1000+ Comments on the Quran: Surah 7 -- Al-A'raf (The Heights)

Revelation: Mecca, 621 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 7/1: "Alif, Lam, Mim, Sad". Many of the surahs start with 2 - 5 Arab letters. They are called "abbreviated letters", and nobody knows why they are there or what they mean (like many Muslims like to claim; "the language in the Quran is clear and easy to understand"). A few times they make a word - by intention or by accident - but in those cases the word has no connection to the contents of the surah.

003 7/2a: “A Book (the Quran*) revealed unto thee (Muhammad*)”. Can a book with so many mistakes be revealed by an omniscient god? Simply no.

004 7/2b: "- - - revealed - - -". See 2/136a, 4/47c and 5/59e above and 13/1f below.

005 7/2c: "- - - with it (the Quran*) thou (Muhammad*) mightest warn (the erring (non-Muslims*)) - - -". This was in 621 AD - Muhammad did not have power to do anything but "warn". This changed quite a lot as he started to gain power from 622 624 AD on - he little by little also became an enforcer. The same for his successors - most of Arabia and much of the rest of the now Islamic area became Muslim by different kinds of force backed by the sword.

006 7/2d: "- - - (the erring (= non-Muslims)) - - -". As the Quran is not from any god with all its. mistakes, etc., it may be a relevant question: Who belongs to the group "the erring"?

007 7/2e: "- - - (the erring (= non-Muslims)) - - -". One of Muhammad's negative names for non-Muslims.

008 7/2f: "- - - and teach the Believers". Can you teach anyone what is right from a book where much is wrong? - and can you teach s right religion from a book where there is no god behind (no god had made so many errors, etc.)?

009 7/2g: "- - - Believers". Muslims - only Muslims believe according to the Quran.

010 7/3a: “Follow (O People!) the revelations (the Quran*) given onto you from your Lord, - - -”. No omniscient god has made such book. Either Allah is not omniscient, or someone else has made it.

011 7/3b: "- - - revelations - - -". See 4/47c and 5/59e above.

012 7/3c: (A7/3): “Follow (O People!) the revelations given onto you from your Lord (Allah*), and follow not, as friends or protectors other than Him”. So far so well. But the unclear point is: How wide is this prohibition? Does the Quran here only mean in religious questions? Or are f.x. earthly laws included? Many Islamic thinkers claim so – f.x. Ibn Hasm and Ibn Tamiyyah. They say that laws not given in the Quran have no legal validity. But does this also go for laws supplementing laws given in the Quran? – f.x. concerning inheritance where the rules in the Quran far from always add up to 100% of the inheritance? (Real life has forced Islam to make such rules, but is that strictly in accordance with the religion?). And what about modern life and necessary laws – f.x. concerning road traffic? – do such laws have real legal validity (it is a serious problem if not, for you cannot demand that people respect invalid laws – or accept to be punished for breaking them.) And what about facts mentioned in the claimed revelations, but which all the same are wrong? – it just is some few years since clergy in Saudi Arabia told it was wrong to accept the belief that Earth is spherical, because according to the Quran it is flat).

These are points which are unclear because of unclear and not specific texts in the Quran.

013 7/3d: "- - - follow not, as friends or protectors, others than Him (Allah*)". Contradicted by the Bible, which says you should follow Yahweh.

*014 7/4a: “How many towns have We (Allah) destroyed (for their sins)?” There were scattered ruins and there were tales about former tribes in Arabia. Muhammad said they all were destroyed as punishment for their sins. This hardly is true - and science simply does not believe him. Proofs for his claim are needed.

015 7/4b: “How many towns have We (Allah) destroyed (for their sins)?” Some complain about Yahweh being harsh in OT. Some claim that Allah is a good and benevolent good. But if you read the Quran you will find that Allah has destroyed and killed many more than Yahweh - and if Allah = Yahweh like the Quran and Islam claim, Allah has made all the destruction and killing in the Bible (under the name of Yahweh), plus all the destruction and killing in the Quran, plus all the destruction and killing his followers have done till now through history in accordance with the Quran, plus all the destruction and killings the Muslims do today and will do in the future in accordance with the Quran's incitements and orders. A good and benevolent god and religion? The religion of peace? The claims are insults to the intelligence of anyone who have studied the facts with an open mind. (One may counter that also Christians have caused destruction and deaths. But for one thing: Read the NT and you will see it is in spite of the texts there - even though the Bible sometimes has been disused for purposes of power or wealth - not because of the "holy" texts, like in the Quran. Even in OT the fighting was for a nation, not for a religion. And for another: Bad deeds by non-Muslims do not make bad deeds made by Muslims one molecule or atom better. And especially not so when it is done by religious demands and orders from their god - orders which are stated to last forever until everybody else are "thoroughly suppressed" under the Muslims.

016 7/5a: "- - - Our (Allah's*) punishment - - -". See 3/77b above.

017 7/5b: "Indeed we (non-Muslims*) did wrong". This is not what people in panic trying to get out alive, would scream about. But see 7/5c just below.

018 7/5c: "Indeed we (non-Muslims*) did wrong". Repairing "buyers' remorse" for new "believers" and strengthening the moral of the old ones. There is not a little of this in the Quran - Muhammad knew a lot about psychology and how to handle people - - - like many of his kinds do (many a man has used religion to gain power).

019 7/5d: "Indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

020 7/5e: "- - - no cry did they (non-Muslims during a catastrophe*) utter but this: 'Indeed we did wrong'". Wrong: In the panic during a catastrophe your brain has just one thought: To get out alive.

021 7/6a: "Then shall We (Allah*) question those - - -". Why does an omniscient god need to ask questions, when he according to the Quran knows every detail already - and even has predestined everything?

022 7/6b: "- - - Our (Allah's) Message (the Quran*) - - -". No god ever sent a message that full of errors, etc.

023 7/6c: "- - - those by whom We (Allah*) sent it (the Quran*)". See 7/6b just above.

024 7/6d: "- - - those by whom We sent it (the claimed messages*)". = The claimed prophets/messengers. Islam claims there have been 124ooo or more (according to Hadiths) prophets through the times preaching Islam. There is not a single trace of any of them except Muhammad. Believe the claim if you want - for us to believe it, we need some proofs. A few prophets have changed the world history thoroughly - whereas 124ooo have left not even a whisper of a trace. Proofs really are needed.

025 7/7a: "Verily - - -". See 2/2b above.

026 7/7b: "- - - We (Allah*) were never absent (and saw everything*) - - -". A threat and a reminder: Be a good and obedient Muslims, or Allah will punish you in the claimed next life. But also see 2/233h above and 35/38b below.

##027 7/7c: "- - - We (Allah*) were never absent (and saw everything*) - - -". See 2/233h above and 35/38b below.

028 7/8a: "- - - that day - - -". The Day of Doom.

029 7/8b: "- - - those whose scale (of good) will be heavy - - -". This includes all kinds of thieving, lying, discrimination mongering, suppressing, enslaving, torture, rape, murder, etc. if it is done in the name of "Allah and His Prophet" during a Jihad - and practically every conflict and raid was and is claimed to be Jihad.

030 7/8c: "- - - scale - - -". It is claimed that good and bad deeds are weighed on a scale at the Day of Doom.

031 7/9a: "- - - wrongfully - - -". See 2/2b above./p>

032 7/9b: “- - - Our (Allah's) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

033 7/10a: "It is We (Allah*) Who has placed you (people*) with authority on earth - - -". One of Muhammad's many, many cases where he without even trying to prove anything claims natural phenomena as indication, proof, and glorification for his god - claims as invalid as when any pagan priest makes the same claims as easy and cheap for his god(s), as long as it is not proved that it really was Allah who made or caused the phenomenon.

034 7/10b: "- - - and provided you (people*) with means for the fulfillment of your life - - -". See 7/10a just above.

035 7/11a: "It is We (Allah*) who created you - - -." See 6/2a and especially 6/2b plus 7/10a above.

036 7/11b: “- - - We (Allah*) bade the angels bow down to Adam, and they bowed down; not so Iblis (the future Devil) - - -.” But was Iblis an angel, like it is indicated here? It is said several places in the Quran that he was created from fire (f. ex. 7/12), which means he was a jinn (angles are created from light, according to the Quran). An unclear point in Islam, but most scholars mean he was a jinn. (Jinns are beings "borrowed" from old Arab pagan religion, legends and fairy tales.

#037 7/11 - 18: The story about Iblis/the Devil and Adam is not from the Bible. There also is nothing similar. From where did he get it? - not from a god, as too much is wrong in the Quran to be from a god, and not from a devil, as a devil would not give negative information about himself. The only remaining alternative is from man.

038 7/12a: "Thou (Allah*) didst create me (Iblis - the Devil*) from fire - - -". There is some debate in Islam - is Iblis originally an angel? F.x. the previous verse, 7/11b, may indicate that. But this verse clearly indicates he originally was a jinn (a being from old Arab fairy tales, legends, and pagan religion), because according to the Quran Allah created jinns from fire, whereas angels were created from light.

039 7/12b: "Thou (Allah*) didst create me (Iblis - the Devil*) from fire - - -". Not from the Bible - see 7/11-18 above.

040 7/12c: “Thou (Allah*) didst create - - - him (Adam*) from clay.” This is contradicted by 6/2, 7/12, 17/61, 32/7, 38/71, 15/26, 15/26, and 15/33 which tell man/Adam was made from sounding clay, 55/14 which tells man/Adam was made from ringing clay, 37/11 which tells man/Adam was made from sticky clay, 23/12, which tells man/Adam was made from essence of clay, 15/26, 15/28, and 15/33 which tell man/Adam was made from mud, 3/59, 22/5,35/11, 40/67, which tell man/Adam was made from dust, 20/55 which tells man/Adam was made from earth, 96/2 which tells man/Adam was made from a clot of congealed blood, 16/4, 75/37, 76/2, 80/19, which tell man/Adam was made from semen (without explaining from where the semen came), 21/30, 24/45, and 25/54 which tell man/Adam was made from water (NB! NB! Not in water, but from water!), 70/39 which tells man/Adam was made from “base material”, and not to mention the greatest contradiction in this case: 19/9 and 19/67 which both tell that man/Adam was created from nothing. (Also see verse 6/2a and 6/2b.) (Strictly reckoned this contradicts 25 other verses. But minimum 10 contradictions. Not to mention the real contradiction: Man was not created - Adam never was, at least not like told in the Quran. Man developed from earlier primates.)

041 7/13-16a: This was the reason for Hell - but it is not from the Bible.

042 7/13-16b: This was the reason for Hell - though many Muslim scholars believe that also Hell is part of Allah's plan, as Allah is too strong to permit Hell if he did not want it, and if it was not part of his plan. But what kind of a sadistic god is then Allah? - because Hell as described in the Quran is pure and - well, devilish - sadism.

*043 7/16a: (A10 – in 2008 edition A11): “Because Thou (Allah*) has thrown me (Iblis – the Devil*) out of the Way - - -.” But is this really what Muhammad meant? Because the Arab word “aghwahu” which is used here, is an unclear word with many meanings. This sentence at least can have these meanings:

“Because Thou has thrown me out of the way - - -.”

”Because Thou hast thwarted me - - -.”

”Because Thou hast caused me to err - - -.”

”Because Thou hast allowed me to err - - -.”

”Because Thou hast caused me to be disappointed - - -.”

”Because Thou hast caused me to fail my desire - - -.”

As said before: Also Arab language – like all other languages - has words with more than one meaning. And in such cases Arab is not one millimeter more exact than other languages, even if you find only one word (with multiple meanings) in the Quran, but have to use different words in another language to cover the different meanings. To claim that Arab in such cases is more clear and/or exact when it in reality is vague and unclear, is just hypocrisy or dishonesty - - - or al-Taqiyya.

044 7/16b: "- - - Thy (Allah's*) Straight Way". Can a crocked book like the Quran map a straight way? (It may be impolite to mention it, but the expression "the straight way" always gives us associations to the Biblical "the wide road" - leading to Hell (in contrast to "the narrow road" leading to Paradise). It may be symptomatic that the Bible talks about the difficult road - "the narrow road" - to Paradise, whereas the Quran indicates the easy one - "the straight road". Is it also symptomatic that populists often preach the easy solutions, and that many a self proclaimed prophet through the times has been ).

045 7/17: (A7/11): “Then will I (Iblis - the Devil*) assault them from before them and behind them - - - .” But according to “The Message of the Quran” the Arab sentence also may mean (translated from Swedish): “- - - I will assault them openly and lead them on hidden roads - - -.” At least 2 different variants of that sentence. And these variants also are in the Arab text, too, as the relevant word there like so often has more than one meaning. Clear language?

046 7/18: "- - - Hell will I (Allah*) fill with you all". A god who fills a hell with predestined victims, is he a good and benevolent god?

047 7/18 - 25: The story about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is roughly similar to the one in the Bible - though the Bible is better as literature also here - but details differ, and also many details lack in the Quran compared to in the Bible. There are two marked differences, though: For one thing (not mentioned here) the sin in Eden did not result in the "inherited sin" in Islam like in the Bible. And the other is the quote from 6/24 just below.

##048 7/24: "Get ye (Adam and Eve*) down, with enmity between yourself". May be Islam has comments on this, but we have never seen one. The message is clear: There will be enmity between man and woman. And when you see the status and the treatment of women in Islam, that may well be the case in Islam - with the man as the winner and the woman as the suppressed vanquished loser.

On this point the Bible has another story. In the Bible it was the snake who made Eve pick the forbidden fruit, and because of that Yahweh said there should be enmity between man and snake - and that is quite something different from enmity between man and woman.

A possible explanation for the story in the Quran is that Muhammad did not know the Bible well - this is a well known fact - and misunderstood the story (especially before he came to Medina where there lived many Jews, in 622 AD, he had very superficial knowledge of the Bible, and this surah is from 621 AD).

049 7/26a: "- - - Children of Adam - - -". Man.

050 7/26b: "- - - righteousness - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

051 7/26c: “- - - Sign of Allah - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

052 7/27a: "- - - Children of Adam - - -". Man.

053 7/27b: "- - - We (Allah*) made the Satan friends (only) to those without Faith". Parts of the Quran's moral code and also parts of sharia, not to mention its rules for raids and war, may indicate another truth and make one wonder who are really the friends of Satan.

054 7/27c: "- - - those without Faith - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims.

055 7/28a: "When they do aught that is shameful, they say: 'We found our fathers doing so;' and 'Allah commanded us thus". Read f.x. the immoral parts of the Quran's moral code, its unjust and/or immoral parts of the sharia laws + its rules for raids, wars and behavior during and after such, and see if this verse is about the Muslims. Also see 7/27b just below.

056 7/28aa: "When they do aught that is shameful, they say: 'We found our fathers doing so - - -". One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 3 reasons - 2 of them unavoidable - for this:

When something is changed, automatically the future is changed.

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

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

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

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

###057 7/28ab: "We found our fathers doing so". The reason why Muslims keep believing in the Quran, is that their fathers - and surroundings - tell them that the Quran must be true, and then they blindly believe this. But it is not possible for a person with reasonable knowledge about the world and different sciences, and with a reasonable quality brain, who study the Quran honestly trying to find out; "is this true or not" not to end in skepticism or stronger.

###058 7/28b: “Allah never commands what is shameful - - -.” This is contradicted by several points in the Quran, f.x.:

2/230: “If a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, remarry her until after she has married another husband and he has divorced her.” This situation is not common, but it does happen in a culture where divorce is so easy as in Islam. In Islam the woman then has to prostitute herself in legal forms, to be permitted to do so (the intermediate marriage has to be a “fulfilled" one).

Enslaving is “good and lawful”.

Killing and murdering and war are not only good and lawful, but the best service to Allah.

A raped woman who cannot produce 4 male witnesses to the very act, is to be punishes severely for indecency.

Allah commands/permits sex with children. For an adult to enjoy sex with a child is utterly shameful. For an adult to introduce a child to sex is inhuman and even more shameful. Muhammad even demonstrated that it was ok at least from the girl is 9 – and worse: She – Aishah - became his favorite wife the rest of her childhood.

Allah commands that one can take slaves in a jihad - and any skirmish or war where Muslims are involved, is declared jihad. For centuries (till ca. 1930 – 1940) all the four law schools of Islam said that if the opposite parts were pagans, this was good enough reason to declare jihad – which means that at least theoretically any slave hunter in Africa or Asia could claim to be waging jihad. To force fellow humans to become slaves, to toil for free for you, to be free for you to sell or mistreat or use for a sex toy, is utterly inhuman, utterly selfish, utterly immoral – and utterly shameful. Not to mention that it is a grotesque act to commit in the name of a presumed god and benevolent good.

To rape a child captive/slave/victim is grotesquely selfish, immoral, inhuman and grotesquely shameful - - - but Allah has commanded that it is ok if the child is mot pregnant - and over 9 years according to Islam (the age of Aishah when Muhammad started to have sex with her - anything Muhammad did is just and right).

To rape any woman prisoner/slave/victim – a fellow human being – is nearly as selfish and shameful and bad as raping a child. But in the Quran it is “good and lawful” if the woman is not pregnant. That it is "good and lawful" may be a reason why rape is so common by Muslim warriors/soldiers. (Another possible reason is that empathy is not an integrated part of Islam - and the same with moral philosophy).

To murder opponents – also personal opponents – in the name of a presumably good god is something much more than shameful.

To incite to discrimination, hate and war, in the name of a presumably good god is even worse than this again – and a proof for a god or a “prophet” full of hypocrisy.

To steal/rob/plunder and extort in the name of such a god – and with his permission as “good and lawful” - is nearly a bad and as much hypocrisy as raping and killing and apartheid/suppression. And to do so in the name of a god, makes the god, the religion and the acts even more perverted and distasteful. But all these points have this in common:

They attract selfish warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.

They attract greedy warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.

They attract inhuman warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.

They attract primitive warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.

It is a cheap way for a robber “prophet” – and for his successors – to get an army – a cheap army and an inhuman army.

Finally: Severe or capital punishment for a woman who has been raped, but is unable to produce 4 male eye witnesses to the very act most likely is the most inhuman, most immoral, most unjust, and most shameful law we have ever come across in any at least half civilized religion or culture, and Allah/Muhammad has introduced this law.

059 7/28c: "- - - do ye (non-Muslims*) say of Allah what ye know not?" But is the Quran saying about Allah what it knows not, like all the mistakes, etc. indicates? - and may this in case be because there is no god behind the Quran, like all the mistakes, etc. prove?

060 7/29a: “My Lord (Allah*) has commanded justice - - -“. This only is partly true. See 7/28b above.

061 7/29b: "- - - set ye (Muslims/people*) your whole selves (to Him (Allah*)) - - -". This may be a bit risky if he does not exist.

##062 7/29c: "- - - prayer - - -". What is the idea of praying for anything in Islam? According to the Quran - and Hadiths - Allah has predestined every detail in your and everyone else's life according to his unchangeable Plan - a Plan "nobody and nothing" can change. Thus prayers can have no effect and can change nothing, and just is a waste of time and effort - a fact (if the stated predestination is correct - and if it is not, the Quran is wrong) no Muslim ever mentions or tries to explain. 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.)

**063 7/29d:"- - - He (Allah*) created you - - -". There must be at least a hundred places in the Quran where Muhammad takes a natural phenomenon and claims it is Allah who is behind it. This for:

Glorification of his god.

Indication of his god's existence.

"Sign" - which in "Quran-speak" indicates proof - for his god's existence.

"Proof" for his god's existence.

"Proof" for his god's power.

A few times as proof for other gods' non-existence ("Allah makes the sun rise in the east, your god cannot make it rise in the west - your god does not exist".)</0l>

All this have one thing in common: They are utterly invalid words as long as it is not proved it really is Allah who makes those things happen - something the Quran never even tries to prove. Not once. It just is cheap, valueless words any priest and any believer in any religion freely can use free of charge on behalf of his/her god(s) as long as they can evade all requests for proving anything - like the Quran always does. Here it in addition is an extra curious point as the Quran "always" demands proofs from others, but never proves anything - anything - of any consequence itself. (The same to a large degree goes for Islam and for Muslims today - twisted logic, loose claims and cheap words, often lots of them, but no valid proofs for any of the central questions. Not one of the central points - in reality claims only - is proved in Islam. Everything only builds on the words of Muhammad - a man even the Quran and the Hadiths prove to be a man of very doubtful moral, as soon as you omit the glorifying cheap words, and look at the realities; what he demanded and did and permitted, what rules he introduced, etc.) Also see 21/56c below.

064 7/30a: "Some (persons*) He (Allah*) hath guided (by means of the Quran) - - -". See 16/107 below.

065 7/30b: "- - - others (non-Muslims*) have (by their choice) deserved the loss of their way - - -". How is this possible if Allah predestines everything, like the Quran claims strongly and often?

066 7/30c: "- - - they took Satan, in preference of Allah, for their friends and patrons". The Quran claims that everyone who does not believe in Allah, are the friends of Satan. This for one thing presumes that Allah exists and is a god, neither of which is ever proved. And for another thing that no other real god - f.x. Yahweh exists.

067 7/30d: "- - - and (wrongly*) think that they receive guidance". This is what the Muslims do if the Quran is a made up book - and with all its errors, etc. it at least is from no god.

068 7/31a: "- - - Children of Adam - - -". Man.

##069 7/31b: "- - - prayer - - -".What is the idea of praying for anything in Islam? According to the Quran - and Hadiths - Allah has predestined every detail in your and everyone else's life according to his unchangeable Plan - a Plan "nobody and nothing" can change. Thus prayers can have no effect and can change nothing, and just is a waste of time and effort - a fact (if the stated predestination is correct - and if it is not, the Quran is wrong) no Muslim ever mentions or tries to explain.

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.)

070 7/31c: "- - - waste not by excess - - -". Islam often advices "the middle way", at least in economical questions. There is a slight chance that this idea comes from Buddhism - the Arabs were traders with contacts far and wide, and had contacts also in the east. (And at that time - before Muslims literally murdered most of them - a large percentage of the people in what is now India and Pakistan were Buddhists, so the distance was not very far).

071 7/32a: "- - - which He (Allah*) hath produced for His servants (people*) - - - for sustenance - - -". Allah has produced everything according to the Quran. Also see 7/29d above.

072 7/32b: "They (the good things*) are - - - purely for them (Muslims*) on the Day of Judgment". If Allah exists, if he is a central god - and if the Quran tells the full truth and only the truth.

073 7/32c: "They (the good things*) are - - - purely for them (Muslims*) on the Day of Judgment". Strongly contradicted by the Bible, which states that the good things - Paradise - are for believers in 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.

074 7/32d: "Thus do We (Allah*) explain the Signs in detail - - -". But there is no explanation of Allah's claimed signs in this verse. A book so clear and easy that it only can be made by a god?

076 7/32f: “- - - Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

077 7/33a: “The things my (Muhammad’s or Muslims’*) Lord (Allah*) hath indeed forbidden are: shameful deeds - - -“. This only is partly true – see 7/28b above.

078 7/33b: “The things my (Muhammad’s or Muslims’*) Lord (Allah*) hath indeed forbidden are: - - - sins - - -“. There are quite a number of things permitted or demanded in the Quran which are sins according to all normal ethical and moral philosophies and rules, not to mention against NT. A religion of war and suppression needs un-normal ethical and moral rules on a number of points.

079 7/33c: “The things my (Muhammad’s or Muslims’*) Lord (Allah*) hath indeed forbidden are: - - - trespass against truth - - -". There are many things not true in the Quran - f.x. all the mistaken facts. Are they forbidden?

080 7/33d: "- - - truth - - -". See 2/2b above.

081 7/33e: “The things my (Muhammad’s or Muslims’*) Lord (Allah*) hath indeed forbidden are: - - - trespass against - - - reason - - -". All the places Muhammad uses invalid logic are trespasses against reason. The same goes for not a few of all the mistakes in the Quran.

082 7/33f: “The things my (Muhammad’s or Muslims’*) Lord (Allah*) hath indeed forbidden are: - - - trespasses against - - - reason - - -". There are many things in the Quran trespassing reason - f.x. all the (wrong) ways Adam is created, the astronomy and geography, not to mention some of the laws and parts of the moral code.

083 7/33g: "- - - assigning partners to Allah - - -". Wrong. Most non-Muslims do not assign partners to Allah. They simply do not believe he exists and instead believe in other gods - or another god (like Yahweh). Assigning partners to Allah, was only done in the old Arabia, and really not to Allah, but to Allah before he was dressed up by Muhammad and still was the pagan god al-Lah - an Arabism (see 4/13d above).

084 7/33h: "- - - saying things about Allah of which ye have no knowledge". There at least is one point where the knowledge is obvious: No omniscient good ever had anything to do with the Quran - too much is wrong in that book.

085 7/33i: "- - - knowledge - - -". see 26/83a below.

#086 7/34a: “To every people (nation, community*) is a term appointed - - -.” The fate of every nation/people is predestined - like everything else. And nothing can change Allah's Plan. (PS: As nothing can change his plan, why then pray for help then you are in difficulties? - nothing can be changed.Also: Man can have absolutely no free will - even a litto free will is mutual excluding to full predestination-.

087 7/34b: (YA1017): “To every People (nation*) is a term appointed - - -.” But the Arab word here used for “people” – “ummah” - also may mean “generation”. In that case the meaning is: “To every generation is a term appointed - - -.” Not quite the same to use an understatement. Clear language in the Quran?

088 7/34c: "- - - not an hour can they (humans*) cause delay, nor (an hour) can they advance (it in anticipation)." Predestination is absolute - man can do exactly nothing. Which means that man's claimed free will is an illusion. But it also means that war and battles are not dangerous - you do not die until your time is out, but then you die either you are in the midst of a hard battle, working in your fields, or sleeping in your bed. A very nice religion for a robber baron and for a warlord - wrong of course, which is easy to prove nowadays with statistics, but naive people even today may believe in it. But also see 7/34a above: Have prayers any meaning at all in Islam, when prayers can change nothing?

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

089 7/35a: "- - - Children of Adam - - -". Man.

090 7/35b: “- - - My (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/3b above.

091 7/35c: "- - - righteous - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

092 7/35d: "- - - on them (good Muslims*) shall be no fear nor shall they grieve". If the Quran tells the full truth and only the truth about everything.

093 7/35e Verse 7/35 is a little complicated written. In plain words: When prophets for Allah come to your community, good Muslims will benefit. (Whether it is true or not is another question.)

094 7/36a: "- - - those who reject Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative - at least to Muslims - names for non-Muslims.

095 7/36b: “- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

096 7/36c: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) are Companions of the Fire - - -". See 3/77b above.

097 7/36d: "- - - Companions of the Fire - - -". Persons destined to end in Hell.

098 7/36e: "- - - the Fire - - -". Hell.

099 7/36f: "- - - 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 Muslims: 6/128c, 11/176b, 43/74d, 51/13c, and 78/23. One of the verses also may indicate that Paradise also is not quite forever: 11/108c.

100 7/37a: "Who is more unjust than one who invents lies against Allah or rejects His Signs?" A pretty ironic sentence if the Quran is a made up book, not to mention if it is from the dark forces - and with all those mistakes, contradictions, etc, it at least is not from a god - no god makes such mistakes. But nice for Muhammad if it was he who made it up - he knew that no matter what he said or did there was no Allah to punish him if the religion was fiction,

101 7/37b: “- - - His (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b and 6/158b above.

068a 7/37c: "- - - the Book (of Decrees) - - -". This simply is a reference to Allah's predestination: What he has decreed - what he has predestined. As there is no dogma about a "book of decrees", we guess here is used figurative speech.

102 7/37d: "- - - the things (gods*) that ye (non-Muslims*) used to invoke besides Allah - - -". See 2/165c above and 25/18a below.

103 7/37e: "- - - witness - - -". Why did an omniscient god even bother with witnesses - or throw away time listening to things he already knew?

104 7/37-38: These two verses are pep-talk.

105 7/38a: "- - - men and Jinns - into the Fire". Not from the Bible - there are no jinns.

106 7/38b: "- - - Jinns - - -". A being from Arab folklore, fairy tales and pagan religion which Muhammad has taken into Islam. An Arabism - see 4/13d above - as they only existed (?) in Arabia and neighboring areas.

107 7/38c: "- - - the Fire - - -". Hell.

108 7/38d: (A7/28): “Saith the last about the first”. “The last” may mean “the ones who arrived last”, or “the followers (of leaders*)” whereas “the first” may mean “the first of them to arrive” or “the leaders”. 2 meanings. And these variants as normal also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning. Clear language?

109 7/38e: "Doubled (punishment*) for all". Some Muslim scholars say this means first punishment for your sins, and then once more for the bad example you have been to others, included youths and children.

110 7/39a: (A7/30): “No advantage have ye (the latest arrivals in Hell?*) over us (the earlier arrivals?*) - - -.” But according to “The Message of the Quran” the Arab text also may mean: “You are not superior to us because you have learnt nothing from our mistakes.” At least 2 meanings. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning. A language does not become distinct and easy to understand from using unclear words.

111 7/39b: "- - - the Penalty - - -". See 3/77b above.

112 7/40a: "- - - those who reject Our (Allah's*) Signs and treat them with arrogance - - -"One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims.

113 7/40b: “- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

***114 7/40c: (A7/32): “- - - nor will they (non-Muslims/sinners*) enter the Garden (Paradise*), until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle - - -“. But here is a wrong translation according to “The Message of the Quran” – wrong even if it is widely used. And this claim is so strongly stressed and under built (Zamakhshari, Rezi, and others), that it is likely to be true – this even more so as the book is certified by Al-Azhar Al-Sharif Islamic Research Academy, General Department for Research, Writing and Translation prior to the 2008 edition (this academy is part of the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, one of the 2-3 foremost Islamic universities in the world). The Arab word “jamal” (jumal, juml, jumul – variants of the written consonants jml (the old Arab alphabet did not have the vowels - those the readers had to guess) in this case clearly means “a thick rope” or “a twisted cable” or “a thick, twisted rope” (Jawhari).This is even more clear as Muhammad’s co-workers clearly used this meaning, and Ibn Abbas also according to Zamakhshari very clearly stated that this was what was meant here. Ergo the real meaning is: “- - - nor will they enter the Garden until a twisted rope can pass through a needle’s eye”. Clearly unclear language – or use or (mis)understanding of the language.

But there is a small but in addition:

Abdullah Yusuf Ali was a learned man. He may have known little known facts. He also was a man who clearly placed his religion before his own intellectual integrity, before the absolute value of facts, and before the value of the full truth – f.x. his book “The Meaning of the Quran” shows this not infrequently, and one finds traces of the same in this his translation of the Quran. (Just sue us for the statement – it is easy to find enough examples to satisfy any free court. And the same goes Muhammad Asad and his “The Message of the Quran”). May be he and other learned scholars used the wrong translation on purpose. (Also see 7/40c just below.)

One of the little known facts he may have known, is that the expression “needle’s eye” also have another meaning. The old walled cities had strong, heavy gates. In or beside the gate there often was a small door to make it possible for people to pass in and out even if the main gate was closed for the evening. Some places this small door was called the “needle’s eye”.

No adult camel could pass this needle’s eye, too - but a baby camel could. And any thick rope could.

##115 7/40d: In connection to 7/40b just above, Muhammad Asad ("The Message of the Quran") has an interesting piece of disinformation, showing why we have to be so careful when using Islamic sources. We quote from A7/32: "One should remember that the Gospels were originally composed in Aramaic, the language of Palestine at the time of Jesus, and that those Aramaic texts are now lost. It is more than probable that, owing to the customary absence of vowels (like in Arab at the time of Muhammad*) signs in Aramaic writing, the Greek translators misunderstood the consonant spelling g-m-l - - - and took it to mean 'a camel'. But this is wrong - the Gospels were originally written in Greek, AND THIS IS SUCH A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT THERE IS NO CHANCE NEITHER IN HELL NOR IN HEAVEN THAT MR. ASAD DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT, AND IN A WAY WORSE: THE SAME GOES FOR THE MUSLIM SCHOLARS WHO REVISED THE 2008 ENGLISH EDITION WITHOUT COMMENTING ON THIS MISTAKE. And Greek had a complete alphabet where the problem with missing vowels did not exist.

This simply is an al-Taqiyya - a lawful lie - made by Mr. Asad and endorsed by the scholars revising the book, by Al-Azhar Al Sharif Islamic Research Academy (part of Al-Azhar Islamic University in Cairo - one of the 2 - 3 foremost Islamic universities in the world, if not the foremost), by "Svenska Islamiska Akademien" ("the Swedish Islamic Academy"), and "The Book Foundation".

Al-Taqiyya and similar rules for lawful dishonesty is a powerful tool when addressing the uneducated and the naive. But it backfires most strongly, and produces distaste and disrespect - and suspicion concerning other claims - when discovered. Of the big religions only Islam has these kinds of lawful dishonesty - and how much is true and how much is not, in the tales and the augmentation of a religion relying partly on dishonesty and on dishonest arguments?

116 7/40e: "- - - such (Hell*) is Our (Allah's) reward for those who sin". If Allah exists and is a god - and if he is correctly described in the Quran - Muhammad f.x. may have mixed inspirations from Gabriel/Allah with his own inspiration (all humans have inspirations sometimes).

117 7/41a: "For them (sinners*) there is Hell - - -". See 3/77b above.

118 7/41b: “For them (sinners*) there is hell, as a couch (below) and folds and folds of covering above”. No good place.

119 7/41c: "- - - those who do wrong - - -". Normally this is one of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims, but here it also may include bad Muslims.

120 7/41d: "- - - do wrong". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

121 7/42a: "- - - those who believe - - -". = Muslims - only Muslims believe according to the Quran.

122 7/42b: "- - - righteousness - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

123 7/42c: “- - - no burden do We (Allah*) place on any soul, but that which it can bear - - -“. Can this be true? – also among Muslims self murder (or seeking death for Allah, when the real reason is a too difficult life), deserting one’s family or child, resorting to crime to be able to live on, etc. happens.

124 7/42d: "- - - Companions of the Garden - - -". = They will end in Paradise.

125 7/42e: "- - - therein (Paradise*) to dwell (for ever)". See 7/36f above.

126 7/42-43: Rather similar to 2/25 above. Pep-talk.

127 7/43a: "(Paradise*) - beneath them will be rivers flowing - - -". The most frequently used Arabism in the Quran.

128 7/43b: "- - - Allah, who has guided (via the Quran') us (Muslims*) - - -". No god based his religion on a book full of mistakes, etc. And if the Quran is not from Allah, it does not represent his guidance.

129 7/43c: "- - - guidance - - -". See 2/2b above and 16/107 below.

130 7/43d: "- - - the guidance of Allah (= the Quran*) - - -". See 7/43b above and 16/107 below.

131 7/43e: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

132 7/43f: "- - - indeed it was the truth, that (the Quran*) the Prophets of our Lord (Allah*) brought unto us (Muslims*)". The Quran tells there have been many, many prophets through the time - Hadiths mention 124ooo - who all preached the religion Islam based on the teachings of the Quran - or really a teaching which was a copy of the "mother book" in Heaven like the Quran. But a book with that many mistakes at best can be partly the truth".

133 7/43g: "- - - the truth - - -". See 2/2b above.

134 7/43h: "- - - the Prophets of our (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". This of course pretends to include the claimed greatest of them all; 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:

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. Similar in 6/50a, 7/188b, 10/20c+d, 10/49a, and 72/26.

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.

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"?)

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.

Also see 30/40h below.

135 7/43i: "- - - the Prophets of our (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". This of course intends to include also Muhammad, but: No god uses a messenger telling his audiences a lot of things which are wrong.

136 7/43j: "- - - deeds (of righteousness) - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

137 7/44a: "- - - Companions of the Garden - - -". = The ones who ended in Paradise.

138 7/44b: "- - - Companions of the Fire - - -". = The ones who ended in Hell.

139 7/44c: "- - - the promises of our (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) to us true - - -". At least in this world there never have been registered a proved case of Allah keeping a promise. Yes, not even a documented case of that he gave a promise.

140 7/44d: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

141 7/44e: "- - - true - - -". See 2/2b above.

142 7/44f: "- - - the wrongdoers - - -". Normally one of Muhammad's discriminating names for the disgusting non-Muslims. These names - indicating bad people - even today are parts of the reason why Muslims are reluctant to associate too closely with non-Muslims.

143 7/45: An ironic verse if the Quran is crooked - and it is not from a god with all those mistakes, contradictions, etc..

144 7/45 - 51: This is not from the Bible.

145 7/46a: “Between them (those going to Paradise and those going to Hell) shall be a veil - -” - and the first ones telling the last ones that Islam was right. Good pep-talk whether true or not.

146 7/46b (A37 – YA1025): “Between them (in Heaven*) and on the Heights (Arab “a’raf”) will be those who would know everyone by his marks: - - - They will not have entered, but they will have an assurance (thereof).” But the primary meaning of “’urf” (plural “A’raf”) is not “high”, but “acknowledgement”, “discernment”, synonymous with “the faculty of discernment (between right and wrong*)”. Many Muslim scholars (Al-Hasan, Al-Basri, Az-Zajjaj, Rezi) therefore mean that the ones outside Heaven, but wanting to come in are the lukewarm who knew the difference between good and bad (- everyone by his marks (marks of good and bad*)), but did not care very much this or that way – the ones not quite deserving Heaven, but neither deserving Hell. The Question here is: Do the word “a’raf” here mean “heights” or does it mean “the ones able to discern, (but not caring – the indifferent ones)”? In the last case the meaning simply will be something like: “- - - and the lukewarm (from this life*) who would know everyone (good and bad*) by his marks - - -.” A minor, but significant difference. And these variants as always also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning. Clear language in the Quran?

147 7/46c: "- - - Companions of the Garden - - -". = The ones who ended in Paradise.

148 7/47a: "- - - Companions of the Fire - - -". = The ones who ended in Hell.

149 7/47b: (YA1026): “- - - their eyes shall be turned towards the Companions of the Fire - - -.” But who are “they”? – the ones waiting for their “case” to be finished? – or the good Muslims in Heaven? Your guess is as good as anybody else’s.

150 7/47c: "- - - wrongdoers - - -". Normally "Quran-speak" for non-Muslims. The name tells something.

151 7/48: "The men of the Heights - - -". See 7/46b above.

151a 7/49: "- - - His (Allah's*) Mercy - - -". See 1/1a above.

151b 7/50a: “The Companions of the Fire will call to the Companions of the Garden: ‘Pour down to us water or anything that Allah doth provide for your sustenance.’ They will say: “Both these things hath Allah forbidden to those who rejected him”. If you are in pain, it becomes even worse if you know release exists, but you cannot reach it. Muhammad or Allah knew how to impress followers.

152 7/50b: "- - - Companions of the Fire - - -". = The ones who ended in Hell.

153 7/50c: "- - - Companions of the Garden - - -". = The ones who ended in Paradise.

154 7/50d: "- - - hath Allah forbidden - - -". If he exists - and if the Quran tells the full truth and only the truth about everything.

155 7/50e: "- - - those who rejected Him (Allah*) - - -". One of Muhammad's negative names for non-Muslims.

156 7/51: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs". Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39 above.

157 7/52a: “We (Allah*) had certainly sent unto them a Book (the Quran*), - - -”. The recurring question: Is a book with that many mistakes – wrong facts, contradictions, invalid proofs, unclear language, orthographic and perhaps even religious mistakes - really sent down by a god? Impossible - not to say heresy and an insult against any omnipotent or omniscient god.

158 7/52b: "- - - certainly - - -". See 2/2b above.

159 7/52c: “- - - a Book (the Quran*), based on knowledge, - - -”. With that many mistakes, the book at best is based just partly on knowledge - or for the better part of the mistakes; on outdated and wrong knowledge. An omniscient god would not have knowledge was wrong or would become outdated. Also see 26/83a below.

160 7/52d: “- - - a Book, based on knowledge, which We (Allah*) explained in detail - “. See 6/154a.

161 7/52e: "- - - knowledge - - -". See 26/83a below.

162 7/52f: "(the Quran*) - - - a guide - - - to all who believe". No book with that much wrong is any real guide for anyone. Also see 16/107 below.

163 7/52g: "(the Quran*) - - - a mercy to all who believe". May be a mercy to some of the believers - the ones who grew rich or powerful from loot etc., and the ones who needed a religion of some sort to lean to. But not to all Muslims, and definitely not to non-Muslims. And if the religion is made up: Also not a mercy to any Muslim in a possible next life. Also see 1/1a above.

164 7/52h: "- - - all who believe". = The Muslims - only Muslims believe according to the Quran.

165 7/53a: "On the Day the events is finally fulfilled - - -". = The Day of Doom.

166 7/53b: "- - - those who disregarded it (the Quran*) - - -". = The non-Muslims.

167 7/53c: "The Prophets of our (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) did indeed bring true (tidings)." See 7/43g above.

168 7/53d: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

169 7/53e: "- - - true - - -". See 2/2b above.

170 7/53f: "- - - the things they have invented - - -". Other gods than Allah - - - included Yahweh, even though there is a better chance for that Yahweh exists, than for Allah's existence - some pieces in the Bible are intriguing.

171 7/53g: "- - - the things they have invented will leave them in the lurch". Will this also be the case for Muslims if the Quran is a made up book and Allah an invented god? - remember no god made a book of a quality like the Quran.

172 7/54a: "You (people’s*) Guardian-Lord is Allah - - -". One more of the many not proved claims you find in the Quran - claims any believer in any religion can make on behalf of his or her god(s), free of charge as long as no proofs are required, and claims which are totally without value as proofs as long as it is not first proved it is the god who really is behind what happens. In this case the claim only may be - may be, not is - true if Allah really exists, if he really is a dominant god, and if the Quran in addition tells the full truth and only the truth about this. But not even the existence of Allah is proved, and it is thoroughly proved that the Quran is full of mistakes, etc., both of which proves that Islam has to produce proofs for the claim, if they want to be believed - and proofs, not just loose words or more unproved claims.

173 7/54b: "You (people’s*) Guardian-Lord is Allah - - -". Strongly contradicted by the Bible, which claims that is 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.

174 7/54c: “- - - Allah, Who created the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth - - -". See 7/29d above.

175 7/54d: “- - - Allah, Who created the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth in six Days - - -.” Contradicting with:

41/9-12: Here Allah used 2 + 4 + 2 days = 8 days for the creation (Muslims claim that the two days for creating Earth is included in the 4 days. But the Quran is very clear: 2 days for creating Earth, then 4 days for creating what is on Earth, and finally 2 days for creating the 7 firmaments (wrong – there only is one, and even the way Muhammad thought it looked like, is an optical illusion). No doubt about what is written. (Some Muslims also tries to tell that the Arab written word for day also may mean eon (the old Arab alphabet had no vowels and no the points modern Arab use to signify special letters, and when one adds vowels, etc. as one likes, a lot is possible.) But there is little doubt that the spoken word Muhammad used to his congregation was “day” – and none of the accepted good translators use any other word. Eons also make Allah and his capabilities a joke: 2/117: “When He (Allah*) decreed a matter, He said to it: ‘Be’ and it is” – should he use eons for this small job?) We also should remind you of the contradiction with reality: To create the Universe has until now taken 13.7 billion years, and Earth 4.57 billion - - - which also means the firmament - the universe was created before Earth, even long before.

You will meet Muslims claiming that "of course 6 days - or 8 days - are metaphorical. (The only possible - and very often used - way of explaining mistakes like this away.) But for one thing the Quran itself states that its texts shall be understood literally if nothing else is indicated (3/7, 6/114, 11/1, 19/97, 26/2, 41/3, 43/2, 44/2, 44/58, 54/17, 54/32) which is not the case here, for another the book has very clear text each time it mention how long time the claimed creation took, and for a third: You bet that when Muhammad said 6-8 days, each and every of his followers understood 6 or 8 days.

176 7/54e: “- - - heavens - - -.” Plural and wrong. See 2/22d.

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

177 7/54f: Muhammad Asad has this translation: "(Allah*) created the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth in six eons" (the same in 11/7c - actually this point is from 11/7c)- telling that the Arab word used here for "day" (yawm) also may mean f.x. eon, even though it is very clear that Muhammad's listeners and later Muslims understood "day" - - - until science proved that days could not be right. Mr. Asad(?) also is forced to change from "day" to "eon" in order to use the word "evolution" instead of "creation" in his comment 11/10 to this verse.

Honesty seems not to count too much in Islam, compared to the essential: To make the Quran look right. But where goes the reliability of the religion when you discovers small and big "twists" and lies? - and how much more of the religion, the teaching and its arguments are in reality untrue?

One more point: In the Swedish somewhat older edition, is used "days". It thus may look like it is the editors of the new English edition who have falsified Mr. Azad to get a text nearer to what is scientific correct instead of giving a correct translation of the Quran. Once more: Honesty does not seem to count too much in Islam.

Do you understand why we have to be careful and check a lot, when working with Islamic literature?

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

178 7/54g: “He draweth the night as a veil o’er the day - - -”. The night is just the absence of light. Nothing. It is not possible to use nothing as a veil or to draw it over anything - and absolutely not over the light of day. Muhammad had this completely wrong: Daylight can influence the darkness, but the darkness of night cannot influence the daylight. Totally wrong.

179 7/54h: "He (Allah*) created the sun, the moon, and the stars - - -". The Quran often claims Allah created everything, but it never proves anything of any essence - only loose words. Muhammad and many other believers in many religions make similar claims to the honor of their gods - easy words as long as one does not have to prove anything.

180 7/54i: k"- - - governed by laws (of nature*) under His (Allah's*) command". See 7/54f above.

181 7/54j: "Is it not His (Allah's*) to create - - -". See 11/7a above and 21/56c below.

182 7/54k: "Is it not His (Allah's*) to - - - govern?" Only if he exists and is a top god.

183 7/54l: "Is it not His (Allah's*) to create and to govern". A rhetoric question expecting a certain answer. But it is impossible to know as long as one does not have reliable information, and as long as it is not documented even that Allah exists, and if he in case is a major god. There only are Muhammad's never proved claims - a man of very doubtful reliability, even according to central Islamic literature is a doubtful and unreliable person (read the realities and omit the glorifying cheap words, and see what picture emerges of him9.

184 7/54m: "- - - Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds (plural and wrong*)". Often claimed, never proved - and a claim easy to make for any believer in any religion on behalf of his/her god(s).

185 7/54n: "- - - the Worlds - - -". This refers to the 7 worlds the Quran claims exist (65/12) - one flat Earth on top the other according to Hadiths. But there are no 7 Earths".

**186 7/54+58a: “- - - Allah, Who created the heavens (plural and wrong) and the earth - - - thus do We (Allah*) explain the Signs- - -". Nothing is explained as long as it is not proved that Allah really created it.

**187 7/54+58b: “- - - Allah, Who created the heavens (plural and wrong) - in part of 6 days* as also Earth was created in those 6 days) - - - thus do We explain the Signs - - -”. A wonderful symbol “borrowed” from the nature and even so with no less than 2 serious mistakes - really a glorious proof for Allah. A nice “sign” and "explanation".

*188 7/54+58c: “- - -Allah, Who created - - - the earth in (part of*) six days - - - thus do We explain the Signs - - -”. Nearly as beautiful a wrong proof of Allah as the one just above - creation of Earth took millions of years, and there is no trace of Allah or any other god neither in the sun, nor in the Earth. Oh, we know many religions included Islam are reluctant to admit it, but till date there is not one single valid proof for a god being involved. A nice “sign” and a nice "explanation". But invalid.

**189 7/54+58d: “He (Allah*) draweth the night as a veil o’er the day - - - thus do We explain - - -”. A new wonderful wrong proof of Allah from nature: The night can in no scientific way be described as a veil, as the night is simply nothing - it only is absence of light. If you really want to be specific, in addition Muhammad has gotten it all totally wrong - it is the daylight that rules over the night, not the other way round. Another nice “sign” - not to mention the “explanation“. This any god had known - who made the Quran?

190 7/54+58e: “He (Allah*) created the sun - - - thus do We explain the Signs - - -”. Proofs, please - if not we believe the sun is from nature. Also see 7/29b above.

191 7/54+58f: “He (Allah*) created - - - the moon - - - thus do We explain the Signs - - -”. See the one just above.

192 7/54+58g: “He (Allah*) created - - - the stars - - - thus do We explain the Signs - - -” See the 2 just above. In this case even more so, as the stars are NOT fastened to a lowest heaven, and are not identical to shooting stars like the Quran tells in another verse.

193 7/54+58h: “- - - (all cosmos is*) governed by laws under his Command - - - thus do we explain the Signs - - -.” All gods like to say similar words, and it is very easy to say. Well, words and statements cost nothing more than a big mouth - but where are proofs for that Allah really initiated this “sign” for Allah?

##194 7/55a: "Call on (pray to*) your (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) with humility and in private - - -". What is the idea of praying for anything in Islam? According to the Quran - and Hadiths - Allah has predestined every detail in your and everyone else's life according to his unchangeable Plan - a Plan "nobody and nothing" can change. Thus prayers can have no effect and can change nothing, and just is a waste of time and effort - a fact (if the stated predestination is correct - and if it is not, the Quran is wrong) no Muslim ever mentions or tries to explain.

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.)

195 7/55b: "- - - Allah loveth not those who trespass beyond bounds". See 7/56a just below.

196 7/56a: “Do no mischief on earth, after it has been set in order - - -“. According to our book, murder, rape, stealing/robbing, hate, suppression, enslaving, murder, war, etc. are mischief. But maybe it only is against Muslims that is immoral and forbidden, and not against non-Muslims?

197 7/56b: “- - - after it (Earth*) has been set in order - - -". And the officially declared order is: Islam and Muslims on top, all others suppressed and discriminated taxpayers without many rights - or exterminated. (Before you protest to this sentence, read the surahs from Medina.)

198 7/56c: "- - - call on (pray to*) Him (Allah*) - - -". What is the idea of praying for anything in Islam? According to the Quran - and Hadiths - Allah has predestined every detail in your and everyone else's life according to his unchangeable Plan - a Plan "nobody and nothing" can change. Thus prayers can have no effect and can change nothing, and just is a waste of time and effort - a fact (if the stated predestination is correct - and if it is not, the Quran is wrong) no Muslim ever mentions or tries to explain.

199 7/56d: "- - - call on (pray to*) Him (Allah*) - - - for the Mercy of Allah is (always) near to those who do good.

How can the claimed mercy of Allah come to light or have any effect, when everything already is predestined according to Allah's plan - a plan nobody and nothing can change according to the Quran?

200 7/56e: "- - - the Mercy of Allah - - -". See 1/1a above.

201 7/56f: "- - - the Mercy of Allah is (always) near to those who do good". Does this include the Muslims living also in accordance with the immoral parts of the Quran's moral codex?

202 7/56g: "- - - those who do good". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is meant in accordance with the book's own partly immoral moral code.

203 7/56h: Grammatical mistake: qaribun should be qariba.

204 7/57a: “It is He who sendeth the winds - - -”. The winds are made by differences in temperatures and air pressure. Islam will have to prove that Allah is doing it - if he does. Also see 7/29b above.

205 7/57b: “It is He who sendeth the winds like heralds of glad tidings - - -". An Arabism; in desert areas of the world wind may be glad tidings - it may be a forerunner of rain, or at least it may quench the heath. But we may tell you this is not the message of winds in some other parts of the world. Was Allah just a god for desert part of Tellus (the Earth) as he forgets this fact?

206 7/57c: "- - - We (Allah*) drive them (the clouds*) - - -". See 11/7a below.

207 7/57d: “- - - a land that is dead, make rain to descend thereon, and produce every kind of harvest therewith: - - -”. A land that only takes water for plants to emerge is not dead - it is full of live seeds and perhaps roots.

208 7/57e: "- - - thus shall We (Allah*) rise up the dead - - -". Interesting claim, because neither Allah nor Muhammad has ever showed they have this power - Muhammad could not even help his own dying children (he lost all his children except Fatima, and she died shortly after him - was some god punishing him for something?) - there only are lofty words. Whereas if either the Bible or the Quran (f.x. 5/110a) tells the truth on this point, Jesus and Yahweh - and for that case even Elisha (1. Kings 17/22) and Paul (Acts 20/9-12) - proved so thoroughly, and thus showed they were closer to a god and thus greater prophets than Muhammad (if he at all was a prophet - no person unable to make prophesies is a prophet).

209 7/58a: “From the land that is clean and good, by the will of its Cherisher (Allah*), springs up produce - - -”. It is easy to take credit for all and everything, when you evade all questions about proofs. Also see 11/7a below.

210 7/58b: “- - - Sign(s) - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39 above.

211 7/59a: "Ye (the people of Noah*) have no other god but Him (Allah)". See 6/106b above.

212 7/59b: "Ye (the people of Noah*) have no other god but Him (Allah)". Contradicted by the Bible, which claims Noah's god was Yahweh. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

213 7/59c: (A7/45 – in 2008 edition A7/46): “- - - the Punishment of a dreadful Day”. Islam still does not know if this means the day of the big flood or the Day of Doom. 2 meanings – in a clear language used by Allah. And these variants as always also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there like so often has more than one meaning.

214 7/60a: "The leaders of his (Noah's*) people said - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

215 7/60a: "The leaders of his (Noah's*) people said: 'Ah, we see thee evidently wandering (in mind)". One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 3 reasons - 2 of them unavoidable - for this:

When something is changed, automatically the future is changed.

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

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

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

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

216 7/61a: "He (Noah*) said - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

217 7/61b: "He (Noah*) said: "O my people - - - (etc.*)". See 60a above.

218 7/61c: “- - - the Worlds!” The Quran tells there are 7 (flat) worlds (65/12). Hadiths adds the names, and that they are placed one above the other. Wrong to say the least of it.

219 7/62: "- - - I (Noah*) know from Allah something ye (his people*) know not". Contradicted by the Bible which claims he knew it from 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.

220 7/63a: (Noah said:) "Do ye (his people*) wonder that there hath come to you a messenger from your Lord (Allah*), through a man of your own people - - -?" Muhammad is making a parallel to himself (he often does in the Quran) - the claim (and in this case mostly correct - as most of the confirmed(?) ones were Jews working among Jews (but not all)) is that prophets come from among their own people, so then it is very normal that Muhammad is an Arab amongst Arabs, Muhammad claimed.

221 7/63b: (Noah said:) "Do ye (his people*) wonder that there hath come to you a messenger from your Lord (Allah*), through a man of your own people - - -?" This is not from the Bible.

222 7/63c: "- - - from your (Noah's people*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". The Quran claims that there always and in all places has been preaching about the one god, Allah (but that falsification of the messages has led to belief in all the other false gods). Neither science nor Islam has found anything confirming any of these two claims.

223 7/63d: "- - - His (Allah's*) Mercy?" See 1/1a above.

224 7/64a: "They (the people of Noah*) rejected him - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

225 7/64b: "They (the people of Noah*) rejected him - - -". See 7/60a above.

###226 7/64c: (A7/46): Muslims – even scholars and Al-Azhar University - do not need difficult language to get troubles with the claimed true meanings and the claimed Truth and reality. 7/64 “do not support the theory of a world deluge” – gallantly omitting the fact that Islam and the Quran claim the ark stranded on a 2089 m high mountain (Mt. Al-Jedi) in Syria (not Ararat in Turkey) (Correction: According to Wikipedia it lies in Anatolia in Turkey), which is impossible if the deluge was not universal, as the water then had streamed away to lower, not flooded places. And “The Message of the Quran” – also in the 2008 edition!! – as gallantly explains it with the filling up of the Mediterranean Basin “during the Ice Age” (ended some 10ooo - 15ooo years ago), this in spite of that this filling up happened 4-5 million years ago, and also for several other reasons – f.x. wrong place and by far wrong way of filling up – cannot explain the deluge. These are well known facts which the honorable professors have to know, or at least had to and easily could check before they "broadcast" their "explanation". A typical al-Taqiyya (lawful lie - here to explain away a clear mistake and thus defend Islam) as the time for and way of the filling up of the Mediterranean Sea as said are well known scientific facts.

The filling up of the Black Sea could be an explanation with some extra "explanations" - - - but it cannot explain the stranding of the Ark on a high mountain in Syria, and neither the terrible weather and the enormous waves, as that too was a slow filling up (at least months of a slowly raising water level.)

As said: Some Muslims – even elite scholars – do not need difficult language to get different meanings – at least different from well known facts. Al-Taqiyya etc. are easy ways out, but produces a number of not intended reactions and thoughts in the listener/reader if found out. Dishonesty does not induce respect or trust.

Also this is a typical example on what you often meet from Muslims: Claimed "explanations" which obviously are wrong because they only "explain" one or some aspects with a case, but then the other aspects prove them wrong. Like here: The Mediterranean once filled up - perhaps an explanation for the flood? - we use it!

But wrong time - some 5 million years too early. Wrong place - the Mediterranean Salt Desert where no man lived (there at places are found sun-baked salt under it), whereas Noah is believed to have lived (if he is not fiction) around what is now south Iraq, and only some 5ooo-6ooo years ago. Wrong effect I - such a filling up produces no bad weather. Wrong effect II - such a filling up produces no big waves, except just close to the inlet (here Gibraltar). Wrong duration - the Mediterranean took at least 100 years to fill up, as the opening was not very big in the beginning. (Well, there is a new theory saying that the rush of water made a big opening, but even in that case at least 1 - 2 years.) Wrong drama - as it took long time, the water rose just some meters a year, and produced no storm. Wrong finish - such a filling up only could fill up to sea level, whereas the Quran as said tells the Ark ended on the 2089 m tall Mt. Al-Jedi in Syria (correction: According to Wikipedia it lies in Anatolia in Turkey). Also see 7/64b just below.

But the really dark point is that most of these facts are so well known among educated people, that there is no chance that Islam does not know it - not to mention how easy it is to check on such fact. All the same they use it - people with little education or a strong wish to believe, believes in even such fairy tales, not to use the correct word: Al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie - a specialty for Islam.

But such stories - and there are too many of them - totally destroy Islam's and Muslims' credibility among those of educated, intelligent people used to critical thinking.

Also see 7/64d just below.

##227 7/64d: “- - - We (Allah*) overwhelmed in the Flood those who rejected Our Signs”. And everybody except those in the Ark were drowned. Well, Islam claims quite correctly that the Quran does not directly say that the Big Flood covered all the Earth (but it says so indirectly, as it tells the ark ended on a 2089 m tall mountain in Anatolia in Turkey (Mt. Al-Jedi) - impossible if the flood did not cover all the world - the water in case had disappeared to not flooded areas). But when they try to explain the Flood as described in the Quran, they not only stumble, but fall head-over-heel down a full hill. This especially as some of the facts they twist, are so well known among learned people, that the honorable learned Muslims obviously have to know they are making up things and conclusions to cheat naïve and/or not learned people - - - some small al-Taqiyyas and/or Kitmans? (lawful lies and half-truths). This is lawful in Islam (yes, al-Taqiyya even is advised in case) if necessary in promoting and/or defending the religion, which is much more essential than to find out what is the truth. But a religion which has to lie, also has things to hide - f.x. that neither Muhammad nor Allah ever was able to prove anything about Islam. Also see 11/40 – 11/42 and 11/43 below. And: How reliable is a religion which has to lie? - and how much of its preaching, arguments and holy(?) books are lies and how much truth?

***F.x. they try to explain the flood with the filling up of the Mediterranean Sea (see 7/64a just above) or the Black Sea – which is not even scientific rubbish:

The Mediterranean Sea was filled up via Gibraltar some 4-5 million years ago – long before Homo Sapiens – modern man – ever existed (Homo Sapiens developed in Africa some 160,000-200,000 (195,000?) years ago, came out of Africa perhaps some 70ooo years ago, and then something happened in Asia (?) some 60,000-70,000 (64,000?) years ago that put him on the trail to or made him to what we are today.)

The filling up of the Mediterranean See took many years – to the tune of a hundred years, this because the opening was not very big in the beginning and the basin enormous. Therefore the water rose slowly – some meters a year. Drama and waves of the kind described in the Quran simply did not exist.

Look at a map and please explain us how the slow filling up of the Mediterranean Sea could make a flood in south Mesopotamia – now approximately south Iraq – where Noah is presumed to have lived?

The filling up of the Black Sea had no connection with the original filling up of the Mediterranean See at all – in stark contradiction to f.x. 7/64, comment 46, in “The Message of the Quran”.

The filling up of the Black Sea happened when the oceans had nearly finished rising because of the melting of the ice from the last Ice Age – we have seen 5700 years ago, (the main melting ended 10ooo - 12ooo years ago, but there have been some ups and downs - cooler and warmer periods) but the calculated time varies some. This happened faster, but far from fast enough to produce cataclysms like the ones described in the Quran – months or a few years. All the same one of the theories trying to explain the story of the Big Flood, is this filling up – the story have travelled (or Noah may be lived there and moved later?) and also it has been made more dramatic.

**Islam claims the ark stranded on a mountain (2089 m tall Mt. Al-Jedi) in Anatolia in Turkey (not Ararat in Turkey) . For the ark to get stranded on a high mountain, the water according to all physical laws must have covered the entire Earth – if not it had streamed to the empty lower places and disappeared/fallen. Muslim scholars know the elementary physical laws as good and well as anybody else. They know that these “explanations” about what the Quran may talk about, calling it a “local” flood are all sheer dishonesty. Either that or what the Quran tells about where the Ark ended, is wrong. At least one of these two has to be wrong – and they know it, but all the same they tell an "explanation" they know must be wrong to naïve and/or uneducated followers and proselytes.

There also is a highly speculative theory that the flood was caused by the impact of an asteroid into the Indian Ocean. References to Chinese history and astronomical constellations in Hindu legends in case date the start of the flood to 10. May 2807 BC. But as said the theory is highly speculative - and no traces of the impact have been found, which it should have been from such a big and recent impact. Also no traces have been found on land from such a flooding, which obviously would have been the case if this theory had been correct (one has found traces from old tsunamis many places around the world, but nothing which can be from 2807 BC and nothing so big as this had to be to explain where the ark ended.

The most likely explanation, though, and one we have not heard from Islam at all, is the fact that there have been found traces of an extreme flood in Iraq from a time that can roughly correspond with Noah (5200 years ago). It is strangely little known – we have seen it mentioned only 2-3 times, and we read a lot of such stuff. The clear traces were found - as far as we remember - in the 1920s by a British team, and we remember that in the 1990s (no. 7/1994?) the popular science magazine LEXICON had an article with a picture from the deep layer of clay this flood had left behind. There were traces of human activity under that layer, which indicates that people lived there when it happened.

In none of the explanations Islam gives, it is possible to explain the enormous weather the Quran describes. That only is possible in the last point just above and perhaps the asteroid impact – explanations we never or seldom have met from Muslims. And explanations which cannot explain how the ark could end up on a 2089 m high mountain in Anatolia in Tutkey like the Quran claims.

Also see 7/64c just above.

228 7/64e: “- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -“. “Our signs” is Quran-speak for “proofs for Allah”. But there exists not one single proof for Allah – not in the Quran and not anywhere else. (Actually the only thing that can prove a deity, is a miracle – or more ones. There are no miracles proving neither Allah, nor the Quran, nor Muhammad’s connection to a god in all the Quran. And the claimed miracles connected to Muhammad according to Hadiths, the Quran very clearly proves are made up legends - a fact that is admitted by Islam who says that the only miracle connected to Muhammad, is the Quran (a most questionable miracle, but that is another story), but all the same "miracles" are propagated to their audiences by Muslim "clergy".)

**229 7/65a: "To the 'Ad people, (we (Allah*) sent) Hud - - -". The stories about Ad and Hud you find different places in the Quran are not from the Bible. As far as we have been able to find out, they are from no written sources.

230 7/65b: "To the 'Ad people, (we (Allah*) sent) Hud - - -". Ad is a tribe from old Arab folklore (it may or may not have existed).

231 7/65c: "To the 'Ad people, (we (Allah*) sent) Hud - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

232 7/65d: "To the 'Ad people, (we (Allah*) sent) Hud - - -". As for the claimed prophet Hud we have been unable to find out if also he is a person from old Arab legends, or if he "surfaced" with Muhammad's tales. But notice one thing: Muhammad is some places in the Quran said to be the first prophet to the Arabians. The claim that there was a prophet Hud in Arabia (and also a few others) contradicts that claim - one of many contradictions in the Quran. To quote comment (A7/47) (translated from Swedish): "Hud is told to have been the first Arab prophet". Also see 7/73a below.

233 7/65e: (Hud said:) "You (the Ad tribe*) have no other god but Him (Allah*)." As mentioned; according to Muhammad Allah throughout all times have been the one and main god to all people. He only have been overwhelmed and his teachings falsified by humans believing in pagan gods. Also see 6/106b above.

234 7/66a: Muhammad like so often makes the story a parallel to himself (he too often does) - it tells his audience that meeting disbelief and little success was normal for prophets - and consequently Muhammad's situation (in 621 AD) was normal, and thus that Muhammad was a normal prophet.

235 7/66b: "The leaders of the Unbelievers (among Noah's people*) said: "Ah, we see you (Noah*) art an imbecile!" See 7/60a above.

236 7/67a: Muhammad makes the story a parallel to himself (he often does) - it tells his audience that meeting disbelief and little success was normal for prophets - and consequently Muhammad's situation (in 621 AD) was normal, and thus that Muhammad was a normal prophet.

237 7/67b: "He (Hud*) said - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

238 7/67c: "- - - (Allah is*) the Lord and Cherisher of the Worlds (plural and wrong*)!" Often claimed, never proved.

239 7/67d: “- - - the Worlds!” Wrong. See 65/12 below.

240 7/68a: "I (Hud*) am to you ('Ad*) a sincere and trustworthy adviser". Muhammad is once more making a parallel to his own situation - this is exactly his own message to the Arabs. And to his followers: That prophets are distrusted is normal, and thus his own situation in Mecca was normal for a prophet - reassuring for his then few followers in 621 AD to "know".

241 7/68b: "- - - trustworthy - - -". See 2/2b above.

242 7/69a: "Do ye (people*) wonder that there hath come to you a message from the Lord (Allah*) through a man of your own people - - -?" Muhammad is making - in the broad lines - an exact copy of his own situation, to show that his own situation is normal for prophets. There are several such cases in the Quran, making the "explanation" too obvious.

243 7/69b: "- - - a message from your ('Ad's) Lord (Allah - see 7/65b above*) through a man of your own people - - -". See 7/68a above.

244 7/69c: "- - - a message from your ('Ad's) Lord (Allah*) - - -". No god ever sent down something like the Quran - too much is wrong.

245 7/69d: "- - - He (Allah*) made you (the 'Ad tribe) inheritors after the people of Noah - - -". Noah is supposed to have lived in what is now south Iraq, the 'Ad tribe in Arabia. The Quran several places mention that the Arabs had inherited land, houses, etc. from people Allah had exterminated. But 'Ad at least inherited little of such things from the people of Noah - wrong geography.

246 7/69e: "- - - ('Ad had) a tall stature among the nations". No group of people on the Arab peninsula ever had "a tall stature" among peoples. They always were a backward region compared to neighbors like Egypt and Mesopotamia, not to mention Persia, Greece and the Romans. Only after they united into a warrior nation under and after Muhammad during 625 AD and following years, they had a period of strength and of growing big - mainly as destructors destructing other cultures, and robbing and suppressing them. This period was not long, though, before others - f.x. the Turks - took over. There also was a period of intellectual greatness, but if you go into the story, you will find that few of the leading intellectuals were Arabs. And over a few centuries everything stopped and the area drifted into stagnation, because the religion killed science and thinking - a stagnation which in the end meant the downfall of even the power of warfare and suppression and put the people back among the backward ones, a position which is the fact many places even today, and for the places where it is not the case, the reason mainly are thoughts, ideas and impulses from the outside.

247 7/70a: A new parallel to Muhammad's position - one of many. See 7/66a and 7/68a above.

248 7/70b: "They ('Ad*) said: Comest thou (Hud*) to us - - - (etc*)". See 7/60a above.

###249 7/70c: "- - - the cult of our fathers - - -". This is meant as hidden irony. But the real irony is that Islam only is "the cult of the fathers", as absolutely nothing is proved, and even lots of it is proved wrong + that all the wrong points prove 100% and more that no god was involved in the Quran and thus in the religion. Superstition often is mistaken for a religion.

250 7/70d: "Bring us (the 'Ad people*) what thou (Hud*) threatenest us with - - -". They simply were asking for proofs - a total parallel to requests Muhammad got, and he uses the parallel to show that Allah also that time proved nothing - Muhammad thus was in good company when he was unable to prove anything.

251 7/70e: "- - - the truth!" See 2/2b above.

252 7/71a: (YA1041): “Punishment and wrath have already come upon you (the people of Ad*) from your Lord (Allah*) - - -.” 3 different meanings possible: A. Reference to a terrible famine shortly before. B. The insolence and sin they had fallen into was a warning. C. Allah had already decided what was to come. Very unclear language.

253 7/71b: "- - - without authority from Allah - - -". Allah has no authority unless he exists and in addition is a god.

254 7/72a: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Mercy - - -". See 1/1a above.

255 7/72b: "- - - We (Allah*) cut off the roots of the (non-Muslims*) - - -". See 3/77b above.

256 7/72c: "- - - those who rejected Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims.

257 7/72d: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -". Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

258 7/73a: The Thamud people and Salih like the 'Ad people and Hud are from old Arab folklore and not from the Bible. They may or may not have existed, but nothing of what is told about them in the Quran is from any known written source

259 7/73b: "To the Thamud people - - -." Thamud as said is another tribe from Arab folklore, and here it is likely that a tribe with that name once existed (but also see 7/65d and 185a above).

260 7/73c: "- - - the Thamud people - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

261 7/73d: "To the Thamud people (we (Allah*) sent) Salih - - -." Salih is another claimed and self-proclaimed Arab prophet - may be and may be not from Arab folklore (if not, the original source is Muhammad). According to Islam he came some time later than Hud. Also he - like Hud - is a contradiction to the claim in the Quran that the Arabs had had no (self proclaimed) prophet before Muhammad.

262 7/73e: "- - - no other god - - -". See 6/106b and 7/65b above.

263 7/73f: “- - - a clear (Sign) - - -“. There is not one single unmistakable (= clear) sign from a god in all the Quran, with the possible exception of some taken from the Bible – but they in case are signs of Yahweh, not of Allah. Also see 2/39b and 2/99 above.

264 7/73g: "This she-camel of Allah - - -". Connected to the legend about the tribe Thamud, you time and again are told in the Quran that the self-proclaimed prophet Salih brought them a camel and told it was a sign – a proof – from Allah. Like it is told in the Quran it gives absolutely no meaning – just a claim hanging in the thin air. How can a camel be a proof for a god in a country where there are 15 camels to a dozen?

*But then we run across the explanation: This is taken from old Arab folklore – an old legend that everybody in Arabia knew at the time of Muhammad (but would an omniscient god who wanted to reach all the world, use an old fairy tale known only to Arabs – and in such a way that one does not understand if one does not know the rest of the story?)

Very briefly the legend runs like this: There once was a mountain cliff. Out from that solid cliff one day there came a camel. This camel then became a prophet for a god.

With such a background the camel was so special, that it could be a sign for something – only that the Quran just told part of the story, because everybody there and at that time knew the rest. But as we asked: Would an omniscient god wanting to reach the entire world, tell just part of the story, when he knew most of the world would not understand the point? (But as expected; in modern times you find Muslims telling that it was not this camel from the superstitious tale, but without giving a credible alternative.)

265 7/73h: "- - - a Sign - - -". Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

266 7/73i: "- - - grievous punishment". See 3/77b above.

267 7/73-77: The whole of the camel "proof". Taken from an old Arab legend well known in Arabia at the time of Muhammad: A camel came out from a cliff and became a prophet. To tell the obvious: This is not from the Bible. See 7/73d above.

268 7/74a: "- - - He (Allah*) made you inheritors - - -". Yet another not proved claim.

269 7/74b: "- - - carved out homes in the mountains - - -". Some places there are old dwellings carved into cliffs. Folklore connects these dwellings to the Thamud tribe.

270 7/74c: "- - - the benefits (ye (Muslims*) have received) from Allah - - -". There is not documented one single case of benefit clearly given by Allah in all the history of Islam - a number of claims, but only claims based on air or belief, and nothing provably from him. The best proof: If there had existed clear cases, Islam had told about the proofs often and in big words. There are no such words.

271 7/74d: "- - - refrain from evil - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. F.x. one of the worst evils was to refuse to go raiding when Muhammad wanted a raid to steal riches, etc. - raids he all the same always called jihad (holy war). Most of Muhammad's many raids, etc. were for riches - see the chapter about his raids and wars in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - www.1000mistakes.com .

272 7/74e: "- - - refrain from - - - mischief - - -". Much of what Muslims and Islam did through history, was - and is - mischief according to any normal code of moral or ethics. (But not always to the Quran's somewhat peculiar codes of such things).

273 7/75a: "The leaders of the arrogant party among his (Salih's*) people said to those who were reckoned to be powerless - - -". An exact parallel to Muhammad's situation in Mecca when this surah was made, where the leaders opposed the mostly poor followers of Muhammad. It is typical for the Quran that a far larger part of the stories than coincidence would predict, are parallels to Muhammad's situation at the time of the emergence of the different surahs, and thus telling his followers and others that his situation was normal for prophets, true or not, and thus that he was a normal prophet.

274 7/75b: "The leaders of the arrogant party among his (Salih's*) people said to those who were reckoned to be powerless - - -: 'Knowest ye - - - (etc.*)".One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 3 reasons - 2 of them unavoidable - for this:

When something is changed, automatically the future is changed.

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

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

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

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

275 7/75c: “’Know ye (believers*) indeed that Salih (a claimed prophet for the tribe or people Thamud. He according to the Quran lived sometime between Noah and Moses, but after the claimed prophet Hud – Moses is said to speak about him, though not in the Bible*) is a prophet from his Lord?’ They said:’ We do indeed believe in the revelation which has been sent through him.'”

Comment to 7/75 (A7/58 - 7/60 in the 2008 English edition): “The contents of this message (lit., ”that with which he has been sent”) appeared to them justification enough to accept it on its merits, without the need of any esoteric “proof” of Silah’s mission. In this subtle way this statement of faith has a meaning which goes far beyond the story of the Thamud. It is an invitation to the skeptic who is unable to believe in the divine origin of a religious message, to judge it on its intrinsic merits and not make his acceptance dependant on extraneous, and objectively impossible, proofs of its origin: for only through the contents can its truth and validity be established”.

Well, proofs – or at least documentation – is not more “objectively impossible” than that the Christians have got documentation in NT, and partly confirmed in the Quran, for that something supernatural was involved with Jesus and with Yahweh (another question is whether one wants to believe in that documentation or not). It ALWAYS is possible for a god to prove his existence (but not for a human to prove a god). What to be aware of here is that Islam has not one single proof for anything concerning the religion – not one single bit; only the word of a man with a very special mentality and morality – or amorality. Therefore they have to argue for blind belief and for that proofs are unnecessary, yes, that demands for proofs are intellectual stupidity and lack of intelligence. Which they do. And which is wrong - in all aspects of life the most sure way to be cheated now and then, is to believe blindly. Besides: If intelligence is given by a god, surely his meaning was that we should use it.

One problem here is that it is logically and intellectually impossible to know something that is not proved. One maximally can believe strongly – sometimes so strongly that one believes one knows. But not proved beliefs never are more than beliefs – strong or not. But even strong beliefs ever so often have been – and are – wrong. People “knew” the Earth was flat – and it was wrong. Then people “knew” Earth was the centre of the geocentric Universe – and it was wrong. Then people “knew” Sol or Helios (2 names for our sun) was the centre of heliocentric Universe – wrong. And then they “knew” our galaxy (“The Milky Way”) was the entire Universe – wrong once more. And in all religions – f. ex. Islam - there are people that “know” they are right and that all others are wrong - - - and most of them have to be wrong (and Muslims with their somewhat special founder and everything built only on claims and with lots and lots and lots of mistakes, etc. in their holy book, in reality are in a most weak position for being among the ones – if any – who are right).

But because their total lack of proofs and even of real indicia, Islam claims and claims and strongly claims that the texts in a book with lots of mistakes and errors and wrongs, prove that a god has made it, that lack of ability to see this is your stupidity, not that the book is not perfect - and that blind belief is the ideal. Which is a main – if not the main – reason why Muslims and Islam cannot accept or see any mistake in the Quran, no matter how obvious: If there are mistakes in the Quran, it is not from a god - and then Islam is a false religion. That is a possibility too hard to face.

276 7/75d: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

277 7/75e: "- - - revelation - - -". See 4/47c and 5/59e above and 13/1f below.

278 7/75-76: Another parallel (see f.x. 7/68a above) to Muhammad's situation in Mecca in 621 AD - nice and reassuring for his followers to know this situation just was normal for a prophet.

279 7/76: "The arrogant party said: 'For our part - - - (etc.*)". See 7/75b above.

280 7/77a: "They (the people of Thamud*) hamstrung the she-camel - - -." See 7/73d above.

281 7/77b: "Bring us about thy threats, if thou art a prophet (of Allah)". A new parallel to Muhammad's situation at that time, indicating that his situation was normal for prophets - and adding a pep-talk in the next verse.

282 7/78a: “So the earthquake took them (the tribe of Thamud*) unawares, and they lay prostrate (dead*) in their homes in the morning”. Wrong. For one thing in 11/67 they were killed by a mighty blast and in 69/5 by a storm – one or two more of the contradictions which according to Islam do not exist in the Quran. Also see 7/78b just below.

For another there never was an earthquake that killed absolutely everybody – nowhere on the whole Earth, and never. With the exception of in low quality high-rise buildings, it is a very serious earthquake which kills more than some 30% of the inhabitants.

283 7/78b: “So the earthquake took them (the people of Thamud*) unawares, and they lay prostrate (= dead*) in their homes in the morning”. Except that this is contradicted by:

11/67: “The (mighty) Blast overtook the wrongdoers (the people of Thamud*), and they lay prostrate in their homes in the morning - - -.” A blast sounds like something from f.x. an explosion.

69/5: “But the Thamud – they were destroyed by a terrible Storm of thunder and lightning”. You meet Muslims referring to the storms that “naturally follow earthquakes”. That is wrong – there is no – no – connection between earthquakes and storms, as they are caused by entirely different mechanisms. (To continue the song about “correcting” the Quran: Mr. Muhammad Asad in “The Message of) the Quran” has quietly and without comments changed 69/5 from “storm and lightning” to “earthquake”. An “al-Taqiyya” (lawful lie)? Al-Taqiyya is not only permitted, but ordered if necessary to defend or promote the religion.

2 contradictions. And do you understand why we have to be careful and check everything when we use Islamic sources?

284 7/79a: (YA1048): “So Salih left them (the people of Thamud*) saying: ‘O my people - - -.” But was his speech a last warning before the catastrophe? – or was it lamentation and sorrow for his lost people? Who knows? – the text does not divulge it.

285 7/79b: "- - - good counselors". See 2/2b and also remember that when the Quran uses words like "good" it normally is in accordance with the book's own partly immoral moral code. Also beware that Salih here is used as a parallel to Muhammad, to strengthen the claim that Muhammad’s experiences were normal for claimed prophets, and thus that Muhammad was a normal prophet. Muhammad makes several such parallels for this purpose in the Quran.

286 7/80a: "We (Allah*) also sent Lut (Lot*) - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells his god was Yahweh. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

287 7/80b: "We (Allah*) also sent Lut (Lot*) - - -". In the Quran Lot is a prophet. Not so in the Bible. (And in the Bible he as mentioned is connected to Yahweh, not to al-Lah (later renamed Allah by Muhammad)).

288 7/80c: "We (Allah*) also sent Lut (Lot*) - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

289 7/80d: “- - - he (Lut/Lot*) said to his people (the people in Sodom and Gomorrah*).” Wrong. The local people were not Lot’s people. Both the Bible and the Quran are unanimous: Lot was a stranger to the land and had come from Ur in Chaldea in south Iraq (together with Abraham). It also from both books is clear that he had not mingled enough with the locals to become one of them. (Muslims all the same use that for an explanation).

*290 7/80e: “- - - lewdness (homosexuality*) such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you?” Wrong. Homosexuality is an integrated part of some peoples’ nature. Science has even found what gene it is connected to – and that the reason why it has not died out, is that the same gene gives a tendency to have many children among the female blood relatives of the homosexual, though nobody can explain the exact mechanism. You even find homosexuality with some animals – there it sometimes is a proof of dominance.

***We may add that even though the Quran use strong words about homosexuality, it is silently and widely accepted in some Muslim areas - which makes f.x. the young men serving in the Quran's Paradise an interesting question.

291 7/80f: Here is an interesting comment in (YA1049). Yusuf Ali comments on what is told in the Bible (1. Mos. 19/30-38) about Lot committing incest with his two daughters, something which is not mentioned in the Quran: "His (Lot's*) story is biblical, but freed from some shameful features which are a blot on the biblical narrative". The question is not if the story about the incest is true or not, but that it is a blot on the story of a claimed prophet (the Quran claims Lot was a prophet, which the Bible does not do). "A story we like is sometimes better than looking for what is the truth", someone once said.

292 7/81: "For ye (Sodom and Gomorrah*) practice your lust on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bonds". See 7/80d+e+f above.

293 7/82a: “And his (Lot’s*) people (the people of Sodom and Gomorrah*) gave no answer but this: they said, ‘Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure.’” This surah came ca. 621 AD. But may be the same year and not later than 624 AD the omniscient Allah had forgotten what he told, and now remembered it like this:

29/29: “But his (Lot’s) people gave no answer but this: they said: ‘Bring us the wrath of Allah if thou tallest the truth”. They in both tales only gave one answer - - - but quite different ones in the two narrations.

294 7/82b: “And his (Lot’s*) people (the people of Sodom and Gomorrah*) gave no answer but this: they said, ‘Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure.’” A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

295 7/82c: “And his (Lot’s*) people (the people of Sodom and Gomorrah*) gave no answer but this: they said, ‘Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure.’” See 7/75b above.

296 7/84: "- - - a shower (of brimstones) - - -". Contradiction to the Bible which tells Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by a rain of burning sulfur (1. Mos. 19/24).

297 7/85a: "To the Madyan people - - -". Islam claims Madyan is the same area which in the Bible is called Midian. We know no reason to disbelieve this.

298 7/85b: "To the Madyan people we (Allah*) sent Shu'ayb - - -". This story is not from the Bible.

299 7/85c: "To the Madyan people we (Allah*) sent Shu'ayb - - -". A historical anomaly. See

300 7/85d: "To the Madyan people we (Allah*) sent Shu'ayb - - -". Shu'ayb is the third of the claimed three Arab prophets of the old according to the Quran - a claimed prophet with whom Muhammad makes yet another parallel to his own position in Mecca: What Muhammad experienced there, was indicated to be what prophets normally experienced - no reason for his few followers to be depressed even if the majority of the people did not accept his teachings. Also Shu'ayb may or may not be from folklore. Islam likes to claim he was identical with the father-in-law of Moses, Jethro (in 2. Mos. 2/18, and 4. Mos. 10/29 also called Hobab). There is no rational reason for believing this. Also YA in his comment to this, YA1054, says: "His identification with Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, has no warrant, and I reject it." The Quran f.x. tells Shu'ayb was 4. generation (= ca. 100 - 120 years) after Abraham, but there were some 500 years between Abraham and Moses (if they ever lived), which in case also makes the claim that Shu’ayb was identical to Jethro impossible.

301 7/85e: "- - - ye (the Medianites*) have no other god but Him (Allah*)". See 6/106b above.

302 7/85f: “- - - a clear (Sign) - - -“. See 2/39b and 2/99 above.

303 7/85g: "Give just measures and weight, nor withhold from the people the things that are their due - - -". The demand for honesty is one of the plusses for the Quran. There are, however, points in the book which makes one think that honesty towards Muslims is more essential than towards non-Muslims (and the reputation "Arab salesman" have f.x. among sailors, may indicate that some Muslims think so, too.

304 7/85h: "- - - do not make mischief on earth - - -". Read the Muslim political, military, raiding and slave hunting history, and weep - especially if Islam is a made up religion, and remember here what the fact that there is no god behind the Quran indicates (no god was ever involved in a book of that quality).

305 7/85i: "- - - Faith". = Islam - only Islam is faith according to the Quran.

306 7/86: "- - - the end of those who did mischief". This may be a reference to Muhammad's claim that the people who had once populated the scattered ruins in and around Arabia, and the disappeared tribes from Arab folklore, had been exterminated because they had sinned against Allah. There are a number of other reasons for why houses and hamlets and even towns becomes empty in a land and a culture like the old Arab one.

307 7/87a: "- - - the Message with which I (Muhammad*) have been sent - - -". But in case from whom? - a book where that much is wrong, is not from any god.

222 7/87b: “- - - hold yourselves (“infidels”*) in patience until Allah doth decide between us: for He is the best to decide.” This was in 621 AD – not a good year for Muhammad, and he was – or pretended to be – peaceful. But: This verse is contradicted and often “killed” - abrogated - by at least these later 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 in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". (At least 29 contradictions).

308 7/87c: “- - - hold yourselves (“infidels”*) in patience until Allah doth decide between us: for He is the best to decide.” This may be true only if Allah exists and is a god + that there is no greater and more just god anywhere (in spite of the Quran's claims Allah as he is described in the Quran, is not very just to say the least of it - just read the harsh parts of the sharia laws and the immoral parts of the Quran's moral rules and see for yourself.

309 7/88a: "The (non-Muslim*) leaders - - - said: "O Shu'ayb! - - - (etc.*)". One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 3 reasons - 2 of them unavoidable - for this:

When something is changed, automatically the future is changed.

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

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

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

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

310 7/88b: This verse is another close parallel to Muhammad's position in Mecca in 621 AD - nice for his followers to "know" that Shu'ayb was right and that in the following verses his opponents were punished. And that Shu'ayb came out the winner. Psychologically a good story for the at that time few Muslims.

311 7/89a: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

312 7/89b: "- - - after Allah hath rescued us (Shu'yab*) from (polytheism*) - - -". It was a rescue only if Allah exists, is a god and Islam a true religion. If not it just was a transfer from one superstition to another.

313 7/89c: “- - - nor could we (humans*) by any manner or means return thereto (the right way*), unless it be as in the will and plan of Allah - - -:” It - according to the Quran - is Allah who decides everything in this (and in the claimed next) world, as he predestines everything according to his Plan, and you can do nothing which is not in his plan (which should mean that this book about the Quran is decided by Allah, and part of his Plan - thus there is no reason for Muslims to be angry with us, as it is Allah's decision that we should write it).

##314 7/89d: “- - - nor could we (humans*) by any manner or means return thereto (the right way*), unless it be as in the will and plan of Allah - - -:” According to the Quran it is Allah who decides whether you believe in him and live like a good Muslim or not. But all the same if you do not believe in him and live accordingly, he punishes you with Hell. A fair, good and benevolent god??!

315 7/89e: "- - - His (Allah's*) knowledge". Which cannot be great if he is behind the Quran - too many facts are wrong in that book.

316 7/89f: "In Allah is our (Muslims'*) trust". But the only foundation for that trust is the Quran - or the copy of it Shu'ayb had received.

317 7/89g: "In Allah is our (Muslims*) trust". Rather risky as most likely he is a nonexistent, made up god - at least there is no god behind the only claims for his existence, the Quran (too much is wrong in that book for any god to have been involved in it).

318 7/89h. (A70 – in 2008 edition A72): “- - - Thou (Allah*) art the best to decide.” But the Arab word “fataha” also have another meaning, which makes this sentence sound like this: “- - - Thou art the best to lay open the truth!” Which is something entirely different. The Quran has a clear and distinct language easy to understand and not possible to misunderstand? And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning.

319 7/89i: "- - - truth - - -". See 2/2b above.

320 7/90a: "The leaders, the Unbelievers among his (Shu'ayb*) people - - -". Once more an exact copy of Muhammad's position at the time of the publishing of the surah. There are scores of such "coincidences" in the Quran, telling that Muhammad's position was the normal for prophets (and thus that Muhammad was a normal prophet - nice for his followers to "know").

321 7/90b: "The leaders - - - said: "If ye (people*) follow Shu'ayb - - -". See 7/88a above.

322 7/91: “But an earthquake took them (Shu’ayb’s people, the Madyans*), and they lay prostrate (dead*) in their homes before the morning.” Wrong. An earthquake never kills 100%. Except in low quality high-rise buildings, it takes an extreme earthquake to kill more than 30%.

323 7/92: Pep-talk.

324 7/93a: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

325 7/93b: "- - - the Message for which I was sent by my Lord (Allah*) - - -."If the message was like the one in the Quran, like the Quran indicates, it hardly was from any god - too many mistakes, etc.

326 7/93c: "- - - how should I (the claimed prophet Shu'ayb*) lament over a people who refused to believe?" Can this be the teaching of same god who was behind the stories of the lost coin, the lost sheep/lamb, etc? Simply no. But then as mentioned this story is not from the Bible - and from no other known written source. (And as mentioned Shu'ayb, if he ever lived, he lived too early to be the father-in-law of Moses (like some Muslims claim). Which means he lived well before 1400 BC, which again means 2000+ years before Muhammad. The Iron Age now is roughly 2000 years behind us. What is the chance for that something which happened in the Iron Age in Scotland or France or Persia/Iran or Arabia and which only has been told by the words of mouth through the centuries - never written - is correctly told today? - and how many such after all minor catastrophes from that time are alive by the words of mouth today?

327 7/94a: "Whenever We (Allah*) sent a prophet to a town - - -". Muhammad claimed all people, all over the world and all through history and pre-history had had prophets preaching about Allah. In Hadiths the number 124ooo prophets through the times is mentioned. Except for the Jewish prophets, neither science nor Islam has been able to find traces of even one or of their monotheistic teaching - no traces of an Islam before 610 AD has ever been found.

328 7/94b: "Whenever We (Allah*) sent a prophet to a town, We took up its people in suffering and adversity, in order that they might learn humility". "Whenever" is not the case in the Bible - another indication for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

329 7/94c: Comment from (YA1065): "Man was originally created pure". We do not think there is one rational psychologist in this entire world who agrees to this claim.

330 7/96a: "- - - We (Allah*) should indeed have opened out to them (all kinds of) blessings from heaven and earth - - -". We are back to the old fact: If Allah exists, if he is a central god, and if the Quran tells the full truth and only the truth about this.

331 7/96b: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

332 7/96c: “- - - they (non-Muslims*) rejected (the truth) (= the teachings of Muhammad*)”. With that many mistaken facts (and who knows how many mistaken religious points?) it at best is partly the truth. Also see 2/2b above and 13/1g and 40/75 below.

###333 7/99a: "- - - the Plan of Allah - - -". This refers to Allah's predestined running of the world and the heaven(s - like Islam insists) and perhaps also Hell. It is a rigid plan with no room for changes: Allah has decided everything long ago, and that is it - nothing and nobody can change anything in it - total predestination (which in case means absolutely no room for any free will - partly like some Muslims try to explain it away with or total. And in a way worse and never - never - mentioned by Muslims: Also there is no room for prayers in spite of what the Quran insists - if absolutely nothing can change the predestined Plan of Allah, also prayers can change nothing, and is just a waste of time and effort). You meet this Plan many places in the Quran.

334 7/99b: "- - - the Plan of Allah - - -". See 7/99a just above.

335 7/99c: "- - - those (doomed) to ruin!" One of Muhammad's many names for non-Muslims (in this - and some of the other - case(s) it is likely he may include "bad" Muslims).

336 7/99d: "- - - those (doomed) to ruin!" But Allah only can doom anybody if he exists and in addition is a god.

337 7/100a: "- - - is it not a guiding (lesson) that, if We (Allah*) so willed (see 7/100c below*), We could punish - - -". The only lesson possible to learn from boasting, is that the one boasting wants to make an impression of being more than he is.

338 7/100b: "- - - a guiding (lesson) - - -". See 2/2b above.

339 7/100c: "- - - if We (Allah*) so willed - - -". This is a kind of expression you find MANY places in the Quran: Allah or Muhammad boasting that "if Allah just willed" or similar words. This is the kind of boasting you meet from children, youths, and immature adults needing to feel or give the impression of being bigger or stronger or more influential than they are. The strange coincidence is that they never "will". And strangely also Allah never "willed" or "will". Bashful boasting - very cheap words. But strong believers and naive souls may believe in it even if it never becomes anything but big words - both of which only are claims put forth by a very unreliable man in a book full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. Just engage your knowledge and your brain + omit the cheap glorifications, and see the reality about him and his tales yourself the next time you read the Quran.

340 7/101a: "- - - (the stories*) We (Allah*) (thus) related unto thee (Muhammad/Muslims*) - - -". As the Quran is not from a god with all its mistakes, etc., these stories either mush have been related from someone else, or been the result of illusions - from mental illness like TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) - or made up - the only three possible explanations left.

341 7/101b: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

342 7/101c: “- - - clear (Signs) - - -“. Wrong. See 2/39b and 2/99 above.

##343 7/101d: “- - - they (non-Muslims*) would not believe what they had rejected before.” (Literally: “- - - to which they had given the lie aforetime”.

Comment A7/80 (7/82 in the 2008 English edition): “- - - an allusion to the instinctive unwillingness of most people to give up the notions – positive or negative – to which they are accustomed.”

But the book skips also here the fact that this also goes for Muslims: If they are strongly indoctrinated like Muslims are, they may react strongly to arguments and facts they do not like – and without thinking over – or being mentally unable to think over – even true facts.

344 7/101e: "Thus doth Allah seal up the hearts of those who reject Faith (Islam*)". One more 100% proof for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god. Read f. ex. Luke 15/8-10 and 15/11-31 plus Matt. 18/12-14 and 20/8-13 and get a good laugh - or weep - over the claim that Allah = Yahweh.

345 7/101f: "- - - Faith". = Islam - only Islam is faith according to the Quran.

346 7/102a: “Most of them (people*) We (Allah*) found not men (true) to their covenant - - -“. “The Message of the Quran” (A7/81 - A7/83 in 2008 English edition) tells (in the Swedish edition) that the exact word-for-word translation is: “We found by them nothing that tied them to what is truth and right”. And that book continues by telling that this may include man’s capability to instinctively to see the difference between right and wrong.

Now the fact that some of the most fundamental moral questions get the same answer in many societies indicates that something deep inside man tells some common moral truths: You shall not steal, you shall not be a nuisance – or worse – to others, you shall not rape, you shall not kill, etc. But Islam and the Quran is the best proof for that these inner messages are easy to override for a charismatic leader and for a society, and make immoral behavior praiseworthy and a moral code: To steal/rob, rape, enslave, murder, and more – it all is “good and lawful” if you just observe the right formalities in Islam. To what claimed covenant are they true?

Besides: Is there really a clear covenant between Allah and the Muslims, or have Muhammad and his followers just made promises and believe it is a covenant? - and if there is a covenant: What is it worth if Allah is a made up god?"</

347 7/102b: "- - - (true) - - -". See 2/2b above.

###348 7/102c: "- - - covenant - - -". And - funny - (A7/81) also says: "Its (the Arab word 'ahd*) usual rendering as 'covenant' or 'loyalty to their covenant' is entirely meaningless in this context". As M. Yusuf Ali uses just that meaning in his translation: Welcome to a book with a language clear and easy to understand.

349 7/103a: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

350 7/103b: “- - - Our (indicated Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

351 7/103c: "- - - Pharaoh - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

352 7/103d: “- - - see what was the end (drowning*) of those who made mischief. (Pharaoh and his men*)”. According to science the exodus happened (if it happened) around 1235 BC, during the reign of Ramses II. Ramses II did not drown, which is the punishment the Quran claims. (Also the Bible - from where it is likely Muhammad got this story, at least indirectly - tells that the pharaoh drowned. But the Bible was made by humans. Humans might have mixed Ramses II with one of his generals or one of his 67(?) sons. A god had known the truth.)

353 7/104a: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

354 7/104b: "- - - Pharaoh - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

355 7/104c: "- - - (Allah*) the Lord of the Worlds - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which claims Yahweh is the Lord of everything. 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.

356 7/104d: “- - - the Worlds - - -“. Wrong. There are no 7 worlds, (one above the other according to Hadith). See 65/12 below.

357 7/105a: "One (Moses*) for whom it is right to say nothing but the truth about Allah - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells Moses spoke about Yahweh.

358 7/105b: "- - - truth - - -". See 2/2b above.

359 7/105c: "- - - your (the Pharaoh's*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". Science says that if the exodus ever happened, it took place around 1335BC. That means under the mighty and well known Pharaoh Ramses II (Islam wants it to have happened earlier under pharaohs whose reason for death is not known - Ramses II did not drown (guess if 3 religions had vocalized about it if this had been the case!)). What is very sure, is that Allah was no known god to Ramses II, except perhaps as one of many gods in a distant country. And what is as sure, is that he was a polytheist.

360 7/105d: One small "en passent" here as Muslims do not like the timing of the Exodus, and as M. Yusuf Ali makes a comment (in A1073 to this verse) "(The Jews stayed in Egypt*) perhaps two to four centuries. (Renan allows only one century).": The Bible is very clear on how long time the Jews spent in Egypt: 430 Years, and there was no reason for the Jews to falsify this number, in addition to that in spite of Islam's claims no falsification is known in the Bible, mistakes yes, falsifications no (again: Guess if Islam had screamed about it if even one documented case had been found!). But as Ramses II did not drown, Islam needs to use an earlier pharaoh where one does not know how he died - f.x. Thothmes I (ca. 1540 BC) is mentioned. But Jacob - the patriarch who took the Jews to Egypt lived around 1800 BC (if he is not fiction), or to be exact: Abraham lived - if he is not fiction - around 2ooo - 1800 BC. Jacob was his grandson, and as Abraham was old when he got Isaac (the father of Jacob) it is realistic to say Jacob lived around 1800 or perhaps a bit later. Then it is not possible to use earlier pharaohs than Ramses II if the Jews stayed 430 years. A little twist is necessary in case - and voila!: Islam says (the mentioned YA comment 1073): "- - - Israel stayed there perhaps two to four centuries." Problem solved - without any source for the estimate given. May be the 430 years in the Bible is a falsification? (but in case why?) - the standard and easy "explanation" Muhammad always used.

And there is another point here you never hear Muslims mention: According to the Bible (1. Mos. 46/27) the Jews were 80 - 90 (70 + the wives of Jacob's sons) when they settled in Egypt. The same book mentions 2 - 3 places that when they left Egypt, they were 600ooo men = something like 2.ooo.ooo included women and children. It at least theoretically is quite possible for say 80 to become 2.ooo.ooo in 430 years. But it is in no way possible in 200 or 300 years (and 100 years is a joke) , and even 400 may be unlikely - for a geometrical curve like this is, one extra generation makes a big difference. Also this makes an exodus and a pharaoh around 1500 - 1600 BC like Islam likes to claim to get rid of Ramses II, impossible.

361 7/105e: “- - - a clear (Sign) - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah (but perhaps for Yahweh?). See 2/39b above.

362 7/106a: "(Pharaoh) said: - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

263 7/106b: "(Pharaoh) said: 'If indeed - - - (etc.*)". See 7/88a above.

364 7/106c: “- - - a Sign - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah (but perhaps for Yahweh?). See 2/39b above.

365 7/106d: "- - - it was a serpent - - -". It is said that serpents had a religious significance in old Egypt. F.x. did the great god Ra fight the snake Apophis and won a great victory over it. Also many of the old Egyptian gods could take the shape of snakes. Moses' ability to shape shift his staff to a snake may therefore have had an extra significance in addition to the very shape shifting from staff to animal. On the other hand beware that the Quran in 21/10 and in 28/31 do not say the staff had become a snake, but that it was moving "as if it had been a snake = less of a miracle than if it had really become a snake.

366 7/107: "Then (Moses) threw his rod - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

367 7/108: "- - - (Moses hand*) was white - - -". Here is a small, but not so small difference between the Quran and the Bible - in the Quran it was white, whereas in the Bible it was white and leprous. This has some significance as to heal leprosy, like Moses then did shortly after with his hand, was impossible.

368 7/109a: "Said the Chiefs of the people of Pharaoh - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

369 7/109a: "Said the Chiefs of the people of Pharaoh: "This is indeed a sorcerer well-versed". See 7/88a above.

370 7/110a: “His (Moses’) plan is to oust you (Pharaoh*) from your land - - -". Nothing like this in the Bible.

371 7/110b: “His (Moses’) plan is to oust you (Pharaoh*) from your land - - -". Taken into account how powerful Ramses II was - perhaps the mightiest pharaoh ever in the old Egypt - and Moses only the spokesman (hardly the leader yet) of a group of slaves, no adviser could say such a thing to the Pharaoh and expect to be believed.

372 7/110c: (A84 – comment omitted in 2008 edition): “His (Moses’) plan is to oust you (Pharaoh*) from your land: then what is your counsel?” But it is unclear in the Arab originals who really said the last part of the quotation. “The Message of the Quran” has: “(Said Pharaoh.) “What, then, do you (his advisers*) advice?” In the first case it is the advisers who ask the Pharaoh, in the second one it is exactly the opposite. 2 possible and very contradicting meanings – in this case from sheer unclear language. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning.

373 7/110-127: At least this part of the story is not from the Bible. Actually not the rest, too, but the correspondence there is more reasonable.

374 7/111a: "- - - they (the sorcerers*) said - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

375 7/111b: "- - - they (the sorcerers*) said: "Keep him (Moses*) - - - (etc*)". See 7/88a above.

376 7/113a: "They (the sorcerers*) said - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

377 7/113b: "They (the sorcerers*) said: "Of course we - - - (etc*)". See 7/88a above.

378 7/113c: "They (the sorcerers*) said: "Of course we shall have a (suitable) reward if we win!" This is something you simply do not say to such a mighty dictator like Ramses II.

379 7/114: “- - - ye (the sorcerers*) shall in that case be (raised to posts) nearest (to my person).” It needs strong proofs to certify that the mighty pharaoh Ramses II promised so incredibly much for so little - they were after all just sorcerers and Moses was no great danger to him as he saw it, and Ramses II likely was the mightiest pharaoh ever in the old Egypt.

380 7/115a: "They (the sorcerers*) said - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

381 7/115b: "They (the sorcerers*) said: "O Moses! - - - (etc*)". See 7/88a above.

382 7/116: "Said Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

383 7/117a: "We (the god) put into Moses' mind by inspiration - - -". This method of transferring information is never mentioned in the Bible - on the contrary Yahweh specifies that he used direct talk, visions or dreams (4. Mos. 12/6-7).

384 7/117b: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

###385 7/120a: After Moses made his miracle “the sorcerers fell down prostate in adoration” and convinced that the god of Moses was a strong and real one. This is one of the proofs for that Muhammad knew he was lying when he time and again told his audiences that it would have no effect to perform miracles, because disbelievers would not believe anyhow; disbelievers - even sorcerers - became Muslims because of one small miracle in his own story(!), and thus explained away the fact that he (and his presumed god) was unable to make miracles. Here he tells just the opposite - a psychologically much more correct tale on just this one point. The same story in 20/69-70. That Muhammad told this story, also shows that he knew miracles works, and thus that he knew he was lying in the Quran when he told Allah did not send miracles because it would make nobody believe anyhow.

386 7/120b: After Moses made his miracle “the sorcerers fell down prostate in adoration” and convinced that the god of Moses was a strong and real one. This is not from the Bible, nor from any other known written source.

387 7/120c: After Moses made his miracle “the sorcerers fell down prostate in adoration” and convinced that the god of Moses was a strong and real one. See 7/88a above.

388 7/120-22: "But the sorcerers fell down prostrate in adoration, saying: We believe in the Lord of the Worlds, the Lord of Moses and Aaron". This is not from the Bible. In the Bible there is not mentioned one word about clashes because of religion. The only subject was: Let the Jews leave Egypt.

389 7/121a: "(The sorcerers said): 'We believe in - - - (etc.)". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

390 7/121b: "(The sorcerers said): 'We believe in - - - (etc.)". See 7/88a above.

391 7/121c: "We (the sorcerers*) believe in the Lord of the Worlds (Allah*) - - -". See 7/120a+b+c above.

392 7/121d: “- - - the Worlds - - -.” Wrong. There are no 7 worlds. See 65/12.

393 7/122: "- - - Moses and Aaron". 2 historical anomalies. See 4/13d above.

394 7/123a: "Said Pharaoh - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

395 7/123b: "Said Pharaoh: 'Believe ye - - - (etc.*)". See 7/88a above.

396 7/123c: "Believe ye (the sorcerers*) in Him - - -". It here in reality is unclear to whom the word "Him" refers. YA has used a capital first letter, which shows he think it refers to Allah. But other Muslim scholars think it refers to Moses - f.x. in A7/89 - in the English 2008 edition A7/91. One meets similar expression - and the same uncertainty - in 20/71 and in 29/49. Like said many times before with reference to Islam's claim that the language in the Quran is so clear and easy to understand that it is a proof for that it is from a god: The language in the Quran in realty often is unclear and/or with more than one possible meaning.

397 7/124a: “Be sure I (Ramses II*) will - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

398 7/124b: “Be sure I (Ramses II*) will - - -". See 7/88a above.

399 7/124c: “Be sure I (Ramses II*) will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides - - -“. As far as we have been able to find out, Egypt at the time of Ramses II did not use this Arab way of punishment.

400 7/124d: “- - - and I (Pharaoh Ramses II*) will cause you all to die on the cross”. In Egypt at that time crucifixion was not used.

401 7/124e: Verse 7/124 is not from the Bible - there is nothing about this there.

402 7/125a: "They (the sorcerers*) said - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

403 7/125b: "They (the sorcerers*) said: 'For us, we are but sent back to our Lord (here claimed to be Allah*)". See 7/88a above.

404 7/125c: This verse definitely is not from the Bible.

405 7/126a: “- - - Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39 above.

###406 7/126b: "- - - Muslims - - -". Wrong. The word was not known and is not found in any inscription or any scripture until some 2000 years later. But as said this story is one of the proofs for that Muhammad knew he was lying each time he claimed that miracles would not make anyone believe anyhow, so that because of that Allah made no miracles connected to him (Muhammad).

407 7/127a: "Said the chiefs of Pharaoh's people - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

408 7/127b: "Said the chiefs of Pharaoh's people: "Wilt thou (Ramses II*) leave - - - (etc*)". See 7/88a above.

409 7/127c: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

410 7/127d: “He (Ramses II*) said: ‘Their (the Jews’*) male children will we slay - - -“. But they were already slaying the male children of the Jews – that was why the baby Moses had to be put on the Nile according to the Bible and not contradicted by the Quran. Both a mistake and a contradiction. And mistakes and contradictions do not exist in the Quran? See f.x. 7/141 below - it was a reality, not a new decision.

2/49: “- - - We (indicated Allah*) delivered you from the people of Pharaoh (who*) - - - slaughtered your sons - - -“.

7/141: “- - - Pharaoh’s people - - - who slew your male children and saved alive the females - - -.” Both the Quran and the Bible tell more than one place that the killing of male babies started long before the situation in 7/127. The Bible tells that the killing of male babies was the reason for why the baby Moses was set adrift on the Nile - a desperate try to save him (the Quran gives no real reason).

14/6: “(Moses said about Pharaoh that he*) slaughtered your sons and let your women-folk live - - -.”

(3 contradictions).

411 7/127e: "He (Ramses II*) said - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

412 7/127f: "He (Ramses II*) said: "Their male children - - - (etc.*)". See 7/88a above.

413 7/128a: "Said Moses to his people: 'Pray for help from Allah - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which claims Yahweh was the god of Moses. 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.

414 7/128b: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

415 7/128c: "- - - the earth is Allah's - - -". Often claimed, never documented. Not even the existence of Allah is proved.

416 7/128d: "- - - the righteous". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it refers to its own partly immoral moral code.

417 7/129a: "They (the people of Moses*) said - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

418 7/129b: "They (the people of Moses*) said: 'We have had - - - (etc.*)". See 7/88a above.

419 7/129c: "He (Moses*) said - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

420 7/129d: "- - - He (Allah*) may try you by your deeds". This is similar to Muhammad's standard explanations why Muslims met difficulties, not to mention when Muhammad wanted his followers to make raids and wars, and of course then it was psychologically wise to let Moses use such expressions, too, to show that Muhammad just did what other prophets did and said. But why does an omniscient, predestining god need to try anyone at all? - there is no logic in it - - - unless it was Muhammad who needed the warriors and an "explanation" for their hardship.

421 7/130a: “We (indicated Allah*) punished the people of the Pharaoh with years (of draught) - - -.” There is nowhere said directly how long time it took Moses to get his people free and out of Egypt neither in the Quran nor in the Bible. But the few sources indicate a limited time. The Bible has one piece of information that gives a clear indication – and we had better once more mention that science has proved beyond any legal and reasonable and any unreasonable doubt that the Bible never was falsified, in spite of never documented loose claims and loose statement from the Quran and from Islam. Moses was 80 years old when he came to the Pharaoh to get the freedom for the Jews. Afterwards he and his people spent 40 years in Sinai, and he died 120 years old – which means it must have taken less than one year, perhaps weeks or a few months, because if not the numbers do not add up. Also the texts in the Bible indicate weeks or months, even though it is not directly said. Further there is no mentioning of draught or shortness of food or anything else in the Bible connected to this incident. This verse may be a mix up with Joseph and the 7 bad years 430-440 years earlier.

422 7/130b: "- - - Pharaoh - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

423 7/131a: "- - - when the good (times) came, they (the Egyptians*) said, 'This is due to us'. When gripped by calamity, they ascribed it to evil omens connected with Moses - - -". This is not Biblical. It seems that Muhammad either did not know this story well (he knew little about the Bible in 621 AD when this surah was published), or that he misunderstood something - or both. This is about the plagues, and the plagues had nothing to do with omens. Also the rest her differs fundamentally from the story in the Bible.

424 7/131b: "- - - evil omens - - -". This is about the 10 plagues. Moses/Yahweh did not send evil omens, but plagues - harsh reality.

425 7/131c: "- - - in truth - - -". See 2/2b above.

426 7/132a: "They (the Egyptians*) said - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

427 7/132b: "- - - (- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

428 7/132c: "They (the Jews*) said (to Moses): Whatever signs thou bringest - - -". See 7/88a above.

429 7/132d: “- - - Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah - but perhaps for Yahweh. See 2/39b above.

230 7/133a: (621 AD): “So we sent (plagues) on them: Wholesale death (plague 10 in the Bible (2. Mos. 11/1-10)*), locusts (plague 8 in the Bible (2. Mos. 10/1-20)*), lice (not mentioned in the Bible, but perhaps mixed up with gnats - plague 3 - or flies - plague 4*), frogs (plague 2 in the Bible (2. Mos. 8/1-15)*), and blood (plague 1. in the Bible (2. Mos. 7/14-24)*): Signs openly self-explained” = 5 plagues or “signs”. Contradicted by: 17/101 (621 AD or later): “To Moses We (Allah*) did give 9 Clear Signs”. Muslims explain that the staff/snake of Moses and his white hand were two of the “signs” (7/107+108) - but they cannot be interpreted as plagues in case. The two last some say are the years of draught and shortness of crops (taken from the story about Joseph?), but this cannot be correct - even if no book say how long time Moses worked to get his people free, it is indicated that it took a limited time (this also is clear from the Bible), whereas years of shortage of crops took - well, years. (The Bible tells: The sign with the staff and white hand, like in the Quran (though the hand leprous, so that both the color and the healing of the frightening illness were signs), and water poured on the ground turned to blood (not in the Quran), but followed by 10 plagues (included one - the first - where all water - also the Nile - turned to blood) = 13 signs all together).

(4 contradictions).

The list of "signs" according to the Quran (taken from YA1091) - the claimed 9 clear signs:

The rod turning to a snake (7/107).

The white, radiant hand (7/|08).

The years of drought or shortage of water (7/130). This one is impossible if the time frame in the Bible is not wildly wrong. It also is highly unlikely that Yahweh and Moses had the patience to wait for years for the next step.

Wholesale death (7/133). The Arab word used here, "tufan", in reality means a widespread calamity causing wholesale death and destruction. The corresponding biblical one is more specific.)

Shortness of crops (7/130). This in reality is a clear and natural part of shortage of water, but may have been added as a separate "sign" to get 9 "signs" - the number the Quran mentions.

Epidemics among men and beasts (7/133).

Locusts (7/133).

Lice (7/133).

Frogs (7/133).

The water in the Nile, etc. turned to blood.

The list of the signs (3) and plagues (10) according to the Bible:

The 3 signs:

The staff becoming a snake (2. Mos. 4/3-4).

The white, leprous hand (2. Mos. 4/6-7).

Water poured on the ground became blood (2. Mos. 4/9).

The 10 plagues:

All water becoming blood (2. Mos. 7/14-24).

The plague of frogs (2. Mos. 8/1-15).

The plague of gnats (2. Mos. 8/16-19).

The plague of flies (2. Mos. 8/20-30).

The plague on the livestock (2. Mos. 9/1-7).

The plague of boils (2. Mos. 9/8-12)

The plague of hail (2. Mos.9/13-35).

The plague of locusts (2. Mos. 10/1-20).

The plague of darkness (2. Mos. 10/21-29).

The death of all firstborn (2. mos. 11/1-10).

431 7/133b: “- - - Signs - - -.” Invalid as a proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

432 7/134a: "- - - they (the Egyptians*) said - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

433 7/134b: "- - - they (the Egyptians*) said: "O Moses! - - - (etc.*)". See 7/88a above.

434 7/134c: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

435 7/134d: "- - - the Children of Israel - - -". Israel was the new name the Jewish patriarch Jacob got from Yahweh (1. Mos. 32/28). The Children of Israel means his descendants = the Jews.

436 7/134e: "- - - the Children of Israel - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

437 7/134f: (YA1092): "The demand of Moses was 2-fold: (1) Come to Allah and cease from oppression, and (2) let me take Israel out of Egypt". Demand number (1) is nowhere mentioned in the Bible - only: "Let my people go".

438 7/135: "- - - they (the Egyptians*) broke their word!" See 7(88a above.

439 7/136a: “- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as a proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

440 7/136b: "- - - We (indicated Allah*) drowned them (Ramses II and his people*) in the sea - - -". Wrong as far as Ramses II goes - we know from history that he did not drown.

441 7/137a: "- - - the Children of Israel - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

*442 7/137b: “- - - We (indicated Allah*) leveled to the ground the great works and fine Buildings which Pharaoh and his people had erected - - -”. There is no trace neither in archaeology, nor in history, literature or art, not even in folklore or fairy tales of such a catastrophe around the year 1235 BC (some years before the end of the reign of Ramses II) when this should have happened – at the time of the exodus from Egypt. On the contrary; Ramses II was one of the strongest and most successful of the pharaohs, and also a great builder leaving MANY great buildings behind after many years of - among other things - building. Has Muhammad put more drama to his story, believing it would be impossible to control if it were true? Islam will have to find proofs - and they do not exist. (You will meet Muslims claiming the Quran here refers to the natural wear and tear which today means there are many ruins in Egypt, but that has nothing to do with a punishment of the pharaoh and his people to do - just another "explaining away", and a very primitive one.)

443 7/138a: "- - - the Children of Israel - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

444 7/138b: "They (the Jews moving in Sinai*) came upon a people devoted entirely to some idols they had." Who were they? Nobody knows. One guesses about anything from tribes mentioned in OT to Egyptian copper miners. This episode is not mentioned in the Bible - and knowing the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is not from any god + knowing there is no other source about things like this, how did Muhammad get this information?- if it really was information?

445 7/138c: "They (the Jews*) said: 'O Moses! Fashion for us a god like unto the gods they (the people they met - see 7/138a just above*) have." No such episode is mentioned in the Bible. See 7/138a just above.

446 7/138d: "They (the Jews*) said: 'O Moses! Fashion for us a god like unto the gods they (the people they met - see 7/138a just above*) have." See 7/88a above.

447 7/138e: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

448 7/138f: "- - - Knowledge". See26/83a below. 

449 7/138-139: This episode is unknown to the Bible.

450 7/140a: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

451 7/140b: "- - - the (true) God (here indicated Allah*)- - -". See 2/2b above.

452 7/140c: "- - - it is Allah Who hath endowed you (the Jews*) with gifts - - -". Everything one has, is from Allah - often claimed, never proved.

453 7/140d: "- - - it is Allah Who hath endowed you (the Jews*) with gifts - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells that Moses spoke about Yahweh, not about 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.

454 7/141a: "- - - Pharaoh - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

455 7/141b: “- - - Pharaoh’s people - - - who slew your male children and saved alive the females - - -.” 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, and his mother did it as a desperate try to save him). 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 2/49 and 14/6).

7/127: “He (Pharaoh*) said: ‘Their male children will we slay: (only) their females will we save alive - - -“. And it is clear that this is to start fast.

40/25: “Slay the sons of those who believe in him (Moses*)”.

(2 contradictions).

456 7/142a: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

457 7/142b: "- - - Aaron - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

458 7/143a: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

459 7/143b: "- - - Show (thyself (Yahweh*) to me (Moses*) - - - (and the rest of the verse)". This is not in the Bible - actually the Bible tells exactly the opposite; that the god himself was the one who said he would show himself to the people - or at least let them hear him (2.Mos. 19/3-9).

460 7/143c: “- - - I (Moses) am the first to believe.” This one is similar to f. ex. 6/14, except here it is Moses instead of Muhammad. But it contradicts the Quran's telling that f. ex. Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, Hud, Salih, Shu'ayb and others believed Muslims before him. And Moses and all the others were making a lie out of Muhammad’s saying that he – Muhammad – was the first. A number of contradictions. (2/127-133, 3/67, 6/14, 6/163, 26/51). Muslims tells that these contradictions are not contradictions, because it is meant the first of a group, a nation, or something – but that is not what the Quran says, and it also does not explain all cases.

461 7/144a: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

462 7/144b: "- - - take then the (revelations) which I (the god*) give the (Moses*) - - -". If the old books tell the truth, there is no doubt that Moses got revelations - but from Yahweh if the Bible tells the truth here, not from Allah - 2 gods (if both exist) with so different teachings that they definitely are not the same god, in spite of Muhammad's never documented claims.

463 7/145a: “(claims Allah gave Moses the Law*) - - - explaining all things.” The laws in the book of Moses explain far from all things.

464 7/145b: "And We (Allah*) ordained the Laws for him (Moses*)in the Tablets - - -". According to the Bible, the 2 stone tablets contained only the 10 Commandments ("Moses turned and went down the mountain with the two tablets of the Testimony (10 Commandments*) in his hands" - 2. Mos. 32/15) - the law he only was told and wrote it down later. If Muhammad had been thinking a little before he told these verses, he also had understood that all the "laws of Moses" had been too heavy to carry down from the mountain if they had been on stone tablets - they cover a number of pages.(It is completely ok to use your brain when you read the Quran, not only your eyes - at least as long as you are not a Muslim.)

465 7/145c. "- - - the Tablets - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

466 7/145d: (YA 1109): “Soon I (Allah*) shall show you the home of the wicked - - -.” The question Muslims ask: The home where they lived or used to live? – Muhammad told the ruins scattered around in the Middle East all were from people punished by Allah for sins. Or the claimed terrible spiritual condition inside them? Or perhaps their future home Hell? At least a clear statement?

467 7/146a: "- - - those who behave arrogantly on the earth in defiance of right - - -". = Those who do not accept Islam = non-Muslims. Simply one of Muhammad's many distaste inducing names for non-Muslims.

468 7/146b: "- - - right - - -". See 2/2b above - this even though in this case it is indicated Islam itself.

469 7/146c: "- - - My (indicated Allah's*) Signs - - -". Wrong. See 2/39b above.

470 7/146d: "- - - them (the ones refusing to believe Muhammad*) will I (Allah*) turn away from My Signs (here = deny them the possibility to find Islam after all*) - - -". Compare this to "the lost coin" (Luke 15/8-10), "the lost sheep" (Matt. 18/12-14), "the lost son" (Luke 15/11-31), "the 11. hour" (Matt.20/8-13). Yahweh and Allah the same god? There only is one possible answer: No - the teachings are fundamentally too different.

471 7/146e: "- - - even if they (non-Muslims*) see all the Signs (of Allah*), they will not believe in them - - -". For the very natural reason that there nowhere exists not one "sign" clearly from Allah, and when one meets made up "proofs" (which the claimed "signs" in the Quran pretend to be), one naturally grows skeptical - the use of made up or false proofs is a "flag of danger" and an indication - often a proof - of a cheat, a deceiver, a swindler.

472 7/146f: “- - - even if they (non-Muslims*) see all the Signs (of Allah*), they will not believe in them”. Wrong: They would - - - if the “signs” of Allah really had been real signs of Allah. F.x. see the pharaoh’s magicians. This is one more place Muhammad knew he was lying - some reliable signs, and a lot of people will believe. Muhammad was too intelligent and knew too much about people not to know this. But NB: Only in the case of reliable signs.

473 7/146g: "- - - the way of right conduct - - -". Believing in and obeying Muhammad - the claimed way to the Quran's and Islam's Paradise - see 10/9f below.

474 7/146h: "- - - right conduct - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code - good conduct was f.x. to raid for valuables, slaves and power for Muhammad.

475 7/146i: "- - - right - - -". See 2/2b above.

476 7/146j: "- - - the way of error - - -". = Anything not in accordance with Muhammad's teachings. As it is clear this teaching was not from a god - as the Quran with all its mistakes is not from a god - this sentence must be at least partly revised.

477 7/146k: "- - - error - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

478 7/146l: "- - - rejected Our (Allah's*) Signs, and failed to take warning from them". You do not take warning from "signs" you know are invalid - on the contrary you are on your guard because the use of invalid claims and invalid "proofs" is the hallmark of cheats, deceivers and swindlers.

479 7/147a: "Those who reject Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -". One of Muhammad's distaste inducing names for non-Muslims.

480 7/147b: “- - - Our (indicated Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

481 7/147c: This verse is typical pep-talk for Muhammad's followers.

482 7/148a: While Moses was meeting Yahweh for 40 days on the mountain to receive the Commandments, the Jews made a calf from gold and prayed to it (using a calf - a reference to the ox Apis - as a symbol seems to have been not unusual – they are known from history and at least one such calf has been found by archaeologists). This story is in both the Quran and the Bible, even though details disagree.

483 7/148b: "The people of Moses made in his absence - - - the image of a calf - - -". One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 3 reasons - 2 of them unavoidable - for this:

When something is changed, automatically the future is changed.

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

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

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

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

484 7/148c: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

485 7/149a: “When they (the Jews*) repented (before Moses came down from the mountain with the 10 Commandments*) - - -“. The Jews of Moses saw they had erred when they had made the calf from gold, and repented before Moses came back from his meeting with Yahweh. Moses was angry, but the people already had repented. This was told in 621 AD. But later Allah must have remembered something wrong, because 5-6 years later he had told this:

20/91: (Moses’ Jews said): “We will not abandon this cult (the gold calf*) but we will devote ourselves to it until Moses returns to us (from his meeting with Yahweh*)” Only one – if any – of these two tales can be true.

Wrong and a contradiction. The story also differ a lot from the one in the Bible.

486 7/149b: “When they (the Jews*) repented (before Moses came down from the mountain with the 10 Commandments*) - - -“. This is not from the Bible - there they did not repent until after a very angry Moses returned.

487 7/149-150: Here are more contradictions to the Bible - and to the Quran. The Jews make the golden calf, but repents before Moses returns. In the Bible (2 Mos. 32/19) and other places in the Quran (20/91) they definitely did not repent until afterwards.

488 7/150a: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

489 7/150b: "He (Moses*) put down the Tablets - - -". Contradiction to the Bible: There Moses threw down the tablets and broke them (2. Mos. 32/19) - and had to get new ones afterwards (2. Mos. 34/1+29).

490 7/150c: "- - - Aaron - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

491 7/150d: "The people did indeed reckon me (Aaron*) as naught - - -." In the Quran the making of the golden calf is strictly against the will of Aaron. In the Bible he may be against it, but not more than that he takes part in the making of it.

492 7/151a: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

493 7/151b: "- - - Thou (indicated Allah*) art the Most Merciful - - -". See 1/1a above.

494 7/152a: "Those who took the calf (for worship) - - -". See 7/148b above.

495 7/152b: "- - - indeed - - -". See 2/2b above.

496 7/152c: "- - - thus do We (Allah*) recompense those who invent (falsehood (= claims not in accordance with Muhammad's teachings*))". What is the value and consequence of this sentence if the Quran is a made up book?

497 7/152d: "- - - (falsehood) - - -". See 2/2b above.

498 7/153a: "- - - do wrong - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

499 7/153b: "- - - verily - - -". See 2/2b above.

500 7/153c: "- - - thy Lord (indicated Allah*) is thereafter Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful - - -". See 1/1a above.

501 7/154a: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

502 7/154b: "(Afterwards*) - - - he (Moses*) took up the Tablets - - -". Contradiction to the Bible: See 7/150b above.

503 7/155a: "And Moses choose seventy of his people - - -". This is not in accordance with what the Bible tells here - in the Bible (2. Mos. 32/27-28) the Jews got a severe punishment. But the number 70 may be from another place in the Bible, where Moses chose 70 of the elders among the Jews for confirming the covenant with Yahweh - it would not be the only time Muhammad mixed information from the Bible in case. (2. Mos. 24/1).

504 7/155b: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

505 7/155c: (A120): “- - - when they were sized with violent quaking (“radjfah”) - - -.” The Arab word “radjfah” normally means earthquake. But here A. Yusuf Ali most likely is right when indicating that it was the men that started quaking - or shaking – because they were afraid.

506 7/155d: “If it had been Thy (claimed to be Allah*) Will Thou couldst have destroyed, long before, both them (the people*) and me”. But for some reason or other that has not happened. There are many sentences like this in the Quran - claims about what Allah (according to the Quran) could have done if he just wanted. See 14/19d below.

507 7/155e: "This is no more than thy (claimed to be Allah's*) trial - - -". Once more the question the Quran and Islam never answers: Why does an omniscient and totally predestining god have to try his followers? - there is no logic in this often repeated claim, which Muhammad used as an explanation for difficulties his followers met and for why Allah wanted wars and bloodshed resulting in riches and power for Muhammad.

508 7/155f: "- - - Thou (claimed to be Allah*) causeth whom Thou wilt to stray - - -". Once more this 100% proof for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god, and especially not compared to NY and the new covenant (Luke 21/20). Yahweh causes no-one to stray (Luke 15/8-1o and 15/11-31 plus Matt. 18/12-14 and 20/8-13).

509 7/155g: "- - - and Thou (claimed to be Allah*) leadest whom Thou wilt into the right path (to Paradise*)". Another 100% - or 110% proof for the difference mentioned in 7/155f just above. Allah leads whom he will, Yahweh leads anyone who really wants and lives accordingly.

510 7/155h: "- - - Thy (claimed to be Allah*) mercy - - -". See 1/1a above.>/p>

511 7/155i: "- - - Thou (claimed to be Allah*) art the best of those who forgive". See 1/1a above.

512 7/156a: "With My (Allah's*) punishment I visit whom I will - - -". A small distinction from Yahweh who visits only those who deserves it, according to the Bible.

513 7/156b: "- - - My (Allah's*) Mercy extendeth to all things". Read 1/1a and see if you believe this. Words are cheap, facts are reality.

514 7/156c: "- - - Our (claimed to be Allah's*) Signs - - -". Wrong. See 2/39b above.

*515 7/157a: “- - - the Messenger, unlettered Prophet (Muhammad) - - -”. Islam frequently tells that Muhammad was an an-alphabetic (then he could not have made up the Quran, they claim - which he could anyhow, he in case just could not do the writing it down himself - which he did not do). But in science there is serious doubt about this - he was from a good family which it is likely thought its male members how to read and write, and in addition he was intelligent and he run first a big business (the one of his first wife Khadijah) and later a large organization. It is highly unlikely that such a man did not learn how to read and write - and unlikely that his first wife had accepted him as the manager of her business if he was analphabetic).

You also can meet Muslims telling you that the “fact” that Mohammad could not read, “proves” that all his knowledge about the Bible he had to have gotten via holy inspiration - he could not have read about it. We find it distinctly dishonest that they omit all the vocal storytelling that was very rife in Arabia (and most other countries) – and the fact is that most of the Biblical stories in the Quran are such tales and not really from the Bible itself.

***517 7/157b: “- - - the Prophet (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:

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. Similar in 6/50a, 7/188b, 10/20c+d, 10/49a, and 72/26.

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.

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"?)

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.

Also see 30/40h below.

518 7/157c: “Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -“. Remember that here according to the Quran Allah is now speaking to Moses. How could the people of Moses follow Muhammad who was born more than 1800 years later? (Islam tries to explain this away by saying it is just an incursion. So disorganized as the Quran is written - it has little to do with good literature - it may be true. If not this is a contradiction).

**519 7/157d: “(Muhammad, whom they – the people of Moses*) ‘find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) – in the Law and the Gospel - - -‘“. The Law existed when Moses made this speech. But how could the people of Moses find the Gospels (remember that this is from a speech Moses made to his people some 1300 - 1335 years before Jesus was even born)? – the Gospels did not exist until some 1900 years later!! Another strong mistake and another strong contradiction.

Some Muslim writers try to cover up this blunder by adding in brackets "(later on)". But for one thing this is not what the Quran says (another case where Islam admits there is a mistake in the Quran?). And for another: Even if it had been true that Moses meant "later on", the word "Gospel" had no meaning for his listeners, as no Gospel existed and the word as a name was meaningless to his followers. A clear case of trying to explaining away a logical and historical mistake.

Also beware that the expression "The Law of Moses" may be misleading. Moses according to the books got the laws in Sinai. Much later they were included in "the Books of Moses" when they were written, and therefore these books also often were called "the Law". It may well be these books Muhammad referred to. But in that case: The verses Muslim (wrongly) claim is about Muhammad (5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18) are not in the Law proper which are the only scriptures said to be written down then (the rest of the so-called "Books of Moses" are written some centuries later according to science), and could thus not have existed at the time of Moses.

*520 7/157e: “- - - the unlettered Prophet (Muhammad*), whom they (Jews and Christians*) find mentioned in their own (Scriptures)”. You often meet Muslims claiming or stating that Mohammad is foretold in the Bible - as normal for Muslims without documentation. They have to claim this, as it is said here in the Quran, and if there are mistakes in the Quran, the book is not from a god - an omniscient god do not make mistakes - and then Islam is a religion built on a made up "holy" book. We have never been able to find a complete list of where he is said to be mentioned – obviously because the educated Muslims mainly speak about one in OT (5. Mos. 18/15+18) and one in NT (John 14/26), but there are some other "weaker" places, too. The ones below are the ones we have found (more or less copied from "Moses in the Bible?" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - https://www.1000mistakes.com ).

There is one point here which Muslims never mention: If Muhammad really was mentioned in the Quran, this had been a strong argument for him to use when trying to win over the Jews (and for that case the Christians, but there were not many Christians in the Mecca/Medina area, compared to the number of Jews) to his religion. As far as we can find, he never used it when speaking to Jews. He also seldom used this claim under other circumstances, even though also for his Arab followers such an indication for that he really was a prophet, would have had great value. A very likely reason for that he did not use such a valuable claim, is that he knew or at least suspected that it was not true, and that the Jews with their books easily would see this.

There is another serious point to this Islamic claim: Many of the Islamic scholars know the Bible quite well - this is obvious from the fact that they frequently quote the Bible when there are points there which they like or where they wants to express that the Quran has a better point of view on just this-and-this than the Bible. They thus have to know f.x. how the word "brother" - the main word in this case in 5. Mos. 18/15+18 - in the figurative meaning is used in the Bible. It is used figuratively at least 325 times in that book, and no-one knowing the Bible would get the idea that in any - not one - of all these places Arabs are indicated. It is very clear that practically always in OT it means fellow Jews (there are something like 5 exceptions - one place a king is calling another, friendly king his brother, 3 times it is specified one meant descendants after Esau (the brother of Jacob) and one time Abraham says it to Lot. Well, actually there may be one more exception (1. Mos. 25/18): "And they (the 12 sons of Ishmael*) lived in hostility to all their brothers". If this means they were quarreling between themselves, the meaning is literal. If it means they quarreled with the sons of Isaac, the meaning may be figurative or it may be literal - meaning the closest relatives (this is nearly the last time Ishmael and his descendants are mentioned in the Bible - after all they lived far off - - - and far from Mecca where Muhammad claimed they lived.) All the other times it refers to other Jews. It is not possible to study the Bible/OT and not see this. Also in the Quran the word is used figuratively - more than 30 times. The only time it refers to Jews there, is one case where Muhammad links hypocrites to Jews and claims they are brothers. Also Arabia and Arabs are mentioned in the Bible - some 13 times - and always in neutral words or as enemies, never as friends, not to mention brothers. All the same Islam and its scholars straight-facedly tell their readers and their audiences that "brothers" in 5. Mos. 18/15+18 refer to Arabs and thus to Muhammad. There only are 2 possible explanations for such dishonesty: An al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie) to "explain" Muhammad's perhaps slip of the tongue, or wishful thinking stronger than their intellectual integrity.

Nearly as bad is the Muslim scholars' position concerning the main claim in NT, John 14/26. It f. ex. is both physically and biologically impossible that Muhammad could be a helper of Jesus' disciples, as he was born something like 500 years after they were dead. All the same they tell their audiences that John 14/26 is about Muhammad and a proof for that he was foretold and a prophet. (John 14/26 refers to the Holy Spirit which according to the Bible came to and in a way became parts of the disciples some days later at Pentecost. More further down.) Also see 7/157d just above.

SAMPLES OF CLAIMS ABOUT MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE:

The Old Testament (OT)

Point of relevance I, claim from Islam.

1. Mos. 12/1-3, claim 1:

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

What the Bible really says (1. Mos. 12/1-3):

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

Point of relevance II, claim from Islam.

1. Mos. 12/1-3, claim 2:

Claim 2: "Moses and Jesus were national prophets and could not fulfill Allah's/Yahweh's promise that the nations would be blessed in Abraham. Ergo 1. Genesis 12/1-3 must indicate Muhammad."

We have Quoted 1. Mos. 12/1-3 in the paragraph just above. Find the "clear foretelling of Muhammad" if you are able to.

What the Bible really says:

As for Moses: "- - - I (Yahweh*) have raised you (Moses*) up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the Earth." Even Moses was a message to the world according to the Bible. As for Jesus: Read the orders he gave his disciples before he left them, ordering them to go into all the world and make all people to his disciples by baptizing them in the name of Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. There in addition are several places in the NT clearly telling that NT also was for all others not only the Jews. Not exactly aiming at just the small Israel.

There also is an interesting piece of information in Acts 10/28: "You are well aware that it is against our (Jewish*) law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile (non-Jew*) or visit him". There may have been good reasons for Jesus not to go too much against such social rules - he had enough opposition anyhow - until the church had reached a reasonable size and strength to meet the extra opposition such procelyting could result in. (Besides: If Jesus personally worked just in one country, so also did the religious leader Muhammad). The claim is invalid.

Point of relevance III, claim from Islam.

1. Mos. 16/10 (similar in 17/18, 21/13):

"Allah/Yahweh promised to make Ishmael a great nation.(Genesis 16/10, 17/18, 21/13. (Genesis = 1. Mos.)) Part of being a great nation includes receiving God' commandments. Ergo only nations receiving special commandments can be indicated, which must mean Arabia and Muhammad."

Answer:

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

We may also add what the Bible tells about Ishmael's descendants - 1. Mos. 25/16+18: "These were the sons of Ishmael, and these (their names*) are the names of the twelve tribal rulers - - -. (They*) settled in the area from Havila to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur". Ishmael's 12 sons really became powerful like Yahweh had promised, at least locally.

Besides, what the Bible really says is:

(Gen. 16/10): "The angel added, 'I will so increase your (Hagar's*) descendants that they will be too numerous to count". The angel here promises they will be many, but here is no promise of power.

(Gen. 17/18): "Abraham said to God, 'If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!' (Gen. 17/20): 'As for Ishmael, I (God*) have heard you (Abraham*): I will surely bless him: I will make him fruitful (he got 12 sons according to the Bible*) and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers (his sons became all became tribal rulers in west Sinai near the border of Egypt according to Gen. 19/16-18 - this promise fulfilled*), and I will make him a great nation (ruling 12 tribes was a great nation locally at that time - many kings only ruled one tribe or a town + its surroundings*)'". (Gen.17/21 - like Gen. 17/19 never quoted by Muslims): "But my (Yahweh's*) covenant I will establish with Isaac - - -".

(Gen. 21/12 - never quoted by Muslims): "- - - it is through Isaac that your (Abraham's) offspring will be reckoned". (Gen. 21/13): "I (God*) will make the son (Ishmael*) of the maidservant (Hagar*) into a nation also - - -". Here it is said "a nation", not "a great nation".

Point of relevance IV - Claim from Islam.

Genesis (1. Mos.) 17/20:

“As for Ishmael, I (Yahweh*) have heard you (Abraham*): I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation”.

This some Muslims call the first foretelling about Muhammad and the great nation of Arabia. But they omit to mention that this foretelling was fulfilled already a couple of generations later as told in 1. Mos.25/13–16: “These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, listed in the order of their birth: - - - (12 names*) - - -. These were the sons of Ishmael, and these are the names of the twelve tribal rulers according to their settlements and camps.” (Some translators say princes instead of rulers, and nations instead of tribes.)

Well, here are the 12 rulers and the great nation – 12 tribes (or nations) after all meant power in a sparsely populated land. But how Muslims are able to see Muhammad in this, we have not found out. They never mention 1. Mos. 25/13-16. They also never mention 1. Mos. 25/18: "His (Ishmael's*) descendants settled in the area from Havila to Shur, near the border of Egypt (in West Sinai*), as you go toward Asshur". Ishmael's descendants simply did not go to Arabia, but settled on the border of Egypt. And remember: This was written at least 1ooo years before Muhammad was born, so there was no reason to falsify this piece of information - in addition to that modern science long since has proved that Muhammad's and Islam's never documented claim that the Bible is falsified - except that it is reliable on points they want to quote - is wrong. Not to mention that Islam has proved the same even stronger by not finding one proved falsification among all the literally tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts and fragments.

The claim is wrong. (It also just is one of the weak ones which you mainly meet from less educated Muslims - and in media meant for less educated Muslims.)

Point of relevance V - NEVER mentioned by Islam.

Deuteronomy (=5. Mos.) 18/2:

The 4 relevant points 5. Mos. 18/2, 5. Mos. 18/15, 5. Mos. 18/18, and 5. Mos. 18/22 all are from the same speech Moses made to the Jews (for the others see further down) - but Muhammad, Muslims, and Islam NEVER mention 18/2 or 18/22, and also not that the word "brother/brothers/brethren/brotherhood" is used figuratively pretty often in OT (at least 98 times according to our last leafing through the book, and figuratively at least 325 times in all the Bible - and we hardly saw all places) and with 5 - 6 specified exceptions always about members of a closed group; the Jews. They also never mention that the some 6 - 8 places where Arabia or Arabs are mentioned in OT, it is as neutrals or enemies, never as friends, not to mention brothers. Nearly as damning: The word is used at least 30 times in the Quran, and with one specified exception always about members of the closed group Arabs or the closed group Muslims. Arabs never were brothers of Jews. And brothers always parts of a closed group.

For the sake of context we quote from both 18/1 and 18/2: Moses said about shearing the future Israel among the 12 tribes (even without the Levi tribe, there were 12, as Joseph's tribe was split in two): "The priests, who are Levites - indeed the whole tribe of Levi - are to have no allotment or inheritance with (part of*) Israel. They shall live on the offerings made to the Lord (Yahweh*) by fire, for that is their inheritance. They shall have no inheritance (no land of their own*) among their brothers - - -".

This clearly shows what Moses in his speech meant by "brothers" - the Jews. We may also mention that this speech by Moses (or Yahweh?) starts in 5. Mos.4/1 and lasts till 28/68. In this speech the word "brother" is used figuratively at least 15 or 16 times (one may or may not be literal), AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION ABOUT MEMBERS OF THE CLOSED GROUP, THE FELLOW JEWS - a fact Muslims also NEVER mention when they claim 18/15 and 18/18 for themselves, as normal without the slightest proof and in spite of all context for their claim.

Point of relevance VI - Claim from Islam.

Deuteronomy (= 5. Mos.) 18/15 (A main claim from Islam together with 18/18):

18/15: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me (Moses*) from among your brothers." (18/18: "I (Yahweh*) will raise up for them a prophet like you (Moses*) from among their brothers".) (One translation says to the Jews “one from your own people, from your fellow countrymen”, another talks about a brother like quoted.)

NB: This is one of the two “heavy” points according to Islam – the only “heavy” one in OT. (The other one is about the Holy Spirit in NT - John 15/26.)

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

The two central expressions according to Islam, are “your/their brothers” and “a prophet like you (Moses*)”.

"YOUR BROTHERS:

Islam and most/all Muslims claim this is figurative speech (correct) and must point to Muhammad, because he claimed to be (see chapter about Muhammad in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran") a descendant of Abraham and Ishmael – the brother of Isaac – even a direct descendant (as normal for Islam without the slightest documentation) – and that the Arabs because they (claim they) are the descendants of Ishmael, are the brothers of the Jews (descendants of Isaac) – “it is the only possible meaning”. (But: The brother of a Jew is a Jew, not an Arab, and the same for a fellow countryman of a Jew – he is a Jew. It may talk about Jesus, but not about Muhammad.)

The word brother(s)/brethren/brotherhood is used in the figurative meaning at least 325 times in the Bible, according to our last leafing through the Bible (and we hardly found all places) – included at least 98 times in OT, at least 31 times in 5.Mos. and at least 22 times in the very speech of Moses from which Muslims cherry-pick 18/15 and 18/18.(Facts that are seldom mentioned and never by Muslims).

That word - brother(s)/brethren/brotherhood - always speak about persons within a specific group, (and with only a few borderline cases – in the NT there are a few places where the entire world is the including group (as humans – and as potential Christians)) - about Jews in OT and Christians and/or Jews in NT.

In OT it in addition as mentioned above, is used only about fellow Jews – it is clear from the context and often said directly. We have found only 5 - 6 exceptions. In 1. Mos.13/8 Abraham uses the word to Lot (Lot in reality was his nephew - and thus inside his group), in 1.Mos. 25/18 it is told that Ishmael and his sons and near descendants chose to be hostile towards the rest of the family – the later Jews – even though they at that time were closely related – and thus "brothers in a closed group – (a disgusting thing to do according to the ethics of that distant past), and in 4.Mos. 20/14, 5.Mos.2/2, and 5.Mos. 2/8 it is used about the Edomites (descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob). Finally there is one place where a king says it to another, but friendly king (1. Kings 20/32-33).

The Jews after a fashion reckoned the Edomites to be (distant) relatives (Edomites were descendants from Esau, the brother of Jacob, the last of the three patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who started the real(?) history of Israel) – and thus included in a larger, but defined and closed group. In contrast they did not reckon Ishmaelite as relatives.

For one thing Ishmael’s mother was a foreigner (from Egypt) - and so was his wife.

For another thing Ishmael was outside the covenant Yahweh made when he renewed the covenant he had had with Abraham and made the renewed covenant with his son Isaac (but Esau was inside, as the son of Isaac) as mentioned in 1.Mos. 17/19-21: “I (Yahweh*) will establish my covenant with him (Isaac*) as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him - - - But my covenant I will establish with Isaac - - -.”

For a third the Ishmaelite that Arabs claim later became the Arabs, lived so far off (and not in Arabia, but on the border of Egypt according to the Bible - 1. Mos. 25/18) that the relationship even for natural reasons was all but severed.

For the fourth and worse: The Ishmaelite chose to be enemies of the Jews – 1.Mos. 25/18: “And they (the Ishmaelite*) lived in hostility toward all their brothers” (if this does not mean they Quarreled among themselves) – see some comments further up in this point (no. IV).

And for the fifth and perhaps most essential besides being outside the covenant: Ishmael and his mother were expelled from the family and tribe (which easily may explain their hostility, but all the same it was hostility in a time when the safety of a person and a family mainly depended on the strength of that family). And they were expelled from the tribe before it became Israel 2 generations later - the name came with Abraham's grandson Jacob.

All the other times the word was used about fellow Jews only, except Ishmael's sons who quarreled with their brothers.

Also: In all the few mentioned cases of borderline exception the name of the opposite part was specified, whereas Moses very clearly did not specify that the brothers he talked about in 18/15 and 18/18 were Arabs – on the contrary it is clear for anyone who are not burdened with strong wishful thinking or desperate need, that he was talking to and about Jews and using a most normal expression for his fellow Jews.

Also In the NT the word always (with the possible exception mentioned above) is used about fellows in a group – either fellow Jews or fellow Christians.

There is not one single place in the entire Bible where Arabs are mentioned as brothers or even as more distant relatives - yes, not even as friends.. As for Ishmaelites: In 1.Mos. 25/18 the word is used to stress the Ishmaelites' (which are not likely to be the forefathers of the Arabs in reality) bad conduct (see above).

The word brother(s)/brethren/brotherhood also is used figuratively in the Quran – at least 32 times – and the Quran follows just the same rule as the Bible: Brothers are belonging to a group – Muslims to Muslims (god or less god), Arabs to Arabs, tribe people within the tribe, (even Lot/Lut they try to pretend belonged to the locals), the bad to the bad. Even the one and single time where Jews clearly are mentioned (59/11) in this connection it is not said that Arabs or Muslims are the brothers of Jews, but that the hypocrites (no specification of nationality, so likely all hypocrites) are the brothers of the Jews (belonging to the group “the bad ones”). Not one single time it is said or even hinted that the Arabs are the brothers of the Jews - neither in the Bible nor in the Quran. A fact no Muslim ever mentions (and few know).

Arabia and Arabs are mentioned a few times (about a dozen times) in OT, f. ex. 2. Chronicles 9/14 and 22/1, Isaiah 21/13, Jeremiah 25/24, Ezekiel 30/5. They always are mentioned in neutral words – like paying tribute to King Solomon – or in negative connections, f.x. as enemies. Not one place is there said or hinted anything about close relationship, not to mention kinship and absolutely not a comma about brotherhood. For some reason or other Muslims never mention this fact, either – but then of course it is more essential to win the debate than to find out what is right. After all al-Taqiyya – the lawful lie – is both a right and a duty to Muslims when it comes to defending or promoting the religion. The religion they believe in because other Muslims and the Quran and their parents believe in it and have told them to believe in from blind faith - - - because the others believe in it from blind faith, and the clergy and others do not want to question their beliefs and their small or big platforms of power.

Muslims claim – as normal without documentation – that the Quran are the words of Allah, and that Muhammad thus spoke the words of the god, which is one of the criteria (he misses on others - see below) for being the prophet Moses spoke about (f. ex. Jeremiah 1/9 in addition to 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18-19). This could have been partly right - - - if Islam proves that the Quran really is from a god (actually all the mistakes and other wrong points proves 100% that it is not from a god – no god would do such a sorry work). Besides: Even if it was correct that they were the words of a god, it would only be a criterion, not a proof – many of the Jewish prophets spoke the words of the god, according to both the Bible and the Quran, but they were not the prophet Moses spoke about. Muslims presents the unproved claim in triumph like a proof.

Muslims also dismiss in what connection these two verses were said. They themselves tell others strictly that you cannot take a verse – or more – from the Quran and make conclusions or statements from that – a standard demand from any Muslim, especially when he meets arguments that are difficult to answer, an often used last way out. But for themselves that rule is invalid and they quote these two verses from 5.Mos. very much out of the context.

Because the context clearly tells that Moses was speaking to and about the Jews, and verses 18/1-2 even specifies who the “brothers” were – he had used the same word just seconds earlier in the same speech to the same people and in the same contexts: The Levi tribe “shall have no inheritance from among their brothers (= the 11 (12) other tribes*). The Lord (Yahweh*) is their inheritance (they should be priests and be paid for that*) - - -“. Then seconds later he use the same word without specifying that now he is speaking about other brothers than Jews (which he had had to do not to confuse his listeners if he had meant Arabs or someone else) – for the simple reason that he continued speaking about the same 11 - 12 tribes (by the way: Jesus was from the Judah tribe).

THE WORD "BROTHER", (INCL. "BROTHERS", "BRETHEREN", "BROTHERHOOD", ETC.) USED FIGURATIVELY IN THE BIBEL

Note that when the word is used in the Bible, it nearly always is about members of a closed group - in OT the Jews and in NT the Jews and/or the Christians - and in the few cases this is not the case, it always is said by name whom is meant. If one part is not named in some way, in the OT it is always meant the Jews or a group within the Jews (and of course also the Jews are meant if they are named). In NT the rule is the same, but mostly Christians instead of Jews in the general rule. There is a similar rule when the word(s) is/are used in the Quran - with only two exceptions and one perhaps exception we have found, it refers to one or both of the two closed groups Muslims or the same group of people, often the same tribe - see below.

1. Mos.:

13/8: Abraham telling Lot they were brothers - a closed group: The near family.

*25/18: Ishmael's sons settled "in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur. And they lived in hostility toward all their brothers. This may be meant literally - they quarreled among themselves - or figuratively that they quarreled with the descendants of their father's 7 half brothers, included Isaac's sons Esau (also called Edom) and Jacob (later called Israel). In the last case it is within a closed group: The near family.

(In 1. Mos. 16/12 Yahweh tells Abraham that his son Ishmael "will live in hostility towards all his brothers". But here the word is literally, and also this was said about Ishmael only and not about his descendants. Ishmael had the brothers Isaac (mother: Sarah), and Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah (mother: Keturah, whom Abraham married after Sarah died - 1. Mos. 25/1-2). In 1. Mos. 25/5 it is said that the sons of Keturah were "sent to the land of the east" which means Jordan or further east (Arabia is to the south and south east), and they do not appear in later books of the Bible).

3. Mos.:

C: 21/10. "The high priest, the one among his brothers who - - -". A closed group: The Jewish priests. Similar words to 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18.

4. Mos.:

20/3: "- - - when our brothers - - -". A closed group: The Jews. Similar words to 1. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18.

20/14 Moses talking to the Edomites on behalf of the Jews. The Edomites were the descendants of Esau (also called Edom), the brother of Jacob and son of Isaac, and the Jews reckoned them to be relatives, though distant ones - Moses here used the word to remind the Edomites of that relationship. Also here a closed group: Recognized relatives. As Esau was the son of Isaac, he also was inside the pact Yahweh had made with Abraham - "because it is through Isaac your (Abraham's*) offspring will be reckoned", 1. Mos. 21/12. And also notice that as the Edomites did not belong to the Jews, they are named to notify this.

5. Mos.

(5. Mos. chapters 1 through 30 is a long speech Moses made to the Jews "in the desert east of Jordan" - 5. Mos. 1/1. In this speech he used the word "brother" figuratively at least 22 times, each and every time about members of the closed group Jews, and not once specifying that he talked about any others than the Jews - the two debated times (18/15 and 18/18) even using the same words as other places where it is not possible to doubt he meant Jews, no matter how much twisting of the words and wishful thinking you use):

1/16a: "- - - disputes among your brothers - - -". - fellow Jews.

1/16b: "- - - your - - - brother Israelites - - -". - fellow Jews.

1/28: "Our brothers made us loose heart - - -". The Jewish spies in Canaan - fellow Jews.

2/4: "- - - your (the Jews'*) brothers the descendants of Esau (named) - - -" - see 4. Mos. 20/14 above.

2/8: "- - - our (the Jews'*) brothers the descendants of Esau (named) - - -" - see 4. Mos. 20/14 above.

3/18: "- - - your brother Israelites" - fellow Jews.

3/20: "- - - (Yahweh*) gives rest to your brothers - - -" - fellow Jews.

15/2: *("Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother". It is here clear it is talked about Jews, but the word "brother" in this case may be meant literally. What is sure, is that this only concerned Jews).

15/7a: "If there is a poor man among your brothers in any town (in Israel*) - - -". - fellow Jews.

15/7b: "- - - do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. (See 15/7a)". - fellow Jew.

15/9: "- - - your needy brother - - - (see 15/7a)" - fellow Jew.

17/15a: "- - - be sure to appoint over you (the Jews*) the king the Lord your God (Yahweh*) chooses. He must be from among your own brothers". Beware that this is exactly the same words which is used in 18/15 and 18/18, and it is absolutely sure they wanted a Jewish, not an Arab king. Also see 17/15b.

"17/15b: "Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite - - -". - fellow Jew. Also see 17/15a).

18/2: "- - - they (the Levites*) shall have no inheritance among their brothers (the other Jews*) - - -". - fellow Jews. Also here nearly identical words to the ones used in 18/15 and 18/18 like several other places.

18/15: "- - - a prophet like me (Moses*) from among your brothers" - this and 18/18 (see this one just below) are where Muslims claim Moses in his speech to the Jews refers to the Arabs - this even though Arabs are never mentioned in the Bible until under King Solomon nearly 400 years later and also never in all the Bible mentioned as friends or relatives. And in spite of that the same words other places in the same speech without doubt mean Jews. But it is strange what results one can twist from a clear expression when there is enough wishful thinking + dire need - Muslims HAVE to find Muhammad in the Bible, both in OT and NT, because it is said in the Quran he is mentioned there, and if they do not find him there, the Quran is wrong and something consequently is wrong with Islam. Which it is, among other reasons because Muhammad is not mentioned in the Bible.

18/18: "- - - a prophet like you (Moses*) from among their (the Jews') brothers - - -". - fellow Jews. This and 18/15 (see this one just above) are the two points Islam claims refers to Arabs. They totally omit the context which clearly tells Moses was speaking to and about Jews, and only point to that Ishmael was the half-brother of Jacob - one of the forefathers of the Jews. They also omits the fact that Ishmaelites never were reckoned by the Jews to be their real relatives, as the relationship was broken already by Ishmael and his sons + Ishmael was outside the line from Isaac, who according to the Bible was the line from which Abraham's descendants should be reckoned. They also omit the fact that Arabs never - included in the Quran - reckoned Jews to be their brothers. They omit the fact that it is no place documented that the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael - he and his descendants after all settled on the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) and not in Mecca like Muhammad claimed, according to the only perhaps reliable source about this, the Bible. Also see 1.Mos. 18/21-22 which Muslims never mention - who is a genuine prophet? (Muhammad did not even make prophesies).

19/18: "- - - against his (a Jew's*) brother - - -". One he had a reasonably close relationship to - from the context it is clear Moses meant the fellow Jews - this even more so as he was speaking to the Jews about the rules and effects of the Mosaic Law just here (the chapters 19 through 26 and some others are about this law - the Mosaic Law was for Jews and for Jews only (there was a debate about if they should rule and be valid also for Christians, but that was 1200 - 1300 years later)).

19/19: "- - - do to his brother - - -". See 19/18 just above.

22/1: "- - - your brother's ox - - -". See 19/18 above.

22/2: "If the brother - - -". See 19/18 above.

22/3: "- - - if you find your brother's donkey - - -". See 19/18 above.

22/4: "If you see your brother's donkey - - -". See 19/18 above.

23/19: "Do not charge your brother interest - - -". Here it may be argued that the word is literally meant, but the context - f.x. the next verse - makes it clear that it is figuratively. We also points to the fact that Jews forever after was famous and infamous for charging interest from all non-Jews, included Arabs, which in this connection shows that the Jews did not reckon the Arabs as real relatives, not to mention brothers. Also see 19/18 above and 23/19 just below.

23/20: "You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite - - -". This is a strengthening of what is said in 23/19 just above. Moses is saying that Jews are Jews and brothers, but all others are foreigners - also called Gentiles in the NT. Among others Arabs were foreigners - just ask the Arabs if the Jews did not charge interest from them when they lent Arabs money! Foreigners - not brothers. Also see 19/18 and 23/19 above.

24/7: "- - - his brother Israelites - - -". It is clear what Moses meant with "brother". Also see 19/18 above.

24/14: "- - - whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien - - -". Here Moses speaks in very clear language: The Jews/Israelites are brothers, all others are aliens/foreigners. The horrible moral fact here is that at least many of the Muslim scholars knew and know this - they had to study the Bible to find the points they wanted to quote (normally out of context literally spoken) or in other ways use, and it is not possible to overlook the fact that Moses in his speech talked to and about the Jews and about their brother Jews/Israelites. All the same they tell their congregations that Moses suddenly and only in 18/15 and 18/18 meant Arabs when he talked to the Jews about their Jewish brothers. Al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie. The Quran tells Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, and as he is not mentioned, "we" have to use lawful dishonesty to defend Islam, because if not, it is obvious for everybody that something is wrong with the Quran and with Islam - no omniscient god makes mistakes like this!

25/3: "- - - your brother will be degraded in your eyes". We still are in Moses' quotations of the Mosaic Law - there is no doubt this is about fellow Jews.

33/16: "- - - (Joseph*) - - - the prince among his brothers". - fellow Jews.

*33/24: "- - - let him (Asher*) be favored by his brothers - - -". No doubt about fellow Jews, but perhaps literally meant.

Joshua:

1/14a: "- - - ahead of your brothers". - fellow Jewish warriors from other Jewish tribes.

1/14b: "- - - help your brothers - - -". See 1/14a just above.

14/8: "- - - my (Caleb's*) brothers who went up with me - - -". The first Jewish spies in Canaan - no doubt fellow Jews.

17/4: "- - - give us an inheritance among our brothers - - -". As the women speaking here had no literal brothers, there is no doubt this is figuratively meant - and fellow Jews.

22/3: "- - - you have not deserted your brothers - - -". Fellow Jewish warriors from other Jewish tribes under Joshua.

22/4: "- - - has given your brothers - - -". See 22/3 just above.

22/8: "- - - divide with your brothers - - -". Here may be meant fellow warriors or fellow Jews at home who for some reason had not taken part in the war - but in both cases fellow Jews.

Judges:

9/3: "He is our brother". This was said by the inhabitants of Shechem - fellow Jews.

9/18: "- - - because he is your brother - - -". Said to the inhabitants of Shechem - fellow Jews.

19/8: "- - - their brothers asked them - - -". Fellow Jews (of their own tribe of Dan).

19/14: "- - - said to their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews (of their own tribe of Dan).

 

20/23: "- - - the Benjaminites, our brothers - - -". Fellow Jews of the tribe of Benjamin, one of the 12 Jewish tribes.

20/28: "- - - (the tribe of*) Benjamin our brother - - -". Fellow Jews - the tribe of Benjamin.

21/6: "Now the Israelites grieved for their brothers, the Benjaminites". Fellow Jews - the other Jewish tribes grieved for the loss of many of the men of the Benjamin tribe.

1. Samuel:

30/23: "David replied, 'No, my brothers - - -'". Fellow Jews - his warriors after a battle.

2. Samuel:

2/26: "- - - to stop pursuing their brothers - - -". Stop fighting fellow Jews.

2/27: "- - - pursuing of their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews - see 2/26 just above.

19/11: "You are my brothers - - -". Fellow Jews (fellow members of the Judah tribe).

19/41: "- - - our brothers, the men of Judah - - -". Fellow Jews - Jews from other tribes speaking about Jews from the Judah tribe (one of the 12 Jewish tribes).

20/9: "How are you, my brother?" The Jew Joab speaking to the Jew Amasa.

1. Kings:

12/24: "Do not go up to fight against your (the members of the Judah tribe*) brothers Israel". Fellow Jews (This was said in connection with the splitting of the kingdom in two - Judah in the South and Israel in the north - after Solomon died).

13/30: "Oh, my brother". Fellow Jew - one Jew talking to/about another.

#20/32: "He is my brother". This as far as we see is the only place in the OT where the word brother is used (figuratively) about one not a Jew and one not accepted to be related to the Jews. But here it is within another very closed group: Two kings - King Ahab of Israel (Jewish) speaking about King Ben-Haddad of Aram - Ahab wanted good relationship with Ben-Haddad, even if he had beaten him in war.

#20/33: "Yes, your brother Ben-Haddad". In reality part of 20/32 just above.

1. Chr.:

9/25: "Their (some of the Levi tribe*) brothers in their villages - - -". Fellow Jews. There is a slight chance that this is meant literally, but the context indicates figuratively.

13/2: "- - - the rest of our brothers". Here = the rest of the Jews were called by David.

15/16: "- - - their (Levites') brothers - - -". Fellow Levites (one of the 12 Jewish tribes).

15/17a: "- - - from his brothers - - -". Fellow Jews - as far as we understand even fellow Levites. (It has to be meant figuratively, as Herman son of Joel cannot literally be the brother of Asaph son of Berekia.)

15/17b: "- - - their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews (and figuratively, as what seems to be another sub-tribe or family is mentioned).

15/18: "- - - their brothers next in rank - - -". Fellow Jews. (Levites of a little lower rank?)

23/32: "- - - their (Levites') brothers the descendants of Aaron - - -". Fellow Jews.

24/31b: "- - - their (Levites') brothers the descendants of Aaron - - -". Fellow Jews.

24/31b: "- - - the oldest brother - - -". Fellow Jews (fellow Levites).

28/2: "- - - my brothers and my people - - -" David speaking to Jewish leaders.

2. Chr.:

11/4: "Do not go up to fight against your (the members of the Judah tribe*) brothers Israel". Fellow Jews (This was said in connection with the splitting of the kingdom in two - Judah in the South and Israel in the north - after Solomon died). (The same situation as in 1. Kings 12/24 above).

19/10: "- - - his (Yahweh's*) wrath will come on you and your brothers". You Levites and your fellow Levites (or fellow Jews).

29/15: "When they (some Levites*) had assembled their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews - a group of Levites.

Ezra:

3/8: "- - - the rest of their (Zerubbabel, etc.*) brothers (the priests and the Levites and all who had returned from captivity to Jerusalem". Fellow Jews.

6/20: "- - - for their (some Levites*) brothers the priests - - -". Fellow Jews (fellow Levites even).

7/18: "You and your brother Jews - - -". Clearly fellow Jews.

8/24: "- - - ten of their fellow brothers - - -". 10 other priests = fellow Jews. 

Nehemiah:

5/1: "- - - their Jewish brothers". The context - f.x. 5/8 - makes it clear that it is fellow Jews.

5/8a: "- - - we have bought back our Jewish brothers - - -". Fellow Jews.

5/8b: "- - - you are selling your Jewish brothers - - -". Fellow Jews.

10/29: "- - - join their brothers - - -". The text of 10/29-30 makes it clear this is fellow Jews.

13/13: "- - - distributing the supplies to their brothers". - to their fellow Jews.

Isaiah:

66/20: "- - - bring all your brothers, from all nations - - -". Verse 66/18 makes it clear that this is the largest of all groups of humans: The entire humanity.

Jeremiah:

7/15: "- - - all your brothers, the people of Ephraim". Fellow Jews (Ephraim was one of the 12 Jewish tribes).

22/18: "Alas my brother! Alas my sister!" Fellow Jews - Jeremiah talking to/about the Jewish people.

Ezekiel:

11/14: "- - - your brothers - your brothers who are blood relatives and the whole house of Israel - - -". Fellow Jews.

Hosea:

2/1: "Say of your brothers, 'My people' - - -". Fellow Jews - Hosea speaking to and about the Jews. A close parallel to Moses when he made the speech containing 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 actually. Does Islam claim that these are the Arabs, too?

Micah:

5/3: "- - - the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites - - -". Micah 5/2-5 normally is reckoned to be a foretelling about Jesus. Jesus was a Jew and the Israelites were Jews. (The word Jew really derives from Judah - one of the 12 Jewish tribes - but it is normal to use it for all believers in the Mosaic religion).

Zechariah:

11/14: "- - - the brotherhood between Judah and Israel". After Solomon died, the country was split in a southern kingdom named Judah after the dominant tribe, and a northern one named Israel. Brotherhood between these two so definitely is between fellow Jews. 

These are the 87 places we have found in OT where the word "brother" or similar clearly or most likely is used figuratively. If we add the word "sister" used figuratively, which may be relevant in just this case, it is ca. 90 all together. They are used within closed groups - the family, the tribe, the nation. The few times this group is not the Jews or part of that nation - f.x. a Jewish tribe - it is indicated who are meant (f.x. a fellow king or Lot or the Edomites. Not one single time is there a reference to Arabia or Arabs. With a few exceptions it is referred to fellow Jews, and it is a normal way in OT to refer to fellow Jews - actually if you look, you will find that every place where the word is used in OT without reference to who one means, it is clear from the context that it is meant fellow Jews.

As for 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 which Islam claims refers to Muhammad - as it is the only place in OT were some twisting of the words can make a claim about Muhammad in the OT possible (there are some more, but they are weaker), we point to that for one thing nobody reading the Bible with an open mind would ever get the idea that it here was a reference to Muhammad - not even if they knew the Islamic claim from before. Besides the context makes it clear that Moses was speaking to and about his fellow Jews. Then there is the fact that he used words which normally meant - and would be understood as such by his listeners - fellow Jews. Further there is the fact that the word was used within closed groups, and the Arabs were outside all closed groups accepted by the Jews of that time, except "all humanity" and this group was not indicated in connection to these two verses. Further: When the word is used in the OT without something else is specified, it always refers to Jews - there is no reference to others than Jews connected to the two mentioned verses. And finally: When others than Jews are meant, it always is indicated. As said there is no such indication connected to 5. Mos. 18/15 or 18/18.

We may add that the word "brother" or similar is used figuratively at least 227 times in the NT, and the picture is just the same: Used within closed groups (mainly Jews and/or Christians), and specifications given if others are meant - - - and not one single time any reference in such connections to Arabs.

Where is the brotherhood between the Jews and Arabs?

You have to be a Muslim and one with no knowledge or strong wishful thinking - or dishonesty - to be able to believe that 5. Mos. 18/15 or 18/18 refers to Muhammad.

What is worse: At least many of the Muslim scholars have got to know this. They study the Bible to pick the points they want to use or disuse, but to find them, they have to read the whole Bible (if not they will overlook points). And this picture of how this word "brother" is used in the OT - and nearly similar in NT, except there Christians are added to the Jews - is so obvious and so easy to see, that no-one studying the Bible can miss it.

Al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie?

(We remind you that it is not only permitted, but advised to use al-Taqiyya and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) "if necessary" to defend or to forward Islam, and Islam HAVE to find Muhammad in both the OT and the NT, because it is said in the Quran that he is foretold there. If he is not there, the Quran and the omniscient god Allah is wrong and something thus wrong with Islam).

Al-Taqiyya and Kitman are convenient means - - - but how much worth is a religion relying on dishonesty, and built only on the words of a man of doubtful moral and honesty?

 

THE WORD "BROTHER", (INCL. "BROTHERS", "BRETHREN", "BROTHERHOOD", ETC.) USED FIGURATIVELY IN THE QURAN:

Note that when the word is used in the Bible, it nearly always is about members of a closed group - in OT the Jews and in NT the Jews and/or the Christians - and in the few cases this is not the case, it always is said by name who is meant. If one part is not named in some way, in the OT it is always meant the Jews or a group within the Jews (and of course also the Jews are meant if they are named). In NT the rule is the same, but often Christians instead of Jews in the general rule. There is a similar rule when the word(s) is/are used in the Quran - with only two exceptions and one perhaps exception we have found, it refers to one or both of the two closed groups Muslims or the same group of people, often the same tribe - see below.

2/220: "- - - they (orphans*) are your brethren - - -". The same tribe at least mainly.

3/103: "- - - ye became brethren - - -". Fellow Muslims.

3/156: "Be not like the unbelievers, who say of their brethren - - -". Fellow Arabs, perhaps same tribes.

3/168: "- - - (of their brethren slain) - - -". Fellow Arabs, perhaps same tribes.

5/106: "- - - your own (brotherhood) - - -". Fellow Muslims.

 

7/65: "- - - their own brethren - - -". The same tribe.

7/73: "- - - their own brethren - - -". The same tribe.

7/85: "- - - their own brethren - - -". The same tribe.

7/202: "*- - - their (non-Muslim*) brethren (the evil ones) - - -". The non-Muslims - included Jews - so definitely are not the brethren/brothers of Muslims. The non-Muslims' - and thus the Jews' - brothers are "the evil ones".

9/11: "- - - your brethren in Faith - - -". Fellow Muslims.

 

11/50: "- - - their own brethren". The same tribe.

11/61: "- - - their own brethren". The same tribe.

11/84: "- - - their own brethren". The same tribe.

15/47: "- - - (they will be) brothers - - -". Fellow Muslims.

17/27: "*- - - spendthrifts are brothers of Satan - - -". Dramatic - but nothing about brotherhood between Arabs and Jews.

21/92a: "- - - this Brotherhood of yours - - -". Fellow Muslims.

21/92b: "- - - a single Brotherhood - - -". Fellow Muslims.

26/106: "- - - their brother Noah - - -". The same tribe.

26/124: "- - - their brother Hud - - -". The same tribe.

26/142: "- - - their brother Salih - - -". The same tribe.

26/161: "- - - their brother Lut - - -". Lut/Lot in reality was no relative or in other ways related to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, but what counts here, is that the Quran claims he had become one of them (this to be able to claim that prophets were sent to their own people and be like Muhammad, or the other way around). Thus once more the same tribe.

27/45: "- - - their brother Salih - - -". The same tribe.

27/36: "- - - their brother Shu'ayb - - -". The same tribe.

33/5: "- - - your Brothers in faith - - -". Fellow Muslims.

33/6: "- - - (the Brotherhood) of believers - - -".

33/18: "- - - their brethren - - -". Fellow Muslims.

46/21: "- - - one of 'Ad's (own) brethren - - -". Fellow Muslims.

49/10a: "The Believers (Muslims*) are but a single Brotherhood - - -". Fellow Muslims.

49/10b: "- - - your (Muslims'*) two (contending) brothers (refers to "If two parties in 49/9*) - - -". Fellow Muslims.

49/12: "- - - his dead brother - - -". This one may be literally or figuratively meant. In the last case it refers to fellow Muslims.

50/13: "- - - the brethren of Lut - - -". The same tribe - see 26/161 above in this list.

59/10: "- - - our brethren who came before us into the Faith - - -". Fellow Muslims.

59/11: "*- - - the Hypocrites say to their misbelieving brethren among the People of the Book - - -".

33 all together, included a couple which may be literally meant. Only the very 2-3 are not within an Arab tribe or something, or within Islam. And what is absolutely clear and sure is that it is not the Muslims who are the brothers of "the People of the Book" - mainly Jews in that area - but hypocrites and bad people. And even the hypocrites only were the brothers of the unbelievers - "misbelieving" - among those people.

Where is the brotherhood among Jews and Arabs?

Arab and Arabia also are mentioned in the OT. But always in neutral form or as enemies, NEVER as relatives, not to mention close relatives. (Ishmaelites: Psalm 83/6.)

2. Chr.:

9/14: "Also all the kings of Arabia brought gold to Solomon - - -". Neutral.

17/11: "- - - the Arabs brought him (Solomon*) flocks - - -". Neutral.

21/16: "- - - the hostility of the Philistines and of the Arabs who lived near Cushites". Enemy.

22/1: "- - - the raiders, who came with the Arabs into the camp, had killed all the other sons (of the Jewish king*). Enemies.

26/7: "God (Yahweh*) helped him (the Jewish king Uzziah*) against the Philistines and against the Arabs who lived in Gug Baal - - -". Enemies.

Nehemiah:

4/7: "But when Sanballat, Tobiah, the Arabs, the Ammonites and the men of Ashdod heard that the repair of Jerusalem's walls - - - all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem - - -". Enemies. 7

6/1: "- - - Geshem the Arab and the rest of our enemies - - -". Enemies.

Isaiah:

13/20: "- - - no Arab will pinch his tent there - - -". Neutral.

21/13: "- - - who camp in the thickets of Arabia - - -". Neutral.

Jeremiah:

25/24: "(The cup of Yahweh's wrath will be drunk by - among others -*) all the kings of Arabia - - -". Because they have behaved badly.

Ezekiel:

27/21: "Arabia and all the princes of Kedar - - -". Neutral.

30/5: "Cush and Put, Lydia and all Arabia, Libya and the people of the covenant land will fall by the sword along with Egypt". Because they behaved badly.

12 all together + mentioned a couple of times in NT.

To say the least of it: Not one single sign of brotherhood between Arabs and Jews here, too.

In addition the word "brother" is used something like 33 times in the Quran - always about closed groups - mainly Muslims, and not one single time including Jews. Well, there is one exception - a verse is telling that hypocrites and Jews are brothers.

But in 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 they suddenly and very much out of the norm are claimed to be brothers, to make a direly needed claimed foretelling about Muhammad possible (in reality it seems to be a foretelling about Jesus).

Where is the brotherhood between Jews and Arabs in reality? - it is nowhere neither in the Bible nor in the Quran. It just is an al-Taqiyya used on 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 to be able to pretend to find what Islam desperately need: Foretelling about Muhammad - desperately because the Quran clearly states that he is mentioned both in the OT and the NT, and he is not there. Then they have to use a couple of al-Taqiyyas to be able to claim he is there - if not the Quran is wrong and a made up book. And a religion based on a made up book - what is that? It is better to refuse to see it, than to perhaps find out that your life is built on one man's mirages and deceptions made up to gain power. This even if the price they have to pay if there is a next life run by a real god they have been prohibited by Islam to look for, will be horrible.

PROPHET

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

There are more contexts: Moses spoke about a prophet. Muhammad in reality was not a prophet. A prophet is a person with close enough connections to a god, so that the god tells him/her or informs him/her about the future on topics the god wants humans to know. To be more specific:

A prophet makes prophesies.

He makes prophesies so often and/or so essential ones that prophesying is a marked part of his mission.

And he at least mostly makes correct prophesies - if not he is a false prophet).

This is the gift of prophesying. No-one is a real prophet without having the gift of being able to/forced to make prophesies. A messenger, perhaps, or a lot of other things, but you are not a real prophet unless you make prophesies.

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

Oh, there were a few times according to traditions, when things he said, later came true, and also some pep-talk which always are optimistic and comes true if one succeeds in what one tries to do. It is like that with anybody that speaks much – pep-talk and other talk – that at least some things has to come true for simple statistical reasons – and the rest mostly is forgotten. (But it is remarkable how seldom this happened - so much as he spoke it mathematically and by sheer chance should have happened a lot more times according to all laws of probability. But then it is clear that Muhammad had limited imagination - f.x. more or less all tales in the Quran are "borrowed" ones.) But the main things are:

They were never claimed to be prophesies when they were said.

Muhammad never claimed to have the gift of being able to make prophesies.

Both Muhammad and Aishah (in Hadiths) said he was unable to foresee the future.

He did not even pretend to be a prophet – he only used the title.

Muhammad only “borrowed”/stole the imposing and impressing title, he was no real prophet.

also these verses shows that Muhammad had not the power to make prophesies: 6/50a, 7/188b, 10/20c+d, 10/49a, and 72/26.

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

Then there is 5.Mos. 18/20 – the next-door neighbor to the for Islam essential 18/18: “But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.” These are criteria for singling out false prophets. In his famous and infamous “Satanic Verses” Muhammad promoted the three pagan goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat – 3 daughters of the Arab main pagan god al-Lah (the same god that Muhammad renamed to Allah). To promote pagan goddesses definitely is something Yahweh had “not commanded him to say”. And promoting the pagan goddesses meant Muhammad also could not be speaking in the name of Allah just then, but in the name of the pagan al-Lah – another god - or the Devil according to himself.

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

And one more context just seconds later in the same speech of Moses (5.Mos. 18/21). Moses said: “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord (Yahweh*) does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken”. Muhammad never even made real prophesies and a lot of what he said else in the Quran, pretending to repeat the words of a god, most obviously is not true – just look at all the mistaken facts and all the other wrong points in the book. According to 5.Mos. 18/21 (another verse in the Bible Muslims never mention) this proves – on top of the other proofs – that Muhammad was no prophet. Consequently also for this reason he cannot have been the prophet Moses talked about.

As mentioned the word “brother” etc. are used many times in the Bible. It even is used in exactly the same sentence in at least one more for Israel crucial case, and by the same man, Moses, and speaking to the same people – the Jews. 5.Mos. 17/15: “- - - be sure to appoint over you the king your Lord your God (Yahweh*) chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place over you, one who is not a brother Israelite.” One more verse and one more context Muslims never mention – it is permitted to guess why. No further comments necessary.

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

Honestly: What kind of argument is that? You would have no problem at all to find 50 likenesses between Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler - or for that case Muhammad. And if you look closely enough, you find plenty of differences between even identical twins. This kind of "arguments" is logical word pollution absolutely without any value in this case, and only proves that Islam has no real arguments here - if they had had, they had not used "verbal smoke" like this.

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

Here are two central words: “prophet” and "you" (“Moses”). But the main word is “prophet” – “Moses” is just for comparison or measure and invalid as "sine qua non". And of course Muslims debate the measure, not the fundamental word "prophet" – wise of them, as Muhammad was not a real prophet as mentioned. (Also see about Muhammad in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran".) Yes, he was not even pretending to have the gift of a prophet (see the previous piece above) – he only "borrowed" that impressing title. Perhaps he was a messenger for someone or something, but no real prophet.

And the thing to compare if you are to compare one prophet with another, is if he/she is as good and as powerful in making prophesies – and correct prophesies – as the other. Muhammad obviously here falls trough completely, as he did not have that gift at all. And a man – no matter how charismatic – who was no real prophet, could not be the prophet Moses talked about - Moses f.x. made prophesies. This in addition that the contexts in which the word "brother" is used both in the Bible and in the Quran shows that there nowhere is meant that Arabs were brothers of Jews.

(On the other hand Jesus could be the one. Both according to the Quran and to the Bible he was a prophet at least as great as Moses - even if Hadiths place Jesus in 2. Heaven and Moses in 5. so as not compete with Muhammad. Jesus also was a Jew - one of "their brothers". He actually was from the Judah tribe.)

All other details in reality are without interest in this case as this is the “sine qua non” - the ability to prophesy and make correct such marks the prophet + being among "the brothers". The rest is just so much hot air.

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Another obvious conclusion: Islam has used "cherry picking" of the sentences they could use, omitted the parts of the same context that proved their claims wrong, and then twisted the words and contexts a little - or much - to arrive at the claims they are searching for. Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) is recommended in Islam if necessary to defend the religion - not to find out what is true, but do defend what your fathers believed. But what does it tell about a religion that it partly relies on al-Taqiyya, etc. (= lies)?

Islam always demands that points in their own stories must be read and understood in the full context – especially when they run into trouble explaining some difficult points. But in this case the context completely destroys their wishful thinking and desperate need for a proof for Muhammad in the OT – desperate because the Quran declares he is foretold there (in this verse, 7/157 f. ex.), but no clear foretelling exists - and as you see also no unclear one.

The claim is not even wishful thinking, but rubbish.

Point of relevance VII - Claim from Islam.

Deuteronomy (5. Mos.) 18/18:

5.Mos. 18/18 in reality says just the same as 5. Mos. 18/15. See this just above.

Point of relevance VIII - NEVER mentioned by Islam.

Deuteronomy (= 5. Mos.) 18/22:

"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken". With all the mistaken facts and other mistakes in the Quran, this verse needs no more comment. Muhammad was no prophet and did not speak the words of the Lord, according to the Bible's definition. He also did not even try to make prophesies.

We may also mention 5. Mos. 18/20: "But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name (Muhammad claimed Allah = Yahweh*) anything I have not commanded him to say (f.x. all the mistaken facts*), or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods (Allah*), must be put to death". Muhammad died relatively suddenly, and the reason as far as we can find, was not identified. There still are rumors claiming he was killed - may be a slow poison. (Not unlikely as 10 of the 11 first caliphs were killed).

Killed by whom in case? - human(s)? - or by something supernatural? And in case for what reason?

Point of relevance IX - Claim from Islam.

Genesis (1. Mos.) 21/21:

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

But when they quote the Bible and 1. Mos. and use it for a “proof”, it is dishonesty bordering something very distasteful not also to mention 1. Mos. 25/18: “His (Ishmael’s*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur.” Which was a very natural place, as Ishmael’s mother, Hagar, was from Egypt. It also made it easy for her to find a wife from Egypt for her son, like the Bible tells she did (1. Mos. 21/21) – whereas deep inside the Arabian peninsula, that had been quite another task.

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

The claim is wrong. (It also just is one of the weak ones which you mainly meet from less educated Muslims - and in media meant for less educated Muslims.)

Point of relevance X - Claim from Islam.

Deuteronomy (5.Mos.) 33/2:

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

 

This was written 1ooo years or more before Muhammad was even born.

Muhammad never was in Sinai – at least not after he got “myriads” of followers (most likely never unless it was before he started his religion in 610 AD, and it is not said he ever went there).

The same goes for Seir – a place mentioned several times in the Pentateuch in OT (f. ex. Numbers (4. Mos.) 10/12, 12/16, 13/3, 13/26 and 5. Mos. 1/1) as the place where the Edomites settled near the Dead Sea. Muhammad hardly ever went there, except perhaps he passed it on his way to Syria when working on caravans in younger years, and some Muslims then says it refers to a battle King David won at a place with the same/similar name - - - but in 5. Mos. 33/2 it is Moses who was speaking, and he lived 200 years earlier and never heard about that battle. (Some also wants it to be the village Sa’ir near Jerusalem, but Moses never entered Palestine – and neither did the tent he used for a temple, in which he had the contact with his god – the god (not the prophet – the Lord in the Bible always means Yahweh/God) who came “from Sinai and Seir and Paran).

And the same also goes for Mt. Paran – a mountain and an area in Sinai. This mountain Muslims admittedly has “moved” to Arabia, near Mecca (a mountain and an area with a similar name - Faran, but Muslims now mostly claim the name is Paran), but till now we have not read any real scientist that is in doubt: The real Mt. Paran is in Sinai. This mountain and area is mentioned many times in the Bible (4. Mos.10/12, 12/16, 13/3, 13/26, 5. Mos. 1/1) and science as said is in no doubt. (We may add that Yahweh according to the Bible, in Sinai manifested himself to the Jews and to Moses as a column of smoke by day and one of fire/light by night. He could well shine in the night from Mt. Paran. Muslims wants it to mean that Muhammad’s religion shone from the mountain with the similar name near Mecca – but neither Muhammad nor Islam had any special connection to that mountain, not to mention that the Israelis in Sinai would not be able to see him if he shone from Mt. Faran in Arabia. Sorry – Muslims will have to bring proofs, not only claims).

The quote from the Bible Muslims use, says: "The Lord came from Sinai - - -". The title "the Lord" in OT always and without exception means Yahweh - a fact no Muslim ever mention. Only this fact makes the Muslim claim here impossible - and then there are the other points in addition.

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

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

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

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

Consequently some Muslims (f.x. Badawi) claim that the line “and dawned over them from Seir” refers to the appearance of Jesus. Sinai then refers to the appearance of Moses, Seir to the appearance of Jesus (and the next line to the shining of Muhammad and his religion) – in that case Seir must refer to the village Sa’ir near Jerusalem, according to them, because it is clear that Jesus never visited or had any other connection with the mountain and area of Seir. Which is not even preposterous, as the Bible many places describes Seir as the area where the Edomites (descendants of Esau) lived, and they lived far south of Jerusalem – very far. And there as mentioned is the fact that "Lord" in OT without exception means Yahweh.

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

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

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

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

But such a description of facts does not prove Muhammad, and Muslims need proofs. – then make a parable out of it and “understand” it the way you like best - - - and as normal for Muslims based only on undocumented claims. And twist the facts enough to get the answer you need. Not to mention that things often go from "perhaps possible" to "is" in Muslim lack of logic.

But the trouble is that also Paran is mentioned several times in the Bible (see point 3 in the first half of this piece). According to the Bible it is not absolutely clear exactly where it was – the different translations give 2 possible locations (near the Red Sea or near the river Jordan and some days walk from the mount Seir. But it is absolutely clear that it was along the route the Jews followed after Egypt, and they lived in and marched through Sinai, without one single reference to Arabia at all – not until under King Solomon some 200 - 300 years later (2. Chron. 9/14).

And actually: If it had been true that Moses had marched all his at least 2 million people (600ooo men + women and children according to the Bible) and all their animals all the way through the arid desert on Arabian peninsula all the way down to Paran or Faran near Mecca in Arabia and then the same hot and dry way back – believe it if you want – these 3 lines only reminds the Jews on that Yahweh’s manifestation had been together with them all the way from Egypt until Palestine (Moses made this speech “east of Jordan” (5. Mos. 1/5) which means near the border of Palestine – “in the fortieth year” (5. Mos. 1/3), which means shortly before he died and Joshua lead the Jews into the future Israel). The entire story tells about "the Lord", and "the Lord" = Yahweh totally without exceptions in OT (this fact alone make this Muslim claim a joke). If Islam still insists, they will have to produce some proofs, not only loose claims.

Point of relevance XI - Claim from Islam.

Psalms 45/2-5:

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

This is Muhammad riding to war and battle, Muslims says. (One of their cases where "perhaps possible" = "is".)

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

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

Point of relevance XII - Claim from Islam.

Psalms 149/6 – 7:

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

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

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

Besides: There were other people and other leaders than Muhammad who had weapons - the main reason for claiming this and a couple of other claims are about Muhammad, is that weapons was/are mentioned. Another "perhaps a possibility" = "is". It frequently looks like some(?) Muslims not at all know anything about the rules for logical thinking or critical evaluation of claims or "information".

Point of relevance XIII - Claim from Islam.

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

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

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

But:

Verses 1/5-6 tells she was a dark woman. It is known only one dark woman in Muhammad’s harem – the concubine Marieh (A Coptic Christian by the way). But she was a slave from Egypt, not a woman from Jerusalem.

It is very clear from several places in the song that this happened in Jerusalem. Muhammad never visited Jerusalem – and definitely not after his rich first wife Khadijah died (Des. 619 AD) and he could go looking for women (he married his next wife, Sauda, some 2 months later - long sorrow over Khadijah).

Verses 3/7, 3/9, 3/11, and 8/12 tell clearly that this happened at the time of King Solomon – some 1600 years before Muhammad.

Verse 8 tells that the woman was from Lebanon. None of Muhammad’s wives were from Lebanon, as far as we have been able to find out.

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

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

Point of relevance XIV - Claim from Islam.

Isaiah 1/7:

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

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

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

Point of relevance XV - Claim from Islam.

Isaiah 21/13-15:

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

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

NIV’s translation:

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

This indisputably is a foretelling about Muhammad!! some Muslims say ("anything" with war in it, they claim for Muhammad if they in any way can, even though there were many other warlords and kings through the times - f.x. Alexander the Great). There were no other famous flight in Arabia, and therefore it HAS to be about him.

But:

There is nothing that says it is about a famous flight – it may have been about some more local conflict, though essential enough for the victims. Also see the point just below.

Verse 21/9 - just a few lines before the ones Islam quotes - tells this episode has to do with the fall of Babylon - a fact that Muslims conveniently "forgets" - something that happened more than 1000 years before Muhammad. Now the name Babylon often is used as an expression for a bad or degenerated community, but even if you here say that Babylon represents the Quraysh tribe and Mecca, it does not fit, as Muhammad did not flee because of the fall of Mecca. Mecca and the Quraysh still were very powerful when Muhammad fled in 622 AD.

These refugees are fleeing from war. Muhammad fled not from war, but from persecution.

We know that Muhammad did not visit the area of Tema during his flight – it is far too far north (approximately 400 km north of Mecca and more than 300 km north of Medina, whereas Muhammad followed a rather direct though hither-and-thither (to avoid his persecutors) route between Mecca and Medina). Strangely Muslims never mention this, even though at least their scholars know it very well.

The essential fact here: Isaiah lived and wrote during the time of the Assyrians. The Assyrians started invasion of Arabia in 732 BC – also a fact Muslim scholars know very well. Isaiah simply wrote about and made a prophesy about the coming war.

One more essential fact: The time frame! – even one more fact Muslim scholars know, but cold-blooded omits in order to twist the information: The very next verses (21/16-17) of Isaiah continues: “This is what the Lord (Yahweh*) says to me: “Within one year, as a servant bound by contract would count it, all the pomp of Kedar will come to an end. The survivors of the bowmen, the warriors of Kedar, will be few”. Here it is directly said that this prophesy is to be fulfilled within a year – not some 1300 years later and concerning Muhammad.

To cherry-pick a few lines which can be twisted to give the answer you want if you stretch your imagination enough, and then omit lines just before telling it talks about something entirely different, and the very next line which proves what you say is a lie – there is only one expression for that: Dishonesty. Well, one or two more: Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) – expressions you only find in Islam of the major religions. (As for al-Taqiyya and Kitman: see chapter about al-Taqiyya in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran").

Point of relevance XVI - Claim from Islam.

Isaiah 53:

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

But the description may fit Jesus.

Point of relevance XVII - Claim from Islam.

Isaiah 63:

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

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

Point of relevance XVIII - Claim from Islam.

Habakkuk 3/3:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually nothing of this fits Islam’s history.

And to make a long story short: The Bible indicates that Teman was a town near Jericho. And in no case it can have been Islam – the history is totally different, plus it was a town or a place, not a religion.

Point of relevance XIX - Claim from Islam.

Haggai 2/7:

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

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

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

Also this is a claim you do not meet too often - few scholars believe in it.

THE NEW TESTAMENT (NT).

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

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

Point of relevance I - Claim from Islam.

John 1/20-23:

John 1/19-23

“ (19)Now this was John’s (John the Baptist*) testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites (from the Levi tribe – the priest tribe*) to ask him who he was. (20) He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, ‘I am not the Christ (Messiah*).’(21)They asked him, ‘Then who are you? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the Prophet?’ He answered, ‘No.’ (22)Finally they said, ‘Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?’ (23)John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, ‘I am the voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord’’”.

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

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

This even more so as he told that the one he was speaking about, was standing living among them (John 1/26) - a person alive around 30 AD, was definitely not alive around 610 AD.

Besides John spoke about one who would baptize - even baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1/8). Muhammad did not use baptizing, and knew very little about the Holy Spirit.

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

 

Ugly: Muslim scholars has got to know this - it is in the same Gospel as their main claim - but they never mention it - or that in the Bible "Lord" ALWAYS means Yahweh or sometimes Jesus. Al-Taqiyya? Kitman?

Point of relevance II - NEVER mentioned by Muslims.

John 1/26-27:

"'I baptize with water', John replied, 'but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me - - -". Here are two essential points: John the Baptist was talking 1) about "one who stands among you" = "one who lives now". Jesus lived then - he was just 6 months younger than John. And 2): "He is the one who comes after me". Jesus was the one who took over after John. (When it is said they did not know John's follower, it is because this was before Jesus started his work). Remember these two points further down - Muslims NEVER mention these two verses. You may also remember the facts about baptizing mentioned in the point just above.

Point of relevance III - claim by Islam.

The Greek word "Parakletos" contra "Periklytos":

Two Greek words must be explained before we can start on the main Muslim claim in NT - "Parakletos" and "Periklytos". 1):Parakletos (helper, counselor): This word in the Greek Gospel (the Gospels originally were written in Greek) after John, is what they use as an explanation. Muslims say must be misspelled, because if you take another word, 2): “Periklytos” ("the glorious one" or "the praised one") which looks rather similar and translate it to Aramaic, you get a word that in Arab can be interpreted as Mohammad (or Ahmad, which both may mean "the praised one"). Very convincing (but remember that Arabs since prehistoric times have lived in cultures where conspiracy theories have been rife - perhaps because they never have had information they could rely on (because of al-Taqiyya, etc.?), and then they have made guesses and made up theories. The situation actually to a large degree is the same in modern Muslim countries - and even more so in the ones which still are not much modern. Go to most of the Muslim countries and you can immerse yourself in conspiracy stories and theories). Also see verse 61/6e-f and see the chapters about Muhammad in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". And: To claim that words may have been misunderstood is natural for Muslims, as the old Arab alphabet lacked the vowels, and one had to guess them. But not so in Greek.

The next “explanation” one meets is that the man translated the NT from Hebrew (Aramaic) to Greek made a mistake and used the wrong word. But the NT never was translated – it written originally in Greek, and the Greek alphabet was complete, so this source for misunderstanding did not exist. (This is a fact Muslim scholars know, but never mention - on the contrary we have seen them using the argument about mistake when the Gospels were (claimed) translated from Aramaic to Greek!!

To specify the problems in the old Arab alphabet: One claimed that the mistake came from the incomplete alphabet – old Hebrew like Arab only wrote the consonants, and then the reader had to put in – or guess (one of the problems with the original Quran) - the vowels. The two words have the same consonants: p-r-k-l-t-s. Add a-a-e-o and you get parakletos; add e-i-y-o and you get periklytos. But once again: NT was originally written in Greek, and Greek had a complete alphabet – this possibility for a mistake simply did not exist in Greek. The problem also did not exist in spoken Hebrew (Aramaic really)– only in written, and the first writers of course took the words - like spoken – from their own heads. (If they were fluent in Greek, which they seem to have been, they did not even have to translate in the head - if you are fluent in a language, you also think in that language when you use it.) Besides: The two words are Greek ones - the corresponding Hebrew ones would not have the same consonants, and thus this claim cannot explain claimed such mistakes in Greek words. All these facts are well known to Muslim scholars, and all the same they tell these arguments to their less educated congregations and listeners!! Wrong.

But all the same the writer of the NT could have made such a mistake! Also wrong. For one thing there were around 10 different men who wrote the NT – and then all the ones that used the word, had to make just the same mistake. Just try to explain that! Besides there were lots of people that understood both those two languages – a lot of Jews, as Greek was the second language in the Roman Empire after Latin, and a number of the bureaucrats who were or had been stationed in Palestine to mention two groups. They would quickly find the serious mistakes and whisper about correction or scream about mistakes – depending on whether they were friends or foes. Also this argument from Muslims is wrong.

Point of relevance IV.

John 14/15-26:

"(15) If you love me (Jesus*), you will obey what I command. (16) And I will ask the Father (Yahweh*), and he will give you (the disciples*) another Counselor (Greek: Parakletos*) to be with you forever - (17) the Spirit of the truth (one of at least 5-6 names for the Holy Spirit*). The world cannot accept him, because they neither see him nor know him. But you know him, for he lives with you (but not in you yet*) and he will be in you (afterwards*). (18) I will not leave you (the disciples*) as orphans, I will come to you. (19) Before long the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. (20) On that day (when the Counselor comes*) you (the disciples*) will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. (21) Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him".(22) Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?” (23) Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. (24) He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me (= it in reality is Yahweh who is speaking*) (25) All this I have spoken while still with you. (26) But the Counselor (Parakletos*), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

How does Muhammad fit here?

"- - - to be with you (the disciples*) forever - - -". Muhammad was not with them - He was born 500 years too late - and he definitely was not with them forever.

The Spirit of Truth cannot be "The Holy Spirit" because it is another name, many Muslims claim. But there are at least 5 names for the Holy Spirit (Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, Spirit of God, Spirit of Truth, or only the Spirit), and all the same there is just one Spirit. There also are 99 names for Allah - but only 1 Allah according to the Quran. And 5-6 names for Muhammad, but only 1 Muhammad. The argument is a logical short circuit.

"'The Spirit of truth' is Muhammad", many a Muslim will tell you (from baby age they have been told how truthful and reliable Muhammad was). The man who at least a few times lied in his holy book, the Quran ("No-one will believe even if I/Allah made miracles"), the man who laid the foundation for the institutionalization of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth) and advised breaking of even oaths, the man who had as slogan "War is deceit" - yes, we believe he must be "the Spirit of truth".

"The world does not see him". Muhammad was quite visible.

"- - - he (the Spirit*) lives with you (the disciples*) - - -". When did Muhammad live with the disciples?

" - - - he (the Counselor*) will be in you - - -". The only persons Muhammad was into, were a lot of women, at least one child, and a few slaves - some of them rapes.

"- - - you (the disciples*)know him (the Counselor*) - - -". Oh? - the disciples knew Muhammad, who was born some 500 years after they were dead?

"On the day (when the Counselor comes*) you (the disciples*) will realize - - -". What could the disciples realize if they had to wait for Muhammad some 500 years after they were dead?

"But the Councilor (Parakletos*), the Holy Spirit, whom my Father (Yahweh*) will send - - -". This verse Muslims simply NEVER quote.

The claim that Muhammad fits in here by changing Parakletos to Periklytos to Muhammad, is not even a joke - it is pathetic. And at least their scholars have got to know this - they study the Bible to find points they like, and it is impossible not to see the other points at the same time. All the same they feed the audiences with claims like: Here is Muhammad in the Bible! How much is true in a religion which uses lies?

And this is Islam's main claim concerning Muhammad in NT/the Gospels!!!!

Point of relevance V - claim from Islam.

John 14/16-17:

Jesus tells his disciples: “And I will ask the Father (God/Yahweh*), and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever”.

To give the disciples Muhammad as helper had no meaning – he was born some 500 years after they all were dead, and could be of no help to them. He also could not be with them forever. But that is what Muslims claim, as they do need a quotation from the NT, because the Quran tells he is foretold also to the Christians in the Gospel, and this is the only place where the texts can be twisted enough – because it takes a lot of twisting. Muhammad also was not “with them forever” – he was not with them at all. The verse really is foretelling the Holy Spirit - it arrived at Pentecost some days later according to the Bible.

Strangely enough Islam never mentions the next verse (John 14/17) that continues: “"- the Spirit of truth "(Muhammad neither was a spirit, nor the truth (he cheated and lied – cfr. al-Taqiyya, and according to his point of view concerning this even his oaths could be broken*). The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you”. Try to make this fit Muhammad!! Also see separate chapter about the claims that Muhammad was foretold in the Bible.

*That is to say: from 14/17 they mention that the spirit is called “the Spirit of truth” and thus cannot be “the Holy Spirit”. But just like Allah and just like Muhammad it had more names – at least 5 – and besides it in the entire Bible is very clear that there only existed/exists (?) on Spirit closely connected to Yahweh.

“The Message of the Quran” solves the problem very simply: It tells that a verse in the Quran explains what the NT tells about Muhammad (surah 61, verse 6). The problem is that the Bible says nothing remotely similar to verse 61/6e-f. (An "elegant" explanation is that it shall have been mentioned in the hypothetical Gospel Islam talks about because it is needed to explain how the child Jesus could learn the Gospel(s) before they were written - a Gospel that Mary and others 100% sure had taken care of or at least told about if it was not a fairy tale, because it would really have cemented an even more a special connection between Jesus and Yahweh/God. But a Gospel that could not exist, because no Gospel could be written until after Jesus' death (A Gospel is the story of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, and could not be written before it happened). And a Gospel Islam never has shown even a scrap of. (Also see 14/15-26 above.)

Point of relevance VI - Never mentioned by Muslims.

John 14/26:

"But the counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father (Yahweh*) will send in My name, will teach you (the disciples*) everything and will remind you of everything I (Jesus*) have said to you". Here it is very clear that the councilor Jesus was talking about, was the Holy Spirit - Muslims claim he meant Muhammad, in spite of that at least their scholars has to know this verse - it only is 1 chapter from their claimed "proof".(Also see 14/15-26 above).

Point of relevance VII.

John 15/26:

"When the Counselor comes, whom I (Jesus*) will send from the Father (Yahweh*), the Spirit of the Truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me".

Well, Muhammad testified about Jesus - but 600 years after the Holy Spirit had arrived according to the Bible - and very differently from what the Bible tells on the basic points. The teachings basically are very different.

Point of relevance VIII.

John 16/7-8:

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

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

Pathetic.

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

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

Well, periklytos means “the glorious one” or “the praised one” – and Islam jumped on this word, because the name Ahmad – another form of the Arab name Muhammad, which also looks somewhat similar to Mawhamana – also means “the praised one”. This without doubt and very obviously was a prophesy about Muhammad(!!) ("perhaps possible" = "is" - logic does not always count in Islam) – the problem was to explain it. And the only possible way was by making some twists, including claiming that all the old manuscripts had spelled the word wrongly. It HAD to be about Muhammad – if for no other reason, then because the Quran says he is mentioned also in the Gospels, and there is no other real possibility. (Also: It is said that Muhammad's original name was Amin – from his mother's name Amina – and that the name Muhammad came later. If this is correct, where does this bring this claim?)

But:

Muhammad was no real prophet (he did not have the gift of prophesying – he did not even pretend to have it or claim to have it – see the chapter about Muhammad in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran"). He only “borrowed” that title so laden with meaning and prestige.

The word “Parakletos” you will find some places in the Bible. The word “Periklytos” does not exist anywhere in that book – not one single place. Wrong unless proved right.

There are thousands of old manuscripts from before Muhammad (610 AD – the start of his career). We have seen numbers up to 50ooo, but most likely there are some 12ooo - 13ooo relevant manuscripts and fragments. Some of these even are manuscripts or fragments of the Gospels – also here we have seen different numbers (up to 5ooo), but it seems that some 300 is the correct one and that some 70 are complete or reasonably complete. This including f. ex. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus in British Museum, London. The word “periklytos” is not used in one single of them – not one single time, neither in the old Gospels, nor in the other old manuscripts or fragments. In addition there are huge numbers of old manuscripts with quotes from the Bible. Also here you will find different numbers, but it looks like some 32ooo is the correct one. In not one single of them you will find the word "periklytos" as a reference to or a quote from the Bible. It simply does not and did not exist in the Bible anywhere or at any time. (An extra good proof for that this is true, is that if it had existed, Islam had screamed to holy heaven about it – but they are silent, except for their persistent and – as normal - not documented claims. Well, they vaguely mention the council in Nicaea (now Iznik in Turkey) in 325 AD, but even if it had been true, it does not explain why all the manuscripts older than 325 AD also are claimed to be "wrong" - and falsified in so clever a way that even modern science is unable to find traces of falsifications. Worse: the complete agenda for that council is known, and there is not a hint about wishes to change the contents of any texts. (Besides: How do you make bishops change biblical texts? - it is just as easy as making ayatollahs change verses in the Quran.)

The agenda of the council in Nicaea in 325 AD according to Wikipedia:

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

The date of celebration of the Easter observation.

The Meletian schism.

The validity of baptism by heretics.

The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.

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

In addition there were promulgated 20 new church laws:

1. Prohibition of self-castration.

2. Establishing of a minimum term for catechumen.

3. Prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion.

4. Ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least 3 provincial bishops and conformation by the metropolitan.

5. Provision for 2 provincial synods to be held annually.

6. Exceptional authority acknowledged for the patriarchs of Alexandria and Rome, for their respective regions.

7. Recognition of the honorary rights of Jerusalem.

8. Provision for agreement with the Novationists.

9 - 14. Provisions for mild procedure against the lapses during the persecution under Licinius (an emperor*).

15 - 16. Prohibition of the removal of priests.

17. Prohibition of usury among the clergy.

18. Precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving Holy Communion, the Eucharist.

19. Declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics.

20. Prohibition of kneeling during liturgy on Sundays and in the 50 days of Eastertide (the Pentecost).

As you see: No trace of changing texts in the Bible. As said before: To make mainstream bishops change texts in the Bible, is just as easy as making mainstream ayatollahs change texts in the Quran - both are believing too strongly and both are too conservative to change even a comma. Islam's claim simply is ridiculous in the ears of anyone who knows a little about Nicaea, but it is the only possibility they have for the claims of falsification of the Bible that may sound right for the not informed - included 99.5% of the Muslims. But even if it had been true, it had been impossible to falsify without a trace all the manuscripts older than 325 AD, and it had been impossible to falsify all the manuscripts from the OT owned by Jews.

Islam – and the Quran – as mentioned above claims the Bible must be falsified (also on many other places). They do not explain how in the old days with slow travel and no mass communication it was possible not only to falsify all the thousands of manuscripts spread over large parts of Europe, North Africa and Asia, but to make exactly the same falsifications in each and every one of them - not to mention how to find each and every of them, and there were many more at that time, because many has disappeared or been destroyed or rot later. Unless Islam explains – we do not even ask for proofs, but only for a logically valid explanation - when and how this was done (it was not in Nicaea - the agenda and the actual debates there are too well known), there is only one possible conclusion to make: Another al-Taqiyya (lawful lie). This even more so as in addition to these manuscripts (some 12ooo - 13ooo), there are lots and lots of others that refer to the Bible (some 32ooo?), and also in these references there is not on single time a reference to "periklytos" - not one single. How did the guilty ones trace all these papers and falsify all of them in exactly the same way all of them? Not to mention: How did they erase the word "parakletos" in all these manuscripts + the above mentioned 12000 - 13ooo (the ones of them older than 325 AD) and insert "periklytos" in such a way that modern science is unable to see the falsifications?

A very good proof for that no such falsifications are ever found, is the fact that if it had been found anywhere or any time, Islam had published it with very capital letters. But there are nothing but undocumented claims or even claims contradicting the documentations - like the claims about falsifications during the council in Nicaea.

In one word: Nonsense. And science has long since showed that Islam's claims that the Bible is falsified are wrong. And Islam has proved it even stronger by being unable to find one single proved falsification. If Muslims still claims something else, they will have to produce proofs (not only cheap claims).

Point of relevance IX - claim from Islam.

John 16/13:

"But when he (the Councilor*), the Spirit of Truth, comes, he will guide you all into all truth".

Most Muslims believe in what they have been told and told and imprinted about the perfect and truthful Muhammad. But:

Muhammad with his lies in the Quran ("No-one will believe even if there are miracles"), his al-Taqiyya (lawful lie), his Kitman (lawful half-truth), his broken oaths, his "War is deceit" - yes, he may be a good guide into truth - - - Muslim style?

Point of relevance X - claim from Islam.

Verse 61/6e-f:

“The Message of the Quran” solves the problem of what the Bible really tells very simply: It tells that a verse in the Quran explains what the NT tells about Muhammad (surah 61/6e-f):

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary (see 5/110a), said: 'O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving the glad Tiding of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad'. But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "This is evident sorcery!'"

The problem is that the Bible says nothing even remotely similar to surah 61/6e-f - not anywhere. (An elegant explanation is that it shall have been mentioned in the non-existing Gospel Islam needed to make up to explain how the child Jesus could learn the Gospel(s) before they were written - a Gospel which Mary and others 100% sure had taken care of if it was not a fairy tale, because it would really have cemented an even more a special connection between Jesus and Yahweh/God). And a Gospel no-one in Islam has or had ever seen the text of, and thus impossible could know the contents of even if it had once existed.

Islam's "explanation" as usual is that the Bible is falsified - that is the standard and cheap explanation whenever there is divergence between the Quran and the Bible, even though it is documented by science that Islam's undocumented claim about such a falsification is wrong, and also in spite of that a falsification would not work among all the thousands that had heard Jesus talking - and then the life and time scale (they expected Jesus back any month or year - if there was to come another prophet first, it would be likely to take at least a generation or more before Jesus would return, to give the other prophet time for his work) of the first Christians, not to mention the contents of all the letters written by persons who really knew the story, had been different. Surah 61/6e-f smells too much of something made up to give Mohammad credence. If a Muslim insists it is true, he has to produce heavy proofs. (And to repeat it: Science as mentioned on top of everything has shown that the Bible never was falsified - and Islam has proved the same even stronger by not finding on single case of falsification among all the old manuscripts).

There also is another fact which makes this claim impossible: If Jesus had preached about a known pagan god (al-Lah/Allah) from a pagan country near by, he had got a very small audience. And if he all the same had got some audience, he would have been killed by the Jewish clergy much faster. This verse is made up by someone(s) who did not know the political and the strong and fanatic religious realities in Israel at the time of Jesus.

(Actually an older Gospel may have existed, but younger than Islam claims - as a Gospel is the story of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, it could not me written until after Jesus was dead - and resurrected - some 33 years old.)

***One small tit-bit: Foretelling in the Bible never mention names of persons in distant future (just check on this yourself - remember here that Messiah (Christ in some translations) is a title, not a name), but in 61/6e-f ONE MOST CONVENIENTLY FIND AN UNMISTAKABLE NAME. If a Muslim insists it is a coincidence, he has to produce heavy proofs.

The really black point about this verse, though, is that we have found nowhere in any Islamic texts meant for Muslims any remark about the fact that in the Bible there is no text even remotely similar to this - or that no other foretelling in the Bible about distant future ever mention names. They just quietly let their audiences believe that 61/6e-f is the plain truth.

We only have found remarks claiming that verses in the Gospel after John - the verses and claims we have commented on here - strengthen 61/6e-f (!!)

As we have asked before: How reliable is a religion who uses al-Taqiyya (lawful lies) and Kitman (lawful half-truths) and broken promises/oaths, etc. as standard means of work? - and how much is al-Taqiyya and Kitman etc. in the books and words and arguments of such a religion?

Resume.

Jesus was speaking to his disciples and promised them a helper – a Parakletos. If that had meant Muhammad, what a helper could he be to the disciples more than 500 years after they were dead!!?? Just and only this question alone kills this claim from Islam – it is an absolute impossibility. And worse: Islam’s scholars know this very well. Very wrong.

“- - - another Comforter (Parakletos/Periklytos?) - - -.“ To use the meaning Periklytos here, means in case that also Jesus is a Periklytos, because a new one is coming instead of Jesus. But Jesus is never called a Periklytos – the word does not exist anywhere in the Bible, not today and not in any of the some 12ooo - 13ooo relevant old scriptures and fragments or some 32ooo references. Wrong – unless Islam produces a proof (but had one existed, Islam had produced it centuries ago).

“- - - but you (the disciples*) know him (the Comforter*) - - -“. None of the disciples ever knew Muhammad - 500 years too early – but they had knowledge of the Spirit, as they had been companions of Jesus. Wrong.

“- - - for he (the Comforter*) lives with you - - -“. It is hopelessly inadequate to say Muhammad never lived with the disciples. Wrong at least to the third power.

The “parakletos” is to “be with you forever”. Muhammad was with no-one forever – he was for one thing born 550 years too late to be a “parakletos” or even a “periklytos” for the disciple, and for another thing he existed far from forever. Wrong.

“The Spirit - - -“. The “parakletos” was a spirit, not a man. Muhammad here is a wrong claim.

“The Spirit of truth - - -.” The man who institutionalized “al-Taqiyya” (the lawful lie) and “Kitman” (the lawful half-truth) – and practiced it himself, the man who institutionalized that even oaths can be broken if that gives a better result (though you should give Allah something afterwards as an excuse according to the Quran, if you had meant the oath) – and practiced it himself, the man who had as a slogan that “War is deceit/betrayal” (Ibn Ishaq), that man neither was, nor had much contact with “the Spirit of truth”. Wrong also because of this.

“The world - - - neither sees him - - -“. No human – like Muhammad - is invisible (but a spirit may be). Wrong.

“- - - he - - - will be in you - - -.” To be flippant: The only humans Muhammad ever was in, were a lot of women. Wrong.

“I (Jesus*) will not leave you (the disciples*) as orphans - - -.” They had been orphans for the rest of their lives if they had had to wait for Muhammad 500-600 years later. Wrong.

“On that day (when the Parakletos comes*) you (the disciples*) will realize - - -.” The day of the coming of the Comforter/Parakletos obviously was a day in the lives of the disciples – Muhammad was not. One more proof for that Islam's claim is wrong.

Islam says: It cannot be the Holy Spirit that was Parakletos, because it is clear that the Holy Spirit already was there, and Jesus talked about something that should come. Of course the spirit was in and around Jesus – and around the disciples – at least sometimes. But Jesus told that it should be in them and part of them, which it had not been before. That was what happened at Pentecost, according to the Bible – the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, which was quite a new situation. Invalid argument. Wrong.

Islam says: It cannot have been about the Holy Spirit, because Jesus told about the Spirit of truth. But in all the NT there exists only one special spirit connected to Yahweh. Only one. No mistake possible. Wrong argument. Also see next paragraph just below.

Islam says: The Holy Spirit and the Spirit of truth are two different beings – they even have different names! – and Allah has 99 names (but there are not 99 gods according to Islam), Muhammad a few, Jesus some, most humans two or three. The Spirit has at least 5 different names (The Holy Spirit, The Spirit of Truth, The Holy Ghost, The Spirit of God and just The Spirit - and once in the Bible also the Spirit of Jesus). In addition: See the point just above. Invalid claim.

Islam says: But they cannot be the same as the name “the Holy Spirit” is neutral (sexless), whereas the name “the Spirit of truth” is masculine (male). Wrong, but this is easier to show with grammar from other languages, as nouns only have one grammatical gender in English. Take the German word “ein Madchen” (a girl). The particle “ein” shows that the word grammatically is masculine or neutral (3 genders in German) (feminine/female: “eine”), but a girl very obviously is feminine. Or take the good old Atlantic steamer “Queen Elisabeth”. In Norwegian she is “ein baat” (a boat of any size) and “ein” also in Norwegian is masculine. But she also is “eit skip” (a ship). But the particle “eit” means neutrum/neutral. And further she is “ei skute” (another word for a ship). And “ei” means feminine/female gender. Well, even in good old England “Queen Elisabeth” is without any sex or gender. But grammatically it (the ship) normally is a “she” also in England. The grammatical gender of a noun simply is no proof for the real – if any – sex or gender of the being or thing behind the noun. An indication, yes often. A proof, no.

One relevant comment from Acts 1/4-5: Jesus said to his disciples shortly before his ascension to Heaven: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift (the Comforter/Parakletos*) my Father (Yahweh*) promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit".

The Comforter should come “in a few days”. Muhammad came some 577 years later (this happened year 33 AD (or a few years earlier if the international years are a few - 4 to 6 - years late) – Muhammad started his preaching in 610 AD).

Here Jesus calls the Spirit the Holy Spirit. Shortly before he called it the Spirit of truth – and he talked about the same spirit, because of (like said before) there is only one single spirit in the entire NT and the entire Bible connected to Yahweh. Another proof for what is said just above - - - and for that the two names means the same.

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

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

Just 2 more comments:

The Bible is a large book – our copy of NIV is more than 700 pages with very small print. In such a large book it is impossible not to find some words that look similar to some word or words in any given other language – or at least can be given similarity with some twisting. But it is a very far cry from there to to use superficial or even twisted + superficial seemingly similarity as proofs – at least in an honest debate. There also is a difference between a possibility and a proof. And even more so if you are honestly trying to find what is true. (But then Islam “knows” what is true and goes all out to find “proofs” - by whatever means necessary often. Blind belief and dishonesty is better than trying to find out what is true and what not).

If the first Christians had expected another prophet later, for one thing they had lived their lives differently (expecting Jesus to return in months or a few years, they planned and lived accordingly - if they had expected another prophet in the meantime, they had planned for a longer wait), and even more: The texts in the NT – especially in the letters – had been different.

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

Muhammad was no real prophet – he did not have the gift of real prophesying, and did not even himself claim he had that gift or pretend to have it. He only “borrowed” an imposing and impressive title. And as he was no real prophet – a messenger for someone or something perhaps, but no prophet - he of course was not the prophet that Moses talked about. (Jesus never spoke about another prophet later – no place in the entire NT)

Jesus promised his disciples a helper in some days. Muhammad lived 500-600 years later – he could not help them.

The Parakletos/Counselor was invisible and to be within the disciples. Muhammad neither was invisible, nor within the disciples. And lived 600 years too late.

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

 

BUT IS MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE ALL THE SAME?

THE BLACK ALTERNATIVE.

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

If some dark forces – f.x. the Devil - dressed up like Gabriel, or if they worked on his mind – f.x. by means of an illness like TLE like BBC proposed (20. March 2003) which often gives religious experiences like the ones Muhammad had – or in dreams, Muhammad had had no chance of detecting that he was cheated.

The bloody and inhuman surahs from Medina and the partly immoral moral codes which turned Islam into the inhuman and harsh war religion it became – and is today according to the Quran - for the ones living strictly according to the not abrogated parts of the Quran, which are dominated by just the surahs from Medina - fits a devil much better than it fits a good, benevolent god.

Because of this we mention a few facts:

Jesus several places said false prophets would arise, and that they would deceive many. Muhammad indisputably was no real prophet as he did not have the gift of prophesying, and he was backed by no god - too much is wrong in the Quran for it to come from a god – and no other person has led so many into a sect or religion fundamentally based on inhumanity (suppression, discrimination, hate, slavery, “good and lawful” rape, “good and lawful” stealing/robbing, “good and lawful” and even the best services to the god (?); war, to mention some points). Muhammad fits that picture too well for comfort.

The Apostle Paul mentioned that Satan sometimes disguises himself as an angel of light. Muhammad claimed he met an angel of light – Gabriel - - - or someone or something masquerading like Gabriel.

Paul also said that a time would give heed to “doctrines of devils”. As mentioned above some of the surahs from Medina look much more like doctrines from devils than like doctrines from a good and benevolent god – not to mention the Satanic Verses.

Paul also predicted that a time would come when people would not seek and listen to sound doctrines, but listen to fables. And too many Muslims today and before do/did not look for the truth, but only seeking (“proofs” for) what they want to hear. And is it a coincidence that most of the tales in the Quran are documented to be “borrowed” from fairy tales, legends and fables? Even most of the ones seemingly from OT and some seemingly from NT are documented in reality to come not from the Bible, but from made up religious tales and fables – apocryphal scriptures and legends often.

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

 

POST SCRIPTURE FOR THE CLAIM THAT MUHAMMAD IS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE

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

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

Flatly stated: Muhammad is not in the Gospels. If not Islam produces something better than wrong and not documented claims, this debate just is a waste of time, except that the claims permit Muslims not really to have to face a serious question: Is Islam a made up religion? – and except that the claims are useful propaganda for Islam towards little educated non-Muslims and pagans, and even more towards Muslims who strongly wants to believe and to have their belief cemented.

There only exist undocumented claims and as unproved statements – if documents or other proofs had existed, Islam had produced them at least a thousand years ago. But there exist lots of old documents proving the opposite of what Islam claims.

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

Muhammad was no real prophet, as he was unable make prophesies ("to see the unseen") – he only “borrowed” the title.

A “forgotten” fact, together with the fact that the Bible and the Quran fundamentally are so different and with so fundamentally different basic thoughts, ideas, moral rules, and a number of other basic items, that the books represent 2 different gods - real or made up or one of each.

521 7/157f: “- - - for he (Muhammad*) commands them (Muslims*) what is just, and forbids them what is evil”. The last statement is solidly contradicted both by reality and by the Quran. The book – not to mention Muhammad and his successors not only permitted but demanded murders and war, robbing and extortion, rape and enslavement, etc. It is possible to make such things “lawful” by sick laws. But there exists no way to make such inhumanities “good”, of “just” or “pure” – and this includes calling what in reality are raids for loot and slaves, or wars of aggression, for “self defense” or jihad (like Muslims have done legion times throughout history – often with a real but minor detail or made up arguments as pretext).

522 7/157g: "- - - just - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

523 7/157h: "- - - evil - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

524 7/157i: "- - - good - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

525 7/157j: "- - - bad - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

526 7/157k: "- - - impure - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code, or - if it is physical impurity - from its laws about purity an impurity which sometimes are base on unexplained taboos and not on rational reasons (f.x. some of the rules for formal cleanliness or the not eating of meat from donkeys (Hadiths) or blood).

527 7/157l: "- - - he (Muhammad*) releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them". Perhaps partly true. What is not mentioned, are the new burdens and the new yokes put upon his followers. Like going to war - for many it meant death or destroyed health or body. Like putting an end to thinking. Like obeying to his absolute dictatorship. And not to mention the burdens on women - in most areas they made a lousy deal. Etc.

528 7/157m: "- - - the Light which is sent down - - -". Was it sent down? - no documentation for this, only words and claims and "explanations".

529 7/157n: "- - - the Light (the Quran*)which is sent down with him (Muhammad*)- - -". There is not much light in a claimed holy book so full of mistakes, etc. that it proves it is not from any god, and so full of immoral moral rules, that it absolutely is not from any good and benevolent god.

530 7/157o: "- - - it is they (Muslims*) who will prosper - - -". In this life some did prosper from loot/stealing/extortion and some so absolutely did not prosper. If here is meant the claimed next life, the answer depends entirely on if Allah exists, is he is a central god, if he in case is correctly described, and if the Quran tells the full truth and only the truth here. An on whether there exists other/real gods - f.x. Yahweh.

531 7/158a: "I (Muhammad*) am sent - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13 above.

532 7/158b: "I (Muhammad*) am sent - - -". Was he sent? - and in case by whom?

533 7/158c: "I (Muhammad*) am sent unto you all (humans*), as the Messenger of Allah - - -." No man preaching a teaching with so many mistakes, contradiction, etc., is sent by any god.

534 7/158d: "- - - Messenger - - -". See 63/5a below.

535 7/158e: "- - -(to Allah*) belongeth the dominion of the heavens (plural and wrong) and the earth - - -". Often claimed, never proved.

536 7/158f: “- - - heavens - - -“. Plural and wrong. See 2/22.

537 7/158g: "- - - there is no god but He (Allah*) - - -". See 6/106b above.

538 7/158h: "- - - there is no god but He (Allah*) - - -". Strongly contradicted by the Bible, which talks about Yahweh. And strongly questioned by the fact that the Quran - the only source for the claim that Allah exists - is so full of mistakes, contradictions, etc., that it is from no 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.

539 7/158i: “- - - it is He (Allah*) that giveth - - - life - - -”. A very nice thing to claim credit for - and claims come easy if you never have to prove it. This claim is repeated frequently in the Quran, and it is an interesting one, because neither Allah nor Muhammad ever - not one single time - proved any power over death. Lots of killing and murder, but not one documented resurrection or creation of life. Whereas both the Quran (f. ex. 5/110d) and the Bible tell that Yahweh and Jesus - and even Elisha, Paul, and Peter (but not Muhammad) - had the power to resurrect. (F.x. 1. Kings.17/22, 2. Kings.4/34-35, Matt. 9/25, Matt. 27/52, Luke 7/15, John 11/44, Acts 9/40, Acts 20/10 - plus Jesus' resurrection).

540 7/158j: “- - - it is He (Allah*) that giveth - - - death - - -”. Another natural event to claim credit for - true or not. Though as for giving death both Muhammad and his successors were pretty efficient.

541 7/158k: "So believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -." Muhammad's main mantra - here in a strengthened version. It glued him to his god. A platform of power many have used - though none with a success like Muhammad's.

542 7/158l: "- - - Messenger (Muhammad') - - -". See 63/5a below.

543 7/158m: "- - - Messenger (Muhammad') - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

544 7/158n: “- - - the unlettered Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -”. See 7/157a-b above.

545 7/158o: "- - - the unlettered Prophet (Muhammad') - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

546 7/158p: “- - - the Prophet (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:

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. Similar in 6/50a, 7/188b, 10/20c+d, 10/49a, and 72/26.

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.

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"?)

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.

Also see 30/40h below.

547 7/158q: "- - - Allah and His Words (the Quran*) - - -". The Quran is no god's words - far too many facts etc. are wrong.

548 7/158r: "- - - follow him (Muhammad*) that (so) ye (Muslims/people*) may be guided." Thieving/robbing, extorting, raping, enslaving, slave dealing, womanizing, discrimination mongering, hate mongering, torture, murder, mass murder, suppression, war mongering, war, al-Taqiyya and Kitman (lies), breaking your oaths, and more. Yes, follow him and be guided! - Muslims do so?

549 7/158s: "- - - guided - - -". See 2/2b above.

550 7/159a: "- - - Moses - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

551 7/159b: "- - - in the light of truth (the Quran*)". There is not much light in a book which at best id partly true, and which is not from a god.

552 7/159c: "- - - truth - - -". See 2/2b above.

553 7/160a: “We divided them (the people of Moses*) into twelve Tribes or nations.” Wrong: They consisted of 12 brothers (the 12 sons of Jacob), then 12 families, then 12 tribes already since after Jacob (some 430 years earlier according to the Bible). And even this is wrong, because Joseph founded 2 tribes: Manasseh and Ephraim (though often called half-tribes). Israel thus consisted of 11 tribes and 2 half-tribes. When the number 12 often is used, the reason may as well be the fact that the Levi tribe was split up and lived together with the other tribes as priests, or that Manasseh and Ephraim were half-tribes and lumped together. (Jesus by the way was from the Judah tribe.)

554 7/160b: "- - - by inspiration - - -". This word is not used in such connections in the Bible. Yahweh told he use direct speech, visions, or dreams to communicate with his prophets (4. Mos. 12/5-6). But as Muhammad claimed he got many of his verses and surahs this way, it had value for him to impress on his followers and others that this was a normal way for prophets to get information, true or not true - and thus that Muhammad was a normal prophet.

555 7/160c: "- - - people asked him (Moses*) for water - - -". One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 3 reasons - 2 of them unavoidable - for this:

When something is changed, automatically the future is changed.

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

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

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

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

556 7/160d: "Strike the rock with thy (Moses'*) staff: out of it there gushed forth twelve springs - - -". The Bible tells: "Then they (the Jews*) came to Elim, where there were twelve springs - - -" (2. Mos. 15/12). And later at Rephidim: "(Yahweh told Moses:*) Strike the rock, and water will come out - - - (2. Mos. 17/6)". The Quran seems to have mixed together these two incidents.

557 7/160e: Grammatical error: Arab "asbatan" (feminine plural) should be "sebtan" (masculine - human plurals are male in Arab).

558 7/161a: "And remember it was said to them (the Jews*): 'Dwell in this town - - -".Contradiction: "And remember We (Allah*) said: 'Enter this town - - -' (2/58)". 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 to which it is referred - f. ex. 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.

559 7/161b: "- - - We (Allah*) shall forgive you (Muslims*) your faults - - -". There only are two who can forgive something: The victim and a god. Is Allah a god - - - if he exists? At least his claimed words, the Quran, is from no god - too much is wrong.

560 7/161c: "- - - those who do good". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

*561 7/162a: “But the transgressors (Jews*) among them changed the word (of the Bible*) from that which had been given them - - -“. Well, well. The only way for Muhammad to save his religion and his power, was to claim that the Bible was falsified – and this he claimed and claimed without ever producing one single real proof. That is exactly the situation for Islam today: To save itself – and the positions of the leaders – it has to claim and claim - this and other things, without being able to prove one single of the central claims. But today the position is more difficult, because science has so many old documents and fragments, that they know Islam is not speaking the truth. See f.x. 7/157a-d. The Bible never was falsified according to science. (And Islam even more strongly proves the same, as even they have been unable to find proved falsifications.)

562 7/162b: "- - - transgressors - - -". One of the many discriminating names Muhammad used for non-Muslims.

563 7/162c: "- - - We (Allah*) sent them (non-Muslims*) a plague from heaven - - -". See 3/77b above.

564 7/163a: "- - - the town standing close by the sea". Nobody included Islam knows which town. Thus this claim was impossible to check. Convenient if it is a made up story - at least it is not from the Bible.

565 7/163b: "- - - they (some Jews*) transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath". Jews are not permitted by the Laws of Moses to work during the Sabbath - and to fish for food is work.

566 7/163c: “(Fish*) openly holding up their heads (above the water*) - - -.” It is not possible for fish in the sea to hold their heads over the water – they can jump and they can touch the surface, but they cannot keep their heads above the surface. Marine mammals can, but not freely swimming fish. Any god had known – but seemingly not the desert dweller Muhammad.

567 7/163d: In this verse Muhammad tells that fish learnt that during the Sabbaths - every 7. day - things were safe. No fish is able to learn this, at least not without much and long and systematic instruction - among other reason because few if any of them are able to count to 7 or to remember abstracts for long time. Fish counting and holding their heads over the water? - this is from a fairy tale.

568 7/163e: "- - - a trial for them". Why does an omniscient god who on top of all predestines everything according to the Quran, need to test people?

569 7/163-166a: People transformed to apes. This story is not from the Bible.

570 7/163-166b: People transformed to apes - copied from a popular Arab legend of those times.

571 7/164: "- - - some of them (people in an unspecified town*) said: "Why do you (Muslims*) preach - - -". See 160c above.

572 7/165a: "- - - those who forbade evil - - -". Muslims. Remembering Islam's history of aggression, inhumanities, etc., no comment should be necessary to this claim.

573 7/165b: "- - - evil - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

574 7/165c: "- - - wrongdoers - - -". One of the many discriminating names Muhammad used for non-Muslims.

575 7/165d: "- - - grievous punishment". See 3/77b above.

576 7/166: "Be ye apes - - -". Allah said to some “bad” Jewish people (according to the Quran): “Be ye apes - - -”. Hardly likely that humans were transferred into apes. (The story is taken from a legend. And just to mention it: There is nothing similar in the Bible.)

577 7/167a: "- - - grievous penalty". See 3/77b.

578 7/167b: "- - - He (Allah*) is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful". See 1/1a above.

579 7/168a: "- - - the righteous - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

580 7/168b: "We (Allah*) have tried them (people*) - - -".Why does an omniscient god who on top of all predestines everything according to the Quran, need to test people?

581 7/169a: "Was not the Covenant of the Book (here indicated with Allah*) taken from them (the Jews*), that they would not ascribe to Allah anything but the truth?" To use an understatement: The Jews hardly had promised Allah this - Yahweh, yes, but not Allah. Another thing is that Islam and the Muslims included Muhammad would dearly like the Covenant between Yahweh and Israel to be terminated - and here they use claimed sins in unnamed place(s) in an unspecified time - difficult to check - as background for the question (and you also may meet it as a - as normal from Islam not proved - statement and claimed "fact"). But no: There nowhere - not even in the Quran - anywhere is said that that Covenant is terminated - disused and broken, but never terminated. (The same goes for the New Covenant which Jesus formalized the Last Supper between Yahweh and the followers of Jesus, later called Christians - never terminated according to any known scripture.) Also see 7/170a+c below.

582 7/169b: "- - - the truth - - -". See 2/2b above.

583 7/169c: "- - - the righteous - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

584 7/169d: "- - - the Home in the Hereafter". The Quran's and Islam's paradise - see 10/9f below.

585 7/169e: "Will ye (non-Muslims*) not understand?" Perhaps that is just the problem, at least for some non-Muslims: They understand that a "holy" book choke full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. is not from a god, and a book with a partly highly immoral moral code in any case is not from a good or benevolent god - and hence that something is seriously wrong with the book, with the "prophet" and with the religion.

586 7/170a: "- - - the Book - - -". It is not 100% clear, but here it seems to be the Bible. Also 7/171 indicates that this is the case, as "them" have to be the Jews. In that case 7/170c below is valid.

###587 7/170b: "- - - regular Prayers - - -". The demand for regular prayers - a fixed number of prayers at roughly fixed times of the day - does not exist in the Bible. As this is one of the most central demands (one of the 5 "pillars) of the Quran and Islam, and thus one of the central points for Allah, but totally without interest for Yahweh, this is one of the very strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

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.)

###587a 7/170ba: "- - - regular prayers - - -". Why prayers? If Allah has predestined everything like the Quran claims many places, prayers in Islam just is waste of time and effort - and the same are the killing of animals for the honor of Allah - as nobody and nothing can change Allah's Plan. Yes, what can even a Hajj (a pilgrimage to Mecca) mean, as nothing can change Allah's decided Plan? - f.x. the time of your death is decided before you are even born, and according to Hadiths also whether you are to end in Heaven or Hell.

588 7/170c: "- - - never shall We (the god*) suffer the reward of the righteous (here; among Jews and Christians?*) to perish". In clear language: Also the righteous among Jews and Christians will go to Heaven - - - if not the god changed his mind and abrogated (made invalid) this verse later (this was in 621 - before Islam was changed to a harsh war religion). But see 7/169a and 7/170a above.

589 7/170d: "- - - the righteous - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

590 7/171: “When We (Allah*) shook the Mount (Mt. Sinai*) over them (the Jews*) as if it had been a canopy, and they (the Jews*) thought it was going to fall on them - - -”. This needs strong proof from Islam, especially as it in reality is from a fable taken from the old Jewish book “Abodah Sarah”. The picture is clear: The god lifted the mountain, held it over the Jews like a canopy and shook it. All the same you meet Muslims who "forget" about the canopy and the danger that it could fall on the Jews, and claim this was an earthquake(!). "It is the one not wanting to see, who is most blind" or "The blind man you can explain things, but the man not wanting to see also denies facts" - choose what quote you like.

591 7/172a: "When thy (mans'*) Lord drew forth (= caused to be born*) from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and made them testify - - -". YA1146 here has an interesting comment - we quote: "This passage has led to differences of opinion (because of unclear language*) in interpretation. According to the dominant opinion of commentators, each individual in the posterity of Adam (= after Adam*) had a separate existence from the time of Adam (= he or she in some way existed since the time of Adam*) and a Covenant was taken from all of them, which is binding accordingly on each individual". To use a simpler language: Each and every human being in some way existed at the time of Adam, and when Adam made his claimed covenant with Allah, also all human beings through all times at the same time made a similar covenant with the claimed god - a covenant which thus is binding for each and every human being who have existed or will exist. No comment - except this to us sounds not like religion, but like mysticism or like a fairy tale.

592 7/172b: "- - - the Children of Adam - - -". = All humanity.

593 7/172c: "- - - made them (people*) testify concerning themselves". Why is that necessary when the god not only knows everything, but even predestines everything?

594 7/172d: "- - - made them (people*) testify concerning themselves". Another interesting claim: (A7/138 - in English 2008 edition A7/139) tells that "According to the Quran, the ability to perceive the existence of the Supreme Power (= god*) is inborn in human nature (fitrah); and it is this instinctive cognition - which may or may not be subsequently blurred by self-indulgence or adverse environmental influence - that makes every sane human being "bear witness about himself" before Allah". Science has never found any trace of such inborn, instinctive knowledge. (They have found that a minor percent of humans have an inborn longing for something strong to lead them - a god - but nothing like an inborn, instinctive knowledge. Actually man has very few real instincts, and very little inborn knowledge - almost everything has to be learnt.)

But when one meets claims like this from Islam and Muslims, one should remember that they frequently use claimed instinctive knowledge or understanding and similar expressions as arguments for why Islam is the correct religion and for why one should believe in Muhammad and his religion. As they have exactly no proof or documentation for the religion they have to do two things: Glorify Muhammad so that he sounds as trustworthy as possible, and resort to unclear and not documented claims like "instinctive knowledge" about Allah or at least about divinity.

In reality this only is mysticism. But neither Muhammad nor Islam had/has anything better to offer for a proof.

595 7/172e: "Yea, we (people*) do testify!" See 7/172a just above.

596 7/172f: This verse is not from the Bible.

597 7/173: "Our fathers before us may have taken false gods, but we are (their) descendants after them: wilt Thou (Allah*) then destroy us because of the deeds of men who were futile?" As the Quran with all its mistakes, contradictions, etc. is not from a god, this may be relevant for the Muslims - f.x. on the Day of Doom.

598 7/174a: "Thus do We (Allah*) explain the Signs in detail - - -". There are no explanations, not to mention detailed explanations, of the claimed "signs" in the entire Quran - or anywhere else. There are claims, but no explanations - an especially not for the main point: Can they at all be called signs for Allah, and in case why? (As there nowhere is proved that Allah is behind the claimed "signs", they are logically totally invalid as signs or proofs for anything.

599 7/174b: “- - - Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

600 7/175a: “- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

601 7/175b: (YA1149): “Relate (Muhammad?*) to them (people*) the story of the man (what man?) We (Allah*) sent Our Signs, but he passed them by - - -.” The problem no-one has a clue what man Allah (?) spoke about. No-one. This story is "hanging in the air". A most clear text in the Quran.

602 7/176a: “If it had been Our Will - - -". One more of the many places where Muhammad tells what Allah could have done it he just wanted to - it is just that he never wanted. Boasting?

603 7/176b: “If it had been Our Will, We would have elevated him (a non-Muslim*) with our Signs.” Well, neither was there elevation, nor signs. Because it happened to be Allah’s will? - or because all this from no. 001 and down just was bragging and fast talk?

604 7/176c: “- - - with Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

605 7/176d: “- - - reject Our (Allah's) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

606 7/176e: “- - - reject Our (Allah's) Signs - - -.” To reject invalid signs normally is the only wise thing to do.

607 7/177a: "Evil - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

608 7/177b: "- - - people who reject Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -". One of Muhammad’s many distaste inducing names for non-Muslims.

609 7/177c: “- - - reject Our (Allah's) Signs - - -.” To reject invalid signs normally is the only wise thing to do.

610 7/177d: “- - - Our (Allah's*) Sign(s) - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

611 7/177e: "- - - (non-Muslims*) wrong their own souls". Only if the Quran tells the full truth and only the truth about everything. And not if the non-Muslim happens to believe in another god who really exists (if such a god is to be found).

612 7/178a: "Whom Allah doth guide (by means of the Quran*) - - -". There is not much guidance in a guide-book full of mistakes - and not from a god (no god ever made a book of a quality like the Quran).

613 7/178b: "Whom Allah doth guide - he is on the right path - - -". Even with all those mistakes, etc. in the guide book - the Quran?

614 7/178c: "- - - the right path - - -". The road to the Quran's and Islam's paradise - see 10/9f below.

615 7/178d: "- - - whom He rejects from His (Allah's) guidance - - -". Here is one of the fundamental differences between the Quran and NT: Allah rejects many from his guidance, yes, he decides before they are even born whether they are to end in Hell or Paradise according to Hadiths. NT never gives in the hope to find again "the lost lamb" - not even "in the eleventh hour".

616 7/178e: "- - - His (Allah's*) guidance (the Quran*) - - -". As no book with so many mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, etc. is from any god, this is not any god's guidance - included Allah if he exists and is a god.

617 7/178f: "- - - guidance - - -". See 2/2b above.

#618 7/179a: “Many are the Jinn and men We (Allah*) have made for Hell - - -". A serious difference between the Quran and NT: Allah makes many for sending them to Hell. Yahweh according to NT makes no-one with that intention. (See Luke 15/8-10, 15/11-31 and Matt.18/12-14, 20/8-13).

619 7/179b: “Many are the Jinn and men We (Allah*) have made for Hell - - -.” Here Allah tells that many of the men and Jinns he had made, were made for Hell. But this is contradicted with that all men and Jinns are made to serve Allah:

51/56: “I (Allah*) have only created jinns and men, that they may serve Me.”

- - - or does the bloody and immoral parts of services Muhammad/Allah demand, condemn you to Hell afterwards?

620 7/179c: "- - - Jinn - - -". A kind of beings “borrowed” from Arab Pagan religion, legends and fairy tales. They are material beings - f.x. there exist laws in Islam for marriage between humans and jinns, and marriage would be impossible unless they are material. And they are sent to Hell and fire for punishment - for immaterial beings fire would be no punishment. Allah made them from fire, according to the Quran. They are an Arabism as except for in the Quran they only exist in Arab and neighboring folklore, (+ fairy tales and old Arab pagan religion). They also are one more proof for that the Bible and the Quran are not from the same god, because even though Jinns do exist in the periphery of Jewish folklore, they never are mentioned in the Bible. This even though they except for angels make up the largest population of supernatural beings in the Quran. They are a rather central part of the world of Allah, but does not exist in the world of Yahweh.

621 7/179d: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith they hear not". May be the real truth is just the opposite, and that the reason why they do not believe in Muhammad and his Quran, is that they understand that something was and is seriously wrong.

622 7/179e: "- - - nay, they (non-Muslims*) are more misguided: for they are heedless (of the warning)". Who it the most religiously misguided - the one who uses his knowledge and his brain when something obviously is wrong, or the one who blindly goes by a guide-book full of mistakes and not from any god?

623 7/180a: "The most beautiful names belong to Allah - - -". Islam claims Allah has 99 names - and the names do exist in long lists. If the meaning of those names - like "the Oft-Forgiving", "the Most Merciful", etc. - had been true, the meaning of the names had been attractive. But the names themselves are far too prosaic to be beautiful. A curiosa: Even though Allah has 99 names and Muhammad a number, Muslims claim that the fact that the Holy Spirit one place cannot be the Holy spirit, because there is used another name, "!The spirit of Truth" - "ergo" the Spirit of Truth" must mean Muhammad, they claim (in their main claim for Muhammad in NT in John , ch. 14 -16). Logic? - especially when you know that the Holy Spirit is known by at least 6 different names in the Bible, included the Spirit of Truth?

624 7/180b: "- - - they (bad persons*) will soon be requited". Once more: If Allah exists and is a god, and if the Quran tells the truth and only the truth.

625 7/181a: “Of those We (Allah*) have created are people who direct (others) with truth, - - -”. If this refers to the truth in the Quran, it can at best be partly the truth.

626 7/181b: "- - - truth - - -". See 2/2b above and 13/1g and 40/75 below.

627 7/181c: “- - - those We (Allah*) have created - - -". That Allah is a creator is often claimed, but never proved. It is an interesting claim because of the irony in the fact that if the old books speaks the truth, Yahweh several places in the Bible and at least one place in the Quran (5/110i) proved he at least had the power of resurrection, whereas Allah an Muhammad never prove anything like that - several claims, but never a proved case.

628 7/181d: "- - - justice - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code and with the partly both immoral and unjust sharia laws.

629 7/182a: "Those who reject Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims.

630 7/182b: "- - - Our (Allah's*) signs - - -". “- - - Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

631 7/182c: "- - - punishment - - -". See 3/77b above.

632 7/182-183a: "Those who reject Our (Allah's*) Signs - - - Respite will I grant unto them - - -". But be sure; Muhammad did not always grant them respite after he became strong enough. This verse is abrogated – made invalid - and contradicted 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 threats, 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 7/182-183b: "Those who reject Our (Allah's*) Signs - - - Respite will I grant unto them - - -". This also is the standard explanation in the Quran for why non-Muslims often have a better life than Muslims; it is Allah who in his wisdom has decided it like this - given them respite. But sooth yourself; they will be punished and you better off than them in the claimed next life at least.

634 7/183: "My scheme is strong (and unfailing) - - -". Allah has already decided everything - the predestination has locked anything that is going to happen.

635 7/184a: "Do they (non-Muslims*) not reflect?" May be that is just what they did - reflected over the fact that much obviously was wrong in the new religion of Muhammad. Already then it was possible to see that the claims about Allah being the same god as Yahweh, Islam the same religion as the Mosaic or Christian ones, and the Quran the real, not falsified Torah or Bible, could not be correct, and also that most of the tales in the Quran were from known sources, not from Heaven. And later little by little all the other mistakes, etc. showed up in addition.

636 7/184b: "Their Companion - - -". Here Muhammad.

637 7/184c: "Their Companion - - - is but a perspicuous warner." In 621 AD Muhammad did not have the power to be anything but a warner. From 622 AD on - when he started to get military power - he changed to also being an enforcer. The same for his successors; it became dangerous to try to leave Islam, and large parts of the Arabs - and others - got the choice: Become Muslim or fight and die.

638 7/185a: “- - - heavens - - -“. Plural and wrong. See 2/22d.

639 7/185b: "- - - all that Allah hath created - - -". Strong claim, often repeated claim - never proved claim. See 7/29d above.

***640 7/185c: "- - - their (humans' - in this case non-Muslims*) term - - -". The word "term" in the Quran mostly is used as a word for when something is coming to an end according to the predestined Plan of Allah - here the end of their lives. Predestination is a heavy fact in Islam, and you have to be a blindly believing or not thinking Muslim to be able not to see the impossibility in combining predestination - the total predestination of the Quran - with the claim that man has free will and also that prayers to Allah has any merit if everything already is predestined.

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.)

641 7/185d: "In what Message after this (Muhammad's*) will they (non-Muslims*) then believe?" Difficult to say, as some choose one belief, others another one. But for thinking persons with some knowledge it is difficult to choose a belief which itself proves strongly that something is very wrong. For children brainwashed and pressured from baby age and never thought critical thinking, it may be explainable. But for adults to choose such a religion it takes a lot of lack of knowledge, a lot of lack of brain, or a lot of naivety. Or perhaps some al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) or Kitman (lawful half-truth) - both of which "if necessary" or if "it gives a better result" ought to be used to promote Islam, f.x. by making proselytes believe in Islam and become Muslims. Islam is the only of the big religions who promotes the using of lies to among other things defend or promote the religion.

Besides why do they have to believe in messages later than Muhammad? There are some older ones which may o.

642 7/186a: "To such (persons*) as Allah rejects from His guidance - - -". See 7/178c above.

643 7/186b: "To such (persons*) Allah rejects from His guidance - - -". For comparison: Yahweh/Jesus rejects no-one who is honestly searching - not even heavy sinners in the 11. hour (f.x. Luke. 15/8-10 and 15/11-31, Matt 12-14 and 20/8-13). They have to reject themselves.

644 7/186c: "To such (persons*) Allah rejects from His guidance - - -". Allah can reject nobody unless he exists.

645 7/186d: "To such (persons*) Allah rejects from His guidance, there can be no guide - - -". Wrong if other gods - f.x. Yahweh - exist - - - and especially wrong if Allah in addition is a made up god (the facts concerning the Quran does not bode well here).

646 7/186e: "- - - His (Allah's*) guidance (the Quran*)- - -". There is not much reliable religious guidance in a book full of mistaken facts and other mistakes, errors, invalid logic, etc. and with parts of its moral code very immoral - and the book on top of all not from a god (proved 100% by all the mistakes, etc. - no omniscient god makes mistakes).

647 7/186f: "- - - guidance - - -".See 2/2b above.

648 7/186g: "He (Allah*) will leave them (the lost ones*) in their trespasses, wandering in distraction". Compare this to Yahweh's search for "the lost sheep" (f.x. Luke 15/3-7). Yahweh and Allah the same god? you bet!

649 7/187a: "- - - the (final) hour - - -". The Day of Doom.

650 7/187b: “- - - heavens - - -“. Plural and wrong. See 2/22d.

651 7/187c: (YA1160): “- - - if thou were eager in search of - - -.” But the Arab text also may mean something like “- - - if thou were well-acquainted with - - -.” Clear?

652 7/187d: "The knowledge thereof (when the Day of Doom will be*) is with Allah alone - - -". If Allah exists and is a god, he may know it. But according to the Bible Yahweh is the one who knows this. And according to all normal rules for evaluation of sources, there is better chance for that the Bible is true that for that the Quran is so.

653 7/188a: "- - - except as Allah willeth". The predestination - nothing can happen except as Allah will. (But where then is the claimed free will of man?)

###654 7/188b: "If I (Muhammad*) had knowledge of the Unseen - - -". "- - - the Unseen" = the future. This is one of the places where Muhammad clearly tells he is unable to see the future = unable to make foretelling (prophesies). Aishah says the same in Hadiths. Muhammad simply was no real prophet (this becomes even more clear when you know that the original title for a prophet was "a seer" - person able to see the unseen (f.x. 1. Sam. 9/9) - a person unable to make prophesies, must use a "tailored" definition to call himself a prophet. (But then Muhammad had "tailored" definitions for this and that.) Similar in 6/50a, 10/20c+d, 10/49a, and 72/26.

655 7/188c: "- - - good - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

656 7/188d: "- - - evil - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

657 7/188e: “I (Muhammad*) am but a warner, and a bringer of glad tidings – to those who have faith.” A warner and a warrior. 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 threats, 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 in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". (At least 28 abrogations).

658 7/188f: “- - - glad tidings - - -“. See 2/97 above and 61/13 below.

659 7/188g: "- - - those who have faith". Muslims - only Muslims have faith according to the Quran.

660 7/188h: "- - - faith". = Islam - only Islam is faith in the Quran.

661 7/189: “It is He (Allah*) who created you (man*) from a single person (Adam*) - - -“. Wrong. Adam never existed, as man developed from earlier primates. And even if it had started with Adam and Eve (her name is never mentioned in the Quran), the DNA pool had been too small to make the race viable.

662 7/190a: "But when He (Allah*) giveth them (a couple*) a goodly child - - -". Allah? - or a (proved?) god (if such one exists)? - or nature?

663 7/190b: "- - - Allah is exalted high above (anything*) - - -". Often claimed, never proved. There only are the words of Muhammad for this claim - and judge for yourself how reliable a man Muhammad was with his al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies), Kitmans (lawful half-truths), broken promises/words/oaths according to the Quran ¤¤, and his "War is deceit", etc.

664 7/190c: "- - - the partners (other gods*) they describe to Him (Allah*)". An Arabism - only in Arabia they had partners to al-Lah - the pagan god Muhammad took over and renamed Allah. All other places they did not have gods in addition to Allah, but instead of Allah.

665 7/191a: "Do they (non-Muslims*) indeed ascribe to Him (Allah*) - - - partners - - -". An Arabism. Except for in Arabia where the pagan god al-Lah (renamed to Allah by Muhammad) had many colleges, no non-Muslims ascribed or ascribe partners to Allah, because they simply do not believe in him. They believe in one or more entirely different god (Jews and Christians) or gods (polytheists).See 2/165c above and 25/18a below.

666 7/191b: "Do they ascribe to Him (Allah*) things that can create nothing - - -". The irony here is that also Allah has created exactly nothing which is proved - there only are loose words and as loose claims for it.

667 7/192a: "No aid (other gods*) can they give them (non-Muslims*) - - -". There is not much reliable religious guidance in a book full of mistaken facts and other mistakes, errors, invalid logic, etc. and with parts of its moral code very immoral - and the book on top of all not from a god (proved 100% by all the mistakes, etc. - no omniscient god makes mistakes). And irony: There is not one single case in 1400 years where it is documented that Allah has given even one single person any kind of aid - lots of claims and words, but not one single documented case. And then there is the problem with Yahweh - who according to relevant books have aided many.

668 7/192b: "- - - nor can they (other gods*) aid themselves!" This is correct if they do not exist, wrong if they do exist. It is highly likely most of them do not exist - but there are some strange stories about f.x. Yahweh if the old books tell the truth. Allah is in a weak position - for one thing his claimed "holy" book has so many mistakes, etc. that it is from no god, and for another thing he was and is unable even to prove he existed, not to mention prove that Muhammad had any connection to him or that what Muhammad told was even partly true. Muhammad and his Quran proves that something is very wrong concerning Allah and hence with Muhammad and with Islam.

669 7/193a: "If ye (non-Muslims*) call them (other gods*)to guidance, they will not obey - - -". See 7/192a+b above.

670 7/193b: "- - - guidance - - -". See 2/2b above.

671 7/193c: (A7/156 – in 2008 edition A7/158): “If you call them to (Allah’s) guidance - - -.” This is the literal meaning and normal translation according to the 2006 Swedish edition of “The Message of the Quran.” But Zamakhshari, Razi, Ibn Kathir - - - and Muhammad Asad mean that “- - - if you pray to them for guidance - - -“ more correctly brings across the real meaning. Well, it in case is one more case of clear Arab language in the Quran. A minor, but distinct difference. And these variants naturally also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has more than one meaning.

672 7/193d: “- - - for you (Muhammad*) it is the same whether ye call them or ye hold your peace!” 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 threats, 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 in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". (At least 28 abrogations).

673 7/194a: "Verily - - -". See 2/2b above.

674 7/194b: "- - - let them (other gods*) listen to your prayer - - -". Here the Quran indicates that such prayers are in vain. But there are two facts Muslims never mention: 1) Never in 1400 years have there been even one documented case of a prayer to Allah which ha effect - claims, but never a documented case. And: 2) If it is correct like the Quran claims and states several places everything in the world is predestined according to Allah’s unchangeable Plan - a plan nobody and nothing can change - also prayers, f.x. for help, to Allah cannot change anything in his Plan. Thus prayers in Islam just is a waste of time and effort - a fact never mentioned by Muslims.

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.)

675 7/195a: "Have they (other gods or idols*) feet to walk with? (Etc.*) - - -". Has Allah? - Muhammad never was able to prove even his existence.

676 7/195b: "- - - "god-partners" - - -". See f.x. 7/191a above.

677 7/196a: "For my (Muhammad's*) Protector is Allah - - -". The old, bitter fact: Only if he exists and is a god.

678 7/196b: “- - - Allah, who revealed the Book (the Quran*) - - -”. Well, that is an essential question: Is it really Allah who made a book with so many mistakes? Impossible.

679 7/196c: "- - - Allah, who revealed the Book (the Quran*) (from time to time) - - -". The Quran claims that as the times changed, new messages had to be sent (but not after Muhammad, even though there have been much more - MUCH more - changes after Muhammad than during all the times before him put together: 124ooo prophets before Muhammad according to Islam, zero and nil after. And also no new holy book. Understand it who can.)

681 7/197a: "But those ye (non-Muslims*) call upon besides Him (Allah*), are unable to help you - - -". See 7/192a+b above.

682 7/197b: "But those ye (non-Muslims*) call upon besides Him (Allah*), are unable to help you - - -". Strongly contradicted by the Bible as far as Yahweh goes. 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.

683 7/198a: "If thou (non-Muslims*) callest them to guidance, they hear not." As for Allah, there also has never been one single proved case of his help. And concerning Allah there is one more problem: Even if he should happen to exist, is there any idea to call him, if he has predestined everything like the Quran states many places, and NOTHING can change his predestined Plan? A prayer is meaningless if it can change nothing.

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

##684 7/198b: In connection to this verse M. Yusuf Ali - a Muslim scholar who knew the real, historical side of Muhammad, not only the glossy picture from the imams, very well, in all his robbing, raping, womanizing, lying, torture, murder, and blood - wrote this about Muhammad (YA 1169): "Even now, after fourteen centuries, a life (Muhammad*) of unexampled purity, probity, justice, and righteousness is seen in the false light by blind detractors!" It simply is very difficult to believe that it is humanly possible honestly to believe in such a shining picture for a learned scholar. And what then about uneducated Muslims?

Is this really the "realism" in Islam?

In that case it is easy to see why many such areas are pretty backwards.

Are we living in the same world?

Or is this really what the Muslim moral code is like?

Did Yusuf Ali really believe what he said? - one of the foremost Muslim scholars and translators in last century?! - or is it perhaps an al-Taqiyya meant to satisfy the clergy/religious scholars?"

Or does this tell something about Islam and al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie Muslims are urged to use if necessary to defend and forward the religion (and some other things)???

The sentence made a huge impression on us, and told us much about Muslim integrity.

685 7/199a: “(Muhammad*) Hold to forgiveness (towards the “infidels”*). 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 threats, 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 in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". (At least 28 abrogations).

Many non-Muslims - and Muslims - say that terrorists and others pick and choose and disuse the Quran when they hate and kill. But in reality it is the militants and the terrorists who are right: According to the surahs from Medina it is the peaceful Muslims who are not good Muslims - and the surahs from Medina mostly override the peaceful ones from Mecca as they are younger, as mentioned before. (As this book is meant to be one to open and find out things – an “encyclopedia” - we sometimes repeat essential information, so that readers do not have to search too much - in addition to that many things are repeated because the Quran often repeats and repeats and repeats itself, and we have to give the answers). But some mullahs, militants and terrorists really do know how to read the Quran correctly. And the horrible fact is: The militants do read it correctly (with the possible exception of self murder).

Most of the verses telling about peaceful coexistence with and treatment of non-Muslims are found in the some 86 surahs from Mecca (610-622 AD). Practically all the bloody, suppressing, hate, rape, robbery (“good and lawful”) and war verses are from Medina (622-632 AD). That means that many or most of the peaceful ones are nullified by the much harsher ones from Medina, a fact which turned the religion into one of disgust and haughtiness towards others, and war and robbing and conquest - a religion that fitted the warring desert Arabs (by far the majority in Arabia at that time) most well (it is symptomatic that Muhammad did not start getting large quantities of followers until he stopped preaching peace, and started preaching robbing, stealing, slave taking, ”good and lawful” rape, suppression, war and riches and power also in this life - - - and abrogated the peaceful verses to get a warriors‘ and robbers‘ religion.)

You will see that in many cases it is the same verses/points that are abrogated (and thus often at the same time are contradicted) by many other verses, and the other way around. The reason simply is that many or most of the harsh verses – mainly from Medina where Islam changed to a war religion – each abrogates and contradicts many or most of the same softer verses – mainly from the earlier time (the Mecca period).

686 7/199b: "- - - what is right - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is meant in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

687 7/199c: "- - - the ignorant". Beware that when the Quran talks about knowledge or lack of such, it normally only refers to knowledge about Muhammad's religion and god.

688 7/200: "- - - He (Allah')heareth and knoweth (all things)". See 2/233h above.

689 7/201a: "- - - bring Allah to remembrance, when lo! They see (right)!" Not if they rely on the Quran - Allah's presumed book - as too much is wrong in it. A god does not make mistakes and even less in the high numbers of plural - there simply is no god behind such a book.

690 7/201b: "- - - (aright) - - -" Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is meant in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

691 7/202a: "- - - (the evil ones) - - -". One of the Quran's many negatively loaded names for non-Muslims.

692 7/202b: "- - - evil - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

693 7/202c: "- - - deeper into error - - -". The question is: Are they in error? At least some may believe in an existing god. And what about Muslims if the Quran is a made up book? - remember it at least is from no god, with all those mistakes, etc.

694 7/203a: (A165): “If thou (Muhammad*) brings them (skeptics*) not a revelation, they say: ‘Why hast thou not got it (a revelation/miracle*) together (yourself*)?’”. But “The Message of the Quran” tells that the Arab words “law la ‘djtabaytaha” make troubles (this is omitted in the 2008 English edition) as it has several meanings, and they instead say a more likely meaning is: “Why doest thou (Muhammad*) not seek to obtain it (from Allah*)?” Rather a different detail – and at least two different meanings. A clear language in the Quran? And these variants naturally also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has more than one meaning.

It also tells something that Muslims have left out some comments from the book, which are not flattering or which are disturbing - even in such a grave matter as religion it is not the truth one searches for, but confirmation of the religion - true or not true. Consequences if the Quran is made up? - does not matter, as you will not meet them in this life. And besides: "We" "know" that what our fathers told us is correct.

Beware that each and every abrogation normally also is a contradiction (and you will also find them in our list of contradictions), but a contradiction is not necessarily an abrogation. Further: Many of the mistaken facts at the same time are contradictions to reality - some of them are listed here, but you will find many more in the chapters about the mistaken facts in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" though even there we list far from all contradictions with reality in the Quran.

To give you a visual impression of how bad the situation in the Quran regarding mistakes and errors really is, we have chosen to show "all" the abrogations for each contradicting verse/point, (and the same for internal contradictions) instead of just writing a sum - see "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". Each and every number in that list show one verse abrogating or being abrogated by another – and if you add all together, you will see that this list contains 4556 collisions between verses. As each collision takes 2 verses, that means that in this list there are 2278 abrogations = 2278 mistakes or errors made by the god because of trying and failing or because he changed his mind now and then. AND IN REALITY THERE ARE MANY MORE. (But remember that as many of the verses are contradicted many or very many times by different verses, less than 150 verses are involved in the list – but as said: There are more, as we have found far from all. (Only 9/5 abrogates 124 milder verses according to some Muslim scholars - and may be as many as 500 verses all together are abrogated according to some Muslim scholars).

If this book is ever printed, one will save paper and expenses by just writing the numbers - how many and which ones.

PS: We have added some abrogations just before launching this on Internet. As we will add a few more when we finish the book "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - in 2011 or 2012 we hope, we wait with correcting the mathematics till then. (Ps: As we found "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics’ facts and thoughts" to be more urgent than the rest of the mistakes, "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" may not be finished until in 2011 AD or may be even 2012 AD.)

695 7/203b: "- - - revelation - - -". Was it really revelations? - and in case from whom or what?

696 7/203c: "- - - they (contemporary of Muhammad non-Muslims*) say: "Why hast thou (Muhammad*) not - - - (etc.)". One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 3 reasons - 2 of them unavoidable - for this:

When something is changed, automatically the future is changed.

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

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

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

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

697 7/203d: "I (Muhammad*) but follow what is revealed (the Quran*)to me from my Lord (Allah*) - - -". A book with so much wrong is not from any god.

698 7/203e: "- - - revealed - - -". See 4/47c and 5/59e above.

699 7/203f: "- - - revealed to me (Muhammad*) from my Lord (Allah*) - - -". No god ever revealed a book with so much error, contradictions, etc. like the Quran.

700 7/203g: "- - - this (the Quran*) is (nothing but) lights from your (Muslims') Lord (Allah*) - - -". There is not much light in a book with perhaps unbelievable 3ooo mistakes, etc.

701 7/203h: "- - - this (the Quran*) is (nothing but) lights from your (Muslims') Lord (Allah*) - - -". A book with so many errors, etc. is not from a god.

702 7/203i: "- - - (the Quran is) Guidance - - -". See 7/203g above - such a book scarcely has more guidance than light.

703 7/203j: "- - - (the Quran is) Mercy - - -". There is not much mercy in the surahs from Medina - at least not for non-Muslims. And there is mercy for no-one if the book is a made up one - actually it in that case is the opposite to mercy to Muslims, as they have been prohibited from searching for what is really truth. Also see 1/1a above.

704 7/203k: "- - - any who have Faith". Muslims.

705 7/203l: "- - - Faith". Islam - only Islam is faith in the Quran.

706 7/204: "- - - that ye (Muslims*) may receive Mercy (from the Quran*)". Is there real mercy in a religious book not from any god and with LOTS of mistakes, etc. + a partly highly immoral moral code and similar law?

707 7/206: "- - - bow down before Him (Allah*)". An undocumented god? - or a superstition? - or a dressed up pagan god? - or simply a dreamed up false god?

Surah 7: Sub-total = 707 + 3 + 4899 = 5609 comments.

#####219a 8/69a-d: "- - - lawful and good - - -". If these words and the context it is 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 it 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" by today's Islam, but on the contrary preached and even practiced (during armed conflicts) today in some Islamic fora and groups.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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 .

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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 .

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

#####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.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.

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

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

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

A nice future for our grandchildren?


>>> Go to Next Surah

>>> Go to Previous Sura

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