Allah in the Quran, Chapter 9

 

ALLAH AND HONESTY

001 Islam is the only one of the big religions which accepts the use of dishonesty in words and deeds as working tools (and the same goes for nearly all the small ones). As for words, the obvious points are al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), deceit, betrayal, and disuse of oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/61, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah could cheat, cheating is ok) - and the stare case 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok - but how much cheating is it then in the Quran? - by Allah or by Muhammad)).

002 When it comes to dishonesty in deeds, there f.x. are the deceits and betrayals, but the most widespread is the permission steal/rob/loot and extort. This was working tools at least in the meanings that it attracted warriors and it financed much of Muhammad's and later leaders' activity and raids and wars.

003 It is very clear from the Quran that Allah did not demand honesty in cases where dishonesty would give a "better" result.

004 But that means there are some VERY serious and central questions like:

  1. When does the Quran tell the truth, and when does it use an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie), a Kitman (a lawful half-truth), a Hilah (a lawful pretending/circumventing), a deceit, or even f.x. a dishonest oath?
  2. When did Muhammad tell the truth, and when did he use an al-Taqiyya, a Kitman, a Hilah, a deceit, or even f.x. a dishonest oath?
  3. When does a Muslim tell the truth, and when does he use an al-Taqiyya, a Kitman, a Hilah, a deceit, or even f.x. a dishonest oath?

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 are that kind of men normally? - and how true and reliable are their never proved claims and tales?

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

##005 2/224e: To quote Asad: "The Message of the Quran", footnote A2/212 (to this verse): "- - - there are several authentic Traditions (= Hadiths*) to the effect that the Prophet Muhammad said: 'If anyone takes a solemn oath (easier ones are little binding*) (that he would do or refrain from doing such-and-such a thing), and thereupon realizes that something else would be a more righteous course (or give better result*)) then let him do what is more righteous (or gives a better result*), and let him break his oath and then atone for it". Definitely not compatible with the Bible.

###########006 2/225a: “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your heart”. If you swear an oath without thinking it over - or not enough over – you are not bound by it. But how are other people to know if the oath you have made is binding for you or not - or if you will break it? Besides; you may break also a more serious oath if that will give a better result, but you may have to pay expiation to Allah for it. See f.x. 2/224e-f above, and also 5/89, 16/91, 66/2.

One of the proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. According to Yahweh you preferably shall not swear at all, but if you do, you are bound by your oath.

Besides: Any Muslim can break any oath, no matter how strong and how seriously meant, "if that gives a better result" - pay expiation afterwards if necessary. This also goes for other words and promises, as words and promises are weaker than oaths. How reliable - or unreliable - may then a Muslim, included Muhammad, be?

###007 3/54ab: ”- - - and Allah too plotted and planned, and the best of planners is Allah.” It in reality is Allah that decides everything – “the best of planners”.

MORE OMINOUS: MUSLIMS UNDERSTOOD HERE THAT THE NON-MUSLIMS TRIED TO CHEAT AND DECEIVE ALLAH, BUT THAT WAS BETTER AT CHEATING AND DECEIVING. BUT AS ALLAH COULD CHEAT AND DECEIVE, ALSO MUSLIMS COULD/OUGHT TO DO IT IF THERE WERE REASONS. THIS THUS IS ONE OF THE VERSES IN THE QURAN BEHIND THE "LAWFUL DISHONESTY" IN ISLAM.

####289 3/54b: ”- - - and Allah too plotted and planned, and the best of planners is Allah.” This verse in addition is one of the verses the Muslim phenomena al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), and Hilah (the lawful pretending or circumventing - "the dishonesty in disguise") are based on – when Allah can “plot and plan” (indicating using dishonest means) of course his followers can do the same as long as it is not forbidden – which it is not. Also see 2/26h, 2/224e-f, 2/225a, 4/142a, 8/30, 10/21b, 13/42, 27/50, and 86/16 - dishonesty as a policy is one of the fundamental rules in the Quran's moral - or immoral - code. Al-Taqiyya and Kitman are permitted in 8 - 10 wide cases, and advised "if necessary" in 2: To defend and to promote Islam. Worth remembering for Muslims and non-Muslims alike; what is true and what is not true in Muslims' arguments about such things? And how much is true in a religion partly relying on dishonesty? - - - and what then about its claimed prophet, Muhammad? - how much of his words are Kitmans or al-Taqiyyas or deceit, etc.?

864 3/161b: “No prophet could (ever) be false to his trust.” There is another and much more serious fact here: Through the times most – not to say (nearly?) all – self-proclaimed prophets whom a god has not backed up, have been false prophets. Most of the false prophets have been (and are) men, and in religion they have found a way to money, esteem, and power – and women - the 4 normal reasons for impostors. Some are mentally special or ill – Muhammad is among those if he had TLE (see the chapter “What is TLE – Temporal Lobe Epilepsy” in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran"). Some really believe they are prophets, others just are cheats – if Muhammad had TLE, he may honestly have believed he had some connection to a god, but it also is very clear from the Quran that he at least sometimes knew he was cheating/lying; some of the arguments he used in the book, any intelligent person knows are lies (f.x. that miracles would not make doubters believe), and Muhammad was an intelligent man. And some of the self proclaimed “prophets” simply were/are cold and calculating – sometimes even psychopathic - - - and when one looks at Muhammad’s cold-blooded treatment of victims and opponents, his total disregard (he f.x. had a lot of them murdered) for the life and well-being of everybody who stood between him and power and riches (to use for bribing greedy warriors and chiefs to come to or stay on in his religion and his army), and his clever psychological (every clever salesman knows much about human nature and psychology) manipulation of his uneducated, naïve early followers, it is easy to believe Muhammad belonged to these – may be combined with the effect of the possible TLE or something.

And it is here worth noticing that the other possible explanation for this sentence in the Quran, is that it is a defense against accusations for making up the whole or parts of the book. Interesting here is that in (A3/123), Swedish 2006 edition both accusations are debated, and it is confirmed that Muhammad really was accused for not dealing fair when sharing the booty (this also is mentioned in other sources), whereas in the slightly more "correct" English 2008 edition this is omitted. One only tells that to accuse Muhammad for making up the Quran is "contrary to reason" - which is an invalid (not to use stronger words) argument when you for one thing know there have been literally thousands of false prophets throughout the history, for another thing know how many mistaken fact and other errors there are in the Quran, and for a third know that many of the mistakes are from wrong science of different kinds one believed in in Arabia at the time of Muhammad, and not to forget Muhammad's point of view about honesty when dishonesty might give a better result - not even his own oaths did he respect in such cases. Also see 3/161a above.

To anyone knowing the reality of all too many self proclaimed "prophets" - and Muhammad had absolutely nothing to show for himself (except perhaps a brain illness) than his own words and proclamations - the quote above gives an excellent reason for a good laugh.

To anyone knowing the reality of all too many self proclaimed "prophets" - and Muhammad had absolutely nothing to show for himself (except perhaps a brain illness) than his own words and proclamations - the quote above gives an excellent reason for a good laugh.

008 3/120d: "- - - Allah compasseth round about all that they (non-Muslims*) do". = Allah sees and knows everything. Just here it also means that Allah is smarter than them, and cheats them. One of the verses behind the al-Taqiyya dogma. Also see 2/233h above.

455 4/94e: "- - - with Allah are profits and spoils abundant". Fight wars for Allah and get profits and spoils aplenty! Stealing/robbing, raping, enslaving, was an essential part of raids and wars for many of the warriors - and leaders. Compare this to NT and the New Covenant, and not even weeping can express the abyss between the religions. The same god?

009 4/108b: "- - - Allah doth compass round (= notice and outdo *) all that they do." A moral infusion: Allah will punish "them". And a whip: Allah will see if I so something Muhammad will not like.

##########One of the verses being the lawful dishonesty in Islam - when Allah could "compass around" people, of course also Muslims could do so, as long as it was not prohibited - which it was not.

 

 

######010 4/108c: "- - - Allah doth compass round (= notice and outdo*) all that they do." ######One of the alibis for al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), deceiving, etc. in Islam - if Allah can outdo bad people, all Muslims have the permission to do the same as long as it is not prohibited - which it is not (the Quran is not teaching an absolute on honesty - even oaths can be broken).

####011 4/142a: “The hypocrites – they think they are overreaching Allah, but he will overreach them (literal meaning: 'He (Allah*) is their deceiver'*) - - -.” This is one of Islam’s alibis for Al-Taqiyya and Kitman, etc.: When Allah could cheat, then of course his followers can do the same.

Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya and Kitman can be used at least in the cases mentioned below (for broken oaths there are given no real limitations if the broken oath will give a better result. By implication this also goes for ordinary promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal promise. For cheating/deceit/betrayal there may - may - be the limit that it is to be used in connection to war - but many things are called part of a war especially by extremists.)

  1. 1. To save your or others' health or life.
  2. 2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem.
  3. 3. To make peace in a family.
  4. 4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one’s oath.
  5. 5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get work permit or residence permit in a rich country.)
  6. 6. To deceive opponents/enemies.
  7. 7. To betray enemies.
  8. 8. To secure one’s money (very clear from Hadiths).
  9. 9. To defend Islam. (Advice if necessary to succeed.)
  10. 10. To promote Islam. (Advice if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive some ones – actually also in the long run if the opposite part does not know about this side of Muslims and of Islam, or if he/she is naïve. But in the long run one discovers that Muslims can lie without sinning, and thus that it is impossible to rely 100% on a Muslim’s word in serious cases - he may be using an al-Taqiyya, a Kitman or even be relying on Muhammad's words about deceiving or about breaking oaths if this gives a better result.

Also see 4/142b just below.

Rules and permission like this for the use of dishonesty only exists in Islam - "the Religion of the Truth". No other of the big religions accepts and partly relies on dishonesty.

####012 4/142b: (A4/157 – in 2008 edition A158): “The hypocrites – they think they are overreaching Allah, but He will overreach them (non-Muslims*) - - -“. Literal meaning: “He is their deceiver”. But f.x. Rezi has: “He (Allah*) will requite them for their deception.” There is a clear distinction here: In the first case Allah deceives the non-Muslims so that may be their plans crumble before they give any Muslims problems. In the other case he avenges what they did. 2 different meanings. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning. Clear language in the Quran?

We also add that this sentence: “He (Allah*) is their deceiver” is one of the moral alibis Islam uses for its doctrines of “al-Taqiyya” (the lawful lie) and “Kitman” (the lawful half-truth) – a kind of permitted dishonesty included in Islam, but in no other of the major religions. Al-Taqiyya and Kitman and also broken oaths can be used without sinning in a number of cases – f.x. to save your life, to get you out of serious problems, to save your money, to cheat women – and it shall be used if necessary to promote or defend the religion. (It only is guesswork how many proselytes who have been cheated by al-Taqiyya and/or Kitman when wondering if Islam is a true and good religion or not. Or how many non-Muslims who have been cheated to believe that the Quran is not the basis for a teaching of suppression, inhumanities and blood, but a peaceful and benevolent book promoting peace. Not to mention how many girls who have been deceived into marriage, when the Muslim boy just wanted a residence or work permit - or simply into sex.) Also see 4/142a just above.

We finally point to the fact that the literal meaning - "He (Allah*) is their deceiver" - tells gigabytes about the Quran, Muhammad and Islam. It also is legion miles away from the NT - one of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

#####013 5/89a: “Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths - - -" = oaths you just throw around - f.x. in anger or from habits, or for oaths you for other reasons did not mean, does not count, and is no sin for Allah. Quite a different from normal religions. Besides: How can others know when you mean an oath and when not? (Well, in some cases you can guess, but what about all the border-line cases and the cases where it sounds like you mean it?) The Quran and Islam are very special when it comes to breaking oaths and some other kinds of dishonesty (f.x. al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth)) - it is the only of the big religions with such rules for accepted dishonesty, and the only of the big religions which accepts dishonesty, even as a part of the religion/religious life.

#####014 5/89b: “Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: (if you break such one*) for expiation, feed 10 indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families: or clothe them, or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the (breaking of*) oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths.” In principle: Keep your oaths, at least if you meant them. But if you break them, not much is lost, as it is just to pay expiation, and everything is ok. And if the oath was made without thinking things over, you are not even bound to it or bound to pay expiation for it. Guess if this is different from NT! (- and from most other religions included all the big ones!)

No other of the big religions has dishonesty as an integrated and accepted part of the religion - also here remember al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) - and "war is deceit". Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya, Kitman, and Hilah can be used at least in these cases (for broken oaths there are given no real limitations if the broken oath will give a better result. By implication this also goes for ordinary words and promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal word or promise):

  1. 1. To save your or others' health or life.
  2. 2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem.
  3. 3. To make peace in a family.
  4. 4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one’s oath.
  5. 5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get residence permit or work permit in a rich country.)
  6. 6. To deceive opponents/enemies.
  7. 7. To betray enemies.
  8. 8. To secure one’s money (very clear from Hadiths).
  9. 9. To defend Islam. (Advisable if necessary to succeed.)
  10. 10. To promote Islam. (Advisable if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive someone – actually also in the long run if the opposite part does not know about this side of Muslims and of Islam, or if he/she is naïve. But in the long run one learns that there is no way to really be sure a Muslim speaks the full truth - or the truth at all - in serious questions. (This also may be a big problem for Muslims telling the truth about something without being believed - they have no reliable way of strengthening their words.)

###015 5/89c: "That is the expiation for the oaths ye (Muslims'*) have sworn (and broken*)". Even though it is advisable to keep your oats, if you break one, it is just to pay expiation, and everything is ok. The Religion of Truth?!? - an ironical joke.

**104 5/13b: “- - - they (the Jews*) change the words (of the OT*) and forget a good part of the Message that was sent them (OT*)”. The claim here is that the Bible is falsified.

There exist some 13ooo scriptures (included some 300 from the Gospels) or fragments older than 610 AD (when Muhammad declared himself a messenger) plus some 32ooo manuscripts or fragments of the same age with references to/quotes from Biblical verses. Many of them also are older than 325 AD - Muslims' main claim for the falsifications is the council of Nicaea in 325 AD (which did not discuss such changes - the agenda is well known - and there were also no Jews participated, so it does not "explain" how come that the Jews made just the same falsification in OT and about f.x. foretelling about Jesus' life, as the Christians). The some 45ooo old manuscripts show that neither OT nor NT is falsified – nor is anything forgotten (omitted)But Islam HAS to insist on this. For one thing this was the excuse Muhammad used when explaining away the differences between the Bible and the Quran – and Muhammad and the Quran has to be true and speaking only the truth, because if not the very foundation under the religion collapses; absolutely everything rests on Muhammad's words, and even according to central Islamic religious literature, his moral was very doubtful (look at what he demanded and did, etc., not at beautiful words and claims about him). And for another thing – if the Quran is wrong and the Bible correct, Islam is a made up religion.

But one fact remains: Islam has not found any proof - not one - for their many claims about a falsified Bible, even though they have searched for it for 1400 years. They have trumped up a number of arguments, but like so often Islam only have cheap words behind their claims – if they had found one single real proof for their claim among the some 45ooo scriptures or other places, you can bet large money on that the world had been informed quickly and thoroughly about it. This is an even better proof than the proof from science.

When science in addition tells that the Bible is unabridged except for better translations and the small varieties normal for handwritten manuscripts spread over hundreds of years and thousands of kilometers - and there were many thousands of scriptures spread all over - and each and every single one had to be falsified in just the same ways (facts Muslims never mention or explain), and not one of them have marks from falsifications – well, when all this is added up, it is up to you to decide which – if any – of the two books is most reliable. (Also see 2/75b and 3/24d above).

One strong fact stands out: If Jesus in the Bible is the truth, Muhammad in the Quran is not.

There is one more relevant fact: This surah is from 632 AD. At that time Muhammad knew that the Bible was very different from the made up tales and legends he had incorporated in the Quran. Like every intelligent person he knew that it was much more likely that old written books were correct, than verbal legends and fairy tales. He knew that each times he said things like this to save his new religion and platform of power, he at least was bluffing. But also bluffs are a kind of lie.

####016 8/1c: “They (the warriors*) ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning (things taken as) spoils of war (riches and slaves and sometimes land*). Say: (Such) spoils are at the disposal of Allah and the Prophet (Muhammad*)”. This is one of the rules Muhammad or the omniscient Allah had to change later (and not much later) - in the end Muhammad only got 20%, except if the victims gave in without a fight (then Muhammad still got 100%). (Islam has another explanation - all belongs to Allah, but 80% may be given to the warriors and to their leaders. But when a "may be" becomes a rule, it is not a "may be" any more). You meet Muslims saying Allah/the Quran never changed anything, but here is one point which was changed shortly afterward. Often Muslims explains changes with that the rules really were not changed, only made stricter or clarified (why should that be necessary for an omniscient god?) Here is an absolute rule which later had to be changed - the warriors demanded their share of the spoils. Besides: How primitive or greedy has a person to be in order to see a good and benevolent god in a god who permits stealing/robbing, rape, enslaving, suppression, murder, etc. in his name?Incompatible with NT.

####But there is another and very - extremely - serious point here: When raids and wars and slave-taking expeditions and whatever are planned and executed just for that purpose: To be able to see this as anything but plain and dishonest thievery or robbing, you have be a very special person or belong to a very special culture.

####It happens that Muslims ask about why on Earth they are disliked just because they are Muslims? #####Parts of the Quran's moral code explain a large percent of that question - it is too far from normal moral codes. (But Muslims are so used to it, that they are unable to see its excesses, dishonesty and inhumanity, and honestly believe it is a perfect and most honorable code.)

####017 8/1d: “(The spoils of war*) “are at the disposal of Allah and the Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -.” All that was stolen and looted and robbed in raids and war included, slaves and prisoners for extorting money (this early – 624 AD – it mainly was raids to steal/rob/extort) belonged to Allah – represented by his envoy on earth: Muhammad. But his officers and warriors were too greedy to accept this – they wanted a share of the riches, too. So a bit later in the surah – a few “revelations” later (?) there came a contra order – and abrogation:

  1. ***8/41: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah - - -.” Muhammad had to give the warriors their share – except that he saved everything for himself in the cases where the victims gave in without fighting – then the warriors had done nothing and could not demand a share. Muhammad needed riches. Though it is likely it is true he was not much interested in much luxury, he needed riches for bribes/"gifts" and for waging war to get more power and more riches, included slaves – war cost money even if he paid his warriors with religion and religious promises, then all the same food and equipment cost money – and he needed riches for “gift” to attract more warriors/followers/believers and to keep some of the lukewarm-warm ones - - - and some for social use (help to the poor). Muslims tries to explain away this contradiction and abrogation by saying that it all belongs to Allah/the leader, but 80% is given to the warriors/robbers. But the moment it becomes a right for the robbers in raids and warriors in war, the rank and file’s share no longer belongs to the leader.

But remember that also stealing is dishonesty, no matter if you name it loot, spoils of war, or whatever.

018 8/41a: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah (/Muhammad*) - - -.” These 20% - 100% if the victim gave in without a fight - in reality were for Muhammad to use. Did he "demand no payment for what he did" like he claims some places in the Quran?

All this is totally foreign to Yahweh and Jesus - one more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion: Too different moral codes, etc.

019 8/41b: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah (/Muhammad*) - - -.” Part of the background for paragraphs in the sharia law.

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

NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!

This is one of the most disgusting and revealing sentences in the Quran.

NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!

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

######020 8/69a: “ "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, #######lawful and good - - -”. This is one more of the moral and ethical pinnacles in the Quran: Wage war, and then it is “lawful and good” to steal and rob and plunder and extort - and rape the women and girl children and take slaves. It actually is connected to 8/68a above, but like so often in the Quran specific episodes, etc, is given general meaning.

During war/raids and after conquests Muslims can steal ANYTHING they like, included raping women and girl children (history also clearly indicates that homosexuality was part of life for a percentage of Muslims) and - at least according to the Quran - take what slaves they want, and non-Muslim victims can say and do nothing about it. Yes, in principle Muslims can do this against non-Muslims any time they want, as long as they see to it that there are no Muslim witnesses - according to the rules non-Muslims cannot witness against Muslims.

But of course this made it easy and cheap for Muhammad and his successors to get warriors. That such behavior is a catastrophe for any and all victims - and in some cases set back the civilization may be some hundred years like in Persia/Iran (according to science it took Persia 100+ years to return to the level it had before the Arabs attacked) - does not count, as non-Muslim “Untermench” ("sub-humans" in Nazi German) do not count.

This even more so as for fanatics nearly every situation they do not like, can be defined as war against Islam “in the widest meaning of the word” - not to mention that according to Islam’s definition all areas not dominated by Islam are “land of war”. Really a morally and ethical superior religion - compare f.x. to the silly and invalid "Do unto others like you want others do against you", which many religions and culture have as their "constitution". And really a peaceful one.

And honestly the word “good” in ”lawful and good” classifies Muhammad, the Quran and Islam. Laws can be twisted and remade and it is no problem for an absolute dictator to make what laws he wants and thus make things “lawful” – quotation marks used on purpose. But the word “good” is an absolute – flexible “borders”, but fundamentally an absolute. Allah’s/Muhammad’s real rules for behavior against all outsiders is way outside “good”, and the hypocrisy in the using of abrogated verses in the Quran to make outsiders believe something else, makes this aspect of the religion and its hypocrisy even more disgusting.

This quote also tells a lot about the person Muhammad.

########To us this is perhaps the most disgusting and revealing sentence in the entire Quran and the entire Islam - and even more so because it is done in the name of their god.

Also: Combine this quote with Islam's slogan: "Islam is the Religion of Peace" and "Allah is good and benevolent" and weep - or laugh.

What lacks now is that Islam starts claiming that "Islam is the Religion of Honesty - no Lying, no Deceiving, no Stealing". (Remember here that looting and robbing both = stealing.)

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

NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!

NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!

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

#####021 8/69c: "- - - lawful and good - - -". If these words and the context it is taken from ("- - - enjoy what (loot, slaves, and women* + destruction and murder) ye took (= stole) in war (normally of aggression*), lawful and good - - -", were all you knew about the Quran and Islam, this alone would be enough to remove it from the civilized world and transfer it to the dark, harsh, and inhuman Medieval ages or earlier. This even more so as this is not "abrogated" by today's Islam, but on the contrary preached and even practiced today (during armed conflicts and in terrorism) in some Islamic circles and groups.

####022 10/21b: “- - - they (people*) take to plotting against our (Allah’s*) Signs! Say: ‘Swifter to plan is Allah!’” (The original - translated from Swedish (omitted in the English 2008 edition) A10/33: "Allah is swifter (than you) making plans"). This is another of the main alibis for al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth*): When Allah can use devious means like indicated here, of course any Muslim can.

023 12/108b: (Allah tells Muhammad to say:) "I (Muhammad*) do invite you unto Allah - on evidence clear as seeing with one’s eyes",

  1. Muhammad here indirectly, but very clearly makes it clear that evidences are heavy arguments and essential.
  2. He also makes it clear that evidence you see with your own eyes, are clear evidences.
  3. The only evidences which really prove a god, are supernatural beings or acts.
  4. Muhammad never was able to prove one single of his claims about Allah or his own connection to a god - in spite of that he here admits and states that evidences are heavy and essential arguments. Not one essential point did he prove.
  5. He was frequently asked for proof, but had only fast-talk and sometimes even lies to offer to explain it away - in spite of here and other places arguing that evidences are heavy arguments - f.x. Moses' miracles made all sorcerers Muslims - and in spite of claiming proofs from everybody else.
  6. Whenever he was asked for valid arguments or evidence/proofs, he claimed that evidences had no value - no-one would believe anyhow - - - in spite of that he here and other places argues with that his "signs" and "proofs" should decide you. (This was some of his obvious lies in the Quran - so obvious that there is no chance he did not know it himself (he was intelligent), see f.x. his tales about the pharaoh's sorcerers, who he claimed fast became strong believers in Moses' god because of a minor evidence.)
  7. And another argument was the glorification of blind belief and the stupidity in needing proofs - in spite of that all and everybody in reality knows that the most sure way to be cheated, is believing blindly.
  8. Whenever Islam today is asked for proofs, they tell how un-intellectual and stupid it is not to see that intuition and inspiration is the sure way to knowledge and how silly it is to ask for proofs (they have nothing to offer, and what then to say?) - in spite of that every not too naive soul on Earth knows fast-talk is a sign of danger.
  9. And another argument is the glorious blind belief vs. the little reliability of the imbecile science - and the stupidity of needing proof, in spite of as mentioned that everybody know that the sure way to be cheated every now and then, is to believe blindly in this or that.

"A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". For one thing Muhammad never proved it really was Allah who was behind what Muhammad claimed were "signs" or "proofs", and for another a number of his claims may have more than one explanation/conclusion.

Some other quotes about proofs and invalid or made up proofs:

  1. "Strong claims need strong proofs.
  2. "A claim without a proof may be dismissed without a proof".
  3. "Claims are cheap, but only proofs are proofs".
  4. "The use of invalid proofs normally proves that something is fishy".
  5. "The cheat or deceiver naturally must rely on claims pretending to be facts or proofs".
  6. "A made up "proof" makes the man very suspect".
  7. "A strong belief is not a proof - not necessarily even a truth"
  8. .
  9. "Wrong claims and invalid "proofs" are working tools of the cheat".
  10. "A student with correct facts gets a more correct answer than 20 professors with wrong facts". (Invalid, "signs", claims, "proofs", etc. of course are wrong facts.)
  11. And we may add from Peer Gynt in his original language: "Naar utgangspunktet er som galest, blir resultatet tidt originalest" - freely translated: "When you conclude from wrong claims/wrong facts/invalid "proofs"/etc., you get wrong conclusions".

024 13/42a: “- - - but in all things the master planning is Allah’s.” Allah is the one that decides in reality. This is one of the verses Islam and Muslims have founded the rules for al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) on - a moral alibi and explanation for it. When Allah could device plots, also his followers could and can do so.

025 16/91c: "- - - break not your oaths after you have confirmed it". A bit different from in most religions: "Break not your oaths".<(p>

###026 16/92b: "Nor take your oaths to practice deception among yourselves, lest one party should be more numerous than another". IF YOUR OPPONENT IS STRONGER THAN YOURSELF, YOU ARE PERMITTED TO USE FALSE OATHS EVEN "AMONG YOURSELF (MUSLIMS)" IF YOU FEAR PROBLEMS - - - AND WHAT THEN TOWARDS NON-MUSLIMS!?? (There does exist another claim: It means that you shall not use false oaths to switch to ever stronger alliance partners. But this does not fit the words in the sentence - an "explanation away" of a morally dark spot.)

#027 38/44a: “And take in thy hand a little grass and strike therewith, and break no thy oath.” Job had according to another place in the Quran sworn to give his wife 100 whiplashes because she did not believe strongly enough (“no compulsion in religion”?). But then he regretted his oath, and instead struck her lightly once with 100 straws of grass – then he had kept his oath! Cheating is ok in the Quran as you see among other places here - to circumvent an oath or a promise or to only pretend keeping them, is ok - a small example of Kitman. And an excellent sample of the moral in the Quran. Dishonesty is ok as long as one can pretend to be honest. But them the Quran accepts dishonesty in several forms - like al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, some kinds of deceit, and even the disuse of words/promises/oaths. In Islam dishonesty is not necessary dishonesty formally. Islam is the only one of the big religions where many kinds of dishonesty are an accepted part of the religion.

Al-Taqiyya and Kitman, etc. make a problem for every non-Muslim: Is it possible any time at all to know when a Muslim speaks the truth about a serious question? - when he/she is using Al-Taqiyya or Kitman to cheat you?

But it also is a problem for Muslims: How to make people believe you even when you are telling the full truth, when they know about the lawful lie and the lawful half-truth (al-Taqiyya and Kitman), etc.? And how to strengthen your word when even oaths are not reliable?

Like it or not; dishonesty is an integrated part of Islam. In this case a Hilah - the lawful pretending/circumventing of honesty.

###028 42/24j: “And Allah - - - proves the Truth by His Words.” Muhammad was asked many times to prove his - or presumably Allah’s - words, but he never did, and seemed never to be able to, this even more so, as f.x. some of his “explanations” for why he never could prove anything, an intelligent man like him knew were lies (f.x. that real miracles would make no-one believe anyhow). And the words of the Quran prove not a thing, among other reasons because:

  1. Far too many mistakes pretending to be facts. (Swindle?)
  2. Far too many loose statements pretending to be facts. (Swindle?)
  3. Far too many invalid “signs” pretending to be documentation. (Swindle?)
  4. Far too many invalid or even wrong "proofs" pretending to be documentation. (Swindle?)
  5. Some obvious lies – f.x. that miracles would make no-one believe, or that Muhammad wanted no payment (in spite of what Muslims claim, Muhammad was well off when he died - estates in Mecca, Medina, and Fadang, and more - even though he had spent fortunes for bribes for followers/power, and lots of women also cost something). (Swindle.)
  6. Muhammad was unable to present anything but fast-talk when asked for proofs. (Swindle?)
  7. Lots of invalid use of logic. (Swindle?)
  8. Lots of contradictions (– proves of lies?)
  9. Lots of unclear language - at least 500+ confirmed by Muslim scholars. (Not from a god.)
  10. Lots of fast talk. (Suspicious.)
  11. The Quran has few real details, it jumps back and forth in its story, and it has unclear tales and explanations on many points. According to science these normally are indications for a cheat or deceiver. They mention one more such an indication - that cheats and deceivers have a tendency to talk with a higher pitch when spinning tales. For natural reasons it is impossible to find out in Muhammad did so.

These all are hallmarks of a crook and a cheat and a deceiver.

####What does this mean for the religion?

#####029 66/2a: "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases)- - -". According to other places in the Quran, the cases when you can break your oat without sinning, are:

  1. Oaths you have given without really meaning them.
  2. Oaths where you later see you will get a more satisfactory result if you break your oat. In serious cases, though, you should pay a "fine" - expiation - to Allah to be forgiven".

Can anyone please tell us what remains of trustworthiness of a Muslim's words and oaths - especially when you add to this the al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and the Kitman (the lawful half-truth) and permitted deceits and betrayals? - and his point of view that "war is deceit" (and everything is war). And much worse in this case: WHAT REMAINS OF MUHAMMAD'S TRUSTWORTHINESS - NOT TO MENTION THE QURAN'S TRUSTWORTHINESS?

#####030 66/2b: "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases)- - -". NB: The parenthesis "(in some cases)" is not part of the original text in the Quran. Without those 3 words, Muslims are very free to disuse even oaths - and what then about ordinary words and promises when even oaths can be disused?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

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 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.

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.

30 comments. Sub-total = 455 + 30 = 485.


>>> 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".