Allah in the Quran, Chapter 35


Chapter 35



("signs" = Quran-speak for "proof" normally)


001 As mentioned in our comment the the sub-chapter "Natural phenomena as claimed 'signs' or 'proofs'", proofs were of essence to Muhammad. F.x. he frequently demanded proofs from opponents, so it is thus clear that he meant proofs were essential. He had not one single valid one for any of his central religious claims, but as you see below, he really did try to make his followers and others believe he could prove things.

002 His main claimed proofs were of two categories:

  1. A. He claimed that the Quran was of such a quality that only a god could have made it.
  2. B. He took natural phenomena, claimed without any kind of proof that they were made or caused by Allah, and then claimed they proved a supernatural Allah.

003 As for point A it is so naive, that normally it had not been worth a comment. The Arab linguistics in the book is good, but that is because the linguistics were polished by the best brains in Islam for some 250 years (from around 650 - not later than 656 - AD till around 900 AD). When it comes to the prose in the book, that is partly helpless, and the book's quality as literature is not even worth a laugh, something ANY knower of good literature can confirm. (Many Muslims claim that the Quran is a pinnacle of literature quality, but their words only tell they do not know what they are talking about - many an imam and mullah hardly ever has read even one book of good quality literature. Read the Quran and see for yourself, and you get a good laugh each time you meet the claim that the Quran is high quality literature. The linguistics partly are good, the rest well below medium.)

004 Muhammad's claim that the quality of the book proves it is from a god, only proves the opposite - no god would deliver a quality like this. And then we have not even mentioned all the mistaken facts an other errors, all the contradictions, all the cases of invalid logic, etc., etc. in the book. Muhammad's an Islam's and Muslims' claims about a top quality literature in the book is not even hopeless. As we said: If you know anything about literature and quality, then do not trust our words - read it yourself and see.

005 As for part B: We remind you that "A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". What Muhammad does, is to take natural phenomena, etc. "en gros" and wholesale, and claim without the slightest documentation or proof that they are made or caused by Allah.

One thing is that such claims are totally without any value as a proof or sign for Allah, as long as it is not first proved that it really is Allah who causes them.

006 Another thing is that as long as it is not proved that they are caused by Allah, there are at least 3 possible conclusions to each of Muhammad's such claim: Caused by Allah. Caused by another god - f.x. by Yahweh. Or caused by nature. And like our quote above about what is needed to give a valid proof, not one of his many claims has any value as a proof or even as a clear sign.

007 For a third: Muhammad's extremely many tries to manufacture proofs for his religious claims and teachings, are strong circumstantial and empirical proofs for that he meant proofs were of essence and value and had effect (which proofs do have). The same does his strong and repeated demands for proofs from opponents. This puts f.x. his "explanation" for why Allah did not send miracles or other proofs - that proofs would not make skeptics believe anyhow - in a strange light. An intelligent man like Muhammad, knowing much about people, like Muhammad's manipulation of his followers shows he did, knew he was lying each time he used that kind of fast talk. It also is an indisputable fact even from the Quran, that Muhammad both accepted the use of and himself used dishonesty in words and deeds, deceit, and disuse/breaking of words/promises/oath (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok - but how much is then cheating in the Quran?) as working tools - his followers had and have to be ever so naive to believe that such a quality man would not use dishonesty also against them "if that would give a better result". This even more so as some cases of manipulation of his followers are very easy to see in the Quran (f.x. "is it not better to have me among you, than to get much loot?"), and the same for obvious lies (f.x. that skeptics would not come to believe even if Allah sent real proofs or miracles - for one thing no intelligent person knowing something about human nature is able to believe such a claim, and on top of this Muhammad knew about people's reactions to f.x. Jesus' miracles, not to mention that Muhammad himself had told about the reaction of the sorcerers of Pharaoh Ramses II to Moses' minor miracles.

008 And last, but very far from least: Who is it who needs to rely on invalid claims and proofs, on fast talk and manipulation - and who needs to use lots of it to "prove" himself? - the cheat and deceiver. And in this case perhaps even a cheat and deceiver who publicly and in his claimed holy texts not only accepted and admitted he himself used such kind of dishonesty as ok means to a goal, but even advised the use of it "if that would give a better result".

009 Muslims only have themselves to blame if also they were - and are - taken in by dishonesty from a man who so openly admitted he used dishonesty as working tools. F.x. made up "signs" and "proofs" like below - by the dozens and even hundreds. Just enjoy the sheere volume of them - in this and other (sub)chapters and books. And find more yourself in the Quran and in Hadiths.

#######  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 - 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?

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

010 2/73d: "- - - His (Allah's) signs - - -". Wrong. There are no clear signs for Allah in the Quran or anywhere else. The Quran and Islam and even more so many Muslims make many claims, but there is not one valid proof for that any sign really is from Allah. This is one of Islam's problems. See 2/39b above.

011 2/99a: “We (Allah*) have sent down to thee (people*) manifest Signs - - -“. The Quran is overloaded with what it says are “signs” (indicated to be proofs) and “Clear Signs” or like here “manifest Signs” (indicated to be strong proofs) – and not one single of them proves anything about Allah or the Quran or Muhammad, as the book NEVER proves, only claims, that Allah did this or that, which it then calls a “sign” or a “clear sign” or a “proof” (there may be some exceptions for signs taken from the Bible, but those in case prove Yahweh, not Allah – and only Islam claims that Yahweh and Allah is the same god (which they cannot be, unless the god is schizophrenic – they are too different, especially when Yahweh is acting according to the New Covenant from NT (f.x. Luke 22/20), which came some 580 years before Muhammad started his preaching, but which Muslims never mention). Especially claims for “Clear Signs” are so obviously wrong, that it is impossible not to include them in the columns: “Mistaken facts”. Claims are not signs/proofs – and definitely no clear signs/proofs - for a god, and even if they were, they absolutely were no clear signs/proofs for Allah, because any priest in any religion can make just the same claims for his god or gods – words are that cheap as long as no real proofs are required - - - also for Muhammad.

012 2/118e: “We (Allah*) have indeed made clear the Signs unto any people who hold firmly to Faith - - -.” There simply are no valid clear signs – proofs – for Allah anywhere in the Quran or anywhere else. See 2/99a, 2/99b and 2/99c above.

013 2/140l: “But Allah is not unmindful of what ye do”. Based on just a statement made up of words, that may be a hope. Only if it was proved, it had been a certainty. But Muhammad never was able to prove anything at all about Allah or the rest of his teachings. Not one thing.

014 2/151d: “- - - rehearsing to you (Muslims*) our (Allah’s*) Signs - - -”: See 2/39b above.

015 2/158b: (A128) “Behold! Safa and Marwah are among the symbols of Allah". Comment similar to 2/150c. They are not symbols in the Bible. One more indication for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

016 2/159a: “Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We (Allah*) have sent down - - -”. = Non-Muslims, and most often "the People of the Book" - Jews and Christians (the 3. group, the Sabeans - see 2/62f above - are not often specified in the Quran).

017 2/164a: “In the creation of the heavens (plural and wrong*) - - - are Signs for a people that are wise.” Wrong. Without a proof for that it really was the work of Allah, the sign is invalid. And about some flattery of the reader - see 2/164c 13/3j below.

The fact is: People that are wise are very careful not to accept loose claims for proofs, and especially in as serious question as the future of the possible full next life. You have to be very stupid or naive to accept cheap claims for proofs in such a serious case - and especially when the never proved claims were made by a man who clearly accepted the use of dishonesty and deceit, and who on top of all liked respect, power, money for bribes for more power, and women. That kind of men seldom are very reliable.

018 2/164g: “- - - in the beasts of all kinds that He (Allah*) scatters through the earth - - - indeed are Signs for a people that are wise.” Indeed, this people from different religions have tried for x years to prove what their god(s) - not just Allah - did. Till this day none has proved one iota of it - perhaps with the exception of in the Bible - - - if the Bible is true. Included some flattery - see 2/164d above and 13/3j below and 2/164a above.

019 2/187i: “- - - Allah makes clear His Signs to men - - -“. There exists no clear sign (proof for Allah or Muhammad) in the entire Quran – see 2/39b above.

020 2/221h: “But Allah - - - makes his Signs clear to mankind - - -“. There is not one clear sign – proof for Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god – in the entire Quran or elsewhere, as it nowhere is proved that Allah makes the signs. See 2/39b above.

021 2/242a: "Thus doth Allah make clear His Signs - - -". This refers to the rules for how to provide for a divorced or widowed woman (see 2/240-2/241 above). How can judicial rules make clear Allah's never valid "signs"?

022 2/252c: "We (Allah*) rehearsed them (the "signs" for Allah*) - - -". No god is involved in a religion based on a book full of mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, etc., and thus no god was involved in this claimed rehearsing.

023 2/258c: "My (Abraham's*) Lord (here claimed to be Allah*) is He who giveth life and death." Variations of this interesting claim you meet several places in the Quran - interesting because Allah and Muhammad never were able to prove anything like this, whereas if the old books tell the truth, Yahweh proved it at least 9 times in the Bible (1. Kings 17/22, 2. Kings 4/35, Mark 5/41, John 11/44, Luke 7/15, Matt. 27/52, Acts 9/40, Acts 20/10 + Jesus) and at least one or two times in the Quran - if the books are reliable on this point. As for Jesus: As it is clear - if at least one of the book tells the truth about this - that the old Jewish god really had power over death, there is no real reason why Jesus could not be killed and resurrected, except that then he clearly was something Muhammad was not, and with connections Muhammad had not, and Muhammad thus impossibly could be the greatest of the prophets. Jesus, therefore, had to be "played down" to make him smaller than the claims about Muhammad.

024 2/260c: "Show me (Abraham*) how thou (Allah*) givest life to the dead". An interesting sentence, as Allah never - never - showed neither this nor anything else - Yahweh proved it if the old books tell the truth, but never Allah (except in borrowed or made up legends outside the central Islamic literature).

025 2/266: “Thus doth Allah make clear to you (people*) (his) Signs”. There are no clear signs for Allah or Muhammad in the Quran – not one. See 2/39b above. Besides we do not quite see how this verse explains how Allah makes his claimed signs clear. Nobody likes to have his property destroyed - but what does this explain?

The fact is: People that are wise are very careful not to accept loose claims for proofs, and especially in as serious question as the future of the possible full next life. You have to be very stupid or naive to accept cheap claims for proofs in such a serious case - and especially when the never proved claims were made by a man who clearly accepted the use of dishonesty and deceit, and who on top of all liked respect, power, money for bribes for more power, and women. That kind of men seldom are very reliable.


026 3/4c: “- - - Sign of Allah - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

027 3/11b: “- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

*028 3/18b: “- - - that is the witness of Allah - - -.” The problem is that there exists not one single witness from Allah – no miracle which could have been a witness, and nothing else. Only the words of a very doubtful man with a very doubtful moral code but a liking for respect, power, riches for bribes for more power - and women, written in a book with very many errors, contradictions, etc. Muslims her often talk about “signs” from the nature, but the nature is not a proof for Allah until it first is proved that it is created by a god, and further that it is proved that this god is Allah – words are very cheap, but only proofs are reliable. This claim is wrong until Islam proves that Allah really made it – and proves, not only claims like Muslims nearly always do.

029 3/19f: “- - - Signs of Allah - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

030 3/21b: “- - - Signs of Allah - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

031 3/49b: “I (Jesus*) have come to you (humans*), with a Sign from your Lord (the god - in the Quran claimed to be Allah*), in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave”. (This tale is “borrowed” from one of the apocryphal (= made up religious fairy tales*) so-called “Child Gospels”, in this case the so-called Egyptian one, but also mentioned in the so-called Arab one from Syria around 500 AD, and in the Gnostic apocryphal (made up) Thomas’ Child Gospel - it is not from the Bible, but made up*).

Islam is aware of that this is from an apocryphal story - (f.x. Yusuf Ali: "The meaning of the Holy Quran", comment 390: "The miracle of the clay birds is found in some of the apocryphal Gospels".) - but never mention the fact that as the stories are apocryphal they are fakes, to their congregations, and seldom inform their readers in other ways that these are made up stories. A kind of dishonesty you meet too often in Islam. All are totally invalid as a proof for Allah, as long as:

  1. It is not proved that Allah really did this - and stories from fairy tales need solid proofs. Or:
  2. It is not proved that Allah and Yahweh really is the same god - which only Muslims claim to believe, and which they have never produced the slightest proof for - - - in addition to that the two gods (?) have so different teachings that it is impossible they can be the same one. (Muslims explain this with that the Bible is falsified, but any professor in history would deem the Bible far more likely to be true - and for solid reasons - than the Quran (though even the Bible may have mistakes.) Science also has proved that the Bible is not falsified - there as said may be mistakes, but no falsifications compared to the old texts. And Islam has proved it even more by not finding any proof for falsifications in 1400 years. If they had found one, they had SCREAMED about it - and there has been no such a scream.

The Gnostic and other stories, tales and “gospels” were made up by semi-Christian or sometimes semi-Jewish sects to fit their special points of view on how a god should be - like it seems Muhammad did. The sects were quite widespread once upon a time. Muslims frequently use these and other made up tales to try to “prove” their statements. Not to mention how often one meets Muslim references to f.x. the so called Gospel of Barnabas - - - perhaps made up at the Caliphs Muslim court in Baghdad (in the 1400 century?), or one of the several Muslim falsifications from older (ca. 800 - 900 AD) Muslim dominated Spain.


(We may add that “Gospel” means “good news” or “glad news” or “glad tidings”. You meet the word used like that in some Bibles and other literature, but then it normally is written “gospel” not “Gospel”. The word written "Gospel" normally refers to the 4 Gospels in the Bible.)

One more point: A miracle like this never had been forgotten and left out from the NT if it had been real, especially as there are few stories from his childhood, and this had filled in a blank space. Also see 3/46a above.

Also remember here that science - and Islam - strongly has proved that the god of the Jews - and thus of Jesus - at the time of Jesus, was Yahweh, and that no god like Allah, no religion like Islam, and no book like the Quran existed in the entire Roman Empire or anywhere else at that time. Jesus' power thus came from Yahweh, not from Allah.

032 3/70c: "- - - Signs of Allah - - -". There is not one sign in all the Quran - or outside the Quran - clearly from Allah. Without exception they all can as easily be claimed - claimed - by other religions and other gods. Never proved claims and never proved words are that cheap.

033 3/98c: “- - - Signs of Allah - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

034 3/101b: “- - - Signs of Allah - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

035 3/98c: “- - - Signs of Allah - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

036 3/101b: “- - - Signs of Allah - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

037 3/103i: “Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear - - -“. There is not one single real sign/proof, not to mention clear sign or proof, for neither Allah nor Muhammad in the Quran – see 2/39b and 2/99 above.

038 3/108a: “- - - Signs of Allah - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

039 3/112c: “- - - Signs of Allah - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

040 3/118g: “We (Allah*) have made plain to you the Signs - - -”. Wrong. The only thing that is made plain about the so called signs is that at least the ones not “borrowed” from the Bible, without exception are just lose statements and cheap words any priest and any believing man or woman can use about any god in any religion - real or imagined.

What does it tell about the Quran and about Muhammad that lose statements and as lose claims are pretended to be facts and proofs? After all that kind of argumentation is one of the hallmarks for cheaters, deceivers and swindlers. The same goes for fast talk - you find also that in the Quran. Not to mention a few clear lies (like the statements that miracles/real proofs for Allah/Muhammad's connection to a god would make no one believe anyhow).

041 3/164f: “- - - Signs of Allah - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

042 3/183c: “Allah took our promise not to believe in a Messenger unless he showed us a sacrifice consumed by Fire (from heaven)”. The underlying question: Then where are the proofs for your tales? There never was a valid answer to that question - never a valid proof.

043 3/190b: “Behold, in the creation of the heavens (plural and wrong) - - - there are indeed Signs for men of understanding - - -”. The heaven is an optical illusion caused by natural refraction (bending of the sunlight) by day, and by our inability to see in 3 dimensions at too long distances without references, at night. There is nothing but boasting in this claim, until Islam proves that Allah really did it.

Besides: Is there something symbolic in that Muhammad used something which is just an illusion - and used in plural not even an illusion - as a proof for Allah?

044 3/199f: "- - - the Signs of Allah - - -". There are no "signs" clearly from Allah in the entire Quran or any other place - only claims for such ones, claims any person in any religion can make for his/her god(s).

045 4/56b: “Those who reject Our (Allah’s) Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire - - -”. As long as no reliable sign is sent, there should be no excuse for casting anyone into the Fire. Also see 3/77b above.

046 4/140c: "- - - Signs of Allah - - -". Wrong. See 2/39b above.

047 4/155a: "- - - signs of Allah - - -". There are no signs specific for Allah in the entire Quran or anywhere else. There hardly is one single one proving a god in the Quran (with the possible exceptions of the samples "borrowed" from the Bible, but they in case prove another god, Yahweh), and if there is, any priest in any religion can claim it as easily for his god(s), as long as Islam does not prove it really was Allah who was behind it. Lose words and lose claims are very cheap, but proves nothing.

048 4/159e: "- - - on the Day of Judgment he (Jesus*) will be a witness against them (sinners*) - - -". Why does an omniscient god need witnesses? Especially if he predestines everything?

049 5/10b: “- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

050 5/32e: "- - - Clear Signs (for Allah*) - - -". Wrong. See 2/39b above.

051 5/44f: "- - - barter away My (Allah's*) Signs for a miserable price". See 3/77a above.

052 5/89d: "Thus doth Allah make clear to you His Signs - - -". Wrong. This has little meaning, as it does not show to anything making things/"signs" clear. Or maybe it is just what it does, as the word "thus" points to the sentences about permitted lies/broken oaths and to how to be forgiven for such? Deplorable literature.

053 6/7a: “If We (Allah*) had sent unto thee (Muhammad*) a written (message) on parchment, so that they (Muslims and non-Muslims*) could touch it with their hands, the Unbelievers have been sure to say: ’This is nothing but obvious magic!’” Muhammad never ever was able to prove anything about what he told his mostly naïve and uneducated audience. But he got questions about and demands for such proofs many times from followers and others – this is mentioned repeatedly in the Quran. He had to evade those requests and demands, and an obvious way was to find ways of explaining them away. Here the technique he uses is “No matter what proofs I produce, they will not believe anyhow, so why produce proofs at all?” Swindlers and cheats frequently use such techniques - evasion. It is obvious for anyone able to think for himself or herself that the logic is twisted and wrong – but the ones wanting to believe or the very naïve might believe in it. What is more serious is that Muhammad was an intelligent man and a man knowing a lot about how to treat and sway people. There is no way he did not know he used twisted logic and dishonest psychology and story, and that a real miracle - or more than one - had made new believers, even if some would try to call it magic. And no way that he did not know that if he produced real evidence, that would strengthen his followers enormously and make huge numbers of unbelievers become believers. In a short sentence: There is no way an intelligent man did not know this excuse was a lie. This even more so as he/the Quran told that all the sorcerers of pharao Ramses II became good Muslims because of a small miracle Moses made.

054 6/8c: “They (people*) say: ‘Why is not an angel sent down to him?’ If We (Allah*) did send down an angel, the matter would be settled at once, and no respite would be granted them”. This question – a proof f.x. by means of an angel – arose frequently. Muhammad’s often used “explanation” was this: Allah will not send down an angel until The Last Day (the Day of Doom). That means that if he sends down angles, that day becomes the Last Day (“the matter will be settled at once, and no respite would be granted them”), and in that case the unbelievers would lose their chance to become believers (“- - - no respite would be granted them”.) This “explanation” is nonsense even according to the Quran. That book tells that the angel Gabriel visited Muhammad often, it tells that angels come down to fetch the souls of the dead, it tells that angels come down to fetch your soul when you fall asleep and to return it when you wakes up, it tells that angels surround you to note down your good and bad deeds – not to mention the thousands of angels Allah sends down to do battles together with Muslims time and again. And angels visiting f.x. Abraham, Lot, and Mary.

There was not one single reason why Allah could not use one of the myriads of angles he daily and frequently sends down as a proof for Muhammad.

On the contrary: There were all reasons for Allah to prove himself and his claimed messenger - in stark contradiction to Muhammad's claim, it had given lots of more followers. Proofs: 1) Human psychology. 2) The Pharaoh's sorcerers all became Muslims because Moses made a miracle (a story which proves Muhammad knew he was lying when he said miracles would convince no-one). 3) Jesus made miracles and got many followers from this, which Muhammad knew.

A very obvious bluff and a piece of fast-talk - and wrong even according to other points in the Quran.

055 6/21c: “- - - His (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

056 6/25b: "- - - if they (non-Muslims*) saw every one of the Signs (intended to mean indication or proof for Allah*), they would not believe in them - - -". Which far from is strange, as there is not one single sign in the entire Quran or anywhere else which proves there is a god, not to mention proves that the claimed god in case is Allah. Any believer in any religion can disuse the claimed signs on behalf of his/her god just as easily and cheaply as Muhammad did. In not one single case it is proved that it is Allah who is behind the phenomena Muhammad uses as "signs", and thus the claims are invalid. (There is a possible exception for some of the signs "borrowed" from the Bible, and where there were witnesses, but they in case prove Yahweh, not Allah.)

057 6/37a: “They (people*) say: ’Why is not a Sign sent down to him (Muhammad*) from his Lord (Allah*)?” People saw things might be - or was - seriously wrong. Many had questions and requests - but Muhammad was not able to deliver one single unmistakable proof. Only lots of fast-talk to explain it away, and the many, but logically invalid claimed "signs".

058 6/37c: “Allah hath certainly power to send down a Sign - - -”. But he never did - and Muhammad never was able to produce anything but fast words and less than convincing “explanations”. That is to say: Muslims are indoctrinated to believe it - and not to think for themselves, but only to obey and believe the imam. Because of this many of them honestly and without thinking things over, believe that invalid claims are proofs.

059 6/39b: "Those who rejects Our (Allah's*) Signs are deaf and dumb - - -". The fact that there does not exist one single valid sign which proves Allah, may instead indicate that someone has tried a little cheating and then has been looked through by people with knowledge and/or intelligence - here the opposite of deaf and dumb. But we may remind you that to believe blindly often has the same effect as being deaf and dumb.

060 6/46b: "See how We (Allah*) explain the Signs - - -". There are in the entire Quran no explanations of any of the claimed "signs" - only claims regarding them.


061 6/49b: “- - - Our (Allah's) Sign(s) - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

062 6/54b: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -". Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

063 6/55a: "Thus do We (Allah*) explain the Signs in detail - - -". How are his claimed signs explained here? They are explained nowhere in the entire Quran - there are lots of claims, but no valid explanations - and no valid proof for that they in case are from Allah.

#064 6/65b: "See how We (Allah*) explains the Signs - - -", This somewhat cryptic claim you find several places in the Quran - cryptic because the claimed "signs" never are explained, and also never proved they really are from Allah. Not once is it really explained how come that this and this really is a sign for Allah, neither anything about the claimed "signs" have any deeper meaning. It only is claimed that this and this and this are "signs" - intended to mean proofs (the word "proof" is even used a few times) - for Allah, and that is all - - - and the claims all have that in common that they are logically invalid, mostly just because it is not proved that Allah really is behind it (there may be a few exceptions for things "borrowed" from the Bible, but they in case prove Yahweh, not Allah).

065 6/68b: "- - - Our (Allah's) Signs - - -". See f.x. 2/39b and 6/65b above.

066 6/93h: “- - - His (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

067 6/97c: “- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

068 6/98d: "We (Allah*) detail Our Signs - - -". There is no help in detailing them when everything is wrong and/or invalid.

069 6/105a: "Thus do We (Allah*) explain the (claimed*) Signs by various (symbols) - - -". You will find similar claims here and there in the Quran, but the Quran never explains anything about its claimed "signs" and "proofs", it only makes claims about them.

070 6/109e: "Certainly (all) Signs are in the power of Allah." A big claim. But a big claim anyone easily can make on behalf of his god(s), as long as there only are words - words are that cheap. An invalid claim and an invalid proof. Also see 14/19d below. And to say the least of it: It is far from certain that all signs are in the power of Allah.

071 6/118b: “- - - His (Allah's*) Signs.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

072 6/124a: “- - - a Sign (from Allah) - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

073 6/124b: "We (non-Muslims*) shall not believe until we receive one (proof*) (exactly) like those received by Allah's messengers". Wrong - the only thing they asked for, was a clear proof for Allah and his power, which Muhammad never was able to deliver. Here Muhammad has twisted the truth a little - lawful in Islam (this is a Kitman - a lawful half-truth) - to be able to explain it away and to be able to make his opponents look bad.

074 6/150b: "- - - such (persons*) as treat our (Allah's*) Signs as falsehood - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims.

075 6/150d: "- - - our (Allah's*) Signs - - -". There exists nowhere - absolutely nowhere - signs which indicate or prove Allah; absolutely without exception they just are claims which as easily and cheaply can be used by any believer in any religion on behalf of his/her god(s) - totally invalid as proofs. The only possible exception is the signs "borrowed" from the Bible, but they in case prove Yahweh, not Allah.

076 6/150e: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs as falsehoods - - -". The claimed signs mostly in themselves are ok - they normally are real, existing natural phenomens. What is falsehoods is to treat them as signs - read "proofs" - for a god, without first proving that it is that god who causes those phenomens. Without such proofs first, the claim is totally without logic and value. And who is it who has to rely on fast-talk and made up claims? - the cheater, the deceiver, the swindler.

077 6/157e: "- - - a Clear (Sign) (in this case the Quran*) from your Lord (Allah*) - - -". No god ever sent down a book with that many errors, etc.

078 6/157h: "- - - who could do more wrong than one who rejected Allah's signs - - -". A pretty ironic sentence if the Quran is a made up book - and with all those errors, etc. it at least is not from any god.

079 6/157i: “- - - Allah's Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

080 6/157j: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -". Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

081 6/158a: “- - - Signs of thy Lord (Allah*) - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

082 6/158b: “- - - Signs of thy Lord (Allah*) - - -.” It tells something that Muhammad used and used and used "signs" - read; claimed "proofs" - any god would know were logically invalid. (Actually any human knowing something about logical deduction knows the same.) Also see 2/39b above.

083 7/9b: “- - - Our (Allah's) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

084 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?

085 7/35b: “- - - My (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/3b above.

086 7/36b: “- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

087 7/37b: “- - - His (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b and 6/158b above.

088 7/40b: “- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

089 7/51: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs". Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39 above.

##090 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. Wrong unless Islam proves the opposite.

091 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 which can prove a deity, is a miracle – or more ones - or something else supernatural. There are no miracles or anything proving neither Allah, nor the Quran, nor Muhammad’s connection to a god the entire the Quran. And the claimed miracles connected to Muhammad according to Hadiths, the Quran very clearly proves are made up legends - a fact which 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".)

092 7/103b: “- - - Our (indicated Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

093 7/136a: “- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as a proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

094 7/146c: "- - - My (indicated Allah's*) Signs - - -". Wrong. See 2/39b above.

095 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.

096 7/147b: “- - - Our (indicated Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

097 7/156c: "- - - Our (claimed to be Allah's*) Signs - - -". Wrong. See 2/39b above.

098 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.

099 7/176c: “- - - with Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

100 7/176d: “- - - reject Our (Allah's) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

101 7/177d: “- - - Our (Allah's*) Sign(s) - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

102 7/182b: "- - - Our (Allah's*) signs - - -". “- - - Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

103 8/2b: “- - - His (Allah's*) Signs - - -“. There are no signs proving Allah or anything else in or outside the Quran. See 2/39b above.

104 8/32c: “- - - they said: ’O, Allah if this is indeed the Truth from Thee, rain down on us a shower of stones from the sky or send us a grievous Penalty”. No doubt that proofs really were wanted and needed and would have had effect - but never an answer. And honestly - if Allah is a fiction from a made up book, he could not do or prove anything. This may be the simple reason.

105 8/32-33: “Remember how they (non-Muslims*) said: ‘O, Allah, if this is indeed the Truth from Thee, rain down on us a shower of stones from the sky, and send us a grievous Penalty. But Allah was not going to send them a penalty whilst thou (Muslims*) wast among them; nor was He going to do it whilst they could ask for pardon.” Of course it was nice for Muslims that Allah would not risk hurting them when punishing the bad ones. But it would be no problem for a presumably omnipotent god to punish only the guilty ones. For believers wanting to believe, and not used to – or trained in – critical thinking, it may have been a satisfying fast-talk/"explanation".

That Allah only would punish the bad ones after it was too late for them to ask for pardon (= the Day of Doom) may have added to the glee.

Another point is if Allah at all could pardon anyone - it would mean to change his Plan, which the Quran several places states nobody and nothing can change (of course both sin and pardon could be predestined, but a predestined sin/pardon is not a pardon but theater).

106 8/52c: “- - - Signs of Allah - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above. (Though just in this case there may have been valid signs if the old books tell the truth, but for Yahweh in case.)

107 8/54b: "- - - the People of Pharaoh (Ramses II*) - - - treated as false the Signs of their Lord (Allah*) - - -". See 8/49a above.

108 9/9a: “The Signs of Allah - - -“. There is no – not one single – sign in the Quran - or anywhere else - which with correct logic proves Allah. (There is not one single case in the entire book where it is proved that it really is Allah who has caused what is said to be signs. And then it proves nothing and signifies nothing – any priest in any religion can say just the same about his god(s)!! Words are that cheap ). Guess if Muslims had told about it if a real proof had existed!

109 9/11e: "- - - (thus) do We (Allah*) explain the Signs in detail - - -". Similar claims you will find here and there in the Quran, and what they have in common, is that not one of them explains the claimed "signs" - there are claims and talk, but never a logical explanation - which in reality does not mean very much, as there is not one single logically valid sign for Allah anywhere, included in the Quran. If it had existed, you bet Islam and Muslims had told you about it every second hour. Claims aplenty, documented and logically valid ones exactly none.

110 9/65e: “- - - His (Allah’s*) Signs - - -“. There is not one “sign” in the Quran that clearly is from Allah. See 2/39b and 2/99 above.

111 9/80c: "- - - Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". See 9/88b below.

####Note how closely Muhammad attaches himself to the power of his claimed god - in plain words: "Obey me - Muhammad". You find this many, many places in the Quran. Power was the main thing Muhammad sought - and riches to gain more power. The Quran clearly indicates that power - and respect - meant even more for him than women. And he was eager for (young) women - willing ones and not willing ones - and at least one child.

112 9/105c: "- - - His (Allah's*) Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". See 9/74 and 9/88b above".

*113 10/5b: “It is He (Allah*) who made the sun to be a shining glory - - - (Thus) doth He explain His Signs in detail, for those who understand”. Those who understand, know that the sun is a shining glory because of radioactive activity and transfer from one kind of atoms to other ones in the range from hydrogen to iron inside it - a fact Muhammad did not know. If Islam insists it is Allah who causes it - not just a god, but Allah - they will have to prove it, not just use megalomaniac, but lose statements or as loose claims. Added flattery often gives good effect for cheap money when talking to uneducated, naive listeners. But an unproved claim still is unproved claim - and an unreliable "explanation" for Muhammad's followers.

114 10/5d: “It is He (Allah*) who made - - - the moon to be a light (of beauty) - - - (Thus) doth He explain His Signs in detail, for those who understand”. In this case those who understand understands that it is the sun that makes the moon shine (beautifully or not), as the moon is no light (it only reflects sunlight). If Allah - or any god - is involved, it has never been proved. But it is a nice thing for any priest of any religion to claim responsibility for on behalf of his religion, of course. That is to say: As long as you do not have to prove it. Muhammad also knew the value of flattery. Also beware of another thing here: You will meet the claim that the Quran one or two places tell the moon shine with reflected light. But not one single place in the whole and entire Quran will you find an Arab word that means "reflected" or something similar. The claim simply is an "al-Taqiyya"- a lawful lie - to defend the religion and claim that it knew that moonlight was reflected sunshine. An easy bluff as most people does not know enough Arab to see that it is a bluff.

115 10/5i: “- - - His (Allah’s*) Signs - - -.” There is not one sign in the Quran that is proved to come from Allah.

116 10/6g: “- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -“. Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

117 10/7b: “- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

118 10/15a: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Clear Signs - - -". See 2/39b above.

119 10/17b: "- - - deny His (Allah's*) Signs - - -". What is the punishment for denying invalid signs of very unclear origin? (There is not one "sign" anywhere proveably from Allah.)

120 10/20a: “Why is not a Sign sent down to him (Muhammad*)”. Well, that really is a question. Friends and foes often asked for proofs - Muhammad only had fast words and sometimes lies to give them.

121 10/21a: “- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs!” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

122 10/71c: “- - - the Signs of Allah - - -“. There are no logically clear signs/proofs for Allah (or for Muhammad) in the entire Quran - or anywhere else. See 2/39b and 2/99 above.

123 10/73c: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs." See 2/99 and 10/71b above.

124 10/75b: “- - - Our (Allah's) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above. Besides: As in this case the signs really were for Yahweh, they may be valid as signs for him if the old books tell the truth.

125 10/92c: "- - - many among mankind are headless of Our (Allah's*) Signs". With a good reason, as many among mankind know there is not and never was one single proved sign clearly from Allah - not even his very existence is proved - and that the claim that he exists only rests on the word of one single, quite unreliable man who provably and according to the Quran did not even respect his own oaths if breaking them gave a better result (f.x. 2/225a, 5/89a+b, 16/91e, and 66/2a).

When one reads the Quran and sees f.x. Muhammad's liking for respect, power, riches for bribes, and women, it is very thought provoking to see his acceptance and use of dishonesty and deceit. How much in the Quran - a book so full of wrong facts, other mistakes, contradictions, etc. that it is from no god - is dishonesty and deceit to strengthen Muhammad's standing and power?

*126 10/95b: “- - - the Signs of Allah - - -“. There are no real signs/proofs for Allah in the Quran – only claims and not proved statements. See 2/39b and 2/99 above.

###127 10/96b: “Those against whom the Word of thy Lord has been verified - - -.” This is one of the main problems for Islam – as it was for Muhammad: There exists no verification of Islam – not one single proof, not in the Quran and not any other place. Only cheap words and claims which in NO case are verified. But glorification of and demands for blind belief you find aplenty, and the same with invalid "signs" and "proofs". (Necessary when there is nothing else to build on than the words of a man of very doubtful character and morality, but likeing power, obedience, riches for bribes, and women. Reliance on untrue arguments and bluffs are strong indicators for a cheat, a deceiver, a swindler.)

Whenever we meet people using bluffs and defending bluffs, not to mention glorifying blind belief – like here – for us that strongly indicates not only that they have no real arguments, but also that they know it themselves, and just try to defend wishful thinking or beliefs they are mentally and morally unable to question.

128 10/96-97: “Those (non-Muslims*) against whom the Word of thy Lord (Allah’) hath been verified (the words of Allah = the Quran, have never in any place been verified – there ONLY are the words of Muhammad. Even worse: Muhammad/the Quran uses a lot mistaken facts and invalid statements, “signs”, etc. - no omniscient god would ever do that*) would not believe, Even if every Sign was brought unto them - - -”. It may be right that they would not believe those signs, if one talks about the claimed signs in the Quran not borrowed from the Bible, because not one of them is logically valid – they are just unproved statements or claims anyone can use about his/her god(s). But real proofs would have had an effect. And Muhammad was more than intelligent enough to know that, and knew this argument was a lie.

129 11/8a: "If We (Allah*) delay the penalty for them (non-Muslims*) - - -". Opponents (and followers) asked for proofs. Muhammad was not able to prove one thing. Here he is fast-talking to neutralize such requests for proofs.

####130 11/13f: "- - - and call (to your (skeptics'*) aid) whomsoever you can, other than Allah - - -". Well, there always was Yahweh - he is likely to have made as well as Allah, if the old books are reliable. But that aside: Judged as literature the Quran at most is 3. class, a truth any knower of good literature who also knows. Also the mostly boroving of the stories in the Quran confirms this. Further: Helter-skelter placing of different topics. Repetitions, repetitions, repetitions of the same stories. Only two possible ends of stories: Either the involved become good Muslims, or they are bad people. All mentioned prophets or claimed prophets - even to a degree Jesus - are parallels to Muhammad's situation at the time of telling. Literally may be 3ooo mistakes - unbelievable in such an after all short book - of which may be unbelievable 2000 are wrong facts (we know of no other book in the entire history of literature with the possible exception of science fiction and tales for children with so many mistakes), a large number (hundreds) of contradictions both to itself - and many of them serious, some so much so that they are destroying for the central claims in the book - and to reality. A large number of cases of invalid or wrong logic and the same of unclear language. As for unclear language there is so much of it, that Islam has had to make a separate rule for how to understand them: If a text is possible to understand in 2 or more ways, both/all are deemed to be correct, even if the meaning varies wildly. It is called "different ways of reading" - a more polite expression for "different varieties". Etc., etc. And not to forget: It is a boring book - f.x. most Muslims have never read the whole book with their brain engaged (a fact which makes mullahs' and others manipulating with cherry-picked sentences and untrue claims - f.x. about miracles performed by Muhammad - easy for them).

It is an educated guess that at least 50% of all writers good enough to have books published, would have been able to write a book of better literature quality than the Quran, if they got enough information about old folklore, legends, religion, apocryphal scriptures, fairy tales, etc. The same goes for at least 80% of persons studying relevant history, etc., included the above mentioned subjects, if they are good enough at writing to have had any books published. (We here omit the question of the language itself, as the language of today's Quran is not identical to the one of the "original" Quran - the language of the Quran was polished by top scholars through some 250 years until it got its final form around 900 AD - and around that time in 14 different (or more) accepted varieties - like said called "different ways of reading", 2 of which are used today (Warsh and Hafs) + 4 a little used. Two facts no lay Muslim will admit, because he does not know it. But his religious leaders and scholars know it - but may resort to al-Taqiyya or Kitman or deceit or worse (all of which are permitted and even advised in Islam to use "if necessary" to defend and to promote the religion) when asked.)

To be more exact:

Originally parts of what Muhammad said and did were memorized by "memorizers", who then were able to quote what he had said and done at different times. Naturally far from everything he said and did during 23 years were memorized.

Years later one started writing down what the memorizers and others remembered. This was written on palm leafs, pieces of bones, and this and that. These notes + what memorizers and others remembered, resulted in a number of different Qurans, of which 4 came to dominate. But the contents were so different on many points also in those 4, that it ended in even armed strife.

To end those problems Caliph Uthman had an official Quran made, mainly based on the written notes. But Muslim sources claim he omitted more than 100 verses. It also is indicated that he may have added verses, but this tradition is weaker. Afterwards he ordered all other Qurans to be destroyed. This happened sometime between 650 and 656 AD = 20 - 45 years after Muhammad had said or done the different things. (Caliph Utman was killed in 656 AD - 10 of the 11 first caliphs were killed - really a "religion of peace".)

In spite of Uthman's orders the old Qurans were not destroyed. They lived on at least into the 800s, and may well have influenced later copies of also Uthman's version. The main problem with his version, though, was that it was written in Arab. At that time the Arab alphabet was very incomplete, as it only had the consonants. The readers had to guess the vowels and also the writing signs (f.x. full stop, the comma, etc.), and not least the points Arab later used to tell which letter some of the letters really were - the so-called diacritical points. (The Arab alphabet was not complete until around 900 AD.)

This made chaos, because in very many places different words could be guessed. An example in English: If you have the consonants "h" and "s" and know they represent a word, this word may be "his" or "has" or "house" or "hose", etc. Islam "solved" the problem by saying that all words which gave logical meaning, were right - this without ever being able to guess what Muhammad/Allah really had said, and no matter if the possible meanings varied wildly. And the situation is exactly the same today: There are very many points in Uthman's Quran where Islam still does not know what really is meant. To avoid the words "versions of the texts", Islam calls it "different ways of reading", but the different ways of reading simply are another name for different possible versions of the texts.

The result was MANY versions of the Quran over the years, depending on how the copyist understood the original "words". Dozens and many more. Like said: A total chaos.

Finally a group of top Muslim scholars led by the great Muslim teacher Ibn Mohair (dead 935 AD) decided that it was impossible to find out which variety of the many existing versions was the correct one. They decided that 7 variants each had to be accepted as a correct Quran. But as each existed in 2 versions, the group canonized all together 14 different versions as "a correct Quran".

These are the canonized 14 versions (they called it “ways of reading” – as said to hide that there were many variants). 1. name is the editor, 2. and 3. names are the narrators):

  1. 1 + 2: Nafi from Medina after Warsh or Qalun.
  2. 3 + 4: Ibn Kathir from Mecca after al-Bazzi or Qunbul.
  3. 5 + 6: Ibn Amir from Damascus after Hisham or Ibn Dhakwan.
  4. 7 + 8: Abu Amr from Basra after al-Duri or al-Susi.
  5. 9 +10: Asim from Kufa after Hafs or Abu Bakr (not the caliph).
  6. 11 +12: Hamza from Kufa after Khalaf or Khallad.
  7. 13 +14: Al-Kisai from Kufa after al-Duri or Abul Harith.

In addition there were 3 others which were good - each in 2 versions = 6 versions - and 4 which were accepted.

The good ones:

  1. 1 + 2: abu Ga'far from Medina after abu l-Harit 'Isa ibn Wardan or abu r-Rabi (Sulaiman ibn Muslim) ibn Gammaz (az-Zuhri).
  2. 3 + 4: Ja'qub ad-Hadrami from Basra after Ruwais (Muhammad ibn Muttawakkil or Rauh ibn Abdalmu'min.
  3. 5 + 6: Halaf from Kufa after Ishaq al-Warraq or Idris al Haddad.

The accepted ones:

  1. 1: ibn Muhaisin from Mecca.
  2. 2: al-Jazidi from Basra.
  3. 3: al-Hasan al-Basri from Basra.
  4. 4: al-A'mas from Kufa.

This means that all together there were 24 accepted versions - all different or much different, but all reckoned to be a correct Quran. Add the original 4 main ones + Uthman's version = 29 versions all together. (+ all the others excluded by Uthman or Ibn Mohair. We have seen no number for how many such which existed. Likely nobody ever knew for sure, but likely at least 100 and may be (many?) more.)

As you understand there is a good reason for asking Muslims which Quran is the one "perfect and without mistakes", if any - and which one Allah really sent down (if he did). Only one of these really can be 100% correct - and may be none. Most likely none - too many varieties are possible. And too many mistakes etc. in the book.

Over the years 3 of these 14 came to dominate: Nafi after Warsh, Asim after Hafs and Abu Amr after al-Duri. And today there mostly are two versions which are used: Asim after Hafs - the one used when printed in Egypt in 1924 - and Nafi after Warsh (used in parts of Africa). Asim after Hafs is dominant today, but Nafi after Warsh as mentioned is used in large parts of Africa. Also there are 4 others used in smaller areas in Africa = all together 6 versions are in daily use today.

These are facts all educated Muslim religious scholars know. All the same, and also in spite of that it is very clear that even today it is impossible to know for sure what Muhammad really said in MANY points of the Quran, they teach their subjects that "the Quran is the exact words of Muhammad, who quoted the exact words of Allah. Exact down to the last comma."

A large percentage of the Muslims honestly believe them.

Irony: The comma did not even exist in Arab when Uthman made his version of the Quran. And: The facts that there are MANY versions of the Quran + there were many more + that nobody even today knows which version is the correct one - if any (as nobody knows what Muhammad really said on very many points in the Quran) - are so essential, that we repeat these facts and the names a few times in our book(s).

131 11/17a (= Medina?): “Can they (non-Muslims*) be like those (Muslims*) who accepted a Clear (Sign) from their Lord (Allah*) - - -?” For building up his followers’ feeling of being superior to “the masses”, this is good psychology. This even more so if you want your followers to become a separate group, feeling distance to other people or groups.

132 11/17b: "- - - Clear (Sign) - - -". There are many "signs" mentioned in the Quran, but not one single one is a valid proof of Allah, as it is nowhere proved that the things really are done or made by Allah.

133 11/17i: "- - - a witness (Muhammad*) from Himself (Allah*) doth teach - - - a guide and a mercy (the Quran*)." Do read the complete Quran and especially the surahs from Medina - and read it with your brain and your other relevant knowledge engaged, not only your eyes and your wishful thinking. How much of a reliable guide do you find among all the mistakes, contradictions, wrong/invalid logic, etc.? - and how much mercy are you able to find? - real mercy, not glossy words. How much of a teacher of f.x. good morality and of mercy was really Muhammad?! - "do towards others like you want others do towards you".

134 11/28a: “- - - Clear Sign - - -“. In this case it is said to be Noah who was speaking, and according to the Quran Noah was a devoted Muslim - - - but there never was a clear sign/proof for anything concerning Allah – not anything at all is proved. (This is one of the main reasons why blind belief is demanded and glorified by Muhammad and by Islam). There also nowhere in the world or in its history or known parts of prehistory is mentioned a god like Allah or a religion like Islam or a book like the Quran until 610 AD in Arabia.

135 11/88a: "- - - a Clear (sign) from my (Shu'ayb's*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". There nowhere in the Quran or other places is one single sign clearly from Allah - and with the possible exception of the "signs" borrowed from the Bible, no unmistakable signs for a monotheistic god at all (but the Bible in case indicates Yahweh, not Allah - the teachings are too different to be from the same god, in spite of the Quran's never documented claims).

136 11/96b: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Clear (Signs) - - -". Moses had signs - but according to the Bible they were from Yahweh. And according to science there still was no sign of Allah or Islam for another some 2ooo years - and the same according to Islam as the Quran here talked about the god of the Jews. There is no kind of indication for Allah anywhere or any time before 610 AD.

137 11/103a: "In that (the claim that Allah punishes severely - 11/103*) is a Sign (for the existence of Allah and his power*) - - -". A not proved claim from a man who believed in dishonesty, deceit, and even broken words/oaths, but liking power, obedience, riches for bribes, and women, plus a book full of wrong facts and other errors, is a "sign" - Quran-speak for proof - for that Allah exists. Are there anyone out there who understands why we are skeptical to the Quran - and thus to Muhammad and to Islam? The quote is wrong unless Islam proves differently.

Besides: It is some "sign" for a claimed good and benevolent god to be harsh in punishments.

##138 12/108a: “- - - evidence clear - - -“. There is not one single clear evidence neither for Allah nor for Muhammad being a prophet in the entire Quran. Not one. (There may be some exceptions for evidences for a god in points taken from the Bible, but those in case are proofs for Yahweh, not for Allah – those two gods cannot be the same one, unless that god is mentally ill – schizophrenic – as the teachings are fundamentally too different, especially like one meets Yahweh in “the new covenant” in NT – f.x. Luke 22/20). Also see 2/99. NB: Islam admits they have no real proofs for Allah, and that it is impossible for them to find any. (If they had had one, you bet they had brandished it all over.)

A small tit-bit here: There does not even exist a reliable proof for the existence of Muhammad. Oh, it is likely he is a historical person, but no reliable proof exists - you will find scientists honestly believing he is a made up person created to become the "salvator" in a new religion emerging in Arabia around 600 AD.

"A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". For one thing Muhammad never proved it really was Allah who was behind what Muhammad claimed were "signs" or "proofs", and for another a number of his claims may have more than one explanation/conclusion. Not to mention that many a claim was/is plainly wrong.

139 12/108b: "I (Muhammad*) do invite you unto Allah - on evidence clear as seeing with one’s eyes",

  1. Muhammad here indirectly, but very clearly makes it clear that evidences are heavy arguments and essential.
  2. He also makes it clear that evidence you see with your own eyes, are clear evidences. Ironic when one sees that Muhammad's claimed proofs are invalid - mostly because they do not build on proved facts.
  3. The only evidences which really prove a god, are supernatural beings or acts.
  4. Muhammad never was able to prove one single of his claims about Allah or his own connection to a god - in spite of that, he here admits and states that evidences are heavy and essential arguments. Not one essential point did he prove.
  5. He was frequently asked for proof, but had only fast-talk and sometimes even lies to offer to explain it away - in spite of here and other places arguing that evidences are heavy arguments - f.x. Moses' miracles made all sorcerers Muslims - and in spite of claiming proofs from everybody else.
  6. Whenever he was asked for arguments, he claimed that evidences had no value - no-one would believe anyhow - - - in spite of that he here and other places argues with that his "signs" and "proofs" should decide you. (This was some of his obvious lies in the Quran - so obvious that there is no chance he did not know it himself (he was intelligent).)
  7. And another argument was the glorification of blind belief and the stupidity in needing proofs - in spite of that all and everybody in reality know that the most sure way to be cheated, is believing blindly. And not least: In spite of that he himself often demanded proof from others.
  8. Whenever Islam today is asked for proofs, they try to use invalied "proofs" (claims), or they tell how un-intellectual and stupid it is not to see that intuition and inspiration is the sure way to knowledge, and how silly it is to ask for proofs (they have nothing to offer, and what then to say?) - in spite of that every not too naive soul on Earth knows that fast-talk is a sign of danger.
  9. And another argument is the glorious blind belief vs. the little reliability of the imbecile science - and the stupidity of needing proof, in spite of as mentioned that everybody know that the sure way to be cheated every now and then, is to believe blindly in this or that.

"A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclution". For one thing Muhammad never proved it really was Allah who was behind what Muhammad climed were "signs" or "proofs", and for another a number of his claims may have more than one explanation/conclusion.

###The claim the Quran/Muhammad makes here is a joke - or irony.

#####140 13/2l: “- - - explaining the Signs in detail - - -“. Wrong and/or logically invalid “explanations” in reality are not explanations at all – even if they were in detail, which they in many cases are not. But it tells a lot that Islam and Muslims in spite of declarations like this from Allah(?), use claims about difficult to understand language and difficult to understand explanations and stories, as a reason for why they have to explain what Allah in his bumbling and inapt helplessness has been unable to explain in a way people understand "correctly". But then of course Muslim believers, imams, etc. are more intelligent and knowledgeable than Allah, and thus better able to give correct and understandable stories and explanations.


#### On the background of that Allah several places in the Quran tells that he explains everything in detail, all claims from Islam and Muslims that he "in reality means something else" are invalid al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) if the Quran is reliable.

##### The fact also is that such claims (that the Quran means something different from what the text says) are an insult to any god - and corruption and falsification of the texts in the Quran.

141 13/3c: “And He (Allah*) it is Who spread out the earth - - - verily in these things there are Signs for those who consider”. There had been, if Muhammad had documented it really was Allah who did it. As it is it definitely is no proved verity/truth. It also had been easier if the Quran had indicated that Earth is a ball, not flat. (It is not directly said in the Quran that Earth is flat, but everything it is compared to, is something flat - the flatness was such a matter of course, that it was not necessary to specify it.)

142 13/4a: “- - - yet some of them (fruits, etc., etc.*) We (Allah*) make more excellent than others to eat. Behold, verily in those things there are Signs for those who understand!” At least it is very easy to understand that Allah/Muhammad takes credit for a lot of natural things which happens by itself in nature, fields, and orchards, without proving that he has even one finger in the game. Invalid as sign or proof until it is proved that Allah really is behind this.

143 13/7d: "Why is not a Sign sent down to him (Muhammad*) from his Lord (Allah*)?". One of the many requests for a proof Muhammad never was able to answer in a real way - only by fast-talk and explaining it away. Also see 13/7b just below.

144 13/17b: “Thus doth Allah (by parables) show forth - - -”. Can it really be an omniscient god who shows forth so many mistakes - and even call many of them "signs" or "proofs"? Nyet – a good English word which means no with some lines under.

145 13/27d: “The Unbelievers say: ’Why is not a Sign sent down to him (Muhammad*) from his Lord (Allah*)?” Signs were dearly needed and would clearly have meant something - but Muhammad was unable to deliver one. Did not Allah want? Or was Muhammad not really his representative? Or was Allah a fiction? Who knows as long as nothing is proved? - it is possible to believe, especially if one wants to, but there is no knowledge without a proof - this also goes for religion. (Also see f.x. 13/7a and 13/7c above.)

146 14/5a: "We (Allah*) sent Moses with Our Signs - - -". According to the Bible it was Yahweh who sent him and who gave him the signs. (The Quran likes to claim - like always without any documentation - that the two are the same god, but the teachings are so fundamentally different, that this is not correct.

147 14/9e: “- - - Clear (Sign) - - -“. There are no clear signs for Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god in the Quran and nowhere else – not one. See 2/39b and 2/99 above.

148 15/7+8: “’Why bringest thou (Mohammad*) not angels to us if it be that thou hast (speak*) the Truth?’ We (Allah*) send not the angels down unless for just cause: if they came (to the ungodly), behold, no respite would they have (it would suddenly be the Day of Doom*).”

It is no just cause to prove to millions of non-Muslims and to doubting Muslims that Islam is a true religion? (- if it is a true religion). See 6/8a+b+c above.

149 15/81: “- - - Our (Allah's) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

150 16/1h: "- - - far is He (Allah*) above having the partners (likely the other gods of the pagan Arabs, but non-Arab gods and Jesus may be included*) they (the pagan Arabs and perhaps the Jews and the Christians*) ascribe unto Him (Allah*)!" By using this formula - and he uses it often - Muhammad indicates that Allah is the god everyone everywhere knows about or at least was known from the old, but that many have added other gods in addition to him. This picture is false - except for in Arabia where many had al-Lah (also named Allah sometimes) as one of their gods - the same pagan god Muhammad dressed up and called only Allah - the rest of the world had other gods not in addition to, but instead of Allah, and most did not even know about al-Lah/Allah. They had their oven gods and these were self-sufficient and not added to Allah. But psychologically a good sentence for Muhammad and his preaching. Also see 25/18a below.

151 16/10-11a: “It is He (Allah*) Who sends down rain from the sky - - - verily (though it definitely is no proved verity/truth*) in this is a sign for those who give thought”. Giving it some thoughts, we find that this is a part of the water cycle in the nature - if no god proves something else, which neither Allah nor any other has done till now. Like many other places: + A small sentence of flattery of the reader (see 13/3j above) in the end.

152 16/11b: “- - - verily this (different food plants*) is a Sign for those who are given thought.” Verily it will be - - - but not until the day when Islam proves it really was Allah who created these food plants. Until that day it only is a clear sign that Islam and the Quran only have claims and cheap words and no proofs to show. And: If they had real arguments, they did not have to resort to logically invalid claims only. (This is an unavoidable conclusion from some persons giving things thoughts).

153 16/13b: “And the things on earth which He (Allah*) has multiplied - - - verily this is a Sign - - -”. Nothing is a real sign or proof as long as it just is claiming credit for what happens in the nature quite naturally - and even more so when the only proofs for the claims are lofty words built on nothing. These kinds of "proofs" are invalid unless it is first proved that Allah really has done what is claimed.

##### What may be worse: The use of "proofs" of this quality proves that Muhammad had no real proofs - if he had had, he had used them instead. Fast-talk is revealing for people able to think things over.

154 16/44b: "- - - Clear Signs - - -". Allah never has sent one single unmistakable sign for his existence - never since Adam till today. As Muslims claim that Allah = Yahweh, they may refer to the signs in the Bible. But as the abyss between the basic ideas in those two religions by far are too big to have come from the same god, also this never proved claim from the Quran is wrong - the miracles in the Bible in case they were real, only document Yahweh.

155 16/65c: “And Allah sends down rain from the skies, and gives therewith life to the earth after its death: verily in this is a Sign for those who listen.” It definitely is no proved verity/truth. See 16/65a+b just above. But it surely is some sign to use an invalid proof. The Quran often talks about Signs which shall document or prove Allah. The sorry thing is that each and every one of them, with the possible exception of some taken from the Bible (and which in case proves Yahweh), are without any value as proof for a god, and not one single proves anything about the existence of Allah. The two most frequent reasons are that they in reality are just claims taken from thin air, or they build on statements which are not proved. See separate chapter in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - about this.

This claim in the Quran is wrong unless Islam proves the opposite.

##156 16/67c: “Also from the fruit of the date-palm and the vine, ye get out wholesome (!!*) drink and food; behold, in this also is a Sign for those who are wise”. In addition to claiming credit for one more sector of nature - the making of alcohol - for Allah, it is somewhat funny to see that this (wine) here (written in 622 AD) is told to be a wholesome drink, whereas alcohol later is so bad that it is totally prohibited in Islam. What did Allah not know in 622 AD? All the same the Quran and Islam and Muslims claim there are nothing in-consequent in the Quran - nothing. Are we wise enough to see that this is inconsequent anyhow? - and that it is far from the only place in the Quran. And: Muhammad used a lot of flattery like here – it gives good result for cheap money. Who does not like to hear he is wise? – especially the naïve ones. See 13/3j above.

157 16/104b: “- - - Sign of Allah - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

158 17/1j: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -". Wrong. See f. ex. 2/39b above.

159 17/12b: "- - - two (of Our (Allah's*)) Signs - - -". There exists not one single reliable sign for Allah, and no-one has ever existed. Mostly the claimed "signs" are natural phenomens which Muhammad without proving anything simply claimed for his god - just like many a believer in many a religion has done thousands of times before and after him - unproved words are that easy to "borrow", and are worth exactly nothing as proofs, except that naive souls and wishful thinkers may believe in it. Well, they prove one thing: That the user has no real arguments and no real proofs - if he had had, he had used those instead.

160 17/12d: "- - - the Sign of the Night (= the night*) have We (Allah*) obscured - - -". The night simply is lack of light. How do you obscure lack of light? Any god had known what night in reality is. Also see 11/7a above.

161 17/12f: "- - - (Allah's*) Sign of the Day We (Allah*) have made to enlighten ye (humans*), that ye may seek bounty from your Lord (Allah*), and that ye may know the number and count of years - - -". We do not think one single astronomer will agree that this is the reason for night and day. (An extra irony is that the Muslim year does not even follow the natural year - it is ca. 11 days shorter than the natural one.)


#####162 17/59a: "And we (Allah refrain from sending Signs (Quran-speak for "proofs for Allah"), only because the men of former generations treated them as false - - -".

This is Muhammad's standard "explanation" for why Allah would not and Muhammad himself was unable to give any real proofs for the existence of Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god - Allah or someone else. And it is not a good one, as it obviously is not true:

  1. There were stories both in the Bible and in the Quran - f.x. the sorcerers of Pharaoh Ramses II and Moses - about people believing in the performed miracles/real proofs (if true stories).
  2. Muhammad knew about at least some of the stories about the miracles Jesus performed, and how huge flocks of believers he got from the miracles.
  3. It is not only contra, but incompatible with, human nature and psychology that not a good percentage of the ones who witnessed real miracles/proofs would not come to believe.

Muhammad was intelligent and he understood people and how to manipulate them. He knew this. But he obviously was unable to find a better excuse - there are not many excuses which would work.

What is really strange, is that Muslims have not seen through this "explanation" centuries ago, and still are unable to do so.

This is a monument over the effect of brainwashing, of wishful thinking, of ability to refuse to see the obvious, of lack of ability/training in critical thinking, uncritical acceptance of authorities, and more. A monument over the weak point of the human brain.

There are some such cases in the Quran, the most prominent and serious may be the impossible combination of full predestination like the Quran states many places, and free will of man, and the as impossible combination of full predestination, and claims about any effect of prayers.


#####163 17/59b: "And we (Allah refrain from sending Signs (Quran-speak for "proofs for Allah"), only because the men of former generations treated them as false - - -".

In this connection we quote Muhammad Asad: "The Message of the Quran" (a/17/71), translated from Swedish: ###### "Several places the Quran stresses the fact that the Prophet Muhammad, in spite of being the last and greatest of Allah's messengers, did not have the permission to make signs or miracles similar to those earlier prophets are told to have made as confirmation of their verbal preaching". (This of course also goes for foretelling/prophesy, as fortelling simply is a special kind of miracle; "the ability to see the unseen".)

Worth remembering each time Muslims - often believing it honestly, because their imams, mullahs, etc. have told them so - tell you about the miracles of Muhammad or try to use claims about his miracles as arguments or proofs for something.


164 17/59d: "We (Allah*) sent the She-camel to the Thamud - - -". The Thamud was a tribe who according to Arab folklore lived in Arabia in the old times (as Moses according to the Quran mentioned them, it must have been before ca. 1400 BC = at least 2ooo years before Muhammad - and as Thamud/Salih lived before Shu'ayb, who according to Hadiths were 4. generation after Lot and thus lived(?) somewhere around 1700 BC, at least 2300 years before Muhammad). The camel refers to an old Arab legend about a camel who came out from a solid cliff and became a prophet (as this obviously is superstition, you meet many Muslims telling it was another camel, but no-one has a believable alternative story - a normal camel is not a sign from a god in a place where there are "millions" of camels).

We may add that the Thamud tribe is known from history. But the earliest reference to it is from 715 BC - some 600 years after Moses - made by the Assyrian king Sargon II. It seems that Muhammad had the history wrong also here. They disappeared before the time of Muhammad. We may add that the 'Ad tribe - also mentioned by Muhammad - likely lived some time between the 10th and the 3rd century BC (in eastern Yemen and western Oman - perhaps the area where the camel first was domesticated). Also these long before Muhammad, but long after Moses.

Another point is that Thamud as said is mentioned in history around 700 BC, but disappeared from it around 600-400 BC, which means that Thamud's destruction in the Quran is something like 1500 years wrong.

165 17/59g: “And We (Allah*) refrain from sending the Signs (Quran-speak for "real proofs"*) only because the men of former generations treated them as false: We sent the She-camel to the Thamud to open their eyes - - -”. Thamud is the only example mentioned here – a tale “borrowed” from old Arab folk tales.

One thing is that we have never been able to understand how a camel could be a proof of Allah. (But actually the camel is part of an old Arab folk tale: It came out from a cliff and became a prophet for a god.) But just read the Bible – which the Quran “borrows” (and twists) many stories from – and you will see that real proof has effect (which is most natural), and f.x. the Quran's story about Ramses II's sorcerers who at once became believing Muslims aften Moses made a small miracle, tells the same. That it will have no effect just is fast-talk with a somewhat bent logic and psychology – one of those any intelligent man knowing something about how people think and reacts, was sure to know was untrue.

  1. For one thing: To use something which was claimed to have happened, but more than 2ooo years before, is not valid without documentation. And especially when it is clear it happened later.
  2. For another: Muhammad himself used the miracles Moses according to the Quran made, and told they made all the sorcerers of Pharaoh Ramses II become Muslims.

  3. For a third: There had been several prophets in between - with Jesus as the star one in this connection, but also f.x. Paul - who made miracles people believed in and which attracted followers.

This "explanation" is invalid also according to the Quran (contradicted). What is worse: It is one of the places it is clear Muhammad knew he was lying, as it is clear from the Quran that he at least knew about the miracles of both Moses and Jesus, and that these made people believe.

166 17/59i: "We (Allah*) only send the Signs by way of terror (and warning from evil)". This perhaps was what Muhammad did with all his raids - mainly for looting, slave taking, and extortion + some rapes, but later also for spreading Islam (continued by his successors). Terror and evil brought the message across many places.

167 17/90c: “They (non-Muslims*) say: ‘We shall not believe in thee (Muhammad*), until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth (or give us some other proof*)”. Strong requests - and a positive answer would have had effect. But there never was any proof for anything - not for Allah, not for Gabriel, not for Muhammad being a prophet, not for Islam.

168 17/92a: “Or thou (Muhammad*) cause the sky to fall in pieces, as thou sayest (will happen) - - - “. No matter if Allah accepts to repeat this in his (?) book made thousands and millions of years before they said it (!), it is wrong. The sky Muhammad thought was a roof over the Earth, is an optical illusion, and cannot fall down in pieces. Neither Muhammad nor Allah corrected this wrong piece of astronomy. And neither were any of them able to give a proof like they were asked for.

###169 18/9d: "- - - ("the 7 sleepers")- - - were wonders among Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -". To tell a made up legend - a fairy tale - is a wonder and a "Sign" and a true story, tells miles about the Quran and about its maker(s?). Not a little of the Quran's arguments and "signs" and "proofs" are on this level. This tells quite a lot about the reliability of the book - and about Muhammad and about Islam. Such "true" stories definitely are not the work of a god, omniscient or not.

170 17/98b: “- - - Our (Allah's) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

#171 18/9f: "- - - (the story about the seven sleepers*) were wonders among Our (Allah's*) Signs (normally "Quran-speak" for "proof") - - -". ###It really tells something about Muhammad and about the Quran, that an old and well known made up legend is a "wonder among Our Signs".

172 18/17b: “- - - the signs of Allah - - -.” There is not one single sign in the Quran which clearly is from Allah, and thus not one single “sign” which proves anything about Allah. Any priest in any religion can just as easily say they are signs of his god(s). Words are that cheap. And this "sign" is extra revealing, as the story ("the 7 sleepers") simply is a retold fairy tale. Some proof! ("Sign" in the Quran mostly is Quran-speak for "proof for Allah".)

173 18/21a: "- - - that they (people*) might know that the promise of Allah is true - - -", #######Some irony: A well known legend - a made up religious fairy tale about some sleepers, involving another god (Yahweh), is the proof for that Allah's promise is true. No comment necessary.

174 18/56f: “- - - My (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

175 19/21a: "- - - (We (Allah*) wish to appoint him (Jesus*) as a Sign onto Us - - -". If the old books tell the truth, Jesus definitely was a sign - but for Yahweh, not for the claimed, but never proved god Allah.

176 20/23b: "- - - Our (according to the Quran: Allah's) Greater Signs - - -." There do not and never did exist signs clearly proving Allah - neither small nor great (Islam admits this, but does not talk about it - on the contrary they use al-Taqiyya and tell their congregations about the made up miracles, etc. which the Quran proves are not true, and ## which Islam also admits are not true by admitting that "there are no miracles connected to Muhammad, except the making of the Quran". ##### It actually is unbelievable that Islam are able to make their followers believe in claims - claimed miracles - which the "holy" book proves are wrong, even though they also themselves say that the claimed miracles are not true. But then one of the "signatures" for blind belief is belief not because of proofs, but in spite of being proved wrong). Also see 2/39b.

177 20/54b: “- - - in these (plants and cattle and food*) are Signs (Quran-speak for proofs for Allah) for men endued with understanding.” There are no real signs in the Quran – not for Allah, not for Muhammad’s religion, not for Muhammad’s connection to a god. The only signs “men endued with understanding” gets from sentences like this in the Quran, is the question: Why did Muhammad have to use invalid proofs and twisted logic, and the conclusion: Muhammad’s use of invalid arguments proves that he had no real arguments/facts – if he had had, he had used them instead. And actually there is one more point: The use of made up claims and statements for "proofs", are the hallmarks of a cheat and a swindler.

178 21/32d: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) turn away from the Signs (of Allah*) which all these things (point to)!" When someone uses logically invalid arguments - like claiming not proved "signs" are indication or proof for a god - the logical reaction is to be skeptical. After all the use of false and/or invalid arguments is the hallmark of the cheat and the swindler, and Muhammad on top of this believed in al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing) - though the names may be younger than Muhammad - in breaking promises and words - even sworn ones (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok - but how much cheating is it then in the Quran? - by Allah or by Muhammad) - if that gave better results, and in deceit ("War is deceit") and betrayal - - - and he wanted power and riches for bribes for more power - and women (like many false prophets, but few of the real ones in the OT. Here beware that men like David and Solomon are not reckoned among prophets in the Bible, but among the kings. This is one more difference between Muhammad and the Biblical prophets - not one of them had a harem of any size. Even if you include men like Abraham and Jacob, they had maximum 1-2 wives and 1-2 concubines if any at all. Abraham had Sarah, and Kethura after Sarah's death (1. Mos. 25/1) and Sarah's slave Hagar, Jacob had Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpath (1. Mos. 35/23-26). Muhammad had 36 we know by name, included his 11 long time wives and 2 concubines/slave women, the 16 short time wives and the 7 where it is unclear if he was married to them or not, and thus if sex was a sin or not, and some child sex (+ at least a couple of rapes) - a Muslim is only permitted to have sex with his wives and his slave women or children - are normally not mentioned by Muslims (and sex with children is ok, at least if the girl is 9 years or older, though there is no lower age limit).

179 21/37a: "- - - soon (enough (this word seems to be added by the translator*)) will I (Allah*) show you (people*) My Signs". When this is written it is nearly 1400 years since this promise was given. Not one sign clearly proving Allah has been given during that time.

180 21/77c: “- - - Our (Allah's) Signs - - -.” According to the Bible Noah's god was Yahweh, not Allah.

181 22/36b: "The sacrificial camels We (Allah*) made for you (Muslims*) among the symbols from Allah - - -". One more indication for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - Yahweh in his New Covenant and NT neither asks for nor provides sacrificial animals (though there were in OT), not to mention name such ones as symbols from himself. The differences between Yahweh and Allah really are huge and many and varied even at essential points.

182 22/51b: “- - - Our (Allah’s*) Signs - - -“. There is not one single sign clearly from Allah in the entire Quran. With the possible exception of some taken from the Bible, there is not even one single sign which is proved made by a god – any god. (And the ones from the Bible in case proves Yahweh, not Allah – two very different gods (especially as we meet Yahweh in the NT and the new covenant there – which Muslims never mention) if not Islam really proves the opposite. But Islam never proves anything fundamental).

183 22/52e: "- - - Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs - - -". This has never happened in a provable way - guess if Muslims had been big if they had had the slightest confirmation for that the claimed signs for Allah (Quran-speak for proofs for Allah)!!! Islam's silence about this is the best proof for that Allah never confirmed/proved that the claimed signs really were from him.

184 23/105b: "Were not MY (Allah's*) Signs (Quran-speak for "proofs for Allah"*) rehearsed to you - - -?" A long list of claimed, but invalid signs were rehearsed, but not one real one - and the use of invalid proofs is a hallmark for impostors, deceivers, etc. only.

##185 24/1c: “(This is*) A surah which We (Allah*) have sent down and which We have ordained: in it have We sent down clear Signs; in order that ye may receive admonition.”

##"The Message of the Quran", comment to 24/1 (A24/1): I.e., “the injunctions whereof We (Allah*) have made self-evident by virtue of their wording”: thus Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas explains the expression 'faradnaha' in this context. - - - The same explanation, also on the authority of ibn ‘Abbas, is advanced by Tabari. It would seem that the special stress on Allah’s having laid down this surah “in plain terms” (the norm, but here stressed extra*) is connected with the gravity of the injunctions spelt out in this sequence: in other words, it implies a solemn warning against any attempt at widening or re-defining those injunctions by means of deductions, interferences or any other considerations unconnected with the plain wording of the Quran". Any comment necessary?

“the injunctions whereof We (Allah*) have made self-evident by virtue of their wording”. What about telling this sentence to Socrates or Pascal or a plain teacher of logic? - they had not been finished laughing - or weeping - until after next Christmas. Add the fact that the wording in the Quran took some 250 years (from ca. 650 AD to ca. 900 AD) to polish, and they hardly had survived the laughing. And this is the kind of arguments and "proofs" Islam relies on!

#########But another point: If the Quran is self evident by its wording, how come that one of the most often used ways of explaining away errors, wrong logic, unclear explanations/tales, contradictions, etc. in the Quran, is to tell that the texts mean something different from what they say - they are unclear or are allegories or something. This in case means that the wording in the Quran is not the true wording - and the wording thus invalid as proof for the texts. Or the wording from Allah is reliable, but the Muslims' explaining away of errors made up ones - fairy tales.

186 24/46a: “We (Allah*) have indeed sent down signs that makes things manifest - - -“. What is claimed sent down, is the Quran. But a book with that many mistakes, etc., makes nothing manifest – except perhaps skepticism to the religion and to Muhammad.

187 24/58g: “- - - thus does Allah make clear the Sign to you - - -.” See 2/39b above or 24/61 below.

188 24/59a: “- - - thus does Allah make clear the Signs to you - - -.” See 2/39b above and 24/61 below.

189 24/61: “Thus does Allah make clear the Signs to you - - -“. There is not one logically valid clear sign (= "Quran-speak" for proof) of Allah or of Muhammad’s connection to a god anywhere in the Quran - or outside it. They without exception are just claims or based on nothing or on other not proved claims. A possible exception is some of the ones taken from the Bible, but they in case proves Yahweh, not Allah.

There also are no explanations for claimed signs (Quran-speak for proofs for Allah*) in this verse.

190 26/4b: “If (such) were Our (Allah’s*) Will, We could send down to them (non-Muslims*) from the sky a Sign, to which they would bend their necks in humility.” Really a super boast? - especially since Muhammad never was able to show even a valid mini-proof? Or a true statement from a “benevolent” god who did not do it because he wanted the majority of humans going to Hell? Or just some bragging from the maker of the Quran whoever he be, to consolidate his power?

191 26/197a: “Is it not a Sign to them that the Learned of the Children of Israel knew it (as true)?”

  1. This sentence is dishonest. It is not proved, but Islam claims that one or some learned Jew(s) accepted Muhammad as a prophet. But only one or a few of the thousands of learned Jews in case. If the story is true, an honest sentence had said: "- - - one of - - -" or “- - - a few of - - -” or at most “- - - some of - - -”. There is quite a difference between "- - - the Learned of - - -" and "- - - a few of the Learned of - - -". Dishonesty in a presumed holy book does not give a favorable impression. And why is dishonesty necessary? - and how many other points in the book stems from dishonesty?
  2. As the great majority of the Jews - learned as well as not learned - denied that Muhammad could be a prophet even when they were robbed of their possessions, slaughtered in wars, and murdered “en masse” as helpless prisoners, or made slaves, it is absolutely sure that what big majority of the Jews - learned or not - meant about him, was no positive sign for Muhammad or Allah. This even more so as to become Muslim was the only way to keep one’s riches and later one’s life, as Muhammad gained power in Medina, and still most Jews refused him. Some “renegade” swallows make no summer.
  3. A true religion easily can live on - and tell - the truth or what one honestly believes is the truth after honest examination. If a religion or any other story needs to use lies or half-truths or even al-Taqiyyas (the lawful lie) or Kitman (the lawful half-truth) or Hilahs (the lawful pretending/circumventing), not to mention institutionalizes al-Taqiyya and Kitman and Hilah, deceit, etc. as means to defend and forward the religion, one must ask why are lies necessary? - and the natural following up question: How much more of what they tell about their religion in reality is lies?

In the Quran and also in Hadith, it is claimed there were one or a very few learned Jew(s) who accepted Muhammad as may be a prophet. The stories might even be true. But we are back to the old truth: “One swallow makes no summer”. It is absolutely sure that the Jews as a group - learned or not - did not accept his teachings for the truth even in the face of death (f.x. the Qurayza tribe - the last big Jewish tribe in Medina - could have saved their lives by becoming Muslims), one or a few exceptions may be expected. The same is the truth today.

There also is another fact here: Islam from Mecca (610 - 622 AD) is quite different from Islam from Medina (622 - 632 AD) - a fact NEVER mentioned by Muslims. Therefore, even if some Jewish and/or Christian scholars should have been inclined towards Islam of Mecca - and there only is Islam's words for this - it tells little or nothing about how such scholars viewed Islam of Medina in say 632 AD.

No, it was no valid sign.

192 27/13a: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs (Yahweh's according to the Bible*) - - -." There never was one single unmistakable sign clearly proving Allah. Nowhere and no time. (Yahweh perhaps is another question if the old books tell the truth).

193 27/86e: "- - - Signs - - -". There nowhere in the Quran or anywhere else is one single sign proving Allah - they all and without exception rest on nothing or on other not proved claims or statements. There is no exception to this anywhere (except perhaps the ones "borrowed" from the Bible, but they in case prove Yahweh).

194 28/48f: "Why were not (Signs) sent down to him (Muhammad) - - -?" There were frequent questions for proofs - Muhammad never was able to produce anything about it but fast talk and explaining away.

195 28//59b: “- - - Our (Allah’s*) Signs - - -“. No god would use invalid signs/proofs. See 2/99.

196 28/75c: "- - - and We (Allah*) shall say: 'Produce your (human's*) Proof - - -'". What for if Allah is omniscient? One more point: Muhammad frequently demands proofs from everybody else, but never proves anything of any consequence himself.

197 28/87a: "- - - let nothing keep you (Muhammad/Muslims*) back from the Signs of Allah after they have been revealed to thee - - -". See 28/87b just below: As there are no reliable signs of Allah anywhere, they also never are revealed.

198 29/24g: "- - - Signs - - -". There nowhere exist any kinds of signs proving Allah. Some of the signs taken from the Bible may be exceptions, but they in case prove Yahweh, who in spite of the many, but never proved claims from Islam, are not the same god as Allah - too fundamental differences in the teachings. And remember: Science has proved that there are no falsifications in the Bible (and the Qumran scrolls are solid proofs for that OT was not falsified at the time of Jesus (who had warned in case) or later) - also these claims from Islam only were based on air and on other lose claims. Also this is one of the cases where this kind of claims in the Quran is extra ironic: A claim from a made up tale is a "Sign" - Quran-speak for "proof" - for Allah!

199 29/49f: "- - - none but the unjust reject Our (Allah's*) Signs." Wrong. They also are rejected at least by everyone who see that the claimed "signs" are just lose and never proved claims, and thus without value as indication or proof for Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god. And they are not "believers", but "knowers".

And thought provoking: Who needs made up claims and "proofs"? The deceiver.

200 29/49h: “- - - Our

201 29/50c: "Why are not Signs (proofs*) sent down to him (Muhammad*) from his Lord (Allah*)?" One of the many requests for proofs. Muhammad never was able to prove any of his central claims.

202 29/50e: "The Signs are indeed with Allah - - -". One of Muhammad's ways of explaining the requests for proofs away: It was for Allah to decide showing signs (and Allah did not want, because miracles would not make anyone believe anyhow. Wrong.)

203 30/9d: “- - - Clear (Signs) - - -“. Clear signs about Allah and Islam do not exist in the Quran - or any other place. One may wonder why Muhammad used invalid claims and “signs” and even “proofs” – invalid proofs and arguments normally are the hallmarks of cheats, deceivers, and swindlers. It also indicates, shows, and proves lack of real facts and proofs. “Clear Signs” in “Quran-speak” = clear proof. Clear proofs for Allah, or for the Quran being made by a god, or for Muhammad’s connection to a god, but such proofs simply do not exist. Islam is aware of it and Muslim scholars are aware of it – you find it mentioned and tried explained away in their books, but learned books not much read by the private Muslim. And when the scholars and imams and others do not tell them, the lay Muslim often honestly believes everything really is sure and safe – they simply are cheated by the withholding of inconvenient facts and by the glorification of all the invalid “signs” and “clear signs” and even “proofs” in the Quran, not to mention by the ones in Hadiths and by the “miracles” in the Hadiths – which hardly a single imam clearly tells his flock are absolutely proved by the Quran to be untrue legends (Islam indirectly admits this fact by their statement that “the only miracle connected to Muhammad is the Quran” – which also indirectly admits that Muhammad was not a prophet (a real prophesy is a kind of a miracle – to see what has not happened yet – and Muhammad did not even claim he had that gift).

For more claims similar to 65/11 and 30/9, see f.x.: 2/118 – 2/159 – 2/185 – 2/187 – 2/213 – 2/219 – 2/221 – 2/242 – 2/266 – 3/86 – 3/105 – 3/183 – 3/184 – 6/57- 157 – 7/73 – 7/85 – 7/101 – 8/42 – 9/70 – 10/15 – 11/17 - 11/28 -11/53 – 11/63 – 11/88 – 14/9 – 19/73 – 20/133 – 22/16 – 22/72 – 24/1 – 24/58 – 24/59 – 24/61 – 30/47 – 32/25 – 34/43 – 40/22 - 40/28 - 40/50 – 40/66 – 40/83 46/7 – 45/17 – 45/25 – 57/25 – 58/5 – 64/6. Also see 2/39a – 30/10 – 65/11 + 2/299a - 2/299b .

204 30/10e: "- - - reject the Signs of Allah - - -". Do you reject signs of Allah when they just are claimed signs of Allah? - and when on top of all there is every reason to believe Allah does not exist?

205 30/10f: “- - - Signs of Allah - - -“. No omniscient and omnipotent god had used strongly suspect “signs”, etc. to prove himself, not to mention added his name for strengthening the claim. See also 2/39 just above. Similar claims in 3/41 - 7/146 – 7/12 – 7/177 – 9/65 – 10/71 – 10/95 – 14/5 – 22/37 – 23/105 - 26/15 – 27/52 – 27/81 – 27/82 – 27/83 – 27/84 – 28/35 – 28/36 – 28/45 – 28/59 – 29/49 – 30/21 - 31/31 – 31/32 – 40/81 – 54/42 – 57/19 – 64/10 – 74/16. Also see 2/39 just above and 65/11 – 30/9 - 2/99a - 2/99b below.

This kind of a man is the only source Islam is built on.

Can this be the Right Religion?

206 30/16c: "- - - falsely denied Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -". It is not possible to deny falsely when no such real signs/proofs exist. A lot is claimed - a cheap technique - but nothing is proved.

207 30/16d: "- - - falsely denied Our (Allah's*) Signs and the meeting of the Hereafter - - -". Like everything else in the Quran this just are undocumented claims any priest - yes, any believer - can do on behalf of his religion free of charge as long as he can evade all questions for proofs. And Muhammad never proved anything about Allah or about his own connection to a god. Never one single thing.

#208 30/20a: “Among His (Allah’s*) Signs is this, that He created you from dust - - -”. Wrong. Man was not created from dust - really he was not created at all according to science, and definitely not from dust. See 6/2b above. There is an extra irony in the fact that the Quran uses a piece of wrong information to “prove” Allah. Contradiction of reality - and of the Quran, as the book also tells Adam was created many different ways. Also: Muhammad claims most things for the glory of his god - but he never has anything but words and claims. And see 21/56c above.

209 30/22a: “And among His (Allah’s) Signs is the creation of the heavens (plural and wrong') - - -“. Very clearly a wrong proof – a wrong “sign” – as there are no 7 heavens. Irony? At least a contradiction of reality. See 21/56c above.

210 30/22b: “And among His (Allah’s) Signs is the creation of the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth - - -". A totally invalid argument as long as it is not showed that it really is Allah who created it. See 2/39b and 21/56c.

211 30/25a: “And among His (Allah’s*) Signs is this, that heaven and the earth stand by His Command - - -”. A most easy statement, as long as Muhammad refused to prove anything at all. Invalid. As long as it not proved that Heaven and Earth stand by Allah's command, this is not even a joke, not to mention a "sign" or a proof (in the Quran "sign" normally is indicated to be a proof). And who needs to use invalid "signs"? - the cheat and deceiver.

212 30/25b: “And among His (Allah’s*) Signs is this, that heaven and the earth stand by His Command - - -”. Contradicted by the Bible, which says Yahweh is the commander, not 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 lose claims and as lose and invalid words, like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

213 30/25c: “- - - His (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above - and just this claim is extra surrealistic, as it not only is not proved, but totally impossible to prove (except for Allah(?), but he never has proved anything).

214 30/28c: "Thus do We (Allah*) explain the Signs in detail - - -". Does not refer to any sign at all. But it refers to a similitude in the first part of the verse - and the only possible way of understanding the claimed explanation, is that humans are the slaves of Allah (this actually is made understood more places in the Quran). There is nowhere in the Bible made a direct comparison between Yahweh and humans, but it is clear they are not his slaves - clearly inferior underlings, but not slaves. One more indication for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

215 30/53c: “- - - Our (Allah*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b and 2/99 above.

216 31/7a: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs - - -". There does not exist and never was one single sign in this entire world which clearly is from Allah. Mostly the claimed "signs" are natural phenomena which are not even clearly signifying a god, and in each and every case any priest in any religion can claim just the same for his god(s). Such "signs" are totally invalid as sign for a specific god - or a god at all - unless it first is proved that it really is that god - if any - who does it.

217 31/32d: "But none reject Our (Allah's*) Signs except only a perfidious ungrateful (wretch)!" There is at least one grouper more: The ones who are intelligent enough and with enough knowledge to see that none of the so-called signs or proofs tell anything clear at all about Allah, unless it is proved he really causes the effect. Totally without any logical value, and something anyone can say about his/her god(s) free of charge.

Worse: They are "signs" and "proofs" of a quality nobody uses unless no real signs and proofs exists.

##### Perhaps worst: The use of invalid "signs" and "proofs", etc. tells something ominous about the reliability of the Quran and of Muhammad. The need for using deceit is a bad and revealing sign.

218 32/22a: “And who does more wrong than one to whom are recited the Signs of his Lord (Allah*), and who then turns therefrom?” There is nothing wrong in being skeptical to a religion built only on a book with hundreds and more wrong facts, other mistakes, hundreds of contradictions, etc., and not one single valid proof, but with many “signs” and “proofs” without any value or even 100% wrong, which may have the effect of cheating uneducated or not intelligent, or wishfully thinking (or not thinking) persons - and on top of all told only by a man whose honesty normal, intelligent people would suspect, because of the morality of his deeds and some of his words – when a man preaches good, but does and demands many things bad, we any day believe in his deeds and demands more than in his words.

219 34/15c: "- - - a Sign (of Allah*) in their homeland - two Gardens - - -". Not mentioned in the Bible, and as far as we know not known by science - and definitely not that there were gardens indicating/proving Allah.

220 34/43a: “When Our (Allah's*) Clear Signs are rehearsed to them (skeptics*) - - -”. One more place where the word "signs" - here even strengthened with the word “clear” - is used like if the so-called signs are manifested facts. But not one single of them is a proved fact - as said before; with the possible exception of some shanghaied from the Bible, but those in case prove Yahweh/God, not Allah.

There are literally hundreds of places in the Quran where the word “Sign” is misused like this. See also 2/39b and 2/99 above.

221 35/40g: "Or have We (Allah*) given them a book from which they (can derive) clear (evidence)?" This sentence is so naive, that one has to remember that in the really old times, when few knew how to read and write, the written word carried huge respect among the uneducated classes. Many of them simply did not know that it is just as easy to make up books as to make up verbal tales, and that a book does not prove one iota more than a verbal story: In both cases the contents have to be checked and proved true, before it is evidence for anything at all. The Quran has so many mistakes, etc. that it has zero value as proof, unless there are additional proofs. It here is symptomatic that serious science never looks to the Quran for proofs or even indication for anything that is older than 610 AD and definitely nothing older than the planned but aborted attack on Mecca around 570 AD.

222 36/6d: “- - - (- - -Signs of Allah) - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah or anything. See 2/39b above.

223 37/14a: "And, when they (the skeptics*) see a Sign, (they*) turn it to mockery - - -". They may have had a good reason for this, as Muhammad just picked natural phenomena high and low and without proving Allah was behind them, and claimed them as "signs"/"proofs" for his god.

224 40/4a: “None can dispute about the Signs of Allah but the Unbelievers”. This may be absolutely correct, though the correct expression may be "are permitted to" not "can":

  1. It is a reason for social extrication in Muslim societies to doubt any word in the Quran.
  2. It is a reason for imprisonment in some Muslim countries to doubt too much or deny belief in the Quran. (March 2008: A woman in Malaysia, Kamariah Ali, was just (2007? AD) sentenced to 2 years of prison for being inconsistent with Islam. The judge, Mohammad Abdullah, told she had committed a grave offence, and that the sentence was in the public interest.)
  3. It is a good reason in some countries and in some societies for being murdered by Muslims, if you express too much doubt in the Quran, not to mention in Muhammad - the weak link in the religion (the only claimed witness and not a very holy character).
  4. It still is a reason for death penalty - official or unofficial - in some Muslim areas to doubt too much in the Quran, not to mention to want to leave Islam.
  5. His marriage is automatically void and ended the moment a Muslim leaves Islam - and not everyone wants to lose his wife or her husband or the mother or father of their children (not to mention lose their children).
  6. Even for non-Muslims it is dangerous to doubt the signs and the Quran - they may be murdered. Islam do not trust the power of the word - with a reason, thinking about all the mistakes and invalid statements, “signs” and “proofs”, etc. in the Quran - and resort to murder. It is better to believe in the never proved religion of the fathers, than to try to find out if it really is true. Like Islam says when “hunting” for proselytes: It is difficult to question your (heathen*) deepest beliefs and what you were imprinted as a child". They forget that this also goes for Muslims: Better not to check if what you believe in is right or wrong - and to run the risk of not finding the right religion (if one exists) in time, if Islam is wrong.

Yes, many places on Earth only non-Muslims can - or actually are permitted to - discuss or dispute the signs of Islam. And even for us it is so dangerous, that this book cannot be printed unless the printer is very brave, in spite of the book being very down-to-earth and based entirely on the Quran and other central Islamic literature + correct scientific knowledge. (The writers have had now 3 death warnings "if we find you", and we are informed there are some more "nice" words here and there on the net.)

*225 40/4b: “None can dispute about the Signs of Allah but the Unbelievers”. Wrong in reality - Muslims can, but are not permitted to. There is no reason why it is not possible for Muslims to discuss them, too, except religious ideas and prohibitions. And they should do so, as none of the religious claims in the Quran are valid proofs (they rest on thin air or unproved claims or statements) of Allah. A few taken from the Bible may prove Yahweh, but absolutely none proves or even indicates Allah. They f.x. can be used by any priest in any religion about his god(s).

226 40/20a: "And Allah will judge (at the Day of Doom*) - - -". Only if he exists and is not just a god, but the top god.

227 40/22b: “- - - Clear (Signs) (= proofs for Allah*) - - -“. There are no clear signs for Allah in the entire Quran or anywhere else. See 2/39b or 2/99 above.

228 41/37a: “Among His (Allah’s*) Signs are the Night and the Day - - -”. The night and the day are made by the sun and the revolving of the Earth - physical facts at work. If Islam claims the sun and the Earth and the physical laws are made by Allah, they will have to prove it - it is nowhere proved neither in the Quran nor in the Hadiths - cheap words and invalid signs anyone can use, f.x. any priest in any religion: Baal made the sun and makes it rise in the east. Allah can neither unmake it nor make it rise in the west - "ergo" Baal is a real god and Allah a false one. It only is cheap words which prove not a thing, except that resorting to such fake arguments are among the hallmarks of cheats, swindlers, and deceivers, a fact which may prove or indicate something or other about the one(s) using such arguments.

229 41/37b: “- - - His (Allah's*) Signs - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39 above.

230 41/37c: "- - - the sun and the moon (are signs for Allah*) - - -". A parallel to 41/37a above.

231 41/37d: "- - - adore Allah, Who created them (the sun and the moon*) - - -". The same claim like most religions put forth - and just as reliable, as the Quran is never able to prove anything at all, just claims and words and glorification of blindness in religion (blind belief).

232 41/39a: "And among His (Allah's*) Signs is this: thou seest the earth barren and desolate; but when We (Allah*) sends down rain, it is stirred to life - - -". Once more a natural phenomenon Muhammad claims for glorification of or proof for his god - as always without the slightest proof for that it really is Allah who does it - - - just like similar claims from most other religions. Islam ONLY is words, not one single proof. Also see 177/a above. And all only on the basis of words from a man even the Quran and other central Islamic books tell was not very reliable plus wanting riches for attracting and keeping followers, and power - - - and women. Bluff?

Also see 11/7a above.

233 43/46c: "- - - Our Signs - - -". Allah's or Yahweh's? - the two are not the same god in spite of the Quran's many, but never proved claims - only claims and words. Too different teachings - and no falsified Bible according to science, and also according to Islam's silence about proofs for falsifications.

234 43/48a: "We (Allah*) showed them (Pharaoh Ramses II and his people*) Sign after Sign, each greater than its fellow, and We seized them with Punishment, in order that they might turn (to Us)". Note the purpose here; "in order that they might turn (to Us)" = become Muslims. A significant difference from the Bible. There Yahweh only asked the Pharaoh to let the Jews leave Egypt - no try to change their religion. (F.x. 2. Mos. 5/1).

235 45/4a: "And in the creation of yourself, and the fact that animals are scattered (throughout the earth), are signs for those of assured Faith". But the claimed signs in case have no relevance to Allah unless it first is proved that it really is caused by Allah. As it is, any believer in any religion can do just the same as Muhammad: Claim it for glorification and indication of his god(s) - totally free of charge, but also totally without real value as indication or proof, as long as it is not proved the god really causes it. After all "a proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion".

Also see 11/7a above.

##236 45/6a: “Such are the Signs of Allah, which we (Allah*) rehearse to thee (Muhammad*) in truth - - -”. A strange saying, as all “Signs” in the Quran are logically invalid, as they either are claims or statements based on nothing or based on other invalid (not proved) claims, statements, “proofs”, etc. There may be a few exceptions for some taken from the Bible, but they in case indicate Yahweh.

And/or there often are more than one possible conclusion/explanation. ("A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion".)

237 45/6f: "- - - (rejecting) Allah and His Signs - - -". Wrong. You do not reject Allah by rejecting invalid signs and instead ask for valid ones. Reject Allah you only do because there are no proofs, and in addition all the mistakes in the Quran prove 110% that no omniscient god was involved in the delivery of it, plus the at least 9 places in the Quran (1/1-7, 2/286c, 6/104c, 6/114, 11/2b, 19/36b, 27/91a, 42/10a and 51/50-51a + likely 16/63, 84/15-16) where Muhammad himself is speaking in a book pretending to be a copy of a book in Heaven made before the universe was created (see 51/47c) - a fact which in itself proves at least 100% that something is wrong a fact, strengthened by the 1 - 2 places where angels are speaking, which alone proves that the book must have been made after at least the first angels were created, and thus after the heavens (7 the book claims) - a part of the universe (see 51/47c below) - were created. The really serious point here is that no god was involved in a book of such a quality. What then is the book? - at most an apocryphal one. And what then is Islam? And where do Muslims end if there is an next life with no Allah, but perhaps a god not accepting followers of a made up book and a war and dishonesty religion (?) like Islam?

238 45/8a: "He hears the Signs of Allah - - -". Wrong, as there in the entire world and in the entire history never was one single sign indisputably from Allah. In each and every case they could as logically be claimed for other never proved gods - not to mention for the one who MAY BE is proved (if you accept relevant text in the Bible and/or the Quran to be true, Yahweh is proved, even though the Quran wrongly mixes him up with Allah) - and there may be other causes, f.x. nature itself.

239 45/13e: "- - - in that are Signs for those who reflect." Yes, for those who reflects AND use their knowledge and their brain, there are clear signs for that something is seriously wrong with the Quran, and thus with Islam.

##But note the flattery - one of Muhammad's methods.

##240 45/19+20: “- - - Allah is the Protector of the Righteous. These are clear evidence to men - - -”. Yes, but only if it is documented that Allah really is a protector. There are no proofs for that in the Quran or anywhere else - only claims or statements based on invalid (not proved) claims or lose statements, etc. There in reality is not even one single valid proof for Allah himself. (But then it is not possible for humans to prove a god - only a god can do that. That is one of the reasons why all the “proofs” in the Quran turn out invalid – Allah refused to or was unable to prove anything). This claim is logically invalid.

241 45/26d: "- - - He (Allah*) will gather you (people*) together for the day of Judgment - - -". Only possible if Allah exists and is a god (well, perhaps also if he belongs to the dark forces).

242 46/7a: “- - - Our (Allah’s*) Clear Signs - - .” There are no clear signs from Allah in the entire Quran – see 2/39b or 2/99 above.

###243 46/10c: “If (this teaching) be from Allah, and ye (non-Muslims) reject it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel testifies to its similarity (with earlier scriptures (what is Muhammad’s definition of “similarity” here?*)), and has believed (or pretended to believe - sometimes that was necessary to survive*) while ye are arrogant, (how unjust ye are) - - -”. This sentence is a bit complicated, but what Muhammad said, was that a Jew agreed – true or not true - to that the Quran was similar to old Jewish scriptures, and that non-Muslims then were unjust not accepting that Muhammad is a real prophet.

The logic here is invalid and wrong - when just one says something and many says something else all of them know about, normally the many are right - at least one has to check. The way for Muhammad to prove his words had been to compare the two texts, something he for some reason or other did not do. Now Muslims may say that the old Jewish scriptures were falsified - the normal and proved wrong way out for Muhammad and for his followers - but one cannot at the same time say that the man's scriptures were falsified, and then say that the man proved the Quran right because he had read his own scriptures. ######Further f.x. the Qumran scrolls combined with the prophet Jesus' non-reaction to the old scriptures (he did not like some of the then younger scriptures, but there is mentioned no negative words about the already then old ones), prove that the old Jewish scriptures were not falsified. (This is a typical Muslim way of "proving" things: One tells that one aspect of something must be like this and this - normally without real proofs - and overlook that other aspects of the case scream that things are wrong.)

  1. Tales like this are quite common among self proclaimed prophets trying to prove their new religion or sect. They may be true or not true.
  2. We only have Muhammad’s word for this - a man who had initiated or himself done a lot of dubious deeds included lying and deceit/betrayal, and on top of that had a lot to gain from making people believe him, a man who lusted for power - and one who was teaching a dubious tale. There are no other sources. The tale may be true or not true.
  3. We do not know how many Jews lived in the neighborhood of Mecca/Medina. But in only one tribe he destroyed, there were some 600-900 (700?) men (all murdered – in Khaybar). Plus the 29 from the peace delegation he invited and murdered earlier). As families tended to be large, that should mean some 2ooo-3ooo women and children in addition (all made slaves). And there were three big tribes (and some small ones) and thus thousands of Jews - and the women at least here cannot be omitted, as they tend to be more religious than men. It would be most surprising if not one or a few of them wanted to humor the power-that-be or really changed the religion - from belief or greed or fright or other reasons.
  4. But all the other – thousands and thousands - of Jews said Muhammad was wrong. This even when he marched against them with his army, and they knew that to humor him meant “no war”. Even when they had to give him all their farms and become day workers for him - still knowing that humoring him meant they would keep their possessions if they in time had humored him. Even those who had to flee, losing everything they could not carry - knowing that if they humored him, they could stay. Not to mention the 700(?) men of the Qurayza tribe - knowing they were murdered by the half-dozens through the day and far into the night, and that humoring him perhaps could save their lives. All said no; Muhammad was too wrong for them to be possible to accept even then.
  5. Even if it was correct that one or a few Jew said yes - which well may be true - “One swallow makes no summer”. (It also may be a made up story - that often happens in new sects to "prove" they are right.)

All in all: This “proof” has no value. According to the Jews Muhammad was very wrong. And even more: We still have the same books of Moses - the Torah was unabridged for at least 1000 years before Muhammad and still is according to science – and the rest of the Jewish Bible (mainly the OT) that the Jews in Arabia had. Anyone can read this and see the Jews were right.

244 53/3-4: "Nor does he (Muhammad*) say (aught) of (his own) Desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him". This means that everything Muhammad said, in reality was inspired by Allah, and thus Allah's words - which means that also Sunna (Hadiths) can abrogate the Quran and the other way around. But no omniscient god would need to abrogate himself. And in the Quran there are a number of abrogations - lots of them.

It seems that abrogation is/was used mainly in these cases:

  1. When Muhammad or Allah had said (Quran mainly) or done (Hadith often) something he/they later found was not wise - like the Satanic Verses.
  2. When Muhammad found that he had forgotten verses - this happened according to Hadith. f.x. al-Bukhari (3/223 and 8/91): ”Aisha (one of Muhammad’s wives*) said: ’(Muhammad said*): - - - he (a man*) reminded me of such and such verses I had dropped from Surah so and so”.
  3. When Muhammad/Allah found that what he/they had ordained for the Muslims was more than they would accept: Spoils of war belonged to Allah - but it was changed to 20% for Allah and 80% for his men. Praying much of the night, was reduced to less. And each Muslim capable to fight 10 “infidels”, was reduced to 2 “infidels”, etc. But why did not an omniscient god know this from the start?
  4. When Muhammad/Allah wanted a rule changed- f.x. less and less alcohol, or more and more war. (According to Ibn ’Arabi “'The verse of the sword’ has abrogated 124 verses” - mainly all the peaceful ones.) But why did not an omniscient god know the best rule from the very beginning?
  5. When Muhammad himself did things differently from his own teachings, his deeds became an abrogation of the Quran. The Quran f.x. prescribes whipping of adulterers, whereas the praxis some places even today is stoning - at least of the woman. The reason is said to be that Muhammad himself practiced stoning - even took part in it personally. His praxis of murdering opponents also made good examples for the future. (There also is a rumor in Islam that there was a verse demanding stoning for illegal sex, but that this verse in case was one of those which were omitted when Uthman had the official Quran made.) The same goes for torture. And murder - though that also was prescribed. There also is f.x. the case of donkey meat – it is not prohibited by the Quran, but Muhammad prohibited it during a war campaign – and forever - according to Hadiths.

    245 57/9a: "He (Allah*) is the One who sends to His Servant manifest Signs - - -". No god has sent so much wrong as one finds in the Quran. If sent by a god.

    246 58/5f: "- - - We (Allah*) have already sent down Clear Signs". In case here is meant the Quran - the language in the Quran is not always quite clear: No god ever sent down a book with that many errors. Actually it is an insult and heresy to a god even to claim so.

    ##247 65/11f: “- - - the Signs of Allah (are*) containing clear explanations - - -”. Wrong. There is not one single of the “Signs” referred in the Quran, which has any value, neither as proof nor as explanation (with the possible explanation of some taken from the Bible, but they talk about another god, Yahweh). The reasons are that they without exception just are lose statements or are building on other invalid statements, “signs“ or “proofs” - totally invalid as signs or proofs unless they first are proved made by Allah. If a person consciously uses such invalid arguments, they are the hallmarks of a cheat and a deceiver. No god would use them. Also see 2/39b, 2/299a, 2/299b, 30/9 and 30/30 above.

    248 69/12: "That We (Allah*) might make it (the survival of the humans in the Ark*) a Message - - -". It is no message from Allah if the involved god was Yahweh - and even more so if Allah did not exist.

    #####249 75/14: "- - - evidence - - -". Why does an omniscient, predestining god need evidence? Of course one may say that it is to show others, but that only is necessary if the others do not trust his words. Also remember that Muslims hardly make any difference between words like "unlikely, but slightly possible", "coincidence", "a chance for", "perhaps", "likely", "probable", "theory", "claim", "truth", etc. etc. and "evidence/proof", "fact", etc., when they find things which they like - in such cases the normal is to treat everything like evidence or proved fact. Also remember their strong tendency to quote the Quran, other Islamic books, quasi-science or twisted science, etc. and pretend it is proofs or facts. Always in such cases demand real proofs from them, included proofs for that the Quran really tells the truth in cases where they quote that book as a "proof" - too much is wrong in the Quran, and therefore it has very little value as a proof, unless real proofs are given in addition.

    250 91/13-14: 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. (Muslims nowadays try to refuse this, as the story is too silly, but this was the accepted explanation in old Islam, and Muslims have no good alternative explanation.)


    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 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 - their Biblical texts are identical to the corresponding texts in the Bible of today (with the exception of minor discrepancies normal for hand copied manuscripts).

    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 wise 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 contort the Quranic texts.

    250 comments. Sub-total = 3588 + 250 = 3838.

>>> 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".