Allah in the Quran, Chapter 32
01 Jan 2015
ALLAH AND ISLAM
001 There is no doubt that Muhammad claimed that Allah was the god for the Muslims. But there are a couple of questions:
- A. Is Allah something which exists, or is he fiction - or a dressed up and made up old pagan god?
- B. If he is made up and a fiction, then ok. But if he exists, is he then a god or something else - f.x. from the dark forces?
- C. If he is from the dark forces - well, then we know the value of Muhammad, of the Quran, and of Islam. If he exists and is a god, has he then any similarity with the Allah describe in the Quran?
- D. Is it possible for one who has no connection to a god - the maker of the Quran had none of his information from any god (too much is wrong and/or of deplorable quality in that book) - to describe a good and his teaching correctly?
- E. If this clearly made up book - by dark forces or human(s) - does not describe Allah or his teaching correctly, or if Allah does not exist or is not a real god, what is then the value of Islam and of the Quran? - and what then was Muhammad?
- F. If the Quran is a made up book (at least clearly made up in the meaning that it, with all its errors, etc. is not from any god), and Allah a made up god or something not a god, then Islam is a made up and/or pagan religion. Where will then all Muslims end if there is a next life and a real god somewhere?
- G. Would - or even could - any god deliver a "holy" book of such a mediocre quality, and so full of mistakes -f.x. 3ooo+ errors, etc., included at least 1700+ points with wrong facts - for his "holy" book?. Remember here that the only strong side of the book - its excellent Arab language - is the result of being polished for 250 years (ca. 650 AD to ca. 900 AD) by the best brains and best scholars in Islam.
- H. Would even a devil use a book as full of wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. for his pretended "holy" book? He had to know the errors, etc. would be discovered sooner or later, and he loose credibility. (Well, of course there in case are the alternatives that he f.x. had knowledge of man's ability to overlook any facts he does not want to believe, and the possibility that a god only permitted him to lure people to the dark side of eternity, if the dark side made such a quality book that it was easy for thinking persons to see the traps.
####### Another - and serious - point is that to "explain" that the Quran means something different from what it really says, is to corrupt it.
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?
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?
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
002 2/121c: "Those to whom We (Allah*) have sent the Book (the Quran*) study it as it should be studied, they are the ones that believe therein - - -". Correct - they are the ones who believe - - - but the religion only is true if it really is sent down by a god - see 2/121a.
003 2/132c: "Allah hath chosen the Faith for you - - -". Not possible unless Allah exists and is a major god. And if not Allah, then who made the choise?
004 2/132c: "Allah hath chosen the Faith for you - - -". Not possible unless Allah exists and is a major god. If not: Who did the choice?
005 2/133c: "- - - (the god) of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac - - -". This was said when Jacob died according to the Quran (you do not find this in the Bible). At that time Ishmael's descendants already were 3/4 Egyptian (both Ishmael's mother and wife were from Egypt (1.Mos. 20/21)) and they were living in hostility to the descendants of Isaac and Jacob (1.Mos. 25/18). They also were outside the covenant line through Isaac (1.Mos. 20/12). If you know a little about people, how likely is it that Ishmael was mentioned here?. (But Muhammad needed "quotes" like this to connect his new religion to an old one.)
006 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 and its quality too low 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 belief more or less a certainty.
007 2/246f: "- - - fight in the cause of Allah". Even though this is (pretended to be) said to the Jews, it is one of the points behind the laws for war in the sharia laws, and behind even modern time glorification of war in Islam.
008 4/119d: "Whoever, forsaking Allah, takes Satan for a friend - - -". The one does not necessarily implicate the other, especially if Allah just is a dressed up, non-existing pagan god (al-Lah - Allah - simply was the main Arab pagan god at that time). And especially not if there exist other real gods - f.x. Yahweh. (This even more so if Allah is from the dark forces, like some points in the Quran and also in its moral code, etc. may indicate. Compare some points there or in the Sharia law to "do to others like you want others do to you", and weep.
####009 8/39c: “- - - there (shall*) prevail - - - faith in Allah all together and everywhere - - -”. No compulsion in religion? At least this is a clear declaration of Islam's goal.
#####010 9/20e: "(Warriors/terrorists*) have the highest rank in the sight of Allah". One more of the revealing fundamental points in the Quran. It is facts like these which tells the true story about Islam, not the cheap propaganda glorifications like "the very good man Muhammad" or "the Religion of Peace". And these many revealing points scattered all over especially the surahs from Medina, uniformly tell a dark story: A religion of war, suppression, apartheid - and not least about lawful dishonesty, lawful immoral and lawful inhumanity. (There are many parallels to Genghis Khan's war religion, to Nazism and to apartheid. Islam also has a superiority complex against all non-Muslims - it f.x. is seriously debated f.x. in north Pakistan (when this was written) if even "the people of the Book" have half the value of a Muslim or less, and the Pagans are even worth far less). "Racism" based on religion - and likely a made up religion, based on a book probably not from any god.
011 9/33i: “It is He (Allah*) Who hath sent his Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of the Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest it”. With plain words: Accept it whether you like it or not – as there is “no Compulsion in Religion.” The goal is worldwide total domination. This verse contradicts (and abrogates) at least these verses (here are 88 out of the 124 Muslim scholars say are abrogated by 9/5): 2/109, 2/190, 2/256, 2/272, 3/20, 4/62, 4/81, 4/90, 5/3, 5/28, 5/48, 5/99, 6/60, 6/66, 6/70, 6/104, 6/107, 6/112, 6/158, 7/87, 7/188, 7/193, 7/199, 8/61, 9/68, 10/41, 10/99, 10/102, 10/108, 11/12, 11/121, 13/40, 15/3, 15/94, 16/35, 16/82, 16/125, 16/126, 16/127, 17/54, 18/29, 18/56, 19/39, 20/130, 21/107, 21/112, 22/49, 22/68, 23/54, 23/96, 24/54, 26/216, 27/92, 28/50, 28/55, 29/18, 29/46, 32/30, 34/25, 34/28, 35/23, 35/24a, 36/17, 39/41, 41/34, 42/6, 42/15, 42/48, 43/83, 43/89, 44/59, 45/14, 46/9, 46/135a, 46/135b, 46/135b, 50/39, 50/45, 51/50-51, 51/54, 52/45, 52/47, 53/29, 67/26, 73/10, 73/11, 79/45, 86/17, 88/22, 109/6. They are all quoted under 9/5. (At least 91 contradictions).
012 9/36g: "But know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves". Please read the history - the real one - about Muhammad and about Islam. Did any of them live up to this?
###013 9/39a: “Unless ye (Muslims*) go forth (in war/battle for Islam/Muhammad*), He (Allah*) will punish you with a grievous penalty (normally in the Quran a synonym for Hell*) - - -”. An order not possible to misunderstand for a pious - or fanatic - Muslim.
Yes, a religion built on peace, goodness and heavenly ethics.
THIS IS THE ORDER ALSO TODAY - JUST LISTEN TO SOME IMAMS, ETC. - see 9/38d.
THIS VERSE TELLS HORRIBLY MUCH ABOUT ISLAM AS IT IS TAUGHT IN THE QURAN.
One of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - not to mention that Jesus and Muhammad were not in the same religion.
014 9/111d: “- - - they (warriors/terrorists*) fight in His (Allah’s (or Muhammad’s?*)) cause, and slay and are slain: (and get great reward in Paradise*)”. Can anyone really read the Quran - even a Muslim - and afterwards believe the Quran represents a good, peaceful, benevolent god? One is reminded of the blood orgies of the Mayas and Incas, except that Islam mostly kills at the spot - like the Assyrians. And "the Religion of Peace"?? Wrong.
#####015 10/35i: "How judge ye?" We judge that religion and a possible eternal life is too serious a matter to accept that mistakes, contradictions, lies, etc., etc. can be hidden, when trying to find out if a god/gods exist(s), and in case which one(s) is/are true and which not. Only complete honesty can lead to a correct answer in such a question - and the Quran/Islam most likely is the most dishonest of all big religions - the only one who on top of all not only accepts, but advocates dishonesty on central points "if necessary" to win a discussion - not to find the truth, but to win a discussion or a new believer. (Al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, deceit, lawful disuse of oaths, etc.)
016 10/64a: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -.” See 2/97c and 61/13.
###017 10/96b: “Those against whom the Word of thy Lord has been verified - - -.” This is one of the main problems for Islam – as it was for Muhammad: There exists no verification of Islam – not one single proof, not in the Quran and not any other place. Only cheap words and claims which in NO case are verified. But glorification of and demands for blind belief you find aplenty, and the same with invalid "signs" and "proofs". (Necessary when there is nothing else to build on than the words of a man of very doubtful character and morality. Reliance on untrue arguments and bluffs are strong indicators for a cheat, a deceiver, a swindler.)
Whenever we meet people using bluffs and defending bluffs, not to mention glorifying blind belief – like here – for us that strongly indicates not only that they have no real arguments, but also that they know it themselves, and just try to defend wishful thinking or beliefs they are mentally and morally unable to question.
018 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.
##019 11/19c: "Those (non-Muslims*) who would hinder (men) from the path of Allah and would seek in it something crocked - - -." M. Asad (A11/35 - 11/38 in the 2008 English edition) tells that the Quran her implies that "belief in resurrection, Allah's judgment and a life in the hereafter is here postulated as the only valid and lasting source of human morality".
#####A most illuminating piece of information, because all your good deeds in this case is motivated only from: "What merit can I gain with Allah?" There is an ocean between this and NT: Help your fellow humans from love or at least from empathy and because he/they need help - and gain merit in Heaven on top. One hidden reason why so few of the help and aid NGOs originated in Muslim area? - why Islam had to be forced into abolishing slavery? etc.? Allah and Yahweh the same god? - only possible to believe if you strongly want to believe it and overlook lots of facts.
Remember that the foundation under all inter-human real moral codes is: "Do onto others like you want others do onto you". Read the Quran and look for things which do not fit this rule, and you will find too much.
###020 11/19d: "(See 11/19c just above*) - - - #######belief in resurrection, Allah's judgment and a life in the hereafter is here postulated as the only valid and lasting source of human morality". Look at this sentence and think it over. What deep truths does it divulge about Muhammad, about the Quran, and about Islam - even today? - and about the ethics, value of empathy, and the moral of those three? For sexual morality parts of - parts of - it is better in Islam than f.x. among Christians (though not better than what the Bible wants Christians to practice), in other parts from worse to much worse (f.x. lawful rape of slaves or captives, and sex with children, the easy divorces for men, etc.). In most other branches of morality the Quran/Islam is inferior to NT - and not only to NT and OT - if you use "do to others like you want others do to you" as a basis.
*021 11/22a: “Without a doubt, these (the non-Muslims*) are the very ones who will lose most in the Hereafter!” All the mistakes, wrong logic, etc. in the Quran make it very clear it is not from a god. Partly because of that – and this alone is a 100% proof for that something is wrong – there is every reason to doubt Islam is a genuine religion. And if it is a made up religion – and Islam will have a tough job proving the opposite – there is every reason to doubt Muslims will fare any better than others in a possible next life. On the contrary: If there do exist a real religion and if this is run by a good god, the Muslims will not fare well if they have lived according to the Quran’s partly horrific ethics, and even worse moral code, inhuman treatment of fellow - but non-Muslim - humans, etc.
022 14/10e: "- - - it is He (Allah*) Who invites you (to Islam*) - - -". Only if he exists and is behind the Quran and Islam. But this at least was what Muhammad claimed.
023 16/102h: “- - - revelations from thy Lord (Allah*) in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe - - -”. It is a strange way for a religion to strengthen its believers at least partly with wrong and/or not reliable “information”. There are far too many mistakes in the Quran for any sentient educated being with fresh eyes, to believe it is reliable.
024 16/102j: “- - - revelations from thy Lord (Allah*) in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide - - - to Muslims”. It tells volumes about Islam, if they use a book full of mistakes + discrimination, hate and war against non-Muslims as a guide for their believers - the Muslims. And even more if the religion/religious leaders try to “explain” away even obvious mistakes in it, instead of finding out what is true and what not.
025 17/45b: "When thou (Muslims*) dost recite the Quran, We (Allah*) put, between you and those who believe not in the Hereafter, a veil invisible". If Allah does not exist and thus is unable to put up a veil, may be a real god does so if any exists - except for War gods, he/she/they might not be interested in souls from war and apartheid religions.
026 17/56c: "- - - they (other gods*) have neither the power to remove your troubles from you nor to change them". This may be correct, but another deep question never answered by anything but fast talk and lose, never documented claims, is if Allah is any stronger. There has never in 1400 years come one single proof neither for his existence, nor for his power. All Islam rests only on a book full of not verified claims and lots and lots of mistaken facts and other errors, contradictions, invalid logic, etc. - a book dictated by a man with a very dubious moral and as dubious ethics. (The real and historical Muhammad - even like you find him in central Islamic litterateur - is very different from the glossy semi-saint Muslims boast about and cherish.)
027 22/1a: "O Mankind! Fear your Lord (Allah*)!" Muhammad claimed Allah was the god of the entire world. At present he is the nominal god - existing or not existing - for roughly 20% of the world's population (the actual number is very uncertain, but some 1.2 billion). But the number is increasing, partly because of active proselyting (and at the same time hinder or forbid proselyting for other religions or even for telling facts about the Quran or Muhammad in their own countries - f.x. our page is blocked on the net in some countries), and partly because Muslims produce many children - even in modern times when it has become clear that the production of food and other necessities are reaching limits (unless science makes new breakthroughs, but no such ones are expected shortly). One opposing tendency, though, is that 3. generation emigrants into other cultures seems to a degree to lose faith.
028 22/3a: "Yet among men there are such as dispute about Allah". Already then - this was approximately 616 AD - many saw that something was very wrong with Muhammad’s new religion. (But most of them were silenced - some by Muhammad's growing military power, some by honest belief, some by their lust for joining the Muslims in looting, enslaving, rape, etc., and some because of pressure or threats or terrorism.)
029 22/8c: "- - - disputes about Allah, without Knowledge - - -." In religion like in all other aspects of life there exists no knowledge without proofs - only belief. The belief may be strong - even so strong that you believe it is knowledge or feel sure it is knowledge. But just the same goes for all strong believers in all religions - - - and most of all those religions are wrong, if one of the big excluding religions is right. Islam is one of the many religions where absolutely nothing is proved - Islam even admits that Allah cannot be proved, but only when they are forced to speak the truth. Islam is only built on belief. There is no real knowledge.
030 22/9b: "- - - to lead (men) astray (from the Quran*) - - -". To lead man astray in this case only is possible if the Quran is from a god and in addition is fully and only the truth. Which it is proved by all the errors, etc. in the Quran, that it is not.
031 22/32a: "- - - the symbols of Allah - - -". Here referring to the rites of the pilgrimage - the hajj - in Mecca, likely especially to the ones connected to the sacrifice of animals. Symbols simply taken over from old pagan religion most of them. Old pagan symbols are some symbols for llah, yes.
If Yahweh and Allah had been the same god, it had been somewhat peculiar that the god liked such sacrifices in the OT, but dropped it in the New Covenant and the teaching of Jesus - for them to reinstall it shortly (at least shortly for a god) afterwards. A god with no clear ideas for what he wants?
Most of the rituals during Hajj are taken over from the old pagan Arab religion. It is peculiar if pagan rites are symbols of a monotheistic god, and as peculiar that only the Arab pagan religion "happened" to have the correct rites. There are no similar rites in NT; not the same god, Jesus and Muhammad far from in the same religion.
Also the rites are very primitive - fit old pagan religions. Of course one can claim symbolism - one can claim symbolism from the story of Al Capone, Baron von Münchausen, Adolph Hitler, and Donald Duck - but also the symbolisms in the rites are primitive ones, fitting primitive, naive minds. Throw stones at "the Devil", walk the old magic number of 7 times around the Kabah, kill some defenceless animals, etc.
Both the rites and the claimed symbols tell a lot about Islam.
032 22/32b: "- - - such honor (to sacrifice animals*) - - -". What kind of a god thinks it is an honor to him that animals are killed for him? Not even an earthly king or tribal chief thinks of that as an honor. He may like the hospitality in the good food a slaughtering may result in, but none ever look at the slaughter itself as an honor. Yahweh after all - according to the Bible - had the rational (?) reason that he liked the smell of roasted meat when it was placed on the fire afterwards.
Can the killing have anything to do with the old superstition you find in some primitive cultures - and a superstition known in what we call the Middle East in the old times - that if you totally destroyed something in the name of your god, you had given it to the god?
Also see 22/32a.
033 22/32c: "- - - such honor (to sacrifice animals*) should come truly from the piety of heart". The sacrifices are to prove this piety of heart - but how come that an omniscient god needs the slaughtering of animals to believe you?"
Also see 22/32a.
###034 24/55f: "- - - He (Allah*) will establish in authority their religion (Islam*) - - -". See 24/55b above. A likely scenario for most places will be something like a Saudi Arabia without the oil - in a stagnant future with no more impulses and no new products from the "West", as the "West" will exist no more. In the some 800 years (ca. 1100 AD to ca. 1900 AD) when the Muslim area got few or no impulses from the outside - and before and after most of the imported ideas against the resistance of the Islamic clergy and scholars - no progress took place in the area, except what followed from riches looted or conquered from neighboring lands and non-Muslims, included enslavement and taxation.
#035 28/4b: "- - - (Pharaoh*) broke up its (Egypt's*) people in sections - - -". Comment YA3329: "For a king or a ruler to make individual distinctions between his subjects, and especially to depress or oppress any particular class of his subjects, is a dereliction of his kings duties - - -". Is it here pertinent to remind the reader about how Muslims at times and places have treated non-Muslims and sects of Muslims? Or the Arabs' superiority compared to other Muslims, especially the first centuries? Not to mention that it is the Quran's official policy that all non-Muslims shall be conquered and suppressed?
###036 30/30f: "- - - (Islam*) is the standard Religion - - -”. Comment (A30/27): "The term "fitrah", rendered by me as "natural disposition" (Yusuf Ali translates it with "standard (religion*)"), connotes in this context man's inborn, intuitive ability to discern between right and wrong, true and false, and thus to sense Allah's existence and oneness". This is bullshit - and the reason why we do not use stronger words, is politeness.
Man - a baby - has an inborn, but vague feeling for right and wrong, fair and unfair, good and bad. But mind you we say vague. The rules and norms for this have to be learned. This means it is exactly the opposite of the Islamic claim here - that man is born with correct knowledge about this, which is blunted and bent and destroyed by parents and others to adjust it to their norms. On the contrary: Parents and others have to teach children the rules.
Further: Also man has no inborn feeling - even not a vague one - for knowing the difference between true and false. This is something the baby and child and youth has to learn, partly on basis of getting enough knowledge about this and that to be able to see what may be correct and what not, and partly by means of training in evaluating such cases - training in what often is called "critical thinking" (training in combining new information with what you know from before, and weigh facts, claims, etc. against one another to find out what can be true and not true). It is thought provoking that schools in Muslim area give little such training. This again is thought provoking on the background that science has found that 3. generation and later Muslims living in western countries which give good such training, to a marked degree starts losing interest in Islam (scientific research published in May 2010, mentioned even on radio/TV).
Finally: The claimed inborn ability to "sense Allah's existence and oneness" is scientific gobbledygook. The same goes for the other claim in the same comment: "- - - the 'natural disposition' which, by definition, consists of man's instinctive cognition of Allah and self-surrender (Islam) to Him". To say this with plainer Muslim words you may meet now and then: "All babies are born Muslims, but the religion is corrupted by parents and others to their own religion." This has exactly nothing to do with what is known about such things. There simply exists no "instinctive knowledge about religion" - Muslim or other. Everything a person knows about religion are things he/she has learnt. Science has found a longing for something strong to lean on - a religion - in a minor percent of the population. They even have found at least one gene giving tendency for such longing (they stumbled across it while doing cancer research a few years ago). But there is a long distance between a longing and knowledge.
####This comment by Muhammad Azad simply is his repeating of one of Islam's tries to get around the lack of documentation for Allah and for Islam, combined with a need for such. They construct things/claims like "instinctive knowledge about Allah and/or Islam", "self-evident claims or "facts" about Allah and/or Islam", "requests for proofs for Allah, Islam, Muhammad's connection to a god or for Muhammad's reliability and/or integrity proves shows lack of intellectual ability", and more statements and claim along that street. Islam has not one single proof for anything of this, and needs arguments, and in a religion and a culture where al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc., deceit and even the broken word/promise/oat, etc. are incorporated, it does not matter too much if the claims are true or not, as long as it may sound convincing at least for the naive ones, the uneducated ones, the wishful thinkers, etc. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.) In the old times Muslims scholars may even have believed in such wishful self-delusions, but with the knowledge international science has about such things today, arguments like this are dishonesty, as any Muslim scholar today knows the truth or at least has no excuse for not checking on his claims and finding it (well, the god-longing gene and the reduced interest in Islam by 3. and later generations Muslims in the West, is so new knowledge, that some of them may be excused for not knowing just this, when this is written in 2010 AD).
There only is one possible polite remark to claims like the ones Islam makes here: Scientific gobbledygook combined with al-Taqiyya.
*037 30/30g: “- - - no change (let there be) in the work (wrought) by Allah: that (Islam*) is the standard Religion: But most among mankind understand not”. The impolite, but most pertinent, question is: May be it is really the non-Muslims who have understood? - understood that something may be very wrong.
038 33/44b: "He (Allah*) has prepared for them (good Muslims*) a generous Reward". Impossible for Allah unless he exists and is something supernatural - white or dark.
039 41/52c: "Who is more astray than one who is in a schism far (from any purpose (here Islam*))?" The answer depends on two things: Does Allah exist - and is he in case a major god. And one more: Do other gods - f.x. Yahweh exist?
Besides: Who is most astray - the one strongly believing in a book full of errors, or the one able to ask questions about the mistakes and worse?
040 42/13a: “The same religion has He (Allah*) established - - -”. With all the mistakes (see f.x. 40/75) there are good reasons for asking if it really is an omnipotent god who made this religion. At least he did not make the Quran with all its errors, etc.
041 42/13b: “The same religion has He (Allah*) established - - - (as that of Noah*)”. That Noah was a good Muslim is one of the nearly legion numbers of never proved claims in the Quran - nothing of any essence in the book is proved, only loose claims and as lose words, often unlikely ones, often highly unlikely ones, sometimes clearly wrong ones (may be 3ooo errors of different kinds in the book - ca. one error, etc. for every second verse, must be close to world record for a claimed holy book.
042 42/13c: “The same religion has He (Allah*) established - - - (as that of Noah*)”. Contradicted by the Bible, which says Noah's god was Yahweh, and Yahweh's religion is a lot different from Allah's, and also by science - and by Islam - neither of which has found proofs for a religion like Islam before 610 AD. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible and science and Islam wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just lose claims and as lose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.
##043 42/13d: “The same religion (Islam*) has He (Allah*) established for - - - Abraham, Moses, and Jesus”. Neither the Quran, nor Hadith, nor Islam has brought the slightest valid proof for this - only words and claims. And at least when it comes to Jesus, it is wrong. The teachings of Jesus and the ones of Muhammad are fundamentally too different. Of course Muslims say that the Bible is falsified and that scriptures have disappeared – that is the only way out they have. But they have yet to prove the first and to prove that scriptures documenting all the points Islam says are wrong in other religions, have disappeared and none reliable and impossible to misunderstand ones have reappeared among the relevant 13ooo - 13ooo scriptures (included some 300 copies of the Gospels) + the some 32ooo with references to the Bible which exists. “Strong claims need strong proofs.” This even more so as science by means of all the old scriptures has proved that the Bible is not falsified – a fact that is extra clear for NT. (And for OT one f.x. have the fact that both Islam and Christianity will admit that if there had been falsifications in OT at the time of Jesus, Jesus had warned against it. Which proves that OT was not falsified by 33 AD. Combine this with the relevant scriptures from Qumran from 150-50 BC, and you have a clear proof for that also OT is not falsified.) And as central: Islam has proved the same even stronger by being unable to find one single proved falsification among all those scriptures. You bet they had told about it if they had found even one.As for Abraham and Moses being good Muslims, for one thing that is strongly contradicted by the Bible, which tells their god was Yahweh, and for another thing: As mentioned no traces from Islam older than 610 AD has ever or anywhere been found - not even by Islam - - - and Moses lived some 2000 years before, and Abraham some 2500 years before.
On thinking it over: ##### It is extremely thought provoking that science has found some 45ooo scriptures or parts of scriptures older than 610 AD relevant to the Bible, but not one single relevant to the Quran, in spite of all the copies Islam claims there have been from the Quran/"the Mother of the Book". Something definitely is wrong.
#044 47/24a: "Do they (non-Muslims) not then earnestly seek to understand the Quran - - -". When we started to read the Quran, it was from an honest wish to understand - you do not understand a culture, unless you understand their religion. But we found kilometers of mistaken facts and other errors and even direct dishonesty and lies. What we now very honestly do not understand, is how it is possible for at least educated people to read the Quran and not see that something is hugely and seriously wrong - no omniscient god makes mistakes, and definitely not by the hundreds and more, and if the Quran is not from a god, what then is Islam??! And where will Muslims end if there is a next life?
045 49/17b: "- - - Allah has conferred a favor upon you (Muslims*) that He has guided you to the Faith - - -". Like in all other religions saying similar things, it only is true that it is a favor, if the teachings are true and from a god. (Well, Buddhism to a degree may be an exception - and actually also NT if the moral code, etc. theres followed. The ethical and moral codes there may be a gain for humanity even if there is no next life.)
046 49/17c: "- - - Allah has conferred a favor upon you (Muslims*) that He has guided you to the Faith - - -". A harsh war religion may not be a favor to its followers no matter if it is true - and till now there never was a war religion which proved itself true - sometimes strong, but never a proof for that there was a god behind it. Not ever for any of the war religions through the times.
047 57/12d: "- - - their (Muslims'*) Light - - -". Their faith Islam, or the "light" given by the Quran. But there is little real religious light in a book too full of errors to derive from a god.
048 67/23d: "- - - little thanks do ye (non-Muslims*) give (Allah*)". There are little thanks as long as we honestly believe Allah has done nothing for us, yes, that he does not even exist.
049 82/9a: "- - - ye (non-Muslims and perhaps bad Muslims*) do reject Right - - -". The intended meaning here is that Islam represents what is right - which only is correct if Islam - the Quran and Muhammad - told the full truth and only the truth. Which is not the case. And even then it is a question if a religion with ethical, moral, judicial, etc. codes and rules like in Islam can be "right".
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.
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 and coorupt the quranic texts.
49 comments. Sub-total = 3399 + 49 = 3448.
>>> 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".