1000+ Mistakes in the Quran, Booklet 10


Booklet 10

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 rechearch on psychological biases that distort rational decition-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.



Islam and its Muslims claim that the texts in the Quran are completely clear, easy to understand and impossible to misunderstand - everything is correct down to the last comma (which did not exist in Arabic around 650 AD). So clear is the language, that it is a proof for that the Quran is from a god. This in spite of that through all times since the book was written, there have been hot debates among Muslim scholars - and others - what this and this and this could possibly mean. Part of the reason was that the Arab alphabet was incomplete at that time - it was not completed until around 900 AD. They only had the consonants, and the readers had to guess the vowels.

An English example: You have the consonants "h" and "s" and know they represent a word. This word then may be at least "house" or "hose" or "has" or "his". If you cannot guess the meaning from the context, you are in troubles. To make it even worse they also did not have the signs modern Arab use when writing to secify some of the letters - the diacritial points, and also not reading signs like full stop, comma, etc. (And all the same many Muslims claim the Quran is Muhammad's/Allah's exact words "down to the last comma".)

They "solved" the problem by saying that all possible and somewhat logical meanings at an unclear point, is correct understanding - this even if the meanings are widly different (there f.x. is a difference between wanting a house and wanting a hose (a made up sample)), but similar cases in the Quran both - or up to 4-5-6 different - meanings all are correct reading of the Quran, believe it or not. This even if the meanings are directly conflicting or contradicting.

This formally made the words "clear as crystal" - as every possible meaning was and is ok. But it did not help the real understanding one iota. All the possible meanings simply made the understanding clear as pitch or as an empty blackboard of the good old really black kind. The result has been centuries of debate and disagreement about hundreds of points in this "crystal clear" book, which is "Allah's/Muhammad's exact words down to the last comma".

Because of all this, and because of Islam's and Muslims' bragging about how clear and impossible not to understand the Quran is, we have chosen to list a large number of the debated, but after all easy points in the Quran, to show you the problem for Islam. Not all and as said only the rather easy to see ones. But far more than enough to show you the reality behind the claimed clarity in the book - and possibly give you a laugh next time you meet a Muslim boasting about that "the Quran is so clear and easy to understand that the language in it proves it is from a god" (a claim you meet sometimes).

And our list also sometimes will make it possible for you to open your Internet and tell your honored opponent: "Now look here! You claim that this and this verse is clear like arctic water. But look here! Your own top scholars are still disagreeing on 3 different meanings of this point!!"

We list the verses according to the numbers in the Quran, to make them easy to find. And we stress that nearly all this material is "stolen" from presumed high quality ISLAMIC literature.

NB: We do not pretend to have a complete list. Our list mainly contains easy to see unclear points mentioned in just 2 central Islamic books (Abdullah Yusuf Ali: “The Meaning of the Holy Quran”, Muhammad Azad: "The Message of the Quran") - and there are many more books, so that if you go looking, you will find more samples. And if you add the many fine points Islamic scholars debate the real meaning of, you will find MANY more points of unclear language in the Quran. And also do not forget the "different ways of reading" - all the places where the incomplete original Arab alphabet makes it impossible for Islam to know the exact meaning of words, expressions, and sentences (many of our samples below are such ones).

As we have told you before: When Muslims claim that the Quran is exact to the last comma (which did not exist in Arabic at the time of Muhammad), totally clear - so clear and easy that the clarity is a proof for that it is made by a god - and impossible to misunderstand, then do not laugh; it is impolite.

#An introduction to the problem (in addition to the unfinished alphabet of the old time): 59/23c: (YA5402): Here we just want to quote “The Meaning of the Holy Quran”: “How can a translator reproduce the sublimity and the comprehensiveness of the magnificent Arabic words, which means so much in a single symbol?” But this is just another and glorified way of saying: “How can one translate from a language where the words are so little precise and so vague in meaning or with several meanings, that it is difficult to know what is really meant”.

Our copy of the Quran is printed on 560 pages - of these some 50 pages "air" = some 510 full pages of text. Our list below has 500+ points in the text where even the best Muslim scholars are unable to agree on - or even unable to understand - what the word or words really mean(s). Add a few cases from their books and there is at least one such point where the text is too unclear to understand for sure on each and every full text page. Add also all the fine points the scholars debate, and the result may be 2 or more such points on each page.

Really a text so clear and easy and impossible to misunderstand, that it proves only a god can have Written it!

(YA = Abdullah Yusuf Ali: “The Meaning of the Holy Quran”. A = Muhammad Azad: "The Message of the Quran")

First an essential point Islam and its Muslims often leave behind: The Quran is to be understood literally if nothing else is indicated. (See "Literal language in the Quran - according to the Quran".)

Then the list:

001 2/25h: (A2/17): “- - - for they shall be given something that will recall that (past).” The exact translation: “something resembling it”. "Various interpretations, some of them quite esoteric and highly speculative, have been given to this passage. - - - (A likely meaning is*) ‘It is this that we (Muslims*) have been promised during our life on earth as a requital for faith and righteous deeds”. But a number of other interpretations are possible. Unclear language - worthy a god?

002 2/54a: (A2/39) Moses said: “- - - turn, then, in repentance to your (the Jews’) Maker and mortify yourselves - - -.” Or may be “- - - kill you - - -.” Or may be “- - - kill one another - - -.” The language is too unclear to tell what is the real meaning – at least 3 different ones. (M. Asad has preference for the first meaning, because of other texts in the Quran). And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning.

003 2/56a: "Then We (Allah*) raised you up after your death - - -". Because the Jews had demanded to see the god (this is not from the Bible. They were punished by being killed, but then resurrected afterwards the Quran tells). Muslim scholars disagree about whether it was physical death or some kind of mental death only - as known the original Arab texts far from are clear many times (in spite of claims about the opposite). It should be unnecessary to mention that this tale is in contradiction with the Bible. (Even more so as in the Bible the Jews did not ask to see the god - see 2/55 above). This like said is not from the Bible, and there is no reference to such an incident anywhere but in the Quran.

004 2/58b: "Enter (dwell in?*) this town - - -". But does the Arab word here mean "town" (or perhaps Shittim ( 25/1-9)) or "land" (in this case) means Israel? Unclear language.

005 2/59a: It is unclear what this verse refers to, but it may be the Jews in Shittim (25/1-9). Also see 2/58a+b in "1000+ Comments".

006 2/61c: (YA74) “Go ye (Jews*) to any town - - -.” But the Arab word “Misr” (town) here also may mean “the Egypt of Pharaoh” = in this case “any country fertile like Egypt.” Clear language? (Muslims like to claim cases like this mean Arab was a rich language, but vagueness is something very different from richness). These words also are not from the Bible.

007 2/77a: "Know they not that Allah knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal?". This is a rather obscure verse, but Muslims frequently claim - but do not agree on - that it is about the old Islamic wrong claim that Muhammad was mentioned in the Bible, but that the Jews and the Christians have falsified it or at other points refuse to see what they claim is the real, though obscure, meaning of some verses in the book. Once more the old facts:

  1. Islam has not one single valid proof for Allah - it does not exist, even though uneducated or dishonest Muslims often try to claim the opposite. Serious Muslim scholars admit this, though they normally do not tell their congregations.
  2. Islam has not one single valid proof for Muhammad's connection to a god - which is the likely reason why they cling so strongly to the claimed "miracles" connected to Muhammad in the Hadiths and in folklore, even though the Quran very clearly proves Muhammad was not connected to any miracle (then friends and foes had not had to ask for proofs, and he himself had not had to explain away his/Allah's lack of miracles - even the learned scholars of Islam admits that "the only miracle connected to Muhammad, is the Quran". The lack of proof for his connection to a god, also is a main reason why Muslims reacts so strongly to skepticism to Muhammad - he is the weak link in Islam, but the only link, and if this link is broken, Islam is a false and pagan religion. They thus cannot afford the slightest doubts about Muhammad or his integrity - not even ones based on true facts. After all for Islam belief is more essential than to find out if the belief may be true.
  3. Muslims feel dire need to find proofs for both Allah and for Muhammad's connection to a god. No matter how strong the belief, it is not the same as a proof.
  4. In addition the Quran in clear words tells that Muhammad is foretold both in OT and NT, and then Muslims HAVE to find him no matter what or how or dishonest - if not something is wrong with the Quran and hence with the religion.
  5. It is very clear that Muhammad is not openly mentioned anywhere in the Bible - not even Muslims claim that.
  6. Consequently they go searching for him hidden in the texts - and it is so urgent for them to find him, that wishful thinking is far more central than objectivity.

For more see separate chapter "Muhammad in the Bible?" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com, Book A. Also see 2/76b above and 7/157e below..

008 2/101j: (YA102) “They (Jews*) threw away the Book of Allah - - -.” Does this in this special case indicate the Quran or the Bible (OT)? – it is not clear. Both meanings are possible according to YA - but from what happened later, the Jews hardly had thrown away the Bible. Quite likely the Quran.

Clear language in the Quran?

####009 2/106a: “None of our revelations do We (Allah*) abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar”. Well, this is a contradiction – and an abrogation – in itself. It also makes the Quran unclear, because there are contradicting texts - a problem Islam has "solved" by agreeing on that where texts conflicts or contradicts, normally the youngest text is the valid one, and the one or more older ones are "abrogated" - made invalid. (Note: Some Muslims prefer – like here in the Quran – the word “substitute”, as it is a less “loaded” word for them than "variety", but in these cases the meaning is exactly identical – only one word is from daily English, the other is derived from Latin (like perhaps also "variety" originally)). This actually is one of the verses behind the theory of and use of abrogation in Islam. It may also be one of the reasons – may be the main reason – why abrogated verses were included in the Quran originally – they should not be forgotten. But abrogation is absolutely necessary in Islam, because there is so much contradiction, that the situation would be impossible unless they could be eliminated by making a number of the claims and statements, etc. in the Quran invalid. Se separate chapter about abrogation in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". The Quran actually contradicts this point by:

  1. 6/115: “- - - none can change His (Allah’s) Words - - -“. Well, he is contradicting himself, as he clearly changes it himself when something forces him to – try and fail? Or change his mind about more blood and injustice from 622 AD on? – or because of other problems or things he has learnt?
  2. 10/64: “Hereafter, no change can there be in the Words of Allah.” For one thing this sentence has serious effect for the ones who say that predestination in the Quran is not real predestination – if Allah has said/thought/written something, no free will of man can change anything - - - which means there is no free will in that connection, and it is predestined as sure as carved in stone. But more relevant just here is that there were many and sometimes large changes in Allah’s words after this “revelation” in ca. 621 AD - Islam f.x. changed from quite peaceful to a full-fledged war religion.

There may be reasons for questions when Allah has to abrogate his own words - sometimes even shortly after they are said. Did he not know better? Did he change his mind after thinking things over? Did he change his mind after learning how Muhammad’s congregation reacted to his words? Did he have to fail and learn? This tells something fundamental about Allah - if he exists. Because of this you will meet Muslims telling you that nothing is abrogated in the Quran - abrogation is not worthy an omniscient god (very right), and that what he sometimes did, they say, was to make his words more specific. In some cases they may be right - - - but also that is to abrogate!! - and was he not intelligent enough to see the problem or to express himself clearly the first time? Besides it is wrong, as it far from always is possible to explain it away that way. Or to explain it away at all. It is completely clear from the Quran itself that abrogation is accepted and practiced (see the 3 verses quoted above), and the texts prove it is a reality. It also is very clear that abrogations is an integrated reality in f.x. Islamic law.

The unclear texts and the rule of abrogation to clear up the mess make at least these problems:

  1. For a large number of surahs Islam does not know the exact age. What when possible ages overlap?
  2. As bad: Often some of the verses in a surah have or perhaps have a different age - but what age?
  3. You have to be very well versed in the Quran to know all details about the age of the different verses - what if you make a mistake or remember an age wrong, and then believe in an abrogated verse, or the other way around?
  4. As Islam is closely interwoven into daily life, points from the Quran frequently pops up in court, and here it may be a very serious question which verse is valid and which is/are abrogated. Muslim scholars made and still make good money in court from clearing up such questions - or from trying to, because frequently not even the scholars have clear answers.
  5. But the in many ways most serious point is: What does it tell about a claimed omniscient god that he was unable to make the perfect rule or decision at once, and had to try and fail - or for other reasons had to change his mind - to find the best rules? It simply tells that this god neither was/is perfect or omniscient. (Because of this many Muslims refuse to accept the rule of abrogation (how to decide which one of conflicting or contradicting verses in the Quran is valid and which one(s) is/are made invalid), even in spite of the problems of contraversing and contradicting verses they then have to try to explain away.)

As you see: Such is the reality in the Quran and its "crystal clear and impossible to misunderstand texts - so clear a language that the very clarity proves it is made by a god". (Do not laugh - it is impolite.)

(2 abrogations).

010 2/106b: "- - - abrogate - - -". = to make invalid - normally older verses in the Quran made invalid by younger ones, but also a few times by Hadiths (f.x. stoning for unlawful sex - Hadiths - instead of whipping like the Quran demands). A lot - hundreds - of the verses in the Quran are abrogated; f.x. 2/256: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (abrogated by no less than ca. 30 different later verses). Clear prose?

Also see 2/106a just above.

011 2/146d: "The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons.” But the word “this” instead may mean “him” – the Arab word has double meaning. Then the meaning becomes: “- - - know him (Muhammad) as - - -.” A tiny wee bit different. As mentioned before: A clear and distinct language.

012 2/183e: "- - - that ye (Muslims*) may (learn) self-restraint - - -". Or does the Arab text here in reality mean (translated from Swedish): "- - - may be ye shall fear Allah"?. The original Arab Quran far from always is clear and distinct, and all reasonable possible meanings are correct - according to Muslims - even in cases where the possible meanings vary wildly or even contradict.

013 2/197b: (A2/180): “For Hajj are the months well known.” The three forbidden/holy months around the time of the pilgrimage? – or the month of Hajj each year? Nobody knows even after 1400 years of study. Clear language in the Quran?

014 2/200bc: (A185): “- - - celebrate the praise of Allah, as ye used to celebrate the praises of your fathers - - -.” Like the praise of your fathers/parents used? – or like the praise of their forefathers as it was the custom in pagan times there? (When there were get-togethers, time sometimes was spent praising ones forefathers’ big deeds, etc.) Islam does not know. Clear language in the Quran?

015 2/204d: (A6/189): “- - - yet he is the most contentious of enemies.” Here Islam simply is guessing wildly about who "he" is. The text is too unclear, and the possibilities are too many. Clear language in the Quran?

016 2/208c: (A191): “O ye who believe! Enter into Islam wholeheartedly; and follow not in the footsteps of Satan - - -.” Is it the Muslims that shall follow the religion wholeheartedly? – or people who believed in the Bible that should enter Islam? (Zamakhshari, Razi). Muslim scholars are guessing. A clear language?

017 2/233f: (A2/219): “If they both decide on weaning - - -.” But the Arab word here – “fisal” – also may mean separation, a meaning “The Message of the Quran” uses here – separation of the child from its mother. Both meanings are "correct" in this very distinct Quran language.(It is called "different ways of reading", but is in reality different versions - - - which cannot be admitted, because the Quran is claimed to be exact and clear in everything, and then there cannot be different versions.)

018 2/233g: (A2/220): “- - - provided ye paid (the mother) what ye offered - - -.” Or does it mean “- - - provided you ensure, in a fair manner, the safety of the child - - -“? Or perhaps “- - - provided you, in a fair manner, surrendered the child - - -“? Just go on guessing – Islam is guessing, too. A clear language in the Quran, yes.

019 2/255f: (A2/247): “He (Allah*) knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) Before or After or Behind them.” That is how A. Yusuf Ali understands what literally means: “- - - that which is between their hands and that which is behind them”. Islam does not have the faintest idea about the real meaning, and the scholars makes guesswork in many – and contradicting and conflicting – ways. “- - - between the hands - - -“ may f.x. mean this world - - - or may be the next. And what “- - - is behind them” may mean this world because it is to be left - - - or may be it means the next live because it is an allusion to the hidden world. And a number of other unclear ideas. And it is heavyweights like Mujahid, ‘Ata, Ad-Aahhak, Al-Kalbi, Razi, Zamakhshari and others who are guessing. Clear language, easy to understand?

020 2/255fg: (A2/248): “His (Allah’s*) Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth - - -.” Literally: “His seat (of power) - - -.” But what is the intended meaning? – “His dominion” or “His sovereignty”? (Zamakhshari). – or “His knowledge”? (Muhammad ‘Abduh), - or “His majesty and glory”? (Razi), - or something else? Who knows? More clear language in the Quran.

#021 2/258-260. (YA302): This is too much to quote, but we quote some of A. Yusuf Ali’s remark, which is very enlightening as to the Islamic claim that the language in the Quran is crystal clear: “The three verses 258 – 260 have been the subject to much controversy as to the exact meaning to be attached to the incidents and persons alluded to, whose names are not mentioned. In such matters, where the Quran has given no names and the Prophet has himself given no indication, it seems to me useless to speculate - - -.” Yes, the Quran always is crystal clear, according to Muslims.

##023 3/3k: “- - - the Book (the Quran*), confirming what went before it (the Torah and the Bible*) - - -”. (A3/3) here comments that it is not confirming the Bible as we know it today (unclear Quran - it never specifies how the claimed "original" Bible was, except that it must have been quite similar to the Quran), but like it was originally. We quote: "- - - the fact - - - that in the course of the millennia the Bible has been subject to considerable and often arbitrary alterations - - -". To say the least of it: This is distasteful. Top Muslim scholars know that science long since has proved this claim not true. They also know that Islam has proved the same even more strongly by not finding one single proved falsification in all those tens of thousands of old relevant papers - and by not even being able to explain how the identical falsifications in very many points in each of may be hundreds of thousands of relevant manuscripts (some 44ooo relevant manuscripts or fragments have survived till today) spread over thousands of kilometers and many lands and cultures, and sects - and 2 religions - could be done - and how to make f.x. Jews and Christians and different sects make identical falsifications. The ones of them who know something about human nature, also know that to make bishops falsify the Bible (like Muslims claim - as normal for Muslims without documentation - happened in Nicaea) is exactly as easy as making imams or ayatollahs falsify the Quran, and for just the same reason: Strong religious belief simply do not work that way (this in addition to that the agenda for that council is well known, and changes of Biblical texts were not even mentioned). Not to mention now to get permission from each and every owner for permission to falsify their holy and cherished and valuable manuscripts? And not to forget: How to run such a big operation - at least some thousand agents over many years - without provoking even the slightest rumors or even one report about it - impossible at least in the West, even in the old West. But all the same they write thing like this!

All the same he calls f.x. "arbitrary alterations" a fact.

Al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) of the most obvious kind.

But then they have no choice if they want to save the religion. And to save the religion is more essential than to check if it is a true or a made up - Pagan - one.

But if there is a next life, the consequences in believing in an invalid or made up religion is so severe, that the most essential and basic question should be just this: 'Is the religion a true one?' instead of using al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) as argument for that "what our forefathers believed in must be true" and for saving the forefathers' old and never documented beliefs, only built on an apocryphal book dictated by a somewhat "special" man.

024 3/3o: "- - - the Criterion - - -". Another word Muslim scholars do not know exactly what means. May be the old scriptures? - may be the 10 Commandments (which Muslims do not obey)? - or may be "signs"? One simply does not know. Clear language in the Quran?

025 3/13b: "- - - the two armies - - -". The Battle of Badr? Another battle? A general picture? Muslim scholars are not able to agree - - - and there never have been any real report about an army seeing double (there were some claims f.x. after the battle of Badr of seeing wrong numbers, but only claims). Unclear language and a claim.

026 3/79i: "- - - the Book - - -". Here it is somewhat unclear - the Quran frequently is pretty unclear - if this refers to the Quran or to the Bible. On the face of it, it is the Quran, but if the text refers to Jesus, it must be the Bible - or more exact the Torah and the other Jewish scriptures from which one later got OT.

027 3/143: "- - - now ye (Muslims*) have seen him (death*) with your own eyes - - -". This refers to the battle of Uhud, where many met or at least saw death. The real meaning of this verse is unclear, though - like so many in the Quran - and Muslim scholars still debate this. (There are at least 3 possible meanings according to f.x. A3/103).

028 3/172d: (A3/130): “Of those who answered the call of Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad*) even after being wounded - - -.” Who? Where? In what situation? Nobody knows – the book is silent, and Muslim scholars’ debate. After Uhud? To Badr as-Sughra? Or some other incident? Anyone is free to guess.

030 4/1d: (A4/1): ”- - - created you from a single Person (”nafs”) - - -.” Is this the correct meaning? Or f.x. ”- - - from humankind - - -” (Muhammad ’Abdu)? Or ”- - - from a soul - - -.” Or “- - - from a spirit - - -”? Or ”- - - from a living entity - - -.”? Or ”- - - from a vital principle - - -”? Or “- - - from self - - -.”? Etc. The word ”nafs” is very vague and has many meanings – far from the clear language Muslims claim. At least 7 possible varieties of meaning - "ways of reading". Is this a sample of a god's clear speech?

#031 4/3e: (A4/3): “- - - marry women of your choice, two or three or four - - -.” Is this the correct meaning? (Exact literal meaning: “- - - such as are good for you - - “). Or “- - - as are lawful for you - - -“ (Muhammad Asad)? Or (“- - - you must apply the same consideration to the rights and interest of the woman you intend to marry (as to the orphan*) - - -.” (Sa’id ibn Jubair and others)? Or does it simply mean “- - - such as are good for you - - -.”? Here either the Quran or the Muslim scholars have made at least 4 meanings. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning. Clear language in the Quran?

031a1 4/44a: "- - - those who were given a portion of the Book (the Quran*)". According to Yusuf Ali (YA366) it is not entirely clear what is meant by the expression "a portion of the Book" - the Quran often is unclear in stark contradiction to what Muslims like to claim - but it is clear that the Quran here means Jews and Christians. (Often the expression likely means Jews and/or Christians, but like Y. A. says often this is not clear - an also which of the two in case or both.)

032 4/11+12a: The verses about inheritance are far from clear in Islam. Muhammad stated fixed proportions. But the trouble is that those proportions may add up to more - or less - than the full value of the property. If there f.x. are these inheritors after a man’s death: 1 wife = 1/8 (3/24), 3 daughters = 2/3 (16/24), 1 father = 1/6 (4/24) and 1 mother = 1/6 (4/24). If you add these you will see that they are to inherit 27/24, which is mathematically and practically impossible. Or if a man dies and leaves only a sister and a brother: The sister gets ½ and the brother the double of what the sister gets = 3/2, which is an absurd joke. And what if a man had 2 wives, one with a child and the other not? Does the one with child get 1/8 and the other ¼? Etc. Juridical problems concerning inheritance are complicated under Islam because of these mistakes. But the shares are said to be ordained by Allah, the All-knowing!!!

033 4/12a: (YA520): “- - - Their share is a fourth - - -.” But the Arab word used here “kalalah” had no fixed meaning at the time of Muhammad (it is one of the words Umar wished Muhammad had defined before his death – the other two being “khilafah” and “riba” = usury). Has Islam guessed correctly? Nobody knows. Allah (?) uses a distinct and clear language impossible not to understand, and the claimed clear and not to be misunderstood language in the Quran, is claimed to be a proof for that the book is from a god. Any comments?

034 4/13e: "- - - abide therein (in Paradise*) (for ever) - - -". But 11/108c may indicate that it is not forever.

035 4/19b: (A4/17): “Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will.” Can this mean you cannot inherit from what she owned after she died, if she protested before she died? Hardly – not with the Islamic laws for inheritances. Zamakhshari proposes that it may mean it is prohibited to force an unwilling or not loved wife to stay with you, in the hope of inheriting her. Other authorities say it means that you are not permitted to inherit the woman as a person – for an extra wife or for your harem (it of course is permitted if she is a slave) against her will (to inherit free women in this meaning, is prohibited also by other laws). This is about very essential points in human life – no omnipotent god had used so vague words in their law.

036 4/25a: (A4/29): “If any of you have not the means - - -.” The Arab expression says: “lam yastadi’ tawlan” literally means: “cannot afford” – but do this in this case mean “have not money”, or does any other hindrance count (Muhammad ‘Abduh)? The book gives no answer, even if this concerns central happenings in a human’s life.

##037 4/25k: (YA540): A serious quote from today's Islam (printed 2006 AD): "- - - see to it that she (the (slave) woman you are to marry*) too believes (= is a Muslim*). In that case, after all, she too is of the human brotherhood - - -." No comments. As said: Printed in 2006.

As said this is said today.

###038 4/29b: (A4/38): “Eat not up your property among yourselves in vanity”. But is that the correct meaning? “The Message of the Quran” has: “Do not devour one another’s possessions wrongfully – not even by way of trade based on mutual agreement” – which roughly says the same (something like “do not cheat each other” or worse) in a few more words. But the Arab word “illa” in front means “except” or “unless it be”, which means that the literal meaning in reality is “do not eat up one another’s possessions wrongfully, unless it be (an act of) trade based on mutual agreement” - - - which means that wrongful profit is ok if the parts agree on it – f.x. by a sheer swindle where the buyer believes he/she gets a fair deal. This strongly contradicts other Islamic laws. It takes some highly advanced verbal gymnastics to explain it away. Every scholar agrees that the literal meaning must be wrong, but words have to be used in special meanings to make that meaning disappear. At very best very unusual use of the language – in spite of that the Quran itself boasts of that the language it to be understood literal, and that it is easy to understand. More likely it simply is a big mistake a la 6/151a below.

038a2 4/31c: (A4/40): “And admit you to a Gate of great honor” = admit you in an honorable way. This is among other Razi’s interpretation. But what is the real meaning of the Arab word “mudkhal”? It may as well mean “- - - enter an abode of glory” = a glorious place. Clear? The underlying meaning, though, simply is Paradise.

039 4/33c: (YA543): “To (benefit) every one, We (Allah*) have appointed sharers and heirs - - -.” But the Arab word used her - "mawali"/plural: "mawla" - may mean: A. Closely related. B. Heir. C. Sharer or partner. D. Neighbor. E. Friend. F. Protector. G. Client. H. Lord or master. At least 8 different meanings. Clear language in the Quran?

040 4/34e: (A4/43): “- - - the righteous woman - - - guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard.” But what? – is it a warning against unlawful sex? – has it to do with felicity in the wider sense? – to guide her husband’s property? Who knows – it is one of the unclear points for Muslims, even though it is a central point in life.

041 4/51b: "- - - a portion of the Book - - -". The Bible, though it is unclear exactly what is meant by the expression (YA366). The Quran often is unclear.

042 4/51c: (A4/69): “They believe in Sorcery and Evil - - -.” But the Arab (in reality unlikely to be Arab according to Lisan al-Arab) word “al-jibt” which A. Yusuf Ali says mean sorcery and evil, is an unclear word. This sentence in reality may mean: “They believe in baseless mysteries” (M. Asad). Or: “They believe in something in which there is no good” (Baydavi, Qamus). Or: “They believe in enchantment” (Umar ibn al-Khattab). Or: “They believe in anything that is worshiped instead of Allah” (Zamakhshari). And a number of other possibilities included “soothsaying”, “fanciful ideas”, “superstitious divinations” and more. Very unclear language to use for a god making a book which is “clear and easy to understand.” Another point: On the net there are claims that Muhammad among other things believed in "the evil eye" (It is said to be from the Hadiths).

043 4/54a: "- - - the people of Abraham - - -". The people at the time of Abraham or Abraham's descendants? Unclear.

044 4/54d: "- - - and conferred upon them ("the people of Abraham"*) a great kingdom". This kingdom is Paradise? - Or may be the kingdom of David and Solomon if the answer of 4/54a just above is "Abraham's descendants"? Unclear. The Quran often is unclear.

044a3 4/57i: (A4/74): “We shall admit them to shades, cool and deepening.” One thing is that here is one more of the many cases of “only Arabian references” - Arabisms - (or at least hot parts of the globe) in a claimed world religion from a god for the entire world. More down to earth is: Is the sentence correctly understood? Today the Arab word “zill” mainly means “shade” and “zill zahil” something like “dense shadow” (no good thing for one from cold countries who dreams about good sunshine). But all languages change – so also Arab. In old Arab it also meant “a covering” or “a shelter” and also “protection” or even “a state of ease, pleasure and plenty” or “happiness” (Lane 1915) – and the “zill zahil” which is used here then may mean f.x. “abundant happiness” (Razi). There is a difference between “deep shade” and “abundant happiness” – except perhaps for home-grown dwellers of hot deserts. Clear language in the Quran?

045 4/92e: "If anyone finds it beyond their means (to free a Muslim (NB) slave) - - -". In connection to among others this verse and its expression according to M. Azad "- - - if anyone has not (the wherewithal) - - -" you may find - or meet - a nice sample of Islamic honesty in debate - or in propaganda: (A58/7): "As regard the phrase 'he who does not find the wherewithal (lam yajid)', it may indicate either lack of financial means or the impossibility of finding anyone else who could be redeemed from factual of figurative bondage (- - -). According to many Islamic scholars of our times (e.g., Rashid Rida - - -), this relates, in first instance, to circumstances in which 'slavery will have been abolished in accordance with the aim of Islam' (Manar V, 337)'". This simply is an al-Taqiyya - a lawful lie - and even a distasteful such one.

  1. First note that the translation of the Arab text is changed a little compared to Yusuf Ali's one, and "by coincidence"(?) fits the "explanation" of the claim about Islam's intention of abolishing slavery better. The Quran in reality is clear on that it speaks about the economy of the person.

  2. There is nowhere in the Quran said that slavery is bad or for other reasons should be terminated,
  3. There is nowhere in the Quran even indicated that slavery is bad or for other reasons should be terminated. Not one place.
  4. There is nowhere in the Quran said or in other ways indicated that slavery is morally wrong.
  5. There is nowhere in the Quran even indicated that it would be good moral or good ethics to abolish slavery. To set free a slave - at least a Muslim slave - is a good thing, but slavery as an institution is nowhere attacked or even questioned.

  6. The main Islamic idol - Muhammad - took and traded (sold or gave away for bribes) at least a few thousand slaves and expressed no qualms for doing this. Everything Muhammad said - or not said - or did, is the right thing to do for any Muslim, if it is not directly prohibited (f.x. a Muslim can have only 4 wives - a number mentioned in the Quran - as he is forbidden to have as many as Muhammad had).
  7. Muslim countries were forced backwards and kicking and protesting into abolishing slavery - Mauritania as late as in unbelievable 1982 AD (and made it a punishable crime as late as in 2007 AD)!! - by forces and ideas from the west. We at least have never seen a Muslim whisper from old times about abolishing slavery as an institution.
  8. Abolishing slavery is a "new idea" and a "foreign idea" in Islam. Such ideas were not accepted by Islam through most of Islam's history - well, necessity after long time made some "new ideas" acceptable if they clearly were in accordance with ideas in the Quran or strong Hadiths. We have found nowhere in older Islamic literature where the "new idea" of abolishing slavery was even aired, not to mention received serious backing.

  9. The claim that Islam/Muhammad/the Quran promotes abolishing of slavery you ONLY meets from Muslim scholars born and raised in modern times - times when foreign, mainly Western, thinking, has made slavery extremely immoral. As it is not only permitted in Islam to lie, but advised "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion (and permitted in a number of other wide cases - f.x. to cheat women or save your money), this al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) is launched: 'Islam is the best also on this - Islam all the time intended to abolish slavery". (You even meet Muslims boasting that Islam forced Europe to end slavery, by stopping the trade from Africa. This simply is nonsense. For one thing European slaves mainly came from the Slavic areas in the East - it was not for nothing that the name "slave" was coined. And for another there hardly has been an area or a time in all history where trade between areas and countries and cultures has stopped for long times if good profit was possible to make. Slavery in Europe died out partly because in agriculture in chilly countries the work season is short and slaves had to be fed all the year, and ordinary workers were cheap, but mainly because it was opposed to Christian basic moral and ideas (this even though it is not directly discredited or forbidden in the Bible).
  10. There are in the world today some 24 million humans "living as slaves or under slave-like conditions" according to UN (the number is from 2006 if we remember correctly). A good percentage of these live in Islamic areas. We have seen little or nothing of negative reactions from Islam or Muslims to this fact. There may have been, but in case not enough to reach us, even though we have been looking for such reactions.
  11. As abolishing of slavery as mentioned is "a new idea" and on top of that "a foreign idea" both of which are despised by conservative Islam, and as Muhammad showed what was right and wrong for Islam in this question by taking and trading and keeping slaves (f.x. his concubines Marieh and Rayhana bint Amr), you can be pretty sure that if the world ever returns to medieval conditions, official slavery will reemerge in Islamic areas, as the Quran tells it is "lawful and good".

So much for this Islamic al-Taqiyya - lawful lie.

046 4/94g: (A118 (A120 in the 2008 English edition)): “Even thus were ye yourself before - - -.” Literal meaning: “thus have you (too) been aforetime”. Does this refer to the feeble start of Islam in Mecca? – or to you personally before you became a Muslim or Allah helped you in other ways? – or the same for a community? – or for a country? The context favors the first meaning, but it is far from clear. And if that is the meaning: Why does Allah make a purely Arab religion based on Arabia 600-650 AD + legends and contorted stories picked up in Arabia during the same period of time about neighboring religions, etc., if he is omnipotent, omniscient and clairvoyant and wants to create a universal, timeless religion?

047 4/102c: (A4/130 – in 2008 English edition A4/132): “But there is no blame on you if ye put away your arms because of the inconvenience of rain - - -” – i.e. if your weapons could be damaged by rain according to “The Message of the Quran”. But the only weapons they had which could be damaged by rain, were things made from iron which could rust – mainly the sword (arrows were for use and perhaps only once, and a little rust did not matter much) and coats-of-mail – and from skin or leather which could grow soft (on shields + coats of leather – not as good a defense as coats-of-mail, but much cheaper). But they knew ever so well that use a little fat on iron, and it does not rust, and impregnate skin/leather with fat, and it repels water. Then why this sentence? Well, there also are other meanings of the Arab word “matar” (= rain), as it also means (translated from Swedish) “duress”, “dire need”, “accident”, “an affliction”. The real meaning may thus be very different - f.x.: “But there is no blame on you if you put away your arms if you suffer from an affliction”. Not “a clear and easy to understand” language used by this god (?). At least - at least - two very different meanings. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning.

048 4/103a: (YA619): “When ye, pass (congregational) prayers - - -.” 2 meanings possible: “When ye have finished congregational prayers”, or “When (because of grave danger) ye have to pass over congregational prayers - - -.” Pick your choice. At least: Clear language (?).

049 4/105a: (A131 – in the 2008 edition A133): “We (Allah*) have sent down to thee the Book (the Quran*) - - -.” The word thee/thou/ye/you often is used in ways that makes it difficult to decide who “you” is (f.x. you have the same in 4/113). Here it is likely, but far from sure, that it means Muhammad. But it may also mean “you Muslims” or “you people”, etc. – and some places the guesswork is more difficult and the answer more unsure than here. Far from a “clear and easily understood” language” – any omniscient god should be able to do better than this.

050 4/127d: “- - - the orphans of women - - -.” Does this mean orphans after widows that have died? – or female children? Islam does not know. A clear(?) language “doctored” by the translator – there is too much of that in translations of the Quran (though A. Yusuf Ali is not too bad).

051 4/148b: (A160 – in English 2008 edition A161): “Allah loveth not that evil should be noised abroad in public speech - - -.” What does this mean? As it is said in a context where the book has been talking about sinners who repent and become Muslims and getting absolution (4/146-147), f.x. Rezi says this concerns slander about former, but now repented and forgiven sins. Others say it means to talk about all things evil. (Do they also mean even if what said is true?) Unclear text.

As for Allah forgiving: Also see 2/187d.

052 4/150b: (A4/161 – in English 2008 edition A4/162): “Those who deny Allah and His Messengers, and (those who) wish to separate Allah from His Messengers - - -.” Or does it mean: “We believe in some and we deny the others” – we believe in Allah but not in his apostles (Zamakhshari)? Or: “- - - we believe in some of the apostles, but not in others - - -“ (Tabari)? Unclear language.

053 4/153c: (A4/164 – in 2008 English edition 4/165): “The people of the Book ask thee (Muhammad*) to cause a book to descend to them from heaven - - -” – as a proof for his prophet-hood. Alternatively: “- - - that thou (Muhammad*) causes a revelation to be sent down to them (the Jews*) from heaven” (M. Asad) The result would be the same – a proof (but Muhammad never was able to prove even the famous comma - - - which did not even exist in Arab at that time) – but there would be quite a difference in the means used. Very indistinct language – two very different meanings of the sentence. And these variants like all the others also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning.

But a pertinent question: There is a difference between "sending down a book" like M. Azad here says, and "Show us Allah in public" like A. Yusuf Ali translate it, isn't it?

##053a4 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 (that 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 in a book told by Islam to be of high quality - "The Gospel of Barnabas" is a well known apocryphal - 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, Hilah, etc.) when defending or promoting 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". And to say the least of it: The use of dishonesty makes the understanding of the Quranic texts even more unclear wrong and.

054 4/158b: (YA664): “Nay, Allah raised him (Jesus*) up unto Himself - - -“. There is difference among Muslims what this exactly means: Was Jesus raised up to heaven bodily and never died? Or did he die later than the crucifixion Islam denies and spared the indignities the Jews intended for him? Muslims will give you different answers, because the text is not clear - but it is clear that the god somehow was involved even according to the Quran. (But none we have ever met has given a clear answer to where Jesus disappeared if he lived on on Earth – a person like Jesus would have left traces no matter where he fled – if he fled, which he absolutely did not do according to the Bible).

What is for sure is for one thing that a person like Jesus could not disappear anywhere - he was too special a personality. And for another: If he was taken up to Heaven alive - which is the most often met explanation - that is just a good proof for the involvement of something supernatural - a god - as resurrection. And thus a clear indication for that Jesus was something much more than the self proclaimed, never proved messenger or prophet Muhammad.

055 4/159a: (YA665): “And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him (the claimed Muslim prophet Jesus*) before his death - - -.” Wrong. If some of the People of the Book believe, they believe in Yahweh and if they are Christian also in the Christian Jesus, not in Allah. It is not the same god unless something is very wrong with the god. Islam will have to prove so in case. Also: Does “his death” refer to Jesus (as he did not die on the cross according to Islam, but perhaps will die and be resurrected in connection with the Day of Doom, according to Muslims scholars) or to the individual “Person of the Book”? Who knows? – the text is too unclear.

056 4/160c: (A4/174 – in 2008 edition A/175): “- - - in that they (the Jews*) hindered many from Allah’s way - - -.” “The Message of the Quran:”- - - for their (the Jews’*) having so often turned away from the path of Allah - - -.” But the Arab verb “sadda” and the corresponding noun “sadd” both may be transitive or intransitive. If you guess that they are meant transitive, you get the meaning written above. But if you guess they are intransitive, the meaning becomes: “- - - for their having (so) often (themselves*) turned away from the path of Allah - - -.” Allah(?) does not exactly use a “clear language, easy to understand” in the Quran. One extra thought here: This reason cannot be valid - they had not turned away from their god many times at the time they got the Laws of Moses, at least this is not mentioned in any reasonably reliable source. The same goes for the claim that they had hindered people in finding their god.

057 4/174f: "- - - a light (the Quran?*) (that is) manifest." What is absolutely manifest is that a book with so much wrong and with such a detestable pre-medieval moral - or immoral - code is no light for anyone. NB and unclear: Some Muslims claim the "light" is Muhammad - one more of the unclear points in the Quran. To call a man with a morality like the real historical Muhammad a "light" for people, is a bit far from realism.

058 5/8b: (A5/19): “- - - and not let the hatred of others (non-Muslims*) to you (Muslims) make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice.” The alternative meaning is (translated from Swedish): “- - - the hatred against a people - - -.” And that is the directly opposite meaning: In the first case you are hated by one or more persons, in the second it is you who are hating, and not only a few persons, but “a people”. A clear and impossible to misunderstand language in the Quran?

059 5/15i: "- - - a (new) light - - -" may refer either to the Quran or to Muhammad - Muslim scholars do not know for sure. With so many errors and such a horrible morality neither of the two brought much light to humanity. Riches to some Muslims, yes. Power to some Muslims, yes. Rest to some searching souls - like believers find in any religion - yes. But no light - actually the period from around or shortly after 1000 AD when Islam finally gained full control in Muslim countries and up to some 50 - 90 years ago, yes, some places right up till today, Islam represents the "dark middle age" in the Muslim area - - - and little peace and no progress for humanity. (Some will protest here and point to knowledge Europe got from Muslim areas. But that mainly was old Greek, Persian, etc. knowledge only relayed by Muslims (or by non-Muslims in Muslim countries.)

060 5/16c: "- - - the light - - -". This may refer either to Muhammad or more likely to Islam - Muslim scholars do not know for sure. With so many errors and such a horrible morality neither of the two brought much light to humanity. Riches to some Muslims, yes. Power to some Muslims, yes. Peace to some searching souls - like believers find in any religion - yes. But no light. And no peace on Earth.

060a5 5/29a: (YA732): “- - - my sin as well as thine - - -.” The meaning is that a murderer according to the Quran also carries the sins of the victim – as the victim was robbed his possibility to regret his sin and be forgiven (this is one of the dogmas in Islam). But there also is another possible meaning: “my sin” may mean the sin against me who is murdered, and “thy sin” may then be the committing of the murder or “thy sin against yourself by committing such a grave deed and rob yourself for Paradise.” Like so often the Quran is not very clear.

There is no similar text in the Bible, etc. Actually just this part of the story of Cain and Abel as said is from "the Targum of Jerusalem" also known as "pseudo-Jonathan", not from the Bible.

061 5/37a: "- - - never will they (sinners*) get out therefrom (the fire of Hell*) - - -". Well, there are at least these verses in the Quran which may indicate that Hell is not really forever, but will come to an end after a very long time: 6/128c, 11/107b, 43/74d, 51/13c, and 78/23. (And 11/108c may indicate that also Paradise is not forever.) Islam is not sure what to believe about this - the Quran often is not very clear.

062 5/38a: (YA742): “- - - cut off his or her (the thief’s*) hands - - -.” One hand or both hands? Islam normally says one hand first time, but the text is not clear as it here is used plural. Besides: Does this go also for petty theft? – Muslims disagree, yes or no? - and the text is not clear. Would a benevolent god not be clear as daylight in a question as serious as this one?

063 5/41i: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) change the words - - -". This may refer either to Muhammad's (wrong) claim that they falsified the Bible, or to his claim that they sometimes changed Muhammad's words.

064 5/41h: (YA745): “- - - (some*) came to thee (Muhammad*) - - -“. But the Arab words can just as well mean “- - - came for thee - - -“, which sounds a lot more ominous. Clear language?

064a6 5/42c: (YA747): “- - - devouring anything forbidden.” Does this refer to food or to deeds – f.x. taking usury (the expression "devouring usury" is used several times in Islam)? Or perhaps devouring knowledge not in accordance with Muhammad’s teaching? No-one knows – perhaps all three? Clear language.

065 5/60c: (A5/78 – in 2008 edition A5/77): ”- - - those of whom (non-Muslims*) He (Allah*) transformed into apes and swine - - -.” A number of Islamic scholars say this is literally meant – another number that it is just a figure of speech, referring to moral degeneration to the moral level of apes and swine (Mujahid). The real meaning is impossible to decide, but it likely is meant literally, as that is the Quran's normal intention. A “clear and easy to understand” language? What is highly likely is that Muhammad's original listeners in naivety and religious fervor took it in the literal meaning (even though it is from an old legend).

065a7 5/62a: (YA771): “’- - - eating of things forbidden.’ Maybe construed in a literal or a figurative sense”. Islam does not know if this is meant literal or figurative. The Quran far from always has cleat texts.

066 5/63b: "- - - sinful words - - -". Unclear - like so much in the Quran - but may refer to meanings and thoughts not in accordance with the Quran. (But are the words in case sinful if the Quran is a made up book?)

066a8 5/66c: (YA775): “- - - they (like good Muslims*) would have enjoyed happiness from every side.” But the literal meaning of the Arab text is: “They would have eaten from above them and from below their feet”. It is clear that it means something positive, but the exact meaning is impossible for anyone to guess, and any interpretation just is guesswork. Clear as blueberry juice at least.

067 5/107b: (YA813): “- - - from among those who claim a lawful right - - -“. The Arab word “istahaqqa” (= deserved having something – good or evil – attributed to one) gives 2 meanings: (Deserved to be found guilty as he/she*) had committed or was guilty. Or: Had or claimed a lawful right (to property). Clear language?

068 5/112d: (A138 - in 2008 edition A137): “Can thy (Jesus’*) Lord (Yahweh*) send down to us a Table set (with viands) - - -.” This is based on the use of chosen vowels etc. to give the Arab words “hal yastati rabbuka” (something like “is your Sustainer able to”) this meaning. But if you use other vowels, etc. – and Hadith tells that close co-workers of Muhammad read it like this (Ali, ibn Abbas, ibn Jabal, Aishah (the child wife of Muhammad*)) – you may get “hal tastati’u rabaka” (translated from Swedish): “Can you make your Lord send down - - -.” In the first case one questions the god’s ability to make such a miracle. In the second one questions Jesus’ influence with the god, and Jesus’ ability to make the god do such a thing. There is not a little difference here – and even after 1400 years the Islamic scholars do not agree as to what is the correct meaning.

069 5/119e: "- - - their (Muslims'*) eternal home - - -". But 11/108c may indicate Heaven is not eternal.

070 6/2e: "And there is in His (Allah's*) presence another determined term - - -". One more point of unclear language in the Quran according to Muslim scholars: Does also this refer to the end of your life, or does it refer to the Day of Doom? Muslim scholars disagree. Clear language in the Quran? (the Day of Doom is most likely.)

071 6/6d: "- - - raised in their (died out, killed or moved earlier people*) wake fresh generations (to succeed them)". But A6/5 explains: The Arab word "quarn", which here is translated with "generations", more often means "an epoch", or people belonging to one particular epoch" or "civilization" (in the historical sense of that word)". Like so often in the Quran, the language is not clear and distinct.

072 6/20c: (YA850): “Those to whom We (Allah*) have given the Book (Jews, Christians*) know this as they know their own sons.” But “this” instead here may mean “him” – the Arab word has double meaning. Then the meaning becomes: “- - - know him (Muhammad) as - - -.” A tiny wee bit different. Clear language in the Quran?

073 6/23b: (YA851): “- - - no subterfuge (“fitnah”) for them - - -.” But the Arab word “fitnah” has many meanings: A: Trouble. B: Tumult. C: Oppression. D: Persecution. E: Discord. F: Subterfuge. And more. To find an interpretation you like, just choose the meaning you like. Then all becomes crystal clear(?). Clear language in the Quran?

074 6/36a: (YA857): “Those who listen (in truth), be sure, will accept - - -.” Here is a double meaning: “If people listen to the truth sincerely and earnestly, they must believe.” Or: “The sincere will believe”. Clear speech like so many times before.

075 6/70b: (A6/58 – in 2008 edition A6/60): “Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement - - -.” But the Arab words “attakhadu dinahum la’iban wa-lahwan” also can mean the exact opposite: “They have made play and fun their religion”. Which meaning is the correct one? – nobody knows, not even a top ayatollah. Clear speech that is impossible to misunderstand in the Quran? And these variants as usual also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning.

076 6/98c: (A6/82 – in 2008 edition A6/83): “- - - here is a place of sojourn and a place of departure - - -.” But the word “mustaqarr”, literal meaning (translated from Swedish): “destination”, “decision”, is a source for wild disagreement among the Muslim scholars. It may be meant a place to live, it may be meant the womb of your mother (as a fetus), it may mean a point where things reach its end or fulfillment. Just pick your choice. Allah uses a clear and distinct language in the Quran? - easy to understand and impossible to misunderstand?

079 6/114h: (A6/99 – in 2008 English edition A6/101): “They know full well, to whom We (Allah*) have sent the Book (in this case: The Bible or the Quran?), that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth.” Well, is it here the Bible or the Quran that is sent down in truth? Who knows? Clear language in the Quran?

080 6/115c: “The words (the Quran*) of thy Lord (Allah*) doth find its fulfillment in truth”. Some Muslims claim this is a reference to the wrong claim that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible, but the Quran here does not indicate such a reference. Clear or unclear language? At least not clear enough.

081 6/128aa: (A6/110 – in 2009 edition 6/112): “O ye assembly of Jinns - - -“. Normally the word “al-jinn” refers simply and directly to these supernatural beings – and here to the bad ones among them. But here the full expression is “ma’shar al-jinn”, and this complicates the situation, as “ma’shar” means someone close to you or, good friends, something like that, or simply your family. It instead may address bad or misguided people: “You who have lived in close contact to the bad groups of Jinns”. You simply have to guess the real meaning. Clear language in the Quran?

082 6/134c: “All that hath been promised unto you (for better or worse*) will come to pass: nor can you frustrate it (in the least bit) - - -”. But is this about this life or the next? Most Muslim scholars think it refers to the next life, but some - f.x. Zamakhshari - believe it is this life. As mentioned before, the Quran often is unclear - in spite of Muslims strong, but never proved (as normal) claims about the opposite.

083 6/135b: (A116 – in 2008 edition 118): “- - - soon will ye (people*) know who it is whose end will be (best) in the Hereafter.” Literal meaning: “- - - to whom the (happy) end of the abode (“dar”) shall belong”. This is the meaning if you guess that the word “dar” refers to “dar al-akhirah” = “the abode in the life to come”. But it only is said “dar”, and then it can as well refer to “dar ad-dunya” = “the abode in this life” - - - and in that case the sentence from the Quran indicates that you will have a rich and good future in this world. Pick your choice or guess. Allah is using clear and distinct words? At least 2 meanings. And these variants as usual also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning.

084 6/137a: (A120 – in 2008 edition A122): “- - - their (the Pagans’*) partners made alluring - - -.” Literal translation (translated from Swedish): “- - - their (presumed) helpers/partners measured out for them - - -.” It is clear that for the early Muslims the “partners” according to f.x. Razi meant bad beings or forces. But what does it mean today for people who do not any longer believe in black magic and the corresponding beings? Like the Quran really did not tell the Muslims of that time what it actually meant with “partners”, it is as silent today – nobody really knows – everybody have to guess.

085 7/3c: (A7/3): “Follow (O People!) the revelations given onto you from your Lord (Allah*), and follow not, as friends or protectors other than Him”. So far so well. But the unclear point is: How wide is this prohibition? Does the Quran here only mean in religious questions? Or are f.x. earthly laws included? Many Islamic thinkers claim so – f.x. Ibn Hasm and Ibn Tamiyyah. They say that laws not given in the Quran have no legal validity. But does this also go for laws supplementing laws given in the Quran? – f.x. concerning inheritance where the rules in the Quran far from always add up to 100% of the inheritance? (Real life has forced Islam to make such rules, but is that strictly in accordance with the religion?). And what about modern life and necessary laws – f.x. concerning road traffic? – do such laws have real legal validity (it is a serious problem if not, for you cannot demand that people respect invalid laws – or accept to be punished for breaking them.) And what about facts mentioned in the claimed revelations, but which all the same are wrong? – it just is some few years since clergy in Saudi Arabia told it was wrong to accept the belief that Earth is spherical, because according to the Quran it is flat).

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

*086 7/16a: (A10 – in 2008 edition A11): “Because Thou (Allah*) has thrown me (Iblis – the Devil*) out of the Way - - -.” But is this really what Muhammad meant? Because the Arab word “aghwahu” which is used here, is an unclear word with many meanings. This sentence at least can have these meanings:

  1. “Because Thou has thrown me out of the way - - -.”
  2. ”Because Thou hast thwarted me - - -.”
  3. ”Because Thou hast caused me to err - - -.”
  4. ”Because Thou hast allowed me to err - - -.”
  5. ”Because Thou hast caused me to be disappointed - - -.”
  6. ”Because Thou hast caused me to fail my desire - - -.”

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

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

088 7/38d: (A7/28): “Saith the last about the first”. “The last” may mean “the ones who arrived last”, or “the followers (of leaders*)” whereas “the first” may mean “the first of them to arrive” or “the leaders”. 2 meanings. And these variants as normal also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning. Clear language?

089 7/39a: (A7/30): “No advantage have ye (the latest arrivals in Hell?*) over us (the earlier arrivals?*) - - -.” But according to “The Message of the Quran” the Arab text also may mean: “You are not superior to us because you have learnt nothing from our mistakes.” At least 2 meanings. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning. A language does not become distinct and easy to understand from using unclear words.

###090 7/40c: (A7/32): “- - - nor will they (non-Muslims/sinners*) enter the Garden (Paradise*), until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle - - -“. But here is a wrong translation according to “The Message of the Quran” – wrong even if it is widely used. And this claim is so strongly stressed and under built (Zamakhshari, Rezi, and others), that it is likely to be true – this even more so as the book is certified by Al-Azhar Al-Sharif Islamic Research Academy, General Department for Research, Writing and Translation prior to the 2008 edition (this academy is part of the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, one of the 2-3 foremost Islamic universities in the world). The Arab word “jamal” (jumal, juml, jumul – variants of the written consonants jml (the old Arab alphabet did not have the vowels - those the readers had to guess) in this case clearly means “a thick rope” or “a twisted cable” or “a thick, twisted rope” (Jawhari).This is even more clear as Muhammad’s co-workers clearly used this meaning, and Ibn Abbas also according to Zamakhshari very clearly stated that this was what was meant here. Ergo the real meaning is: “- - - nor will they enter the Garden until a twisted rope can pass through a needle’s eye”. Clearly unclear language – or use or (mis)understanding of the language.

But there is a small but in addition:

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

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

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

091 7/46b (A37 – YA1025): “Between them (in Heaven*) and on the Heights (Arab “a’raf”) will be those who would know everyone by his marks: - - - They will not have entered, but they will have an assurance (thereof).” But the primary meaning of “’urf” (plural “A’raf”) is not “high”, but “acknowledgement”, “discernment”, synonymous with “the faculty of discernment (between right and wrong*)”. Many Muslim scholars (Al-Hasan, Al-Basri, Az-Zajjaj, Rezi) therefore mean that the ones outside Heaven, but wanting to come in are the lukewarm who knew the difference between good and bad (- everyone by his marks (marks of good and bad*)), but did not care very much this or that way – the ones not quite deserving Heaven, but neither deserving Hell. The question here is: Do the word “a’raf” here mean “heights” or does it mean “the ones able to discern, (but not caring – the indifferent ones)”? In the last case the meaning simply will be something like: “- - - and the lukewarm (from this life*) who would know everyone (good and bad*) by his marks - - -.” A minor, but significant difference. And these variants as always also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning. Clear language in the Quran?

92 7/47b: (YA1026): “- - - their eyes shall be turned towards the Companions of the Fire - - -.” But who are “they”? – the ones waiting for their “case” to be finished? – or the good Muslims in Heaven? Your guess is as good as anybody else’s.


093 7/54f: Muhammad Asad has this translation: "(Allah*) created the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth in six eons" (the same in 11/7c - actually this point is from 11/7c)- telling that the Arab word used here for "day" (yawm) also may mean f.x. eon, even though it is very clear that Muhammad's listeners and later Muslims understood "day" - - - until science proved that days could not be right. Mr. Asad(?) also is forced to change from "day" to "eon" in order to use the word "evolution" instead of "creation" in his comment 11/10 to this verse.

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

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

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


094 7/59c: (A7/45 – in 2008 edition A7/46): “- - - the Punishment of a dreadful Day”. Islam still does not know if this means the day of the big flood or the Day of Doom. 2 meanings – in a clear language used by Allah. And these variants as always also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there like so often has more than one meaning.

###095 7/64c: (A7/46): Muslims – even scholars and Al-Azhar University - do not need difficult language to get troubles with the claimed true meanings and the claimed Truth and reality. 7/64 “do not support the theory of a world deluge” (= the words in that verse are not clear enough to merit such an explanation, they say) – gallantly omitting the fact that Islam and the Quran claim the ark stranded on a 2089 m high mountain (Mt. Al-Jedi) in Syria (not Ararat in Turkey) (Correction: According to Wikipedia it lies in Anatolia in Turkey----------------------------------), which is impossible if the deluge was not universal, as the water then had streamed away to lower, not flooded places. And “The Message of the Quran” – also in the 2008 edition!! – as gallantly explains it with the filling up of the Mediterranean Basin “during the Ice Age” (ended some 10ooo - 15ooo years ago), this in spite of that it is well known that this filling up happened 4-5 million years ago, and also for several other reasons – f.x. wrong place and by far wrong way of filling up – cannot explain the deluge. These are well known facts which the honorable professors have to know, or at least had to and easily could check before they "broadcast" their "explanation". A typical al-Taqiyya (lawful lie - here to explain away a clear mistake and thus defend Islam) as the time for and way of the filling up of the Mediterranean Sea as said are well known scientific facts.

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

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

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

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

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

But such stories - and there are too many of them - totally destroy Islam's and Muslims' credibility among those of educated, intelligent people used to critical thinking. Do you understand why we have to check each and every piece of information from Islamic sources to see if they are true?

Also see 7/64d.

096 7/71a: (YA1041): “Punishment and wrath have already come upon you (the people of Ad*) from your Lord (Allah*) - - -.” 3 different meanings possible: A. Reference to a terrible famine shortly before. B. The insolence and sin they had fallen into was a warning. C. Allah had already decided - predestined - what was to come. Very unclear language.

097 7/79a: (YA1048): “So Salih left them (the people of Thamud*) saying: ‘O my people - - -.” But was his speech a last warning before the catastrophe? – or was it lamentation and sorrow for his lost people? Who knows? – the text does not divulge it. As mentioned before, the Quran often is not very clear.

098 7/82a: “And his (Lot’s*) people (the people of Sodom and Gomorrah*) gave no answer but this: they said, ‘Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure.’” This surah is from ca. 621 AD But may be the same year and not later than 624 AD the omniscient Allah had forgotten what he told, and now remembered it like this:

  1. 29/29: “But his (Lot’s) people gave no answer but this: they said: ‘Bring us the wrath of Allah if thou tallest the truth”. They in both tales only gave one answer - - - but quite different ones in the two narrations.

Clear speech in the Quran?

099 7/89h. (A70 – in 2008 edition A72): “- - - Thou (Allah*) art the best to decide.” But the Arab word “fataha” also have another meaning, which makes this sentence sound like this: “- - - Thou art the best to lay open the truth!” This is something entirely different. The Quran has a clear and distinct language easy to understand and not possible to misunderstand? And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning.

##100 7/101d: “- - - they (non-Muslims*) would not believe what they had rejected before.” (Literally: “- - - to which they had given the lie aforetime”.

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

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

At least not full clarity about the mentioned effect. And quite an essential point to "forget" in a perfect book.

###100a9 7/102c: "- - - covenant - - -". And - funny - (A7/81) also says: "Its (the Arab word 'ahd*) usual rendering as 'covenant' or 'loyalty to their covenant' is entirely meaningless in this context". As M. Yusuf Ali uses just that meaning in his translation: Welcome to a book with a language clear and easy to understand.

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

101 7/123c: "Believe ye (the sorcerers*) in Him - - -". It here in reality is unclear to whom the word "Him" refers. YA has used a capital first letter, which shows he thinks it refers to Allah. But other Muslim scholars think it refers to Moses - f.x. in A7/89, in the English 2008 edition A7/91. One meets similar expression - and the same uncertainty - in 20/71 and in 29/49. Like said many times before with reference to Islam's claim that the language in the Quran is so clear and easy to understand that it is a proof for that it is from a god: The language in the Quran in realty often is unclear and/or with more than one possible meaning - - - and then proves what?

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

102 7/138b: "They (the Jews moving in Sinai*) came upon a people devoted entirely to some idols they had." Who were they? Nobody knows. One guesses about anything from tribes mentioned in OT to Egyptian copper miners. This episode is not mentioned in the Bible - and knowing the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is not from any god + knowing there is no other source about things like this, how did Muhammad get this information? - if it really was information? Like so often the Quran is not very clear.

103 7/145d: (YA 1109): “Soon I (Allah*) shall show you the home of the wicked - - -.” The question Muslims ask: The home where they lived or used to live? – Muhammad told the ruins scattered around in the Middle East all were from people punished by Allah for sins. Or the claimed terrible spiritual condition inside them? Or perhaps their future home Hell? At least a clear statement?

104 7/155c: (A120): “- - - when they were sized with violent quaking (“radjfah”) - - -.” The Arab word “radjfah” normally means earthquake. But here A. Yusuf Ali most likely is right when indicating that it was the men that started quaking - or shaking – because they were afraid. The Quran often is not quite clear.

558 7/161a: "And remember it was said to them (the Jews*): 'Dwell in this town - - -". Contradiction: "And remember We (Allah*) said: 'Enter this town - - -' (2/58)". There is a distinction between to enter a town and to live in a town. (Arab scholars agree on that it is the same incident to which it is referred - (f.x. YA1136). They use one of their standard "explanations": It is a parable. But for one thing there is no indication in the Quran for that this is meant as a parable any of the two places, and for another thing the mistake does not have more logical meaning as a parable. Clear texts in the Quran?

105 7/163a: "- - - the town standing close by the sea". Nobody included Islam knows which town - the Quran far from is clear often. Thus this claim was impossible to check. Convenient if it is a made up story - at least it is not from the Bible.

106 7/170a: "- - - the Book - - -". It is not 100% clear, but here it seems to be the Bible - the Quran all too often has unclear texts. Also 7/171 indicates that this is the case, as "them" have to be the Jews.

107 7/172a: "When thy (mans'*) Lord drew forth (= caused to be born*) from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and made them testify - - -". YA1146 here has an interesting comment - we quote: "This passage has led to differences of opinion (because of unclear language*) in interpretation. According to the dominant opinion of commentators, each individual in the posterity of Adam (= after Adam*) had a separate existence from the time of Adam (= he or she in some way existed since the time of Adam*) and a Covenant was taken from all of them, which is binding accordingly on each individual". To use a simpler language: Each and every human being in some way existed at the time of Adam, and when Adam made his claimed covenant with Allah, also all human beings through all times at the same time made a similar covenant with the claimed god - a covenant which thus is binding for each and every human being who have existed or will exist. No comment - except this to us sounds not like religion, but like mysticism or like a fairy tale.

108 7/172d: "- - - made them (people*) testify concerning themselves". Another interesting claim: (A7/138 - in English 2008 edition A7/139) tells that "According to the Quran, the ability to perceive the existence of the Supreme Power (= god*) is inborn in human nature (fitrah); and it is this instinctive cognition - which may or may not be subsequently blurred by self-indulgence or adverse environmental influence - that makes every sane human being "bear witness about himself" before Allah". This is nowhere said in the book, but there are many ways to use or disuse indistinct and unclear tests. Also science has never found any trace of such inborn, instinctive knowledge. (They have found that a minor percent of humans have an inborn longing for something strong to lead them - a god - but nothing like an inborn, instinctive knowledge. Actually man has very few real instincts, and very little inborn knowledge - almost everything has to be learnt.)

But when one meets claims like this from Islam and Muslims, one should remember that they frequently use claimed instinctive knowledge or understanding and similar expressions as arguments for why Islam is the correct religion and for why one should believe in Muhammad and his religion. As they have exactly no proof or documentation for the religion they have to do two things: Glorify Muhammad so that he sounds as trustworthy as possible, and resort to unclear and not documented claims like "instinctive knowledge" about Allah or at least about divinity.

In reality this only is unclear mysticism. But neither Muhammad nor Islam had/has anything better to offer for a proof.

109 7/175b: (YA1149): “Relate (Muhammad?*) to them (people*) the story of the man (what man?) We (Allah*) sent Our Signs, but he passed them by - - -.” The problem is that no-one has a clue what man Allah (?) spoke about. No-one. This story is "hanging in the air". One of the many very clear texts in the Quran.

110 7/193c: (A7/156 – in 2008 edition A7/158): “If you call them to (Allah’s) guidance - - -.” This is the literal meaning and normal translation according to the 2006 Swedish edition of “The Message of the Quran.” But Zamakhshari, Razi, Ibn Kathir - - - and Muhammad Asad mean that “- - - if you pray to them for guidance - - -“ more correctly brings across the real meaning. Well, it in case is one more case of clear Arab language in the Quran. A minor, but distinct difference. And these variants naturally also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has more than one meaning.

111 7/203a: (A165): “If thou (Muhammad*) brings them (skeptics*) not a revelation, they say: ‘Why hast thou not got it (a revelation/miracle*) together (yourself*)?’”. But “The Message of the Quran” tells that the Arab words “law la ‘djtabaytaha” make troubles (this is omitted in the 2008 English edition) as it has several meanings, and they instead say a more likely meaning is: “Why doest thou (Muhammad*) not seek to obtain it (from Allah*)?” Rather a different detail – and at least two different main meanings. A clear language in the Quran? And these variants naturally also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has more than one meaning.

It also tells something that Muslims have left out some comments which are not flattering or which are disturbing, from the book, - even in such a grave matter as religion it is not the truth one searches for, but confirmation of the religion - true or not true. Consequences if the Quran is made up? - does not matter, as you will not meet them in this life. And besides: "We" "know" that what our fathers told us is correct.

112 8/4a: (A8/5): “Such in truth are the Believers: they have grades of dignity with their Lord (Allah*), and forgiveness, and generous sustenance - - -.” Yes, generous sustenance, etc. – but where? Many or most scholars say “in Paradise” – this has the extra benefits that the promises of luxury can be bigger, and one does not have to explain why pious people on Earth often are not very well off. But others – like Razi – claims it is in this world, with the good feelings one have when one believes strongly, as the main benefit. The text itself is silent about the mystery. And these variants also - as always - are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has more than one meaning.

113 8/6e: (A8/6): “- - - (some of your followers are*) disputing with thee (Muhammad*) after it was manifest (that there would be a battle at Badr*), as if they were driven to death - - -.” But it is unclear what the Arab word “kama” (“just as” or “even as”) points to, and then there is at least one more possible meaning (Mujahid, Tabari): “Just as some of the believers were adverse to going forth from Medina to fight the Quraysh (Mecca*), so, too, they would argue with thee as to whether it was really willed by Allah.” Unclear language, here/often = more than one possible meaning. A clear and impossible to misunderstand text in the Quran? And these variants naturally also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has more than one meaning.

114 8/9c: (YA1184): “I (Allah*) will assist you with a thousand of angels (f.x. in battle)” But Islam itself questions if the numbers are exact or figurative. Another question: If Allah is omnipotent and just can say “be, and it is” to quote the Quran, why then does he have to send angels? He just can decide the outcome of any battle. And actually: Why did he need any battle at all? - he just could decide how he wanted the world. (The propaganda tells it is to test his followers - but why does an omniscient and predestining god need to test anyone at all?)

115 8/13e: (A16): “This because they contended against Allah and his Messenger - - -.” But the Arab word “shaqqahu” in reality means “he separated (or cut) himself off from him”. Is the correct meaning: “This, because they have cut themselves off from Allah and his Apostle - - -“? The meanings vary and the texts in the Quran is as unclear here like so many other places.

116 8/19a: (A22 – in 2008 edition A21): “(O Unbelievers!) if ye prayed for victory and judgment, now hath the judgment come to you: if ye desist (from wrong), it will be best for you: if you return (to the attack) so shall We (Allah*).” This seems to be a clear-cut warning to the enemy (the Quraysh/Mecca at Badr). But remember that what is written in ( ) is put there by the translator to explain or to make things more clear – and if the translator has guessed wrong, the explanations are wrong. F.x. Razi thinks the meaning is this: “If you have been praying for victory (O believers) – victory has now indeed come onto you. And if you abstain (from sinning), it will be for your own good; but if you revert to it, We (Allah*) shall revoke (Our promise of aid).” Unclear language opens for many ways of understanding verses. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

117 8/50c: (A8/57): “If thou ((Muslims*) couldst see, when the angels take the souls of the (unbelievers) at death - - -.” This is the meaning if you guess that the Arab word “yatawaffa” refers to the angels. But if you guess it refers to Allah, the sentence becomes like this: “- - - when He (Allah*) causes (them) to die - - -”. A detail in difference for the one who dies. But for a text which is “correct and identical to Muhammad’s and Allah’s words to the last comma”, even this is a significant proof for that this claim is wrong. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

118 8/56: "They are those with whom thou (Muhammad? Muslims?) make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of Allah)." Muslim hypocrites? Jews? Christians? Pagans? - the Quran often has unclear texts. Jews, Christians and for that case Pagans did not - and do not - have any fear of Allah, as they did - and do - believe that the Quran is a made up book and Allah a made up god. There are good reasons for such beliefs.

Muslim comments say this likely is about Banu Quraysh and its "repeated treachery" (not proved such ones) - but unclear.

119 8/65e: “O Prophet! (Allah says*) Rouse the Believers to the fight.” But the Arab words "'ala 'l-qital" may have another meaning, and then do this sentence perhaps mean "Inspire the believers to conquer all fear of death when fighting"? (A8/68 - in the English 2008 edition A8/69). As said before: The language in the Quran is far from clear often.

120 9/2c: (YA1247): “- - - for four months - - -.” The 4 forbidden months? Or the 4 months following the declaration”? Nobody knows. Clear speech?

121 9/3e: (A9/3): “- - - the day of the Great Pilgrimage - - -.” Islam does not know which day it here refers to. Most likely to the one in 631 AD or the one in 632 – but in case which one? A detail – but if the language in the Quran had been perfect like from a god, also the details had been taken care of, and especially details so significant that they get a name – and a proud name. (Also you do not find demands for a pilgrimage mentioned in the Bible.)

122 9/24f: (A32): “- - - then wait (ye who are not good enough Muslims*) until Allah brings about His Decision - - -.” Islam still debates what Allah means here – some bad day or some decline for them here on Earth, or the Day of Doom? And when Muslim scholars have to debate a sentence, that means that the meaning is not “clear and easy to understand" - the Quran often is not clear.

123 9/27a: (A36): “Again will Allah, after this, turn (in mercy) to whom He will - - -.” What does this refer to? – Razi believes to the Muslims who fought badly shortly before at Hunayn in 630 AD. Tabari and others believe it means “infidels” generally. Another small detail that had not been unclear if a god had made the book. And a detail much bigger after all than “the last comma.”

124 9/27c: "- - - Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful". Does this in this special case refer to people/non-Muslims in general? - or does it refer to the Muslims who behaved badly in the battle of Hunayn? Muslim scholars disagree - the language in the Quran many places are unclear.

125 9/29o: (YA1282): “- - - Until they (non-Muslims) pay jizya with willing submission (“an yadin”)”. But the Arab word “an yadin” – literally “from the hand” - has more meanings and it “has been variously interpreted” in Islam. "Clear" language like so often in the Quran.

126 9/47b: "- - - in your midst - - -". This is what Muslim scholars guess the Arab word "khilal" means here - but it has more meanings. Clear language in the Quran?

127 9/49e: (YA1312): “- - - draw me (a man*) not into trial (fitnah”*) - - -“. But the Arab word “fitnah” has many meanings - see 6/23b above. This gives many possible variants of the meaning. And these variants inevitably also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

128 9/108c: "There is a mosque - - -". Perhaps the mosque in the nearby town Quba, built 623 AD, but may also be the mosque in Medina, or a general expression. The text is not clear - like so often in the Quran.

129 10/1a: "Alif Lim Ra". These are Arab letters which starts many of the surahs. They are called al-muqatta-at or abbreviated letters, but no-one knows why they are there, and mostly they give no meaning - and in the few times they make a word, it most likely is coincidence, because the word has no connection to the surah. Clear language in the Quran?

There is nothing similar in the Bible.

##130 10/1b: "- - - ayat - - -". Normally translated in the Quran with "verse", but may also mean proof, evidence, lessons, signs (often "Quran-speak" for proof), revelations, etc. In this case may be it means proof (like so often the texts in the Quran is not entirely clear) - some irony in case that something with so many meanings is called proof. On the other hand much of what Islam and Muslims call proofs, have little logical connection to real proofs. ("A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion" - Muhammad in the Quran never and Muslims even today too often do not even try to prove that the claims they say are fact, really are true, and conclusions built only on claims, never are valid proofs. In addition too often their conclusion just is one of two or more possible ones, and then it is not a proof, but only a possibility. In wide areas Muslims have little or no education in neither logical nor critical thinking, nor in the necessary rules for making valid logical conclusions.)

131 10/4k: (A10/9): “- - - but those who reject Him (Allah*) will have draughts of boiling fluids - - -.” Or: “- - - draughts of burning despair - - -.” Both ways of understanding is possible from the Arab text – and both are used, because nobody knows which the correct one is. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

132 10/39d: "- - - but see what was the end of those who did wrong (did not believe Muhammad*)!" Unclear remark - most likely a general remark or a reference to the ruins in the area, which Muhammad claimed had been depopulated because of sins against Allah - unclear, though obviously it refers to a claimed bad end.

133 10/40a: "Of them there are some who believe therein - - -". It here is unclear to what the word "therein" points - to the Quran, to the charges of falsehood, or even the claimed end of wrongdoers. In spite of Muslims' strong claims about how clear the language in the Quran is - and that the very clarity of the language is a proof for that it must be made by a god - the book often uses unclear language (a proof for that it is not from a god).

134 10/54a: (YA1445): “They would declare (“assure”*) (their) repentance”. But the Arab word for “assure” also may mean to “conceal” or “hide”. Which will give this meaning: “They would give anything to escape the penalty - - -.” Clear language in the Quran, yes.

135 10/83d: (YA1466): “But none believed in Moses except some children of his People - - -.” Who does the word “his” in this sentence refer to? Most Muslim scholars believe to Moses, but not a few to the Pharaoh. And a study of the text will not make you any wiser. Clear language in the Quran?

136 10/102a: "Do they (non-Muslims*) then expect (anything) but (what happened in) the days of the men who passed away before them?" This sentence is rather obscure. But in and around Arabia there were - and are - ruins of old houses, towns and even cities, and there were tales of former people. Muhammad claimed - as normal without any documentation at all - that all of them had been destroyed and killed because they had sinned against Allah (there are a number of more likely explanations in a harsh and warlike area). It is likely this sentence refers to these claims. The Quran often is pretty unclear.

137 11/2c: (A11/3): “(Say): ‘Verily (it definitely is no proved verity/truth*) I (Muhammad*) am (sent) unto you - - - .” This word “Say” does not exist in the Arab text. “The Message of the Quran” uses the expression “(Say, O Prophet)" and explains: “The interpolation, between brackets, of the words “Say, O Prophet” is necessitated by the first-person construction of this sentence”. That means that either we here have one of the places where Muhammad himself is speaking (there are something like 8 places where that is the case in the Quran), or we have one more place in the Quran where Islam confirms in writing that the text in the Quran is not always neither clear (as to who said this) nor correct. Comment A11/3: "The interpolation, between brackets, of the words 'Say, O Prophet' is necessitated by the first-person construction of this sentence. (It is Muhammad who is speaking, but it should be Allah). And A. Yusuf Ali is even smarter - he simply and quietly adds the word "(Say)" without mentioning that it is not in the original. If the text tells something which does not fit Islam, just change it. (But where then goes the reliability of the scholars and the religion?)

Clear texts easy to understand? – and perfect because it is made by a god?

137a10 11/18b: (A11/33 – in the 2008 edition A35): “They (sinners at the Day of Doom*) will be turned back to the presence of their Lord (Allah*) and the witnesses will say - - -.” But who are the witnesses? Many or most Muslim scholars think it refers to the reporting angles that stay with each human and note down everything the person does. Others – like an authority like Ibn Abbas – said it meant the prophets who according to the Quran will be called forth to give witness on the Day of Doom. What is the right answer, nobody knows – the book does not make this clear.

138 11/34a: (A11/53 – in 2008 edition A56): “Of no profit will be my (Muhammad’s*) counsel to you, much as I desire to give you (good) counsel, if it be that Allah willeth to leave you astray - - -.” Literal translation of the Arab word “yughwiyakum”: “that He (Allah*) shall cause you to err.” This then should be Allah’s exact words. But even in Islam one tries to find out what Allah really means. Al-Hasan al-Basri tells it means: “- - - that He shall punish you for your sins.” Tabari: “- - - that He shall destroy you - - -.” Al-Jubba’i: “- - - that He shall deprive you of all good - - -.” What does it help if the text is the very words of Allah, if they are too unclear to enable even Arab-speaking top scholars agree on what exactly does it mean?

This on top of that the Quran is of a quality it is slander and an insult to blame on a god.

139 11/35c: (A11/54 – in 2008 edition A11/57): In a new repetition of the story about Noah – it is repeated many times in the Quran – comes this: “Or do they (people*) say, ‘He has forged it?’ Say: ‘If I had forged it, on me were my sin! And I am free of the sins of which ye are guilty.” Does this refer to the story of Noah? – that he had forged that story? Or does it refer to the entire Quran? – or both? The disposition of the texts in the book is so bad with bits and pieces strewn around in a mix, and repetitions and repetitions of the same stories and arguments and conclusions, so that anything is possible when it comes to the possibility to find loose bits of tale or argument at “funny” places. In this case Islam simply is at a loss to know what to believe. One tends to think the verse is a passage inserted in the story, and that Muhammad is talking both about the story of Noah and about the complete Quran (Ibn Kathir, Tabari). But it is impossible to know. Such “quoting in wrong context” or inserting of text where it does not belong, is very usual in the Quran – so usual that Islam use a special name for it: “A parenthetic inclusion” or similar. It is pretty confusing sometimes, and absolutely does not result in “a clear language easy to understand” – f.x. like here where it is impossible to be sure of exactly he is talking about. To say the least of it: Not a piece of good literature.

#140 11/38: (A11/57 – in 2008 edition A11/61): Noah said to the surrounding people: “If you ridicule us now (for building the ark*), we (in our turn) can look down on you with ridicule likewise”. But according to Islam Noah was a prophet, and it is impossible to think that a prophet may be human enough to ridicule or scoffing anyone. Therefore the text must be wrong and in reality mean something else – yet another place where Islamic scholars say the text in the Quran must be wrong, though a small wrong this time. Noah must mean “ignorant” – “If you think us ignorant now, we think you ignorant who do not accept our story” to make a longer quotation short (Zamakhshari, Baghawi). Honestly it may be enough confusing to understand unclear text, but one also has to “mend” clear text Islam does not like. Allah really is clumsy when he is speaking.

Another point: Muhammad ridiculed lots of non-Muslims. These arguments then should be one more indication for that Muhammad was no real prophet.

###141 11/40a: (A11/58 – in 2008 edition A11/62): “- - - and the fountains of the earth gushed forth - - -.” Literal meaning (also see 11/40b just below) in the Arab text: “- - - the face of the earth boiled over - - -.” To quote “The Message of the Quran”: “This phrase has been subject to several conflicting interpretations.” - the literal meaning cannot be true. Unclear words to say the least of it. And it really is a confusing sentence, among other reasons because only liquids can boil. And to make the confusion complete, modern Islam even in 2008 once more resort to the filling up of the Mediterranean basin, which happened some 5 million years ago – nearly at the time of the first traces of the first possible real forefathers of Homo Sapiens 6 million years ago, and LONG before Homo Sapiens (modern man) himself ever existed (started 160oo - 200ooo years ago - perhaps 195oo years ago), not to mention some million years before a possible Noah a few thousand years ago. To be impolite: What the in Islam respected “The Message of the Quran” writes about this, is gobbledygook and as wrong and meaningless as that word. But when texts in the Quran are so confusing that even the top Islamic thinkers often are at a loss understanding and agreeing on what the texts really mean, and other times only agree that it cannot mean what it says – how then can Muslims repeat and repeat and repeat that everything in the Quran is clear and easy to understand - so correct and easy to understand that it proves the texts are from a god - and demand to be believed?

And how can top learned men in Islam use so wrong facts – to seduce naïve and uneducated people? – that are so well known and so easy to check and even not too infrequently mentioned in media, and then demand to be believed when they claim to have written it in good faith? Especially so as it just is not the first – and neither the last – time they “bend” scientific and other facts to fit their wishes.

142 11/40c (YA1533): “- - - and the fountains of the earth gushed forth - - -.” But the Arab expression “far al tannur” has two literal meanings (see also 11/40a above): The one already mentioned and “- - - the oven (of Allah’s Wrath) boiled over - - -.” Which one do you like best? And is the language as clear as Islam claims?

143 11/46c: (A11/65 – in 2008 edition A11/68): (Allah said): “O Noah! He (your son*) is not of thy family: for his conduct is unrighteous.” This is if the Arab words “innahu ‘amal ghayr Salih” is meant to relate to the unnamed son of Noah (according to the Bible he only had 3 – Shem, Ham and Japheth) (Zamakhshari). But Noah had just made a prayer to his god – Allah according to the Quran – for his son, and if the mentioned words are meant to relate to that prayer, the meaning changes to something like: “Verily, this prayer is unrighteous conduct of you” (Razi, Tabari). Clear and easy and not to misunderstand? And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.


301 11/71c: "- - - she (Sarah*) laughed - - -". Muslim scholars still are debating why she laughed, because it is unclear why - there is no clear reason. Also the Bible tells she laughed, but because the angels told such an old couple was going to have a child. In the Quran she laughed before she got this message, and one does not really understand why.

11/71c: "- - - she (Sarah*) laughed - - -". Muslim scholars still are debating why she laughed, because it is unclear why - there is no clear reason. Also the Bible tells she laughed, but because the angels told such an old couple was going to have a child. In the Quran she laughed before she got this message, and one does not really understand why.

144 11/83a: (YA1581): “- - - nor are they far from those who do wrong!” Who or what are “they”? – the revenging brimstones? – or the destroyed cities, meaning punishment is not far off for sinners? The book does not give an answer, and Muslim scholars do not know - clear language in the Quran?

145 11/107b: (A11/133 – in 2008 edition A11/134): "(Sinners shall stay in Hell forever), except as thy Lord (Allah*) willeth.” This sentence is one of the big enigmas in the Quran and in Islam – you meet the same curious and cryptic message in 6/128 and 78/23: All the Quran tells that sinners are to stay in Hell forever, but this may mean there all the same may be a way out – at least for some? It has been debated for days and months and years and centuries in Islam – no sure answer is found. Yes, the Quran uses a clear and distinct language – everything is easy to understand, just like Muslims claim.

We may add that some Muslims scholars speculate on that one possible meaning is that the Muslim sinners will be let out from Hell after enough eons - but quite likely only the Muslim ones.

Not always clear language in the Quran.

148a11 11/108c: (A11/133 – in 2008 edition A11/134): “They (the good Muslims*) will dwell therein (heaven) for all the time that the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth endure”. What does this mean? The heaven is forever and the Earth until the Day of Doom according to many verses in the Quran. Will they dwell there only as long as the Earth exists, or - - -? In old Arab – so old that f.x. Tabari had to explain – (translated from Swedish): “- - - as long as heaven and Earth exists - - -“ means forever. And that is good and well - - - except for that Islam then has to explain if this means that also Earth will exist forever, and in case how the Earth can exist forever, when the Quran tells that Earth as we know it, will be finished at the Last Day. The Quran has a most complicated way of using such “a plain and easily understood language that no-one can misunderstand it.” And, yes, these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

146 11/108e: (A11/134 – in 2008 edition A11/135): (Good Muslims will stay in heaven forever), “except as thy Lord (Allah*) willeth - - -.” Exactly nobody knows or understands what this means - the last part of the sentence is explained nowhere in the Quran. The same words are used about Hell in 11/107b (and similar in 6/128c, and 78/23), and some Muslim thinkers say it may mean that perhaps Hell will not last forever - at least not for all its inmates. Can Heaven come to an end? Can it change? Can it become ever better? Or what? Islamic scholars are bound by duty and indoctrination – and by lack of training in critical thinking - to be optimists, and promises that nothing will happen “unless Allah wills to bestow on them a yet greater reward (which will not take much – the Muslim heaven mainly is materialism and sex, and for women only materialism mostly because of all the houris who compete with them*) (Razi). But not one single soul has ever been able to do anything but guessing and hoping when it comes to this sentence. And as said before these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning – or here: No clear meaning.

147 11/118-119: (A11/151 – in 2008 edition 11/152): “If thy (peoples'*) Lord (Allah*) had so willed, He could have made mankind one People: but they will not cease to dispute, except those on whom thy Lord hath bestowed His Mercy, and for this (“li-dhalika”) did He create them - - -.” But to what do the Arab word “li-dhalika” (= “for this”, “to this end”) refer? Hardly to “they will not cease to dispute”. The sentence simply hangs in the air, without pointing to anything or being connected to anything. Some (like Mujahid and ‘Ikrimah) believes it refers to Allah’s grace upon man. Some (like Al-Hasanand ‘Ata) tell it refers to man’s ability to have meanings different from others’ (this has some relevance to the previous sentence). Others (like Zamakhshari) mean it refers to man’s freedom to make moral choices. Just pick your guess – every Muslim scholar also is just guessing here. As said before: A clear and unmistakably easy to understand language. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning – or here: No clear meaning.

###148 12/1b: (A12/2) “These are the Symbols (or Verses (already 2 meanings in the text*)) of the Perspicuous (Arab: “mubin”) Book.” But the word “mubin” may refer either to the noun’s quality (then “mubin” literally means something which is clear, obvious, manifest, etc.) or to its function (then “mubin” literally means something that is making something clear or obvious or -“. Most Islamic scholars mean it refers to Joseph’s ability to give interpretations of dreams. “The book makes the story it tells clear”. There is no small distinction between those two meanings. Muslims will tell you both meanings are included. But the language is unclear here like many places in the Quran.

Pure Arab also is the language spoken in Heaven, according to some Islamic literature. This without consideration for that the Arab of Muhammad was a language mainly for primitive nomadic tribes - Heaven hardly was that primitive. When the language change, f.x. the meaning of words change or new words are added, do Arab get messages from Heaven about this? Or does Heaven follow language changes in Arabia? (Some Muslim sects - notably the Ammaddiyya - even have “proved” Arab also is the original language on Earth, believe it or not.)

149 12/3a: (A12/3 – in 2008 edition A12/5): “We (Allah*) do relate unto thee (Muslims*) the most beautiful of stories - - -.” Here is a linguistic-technical reasoning which simply is too complicated for lay persons, so we do not quote it here, but according to f.x. Zamakhshari a more correct meaning is something like “- - - a story with the best explanations - - -.” There is a wide river between these two meanings. But to repeat it: The language in the Quran is clear and easy to understand – and impossible to misunderstand - - - according to Islam. And these variants like always also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

150 12/6a: (A12/10): “Thus will thy (Joseph’s*) Lord (Allah according to the Quran*) teach thee the interpretations of stories (“ahadith”*) - - -.” The literal meaning of “ahadith” ( singular “Hadith”) is “sayings” or “tidings” – "things you are told -“. Most Islamic scholars mean it refers to Joseph’s ability to give interpretations of dreams. But with just a slightly different pronunciation of “Hadith” you get the meaning “a happening”, “an event” – and this in case gives the sentence the meaning that Joseph was thought how to understand the real meaning of or behind what was really said and done in real life according to M. Azad, based on Razi. Azad also thinks this is the more correct meaning. Two very different skills, in case. And these variants naturally also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Clear meanings in the Quran?

151 12/19c: (YA1654): “Ah there! Good news (“bushra”*)”. But the Arab word “bushra” also may be a proper name. Then in case the exclamation was: “Ah there, Bushra!” A detail – but does an omnipotent and omniscient god make even the details unclear?

152 12/49b: (A12/44 – in 2008 edition A12/48): “Then will come after that (period) a year in which the people will have abundant water - - -.” Here the language in the Quran is so unclear – read “directly wrong” - that A. Yusuf Ali’s religion has subdued his moral and intellectual integrity. The Arab verb that is used – “yughath” – derives either from the noun “ghayth” = “rain”, or from another noun “ghawth” = “deliverance from distress”. There is no way that it can mean “water”. The “clear language” offers 2 choices – one wrong, one not a good description, so the pious Muslims used a 3. and dishonest one as Egypt did not get rain, but flooding of the Nile (or actually a “Kitman” – a lawful half-truth – as the rain much further south in Africa causes the flood - - - but that is not what the Quran is talking about.) Well, to be polite and forget the dishonesty – al-Taqiyya (which Kitman is a version of) – the lawful lie - after all is lawful in Islam, and even a duty to use if necessary to defend or promote Islam (and curiously enough also permitted to use f.x. to cheat women – something for women to remember sometimes - - - f.x. that a marriage is a possible way for a Muslim man to get residence permit in a rich country – it happens now and then - and it is permitted to use al-Taqiyya also f.x. to save your money). And these variants inevitably also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

153 12/52e: (A12/47 – in the 2008 edition A12/51): “This (say I), in order that he (the Aziz*) may know that I have never been false to him in his absence, and that Allah will never guide the snare of the false ones. Nor do I absolve my own self - - -.” All this is well and good. But who says this? Is it the wife, like f.x. Ibn Kathir and Rashid Rida guess? – or is it Joseph, like among others Tabari, Baghawi, and Zamakhshari believe? The clear (?) language in the Quran does not give one single reliable clue – it is anybody’s guess. Clear and unmistakable texts?

153a12 12/75c: (A70 – in 2008 edition A74): ”They said: ’The penalty should be - - -.” But who said this? If it was the Egyptians, that was the law one had to follow. If it was Joseph’s brothers, it was an offer to the Egyptians, but not a consequence of a law one had to obey. The Quran does not give a clue – and some Muslim scholars guess this, others that. Would an omniscient god use a language that so often is unclear, has double or even multiple meanings, and that so frequently demands guesswork? – at least anyone who use the often unclear language in the Quran as a proof for a god, is far out in the wilderness.

154 12/99d: (A12/92 – in 2008 edition A12/96): “(Joseph*) provided a home for his parents - - -.” What does this mean? The Bible tells and the Quran does not object to that his mother Rachel died in childbirth when Benjamin was born, and he only had his father Jacob. Muslims “may", therefore, assume that the “mother” implied in the term “parents” was another of Jacob’s wives - - -.” It is not uncommon to call a foster mother for “mother”. In some cultures it even is common to use the words “mother” and “father” as a respectful title when speaking with old people. But a pet name, a respectful name/title, does not make someone your parent. The very least that should have been done by Allah if he claimed to use a language “clear and easy to understand” was to say “his father and step-mother”. (The likely explanation is that Muhammad when he told this, forgot or did not know that Joseph’s mother was dead).

155 12/100a: (A12/95 – in 2008 edition A12/98, A12/99): “- - - and they Jacob and his family*) fell down in prostration, (all) before him (Joseph*) - - -.” Here is a big conundrum inside a riddle surrounded by a puzzle for Islam. A pious prophet like Jacob impossibly could prostrate himself before a human. And an as pious prophet like Joseph impossibly could have accepted it. Something has to be wrong in the text. This even though the Arab text “wa-kharru lahu sudjdjadah” literally means “- - - and they fell down before him in (alternatively “like in”) prostration (or “praying to him” according to the Swedish copy)”. Islam has no good explanations that we have found. According to ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas the “him” in “before him” must refer to Allah – which it most clearly does not do. Razi explains that Joseph’s dream was not fully fulfilled, etc. Actually here the text is very clear – and the only thing Muslim scholars agree on, is that the literal meaning must be wrong, and this without having a good alternative meaning.

156 13/1b: (A13/2): “These are the Signs (or Verses (or messages of revelation*)) of the Book (the Quran*) - - -.” Multiple meanings already here. But the main problem for Islam just here: What do “These Verses” refer to? Many scholars mean just the verses in this surah. Others like Ibn Abbas/Baghawi emphasize that it must mean all the verses in all the Quran. The Quran itself is unclear on also this small point – but big enough to cause debate for 1400 years.

156a13 13/2c: (YA1800): “Allah is He who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see - - -.” Or does it mean that it is the heavens you cannot see? – pick your choice (though it is the first one we most often meet). A. Yusuf Ali here explains the pillars with forces – interesting as it is an explanation we have not met before and a thought Muhammad did not think, as force fields or similar were something unknown at that time. But it is meaningless all the same: For one thing no force field has ever been registered (shall we guess that Muslims will explain this with a loose and convenient claim about forces only Allah can register?) But the main thing is that there are no 7 heavens which are “raised” and kept in their places – neither by pillars, nor by anything else.

157 13/2i: (A13/5): “Each one (sun and moon*) runs (its cause) for a term appointed” According to Islam “a term appointed” may refer to The Day of Doom - - - or to their passing through the zodiac “mansions” (‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas/Baghawi/Razi) - or perhaps to Allah's claimed predestination? Quite some differences in the meanings for a clear language. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

158 13/7g: (A13/17 – in 2008 edition A13/17): “But thou (Muhammad*) art truly a warner, and to every people a guide.” But Islam itself tells that there are more meanings possible from the Arabic text: “Thou art only a warner; and every people have had a guide like thee - - -” Two significantly different nuances in the meaning; Or: “Thou art only a warner – but (at the same time) also a guide unto all people” – at least one clear difference in nuances compared to each of the 2 above.” Or: “Thou art only a warner bound to do no more than deliver the message entrusted to thee, while it is Allah alone who can truly guide men’s hearts towards faith.” Far more than nuances in the meanings. A clear language in the Quran? – not possible to misunderstand?

159 13/9a: "He (Allah*) knoweth the Unseen - - -". This expression is used with 2 different meanings in the Quran: 1). What you do not or cannot see. 2). What has not been seen yet - the future. Which meaning is used when? Also see 2/233h above. We also may add that if Allah was involved in the delivery of the Quran, it proves that he far from knows everything, included far from all which is "unseen".

160 13/22e: (A43 – in 2008 edition A44): “- - - and turn off Evil with good - - -.” What does this mean? f.x. Ibn Kaysan/Zamakhshari: “if they have committed a sin, they repel it (= its effect on themselves*) by repenting”. Or Razi: "You have to say and/or do things to set evil situations right". Or others, f.x. Tabari: “You repay evil with good.” Just pick your choice, as the Arab text can mean any of these. Muslims claim the texts and the language in the Quran are so clear, that it is part of the proof for that the book must be sent down from Allah. We agree to that it proves something – but not an omniscient god. Definitely not. And these variants also inevitably are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. (We may also mention the Bible: "Turn the other cheek" - Matt. 5/39).

160a14 13/26c: (YA1841): “- - - the life on this earth is but little comfort in the Hereafter” = it means little in the next life. Or: “- - - it is a stepping stone (or something*) for the life to come.” Both meanings are possible from the crystal clear Arab text.

161 13/38e: (YA1863): “For each period is a Book (revealed.)” But two other correct translations will be: “For each period is a Law (revealed)”, and “For each period is a Decree established”. Just pick and choose. Clear language in the Quran?

161a15 13/41b: (A13/79 – in 2008 edition A13/80): “See they (“infidels”) not that We (Allah*) gradually reduce the land (in their control) from their outlaying borders?” (= we conquer more and more bits and pieces from them.) But the Arab word that here is translated with “sides” or “borders” – “atraf” – has many meanings. The sentence also may mean: “We take their best men”, or:” - - - the best part of (the Earth's) people and fruits”. What choice do you prefer? And these variants naturally also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Clear language in the Quran.

024 14/4d: (A14/4): “Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases.” Or may be “- - - Allah lets go astray him that wills - - -”? The first one is the literal meaning, though both are possible from the Arab text. But it paints a truly unsympathetic picture of the benevolent god Allah, so Muslim scholars to a large degree agrees on that something like the second meaning must be the true one. If it is clear, but do not fit the picture one likes, then explain that it is unclear and in reality means something else - the god has not been able to express himself correctly. And as said many times before; these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

163 14/5e: (A14/5): “Bring out thy (Moses’*) people (the Jews*) from the depth of darkness into light, and teach them to remember the Days of Allah”. What is meant by the Days of Allah? – the Exodus from Egypt? – or the Day of Doom? – or for that case some other day? Nobody knows. But when a god gives an order like this, it is far from unimportant that his followers get a chance to understand what he is talking about. Would a god forget that piece of information?

164 14/22d: (14/A32): “I (the Devil*) cannot listen to your cries (for help*), nor can ye (sinners in Hell*) listen to mine”. Or does it really mean: “I cannot respond to your call for help, just as you should not have, in your lifetime, responded to my call”? Islam simply does not know. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Clear language in the Quran?

165 14/49a: (A14/64): “And thou (Muslims*) will see the sinners that day (of Doom*) bound together in fetters - - -.” In real fetters? Or is it a metaphor for their evil deeds (Razi)? Or perhaps a picture of the chain reaction their bad deeds caused in this life (Asad)? Your guess is as good as ours and theirs, and neither the Quran nor Islam can answer – but would a real god leave so much of his holy book to sheer guesswork? Any topic in the Quran Muslims still after all these centuries are unable to understand or agree on, are proved insufficiently or not clearly enough explained – and any omniscient and clairvoyant god had long before he sent down (?) the book, known which points needed better or clearer explanation. Then who made the Quran with its often unclear words and meanings?

165a16 15/24: (YA1965): “- - - those of you who hasten forward, and those who lag behind”. Another cryptic sentence Muslims are not sure what means. The first to accept Islam, and the later ones? Those of the earlier times and those who will come later? The first in war and the reluctant ones? Muslims and doubters? Who knows? The gloriously clear and unmistakable language in the Quran - a solid proof for that the book is made by Allah, according to Muslim.

191 14/51b: (YA1930): “And verily (it definitely is no proved verity/truth*) Allah is swift to call into account.” Does this mean: Even if the “infidels” do well in life, it only means that Allah is waiting, and will react swiftly when his time comes? Or: Allah will work swiftly with the “infidels” at the Day of Doom? No Muslim can tell you the answer for sure.

151 15/70c: (YA1993): “They (the men from Sodom and Gomorrah*) said 'Did we not forbid thee (Lot*) (to speak) for all and sundry?’” – or may be the meaning is “- - - to entertain any strangers.” – the Arab text is open to both meanings. As mentioned before: Clear language in the Quran.

166 15/78a: (YA2000): “- - - the Companions ("People" in the last edition*) of the Wood - - -“. Who were they? Another name for the people of Madyan?. A group within the Medianites? Neighbors of the Medianites? Or some other tribe or group? Nobody knows. Unclear in the Quran.

167 15/91-92: (YA2013): “(So also on such) as have made the Quran into shreds (as they please). Therefore, by thy (Muhammad’s*) Lord (Allah*), We (Allah*) will, of surety call them to account.” This seems to be about the same culprits as mentioned just above – but many a Muslim scholar think the first part is about the Jews and the Christians (who Islam claims uses bits and pieces of their holy book and have falsified or made up the rest), and the last part they think is about the pagans in Mecca. The answer is unclear - like so often in the Quran.

168 16/41c: (A/42 – in 2008 edition 43): “To those who leave their homes in the cause of Allah - - - We (Allah*) will surely give a goodly home in this world; but truly the reward in the hereafter will be greater. If they only realize (this)!” This concerns the strained situation before Muhammad fled Mecca. Some followers fled to Africa, some preferred to risk staying in Mecca – flight was or seemed too dangerous for them. And then there were the non-Muslims. The last sentence in this verse concerns one of the two latter parts – but which? Baghawi, Zamakhshari, Razi and others mean the Quran here talks about the non-Muslims. Ibn Kathir and others mean it here is meant the Muslims who preferred to stay on in Mecca. Just pick your choice, because nobody knows what is right. A clear text not possible to misunderstand in the Quran?

169 16/43f: "- - - those who possess the Message". Like so often the Quran is unclear. This may mean learned, wise men, but most likely the message here is the Bible and the persons are the Jews and the Christians.

170 16/77b: (A16/88 in 2008 edition A16/90): “To Allah belongeth the Mystery of the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth, And the Decision of the Hour (of Judgment) - - -.” But is this what the Arab word “ghayb” really means? The literal meaning is “hidden reality”. Does it simply mean: “And Allah’s (alone) is the knowledge of the hidden reality of the heavens and the earth”? – or does it refer to Allah himself as a hidden reality? – or what? Nobody knows. Clear language in the Quran?

171 16/81h: (A16/95 – in 2008 edition A16/98): “He (Allah*) made you - - - coats of mail to protect you from your (mutual) violence.” But the Arab word “sarabil” simply means “clothes” or in a wider meaning “coverings”. It simply may mean any kind of clothes or coverings protecting you from something. Any god had used the (Arab) word for coats of mail if that was what he meant if he used a clear language. Clear and not to be misunderstood language in the Quran.

171a 16/82: “- - - thy (Muhammad’s) duty is only to preach the clear Message.” But if Muhammad's words were clear, why then do Islam and Muslims often claim the words are so unclear, that they need thorough "explanation"?

172 16/69a: (YA2099): “(The bees*) find with skill the spacious paths (“dhululan”) of its Lord (Allah*) - - -.” But as the Arab word has at least two meanings, the correct may be a reference to “the idea of humility and obedience in them”. Which do you prefer? Clear language in the Quran?

172a17 16/110d: (YA2147): “To those who leave their homes after trials and persecutions – and thereafter strive for the Faith and patiently persevere - - -.” (Also see 16/110a above). Well, who are the “those” in this? Pagans that became Muslims? Or whom? Muslims guess, as the text is not clear. (Also see 16/110e just below). May be there are used wrong vowels in the central word (remember; in the old Arab alphabet one has to guess the vowels) and it is not the Arab word “futinu” that is meant, but “fatanu”. Then the meaning changes to: “- - - after inflicting trials and persecutions (on Muslim – more or less 180 degrees the opposite*)". It is not the only place this is the case in the Quran – a nice and clear and impossible to misunderstand language.

172b18 17/6a: "Then We (Allah*) grant you the Return as against them - - -". Unclear, but this may refer to the return permitted by the Persian king Cyrus after 70 years in Babylon (Ezra 1/2-3). Then in case both warnings were before the return, but it would not be the first time Muhammad/the Quran was wrong on history.

Also according to the Bible, the involved god was Yahweh, not Allah.

172c19 17/33b: "And if anyone is slain wrongfully (it is clear from the Arab word used here - "zulm" (actually the full expression is "qutila mazluman") is not used in connection to accidents), We (Allah*) have given his (females not mentioned*) heir authority (to demand punishment/revenge (the Arab word here "quisa" may be translated with fair revenge or fair punishment or similar*) or forgive) - - -". But the Arab word here translated with heir - "wali" have several meanings, like "protector" etc. From this f. ex Zamakhshari means it also may include the government = the judicial system. (But this is not clearly said, and in several Muslim countries it is the killed person's family/heir who has the last word as to whether a death sentence is to be executed or not.)

As for forgiving from Allah: See 2/187d above.

172d20 17/33d: "- - - let him not exceed the bounds in the matter of taking lives, for he is helped - - -". It is unclear who "he" is - as so often the language in the Quran is not distinct. Most scholars think it is the victim who shall not be too angry, as he is revenged on Earth and get special treatment by Allah (all murder victims do as they were robbed of the possibility to make amends and pray for forgiveness)- f.x. Rezi. But some think "he" is the heir of the victim who should not exceed reasonable revenge. Clear language in the Quran, like so often.

172e21 17/33e: "- - - for he (see 17/33c just above*) is helped". By whom? Also this is unclear - some translators say by the law, others say by Allah. As shown many times, the language in the Quran often is unclear - sometimes very unclear and on essential points (in stark contradiction to what lay Muslims claim).

173 17/52c: (YA2236): Is this verse part of the answer to the skeptic in the previous verse? Or is it a separate, proud statement to Muslims. Who knows?

173a22 17/54e: “We (Allah*) have not sent thee (Muhammad*) to be a disposer of their (“infidels’”*) affairs for them”. Or does it mean (A17/62): "We (Allah*) have not sent thee (Muhammad*) charged with responsibility for their (people's*) conduct"? Or perhaps (translated from Swedish): "We (Allah*) have not sent thee (Muhammad*) with the power to determine their (peoples'*) fate"?The wonderfully clear and impossible to misunderstand language in the Quran - at least according to Muslims.

174 17/60b: (YA2249): “We (Allah*) granted thee (Muhammad*) the Vision which We showed thee - - -.” A conundrum for Islam: Which vision? The big one to heaven? Or one of the many other claims? Not possible to know. A. Yusuf Ali has an interesting comment to this point: That “such visions are miracles, and become a stumbling block to unbelievers”. Has he forgotten that the Quran time and again and again tries to explain away the total lack of miracles connected to Muhammad, with that miracles would have no effect anyhow? But he is right – miracles had had a large effect if there had been as much as a single one. That explaining away of the lack of miracles, is one of the places where an intelligent man like Muhammad knew he was lying each and every time he said it. (But then al-Taqiyya is ok according to Muhammad).YA also contradicts his own comment mentioned under 17/95b above.

175 17/71b: (YA2266): “One day We (Allah) shall call together all human beings with their (respective) Imams - - -.” Once more an Arab word – “imam” - without a definite meaning, as it has many meanings. In this case it at least can mean: “- - - each People or Group will appear with its Leader.” Or: “- - - - the Imam = their revelation = the Quran”. Or: “- - - the Imam is the book of record of deeds (made by the angles*).” Simply more guesswork.

175 17/80a: (A17/98): “Say: ‘O my Lord (Allah*)! Let me (Muhammad*) enter by the Gate of Truth and Honor, and likewise my exit by the Gate of Truth and Honor; and grant me from Thy Presence an authority to aid (me).” This is a cryptic one. Islam seems not really to understand its meaning. M. Asad from 2002 (translated from Swedish): “Lord (Allah)! Let me go down into my grave as a true and honest believer and let me get up from it as a true and honest believer, and give me from Your own power strength to be victorious.” And that book says that the literal meaning (translated from Swedish) is: “Let my entrance be in the sign of the truth and my exit be in the sign of the truth - - -.” M. Asad in English (2008): “(O my Sustainer (Allah*)! Cause me to enter (upon whatever I may do) in a manner true and sincere, and cause me to leave (it) in a manner true and sincere, and grant me out of Thy grace, sustaining strength.” This new edition simply has dropped all comments concerning this verse that was in the older editions. Too cryptic for the new edition? What at least is sure is that it is not 100% sure that the claims about how clear and easy to understand the text in the Quran are correct.

176 17/104b: (YA2314): “- - - the second of the warnings (for the Jews*) - - -.” The Jews have had such a tumultuous history, that nobody has a clue to what is meant. One guesses – but it only is educated guesses. Even the Day of Doom is proposed as one of the warnings, this even though the sentence is in the past tense. Clear language in the Quran? (When you look at other parts of the Quran, you may get the feeling - but only the feeling - that what is meant here is Nebuchadnezzar's conquest and bringing of most of the Jews to Babylon/Babylonia in 586-97 BC - see 17/6-7 above. Or perhaps the Romans and the following Diaspora.)

177 18/4-5: (A2): “Further, that He (Allah*) may warn those (also) who say, ‘Allah hath begotten a son’: No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers.” But the pronoun “hi” in “bihi” – does it point to “Allah hath begotten a son” or to “Allah”? In the last case the meaning here according to “The Message of the Quran” (that even stresses that this must be the right one, even though the one above is the usual one) is: “’Allah has taken unto Himself a son’. No knowledge whatever have they of Him (Allah*).” 2 choices – chose which one you think is best. And; these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

178 18/9c: (YA2336): “- - - and the Inscription (“raqim”) - - -.” Arab “raqim” means inscription. But it also may be the name of a dog, according to some Muslim scholars The "sleepers" had a dog according to Quran. Was this the name of that dog? The book does not specify and nobody knows - the famously clear and not to be misunderstood language in the Quran.

This story is not from the Bible.

179 18/21h: (A31 – in 2008 edition A30): “Let us (people*) surely build a place of worship over them (“the 7 sleepers”*)”. Or is the more usual translation correct? – that they should build a wall to close the cave. Who knows? - the language in the Quran is not clear, like so often.(In the original legend they were walled in and left to starve - how big chance would they have for not being molested by animals - or humans - if they were lying in an open cave for 300 or 309 years like the Quran claims?)

180 18/26h: "They have no protector - - -". Who are "they" in this case? The 7 sleepers? - or general people? Muslim scholars do not know. Clear language in the Quran?

181 18/55f: (A18/61): “- - - or the Wrath be brought to them face to face?” But the Arab word “qubulan” has 2 meanings: “face to face” and “in the future”. The alternative meaning then is something like: “- - - or the (ultimate) suffering should befall them (sinners*) in the hereafter.” To say the least of it: There is a certain distinction between meting something face to face – which on top of all has the underlying meaning fast – and to meet it sometimes in the future or in the next life. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

182 18/58g: (YA2402): “But they (non-Muslims*) have their appointed Time, beyond which they will find no refuge.” But the meaning of the Arab “min duni hi” may not point to the time, but to “your Lord” at the beginning of the verse. Then you get the meaning: “- - - and except with Allah, they will find no refuge.” Same Arab words – different meaning. Clear language?

183 18/60b: "- - - the junction of the two seas - - -". One does not know what this refers to. There are guesses, but that is it. The famous clear language in the Quran.

184 19/5c: "Now I (Zakariyya*) fear (what) my relatives (and my colleagues) (will do) after me - - -". Meaning obscure - no matter claims about clear language in the Quran. Also: This sentence is not from the Bible.

185 19/9a: (YA2462): “He said - - -.” Who said? – the angel or Zachariah? The book is unclear on this point.

##186 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 tales about Jesus as a child, and this story 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. Muslim scholars simply are at a loss about this text.

####"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 IS IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND IN THE QURAN.

A very clearly not true story - a clear mistake.

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. And 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).

187 19/56: "- - - Idris - - -". This may be a made up name, it may or may not have been the biblical Jewish prophet Enoch (1. Mos. 5/18-19 and 5/21-24), or perhaps the also biblical prophet Elijah (1. King 17/1 and 1. King 17/16-46), or it may be someone unknown. Nobody knows. The infamously clear language in the Quran.

188 19/71b: (A19/56 – in 2008 edition A19/55): “Not one of you but will pass over it (Hell*) - - -.” Who do the word “you” refer to? Islam does not know. Either all sinners or all humans most likely, but the text is unclear about which. Like too often before.

189 19/71c: (YA2518): “Not one of you but will pass over it (Hell*) - - -.” 3 possible interpretations: A: Every soul (person)? – they are resurrected in flesh according to Islam) must pass over/through/by the fire. Or B: Possibly it only refers to the wicked ones if the word “you” is only directed to them. Or C: May be it refers to the bridge Sirat (not mentioned by name in the Quran) over Hell and the march across that one. The book is this unclear.

190 19/75d: "- - - (who (is*)) weakest in forces". (A19/64 - translated from Swedish): "Literally: '- - - weaker in the question of troops/military forces'". The interesting point here is that in the English 2008 edition this is changed to (A19/60): "Literally: '- - - in property' or 'abundance of property'". The "Religion of Peace" becoming more correct?

And clear and easy and not to be misunderstood language in the original Quran?

191 20/12d: "- - - thou (Moses*) art in the sacred valley of Tuwa". But is the Arab word "tuwan" the name of "the hallowed valley" - Tuwa? According to A20/9 the word "tuwan" or "tiwan" - remember that the Quran originally was written without the vowels so you have to guess them - also can mean "twice" or "twice done". In this case it does not mean the valley of Tuwa, but something like "the twice hallowed valley". Muslims are very right when they claim that the language in the Quran is easy and not to be misunderstood - except all the times they are wrong.

192 20/15c: (YA2546): “My (Allah’s*) design is to keep it (the Day of Doom*) hidden - - -.” But the Arab word “ukhfi” may mean “hidden” or “manifest”. Then you get the alternative meaning: “My design is to make it manifest”. Choose what you like.

193 20/69: (YA2591): “And the magician thrives not, (no matter) where he goes”. An unclear sentence with at least 2 possible meanings according to Islamic scholars: A: Falsehood and trickery may win sometimes, but often not. Or B: Trickery and magic must come to an evil end. Clear language in the Quran?

194 20/96b: (A82): “He (the Samari*) replied: ‘I saw what they saw not: so I took a handful (of dust) from the footprint of the Messenger, and threw it (into the calf) - - -.” But is this literal translation correct? Muslim scholars tend to understand it more figuratively. F.x. “The Message of the Quran” (Swedish 2006): “- - - (I), therefore, took a handful of what the Messenger had left behind and threw it away - - -.” And the 2008 English edition (which seems to have made small “corrections” in dogmatic "correct" direction and are slightly less honest than Muhammad Asad himself, even though he, too, sometimes is more dogmatic than honest): “- - - so I took a handful of the Apostle’s teachings and cast it away.” What is the true interpretation? It seems that one has to learn Arab to be sure – honesty is not always part of a war religion. Especially the differences in the text between the 2006 and the 2008 edition of “The Message of the Quran” may be telling something about Muslims and about Islam.

195 20/116c: "When We (Allah*) said to the angels, 'Prostrate yourselves to Adam', they prostrated themselves, but not Iblis (later the Devil in Islam*) - - -". This represents a problem for Islam: Was Iblis an angel? But angels according to the Quran is created from light, whereas it is clear that Iblis was created from fire, and thus should be a jinn. The question is not settled yet. Clear language in the Quran?

196 20/123a: "- - - with enmity one to another - - -". Does it here mean enmity between Adam and Eve? (The name Eve is not mentioned in the Quran, only in the Bible.) - or between the snake and humans? - or - - -? (The Bible says between the snake and humans). The "clear" language in the Quran once more.

197 21/2b: "- - - a renewed Message - - -". This sentence also can be understood in 2 more ways than mentioned in 21/2a: 1): New verses or surahs coming down(?) to Muhammad, or 2): New ages needs new messages - and the messages Muhammad gets thus revise the ones sent(?) before - f.x. the Bible. In the last case there are problems:

  1. The Quran and all the other books sent down from Allah are exact copies of a holy "Mother of the Book" in Heaven - so perfect that it is revered by Allah and his angels. This claimed "Mother Book" was made by Allah before the world was created or has existed since eternity. We have never found explanations for how exact copies of one and the same eternal book can be different.
  2. There have been more changes in the world the last 200 years, not to mention from Muhammad till today, than in all ages from Homo Erectus till Muhammad. Why are not new books for our time and age sent? - the world really could need it.

198 21/4b: (A21/5): Variation in explanations: In the Swedish 2006 edition “The Message of the Quran” here tells that the Arab word is spelled “qul” (imperative of "say") in the “way of reading” - variety of the Quranic texts - after Warsh, used in much of North Africa. Whereas in the variety after Hafs, used in the rest of the Muslim area, it is spelled “qala” (“he (Allah) said” (though A. Yusuf Ali uses "say"). In the original old manuscripts it was written just q-l , so both interpretations are possible. 2 varieties because of unclear language in the original Arab text - like so often. But the main thing here is not this minor variety. #######The main thing is that “The Message of the Quran” here confirms that there are varieties of the book - something any Muslim scholar know, but all the same the lay people are told there never is or was more than one variety. Only 2 today remain in widespread daily use – the 2 mentioned (we are told that some of the other varieties have local use some places) – but once there were 14 canonized + some accepted varieties (and before that many more). Well, there is one more – and ominous – as interesting fact: This little known, but most essential, fact has “disappeared” from the 2008 edition. The fiction that there only is and always was only one Quran, is more essential than honesty in Islam it seems. But if a religion is true, it should not be necessary to lie about it - remember the IT-slogan RIRO: Rubbish In = Rubbish Out.

As impressive: In the English 2008 edition one has omitted the references to Warsh and Hafs, and thus that there even today are 2 varieties of the Quran (+ 4 a little used). All the cases we have found where the English 2008 edition is changed compared to the Swedish 2006 one, the changes has been in "correct" dogmatic direction. You may yourself guess why they here have omitted the fact that there even nowadays are 2 varieties of the Quran (and the many older varieties are never mentioned by the Muslim scholars - and many Muslims honestly do not know it, or are not aware of that "ways of reading" just is another expression for "variety", and thus claims that their variety/"way of reading" of the Quran, is the exact copy of Muhammad's words. Orthodoxy too often is more essential to Muslim scholars than honesty. (cfr. f.x. al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth, and Hilah - the lawful pretending/circumventing). (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

199 21/10c: (A21/13): “We (Allah*) have revealed for you (O men!) a book in which is a Message for you”. But the Arab word “dhikr” has a number of meanings. f.x. in ”The Message of the Quran”: ”(O men!) We (Allah*) have now bestowed upon you from on high a divine writ containing all that you ought to bear in mind”. The statement that the Quran contains all the knowledge you need, gives a large and interesting difference to the quoted meaning. And there are more possible meanings. Yes, a book with very clear texts, easy to understand and not possible to misunderstand. The information that all knowledge you need is to be found in the Quran, also is interesting in itself. An extra ominous meaning when you remember Islam's suppression of all "non-Islamic thoughts" through history.

Also remember this each time a Muslim boasts about how well Islam took care of also secular knowledge - which the religion and its mullahs, imams and scholar so definitely did not.

200 21/19d: (A21/22 – in 2008 edition A21/23): “- - - even those who are in His (very) Presence are not too proud to serve him - - -“. Does this only mean the angles, or also devoted believers? Islam does not know. But the text in the Quran is clear, they say.

201 21/28b: "He (Allah*) knows what is before them, and what is behind them - - -." But there is a problem here. The exact meaning of the original Arab text is not this, but (A21/35 and 2/247 - translated from Swedish): 'What they have between their hands, and what is behind them'. And nobody knows what really is meant - the Islamic scholars have launched a number of different meanings, but all are guesswork. The famous clear and not to misunderstand language in the Quran!

202 21/48b: "- - - the Criterion - - -". This is an unclear word. As Islam does not follow the Laws of Moses, they talk about the underlying ethical and moral rules, which they claim were the same for Moses and Islam - and eternal. But we have till now not seen one single Muslim clergy or scholar compare the Quran's ethical and moral codes with "do unto others like you want others do against you". It is unclear what the real meaning of the word is.

203 21/51c: (A21/55 – in 2008 edition A21/59, but some is omitted): “We (Allah*) bestowed aforetime on Abraham his rectitude of conduct - - -.” But the Arab expression “min qabl” which here is translated to “aforetime”, also may mean “already in young years”. “The Message of the Quran”, 2006 has (translated from Swedish): “Already in his youth We (Allah*) gave Abraham - - -.” Interestingly the ones who have revised the 2008 edition in his name (Muhammad Asad is as far as we know dead – the book originally is from at not later than 1980), has omitted some of his information and changed the text to this: “And, indeed, long before (the time of Moses) We vouchsafed unto Abraham - - -.” Also the information about alternative meanings is omitted in the 2008 edition. To make the text more clear? – or out of honesty?

204 21/64c: (A21/58 – in 2008 edition A62): “Surely we (Abraham’s contemporaries*) are in the wrong”. But because they did wrong not guarding their god pictures or because they suspected Abraham? Islam does not know (this point is left out in the 2008 English edition). Not from the Bible, like much more.

205 21/69a: (A21/61 – in 2008 edition A21/64): “We (Allah*) said, ‘O fire! Be thou cool, and (a means of) safety for Abraham”. But there is nowhere in the Quran actually said that Abraham was thrown into the fire, so even today Islam is at a loss what to believe – some say yes and some no. Clear language?

p>206 21/85b: Idris may or may not be Enoch (Gen. 5/21-24). It also may be Elijia or somebody else. As mentioned before, the language in the Quran often is far from exact. It may also simply be a name invented by Muhammad - and the same goes for Dhu'l-Kifl just below (and for the claimed Arab prophets Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb may be).

207 21/85c: Dhu'l-Kifl - nobody knows who he was, except it is likely he was a Jewish prophet. Many names are mentioned, but it only is guesswork. Also see 21/85b just above.

208 21/105: (A100 – in 2008 edition A101): “Before this We (Allah*) wrote in the Psalms, after the Message (given to Moses) - - -.” But the Arab word “zabur” just means “scripture” or “book”. Hence f.x. understandings like this are possible: “And, indeed, after having exhorted (man), We (Allah*) laid down in all the books of divine wisdom - - -.” Quite different – from the same easy to understand Arab text. And these variants as always also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

209 22/15c: (A22/15, YA2786): “If any think that Allah will not help him (his Messenger) in this world and the hereafter, let him stretch out a rope to the ceiling and cut (himself) off (hang himself*) - - -.” But the word used for “ceiling” also can mean “the heaven”, and then the Arab “fal-yamdud bi-salabin ils ‘s-sama thumma l’yaqta” may be translated: “- - - let him reach out unto heaven by any (other) means (a rope?*) and (thus try to) make headway - - -.” Quite a different meaning – from the clear language in the Quran. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

210 22/16e: (A22/17): “- - - Allah doth guide whom He will.” Or is the meaning: “- - - for (thus it is) that Allah guides him who wills (to be guided)”. Quite a difference – in the first case Allah decides, in the second case it is the person who decides (if free will exists). Both in the same clear text that is easy to understand according to Islam. And these variants as mentioned also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

210a23 22/27a: (A37): “And proclaim the Pilgrimage among men - - -.” As Allah was speaking about – not to, but about – Abraham in the previous verse, many Muslim scholars think this was said to Abraham. But there is no reason at all to believe Abraham institutionalized pilgrimage to Mecca – neither in the Bible nor in the Quran there is any hint about that - in addition to that he never visited Mecca (see 2/127a above). So many Muslims – f.x. Al-Hasan al-Basri – believe the words were meant for Muhammad. Believe what you like – the text is unclear enough for both meanings. Like all too often in the Quran

210b24 22/28b: "- - - the Days appointed - - -". It is unclear what here is meant. There are 3 special days during the Hajj pilgrimage - the 8., 9. and 10. of the month Dhu al Hijjah. Then there are the 2-3 following days (called Tashriq). But it also may be the first ten days of the month Dhu al Hijjah. As we have mentions before, the Quran frequently is pretty unclear.

211 22/29c: (A22/42): “Then let them (the pilgrims*) complete the rites prescribed for them, perform their vows, and (again) circumambulate the Ancient House .” This is what A. Yusuf Ali believes the Arab “thumma l-yaqdu tafathahum” means – to complete the rites. Others think like this: “- - - let them fulfill the wows which they (may) have made - - -.” Not even so central a subject for Muslims as what to do during the central part of the pilgrimage, does the clear(?) text in the Quran make clear. Had a god been so unclear in his speech on essential themes?

##212 22/65b: (A22/80, YA2847): Three translations of the same Arab words:

  1. A. Yusuf Ali: ”He (Allah*) withholds the sky (rain) from falling - - -.”
  2. M. Asad literal meaning (translated from Swedish): "- - - withholds the sky from falling - - -".
  3. M. Asad, “corrected” 2008: “- - - and (that it is He who) holds the celestial bodies (in their orbits), so that they may not fall upon earth - - -.” One of these sounds much better than the others scientifically – and honesty in religion does not matter very much. At least not in all religions.

This Arab word “sama” may mean: A: “something high”. B: ”a roof, a ceiling”. C: “the sky, the canopy of heaven” (not “the universe (see 51/47c)”*). D: “cloud or rain”. The ones who have revised the 2008 edition really have done a good work. But is it an honest work? Clear at least?

213 22/69c: "- - - (judging*) concerning the matters in which ye differ". Muslims scholars disagree about what matters this refers to - the famous clear(?) language in the Quran. The difference between their religion and Islam - where Islam claims to be the truth? The different rites within Jewism and Christianity? One simply does not know.

214 22/78a: “And strive in His (Allah's*) cause as ye ought to strive, (with sincerity and under discipline)”. The word “strive” frequently is used as a synonym for “fight”, but in this case it is unclear if it is meant “fight” or mental striving to get more Muslims or “work hard”. This early may be it means “work hard”, as the religion was quite peaceful till 622 AD. The Quran often is unclear.

215 23/1C: (YA2865): “The Believers must (eventually) win through - - -.” Or perhaps “- - - obtain salvation from sorrow and all evil.” The Arab word “aflaha” can give at least these 2 meanings. Clear language?

216? 23/24h: “- - - (moreover) we (non-Muslims*) have never heard (anything like) this from our forebears of old!” (Literally: “- - - in connection with (Arab “fi”*) our early forebears!”). There is a distinction in the meaning between "from" and "in connection with".

217 23/32b: (A23/17): “And We (Allah*) sent them a messenger from among themselves - - -.” Who are “they” and who is the messenger? Islam does not know. Some guess it may be Hud – sometimes mentioned in the Quran, but unknown anywhere else. It may perhaps be Muhammad. Or it may be a vague general description. Clear words?

218 23/39b: "(The prophet) said - - -". It is here unclear which prophet. Verse 23/41 shows it is not Noah. Perhaps the claimed prophet Hud. Or perhaps even Muhammad.

219 23/50c: "- - - high ground - - -". This may or may not refer to the birth of Jesus (which in the Quran is very different from in the Bible). It may also refer to Paradise. This is one of the many, many unclear points in the Quran.

220 23/55-56a: (A23/32): “Do they (people*) think that because We have granted them abundance in wealth and sons, We would hasten them on in every good?” Another possible translation of the Arab text: “- - - We (but want to) make them vie with one another in doing (what they consider) good works?” 2 very different meanings from one and the same clear (?) Arab text. To make it clear how clear the text is: The Swedish 2006 edition uses the first variety, the English 2008 edition the second one. Really clear Arab text in the original? And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

221 23/76: "We (Allah*) inflicted punishment on them (the people of Mecca*) - - -". Is this referring to the famine mentioned in 23/75a? - or to the Battle of Badr? (in that case this verse is a bit younger), - or to something else. Islam does not know. Clear language in the Quran?

222 23/77a: (A23/47): “Until We (Allah*) open on them a gate leading to a severe Punishment: then lo, they will be plunged in despair therein.” An alternative understanding of just the same clear Arab language: “- - - they will despair all hope.” As you see in the Quran the texts are so clear and obvious, that they have to be made by a god – if not, things had been possible to misunderstand or there would be double and multiple meanings here and there.

#223 23/112: (YA2948): “He (Allah*) will say - - -“. Here is an interesting small – or big – detail when you think about all the claims about how exactly like Muhammad’s words the Quran is: A. Yusuf Ali refers directly to the difference between 2 “ways of reading”. One is the Hafs version after Kufah, the other is Warsh after Basrah – Islam uses the expression “ways of reading” (“qira’ah”) and pretends that that is something different from versions, which it is not. Islam just use another word to conjure away the fact that there exist and existed different versions of the book – there once were 14 “canonized” ones + some accepted + a lot of others. We quote: “The Hafs reading is “Qala”, “He will say”. This follows the Kufah Qira’ah. The Basrah Qira’ah reads “Qul”, “Say” (in the imperative).” In itself this is a minor detail – though far more than “correct to the last comma” like Muslims often claim (in the first case the quote if from Allah, in the second case Allah is ordering someone (Muhammad?) to speak) – but it documents that the different versions of the Quran still exist and are used. (Actually the two that are in daily use today, are Warsh in parts of Africa, and Hafs in the rest of the world.) All these versions tells about a language in the Arab original Quran which is very unclear on many details and points - call it "different ways of reading or whatever + words and expressions with unclear or more than one meaning.

224 23/113: "We (humans*) stayed a day or part of a day - - -". More unclear speech from the Quran. Muslim scholars do not understand what this means and are just guessing. Life compared to eternity? The meaning of time disappears at the Day of Doom? The subjective time spent in the grave? One is guessing.

224a25 24/11c: "- - - think it not to be an evil for you (Muslims*); on the contrary it is good for you - - -". It is pretty unclear what is the meaning here. Muslim scholars have different explanations, all rather vague.

225 24/35e: (A24/54): “Allah doth guide whom He will to his Light”. But others (included Zamakhshari) mean the same clear and not mistakable text says: “Allah leads unto His light him that wills (to be guided)”. 180 degrees different meaning (in the first Allah decides, in the other the person) – both "correct", as the text can be understood both ways. Would a god use a language so careless and difficult to understand clearly? And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

226 24/36a: "(Lit is such a (religious*) Light) in houses, which Allah hath permitted to be raised to honor - - -". The meaning here is not quite clear - in any house for prayer/any mosque or just special ones, like Kabah or the great mosques in Medina or Jerusalem? Muslim scholars do not agree. Clear language in the Quran?

227 24/46g: (A24/64): Like 24/35e two quotes higher up.

228 24/60a: (A24/84): “Such elderly women as are past the prospect of marriage - - -.” A nuance different from the exact meaning: “- - - who do not desire (or hope for) sexual intercourse - - -.” 2 rather different meanings at least formally?

229 24/63b: (YA3048): “Deem not the summons of the Messenger (Muhammad*) among yourself like the summons of one of you to another: Allah doth know those of you who slip away under shelter of some excuse - - -.” But the old consonant alphabet also gives 2 more possible variants: “Do not think that the prayer of the Prophet of Allah is like your ordinary requests to another: the Prophet’s prayers will be about serious matters and will be accepted by Allah.” And: “Do not address the Prophet familiarly as thou would address one another: use proper terms of respect for him.” These meanings vary wildly – but all are correct according to the unfinished Arab alphabet of ca. 650 AD. Clear and distinct language in the Quran?

230 25/1a: "Blessed is He (Allah*) who sent down the Criterion (the Quran?*) - - -". No god sent down a book with his many mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, unclear language, etc., not to mention reveres it in his own "home" as the "mother book" (13/39, 43/4, 85/21-22). Besides Islam does not know for sure that "the Criterion" means the Quran.

230a26 25/1b: (YA:3054): “Blessed is He (Allah*) Who has sent down the Criterion to His servant - - -.” The pronoun in “yaquna” may refer to Furqan (= The Criterion = the name of this surah) or to the “’Abd” (“the Holy Prophet” (Muhammad*)). In the last case it will mean: “- - - sent down the Holy Prophet - - -“. Clear language in the Quran? And in addition:

Muhammad was not even a real prophet. The definition of a prophet is a person who:

  1. Have the gift of and close enough connection to a god for making prophesies.
  2. Makes prophesies that always or at least mostly come true.
  3. 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 a 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 see the future correctly often - actually he statistically and according to the laws of probability should have "hit the mark" far more often by sheer chance than he did - there just are a few cases where Muslims will claim he foretold something correctly, and few if any of them are "perfect hits". But then the Quran makes it pretty clear that even though he was intelligent, he had little fantasy and that he also was nearly unable to make innovative thinking (nearly all his tales and his ideas in reality were "borrowed" ones - though often twisted to fit his new religion).

The main things here are that Muhammad never indicated that anything of what he said was meant as prophesies, that he never indicated, not to mention claimed, that he had the gift of prophesying, that it nowhere is documented that all/most of what he said about the future came true (point 2 above), and finally that both he and Islam said and says that there were no miracles connected to Muhammad “except the Quran”; prophesying is a kind of miracle -seeing what has not yet happened). (This last fact also is a solid proof for that all the miracles connected to Muhammad mentioned in the Hadiths, are made up stories). Also see 30/40a and 30/46a, and we also should add that his favorite wife (and infamous child wife) Aishah according to Hadiths (f.x. Al-Bukhari) states that anyone saying Muhammad could foresee things, were wrong.

Verse 7/188b also is very relevant here: "If I (Muhammad*) has 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 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. Chr. 26/28, 1.Chr.29/29, Amos 7/12, Mic. 3/7 - some places the two titles even are used side by side). Muhammad so definitely was no seer - prophet - even according to his own words; he had no "knowledge of the unseen".

###And 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.

231 25/12a: "When it sees them from far off - - -". Some Muslims say "it" here refers to the death, though most likely it means the Hell-fire. The clear language of the Quran.

232 25/22d: "There is a barrier forbidden (to you (sinners*)) altogether". It is likely this somewhat unclear sentence means: "It is forbidden for you to cross into Paradise, because of your sins".

Would an omniscient god addressing also the uneducated and the little intelligent ones, use unclear language?

233 25/30f: (A25/23-24): “Truly my (Muhammad’s) people took this Quran for just foolish nonsense.” Or perhaps it means (translated from Swedish): “My people looks at this Quran as something outdated (which may be put away).” There is a distinction between foolish nonsense and something that may have been ok, but now is outdated (most of Muhammad’s stories in the Quran, were “borrowed” and “adjusted” from older stories.)

234 25/38b: (YA3094): “- - - the Companions of the Rass - - -.” “The Rass" may mean “an old well” or “a shallow water-pit” or be connected to “the burial of the dead” or it may be the name of a town or a place. Islam is at a loss what people here is meant – the Quran simply is too unclear.

235 25/59e: (A25/46 – in 2008 edition A25/47, but the alternative “disappeared”): “- - - ask thou (man*), then, about Him (Allah*) of any acquainted (with such things)”. Is this “any” Allah? – or Muhammad? – or the Quran? Many Muslims guess it is Allah, but it only is guessing – the others are quite possible. Clear text?

236 25/62b: "- - - for such as have the will to celebrate His (Allah's*) praises or to show their gratitude". This sentence gives no meaning in this context. Muslims try different "explanations", but we have seen no good one.

237 26/2c: "- - - the Book - - -". The Quran is a bit confusing on this point - like on a number of others. This title it sometimes used for the Bible or the old Jewish scriptures, and sometimes for the Quran - you sometimes have to guess. In this case it means the Quran.

238 26/20b: (YA3149): “Moses said: ‘I did it then, when I was in error.” 3 possible implications: “I was wrong in doing it in a temper and in being hasty,” or “I was wrong in taking the law into my own hands, but repented and asked Allah’s pardon,” or “That was a time when I was under your influence, but since then I am a changed man, as Allah has called me.” The exact meaning unclear - like so often in the Quran.

239 26/38: "- - - a day well-known". It is unclear what this means - it also is not mentioned in the Bible, like so much more. Muslim scholars guess it refers to a festival, but they have no source for this belief.

240 26/57-58: (A26/31 – the alternative explanation left out in the 2008 edition): “So We (Allah*) expelled them from gardens, springs, treasures and every kind of honorable positions - - -.” Is it here the Egyptians who over time have robbed the Jews? - or now robbed the Jews? – or is it Allah who punishes the Egyptians afterwards? Islam is still debating this unclear point.

241 26/58-59: (YA3169): “Treasures, and every kind of honorable position; Thus it was, but We (Allah’*) made the Children if Israel inheritors of such things”. But the alternative meaning of these two verses is: Verse 58 “We (Pharaoh*) have dispossessed the Israelis from everything good in the land, and made them our slaves”. Verse 59 (Allah comments): “Poor ignorant man (Pharaoh*)! You may oppress those who are helpless, but We (Allah) have declared that they shall inherit these things”. As one understands, the language in the original Quran is clear, distinct and impossible to misunderstand (!). Some very different meanings.(We may add that according to the Bible, the Jews were given valuables when leaving. Muslim scholars claim this proved the dishonesty of the Jews - and not one of them as far as we have seen, has mentioned that this could be part of this inheritance if they were promised by the god. Also not one of them as far as we have seen, mention that even if they had got very much, it would be lousy payment for likely some generations of slave work. For some reason or others, they just claim it proves Jewish dishonesty - and also never compare it to heroic Muslim looting from their victims through the centuries.)

242 26/129: (A26/57): “And do you get for yourselves fine buildings in the hope of living therein (for ever)?” – or: “- - - that you might gain immortal renown for having built them?” It is anybody’s guess what the Quran really means here, too. Clear speech? And these variants - as always - also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Clear language in the Quran?

242a27 26/137: (A26/59 – in 2008 edition A26/60 but the alternative explanation omitted): “This is no other than a customary service of the ancients”. The old pagans defend their religion with that it is the reliable religion of our forefathers (Ibn Abbas, ‘Ikrimah, Qatadah). Or maybe it was the other way around? – that they accused the Muslims (in this case the presumed prophet Hud) for telling just old nonsense? – “This that you tell us just (is*) repetition of old and outdated ideas.” It actually is clear that what Muhammad told mostly were old stories - often with a twist to make them fit his religion. Unclear Quran - like many other points in the book.

243 26/176b: “- - - the Companions (or People*) of the Wood - - -“. No matter who they were, if they ever lived, they lived sometime between Noah and Moses, and thus they were a time anomaly for everyone living earlier who could read about them in copies their claimed prophets had got of the timeless "Mother Book" in Heaven - like Muhammad got a copy which he named the Quran.

"The people of the Wood" is one more expression Islam does not know what means, but have to guess for what people is meant.

244 26/189c: (A26/77 – in 2008 edition A26/78): “Then the punishment of overshadowing gloom sized them (the people of Madyan), and that was the Penalty of a Great Day.” Does this refer to physical darkness? – but Madyan was destroyed by an earthquake according to the Quran (7/91), and earthquakes are not accompanied by darkness. Or does it refer to spiritual darkness caused by regret – but there was nobody left to feel regret if everybody was dead (a fact that is not mentioned)? Islam does not know the answer – the text does not make it clear.

245 26/218b: “- - - Who seeth thee (Muslims*) standing forth (in prayer).” Or maybe (Mujahid/Tabari): “- - - Who seeth you wherever thou mayst be.” Both meanings are possible from the Arab text. And these variants - like before - also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Once more the clear text in the Quran.

245a28 26/193-196a: (A26/85 – in 2008 edition AA26/83): “With it (the Quran) came down the Spirit and the Truth – to thy heart and mind that thou mayst admonish in the perspicuous Arabic tongue. Without doubt it is (announced) in the revealed Books of former peoples.” But is it the Quran that is announced, like it is indicated here, and which is the most widely held view in Islam (even though the Quran definitely is not mentioned, not to say announced, in the Bible)? – or is it the contents that has been sent before (but claimed by Islam to be falsified), like f.x. Zamakhshari and Baydawi thinks? Impossible to know – the text is not clear on this point.

246 27/8b: (A27/7): “But when he (Moses*) came to the (fire) - - -.” But according to early commentators, referred by Tabari, the Arab word “nar” (fire) in this context is synonymous with another Arab word “nur” (light) as the vowel is to be guessed. Then you get: “- - - came to the light - - -.” A third alternative is that the original text here – “man fi ‘n-nar wa-man hawlaha” is referring to Allah’s own light. All these three meanings are possible from the Arab text. And these variants - like before - also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

247 27/38a: (A27/31): “Ye Chiefs! Which of you can bring me her throne before they come to me in surrender.” There is no logical meaning for surrender at this stage of the story – and especially not for such a distant country. May be therefore – or may be to keep up the pretension that good Muslims like Solomon (!) never starts a war – Islam has found another meaning: It means surrender to Islam. Well, the explanation is not quite as impossible as in 27/37b above. But it is not what the book says. “Surrender” is a political and military word with a clear meaning. It also is used in other connection, but then it is made clear what connection – like “surrender to Allah”, or “she will surrender to me (Allah*)” which implicates further details, articulated or not, to the word “surrender”. That is not the case here. The text clearly indicates surrender to Solomon.

248 27/40a: (A17/32): “Said one who had knowledge of the Book - - -.” Who was this? Islam is unable to agree on it. Razi says it is Solomon himself – but the context clearly shows that this person speaks to Solomon. Clear text?

249 27/42-43: One possible meaning of the Arab text: “- - - and we (the Queen of Saba/Sheba – in Arab tradition called Bilqis*) have submitted to Allah (in Islam). And he (Solomon*) diverted her from the worship of others besides Allah - - -.” The alternative possible meaning of the book that is clear and not possible to misunderstand: “And we (Solomon*) had knowledge of Allah’s Message and accepted it before her - - - and the worship of others besides Allah diverted her (from the true Religion).” Clear or confusing? – 2 very different meanings. In addition this verse simply has unclear text.

250 27/82a: ”And when the Word is fulfilled against them (the unjust), We shall produce from the earth a Beast to (face) them - - -.” What is this beast? Nobody knows – but A. Yusuf Ali did propose it was a symbol for materialism (YA3313) - Muslims f.x. proved to be very materialistic in all their wars and raids for stealing/robbing. It also may be a reference to the Beast in the Bible (See 27/82b just below). Who knows?

251 27/82b: "- - - We (Allah*) shall produce from the earth a Beast - - -". This sentence is an enigma in the Quran. It may be a vague legend made from the text in Revelations in NT - chapter 13 and 17 (f.x. 17/3) talk about beasts, and Rev. 13/11-18 tells about a beast "coming out of the earth" (and chapter 12 about a dragon). Or it may be something else.

252 28/38e: (A28/37 – YA3371) A real question here is, is this (see 28/38d) the correct meaning of the Arab word “ittali’u”? Or did Pharaoh wish that “- - - haply I may have a look at the god of Moses - - -”? Or (translated from Swedish): “- - - that I may get some information about the god of Moses - - -.” Not too big variations in the meanings, but far from “exact to the last comma” like Muslims like to boast of.

Another open question: Is this sarcasm or a seriously meant order? – the Quran does not tell and nobody knows. The famous exact language of the Quran!

252a29 28/49d: "- - - a better Guide than either of them - - -". Which books? The Torah (the old Jewish)?, - the Bible? - the NT? - the Gospels? - the Quran? Muslims have a tendency to say the Torah and the Quran. In that case it is easy to point to a better guide - or for that case guides. The NT with its new covenant is way ahead of the Quran, if one believe a possible god is good and benevolent - and intelligent and with much knowledge (the Quran is full of wrong facts - you find mistakes in the NT, too, but not by the shipfulls like in the Quran. It also is way ahead morally.

But it is not clearly said in the Quran which books it here means - unclear language like so often in the Quran.

252b30 28/54a: "Twice they (Jews and Christians converting to Islam*) will be given their reward. It is unclear what here is meant. Some Muslims believe it is meant they will be rewarded for being believers in the god before, and then once more for converting to Islam, but like so often the Quran has unclear speech.

252c31 28/57d: "- - - secure sanctuary - - -". Mecca - the place was holy even before Muhammad, and war prohibited. Or Paradise. Like so often the language in the Quran is not very clear.

252d32 28/82d: "- - - His (Allah's*) servants - - -". In the Quran this sometimes means his claimed prophets or messengers and sometimes (good) Muslims generally speaking, and sometimes even the whole humanity. Plus some more ones. Clear texts in the Quran?

252e33 28/85d: (YA3416): “- - - the Place of Return.” Does this mean Mecca or Paradise? Nobody knows. The claimed clear and not to be misunderstood, but easy to understand, language in the Quran once more. According to Islam the claimed clear language in the Quran is a proof for that the book is made by a god - but what then does the reality about the language there prove?

252f34 29/5d: (YA3427): “- - - for the Term (appointed) by Allah is surely coming - - -“. Does this refer to the time appointed for death and thus the end of this life, or to the time left of this life and thus the possibility to prepare for the next life? Nobody knows - as mentioned other places the language in the Quran often is unclear (in spite of Islam's strong claims about the opposite).

252g35 29/29a: (YA3450): “Do ye (the men of Sodom and Gomorrah*) indeed approach men, and cut off the highway - - -.” Does the “- - - cut off the highway - - -“ refer to attacking and raping homosexually the travelers, or does it refer to robberies? Islamic scholars disagree and the Quran does not make it clear - like so often in the Quran.

252h36 29/45-46: (A40): “Recite what is sent of the Book by inspiration to thee - - -.” But who is or are “thee” in this case? Muhammad? – or Muslims generally? In the last case the meaning of Arab “ma uhiya ilayka mina ‘l-kitab” may be “- - - whatever of the divine writ has revealed itself to thy understanding”. Islam has to guess what is really meant here – you do the same. Yes, the Quran is a very clear scripture.

252i37 30/3a: "In a land close by - - -". One does not know neither where nor when - like so often the Quran is unclear. The reasonable alternatives are mentioned in 30/2-4.

253 30/9b: (A30/7): “- - - they (earlier pagans*) tilled the soil and populated it in greater number than these (the peoples at the time of Muhammad*) have done - - -.” But the Arab word “akthar” which here has been translated to “greater (numbers)” in reality only means “more”, and the phrase also can be translated like this according to Islam: “Greater were they (the pagans of older times*) in power than they (the people contemporaries to Muhammad*) are, and they left a stronger impact on the earth, and built it up even better - - -.” In the first case they were more people (and thus more powerful), in the other case they richer and because of that more powerful. Like so often before: Pick your choice because the very easy to understand(?) Arab scripture permits both meanings. And these varieties also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

254 31/10c: (YA3587): “He (Allah*) created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see - - -.” Or does it mean that it is the heavens you cannot see? – pick your choice, as the claimed clear Arab text may mean also this (though it is the first one we most often meet). A. Yusuf Ali here explains the pillars with forces – interesting as it is an explanation we have not met before. But it is meaningless all the same: For one thing no force field has ever been registered (shall we guess that Muslims will explain this with a loose and convenient claim about forces only Allah can register?) But the main thing is that there are no 7 heavens that are “raised” and kept in their places – neither by pillars, nor by anything else.

##255 32/23f: (YA3657): “We (Allah*) did indeed aforetime give the Book to Moses: be not then in doubt of its reaching (thee) - - -.” But the Arab pronoun “hi” can be translated either “its” or “his”. In the last case the meaning here is: “- - - be not then in doubt of his (Moses’*) reaching (thee) (it must in case mean Moses’ thoughts or example or deeds*) - - -“. Extra interesting as the 5 "Books of Moses" were not written until centuries after his death according to science.

256 32/25b: "- - - in Matters wherein they (the Jews*) differ (among themselves)". It is unclear what matters here are meant. Some Muslims say it is the question about whether or not there is a next life, but even though OT tells little about Heaven, there is no doubt about the Jews' belief in a next life. This also is clear even from NT (f.x. Matt. 22/23-29).

One of the many unclear points in the Quran.

257 33/35e: (A36 – in 2008 edition A38): “- - - the men and women who fast (and deny themselves) - - -.” But is it only denying themselves what the fast demands? The Arab word “sa’im” really means “one who denies himself from or abstains from anything”. Then the meaning changes to: “- - - all the self-denying men and self-denying women - - -.” In a way the same, but the meaning is much wider. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

258 33/52c: (A64 – in 2008 edition A65): “It is not for thee (Muhammad*) (to marry more) women after this - - -.” Does this relate to no more than the 4 categories women that he in verse 52 was told were lawful for him? Or does it refer to all women – except slaves? Islam tends to believe the last, but f.x. Tabari said the first. And no-one will ever know. Clear language? (This verse is from 629 AD or later according to Islam - it has to be, as he married his last wives, Maymuna bint al-Harith, in February 629 AD, and Safiyya bint Huayay around the same time, and if the verse is older, he broke the rule of the Quran on this point). Muhammad then was nearly 60. May be he felt the pressure from having to satisfy a dozen wives and concubines? - plus short-time wives and women one does not know if he was married to or not. (Muhammad over the years had 11 wives, 2 concubines, 16 short-time wives and 7 with unclear status known by name = 36 all together which are known by name.) All the same some Muslim scholars believe this verse is from 627 AD - before he married Zainab. Not good in case.

259 33/55c: (A71 – in 2008 edition A72): “- - - or their (believing*) women - - -“. To what women does this relate? – as slaves are mentioned separately later in the sentence, it cannot be slave women. Close relatives? Other close or not very close ones? Or all women? Islam tends to believe the last, but the verse is open for all those meanings. And these variants as normal also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language worthy a god.

260 33/59c: “O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad) - - -.” What is “outer garments”? – the veil at least is neither mentioned nor indicated. And what is “when abroad”? - his wives never left Arabia.

261 33/72c: (A33/86 – in 2008 edition A33/87): “We (Allah*) did indeed offer the Trust to the Heavens (plural and wrong) and the Mountains - - -.” But what is the meaning of the Arab word “amanah” which here is called “trust”? The plain reality is that nobody knows. And the as plain truth is that no matter how grandiose a translation you will ever meet (“the trust of reason and volition” f. x.) it is nothing but guesswork. But Muslims have the gall of using the claimed “clear and easily understood language in the Quran” as a proof for that the book is not made by humans. And worse: Many a Muslim with little education really believes it himself.

262 34/4b: (A34/3): “That He (Allah*) may reward those who believe and work deeds of righteousness - - -.” Yes – but where? Many or most scholars say “in Paradise” – this has the extra benefits that the promises of luxury can be bigger, and one does not have to explain why pious people often are not very well off. But others – like Razi – claims it is in this world, with the good feelings one have when one believes strongly, as the main benefit. The text itself is silent about the mystery. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has more than one meaning.

263 34/11c: (A34/13): “Make thou (David*) coats of mail, balancing well the rings of the chain armor, and work ye righteousness, for be sure I (Allah*) see (clearly) all that ye do.” This is a quite traditional translation. But Muhammad Asad strongly argues for another interpretation, and it runs like this in the 2008 edition: “Do good deeds lavishly, without stint, and give deep thoughts to their steady flow. And (thus should you all, O believers,) do righteous deeds: for, verily, I see all that you do!” We can well understand if you refuse to believe that written words can be so unclear that one and the same verse can give so different interpretation. But the quotes are exact, and both books are freely available in English (Abdullah Yusuf Ali: “The Holy Quran” and Muhammad Asad: “The Message of the Quran”, certified by Al-Azhar al-Sharif Islamic Research Academy, Cairo). But remember the problem of the translation of the Quran from old Arab scripture with only some of the letters written, and the rest you have to guess, to modern Arab. As we have said before: When you meet Muslims claiming that the clear language in the Quran is a proof for that it is sent down from a god, or similar claims – or that it is an exact copy of the words of Allah or Muhammad – then do not laugh, as it is impolite - - - and if they have little education in the religious field, they may even believe what they say. We repeat: And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

There also is another point here: King David did not have coats of mail. The coat of mail was invented by the (pagan) Celts some 12 centuries later.

264 34/16b: (YA3813): “- - - the flood (released) from the Dams - - -.” But the Arab word “arim” – is it in reality a name, or does it mean dams or embankments? Nobody knows. If it is a name, the meaning changes. (But we may add that in the old Sheba there were dams - water reservoirs for irrigation. The decline of the once rich nation seems to have coincided with the erosion of these dams. As far as we know the Muslims never rebuilt them until in modern times).

265 34/51-54: (YA3867): We simply quote A. Yusuf Ali in “The Meaning of the Holy Quran”: “- - - the verses 51 – 54 may be understood in many meanings: (1) The description applies to the position in final Hereafter, as compared with the position in this life. (2) It applies to the triumphant Islam in Madinah (= Medina*) and later, as compared with the position of persecuted Islam in its early days in Makkah (= Mecca*). (3) It applies to the reversal of the position of right and wrong at various phases of the world’s history, or (4) individual history.” Very clear and distinct text.

266 35/30b: (A35/22 – comment omitted in English 2008 edition): “- - - He (Allah*) will grant them their just rewards, and give them (even) more out of His Bounty; for He is Oft-forgiving, Most ready to appreciate (service).” “The Message of the Quran” (2008) has it like this: “- - - for, verily. He is much-forgiving, ever-responding to gratitude.” What the literal meaning is according to the less “revised” 2006 edition, is (translated from Swedish): “He (Allah*) forgives much and He shows great gratitude.” May the different ways of “understanding” the text derive from the fact that it cannot be correct that the great god Allah can show gratitude towards mere humans?

As for forgiving from Allah: See 2/187d above.

267 36/13: "- - - the Companions of the City - - -". No indication is given for which city. Many Muslims think it is meant Antioch, but there is no real indication for this. We also point to that it is said in the Quran that this is a parable - one of the not too many places where such a thing is said in the Quran (in spite of Muslims' frequent claims about parables, etc. to explain away mistakes). And that is likely to be the truth here: A story made up to highlight a point or a meaning - a parable simply.

268 36/28a: (A17 – comment omitted in English 2008 edition): “And We (Allah*) sent not down against his People, after him (a man who came running in 36/20*) - - -.” The literal meaning of the Arab “hi i min ba’dihi” is “after him” (like said here) or after “this”. But does it refer to “after what he did in this situation” or – as it is told he went to heaven in 36/26 (2 verses earlier) – does it refer to “after his death”. Islam does not know and in 2008 the “revised” “The Message of the Quran” does not even want to inform its readers about the uncertainty any more.

269 36/31b: (YA3976): “Not to them will they return - - -.” What does this mean? Nobody knows, but many are guessing. Who are “them”? And who are “they”? 1400 years of guessing among Muslim scholars have brought no answer. Does this indicates that the Quran is blessed with a divinely language, divinely clear and divinely easy to understand?

#269a 36/38c: The normal translation of 36/38a - (Arab: “li-mustaqarrin laha”) is (translated from Swedish): “And the sun runs to its place of rest” which is way out wrong. But as the old Arab written language far from was exact, Muhammad Ali’s transcription is a possible, if less likely one – as is “(to) the end point for the course which it follows” or - inserting other vowels among the written consonants (in old Arab only the consonants were written) and getting the expression “la mustaqrra laha” – “it runs its course without resting” (Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud/Zamakhshari). Or “The sun runs its course to a certain extent, then it stops” (Baydawi: “The Lights of Revelation” p.585). No matter which translation you choose here it is wrong. Also see 36/38d just below.

Next time you meet a Muslim seriously telling you how exact the Quran always is, do not laugh – it is impolite.

270 36/38d: (A33/21 – in 2008 edition A33/19): “And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him - - -.” But the Arab expression “li-mustakarrin laha” is unclear. The normal translation of this expression when the Quran is explained, is “And the sun runs to its place of rest - - -“ which is something very different (and which in surah 18 is a pond of murky water). Muslims frequently tells that here is meant the place of sundown, but the sun does not rest there. To mention a 3. translation in the 2008 edition of “The Message of the Quran” this passage is changed from the above mentioned normal translation, to “- - - it (the sun*) runs in an orbit (!!*) of its own - - -.” Except for the fact that the sun does not orbit Earth, they have managed to adjust the text to nearly modern astronomy – honesty or no honesty concerning the real meaning in the text. And to make the enigma of this clear and unmistakable text crystal clear: If you change a few letters and read the above quoted Arab text like this: ”la mustaqarra laha” the meaning as mentioned in 36/38c just above changes to “- - - it runs without having any rest - - -.” (One of the old authorities, ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud is reported to have quoted it like that – an essential fact it seems like, because that is less wrong than the text in the Quran. In the mentioned 2008 edition this is used as an excuse for making the Quran look more correct than the normal translation does. Honesty and intellectual integrity?) At least: Some clear text! And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language. Also see A. Yusuf Ali’s comment in 36/38b just below.

271 36/38e: (YA3983): “And the sun runs its course for a period determined (“mustaquarr”) for it - - -.” According to this comment, it is possible to read at least 5 meanings:

  1. “- - - a limit of time - - -.”
  2. “- - - a period determined - - -.”
  3. “- - - a place of rest - - -“.
  4. “- - - a place of quiescence - - -“.
  5. “- - - a dwelling place - - -.”

All these meanings are correct according to the original Arab Quran – and its unfinished alphabet.

Very distinct and clear language in the Quran? Or just clear?

272 36/46e: (A36/27 – in 2008 edition A36/25): “No Sign comes to them (non-believers*) from among the Signs of their Lord (Allah*) - - -.” But another translation: “- - - - no message of their Sustainer’s (Allah’s) messages - - -.” Message is a wider word than sign. A sign can be a message, but a message can mean a lot more information than a sign. Which one did Allah (?) mean? And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

199 36/75b: “They (different gods*) have not the power to help them (man? gods?*): but they (whom?*) will be brought up (before Our (Allah’s) judgment Seat) as a troop (to be condemned.” To quote A. Yusuf Ali: “There is some difference of opinion among Commentators as to the exact meaning to be attached to this clause.” To be blunter: Islam just is guessing at what it can mean. Unclear language simply.

273 36/77c: (A47 – in 2008 edition A45): “Yet behold, he (man*) (stands forth) as an open adversary (to Allah?*).” But then we are back to the Arab words. Razi and Zamakhshari sets “khasim” = “natiq” and then you get this meaning: “- - - he (man’) shows himself endowed with the power to think and to argue.” Choose what you like in the "clear and not to be misunderstood" linguistic masterpiece named the Quran.

003 37/1b: (A1 and YA4031): “By those who range themselves in ranks - - -.” But does this mean the angles or the Muslims (who ranges themselves in ranks when praying in the mosques and when going to battle)? Islam does not know the answer – the language is not clear on this point. The same goes for: Are it the same ones who are mentioned in verses 2 and 3?

274 37/130a: (A48 and YA4114A): “Peace and salutation to such as Elias!” But the name used in the Arab text is Il-Yasin, which can mean (the Jewish prophet) “Elias” (also written Elia or Elijah), or “Elias and the ones that followed after him” (according to Tabari and Zamakhshari). A detail – but a god also makes the details clear, and here it is unclear. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

275 37/171b: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Servants - - -". This expression in the Quran may mean all humanity, all Muslims or at least all good Muslims, or all prophets/messengers claimed sent from Allah. Plus some more ones. As it here is talked about servants sent, it is likely to mean the claimed prophets/messengers. The language in the Quran far from always is "clear and not possible to misunderstand".

#275a 38/1e: (A38/3): “- - - by (= swearing*) the Quran, full of Admonition - - -.” But once again the presumed and claimed clear text uses an Arab word with multiple meanings: “dhikr” may mean “reminder”, remembrance”, “that which is remembered”, (or the reason why one remembers), “renown”, “fame”, “eminence”, “eminent traits”, etc. That means it has many meanings – f. x. “- - - wherein is found all that you ought to bear in mind.” A wonderfully clear and distinct language, yes. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language in the Quran.

275b 38/7b: (A38/9 – in 2008 edition A38/10): “We (non-Muslims*) never heard (the like) of this among the people of the latter days”. The literal meaning of the Arab text is (translated from Swedish): “- - - among (the followers of) the last (or latest*) belief - - -.” The Arab words “al-millati ‘l-akhiriah” – does it refer to the Christians or to any religion? – Islam does not know, as the Quran is not specific. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

276 38/13c: (YA4161): “- - - the Companions of the Wood - - -“. Who were they? Another name for the people of Madyan?. A group within the Madyanites? Neighbors of the Madyanites? Or some other tribe or group? Unclear in the Quran.

277 38/31: (YA4183): A. Yusuf Ali here tells straight out: “The passages about David and Solomon have been variously interpreted by the Commentators”. The language is so vague that various interpretations are possible. Is a god that vague when making his holy book – and the “mother book” to be revered in his own “home”? If not: Who made the Quran?

278 38/31-33b: What is really the underlying meaning of these 3 verses, is unclear. Muslim scholars give different interpretations, but it just is guesswork. The clear and easily understood language in the Quran.

270 38/32a: (A38/29): “Truly do I (David or Solomon - likely David*) love the love of good, with a view to the glory of my Lord (Allah according to the Quran*) - - -.” But the small Arab word “’an” is joking with any translator her, as it gives the expression “’an dhikri ‘llah” more possible meanings, f.x. “- - - the thought about my Lord has installed in me great love to - - -.” Clearly a clear language that is used in this book. And these variants as usual also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language in the Quran.

280 38/32b: (YA4185): “Truly do I (King David or king Solomon - likely David*) love the love of good, with a view to the glory of my Lord - - -“. But it is as linguistically correct to follow other Muslim scholars who say that it means: “Truly did I prefer the good things (of this world) to the remembrance of your Lord”.

In the case of the last interpretation A. Yusuf Ali indicates that the reason for David’s remorse may be that he had forgotten his Asr prayer (one of the 5 Muslims at least should pray each day). But how is that possible? – according to Hadiths it was Muhammad who made Allah decide on 5 prayers a day (Allah originally wanted 50). The rule of 5 prayers thus could not exist some 1600 years earlier (David was king 1007 – 971 BC, give or take maximum 10 years).

281 38/33: The meaning of this verse simply is unclear. It is about David or Solomon (likely David) and horses, but what is the meaning and what is the context? Clear language in the Quran?

282 38/48d: "- - - Dhu'l-Kifl - - -". It is not clear if this is a character from the Bible or somewhere, and in case who, though there is a chance it is the Jewish prophet Ezekiel. Clear and unmistakable language in the Quran Muslims claim.

282a 38/59a: "- - - a troop rushing headlong with you". Unclear what it means - perhaps the ones who led you astray from Allah, according to some Muslim scholars. Far from always clear language in the Quran.

283 38/69c: "- - - the Chiefs on high - - -". Who are they? Some Muslims think it means the angels. But angels are not chiefs even in the Quran. All too often the Quran is unclear.

283a 39/7c: "- - - His (Allah's*) servants - - -". In the Quran and its "very clear, easy to understand, and not possible to misunderstand", this expression may mean one of three things: All humanity, all (good) Muslims, all claimed prophets/messengers from Allah. Plus some more ones. Clear and easy? You each time have to guess from the context what is meant - in this case most likely "all humanity".

284 39/7f: (A39/11): “If ye (people*) reject Allah - - -.” Or: “- - - if you are ungrateful - - -“. Not exactly the same meaning. Both are possible from the original Arab text.

285 39/18d: "- - - the best (meaning) - - -". But what is to be understood as the best meaning? - the exact printed words in the Quran? - or the words understood according to the Quran's ethical, moral, and judicial codes? - or the same according to normal ethical, moral, and judicial codes (made in accordance with "do unto others like you want others do unto you)?. Muslims - and especially the militant ones - have a tendency to choose the meaning which fits themselves and their beliefs/wishes best, and those often are not "the best (meaning)" for anyone but themselves. Unclear words can be used in different ways.

285a 39/18e: (A39/22): “Those who listen to the Word, and follow the best in it - - -.” Does this mean those who follow the best in the Quran? – or those who listen to every religious proposition and chooses what his brain tells him must be the best (Razi)? It is not said any clearer.

286 39/23i: (A27 – in 2008 edition A29): “He (Allah*) guides therewith (the Quran*) whom He pleases - - -.” But if you read the Arab text this interpretation is exactly as correct: “He guides - - - him that wills (to be guided)”. Exactly the 100% opposite meaning. Clear language?

287 39/65a: (A39/63 – in the English 2008 edition the text is “corrected”): “But it has already been revealed to thee - - -.” Who is “thee” here? From the text it seems to be Muhammad. But Islam says the contents impossible can be meant for him – he would never join gods with Allah, like it is said in the next line. Is it then said to the Muslims or to others? Just pick your choice.

288 40/15a: (A40/11 – in English 2008 edition A40/12) (translated from Swedish): “Raised high above ranks (or degrees), (He (Allah*) is) the Lord - - -.” Literal meaning: “He of the throne of the almightiness - - -.” Alternative meaning according to A. Yusuf Ali “The Meaning of the Glorious Quran”, note 4376 “He that raises his created beings to high esteem (in the realm of the spirits).” If you look through the Quran, you find lots and lots of such varieties made from unclear language.

288a 40/55i: (YA4429): “- - - Praises thy Lord in the evening and in the morning.” Quoting from “The Meaning of the Holy Quran”: “But the phrase ‘evening and morning’ also mean ‘at all times’”. Clear language?

289 40/70b: (YA4447): “- - - the Book - - -.” But does the sentence here refer to the Quran or to the so-called “Mother of the Book” in Allah’s heaven? (or to the claimed not falsified Bible?) Unclear.

290 41/10e: (YA4473): “- - - those who seek (sustenance)”. But even if the Arab word “sa’ilin” may mean “those who seek”, it also may mean “those who ask or enquire” - - - and then the meaning changes – like so often in the Quran.

291 41/25b: (A41/25 - English 2008 edition A42/24): “And We (Allah*) have destined for them intimate companions (of like nature), who made alluring to them (negative things*) - - -.” But the Arab word “quarana/quarin” is better translated with: “We assigned to them (their own evil impulses as their) other self - - -.” There are a lot of “to the last commas” between the two meanings.

292 41/45d: "- - - a Word that went forth - - -". Unclear what is meant here. Muslim scholars give different comments, but it all is guesswork.

293 41/46h: "- - - His (Allah's) servants". In the claimed clear and not to be misunderstood language in the Quran, this expression has 6-7 different meanings. In this case it seems to mean "all humanity".

294 42/2: “Ain Sin Qaf”. This surah has double set so-called ”Abbreviated Letters”. It is the only one with a double set. Nobody knows why. It also is one of the last surahs in the book with such letters - nobody knows why.

295 42/8e: (A42/7): “- - - He (Allah*) admits whom He will to His Mercy - - -.” Or “- - - He guides whom He will to His Mercy - - -.” The Arab text “Allahu yahdi man yasha’ wa-yudillu man yasha” it open for both ways of understanding it – and the possibility is around 50-50 for each to be correct. A clear language in the Quran? – and the distinct clarity of a god’s speech?

296 42/14b: "- - - a Word that went forth - - -". Unclear what is meant here. Muslim scholars give different comments, but it all is guesswork.

#297 42/27b: "- - - His (Allah's*) Servants - - -". The Quran itself and Muslims and Islam claim that the language in the Quran is so clear - easy to understand, impossible to misunderstand, and distinct - that it very clearness is a proof for that it is made by a god. All the same there f.x. are lots and lots and lots of words and expressions which can have more than one meaning. This is one of them. If nothing else is indicated, this expression may mean:

  1. All humans.
  2. All Muslims.
  3. All good Muslims.
  4. All claimed prophets/messengers through the times.
  5. In some cases it may mean the angels or all sentient beings, included the angels.
  6. In some cases it even may include the jinns.
  7. And used in singular it means Muhammad, if nothing else is indicated.

If clearness proves a god, what then does unclearness prove?

297a 43/12c: (A43/9 – in 2008 edition A43/10): “(Allah*) has created pairs in all things - - -.” Or does it mean “- - - (He*) has created all things - - -“? (Baghawi, Zamakhshari, Baydawi, Ibn Kathir). Or that “- - - everything is created in opposites - - -“? (Razi). In the Quran one seems to have plenty of choice. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

297b 43/38a: (YA4641): “Would that the distance between you and me were the distance of East and West!” Well, actually the distance between east and west is zero – on one side of me is east an on the other is west. It is clear, though, that the Quran here means “a great distance” – and in a way it is using an expression that really is wrong. But the main thing here is that the real meaning of the Arab text is: “- - - the distance of the two Easts”. One does not know, but believes that this means the distance between the summer and the winter solstices – at least one believes so. A clear language in this book?

298 43/44c: (YA4647): “The (Quran) is indeed the Message (“dhikr”*) for thee (Muhammad*) and thy people - - -.” But the Arab word “dhikr” has many meanings, which results in at least 2 different meanings of this sentence. 1) “The Quran gives a Message of Truth and Guidance to the Messenger and his people”. 2) “The revelation of the Quran raises the rank of the messenger, and the people among whom, and in whose language, it was promulgated, making them worthy of remembrance in the world’s history for all time”. – in case a kind of confirming the old Arab Muslims' claims of being better than others (for one thing Muslims are better than non-Muslims, but for another Arab Muslims are (or at least were) better than other Muslims – this haughty point of view made much trouble through especially the first centuries).

299 43/61b: (A43/48): "And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment) - - -.” Or does it mean “And, behold, this (divine writ (the Quran*)) is indeed a means that the Last Hour is bound to come - - -“ (Qatadah, Al-Hasan al Basri, Sa’id ibn Jubayr)? The Arab text itself makes both possible. Clear and distinct text? And these variants - yes, they also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

300 43/71: "- - - ye (good Muslims*) shall abide therein (Paradise*) (for aye)". But 11/108c makes it unclear and indicates that it may not be quite forever. Muslim scholars tell that this in case just means that the good Muslims there will be moved to an even better place - not too difficult as the Quran's Paradise is not much as paradises go - but this is never said or even indicated in the Quran. (In the Bible it is very clear that Paradise is forever.)

301 43/74c: (A43/54 - 43/53 in English 2008 edition) (translated from Swedish): "Backed by Rezi, who means the words "they shall stay (khaliduna) in Hells pain" indicate an undetermined period of time which shall not be understood as "forever", I (Muhammad Azad*) also points to the words of the Quran in 6/12 and 6/54 "Your Lord (Allah*) hath ascribed for Himself (the rule of) Mercy" and to the in my comment 40/10 to verse 40/12 - (a Hadith quoting Allah to say: "Lead out from the Fire each and everybody in whose heart is found as much as a grain of belief (in some versions "of good"). And they shall be taken out, black (and burned), and be thrown into the River of Life and then they shall wake up to life". This and some other points in the Quran (6/128c, 11/107b, 51/13c, 78/23) may indicate that Hell is not quite forever, at least not for Muslims who were not good enough to end in Paradise originally.

Thus the time both in Hell and in Heaven (see 43/71 just above) is unclear in the Quran.

302 44/3c: (YA4690): “During a blessed night - - -.” This may refer to a night in (the last third of) the month of Ramadan. Or it may not refer to any specified night at all. Clear speech.

303 44/10a: (YA4695): “Then watch thou (Muhammad or Muslims) for the Day - - -.” But which day? Normally one would believe it referred to the Day of Doom, but Muslim scholars tell that the following verses – especially 44/12 – tells that this cannot be the case here (time was to pass after this day, they say). Unclear – nobody knows what it refers to.

304 44/10b: (YA4696): “- - - the Day that the sky will bring forth a kind of smoke (or mist) plainly visible.” Which day? – this is anybody’s guess. There was a period of hunger in Mecca ca. 618 AD (this surah is believed to be from 614 – 618 AD) and another ca. 630 AD – both of which lasted for years, though, not for days. They – and especially the last one – at times were so severe that it could influence the sight of people. On the other hand the Quran clearly speaks about something concrete, not fictions. Nobody knows the real meaning.

305 44/11: "- - - a Penalty grievous". Islam does not understand what verses 10 and 11 refer to - the language in the Quran often is far from "clear and easy to understand" - but but for that see 3/77b.

305a 44/15a: "We (Allah*) shall indeed remove the Penalty for a while - - -". Islam does not know what penalty it is referred to here - see 44/10+11.

306 44/18b: (A43/11 – in 2008 edition A43/10): “Restore to me (Moses*) the Servants of Allah - - -.” Or “Give in unto to me, O Allah’s’ bondmen - - -.” Both these meanings are possible in the Arab original text. The first means that Pharaoh should set the Jews free, the second that the Egyptians – also they Allah’s bondmen - should accept Allah and become good Muslims. Pretty big difference in the meanings. Clear language?

307 45/14d: "- - - the Days of Allah - - -" The meaning is unclear - different Muslim scholars give different guesses - but may be the Day of Doom, or the days of the kingdom of Allah after the Day of Doom. As we have mentioned before, the texts in the Quran frequently are unclear (in spite of what both the Quran and Muslims like to claim).

307a 46/9d: (A46/10): Does the original Arab text mean: “I (Muhammad*) am no bringer of newfangled doctrine - - -.” = I bring no new religion – the religion I bring is an old one. Or: “I am not the first of (Allah’s) apostles - - -“ = there have been apostles before me. Or “I am no innovator among the apostles - - -“ = not unlike the first alternative, but with added stress on the meaning that he does not change the old religion. Or: “I am but a human being like all of Allah’s message-bearers who preceded me” = quite different meaning from the other 3. Clear language in the old Arab scriptures? And these variants as so often before also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

308 47/4l: (YA4824): “But those who are slain - - -“. But as the original Arab alphabet was incomplete, this word in Arab is possible to read in 2 ways: “qatalu” = “those who fight”, and “qatilu” = “those who are slain”. For us there is a difference between to be fighting and to be dead.

309 47/6a: (YA4825): “Soon will He (Allah*) guide them and improve their condition - - -.” But who does “them” refer to? If it is the dead ones (see 48/4 above), it here means a good life in the hereafter. If it is the ones fighting, it simply may refer to riches and money and loot and slaves and raping of women. Pick your choice.

310 47/22: This verse has different interpretation from different Muslim scholars, partly depending on who they think "you" are.

##311 48/15c: (A48/14): “- - - when ye (Muslims*) (are free to) march and take plunder (in war) - - -.” Or: “As soon as you (O Muslims!) are about to set forth on a war that promises booty - - -.” For some strange (?) reasons in none of our different translations are used the literal meaning of the Arab text (translated from Swedish): “- - - leave on a raid to take plunder - - -.” May be sometimes the varieties in the understanding of the Quranic texts are because one does not want what really is said in the book. According to Islamic information or disinformation all Muhammad’s raids (we have the names of some 60 of the raids) were in self defense, and then it may as well be wise for “the Religion of Peace” to “mend” the text a little and make it more tasteful and "correct"? - instead of translating the Quran correctly and have to admit that Muhammad made "raids to take plunder" - not very holy jihads.

311 48/20d: "- - - and He (Allah*) has given you these beforehand - - -". Like so often in the Quran it is unclear what is meant here, but many Muslim scholars think it refers to the rich plunder and slave taking from the conquest of Khaybar.

311a 48/18e: "- - - speedy Victory - - -". Like so often in the Quran's claimed clear language, it is unclear what here is meant. Some Muslim scholars think it refers to the treaty of Hudaybiyah. The majority believe it refers to the conquest of Khaybar. But it may also refer to the conquest of Mecca in 630 AD some of them believe, even though this surah is from 628 AD (this sentence may have been added later - it happened material was included into a surah afterwards).

311b 48/20f: (A48/23 – in 2008 edition A22): “Allah has promised you many gains that ye shall acquire - - -.” Booty. A good and cheap way to get warriors. But does it here only talk about “gold and slaves and a few rapes” in this life (may be Khaybar in this case), or also riches in the next life like among others Ibn Abbas thought?

312 48/21a: (A48/26 – in 2008 edition A48/25, but most of it omitted): “And other gains (there are) which are not within your power, but which Allah has compassed - - -.” Is this about the then future conquest of Mecca like many Muslim scholars believe? – or about some other future conquests? – or about the next life? Who knows? – but at least promises about a nice next life was (and is) cheap money to attract warriors and terrorists. May be the unclear language is convenient for Islamic leaders?

313 49/1c: "Put not yourselves (ordinary Muslims*) forward before Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". But (YA 4919) gives 4 possible meanings from the original Arab text and it’s clear and unmistakable and easy to understand language in the Quran. Alternative number 4 is very interesting: "Look to the Quran and the Sunna (Hadiths*) of the Prophet (Muhammad*) - - - for guidance and let nothing else take precedence over them". This means that you shall live according to Muhammad's pre-medieval ways and thoughts and traditions and knowledge then, now and forever. Nothing man or science is able to find out takes precedence over this - the Quran and Hadiths are the final words, no matter how inhuman or wrong. No changes of moral, ethics, laws, etc. are possible (this is why Islam has no moral or ethical philosophy, only "what did Muhammad’s say or do in similar cases"?). Etc. A stagnant society.

314 50/21b: (YA4957): “- - - with each will be an (angel (?*)) to drive, and an (angel (?*)) to bear witness.” Several interpretations are possible: 1) It may refer to the 2 angels Islam claims are at your right and left side to note down good and bad deeds. 2) It may not be angels, but your evil deeds that “drive you like a task-master. 3) “His misused limbs and faculties will drive him to his doom, where his well-used limbs and faculties will witness for him” – to quote “The Meaning of the Holy Quran” exactly. Yes, the language in the Quran is clear and not to be understood - so clear that it is a proof for Allah, because only a god can have written/created it.

315 50/23a: “And his Companion (a person at the Day of Doom*) will say - - -.” And once more a difficult Arab word: “qarinuhu” – literal meaning “his intimate companion” or something like that, A. Yusuf Ali writes. But the part of it “qarin” may be read as “(one’s) other self” – and then this meaning emerges: “And one part of him will say - - -.” Literally another meaning.

####316 51/1-4: (A51/1): “By the (Winds (?*)) that scatter broadcast; And those that lift and bear heavy weights; And those that slow with east and gentleness; And those that distribute and apportion by Command - - -.” Anyone – anyone – who can give real and reliable information about what is meant here, will be famous all over the Islamic world, at least among the religious scholars. Nobody knows or understands anything – except that perhaps wind is included – but many guess. Likely it also is an oath as sentences starting with "by" in the Quran normally are oaths. An exemplary clear language used by Allah (?) here.

317 51/2: (YA4988): “- - - and those who lift and bear away heavy weights - - -“. What does it mean? – rain? – clouds? - camels? – or whatever? Nobody knows.

318 51/3: (YA4989): “- - - and those that flow with ease and gentleness - - -.” Meaning ??? It may be the wind – it is just guessing, but a reasonable guess. Language “clear like ink and darkness.”

319 51/4: (YA4990): “- - - and those that distribute and apportion by command - - -“. See 51/3 just above – and 51/1-4 and 51/2 above.

###320 51/13a: "(It (the Day of Doom*) will be) a Day when they (people*) will be tried (and tested) over Fire!". Here are two possible meanings:

  1. All humans are tested by means of fire at or after the Day of Doom. But this will contradict many points in the Quran - f. x. 51/15 below.
  2. Perhaps it refers to the sinners only. But that in case may mean that their imprisonment in Hell just is a test and a trial, which again may mean that they will be released from Hell when the very long-lasting trial is over - in accordance with what is hinted at in 6/128c (comment A6/112 - English 2008 edition 112), 11/107b (A11/133 - English 2008 edition 11/134), 40/12 (A40/10), 43/74 (A43/54 English 2008 edition 43/53) - and here (A51/8). Islam does not know. This extremely central point in Islam is not clear!! Clear texts in the Quran?

This is reckoned by many Muslim scholars to be one of the indications for that Hell is not (quite?) forever.

320a 51/35-36: (A51/23 – omitted in the English 2008 edition): Who is talking in these two verses? – is it the angels who continues from 51/34, or is it Allah who has that has started speaking? Islam guesses.

321 52/2b: (YA5038): “- - - by a Decree Inscribed - - -“. Is this figurative or mysticism? That is anybody’s guess - Islam does not know.

322 52/4a: (YA5039): “- - - by a much-frequented Fane - - -“??? One guesses that this may mean the Kabah, or any mosque, or the Tabernacle, or the temple in Jerusalem - - - one guesses.

In the latest edition of Yusuf Ali (he himself is dead), this problem is edited away, and the text changed to "- - - by the much-frequented House (of worship) - - -". This expression normally is used for the Kabah Mosque in Mecca. ###A very simple way of eliminating a problem, don't you think so? But it seems that in the clear language claimed used in the Quran, the Arab word used here can mean both? - though it still is not clear that it is the Kabah which really is meant.

323 52/6b: (A52/4): “And by the Ocean filled with Swell - - -.” But the Arab original “al-bahri ‘l-masdjur” means: “By the flaming sea”. If there is something you can never say about water, it is that is aflame – ok, at sundown and sunrise a bit of it may look slightly like aflame, but as Islam after 1400 years – with good reason as it just is a mirage or reflection – has not embraced that “answer”, they clearly want that it means something else. But what? Again: Clear speech?

324 52/27b: "- - - the Penalty of the Scorching Wind - - -". An unclear expression. Some Muslims try to explain it, but end up just with presumptions. The famous clear language in the Quran - so clear that it is claimed to be a proof for that the book is made by a god (nearly the only "proof" Muslims and Islam have - and it is highly invalid like the others). As for penalty see 3/77b above.

325 52/28b: (A52/15 – in 2008 edition A52/16): “Truly, we (Muslims in Paradise*) did call unto Him (Allah*) from of old: truly it is He, the Beneficent, the Merciful.” But here we run into the troubles with the old Arab consonant alphabet: Have we guessed the correct vowels? There are two Arab words: “annahu” (“that he is”), favored by f.x. the Medina school, and “innahu” (“he is” or “verily, he is”), favored by f.x. Kuhfa and Basrah. One gives the above quoted meaning, the other: “Verily we did invoke Him (alone) ere this: (and now He has shown us) that He alone is truly benign - - -.” The first case; it is he, the second; that he (alone) is benign. A small detail, but significant enough to make debates. Would not a god be clear also on details?

326 52/35c: (YA5069): “Were they created of (“min”*) nothing - - -“. But the Arab preposition “min” has more meanings: “of”, “by”, “with”, “for”. Which give at least these extra interpretations: 2) “Were they created by nothing - - -“. 3) “Were they created for nothing (for no purpose) - - -“. Would a god use so indistinct a language?

327 52/47e: "- - - another punishment besides this (besides getting no help on the Day of Doom*) - - -". Some say this indicates punishment in this life - even though such punishment has never been proved (many claims, never a proved case) - and a few that this refers to Hell itself. Like so often the text in the Quran is unclear.

328 53/1b: (YA5085): “By the star - - -“. The Arab word “najm” has many meanings – it f. x. may mean a star (any star) or it may mean the Pleiades (the “7-stars”). Clear language in the Quran? Also see 53/1f below.

329 53/1c: (A53/1): “By the star as it goes down - - -.” But the Arab word “najm” may also mean “unfolding” – something that appears gradually. And then another meaning appears: “Consider this unfolding (of Allah’s message (the Quran*)), as it comes down from the high!” The “down-to-earth” scholars mostly go for the first one, some others for the second one – wishful thinking may sometimes have strong influence. Also see 53/1f below.

330 53/1d: (YA5085): “By the star as it goes down - - -.” But even if the Arab word “hawa” may mean “go down” or “set”, it also may mean “rise”. A pretty confusing language used by Allah – or by someone. Also see 53/1f below.

331 53/1e: M. Asad - English 2008 edition: "Consider this unfolding - - -". A very different meaning, and even more so as it is no oath any more. Also see 53/1f below.

332 53/1f: M. Asad - English 2008 edition: "Consider this unfolding (of Allah's message), as it comes down from the high!" Can this be the same Arab sentence like what is translated above?

p>333 53/1g: (A53/1 - English 2008 edition): "Consider the star when it sets". Guess if the clear Arab language in the Quran has many meanings! It is unbelievable that a claimed clear, concise and easy to understand language can have so many meanings, and that Islam and its Muslims still and with a straight face claims that it is "clear, concise and impossible to misunderstand".

334 53/9: "- - - two bow-lengths - - -" or perhaps (YA5089); "The length of*) two bow-shots - - -". There is quite a difference between these two meanings!

335 53/15: "- - - the Garden of Abode - 'Jannat-al-Ma'wa'". It is unclear what this means. Some Muslim scholars think the souls of Muslims find their abode there, but nothing is clear about this verse.

336 53/16b: Yusuf Ali: "Behold, the Lote-tree was shrouded (in a mystery unspeakable)".

(Swedish 2002 edition): "- - - and the Lote-tree was bathed (in a strong light)".

(English 2008 edition): "- - - with the lote-tree in a veil of nameless splendor".

(Literal meaning - translated from Swedish - A53/11): "- - - (the lote-tree) was veiled in whatever veiled it".

No comments neither about the clear language in the Quran, nor about the honesty of some Muslim translators. Neither should be necessary.

337 53/28b: (A53/21): “But they (opponents of Muhammad*) have no knowledge therein (the gender of angels, etc.*).” But the Arab pronoun “hi” perhaps do not point to the angels. Perhaps it point to Allah (M. Asad). In that case the sentence means: “But they have no knowledge whatever about Allah.” Clear speech?

338 54/2d: (YA5129): “This is (but) transient magic”. But the Arab word “mustamirr” may also mean “powerful” = “- - - powerful magic”. 2 meanings.

#339 55/13: (A55/4): “Then which of the favors of your Lord (Allah*) do (will?*) you deny?” Part of the question here does not show in English, as “you” is the same in singular and plural. But Arab has both singular and plural and in addition dual – when speaking to or about two. And in this case it is used dual, so it is clear the question is asked to two. But which two? – after all it is a very essential question, and one should know who are the addressees. Islam guesses for the two groups, jinns and men, or may be men and women. But it only is guesswork as the text like so often in the Quran is far from clear. No god would use an unclear language.

340 55/26: "All that is on earth will perish". This is one of the many unclear sentences in the Quran. It may refer to natural death or to the Day of Doom.

341 55/31a: (A54/14): “O both ye worlds”. Men and jinns? Men and women? Or something else? Who knows? See 55/13 above. And these variants - as usual - also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language in the Quran.

*432 55/31b: “- - - both ye worlds!” According to “The message of the Quran”, the Arab word that is used here – “thaqalan” (not plural, but dual of “thaqal”) does not really mean “worlds”, but is normally translated with “humans and invisible beings”, but may also mean “men and women” in other connections. Distinct language in the Quran?

343 55/35a: "- - - (O ye evil ones twain!) - - -". See 55/31a +b above.

344 55/37: (A55/18): “When the sky is rent asunder (at the Last Day*), and it becomes red like ointment”. But the Arab word “dihan” has more meanings (Tabari), and the sentence may end “- - - like (burning) oil”, or “- - - like freshly tanned leather”, or “- - - like red leather” (Zamakhshari), or “like the dregs of olive oil” (Raghib). A detail – even a small detail. But would a god leave even small details to guesswork? At least it is far from “clear language”.

345 55/44b: (A55/21): “In the midst of boiling hot water will they wander round!” But once more: Arab words may have more than one meaning. “Boiling water” – “hamim” – also may mean f.x. “burning despair” or “biting cold”. Allah’s (?) correct meaning may be f.x. “- - - in the midst of burning despair will they wander to and fro”. Anyone can pick the meaning they prefer. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

346 55/46e: (A55/22): “- - - there will be two Gardens (two Paradises*) - - -.” This is one of the mysterious mysteries in the clear-spoken Quran, and Islam has for 1400 years been guessing at what it means. F.x. “a Paradise for their (good Muslims’*) doing good deeds, and another for their avoiding of sins” (Zamakhshari), or “a Paradise comprising both spiritual and physical joys, as if it were two Paradises” (Razi), or a wandering between the two gardens the Paradise is said to contain. Yes, it is a very clear and concise language you find in the Quran. This even more so as according to the Quran there are at least 4 gardens (see 55/62 below) and according to Hadiths there may be 6 or even more.

347 55/48: (A55/23): “- - - Containing all kinds (of trees and delights) - - -.” But we are back to the concise and distinct Arab language: The word “fann” (plural “afnan”), has many meanings: “kind”, “mode”, “manner”, color”, “hue”, “a wonderful thing” and more, and the plural form “afnan” may also mean “branch of a tree”, etc. which gives associations to a rich nature, cool shade, lots of different fruits, etc. Just go on guessing – this sentence has a number of possible meanings, so just guess for what kind of paradise you prefer. But remember that is only is guesswork. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah(?) really uses a clear language in his(??) Quran.

348 55/62b: (A55/28): “And besides these two, there will be two other Gardens - - -.” Another conundrum for Islam: What for? There also should have been a “Why”, but this we have not run across. So “What for?” May be for the lower quality good Muslims – the ones who have obtained less merit? – or may be a symbol for “many gardens” – but the Quran only mentions these 2 + 2, and do not even hint about more ones (though Hadiths do). Or - - -? Your guess is as good as anybody’s because nobody knows. As indicated before: The Quran uses a clear and concise language giving only exact information.

349 55/76: (YA5220): “- - - reclining on green Cushions - - -“. But the Arab word “rafraf” may also mean “meadows” = “- - - on green meadows”.

350 56/10b: (A56/3 – omitted in 2008 edition): “And those Foremost (in Faith (this inclusion is added by A. Yusuf Ali and not part of the original text*)), will be the foremost (in the Hereafter (also added*))”. But the Arab word “as-sabiqun” – here translated by “the foremost” - has more meanings, which has lead to different interpretations of this sentence, and those interpretations (translated from Swedish): “all are god and can be accepted” (Ibn Kathir). It has to be admitted that also here the clear and concise language in the Quran is not concise - and pretty unclear. And these variants also - as we have said many times - are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

351 56/13-14: "A number of people from those of the old, and a few from those of the later times". One more unclear point in the Quran; what does this refer to? Some Muslims say it refers to the claimed many Muslim prophets in what was the old times for Allah, compared to only Muhammad and his men in "later times (f.x. YA5228). Others say that it refers to the claimed "fact" that belief - Islam - was strong in the really old time, but that man's belief and moral standard is reduced progressively through history (f.x. A56/4) - this in spite of the real fact that none has found any traces of something like Islam older than 610 AD, when Muhammad started his teaching. The nearest were the Jews and the Christians, but especially NT is fundamentally so different from the Quran - and not falsified in spite of Muhammad's never documented claims - that there is no way Yahweh and Allah can be the same god, unless he is strongly schizophrenic.

352 56/29: "- - - Talh trees - - -". (YA5238) What is this? In a book of clear and easy language according to Allah(?) nobody knows. Some Muslim scholars guess it may be banana trees - but as Allah only takes information from Arabia, this cannot be, as the banana tree did not grow in Arabia (and besides a banana tree in Arab is not "talh" but "mawz"). Some scholars instead think it may be a special acacia tree rich with flowers. Nobody knows - it all is guesswork. Yes, clear and easy to understand language in the Quran - not possible to misunderstand.

353 56/34b: "- - - (Muslims in Paradise will sit*) on Thrones (of Dignity), raised high". But the Arab text (A56/13) in reality says "- - - on couches raised high". But to sit on couches does not sound as dignified.

354 56/75b: (A56/26): “Furthermore I call to witness the setting of the stars”. The Arab word “mawqi” – plural “mawaqi” – literally means “the place (or time) where (when) something falls down”. And the Arab word “nudjum” – here called “stars” – also may mean something like “chapters”. “Ergo” and “voila”: A more pious translation: “I call to witness the coming-down in parts (of this Quran)”. Do not omit the possibility that wishful or “correct” thinking may influence interpretation. Here at least are two meanings – though the first one is the most accepted one. But also see 56/75b just below.

355 56/75c: (YA5258): “- - - the setting of the stars - - -.” Here are a number of possible mystic meanings in addition to the literal varieties (see 56/75a just above). Here are 3 of the possibilities: 1) A symbol for humility. 2) Figurative speech for the Day of Doom. 3) The bright things we like may disappear. “Clear speech”, yes.

356 56/78: "- - - a Book (the Quran*) well guarded". To what does this refer? To the claimed, but wrong, statement that the Quran is unchanged since Muhammad dictated the verses? - to the physical defense of the religion and thus the Quran? - to the claimed "mother book" in Heaven? One does not know. (Is Islam right when it claims the language in the Quran is clear and not to be misunderstood? - hardly.)

357 57/18c: (A67/26): “For those who give in Charity - - -.” This is the standard interpretation if you use the version of the Quran named after “Asim from Kufa after Hafs” – or for short only “the way of reading after Hafs”. (There once were 14 accepted versions of the Quran – and more in reality. Over the centuries most of them has fallen into disuse, and today only 2 are in daily use: This one (which is the dominant) and “Nafi from Medina after Warsh” (used in large parts of Africa) – or just “the way of reading after Warsh”. Islam never uses the word “versions” for these 14 and more varieties, and mostly pretends they do not exist – they call them “ways of reading”; a hypocrite’s way of hiding the true reality – call it a lie, call it al-Taqiyya, call it a flight from a dangerous truth.) But depending on so minuscule details as the vocalization of the consonants that are transcribed to Latin letters like “sad” and “dal”, the meaning is transformed to: “Verily, as for the men and women who accept the truth as true” (Zamakhshari, Asad). A clear and concise language in the Quran? Any god had been much more exact to make sure that everybody could understand – and that everybody agreed to the meanings and did not split up in cults and sects - - - like has happened to Islam all through its history (it is said that around 3000 sects exist or have existed in Islam).

358 57/25d: "- - - the Balance (of Right and Wrong) - - -". Unclear. It might - might - refer to the 10 Commandments Moses got, or generally to Islam's ethical and moral rules - or to something else.

359 58/4a: (YA5337): “- - - he should feed sixty indigent ones - - -“. We quote from “The Meaning of the Holy Quran”: “There is (still after 1400 years*) a great deal of learned argument among the jurists as to the precise requirements of Cannon (Sharia*) Law under the term “feeding" the indigent.” Would a god use so unclear speech that even experts never are able to understand what he really means even about such presumably easy to explain problems like this?

360 58/8a: "- - - those who were forbidden secret counsels - - -". It is unclear who are meant here, except that it likely primarily aims at opponents of Muhammad.

361 58/11b: (A58/18): “When ye are told to make room in the assemblies, (spread out and) make room - - -.” In throngs around Muhammad? – in the mosques? – in life? Muslims tend to believe it refers to alternative 2 – but it is only a guess. Clear speech?

362 59/21b: “Had We (Allah*) sent down this Quran on a mountain - - -“ (= to the mountain). But the Arab text permits you to understand differently one of the words – and get another meaning: “Had We sent down this Quran from on high upon a mountain - - -.” Here it means sent to someone – man? – from a place high on a mountain. Just make a choice.

363 60/4m: "(They (unclear who, but likely Abram/Abraham and his followers*) prayed) - - -". See 60/4h.

364 61/2c: (A61/1): “O ye who believe! Why say ye that which ye do not?” Is this to Muslims who left Muhammad before the battle of Uhud? – or to hypocrites? – or to others? Your guess is as good as anybody else’s. Clear language.

365 61/6g: (A61/7 – partly omitted and the text changed in 2008 edition): “But when he came to them with Clear Signs - - -.” Who is this “he”? In verse 61/6e-f the book tells about Jesus, and the natural interpretation is “he” = Jesus, but it is not clearly said. An alternative according to Islam, is “he” = Muhammad (as they claim he had clear signs). Both options are possible (but typical for the less honest 2008 edition of “The Message of the Quran”, they only mention the Muhammad alternative – “good” arguments are more essential than moral integrity and honesty also in religion - at least in some religions).

366 62/4a: (A62/3): “Such is the bounty of Allah, which He bestows on whom He will - - -.” Or: “He grants it to anyone who is willing (to receive it).” These two interpretations are equivalent compared to the Arab text. Clear speech? – the meanings so definitely are different. And these variants naturally also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

366a 64/8h: "- - - the Light (the Quran*) which We (Allah*) have sent down". The natural thing is to think "the Light" here refers to the Quran. But Islam is not sure: (YA5488) means f.x. it also may refer to the light of reason or the light of conscience, etc. Like Muslims claims: The Quran is written in a clear and concise language easy to understand. Besides: "The light of reason" when demanding people to believe so many wrong facts and so many other errors?!!

366b 64/11b (A64/9): “- - - if anyone believes in Allah, (Allah) guides his heart (aright) - - -.” Or perhaps something like “- - - the belief in the heart of the believer, steers him towards Allah - - -.” Both are possible from the unclear Arab "clear" text.

367 68/1a: (YA5592): “Nun”. This (the Arab letter "nun") is one of the so-called “abbreviated letters” that you find at the top of 29 of the surahs – and which no-one understands anything about. They are a total enigma. In a few cases they can be interpreted as words – by design or by coincidence also nobody knows. This is one of those cases as the Arab letter that is pronounced “nun” also may mean a fish or an ink holder. Nobody knows what this in case means, but you may find a lot of speculation. As said many times in this chapter: Allah or someone else really has used a language that is clear and easy to understand in this book - at least Islam and its Muslims, not to mention the Quran itself, claim so.

368 68/13c: (A67/8): “Violent (and cruel) – with all that, base-born (“zanim”) - - -.” The trouble is that nobody knows what the Arab word “zanim” means – it seems to be constructed by the maker of the Quran. There have been many guesses. Zamakhshari, Razi, and others argues for that it may mean “born out of wedlock”. Clear language?

369 68/14a: (YA5602): “- - - Because he possesses wealth and (numerous) sons”. But whom do this “because he” point to? – the violent and cruel one in 68/13 (see just above) or the despicable liar in 68/10? Unclear.

370 68/41a: “Or have they (“infidels”*) some ‘partners’ (in Godhead)?” Zamakhshari and Razi thinks “partners” refer to wise humans (“uqala”) of the same belief. Ibn Kathir and others that it refers “lower” deities. The Quran is unclear on this point - like on so many other points.

371 69/17a: (A69/11): “And the angels will be on its sides, and eight will, the Day (of Doom*) bear the throne of thy lord (Allah*) above them.” But if Allah is something diffuse that is everywhere, how can he use a throne? – and how can just 8 angles carry it if he is that huge? (Not our questions - Muslim scholars'.*) Islam still does not know. On the other hand: You can be absolutely sure the Muslims to whom this was told originally – naïve and uneducated and wanting to believe – believed this was an exact picture. Clear language?

233h above.

372 69/36b: (A69/20): “Nor hath he (the sinner in Hell*) any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds (‘ghislin’)”. The problem is that once more there is an Arab word nobody understands, or have ever understood; “ghislin”. (Razi: "I do not know what 'ghislin' means".) What meaning an interpreter puts into that word, is just guesswork about something detestable. Very clear language!

#372a 69/51g: (YA5673): "All Truth is in itself certain". Correct, but only if it really is a truth, not a claim pretended to be a proved or self evident truth, like you often find in the Quran and other places in Islam and in debate with Muslims.

###But note that even the truth normally needs proof - without a proof it may be the truth, but it also may just be a claim. Truth + proof = knowledge. Truth (or untruth or claims or lies) without a proof = Belief - and belief often is wrong.

373 70/1a: "A questioner - - -". Like so many things in the Quran, it is unclear who the Quran is talking about, but Muslim scholars tend to believe it was one of the leaders among the Quraysh in Mecca, Nadr ibn-Harith.

374 70/28b: (YA5693): “For their Lord’s displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquility”. But this Arab text may also instead mean “And their Lord’s displeasure is one against which there is no security". Once more different meanings in the glorified language – or alphabet – of old Arabia.

375 71/7c: (YA5710): “- - - (non-Muslims*) cover themselves up with their garments - - -.” But is it literally or figuratively meant here? – vanities, evil habits, customs, traditions, and their ephemeral interests and standards? It is anybody’s guess.

376 71/13b: (YA5713A): “- - - place - - - your hope for kindness and long-suffering in Allah.” But another meaning of the same original Arab text is: “- - - that ye fear Allah’s message”. Clear?

377 72/8c: (A71/6): “And we pried into the secrets of heaven: but found it filled with stern guards and flaming fires (shooting stars*)” The majority of Muslims thinks this refers to jinns trying to spy on Heaven. But then there are the other possible explanations according to Muslims: That it refers to the Jews and their “haughty” belief in security and special treatments because the belief that they were “Yahweh’s chosen people” (why do the Quran – and Muslims – never mention that the real reason for this belief was the fact that they believed they had a covenant with Yahweh? – a covenant mistreated and broken, but never terminated.) Or to the Jews’ special interest for astrology – a special interest not known to anyone but Muslims. This is one more place where multiple meanings may have come into existence more from wishful slander-like thinking, than from real linguistic problems - - - but they are as real as long as Muslims believe in them.

378 72/19: "- - - the Devotee of Allah - - -". Unclear who he is, but most Muslim scholars believe it means Muhammad. But not clear.

379 72/27b: "- - - He (Allah*) makes a band of watchers march before him (the messenger*) and behind him - - -". Muslim scholars agree on that "him" is Muhammad, but what kind of guard is guesswork - angels, high moral (!), etc.

380 73/1a: "O thou folded on garments!" It is likely, but not sure that this refers to Muhammad - like so often in the Quran, the text is unclear.

381 73/1b: (YA5754): “O thou folded in garments!” But the Arab word “muzzammil” may also give the meaning: “- - - properly dressed for prayer”, and “- - - folded in a sheet”. There also is possible to find mysticism here - - - and finally “Muzzammil” was a name used for Muhammad (= "O thou, Muhammad!"). Chose what you think is the most likely meaning Allah intended, but seems to have been unable to express clearly.

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

382 73/9a: "(He (Allah*) is) Lord of the East and the West - - -". The likely (but not sure) meaning of this - at least according to Muslims from times after Muhammad grew strong enough to get appetite for power also outside the Mecca and later Medina area - is that Allah is the god for all the world.

383 74/1b: (A74/1): “O Thou wrapped up (in a mantle)!” But the Arab expression “muddaththir” does not mean “wrapped up in a mantle”. It simply means “wrapped up” (in something). So again there are speculations because of unclear language. The main competing interpretation is: “O Thou (in solitude – or loneliness) enfolded!” Any of them can be correct. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

384 74/4a: (A74/2): “And thy (Muhammad*) garments keep free from stain!” (literally correct: “- - - thy garments purify!”) But is this meant literally or not? Razi, Zamakhshari and many others think it is figuratively meant – something like “- - - purify thy heart from all that is blameworthy”. Your choice is free.

385 74/11b: (A74/5): “Leave Me (Allah*) alone, (to deal) with the (creature) whom I created (bare) and alone!” Or: “- - - whom I alone created.” Both meanings are correct, depending only on whether you think the word alone – “wahid” in Arab – refers to Allah or to what he did create (man). And these variants naturally also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

##386 74/30: (A74/15): “Over it are Nineteen.” Nineteen what? Nobody knows!! One guesses for angels or powers or guards or whatever. But nobody knows. A clear language in the Quran? – impossible not to understand? Impossible to misunderstand? (Well, there is a theory that the number of angels appointed to guard Hell was 19).

387 74/35: "This is but one of the mighty (portents) - - -". It is unclear also for Muslim scholars what "this" refers to here - the wrongly claimed clear language in the Quran once more. But what is very clear, is that it is no portents warning about Allah, unless it is proved it really is Allah who is behind whatever "this" is.

388 74/37: "To any of you (people*) that chooses to press forward, or to follow behind. At least 3 possible meanings:

  1. Muslims and non-Muslims.
  2. Those always in the front and those always in the rear.
  3. Those willing to move - forwards or backwards - or the inert or lethargic.

We are not sure Islam and Muslims are correct when they strongly claim that the texts in the Quran are very clear and easy to understand.

389 74/50-51: "(Fleeing*) As if they (non-Muslims*) were as frightened asses, fleeing from a lion!" Or as if they were wise persons fleeing from a dark danger. More unclear language in the Quran.

390 75/16: "Move not thy tongue concerning the (Quran) to make haste therewith". The meaning of this sentence is unclear. It may be so simple as telling the persons who are to end in the position described in 75/13-15 not to wish to hasten the arrival of the Day of Doom (skeptics frequently dared Muhammad to make Allah punish them as a proof for Allah's existence and for Muhammad's claimed connection to a god). But most Muslim scholars think this verse just is put in here out of context and talks about Muhammad and his teaching the Quran - their explanations only are speculations, though.

###391 75/22c: (YA5822): "This passage (especially with reference to verses 26-28) would seem to refer to what our Doctors (of religion*) call the Lesser Judgment (al Qiyamah al Sughra), which takes place immediately after death, and not to the Greater or General Judgment, which may be supposed to be referred to in such passages as occur in surah 56. There are other passages referring to the Lesser Judgment immediately after death; e.g., 7/37 etc. (if true at least not a clear reference*). If I understand aright, the punishment of sins takes place in three ways; (1)it may take place in this very life, but it may be deferred, to give the sinner respite; (2) it may be an agony immediately after death or in the grave ("punishment in the grave" - though not mentioned in the Quran*), with the Partition of 'Barzakh (23/100) separating the sinner from the final Resurrection; and (3) in the final resurrection, when the whole of the present order gives place to a wholly new world:14/48". This is a very interesting comment, because the Lesser Judgment is something Muslims never tell about, and it is no clear part of the Quran - a few sentences may be understood or twisted to give such a meaning, but it is no clear part of Muhammad's teaching. The "punishment in the grave" you meet in Hadiths may be included here, but also this punishment clearly is no clear part of the Quran - you simply do not find it there.

It also is clear that the text is unclear - YA is guessing.

Also see (YA5914) under 78/40c below - a detail is interestingly different.

392 75/30: "That Day the Drive will be (all) to thy Lord (Allah*)!" This may refer either to the day of death or the Day of Doom - most likely the last one. Like so often the language in the Quran is far from clear.

#393 76/1: "Has there not been over Man a long period of time, when he was nothing - (not even) mentioned?" This unclear sentence have caused different interpretations among Muslim scholars Among them this interesting one (YA5830): "It is certain that the physical world existed long before man was ever heard of or mentioned, as geological records prove". An interesting sentence from a Muslim scholar, as the Quran states that the world, included man, all was created in 6 or 8 days, and the Quran is the full and only truth in Islam. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

394 76/5a: (A76/7): “As to the Righteous, they shall drink a Cup (of Wine (wine in Paradise is not intoxicating, according to the Quran*)) mixed with kafur - - -.” And then what is “kafur”? Nobody knows simply. If you open a lexicon you will find different answers – mostly sweet parts of plants, but also camphor – but nothing is really sure, not to mention which of the proposals is the correct one in the Quran. Clearly an unclear language.

395 76/8c (A76/11 – in 2008 edition A76/10): “And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive - - -.” Or: “- - - and who give food – however great be their own want for it – unto the needy, the orphan, and the captive - - -.” The Arab expression “ala hubbihi” may mean both. Clear and unmistakable?

396 76/14-21: More about the same details of the Earth-like and royal-royal paradise, but with the addition of a stuff called “zanjabil” (76/17) to mix in wine (the age of this surah is not known, and consequently we do not know if Allah had yet changed his view of alcohol), and a fountain “salsabil” (76/18). The first word may mean ginger, the second one nobody knows, though there is guessing ("- - - salsabil - - -". This seems to be a constructed Arab word, likely meaning "Seek the (right*) way"). Once more the unclear language of the Quran.

Also remember that the many and deep differences between Yahweh's Paradise and the one of Allah is one of the strong proofs for that the two are not the same god - if they had been, their Paradise had been one and the same one.

396a 76/17b: "- - - Zanjabil - - -". In the Muslim books we have found this word translated, it has been translated with ginger, but it is not a sure translation.

396b 76/18: "- - - salsabil - - -". This seems to be a constructed Arab word, likely meaning "Seek the (right*) way", but no-one knows for sure. Also see 76/6a. This is not from the Bible.

397 76/21c: (A76/20): “- - - their (Muslims in Paradise*) Lord (Allah*) will give them to drink of a Wine Pure and Holy”. But some Muslims mean that this part of the sentence which has been about material things, here has changed to spiritual, and it means “purifying their inner selves - - -.” It is possible to defend such an interpretation – which once more underlines how clear and distinct(!) language Allah (?) has used in the book.

398 77/1b: (A77/1): “By the (Winds) sent forth one after another - - -.” Or is the meaning in reality: “Consider (or “by”*) these (messages) sent forth in waves - - -“? Islam is guessing amid such clear words. Also see 77/1a + b.

399 77/1c: (YA5864): “By the (Winds) sent forth one after another - - -.” See 77/1a. But it may also perhaps instead mean: “By the angels sent forth - - -“ or: “By the Messengers sent forth". To say the least of it: When Islam boasts of the very clear language in the Quran, it may seem like they do not know what they are talking about - or are using an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie - something you only find in Islam of the big religions). And when they further claim that the clear and distinct and not to misunderstand language in the Quran is a proof for that it is made by a god, what then does the reality of hundreds and hundreds of points (at least 500) of so unclear language that Muslim scholars are unable to agree on what it really means, then prove?

400 77/2-4: "(The wind*) which then blow violently in tempestuous Gusts, and scatter (things) far and wide; then separate them one from another". Muslim scholars here are guessing at what this means and refers to. Their proposals depend on which of the alternative meanings in 77/1 (see 77/1b and 77/c above) they guess may me the intended meaning of that verse. Also see our comment to 77/1c just above.

401 77/6: "- - - (a Message*) whether of Justification or of Warning". What Muhammad meant with warning, is easy enough: Live according to his teachings. But justification of what? - Muslims' excesses in many - and partly immoral, unjust and unethical - ways? At least it may have been understood like that after Muhammad changed his teaching to a religion of war later (from 622 - 624 AD and onwards).

402 77/33: (A77/12): “- - - As if there were (a string of) yellow camels (marching swiftly).” But it is quite unclear what the Arab word “djimalat” really means, though most interpreters believe it means camels. The trouble is that it also can mean a twisted rope or a thick rope, and you get interpretations like this: “- - - like giant fiery ropes.” – or (translated from Swedish): “- - - like it was yellow twisted ropes.” - or even (also translated from Swedish): “(- - - in a continuous stream) like a rope twisted from fire.” A most wonderful clear and distinct language in this book, yes. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language. Also see 7/40c+d - an interesting point.

403 78/1: "Concerning what they (Non-Muslims*) are disputing". Like so much in the Quran it is unclear what Muhammad meant here, but likely the possible next life.

404 78/2-3: "- - - the Great News about which they (non-Muslims*) cannot agree." It is unclear what here really is meant - as you understand the language in the Quran is claimed to be clear, distinct, and easy to understand (?). The two most likely meanings either is the Quran (on which many could not agree for very understandable reasons (f.x. too many mistakes)), or the resurrection in body - which also and for understandable reasons were difficult to believe in for many. Or even resurrection at all? As showed many times the language in the Quran often is far from clear and easy to understand.

405 78/19c: (A78/10): “And the heavens (plural and wrong*) shall be opened as if they were doors.” But is this meant literally or figuratively? – in the last case you get: “The heavens’ mysteries will be opened to man’s understanding.” There is quite a difference between these two. The language in the Quran sometimes seems “clear as ink”.

406 78/23: (A12): “They (sinners*) will dwell therein (Hell*) for ages.” This is a not too well known, but deep enigma in Islam: The Quran is unclear about if you are to stay in Hell forever, or only for a limited time – a kind of long time Purgatory simply. Many places the book says clearly and unmistakably that it is forever. Other places it uses words that indicate a limited time – perhaps a long time, but a limited time, or that Allah can do something at least for Muslims in Hell (see f.x. 6/128c, 11/107b, and 43/74d). In this case the Arab word that is used, “huqb” or “hiqbah” (remember that some of the letters have to be guessed) have vague meanings as for how long time, but definitely not “for ever”. Also some Hadiths clearly indicate that Hell may be is not forever. (And 11/108a may indicate that also Paradise is not quite forever). Clear?

###Also the big differences between the Bible's and the Quran's hells are more than big and fundamental enough to prove that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - if they had been, also their hells had been more or less identical.

407 78/38b: "That Day shall the Spirit and the angels stand forth - - -". It is unclear what the Spirit her is. You will find it translated as the souls (of the people), but more common it to believe it is the Holy Spirit from the Bible (it is mentioned a very few times in the Quran). Some go one step further and say that it must be the angel Gabriel, as he is the Holy Spirit. This is a claim - as always from Islam not proved - you often meet from Muslims, at least from lower educated ones. Our short comment is that no-one who really has read the Bible, would ever get such an idea - not unless he had decided if before he started reading and skipped reading what did not fit his idea. How could f.x. an angel split (parts of) himself in 12 at Pentecost (Acts 2/3-4)? Also see 78/38c just below.

408 78/38c: (YA5911): "Some(!*) Commentators understand by 'the Spirit' the angel Gabriel, as he is charged specially with bringing Messages to human prophets". An interesting piece of information, as this is not from the Bible, and arch angel Gabriel also hardly is mentioned as a messenger boy in connection with Biblical prophets. (But the claim of course makes Muhammad look like a prophet at this point as he claimed he god his messages via Gabriel.) Also see 78/38b just above.

409 79/1-5a: (A79/1-3 – YA5916-5919): This is one of the really (un)clear ones in the Quran: “By (= swearing by*) the (angles) who tear out (the souls of the wicked) with violence; by those who gently draw out (the souls of the blessed); and by those who glide along (on errands of mercy), then press forward as in a race, then arrange to do (the command of their Lord (Allah*) - - -.” Then compare it to this – a translation of exactly the same Arab original text: “Consider those (stars) that rise only to set, and move (in their orbits (!!)) with steady motion, and float (through space) with floating serene, and yet overtake (one another) with swift overtaking, and thus they fulfill the (Creator’s (Allah’s*)) behest!” Is it from the same book? Or something from the aborigines in Australia or somewhere? These very different ways of understanding the text, arises from the fact that only some letters - the consonants - were written in the old Arab texts, and the missing letters has to be guessed. Also note how much is added in ( ) to arrive at the meanings one wishes – this is permitted in Islam (NB: Such inclusions far from always are “leading one by the nose” – it often is correct additional explanations). But anyone who believe in the claim about the very clear language used in the Quran, either has no – zero – knowledge about it, or is very naïve, or goes by wishful thinking only, or is lead by his nose - - - or needs a “head shrink”. Sorry, but that is how it is.

410 79/1-5b: (YA5917) (continued from 79/1-5a): “There is much difference of opinion among the commentators as to the five things or beings mentioned in these verses.” Clear language?

411 79/3: "- - - those who glide along - - -". Nobody knows to whom or what this refers. As mentioned some places, the language in the Quran often is unclear (this in spite of Muslims' eager claims about how clear and easy the texts is in the Quran - the claim simply is not true. And the claim that the language in the book is so clear, easy to understand, and impossible to misunderstand simply is an unintended joke - - - and what do in case all the mistakes and unclear points prove?).

412 79/14: (A79/6 – omitted in 2008): “- - - they (the dead ones*) will be in the (full) awakening (to Judgment).” This is the most usual meaning of the Arab expression “bi-‘s-sahirah”. Many of the first generations of Muslims explained it like this: “- - - they will be on the surface of the earth (= raised from the graves*)” (Ibn Kathir). Clear to you?

413 80/17b: (A80/5): “Woe to man! What hath made him reject Allah?” But this is not a good translation, as the verb used here – “qutila” – means “to kill”. Even if one reads that verb figuratively, the translation is not good. Another is: “(But all too often) man destroys himself: how stubbornly does he deny the truth!” Yet another (translated from Swedish): “(But) by his (man’s*) thorough denial of the truth, man call down (Allah’s) doom and excludes himself from His goodness.” And even yet another (also translated from Swedish): “Would that man will be doomed (by Allah) for his denial!” A clear language in the Quran? Clearly no.

414 80/23: "By no means hath he (an average man - not much women in the Quran, except as servant or pleasure or mother of his children to a man*) fulfilled what Allah hat commanded him". One of the unclear verses in the Quran, where scholars are guessing at what it means.

415 81/11: "- - - the World on High - - -". The expression is not clear, but likely means the both the places for the next life - Hell and Heaven.

019 81/19c: “Verily, this is the word of a most honorable Messenger - - -". As the text - like so often in the Quran - is not quite specific, this Messenger also might mean Gabriel (or perhaps someone or something dressed up like Gabriel? - Muhammad would not have a chance to see the difference, and parts of the Quran and also of its moral code are pretty devilish*), but the Quran is not the words of the Gabriel from the Bible.

416 81/29a: "But ye (people*) shall not will except as Allah wills". This can be understood at least in 2 ways in this book of claimed very clear texts: You ought not to want to or do other things than what Allah will like - or it may be a reference to Allah's predestination; you shall for all times say and do only what Allah wills you to say and do.

417 82/5b: "- - - (what it hath) kept back". This most likely - but not surely - means what deeds the person did not do - but perhaps should have done - in this life.

418 83/7d: "- - - sijjin - - -". This is a made up word which no-one really knows the meaning of. It may come from "sijn" (prison) and may be the name or the description of the register(YA6013). But it also may mean (translated from Swedish) "that which lasts" (A83/2). But both these just are educated guessing. In the English 2008 edition after Muhammad Asad, they have "solved" the whole problem by omitting the word entirely and translated it with: "- - - in a mode inescapable." Well, according to Islam the language in the Quran is simple and impossible not to understand. But also see 87/9 below.

419 83/18f: (YA6019): “- - - Illiyin - - -.” Literally this word means “the High Place”, but what does it mean here? One guess is “The Place where is kept the Register of the Righteous”. But it only is an “educated guess”. (And why does an omniscient god need a register? - at least he has a PC? - - - if his brain is not good enough.)

420 83/18g: (A83/5) (translated from Swedish): "- - - illyin - - - is said to be plural of ''illi' or 'illiyyah' (height or elevated) or perhaps a plural without singular. In any case it is derived from the verb ''ala' which means 'to be (or become) high', or figuratively 'sublime' or 'elevated'. The form 'illiyin (or 'illiyyun'*) therefore may implicate approximately 'sublimely elevated'". Easy - and easy to understand - language in the Quran? PS: The 2008 English edition of Muhammad Asad has "jumped over" the whole problem, by dropping the word and simply writing "in a mode most lofty". To skip something is an easy way to try to hide a problem.

421 83/25-26: (A83/8): “Their (the Muslims in Paradise*) thirst will be slacked with Pure Wine sealed; the seal thereof will be musk - - -.” But once again: An Arab word - “kithamuhu” - with more than one meaning. This clearly means that there may be more meanings to the original Arab text. F.x.: “They will be given a drink whereon the seal (of Allah) will have been set.” Then: Is Allah’s or Muhammad’s real and exact meaning clear to you? And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

422 83/27b: (YA6026): "Tasnim literally indicates height, fullness, opulence. Here it is the name of a heavenly Fountain - - -". This is one explanation of the word, but it is a guesswork. Also see 83/27a and 83/27c.

423 83/27c: (A83/9): "Whereas most of the classical commentators regard the infinitive noun "tasnim" as the proper name of one of the allegorical "fountains of paradise", or, alternatively refrain from any definition of it (because the meaning is unclear*), it seems to me that the derivation of 'tainim' from the verb 'sannama' - 'he raised (something)' or 'made it lofty' - points, rather, to the effect which the 'wine' of divine knowledge (but where does the word knowledge enter?*) will have on those who 'drink' it in paradise. Hence, the tabi'i 'Ikrimah (as quoted by Razi) equates 'tasnim' with 'tashrif', 'that which is ennobling' or 'exalting'". Just two additional comment: Easily understood language in the Quran? And: It is easy to believe what one wants to believe.

424 84/4: "And cast forth what is within it (the Earth*) - - -". This may - may - refer to emptying the graves.

425 85/4: "- - - the makers of the pit (of fire) - - -". Who and what was this? Nobody knows - the famous clear language in the Quran strikes again.

426 85/8a: "And they (see 83/4 above*) ill-treated them (Muslims*) for no other reason than that they believed in Allah - - -". As Islam is completely at a loss about who "they" are, they also are completely at a loss about when and where. It is clear, though, that it must be before the time of Muhammad, as his followers were not burnt. Thus it is clear that the claimed Muslims here must have been some of the ones Muhammad claimed had existed in earlier times, but whom neither science, nor Islam has been able to find the smallest traces from. It also is one of the many claimed parallels Muhammad makes in the Quran between claimed earlier Muslims' and Muslim prophets' situation and the situation for himself and his followers at the time of the releasing of the verses or surah (most often his own position), to show that their problems were normal ones for believers (Muslims*) and for prophets.

427 86/1b: (A86/1): “By (indicating an oath*) the sky and the Night-Visitant (therein) - - -.” But the Arab word “at-tariq” (= “that which comes in the night”), derived from the verb “taraqa”, is a most vague one. Muslim scholars have interpreted it also like “the morning star”, “the stars”, “heavenly solace”, “the sudden, intuitive enlightenment”. And if you search, you may find more. Yes, a clear and distinct language in the Quran.

428 86/3: (YA6068): “- - - the Star of piercing brightness - - “. Here Islam is guessing again. The Morning Star? Saturn? Sirius? The Pleiades? Shooting stars? It is not possible to know what the Quran means here - indistinct language.

####429 87/6-7b: - - - so that thou (Muhammad*) shalt not forget, except as Allah wills - - -". Actually this is and has been a difficult sentence for Muslim scholars: This obviously is said to Muhammad, and how can Allah want Muhammad to forget parts of the Quran? There have been many explanations - included that the words are not to Muhammad, but to Muslims - but none are satisfying, even for most Muslim scholars. The famous perfect language in the Quran once more.

429a 88/17: (A88/5): “Do they (the non-Muslims*) not look at the Camels, how they are made?” But the Arab word for camel – “ibil” – also means “clouds bearing rain-water”. Then you get the meaning from exactly the same text and an absolutely correct interpretation: “Do, then, they (who deny resurrection) never gaze at the clouds pregnant with water, (and observe) how they are created?” Well, sometimes to study the Quran is funny. But a language so clear and distinct that it is a proof in itself for being written by a god??

430 89/1b: (A89/1): “By the break of Day”. But the Arab word “fajr” – does it only mean the literal daybreak? Hardly. And thus Muslims have found at least one more meaning: It “apparently symbolizes man’s spiritual awakening - - -.” Pick your choice.

431 89/2: (A89/1): “By (indicating an oath - see 89/1-4 above*) the Nights twice five (= 10*)”. Does this refer to the ten last days of the lunar month Ramadan when Muhammad is said to have had his first revelation? – or the ten first days of the lunar month “dhu ‘l-hidjejah” when the hajj rituals take place? Or perhaps something else? Islam does not know. But they state very strongly that the language of the Quran is so distinct and clear, that the very clarity is a proof for that it is made by a god. In that case: What do all the hundreds of unclear points in the book prove?

432 89/3: (A89/2): “By (indicating an oath - see 89/1-4 above*) the Even and the odd (contrasted) - - -“: Or another translation: “Consider the multiple and the One!” – already some difference. Literal meaning: “The even and the odd” or “the one” – both are possible. But the main thing is that Muslims and Islam in addition do not know what the book is talking about. They guess for this or that, but it is just educated guesswork – sometimes rather “elevated”. Is that “clear talk”?

433 89/4: (A89/3): “And by (indicating an oath - see 89/1-4 above*) the Night when it passeth away - - -.” Is this talk about the literal night or the enlightenment from spiritual “darkness”? Islam does not know – but prefer the last interpretation as an educated guess. But does all this guesswork indicate a clear and distinct language in the Quran? There is only one possible answer: No. What is worse: All Muslim scholars have to know this, as it is very easy to see for any intelligent person with some knowledge about the Quran, that many, many points are unclear (and absolutely all Muslim scholars know that the real meaning of many, many points in the book are debated) And all the same they tell their “flocks” and the world that the language in the Quran is clear, exact, easy to understand and impossible to misunderstand. Honesty in religion? – and what if all these irregularities add up to that Islam is a made up religion (all the mistakes, etc. makes it 100% clear that it at least is not made by any omniscient god) and all the Muslims have been cheated or threatened and thus prevented from looking for if there exist a real religion and one or more real god(s)? The misled followers in case are in for a rude waking up in the possible next life. And the misleaders? Well, at least many of them have had a good life here on Earth.

434 89/7: (YA6114): “- - - Iram - - -“. Is this the name of a city? – the capital of Ad in case? Or is it the name of a man – an old hero (from Ad?)? Islam does not know. But there is a difference between a city and a man. (There once existed one or more city/cities named Iram.)

435 89/19: "- - - devour inheritance - - -". Beware that it is unlikely Muhammad here talks about your own inheritance. It is likely he means the inheritance belonging to orphans whom you take care of. Unclear text once more.

436 90/1-2: (A90/1): “I (Allah?*) do call to witness this City (Mecca?*) – and thou (Muhammad?*) art a freeman of this City - - -.” This is the most common interpretation according to Muslims. But it also is possible to read it like this: “I (Allah or Muhammad*) call to witness this land (may be all the Earth*) in which thou (Muslims or man) are free to dwell - - -“. A clear and distinct language in the Quran?

437 90/13: (A90/7) "(It is:) freeing a bondman - - -". Or does it mean: "(It is) the freeing of one's neck (from the burden of sin)"? Once more this clear language, impossible not to understand, in the Quran.

010 90/13a: "(It is:) freeing a bondman - - -". (A90/7): "- - - the latter term (bondman*) covering all those forms of subjugation and exploitation - social, economical or political - which can be rightly described as 'slavery'" Does this include the subjugation of all non-Muslims, the exploitation of them by means of extra tax, often very heavy of them, and refusing them any political and most other rights, which is the official goal for the Quran and Islam? (f.x. "suppress them till they pay zakat with willing submission"). If that is the case, the Quran here strongly contradicts itself.

438 91/15: (A10): “And for Him (Allah*) is no fear for its consequences.” But does this verse really talk about Allah? Another interpretation goes like this: “- - - for none (of the ones that slaughtered the camel) had any fear of what might befall them.” Not exactly the same meaning from the same clear (?) original Arab text. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language. A. Yusuf Ali (YA6158) means that “him” may refer to Allah, or to the claimed prophet Salih, or to the man who slaughtered the camel mentioned in 91/12. Who knows what is the correct meaning of the Quran here?

439 92/6a: "- - - (in sincerity) testifies to the Best - - -". But what is the best? - f.x. to live and testify according to "do against others like you want others do against you", or to live and testify according to Islam's partly immoral moral code, with its lawful dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, Kitman), lawful deceit and betrayal, and lawful breaking of words/promises/oaths, just to mention some of the soft points - there are harsher ones. Islam does not know what here is meant.

440 92/11a: (A92/6): “Nor will his (a sinner’s*) wealth profit him when he falls head along (into the Pit).” A statement. Another possible translation: “- - - what will his wealth avail him when he goes down (to his grave)?” A question - one of the minor consequences – but does a god make even small things unclear?

441 93/6: (A93/3): “Did He (Allah*) not find thee an orphan and give thee shelter (and care)?” Who really is “thee” in this sentence? – Muhammad, who lost his parents early? – or man who found Islam? – or - - -? Impossible to say. Clear speech?

441a 93/10: "- - - the petitioner - - -". Muslim scholars want this to mean anyone asking from someone, and it is likely - but only likely - they are right. We mention that it in case also includes the poor asking for something, and we then may mention that another positive side with the Quran, is its demanding anyone to help the poor. But it in this connection also is not possible not to mention the fact that the main purpose the Quran gives for your charity, is to gain points in Heaven, not empathy with a fellow human being. And another fact in this connection is that a Muslim is promised the same reward in Heaven for helping his closest family - which in most religions is a duty, not charity - as from helping strangers, which often put strangers far down on the priority list.

442 94/1-8: This surah is at best pretty general, and if not pretty unclear. Muslim scholars want it to be Allah speaking to Muhammad, and it is likely they are right. But for that the meanings the scholars put into these verses varies a lot - unclear or cryptic language.

443 95/7b: (YA6201): “Then what can after this, contradict thee - - -“. This is one of the not few places in the Quran where it is unclear whether “thee” or similar words refer to Muhammad or to Muslims generally. This point a number of places is unclear in the Quran.

444 96/3: "And thy (Muhammad’s? Muslims'? Unclear language.) Lord (Allah*) is Most Bountiful - - -". Not unless he exists and in addition is something powerful - good or dark. Also see 95/7b just above.

445 96/17: (A96/9): “Then, let him call (for help) to his council (of comrades) - - -.” Does this refer to a special council? – f.x. the “dar an-nadwah” (the council of the elders in Mecca)? Or is this a better interpretation: “- - - let him summon (to his aid) the counsels of his own (spurious) wisdom.”? It is no use asking Islam – one does not know, as the text is not clear on this point either.

446 97/1d: (YA6217): “- - - the Night of Power”. This is something mystic for Islam. It may be one of the nights late in the month Ramadan (23., 25. or 27. are often mentioned), or it may be another night – or it may be pure mysticism. Clear language in the Quran?

447 97/2: "- - - the Night of Power - - -". See 97/1c just above.

448 97/3: "- - - the Night of Power - - -". See 97/1c above.

449 98/1-2: (A2): “Those who rejected the (Truth), among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians, and Sabeans - as Muhammad did not know also the Zoroastrians in a way had one god and a book*) and among the Polytheists, where not going to depart (from their ways) until there should come to them Clear Evidence – a messenger from Allah - - -.” But this collided with facts. Then finally Ibn Taymiyyah found another way of understanding it: “- - - they were not abandoned (by Allah’) until - - -.” Would an omniscient god use such an unclear language?

450 100/1 - 5b: “By the (steeds) that run, with panting (breath), and strike sparks of fire, and push home the charge in the morning, and rise the dust in the clouds the while, and penetrate forthwith into the (midst of the foe) an masse - - -.” All the same Muslim scholars are sure this verse is not about real war, but figuratively meant (we agree) – though they do not agree on the exact meaning (“The Message of the Quran”, note 2 to this surah (A100/2)). But good verses for romancing war and battles anyhow.

451 103/1: (YA6262): “By (the token of) time (through the Ages) - - -.” But then we are back to the unclear old Arab alphabet – this Arab word “al ‘Asr” instead may mean “- - - through the afternoon”. A bit of a reduction of the time aspect.

452 107/1a: (YA6281): “Seest thou (Muhammad or Muslims*) one who denies the Judgment (“din”*) (to come)?” But the Arab word “din” may also give this meaning: “Seest thou one who denies faith (or religion*)?”

453 108/1a: "To thee (Muhammad or Muslims - the Quran is not clear*) have We (Allah*) granted the Fount (or river?*) (of Abundance)." But how much is such a promise worth if Allah does not exist, or if he in reality are from the dark and cheating forces?

453a 108/1b: "- - - Fount (or river?*) (of Abundance) - - -". Unclear meaning as the Arab word which is used here, al-kawthar, also is the name of a river in Paradises (A108/1). This river Allah has promised Muhammad according to YA6286, and this verse may confirm this. Quite a gift for a desert dweller - and quite an Arabism.

454 113/1b: (YA6302): “- - - the Lord of the Dawn - - -“. At least 3 meanings according to Islamic scholars: 1) The daybreak. 2) The (possible) escape from religious ignorance. 3) Non-existence contra existence.

Clear and easy to understand language in the Quran?

#022 2/286c: “(Pray:) ‘Our Lord! - - -‘“. The word "(Pray:)" does not exist in the original Arab "clear"(?) text – Yusuf Ali has added it to “camouflage” the fact that this is Muhammad praying to Allah - in a book claimed to be billions of years old or made by a god. Honesty? How is it possible to explain that Muhammad is praying to Allah in a book made by Allah or may be never made, but existed since eternity? (There are some 8 places like this in the Quran concerning Muhammad and one or two concerning angels).

indicate that Hell is not really forever, but will come to an end after a very long time: 6/128c, 11/107b, and 78/23. (And 11/108c may indicate that also Paradise is not forever.)


Please remember that our lists are not complete (here none the MANY unofficial versions is included).


There were a lot more of unofficial versions - that was why the official ones had to be made and authorized.

Before Utman had his official edition made - not later than 656 AD - there were 4 much used edition - and they varied not a little.

Utman's edition helped in reducing the virr-varr, but because it was written in an incomplete alphabet - no vowels, no diacritical points, no sign like comma, full stop, etc. it often was and still is difficult or impossible to understand exactly what the texts meant, and different writers guessed different meanings - a sample: If you have the consonants "h" and "s" and know they represent a word, the word at least may be "hose" or "house" or "his" or "has" - and soon the virr-varr was even greater.

Finally one of the top scholars and some helpers sat down and made a list of 7 edition which became after a fashion canonized, but as each existed in 2 varieties, this meant that 14 varieties were canonized. As the expression "varieties of the Quran" is taboo in Islam, the reality was camouflaged by naming it "ways of reading". These 14 were (NB: The Years are not accurate, but most of them are correct within 2 - 3 years):

  1. Maker: Town: Dead (AH/AD): Reteller: Dead: Reteller: Dead:
  2. Nafi Mecca (169/786) Qalun (220/835) Wars (197/813)
  3. ibn Katir Mecca (120?/738) Qunbul (291/904) al-Bazzi (250/865)
  4. abu 'Amr Basra (148|55/766|72) abu 'Umar ad-Duri (246/861) abu Su'aib as-Suzi (261/875)
  5. ibn 'Amir Damascus(118/737) ibn Dakwan (242/857) Hisam as-Sulami (245/860)
  6. 'Asim Kufa (127|9/743/45) abu Bakr Su'ba (193/809) Hafs (180/797)
  7. Hamza Kufa (156/272) Halaf (229/844) Hallad* (220/835)
  8. al-Kisa'i Kufa (189/805) abu l-Harit** (240/855) ad-Duri (246/861)

The years given are (Ialamic years/international years) = (AH/AD) for their death.

Full names: *Hallad (abu 'Isa as-Saibani), **abu l-Harit (al-Lait ibn Halid al-Bagdadi).

Most of them slowly drifted out of use over the centuries, and today mainly 2 are in daily use: Wars after Nafi and Hafs after 'Asim. Yes, even today there are 2 varieties of the Quran in active use in spite of Muslims' claims. (+ sources tell that some of the others still are use locally a few places, but this we have not checked on.)

Then there were 3 well accepted, though not as strongly canonized - also they in 2 varieties each:

  1. abu Ga'far Medina (130/744) abu l-Harit* (160/777) abu r-Rabi** (170/787)
  2. Ja'qub ad-Hadrami Basra (205/821) Ruwais*** (234/849) Rauh ibn 'Abdalmu'min (234/849)
  3. Halaf Kufa (229/844) Ishaq al-Warraq (286/899) Idris al-Haddad (292/908)

Full names: *abu l-Harit 'Isa ibn Wardan, **abu r-Rabi (Sulaiman ibn Muslim) ibn Gammasz (az-Zuhri), *** Ruwais (Muhammad ibn Mutwakkil.

Finally there were 4 accepted ones:

  1. ibn Muhaisin Mecca (123/740)
  2. al-Jazidi Basra (202/838)
  3. al-Hasan al-Basri Basra (110/130)
  4. al-A'mas Kufa (148/764)

In addition there were the 4 main older ones from before Uthman. Anybody claiming his Quran is the exact words of Muhammad, is joking. It is impossible to know which one - if any - is the correct one. There even is the possibility that even if there once was a correct one, it may be one of the many versions which were dropped. In addition there is no valid proof for that Muhammad's words really came from a god.

14 + 6 + 4 + 4 = 28 canonized or accepted versions. There were many more versions - more or less accepted - in the old times, especially before the 14 were canonized.)

As for the relative significance of these in the old time on had a unit called "Tariq" which represented how significant and how widely spread and used the different editions were reckoned to be - the higher tariq number, the better.

  1. Nafi 144 Qalun 83 Wars 61 tariq
  2. ibn Katir 73 Qunbul 32 al-Bazzi 41
  3. abu 'Amr 154 abu 'Umar ad-Duri 126 abu Su'aib as-Suzi 28
  4. ibn 'Amir 130 ibn Dakwan 79 Hisam as-Sulami 51
  5. 'Asim 128 abu Bakr Su'ba 76 Hafs 52
  6. Hamza 121 Halaf 53 Hallad 68
  7. al-Kisa'i 64 abu l-Harit 40 ad-Duri 24abu Ga'far 52 abu l-Harit 'Isa 40 abu r-Rabi 12
  8. Ja'qub ad-Hadrami 85 Ruwais 41 Rauh ibn 'Abdalmu'min 44
  9. Halaf 32 Ishaq al-Warraq 22 Idris al-Haddad 9

As you see they definitely were used - and they varied not a little. Thus when Muslims claim the Quran they use, is the exact words of Muhammad "down to the last comma" (which did not exist in Arabia at that time), it either is lack of knowledge or an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie). When Islam/Muslim scholars say it, it is an al-Taqiyya, because they know this (but dishonesty - al-Taqiyya, Kitman (lawful half-truth), and Hilah (lawful pretending/circumventing) is recommended to use "if necessary" to defend and/or promote Islam (how many proselytes have been cheated into Islam by such means?), and permitted to use in a number of other wide cases (f.x. to cheat women - f.x. for sex, for marriage for work permit or residence permit in a rich country - or for saving your money). In addition deceit, betrayal, etc. are permitted as Muhammad both accepted and used it, and even disuse of words/promises/oats are ok, as it is permitted several places in the Quran (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2) - pay expiation afterwards if necessary.

>>> Go to Next Booklet

>>> Go to Previous 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".