Allah in the Quran, Chapter 39

 

Chapter 39

ALLAH -- A GOD OF WAR

 

001 Islam - and the Quran and Muhammad - claim that Allah is a "god and benevolent god" (and that "Islam is the Religion of Peace"). But the Quran - the surahs from Medina - leave no doubt whatsoever about the fact that Allah as described in the Medina parts of the Quran is a pure, harsh and bloodthirsty god. A god of war. And as the surahs from Medina are younger than the ones from Mecca, the ones from Medina dominates according to Islam's rules for so-called abrogation - making (normally) the oldest verse(s) invalid when younger ones conflict with the older.

002 But a couple of questions remain:

  1. Why did not Allah become a war god until just at the time when Muhammad in Medina started to need warriors for his raids for riches? (Around 622 - 624 AD.) He hardly was a god of war in Mecca before 622 AD.
  2. And as the Quran and all its errors are from no god, and thus not from Heaven, who are really the maker of all the glorification of war, all the promises of help from Allah, and all the promises of rich loot in this life and a fantastic next life - especially for those who were killed in Allah's(?) raids and wars?.
  3. There only remain 2 possibilities: A human brain (f.x. Muhammad's) - mentally ill or not - or the dark forces.

A most chilling fact.

In this chapter you will find points which directly or indirectly show that Allah was a god of war. Read the Quran, and you will find many more such points, especially of the indirect kind.

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

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

003

"In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful". Please read the surahs from Medina, the immoral parts of the Muslim moral code, the unjust/immoral parts of sharia, and the Quran's and Allah's rules for lying, thieving/looting, enslaving, raids and wars, plus the rules for treatment of girls and women - free and captives - and see if you agree. Always when there is a distance between words and corresponding given rules, demands, and deeds, we personally believe in the rules, demands, and deeds. Glorious words are cheap, given rules, demands, and deeds are reliable. Glorifying words and claims are too cheap for anyone to use and disuse - when you read, judge from realities, not from propaganda.

004 2/98a: "Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and Messengers (included Muhammad*) - - - lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith". Included an enemy to those who opposes Muhammad.

005 2/153b: “Seek help with patient Perseverance and Prayer, for Allah is with those who patiently persevere.” Keep struggling and the enemy gives in. Non-Muslims should never forget that this is hammered into all Muslims - - - and too often correct, especially when fighting democracies, as democracies have difficulties keeping on struggling for a long time if they are not forced to - there always are fractions who want the struggle or fighting to be terminated.

006 2/154a: “And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: ‘They are dead’. Nay, they are living (and enjoy a luxury life with lots of sex in Paradise*) - - -.” Go to war – the worst which can happen to you is a quick way to a royal Earth-like life with a royal harem in Paradise - see 10/9f below. (The possibility of f.x. becoming an invalid is never mentioned - never).

007 2/190a: "Fight in the cause of Allah - - -". A clear order. And a convenient order for Muhammad (and for his successors), as this here on Earth in reality meant "fight for Muhammad when he wants".

008 2/190c: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you - - -". This is one of the fundamentals behind the sharia laws concerning war - except that soon it was not necessary that "they" were fighting the Muslims - most Muslim wars and raids were wars of aggression (mainly for riches, slaves, power and spreading Islam). Later all the 4 main "law schools" agreed on that the fact that the other part was non-Muslim, was enough reason for declaring jihad - holy war - against them. This point of view was not even questioned in Islam until around 1930, and then because of influence from western thinking.

009 2/190d: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you - - -". This is nice on the paper and in propaganda. The reality is that practically all Muhammad's raids and wars were wars of aggression - included Badr, Uhud, and The Trench (battles of defense in a war of aggression started and kept alive by Muhammad's raiding of caravans, etc.). As far as we have been able to find out, this was the general picture all the way up through the history, until Europe became too strong for them. In addition: All the 4 law schools in Islam agreed on that the fact that an opponent - or not even an opponent, but a land Muslims wanted to conquer - was Pagan, was reason enough to declare Jihad = Holy War of Defense (theoretically Jihad only can be a war of defense, but the way Islam or at least a large percentage of Muslims define "defense", this restriction is just a joke - though convenient to use in debates and propaganda).

010 2/191f: “- - - fight them (non-Muslims - in this case most likely originally the old regime that still ruled in Mecca*) not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there, but if they fight you there, slay them.” Even at sacred ground it is just to kill. Of course if there really is no way to calm down a situation, what has to be done has to be done. But as a general order as the only answer to use, it tells something about Islam. Proof for what it tells? - when conquering Mecca in 630 AD, Muhammad had one of his opponents murdered in the Kabah mosque itself, and he was not even fighting; the Muslims just murdered him there on Muhammad's specific order.

Honest words for your money.

##011 2/193a: "And fight them (non-Muslims*) until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah". More clear words for your money.

012 2/195a: “And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, - - - “. This may or may not mean: Give money to the war for Islam. It is likely that it means this, as the same text translated from a Swedish Quran, (NB: Certified by Al-Azhar Al-Sharif Islamic Research Academy, Cairo) reads: “Give to (the fight for) the cause of Allah”. (It is no secret that many - very many - Muslims give money and help to such fight, included to terrorist organizations. This even though reports in newspapers in Scandinavia indicate that Muslims give little or nothing to international relief or help organizations.)

013 2/207a: “And there is the type of man who gives his life to earn the pleasure of Allah; and Allah is full of kindness to (His) devotees”. The ideal way of living is to die for Allah/Muhammad.

And at the same time Muhammad and all later Muslim leaders or terrorist leaders have cheap, ferocious fighters. If Allah does not exist, it was/is an even more profitable deal for Muhammad and his successors.

####014 2/216a: “Fighting is prescribed for you (Muslims*) - - -.” A more direct verbal incitement is difficult to find, unless it is accompanied by threats and/or promises of wealth, power/status and women – in this and/or the next life - - - like it is in the Quran.

###015 2/216b: “Fighting is prescribed for you (Muslims*) - - -.” Incompatible with the Bible. Incompatible with OT except for making and safeguarding a Jewish national territory, totally incompatible with NT except perhaps in sheer self defense. (Christians have sinned against this, but the Bible is clear: "You shall not kill".) Also incompatible with good moral codes. The same very clear fact: Yahweh and Allah not the same god, Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion. And Allah clearly a god of war.

016 2/216e: “- - - But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you (to fight in war*), and that you love a thing (peace*) that is bad for you.” No comments except a question: Did you ever meet a person telling that Islam is a peaceful religion? - "the Religion of Peace"? Or Allah a god of peace? Did you in case ask him if Islam also is "the Religion of Honesty"?

017 2/216i: “- - - Allah knoweth (what is good for you and whether you went to war or not*) - - -“. Incentive for war with added threat of punishment in the next life if not. And one point of some weight: Here on Earth it was Muhammad who told what Allah thought was wise and good. At least that was how Muhammad told it.

018 2/218b: “- - - those (Muslims*) who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of Allah - they have the hope of the Mercy of Allah: - - -”. Many of the first Muslims in Mecca had to flee from the town and had a rough time. But general meaning: Fight for Allah and be likely to go to Paradise (and if you are killed for Allah, you are sure to go there). That is to say: If Allah exists - and is correctly described in the Quran.

There exists a letter dated 27. Dec. 1998, where it is admitted rather reluctantly that there are no proofs for Allah, and that it is not possible to prove him. Actually that is part of a wider fact: It is not possible for humans to prove a god. This only a god can do (by doing something supernatural). And this is very clear: Neither Allah nor Muhammad produced a single proof for Allah, in spite of many requests. (But Jesus did give many proofs for Yahweh and for himself according to both the Quran and the Bible - if at least one of them speaks the truth.)

019 2/218c: “- - - those (Muslims*) who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of Allah - they have the hope of the Mercy of Allah: - - -”. Especially as practically all Muhammad's raids and wars were acts of aggression, this is incompatible with especially NT. (Perhaps war in self defense is permitted in NT. In OT this clearly is permitted, as was war to make room for a Jewish nation. In contrast Muhammad's and Muslims' raids and wars nearly always were acts of aggression for riches, captives, land, power and spreading Islam - f.x. most of Arabia and large areas outside Arabia were converted to Islam by the sword (and even more areas by different kinds of pressure backed by the sword).

###020 2/244a: “Then fight in the cause of Allah - - -". An order not possible to misunderstand - from the good idol Muhammad leading the claimed "religion of peace" of the war god Allah.

###021 2/244b: “Then fight in the cause of Allah - - -". Nearly all armed conflicts Muhammad had, were acts of aggression. Totally incompatible at least with NT. As for OT, it permitted war, but for the limited purpose to create and defend a Jewish state, whereas most of Muhammad's conflicts were raids for riches and some for power and/or for spreading his new religion + in a few cases for revenge.

###022 2/244d: “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah heareth and knoweth all things.” An order not possible to misunderstand + incitement + hint about reward for war and hint about punishment if you do not go to war. The religion of peace? A god of peace?

023 2/244f: "- - - Allah heareth and knoweth all things." One of the innumerable not documented claims you find in the Quran - but some of them (like this one) acted as good "whips" for obedience and discipline from their followers to leaders (included Muhammad). But also see 2/233h above and 35/38b below.

024 2/245b: “Who is he that will loan Allah a beautiful loan, which Allah will double unto his credit and multiply many times?” In the Quran the expression “loan Allah a beautiful loan” as said just above, normally means to risk your life – or lose it – in war, but sometimes it also may mean to give money to Muhammad, mainly for war purposes. In both cases no repayment is promised in this world – only in the next. A most cheap way in this world for Muhammad to finance his wars and get willing warriors – especially if the religion is made up and Allah does not exist or if there is a god, but a different one from the claimed god you meet in the Quran, and who consequently is not bound by Muhammad’s words.

025 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.

026 2/253h: “If Allah had so willed, succeeding generations would not have fought among each other - - -”. Is it then f.x. the will of Allah that Muslims have fought and killed and murdered and raped and suppressed also each other for 1400 years? Not to mention what they have done to outsiders? In that case Allah is no good and benevolent god - if he exists.

027 2/268c: "Allah promiseth you - - - bounties". At least if you go to war and can steal it yourself in his name (it is a lot extra despising to do it in the name of their god - what kind of god and what kind of culture is this?)

028 3/13ba: "- - - fight in the cause of Allah - - -". Any comments necessary?

029 3/125a: “Yea – if you remain firm - - - your Lord (Allah*) would help you with five thousand angels making a terrific onslaughter”. Go to war in the secure knowledge that Allah sends large battalions of soldiering angels fighting beside you. It is not explained why an omnipotent god had/has to send angles and by the thousands to strain your enemy’s forces to give you a better chance to win. But a mighty pep-talk for believers – especially the uneducated and/or naïve ones. But again: Why does an omnipotent god have to bring his followers to war to strengthen his position? If it was Muhammad who wanted more power and more riches to use for bribes and more power and women, the logic is easy to understand, but an omniscient and omnipotent god - - -?

030 3/127a: "- - - He (Allah*) might cut off a fringe of the Unbelievers to expose them to infamy, and then they should be turned back, frustrated in their purpose". Pep-talk for war/fighting.

031 3/138c: "Here (in Allah's Quran*) is - - - a guidance and instruction to those who fear Allah". And a central instruction is: "Wage war for Allah and for Muhammad".

032 3/140b: "Such days (of varying fortunes) We (Allah*) give to men and men by turns". A wise warlord prepares his warriors also for the lost skirmishes, and imprints that next time it is your turn to win.

033 3/142c: "- - - (fight*) (in His (Allah's*) Cause - - -". As the Quran with all its errors is not from any god, it is a very open question if the raids and wars were and are in Allah's cause.

Very different from the Bible and especially from NT.

034 3/144e: "- - - Allah - - - would swiftly reward those who (served Him) with gratitude". If he exists. If he in addition is a god. If he is behind what is told in the Quran. And if the Quran in addition tells the full and only truth on this point.

####But remember as for punishment and rewards - and forgiving: They cannot be given unless there are made changes in the Plan of Allah, which several verses in the Quran states nobody and nothing can make. (A predestined reward is not a reward, but theater.)

ALSO: THE REALLY ESSENTIAL POINT OF THE TWO QUOTES IN 3/144 IS THAT FOR ONE THING MUHAMMAD HIMSELF IN THE QURAN STATES THAT HE HAS NO SUPERNATURAL POWER, AND THAT THIS FACT IS CONFIRMED BY ISLAM - HERE AND MANY OTHER PLACES. THIS KILLS ALL THE CLAIMS FROM MUSLIMS ABOUT THE FORETELLINGS AND WONDERFUL MIRACLES MUHAMMAD PERFORMED - EVEN THE CLAIMS IN THE HADITHS. THIS AND SOME OTHER VERSES - SE JUST BELOW - PROVE THAT THOSE STORIES JUST ARE MADE UP LEGENDS - - - AND THAT THE COLLECTORS OF HADITHS DID NOT DO A PROPER JOB.

Muhammad unable to make miracles: 3/144, 7/188, 10/49, 17/93, 72/21.

Muhammad unable to make prophesies: 3/144, 6/50, 7/188, 10/20, 27/65, 46/9, 72/26, 81/24.

*035 3/146a: “How many of the Prophets fought (in Allah’s way) - - -". Exactly no-one of the known prophets from the Bible. The very few of the known ones of them who took part in fighting, fought for earthly reasons. None took part in a religious war. The wars you find in OT (there is none in NT) were political ones or punishment of the Jews from Yahweh. There were no wars to spread the mosaic religion, as contrast to "holy wars" - jihads - fought by Muslims.

*036 3/146b: “How many of the Prophets fought (in Allah’s way), and with them fought large bands of godly men? But they never lost heart if they met with disaster in Allah’s way, nor did they weaken (in will) nor give in. And Allah loves those who are firm and steadfast.” A pep-talk to warriors of all times - never give in, never give up, retreat if you have to, but go on and you will win like the prophets, because Allah will help - - - and sooner or later the lover of religious warriors, Allah, will give you Paradise. Like in the Old Norse religion and other war religions.

037 3/146c: “And Allah loves those who are firm and steadfast (in battle*)”. Another mighty incitement to primitive warriors – and terrorists - with strong belief.

But Mr. Obama and others should have remembered this about being steadfast.

And it indicates that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and proves that Jesus and Muhammad were not in the same religion.

038 3/147c: “- - - and help us against those that resist Faith”. Allah will help if you fight for Islam - or for Islamic leaders telling they defend Ummah and Islam. This is from 625 AD – the Medina period. It could have been meant as defensive help, but then one would have used “from”, not “against”. 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, 51/50-51a, 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 in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". (At least 88 contradictions).

Psychologically a mighty incitement and a strength for upping the fighting spirit, especially with uneducated, primitive warriors or fanatics.

BUT YOU DO NOT FIND THIS KIND OF PROPHETS IN THE BIBLE. THERE WERE A FEW WHO WERE IMPLICATED IN WARS, BUT THAT WAS FOR MAKING OR DEFENDING THE COUNTRY, N O T FOR THE GOD OR THE RELIGION LIKE IN THE QURAN.

039 3/148a: “And Allah gave them (the warriors) a reward in this world (and will consequently give it to you if you fight bravely*) and the excellent reward of the Hereafter”. 80% of the spoils of war - included slaves and women - were for the warriors and their leaders (the remaining 20% were for Allah/Muhammad/the religious leaders - which soon also became political leaders). Women made slaves were fun, because to rape female slaves was your right and no sin. In addition: To do battle for Islam was - and is - a “heavy” application for Paradise, and a sure way to get there no matter what kind of life you have led, if you are killed in battle for Islam (which soon also meant - and means - an easy way for the leaders to recruit warriors). But it is a strange fact that leaders never become suicide bombers. (The Quran tells that suicide is a sin deserving Hell (is this told - or "explained" away - to the suicide bombers?) + perhaps the leaders do not like to die yet?)

040 3/148d: “For Allah loveth those who do good (in this case: To wage war for Allah and Muhammad*)”. To do battle for Allah - to steal and burn and kill and murder and destroy and rape for the good and benevolent deity - is a good thing which Allah loves. (Actually that it shall be made in the name of the god, makes it even more disgusting.) Did anyone say that modern terrorists have to twist the words of the Quran to find incitements to their deeds? And also: Muhammad got cheap warriors and gained wealth and power - in wars and robberies which really were illegal according to the Quran, as they in reality were wars of aggression, not really of defense. And they gave him the possibility to rape at least two women - Rayhana bint Amr and Safijja bint Huayay (and Marieh, too, likely had no possibility to refuse).

041 3/152c: “Allah did indeed fulfill His promise to you when ye with His permission were about to annihilate your enemy - until you flinched and fell to disputing about the order, and disobeyed it- - -”. This refers to the battle of Uhud - the second battle between the forces of Muhammad and Mecca - 5 km from Medina. In this battle the Meccans had greater forces, but it is a military truth that it is easier to defend than to attack - compare f.x. to Napoleon vs. Wellington’s inferior forces at Waterloo until Blücher and his Germans arrived, or Malta in 1565 - some 40ooo Muslim warriors vs. a little better than 1ooo defenders (+ some 8ooo locals taking some parts in the fighting), where the attackers had to withdraw after many weeks of battle (from May 18. to September 8.), and partly because of this lost the hegemony in the Mediterranean Sea. Or for that case Malta during WW2: Small British forces plus the locals vs. nominally hugely superior Italian and some German forces - but Malta never fell.

At Uhud Muhammad’s forces seemed to be winning. But the archers did want to get their parts of the spoils, and left their defending positions - - - and the battle turned. Politely said it ended in a draw (Muhammad in reality lost the battle), and Muhammad lost lots of men. It got no further serious consequences, though, as Mecca did not come back until much later, and then Medina and Muhammad were prepared (the Battle of the Trench, which Muhammad won - the last real battle with Mecca. Well, actually it was no real battle, just a siege, from which the Meccans had to withdraw in the end).

But in this case the lesson seemed to be: Allah kept his word as long as the warriors obeyed Muhammad - and Allah. When they stopped doing that, things went wrong. Or at least it was explained like this. Lesson: Allah keeps his words and Allah helps in battle, as long as you obey his - or really the religious (often the same as the political) leader's - orders. Terrorists and warriors: Obey Allah and your leaders = at that time Muhammad.

####042 3/154e: “Even if you had remained in your homes, those for whom death was decreed would certainly have gone forth to the place of their death (anyhow*).” This is the "manifest" of predestination. And: #####This also is one of the points in the Quran where Muhammad knew he was lying. It is so obviously wrong, that an intelligent man like him knew this was not true. But he was a clever manipulator (f.x. “is it not more worth that I live among you, and spend the booty on the people not sure in their belief to make them stay in Islam?”) and he understood people. Lies like this worked because his followers were primitive and in addition wanted to believe. And for primitive, uneducated souls really believing mish-mash like this (it is easy to prove by statistics that it is untrue, if one is un-intelligent enough not to see at once that it is a lie) it was a mighty incitement – fighting in battles was not dangerous, because Allah had decided when you were to die, and at that time you would die whether you were in a battle or sleeping in your bed. It is worth noticing that even today this is the official point of view of Islam. To quote footnote 3/119 to this surah in “The Message of the Quran” (translated from the Swedish 2006 edition - not found in the English 2008 edition):

“(The) incorrect, heathen belief that humans by acting in special ways can avoid death (even for a time*)”.

Unbelievable!!

Today it like said is easy to prove by statistics that it is very wrong - but Muhammad did not know about statistics (and a god had not even needed statistics to know it was stupidity - and the same for Muhammad, as the claim in 3/154e is too hopeless and naive). This claim is so contra all logic, that this like said is one of the points where Muhammad knew he was lying - he was too intelligent to believe in this. Actually Islam today back-pedals very much concerning predestination telling f.x. that the Quran does not mean real predestination (but not explaining what they claim it means). But in some cases the book is so clear, that it is impossible to explain it away), f.x. many places connected to statements that when your time is out, you will die anyhow, and therefore you can as well go to war.

043 3/155a: “Those of you who turned back on the day the two hosts met (300 men left Uhud before the battle, leaving 700 to fight, according to Islamic sources*) - it was Satan who caused them to fail, - - -.” It is Satan who makes you not want to do or be too afraid to take part in battles - do you want to be a friend of Satan? A mighty incitement for fighting for Muhammad (and Allah?) and Islam (or sometimes for leaders using or disusing the religion for personal gain or power - like money and slaves for bribes, women for personal use and above all power).

##044 3/157a: “And if ye are slain, or die, in the way of Allah - - -". But is it really in the way of Allah, when the Quran is not from any god, included Allah?

##045 3/157b: “And if ye are slain, or die, in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass”. Nearly no matter how bad a man (nothing is said about women) you have been, to be killed for Allah is the sure way to go to Paradise. A mighty - and cheap - way to get warriors.

The old Vikings “knew” that if they were killed in battle, they went to Valhalla - that made them ferocious warriors. In Islam the sure way to Paradise with its lazy luxury life and plenty of women, had and has the same effect.

There are two questions, though: Who decides which wars are wanted by Allah? - if you look at history, it seems that a lot/most of the wars Muslims have fought, in reality were for wealth and power, but mostly they all the same have been declared Holy Wars, a few times even by both sides when both parts were Muslims. And: What if the Quran is invented or not telling the full truth? - all the mistakes and contradictions, etc. in the book make one wonder (or stronger). At least no god makes such a quality book. If the Quran is not from a god, this promise of Paradise also is not true.

In the wars between Sunni and Shi’ia and in power struggles among leaders, a lot of warriors have been cheated - both parts in a war between Muslims cannot be fighting for Allah and the “right” belief, but all warriors on both sides often were told they fought against enemies of Allah. If at least one part was right, the warriors from the opposite part had a rude awakening in Hell, even if they were told and believed they were fighting enemies of Allah. Not to mention when all was a struggle for power among leaders, and Allah did not agree at all that any of them were fighting for him - they only were sinning by killing fellow Muslims “without a good reason”, which is a grave sin worthy of Hell.

And even worse: If the Quran is made up or does not tell the truth on this point, no comment is necessary. Especially not if there exists another, true religion somewhere - a religion Muslims are prohibited to look for. Where will the Muslims end in case if there is a next life?

As for Allah forgiving: Also see 2/187d and 67/9c above.

##046 3/158a: “And if ye die, or are slain, lo! It is unto Allah that ye are brought together”. Be killed in war for Allah, and go to paradise - good “knowledge” for a warrior or terrorist. Whoever said the Quran has to be disused to justify terrorism, hardly ever read the Quran - or uses an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie - this "convenient" Islamic only phenomenon). See also 3/157b above.

047 3/167c: "- - - fight in the way of Allah - - -". That the raids and wars were and partly are made in the name of the god, make them even more detestable, especially as most of them were raids and wars of aggression - mainly for riches, slaves, and power - and for spreading Islam by means of the sword directly and indirectly.

##048 3/169a: “Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live - - - in the presence of their Lord (Allah*)”. What better can a warrior ask for? - and thinking like that, they made - and make - cheap warriors for Muslim leaders. But what if Muhammad made it all up, or if the dark forces deceived him into believing he talked on behalf of a god? - at least no god made the Quran with that many mistakes, etc. So where will all the Muslims in reality end, if there is a next life?

##049 3/169b: “Nay, they (dead Muslim warriors*) live - - - in the presence of their Lord (Allah*)”. One more of the very many cases in the Quran where one has to say: If Allah exists. If Allah really is a god. If Allah is behind what is told in the Quran. And if the Quran tells the full and only truth on this point. (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 - if any - is in case the correct one?)

###050 3/172b: "- - - those who answered the call of Allah (for fighting*) and the Messenger (Muhammad*), even after being wounded - - -". This is one of the few places in the Quran where the 3. alternative; to be wounded, is mentioned - normally only "the two glorious" alternatives victory and death (= Paradise according to the Quran) are mentioned. And here it is not mentioned as a possible outcome of a fight, but mentioned only to glorify the ones who fight on even if they are wounded. "The Religion of Peace"!??

051 3/172j: "- - - a great reward". Paradise. It takes a special kind of god and religion to have a paradise - and one full of mainly bodily pleasures only - as the reward for fighting and killing, raping and stealing, mutilating and suppressing. And to make it extra repulsive: All atrocities and inhumanities are to be done in the name of the god!

052 3/174a: “And they returned (from war) with Grace and Bounty from Allah: no harm ever touched them - - -”. A fairy tale picture of war and easy riches. A good pep talk for recruiting new warriors if the men are uneducated and naïve. Glorifying war and spoils of war attracts new warriors. The larger the “army” the better chance of success and power for leaders.

But never a word about the catastrophes for the victims and for the destroyed cultures, etc. Compassion and empathy nearly does not exist in the Quran - and definitely not concerning non-Muslims.

053 3/174c: "- - - they (Muslims at war*) followed the good pleasure of Allah - - -". That his followers wage war is the good pleasure of Allah. "The religion of peace"? - a god of peace? If you are sufficient naive or indoctrinated, you may be able to believe this.

054 3/174e: "- - - Allah is the Lord of bounties unbounded". This may refer to the claimed next life or to the material fact that in and around Arabia there were rich people and countries to conquer and steal from or enslave.

055 3/175a: “It is only Satan that suggests to you the fear (of battles*)”. Who wants to be the subject of Satan - it is better to fear Allah and Muhammad and not shy away from fighting.

But what if the theory that the Quran is delivered by the dark forces is correct?

056 3/186a: “You shall certainly be tried and tested - - -”. Difficulties are just Allah’s way of testing you, and you do not pass the test unless you keep fighting. (But why does an omniscient and predestining god need to test you? - he knows everything already. There is no logic in this, not unless it is Muhammad who needs this argument as a carrot and a whip to strengthen his warriors' will to fight, or to "explain" why raids (for wealth mainly) and wars were "necessary".)

057 3/195d: “- - - those who have - - - fought or been slain – verily, I (Allah*) will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens - - -.” An unbeatable and cheap incitement for recruiting real believers to war: Be killed in war and go directly to Paradise no matter what great a sinner you have been before.

But: It definitely is no proved verity/truth.

##058 3/195f: “- - - those who have left their homes, or been driven out therefrom, or suffered harm in My (Allah’s*) cause, or fought or been slain - verily, I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into (Paradise*)”. This has two messages: 1):Persons who are persecuted for being Muslims and also warriors who go out to fight for Islam - they are the same, and 2): Both will end in Paradise. Many a terrorist has left his home, he may intend to fight - or at least call what he does a fight. With a bit of luck - or on purpose - he may die for the “cause”. Excellent - next stop is paradise, nearly no matter what sins you have done before. Did anyone say that the Quran had to be disused to incite to hate, killing, rape, war and terrorism?

####Well, there is another message implicated: Allah will change his Plan for you and not punish you for your sins, but instead accept you to his Paradise, if you - in spite of or because of his Plan? - are killed when fighting for him. (There is much hopeless logic in the Quran.)

But what if the Quran - and Allah - are made up? - at least the Quran with all its errors is not from any god.

059 4/57b: "- - - deeds of righteousness - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is meant in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code - f.x. one of the very best deeds is to fight and kill and steal and suppress for Muhammad and his claimed god.

##060 4/71c: “O ye who believe! Take your precautions, and either go forth (in war*) in parties or go forth all together”. You find nothing like this in NT (and like in the Quran the newer parts - NT - normally supersedes the older ones - OT). One more of the many points which alone prove that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, not to mention Jesus not in the same religion as Muhammad - and then there are all the other proofs in addition.

*061 4/74a: “Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter”. If you are willing to exchange your life here on Earth for a future life in Paradise, you should be permitted to - and qualified to - wage war for Allah. (Only let us hope you are not cheated. If something is wrong in the Quran - and at least a huge number of facts and much of the logic are wrong - you may be in for quite a surprise if there is a next life. Not to mention what a rude awakening you will have if Islam is a dreamed-up religion, and there is another religion which is true. But in the meantime Muslim leaders have a cheap source for power, warriors and terrorists).

One more of the many points which alone proves that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, not to mention Jesus not in the same religion as Muhammad - and then there are all the other proofs in addition.

062 4/74c: “To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah - whether he is slain or gets victory - - -". Notice that the Quran "never" talks about the 3. alternative: The ones who becomes invalids. In any non-atomic battle there normally are to the size of 10 wounded for each killed. A good percentage of these will be so seriously hurt, that they never regain their health, and become a burden to their families instead of a plus. The book also never mentions the situation for families and children who have to live on with an invalid - or dead - father. May be Allah forgot this alternative?

063 4/75a: “And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah - - -?" The most clear-cut reason is that all the mistakes in the Quran, makes it clear that something is seriously wrong + it makes it as clear that there is no god behind the book - no god makes such and so many errors. And when there is no god behind a religion, you do not fight for a god if you go to war for the religion.

064 4/75c: “And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women and children (crying for help and rescue*) - - -.” Muhammad’s version of the glorious hero on the white horse - and "forgetting" to add "- and power and riches for Muhammad". Another inciting dream "pushed" by good psychology - claimed help to women and children is a good motif. Especially when the men know there are loot and rape and slaves to take in addition.

Actually this is one of the more disgusting sayings connected to war: Everybody know and knew that the main thing was power and riches and slaves and rape. Then this is immoral use of moral reasons. But then Islam always after it became a religion of war, was "the Religion of Dishonesty".

###065 4/76b: “Those who believe (Muslims*) fight in the cause of Allah - - -". This is about as far from NT as you can come. Allah and Yahweh the same god? One more of the many points which alone prove that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and then there are all the other proofs in addition. Jesus and Muhammad in the same religion? - believe it if you are able to.

066 4/76i: “- - - fight ye against the friends of Satan - - -“. Of course you want to do that – and of course all non-Muslims are friends of Satan. Hate mongering. There is more like this in the Quran.

*067 4/77b: “Our Lord! Why hast Thou ordered us to fight?” This is a question from a Muslim not wanting to fight (though see 4/77a just above) - and we should remember that after all today they are the majority (but the trouble for non-Muslims is that it is difficult and impossible to know who are terrorists, who are helping terrorists, who give money to terrorists, who has sympathy with terrorism and who are just plain - and often sympathetic - humans). But the verse makes it very clear - as do many other verses in the Quran - that war for the religion is a duty and an order. Who said that terrorists have to disuse the Quran to find incitement and reasons?

###068 4/84a: “Then fight in Allah’s cause - - -.” One more verse which contradicts and abrogates many of the peaceful verses from mainly Mecca and early Medina (this is from 626 AD and the harsher religion Islam had developed into). At least 10 contradictions and as many abrogations. Remember that when the Quran talks about fight, it normally always means armed combat (as opposed to NT where it refers to intellectual conflict).

###069 4/84b: “Then fight in Allah’s cause - - -”. The religion of peace? - from a good and benevolent god?

###070 4/84c: “Then fight in Allah’s cause - - -.” This one is strongly contradicted both by OT (where one fought first to establish a country and later to defend it, and definitely not for the god), and even far more - 180 degrees opposite - by NT (which does not accept physical fighting at all - "turn the other cheek"). One of the many points in the Quran which singlehanded prove that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion - and then there are all the other proofs.

071 4/84d: "- - - rouse the Believers (to armed combat*)". May be this is what some imams, mullahs and others are doing? Well, drop "may be".

###############072 4/89-90a: "But if they (Muslims*) turn renegades (leave/oppose Islam*), seize them and slay them wherever you find them; and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks; Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining from fighting you as well as fighting their own people." Background for the sharia laws.

###############073 4/89-90b: "But if they (Muslims*) turn renegades (leave/oppose Islam*), seize them and slay them wherever you find them; and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks; Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining from fighting you as well as fighting their own people." Such killing is totally opposed by the moral rules in NT - totally. One more of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and Jesus and Muhammad thus not in the same religion - and then there are all the other proofs in addition.

###074 4/90b: “- - - hearts restraining them (persons from the enemies*) from fighting you as well as fighting their own people”. The ideal is fighting for Muhammad/Allah. One of the many points in the Quran which singlehanded prove that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion - and then there are all the other proofs.

075 4/94c: "When ye (Muslims*) go abroad in the cause of Allah (here: To wage war - this expression often in the Quran is synonymous with waging war*) - - -". To go abroad to fight in the cause of the god is unheard of in OT and strongly contradicted by the thinking and moral rules in NT. One more of the proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

##076 4/95c: “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive in the cause of Allah with their goods and their person." You find nothing similar to this in the Bible. In OT the Jews fought to gain a country and later to defend it, in NT physical fighting is not accepted at all. One more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

077 4/95d: "- - - strive in the cause of Allah - - -". In the Quran this expression normally means to wage war on claimed behalf of Allah and Muhammad and later leaders.

#078 4/95g: “Unto all (in Faith (= all Muslims*)) hath Allah promised good: but those who strive hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by special reward -.” Are any comments necessary? - except f.x. compare this to NT. The Quran is war and murder. Compare it to the pacifistic and anti-war NT or f.x. Buddhism!

What a nice verse for a terrorist!

But what if the Quran is a made up book? - by man or dark forces? (with all its mistakes, etc. it is not from any god). Where will Muslims end if there is a next life?

#079 4/95i: “Unto all (in Faith (= all Muslims*)) hath Allah promised good: but those who strive hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by special reward -". Strongly contradicted by especially NT - in NT physical fighting is not accepted at all. One more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and one of those many proofs which each alone proves this. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible 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.

080 4/95+96a: “- - - those who strive hath Allah distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward – Ranks specially bestowed by Him (Allah*), and Forgiveness (for anything if you are killed in battle*) and Mercy.” No doubt who is the best Muslim and what is the best deed in Islam – the warrior and the war are most pleasing to Allah. (To call Islam “The religion of peace” is an insult to the intelligence of everybody who has read the surahs from Medina with an open mind.)

As for forgiveness see 4/43h and 4/64g - and 2/187d - above.

But remember as for punishment and rewards - and forgiving: They cannot be given unless there are made changes in the Plan of Allah, which several verses in the Quran states nobody and nothing can make. (A predestined reward is not a reward, but theater.)

081 4/141b: “And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers”. Go to war – in the long run you are sure to win. The development seemed to justify this verse for Muslims for 110 years - they lost battles, but hardly ever a war, at least not as they stormed westwards. Not until they lost the war in France against Carl Martell (battle of Tours in 732 AD). That made an impression - at least for some - and for a time made some doubt the infallibility of the Quran. The same effect - and stronger - one got over the losses against the west during the 1800s and early 1900. Allah - why did he not let Muslims win?

But the verse is meant as pep talk. And an efficient pep talk it really is. Most active Muslims expect to win total power on Earth sooner or later in accordance with Allah’s/Muhammad’s word.

Will it be like living in Saudi Arabia, Algeria, North Pakistan, Libya, Ethiopia, or Iran? Or Afghanistan?

082 4/141c: "And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers". Wrong. This has happened many, many times.

083 5/12g: “- - - and loan to Allah a beautiful loan - - -.” This normally is “Quran-speak” for “risk or lose your life in battle for Muhammad and Allah”. In just this case it is claimed to be said to the Jews of old times, which gave it double value: A good pep-talk and “documenting” that messengers wanting war, was nothing new.

084 5/35c: “Do your duty to Allah, seek the means of approach unto Him, and strive with might and mind (= make war*) in His Cause: that ye may prosper”. You prosper if you do like this. Islam after fighting non-religious knowledge for a few centuries (to ca. 1100 AD - or actually 1095 AD in the eastern and central Muslim area and ca. 1198 in the western) found that there was no prosperity in thinking and researching and studying - except just studying and repeating the religion and related subjects - to fight and steal/rob/suppress/enslave on the other hand was good. The result was stagnation after some time, and not prosperity. Also see 5/35b just above.

085 5/35d: “- - - strive with might and main (normally in the Quran this means “fight in war”*) in His (Allah’s*) cause.” A clear order. Islam "the religion of peace" like Muslims often claim? Or Allah a god of peace?

086 5/35f: “- - - strive with might and main (see 5/35a-b just above*) in His (Allah’s*) cause: that you may prosper.” Fight for Allah (and Muhammad) – then you may get a prosperous life. The alternative - death - was glorious. The alternative war cripple is never mentioned in the Quran. Only the "two glorious fates": Rich from stealing/loot, or dead and in Paradise. 20-30-40 years as a cripple dependant on others or as a beggar because you were too much hurt to work - may be in pain - such alternatives are never mentioned. The same for what about your children and your family if you are crippled or killed.

"The Religion of Peace".

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

####087 5/35g: “- - - strive with might and main (see 5/35a-b just above*) in His (Allah’s*) cause - - -”. For us this is one of the most detestable points in the entire Quran and Islam: Fight and steal and rob and mutilate and rape and enslave and hate and murder and suppress in the name of your god - a claimed good and benevolent god.

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

088 5/54d: "- - - a people (Muslims*) He (Allah*) will love as they will love Him - lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the Way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault". A mighty pep-talk for warfare. But the same god as you meet in NT and even in OT? - hopeless. One of the 120% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion (not to mention line of prophets)

And: Allah can love no-one unless he exists - and with little consequence unless he in addition is a god. Besides - how lovely is the love of a god of war?

089 5/54e: “- - - fighting in the way of Allah - - -”. Unlike when you fight for Jesus and Yahweh - and many other gods - with your brain and words and good deeds, when you fight for Muhammad and Allah you fight with weapons and wage war and terror, and is paid by loot and rape and slaves - the laudable thing to do according to the Quran. Or - ?

090 5/55a: "Your (Muslims'*) (real) friends are (no less than) Allah, His Messenger (Muhammad*), and the (fellowship of) Believers (Muslims*) - - -." Clear message: Non-Muslims are not your real friends - one step on the road to making an "enemy picture".

091 5/56f: "- - - the Fellowship of Allah that must certainly triumph". Pep-talk. Besides at least that Muslims "must certainly" triumph is wrong.

092 5/64i: "Every time they (here mainly the Jews*) kindle the fire of war - - -". Irony to say the least of it - and a lot of gall - as practically all raids, wars, and armed skirmishes during Muhammad's stay in Medina (82 in all? - one every 6 weeks!!) were initiated by and aggression from Muhammad and his followers.

093 6/45a: "Of the wrongdoers (non-Muslims*) the last remnant was cut off (killed*). Praise be to Allah - - -". Yes, praise be to Allah for that all non-Muslims and sinners there (actually many places) were killed - lots of millions of non-Muslims have been killed or murdered by Muslims. Tales like this in a claimed holy book plus the preaching in accordance with such verses has its effect on the mentality of the followers. This verse is one of the reasons for the disregard Muslims have for non-Muslims ("half human value? - or less?" - from a recent debate in Pakistan), and the disregard for other peoples' property and well-being and lives: Rape a girl in Eritrea - it is "lawful and good" as we call this a Jihad, and her well-being does not interest neither us nor Islam. Kill an American - if he had been old enough, he had had to pay tax to America, and thus he is guilty of fighting Islam and merits to be killed (believe it or not, but this argument really is not only used, but widespread: "All Americans are guilty and can be killed, because they (have to) pay tax to USA" - - - Jihad = "self defense in the widest meaning of the word", so wide that it is a parody).

####094 6/45b: "Of the wrongdoers (non-Muslims*) the last remnant was cut off (killed*). Praise be to Allah - - -". #########This "Praise be to Allah" is one of the points which makes Islam a morally sick and distasteful religion. A claimed benevolent and good god who is to be praised for stealing, rape, repeated atrocities, apartheid, slave taking, and mass murder, and for the reason they had another religion only - perhaps even a true one - is distasteful outside our vocabulary, and as wrong morally. We are sorry - we have big vocabularies from lives in reading and learning, but we do not have strong enough words for this.

095 7/4b: “How many towns have We (Allah) destroyed (for their sins)?” Some complain about Yahweh being harsh in OT. Some claim that Allah is a good and benevolent good. But if you read the Quran you will find that Allah has destroyed and killed many more than Yahweh - and if Allah = Yahweh like the Quran and Islam claim, Allah has made all the destruction and killing in the Bible (under the name of Yahweh), plus all the destruction and killing in the Quran, plus all the destruction and killing in the Hadiths, plus all the destruction and killing his followers have done till now through history in accordance with the Quran, plus all the destruction and killings the Muslims do today and will do in the future in accordance with the Quran's incitements and orders. A good and benevolent god and religion? The religion of peace? Those claims are insults to the intelligence of anyone who have studied the facts with an open mind. (One may counter that also Christians have caused destruction and deaths. But for one thing: Read the NT and you will see it is in spite of the texts there - the Bible sometimes has been disused for purposes of power or wealth - not because of the "holy" texts, like in the Quran. Even in OT the fighting was for a nation, not for a religion. And for another: Bad deeds by non-Muslims do not make bad deeds made by Muslims one molecule or atom better. And especially not so when it is done by religious demands and orders from their god - orders which are stated to last forever, until everybody else are "thoroughly suppressed" under the Muslims.

###096 7/28b: “Allah never commands what is shameful - - -.” This is contradicted by several points in the Quran, f.x.:

  1. 2/230: “If a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, remarry her until after she has married another husband and he has divorced her.” This situation is not common, but it does happen in a culture where divorce is as easy as in Islam. In Islam the woman then has to prostitute herself in legal forms, to be permitted to do so (the intermediate marriage has to be a “fulfilled" one).
  2. Slave taking and slavery are “lawful and good”.
  3. Raping female captives, included children, is ok and part of the reward for fighting for Allah.
  4. Killing and murdering and war are not only lawful and good, but the best service to Allah.
  5. A raped woman who cannot produce 4 male witnesses to the very act, is to be punishes severely for indecency.
  6. Allah commands/permits sex with children. For an adult to enjoy sex with a child is utterly shameful. For an adult to introduce a child to sex is inhuman and even more shameful. Muhammad even demonstrated that it was ok at least from the girl is 9 – and worse: She – Aishah - became his favorite wife the rest of her childhood.
  7. Allah commands that one can take slaves in a jihad - and any skirmish or war where Muslims are involved, is declared jihad. For many centuries (till ca. 1930 – 1940) all the four law schools of Islam said that if the opposite parts were pagans, this was good enough reason to declare jihad – which means that at least theoretically any slave hunter in Africa or Asia could claim to be waging jihad. To force fellow humans to become slaves, to toil for free for you, to be free for you to sell or mistreat or use for a sex toy, is utterly inhuman, utterly selfish, utterly immoral – and utterly shameful. Not to mention that it is grotesque acts to commit in the name of a presumed god and benevolent good.
  8. To rape a child captive/slave/victim is grotesquely selfish, immoral, inhuman and grotesquely shameful - - - but Allah has commanded that it is ok if the child is not pregnant - and over 9 years according to Islam (the age of Aishah when Muhammad started to have sex with her - anything Muhammad did is just and right). Actually there is no law in the Quran prohibiting sex with children younger than 9 years, too. Muhammad only made it clear that at least from 9 years on, it is ok. This in spite of the obvious fact that no 9-years-old - not to mention younger - is sexually mature.
  9. To rape any woman prisoner/slave/victim – a fellow human being – is nearly as selfish and shameful and bad as raping a child. But in the Quran it is “lawful and good” if the woman is not pregnant. That it is "lawful and good" and also practiced by Muhammad (he raped at least 2 women - Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay), may be a reason why rape is so common by Muslim warriors/soldiers. (Another possible reason is that empathy is not an integrated part of Islam - and the same with moral philosophy).
  10. To murder opponents – also personal opponents – in the name of a presumably good god is something much more than shameful.
  11. To incite to discrimination, hate and war, in the name of a presumably good god, is even worse than this again – and a proof for a god or a “prophet” full of hypocrisy.
  12. To steal/rob/plunder and extort in the name of such a god – and with his permission “lawful and good” - is nearly a bad and as much hypocrisy as raping and killing and apartheid/suppression. And to do so in the name of a god, makes the god, the religion and the acts even more perverted and distasteful. But all these points have this in common:
    1. They attract selfish warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
    2. They attract greedy warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
    3. They attract inhuman warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
    4. They attract primitive warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
    5. It is a cheap way for a robber “prophet” – and for his successors – to get an army – a cheap army and an inhuman army.
     

    097 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 “gifts” to attract more warriors/followers/believers and to keep some of the lukewarm-warm ones - - - and some for social use (help to the poor) and for his many women. Muslims try 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.
    2. And a moral point: A god accepting stealing, extortion, rape, slave taking, etc. - yes, actively uses it as arguments for going to war for him - what kind of god is that?
    3. And one more moral point: A god accepting stealing, extortion, rape, slave taking, etc. - yes, actively uses it as arguments for going to war for him - what kind of morality does he represent? Immorality?
    4. And: How omnipotent is a god needing humans to fight his wars?
     

    Are Yahweh and Allah the same god? Or Jesus and Muhammad in the same religion? The rules of war - and of spoils of war - are strong mathematical strength proofs to the fifth power for that none of those two never documented claims are true.

    098 8/1e: “(The spoils of war*) “are at the disposal of Allah and the Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -.” Incompatible with the Bible. One more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and for that Jesus and Muhammad were not in the same religion or the same line of prophets. Just try to think about Jesus demanding his share of things stolen in war, not to mention his share of slaves taken!! - the very thoughts are utterly impossible for anyone knowing NT. In OT it was permitted to take booty, but for the warriors. Only once (4. Mos. 31/28-29) did Yahweh ask for a share of the booty: 1 in 500 from half and 1 in 50 from the other half for the priests and Levites (the priest tribe). In NT there is no question about booty at all. Allah demands 1 in 5 if there was fighting and everything if the victims gave in without fighting. The same god? Just guess!! (When it comes to treatment of victims and also of their possessions, it is easy to think about the Mafia or the Triads, and about primitives and greed, when we read about Muhammad's and his Muslims' raids and wars - but not about somebody like Jesus).

    099 8/7a: “Allah promised you one of the two (enemy) parties - - -". The Muslim spies had reported a rich caravan to plunder. There is no documentation even in the Quran saying that Allah had promised it to them. And the army from Mecca they did not even know about, until they met it at Badr - absolutely not promised them.

    100 8/9ba: "I (Allah*) will assist you (Muslims*) with a thousand angels (doing battle*), ranks on ranks". But why do angels have to take part in battles if Allah is omnipotent? Yes, why do Muslims have to fight battles for him and die or become invalids? He just can say "Be, and it is", according to the Quran. Something is seriously wrong.

    101 8/12a: “I (Allah*) will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers - - -". If Allah is omnipotent, why did he then not install enough terror to make them flee without a battle? Is Allah a small boy sitting at his PC playing "exiting" battles on his screen? Or was he a bluff used by the robber baron and later warlord Muhammad?

    102 8/12b: “I (Allah*) will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them (making them unable to use a bow), but this is told by Muslims (comment A8/15 translated from Swedish) to be an Arab expression meaning : ###"Kill absolutely every one of them". (Only to smite off their fingertips, would make them unable as good archers afterwards). A good and benevolent religion full of mercy.*) - - -.” “The god of Peace heading the Religion of Peace”? To call this religion “the Religion of Peace” is an insult to the intelligence of the world – and the reason why the world does not laugh at the claim, is lack of knowledge about the Quran.

    But is this really “The god of Peace" heading "the Religion of Peace”? To call this religion like it emerges from the Quran, for “the Religion of Peace” really is an insult to the word and to the world – and the reason why the world does not laugh at the claim, really is lack of knowledge. (That is to say: If they knew what the Quran demands done against non-Muslims, few would laugh.) But also see 8/12d below.

    103 8/13a: "This (kill them*) because they contended against Allah and His Messenger - - -". How much Allah and how much Muhammad?

    Also one more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion - there never in the entire Bible is an incitement to war for the god (there were wars in OT, but in defense or - mainly - to establish and later defend a national country for the Jews, never waging war for Yahweh, not to mention for Jesus or any other prophet).

    104 8/13b: "This (kill them*) because they contended against Allah and His Messenger - - -". When you know practically all Muhammad's armed conflicts were initiated by Muhammad, there is not a little irony in this.

    105 8/14a: "- - - for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire". As practically all the may be 82 armed "episodes" - one every 6 weeks in Medina for "the Religion of Peace"!! - (http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php names more than 60 of them and what was the purpose of each of them) under Muhammad, were aggression from Muhammad and his Muslims - mostly for loot, slaves and extortion - this is an interesting statement: ####Defend yourself against Muhammad's raiders who wants to steal everything you have got, rape and enslave your women and children, kill or enslave yourself - - - and go to Hell for "resisting Allah" as everything and every attack Muhammad made, were "holy battles" and "holy war" - jihad - included every single attack and raid for wealth, which made up 80-90% of his raids or more!

    106 8/14b: "- - - for those who resist Allah - - -". And as Muhammad was Allah's only representative on Earth, this in reality meant "for those who resist Muhammad", and the threat of Hell was and is a mighty whip.

    107 8/16a: “If any (Muslim warrior*) do turn his back to the (the enemy*) on such a day (during battle) - - - he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell - - - “. Fight for Allah and Muhammad or end in Hell. One verse is the carrot, this one the whip. War is a central part of the life and the religion - - - "the Religion of Peace"!!! (This claim is a joke for anyone who really has read the surahs from Medina in the Quran).

    108 8/17a: "It is not ye (Muslims*) who slew them; it was Allah - - -". = By killing for Muhammad, you are doing the work of the god.

    109 8/17b: (The fights are acts of Allah) "in order that He might test the Believers - - -". But why - why - should Allah need to test his Muslims if he is omniscient and knows everything on beforehand? If he already knows everything, he can learn nothing from such tests - not to mention if he on top is omnipotent and decides everything before it happens. There is no logic in this. But if the real story was that Muhammad needed an "explanation" for why a mighty god wanted them to fight - in reality for Muhammad - then this sentence suddenly is easy to understand; it is unbelievable what you can make people believe if they are naive or uneducated or both, not to mention if they want to belief from f.x. religious reasons or to have an excuse to steal and enslave and rape women and children and to become rich.

    110 8/18a: "- - - Allah is He Who makes feeble the plans and stratagem of the Unbelievers". True or not true - it is good for the moral of warriors to believe things like this.

    111 8/19d: “Not the least good will your (the enemy’s) forces be to you even if they were multiplied: for verily (it definitely is no proved verity/truth*) Allah is with those who believe”. Perhaps discouraging the enemy, but surely encouraging his own warriors. “Gott mit uns.” Just this one is as old as the oldest religion - and still valid for everyone who believes in it, and the uneducated, naïve early followers did believe - - - as do many Muslims even today.

    112 8/19e: "- - - for verily Allah is with those who believe - - -". If he exists and if he is behind the war religion Islam.

    113 8/24c: “Oh ye who believe! Give your response to Allah and His Prophet (Muhammad*), when He calleth you to that which will give you life - - -.” To follow the call for war, will give you a beautiful next life – - - and Muhammad a cheap and committed warrior.

    ###114 8/39a: “And fight with them (the Unbelievers who will not convert to Islam*) on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere”. Comments should be unnecessary. Fight war till Islam dominates everywhere. An order and an incitement impossible to misunderstand.

    We may add that “The Message of the Quran adds (remark 41 to surah 8) that only war in self defense is permitted, but self defense in “the widest meaning of the word”. And the “widest meaning” is a very wide expression – absolutely anything can be (and is) explained as being done in self defense, as the non-Muslims are the guilty ones for everything. One striking sample you may meet, is the “fact” that “all Americans are guilty of aggression against Islam and can be killed, because they pay tax to the state of USA”. No concession because they after all are forced to pay tax – few do it gladly. No concession to the millions who do not pay tax. No concession to the ones who oppose the war in the Middle East. Not even concession to the - still some millions (f.x. youths) - who do not pay tax (f.x. students) and in addition oppose that war. Everybody is guilty – slay them. That is how “in the widest meaning” sometimes is used. "Only in self defense" here in many cases simply is a bitter joke with no real meaning or value except as propaganda. Hypocrisy in order to "abide" with the point in the Quran saying "war in self defense".

    Backed by rules like al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, etc. you will find a lot of hypocrisy and other forms of dishonesty in Islam and in Muslim daily life.

    ###115 8/39aa: “And fight with them (the Unbelievers who will not convert to Islam*) on until there is no more tumult or oppression, ####and there prevail justice (according to Islamic moral codes*) and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere”. Religious war is incompatible with the Bible, not to mention the NT. Yahweh and Allah not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad definitely not in the same religion.

    116 8/40a: “If they (the enemy*) refuse (to stop fighting – and remember that for hundreds of years the Muslims mostly were the aggressors*), be sure that Allah is your Protector - - -.” Allah helps you in any fight against “infidels”- real defense or "defense in the widest meaning of the word" = attack or raids for wealth and slaves and power and for expanding Islam.

    #####117 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% in some cases - in reality were for Muhammad to use. Did he "demand no payment for what he did" like he claims some places in the Quran?

    And 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.

    #118 8/60a: “Against them (the unbelievers*) make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, included steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies (and Muhammad’s enemies*) - - -.” Inside information from “the Religion of Peace”.

    We may add the modern Muslim point of view (YA1226): "It is your duty to be ready against all, for the sacred Cause under whose banner you are fighting". (YA1227): "Be always ready to put your resources (wealth and life*) into your Cause. You will not do so in vain. Allah's reward will come in various forms. He knows all, and His reward will always be more generous than you can possibly deserve". (YA1228) "It (fighting for Islam*) should be a joyful duty not for itself, but to establish the reign of peace and righteousness (remember here that words like this is used in accordance with the Quran's partly immoral moral code*) and Allah's Law". There are more like this. Also today Islam really is "the Religion of Peace".

    The Quran at many points, included ones like this, is the antipode of especially NT. War of religion is another strong proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion. (Oh, also Christians have been involved in religious wars, but in spite of the Bible's message, not because of it.)

    ##119 8/60c: (A8/64 - 2008 English edition 8/65): "- - - the enemies of Allah - - -". Definition according to A8/64: "(The enemies of Allah are*) everyone who deliberately opposes and seeks to undermine the moral laws lay down by Allah" - and those people automatically are "an enemy of those who believe (Muslims*) in Him (Allah*)". The definition of "the enemies of Allah" is very interesting because of the Quran's too often very primitive, medieval or even pre-medieval, and at too many point immoral moral code based on a Nazi-like apartheid suppressive ("Übermench" rule, "Untermench" suppressed) war ideology, and because of the extremely immoral moral underlying and expressed in some of the Sharia laws (f.x. "a woman is to be seriously punished for unlawful sex if she is raped, but cannot bring 4 male witnesses to the act" or: "a man who correctly accuses a woman for unlawful sex, is unjust unto Allah, if he cannot bring 4 witnesses" - even though an omniscient Allah knows he is speaking the truth). The definition is given is these words: Allah's enemy is "everyone who deliberately opposes and seeks to undermine the moral laws laid down by Allah (= Muhammad's quoted words in the Quran*) - - -". Oppose f.x. the "lawful and good" military (nearly always Muslim) aggressions and raids, stealing/robbing, raping, extortion, enslaving, betraying ("war is betrayal"), murdering, etc., etc., during "holy wars" - and practically everything is called jihad (holy war) - or opposing the incitements for going to war on the slightest religious reason or alibi ("self defense in the widest meaning of the word" - the ideology that makes every disagreement a jihad) and you are an enemy of Allah.

    And at least as bad: As the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is from no god, also its so-called moral also is not from any god, included not from Allah if he was a god.

    Also of sinister meaning is YA's comment that "- - - everyone one - - - who actively opposes and seeks to undermine - - - (Allah's/Muhammad's (im)moral laws*) is, "eo ipso", an enemy of those who believe in Him (Allah*)". If you talk against Islam and its partly immoral moral rules, the many real errors in the Quran, etc. you do not disagree with the Muslims, but you are an enemy of them. No wonder connections - or lack of such - sometimes are strained, and no wonder killing non-Muslims often are ok. Who wants to make friends with enemies? - enemies it is ok to kill. "The Religion of Peace" founded by a good and benevolent god?

    And remember in all these cases: All the errors in the Quran all the time prove that the book is not from any god. No god makes errors - included wrong facts - and definitely not by the hundreds and more.

    120 8/65c: “O Prophet! (Allah says*) Rouse the Believers to the fight.” Some words for a presumably good and peaceful god. And some task for a good and perfect, kind man representing and the great idol of a religion insisting to be a good, human and peaceful one - "the Religion of Peace"(!).

    121 8/66b: “- - - but (even so (even if Allah has lightened the fight for you - by sending angle warriors?*)) if there are a hundred of you, they will vanquish two hundred, and if a thousand, they will vanquish two thousand, with the leave of Allah - - -”. Another pep talk, and somewhat more realistic than 8/65e above. Besides: If you lose, know that is was not the enemy who was too strong for you, but Allah in his unfathomable wisdom who wanted it like that. (And Allah always has a good reason leading to a final victory).

    But why cannot an omnipotent god just decide how he wants things to be and make it like that? Why does a presumably good and kind and loving and benevolent and omnipotent god have to let humans live through so much blood and murder and hate and rape and misery? Something in the Quran just does not add up.

    #####122 8/69a-d: "- - - lawful and good - - -". If these words and the context it is taken from ("- - - enjoy what (loot, slaves, and women* + destruction and murder) ye took 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 (during armed conflicts) today in some Islamic forums and groups and countries. (Bangladesh, East Timor, and Indonesia a "short" time ago. Indonesian New Guinea and parts of Africa even now.)

    ##123 8/72d: “Those who believed - - - and fought for the Faith, with their property (= gave money - like many Muslims do even today*) and their persons (= went to war personally*), in the cause of Allah, as well as those who gave them (warriors, terrorists*) asylum and aid (like what a large numbers of Muslims do today also - at least giving money and sympathy and aid to “the cause”, included terrorism*) - all these (are good Muslims*)”. Comments unnecessary. Except one more strong proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion.

    124 8/75a: “And those (non-Muslims*) who accept Faith (become Muslims*) subsequently, and fight for the Faith in your company - they are of you”. If you become Muslim and wage war for Islam, you have proved you are a real Muslim. A good kind of proof for any Muslim leader who needs warriors or terrorists.

    ###125 9/5a: "“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and size them, beleaguer them, and lay in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).” Not even an incitement, but a clear order. (The old Arabia had 4 holy months a year - no. 1, 7, 11, 12 - when it was forbidden to wage war – though the Muslims at least made one raid during such a month. Islam took over this pagan custom like so many other pagan customs. These months are quite likely what “the forbidden months” refer to, but it also may mean the time from a covenant is lifted, till it is void. Unclear like so much in the Quran.)

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

    ###126 9/5b: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and size them, beleaguer them, and lay in wait for them in every stratagem (of war.)”

    #######This is “the Verse of the Sword” – the single verse in the Quran that is reckoned to contradict and to abrogate most peaceful verses of all the harsh and inhuman and bloody verses from the Medina period. Muslim scholars say it abrogates 124 verses in the book, We have seen no numbers for how many it contradicts, but hardly fewer (also all abrogations in reality are contradictions – that is why they are deemed abrogations: to make one or more of the contradicting points invalid so that it is possible to live and behave according to the book - - - and to claim there are no contradictions in it, as the contradicting points are abrogated, though this last fact Muslims never mention).

    There are so many verses that 9/5 contradicts, that we have not found all. But note that all abrogations also were contradictions before one or more of the contradicting verses were abrogated (which is one of the reasons why it is nonsense when some Muslims say abrogations do not exist in the Quran – but abrogations mean Allah is not omniscient, but had to try and fail and/or changed his mind every now and then. Without abrogations you have a lot more of serious contradictions in the book, and which is worst of contradictions which make the book impossible to follow in life, or abrogations that at least makes you wind your way through life? (but shows that Allah often was unable to find the best solution in the first try)). You will find more in the chapter about abrogations in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran".

    Surah 9, including 9/5, came in 631 AD and according to the Islamic rules for abrogations, this means that it overrides nearly everything in the Quran (as normally the youngest abrogates the older).

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

    127 9/12c: "- - - fight ye (Muslims*) the chiefs of Unfaith - - -". A clear order from "the Religion of Peace".

    128 9/14b: "Fight them (the Unbelievers*) - - -". Compare this to: "- - - turn the other cheek - - -" (f.x. Matt.5/38-42). Jesus and Muhammad in the same line of prophets? - stop joking.

    129 9/14c: “Fight them (the not good Muslims*), and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame - - -.” This at least contradicts – and abrogates:

    1. 2/256: “Let there be no compulsion in Religion.”
    2. 5/28: “If thou (“infidels”, Cain*) dost stretch thy hand against me (Muslims, Abel*), it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee - - -.” When you read this, remember that Muslims have few, if any, overall moral codes. What they have to do is to look for “What did Muhammad say about such things?” If he has said something, they take that as a code – good moral or not. If not, they have to look in the book: “Is there a parallel situation somewhere?” If they find – sometimes by stretching imagination – that is the way to act, or the alibi for how one wishes to act. Mind also that this verse is one of the very few in all the Quran which is in accordance with the teachings of Jesus – one of the very few. And it is totally “murdered” by abrogations. This verse contradicts (and is abrogated by) 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).
     

    And: Where is the logic in that an omnipotent, good and benevolent god needed his followers to punish - by means of terror, suppression and blood - his non-believers? The need for help does not correspond to his claimed mighty power, and the inhuman ways it was done far from corresponds with his claimed goodness and benevolence.

    ###Where there are disagreements between words and reality, we always believe in the reality. Words easily are propaganda or bluffs, reality is reliable.

    130 9/14d: "“Fight them (the “unbelievers”*), and Allah will punish them by your hands - - -". But why does an omnipotent god need help from humans to punish other humans - and risk that his followers will be killed or mutilated? - the last one an alternative the Quran never mentions.

    What kind of omnipotent, good and benevolent god is this?

    ##131 9/14e: “Fight them (the “unbelievers”*), and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them - - -”. When you fight non-Muslims, you are doing the work of the good and benevolent god Allah.

    Some religion: Hating, fighting, stealing, plundering, raping, enslavement, and murdering are the work of the god.

    And remember: The “ethics” and "morality" in the Quran was for then, for now and forever - for us and for our children and our descendants for the entire future.

    “What a wonderful world!” to quote Louis Armstrong.

    But why does an omnipotent god need humans for doing the killing and suppression?

    *132 9/14g: “(Allah will*) help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of the Believers”. Only possible if he exists and is something powerful - good or bad.

    133 9/19g: "- - - strive with might and mind in the cause of Allah - - -". Guess if this conflicts with the Bible! Even in the rather hard and harsh parts of OT the wars were not for Yahweh, but for establishing and then defending a national state for the Jews - not for the religion. And in NT war is hardly an accepted thing at all. Yahweh and Allah the same god? Nope. Jesus and Muhammad in the same religion, not to mention in the same line of prophets? - more than nope.

    ##134 9/19h: “They (Muslims doing good deeds*) are not comparable in the sight of Allah (with the ones killing/waging raids/war for Muhammad/Allah*)”. Terrorists and others using weapons and murdering for Allah, are the best Muslims.

    Guess if verses like these do their work on some single-minded or fanatic Muslims! Who said “there are verses in the Quran which can be disused for war and terror”? Wrong: It hardly is possible to be a really pious Muslim without using weapons against non-Muslims.

    ###Yet another 120% proof for that Yahweh an Allah are not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion: The differences are too many, too deep, and too fundamental (except perhaps if the god is deeply schizophrenic, helpless and sadistic).

    ###135 9/20b: “Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with their might and main (= fight in raids/wars*), in Allah’s cause, with their goods (= giving money to war expenses*) and their persons (= fighting personally in raids/wars or terrorism - “any stratagem of war”*), have the highest rank in the sight of Allah - - -”.

    Terrorists (- any stratagem of war" -) and other warriors are doubtlessly the very best Muslims.

    In possible future times of troubles - remember that Muslims are ordered to make Islam the dominant religion and to suppress the members of all other religions - the few (? - 30% of Muslims “understands why terrorists do what they do“ according to international polls, though that number varies some*) Muslims living according to the highest “ethics” for Muslims, will make a powerful and efficient 5. column in the West and other places. That is a simple military and security fact.

    *136 9/21a: “Their (terrorists/warriors*) Lord (Allah*) doth give them glad tidings of a Mercy (that terrorists/warriors for Allah are forgiven practically any sin*) from Himself (from Allah personally*), of His good pleasure (from the fighting and murdering they have done for the good and kind and benevolent god*), and the Gardens for them, wherein are delights (earth-like riches, luxury and women*) that endures”. The ultimate pep talk for war, terror and murder? In the name of a presumably peaceful religion and a kind and good god?

    As for forgiving from Allah: Also see 2/187d and 67/9c above.

    *137 9/22b: “They (terrorists/warriors*) will dwell therein (in paradise) forever. Verily (it definitely is no proved verity/truth*) in Allah’s presence is a reward, the greatest (of all)”. Warriors/terrorists are in so high esteem in the eyes of Allah, that they will be invited to live in the parts of paradise which has Allah’s presence. (In the Muslim paradise some parts are even better than others - Jesus f.x. only lives in the 2. heaven, whereas Moses was a better prophet and lives in heaven number four, and top prophets like Abraham and Muhammad of course in number seven, closest to Allah, who resides above number seven. In addition some regions of the heavens are better than others - in the heaven for ordinary Muslims, there f.x. are 4 or 6 or perhaps more gardens - Islam does not know for sure - one better than the other (just hope you, your wives and your children do not merit different gardens).

    Compared to 9/21 this may be an even more ultimate pep talk.

    138 9/24e: "- - - or the striving in His (Allah's*) cause ("Quran-speak" for waging war*) - - -". Going to war for Muhammad/Allah gives top marks in the claimed "religion of peace". Guess if this is contradicted by the NT - one of the strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion! Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible 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.

    ####139 ##9/29a: “Fight those who believe not in Allah - - -.” A most clear order - - - in spite of “no compulsion in religion” (2/256). One of those clear orders which shows reality and belies the glorious words about a "Religion of Peace". As said before: Whenever there is discrepancy between reality and propaganda, we believe in the reality.

    Compare this sentence to the 3 samples below and weep:

    1. 2/256: “Let there be no compulsion in religion”. This is the flagship for all Muslims who wants to impress non-Muslims about how peaceful and tolerant Islam is. But NB! NB! The surah says: “Let there be - - -.” It is an incitement or – judging also from 2/255 – more likely a wish, it is not a manifested fact. It is a hope or a goal for the future, it is not something which exist – and all the same most Muslims quote it like this: “There is no compulsion in Religion” - - - a small, little “Kitman” (lawful half-truth – an expression special for Islam together with “al-Taqiyya, “the lawful lie", etc.) which makes the Quran and the religion sound much more friendly and tolerant.
    2. 5/28: “If thou (“infidels”, Cain*) dost stretch thy hand against me (Muslims, Abel*), it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee - - -.” When you read this, remember that Muslims have few, if any, overall moral codes. What they have to do, is to look for “What did Muhammad say about such things?” If he has said or done something, they take that as a moral code – good moral or not. If not, they have to look in the book: “Is there a parallel situation somewhere?” If they find – sometimes by stretching imagination – that is the way to act, or the alibi for how one wishes to act. Mind also that this verse is one of the very few in the entire Quran which is in accordance with the teachings of Jesus – one of the very few. And it is totally “murdered” by abrogations.
    3. 29/46: “And dispute ye not with the People of the Book - - -. “ No comments – but read 9/29 once more.

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

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

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

    7-17-21
     

    #########140 9/29c: “Fight those who believe not in Allah - - - until they pay jizya (extra tax - sometimes heavy (and there may be land tax in addition - often 50% of what is produced)) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” A clear and unmistakable order. The softest word possible: Discrimination or apartheid. There are a number of stronger ones. And the jizya frequently was high. Comments on how it is to live under such helpless apartheid conditions is not necessary - the Negroes in South Africa or the Southern States in USA in earlier times could tell you - even though they at least did not have to pay an extra tax on top of all.

    Also see other chapters (in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran") - f.x. “Muslims are better than other people”, like 25/44 or 68/35+36, and “Age Golden Age of Coexistence".

    THE CLAIM THAT ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF PEACE, IS SERIOUSLY WRONG.

    One more fundamental point: There NEVER was anything like this in the Bible - see f.x. Jesus' words: "Give to Caesar (meaning the emperor*) what is Caesar's, and to Yahweh what is Yahweh's", and also the Bible's damning words about "serving Mammon (money*)". Allah's and Muhammad's greed for riches is one more of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and Jesus and Muhammad far from in the same religion.

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

    BUT THE MAIN POINT MAY BE THAT THIS IS THE MAIN AND CENTRAL POLITICAL MESSAGE AND ORDER TO ALL ISLAM AND ALL MUSLIMS THEN AND FOREVER - A FACT NON-MUSLIMS SHOULD BE AWARE OF AND N E V E R FORGET. THE OFFICIAL GOAL AND ORDER FOR ISLAM IS TO CONQUER EVERYTHING AND SUPPRESS ALL NON-MUSLIMS TO BECOME SLAVES OR SEMI SLAVES UNDER ISLAM, (and pagans worse off than Jews and Christians.)

    This sentence must be seen in connection to 9/33j below.

    This is the promised future for non-Muslims under Islam. A religion so full of errors that the Quran itself proves there is no god behind it. Perhaps the dark forces, but not any god.

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

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

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

    141 9/29j: "- - - (fight the non-Muslims*) (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians mainly*)- - - ". An order impossible to misunderstand - from the claimed "good and benevolent god" of "the (claimed) religion of Peace".

    142 9/34d: "And there are those who bury gold and silver and spend it not in the Way of Allah - - -". You should spend at least some of your money in ways advised by the Quran - for the poor, for spreading Islam, for paying for the costs of war, etc.

    ###143 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 AND FOREVER - 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.

    144 9/41a: “Go ye forth (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle (= fight*), with your goods and your person (money and life*), in the Cause of Allah. That is best for you, if you but knew”. Any comment necessary? The benevolent "Religion of Peace"?

    Islam "the Religion of Peace"? Allah a god of peace? Do not laugh - it is impolite.

    145 9/44e: “And Allah knoweth well those (the Muslims going to war for Allah/Muhammad*) who do their duty”. It is not possible to deny - like most Muslims and many politically correct others try to do today - that war (against “unbelievers”) is a duty for Muslims. It is impossible to say it more directly than the Quran does here: A Muslim's duty is to go to war whenever Allah(?) calls. And also that Allah knows the ones who goes to war - and the ones who do not. Ominous for the ones who do not. Also see 2/233h above. "The Religion of Peace"?

    ##146 9/45a: “Only those ask thee (Muhammad*) for exemption (from doing battle*) who believe not in Allah and the Last day”. Terrorists and fanatical mullahs/imams are right and do right according to the Quran, because the Quran is pretty clear on what it means: War is the best deed. And the ones only claiming there are verses which can be disused by terrorists to defend their activity, are pretty naive and without knowledge of the book. "The Religion of Peace"? This claim is an insult to anyone who has read the surahs from Medina with an open mind.

    But it is somewhat strange that Allah did not discover how good war was for his followers until after 622 AD, when Muhammad had fled to Medina and started to need warriors.

    147 9/51b: “Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us - - -”. Predestination: To do battle is not more deadly than sleeping in your bed, as Allah already has decided your hour of death. Naïve and uneducated people and religious fanatics may really believe this - in those cases it is one terrific piece of pep talk for not being afraid of doing battle.

    But the claim is so obviously wrong, that there is no chance that an intelligent man like Muhammad did not know it was - and is - a lie.

    ####148 9/52c: "But we (Muslims*) can expect for you (non-Muslims*) either that Allah will send his punishment from Himself, or by our hands". The last part of the sentence means that when Muslims are fighting or in other ways are being adverse to non-Muslims, they are doing the work of Allah - punishing them for him. Mistreating, raping, extorting, suppressing, torturing, murdering non-Muslims are sermons to Allah! Comments? Yahweh and Allah the same god? Jesus and Muhammad in the same religion? No comments necessary.

    Islam "the Religion of Peace"? Do not laugh - it is impolite.

    Allah became a god of war in Medina, and gods of war run religions of war.

    149 9/60d: "- - - in the cause of Allah - - -". = To defend or promote Islam, included waging war. Quite a lot of this "budget" - "poor-tax" and alms/gifts (zakat and sadaqah) - was used for weapons and other war equipment, and for waging war.

    ***150 9/73b: “Strive (fight*) hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites - - -.” Straight words for your money.

    151 9/73c: “Strive (fight*) hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites - - -”. There is nothing like this in the Bible. In OT there is fighting, but for the Jews' country, not for the religion, and NT hardly accepts armed conflicts at all. Yahweh and Allah the same god? Nyet - which is a good English word meaning NO with capital letters and at least 3 lines under it. This point simply is one of the many points proving that Allah became a god of war after Muhammad started needing warriors in Medina. Coincidence or not?

    152 9/81h: This verse in short: The ones not willing to do battle may end in hell. Do you want end there? One more of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god and Jesus and Muhammad neither serving the same god nor the same religion - the differences between them - and between their teachings, moral codes, etc. are far too big, too deep, and too fundamental. Allah simply turned from reasonably benign to a god of war shortly after Muhammad fled to Medina.

    153 9/83: "Never shall ye (some people*) come out (to raid or make war*) with me (Muhammad*), nor fight an enemy with me - - -". To say the very least of it: Most different from NT and its New Covenant. Yahweh and Allah the same god? Jesus and Muhammad in the same line of prophets? Not possible is not even the first letter or even comma of the answer. Allah changed to become a god of war in 622 AD or shortly afterwards.

    154 9/89a: “Allah hath prepared for them (his warriors/terrorists) Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein: that is the supreme felicity”.

    Once more - to say the least of it: Incitement to wage war for Muhammad - and for Allah if he exists. On the other hand: How will "life" in such a boring paradise be in the long run? - no mental activity at all.

    155 9/91h: Verse 9/91 in short says that only those with heavy reasons for staying at home when Allah - Muhammad - wants a raid or a war, were to be excused for not joining the raid or war party.

    156 9/111a: “Allah hath purchased of the Believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the Garden (of Paradise): they fight in His (Allah’s) Cause, and slay and are slain (and go to Paradise afterwards*) - - -.” It may be a good, if de-humanizing (war mostly is) deal - - - if Allah and the Paradise exists. If not the only person gaining anything was Muhammad (and all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran prove absolutely that at least something is seriously wrong).

    157 9/111d: “- - - they (warriors/terrorists*) fight in His (Allah’s (or Muhammad’s?*)) cause, and slay and are slain (and get a 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 on the spot - like the Assyrians. And "the Religion of Peace"?? - it is up to you if you will laugh or weep from that slogan. May be there are reasons why they seldom claim Islam is "the Religion of Honesty"?

    158 9/120d: “It was not fitting for (them - see 9/120a just above*) to refuse to follow Allah’s Messenger, nor to prefer their own lives to his - - -”. Muhammad demanded blood and lives. According to the Bible Jesus gave his life. The same line of prophets? Yahweh and Allah the same god? No-one with real knowledge is able to believe that - except some Muslims (religiously blind = one who believes not because of proofs, but in spite of proofs for that things are wrong).

    159 9/120e: “It was not fitting for (them - see 9/120a just above*) to refuse to follow Allah’s Messenger, nor to prefer their own lives to his - - -”. Incitement to war. What does just this tell about Islam? What it does tell about Muhammad and Islam is that the Quran is - not a fairy tale, but a demon tale?

    And: Make Muhammad a powerful warlord! Hitler said similar things (actually some intellectuals compared Nazism to Islam before WW2 - and f.x. C. G. Young compared Islam to Nazism.)

    160 9/120g: “- - - (not*) to refuse to follow (in war) Allah’s Messenger (Muhammad*), nor to prefer their lives to his: because nothing could they suffer or do, but was reckoned to their credit as a deed of righteousness - - - in the cause of Allah - - -”. A testimony of religious blindness and darkness worthy any of the most bloody pagan religions - or modern sects praying to the Devil for a god. Or the darkest sides of Nazism or communism.

    161 9/120j: "- - - the Cause of Allah - - -". We just remind you that a cause of Allah does not exist unless Allah exists. If he does not - or if he was not behind the Quran - it was the cause of Muhammad.

    162 9/120m: “- - - (suffered*) in the Cause of Allah, or trod paths to raise the ire (not in self defense*!!!) of the Unbelievers, or received any injury whatever from an enemy. For Allah suffered not the reward to be lost to those who do good - “. To wage war, with all the destruction and suffering that means, is to do good things in the eyes of Allah and Islam/the Quran. And those of Muhammad.

    Make your own comments. Think your own thoughts.

    Allah = Yahweh? Only if the god is schizophrenic.

    163 9/121b: "- - - Allah may requite their (warriors') deeds with the best (possible reward)." A nice reward if Islam is a true religion. A very cheap way for Muhammad to attract and pay warriors if the religion is a made up one. And here it is very thought provoking that the Quran is not from a god - no god makes that many mistakes, not to mention reveres them in a "mother book" in his heaven. (And no benevolent god has a moral code and war code like in the Quran).

    164 9/126a: "See they (non-Muslims*) not that they are tried every year - - -." But why does an omniscient god have to try people, if he knows everything on beforehand? - and what value has a trial if Allah has already decided what is going to happen? - Allah decides and predestines everything according to the Quran. The only case where all this makes sense and logic, is if it in reality was Muhammad who had to find "explanations" for why raids for riches and power and wars for power were necessary. Allah was/is made up god of war in case - and Islam in case a pagan religion.

    165 9/128b: “- - - to the Believers (Muslims*) is he (Muhammad*) most kind and merciful.” Wrong. It is not kind to incite them and force them to go to war and “kill and be killed” - - - or maimed. It is not kind to incite hate or suppression. It is not kind to demand full submission and obedience. And it far from is merciful to mistreat seriously both mentally, morally, and socially the ones who would not go to war for him or in other ways did not obey him in other things. Actually he was about as kind and merciful as Hitler or Mao or “Uncle Stalin” or the aggressive Zulu king Shaka (also written Chaka), or "Red Khmer". Read what he demanded and did and ordered and the moral code he introduced, etc. - not the nice words he said about himself, but the reality: His demands, orders and deeds. Was he kind and merciful to his followers? Only a strongly believing or undereducated or naive Muslim is able to answer "yes" to that question. - and then we even have omitted the word "most".

    166 10/12c: "Thus does the deeds of the transgressors seem fair in their (non-Muslims'*) eyes". Comment to this in (YA1400): "Those without Faith (= non-Muslims*) are selfish - - - (and) - - - They do not see their own faults." #####Muslims "forget" that this also goes for them: ######This may also be the reason why Muslims - often very honestly - are unable to see f.x. the horrors in their war religion, or the immoral - often highly immoral - sides of their moral code, etc. They have so often been told that this and this is just and right and glorious, that it simply feels right for them. And when then Islam has no moral philosophy - thinking - they also never learn to think such things over.

    Also: Please read the Quran, and you will see the selfishness on behalf of the Muslims and even more on behalf of Muhammad MANY places - f.x. the permission to steal, rob, rape, take slaves "lawful and good", without the slightest bit of caring for the victims.

    167 10/26a: "To those who do right is a goodly (reward) - - -" - especially if you have gone on raid or to war for Muhammad - or his successors. Because battles give more merit than anything in Heaven in the "religion of peace".

    168 10/27a: “But those who earned evil will have a reward of like evil - - -“. Muhammad, his men and his successors served a god of war, and did enormously much evil – stealing/robbing, raping, enslaving, destroying places and lives and lands and cultures, extorting, terrorizing, torturing, murdering, inciting to dislike, discrimination, apartheid, hate and war and mass killings and suppression of other humans – only that it was claimed sanctioned by a claimed benevolent god, according to Muhammad, though a god who in case neither was omniscient, nor omnipotent. (He f.x. had to explain away all requests for miracles – sometimes with obviously logically invalid claims.) Compare f.x. the Quran's ethical and moral codes with the basis for all inter-human moral: "Do onto others like you want others do onto you" and laugh - or weep. And at the same time compare Islam's and Muslims behavior through history with this. It will take quite a lot to give them “a reward of like evil.”

    169 10/60d: "- - - Allah is full of Bounty to mankind - - -". There still was much and rich loot to be stolen, Muhammad said. Whereas at least for the old Protestants, the world was full of work to be done - work which turned out to bring the word forwards, instead of war and robbery bringing it into stagnation or worse, like happened to the Islamic parts of the world. (And which is likely to happen to the whole world if Islam with its view on non-religious knowledge and on religious ruling of the communities and the world, wins out in the end. But remember we say Islam, not Arabs or Berbers, or other groups of people).

    ##170 10/64c: “- - - in the life of the Present and in the Hereafter, no change can there be in the Words of Allah.” For one thing this sentence has serious effect for the ones who say that predestination in the Quran, is not real predestination – when Allah has said/thought/written something, no free will of man can change anything - - - which means there is no free will, and things are predestined as sure as carved in stone. But more relevant just here is that there were many and sometimes large changes in Allah’s words after this “revelation” in 621 AD, and also just one year later Muhammad/Allah(?) started to change the religion totally and fundamentally (from peace to a war religion). Thus this claim is contradicted by the changes in the Quran and in the religion (from quite peaceful to a full-fledged war religion) from around 622 - 624 AD.

    ####The main change was that the entire religion was changed from something peaceful, to a religion of apartheid, hate, suppression, inhumanities and blood. But there were a lot of other changes in what Allah (?) had said – all the contradictions which came because the religion was changed, and things had to be adjusted for, and all the abrogations (sorry substitutions according to some Muslims – another, but nicer, name for just the same) which became necessary. So many abrogations, that they demanded explanations:

    1. 2/106: “None of our revelations do We (Allah*) abrogate or cause to be forgotten, But We substitute something better or similar”. Well, this is a contradiction – and an abrogation – in itself. This actually is one of the verses behind the use of abrogations in Islam. It may also be one of the reasons – may be the main reason – why abrogated and thus invalid verses (like 2/256: "Let there be no compulsion in religion") were included by Caliph Uthman in the Quran originally – they should not be abrogated in the meaning that they should be forgotten. But abrogations are absolutely necessary in Islam, because there are so many contradictions, that the situation would be impossible unless they could be eliminated by making a number of them invalid. See separate chapter about abrogation in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". NB: Surah 2 from which this verse is taken “arrived” in 622-624 AD. Allah’s words from 621 AD had to be dismissed rather quickly and on a large scale – the change to a robber baron and war religion had started.
    2. 16/101: “When We (Allah*) substitute one revelation for another - - -.” Yes, to “substitute” definitely sounds better than to “abrogate” – but the only difference is that “substitute” is daily English (though perhaps from Latin originally), whereas “abrogate” is more pure Latin. The meaning in this case is just the same. And this verse proves that Allah had to start “substituting” his proud words from 621 AD, maximum one – 1 – year later, because surah 16 is from ca. 622 AD. Allah’s (?) words are for the eternity – but not for long eternities when it is a tempting idea to start stealing and robbing, and it may be wise to have a war religion instead of a peaceful one. But one question: Was it Allah who found he had made a mistake by starting a peaceful religion? - or was is Muhammad who wanted warriors and needed a more warlike teaching which caused the marked change in Islam after 622 AD?
     

    #####171 10/64d: “Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme Felicity.” The first sentence may partly explain why Muslims cannot admit the mistakes in the Quran, no matter how wild “explanations” they have to use. The second one is plainly wrong - see f.x. 10/39 above.

    Also: This surah was dictated by Muhammad ca. 621. There were many changes in Islam after that – Islam even changed its basis fundamentally and completely from rather peaceful to a religion of robbing, apartheid, suppression, hate and war, built on the sword and at least partly on dishonesty - al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, "break your oat if that gives a better result", "war is deceit". (How could both these two conflicting directions - peaceful vs. full war religion - both be right and parts of the unchangeable teaching of Allah?) There also were many mistakes which science now see, where the “facts” are changed by reality, and there were many “signs” and “proofs” which the laws of logic in reality changed the moment they were pronounced (Muslims only do not know or refuse to see). His felicity was not and is not 100%.

    172 10/74f: "- - - transgressors". One of the many strongly negative names Muhammad had for non-Muslims. If there was not a strong organization behind the Quran, today it had been prohibited in most civilized countries for incitements to crime (robbing, rape, murder, etc.), suppression, discrimination and apartheid, and for hate mongering and war mongering. The war god Allah's religion.

    173 10/103c: "- - - thus it is fitting on Our (Allah's*) part that We should deliver those who believe!" Yes, it is very fitting - especially if all Muslims have been led by the nose by a deceiver. But the old fact: The claim only is possible if Allah exists and in addition is a god of some standing (and not f.x. from the dark forces like among other things his partly immoral moral code, his dishonesty, his lust for and inhuman rules for war and blood, and his partly unjust laws may indicate).

    174 11/11a: "Not so (go wrong*) those who (good Muslims*) show patience and constancy, and work righteousness; for them is forgiveness (of sins) and a great reward". This is the ideal for Muslims according to the Quran - but remember that war and suppression are among the top duties, and that the Islamic moral is such that the ultimate idol is the stealing/robbing, extorting, enslaving, womanizing, raping, distaste and war mongering, murdering man Muhammad - a man who on top of all had so little respect for the truth, that he more or less institutionalized al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) and Kitman (lawful half-truth - or perhaps an as correct definition is that you can tell lies, but make mental reservations inside you, and thus do not sin), Hilah (lawful pretending/circumventing), and according to the Quran advised deception, betrayal and even breaking your oaths (and can you break oaths, you also can break weaker promises and words) if that gave a better result. (The Quran also contains a few obvious lies he made - f.x. that miracles would make no-one believe, a claim any intelligent man knows is untrue.)

    175 11/17t: "- - - yet many among men do not believe!" Not very strange, at least not among persons having enough knowledge and intelligence to see at least some of all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran, and also to see the difference between a claimed good and benevolent god and a war and hate god.

    ###176 11/52e: "- - - sin - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. We also may mention that just this word often covers very different deeds, acts, words, and thoughts in the Quran and Islam, than in more normal religions (Islam is a religion of war and Allah a god of war - in spite of its loud slogans), not to mention how much its meaning in the Quran often differs from the basic of all human moral; "do against others like you want others do against you". Read the surahs from Medina and weep.

    177 11/54-55: "- - - I (Hud*) am free from the sin of ascribing to Him (Allah*) other gods as partners". This is no sin unless Allah exists and is a god. Well, it may be a sin towards another god if another god - f.x. Yahweh - exists and takes offence from your believing in other or pagan gods. According to the Bible it f.x. is clear that Yahweh will react negatively to persons believing in a god of war like f.x. Allah - and a god who on top of all accepts the use of dishonesty, apartheid (Muslims shall suppress non-Muslims), terrorism, rape, murder and war.

    Besides: Non-Muslims do not have gods in addition to Allah, as they do not believe Allah is a god. They have another/other god(s) INSTEAD OF Allah.

    178 11/116b: "- - - sin - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. We also may mention that just this word often covers very different deeds, acts, words, and thoughts in the Quran and Islam, than in more normal religions (Islam is a religion of war and Allah a god of war - in spite of its loud slogans), not to mention how much its meaning in the Quran often differs from the basic of all human moral; "do against others like you want others do against you". Read the surahs from Medina and weep.

    179 11/118b: “If thy Lord (Allah*) had so willed, He could have made mankind one People - - -”. Either Allah really likes strife and war - really a benevolent god - or in reality he is unable to do this. Like someone bragging to impress acquaintances or girls.

    180 12/2f: “We (Allah*) have sent it down as an Arabic Quran, in order that ye may learn wisdom". But:

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

    181 13/16j: "Allah is the Creator of all things - - -". The only things which till now are proved Allah has created, are lots of words - many of them wrong - lots of war and a partly horribly immoral moral code. Well, it is wrong to say it is proved to be Allah's work - it only is proved to come from Muhammad (and actually they are not even proved from him, as there also exists no real proof for that Muhammad has existed. You will find scientists who believe he is a fiction made up to be a central figure in a then new war religion). Also see 6/2b and 11/7a above and 21/56c below. And even if he existed - which we find likely - #####the contents of the different Qurans are so divergent - often unclear and/or just guessing what Muhammad really said - that it is very unclear what he really said at very many points in the books.

    182 13/31n: "- - - (ill) deeds - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is meant in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. To refuse to go to war and steal, enslave and kill for Muhammad was - and is - a very ill deed. And disobedience against the war god Allah.

    183 13/35e: "- - - righteous - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is meant in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. F.x. to refuse to go to war and steal, enslave and kill for Muhammad was - and is - a very ill deed, and very far from righteous behavior. Simply a sin against the god of war, Allah.

    184 13/41c: "(Where) Allah commands, there is none to put back his commands - - -". As Islam is a war and fascistic apartheid religion, we must hope some more benevolent god, f.x. Yahweh, may be able to do something.

    *185 14/1f: “- - - in order that thou (Muhammad – by means of the Quran*) mightest lead mankind out of the depths of darkness and into light - - -“. No book with that many mistakes and that doubtful moral and ethics can lead anyone into light. The same goes for any religion as suppressing, inhuman and so full of Nazi-like ideology (before you protest, beware that these are not our words, but f.x. C. G. Young's), discrimination, blood and war, and “all power to Muhammad/the leader”, as Islam and Allah.

    186 14/24-25: This must be understood like if a man brings forth good deeds, he will receive admonition. And of course the best of deeds was to go to war when Muhammad wanted.

    187 14/27d: "- - - do wrong - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. Refusing to raid or go to war for Muhammad/Allah, f.x. was very wrong.

    188 15/12: "- - - sinners - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. We also may mention that just this word often covers very different deeds, acts, words, and thoughts in the Quran and Islam, compared to in more normal religions (Islam is a religion of war, and with a god of war, in spite of its loud slogans), not to mention how much its meaning in the Quran often differs from the basic of all human moral; "do against others like you want others do against you". Read the surahs from Medina and weep.

    189 15/58: "- - - sin - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. We also may mention that just this word often covers very different deeds, acts, words, and thoughts in the Quran and Islam, compared to in more normal religions (Islam is a religion of war - with the war god Allah on top - in spite of its loud slogans), not to mention how much its meaning in the Quran often differs from the basic of all human moral; "do against others like you want others do against you". Read the surahs from Medina and weep.

    190 15/94a: “- - - turn away from those who join false gods with Allah.” This was in 621 AD. Already the next year Muhammad (Allah?) started to change his religion towards war and blood, and stopped turning away from non-Muslims as soon as his (and his successors') military strength was powerful enough to demand conversion to Islam - later on Arabs mainly got the choice: Become Muslims or fight us and die. This verse is contradicted and often “killed”/abrogated by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 5/73, 8/12, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 29 contradictions).

    Allah had been a relatively peaceful god, but now (in or shortly after 622 AD) he became a god of war and dishonesty - in words and deeds.

    191 16/1b: "(Inevitable) commeth (to pass) the Command of Allah - - -". It is inevitable only if:

    1. If Allah exists - but with all which is wrong in the Quran also this may be wrong (Muhammad after all just took over a pagan god, al-Lah, and claimed he was not pagan but similar to Yahweh.
    2. If Allah, in case he exists and is a major god, is correctly described in the Quran - again; with all which is wrong in the Quran, there might be mistakes also here, especially as all the mistakes makes it clear that the book and hence the description is not made by a god, and perhaps even more so as Allah was a peaceful god as long as Muhammad was in Mecca, but became a war god when Muhammad started to gain power and needed warriors in Medina. The change in the god in 622 - 624 AD is very striking, but never mentioned by Muslims or Islam. As the surahs from Mecca - some 85-90 - and the ones from Medina - some 22-28 (there are some one does not know the age of, though one believe one knows from which period) are mixed helter-skelter in the Quran, it is a bit difficult for readers who do not know the book well, to see this. But if you first read the surahs from Mecca, and then the ones from Medina separately, it is very easy to see this change from a peaceful to a war religion. And the point here is: An eternal god cannot change that much in just 1-2 years from Muhammad's arrival in Medina. At least one of the descriptions has to be wrong. Which of the descriptions - if any - is correct? Mecca and peaceful? - or Medina and blood and stealing and terror?
    3. If the Quran's claims about total predestination are correct (but in that case man has no free will, no matter what the Quran says about this - there are some of the immaterial laws which are impossible to break even for omnipotent gods), then something is very wrong in the Quran.
     

    192 16/2f: "- - - do your (Muslims'*) duty onto Me (Allah*)". Duties which by coincidence (?) mostly happened to be in accordance with Muhammad's wishes and ideas. And the foremost duty for a Muslim was - and according to the Quran still is - to go to war. This even though nearly all Muhammad's and his successor's armed "incidents" were raids, etc. of aggression to steal/rob, take prisoners and little by little to force Islam on others by the sword or by other means backed by the sword.

    193 16/7a: "- - - your (Muslims'*) Lord is indeed Most Kind, Most Merciful". Please read the harsh war surahs from Medina, and afterwards think over if you agree (if you do, consult a "shrink"). There is no doubt, though that most Muslims honestly think also those surahs represent good moral - a consequence of being raised in a culture where you are imprinted such ideals and in a culture where you are raised to accept the religion, not to evaluate its - right or wrong - moral or immoral.

    194 16/33c: "But Allah wronged them (the sinners*) not: nay, they wronged their own souls". This is wrong if Allah decides everything - predestination - like the Quran strongly states several places. It may be correct if man has free will - but then Allah is not omniscient. (Muhammad (Allah?) needed predestination to get fierce and willing warriors - you did not die until Allah had decided, and then you could as well go to war and win wealth and women and slaves and merit in Heaven, as sleep in your bed. And he needed free will for man for his little cultivated and proudly free tribe people and even more for making reward and punishment morally possible for a claimed good and benevolent and fair god. And unbelievably he was able to use both, even though they are impossible to combine even for gods. It is unbelievable what you can make people believe when they wish and want to believe - or are brainwashed and not really thinking.

    195 16/96h: "- - - the best of their actions". Remember here that the best of actions was to go on raids and war for Muhammad and Allah - mainly for riches, captives, extortion, and slaves - but some for revenge and later also for spreading Islam (most of Muhammad's armed incidents were for this).

    196 16/97i: "- - - the best of their actions". Remember here that the best of actions was to go on raids and war for Muhammad - mainly for riches, captives, extortion, and slaves - but some for revenge and later also for spreading Islam (most of Muhammad's armed incidents were for these causes).

    197 16/102m: "(The Quran is) Glad Tidings to Muslims". Please read the Quran and look for the realities behind the big and glossy words. How glad tiding is it even to Muslims (not to mention to Muslim women)? And to get a war religion into the world so absolutely was no glad tidings to the rest of the world - this even more so as the entire religion builds on a book with no connection to a god - too many wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc.

    Also it was and is no glad tiding to have got a new god of war into the world (the old pagan god al-Lah).

    198 16/110e: "- - - patiently persevere - - -". An expression used time and again and again in the Quran: Persevere and sooner or later the "enemy" tires and you have won. The Quran so often has been right on this, that no non-Muslim should ever forget this, or the fact that Islam is a war religion (just read the surahs from Medina if you do not believe this fact).

    199 16/111b: "- - - every soul will be recompensed (fully) for all its actions - - -". One central difference between Islam and especially NT: NT stresses divine love and forgiving (though acts count), the Quran stresses acts (though forgiving counts) - and the best acts are raids and war.

    But this quote sounds ominous if it is not the war god Allah who is waiting at "the other side".

    200 17/5b: “- - - We (Allah*) sent against you (the Jews*) Our servants (attackers from Assyria) given to terrible warfare - - -”. Israel was attacked some times during the time of OT (local enemies many times, Assyria and Babylonia are best known), but for natural reasons no Muslim was involved (1000 years and more too early).

    According to the Bible also the god involved was Yahweh, not Allah. In a way worse: Also history says the same.

    201 17/16e: "- - - We (Allah*) destroy them (sinful populations*) utterly". A bloody god - and a nice idol for a war religion and its wars and warriors (they have been pretty bloody often both during and after the proper war - so also during some of the pogroms.)

    202 17/17a: “How many generations have We (Allah*) destroyed after Noah?” Allah has killed so many generations that he is not sure of the number. And it is a question of killing (destroying), not of natural death. Yahweh who just made room for Israel/the Jews to let them have their own small country + helped them a little now and then, hardly is even in the same killing league as Allah. And also he is outdated, as the new covenant is peaceful, whereas Allah is still going strong in the war and killing business - Yahweh is not much of a competitor for Allah in the killing fields.

    203 17/39e: "- - - blameworthy - - -". See 17/39d just above. Also note that when the Quran - and Muslims - use words like this, it is in accordance with Islam's somewhat "special" moral code. ##There are many a thing which are blameworthy according to the Quran - f.x. not wanting to kill or go to war - which in more normal moral codes and cultures are not blameworthy or even laudable. And the other way around.

    The moral and ethics of a war god.

    204 18/46b: "- - - but the things that endure, Good Deeds, are the best in the sight of thy (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". And as the best of all deeds were to go on raids or to war for riches, captives/extortion, and power for Muhammad/Allah, may be Muhammad also liked these words?

    205 18/46b: "- - - but the things that endure, Good Deeds, are the best in the sight of thy (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". And as the best of all deeds were to go on raids or to war for riches, captives/extortion and power for Muhammad/Allah, may be Muhammad also liked these words?

    206 18/46c: "- - - Good Deeds - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. f.x. some of the very best deeds are to fight and kill and steal for Muhammad and for his successors.

    207 18/53b: "- - - the Sinful - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code - it f.x. is a great sin not to go on raids or wars to steal/rob, kill, and suppress for Muhammad and his successors, in the name of Allah. Also see 18/49b above.

     

    208 19/76c: "- - - Good Deeds - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this it is meant in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code - f.x. are going on raids and to war and steal, kill, and suppress for the benevolent and good god Allah, for Muhammad and for his successors, among the very best deeds, and to rape female victims included children (at least down to 9 years old) is "lawful and good".

    209 19/74a: "But how many (countless) generations before them have We (Allah*) destroyed - - -?" Benevolent god?

    210 19/83a: "Seest thou (Muhammad/Muslims*) not that We (Allah*) have set the Satan against the Unbelievers, to incite them with fury?". Consequently you fight Satan when you fight non-Muslims - they are bad and you fight for the good cause. This is the intended meaning, but there is an additional piece of information: By leaving the non-Muslims in the care of the Devil, the Quran robs them of the possibility of finding the way to Paradise "in the 11. hour". But then the Quran never minds others than the main persons; the good Muslim, and preferably the willing warriors. Empathy or sympathy, not to mention love, with others than the main persons and their nearest families, hardly exist in the Quran - a very serious difference to the NT. Yahweh and Allah the same god?. No - simply and plainly no.

    211 20/15e: "- - - every soul to receive its reward by the measure of its Endeavour". In the Quran a main question for the claimed next life is the balance of your good contra bad deeds - and the best of deeds was and is to go to war for Muhammad (Allah?) and destroy, steal, take captives for extortion or slavery, etc., and later also to force Islam on them and Iblis take the abrogated flagship 2/256: "Let there be no compulsion in religion". In especially NT the main way to salvation is the love and forgiving from Yahweh, as much as good deeds, though they count. A very different religion = a very different god.

    212 20/74b: "- - - (- - - sins) - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. We also may mention that just this word often covers very different deeds, acts, words, and thoughts in the Quran and Islam, than in more normal religions (Islam is a religion of war and Allah a god of war - in spite of Islam's loud slogans), not to mention how much its meaning in the Quran often differs from the basic of all human moral; "do against others like you want others do against you". Read the surahs from Medina and weep.

    213 20/128a: “Is it not a warning to men (to call to mind) how many generations before them We (Allah*) destroyed, in whose haunts they (now) move? Verily, in this are signs for men endued with understanding”. This is a theme Muhammad/the Quran frequently return to: In the Middle East there were scattered ruins from towns and hamlets and houses. Muhammad told that they all were remnants from earlier “unbelievers” punished by Allah for not believing their supposed prophets. As usual without a single proof for all places put together. (In Pakistan this year Muslims proposed to put placards with quotes like this on old ruins - proofs and warnings about the fate of “infidels”. This really tells something about those Muslims and about the level of education even today - in 2007 AD (This was written in the 2007 AD edition of "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" originally). What then about naïve, primitive and zero educated poor people 610-632 AD? - were they easily “impressed”?)

    His explanation is even more difficult to believe, as any professor and even student of archaeology or history can give many other explanations for ruins in arid areas - and especially in arid areas where the inhabitants were all waging war against everybody else at times.

    Absolutely not a valid sign unless there is a real proof.

    *214 21/6a: “- - - not one of the populations which We (Allah*) destroyed - - -“. Muhammad claimed that the scattered ruins and ruins from villages and towns were destroyed by Allah because its inhabitants had sinned. In an arid, hard and warlike area this hardly is the full truth – may be no truth at all.

    *215 21/91c: “- - - and We (the god*) made her (Mary’s*) son (Jesus*) a Sign for all peoples.” Very correct according to the Bible - but a sign for Yahweh/God, not for Allah - not unless Islam proves Allah is the same god as Yahweh/God. And the two religions and the two gods - especially the war god Allah from the surahs from Medina compared to the benevolent God/Yahweh from NT - are too different for that to be possible - not unless the god is seriously ill mentally.

    It also is a historical fact that there nowhere in the Roman Empire was a religion similar to Islam until after 610 AD.

    #216 22/39a: (NB: 622 or 623 AD): “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged”. Remark the difference in the wording here on the transition between the rather peaceful Mecca period, and during the bloody and inhuman Medina period afterwards. The same religion? The same god?

    ####According to Islam this is the first time the theme war for Muslims is mentioned in the Quran (remember the Quran is not ordered chronologically). For 5 years war was not at all mentioned, and the first 12 - 14 years war was not a topic, and then over the short period of some months during 622-624 AD it became the central topic and sure way to Paradise. What had happened to Allah? - and why had he cheated his followers by not telling about this simple and sure way to Paradise before? Sure even for the greatest sinners. (Though definitely not a sure way to Yahweh's Paradise. The same god? The same religion for Jesus and for Muhammad? Definitely not.)

    217 22/39e: "- - - Allah is Most Powerful for their (Muslims*) aid - - -". This is a claim you frequently meet in the surahs from Medina and the war religion Islam developed into there: Allah is powerful and will help you in battles - aiding you f.x. with thousands of angels of war. Often claimed, never proved. And why sand angels of war, when he just could say "be" and it was, according to the Quran?

    VERY different from NT. And remember: Both science and - against their wish - Islam thoroughly have proved that the Bible, included NT, is not falsified, in spite of Muhammad's - like normal - never proved claims about this.

    218 22/40d: “Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques - - -.” Wrong – this is far from the only way an omniscient and omnipotent god could manage the world. One alternative is f.x. to change man a little and teach him how to live in peace. Only members of a culture and religion of war and looting and suppressing do not immediately see this. This point just is an artificial alibi for war and conquest – and suppression and looting. (Scientists believe Muhammad's success and power destroyed him morally – not an unusual phenomenon for absolute dictators and others). Also see 22/39a above.

    219 22/58a: This is one of the verses from 624 AD: "Those who leave their home in the cause of Allah, and are then slain or die - on them will Allah bestow, verily, a goodly Provision (Paradise*) - - -". This is the flagship of the revised Islam: Be killed in war for the religion, and you go directly to the paradise, no matter how big a sinner you are. A very good claim - though never proved - for Muhammad and later warlike rulers. But it definitely is no proved verity/truth.

    There is nothing similar in the Bible.

    220 22/58b: This is one of the verses from 624 AD: "Those who leave their home in the cause of Allah, and are then slain or die - on them will Allah bestow, verily, a goodly Provision (Paradise*) - - -". #####Why did it take 14-15 years from Muhammad started his mission till he mentioned this for the first time, even though it is one of the central "facts" in the revised Islam?

    (Beware that even though Muhammad started his mission in 610, he was not very active outside his family and nearest ones the first few years.)

    221 23/61b: "- - - good work - - -". Beware that when words like these are used in the Quran, it is meant relative to the Quran's partly immoral moral code - the best of works was f.x. to wage war for Muhammad/Allah.

    222 24/52b: "It is such who obey Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - - that will win (in the end)". Win what? The world? Paradise? Everything? There is a possibility for everything, except Paradise, as it is a war religion - but Paradise is excepted because no god is behind the Quran and all its mistakes, and thus not behind Islam.

    ####Note how close Muhammad attaches himself to the power of his claimed god - in plain words: "Obey me - Muhammad". You find this many, many places in the Quran.

    #######Also note how different this "Obey me" is from Jesus' "Follow me". One of the proofs for that Jesus and Muhammad were not in the same religion or line of prophets.

    223 26/208b: "- - - destroy a population - - -". The ones saying Yahweh was murderous in OT, are in for some information if they read the Quran - Allah was/is much bloodier. (And if they compare old Islamic history with European history, they also will find some surprises - but most Westerners complaining about the bad Europe and its history, know little or nothing about other cultures' military - and raiding and enslaving - history.

    224 27/4d: "- - - We (Allah*) have made their deeds pleasing in their (non-Muslims'*) eyes - - -". Guess if that is the case also for Muslims, included warriors, al-Taqiyya (lawful lies) users, and terrorists.

    225 27/11d: "- - - evil - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. F.x. some of the worst wrongs were not to go on raids and war to steal and kill and suppress for Muhammad.

    226 27/34e: (A27/26): "Implied in her (the Queen of Saba/Sheba*) statement (about wanting to avoid war*) is the Quranic condemnation of all political power obtained through violence ('anwatan) inasmuch as it is bound to give raise to oppression, suffering and moral corruption". Are Muhammad and Islam samples of this? - much/most of Islam's riches and power came directly or indirectly through violence.

    This point is irony compared to the history of Islam, Muhammad - and Allah.

    ##227 27/89a: "If any do good, good will (accrue) to them therefrom - - -". The good things you do here on Earth will accumulate and count in your favor at the Day of Doom. But beware that this also goes for bad deeds - and not least: What are good deeds and what are bad deeds in Islam, is not necessarily the same as in other religions. In spite of loud claims of being "the Religion of Peace", Islam is a war religion ruled by a god of war, and its ethical and moral codes are "adjusted" accordingly. It also is a very fascistic religion, which influences its ideologies and its ethical and moral codes. Well, in the end it mainly will be the balance between your good and bad deeds which will decide whether you will end in Hell or Heaven - the goodness of Allah and forgiving counts, but it is not as essential as the love and goodness and forgiving of Yahweh in NT (there actually is little about love in the Quran, except some among close persons).

    **228 28/67a: "But any that (in this life) had repented, believed, and worked righteousness, will have hopes to be among those who achieve salvation". Only hope? If you are a warrior you are sure - at least if you are killed in war(?) This verse tells something.

    Rules from a religion of war and a god of war.

    229 28/69b: "And thy (Muslims') Lord (Allah*) knows all that their (peoples') hearts conceal - - -". But why then does a predestining, omniscient god need to test people - f.x. by sending them into war? Purely because he likes war? - - - or like some men or children who like to play war games?

    230 29/5b: "- - - strive - - -". Often in the Quran this refers to armed actions, but this early (621 - 624 AD) there is a reasonable chance it only means to toil or similar. (Islam did not become a war religion until after the arrival in Medina in 622 AD, and Muhammad started to need warriors - strangely Allah did not become a god of war until then(and also Gabriel was not named until then)).

    231 29/6a: “And if any strive for (with might and main) - - -". This is an expression which in the Quran normally means fight in raid or war (raids mainly were for stealing and for taking captives for extortion or slavery - later also for spreading Islam and for more power).

    232 29/6b: “And if any strive for (with might and main), they do so for their own souls - - -“. If you f.x. go to war or take part in raids, you gain merit from the god of war Allah. ("The Religion of Peace"?)

    233 29/7e: "- - - We (Allah*) shall reward them (good Muslims in the possible next life*) according to their best deeds (and the best deed for Muslims, is war or raids for Allah and Muhammad and his successors*)". This only is true if Allah exists and is a major god, and if the Quran in addition has told the full truth and only the truth on relevant points - and if he can reward/punish without changing his own unchangeable predestined Plan. One more never proved claim.

    234 29/69b: "- - - strive - - -". In the Quran this word normally refers to armed fighting.

    235 31/8b: "- - - righteous deeds - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is relative to the book's own partly immoral moral code. Compared to the one and fundamental "constitution" of all moral and ethical rules: "Do unto others like you want others to do unto you", the Quran's - and thus Islam's - moral code is unethical and immoral a number of places, even horrible some places. (f.x. the best deeds were raids and wars in the name of Allah - most of them in reality for riches, slaves and power. Muslims defends this with that such behavior only is permitted during jihad - holy war. But that is no defense - doing it in the name of the god in reality makes stealing, rape, enslavement, torture, and murder, etc. even more despicable. And besides practically everything is named jihad.)

    236 31/16g: "- - - forbid what is wrong - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is relative to the book's own partly immoral moral code. Compared to the one and fundamental "constitution" of all moral all ethics and of moral and ethical rules: "Do unto others like you want others to do unto you", the Quran's - and thus Islam's - moral code is unethical and immoral a large number of places, even horrible some places. (F.x. the best deeds were raids and wars in the name of Allah - most of them in reality for riches, slaves and power. Muslims defends this with that such behavior only is permitted during jihad - holy war. But that is no defense - doing it in the name of the god in reality makes stealing, rape, enslavement, torture, and murder, etc. even more despicable. And besides "everything" is named jihad).

    237 31/22b: "- - - a doer of good - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is relative to the book's own partly immoral moral code. Compared to the one and fundamental "constitution" of all inter human moral all ethics and of moral and ethical rules: "Do unto others like you want others to do unto you", the Quran's - and thus Islam's - moral code is unethical and immoral a number of places, even horrible some places. (F. x. the best deeds were raids and wars in the name of Allah - most of them in reality for riches, slaves and power. Muslims defend this with that such behavior only is permitted during jihad - holy war. But that is no defense - doing it in the name of the god in reality makes stealing, rape, enslavement, torture, and murder, etc. even more despicable).

    238 32/12b: "- - - the guilty ones - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is relative to the book's own partly immoral moral code. Compared to the one and fundamental "constitution" of all inter-human moral and ethics, and of moral and ethical rules: "Do unto others like you want others to do unto you", the Quran's - and thus Islam's - moral code is unethical and immoral a number of places, even horrible some places. (F.x. the best deeds were raids and wars in the name of Allah - most of them in reality for riches, slaves and power. Muslims defends this with that such behavior only is permitted during jihad - holy war. But that is no defense - doing it in the name of the god in reality makes stealing, rape, enslavement, torture, and murder, etc. even more despicable. Also: Practically everything is named jihad.)

    239 32/24e: "- - - persevere with patience - - -". An expression no non-Muslim should ever forget is imprinted and imprinted on Muslims - persevere and you win in the end, because the opponent or enemy grows tired. Especially democracies too easily grows tired, at least if they do not fight with their back against the wall.

    240 33/9f: "- - - and forces ye (the people of Medina*) saw not - - -". After the siege was lifted, Muhammad claimed that part of the reason for the "victory" was an army of warrior angels sent down by Allah.

    241 33/12-15 Pep-talk for the lukewarm - not all wanted to wage war, but Muhammad demanded this - or maybe it was the benevolent, good god Allah?

    242 33/15b: "- - - they (Muslims*) had already a covenant with Allah not to turn their back (in war/battle) - - -". Quite a covenant for any dictator to push his warriors - it would have been a dream for any such one - - - and Muhammad had it! Not to mention: Compare this with NT!!!

    ##243 33/15c: "- - - they (Muslims*) had already a covenant with Allah not to turn their back (in war/battle) - - -". Also quite a theme for a covenant with/from the claimed good and benevolent god of "the religion of peace". Try to compare this with: "You shall not kill (or sometimes translated 'murder')" (The 10 Commandments, 2. Mos. 20/13), not to mention "Turn the other cheek" in the time of the New Covenant (Luke.22/20).

    A mystery: Why did an omnipotent god need humans to fight for him? His omnipotence makes this meaningless. But everything suddenly gets meanings if it was Muhammad and not Allah who needed the warriors.

    There also is another fact which often strikes us when the Quran claims that Yahweh and Allah are the same god: The Mosaic religion had a rather strict god - Yahweh could be harsh and strict and bloody. But his harshness and his tendencies to be bloody had a limited purpose: To make the Jews a believing people and to create space for a homeland for them. When this was done - at least after a fashion - - - and when there for the first time in history came a period of peace and international open connections - the Pax Romana (27 BC to 180 AD) - long enough for a peaceful religion to set strong enough roots to survive later harsh times in this normally unruly part of the world, he let the more peaceful and human sides of his religion take over. All this for suddenly changing his mind around 622 AD when Muhammad started to need warriors and moral explanation for his raids of thieving, enslaving and murder, and not only return to the harsher version of his religion from OT, but taking it far into Odin's and Thor's Valhalla (gods and the Paradise of the Vikings) and blood and war, or Djingis Khan's pure religion of war - or actually even further. We repeat: NOT when Muhammad stared the new religion in 610, but when he started to need warriors in 622-623!!

    And a thought which strikes us is: This god must have a "jumbled up" "top floor" to change his mind frequently and much:

    If Muhammad and the Quran are correct on this point, the god drifted form a rather benevolent, but strict religion (OT) with some harsh spots, towards a religion (NT) dominated of mildness and love. (Before you fire your machine-guns: Remember we are talking about how the book tells the religion should be, not how it in reality was practiced or disused some times and places).

    Then suddenly in 622 AD in the space of a few months, the god not only returns to his stricter and obsolete OT-ideas, but creates a new and full-fledged apartheid, hate, dishonesty, and war religion (that Islam is "the religion of peace" is pure al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and propaganda - just read the Quran and the Hadiths and see for yourself, only remember that when nice words are contradicted by harsh demands and deeds and rules, it is the demands and deeds and rules which are telling the truth, not the nice, but cheap words). And not least: Read what imams, mullahs, and other scholars tell Muslims - not the rest of the world, but Muslims - about the glorious duty of fighting wars.

    And our thoughts continue: This god is a master of mental slalom - or he is undecided. Or is the reason inability to make up his mind?

    To our knowledge there never before - or after - was a religion which drifted from benevolent, but strict, to peace and love, for then to change once more, and now to the very opposite: A religion of discrimination, superiority complex, and a pure and war religion - from politeness and from a small feeling that the word "hate" is just a little too strong, we omit that word here.

    To our knowledge there also never in history was another religion which change so completely - here from relatively peaceful to a full war religion - in such a short time: Just some months, maximum 2 years (in the period 622 - 624 AD).

    Did Allah find peace too boring and changed his mind ones more to get more action and blood and human misery?

    Or was it Muhammad who suddenly wanted warriors for his raids?

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

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

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

    ###244 33/16c: “Running away will not profit you (Muslim warriors*), if ye are running away from death or slaughter, and even if (ye do escape), no more than a brief (respite) will ye be allowed to enjoy”. Well, this proves two things: It is not possible to escape predestination - no matter what Islam tries to tell you today that "it is not real predestination" (with full predestination man has no free will, and it is immoral by Allah to punish for sins or reward for good deeds) - and that in spite of the Quran, you at least can change your destination with “a brief respite“. A respite that at least has to be for some hours or days - if not there had been newly-dead frightened warriors laying around the nearest tens and more kilometers from some battlefields (because of their predestined hour or minute of death was up) - dead for no obvious reasons after fleeing from battle.

    This in addition to that modern statistical science long since has proved this verse nonsense. This even more so as even if they had got "no more than a brief (respite)", the laws of chaos then had changed the future - and Allah's precognition was gone.

    But Muhammad got many and terrific, but naïve warriors - - - and was so intelligent that he had to know he was lying.

    And this goes for each and every time he said things like this.

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

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

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

    245 33/16d: “Running away will not profit you (humans/Muslims*), if ye are running away from death and slaughter; and even if (ye do escape), no more than a brief (respite) will ye be allowed to enjoy.” This is one of the really clear declarations: Go to war for Allah and Muhammad (and his successors), because you will not die until your time is up anyhow – and when it is up, you will die no matter. (It is likely this was the main reason behind Muhammad's strong claims about predestination, and also for the fact that he seems to have put more stress on predestination in later years.)

    246 33/18e: "- - - (some bad men*) come not to fight except for a little while". Not good followers of Allah.

    Compare this to NT. Definitely not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad even more surely not in the same line of prophets (even if Muhammad had been a real prophet).

    "The Religion of Peace"? A god of peace?

    247 33/19c: "Such men (who do not want to fight*) have no faith - - -.” – and are not good followers of Allah. Pep-talk: You of course are better?

    Did anybody ever hear Jesus say things like this?

    #####248 33/19d: "Such men (who do not want to fight*) have no faith - - -.” What does it tell about Muhammad and Islam - and Allah - that they stated that unless you were a willing warrior, you were no good Muslim? Some contrast to propaganda about "Islam is the Religion of Peace"!! But then Muslims and Islam seldom claim that "Islam is the Religion of Honesty".

    249 33/20e: "- - - they (no good Muslims*) would fight but a little". Pep-talk: You of course are better?

    ###250 33/21a: “Ye (Muslims*) have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the final Day - - -“. Wrong. Thieving/robbing, womanizing, raping, lying, deceiving, betraying, extorting, suppressing, murdering, hate mongering, war mongering, mass murder, raids for robbing and killing, and wars of aggression – that is no “beautiful pattern” according to any human moral or ethical philosophy, except in some war religions included Islam. It tells volumes about Islam that this man is their greatest hero and shining idol.

    The claim is strongly contradicted by the realities in his teachings and his life, based on Islamic historical sources.

    But it is worth remembering that Islam uses the same glorious words about Muhammad and all his deeds and "misdeeds" even today, like the ones Muhammad here used about himself. It tells something about Islam and about some Muslims - especially about the leaders and the scholars who really know the Quran and the real Muhammad.

    251 33/23d: "- - - some (Muslims*) have completed their vow (to the extreme) - - -". = They have been killed in raids and wars for riches, Allah and Muhammad - or at least for riches and Muhammad (nearly all the raids during the lifetime of Muhammad were for stealing riches - and Muhammad god 20% to 100% of what they stole (20% if there was a fight, 100% if the victims gave in without a fight). For comparison we may mention that one single time in the Bible - in the OT - Yahweh asked for a tribute from spoils taken in a war (4. Mos. 30/28-29). He asked for 1:500 from half (= 0.1% of total) and 1:50 from the other half (= 1% of total). Allah/Muhammad demanded 10 to 500 times as much - and each and every time. The same god? Please use your brain, not only your ears.

    252 33/24a: "That Allah may reward the men - - -". This will depend entirely on for one thing if he exists, for another if he wants to (= if the Quran has told the truth about him being a god of war and blood), and if he in case is able to = if he is something supernatural (and remember that if he in case belongs to the dark forces, the "reward" may be surprising).

    #253 33c/26g: "- - - some (the Jewish men and male youths*) ye (Muslim's*) slew, and some (= the Jewish women and children) ye made prisoners." The word "slave" is a loaded word today - and Muslims not always 100% honest. Muhammad did not make them prisoners, but slaves, and he sold and gave them away. Muhammad also personally raped first Rayhana bint Amr, and when Khaybar finally was taken a couple of years later, Safijja bint Huayay - Safiyya was 17, and married very shortly before - and Muhammad raped her after he had tortured her husband Kinana to death (he lit a fire on his chest, let it burn till Kinana was practically dead, and then beheaded him - he believed Kinana knew about hidden money Muhammad wanted to steal). Also Muhammad’s slave Marieh likely had little choice when he wanted sex with her. We do not know if he raped more women - or children - but the casual way his men reacted to the rapes, may indicate something. Muslims are very right: Muhammad is a moral idol for Muslims - Islam after all is a hate and war religion.

    254 33/27a: (Continued from 33/26 above): "And He (Allah*) made you heirs of their land, their houses, their goods, and of land ye had not frequented (before) - - -". Muhammad "on the war-path" stole everything - in this case also their homes and land - - - in addition to making the women and children slaves and murdering the men (some 700 men and youths).

    Muhammad was very different from Jesus. Very. And living in a totally different religion.

    255 33/27b: “And He (Allah*) made you (Muslims*) heirs of their (Jews'*) land, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things”. Some rich spoils of war can justify much, and quiet many a man’s conscience - especially when a god sanctifies it. Could such things happen today or in the future? - we do not mention names like Darfur or Indonesia or East Timor or the Turks against Christian underlings around 1900 AD - f.x. in Armenia and Smyrna. It is accepted in the Quran as "lawful and good" and the Quran cannot be changed - a fact those forget who talks about liberalizing Islam. If Islam gains the upper hand, things like this may happen again, as it is part of the Quran's unchangeable and partly immoral moral code.

    And like Muhammad did against the Jews in and around Medina - stealing even their farms and houses (mad Muslims "heirs" of it) - Islam frequently did other places later = one more incitement for warriors to go to war and perhaps "inherit" a farm or something.

    Muhammad was very different from Jesus. Very. And living in a totally different religion. Similar must be said about Yahweh contra the god of war Allah.

    256 33/43d: "- - - He (Allah*) is full of Mercy to the Believers". There never was a god of a war religion who really was full of mercy even towards his believers (not to mention towards others). Also See 1/1a and 1/1e above.

    ###257 33/50d: "- - - We (Allah*) have made lawful for you (Muhammad and Muslims*) - - - those whom thy right possesses (= your slaves*) out of the spoils of war - - -". This plainly tells that Muslims are permitted to rape any female captive of war (and remember all wars in reality are named jihad, so Muslims cannot explain that it only is for jihads - and honestly it is quite a god who says: "When you fight for me - or at least your leaders claim you are - you are permitted to rape any female child (at least if she is 9 years or older - Muhammad's start of sex with Aisha when she was 9, girl, woman or married not pregnant woman you come across, if you just can call her your captive). But just look at armed conflicts the last couple of generations included Bangladesh and Eritrea - that is just what even regular Muslim armies have practiced - with inhuman examples in Bangladesh, where the hundreds of thousands of or more rape victims even were fellow Muslims. (We have read that in Bangladesh there after that war were born some 200ooo illegitimate children from the rapes (though other sources "only" said that 200ooo girls and women were raped). This in case means a few million cases of rape of fellow Muslim girls and women. On average each Pakistanis soldier in case made several rapes. (Though others say that "only" 200ooo girls and women were raped, and that the number of babies is too high.)) This sentence tells more about reality in the Islamic moral code and about the benevolence of Allah, than all the nice claims about such things in the Quran combined - acts and rules showing reality, always are more reliable than nice claims. And honestly: To do it in the name of their god makes the deeds even more disgusting, and tells a lot about the real Allah - - - if he exists.

    Another point:

    1. To steal and rob is dishonesty, even though the Quran - like f.x. the Mafia - permitted it, and even glorified it as it attracted warriors and gave Muhammad power and riches.
    2. .
    3. To steal humans (for slavery) is dishonesty to at least the second or third power. Firstly they stole their freedom, which is very valuable to most humans. Secondly they stole the economic value they had as slaves.
    4. And they often stole children’s' and women's sexual "services" (= raped them), the privacy which definitely has a deep value for most humans. And not to forget what the homosexuals stole. To what power and inhumanity is this?
    5. And not to forget: There - then and now - is all the verbal dishonesty, the lies.
     

    All this #######was and is "lawful and good". A "Religion of Honesty"? #### What is the claim "the Religion of Truth" worth, when the use of dishonesty of all kinds are so accepted as "lawful and good" working tools, that even the slogan "the Religion of Truth" may be a lie?

    A typical war religion - run by a typical god of war.

    #####Christianism abhors dishonesty. Buddhism abhors dishonesty. Hinduism abhors dishonesty. Jewism abhors dishonesty. Nearly all religions abhor dishonesty. Of all religions we have come across, there only are two who have dishonesty, deceit, and betrayal as an integrated part of the religion: Islam and a small primitive pagan religion on New Guinea.

    If the Quran simply belongs among the apocryphal books, many things are easy to understand, and it at least belongs in that line and tradition, even if it is further "out" than most of the others. Muhammad also fits the picture of the leader of an apocryphal sect, admittedly more unreliable, immoral and bloody than most of the others.

    Also see 30/40h and 30/47b above.

    258 33/58c: "- - - a glaring sin - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. We also may mention that just this word often covers very different deeds, acts, words, and thoughts in the Quran and Islam, compared to in more normal religions (Islam is a religion of war - in spite of its loud slogans), not to mention how much its meaning in the Quran often differs from the basic of all human moral; "do against others like you want others do against you". Read the surahs from Medina and weep.

    One small remark: As Yahweh's religion and f.x. moral code at many points are totally different from Allah's, you may qualify for Yahweh's Paradise even if Muslims condemn you to Hell - if both exists.

    ###259 33/60e: "- - - We (Allah*) shall certainly stir thee (Muslims*) up against them (bad ones or not Muslims*) - - -". To twist an old proverb: This sentence alone tells more than a 1000 choice slogans about "the religion of peace". What you say when you forget to guard your words or do not think it necessary, always by far is more reliable than carefully chosen claims. Also see next comment just below.

    #####260 33/60f: "- - - We (Allah*) shall certainly stir thee (Muslims*) up against them (bad ones or not Muslims*), then they will not be able to stay in it (the city*) as thy neighbor’s for any length of time". This tells as much as the comment just above. Something to remember when you accept Muslims to your city? There already are demands for special treatment for Muslims many places. We remind you, though, that most - at least 70% on average according to research - are as ok as you and me. But the problem is: Who is who?.

    ###261 33/61-62: “They (non-Muslims, hypocrites, etc.*) shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be sized and slain (without mercy) (‘no compulsion in religion’ 2/256*). (Such was) the praxis (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime (f.x. Jews and Christians*). Muhammad claimed that Allah was just another name for Yahweh – but try to find an order telling that all non-Christians shall be murdered “without mercy” in NT and in the new covenant (f.x. Luke 22/20 in NT) - a covenant Muslims never mention - and NT is what Christianity is built on . Oh, we know very well that persons from Christian countries have done bad things, but that was in spite of their religion – and they were not really Christians deep down – and not in accordance with, or even because of the religion, like the case often is with the “religion of peace” (Muslim-speak for camouflaging the “religion of war”) Islam.

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

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

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

    ###262 33/62a: “(Such was) the practice (kill non-believers without mercy*) (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: no change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.” Muhammad here refers to the Mosaic and the Christian religions (and he wrongly sets Allah = Yahweh) when he talks about “those who lived aforetime”. But even though OT is hard against many non-Jews, the war and the killing was to get room for living for the Jews, not wanton murdering just because they were not Jews or for plunder and slaves. Plus defense. And in NT: Try to find a single place saying that non-believers shall be murdered just because they have another religion – such an order simply does not exist. (There are 1-2 places in the OT where Yahweh disliked that the Jews did not kill many enough of the enemies, but because the survivors represented future problems, not because they refused to change religion.) The Quran here actually is a 180 degree contradiction to the very core of the teachings of Jesus.

    Any god had been lying if he said this, but Muhammad did not know the Bible well, so may be – just may be – he thought from wishful thinking that he spoke the truth, but no matter he was too intelligent not to know he had no reliable source for the claim. ###Correction: This surah is from 625-629 AD = Muhammad now knew more than enough from the old Jewish scriptures and knew he was lying. In any case it was a good statement for a warlord trying to secure and enlarge his platform of power; Self-centered. Selfish? (This surah like said is believed to be from 625 – 629 AD = before he had gained absolute control by conquering Mecca.)

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

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

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

    263 33/62b: “Such (to kill non-Muslims not living according to Islam’s laws of suppression of non-Muslims*) was the practice (approved) of Allah among the ones that lived aforetime: no change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah (now or in the future*)”. If Islam/Muslims grow strong enough some time, this is what to expect, according to their holy book. How had the world looked today, if the industrial revolution with its superior weapons, ships, and economic and military superiority had happened in the Muslim area? - Islam has no moral, ethical, empathetically, ideological or philosophical ideas against suppressing other people - on the contrary it is a religious duty to do so. Actually Islam has no moral or ethical philosophy at all - that was decided once and for all before 1100 AD by the religion, with al Ghazali - "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad" - as the grave digger with his book "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" based on Muhammad's words and deeds and al Ghazali's ideas about them. (There were a few thinkers for some more time - about 100 more years - in Spain, but they got little influence on the mainstream Islam).

    264 34/6d: “- - - the (Revelation (the Quran*)) sent down to thee (Muhammad*) by thy Lord (Allah*) - - -“. The Quran is not from any omniscient god – too many mistakes, etc. Neither is it from a good god – war religions normally are not: Too much inhumanity, injustice, and terror.

    265 39/28d: "- - - Evil". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. It f.x. is a great evil to refuse to go war or on raids for Muhammad or his successors - an extra informative fact as most of Muhammad's raids were aggression from Muslims/Muhammad for to steal/rob riches, etc. (see the list of raids and wars in our Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran").

    266 39/37e: "((Allah is*) Able to enforce his Will.)" Why then does he have to use humans to do the dirty work for him? - destroying the lives of others, killing, raiding, waging war, terrorizing?

    267 41/17c: "- - - We (Allah*) gave them Guidance - - -". If the guidance was similar to in the Quran, it was doubtful guidance in case - fit mainly for robber and war groups or such tribes or nations.

    ###268 42/3d: (A42/2): "I.e. the basic truths propounded in the Quranic revelation - - - are the same as those revealed to the earlier (Jewish*) prophets". To be very polite: This is not true. There are oceans between Muhammad and the Jewish prophets - deep fundamental differences and contradictions, especially compared to Jesus and his new covenant. Muhammad was not in that line of prophets - not even in the same moral world - and in a basically very different religion - one of war and suppression, hate, dishonesty and apartheid, simply 180 degree contradiction to Jesus' teachings and a lot different from the older prophets, too.

    The fact is that the many and deep differences between the messages in the Bible and the Quran are one of the absolute proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. Yahweh peace (some war in OT, but for limited purposes), Allah rather peaceful until ca. 622 AD and the flight to Medina, changing to a full war god shortly after that flight.

    ######What could make an eternal god after billions of years suddenly change from reasonably peaceful and benevolent, to a god of thieving, dishonesty, deceit, and blood in just some months - and just at the time when Muhammad started to need warriors for raids for riches and power?

    269 43/32d: "- - - the Mercy of thy (Muslims') Lord (Allah*) - - -". Read the surahs from Medina, the immoral parts of the Quran's moral code, the unjust and/or immoral parts of the sharia laws, plus the Quran's rules for murders, suppression, rape, enslavement, war, etc., and sum um Allah's real level of mercy. Nice words are cheap, reality is reliable.

    ###270 43/37e: (YA4639): "The downward course in evil is rapid. But the most tragic consequence is that evil persuades its victims to believe that they are pursuing good. They think evil to be their good. They go deeper and deeper into the mire, and become more and more callous." Think of the immoral parts of the Quran's moral code, the unethical parts of its ethical code, the unjust parts of its laws, the inhuman parts of its war code (compare all of it to the one and only main moral code "do onto others like you want others do onto you", and you easily see the immoral, etc. parts) - ####is this point describing Muslims?

    And "rapid"? Muhammad, Allah, and Islam just took months to change from quite peaceful to a full war and dishonesty religion.

    271 43/72b: "- - - (good) deeds (in life)". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral and unethical moral and ethical codes. As you understand, also your deeds are more essential in the Quran than in especially NT. Good for Muhammad and other leaders, as it is an argument for obeisance and will to do things.

    Also remember that a "good deed" in a war religion - not to mention in a religion of claimed "holy wars" - may be something very different from in "normal" religions.

    272 44/3d: "- - - We (Allah*) (ever) wish to warn (against Evil)". Here is meant "against religious evil" - which means every religious belief not accepted by the Quran. The irony is that large parts of the Quran's moral, ethical, political, war, and judicial codes are evil compared to normal such codes in normal cultures, not to mention compared to "do to others like you want others do to you". (But what is the Quran's definition for "evil" if the theory that the Devil is the real maker of the book is correct? If it is from supernatural beings, the dark forces are the only alternative, as no god ever delivered a book of a quality like the Quran - and even more so, as it is not from a good and benevolent god, as too much is adverse to "do against others like you want others do against you".)

    273 47/4a: “Therefore, (because Allah wants it!! - see 47/3*) when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks - - -.” A clear order.

    **274 47/4b: “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight (and remember the Muslims practically always were the aggressors – to gain riches and slaves and power, though they called it holy wars - - - and some new proselytes*)), smite at their necks - - -.” Surah 47 is from 622 AD and Mecca, but some verses likely from Medina – and it is possible to see the change towards war already. It contradicts and abrogates a lot of peaceful verses. 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).

    §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§

    ###275 47/4c: This is a really serious one: “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them) - - -.” BUT OUR SOURCES TELL THAT THE WORDS “(in fight)” IS NOT WRITTEN IN THE ARAB TEXT – IT IS ADDED BY THE TRANSLATOR (and by more than one). Muslims primarily shall read the Quran in Arab, and there in case our sources are correct, the text is: “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers, smite at their necks - - -“. It in case simply is a permanent order to be aggressive.

    The real religion of peace. Not to mention a god of peace.

    Al-Taqiyya is the name for "lawful lies" in Islam, and is advised to be used "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion.

    §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§

    276 47/4i: "- - - but (He (Allah*) lets you fight) in order to test you - - -". Why - why does an omniscient and omnipotent god need to test his followers - he knows everything and predestines everything!? And this even more so if it really is true that he predestines everything. There is no logic in this sentence, unless it in reality is Muhammad who wants warriors and needs an explanation.

    277 47/4j: "- - - but (He (Allah*) lets you fight) in order to test you - - -". There are so many ways of testing a person. Why did "the Religion of Peace" have to do it by raids and wars for wealth and slaves and power?!! There is no logic in this, too, unless the explanation is that in reality it was Muhammad who wanted warriors and needed to "explain" why "Allah wanted it".

    On thinking it over: Why at all does an omniscient god need to test you? - if he is omniscient, he can learn nothing at all from it.

    #278 47/4k: “But those who are slain in the way of Allah - He (Allah*) will never let their deeds be lost.” Make war for "the religion of peace" and go to Paradise. But this only is true if Allah exists and is a major war god (only a war god rewards ill deeds, and makes them look god in the perpetrators' eyes - well, also devils do).

    ####Perhaps as bad: If the Quran is not true in everything and from a god, the slain ones - and others - are cheated (but Islam accepts cheating in wide cases, and Muhammad used it himself, so that is ok(?)).

    279 47/4m: "- - - He (Allah*) will never let their (slain warriors') deeds be lost - - -". If the Quran tells the truth, if Allah exists, if Allah is a major god of war (only gods of war and devils reward or "reward" ill deeds and make them look good in the doers' eyes).

    280 47/5c: “Soon will He (Allah*) guide them (Muslims slain for Allah/Muhammad*) and improve their conditions, And admit them to the Garden which He has announced for them”. Vague promises - it can of course be no less than Paradise, but you will find much more epic - and lyric - descriptions not much later. Allah quickly had found a good receipt - or perhaps Muhammad. Nice promises for the warriors and cheap promises for Muhammad. This claim/promise is invalid if the Quran is a made up book - and at least no god made a book of that quality.

    281 47/7b: “O ye who believe! If ye will aid (from the context it is clear it means in war*) (the cause of) Allah, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly.” Seemingly a good deal. A strengthening of the morality of Muhammad's warriors. But the deal only is a good one if Allah really exists, really is a god, and is correctly described in the Quran.

    282 47/10a: "Do they (non-Muslims*) not travel through the earth, and see what was the End of those before them (who did evil)?” In the Middle East there are scattered ruins – houses, villages, towns. Muhammad claimed – as normal without any proof – that they all were results of Allah’s punishment for disbelief and sins. But in an arid and harsh country which on top of all was settled by warlike inhabitants, there were many other reasons for empty houses. The statement that all were empty because of punishment for disbelief and other sins against Allah needs strong proofs from Islam to be believed.

    283 47/20c: “But when a surah of basic or categorical meaning is revealed, and fighting is mentioned therein, thou wilt see those in whose heart is a disease looking at thee with the look of one in swoon at the approach of death.” A mark on the ones not liking to fight was that they were sick - had a disease in their heart. But it is worth for others to remember that not all Muslims - far from all - are blood-thirsty.

    284 47/20-21: "- - - more fitting for them (the ones not wanting to go to war*) were it to obey - - -". Obey whom? Allah, of course! - which here on Earth meant obeying Muhammad. A nice sentence for any dictator.

    #####285 47/31d: This verse - and quite a number of others - does not give meaning if Allah is omniscient and knows everything. If he is omniscient, he also knows everything about you. Not to mention if he on top of all predestines everything, so that you just are a puppet in a puppet theatre, reacting to his Plan only.

    But if this is Muhammad needing an explanation for why he sends warriors out to steal and enslave and enlarge his power, then suddenly tales like these are logical - if his followers were naive enough or blind enough.

    286 47/35a: “Be not fainthearted (when fighting in war*) - - -“. A clear message.

    287 48/2e: "- - - (Allah will*) guide thee (Muhammad*) - - -". If Allah guided Muhammad, Allah for one thing is not omniscient - too many mistakes, etc. in his guidebook. For another he was not clairvoyant, which he should be if he was like described in the Quran - he had to abrogate many points of his teaching, and also changed it radically from rather peaceful to one of war, hate and central elements of dishonesty around and after 622 - 624 AD, and not to mention all wrong facts and other errors in the Quran. For a third he was no good and benevolent god - much of what Muhammad did, was from inhuman to real horror. And finally: Allah in case is a god of terror and war and accepting dishonesty in words and deeds.

    **288 48/15a: “Those who lagged behind (did not take active part in the battle or fight*) - - -". Those reluctant to take part in raids and war, though in just this case it may refer to the ones who did not want to come along on the pilgrimage which ended in the treaty of Hudaybiyah, but most of what the Quran says, have general implications. (Texts in the Quran often are not very clear, in spite of what Muslims and Islam claim).

    One should remember this fact that now like then far from all Muslims want strife and war, etc. Very far from all Muslims are bad people.

    **289 48/15b: “Those who lagged behind (did not take active part in the battle or fight*) (will say), when ye (the “real” warriors*) (are free to) march and take booty (in war) - - -”. The stealing and robbing and taking of slaves and raping of girls and women, are for the active warriors only - a huge incentive for poor, uneducated ruffians. Is it partly the same effect we saw in Darfur and f.x. in Bangladesh and East Timor? - easy to find warriors, and most inhuman behavior. May such things happen other places if Islam grows strong enough and fanatics - or the "right" kind of mullahs or imams - take over the leadership? There (when this was written) are tendencies in London, and many of the 9/11 terrorists came from Hamburg - not to mention the unrest in many cities in France in 2006, and for that case in some a little liberal countries in (North) Africa where fanatics want to take over power (one exception may - just may - be Turkey, which has been secular since Ataturk in the 1920s. There may be a chance. Strangely enough also Bangladesh and Malaysia have a small chance to become human democracies - and perhaps Jordan and a couple of the emirates benevolent dictatorships. But the rest of all the Muslim world either is in the grip of fanatics or is drifting that way at present - towards what some call Muslim radicalism, others Muslim conservatism - likely the most correct expression - and even others Islamism, but which all just are different names for fanatics). (This was written before the unrest in Muslim countries in 2011).

    What had the world looked like today if the Muslim world had not petrified into stony fundamentalism and stagnated? - if the Muslim world had developed the industrial revolution and superior weapons and ways of fighting, instead of the West? You can bet against very heavy odds that the world now had been ruled by imams, and without any realistic chance of ever becoming a free world. And with all non-Muslims low down in an apartheid system.

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

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

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

    ##290 48/15c: (A48/14): “- - - when ye (Muslims*) (are free to) march and take plunder (in war) - - -.” Or: “As soon as you (O Muslims!) are about to set forth on a war that promises booty - - -.” For some strange (?) reasons in none of our different translations are used the literal meaning of the Arab text (translated from Swedish): “- - - leave on a raid to take plunder - - -.” May be sometimes the varieties in the understanding of the Quranic texts are because one does not want to tell what really is said in the book. According to Islamic information or disinformation all Muhammad’s some 80+ raids (we have the names of some 60 of the raids) were in self defense, and then it may as well be wise for “the Religion of Peace” to “mend” the text a little and make it more tasteful and "correct"? - instead of translating the Quran correctly and have to admit that Muhammad made "raids to take plunder" - not very holy jihads.

    #####"The Religion of Peace"??? #####"The Religion of Honesty"??? - #########remember that also stealing and not only lying is dishonesty.

    At least: Clearly a god of dishonesty, suppression, and war.

    ##291 48/15d: (A48/14): “- - - when ye (Muslims*) (are free to) march and take plunder (in war) - - -.” Or: “As soon as you (O Muslims!) are about to set forth on a war that promises booty - - -.” Try to find things like this in NT! One more at least 100% proof for that Yahweh and Allah were not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same line of anything of any consequence.

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

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

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

    **292 48/16b: “Say (Muhammad*) to the desert Arabs (but most of the Quran is valid for all people and all times according to Islam*) who lagged behind: ‘Ye shall be summoned (to fight) against a people given to vehement war: then shall ye fight, or they shall submit. Then if ye show obedience (fight*), Allah will grant you a goodly reward (rich spoils of holy(?) war and Paradise*) - - -”. A huge carrot to make fighting attractive - but what "religion of peace" goes far out to make war attractive?

    ***293 48/16f: "Then if ye (in this case desert Arabs reluctant to take part in raids*) show obedience, Allah will grant you a goodly reward - - -". Obedience to whom? - here on Earth in reality to Muhammad, and for a reward costing Muhammad exactly nothing but some words free of charge. The dream position for a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, a Papa Doc, any dictator wanting absolute and total power and obedience. Religion disused is the ultimate platform of power.

    And what goodly reward? The never proved promise about a place in Paradise and permission to steal, rape, extort, and take slaves. The tragedies this meant for others NEVER - then or today - is mentioned. ###Islam is an extremely self centered and selfish religion. This is even more sinister as the religion highly likely is a made up pagan one, as no god would deliver a "holy" book of a quality like the Quran.

    ***294 48/16h: “- - - but if ye (see first part of 48/16a above*) turn back (refuse to fight*) as ye did before, He (Allah*) will punish you with a grievous Penalty”. Very clear words from Muhammad and then Islam: Do battle or end in Hell. Some nice "Religion of Peace"! Try to find things like this in NT! One more at least 100% proof for that Yahweh and Allah were not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same line of anything of any consequence.

    ###Also the big differences between the Bible's and the Quran's hells are more than big and fundamental enough to prove that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - if they had been, also their hells had been more or less identical.

    295 48/16i: "- - - He (Allah*) will punish you (Bedouins*) with a grievous Penalty (for not going on raids and to war*)". The good and benevolent god for "the religion of peace"?

    296 48/16k: When you see the verse 48/16 as a whole, there is only this conclusion possible to draw: A man who says the Quran teaches a human and peaceful and friendly religion towards non-Muslims and some fractions of Muslims, either has not read the Quran, or is deceiving himself, or is lying - and knows he is lying (this was said in 628 AD, long time after Islam had been changed to a religion of dishonesty, apartheid, blood, and war). At his time Muhammad knew ever so well that he was lying each time he said things like this - and each time he had said it earlier, and not corrected it by now. (But then lying "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion is no sin according to the rules for al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc. in Islam - the only of the big religions with rules for ok. dishonesty (the only other we have heard about, was a small and primitive pagan religion on New Guinea.)). And any man believing him either has not read the Quran, or is deceiving himself or is naïve.

    The same is the only conclusion possible after reading the entire Quran, and especially the surahs from Medina - which on top of all dominates over the more peaceful ones from Mecca according to Islam’s own rule abrogation, as the ones from Medina are younger.

    ###If a book about politics or any other subject than religion (actually for Muslims religion is politics), inciting so strongly to hate, (religious) apartheid, suppression (of women and of all outsiders), stealing/robbing, rape, murder and war like the Quran, had been published, it had been prohibited in all civilized and most little civilized countries. (It was proposed to prohibit it in the Netherlands, but it will not be politically possible to do it because of Islam's power).

    297 48/17b: "No blame is there on the blind, nor is there blame on the lame, nor one ill (if he joins not the war) - - -". The underlying, but clear meaning: But there is blame on every fit man who does not want to go on raids/war. There is not an adult Muslim not knowing about points like this in the Quran. All the same they vehemently and with straight faces claim that Islam is "the Religion of Peace"(!!!)

    No comment - and none necessary.

    Except: Try to find things like this in NT! One more at least 100% proof for that Yahweh and Allah were not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same line of anything of any consequence.

    ###298 48/17c: “- - - but he (the Muslim*) that obeys Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad, and goes to war when called*) - (Allah) will admit him to Gardens beneath which rivers flow - - -”. The great War god (Allah) and his representative and High Commander on Earth (Muhammad) will admit any dead warrior (aka robber, murderer, rapist, etc., “good and lawful” according to the Quran) to their warriors’ paradise with riches and women. Also see 48/16a and 48/16b above + 10/9f above.

    Be the way: #######What kind of Paradise do women get? - and what kind of life there? The Quran cares nearly nothing about this.

    299 48/17g: "- - - (Allah) will admit him (the warrior*) to Gardens - - -". This Allah only can do if he exists, and if he is a god, none of which is proved.

    300 48/18a: "Allah's Good Pleasure was on the Believers when they swore Fealty to thee (Muhammad*) under the Tree (in Hudaybiyah outside Mecca in 628 AD*). Swearing obedience to Muhammad for taking part in his raids and wars, was Good Pleasure to Allah - some "Religion of Peace"! And a very easy and good way for Muhammad to get ruthless warriors - - - and a most cheap way for him pay them.

    ####301 48/19a: "And many gains will they (Muslims*) acquire (besides) - - -". Well, a good number of Muslims became rich or at least well off from plunder, extortion, slave taking, etc. But we have never till this day met a single Muslim - not to mention a Muslim religious or profane leader or Islam itself - reflecting on what price others had to pay for that. You meet boasting about riches and power, but never a thought about the victims. And as it was "good and lawful" according to Muhammad, none of them will ever do or think so - not among the religious Muslims at least. That is ethics and moral in Islam.

    As said the price paid by the victims NEVER interested neither Allah, nor the Muslims, nor Muhammad. Not even the Muslims of today. What does this tell about them? - and about Islam?

    302 48/20b: "Allah has promised you (Muslims*) many gains that ye shall acquire (from plunder*) - - -". See 48/19a above.

    303 48/20f: (A48/23 – in 2008 edition A22): “Allah has promised you many gains that ye shall acquire - - -.” Booty. A good and cheap way to get warriors. But does it here only talk about “gold and slaves and a few rapes” in this life (may be Khaybar in this case), or also riches in the next life like among others Ibn Abbas thought?

    ######The price paid by the victims NEVER interested neither Allah, nor the Muslims, nor Muhammad. What does this tell about them? - and about Islam?

    304 48/24c: "- - - after He (Allah*) gave you (Muhammad*) victory over them". See 48/24a above. We may add that it does not take much of a god to make a couple of thousands partly armed warriors overpower somewhere between 30 and 80 opponents.

    305 49/9b: "- - - then fight ye (Muslims*) (all) - - -". Guess if this is different from the message of Jesus (NT)!! The relationship between these religions is very distant and superficial. (Muhammad has "borrowed" a lot of folklore based on the Bible, and often twisted it some to fit his new religion, but that is about it.)

    306 49/13c: "Verily the most honored of you (Muslims*) in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you". But other parts of the Quran makes it clear that the most righteous are the ones most willing to go to war for "Allah and his Messenger Muhammad".

    ####Note how close Muhammad attaches himself to the power of his claimed god - in plain words: "Obey me - Muhammad". You find this many, many places in the Quran. Power was the main thing Muhammad sought - and riches to gain more power. The Quran clearly indicates that power - and respect - meant even more for him than women. And he was eager for (young) women - willing ones and not willing ones - and at least one child.

    307 49/15b: “Only those are Believers who have believed in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*), and have never since doubted, but have striven with their belongings and their persons (= made war*) in the Cause of Allah - - -.” Use your wealth and your life in war for Muhammad/Allah – only then you are a real Muslim. A clear message.

    308 49/15c: “Only those are Believers who have believed in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*), and have never since doubted, but have striven with their belongings and their persons (= made war*) in the Cause of Allah: such are the sincere ones". Sugar to terrorists included the self murder ones.

    Strange, but you never heard Jesus say something similar to this.

    309 50/36a: "But how many generations before them did We (Allah*) destroy (for their sins) - - -". Allah was a good and benevolent god? Yahweh with his small wars in and around Canaan (now approximately Israel) to establish and secure an country for the Jews in OT, is just primary school pupil in this branch.

    310 50/45b: “We (Allah*) know best what they (the “infidels”*) say; ###and thou (Muhammad*) art not one to overawe them by force.” Knowing the 22 – 24 surahs from Medina, and knowing the later history of aggression that Islam has behind it, this verse is a big, ironic or sardonic joke. This surah is from 614 AD: Just you guess if it was contradicted and abrogated from 622 AD on!! This verse is contradicted and often “killed” by reality and by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 5/73, 8/12, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 29 contradictions).

    311 56/7+10b: “(At the Day of Doom) ye shall be sorted out in three classes - - - And those Foremost (in Faith) will be the Foremost (in the Hereafter).” The best Muslims – and that of course include the fiercest fighters – will go to the best places in Heaven, and also nearest to Allah. Of the rest the ones sorted to the right will go to the lower quality parts of Heaven, whereas the ones sorted to the left will go to Hell. (A small curiosity here: In the old Arabia right was reckoned to be the “good” side and left the “bad” side. Is it a coincidence that the omniscient god for the entire world sorted the dead ones according to customs and rules in after all tiny Arabia on Earth?)

    ##312 57/10a: “And what cause have ye why ye should not spend in the cause of Allah? - For to Allah belongs the heritage of the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth.” Scattered many places in the Medina (and the Mecca) part of the Quran you will find incitements to giving money or spending resources for Muhammad and the faith. Some places it simply may mean spending for charity to the poor. But often it refers to spending for war (in this verse there is little doubt that this is what is meant, as this is a verse glorifying war, this even more so as just this expression - "spend in the cause of Allah" - normally refers to spending for raids and war). Also - and especially when Muhammad talks about “giving a nice gift to Allah”, “a beautiful loan” or something similar, it means that you/the Muslims should give their lives for Allah “and his Messenger” (if the Quran is made up, the “gift” is just for Muhammad) and be repaid in the next life - cheap for Muhammad and later Muslim leaders at least, especially if the religion is a made up one, like all the mistakes, contradictions, etc. indicate.

    ####We have skipped many of these verses. But on thinking it over they are verses meaning much for Muslims' giving of money to among others terrorists and terrorist organizations. May be we will include some more of those verses if this is ever revised. But remember that there exist a number of sentences like this in the Quran - also economy counts for a leader trying to gain more political or military power.

    313 57/10e: “Not equal among you (Muslims*) are those who spent (freely) and fought, before the Victory, (with those who did so later). Those are higher in rank than those who spent (freely) and fought afterwards. But to all has Allah promised a goodly (reward).” Spend money and fight in war for Muhammad (and his successors) and Allah, and Allah will give you a rich reward. Another mighty incitement for getting money and warriors for war. (But does an omniscient and omnipotent god really need war? – he knows everything and can do everything in better ways. The Quran says it is to test you – but does an omniscient god need to test you, when he knows everything and all the answers before the test, and even predestines everything? And can a god really be a good and benevolent one, when the main thing he wants from his underlings, is that they behave like devils against each others? – when someone says something, but gives instructions for or does something very different, we believe in the instructions and deeds, not in the cheap words.)

    314 57/11a: “Who is he that will loan to Allah a beautiful loan (this expression in the Quran normally means to risk or give your life (in war)*)? For (Allah) will increase it manifold to his credit, and he will have (besides) a liberal reward.” A good promise for attracting or pepping up warriors – or perhaps for attracting resources for waging war. A good deal for the warriors and for the givers of resources if the words are true. But if Muhammad is the cold and scheming manipulator going all out for power no matter what the cost will be to others, like he looks like in history, and not the saint Islam has made him look like - against many facts even in the Quran - the only one who really gained from this, was Muhammad himself, plus his co-operators and later his successors. The sobering fact here is that history all too often is more clear-eyed than religion, especially compared to religions built only on blind faith mixed with obvious mistakes and worse like Islam. Besides: Be killed in war and the god will reward you. This may remind one of the Old Norse religion or of Gjingis Khan’s religion - but it DEFINITELY is no confirmation of the Bible, and especially not NT. And: Is this a good god?

    315 57/11b: “Who is he that will loan to Allah a beautiful loan (this expression in the Quran normally means to risk or give your life (in war)*)? For (Allah) will increase it manifold to his credit, and he will have (besides) a liberal reward.” Paradise for being killed in raid for riches or in war (see 57/11a above). Compare this to especially NT. One of the minimum 200% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad morally antipodes.

    316 57/11d: "- - - Allah will increase at manifold his (the warriors*) credit - - -". If you go on raids or to war for Allah/Muhammad, Allah will repay you many times up in your claimed next life, especially if you are killed in action. A cheap way to pay the warriors in this life - "fight on credit for Muhammad". And especially cheap if Allah does not exist, not to mention if there "at the other side" really is a good and benevolent god, not liking persons who has lived according to a harsh and partly immoral, unethical and unjust war religion - or if Allah belongs to the ones who do like that humans do such deeds, the dark forces.

    317 57/18b: “For those who give to Charity, men and women, and loan to Allah a Beautiful Loan, it shall be increased manifold (to their credit), and they shall have (beside) a liberal reward.” Well, here at last also the not warriors are included - warriors and all others will get rewards in the next life - with no expenses for the warlord Muhammad. (Muhammad in Medina was a typical warlord of his time - like some you even today find in uncivilized parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It may be said that he was not worse than other warlords in Arabia at that time, but it definitely is true that he neither was any better, more human, nor less bloody. Which he should have been if he had represented a good and benevolent god). But the expression "loan to Allah a beautiful loan" normally means to go to war and perhaps be killed for Allah. After 622 AD Allah became a god of war (and this surah is from 630-632).

    318 57/18d: "- - - loan to Allah a Beautiful Loan - - -". This is a standard expression in the Quran, normally meaning risking or giving your life in raids or wars for Muhammad - in most cases not for the defense of the religion, but for stealing/robbing, enslaving, extorting, etc. (see the chapter about Muhammad’s raids in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - www.1000mistakes.com . Also see 57/11a-d above. (For the record: In just this case there is a chance that also this expression refers to giving money, but this in case is not the normal meaning of it.)

    319 58/11c: A sample of Islamic good deeds (and also see next comment just below): "And when you are told to rise up, rise up - - -". Muhammad Asad's translation in the Swedish 2002 edition: "And when you are told 'Rise up!' - then rise up (at once)". Muhammad Asad's comment (A58/20, translated from Swedish 2002 AD edition): "Many of the classical commentators, among them especially clearly Tabari - - - means that the underlying meaning here is: "If you are told: 'Raise up and do good', follow then this incitement". - According to Ibn 'Abbas and Al-Hasan al-Basri, quoted by Ibn Kathir, the underlying meaning in this connection is "- - - prepare for going to war".

    The Good Deed may be going to war to kill and rob and rape and suppress.

    The religion of peace(!!)

    ###320 59/4a: "That (see 59/2a, 59/2d, 59/3a above) is because they resisted Allah and his Messenger (Muhammad) - - -". This is very interesting information, because practically all Muhammad's armed conflicts were because of aggression from the Muslims - even Badr, Uhud, and The Trench were defense battles in a war of aggression started and kept alive by Muhammad and his raids against caravans, etc. Also in this case it seems that Banu al-Nadir had not helped an enemy, but they had not helped Muhammad, and they were negative to him, and Muhammad found an excuse to attack them. (NB: Most Muslims honestly believe Banu al-Nadir helped some enemy, because that is what they are told.) Thus what Muhammad really is saying here, is that it is prohibited to defend yourself from his/Islam's aggression and raids for money and slaves, or other aggression.

    ######Beware of a crucial word her: "resisted". Not "attacked", but "resisted".

    "The Religion of Peace"!! And "The Religion of Honesty"??

    #321 59/4e: "- - - if anyone resists Allah (here on Earth read: Muhammad*), verily, Allah is severe in punishment". A clear message: If you resist, you will be severely punished. And it turned out to be the very truth many times. Islamic history of aggression and war, included raids for riches and slave raids at times and places were horrible.

    ##322 59/6a: “What Allah has bestowed on His Messenger (Muhammad*) (and taken away) from them (Banu al-Nadir*) – for this ye (the Muslim warriors*) made no expedition with either cavalry or camelery - - -.” This was very nice for Muhammad, because when there was no fight and the enemy just gave in, all the spoils of war were called “fay” and were for Allah/Muhammad alone. Muhammad in a short time got a good economy. We may add that you often find Islam boasting about rich plunder. But you will never - never - find Islam reflecting over what terror, what destruction, what catastrophe - and what setbacks to the culture - the Muslim attacks and destruction and murdering meant to others. Empathy with others, not to mention with non-Muslims, at least was outside Islam's capability - and still is so at least within some parts of Islam.

    #####It must be added that to be thieves, robbers, extorters, enslavers and murderers - and rapists - in the name of a god, makes both the religion and the god extra distasteful - and it makes the claim that Allah is a good and benevolent god an unintended, black joke. Compare Islam to the gold standard; "do against others like you want others do against you" and shudder in distaste. ####Also remember that dishonesty is not only words, but also deeds - to steal/rob/extort is dishonest - to say the least of it - deeds. And rape, slave taking, torture, murder in the name of a god are even worse. The "yuk" factor some places is big when you read the Quran with your brain and knowledge and not only your Muslim religion engaged.

    323 59/7a: “What Allah has bestowed on His Messenger (Muhammad*) (and taken away from) the people of the townships (= stolen/robbed from vanquished people*) belongs to Allah – to his Messenger and to kindred and orphans, the needy and the wayfarer” – and what is not mentioned here: For Muhammad himself and his big family (though it is likely to be true that he did not live in luxury), for payment to the ones who distributed the riches, for “gifts” to make undecided persons becoming or staying Muslims, for in other ways promoting the religion, and not least to financing more wars. Also the fixed “poor tax” all Muslims who are not too poor have to pay, also are for all these purposes, and as often a lot did go to fighting and other things, it is a question if the name “poor tax” is quite correct. Also see 59/6a above.

    ###### But there remains one fact Muslims and Islam never touches: To take/steal/rob from others is dishonesty. Especially when the robber was/is the aggressor - like Muhammad's Muslims nearly always were - there is no way to escape from this fact. Stealing is stealing.

    324 59/13a: “Of a truth ye (Muslim warriors*) are stronger (than they (the “infidel” Jews in this case*)) because of the terror in their hearts, (sent) by Allah.” It is good psychology that your warriors believe the enemy is weak and also that the enemy is frightened. This claim that non-Muslims have a terror or an illness “in their hearts” often is repeated by Muhammad – partly as pep-talk to his warriors, and partly to stigmatize non-Muslims as low quality in the eyes of all his followers.

    325 60/1i: "If ye (Muslims*) have come out to strive (normally in the Quran = war (there are a few possible exceptions)) in My (Allah's*) Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them (non-Muslims*) not as friends)". A clear message and order.

    326 60/9e: "- - - support (others) in driving them (some non-Muslims*) out - - -". Compare this to Jesus: "Turn the other cheek" (f.x. Matt. 5/39) or "Love your enemies" (f.x. Matt. 5/43-47). The brutality and the love for fighting in the Quran's teaching is one of the absolute proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - Allah simply is a god of war - and for that there are no lines of any essential kinds between Jesus and Muhammad (in most of the central matters, Jesus and Muhammad are antipodes, and on f.x. themes like moral and ethics the same can be said about Yahweh and Allah9.

    **327 61/4b: “Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array as if they were a solid cemented structure”. The ones who say the Quran is as good as the Bible, not to mention NT, have never read the Quran - which we can say even if we are not very Christian.

    1. A god loving mass slaughter and murderers!!!
    2. If that is a good god, I do hope I never meet a bad one.
    3. And this is the icon and ideal of Islam!
    4. Will you like to live in a Muslim society in a world ruled by such a religion?
    5. And remember: War and hate is only one of the harsh parts of Islam.
     

    But a mighty incitement and war propaganda mixed with romancing of war – and everyone at this time knew about spoils of war and slaves and free women to rape, etc.

    But Allah never gave even one valued proof for that he was a god and loved war and warriors.

    In religions there normally is a percentage of fanaticism and extremism. In Islam these are channelled into war and terrorism. In a way as bad: In all cultures and countries there are low quality men - riff-raff - with a likening for "easy money" - f.x. by stealing - and for physical suppression, rape, dishonesty, fighting, etc. In Islam also the riff-raff is channelled into "holy warriors" - - - with very obvious and natural results.

    ##328 61/4c: “Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array as if they were a solid cemented structure”. Muslims claiming the Quran confirms the Bible, have never tried to find sentences like this in NT. This is one of the at least 200% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - not to mention for that Jesus and Muhammad are not in the same line of anything at all of any consequence - not even in the same religion. Antipodes is a suitable word for most of the essential facts of their lives and teachings.

    ######329 61/10b: "Shall I (Muhammad*) lead you to a bargain - - -". = Fight and be killed for Muhammad (and for Allah if he exists) and go to Paradise (if Allah's Paradise exists - never proved). A bargain for the believers if the Quran is true and from a god - and cheap warriors for Muhammad (and his successors), especially if the bargain is not from a god (and at least the Quran and Muhammad are not - for the Quran the proof is among other things all the mistaken facts and other errors, and for Muhammad that he preached a book and a teaching consequently not from a god).

    330 61/11b: “That ye (people*) believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: that will be best for you, if ye but knew!” War agitation. The real “Religion of Peace.”

    331 61/11c: “That ye (people*) believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: that will be best for you, if ye but knew!” Strongly contradicted by the Bible. This simply is the anti-thesis of the teaching of Jesus and NT. One more of the 200% proof for that Jesus and Muhammad had nothing of any essence in common - in spite of a couple of verses from NT Muslims like to quote (they claim that you cannot draw any conclusions from just one or a few verses in the Quran - you have to look at the complete book - but they themselves cherry-pick the few words they like in the Bible, and damn be the picture the complete book gives - - - this even if they have to twist the cherry-picked words they find to be able to use them (f.x. the word "brother" in the speech by Moses (5. Mos. 18/2+15+18+21 - well, Muslims never quotes but 18/15+18 and then twist the word "brother")). Not to mention how strongly it proves that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible 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.

    332 61/12a: “(If you go to war and/or are killed for Muhammad*) He (Allah*) will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of eternity - - -.” There once was a cheap book named “All this and Heaven too”. It is similar here: All the rape and stealing and extortion and slaves you can manage – and for those good, benevolent deeds for your as benevolent god: The Paradise with more luxury and more women. Nice and attractive for naïve, poor and virile – not to say virulent – uncivilized young and not young men.

    As for forgiving from Allah: See 2/187d above.

    333 61/13b: “(And in war you will get*) help from Allah and a speedy victory.” See 61/12a above – and in addition you will not have to fight much, for the victory will be easy. Yes, "The Religion of Peace*. Not to mention "the god of Peace"?

    334 61/13c: “(And in war you will get*) help from Allah and a speedy victory.” One more strong proof for that Yahweh - especially like you meet him in NT - is not the same god as Allah, and the same for that Jesus and Muhammad have few, if any, of deep moral, etc. similarities.

    335 64/17a: “If you loan to Allah, a beautiful loan - - -". In the Quran this expression normally incites you to fight in raids/war for Allah/Muhammad and risk your life for him/them.

    336 64/17b: “If you loan to Allah, a beautiful loan, He will double it to your (credit), and he will grant you Forgiveness - - -“. Very similar thinking to the worst medieval excesses made by the Roman Catholic Church once upon a time. But good slogans for recruiting warriors – and money.

    There is a lot more like this - much of it just with other words. Add this to all the other pep talk for warriors in the Quran, and you get something that should never be forgotten - not even by USA.

    And of course there is the problem of never knowing who the few are who will turn terrorists, and the not few who are willing to help them - with money at least. The 5. column. Some 30% of Muslims at least have sympathy for or “understands why” terrorists are at work, international polls show - more and much more in some places. And "only 1% (= 12 million)" are activists/terrorists according to Muslims on the net.

    And all the same: Never forget that the majority of Muslims absolutely do not want anything but peace and a quiet family life. The ideology of hate and war and suppression is detestable, but not so all the ones of them who are normal people.

    It is too late to keep Islam at a distance - too many have emigrated to the west. The absolute majority have moved vest for economical reasons, but for Muslims to move into “enemy” territory and then later to try to take control, is a strategy of war frequently advocated in the Quran. That f.x. was what happened in Indonesia. Besides a scattered few may move west because of or partly because of that ideology - but then it only takes a few to wreak havoc. May be one should not make the problem bigger until we see how the ones already here will develop - how the integration and the culture will develop. Though Paris some years ago and other places may be sinister warnings. The same are the Muslims from America and Europe who these days (2014 AD) are fighting in Syria and other places. This even more so as the survivors come back to Europe or America as trained soldiers or terrorists, and may start something "at home".

    As for forgiving from Allah: Also see 2/187d and 67/9c above.

    337 64/17c: “If you loan to Allah, a beautiful loan (go to war*), He will double it to your (credit), and he will grant you Forgiveness - - -“. Strongly contradicted by the Bible - one of the at least 200% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not even in the same world morally speaking. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible 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.

    338 66/9b: “O Prophet! (Muhammad*) Strive (normally in the Quran = armed fighting*) hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them.” Muhammad is the example for all Muslims. Muslims will excuse Muhammad with that this is about war – but is that any excuse, when practically all raids and wars were initiated by the Muslims? This verse abrogates (and contradicts) at least these verses (here are 88 out of the 124 Muslim scholars say are abrogated by 9/5 - most of them also is abrogated by 66/9): 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 88 abrogations).

    "The Religion of Peace"(??).

    ####339 73/20d: “He (Allah*) knoweth that there may be (some) among you - - - fighting in Allah’s cause”. This is the only mentioning of fighting up to around 616 AD - and there was nearly nothing more before 622 AD when Muhammad started to need warriors for his raids for wealth, etc., in a period where Muhammad had brought nearly 50 - fifty - surahs, not one of which even mention the word fighting (more than 80 by 622 AD with practically no mentioning of fighting or war). As is shown below, there is no other unmistakable mentioning of fighting during all the 13 years before Muhammad had to flee to Yathrib (now Medina) - and even this verse may simply mean mental fighting by means of words and deeds, not by means of the sword. This in spite of how central the war for Allah and for Muhammad became from 622 AD on. Did Allah suddenly change his mind after some billions(?) of years? Or was it Muhammad who changed as he gained power and needed warriors? This early (611-614 AD) Muhammad did not have enough followers to fight with weapons. But in case it at this time only meant fighting with words it is even stranger that Allah later so totally changed his mind, from a peaceful religion to one of war and hate with so much stress on the duty to fight and die for Allah and Muhammad. If he was omniscient, he should from the very beginning have known what a gift it was to Allah that humans fought and killed each others in reverence to him - not to mention how unfair it was not to tell his first followers about this sure way to Paradise and the houris, etc., and deny them this easy way to the Next Life. Not to mention how unfair it was against the bad ones of his followers not to tell them that they really had a chance to come to Paradise: Be killed in war for Allah, and everything was forgiven, nearly no matter how bad a man you had been. But the really great mystery is: Why did and does an omnipotent god need humans to fight for him? There is no logic in this claim. (But there is logic if Muhammad wanted them to fight for himself.)

    It is worth mentioning that Muslim scholars means the contents in this verse concerning fighting, does not belong here. Some - f.x. A73/12 (A73/13 in the English 2008 edition) - means it is written in the future tense, and thus about something which may happen (and did happen) later. The majority - f.x. YA5774 - means that these words were from Medina many years later, but included here (that verses are included in surahs from a different time, is not unusual in the Quran). ######## If any of these explanations is correct, there in reality was no - not one single - case of incitement to war or raids in the Quran until after Muhammad started to need warriors for raids for riches and later for conquests in and after 622 AD. (The "tone" in the verse is so typical for Medina and the war religion Islam developed into there, that it is highly likely the majority of the Muslim scholars are right - that this is a verse from Medina inserted in this surah from the much more peaceful time in Mecca.)

    #####340 73/20e: (A73/12 - English 2008 edition 73/13): "- - - there is no doubt that jihad was first sanctioned during the Medina period - - -". Which confirms that Muhammad and Islam did not think about or talk about or insist on or glorify war until after Muhammad started needing warriors for his raids for riches, and later also for conquests and for spreading Islam, in and after 622 AD. Was this very fundamental change in the religion at this time a coincidence? And why did not the omniscient god Allah know before 622 AD and Muhammad's need for warriors, that fighting was a good thing, a duty for all fit Muslim men, and a sure way to Paradise for even the worst sinner?

    ###########A very clear fact here: Allah did not become a god of war until after Muhammad started his raids for riches. What conclusions can you make from this fact?

    341 73/20f: "- - - fighting in Allah's cause - - -". One of the at least 200% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. Even in the centuries when the Jews fought wars - mainly (not exclusively, but mainly) from Joshua around 1195 BC and some centuries on - it was to establish and later defend a country for the Jews, NOT for the sake of the god. And to try to compare the Quran with NT, is a waste of time. "Islam, the Religion of Peace" - is it a slogan based on al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) or an unintended black joke?

    342 73/20i: "- - - and loan to Allah a Beautiful Loan". This expression in the Quran normally means: "Go to war when Muhammad calls, and risk/give your life for Allah/Muhammad" - in reality for Muhammad here on this Earth.

    ###343 73/20k: "- - - ye (Muslims*) shall find it in Allah's Presence (= in Paradise) - - -". But what is really "Allah's presence"? There are 7 heavens and Allah lives above number seven - both claims according to the Quran. It is not specified in the Quran, but it seems that normally good Muslims end in gardens in the first heaven. This means there are 6 heavens between them and Allah. The Quran also does not specify the distance between the heavens, but relevant Islamic literature mention 100 years (of travel). (We also have seen 500 years, but the difference really means nothing in this case.)

    A normal speed for a walker is some 3.5 - 4 miles/6 km an hour. Say you walked together with a caravan, which walked for 12 hours a day (the main thing for a caravan is to reach its goal and make money, so they often walked from dawn till dusk, and even ate when walking).

    1. That would mean 45 miles (some 72 km) a day.
    2. There are 365 days a year = some 16.400 miles (some 26.300 km) a year.
    3. As there are said to be 100 years between the heavens, this means some 1.64 million miles (2.63 million km) between the heavens.
    4. And the distance between the 1. and the 7. heaven consequently a little less than 10 million miles (a bit less than 16 million km).
    5. Better than 40 times the distance to the moon.
    6. And remember that Allah lives above the 7. heaven = even further off further off.
    7. (And the distance from Earth to Allah is the same plus the distance from Earth to the lowest heaven. If the first (from Earth to the 1. heaven) and the last (from the 7. heaven to Allah's home) distance is similar to the ones between the heavens, we end up with something like 13 million miles/21 million km between Earth and Allah, and Allah sitting somewhere well on his way to Venus or Mars.)
     

    Not just "in Allah's Presence" neither for the normal good Muslims in the first Paradise, nor for the Muslims on Earth.

    Better than 40 times the distance to the moon. And this is the distance between the heavens. The distance between Earth/humans and Allah is more.

###### If the Islamic books have given reasonably correct information about the distances, this is a rough picture of what the Quran means with "Allah's Presence" for normal Muslims in on Earth and in Paradise.

We remind you that the old astronomers had calculated the distance to the end of the universe, represented by the fixed stars, to some 73 million mile/117 million km. Plenty of space for Allah.

And on thinking it over: This also must be the maximum size of the Quran's universe - 13 million miles/21 million km. It ends somewhere on your road to Venus or Mars, if Islam's numbers here are correct. Or in the neighborhood of Mercury if the correct number is 500 years of travel between the Heavens.

Informative.

344 77/16b: "Did We (Allah*) not destroy the men of the old (for their evil)?". In and around Arabia there were ruins and empty settlements, and there also were tales about old, disappeared tribes. Muhammad claimed they all were killed by Allah because of sins against him. Science has a number of other possible explanations in a warlike, arid area.

A naive curiosum: A short time ago the authorities in Pakistan debated to make some old ruins accessible for tourists. Locals instead proposed to put up placards warning people that such were the result of sinning against Allah(!).

May be worse because this is from high up: Wall Street Journal, 9. April 2002. Compensation - also named "blood money" - for killing or in other ways causing a person's death in Saudi Arabia, was as follows:

  1. 100.ooo riyals if the victim is a Muslim man.
  2. 50.ooo riyals if the victim is a Muslim woman.
  3. 50.ooo riyals if the victim is a Christian man.
  4. 25.ooo riyals if the victim is a Christian woman.
  5. 6.666 riyals if the victim is a Hindu man.
  6. 3.333 riyals if the victim is a Hindu woman.

No comment necessary. A Muslim man is f.x. worth 30 Hindu women. Still no comment necessary - except that this is completely in line with the Quran and with the judicial and moral codes in Muslim culture.

Non-Muslims and especially "Pagans": Declare you are Muslim before you are killed. This will give your children more money to survive on.

345 87/3a: "(Allah*) who has ordained laws - - -". If he has ordained also the unjust of the sharia laws, and immoral of the laws of war, he neither is a just, nor a good, nor a benevolent god. (it may also be that here is meant the laws of nature, but Islam will in case have to prove they are made by Allah).

By the way: Have you noticed how many similarities there are between the law and the moral code in the Quran, and the corresponding ones in f.x. the Mafia, the Triads, the Coosa Nostra, the old Nazi ones, etc.? (As for comparison to the Nazi: That is not our idea, but a much older one, mentioned f.x. by C. G Young.)

245 comments. Sub-total = 4243 + 245 = 4488.


>>> 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".