1000+ Mistakes in the Quran, Booklet 1


Booklet 1

In the "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" series.



1. Book F is the "mother book" for this book. There will be references below you will not find in this book, but you will find them in Book F.

2. The word "apocryphal" covers stories of many grades of reliability - from likely true to the totally unreliable. When we use the word, we always and without exception refer to the made up ones, if we do not say anything else. The main reason is that the absolute majority of apocryphal stories are made up ones (f.x. Islam has made up many to make the Mosaic and the Christian religion look like it "really" have originated from Allah, the Quran (or really the claimed "Mother of the Book" in Heaven - they f.x. made lots in Spain during the 800s.), and from the claimed "original religion", Islam.

3. On the net it is said that our Book A, "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran", is the most dangerous book Islam ever met. Our Book F, "1000+ Comments on the Quran", may be a good number 2.

4. It also is said that nobody should decide become - or stay - a Muslim until after he/she has read at least Book A and preferably also Book F.

5. Islam tells that most religious people believe in their religion because of "taqlid" = because they have been and are told by their fathers and surroundings that this is the truth and the only truth. They forget(?) that this also is the fact for most Muslims.

6. Religious persons who are "sure" they are right, even if it only is from belief and not from proved facts, may react strongly - even with anger - when they meet opposition or opposing information/facts, especially if they themselves do not have good arguments to meet the opposing information/facts. You often meet this from Muslims.

7. It is typical for strong believers in an ideology - included in religions - that they often do not believe because of proved facts, but because of (often indoctrinated and often irrational) belief and claims. It also is typical for them that they are so sure they are right, that they dismiss - often out of hand and without even checking - any facts or proofs indicating, showing, or even proving that they are wrong. This also definitely goes for Muslims.

8. It also is typical for strong believers that they believe not because of proved facts, but often in spite of their belief or religion is proved wrong. This also definitely goes for Muslims.

9. Occam's Broom (the same Occam as the one with the razor): "The intellectual dishonest trick of ignoring facts that refute your argument in the hope that your audience won't notice". (New Scientist 21.Sept. 2013.) This trick is frequently used by Muhammad, by Islam, and by Muslims claiming that the Quran's texts and Islam are right - just use your ears and/or eyes, and brain, and you will find lots and lots of samples, f.x. in some of Muhammad's lies in the Quran.

10. Graham Lawton: "'Surely' (etc.*) and rhetorical questions (or statements*) - whenever you encounter these in a text, stop and think. The author usually wants you to skate over them as if the claim is so obvious as to be beyond doubt, or the answer self-evident. The opposite is often the case." Try to count such cases in the Quran - they are MANY. Especially the never proved claim "the Truth" and similar are very often used - f.x. words like: "Without doubt", "certain", "verily", "clear", "right", "fact", "wrong", "sign", "proof" (even modern Muslims disuse this word often), "self evident", and more. + there are many rhetorical questions in the Quran.

11. Daniel Kahneman (2002 Nobel Prise winner for research on psychological biases that distort rational decision-making - New Scientist 14. Aug. 2014, p. 24)): "An assimilation bias (is a bias*) that bends information to fit people's existing values and prejudices". You find much of assimilation biases in the Quran, in Islam, and among Muslims, all based on the wish to make the Quran seem true - or on the belief that it is true.

12. Who needs tricks like in points 8 and 9? And who needs the use of al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, deceit and other forms of dishonesty in words or deeds like Muhammad accepted and used? - the one without real arguments and real facts, and the cheat and deceiver, the swindler and the charlatan.

13. Is it possible for humans to know better than an omniscient god what the god "really" wants to say? And is it possible for humans to then explain things better and clearer than an omniscient god? - what the clumsy god "really" means and "really" tries to say? This is the logic behind many "explanations" from Islam and from Muslims.

14. The ways Islam and Muslims most frequently use for fleeing from facts and arguments they cannot answer or do not like are:

  1. A: "You just are a Muslim hater, (and therefore I do not have to think over or check what you say)". But most non-Muslims do not squander energy on hating Islam. They may be incredulous on Muslims' ability to see only what they want to see, their ability to "explain" away all facts and points they do not want to see, and disgusted by Islam's and the Quran's brutality and acceptance of dishonesty and blood, but the large majority do not bother to hate Islam.
  2. B: "You just are a Jew lover, (and therefore I do not have to think over or check what you say)". There are many who far from love the Jews, and all the same question f.x. all the wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. in the Quran.

  3. C: "You cannot understand the meaning of a verse or something in the Quran, unless you know the entire surah (or the entire Quran)". For one thing this mostly is nonsense: There are points where the context may give a word, an expression, or a verse a special meaning, but mostly the fact is that if you are not able to read what a word, an expression, or a verse means, you are too dull or uneducated and should stay out of debates. (But it is an efficient argument, because most people do not know the Quran well enough to know if the claim is true or not. It mostly is not.) For another Islam and Muslims far from use such a rule themselves when discussing f.x. the Bible - cfr. f.x. their cherry-picking and disuse of the word "brother" in 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 where they use only the single word "brother" and state that this means "Arabs", in spite of that the context strongly shows that Moses spoke about Jews (and also in 18/21 warned against false prophets).
  4. D: "This and this text with errors in the Quran, are not errors, but allegories, parables, etc." This in spite of that the Quran MANY places and in many ways tells that the claimed omniscient god has explained everything exactly and in detail so that it is easy to understand = to be understood literally where nothing else is clearly indicated - and that the search for hidden meanings where such are not indicated, only is "for the ones sick of heart" + that the possible hidden meanings only are for Allah to understand. All the same they pretend that they know better than Allah what he "really" wanted to tell, and that they are better at explaining things than the omniscient Allah.
  5. E: "You cannot understand the Quran properly unless you read it in Arab". One word: Nonsense - but an efficient pseudo-argument because most people do not know enough about such things to know if it may be true. But for one thing linguists tell that Arab just is a medium difficult language to translate. For another Arab around 650 AD was the language of primitive nomad tribes mainly, and far from an advanced and refined difficult language.
  6. F: "Arab has special words you only have in Arab". This goes for absolute every language. All it takes to solve this problem - in any language - is to have those words explained. Such Arab words relevant to the Quran are not too many.

A fact: "What one brain is able to express and explain, another brain of similar quality and education is able to understand". What a Muslim is able to express and explain, a non-Muslim of similar intelligence is able to understand - and often understand if it is right or wrong. This even more so as many a non-Muslim is better educated than many a Muslim.

15. ####Explanation or "explanation" of a few errors in a "holy" might be understandable. But how is it possible to accept long series of wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. in a book pretending to come from an omniscient god, without asking questions? - in a book the god even claims is plain and easy to understand = to be understood literally, and hidden meanings just are for "the sick of heart"?

16. Personally we have learnt much about human nature by witnessing Islam's and Muslims' ability to see only what they want to see, their ability to accept even the most far out "explanations", included dishonesty, trying to make errors, contradictions, etc. "correct facts" in the Quran, their ability to flee from any fact or argument they dislike or are able to meet, and not least their ability to flee instead of thinking over that non-Muslims may be as well-educated and well-informed as Muslims, and check what is true or not, instead of using blind belief in what their fathers have told - "taqlid".

17. The Bible is written by humans - and humans may make mistakes (there are some f.x. in Genesis). The Quran claims to be from an omniscient god. Omniscient gods do not make errors or contradictions. If there are errors or contradictions in the Quran, the book thus is not from a god. What then is Islam in case?

18. If there is a next life, and if there somewhere is a real god - f.x. Yahweh - they have been prevented from looking for, where will Muslims end if the Quran is a made up book? - and all the errors, etc. at least prove it is from no god.

19. If the Quran is not from a god - and all the wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. denies that any god delivered the book - Islam is a made up religion.

20. It is easy to check if our quotes and points are correct. Before a Muslim flees from them, he/she should check them, instead of fleeing into "taqlid", because if our points - even only some of them - are right, the Quran is not from a god, and what is then Islam? - it is not the Truth unless it is true.

"Love your enemies, because they tell you your mistakes". Benjamin Franklin.




(Facts Islam seldom mention even to Muslims, even though all Muslim scholars know them.)



Part III: MUHAMMAD AND THE BIBLE (and "the Bible falsified"?)





Also see "Muhammad lying in the Quran" - NEVER told by Muslims, even though f.x. the case where Muhammad tells that the sorcerers of the pharaoh (Ramses II) all became strongly believing Muslims because of a small miracle done by Moses, and other places tells that the reason why Allah made no miracles was that it would make nobody believe anyhow, is easy to see includes at least one lie.



 Islam and Muslims claim that the Quran of today is the exact words of Muhammad, who quoted the exact words of Allah - "exact down to the last comma". But the history of the Quran is more complicated than this. Originally parts of what Muhammad said and did were memorized by "memorizers", who then were able to quote what he had said and done at different times. Naturally far from everything he said and did during 23 years were memorized. Years later one started writing down what the memorizers and others remembered. This was written on palm leafs, pieces of bones, and this and that. These notes + what memorizers and others remembered, resulted in a number of different Qurans, of which 4 came to dominate. But the contents were so different on many points also in those 4, that it ended in even armed strife. To end those problems Caliph Uthman had an official Quran made, mainly based on the written notes. But Muslim sources claim he omitted more than 100 verses. It also is indicated that he may have added verses, but this tradition is weaker. Afterwards he ordered all other Qurans to be destroyed. This happened sometime between 650 and 656 AD = 20 - 45 years after Muhammad had said or done the different things. (Caliph Utman was killed in 656 AD - 10 of the 11 first caliphs were killed - really a "religion of peace".) In spite of Uthman's orders the old Qurans were not destroyed. They lived on at least into the 800s, and may well have influenced later copies of also Uthman's version. The main problem with his version, though, was that it was written in Arab. At that time the Arab alphabet was very incomplete, as it only had the consonants. The readers had to guess the vowels and also the writing signs (f.x. full stop, the comma, etc.), and not least the points Arab later used to tell which letter some of the letters really were - the so-called diacritical points. (The Arab alphabet was not complete until around 900 AD.) This made chaos, because in very many places different words could be guessed. An example in English: If you have the consonants "h" and "s" and know they represent a word, this word may be "his" or "has" or "house" or "hose", etc. Islam "solved" the problem by saying that all words which gave logical meaning, were right - this without ever being able to guess what Muhammad/Allah really had said, and no matter if the possible meanings varied wildly. And the situation is exactly the same today: There are very many points in Uthman's Quran where Islam still does not know what really is meant. To avoid the words "versions of the texts", Islam calls it "different ways of reading", but the different ways of reading simply are another name for different possible versions of the texts. The result was MANY versions of the Quran over the years, depending on how the copyist understood the original "words". Dozens and many more. Like said: A total chaos. Finally a group of top Muslim scholars led by the great Muslim teacher Ibn Mohair (dead 935 AD) decided that it was impossible to find out which variety of the many existing versions was the correct one. They decided that 7 variants each had to be accepted as a correct Quran. But as each existed in 2 versions, the group canonized all together 14 different versions as "a correct Quran". These are the canonized 14 versions (they called it “ways of reading” – as said to hide that there were many variants). 1. name is the editor, 2. and 3. names are the narrators):

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

In addition there were 3 others which were good - each in 2 versions = 6 versions - and 4 which were accepted. The good ones: 1 + 2: abu Ga'far from Medina after abu l-Harit 'Isa ibn Wardan or abu r-Rabi (Sulaiman ibn Muslim) ibn Gammaz (az-Zuhri). 3 + 4: Ja'qub ad-Hadrami from Basra after Ruwais (Muhammad ibn Muttawakkil or Rauh ibn Abdalmu'min. 5 + 6: Halaf from Kufa after Ishaq al-Warraq or Idris al Haddad. The accepted ones: 1: ibn Muhaisin from Mecca. 2: al-Jazidi from Basra. 3: al-Hasan al-Basri from Basra. 4: al-A'mas from Kufa. This means that all together there were 24 accepted versions - all different or much different, but all reckoned to be a correct Quran. Add the original 4 main ones + Uthman's version = 29 versions all together. (+ all the others excluded by Uthman or Ibn Mohair. We have seen no number for how many such which existed. Likely nobody ever knew for sure, but likely at least 100 and may be (many(?) more.) ####As you understand there is a good reason for asking Muslims which Quran is the one "perfect and without mistakes", if any - and which one Allah really sent down (if he did). Only one of these really can be 100% correct - and may be none. Most likely none - too many varieties are possible. And too many mistakes etc. in the book. Over the years 3 of these 14 came to dominate: Nafi after Warsh, Asim after Hafs and Abu Amr after al-Duri. And today there mostly are two versions which are used: Asim after Hafs - the one used when printed in Egypt in 1924 - and Nafi after Warsh (used in parts of Africa). Asim after Hafs is dominant today, but Nafi after Warsh as mentioned is used in large parts of Africa. Also there are 4 others used in smaller areas in Africa = all together 6 versions are in daily use today. These are facts all educated Muslim religious scholars know. All the same, and also in spite of that it is very clear that even today it is impossible to know for sure what Muhammad really said in MANY points of the Quran, they teach their subjects that "the Quran is the exact words of Muhammad, who quoted the exact words of Allah. Exact down to the last comma." A large percentage of the Muslims honestly believe them. Irony: The comma did not even exist in Arab when Uthman made his version of the Quran. More in f.x. our Book A (Book A is said to be the most dangerous book Islam ever met).



We have above told the history of the Quran in short. Islam claims it is the most excellent literature which exists, at least within Islam. But the one or ones who made and composed the Quran had very little knowledge about how to make good quality literature - and the ones claiming the book is top quality, also know very little about high quality literature, or they are using an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie). Some points:

1. The book is full of wrong facts. Our Book A lists more than 1700 points where claimed facts are wrong, and that list is not complete. Normally you will never find a book that full of wrong facts even in books from branches of literature like "Fantasy and Science Fiction" or "Fairy Tales". It tells something about human psychology that Muslims are able to not see or to overlook this many wrong facts - facts - or to accept the "explanations" used to explain them away. To explain away a few wrong facts in a book is one thing. To be able to accept the explaining away of hundreds and more without starting to ask questions, tells something about human nature. But then it is typical for strong believers in most religions to be blind to facts they do not want to see, and as typical to be able to believe not because what they believe is proved correct, but to be able to believe in spite of what they believe and/or believe in, is proved wrong. Islam claims the book is perfect and without one single error - the work of a god. The first claim is wrong, and if the second claim is right, the god is very far from being omniscient.

2. The book is full of other errors - f.x. linguistic ones and quotes/stories from made up tales used like true stories. Comments similar to in point 1.

3. The book is full of contradictions. Our Book A lists more than 300 internal contradictions (points where the book contradicts itself). We have not listed the many more points where the book contradicts reality.

4. A large percentage of the stories and tales the book tells like true facts and true stories, are "borrowed" from known made up tales, legends, and even from fairy tales.

5. The book is full of points with far from high quality prose.

6. The book has many points where the texts fundamentally are unclear.

7. The book has many - likely hundreds - points where the texts are unclear/have 2 or more possible meanings, often highly different, because Uthman's version was written in the original and incomplete Arab consonant only alphabet, so that at very many points nobody knows what Muhammad really said or meant - a fact Islam explains away with the expression "different ways of reading".

8. The composition of the book is very helter-skelter.

9. Points and claims are repeated and repeated and repeated.

10. Not one single of the central claims or claimed facts in the book is proved.

Absolutely every central point only is, or is based on, not proved claims. And the claims were made by a man whom also the Quran, Hadiths, and Islam tell believed in, accepted, promoted in several cases, and himself used, dishonesty - al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), deceit ("war is deceit" - and everything is war), betrayal (f.x. the peace delegation from Khaybar), and even the disuse/breaking of words/promises/oaths (see f.x. verses 2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 and f.x. 3/54 (if Allah could cheat, cheating is ok)), and a man who - according to facts in the Quran and in Hadiths - liked respect, power, riches for bribes for more power, and women. Such men often are not very reliable. The only possible conclusion is that the Quran is not from any god. A god simply does not make a book of a quality like the Quran, and he also do not make wrong facts and other errors by the hundreds and more, and especially not in his holy book. Then there only remain 3 possible makers: A. A sick human brain. (Modern science believes Muhammad may have had TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy - a mental illness which may give just the kind of religious "experiences" and fits like Muhammad is told to have had. (F.x. BBC Two 17. April 2003). B. One or more cold human brain(s). Muhammad clearly liked respect, power, riches for bribes for more power, and women. This is easy to see from texts in both the Quran and the Hadiths. Modern psychological science tends to believe that this + his success destroyed him morally when he finally met success in Medina. (Some such scientists think Muhammad may have believed in his own story in the beginning - if he f.x. had TLE, he may have believed in what his sick brain told him - but that he may be understood the illusions and instead became more planning and scheming later - religion is a strong and frequently used platform of power.) C. If one believes in the supernatural, the last possibility is that the Quran was made by the dark forces. Many inhuman and immoral, etc. points in the book may indicate this. Personally we are reluctant to believe this, though, because not even a devil would deliver a book of a quality like the Quran. He had to know that all the errors, etc. sooner or later had to be discovered, and the book loses its credibility. A possible explanation, though, is if there is a god somewhere who only permitted the dark forces to make a religion for the darkness, on the condition that it should be so full of errors that it should be easy for thinking persons to see the trap. (F.x. if that god did not want too many naive or fundamentally bad persons - persons who would readily jump onto a religion where f.x. thieving/looting, dishonesty, rape, suppression and inhumanities were permitted - into his Paradise.) (Islam denies that there are errors in the Quran, but to what avail when anybody reading the book with an open mind and with his/her brain and knowledge engaged, easily finds lots of such ones?) What is absolutely sure is that no omniscient god ever made a book of a quality like the Quran for his holy book.




Muhammad did not know the Bible. It is likely he never saw a full Bible, and quite possible he did not see much of the old Jewish scriptures until after he came to Medina in 622 AD. In Medina there lived many Jews, and it is quite possible he there was showed such scriptures, but by then it was too late. Muhammad claimed that his Allah was the same god as the Jewish and Christian god Yahweh, and used persons (f.x. Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and others) and stories from the Bible. The trouble was that as said Muhammad did not know the Bible. He took his persons and stories from tales and apocryphals and legends and even fairy tales based on the Bible, but often widely different from in the Bible, or simply from made up legends, etc. (Science today knows from where he "borrowed" most of his "biblical" stories.) This of course was discovered when he fled to Medina, where there lived literally some thousands of Jews. They of course saw that things were very wrong. Muhammad then had few options - in reality only 2: To accept that what he had told was wrong, and thus "kill" his new religion and platform of power, or try to brazen it through. He did choose to claim that his stories were the true ones, and that the Bible was falsified - like always for him without any proofs for his claims. And this is the never proved claim also today from Islam. But:

1. There are some 12ooo scriptures or fragments from the Bible older than 610 AD + some 32ooo other scriptures or fragments referring to or quoting the Bible, also these from before 610 AD (before that there was no reason to falsify Arabia, or Muhammad, or any such points out from the Bible). Neither science nor Islam has found one single proved case of falsification. Muslims make many claims, but has not showed one single proved case - some errors (though MUCH less than in the Quran), but not one single proved falsification. Just guess if the official Islam had screamed about it if even one single proved case had been found. But no such scream was ever heard.

2. No - no - scripture or fragment older than 610 AD (when Muhammad started his preaching) of scriptures similar to the Quran = the claimed Bible before its claimed falsification, has ever been found. Compared to the some 44ooo from the Bible, this fact strongly tells that there never was a book like the Quran = the claimed not falsified Bible, before 610 AD. 44ooo to 0 is a strong proof.

3. Jesus is reckoned also by the Quran to be a very reliable person and prophet. According to the Quran the prophets each received a copy of the Quran/the claimed not falsified Bible. Jesus preached in the synagogues and used the old scriptures he found there. He reacted to some of the new rules introduced by the Pharisees and others, but not to the basic and old scriptures. A man like Jesus at once had seen if those old scriptures were falsified compared to the Quran Islam claims he got from the god - and a man like Jesus at once had warned against such falsifications. He never voiced such warnings, neither in the Bible nor in the Quran. This means that if the Bible was falsified, it had to have been done after Jesus died in 33 AD. But in the Qumran scrolls we find parts of or complete all the books in OT, except the Book of Ruth. They are from 150 - 50 BC, and thus the same ones as Jesus found in the synagogues, AND THEY ARE IDENTICAL TO THE TEXTS IN OT TODAY, with the exception of a few minor things normal in hand copied books. One more proof for that the never documented claim that the Bible is falsified, is wrong.

4. Muhammad never explained how it was physically possible to falsify may be a few hundred thousand manuscripts (most of course disappeared over the centuries) spread over 3 continents.

5. Muhammad never explained how it was possible to make bishops, etc. agree on falsifying the Bible - it is exactly as easy as making ayatollahs falsify the Quran.

6. Muhammad never explained how it was possible to make Jews, Christians, and sects agree on what to falsify, and what new texts to insert.

7. Muhammad never explained how it was possible to find absolutely all copies of the scriptures and absolutely all other scriptures referring to the Bible, and falsify all of them, so that not one single not falsified copy of anything was ever found later. 44ooo : 0 is a proof of mathematical strength against this claim.

8. Muhammad never explained how it was possible to make each and every owner of scriptures agree to have their cherished and often expensive holy scriptures falsified.

9. Muhammad never explained how it was possible to always make falsifications exactly as long as the eradicated texts, so that the new texts fitted into the manuscripts.

10. Not even Islam of today is able to explain how it was possible to eradicate the old texts in ways not possible for modern science to detect, not to mention always use the same ink as in the different old manuscripts, so that modern science can find no differences in the ink used different places in a manuscript - not to mention how the falsifiers were able to copy the different handwritings so exact that even experts of today are unable to see the difference between the originals and the claimed falsified parts.

11. Muslims and Islam often claim that the Jewish prophet Ezra (who lived somewhere between 500 and 400 BC - perhaps a little later) falsified the OT. But for one thing there was no reason for Ezra to falsify it - even if Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed all religious scriptures in the town when he took Jerusalem in 586 BC (for which there is no indication), lots of copies existed other places. And if he had tried to falsify it, all the existing copies all around where Jews lived, had told that his work was false (there is no indication anywhere for that Ezra ever falsified anything or for that the Jewish religion changed at his time).

12. Muslims and Islam often claim that NT was falsified at the meeting in Nicaea in 325 AD. But the agenda of that meeting is well known, and nothing even related to falsifications of biblical texts was on that agenda. Besides: How do you make bishops falsify the Bible? - it is exactly as easy as making ayatollahs falsify the Quran. And how do you make Christian bishops, Jews, and sects agree on what to falsify and what new texts to include? Not to mention how to perform and pay for such a huge operation as falsifying perhaps a few hundred thousand old manuscripts spread over 3 continents - and without one single historian ever learning a word about it? The claim that the Bible is falsified simply is nonsense. The points above prove this 100% and more. There are some errors in the Bible - f.x. in Genesis - but not one falsification, not to mention a proved falsification.




61/6c: “- - - (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 from the Bible. But there is not anything remotely like this in the Bible, and neither in the some 12ooo relevant scriptures or fragments found through the times older than 610 AD – included some 300 from the Gospels - nor in the some 32ooo other old scriptures from that time 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. But here - o wonder! - is most conveniently the unmistakable name given. Prophesies in the Bible may give a title – f.x. Messiah – or a description – f.x. “Immanuel” (= God with us = some divine one among us) – but never a proper and correct name. The name Ahmad in 61/6 thus simply proves that something is wrong with this verse.

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 - or even high-jack (parts of) it - to fit the new "version". The founder of the Amaddijja-Muslims is really one of the latest examples, and Mormons tell Jesus visited America during his last days on earth. Such things give roots, credence and weight to a movement.

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

We know of one place where Muhammad is mentioned: In the Gospel Barnabas - a most apocryphal 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 as likely it is one of the many scriptures falsified by Muslims in Spain around 800-900 AD. You need to make up proofs only if you have no real ones. Muslims often tell you this “gospel” is a real one, and unbelievably you even can met quotes from it used as arguments in claimed high quality Islamic literature!

But the standard explanation Muslims follow - without proofs: The Bible is falsified and the name 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:

  1. 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 - plus they had looked for him, which there is no indication for that they did. On the contrary: They only waited for the return of Jesus according to the old scriptures.)
  2. 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 or a disciple for someone or something perhaps, but not a real prophet)
  3. The Muslims only backs 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 which is not negated in the Quran)).
  4. 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:
  5. 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.
  6. The word “periklytos” also is not found one single time in all the some 12ooo 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.
  7. Neither is it found in quotes from the Bible found in some 32ooo other old relevant manuscripts.
  8. The word “periklytos” simply never was used in the old scriptures that became the Bible and also not in any other relevant old "paper". The word which is used everywhere is “parakletos” – “helper” (and a helper was what the disciples needed). This goes for each and every known copy.
  9. Beside: How could it be possible to falsify – as Islam claims – the same word the same way in thousands and tens or hundreds of thousands of manuscripts – and how to find each and every “periklytos” in each and every of the many different manuscripts – spread over all those countries? – and on top of all: In a time with little travel and hardly any media? Islam has a tough job proving their claim – and remember: It is the ones making claims who have to prove them, not others to disprove it. This often is forgotten when Muslims throw loose claims and statements around.
  10. There also as mentioned are huge numbers (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.
  11. 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 the Greek already and a long time before had a complete alphabet where all letters were written. This kind of misspelling therefore is not logical in Greek. And NT originally was written in Greek. (In spite of that this is a well known fact, some Muslim scholars tell it was written in Aramaic and then translated to Greek. This in order to be able to claim errors by the translation.)
  12. 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.
  13. Muslims also say that as two different names for the Spirit is used (the Spirit of Truth and the Holy Spirit (you actually also have the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God (1. Mos. 1/2), the Spirit of the Lord, and only the Spirit)) it proves that John does not mean the Holy Spirit, when he uses the name “the Spirit of truth” – “the Spirit of truth” must mean the Muhammad that lies to his followers in the Quran (“miracles will make no-one believe”, f.x.) and advised his people to use al-Taqiyya or even break their oaths if that gave a better result. In addition to all the other wrong logic here, this claim is just as logical as to claim that the 99 names of Allah means there are 99 different gods, or the 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.
  14. 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:
  15. Jesus promised his disciples a helper – a parakletos. If he had meant Muhammad, how could Muhammad be their helper when they were all dead some 500 years before he was even born?? It simply is nonsense or wishful thinking.
  16. Further the spirit according to the same verses in the Bible which Muslims quote, could not be seen. Muhammad was not difficult to see.
  17. 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.
Wishful thinking? – or a bluff? – or a lie/al-Taqiyya? At least science long ago has proved from the old manuscripts that it is not true – the Bible never was falsified on this point either. (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). But still they have not been able to find proofs, only stubborn, undocumented claims. Also see 7/157.

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

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

There is much more about the different Muslim claims about Muhammad foretold in the Bible, in the chapter about Muhammad in the Bible in https://www.1000mistakes.com . Be especially aware of 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18.

Also see 2/75b, 2/76b, 2/77a, 7/157e, 12/30-34.


Muhammad simply took over the main pagan god in Mecca - al-Lah, also sometimes named Allah. The first we know about this god, he was the main god Il further east. It is likely he was brought to Arabia by people from the east settling in Arabia (when Arabia was settle, it was by people from all around drifting into the unsettled land). Little by little he became the moon god al-Ilah, at least in southern Arabia (this is why Islam has the crescent moon as their symbol). And slowly his name drifted to the easier to pronounce al-Lah. At the time of Muhammad we find him as the main god in Mecca, and the name Allah was sometimes used - the name Muhammad took over. At that time al-Lah/Allah also was the main god connected to the Kabah temple in Mecca. This temple seems originally to have been built for the pagan Arab main god Hubal, but it is not clear if al-Lah/Allah had ousted Hubal, or if Hubal simply was another name for al-Lah/Allah. If the latter was the case, al-Lah/Allah/Hubal may have been connected to or influenced by the Ba'al/Baal/Bal religions in the neighborhood (cfr. Hu-bal), but also this is unclear. Muhammad took over al-Lah/Allah, declared - without any proof - that he was the only god, and further - also, like normal for Muhammad, without any proof - he declared that Allah was the same god as the Jewish and Christian god Yahweh. But the big differences in the teachings, the moral codes, etc., etc. prove that this claim is not true. There are too big and too fundamental differences. Yahweh and Allah only can be the same god if that god is mentally very ill - f.x. strongly schizophrenic.



The rationale behind this claim may have been that as Allah was the only god according to Muhammad, and Yahweh was the only god according to the Jews and the Christians, the two had to be the same, only god. But Yahweh's teaching, moral code, etc. like described in the provably not falsified Bible, was/is so very different from those of Allah described in the Quran - 180 degrees opposed often - that the claim is not true. There may be a slight possibility if the god is very ill mentally, f.x. strongly schizophrenic. But at least Yahweh does not give the impression of being schizophrenic. This claim is wrong unless Islam has strong proofs - but proofs, not just claims. We may add that the big and many and fundamental differences between the Bible, and especially NT, and the Quran also make the claim that Jesus and Muhammad were in the same line of prophets, impossible. They were not even in the same - or a similar - religion.



Muhammad claimed Jesus was a good Muslim and a Muslim prophet - and a prophet in the same line of prophets as Muhammad. 1. There never has been found traces from a religion like Islam or a book like the Quran older than 610 AD, when Muhammad started his mission. 2. There probably was no religion like Islam anywhere in the Roman Empire before 610 AD - and thus not at the time of Jesus. 3. The holy scriptures of the Jews at the time of Jesus provably were the same like today - containing nothing Islamic. F.x. the Biblical parts of the Qumran scrolls – covering at least parts of all books in OT except The Book of Ruth – were the same Jesus read from in the synagogues, and a person like Jesus, who had got scriptures from Allah like all the other old prophets, according to the Quran, had protested strongly if those scriptures had been falsified. AND THOSE SCRIPTURES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE PRESENT OT with the exception of some minor divergences normal for hand copied texts. 4. Jesus was the antipode of Muhammad - and of many of the main teachings and moral codes, etc. in the Quran/Islam. Peace vs. war. Total honesty vs. acceptance of dishonesty in words and deeds (f.x. al-Taqiyya, Kitman, and worse, and thieving/looting). Etc., etc., etc. Conclusions: Jesus was no Muslim. Jesus and Muhammad very far from were in the same line of prophets - not even in the same religion (actually the same goes for the other Jewish prophets and Muhammad). A historical fact: There was no religion like Islam anywhere in the Roman Empire at any time before 610 AD (Israel was part of that empire at the time of Jesus).



Muhammad was born around 570 AD in Mecca in Arabia. He was from a good, but not rich family. His father died before Muhammad was born, and his mother when he was 6, but he was taken well care of first by his grandfather and later by his uncle. 25 years old he married the rich 40 years old widow, Khadiyya. They got several children:(YA6288) tells he had 2 sons with Khadijah, and then there was the son Ibrahim he had with his colored slave girl Marieh. Two are sporadically mentioned in Islamic literature, as they died very young - Qasim and Ibrahim. The third (Abdullah) hardly is mentioned at all. There also is a slight possibility that he had one or two more son(s) - Tahir and/or Tayyab - but also he/they in case died very young. He also had four daughters (all with his first wife, Khadijah), but only one of them - Fatima - survived him, and just by half a year. If one believed in higher forces, one might believe he was punished for something through his children. Tahir and Tayyab also may have been other names for the likely son Abdullah.

There is a mystery connected to his many children with Khadiyya: In spite of being sexually very active according to f.x. Hadiths, and in spite of his very many women - at least 36 (see our Book A for the full list) - and at least a few rapes, he later only got one child; the son Ibrahim with his slave girl Marieh. I the old times it did happen that rich women bought themselves a husband so as to be able to "cultivate" a prohibited man.

Was Muhammad in reality sterile and this the explanation? Ibrahim may easily be explained by the fact that a slave girl not always has an old owner as her prime prince charming - Marieh may have taken a hidden trip one - or more - night(s). No matter, all his children except Fatima as mentioned died before him. (May be there was a god somewhere who disliked him and punished him via his children?)

In 610 AD he started to get religious mental "experiences" (modern medical science tends to believe he may have gotten the mental illness TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy - an illness which may give just such beliefs and "experiences" like Islam tells Muhammad had. (Cfr. f.x. BBC Two 17. April 2003). Later he started Islam on basis of these experiences. Some scientists believe that Muhammad himself may have believed in his tales in the beginning, but that he became more "relaxed" towards them later. In the beginning he gained few followers. During some 13 years in Mecca he god may be 100 followers, give or take some (we have seen numbers from 80 to well above 100).

Then in 622 AD he had to flee from Mecca and ended up in Yathrib, later renamed Medina. There he started as a highwayman and robber baron, and as riches flowed in, new followers also started to flow in, and his religion and his power expanded fast. And a main point here - and a point Islam and Muslims never mention: His religion - Islam - in a short time changed very much, from being a relatively peaceful religion in Mecca, to one of dishonesty (included stealing/looting), suppression, hate of non-Muslims, blood, and war.

If you ever read the texts of the Quran chronologically, this change of the religion is very marked and easy to see. Whoever who today claims that "Islam is the Religion of Peace", either does not know what he/she is talking about, or he/she is making an al-Taqiyya - a lawful lie. The surahs - chapters - from Medina transferred Islam into a full-fledged war religion. (And according to Islam's rules for abrogation - making points in the Quran invalid - the texts from Medina supersedes the texts from Mecca, because the ones from Medina are younger.)

When Muhammad died in 632 AD, he was the winner of the strife with Mecca, and also his religion was expanding fast - to a large degree directly or indirectly on the point of the sword ("become Muslims, or fight us and die", or "become Muslims or we make life miserable for you and your people", etc.), or on promises of riches, rapes, slaves, and women from raids and wars. But the Quran and Hadiths also make it clear that Muhammad was a man who liked respect, power, riches for bribes for more power, and women. They also make it very clear that he accepted and sometimes even promoted - and himself used - the use of dishonesty, lies, deceit, etc., and even the disuse/breaking of oaths "if that gave a better result", and pay expiancy afterwards if necessary. Such men often are not very reliable. Add to this the fact that no god ever made a book of a quality and with so many wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc., and what does this make of the Quran? - and of Islam? Both are made up - or at least from no god. And there only are two who may have made them up: A human brain - sick or regular, but likely cold - or the dark forces.



You hardly ever hear Islam or a Muslim claiming that "Islam is the Religion of Honesty". The reason may simply be the fact that Islam and the Quran - and Muhammad - to a large degree accepts/accepted the use of dishonesty in words and deeds. The first point is very easy to see: Looting, robbery, extortion, cheating, etc. are dishonesty - but Islam as a nation and many a Muslim became rich and powerful using those kinds of dishonesty. As for dishonesty in words, it also is well documented in the Quran, in the Hadiths, in other central Islamic literature, and sometimes (often?) in modern Islam, that dishonesty is an accepted - sometimes advised - working tool "if that gives a better result than honesty". Things like "al-Taqiyya" (the lawful lie), "Kitman" (the lawful half-truth), and "Hilah" (the lawful pretending/circumventing) represent moral codes you only find in Islam of the big religions. Deceit was clearly advised by Muhammad - f.x. "war is deceit", and almost everything war. Betrayal? Muhammad used betrayal himself - f.x. when murdering the 30 man strong peace delegation from Khaybar (well, one man managed to flee).

And there is the sorry chapter the oaths: Even oaths very clearly may be disused or broken - pay expiation afterwards if necessary. See f.x. 2/225, 3/54, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2). And of course if oaths can be disused and broken, so many words and promises, as they are weaker than oaths. But these facts are double edged swords: Muslims/Islam may cheat a person once or a few times, and naive or believers many times or always. But normally people quickly starts becoming distrustful once they discover dishonesty, and for natural reasons they soon distrust anything a dishonest person or organization says, unless real proofs are given. Neither unknown Muslims nor Islam can be trusted on their words in serious cases, because of the Quran's and Islam's teaching about the acceptance and use of dishonesty "if that gives a better result" - pay expiation afterwards if necessary.

In cases where one is defending or promoting Islam, the use of dishonesty is directly promoted "if necessary". How is it possible to trust people or organizations using such moral codes? And how is it possible for Muslims or Islam to strengthen their words even when they are speaking the full truth, when others know that even false oaths or broken oaths are ok according to the Quran? - pay expiation afterwards if you confirmed and really meant an oath, but later broke it all the same.



Part X:  ISLAM

Islam today is the second largest religion in the world (after Christianity). How many believers there are is unclear, as there are several numbers given, but the number 1.2 billion who officially are Muslims is the most likely one, we believe. Like Islam demonstrates ever so often even today, the religion still is a religion of apartheid, suppression and war. And rape and thieving/looting, extortion, and terrorism. When someone claims to be peaceful but behaves like fiends and terrorists and murderers, we any day believe in the behavior and not in the nice words. This even more so as the Quran demands that Muslims shall fight all non-Muslims with any means in order to conquer and suppress them so that Islam in the end will win over them and dominate them and the entire world. If the Muslims cannot win directly in battles, they shall fight with any means advice able to gain towards that goal bit by bit "from the outside and in". F.x. in Sweden one now cannot use the national hymn, "because it may insult the Muslim immigrants". A nice little "bit" won for Islam. Etc., etc., etc. - included demands for permission to use sharia laws also in civilized countries. And all this only because of a book so full of errors that it clearly is from no god, and dictated by a man with a very suspicious moral code, but liking respect, power, riches, and women - and accepting and sometimes even advising the use of dishonesty, deceit, betrayal, and even broken/disused oaths. A kind of a man who normally are not very reliable - especially not if he has a lot to gain from being dishonest. But one question: If the Quran and Islam are made up - and the Quran with all its wrong facts, other errors, etc. at least is from no god - where will Muslims end if there is a next life? This especially if there f.x. are a god like Yahweh and a judgelike Jesus in the reception on "the other side"? Authorities who represents nearly the exact opposite of the teaching, the moral code, etc. in the surahs from Medina.



1: The Quran is so full of wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. that it is not from a god.

2: Both science and even stronger Islam strongly have proved that the Bible is not falsified. 44ooo old scriptures and fragments and not one proved falsification = a proof of mathematical strength - a 100% proof.

3: Both science and even stronger Islam strongly have proved that there existed no book like the Quran before 610 AD: Neither science nor Islam has ever even one copy or fragment from any book similar to the Quran (= the claimed but never proved not falsified Bible) older than 610 AD. Compare this to 44ooo from the Bible, and you have an at least 100% proof for this. This even more so as even the oldest Biblical books are less than 3ooo years old and limited to the areas of Jews and Christians and only in the period before 610 AD, whereas Islam claims that the Quran or something like it - f.x. the claimed "not falsified" Bible - has existed since before man (195ooo years?), and all over the world, so that there should be many more copies/fragments to be found from that book than from the Bible. Once more: 44ooo : 0 = a proof of mathematical strength.

4. Both the Quran and Hadiths show that Muhammad was a man who liked respect, power, riches for bribes for more power, and women. Such persons often are not reliable.

5. Both the Quran and Hadiths show that Muhammad accepted and himself practiced the use of dishonesty in deeds (stealing/robbing, extortion, etc.) and words ("lawful lies" - al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah - deceit, betrayal, disuse of words/promises/oaths, etc.), and inhumanities (slave taking, rape, pedophilia, apartheid, discrimination, etc.). Such persons very often are not reliable.

6. Both the Quran and Hadiths show that Muhammad used his religion as his platform of power. Religion or made up religion or sects often through the history have been used or disused by its leaders for power.

7. Not one of the central religious claims in the Quran was ever proved. The entire Islam is resting only on never proved claims, and this from a man with doubtful morality and much to gain from making people believe him.

8. The reason why it is so dangerous to doubt Muhammad, is that the entire Islam rests only on his words, and as he was a man who believed in, accepted the use of, and himself used, dishonesty in deeds and words, deceit, betrayal, disuse of even oaths, etc. and also in other ways was a man with a doubtful moral, nothing negative can be accepted about him, because this may destroy the basis of Islam. Muhammad has to be a saint and truthful in every word - if not Islam may be a made up religion. (Which it likely is, as no god would deliver a book of a quality like the Quran.)

9. The claim that Islam is "the religion of peace" is impossible to believe in for anyone with a reasonably ok brain, and who has read the surahs from Medina with an open mind and with his/her brain and knowledge engaged.

10. There were huge and many changes in Islam after Muhammad fled to Medina and started as a highwayman and robber baron. Had Allah forgotten things, or did he change his mind about things and principles - even deep and fundamental principles?

11. As the Quran and all its wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. is not from any god, there only are 2 who can have made that book: A human brain - sick or not - or the dark forces.

12. Never forget that the Quran demands that Muslims shall conquer the entire world and suppress all non-Muslims.

13. Never forget that Islam on basis of the surahs from Medina is a pure religion of dishonesty, apartheid, and war. And according to Islam's rules for abrogation - making points in the Quran invalid - the surahs from Medina are the dominant ones, as they are younger than the more peaceful ones from Mecca.

14. Never forget that both the Quran, Islam, and Muslims very often use the technique when proselytizing or debating, that they use never proved claims like if they were proved facts. Always demand proofs for religious or related claims from Islam or Muslims, as the claims very often are invalid or even wrong.

15. Never forget that the Quran demands that Muslims shall use any means - included dishonesty, terrorism, etc. - to conquer and suppress all non-Muslims.

16. Never forget that the Quran demands that if Muslims cannot conquer some place outright, they shall do so "bit for bit from its outer borders and in". (One such conquered bit is that in Sweden one now cannot sing or play their national hymn, "because it may insult the Muslim immigrants".)

17. Never forget that dishonesty is an accepted part of Islam. It is even advised to use it "if necessary" when defending or promoting the religion. (You f.x. can lie as much as you want or need when proselytizing.)

18. What will a Muslim world be like? - Saudi Arabia without the oil?



Our problem, though, is that it mostly is impossible for us to know who is bad and who is human. As for the terrorists and other "activists": Fanatics you find in most religions. The difference between Islam and "normal" religions is that Islam canalizes the fanatics to terrorism, etc. Also the rubble and rascals who under other religions and cultures end up like that or in prison, in Islam may find an outlet for their tendencies, unsocial behavior, inhumanities, brutality, etc. through radical Islam and through terrorism.




1. The Quran confirms no less than 4 places that Mary was a virgin: 3/47, 19/20, 21/91, 66/12a. (Among other things this means that when Muslims slander Mary and f.x. claims that Jesus' father was a roman soldier, they claim that the Quran is lying 4 places.)

2. The Quran confirms in 66/12 that Mary's god really "breathed into her body Our (her god's*) spirit". Islam believes that a fetus getd its soul when it is 4 months old, but as Mary was a confirmed virgin, it was not this which happened here. And the only other alternative, was that the god's spirit here started the fetus Jesus = the conception of Jesus. But the one who starts a baby inside a woman, is the father of that woman. The Quran thus here indirectly but impossible to misunderstand confirms that the god was the father of Jesus. (Oh, we know very well that Muhammad claimed differently, but slips of the tongue are much more reliable than calculated words.) 66/12c has more details.

3. Verse 19/19 confirms that Jesus was holy - which the Quran denies Muhammad was.

4. Verse 3/50 confirms - like the Bible does - that Jesus changed laws (he actually changed a number of them according also to the Bible). This kills Islam's claim that Jesus only came to confirm the laws of Moses.

5. Verse 21/91 confirms - like the NT does - that Jesus was for the entire world. This kills Islam's claim that Jesus only was for the Jews.

6. Verse 19/33 confirms that Jesus died. As the Quran also claims that Jesus was not crucified, Islam speculates that this means he died some time. But no matter: The Quran here confirms that Jesus died. (The words are from Jesus, but Jesus was 100% reliable according to the Quran and to Islam.)

7. Verse 19/33 also confirms that Jesus was resurrected to new life on this Earth. (Muslims speculating that Jesus died later than the "official" crucifixion, in case have short time to let Jesus die later than the crucifixion, as the Bible tells there only were 3 days between the crucifixion and the resurrection.)

8. Verse 4/158 confirms that he later was taken up to the god alive. (Whereas Muhammad died an inglorious death - perhaps from poison.)

Conclusions: If the old books tell the truth, both the Bible and the Quran strongly prove that Jesus was close to and with close connections to the god. This is strengthened by the fact that there were lots of witnesses to many of the essential happenings in Jesus' life, and by the fact that the teaching was widely preached and most of the NT was written so early that many of those witnesses still were alive, and would have protested if the teaching and the scriptures were not correct. Muhammad on the other hand never was able to prove any of his central claims, included the claim that he had contact with a god - there only were the claims from a man who liked respect, power, riches for more power - and women. And a man accepting and himself using dishonesty as working tools.

Who of these two was, in spite of Muhammad's many claims in a book literally full of errors and at least some lies, likely to be the greatest prophet? - if Muhammad at all was a prophet or at least a messenger?

>>> Go to Next Booklet

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".