Allah in the Quran, Chapter 75
01 Jan 2015
ALLAH AND THE GOSPELS
001 The Gospels are the only part of NT Muhammad mentions in the Quran. It also seems that he did not know there were 4 of them, because he always use singular (but then it is likely Muhammad never saw a full Bible - he picked his Biblical stories not from the Bible, but from local legends, made up apocryphal stories, etc.). Muhammad also claimed in the Quran that the child Jesus read the Gospels, something which is an impossibility, as for one thing a Gospel is the story of Jesus` birth, life, teaching, death, resurrection, and ascension to Heaven, and thus could not be written until after all this had happened, and for another thing we know that even the oldest Gospel was not written until some 30 years after Jesus. (Year 64 AD is often mentioned, but may be a few years before. Jesus died in 33 AD.)
002 But it is a fact that 3 of the Gospels are very similar. One possible reason is that they all used an older one as a source. This older one has in case disappeared later, but it in case all the same brings the oldest written source closer to what happened, and thus even raises the reliability of the existing ones. The other possible explanation - that the 2 youngest of the 3 have used the oldest one as their source, Islam never mentions. They need an opening for claiming that NT may have been falsified - if not the whole Bible is thoroughly falsified, the Quran is much wrong and an invalid, made up book. We may add here that both science and Islam (against their will and intention) strongly have proved that there are no falsifications in the entire Bible. There may be some errors - though by far fewer than in the Quran - but no falsifications. (Guess if Islam had told about it if even one falsification had been proved! Now some Muslims throw around not verified claims, but from Islam as such there is silence.)
003 There also exist a number of false "gospels", included a number of "Child Gospels" - made up stories about the child Jesus. Islam and Muslims use some of them, even though the fact that they are made up, is so well known that there is no chance that Islam and at least learned Muslims do not know it. This fact makes an impressive impression and tells something serious. May be there is a reason why Islam and Muslims seldom claim that "Islam is the Religion of Honesty"?
004 The Quran and Islam strongly and often claim - like normal for them without any proofs - that the Bible is falsified. As for OT there among others is this proof - valid according to both the Bible and the Quran - for that the claim is wrong: Both books state that Jesus was a real prophet with contact to the god. No such prophet would use or in other ways accept falsified holy scriptures. It is clear that Jesus used the old Jewish scriptures, "ergo" they/OT cannot have been falsified until after his death in 33 AD (which makes the Muslim claim that Ezra falsified them impossible). Then come the Qumran scrolls. The Biblical ones of them derives from 150 to 50 BC, and thus are identical to the clearly not falsified ones Jesus used - but these texts (which with one exception covers the entire or parts of all scriptures in OT) are identical to the texts in our OT, with the exception of minor errors normal for hand copied manuscripts. Hereby proved: The OT is not falsified.
005 For the NT, included the Gospels, science is even more sure, because there one has too many and too old copies, all with identical texts (except minor errors normal for hand copied manuscripts).
####### Another - and serious - point is that to "explain" that the Quran means something different from what it really says, is to corrupt it.
Also: What is sure, is that no god ever made a holy book as full of wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, unclear language, etc. like the Quran. ### Besides: Which one of the 20-30 known versions accepted by Islam of the Quran (see 15/9c) - if any (and there were even more versions through the times) - is in case the correct one?
A technique very much used in the Quran, is to use the name Allah instead of Yahweh in Biblical stories or stories inspired by the Bible, and thus pretend that Allah just is another name for Yahweh, in spite of that these two are very different and with very different religions, moral codes, etc. Please read the Quran, and you will find lots and lots of such cases.
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?
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
*006 2/4d: “- - - the Revelation (the Quran*) sent to thee (Muhammad*), and sent before thy time (= the Torah/Bible*) - - -.” The Quran claims the Jews and the Christians received scriptures similar to the Quran, but falsified them into the scriptures one finds in the Bible. Wrong. The Quran is not the same as the Torah or the Bible, and science has proved far beyond any reasonable, unreasonable, or judicial doubt that the Bible never was falsified - some mistakes, but no falsifications. Islam has proved the same even stronger, by being unable to find one single proved falsification among 300 known copies of or fragments from the Gospels, some 13ooo from other parts of the Bible and some 32ooo other manuscripts with quotes from or reference to the Bible. It also is very clear that Islam has not the slightest documentation for their repeated claims – guess if they had been quick to produce it if they had had even a tiny wee bit of a proof!!
A serious point here is that if the Bible is not falsified, many points in the Quran are wrong - and what then is Islam?
007 2/59b: "The transgressors (here the Jews*) changed the word from that which had been given them - - -". The Quran many times tells that the Jews and Christians received a book similar to the Quran, but falsified it to get the Bible - the Bible thus is a falsification of a book similar to the Quran, according to Muhammad (it was his only possible way of explaining away the differences between what Muhammad claimed the Bible said and what it really said - science has long since proved the claim wrong - there may be mistakes in the Bible, but no falsifications. Islam has proved the same even stronger than science, by not finding one single case of real falsification among the some 45ooo (?) relevant old manuscript. Guess if they had screamed about it if they had found even a single provable case of falsification in the Bible! And even worse: By using known falsifications from outside the Bible - f.x. the "gospel" of Barnabas" - they are telling that "these are the best arguments we have" (if they had had any better, they had used that instead)).
If we had used known faked Hadiths as arguments against Islam, Muslims had not respected neither us nor our arguments very much - about just as little as we who have some knowledge about this, respects them and their arguments when they use known made up stories against Jews or Christians.
####008 2/76b: "- - - what Allah hath revealed to you - - -". This rather obscure sentence many Muslim scholar claims refer to the Islamic claim that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, here likely referred to 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 (and conveniently omitting f.x. 18/1-2 and 18/20-21). The Quran clearly states that Muhammad is mentioned on both the OT and in the Gospels (NT) and easy to find there, and then Islam HAS to find him there, because if not the Quran is wrong and a book from a god cannot be wrong - so if there is a mistake, this proves it is not from a god.
What is absolutely sure, is that Muhammad is not easy to find anywhere in the Bible - he is nowhere openly mentioned. Then Islam has to look for him in hidden places, in spite of the Quran's claim that he is easy to find both in OT and in NT. And the most frequent claim in OT is 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18, where Moses in a speech to Jews tells them that once there shall come a prophet like himself "from among their brothers". It is clear from the context that he meant from among the Jews, but Islam - the religion of the truth and the religion which claims you cannot understand the Quran unless you see the verses in context - drops the contexts and claims: "The Arabs are the brothers of the Jews - this is about Muhammad!"
We may add that they also drop a few other facts:
- The word "brother" or similar is used figuratively far more than 300 times in the Bible (at least 351 times according to our latest leafing through the book), and not one of these in connection to Arabs - practically always about members of a closed group (mainly Jews in OT - a few times including their recognized relatives the Edomites - and mainly fellow Christians in NT, though in NT a few times meaning all humanity as potential Christians).
- Of these the word is used at least 99 times in OT (see below in this comment) - also here mainly about members of a closed group: The Jews, sometimes included the Edomites as mentioned just above - and not a word about Arabs in such connections. Except for 1 reference to Lot (Abraham talking to his nephew - a very closed group) and 6 references to Edomites, which the Jews reckoned to be (distant) relatives as they were descendants of Esau, brother of Jacob and son of Isaac and thus inside the extended group, there are 5 exceptions from the rule that "brother" is about Jews in OT: The nomad Jacob talking to some shepherds (a closed group as he too was a shepherd and intended to mean "good friends"), 3 cases of one king talking to a fellow king (a very closed group) where the word means "good friends", and the sons of Ishmael who after all at that time were so closely related to the sons of Isaac, that they made a closed group (this relationship later was dismissed by the Jews for several reasons, the main of which may have been the enmity the sons of Ishmael showed towards their relatives, but also the fact that they were 3/4 Egyptian - both Ishmael's mother, Hagar (1. Mos. 16/1), and his wife (1. Mos. 20/20) were from Egypt - and thus not Jews, not to forget they were outside the covenant Yahweh made with Isaac which were to be the lasting covenant with Yahweh (1. Mos. 21/12), and also not to forget the fact that they lived so far off - near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) - that the connection for natural reasons (strengthened by their enmity) was severed and forgotten. But not one word about the slightest relationship to Arabs - this even more so as it is highly unlikely the Arabs are descendants of Ishmael, as his descendants as mentioned settled near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) and not in Arabia. (Also science tells "it is practically sure Abraham never came to Mecca" - and then Ishmael had no connection there). In addition modern DNA science has showed that what we call Arabs, was - and is - not a coherent tribe, but a mixture of people from neighboring countries who drifted into Arabia and its desert and settled there when the domestication of the camel around 3ooo-2500 BC made life for humans possible there, and later on. Before that only a few tribes lived in the coastal areas and hardly any in the desert in inland Arabia.
- 5. Mos. is a speech Moses made to and about his fellow Jews included some about their future. He used the words "brother/brothers" at least 31 times in his speech. With 2 exceptions (2/4 and 2/8) it is about members of the closed group the Jews - in spite of the wishful claims from Islam. Also the 2 exceptions are from a closed group including the Jews, but a somewhat extended one, as they include Edomites - descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob (Esau also was called Edom). Esau was within the linage of the covenant which according to the Bible was promised by Yahweh, as he was the son of Isaac, through whom Yahweh according to the Bible said that linage should go (1. Mos. 21/12) and thus recognized as distant relatives of the Jews. Ishmael, from which the Arabs claim (most likely wrongly, as Ishmael and his descendants as mentioned settled near the border of Egypt and not in Arabia according to the Bible 1. Mos.25/18 - and in addition was outside this linage, and once more in addition placed themselves outside the group/family (1. Mos. 25/18)) they were and even more so became members of the outside. And not one word about the slightest relationship to Arabs in all the speech or anywhere else in the entire Bible - and also nowhere in the Quran. And not least: According to modern DNA tests Arabs like said are a mixed race - descendants of people drifting into the peninsula from all directions when it was settled + from millions of imported slaves from all around, included lots and lots from Africa.
- The word is used 3 times in 5. Mos. 18, the short chapter Islam takes its quotes from (verses 2, 15 and 18), each time clearly meaning "your fellow Jews" like nearly all the other places in his speech. Not one word about the slightest relationship to Arabs.
- Worse: Arabs and Arabia is mentioned something like 15 times (see below in this comment) in OT according to our latest leafing through the book. Without exception the connection is neutral or negative or even very negative (enemies) - not one single positive connection, not to mention any close relationship, let alone brotherhood.
- Even worse: The words "brother" "brethren", and "brothers" also are used figuratively at least 33 times in the Quran (see further down in this comment) - not one time linking Jews and Arabs. (There is one after a fashion exception: Hypocrites and Jews are linked - but that is something else). Also here the word is used within closed groups - like in the Bible. And not one word in the entire Quran about Jews and Arabs being brothers. Not even a whisper.
- Worst: Moses in his speech said "a prophet like me". But Muhammad was no real prophet. The definition of a prophet was a person who could see at least parts of the unseen, and thus a person who:
- Have the gift of and close enough connection to a god for making prophesies.
- Makes prophesies that always or at least mostly come true.
- Makes so frequent and/or essential prophesies, that it is a clear part of his mission.
A few things Muhammad said, came true – like it has to do for any person saying many things through many years – and most of what he said which did not come true, was forgotten (also this is what normally happens if it is nothing spectacular). But he did not guess the future correctly often - actually he statistically and according to the laws of probability should have "hit the mark" far more often by sheer chance than he did - there just are a few cases where Muslims will claim he foretold something correctly, and few if any of them are "perfect hits". But then the Quran makes it pretty clear that even though he was intelligent, he had little fantasy and that he also was nearly unable to make innovative thinking. (Dearly all his tales and his ideas in reality were "borrowed" ones - though often twisted to fit his new religion. Definitely not a problem any omniscient god would have had).
The main things here are that Muhammad never indicated that anything of what he said was meant as prophesies, that he never indicated, not to mention claimed, that he had the gift of prophesying, that it nowhere is documented that all/most of what he said about the future came true (point 2 above), and finally that both he and Islam said and says that Muhammad was unable to see the unseen (extra revealing here is that the old Biblical title for a prophet, was "a seer" - one who saw the unseen (see further down)) and also that there were no miracles connected to Muhammad “except the Quran” (prophesying is a kind of miracle - seeing what has not yet happened). (This fact that Islam admits there were no miracle connected to Muhammad "except the revelation of the Quran" also is a solid proof for that all the miracles connected to Muhammad mentioned in the Hadiths or circulating among Muslims, are made up stories). We also should add that his favorite wife (and infamous child wife - infamous because of Muhammad's deeds to her) Aishah, according to Hadiths (f.x. Al-Bukhari) states that anyone saying Muhammad could foresee things, were wrong.
Verse 7/188b also is very relevant here: "If I (Muhammad*) had knowledge of the Unseen (= what is hidden and what has not happened yet*), I should have - - -". IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT MUHAMMAD DID NOT HAVE THE PROPHETS' ABILITY TO SEE "THE UNSEEN" - he was no real prophet.
Also relevant here is as said that the original title of the Jewish prophets was not "prophet", but "seer" - one who saw at least parts of the unseen. (F.x. 1. Sam. #9/9, 1. Sam. 9/11, 1. Sam. 9/18, 1. Sam. 9/19, 2. Kings. 17/13, 1. Chr. 9/22, 1. Chr. 26/28, 1. Chr. 29/29, 2. Chr. 9/29, 2. Chr. 16/7, 2. Chr.16/10, 2. Chr. 19/2, 2. Chr. 29/25, Amos 7/12, Mic. 3/7 - some places the two titles even are used side by side in transition periods). Muhammad thus so definitely was no seer - prophet - even according to his own words; he had no "knowledge of the unseen".
####Many liked - and like - the title prophet , and there have been made other definitions for this title - the most common of these are "one who brings messages from a god", or "one who represents a god", or "one who acts/talks on behalf of a god". But the fact remains: Without being able to prophesy, he or she is no real prophet. A messenger for someone or something or himself - ok. An apostle - ok. But not a real prophet.
***This is a fact no Muslim will admit: Muhammad in reality simply was no real prophet or seer. Perhaps a messenger for someone or something or for himself – or perhaps an apostle – but not a real prophet. He only “borrowed” that impressive and imposing title. It is up to anyone to guess why. It also is anybody's guess why he more often used the far less imposing title "Messenger" - a messenger boy is something far smaller than a prophet. Did he know or suspect that it was not true, and that explanations for the lack of prophesies from a self proclaimed prophet would be difficult to explain? Like the reason why he so seldom claims he is found in the Bible, may have been that he knew or suspected it was not true?
Besides: To belong in a special line of prophets, the teachings and the prophesies of course must be in line with the other prophets in that line, because a god follows a steady course and teaching (one of the proofs for that something is wrong with the Quran - Allah changes too much back and forth in his claimed teachings, and especially so if he had been identical to Yahweh: From rather harsh up to Jesus, then mild under the new covenant, then harsher, but reasonably mild under Muhammad in Mecca, and finally a full and partly immoral and unjust war god in Medina from ca. 622 - 624 AD when Muhammad started to need warriors to gain riches (mainly for bribes) and power). If not, one either belongs to another line - another god with another teaching/religion - or one simply is a false prophet (there have been many more false prophets than real ones through the times). Muhammad's religion was far from both the OT and even much further from NT, and in addition he was unable to make prophesies - even if he had been a prophet, he is far too far from the teaching of Yahweh and Yahweh’s Jewish prophets. He is not in that line of prophets and not speaking for the same god - too much is different. The Quran simply may be one of the many apocryphal - made up - manuscripts/books more or less loosely built on Biblical traditions and "adjusted" to fit the religious teaching of sects more or less distant from the mother religion - the Quran in case is one of the more distant ones.
Also see 30/40h below.
The claim in reality is logical rubbish and taken far out of the context. But it is the only "real" claim they try to cling to (there are some others, but they are even more far out) - they have to, because if not the Quran is wrong and thus not from a god and Islam a made up religion. Also see the chapter "Muhammad in the Bible" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - https://www.1000mistakes.com - and 2/77a and 7/157e below.
If the Quran simply belongs among the apocryphal books, many things are easy to understand, and it at least belongs in that line and tradition, even if it is further "out" than most of the others. Muhammad also fits the picture of the leader of an apocryphal sect, admittedly more immoral and bloody than most of the others.
The word "brother", "brothers", "brotherhood" used figuratively in OT:
- 1. Mos. 13/8: Abraham said so to Lot, his nephew. A much closed group.
- 1. Mos. 25/18: Ishmael’s sons lived in hostility to "all their brothers". This may mean they fought each other or that they were hostile to the Jews - in both cases they at this time were members of a much closed group: Close relatives - Ishmael was the brother of Isaac. From the context we think the latter meaning is intended. But this relationship for several reasons over time drifted into nothing. It also is highly unlikely the Arabs are descendants of Ishmael, as the only somewhat reliable source about these - the Bible - tells they settled near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) and not in Arabia (not to mention in Mecca). #####Also science says "it is practically sure that Abraham never was in Mecca" - so Ishmael had no connection that way, too. And not least: Ishmael and his descendant were outside the covenant between the Jews and Yahweh - a covenant made to Isaac (1. Mos.21/12). At the time the Books of Moses were written - at least 1000 years before Muhammad - there also was no reason for the writer to place Ishmael and his sons a wrong place.
- 1. Mos. 29/4: Here in the meaning "dear friends" indicating peaceful intention. The nomad Jacob to some fellow shepherds.
- 3. Mos. 21/10: Fellow Jews - fellow priests even.
- 4. Mos. 20/3: Fellow Jews.
- 4. Mos. 20/14: Moses to the Edomites (= fellow descendants of Isaac and reckoned to be (distant) relatives of the Jews).
- 5. Mos. 1/16: Fellow Jews.
- 5. Mos. 1/16: Fellow Jews ("brother Israelites").
- 5. Mos. 1/28: Fellow Jews (the spies into Canaan).
- 5. Mos. 2/4: Edomites - fellow descendants of Isaac.
- 5. Mos. 2/8: Edomites - fellow descendants of Isaac.
- 5. Mos. 3.18: Fellow Jews ("brother Israelites").
- 5. Mos. 3/20: Fellow Jews.
- 5. Mos. 10/9: Fellow Jews - the 11 other tribes of Jews are the brothers of the Levites (12. tribe).
- 5. Mos. 15/2: Fellow Jew "- - - fellow Israelite or brother - - -" = fellow Jew = brother.
- 5. Mos. 15/7: Fellow Jews ("your (Jewish*) brothers").
- 5. Mos. 15/7: Fellow Jews ("your poor brother (Jew*)").
- 5. Mos. 15/9: Fellow Jews (your needy (Jewish*) brother).
- 5. Mos. 15/11: Fellow Jews.
- 5. Mos. 17/15: Fellow Jew (their king had to be "from among your own brothers" = a Jew).
- 5. Mos. 17/15: Fellow Jew (take no king who is not a Jew - "not a brother Israelite").
- 5. Mos. 18/2: Fellow Jews (Levites "shall have no inheritance among their brothers" - among the 11 other Jewish tribes).
- 5. Mos. 18/15: Fellow Jew ("a prophet like me (Moses*) from among your own brothers" - note the similarity of the expression with f.x. 17/15 and 18/2 - also see the texts of the two under 17/15).
- 5. Mos. 18/18: Fellow Jew ("a prophet like you (Moses*) from among their own brothers". Identical to 18/15, except here Yahweh is speaking.
- 5. Mos. 19/18: Fellow Jew - this is from Moses' speech to and about his Jews like all in 5. Mos.
- 5. Mos. 19/19: Fellow Jew - see 19/18 just above.
- 5. Mos. 20/8: Fellow Jew.
- 5. Mos. 22/1: Fellow Jew.
- 5. Mos. 22/2: Fellow Jew.
- 5. Mos. 22/3: Fellow Jew.
- 5. Mos. 22/4: Fellow Jew.
- 5. Mos. 23/7: Edomites - see 4.Mos 20/14 above.
- 5. Mos. 23/19: Fellow Jew.
- 5. Mos. 23/20: Fellow Jew ("a brother Israelite").
- 5. Mos. 24/7: Fellow Jew ("his brother Israelite").
- 5. Mos. 25/3: Fellow Jew.
- 5. Mos. 33/16: Fellow Jews ("Joseph" here means the tribe - actually the 2 half-tribes Manasseh and Ephraim - and thus figurative meaning).
- 5. Mos. 33/24: Fellow Jews - the other 11 Jewish tribes.
- Joshua 1/14: Fellow Jews - ahead of the other Jews.
- Joshua 1/14: Fellow Jews - help other Jews.
- Joshua 14/8: Fellow Jews - the other spies to Canaan.
- Joshua 22/3: Fellow Jews.
- Joshua 22/4: Fellow Jews.
- Joshua 22/7: Fellow Jews.
- Joshua 22/8: Fellow Jews.
- Judges 1/3: Fellow Jews (the tribe of Simonites were the "brothers" of the tribe of Judah.
- Judges 1/17: Fellow Jews - see Judges 1/3 just above.
- Judges 9/3: Fellow Jews - Abimelech was the "brother" of the people in Shechem.
- Judges 9/18: Fellow Jews - see Judges 9/3 just above.
- Judges 18/8: Fellow Jews - other members of the Jewish tribe Dan.
- Judges 18/14: Fellow Jews - see Judges 18/8 just above.
- Judges 20/23: Fellow Jews - Benjamites were the brothers of the other 11 Jewish tribes.
- Judges 20/28: Fellow Jews - see Judges 20/23 just above.
- Judges 21/6: Fellow Jews - see Judges 20/23 above.
- 1. Sam. 30/23: Fellow Jews - David's men.
- 2. Sam. 1/26: Fellow Jew - a close Jewish friend of David.
- 2. Sam. 2/26: Fellow Jews.
- 2. Sam. 2/27: Fellow Jews.
- 2. Sam. 19/12: Fellow Jews.
- 2. Sam. 19/41: Fellow Jews - the Judah tribe was the brother of the other Jewish tribes.
- 2. Sam. 20/9: Fellow Jew.
- 1. Kings 9/13: An exception: Greetings between 2 kings - but a closed group: Kings.
- 1. Kings 12/24: Fellow Jews.
- 1. Kings 13/30: Fellow Jew.
- 1. Kings 20/32: Similar to 1. Kings 9/13.
- 1. Kings 20/32: Similar to 1. Kings 9/13.
- 1. Chr. 13/2: Fellow Jews.
- 1. Chr. 15/16: Fellow Jews - fellow Levites actually.
- 1. Chr. 15/17: Fellow Jews (fellow Levites).
- 1. Chr. 15/17: Fellow Jews - the Merarites of Levi.
- 1. Chr. 15/18: Fellow Jews.
- 1. Chr. 23/30: Fellow Jews (fellow Levites).
- 1. Chr. 24/31: Fellow Jews (fellow Levites).
- 1. Chr. 24/31: Fellow Jew (fellow Levite).
- 1. Chr. 28/2: Fellow Jews - David's men and underlings.
- 2. Chr. 11/4: Fellow Jews.
- 2. Chr. 19/10: Fellow Jews.
- 2. Chr. 29/15: Fellow Jews (fellow Levites).
- 2. Chr. 30/7: Fellow Jews.
- Ezra 3/8: Fellow Jews.
- Ezra 6/20: Fellow Jews (the priests).
- Ezra 7/18: Fellow Jews ("your brother Jews").
- Ezra 8/24: Fellow Jews.
- Nehemiah 5/1: Fellow Jews ("their Jewish brothers").
- Nehemiah 5/8: Fellow Jews ("our Jewish brothers").
- Nehemiah 5/8: Fellow Jews.
- Nehemiah 10/29: Fellow Jews.
- Nehemiah 13/13: Fellow Jews.
- Isaiah 66/5: Fellow Jews (must be Jews as believing in Yahweh, at least officially).
- Isaiah 66/20: Fellow Jews - bringing them from other countries they have lived.
- Jeremiah 7/15: Fellow Jews - from the Jewish tribe Ephraim.
- Jeremiah 22/18: Fellow Jews.
- Ezekiel 11/14: Fellow Jews - your brothers included all Israel.
- Hosea 2/1: Fellow Jews. 96 Amos 1/11: Edom (descendants of Esau - see 4. Mos. 20/14 above) will be punished for sins against Jews.
- Obadiah 1/12: Similar to Amos 1/11 just above.
- Micah 5/5: Fellow Jews.
- Zech. 10/14: Fellow Jews - Judah and Israel (the southern and the northern Jewish country).
There may be a few more. For one thing we may have overlooked one or a few, and for another there are a number of cases where it is not clear whether it is meant literary or figurative, and these cases we have omitted if we were not pretty sure it was meant figuratively.
Also worth noticing here is that the few times - f.x. only 2 in Moses' speech = 5. Mos. - when Jews are not intended, the intended group always are named or clearly indicated. No Arab are named or intended anywhere in his speech - or anywhere else neither in the Bible nor in the Quran in such connection.
Are anybody able to find Arab brothers of the Jews here? - especially when you know there are no such ones also in the Quran, and that the some 15 times Arabs and Arabia are mentioned in OT, they either are mentioned in neutral words, in negative words, or as enemies, and never as friends, not to mention close friends or relatives.
In the Quran the word "brother"/"brothers"/"brethren"/"brotherhood" is used figuratively at least these places:
- 2/220: Fellow Muslims (orphans).
- 3/103: Fellow Muslims.
- 3/156: Fellow non-Muslims.
- 3/168: Fellow Muslims (but some of them hypocrites).
- 5/106: Fellow Muslims.
- 7/65: Fellow members of the 'Ad tribe.
- 7/73: Fellow members of the Thamud tribe.
- 7/85: Fellow members of the Madyan tribe.
- 7/202: Fellow non-Muslims.
- 9/11: Fellow Muslims.
- 11/50: Fellow members of the 'Ad tribe.
- 11/61: Fellow members of the Thamud tribe.
- 11/84: Fellow members of the Madyan tribe.
- 15/47: Fellow Muslims in Paradise.
- 17/27: Spendthrifts = brothers of Satan.
- 21/92a: Fellow Muslims.
- 21/92b: Fellow Muslims.
- 26/106: Fellow members of Noah's tribe.
- 26/124: Fellow members of the 'Ad tribe.
- 26/142: Fellow members of the Thamud tribe.
- 26/161: Fellow members of "Lot's people" (he was not of them, but the rule all the same is valid as the Quran pretends he was).
- 27/45: Fellow member of the Thamud tribe.
- 29/26: Fellow member of the Madyan tribe.
- 33/5: Fellow Muslims.
- 33/6: Fellow Muslims.
- 33/18: Fellow Muslims - though hardly the strongest believers.
- 46/21: Fellow members of the 'Ad tribe.
- 49/10a: Fellow Muslims.
- 49/10b: Fellow Muslims.
- 49/12: Fellow Muslim.
- 50/13: See 26/161 above.
- 59/10: Fellow Muslims.
- 59/11: Hypocrites are the brothers of Jews and Christians.
Also in the Quran there are some cases where it is unclear whether the word is meant literally or figuratively. We have omitted the ones where we are not reasonably sure it is meant figuratively.
As you see it nearly always is talk of members of a closed group - like in the Bible. The only two exceptions are spendthrifts who are brothers of Satan/Iblis - impossible to read like "the Arabs are the brothers of the Jews" - and "hypocrites are the brothers of the Jews, the Christians and the Sabeans" ("the People of the Book") - also very difficult to read like "the Arabs are the brothers of the Jews".
To complete the lacking connection between "brother" and "Arabs":
The word "Arab" or similar is not at all mentioned in the 5 Books of Moses (except that he lived in Midian some years - the Bible's Midian is claimed by Islam to be Madyan in west on the Arab peninsula, but as f.x. the mountain Horeb is mentioned, it has to be in Sinai (also in Sudan is a possibility mentioned, but also there is no Mt. Horeb)). But you can find it at least these places in OT:
- Judges 6/1: Midianites (if you here read "Arabs") (enemies of the Jews).
- 1. Kings 10/15 (revenue to King Solomon).
- 2. Chr. 9/14 (revenue - tax? - to King Solomon).
- 2. Chr. 17/11 (tribute to King Jehoshaphat of Jerusalem).
- 2. Chr. 21/16 (enemies of the Jews).
- 2. Chr. 22/1 (enemies of the Jews).
- Neh. 2/19 (enemies of the Jews).
- Neh. 4/7 (enemies of the Jews).
- Neh. 6/1 (enemies of the Jews).
- Isaiah 13/20 (just mentioned - in a neutral way).
- Isaiah 21/13 (a prophesy against Arabia).
- Isaiah 21/14 (from the same prophesy against Arabia as just above).
- Jer. 25/24 (the kings of Arabia must drink the cup of Yahweh's Wrath).
- Ez. 27/21 (made business with the city of Tyre).
- Ez. 30/5 (another prophesy against Arabia).
All together 15 times, always either in neutral words, in negative words or in strongly negative words (enemies). There nowhere any hint of friendship, not to mention brotherhood. As bad: Also in the Quran there are nowhere any words about brotherhood between Jews and Arabs, as shown above.
####There only is one conclusion possible: The Arab brothers in Moses' speech to and about his fellow Jews, is a made up claim invented by Islam to save their "holy" book and their religion. To be right is more essential to Islam and its leaders, than to find out what is really the truth, and al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) is an ok means to use. This no matter what price all Muslims will have to pay if there is a next life and the Quran is a made up book, and Islam thus a made up religion - and the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is from no god to say the least of it.
###009 3/3m: "- - - He (Allah*) sent down - - - the Gospel (of Jesus) - - -." This is one of the really bad ones, as it is historically clear that the Gospels (there were/are 4, not 1 like Muhammad seems to have believed) were not sent down, but written by humans here on Earth - and not written until some 50-60 years after Jesus had learnt how to read. (The oldest one likely was written in 64 AD or perhaps a little earlier.) Most Muslims try to get out of the syrup by claiming they are speaking of an older one - one so old that even Jesus could read it as a child. Which shows they do not even know what the Gospels are: They are the history of Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and ascension to Heaven, and consequently could not be written until after all this had happened - actually the oldest one was written some 25-30 years after his death. Now, science says there may have existed an older one, but for very obvious reasons it cannot have been much older, not to mention old enough for Jesus to have read, and even more so read it as a child - not unless Islam claims full predestination, and then the free will of man disappears. This mistake simply is caused by the fact that Muhammad did not know the Bible - only legends, etc., and obviously was not aware of what the Gospels really are. And an older Gospel as source for 3 of the present ones, in case makes them even more reliable - an older, written source for them. (The other possible explanation for why 3 of the gospels are very similar, is that the oldest one was used as a model for the 2 younger ones - a possibility Muslims never mention, as they need the claim about a much older one, even though a much older one is an impossibility.)
010 3/3n: "- - - the Gospel (of Jesus) - - -". As the Gospels were written by men who could have changed their minds and never written a Gospel, and also because nobody would understand the expression until after the Gospels (there are 4 in the Bible) were written this is a time anomaly for the ones living earlier, but who read this in their copy of "the Mother of the Book" - parallel to the Quran. See 4/13d below.
011 3/3p: "- - - (- - - right or wrong)". “The Message of the Quran” here (A3/4) tells that the sign here refers to the Gospel (or Evangelion – both words mean “glad tidings”) which Jesus got. “The Message of the Quran” in English pretends that “Evangelion” is something special, but it simply is Greek for the same meaning. In Swedish (and some other languages) – this kind of small dishonesty which you meet too often in Islamic religious literature, is not possible in just this case, as they do not use the word “Gospel” – they use the word “Evangelium” (which confirms that it is not a special word, just another word meaning the same). Our remark about this simply is that absolutely nowhere there is found a trace of an Evangelion/Gospel which existed at the time of Jesus (science say there may have been one older than the existing ones, but this one in case also had to be written after Jesus’ death, as an Evangelion – Gospel in English – is the story of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection and ascension to Heaven, and could not be written until after this had happened. The absolute only place you find this claim – and like normal for Islam only as a not documented claim – is in the Quran (and later Islamic relevant(?) literature built on or around the Quran). But the Quran is a book with lots and lots of mistakes, told by a man with a very doubtful moral who on top of all used the stories as his platform of power – and a book made 600 – 650 years after the things happened, using mainly religious legends, etc. as sources. Islam will have to produce solid evidences to make this claim believable – not necessarily true, but at least believable.Be sure: Had Muslims found any proof for falsifications in the Bible, it had been written with BIG words every relevant and many irrelevant places. But this kind of dishonesty from highly educated Muslims is very disgusting - and revealing. They know ever so well that Evangelion = Gospel.
And: Never any proof for that the Quran - or Muhammad - really was from a god. Never.
012 3/24d: “- - - their (Jews, Christians*) forgeries (of the Bible*) - - -“. The Quran, Muhammad, Islam and most Muslims claim that the Bible is falsified – they claim, but NEVER document or in other ways prove it. Not only claim it is falsified, but that it is falsified on purpose. This in spite of the fact that science long since has proved it is not falsified - one knows literally thousands of relevant old papers and scraps of paper (some 13ooo (included some copies of 300 the Gospels) older than 610 AD + some 32ooo other relevant references - quotes - to the Bible in other manuscripts), which documents it has not been falsified – and with royal disregard for the fact that as the Bible and Biblical scriptures were spread over enormous distances, here, there and everywhere, it also was physically impossible to co-ordinate the falsification of each and every copy all over the world, so that all the falsifications were identical, not to mention that all similar points and all references to all these in other papers also had to be falsified correspondingly - and not least: Every single manuscript and fragment had to be found and falsified, this even though nobody knew where to find most of them. And not to forget: The falsifications of the older manuscripts all had to be so cleverly done, that even modern science of today cannot find traces of scratching, chemical blotting out, wrong ink or wrong handwriting where new words are filled in, etc., etc. "Those facts does not matter - we need the Bible to be falsified, because if not something is seriously wrong with Islam. Period!!"
Concerning OT also the combination Jesus/the Qumran scrolls is one more proof for that also OT is not falsified: Neither in the Bible nor in the Quran did Jesus ever tell that the scriptures now making up OT were falsified, and both in the Bible and in the Quran it is stated that Jesus was a prophet and a very reliable person - he had warned against falsifications if they had existed. This proves that OT cannot have been falsified until after 33 AD (when Jesus died). And the Qumran scrolls prove that the texts in OT today, are identical to the texts 150-50 BC = the ones from the time of Jesus, except for details normal for hand copied manuscripts. The only possible conclusion also from these facts, is that also OT never was falsified.
One more pertinent question: How do Muslims explain that it was possible to make f.x. Jews and Christians and sects agree on identical falsifications? There ought to be a limit to naivety, but we do not think there are - not in this case at least.
***Demand proofs next time a Muslim tells you the Bible is falsified. His game is to throw not documented claims around, and demand proofs from you for the opposite – which can be difficult if you do not have enough knowledge. But it his duty to prove his claims – not yours to disprove them. NB: They do not have such proofs – if they had had only a feeble one, be sure you and the rest of the world had heard about it by some ones using big letters. Actually the lack of documentation from Islam is the best of proofs for that the claim is something made up - even better than the same proofs from science, as Islam have very strong motifs for finding such proofs, and has been unable to do so. And as actually; to throw loose claims and statements around, pretending that they are facts, are typical for Muslims and Islam in religious debates, not to mention in religious propaganda - the game is to win the debate, not to find out what really is true.
But to claim that the Bible was falsified, was the only way out for Muhammad to explain away his wrong quotes from the Bible – and it still is the only way out for Islam. If they admit that the Bible is not falsified each and every place the Quran “collides” with it, this means to admit that Islam is a made up religion – which is too difficult to admit for the believers, and too expensive for the leaders.
We may add that it is quite normal for fringe sects – which Islam once was – to claim that the mother religion(s) is wrong and they themselves are the only ones who are right. To be believed on this point by us, Islam will have to produce real proofs, not only cheap and loose words to back up their claims. As there exist so many old papers, proving it should be very easy - - - if the claims were true.
Islam’s claim here simply is proved wrong by science and with even stronger proofs from Islam – unless Islam produces proofs showing the opposite. But proofs, not only loose claims like they normally use.
Also see 2/75b, 2/130 above and 3/77a below.
*013 3/45e: “- - - his name will be Christ Jesus - - - “. His name was only Jesus. The word Christ was not even a name, but a title of honor, and it only emerged years after his death - originally in what is now Turkey (even though it is made from a Greek word). But Muhammad did not know the Bible well. (Christ or Christos in Greek means the same as Messiah in Hebrew – the anointed one (which indicates “king”, because new kings in the old Israel were anointed). Because of this some editions of the Bible use Christ instead of Messiah in NT, but the name - or title really - Christ in reality did not exist connected to Jesus, until well after his death. The name Messiah was aired - partly as questions about if he was the announced Messiah). But the Gospels originally were written in Greek, and at a time when the title Christos had emerged.
##014 3/46b: "He (Jesus*) shall speak to the people in the childhood - - -". This refers to the Quran's claims that the baby Jesus from his crib spoke to the ones around him - something some Muslims try to explain away by calling it allegories, etc. (one of the standard last resorts for Muslims when things are difficult or impossible to explain). Islam is aware of that this is from apocryphal - made up - old scriptures (or tales?) cfr: Yusuf Ali: "The Meaning of the Holy Quran", comment 388: "Some apocryphal Gospels describe him as preaching from infancy". He is dishonest enough to mention the text - an argument - without mentioning the apocryphal normally means they are made up texts. It is just like if non-Muslims should use for arguments Hadiths the collectors did not use because they were well known mostly to be made up ones, without telling that they were made up and without value. Persons used to honesty in argumentation, feel not a little distaste each time we meet things like this - and it happens a bit too often from Islam, even from well educated persons (f.x. Yusuf Ali was far too well educated not to know that apocryphal stories are made up ones and totally without any relevance or value, but all the same he uses them - a completely clear half-truth, a Kitman (lawful half-truth)). But this kind of dishonesty - which actually is advised to use "if necessary" when forwarding or defending the religion - tells something negative about Islam. A religion which advices the use of lies - - - how much is then lies of what they tell and preach?
015 3/48: "And Allah will teach him (Jesus*) - - - the Gospel." For one thing: Muhammad does not seem to know there were 4 Gospels - he always uses singular (though also others sometimes use singular). For another: The Gospels did not exist at that time - the oldest one is from ca. 60 AD (64 AD?). For a third: Muhammad obviously did not know what the Gospels are about, as he tells Allah would teach Jesus the Gospels: The Gospels are the history of Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and ascension to Heaven, and could not be written until after all this had happened - not unless total predestination (and then out goes free will for man - such a combination is impossible even for a god, in spite of the Quran's and Islam's claims).
You meet the never documented claim that the Quran talks about an older Gospel - and in a way they may be right, as there may - may - have existed an older one. But for obvious reasons also this one cannot have been written until after things had happened - far too late for Jesus, not to mention the child Jesus, to read. Finally there of course are the naive ones who boldly claim that Allah knew everything before and could have it written down - but then as mentioned out of the window go both free will for man and the benevolent god - predestination and free will for man is not possible to combine. Either the god knows everything before - and man is a puppet forced not to make that knowledge wrong. Or man has free will - and the god is not fully clairvoyant, because man always can change his mind once more - the "time travel paradox" which this is a variant of, is long since proved even theoretically unsolvable. There are among the immaterial natural laws a few not even gods can cross (f.x. the mathematical 1 + another mathematical 1 always = the mathematical 2, no matter what trick a god tries).
016 3/49b: “I (Jesus*) have come to you (humans*), with a Sign form 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*),
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 normally are fakes, to their congregations, and seldom inform their readers 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:
- It is not proved that Allah really did this - and stories from fairy tales need solid proofs. Or:
- It is not proved that Allah and Yahweh really are 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 also 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 scream.
The Gnostic and other stories, tales, “gospels”, and apocryphal stories were made up by semi-Christian or sometimes semi-Jewish sects to fit their special points of view on how a god should be. 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 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.
Some of the apocryphal stories were close enough to the Bible to be read also by Christians (and from OT also by Jews) as morally good stories, even though not all "facts" were correct. The rest were more or less pure fairy tales and/or propaganda for semi-Christian (or semi-Jewish) sects (+ quite a number made up later by Islam pretending to be from Jews or Christians, to strengthen the stories in the Quran). As for the Quran one may call it such an apocryphal story, but one in case has to remember that it in case is a very apocryphal one.
AND IT IS A STRANGE (?) AND PERHAPS TELLING FACT IN THIS CONNECTION THAT THE QURAN OFTEN AGREES WITH MADE UP STORIES FROM APOCRYPHAL BOOKS AND STORIES, LEGENDS, FAIRY TALES, AND OTHER TALES WELL KNOWN IN ARABIA AT THE TIME OF MUHAMMAD, INSTEAD OF THE MAY BE TRUE ONES IN THE BIBLE, AND NOT LESS PECULIAR THAT IT THEN EXPLAINS THAT THE REASON FOR THE DIVERGENCES, IS THAT THE BIBLE IS FALSIFIED. Muslims' use of apocryphal and often known to be made up stories as arguments in reality proves they have few if any real arguments - if they had, there was no need for using made up ones.
(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”.)
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.
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.
017 3/65c: "Why dispute ye (Jews and Christians*) about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel were not revealed till after him?" Well, according to the Quran Abraham had a book, and that must have been the Quran, as the Quran according to Islam (and the Quran) is a copy of the eternal "mother book" in Heaven, and that copies of that book were given to the old prophets - according to the Quran. And then Abraham's copy - and Jesus' copy - must have been identical or at least nearly identical to the present Quran. (Like every Muslim know, the "Mother of the Book" is from before the creation of the Earth and unchangeable, and the Qurans are exact copies of that one = the copies must all have been identical ones). All this according to Islam. As also Jesus "original" teaching was Islam, according to both the Quran, to Muhammad, and to Islam, the Gospels must have been pieces from Jesus' copy of the Quran, which later was falsified, still according to Islam - even though falsification of the Bible is proved wrong by both science and Islam, as none of them has been able to prove even one falsification from the tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts. Believe it who wants - but you have to want to believe it to be able to do so.
018 3/65d: "Why dispute ye (Jews and Christians*) about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel were not revealed till after him?" There is no reason why one cannot dispute about Abraham even if He lived - if he was a real person - some 1800 - 2ooo years before Christ and "the Law" arrived around 1235 - 1230 BC, and the first known Gospel around 60 AD. One f.x. can dispute about the Quran's use (or disuse?) of him, the big differences between what is told about him in the Bible and in the Quran, and not least: As the Bible is the only known source about Abraham, and as the Quran with all its mistakes is not from a god, so the information about Abraham cannot have come from a god - where did Muhammad get his information(?) about Abraham from? There in reality are just three remaining possible such sources: Dark forces - and then it may easily be wrong. Legends and fairy tales - and then it may even more easily be wrong. And fantasy - in which case it is nearly sure to be wrong.
019 3/65f: "- - - the Gospel - - -". A time anomaly. See 4/13d below.
##020(A FALSE ONE) 4/157h: (YA 663):"- - - nor crucified him - - -." We quote from the book "The Meaning of the Holy Quran" one of the "heavy" ones in Islam - comment 663: "The Gospel of St. Barnabas supported the theory of substitution (another man than Jesus was crucified*) on the Cross". This is one of Islam's pet claims for explanation of the claim that Jesus was not crucified, this in spite of that nothing neither in the Quran, nor in Hadiths indicates anything like this. But we must admit we reacted when we saw the so called "Gospel of Barnabas" used as a documentation for this claim, and in a book told by Islam to be of high quality. "The Gospel of Barnabas" is a well known apocryphal and made up scripture. Now many of these made up scriptures were made by fringe semi-Christian sects in the old times. But this one most likely is not even one of them. It is likely it is written by Islam - most likely one of the many falsifications which were made in Spain around 800 - 900 AD during its Muslim period, to "prove" pet Muslim theories or to cheat people. But it also is a possibility that it was made in Baghdad at the court of the caliph - #####remember that Muslims are not only permitted to lie (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, etc.) when defending or forwarding Islam, but are told to lie "if necessary" if that gives a better result. That it is a falsification is so well known, that there is no chance Yusuf Ali did not know this. The use of this well known falsification, then tells quantities about how reliable even presumed high quality Islamic religious literature sometimes is - or not is. It also tells mountains about lack of true facts and arguments - or total lack of such (no sane person uses arguments he knows are faked, if he has true arguments). And not least: It tells something about even top Muslim scholars. Honestly we had preferred not to meet things like this - there are more than enough facts which document that something is wrong, so we did not need this al-Taqiyya. It makes the Islamic religion so dirty and "small" - we had preferred honest mistakes. And the sad thing is: It is not the only time we have met this kind of debate from Muslims.
To repeat the final point: ########The use of known falsifications prove that Islam has no honest arguments and no real proofs for their claim - if they had, they had not been forced to use known falsifications as a last resort as "proofs".
*021 5/46d: “We (Allah*) sent - - - the Gospel”. Wrong. Any person with some knowledge about this, knows the Gospels were not sent down by anyone. They were written by men.
NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!
*022 5/46e: “We (Allah*) sent him (Jesus‘) the Gospel (a Gospel = the story about Jesus' life, death, resurrection and ascension to heaven) - - -”. Any god had known that the Gospels did not exist at the time of Jesus - the oldest of the 4 was written about 1 generation after his death.(Islam tries to get out of this fix by claiming the Quran talks about an older Gospel. And actually there may have existed an older one. But as a Gospel as mentioned is the story of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, etc., also this one in case could not be written until after all had happened - not unless there is full predestination, and thus no free will for man. And only the Quran claims predestination - one more serious difference between the two books and the two religions proving once more that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. See 3/3g-k and 3/48 above.
When it comes to claimed foretelling about Muhammad in the Bible, which is claimed in the Quran, it seems that just this was and is more essential to Islam and Muslims, than to Muhammad himself, because he did not return to that topic often (or maybe he was careful because he suspected or knew it was not true?). For Islam and Muslims it is an essential question, however, because Islam has not one single valid proof neither for Allah nor for Muhammad’s connection to a god – a real foretelling had been if not a proof, then at least a good indication. There exists no such one in the Bible, in spite of Islam's claims - they cherry-pick and then twist some words and quote them out of context, and try to make it look like foretelling about Muhammad, but they can cheat only people not knowing the Bible.
Besides the Quran tells that Muhammad is to be fond both in OT and NT, and then Islam has to find him “come Hell or high water” – if not the Quran is wrong and then something is wrong with the religion. An indication of how essential this claim is to the Muslim clergy, is that in Hadiths – f.x. Al-Bukhari – you find “quotations” about Muhammad presumably taken from the Bible and presumably quoted from the Bible at about the time of Muhammad, which are not from the Bible, but the commentators do not whisper one word about that the quotes are wrong, but just let readers who do not know the Bible (= f.x. 99.9% of the Muslims) believe it is a “bona fide” and correct quote. An Al-Taqiyya.
023 5/46f: “- - - we (Allah*) sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law (of Moses*)”. According to the Bible Jesus was not sent to change the old laws – that was not his main purpose. All the same he did so – changed some and even nullified some of them, especially many of all the additions made through the times by Jewish religious thinkers and leaders. This was more or less formalized during his last Easter, when the new covenant (f.x. Luke 22/20) was made. (This covenant is never mentioned by Islam, and most Muslims without religious education have not even heard about it. This even though it is one of the main and most central facts in the Christian religion).
#########It is worth remembering that at least in 3/50a the Quran confirms that Jesus changed old Jewish laws (and the same according to f.x. Matt. 15/11-20, Mark 7/14-19, Acts 10/10-16). Especially it is worth remembering this all the many times Muslims claim that Jesus confirmed the old laws of Moses, without mentioning a whisper about that both the Bible and the Quran confirm he changed or terminated a number of them.
##############An extra juicy pint here is that surah 3 - where Muhammad says Jesus came to "make lawful to you (the Jews*) part of what was (before) forbidden to you" (3/50) - is from ca. 625 AD. This means that already then he knew that Jesus changed laws. All the same he here - in 632 AD - he simply tells that Jesus was sent to confirm the Laws of Moses)". ######A clear and documented case of Muhammad lying in the Quran - he knew better.
NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!
024 5/47a: "- - - the People of the Gospel - - -". = Christians.
025 5/47b: "- - - the Gospel - - -". A time anomaly. See 4/13d above.
026 5/47c: "- - - what Allah hath revealed therein (in the Gospels*)". Allah has revealed pretty little in the Gospel - according to the Bible that in case is done by Yahweh. (This mistake is because Muhammad wrongly claimed Yahweh and Allah were the same god, and also claimed that the Gospels were sent down to man).
#####Remember that the Gospels were written in the times of written history. There is no chance that they originally were similar to the Quran and then changed - history had known about such things.
027 5/48a: “To thee (Muhammad*) We (Allah*) sent the Scripture - - -”. As there are many mistakes, contradictions, etc. in the Quran, there are reasonable doubts about if a god really sent down the Quran, to say the least of it. This even more so as a number of the mistakes is in accordance with what one believed to be true at the time of Muhammad in the Middle East. Muhammad would have believed it was the truth, a god had known it was wrong. Then who made the Quran?
Besides: "The Books of Moses" which Muhammad perhaps was indicating here, according to science were written at least some 4 centuries after Moses.
Islam will have to prove the statement to be believed by rational thinkers with some knowledge.
028 5/48d: “- - - (the Quran is*) confirming the scripture (the Bible*) that came before it, - - -”. There are so many and so fundamental differences between the Quran and the Bible - especially NT - that the Quran is no confirmation of the Bible, and especially not of the NT. See 2/89b, 3/3g-k and 3/48 above.
##029 5/66a: "If only they (Jews and Christians*) had stood by the Law, the Gospel (Muhammad seems to have believed there was only one - he always uses singular*) and all the revelations that was sent to them from their Lord - - -". That was exactly what they did. But the powerful Muhammad said they lied, and power often wins against the truth - at least in the short run (and even 1400 years is "short run" compared to eternity).
A most relevant point here: Even the Quran admits that Jesus changed some of the old "Laws of Moses" (f.x. 3/50a,), and NT tells the same. The Jews even today stand by their Law of Moses, AND THE CHRISTIANS STILL STAND BY THE LAWS CORRECTED BY JESUS (at least if they try to be real Christians).
But truth has an uncanny tendency to win in the end - at least if it gets known. And the truth about the Quran is getting known.
030 5/66b: "- - - the Law - - - the Gospel - - -". 2 time anomalies. See 4/13d below.
031 5/68c: "Ye (Jews and Christians*) have no ground to stand upon, unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel (Muhammad seems to have believed there was only one - he always uses singular*) and all the revelations that has come to you from your Lord - - -". See 5/66a above. As for Jesus changing that Law, see 3/50a above. Besides they believed in what according to the Bible were revelations from the Lord Yahweh, and saw that Muhammad's claimed revelations were not from the same Lord.
032 5/68d: "- - - the Law - - - the Gospel - - -". 2 time anomalies. See 4/13d below.
**033 5/110e: “I (Allah*) taught thee (Jesus*) - - - the Book - - -". "The Book" here means the Jewish scriptures and (wrongly as they did not exist yet) the Gospels.
**034 5/110f: “I (Allah*) thought thee (Jesus*) - - - the Gospel”. Wrong. But do not laugh - it is impolite: The Gospels did not exist until some 30 years after Jesus died (the oldest Gospel). They simply could not exist until after Jesus' death, as a Gospel is the story of Jesus' birth, life, teaching, death, resurrection, and ascension to Heaven, and thus could not be told until after all this had happened. But do not laugh - it is impolite. See 3/3g-k and 3/48 above. (There is a possibility that an older Gospel has existed, but also that one must have been written after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension to Heaven - if not it could not have told about this, which is pretty sure it did, if it existed, because it in case likely was a source for 3 of the 4 gospels in the Bible, and they all tell about that. The other possibility is that the oldest of the 3 was a source for the 2 younger ones.)
035 5/110g: "- - - the Gospels - - -". A time anomaly. See 4/13d above.
036 5/110h: “And behold, thou (the child Jesus*) makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My (Allah's*) leave, and you brethest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, - - - “. This is not from the Bible. It is a made up story from the made up legends in the made up (apocryphal) Thomas Child Gospel and also mentioned in a couple of the others of the so-called child gospels (also made up legends in reality) - see 3/49b above. Besides: A miracle like this had not been forgotten in the Bible - and especially not by “wrongdoers” wanting to falsify the Bible to make Jesus more holy, like the Quran and Islam/Muslims frequently say/indicate.
#####037(A FALSE ONE)7/40d: In connection to 7/40c just above, Muhammad Asad ("The Message of the Quran") has an interesting piece of disinformation, showing why we have to be so careful when using Islamic sources. We quote from A7/32: "One should remember that the Gospels were originally composed in Aramaic, the language of Palestine at the time of Jesus, and that those Aramaic texts are now lost. It is more than probable that, owing to the customary absence of vowels (like in Arab at the time of Muhammad*) signs in Aramaic writing, the Greek translators misunderstood the consonant spelling g-m-l - - - and took it to mean 'a camel' (and not a thick rope*)".
But this is wrong - the Gospels were originally written in Greek. And Greek had a complete alphabet where the problem with missing vowels did not exist. ###########AND THIS IS SUCH A WELL KNOWN FACT, THAT THERE IS NO CHANCE NEITHER IN HELL NOR IN HEAVEN THAT MR. ASAD DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT. AND IN A WAY WORSE: THE SAME GOES FOR THE MUSLIM SCHOLARS WHO REVISED THE 2008 ENGLISH EDITION WITHOUT COMMENTING ON THIS MISTAKE/DISHONESTY, AND AT LEAST AS REVEALING FOR AL-AZHAR AL-SHARIF RESEARCH ACADEMY, CAIRO, WHICH CERTIFIED THE BOOK.
HONESTY IS NOT THE MAIN POINT IN ISLAM.
############This simply is an al-Taqiyya - a lawful lie - made by Mr. Asad and endorsed by the scholars revising the book, by Al-Azhar Al Sharif Islamic Research Academy (part of Al-Azhar Islamic University in Cairo - one of the 2 - 3 foremost Islamic universities in the world, if not the foremost), by "Svenska Islamiska Akademien" ("the Swedish Islamic Academy"), and "The Book Foundation".
Al-Taqiyya and similar rules for lawful dishonesty is a powerful tool when addressing the uneducated and the naive. But it backfires most strongly, and produces distaste and disrespect - and suspicion concerning other claims - when discovered. Of the big religions only Islam has these kinds of lawful dishonesty - and how much is true and how much is not, in the tales and the argumentation of a religion relying partly on dishonesty and on dishonest arguments?
And this is from the religion which freely and against strong circumstantial and empirical - and some absolute - proofs, claim that the bad Jews and Christians have falsified the Bible!
Islam "the Religion of Truth"`? - or of honesty?
##038 7/157d: Muhammad, whom they (the people of Moses?*) ‘find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) – in the Law and the Gospel - - -‘“. The Law existed when Moses made this speech. But how could the people of Moses find the Gospels (remember that this is from a speech Moses made to his people some 1200 - 1235 years before Jesus was even born)? – the Gospels did not exist until some 1900 years later!! Another strong mistake and another strong contradiction (but as the Quran often is unclear, it is not 100% sure that these words really were to Moses' people).
BUT EVEN THE VERY FACT THAT THE QURAN STATES THAT MUHAMMAD IS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE - BOTH IN THE LAW (THE BOOKS OF MOSES) AND IN THE GOSPELS - IS ONE OF THE BIG PROBLEMS FOR ISLAM, BECAUSE HE IS NOT THERE. BECAUSE OF THIS THEY HAVE TO CHERRY-PICK WORDS AND TWIST WORDS AND CONTEXTS AND LOGIC TO "FIND" HIM - IF THEY DO NOT FIND HIM, THAT MEANS THE QURAN IS WRONG ON A VERY SERIOUS POINT, AND THEN THE BOOK CANNOT BE FROM A GOD, AS NO GOD MAKES THAT KIND OF MISTAKES. AND LIKE SO OFTEN FOR ISLAM, THE MAIN THING IS NOT HONESTY, BUT TO "FIND" THE ANSWER THEY WANT.
Some Muslim writers try to cover up this blunder (that this was said to the people of Moses) by adding in brackets "(later on)". But for one thing this is not what the Quran says (another case where Islam admits there is a mistake in the Quran?). And for another: Even if it had been true that Moses meant "later on", the word "Gospel" had no meaning for his listeners, as no Gospel existed and the word as a name was meaningless to his followers. A case of trying to explaining away a logical and historical mistake. (And: To add "later on" = to falsify the Quran.)
Also beware that the expression "The Law of Moses" may be misleading. Moses according to the books got the laws in Sinai. Much later they were included in "the Books of Moses" when they were written, and therefore these books also often were called "the Law". It may well be these books Muhammad referred to. But in that case: The verses Muslim (wrongly) claim is about Muhammad (5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18) are not in the Law proper which are the only scriptures said to be written down then - and named "The Book of Covenance" - (the rest of the so-called "Books of Moses" are written some centuries later according to science), and could thus not have existed at the time of Moses.
There is a chance the Quran suddenly has changed subject - the book is of that quality. In this case we get 7/157e.
######AN ADDITIONAL POINT: The Arab word used here in the Quran is "Maktab" which literally means "written". In the Quran this word is used only in 7/157, and The Oxford Dictionary of Islam specifies the exact meaning of this verse like this: "Maktub (= Written). The term frequently carries the meaning 'decreed' or 'established'. Occurs once in the Quran at 7/157, a verse stating that Muhammad is clearly mentioned or 'written' in the Torah and the Gospels'".
What is 100% sure is that Muhammad is not clearly mentioned in the Bible - one more error in that book. It also is symptomatic for Muslims that most translators of the Quran drop the word "clearly" - honesty is not always an essential part of Islam. (In this case they use an al-Taqiyya - a lawful lie - or a Kitman - a lawful half-truth - to make the error less visible. But this kind of lies frequently are no sin in Islam, especially not when you are promoting or defending the religion.)
**039 9/111f: “- - - they fight in His (Allah’s*) cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran - - -”. As for the Gospels: This is not even is wrong - it is nonsense, and can only be made up by someone not knowing the Gospels - - - or is lying. There is nothing like this in the Gospels - this even if Islam pretends the text refers to a Gospel that has disappeared (there are references to the word “sword“, but not as part of war or incitement to war - not to mention the pacifistic picture the total NT give). There is a theoretical possibility for that there existed an older Gospel, but this fairy tale or nightmare is not taken from that one either. Because if it ever existed, we know the contents of it, as three of the present Gospels in case used that one as their main source (the other possibility is that two of those Gospels used the oldest one as their source - in that case there is no reason to believe there ever was older Gospel, but it is to be hoped there was, because that gives an even older written source for the Bible - and makes it even more reliable according to all rules for study of history and for such science. By the way: No serious student or professor of history use the Quran as a source for happenings older than 610 AD - which tells volumes about how they evaluate the reliability of this book presumably sent down by an omniscient god).
But the real reason why it is not the slightest doubt that this is made up, is that the sentence so totally and 180 degrees oppose the very teachings of the NT - and the entire NT. Incompatible. Yahweh and Allah the same god? No answer necessary.
040 16/35a: "The worshippers of false gods - - -". An interesting point here is that Muhammad reckoned Christians to believe Jesus was/is such a false god - Muhammad never understood the Gospels and the rest of NT on points like this. The Bible do not say Jesus is a god, only that he is divine - a prince is not a king, even if he belongs to the royal family (and in this case he also never will become a king, as the king - Yahweh - is eternal). Muhammad also never understood the Trinity dogma, and believed it consisted of Yahweh, Jesus and Mary instead of of Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit (though he may be right that the Trinity dogma is not correct - the three may perhaps not be one - that dogma is manmade and may be wrong, as this is not said in the Bible. It is a Christian dogma from the 4. century, and it got its present form from the so-called Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory of Nyassa (332-395), Basil the Great (320-79), Gregory of Nazeanzus (329-389)). The nearest you come in the Bible is that Jesus said that he and his father, Yahweh, were one.)). And to finish the Trinity: The Holy Spirit is a kind of messenger or ambassador for Yahweh - one hardly with any will of its own. And just to mention it: Many Muslims claim the Holy Spirit just is another name for the archangel Gabriel. No-one who really knows the Bible would ever get that idea - the claim was not even worth a comment if it was not because many Muslims do not know any better and believe in it. It also is not said in the Quran.
Another fact is that all Muslims likely are worshippers of a false god: For one thing Allah never was able to prove even his existence. For another all the errors and even dishonesty in the Quran prove that the book is not from any god. For a third: Allah was just a pagan Arab god Muhammad took over, dressed him up, and tried to make him like the old Jewish god Yahweh. For a fourth Muhammad was a man who believed in the use of dishonesty as a working tool, and a man who had much power, etc. to gain from making people believe in his new religion (nothing like Islam is known an place or time before 610 AD when Allah started his mission). These facts and more each are so strong indications for that Allah is a made up - false - god. So strong that they together are approaching a proof of mathematical strength for this, or at the very least for that he is reliably described in the Quran.
#041 19/12: "- - - the Book - - -". At this time only the old Jewish scriptures existed. All the same the Quran may indicate an older copy of the claimed "mother book" in Heaven = a book similar to the Quran. A book - included a Gospel - they claimed existed when Jesus was born, so that Jesus could read it. If it was not because we know we have many non-Christian readers - f.x. Hindus and actually some Muslims - we had said "no comments". But we add that a Gospel is the history of Jesus' birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension to Heaven, so most likely it had been very interesting reading for Jesus and all other Jews and others to read when Jesus was a child and before - before it all happened. Physically impossible - Muhammad just claimed Jesus read it as a child, but like so often Muhammad did not know what he was talking about (he knew the name Gospel, but obviously did not know what it really was - he did not know the Bible much). And for another thing it is a historical fact that even the oldest of the Gospels - there are 4 - was not written until a small generation after Jesus was killed.
######Another mystery: Allah(?) says he sent down copies of the Quran to all his claimed very many prophets through the times, copies which must have been identical to the Quran, as they all were copies of the same "Mother of the Book". When Jesus read his Quran, the book and Muhammad several times confirm that he read the Gospels. But how come that the Gospels were in his Quran (later claimed falsified to the Bible), but does not exist in any of the known 24 or more versions of the Quran today - only in the claimed falsified Bible?
*042 19/18c: “- - - I (Mary, mother of Jesus*) seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah”. It is highly unlikely that a Jew - and especially one working in Yahweh's temple (though this is another piece of contradiction in the Quran to the Bible and to historical facts, as she lived in Nazareth according to the Bible, days away from Jerusalem (Luke 1/26-27)) - should seek refuge from a then highly polytheistic god from another country. As one see from what happened to Jesus, the monotheism and Yahweh were strong in Israel at that time. If the Quran had been telling the truth when it tells that Mary was working in the Temple, it is absolutely impossible - she had got into serious troubles if she addressed any other god than Yahweh (but then the Quran most likely is wrong also on this point - We have found nothing about Mary working in the Temple in the Bible or any other source, and if it had been true, most or all Christian sources had mentioned it, as it would mean one more connection between Jesus and Yahweh. (Actually it is incorrect that she worked in the Temple (as a woman she could not work there). This legend is taken from the apocryphal - made up - “’proto gospel’ after Jacob” - - - but Muslims all the same tell that the differences between the Quran and the Bible is because the bad non-Muslims have falsified the latter one – not because Muhammad ever so often used twisted fairy tales as basis for stories in the Quran.) Our Muslim sources also do not mention if there exists any other reliable source for this story in the Quran - which Islam frequently does not do when they have no sources, only statements built on nothing or, like here, on what legends and stories and fairy tales the story-tellers told in long evenings. Her work in the Temple simply is a fairy tale shined up and used like a true story in the Quran (this even more so as out sources tell that all workers in the Temple were men) - by Allah or by Muhammad, and presumably sent down from Allah and copy from the Mother Book in Heaven, a book perhaps made by Allah, but most likely - according to Islam - never made, but existed since eternity (impossible as angels are speaking at least one place in the book - it must be made after the first angels were created. Not to mention that Muhammad speaks some 8 places in the book).
Two points: ONLY men worked in the Temple, and only men from the Levi tribe. Mary was a woman and from the Judah (David's) tribe.
You are free to believe it if you want.
043 19/22-27: The birth of Jesus. This tale strongly contradicts the Bible on most points and is very different from what is told there about his birth. Actually what is told in the Quran, is from an apocryphal - made up - "gospel".
***044 19/24+25: "But (a voice) (the new-born baby Jesus*) cried from beneath the (palm-tree): ’Grieve not! For thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee; ’And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree (normally date palms are some 20 inches/50 cm or more wide, and strong – impossible for a human to shake*): it will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee”. This story is “borrowed” from chapter 20 in an apocryphal – made up - “proto gospel” said to be after some Mathew. “Borrowed” by Muhammad or Allah, but according to Islam sent down as a true story copied from the Mother Book in Heaven. Believe the last if you want. There are few if any original stories in the Quran - mostly they are “borrowed” from different sources, but often changed a little to fit Muhammad's teaching. In this special case one also finds the story in “The Childbirth of Mary and the Salvador’s Childhood” if we remember the name correctly, and it has perhaps entered the Quran via “The Arab Childhood Gospel” (source; among others Ibn Warraq). As said before: Muhammad took stories from such fairy tales, and then accused the Bible of being falsified when it did not tell the same made up legends and tales. But no newborn baby is able to think rationally or to speak fluently - if it had really happened it had to be a miracle, and there is no chance that it had been forgotten in NT, as it had strengthened Jesus' connection to something supernatural quite a lot.
**045 19/30-33a: The newly born baby Jesus is continuing talking and discussing in his cradle. Also this is “borrowed” from apocryphal (made up) Child Gospels - in this case as far as we know via “The Arab Child Gospel” - called “The first Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ” – an apocryphal scripture from 2. century. There is not a single chance that a wonder like this had been omitted from the Bible, as it would have strengthened Jesus’ position quite a lot. This even more so as there are not many stories about Jesus as a child, and this one would have made that part of his life less blank. Once more a fairy tale used like a true story by Allah or Muhammad. Even a book like “The Message of the Quran” is not able to defend this as a true story, but it only offers speculations and presumptions to explain away the impossibility.
"The Message of the Quran" (A19/24 – in 2008 edition A19/23): As baby Jesus impossibly could be a prophet, there has to be other explanations, according to the Muslim scholars. As said: ONE MORE PLACE WHERE MUSLIM SCHOLARS AGREE THAT SOMETHING MUST BE WRONG IN THE QURAN.
A very clearly not true story - a clear mistake. These parts of the story about the birth of Jesus are so far out/silly, that they are not even really worth a laugh.
We have never met a Muslim explaining why the Quran often took its stories from well known, but made up legends and fairy tales, and then explained the differences from the Bible by insisting that the Bible is faked. Also the use of old stories clearly is the reason why the old Arabs chided Muhammad for "just telling old tales" - and they were right, as he simply copied old stories.
Not much is said about the childhood of Jesus neither in the Bible nor in the Quran. In the Bible his childhood mostly seems to have been a normal childhood with a few exceptions, but in the Quran he was very early prepared for being or becoming a prophet by studying the Gospel (which did not exist at that time - and could not exist).(And how come that his Quran contained the Gospels so that he could study them, when they are not in today's Qurans?)
046 32/23e: (YA3656): "Moses had, revealed to him, a Law, a sharia (!*), which was to guide his people in all practical affairs of their life. Jesus, after him, was also inspired by Allah (by Yahweh according to the Bible*): but his Injil or Gospel contained only general principles and not a Code (here in the meaning Law) or sharia. The Prophet (Muhammad*) was the next one to have a sharia - - -". Some of Jesus' rules were specific. And as Muhammad belonged to another religion than Moses, Jesus, etc., this claim is irrelevant.
##047 38/49b: "- - - the righteous - - -". The Muslims - all good persons the Quran uses from the Bible, included Jesus, were good Muslims.
##As also Jesus is claimed to have been a good Muslim, the claimed falsification of the Bible must have happened later - after the good Muslim(?) Jesus had learnt his OT and Gospels. If not the claimed good Muslim prophet Jesus had warned about the falsifications, which he does not neither in the Bible nor in the Quran. The claimed falsifications thus cannot have been made until after 33 AD and Jesus' death. Muslims often claim that it was Ezra - nearly half a millennium before Jesus - who falsified the OT, but if that had been the truth, the claimed good and correctly believer (according to the Quran) Jesus studied a falsified OT (and a falsified Gospel? - in spite of the fact that Gospel did not and could not exist until later) - impossible for such a prophet. We also would like to see the combined Jewish/Christian commission working on this falsification job and trying to agree on what to falsify and what not - especially about Jesus/Messiah.
THERE IS ONE STRONG FACT CONNECTED TO JESUS AND THE OTHER OLD JEWISH PROPHETS: ACCORDING TO THE QURAN THEY ALL WERE GOD MUSLIMS - AN IMPOSSIBILITY IF THEIR CLAIMED HOLY BOOKS FROM ALLAH WERE FALSIFIED. THUS THE CLAIMED FALSIFICATION OF ALSO OT CANNOT HAVE HAPPENED UNTIL AFTER JESUS (F.X. EZRA COULD NOT HAVE FALSIFIED OT, LIKE SOME MUSLIMS CLAIM - IF HE HAD, JESUS HAD RECEIVED WRONG INFORMATION AND HAD BEEN NO GOOD MUSLIM). THIS IN ADDITION TO THAT THE BOOKS WERE SENT DOWN (DIRECTLY) FROM ALLAH TO THE PROPHETS, ACCORDING TO THE QURAN, AND ERRORS IN THEM THEREFORE SHOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. ALL THE OLD GOOD MUSLIM PROPHETS INCLUDED JESUS THUS MUST HAVE HAD CORRECT HOLY BOOKS - THE OLD JEWISH SCRIPTURES/OT. IF NOT F.X. JESUS HAD BEEN TEACHING WRONG THINGS, WHICH HE DID NOT DO ACCORDING TO THE QURAN (and if the scrolls he read from in the synagogues had differed from what he received from Heaven, he had told about it - if not he was a bad Muslim).. THE ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION HERE IS THAT ALSO NO PART OF THE OLD SCRIPTURES - OT - CAN HAVE BEEN FALSIFIED UNTIL AFTER JESUS TIME.
BUT THERE EXIST PLENTY OF MANUSCRIPTS AND FRAGMENTS OLD ENOUGH TO PROVE THAT OT WAS NOT SIMILAR TO THE QURAN AT THAT TIME!!! IT WAS SIMILAR TO THE SCRIPTURES OF TODAY!!! SEE F.X. THE QUMRAN SCROLLS FROM 150 - 50 B.C.
In addition there is the problem: How in case make Jews and Christians agree on what to falsify and on what new texts to use when they falsified (parts of) the Quran into OT??? And how to make ALL Jews spread over large parts of the world unprotestingly accept the new and falsified holy scriptures - and destroy all the old copies so thoroughly that not one piece of any of them has been found later? This in addition to the claimed falsification of NT and all the impossibilities and improbabilities which have to be "explained" away concerning the claimed falsification of NT.
THIS IS ONE OF THE CLAIMS MUHAMMAD MADE UP.
#048 41/53c: “- - - this (the Quran*) is the Truth.” That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. See 13/1g and 40/75 above. Also contradicted by the Bible, which tells the Bible is the truth, not the Quran (it is not possible that both can be true - utterly impossible; f.x. NT = the gospel of honesty and love, the Surahs from Medina = the "gospel" of dishonesty, stealing, suppression, apartheid, rape and war. Also see 13/1g and 67/9c - 2 strong ones. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words, like the Quran always use instead of proofs.
#####049 43/59d: "- - - We (Allah*) made him (Jesus) an example to the Children of Israel". (YA4660): "A reference to the limited mission of Jesus, whose Gospel to the Jews only survives in uncertain fragmentary forms". We do not think this merits any comment, but we quote it to show a sample of what Muslims are told even today. Remember here that al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), etc. not only are permitted, but advised "if necessary" when defending or promoting Islam.
There are large quantities of secular scientists in the west and in the rest of the world - and to real scientists dishonest means of working or arguments are an absolute NO. They do not doubt that the Gospels are the original ones and the complete ones, except for minor errors normal when manuscripts are copied by hand. Islam will have to prove and not only claim their words. This even more so as there are so many mistaken facts and other errors in the Quran, that also the claim that the Gospels are falsified, may be - highly likely is - wrong. (This on top of that it long since is proved that the Bible - included the Gospels - is not falsified.)
050 48/29i: "This is their (in praxis the verses of the Quran*) similitude in the Torah; and their similitude in the Gospel (Muhammad seems not to have known there were 4 - he always use singular) is - - -". You will find similitude between the Quran and OT, and you will find - some less - similitude between the Quran and NT, just like you will find between any two religions you compare - and between the Quran and even Donald Duck. But the differences between the fundamental elements, moral code, central teachings, etc., are so deep and - yes, fundamental - that there is no rational doubt that the never documented claim that Yahweh is just another name for Allah, is wrong. The two gods and their teachings are simply not even compatible. There is one possibility, though: If the god is strongly schizophrenic. And the same for the never proved claim that the Bible is a falsified version of the Quran - a claim which on top of all long since is proved wrong both by science and even more so - as they have searched more intensely and for much longer for proofs - by Islam.
051 53/36c: "- - - the books of Moses - - -" As the relevant books has no clear reference to a life to come, Islam straight-facedly claims it must be referring to some lost book of Moses - - - just like with the Gospels: As the Gospels do not say what Muhammad said it says and did not exist at the time of Jesus, the easy explanation is a claim that there was another, older Gospel which has disappeared. Simple and easy - - - even though the story of Jesus' life, death, resurrection and ascension to Heaven (here "the unseen") could not be told until after it had happened - at least not if man (f.x. Ramses II, Haman, or Herod) has free will.
###052 57/27c: This is one of the serious ones: “- - - (Allah*) bestowed on him (Jesus*) the Gospel - - -”. For one thing is seems that Muhammad did not know there were 4 Gospels - he always used singular. Worse is that the Gospels were all written after his (Jesus') death. Muslims try to “save the day” by insisting that Allah used another Gospel which is now disappeared - a standard way for Muslims to “explain” difficult points, and as normal without documentation. But in this case they may even be right - there may have existed an older one (the possible original source for 3 of the known Gospels). The bad news is that we know that if it ever existed, also that one was written after Jesus was dead, because a Gospel is the story of Jesus’ life and death, resurrection, and ascension to Heaven, and it could not be written until after this had happened (and that possible Gospel in case means that there is even shorter time between Jesus and the first written Gospels - and thus even more reliable). Muslims also never mention the other possible explanation for why the 3 are so similar: That the oldest have been model for the two others. (In this case there was no older Gospel they partly copied, and Muslims need the claim about an old gospel to explain away several of the errors in the Quran - many of them grave.)
#053 61/6ea: (A61/6) Here is a claim which is nearly as interesting as the claim that the word "Parakletos" (in NT a name for the Holy Spirit) must be "Periklytos", in spite of no proof for and lots of proofs against the claim - when you really need something, the truth and proofs can go whistling a jitterbug. And almost as revealing when it comes to show what arguments - and "honesty" - Islam are willing to resort to to "prove" their claims instead of having to face difficult facts. Not a proved fact, only "it must be" because that is the only way Muslims can manage to twist this point. A logical reason or proof from "the Religion of Truth" and al-Taqiyya?
"An even more unequivocal prediction of the advent of the Prophet Muhammad - mentioned by name, in its Arabic form - is said to be forthcoming from the so-called Gospel of St. Barnabas (a co-worker with Paul on his first missionary journey), which, though now regarded as apocryphal, was accepted as authentic and was read in the churches until the year 496 of the Christian era, when it was banned as "heretical" by a decree of Pope Gelasius. However, since the original text of that Gospel is no available (having come down to us only in an Italian translation dating from the late sixteenth century), its authenticity cannot be established with certainty (note the wording*)".
There is a number of things we do not know about this "gospel", but most of what is known, is so well known that there is not a chance that a highly educated Muslim scholar does not know it:
- The age is not known, but science has found that it cannot have been written earlier than the 8. century.
- There are references in old manuscripts to an older letter or something named after Barnabas. It is lost, but it is clear that it had no connection to the claimed "Gospel of Barnabas" and that as said it was not at all a gospel. It also is not clear if it was real or apocryphal, but likely also this one was apocryphal.
- The origin of the "gospel" is not known. One leading theory is that it is one of the many false "Christian" manuscripts produced by Muslims in Spain around the 8. and 9. century to "prove" Islam and "disprove" Christianity. Another is that it was manufactured at the court in Bagdad - in this case it may be as young as the 14. century or even a little later.
- One of the very first - if not the first - pieces of information about the "gospel" of Barnabas, was a report from someone who had travelled in Muslim area - North Africa if we remember correctly - which told that "the Muslims had a gospel unknown to the Christian Europe, and which was very different from the ones in the Bible.
- It is quite normal for Muslims to talk about the older Barnabas paper as if it were the "gospel" of Barnabas - never mentioning that they were different papers, that the "Gospel" of Barnabas is too young, or that at least the "gospel" and likely both is/were apocryphal (= made up manuscripts).
- The Swedish 2002 edition also this information - strangely enough omitted in the conservatively more "correct" English 2008 edition: "Concerning the - - - translation to Italian (from Arab*), which is kept in the National Library in Vienna, experts there have said they are sure that it is a copy of a work written in late Middle Age (which may indicate that the theory that it is written at the court in Baghdad may be correct*), quite likely with the intention to produce a link, admittedly a made up one, between Christianity and Islam, but without any connection to the real Gospel of Barnabas" (see the comment just above - the old scripture here referred to, was not a Gospel, but it is normal for Muslims to claim things like this*). The interesting aspect here is that it is told that it for one thing is no connection between the old Barnabas scripture and the much younger made up claimed "'Gospel' of Barnabas" and that the claimed "'Gospel' of Barnabas" really is much younger and a made up one - and not only a made up one, but made up for a purpose: To make a link between Christian and Islamic scriptures (making Islam come out on top). This is even more interesting as the claimed "'Gospel' of Barnabas" had a pretty wide circulation in Islamic areas, and is there treated like it was authentic, even though it here is documented that also the Islamic scholars know it is not - a kind of "honesty" you too often find in Islamic religious debate.
- Even if this "gospel" had existed and was read in the very old church - if modern science has found it is a made up and false scripture, it was a false scripture also in the old times, and the fact that the old priests in case were cheated, is no argument for that it may be authentic - false is false.
- As for predictions in the Bible, there never is given clear names in foretelling into a medium or more distant future (if you protest and remind us about Messiah, Messiah was a title, not a name). But in this claimed "gospel" Muhammad is mentioned by his real, Arabic name - voila! - what a proof for Muhammad and Islam!! (- not very surprising if it is produced by Muslims in Spain or Baghdad or somewhere, wanting to prove Muhammad and his religion in a clumsy and too clear way).
None of these facts are mentioned in the quotation above, even though the facts are so well known that there is no chance a highly educated Muslim scholar working on stuff like this, did not know about it. And all the same the underlying indication in his words is that it is likely his "information" is true, only that it is not possible to prove it.
Once more: "The Religion of Truth"? "The Religion of Honesty"?
Are you surprised when we tell that studying Islamic religious literature is difficult and time consuming, because all "information" has to be checked, as too much is untrue or half truths - al-Taqiyyas and Kitmans and Hilahs, etc. The normal rules and moral codes for honesty in religion - or honesty at all - are not accepted in Islam. Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Muhammad's advices about breaking even of oaths if that gave better results, etc. in many cases overrides normal expectations for honesty, and especially when it comes to defending or promoting Islam (but also when it f.x. comes to cheating a woman - which women should remember, especially if their "sweetheart" is a Muslim wanting sex or needing work permit or a "Green Card" or a residence permit (Muslim divorce is simple after he has got it) - or saving your money).
The only logical point in the claim is that this is the easiest place in NT to "adjust" texts in such a way that it seems that Muhammad in a very hidden way is mentioned in NT, and that Islam HAS to find Muhammad both in OT and NT - if not things are very wrong in the Quran and in Islam. That this kind of errors do not happen when one has a complete alphabet like in Greek, or that the word "Periklytos" nowhere exists in the entire Bile nor in any other relevant manuscript, does not matter as long as people believe in the "explanation".
"The Religion of Honesty".
#####054 61/6f: “- - - (Jesus said: I am*) giving the Glad Tiding of a Messenger to come after Me, whose name shall be Ahamad (another form of the name Muhammad*) - - -”. This is quite a funny verse, as you meet Muslims who insist it is copied from the Bible. Worse: You find it quoted in books like it was from the Bible, without a word about the fact that it only is to be found in the Quran. But there is not anything remotely like this in the Bible, and neither in the some 13ooo - 13ooo - relevant scriptures or fragments found through the times older than 610 AD – included some 300 from the Gospels, and also not in the some 32ooo other relevant known manuscripts older than 610 AD (when Muhammad started his preaching) with quotes from the Bible. #####It is only to be found in the Quran. #####Also you do not find a single case in OT where a prophesy about distant future mentions a clear name (sometimes title or something, but never a clear name). But here - o wonder! - is most conveniently the unmistakable name given - an Arab version of the name Muhammad even!
And it is worth remembering that it is quite common for makers of new sects or religions to connect themselves to a mother religion and bend that one some to fit one's purpose - or even high-jack (parts of) it. The founder of the Amaddijja-Muslims is really one of the latest examples, and Mormons tell Jesus visited America during his last days on earth. Such things give roots, credence and weight to a movement.
Jesus told his disciples that the Holy Spirit (also named the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of the Lord, or only the Spirit, etc. – like Allah and like Muhammad it has more than one name) should come shortly - which it did. And he told he himself should return once upon a time “to judge the living and the dead“. But not a single word about any other - and not to mention one with a foreign name the Jews would question.
We know of one place where Muhammad is mentioned: In the Barnabas Gospel - a most apocryphal (made up) book - according to one of our sources it may even be written at the caliph’s court in Baghdad (not very strange if it then mentions Muhammad), but it also may be one of the many falsifications made by Muslims in Spain from around 800 AD on (though most likely Baghdad). You need to make up proofs only if you have no real ones. Muslims sometimes tell you this “gospel” is a real one.
But the standard explanation Muslims follow - without proofs: The Bible is falsified and names indicating Muhammad taken out by bad conspiracies - people in that area has a strong tendency to look for and believe in conspiracy theories. (We have a private theory that the reason is that they never in their history have been used to relatively reliable information.) But in that case:
- The life of the first Christians had been entirely different - and their time scale had been entirely different if any of them had heard about another prophet to be expected before the return of Jesus “to judge the living and the dead”. (They would know the return of Jesus would take much longer time than they now believed, to give the “prophet” time to work. They thought Jesus would be back in a short time - some years.)
- The contents of the NT had been different - not least the letters had been different. It simply is a fairy tale made up to strengthen Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet - like some other self-proclaimed prophets. (Rather ironic, as he did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies – he did not even claim or pretend he had it – he was no real prophet. A messenger for someone or something perhaps, but not a real prophet).
- The Muslims only back their claim on one Greek word used in the Bible: “parakletos” which means “helper” – Jesus before he left Earth, promised to send his disciples a helper – the Holy Spirit (which arrived some days later – at Whitsun - according to the Bible (a story that is not negated in the Quran)).
- Islam claims “parakletos” is a misspelling for another Greek word “periklytos”, which means “the highly praised”. In Aramaic “the highly praised” means “Mawhamana” of which the second part of that word as a verb is “hamida” (= to praise) and as a noun “hamd” (law or praise). If you then continue to Arab the names Muhammad and Ahmad (another version of the name Muhammad (61/6, 7/157 (no name) - but ONLY claimed in the Quran)) both derives from “hamida” or “hamd” according to Islam. Which to Islam and all Muslims is a strong proof for that “parakletos” in reality is misspelled and means “Muhammad” in the Gospel after John (f. x. John 14/16). Not a very convincing proof to say the least of it – and in addition:
- The word “periklytos” which Islam claims is misspelled – the only possibility they have to get the answer they want and desperately need (they need it desperately, because the Quran clearly tells that Muhammad is foretold also in the NT - - - and he is not there) – does not exist at all in the Bible, not to mention in the NT. It is not used one single time.
- The word “periklytos” also is not found one single time in all the some 13ooo relevant manuscripts and fragments science knows from before 610 AD. Neither in one single place or time, nor in one single of the many manuscripts.
- Worse: Neither is it found in any of the some 300 copies or fragments of Gospels older than 610 AD or in other manuscripts referring to the Gospels.
- Neither is it found in quotes from the Bible found in some 32ooo other old manuscripts.
- The word “periklytos” simply never was used in the old scriptures which became the Bible. The word that is used everywhere is “parakletos” – “helper” (and a helper was what the disciples needed - not somebody 500+ years into the future, and with another religion). This goes for each and every known copy.
- Beside: How could it be possible to falsify – as Islam claims – the same word the same way in thousands and tens or hundreds of thousands of manuscripts – and how to find each and every “periklytos” in each and every of the many different manuscripts – spread over all those countries? And how not to make contradictions among the many different manuscripts and texts? – and on top of all: In a time with little travel and hardly any media. Islam has a tough job proving their claim – and remember: It is the ones making claims who have to prove them, not others to disprove it. This often is forgotten when Muslims throw loose claims and statements around.
- There also are huge numbers (some 32ooo) of non-religious manuscripts or fragments which refer to the Bible. Whenever this word pops up in those manuscripts it without exception is written "parakletos". Islam must explain how it was possible to find and to falsify all these papers, and not least how it was possible to erase the ink and write another word in such a way that it is impossible for modern science to find traces of falsifications.
- Arabs think it is logical that parakletos and periklytos may be mixed – in the old Arab alphabet and scriptures this just meant that someone had guessed the not written vowels wrong. But not so for Greek, as Greek already, and a long time before, had a complete alphabet, where all letters were written. This kind of misspelling therefore is not logical or even possible in Greek.(NT was originally written in Greek.)
- They also sometimes claim the Gospels were written in Aramaic, and that the misspelling happened before it was translated to Greek. This in spite of that even Muslim scholars know the Gospels originally was written in Greek, and that this "explanation" is a made up one.
- Muslims try to explain that it could not be a question of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit already was present. And the Holy Spirit was present or visited Jesus. But it was not part of the disciples – and that was what happened at Whitsun according to the Bible: They each got personal contact with the Spirit, and that is quite a change of a situation.
- Muslims also say that as two different names for the Spirit is used (the Spirit of Truth and the Holy Spirit (you actually also have the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God (1. Mos. 1/2), the Spirit of the Lord, and only the Spirit)) it proves that John does not mean the Holy Spirit, when he uses the name “the Spirit of truth” – “the Spirit of truth” must mean the Muhammad who lied to his followers even in the Quran (“miracles will make no-one believe”, f. x.) and advised his people to even break their oaths if that gave a better result, etc. In addition to all the other wrong logic here, this claim is just as logical as to claim that the 99 names of Allah means there are 99 different gods, or the many names of Muhammad means there were many of him. The spirit simply is named by different names (at least 6) – and in addition it is absolutely clear that in the whole Bible there only is one spirit with a special connection to Yahweh.
- There only is one conclusion – the conclusion science has made long ago – possible to make in this: This Islamic claim – like many others – either is a lie (an al-Taqiyya?) or wishful thinking. And still “the raisin in the sausage” is not mentioned:
- Jesus promised his disciples a helper – a parakletos. If he had meant Muhammad, how could Muhammad be their helper when they were all dead 500 years before he was even born?? It simply is nonsense or wishful thinking.
- Further the spirit according to the same verses in the Bible that Muslims quote, could not be seen. Muhammad was not difficult to see.
- And another “raisin”: Also in the same verses it is said that the Spirit should be with them forever. Muhammad definitely was not with them forever – he was not even with them.
- Not to mention: How do you make Jews and Christians agree on what and how to falsify the Bible? - f.x. the foretelling about Messiah/Jesus? - and when did they do it? Muslims like to blame Nicaea, but for one thing the agenda for that meeting is well known, and "adjustments" of the Bible was not even mentioned (but some Muslims in 2009 or 2010 screamed that they could prove that 56 points (if we remember the number correctly) in the Bible had been changed at that meeting - the word "proofs" sometimes come easy to some Muslims), and as bad: There was not one single representative for the Mosaic (Jewish) religion present.
- In the thousands of manuscripts older than 610 AD - the first point of time when Christians - and also the Jews - could get a reason for such a falsification - how was it possible to erase the word periklytos with the primitive means of that time, and fill in the word parakletos instead, in such a way that modern science are unable to find physical traces from the erasing, unable to find chemical differences in the ink that was used, and unable to see any difference of the letters (all people written differently)?
- As for other claimed falsification: The Bible has 4-5 times as much text as the Quran. One has to use the same writing material, and only that, because - what they did not know - today we easily can find the age of the writing material. In the two books there only is one sentence - six words in Psalm 37/29 - which is identical = everything had to be erased and written again. How to write 4-5 times as much texts on the same parchment, papyrus or whatever?
- Where smaller quotes in other relevant scriptures had to be falsified: How to place on average 4-5 times as much texts on a patch of erased "paper" and still use the same size of letters, so as not to show that "here is something wrong"?
- When falsifying, how to make the handwriting identical to the old one?
- When falsifying, how to get exactly the same ink? - differences are easy to see today.
- How to find each and every scripture and letter on 3 continents to falsify?
- How to make each and every owner accept to have their cherished holy papers and books falsified?
- How afterwards make them believe in scriptures they knew were falsified?
- How to find enough scribes to do such an enormous job? - it f.x. takes months just to handwrite one Bible.
- Who paid for this enormous operation? - the church of those times was not very rich.
- How to perform such an enormous operation without starting tongues wagging, and cause owners to hide their holy scriptures to save them from such destruction?
- How to perform such an enormous operation without one single historian got a whiff about it and noticed something?
- Search and you will find more such hopeless questions.
- There only is one conclusion – the conclusion science has made long ago – possible to make is this: This Islamic claim – like many others – either is a lie (an al-Taqiyya?) or wishful thinking. Well, one more: This whole scenario is a hopelessly naive "explanation". Muhammad also never tried to explain thing, he only stated the claim - many times. And people believed it!!
- AND THERE IS ONE MORE VERY STRONG FACT: ISLAM HAS NEVER FOUND ONE SINGLE PROVED FALSIFICATION.
- Wishful thinking? – or a bluff? – or a lie/al-Taqiyya? At least science long ago as mentioned has proved from the old manuscripts that it is not true – the Bible never was falsified on. Worse: Islam has proved the same because they, too, have been unable to find such a proved falsification in spite of intensive searching. (But Islam HAS to find him somewhere there, if not the Quran is wrong on this for Islam very essential point - and then something is seriously wrong with Islam). Also see 7/157.
- Neither Allah nor his claimed representative on Earth is really to be found in the Bible.
(We should repeat that also the above mentioned apocryphal (made up) “Gospel of Barnabas” sometimes still is used as an argument, because there Muhammad is clearly mentioned (no surprise if the theory that it is made at the court in Baghdad is correct. The same if it is one of the many Islamic forgeries from Spain from around 800 AD and somewhat later). The sorry fact, though, is that a made up gospel is a made up gospel (there are a number of them) – and it tells something about Islam’s lack of arguments that they continue to insist that may be it is not made up, and therefore is a proof for Muhammad, when science is unanimous: It is one of the false ones. The only thing the “Gospel of Barnabas” in reality proves, is that Islam has no real documentation for their claim that Muhammad is mentioned in the NT, as they have to resort to this kind of argumentation). Had real proofs existed, they had used them instead.
And the most solid proof for that the Bible is not falsified, comes from Islam itself. If they had found one single solid proof for falsification of the Bible among all the many thousands of old manuscripts which exist, THEY HAD SCREAMED TO HOLY HEAVEN ABOUT IT – and no-one has till now heard such a scream – not even after 1400 years!!!.
Neither Allah nor his claimed representative on Earth, Muhammad, is really to be found in the Bible.
54 comments. Sub-total = 8487 + 54 = 8541.
>>> Go to Next Chapter
>>> Go to Previous Chapter
This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".