs - - -.” Who is this “he”? In verse 61/6e-f the book tells about Jesus, and the natural interpretation is “he” = Jesus, but it is not clearly said. An alternative according to Islam, is “he” = Muhammad (as they claim he had clear signs). Both options are possible (but typical for the less honest 2008 edition of “The Message of the Quran”, they only mention the Muhammad alternative – “good” arguments are more essential than moral integrity and honesty also in religion - at least in some religions).

029 61/6h: "- - - Clear Signs - - -". Invalid as proofs for Allah. See 2/39b above.

###030 61/6i: (YA5436): "The mission of Jesus was to his own people, the Jews". This is a claim you often and with strength meet from many Muslims and from the official Islam - and it is quite possible to find quotes from the Bible seemingly confirming this claim - - - if you cherry-pick your quotes and omit the points which very clearly tell a different story, the most central of which in this connection we think is his final order to his disciples - never mentioned by Muslims or by Islam: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father (God/Yahweh*) and of the Son (Jesus*)and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you". (Matt.28/18-20 - similar in Mark 16/15-16 and Luke 24/47. There are more such indications in the Bible. But in Islam the main "moral aspect" is not to find the truth, but to defend what they on beforehand believe is the truth, even by means of lies and by lies of omission - the reign of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), etc. in cases where "it is necessary" to win the "points" - not to find out what is the truth, but to win the "points".

031 61/7a: "Who doth greater wrong than one who invents falsehood against Allah?" What about someone who invents a book and claims it is from Allah? - is it bad also if Allah does not exist? - what if the invented book in case denies people access to a real god (if such one exists) - is that as bad or worse?

032 61/7b: "- - - falsehood - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. And when used in religious connection it means anything not in accordance with the Quran, even though much is wrong in the Quran.

033 61/7c: "And Allah guides not those who do wrong". Allah cannot guide anyone very well as long as he uses a guidebook full of mistakes and with a partly immoral moral code.

034 61/7d: "- - - guides - - -". True guidance by means of a guidebook full of mistakes is not possible.

035 61/7e: "- - - do wrong - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. It f. x. was - AND IS - very wrong not to steal/rob, enslave, suppress, discriminate and kill for Allah or Muhammad according to that "moral" code.

036 61/8a: "Their (opponents of Muhammad*) - - -". A historical anomaly.

037 61/8b: “Their (the wrongdoers‘*) intention is to extinguish Allah’s Light - - - “ Bad and to be hated. On the other hand such a light cannot exist unless Allah exists and is a god.

038 61/8c: "- - - Allah's Light (the Quran*) - - -". No book with so many mistakes, etc. is a light to anyone, and even more so as no book of this quality is from a god - it is heresy and an insult to the god to claim this.

039 61/8d: "- - - but Allah will complete (the revelation of His Light (the Quran*)) - - -". As this was told ca. 625 AD, the Quran was not complete yet.

040 61/8e: "- - - but Allah will complete (the revelation of His Light (the Quran*)) - - -". But was it really revealed? - and in case from whom, as it is clear it is not from any god (too much is wrong in the book for that).

041 61/8f: "- - - Unbelievers - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims - at least negative in the ears of Muslims.

**042 61/9a: “It is He (Allah*) Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -”. With all those mistakes in the claimed message, it is obvious that also this claim needs proofs – especially since an illness like temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) easily can explain both his fits, his sights (?) and his other experiences (?) – TLE often gives religious illusions like this (source among others BBC). Add some personal “inspiration” or cunning to solve personal and domestic problems, and add the contemporary wrong knowledge and science, and you have the Quran exactly – with all its mistakes and other weaknesses. No omniscient god sent a messenger bringing such messages.

**043 61/9b: “It is He (Allah*) Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad*) with Guidance - - -”. A teaching based on a book containing unbelievable perhaps 3ooo+ mistakes, loose statements, contradictions, invalid “signs” and “proofs” + at least some clear lies and statements telling that Muhammad did not respect even his oaths too much, is not much of a guidance.

044 61/9c: "- - - His (Allah's*) Messenger - - -". A version of Muhammad's mantra for gluing himself to Allah - his platform of power.

045 61/9d: "- - - His (Allah's*) Messenger - - -". See 63/5a below.

046 61/9e: "- - - His (Allah's*) Messenger - - -". A historical anomaly

#####047 61/9f: “- - - the Religion of Truth - - -”. See 13/1g and 40/75. It is also worth to remember that normal people of today - and earlier times – would be reluctant with trusting or believing in a man with a CV like Islam tells Muhammad had: Robbery, extortion, women, lies, broken oaths, incitement to hate, incitement to suppression of all opponents, assassination of opponents, murder of opponents, mass murder, rape, betrayal, (30 opponents from Khaybar invited to debate under promise of safe return - but 29 murdered on the slightest excuse, the last one managed to flee), incitement to war - and lust for women and for power. We have met Muslims excusing him with that he was a hard man living in a hard time, and that he was no worse than other warlords. May be so, but he definitely was no better either, and he pretended (?) to represent a good and benevolent god. And as for the truth - the Quran at best is partly true.

048 61/9g: "- - - Truth - - -". See 2/2b, 13/1g and 40/75 above.

#####049 61/9h: “- - - the Religion of Truth, that may proclaim over all religion - - -”. This part of the quotation also tells volumes about Islam. Personally if we meet a man - or a god - telling he is benevolent, but who in reality has harsh demands or deeds or codes of conduct, we any day and any hour believe his demands and deeds and codes more than his words. Similar claim in 9/29.

050 61/9i: “- - - he (Muhammad or Allah*) may proclaim it (Islam*) over all religion, even thought the Pagans (= not Muslim, not Jew, not Christian*) may detest (it)”. What the pagans mean, counts exactly nothing (and in spite of what the Quran says in 2/256 about no compulsion in religion, thousands and thousands of them have been murdered through the times only because they refused to become Muslims - even pagan Arabs in the first years of expansion). (Something Muslims never mention, is that 2/256 is abrogated and made invalid by at least some 30 later verses in the Quran. All educated Muslims know this, but all the same they use 2/256 as a "proof" for how friendly Islam is).

The last part of the quotation also tells volumes about Islam.

***This is one of the many contradictions of the slogan “Islam is the religion of peace”.

051 61/10a: "- - - ye who believe - - -". Muslims.

######052 61/10b: "Shall I (Muhammad*) lead you to a bargain - - -". = Fight and be killed for Muhammad (and Allah if he exists) and go to Paradise. A bargain for the believers if the Quran is true and from a god - and cheap warriors for Muhammad (and his successors), especially if the bargain is not from a god (and at least the Quran and Muhammad are not - for the Quran the proof is among other things all the mistaken facts and other errors, and for Muhammad that he preached a book and a teaching consequently not from a god).

053 61/10c: "- - - (Allah can*) save you (people/Muslims*) from a grievous Penalty - - -". Only if he exists and is a god.

54 61/10d: "- - - a grievous Penalty - - -". Hell. But also see 3/77b above.

055 61/11a: “That ye (people*) believe in Allah and His Messenger - - -". = That you are a Muslim.

056 61/11b: “That ye (people*) believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: that will be best for you, if ye but knew!” War agitation. The real “Religion of Peace.”

057 61/11c: “That ye (people*) believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: that will be best for you, if ye but knew!” Strongly contradicted by the Bible. This simply is the anti-thesis of the teaching of Jesus and NT. One of the 200% proof for that Jesus and Muhammad had nothing of any essence in common - in spite of a couple of verses from NT Muslims like to quote (they claim that you cannot draw any conclusions from just one or a few verses in the Quran - you have to look at the complete book - but they themselves cherry-pick the few words in the Bible, and damn be the picture the complete book gives - - - this even if they have to twist the cherry-picked words they find to be able to use them (f.x. the word "brother" in the speech by Moses (5. Mos. 18/2+15+18+21 - well, Muslims never quotes but 18/15+18 and then twist the word "brother")). Not to mention how strongly it proves that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. 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.

058 61/11d: "- - - Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". Muhammad's standard mantra for gluing himself to his platform of power; his god.

059 61/11e: "- - - His (Allah's*) Messenger - - -". See 63/5a below.

060 61/11f: "- - - His (Allah's*) Messenger - - -". A historical anomaly

061 61/11g: "- - - in the Cause of Allah - - -". When so much is wrong in the Quran, and when the book pretends, but is not with all its mistakes, from any god , is this right? Or was it in the cause of Muhammad? - or perhaps in the cause of some dark forces, like the moral code of the book may indicate?

062 61/11h: "- - - that will be best for you, if ye but knew!” Only the Quran tells the full truth and the whole truth and with nothing wrong in that book. Especially if Allah is part of the dark forces it may not be the best. Not to mention if there is a second life and there is a good and benevolent real god "over there" - one Muhammad prohibited his followers from looking for.

063 61/12a: “(If you go to war and/or are killed for Muhammad*) He (Allah*) will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of eternity - - -.” There once was a cheap book named “All this and Heaven too”. It is similar here: all the rape and stealing and slaves you can manage – and for those good, benevolent deeds for your as benevolent god: The Paradise with more luxury and more women. Nice and attractive for naïve, poor and virile – not to say virulent – uncivilized young and not young men.

064 61/12b: "- - - forgive - - -". Allah can forgive nobody, unless he exists and is a god.

065 61/12c: "- - - sin - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. We also may mention that just this word often covers very different deeds, acts, words, and thoughts in the Quran and Islam, than in more normal religions (Islam is a religion of war - in spite of its loud slogans), not to mention how much its meaning in the Quran often differs from the basic of all human moral; "do against others like you want others do against you". Read the surahs from Medina and weep.

One small remark: As Yahweh's religion and f.x. moral code at many points are totally different from Allah's, you may qualify for Yahweh's Paradise even if Muslims condemn you to Hell - if both exist. One more of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

066 61/12d: “(If you go to war and/or are killed for Muhammad*) He (Allah*) will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of eternity - - -.” Try to find something even remotely similar to this in the NT!! The same god? Make a bet.

067 61/12e: "- - - Gardens beneath which rivers flow". The Quran's and Islam's Paradise - see 10/9f above. Also the most frequently used Arabism in the Quran.

068 61/12f: "- - - beautiful mansions - - -". Muhammad's paradise was and is a luxury copy of an emperors life on Earth - but helplessly boring for f.x. intellectual persons, if the descriptions in the Quran are correct.

069 61/12g: "- - - Gardens of Eternity - - -". But 11/108c may indicate that it is not quite forever. It is an unclear point for Muslims, and is often explained away with claims that it just means transfer to an even better paradise - but that is not said in the Quran.

070 61/12h: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b.

#071 61/12i: "- - - that (Allah's paradise*) is the Supreme Achievement". There is no doubt that Yahweh's paradise sounds more tempting - where you become like angels (f.x. Mark 12/25). Allah's paradise is a worthy reward from a king or an emperor. Yahweh's paradise is a worthy reward from a god.

#072 61/12j: "- - - that (Allah's paradise*) is the Supreme Achievement". One more solid proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, not to mention that Jesus and Muhammad are fundamentally too different to have deep similarities on central points.

073 61/13a: "And another (favor will He (Allah*) bestow) - - -". The old, black fact once more: One of the many never proved promises in the Quran which cannot be honored unless Allah exists and is a god.

074 61/13b: “(And in war you will get*) help from Allah and a speedy victory.” See 61/12a above – and in addition you will not have to fight much, for the victory will be easy. Yes, the religion of Peace*.

075 61/13c: “(And in war you will get*) help from Allah and a speedy victory.” One more strong proof for that Yahweh - especially like you meet him in NT - is not the same god as Allah, and the same for that Jesus and Muhammad have few, if any, of deep moral, etc. similarities.

076 61/13d: (A61/13): “- - - help from Allah and a speedy victory.” Is this pep-talk? (No Muslim will agree). Is it hope for capturing Mecca? – this was said 4 – 5 years earlier. Is it referring to one or more of the raids the Muslims had started to make a couple of years before (this surah is from 625 - 626 AD)? – or raids to come? Or a general hope for the future? Make your guess – nobody knows unless they judge from wishful thinking or “correct” meanings, as the book says nothing. Very clear speech.

077 61/13e: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -“. Permission to steal/rob, suppress, rape, enslave, keep harems, murder, etc. which are central parts of the Quran – is that “Glad Tidings”? Direct orders to go to war and kill and suppress and enslave and loot and destruct – or be killed or mutilated yourself - is that “Glad Tidings”? Direct orders to concentrate only on religious knowledge (indirectly very clear in the Quran and directly and unmistakably very clear in Islam from very early – and totally dominant from 1095 AD) – is that “Glad Tidings”? Total destruction of all advanced countries and cultures they met in Africa, Europe and Asia at least as far east as what was then India – destruction it took the locals at least 200 years to overcome (if ever) – is that “Glad Tidings”? The inhumanity in the war religion – is that “Glad Tidings”? The reduction of women to third class citizens – if really citizens – (Islam’s claim that women were/are better off under Islam than before only is true for some parts of what is now the Muslim area, mainly in towns in parts of Arabia – and even there it had not necessarily been true today if it was not for the suppressing factor of Islam) – is that “Glad Tidings”? The enslavement and suppression and mass murders/slaughtering of non-Muslims – was and is (see Muslims at waging war and terror even today) that “Glad Tidings”? What a war religion did and does to the societies and the personal soul – is that “Glad Tidings”? The suppression of thinking – all non-religious philosophy, and all religious non-conform (to Islam) thinking – is that “Glad Tidings”? Well, yes, for some Muslims – the ones of the warriors who survived in good health and became rich from looting, and the ones of the leaders who became rich in wealth and women from looting/slave taking and taxation plus became powerful, then and today.

For everyone else it was everything from “Bad Tidings” to terror – and still is (just look at the backward societies it resulted in once the riches from looting came to an end – and even worse when the hard taxation or pogroms of non-Muslim underlings, reduced the number and/or economy of those underlings. Look f.x. at the development in India, China, Brazil of today – especially India and China were far behind the Islamic countries 60 years ago, but what has been happening during these years? Take away the oil, the money from outside the area and the ideas from outside, more or less forced on the clergy and the leaders from media and others – what has really happened in the Islamic area since f.x. 1950 compared to many other places?

Yes: For everyone else included most Muslims it was and still is everything from “Bad Tidings” to terror.

Especially so if Islam is a made up religion. And even more so if there somewhere is a true religion that Islam blocks its members from even looking for.

The very best one can say about the Quran and “Glad Tidings”, is that for some parts of it partly were glad tidings because they grew rich and/or powerful, and that for some others parts of it brings peace to the soul – like strong believers gain from ANY of the main religions.

For all others – included the majority of Muslims – it as said was “Bad Tidings”. And as said especially so if Islam is a made up religion. Which it seems to be from the proofs of the Quran and the words and life of Muhammad.

This claim about "glad tidings" is contradicted by stark and black reality and history.

078 61/13f: "- - - the Believers". Muslims.

079 61/14a: "- - - ye who believe - - -". Muslims.

080 61/14b: "- - - Jesus the son of Mary - - -". Wrong name. See 5/110a above.

081 61/14c: “- - - said Jesus - - - to the Disciples,’ Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?’” If Jesus had said this about a known pagan god in a neighboring country (al-Lah in Arabia), he for one thing had got few followers, and for another had been killed by the Jewish clergy much earlier. Contradicted by reality. Also see 61/6a-f + 3/51 in the full list in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". Similar claim in 3/52.

But of course the disciples – also here according to the Quran - were good Muslims. 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.

082 61/14d: “Said the Disciples, ’We are Allah’s helpers”. See 61/14a, 61/6 (all comments) above.

083 61/14e: "- - - then a portion of the Children of Israel believed - - -". Yes, but not in Allah. Even if we omit the information in the Bible, there is not one historical source indicating a warlike religion like Islam in that area at that time. Historically wrong simply - at least if Islam does not prove - prove otherwise, and now we are so far into the dawn of history, that historical proofs should be possible (a growing and soon big, warlike sect would have caused remarks in history).

084 61/14f: "- - - Children of Israel - - -". The Jews.

085 61/14g: "- - - We (Allah) gave power to those who believed - - -". Wrong as far as the "Sons of Israel" goes. Just a minor percent of them believed in Jesus - the great majority stayed - and stay - on in the Mosaic religion. The Christian religion expanded in the pagan areas, not much in Israel/Judah. (But beware of that depending on what time-span you choose, it is easy to claim that the Jews lost Israel - or regained it).

Surah 61: Sub-total: 85 + 18.675 = 18.760 comments.


>>> 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".