1000+ Mistakes in the Quran, Booklet 13


Booklet 13

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



One standard, but like normal for him/them, never proved claim from Muhammad, from Islam, and from Muslims is that the Bible is falsified. The claim is that the Jewish prophets received copies of "the Mother of the Book" in heaven (= the Quran or very similar), like every claimed prophet and messenger from Allah all over the world through all times (124ooo or more according to Hadiths), but the bad Jews and later also the Christians falsified them, and the result was the Bible. (We have never heard what happened to the Qurans sent down to claimed Muslim prophets, etc. in other parts of the world.)

Muhammad did not know the Bible. It is likely he never saw a complete such one. It also is likely he never saw OT and the other Jewish scriptures until after he came to Medina in 622 AD, where there lived many Jews. His "Biblical" tales he took from local legends, apocryphal stories (there are several categories of apocryphal stories - when we use that word, we always mean made up stories), and even fairy tales, and legends and fairy tales all too often were based on made up stories or made up apocryphal texts, and in addition often with a - sometimes large - dash of fantasy added. As a result many of the pretended Biblical stories were not from the Bible at all, and if they were, they often were much changed.

When Muhammad finally became aware of this, it was too late to adjust his tales, and he only had two choices: To admit that his "Biblical" stories were wrong, and thus that things were seriously wrong in his new religion - and loose his platform of power. Or claim that he was right and the Bible wrong.

He chose the latter alternative - like always in his central claims without the slightest proof. Islam still does the same - still without one single valid proof - because if the Bible is right, the Quran is wrong and thus not from a god (omniscient gods do not make mistakes) and Islam a made up religion. But to be believed, they among other points will have to explain:

  1. When was OT falsified? - and by whom? Islam tends to blame this on the Jewish prophet Ezra some time around 500 BC. But this is impossible, because a prophet like Jesus never had accepted to read from falsified scriptures in the synagogues, but had made a lot of fuss about it. There is not reported any such fuss neither in the Bible, nor in the Quran. It also cannot have been falsified later, because we have large parts of OT in scriptures older than Jesus - f.x. the Qumran scrolls - and they are identical to the ones in today's OT (with the exception of minor divergences normal for manuscripts copied by hand.

  2. When and by whom was NT falsified? Islam tends to blame the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. But for one thing we have scriptures, fragments, and written quotes from also NT older than 325 AD, and they are identical to today's texts. And for another the agenda for that meeting of bishops is well known - so well known that also at least the majority of high Muslim scholars knows it - and there is not one word about changing texts in the Bible.
  3. How was it possible to make Christian bishops agree on falsifying the Bible? It would be just as easy as making ayatollahs agree on falsifying the Quran.
  4. How was it possible for Jews and Christians to agree on what to falsify?
  5. How was it possible to make also sects - Jewish and Christian - agree to and take part in the falsification?
  6. How was it possible to agree on what texts to falsify, and what not?
  7. How was it possible to agree on what new texts to use?
  8. Today there exists some 13ooo Biblical manuscripts or fragment older than 610 AD. This indicates there must have been at least 100ooo in the old times. At least. In addition there are some 32ooo scriptures, letters, etc. older than 610 AD with references to/quotes from the Bible. An educated guess: At least half a million letters, scriptures, etc. - included the mentioned 100ooo - must have existed in the old times. How to find all of them - spread over 3 continents?
  9. As for the letters, etc. with references/quotes: How was it possible to distinguish these from the large majority without relevance for the falsification? There must have been millions spread over large parts of Asia, Africa and Europe - and everyone had to be checked so as not to overlook any relevant one (no "not falsified" = with Quran-like texts, has ever been found).
  10. Greek, Latin, and Persian were the dominant languages in the region + in this case also Aramaic and Hebrew for natural reasons. But especially the non-religious scriptures, letters, etc. with references to/quotes from the Bible, could be in any language. Were each and every falsifier able to falsify in all languages, or did they have to travel in groups to master all the separate languages?
  11. How was it possible to erase the old texts on a papyrus or skin or whatever so delicately that it is not possible for even modern science to find any scratching or effect of chemicals used, etc.?
  12. How was it possible to always have the same ink like the one used in the many different scriptures, letters, etc.? - so exactly the same that modern science is unable to find any differences?
  13. How was it possible to falsify every handwriting so exactly that even modern science is unable to that something is falsified?
  14. How was it possible each and every time to make the new, falsified texts of exactly the same length like the erased ones, so that the new texts exactly filled the erased spaces?
  15. Some Muslims claim the manuscripts were not physically changed, but destroyed and new ones written. How in case to explain that one every time was able to find centuries old, not used writing materials to use for the falsification? If a scripture or a letter pretended to be from f.x. 64 AD - f.x. describing Emperor Nero's fire in Rome - but the parchment is from f.x. 340 AD, the real age is easy to find today. No such case is probably found.
  16. Who in case paid for this enormous operation? - sending falsifiers crisscrossing the entire known world and wider, trying to find each and every relevant, scripture, letter, etc., and not least every relevant fragment. Remember here that the Christian church did not start - start - to get serious money until well into the 300's AD.
  17. How was it in a time with few schools possible to find thousands of persons highly skilled in writing, so as to be able to not only falsify texts, but also to copy any handwriting they met, so exactly that even a modern scientist today is unable to see the difference, and at the same time willing to travel around for years trying to find relevant scriptures, letters, etc., or fragments to falsify? - travel also in enemy or lawless territory, and in times with primitive or even lacking transport systems?
  18. How was it possible to co-ordinate such an enormous operation during times of slow, primitive, and often non-existing communications?
  19. How was it possible to make each and every owner agree to having their expensive (books, etc. were expensive) and cherished holy scriptures falsified?

  20. How was it afterwards possible to make the owners and others believe in scriptures they knew were falsified?
  21. How was such an enormous operation possible without starting tongues wagging? Not one of the old historians have mentioned even a whisper about anything like this.
  22. How to explain that the old Quran was falsified into the Bible, when there is not found even a fragment from such a "not falsified Bible" older than 610 AD (compared to some 45ooo relevant to the Bible).
  23. How is it possible that one has found some 45ooo relevant scriptures older than 610 AD from the claimed falsified Bible, but not one single probably from a claimed not falsified one a la the Quran? - If there ever existed such a Bible, it is not possible that EVERY copy, EVERY quotation, EVERY reference, and EVERY fragment thinly spread over 3 continents were found and destroyed by the never reported big operation of falsifying the Bible.
  24. How is it possible that not one of the relevant some 45ooo scriptures, etc., is not found one single from a transition period where some - f.x. OT - was falsified, but the NT not, or not completely falsified yet (remember here that Islam often claims NT was falsified during the Council of Nicaea as late as in 325 AD).
  25. Some Muslims find details they claim prove falsifications in the Bible (but variations in f.x. the Gospels do not prove falsifications, as several possible explanations are possible - and "a proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion"). How to explain that such details are all they are able to claim, when the real difference between the two books are so enormous that for one thing the Bible has 4 times more text than the Quran, and for another that the texts are so totally different the only one short sentence is identical in the two books - a sentence of totally 6 words in the Psalms (Psalm 37/29: "- - - the righteous will inherit the land - - -" - words which ever so well may be a coincidence). For the Bible to be a falsified copy of the Quran, it is not falsified details we are talking about, but a massive and total falsification - replicated in each and every existing scripture, letter, written quotation and reference, fragment, etc. from the Bible older than 610 AD throughout the world.
  26. /ol> For the Bible to be a falsified copy of the Quran, it is not falsified details we are talking about, but a solid work of total falsification - replicated by each and every manuscript, letter, reference to or quote from the Bible, fragment, etc. Even if minor details really had been falsified, it had been irrelevant in this connection.

Another relevant point: If these questions cannot be given valid answers/explanations, this means that Muhammad lied in the Quran also each time he - directly or indirectly (= tens of times) - claimed that the Bible was falsified. And this is a most serious point, because if the Bible is not massively falsified, things are seriously wrong in the Quran, and thus with Islam.

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

Humans love their meanings higher than life itself. And the more meaningless their meanings are, the more willing they are to die for it. And to kill for it. Edward Abbey.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

>>> Go to 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".