1000+ Mistakes in the Quran, Booklet 8


Booklet 8

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.




"Allah sent the Quran" (?)

It is extremely clear that Muhammad, the Quran, Islam, and all believing Muslims all claim that the Quran is made by Allah, or perhaps has existed since eternity and only is sent down by Allah.

One big problem for them is that there does not exist one single proof for this - only claims from a not very reliable man (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, deceit, betrayal, and even broken words/promises/oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok - but how much cheating is it then in the Quran?)), and one with lots of respect, power, riches for more power, and women to gain from making people believe in his stories/new religion.

Science f.x. has proved that the Bible is not falsified. There may be some errors - though FAR from like in the Quran - but no falsifications. Also Islam has proved the same, by being unable to find proved falsifications - lots and lots of claims, but not one proved case. And f.x. Jesus' acceptance of the scriptures today making up OT, combined with the Biblical scriptures from the Qumran scrolls, prove that even OT is not falsified.

And an even more serious problem: All the hundreds and more mistaken facts and other mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, helpless language (except the later polished prose), etc. - even a few(?) lies - alone proves that the Quran is not from any god. No matter what Muhammad, the Quran, Islam, and Muslims claim, no god would ever be involved in a book of that quality. As for who really made the Quran, there only remain 3 possibilities:

    A. The dark forces. Many points in the Quran and in its moral code may indicate this - and also many points will fit the dark forces better than they will fit a claimed good and benevolent god. But it is an open question if even a devil would deliver a book of a quality like the Quran, if the purpose was to lure people to his "kingdom" - he had to know he would be looked through sooner or later, and lose credibility. The one possibility was if he was forced to be satisfied with that quality, f.x. to give his victims a reasonable chance to see the trap.

  1. B. A mental illness. Modern medical science suspects Muhammad had TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy - which is an illness which may give just the kind of fits and religious illusions Muhammad is said to have had.
  2. C. A cold, scheming human brain - f.x. Muhammad's. The fact that so much in the Quran is in accordance with right and wrong knowledge one had in and around Arabia at that time, and the fact that many of the made up stories he used in the Quran + many of the Biblical legends and of fairy tales are things we know circulated there at the time of Muhammad, may indicate this. The same does the fact that Allah many times helped Muhammad with his personal problems.

There also is the possibility of a mixture of points B and C - the fact that it seems Muhammad perhaps believed in his own stories in the beginning, but became more pragmatic and scheming later, may indicate this.


110% and more proof.

What also is absolutely sure, is that no god ever delivered a book of a quality like the Quran, not to mention revered something like that in his home. The Quran is a made up book. The only question is: Made up by whom?

Well, read yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Finally: Always when you read the Quran, Hadiths, and other Islamic books, you should remember that Muhammad accepted the use of and himself used dishonesty in many forms in words and deeds. Even if the names are younger, it was he who institutionalized dishonesty like al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), the use of deceit ("war is deceit" - and "everything" is war), betrayal (f.x. the peace delegation from Khaybar), and even the disuse of oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah could cheat, cheating is ok) ), which also includes the disuse of words and promises, as they are weaker than oaths = when oaths can be disused, so can words and promises. On top of this it is very clear from the Quran and all other central Islamic books, that Muhammad also liked respect and power and women. Combine these lusts with his acceptance of and personal use of dishonesty - even the gravest kinds: How reliable is that kind of men normally? - and how true and reliable are their never proved claims and tales?

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

##076 2/23a: “- - - what We (Allah*) have revealed (the Quran*) - - -“. Wrong. No omniscient god has made or cherished (cfr. the "mother book" – f.x. 13/69b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) a book with that many mistaken facts, contradictions, and other errors + much unclear language. Either it is not made by Allah or Allah is not omniscient – if he exists.

109 2/26e: "- - - it (the Quran*) is the truth from their (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". Wrong. So full of all kinds of errors, contradictions, etc. like the Quran is, it at best can be partly the truth, and definitely not from any god. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

146 2/32c: "- - - it is Thou (Allah*) who are perfect in knowledge and wisdom". In that case he is not the maker of or one who reveres the Quran in his Heaven.

If Allah is perfect in knowledge and wisdom, how can it then be necessary for humans to help him explain better hundreds and more of points in the Quran? - yes, how is it possible for humans to explain the Quran better than a god does? Remember here that the Quran many places states that the texts are plain and easy to understand.

177 2/41a: “And believe in what I (Allah*) reveal (the Quran*) - - - “. No omniscient god has revealed a book with so many mistakes and other errors.

*338 2/89a: “And when there comes to them (Jews in Medina*) a Book (the Quran*) from Allah - - -”. A book with that many mistakes, contradictions, invalid “proofs” etc. like the Quran, is not from an omniscient god. And: The Bible was written by humans - inspired by Yahweh according to believing Jews and Christians, but not delivered by him.

352 2/90e: "- - - they deny (the revelation) which Allah has sent down, in insolent envy that Allah of His Grace should send it to (a not Jew*) - - -". Muhammad claimed that one reason why the Jews did not believe in him, was that they disliked that a non-Jew had been sent as a prophet. The real reason was that there were so many and so fundamental differences between Muhammad's teachings, and the Jews not falsified (according to modern science and Islam) books, that they saw that it impossibly could be the same religion - and this even before Islam really had become a war religion.

385 2/97c: “- - - he (Gabriel*) brings down the (revelation (the Quran*)) to thy heart by Allah’s will - - -“. No omniscient god sends down a book with that many mistakes and contradictions and that much invalid logic, etc. (And if the book really was "brought", then there only remain the dark forces as the sender.

440 2/105d: "- - - anything good (in this case the Quran*) should come down to you (Muhammad*) from your Lord (Allah*)". No god ever sent down a book of a quality like the Quran - it simply is heresy and slander, not to mention an insult, to blame a god for something with so many errors, etc.

523 2/121b: "Those to whom We (Allah*) have sent the Book (the Quran*) - - -". No god has sent a book this full of mistakes, contradiction, invalid logic, etc.

633 2/139f: "- - - that we (Muslims*) are sincere (in our faith) in Him (Allah*)". This is completely without any consequence as a proof for the religion - any strong believer in any religion is sincere in his faith, and it means nothing and proves nothing about the one and only essential question for a religion: Is the religion a real religion with a real god (or gods) behind it? Or is it a superstition? As there is no god behind the Quran - too much is wrong in the book for a god to be involved - it is very easy to believe Islam is not a real religion but a superstition. The fact that Allah in no way clearly has proved his existence, plus the knowledge of what kind of a person Muhammad really was, make this logic a certainty.

652 2/142e: "He (Allah - in reality here Muhammad and his Quran*) guideth whom He will - - -". As no god included Allah - if he exists - was behind a book of such a miserable level of knowledge, it is not Allah who in case is the guide, but the maker of the Quran - be it dark powers or humans.

706 2/147c: “The Truth (the Quran*) is from thy (people’s*) Lord (Allah*), so be not at all in doubt”. With that many mistakes and that much wrong logic, etc., there is every reason for doubt. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

812 2/170a: "Follow what Allah hath revealed (= the Quran)." No omniscient god ever revealed a book with so many mistakes, etc. like the Quran.

838 2/174e: "- - - Allah's revelations in the Book (the Quran*) - - -". The Quran with all its errors is from no god.

849 2/176a: “- - - Allah sent down the Book - - -”. With so many mistaken facts and other errors, it is impossible that the Quran is sent down by a god.

1054 2/213m: “Allah by his Grace guided the believers to the Truth, - - -”. Allah’s presumed book containing so many mistakes, is not the truth. At best the book is partly true.

1151 2/229d: "These are the limits ordained by Allah - - -". But as the Quran is not from any god - it is an insult and slander and heresy and worse to accuse a god for being involved in a book of a quality like the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. - then who is it who really ordained this?

1164 2/231f: “- - - the fact that He (Allah) sent down to you (people/Muslims*) the Book - - -”. Is it a fact that a god has sent down a book with so many mistaken facts? Impossible.

1270 2/252d: "We (Allah*) rehearsed them (the "signs" for Allah*) to thee (Muhammad*) - - -". No god sent down a book full of mistakes, etc. to any representative - it is slander, insult and heresy to blame a god for such.

006 3/3a: “It is He (Allah*) Who sent down - - - the Book (the Quran*) - - -". There never was any proof for that the Quran really was from a god. Never. And with a reason - no god ever was involved in a book with so much wrong facts, contradictions, invalid logic, unclear meanings, etc. And no good and benevolent god ever ordered such at least partly deplorable moral and ethical rules, or such rules for killing and suppressing the rest of the world.

And what about the at least few lies? (- some 50 or more in the Quran).

009 3/3d: “It is He (Allah*) Who sent down to thee (Muhammad*) - - - the Book (the Quran*), confirming what went before it - - -.” Here is indicated that it confirms the Bible. But the Arab original is cloudier: “- - - ma baynayadayhi - - -“ – literally “- - - that which is between its hands - - -“. Is it correct to guess that is means “- - - what went before - - -“? Or is it more correct to guess it means “- - - what is left now - - -.”? Muslim scholars dispute about it – most agree to the first alternative, but some to the other. And the literal meaning is yet another. Clear language?

#######And: As it is proved that the Bible is not falsified, it also is proved that the Quran is not confirming the Bible - the differences by far are too many and too fundamental. Even the fact that only one short sentence is the same in the entire books (the six words in Psalm 37/29: "- - - the righteous will inherit the land - - -" - a kind of expression which easily may be in both book because of an incidence), shows the same.

037 3/7a: “He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book (the Quran*): - - -”. Wrong. There are too many mistakes in the Quran - it cannot possibly be sent down by a god, not to mention by an omniscient god.

###040 3/7d: ”- - - no one knows its (the Quran's*) hidden meaning except Allah”. In any text – even in Donald Duck – it is possible to find – or make up - hidden meanings. But this is strongly advised against in this verse (3/7): Only Allah is qualified to do that:”- - - no one knows its hidden meaning except Allah”. And who is better to know just that than Allah? – the maker of the book (?) - and the one revering the presumed "Mother Book" in Allah's home, a book which the Quran is claimed to be a copy of(without proofs as normal for Islam)?

#######But all the same the claims about "hidden meanings", etc. is a standard explanation used by Islam to “explain” away any mistake or contradiction which is difficult to explain - "it must not be understood literally, but allegorically". As soon as f.x. science shows that something in the Quran is wrong, that text switches from being “basic and fundamental – of established meaning”, to becoming an allegory. This in spite of Allah's and in spite of the Quran's clear words. It is one of the three most frequently used last ditch ways Islam and Muslims use to try to “explain” away things that cannot be explained. (The other ones are: “You cannot take the meaning from just one point or a few verse – you have to judge from the whole surah (or the whole Quran)", and: "You are just a Muslim hater or Israel lover and what facts you tell consequently are invalid and of no interest"). This in spite of that they themselves happily and with glee quotes and often even twists words far out of context to favor Islam (f.x. “There is (wrongly quoted) no compulsion in religion”) or to discredit any other religion). But 3/7 proves that to make up hidden meanings behind the words – f.x. changing its meaning to be allegorical where an allegory is not indicated – is wrong and strongly against Allah’s wish and order: It is the work of “those in whose hearts is perversity”.

To use such claims, is to falsify texts in the Quran.

Also see the chapter "Literal language in the Quran - according to the Quran" in "1000+ Comments on the Quran".

133 3/23c: "- - - the Book of Allah (the Quran*)". Wrong, at least if Allah is omniscient - no god makes a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, and other errors, not to mention have such a book in his own home/heaven as a revered "mother book", like the Quran claims. (13/39, 43/4, 85/21-22).

280 3/53a: "Our Lord (Allah*), we (Muslims*) believe in what Thou hast revealed (the Quran*) - - -". No god of any kind has revealed a book with so much errors, contradictions, etc. like the Quran.

###683 3/126e: "- - - Allah, the Exalted - - -". Read the Quran like it ought to be read if you want to find the reality behind the religion: First you arrange the surahs according to age, so that you see the development of the religion, and especially the big change in the god and the religion around 622-624 AD, from a rather peaceful religion to a full-fledged war religion, included dishonesty, apartheid, suppression, and blood. Further you skip the glorifying cheap words, and read what is demanded, what rules are introduced or glorified, what is done, etc. - in other words the realities, not the propaganda. Is Allah - if he exists - really exalted? And for that case what about Muhammad and about Islam?

0109 4/26c: "Allah doth wish to make clear to you (by means of the Quran*) - - -". No book that full of mistakes and unclear points, makes much clear to anybody.

200 4/47c: "- - - what We (Allah*) have (now) revealed - - -". No omniscient god ever revealed texts containing so much wrong like in the Quran.

###382 4/82b: “Had it (the Quran*) been from other than Allah, they would surely therein found much discrepancy.” What a proof!!! The ultimate joke and irony! In addition to all the mistakes, contradictions, etc. (roughly at least unbelievable 3000 (!!!), everything included). There is so much discrepancy in the Quran, that Islam has a special rule how to solve such problems - the so-called rule of abrogation: If there is discrepancy between two (or more) places in the Quran, the youngest one normally is the correct one - the omniscient Allah so often (300 times or more according to "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran") had to change his mind or got new information which forced him to change his words, that one needs a special rule how to behave in such cases (this is one of the reasons why it is essential for Islam to know the age of the surahs and verses, or at least which is older than which - to know which are valid and which are abrogated). And there is so much discrepancy between the Quran and modern knowledge, that it is clear that either Islam has a lot of good explaining to do, or the Quran is not made by an omniscient god. (Islam has a lot of explanations, but most of those are not about explaining the mistakes, etc., but about explaining them away, and such "explanations" most often are invalid or highly dubious - use your brain and knowledge when you listen or read, and you will see this is true). The quoted sentence really is an indirect, but strong proof from the Quran itself, for that the Quran is not sent down from an omniscient god - and a reason why Muslims cannot afford to admit there is one single mistake in the book, no matter how unlikely explanations they have to use to “explain” the mistakes away: If there are mistakes, there is something fundamentally wrong with the religion. That is too difficult to face.

(It should be mentioned that some Muslims denies there is a rule of abrogation (an omniscient god would not need to adjust or further specify his own rules - it spoils the picture of perfection and of omniscience), but anyone can read and see for him-/herself: Many points are adjusted, extended or given other limits - larger or smaller - in the Quran. We have never counted, but we have read numbers from ca. 100 to more than 500 abrogations depending on how strictly you judge. Actually it is said by some Islamic scholars that only 9/5 – “the Verse of the Sword” – abrogates 124 older mild verses).

In addition to the internal discrepancies in the Quran, one has all the mentioned mistakes – they are discrepancies compared to the reality. Besides: Even if it had been without the least contradiction, that had meant nothing as a proof - Muhammad had plenty of time to be careful and think his words over as after all this not big book took 23 years (but he was unable to make it perfect). But there are more than 300 internal contradiction (see http://www.1000mistakes.com about this) + all external contradictions (contradiction to reality).

505 4/105b: “We (Allah*) have sent down to thee the Book (the Quran*) - - -”. With so many mistakes and dubious arguments - can it really be sent down by a god? No.

532 4/113f: “For Allah hath sent down to thee the Book (the Quran*) and Wisdom - - - “. As said before - f.x. in 4/105a+b+c - there is good reason for doubt as to if the Quran is sent down by a god, and no reason for doubt that much of the contents are not true - not much wisdom.

533 4/113g: "- - - (Allah has*) thought thee (Muhammad/Muslims*) what thou knewest not (before) - - -". At least someone - or he himself - has done so. The big question is if the teaching is right or wrong. At least some of it is morally highly wrong, not to mention all the wrong facts it gives.

651 4/136f: “- - - and the scripture which He (Allah*) hath sent to His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - - ”. It is very obvious to anybody with some knowledge and the ability to read and think, that there are many mistakes in the Quran. It is a question if it is advisable to believe in a book where you know there are many mistakes - and may be many more you do not see. The fact that there are many mistaken facts - and dubious statements + contradictions + numbers of invalid “signs” and “proofs” + cases of unclear language and at least a few lies (50+ ?), also make one doubt the not proved claim that the book is sent down by an omniscient god and a copy of a book revered in Heaven. It simply is impossible that it can be true. It is heresy and slander and an insult to blame a book of a quality like the Quran, on a god.

654 4/136i: "- - - the scripture which He (Allah*) sent to those before (him Muhammad*))". = The Bible. The Quran claims that the Bible is a falsified copy of Qurans (or really copies of claimed "Mother of the Book" (= "mother" of the Quran)) Allah sent down to Jewish and Christian prophets/messengers - twins to the Quran. But the Bible's/NT's fundamental ideas, moral code, ethics, etc. are too different from the Quran's - it is not possible it is from the same god, not unless the god is strongly schizophrenic. (The standard Muslim "explanation" is that the Bible is falsified, but both science and Islam have thoroughly proved this is not true, by being unable to find a single proved case of falsification among the literally tens of thousands of relevant old scriptures.)

657 4/136l: "- - - His (Allah's*) Books - - -". It is heresy and slander and an insult against a god to claim he has made a book so hopelessly full of mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, unclear language, etc. and of a literature quality like the Quran.

670 4/140a: “Already has He (Allah*) sent you word in the Book (the Quran*).” Wrong. A book with so many mistakes and so much invalid logic is neither made nor sent down by a god – omniscient or not.

034 5/3h: "This day have I (Allah*) perfected your (Muslims'*) religion for you - - -". This sentence always fascinates us - was the religion Islam not perfect earlier? And how could the religion be perfected - made better - without changing the claimed quotes which are claimed to be the unchangeable and timeless basis for Islam? How could Abraham be a perfect Muslim - or a Muslim at all - if the religion was not perfected until this day in 632 AD? Etc., etc.

036 5/3j: "This day have I (Allah*) - - - chosen for you Islam as your religion". Did Muhammad preach Islam - first 13 years a peaceful religion, and then changed to a religion of war for 10 years and forever - for 23 years before Allah did chose Islam as the Muslims' religion? And: Did Allah or Muhammad make the choice?

087 5/11d: "And on Allah let the Believers put (all) their trust". A bit risky if Allah is a made up god - and remember here that a book of a quality like the Quran is not from a god. It is slander, insult and heresy to blame a god - not to mention an omniscient one - for such work.

124 5/15-16: "- - - a perspicuous Book, Wherewith Allah guideth - - -". No god guides by means of a book full of mistakes - and no good and benevolent god uses a book which in addition has partly immoral and unjust moral code and laws, and neither does a good and benevolent god launch a war, hate, dishonesty, and suppression religion like in the Quran.

275 5/44e: "- - - to them (the learned Jews*) was entrusted the protection of Allah's Book - - -". The often repeated claim: The Jews got a book similar to the Quran from Allah, but falsified it so that it became OT. Strongly proved wrong by both science and Islam by being unable to find even one proved falsification. Not to forget proved by Jesus' acceptance of OT as correct, combined with the Qumran scrolls which prove that even OT never was falsified later, too.

278 5/44h: "- - - (the light of) what Allah hath revealed (the Quran*) - - -". There is little religious light in a claimed holy book full of mistakes and thus not from a god.

279 5/44i: "- - - what (the Quran*) Allah hath revealed - - -". No god ever revealed a book with that many errors, etc.

297 5/47d: "If any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed (the Quran*), they are (no better than) those who rebel". As the moral and judicial rules are different - often very different - in especially NT compared to the Quran, Christians (and also Jews after all) rebel. Bad people.

305 5/48f "- - - what Allah hath revealed (the Quran*) - - -". No book with so many mistakes is from any omniscient god.

320 5/49a: "- - - by what Allah hath revealed (the Quran*) - - -". No omniscient god ever revealed a book of that quality - it is an insult and blasphemy against the god to claim so.

403 5/64f: “- - - the revelation (the Quran*) that cometh to thee (Muhammad*) from Allah - - -“. A book with that many mistakes, etc. is not revealed from an omniscient god.

423 5/67d: “- - - the (message) which hath been sent to thee (Muhammad*) from thy Lord.” There is no chance that a message (the Quran) that full of mistakes, contradictions, wrong logic, unclear language, etc. is from an omniscient god. See 5/59e above.

623 5/104a: "- - - what Allah hath revealed (the Quran*) - - -". No god - omniscient or not - has revealed a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, etc., not to mention kept it in his own "home" a revered "mother book", like the Quran claims.

650 5/108b: "- - - listen (to His (Allah's*) counsel (the Quran*)) - - -". One thing is listening to a book where so much is wrong. Quite another thing is to follow its advice without using ones brain and ones other knowledge, not to mention blindly to do so. Besides: As no book of a quality like the Quran is from any god, the counsels given in the Quran are not from a god, included not from Allah - no matter if he exists and is a god or not. (Well, there is a chance if he belongs to the dark forces, and a real god has permitted him to launch such a "holy" book only on the condition that the quality should be so miserable that intelligent readers with an open mind had to see that things were very wrong.)

032 6/7a: “If We (Allah*) had sent unto thee (Muhammad*) a written (message) on parchment, so that they (Muslims and non-Muslims*) could touch it with their hands, the Unbelievers have been sure to say: ’This is nothing but obvious magic!’” Muhammad never ever was able to prove anything about what he told his mostly naïve and uneducated audience. But he got questions about and demands for such proofs many times from followers and others – this is mentioned repeatedly in the Quran. He had to evade those requests and demands, and an obvious way was to find ways of explaining them away. Here the technique he uses is “No matter what proofs I produce, they will not believe anyhow, so why produce proofs at all?” Swindlers and cheats frequently use such techniques. It is obvious for anyone able to think for himself or herself, that the logic is twisted and wrong – but the ones wanting to believe or the very naïve ones might believe in it. What is more serious, is that Muhammad was an intelligent man and a man knowing a lot about how to treat and sway people. There is no way he did not know he used twisted logic and dishonest psychology and story, and that a real miracle - or more than one - had made new believers, even if some would try to call it magic. And no way that he did not know that if he produced real evidence that would strengthen his followers enormously and make huge numbers of unbelievers become believers. In a short sentence: There is no way an intelligent man did not know this excuse was a lie.

467 6/104b: “Now have (the Quran*) come to you (Muslims*), from your Lord (Allah*), proofs - - -”. Wrong. In the entire Quran there is not one single valid proof for Allah or for Islam - or for Muhammad being a real messenger (he definitely was no prophet, as he had not – and did not even claim or pretend to have – the ability to make prophesies). Not one single proof which proves any god at all neither in the Quran, nor in the entire Islam. There MAY BE a few exceptions in the tales taken from the Bible, but they in case talk about Yahweh, not Allah, and Islam in case will have to prove that Allah and Yahweh really is the same god - a statement only based on unproved claims in the Quran and in Hadith, and a statement which have never in any way been documented - and a statement clearly disproved by the many deep and central and essential differences between the fundamentals of the teachings. All the statements are only based on thin air and cheap words - words which any priest in any religion can use about his or her god(s). They are worth nothing as proofs.

The Quran some places talks about “proofs” and many places where it talks about “signs”. They all have that in common that they without exception are without value as proofs for Allah of for Muhammad's connection to a god. After all a proof is "one or more PROVED facts which can give only one conclusion" - and the Quran and Islam NEVER prove the claims they build their "signs" and "proofs" for Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god on. NEVER. If f.x. heaven and earth shall be proofs for Allah, Islam first has to prove that it really was Allah who made them - not only claim so. If rain shall be a proof for Allah, Islam first has to prove that it really is Allah who makes and directs the rain, not just say so, because this any religion can say - valueless as a proof (Baal makes the rivers run downwards. Allah cannot make them run upwards. ERGO: Baal is the real god and Allah just an impostor. Etc., etc., etc. Valueless “proofs“.) If life on Earth is to be a proof for Allah, Islam first have to prove that it really was Allah who created it - not just use empty statements any priest in any religion can use free of charge. Etc., etc., etc.

The Quran is very good at demanding proofs from all other religions, but it never, NEVER, offers any valid proofs about Allah or the Quran or Muhammad’s connection to a god itself, when it comes to disputed “truths” (it offers “proofs“ and “signs“, but they are not valid). And it is extra thought-provoking that the times it says that this and this is a proof, and the many, many times it says that this and this is a sign, the statements without exception just are statements taken out of thin air, or in other ways not built on proved facts - nothing that a judge would accept as proofs in a neutral, good quality court. Nothing. Any god would know the statements were without value as real proofs, and not call them - or hint that they are - proofs. It is just cheap words and demagogy which any priest in any religion can use free of charge. Sorry, but that is the very plain truth.

And in reality it is even worse: Who uses lose statements, invalid arguments, invalid proofs, and demands for blind belief? - cheats and impostors and swindlers! It actually tells something about a god if he is trying to cheat the simple and the simpleminded and the uneducated ones - not to mention what it tells about him, if he did not understand that one time humans would get enough knowledge to see through the cheating, and even more so if Allah did not understand what effect such “proofs” made up of mistakes and bluffing would have on educated, thinking persons when they discovered the claims were untrue.

For similar claims see 2/41 – 2/91 - 2/117 – 2/147 – 2/176 – 2/213 – 3/3 – 3/7 - 3/60 – 4/105 – 4/113 – 4/140 – 5/15 – 6/91 – 6/92 - 6/104 – 6/114 – 6/155 – 7/52 – 10/94 – 10/108 – 11/17 – 12/2 – 13/36 – 15/9 – 16/64 – 17/73 – 17/82 – 17/105 – 17/106 – 18/27 – 18/29 – 20/113 – 21/10 – 21/45 - 22/54 – 23/90 – 24/1 - 24/25 – 25/1 – 25/6 - 28/47 – 38/53 – 32/2 – 32/3 – 35/31 – 38/29 – 39/1 – 39/2 – 39/23 – 39/41 – 40/2 – 41/2 – 42/17 – 43/78 – 55/2 – 64/8 – 69/43 – 76/23.

Have you ever noticed that the one who needs to boast – loudly and frequently – about how truthful he is, is the cheater and deceiver, and the one boasting about his knowledge is the mediocre to rather ok, but not top intelligent and learned one? – the really honest and the really intelligent and knowledgeable persons never need to boast about those things. Real honesty and real intelligence makes itself felt after some time of close connection – if there is a need for boasting, something is wrong. And as it here are lots of claims about speaking the truth, we may quote the Nazi-German Minister for Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels: “If you tell a lie often enough, people starts believing it is true.” (There is a lot of similarity between the ideology behind Nazism and the one behind Islam).

And we also remind you: "Claims without proofs can be dismissed without proofs" as they are without value.

####468 6/104c: "Now have (the Quran*) come - - - from your (Muslim's) Lord (Allah*) - - - I (Muhammad*) am not here to watch over your (people's) doings". THIS IS A SERIOUS ONE: Here it is Muhammad who is speaking - - - in a book presumably made eons ago in Heaven!!! - an impossibility and a clear contradiction of the Islamic claim that it is a copy of the Mother Book in the Heaven. (There are some 8-9 such cases in the Quran, and at least one case where angels are speaking - see 6/114a below.) Clear proof(s) for that the Quran is not from Heaven - at least not all of it. This lines up with facts like:

  1. There are lots and lots of mistakes in the book.
  2. There are lots and lots of wrong scientific facts in the book.
  3. There are lots and lots of invalid “signs” and “proofs” in the book.
  4. There are lots and lots of invalid logic in the book.
  5. There are lots and lots and lots of invalid claims and statements in the book.
  6. There are lots and lots of contradictions in the book.
  7. There are lots and lots of unclear language in the book.
  8. There are lots and lots of grammatical and linguistic errors in the book.
  9. There are lots and lots of non-Arab words in a book claiming to be in pure Arab.
  10. PLUS A HISTORICAL FACT ISLAM AND ITS MUSLIMS N E V E R MENTION: THERE IS NOWHERE IN THE WORLD EVER FOUND EVEN ONE SINGLE TRACE FROM A BOOK LIKE THE QURAN OLDER THAN 610 AD, WHEN MUHAMMAD STARTED HIS MISSION. (This in spite of that according to the Quran a similar book has been sent down to 124ooo (according to Hadiths) prophets/messengers all over the world through the times + copies made from these. This is many more than there ever existed of the Bible, and from the Bible there are some 12ooo copies (of parts of the Bible - some 300 copies of Gospels) or scraps from the Bible + some 32ooo with quotes from or references to Biblical texts, all older than 610 AD. But as said from the Quran nothing.) NOT IN LITERATURE, NOT IN ARCHEOLOGY, NOT IN ART (this even though art in Islam often is to draw/paint quotes from the Quran in high quality script), NOT IN HISTORY. NOTHING. NOWHERE.

This proves 100% or more that the Quran is not made by an omniscient god. And not made before 610 AD.

In addition there are the other proofs - f.x. Jesus + the Qumran scriptures. And more science.

Also see 2/23f, 2/24a, 2/136a, 4/47c, 5/59e, 13/1f.

476 6/106a: "Follow what thou (Muhammad*) are taught (the Quran*) by inspiration from thy Lord (Allah*) - - -". No god did teach the Quran - too much is wrong. We also mention that the word "inspiration" never is used in such connections in the Bible. Yahweh used direct talk, visions, or dreams according to the Bible (4. Mos. 12/6-8), but never inspiration for transferring messages, etc. to his prophets.

523 6/114c: “- - - He (Allah*) it is Who hath sent unto you (Muslims*) the Book (the Quran*)”. Wrong. Take into account the many mistakes, etc. which at least needs proofs. No god delivers a book of a quality like the Quran with all its errors, etc.

525 6/114e: "They (non-Muslims*) know fully well, to whom We (Allah*) have given the Book (the Quran*) - - -". Wrong - and a correction: What some of them knew fully well, was that the Quran was not from the same god as the Bible - too many fundamental points were too different.

526 6/114f: “- - - it (the Quran*) hath been sent down from thy (Muslims’*) Lord (Allah) - - -“. No omniscient god ever sent down a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, logical blunders, etc., not to mention kept is as a revered "mother book" in his own Heaven (13/39, 43/4, 85/21-22), like the Quran also claims – like usual without any documentation or proof.

527 6/114g: “- - - it (the Quran*) hath been sent down from thy (Muslims*) Lord (Allah*) in truth”. At best partly the truth. Also see 2/2b above.

530 6/115a: "The words (the Quran*) of your Lord (Allah*) - - -". Wrong. No god made or sent down a book with that much wrong.

531 6/115b: “The words (the Quran*) of thy Lord (Allah*) doth find its fulfillment in truth”. As said many times: With that many mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, etc., it maximum is partly the truth. Also see 2/2a above and 13/1g and 40/75 below.

691 6/154a: “We (Allah*) gave Moses the Book (here intended to mean a claimed not falsified Bible = one similar to the Quran*), - - -”. As said some times before: The 5 books of Moses – also called “the Book of Moses” - (or the Torah) - were written 400-700 (500-800?) years later according to science. Moses only got the 10 Commandments in writing. That is to say: He also got “the Law” – which later became part of “the Book of Moses”- but only verbally, and then wrote it down himself later, according to the Bible (what he wrote down sometimes was called "The Book of Covenance" - f.x. 2. Mos. 24/7). But the law for one thing is just part of the book, and for another: Science like said all the same means the full books are written centuries later. And NB: According to the Bible, he got the Commandments and the law from Yahweh, not from Allah - and the teachings of Jesus and of Muhammad are far too different; it is impossible they represented the same god or the same line of prophethood (in addition to that Muhammad was no real prophet - he was unable to make prophesies or "to see the unseen"). And we remind you: Science have long since proved beyond any reasonable or unreasonable doubt that Muhammad's never documented claims that the Bible is falsified, are wrong. Islam has proved the same even stronger by not finding one single clear case of falsifications in all the tens of thousands relevant old manuscripts or fragments.

And f.x. Jesus' acceptance of the old scriptures which later became OT as genuine, combined with the Qumran scrolls, also documents that even OT never was falsified.

705 6/157e: "- - - a Clear (Sign) (in this case the Quran*) from your Lord (Allah*) - - -". No god ever sent down a book with that many errors, etc.

010 7/3a: “Follow (O People!) the revelations (the Quran*) given onto you from your Lord, - - -”. No omniscient god has made such book. Either Allah is not omniscient, or someone else has made it.

244 7/69c: "- - - a message from your ('Ad's) Lord (Allah*) - - -". No god ever sent down something like the Quran - too much is wrong.

340 7/101a: "- - - (the stories*) We (Allah*) (thus) related unto thee (Muhammad/Muslims*) - - -". As the Quran is not from a god with all its mistakes, etc., these stories either mush have been related from someone else (included f.x. Iblis/the Devil), or been the result of illusions - from mental illness like TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) - or "borrowed"/made up - the only three possible explanations left.

547 7/158q: "- - - Allah and His Words (the Quran*) - - -". The Quran is no god's words - far too many facts etc. are wrong.

679 7/196c: "- - - Allah, who revealed the Book (the Quran*) (from time to time) - - -". The Quran claims that as the times changed, new messages had to be sent (but not after Muhammad, even though there have been much more - MUCH more - changes after Muhammad than during all the times before him put together: 124ooo prophets before Muhammad according to Islam, zero and nil after. And also no new holy book. Understand it who can.)

697 7/203d: "I (Muhammad*) but follow what is revealed (the Quran*) to me from my Lord (Allah*) - - -". A book with so much wrong is not from any god.

047 8/10a: "Allah made it but a message of hope - - -". The only claimed messages from Allah, are what one finds in the Quran. And as the Quran is not from any god with all those mistakes, etc., also the messages are not from Allah - even if he should happen to exist and be a god. And even if Muhammad used to claim he got messages, he never proved they were sent to him, or in case were from a god (he never proved anything at all of any essence).

145 8/32d: "- - - if this (the Quran*) is indeed the Truth from Thee (Allah*) - - -". No god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran - it is not from Allah, if he is a god. Maybe if he is a devil, and was not permitted to make it better.

096 9/16b: “Or think that ye (Muslims*) that ye shall be abandoned (by Allah and not be rewarded for going to war*), as though Allah did not know those among you who strive with might and main (for the religion*)- - -.” But is the implicit claim here true? It only can be if Allah really exists and is a god, and if the Quran in addition has described him correctly - in a book full of mistakes, etc.

314 9/48e: “- - - the Decree of Allah became manifest - - -“. The “decrees from Allah” – the Quran - contains so many mistakes, etc., that they are not from an omniscient god. That is: Either Allah is not omniscient or it is not from Allah. Something is seriously wrong.

006 10/2b: “- - - We (Allah*) have sent our inspiration (the Quran*) to a man (Muhammad*) from among themselves?” With this many mistakes, etc., the Quran is not from an omniscient god.

029 10/4c: "The promise of Allah is - - - sure". Wrong - as it comes via the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. it definitely is not sure. And of course as the Quran does not come from any god - not with all those errors, etc. - it cannot bind Allah - if he exists.

162 10/35g: "- - - He (Allah*) who (claims he*) gives guidance to (the claimed*) Truth - - -". Allah's claimed guidance is to be found in the Quran - a book so full of errors, etc., that it at the very best only is partly true, and thus clearly is from no god, not to mention from an omniscient one. (There is a chance, though, that the Quran is from a dressed up something from the dark forces - f.x. it’s partly immoral moral code, its inbuilt prohibition against ethical and moral philosophy, its partly immoral and unjust sharia laws, etc. may indicate this.)

##170 10/37a: “This Quran is not such as can be produced by other than Allah - - -”. Very wrong. Many a good writer can write stories as good as, and better than, the collection of surahs in the Quran. In spite of what Islam says, the Quran is not good literature. The same stories are repeated again and again. They frequently are not well told. There are no new stories or ideas – only stories and ideas borrowed from others. Honestly large parts of the book are rather dull reading. And the fabled high quality Muhammad’s Arab language? - what Muslims seldom mention, is that it took some 250 years to perfect the language - it was not until around 900 AD that it had got something like today’s language. It also existed in much more than one text. For one thing even Muhammad (according to Hadith) said it was sent down in 7 varieties, which all were true ones - even if details were different. For another thing some of the old, original texts existed in the Muslim world for a long time after the “official” one was finished around 650 AD ( at some time there were at least 14 canonized + about as many accepted, though not canonized, varieties – 2 are much used today: Hafs and Warsh + 4 a little used some places, but most uneducated Muslims does not even know this). For still another thing the texts may have been slightly changed through the time - at least some very old Qurans found in Yemen in 1972, had “small, but significant differences” from the modern edition. The dominating Quran today (Hafs), is the edition that was the official one in Egypt when first printed in 1924, according to what we have read. The version after Warsh is used in parts of Africa . Also see Preface in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" (list of the 14 canonized ones + some accepted ones).

The claim in this verse Muhammad could tell his uneducated and to a large degree an-alphabetic followers. People versed in quality literature today just will smile hearing such a claim, if they know the Quran - it is not high quality even if you do not mind all which is wrong in the book. The one exception may be the Arab language in the book, as this as mentioned was polished by top scholars for some 250 years.

But in that connection we would like to quote an old American film critic some decades ago. He was shown a high quality film favoring narcotics. The question was if he did not think the film work was good?

"Well", he answered, "I always have meant that a work which was not worth doing, also was not worth doing well".

##171 10/37b: From comment A10/60: "- - - the wisdom inherent in the Quran precludes any possibility of its having been composed by a human being - - -". This is an example of the kind of arguments Muslims sometimes resort to in lack of real facts. On the background of all the mistaken facts and other errors in the Quran, there are some words one could use to characterize this sentence and its claim, but in a serious work you do not use that kind of words.

"The fact that a claim is told or even repeated, does not necessarily mean it is true".

"Repeat a lie frequently enough, and people start believing it". (Joseph Goebbels).

#####But the damning point: If perfection proves a divine origin, what then do hundreds and more of mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, helpless language (except the prose), helpless style, etc. prove?

If we on the other hand pretend we accept the statement: How then can Muslims change his words and meanings, claiming the words do not mean what they say - they are unclear (with hidden meaning), or are metaphors, or something - in order to explain away errors, contradictions, etc., etc. in the Quran? - likely the most used way to try to explain away such things.

If Allah's words shows that "- - - the wisdom inherent in the Quran precludes any possibility of its having been composed by a human being - - -", #####the necessity of changing his words and messages/wisdom to "explain" away points, proves something entirely different.

Either Allah may prove his truth by his wisdom - and then the words and meanings cannot be changed or given wiser meaning. Or Muslims may try to explain away thing by proving they know better what he "really means" than Allah himself in his then sub-human wisdom was able to express. Both at the same time is not possible.

If Islam claims that Allah delivered the Quran, and that the texts are divine work, all "explanations" claiming things do not mean what Allah say in the book, but this-and-this are made up fairy tales. No - no - human being can know better or express himself more correctly and exactly than an omniscient god.

259 10/57b: "- - - a direction (the Quran*) from your (mankind's*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". It is heresy and an insult and slander to any god to blame him for a book of a quality like the Quran.

307 10/67f: "- - - (- - - His (Allah's*) Message (the Quran*))- - -". The Quran is not a message from any god - too many mistakes, too many contradictions, too much invalid logic, too much unclear language, etc. NO omniscient god makes such and so many errors, etc.

*356 10/82a: “And Allah by His Words (the Quran*) prove and establish His Truth, - - -”. Wrong. The words of the Quran proves nothing about Allah, until it first is proved that they really were made by Allah, and that Allah really has made and done what the Quran says. It is at best partly the truth only - too many mistakes, contradictions, etc. For similar claims see 2/22 – 3/70 – 5/48 – 6/57 – 7/181 – 8/6 – 10/33 – 10/82 – 11/20 – 13/17 – 23/70 – 34/53 – 47/3 – 54/55.

*357 10/82b: “And Allah by His Words (the Quran*) prove and establish His Truth, - - -”. Actually this sentence is of no consequence here: As all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran proves the book is not from a god, Allah's words are not involved.

But to be blunt: The sentence is nonsense, without logic, and very naive on background of the real quality of the Quran.

If we on the other hand pretend we accept the statement: How then can Muslims change Allah's words claiming they do not mean what they say - they are unclear (with hidden meaning), or are metaphors, or something - in order to explain away errors, contradictions, etc., etc. in the Quran? - likely the most used way to try to explain away such things.

If Allah's words "prove and establish His (Allah's*) Truth", the necessity of changing his words proves something entirely different.

Either Allah may prove his truth by his words - and then the words cannot be changed or given a different meaning. Or Muslims may try to explain away thing by changing the meaning of his words. Both at the same time is not possible.

402 10/94a: "- - - what We (Allah*) hath revealed (the Quran*) unto thee (Muhammad or Muslims*) - - -". No god has revealed a book like the Quran to anyone. For one thing it is too low quality as literature, but mainly: Too much is wrong - f.x. too many wrong facts.

414 10/96a: “Those against whom the Word (the Quran*) of thy Lord (Allah*) - - -". The Quran is the word of no god - too many mistakes, etc.

416 10/96c: "- - - the Word (the Quran*) of thy Lord (Allah*) - - -" No god has made the Quran - see 10/94a.

446 10/105a: "- - - (the*) Religion with true piety - - -". Islam only has true piety if the Quran is from a god, and even then only for good Muslims.

461 10/108b: “Now truth (the Quran*) hath reached you from your Lord (Allah*)”. See 10/94a, and 13/1g and 40/75.

069 11/14e: “- - - this revelation (the Quran’) is sent down (replete) with the knowledge of Allah, - - -”. Well, all the mistakes prove that either it is not made by an omniscient god or that something else is wrong.

092 11/17q: “Be not in doubt thereof (the Truth – the Quran – from Allah*))”. Wrong. The Quran is so full of mistakes, etc., that it is utterly naïve not to doubt.

093 11/17r: “- - - the Truth (the Quran*) from thy Lord (Allah*) - - - “. Either it is a mistake that the Quran is from an omniscient god, or it is a mistake that Allah is omniscient. Too much is wrong in the book.

156 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.

217 11/49b: "- - - stories from the Unseen which We (Allah*) have revealed unto thee (Muhammad*) - - -". Muhammad her claims these are stories are not known to man - at least not the details - but that Allah knows them - Allah knows also what man does not see. (It f.x. is a way of playing safe if you know you may have to claim that other stories about the same history are falsified.) And that Allah then has revealed some of them to Muhammad.

218 11/49c: "- - - stories - - - which We (Allah*) have revealed unto thee (Muhammad*) - - -". No omniscient god would need to reveal legends and fairy tales - and only ones known in and around Arabia at the time of Muhammad - just a little twisted to make the tales fit Muhammad's new religion, pretending they were real and proved truth.

377 11/100: "These are some of the stories We (Allah*) relate unto thee (Muhammad*) - - -". It is strange for a god to relate stories from legends, etc. - known to be made up ones - and claim them to be the true ones. This claim is wrong unless Islam proves differently.

380 11/101c: "- - - the decree of thy (Muslims'/humans'*) Lord (here indicated Allah*) - - -". The old truth once more: Allah can make no decree if he does not exist (but if he exists, he can issue decrees even if he belongs to the dark forces.)

449 11/120a: "All that We (Allah*) relate to thee (Muhammad/Muslims*) of stories about the prophets - - -". Are the stories from Allah? - or from legends, etc.? May be added some details to make them fit Muhammad's situation and teachings? No god would need to use made up stories, legends and fairy tales pretended to be the truth as basis for his holy book.

452 11/120d: "- - - with it (stories from claimed or documented prophets*) We (Allah*) make firm thy (Muhammad's/Muslims'*) heart - - -". As mentioned many/most of the stories - true or twisted or made up - in the Quran were parallels to Muhammad's situation and showed them that what happened to Muhammad, was normal for prophets - "ergo" Muhammad was a normal prophet with normal problems. How true the stories were, may be a question, but they worked.

005 12/2a: “We (Allah*) has sent it down as an Arabic Quran - - -.” An Arabic "holy book" meant something to Muhammad - he felt that the lack of such a book, made the Arabs inferior to Jews and Christians.

006 12/2b: “We (Allah*) has sent it down as an Arabic Quran - - -.” It is not pure and perfect Arab like it often is claimed - nothing like if a god had made it, and not to mention like if it is the language of Heaven; in that case there should have been no grammatical mistakes and no words imported from Arabia's neighbors on Earth (not to mention the situation today) - there are lots of grammatical errors and imported words, according to language experts. Besides: Did Heaven have a grammar and a complete alphabet before the Arabs finally made such ones in the years between 650 and 900 AD? (Irony aside and to be fair: Just this claim that Arab is the language used in Heaven, hardly is a mainstream claim.)

But we are unable to see the glorious thing in using Arab for his holy book, if Allah intended to reach the entire world - f.x. Latin or Greek or Persian had reached far more people. These languages also had complete alphabets, which Arab did not have. The really big drawback is that around 650 AD Arab only had a rudimentary alphabet, consisting mainly of the consonants - the rest had to be guessed by the reader. Which even today means there are some hundreds of places in the book where one does not know the meaning for sure. When a Muslim next time use the standard claim that the Quran of today is "exactly Muhammad's words to the last comma", do not laugh - it is impolite. (The comma did not even exist in Arab at that time).

007 12/2c: “We (Allah*) has sent it (the Quran) down - - -“. No omniscient god has sent down a book with this many mistakes, contradictions, cases of wrong logic, etc. This means that either Allah is not omniscient, or that someone else has made the Quran.

010 12/2f: “We (Allah*) have sent it down as an Arabic Quran, in order that ye may learn wisdom". But:

  1. There is little wisdom in a book where so much is wrong like in the Quran.
  2. Beware that when the Quran and Islam talk about wisdom, normally they talk only about religious and related knowledge. All other kinds of knowledge were "foreign" and disliked. All the same the Muslim area had a period of science from ca. 820 AD till ca. 1095 AD (ca. 100 years more in the far west), but it was more in spite of Islam than because of Islam - and it was the religious establishment (the religious scholars helped by the imams, etc.) who "killed" it.
  3. For the world it may have been a good thing - what had happened to the world, if a war and apartheid religion like Islam had had the industrial revolution with much resources and the best weapons, instead of the West? The West did things one afterwards can say was not good - but a similar Islamic conquest had been sure if they had had the upper military hand, the examples from Sind and India and Armenia and Africa and the Greeks in Turkey tell a grave tale about how bloody it likely would have been - and the Quran tells how suppressing and intolerant. Belgium and Congo is a sunshine story in that connection. Besides: The moral thinking and the moral shifts which happened in the West, and which f.x. made an end to slavery, and after all made ending colonization somewhat easier, had not been possible under Islam - Islam simply has no moral or ethical philosophy which makes changes in thinking possible. They only have Muhammad's words and deeds which in principle are forever, except that ideas and thoughts and knowledge from outside the Muslim area forces their way in - but frequently against strong opposition from Islam. (And influence from the outside had not existed - at least not much - if Islam had been the strong power in the world for the last 300 years, instead of the West.)
  4. Strong things have been said about the West and its power. But think over this alternative.

014 12/3c: "- - - We (Allah*) reveal to thee (Muhammad*) this (portion of the) Quran - - -". No omniscient god ever revealed a book of a quality like the Quran - too much is wrong.

169 13/30e: "- - - what We (Allah*) send down (the Quran*) unto thee (Muhammad*) - - -". As no god sent down the Quran, also no god sent it down to Muhammad.

228 13/37b: “Thus We (Allah*) revealed it (the Quran*) to be a judgment of authority in Arabic.” A book with that many mistakes and contradictions, that much invalid logic, that inhuman moral and without ethical or moral philosophy, only a partly immoral moral code, is no basis for “judgment of authority”. If Muslims disagree, they will have to bring strong proofs to be believed. Similar claims in 2/101 – 4/170 – 6/115 – 9/48 -11/14 – 12/1 – 16/123 – 24/46.

And no book of a quality like the Quran is from any god.

#####240 13/39a: "Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth - - -". If this refers to the claimed "mother book", this means that the book in case is not unabridged from eternity like some Muslims claim (not all). It is not eternal if it is changeable. Islam is not eternal and unchangeable if the holy book is changeable. And there is no reason for Allah to revere - like Islam says - a book he can change as he pleases. If the claimed "Mother Book" can be changed, parts of the ground under Islam disappear. (And if it on top of all is not from any god - like all the errors, etc. in the book documents - all the ground under Islam disappears.)

####241 13/39b: “- - - with Him (Allah*) is the Mother of the Book (the presumed original book of which the Quran - AND THE CLAIMED BOOKS OF ALL THE EARLIER PROPHES/MESSENGERS (INCLUDED CLAIMED PROPHETS AND MESSENGERS FROM BEFORE MAN LEARNT HOW TO READ) - is said to be an exact copy*)“. Mere humans like us think it is unlikely in the extreme that an omnipotent and omniscient god has a book awash with mistakes, contradictions, logically invalid claims, etc. as a revered "Mother of the Book" (= "Mother of the Quran") in his Heaven. There also are a lot of problems to explain, if it was made by the god a long time ago - not to mention if it is an unmade book that has existed forever, like many Muslims insists:

  1. If the book is that old and existed before the world was created, why did the god have to send down claimed imperfect books - Torah, OT, NT? And NB: Science and Islam both have shown they are not falsified, in spite of Muslims claim (like normal for Islam without documentation).
  2. How to explain that in some verses it is Muhammad that is speaking?
  3. How to explain that angels are speaking in the Quran if the book is older than the first angels?
  4. How to explain that the god sometimes has to change his message – erase it in the Mother Book and write something new? - and did he really get everything right in the book this time? Especially if he is copying the Mother Book, he ought to get it right at once?
  5. How could he change the messages, if it was all written a long time ago - or always existed - in a Mother Book he copied? Erasing something there and writing over?
  6. How come, if the book is eternal, that so many verses are answers or comments to things which happened in Mecca and Medina to Muhammad and during the life of Muhammad? - Muhammad f.x. quarreled with his wives, and Allah sent down surahs to explain that Muhammad as always was right - and like always a little bit too late to avert problem, but relevant to his needs just then? (Remember that if man has freedom of choice, full omniscience and thus also full clairvoyance is impossible - admitted even by Islam, except that they say it must be true all the same because Allah says so in the Quran (!!))
  7. How to explain that it (the Quran) could have been written eons ago, if Allah has given the humans a certain amount of free will? - human acts will upset the texts in chaotic ways. (Predestination and human free will are 100% incompatible and 100% impossible to combine even for gods, as man always can change his mind once more, making it impossible for the god to know for sure what really will happen, until it happens. This also goes for "partly free will".)
  8. Islam says texts had to be changed a little over time, because times changes - therefore new holy books. But the 300 last years time has changed more than from Adam till 1700 AD - not to mention till 650 AD. Why are no prophets and no holy book necessary? (Also see 13/38d above). And how was the text in the Mother Book changed to fit new times.
  9. If the “mother book” is eons old, why then is nearly the all talk to Muhammad, a little to a few others, and nothing to the other 124ooo prophets (the number according to Hadiths)? The first prophets - when everything was new – after all needed most information and help.
  10. How to explain that most of the stories in the Quran are based on religious legends, fairy tales, etc.? - any god had known they were untrue.
  11. How to explain all the mistakes? – any god had known better.
  12. How to explain all the invalid statements? – any god had known better.
  13. How to explain all the invalid “signs” (treated as proofs)?
  14. How to explain the invalid “proofs”? – any god had known better.
  15. How to explain the directly wrong statements, “signs” and “proofs”. ?
  16. How to explain all the contradictions? – the claim of "no contradictions" is one of the “proofs” for Allah.
  17. How to explain all the cases of invalid logic? - no god would need to use invalid logic.
  18. How to explain the often unclear language in the book, even concerning serious points?
  19. How to explain away Muhammad's lies - and the reason for them - in the Quran (likely 50+ such ones).
  20. How to explain away science's proofs for that f.x. the Bible is not falsified?
  21. How to explain away f.x. Jesus' acceptance of OT as ok, combined with that the Qumran scrolls then tells that even OT was never falsified?
  22. How to explain away that neither science nor Islam has found one single proved case of falsification in the Bible?
  23. How to explain away the fact that one has found some 44ooo scriptures or fragments older than 610 AD relevant to the Bible, but not one relevant to the Quran, even though Islam claims there existed huge numbers of the Quran through the times?
  24. How to explain that there exists not one trace from a religion like Islam or a book like the Quran older than 610 AD (when Muhammad started his mission)? - not in history, not in literature, not in archeology, not in art, yes, nowhere any place in the world.

Also see 13/1d+e+f above and 43/4, 85/21-22 below. And: No such book is mentioned in the Bible.

005 14/1d: “A Book (the Quran*) which We (Allah*) have revealed unto thee (Muhammad*)- - -”. As no god has revealed a book of such a miserable quality and reliability, also no god has revealed it unto Muhammad. There also is the question if any good and benevolent god could use such a warlike representative with such a doubtful moral, ethics, reliability (f.x. al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie - "break even your oaths", etc.), and total lack of empathy, especially with his victims, etc.

013 15/4a: (A15/4): “Never did We (Allah*) destroy a people that had not a term decreed and assigned beforehand”. Here Mr. Yusuf Ali once more seems to have translated a bit freely – may be because he knew the real meaning impossibly could be correct. According to Muhammad Asad, “The Message of the Quran”, the literal meaning is: “Never did We destroy a people unless it (the community) had known a divine writ - - -.” Perhaps Mr. Yusuf Ali knew the rules for ”al-Taqiyya” (the lawful lie – a duty when it comes to defending Islam). Homo Sapiens is something like 160ooo – 200ooo (195ooo?) years old. Writing has existed just some thousands of years (15ooo?). But thousands and thousands of tribes and peoples disappeared before that. Can thousands of peoples – not persons, but peoples – have died out without Allah’s knowing it, before writing was invented and in contradiction to the Quran's claim that every people had had prophets and books like the Quran? Here something is wrong to say the least of it. And on top of that: There is not one single trace of something similar to the Quran written - or preached - before 610 AD.

029 15/9a: “We (Allah*) have, without doubt, sent down the Message (the Quran*)”. Wrong. There is a lot of well-founded doubt about that. Too many mistakes, among other things. No god makes a that quality book.

031 15/9c: "- - - We (Allah*) will assuredly guard (it (the Quran*) (from corruption)". Some Muslims mention this as a proof for that the Quran is an exact copy of Muhammad's words - Allah guards it against corruption, and then nothing can possibly have changed even a comma. But the history of the Quran is pretty turbulent, and many versions have existed - nobody knows how many (at least 4 much used before the official version was made by Caliph Utman, and at least 24 later (a long period many more) - 14 of them canonized). This mainly because of the unfinished Arab alphabet - it was not completed until around 900 AD. Finally 7 different editions were canonized, each of them in 2 versions = the mentioned 14 different. Slowly most of them fell into disuse, and today there are 2 versions in daily use - after Hafs and after Warsh - plus 4 which are used a little. So just you guess if the Quran has been corrupted!

To be more exact:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition there were 3 others which were good - each in 2 versions = 6 versions - and 4 which were accepted. All together 14 + 6 + 4 versions = 24 versions + Uthman's.

The good ones:

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

The accepted ones:

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

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

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

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

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

A large percentage of the Muslims honestly believe them.

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


033 15/9e: "- - - We will assuredly guard (it (the Quran*) from corruption)". YA1944: "The purity of the text of the Quran through fourteen centuries is a foretaste of the central care with which Allah's Truth is guarded through all ages". ####Not one word about the troubles because of the incomplete Arab alphabet around 650 AD. Not one word about the many varieties through the centuries - of them 14 canonized + some "lightly canonized". Not one word about changes through the time - documented f.x. by the finding of the "Quran-graveyard" in Yemen in 1972 ("small but essential differences"). Do you find it strange that persons used to honesty and to straight scientific ways of thinking, sometime feel disrespect and distaste when studying Islamic sources? - And Abdullah Yusuf Ali: "The Meaning of the Holy Quran" is one of Islam’s "flagships" on the intellectual medium level! His sentence here is not only wrong, but dishonest - but then dishonesty (al-Taqiyya) is advice by Islam to use "if necessary" to defend or promote Islam"

How much more is dishonest in Islam - and in the Quran?

189 15/87a: "And We (Allah*) have bestowed upon thee (Muhammad/Muslims*) the Seven oft-repeated (Verses (= 7 verses in Surah 1*)) and the Grand (complete or claimed high quality?*) Quran". No god ever sent down a book of this quality.

081 16/24b: "'What is it your Lord (Allah*) has revealed?' they (non-Muslims*) say, 'Tales of the ancients!'" And they were 100% right: Most of the tales in the Quran are old folklore, legends - many Biblical, but often incorrect - and simply fairy tales, plus apocryphal (of the made up kinds) scriptures, often twisted a little to fit into the Quran. Not strange they called it old tales. Science actually knows the sources of most of the stories in the Quran. Is the Quran really the work of a god?

112 16/30c: "What is it your (Muhammad's*) Lord (Allah*) has revealed?" What is sure no god did reveal, is the Quran - too much wrong, included hundreds of wrong facts, for any god to be involved.

215 16/44e: "- - - We (Allah*) have sent down to thee (Muhammad*) (also) the Message (the Quran*) - - -". Wrong. No god is involved in a book with so many mistaken facts, other errors, contradictions, unclear points, etc. Not to mention keeps it in his "home" as a revered "mother book"(see 13/39b above and 43/4, 85/21-22 below).

394 16/89e: “- - - We (Allah*) have sent down to thee (Muhammad*) the Book (the Quran*) - - -”. Yes, that is the big question for Islam. If Allah exists, and if he sent down the Quran, and if Muhammad retold everything correctly - f.x. did not “doctor” the surahs in Medina to get warriors or peace in his family - then Islam is a religion. If it is not true, what then? - and what happens in case to all Muslims, if there is a next life run by a real god they have been prohibited to search for? - especially if they have lived according to the harsh, discriminating and bloody parts of the Quran, and the possible real god is one wanting you to be good and kind to everybody. Can a book with a moral code like in the Quran be sent down by a good and benevolent god? As flatly no. god is one teaching love and "do unto others like you want others do unto you"? Can a book full of mistakes, etc. be sent down by a god - not to say an omniscient one? Flatly no.

395 16/89f: “- - - We (Allah*) have sent down to thee (Muhammad/Muslims*) the Book (the Quran*) explaining all things - - -.” The Quran far from explains all things – f.x. the judicial laws are incomplete, and at least one point is wrong (the shares when inheriting does not add up – depending on who are inheriting, the shares may add up less than 100% or to 125% and more of the total inheritance.) And punishing a raped woman who cannot produce 4 males who have seen the rape, is wrong, unjust and immoral. Besides there are many judicial and other points it simply does not touch - f.x. laws for road traffic to mention an extreme example.

This verse and those laws simply contradict each other.

Besides: If an omniscient god has explained all things in the Quran, how then is it possible for mere humans to explain it even better, f.x. to "explain" away mistakes, contradictions, etc.?

But if we pretend we believe the Quran explains all things, how come that Allah has made so bad explanations that Muslims hundreds and more of places in the Quran must explain things better than the god was able to, to "explain" what he "really" meant? - likely the most common way for Muslims to try to explain away errors and worse in the book.

475 16/101e: "- - - what He (Allah*) reveals - - -". No god has ever revealed something like the Quran - too many mistaken facts and other mistakes, etc.

482 16/102e: “- - - revelations from thy Lord (Allah*) - - -”. Once more: Can the revelations be from an omniscient god, when so many of them are wrong or contain mistakes? Out of the question!

483 16/102f: “- - - revelations from thy Lord (Allah*) in Truth - - -”. With all the mistakes, the revelations told in the Quran, at best are partly true. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

488 16/102k: “- - - revelations from thy Lord (Allah*) in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims”. What kind of glad tidings can be built on at least to a large part mistaken and/or valueless statements and as wrong facts? It is bad if Islam really believes everything - that means they are too blind - or blinded - to see even the most obvious mistakes. But it is much worse if (some of) the leaders and learned men/teachers see the mistakes and bluff their audiences. And not least: If all the mistakes means that Islam is a made up religion - such religions do happen frequently - and blocks the way for its (un)believers to a true religion (if such one exists), what then? Besides: Is it permission to steal and rob and rape and take slaves that are “glad tidings”? – fighting, women and looting are very central in the Quran in the surahs from Medina. (Why did not Allah discover before how essential this was to him?)

130 17/39a: "- - - wisdom, which thy Lord (Allah*) has revealed to thee (Muhammad*)". Was it really revealed? - and in case by whom or what? - not by any god at least, as too much is wrong.

147 17/43b: "He (Allah*) is high above all that they say! - Exalted and Great (beyond measure)!" We may remind you that when you read the Quran, you should read the claims, deeds, etc., not the glorious words. The demands and deeds and introduced rules are reliable - the glorious words are cheap and may be propaganda. Read 1/1a above, and see if you agree to this verse.

256 17/73c: “- - - that (the Quran*) which We (Allah*) had revealed unto thee (Muhammad*)”. As no book of a quality like the Quran is from any god, also no god has sent it to Muhammad.

279 17/82a: “We (Allah*) sent down - - - in the Quran - - -”. Islam will have to prove that the Quran really is sent down, and sent down from an omniscient god. Without VERY good proofs, it is difficult to believe an omniscient god has sent down such a quality book, and especially if he intended to save people for his Heaven. Yes, without such proofs, it simply is impossible to believe it. (If Allah belongs to the dark forces, the miserable moral code, etc. may be easier to understand - and also all the mistakes, if they are a condition for being permitted by a god to make a trap for humans.)

378 17/105a: “We (Allah*) sent down the (Quran) - - -”. If Allah is omniscient, he did not make such a second- or third-rate book - only all the mistaken facts make it at least second rate, and then there are f.x. all the invalid statements, claims, and "proofs", not to mention the simply wrong ones and the contradictions and the invalid logic, etc. - and definitely no mentioning of the lies in the book. And f.x. the fact that science tells that the Bible is not falsified - some errors (though much less than in the Quran, but ho falsifications.

385 17/106a: “- - - a Quran which We (Allah*) have divided - - -“. If any omniscient god has had anything at all to do with a sorry work like making or “sending down” the Quran with all its errors, etc., Islam will have to prove it.

387 17/106c: “We (Allah*) have revealed it (the Quran*) by stages.” Muhammad revealed the Quran little by little and often in connection with things which happened or actual situations – but mostly after things had happened or when there were problems - not before so that trouble could have been avoided. An impolite observer could have asked if the explanation was that the maker of the verses did not know what was about to happen, but then used a god’s almighty authority to clean up things afterwards – this even more so as when Muhammad personally was involved, the god(?) often helped him and more or less always took his side.

009 18/1-2: “Praise be to Allah, Who hath sent to his servant (Muhammad*) the Book (the Quran*), and hath allowed therein no Crookedness: (He hath made it) strait (and Clear) - - -.” In plain words: ###The verses in the Quran are in straight and clear and not crooked or incorrect words – to be understood literally. ###Remember this each time a Muslim or Islam tries to explain away errors and weak points by claiming the text is not straight and clear, but parables, etc. (where the text do not indicate strait and clear that it is a parable or something). See the comment to 3/7 and 11/1 just above.

#005 18/1d: “(Allah*) hath allowed therein no Crookedness.” In a book that full of mistaken facts and other mistakes, there is a lot of crookedness. Especially the mistakes, the use of invalid “signs”, ”proofs” and as invalid logic, and the partly immoral moral code and laws, the acceptance of dishonesty in words (lies, deceit, broken oaths, etc.) and deeds (thieving/looting, rape, extortion, slave taking, etc), "smell", ###not to mention how the places where it is clear Muhammad is lying in, the Quran "smells".


010 18/2a: “(He (Allah*) hath made it) Straight (and Clear) - - -”. The tales “per se” mostly are plain and easy. But a book that full of mistaken facts and other mistakes, f.x. linguistic ones, (and perhaps religious ones, too - why should they be exceptions?) is neither straight nor clear. (The Arab prose is good, but this because it was polished for some 250 years (ca. 650 - 900 AD) by the best brains in Islam, till the language got its present form approximately.)

####011 18/2b: “(He (Allah*) hath made it (the Quran*)) Straight (and Clear) - - -". #####This is one of the verses you, like we said, should remember each time a Muslim tries to explain away a clear mistake by "no, this is not literally meant - - -", which is one of the 3 most used last ditch defenses (the two others are: "You cannot understand a text in the Quran alone - you have to see the whole Surah (or the whole Quran)". And: "You cannot really understand the Quran unless you read it in Arab". Both of which are rubbish. (Well, there are 3 more: "You do not know the Quran/what you are talking about", and: "You just are an Israel lover/Muslim hater quoting what you have heard or read". And the strong one in all religions: "I know better than you about this - even if the proofs show I am wrong". ####(Science has shown that it is typical for many religious persons in all religions to believe not because their religion is proved, but to be able to believe in spite of all proofs showing that things are wrong. Such proofs are just dismissed, simply because they do not want to believe them. Muslims are very typical here.)) There are places where you have to know more than the actual verse and the nearest few ones to understand the meaning, but mostly the simple answer is: "If you are not able to see the essence in a meaning or something said, you should stay out of debates" - this Muslim claim simply is a means to make the opponent unsure, because few know the Quran well enough to see that mostly this claim is invalid. And as for reading in Arab to understand it: For one thing the Arab of Muhammad mainly was the language of primitive desert nomads even though it later is linguistically polished - there is no problems for rich modern languages like f.x. English to compete with it in vocabulary. (Also in Japan they had the same haughty self-centered meaning once upon a time: Primitive foreigners impossibly would be able to express what a highly refined language like their could. They stopped claiming it after many enough had learnt foreign languages to see the nonsense in the claim. And Japanese was really was a refined cultural language, not something from primitive tribes, even though polished afterward.) Well, there always will be some words which are special for a language, and which need explanation, but that is it - and this goes for any language and is nothing special for Arab. But such words will have to be explained anyhow - f.x. when you learn the language - so that makes little difference. The remaining fact is that what one brain can think, another brain of the same quality and similar education can understand, at least with a little explanation. But the claim is difficult to leave for Muslims, because they need it as an "explanation", when they lack real arguments.

#####041 18/9f: "- - - (the story about the seven sleepers*) were wonders among Our (Allah's*) Signs (normally "Quran-speak" for "proof") - - -". ###It really tells something about Muhammad and about the Quran, that an old and well known made up legend is a "wonder among Our Signs".

##045 18/11: "Then We (Allah*) drew (a veil) over their ears - - - (so that they heard not) - - -". It takes more than a veil to stop sound and thus hearing - except in fairy tales. (Sorry for being a little sarcastic, but this is a well known, old legend/fairy tale. All the same Islam and Muslims even today treat it like and pretend it is a true and holy story proving the power of Allah. Well, they have to, because the Quran says the story is true (see 18/13a below), and then it has to be true - if not, something is seriously wrong with the Quran, with Allah, and with Islam, which is a too hard fact to face. And just for the records: This story is not from the Bible.)

046 18/12a: "Then We (Allah*) arouse them (the "7 sleepers"*) in order to test which of the two parts was best at calculating the term of years they had tarried". A peculiar reason - and which 2 parts? (Clear language in the Quran - and a little logical reason for an omniscient god, who knew everything about everything on beforehand according to Islam.)

#048 18/13a: “We (Allah*) relate to thee (Muhammad/Muslims*) their (the 7 sleepers) story in truth: - - -”. No omniscient god related a story like this claiming it to be true, neither to Muhammad, nor to anybody else.

##Actually this is quite a joke: A well known and made up fairy tale is the truth and a proof for Allah and his power!

049 18/13b: “We (Allah*) relate to thee (Muhammad/Muslims*) their (the 7 sleepers) story ##########in truth: - - -”. As this is a well-known fairy tale, and as the Quran has so many other mistakes, carefully said: At best it is only partly the truth. But note that it is stressed that the story is the truth - not an allegory, not made up, but the truth.. ############A legend/fairy tale = the claimed truth = irony.

This on too many points is the level of the reliability in the Quran.

068 18/21a: "- - - that they (people*) might know that the promise of Allah is true - - -", Some irony: A well known legend - a made up religious fairy tale about some sleepers, involving another god (Yahweh), is the proof for that Allah's promise is true.

093 18/27d: “- - - the Book (the Quran*) of thy Lord (Allah*): - - - “. Is it really the words of a god? - with that many mistakes and unclear points? Plainly and squarely no.

##094 18/27e: “- - - the Book (the Quran) of thy Lord (Allah*): none can change His Words (the Quran*) - - -”. Wrong. Reality can change the words when the words are wrong. And many verses were abrogated (“We (Allah*) sends another as good or better”) - a few even by Hadiths - not to mention that the whole religion was changed in and after 622 AD from peaceful to war and hate and suppression, dishonesty and stealing and rape. Islam cannot admit this change, because it may expose mistakes in the religion, but people are able to read, and it is easy to find it in the Quran.

But how come that likely the most frequently used way to try to explain away errors, contradictions, etc., etc. in the Quran, is by claiming that Allah has used wrong words and really means something different from what the words really say?

104 18/29b: “Say (Muhammad*), ’The Truth is from your Lord (Allah*)”. No omniscient god is behind a book of a quality like the Quran.

273 19/97a: "So We (Allah*) made the (Quran) - - -". No omniscient god ever made a book of that quality - with that many wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, etc. If Allah really exists and made the Quran, that documents that he is far from omniscient - very far (often at the level of primary and secondary school, and most of the mistaken facts a neutral student in higher schools would know or suspect were wrong).

274 19/97b: "So We (Allah*) made the (Quran) easy - - -". Please do remember this each time a Muslim tries to tell you that a mistake in the Quran does not mean what is written, but something entirely different or a parable, which he has to explain for you, because the god was to clumsy expressing himself in his claimed easy to understand book, so mere humans must help him and explain what he "really" means when he is talking./p>

Also see the chapter "Literal language in the Quran - according to the Quran" in "1000+ Comments on the Quran".

275 19/97c: "So We (Allah*) made the (Quran) easy in thine (Muhammad's*) own tongue - - -". If Allah aimed for world dominance, Arab was not the correct language to choose. Latin, Greek, or Persian had been much better. They also had complete alphabets, which had made it possible to write down exact meanings - as it is now, Islam all too often has to guess what is really meant, and ends up with 2 or more possible meanings (= "different ways of reading" = different versions (which Muslims vigorously claim does not exists of the Quran, even if there are many)).

##211 20/99c: "- - - a Message from our (Allah's*) own Presence". = The Quran, which is claimed to be a copy of the timeless "Mother of the Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) which Allah made before the creation of the world or which perhaps has existed since eternity, and which is so good and perfect that Allah and his angels revere it in their Heaven (look at all the errors, etc., and see if you believe this). Copies of this book are claimed to be sent down to all prophets and messengers for Allah through the times - 124ooo or more according to Hadiths. It is said the books have varied some from time to time to fit the changing times, but it is not explained how copies of one and the same timeless book can vary - but there is much which is not explained concerning the Quran, and many errors and contradictions Muslims and Islam refuse to see.

053 21/18a: “- - - nay, We (Allah) hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish!” Does the same happen if one hurls the Quran With all its mistakes, etc. at falsehood? - the Quran at best is partly true.

161 23/68a: "- - - the Word (of Allah*) - - -". As the Quran is not from any god - it would be heresy and slander to blame the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. on a god - it is not the words of Allah (not unless Allah is something very different from an omniscient god).

225 23/90a: “We (Allah*) have sent them (non-Muslims*) the Truth (the Quran*) - - -”. Either Allah is not omniscient or someone else has made the Quran – it at best is partly true only. Too many mistaken facts, etc.

002 24/1a: “A surah which We (Allah*) have sent down - - -.” Also this surah contains lots of mistakes, etc., and is consequently not sent down by an omniscient god.

##004 24/1c: “(This is*) A surah which We (Allah*) have sent down and which We have ordained: in it have We sent down clear Signs; in order that ye may receive admonition.”

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

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

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

002 25/1a: "Blessed is He (Allah*) who sent down the Criterion (the Quran?*) - - -". No god sent down a book with this 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 (but he is not claimed to have sent down much more).

032 25/6a: “Say: ’The (Quran) was sent down by Him (Allah*) - - -”. Same old question: Can a book with hundreds of mistakes have been sent down by an omniscient god? No. - and if not: Who composed it? Not an omniscient Allah.

033 25/6b: “Say: ’The (Quran) was sent down by Him (Allah*) Who knows the Mystery (that is) in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth - - -”. If Allah knows everything, then why 2/233h?

156 25/33c: “- - - We (Allah*) reveal to thee (Muhammad or the Muslims*) the truth - - -”. At most bits and pieces of the "revelation" (the Quran) are true - see all the mistaken facts, contradictions, and other mistakes - f.x. linguistic ones, and not unlikely religious ones, as they should make no exception.

157 25/33d: “- - - We (Allah) reveal to thee (Muhammad or the Muslims) the truth and the best explanations (thereof).” The best explanations are never - never - built on a lot of mistaken facts. The Quran also many places states that belief in Islam is built on intelligence, intellectual capacity, and knowledge. Is it?

Sometimes it seems like it is built on sheer blind belief and suppression of true facts. (“The Message of the Quran” even tells that it is primitive not to be able to see that the Quran is made of a god, without any proofs - and another place that it is a no good believer who search for real proofs. The sorry truth is that it is primitive and naïve to believe only because something is said or written. Words are cheap and need to be checked on.)

A book with lots of mistakes, contradictions, twisted arguments, as twisted logic, and dictated by a man of very suspect morality, defending and enlarging his platform of power – his self-proclaimed religion – is no reliable guidance and of suspected reliability. More proofs are strongly needed to make this believable.

But one point: The Quran here directly states that Allah here "- - - reveal - - - the truth (Islam*) AND THE BEST EXPLANATIONS (THEREOF)." How then comes that likely the most frequently used "explanation" for explaining away errors, etc., is claims about that the texts are unclear and must be understood only as a part of the whole surah or book, or that it must mean something else than it really says - hidden meaning - or that it is a parable or something. WHAT HUMAN BEING CAN EXPLAIN SOMETHING BETTER THAN "THE BEST EXPLANATIONS" OF ALLAH??! EVERY MUSLIM IMAM OR MULLAH??

015 26/5b: "- - - message from (Allah) - - -". Wrong. No god ever was involved in a book as full of mistaken facts and other mistakes as the Quran.

370 26/192b: “Verily, this (the Quran*) is a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds (Allah*)”. Something similar to the Quran is indicated. If is true that it is a revelation, Allah is not omniscient. Something definitely is wrong.

382 26/198: "Had We (Allah*) revealed it (the Quran *) - - -". No god would ever destroy his reputation by being involved in a book of a quality like the Quran. If it is revealed, it is not from a god. (AND WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?)

*021 27/6a: “- - - the Quran is bestowed upon thee (Muhammad/Muslims*) from the presence of One who is Wise and All-Knowing (Allah*).” Islam claims that the Quran is the copy of "the Mother of the Book" (13/39, 43/4, 85/21-22) which is revered in Heaven by Allah and his angles there. It further is claimed that the book either is made by the omniscient and omnipotent god Allah – the only god (? - see 2/255a and 6/106b above) – or has existed since eternity, and is so fundamental that may be it is not made even by the god. This verse may be understood as a strengthening of the last claim: The Quran is not said to be made by or sent down by or from Allah, but sent down from “the presence of“ Allah (this wording may be used of the ones claiming the Quran was never made, but have existed since eternity.). The fact that spoils this lofty and undocumented claim (claims normally are undocumented in Islam – though they demand documentation and proofs from anybody else) is the huge number of mistakes, twisted facts, contradictions, twisted and invalid logic, unclear language, etc. in the book. No god – omniscient or not – has ever made such a sloppy work. And also: A large number of the mistakes, rites, ways of thinking, etc. are in accordance the culture and “knowledge” around the time of Muhammad in what we now call the Middle East – but no omniscient god would have to use mistaken science, customs and rules and ways of thinking from a special century and a special, small area on the minuscule planet Earth, when he made a book – or it in other ways came into existence – before the universe (see 51/47c) was created (which happened 13.7 billion years ago according to science). Propaganda? At least it is wrong.

There is one more fact which makes it impossible that the book is from eternity: There is at least one place in the Quran that angels (according also to Muslim scholars) are speaking (and at least 9 places where Muhammad is speaking - (1/1-7, 2/286c, 6/104c, 6/114, 11/2b, 19/36b, 27/91a, 42/10a and 51/50-51a + likely 16/63, 84/15-16). This means that the book cannot have been made - or at least not finished - until after the first angels had been created (they could not speak in the book before they were created). It is clear in the Quran that the angels are not from eternity - Allah created them from light. And it also cannot have been made earlier than it was possible for Muhammad to have his say in the book at least the mentioned 9 times.

202 27/59d: "- - - His (Allah*) servants whom He has chosen (for His Message (the Quran*))". No god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran.

111 28/43a: “We (Allah*) revealed to Moses the Book”. Wrong. Moses got no book according to the Bible. The books of Moses were written centuries later according to science - they just were named after him. (According to the Bible Moses got the 10 commandments only in writing. In addition he was told the law, which he himself wrote down later - sometimes called "the Book of Covenant". The laws are parts of the later Books of Moses).

The claim is even more wrong as Muhammad's claim was that earlier prophets got a book similar to the Quran (copies of the same claimed "Mother Book" - though with some claimed variations as time passed to adjust it to new situations, without we have ever seen or heard Muslims explain how exact copies of a claimed timeless book revered by a god and his angels, can vary), and the naked laws in the "Books of Moses", are something quite different from the Quran.

But then what Muhammad likely meant here, was a copy of "the Mother of the Book" in heaven - a copy being the twin to the Quran. Muhammad claimed that all prophets/messengers of the old and all over the world (124ooo or more) received such a copy from Allah.

*134 28/48b: “- - - When the Truth (the Quran*) has come to them (the Quraysh*) from Ourselves (Allah*) - - -". No god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran.

#155 28/50e: "For Allah guides not people given to wrongdoing." Once more a deep difference in the teachings of the Quran and the NT: Just these ones are "the lost sheep" NT/Jesus/Yahweh tries to reach more than any others with guidance. (Luke 15/8-10 + 15/11-31 and Matt. 18/12-14 + 20/8-13).

304 28/85b: "- - - He (Allah*) Who ordained the Quran for thee (people*) - - -". No god ever was involved in - or ordained - a book of a quality like the Quran.

313 28/86b: "And thou (Muhammad/Muslims*) hadst not expected that the Book (the Quran*) would be sent to thee except as a Mercy from thy Lord (Allah*) - - -". No book of a quality like the Quran is sent from a god - or revere by him in his "home" - too many mistakes, etc.

316 28/86e: "- - - (Allah's Message) (the Quran*)". No god ever sent a message with so many errors like in the Quran. It is not from a god.

106 31/21b: “- - - the (Revelations) that Allah has sent down - - -”. Can an omniscient god have sent down texts with so many mistakes? Impossible. See 31/21a just above.

p>139 31/27b: "- - - the Words of Allah - - -". The only known words claimed to be from Allah, is the Quran. But the Quran is not part of any god's words - too much is wrong.

140 31/27c: "- - - the Words of Allah - - -". Words from Allah does not exist unless Allah exists - but beware that "words of Allah" may exist even if Allah exists, but belongs to the dark forces.

007 32/2e: “- - - the Book (the Quran*) from the Lord (Allah*) of the Worlds (plural and wrong).” Wrong. No omniscient god makes a book with that many mistakes, etc., not to mention revere it in his “home” as the claimed "Mother Book" - see 13/39b above and 43/4 and 85/21-22 below.

016 32/3e: “Nay, it (the Quran*) is the Truth from thy Lord (Allah*) - - -”. Can a book with that many mistakes and “signs” and “proofs” without logical value, really be composed by an omniscient god and be the revered “Mother of the Book” in Heaven? No. And "Truth" full of errors, wrong facts, contradictions, etc.?? No.

068 32/13g: "- - - the Word from Me (Allah*) - - -". There never was proved there ever was a word from Allah - it even is an impossibility if he does not exist.

115 32/23c: "We (Allah*) did indeed aforetime give the Book to Moses - - -". We may add here that Muhammad claimed the old prophets, included Moses, god a book similar to the Quran (both claimed to be copies of the timeless "Mother Book" in Heaven), but that it later was falsified into the Bible (both science and Islam - not from free will - later have thoroughly proved the claim that the Bible is falsified, is wrong).

021 33/4d: “But Allah (the Quran*) tells (you) the truth - - -”. May be Allah does, but the Quran does so only now and then - see all the mistakes and invalid signs and proofs. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

032 33/6d: "- - - the Decree of Allah - - -". There is no proof for that it is from Allah - - - if he exists. Wrong unless Islam proves the opposite. False prophets often claims to be quoting their god when they in reality are not - sometimes even quoting only themselves.

232 33/43c: "- - - He (Allah*) may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light - - -". Well, not by means of a book as full of errors and immoral moral as the Quran.

234 34/48c: “Verily my Lord (Allah*) cast the (mantle of) the Truth (the Quran) - - -”. See f.x. 13/1 above or 40/75 below, and many others. It definitely is no proved verity/truth.

149 35/31a: “That which We (Allah*) have revealed - - - of the Book (the Quran*) - - -”. Can an omniscient god reveal a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, and invalid “signs” and “proofs”? No.

152 35/31d: ”That which We (Allah*) have revealed to thee of the Book (the Quran*) is the Truth - - -”. See 35/31a just above. And also: With that many mistakes, etc., it at best is parts and bits of the truth - and all the same: This is what Islam is built on. Also see 13/1g above and 40/75 below.

157 35/32a: "Then We (Allah*) have given the Book (here the Quran*) - - -". No god have even been involved in a book of a quality like the Quran.

0012 36/5c: “It (the Quran*) is a revelation sent down by (Him (Allah*))”. Once more: Can it really be sent down by an omniscient god, with all those mistakes and invalid “signs” and “proofs”, etc.? Never.

005 37/3: "- - - the Message (the Quran*) (of Allah)!" Something is wrong here, because no god sends a message this full of mistaken facts and other mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid/wrong logic, etc.

029 38/8e: "- - - My (Allah's*) (own) Message!" If the Quran is Allah's message, Allah is far from omniscient - if he exists.

###151 39/23c: “Allah has revealed - - - the most beautiful Message - - -”. Incitement to hate, dishonesty, suppression, extortion, taking slaves, murder, mass murder and war + full permission for raping any slave or prisoner, and + 100% dictatorship by the warlord (Muhammad and his successors). Yes that is a beautiful message, (or in reality: Horrible). Or to say it in another way: If this is the most beautiful Message, we hope never to meet a normal one. .

229 39/41c: “Verily We (Allah*) have revealed the Book (the Quran*) to thee (Muhammad*) - - -". One ominous question was raised already in the first years, and still exists: Was the Quran revealed to Muhammad, or did Muhammad (perhaps helped by some accomplice or a mental illness - TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy)) "reveal" the Quran? Or were the dark forces involved? In the last case Islam is a made up and pagan religion, and the same if the Quran was made up by Muhammad - and all the errors in the book indicate something sinister: No god ever delivered a book of that quality.

231 39/41e: “Verily We (Allah*) revealed the Book (the Quran*) - - -, for (instructing) mankind.” If Allah is a good god, like Islam pretends, why then all the immoral instructions and inhumanity one finds especially in the some 22-24 surahs from Medina? And a book with this many errors is not fit for instruction – not as a basis for the religion of a benevolent god and claimed omniscient god.

004 40/2b: “- - - this Book (the Quran*) is from Allah -”. Se 38/29a-d, 39/41b-f and 40/2a above.

###031 40/6a: "Thus was the Decree of thy Lord proved true against the Unbelievers - - -". This is a really heavy one, as the words of Allah have never - never to this day - been proved true. This simply is an invalid bluff - invalid and bluff because it was never proved that it really was Allah who did what is told about in 40/5, which this refers to. Without such a proof (f.x. Noah was in contact with Yahweh, not with Allah if nothing else is proved, "the Confederates (of Evil)" cannot have been confederates - too distant in place and time - etc.), the claimed incidents are utterly invalid for proofs for anything concerning Allah - any other god can claim to have done it - - - and in reality it even can have been the nature which did it (if it at all happened). Simply a bluff - and who has to rely on bluffs? - mostly cheats and deceivers, swindlers and charlatans. Then who made the Quran?

004 41/2b: “A revelation (the Quran*) from (Allah) - - -”. No god ever sent down a book of a quality like the Quran. See 38/29a-d and 40/75.

186 41/42c: "- - - it (the Quran*) is sent down by One (Allah*) Full of Wisdom - - -". Wrong - no god ever sent down a book with so many mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, etc. It simply is a grave insult and heresy to accuse an omniscient god of having made a book like the Quran.

192 41/44a: "Had We (Allah*) sent this as a Quran - - -". No god has sent the Quran - too much is wrong. See 41/42b above and http://1000mistakes.com.

004 42/3a: “Thus doth (He (Allah*)) send inspiration - - -.” Verses and surahs so full of errors were not sent by an omniscient god. Also see 42/3c below.

029 42/7b: “Thus have We (Allah*) sent (the Quran*) by inspiration to thee (Muhammad*) - - -.” See 42/3b above.

008 43/3c: "We (Allah*) have made it a Quran in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand - - -". It is clear that Allah has done everything to make the Quran plain and easy to understand - he even made the Quran in the local language. Worth remembering each time Muslims tries to explain away mistakes with that the text does not mean what it says, but something else or something hidden. Also see 43/2a and 43/2b above.

But for a god wanting to reach the whole world, Arab was a lousy choice. One thing is that it was a language mainly used by uneducated tribesmen, and thus with a limited vocabulary. Another thing that it mostly was a language for the locals in Arabia - mainly farmers at the oasis and Bedouins, and not a widely known language like Latin, Greek or Persian. But the main problem is that it did not have a complete alphabet. Its alphabet mainly consisted of the consonants. It lacked the vocals, the points Arab today use to signify some letters - called diacritical points - and even the signs use when writing, like the full stop, the comma, etc. This makes the Muslim claim that the Quran is the correct words of Muhammad down to the last comma, a joke - the comma like said did not even exist at that time. The incomplete alphabet even today makes serious problems for Islam, as it often is impossible to know what exactly is meant by words and sentences. Islam has "solved" this problem by declaring that all possible translations of the old manuscripts, which give logical meaning, are correct. To hide that this results in a lot of different versions of the texts, they call it "different ways of reading". The Arab alphabet was not completed until around 900 AD - some 250 years after the official Quran was written.

####012 43/4b: “- - - it (the Quran*) is in the Mother of the Book (= "the Mother of the Quran"*), in Our (Allah’s*) presence, high (in dignity) - - -”. This is one of the places in the Quran where Muhammad claims the Quran is taken from (is a copy of) the Mother Book in Allah’s own home/Heaven. But no book containing hundreds of mistakes, hundreds of contradictions, hundreds of lose claims and statements, lots of invalid logic, lots of invalid “signs” and lots of invalid “proofs” easy for anybody with good and wide education too see through, hundreds of places with unclear language, etc., is copied from a revered Mother Book, high in dignity and esteem, in the perfect Heaven, the home of a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient god! The claim is wrong. See also 13/39 and 85/21-22.

Another point: Who are able to believe that an exact copy from this "Mother of the Book" - like Islam claims the Quran is - and a book revered even by the god ("high (in dignity)") - is of so lousy a quality that good-hearted humans for hundreds and hundreds of points have to explain away errors, etc., etc. by "explaining" what the texts "really" mean? Either the Quran is a copy of "the Mother of the Book", and then is divinely exact, and clear and accurate - literarily - in its texts. Or it is unclear and needs "explanations" - but be sure that no god would hold such a “slobby” and helpless book in high esteem, and then it is no copy of a divine book in Heaven, and not held in any kind of esteem by any god at all.

There only are those two possibilities.

225 43/78b: “Verily, We (Allah*) have brought - - - (the Quran*) - - -”. No god ever produced a book of a quality like the Quran. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

##004 44/2b: “By the Book (the Quran*) that makes things clear - - -.” Which also must mean the language is not hiding other meanings and it is intended that everything shall be meant like it is said and easy to understand, plus it explains things in ways clear to see.

Also see the chapter "Literal language in the Quran - according to the Quran" in "1000+ Comments on the Quran".

016 44/5d: "For We (Allah*) (ever) send (revelations)." No god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran.

018 44/5-6: "For We (Allah*) (ever) send (revelations), as a Mercy from thy (Muhammad's? Muslims'? People's?) Lord (Allah*) - - -". But a number of the claimed revelations are wrong and cannot be from an omniscient god. Also the contents of some of them looks like sent from dark forces and not from a good and benevolent god, a fact which gives food to the suspicion that Muhammad did not meet Gabriel, but someone from the dark forces dressed up like Gabriel - a mere human would not have a chance to see the difference. (If not everything was made up by one or more human(s).)

020 44/6b: "(The Quran is sent down*) as a Mercy from thy (Muhammad’s/Muslims’*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". Wrong. If Allah was behind the Quran, he neither has much brain, nor much knowledge. And also little real mercy or real goodness or benevolence.

123 44/58b: “Verily, We (Allah*) have made this (Quran) easy - - -". No god ever made a book as full of wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, unclear language, etc.

More down to the Earth: Muslims often explains away mistakes, etc. in the Quran with the claim that what is written there, is not what is meant - it is a parable or an allegory or something. A book where you have to guess what is literally meant and what are parables - and what the parables in case mean - definitely is not easy. You find similar facts at least in these verses: 3/7, 3/138, 11/1, 15/1, 18/2, 28/2, 36/69, 41/3, 43/2, 44/58, 54/17, and 75/19.

  1. Add to this that 3/7 tells that "those in whose heart is perversity follow the part thereof (of the Quran*) that is allegorical" and that "no one knows the hidden meaning (of the allegories*) except Allah".
  2. Add that 3/138 tells that the Quran "is a plain statement to men - - -". = in a language clear and easy to understand - not in a language where you have to guess where and how to guess the "real" meaning.
  3. Add that 11/1 tells that "- - - (the Quran is*) a Book with verses of basic or fundamental (of established (literal*) meaning), further explained in detail (by Allah*)" (= the texts in the Quran are clear words from Allah).
  4. Add that 15/1 declares that it is "a Quran that makes things clear" - not one which hide basic and other facts or rules behind words of allegories, which are difficult to know if are allegories or plain speech, and on top of all a guesswork to extract the correct(?) meaning from.
  5. Add that 18/2 states that Allah has made it - the Quran and its language - "Straight (and Clear)".
  6. Add that 20/113 tells that in the Quran is "explained therein in detail some of the warnings - - -". In detail = in a language clear and easy to understand - not in a language where you have to guess where and how to guess the "real" meaning.
  7. Add that 24/34 says the Quran is "verses making things clear". Especially for people like Muhammad's followers - little or no education - to make things clear needs a clear and literal and easy to understand language = in a language clear and easy to understand - not in a language where you have to guess where and how to guess the "real" meaning.
  8. Add that 26/2 says the same as 24/34 just above.
  9. Add that 27/1 says the same as 24/34 above.
  10. Add that 28/2 confirms that "These are the verses of the Book that make (things) clear" - no hiding of meanings, etc.
  11. Add that 36/69 clearly says that the book is "a Quran making things clear" = in a language clear and easy to understand - not in a language where you have to guess where and how to guess the "real" meaning.
  12. Add that 37/117 says that the Quran is "the Book which helps to make things clear". Comment like 24/34 above.
  13. Add that 41/3 as clearly states that the Quran is "A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail (by Allah*) - - -". Is it then possible for humans to explain it better - or differently?
  14. Add that 43/2 declares that the Quran is "the Book that makes things clear - - -" = in a language clear and easy to understand - not in a language where you have to guess where and how to guess the "real" meaning.
  15. Add that 44/58 states that "Verily, We (Allah*) have made this (Quran) easy (and also in Arab*) - - -". = in a language clear and easy to understand - not in a language where you have to guess where and how to guess the "real" meaning.
  16. Add that 54/17 declares that "We (Allah*) have indeed made the Quran easy to understand - - -". To guess what is clear texts and what is not - and what the parables "really" means - definitely is not necessary (except a few places where the book tells that this is (an easily understood) parable, or explains the real meaning).

  17. Add that 75/19 tells that "it is for Us (Allah*) to explain it (Islam*) (and make it clear) - - -". Is it possible for humans to explain or make things more cleat than a god is able to do in his claimed holy and easy to understand book, sent down directly from him?

All this means that Muslims claiming that some texts in the book are not easy and clear and correctly explained by Allah (75/19) in the Quran, #####tell that the Quran is wrong or lying all these places, each time they claim that this and this is not clear speech, but hidden meanings/parables.

Should we thank them for confirming that Allah lies in the Quran?

But also see the chapter "Literal language in the Quran - according to the Quran" in "1000+ Comments on the Quran".

005 46/2c: "The Revelation of the Book (the Quran*) is from Allah - - -". In that case Allah has little knowledge - no omniscient god makes a book this full of errors. Not to mention reveres it as a "mother book" in his "home" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22).

048 46/9j: "I (Muhammad*) follow but that (the Quran*) which is revealed to me by Inspiration - - -". Muhammad claimed he got most of his messages by inspiration - a most convenient means: Impossible for others to check, easy to subtract from, easy to add to, easy to make up convenient points. As Muhammad claimed to be in the Jewish tradition of prophets, we also add that the word "inspiration" never is mentioned in the Bible in such connections - one more difference between the old prophets and the self proclaimed prophet Muhammad.

051 46/10b: “If (this teaching) be from Allah - - -". No omniscient god ever backed a teaching based on so many errors.

###052 46/10c: “If (this teaching) be from Allah, and ye (non-Muslims) reject it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel testifies to its similarity (with earlier scriptures (what is Muhammad’s definition of “similarity” here?*)), and has believed (or pretended to believe - sometimes that was necessary to survive*) while ye are arrogant, (how unjust ye are) - - -”. This sentence is a bit complicated, but what Muhammad said, was that a Jew agreed – true or not true - to that the Quran was similar to old Jewish scriptures, and that non-Muslims then were unjust not accepting that Muhammad is a real prophet.

The logic here is invalid and wrong - when just one says something and many says something else all of them know about, normally the many are right. The way for Muhammad to prove his words had been to compare the two texts, something he for some reason or other did not do. Now Muslims may say that the old Jewish scriptures were falsified - the normal and proved wrong way out for Muhammad and for his followers - but one cannot at the same time say that the man's scriptures were falsified, and then say that the man proved the Quran right because he had read his own scriptures. (This is a typical Muslim way of "proving" things: One tells that one aspect of something must be like this and this - and overlook that other aspects with the case screams that things are wrong.)

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

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

019 47/3g: "- - - thus doth Allah set forth for men lessons - - -". Allah can set forth nothing unless he exists - and if he does not exist, others has/have set forth a lot in his name. Such things have been done by self proclaimed prophets both before and after Muhammad.

046 47/9a: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) hate the Revelation of Allah (the Quran) - - -". Some may do so, as they see how dark the Quran is, and that with all those errors it cannot come from a god - and with that moral code definitely not from a good god. But most "unbelievers" just wonder what is wrong with the intelligence and nature of man, which make it possible for millions to believe in a book where so much obviously and clearly is so seriously wrong that no god can be involved. And marketed by a man of that quality!

048 47/9c: "- - - Revelation from Allah - - -". No god ever was involved in making the Quran - it would be an insult, slander, and degrading heresy to blame an omniscient god for that quality.

094 51/47d: (A57/30): "Literal meaning "the sky" or "the heaven", which often in the Quran has the connotation of "universe (see 51/47c)" or in the plural ("the heavens"), of "cosmic systems". This is dishonesty as such words used in the modern meaning of those words, did not exist at that time in any relevant language included in Arab - a typical al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) or at best a Kitman (lawful half-truth) like the ones you find too many of in Muslim religious literature trying to adjust the Quran to modern knowledge or twist facts or words to pretend that here the Quran is foretelling modern knowledge. (F.x. Muhammad Asad in connection to this verse and also to 21/30 claims that the Quran here foretells the expanding universe (see 51/47c), etc. The claim is so far out that we do not bother to comment on it).

NB:#######: Here it is not Muhammad who is lyng in the Quran, though, but Muslim scholars. (There are a number of points in the Quran, where the translators have "adjusted" the texts in small ways like this, this even in the work of a top translator like A. Yusuf Ali - and what then about less honest translators? (Muhammad Ali after all is not too bad on this point.))

013 53/3-4: "Nor does he (Muhammad*) say (aught) of (his own) Desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him". This means that everything Muhammad said, in reality was inspired by Allah, and thus Allah's words - which means that also Sunna (Hadiths) can abrogate the Quran and the other way around. But no omniscient god would need to abrogate himself. And in the Quran there are a number of abrogations - lots of them.

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

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

020 53/10a: "- - - so did (Allah) convey the inspiration (surahs*) to His Servant (Muhammad*) - - -". No god ever conveyed that much wrong information to anyone.

####040 54/17a: “And We (Allah*) have indeed made the Quran easy to understand - - -.” Anyone wanting to try to “explain” away difficult points like mistakes or invalid logic or contradictions by calling them allegories etc. should read this sentence, and there are a number of similar sentences in the Quran, so that there is no doubt Muhammad really meant it. It even is written 4 times just in this small chapter and thus a solidly cemented and nailed truth: The Quran is to be understood literally, and search for hidden meanings is only for Allah, and such search only is for the ones “in whose hearts is perversity - - -.” . That the Quran is easy to understand - the texts meant literally and clear - is mentioned at least these places: 3/7, 3/138, 11/1b, 15/1 18/2, 19/97, 20/113, 24/34, 24/54, 26/2, 27/1, 28/2, 36/69, 37/117, 41/3, 43/2, 44/2, 44/58, 54/17, 54/22, 54/32, 54/40, and 75/19. As Allah this clearly states that the Quran is written in a clear, plain, and easy to understand language + as he some places states that the ones seeking hidden meanings are the ones "sick at heart" and hypocrites + not least as Allah some places tells that it is he who has explained the texts in the Quran - what human being can explain things more correctly, more exact and not to misunderstand than a god - it is very clear that Muslims' claims that clever humans had/have to "explain" errors, etc. in the Quran are not errors, but similitudes, parables, allegories, etc. where Allah's helpless words, information, and explanations need help, are wrong.

Also see the chapter "Literal language in the Quran - according to the Quran" in "1000+ Comments on the Quran".

###051 54/22b: “And We (Allah*) have indeed made the Quran easy to understand - - -.” Anyone wanting to try to “explain” away difficult points like mistakes or invalid logic or contradictions by calling them allegories, parables, etc. should read this sentence. It even is written 4 times and thus a solidly cemented and nailed truth: The Quran is to be understood literally and search for hidden meanings is only for Allah, and such search only is for the ones “in whose hearts is perversity - - -.” . This is mentioned at least these places: 3/7, 3/138, 11/1b, 15/1 18/2, 19/97, 20/113, 24/34, 24/54, 26/2, 27/1, 28/2, 36/69, 37/117, 41/3, 43/2, 44/2, 44/58, 54/17, 54/22, 54/32, 54/40, and 75/19.

Also see the chapter "Literal language in the Quran - according to the Quran" in "1000+ Comments on the Quran".

And if the texts in the Quran is to be understood literally, like the book itself in different words clearly states many places, the errors, etc. prove that either the book is not from any god, or that god is far from omniscient - very far.

######066 54/32a: “And We (Allah*) have indeed made the Quran easy to understand - - -”. This in a way is very correct – the language is plain and simple, though often unclear or with two or more possible meanings, and the Quran itself makes it clear that one is to understand it literally (though many Muslims claim that verses with mistakes are allegories, parables, etc. – it is an easy way to use to flee from difficult questions).

The statement that it is easy to understand, also means that it is to be understood like it is written - if not it was not "easy to understand".

But it is all the same at least partly wrong – partly because there are so many places it is difficult to guess which word or meaning is really meant. Separate books are needed to explain the Quran - there are many such ones. And if you read any of the good ones, you will find that even today there are many points in the Quran Islam has not been able to understand, and even many more points they still do not know the exact meaning of - or which one of two or more meanings is the correct one. But it is easy to see that Muhammad meant it was easy and not complicated to understand - and an omniscient god had been able to compose a book that was possible to understand and impossible to misunderstand or not understand, just like Muhammad claimed and surely believed and intended. Who composed the Quran? For similar claims see 42/3 – 41/42 - 54/17 – 54/22 – 54/40.

###067 54/32b: “And We (Allah*) have indeed made the Quran easy to understand - - -.” Anyone wanting to try to “explain” away difficult points like mistakes or invalid logic or contradictions by calling them allegories etc. should read this sentence. It even is written 4 times only in this chapter, and thus a solidly cemented and nailed truth: The Quran is to be understood literally and search for hidden meanings is only for Allah, and such search only is for the ones “in whose hearts is perversity - - -.” . This is mentioned many places in the Quran.

Also see the chapter "Literal language in the Quran - according to the Quran" in "1000+ Comments on the Quran".

003 55/2: “It is He (Allah*) Who has taught the Quran.” No omniscient god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran. See 13/1g, 40/75, and others.

092 56/80b: “A Revelation (the Quran*) from the Lord of the Worlds (Allah*) - - -”. Can it really be so? See 41/12 - and 40/75. Impossible – no omniscient god would make/deliver a book with so many mistakes, contradictions, etc. – not to mention keep it in his own Heaven as a revered Mother Book (13/39 - 43/4 - 85/21-22). Can this be a revelation from a god? Or the other way around: Can something producing so many mistakes, contradictions, so much invalid, logic be lord and god of even one world? Also see 2/131 – 6/155 – 7/196 – 8/41 – 11/14 – 13/1 - 13/19 – 13/37 – 14/1 – 15/1 – 16/102 – 20/4 – 26/109 – 26/127 – 26/192 – 31/21 – 32/2 – 34/6 – 36/5 – 43/43 – 45/2 – 46/2 - 47/9.

What god would revere a book he had to know was full of wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc.?

085 59/21a: “Had We (Allah*) sent down this Quran on a mountain - - -”. Was it really an omniscient god that sent it down? Definitely not - too much is wrong in that book.

038 61/8c: "- - - Allah's Light (the Quran*) - - -". No book with that many mistakes, etc. is a light to anyone, and even more so as no book of this quality is from a god - it is heresy and an insult to the god to claim this.

040 61/8e: "- - - but Allah will complete (the revelation of His Light (the Quran*)) - - -". But was it really revealed? - and in case from whom, as it is clear it is not from any god (too much is wrong in the book for that).

027 65/5a: "That is the Command of Allah - - -". But as the Quran is not from a god, the pertinent question is: Is the command really from Allah? - or from some dark forces pretending to be Allah? - or from one or more humans, f.x. Muhammad? - or simply from a sick brain like modern medical science suspects, like TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy)? Rules similar to the ones in 65/1-4 which this refers to, you do not find in NT at all.

028 65/5b: "That is the Command of Allah, which He has sent down - - -". No god ever sent down the texts of the Quran - too much is wrong in them.

025 67/9a: "Allah never sent down any (message) - - -". Most likely they were right. What is absolutely sure: If Allah exists and is a benevolent, omniscient god, he did not send down the Quran and Muhammad's teachings - too much is wrong, and parts of the moral code and of the sharia laws are immoral, not to say horrible.

####088 69/52d: (YA5674): "- - - Allah has given us (man*) his absolute Truth (a claim, not a proved fact*) through his Revelations - - -". This is the reason why Muslims and Islam can admit no mistake in the Quran, no matter how obvious it is - a mistake will prove that things are wrong in Allah's "absolute Truth". And this also is why the myriad of mistaken facts and other errors in the Quran prove 110% and more that something is seriously wrong with the Quran and that it is not from a god - no omniscient god makes mistakes, and definitely not by the hundreds and more.

A cold fact here: No book as full of errors, etc. as the Quran is the truth - and no such book is from any god (no omniscient god makes mistakes, contradiction, uses invalid logic, uses helpless or unclear language/explanations, etc.)

But there is one point here: Islam claims here that Allah has given "the absolute truth". This in case means that what he says in the Quran is absolute the truth. This again means that when Islam and/or Muslims explain away errors in the Quran by claiming the words mean something different from what they say, either they are wrong, or they are confirming that Allah is lying, when he many places in different words in the Quran claims his words are plain text, easy to understand, to be understood literally, and expressing the full truth. Or alternatively that he is not too bright, and unable to express himself clearly, so that clever humans have to explain what he "really" means, and what "his absolute Truth" really is.

043 72/16a: "(And Allah's Message is)": Sorry but there never was a message provably from Allah. Claims "en masse", but never a proof. And as for the Quran, all the errors, contradictions, etc. prove at least 100% that it is from no god.

074 72/28b: "- - - (so*) that He (Allah*) may know that they have (truly) brought and delivered the Messages of their Lord (Allah*) - - -". No god was ever involved in the delivery of a message of a quality like the Quran.

005 73/5a: "Soon shall We (Allah*) Send down to thee (Muhammad*) a weighty Message". This was early in Muhammad's religious years (611 - 614 AD) - still much Allah could send down "soon". But no omniscient god "sent down" a message with that many mistaken facts - many in accordance with wrong science at that time - contradictions, and other errors".

017 75/17: "It is for Us (Allah*) to collect and promulgate it (the Quran*) - - -". Wrong. No god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran.

###019 75/19: "- - - it is for Us (Allah*) to explain it (the Quran - this refers to 75/16*) (and make it clear) - - -". #########A very clear and not to be misunderstood message: It is for Allah to explain things - and who can explain things better than a god? - not humans at least. And all the same as soon as a Muslim sees that the clear text Allah has explained and made clear, is wrong, he claims Allah has been unable to express what he really meant; the meaning is something different - an allegory or something - and he - a mere human - has to help Allah by explaining what he "really" meant. This is one of Muslims' and Islam's 3 - 4 - 5 most used ways out when explaining away mistakes, contradictions, etc. in the Quran, when they do not have real arguments.

Also see the chapter "Literal language in the Quran - according to the Quran" in "1000+ Comments on the Quran".

011 79/5: "- - - (the Commands of their (Muslims*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". But as the Quran is not from a god, it is a very open question from whom the commands come - something or someone pretending to be a god? - an illness like TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy)? - or humans, perhaps even from Muhammad himself?

>>> 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".