Allah in the Quran, Chapter 31


Chapter 31



001 There is nowhere in the Quran told when or how such a covenant was agreed on. There also nowhere is told what it contains.

Now also the New Covenant (f.x. Luke 22/20) between Yahweh and his followers has nowhere a descripsion of what it contains. One has to see the content from the teachings and the life of Jesus. Muslims may say the same about the claimed covenant between Allah and his followers - that it is found in Myhammad's teaching and life (though that will mean a covenant extremely different - antipodically often - from the New Covenant the followers of Yahweh agreed to). But there is one clear difference: The introduction of the New Covenant is very clearly stated in the Bible - where and when it started, and thus not least that it is a reality (if the old book tell the truth, and both science and Islam (involontarioy)have thoroughly proved that it at least is not falsified). In Islam and the Quran the claimed covenant just appears out of the blue without any explanation or introduction.

002 In the second part of the 1800s a group of Boers in South Africa made a covenant with Yahweh - - - but forgot to check if Yahweh accepted to be part of the proposed covenant. Was Muhammad's claimed covenant a parallel to this one? - - - if Allah exists.

Nothing is a covenant unless all implicated parts take a part in it and accept it.

###### Another - and serious - point is that to "explain" that the Quran means something different from what it really says, is to corrupt it.

Also: What is sure, is that no god ever made a holy book as full of wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, unclear language, etc. like the Quran. #### Besides: Which one of the 20-30 known versions accepted by Islam of the Quran (see 15/9c) - if any (and there were even more versions through the times) - is in case the correct one?

Finally: Always when you read the Quran, Hadiths, and other Islamic books, you should remember that Muhammad accepted the use of and himself used dishonesty in many forms in words and deeds. Even if the names are younger, it was he who institutionalized dishonesty like al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), the use of deceit ("war is deceit" - and "everything" is war), betrayal (f.x. the peace delegation from Khaybar), and even the disuse of oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah could cheat, cheating is ok)), which also includes the disuse of words and promises, as they are weaker than oaths = when oaths can be disused, so can words and promises. On top of this it is very clear from the Quran and all other central Islamic books, that Muhammad also liked respect and power and women. Combine these lusts with his acceptance of and personal use of dishonesty - even the gravest kinds: How reliable are that kind of men normally? - and how true and reliable are their never proved claims and tales?

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

####003 2/27b: "- - - Allah's Covenant - - -". Are there any real proofs for such a covenant? Some Boers in South Africa once made a covenant with Yahweh - - - but forgot to ask Yahweh if he agreed. Is this a similar case? - - - if Allah exists.

##004 2/125e: "We (Allah*) covenanted with Abraham and Ishmael - - -". The Bible is contradicting: (1.Mos.17/21) Yahweh says: "But my covenant I will make with Isaac". And many years later to Isaac's son Jacob (and now Ishmael is totally out of the picture) similar words like the ones which were said to Abraham 2 generations earlier (1.Mos. 28/14): "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring". There is no doubt according to the Bible with which branch of Abraham's descendants the god covenanted. Even if the Arabs really were/had been descendants of Ishmael, they had belonged to the wrong branch of the family - they were not the offspring of Jacob, and not even of Isaac. And it is likely this might be the reality - at the time when the Torah was written, there was no reason for the writers to place Ishmael and his descendants at the border of Egypt (1.Mos. 25/18) if he/they really lived in Arabia - Muhammad and his competing religion still was 1000 years into the unknown future, when it was written. But for Muhammad the situation was different: It is quite common for emerging sects and religions to "high-jack" parts of a mother religion - it gives "weight" and tradition to the new sect/religion. For Muhammad it would pay to "take over" a known name like Ishmael. It obviously also would pay for him to take over the claimed center of the religious world - even a made up claim works if people believe in it.

Another fact: Modern DNA-analysis has shown that the Arabs are no coherent tribe. They are a mixture of many nations - not strange lying at a crossroad with travelers passing thought, and where sex and alcohol were "the two delightful things" until Muhammad took over. And also Arab tradesmen brought brides and slaves back home even long before Muhammad, not to mention all the slave women who were brought home after the robberies made the Arabs rich enough to afford more/many women. This on top of that the original "Arabs" were people who drifted in from all around when the peninsula slowly was settled - also this confirmed by DNA. The "Arab Blood" is strongly diluted and mixed up, and even was never a homogenous tribe originally. The plain fact is that the Arabs were a mix of many races/groups - "bastards" to use na old, but impolie word.

What the Bible really says about Ishmael in relevant connections are:

(1. Mos. 16/7): The pregnant Hagar fled from Abraham (Abram - the name not mentioned in the Quran) and Sarah (then named Sarai - not mentioned in the Quran), and "The angel of the Lord found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur". Shur was a desert area east of the Gulf of Suez in Egypt. Shur extended southwards past the northern end of the Red Sea, "opposite Egypt" = roughly east of where the Suez Canal now runs and a little down the east side of the Red Sea. 1): Hagar may have headed towards her home country Egypt. 2): Abraham had to be far west - and very far from Arabia/Mecca (halfWay down the Arabian Peninsula) - for her to find that road, as that road run inland from the Mediterranean Sea (far inland, but in that region).

(1. Mos. 21/12-13): "But God/Yahweh said to him (Abraham*), 'Do not be so distressed about the boy (Ishmael*) and your maidservant (Hagar - Ishmael's mother*). Listen to what Sarah (Abraham's wife*) tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of your maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring".

(1. Mos. 20/1): "Now Abraham moved - - - into the region of Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. Kadesh was a town West of the southern end of the Dead sea, between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, and a bit more than halfway towards the Mediterranean Sea. The desert of Shur was west of Kadesh direction Egypt and near the Gulf of Suez in Egypt and southwards past the northern end of the Red Sea. (You will meet Muslims claiming Kadesh was in or near Mecca, and others claiming it was near Petra in Jordan - necessary to be able to move the Paran desert area to the Faran Mountain and the Faran Wilderness on the Arab peninsula, rename it Paran like the Muslims have done, and claim this Paran/Faran is the Paran of the Bible. (- even though there is no doubt where the Paran of the Bible was - there is a little too much of this kind of dishonesty in Islam.)) But to tell Abraham settled between Shur, near Egypt, and Jordan or Mecca is not even comical - Muslims often are very clever at finding solutions they want to find, but forgetting or "forgetting" details - or big things - making the claimed solution wrong or invalid.) The point here is that Abraham now was living in Negev in the west, not so very far from the Mediterranean Sea area, and in the region where the road to Shur and on to Egypt crossed. The Bible tells when Abraham made major moves, and it does not mention that Abraham left this region until after Isaac was born and after Hagar and Ishmael (who must have been something like 14 - 16 years by then - he was born when Abraham was 86 years (1. Mos. 16/16) and circumcised when Abraham was 99 and Ishmael 13 years old (1. Mos. 17/24-25), and this was a bit later) had left Abraham's camp. Which indicates that Hagar and Ishmael left his camp in this area - something which may correspond well with that they took the road to Shur and on to the border of her homeland, Egypt, and settled there like the Bible tells: 1. Mos. 25/18: ""His (Ishmael's*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt". The desert of Shur is well known, but this Havilah (there is another connected to the Garden of Eden) is not clearly located, but is believed to have been in the southern part of Palestine. (We may add that Muslim sources we find on Internet - f.x. - admits that "the wilderness of Paran" = Faran in Arabic, and thus that it is the Bible's Paran they claim is in Faran much further east.)

(1. Mos. 21/14): "She (Hagar) went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba", which meant that she had to leave Abraham somewhere in what is now the south of Israel (Beersheba itself is some 70 miles (ca. 115 km) south of Tel Aviv) in a part of the Negev desert bordering or part the Paran area - which is bordering Sinai, and Sinai as you most likely know is a peninsula to the southwest of Israel, bordering Egypt (the Arabian peninsula is to the southeast and with the Acaba Bay between it and the Sinai peninsula).

(1. Mos.21/15): "When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes". It would not be possible for Hagar to walk to Mecca - hundreds of miles through hot desert - with the only water she had was one water skin. (Besides there was no sane reason for her to walk that way - this even more so as she was not from Arabia, and had absolutely no known connection to that area, but was from Egypt = in the west.)

(1. Mos. 21/13): "- - - I (Yahweh*) will make him (Ishmael*) into a great nation". See 21/21 further down.

(1. Mos. 21/21): "While he (Ishmael*) lived in the desert of Paran, his mother (Hagar*) got a wife for him from Egypt". Muslims dearly wants Paran to mean Paran/Faran in Arabia (the name really was Faran, but has become Paran because Muslims wanted it to be a reference from the Bible), but Paran Desert was an area south of Canaan - and south of Beersheba - bordering North Sinai and reaching towards Elath. The name of the area today is el-Tih. The Desert of Paran also contained the Mountain of Paran mentioned in 5. Mos. 33/2. As Paran bordered Canaan, Moses sent his 12 spies into Canaan from here (from in or near the town of Kadesh) - if he had sent them from Paran/Faran in Arabia, they first would have had to cross hundreds of miles - and kilometers - of forbidding desert to reach Canaan. And how far would Hagar have had to travel to find a wife from Egypt to Ishmael? (It is typical for Muslim argumentation to produce claims where details - or not details but big things - are omitted to get the (made up) argument they want - you meet this technique a bit too often. It is one of the problems we meet when studying Islamic literature - all information has to be checked, because you never know what is true and what is f.x. an al-Taqiyya (lawful lie), a Kitman (lawful half-truth), or even just wishful thinking helped by invalid logic (Muslims often jumps from "this may be a possibility" or even weaker to "it is like this") to make things fit the Quran. It may seem like many Muslims in addition are little trained in the use of the laws of logic and in critical thinking.)) (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is "The Religion of Honesty".)

But the Muslims' high-jacking of Paran has one good effect: They have placed lots of pictures from Paran/Faran in Arabia on Internet. Paran/Faran itself is a mountain, and the wilderness is lying near and mainly north of Mecca, and Abraham would have had to cross the large desert now called the Paran Wilderness by Muslims, to reach Mecca - and live in that desert, as Mecca used to be similar to this at that time. Open some of the pages and look at the pictures: How tempted would Abraham be to go into hundreds of miles of this with all his flocks of animals? Exactly not at all. (This in addition to that it is well known where the real Paran from the Bible was).

(1. Mos. 25/16): "These (the 12 sons of Ishmael*) are the names of the 12 tribal rulers - - -" = the great nation mentioned in 1. Mos.21/18 - Muslims never mention this verse. (But there is a large difference between a promise to make them a great nation and a covenant. A covenant is much more than a promise. Also remember that a great nation at that time was something different from today - f.x. Abraham with his 318 men beat the combined forces of 4 kings in battle near Dan (1. Mos. 14/14-15))

(1. Mos. 25/18): "His (Ishmael's*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur (see 1. Mos. 20/1above*), near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur (= eastwards*)". One more verse Muslims never - never - mention.

(1. Mos. 25/18): "And they (the sons of Ishmael) lived in hostility toward all their brothers". Also this a verse Muslims never mention - perhaps because they want it to have been a good relationship so that there still could be a brotherhood when Moses made his speech in 5. Mos. 500 - 700 years later, and when Muhammad came some 2500 years later - - - if the Arabs are descendants from, among many others, Ishmael.

There are two ways to understand this sentence: They lived in hostility towards each other, or they lived in hostility towards the sons of their uncle Isaac. As it is said in 1. Mos. 21/18 that they - the 12 tribes descending from Ishmael - became a great nation, the second meaning is the likely one. May be partly for this reason, the descendants of Ishmael are never in the Bible reckoned by the Jews to be relatives, or at least very, very distant such ones.

All this points to that Hagar and Ishmael left the camp of Abraham in west Negev, took the road towards Shur, direction Egypt, and settled near the border of Egypt, likely north the desert Shur - i.e. between Shur and the Mediterranean Sea somewhere - - - pretty far from Arabia and Mecca, and in nearly exactly the opposite direction.

One final and partly different point: As mentioned costal Arabia was settled around 5ooo BC (or earlier). The interior was settled 1ooo years or a bit more later. By 1800 BC the peninsula had a reasonably big population. Even if Ishmael took all his 12 sons and moved to Arabia, how big percent of the total population of Arabia would they make up? In other words: How big percent of the forefathers of the Arabs of today, or at the time of Muhammad, did Ishmael represent? - a small number behind a lot of zeroes behind a comma. Even in the unlikely case that Ishmael had settled in Arabia and not near Egypt, Arabs 2400 years later (Muhammad) or 3800 years later (today) were/are not the descendants of Ishmael, but the descendants of all the people living in Arabia in the old times, of which Ishmael in case had made up only a miniscule part of a percent (for the Jews the picture is a bit different, because of the restrictions on marrying outside the group - a restriction often broken, but all the same relatively effective). This in addition to all later mixing with people from the outside, included hundreds of thousands (likely some millions) slave girls imported to a miserable life in the harems of Arabs before and after Muhammad.

###### Even if Ishmael had settled in Arabia, he had been only one of tens of thousands of forfathers of the Arabs. The connection to Abraham in case had been ever so feeble, to say the least of it.

Also see 2/127a below.

##005 3/81a: "Behold, Allah took the Covenant of the Prophets, saying: " - - - then comes to you a Messenger (Muhammad*) confirming what is with you (= the scriptures the prophets had and their teachings*); you must believe in him and rendering him help". There is nothing like this in the entire Bible. Besides: How could the old prophets help Muhammad? - they were all dead hundreds of years before Muhammad was even born - many of them a thousand years and more before. A nonsense sentence.

006 3/81b: "Behold, Allah took the Covenant of the Prophets, saying:" - - - then comes to you a Messenger (Muhammad*) confirming what is with you (= the scriptures the prophets had and their teachings*); you (the Jewish prophets*) must believe in him and rendering him help". A time anomaly. See 4/13d below.

007 3/81l: "Allah said: 'Do ye (all the old prophets*) agree, and take this Covenant (including believing in and helping Muhammad*) as binding on you?' They said: 'We agree'". There is nothing even remotely similar to this in the Bible. Besides it was physically impossible: They all were dead centuries and even millenias before Muhammad was even born. A nonsense sentence.

008 3/81m: "Allah said: 'Do ye (all the old prophets*) agree, and take this Covenant (including believing in and helping Muhammad*) as binding on you?' They said: 'We agree'". He said: 'Then bear witness (about Muhammad*) - - -". They cannot have been very reliable, as exactly none of the known prophets ever mentioned him - included not Abraham, not Moses, and not Jesus to mention 3 of the main prophets according to the Quran (and yes, we know about the cherry-picked, wrong claims concerning 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18, and about the helper Jesus promised his disciples (the Holy Spirit), which Islam claims meant Muhammad 500+ years after the last disciple was dead).

009 3/187a: "And remember Allah (Yahweh*) took a Covenant from the People of the Book (= Jews and Christians*) - - -". According to the Bible it was Yahweh who did this - a different god with a very different teaching, especially after "the new covenant" (f.x. Luke 22/20) took place.

010 5/7b: "- - - His Covenant, which He (Allah') ratified with you (Muslims*), when ye said: 'We hear and we obey'- - -". Once upon a time some Boers of South Africa made what they called a covenant with Yahweh/God. They promised that if Yahweh/God would help them, they would do so-and-so. What they over-looked was that a covenant must be agreed on by at least two parts; and as Yahweh/God was not an involved participant in an agreement about the case, they in reality only made promises, not a covenant. Is this something of the same?

Another point: According to the Bible the god did not make any covenant with Ishmael and his descendants, only with Isaac and his line (1.Mos. 17/21). This even more so as in spite of Arabs' claims of being descendants of Ishmael, it is highly unlikely they are - not to mention pure descendants. For one thing and for what it is worth the Bible tells that Ishmael's descendants settled not in Arabia, but in vest Sinai "near the border of Egypt" (1. Mos. 25/18) where they became 12 tribes with "twelve tribal rulers" (1. Mos. 25/16) = the god's promise of making Ishmael's descendants mighty. But easier and more solidly proved: Modern DNA analyses have showed that the Arabs not are and never were a pure "race". The original Arabs seems to have been people from here and there who settled in the desert something like 4ooo - 5ooo years ago (earlier along the coast, likely later inland), partly because the introduction of tamed camels around that time or later made life in the desert a real possibility. And this mixed group has been even much more mixed up through the times, partly by traders and others passing through on the caravan "highways" crossing Arabia and leaving off-springs now and then - remember that before Islam, "the two delightful things" in Arabia were sex and alcohol - and also Arab traders bringing home brides from abroad. But perhaps the biggest source for foreign blood to further mix up and dilute the claimed race, was import of slaves from all around, both long before Muhammad and far more later. All the girl and women slaves were definitely not imported just for decoration, and the "pure Arab blood" never was much more than an illusion - originally started by Ishmael or not. (And in addition: Even if Ishmael had settled in Arabia, there also lived many others - so even if this had been true, only a small percent - less than 0.001 percent (= if there at that time lived only 100ooo in the entire Arabia) - of the Arab DNA could have been from Ishmael already at that time, and it would have been far more diluted by now. An impressive number.)

There is no rational or scientific reason for believing in the claim that the Arabs are descendants of Ishmael and Abraham - on the contrary: What knowledge which exists, makes the claim highly unlikely, and even if there should be a connection, it in case is an extremely diluted one.

011 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 (though to call it this a "capability to instinctively to see what is truth and right" is deeply wrong - this and similar claims from Islam solely is dictated from the deep lack of proofs for anything at all of the central points in the religion): 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?"

To be scientific: It is likely man has a concience. But this concience has to be trained by the community to learn what is right and what is wrong. To claim that this knowledge is instinctive, is nonsense according to science - and actually also according to common sense.

012 9/75a: "Amongst them (some bad Muslims/hypocrites/non-Muslims*) are men who covenanted with Allah, that if He bestowed on them of Hic bounty - - -". They covenanted with the god that if he made them rich, they would be generous. Some covenance. Some god.

013 9/75e: "- - - when He (Allah*) did bestow of his bounty - - -". According to this verse in the Quran, Allah kept his part of such a covenant. So definitely different from NT. Jesus talked about religion, not about making economical deals. (This even more so as the Muslims had to go out and steal the riches themselves.)

014 9/77c: "- - - they (hypocrites*) broke their covenant with Allah - - -". The Quran here tells they had promised Allah something - but that is not a covenant. A covenant is an agreement which all implicated parts agree on. Allah in this case had said nothing. Thus they had made a promise, not a covenant. Also see 9/75c above.

015 9/111j: "- - - who is more faithful to His Covenant than Allah?". Many if Allah does not exist or if he is not correctly described in the Quran. Not to mention if he is part of the dark forces, which the dark parts of the Quran may indicate.

016 13/20: "- - - the Covenant of Allah - - -". Is there anywhere a proof for this claimed covenant? We may add that it has no value if Allah does not exist or if he exists, but has not agreed to it. As Allah is no god if he is behind the Quran - no god is behind a book of that quality - the situation becomes interesting if Allah exists and is from the dark forces.

We also are reminded of the Boers who made a covenant with Yahweh without checking if Yahweh agreed to the covenant or took part in it.

017 13/25a: "But those who break the Covenant with Allah (leave Islam*) - - - on them is the Curse, for them is the terrible Home". See 3/77b above.

018 13/25b: "- - - the Covenant of Allah - - -". See 13/20 above.

019 16/91b: "Fulfill the Covenant of Allah when ye have entered into it- - -". There nowhere is proved that Allah entered such a covenant - not even many words telling about or explaining just that claimed event, and not one proof. Is this a "Boer-case", where some boers claimed they made a covenant with Yahweh, but forgot to check if Yahweh took part in the covenant? (The boers in reality made no covenant with Yahweh, but only made some promises to him - for a covenant one needs the acceptance of both/all involved parts.)

020 16/95a: "Nor sell the Covenant of Allah for a miserable price - - -". This is an expression you meet here and there in the Quran. Often it means that you shall not value wealth more than Islam. Sometimes it refers to Jews and Christians, whom the Quran (wrongly according to science and actually also to Islam) accuses of having falsified the Bible. See 3/77a.

Another point: Where and when did Allah agree to the claimed covenant, and where is it specified what it contains?

021 16/95b: "Nor sell the Covenant of Allah for a miserable price - - -". Often this also is one of Muhammad's standard explanations why many did not believe in him: They wanted a good life on Earth, and therefore did not want to listen to him - like he claimed: They sold their covenant for Paradise for a good life here - which was a miserable price to get for Paradise. For Muhammad this was a better "explanation" than the plain truth; that they saw things were very wrong in Muhammad's new religion.

022 18/48c: "- - - ye (non-Muslims'*) thought We (Allah*) shall not fulfill the appointment made to you (non-Muslims) - - -". No such an appointment is ever documented - there are claims, but that is all. But this is the start of a claimed punishment - see 3/77b above.

023 20/80b: "- - - We (Allah*) made a Covenant with you (the Jews*) on the right side of (Mount Sinai) - - -". Convenient - in old Arab superstition the right side was the good side, whereas the left one was the bad side. Another point is that according to the Bible the involved god was Yahweh, not Allah.

024 33/7b: "- - - We (Allah*) took from the Prophets their Covenant: as (We did) from thee (Muhammad*) - - -". There is no proof for a covenant between Allah and Muhammad - or the Muslims. A number of claims, but not one proof. Worse: The only "documentation" for his very existence is a made up - or at least from no god - book based only on the words of a man with highly dubious moral and reliability, liking power and women (not uncommon for self proclaimed "prophets").

And the covenants with the Biblical prophets were with Yahweh, not with Allah, according to the Bible, and - where information about their real religion exists - also in accordance to science.

025 33/15a: "- - - they (Muslims*) had already a covenant with Allah - - -". Is this sure and secure as there are so many other things which are wrong in the Quran? - And what if the book is all false? - it at least in no case is from any god (too many mistake, contradictions, cases of wrong logic, etc.). Some Dutch settlers - Boers - in South Africa once made a "covenant" and a deal with Yahweh/God - - - but "forgot" to invite him to talks about how the covenant should be, and forgot to ask him if he accepted the deal. As there is no god behind a book of such a sorrowful quality like the Quran (except the superficial and irrelevant fact that the language later was polished to good standard - irrelevant because the only thing which counts in a religion is: Is it a true religion with a true god?) like the Quran, this verse makes us think about that parody.

Besides there is nowhere in the Quran told where and when such a covenant was made or what it contained.

026 33/15b: "- - - they (Muslims*) had already a covenant with Allah not to turn their back (in war/battle) - - -". Quite a covenant for any dictator to push his warriors - would have been a dream for any such one - - - and Muhammad had it! But is it a natural covenant with a good and belevolent god? Not to mention: Compare this to NT!!!

##027 33/15c: "- - - they (Muslims*) had already a covenant with Allah not to turn their back (in war/battle) - - -". Also quite a theme for a covenant with/from the claimed good and benevolent god of "the religion of peace". Try to compare this with: "You shall not kill (or sometimes translated 'murder')" (The 10 Commandments, 2. Mos. 20/13), not to mention "Turn the other cheek" in the time of the New Covenant (Luke.22/20).

There also is another fact which often strikes us when the Quran claims that Yahweh and Allah is the same god: The Mosaic religion had a rather strict god - Yahweh could be harsh and strict and bloody. But his harshness and his tendencies to be bloody had a limited purpose: To make the Jews a believing people and to create space for a homeland for them. When this was done - at least after a fashion - - - and when there for the first time in history came a period of peace and international open connections - the Pax Romana - long enough for a peaceful religion to set strong enough roots to survive later harsh times in this normally unruly part of the world, he let the more peaceful and human sides of his religion take over. All this for suddenly changing his mind around 622 AD when Muhammad started to need warriors and moral explanation for his raids of thieving, enslaving and murder, and not only return to the harsher version of his religion from OT, but taking it far into Odin's and Thor's Valhalla (gods and the Paradise of the Vikings) and blood and war, or Djingis Khan's pure religion of and wish for war - or actually even further.

And the thought which strikes us is: This god must have a "jumbled up" "top floor" to change his mind this frequently and much:

If Muhammad and the Quran are correct on this point, the god drifted form a rather benevolent, but strict religion (OT) with some harsh spots, towards a religion (NT) dominated of mildness and love. (Before you fire your machine-guns: Remember we are talking about how the book tells the religion should be, not how it in reality was practiced or disused some times and places).

Then suddenly in 622 AD in the space of a few months, the god not only returns to his stricter and obsolete OT-ideas, but creates a new and full-fledged hate and war religion (that Islam is "the religion of peace" is pure al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and propaganda - just read the parts of the Quran from Medina and the corresponding Hadiths, and see for yourself. Only remember that when nice words are contradicted by harsh demands and deeds and rules, it is the demands and deeds and rules which are telling the truth, not the nice, but cheap words.

And our thoughts continue: This god is a master of mental slalom - or he is undecided. Or is it from inability to make up his mind?

To our knowledge there never before - or after - was a religion which drifted from benevolent, but strict, to peace and love, for then to change once more, and now to the very opposite: A religion of discrimination, dishonesty, superiority complex, and a pure apartheid and war religion - from politeness and from a small feeling that the word "hate" is just a little too strong sometimes, we omit that word here.

To our knowledge there also never in history was another religion which change so completely - here from relatively peaceful to a full war religion - in such a short time: Just some months, maximum 2 years (in the period 622 - 624 AD).

Did Allah find peace too boring and changed his mind ones more to get more action and blood and human misery?

Or was it Muhammad who suddenly wanted warriors for his raids?

028 57/8f: (YA5283): “- - - your Covenant - - -“. Does this refer to the covenant that is the result of accepting Islam - if it is a covenant (it only can be if Allah exists and accepts his part)? – or to one of the covenants mentioned in the Bible or indicated other places in the Quran?


It also is pretty thought provoking that f.x. all the errors, contradictions, wrong facts, etc., only and alone, in the Quran, prove 100% that there is no god behind that book. And that f.x. the fact that Jesus accepted OT as correct, proves to both Christians and Muslims, and to most Jews and historians, that the OT was not falsified at that time - and that the Qumran scrolls prove that even OT was not falsified any time later, too.

It further is an insult to that possible god to "explain" that his texts means something different from what they really says = you are more clever than him at explaining what the god "really" meant, than the god is himself, even when he tries to explain things "clearly and easy to understand", and says his words are to be understood literally and without hidden meanings. Also only "the sick of heart" look for hidden meanings behind his words, according to the Quran - the very claimed hidden meanings the wice Muslims claim are what Allah really meant, but was unable to express clearly himself, so that they have to help the bumbling god and tell what he "really" tried to say. This in spite of that the Quran clearly states that meanings hidden behind Allah's clear and easy to understand words, only are possible for Allah to understand, and like said above are "only for the sick of heart" to look for.

May be as bad: To claim that the Quran means something different from what the texts clearly say, is to falsify and corrupt the quranic texts.

28 comments. Subtotal = 3371 + 28 = 3399.

>>> Go to  Next Chapter

>>> Go to  Previous Chapter

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