Allah in the Quran, Chapter 4
01 Jan 2015
ALLAH IS A FALSE GOD?
001 We repeat: The very serious fact is that if the Quran is a made up book, then Allah is a made up, pagan god, or if he all the same exists, his description in the Quran is a made up one. And a dark and strong fact here is that all the wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. in the Quran, prove 100%+ that the book is not from a god - no god makes mistakes, contradictions, etc. by the hundreds and more. And there only are two who in case can have made it up: A human brain or the dark forces.
002 There exists not one valid proof for the existence of Allah, or for that he in case contacted Muhammad. "A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion" - and there exists not one single such one concerning Allah.
#### Another - and serious - point is that to "explain" that the Quran means something different from what it really says - a very much used way of "explaining" away errors, contradictions, etc. in the Quran by Islam and by Muslims - is to corrupt the book.
003 Also: What is sure, is that no god ever made a holy book as full of wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, unclear language, etc. like the Quran. Besides: Which one of the 20-30 known versions accepted by Islam of the Quran (see 15/9c) - if any (and there were even more versions through the times) - is in case the correct one?
004 We may add that originally Hubal was the moon god in Arabia, and some sources say the Kabah originally was his temple and dedicated to him. But when Muhammad was born, al-Lah - sometimes named Allah - may have taken over as Arabia's main god. It is a bit ironic that a building dedicated to an old moon god (be it Hubal or al-Lah/Allah, because also Allah had been a moon god and the crescent moon still is his symbol) was and is the most holy place on Earth for a claimed only, and claimed omnipotent god - and as ironic is the fact that if Muhammad had been born earlier, Islam's god might have been named Hubal, not Allah (Muhammad simply took over the claimed mightiest of the pagan Arab gods, and earlier Hubal was reckoned to be the most powerful one - and the moon god like al-Lah had been and perhaps still was).
005 #### We have not mentioned much about al-Lah/Allah's position in the Kabah before Muhammad. The reason is that it is quite unclear. There are the two gods mentioned as the main god for the Quraysh tribe = the main god in the Kabah: Hubal, the moon god, and al-Lah/Allah - also a moon god, at least in southern parts of Arabia. There are clear indications, but no proofs, for that these two really and simply were two names for the same god - perhaps with Hubal as his "personal" name and al-Lah/Allah his title (al-Lah/Allah means "the god", or in this case "the main god").
006 There also are indications for that there were connections between Hubal and the Ba'al known from f.x. the Bible - same god and similar name, but in another variety of religion. If this is true, the Quran and Islam are way beyond the Milky Way when they forward claims like Zachariya prayed to Allah/Hubal/Ba'al, or that Jesus preached about Allah/Hubal/Ba'al, as in those times such connections would be known, even if they are forgotten today, and Ba'al represented the Devil to the Jews of those times.
007 We have placed this point here, in order to stress that this question is a serious point among the facts about Allah's - and Islam's - background. But it also is a serious point concerning the claims about Allah's existence, and we have placed the relevant points and comments in the chapter "ALLAH A FALSE GOD?" in Section III: ALLAH, THE CLAIMED GOD. Please look for them there.
It also is pretty thought provoking that f.x. all the errors, contradictions, wrong facts, etc., only and alone, in the Quran prove 100% that there is no god behind that book. And that f.x. the fact that Jesus accepted OT as correct, proves to both Christians and Muslims, and to most Jews and historians, that the OT was not falsified at that time - and that the Qumran scrolls prove that even OT was not falsified any time later, too. (The Biblical parts of the Qumran scrolls are from 150 - 50 BC, and thus the same as Jesus used.)
It further is an insult to that possible god to "explain" that his texts means something different from what they really says = you are more clever than him at explaining what the god "really" meant, than the god is himself, even when he tries to explain things "clearly and easy to understand", and says his words are to be understood literally and without hidden meanings. Also only "the sick of heart" look for hidden meanings behind his words, according to the Quran - the very claimed hidden meanings the wise Muslims claim are what Allah really meant, but was unable to express clearly himself, so that they have to help the bumbling god and tell what he "really" tried to say. This in spite of that the Quran clearly states that meanings hidden behind Allah's clear and easy to understand words, only are possible for Allah to understand, and like said above are "only for the sick of heart" to look for.
May be as bad: To claim that the Quran means something different from what the texts clearly say, is to falsify the quranic texts.
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?
7 comments. Sub-total = 34 + 7 = 41.
>>> Go to Next Chapter
>>> Go to Previous Chapter
This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".