Allah in the Quran, Vol. 1: Introduction

 

Book J, Allah in the Quran, in the "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" series in 3 volumes.

Volume 1

NB:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. Daniel Kahneman (2002 Nobel Prise winner for research on psychological biases that distort rational 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 IN THE QURAN

 

This - like in the other books and booklets in this series - is an analyzing of the Quran. When you make literature analyzes, you analyze point for point for point, look at it from different angles - what do the words say? - are the facts it uses correct? - are claims based on real and/or proved facts or not? - is the logic the book uses correct? - are the conclusions correct and clear, or are different meanings/ways of understanding possible? - what information can you extract from this and this point/these words? - may there be intended (or not intended) symbolism? - may a parable or similar be intended some places? - does the writer mean what the words say, or are they f.x. irony or containing hidden meaning(s) or hidden symbolism? - etc., etc. Only after this is done, one look at the total book and from the sum of the analyzed points, make deductions about the total contents and the big lines in the book.

This is a very normal way of analyzing a book, when one really wants to see and understand all sides or aspects of what a book and/or a writer are saying. (A fact which makes a joke out of Muslims' claim that you cannot judge what the different verses or points in the Quran say - you have to judge whole surahs or the whole book, and preferably only the positive words, not also the underlying facts - and be blind to the errors, etc., and to logical dark conclusions, etc. To obey this Muslim demand and/or the wrong claim that only conclusions positive for Islam are correct, is NOT how one find what a book or a text really say - and worse: The rules for analyzing books and texts are so widespread and well known, that there is no way at least educated Muslim scholars do not know them, and thus they know that they by such demands are breaking the rules for how to find the full and real contents and meaning of a book or a text. At least the educated ones know that the claims they in such cases use for fleeing from many of the real facts and much of the real contents in the Quran by means of dishonest analyzing methods, are wrong or dishonest use of logic and/or rules for honest analyzing. Similar goes for f.x. the claim you often meet that all mentioning of facts - often wrong facts in the Quran or other places - or conclusions not positive, are because of that the person is a hater of Islam, and thus one can dismiss everything he/she says - perhaps the most used way of fleeing from facts and arguments Islam/Muslims do not want to hear (in spite of that it often is the opponent who knows best the dark sides of a case - and the dark sides are as meaningful as the positive sides when trying to find the honest truth about or value or reality of something).

We do not make a complete analyzes with grammar and everything. That for one thing would be boring for most readers, and for another f.x. mistakes in the grammar would have little relevance for our purpose: To find the full and total meaning and reliability and background for the Quran and its texts (except that an omniscient god would make no errors in the grammar, too). And we try to do it in ways ordinary, not educated people will understand. According to mails we receive, we have succeeded at least to a reasonable degree: Our analyzes mostly are correct, our comments mostly are correct, our conclusions mostly are correct, etc. according to our readers - except according to many strong Muslim believers, who often do not like the conclusions. Also our readers tell that we mostly use a language easy for everybody to understand.

As for our reliability, we may mention that Islam Malaysia some years ago tried via an office in the Malaysian government to have our Book A ("1000+ Mistakes in the Quran") evicted from Internet, but found no serious error in our book to use as an argument for their demand.

We also may repeat that the above mentioned claim you often meet from Islam and from Muslims, that you cannot judge or decide anything about texts in the Quran unless you know and thus decide/judge from the whole context, the whole chapter, or the whole Quran, is nonsense. It is very easy to make conclusions from points or verses. When the Quran f.x. tells that Allah do not bind you by your oaths, it tells a lot about honesty and reliability in the book and in Islam. The same when Muhammad tells things he knew was not true - f.x. "explained" that Allah made no miracles/proofs because it would make nobody believe anyhow. Or when the book tells that to steal/rob, rape, take slaves, etc. is "lawful and good" and Allah's reward to you - well, you only need those few sentences to know a lot about Islam's and about the Quran's moral code. Or when the Quran declares that a raped girl/woman who cannot bring 4 male witnesses who have seen the very act, is to be punished for unlawful sex, it tells you oceans about the judicial code in the Quran. And the same when it accepts pedophile - there does not exist one single girl of 3 or 6 or 9 years (there is no real lower limit) who is sexually mature. These just a few samples.

Like said the claim is a nonsense one. But it works well as a way for Muslims and for Islam to flee from facts and arguments they do not want to meet, and the reason why it works, is that most non-Muslims (and Muslims) do not know enough about such things and about the Quran, to know what to answer.

######But the short and correct answer is one clear word: "Nonsense".

NB: WHEN WE REFER TO A VERSE IN THIS BOOK, YOU OFTEN WILL HAVE TO CHECK IN OUR BOOK F: "1000+ comments on the Quran" TO FIND IT, AS THAT ONE IS THE "COMPLETE" BOOK IN THIS SERIES. (Rather complete at least.)

(A correction: We have in earlier books said there are some 12ooo known manuscripts and fragments from the Bible older than 610 AD (when Muhammad started his mission). The correct number seems to be some 13ooo - and thus some 45ooo included references and quotes. We have corrected this in this book.)

CONTENTS:

For easier use we include the full list in all 3 volumes.

Volume I

Section I: ALLAH'S AND THE QURAN'S BACKGROUND

Chapter 1: Allah's history and background

Chapter 2: WAS HUBAL A THIRD NAME FOR AL-LAH/ALLAH?

Chapter 3: WAS HUBAL PART OF THE BA'AL CONCEPT?

Chapter 4: Allah is a false god? See chapter 26

chapter 5: Allah's 99 names

Chapter 6: Allah the same god as Yahweh?

Chapter 7: Yahweh is NOT Allah, Allah is NOT Yahweh

Chapter 8: "Why not believe in Allah?"

Chapter 9: Allah and honesty

Chapter 10: Some of the verses behind "lawful" dishonesty.
 

Section II: ALLAH'S DIFFERENT CLAIMED POWERS

Chapter 11: Allah's claimed "physical" and supernatural power

Chapter 13: Allah's claimed domains

Chapter 14: Allah's claimed Plan

Chapter 15: "Nobody and nothing can change Allah's Plan"

Chapter 16: Allah's claimed total predestination.

Chapter 17: Allah's omniscience

Chapter 18: Allah's claimed knowledge

Chapter 19: Allah sees and knows everything

Chapter 20: Allah most merciful?

Chapter 21: The value(?) of prayers to Allah

Chapter 22: Allah closes hearts

Chapter 23: “If Allah had wished - - -"

Chapter 24: Allah's presence in Paradise

Chapter 25: "It is for Allah to explain

Chapter 26: Allah the real ruler of Hell?

Reading this book, remember:

1. All the errors in the Quran prove the book is not from a god - no god gives wrong facts or makes other errors, contradictions, etc. wholesale and more.

2. The many and fundamental differences between the teaching, moral code, etc. of Yahweh and Allah, prove they are not the same god, in spite of the Quran's never proved claims. (Not one of the central claims in the Quran is proved - this in spite of many claims for the opposite. Remember: "A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". Islam's and Muslims' "proofs" on central points in the religion always are built just on never proved claims, and may in addition often have more than one possible conclusion. Sometimes also invalid logic is used.

3. Similar goes for Jesus: He and Muhammad provably are not in the same religion.

4. Both science and Islam - the latter strongly against their wish and will - have strongly proved that the Bible is not falsified, partly by being unable to find even one proved falsification, partly by being unable to explain how all the old manuscripts could be falsified, and identically falsified all over 3 continents + falsifications never contradicting texts or other falsifications - and in ways impossible for modern science to see, and not least by the fact that the present texts in the Bible are the same as in the very old texts. There are some 13ooo known copies or fragments of Biblical scriptures - included some 300 copies of Gospels - older than 610 AD + more than 32ooo other as old scriptures referring to or directly quoting the Bible. Neither science nor Islam has ever found one proved falsification. And for OT there is an extra proof: It is clear that Jesus used the old Jewish scriptures - both the Bible and the Quran tells he was preaching. But no prophet of a quality like even the Quran states he was - he is number 3 or 4 of the Quran’s top prophets (after Muhammad, Abraham, and perhaps Moses) - would accept falsified holy scriptures. Neither the Bible nor the Quran has the slightest indication for that he ever told that those scriptures contained any religious falsification or wrong point (he sometimes reacted against the extra laws added later, but never towards the old scriptures). This means that if there are falsifications, they must have been made after Jesus' death in 33 AD. But the Qumran scriptures contain most of OT, and those parts of the Qumran scrolls, are from 150-50 BC = the same ones which Jesus had, and they are identical to what you find in the OT of today. The only possible conclusion: One more proof for that OT never was falsified - Jesus used the same scriptures you today find in OT.

5. The fact that neither science nor Islam has found one single trace from a religion like Islam, nor a god like Allah, nor a book similar to the Quran, older than 610 AD (compared to some 45ooo relevant scriptures and fragments from or referring to texts in the Bible) are known by history neither in the Roman Empire nor anywhere else in the World, prove that when the Quran claims Allah was active before 610 AD, it talks about either a twisted version of Yahweh (God), or a made up god, or a made up "history" - - - unless Islam proves - proves - something else. Remember: "A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion".


>>> Go to Next Chapter

>>> Go to Introduction

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".