Allah in the Quran, Chapter 76

 

Chapter 76

ALLAH AND PAGANS

 

001 We have included just a few samples of about Allah and Pagans, but the Kabah mosque originally was a pagan temple (there are indications for that it originally was built for the moon god Hubal). More essential is that much of what Muhammad did not take from Jewish or Christian legends into Islam, he took from old pagan sources. More or less all rites concerning hajj (the celebration/rituals in Mecca during Ramadan) are from the old Arab pagan religion. Jinns are from the same old religion + from local folklore and fairy tales. The bridge over Hell, the houris, and the handsome boys serving in Paradise are from pagan religions further east, included the Zoroastrian religion in Persia. Even Allah is an old pagan god (Il, al-Ilah (the moon god of at least south Arabia - it is no co-incidence that the crescent moon is the symbol for Allah and for Islam), al-Lah) Muhammad took over and made the sole god.

002 ######But mind you that in addition to what the Quran says directly about pagans, everything negative it says about non-Muslims, also targets the Pagans, if nothing else is said, and the same for everything negative about "the People of the Book" - Jews, Sabeans, and Christians - if nothing else is said. There is not too much said specifically about Pagans, but very much about non-Muslims and about "the People of the Book". (We include some samples about non-Muslims and "the People of the Book", too, but remember that Pagans are reckoned to be much worse and much less valid than especially "the people of the book". F.x. in Saudi Arabia today, the compensation if you by not being careful enough kill a Muslim man (in 2010 AD), is 100ooo Riyals, if the victim is a Christian, the compensation is 50ooo Riyals, and if he is f.x. a Hindu, the compensation is 6666 Riyals = a Muslim is twice as valuable as a Christian, and 15 times as valuable as a Hindu/Pagan!!!)

003 There also are few if any correlations between Jewish and Christian rites and the ones of Islam.

004 Also there never existed a non-pagan war religion. Also here the Quran has its ideas and moral code, etc. from pagan religions, mainly from the old Arab one (except that Muhammad made his religion much more brutal when it comes to armed fighting/wars - in the old Arabia a battle seldom left more than a few dead ones.)

005 And a strong fact: If the Quran is a made up book - and with all its errors, etc. it at least is not from any god - Allah is a made up pagan god, and Islam a made up pagan religion.

Finally: Always when you read the Quran, Hadiths, and other Islamic books, you should remember that Muhammad accepted the use of and himself used dishonesty in many forms in words and deeds. Even if the names are younger, it was he who institutionalized dishonesty like al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), the use of deceit ("war is deceit" - and "everything" is war), betrayal (f.x. the peace delegation from Khaybar), and even the disuse of oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah could cheat, cheating is ok)), which also includes the disuse of words and promises, as they are weaker than oaths = when oaths can be disused, so can words and promises. On top of this it is very clear from the Quran and all other central Islamic books, that Muhammad also liked respect and power and women. Combine these lusts with his acceptance of and personal use of dishonesty - even the gravest kinds: How reliable are that kind of men normally? - and how true and reliable are their never proved claims and tales?

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

006 2/125n: "- - - those who compass it (the Kabah mosque*) around - - -". The rites for pilgrims in Mecca are pretty primitive and childish. The reason may be that Muhammad simply took them over from the earlier primitive pagan local religion in Mecca and Arabia.

007 2/158e: "- - - compass around them (the hillocks Safa and Marwah*) - - -". The religious ceremonies and rituals are pretty primitive and superficial in Islam - it is symptomatic that they mostly are taken over from primitive pagan religions - mainly the old Arab ones. (Muhammad simply took over most of the rituals of the old Arab religion, and as simply just told that now they were not pagan rites any more)."

008 2/198e: "- - - celebrate His (Allah's*) praises as He has directed you - - -." There are very fixes rites during the pilgrimage in Mecca - and rather honest: They are primitive and superficial, with superficial symbolism - simply taken over from the old pagan rites. An omniscient, omnipotent god should have been able to find rites which gave more. And initiate rites not originally heathen ones.

009 2/198g: "- - - celebrate His (Allah's*) praises as He has directed you (= use his rites*) - - -." Actually this sentence is a bit strange - or funny - as most, if not all, the rites during Hajj in Mecca are taken over from the older pagan Arab religion - pagan rites simply.

010 2/199a: "Then pass on a quick pace from the place whence it is usual for the multitude so to do - - -". This refers to how to practice the rites in Mecca during pilgrimage.

011 2/200a: "- - - the holy rites - - -". There are three remarkable facts concerning the Islamic rites in Mecca during Hajj, and both the 2 first ones make it clear that this is an Arabism: For one thing they simply are Arab pagan rites from the old heathen times taken over by Muhammad - which means that the old pagan religion in Arabia had all the correct rites. For another they all were Arab rites - hardly one single of the rites came from any other place on the globe. The universal god had not taught any other people the right rites - not even the Jews' and the Christians' had been given the correct rites, in spite of their long connection to the god - - - remember that Muhammad claimed it was the same god. And for a third: The rites are very primitive and superficial - and with very primitive and superficial symbolisms. Was this all an omniscient god was able to give his followers?

012 2/200b: "- - - the holy rites - - -". If the rites (see 2/200a just above*) are holy to Allah, they also should have been mentioned in the Bible if Allah had been the same god as Yahweh. They are not. Not even Kabah or the very town of Mecca is mentioned.

013 2/200c: (A185): “- - - celebrate the praise of Allah, as ye used to celebrate the praises of your fathers - - -.” Like the praise of your fathers/parents used? – or like the praise of their forefathers as it was the custom in pagan times there? (When there were get-togethers, time sometimes was spent praising ones forefathers’ big deeds, etc.) Islam does not know. Clear language in the Quran?

014 2/200d: “- - - celebrate the praise of Allah, as ye used to celebrate the praises of your fathers - - -.” No matter what is the answer to the unsolvable question in 2/200b+c above, it is clear that Islam just took over the old Pagan rites - another Arabism. Praise Allah like you in paganism used to praise your forefathers! Was that all an omnipotent, omniscient god had to offer?

015 2/217b: "- - - the Prohibited Months - - -". The old Arabia had 4 holy months a year (number 1, 7 , 11, and 12 in the Islamic somewhat artificial year) in which among other things fighting was prohibited and a grave sin. Muslims broke those rules, but later Muhammad adopted them into Islam. (Strange how many of the old pagan rites which were correct religion according to the Quran - even more so as neither Jews nor Christian (nor most others) ever had been instructed in many of those rules, which is very strange if Yahweh and Allah had been the same god (the same god should mean the same rules). Also strange is that a claimed god for all the world found no rites in other pagan religions than the Arab one, which were according to his taste - even though all peoples in the world according to the Quran have had education by prophets teaching Islam and its rituals).

016 2/217c: "- - - the Prohibited Months - - -". An Arabism - a pagan Arabic tradition Muhammad incorporated in his new religion. Holy months never existed in the Bible. One more strong indication for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

##017 2/217d: “Fighting therein (in the holy months - see 2/217a just above*) is a grave (offense); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque - - -”. Muhammad’s highwaymen had attacked and plundered a caravan from Mecca during a holy month, and Muhammad received a storm of critic. But his/Allah’s reply was that as Mecca denied the Muslims access to the Kabah (this was before Muhammad had taken Mecca), they were bad people. And then even a grave sin made by Muhammad was no big sin as they were worse sinners according to his claim. Convenient. Read by a terrorist today: Whatever you do against someone not obeying Islam - or worse; opposing it - is no sin.

The fact Muhammad fled from - and Islam flee from - is that a sin is a sin even if others are bigger sinners.

This logic which seems ok on the surface, but which is deeply wrong, you often meet: "What I do wrong is not wrong if also you do something wrong". But what you do wrong, is as wrong no matter what good or bad things your opponent does - and this even more so if you pretend to represent a benevolent god. (Another thing is that it may be easier to defend your own bad behavior, if you can blame the opponent for something - but your own bad deeds still are just as bad all the same).

Verse 216 and 217 tell that very few things are holy, if the interests of Muhammad/Islam can be strengthened by breaking it.

To go a little deeper into the story behind this verse: Muhammad's men robbed a caravan and killed some men doing so, at the end of a holy month. Muhammad had to find a way to justify the crime - not mainly the crime of stealing and murdering, but the even more serious crime of breaking the peace during a holy month. This was shortly after they had fled to Yathrib/Medina, and they were locked out from Mecca. Muhammad used this as an excuse - the age-old: "If you are bad, that makes us good, even when we are bad". The problem is that no matter how bad an opponent is, that does not make your own bad deeds one iota less bad. (There may be some exceptions for self defense, but this was not self defense in any meaning of the word - it simply was a cold-blooded raid for riches to use as an easier way to an easier life, than the poor life they could gain by a grueling work as workers on the fields around Yathrib/Medina.)

And to repeat the impolite question: The holy months were a pure pagan Arab tradition which Islam took over. How come that an universal god - at least for whole Earth - so often found traditions from the heathen Arabia to be just what he wanted, and not often had ideas himself - not to mention nearly never found good ideas from other places in the world except from Arabia and its neighbors? - f.x. also the traditions of Hajj and the traditional celebrations around Kabah are practically identical to the superficial and honestly pretty childish traditions from before Islam.

*018 2/217e: "- - - the Sacred Mosque - - -". Kabah in Mecca - also taken over from the old pagan religion.

019 5/97c: "- - - the Sacred Months - - -". Months number 1, 7, 11, and 12 were sacred in the old Arab pagan religion - one of the many pagan rules and rites Islam took over - - - even though when the Muslims broke the religious law that fighting was prohibited those months, Muhammad found an excuse for that it was ok - he and his god sometimes were very pragmatic. Also remember that the Islamic year is an artificial construction not following the natural year, and thus the "holy months" slide trough the natural year once every ca. 33 years (100 natural years = ca. 103 Islamic years). In the old Arabia they had extra months now and then to make their year follow the natural year approximately, but Muhammad stopped that.

These are two ("holy" months and artificial year) of the many Arabisms (see 4/13d above) in the Quran.

020 5/97d: "- - - the Sacred Months - - -". This you do not find in the Bible, and it is was of such value to the old culture, that it had been mentioned there if Yahweh had introduced something like this. One more strong indicium for that Yahweh is another god than Allah.

021 6/137d: “If Allah had willed (he could have “saved” the pagans*)”. But Muhammad was able to “save” (make them Muslims) only some of them - and far from always by words. There still are some billions pagans and other non-Muslims in the world.

What does it tell about Allah that he did not save them? - or about Muhammad and bluffs if Allah was unable to save them?

022 6/137e: "- - - but leave alone them (polytheists*) and their inventions." That was in peaceful 621 AD. It soon changed: This verse is abrogated – made invalid - and contradicted by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/38, 3/85, 3/148, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 8/12, 8/38, 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 bloody threats, but also verses 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 in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran. (At least 28 abrogations).

023 9/2a: "Go ye (the ones the Muslims had alliances with, but which the Muslims claimed were broken*), for four months, backwards and forwards (as ye will), throughout the land - - -". = We will respect our alliance for another 4 months, (and then it is terminated). This was in 631 AD and Muhammad/Allah had become strong.

0024 9/2e: "- - - Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him". Not unless he exists. Not to mention if he does not exist, but f.x. Yahweh does.

###025 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.

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

###026 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 point is 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 – 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 with 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).

Some of the contradictions (many of them also abrogations) follow a little further down.

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

***027 9/5e: Pagans - and often others - often got a rough deal from Muslims. (Quite an irony, as the Muslims are pagans themselves if the Quran is a made up book - and with all those errors and worse it at least is not from any god.) See the other parts of 9/5 above. The choice often was: Fight and be killed or become Muslims: “But if they (the pagans, etc.) repent, and establish regular prayers (= become Muslims) and practice regular charity, then open the way for them (= let them live*)”. Muslims say that according to the Quran there is no force or compulsion used by Islam to change religion (except pressure, economy, etc. and some pogroms). But this verse says the straight opposite - though we never hear it quoted by Muslims, for some reason or other. But this verse is from as late as 631 AD. According to Islam’s rules if two or more verses “collide”, the newest of them normally is the right one and the older ones are invalidated - abrogated. And this verse preaches: Kill them unless they become Muslims. What is a poor non-Muslim to believe? Especially as we know Muslims under several circumstances are permitted - or even advised to "if necessary" - to lie for non-Muslims.

This verse is said by Islamic scholars to abrogate - make invalid - 124 older and milder verses in the Quran. Here are some of them:

  1. 2/109 “- - - but (Muslims*) forgive and overlook (Jews and Christians*) - - -.” But that was long before 9/5 and other hard verses.
  2. 2/190: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits - - -.” 9/5 does not care much about limits.
  3. ###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 something which was a fact or a reality. It is a hope or a goal for the future, it is not something that existed (or exists - just ask a fundamentalist or a terrorist) – 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”) in addition to the obvious al-Taqiyya as there in many a Muslim country are compulsions towards non-Muslims and towards Muslims wanting to change religion. This makes the Quran and the religion sound much more friendly and tolerant than the reality is some places.

     

    Do not tell that to 9/5.

  4. 2/272: “It is not required of thee (O Messenger (Muhammad*)) to set them on the right path - - -.”
  5. 3/20: “If they (“infidels”*) do (become Muslims*), they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, thy duty is to convey the Message - - -.” This – that his duty was to convey the message (only), was deeply contradicted – and abrogated - by at least those of these verses that came after surah number 3 (in 625 AD), and we add the ones of them that came before, too, because Islam says an older verse in clear cases can abrogate a younger one (it is the one exception from the standard rule that the newest abrogates the older ones, though it is seldom used). Anyhow it is a clear-cut contradiction – and abrogated by many verses.
  6. 4/62: “Those men (not good Muslims or apostates*) - - - keep clear of them, but admonish them, and speak to them a word to reach their very soul.”
  7. 4/81: “- - - so keep clear of them (hypocrites, “infidels”) - - -.” 9/5 instead wants you to kill them.
  8. 4/90: “- - - if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them.)” Guess if this changed later!!!
  9. 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 - - -.”
  10. 5/48: “- - - so strive as in a race in all virtues.” In a race you strive peacefully. 9/5 is terror and war and inhumanity.
  11. 5/99: “The Messenger’s duty is but to proclaim (the Message) - - -.” Oh??
  12. 6/60: “Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement - - -“.
  13. 6/66: “Not mine (Muhammad’s*) is the responsibility for arranging your (“infidels’”*) affairs.” No, his responsibility only is to kill you or suppress you or force you to become a Muslim.
  14. 6/70: “Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement - - -.” No comment necessary.
  15. 6 /104: “I (Muhammad*) am not (here) to watch over your doings”.
  16. 6/107: “- - - but We (Allah*) made thee (Muhammad*) not to watch over their (“infidels’) doing - - -.”
  17. 6/112: “- - - so (Muhammad*) leave them (opponents*) and their Invention (gods*) alone.”
  18. 6/158: “Wait ye (“infidels”*): we (Muhammad*) too are waiting.” He later stopped waiting.
  19. 7/87: “- - - hold yourselves in patience until Allah doth decide between us: for He is the best to decide.”
  20. 7/188: “I (Muhammad*) am but a warner, and a bringer of glad tidings – to those who have faith.” A warner and later a warrior.
  21. 7/193: “- - - for you (Muhammad*) it is the same whether ye call them or ye hold your peace!”
  22. 7/199: “(Muhammad*) Hold to forgiveness (towards the “infidels”*).
  23. 8/61: “But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (Muhammad*) (also) incline towards peace - - -.”
  24. 9/68: “- - - therein (Hell*) shall they (hypocrites and “infidels”*) dwell: sufficient is it for them - - -.” Later it was not sufficient - Muhammad and his followers sent them there (or at least killed them).
  25. 10/41: “My work to me (Muhammad*), and yours to you! Ye are free from responsibility for what I do, and I for what you do.” Later he took the responsibility of forcing them to believe.
  26. 10/99: “Wilt thou (Muhammad*) then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!” Irony.
  27. 10/102: “Wait ye “non-Muslims*) then: For I (Muhammad), to, will wait with you.”
  28. 10/108: “- - - those (“infidels”*) who stray, do so for their own loss, and I (Muhammad*) am (not set) over you to arrange your affair.” Muhammad did not want them to arrange their own affairs, but later when he became stronger – then he wanted them to become Muslims and soldier, so that they could strengthen his own affairs of war and power.
  29. 11/12: “But thou (Muhammad*) art only there to warn”. And then some more – at least after 622 AD.
  30. 11/121: “Say to those who do not believe: ‘Do what ye can: we shall do our part’”. This was in 621 AD. Muhammad/Allah was still speaking peace – but not for much longer.
  31. 13/40: “- - - thy (Muhammad’s*) duty is to make (the Message) reach them (“infidels”): It is Our (Allah’s*) part to call them to account.” Well, from 622 AD this also became a part of the "duty" of Muhammad and his men.
  32. 15/3: “Leave them (the disbelievers*) alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves - - -.” This was in 621 AD. It did not take long before Allah needed to change and contradict his word, when he started to change his rather peaceful religion to one of inhumanity and blood and war (luckily many Muslims do not live according to those parts if the Quran).
  33. 15/94: “- - - turn away from those who join false gods with Allah.”
  34. 16/35: “But what is the mission of the Messengers but to preach the Clear Message?” Surah 16 is one of the very last surahs from Mecca – months later the contents started to change, and contradictions – and abrogations – were necessary for the changes to a war religion. Then - was the message clear in 622 AD?
  35. 16/82: “- - - thy (Muhammad’s) duty is only to preach the clear Message.” This was just months before Muhammad fled from Mecca in 622 AD. But a little later he came to Medina and started to gain power.
  36. 16/125: “Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord (Allah*) with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious - - -.”
  37. 16/126: “And if ye do catch them out, catch them out no worse than they catch you out: but if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient.”
  38. 16/127: “And do thou (Muhammad*) be patient, for thou patience is but from Allah; nor grieve over them: and distress not thyself because of their plots.”
  39. 17/54: “We (Allah*) have not sent thee (Muhammad*) to be a disposer of their (“infidels’”*) affairs for them”. Allah or Muhammad started to change his mind about this one year later – in 622 AD – when Muhammad started to gain enough military power to decide “their” religion for them. (In spite of what Islam likes to tell, Islam to a large degree was introduced by the sword – and by the wish for taking part in the looting/robbing/stealing/raping and slave taking – in Arabia).
  40. 18/29: “- - - let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject (it) - - -.” Guess if this peaceful line from the last year in Mecca was short-lived before it was abrogated by bloodier ones from Medina like 9/5!
  41. 18/56: “We (Allah*) only sent the messengers to give glad tidings - - -.” Well, the self proclaimed messenger started to change his mind shortly after he came to Medina. And so did his god.
  42. 19/39: “But warn them of the Day of Distress - - -.” Here in ca. 615 AD Muhammad should just warn them. The picture changed somewhat as he gained more power some years later.
  43. 20/130: “Therefore (Muhammad/Muslims*) be patient with what they (“infidels”) say - - -.” That was Muhammad’s tone in Mecca 615 AD or before – and until his flight to Medina in 622 AD. It changed quite a lot from 622 AD and onwards and contradicted quite a lot of the mild words from the Mecca period.
  44. 21/107: “We (Allah*) sent thee (Muhammad*) not, but for a Mercy for all creatures.” Muhammad was not much of a mercy to the world – read the surahs from Medina. Neither was he a Mercy for all Muslims – read the surahs from Medina + the verses about women, law, slavery, not to mention the to a large part inhuman ethical and moral code and also the war code.
  45. 21/112: “(Allah*) is the One Whose assistance should be sought against blasphemies.” Well, that was in 621 (?) AD. After 622 AD the sword was handier – blasphemy soon carried a death penalty - - - and there came a number of contradicting texts.
  46. 22/49: “I (Muhammad*) am (sent) to you (men*) only to give a Clear Warning - - -.” Well this was ca. 616 AD. But from some 6 years later on it was no longer only a warning, but the sword - - - and a lot of contradictions and abrogations in the texts and the teaching.
  47. 22/68: “If they (“infidels”) do wrangle with thee, say. ‘Allah knows best what it is ye are doing” – and leave them alone. This was ca. 616 AD. But from some 6 years later and more came lots of contradictions and abrogations.
  48. 23/54: “But leave them (“infidels”*) in their confused ignorance for a time”. This was in 621 or 622 AD, shortly before his – Muhammad’s – flight to Medina. When he started to become military strong enough, it was finish with leaving them alone – and there came a lot of contradictions and abrogations in the teachings and in the religion – from peace to inhumanity and war.
  49. 23/96: “Repel evil with what is best”. Later it became: Repel evil with evil – do against “infidel” like they do against you or more – at least when it comes to the bad things. Further comments identical to 23/54 above.
  50. 24/54: “- - - if ye (people*) turn away (from Muhammad*), he is only responsible for the duty placed on him, and ye for that place on you.”
  51. 26/216: “I (Muhammad*) am free (of responsibility) for what ye (“infidels”*) do!” This was in Mecca ca. 615 – 616 AD. The tone rapidly grew more unfriendly after 622 AD when he grew military strong – and the teachings needed some “adjustments” to fit a war religion = some more contradictions and abrogations:
  52. 27/92: “I (Muhammad’) am only a Warner”. That was in 615 – 616 AD. From 622 he fast became a robber baron, warlord and dictator – and more verses with contradictions and abrogations appeared. Many of the older verses were abrogated and contradicted when Muhammad grew military strong after 622 AD and the religion was changed to one of war and conquest.
  53. 28/50: But if they (“infidels”*) hearken not to thee (Muhammad*), know that they only follow their own lusts - - -.”
  54. 28/55: “To us (Muslims*) our deeds, and to you (“infidels”*) yours; peace be to you - - -.” Mecca 621 or 622 AD carried a much more peaceful tone than after Muhammad gained strength from 622 – 624 AD and needed a religion more fit for robberies, raids and war – and got it from Allah (or was it Allah who wanted more blood than before?) – resulting in contradiction with and abrogation of the old teachings.
  55. 29/18: “- - - the duty of the messenger is only to preach publicly (and clearly).” Well, as Muhammad grew more powerful, so did his wish for controlling the locals’ and later all the Arabs’ lives and religious ideas - - - force and punishment became means to a goal. With the necessary changes in the religion, and contradictions and necessary abrogations compared to the more peaceful 12-13 years in Mecca.
  56. 29/46: “And dispute ye not with the People of the Book - - -.“ No comments – but read 9/29 and 9/5 once more.
  57. 32/30: “So turn away from them and wait - - -.” When Muhammad grew more powerful, there was little waiting. The rest of the Arabian peninsula mainly was turned Muslim by the sword – and some by “gifts”/bribes and promises of looted riches – all of which demanded changes in the religion (or was it the other way around, initiated by a god who found his original religion was not good enough – or too little blood and human tragedy?) which caused contradictions between the old and the new version of Islam – and also abrogations naturally.
  58. 34/25: “Ye (“infidels”) shall not be questioned as to our sins, nor shall we be questioned as to what you do.” This may mean something like “we prefer to live and let live” and was one of the many more peaceful verses that became overruled – contradicted and abrogated – when Muhammad gained more power (34/25 is from ca. or a little after 620 AD.)
  59. 34/28: “We (Allah*) have not sent thee (Muhammad*) but as a universal (Messenger) to men giving them glad tidings - - -.”
  60. 35/23: “Thou (Muhammad*) art no other than a warner.” No, around 615 – 616 AD he was may be only that. But it changed later – from a warner to an enforcer and a robber baron. With the corresponding changes of the religion – and abrogations of and contradictions to the old sayings, like this one.
  61. 35/24a: “Verily We (Allah*) have sent thee (Muhammad*) in truth as a bearer of Glad Tidings and as a warner - - -.” As for glad tidings, that only goes for the Muslims, and for far from all of them even.
  62. 36/17: “And our (Muhammad’s*) duty to proclaim the clear message.” Once more something from Mecca (ca. 615 – 616 AD), that was “killed” by “The verse of the Sword" (9/5) and a number of others when later Muhammad also became – or decided that he also was – an enforcer.
  63. 39/41: “Nor art thou (Muhammad*) set over them (“infidels”) to dispose of their affairs.” But 5 – 7 years later, when Muhammad started to gain power from 622 AD on, this changed – he became an overseer, enforcer and robber baron – and later a warlord - - - and rules/religion had to change. Or was it the other way around – that it was Allah who changed his mind and wanted more inhumanity, immoral action, and blood? Anyhow the result was contradictions and abrogations compared to the old.
  64. 41/34: “Repel (Evil) with what is better (Good*); then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate”. This surah is from 616 - 618. From Medina on this became irony.
  65. 42/6: “- - - thou (Muhammad*) art not the disposer of their affairs.” No, not around 614 – 618 AD. But after 622 AD he became quite a lot, included an enforcer – and verses like this were both contradicted and abrogated.
  66. 42/15: “There is no contention between us (Muslims*) and you (“infidels”).” May be not in 614 – 618 AD. But later Islam was the power class = Muslims (with Muhammad as dictator), and non-Muslims “thoroughly subdued” - - - and with the religion a lot changed = contradictions and abrogations in the Quran.
  67. 42/48: “Thy (Muhammad’s) duty is but to convey (the Message (the Quran* - or the peaceful parts which existed in 614 – 618 AD*))”. From some years later on, Islam found some of their duties to be more brutal enforcers, so among other verses this one and a lot more were contradicted and abrogated.
  68. 43/83: “So leave them (“infidels”*) to babble and play (with their vanities) - - -.” Comments like 42/48 just above.
  69. 43/89: “But turn away from them, and say ‘Peace.’” Comments like 43/48 above.
  70. 44/59: “So wait thou (Muhammad*) and watch; for they (people*) (too) are waiting”. Here in the peaceful religion from the middle of the Mecca period, Muhammad should wait and see. He became stricter some 10 years later – much stricter.
  71. 45/14: “Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the Days of Allah (Day of Doom*).” But the word “forgive" was slowly forgotten after 622 AD – when they also took on the duty of also being enforcers.
  72. 46/9: “- - - I (Muhammad*) am but a Warner, open and clear.” Yes, in 620 AD he only was a self proclaimed warner. Things changed and verses were really abrogated when he got more power a few years later.
  73. 46/135a: “(Muhammad*) - - - be in no haste about the (unbelievers) - - -.” When he gained power he got more haste – f.x. the reluctant Arabs (and a lot of others) who were not won by gifts and free plundering/enslaving/rape, were won by the sword – in stark contradiction to what Muslims like to tell. "Become Muslim or fight and die!"
  74. 46/135b: “(Thine (duty Muhammad is*) but) to proclaim the Message (the Quran*).” This was in 620 AD. The changes came in and after 622 AD.
  75. 50/39: “Bear, then, with patience, all that they (“infidels”*) say - - -.” The patience became much less talked about from one year later on (622 AD).
  76. **50/45: “We (Allah*) know best what they (the “infidels”*) say; and thou (Muhammad*) art not one to overawe them by force.” Knowing the later history, this verse is a big, ironic or sardonic joke. This surah is from 614 AD
  77. 51/50-51b: “I (Muhammad*) am from Him (Allah*) a Warner to you (Muslims*), clear and open. And make not another (person/thing/idea*) an object of worship with Allah: I am from Him a Warner to you, clear and open!” This is from Mecca 620. Muhammad is still military weak – and still only a warner. Later he became an enforcer (much of Arabia became Muslims on the point of the sword):
  78. 51/54: “So (Muhammad*) turn away from them (“infidels”*) - - -.” One more point that was contradicted and abrogated when Muhammad grew military strong from 2 years later on.
  79. 52/45: “So (Muhammad/Muslims*) leave them (“infidels”*) alone until they encounter that Day - - -.” Leave them alone till the Day of Doom. But neither Muhammad nor his successors left them alone as soon as Islam was military strong enough. And has Islam at any time ever after left their surroundings alone in periods when Islam was military strong?
  80. 52/47: “And verily, for those who do wrong (“infidels”*), there is another punishment besides this (that in the long run they will lose – and meet the other punishment: Hell*)” A comforting thought at the difficult end of the Mecca period - so just leave them alone. (A confirmation of 52/45, really).
  81. 53/29: “Therefore shun those who turn away from Our (Muhammad’s*) Message - - -.” That was Muhammad’s words around 612 – 615 AD. 10 years lager the “melody” changed.
  82. 67/26: “- - - I (Muhammad*) am (sent) only to warn plainly in public.” But 3 - 4 years later (from 622 AD) he started to take on more dirty and inhuman jobs, too.
  83. 73/10: “And have patience with what they say, and leave them with noble (dignity).” This is an early surah (611 – 614 AD). Muhammad has little or no real power, and is a peaceful preacher. Both he and the religion showed other faces when he gained power – or may be Allah wanted more blood and gore and suffering from 622 AD on.
  84. 73/11: “And leave Me (Allah*) (alone with those) in possession of the good things of life, who (yet) deny the Truth, and bear with them for a little while.” That little while lasted exactly till Muhammad gained enough military power – then he (or Allah*) went for a stricter regime.
  85. 79/45: “Thou (Muhammad*) art but a Warner - - -.” And he stayed like that - - - until he grew powerful enough to do more than warning – f.x. enforcing and empire-building. And it is a question who changed his mind around 622 AD – Allah or Muhammad? And who changed the religion – Allah or Muhammad? That chance demanded that the relatively peaceful religion from the 12 - 13 years in Mecca had to be both contradicted and abrogated on many a point.
  86. 86/17: “Therefore grant a delay to the Unbelievers: give respite to them gently (for a while). Guess if this one from 614 AD was abrogated when Muhammad grew more powerful!!
  87. 88/22: “Thou (Muhammad*) art not to manage (men’s) (religious*) affairs - - -.” One more verse which was abrogated of the more powerful Muhammad – or Allah – later.
  88. 109/6: “To you (non-Muslim*) be your ways (in religion*), and to me (Muhammad or Muslims*) mine.” It is typical that Muhammad and Islam were peaceful in Mecca – they were not strong enough for anything else. And besides it is possible Muhammad meant it like that, but was destroyed morally by his success in Medina later, like many scientists believe.

We repeat: “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.

028 9/6a: "If one amongst the Pagan ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah - - -". Not because he is a human or anything; but only: To teach him Islam. It tells something about the moral code Muslims are imprinted.

029 9/7aa: "How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the Sacred Mosque (Kabah in Mecca*)?" This sentence makes it impossible for Muslims to make valid leagues or treaties with pagans. A very informative fact for all pagans in the world - especially when you add Islam's rules for the use of dishonesty (al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth, Hilah - the lawful pretending/circumventing, deceit, disuse of words/promises/oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok - but how much cheating is it then in the Quran? - by Allah or by Muhammad)). If Muslims are not bound by such leagues or treaties, and in addition can use dishonesty and deceit free of charge, that is a nice situation for Islam and for Muslims, but definitely not for pagans. (What f.x. about the situation in India - Hindus are pagans according to Islam - and in large parts of Africa?)

030 9/8a: "With (fair words from) their (pagans*) mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; most of them are rebellious and wicked". A clear message: Do not trust pagans (one of the pieces necessary for producing an "enemy picture" of "the others".)

#######BUT DO YOU SEE THE IRONY? THESE WORDS ARE FROM THE ONLY BIG GOD(?) AND THE ONLY BIG RELIGION WHICH ACCEPTS - YES, FOR DEFENDING OR PROMOTING THE RELIGION EVEN ADVICES - THE USE OF DISHONESTY, DECEIT, BETRAYAL, AND EVEN THE BREAKING OF OATHS, AS LEGITIMATE AND OK TOOLS OF WORK!

031 9/8b: “- - - most of them (pagans*) are rebellious and wicked.” Of course - Pagans are not even Jews, nor Christians, who are bad enough. Far below Muslim moral standard - which is much different from "do to others like you want others do to you".

032 9/10b: "In a Believer they (pagans*) respect not the ties - - - of kinship - - -". This is both an ironic and a dishonest remark. Surah 9 is from 631 AD, and by then Muhammad had long since, even in the Quran, told his followers to leave even parents and siblings if these did not accept one's belonging to Islam.

033 9/10c: “It is they (the pagans*) who have transgressed all bounds”. Irony. Please read the surahs from Medina and Islamic history, and then try to read this sentence once more. (F.x. in at least - at least - 90% of Muhammad's armed incidents, Muhammad was the aggressor - and in most cases to gain riches and/or power.)

Of course to claim everybody but Muslims are in the wrong, influences for one thing Islam's moral code and for another how that moral code is understood and not least how it is practiced.

034 9/10d: (A9/16): “It is they (the pagans*) who have transgressed all bounds”. But as so often also Arab words have more than one meaning. Another meaning of the word “al-mu’tadun” gives this meaning: “It is they who are the attackers”. Clearly and easily understood, and with no doubt about the exact meaning? And these variants naturally and like always also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. And here double irony: As said in more than 90% of the armed incidents, Muhammad and his Muslims were the aggressors - mainly raids for riches or battles in a war started and kept alive by Muhammad's raids.

035 9/28c: “Truly the Pagans are unclean - - -”. Pagans are the lowest caste in Islam - even lower than Jews and Christians (though in this case Jews and Christians are included). Not a negative name but a negative description - like so often when the Quran talks about non-Muslims.

A relevant point here: According to the laws in Saudi Arabia, if you by accident kill a Muslim man, you have to pay a compensation of 100ooo Riyals (these numbers are from Wall Street Journal, 9. April 2002). If you kill a pagan - f.x. a Hindu - by accident, the compensation is 6.666 Riyals, and for a pagan woman 3.333 Riyals. One Muslim man is worth 15 pagan men or 30 pagan women. We do not think comments are necessary.

036 9/28d: “Truly the Pagans (people neither Muslims nor Jews nor Christians) are unclean - - -” And what is said in the Quran is valid also today and forever. During the Muslim military expansion, pagans frequently were very harshly treated - killed by the thousands and even by the tens of thousands and more f.x. in Sind and the rest of India. Also from Africa there are bad - horrible - stories, but there is less written documentation from Africa. And what about f.x. Armenians (Christians)? - or Christians in Turkey in the early 1900s? Or East Timor a few decades ago? Or the Chinese in Indonesia? - also a few decades ago.

037 9/28e: “Truly the Pagans (people neither Muslims nor Jews nor Christians, though in this case Jews and Christians are included)) are unclean, so let them not - - - approach the Sacred Mosque". Now you know why those people are not permitted there - but Jews and Christians also are prohibited from going there.

038 9/28f: “Truly the Pagans (people neither Muslims nor Jews nor Christians, though in this case Jews and Christians are included) are unclean, so let them not - - - approach the Sacred Mosque". Part of the sharia laws.

####039 **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. As said before: Whenever there is discrepancy between reality and propaganda, we believe in the reality.

Compare this sentence with 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 it 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 that 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) 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 the entire Quran that 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.

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

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

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

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

#########040 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%)) 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 built on a "holy" book so full of errors that the book 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!!!

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

041 9/29d: “Fight those who believe not in Allah - - - until they pay jizya (extra tax - sometimes heavy) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” One of the elements in the sharia laws.

042 9/29j: "- - - (fight the non-Muslims*) (even if they are) of the People of the Book - - - ". Not to mention the Pagans. An order impossible to misunderstand - from the claimed "good an benevolent god" of "the (claimed) religion of Peace".

043 9/29m: "- - - until they (non-Muslims*) pay Jizya (to Islam's leaders*) - - -". Strongly contradicted in NT, which says you shall give to the emperor what belongs to the emperor (the tax) and to Yahweh what belonged to Yahweh (the souls*). I.e. do not mix taxation etc. with the religion (f.x. Matt. 22/15-21). Yahweh and Allah the same god? Jesus and Muhammad in the same line of prophets? 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.

############044 9/29na: “- - - Until they (non-Muslims) pay jizya with willing submission (“an yadin”) and feel themselves subdued”. No comments - and none necessary. ##############This is the final and official goal for Islam

######045 9/29p: The non-Muslims in Muslim countries shall pay jizya (extra tax), "and feel themselves subdued". A sentence which is NEVER quoted by Muslims in debates. But a most central sentence when it comes to telling what status, power and position non-Muslims according to the Quran shall have in a Muslim state. With one word: apartheid (and even that word is somewhat weak here). And it was harsh realities many places in the old times - they had to pay the Jizya under demeaning conditions at times, and the tax could be so high, that it was ruinous at places and times.

###046 9/33ja: "- - - to proclaim it (Islam*) over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest it - - -". What other people want, does not matter much to Muslims and Islam. This even though if the Quran is a made up book, Islam itself is a pagan religion, and Allah a made up, pagan Arab god - and especially so if the book is from or inspired by the dark forces, like large parts of both the book and its moral code may indicate.

047 9/36c: "- - - of them (the months*) four are sacred". Months numbers 1, 7, 11, 12, are sacred in Islam - f.x. is fighting prohibited (if it is not forced on you) - though Muhammad and his Muslims broke the rule and Allah said it was ok - according to Muhammad. Like most old traditions in Islam, this is taken over from the old Arab pagan religion and the old Arab pagan traditions (few traditions and rules from far away from Arabia - curious for a world religion and a world god. Also curious is that the old pagan Arabs used just the traditions and rites Allah likes) - as far as we know, there is nothing similar anywhere else.

048 9/36d: "- - - of them (the months*) four are sacred". Months numbers 1, 7, 11, 12, are sacred in Islam - f.x. is fighting prohibited (if it is not forced on you). One of the many Arabisms in Islam.

Compare this to Jesus' words. One more of the many strong proofs for that Jesus and Muhammad were not in the same religion - and Yahweh and Allah not the same god.

049 9/36e: “- - - fight the Pagans all together - - -". Not from the Bible, not to mention from NT. The Quran and especially NT are exactly opposite each other here.

050 9/36f: “- - - fight the Pagans all together as they fight you all together - - -.” An order and an incitement too good to overlook – at this time (631 AD) Muhammad finally had got the upper hand, and from now on and for centuries to come, most wars the Muslims fought, were wars of aggression and wars of looting and plunder and enslavement + expansion and enlargement of power and of the religion.

##051 9/113a: "It is not fitting, for the Prophet and those who believe, that they should pray forgiveness for Pagans - - - (who are bound for Hell*)". In NT it always is permitted to pray for the lost souls - we are back to the search for f.x. "the lost lamb" and to "the 11.th hour" (Luke 15/8-10 and 15/11-31, Matt. 18/12-14, 20/8-13). Definitely Allah is not like Yahweh - and Muhammad not in the same line of prophets as Jesus (if they had been, their teachings had had to be similar) - to be exact: Far from in the same religion even. And remember: Science has proved far beyond any even unreasonable doubt that the Bible and especially the NT is not falsified in spite of Muhammad's never proved claims - may be some mistakes, but no falsifications. The best proof for this is Islam: If one single real falsification had been found, Islam had screamed about it to every living being on Earth, included rats and worms. No such scream has ever been heard.

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

####052 9/113d: "It is not fitting, for the Prophet and those who believe, that they should pray forgiveness for Pagans, even though they be of kin - - -". This cynical sentence tells a few megabytes about the Quran, about Muhammad, and about Islam - not to mention about the Quran's and Islam's moral code. Even if this was the only difference between the Bible and the Quran, this alone had been a 100% proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. And remember: Science has proved far beyond any even unreasonable doubt, that the Bible and especially the NT is not falsified in spite of Muhammad's never proved claims - may be some mistakes, but no falsifications. The best proof for this is Islam: If one single real falsification had been found, Islam had screamed about it to every living being on Earth, included rats and worms. No such scream has ever been heard.

As for OT also the fact that Jesus accepted it without warning, both to Christians and Muslims prove that OT was not falsified at his time - not before 33 AD. Combine the Biblical parts of the Qumran scrolls to this - most of OT from 150-50 BC practically identically to our OT - and you have one more solid proof also for that OT never was falsified.

053 14/3b: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) are astray by a long distance". Only if there is a god behind the Quran and the Quran in addition tells the full truth and only the truth + the god(s) they believe in does/do not exist. The mistake is even worse if the Quran is made up and there instead exists a real god somewhere else.

054 15/43c: "- - - Hell is the promised abode for them (non-Muslims*) all!". A relevant fact here is that never the entire history and pre-history there was one single proved case of Allah keeping a promise. (The best proof for this, is Islam's silence about such a proved case.)

055 16/105d: "- - - it is they (non-Muslims*) who lie!" They only lie if what they tell is wrong. Just like the Muslims lie if the Quran is wrong. Another thing is that the claim here is that Muhammad claimed the non-Muslims had falsified the Bible, a claim both science and Islam thoroughly has proved is not true = they did not lie.

Islam's rules for the use of dishonesty - al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, disused words/promises/oaths, deceit, betrayal, etc. - make this piece of slander quite an irony.

056 19/83b: "Seest thou (Muhammad/Muslims*) not that We (Allah*) have set the Satan against the Unbelievers, to incite them with fury?". An interesting claim - impossible if Allah does not exist, and doubly possible if he exists and belongs to the dark forces (if he is behind the Quran and all its errors, he at least is no god - and the Muslims in case are among the Pagans).

057 21/66b: "Do you then worship, besides Allah - - -". Except for in Arabia where the pagans had gods beside al-Lah (not Muhammad's Allah, but the original pagan god al-Lah/Allah whom Muhammad took over and dressed up), no other places people had gods besides Allah/al-Lah. They simply did not believe in this god and had their own - and if the Quran's claim that its god was for the entire world, the god had known that this expression was wrong. But by repeating and repeating it, Muhammad gave a picture of a god known all over - or at least had been known all over, but with competition from local (false) gods. Good psychology as long as the listeners accepts anything in blind belief. Also see 25/18a below.

##058 22/29a: “- - - the rites (during Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca*) prescribed for them (Muslims*) - - -“. The rites in Mecca during Hajj are all taken over from the pagan/heathen times in Arabia – and in addition they are ever so childish and primitive; run 7 times back and forth between 2 small hills, walk 7 times around a building, throw some stones at a mark impersonating the devil, and kill one or more helpless animals for sacrifice, those are the main acts.

  1. Who prescribed old pagan rites to be the only right ones for the presumed only, real god?
  2. Who prescribed so shallow and childish rites for a presumed unfathomable, “deep” god?
  3. Who prescribed that neither any rites from anywhere else in the world nor something new and soul-sustaining from Allah ought to be used in a presumed world religion – only the old, primitive pagan rites of the heathen old Arabia?

Another point is that there can be no effect of a pilgrimage, if it is true that Allah has predestined your whole life even before you were born, and this is included in his Plan which nobody and nothing can change.

059 22/29b: "- - - circumambulate - - -". In the case of hajj (the pilgrimage to/in Mecca): Walk 7 times around the mosque Kabah in Mecca - the age-old rite concerning the Kabah (= the Cube) taken over unabridged from the old Arab pagan times - like the other holy Islamic rites concerning hajj. We may in addition mention that 7 was one of the old magic numbers in Arabia.

060 22/29c: (A22/42): “Then let them (the pilgrims*) complete the rites prescribed for them, perform their vows, and (again) circumambulate the Ancient House .” This is what A. Yusuf Ali believes the Arab “thumma l-yaqdu tafathahum” means – to complete the rites. Others think like this: “- - - let them fulfill the wows which they (may) have made - - -.” Not even so central a subject for Muslims as what to do during the central part of the pilgrimage, does the clear(?) text in the Quran make clear. Had a god been so unclear in his speech on essential themes?

061 22/30a: "- - - the sacred rites of Allah - - -". The big question mark here is that more or less all these rites were taken over from the old Pagan Arab religion (as for traditions also a few from pagan neighboring religions, mainly the Zoroastrians in Persia). Few if any rite possible to combine with monotheism were omitted - and few, if any were added. If there is any from Yahweh, it/they are well hidden. How come that the old pagan Arabs, and only they in the entire world, had more or less all the rites correct? - and how come that all the other religions, included the Mosaic and the Christians - had nearly everything wrong? Remember here that the Jews and the Christians had their rites mainly from the Bible and from the first Christians (and remember that science have proved the Bible is not falsified in spite of Islam's never documented claims - - - and that Islam has proved this even clearer by not being able to find one single proved falsification in the old, relevant papers, even though there are many thousands of such papers).

##062 22/30b: "- - - the sacred rites of Allah - - -". These rites - so essential to Allah in spite of being pagan ones and pretty childish/naive ones, fitting primitive minds mainly - are so entirely different from anything Yahweh asks for, that - especially combined with the very demand for going on pilgrimage to one special place - they make up one more 100% proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. This even more so as the demanded place is one totally without interest to Yahweh - not mentioned one single time in the entire Bible. And neither Yahweh, nor any of the old prophets, nor Jesus ever expressed a wish for humans to practice pilgrimage there or anywhere else (there is pilgrimage among Christians, too, but the request for such is not from the Bible - f.x. not one of the Biblical prophets, included Jesus, ever made a pilgrimage or even expressed a wish to do so, not to mention a pilgrimage to Kabah or Mecca).

##063 22/30c: "- - - for him (who practice the pilgrimage rites*) it is good in the sight of his Lord (Allah*) - - -". Such an idea is totally foreign to the Bible - and even more so that Mecca is holy place to the god. A 100% and more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. In addition there are all the other proofs for the same.

064 22/32a: "- - - the symbols of Allah - - -". Here referring to the rites of the pilgrimage - the hajj - in Mecca, likely especially to the ones connected to the sacrifice of animals.

If Yahweh and Allah had been the same god, it had been somewhat peculiar that the god liked such sacrifices in the OT, but dropped it in the New Covenant and the teaching of Jesus - for them to reinstall it shortly (at least shortly for a god) afterwards. A god with no clear ideas for what he wants?

It also is peculiar that Yahweh and the Bible never puts any weight on pilgrimages, whereas Allah and the Quran find it so essential, that it is made one of the pillars of Islam. Definitely not the same god and as definitely not the same religion.

Also: Most of the rituals during Hajj are taken over from the old pagan Arab religion. It is peculiar if pagan rites are symbols of a monotheistic real god, and as peculiar that only the Arab pagan religion "happened" to have the correct rites. There are no similar rites in NT; not the same god, Jesus and Muhammad far from in the same religion.

065 22/32b: "- - - such honor (to sacrifice animals*) - - -". What kind of a god thinks it is an honor to him that animals are killed for him? Not even an earthly king or tribal chief thinks of that as an honor. He may like the hospitality in the good food a slaughtering may result in, but none ever look at the slaughter itself as an honor. Yahweh after all - according to the Bible - had the rational (?) reason that he liked the smell of roasted meat, when it was placed on the fire afterwards.

Can the killing have anything to do with the old superstition you find in some primitive cultures - and a superstition known in what we call the Middle East, in the old times - that if you totally destroyed something in the name of your god, you had given it to the god?

066 22/32c: "- - - such honor (to sacrifice animals*) should come truly (definitely not a proved truth - only a not proved claim*) from the piety of heart". The sacrifices are to prove this piety of heart - but how come that an omniscient god needs the slaughtering of animals to believe you?

Another fact is that even if man had only a tenth of 1% free will, after not much time the laws of chaos had destroyed both Allah's precognition and his predestinations - just ask f.x. any statitician or scientist.

067 22/33a: "In them - - -". In the slaughtered animals - - -.

068 22/33b: "In them ye (Muslims*) have benefit for a term appointed - - -". Allah likes you to sacrifice animals to him, so he gives you undefined benefits for a predetermined time. No comments.

069 22/34a: “To every people did We (Allah*) appoint rites (of sacrifice) - - -.” Just one problem: The Christians have not been given/ordered any kind of animal sacrifices – or rites for such. The only real rites ordered in NT are baptizing, help the needy, and Jesus' wishes during his last supper (f.x. 22/17-19), and it is not given any specific order about exactly how to perform it, except partly for baptizing.

070 22/34b: “To every people did We (Allah*) appoint rites (of sacrifice), that they may celebrate in the name of Allah - - -”. To celebrate in the name of Allah simply is prohibited by f.x. Yahweh - his general rules are very clear on points like celebrating other gods.

071 22/67a: "To every people We (Allah*) appointed rites and ceremonies - - -". Is this correct? - Muhammad did not get his rites etc. from Allah, he just took over them from the old pagan Arabs. And these also all other people have to follow, even (former) Jews and Christians who presumably really got some of their rites and ceremonies from the god.(Christians in reality got no fixed rites, except the baptizing and following the requests Jesus made his last supper (f.x. Matt. 26/26-28), and even those did not get a defined rite from "above".)

072 22/72e: "It is the (Fire of Hell)! Allah has promised it to the Unbelievers!" A promise worth nothing if Allah is a made up god. But for that: See 3/77b above.

073 23/28b: "- - - people who do wrong - - -". One of Muhammad's many repulse inducing names for non-Muslims.

*074 27/6a: “- - - the Quran is bestowed upon thee (Muhammad/Muslims*) from the presence of One who is Wise and All-Knowing (Allah*).” Islam claims that the Quran is the copy of the Mother Book (13/39, 43/4, 85/21-22) which is revered in Heaven by Allah and his angles there. It further is claimed that the book either is made by the omniscient and omnipotent god Allah – the only god (? - see 2/255a and 6/106b above) – or has existed since eternity, and thus is so fundamental that may be it is not made even by the god. This verse may be understood as a strengthening of the last claim: The Quran is not said to be made by or sent down by or from Allah, but sent down from “the presence of“ Allah. The fact that spoils this lofty and undocumented claim (claims normally are undocumented in Islam – though they demand documentation and proofs from anybody else) is the huge number of mistakes, twisted facts, contradictions, twisted and invalid logic, unclear language, etc. in the book. No god – omniscient or not – has ever made such a sloppy work. And also: A large number of the mistakes, rites, ways of thinking, etc. are in accordance with the culture and “knowledge” around the time of Muhammad in what we now call the Middle East – but no omniscient god would have to use mistaken science, customs and rules and ways of thinking, from a special century and a special, small area on the minuscule planet Earth, when he made a book – or it in other ways came into existence – before the universe was created (which happened 13.7 billion years ago according to science). Propaganda? At least it is wrong.

There is one more fact which makes it impossible that the book is from eternity: There is at least one place in the Quran that angels (according also to Muslim scholars) are speaking, and speaking to humans (and at least 8-9 places where Muhammad is speaking). This means that the book cannot have been made - or at least not finished - until after the first angels had been created (they could not speak in the book before they were created), and also not until after the first humans - if not the angels could not speak to humans. It is clear in the Quran that the angels are not from eternity - Allah created them from light - and also humans definitely did not exist since eternity. And it also cannot have been made earlier than it was possible for Muhammad to have his say in the book at least the mentioned 8(?) times.

075 30/4d: "- - - on that Day, (when the Romans - Christians - win*) shall the Believers (Muslims*) rejoice - - -". According to Muhammad the Christians were the ones who were closest to Muslims. Therefore it was better they won the war than the mainly pagan Persians. (The Romans - really the East Roman Empire - won the war in 628 AD). We here may add that it is not unlikely Muhammad was right about possible connections between Christians and Muslims - there is little problem living alongside "normal" Muslims. Where we personally think the problems are, are in the honestly sick parts of the Quran's moral code, etc., the murderous mentality imprinted on them from the religion - read the Quran, and especially the surahs from Medina, and you see that "Islam, the religion of peace" is not even s joke. Islam is a war religion. For most Muslims this war ideology does not penetrate or replace the normal wish for a peaceful life. But for some it makes the use of power and weapons easier acceptable. This even more so as even in modern times the duty of fighting is impressed as a holy duty. The ones really wanting fighting and war and terrorism are not many. But the central point is that it does not take many to kill just you - and nobody knows in time who will become a terrorist or something - - - perhaps your neighbor. These two things - the war mentality and the immoral parts of their moral code, etc., and the fact that you can never know whom of them will turn terrorists, or at least help the terrorists - are at the bottom of the problem - helped by a superiority complex transferred from the Quran: Muslims are better than others (in Pakistan they some time ago debated if non-Muslims had half the value of Muslims or less).

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.

But such problems aside, most Muslims are just as human as any non-Muslim. A minimum of care may be ok until you know who are ok, but do not judge just from the war and blood and dishonesty in religion.

#####076 32/18b: “Is then the man who believes (Muslim*) no better than the man who is rebellious and wicked (the non-Muslim*)? Not equal are they.” Muhammad forgets (?) to mention that there are many good humans also among non-Muslims - neither rebellious, nor wicked. "Forgotten" on purpose?

And what does this tell about who are haughty, etc.? - non-Muslims? - or Muslims? (A few years ago there was a serious debate in Pakistan: Did non-Muslims have half the value of Muslims? - or less?

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.

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

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

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

###077 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. 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!!!

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

078 35/19b: “The blind (non-Muslims*) and the seeing (Muslims*) are not alike - - -”. Is there an irony in the fact that the Quran and Islam demands blind obedience and blind belief?

#####079 40/58d: “- - - nor are (equal) those who believe and work deeds of righteousness and those who do evil (non-Muslims/Pagans*)”. This is obvious. But what then about those points in the Quran's codes of moral, of ethics, of conduct, of warfare, etc. which are evil? And what about the unjust parts of the sharia laws? (Muslims normally are unable to see the evil such places, because they have been told since they were born that this is just and good and glorious. But anyone - Muslims and non-Muslims - are free to compare such points to "do to others like you want others do to you".

080 40/60e: "- - - (non-Muslims/Pagans*) will surely find themselves in Hell - - -". But what about Yahweh? As said some times the moral, etc., codes in the war and apartheid religion told by the Quran, on several points are so different from normal moral and ethical codes, that may be Yahweh thinks you have been a very good person even if Allah wants you to hell - the difference between the religions are by far big enough for that, both ways. In that case may be Yahweh will intervene, at least if you are a follower of him? (The differences between the religions are the main proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. Muslims try to explain away the differences with never documented claims about falsifications of the Bible, but both science and Islam thoroughly have proved those claims wrong.)

081 43/89b: “But turn away from them, and say ‘Peace.’” Comments like 43/48 above. And: This verse is contradicted and often “killed” 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).

082 45/23b: "Allah has - - - sealed his (a non-Muslim*) hearing and his heart (and understanding), and put a cover on his sight (to make it impossible for him to find the way to Paradise*)". Read the NT and see if this can be the same god Jesus told about - f.x about the lost sheep (Matt. 18/12-14). Not by long miles!!

083 46/10h: "- - - a people unjust". One of Muhammad's many distaste inducing names for non-Muslims.

084 48/13a: "And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*), We (Allah*) have prepared, for those who reject Allah (in praxis here on Earth those who disobey Muhammad*), a Blazing Fire!" A clear message from Muhammad: Obey me or end in Hell. Is it possible for any dictator to find a stronger "whip"?

###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.

##085 51/10a: "Woe to the falsehood-mongers - - -".

  1. As the Quran is not from a god - too much is wrong - is Muhammad among them? He is, if not f.x. an illness - f.x. TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) - made him believe himself everything, included his lies, and was true. (Well, if Iblis/the Devil| dressed up like Gabriel and deceived Muhammad, the answer may be different.)
  2. As the Quran is not from a god - too much is wrong - are the Muslims among them? They are if they see the mistakes, etc in the Quran and all the same pretend they are not there.
  3. If Muslims use al-Taqiyya (lawful lies), Kitman (lawful half-truths), broken/false oaths, etc., are they then among them? They are - lying and cheating are lying and cheating.
  4. As "falsehood-mongers" in the Quran means all non-Muslims, this sentence also is part of the basis for the Quran's and thus Islam's moral code.

086 52/16: "- - - ye (non-Muslims*) but receive the recompense for your own deeds". This is not true if Allah predestines absolutely everything like the Quran claims many places. (Islam tries to explain this problem away by claiming man has free will or partly free will, but this is not possible to combine with full predestination even for an omniscient and omnipotent god - see f.x. comment A6/141 to verse 6/149 above.

You may just forget the Islamic claim that full predestination for Allah is possible to combine with even a little part of free will for man - Islam's claimed answer just is mysticism and hardly even that. The two claims are mutually excluding each other, and it is long since proved that when two claims mutually exclude each other, maximum one of them can be true. Another good proof is that the entire Islam during 1400 years has been unable to find even a way to "explain away" - not even "explain", but "explain away" - this very revealing point.

#####In a way worse: Also at least the educated intelligenzia in Islam knows ever so well that when two points are mutually excluding each other, maximum one of them can be true. All the same they say nothing. Dishonesty.

#####When a religion needs to use dishonesty - yes, perhaps partly is built on and rests on dishonesty - is it then a religion or a "religion"?

##087 58/19e: "They (non-Muslims*) are the Party of Satan". This is one of the sentences you should remember if/when you meet Muslims claiming that Islam or Muhammad is slandered or worse - it is difficult for them to get sympathy from a judge when they are saying worse things themselves. And few opposers of Islam use as strong words as here, but this is in the official and claimed holy book. Hate and distaste mongering.

##088 66/9d: “O Prophet (Muhammad*)! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell - - -.” A clear order and a clear explanation why they are sub-human, and thus deserve to die. “Untermench” always are ok to kill – they deserve it. It also is the right of the “Übermench” to do so – and in the Quran no doubt the Muslims are the “Übermench”. (Quite like the Nazi philosophy - except that according to the Nazis, Arabs were "Untermench".(Übermench = super humans, Untermench = sub humans.)

###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.

089 72/16b: "If they (the Pagans) had (only) remained on the (right) Way - - -". This sentence presumes that the Pagans were Muslims before. For most of them - or all - this is not true. (But Muhammad claimed every population once had been Muslims - a claim proved wrong by both science and Islam, as both have been unable to find any traces anywhere from a religion like Islam, a god like Allah, or a book similar to the Quran.)

##090 72/16c: "If they (the Pagans) had (only) remained on the (right) Way, We (Allah*) should certainly bestowed on them Rain in abundance." This one is too stupid - and demands too naive listeners/readers - to merit a comment.

091 72/17b: "But if any of them (Pagans*) turns away from the remembrance of his Lord (Allah*)". If Allah does not exist or for other reasons is no god, it is not a turning away from any remembrance of Allah, but from tales claimed to be from Allah.

##092 74/31l: "Thus doth Allah leave to stray whom he pleaseth - - -". This is one of the big differences between the Quran and NT - and alone a proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god: Yahweh is not pleased to let anyone - anyone - stray and get lost. See f. x. "the lost sheep" (Matt. 18/12-14), the lost coin" (Luke 15/8-10), "the lost son" (Luke 15/11-31), "the 11. hour" (Matt. 20/8-13) in the Gospels. The same god? The question is an insult to Yahweh and to his new covenant (f. x. Matt. 26/28).

093 95/5: "- - - We (Allah*) abase him (non-Muslims*) to the lowest of the low (except the Muslims?*)- - -". Non-Muslims are bad quality - stay away from them.

094 98/6f: “They (non-Muslims*) are the worst of creatures”. A fitting second last quotation from a verse? But only if the Quran is from a god, and in addition tells all the truth and only the truth.

94 comments. Sub-total = 8487 + 94 = 8581.


>>> 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".