Muhammad in the Quran, Vol. 1: Chapter 2
15 Dec. 2015
Section II: MUHAMMAD, SOME POINTS ABOUT THE PERSON
SOME POINTS ABOUT MUHAMMAD
Muhammad was born into a not rich branch of a powerful tribe, the Quraysh, in Mecca halfway up the Arab peninsula, in or around 570 AD. 25 years old he married the 40 years old rich widow Khadijah - for love or money is not possible to know. There are children involved - one does not know for sure but 6 - 8 (included the son Qasim and likely a son named Abdullah and perhaps, perhaps, one or two more). As Khadijah was pretty old to get 6-8 children, it is possible at least some were Khadijah's from her earlier marriages (Muslim sources indicate that she had 4 children before marrying Muhammad), but adopted by Muhammad (not uncommon - adopted children had duties when the "father" grew old). Evaluating this question it also counts that it is unlikely Khadijah was married for perhaps 20+ years (Arab girls often married young) without getting a child, and then suddenly getting 6-8 with a man who later got only one child (with the slave girl Maria) in spite of a very active sex life with no less than at least 35 other women (Muslims often say 11 included Khadijah, but those only were his long time wives). It is likely Muhammad was or became sterile - active sex life and getting only 1 child after Khadijah hardly is possible for a somewhat fertile man. (Actually there are 3 possibilities: Khadijah married a poor man to have an "alibi" when cultivating a prohibited, but interesting man - such things happened in the old times. Or Khadijah had some children and the perhaps "interesting man" fathered the rest. Or Muhammad for some reason became completely or nearly sterile after siring one or more of Khadijah's children. Maria child (Ibrahim) may have been a lucky incident, or - as the owner not always is the "dream prince" of a slave girl, and Ibrahim may have been the result of possible visits to somebody more attractive one or more dark nights. These are questions it never will be possible to find a 100% sure answer to. What is sure is that it is not very likely that Khadijah suddenly got 6 - 8 children after the age of 40, and that Muhammad must have been sterile or practically sterile already when he married his next wife only 3 months after Khadijah's death (which does not indicate deep sorrow because of her death), and no pregnancy - not until years later when at least officially Ibrahim was his son and only child after Khadijah died.
Only one daughter, Fatima, survived Muhammad, and she only by half a year. (Muhammad sometimes told that sinners were punished by the god also in this life. Was the early death of all his children some god's punishment against Muhammad for something?
If you ask a Muslim, you will get a description of what a good saint Muhammad was. To be blunt but correct: He was not.
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
001 3/28d: “Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah, except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourself from them." Deception, not honesty, also in friendship.
When preparing just this for Book K, I was reading about what is happening in Northeast Africa: Muslim gangs prying on people trying to get away from poverty and war by fleeing north. Kidnapping, gang raping, stealing what little the victims have got, enslaving, slave trading, extortion, torture, killing - even slaughtering victims to sell body parts on the black market.
Islam could stop this. But why should they, and for what moral reason? With the exception of selling hearts and livers, etc. on the black market, this is exactly what Muhammad did, and what he did is "lawful and good".
This is Islam let lose in its pure form. Men living strictly according to the surahs from Medina - the youngest surahs and thus the most correct ones according to Islam's rules for abrogation.
These men are claimed to be humans. And as they are living and behaving strictly according to the Quran's later surahs and to Muhammad's excellent sample, they are the diamonds of what Islam has to offer.
No further comments.
###002 3/47b: "How shall I (Mary*) have a son when no man hath touched me?" It may be worth noticing that the Quran here confirms the virgin birth of Jesus (also the angel's answer in the next sentence had been different if this was not true). This because you meet Muslims throwing around ugly dirt about Yahweh and Roman soldiers, etc. and sex with an 8-9 year old girl from the Bible - Mary - refusing the virgin birth. Now, no-one knows the age of Mary, but it is likely that she was young. No-one guesses younger than 12 years, but looking to Muhammad's regular sex with Aishah from she was 9, Muslims sometimes claims Mary was 8-9 - the younger, the uglier - - - and an alibi for Muhammad's pedophilia. But the claimed virgin birth and thus no early sex, is confirmed at least 3 places in the Quran (19/20-21, 66/12 and here) - for what the reliability of the Quran is worth.
###003 3/79f: "It is not (possible) that (a prophet*) should say to people: 'Be ye my worshipers rather than Allah's.'" Perhaps not, but it is quite possible for a man to say: "I am a prophet. I dictate a book. Obey me on behalf of my claimed god." Many have said so - some with and some without a special "holy" book. Their followers call them "messengers" or "prophets", the correct title mostly is "false prophet".
#######004 3/144a: "Muhammad is no more than a Messenger - - -". Sentences like this is the only reason why Muhammad is not a saint in Islam - divinity would be impossible, but sainthood they would be able to find an opening for, if it was not for sentences like this. It also is one of Muhammad's ways of explaining away questions for miracles as proofs for Allah or for his own connection to a god.
BUT BEWARE THAT THIS ALSO IS ONE OF THE STRONG PROOFS FOR THAT MUHAMMAD WAS UNABLE TO MAKE MIRACLES - HIS ONLY TASK, ONLY MISSION, AND ONLY POWER WAS TO BRING MESSAGES ACCORDING TO MUHAMMAD HIMSELF AND ACCORDING TO THE QURAN HERE AND OTHER PLACES. THE SAME GOES FOR PROPHESYING/FORETELLING (WHICH IN REALITY IS A SPECIAL KIND OF MIRACLES - TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT IS HIDDEN OR HAS NOT HAPPENED YET), SOMETHING ALSO HIS FAMOUS CHILD WIFE, AISHA, CONFIRMS IN THE HADITHS, AND BY MUHAMMAD HIMSELF OTHER PLACES IN THE QURAN (not able to make miracles, f.x. 7/188, 10/49, 17/93, 72/21, not able to make prophesies, f.x. 6/50, 7/188, 10/20, 27/65, 46/9, 72/27, 81/24).
005 3/161a: “No prophet could (ever) be false to his trust.” Some of Mohammad’s highwaymen (this was in 625 AD when the Muslims lived from stealing/robbing and extortion) were dissatisfied and told Mohammad cheated when splitting the spoils. Then this verse arrived very conveniently from the veneered "Mother Book" in Heaven written by Allah or existed since eternity - even containing such things. Islam says it proved Mohammad did not cheat. That may be correct if Allah made this part of the Quran, but not if Mohammad or someone else did so.
006 3/161b: “No prophet could (ever) be false to his trust.” There is another and much more serious fact here: Through the times most – not to say (nearly?) all – self-proclaimed prophets whom a god has not backed up, have been false prophets. Most of the false prophets have been (and are) men, and in religion they have found a way to money, esteem, and power – and women - the 4 normal reasons for impostors. Some are mentally special or ill – Muhammad is among those if he had TLE (see the chapter “What is TLE – Temporal Lobe Epilepsy” in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran"). Some really believe they are prophets, others just are cheats – if Muhammad had TLE, he may honestly have believed he had some connection to a god, but it also is very clear from the Quran that he at least sometimes knew he was cheating/lying; some of the arguments he used in the book, any intelligent person knows are lies (f.x. that miracles would not make doubters believe), and Muhammad was an intelligent man. And some of the self proclaimed “prophets” simply were/are cold and calculating – sometimes even psychopathic - - - and when one looks at Muhammad’s cold-blooded treatment of victims and opponents, his total disregard (he f.x. had a lot of them murdered) for the life and well-being of everybody who stood between him and power and riches (to use for bribing greedy warriors and chiefs to come to or stay on in his religion and his army), and his clever psychological (every clever salesman knows much about human nature and psychology) manipulation of his uneducated, naïve early followers, it is easy to believe Muhammad belonged to these – may be combined with the effect of the possible TLE or something.
And it is here worth noticing that the other possible explanation for this sentence in the Quran, is that it is a defense against accusations for making up the whole or parts of the book. Interesting here is that in (A3/123), Swedish 2006 edition both accusations are debated, and it is confirmed that Muhammad really was accused for not dealing fair when sharing the booty (this also is mentioned in other sources), whereas in the slightly more "correct" English 2008 edition this is omitted. One only tells that to accuse Muhammad for making up the Quran is "contrary to reason" - which is an invalid (not to use stronger words) argument when you for one thing know there have been literally thousands of false prophets throughout the history, for another thing know how many mistaken fact and other errors there are in the Quran, and for a third know that many of the mistakes are from wrong science of different kinds one believed in in Arabia at the time of Muhammad, and not to forget Muhammad's point of view about honesty when dishonesty might give a better result - not even his own oaths did he respect in such cases. Also see 3/161a above.
To anyone knowing the reality of all too many self proclaimed "prophets" - and Muhammad had absolutely nothing to show for himself (except perhaps a brain illness) than his own words and proclamations - the quote above gives an excellent reason for a good laugh.
007 4/69e: "- - - the Sincere (lovers of Truth) - - -". The man who in reality institutionalized al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing),etc. even though it only was formalized later, who believed in deceiving ("war is deceit" - and everything is jihad) and who advised his followers to break their words/promises/oaths if that gave a better result, so definitely did and do not belong here. "Ausgeschlossen". (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)
This panegyric point also is quite a black joke and irony when you remember that Islam is the only one of the big religions which accepts dishonesty like mentioned just above, deceit, disuse/breaking of words/promises/oats (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)) as working tools.
008 4/69g: "- - - the Witness (who testify) - - -". A man like Muhammad would not be reckoned to be a reliable witness in any just court. See f.x. 4/69c+d above.
009 4/69h: "- - - the Righteous - - -". See 4/69d+e above, and add facts like stealing/robbing, rape, suppression, murder, and more. Muhammad was the anti-these to the company of the Righteous.
010 5/106b: "When death approaches any of you (Muslims*),(take) witnesses among yourselves when making bequests - - -." Make a will not later than when you feel death is coming to you. Muhammad himself broke this rule, which made considerable troubles. For one thing: Who was to inherit his considerable wealth? (Muslims like to tell that Muhammad died very poor. It simply is not true - and many of them know it, as it is clearly told in Hadiths. He had estates in Medina, Khaybar, and Fadak. But he had said - not willed, but at least said - that this was to be given to the religion, and therefore the caliph, Abu Bakr, confiscated it, much to the anger of Muhammad's only living child, Fatime, who wanted the inheritance from her father. But he neither had made rules for his own inheritors, nor for transfer of power or for succession of leaders of Islam, which resulted in that Fatime did not get her inheritance - and that of the 11 first caliphs only one (Abu Bakr) died a natural death - the line of transfer of power was unclear and many wanted that power. The religion of peace!
p>######011 6/19l: "Truly I (Muhammad*) am innocent of - - - joining gods with Him (Allah*)". A very relevant question for Muslims here is: Is he innocent of making up Allah?
012 6/33a: "- - - it is not thee (Muhammad*) they (non-Muslims*) reject - - -". Wrong. They also rejected Muhammad.
013 6/39d: "- - - in the midst of darkness profound - - -". The question is who is in darkness: The ones who see that something is seriously wrong in the Quran, and thus with Muhammad and Islam, or they who believe blindly in a book so full of errors, contradictions, etc. that it is slander and heresy to blame a god for it, and a book dictated by a man liking power, riches (at least for bribes) and women, and a man believing in lies and dishonesty as working tools (al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth - deceit, betrayal, and broken words/promises/oaths.)
####014 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, slave taking, extortion, repeated atrocities, apartheid, and mass murder, and for the reason they had another religion only, 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.
######A pinnacle of a high moral code for any religion anywhere in the world.
Not to mention one of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same goes, and for that Jesus and Muhammad are not in the same religion, not to mention in the same line of prophets. Read this claim from Muhammad, and then read the words of Jesus - ########it will take a great amount of naivety and wishful thinking to be able to believe those two ever were in the same religion or represented the same god.
Are there any similarities between the Quran's moral code and the ones of f.x. the Mafia, the Cosa Nostra, the Chinese Triads, etc.?
Muslims able to glorify the real Muhammad, must be somewhat special beings.
015 6/48a: "We (Allah*) send the Messengers only to give good news and to warn." In that case Muhammad was no messenger from Allah - he was too much of a thief/robber/enslaver and of a bloody robber baron/warlord/murderer and more. And later an enforcer: "Become Muslim or fight us and die"- that was the choice much of Arabia (and others) got. "- - - only to give good news - - -"? Not even wrong, but much stronger than wrong. (But this was in 621 AD before he started to become powerful and either became morally destroyed or could show his true moral and personality. Absolute power often works like that.
016 6/50ba: "- - - nor do I (Muhammad*) tell you (people) I am an angel". With his CV he had better not - and this even more so later. (Surah 6 is from ca. 621 AD - before Islam was changed to a religion of hate and war.)
017 6/62d: "- - - Allah - - - the (only) Reality - - -". Incompatible to the Bible, and: Is he a reality? There exists not ones single documentation - ONLY the word of a not very reliable man unable to prove one single of his words - a man with very doubtful morality, a man who clearly lied sometimes, a man who made lying, half truths (al-Taqiyya and Kitman), deceit, etc., parts of his religion, a man who advocated breaking even your oaths if that gave a better result - and a man lusting for riches for bribes and for power - and for women - and not "specific" on how to lay his hands on any of those three. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)
018 6/90d: "No reward do I ask of you - - -". This was one of Muhammad’s claims, and then it was good to have the earlier prophets say the same - indicating this was what real prophets said. And Muhammad took nothing? No, only 1/5 of everything stolen or robbed, included slaves - 100% if the victims gave in without fighting - (for comparison: Yahweh only once in the Bible (4. Mos. 31/28) demanded 1/500 of half and 1/50 of the other half, and not for himself - Allah via his representative (?) Muhammad demanded 1/5 = 10 to 100 times as much each and every time, and 5 times as much if the victims gave in without a fight! The same god?), tax = 2.5% on average of everything you own (not earn, but own) each and every year (if you are not too poor) and 10% of everything dug out of the earth + plenty of women + total obedience and total power over you. No, Muhammad demanded "nothing" from his followers!(Reality incompatible with at least NT). Well, not all of what he took was only for himself, but all the same: Simply and plainly a lie.
019 7/43i: "- - - the Prophets of our (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". This of course intends to include also Muhammad, but: No god uses a messenger telling his audiences a lot of things which are wrong. And no good and benevolent god uses a robber baron and warlord living from stealing, extortion, rape and paying his men by permitting them to rape even children, slave taking/dealing, apartheid, and blood and murder.
*020 7/157a: “- - - the Messenger, unlettered Prophet (Muhammad) - - -”. Islam frequently tells that Muhammad was an an-alphabetic (then he could not have made up the Quran, they claim - which he could anyhow, he in case just could not do the writing it down himself - which he did not do). But in science there is serious doubt about this - he was from a good family which it is likely taught its male members how to read and write, and in addition he was intelligent and he run first a big business (the one of his first wife Khadijah) and later a large organization. It is highly unlikely that such a man did not learn how to read and write - and unlikely that his first wife had accepted him as the manager of her business if he was analphabetic).
You also can meet Muslims telling you that the “fact” that Mohammad could not read, “proves” that all his knowledge about the Bible he had to have gotten via holy inspiration - he could not have read about it. We find it distinctly dishonest that they omit all the vocal storytelling that was very rife in Arabia (and most other countries) – and the fact is that most of the Biblical stories in the Quran are such tales and not really from the Bible itself.
Not to forget that a well off man like Muhammad - he married a rich widow - easily could pay someone to read for him. Also some points in Hadiths indicate that he knew both how to read and how to write - facts Islam and Muslims very seldom mention.
We also may mention that the claim that Muhammad was an-alphabetic "proves" he did not make the Quran, is very naive. The very strongest word possible to use here is "indicates", and even this is too strong as it in case was Muhammad's brain and not his pen which made up the Quran. But if you read Muslim religious literature or debates, you will notice a strong tendency to use too strong words hoping to prove the religion and the Quran are right - "perhaps", "probably", "an indication", etc. all too often are transferred to "proof".
Islam's use of the claim that Muhammad was non-alphabetic is strongly distasteful and dishonest - this even if it should be true that he did not know how to read and write. The problem simply was too easy for a rich man to solve + Islam knows ever so well the rich traditions of story-telling in Arabia. But Islam's dishonesty also is revealing: It reveals that they have few or none real facts and arguments on these points (like so many others) - if they had had honest facts, they had used them instead of stooping down to the use of dishonest claims and invalid - here very wrong - logic.
021 7/158n: “- - - the unlettered Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -”. See 7/157a-e above.
###022 7/198b: In connection to this verse (7/98) M. Yusuf Ali - a Muslim scholar who knew the real, historical side of Muhammad, not only the glossy picture from the imams, very well, in all his stealing and robbing, raping, womanizing, lying, torture, murder, and blood - wrote this about Muhammad (YA 1169): "Even now, after fourteen centuries, a life (Muhammad*) of unexampled purity, probity, justice, and righteousness is seen in the false light by blind detractors!" #####It simply is very difficult to believe that it is humanly possible honestly to believe in such a shining picture for a learned scholar. And what then about uneducated Muslims?
Is this really the "realism" in Islam?
In that case it is easy to see why many such areas are pretty backwards.
Are we living in the same world?
Or is this really what the Muslim moral code is like?
Did Yusuf Ali really believe what he said? - one of the foremost Muslim scholars and translators in last century?! - or is it perhaps an al-Taqiyya meant to satisfy the clergy/religious scholars?"
Or does this tell something about Islam and al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie Muslims are urged to use if necessary to defend and forward the religion (and some other things)???
###The sentence made a huge impression on us, and told us much about Muslim integrity and moral backbone.
023 8/58a: “If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their Covenant) to them - - -”. It was enough to “fear treachery” - or say they did - then the situation for non-Muslims suddenly became more unsafe. This has happened many times throughout history - sometimes resulting in pogroms and massacres. A late one was in Indonesia some years ago some 2ooo ethnical Chinese Indonesian citizen were murderer and a huge ransacking spree took place against ethnic Chinese Indonesian citizens (and that was not even because of fear, but because of the Chinese worked more and often were better educated and had become richer than Muslims), and one where at least 200ooo ethnic Chinese were killed 1 - 2 generations ago. A much worse story was against Armenians around 1900 AD. Some 1.2 million killed and no one knows how many girls/women were kidnapped for rape and/or harems. This story was in the news in 2007, and Turkey still does not have the backbone to face it. The same for Greeks in Turkey early in last century - the Turks do not have the backbone to tidy up after those atrocities, too. Darfur with at least 200ooo slaughtered civilians - takes place today. And there is no guaranty for the future, as there are many verses in the Quran telling Muslims how to treat non-Muslims. There always are verses to be found in the Quran telling Muslims to kill or suppress any non-Muslims.
There have been many more of the same kind (see our book about Jihad) - even though Muslims never talk about other facts than that at times - sometimes even long times - Muslim countries were relatively safe for Jews, etc. if they accepted inferior status and no power, little legal security and extra taxes - jizya and land tax (which sometimes could be heavy, because the Quran limited the rulers' possibilities to tax Muslims but put no limit on the jizya or land tax).
This quote also tells a lot about the person Muhammad. Especially as he practiced it sometimes. F.x. some of his attacks were on suspicion only - and often not even suspicion.
###024 8/67a: “It is not fitting for a Prophet (Muhammad*) that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land”. One of the moral and ethical real pinnacles in Islam. It takes an effort - and resources - to take care of prisoners. This Muhammad did not like - and voila! - Allah ordered him to kill all prisoners (of course with the exception of the ones one wanted for slaves or wanted to keep for extorting money for from their families - or women and girls for "personal use").
No doubt at all: A morally and ethically superior god and religion, and with lots of empathy - not to forget the perfect and good and kind and good-hearted Muhammad who was free from sins. (Actually there never were philosophers thinking on morality and ethics in Islam like f.x. in the old Greece or later in the West. Muhammad just picked from the contemporary traditions - in some cases he picked good ideas, in other cases he chose rather inhuman ideals, and that was it, as it never later has been permitted to think about whether his rules are good - or the best - or not.)
This quote also tells a lot about the person Muhammad.
Does anybody wonder why Muslim warriors and terrorists sometimes murder prisoners - guilty or not?
Also: Combine this quote with Islam's slogan: "Islam is the Religion of Peace" and weep - or laugh.
######025 8/69a: “ "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, #######lawful and good - - -”. This is one more of the moral and ethical pinnacles in the Quran: Wage war, and then it is “lawful and good” to steal and rob and plunder - and rape the women and girl children and take slaves. It actually is connected to 8/68a above, but like so often in the Quran specific episodes, etc, is given general meaning.
But of course this made it easy and cheap for Muhammad and his successors to get warriors. That such behavior is a catastrophe for any and all victims - and in some cases set back the civilization may be some hundred years like in Persia/Iran - does not count, as non-Muslim “Untermench” ("sub-humans" in Nazi German) do not count.
This even more so as for fanatics nearly every situation they do not like, can be defined as war against Islam “in the widest meaning of the word” - not to mention that according to Islam’s definition all areas not dominated by Islam are “land of war”. Really a morally and ethical superior religion - compare f.x. to the silly and invalid "Do unto others like you want others do against you", which many religions and culture have as their "constitution". And really a peaceful one.
And honestly the word “good” in ”lawful and good” classifies Muhammad, the Quran and Islam. Laws can be twisted and remade and it is no problem for an absolute dictator to make what laws he wants and thus make things “lawful” – quotation marks used on purpose. But the word “good” is an absolute – flexible “borders”, but fundamentally an absolute. Allah’s/Muhammad’s real rules for behavior against all outsiders is way outside “good”, and the hypocrisy in the using of abrogated verses in the Quran to make outsiders believe something else, makes this aspect of the religion and its hypocrisy even more disgusting.
This quote also tells a lot about the person Muhammad.
Also: Combine this quote with Islam's slogan: "Islam is the Religion of Peace" and "Allah is good and benevolent" and weep - or laugh.
What lacks now is that Islam starts claiming that "Islam is the Religion of Honesty - no Lying, no Deceiving, no Stealing". (Remember here that looting and robbing both = stealing.)
One more point: In most cases the Muslims were the attackers, and they behaved horribly stole and destroyed, raped and suppressed and killed. But you NEVER hear a Muslim regret or even talk about the horror or catastrophe this was for the victims. The Muslim warriors were heroes, and that is it!
025a 8/69ca: We have met the question: There are certain kinds of men who are the "normal" perpetrators when women - and children - are raped. Self-centered, low on compassion for others for others, and often low quality - from "the rubble". It is the same kind of humans who often are the ones stealing from or robbing others. Now the Quran has favoured this kind of men and behaviour - go to war and suppress and kill, and be paid by stealing and raping - for 1400 years. Can this have influenced the DNA of Arabs and other Muslims? - the ones who rape often and the ones who get more wives and concubines because they are rich (f.x. from stolen valuables), gets more babies. ######Kan this be a little piece of the explanation for the inhuanities we see from Arabs and other Muslims?
026 8/70c: “O Prophet! Say to those who are captives in your hands: ‘If Allah findeth any good in your hearts, He will give you something better than what has been taken from you, and He will forgive you - - -.” It also is a bit ironic that Muhammad had attacked and stolen and raped and murdered and enslaved - - - but it was his victims who needed forgiving. Muhammad the hypocrite. Some religion.
The hypocrite side of Allah is visible not a few times in the Quran. Worth a sardonic laugh.
As for forgiving from Allah: See 2/187d above.
###027 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.
028 9/12a: “But if they (the leaders in Mecca*) violate their oath after their covenant - - - fight ye the chiefs of the Unfaithful - - -”. Well, for once Muhammad has a valid reason according to the laws of war: A broken covenant may be a reason for resumed war. This is shortly after taking Mecca, and he does not quite trust the old rulers (but the covenant was not broken, and there was no more war over Mecca then). On the other hand the whole verse is bloody ironic, as Muhammad himself in the Quran states - and practices - that one should break even ones oaths if that gives a better result, and then if necessary pay Allah an expiation to be forgiven. And one more irony: Muhammad broke the peace treaty with the Meccans when he took Mecca. It was for 10 years (and made in 628 AD), but he broke it after 2 years.
029 9/22d: "Verily in Allah's presence is a reward, the greatest (of all)". We are back to the old question: Does he ever exist? The only place you ever find him, is in the Quran and other books based on the words of a man of very doubtful morality who liked power, riches for bribes - and women. And a man who advised his followers to use dishonest means when that gave a better result - this even according to the Quran itself. (F.x. broken oaths.)
030 9/58a: "- - - men who slander thee (Muhammad*) in the matter of (the distribution) of the alms - - -". Muhammad often used the riches of Islam as "gifts"/bribes to make unsure persons stay Muslims or become Muslims. Then it was not always plenty for the needy - nor always leaving a "fair" share of the booty to the real warriors. Both produced dissatisfaction.
031 9/59a: "If they (Muslims*) has been content with what Allah and His Prophet (Muhammad*) gave them". It was Muhammad who split the loot, but to reduce his blame and to put weight behind his claim, he adds Allah. "Accept the authorities and be content with what they/Muhammad decide!" This is any dictator's point of view - be satisfied with what I decide and what I do.
032 9/61f: "(Muhammad*) is a Mercy to those of you who believe (Muslims*)". Muhammad a mercy? - as we have said before: When there is a discrepancy between reality and glorifying words or propaganda, we always believe in reality.
033 9/75c: "- - - a covenant with Allah - - -". Some Boers in South Africa once made a covenant with Yahweh: They promised to do so-and-so-and-so, and then Yahweh should do so-and-so. What they forgot about, was to make sure that Yahweh agreed to be part of the covenant. Is this the same kind of "covenant"? - there only are some words in the Quran indicating there may be a covenant, and the Quran has so many mistakes that it is too unreliable if there is no additional proof - especially as it is made by a man who even himself admitted he was unreliable, and a man who liked power and riches for more power - and women - and was not too squeamish about how to reach his goals.
034 9/84b: "- - - Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". Muhammad's standard mantra to glue himself to his god - though he was never able to prove neither the existence of the claimed god, nor his own connection to one.
####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.
035 9/100a: Rather similar to 9/72 above – Muhammad did not have inventive fantasy, only the smart kind.
036 9/104b: "Know they (people*) not that Allah doth accept repentance - - - and that Allah is verily He (this definitely is no proved verity/truth*) - - -". This is a serious problem: The ONLY source for claimed information about the claimed god Allah, is a man with a very special view on honesty (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, "war is betrayal", break even your oaths if that gives a better result) and a liking for power. No-one in reality knows anything about Allah - many believe, but with such an unreliable source, no-one knows, only believes. The only thing which is proved and thus possible to know, is that there are very many mistakes and other errors in the Quran, and thus that no god has been involved in making or delivering it, and that consequently also much is seriously wrong with Islam.
##037 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). 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.
####038 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. And 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 is not the same god and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion.
Another point is that to forgive - or for that case to punish or reward or fulfill prayers - means for Allah to change his Plan considering the sinner/person, something which according to the Quran nobody and nothing can make him do. See 2/187d above.
039 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).
040 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.)
041 9/120f: “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 - - -”. In addition to - and above - all other facts this sentence divulges, shines the inhumanity in Muhammad's demands.
042 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.
043 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. 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" - or IS in Syria/Iraq (IS behaves very similar to Muhammad). 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".
#044 10/30f: "- - - their (non-Muslims'*) invented falsehoods (false gods*) will leave them in the lurch". This only is "invented falsehood" if it really is invented. There f.x. is a reasonable chance that Yahweh exists, and Jesus is a historical fact (he f.x. is mentioned by the renown Jewish writer of contemporary history shortly after, Josephus Flavius, and by 2 others a bit later). (A small curiosity here: There exists no real proof for that Muhammad really has lived. A few scientists honestly believe he is an invention.)
045 10/78d: "- - - in order that you (Moses*) and your brother (Aaron*) may have greatness in the land (Egypt*)?" YA1463 comments: "Notice how they (Pharaoh Ramses II and his men*) attribute evil motives to the men of Allah, motives of ambitions and lust for power - - -. The same device was used against Al Mustafa (another name for Muhammad*)". For one thing this kind of insinuations from Ramses II is not mentioned in the Bible. But more interesting is that Yusuf Ali here turns the facts (the only perhaps facts are in the Bible, as the Quran and all its mistakes are not from any god, and thus not from any reasonably reliable source) upside down: Like so many places the history of real or claimed historical prophets were changed to become parallels to Muhammad's own life and story, to make him look like the old prophets, and thus a normal prophet.
046 10/99d: “Wilt thou (Muhammad*) then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!”
Of course he would as soon as he was military strong enough! - lots of people during his time and later were forced to become Muslims. This peaceful verse from Mecca 621 AD soon was abrogated! This verse is abrogated – made invalid - 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. (At least 28 abrogations).
###047 10/104e: "- - - I (Muhammad*) am commanded - - -". Was he really commanded, or did he make up things himself - alone or by means of helpers like contemporary rumors told. And if he was commanded - fully or partly - then by whom? - a sick brain (TLE - temporal Lobe Epilepsy - like modern medical science believe) or by dark forces like his new religion may indicate? What is 110% sure is that no omniscient god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran, and even surer: No good and benevolent god ever was involved in an immoral, unjust and inhuman war, apartheid, and hate religion like Islam.
048 10/108h: “- - - those (“infidels”*) who stray, do so for their own loss, and I (Muhammad*) am (not set) over you to arrange your affair.” Not yet - he did not have the power to do so. But later when he got the power, Muhammad did not only want them to arrange their own affairs – then he wanted them to become Muslims and soldier, so that they could strengthen his own affairs of war and power. 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).
##049 11/19c: "Those (non-Muslims*) who would hinder (men) from the path of Allah and would seek in it something crocked - - -." M. Asad (A11/35 - 11/38 in the 2008 English edition) tells that the Quran her implies that "belief in resurrection, Allah's judgment and a life in the hereafter is here postulated as the only valid and lasting source of human morality".
#####A most illuminating piece of information, because all your good deeds in this case is motivated only from: "What merit can I gain with Allah?" There is an ocean between this and NT: Help your fellow humans from love or at least empathy and because he/they need help - and gain merit in Heaven on top. One hidden reason why so few of the help and aid NGOs originated in Muslim area? - why Islam had to be forced into abolishing slavery? etc.? Allah and Yahweh the same god? - only possible to believe if you strongly want to believe it and overlook lots of facts.
Remember that the foundation under all inter-human real moral codes is: "Do onto others like you want others do onto you". Read the Quran and look for things which do not fit this rule, and you will find too much.
Besides the claim is naively wrong. Most of human moral codes are based on old experience and knowledge about what gives the best results, though sometimes colored by ideologies - like the robbing, suppression, apartheid, etc. and war ideology in Islam - but that often results in partly immoral moral codes.
###XX050 11/19d: "(See 11/19c just above*) - - - #######belief in resurrection, Allah's judgment and a life in the hereafter is here postulated as the only valid and lasting source of human morality". Look at this sentence and think it over. What deep truths does it divulge about Muhammad, about the Quran, and about Islam - even today? - and about the ethics, value of empathy, and the moral of those three? For sexual morality parts of it is better in Islam than f.x. among Christians (though not better than what the Bible wants Christians to practice), in other parts from worse to much worse (f.x. lawful rape of slaves or captives, and sex with children, the easy divorces for men, etc.). In most other branches of morality the Quran/Islam is inferior to NT if you use "do to others like you want others do to you" as a basis.
051 15/6e: “O thou to whom the Messages is being revealed! Truly thou art mad (or possessed)!" Even at that time many saw that something was wrong with his teaching.
052 15/97: "We (Allah*) do indeed know how thy (Muhammad*s) heart is distressed at what they say". This is a comment to the fact that many were skeptical to Muhammad's new religion - a comment telling his followers indirectly that Muhammad is right. In a way a small pep-talk - but the contents of a pep-talk is not necessarily true.
053 17/47b: "- - - the wicked say, "Ye (Muslims*) follow none other than a man bewitched - - -". May be they were not wicked, but wise; in the old days people with mental disorders often were believed to be bewitched - invaded by a bad spirit. Modern medical science says there is a strong chance Muhammad had TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) - an illness which may give exactly the symptoms Muhammad is told to have had.
NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!
#####054 17/59b: "And we (Allah refrain from sending Signs (Quran-speak for "proofs for Allah"), only because the men of former generations treated them as false - - -".
In this connection we quote Muhammad Asad: "The Message of the Quran" (a/17/71), translated from Swedish: #####################"Several places the Quran stresses the fact that the Prophet Muhammad, in spite of being the last and greatest of Allah's messengers, did not have the permission to make signs or miracles similar to those earlier prophets are told to have made as confirmation of their verbal preaching". (This of course also goes for foretelling/prophesy, as foretelling simply is a special kind of miracle; "the ability to see the unseen".)
Worth remembering each time Muslims - often believing it honestly, because their imams, mullahs, etc. have told them so - tell you about the miracles of Muhammad or try to use claims about his miracles as arguments or proofs for something.
NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!
055 17/74a: "And had We (Allah*) not given thee (Muhammad*) strength, thou wouldst nearly have inclined to them (non-Muslims*) a little". This is a reference to the "Satanic Verses" - Muhammad gave in to the leaders of Mecca and "received" verses accepting and promoting the 3 goddesses al-Lat, al Uzza, and Manat in addition to al-Lah/Allah as the price for acceptance and perhaps power in Mecca. But shortly after he regretted and retracted the text - and blamed the Devil. And not to forget: "Proved" that it was normal for all prophets to be tempted - "ergo" he still was a normal prophet - - - even though he claimed to be the greatest.
056 17/81b: "- - - Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish". Let us hope so. But falsehood combined with ruthlessness, armed strengths and willingness to terror and murder often survives for a long time - just look at the Mafia, the Chinese Triads, etc. Are at least parts of Muhammad’s teaching and behavior in the same league?
*057 18/5a: “No knowledge have they (the Christians*) of such a thing (that Yahweh may have a son*)”. Wrong. There is a lot of information in the Bible. Now of course Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam all declare that the Bible has been falsified - they have to, as that was the only way for Muhammad to explain the differences between his “quoting” the Bible and quoting of religious legends, fairy tales, etc., and the Bible proper (it also is common among religious sects or religions to say that other sects or religions have misunderstood or falsified information), and also between Islam and Christianity. But science clearly has shown that the Bible is not falsified - and Islam has shown it even clearer by not finding one single proved falsification in some 45ooo relevant manuscripts from before 610 AD.
But the Quran is based only on what a single man said - only one man. A man who lived 600 years later, who brought not one single proof or witness - only claims and statements taken from nowhere and from legends, etc. Also a man for whom it was essential (just read the Quran and see) to be the greatest of prophets, which meant he had to reduce Jesus. And a man who craved very much for power - once more; just read the Quran and see how he glues himself to his platform of power; his religion and the god of that religion - which meant that his teachings had to gain priority over other teachings. And a man telling he got his teachings directly from an omniscient god - which meant it was impossible to accept that there were mistakes in the teachings (a problem which today is a nightmare for Islamic scholars, because there very obviously are lots of mistakes, and it is difficult to find good enough ways of “explaining” the mistakes away, except for to people with no - or not enough - knowledge, or not able to think for themselves - - - or believing so strongly that they anyhow do not want to see facts that do not fit what they believe.) And not least: ####A man who accepted the use of dishonesty - and himself used dishonesty - as a working tool. We remind you of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), which are all founded on his words and principles, his use and acceptance of the use of deceit and even betrayal (f.x. his murdering of the peace delegation from Khaybar, and his lies in the Quran), and his acceptance deceit and of breaking of words/promises/oaths (2/225, 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok), 5/89, 16/91, 66/2). #########A man of this moral quality and reliability is the ONLY source Islam is built on.
Whereas the Bible is written by many different persons, and as for NT many of whom knew Jesus or his closest co-workers, the Disciples, and nearly all wrote at times when there still were thousands of witnesses alive that had personally heard and seen what Jesus said and did.
We do not say that the Bible is right. We even less say that all details in the Bible are right, as it is clear that some details are wrong also in the Bible, at least in Genesis (creating it all).
But there is no doubt that according to all rules for evaluating information, the Bible should be more reliable than the Quran. The OT is written some 1000 or more years earlier and consequently 1000 years or more closer to what happened, and also had at least a lot of verbal traditions to build on. And NT was written 500 – 600 before the Quran, and with lots and lots of witnesses to what had happened still alive when much of it was written. Muhammad on the other hand had few sources, and they were mixed up with fairy tales (like the Child Gospels, from which he f.x. has got the story of the bird Jesus made from clay) or so-called apocryphal gospels or books - which are proved to be made up or propaganda for sects, or - well - fairy tales. Ok, he said he got his information from a god - but that is very easy and very cheap to say - many a founder of many a sect or religion have said the same thing. And there is not a single proof - not one single - for it being true in all the Quran, in spite of wishes and demands from both skeptics and followers. Questions which at best were answered with some fast-talk about what Allah could do if he wanted (but he never “wanted”) or that none of them would believe even if Allah sent real (supernatural) proofs (something any person who knows a little about people or about psychology knows is not true - supernatural proofs/wonders had made at least some believe. What is worse: Muhammad was a wise man who understood human nature - he had to know that he was lying each time he told just this). And do not forget: The glorified ideal Muhammad was in reality a highwayman and thief, an extorter, a rapist, a murderer and mass murderer, an enslaver, a warlord lusting for power and for wealth for bribes, and a warlord telling that “war is betrayal”, not to mention his al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) and Kitman (lawful half-truth).
There also is the fact that science knows some 12ooo - 13ooo scriptures or fragments with relation to the Bible or biblical circumstances. Plus 32ooo other manuscripts with references to the Bible. All of these from before 610 AD = before there was any reason to falsify Muhammad or something out of the Bible - if he had ever been there. They all are in accordance with the modern Bible, and when they find that the translators of the Bible have misunderstood or not been quite exact enough, the translation of the Bible is corrected in later editions - one wants and strives for to have everything as correct as possible. In stark contrast: When Islam finds scriptures or fragments which are not quite the same as the 2 Qurans they use today, the findings are denied and hidden - a star example is the many copies of the Quran found in Yemen in 1972; when it became clear that details - some of them of significance - were unlike what was written in the Quran(s) of today, scientists were denied access to them anymore.
Conclusion: Any student and any professor of history will say that according to normal rules for evaluation, the Bible is far more reliable than the Quran as a source for historical information. And any psychologist will confirm that Muhammad must have known he lied each and every time he said that (supernatural) proofs of Allah had made no-one believe in Allah anyhow. And more: No serious scientist uses information from the Quran from before 610 AD in his science - it is not reckoned to be reliable.
#############058 19/19b: "- - - a holy son (Jesus*)". HERE THE QURAN CONFIRMS THAT JESUS WAS HOLY AND THUS RELATED TO WHAT IS HOLY = THE GOD. THAT HE WAS HOLY ALSO CONFIRMS THAT HE WAS SOMETHING MORE THAN A NORMAL MAN. AND NOT LEAST JUST HERE, THAT HE WAS SOMETHING MORE THAN MUHAMMAD, WHO HIMSELF SEVERAL TIMES ADMITTED AND EVEN STATED THAT HE JUST WAS AN ORDINARY HUMAN.
Muhammad very far from was anything holy.
################If Muhammad/the Quran are not lying here, it is impossible that Muhammad was a greater prophet than Jesus - a mere human impossible can be greater than someone holy. And as Muhammad quoted also this verse, he knew he was dishonest/lying when he claimed to be the greatest.
A L S O S E E 19/33b A N D 66/12c B E L O W !!!!
059 19/33b: "- - - the day I (Jesus*) die, and the day I shall be raised up to life (again) - - -". Here Islam has a problem: They claim he did not die on the cross, but was taken up to the god alive. How come that he then here foresees his death - and his resurrection?? (NB: No matter if Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, or was taken up to Heaven alive, it proves his connection to something supernatural (if true). No such proof exists neither for Allah, nor for Muhammad.) But if he did not die, but was taken up alive, he did not die, and then something is wrong here - here or in other never proved claims.
NB: Whether Jesus died and was resurrected and afterwards taken up to Heaven alive, or just was taken up to Heaven alive, this proves he had a special connection to the god. For Muhammad there never was any kind of proof, only claims. Who then likely was the greatest prophet? - especially as Muhammad even was unable to make prophesies - "see the unseen"?
Also see 19/19b above and 66/12c below.
060 21/5d: "Nay, he (Muhammad*) is (but) a poet!" Muhammad was no poet in the traditional meaning of the word (a fact Muslims try to claim proves he cannot have made up the Quran - but there is no poetry in that book, and you do not have to be a poet to make up or "borrow" stories). But this in reality is a variety of 21/5c just above.
061 21/22h: "- - - (high is He (Allah*)) above what they (non-Muslims^*) attribute to Him (= other gods*)." This may also be a dismissal of Jesus as son of Yahweh, as Muhammad claims that the god is "high above" having sons. Muhammad did not like the thought of Jesus as the son of the god, partly because he did not understand the Christian thoughts about this, and found it polytheism, and partly because if Jesus was the son of the god, Muhammad impossibly could be the greatest.
062 21/32d: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) turn away from the Signs (of Allah*) which all these things (point to)!" When someone uses logically invalid arguments - like claiming not proved "signs" are indication or proof for a god - the logical reaction is to be skeptical. After all the use of false and/or invalid arguments is the hallmark of the cheat and the swindler, and Muhammad on top of this believed in al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), in breaking promises and words - even sworn ones - if that gave better results, and in deceit ("War is deceit") - - - and he wanted power and riches for bribes for more power - and women (like many false prophets in and outside the Bible, but few of the real ones in the OT. Here beware that men like David and Solomon are not reckoned among prophets in the Bible (they primarily were kings). This is one more difference between Muhammad and the biblical prophets - not one of them had a harem of any size. Even if you include men like Abraham and Jacob, they had maximum 1-2 wives and 1-2 concubines if any at all. Abraham had Sarah, Keturah (1. Mos. 25/1 - but only after Sarah was dead) and Sarah's slave Hagar, Jacob had Leah and Rachel plus the two slaves Bilhah and Zilpath (1. Mos. 35/23-26). Muhammad had 36 we know by name, included his 11 long time wives and 2 concubines/slave women - the 16 short time wives and the 7 where it is unclear if he was married to them or not, and thus if sex was a sin or not - a Muslim is only permitted to have sex with his wives and his slave women - are normally not mentioned by Muslims. That he in addition raped at least two women - Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay - also normally is not mentioned by Muslims).
063 21/36d: "- - - they (skeptics*) treat thee (Muhammad*) not except with ridicule". Already at that time at least some saw that something was very wrong with Muhammad's teachings".
064 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 codes. 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).
065 23/70b: "Or do they (non-Muslims*) say, 'He (Muhammad*) is possessed'?" According to f.x. BBC there are good medical reasons to believe he was possessed, at least by a mental illness. Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE) fits his symptoms well.
066 23/72b: "Or is it that thou (Muhammad*) asks them for some recompense?" Hypocrisy. Muhammad liked to claim and to pretend he demanded nothing from his followers, and it tells volumes about man's ability not to see what he does not want to see, that many a Muslim honestly believe him. It is incredible, but in their blind belief they also are blind to facts like he demanded huge sum of money and valuables - mainly for waging war and for "gifts"/bribes to attract or keep followers - lots of women, and nearly unlimited power and full dictatorship over his followers. And in spite of Muslims tales of how poor he was when he died, at that time he had estates in Medina, in Khaybar, and in Fadang (but he had said that his riches should be inherited by Islam, so that his daughter, Fatima - his only remaining living child - and his wives inherited nearly nothing, and this is the fact Muslims have twisted to a fantasy claim about how poor he was when he died).
067 24/11e: "- - - to every man (women count less in Islam*) among them (who gossiped*) (will come the punishment) of the sin that he earned - - -". What about Muhammad in this case? - to our knowledge he did not only gossip, but he also definitely did not protect or defend her (Aishah*) until after some weeks, something which surely added to the gossip.
He simply was no better himself.
Did he wait that long to see if she stopped menstruating? (If she was old enough to menstruate - Muhammad practiced pedophilia.)
A point is that much of what Muhammad said about opponents, was slander, gossip, and basis for more slander and gossip even up to this date.
068 24/11-16: This refers to the incident with Aishah - Muhammad’s child wife - and a young man. The slander afterwards was not an obvious lie like Muhammad later liked to claim. That it was not obvious - something also his own initial reaction clearly demonstrated - was and is so obvious that it is clear an intelligent man like Muhammad knew he was not telling the truth when he said it was obvious. (He used many days to decide to believe her.) Also they were not really proved innocent - there only were some convenient verses in the Quran some weeks later, and the Quran far from is reliable. (But there is a fair chance that the two told the truth). Also see 24/11b above.
Muhammad in this case definitely did not behave like a gentleman, and it is very unlikely that his behavior did not "put wood to the fire" and provoke more and/or stronger slander. Not the right man to blame others for bad conduct. And especially Muhammad's own initial reaction proves for one thing that it was not obvious that the slander was untrue, and his reaction then also proves that he lied - and knew he lied - when he far too late claimed it was obvious that the slander was untrue.
The story also tells not a little about the person Muhammad.
069 24/12d: "This (charge against Aishah) is an obvious lie". It might have been a lie, but it was not an obvious lie, something Muhammad's own reaction very clearly prove - so clearly that an intelligent person like Muhammad understood he was lying when he used the word "obvious" - and it is not the only time he lies in the Quran. He also was intelligent enough to know that as it far from was an obvious lie, he here was slandering those he talked to.
070 24/13b: "Why did they (the ones talking about Aishah*) not bring four witnesses - - -?" For the very obvious reason that no witnesses existed - this is a rhetoric and hypocritical question where Muhammad knew the answer very well on beforehand. A dishonest way of augmenting, and a dishonest way to move the focus away from Aishah to others. Psychologically may be a wise sentence - but dishonest. This question was nonsense from the moment it was asked.
The request also is a bit ironic, as Muhammad never proved anything himself - claims and invalid "signs" and as invalid "proofs", but never a valid proof for anything central in his new religion.
####071 24/13c: "Why did they (see 24/13f just above*) not bring the (4*) witnesses, such men, in the sight of Allah (stand forth) themselves as liars". This is one of the really black spots on Islam, and one of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god: The lack of witnesses does not only make the ones speaking suspect, but it is a proof for that they are liars - if they speak the truth or not, does not matter. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.) If they do not have the witnesses, it is a proof for that they are lying. If this was lying for men, this was bad enough. #######But it is a valid proof for Allah!!: "- - - in the sight of Allah, (stand forth) themselves as liars!". ########This in spite of that if they spoke the truth, an omnipotent god would know they spoke the truth!. And all the same, without the witnesses they were liars to Allah!
This tells volumes about Allah, about Islam, and about Muhammad.
072 24/16a: "And why did ye (see 24/11b above*) not, when ye heard it, say - - -". Among other reasons because it was very clear from Muhammad's reactions according to Hadiths that he did not trust her, and neither did he defend her. Muhammad's double morality here is not very sympathetic.
073 25/8f: "Ye (Muslims*) follow none other than a man bewitched." They may have been right, as persons with mental disorders often were described as bewitched at that time - modern medical expertise suspects Muhammad had Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE). This mental disorder can give just the kind of symptoms and religious "experiences" Muhammad is said to have experienced. (Source among others BBC).
074 25/43a: “Seest thou (Muhammad/Muslim*) such a one (non-Muslim*) as taketh for his god his own passion (or impulse)?" Muhammad took good care of his 3 passions: Respect, power and women. And riches - mainly for bribes and some for women (a harem cost money - houses, clothes, food, etc. - and Muhammad had many women). And none of these two main passions Muhammad had do you find with Jesus. On each of these two central non-religious points the two were so totally different that it tells a lot.
075 25/43b: “Seest thou (Muhammad/Muslim*) such a one (non-Muslim*) as taketh for his god his own passion (or impulse)? Couldst thou be a disposer of affairs for him?” Of course not - no good Muslim could do so. Or - - -? Muhammad did his outmost to live out his three passions - the passions for respect and for power and the passion for women.
076 26/79-81: A number of the natural occurrences Muhammad frequently and without ever proving anything - like normal for him - claimed for Allah. Claims without proofs are just cheap words. And: "A claim without a proof may be dismissed without a proof".
077 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?
078 28/46d: "Yet (art thou (Muhammad*) sent) as a Mercy - - -". Muhammad was not much of a mercy even to the Arabs - a power and stolen riches, but not a mercy.
079 29/48b: (A29/46): "It is historically established that Muhammad, the "unlettered prophet", could neither read nor write (not correct - science for several reasons believe this is not true, but an alibi Muhammad used against the ones who claimed he made up things himself - his statement was that as he could not read or write, he could not make up a book. Wrong logic because it is the brain, not the pen which makes up stories, but it worked*), and could not, therefore, have derived his extensive knowledge of the contents of earlier revelations from the Bible or other scriptures: which - as the Quran points out - ought to convince any unprejudiced person that this knowledge must have come to him through divine revelation".
###This is helpless kindergarten nonsense. For one thing Muhammad had no extensive knowledge of the Bible or the Jewish scriptures - most of his tales in the Quran were taken not from there, but from apocryphal (made up) tales, legends, fairy tales, etc. told in lazy evenings and other times for pastime in Arabia like in all primitive and not so primitive societies. The sources for his stories in the Quran mostly are known, so there is no doubt about this - except that he afterwards claimed that his fancy stories were the true ones from the Bible, and that the Bible and the other scriptures were falsified, and that was why they did not agree with his "revelations".
But this aside, and even if he in addition could not read: There was no problem for a well off businessman with a rich wife to pay someone a little for reading for him.
There is, however, another fact which also "kills" this argument: Most of the "Biblical" tales in the Quran as said are not from the Bible, but from verbal old legends, folklore, apocryphal tales, and even fairy tales. Muhammad did not need to know how to read to take material from such sources.
Finally, but not least there is the fact that science doubts that the claim that Muhammad could not read and write is true - much is wrong in the Quran, and science believe that is one of the wrong points. F.x. Muhammad was from a good family - it is unlikely he was not taught how to write and read. Further he was a businessman and businessmen need to know both letters and numbers - and Muhammad was intelligent and could easily pick up such things. Also it is highly unlikely his rich first wife, Khadijah, would let an analphabetic person run her quite big business - and not least: There are points in Islamic texts indicating or proving that he was not analphabetic. F.x. when he was dying, he asked for a pen, because he wanted to write down something.
"Arguments" like this tell a lot about Islam and about Muslim scholars - not to mention about lack of real arguments. We could tell what we mean about this level of argumentation, but we do not like to use words like "rubbish", etc.
080 29/48c: "- - - in that case (if Muhammad could read and write*), indeed, would talkers of vanities have doubted (in his tales*)". Many did - and looking at all the mistakes in his stories, they had plenty of reasons for doubt. There are reasons for suspecting dishonesty behind the claim that Muhammad could not read or write. Some quotes in the Quran and in Hadiths may indicate that he knew this, and the same do his social standing and business standing.
But note what is indicated here: As Muhammad claimed he could not read and write, his conclusion is that people could not suspect or blame him for making up the texts in the Quran. Muhammad was too intelligent not to know that this was a bluff - like any intelligent person he knew it is the brain and not the pen which makes up stories.
And bluffs are a kind of lies.
081 31/6b: "- - - those who purchase idle tales - - -". Was Muhammad in reality among these? - his tales were full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. and not a comma was ever proved of the central themes.
082 33/4c: "- - - nor has He (Allah*) made your adopted sons your son". In the old Arabia an adopted son was a real son, and it was prohibited for you to marry his wife if she became a widow or was divorced. But Muhammad had an adopted son, Zaid, and fell in love - or in desire - with Zaid's wife Zaynab. The convenient (?) solution was that Allah (?) happened (?) to send down (?) verses telling that in spite of the old laws, an adopted son was not a son, and thus that Muhammad could marry her if she was divorced - which she quickly was and they married shortly afterwards. But no matter Allah or not - the Arabs had a bad feeling about this marriage, and even today Muslims often are extra thorough when they explain about this marriage - the thoroughness of a small and denied bad feeling. And no matter how thorough an explanation: It was betrayal against Zaid.
###083 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, 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 - and perhaps in Satanism. 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 "undeeds" 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 Muhammad.
084 33/21c: "- - - the Messenger of Allah - - -". One of Muhammad's mantras to glue himself to his god and his platform of power. But the message Muhammad told about, was the Quran. And as the Quran with all its errors, etc. is not from a god, can then Muhammad be a messenger from a god? Simply no. It also is symptomatic that Muhammad more often used the title "messenger" than the title "prophet". He may have been careful so as not to risk too many questions about proving he was a prophet.
085 33/37e: "- - - thou (Muhammad*) didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah - - -". This easily - oh, so easily - could be hypocrisy.
086 33/37g: "- - - We (Allah*) joined her (Zaid's wife Zaynab*) in marriage to thee (Muhammad*): in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marrying with the wives of their adopted sons (after divorce - widows not mentioned*)". This is perhaps the thinnest excuse we have ever heard for a serious selfish deed.
- For one thing: Is this a situation which happens so often that it merits a dramatic demonstration?
- For another: Many a doubter would be willing to bet that if Muhammad had not been "hot" on this woman, this old Arab law - forbidden to marry your adopted son's former wife - had existed today.
- For a third and the main point: A verse from Allah had had JUST the same effect.
Hypocrisy. It is not the only time in the Quran where it is possible to place Muhammad among the hypocrites.
087 33/38a: "There can be no difficulty to the Prophet in what Allah has indicated him to do (here: To marry Zaid's wife Zaynab)". Anyone able to believe Muhammad married her because it was a duty, are permitted to do so - but it will tell a lot about their brain. Also see 33/37i just above.
088 33/38d: "- - - what Allah has indicated to him (Muhammad*) as a duty (to marry Zaynab*) - - -". More too easy to see hypocrisy. See 33/37g+i above.
089 33/38e: "It was the practice (approved) of by Allah amongst (earlier prophets*) - - -" - - - to obey Allah. The same comment as to 33/38d just above.
090 33/39a: For the total of this verse: See 33/38d above.
091 33/40a: "Muhammad is not the farther of any of your men - - -". Muhammad had no son who lived (and only one daughter, Fatima, who survived him, and just by half a year (some ones have asked if this was a punishment for his sins)). We may add that in the old Arabia a man who had no son was no man.
092 33/50c: “O Prophet! We (Allah*) have made lawful (for sex*) to thee (it is not unusual that the god "permits" this towards the founder of a religion or a sect – it happens not infrequently*) thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers: and those to whom thy right hand possesses out of the spoils of war (which was quite a huge number*) whom Allah has assigned to thee; and the daughters of thy parental uncles and aunts, and the daughters of maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makkah (= Mecca*)) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her – this is only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); we know that We have appointed for them (permitted sex*) as to their wives and those whom their right hands possess – in order that there should be no difficulty for thee.” As for slaves, a huge number passed through Muhammad’s hands – perhaps 2000 or more only from the Qurayza tribe. We do not know if and in case how many of them he personally raped, except Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay (which we know about because the first later became one of his concubines, and the other one of his wives), but the casual way and the minimal fuzz with which two rapes happened and made, makes it easy to think that they neither were the first, nor the only ones – to rape ones captives and slaves was (and formally still is) completely ok in Islam. That just was the way life was/is for slave women and captive women under Islam.
And once more: Read 33/28-29 through 33/33 + 33/50 and 33/51 together to get a picture of his – and very many other dominant religious persons in strong and dark religious societies – technique. One of the much used – and proved efficient – ways of manipulating dependant persons. Even the use or disuse of the god, is typical for such persons. All this formally is about Muhammad’s private intimate life, but as what he said and did was and is the correct ethical and moral code in Islam, it became the norm for all women concerning this aspect of life under Islam.
Besides: Does Muhammad's private sex life belong in a claimed holy book for all times and the entire world? - or as part of a religion? And how come that even details are included in a book claimed to be billions of years old?
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 immoral and bloody than most of the others.
Also see 30/40h and 30/47b above.
###093 33/50d: "- - - We (Allah*) have made lawful for you (Muhammad and Muslims*) - - - those whom thy right possesses (= your slaves/captives*) 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), 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 was born some 200ooo illegitimate children from the rapes. 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. (The same we were told when we visited the national monument for this war in Bangladesh, though some said 200ooo raped girls and women, not 200ooo children.)) 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.
###094 33/50e: "- - - We (Allah*) have made lawful (for sex/rape) for you (Muhammad and Muslims*) - - - those whom thy right hand possesses (= your slaves*) out of the spoils of war - - -". "Do unto others like you want others do unto you".
Why do you think rape is so frequent when Muslims are engaged in raids, wars, etc.?
#####There are other moral rules in Islam which are worse and more immoral, but this is the one we find most repulsive - this one and the one permitting sex with/rape of children.
095 33/50f: "(Muhammad may have for a wife*) any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet (Muhammad') - - -". The literally correct translation according to M. Azad (A33/59 - A33/60 in the English 2008 edition): "if she offered herself as a gift (Arab: "in wahabat nafsaha") to the Prophet (Muhammad*)". Here is an interesting piece of information: Most Muslim commentators take this to mean "without demanding or expecting a dower". The dower was and is an integrated part of the Muslim formalities of a wedding. Here it seems that also here Muhammad got special treatment from Allah: Cheap wives. This in addition to that he could take a prisoner of war, make her slave, marry her and "give" her her freedom - except from her new husband, Muhammad - as a dower. Muhammad did this at least with Safiyya bint Huayay - a very cheap wife, as the dower cost him nothing.
Muhammad was pretty different from Jesus, also on this point. Definitely not from the same religion.
Besides: Does Muhammad's private sex life and sex violations (he "lawfully and good" raped at least Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay + had years of pedophilic sex with Aisha) belong in a claimed holy book for all times and the entire world? - or as part of a religion?
096 33/50i: "- - - this (the permission for a nearly unlimited number of women - he had at least 36 (not some 11 like Muslims often mention - those only were his long-time wives) is only for thee (Muhammad*) - - -". Special rules for self proclaimed prophets far from are unheard of in fringe sects and religions - like Islam was at that time. Normally they have turned out in the end to be false prophets.
But does Muhammad's personal sex life belong in a claimed "holy book"?
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 immoral and bloody than most of the others.
Also see 30/40h and 30/47b above.
097 33/53b: "Enter not the Prophet's (Muhammad's*) house - - -". Special rules for Muhammad here, too. Not uncommon for self proclaimed prophets in many a sect/emerging religion, like Islam was at that time.
098 33/53k: The whole of this verse is about Muhammad's private life. It does not belong in a claimed "holy" book or as part of a religion. It also does not belong in a claimed "Mother Book" copied to 124ooo earlier prophets for whom this was totally irrelevant. Not to mention that no god would revere texts like this in his Heaven, like claimed in the Quran (13/13b, 43/4, 85/21-22).
099 33/57b: "Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Hereafter - - -". You had better not annoy Muhammad (Allah is able to take care of himself). The ultimate dream position for any dictator.
100 37/71b: "- - - many of the ancients (non-Muslims*) went astray". But as the Quran with all its errors is not from a god, the disturbing question is: Are all and each and every Muslim also astray? - and what if there somewhere is a benevolent god waiting "on the other side", but not wanting warriors, rapists, thieves, liars, etc.? (NB: We stress that not all Muslims are - not by a long shot. But these are among the idols of the Quran - f.x. Muhammad himself according to central Islamic religious and historical literature).
###101 42/24j: “And Allah - - - proves the Truth by His Words.” Muhammad was asked many times to prove his - or presumably Allah’s - words, but he never did, and seemed never to be able to, this even more so, as f.x. some of his “explanations” for why he never could prove anything, an intelligent man like him knew were lies (f.x. that real miracles would make no-one believe anyhow). And the words of the Quran prove not a thing, among other reasons because:
- Far too many mistakes pretending to be facts. (Swindle?)
- Far too many loose statements pretending to be facts. (Swindle?)
- Far too many invalid “signs” pretending to be documentation. (Swindle?)
- Far too many invalid or even wrong "proofs" pretending to be documentation. (Swindle?)
- Some obvious lies – f.x. that miracles would make no-one believe, or that Muhammad wanted no payment (in spite of what Islam and Muslims claim, Muhammad was well off when he died - estates in Mecca, Medina, and Fadang, and more - even though he had spent fortunes for bribes for followers/power, and lots of women also cost something). (Swindle.)
- Muhammad was unable to present anything but fast-talk when asked for proofs. (Swindle?)
- Lots of invalid use of logic. (Swindle?)
- Lots of contradictions (– proves for lies?)
- Lots of unclear language - at least 500+ confirmed by Muslim scholars. (Not from a god.)
- Lots of fast talk. (Suspicious.)
These all are hallmarks of a crook and a cheat and a deceiver.
####What does this mean for the religion?
102 43/61e: "- - - follow ye (people/Muslims/Muhammad?) Me (Allah*) - - -". Normally it is not advisable to follow someone who has nothing to show for his big and incredible words but claims for blind belief - and especially so when the self proclaimed messenger is a person of doubtful moral even according to his own religion's books, and on top of all is believing in the use of dishonesty and deceit and even broken words/promises/oaths - - - and liking power, riches for more power - and women. And not to forget: Uses his religion and god for his platform of power.
103 45/7b: "Woe to each sinful dealer in Falsehoods - - -". Does this also go for Muhammad if he knew that the Quran was not from a god? - and he at least suspected this strongly, because if not he had not dared to lie in the book (f.x. "no-one will believe even if Allah sends proofs, and that is the reasons why Allah do not send proofs" - quoted from memory. Any intelligent person knows such a claim is not true - at least some would believe if they got divine proofs.)
#104 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 - perhaps also here.)
#####105 48/10d: ANOTHER STRONG ONE FOR MUHAMMAD: "- - - then anyone who violates his oath (to Muhammad - see 48/10b above*), do so to the harm of his own soul, and anyone who fulfils what he has covenanted with Allah (in reality with Muhammad*) - Allah will soon grant him a great Reward (free of charge for Muhammad*)". No comment should be necessary here, except that some places the Quran tells; "no payment does Muhammad ask for his preaching" - a square lie (he demanded 20% of everything robbed/stolen - 100% if the victims gave in without a fight - some 2.5% tax from Muslims and Jizya + land tax (both taxes of unspecified size, but often harsh) from non-Muslims. Of course all was in the name of Allah, but here on Earth all those riches were for Muhammad - he spent the better part of it for bribes and for war). Hypocrisies also are lies.
106 52/29c: "- - - nor are you (Muhammad*) one possessed". This may be wrong, as in the old times it was rather common to believe that a person with a mental disorder, was possessed by a bad spirit. And modern medicine strongly suspects Muhammad had TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) - TLE will explain very much in case.
107 52/30: "A Poet!" Muhammad protested strongly to being a poet - and not unlikely true. But so what? - you can easily make up stories without being a poet. Thus when he uses this argument to "explain" he therefore cannot have made up the Quran, the argument is logically meaningless.
108 52/42a: "Or do they (non-Muslims*) intend a plot (against thee (Muhammad*)) - - -". There were some plots against Muhammad. F.x. he once was given poisoned sheep's meat. He did not die from it, but sometimes later he complained that he had pain from it. He also died rather fast, and there are rumors about that he died from poisoning - perhaps a new one or perhaps a late result of the poisoned sheep. It may here also be relevant to mention that of the 11 first leaders who succeeded Muhammad, only one - abu Bakr - died naturally.
*109 53/2b: “Your Champion is neither astray nor being misled.” Many skeptics thought this about Muhammad. All the mistakes, etc. in the Quran proved that he at least was somewhat - or more - astray. Though all the hallmarks of a cheat, deceiver and swindler may indicate that may be he was not misled - that those last 3 words may be true, as may be he was misleading. There also is the question of TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) which in case will explain much.
110 53/3: “Nor does he (Muhammad*) say (aught) of (his own) desire”. It will take strong proofs to prove that surahs like no. 66 or no. 111 are worthy of a god and belongs in a revered Mother Book in Paradise - one that may be has existed since eternity. And also to prove they are worthy a book revered by an omniscient and omnipotent god. And what about "the Mother Book"/the Quran repeatedly solving Muhammad's domestic problems?
Not to mention how strong proofs it takes to prove that a god sent down all those mistakes, contradictions, etc.
And as for prophesies a few things Muhammad said, came true – like it has to do for a person saying many things through many years – but most of what he said that did not come true, was forgotten (also this is what normally happens). The main things here are that Muhammad never indicated that anything of what he said was meant as prophesies, he never indicated, not to mention pretended to or claimed, that he had the gift of prophesying, that it nowhere is documented that all/most of what he said about the future came true (point 2 in the definition of a prophet), and finally both he and Islam said and say that there were no miracles connected to Muhammad “except the Quran” – prophesying is a kind of miracle. (This fact also is a solid proof for that all the miracles connected to Muhammad mentioned in the Hadiths, and in legends are made up stories). Also see 30/40a and 30/46a above.
Muhammad in reality simply was no real prophet. Perhaps a messenger for someone or something or for himself – or perhaps an apostle – but not a real prophet. He only “borrowed” that impressive and imposing title. It is up to anyone to guess why.
What is for sure: All the mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic and of unclear language definitely are from no god's desire - an omniscient god makes perfect texts.
111 53/3-4: "Nor does he (Muhammad*) say (aught) of (his own) Desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him". This means that everything Muhammad said, in reality was inspired by Allah, and thus Allah's words - which means that also Sunna (Hadiths) can abrogate the Quran and the other way around. But no omniscient god would need to abrogate himself. And in the Quran there are a number of abrogations - lots of them.
It seems that abrogation is/was used mainly in these cases:
- When Muhammad or Allah had said (Quran mainly) or done (Hadith often) something he/they later found was not wise - like the Satanic Verses.
- When Muhammad found that he had forgotten verses - this happened according to Hadith. F.x. al-Bukhari (3/223 and 8/91): ”Aisha (one of Muhammad’s wives*) said: ’(Muhammad said*): - - - he (a man*) reminded me of such and such verses I had dropped from Surah so and so”.
- When Muhammad/Allah found that what he/they had ordained for the Muslims was more than they would accept: Spoils of war belonged to Allah - but it was changed to 20% for Allah and 80% for his men. Praying much of the night, was reduced to less. And each Muslim capable to fight 10 “infidels”, was reduced to 2 “infidels”, etc. But why did not an omniscient god know this from the start?
- When Muhammad/Allah wanted a rule changed - f.x. less and less alcohol, or more and more war. (According to Ibn ’Arabi “'The verse of the sword’ has abrogated 124 verses” - mainly all the peaceful ones.) But why did not an omniscient god know the best rule from the very beginning?
- When Muhammad himself did things differently from his own teachings, his deeds became an abrogation of the Quran. The Quran f.x. prescribes whipping of adulterers, whereas the praxis some places even today is stoning - at least of the woman. The reason is said to be that Muhammad himself practiced stoning - even took part in it personally. His praxis of murdering opponents also made good examples for the future. (There also is a rumor in Islam that there was a verse demanding stoning for illegal sex, but that this verse in case was one of those which were omitted when Uthman had the official Quran made.) The same goes for torture. And murder - though that also was prescribed. There also is f.x. the case of donkey meat – it is not prohibited by the Quran, but Muhammad prohibited it during a war campaign – and forever - according to Hadiths.
The use of abrogation forever was - and is - a problem for Islam. The reason is that with the exception of the “satanic verses” and possible other verses which were abrogated and told by Muhammad to be forgotten - and verses forgotten or for other reasons omitted from the Quran by caliph Uthman and his men when making the “final” Quran in the 650s AD (persistent rumors in Islam tells that some 100 verses were forgotten or for other reasons omitted) - the abrogated verses remain in the book, and much worse: As mentioned above it is often highly unclear which verses are abrogated and invalid, and which are not. Some Muslims say nothing is abrogated (which is a dream made up because abrogation really is not worthy an omniscient god, and raises serious doubts about the god Allah, his omniscience and his powers and his existence, and perhaps also because many people needs something absolute to believe in or rely on) but it only is a dream. The reality is abrogation. The only question is how many verses? As mentioned there are numbers from 5 to 500, but realistic may be 200 - 300 or some more (up to 500) - it depends on how strict the reader is. Muslims tend to find fewer abrogated verses than others - 100 or more are not uncommon - perhaps because they are reluctant to admit unnecessary weaknesses in their god and their religion - - - though Ibn Arabi said about the famous and infamous “verse of the sword” (surah 9/5 “- - - fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them - - -”): "The verse of ‘the sword’ has abrogated 124 verses” - f.x. all the peaceful ones about non-Muslims and about no compulsion in religion. And that was only the “sword verse” - there are many more.
The problem with not knowing which verses are abrogated and which not, is exacerbated by the fact that even the verses Muslim scholars agree on are abrogated, remain in the Quran - they cannot be taken out, because Allah sent it down like that, and men cannot correct his mistakes or what to call it.
Some of the serious results of the uncertainty around abrogated verses are:
- It is difficult to be a judge when you do not for sure know which verses relevant for a case are abrogated and invalid, and which not. How to judge when you know the dictator of your country has nullified paragraphs in the constitution of the country, but without it is possible for you to know for sure which ones and how many?
- Many Muslims honestly believe Islam is a peaceful religion because they do not know or do not believe/accept that the peaceful verses are abrogated. They even may be insulted when being told the opposite. And we non-Muslims should remember that this honest belief leads to a use of their religion which makes these groups of Muslims no danger for their surroundings (but of course our problem is to know who of them are honest and who not).
- It is easy to defend - or make propaganda for - Islam by pointing to peaceful verses without even mentioning the word “abrogation”. Many non-Muslims look at the verse and – not knowing the abrogating rule and verses – believes it.
- A lot of naïve non-Muslims with superficial knowledge about Islam easily accepts and tells about the peaceful real Islam - often as opposed to other religions. They simply do not know that Islam started as a mainly peaceful religion, but was transferred to one of hate, stealing, rape, suppression, blood and war around and after 622 AD when Muhammad became strong enough and in addition needed first highwaymen and then warriors.
But: Why did an omniscient god need to change his words and his Plan?? - he had to try and fail and correct? - he was undecided and changed his mind? - or - -? And what does this tell about Allah - if he is not a made up pagan god like he was in the old Arabia?
##112 62/2b: “It is He (Allah*) Who has sent amongst the Unlettered a Messenger - - - “. All Muslim literature say Muhammad was an-alphabetic, and use that for a proof for his inability to make up the Quran - not mentioning that many a good teller of tales in the old times was an-alphabetic. But there also are two other possible meanings of this verse: That his audience were unlettered persons ("- - - amongst the Unlettered - - -"), or that they were persons without a holy book.
(In just this case the sentence instead may mean the people without a holy book).
*As for Muhammad's inability to read: The statement is questioned: A man of good and not poor family not knowing how to read and write? A rich widow marrying an an-alphabetic, knowing he was to run her business? An intelligent businessman with admission to learned men, with a drive for power, not learning how to read and write? It is not likely - but there are no neutral sources about Muhammad from that time. It will never be possible to find out for sure, one way or the other. There also at least one place is mentioned that Muhammad himself wrote parts of the Hudaybiyah treaty in 628 AD. Hadiths also tell that on his dying bed he wanted to write something, and that the Muslims around him later regretted they had not let him do so.
Contradicted, but not proved wrong by the laws of probability and by Hadiths. Well, actually Hadiths prove he knew how to write as mentioned, but Hadiths is even more unreliable than the Quran, so that proof alone is not reliable enough to make a final judgment.
But also see 62/2c just below - may be Muhammad is not the main person in this verse.
##113 62/2c: “It is He (Allah*) Who has sent amongst the Unlettered a Messenger - - - “. See 62/2b just above - may be Muhammad is not the prime subject here. It actually is likely it here is meant the common people in the area. They were unlettered in the meaning that many - quite likely a majority - did not know how to read and write (beware here that Muhammad did not belong to the common people - his tribe belonged to the ruling classes, and in addition he was a quite rich businessman when he started his preaching). And they were unlettered also in the meaning that they of the old did not have a holy book. Which Muhammad felt slightly humiliating.
##114 62/2h: “(Muhammad was to*) instruct them (the Unlettered Arabs*) in Scripture - - -” To instruct them in scripture, he hardly could be an analphabetic himself, but that aside: See 40/75 and 41/12.
###115 62/2m: (A62/1) "The designation of the Prophet (Muhammad') as a man 'from among themselves' is meant, in this context, to stress the fact that he, too, was unlettered (ummi) in the primary sense (= had not learnt how to read and write - a claim science is skeptical to*) of this word, and could not, therefore, have 'invented' the message of the Quran or 'derived' its ideas from earlier scriptures". This is wrong at least to the 2. power and dishonesty at least to the 3. There is no connection between knowing how to read and write, and the ability to make up tales. Tellers of tales made up good stories, legends, fairy tales, etc., etc., for perhaps a million years before writing was even invented around 3200 BC. Similar goes for the claim that as he could not read, he could not have got his "information" and ideas from the Bible, but has to have got it directly from Allah. You do not have to be able to read yourself to get information about religions and other things - a lot of what anybody even today get of information, is verbal. And this was even more so the case in the old times when telling of tales, histories, legends, fairy tales, etc. was a popular pastime in long evenings - in Arabia like in most primitive cultures. The argument and the claim is even more stupid as the tales in the Quran mostly are not even from the Bible, but from tales and legends and folklore (that is why they are different from the Bible - not falsifications of the Bible like Muhammad claimed, but the use of verbal tales based on, but different from the Bible).
And not to forget: Muhammad married rich, and would have no problem to pay somebody to read stories which interested him. (His background in addition to that several things points to that he knew both how to read and write.)
The mildest word possible to use for the claims and arguments used here - and often used by Muslims - is rubbish. This even more so as the facts we have pointed to here, are so well known, that there is no chance at all for that Muslim scholars do not know them, and all the same they use the claims and arguments - - - and uneducated or lower intelligent (or wishful) believers even believe them!
The only thing the use of such claims and "arguments" proves, is that Muslims have no real arguments. If they had had, they would not have to use stupidity like this for "proofs".
##116 63/8d: "But the honor belongs to Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". Please read 1/1a above and see if you are able to agree? As for Muhammad: Read the Islamic history about him - skip the glorifying an read the reality - and see what honor you think such a person deserves.
NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!!!!
#############117 66/12c: (A66/26): “- - - We (Allah*) breathed into (her (Mary’s*) body) Our spirit - - -.” Does this refer to how Jesus was created? – or does it refer to the "normal" transfer of spirit that according to Islam makes a fetus to a human, and which according to Islam happens 5 months before the baby is born? Nobody knows – and this is an essential question in just this case. But the text is not clearer than this.
According to the fact that Mary was a virgin (according to several points in the Quran - 3/47, 19/20, 21/91, 66/12), though, she could not be the carrier of a fetus which Allah here transferred from fetus to human by inserting his spirit. Thus this has to be the very "start" of Jesus - the creation of him. And note that according to this verse it was done by the god personally: "'We' breathed into her 'Our' spirit - - -". (This way of using the words "We" and "Our" is named "royal 'We'", and is used by kings, etc. in formal speech instead of "I" and "my".) There thus is no doubt that Jesus was "started" by the god himself. This also goes even if it here is meant that the god blew the soul/personality/mind into Jesus at the 4-month stage, as it after all is the soul/person/mind which counts in the case of Jesus, not the body. We may add that there is no way of believing that if the god personally started the growth of a fetus, that fetus was to become an ordinary man - this even more so if you combine this verse with 19/19, telling that Mary would get a holy son.
In spite of Muslim scholars' debates about this, there really is only one possible conclusion here: The god "started" Jesus - and the male who "starts" a baby, is the father of that baby. THUS THE QURAN HERE DIRECTLY CONFIRMS THAT JESUS WAS THE SON OF THE GOD (AND 19/19 CONFIRMS THAT HE WAS HOLY) - this in spite of Muhammad's repeated claims about the opposite, as Jesus the son of the god would make Muhammad maximum messenger number 2 (and Muhammad wanted respect and power). Muhammad clearly accepted the use of dishonesty as working tools - this is clear from several points in the Quran. He also personally used dishonesty as a means - f.x. when murdering the peace delegation from Khaybar - and he lied at least a few times in the Quran (some cases are listed in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran"). But the problem when lying is not to make up a lie, but not to say things in other connections which shows that this and this was a lie. Also remember that in such cases what is said unconsciously is more reliable than what is claimed very consciously. About Jesus Muhammad claims Jesus was number 2, but here and in 19/19 stumbles and divulges that Jesus for one thing really was the son of the god, and that he was holy.
Also see 19/19b and 19/33b above.
This also is something very different from the conception of Muhammad.
NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!!!!
118 68/2b: "Thou (Muhammad*) art not - - - mad or possessed". Perhaps and perhaps not - modern medical science suspects TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. TLE fits his symptoms very well and would also explain his religious experiences or perhaps hallucinations. And in the old times they often believed that one who had a mental illness, was possessed by a bad spirit.
119 68/2c: "Thou (Muhammad*) art not - - - mad or possessed". This is what Muhammad's contemporaries suspected - and they aired their suspicion. As you see in 68/2b just about, there is a good chance they were right.
######120 68/4b: “And thou (Muhammad*) (standest) on an exalted standard of character - - -”. Well:
Seen in the Quran and the Hadiths:
- Lots of mistaken facts, and other mistakes. Not typical for an omniscient god, but sometimes for cheaters, deceivers and swindlers.
- Lots of invalid arguments - hallmarks for cheaters and deceivers.
- Lots of "signs" - all invalid as proofs for Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god.
- A number of "proofs" - all invalid as proofs for Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god. A few of the "proofs" even are scientifically wrong. Hallmarks for cheats, swindlers, and deceivers.
- A man gluing himself to his god and his religion – his platform of power.
- A self proclaimed prophet who in reality was no prophet – he had not the gift of prophesying. Muhammad did not even pretend or claim to have that gift, he just “borrowed” the distinguished and imposing title. (A few things he said, came true, but less than the probability of sheer chance should predict – and they were not given as prophesies.) A messenger, ok – for someone or something or for himself – an apostle for the same, ok. But a person who does not have the gift of prophesying, is not a real prophet - Muhammad just “borrowed” an imposing title. Islam also claims that messenger is a more distinguished title prophet – but that title just means “one who is not implicated, but just brings messages from one or more to one or more others” - a messenger boy. He does not even have to understand what things really are about. Besides: Why did Muhammad borrow the title “prophet” if the title “messenger” had been more distinguished? – simply because a prophet is something more: Messages like a messenger + prophesies - - - if it is a real prophet. Also beware that the original title for prophets was "a seer" - one who saw the unseen or the future (f. x. Amos 7/12, 1. Chr.26/28, 29/29, 2. Chr.16/7, 16/10, 19/2, 29/25, Micah 3/7, 1. Sam. 9/9, 9/11, 9/18, 9/19). It is very clear that Muhammad was unable to see the unseen - - - but "prophet" was a very tempting title.(Muhammad also used the title prophet relatively seldom in the Quran - perhaps he did not want to invite to questions.)
- A messenger being the chief of highwaymen from Yathrib/Medina - even in holy months.
- A messenger also living from extortion - (money for men kidnapped from f. x. caravans or raided villages and towns).
- A messenger whose due was 100% of the robbed things if the victim gave in without a fight (albeit not all for personal use).
- A messenger permitting to take “spoils of war” - and 20% for him (albeit not all for himself).
- A messenger permitting to take slaves - and 20% for him (albeit not all for personal use).
- A messenger who received ca. 2.5% (from 0% to 10 %) of what you owned each and every year (if you were not too poor) – for the poor, but also for war and for “gifts” (bribes) to keep or attract followers, etc.
- A messenger using betrayal and deceit (f. x. promise of safe return of a 30 strong delegation from Khaybar broken and 29 of them murdered, and his slogan "war is betrayal" and "war is deceit").
- A messenger accepting and using dishonesty as working tools - what about his reliability?
- A messenger lying even in the claimed holy Quran - what about his reliability?
- a messenger accepting even disuse of words/promises/oaths (2/225, 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok), 5/89, 16/91, 66/2.
- A messenger with special agreement with the god for having many women.
- A messenger teaching hate against and suppression of non-followers.
- A messenger teaching and inciting war against non-followers.
- A messenger personally raping female prisoners/slaves.
- A messenger liking a sizable harem.
- A messenger who married a 6 year old girl and started sex with her when she was 9 (and he approaching 60).
- A messenger who married a rich widow 15 years his senior, but his other wives 20 to 36 years younger than him - the child Aisha even more.
- A messenger who had the child Aishah as his favorite wife for the rest of his life.
- A messenger and his men - all with permission from their god to rape any female prisoner or slave who was not pregnant. It was “god and lawful”.
- A messenger who initiated assassinations of opponents.
- A messenger who initiated murders on opponents.
- A messenger who initiated mass murder.
- A messenger teaching suppression of women and non-followers.
- A messenger with lust for power (easy to see from f.x. Hadith, but even more so from f.x. the way he glues himself to his platform of power, his god, also in the Quran).
- A messenger with a huge appetite for women - one knows the name of 36 he had sex with. 11 long time wives, 16 short time wives (never mentioned by Muslims), 2 concubines, and 7 one do not know if he was married to or not (never mentioned by Muslims. He also was a rapist - he raped at least Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay, and also Marieh had no free choice. We do not know if he raped other captives or slaves.
And not least: All this is from Muslim sources - what Islam itself tells about him, though in more glossy words. There is no excuse for becoming angry, because it is 100% true according to Islam itself.
Yes, many will call this “an exalted standard of character”. But not many of those would be non-Muslims. And how many of the Muslims can say it and feel honest?
"Do against others like you want others do against you".
If Muhammad was an excellent idol for good Muslims, we hope never to meet a bad Muslim.
#121 68/6: "Which of you (Muhammad or non-Muslims*) is afflicted with madness". Take a look at 68/4 just above, add modern medical science's suspicion about TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy - which can give just the kind of illusions and symptoms Muhammad is said to have had, and make up your own mind.
######122 68/35+36: “Shall We (Allah*) treat the people of Faith like the People of Sin? What is the matter with you? How judge you?” Yes, “how judge ye” to believe non-Muslims can be of as good quality humans as Muslims? - shall Muslims and nom-Muslims be treated similar?! (But to be down-to-earth: These two verses tell something sinister about the Quran and thus about Muhammad and about Islam. No comments necessary.)
123 68/43: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) had been summoned aforetime - - -". Only by an unreliable man of doubtful moral quality even according to the central Islamic religious books, and a man without ANY kind of credentials to show for himself - none at all. Besides: If Allah exists, and has predestined all your life like the Quran states several places, how can a fair god judge you for what he has forced you to do??! See f.x. 68/45c below.
124 68/47: "- - - the Unseen - - -". What was hidden, but mainly the future - in other words: Did they claim to be prophets?
By the way: Muhammad admitted several places in the Quran that he was "unable to know the unseen" or similar (3/144, 3/179, 6/50, 7/188, 10/20, 27/65, 44/9, 72/26, 81/24) = he was no real prophet.
125 68/51f: "Surely he (Muhammad*) is possessed!" They may have been right, if he had f.x. TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) like modern medical science suspects, because at that time one often believed that someone with a mental disease was possessed by a bad spirit. At least they had knowledge and intelligence enough to see that something was wrong.
126 69/40b: "- - - an honored messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". At least honored by his followers - but the honor is only justified if the Quran is from a god and he in addition told the truth, the full truth, and only the truth. And even in that case his honor is tarnishes by his immoral in several aspects of life and of his brutality.
127 77/39: (YA5882): "The plots against the Prophet were plots against Allah's Truth (wrong - even if a person is killed, it does not change a real truth*), and therefore against Allah”. ####It hardly is news that Muhammad was more or less identical to Allah on Earth.
128 81/19b: “Verily (this definitely is no proved verity/truth*), this is the word of a most honorable Messenger (Muhammad?*) - - -.” If a man who is a thief/robber, extorter, womanizer, child molester (Aishah through many years from she was 9 years old), rapist, deceiver, betrayer, torturer, murderer, mass murderer, warmonger and more, is a “most honorable Messenger” - - - well, in that case we will not like to meet a normal messenger, not to mention an in-honorable one. It may seem that Islam have a somewhat special standard for ethics and moral. Contradicted by reality and normal moral and ethics for non-war religions, societies and cultures, and normal points of view concerning human and inhuman behavior (but we stress that far – very far – from all Muslims live according to the Quran on these points.)
Honored by many, but hardly honorable.
But also see 81/19c below.
129 81/19-20: "- - - a most honorable Messenger (Muhammad?*), Endued with Power - - -". If it here is indicated any supernatural power, this is wrong. (If Gabriel is meant, it may be ok.) It is very clear from the Quran that Muhammad had no supernatural power (and that consequently f.x. the miracles he performed according to Hadiths and legends are fairy tales). It may refer to that he is promised the power of interceding for others on the Day of Doom. But also see 81/19c above - if this refers to Gabriel, the words about power may be easier to explain. As mentioned before: The language in the Quran often is unclear, in spite of that Islam claims the clearness of its language is so extreme that it is a proof for that it is made by a god (what does then the reality of hundreds of points so unclear that even Muslim scholars do not understand what it means, or disagree on the meaning or have to say that all possible logical meanings of a point or a sentence or a verse are right, even if the possible meanings vary wildly - what does this fact then prove?)
Another point is that it is unclear who this messenger is. The two logical possibilities are Muhammad or Gabriel, but also others are possible, but an omniscient god had been able to specify.
As for Gabriel there is a strange fact in the Quran: He is never named in the surahs from Mecca. Not until after he came to Medina did Muhammad start claiming he got his information(?) and messages(?) from Gabriel. If Muhammad really had got - or even only believed he got - the claimed messages from an angel, and even a central one, this had been such a strong agument that there is no chance Muhammad had not told about this - and often - during the first difficult 12 years in Mecca. What is the explanation?
130 81/20a: "- - - with rank before the Lord of the Throne". = With a rank over the others at the Day of Doom. One of the many, many claims Muhammad was unable to prove - but for the ones who believed him, this gave him status and authority. True or not - what often counts more than the truth, is what people believe. (But it is possible here is not meant Muhammad, but Gabriel or someone - see 81/19c above).
131 81/21a: "(Muhammad*) With authority there (in Heaven*)". Another place in the Quran Muhammad tells he has permission to speak on the Day of Doom. Believe such things if you want, but first see 81/20 just above.
But perhaps here is meant Gabriel or someone, not Muhammad - not clear language.
132 81/21b: "(Muhammad is*) faithful to his trust - - -". See 81/19b above.
But perhaps here is meant Gabriel or someone, not Muhammad - not clear language.
133 81/22: "And (O people!) your (here Arabs'*) Companion (Muhammad*) is not one possessed - - -". A most open question, as modern medical science suspects he had TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) - his symptoms are uncannily like those of that illness, included religious illusions. And in the old times persons with mental illnesses were reckoned to be possessed by one or more bad spirit(s).
134 81/23b: "- - - without doubt he (Muhammad*) saw him (Gabriel?*) on the horizon". This likely refers to Muhammad's claim that he ones saw the angel Gabriel with his 600 wings on the horizon. 600 wings may sound impressive for uneducated people only knowing how fast birds can go with just 2 wings. But 600 wings would create so much turbulence that Gabriel in case would fall like a sack of meat - there is a good reason why both birds and planes only have 2 wings. Any god would know this, but Muhammad not. Then who made the Quran?
Another small point here is that you will not find one single place in the Bible where angels are described with wings. Seraphs yes. Cherubs yes. Ordinary angels no - and Gabriel was an angel both according to the Bible and to the Quran. (The wings of the angels were created by artists in the 3. and 4. century AD, simply because it was the only means those artists knew for flying - it is not from the Bible). If angels are spiritual beings or souls, they may not need wings for flying. One more difference between the Quran and the Bible?
As for Gabriel there is a strange fact in the Quran: He is never named in the surahs from Mecca. Not until after he came to Medina did Muhammad start claiming he got his information(?) and messages(?) from Gabriel. If Muhammad really had got - or even only believed he got - the claimed messages from an angel, and even a central one, this had been such a strong agument that there is no chance Muhammad had not told about this - and often - during the first difficult 12 years in Mecca. What is the explanation?
135 92/15-16c: "- - - those most unfortunate ones Who give the lie to Truth - - -". Muslims living according to al-Taqiyya, Kitman and "break even your oaths if that gives a better result", like Muhammad did? See 92/9a-c above.
Sub-total Chapter 2 = 135 + 155 = 290.
>>> 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".