Muhammad in the Quran, Vol. 2: Chapter 26



INDOCTRINATION

Muhammad was able to prove exactly none of his central religious claims. He had to rely on his followers' greed for stealing/looting, rape, slave taking, extortion, etc., on their blind belief, and on indoctrination.

Below are points Muhammad demanded his followers should blindly believe, as blindly accept, and by pure indoctrination. Even if they are many, you will find many more if you read the Quran with your brain and knowledge engaged.

Indoctrination always is a part of a dictatorship or of despotism.

We also have included some relevant indoctrinating texts relevant to the Quran and Islam from some top Islamic scholars.

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

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

002 2/3a: "(Muslims*) believe in the unseen - - -". As there exists no proof for anything of any consequence in Islam, the Quran glorifies blind belief (and ridicules wishes for real knowledge or proofs). In a question as serious as a possible next life and eternity, it takes a lot of naivety not to ask questions and to evaluate the reliability and credibility of sources. If a religion is true, this is the most essential question in life (if not it does not matter - - - unless there is a true religion somewhere else). In all other aspects of life, you are advised to use your brain and knowledge, because if not you are easily cheated - but in the claimed most essential aspect of all, Islam demands blind belief, blind acceptance and obedience, no difficult questions and no evaluation of any argument skeptical to unproved claims in the religion. This tells something about the Quran and Muhammad and Islam. And about the believer.

PS: Linguists say that Arab only is a medium difficult language to translate. Arab thus is not the only language you can use to really understand the Quran (a claim used by Islam and Muslims to be able to flee from errors and other weak points in the Quran, and to stop critics and critical information and facts.)

A thought provoking fact: The Quran several places states that Muhammad was unable to see the unseen. But the unseen is just what he here demands that the Muslims shall believe in.

003 2/4e: "- - - (Muslims*) have the assurance of the Hereafter" If Allah exists. If he is behind the Quran. And if the Quran in addition tells the full truth and only the truth on this point.

004 2/5a: "They (the believers*) are on (true) guidance - - -”. With so many mistaken facts, the guidance at best is partly true.

005 2/15b: "- - - they (non-Muslims/hypocrites*) will wander like blind ones - - -". Yes, if Islam is a real religion - but who wander blindly if the Quran and Islam and Allah are made up? - and where will all Muslims then end up if there is a next life? After all the Quran with all its errors, etc. is not from any god.

006 2/87g: "- - - the Holy Spirit." This is one of the few places the Holy Spirit is clearly mentioned in the Quran (at least here and in 2/253, 5/110, 16/102, 17/85, and 26/193 - the last one not 100% sure, though). All the same Muhammad believed the trinity consisted of God/Yahweh, Jesus and Mary!! (A good laugh for anyone who has ever read the Bible.) Also beware that many Muslims who have not read the Bible, believe the Holy Spirit = the arch angel Gabriel (Gabriel was said to bring Muhammad messages, the Holy Spirit was said a few times to bring Muhammad messages - ergo the Spirit = Gabriel. You also other places in Islamic literature will see that not all Muslims have studied the laws of logic.) Anyone who reads the Bible with an open mind, will see that the Holy Spirit is something special.

*007 2/101a: “And when there came to them a Messenger (Muhammad*) from Allah - - -”. Can a man making so many mistakes in the book he dictated - presumably on behalf of Allah - really be a messenger of an omniscient god? Or if he made no mistakes, and the Quran is faked/made up - is he then from Allah? Wrong. An omniscient god simply did not send down a book with that many mistakes, etc. Which means Muhammad was not sent by a god - at least not an omniscient one.

008 2/101f: “(Muhammad was*) confirming what (the Bible, etc.*) was with them (the Jews and the Christians*)”. Wrong. See 2/89b above and 2/139a+b and 3/3e+f below.

At this time it is highly likely Muhammad knew the Jewish scriptures well enough to know this was a lie. And if not, this at least was a lie by omission, as he never later - when he knew even more about those scriptures - corrected his claim, but instead continued to use it.

009 2/101g: “- - - a party of the People of the Book (here Jews – the People of the Book = Jews, Christians and Sabeans, and “the Book” in this case is the Bible*) threw away the Book of Allah (the Quran?*), as if (it had been something) they did not know!” The Quran here tells that the Jews recognized the Quran from the Bible. That is wrong – there are so fundamental differences and so many points which are different between the Quran and the Bible - even the OT - that the only thing that is possible to know, are that something is utterly wrong. One of the proofs for this, is that the absolute majority of the thousands of Jews in the region refused to accept Islam – even in the face of ruin or slavery or death. Also see 2/89b above and 2/130a+b and 3/3e+f below.

####010 2/106a: “None of our revelations do We (Allah*) abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar”. Well, this is a contradiction – and an abrogation – in itself. It also makes the Quran unclear, because there are contradicting texts - a problem Islam has "solved" by agreeing on that where texts conflicts or contradicts, normally the youngest text is the valid one, and the one or more older ones are "abrogated" - made invalid. (Note: Some Muslims prefer – like here in the Quran – the word “substitute”, as it is a less “loaded” word for them, but in these cases the meaning is exactly identical – only one word is from daily English, the other is derived from Latin (like perhaps also "substitute" originally)). This actually is one of the verses behind the theory of and use of abrogation in Islam. It may also be one of the reasons – may be the main reason – why abrogated verses were included in the Quran originally – they should not be forgotten. But abrogation is absolutely necessary in Islam, because there is so much contradiction, that the situation would be impossible unless they could be eliminated by making a number of the claims and statements, etc. in the Quran invalid. Se separate chapter about abrogation in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". The Quran actually contradicts this point by:

  1. 6/115: “- - - none can change His (Allah’s) Words - - -“. Well, he is contradicting himself, as he clearly changes it himself when something forces him to – try and fail? Or change his mind about more blood and injustice from 622 AD on? – or because of other problems or things he has learnt?
  2. 10/64: “Hereafter, no change can there be in the Words of Allah.” For one thing this sentence has serious effect for the ones who say that predestination in the Quran is not real predestination – if Allah has said/thought/written something, no free will of man can change anything - - - which means there is no free will in that connection, and it is predestined as sure as carved in stone. But more relevant just here is that there were many and sometimes large changes in Allah’s words after this “revelation” in ca. 621 AD - Islam changed from quite peaceful to a full-fledged war religion. Islam simply was very much transformed - from peace to thieving/looting, extortion, suppression, rape, slave taking, and blood.

There may be reasons for questions when Allah has to abrogate his own words - sometimes even shortly after they are said. Did he not know better? Did he change his mind after thinking things over? Did he change his mind after learning how Muhammad’s congregation reacted to his words? Did he have to fail and learn? This tells something fundamental about Allah - if he exists. Because of this you will meet Muslims telling you that nothing is abrogated in the Quran - abrogation is not worthy an omniscient god (very right), and that what he sometimes did, they say, was to make his words more specific. In some cases they may be right - - - but also that is to abrogate!! - and was he not intelligent enough to see the problem or to express himself clearly the first time? Besides it is wrong, as it far from always is possible to explain it away that way. Or to explain it away at all. It is completely clear from the Quran itself that abrogation is accepted and practiced (see the 3 verses quoted), and the texts prove it is a reality. It also is very clear that abrogations is an integrated reality in f.x. Islamic law.

The unclear texts and the rule of abrogation to clear the mess, make at least these problems:

1. For a large number of surahs Islam does not know the exact age. What when possible ages overlap - which one is the youngest and thus the right one?

2. As bad: Often some of the verses in a surah have or perhaps have a different age - but what age?

3. You have to be very well versed in the Quran to know all details about the age of the different verses - what if you make a mistake or remember an age wrong, and then believe in an abrogated verse, or the other way around?

4. As Islam is closely interwoven with daily life, points from the Quran frequently pops up in court, and here it may be a very serious question which verse is valid and which is/are abrogated. Muslim scholars made and still make good money in court from clearing up such questions - or from trying to, because frequently not even the scholars have clear answers.

5. But the in many ways most serious point is: What does it tell about a claimed omniscient god that he was unable to make the perfect rule or decision at once, and had to try and fail - or for other reasons had to change his mind - to find the best rules? It simply tells that this god neither was/is perfect or omniscient. (Because of this many Muslims refuse to accept the rule of abrogation (how to decide which one of conflicting or contradicting verses in the Quran is valid and which one(s) is/are made invalid), even in spite of the problems of contradicting verses they then have to try to explain away.)

The facts revealed by abrogations are so serious that many Muslims try to explain the word and what it means away. But there exists no believable "explanation" - the book is very clear on this point; abrogation is a part of the Quran.

As you see: Such is the reality in the Quran and its "crystal clear and impossible to misunderstand texts - so clear a language that the very clarity proves it is made by a god". (Do not laugh - it is impolite.)

(2 abrogations).

011 2/108g: “But whoever changeth from Faith (Islam*) to Unbelief, hath strayed without doubt from the even way (the road to Paradise*)”. Wrong: This only is the case if the Quran is from a god and in addition tells the full truth and only the truth, and thus far from "without doubt".

012 2/112b: "- - - he (the good Muslim*) will get his reward with his Lord (Allah*) - - -". If Allah exists. If he is behind the Quran. And if the Quran tells the full and only truth here.

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

013 2/120d: “The Guidance of Allah (the Quran*) – that is the only Guidance”. A book with so many mistakes and contradictions, so much invalid logic, and so much inhumanity is not at all a guidance – more likely a misguidance. Also a contradiction of the Bible.

014 2/124c: (Allah said): "I will make you (Abraham*) an Imam (priest*) to the Nations". What the Bible says (1.Mos. 22/18): "- - - and through your offspring all nations will be blessed - - -". One should here add 1.Mos. 21/12: (Yahweh said to Abraham): "- - - it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned". The quote from the Quran is a contradiction to the Bible.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting. Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants never were Muslims.

554 2/125i: “- - - We covenanted with Abraham and Ishmael, that they should sanctify my House (Kabah in Mecca*)”. Not mentioned in the Bible - and as the Bible tells even about the altar, the grave, etc. Abraham built, it is highly unlikely they forgot to mention a huge temple. Besides: Abraham and Ishmael had nothing to do with the building of the Kabah - see 2/127a below.

015 2/171b: "- - - those who reject Faith are as if one was deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of all wisdom". Here it may be relevant to think of what happened in the religious Muslim middle ages: All knowledge not related to religion little by little were frozen out or forbidden. From 1095 AD on (partly because of the book "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" by "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad", Al-Ghazali) there did not come one single new idea or thought which could benefit humanity for some 850 years from central and eastern Muslim area (in the western area the freeze came ca. 100 years later). No more comment.

A ps. about al-Ghazali: Full name Abu Hamed Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali (1058 AD - Des. 1111 AD). To be very short he vehemently rejected science and philosophy (thinking), partly because persons like Aristotle, Socrates, etc. were non-Muslims, and their ideas thus could corrupt Islam. It instead was Allah who made everything happen. Not strange that no new ideas came for the better part of a millennium from Muslim area.

It also is thought provoking that Muhammad demanded blind belief, and Islam of today demands blind and unquestioning belief - "taqlid".

016 2/190a: "Fight in the cause of Allah - - -". A clear order. And a convenient order for Muhammad (and for his successors), as this here on Earth in reality meant "fight for Muhammad when he wants".

017 2/190c: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you - - -". This is one of the fundamentals behind the sharia laws concerning war - except that soon it was not necessary that "they" were fighting the Muslims - most Muslim wars and raids were wars of aggression (mainly for riches, slaves, power and spreading Islam). Later all the 4 main "law schools" agreed on that the fact that the other part was non-Muslim, was enough reason for declaring jihad - holy war - against them. This point of view was not even questioned in Islam until around 1930, and then because of influence from western thinking.

*018 2/191i: “- - - such is the reward (to be killed*) for those who suppress faith (Islam*)”. Honest words - and sugar for terrorists, especially as the terrorists themselves decide who are suppressors “in the widest meaning of the word”. Anyone who tells you the Quran has to be disused to incite to hate, war and terrorism - tell them to read the book just once (but without religious or political blindness). Strictly speaking: It is the ones who do not want war - included terrorism - who are wrong according to the Quran.

If non-Muslims dominate Muslim area - hate them and kill them, so Muslims can dominate and suppress and tax the survivors fair and just. The Muslim way of fair play?

##019 2/193a: "And fight them (non-Muslims*) until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah". More clear words for your money.

But the clear order other places in the Quran, is that the Muslims shall suppress everybody else “- - - Until they (non-Muslims) pay jizya with willing submission (“an yadin”) and feel themselves subdued”. Comments necessary?

###020 2/193d: "And fight them (non-Muslims*) until - - - there prevail - - - faith in Allah." This is one of the essences in verse 193. Worth remembering and to beware of. Especially as the exact and correct translation according to A: "The Message of the Quran" is: "- - - and religion belongs to Allah (alone)"(!!)

The best of all religious deeds according to the Quran, is to fight in raids and wars for Muhammad/Allah - and like here in addition force Islam on non-Muslims (or kill them if they resists) must be an added bonus.

021 2/195a: “And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, - - - “. This may or may not mean: Give money to the war for Islam. It is likely that it means this, as the same text translated from a Swedish Quran, (NB: Certified by Al-Azahr Al-Sharif Islamic Research Academy, Cairo) reads: “Give to (the fight for) the cause of Allah”. (It is no secret that many - very many - Muslims give money and help to such fight, included to terrorist organizations. This even though reports in newspapers in Scandinavia indicate that Muslims give little or nothing to international relief or help organizations.)

022 2/207a: “And there is the type of man who gives his life to earn the pleasure of Allah; and Allah is full of kindness to (His) devotees”. The ideal way of living is to die for Allah/Muhammad.

And as a result Muhammad and all later Muslim leaders or terrorist leaders have cheap, ferocious fighters. If Allah does not exist, it was/is an even more profitable deal for Muhammad and his successors - a free bluff paid everything.

023 2/212a: “But the righteous (good Muslims*) will be above them (all others*) on the Day of Resurrection - - -.” Of course – as the Muslims of course are the best. It is a strange fact that the makers of an ideology always place their own followers on the top of their ideological pyramid.

One more thing: Statements like this "explain" away why many non-Muslims and bad Muslims live a good life, whereas many good Muslims live a poor one.

But there is one difficult point here: This claim just is a claim - nothing is ever documented. F.x. the Bible offers some real proofs - if the books tell the truth. The Quran only offers claims and invalid "signs" and "proofs" - and who uses invalid signs and proofs? - the cheat, the deceiver, the swindler.

024 2/213m: “Allah by his Grace guided the believers to the Truth, - - -”. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. Allah’s presumed book containing so many mistakes, is not the truth. At best the book is partly true.

####025 2/216a: “Fighting is prescribed for you (Muslims*) - - -.” A more direct verbal incitement is difficult to find, unless it is accompanied by threats and/or promises of wealth, power/status and women – in this and/or the next life - - - like it is in the Quran.

According to the Quran fighting for Muhammad (Allah?) was and is and will forever be the best of religious deeds.

***026 2/216c: “Fighting is prescribed for you (Muslims*), and ye dislike it.” Not all of his followers liked to go to war. (And you should remember that also today far from all Muslims like to go to war.)

027 2/216d: “- - - it is possible that ye dislike a thing (fighting*) which is good for you - - -.” Go to war – it is good for you whether you like it or not (implicit meaning; at least Allah will favor you in the next life.) Incitement with added incentives of looting, raping, and enslaving, etc.

028 2/216e: “- - - But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you (to fight in war*), and that you love a thing (peace*) that is bad for you.” No comments except a question: Did you ever meet a person telling that Islam is a peaceful religion? - "the Religion of Peace"? Or Allah a god of peace? Did you in case ask him if Islam also is "the Religion of Honesty"?

##029 2/217d: “Fighting therein (in the holy months - see 2/217a just above*) is a grave (offense); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque - - -”. Muhammad’s highwaymen had attacked and plundered a caravan from Mecca during a holy month and Muhammad received a storm of critic. But his/Allah’s reply was that as Mecca denied the Muslims access to the Kabah (this was before Muhammad had taken Mecca), they were bad people. And then even a grave sin made by Muhammad was no big sin as they were worse sinners according to his claim. Convenient. Read by a terrorist today: Whatever you do against someone not obeying Islam - or worse; opposing it - is no sin.

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

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

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

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

030 2/222g: "- - - Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly - - -". If he exists. If he is behind the Quran. And if the Quran tells the full and only truth here.

031 2/223b: "And know that ye (Muslims*) are to meet Him (Allah*) (in the Hereafter) - - -". If he exists. If he is behind the Quran. And if the Quran tells the full and only truth here. And not least: If he is a major god after all - well, they may meet him even if he should be from the dark forces.

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

###########032 2/225a: “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your heart”. If you swear an oath without thinking it over - or not enough over – you are not bound by it. But how are other people to know if the oath you have made, is binding for you or not - or if you will break it? Besides; you may break also a more serious oath if that will give a better result, but you may have to pay expiation to Allah for it. See f.x. 2/224e-f above, and also 5/89, 16/91, 66/2.

One of the proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. According to Yahweh you preferably shall not swear at all, but if you do, you are bound by your oath.

Conclusion: Any Muslim can break any oath, no matter how strong and how seriously meant, "if that gives a better result" - pay expiation afterwards if necessary. This also goes for other words and promises, as words and promises are weaker than oaths. How reliable - or unreliable - may then a Muslim, included Muhammad, be?

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

###033 2/244a: “Then fight in the cause of Allah - - -". An order not possible to misunderstand - from the good idol Muhammad leading the claimed "religion of peace". One more point not found in the Bible and the religion of Yahweh (there were fights in OT, but for establishing and later defending the country, NOT for promoting the religion). One of the many 100%+ proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god and Jesus and Muhammad far from in the same religion.

034 2/244f: "- - - Allah heareth and knoweth all things." One of the innumerable not documented claims you find in the Quran - but some of them (like this one) acted as good "whips" for obedience and discipline from their followers to leaders (included Muhammad). But also see 2/233h above and 35/38b below.

035 2/246g: “How could we refuse to fight in the cause of Allah.” The Quran pretends Jews are saying this to one of their prophets (here Samuel), but it really is included as a pep talk to Muslims inspiring them to war. The text is somewhat(!) changed compared the one in the Bible, from where the story comes (1. Sam., chapter 8) - these words simply are not from the Bible.

036 2/247f: "- - - He (Allah*) knoweth all things". Not if he made the Quran.

037 2/249f: “How oft, by Allah’s will, hath a small force vanquished a big one? Allah is with those who steadfastly persevere.” This contradicts the Bible. According to the Bible the Jews had no "small force". They had their full army on a hill, facing the Philistine army on a neighboring hill with a valley in between (1. Sam. 17/3). This situation remained for many (40) days (1. Sam. 17/1) before the youth David happened to be sent with food to his 3 brothers in Saul's army (1. Sam. 17/17-18) and there killed the giant Goliath, who had been calling on the Jews for a duel man-to-man to decide the war (in the old times it did happen that one or a few from each army were elected to fight it out as proxies for the whole armies - much less bloodshed). A bit different from the story in the Quran.

Also it is very likely Muhammad has mixed up Saul's/Talus’s war with Gideon's - no god had done that.

038 2/249g: "- - - persevere ". A word non-Muslims should never forget is imprinted and imprinted on Muslims - and it works, especially as democracies are weak when it comes to prolonged managements (there always are shortsighted persons who want an end to struggling).

039 2/250c: "- - - help us (Jews*) against those who reject faith". Do you see the parallel Muhammad here makes to his own warlike intentions? You will find many such parallels in the Quran - Muhammad needed "proofs" for that his situation and what he did, was normal for prophets, and thus that he really was a prophet like he claimed.

But something is wrong here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one and did not fight wars of religion.

040 2/252g: "- - - Verily thou (Muhammad*) art one of the Messengers". But in case for whom? No god - too many errors, etc. in the Quran. Perhaps dark forces? No devil would make a book with so much wrong like the Quran if he could decide himself, as sooner or later people would see the mistakes, etc. and he would lose credibility, but what if that was the god's condition for permitting him to try to lure more people to Hell? Or an illness - like TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) like modern medical science suspects (BBC 2 the 17. April 2003 - http://news.bbc.co.uk./2/hi/science/nature/2865009.stm ). Or simply for a man - f.x. himself? Or a combination of these?

041 2/257j: "- - - from the light they (the evil ones - the Devil*) will lead them (non-Muslims and bad Muslims*) into the depth of darkness". See 2/257h above.

But where will the devil lead if the theory is correct that the Quran is produced by him?

042 2/261a: "The parable of those who spend their substance in the way of Allah is that of a grain of corn (Americans; beware that here is not meant maize - this even more so as maize did not exist in "the old world" at that time): it grows seven ears, and each ear hath a hundred grains". There mainly are two ways to "spend in the way of Allah": To help the poor and to help the religion - included to wage war (war cost a lot, and even though you can get rich from looting, that is afterwards, whereas the expenses are before and during the war or raid - one simply needs money to start a war, even if one can steal much during and after the war). So spend of your money and get rich profit in the next life - if there is a next life, if Allah exists, and if the Quran in addition tells the full and only truth about everything. (If there is not a Muslim paradise, Muhammad got lots of money and warriors for his raids and wars for free - which is not unusual for self proclaimed prophets.) It must be added that this verse is a clever piece of work, if the intention was to get money and to recruit warriors - good psychology (Muhammad understood people).

043 2/262a: “Those who spend their substance in the cause of Allah (mainly helping the poor, financing the spreading or consolidation of the religion or – mostly in that time – financing war*) - - - for them their reward is with their Lord (Allah*) - - -.” At least paying back only with words was a very cheap way for Muhammad to finance his wars and the growth of his power. If there then is a god – or a devil – repaying in the next world, the givers got their money’s value in their next life - in an ironical way if he was/is met by a devil. If there was no Allah in the claimed next life, one has to quote Muhammad in Ibn Ishaq in “Life of the Prophet”: “War is betrayal” - - - also behind the lines.

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

044 2/262b: "- - - on them (good Muslims*) shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve (in the presumed next life*)". If Allah exists. If he is a god. If he is behind the stories of the Quran. And if the Quran in addition tells the full and only truth on this point. But what if the Quran is a made up book? - - as it is not from any god with all its errors, this is a real possibility

045 2/279d: "- - - and ye (Muslims*) shall not be dealt with unjustly". No, not if the Quran is from a god, and in addition tells the full truth and only the truth.

046 2/281a: "- - - fear the Day when ye (people*) shall be brought back to Allah". This will only happen if Allah exists and if the Quran has told the full and only truth about this.

047 2/281d: "- - - none of you shall be dealt with unjustly". There is no justice in the sadistic never-ending torture in Hell, compared to the sins most sinners have made. Also see 2/279d above.

048 2/285d: "The Messenger (Muhammad*) believeth in what hath been sent down (the Quran*) to him from his Lord (Allah*), as do the men of faith". Yes, but it must be the men of blind faith, not the men of knowledge and intelligence - too much is wrong in the book.

049 2/285k: "We (Muslims*) hear and we obey: - - -". It is worth remembering that the one they heard was Muhammad, and the one they had to obey was Muhammad. Very nice for Muhammad - a man liking power and respect.

050 3/6b: "There is no god but He (Allah*)". Well, what is for sure is that Allah is not the same god as Yahweh (if any of them exists) - the teachings are fundamentally too different. (The only possibility is if the god is strongly schizophrenic.) Then there are at least two gods if the old books tell the truth - if Allah exists. Also see 2/225a above and 6/106b and 25/18a below.

051 3/12d: "Soon will ye (non-Muslims*) be vanquished and gathered together and driven into Hell - - -". Similar often claimed in the Quran, but never proved or documented.

052 3/30e: "And Allah is full of kindness to those who serve Him". Is he? - with all his demands for war and blood, whit his partly immoral moral code, with his partly unjust laws, etc.?

053 3/38c: "- - - Thou (Allah*) art He that heareth prayer!" Even if we omit the fact that a Jewish priest - Zechariah was a priest in the Temple in Jerusalem - hardly would pray to Allah, but to Yahweh, there remains one fact: Allah only could hear prayers if he existed and if he in addition was a god. There only are Muhammad's claims for this - and Muhammad is not the most reliable of witnesses.

054 3/48: "And Allah will teach him (Jesus*) - - - the Gospel." For one thing: Muhammad does not seem to know there were 4 Gospels - he always uses singular (though also others sometimes use singular). For another: The Gospels did not exist at that time - the oldest one is from ca. 60 AD. For a third: Muhammad obviously did not know what the Gospels are about, as he tells Allah would teach Jesus the Gospels: The Gospels are the history of Jesus' birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension to Heaven, and could not be written until after all this had happened - not unless total predestination (and then out goes free will for man - such a combination is impossible even for a god, in spite of the Quran's and Islam's claims).

You meet the never documented claim that the Quran talks about an older Gospel - and in a way they may be right, as there may - may - have existed an older one. But for obvious reasons also this one cannot have been written until after things had happened - far too late for Jesus, not to mention the child Jesus, to read. Finally there of course are the naive ones who boldly claim that Allah knew everything before and could have it written down - but then as mentioned out of the window goes free will for man and the benevolent god - predestination and free will for man is not possible to combine. Either the god knows everything before - and man is a puppet forced not to make that knowledge wrong. Or man has free will - and the god is not fully clairvoyant because man always can change his mind once more - the "time travel paradox" which this is a variant of, is long since proved even theoretically unsolvable. There are among the immaterial natural laws a few not even gods can cross (f.x. the mathematical 1 + another mathematical 1 always = the mathematical 2 no matter what trick a god tries).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

####055 3/50a: (According to the Quran Jesus has come to Earth partly to confirm some Mosaic laws, but also:) "And to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you - - -." This is a good verse to know, because as some of the Mosaic laws are closer to the Quran than to NT and its New Covenant (f.x. Luke 22/20), you meet Muslims throwing at you that Jesus (only) came to confirm the old laws, and consequently you have to mean this and this, etc. Or he/she throws at you some old Mosaic law, and you are bad not living up to it. Here is confirmed even in the Quran that Jesus lifted old laws - actually many of them, and even more of the ones the Jews had added later.

There also are verses in the Bible clearly telling that Jesus changed old Jewish laws - f.x. Acts 10/9-29.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

056 3/71f: "- - - the Truth - - -". See 2/2b above and 13/1g and 40/75 below.

057 3/75e: “But they (Jews and Christians*) tell a lie against Allah (= they have falsified the Bible*) - - -”. It is difficult to tell something is a lie, as long as nobody knows what the truth about Allah is - or if he even exists. There are so many mistakes, etc. in the Quran, that the book is totally unreliable as a proof, and the Quran is the only "real" source for the claims about Allah and about his possible existence. More to the point: Both science and Islam has proved very strongly that the Bible is not falsified. Neither of them has been able to document even one single falsification - mistakes yes, falsifications no.

At this time - 625 AD - Muhammad knew enough about the Bible to know that much of what he told, was not from there. But he used this lie to explain away the differences between what he had claimed and still claimed the Bible said, and what that book really said, because it was the only way he could save his new religion (and his own position of power). At this time he knew it was a lie. And in any case it is a lie by omission, because also later - when he had learnt even more about the Bible - he never corrected this claim, but instead continued to use it.

Also remember that the quoted claim is wrong. Both science and Islam have thoroughly proved that the Bible is not falsified. There are some mistakes - though FAR fewer than in the Quran, but not one proved falsification.

###058 3/75g: “But they (Jews and Christians*) tell a lie against Allah (= they have falsified the Bible*), and well they know it.” Wrong. ######It is a psychological impossibility to believe in a god or a "holy" book if you know it is a falsification. But the claim is good propaganda for leaders of people unable or unwilling to think things, words, and slogans over.

Here - and especially in the words "- - - and well they (Jews and Christians*) know it." Muhammad knew he was telling a lie. See 3/78f below.

##059 3/76g: "- - - Allah loveth those who act right". How can he in case love the ones who live according to the Quran? - a number of its moral rules are obviously wrong. The "constitution" for all moral rules is: "Do onto others like you want others do onto you". Compare this to the Islamic (im)moral code - and even a number of its laws, not to mention its rules for behavior in war - and weep. The only ones not able to see the horror in it, are Muslims who have been taught that this is "good and lawful" and "our glorious rights and duties" from they were babies. Read modern religious Islamic literature meant for Muslims, and you still find these medieval and pre-medieval ways of thinking and this upside down moral - or immoral - code. This at the same time as they declare that Islam is the "religion of peace". They should mention that Islam also is the culture and mentality of 630 AD and the "Religion of al-Taqiyya" (the lawful lie) - - - and in reality "the religion of war and suppression"..

060 3/77b: "- - - they (disbelievers in Allah*) shall have no portion in the Hereafter (Paradise*): nor will Allah (deign to) speak to them or look at them on the Day of Judgment, nor will He cleanse them (of sin). They shall have a grievous penalty." Also this (see 3/77a just above) is a claim you find many places in the Quran - believe in Muhammad or you will end in Hell and be subject to the most sadistic and infernal torture thinkable (few things are as physically painful as burns - and the Quran's Hell mainly is a physical hell). Partly it is a warning - Muhammad's claim about how the ones who did not believe in and obey him, would fare in the claimed next life. But as essential for him - and for Islam - is the "Schadenfreude", the inner, base enjoyment over other peoples' bad luck or bad fate which is part of the nature of a large portion of humanity - especially if the unlucky ones are people "we" do not like or are inferior to "us" because of their behavior or something. By playing on this part of human nature, one creates distance between ones followers and "the others", and one creates a feeling among "us" that we are "better" and "morally superior" to "the others".

Muhammad knew about human nature and about how to manipulate humans - parts of what we today call psychology. And this distance between the groups "us" and "them", and the impression and feeling that "they" were inferior sub humans and bad people, he later could use to expel, rob, enslave and mass murder "them" in the surroundings - a task made easier by the fact that the horrors made "us" rich.

Many a dictator and many a man hungry for power have played on such strings. Many also have used religion as their platform of power. And some have done both - like Muhammad.

Another and dark point: IF IT IS TRUE LIKE THE QURAN SAYS SEVERAL PLACES THAT ALLAH PREDESTINES EVERYTHING, AND IF IT IS TRUE WHAT THE QURAN SAYS SEVERAL PLACES THAT IT IS PREDESTINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS P L A N WHICH NOBODY AND NOTHING CAN CHANGE, AND FINALLY IF IT IS TRUE WHAT THE HADITHS SAY THAT HE DECIDES WHETHER YOU ARE TO END IN HEAVEN OR HELL WHEN YOU ARE A 4 MONTHS OLD FETUS, WHATEVER YOU DO HAS NO INFLUENCE ON WHERE YOU WILL END IN THE PERHAPS NEXT LIFE.

061 3/122a: “Remember two of your parties (from the clan Banu Salamah of the tribe Al-Aws, and from the clan Harithah of the tribe Khazraj*) mediated cowardice (just before the battle of Uhud in 625 AD they wanted to leave*); but Allah was their protector, and in Allah should the Faithful (ever) put their trust”. A mighty example and pep-talk forever after. (That these parts after all did not desert Muhammad before the battle, might have meant the difference between a battle the Muslims in reality lost, but at a price which made Mecca withdraw, and a military catastrophe avoided.)

062 3/124b: “Is it not enough for you (Muslims in battle*) that Allah should help you with three thousand angles (specially) sent down?” Pep talk to warriors referring to the battle of Badr, which Muhammad claimed was won because Allah sent down 3ooo angels who fought together with the Muslims - Allah helps you in battle with angle warriors. Morals counts in battle, and battle was essential for Muhammad at this time, though in 625 AD he might also think about defense against Mecca - they might again attack to stop his robbing their caravans, etc. But except for real defense: Why does an omnipotent god have to bring his followers to war to strengthen his position? If it was Muhammad who wanted more power and more riches to use for bribes and more power - and women - the logic is easy to understand, but an omniscient god - - -?

063 3/125c: "- - - if you (Muslims*) remain firm - - -". Time and again and again the Quran tells that if the Muslims just persevere, the "enemy" grows tired in the end and the Muslims win. Far too often this has proved correct, a fact all non-Muslims growing tired should remember. This especially the democracies, as they have problems when a fight lasts for a long time - there always are many voices wanting out of the struggle, as they see the short-time gain but not the long-time loss possible.

064 3/127a: "- - - He (Allah*) might cut off a fringe of the Unbelievers to expose them to infamy, and then they should be turned back, frustrated in their purpose". Pep-talk for war/fighting.

###065 3/145b: “Nor can a soul die except by Allah’s leave, the term being fixed as by writing”. Wage war - you die when your term comes and not before, no matter what you are doing. The for Muhammad most essential side of predestination? It is easy by means of statistics to show the claim is wrong, but right or wrong does not matter much in cases of blind belief. But one thing is clear: Any man as intelligent as Muhammad did know this was a lie.

066 3/145h: "And swiftly shall We (Allah*) reward those who (serve Us with) gratitude". If he exists. If he is a god. If he is behind what is told in the Quran. And if the Quran in addition tells the full and only truth on this point.

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

*067 3/146a: “How many of the Prophets fought (in Allah’s way) - - -". Exactly no-one of the known prophets from the Bible. The very few of the known ones of them who took part in fighting, fought for earthly reasons. None took part in a religious war. The wars you find in OT (there is none in NT) were political ones or punishment of the Jews from Yahweh. There were no wars to spread the mosaic religion, as contrast to "holy wars" - jihads - fought by Muslims.

068 3/150a: "- - - Allah is your Protector- - -". Once more: If he exists. If he really is a god. If he is behind what is told in the Quran. And if the Quran in addition tells the full and only truth on this point.

069 3/150b: "- - - and He (Allah*) is the best of helpers". There has not been one single case of documented help from Allah to anyone in the entire history - be sure Islam had told about it if such a proved case had existed.

070 3/151a: “Soon shall We (Allah*) cast terror into the heart of the unbelievers - - -.” Of course. One more good pep-talk. And a bit different from "turn the other cheek" in the Bible.

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

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

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

####071 3/154e: “Even if you had remained in your homes, those for whom death was decreed would certainly have gone forth to the place of their death (anyhow*).” This is the "manifest" of predestination. And: This also is one of the points in the Quran where Muhammad knew he was lying. It is so obviously wrong, that an intelligent man like him knew this was not true. But he was a clever manipulator (“is it not more worth that I live among you, and spend the booty on the people not sure in their belief to make them stay in Islam?” f.x.) and he understood people. Lies like this worked because his followers were primitive and in addition wanted to believe. And for primitive, uneducated souls really believing mish-mash like this (it is easy to prove by statistics that it is untrue, if one are un-intelligent enough not to see at once that it is a lie) it was a mighty incitement – fighting in battles was not dangerous, because Allah had decided when you were to die, and at that time you would die whether you were in a battle or sleeping in your bed. It is worth noticing that even today this is the official point of view of Islam. To quote footnote 3/119 to this surah in “The Message of the Quran” (translated from the Swedish 2006 edition - not found in the English 2008 edition):

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

Unbelievable!!

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

Also see 3/154g just below.

####Besides: Is it ironic to see a religion built on a book so full of errors, contradictions, wrong facts, etc., that it is clear there is no god behind it, naming others heathens?

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

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

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

072 3/155aa: “Those of you who turned back on the day the two hosts met (300 men left Uhud before the battle, leaving 700 to fight, according to Islamic sources*) - it was Satan who caused them to fail, - - -.” It is Satan who makes you not want to do or be too afraid to take part in battles - do you want to be a friend of Satan? A mighty incitement for fighting for Muhammad (and Allah?) and Islam (or sometimes for leaders using or disusing the religion for personal gain or power - like money and slaves for bribes, women for personal use and above all power).

073 3/155c: "- - - it was Satan who caused them (the ones don't wanting to fight*), because of some (evil) they had done". In plain language: They were punished for some sin by not wanting to take part in the battle. Some punishment! Some religion! Not to say quite a "religion of peace"!!

##844 3/157b: “And if ye are slain, or die, in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass”. Nearly no matter how bad a man (nothing is said about women) you have been, to be killed for Allah, is the sure way to go to Paradise. A mighty - and cheap - way to get warriors.

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

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

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

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

The same if Allah was/is from the dark forces.

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 is something nobody and nothing can make him do. See 2/187d above.

##074 3/157c: “And if ye are slain, or die, in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass”. This only may - may - be true if Allah exist and is a god, and if the non-Muslims on top of this believe in a non-existing god - if their god (f.x. Yahweh) exists, he may be able to outdo Allah. (Especially if Allah in reality is a dressed-up and made up pagan god only - and he was a pagan Arab god before Muhammad took him over and renamed him slightly).

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.

##075 3/158a: “And if ye die, or are slain, lo! It is unto Allah that ye are brought together”. Be killed in war for Allah, and go to paradise - good “knowledge” for a warrior or terrorist. Whoever said the Quran has to be disused to justify terrorism, hardly ever read the Quran - or uses an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie - this "convenient" Islamic only phenomenon). See also 3/157b above.

##076 3/158b: “And if ye die, or are slain, lo! It is unto Allah that ye are brought together”. This only can be true if Allah exists, if he in addition is a god, if he runs a religion like told in the Quran - and if the Quran has told the full and only truth about this.

077 3/167c: "- - - fight in the way of Allah - - -". That the raids and wars were and partly are made in the name of the god, make them even more detestable, especially as most of them were raids and wars of aggression - mainly for riches, slaves and power - and for spreading Islam by means of the sword directly and indirectly.

**078 3/169a: “Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live - - - in the presence of their Lord (Allah*)”. What better can a warrior ask for? - and thinking like that, they made - and make - cheap soldiers for Muslim leaders. But what if Muhammad made it all up? - at least no god made the Quran with that many mistakes, etc. So where will all the Muslims in reality end if there is a next life?

079 3/170a: "They (killed Muslim warriors*) rejoice (in Paradise*) in the Bounty provided by Allah*. If Allah exists. If Allah is behind what is told in the Quran. And if the Quran tells the full and only truth on this point. Also see 3/170b and 10/9f below.

080 3/170b: “They (the ones killed in war*) rejoice in the Bounty of Allah (an Earth-like luxury life + plenty of women – how that life is for the women, is of no consequence* - not worth even one question in the entire Quran and all the Hadiths or anywhere else in Islamic literature we have seen) - - - (and*) the (martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve.” Psychologically a very good way for a leader to tackle and to prepare his followers for the fact that some warriors were going to die in the wars. There were little cause for sorrow and little cause for blaming the leader. But to be able to believe in this, take lots of naivety, blind belief and wishful thinking - just naivety is not enough.

##081 3/170c: The family and others left behind by dead warriors, have no reason to grieve - their dear one - the warrior - is in Paradise. Yes - if it really was a war for Allah, and not for power or riches for some leader. And if the Quran speaks the truth on this point at least. And if Allah is an existing god. And f.x. if children without fathers find the situation attractive.

082 3/170d: "- - - (martyrs) - - -". All Muslims killed in war, are martyrs, no matter if it is a war of aggression or not, or even simply a raid for money and slaves – Muhammad made many such raids and called all of them jihads. It is like if the Christians should call everybody dead in a war with religious contents - f.x. the 30 Years War in Europe (1618-1648 AD) martyrs - or actually in all wars, as more or less all wars Muslims are involved in, are called jihads - "holy wars". Normally only innocent persons or persons killed in very special circumstances are martyrs. ###Wars of aggression, raids for stealing/robbing, etc. extremely seldom give martyrs in normal religions.

083 3/171a: “They (the “martyrs”*) glory in the grace and the Bounty (silver and brocade and women*) from Allah - - -”. The ultimate pep talk: Your son or husband or father is dead and you will never see him again, and he will never help you if you need - but he is in heaven according to a book with hundreds of mistakes, and told by a man with a very dubious morality.

910 3/171b: "- - - (in their (the claimed martyrs'*) bliss) - - -". This only may be true if Islam is a true religion with a real god, and if the Quran in addition has told everything correctly.

084 3/171d "- - - the fact that Allah suffereth not the reward of the Faithful to be lost - - -". Once again: If Allah exists, if he in case is a major god - - - and if the Quran tells the full and only truth without mistakes about this. And no matter: This sentence is a claim, not a fact.

916 3/172a: "- - - those who answered the call (for fighting*) of Allah (for fighting*) and the Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". Muslims. A strengthened version of Muhammad's standard, but never proved mantra to glue himself to his claimed god and platform of power.

085 3/172b: "- - - those who answered the call of Allah (for fighting*) and the Messenger (Muhammad*), even after being wounded - - -". This is one of the few places in the Quran where the 3. alternative; to be wounded is mentioned - normally only "the two glorious" alternatives victory and death (= Paradise according to the Quran) are mentioned. And here it is not mentioned as a possible outcome of a fight, but mentioned only to glorify the ones who fight on even if they are wounded. "The Religion of Peace"!??

In traditional war it is something like 10 times as likely to be wounded as to be killed - and the chance for becoming a cripple afterwards at least as big as for to be killed.

086 3/173a: “Men said to them: ’A great army is gathering against you’: - - - but it (only) increased their Faith - - -”. Pep talk. Real Muslims are not frightened - and Allah will help. Pep talk incites the warriors to keep fighting, and to wage war. This was of course necessary for Muhammad to gain personal security, power and riches. Like for many warlords at that time.

087 3/173c: "- - - it (the possibility of battle*) (only) increased their (good Muslims'*) Faith - - -". The religion of peace? The same god as in NT? No comment to any of the two questions. It would be a waste of time.

###088 3/174a: “And they returned (from war) with Grace and Bounty from Allah: no harm ever touched them - - -”. A fairy tale picture of war and easy riches. A good pep talk for recruiting new warriors if the men are uneducated and naïve. Glorifying war and spoils of war attracts new warriors. The larger the “army” the better chance of success and power for leaders.

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

#####It is worth noticing that Muhammad and his followers behaved like Muslim gangs are doing today (2013 AD) in northeast Africa: Raiding - in this case especially people fleeing north from war and poverty - the weak ones. Muslims stealing what meager possessions they have, murdering, raping, gang raping, torture, extortion, slave taking, slave selling (yes, it goes on even today). This was the life of the semi-saint Muhammad the last 9-10 years of his life - Muslims were involved in some 82 armed incidences during that time, nearly all of them raids for stealing riches, for rape, extortion, and slaves. Muhammad personally led some 26 of them and personally raped at least two women (Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay). #####Some morally perfect idol!

#####It also is very telling that as far as we know, Islam is doing little or nothing to stop those gangsters of today - and how can they? Those gangsters are behaving just like Muhammad did, and everything Muhammad did was perfect, "lawful and good".

Added 2014: IS/ISIL - the "Islamic State" is behaving according to Muhammad's demands and rules. An attractive future for the world? - remember that the Quran demands that the Muslims shall conquer and suppress the rest of the world.

089 3/174b: "- - - Bounty from Allah - - -". That the raids and wars with its stealing, raping, suppression, extortion and blood shall be in the name of the god, makes the whole "business" - the Quran's rules for waging war - even more disgusting. And are robbed goods, rape and slave taking in accordance with the moral and ethical codes in NT? - the claimed same god? Read the NT and check for yourself.

But notify how often "bounty", etc. is mentioned in connection to propaganda for war in the Quran - the permission to steal and extort from and to enslave the victims was one of the central arguments for alluring Muslim men to go on raids and to war. (And is the "bounty" really from a god when you have to go out and steal and rob and risk your life and health for it - and destroy other people's lives. Words and propaganda are cheap and incitements and temptation sometimes slick - and all such words even may be dishonest and untrue.)

090 3/174c: "- - - they (Muslims at war*) followed the good pleasure of Allah - - -". That his followers wage war is the good pleasure of Allah. "The Religion of Peace"? - a god of peace? If you are sufficient naive or indoctrinated you may be able to believe this.

091 3/174d: "- - - they (Muslims at war*) followed the good pleasure of Allah - - -". The good pleasure of Allah here refers to going to war. You do not find anything even remotely similar to this in NT. And even in the more warlike OT, war was not for the pleasure of the god, but to make room for the Jews, and later for to defend their nation(s).

092 3/175a: “It is only Satan that suggests to you the fear (of battles*)”. Who wants to be the subject of Satan - it is better to fear Allah and Muhammad and not shy away from fighting.

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

093 3/176d: "- - - Allah's plan is that He will give them (non-Muslims plenty in this life, but* no portion in the Hereafter - - -". This is Muhammad's standard "explanation" for why Muslims often live a sorry life whereas some non-Muslims live in plenty. There is no proof for the claim - like for everything else of central claims in the Quran.

094 3/195e: “- - - those who have - - - fought or been slain – verily, I (Allah*) will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens - - -.” Guess if this contradicts the NT and f.x. its "turn the other cheek" or "you shall not kill"!! Yahweh and Allah the same god? Just this quotation alone proves they are not - and then there are all the other proofs in addition.

#####095 3/199g: "For them (strongly believing Jews and Christians*) is a reward with their Lord". There may be a hope for Paradise also for Jews and Christians - - - if this verse is not abrogated (made invalid) by a stricter one later on.

096 4/13ca: "- - - those who obey Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*) will be admitted (to Paradise*) - - -". Strongly contradicted by the Bible, and especially by NT. Muhammad's and his Quran's religion of war and partly immoral moral code, etc. does not qualify for Yahweh's Paradise, and NT's religion of love hardly qualifies for the Paradise of the war religion of the Quran - on of the proofs for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god.

097 4/13f: "- - - that (life in the Quran's Paradise*) will be the supreme achievement". Yes, but only if the Quran tells the full and only truth about it, and not least about how to deserve it.

098 4/13g: "- - - that (life in the Quran's Paradise*) will be the supreme achievement". Life in the Quran's Paradise mainly is bodily pleasures - luxury, good food and drinks, shade, nice cloths and place of living, plenty of sex at least for the men, etc., and in addition there is a god at some distance. Is that a supreme achievement compared to f.x. Yahweh's Paradise, where you according to the Gospels "become like angels", also in the neighborhood of their god? (The differences between the two Paradises are one more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are different gods.)

099 4/31a: "If ye (Muslims*) (but) eschew the most heinous of the things which ye are forbidden to do, We (Allah*), shall expel out of you all the evil in you, and admit you to a Gate of great honor". In plain words: If you do not do big sins, the small sins will be forgiven you and you will end in Paradise - an easy religion - - - if it is not a made up one (remember that the Quran is not from any god - too much is wrong).

100 4/45c: "- - - Allah is enough for a Helper". See 4/45a above. We may add that in 1400 years and more there has not been one single proved case of help from Allah to anyone - a lot of claims, but no proved case.

101 4/51f: "- - - the (right) way - - -". Here = the right religion (other places in the Quran it simply may mean the Quran/Islam).

102 4/57f: “- - - therein (Paradise*) shall they (deserving Muslim men*) have companions pure and holy (houris - sex slaves in Paradise*) - - -.” Houris are a bit special kind of women, but the “fact” that they are given to the men arriving in Paradise as repayment for good (?) deeds, tells kilometers about Islam’s view on women, about the Quran's moral code, and about the Muslim Paradise.

103 4/57i: (A4/74): “We shall admit them to shades, cool and deepening.” One thing is that here is one more of the many cases of “only Arabian references” - Arabisms - (or at least hot parts of the globe) in a claimed world religion from a god for the entire world. More down to earth is: Is the sentence correctly understood? Today the Arab word “zill” mainly means “shade” and “zill zahil” something like “dense shadow” (no good thing for one from cold countries who dreams about good sunshine). But all languages change – so also Arab. In old Arab it also meant “a covering” or “a shelter” and also “protection” or even “a state of ease, pleasure and plenty” or “happiness” (Lane 1915) – and the “zill zahil” which is used here then may mean f.x. “abundant happiness” (Razi). There is a difference between “deep shade” and “abundant happiness” – except perhaps for home-grown dwellers of hot deserts. And there are more alternatives. Clear language in the Quran?

104 4/60f: "- - - (from the Right (the teaching of the Quran*)) - - -". With all those mistakes, etc. that teaching at beast is partly right. At best. And no god has sent down a book with that many errors.

105 4/66b: "(To go to war and*) sacrifice their (Muslims'*) lives - - - would have gone farthest to strengthen their (faith)". A paradox if Islam claims to be "the religion of peace". But according to the Quran no doubt the greatest religious deed is to go on raids or to war for Muhammad/Allah. They in reality mainly were for stealing riches and taking prisoners - girls and women for rape and slaves and sometimes for extortion, men for extortion or slavery. Later also for spreading Islam - directly or indirectly by means of the sword. (Suppression and often hard taxation, etc. backed by the sword, which you only could get out of by becoming a Muslim.)

*106 4/67a: “And We (Allah*) should then have given them (the ones reluctant to give their lives, see 4/66a) from Our Presence a great reward (if they went to war*)”. One of the many incitements to war for a claimed good and peaceful god or religion or prophet. Sometimes we feel that the ugly West may be after all have a better moral philosophy and ethics - sometimes to say the least of it. And may be a more human god, even though it is politically correct to dismiss and slander him.

One of the strong proofs for that Jesus and Muhammad neither were in the same religion, nor in the same line of prophets (in addition to that it is impossible to be in the same line of prophets if they do not represent the same god).

*107 4/68a: “And We (Allah*) should have showed them (see 4/67 above) the Straight Way (if they went to war*)”. War was essential for Muhammad - and still is for some Muslims - and there are lots of incitements to go to war. Like it or not - NT is far, far more peaceful. Yes, even OT, as that tells about old wars, but does not incite to war forever - and a limited war to gain a country for the Jews, not a global war to suppress all non-Muslims on the entire globe - - - or make them Muslims, often by force or pressure backed by force. It is far from true when Muslims tell Islam is a peaceful religion (except towards fellow Muslims of the same sects).

*108 4/68b: “And We (Allah*) should have showed them (see 4/67 above*) the Straight Way (to Paradise if they went to war)”. One more never proved claim from a man who had a lot to gain and who according to Islam was not very reliable (overlook the glorious words and read what he really demanded, introduced and did, and you will see how reliable he was and his real moral - demands and deeds, etc. are much more reliable than cheap words.

109 4/69a: "All who obey Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad*) (are liked by Allah*)". Double plus for Muhammad: Glue him to Allah + obey him. Strengthening the platform of power. Self-centered. Selfish? An extra point here - like many other places in the Quran - is that here on Earth the one they had to obey, was Muhammad, a nice situation for any leader wanting power.

##110 4/71b: “O ye who believe! Take your precautions, and either go forth (in war*) in parties or go forth all together”. Be strong when you attack. "The religion of peace"? On the contrary - Islam is a typical religion of war. The only reason why this Islamic slogan is not dead long time ago, is that non-Muslims do not know the Quran well enough to laugh from that claim. (But beware that many Muslims also do not know the book well enough or are too indoctrinated, and are unable to see the hypocrisy - or al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) - in the claim. They simply and honestly believe it!)

111 4/72+73b: As mentioned in 4/72+73a just above these two verses are pep-talk for war. You NEVER find such pep talk in NT - NEVER. One more of the many points which alone proves that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion - and then there are all the other proofs in addition.

112 4/74d: “To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah - whether he is slain or gets victory - soon shall we give him a reward of great (value) (= Paradise*)”. What can be a better reward - - - if it is true? And what can be a cheaper way for leaders to get warriors, than promises of payment in the next life? - especially if the religion is made up (and remember that this is likely, as the Quran with all its mistakes is from no god) and the Quran's paradise thus does not exist.

But if Yahweh and Jesus rule the perhaps next life, good Muslims will not find that the gate to Heaven opens automatically. And likely the same if other gods rule - the Quran is a bit too immoral and too inhuman for most religions.

113 4/75c: “And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women and children (crying for help and rescue*) - - -.” Muhammad’s version of the glorious hero on the white horse - and "forgetting" to add "- and power and riches for Muhammad". Another inciting dream "pushed" by good psychology - claimed help to women and children is a good motif.

114 4/75d: "- - - rise for us (the weak ones*) from Thee (Allah*) one who will protect, and raise us from Thee one who will help!" Guess if the warlord Muhammad here is telling that the warlord Muhammad is sent from the god, and that the weak ones are praying for help from the great warrior on the white horse - the warlord Muhammad - to help them!! Have you heard dictators glorifying themselves and glorifying war of aggression before?!

###115 4/76c: “Those who believe (Muslims*) fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith (non-Muslims*) fight in the cause of Evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan - - -.” To say the least of it: The words are not to be misunderstood: Fight the non-Muslims, because they are the friends of Satan. Though we personally – and as far as we know also others – just wonder: Some great force or religion which teaches stealing, destruction, rape, enslavement, suppression, murder, hate, war – is that a good, benevolent something or not? – or is it a devil? – perhaps a devil in disguise?

116 4/76i: “- - - fight ye against the friends of Satan - - -“. Of course you want to do that – and of course all non-Muslims are friends of Satan. Hate mongering. There is more like this in the Quran.

###117 4/78a: “Wherever you are, death will find you, even if ye are in towers built strong and high!” The predestination once more - Allah has decided when you are to die (Hadiths tell he decides on this - and on whether you are to end in Hell or Paradise - 5 months before you are born). You can as well go to war and do "good" things for Allah – and get rewards and spoils of war from him – because you will die no sooner and no later all the same. No comments should be necessary. Beware that this is the belief also today, even though it is ever so easy to prove by statistics - and also by simply using your brain - that this is wrong. If this is true, free will for man can walk away whistling a tune.

But this claim is so obviously wrong, that a man as intelligent as Muhammad knew he was lying each time he said things like this.

##############################################################

####118 4/80a: "He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah - - -". It is not possible to express Muhammad's mantra more directly than this. The ultimate dictator with ultimate power. Self-centered. Selfish? - well, at least he may be mistaken for that.

##############################################################

119 4/81c: "- - - put thy (Muslims'*) trust in Allah - - -". A bit risky if he does not exist.

###120 4/82b: “Had it (the Quran*) been from other than Allah, they would surely therein found much discrepancy.” What a proof!!! The ultimate joke and irony! In addition to all the mistakes, contradictions, etc. (roughly at least unbelievable 3000 (!!!) everything included), there is so much discrepancy in the Quran, that Islam has a special rule how to solve such problems - the so-called rule of abrogation: If there is discrepancy between two (or more) places in the Quran, the youngest one normally is the correct one - the omniscient Allah so often (300 times or more according to "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran") had to change his mind or got new information which forced him to change his words, that one needs a special rule how to behave in such cases (this is one of the reasons why it is essential for Islam to know the age of the surahs and verses, or at least which is older than which - to know which is valid and which is abrogated). And there is so much discrepancy between the Quran and modern knowledge that it is clear that either Islam has a lot of good explaining to do, or the Quran is not made by an omniscient god. (Islam has a lot of explanations, but most of those are not about explaining the mistakes, etc., but about explaining them away, and such "explanations" often are invalid or highly dubious - use your brain and knowledge when you listen or read, and you will see this is true. There also is the question: How many "explanations" is it possible to accept in a book claiming to be from an omniscient god and telling it is told in clear and literal language, before you start asking questions?) The quoted sentence really is an indirect, but strong proof from the Quran itself that the Quran is not sent down from an omniscient god - and a reason why Muslims cannot afford to admit there is one single mistake in the book, no matter how unlikely explanations they have to use to “explain” the mistakes away: If there are mistakes, there is something fundamentally wrong with the religion. That is too difficult to face.

(It should be mentioned that some Muslims denies there is a rule of abrogation (an omniscient god would not need to adjust or further specify his own rules - it spoils the picture of perfection and of omniscience), but anyone can read and see for him-/herself: Many points are changed, adjusted, extended or given other limits - larger or smaller - in the Quran. We have never counted, but we have read numbers from ca. 100 to more than 500 abrogations depending on how strictly you judge. Actually it is said by some Islamic scholars that only 9/5 – “the Verse of the Sword” – abrogates 124 older mild verses).

In addition to the internal discrepancies in the Quran, one has all the mentioned mistakes – they are discrepancies compared to the reality. Besides: Even if it had been without the least contradiction, that had meant nothing as a proof - Muhammad had plenty of time to be careful and think his words over as after all this not big book took 23 years (but he was unable to make it perfect). But there are more than 300 internal contradiction (see http://www.1000mistakes.com about this) + all external contradictions (contradiction with reality).

###121 4/84a: “Then fight in Allah’s cause - - -.” One more verse which contradicts and abrogates many of the peaceful verses from mainly Mecca and early Medina (this is from 626 AD and the harsher religion Islam had developed into). At least 10 contradictions and as many abrogations. Remember that when the Quran talks about fight, it normally always means armed combat (as opposed to NT where it refers to intellectual conflict).

###122 4/84b: “Then fight in Allah’s cause - - -”. The religion of peace? - from a good and benevolent god? All the same: The greatest religious deed according to the Quran.

123 4/84d: "- - - rouse the Believers (to armed combat*)". May be this is what some imams, mullahs and others are doing? Well, drop "may be".

124 4/87b: "- - - of a surety He (Allah*) will gather you (people*) together against the Day of Judgment". Only if Allah exists, if he has made the rules in the Quran, and if the Quran in addition has made no mistakes on this point.

###125 4/89d: “But if they (the ones not believing strongly enough in the Quran and in Muhammad*) turn renegades (= leave Islam*), size them and slay them: and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their rank”. Two quotes from the New Testament: “Love your enemies”, “You shall not kill”. The ones believing Allah and Yahweh is the same god, have to study psychology.

Jesus and Muhammad definitely were not in the same religion or serving the same god. This even more so as no dead person can change to the "right" religion in older age - in "the 11.th hour".

##126 4/91b: "- - - seize them (unreliable non-Muslims*) and slay them wherever you (Muslims*) get them - - -.” Whoever believes NT and the Quran is from the same god, has never seen a Bible - let alone opened one. One more of the clear proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

##127 4/95b: “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive in the cause of Allah with their goods and their person. Allah hath granted a grad higher to those who strive with their goods and their persons”. Clear words: Go to war or terrorism and end in a better part of Paradise - there are at least 4 or 6 different qualities of Gardens there + the higher heavens according to the Quran. Incitement “de luxe”.

128 4/95f: "Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive (fight*) with their goods and persons than those who sit (at home)". Strongly contradicted by especially in NT - in NT physical fighting is not accepted at all. One more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

#129 4/95g: “Unto all (in Faith (= all Muslims*)) hath Allah promised good: but those who strive hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by special reward -.” Are any comments necessary? - except f.x. compare this to NT. The Quran is war and murder. Compare it to the pacifistic and anti-war NT or f.x. Buddhism!

What a nice verse for a terrorist!

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

#130 4/95h: “Unto all (in Faith (= all Muslims*)) hath Allah promised good: but those who strive hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by special reward -". But what is such a promise worth unless Allah exists and is a powerful god?

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

#131 4/95i: “Unto all (in Faith (= all Muslims*)) hath Allah promised good: but those who strive hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by special reward -". Strongly contradicted by especially in NT - in NT physical fighting is not accepted at all. One more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and one of those many proofs which each alone proves this. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

132 4/95+96a: “- - - those who strive hath Allah distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward – Ranks specially bestowed by Him (Allah*), and Forgiveness (for anything if you are killed in battle*) and Mercy.” No doubt who is the best Muslim and what is the best deed in Islam – the warrior and the war are most pleasing to Allah. (To call Islam “The religion of peace” is an insult to the intelligence of everybody who has read the surahs from Medina with an open mind.)

As for forgiveness see 2/187d above.

133 4/95+96b: “- - - those who strive hath Allah distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward – Ranks specially bestowed by Him (Allah*), and Forgiveness (for anything if you are killed in battle*) and Mercy.” The total and 180 degree difference from NT - in NT physical fighting is not accepted at all. One more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and one of those many proofs which each alone proves this.

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

134 4/100a: “He who forsakes his home in the cause of Allah - - - should he die as a refugee from home for Allah and his Messenger, his reward becomes due and sure with Allah - - -”. Even if you do not die in battle, just die in war - f.x. from illness or accident - or if he has had to flee from persecution, it seems like you go directly to Paradise. (Perhaps this also goes for refugees). War for Allah really is valuable for Muslims - - - if the Quran tells the truth. A fact(?) any terrorist "knows" - most of them are Muslims.

135 4/100f: "- - - his (dead Muslim warrior*) reward becomes due and sure with Allah - - -". This only is possible if Allah exists and if he really is a god - there only are the words of a not reliable man seeking power for both.

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

136 4/101c: "- - - for the unbelievers are unto you open enemies." An unmistakable message - no good basis for building trust between religions, or for integration of Muslims in non-Islamic cultures. Hate mongering simply.

137 4/104a: "And slacken not in following up the enemy - - -". The religion of peace (!!). (Compare it to NT: Forgive your enemy.) And: Fighting non-Muslims - in the beginning mostly for stealing/robbing, raping, taking prisoners for extortion or slavery, later also for spreading Islam - was and is the greatest of religious deeds, according to the Quran.

138 4/122f: "- - - to dwell therein (Paradise*) forever". 11/108c may indicate that Paradise is not forever. Muslims explains it with that the residents will be transferred to an even better place, but this is not said in the Quran. Unclear.

139 4/122g: "Allah's promise is the truth - - -." Is it? - there are too many points which are not the truth in the Quran. Also see 2/2b above. Besides there in all history and prehistory have never been one single proved case of Allah keeping a promise - many claims, but not one proved case.

140 4/122i: "- - - whose words can be truer than Allah's?". Very many, if the Quran is the kind of "truths" Allah tells, not to mention if Allah is something made up. We may also mention Yahweh. Also see 57/8a below.

###141 4/124a: "If any do deeds of righteousness - - - and have faith, they will enter Heaven - - -". Here is one of the fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity: In Islam what count is faith and good deeds. In NT the main things are faith and the belief in your god - good deeds counts, but the major point is your belief in your god and forgiveness from him.

142 4/125a: "Who can do better in religion than one who submits his whole self to Allah - - -". Anybody if Allah does not exist - and there are at least 3 very good indications for that he is fiction: 1) Muhammad was never able to prove anything. 2) Allah has never in 1400 years given the slightest clear indication for his existence. 3) And the Quran is not from a god - no god would ever be connected to a book of that quality.

Not to mention if he exists, but is from the dark forces.

143 4/131i: "- - - unto Allah belong all things in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and on earth - - -". Often claimed, never proved. Claims are cheap.

144 4/135b: "Stand out firmly for justice - - -". This had been a good point, if it was not for the fact that the Quran's "justice" and the moral code it rests on, both often have sick rules. Compare some points in them to "do towards others like you want others do against you" and be horrified. And ethics we hardly ever even mention in connection to the Quran, as you may be have noticed.

145 4/135e: "- - - Allah can best protect - - -". If he if he is a god, if he sent down the Quran, and if Muhammad told the truth and only the truth about this when reciting(?) it.

146 4/135h: "- - - Allah is well acquainted with all that ye do." This cannot be written by a god; in one end of the verse he needs witnesses, and in the other end he knows everything. When you know everything you do not need witnesses - at least not unless you think people will disbelieve you. Also see 2/233h above and 35/38b below.

147 4/136b: “Believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -”. A strengthened version of Muhammad's standard, but never proved mantra for gluing himself to his platform of power - his god.

####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. Self-centered. Selfish? 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.

148 4/136f: “- - - and the scripture (the Quran*) which He (Allah*) hath sent to His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - - ”. It is very obvious to anybody with some knowledge and the ability to read and think, that there are many mistakes in the Quran. It is a question if it is advisable to believe in a book where you know there are many mistakes - and may be many more you do not see. The fact that there are many mistaken facts - and dubious statements + contradictions + numbers of invalid “signs” and “proofs” + many cases of unclear language, also make one doubt the not proved claim that the book is sent down by an omniscient god and a copy of a book revered in Heaven. It simply is impossible that it can be true. It is heresy and slander and an insult to blame a book of a quality like the Quran on a god.

*149 4/136j: “Any who denieth Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray”. Hardly. When you know how full of mistakes, contradictions and wrong logic the book on which all Islam rests on is, it takes some more proof to decide that it is the non-Muslims that are “far, far astray”. As everything in Islam rests on the Quran and on the if possible even less reliable Hadiths, the chances are that Muslims are the ones who are most astray. This even more so as all the mistakes, etc. prove that no god was involved in the Quran, and that nothing - absolutely nothing - ever was proved about the existence of Allah or about Muhammad's connection to a god. In all other aspects of life blind belief is the easiest way to be cheated - and it is normal for false prophets (there have been many through the times) to rely on fast talk, bluffs and demands for blind belief.

150 4/139a: “Yea, to those who take for friends Unbelievers rather than Believers (you will not get honor from Allah*)” You are permitted to have non-Muslims as friends - in the real world it is impossible to prohibit it - but not close friends. Beware of possibility of social extrication and of punishment from Allah if you "sin" against this.

151 4/139b: "- - - all honor is with Allah." May be correct - but only if Allah exists and is a god - and only if he in addition is reasonably correctly described in the Quran. And NB: Only if there is no other god.

152 4/141b: “And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers”. Go to war – in the long run you are sure to win. The development seemed to justify this verse for Muslims for 110 years - they lost battles, but hardly ever a war, at least not as they stormed westwards. Not until they lost the war in France against Carl Martell (battle of Tours in 732 AD). That made an impression - at least for some - and for a time made some doubt the infallibility of the Quran. The same effect - and stronger - one got over the losses against the west during the 1800s and early 1900. Allah - why did he not let Muslims win?

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

Will it be like living in Saudi Arabia, Algeria, North Pakistan, Libya, Ethiopia, or Iran nowadays? Or Afghanistan? Or like in the Islamic State" - IS - in Iraq/Syria "anno" 2014?

###153 4/144c: “Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?” This is really a strong one: To make good friends with non-Muslims is a clear proof that you are not a good Muslim - this even for Allah, not to mention for the entire Muslim society. This verse may give a strong social pressure NOT to associate with non-Muslims. (Sect leaders often do not want their followers to associate with people from the outside - it may give his followers correcting information and facts.)

154 4/146c: "And soon will Allah grant the believers a reward of immense value". Not possible unless Allah really exists and is a major god.

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

155 4/158b: (YA664): “Nay, Allah raised him (Jesus*) up unto Himself - - -“. There is difference among Muslims what this exactly means: Was Jesus raised up to heaven bodily and never died? Or did he die later than the crucifixion Islam denies and spared the indignities the Jews intended for him? Muslims will give you different answers, because the text is not clear - but it is clear that the god somehow was involved even according to the Quran. (But none we have ever met has given a clear answer to where Jesus disappeared if he lived on on Earth for some time/years (he was just 33 years when there was the crucifixion, and might have lived on for many years if not killed) – a person like Jesus would have left traces no matter where he fled – if he fled, which he absolutely did not do according to the Bible).

What is for sure is for one thing that a person like Jesus could not disappear anywhere - he was too special a personality. And for another: If he was taken up to Heaven alive - which is the most often met explanation - or in other ways activated on by a god, that is just a good proof for the involvement of something supernatural - a god - as resurrection. And thus a clear indication for that Jesus was something much more than the self proclaimed, never proved messenger and prophet Muhammad.

For the "explanation" that he died and was resurrected later, and thus was spared the crucifixion, there are similar comments + the fact that the Bible tells he was resurrected just 3 days after the crucifixion, which means he just had 3 days for "dying later".

156 4/162e: "- - - what (the Quran*) hath been revealed to thee (Muhammad*) - - -". The stories Muhammad told were from no god - too many mistakes, contradictions, etc. - - - and mainly repeated legends, fairy tales, false/made up "Biblical" stories, etc.

157 4/162g: "- - - those (Jews*) who establish regular prayer and practice regular charity and believe in Allah and the Last Day: to them shall We (the god*) soon give a great reward". Also Jews may come to Paradise (remember that the Quran claims that Yahweh = Allah) - - - if not this verse from 626 AD is abrogated (made invalid) by later verses. Though you will meet Muslims saying this is about believing Jews from before they learnt about the Quran (Allah often does not punish sins the sinner did not know was a sin), even if it is written in present tense, and thus counts for later Jews. (Another unclear point.)

As for the value of prayers in Islam, also see 62/9c. And if you combine 62/9c with 67/9c - a strong one - you get something thought-provoking. (And relevant here: Muslims often are taught that a question or problem which really can have only one valid solutions, can have 2 or more true and correct solutions - Islam is forced to teach this, because if not many of the mistakes and contradictions in the Quran become too obvious. But this ONLY is true if parallel true solutions are possible. F.x. in cases where 2 or more possible solutions are mutually excluding each other, maximum 1 of the mutually excluding ones can be true. Islam teaches differently. It should be a bit thought provoking for Muslims, that just this "small" difference in theoretical thinking and teaching, was one of the reasons (there were several of course) for why Europe and the West exploded into the Technical Revolution, while the Muslim area stagnated). Two star examples are: 1): Full predestination is not possible even for an omnipotent god to combine with even the smallest piece of free will for man - the two are mutually excluding. Islam is teaching differently. 2): The same for full and unchangeable predestination long time before, combined with any claimed effect of prayers - the two are mutually excluding each other. Islam is teaching differently.)

Another fact: Today it is easy by means of statistical methods to check if prayers have any effect. (Let f.x. 1ooo persons each pray for one among 1ooo unknown persons sick or in other ways in need. compare the result after some time with a similar group of 1ooo who has not been prayed for, and see if there is a difference. If there is a positive difference, this would be a strong indication or perhaps even a proof for something - a proof Islam strongly and dearly needs, as they have not any proof for even a single of its central claims. But it has not even tried to make such a test. Why?)

158 4/163e: "- - - We (Allah*) sent it (messages by inspiration*) to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the (12 Jewish*) Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and to Solomon - - -". As Muhammad claimed he received his verses from Allah by inspiration, it was essential to "prove" that this was a normal way for prophets to receive information from the god. And NB: He used these claimed Muslim prophets as proofs for that "inspiration" was a normal way of communication. The word "inspiration" is not used anywhere in the Bible in such connections. Also it is nowhere in the Bible mentioned that Ishmael had a close enough connection to Yahweh to be a prophet.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD when Muhammad started his proselyting. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

159 4/170l: "- - - Allah is All-knowing, All-wise". Not if he made the Quran - too much is wrong in that book.

160 4/171e: “- - - Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a Messenger- - -.” Well, he frequently called Yahweh (the Jewish and Christian god) his father - the word is used for Yahweh in the relationship between Yahweh and Jesus at least 204 times in the Bible, and the word "son" at least 87 times, many of those times by Jesus himself - and Jesus was reliable also according to the Quran (and remember: Neither science nor Islam has been able to find one single falsification in the Bible - lots of claims from Islam, but not one documented case (just guess how loudly Islam had screamed about it, if they had ever found one!)).

Also see 66/12c.

161 4/171m: "- - - so believe in Allah and His Messengers (included Muhammad*) - - -". The most sure way in life to be cheated, is to believe blindly in things you are told - especially when the tales are not proved and are from persons of low moral standard, but with ambitions.

162 4/171n: "- - - so believe in Allah and His Messengers (included Muhammad*) - - -". A strengthened version of Muhammad's standard, but never proved mantra for gluing himself to his god and his platform of power; Self-centered. Selfish?

163 4/171q: "- - - Allah is One God - - -" = there is no god but Allah. See 2/255a above and 6/106b and 25/18a below.

164 4/171s: “- - - (far Exalted is He (Allah*)) above having a son”. If the Quran here talks only about Allah, that may be correct. But if it talks about an Allah identical to Yahweh, we have to remind Muslims of the fact that Jesus many times and in front of many witnesses called Yahweh his father – the word “father” as a statement of the relationship between Jesus and Yahweh is used at least 204 times in the NT according to our latest leafing through it, and the word “son” at least 87 times, many of those times by Jesus himself. And even the Quran agrees to that Jesus was reliable. And we remind you that in spite of what Islam and the Quran claim without any documentation about falsifications of the Bible, science clearly has documented that those never proved claims are not correct. Islam has given even stronger proofs for this by being unable to find one single proved falsification in all the literally tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts or fragments.

Besides; what do humans know about what a god wishes? - f.x. about some company?

Also see 66/12c.

165 4/172a: “Christ disdaineth not to serve and worship Allah.” In 3/51a it is implicated in the explanation why this is wrong. The only possible exception is if Yahweh and Allah really were the same god. But only Islam states that, and the teachings of Yahweh (especially in NT and the New Covenant – f.x. Luke 22/20) are so different at essential points from the teachings of Allah, that they cannot be the same god unless he is mentally ill (schizophrenic). Islam will in case have to prove what they say, not only to claim it.

166 4/172b: “Christ disdaineth not to serve and worship Allah.” Strongly contradicted by the Bible, which says Jesus' god was Yahweh. It also is totally contradicted by the science of history, which flatly says there was no god like Allah and no religion similar to Islam in what is now Israel or anywhere else in the Roman Empire (we are now deep inside the times of written history in those areas) or anywhere else in the world. There is no kind of even an indication for a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, or a book similar to the Quran neither in the Bible nor anywhere else in the entire world, older than 610 AD - a historical fact. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

167 4/174b: “- - - there hath come to you (mankind*) a convincing proof (the Quran*) - - -“. With that many mistakes, contradictions, etc., and so much wrong logic, etc., etc. the Quran is not very convincing, and its “proofs”/”signs” are no more convincing - see 2/39b above.

The one who is finding "a convincing (and valid*) proof" in a book like the Quran, has no training in critical thinking or in the laws of logic.

168 5/3h: "This day have I (Allah*) perfected your (Muslims'*) religion for you - - -". This sentence always fascinates us - was the religion not perfect earlier? And how could the religion be perfected - made better - without changing the claimed "Mother Book" which is claimed to be the unchangeable and timeless basis for Islam? How could f.x. Abraham be a perfect Muslim - or a Muslim at all - if the religion was not perfected until this day in 632 AD? Etc., etc.

169 5/7b: "- - - His Covenant, which He (Allah') ratified with you (Muslims*), when ye said: 'We hear and we obey'- - -". Once upon a time some Boers in South Africa made what they called a covenant with Yahweh/God. They promised that if Yahweh/God would help them, they would do so-and-so. What they over-looked was that a covenant must be agreed on by at least two parts; and as Yahweh/God was not an involved participant in an agreement about the case, they in reality only made promises, not a covenant. Is this something of the same? Another point: According to the Bible the god did not make any covenant with Ishmael and his descendants, only with Isaac and his line (1.Mos. 17/21). This even more so as in spite of Arabs' claims of being descendants of Ishmael, it is unlikely they are. For one thing and for what it is worth the Bible tells that Ishmael's descendants settled not in Arabia, but in vest Sinai "near the border of Egypt" (1. Mos. 25/18) where they became 12 tribes with "twelve tribal rulers" (1. Mos. 25/16) = the god's promise of making Ishmael's descendants mighty. But easier and more solidly proved: Modern DNA analyses have showed that the Arabs not are and never were a pure "race" - f.x. today's have a measurable percentage negro blood (mainly from imported female slaves). The original Arabs seems to have been people from here and there who settled first along the coasts and later in the desert something like 4ooo years ago (earlier in the coastal areas), partly because the introduction of tamed camels around that time made life in the desert a real possibility - though it only was used to a limited degree, and only in the south. (The camel did not come into wide use until around 1ooo - 900 BC modern science has found, and not introduced further north until around 800 BC, when the Assyrians stated trade with Arabia). And this mixed group has been even much more mixed up through the times, partly by traders and others passing through on the caravan "highways" crossing Arabia and leaving off-springs now and then - remember that before Islam, "the two delightful things" in Arabia were sex and alcohol - and also Arab traders bringing home brides from abroad. But perhaps the biggest source for foreign blood to further mix up and dilute the claimed race, was import of slaves from all around, both long before Muhammad and far more later. All the girl and women slaves were definitely not imported just for decoration, and the "pure Arab blood" never was much more than an illusion - originally started by Ishmael or not. (And in addition: Even if Ishmael had settled in Arabia, there also lived many others - so even if this had been true, only a small percent - less than 0.001 percent (= if there at that time lived only 100ooo men (+ women) in the entire Arabia) - of the Arab DNA could have been from Ishmael already at that time, and it would have been far more diluted by now.)

There is no rational or scientific reason for believing in the claim that the Arabs are descendants of Ishmael and Abraham - on the contrary: What knowledge which exists, makes the claim highly unlikely, and even if there should be a connection, it in case is an extremely diluted one. Also modern DNA science documents this.

170 5/12g: “- - - and loan to Allah a beautiful loan - - -.” This normally is “Quran-speak” for “risk or lose your life in battle for Muhammad and Allah”. In just this case it is claimed to be said to the Jews of old times, which gave it double value: A good pep-talk and “documenting” that messengers wanting war was nothing new. But these words are never used in the Bible.

171 5/14g: “- - - but they (Christians*) forgot a good part of the Message (Bible/NT*) that was sent them, so We (the god*) estranged them - - -“. But as the claim that the Christians falsified the Bible is untrue (see 2/75b, 2/130a, 3/24d, 3/77a, 5/13 above, and 5/15e below) - something an omniscient god knew - this should mean that he did not estrange them - the reason for doing so did not exist. Besides no such message is reported anywhere (except in the Quran - a book with heavy reasons for claiming this, a book with hundreds and more of other mistakes, and a book dictated by a man who f.x. believed in al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc., and even in deception and in breaking his own oaths (2/225b above and 5/89a+b, 16/91e, and 66/2a below) if that gave a better result).

Also: At this time - 632 AD - Muhammad knew enough about the Bible to know very well that much of what he told, was not from there. At this time he knew that claims like this were lies. But he used them anyhow to explain away the differences between what he had claimed and still claimed the Bible said, and what that book really said, because it was the only way he could save his new religion (and his own position of power). At this time he knew it was a lie.

172 5/15e: “- - - revealing to you (Jews and Christians*) much of that ye used to hide in the Book (the Bible*) - - -“. To believe in the theory that the Bible is falsified, one has to know very little about how to make identical falsifications of tens of thousands of copies of many different manuscripts, where on top of all all the different falsifications have to be synchronized in all the different manuscripts, so that the different manuscripts do not tell widely different facts. And not least: All references to and from the different papers must have been synchronized – try to do that even today with 100ooo papers spread over large areas and without using mass communications, or even a post office.

With 13ooo relevant papers or scraps of papers still existing today, there must have been at least 100ooo and many more in the old times, spread all over – papers are destroyed or rot or disappear over the centuries - all identically falsified or falsified so that each corresponded to all the others, because at that time nobody knew which papers would survive until today!!! And then we have not even included the some 32ooo other manuscripts with quotes from the Bible which also have survived till today. All together at least half a million papers had to be falsified - on 3 continents - from 2 religions + sects - in a time nearly without communications. And all had to be falsified in exactly the same ways and no point where falsification was necessary could be forgotten - and EVERY relevant paper had to be found and falsified (if not they could be found in the future). And not least: The falsifications all had to be so cleverly done that it is impossible for modern technology of today to find any traces of it.

It is up to you if you will weep or laugh - the two only normal reactions to a claim like this, if it was not because it was so serious.

Judge for yourself after you also have read all under 2/75, 3/24, 5/13 and 5/14.

But a plot like this could not be used in a novel - nobody would believe in it.

173 5/15-16: "- - - a perspicuous Book, Wherewith Allah guideth - - -". No god guides by means of a book full of mistakes - and no good and benevolent god uses a book which in addition has partly immoral and unjust moral code and laws, and neither does a good and benevolent god launch a war, hate and suppression religion like in the Quran.

174 5/16b: "(A book - the Quran which*) leadeth them (Muslims*) out of darkness - - -". Is there any of the big and medium religions which to a greater extent than Islam represents the dark sides of the darkest Middle Age? - into which the Quran not only leads, but condemns its followers.

175 5/17a: "In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ - - -." No Christian - not one single one - says that Allah (or Yahweh) = Jesus. Yahweh and Jesus are separate, but closely connected only. To use an Irish picture: Together with the Spirit they make up the 3 parts of a clover leaf. As for the Trinity, though, Islam may be right, as this is not clearly a part of the Bible (though Jesus said: "My Father (Yahweh/God) and I are one" - likely figuratively meant). But no Christian says Yahweh/God = Jesus.

A picture may be: Yahweh = the god. Jesus = a co-worker and/or friend and/or crown prince. The Holy Spirit = the messenger - an errand boy and helper. Or Yahweh = king, Jesus = prince (royal, but not king), the Holy Spirit = the chief ambassador.

176 5/18j: "- - - unto Him (Allah*) is the final goal (of all)". Contradicted by the Bible, which says that the final goal is unto Allah. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

177 5/20a: Moses talked about Allah. Especially as it is clear Yahweh and Allah cannot be the same god, and as all the really old manuscripts mention Yahweh, it is highly unlikely Moses mentioned Allah - not to say it stronger. Also a contradiction to the Bible, which tells he talked about Yahweh.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

178 5/33a: “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and his Messenger (Muhammad*) - - - is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from the opposite sides, or exile from the land.” Remember that this surah is from 632 AD, and that practically all raids and wars were wars of aggression from Islam/the Muslims, mostly raids for riches – even the battles of Badr, Uhud and Medina/the Trench were battle in a war of aggression started and kept alive by Muhammad – so mostly the victims who “fought war against Allah and his Messenger” were fighting in desperate and sheer self defense to defend themselves against the on-slaughter of Islam - - - and to defend themselves obviously was a great sin. Muslims attacked for gaining loot, land, slaves, power - - - and force Islam on their neighbors. Arabia mainly was made Islamic by the sword. In spite of Islam’s peaceful words some places, the local Arabs normally only got two choices: Become Muslims or fight/die. A clear contradiction – and abrogation of - 2/256: "Let there be no compulsion in religion". And what about "Islam is the Religion of Peace"? Or: "Islam is the Religion of Honesty"?

179 5/35c: “Do your duty to Allah, seek the means of approach unto Him, and strive with might and mind (= make war*) in His Cause: that ye may prosper”. You prosper if you do like this. Islam after fighting non-religious knowledge for a few centuries (winning from ca 1100 AD - or actually 1095 AD in the eastern and central Muslim area and ca. 1198 in the western) found that there was no prosperity in thinking and researching and studying - except just studying and repeating the religion and related subjects - to fight and steal/rob/suppress/enslave on the other hand was good. The result was stagnation after some time, and not prosperity.

180 5/35d: “- - - strive with might and main (normally in the Quran this means “fight in war”*) in His (Allah’s*) cause.” A clear order. Islam "the religion of peace" like Muslims often claim? Or Allah a god of peace?

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

####181 5/35g: “- - - strive with might and main (see 5/35a-b just above*) in His (Allah’s*) cause - - -”. For us this is one of the most detestable points in the entire Quran and Islam: Fight and steal and rob and mutilate and rape and enslave and hate and murder and suppress in the name of your god - a claimed good and benevolent god.

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

182 5/44a: "It was We (Allah*) who revealed the Law (to Moses) - - -". Contradicted by the Bible which says it was from Yahweh. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and on top of the fact that Abraham did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran tells. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

183 5/48q: "The goal of you all is to Allah - - -". If he exists. If he is a god. If he is behind what is told in the Quran. And if the Quran in addition tells the full truth and only the truth.

##184 5/50a: "- - - (the Days of) Ignorance - - -". Believe it or not, but "the Days of Ignorance" or "the Time of Ignorance" is the official and accepted name for the times before Islam in Muslim area even today. Extra ironic when you know parts of that area - f.x. Egypt, Turkey, and even more so Greece and Persia - were far less ignorant before being conquered by culturally primitive Muslim warriors, not to mention that Islam after some time stopped all scientific thinking except what was connected to religion - from 1095 AD (100 years later in the far west) after having fought it for centuries, and nearly till today there did not come one new idea or thought which could benefit humanity from the entire Muslim area. So when was the real Time of Ignorance?

185 5/51b: “Take not the Jews and the Christians (pagans are not even valid to be mentioned*) for your friends and protectors.” If people a leader looks upon as (possible) enemies or as possible subjects for attacking and suppression, are made up to look for you like something bad and degenerated and kept at a distance personally, it is much easier for that leader to make his followers believe that “that vermin” deserves to be attacked and killed and robbed.

186 5/52c: "- - - a decision according to His (Allah's*) Will". According to the Quran Allah decides absolutely everything, and he decides it according to his will and to his predestined Plan which nobody and nothing can change (so why pray to him about changes in your or others life? - prayers cannot help as Allah's Plan is unchangeable. The same for god and bad deeds, pilgrimage, wish for forgiving, etc., etc.)

d and raped and suppressed and to have their possessions stolen - especially if the warriors among his followers are permitted to rob and rape and enslave and steal for themselves valuables and women “justly and right“.

And with no intermingling from the outside the leader also greatly reduces the risk of that his subjects meets unwanted ideas or facts. Thus: No friendship, thank you. The method is known from a number of fanatic sects.

187 5/52a: “Those in whose hearts is a disease - - -”. If you are not a Muslim, your heart has a disease. One of Muhammad's many negative and antipathy creating names for non-Muslim. Comments?

But as the Quran and all its errors, contradictions, unclear points, etc. are not from a god - no god makes mistakes wholesale, the who is really who in this point?

188 5/64k: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) (ever) strive to do mischief on earth". Quite a hypocrisy from the man who was involved in may be 82 armed conflicts during his few (10) years in Medina (ca. one every 6 weeks through 10 years) - nearly all of them initiated by himself to gain riches to use for gaining more power and little by little for forcing his new religion on his surroundings.

189 5/67d: “- - - the (message) which hath been sent to thee (Muhammad*) from thy Lord.” There is no chance that a message (the Quran) that full of mistakes, contradictions, wrong logic, unclear language, etc., and even at least a few clear lies, is from an omniscient god. See 5/59e above.

190 5/68h: “But sorrow thou not over (these) people without a Faith”. 180 degrees opposite of what is the point of view of Yahweh/Jesus. (Luke 15/8-10, Matt. 18/12-14, Luke 15/11-31, Matt. 20/8-13). Yahweh and Allah the same god? Impossible. One of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

191 5/73b: “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity - - -.” Muhammad said Yahweh = Allah, and he never understood the trinity - he even believed it consisted of Yahweh, Jesus, and Mary, a mistake no god - agreeing or not agreeing to the Trinity - would have made. But for once there is a possibility that the Quran has a point; the Trinity is formally not a part of the Bible. On the other hand those are the three special ones: Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit - we may think of them as God, his co-worker and representative, and his errand boy/messenger boy and helper. Trinity or not - those three have a special status according to both the Bible and the Quran (even though the Quran does not agree to which status - it even say the Holy Spirit = the angel Gabriel, which makes anyone really knowing the Bible laugh.) There also is the fact that according to the Bible, Jesus said that he and his father was one - but likely figuratively meant. Also see 5/73a just above.

As for the Trinity: It is a dogma decided by humans after much discussion; it is not part of the Bible - but see 5/17a above. (This dogma is from the 4. century, and it got its present form from the so-called Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory of Nyassa (332-395 AD), Basil the Great (320-79 AD), Gregory of Nazeanzus (329-389 AD). The nearest you come in the Bible is that Jesus said that he and his father, Yahweh, were one.) Also see 5/17a and 5/73b. But no-one in his right mind and with some knowledge about the Bible, would ever believe Mary was part of the trinity. Any even baby god had known. Then who made the Quran?

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 (Gabriel according to the Bible was/is an arch-angel), this had been such a strong argument 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?

192 5/75a: “Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; - - -”. The Bible says something else – that Jesus called Yahweh his father (this relationship according to our latest leafing through the Bible, is mentioned at least 204 times as “father” + at least 89 times as “son” in the NT - frequently by Jesus himself), and far from always only his spiritual father - and as the Bible is written relatively short time after Jesus’ death, and on this point on the basis of thousands of witnesses who could tell what Jesus said, and protest if the narrators quoted Jesus falsely, it is likely that the Bible is more reliable here, than the Quran. The Quran is written 600 years later, and offers only undocumented statements and claims without any proof or even indicia backing up the claims. This even more so as the only Islamic source for the claims was a man who demanded to be the greatest prophet of all times, something he definitely could not be if Jesus was a relative of Yahweh – and this even more so as Muhammad in reality was not a prophet: He did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies (he did not even claim to or pretend to have it) – perhaps a messenger for someone or something, or an apostle, but not a prophet. And not least: Muhammad clearly had a deplorable moral - easy to see even in the Quran if you omit all the glossy, big words and look for the facts which are told about him.

Also as mentioned Jesus himself frequently called Yahweh his father - and Jesus is reliable also according to the Quran. A sticky fact Islam cannot accept (as said the Quran/Mohammad cannot accept that Jesus may be the son of Yahweh, because then Muhammad is not the greatest of “prophets” – and the defense of Muhammad also is essential, as he in reality was a dubious and immoral character, and all the same all Islam is built only - only - on this man's words).

193 5/81a: “If only they had believed in Allah, in (Muhammad*) - - - never would they (Jews and Christians*) have taken them (non-Muslims or Pagans*) for friends - - -”. It is just tragic - most religions are today able to live together in peace and reasonable harmony. But Islam is so bent on distaste and superiority complex and apartheid against all non-Muslims, and on conquering all other religions and suppressing its peoples, that integration is difficult. The only position Islam really can accept, is superiority according to the Quran.

194 5/81d: “- - - the Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -“. But Muhammad was no real prophet. The definition of a prophet was a person who could see at least parts of the unseen, and thus a person who:

  1. Has the gift of and close enough connection to a god for making prophesies.
  2. Makes prophesies that always or at least mostly come true.
  3. Makes so frequent and/or essential prophesies, that it is a clear part of his mission.

A few things Muhammad said, came true – like it has to do for any person saying many things through many years – and most of what he said which did not come true, was forgotten (also this is what normally happens if it is nothing spectacular). But he did not guess the future correctly often - actually he statistically and according to the laws of probability should have "hit the mark" far more often by sheer chance than he did - there just are a few cases where Muslims will claim he foretold something correctly, and few if any of them are "perfect hits". But then the Quran makes it pretty clear that even though he was intelligent, he had little fantasy and that he also was nearly unable to make innovative thinking (nearly all his tales and his ideas in reality were "borrowed" ones - though often twisted to fit his new religion).

The main things here are that Muhammad never indicated that anything of what he said was meant as prophesies, that he never indicated, not to mention 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 above), and finally that both he and Islam said and says that Muhammad was unable to see the unseen (extra revealing here is that the old Biblical title for a prophet, was "a seer" - one who saw the unseen (f.x. 1. Sam. 9/9)) and also that there were no miracles connected to Muhammad “except the Quran” (prophesying is a kind of miracle - seeing what has not yet happened). (This fact that Islam admits there were no miracle connected to Muhammad "except the revelation of the Quran" also is a solid proof for that all the miracles connected to Muhammad mentioned in the Hadiths, are made up stories). Also see 30/40a and 30/46a, and we also should add that his favorite wife (and infamous child wife) Aishah according to Hadiths (f.x. Al-Bukhari) states that anyone saying Muhammad could foresee things, were wrong.

Verse 7/188b also is very relevant here: "If I (Muhammad*) had knowledge of the Unseen (= what is hidden or what has not happened yet*), I should have - - -". IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT MUHAMMAD DID NOT HAVE THE PROPHETS' ABILITY TO SEE "THE UNSEEN" - he was no real prophet.

Also relevant here is that the original title of the Jewish prophets as mentioned was not "prophet" but "seer" - one who saw at least parts of the unseen. (F.x. 1. Sam. 9/9#, 1. Sam. 9/11, 1. Sam. 9/18, 1. Sam. 9/19, 2. Kings. 17/13, 1. Chr. 9/22, 1. Chr. 26/28, 1. Chr. 29/29, 2. Chr. 9/29, 2. Chr. 16/7, 2. Chr.16/10, 2. Chr. 19/2, 2. Chr. 29/25, Amos 7/12, Mic. 3/7 - some places the two titles even are used side by side). Muhammad thus so definitely was no seer - prophet - even according to his own words; he had no "knowledge of the unseen".

####Many liked - and like - the title prophet , and there have been made other definitions for this title - the most common of these are "one who brings messages from a god", or "one who represents a god", or "one who acts/talks on behalf of a god". But the fact remains: Without being able to prophesy, he or she is no real prophet. A messenger for someone or something - ok. An apostle - ok. But not a real prophet.

***This is a fact no Muslim will admit: Muhammad in reality simply was no real prophet or seer. 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.

It also is remarkable that Muhammad relatively seldom used the title "prophet" about himself in the Quran. He mostly used the title "Messenger", even though messenger in reality means an errand-boy (Muslims try to make this title something big and imposing, but this is the meaning of it). "Prophet" on the other hand is a heavy and impressive title telling a lot about the person. May the reason for why he did not use it so often, be that he knew he did not have what it took to merit that title, and was a little careful using it, so as not to provoke questions or comments? (And is this also the reason why Muslims try to pretend that "messenger" is something more impressive and heavy than "prophet"?)

195 5/83f: “- - - they (Christians*) recognized the truth (their religion is claimed by the Quran to be corresponding to the Quran*)” and "- - - their (Christians*) eyes overflowing with tears - - -".. As said before: With that many mistakes in the Quran, the teachings of Muhammad at best are partly the truth. Besides: Claiming that others believe and accept that the teaching is true, is good psychology - - - as long as it is not too easy to find out that the claim is not true. (What most Christians quickly in reality understood, was that something was really wrong with the new religion.)

This surah is from 632 AD. At that time Muhammad knew ever so well that bluffs like this were lies.

Another point: The religion does not mean too much for most Christians of today. All the same you never see their eyes "overflowing with tears" for wanting to accept and believe in the very different religion Islam instead - to equate "the Religion of Love" with the apartheid, war, suppression and acceptance of dishonesty religion Islam. In the old times the religion meant a lot more to the individuals. What do you thing is the possibility for that those strong believers in the religion of f.x. honesty, love, and monogamy, of Yahweh and Christ would "recognize the truth" and "overflow with tears" from acceptance and want of this other very different religion of distaste, hate, suppression, accepted dishonesty, blood, and sex (rape, polygamy, harems, houris)? - and a very different god? Or for that they "recognized" in Christianity the practically antipodal religion Islam?

You are free to think over this yourself.

196 5/87b: "Make not unlawful the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you (Muslims, people*) - - -". Do not make additional rules making lawful things difficult for you - or prohibiting them (- like the Jews had a tendency to do). In just this case Muhammad talks about food - quite an abrupt jump from belief in Allah and paradise, but the Quran often makes such jumps. Not god literature technique.

#####But as the Quran and all its mistakes are not from any god, who was it in reality who made things lawful or unlawful? There only are these alternatives:

  1. The dark forces making Muhammad believe Gabriel visiting him.
  2. A mentally sick brain - f.x. TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) like modern medical science strongly suspects.
  3. A cold brain - f.x. Muhammad's.
  4. A combination of these - modern science f.x. says that it is possible Muhammad believed in the beginning, but became professionally scheming later, which may indicate that Muhammad in the beginning was cheated by f.x. the Devil or by TLE, but then over some time discovered that things were wrong, but that he by then was caught by the situation and/or liked the power too well, and "played the game".

197 5/88: “- - - the things which Allah hath provided for you - - -”. A lose statement only built on the unproved presumption that Allah really has provided it, and not nature itself or your own work. Also see 11/7a below.

198 5/92a: "Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". The mantra of Muhammad, here in a strong form - and a form very practical for a warlord (surah 5 is from 632 AD and he is not just a robber baron any more, but a warlord.) Obey Muhammad! Self centered. Selfish?

For a comparison: Jesus said: "Follow me", which is a long way from "Obey me".

#199 5/93d: "For Allah loveth those who do good". Whenever we see sentences like this and similar, we remember the golden rule for moral: "Do unto others what you want others do unto you". And then we wonder if Allah is able to like Muslims living according to the harsh parts of the Quran's moral rules, and what that in case tells about Allah.

Besides Allah can love nobody unless he exists.

200 5/94b: "Allah doth but make a trial of you - - -". But WHY does an omniscient, predestining god need to make a trial of you??!! There is no logic in this - not unless the Quran is a made up book, and Muhammad needs an explanation for the hardship his followers meet.

####201 5/101b: "Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble". Guess if this is a revealing sentence! Do not ask questions - debate - if the result may be something that put question marks to the Quran!! - the criterion is not to find the truth, but not to find anything which may give you reason to question Islam - true or not is not part of the statement. This tells something serious about Muhammad, about the Quran, and about Islam. And most likely a main reason why Islam ended in its intellectually and culturally blind alley, and petrified and stagnant dark ages from around 1100 AD - dark ages they were forced backwards and protesting (f.x. printing was prohibited in Egypt for 300 years, because "it could be used to hurt Islam") out from by ideas, impulses and technical news from the west, and by military realities - mainly during the last century only. Also see 5/102a below.

202 5/105b: "- - - if ye (Muslims*) follow the (right) guidance, no hurt can come to you - - -". This may perhaps be correct, but only if you get the right guidance. A book like the Quran with that many mistakes, contradictions, etc. at the very best can be only partly right - and a lot wrong.

203 5/105g: "The goal for you all (at the Day of Doom*) is to Allah - - -". Only if Allah exists, if he is a major god, if he is behind what the Quran tells, and if the Quran in addition tells the full truth and only the truth.

204 5/105i: "- - - it is He (Allah*) that will show you the truth of all that ye do". He will show you what you have done of good and bad and judge you from that. Often claimed, never proved.

205 5/116c: “Didst thou (Jesus*) say unto men, ‘worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah’?” Jesus was not involved with Allah - see 3/51a for explanation. As for a divine Jesus, that is not explicitly said in the Bible, but many places it is clearly understood that he was (f.x. if Yahweh really was his father in some way, and also all his miracles – some even confirmed by the Quran (see 5/110 above and the complete verse in the Quran) – indicates something). But when it comes to Mary, Islam is right - saints are not a part of the teaching of the Bible (on the other hand also some Muslims have saints, notably the Shiites). But the Quran also is very wrong: No Christian - not one single - prays to Mary as a god, only as a go-between. The position of Jesus is vaguer - he is divine, but no Christian believes there is more than one god.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and on top of the fact that Abraham did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran tells. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

There also are the strong historical facts that also at the time of Jesus, the Jews' god very clearly was Yahweh, and that no god like the Islamic Allah, no book similar to the Quran, no religion similar to Islam, existed in the entire Roman Empire or anywhere else known to history until after 610 AD.

206 5/120e: "- - - it is He (Allah*) who hath power over all things". Strongly contradicted by the Bible, which says that the powerful one is Yahweh. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

207 6/1e: “Praise be to Allah, who created the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth - - -.” And what does Islam's "everything" look like? In short (included Earth, the Universe and living beings): According to the Quran the “everything” = this:

High above everything - above the 7. heaven - resides Allah.

Under him are the seven heavens – one on top of the other.

The heavens are from something material - if not one could not fasten the stars to one of them, the bodily resurrected Muslims could not live and walk around there, and neither mansions nor thrones could be placed on them.

The heavens are held up by invisible pillars - if not they of course would fall down.

The heavens contains Paradise - and better the higher a Heaven (= closer to Allah).

The Paradise for normal good Muslims seems according to Hadiths to be in 1. heaven. It consists of 4 or 6 or more (exact number not clear) Gardens, one more luxurious than the other

In between the heavens are the sun and the moon (the sun is not said, only indicated to be just here).

Also the sun moves across the sky. (It in reality is the Earth that spins around.)

The sun raises in the east from the Earth, and sets in a pool of dirty water on Earth in the west.

The places for sunrise and sunset was found by Dhu'l Quarnayn = Alexander the Great.

Under the sun and moon, and fastened to the lowest of the 7 heavens (37/6-7, 41/12), are all the stars. (The movements of the planets are not explained.)

Stars also are used as shooting stars to chase away bad spirits and jinns spying on Heaven.

Under the heavens and stars are clouds.

The clouds Allah sometimes breaks to pieces (raindrops).

Under the clouds the birds are kept aloof by only the will of Allah. (The real reason is the aerodynamics.)

Then there is our flat Earth.

On the Earth mountains are set down - not grown up, but set down.

The Earth is kept steady by the mountains.

Without the steadying mountains Earth might start wobbling and tip around

(today Islam points to earth-quakes, but that was not the original meaning according to Muslim scholars of the old).

On "our" Earth are rivers. Hadiths tell that 2 of them - the Nile and the Euphrates - start in Paradise.

On Earth there further are highways - made by Allah.

On the Earth also all kinds of beings live – created from clay or something or nothing.

The first man was Adam - a single man - created in somewhere between 5 and 13 different ways*.

Under our Earth (Hadith) there are more flat Earths – 7 all together.

Islam has names for all the different Earths - and tells (in Hadiths) that the lower down, the more hellish life for the inhabitants.

And at the bottom (Hadith) is Hell.

Hell has seven gates, each leading to a separate part of Hell - one worse than the other.

* Modern Islamic literature seems to indicate that the official point of view of Islam is that man really was created by clay or similar.

Just like what your school and modern science tell you?

(This is one of the really strong and easy to see proofs for that the Quran is not made by an omniscient god - no omniscient god makes mistakes, and absolutely not of this quantity, magnitude and stupidity.)

208 6/3c: "- - - He (Allah*) knoweth the (recompense) which ye (people*) earn (by your deeds)". Then why - WHY - does he need to test his followers and others to find out what he already knows??! This even more so as he decides everything that happens according to the Quran! There is no logic in this. Also see 2/233f above.

209 6/7a: “If We (Allah*) had sent unto thee (Muhammad*) a written (message) on parchment, so that they (Muslims and non-Muslims*) could touch it with their hands, the Unbelievers have been sure to say: ’This is nothing but obvious magic!’” Muhammad never ever was able to prove anything about what he told his mostly naïve and uneducated audience. But he got questions about and demands for such proofs many times from followers and others – this is mentioned repeatedly in the Quran. He had to evade those requests and demands, and an obvious way was to find ways of explaining them away. Here the technique he uses is “No matter what proofs I produce, they will not believe anyhow, so why produce proofs at all?” Swindlers and cheats frequently use such techniques. It is obvious for anyone able to think for himself or herself that the logic is twisted and wrong – but the ones wanting to believe or the very naïve might believe in it. What is more serious is that Muhammad was an intelligent man and a man knowing a lot about how to treat and sway people. There is no way he did not know he used twisted logic and dishonest psychology and story, and that a real miracle - or more than one - had made new believers, even if some would try to call it magic. And no way that he did not know that if he produced real evidence that would strengthen his followers enormously and make huge numbers of unbelievers become believers. In a short sentence: There is no way an intelligent man did not know this excuse was a lie. This even more so as he/the Quran told that all the sorcerers of pharaoh Ramses II became good Muslims because of a small miracle Moses made.

210 6/12f: “That He (Allah*) will gather you together for the Day of Judgment, there is no doubt whatever.” With so many mistakes, contradictions, so much wrong logic in the teachings, there is serious doubt about anything in the Quran and in Islam – and with a good reason – included the so-called last day and judgment by a god like Allah. Besides it is contradicted by the Bible, which claims this will be the job of Yahweh. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

211 6/13c: "For He (Allah*) is the One Who heareth and knoweth all things." Just a reminder to Muslims: Stay in line! Also see 2/233h above.

212 6/20e: "(Jews and Christians*) refuse therefore (because of their blasphemy*) to believe". Wrong. The reason was that they easily and clearly saw that Muhammad was not telling the truth when he claimed that Yahweh and Allah was the same god, and further claimed that their religions and Islam were the same religion.

213 6/25b: "- - - if they (non-Muslims*) saw every one of the Signs (intended to mean indication or proof for Allah*), they would not believe in them - - -". Which far from is strange, as there is not one single sign in the entire Quran or anywhere else which proves there is a god, not to mention proves that the claimed god in case is Allah. Any believer in any religion can disuse the claimed signs on behalf of his/her god just as easily and cheaply as Muhammad did. In not one single case it is proved that it is Allah who is behind the phenomena Muhammad uses as "signs", and thus the claims are invalid. (There is a possible exception for some of the signs "borrowed" from the Bible, and where there were witnesses, but they in case prove Yahweh, not Allah.)

##214 6/28c: "But if they (sinners in Hell*) were returned (to a second chance on Earth*), they would certainly relapse to the things they were forbidden - - -". This is one more of the places in the Quran where Muhammad knew he was lying. There is not one chance that a man as intelligent and with so much knowledge about people as Muhammad, did not know that after really experiencing a place like Hell, each and everybody would do their outmost not to end there again - and after such a terrifying lesson, most of them would succeed. This even more so as such an experience would make more or less all of them believers, as they had got a solid proof for that the religion was true. It is nearly incredible that intelligent people - not to mention educated modern people of today - are able to believe a claim like this.

215 6/35a: “- - - yet if thou were able to seek a tunnel in the ground or a ladder to the skies and bring them (people – because also Muslims asked for proofs*) a Sign – (what good?)” Yes, the rhetoric question would be: What good would a real proof do? And the as rhetoric – but wrong because of twisted logic and even more twisted psychology – would be: Nothing, because the unbelievers would not believe anyhow. Who but deceivers need to twist logical and psychological facts? The real fact is that some real proofs had given many new followers. Also see 6/7–9 above and 6/35b just below. But Muhammad was unable to prove anything essential - the real reason for disbelief.

Muhammad was too intelligent and knew too much about people not to know that if there had been real proofs, many had become believers. One more place where Muhammad knew he was lying in the Quran.

216 6/42: "Before thee (Muhammad*) We (Allah*) sent (messengers) to many nations - - -". Muhammad claimed there had been sent messengers for Islam to all groups of humans, all mankind, throughout the history - and prehistory. The number 124ooo prophets through the millenniums are mentioned in Hadiths (= 620 at any time for 5ooo years or 12-15 for 160ooo-200ooo, if each worked for 25 years. No traces found - believe it if you can) . The problem, however, is that no traces of all these claimed prophets or of the teaching of such a monotheistic religion have ever been found, neither in history, nor in legends, nor in architecture (temples, etc), art, archeology, or anywhere - not even in fairy tales. The only exception is Israel, where a "narrow string" - often only one of any consequence at a time scattered through many centuries - kept the one god religion alive and mainly dominant. There is nothing else. Well, there are episodes like Akn Aton and his sun god in Egypt, but those few do not count here, especially as they clearly were pagan religions, and similar goes for the Zoroastrians in Persia. Nothing. No traces. And when you compare this to the results of a few dozen real prophets in Israel, or the traces from Muhammad - one single claimed prophet - and are told that 124ooo others did not leave a single trace, you simply do not believe there ever were all those prophets - you believe it all is fantasy simply. If not Islam proves anything, but they never do - only claims. And remember: "Claims without proofs can be dismissed without proofs" - and even more so if there are strong indicia or even proofs for that they are wrong. The number 124ooo is not true - like so much else within Islam. Most likely the correct number is nil - and this may include Muhammad's claim about being a prophet (he according to the Quran was unable to make prophesies - "see the unseen" - and a man unable to make prophesies is no prophet).

*217 6/57e: “He (Allah) declares the Truth”. May be he does, but in that case outside the Quran, as what is referred in the Quran, is at best only partly the truth - too many mistaken facts, too many contradictions, too many mistakes in the Arab language according to literature, too many invalid “signs” and “proofs” - and may be some other mistakes, too - - - perhaps even religious mistakes (why should they be exceptions?) Plus a lot of unclear language. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. Actually: With so many mistakes that you find in the Quran, it at best is partly the truth.

218 6/73d: "- - - He (Allah*) saith, 'Be', behold, it is." The Quran other places claims Jesus could not be the son of the god, because the god had no woman (wrong: In the very old Hebrew religion there was a female - Yahweh's Amat - but over centuries and millenniums she was forgotten in that very masculine society. Source: New Scientist and others, and thus the god might have got a son in the "normal" way in spite of the Quran's words about this a couple of places). But may be the god said: "Be a son", and behold, Jesus was. And who are we who say that a god does not like a son?

Also see 3/69c above.

###219 6/101d: "He (Allah*) created all things - - -". A glorifying claim - but like normal for Muhammad never proved. Big words are easy to use when you do not have to prove them. We remind you of "claims without proofs can be dismissed without proofs" (this even more so at it is the one who makes a claim, who has the duty of proving it - not the others to disprove it like Muslims claim. Muslims have found the easy way here to dupe and trap the naive and the uneducated ones. Demand proofs from Muslims for what they claim before starting an argument. You will find they never are able to prove any of the central claims in Islam - claimed "proofs" yes, valid proofs no. Would you risk your money in a "Nigerian Bluff" or "Nigerian swindle"? - some naive ones do, and every single of them till this day has lost. More than a billion humans - many of whom would laugh at gambling their money on demands for blind belief - gamble their possible next life on demanded blind belief in a documented - even documented by Islam - unreliable and immoral man wrapped in glorious words, and in his never proved, but often clearly proved wrong, claims.

Such is the truth about man's intelligence.

####220 6/104c: "Now have (the Quran*) come - - - from your (Muslim's) Lord (Allah*) - - - I (Muhammad*) am not here to watch over your (people's) doings". THIS IS A SERIOUS ONE: Here it is Muhammad who is speaking - - - in a book presumably made eons ago in Heaven!!! - an impossibility and a clear contradiction of the Islamic claim that it is a copy of the Mother Book in the Heaven. (There are some 8 such cases in the Quran (1/1-7, 2/286c, 6/104c, 6/114, 11/2b, 19/36b, 27/91a, 42/10a and 51/50-51a + likely, 84/15-16)- but seems to be more - - - - and 16/63 use the word "today", referring to the time Muhammad released it), and at least two cases where angels are speaking - see 37/164-166 and 41/30-32.) Clear proof(s) for that the Quran is not from Heaven - at least not all of it. This lines up with facts like:

  1. There are lots and lots and lots and lots of mistakes in the book.
  2. There are lots and lots of invalid “signs” and “proofs” in the book.
  3. There are lots and lots of invalid logic in the book.
  4. There are lots and lots and lots of invalid statements in the book.
  5. There are lots and lots of contradictions in the book.
  6. There are lots and lots of unclear language in the book.

  7. There are lots and lots of grammatical and linguistic errors in the book.
  8. There are lots and lots of non-Arab words in a book claiming to be in pure Arab.
  9. PLUS A HISTORICAL FACT ISLAM AND ITS MUSLIMS N E V E R MENTION: THERE IS NOWHERE IN THE WORLD EVER FOUND EVEN ONE SINGLE TRACE FROM A BOOK LIKE THE QURAN OLDER THAN 610 AD, WHEN MUHAMMAD STARTED HIS MISSION. (This in spite of that according to the Quran a similar book has been sent down to 124ooo prophets/messengers all over the world through the times + copies made from these, according to Hadiths (= 620 at any time for 5ooo years or 12-15 for 160ooo-200ooo, if they on average worked for 25 years. No traces found. Believe it if you can.) This is many more than there ever existed of the Bible, and from the Bible there are some 13ooo copies (of parts of the Bible - some 300 copies of Gospels) or scraps from the Bible + some 32ooo with quotes from or references to Biblical texts, all older than 610 AD. But as said from the Quran nothing.) NOT IN LITERATURE, NOT IN ARCHEOLOGY, NOT IN ART (this even though art in Islam often is to draw/paint quotes from the Quran in high quality script), NOT IN HISTORY. NOTHING. NOWHERE.

##221 6/106b: "- - - there is no god but He (Allah*) - - -". Often claimed in Islam, but never proved.

  1. There actually is no natural law prohibiting more than one god. (The Quran tries to claim this one or a few places, but uses invalid arguments and invalid logic). Or prohibiting even no god.
  2. But if we for the sake of simplicity say that polytheism is out, there still remains the problem with Yahweh - the god of Jews and Christians.
  3. Yahweh is an old god - he (his religion) can be traced by science all the way back through history and far into prehistory. If the books are reliable on this point, there is no doubt about his existence and his power - this according to both the Bible and the Quran.
  4. There is not one single trace of the Muslim version of Allah - or of his claimed earlier prophets (except the Biblical ones) - older than 610 AD, not within ANY kind of science: Archeology, architecture, art, literature, history - not even in legends or in fairy tales.
  5. Allah only - only - exists in a book full of mistakes, and dictated by a man believing in al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), etc., and wanting respect and power and money for bribes and women - - - and according to Islamic sources with few qualms about how he got hold of it (including using a new religion as his platform of power).
  6. To make matter worse: That book is so full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. and except for polished language of such an amateur quality, that no god was involved in it - to claim the opposite is slander and an insult and heresy against the god one blames the work on.

  7. There is nowhere even the smallest trace of a mosque older than 610 AD (Kabah in Mecca may partly be older, but that was a pagan temple taken over by Muhammad).
  8. There nowhere exists one single proof for the existence of Allah or for Muhammad’s connection to a god
  9. There are hundreds and more of mistakes, contradictions, unclear language, etc. and even some obvious lies in the Quran - 110% proofs for that it is not from a god.
  10. Muhammad tried to claim - and with considerable success - that Yahweh was the same god as Allah, and that Allah thus was an old and mighty god.
  11. But the fundamental differences between the two teachings and also between the codes of moral and ethics of the two, and other things, are so many and so deep, that this claim simply is not true (one possible exception: If the god is deeply schizophrenic).
  12. Muhammad tried to explain the differences by claiming - as always without a proof - that the Bible is falsified. Modern science has long since proved that this is not true (some 45ooo relevant manuscripts and each and every one of them without any trace of falsification). Islam has proved it even stronger: If there had existed one single real falsification, the world had been told about it several times a day.
  13. Then there is the question of the Bible, which both in OT (f.x. several places in Isaiah 44 and 45) and many places in NT declare that there is no god but Yahweh - in spite of Muhammad's claims a very different god.
  14. And not to forget: If Allah all the same exists, there remains the question: What is he? He is no god - no god delivers a book of a quality like the Quran. But he may be something from the dark forces dressed up to cheat Muhammad. Muhammad would not have a chance to see the difference. (Personally we doubt that even a devil would make such a sorry book like the Quran - he had to know all the errors would be discovered sooner or later, and he would lose credibility. But there is the chance that may be there was a god prohibiting him to use anything better - - - and he also might have taken into account the standard human religious blindness - the inability many humans have to see what they do not wish to see.

Decide for yourself: What are the chances for that Allah exists and in case is a lone god? - and what in case are the chances for that he just is another name for Yahweh?

##########Also remember "taqlid" - the uncritical acceptance of what the fathers claim must be true, "because so our father again had heard from his father and others, and then it must be true". (This - "taqlid" - is the main reason why most Muslims today believe, because very few have sat down and read the Quran with a critical eye and checked if it really is true.)

222 6/108e: “Thus have We (Allah*) made alluring to each people its own doings”. ######This sentence should be extremely thought-provoking also to Muslims. All the mistakes, etc., in the Quran proves 100% and more that the book is not from any god. And large parts of the religion and its moral code may - may - indicate that dark forces are involved (whereas all the wrong knowledge one believed was correct science in Arabia at that time + all the tales "borrowed" from Muhammad's surroundings strongly indicates that the Quran is made by one or more humans in Arabia at the time of Muhammad - with Muhammad as the prime suspect (also because the Quran settles personal problems for him - such things do not belong in a "Mother of the Book" revered by a god and his angels).)

Also see 8/48a below.

###223 6/109i: “- - - what will make you (Muslims) realize that (even) if (special) Signs came, they (non-Muslims*) will not believe?” Wrong. If there were real proofs of a god - miracles - at least a good number of people would believe - that is a psychological fact (look f.x. at the Pharaoh’s magicians and Moses, and at the results of Jesus' miracles). The sentence really is fast-talking to “explain” away why Allah/Muhammad was unable to produce unmistakable proofs for Allah. Worse: An intelligent man like Muhammad knew this argument is a lie - and all the same he used it frequently. This simply is one of the places in the Quran where Muhammad knew he was lying.

###224 6/111a: “Even if We (Allah*) did send unto them (non-Muslims*) angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is Allah’s plan”. This may be understood in two ways – both quite fast talk:

  1. Another and strengthen variety of no. 7/120a and others - with Muhammad lying in the Quran.
  2. Some of Muhammad’s audience questioned the obviously wrong logic and psychology in that clear proofs would not impress anybody, and needed a reason why not – and got the all-encompassing and ultimate answer to all difficult or unanswerable questions: It is Allah’s will - sometimes the fastest of all fast-talk.

#########This is one of the places in the Quran where Muhammad knew he was lying - produce some real miracles, and at least some will believe, and this even more so as in old times with naive, uneducated, superstitious people, not as skeptical towards such things as people nowadays - it was easier to make people believe.

##########225 6/114ca: "- - - He (Allah*) it is Who hath sent unto you (Muslims*) the Book (the Quran*) explained in detail - - -". If Allah has explained everything in detail, who can then explain it better - or explain that the clumsy Allah meant something different from what he said? But that is one of Islam's and Muslims' standard "explanations" for "explaining" away errors and difficult points in the Quran: As what the text says is impossible, horrible, or something, Allah cannot have meant what he said, but must have told a parable, allegory, metaphor, or something, without indicating so, "but we intelligent humans can explain it better and tell you what Allah 'really' must have meant!!".

THE MOST CENTRAL POINT HERE IS JUST THIS THAT THE QURAN CONFIRMS THAT THINGS ACCORDING TO THE QURAN ARE EXPLAINED IN DETAIL = TO BE UNDERSTOOD LITERALLY. THIS DOCUMENTS THAT WHEN ISLAM AND MUSLIMS CLAIM THAT ERRORS, CONTRADICTIONS, ETC. AND OTHER BAD POINTS DO NOT MEAN WHAT THE TEXTS SAY, BUT ARE ALLEGORIES OR SOMETHING, SUCH CLAIMS AND EXPLAINING AWAY ARE WRONG. BESIDES: WHO CAN EXPLAIN BETTER THAN AN OMNISCIENT GOD?

226 6/116a: "They (non-Muslims*) follow nothing but conjecture." With that many mistakes, etc. in the Quran, it is an open question if also Muslims are following conjectures - - - and if perhaps some of the others are following a real religion (who knows?) In that case; where will all the Muslims who were denied the possibility to search for the truth - about Islam and about other religions - end in a possible next life?

227 6/121b: "But the Satans ever inspire their friends (non-Muslims*) to contend with you (Muslim*); if ye were to obey them, ye would indeed be pagans". An interesting sentence when one remember that one of the 3 possible makers of a book of a quality like the Quran, is the dark forces (the other two are a sick human brain (TLE?) and a cold human brain - no god was ever involved in a book as full of errors and worse as the Quran).

228 6/127b: "- - - A Home of Peace - - -". Islam's Paradise - see 10/9f below.

It is a bit remarkable that even though the best Muslim is the warrior, its paradise has no use for warriors - it is claimed to be a place of peace. ####Is warring not the best all the same?

229 6/132a: "To all (Muslims in the Quran's paradise*) are degrees (or ranks) according to their deeds - - -". It is many places in the Quran made clear that the Islamic paradise is a class society. (But it is nowhere explained how you can get all your family around you in the paradise, it they do not all merit the same level or class).

You do not find a society divided in classes in the Bible's Paradise - one of the strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god (if they had been, their Paradise had been one and the same.)

230 6/150e: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Signs as falsehoods - - -". The claimed signs mostly in themselves are ok - they normally are real, existing natural phenomena. What are falsehoods is to treat them as signs - read "proofs" - for a god, without first proving that it is that god who causes those phenomena. Without such proofs first, the claim is totally without logic or value. And who is it who has to rely on bluffs, fast-talk and made up claims? - the cheater, the deceiver, the swindler.

231 6/152c: "Whenever ye (Muslims*) speak, speak justly - - -", - - - except when it is better to use al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth - or may be more exact; making mental reservations against what you say), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), or when it simply is better to deceive or to break your word or even your oath to gain a better result. Islam and the Quran has some special rules for speaking the truth - rules you find in no other of the big religions, and rules one has to beware of, as you never can be sure that a Muslim really is speaking the truth. (A problem also for Muslims: If he really is speaking the truth and others do not believe him, he has no way of strengthening his words.)

232 6/162c: "- - - Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds (plural and wrong*) - - -". Contradicted by the Bible which tells this is Yahweh's job. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

233 6/164d: "Your goal in the end is towards Allah". Contradicted by the Bible, which says it is towards Yahweh. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

234 7/2f: "- - - and teach the Believers". Can you teach anyone what is right from a book where much is wrong? - and can you teach s right religion from a book where there is no god behind (no god had made that many errors, etc.)?

###235 7/28b: “Allah never commands what is shameful - - -.” This is contradicted by several points in the Quran, f.x.:

  1. 2/230: “If a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, remarry her until after she has married another husband and he has divorced her.” This situation is not common, but it does happen in a culture where divorce is as easy as in Islam. In Islam the woman then has to prostitute herself in legal forms, to be permitted to do so (the intermediate marriage has to be a “fulfilled" one).
  2. Enslaving is “lawful and good”.
  3. Killing and murdering and war are not only good and lawful, but the best service to Allah.
  4. A raped woman who cannot produce 4 male witnesses to the very act, is to be punishes severely for indecency.
  5. Allah commands/permits sex with children. For an adult to enjoy sex with a child is utterly shameful. For an adult to introduce a child to sex is inhuman and even more shameful. Muhammad even demonstrated that it was ok at least from the girl is 9 – and worse: She – Aishah - became his favorite wife the rest of her childhood.
  6. Allah commands that one can take slaves in a jihad - and any skirmish or war where Muslims are involved, is declared jihad. For centuries (till ca. 1930 – 1940) all the four law schools of Islam said that if the opposite parts were pagans, this was good enough reason to declare jihad – which means that at least theoretically any slave hunter in Africa or Asia could claim to be waging jihad. To force fellow humans to become slaves, to toil for free for you, to be free for you to sell or mistreat or use for a sex toy, is utterly inhuman, utterly selfish, utterly immoral – and utterly shameful. Not to mention that it is a grotesque act to commit in the name of a presumed god and benevolent good.
  7. To rape a child captive/slave/victim is grotesquely selfish, immoral, inhuman and grotesquely shameful - - - but Allah has commanded that it is ok if the child is mot pregnant - at least if she is over 9 years according to Islam (the age of Aishah when Muhammad started to have sex with her - anything Muhammad did is just and right) or perhaps even less.
  8. To rape any woman prisoner/slave/victim – a fellow human being – is nearly as selfish and shameful and bad as raping a child. But in the Quran it is “lawful and good” if the woman is not pregnant. That it is "lawful and good" may be a reason why rape is so common by Muslim warriors/soldiers. (Another possible reason is that empathy is not an integrated part of Islam - and the same with moral philosophy).
  9. To murder opponents – also personal opponents – in the name of a presumably good god is something much more than shameful.
  10. To incite to discrimination, hate and war, in the name of a presumably good god is even worse than this again – and a proof for a god or a “prophet” full of hypocrisy.
  11. To steal/rob/plunder and extort in the name of such a god – and with his permission as “lawful and good” - is nearly a bad and as much hypocrisy as raping and killing and apartheid/suppression. And to do so in the name of a god, makes the god, the religion and the acts even more perverted and distasteful. But all these points have this in common:
    1. They attract selfish warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
    2. They attract greedy warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
    3. They attract inhuman warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
    4. They attract primitive warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
    5. It is a cheap way for a robber “prophet” – and for his successors – to get an army – a cheap army and an inhuman army.

Finally: Severe or capital punishment for a woman who has been raped, but is unable to produce 4 male eye witnesses to the very act most likely is the most inhuman, most immoral, most unjust, and most shameful law we have ever come across in any at least half civilized religion or culture, and Allah/Muhammad has introduced this law.

236 7/43f: "- - - indeed it was the truth, that (the Quran*) the Prophets of our Lord (Allah*) brought unto us (Muslims*)". The Quran tells there have been many, many prophets through the time - Hadiths mention 124ooo (= 620 at any time for 5ooo years or 12-15 for 160ooo-200ooo. No traces found. Believe it if you can.) - who all preached the religion Islam based on the teachings of the Quran - or really a teaching which was a copy of the "mother book" in Heaven like the Quran. But a book with that many mistakes at best only can be partly the truth.

237 7/56a: “Do no mischief on earth, after it has been set in order - - -“. According to our book dishonesty, murder, rape, stealing/robbing, hate, suppression, enslaving, murder, war, etc. are mischief. But maybe it only is against Muslims that is immoral and forbidden, and not against non-Muslims?

238 7/65e: (Hud said:) "You (the Ad tribe*) have no other god but Him (Allah*)." As mentioned; according to Muhammad Allah throughout all times have been the one and main god to all people. He only have been overwhelmed and his teachings falsified by humans believing in pagan gods. Also see 6/106b above.

########It is a strange claim that an omnipotent, predestined god is not stronger than claimed made up gods - they outcompeted him all over the world.

It also is strange that there is not one single trace found from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or from prophets/messengers teaching a religion like Islam anywhere in the world from before 610 AD when Muhammad started his preaching - not in architecture, not in archaeology, not in history, not in literature, not in folklore or legends, yes, not even in fairy tales.

239 7/80f: Here is an interesting comment in (YA1049). Yusuf Ali comments on what is told in the Bible (1. Mos. 19/30-38) about Lot committing incest with his two daughters, something which is not mentioned in the Quran: "His (Lot's*) story is Biblical, but freed from some shameful features which are a blot on the Biblical narrative". The question is not if the story about the incest is true or not, but that it is a blot on the story of a claimed prophet (the Quran claims Lot was a prophet, which the Bible does not do). "A story we like is sometimes better than looking for what is the truth", someone once said. Truth at best plays second fiddle in Islam - IN SPITE OF THAT IN SUCH A SERIOUS QUESTION AS THE ENTIRE POSSIBLE FUTURE LIFE ONLY ONE THING SHOULD COUNT: THE TRUTH.

And: From where did Muhammad get his version? As no god was involved in a book as full of errors as the Quran, there are not many options.

##########240 7/89c: “- - - nor could we (humans*) by any manner or means return thereto (the right way*), unless it be as in the will and plan of Allah - - -:” It - according to the Quran - is Allah who decides everything in this (and in the claimed next) world, as he predestines everything according to his Plan, and you can do nothing which is not in his plan ###############(which should mean that this book about the Quran is decided by Allah, and part of his Plan - thus there is no reason for Muslims to be angry with us, as it is Allah's decision that we should write it).

The "fact" (according to the Quran) that Allah predestines everything, influences the Quran's and Islam's moral code and Muslims' behavior.

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

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

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

##241 7/101d: “- - - they (non-Muslims*) would not believe what they had rejected before.” (Literally: “- - - to which they had given the lie aforetime”.)

#####Comment A7/80 (7/82 in the 2008 English edition): “- - - an allusion to the instinctive unwillingness of most people to give up the notions – positive or negative – to which they are accustomed.”

But the book skips also here the fact that this also goes for Muslims: If they are strongly indoctrinated like Muslims are, they may react strongly to arguments and facts they do not like – and without thinking over – or being mentally unable to think over – even true facts. To live in "taqlid" - uncritical acceptance of what your father and surroundings believe is the truth - is easier and less demanding.

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

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

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

242 7/105c: "- - - your (the Pharaoh's*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". Science says that if the exodus ever happened, it took place around 1235 BC. That means under the mighty and well known Pharaoh Ramses II (Islam wants it to have happened earlier under pharaohs whose reason for death is not known - Ramses II did not drown (guess if 3 religions had vocalized about it if this had been the case!)). What is very sure, is that Allah was no known god to Ramses II, except perhaps as one of many gods in a distant country. And what is as sure, is that Ramses II was a polytheist. And his main god likely was the big Egyptian god Ptah, as one of his sons, the one who succeeded him on the throne, was named Merneptah or Meremptah (Merne-Ptah or Merem-Ptah).

We may add that originally Hubal was the moon god in Arabia, and some sources say the Kabah originally was his temple and dedicated to him. But when Muhammad was born, al-Lah - sometimes named Allah - may have taken over as Arabia's main god. It is a bit ironic that a building dedicated to an old moon god (be it Hubal or al-Lah/Allah - because also Allah had been a moon god and the crescent moon still is his symbol) was and is the most holy place on Earth for a claimed only and claimed omnipotent god - and as ironic is the fact that if Muhammad had been born earlier, Islam's god might have been named Hubal, not Allah (Muhammad simply took over the claimed mightiest of the pagan Arab gods, and earlier Hubal was reckoned to be the most powerful one - and the moon god like al-Lah had been and perhaps still was).

########We have not mentioned much about al-Lah/Allah's position in the Kabah before Muhammad. The reason is that it is quite unclear. There are the two gods mentioned as the main god for the Quraysh tribe = the main god in the Kabah: Hubal, the moon god, and al-Lah/Allah - also a moon god, at least in southern parts of Arabia. There are clear indications, but no proofs, for that these two really and simply were two names for the same god - perhaps with Hubal as his "personal" name and al-Lah/Allah his title (al-Lah/Allah means "the god", or in this case "the main god").

There also are indications for that there were connections between Hubal and the Ba'al known from f.x. the Bible - same god and similar name (HuBal), but in another variety of religion. If this is true, the Quran and Islam are way beyond the Milky Way when they forward claims like Zachariya prayed to Allah/Hubal/Ba'al, or that Jesus preached about Allah/Hubal/Ba'al, as in those times such connections would be known, even if they are forgotten today, and Ba'al represented the Devil to the Jews of those times.

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

243 7/105d: One small "en passent" here as Muslims do not like the timing of the Exodus, and as M. Yusuf Ali makes a comment (in A1073 to this verse) "(The Jews stayed in Egypt*) perhaps two to four centuries. (Renan allows only one century).": The Bible is very clear on how long time the Jews spent in Egypt: 430 Years, and there was no reason for the Jews to falsify this number, in addition to that in spite of Islam's claims no falsification is known in the Bible - mistakes yes, falsifications no (again: Guess if Islam had screamed about it if even one documented case had been found!). But as Ramses II did not drown, Islam needs to use an earlier pharaoh where one does not know how he died - f.x. Thothmes I (ca. 1540 BC) is mentioned. But Jacob - the patriarch who took the Jews to Egypt -lived around 1800 BC (if he is not fiction), or to be exact: Abraham lived - if he is not fiction - around 2ooo - 1800 BC. Jacob was his grandson, and as Abraham was old when he got Isaac (the father of Jacob) it is realistic to say Jacob lived around 1800 BC or perhaps a bit later. Then it is not possible to use earlier pharaohs than Ramses II if the Jews stayed 430 years. A little twist is necessary in case - and voila!: Islam says (the mentioned YA comment 1073): "- - - Israel stayed there perhaps two to four centuries." Problem solved - without any source for the estimate given. May be the 430 years in the Bible is a falsification? (but in case why?) - the standard and easy "explanation" Muhammad always used.

There is another point here you never hear Muslims mention: According to the Bible (1. Mos. 46/27) the Jews were 80 - 90 (70 + the wives of Jacob's sons) when they settled in Egypt. The same book mentions 2 - 3 places that when they left Egypt, they were 600ooo men = something like 2.ooo.ooo included women and children. It at least theoretically is quite possible for say 80-90 to become 2.ooo.ooo in 430 years. But it is in no way possible - scientific nonsense - in 200 or 300 years (and 100 years is a joke) , and even 400 years may be unlikely - for a geometrical curve like this one is, one extra generation makes a big difference. Also this makes an exodus and a pharaoh around 1500 - 1600 BC like Islam likes to claim to get rid of Ramses II, impossible.

There are some scientists, though, who thinks Exodus happened a little later, under the son of Ramses II, Merneptah. But that in case as said means later and not before - and under another pharaoh we know did not drown.

Honesty is not always a main thing in Islam. An indoctrinated rule.

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

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

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

###244 7/120a: After Moses made his miracle “the sorcerers fell down prostate in adoration”, and were convinced that the god of Moses was a strong and real one. This is one of the proofs for that Muhammad knew he was lying when he time and again told his audiences that it would have no effect to perform miracles, because disbelievers would not believe anyhow, and thus explained away the fact that he (and his presumed god) was unable to make miracles and thus prove his claims. Here he tells just the opposite: Disbelievers - even sorcerers - in Muhammad's own words here became Muslims because of one small miracle in his own story about Moses(!), - also psychologically a much more correct story on just this one point. The same story in f.x. 20/69-70. That Muhammad told this story, ######shows that he knew miracles work, and thus that he knew he was lying in the Quran every time he told Allah did not send miracles because it would make nobody believe anyhow.

Honesty is not always a main thing in Islam. The indoctrinated rule of al-Taqiyya.

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

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

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

245 7/128a: "Said Moses to his people: 'Pray for help from Allah - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which claims Yahweh was the god of Moses. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and on top of the fact that Abraham did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran tells. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

246 7/146f: “- - - even if they (non-Muslims*) see all the Signs (of Allah*), they will not believe in them”. Wrong: They would - - - if the “signs” of Allah really had been real signs of Allah. F.x. see the pharaoh’s magicians. This is one more place in the Quran Muhammad knew he was lying - some reliable signs, and a lot of people will believe. Muhammad was too intelligent and knew too much about people not to know this. But NB: Only in the case of reliable signs.

*247 7/157a: “- - - the Messenger, unlettered Prophet (Muhammad) - - -”. Islam frequently tells that Muhammad was 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.) This simply is part of the indoctrination in Islam. 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 (at least 2 - one connected to the agreement at Hudaybiyah, and one when he was dying and wanted to write down something) 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" or similar.

Islam's use of Muhammad's claim of being 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 (in the old times before newspapers, radio, and electric light, this was a rich tradition in most parts of the world). But Islam's dishonesty also is revealing: It reveals that they have few or none real facts and arguments on these points (like on 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.

#######248 7/157e: “- - - the unlettered Prophet (Muhammad*), whom they (Jews and Christians*) find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) - in the Law (OT*) and the Gospel (NT*) - - -”. Muhammad's words - and Muhammad at least knew that Jewish scholars who knew the Bible, denied he was mentioned there - if they had believed he was in the Bible, they had followed him. (There is a claimed story about a Jewish scholar believing in him. This may be true - but what is one or two against the great majority who saw they in case were wrong? - or it may be a made up tale.) You often meet Muslims claiming or stating that Mohammad is foretold in the Bible - like normal for Muslims without documentation. They have to claim this, as it is said here in the Quran, and if there are mistakes in the Quran, the book is not from a god - an omniscient god do not make mistakes - and then Islam is a religion built on a made up "holy" book. We have never been able to find a complete list of where he is said to be mentioned – obviously because the educated Muslims mainly speak about one in OT (5. Mos. 18/15+18) and one in NT (John 14/26), but there are some other "weaker" places, too. The ones below are the ones we have found (more or less copied from "Moses in the Bible?" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - https://www.1000mistakes.com ).

There is one point here which Muslims never mention: If Muhammad really was mentioned in the Bible, this had been a strong argument for him to use when trying to win over the Jews (and for that case the Christians, but there were not many Christians in the Mecca/Medina area, compared to the number of Jews) to his religion. As far as we can find, he never used it when speaking to Jews. He also seldom used this claim under other circumstances, even though also for his Arab followers such an indication for that he really was a prophet, would have had great value. A very likely reason for that he did not use such a valuable claim, is that he knew or at least suspected that it was not true, and that the Jews with their books easily would see this.

There is another serious point to this Islamic claim: Many of the Islamic scholars know the Bible quite well - this is obvious from the fact that they frequently quote the Bible when there are points there which they like or where they wants to express that the Quran has a better point of view on just this-and-this than the Bible. They thus have to know f.x. how the word "brother" - the main word in this case in 5. Mos. 18/15+18 - in the figurative meaning is used in the Bible. It is used figuratively at least 325 times in that book, and no-one knowing the Bible would get the idea that in any - not one - of all these places Arabs are indicated. It is very clear that practically always in OT it means fellow Jews (there are something like 5 exceptions - one place a king is calling another, friendly king his brother, 3 times it is specified one meant descendants after Esau (the brother of Jacob) and one time Abraham says it to Lot. Well, actually there may be one more exception (1. Mos. 25/18): "And they (the 12 sons of Ishmael*) lived in hostility to all their brothers". If this means they were quarreling between themselves, the meaning is literal. If it means they quarreled with the sons of Isaac, the meaning may be figurative or it may be literal - meaning the closest relatives (this is nearly the last time Ishmael and his descendants are mentioned in the Bible - after all they lived far off - - - and far from Mecca where Muhammad claimed they lived.) All the other times it refers to other Jews. It is not possible to study the Bible/OT and not see this. Also in the Quran the word is used figuratively - more than 30 times. The only time it refers to Jews there, is one case where Muhammad links hypocrites to Jews and claims they are brothers. Also Arabia and Arabs are mentioned in the Bible - some 13 times - and always in neutral words or as enemies, never as friends, not to mention brothers. All the same Islam and its scholars straight-facedly tell their readers and their audiences that "brothers" in 5. Mos. 18/15+18 refer to Arabs and thus to Muhammad. There only are 2 possible explanations for such dishonesty: An al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie) to "explain" Muhammad's perhaps slip of the tongue, or wishful thinking stronger than their intellectual integrity.

Nearly as bad is the Muslim scholars' position concerning the main claim in NT, John 14/26. It f.x. is both physically and biologically impossible that Muhammad could be a helper of Jesus' disciples, as he was born something like 500 years after they were dead. All the same they tell their audiences that John 14/26 is about Muhammad and a proof for that he was foretold and a prophet. (John 14/26 refers to the Holy Spirit which according to the Bible came to and in a way became parts of the disciples some days later at Pentecost. More further down.) Also see 7/157d just above.

This is part of the central indoctrination in Islam. You find much more about this in the chapter "Muhammad in the Bible" or under 7/157e in our Book F

*249 7/162a: “But the transgressors (Jews*) among them changed the word (of the Bible*) from that which had been given them - - -“. Well, well. The only way for Muhammad to save his religion and his power, was to claim that the Bible was falsified – and this he claimed and claimed without ever producing one single real proof. That is exactly the situation for Islam today: To save itself and the religion (which is more essential that to find out if it really is a true religion with a real god) – and the positions of the leaders – it has to claim and claim - this and other things, without being able to prove one single of the central claims. But today the position is more difficult, because science has so many old documents and fragments, that they know Islam is not speaking the truth. See f.x. 7/157a-d. The Bible never was falsified according to science. (And Islam even more strongly proves the same, as even they have been unable to find proved falsifications.)

250 7/186d: "To such (persons*) Allah rejects from His guidance, there can be no guide - - -". Wrong if other gods - f.x. Yahweh - exist - - - and especially wrong if Allah in addition is a made up god, not to mention if he is from the dark forces (the facts concerning the Quran does not bode well here).

251 7/190b: "- - - Allah is exalted high above (anything*) - - -". Often claimed, never proved. There only are the words of Muhammad for this claim - and judge for yourself how reliable a man Muhammad was with his al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies), Kitmans (lawful half-truths), deceits, broken promises/words/oaths according to the Quran (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the stare 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), and his "War is deceit", etc.

252 7/192b: "- - - nor can they (other gods*) aid themselves!" This is correct if they do not exist, wrong if they do exist. It is highly likely most of them do not exist - but there are some strange stories about f.x. Yahweh if the old books tell the truth. Allah is in a weak position - for one thing his claimed "holy" book has so many mistakes, etc. that it is from no god, and for another thing he was and is unable even to prove he existed, not to mention prove that Muhammad had any connection to him or that what Muhammad told was even partly true. Muhammad and his Quran proves that something is very wrong concerning Allah and hence with Muhammad and with Islam.

253 7/196c: "- - - Allah, who revealed the Book (the Quran*) (from time to time) - - -". The Quran claims that as the times changed, new messages had to be sent (but not after Muhammad, even though there have been much more - MUCH more - changes after Muhammad than during all the times before him put together: 124ooo (= 620 at any time for 5ooo years or 12-15 for 160ooo-200ooo. No traces found. Believe it if you can.) prophets before Muhammad according to Islam, zero and nil after. And also no new holy book. Understand it who can.)

######An interesting mathematical fact: If we operate with a normal religious time frame, Adam lived something like 5ooo years before the claimed last prophet, Muhammad. If we say that Hadiths' number 124ooo had been correct, and that each of them worked for 25 years, there all the time from Adam till Muhammad should be on average 620 active prophets working for Allah around the world (more than 3 in every country during all those thousands of years). None of them (except the old Jewish ones - really working for Yahweh) left one single trace anywhere on the entire Earth. Even if you reckon the entire age of Homo Sapiens - 160ooo-200ooo years - there in case during all these eons have been 15-20 prophets working all the time. But no trace from them or a religion like Islam, a god like Allah - or a book like the Quran.

Believe it if you are able to.

254 7/203h: "- - - this (the Quran*) is (nothing but) lights from your (Muslims') Lord (Allah*) - - -". A book with so many errors, etc. is not from a god.

####255 8/1c: “They (the warriors*) ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning (things taken as) spoils of war (riches and slaves and sometimes land*). Say: (Such) spoils are at the disposal of Allah and the Prophet (Muhammad*)”. This is one of the rules Muhammad or the omniscient Allah had to change later (and not much later) - in the end Muhammad only got 20%, except if the victims gave in without a fight (then Muhammad still got 100%). (Islam has another explanation - all belongs to Allah, but 80% may be given to the warriors and to their leaders. But when a "may be" becomes a rule, it is not a "may be" any more). You meet Muslims saying Allah/the Quran never changed anything, but here is one point which was changed shortly afterward. Often Muslims explains changes with that the rules really were not changed, only made stricter or clarified (why should that be necessary for an omniscient god?), but also that are changes. Here is an absolute rule which later had to be changed - the warriors demanded their share of the spoils. Besides: How primitive or greedy has a person to be in order to see a good and benevolent god in a god who permits lies, stealing/robbing, rape, enslaving, suppression, murder, etc. in his name? Incompatible with NT.

####But there is another and very - extremely - serious point here: When raids and stealing/looting and slave-taking expeditions and whatever are planned and executed just for that purpose: To be able to see this as anything but plain and dishonest thievery or robbing, you have be a very special person or belong to a very special culture.

####It happens that Muslims ask about why on Earth they are disliked just because they are Muslims? #####Parts of the Quran's moral code explain a large percent of that question - it is too far from normal moral codes. (But Muslims are so used to it, that they are unable to see its excesses, dishonesty and inhumanity, and honestly believe it is a perfect and most honorable code.)

####256 8/1d: “(The spoils of war*) “are at the disposal of Allah and the Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -.” All that was stolen and looted and robbed in raids and war, included slaves and prisoners for extorting money (this early – 624 AD – it mainly was raids to steal/rob/extort) belonged to Allah – represented by his envoy on earth: Muhammad. But his officers and warriors were too greedy to accept this – they wanted a share of the riches, too. So a bit later in the surah – a few “revelations” later (?) there came a contra order – and abrogation:

  1. ***8/41: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah - - -.” Muhammad had to give the warriors their share – except that he saved everything for himself in the cases where the victims gave in without fighting – then the warriors had done nothing and could not demand a share. Muhammad needed riches. Though it is likely it is true he was not much interested in much luxury, he needed riches for bribes/"gifts" and for waging war to get more power and more riches, included slaves – war cost money even if he paid his warriors with religion and religious promises, then all the same food and equipment cost money – and he needed riches for “gift” to attract more warriors/followers/believers and to keep some of the lukewarm-warm ones - - - and some for social use (help to the poor). Muslims try to explain away this contradiction and abrogation by saying that it all belongs to Allah/the leader, but 80% is given to the warriors/robbers. But the moment it becomes a right for the robbers in raids and warriors in war, the rank and file’s share no longer belongs to the leader.

But remember that also stealing is dishonesty, no matter if you name it loot, spoils of war, or whatever.

257 8/1h: "- - - obey Allah and His Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -". A nice order for Muhammad, because here on Earth that in reality meant "obey Muhammad - completely (as he represent the god)". And Muhammad wanted raids for riches, etc. - a means to gain/buy power (and women).

For comparison: Jesus said "Follow me". There is an ocean between "Follow me" and "Obey me".

258 8/9ba: "I (Allah*) will assist you (Muslims*) with a thousand angels (doing battle*), ranks on ranks". But why do angels have to take part in battles if Allah is omnipotent? Yes, why do Muslims have to fight battles for him and die or become invalids? He just can say "Be, and it is", according to the Quran. Something is seriously wrong.

By the way: How do angels do battle?

259 8/10b: "- - - there is no help except from Allah". But is there from him? - he has never clearly proved it one single time in 1400 years.

260 8/10d: "- - - Allah is Exalted in Power - - -". See 8/10b above.

261 8/12b: “I (Allah*) will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them". This is told by Muslims (comment A8/15 translated from Swedish) to be an Arab expression meaning : #####"Kill absolutely every one of them". (Only to smite off their fingertips, would make them unable as good archers afterwards). A good and benevolent religion full of mercy.*) - - -.” “The god of Peace heading the Religion of Peace”? To call this religion “the Religion of Peace” is an insult to the intelligence of the world – and the reason why the world does not laugh at the claim, is lack of knowledge about the Quran.

That is to say: If they knew what the Quran demands against non-Muslims, few would laugh.

262 8/13b: "This (kill them*) because they contended against Allah and His Messenger - - -". When you know practically all Muhammad's armed conflicts were initiated by Muhammad (for robbing and to take captives), there is not a little irony in this.

263 8/14a: "- - - for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire". As practically all the likely 82 armed "episodes" - ######one every 6 weeks in Medina for "the Religion of Peace"!! - (http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php names more than 60 of them and what was the purpose of each of them) under Muhammad, were aggression from Muhammad and his Muslims - mostly for loot, slaves and extortion - this is an interesting statement: Defend yourself against Muhammad's raiders who wants to steal everything you have got, rape and enslave your women and children, kill or enslave yourself - - - and go to Hell for "resisting Allah" as everything and every attack Muhammad made were "holy battles" and "holy war" - Ghazwas and Jihads. Included every single attack and raid for wealth which made up 80-90% of his raids or more!

264 8/16a: “If any (Muslim warrior*) do turn his back to the (the enemy*) on such a day (during battle) - - - he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell - - - “. Fight for Allah and Muhammad or end in Hell. One verse is the carrot, this one the whip. War is a central part of the life and the religion - - - "the Religion of Peace"!!! (This claim is a joke for anyone who really has read the Quran).

265 8/19d: “Not the least good will your (the enemy’s) forces be to you even if they were multiplied: for verily (though it definitely is no proved verity/truth*) Allah is with those who believe”. Perhaps discouraging the enemy, but surely encouraging his own warriors. “Gott mit uns”, like the Nazi and earlier Germans said. Just this one is as old as the oldest religion - and still valid for everyone who believes it, and the uneducated, naïve early followers did believe - - - as do many Muslims even today.

266 8/24c: “Oh ye who believe! Give your response to Allah and His Prophet (Muhammad*), when He calleth you to that which will give you life - - -.” To follow the call for war, will give you a beautiful next life – - - and Muhammad a cheap and committed warrior.

267 8/24e: "- - - His Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -". But as the Quran is from no god - far too many and serious errors in that book - then in case a prophet or messenger for whom?

268 8/28b: "- - - it is with Allah with whom lays your highest reward". If the Quran tells the truth - which it all too often does not. And if Allah exists and is a benevolent god.

269 8/32d: "- - - if this (the Quran*) is indeed the Truth from Thee (Allah*) - - -". No god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran - it is not from Allah if he is a god. May be if he is a devil and was not permitted to make it better.

#270 8/39b: “- - - there (everywhere shall*) prevail justice and faith in Allah all together and everywhere - - -”. There shall be the rule of law - but the Muslim rule of law, where f.x. a non-Muslim cannot witness against a Muslim. But to be fair, the Quran several places tells that judges shall judge correctly, so if there is no special reason, if the judge is not against non-Muslims, if he is not corrupt, etc., there was a reasonable chance to get a fair decision - fair according to Muslim laws. At least as long as your opponent was not a Muslim, or worse, a powerful Muslim. In that case the law was/is not fair.

But Islam should - and shall - be the dominant religion.

271 8/40b: "- - - Allah is your (Muslims'*) Protector - the Best to protect and the Best to help". If he exists and is a god approximately like the Quran claims. But remember that there is not one single documented case of help or protection from Allah throughout the times anywhere in the world - a number of claims, but not one documented case".

272 8/41a: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah (/Muhammad*) - - -.” These 20% - 100% if the victim gave in without a fight - in reality were for Muhammad to use. Did he "demand no payment for what he did" like he claims some places in the Quran?

All this is totally foreign to Yahweh and Jesus - one more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion: Too different moral codes, etc.

273 8/41k: "- - - the Day of Testing (in the battle of Badr*) - - -". But WHY does an omniscient and omnipotent and claimed benevolent god need to test people by making them kill each others, when he as an omniscient knows everything, and as an omnipotent makes a satirical joke of all tests because in his Plan he has decides all that will happen in the battle and everything else before and after it happens? The whole concept just is black humor and sadism. But if it was Muhammad who needed a way to explain away his need for battles to gain wealth for bribes and power, then suddenly there is logic in it - people who wants to believe, may believe even stories like this, especially if they are naive and/or uneducated.

274 8/45b: “When ye meet a force, be firm - - -.” Order and pep-talk. But why if Allah already has decided what is going to happen? There is no logic in this in that case - and in many other cases. (But there is logic if all the tales about predestination just are tales to make Muhammad's naive and blindly believing warriors believe that war and battles are no more dangerous than playing with your children or tending your fields back home. But how come that Allah had predestined the time of your death, but not when you were to become rich? - you only became rich if you went on raids or wars and stole things, not if you at just the same time instead were sleeping in your bed.

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

275 8/48a: "Remember Satan made their (sinful) acts seem alluring to them - - -". #####Irony: A number of acts accepted or advocated or even ordered in the Quran are from sinful to extremely sinful in all other of the large religions - and nearly all of the small ones - and also conflicting human rights and against all normal moral laws and rules. Not to mention the conflict with the very basis of all inter human moral: "Do onto others like you want others do onto you". The Quran is not made by any god, not to mention a good or benevolent god - too many errors, etc. and too horrible moral - or immoral - code. If the Quran is made by dark forces or even by one or more selfish humans, it is not strange if Satan has made the Muslims' sinful acts just and alluring to them. May thus Muslims be included here?

Different from what Islam tries to tell, the human conscience is a "carte blanche" when you are born. It has to be trained and educated. Islam and Muslims accepts and even promote - sometimes strongly promote - deeds (+ permission to steal, rob and rape) which according to all normal moral codes and according to "do to others like you want others do to you", are from negative to strongly inhuman. #####Is it Iblis/Satan who makes such acts seem alluring to Muslims?

Also see 6/108d and 6/108e above.

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

276 8/49c: "Allah is exalted in Might - - -". Two more of all the never proved or documented statements or claims the Quran is overflowing with. Use your brain and your knowledge, and not only your eyes and ears, and you will find lots of them - in the Quran and in the words from Islam and from Muslims. In this case it is told about often claimed, never proved might.

277 8/49d: "Allah is - - - wise". Not if he made the Quran.

Another fact: If Allah delivered the Quran and all its mistaken facts and other errors, all its internal and external contradictions, all its invalid logic, etc. there is a good reason to laugh - and laugh loudly - from claims like this.

##278 8/51: “Allah is never unjust to his servants (Muslims or perhaps all humans - unclear which*)”. Wrong. A star example: A woman is to be strictly punished for illegal sex after being raped, if she cannot produce 4 male eye witnesses to the rape. This is one of the most inhuman, immoral and unjust laws which exists on this Earth – at least in civilized or semi-civilized cultures.

279 8/54d: "- - - We (the god*) drowned the People of Pharaoh, for they were all oppressors - - -". What then about Muslims, as the Quran and its rules and orders about oppressing all other people are not from a god? (No god makes a book of a quality like the Quran - it would be heresy and an insult to any god to blame him for a book where so much is wrong.)

##################For the Quran it is the official goal and policy that all non-Muslims shall be subdued and oppressed.

###280 8/57a: “If you gain the upper hand over them in war, disperse, with them those who follow them, that they may remember.” Many a Muslim warrior and warlord followed this order thoroughly – they certainly were remembered many places - - - except by all those who were dead. Sind (now approximately Pakistan), India, Armenia, Greeks in Turkey to mention a few - and not to forget Africa, included the slave hunters - tens of millions to the Muslim areas north of Sahara and in Asia (15 millions arrived alive according to Encyclopedia Britannica - the lowest number we have found (to all the Americas 14 mill. and a much lower death rate during transport, also this number according to E. B - the death rates during transports to Asia and Mediterranean Africa and especially the ones marching through Sahara, are so high that we are reluctant to believe it and therefore do not quote them)), plus the millions of slaves in Muslim areas south of Sahara. (The American and other western slave traders seldom hunted for slaves themselves. They bought from local slave hunters - a large percentage of them Muslims.)

#281 8/60a: “Against them (the unbelievers*) make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, included steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies (and Muhammad’s enemies*) - - -.” Inside information from “the Religion of Peace”.

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

##282 8/60c: (A8/64 - 2008 English edition 8/65): "- - - the enemies of Allah - - -". Definition according to A8/64: #######"(The enemies of Allah are*) everyone who deliberately opposes and seeks to undermine the moral laws laid down by Allah" - and those people automatically are "an enemy of those who believe (Muslims*) in Him (Allah*)". The definition of "the enemies of Allah" is very interesting because of the Quran's too often very primitive, medieval or even pre-medieval, and at too many point immoral moral code based on a Nazi-like apartheid suppressive ("Übermench" rule, "Untermench" suppressed) war ideology, and because of the extremely immoral moral underlying and expressed in some of the Sharia laws (f.x. "a woman is to be seriously punished for unlawful sex if she is raped, but cannot bring 4 male witnesses to the act" or: "a man who correctly accuses a woman for unlawful sex is unjust unto Allah, if he cannot bring 4 witnesses" - even though an omniscient Allah knows he is speaking the truth). The definition is given is these words: Allah's enemy is "everyone who deliberately opposes and seeks to undermine the moral laws laid down by Allah (= Muhammad's quoted words in the Quran*) - - -". Oppose f.x. the "lawful and good" military (nearly always Muslim) aggressions and raids, stealing/robbing, raping, extortion, enslaving, betraying ("war is betrayal"), murdering, etc., etc. during "holy wars" - and practically everything is called jihad (holy war) - or opposing the incitements for going to war on the slightest religious reason or alibi ("self defense in the widest meaning of the word" - the ideology that makes every disagreement a cause for jihad) and you are an enemy of Allah.

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

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

And most thought provoking: Everybody living according to normal moral codes based on something like "do to others like you want others do to you", has GOT to break the moral code of the Quran, because this one quite often is different or very different from "do to others like you want others do to you". Thus everybody living according to normal moral codes unavoidably become "enemies of Allah", according to the definition above in this point.

Please compare the Quran's moral code to "do to others like you want others do to you". You must belong to a very special culture to be able to believe the Quran's moral code is even halfway there.

283 8/60d: "- - - and others beside (other enemies of Allah or of you*), whom ye may not know - - -". YA (comment YA 1226): "There are always lurking enemies whom you may not know, but whom Allah knows. It is your duty to be ready against all, for the sacred Cause under whose banner you are fighting". There always are non-Muslims wanting to attack you, so always beware and be prepared for war with the untrustworthy unbelievers (NB: "the untrustworthy unbelievers", not "the untrustworthy of the unbelievers"). And remember: These comments are not written around 650 AD, but in modern times - they represent today's thinking of (many of) today's influential Muslims.

NB: ALSO REMEMBER THAT FEW IF ANY CULTURES ARE SO PRONE TO MAKE UP AND SO FILLED WITH CONSPIRATION THEORIES AND RESULTING MADE UP "KNOWLEDGE", AS THE MUSLIM ONES. THIS MAY BE A REASON WHY ISLAM AND MUSLIMS "SEE" "ENEMIES" AND "ATTACKS" ALL AROUND, AND CLAIM AND SOMETIMES HONESTLY BELIEVE THEY "HAVE THE RIGHT AND DUTY" TO "DEFEND" THEMSELVEs OR THE RELIGION = F.X. BY LAUNCHING TERROR ATTACKS (REMEMBER THAT WAR IS A PRIVELEGE AND A DUTY IN ISLAM) AGAINST WHOMEVER THEY THINK IS AN EASY TARGET.

284 8/60e: “Whatever (money, time or your life*) ye shall spend in the Cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly”. Resources counts – for you to go to Paradise, for Muhammad (and Allah) to be able to make war. And warriors like you count – for you to gain loot or be sure to go to Paradise, for Muhammad (and Allah? – an omnipotent god really should not need war and mass murder and inhumanities? – especially not a good god,) to be able to make war and gain riches for f.x. “oiling” (bribes), and power and followers for his religion and platform of power.)

285 8/66c: “- - - for Allah is with those who patiently persevere.” This is a pep talk all non-Muslims should forever remember - fanatic Muslim warriors never give in and never stop. And also: How many soldiers in the future did Spain kill by pulling out their few men from the East, and proving to Muslims just these words which are repeated and repeated in the Quran? - a proof that now may be strengthened by Australia pulling out, and by USA pulling out too early.

But a good and efficient pep-talk for Muslim warriors? Yes.

But - - - is it true?

###286 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 prophet, 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.)

Does anybody wonder why Muslim warriors and terrorists sometimes murder prisoners - guilty or not? There also is no doubt that it is the ruthless, harsh and bloody Muslims who are living according to Muhammad's rules and good(?) example.

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

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

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

This is one of the most disgusting and revealing sentences in the Quran.

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

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

######287 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 extort - 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.

During war/raids and after conquests Muslims can steal ANYTHING they like, included raping women and girl children (history also clearly indicates that homosexuality was part of life for a percentage of Muslims) and - at least according to the Quran - take what slaves they want, and non-Muslim victims can say and do nothing about it. Yes, in principle Muslims can do this against non-Muslims any time they want, as long as they see to it that there are no Muslim witnesses - according to the rules non-Muslims cannot witness against Muslims.

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 (according to science it took Persia 100+ years to return to the level it had before the Arabs attacked) - 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" more or less. 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.

########To us this is perhaps the most disgusting and revealing sentence in the entire Quran and the entire Islam - and even more so because it is done in the name of their god.

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 - fellow human beings. The Muslim warriors were heroes, and that is it!

#####288 8/69c: "- - - lawful and good - - -". If these words and the context it is taken from ("- - - enjoy what (loot, slaves, and women* + destruction and murder) ye took (= stole*) in war (normally of aggression*), lawful and good - - -", were all you knew about the Quran and Islam, this alone would be enough to remove it from the civilized world and transfer it to the dark, harsh, and inhuman Medieval ages or earlier. This even more so as this is not "abrogated" by today's Islam, but on the contrary preached and even practiced today (during armed conflicts and in terrorism) in some Islamic circles and groups.

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

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

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

288a 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. ###### Can this be a little piece of the explanation for the inhumanities we see from Arabs and other Muslims?

#############289 8/73d: Comment to this verse in A8/82: "The fact of their (non-Muslims'*) being bent on denying the truth the divine message (the Quran*) constitutes - - - precludes the possibility of their ever being real friends to the believers (the Muslims)". Clear words for your money: If they are not Muslims, Muslims cannot be real friends to them. Add to this the demand for dominance and you have a modern word: Apartheid. #####AND THIS IS TODAY'S MESSAGE TO MUSLIMS FROM ISLAM'S SCHOLARS AND THUS FROM ISLAM.

But as the Quran is not from any god - no god delivers that quality "holy" book: Is it a foe or a friend who tries to make you aware of such a serious fact?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

##########290 8/74b: "Those who believe, and adopt exile, and fight for the Faith (today potentially ca. 0.5% according to Muslims (some say 1%) on Internet = ca. 6 mill. - or some 4 million excluded the children (future fighters/terrorists*) - say some 3-4 million youths and adults are actual or potential terrorists today (double if you say 1%) - in the cause of Allah. Then there are those who give (them) asylum and aid (potentially some 10 - 15% = 120 - 180 million included the 0.5% and children) and aid ((often money) some 30% according to science at least "understand why" the activists are active = some 360 million included children - children are included for the simple reason that we only have the total numbers of Muslims) - these are (all) in very truth the Believers - - -". The next time you meet a Muslim or someone else claiming terrorists and other Muslim warriors disuse the Quran to do their bloody work, show them this verse. #########The terrorists are not disusing the Quran - they are obeying it.

Tell the world how many Muslims there really are who "understand" the activists and how many potential terrorists there really are. But again: Remember that 70% of the Muslims are very ok. Be perhaps a little careful in given situations, but do not judge all and any Muslim to be a bad person - most of them are not, not even many of the 30%.

But there of course remains the problem: Who is who of them?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

291 8/75b: "- - - fight for the Faith - - -". A clear order. But this is not from the Bible. There is fighting in the OT, but for the nation. In NT fighting hardly is accepted at all. Yahweh and Allah the same god? Jesus and Muhammad in the same line of prophets? 2 imbecile questions. Incompatible with the Bible.

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

###292 9/5b: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and size them, beleaguer them, and lay in wait for them in every stratagem (of war.)”

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

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

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

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

Even though 9/5 is "the" verse of the sword, there are several sword verses, but 9/5 is the strongest and clearest of them.

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

##########293 9/5d: “- - - and lie in wait for them with any stratagem of war”.

  1. As the Quran overrides any earthly law or agreement, this sentence may nullify the laws of war from Geneva and other non-Muslim ones.
  2. The laws of war on Earth have laboriously been agreed on little by little since the battle of Solferino and before, to make war a little less inhuman. Terrorists accept not one single of the rules, partly because of this verse. The more inhuman the better often. A good religion.
  3. This sentence is a clear “go ahead” for terrorists for absolutely any atrocity - in Europe or anywhere: "- - - with any stratagem of war".

Nice neighbors (but just remember that only a few Muslims are that kind of neighbors - though it may at times be difficult to know who is who, and this is a problem for any non-Muslim).

#################################################################

294 9/5h: "- - - (use*) any stratagem of war - - -". Why do you think terrorists behave like they do, and why they, to say the least of it, do not respect the Geneva Conventions, and not behave like humans, but are depraved and degenerated "inhumans" when in action - - - and heroes to many a Muslim?

The majority of Muslims of today do not want war. But as long as the Quran is the basis for a religion, there will never come an end to distaste/hate arguments, superiority complex, apartheid, terrorism, and murder against/on non-Muslims. The religious moral code, the religious orders, the romanticizing of apartheid and terror and war and also the ideology of Übermench/Untermench (Nazi German for super-humans/sub-humans), will always attract religious extremists, religious fanatics, war romantics, mentally imbalanced, naive souls, etc., and also parts of the human rubble will find an outlet for their animal tendencies through disturbances and terrorism. There will be ups and downs - active and less active periods - but it will never come to an end as long as some-ones believe in the Quran and its teaching. A book so full of wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, invalid logic, unclear language, etc., that the book itself proves with mathematical strength that it is not from any god.

And as organizations like IS/ISIL, Boko Haram, LRA, and others, are copies of how Muhammad run the early Islam, and of how the ideology of the surahs from Medina tells and orders "good" Muslims to behave, such organizations are good samples of how the early Islam was and behaved, and of what we must expect to meet forever in the future, because of the Triad ideology in the Quran. (The Triads were, and partly are, Chinese criminal organizations. They were harsher and bloodier than f.x. the old Chicago Mafia. (Al Capone = a baby Muhammad, but without the religious wrapping?))

#################################################################

295 9/7f: "- - - Allah doth love the righteous." As parts of the Quran and parts of Sharia are horribly unrighteous compared to all normal moral rules, do Allah then love Muslims if they live according to those points in the Quran and in Sharia?

296 9/8b: “- - - most of them (pagans*) are rebellious and wicked.” Of course - Pagans are not even Jews, nor Christians, who are bad enough. Far below Muslim moral standard - which is much different from "do to others like you want others do to you".

297 9/10c: “It is they (the pagans*) who have transgressed all bounds”. Irony. Please read the surahs from Medina and Islamic history, and then try to read this sentence once more. (F.x. in at least - at least - 90% of Muhammad's armed incidents, Muhammad was the aggressor - and in most cases to gain riches and/or power.)

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

**298 9/14e: “Fight them (the “unbelievers”*), and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them - - -”. When you fight non-Muslims, you are doing the work of the good and benevolent god Allah.

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

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

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

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

299 9/16b: “Or think that ye (Muslims*) that ye shall be abandoned (by Allah and not be rewarded for going to war*), as though Allah did not know those among you who strive with might and main (for the religion*)- - -.” But is the implicit claim here true? It only can be if Allah really exists and is a god, and if the Quran in addition has described him correctly - in a book full of mistakes, etc.

300 9/16d: “- - - take none (no non-Muslim*) for friends and protectors - - -”. It is hardly possible to forbid close contact between Muslims and others in more direct words.

301 9/16m: "But Allah is well acquainted with (all) ye do". A remainder: Allah sees everything and he rewards, but he also punishes - be good and obedient.

**302 9/19h: “They (Muslims doing good deeds*) are not comparable in the sight of Allah (with the ones killing/waging raids/war for Muhammad/Allah*)”. Terrorists and others using weapons and murdering for Allah, are the best Muslims.

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

***303 9/20b: “Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with their might and main (= fight in raids/war*), in Allah’s cause, with their goods (= giving money to war expenses*) and their persons (= fighting personally in raids/war or terrorism - “any stratagem of war”*), have the highest rank in the sight of Allah - - -”.

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

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

***304 9/20c: “Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with their might and main (= fight in raids/war*), in Allah’s cause, with their goods (= giving money to war expenses*) and their persons (= fighting personally in raids/war or terrorism - “any stratagem of war”*), have the highest rank in the sight of Allah - - -”. It is hardly worth the bother to tell that you find nothing like this in the Bible, not to mention in NT. Yahweh the same god as Allah? Jesus in the same line of prophets as Muhammad? Anyone able to believe such claims either need much more knowledge or a psychiatrist.

*305 9/20g: “- - - they (terrorists/warriors*) are the people who will achieve (salvation)”. At least the Quran is honest about some things - just like Hitler was in “Mein Kamp” - - - and few did believe Hitler until it was too late.

And not least: It is repeating one of the main incitements to war for Muhammad/Allah.

*306 9/20h: “- - - they (terrorists/warriors*) are the people who will achieve (salvation)”. The very antithesis of the NT - and one more of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh is not the same god as Allah or Jesus in the same line of prophets as Muhammad - the teachings, the moral code, etc. are too fundamentally, too deeply and on too many points far too different. And we remind you that both science and even more Islam has proved beyond any reasonable and unreasonable doubt that the Bible is not falsified, in spite of the Quran's never documented claim.

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

*307 9/21b: “Their (terrorists/warriors*) Lord (Allah*) doth give them glad tidings of a Mercy (that terrorists/warriors for Allah are forgiven practically any sin*) from Himself (from Allah personally*), of His good pleasure (from the fighting and murdering they have done for the good and kind and benevolent god*), and the Gardens for them, wherein are delights (earth-like riches, luxury and women*) that endures”. One more at least 110% proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and for that the Jewish prophets, not to mention Jesus, were not in the same line of prophets as Muhammad claimed to be. See 9/20h above.

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

*308 9/22b: “They (terrorists/warriors*) will dwell therein (in paradise) forever. Verily in Allah’s presence is a reward, the greatest (of all)”. Warriors/terrorists are in so high esteem in the eyes of Allah, that they will be invited to live in the parts of paradise that has Allah’s presence. (In the Muslim paradise some parts are even better than others - Jesus f.x. only lives in the 2. heaven, whereas Moses was a better prophet and lives in heaven number four, and top prophets like Abraham and Muhammad of course in number seven, closest to Allah, who resides above number seven. In addition some regions of the heavens are better than others - in the heaven for ordinary Muslims, there f.x. are 4 or 6 or perhaps more gardens - Islam does not know for sure - one better than the other (just hope you, your wives and your children do not merit different gardens).

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

But how could any humans have entered Heaven before the Day of Doom?

309 9/23b: “Take not for protectors your father and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith (= are not Muslims*): if any of you do so, they do wrong.” Even today some sects use this technique – break as much as possible of the contact with and stop as many as possible of the impulses from the outside. “We want only our ideas to influence our proselytes and followers.” It of course is a way of stopping correcting thoughts and facts. And it so definitely is mental and social pressure – compulsion.

***310 9/24a: “If (your closest family or closest relatives*) are dearer to you than Allah, or His Messenger (Muhammad*), or the striving (waging war*) in His (Allah’s*) cause - then wait until Allah brings his Decision (- he will punish you*)”. Islam is a religion of extremes. Nothing - NOTHING - can be permitted to mean more for you than Muhammad - and war for Islam - on this earth, and Allah in the possible next. This is as bad as Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot at their most extreme. And friendly contacts - not to mention friendship - with non-Muslims are gigabytes on the way in direction of Hell.

311 9/28c: “Truly the Pagans are unclean - - -”. Pagans are the lowest caste in Islam - even lower than Jews and Christians (though in this case Jews and Christians are included). Not a negative name but a negative description - like so often when the Quran talks about non-Muslims.

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

####312 **9/29a: “Fight those who believe not in Allah - - -.” A most clear order - - - in spite of “no compulsion in religion” (2/256). One of those clear orders which shows reality and belies the glorious words. Like said before: Whenever there is discrepancy between reality and propaganda, we believe in the reality.

Compare this sentence with the 3 samples below and weep - or laugh:

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

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

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

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

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

#########313 9/29c: “Fight those who believe not in Allah - - - until they pay jizya (extra tax - sometimes heavy (and there may be land tax in addition - often 50%, sometimes even more)) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” A clear and unmistakable order. The softest word possible: Discrimination or apartheid. There are a number of stronger ones. And the jizya frequently was high - sometimes so high that the victims had to give in and flee for economical reasons. Comments on how it is to live under such helpless apartheid conditions is not necessary - the Negroes in South Africa or the Southern States in USA in earlier times could tell you - even though they at least did not have to pay an extra tax on top of all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###2314 9/29h: (Islam is) ”the religion of Truth”. It is not 100% - an understatement - the truth as there are far too many mistakes, etc. in the Quran. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. The difficult additional question is: With that many mistaken facts - are there also mistakes in the religious claims? And in addition there are the facts of “al-Taqiyya” (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) and broken oaths and deceit - how much in a religion using such means is true? Much simply is proved wrong +: With all those errors, etc. the book at least it is not made by an omniscient god. And like it or not: It also is clear that Muhammad lied at least some places in the Quran - f.x. when he told nobody would believe even if they witnessed miracles - - - after he had told about the sorcerers of the pharaoh, who all fast became strongly believing Muslims because of small miracles made by Moses.

####One may wonder why one so seldom meets the slogan "Islam is the Religion of Honesty" from Islam and from Muslims. But it is as well, because it would not be possible to claim both that Islam is the religion of truth and that Islam is the religion of honesty, without being dishonest. Yes, it is not even possible to claim that Islam is the religion of honesty without being dishonest - remember, al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, the accepted use of deceit and betrayal, and not least the accepted disuse of even oaths.

####One also may wonder how it is possible for Muslims to believe that a man who introduced and practiced such rules for the use of dishonesty, never deceived them a little to gain and keep power. F.x. by claiming that the religion nobody had heard about before, but which was his platform of power, was the original and eternal religion, and "the religion of Truth" and the original religion since eternity.

And one may wonder if there are reasons for that Islam do not claim that "Islam is the Religion of Honesty"

Also: Combine this to Muhammad's, the Quran's, and Islam's rules for the use of dishonesty - al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, deceit, disuse of words/promises/oaths - and have a hearty laugh.

######315 9/29p: The non-Muslims in Muslim countries shall pay jizya (extra tax), "and feel themselves subdued". A sentence which is NEVER quoted by Muslims in debates. But a most central sentence when it comes to telling what status, power and position non-Muslims according to the Quran shall have in a Muslim state. With one word: apartheid (and even that word is somewhat weak here). And it was harsh realities many places in the old times - they had to pay the Jizya under demeaning conditions at times, and the tax could be so high, that it was ruinous at places and times.

316 9/33i: “It is He (Allah*) Who hath sent his Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of the Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest it”. With plain words: Accept it whether you like it or not – as there is “no Compulsion in Religion.” The goal according to the Quran is worldwide total domination.

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

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

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

###317 9/33j: "- - - to proclaim it (Islam*) over all religion - - -". This is a sentence to beware of, because this is the official goal for Islam even today and for all foreseeable future: Dominate and suppress all others.

To become the religion of the world in a way is a legitimate goal for any religion. But it is not legitimate to use dishonesty or lies to do so. This even more so as the need to use such means, is a strong indication for that something is wrong with the religion. The necessity to force unbelievers to believe, also is a reason for thoughts.

We repeat that this is the official goal for Islam - a goal one should strive and fight for with more or less any means, included dishonesty and terror. A fact nobody should ever forget - - - especially as the Quran is so full of wrong facts and other errors, and thus is not from any god (and Islam consequently thus not from any god).

This sentence also must be seen in connection to 9/29c above.

And it is symptomatic that parallel to this, Islam claims that non-Muslims treat them badly when informing about realities in and connected to Islam, because "according to ethics and rules of modern era interference in anyone's religion is serious crime which cannot be tolerated".

Even correct information about Islam is "serious crime which cannot be tolerated" from "people having destructive minds" and "dirty minds", and they are "criminally minded people". On the background of burning and demolition of churches, etc., and on Muslims' discrimination, mistreatment, and even murder of non-Muslims which Islam does little to stop, words like these receive negative reactions instead of sympathy - who likes obvious hypocrisy?

"The permission to inform about and debate all and everything is the heart blood of democracy. Prohibition of debating what the rulers do not like that people are informed about, is the heart blood of despotism". NB: This quote is not from a Muslim source.

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

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

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

318 9/36e: “- - - fight the Pagans all together - - -". Not from the Bible, not to mention from NT. The Quran and especially NT are exactly opposite each other here.

###319 NB: 9/38d: In connection to verse 9/38 we quote from comment YA1299: "When a call (for war*) is made on behalf of a great cause (Islam*), the fortunate ones are those who have the privilege of responding to the call. The unfortunate ones are those who are so engrossed in their parochial affairs that they turn a deaf ear to the appeal. They are suffering from a spiritual disease". ####These comments are from our times, so you see that even now Muslim scholars mean that if you do not want to go to war whenever the religion calls, you are mentally ill. Further comments necessary?

And YA1300: "The choice is between two courses: will you choose a noble adventure (war*) and the glorious privilege of following your spiritual leader (to war*), or grovel in the earth for some small worldly gain or for fear of worldly loss (f.x. your life or health*)?" "The Religion of Peace" anno nowadays.

Islam "the Religion of Peace" even today? Do not laugh - weep.

###320 9/39a: “Unless ye (Muslims*) go forth (in war/battle for Islam/Muhammad*), He (Allah*) will punish you with a grievous penalty (normally in the Quran a synonym for Hell*) - - -”. An order not possible to misunderstand for a pious - or fanatic - Muslim.

Yes, a religion built on peace, goodness and heavenly moral and ethics.

THIS IS THE ORDER ALSO TODAY - JUST LISTEN TO SOME IMAMS, ETC. - see 9/38d.

THIS VERSE TELLS HORRIBLY MUCH ABOUT ISLAM AS IT IS TAUGHT IN THE QURAN.

VERSES LIKE THIS - THERE ARE MANY - AND QUOTES LIKE IN 9/38d TELL CHILLING FACTS ABOUT HOW ISLAM IS TAUGHT IN MADRASAS (RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS), MOSQUES, AND ISLAMIC MEDIA ALSO TODAY. WHEN THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NICE WORDS AND CLAIMS (F.X. "ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF PEACE") AND REALITY GIVEN IN TEACHING, IDEOLOGY, DEMANDS, DEEDS, AND ORDERS, WE ALWAYS BELIEVE IN THE REALITY.

One of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - not to mention that Jesus and Muhammad were not in the same religion.

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

321 9/39d: "For Allah hath power over all things". Often claimed, never proved. Reality or boasting?

322 9/41a: “Go ye forth (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle (= fight*), with your goods and your person (money and life*), in the Cause of Allah. That is best for you, if you but knew”. Any comment necessary? The benevolent "Religion of Peace"?

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

323 9/41b: "That (to go to war*) is best for you - - -". See 9/41a just above.

324 9/42a: “If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed you (Muhammad*) - - -". An indirect, but clear confirming of the fact that many of Muhammad's warriors followed him for the loot, etc. he promised - a fact Muslims deny.

325 9/42b: “If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed you – (but it was not, and they did not) - - -.” You surely are of better quality?! (This verse refers to the military expedition to Tabuk).

**326 9/44a: “Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day ask for no exemption from striving with their goods and persons (= waging war*)”.

If you are a real Muslim, you do not refrain from going to war.

**327 9/44b: “Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day ask for no exemption from striving with their goods and persons (= waging war*)”. Even if you omit the fact that the Bible is about Yahweh, not about Allah, this is in strong contradiction to especially NT. Jesus and Muhammad in the same line of prophets? Believe it if you are able to.

Quran-speak for using ones wealth and risking one’s life in war for Allah - or if Allah does not exist, at least for Muhammad.

There is nothing like this in Jesus' words - on the contrary, Jesus accepted no armed fighting. One more of the strong indications for that Jesus and Muhammad were not in the same religion.

318 9/44e: “And Allah knoweth well those (the Muslims going to war for Allah/Muhammad*) who do their duty”. It is not possible to deny - like most Muslims and many politically correct others try to do today - that war (against “unbelievers”) is a duty for Muslims. It is impossible to say it more directly than the Quran does here. And also that Allah knows the ones who goes to war - and the ones who do not. Ominous for the ones who do not. Also see 2/233h above. "The Religion of Peace"? - do not laugh, it is impolite.

##329 9/45a: “Only those ask thee (Muhammad*) for exemption (from doing battle*) who believe not in Allah and the Last day”. Terrorists and fanatical mullahs/imams are right and do right according to the Quran, because the Quran is pretty clear on what it means. And the ones only claiming there are verses which can be disused by terrorists to defend their activity are pretty naive and without knowledge about the book. "The Religion of Peace"? This claim is an insult to anyone who has read the surahs from Medina with an open mind.

330 9/46c: "- - - He (Allah*) made them (some Muslims*) lag behind (and do not go to war) - - -". Allah made them lag behind, but they were punishing in many ways anyhow. There especially is one story in Hadiths about psychological cruelty and punishment which is worthy the brainwashed and brainwashing Soviet Union of Stalin.

331 9/47c: “But Allah knoweth well those who do wrong (= those not wanting to go to war*)”. The terrorists are right: It is not the terrorists who do wrong, it is the ones reluctant to murder and kill and fight. Really a religion for peace and goodness run by a benevolent god. The sentence also is a warning: Go to war, or else - - -!

332 9/47e: This verse mainly is a pep-talk to the warriors about the bad quality of the ones who did not want to go to war. Strongly contradicted by the Bible, and especially by NT. Jesus and Muhammad belonging to the same line of prophets? Impossible is the only possible word, because we do not know a stronger one. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

333 9/48c: “- - - until the Truth (the Quran*) arrived, - - -”. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. With that many untrue facts, mistaken grammar, contradictions, and perhaps mistakes in the religious statements (why should they be exceptions?), the Quran at best is partly true. Also see 13/1

334 9/48e: “- - - the Decree of Allah became manifest - - -“. The “decrees from Allah” – the Quran - contains so many mistakes, etc., that they are not from an omniscient god. That is: Either Allah is not omniscient or it is not from Allah. Something is seriously wrong.

335 9/49c: “(Many say*) ‘Grant me exception (from going to war*) and draw me not into trial’. Have they not fallen into trial already?” The Muslims not wanting war are already judged and doomed.

######BUT THERE IS AN EXTRA POINT HERE: MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT BE JUDGED BAD JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE MUSLIMS - WITH A PARTLY HORRIBLE MORAL CODE, ETC. - THE MAJORITY IS JUST AS HUMAN AS NON-MUSLIMS, and f.x. not wanting wars.

336 9/51b: “Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us - - -”. Predestination: To do battle is not more deadly than sleeping in your bed, as Allah already has decided your hour of death. Naïve and uneducated people and religious fanatics may really believe this - in those cases it is one terrific propaganda means for a warlord.

337 9/51c: “Nothing can happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us - - -”. Well, Islam tells it is the free will of man that brings on bad incidents in life. This verse contradicts that, to say the least of it. So just go safely to war.

A warrior or terrorist can only win - riches and glory or Paradise. (Mutilation, becoming a cripple etc. is never mentioned).

Well, as said he may become a cripple f.x. and live a long life in misery - but that is never mentioned. Also his family may live in misery - also never mentioned.

Also the Quran NEVER mentions that the non-Muslims are humans and what the devastation of their culture and lives means to them - it is of absolutely no consequence and without the slightest interest to Islam or Muslims. The destruction of Persia - and for that case the East Roman culture or the terror in Pakistan/India and Africa - represented long series of terrible dramas and catastrophes for people and culture and science, but the only things which counted - and still counts - for Islam, was a lot of spoils of war - and power and riches for their leaders, and like it or not: Frequently forcing people to become Muslims - frequently by weapons, and always using social and other kinds of pressure - and by extra tax (jizya), often high. Even today we have never met a Muslim able to see this side of their wars or murders or suppression, not to mention what rape and enslavement meant to millions of victims - never to this day, not one single time have we heard a Muslim regret this. Only in the western culture the ability to see the fate of the victims is widespread - a military weak spot, but one of the points which perhaps make the western culture better than some others of the big ones. (To say anything good about the West is politically incorrect, but we do not care for what is politically correct - we are able to think ourselves, and what counts is what is correct, not what is politically correct).

338 9/52a: “Can you see for us (Muslims*) (any fate) other than the two glorious things – (martyrdom or victory)?” Definitely yes: We can see the war cripple. We can see the families destroyed because the husband/father is dead – or a cripple. We can on the other hand see men building their country instead of destroying neighboring countries - or at least leaving their neighbors in peace, so that the neighbors can build their countries. And we are able to see the price of war: Brutalized humans and destruction – a war never builds anything, it destroys. And we also can see the second possibility the Quran never mentions, except as minor set-backs: Defeat. It may give some of the victors a chance to steal and suppress and become rich – but for a terrible price for others. But this price the Quran never mentions and never cares about - it is as said paid by others, by non-Muslims, and thus completely non-interesting.

***Islam seems to represent such a backward culture, that its believing members were and to a large degree are unable to see - or care for - what catastrophes and destroyed lives they inflict on others, as long as they themselves become rich and perhaps powerful. No price is too high for a good life and riches - - - as long as others have to pay for it.

Well, to inflict the religion on others also counts and counted for some of them. A religion built on a book so full of mistakes, contradictions and other errors, that it is not from any god.

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

339 9/56-57: Not everybody wanted to go to war - a pep-talk against these ones. (#######But when judging Muslims, remember that large numbers of them do not want war - just like you and me they only want a life in peace and quiet and a reasonably standard of living, together with their loved ones. They are humans just like everybody else. Of course it may be difficult to know who of the Muslims are humans and who are more or less "inhumanized" by the hate and war and apartheid/superiority complex religion, but none should be judged bad only because he/she is a Muslim.)

340 9/59a: "If they (Muslims*) has been content with what Allah and His Prophet (Muhammad*) gave them". It was Muhammad who split the loot and not all were satisfied with their lot. 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.

341 9/59e: "Sufficient unto us is Allah!" Only if he exists and is a major god.

342 9/59i: "- - - to Allah do we turn our (Muslims') hopes!" It has never to our knowledge been showed that such hopes have been fulfilled to a larger degree than what other causes than a god may explain.

343 9/60d: "- - - in the cause of Allah - - -". = to defend or promote Islam, included to wage war. Quite a lot of this "budget" was used for weapons and other war equipment, and for waging war.

344 9/67g: “Verily the Hypocrites are rebellious and perverse.” No doubt the Muslims are better – and definitely not perverse, not even when lying or robbing or raping or suppressing or killing, for that is “lawful and good” according to the book. And perverse people are to be despised of course.

345 9/72a: “Allah hath promised to Believers – men and women – Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein, and beautiful mansions in Gardens of everlasting bliss - - -”. A paradise like the life of the rich men in this world – plus more water. And of course plus the presumed, but never proved Allah.

Also remember that the big and fundamental differences between the Bible's Paradise and the one of the Quran, are one of the strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

***346 9/73b: “Strive (fight*) hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites - - -.” Straight words for your money.

###347 9/80b: "- - - (their (some bad persons*) sin is unforgiveable) - - -". One more of the abysmally deep differences between especially the NT and its New Covenant and the Quran, and on one of the most fundamental points in the religions: As mentioned just above, in the NT no sin is unforgiveable if you really and honestly regret. One more of the 110% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same gods and for that Jesus and Muhammad did not belong to the same line of prophets (this even omitting the fact that Muhammad was no real prophet as he was unable to make prophesies).

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, which according to the Quran is something nobody and nothing can make him do. See 2/187d above.

###348 9/81c: "Those who were left behind - - -" Not all wanted to go to war, and when there was a call to arms for the expedition to Tabuk in Oct. 630 AD, some of these did not go. No god could know this for sure long times before if man had free will - not even the expedition could be sure, as it was based on a rumor only. See 9/45c above. ###Also remember this when judging Muslims - very far from all are bad.

As for the last point: The fact that some Muslims are militants and the added facts about the use of dishonesty and deceiving (al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), the lawful use of deception and betrayal, the lawful disuse/breaking of words/promises/oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok - but how much cheating is it then in the Quran? - by Allah or by Muhammad), etc. - dishonest means even promoted to use for defending or promoting of Islam, and permitted in many other wide cases (f.x. to cheat women or save your money) - merit that you are a bit careful with a Muslim until you know him/her well, ##########but remember that most of them have just the same wishes and dreams for life as everybody else; a reasonably good life, safety and peace, a good family and friends, etc.

349 9/83-84: The ones not willing to do battle are to be socially despised. No comments necessary, except that there is at least one grotesque example of this social punishment, not to say terrorizing, in Hadiths. Incompatible to NT.

350 9/84a: “Nor do thou ever pray for any of them (those that did not want to go to war*) that dies, nor stand at his grave, for they rejected Allah and (not least?*) His Messenger (Muhammad*), and died in a state of perverse rebellion.” It is perverse not to obey when Islam wants war. If not the carrot of stealing riches, taking slaves and raping women + Heaven should attract the ones reluctant to go to war, then use the whip of heavy social pressure to force them. War is very essential for the Quran. And “is”, not only “was” - “is” for all future.

**351 9/85b: “Allah’s plan is to punish them (the ones not wanting to go to war*) with these things in this world, and that their souls may perish in their (very) denial of Allah”. Refusing war means:

  1. Social contempt.
  2. To most likely end in hell.
  3. To deny Allah.

352 9/86a: “When a surah comes down (to Muhammad*), enjoining them to believe in Allah and strive and struggle (= make war*) with His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - - (some do not want to go to war - they prefer to stay with the women, not a nice reputation for an Arab in 631 AD, not to mention for a Bedouin warrior*)”. ###But after all not every Muslim liked – or likes – war.

353 9/87c: "- - - they (doubters staying behind in war*) understand not". Well, maybe that was exactly what they did - understood that something was seriously wrong.

354 9/88a: “But the Messenger (Muhammad*), and all those who believe with him, strive and struggle with their wealth and their persons (= wage war*): for them are (all) good things (like spoils of war, slaves, women to rape, etc.*): and it is they who will prosper”.

To say the least of it: Incitement to wage war for Muhammad/Islam. But NB: This claim was never proved - it just is words. Except that many grew rich from stealing, extortion, slave taking, etc. in this world.

355 9/89a: “Allah hath prepared for them (his warriors/terrorists) Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein: that is the supreme felicity”.

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

Of course points like this also influence the moral code of Islam.

356 9/91h: Verse 9/91 in short says that only those with heavy reasons for staying at home when Allah - Muhammad - wants a raid or a war, were to be excused for not joining the raid or war party.

357 9/93a: “The ground (of complaint (for not wanting war*)) is against such as claim an exemption while they are rich - - -”. If you can afford to go to war - or if someone, included the leaders (see 9/92) can help you - then it is a valid reason for complaint and contempt against you if you do not want to go to war.

A stark contrast to NT: “Thou shallt not Kill”. Yahweh and Allah the same god? - an unnecessary question, as the answer is obvious.

##358 9/93b: "They (the ones not wanting to go to war, but without a "good" reason*) prefer to stay with the (women) - - -". An expression of contempt in many cultures and - as far as we have been able to find out - in all war cultures. (Unnecessary to say: Islam was/is one of the more extreme war cultures, as the war part of it is religiously motivated and very strong and central in the religion.)

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

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

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

####359 9/93d: "- - - they (the ones not wanting to go to war*) know not (what they miss)". Comment YA1345: "It is not only a duty, but a precious privilege, to serve a great Cause (Islam*) by personal self-sacrifice (to make war for it*). Those who shirk such an opportunity know not what they miss". This is the point of view of modern Muslim scholars - as mentioned before the comments are recent ones. "The Religion of Peace"? No further comments - and none necessary.

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

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

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

360 9/94a: Do not believe the excuses from the ones not wanting to go to war - the real reason is that they are bad Muslims.

A good Muslim goes to war whenever his leaders call. Yahweh and Allah the same god? No answer is necessary.

361 9/95a: "They (the ones not wanting to go to war*) will swear to you (Muhammad*) by Allah, when ye return to them, that ye may leave them alone. So leave them alone: for they are an abomination, and Hell is their dwelling-place - a fitting recompense for the (evil) they did". They did the evil of wanting to be excused from going to war, and consequently are an abomination and only deserve Hell. The 180 degree opposite of NT - and adding that in OT the wars were motivated by establishing and defending a national country, whereas in the Quran the wars, etc. are religiously motivated ("holy wars" - every armed incident Muhammad had, he claimed was holy war (Jihad) or holy battle (Ghazwa)) - also OT.

100% and more proof for that Yahweh and Allah were not the same god and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion.

#362 9/95c: “So leave them (the ones not wanting to wage war*): for they are an abomination, and Hell is their dwelling-place - a fitting recompense for the (evil) they did”. Not to hate and kill and steal and rob and rape and enslave and murder is an abomination and evil, which ends you in Hell. Your not wanting to go to war will make the raise of power for Muhammad and Islam go slower.

To wage war is the absolute duty for any fit Muslim who can afford it. No misunderstanding possible.

Brave future world.

Do you still believe that Allah is the same god as the Yahweh in NT?

But it is a weighty incitement to naive, uneducated primitives.

But it is worth remembering that not all Muslims wanted/want war.

#363 9/95ca: “So leave them (the ones not wanting to wage war*): for they are an abomination, and Hell is their dwelling-place - a fitting recompense for the (evil) they did”. Incompatible to the Bible to say the least of it, and especially to NT. But words impossible to misunderstand. Anybody believing that the Quran has to be disused to find incitements to war and hate and blood and murder?

"The Religion of Peace"?

**364 9/96: “- - - Allah is not pleased with those who disobey (and refuse to go on raids or to war*)”. The good, kind, wise god - leading a "Religion of Peace"?. The question is especially relevant as most of Muhammad's raids were for riches, captives, slaves, and extortion. And another fact: Here on Earth the sentence simply meant and means that Allah is not pleased with those who did/do not obey Muhammad and his successors.

365 9/99h: "- - - soon will Allah admit them (good Muslims*) to his Mercy (paradise*)". Often claimed, never proved. And as for Allah's mercy, See 1/1a and 1/1e above.

366 9/99i: "- - - Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful". If Allah made the surahs from Medina, he is very far from most merciful. Destroying lives and communities, torture, rape, enslavement, murder, mass murder, apartheid and suppression and more - little mercy.

Gardens under which rivers flow (= Paradise*) - - -". Claimed MANY times, never documented. Not true unless Allah exists and is a powerful god - and not unless the Quran in addition has told the full truth and only the truth about this.

367 9/109d: "And Allah guideth not people that do wrong". What consequence does this have for Muslims, as the Quran partly advices deeds obviously wrong and immoral (f.x. punish a raped woman if she has no 4 male witnesses. And also lie, steal/rob, rape, suppress, kill, etc.) "People who do wrong" also is one of Muhammad’s many negative names for non-Muslims.

Compare "do to others like you want others do to you" to the Quran's moral code. Who are often doing wrong/bad things?

368 9/111a: “Allah hath purchased of the Believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the Garden (of Paradise): they fight in His (Allah’s) Cause, and slay and are slain (and go to Paradise afterwards*) - - -.” It may be a good, if de-humanizing (war mostly is) deal - - - if Allah and the Paradise exists. If not the only person gaining anything was Muhammad (and all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran prove absolutely that at least something is seriously wrong).

369 9/111d: “- - - they (warriors/terrorists*) fight in His (Allah’s (or Muhammad’s?*)) cause, and slay and are slain: (and get a great reward in Paradise*)”. Can anyone really read the Quran - even a Muslim - and afterwards believe the Quran represents a good, peaceful, benevolent god? One is reminded of the blood orgies of the Mayas and Incas, except that Islam mostly kills on the spot - like the Assyrians. And "the Religion of Peace"?? - it is up to you if you will laugh or weep from that slogan. May be there are reasons why they seldom claim Islam is "the Religion of Honesty"?

**370 9/111f: “- - - they fight in His (Allah’s*) cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran - - -”. As for the Gospels: This is not even is wrong - it is nonsense, and can only be made up by someone not knowing the Gospels - - - or is lying. There is nothing like this in the Gospels - this even if Islam pretends the text refers to a Gospel that has disappeared (there are references to the word “sword“, but not as part of war or incitement to war - not to mention the pacifistic picture the total NT give). There is a theoretical possibility for that there existed an older Gospel, but this fairy tale or nightmare is not taken from that one either. Because if it ever existed, we know the contents of it, as three of the present Gospels in case used that one as their main source (the other possibility is that two of those Gospels used the oldest one as their source - in that case there is no reason to believe there ever was older Gospel, but it is to be hoped there was, because that gives an even older written source for the Bible - and makes it even more reliable according to all rules for study of history and for such science. By the way: No serious student or professor of history use the Quran as a source for happenings older than 610 AD - which tells volumes about how they evaluate the reliability of this book presumably sent down by an omniscient god).

But the real reason why it is not the slightest doubt that this is made up, is that the sentence so totally and 180 degrees oppose the very teachings of the NT - and the entire NT. Incompatible. Incompatible also with the Law (of Moses), as the Jews never fought for a god. Yahweh and Allah the same god? No answer necessary.

Actually this is a serious case: This was in 931 AD. At that time Muhammad knew ever so well that this was said neither in the Laws (of Moses) nor in the Gospels. It is one of those cases where Muhammad knew he was lying in the Quran.

371 9/111j: "- - - who is more faithful to His Covenant than Allah?". Many if Allah does not exist or if he is not correctly described in the Quran. Not to mention if he is part of the dark forces, which the dark parts of the Quran may indicate.

372 9/112a: "Those who turn (to Allah); that serve Him, and praise Him, that wander in devotion to the Cause of Allah; that bow down and prostrate themselves in prayer; that enjoins good and forbid evil, and observe the limit set by Allah - (these do rejoice)". Only if Allah exists and is a god (not f.x. something from the dark forces like parts of the Quran may indicate - or not simply is a fiction from one or more human brains, sick or not sick).

373 9/112e: "- - - glad tidings - - -". A book with so much war and blood and apartheid and suppression and rape and incitement to dislike and distaste and hate and lying and much more, is no "glad tiding". This even more so if the book is a made up one - and at least it is not from a god; no god makes that many errors, etc. And we refrain from mentioning the case "what if there is a true religion somewhere which Muslims have been prohibited to look for?" - what kind of (perhaps) next life then for Muslims?

##374 9/113a: "It is not fitting, for the Prophet and those who believe, that they should pray forgiveness for Pagans - - - (who are bound for Hell*)". In NT it always is permitted to pray for the lost souls - we are back to the search for f.x. "the lost lamb" and to "the 11.th hour" (Luke 15/8-10 and 15/11-31, Matt. 18/12-14, 20/8-13). Definitely Allah is not like Yahweh - and Muhammad not in the same line of prophets as Jesus (if they had been, their teachings had had to be similar) - to be exact: Far from in the same religion even. And remember: Science has proved far beyond any even unreasonable doubt that the Bible and especially the NT is not falsified in spite of Muhammad's never proved claims - may be some mistakes, but no falsifications. The best proof for this is from 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.

375 9/116a: "Unto Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth". Often claimed - never proved. And a claim any priest in any religion can make on behalf of his god(s) as long as he evades all questions for proof - such claims are that cheap.

376 9/116f: "Except for Him (Allah*) ye have no protector nor helper". Wrong according to the Quran - the book tells that angels may be protectors, that Muslims are the protectors of each other (and non-Muslims of each others), and that Muhammad even may protect, or at least intercede for, the ones he wants, even at the Day of Doom - one of the reasons for being friendly and obedient to him?

377 9/118a: "- - - the three who were left behind - - -". This refers to 3 men (Ka'b ibn Malik, Mararah ibn at-Rabi, Hilal ibn Umayah) who did not want to take part in the big expedition towards Tabuk (it came to nothing), and who chose to be honest about it. They had to live through serious psychological terror and punishment when Muhammad returned. They were uneducated and naive and did not understand what was done to them, but any somewhat educated person today recognizes the cruel method Muhammad used for punishment, for preventing similar things to happen in the future, and for giving people other things to talk about than no loot from the unsuccessful war expedition. You find the story in Hadiths - f.x. Al-Bukhari.

378 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 in total selfishness 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).

379 9/121a: "Nor could they (Muslims*) spend anything (for the Cause (of Allah/Muhammad*)) - small or great - nor cut across a valley, but the deed is inscribed to their credit - - -". Words are easy when one neither has to pay them or prove them. And when you read the Quran you may notice that everything is built on never proved claims and promises only.

380 9/121b: "- - - Allah may requite their (warriors') deeds with the best (possible reward)." A nice reward if Islam is a true religion. A very cheap way for Muhammad to attract and pay warriors if the religion is a made up one. And here it is very thought provoking that the Quran is not from a god - no god makes that many mistakes, not to mention reveres them in a "mother book" in his heaven. (And no benevolent god has a moral code and war code like in the Quran).

#381 9/123c: “Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know Allah is with those who fear Him (= the Muslims*)”. If "I" do not like what you do - or if "I" use a little conspiracy theories, like Muslims and especially the ones in the Middle East often do, and think you are up to bad things, you surely are girding "me" about, and it is "my" right according to the Holy Quran to kill you.

382 9/129d: "- - - He (Allah*) the Lord of the Throne (of Glory) Supreme!" Yes - if the Quran is not a made up book, and if it speaks the truth. And if Allah exists and is a god - nothing of which is proved.

#383 10/1c: “- - - the Book (the Quran*) of Wisdom.” With that many mistaken facts, it is not a book of wisdom - and when there are many mistakes you see, how many others are there? - it is difficult to trust the rest of the text, too.

Take a look at all the errors, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, etc. from the Quran listed in www.1000mistakes.com, Book A, and you get a good laugh from the quoted claim.

384 10/2f: "- - - good news to the believers - - -".

1. It is good news to the believers at least in the next life if they behave well, AND if the Quran tells the truth - but it is clear that so much is wrong in the book, that it at best it tells partly the truth, and all the mistakes, contradictions, etc. also makes it clear it is not from a god.

2. It is good news to the believers in this life also if the book is made up - they can lie and steal and rob and enslave and become powerful and rich and keep many women. At least in this life.

3. It may be bad news to the believers if the book is made up - and as mentioned it at least is not from a god - if there is a next life. Where will they in case end with the immoral moral code they have believed in? - no other big religion and few small have such horrors in a moral code. Compare it to "do against others like you want others do against you" and weep.

4. It clearly is bad news for the believers if there somewhere is a real religion with a next life. No matter which religion it is that (perhaps) turns out to be true, the Islamic moral code is so rotten, that no Muslim who has lived according to it and to the Quran, will be permitted to enter a paradise, no matter to which religion it belongs - with a possible exception of fringe, dark sects or ditto mini religions. And Muslims have been prohibited from looking at other religions than their own war religion, and thus to find out what is true or not. In this case they just will have to hope there is no hell.

385 10/3b: "Verily your (peoples'*) Lord is Allah - - -". If he exists. If he is a major god. And if he is correctly described in the Quran.

386 10/4b: "The promise of Allah is true - - -". With so much wrong in the Quran, this never proved claim is unsure. There also never has been documented one single case of Allah fulfilling a promise - unproved claims, yes, proofs no.

387 10/6f: “- - - in the (creation or existence of*) the earth - - - are Signs for those who fear Him.” Even when it comes to a thing as close as Earth, Muhammad - and Islam - was and is unable to produce any proofs - only big, cheap claims.

There are 7 (flat) Earths (65/12) according to the Quran + 7 heavens.

388 10/9b: “Those who believe, and work righteousness (included fighting in wars, stealing, raping, and killing*) – their Lord (Allah*) will guide them because of their Faith: beneath them will flow rivers in Gardens of bliss.” The paradise of a primitive warrior from the hot desert - most boring in the long run to say the least of it. Has an omniscient, omnipotent god nothing better to offer? A curiosum: According to Hadiths 2 of "our" rivers - the Nile and the Euphrates - start in Heaven/Paradise.

389 10/17d: "But never will prosper those who sin". But what is the correct definition of a sin? As the Quran very obviously is from no god, and as it as obviously is unable to see the difference between sins and not sins - its definitions at points are very obviously wrong - where does one find a correct definition of sin contra not sin? Some proposals:

  1. If there is a god: Sins against him is to believe in another god, to deny the real god, and to break the real god's rules, moral codes, etc.
  2. Sins towards humanity: To destroy or reduce the quality of our habitat and conditions of life.
  3. Sins against humans: Not to live according to "Do to others like you want others do to you". (No religion of war lives or teaches in accordance with this.)
  4. Sins against other living beings: Hurt or kill them without a good reason (f.x. for food, and then without unnecessary pain). Not to help them if they are in pain or danger.
  5. Sin against nature: Destroy or reduce its quality.

How many of these points does Islam satisfy? - especially beware of point 1, as no god would deliver a "holy book" of a quality like the Quran and all its mistakes, contradictions, unclear language, etc.

390 10/18e: "And far is He (Allah*) above partners they (humans*) ascribe (to Him (Allah*))". Not unless he exists. Not to mention if he exists not, but another - f.x. Yahweh - does. And is he above or below if there exists another god, and if Allah turns out to be from the dark forces?

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

###############391 10/20d: "The Unseen is only for Allah to know - - -". This is another proof in the Quran for that Muhammad was no real prophet: Muhammad was unable to see the future - that only Allah is able to it says here - and he thus was unable to make prophesies = no prophet. (We remind you that the original title of a prophet was "a seer" - one able to see the unseen (f.x. 1. Sam. 9/9).

And yet another confirmation for that Muhammad was unable to make prophesies.

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

392 10/22b: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) cry unto Allah - - -". Wrong. In desperate need humans - if they seek help from divine powers - call for the god(s) they believe in. Which means that if they do not believe in Allah, they call for other god(s) they do believe in.

393 10/24a: "- - - the rain which We (Allah*) send down from the sky - - -". Muhammad often uses natural phenomena for glorification and/or "proof" for his god. In this case it means a lot of work for Allah, as the Quran another place tells he breaks the clouds to pieces to make the raindrops.

But as he never proves it is he who in reality sends the rain, it may as well be another god - many priests in many religions claim the same honor for their god(s). An easy and cheap claim as long as one flees from all requests for proofs. (And maybe it is done by nature?)

394 10/25b: "He (Allah*) doth guide whom He pleaseth to a Way that is straight (= direction Heaven*)". It is Allah who decides ("whom He pleaseth"), not you (in Hadiths it even is made clear that Allah decides whether you are to end in Hell or Heaven before you are born, and there is nothing you can do about that decision). A bit different from NT to say the least of it: Yahweh wants everybody to Paradise - you have to be a sinner by your own merit and from real free will, and not honestly regretting your sins, to be closed out. The same god? Hardly. Or Nyet!

395 10/25d: "- - - a Way that is straight". It there a symbolism in that Muhammad slaloms, the way to his Paradise is claimed to be "straight" = the easy way, whereas Jesus talked about the narrow road = more difficult? The populist versus the reality?

396 10/26a: "To those who do right is a goodly (reward) - - -" - especially if you have gone on raid or to war for Muhammad - or his successors. Because battles give more merit than anything in Heaven in the "religion of peace".

397 10/25d: "- - - a Way that is straight". It there a symbolism in that Muhammad slaloms, the way to his Paradise is claimed to be "straight" = the easy way, whereas Jesus talked about the narrow road = more difficult? The populist versus the reality?

398 10/26a: "To those who do right is a goodly (reward) - - -" - especially if you have gone on raid or to war for Muhammad - or his successors. Because battles give more merit than anything in Heaven in the "religion of peace".

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

######399 10/32b: “- - - apart from Truth, what remains but error?” It is very clear that much of what is said in the Quran is not true – and then #####“what remains but error”?

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

400 10/34b: "Say (Muhammad*): 'Of your (non-Muslims'*) "partners" (gods*), can any originate creation and repeat it?' Say:’ It is Allah Who originates creation and repeats it - - -." This is a kind of debate you meet all too often from Islam and Muslims: You have to prove everything - for them loose and never proved claims are enough - that only is for themselves. Demand proofs from them when they just claim or states out of the air. Also see 7/38e and 10/31b above.

Besides: Also Allah never proved anything, included not that he created anything. This is one more indication for that also Allah is a false god.

A. Occam's Broom (the same Occam as the one with the razor): "The intellectual dishonest trick of ignoring facts that refute your argument in the hope that your audience won't notice". (New Scientist 21.Sept. 2013.) This trick is frequently used by Muhammad, by Islam, and by Muslims argumenting for the Quran's texts and for Islam - just use your ears and/or eyes, and brain, and you will find lots and lots of samples, f.x. in some of Muhammad's lies in the Quran. (Here Islam ignore the fact that Allah never proved he was able to create anything.)

B. "'Surely' (etc.*) and rhetorical questions - whenever you encounter these in a text, stop and think. The author usually wants you to skate over them as if the claim is so obvious as to be beyond doubt, or the answer self-evident. (Also this trick is very often used in the Quran, by Islam, and by Muslims.*) The opposite is often the case." (Graham Lawton.) The question here is very a rhetorical one. Also this trick is very often used in the Quran, by Islam, and by Muslims.

401 10/35c: “It is (only*) Allah who gives guidance towards the Truth.” But this is contradicted by the fact that he is not reliable – he also can lead you astray, proved by many point in the Quran, f.x. by his acceptance of the use of dishonesty in words and deeds as working tools. It actually collides with all the verses that tell Allah leads to Heaven whom he wants, and leads astray whom he wants. Or maybe the book only talks about those he wants to guide to Paradise? In NT Yahweh wishes everybody to reach Paradise - in the Quran Allah picks the ones he wishes.

Besides: Is this just an undocumented claim, or a proved fact - hardly anything of any consequence in the Quran is proved - f.x. not even the existence of Allah?

And not to forget: He cannot lead anybody to the Truth by means of a book full of wrong facts and other errors, like the Quran.

402 10/35f: "Is then He (Allah*) who (claims he*) gives guidance to (the claimed*) Truth more worthy to be followed, or he (other gods*) who finds not guidance (himself) unless he is guided?" The answer will depend entirely on whether Allah is a made up bluff or not. In addition there is the question of f.x. Yahweh, who has proved his existence if the old books tell the truth. There also may be other religions whose followers will vouch as strongly for their gods, as Muslims do for Allah - perhaps with as much reason. Exactly nothing is ever proved about Allah, and not once in 1400+ years has there been an action of any kind provably from him.

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

#####403 10/35i: "How judge ye?" We judge that religion and a possible eternal life is too serious a matter to accept that mistakes, contradictions, lies, etc., etc. can be used when trying to find out if a god/gods exist(s), and in case which one(s) is/are true and which not. Only complete honesty can lead to a correct answer in such a question - and the Quran/Islam most likely is the most dishonest of all big religions - the only one who on top of all not only accepts, but advocates dishonesty on central points "if necessary" to win a discussion - not to find the truth, but to win a discussion or a new believer, or to defend or promote Islam.

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

404 10/36b: "- - - truly (definitely not a proved truth - only a not proved claim*) fancy can be to no avail against Truth - - -". That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. A very sobering fact for all Muslims if the Quran is a made up book - fantasy and/or fancy. And it at least is from no god with all those errors, contradictions, etc. This especially so if there somewhere exists a real good Muslims have been prohibited to look for.

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

#405 10/37a: “This Quran is not such as can be produced by other than Allah - - -”. Very wrong. Many a good writer can write stories as good as, and better than, the collection of surahs in the Quran. In spite of what Islam says, the Quran is not good literature. The same stories are repeated again and again. They frequently are not well told. There are no new stories or ideas – only stories and ideas borrowed from others. Honestly large parts of the book are rather dull reading. And the fabled high quality Muhammad’s Arab language? - what Muslims seldom mention, is that it took some 250 years to perfect the language - it was not until around 900 AD that it had got something like today’s language. It also existed in much more than one text. For one thing even Muhammad (according to Hadith) said it was sent down in 7 varieties which all were true ones - even if details were different. For another thing some of the old, original texts existed in the Muslim world for a long time after the “official” one was finished around 650 AD ( at some time there were at least 14 canonized + about as many accepted, though not canonized, varieties – 2 are used today: Hafs and Warsh + 4 a little used some places but most uneducated Muslims does not even know this). For still another thing the texts may have been slightly changed through the time - at least very old Qurans found in Yemen in 1972, had “small, but significant differences” from the modern edition. The dominating Quran today (Hafs after Asim), is the edition that was the official one in Egypt when printed in 1924, according to what we have read. The version after Warsh is used in parts of Africa . Also see Preface in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" (list of the earlier 14 canonized ones).

####A challenge to all real knowers of good literature: Please read the Quran with this claim in your mind. Are you able to do so with an open mind without laughing? (No serious knower of quality literature will call the Quran good literature. In addition to all the other points not good in the Quran, good literature demands that the facts given shall be correct, no contradictions, correct logic, etc., etc.)

The claim in this verse Muhammad could tell his uneducated and to a large degree an-alphabetic followers. People versed in quality literature today just will smile hearing such a claim if they know the Quran - it is not high quality even if you do not mind all which is wrong in the book. The one exception may be the Arab language in the book, as this as mentioned was polished by top scholars for some 250 years.

But in that connection we would like to quote an old American film critic some decades ago. He was shown a high quality film favoring narcotics. The question was if he did not think the film work was good?

"Well", he answered, "I always have meant that a work which was not worth doing, also was not worth doing good". (And on top there are even college students able to write better literature than in the Quran - and that is no overstatement.

**406 10/37c: “- - - it is confirmation of (revelations) that went before it (the Bible*) - - -”. There are too many and too deep differences between the fundamental thinking and the morality in the Quran and the Bible - especially NT. The Quran is no confirmation of it, as mentioned before - the differences are too large and too fundamental. It also is clear that Muhammad took much from Biblical legends, etc. and not from the Bible itself, and thus not from "revelations that went before".

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

407 10/37g: "- - - the Book - - -". Comment YA1429: "Allah's revelations throughout the ages are one. The Quran confirms, fulfils, completes, and further explains the one true revelation, which has been sent by the One True God (Allah*) in all ages". No comment to this is necessary", except that all these claims are wrong - - - at least unless Islam produces proofs instead of just claims. There are miles and kilometers - also in depth - between the contents and f.x. the moral codes of the two books, and only one single sentence in the entire books which are the same - 6 small words in a verse in the Psalms (we have heard they make 8 words in Arab): "- - - the righteous will inherit the land - - -" This is all which is the same in the two books, and it is a sentence of a kind which may well have become identical by coincidence. The quality as literature also is very different. Rubbish would be a correct word for this claim, but we seldom use that kind of words.

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

**408 10/39c: “- - - (the Quran*) whose knowledge they cannot compass, - - -”. For the uneducated, often an-alphabetic members of Muhammad’s early followers, that might be true, except for the question: Who has most knowledge – the one without knowledge, or the one with much wrong knowledge?. But the claim is in no case true today - and we see that a lot of the “facts” Muhammad used, are wrong - something any god had known and used. A god also had made none of all the other errors in the book.

###The fact is that today there are very good reasons to laugh from this quote. "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" has listed to the tune of 3ooo - three thousand - mistakes, etc. in that book, included 17oo+ points with wrong facts. It would take some planning to include more wrong knowledge even if one wanted to.

Some proof! And a good reason for a laugh from neutral but well educated persons.

409 10/44b: "Verily, Allah will not deal unjustly with man in aught - - -". Perhaps. But some of the moral rules and some of the laws said to be from him, are pretty unjust and/or immoral - some even worse. Actually 1 or 2 of the laws in sharia - Allah's laws - may be the most unjust and immoral in any somewhat civilized culture in this whole world.

410 10/45g: "- - - assuredly those will be lost who denied the meeting with Allah - - -". Strongly contradicted by the Bible, which do not even mention Allah. According to the Bible what is wrong is to deny Yahweh and/or to accept any other god than him - which of course also has to include the undocumented claimed god Allah, a dressed up pagan god originally named al-Lah. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

411 10/47b: “To every people (was sent) a Messenger - - -.” Hadith mention 124ooo (= 620 at any time for 5ooo years or 12-15 for 160ooo-200ooo. No traces found - believe it if you can) messengers or prophets. There is not one single trace from prophets teaching monotheism (except in Israel and a couple of other special cases), not to mention Islam, in the old times, neither in archaeology, art, literature, folk tales, nor in religions. Some of them should have left small traces at least, when they were so many. This verse is not true.

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

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

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

####412 10/49a: "I (Muhammad*) have no power over any harm or profit to myself except as Allah willeth". In clear language: Muhammad had no supernatural power. M. Asad understands it the same way - to quote his comment (A10/69) to this verse: "and since I (Muhammad*) do not possess any supernatural powers, I cannot predict that which is beyond the reach of human perception (al-ghayb)." This is a good verse and a good fact to remember when you meet Muslims who in triumph tell about miracles or foreseeing/prophesies performed by Muhammad, or read about such ones in the Hadiths - there are a number. This is one of the many verses in the Quran which prove that all such stories are made up legends no matter where you meet them, even with Al-Bukhari or Imam Muslim, and this even though many learned Muslims use big words about these claimed miracles. AND NB: ALL THESE LEARNED MUSLIM SCHOLARS HAVE STUDIED THE QURAN AND HAVE TO KNOW THE STORIES ARE MADE UP - this fact tells something about ethics, moral and integrity among at least large parts of the Islamic religious intelligentsia, when they tell their lay people about Muhammad's "miracles".

This verse also is one of several proofs for that Muhammad was no real prophet - he was not able to make prophesies, and without that ability you are no real prophet. (The same is said in 7/188b, and by his favorite (child) wife Aisha).

####413 10/49b: "I (Muhammad*) have no power over any harm or profit to myself except as Allah willeth". Y10/69: "and since I (Muhammad*) do not possess any supernatural powers, I cannot predict that which is beyond the reach of human perception". Muhammad thus also had not the ability to make prophesies - thus no prophet. It may here be relevant to mention that in the really old times the title among the Jews was not prophet but seer (f.x. 1. Sam. 9/9) - one who could see or at least glimpse the future.

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

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

Muhammad unable to make prophesies: 3/144, 3/179, 6/50, 7/188, 10/20, 27/65, 46/9, 72/26, 81/24.

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

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

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

414 10/55e: “Is it not (the case) that Allah’s promise (the Quran*) is assuredly true?” There has not been one single proved case in the entire history and prehistory of that a promise proved coming from Allah, has been proved to be true. Lots of claims, not one proved case - - - and the best proof for this is the silence from Islam about such a case.

415 10/66g: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) do nothing but lie". No comments - except Muhammad knew that even in the Quran he put lies - he f.x. was too intelligent not to know that miracles would give believers. Plus that Islam is the only one of the big religions which to a large degree accepts the use of dishonesty and even broken words/promises/oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah could cheat, cheating is ok - but how much cheating is it then in the Quran? - by Allah or by Muhammad)).

Also a bit ironic slander from the only one of the big religions which accepts the use of dishonesty as a working tool. May be worse: Muhammad knew that at least the claim that they did nothing but lie, was a lie.

416 10/74a: "Then after him (Noah*) We (Allah*) sent (many) messengers to their Peoples - - -". Hadiths claims that there have been 124ooo (= 620 at any time for 5ooo years or 12-15 for 160ooo-200ooo. No traces found. Believe it if you can.) messengers/prophets for Allah through the times. Except for the Biblical ones (who Muhammad wrongly claimed spoke about Allah) not one single trace has ever been found from any of them - not in history, not in religion, not in architecture/decoration, not in folklore, not in legends, not even in fairy tales older than 610 AD. This in spite of that if Adam lived 5ooo years before Muhammad, there through all times were 600+ prophets/messengers - 3+ in each and every country - proselyting on Earth. Believe it if you are able to.

417 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 was changed to become parallels to Muhammad's own life and story, to make him look like the old prophets, and thus a normal prophet.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and on top of the fact that Abraham did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran tells. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

*418 10/82a: “And Allah by His Words (the Quran*) prove and establish His Truth, - - -”. Wrong. The words of the Quran proves nothing about Allah, until it first is proved that it really was made by Allah, and that Allah really has made and done what the Quran says. It is at best partly the truth only - too many mistakes, contradictions, etc. For similar claims see 2/22 – 3/70 – 5/48 – 6/57 – 7/181 – 8/6 – 10/33 – 10/82 – 11/20 – 13/17 – 23/70 – 34/53 – 47/3 – 54/55.

It is not even proved that Allah said what Muhammad claimed he said. Nor is it proved that any of the many versions of the Quran repeats Muhammad's exact words - and in case which version, if any.

Compare this "proof" for Allah's and the Quran’s truth and reliability, with all the errors and worse - included even a few(?) lies - listed in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" and have a good laugh.

Not to forget the words of science: "You need the belief of a Muslim to be able to believe that the quality of the texts in the Quran proves anything about a divine origin of the book".

419 10/84-86: Moses and the Jews were good Muslims. Try to find this claim in the Bible! (And remember: Science has proved the Bible is not falsified - in spite of Muhammad's never proved claims he had to make to save his religion and his leadership. Islam has thoroughly proved the same by not finding one proved falsification among the tens of thousands of relevant manuscripts.)

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

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

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

*420 10/90c: “I (Ramses II) believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in (indicated by Muhammad to be Allah)". One more thing we know about Ramses II (see 10/90), is that he was a polytheist and never a Muslim – and never a Jew. This episode is nowhere motioned in the Bible.

################This episode(?) told by Muhammad in 614-615 AD also is a very strong proof for that Muhammad knew that miracles or other proofs from a god - like indicated Ramses II understood here - would make people believers, and thus a strong proof for that he knew he lied each time later when he "explained" away requests for proofs from/for Allah with the claim that proofs or miracles would have no effect.

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

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

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

421 10/94a: "- - - what We (Allah*) hath revealed (the Quran*) unto thee (Muhammad or Muslims*) - - -". No god has revealed a book like the Quran to anyone. For one thing it is too low quality as literature, but mainly: Too much is wrong.

422 10/94g: “- - - be nowise of those in doubt (about Islam*).” Wrong. With all the mistakes etc. in the Quran, it is sheer naivety not to be in doubt, and at least check the facts.

423 10/99b: “If it had been thy Lord’s (Allah’s*) Will, they would all have believed (in Islam*) - all who are on earth!” Far from all believe - not after 1400 years. This either means Allah does not want the majority to believe, but instead go to Hell - or he is not able to make them believe in spite of the big words via/from(?) Muhammad.

424 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).

425 10/100a: "No soul can believe, except by the Will of Allah - - -." Is it then morally acceptable to condemn all the others to Hell, when their lack of belief is because Allah has decided it so? (according to Hadiths he decides whether to send you to Hell or to Heaven 5 months before you are even born). Very different from NT where everybody have the possibility and are welcome to search for Heaven.

426 10/103c: "- - - thus it is fitting on Our (Allah's*) part that We should deliver those who believe!" Yes, it is very fitting - especially if all Muslims have been led by the nose by a deceiver. But the old fact: The claim only is possible if Allah exists and in addition is a god of some standing (and not f.x. from the dark forces like among other things his partly immoral moral code, his dishonesty, his lust for and inhuman rules for war and blood, and his partly unjust laws may indicate).

####427 10/106a: "Nor call on any, other than Allah - - -". Why call on Allah when the Quran is very clear on that nobody and nothing - which includes prayers - can change his predestined Plan, and thus that also prayers just are a waste of time and effort which can have no effect?! That prayers can have effect is a contradiction "par excellence" if it is true that Allah predestines everything and does so according to an unchangeable Plan. One of the most serious of the many contradictions in the Quran in case. (And if predestination is not true, where then is Islam?)

428 10/109d: "- - - He (Allah*) is the Best to decide." Only if he exists and if the Quran is from a god - and if Allah in addition is a god (and Allah f.x. not from the dark forces - - - if he as questioned exists).

####429 11/1b: “(This (the Quran*) is a Book, with verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning) - - -.” In plain words: The verses are in plain language and are to be understood literally where otherwise is not clearly said – in “basic and fundamental” words, and not least "of established meaning". But all the same Muslims try explaining away anything which is wrong in the Quran and which they do not find “explanations” for, with that "this is not to be understood literally – it must be allegories", etc. It is one of their three "last" – and often used - lines of defense” when errors in the Quran cannot be explained or explained away. (The other two are: “You cannot deduce anything from one or a few verses which looks wrong – the Quran (or the surah) must be understood as a whole”. And the really “low prose” one: “You are lying or making up things because you are an Islam-hater or are listening to Islam-haters” – this no matter how correctly you are quoting the Quran or the Hadiths or whatever.) Also see 3/7b+c above and 19/97, 26/2, 27/1, 28/2, 41/3, 43/2, 44/2, 44/58, 54/17, 54/32 .

A very essential point to remember when Muslims try to claim clear mistakes are allegories or similar. They often do. And Muslims trying to flee from indications or proofs in the Quran for that things are seriously wrong in the religion of Muhammad, might remember that the only main person they in case cheat, is oneself.

###### More down to the Earth: Muslims often explains away mistakes, etc. in the Quran with the claim that what is written there is not what is meant - it is a parable or an allegory or something. A book where you have to guess what is literally meant and what are parables - and what the parables in case mean - definitely is not easy.

######That the Quran tells - directly or indirectly, but clearly - that the texts in the Quran is clear, explained by Allah, and to be understood literally, you find f.x. these places: 3/7b, 3/138a, ##6/114ca, 11/1b, 15/1d, 18/1d-e, 18/2a, 19/97b, 20/113b+c, 24/34, 24/54j, 26/2a, 27/1b-d, 28/2, 36/69e, 37/117c, 39/28b, 41/3da, 43/2a, 43/3c, 43/29b, 44/2b-c, 44/13d, 44/58b, 54/17a, 54/22b, 54/32a+b, 54/40a, 65/11f, and 75/19. Worth remembering each time a Muslim or Islam tries to "explain" away errors, etc. by claiming the text means something different from what it says. In such cases either the Muslim/Islam lies when he/she claims the text means something different from what it says (the claim often is that it is a parable or something), or the Quran lies when it says that the book uses clear texts where nothing else is indicated.

#The listed points are all collected under 3/7b and 44/58b.

Or perhaps Allah is so clumsy and helpless when he explains things, that he needs help from humans to explain what "he really means"? (Nonsense to say the least about such claims lieing under such "explanations".)

WHO CAN EXPLAIN SOMETHING BETTER AND MORE CORRECTLY AND COMPLETELY THAN AN OMNISCIENT GOD?

430 11/2f: “Verily, I (Muhammad) am (sent) unto you (people*) from Him (Allah*) - - -“. No person bringing a tale where so much is wrong, is from a god. And no person bringing a "moral" code with so much immorality (f.x. lying, stealing, raping, enslaving, suppressing, apartheid, killing, murdering, incitements to dislike and hate) is from a good or benevolent god.

431 11/11a: "Not so (go wrong*) those who (good Muslims*) show patience and constancy, and work righteousness; for them is forgiveness (of sins) and a great reward". This is the ideal for Muslims according to the Quran - but remember that war and suppression are among the top duties, and that the Islamic moral is such that the ultimate idol is the stealing/robbing, extorting, enslaving, womanizing, raping, distaste and war mongering, murdering man Muhammad - a man who on top of all had so little respect for the truth that he more or less institutionalized al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) and Kitman (lawful half-truth - or perhaps an as correct definition is that you can tell lies, but make mental reservations inside you, and thus do not sin), Hilah (lawful pretending/circumventing), and according to the Quran advised deception, betrayal and even breaking your oaths (and can you break oaths, you also can break weaker promises and words) if that gave a better result. (The Quran also contains a few (100+ ?) obvious lies he made - f.x. that miracles would make no-one believe, a claim any intelligent man knows is untrue.)

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

432 11/14d: “- - - this revelation (the Quran*) is sent down - - -“. That is just the question for Islam: No god sends down a book so full of mistakes, etc.

433 11/14g: "- - - there is no god but He (Allah*)!" This is one more never proved claim from the Quran. But even if we omit all claimed gods from all other religions, there still remains Yahweh, the old Jewish and Christian god which the Quran admits exists, even though it wrongly mixes him up with Allah. And the teachings of these two gods are fundamentally so different, that in spite of Islam’s never proved claim, those two cannot be the same god (unless he is mentally much ill). Remember here that science long since has proved that the Quran's claims that the Bible is falsified, is wrong (that is to say, it is difficult to prove it 100% before some 500 BC (but f.x. NT is much younger), because there are too few that old manuscripts - but even then it was a written religion, and written religions are difficult to change much. If Muslims stand by their claims, they will have to prove it - it is their claims, and it is therefore they who have to prove it. (But Islam never is able to prove fundamental claims)). Also see 6/106b above.

But there is one interesting proof about OT: The Quran indirectly, but very clearly, confirms that it cannot have been falsified until after the year 33 AD: Jesus according to the Quran was a good Muslim. He read and he did teach from the old Jewish books in the synagogues. This he could not have done if he was a good Muslim and the scriptures were falsified. This even more so as Islam claims that all the old prophets - which include Jesus - received a copy of the claimed correct texts from Heaven. There are so enormous differences between the old Jewish texts (the Jewish Bible roughly is OT in the Bible), that there is no chance a top prophet like Jesus would not notice. And neither the Bible nor the Quran mentions that he anywhere stopped reading/teaching for such reasons or ever made the slightest remark about falsified texts of that kind. It happened he criticized the additional scriptures of the Pharisees, etc., but never a word about the old scriptures being falsified.

The only possible conclusion: The Quran here proves that OT was not falsified until after 33 AD.

But we know from a large number of scriptures and fragments, that nothing in the Bible has been falsified then or later. The best proof for this, is that if even one proved falsification had been found, Islam had told the entire world. It never did. (There are many claims, but from different Muslims tying to prove that the Quran is the truth, but guess if there had been a difference if a proved case had been found!) It has till now never happened.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and on top of the fact that Abraham did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran tells. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

There also are the strong historical facts that also at the time of Jesus, the Jews' god very clearly was Yahweh, and that no god like the Islamic Allah, no book similar to the Quran, no religion similar to Islam, existed in the entire Roman Empire or anywhere else known to history until after 610 AD.

434 11/17f: "- - - the Book of Moses before it (the Quran*) - - -". Comment YA1512: "- - - the Holy Quran which is compared to the original Revelation given to Moses - - -". The Quran and Islam claims that all prophets of the old got a book similar to the Quran (not necessarily identical in all details, but similar - and the difference cannot have been big, as they and the Quran all were copies of the "Mother Book" mentioned in 13/39, 43/4 and 85/21-21, and revered by the god in his Heaven). There are not many knowledgeable non-Muslims who would get the idea that Moses got something similar to the Quran. Islam needs strong proofs here. The same goes for all the other Jewish prophets, included Jesus. We have not heard about one non-Muslim who knows both those books, who believe in such a claim. (Most of them do not even laugh when this is mentioned - it is too far out even for laughing.)

The Bible mentions nothing about Moses receiving a book - the 10 Commandments in writing and the Law verbally (which he himself wrote down and sometimes called "the Book of the Covenant"), yes, a full book, no.

435 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.

436 11/24b: “These two kinds (of men (non-Muslims vs. Muslims*) may be compared to the blind and deaf, and those who can see and hear well. Are they equal when compared?” On the other hand: Most Muslims are totally blind and deaf to any fact they do not want to see or hear - who is the best, such a Muslim or a person able to see and understand that something is deeply wrong in the Quran and in Islam?

437 11/31c: "- - - nor claim I (Noah aka Muhammad*) to be an angel". Which was as well, because the real and historical Muhammad - in contrast to the glorified picture in Islam - was very far from being an angel, this even in Islamic literature (skip the glorification and read his demands, incitements and deeds, etc. and you get the true Muhammad - a quite inhuman and self centric story).

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

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

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

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

####438 11/35d: "If I (Muhammad*) has forged it (the Quran*) on me were my sin!" But if Muhammad forged the Quran or parts of it, the resulting sins were very far from being only hitting him. Very far from! They will hit each and every Muslim living according to a made up religion in case (and too many facts indicate that this is the reality.) Especially terrible if there somewhere exists a real god Muslims have been prohibited from looking for - f.x. the very different god Yahweh.

Claims like this - and sometimes as illogical as here - are some places in the Quran used by Muhammad to underline and strengthen his claim that his teaching (and thus also his moral code) is divine.

It is so extremely obvious that if Muhammad had made up the Quran, and if there somewhere exists a next life with a not made up god, this would have serious results also for Muhammad’s' followers - so extremely obvious and easy to see, that there is no chance an intelligent man like Muhammad did not see this. One more of his clear lies in the Quran.

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

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

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

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

439 11/54c: "- - - sin - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. We also may mention that just this word often covers very different deeds, acts, words, and thoughts in the Quran and Islam, compared to in more normal religions (Islam is a religion of war - in spite of its loud slogans), not to mention how much its meaning in the Quran often differs from the basic of all human moral; "do against others like you want others do against you". Read the surahs from Medina and weep.

440 11/85b: "- - - commit not evil in the land with the intent to do mischief". We had better not list the history's cases of Muslim aggression through the times - intending on power, riches, rape, slaves, suppression, etc. Besides the list may be too long for a PC if we knew all of them - much horror have happened during raids, wars, slave hunting, suppression, etc. through the centuries. (Muslims often complain about the Crusaders, but the Crusaders were in orphanage compared to some Muslim atrocities in especially Africa and Asia. Only that during the crusades the Muslims were victims, whereas in other cases they were "heroes".)

441 11/90a: "But ask forgiveness of your Lord (Allah*) - - -". Allah can forgive no-one unless he exists and is a god (if he is from the dark forces, it is less likely "forgiveness" from him is valid).

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

442 11/96b: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Clear (Signs) - - -". Moses had signs - but according to the Bible they were from Yahweh. And according to science there still was no sign of Allah or Islam for another some 2ooo years - and the same according to Islam, except for their claims about the opposite.

443 11/110a: “We (Allah*) certainly gave the Book to Moses, - - -”. According to science he certainly did not - those books are written 400-700 years later. (The Bible tells Moses got the 10 commandments written on tablets of stone + he got the law verbally and wrote it down later himself. "The Law" is sometimes used as a name for the Books of Moses, but in reality the laws only is a part of it).

444 11/110e: "- - - they (Jews and perhaps Christians*) are in suspicious doubt concerning it (the Bible*). Not more in doubt than that hundreds of Jews preferred death or fleeing, to accepting Muhammad's new religion. But claims like these are soothing to listen to for believers - at least for the ones to blind or too naive not to see the difference between loose claims and reality.

445 11/111b: "- - - of a surety, to all (humans*) will your Lord (Allah*) pay back (in full the recompense) of their deeds - - -". One of the many, many never proved claims in the Quran. With all the mistakes in the book, there only is one thing which is sure here, and that is that this claim is far from sure.

446 11/115a: "- - - be steadfast in patience." Something the entire world should know and remember: The Quran impresses and impresses and impresses "patient perseverance": Persevere and sooner or later the "enemy" tires and you have won, whereas the "enemy" must retreat or even accept you as his Master(s) - some future for non-Muslims!! We have visited most Muslim areas except south of Sahara, and there are few, if any, place we would like to live for a long time. A possible - possible - exception is Sabah on Borneo.

447 11/120a: "All that We (Allah*) relate to thee (Muhammad/Muslims*) of stories about the prophets - - -". Are the stories from Allah? - or from legends, etc.? May be added some points to make them fit Muhammad's situation and teachings? No god would need to use legends and fairy tales as basis for his holy book.

448 11/120c: "All that We (Allah*) relate to thee (Muhammad/Muslims*) of stories about the prophets - - - (is*) - - - an exhortation and a message of remembrance to those who believe". This is quite a piece of information when you know how much is wrong in the Quran!!

449 12/1c: “- - - the Perspicuous Book (the Quran*)”. A book with this many mistakes, invalid logical points, etc, hardly is perspicuous.

450 12/2c: “We (Allah*) has sent it (the Quran) down - - -“. No omniscient god has sent down a book with this many mistakes, contradictions, cases of wrong logic, etc. This means that either Allah is not omniscient, or that someone else has made the Quran.

451 12/3f: "- - - before this (the surahs of the Quran*), thou too (Muslims*) wast among those who knew it (the religion?*) not". Comment A12/3: "(The Arab words "la'allakum ta'qilun" here*) are meant to impress upon everyone who listens to or reads the Quran that its appeal is directed, primarily, to man's reason, and that the "feeling" alone can never provide a sufficient basis of faith". Muhammad understood psychology and used similar claims rather frequently - impressing on his followers that "you are intelligent who understand and follow my teachings" - to be told they are wise and intelligent is flattering, especially for uneducated and/or naive persons. #####But if Islam had been based on knowledge and peoples' intelligence and reason, it had disappeared fast and become a bloody comma and a sample of peoples' incredible ability to believe in spite of knowledge and facts, and of their as incredible ability to be blind to everything they do not want to see. Islam rests on the gut feeling that what my parents and everyone else told me was right when I was a child and later, and what all my surroundings and imams claim is the truth, is the truth - simply on "taqlid" to use an Arab word - and the mistakes in the Quran are just that the others do not know anything or do not understand that the "explanations" mean there are no mistakes anyhow, and the facts others point to are just lies from "Muslim-haters", and, therefore, there is no reason to check or think over facts not consistent with Islam. The same goes for its partly horrible moral code.

(There is much in that moral code - and Islam only have a moral code, no moral philosophy, as everything has to be done like Muhammad said or did - which is far from the basis for all real inter-human moral: "Do unto others like you want others do unto you".)

452 12/40c: "- - - Allah - - -". Once more: According to the Bible Joseph's god was Yahweh, not Allah. One of the MANY places in the Quran where Muhammad pretends Allah = Yahweh. (But neither science nor Islam has found any traces from a religion similar to Islam older than 610 AD = 1600+ years after Joseph).

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and on top of the fact that Abraham did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran tells. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

*453 12/40g: “(Islam*) is the right religion - - -”. Can a religion based on a book with so many mistakes, and with not a single valid proof for anything essential, really be a “right religion”? Simply no. Especially not when all the book rests only on the words of a man with very doubtful moral – thieving/robbing, womanizing, raping, enslaving, murdering, lying – even not respecting his own oaths - etc., and the book on top of all clearly is not from any god, with all those errors.

There is no god behind a book of a quality like the Quran. Thus it is no real religion - and thus also not "the right religion".

454 12/101h: "- - - righteous - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

455 12/104a: “And no reward dost thou (Muhammad*) ask of them (people/Muslims*) for this (the new religion*) - - -“. No, nothing except 20% of all stolen/robbed/extorted values and slaves from raids and wars, 100% of all values taken from victims who surrendered without fighting, plenty of women and lots and lots of absolute and undisputed power/dictatorship, and lots and lots of free warriors – he only had to pay them with promises about paradise and promises about rich spoils of war stolen from humans and countries. And the “poor-tax” - zakat - (normally 2,5% - 10% not of your income, but of your possessions each year if you were not too poor) – which he far from only spent for the poor – and the jizya – the tax from non-Muslims (free for the ruler to say how much – and that sometimes meant really much). Much of this like said was spent for waging more wars and for “gifts”/bribes to make neighboring Arabs good Muslims + some was given to the poor.

And the price for their riches was neighboring cultures and humans and lives they destroyed – to gain more power for him and riches and slaves for his warriors. It is indisputably clear from the Quran that he at least liked women and power and that he needed riches for bribes - f.x. up to 100 camels to a chief. You must steal a lot to be able to give lots of such bribes - and who cares about the victims?! Long live the Quran's moral code! Similar claims in 25/57a – 34/47 - 38/86 – 42/23.

##456 12/108a: “- - - evidence clear - - -“. There is not one single clear evidence neither for Allah nor for Muhammad being a prophet in the entire Quran. Not one. (There may be some exceptions for evidences for a god in points taken from the Bible, but those in case are proofs for Yahweh, not for Allah – those two gods cannot be the same one, unless that god is mentally ill – schizophrenic – as the teachings are fundamentally too different, especially like one meets Yahweh in “the new covenant” in NT – f.x. Luke 22/20). Also see 2/99. NB: Islam admits they have no real proofs for Allah, and that it is impossible for them to find any. (If they had had one, you bet they had brandished it all over.)

A small tit-bit here: There does not even exist a reliable proof for the existence of Muhammad. Oh, it is likely he is a historical person, but no reliable proof exists - you will find scientists honestly believing he is a made up person created to become the "salvatore" in a new religion emerging in Arabia around 600 AD.

As for proof: "A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". For one thing Muhammad never proved it really was Allah who was behind what Muhammad claimed were "signs" or "proofs", and for another a number of his claims may have more than one explanation/conclusion.

Some other quotes about proofs and invalid or made up proofs:

  1. "Strong claims need strong proofs.
  2. "A claim without a proof may be dismissed without a proof".
  3. "Claims are cheap, but only proofs are proofs".
  4. "The use of invalid proofs normally proves that something is fishy".
  5. "The cheat or deceiver naturally must rely on claims pretending to be facts or proofs".
  6. "A made up "proof" makes the man very suspect".
  7. "A strong belief is not a proof - not necessarily even a truth"
  8. .
  9. "Wrong claims and invalid "proofs" are working tools of the cheat".
  10. "A student with correct facts gets a more correct answer than 20 professors with wrong facts". (Invalid, "signs", claims, "proofs", etc. of course are wrong facts.)
  11. And we may add from Peer Gynt in his original language: "Naar utgangspunktet er som galest, blir resultatet tidt originalest" - freely translated: "When you conclude from wrong claims/wrong facts/invalid "proofs"/etc., you get wrong conclusions".

457 12/108b: (Allah tells Muhammad to say:) "I (Muhammad*) do invite you unto Allah - on evidence clear as seeing with one’s eyes",

  1. Muhammad here indirectly, but very clearly makes it clear that evidences are heavy arguments and essential.
  2. He also makes it clear that evidence you see with your own eyes, are clear evidences.
  3. The only evidences which really prove a god, are supernatural beings or acts.
  4. Muhammad never was able to prove one single of his claims about Allah or his own connection to a god - in spite of that he here admits and states that evidences are heavy and essential arguments. Not one essential point did he prove.
  5. He was frequently asked for proof, but had only fast-talk and sometimes even lies to offer to explain it away - in spite of here and other places arguing that evidences are heavy arguments - f.x. Moses' miracles made all sorcerers Muslims - and in spite of claiming proofs from everybody else.
  6. Whenever he was asked for valid arguments or evidence/proofs, he claimed that evidences had no value - no-one would believe anyhow - - - in spite of that he here and other places argues with that his "signs" and "proofs" should decide you. (This was some of his obvious lies in the Quran - so obvious that there is no chance he did not know it himself (he was intelligent), see f.x. his tales about the pharaoh's sorcerers, who he claimed fast became strong believers in Moses' god because of a minor evidence.)
  7. And another argument was the glorification of blind belief and the stupidity in needing proofs - in spite of that all and everybody in reality knows that the most sure way to be cheated, is believing blindly.
  8. Whenever Islam today is asked for proofs, they tell how un-intellectual and stupid it is not to see that intuition and inspiration is the sure way to knowledge and how silly it is to ask for proofs (they have nothing to offer, and what then to say?) - in spite of that every not too naive soul on Earth knows fast-talk is a sign of danger.
  9. And another argument is the glorious blind belief vs. the little reliability of the imbecile science - and the stupidity of needing proof, in spite of as mentioned that everybody know that the sure way to be cheated every now and then, is to believe blindly in this or that.
  10. They also never tell why Muhammad was so "stupid" that he always demanded proofs from opponents, if proofs have no value.

"A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". For one thing Muhammad never proved it really was Allah who was behind what Muhammad claimed were "signs" or "proofs", and for another a number of his claims may have more than one explanation/conclusion.

Some other quotes about proofs and invalid or made up proofs:

  1. "Strong claims need strong proofs.
  2. "A claim without a proof may be dismissed without a proof".
  3. "Claims are cheap, but only proofs are proofs".
  4. "The use of invalid proofs normally proves that something is fishy".
  5. "The cheat or deceiver naturally must rely on claims pretending to be facts or proofs".
  6. "A made up "proof" makes the man very suspect".
  7. "A strong belief is not a proof - not necessarily even a truth"
  8. .
  9. "Wrong claims and invalid "proofs" are working tools of the cheat".
  10. "A student with correct facts gets a more correct answer than 20 professors with wrong facts". (Invalid, "signs", claims, "proofs", etc. of course are wrong facts.)
  11. And we may add from Peer Gynt in his original language: "Naar utgangspunktet er som galest, blir resultatet tidt originalest" - freely translated: "When you conclude from wrong claims/wrong facts/invalid "proofs"/etc., you get wrong conclusions".

458 12/109d: “Do they (non-Muslims*) not travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those before them?” Mecca was a business centre with connections from at least Egypt and Constantinople to black East Africa and to India and even China - and north to Syria, the East Roman Empire, and Persia. There were many ruins in all that wide area, even if they were scattered. All ruins were empty of people, because Allah had killed them because they refused to become Muslims, according to Muhammad, and the same with all the places which had become empty, but where now new tribes lived - and with tribes and people from old folklore. If Muhammad was right, Yahweh had better hurry up not to end too far behind Allah in the field of killing - not to say the killing fields.

459 12/110b: "But never will be warded off Our (Allah's*) punishment from those who are in sin." We are back to the old fact: This only is true if Allah exists and is a major god - and if the Quran has described him correctly without the help from any god ( no book of a quality like the Quran is from any god).

460 12/111a: “This (the Quran*) is - - - instruction for men endued with understanding (flattery*).” It may be so – many Muslim thinkers and learned men were and are intelligent men. But to what avail? – when you give even the most intelligent persons wrong information from the start or babyhood, their conclusions inevitably become just mistakes and errors, no matter how intelligent they are. To quote late Henrik Ibsen in “Peer Gynt”: “Naar utgangspunktet er som galest, blir resultatet tidt originalest” – which means something like ”when the facts you use are really wrong, the result frequently becomes very ’original’”. Also: "Correct facts multiplied by one student give a better answer than false facts multiplied by a number of wise men".

461 12/111b: “It is not a tale invented - - -”. When there are so many mistakes in a book, what do you expect the reader to believe? It also is a sorry fact that the one who strongest and most often claims he is speaking the truth, is the cheat and deceiver. The Quran very many places claims it is speaking the truth - but it only claims, never proves any central point.

Worse: At least some places in the Quran Muhammad tells tales there is no chance he did not know were made up ones - lies. F.x. that proofs from Allah would make nobody believe anyhow. He knew too much about people to believe that, and on top told the story about that all the pharaoh's sorcerers became believing Muslims because of a small proof performed by Moses.

**462 12/111c: “- - - a confirmation of what went before (the Bible) - - -”. When there are so many and so serious mistakes in a book, it is not to be expected that the reader can believe too much. Just the story about Josef is taken from the Bible (which “went before“). But the story is much changed (maybe he in reality has retold a local legend about Josef, slightly based on the Bible) - it is no confirmation. On the background of all the documented mistakes in the Quran, which one is easiest to believe, if any - the Quran or the Bible? Not to mention the fact that many of the stories in the Quran are easy to recognize from known legends, fairy tales, apocryphal (made up) books, etc, from the time of Muhammad. And at least some of the details in this story in the Quran are illogical - like Solomon listening to the speech of ants. More to the point: There are too many and too fundamental differences in the teachings - the Quran does not confirm the Bible.

**463 13/1f: “- - - the Book: that which hath been revealed unto thee (Muhammad*) from thy Lord (Allah*) - - - “. That is the question, to quote Hamlet: Did a god really produce and reveal a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, and invalid “proofs“? No. And when no god revealed it, he also did not reveal it to Muhammad.

An alternative is that the Devil impersonated Gabriel and in other cases told Muhammad “by inspiration”, and that it thus was revealed to him, but from dark forces. Another alternative is that it all stems from a sick brain – TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) + lust for power may easily explain everything. Yet another alternative is that it was not revealed, but made up – the fact that many of the mistakes which are in accordance with the wrong science of the time and area of Muhammad, and also the fact that Muhammad was not stupid enough to believe everything that is said in the Quran, may indicate that it is made up. (As for the last argument: F.x. the claim that miracles would not make any people believe, Muhammad was too intelligent and knew too much about people to believe himself – and f.x. Jesus was a good proof of the opposite: A lot did not believe in spite of everything, but quite a number came to believe because of what they saw and heard and witnessed. The same was the conclusion of the story that Muhammad himself told about the magicians of Pharaoh Ramses II and Moses: They came (according to Muhammad’s own words) to believe after a small miracle.) For similar also see 2/231 – 3/3 – 4/136 – 5/48 – 5/59 - 5/64 – 5/67 – 6/7 – 7/2 – 7/3 – 10/2 – 13/19 – 16/89 – 18/1 - 16/102 – 25/33 – 27/6 – 33/2 – 34/6 – 35/24 – 35/31 – 39/2 - 47/2.

Thus to repeat:

An alternative is that the f.x. the Devil impersonated Gabriel and in other cases told Muhammad “by inspiration” what thus was "revealed" to him. The inhumanity of the religion would then be explained. Personally we doubt this explanation, if for no other reason, then because even a devil would not make so many mistakes, contradictions, etc. in the Quran - he simply would not want to be found out by his victims sooner or later. There is one possibility, though: If Iblis - the Islamic Devil - got permission from Allah for trying to lure more humans to Hell only on the condition that the trap should be one which was easy for thinking persons to see, then all the mistakes may be explained. To be flippant: May be the god did not want too many too stupid humans into his Paradise?

Another alternative is that it all stems from a sick brain – TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) + lust for power may easily explain everything. In this case Muhammad may have believed at least partly in his own tales and religion.

Yet another alternative is that it was not revealed, but made up in cold blood. The fact that many of the mistakes are in accordance with the wrong science of the time and area of Muhammad, and also the fact that Muhammad was not stupid enough to believe everything that is said in the Quran, may indicate that it is made up. In this case it may have been made up of one (or more) helper like many of his contemporaries suspected, or by himself - the last is most likely, at least for parts of it.

###464 13/1g: “(the Quran*) is the Truth“. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact.

  1. There are many mistaken "facts" which science, history, geography, archaeology, literature, art, etc., prove are wrong. (At least unbelievable 1700+ !!! places with mistaken facts, and perhaps 3000+ errors all together).
  2. There are “more than 100 divergences (mistakes*) from the rules and structure of normal Arab language”, according to Ali Dashi “Twenty-three years”.
  3. There are verses where it clearly is Muhammad who is speaking, in stark contradiction to all statements that the book is made by Allah or has existed from eternity (though some of the places - f.x. 6/114a in Yusuf Ali or 27/91a in Pikthall or Dawood - the mistakes are camouflaged by dishonest translators inserting the word “Say”, according to Ibn Warraq.)
  4. The Quran states that the Quran is in pure Arab language. But according to al-Suyuti there are at least 107 foreign words used in the book, and Arthur Jeffery (specialist in Arab and in non-Arabic words in the Quran) says ca. 275 words from Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, and also from Syria, Ethiopia, and Persia. Even the word Quran is said to be from Syria. (The Arabs later found an excuse for those mistakes: Al-Tha’alibi tells that the Arab started to use those words and made them Arabic. An easy but dishonest explanation.)
  5. They used an alphabet without vowels, and to make it even worse, when writing the Quran/surahs in the old time, they did not even use the small points newer Arab uses to specify different letters, and also not the writing signs like f.x. the comma. Because of this it often is difficult or impossible to know which word is meant. To use an English example: If you only have the consonants “h” and “s” and put in vowels, the result may be “house” or “hose” or “his” or “has”. Because of this there are thousands of possibilities for mistakes - or different meanings. Muslims tell the Quran was finished not later than 656 AD, but that is not true - only the simplified version using the old unfinished alphabet was used then, was finished by Caliph Uthman not later than 656 AD, and lots of versions were written as the language and the alphabet were completed. Not until round 900 AD was the Quran really finished, and by then there existed numbers of versions. Muslims under the very learned Ibn Mohair (died 935 AD) finally canonized 14 versions and accepted 10 more = 24 versions accepted by Islam (see Preface of "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran"). Over the centuries many fell out of use. Today there are mainly two - one dominant (Hafs) and one much used in parts of Africa (Warsh) + 4 which are used in smaller regions also in Africa. After all that, how can anybody pretend that the Quran of today is sent down from Allah letter-by-letter and comma-by-comma? – the comma did not even exist!
  6. The language in the original Quran was so little exact, that there frequently is necessary to insert explanations.
  7. And how then can anyone pretend that the language in the Quran of today is perfect and correct language word for word and meaning for meaning just as dictated by Allah, when one knows that they spent 250 years “de-coding” the original texts and polishing the language?
  8. And even more so: How can anyone pretend with a straight face that the Quran(s) of today is the one and perfect one from Allah, when the clergy/religious leaders and the educated elite at least, know that there were at least 14 + 10 “correct” versions earlier (to camouflage that they were different versions, Muslims call them “ways of reading” – you meet the word even today, because even today there are “different ways of reading”) - versions that over the centuries by an arbitrary process was reduced to 3 and then to 1-2. (The one dominating today, most likely dominates because it happened to be used when Egypt printed Qurans in 1924, according to Ibn Warraq).
  9. Of the 14 and more versions which existed, how can one be sure that the most correct versions were the ones which finally came to dominate? - or that those versions (Hafs and Warsh) had all interpretations of the primitive writings correct (especially as they are not quite similar)?
  10. There are lots of places in the Quran where the logic is wrong – mainly because Muhammad draws conclusions or make statements without first proving that it really is Allah who made this and this. F.x. the sun and the moon and night and day may be good proofs for Allah, but ONLY if it first is proved that it really is Allah who made them and runs them. Muhammad never really proves anything essential. Never. He just claims or states. The results are invalid claims with invalid logic, not real “signs” or “proofs”. Valueless. Or even worse, as the use of such arguments proves to the entire world that he has no real and true facts/arguments. Still even worse: The use of bluffs is a hallmark of cheats and deceivers.
  11. ##########Muhammad lies something like 100 places or more in the Quran (see our booklet no.2: "Muhammad lying in the Quran"). This really tells something about his and the Quran's - and Islam's - reliability.

  12. "Proofs". The facts in the 2 points just above are even more essential here in this point - in points where he indicates or even uses the word “proof”. The problem is the same, and the only possible conclusion is the same: Valueless demagogy that proves that he had no real and true facts/arguments. Even worse: The use of invalid arguments is the hallmark of cheats and deceivers.

There is little reason to believe the Quran ever was perfect and without mistakes, and even less reason to believe that the Quran of today is so (it simply is not). This even if you omit all the mistakes we know about. At very best the book only is partly true. Also see 13/39a+b, 43/4, 85/21-22 below.

465 13/2g: “He (Allah*) has subjected the sun and the moon (to His Law!) - - - ”. Natural laws are integrated parts of the nature, until someone proves this is wrong. No god or prophet has ever proved that - it remains to be seen if Islam is able to do so. Also see 11/7a above.

466 13/2j: "He (Allah*) doth regulate all affairs - - -". = Allah decides everything (and this he does by predestining every detail in life and in the world according to his unchangeable Plan according to other verses in the Quran). Often claimed, never proved.

467 13/2l: “- - - explaining the Signs in detail - - -“. Wrong and/or logically invalid “explanations” in reality are not explanations at all – even if they were in detail, which they in many cases are not. But it tells a lot that Islam and Muslims in spite of declarations like this from Allah, uses claims about difficult to understand language and difficult to understand explanations and stories, as a reason for why they have to explain what Allah in his bumbling and inapt helplessness has been unable to explain in a way people understand. But then of course Muslim believers, imams, etc. are more intelligent and knowledgeable than Allah, and thus better able to give correct and understandable stories and explanations, explaining what Allah "really" meant.

BUT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT AND THE FOR ISLAM MOST DESTROYING FACT HERE IS THAT THE QURAN/ALLAH TELLS THAT EVERYTHING IS EXPLAINED IN DETAIL - AND REMEMBER THAT SIMILAR IS SAID SEVERAL PLACES IN THE QURAN. THIS FOR ONE THING MEANS THAT ALLAH MEANS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAYS IN THE QURAN - HE HAS EXPLAINED EVERYTHING IN DETAIL. WHICH MEANS THAT ALL TRIES FROM ISLAM TO EXPLAIN AWAY ERRORS, ETC. BY CLAIMS THAT "ALLAH MEANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HE SAID", "THIS IS AN ALLEGORY, AND REALLY MEANS SOMETHING ELSE", ETC., ALL SUCH CLAIMS ARE KILLED AND DEAD - ALLAH EXPLAINED EVERYTHING IN DETAIL, AND THUS CORRECTLY. AND FOR ANOTHER: IF ALLAH EXPLAINED EVERYTHING EXACTLY AND IN DETAIL, WHAT HUMAN BEING IS ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT BETTER AND MORE CORRECTLY THAN A GOD? - AND WHAT HUMAN BEING KNOWS BETTER THAN A GOD WHAT THE GOD "REALLY" MEANT AND THUS CAN CORRECT THE GOD'S DETAILED EXPLANATION?

The Quran claims it quotes Allah when it says that the Quran has a plain, clear and easy to understand language which is to be understood easily and literally if nothing else is indicated (f.x. 3/7, 11/1, 15/1, 18/2, 18/54, 19/97, 26/2,27/1, 28/2, 36/69, 41/3, 43/2, 44/2, 44/58, 54/17, 54/22, 54/32), and that only bad people "sick of heart (33/12, 33/60)" or "in whose hearts is perversity" (f.x. 3/7) look for hidden meanings - meanings "only Allah can understand". Then one has to be naive in the extreme to believe in Muslims' claims that all the mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, unclear language, etc. in the book in reality are not mistakes, etc. but only the omniscient god who are so clumsy expressing himself that he has been unable to say what he meant, and that clever Muslims have to help him and tell what he "really" meant or explain that "it is parables". Or that Allah does not mean what he clearly says, but that the mistake, etc. in reality is an allegory - a hidden meaning - and clever humans have to explain the "real" meaning of his helplessly chosen words. Strangely you mainly find such claims from Muslims in connection with mistakes, etc., - clearly the omniscient Allah is not mastering neither science nor the plain Arab language properly, and really do need the help from intelligent and clever mere humans to be able to express himself. One or a few such cases should be disturbing for the believers, as an omnipotent god does not make mistakes and he also should be a master of expressing himself clearly and impossible to mistake in clear words with distinct and unmistakable meaning. One or a few cases could be explainable, but when it runs in the hundreds and even a few thousands of such cases, it requires blindness, naivety and/or wishful thinking beyond the unbelievable to be able to believe in such "explanations". Even with lots of wishful thinking it takes blindness and naivety far into the incredible to be able to make oneself believe this.

"One case is coincidence, two cases are suspicious, three cases are proof", Stalin said. Here are may be 3ooo cases!!

#########On the background of that Allah several places in the Quran tells that he explains everything in detail, all claims from Islam and Muslims that he "in reality means something else" are invalid al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) if the Quran is reliable. THIS EVEN MORE SO AS ALLAH(?) ALSO IN THE QURAN TELLS THAT TO SEEK FOR HIDDEN MEANINGS IN THE QURAN ONLY IS FOR THE SICK OF HEART, AND THAT ONLY ALLAH CAN UNDERSTAND SUCH HIDDEN MEANINGS ANYHOW.

#########################The fact thus is that such claims (that the Quran means something different from what the text says) are an insult to any god - and corruption and falsification of the texts in the Quran.

468 13/2n: "- - - that ye (Muslims*) may believe with certainty in the meeting with your Lord (Allah*)". The human brain is so strangely made that it is fully possible to believe with certainty in things which are proved wrong. For persons used to logic and to using their brain this seems incredible, but it is a fact.

But there only is one certainty here: As the only source for Muhammad's claims is a book full of errors and worse, and add Muhammad's unreliability (acceptance of the use of dishonesty, deceit, etc.), and there only is this certainty: It is absolutely certain that it is not certain Allah will meet anybody at the other side - if there even is an "other side".

Well, there is one more: The Quran and all its wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, unclear language, etc. bring VERY strong circumstantial and empirical proofs for that the book is not from an omniscient god - not from any god at all.

469 13/4b: "Behold, verily in these things are signs for those who understand!" Correct - ####all the mistakes only in the small verse above are clear signs for those who consider and understand, not to mention those who consider all the errors and worse + the few(?) lies in the Quran - a clear message: Something is very wrong. Also see 13/2m above.

############One has to be extremely naive or brainwashed not to consider the fact that a man who had a moral code which accepted and in some cases even promoted the use of dishonesty as working tools, and a man who wanted respect and power and women, not also could deceive his followers a little - or more.

##470 13/11a: "For every (such person (here in reality everybody*)) there are (angels) in succession (= working shifts*), before and behind him - - -". Remember this and similar verses each time the Quran or a Muslim tells you that angels could not visit Muhammad and prove to his followers and doubters and opponents that he spoke the truth, because the sending down of angels meant that the Day of Doom had arrived.

471 13/14d: "- - - any others (other gods than Allah*) they (non-Muslims*) call upon besides Him hear them (not*) - - -". May be they are in the same boat as Muslims? - also Allah to this date - during 1400 years - has never one single time giving an answer unmistakably from him. Lots of claims, but never a proved case (guess if the world had known it if it had happened even once!)

472 13/14f: "- - - the prayer from those without Faith is nothing but (futile) wandering (in the mind)". Something like praying to a god who most likely does not exist - never any proofs neither for his power, nor for his existence, and his "holy" book so full of errors, that no god would have touched it, not to mention put his name behind/on/in it or revered it in his "home" as a "mother book" (13/39, 43/4 below). Not to mention prayer to a god who predestines everything years and decades before, so prayers just are naive waste of time - if the claims about predestination are true (and if not, Islam does not exist anymore - except as a made up pagan religion).

473 13/15a: “Whatever beings there are in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and in the earth do prostrate themselves (pray*) to Allah (acknowledging subjection)”. As for in the Heaven, it is difficult to say yes or no. But for the Earth: No non-Muslim ever prostrate themselves for Allah. The same goes for all animals, fishes and insects, etc.: None of them has ever been observed prostrating themselves for any god, Allah included – and for Allah it should be extra easy to observe, as he prefers 5 prayers with prostrations towards Mecca a day, some by day and some by night (even more easy to see if it is prostrations for Allah, as few animals, etc. are awake and active both day and night – waking up for prostrations towards Mecca during the time of normal sleep, should be easy to have confirmed). Islam has some heavy proofs to produce here to make this point in the Quran credible. Also see 2/116 – 6/38 – 16/49 – 17/44 – 21/20 – 22/18.

474 13/16k: "He (Allah*) is the One, the Supreme and Irresistible." Similar often claimed, never proved - and like so much in the Quran it is claims any priest in any religion can make free of charge on behalf of his god(s) as long as no proofs are required - words are that cheap.

475 13/18a: "For those who respond to their lord (Allah*) are (all) good things". Ever so often claimed in the Quran, but never proved.

476 13/19c: “- - - that (the Quran*) which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord (Allah*) - - -”. No god reveals a book with that much wrong contents. Also see 13/1f above.

477 13/19f: "(Is a good Muslim not better than) one who is blind (non-Muslim*)?" A rhetoric question with an intended obvious answer. But the correct answer is completely dependent on two other questions and their answers: Is the Quran from a god? - and does it in addition tell the full truth and only the truth?

478 13/23–24a: “Gardens of perpetual bliss: they (Muslims*) shall enter there, as well as the righteous among their fathers, their spouses, and their offspring - - - how excellent is the final Home.” Primitive people may think in 2-4 generations like here, but nowhere in the Quran is told how family life a la Earth is to be arranged for 40 or a hundred generations - are f.x. all staying together in one mix?. Neither is there anywhere said anything about how the ones who died as babies or children or retarded will fare in Paradise – will they stay babies or children or retarded for ever to your pleasure (the Quran has a tendency to see things only from the points of view of the main persons: The adult men and warriors) or will they grow up or will they be resurrected as young adults or how? - and what about their families? - and what f.x. about the mentally retarded?

No matter – these may be problems possible to solve for a god. But the Muslim Paradise still is just a copy of life for rich people in this world, as seen through the eyes of poor and primitive male desert dwellers and polygamists. Is this all an omniscient and omnipotent god has to offer?

###479 13/27e: (A13/48 - in the English 2008 edition 13/49): "- - - their (humans'*) original, innate faculty to realize the existence of Allah and their own dependence of His guidance - - -". Science has nowhere and to no time found such an "innate faculty" concerning any god. This includes all Islamic universities and other Islamic research centers. (Guess if Muslim newspapers and others had had big letters on their front pages if such a faculty had ever been found!) But Islam needs arguments even like this, as there is no clear documentation for any of their central religious claims. Scientifically this is not even "gobbledygook". Dishonesty.

480 13/28b: “- - - for without doubt in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find satisfaction”. This only is true for (some) Muslims, and in difficult times also some others seeking comfort in religion. Science tells that a minor fraction of the people (may be 5 - 10%) has an internal drive for a god - for something strong to lean to - and some more resort to such thinking when life is difficult. (In 2006 or 2007 they even found which gene in our DNA which produces this drive. One theory is that religion is favored by evolution because it makes the group closer knit and then the chances for survival bigger). Other people find satisfaction in their own religion - no matter which religion - if they do believe in it. And if they happen to be Muslims, they then find satisfaction in Allah. But NB: The satisfaction does not derive from the god they believe in – he/she may well be a fiction, like Allah seems to be (strongly indicated by all the mistakes in the Quran) – but from their own belief, as it is strong enough to make them feel sure it is right, and then feel secure in that security (false or not does not matter, as long as they themselves believe their belief is right). There is a possibility that this feeling of security, and hence safety and reduced nervousness, is another Darwinian reason for this inherited trait – it may in some way give an edge in the fight for survival.

The question these ideas of course produce is: Is there a god somewhere or are they all made up from our needs for something supernatural? What is sure here, is f.x. that all the errors, contradictions, etc. in the Quran, give many and strong at least circumstantial and empirical proofs for that the book is from no god, and thus that it is highly likely that Allah is a made up god - this even more so as he originally was a pagan god - al-Lah - whom Muhammad took over and dressed up. And if he all the same exists, it is highly unlikely he is correctly described in a book full of wrong facts and other errors.

We should try to find out, because if it all stems from inside us, we should try to do something with the inhuman and immoral religions, to which Islam belongs - remember the basis for all inter-human real moral; "Do onto others what you want others do onto you". Few religions are further away from this than Islam.

481 13/31i: "- - - He (Allah*) could have guided all mankind - - -". Not with a guidebook like the Quran - too much is wrong, included partly horrible moral code. (Actually it may be the moral code which makes many react negatively to the religion and its members - too aggressive, too bloody, too self centered, too haughty and discriminating. There also is reason to react at its acceptance of dishonesty/al-Taqiyya, but most non-Muslims do not know about that part).

482 13/31p: "- - - for, verily, Allah will not fail In His promise". Quite likely not - if he exists, if the Quran is from him, and if the book tells the full truth and only the truth about him and everything else. But there is not reported one single case where it is proved that Allah kept or even given a promise. Guess if such a case had showed up in Muslim propaganda if it had ever happened!

483 13/36h: "- - - unto Him (Allah*) is my (Muhammad's and any Muslim's*) return (on the Day of Doom*)". If Allah exists, is a major god and is correctly described in the Quran. Well, may be also in the case if he exists, but is part of the dark forces. This claim also is contradicted by the Bible, which tells it is to Yahweh one returns.

####484 13/39b: “- - - with Him (Allah*) is the Mother of the Book (the presumed original book of which the Quran - AND THE CLAIMED BOOKS OF ALL THE EARLIER PROPHETS/MESSENGERS (INCLUDED CLAIMED PROPHETS AND MESSENGERS FROM BEFORE MAN LEARNT HOW TO READ - is said to be an exact copy*)“. Mere humans like us think it is unlikely in the extreme that an omnipotent and omniscient god has a book awash with lots of mistakes, contradictions, logically invalid claims, etc. as a revered "Mother of the Book" (= "Mother of the Quran") in his Heaven. There also are a lot of problems to explain, if it was made by the god a long time ago - not to mention if it is an unmade book that has existed forever, like many Muslims insists:

  1. If the book is that old and existed before and existed before Earth was created, why did the god have to send down claimed imperfect books - Torah, OT, NT? And NB: Science and Islam both have showed they are not falsified, in spite of Muslims claim (like normal for Islam without documentation). Thus they must have been sent down in their present forms in case.
  2. How to explain that in at least two verses it is angels who are speaking? - they were created from light after the world was created.
  3. How to explain that at least in one verse angels were speaking to humans? - humans are much younger than the world.
  4. How to explain that in some verses it is Muhammad that is speaking?
  5. How to explain that angels are speaking in the Quran if the book is older than the first angels?
  6. How to explain that the god sometimes has to change his message – erase it in the Mother Book and write something new? - and did he really get everything right in the book this time? Especially if he is copying the Mother Book, he ought to get it right at once?
  7. How could he change the messages, if it was all written a long time ago - or always existed - in a Mother Book he copied? Erasing something there and writing over?
  8. How come, if the book is eternal, that so many verses are answers or comments to things which happened in Mecca and Medina to Muhammad and others during the life of Muhammad? - Muhammad f.x. quarreled with his wives, and Allah sent down surahs to explain that Muhammad as always was right - and like always a little bit too late to avert problem, but relevant to his needs just then? (Remember that if man has freedom of choice, full omniscience and thus also full clairvoyance is impossible - admitted even by Islam, except that they say it must be true all the same because Allah says so in the Quran (!!))
  9. How to explain that it (the Quran) could have been written eons ago, if Allah has given the humans a certain amount of free will? - human acts will upset the texts in chaotic ways. (Predestination and human free will are 100% incompatible and 100% impossible to combine even for gods, as man always can change his mind once more, making it impossible for the god to know for sure what really will happen, until it happens).
  10. Islam says texts had to be changed a little over time, because times changes - therefore new holy books. But the 300 last years have changed more than from Adam till 1700 AD - not to mention till 650 AD. Why are no prophets and no holy book necessary? (Also see 13/38d above). And how was the text in the Mother Book changed to fit new times.
  11. If the “mother book” is eons old, why then is nearly the all talk to Muhammad, a little to a few others, and nothing to the other 124ooo (= 620 at any time for 5ooo years or 12-15 for 160ooo-200ooo. No traces found. Believe it if you can) prophets (the number according to Hadiths)? The first prophets - when everything was new – after all needed most information and help.
  12. How to explain that most of the stories in the Quran are based on religious legends, fairy tales, etc.? - any god had known they were untrue.
  13. How to explain all the mistakes? – any god had known better.
  14. How to explain all the invalid statements? – any god had known better.
  15. How to explain all the invalid “signs” (treated as proofs)?
  16. How to explain the invalid “proofs”? – any god had known better.
  17. How to explain the directly wrong statements, “signs” and “proofs”. ?
  18. How to explain all the contradictions? – the wrong claim of "no contradictions" is one of the “proofs” for Allah.
  19. How to explain all the cases of invalid logic? - no god would need to use invalid logic.
  20. How to explain the often unclear language in the book, even concerning serious points?
  21. How to explain away science's proofs for that f.x. the Bible is not falsified?
  22. How to explain away Islam's unintended but strong proofs for that the Bible is not falsified? - in spite of thorough search through all and every of the old manuscripts and fragments, they have found not one single case of proved falsification - MANY lose claims, but not one proved case (the best proof for this is Islam's silence about this, compared with the mega loud screams they had used to tell the world, if they had found even one proved case.) 45ooo : 0 is a proof of mathematical strength. (There exist some 45ooo relevant scriptures and fragments, but Islam has found 0 proved falsifications.)
  23. How to explain how it was possible to make the entire Christianity and its sects + the Jews agree on to falsify the Bible?

  24. How to explain how it was possible to make the entire Christianity and its sects + the Jews agree on what to falsify the Bible?

  25. How to explain how it was possible to make the entire Christianity and its sects + the Jews agree on what new texts to use in the claimed falsified Bible?

  26. How to explain away f.x. Jesus' acceptance of OT as ok, combined with that the Qumran scrolls then tells that even OT was never falsified?
  27. How to explain how it was find each and every then existing (100ooo+ or more?) relevant scriptures spread over 3 continents to falsify them?
  28. How to explain how it was possible to make each and every owner of such scriptures or fragments agree to having his/her cherished and often holy and expensive (hand written books naturally were very expensive) books falsified?
  29. How to explain that the new and falsified texts always exactly fitted the "slots" left open by the erased unwanted texts?
  30. How to explain that the falsifications are so neatly done that not even modern science can find them?
  31. How to explain how the falsifiers travelling around falsifying the books had time to falsify so much in each book? Remember here that it takes many months to hand copy even one Bible? (It has 4+ times as much text as the Quran, and only one short sentence of 6-8 words is the same in both books.)
  32. How to explain that such an enormous operation took place - and over many years - without one single historian ever got a hint about it?
  33. And not least: How to make all the owners afterwards cherish and believe in scriptures they knew were falsifications?

And there are more such questions. + Also see 13/1d+e+f above and 43/4, 85/21-22 below. And: No such book is mentioned in the Bible.

485 13/43f: (A13/84): “Enough for a witness between me (Muhammad*) and you “non-Muslims*) is Allah, and such as have knowledge (Muslims*) of the Book (the Quran*)”. The comment says: "(This is*) - - - implying that a true understanding of the Quran unavoidably leads one to the conviction that is has been revealed by Allah". Pointing to all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran proving 110% that no god is involved in its making, we do not bother to add more comments, except that as Islam has no documentation for any of its central religious claims, it needs even arguments like this.

Islam has not one proof neither for Allah, nor for that a god was involved in the delivery of the Quran, nor for that Muhammad had any connection to any god, and you will find they sometimes use "svada" (a good Scandinavian word meaning "(lots of) meaningless, nice talk") like this to under build or "prove" things.

We also remind you of the fact that "a conviction" far from is the same as "s fact", not to mention how far it sometimes is from "a proved fact".

But of course if "true understanding" means blind belief in the Quran after all errors and worse has been "explained" away and glossed over and the brain and real knowledge of the world is disengaged, then one may put forth claims like Muhammad Asad does here. But you have to disengage your brain and knowledge also to be able to believe such claims. "- - - a true understanding unavoidably - - -" are impressive words, but nonsense is nonsense.

486 14/2a: "Of Allah, to Whom do belong all things in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and on earth!" One of the many undocumented claims Muhammad makes for glorification of his god - claims any believer in any religion as cheaply can make on behalf of his god(s) as long as he can evade any question for documentation - Muhammad never - never - proved anything of essence for his religion.

487 14/3b: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) are astray by a long distance". Only if there is a god behind the Quran and the Quran in addition tells the full truth and only the truth + the god(s) "they" believe in does/do not exist. The mistake is even worse if the Quran is made up and there instead exists a real god somewhere else. Not to mention the situation if Allah in addition is from the dark forces.

488 14/5a: "We (Allah*) sent Moses with Our Signs - - -". According to the Bible it was Yahweh who sent him and who gave him the signs. (The Quran likes to claim - as always without any documentation - that the two are the same god and that Moses was a Muslim, but the teachings are so fundamentally different, that this is not correct.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and on top of the fact that Abraham did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran tells. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

##489 14/12a: “No reason have we (Muslims*) why we should not put our trust in Allah”. Wrong. All the mistakes, etc. in the Quran proves 100% that it is not from a god. And all the mistaken facts which are in accordance with wrong science in the Middle East at the time of Muhammad, strongly indicate that it is made by one or more humans in Arabia at the time of Muhammad. In both cases the religion is a made up one, and Allah may not even exist. In addition one has the fact that Muhammad simply lied when it fitted him and did not even respect his own oaths. There is every reason for not putting any trust in Allah. Similar claim in 5/84.

490 14/23e: "- - - Gardens beneath which rivers flow - - -". The most frequently used Arabism in the Quran. And like said: Muhammad's Paradise is like the life of the very rich here on Earth + more water and women, as seen through the eyes of primitive and poor male dwellers of a hot desert. But Allah should be the god of the entire world and all people. And why such a primitive paradise? – because as paradises come, this is a primitive one, and in the long run also a very boring one.

The many and fundamental differences between Yahweh's (where you become like the angels) and the one of Allah is one of the many absolute proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - if they had been, the Paradise had been one and the same.

491 14/27b: “- - - with the Word (the Quran*) that stands firm - - -.” Can words with that many mistakes and bent logic, etc. like in the Quran stand firm on other platforms than cheating, brain washing, pressure and wish for power? Plainly no.

492 14/35b: “Remember Abraham said: ’O my Lord! Make this city (Mecca*) one of peace and security; - - - “. Abraham never visited Mecca. Besides: #########There was no city at the time of Abraham – this both according to reality and to the Quran. Remember how Hagar ran back and forth there without finding people and without finding water. And even the nearby verse 14/37 mentions a valley, but no town. Mecca as a town was only some generations old at the time of Muhammad - some 2500 years after Abraham. Wrong and a contradiction with both the Quran and with reality. Also see 2/127a above and 14/35c just below.

HOW COULD ABRAHAM PRAY FOR "THIS CITY" - MECCA - SOMETHING LIKE 2OOO OR MORE YEARS BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF EVEN THE VILLAGE MECCA? - AT THAT TIME NOTHING EXISTED IN THAT VALLEY (REMEMBER THAT HAGAR FOUND NEITHER WATER NOR PEOPLE?)

Also remember that Abraham did not have the camel. The camel as a transport animal was not introduced in Abraham's parts of the world until some 1200 years later - and as a riding animal even later. Without the camel, to go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai where he lived and the dry valley of Mecca - through hundreds of frying hot desert - and with his huge flocks of animals, was not possible.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and on top of the fact that Abraham like mentioned did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran tells. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

One conclusion: According to the Quran Hagar found neither people nor water in the desert valley where Mecca later came. All the sane Abraham prayed: "Make this city - - -". There was no city. One more contradiction and error.

Also see 14/37a below.

493 14/37a: "- - - I (Abraham*) have made some of my offspring to dwell in a valley without cultivation - - -". It here is referred to Muhammad’s never documented claim that Ishmael - Abraham's son out of wedlock with the slave girl Hagar - settled in Mecca (which did not exist then, but is situated in a dry, quite narrow desert valley). This is directly contradicted by the Bible, which clearly states that Ishmael and his descendants settled on the border of Egypt some place north of the Red Sea (1. Mos.25/18: "His (Ishmaels*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt - - -"). And NB: This was written down at least 1ooo years before there was any reason for the writers not to give correct information. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

Another fact is that there lived tens of thousands of people in Arabia at the time of Abraham. Even if Abraham and Ishmael had settled in Arabia, they had made up less than one ten-thousandths of the "Arab forefather" - and in addition this less than 0.01% was much diluted by f.x. a large import of slave women from f.x. Africa (2/3 of the slaves imported to Muslim areas were women and children for the harems, and only 1/3 men. Slaves imported to the Americas were 2/3 men for work and only 1/3 women and children - also this 1/3 mainly for work, though plenty of exceptions happened.)

But to claim to descend from Abraham gave both Muhammad and his new religion weight. Such things have been done many a time through history.

Another point: How could Abraham pray for "this city" in 14/35, when there was no city - not even water or cultivation?.

Here we include a small, but essential piece of information. The dromedary was domesticated sometime between around 2ooo BC and 3500 BC one believe - the exact time is not known (the very first proved case of domesticated dromedary/camel in the Middle East is from Qasr Ibrim in Lower Nubia (east Africa) around 740 BC) - and likely in the coastal area of South Arabia - perhaps in Oman. Abraham according to science lived - if he was a real person - around 2ooo-1800 BC (and far from South Arabia).

But today - 27. Dec. 2012 - we discovered a small fact we have not been aware of - small, but essential and revealing in this case: THE DROMEARY - THE ARAB CAMEL - DID NOT COME INTO WIDE USE UNTIL AROUND 1OOO-900 BC (around the time of King Solomon)! And it was not used in the north until the Assyrians started trade south to Arabia around 800 BC. This also may explain why one has found no sure indication for domesticated camels older than ca. 740 BC. And f.x. the first time camels are known to be used in battle, was between Cyrus the Great who used camels against king Kroisos (Croesus) of Lydia in 547 BC, AND THEN TRANSPORT DROMEDARIES, NOT RIDING ONES WERE USED. (Horses not used to camels were frightened by them, and this made problems for the cavalry of Croesus.) This means that as late as in 547 BC - some 1300 years after Abraham - riding camels were not widely enough used to be a factor in daily life (if they had been, riding dromedaries had been used by Cyrus instead). Camels are mentioned in the Books of Moses, too, but this is reckoned by science to be one of the proofs for that those books are written long after Moses.

This means that Abraham did not have camels, and definitely not riding camels. Which makes his claimed trip with his animals to the lonesome, waterless and empty desert valley where Mecca later grew up, physically impossible, his claimed building of the big Kabah hundreds of miles and more in kilometers from home, even more meaningless as he could not go back and forth between his home and his temple, and his claimed visits there later as hopeless a Muslim claim as his first claimed trip.

THIS MEANS HE NEVER LEFT HAGAR AND ISHMAEL IN THAT VALLEY, THAT HE NEVER BUILT THE KABAH, AND THAT HE NEVER VISITED THE PLACE LATER, TOO. We have said the same before, but without the camel/dromedary Muhammad's claims about Abraham going to that dry desert valley to leave Hagar and Ishmael, and later to build the Kabah and then go back and forth several times, move from extremely improbable to physically impossible.

494 14/42a: "Think not that Allah doth not heed the deeds of those who do wrong. He but gives them a respite against a Day (the Day of Doom*) - - -". One more - and a much used - "explanation" for why bad people often had a good life.

495 15/9c: "- - - We (Allah*) will assuredly guard (it (the Quran*) (from corruption)". Some Muslims mention this as a proof for that the Quran is an exact copy of Muhammad's words - Allah guards it against corruption, and then nothing can possibly have changed even a comma. But the history of the Quran is pretty turbulent, and many versions have existed - nobody knows how many (at least 4 much used before the official version was made by Caliph Utman, and at least 24 later (a long period many more) - 14 of them canonized). This mainly because of the unfinished Arab alphabet - it was not completed until around 900 AD. Finally 7 different editions were canonized, each of them in 2 versions = 14 different. Slowly most of them fell into disuse, and today there are 2 versions in daily use - after Hafs and after Warsh - + 4 a little used. So just you guess if the Quran has been corrupted!

####Another point is that if the Quran is not from a god, what the book says about the god guarding it, is totally without any value, as also that claim may be a made up one. And no book as full of errors and other weaknesses is from a god.

###############################Yet another - and serious - point is that to "explain" that the Quran means something different from what it really says, is to corrupt it.

496 15/14+15: “- - - They would only say (when experiencing a miracle*): ‘Our eyes have been intoxicated - - -”. Wrong. At least some had come to believe. These two verses are a piece of fast-talk. There is some fast-talking in the Quran - trying to explain away things and facts and ideas and not least questions which are difficult to explain or answer. See the chapter about fast talk in the Quran. And there are even more fast-talk among Muslims today, trying to explain away mistakes, abrogation, changes in Islam around 622, etc., not to mention trying to present Islam as a peaceful religion. Just in this case one tries to explain away questions for proofs for Allah and for Muhammad's connection to a god.

**But the really bad thing about this point is that ###########it is one of the points where Muhammad himself knew he was lying – at least some would believe in Islam if he produced miracles or could in other ways prove his claims. He was too intelligent and knew too much about people not to know this – this even more so as he himself told about heathens becoming Muslims after they had experienced miracles (f.x. the magicians of Pharaoh), and he also had a good example in Jesus who got many believers from making miracles – some refused to believe no matter, but quite a number of others did after miracles made by Jesus (made also according to the Quran).

**497 15/18b: “But any (jinn/bad spirit*) that gains a hearing by stealth (by spying on the heavens*), is pursued by a flaming fire, bright (to see).” According to the Quran, the stars are fastened to the lowest of 7 material heavens (37/6-7, 41/12). The stars are lights and decoration, but are also used for shooting stars for weapons to chase away jinns and bad spirits. (YA comment 1954: "A shooting star appears to be meant".) Muhammad did not know that the mass of a star is somewhere in the range of 1 shooting star x 10 to the 20. or more power and utterly impossible to use as a shooting star in our atmosphere – for the reason of its glaring light, for the reason of heat, for the reason of irradiation, for the reason of gravity, for the reason of sheer size, etc. As said in 15/17a above: Scientific nonsense and insanity to at least the 5. power. No god uttered this fairy tale stuff – but Muhammad did not know any better. Then who made the Quran?

###498 15/90: "- - - those who divided (scriptures into arbitrary parts)". = those who falsified the Bible. Here we are back to one of Islam's central, but never proved claims: That the Bible is falsified. The claim is long since proved wrong by science - and an even better proof for this is Islam: If they during the 1400 years had found even a microscopic real proof, you had found it in all media and in all relevant university textbooks. You only find claims, a lot of speculations and some al-Taqiyyas. But as Islam cannot survive without the claim that the Bible is falsified (it will in case mean that Muhammad was/is wrong and the Bible right - and thus that the Quran is wrong and Islam a made up pagan religion), Muslims cannot afford to let go of the claim. Better with blind belief, than to have to face the possibility that the religion you have based your life on, may be made up and wrong - no matter what price a false religion and a false god might cost you if there is a next life.

499 16/1b: "(Inevitable) commeth (to pass) the Command of Allah - - -". It is inevitable only if:

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

500 16/1e: "- - - glory to Him (Allah*) - - -". Read 1/1a above and see if you agree - - - if he exists.

501 16/2c: "- - - inspiration - - -". Muhammad claimed he received most of the verses in the Quran by inspiration. A very convenient way - impossible for anyone to check and easy to add or subtract - - - or invent.

502 16/2f: "- - - do your (Muslims'*) duty onto Me (Allah*)". Duties which by coincidence (?) mostly happened to be in accordance with Muhammad's wishes and ideas. And the foremost duty for a Muslim was - and according to the Quran still is - to go to war. This even though nearly all Muhammad's and his successor's armed "incidents" were raids, etc. of aggression to steal/rob, take prisoners and little by little to force Islam on others by the sword or by other means backed by the sword.

503 16/9d: "- - - He (Allah*) could have guided all of you (man*)." If this had been true, what would it tell about the good and benevolent god that he let and lets millions of humans and jinns end in Hell each year, just because he will not guide them? - Not to mention if all that is a result of his predestination!?

###504 16/11e: "- - - for those who give thought". Muhammad often used such small snippets of psychology - like the flattery here: "If you are intelligent, you understand and agree with me". Who does not want to be intelligent, especially among the uneducated, naive and/or primitive ones? - and who among such people has the strength to face down such a remark from a leader? Also see 13/3j above.

505 16/17a: "Is then He Who creates like one that creates not?" Definitely not - and that is why it is so thought provoking that Allah was unable to prove neither creation nor resurrection.

A. Occam's Broom (the same Occam as the one with the razor): "The intellectual dishonest trick of ignoring facts that refute your argument in the hope that your audience won't notice". (New Scientist 21.Sept. 2013.) This trick is frequently used by Muhammad, by Islam, and by Muslims arguments for the Quran's texts and for Islam - just use your ears and/or eyes, and brain, and you will find lots and lots of samples, f.x. in some of Muhammad's lies in the Quran. (Here Islam skates over the fact that Allah never proved he was able to create anything.)

B. "'Surely' (etc.*) and rhetorical questions - whenever you encounter these in a text, stop and think. The author usually wants you to skate over them as if the claim is so obvious as to be beyond doubt, or the answer self-evident. The opposite is often the case." (Graham Lawton.) The question here is very a rhetorical one. Also this trick is very often used in the Quran, by Islam, and by Muslims.

506 16/20c: "Those (other gods*) whom they (non-Muslims*) invoke besides Allah create nothing and are themselves created". The recurring question: Did Allah create or is he created? The facts that not one once - not one picogram - of the central claims is proved and also the quality of the Quran are ominous signs.

#####507 16/43a: “And before thee (Muhammad*) also the Messengers We (Allah*) sent - - -". There is an interesting, even if well known comment to this in A: "The Message of the Quran" (A16/44 - no. 16/45 in the 2008 English edition): "- - - it connects with the statement enunciated in verse 38 (see 16/36b above and its comment*) to the effect that Allah's apostles have appeared, at one time or another, within every community (the Arab word used here "ummah", in reality means "community", but may also mean "civilization" or "people" or "times" - Asad himself used "community", the same in his Swedish comments, but in the later English one they have "corrected" it to the wider "civilization". (There are some "corrections" in the 2008 English edition - all we have found are in conservative direction or to be more correct compared to science. They have dropped the main meaning of the word "ummah" (community) entirely - perhaps because such a claim too obviously is wrong*)), and that, consequently, no substantial human group has ever been left without divine guidance - - -". And YA in his "The Meaning of the Holy Quran" (YA2090): "In all ages and among all Peoples ("ummah") Allah sent His Messengers to teach the Truth (the Quran*) - - -". Believe it if you want. But no-one, included Islam, has ever found one single reliable trace from any of all those claimed prophets (except the Jewish ones, and they preached Yahweh), who according to Islam have worked everywhere and throughout all times. No further comments - and none necessary. #############The claims are wrong unless Islam proves the opposite.

508 16/47a: "For thy (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) is indeed full of kindness and mercy". Please read the surahs from Medina (you find the numbers in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com) and some of his (?) sharia laws, and see if you agree. Also See 1/1a and 1/1e above.

509 16/49a: “And to Allah doth obeisance all that is in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and on earth, whether moving (living) creatures or the angels - - -“. Wrong – if Islam does not prove the opposite. Animals, birds, insects, fish, worms, etc. – they never are observed making obeisance to Allah (or to any other god). No rituals, no 5 prayers a day/night (even more so: Few animals are naturally active both night and day – “prayers” should thus be easy to notice when they are active praying at for them un-normal times to be active), no servility except sometimes towards their own leaders, etc. And surely non-Muslim humans do not do obeisance to Allah – though sometimes to other real or made up god or gods. This verse contradicts nearly any branch of science and knowledge – except legends and fairy tales.

510 16/50b: "- - - and they (all living beings and angels*) do all that they are commanded". Allah decides literally absolutely everything for everyone and everything everywhere. Predestination. But is the sentence true?

511 16/53b: "And ye (humans*) have no good things but is from Allah - - -". Nothing is from Allah unless he exists. Besides Yahweh represents some good things according to the Bible.

512 16/63c: "- - - but Satan made, (to the wicked), their own acts seem alluring - - -". If dark forces were the maker(s) of the Quran - at least no god was involved - can this be what happened to the Muslims? Many honestly believe that their immoral moral code and all their sharia laws are good moral and ethics.

This is one of the many points in the Quran telling Islam's moral code that non-Muslims are second rate or worse.

513 16/63d: "- - - but Satan made, (to the wicked), their own acts seem alluring - - -". But how could this happen, when the Quran so clearly states that Allah decides - even predestines and according to his unchangeable Plan - everything? Remember that free will for man is one of the things not possible even for an omnipotent god if there is full predestination - not even limited free will. (This is one more claim which is wrong in the Quran). See 14/22b above.

But who's acts are made alluring, if it in reality is Iblis/Satan who is behind the Quran? And remember that lots of points in the Quran - especially in the surahs from Medina -and f.x. in the moral code may indicate that this was the real maker. (Compare to "do to others like you want others do to you", and judge for yourself.

###514 16/63f: "- - - he (Satan*) is also their (non-Muslims'*) patron today - - -". No comments. But if Muslims accuse us or you for negative words about Muslims or Muhammad, there are some points against non-Muslims which are difficult to surpass, in the Quran. Practical to know if you are accused of indecency towards Muhammad or something sometime.

##515 16/64d: “(The Quran was sent down*) for the express purpose, that thou (Muhammad*) shouldst make clear to them things - - -”. How is it possible to make things clear by means of a book full of mistakes, contradictions, and invalid/false “proofs“? Or what is the value of making clear things which are wrong?

But the main point all the same is that the Quran tells that the texts are clear and easy to understand - no hidden meanings, etc. AND WHO CAN EXPLAIN SOMETHING BETTER AND MORE CORRECTLY AND COMPLETELY THAN AN OMNISCIENT GOD? - or for that case Muhammad?

516 16/79a: “Nothing holds them (the birds*) up but (the power of) Allah”. Wrong. What hold them up are the laws of aerodynamics. Muhammad would not know this, but all gods would. Contradicts reality. Also see 11/7a above and 67/19a below.

517 16/81b: "- - - He (Allah*) created - - -". There is nowhere proved Allah created anything at all. There only are words and claims in a book full of other kinds of mistakes, and thus very unreliable. See 11/7a above and 21/56c below.

518 16/82c: “- - - thy (Muhammad’s*) duty is only to preach the Clear Message”. It is not possible to preach a clear message from a book full of mistakes, contradictions. etc.

However, it is very clear that the Quran means its texts are clear. It the Quran is true on this point, how then can there be reasons for Islam and Muslims to explain that the texts are unclear, and that intelligent humans have to explain what the clumsy god "really" meant?

519 16/86c: "Indeed ye (non-Muslims*) are liars". Some may be liars, some perhaps not - if they happen to believe in an existing god. And are they liars when they disbelieve that the Quran is not from any god, and Islam thus a made up religion? Definitely not if they are right. But what about Muslims? If an ordinary Muslim tells something from the Quran which is wrong, but which he honestly believes is correct - is he a liar? - what if he knows it is wrong, but uses an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie)? But what if he is a mullah or imam and should have controlled his information before he says anything? - and what about if he is a scholar? (In Sunni Islam where there is no hierarchy of priests, it is the religious scholars who make up the hierarchies, and who are the really educated and powerful ones within the religious community. Remember here that al-Taqiyya and its brother Kitman are lawful (and to defend or forward the religion even advised) in Islam. ###########But even if they are lawful, they are lies. Just like

And how much is true in a religion permitting (and more) both lies and worse?

###520 16/92a: "Nor take your oaths to practice deception among yourselves - - -". Once more the special moral code on the Quran - most religions in this case say: "Nor take your oaths to practice deception." This wording tells morally weak Muslims (perhaps correctly?) that it may be ok to do so against non-Muslims - cfr. f.x. the reputation the expression "Arab salesmen" had and may be has among sailors. Sailors and tourists and some others are not from "among yourselves".

521 16/96b: "- - - what is with Allah will endure." There is nothing with Allah if he does not exist (and what is with him if he belongs to the dark forces, is an open question) - he is no god if he is behind the Quran and all its errors, etc.

522 16/102g: “- - - revelations from thy Lord (Allah*) in Truth (a claim, not a proved fact*)- - -”. It also is not the truth that the Quran is from a god - too much is wrong in that book.

523 16/105e: "It is they who believe not in the Signs of Allah, that forge falsehood: it is they who lie!." Do not trust non-Muslims - they are false and unreliable. Psychologically this is a much used way to make distance between "us" and "them". And sometimes a start on the production of enmity between "us" and "them".

But it is some irony in the fact that this claim comes from the only one of the big religions which accepts the use of dishonesty as a working tool.

524 16/107b: "- - - Allah will not guide those who reject Faith". But is he able to guide at all?

  1. There has been no proof for even Allah's existence.
  2. There has been no proof for that he in case was/is a god.
  3. There has been no proof for his claimed power.
  4. There has been no proof for that he ever guided anyone, included Muhammad.
  5. There has been no proof for his claimed connection to Muhammad.
  6. There has been no proof for his claimed benevolence. On the contrary he is a god of war and discrimination, if he exists.
  7. There are solid proofs for that he has no connection to the Quran - no god would deliver that quality "guide-book" - unbelievable 3ooo+ errors, etc. + low quality literature.
  8. There are solid proofs for lots of mistakes, etc. (3ooo+) in the Quran = no reliable "guide-book".
  9. There are solid proofs for hundreds of points with wrong facts in the Quran.
  10. There are solid proofs for at least some lies in the Quran.
  11. The many errors in the Quran are 100% proof for that the book is not from any god.
  12. There are solid proofs for that the Bible is not falsified - science + for OT Jesus/the Qumran scrolls, and not least Islam, who has found not one proved falsification in the entire Bible. There are some errors also in the Bible, but neither science nor Islam has found even one proved falsification.
  13. The Quran's partly immoral moral code is a solid proof for that no good or benevolent god is involved.
  14. The many and fundamental differences in Yahweh's and Allah's teachings, moral codes, etc. are 100% and more proofs for that the two are not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion.
  15. The surahs from Medina are solid proofs for that Islam is a religion of war, dishonesty, and apartheid.

525 16/110a: “But verily thy Lord - to those who leave their homes after trials and persecutions - and thereafter strive for the Faith and patiently persevere - thy Lord, after all this is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” Comments; see 22/78. We may add that this one is written shortly before the Muslims had to flee from Mecca - perhaps even after the first ones had fled to East Africa (Ethiopia). The Muslims are told that Allah will be good to the ones who have to flee for Allah. Good for moral.

526 17/1d: “- - - the Sacred Mosque - - -". Kabah in Mecca. But even how sacred it is, neither Kabah nor Mecca is mentioned anywhere in the Bible. AND NOT ONE OF THE Biblical PROPHETS, INCLUDED JESUS, EVER MENTIONED EVEN A WISH FOR VISITING THIS CLAIMED MOST HOLY PLACE ON EARTH - NOT EVEN A WISH FOR A HAJJ.

The extreme difference between Yahweh's and Allah's view on the Kabah is one of the really strong proofs for that the two are not the same god.

############Besides: Is this the real story about the "night journey"?: Islamic sources Muslims never mention, indicate that this was a trip Muhammad made one night from the mosque in al-Jirana - a village some 9 miles/15 km from Mecca - to Kabah and back to al-Jirana. Science then thinks Muslims have made up stories and Hadiths based on the unclear words in 17/1. This is a very likely explanation, #####because if the fanciful story had been true, there is no chance it had not been thoroughly and often described in the Quran + frequently used as a proof for Muhammad's connection to the god, but it is NEVER mentioned other places in the book than in 17/1, in spite of that Muhammad and Muslims often had to use fast talk and "explanations" when followers or opponents or others asked for proof.

According to Islam Muhammad made 4 Umrahs - lesser pilgrimages. The third one according to Islam was from al-Jirana. We have not found out if this is the same trip to the Kabah or not.

A STRONG FACT: IF THIS HAD BEEN A REAL TRIP, THERE IS NO CHANCE AT ALL THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN FAR - VERY FAR MORE - THOROUGHLY DESCRIBED IN THE QURAN, AND ALSO AN ABSOLUTELY SURE ARGUMENT TO MEET EACH TIME SOMEONE ASKED FOR A PROOF FOR ALLAH OR FOR MUHAMMAD'S CONNECTION TO A GOD. AS IT IS MENTIONED O N L Y IN THIS ONE AND SINGLE VERSE IN THE QURAN, THERE IS NO CHANCE THAT THIS WAS A REAL AND GRAND TOUR TO JERUSALEM, THE 7 NON-EXISTING HEAVENS AND BACK. MUHAMMAD WAS FAR TOO MUCH OF A STRATEGIST NOT TO USE SUCH A TRIP FOR WHATEVER IT WAS WORTH, AND HE NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING - NOT ONE WORD EXCEPT THE FEW AND DOWN-TO-EARTH ONES HERE IN 17/1.

It also is worth noticing that the story about Muhammad's trip to the heavens, likely is borrowed from Zoroastrianism. In the Pahlavi text called Arta (or Artay) Viraf - centuries older than Islam - there is a very similar story.

A final fact: The Quran tells that the Kabah is the oldest building for reverence in the world. But the temple Gobekli Tepe in Turkey dates from around 9ooo BC - some 7ooo years before Abraham and some 5ooo(?) years before Noah. And there may have been even older such buildings.

527 17/1f: "- - - the Farthest Mosque - - -” = the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem according to Islam. The problem is that this mosque did not exist at that time (621 AD). And: The old Jewish temple was destroyed by Titus and his Roman Army in 70 AD, and nothing of any consequence was built on this small mountain until the Dome of the Rock was built in 690 AD, some 620 years later - - - and some 65-70 years after surah 17 - “The Night Journey” - was dictated around or after 621 AD. There simply was no mosque to visit around 621-622 AD. Is this a later addition to the Quran? - after all the book existed in many versions which were copied and copied by hand and thus could change a little now and then, and it was not really finished until around 900 AD. (Muslims explains this away with that the remaining few stubs of walls of the old Jewish temple are what are meant, but that definitely is not what the Quran says.)

If the explanation in 17/1e just above is the correct one, Kabah in case was "the Farthest Mosque - which might well have been the geographic reality that early.

528 17/32: "Nor come neigh to adultery - - -". But to rape captives or slaves or bought concubines is "lawful and good”. Not to mention to keep a harem of willing or unwilling women. One of the many distasteful (or stronger) cases of "double moral" in the Quran - aspects of Islam which makes it disliked (and with a reason), especially the rape and forced sex + pedophilia.

529 17/33a: "Nor take life - - - except for just cause". Some contrast to NT's clear message: "You shall not kill". Especially since there are many "just causes" in Islam. One of the clear differences between the Quran and NT - and between Jesus and Muhammad (between Jesus and Muhammad the difference when it came to killing, was extreme - not only not in the same line of prophets, but not even on the same continent).

***530 17/36a: "And pursue not that of which you (Muslims*) have not knowledge - - -". And the most essential thing not to pursue, is knowledge which can make you doubt Islam - true or not. In the old times when Islam really fought science and knowledge until the finally destroyed it in 1095 AD, the question was not if the knowledge was right or wrong - only if it was Islamic or not. "Idle curiosity" is bad. (But the language in the Quran is far from clear; some translators mean this only means you shall not listen to rumors, etc. - an aspect Muslims with all their conspiracy theories may be should remember?)

531 17/54a: "It is your (Muhammad's*) Lord (Allah*) who knoweth you best - - -". According to the Quran Allah knows absolutely everything, included your innermost thoughts. (But all the same he has to test you - nobody can give a good explanation why - "explanations" yes, explanations no."

532 18/39b: "There is no power but with Allah". This may be correct if Allah exists - no proof or unmistakable indication for this has ever been seen - if he is behind the Quran, and if the Quran in addition is truthful. Besides: If there are other gods - f.x. Yahweh - it is not true. (Very much is wrong in the Quran - perhaps also this claim).

533 18/44b: "- - - the (only) protection comes from Allah - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which says that Yahweh is a good protector - and does not know about Allah, etc. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

534 18/56c: "- - - the Unbelievers dispute with vain arguments - - -". This hardly is said by anyone neutral. Besides it is not necessary to use any arguments, as the Quran itself proves something is very wrong: No omniscient god makes mistakes, etc., and the Quran is full of such ones. Also see 13/1g above and 40/5 below.

###535 18/83c: "They ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning Dhu'l-Quarnayn." Dhu'l-Quarnayn was an Arab name for Alexander the Great (!!) (he lived around 340 BC)

Alexander the Great is a man one does not expect to find as a hero in a “holy book”. But in the Quran you find him – mainly in surah 18.

The book uses an Arab name for him: Dhu’l Quarnayn – "the two-horned one" (horn was a symbol for power). But it is well known in history that this was a name used for Alexander in Arabia. In addition there are facts like the description made by the well known Muslim scholar Ibn Hisham (around 900 AD) in his comments to Ibn Ishaq’s “The Life of Muhammad”: “Alexander was a Greek and he founded Alexandria”. Alexander really was from Macedonia, but he also was king of Greece, and it is very elementary knowledge that he founded Alexandria (in Egypt) – and gave it his name.

You will find Muslims who vehemently oppose this fact, because it makes an extremely unbelievable story even worse: Every educated person know that here something is horribly – not to say laughably – wrong. Alexander was not involved in stupidities like this, and he definitely was no Muslim, but a polytheist. Some Muslims even try to use the mistake the book makes by telling he is a good Muslim, as a proof for that Dhu’l Quarnayn cannot be Alexander, because today we as said know he was a polytheist. The trouble is that Muhammad’s uneducated follower in 622 AD when this surah is dated, did not have the faintest idea about that – Allah (or at least Muhammad) told it, and then it had to be true! But there is no doubt: Dhu’l Quarnayn is Alexander the Great. In some translations of the Quran – f.x. Dawood – you even will find they simply write Alexander the Great instead of Dhu’l Quarnayn in the Quran.

The stories about Alexander the Great are not from the Bible.

**536 18/86d: “- - - when he (Alexander) reached the setting of the sun - - -”. Anyone who knows two millimeters about geography and astronomy knows this is wrong and ridiculous to the extreme: The sun does not set on Earth – and absolutely not in a pond of dirty water. Also see 18/86a and 18/86c just above and just below.

537 18/95a: “He (Alexander*) said: ’(The power) in which my Lord (Allah!!!*) has established me is better - - -”. The Quran clearly indicates that Alexander was a pious Muslim (some 950 years before Muhammad!). To make an understatement: That is wrong. Alexander was a polytheist. (Muslims sometimes try to use this mistake as a proof for that Dhu’l Quarnayn was not Alexander). Also see 18/96a, 18/96b and 18/96c below.

538 18/97: "Thus they (Gog and Magog*) were made powerless to scale it (the wall*) or dig through it". That wall had to be mighty high and quite thick = much iron/too expensive. At best iron was expensive around 340 BC. Besides it still is ridiculous: They could dig under - by means of fire + water they could dig through even rock given some time. But the real screamer is that there exists not one single valley in this entire world big enough to feed two big peoples (that they were many is told another place in the Quran - "swarming over all hills"), with only one possible way out - they simply could walk around the wall. It takes a lot of naivety or strong wish to believe in stories like this.

Another screamer: Gog and Magog should stay in that valley till the Day of Doom. Today every square yard of the globe is mapped, but no such valley and no Gog or Magog exists.

539 19/4c: "(Zakariyya prayed*): O my Lord (here indicated Allah*)!" Zakariyya was a Jewish priest, and not only a priest, but a priest in the Temple in Jerusalem, in a period when religion was very strong in Israel. We also are at a time from which we have written documents (f.x. Josephus Flavius just few a years later), so the strength of the Jewish religious society is no guesswork - it is written facts. The same is the fact that the Jewish religion then was the Mosaic one, and Islam not even heard about. Not one single Jewish priest would ever get the idea of praying to the Arab pagan god al-Lah/Allah (whom Muhammad later renamed only to only Allah). And if he did, he hardly would survive many days. And as we now have entered times with written history, there also is not the slightest doubt that the Jewish god was Yahweh, not Allah. And we know for sure that the Jewish religion, its ceremonies, and its basic thoughts at this time were in accordance with OT, and very far from what Muhammad later outlined in the Quran.

A Jewish priest in the very Temple of Jerusalem praying to the pagan god of a neighboring country!!? Anyone knowing history will have a good laugh here.

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

#############540 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.

ALSO SEE 19/33b A N D 66/12c BELOW !!!!

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

541 19/40a: "It is We (Allah*) Who will inherit the earth - - -". A claim - like "always" in the Quran not proved, and in this case also not provable except by supernatural means (which should be no problem for Allah).

542 19/43d: "- - - a way that is even and straight". The claimed road to the Quran's and Islam's paradise - see 10/9f above.

543 19/58f: "- - - they (the old Jewish prophets*) would fall down in prostration (indicated to Allah*) and tears". As Allah had no connections to the Jewish prophets, also this part of the claim is untrue according to the Bible. And not least according to history: We know strongly from history that the god of the Jews was Yahweh, and nothing like Allah was involved.

This is one of Muhammad's bluffs, if Islam does not prove - prove - differently. There are quite a number of bluffs - f.x. never proved claims or statements - in the Quran. Many are very easy to see, as they in addition to not be proved, give wrong information, something no omniscient god had done.

Remember that also bluffs are a kind of lie.

###############544 19/61d: "- - - His (Allah's) promise must (necessarily) come to pass". Till this day there has not been one single promise clearly given by Allah and which clearly has been fulfilled by him. The best proof for that this fact is true, is the noise Islam had made if it had happened even once. Nobody has ever heard such noise.

#############################There also is another point here: It is very clear from the Quran that Muhammad accepted, himself used, and also promoted the use of dishonesty as working tools if that would give better results than honesty (al-Taqiyya, Kitman., Hilah, deceit, betrayal, and even disuse/breaking of oaths). These verses are included and accepted parts of the Quran and of Islam as samples of how intelligent and smart Muhammad was. BUT KNOWING THIS IT IS UTTER NAIVETY TO BELIEVE THAT A MAN WITH THAT KIND OF "FLEXIBLE" MORAL CODE, NEVER USED DISHONESTY ALSO TO MAKE HIS FOLLOWERS DO WHAT HE WANTED.

545 19/71a: “Not one of you but will pass over it (possibly the bridge Sirat - to be passed the Last Day*)”. Very similar to Zoroastrian (Persia - with whom Arabia had much contact), where the bridge is named Chinavad. Nearly all religious ideas in Islam, seems to be taken from local and surrounding religions - typical for a universal god? Also see 55/56 below

546 19/89b: "Indeed ye (Christians*) have put forth a thing most monstrous (that Jesus is the son of Yahweh*)!" If Jesus is the son of Yahweh/God, Muhammad impossibly can be the greatest of prophets. On the other hand one cannot totally omit that may be Muhammad really wanted the god to be the only big one, and believed Christians had Jesus as god number 2 (and Mary(!!) as number 3 in the trinity).

547 20/2b: “We (Allah*) have not sent down the Quran to thee (Muhammad*) to be (an occasion) for thy distress - - -“. The main question here is: Was anything sent down to Muhammad at all? All the errors make involvement by a god impossible and a devil unlikely - even a devil would not use means so easy to look through (if not the god forced him in order to give the humans a better chance to look through the trap). If nothing supernatural was involved, there remains mental illness (TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, which is the suspicion of modern medical science), or accomplices or a cold manipulation from Muhammad himself - he had plenty of motifs in case: Respect, power, riches for bribes for more power - and women.

548 20/4a: (The Quran is*) “A revelation from Him (Allah*) - - -”. The unanswered question is: Would an omniscient god send down a book with so many mistakes? - not to mention if he would have it as a not perfect, but all the same deeply respected and revered Mother Book in his perfect Paradise? There is an answer: Either it is wrong that Allah sent it down, or it is wrong that Allah is omniscient - if he exists.

549 20/52b: "- - - (Allah*) never errs, nor forgets - - -". Why then does he have to test people? And why does he need records?

AND HOW CAN ALL THE ERRORS IN THE QURAN BE EXPLAINED IF THIS IS CORRECT? (Only two possibilities: It is a lie and Allah errs, or it is a lie that Allah is the one behind the book.)

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

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

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

#####550 20/69-70a: The magicians of the pharaoh all became Muslims when they saw Moses performing real miracles. All the same the Quran - and Muhammad - repeats and repeats and repeats that the reason why Muhammad was mot made able to perform miracles, included making real prophesies, was that nobody would believe anyhow. This is a most central point because it is one of the texts which make it clear that Muhammad knew he was lying each time he used those excuses and “explanations” for not being able to prove anything essential. That no-one would believe if they witnessed miracles, contradicts all psychological knowledge – strengthened by the fact that Muhammad himself told it worked. He also knew at least some of the miracles Jesus performed, and all the followers they brought him. Contradiction both of Muhammad's intelligence - he was too intelligent not to know it was a lie - of reality, and of science.

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

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

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

551 20/104: "Ye tarried not longer than a day!" See 20/103 just above. Remember this when you in the Hadiths meet the dogma of "punishment in the grave" - it is not mentioned in the Quran. The time the dead ones experience in the grave, is not enough for any punishment in the grave, not to mention any protracted such punishment.

552 20/108e: "- - - (Allah) Most Gracious - - -". See 1/1a and 1/1e above.

553 20/113b: "- - - an Arabic Quran (for easy understanding*) - - -". Good for Arabs who then could understand everything, but rationally speaking an Arabic Quran was and still is a bad luck for many Muslims, and bad policy for a god wanting world dominance:

  1. The really hard thing was that the Arab written language was not completed - it was completed only around 900 AD. This means there even today are lots and lots of words where Islam does not really know what Muhammad really wanted to say. They camouflage the problem with calling it "different ways of reading", but in reality it is different versions of the book, and no-one knows which "way of reading" really is the correct version.

  2. A god for the world should want a world language. Many more could have read it and over much wider areas + that f.x. Greek and Latin and Persian and others were mature languages - it would have been possible to write down exactly what Muhammad said. (Arabic lacked vowels plus all the signs used when reading (diacritical points). The result is that one has to guess the missing letters and the signs. If you f.x. in English have the consonants "h" and "s" and know it represents a word, and have to guess the vowels, you can f.x. get "his" or "has" - or "house" or "hose". This is the problem Islam meets when it tries to read the old manuscripts - do not laugh when a Muslim next time tells you the Quran is exactly Muhammad's words to the last comma (and on top of all the comma did not exist in Arab at that time).
  3. Arab has become so "elite" and holy, that also non-Arabs have to learn the Quran in Arabic - often by heart - even though they do not understand the words.

But it had two pluses for Muhammad:

  1. It was possible for him and his first, primitive followers to use that language - and hardly any other.
  2. Muhammad felt that the Arabs were inferior to Jews and Christians who had holy books. The Quran repaired parts of this inferiority feeling.

554 20/135a: "- - - the straight and even way". The road to the Quran's and Islam's paradise - see 10/9f above. It may be worth reflecting over that in the Quran the road to Paradise is the easy road, whereas in the Bible it is the difficult ("narrow") road. Allah and Yahweh the same god and fundamentally the same religion? You bet not.

555 21/2a: "- - - a renewed Message - - -". The differences between the Bible (and especially NT with its New Covenant) are so deep and fundamental, that the Quran is no renewal of the Bible. This is even more sure as it is clear that the Muslim standard "explanation" - falsification of the Bible - is wrong (science has long since proved there may be mistakes in the Bible, but no falsifications, and Islam has proved it even better as they have searched more thoroughly; If there anywhere had existed any clear indication, not to mention a proof for the smallest falsification, they had screamed about it. But there has never in 1400 years been one single such scream). But also see 21/2b just below.

The many (actually only one single, short sentence - 8 words (or really 6: "- - - the righteous will inherit the land - - -") from the psalms (psalm 37/29) - is the same in the two books) and deep differences between the Bible and the Quran are one of the strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not members of the same religion. This even more clear as both science and Islam strongly as said have proved the Bible is not falsified, which makes Muslims’ claimed explanations for the differences invalid.

556 21/10a: “We (Allah*) have revealed for you (O men!) a book (the Quran*) - - -”. Once more: Has an omniscient god revealed a book with so many mistakes? - or has Muhammad made all the mistakes when telling what Allah told him? In plain words: No god involved in any book riddled with errors, etc.

. (- perhaps Muhammad or some accomplice made up all of it from fantasy and knowledge that was often wrong?).

557 21/18a: “- - - nay, We (Allah) hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish!” Does the same happen if one hurls the Quran With all its mistakes, etc. at falsehood? - the Quran at best is partly true. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact.

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

558 21/24g: “But most of them (non-Muslims*) know not the Truth, and so turn away”.

Comment A21/31 (A21/32 in 2008 English edition): “In other words, most people’s obstinate refusal to consider a reasonable proposition on its merits is often due to no more than the simple fact that it is not familiar to them.”

What we know from our parents and culture must be right – and we do not know anything about clear mistakes (most Muslims honestly do not know about mistakes – they have too often and for too long been told that the Quran is perfect, and been told "explanations" for the mistakes).

And then there is the unbeatable argument for believing in spite of mistakes and anything: "Blind belief is the ideal", presented by Muhammad.

And Islam also has another unbeatable claim: "An omniscient god makes no mistakes". But if you turn this truth upside down, you get: "A book full of mistakes is not from any omniscient god". (And this is the reason why Islam and Muslims cannot afford to admit even the most obvious mistakes in the Quran - well, the Muslim scholars admit a few, but they never talk about them unless they have to, and most ordinary Muslims do not even know about them).

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

559 21/25a: "Not one messenger did We (Allah*) send before thee (Muhammad*) without the inspiration - - -". As the Quran (wrongly) claims also the Biblical prophets were sent by Allah, this is wrong, as the Bible clearly says they got their messages by direct contact, visions, or dreams (4. Mos. 12/6-8). Inspiration is nowhere in the Bible mentioned as a means for this. But Muhammad often claimed also the old prophets got information by inspiration, in order to legitimize his own claim that he got information that way, and thus legitimize his claim that he was a normal prophet.

560 21/40a: "- - - no power will they (non-Muslims*) they have to avert it (ending in Hell*)". May be not they themselves. But if they are believers in an existing god - say Yahweh if he exists - Yahweh's religion and moral codes, etc. at some points are very different from Allah's. So may be if they do not qualify for paradise in Muhammad's war religion, maybe they do so in Jesus' religion of love. This even more so if Islam is a made up religion and there is no Allah wanting to send them to Hell.

561 21/47d: "- - - not a soul will be dealt with unjustly - - -". Wrong, if the rules in the Quran are in accordance with Allah's rules. Even if we omit the immoral parts of the Quran's moral code and ethical code, there remain in sharia laws, parts which are highly immoral and unjust, the pinnacles of which may be that a raped woman shall be punished for unlawful sex if she cannot bring 4 male witnesses to the very act, that stealing and rape of captives are "lawful and good" in and after a raid in the name of the god - jihad - (a condition which makes this even more repulsive and tells macro words about Muhammad and Islam - and also nearly everything is named jihad), and a number of the rules for raids, terrorism and war.

562 21/50c: “And this (the Quran*) is a blessed message which We (Allah*) have sent down”. How many ways is it possible to ask the question: Can it be true that an omniscient god has sent down a book with such a number of mistaken facts, contradictions, cases of invalid logic and other wrongs - f.x. linguistic and perhaps religious mistakes? Not to mention: How likely is it that a book of such a miserable quality, at least concerning wrong facts, contradictions, invalid proofs and logic plus partly immoral moral and ethical codes, and as medium a quality as literature, can have a prominent place as the revered Mother Book in the home of an omniscient and omnipotent god? It simply is impossible. Similar claims in 21/50 – 36/17 – 38/1 – 38/7 – 42/52 – 56/81

563 21/56c: “- - - He (Allah*) Who created them (man*) - - -". This is a very interesting claim - interesting because similar claims and statements frequently are repeated in the Quran, but never the slightest proof for that it may be true - only the word of a man who according to Islam and its books believed in using lies (al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie - Kitman - the lawful half-truth - not only can, but ought to be used "if necessary" to defend or promote Islam), deceit ("War is deceit" - and everything is Jihad), and even broken promises/words/oaths (f.x. 2/225a and 5/89a+b above). And a man wanting power and riches for bribes for more power - - - and women.

In contradiction to Muhammad's inability to prove anything at all, and his "explaining" away - sometimes even lying in the Quran and Hadiths (see separate chapter in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran") - about Allah's claimed power, both the Quran (f.x. 5/110) and the Bible (f.x. Mark 5/41, John 11/44, Luke 7/15, Acts 20/10 - and of course the resurrection of Jesus himself) tell about Yahweh's power over death. Thought provoking?

##564 21/66c: (Abraham) said:"Do you then worship, besides Allah, things that can be neither of any good to you nor do you harm?" To continue this way of thinking: "Do you then worship a claimed god who not one single time in the entire history has provably done even one single man, woman or child neither any good nor any harm? A god whose existence only are to be found in claims from a man believing in lying (al-Taqiyya, Kitman), deceit ("War is deceit" and "everything" is Jihad), and broken words/promises/oaths! And a man wanting power - like many a false prophet, but few real prophets.

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

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses and the Jewish prophets) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and on top of the fact that Abraham like mentioned did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran claims. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

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

565 21/91c: “- - - and We (the god*) made her (Mary’s*) son (Jesus*) a Sign for all peoples.” Very correct according to the Bible - but a sign for Yahweh/God, not for Allah - not unless Islam proves Allah is the same god as Yahweh/God. And the two religions and the two gods - especially the war god Allah from the surahs from Medina compared to the benevolent God/Yahweh from NT - are too different for that to be possible - not unless the god is seriously ill mentally.

Definitely not a proof for Allah. But a proof for Yahweh/God if the old books tell the truth on this point.

ESSENTIAL: ISLAM AND MUSLIMS OFTEN CLAIM THAT JESUS ONLY WAS FOR THE JEWS, WHEREAS MUHAMMAD WAS FOR ALL PEOPLE. HERE THE QURAN CONFIRMS THAT JESUS - AND THUS CHRISTIANITY - WAS FOR ALL PEOPLES.

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

566 21/105b: "Before this We (Allah*) wrote in the Psalms, after the Message (given to Moses): 'My servants, the righteous, shall inherit the earth'". In which psalm? the closest to this we can find is in Psalm 37/29: "- - - the righteous will inherit the land - - -". This is a bit different from that Allah's followers shall inherit the world - especially as what is righteous may differ a lot from the Quran to the Bible.. It would not be the first time the Quran has misquoted the Bible.

#########################NB: these few words (6 words in English, though we have been told it makes 8 words in Arab) from Psalm 37/21, is the only sentence in the entire books where the texts are the same in the Bible and the Quran. On top of all far from a sentence saying anything very specific.

567 21/106b: "Verily in this (Quran) is a Message for people who would (truly) worship Allah". That may well be, but if the Quran is a made up book - by men or dark forces as no god is involved in a book with so much wrong - also the message is a made up one, and then the god likely is a made up one. (May be we should hope he is made up, as he at points is very immoral, unfair, bloody and harsh. As we have said before: When a man or a god says something, but demands and does something very differently, we any day believe in his demands and his deeds, not his words - words are too cheap.

568 21/111: "- - - a trial - - -". Why does a predestining, omniscient god need to put people through trials? - especially meaningless if he has predestined the outcome himself, and the Quran many places states that Allah predestines everything and according to his Plan - a Plan nothing and nobody can change. Also see 8/28a above.

569 22/1a: "O Mankind! Fear your Lord (Allah*)!" Muhammad claimed Allah was the god of the entire world. At present he is the nominal god - existing or not existing - for roughly 20% or a bit more of the world's population (the actual number is very uncertain, but some 1.2 billion, INCLUDED THE IN REALITY NONRELIGIOUS ONES AND THE ONES NOT RISKING OFFICIALLY TO LEAVE THE RELIGION BECAUSE OF FEAR OF THE CONSEQUENCES). But the number is increasing, partly because of active proselyting (and at the same time hinder or forbid proselyting for other religions or even for telling facts about the Quran or Muhammad in their own countries), and partly because Muslims produce many children - even in modern times when it has become clear that the production of food and other necessities are reaching limits (unless science makes new breakthroughs, but no such ones are expected shortly). On opposing tendency, though, is that 3. generation immigrants into other cultures seems to a degree to lose faith - but this possible tendency is not 100% proved yet.

570 22/4a: "About (Satan) it is decreed that whoever turns to him for friendship, he will lead astray - - -". And by Muslim definition all non-Muslims follow Satan - perhaps with the exception of a small minority of religious Jews and Christians. The mainly Christian USA f.x. is "the Great Satan" to many Muslims. It will be quite an irony if it once turns out that Allah belongs to the dark forces - and the big distance between the ethical and moral rules of the Quran, compared with "do unto others like you want others to do unto you" may indicate something.

571 22/6a: “- - - Allah is the Reality - - -“. Not unless Islam brings real proofs. It is too naïve to blindly believe in a religion only based on a book with lots of mistakes, contradictions, twisted facts and invalid logic – told by a man with a highly suspect moral, but a strong liking for power and riches for bribes for even more power - and women - and with his religion as his platform of power; Self-centered. Selfish? If it is a claim, it is not possible to prove it just by more unproved claims, no matter how strongly framed or how often repeated - it needs real proofs. If it is a lie it, it does not become a truth from loose, if strong other claims. But repeated frequently enough both wrong information and lies may be believed by some - just ask the famous Nazi "Minister of Propaganda" Joseph Gobbles.

"In all aspects of life naivety and blind belief are the most sure way to be cheated - and blind belief is just what Islam glorifies and demands, because they have nothing but loose claims and words to offer".

But a possible and eternal next life is too essential a question to rely on blindness and big, loose claims and flattery asking you not to think, but just listen to their words and claims. If there is a god somewhere, your brain is the second greatest gift he gave you (after life). Do you think he in case gave it to you just to fill up an empty scull?

572 22/26ab: “Behold, We (Allah) gave the site, to Abraham, of the (sacred) House - - -”. Mecca lies some 750 miles (some 1200 km) from where Abraham normally lived - much of the distance hot, forbidding and rough Arab Desert. The Quran tells he built a big mosque in an empty, dry narrow desert valley, for himself and his family - in the valley where Mecca grew up many centuries later. The Quran also claims Abraham was a good Muslim - and Muslims shall visit their mosques at least every Friday. 750 miles/1200 km and back through forbidding terrain every Friday? - even just now and then?

Here we include a small, but essential piece of information. The dromedary was domesticated sometime between around 2ooo BC and 3500 BC - the exact time is not known (the very first proved case of domesticated dromedary/camel in the Middle East is from Qasr Ibrim in Lower Nubia (east Africa) around 740 BC) - and likely in the coastal area of South Arabia (Oman?). Abraham according to science lived - if he was a real person - around 2ooo-1800 BC (and far from South Arabia). But today - 27. Dec. 2012 - we discovered a small fact we have not been aware of - small, but essential and revealing in this case: THE DROMEARY - THE ARAB CAMEL - DID NOT COME INTO WIDE USE UNTIL AROUND 1OOO-900 BC (around the time of King Solomon)! And as far north as Abraham lived, they did not come until around 800 BC, when the Assyrians started trade with the south. A piece of information also backed up by the fact that the oldest know sure trace from a domesticated camel is from around 740 BC. And f.x. the first time camels are known to be used in battle, was between Cyrus the Great, who used camels against king Kroisos (Croesus) of Lydia in 547 BC, AND THEN TRANSPORT DROMEDARIES, NOT RIDING ONES WERE USED. (Horses not used to camels were frightened by them, and this made problems for the cavalry of Croesus.) This means that as late as in 547 BC - some 1300 years after Abraham - riding camels were not widely enough used to be a factor in daily life (if they had been, riding dromedaries had been used by Cyrus instead). Camels are mentioned in the Books of Moses, too, but this is reckoned by science to be one of the proofs for that those books are written long after Moses.

This means that Abraham did not have camels, and definitely not riding camels. Which makes his claimed trip with his animals to the lonesome, waterless and empty desert valley where Mecca later grew up, physically impossible, his claimed building of the big Kabah hundreds of miles and more in kilometers from home, even more meaningless as he could not go back and forth between his home and his temple, and his claimed visits there later as hopeless a Muslim claim, as his first claimed trip.

THIS MEANS HE NEVER LEFT HAGAR AND ISHMAEL IN THAT VALLEY, THAT HE NEVER BUILT THE KABAH, AND THAT HE NEVER VISITED THE PLACE LATER,TOO. We have said the same before, but without the camel/dromedary Muhammad's claims about Abraham going to that dry desert valley to leave Hagar and Ishmael, and later to build the Kabah, move from extremely improbable to physically impossible.

To quote science: "It is practically sure Abraham never visited Mecca.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left - and remember here that the Quran (21/91) confirms that Jesus was for all peoples, (and in 19/19 that he was holy, which Muhammad definitely was not)). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses and the Jewish prophets) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and this on top of the fact that Abraham like mentioned did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran claims. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

Well, believe the tale if you are able to.

###573 22/27c: “And proclaim the Pilgrimage among men - - -.” Pilgrimage to Mecca is so essential to Allah that he made it one of the 5 "pillars" in Islam. To Yahweh it is so totally without interest, that it - and also the claimed super holy Mecca - is not mentioned even one time in the entire Bible. One more 100+% proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

574 22/28a: "- - - celebrate the name of Allah - - -". A positive idea if Allah exists and is a god. A joke if he does not exist. A lousy idea if he exists and belongs to the dark forces.

575 22/30a: "- - - the sacred rites of Allah - - -". The big question mark here is that all these rites were taken over from the old Pagan Arab religion. Few if any central rite possible to combine with monotheism were omitted - and few were added. How come that the old pagan Arabs and only they in the entire world had more or less all the rites correct? - and how come that all the other religions, included the Mosaic and the Christians - had nearly everything wrong? Remember here that the Jews and the Christians had their rites mainly from the Bible (and remember that science have proved the Bible is not falsified in spite of Islam's never documented claims - - - and that Islam has proved this even clearer by not being able to find one single proved falsification in the old, relevant papers, even though there are many thousands such ones).

576 22/34a: “To every people did We (Allah*) appoint rites (of sacrifice) - - -.” Just one problem: The Christians have not been given/ordered any kind of animal sacrifices – or rites for such. The only real rites ordered in NT are baptizing, help the needy, and Jesus' wishes during his last supper (f.x. 22/17-19), and it is not given any specific order about exactly how to perform it, except partly for baptizing.

#577 22/39a: (NB: 622 or 623 AD): “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged”. Remark the difference in the wording here on the transition between the rather peaceful Mecca period, and during the bloody and inhuman Medina period afterwards. The same religion? The same god?

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

578 22/56b: "On that Day the Dominion will be that of Allah - - -". There is one problem, though: Words are so cheap and Muhammad was able to prove not one single thing about his religion - most religions say similar things about their god(s), and the believers believe it, exactly like in Islam. And one more thing: When so much is wrong in the book that it is clear it is not from a god, why should this be correct? And would it mean anything as it is not from a god?

579 22/60f: "- - - (sins) - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. We also may mention that just this word often covers very different deeds, acts, words, and thoughts in the Quran and Islam, compared to in more normal religions (Islam is a religion of war - in spite of its loud slogans), not to mention how much its meaning in the Quran often differs from the basic of all human moral; "do against others like you want others do against you". Read the surahs from Medina and weep.

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

580 22/78e: "- - - it (Islam*) is the cult of your father Abraham". For one thing it is unlikely Abraham is the forefather of the Arabs - Ishmael and his sons settled near the border of Egypt, according to the Bible (written at a time when there was no reason for the writer to falsify this), not in Arabia (1. Mos. 25/18). Also DNA-analysis indicate that the Arabs in reality is a mixture of people who drifted into the desert from different places and nations when the domestication of the camel made life there possible + the result of being at a crossroad for the caravans + the result of large import of slaves/concubines from Europe, Asia and Africa. What once - impolitely - was called a bastard product. Not to mention that Arabia was settled thousands of years before Abraham - not later than 7ooo BC in the coastal areas - which means that even if Abraham had been one of the Arabs' forefathers, he had been only one out of perhaps 100ooo. This in case means that even if Abraham had been among their forefathers, out of an Arab's some 5 liters of blood, only 0.05 milliliters would come from Abraham, and only 0.001% of an Arab's DNA would come from Abraham. Or really only half of this - the other half would be from the mothers. And for another thing there is no reason to believe Islam was Abraham's religion, but strong reason reasons for to believe that the claim is wrong, as no traces from a religion like Islam older than 610 AD have ever been found. Islam will have to produce proofs in order to be believed by us.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left - and remember here that the Quran (21/91) confirms that Jesus was for all peoples, (and in 19/19 that he was holy, which Muhammad definitely was not)). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses and the Jewish prophets) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and this on top of the fact that Abraham like mentioned did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran claims. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

581 23/1b: (YA2865): “The Believers must (eventually) win through - - -.” It may be worth mentioning that communism once said the same - their system was superior and had to win in the long run. The Nazi said the same - better system and better quality humans (Islam, its policy, moral code, etc. sometimes is compared to Nazism - f.x. C. G. Young). Also the South States (of U.S.) said the same - they were better quality and better warriors than the "merchants" in the North States.

582 23/16: "Again (after death*) - - - will ye (people*) be raised up". This is a claim you find in more or less every religion - and if religions are all made up, this may be one of the two rationales behind them; a comfortable soothing against the meaninglessness of a life on Earth without any higher or lasting meaning (the other one is that it may be that it is a cultural glue which makes a group closer knit together, and thus stronger in the fight for survival). Allah has never proved that he has the power of resurrection, but Yahweh has - if the old books tell the truth. (f.x. 1. Kings 17/22, 2. Kings 4/34-35, Mark 5/11, John 11/44, Luke 7/15, Matt. 27/52, Acts 9/40, Acts 20/10, and the Quran 3/49b, 5/110i).

583 23/38c: "He (the unknown prophet*) is only a man who invents a lie against Allah, but we (people*) are not the ones to believe in him!" Exchange "Allah" with "al-Lah" and this is exactly what the people in the old Mecca told Muhammad. Therefore, when Muhammad claimed older prophets had been told the same, his followers could believe Muhammad's situation was normal for prophets and Muhammad a normal prophet.

584 23/49a: “And We (Allah*) gave Moses the Book - - -“. Wrong. Moses never got something even remotely similar to the Quran or the Bible, according to the Bible. What he clearly got according to both the Bible and the Quran, was the 10 Commandments. That was all he physically got according to the Bible. But he was told the Laws – later part of the Books of Moses – and wrote them down later himself (sometimes called "the Book of Covenant"). Science tells that what is called The Books of Moses are centuries younger.

585 23/68c: "- - - has anything (new) come to them that did not come to their fathers of the old?" What the Quran really means here, is that the Quran teaches fundamentally just the same religion as the old Jewish scripture and the Christian ones. ####This is so obviously wrong that we do not bother to throw away time on commenting on it, except that we remind you that both science and Islam thoroughly have proved that the Bible and the Torah, etc. are not falsified, in spite of Muhammad's repeated, but never documented claims.

586 23/83: "They (Muhammad's tales*) are nothing but tales of the ancient". This to a large degree is correct, as a large part of Muhammad's tales in the Quran are old tales - fables, legends, folk tales, apocryphal (made up) stories from the Bible, fairy tales - known in Arabia at his time, which were given suitable twists to fit his new religion - no god would need to do that. Already many in the old Arabia saw this, but soon Muhammad became too strong a terrorist (IS/ISIL, Boko Haram, and others are aping him in his Medina period, but will need a long time to surpass his horrors).

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

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

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

#####587 24/1c: “(This is*) A surah which We (Allah*) have sent down and which We have ordained: in it have We sent down clear Signs; in order that ye may receive admonition.”

"The Massage of the Quran", comment to 24/1 (A24/1): I.e., “the injunctions whereof We (Allah*) have made self-evident by virtue of their wording”: thus Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas explains the expression 'faradnaha' in this context. - - - The same explanation, also on the authority of ibn ‘Abbas, is advanced by Tabari. It would seem that the special stress on Allah’s having laid down this surah “in plain terms” (the norm, but here stressed extra*) is connected with the gravity of the injunctions spelt out in this sequence: in other words, it implies a solemn warning against any attempt at widening or re-defining those injunctions by means of deductions, interferences or any other considerations unconnected with the plain wording of the Quran". Any comment necessary?

###Also remember that the wording of the Quran was polished by the best brains of Islam for some 250 years (until ca. 900 AD) before it got its present wording, and that there existed more than 20 accepted versions - 14 of them canonized - of the book before the two present versions became dominant.

#############“- - - the injunctions whereof We (Allah*) have made self-evident by virtue of their wording”. What about telling this sentence to Socrates or Pascal or a plain teacher of logic? - they had not been finished laughing - or weeping - until after next Christmas or Hajj. Add the fact that the wording in the Quran took some 250 years (from ca. 650 AD to ca. 900 AD) to polish, and they hardly had survived the laughing. And this is the kind of arguments and "proofs" Islam relies on!

A. Occam's Broom (the same Occam as the one with the razor): "The intellectual dishonest trick of ignoring facts that refute your argument in the hope that your audience won't notice". (New Scientist 21.Sept. 2013.) This trick is frequently used by Muhammad, by Islam, and by Muslims argumenting for the Quran's texts and for Islam - just use your ears and/or eyes, and brain, and you will find lots and lots of samples, f.x. in some of Muhammad's lies in the Quran. (Here Islam ignore the fact that Allah never proved he was able to create anything.)

B. "'Surely' (etc.*) and rhetorical questions - whenever you encounter these in a text, stop and think. The author usually wants you to skate over them as if the claim is so obvious as to be beyond doubt, or the answer self-evident. The opposite is often the case." (Graham Lawton.) Also this trick is very often used in the Quran, by Islam, and by Muslims. The question here is very a rhetorical one.

C. Science: "You need a Muslim's belief to be able to believe that the quality of the texts in the Quran proves a divine origin".

#####################BUT ANOTHER AND MOST SERIOUS FACT IS THAT THE QURAN ITSELF AND THE MOST FOREMOST MUSLIM SCHOLARS THROUGH THE TIMES HERE EXPLAIN THAT THE TEXTS IN THE QURAN ARE THE PINNACLE OF CLEARNESS AND EXACTNESS AND EASINESS TO UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY - SO CLEAR AND EXACT AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THAT ONLY A GOD COULD HAVE MADE THEM, AND THUS THAT THE WORDINGS PROVE BY SELF EVIDENCE THAT THE TEXTS ARE FROM A GOD. THESE WORDS FROM ALLAH AND FROM TOP MUSLIM SCHOLARS KILL ALL CLAIMS CLAIMING THAT CLEVER HUMANS CAN EXPLAIN BETTER THAN ALLAH WHAT "HE REALLY MEANT", WHEN ISLAM AND MUSLIMS TRY TO EXPLAIN AWAY WRONG FACTS, OTHER ERRORS, AND OTHER WEAK POINTS IN THE QURAN. WHAT HUMAN CAN CLEARER, EXACTLIER, MORE CORRECT, AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THAN THE LITERAL EXPLANATIONS FROM AN OMNISCIENT GOD, AND AN OMNISCIENT GOD SAYING THAT HIS WORDS ARE THE MAXIMUM QUALITY AND RELIABILITY POSSIBLE?

This documents that either Islam and Muslims are lying when they try to explain away wrong facts, errors, and other weak points in the Quran by claiming that Allah really means something different from what the wordings say (by f.x. claiming the words are an allegory or something), and that "we clever humans are able to explain better, and explain what the god "really" meant. Or they state that Allah lied when he said things like here.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! N

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

588 24/30a: "Say to the believing men that they should - - - guard their modesty - - -". - - - except when they rape captive - or slave - girls and women "lawful and good"? One of the most rotten and immoral law which exists - NB exists, not only existed - on this planet. And made even more immoral and disgusting by the fact that to be lawful it must be done in the name of Allah (it only is lawful if you make her your slave or if the raping is done during/after jihad - holy war - - - but almost any conflict is jihad). One relevant(?) piece of information here: According to UN some 24 million persons today live as slaves or under slave-like conditions - a good percent of them in Muslim area.

589 24/33b: “But force not your maids (female slaves*) to prostitution when they desire chastity (#######notice the choice of words – if the slave woman is willing, it seems to be ok*), in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life.” We have not found out how widespread such forced – and not forced – prostitution was and still is in some Muslim societies. But it is thought provoking that Arab is said to have 26 words for prostitute; It is a general tendency in languages that frequently used expressions have many varieties and synonyms. And what is clear is that this was a rule that was much broken - and even today is much broken (and not only among Muslims) as a huge part of the 24 million slaves UN rapports about (2009 AD), are women in forced prostitution or sexual abuse.

590 24/34c: "- - - (the verses in the Quran are*) an admonition for those who fear Allah". With all the mistakes in the Quran, the reality in the claimed admonition needs no comments.

591 24/42d: "- - - to Allah is the final goal (of all)". If he exists, is a god, and is correctly described among all the errors in the Quran - and if the Bible is not right that it is to Yahweh, and not to Allah.

592 24/53c: "- - - Allah is well acquainted with all that ye do", This and similar sentences are much used warnings in the Quran to remind/claim that you can as well speaks the truth, because Allah knows what is true anyhow - - - f.x. he knows when you are making excuses in order not to obey Muhammad. But also see 2/233h above.

593 24/54e: “- - - if ye (people*) turn away (from Muhammad*), he is only responsible for the duty placed on him, and ye for that place on you.” Contradicted and abrogated at least by 9/5. In reality 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).

594 24/55g: "- - - the one (religion*) He (Allah*) has chosen for them (Muslims*) - - -". As no god has been involved in the making of the Quran - so much is wrong in that book that it is heresy and slander even to accuse a god of haven taken part in a work of such a quality, not to mention claiming that he reveres it as or like a "mother book" (13/39, 43/4, 85/21-22) in his own "home"/Heaven - also no god has chosen the Quran as a basis for their religion. And as no god has chosen the Quran, this also includes Allah - if he exists.

595 24/62a: "Only those are Believers, who believe in Allah and his Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". It is not enough to believe in Allah - the claimed god. One also must believe in one specific of his many, many claimed messengers - Muhammad. Here is something strange - if Muhammad is not divine, the religion should be complete without one of its very many claimed prophets. What is wrong here? - or is Allah incomplete without Muhammad, one of his 124ooo (= 620 at any time for 5ooo years if they on average worked for25 years, or 12-15 for 160ooo-200ooo years. No traces found. Believe it if you can.) claimed prophets? And cannot belief in one or more of the other 124ooo claimed prophets/messengers prove that a person is a Muslim? Has it to be belief in that Muhammad is Allah's prophet? If that is the case no Muslim could exist before Muhammad.

But the claim is a good one if the intention was to glue Muhammad to his platform of power - his religion.

596 24/63g: "- - - let those beware who withstand the Messenger's order (that Allah will punish them strictly*) - - -". Total dictatorship and despotism. Also see 3/77b above. Muhammad's repeated claims that he demanded no payment from his followers for his preaching is a little ironic - or worse.

Besides: How could/can Allah punish? Any punishment will mean that the man and his deed which Allah punishes, changed his Plan - and according to several points in the Quran, nobody and nothing can change that Plan. If this is true, Allah can neither punish nor reward - both means changes in his Plan. And the same for prayers for ankind of betterment or for forgiving (which is a kind of betterment).

597 25/1a: "Blessed is He (Allah*) who sent down the Criterion (the Quran*) - - -". No god sent down a book with this many mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, unclear language, etc., not to mention reveres it in his own "home" as the "mother book" (13/39, 43/4, 85/21-22). Besides Islam does not know for sure if "the Criterion" means the Quran (but he is not claimed to have sent down much more).

You meet the word Criterion a few times in the Quran. Nobody is quite sure what is meant. One likely guess is that it means "the difference between right and wrong", but it is a guess, not more.

598 25/3a: Made up gods are no good. But a reminder: Allah has never been proved to be any better or even to exist. Muhammad never had anything but undocumented claims to give to people. And Muhammad was a very dubious character according to claimed facts in central Islamic literature - far from the semi-saint Muslims like to claim.

599 25/3d: "- - - gods that can create nothing, but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves - - -". But the irony here is that the Quran here blames other gods for defects it is likely also Allah has - if he exists - as there is not one single known proved incident during all the time Homo Sapiens has existed on Earth, where Allah has done anything of this. A very good proof for this is Islam's silence about such proved cases. Claims yes, proved cases no.

600 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"/fits Muhammad is said to have experienced. (Source among others BBC (BBC, Thursday 20 March 2003, BBC Two 17. April 2003)).

#####601 25/11d: "We (Allah*) have prepared a Blazing Fire for such (non-Muslims*) - - -". Is this a slip of the tongue confirming that Allah also is the real master of Hell?

089 25/18c: "- - - until they (former Muslims*) forgot the Message - - -". The Quran claims that the religion of Islam has been taught to all people during all times, but that it has been forgotten or falsified, and that Islam and Muhammad meant the resurrection of the one and universal religion. The claim is wrong - neither science nor Islam has ever found traces of a religion even remotely connected to and similar to Islam (except the two connected to the Bible, and in spite of Islamic claims, those two - and especially Christianity - are fundamentally so different on central points that they clearly never were like Islam. This even more so as the Islamic claim about falsified Bible also clearly is wrong, according to science and to Islam.) But never try to tell facts they do not like to strongly religious persons. They all the same believe only what they wish to believe, and bagatelles like facts or truth do not interest them at all.

602 25/19a: "(Allah will say): 'Now they (the false gods*) have proved you (non-Muslims*) liars - - -". A not documented claim in a hypothetical speech in a book dictated by a morally very doubtful person liking power and riches - at least for bribes - and women. And claimed to be said by a claimed god which the realities in the Quran more or less prove is a made up and false god. You are free to believe what you want.

603 25/29a: "He (non-Muslim*) did lead me (bad Muslim*) astray from the Message - - -". Bad if Allah exists, if he was involved in making the Quran, and if the Quran tells the full and only the truth. Good if not - this even if there are no other gods, as Islam is a primitive, inhuman and partly immoral religion, not only for the surroundings, but also for Muslims - with a possible exception for the leaders who gained power and some of the ones who stole themselves rich. (Perhaps also for some of the some 5-10% who need the belief in a god, #####but for them the effect is more or less the same no matter what god they believe in.)

##############But how could someone lead you astray if Allah predestines every detail of your life, like the Quran states several places?

604 25/33a: "And no question do they (people*) bring thee (Muhammad*) but We (Allah*) reveal to thee the truth and the best explanation (thereof)". But always afterwards, instead of before, so that problems could have been evaded - - - and not until after Muhammad was aware of that there was a problem (a coincidence?) Also see 25/32g just above.

And as bad: Far from always the texts are true. Just see www.1000mistakes.com, Book A.

#### But if Allah brings and reveals the best explanations, how then can Islam and Muslims claim they have better explanations, when they want to "explain" away wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc.? Either Allah/the Quran/Muhammad is lying when saying that Allah gives the Best explanations, or Islam and Muslims are lying when they claim they can explain better than Allah what he "really" meant.

605 25/37d: "- - - We (Allah') have prepared for (all) wrongdoers a grievous Penalty". Who wants to befriend such people? (It is easy to forget that it only is true if Allah exists and is a major god - and if the Quran in addition has described him correctly.)

*606 25/59a: “He (Allah*) Who created the heavens (plural and wrong) and the earth and all that is between, in six days - - -”. Wrong. It took 4.6 billion years to create the Earth like it is today. (Actually the latest numbers are 4.567 billion - and for the Universe/heaven 13.7 billion). Even in the Quran you can find contradicting information saying it took 2 + 4 + 2 days = 8 days:

  1. 41/9-12: These verses tell that Allah took 2 + 4 + 2 days = 8 days to create everything. (Muslims try to tell that the first 2 days are included in the 4 days, but just read this yourself and see – what they wish you to believe is not what the Quran says. It says very clearly 2 days for one job, 4 for the next, and 2 for the last = 8 days. Some also wants you to believe that "day" in Arab = eon. For one thing it is not a correct translation, and for another read 2/117 and see if Allah should need 6 – 8 eons.)

A SAMPLE OF MODERN ISLAM'S "ARGUMENTS.

###607 26/4d: "- - - a Sign, to which they (people*) would bend their necks in humility". Comment A26/4: "Inasmuch as the spiritual value of man's faith depends on its being an outcome of free choice and not of compulsion, the visible and audible appearance of a 'message from the skies' would, by its obviousness, nullify the element of free choice and, therefore, deprive man's faith in that message of all its moral significance'.

p> This claim is pure dishonesty and logical nonsense. This especially as Islam claims "free will" and "free choice", not "free to guess.

The argument is not even rubbish and gobbledygook, politely speaking, and an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie). Choices made by a person's free will, has got to be made on basis of what the person know, and the more he or she knows about something, the more likely it is that correct choice about that thing is made. Therefore the addition of correct information - f.x. real proof for that a god exists - can have no negative significance morally for the person's decisions or choices.

On the contrary: Withholding of essential, correct information forcing the person to make decisions or choices on basis of serious lack of central information easy for a god to provide, is morally a very doubtful deed by that god. Worse: ####### Top Muslim scholars know enough about logic and moral to know that this is the case, and even so they are capable of producing "explanations" like this, trying to cheat less educated people. But then al-Taqiyya is not only permitted when it comes to defend or forward Islam, but is advised if it gives a better effect. How much in the Muslim scholars' arguments are al-Taqiyyas or Kitmans (lawful half-truths) like this one?

The facts above are so well known, that there is no chance Muhammad Asad did not know it. The only possible conclusion is that he - like so many others - is lying to defend and/or promote his religion.

#####But what is the real value - and what is the real truth - of a religion which has to rely on dishonesty? And how much more in such a religion and its claims and "arguments" are lies? Not to mention: Is there any reliability left concerning that religion?

#####Perhaps the most helpless and hopeless "explanation" we have met for the lack of proofs in Islam, and for answer of requests for proofs at least for Allah's existence and claimed power.

But also hopeless dishonesty is dishonesty. The "logic" in A's comment here is dishonest. Not only wrong, but dishonest.

608 26/8c: "Verily, in this (the natural products claimed made by Allah*) is a Sign: but most of them (non-Muslims*) do not believe". Very naturally as for one thing the "sign" is invalid as long as it is not proved made by Allah - and who except cheats and deceivers use invalid "proofs"? And for another thing already a number of his contemporaries saw that something was very wrong in this new religion - f.x. his claimed quotes/stories from the Bible.

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

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

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

###609 26/46-47: "Then did the sorcerers fall down, prostrate in adoration, Saying 'We believe in the Lord of the Worlds - - -". For one thing this is not from the Bible. But much more serious in this connection is that this is one of the proofs for that Muhammad knew he was lying each time he explained away his inability to produce any miracle as a proof for his god and for his own connection to a god, with that Allah did not want because it would make no-one believe in Allah anyhow. Here Muhammad is telling - early in his career and before many of those "explaining" away (surah 26 is from 615 - 616 AD = shortly after Muhammad started his preaching in earnest) - about a minor miracle which made all those sorcerers suddenly become ardent believers in just Allah. Also see 26/51 below.

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

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

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

610 26/51: "Only, our (the Pharaoh's sorcerers*) desire is that our Lord (indicated to be Allah*) will forgive us our faults, that we may become foremost among the Believers". ####### THE MOST SERIOUS POINT HERE IS THAT MUHAMMAD CLAIMS THAT THE SORCERERS BECAME EAGER MUSLIMS BECSUSE OF MINOR MIRACLES PERFORMED BY MOSES. THIS WAS AS EARLY AS 615 OR 616 AD. T H I S P R O V E S T H A T M U H A M M A D A T L E A S T L A T E R K N E W H E W A S L Y I N G E A C H T I M E H E C L A I M E D T H A T T H E R E A S O N F O R T H A T A L L A H D I D N O T U S E M I R A C L E S O R O T H E R R E A L P R O O F S, W A S T H A T I T W O U L D N O T M A K E A N Y B O D Y B E L I V E A N Y H O W !!!

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

#####611 26/67d: (YA3173): "- - - people who are blind in their obstinate resistance to the Truth, accomplish their own destruction - - -". Worth thinking over as all the errors in the Quran, etc. and also the fact that Muhammad sometimes speaks in the book, and even use at least a few lies the book, prove 100% and more that it is an unavoidable truth that something is seriously wrong with the Quran - and hence with Islam. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

###612 26/74c: “They (Abraham's people*) said: ‘Nay, but we found our fathers doing thus (what we do)”.

(A26/38): “(Zamakhshari): ‘- - - ancient usage and precedence in time are no proof of (a concept’s) soundness”. Razi, for his part, states that (this*) verse represents ‘one of the strongest (Quranic) indications of the immorality (Arab “fasad”*) inherent in (the principle of) "taqlid", i. e. the blind, unquestioning adoption of religious concepts or practices on basis of one’s uncritical faith in no more than the “authority” of a scholar or a religious leader.”

  1. But the book skips the fact that this also goes for Muslims: If they are strongly indoctrinated, they may react strongly to arguments and facts they do not like – and without thinking over – or being mentally able to think over – even true facts. And also for them it is highly immoral just to accept a religion or something just because their fathers and others believe in it.
  2. But there hardly is a major religion more authoritative and with a clearer demand for blind belief than Islam. Or with stronger and more ruthless indoctrination.

Also see 6/108b and 23/1b above.

613 26/104c: "(Allah is*) Most Merciful". Not if he made the surahs from Medina, some of the immoral Islamic moral code, or the most unjust ones of the sharia laws.

614 26/106b: "(Noah said*) Will ye (other people*) not fear (Allah)". Islam claims Allah has been the central and only real god since man/Homo Sapiens (or Homo Erectus? - or Homo Habilis? - or - - -?) started. Science and Islam both have long since proved this wrong, as neither science nor Islam has found one single trace of clear monotheism before the Jews (we know the word is younger, but like many others we use it because it is convenient), and no trace of any Islam or Allah (in Muhammad's meaning of that name) or Quran before 610 AD (when Muhammad started his preaching).

Some facts here: Science tells that the Homos (humans) split from the Pans (chimpanzees) sometime between 6.3 and 5.4 million years ago, that our forefathers Homo Habilis emerged some 2.4 million and our later forefathers Homo Erectus some 1.5 million years ago, and that modern man after a transition period of some 200ooo years finally was Homo Sapiens sometime between 200ooo and 160ooo - likely 195ooo - years ago. At least Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus were sentient beings, though likely more primitive than Homo Sapiens. And then there were modern man's older "brothers", the Neanderthals and the Denisovans (both some 400ooo years old?) who both definitely were sentient and humans/people. 35/24 tells: “- - - there never was a people, without a warner having lived among them (in the past).” The oldest knowledge of reading is some 5ooo+ years old. How did older "messengers" use their copies of "the Mother of the Book" - the Quran? And in what alphabet and language were they written? - Muslims like to claim that the Quran has to be read in Arab, but remember here that the Arab - or proto-Arab - language is maximum from around 7ooo BC, and the Arab alphabet was not completed until around 900 AD.

615 26/140b: "(Allah is*) the Exalted in Might - - -". But during 1400 years there was not one single proof for that claimed might - only claims based on the words of a man with doubtful moral and who on top of that liked power and was not adverse to lying (f.x. "Miracles will make no-one believe anyhow"), and deception (f. x. "War is deception") .

#####616 26/196b: “Without doubt it (the Quran*) is (announced) in the revealed Books (the Torah, the Bible*) of former peoples.” There is very much doubt about this, as the basic elements of the teachings are too different – especially compared to NT and “the new covenant” which is the fundamental one for Christianity. It is plainly wrong - it is absolutely sure that the Quran is not announced in the Bible or in any relevant Jewish scriptures. Also see the chapter about "Muhammad in the Bible" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran", and 26/193-196b above..

Flatly stated: It is incorrect that the Quran without doubt is revealed in the Bible (not even Muslims claim this today - and if you run across the claim, their references are not to "documentation" about the Quran revealed in the Bible, but to claimed references to Muhammad there (they only are possible to see if you cherry-pick words and add wishful thinking and a huge dash of al-Taqiyya and/or Kitman - lawful lies and lawful half-truths)). Even this often met claim that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible, as you understand is wrong. And as said the basic thoughts are too different between the Bible and the Quran: Both books cannot come from the same god. This is especially easy to see if you compare the Quran to NT.

The same is even clearer when Muhammad claims that the Quran is announced in the Bible.

Some Muslim scholars say it is the basic ideas of the Quran which is foretold in the Bible. Please read the Bible and especially NT, and the Quran and compare - and weep (you will not be tempted to laugh - except a black laugh). And when it comes to announcement for the Quran in the Bible, we have not even seen a Muslim being able to find that this is "correct".

When this was said in 615 or 616 AD, this simply may have been a bluff, and not really a lie, except the words "without doubt". But all became a clear lie by omission from Muhammad, when he did not correct it when he later learnt more about the Bible. The Quran is not announced anywhere in the Bible. (And neither is Muhammad.)

*617 26/210-211: “No evil ones have brought down this (Revelation). It would neither suit them - - -“. May be no evil spirits have brought down the Quran. But is definite that no omniscient god has done so – too many mistakes, etc. It also is definite that no good or benevolent god or spirit did it – far too inhuman, full of hate and suppression and blood – not to mention the wretched ethic and moral in the book. All the same it is possible it was not sent down by bad or evil forces (even bad supernatural forces would be too intelligent to make a book with so many mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, etc., as they had to know they would be found out sooner or later and lose their credibility - though a possibility is that the god demanded a low quality book to permit the Devil to make such a trap - f. x. may be the god wanted it to be possible for humans to understand something was wrong and thus evade the trap) – it simply is possible, and even likely, that it was made by one or more men (all the wrong science and "knowledge" in accordance with the local beliefs in and around Arabia at that time, and a lot more, point in that direction). But what is absolutely sure, is that an Islam like the one one finds in the surahs from Medina suits evil spirits and forces very well: Inhumanity, stealing, blood, hate, war. Just ask Muslims what they think about the Mongols attacking them in the east. The religion in Mongolia under and after Djingis Khan basically was quite similar to Islam. When Islam used their war machine and inhumanity in f.x. India and other places, they according to all Muslims were heroes. Then they met Mongols who did just the same to Muslims - - and the Mongols were terrible monsters. But then the southern Mongols became Muslims and continued in the same way like before, but now against non-Muslims - - - and now they were great heroes according to Islam. Ask them if the f.x. remember the name Timur Lenk (Tamerlane).

Islam as described in the surahs from Medina, definitely suits evil forces/spirits.

*618 26/211b: “- - - nor would they (non-Muslims*) be able (to produce it) (something similar to the Quran*)”. Wrong. In spite of all the glorious words Muslims use about the Quran, it is not good literature. There are lots and lots of mistakes and contradictions. There is lots of wrong logic. There are numbers of linguistic errors. There hardly is anything original in the book - the stories are taken from the Bible and a few other old books, from made up religious tales, from folklore and from legends and fairy tales and just changed a little. Also in thinking and in laws and morality there was little new - if any; there were a few changes compared to the old Arabia, but those ideas came from neighboring cultures. And the same stories are told again and again - most boring. Also good writers - not the original composer - polished the Arab language in the book for some 250 years (until ca. 900 AD).

Claims like that the Quran is good literature you can tell to the naïve, uneducated illiterate savages of the old (and for that case modern) times. Skip it when you are talking to an educated modern person who knows the Quran (far too few does – many had been disgusted) and knows a little about literature. The Quran may be intelligent religious tales for its time, but it is not and was not a good piece of literature. Boring, repetitive, a melee of this and that – no logical system in the tales, the tales all “borrowed” from others and well known, no new thoughts, boringly told, etc. For similar claims see 17/88

There would be no problem for a good or medium writer to collect stories and write something similar - or better. But for what? - no matter how well written, not one single believing Muslim had admitted it was better than the Quran, as that had meant the Quran was and is not from a god.

619 27/6d: “(Allah is*) Wise and All-Knowing”. If that is right, he has not composed the Quran - far too many mistakes, too much unclear language, etc. Or to be blunter: The composer of the Quran is someone who is far from all-knowing.

620 27/9b "O Moses! Verily, I am Allah - - -". We guess it is not necessary to tell that this name is contradicted by the Bible? The name Allah also is seen or heard about exactly nowhere in any material older than 610 AD - some 2000 years later (except as another name for the pagan Arab god al-Lah). The best proof for this is Islam: Had the name existed anywhere in older materials, you bet they had told about it. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left - and remember here that the Quran (21/91) confirms that Jesus was for all peoples, (and in 19/19 that he was holy, which Muhammad definitely was not)). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses and the Jewish prophets) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and this on top of the fact that Abraham like mentioned did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran claims. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

*621 27/16 – 44: These stories – also repeated other places in the Quran - about King Solomon, the ants, the jinns slaving for him, the hoopoe, and not to mention the Queen of Sabah – are fantastic like were they from a fairy tale - - - which is what they are: They are “borrowed” from the made up - apocryphal, and hardly even apocryphal - scripture “Second Targum of Ester”. No god needs to steal old fairy tales and retell them with small – or big – twists to make them fit his religion/tales, and then call them facts. But Muhammad often did so. This is the reason why his contemporaries so often said that what he told just were old tales – they simply recognized the legends, fairy tales and stories.

#####622 27/31d: "- - - (- - - the true Religion (Islam*)) - - -". Omitting the fact that the god of Solomon was Yahweh, not Allah, according to the Bible, there still remains the fact that a religion based on a book where no god has been involved, and full of mistaken facts, etc., is no true religion.

(Actually there are so much wrong facts, etc. - included far too many central points - in the Quran, that it is difficult for a non-psychologist to understand how it is possible to explain away and/or overlook all the mistaken facts and other errors in the Quran, which documents that the book is not from a god, and thus that Islam is a made up religion. A pagan one simply. And it documents something about naivety in human nature.)

623 27/59e: "(Who) is better? - Allah or the false gods they (non-Muslims*) associate (with Him)?" False gods have no power and no value and nothing to offer for a perhaps next life - on the contrary, as they waylay and misdirect you in your search for a possible next life - even blocks the road for you if it denies you to search other than wrong roads. The disturbing fact here is that also Allah never has proved his power or even his existence and thus may be a made up and false god - and Muhammad never was able to prove his connection to a god and thus may be a false prophet, this even more so as he clearly liked riches for bribes, and power and women, believed in using lies (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah) and even broken oaths if that gave better results (plainly said even in the Quran), and had a very doubtful moral (stealing/robbing, raping, suppressing, murdering, deceiving ("war is deceit" - and every place outside Islam is "the land of war"), lying even in the Quran, disusing even oaths, just to mention a few facts - all this from central Islamic religious literature and history). If the Quran is a made up book and Allah thus a made up god, Allah is as false a god as all the other false gods. What is sure, is that the Quran is not from a god - no god makes that many mistakes, contradictions, unclear language, cases of invalid logic, etc.

This is a case of "Occam's broom" - here pretending that the existence and power of the claimed god Allah are proved facts. The Quran uses this technique very many places.

624 27/64c: "(Can there be another) god besides Allah?" First Islam has to prove - not claim, but prove, that Allah exists. See 2/255a, 6/106b, 25/18a, 27/60e and 27/61f above.

625 27/86d: "Verily, in this are Signs for any people that believe". There is an irony in claiming that here are in verity signs, when they for proofs use "signs" which are not verified, and thus invalid as proofs. Islam often does this or similar.

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

*627 28/3a: “We (Allah*) rehearse to thee (Muhammad/Muslims*) some of the story of Moses and Pharaoh in Truth - - -”. The story about Moses contradicts and differs not a little from the one told in the Bible - which for this part is more than 1000 years nearer in time to what (may be) happened - and with stronger traditions concerning Moses. From where did Muhammad get the "new" details? It is a question, which one is most reliable. In any case: Both have the death of Pharaoh Ramses II wrong (but when it comes to the Bible it is possible to explain this - not so with the Quran, which is told by Allah (or even has existed since eternity and is never made), as Allah is omniscient and omniscient gods make no mistakes (the human narrator of the Bible may have mixed Ramses II with one of his 67(?) sons or one of his generals - for Allah such a mistake is impossible)).

Moses and his brother Aaron came to Pharaoh Ramses II (one of the really strong and mighty pharaohs in the history of Egypt - may be the mightiest ever). A lot is known about Ramses II, among other things that he did not drown. Because of this you often meet Muslims claiming this happened earlier and under more unknown pharaohs which we do not know from what they died, but science is not in real doubt, and also the years then does not add up.

##There is at least one more historical fact connected to this story which is wrong in the Quran: The Quran tells that Allah destroyed all the large, magnificent buildings in Egypt (7/137). There is no kind of scientific indication for that this can be correct - no trace from such a catastrophe at that time neither in archeology nor in literature nor even in folklore. And remember: No omniscient god makes mistakes - then who made the Quran?

Another point: As no god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran, also no god rehearsed it to Muhammad.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left - and remember here that the Quran (21/91) confirms that Jesus was for all peoples, (and in 19/19 that he was holy, which Muhammad definitely was not)). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses and the Jewish prophets) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and this on top of the fact that Abraham like mentioned did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran claims. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

628 28/3b: “- - - in Truth - - -“. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. With all the mistakes etc. in the Quran, it at best is just partly true. Also see 13/1g above and 40/75 below.

629 28/13a: "- - - the promise of Allah is true - - -". If you ask the entire Islam even today to show you one single proved case of a promise given by Allah which has been fulfilled by Allah throughout the times, they will not be able to answer you. No such case exists. Lots of claims, some co-incidences, not one proved case.

630 28/38d: (A28/37 – YA3371): “(Pharaoh said*) “O Haman (see the Book of Esther - minister for Xerxes several hundred years later and hundreds of km further east, in Persia - and not an Egyptian name either*)! - - - build me a lofty palace, that I may mount up to the god of Moses - - -.” Muslims like to tell this does not refer to something like the tower of Babylon (built from bricks), but to a pyramid - - - and without mentioning a single word about well known facts like it took some 20-30 years to build a big pyramid (and Ramses II at the time science believe this happened if it happened, was not young), or that the pyramids in Egypt were built from natural stones, not from brick, so a kiln has no connection to them. There also is quite a difference between a palace and a pyramid.

631 28/45b: "- - - it is We (Allah*) Who sent messengers - - -". The Quran claims that Allah sent lots of prophets (124ooo (= 620 at any time for 5ooo years or 12-15 for 160ooo-200ooo. No traces found. Believe it if you can.) or more according to Hadiths), but not one of those claims are proved, and not a single trace from all those claimed prophets are ever found neither by science, nor by Islam - not anywhere in the world. The only one which is "proved" sent by Allah, is Muhammad - and was he really sent, and in case by whom as no god sends anyone teaching something full of mistakes, etc.?

The claim is wrong unless Islam proves that at least some messengers were sent by Allah, and prove that they really taught Islam.

632 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.

*633 28/48a: “- - - When the Truth (the Quran*) has come to them (the Quraysh - the leading tribe in Mecca*) - - -”. If it was not because the word “truth” is so central and so disused in Islam, we had stopped commenting on it long time ago - it is so obvious that the Quran can be only partly the truth, at best. See all the mistakes - some small, some big blunders, some repeated many times and really cemented - - - but even one mistake is impossible for an omniscient god. Is Allah omniscient? Or did someone else compose the Quran? If Allah is not omniscient, that means something is wrong with the religion - not to mention if he does not exist. If Muhammad or another human composed it, it is a false religion. The same and even worse if it in reality is from the dark forces.

***And if it is a false religion and there somewhere exists a real, true one, to which Islam blocks the road to for its believers - - - what then in a possible next life for the Muslims?

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

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

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

634 28/52b: “(Jews and Christians*) – they do believe in this (Revelation) - - -“. Flatly wrong. And flatly dishonest. A few became Muslims according to Islam, but the overwhelming majority had to flee, was made slaves, or was killed/murdered/executed because they refused to believe in Muhammad’s tales. Cfr. f.x. what happened in and around Medina and Khaybar in the years after this surah was told (in 621 AD or later). Contradicted by reality and history. And: One more place where an intelligent man like Muhammad knew he was lying, because this he knew. (Well, this is from 621 AD. Perhaps this early Muhammad believed it was a bluff and not a lie. But over a few years it became a lie by omission, because he did not correct it when he at least later learnt it was not true. Worse: He sporadically even then used claims like this.

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

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

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

###635 28/53c: “They (Jews and Christians*) say: ‘We believe therein, for it is the Truth from our Lord - - -“. Well, this is what Muhammad claimed. The reality as clearly told in Islamic written sources about what you find in 28/52a above - and like in 28/52a also here Muhammad had to know he was lying, because this he knew was untrue. It may have been true for a few, but only for a few in case. Also see 28/48a and 28/48b. A few Jews and Christians may or may not have become Muslims - there only are Muslim sources for the claims - but the majority clearly said no, even in the face of persecution and murder. Generally speaking a dishonesty, ########and as Muhammad here was speaking about Jews and Christians generally, he knew this was a lie (and he later had this fact strongly confirmed, but did not correct his words - at least a known lie by omission in this case and a plainly known lie later years).

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

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

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

636 28/53h: “- - - indeed we (the Jews and Christians*) have been Muslims (bowing to Allah’s will) from before this”. No comments necessary – except see f.x. 28/48a, 28/48b or 28/52 above - and except that it is easy to see from known history that it is not true.

637 28/57e: "But most of them (Skeptics*) understand not". May be that was just what they did - understood that something was wrong, and seriously wrong, with Muhammad's new religion.

28/70e: "- - - for Him (Allah*) is the command - - -". Similar things are often said in the Quran and by Muslims, but never proved anywhere. The only basis for the claim, is a book full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. based only on the word of a man believing in al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), deceit ("War is deceit" - and "everything" is jihad/holy war), and the breaking of words/promises/oaths according to the Quran itself - a man liking power and riches for bribes - - - and women.

638 28/75c: "- - - and We (Allah*) shall say: 'Produce your (human's*) Proof - - -". What for if Allah is omniscient? One more point: Muhammad frequently demands proofs from everybody else, but never proves anything of any consequence himself. ########That both Allah and Muhammad demand proofs, prove that proofs are valuable and mean something, but all the same Muhammad was unable to provide even one valid proof for any central point in his teaching. Not one for any of his many claims

639 28/75e: “- - - then they (the non-Muslims*) shall know that the Truth is in Allah (alone) - - -”. That is to be hoped that if Allah is a god. But judging from the Quran, at most in him is maximum partly the truth.

640 28/76-82: The story about Qarun is not from the Bible (there is a story about a rich man in the Bible, but it is very different and not connected to Moses). Also remember that in the Quran not good people either changes and become good Muslims, or they are punished like here - both endings are good for the moral of the believing Muslims, whether the endings are true or not. And by the way: From where did Muhammad get his story? - as the Quran is not from any god with all its errors, and it is not in the Bible, the only possible sources are legends, fairy tales and fantasy. Also apocryphal - made up - scriptures may be a possible source, but hardly for a story like this. (Some Muslims claim Qarun is Korah in the Bible (Num. 16/1-35), but about the only similarity is that also Korah was swallowed by the earth).

641 28/83a: "That Home of the Hereafter We (Allah*) shall give to those who intend not high-handedness nor mischief on earth - - -". The behavior of Muslim warriors, assassins, terrorists and others through the times - is that mischief? If not: What kind of religion and what kind of god is this? And if it mischief: What then about Muslim warriors, assassins, terrorists and others through the times, in the possible next life?

642 28/88e: "- - - to Him (Allah*) will ye (all) be brought back (on the Day of Doom*)". Often claimed, but true only if Allah exists, is a major god, and the Quran in addition tells the full truth and only the truth on this point.

*643 29/2a: “Do men think - - - they will not be tested?” But why is it necessary to test anyone if Allah is omniscient and knows everything before? – yes, in spite of that he even decides everything before? (in spite of the claim that man has (limited?) personal freedom to decide – though even Islam is unable to explain how it possible to combine the statement that Allah decides everything before, with the statement that man has free will - full or partly - (not strange, as it is a version of the time travel paradox, and that paradox is proved unsolvable)) – if all this, then why are tests necessary to find an answer Allah already knows?

*644 29/45h: “- - - remembrance of Allah is the greatest (thing in life) without doubt.” There is much doubt about this if he has composed the Quran - the mistakes proves he in case is very far from omniscience, the valueless “signs” and “proofs” proves he is not very good at logical thinking, and his use of invalid excuses and his inability to send proofs of his existence, proves he is not omnipotent. And if someone else made the Quran, the doubt is even greater, as then both the Quran and Islam are without any value at all - or with negative value, as much of the religion is rather inhuman (f.x. wars, terrorism, suppression of all non-Muslims, suppression of women and freedom to rape many of them, thoughts about slavery, and enmity towards non-Muslims, and more).

645 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, 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 use words like "rubbish", etc. And the clear origin for MANY of the Quran's tales - legends, pagan religion (included the old Arab one), folk tales, and even fairy tales - tells a lot about Muhammad, about the Quran, and about Islam.

####It is so well known what the sources for most of tales in the Quran are borrowed from, that there is no chance Islam and Muslim scholars do not know it. But they never mention such facts.

646 #########29/49c: "- - - Signs self-evident - - -". It may be impolite to mention it, but even today Muslims have to resort to arguments of this quality - a proof for that they have very little of real arguments. We may add that the only signs which would be self evident proofs for a supernatural being, would be a supernatural evidence. There is not one single supernatural evidence connected to neither Islam nor to Muhammad, and this also is admitted by Islam, with the exception that they claim the claimed delivery of the Quran was supernatural.

A. Occam's Broom (the same Occam as the one with the razor): "The intellectual dishonest trick of ignoring facts that refute your argument in the hope that your audience won't notice". (New Scientist 21.Sept. 2013.) This trick is frequently used by Muhammad, by Islam, and by Muslims argumenting for the Quran's texts and for Islam - just use your ears and/or eyes, and brain, and you will find lots and lots of samples, f.x. in some of Muhammad's lies in the Quran. (Here Islam ignore the fact that Allah never proved he was able to create anything.)

B. "'Surely' (etc.*) and rhetorical questions - whenever you encounter these in a text, stop and think. The author usually wants you to skate over them as if the claim is so obvious as to be beyond doubt, or the answer self-evident. The opposite is often the case." (Graham Lawton.) Also this trick is very often used in the Quran, by Islam, and by Muslims. The question here is very a rhetorical one.

C. Science: "You need a Muslim's belief to be able to believe that the quality of the texts in the Quran prove a divine origin".

Another question: Who use arguments and "proofs" of this quality? The cheat, the swindler, the fast-talker, the deceiver.

###647 29/61d: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) will certainly reply,’ Allah*". Wrong. If they believed the Earth and the rest were created by a god, they would say the name of their own god. But in Arabia a small cheating was easy: The old Arabs would say the name of their god al-Lah, but this is so close to Allah in pronunciation that it was easy to claim they said Allah. (A similar trick is used today, when Muslims and Islam in the west calls Allah "God" - the Christian name for Yahweh. This camouflages a lot of the differences between God/Yahweh and Allah, at least on the surface.

648 30/9c: "- - - there came to them (former tribes*) their messengers - - -". The Quran claims that every people and culture and nation through all times have got prophets teaching Islam - Hadiths mentions the number 124ooo (= 620 at any time for 5ooo years or 12-15 for 160ooo-200ooo. No traces found. Believe it if you can.) , and even that may just be a symbolic small number. Neither science nor Islam has ever found any kind of traces from any of them before 610 AD (the year Muhammad started his mission).

Wrong unless Islam proves - proves - differently.

650 29/61e: "How are they (non-Muslims*) then deluded away (from the truth)?" Who is most likely deluded: The one who believe in a book full of mistakes, clearly not from a god, and dictated by a man believing in using lies (al-Taqiyya), half-truths (Kitman), broken oaths according to the Quran, deceit ("war is deceit" - and "everything" jihad), and liking power and women? Or the one not believing? Or the one believing in something else, which just might be a real god?

651 29/68a: "And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against Allah?" If Muhammad or someone has made up the Quran, that means they have invented Allah as a single god and the only god of the world (instead of the polytheistic al-Lah Muhammad transformed some). But has/have he/they in case sinned against Allah if he does not exist? Advanced philosophy? And what if it is the dark forces who made the Quran (parts of the moral code may indicate that this rumor may be the right one?

652 30/11d: "- - - then shall ye (people*) be brought back to Him (Allah - for a second life*)". Often claimed, never proved. And a claim any priest in any religion can make on behalf of his religion as long as he evades all requests for proofs.

653 30/15d: "(In Paradise good Muslims*) shall be happy in a Mead of Delight". This "Mead of Delight" is described for ca. 1/3 of the population; the adult men. For women and children little is told. But adult men will experience pleasant weather and shade, peace, nothing to do and no work, high luxury and plenty of sex. This might be the ultimate dream for poor and primitive desert warriors, but is this really the best an omniscient and omnipotent god can do? Such a life f. x. must be extremely boring in the long run. And the contrast to Yahweh's paradise is striking: "(You*) will be like the angels in heaven". (f. x. Matt.22/30). Yahweh and Allah the same god? Only the difference in their paradises proves beyond any reasonable and unreasonable doubt that this is not the case. And then there are all the other differences proving the same in addition.

PS: Also women and children will end up in Paradise if they qualify, but their existence there is little described.

654 30/9c: "- - - there came to them (former tribes*) their messengers - - -". The Quran claims that every people and culture and nation through all times have got prophets teaching Islam - Hadiths mentions the number 124ooo (= 620 at any time for 5ooo years or 12-15 for 160ooo-200ooo. No traces found. Believe it if you can.) , and even that may just be a symbolic small number. Neither science nor Islam has ever found any kind of traces from any of them before 610 AD (the year Muhammad started his mission).

Wrong unless Islam proves - proves - differently.

655 30/30e: "- - - (Islam*) is the standard Religion - - -”. The Quran claims that it is the original and natural - and standard - religion on Earth. We think we had better not comment on this - except that not even Islam has found any trace of a religion like Islam, a god like Allah, a book like the Quran, or a messenger for a religion like Islam older than 610 AD. To be polite: It is a bluff.

Also see 30/30d just above.

656 30/35a: "Or have We (Allah*) sent down authority to them (non-Muslims*) which points out to them the things (false gods*) to which they pay part-worship". But the very fundamental question is: Does Allah exist, and in case he does: Does he really have the power to send authority of any kind? This simply is one more of the classical Islamic way of debating: "What we say is the truth and does not need verification - so we can make claims on basis of that". But the claims are 100% invalid, as long as the underlying claimed facts are not proved.

###Also note Muhammad's technique: He pretends Allah is a fact, so that no proofs are necessary. You meet this and similar techniques legion places in the Quran.

Also note another point of Muhammad's technique: He states like a fact that non-Muslims respects Allah, but "pay part-worship" to other gods. This confirms for his followers that Allah is the main one for everybody, whereas no non-Muslim believe in Allah at all - they worship, not part worship, their own god(s) and dismiss Allah as a made up and heathen god or as plain superstition.

And not least: He pretends that Allah and his power are obvious facts. Occam's broom is visiting.

If the Quran is a made up book, or if Allah for other reasons is wrongly described in that book, Allah either is a false god, or a god different from what Muhammad claimed. In both cases Islam is a false religion.

*657 30/43a: “- - - the right Religion (Islam*) - - -”. Is it possible that the right religion can be based on a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, etc. repeated or made by an Arab salesman, highwayman, murderer (he let opponents and others murder - the number 26 is mentioned, Ibn Ishaq names 10 - the some 700 from Khaybar, the 29 in the peace delegation, and many during campaigns or raids not included), torturer and rapist (he - at an age of nearly 60 - at least raped the newlywed, 17 year old Safijja after he had let her husband Kinana be tortured to death, and Rayhana bint Amr after he had murdered the male part of her family and made the rest slaves.) Source for this information: Muhammad Ibn Ishaq: “Life of the Prophet Muhammad” - the in Islam most respected of the old (dead 768 AD) writers about Muhammad. (It was written for the second Abbasside caliph in Baghdad, Mansur, around 750 AD). Neither Arab salesmen, nor highwaymen, nor torturers, nor murderers, nor rapists have the best of reputations for being honest (this even if Islam insists he was, but Islam hardly is the most reliable source on just that point - if he was not honest, Islam is a made up religion, so Islam HAS to make him look honest and saintly). This Arab salesman, highwayman, torturer, murderer and rapist and inhuman warlord, was even unable to produce one single small proof for his story. But he (?) produced lots of loose statements and invalid “signs” and “proofs”. Similar claim in 12/40. And what about his institutionalizing al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), all institutionalized by his example, and his telling (in Hadiths and in the Quran) that even oaths can be broken - is that part of the right religion?

He is the only source Islam is built on.

Can this be "the Right Religion"?

658 30/55d: "- - - thus were they (non-Muslims*) used to being deluded!" This is a claim. But as the Quran is not from a god, the serious question is: Who are in reality deluded?

659 31/8c: "(For good Muslims*) there will be the Gardens of Bliss". If Allah exists and if the Quran in addition tells the full truth and only the truth about him.

Also remember that the enormous differences between the Paradise of Yahweh and the one of Allah, are one of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. If they had been, their paradises had been one and the same.

660 31/9a: “The promise of Allah is true”. There never was one proved promise which was or is proved come true. Guess if Islam had told about it in case! Claims "en masse" but never a proved case.

661 31/21a: “- - - the (Revelations) - - -". Often claimed, but never proved - and even if it had been revelations: From whom or what? There is the TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) which modern medical science suspects. There are dark forces. There is Iblis - the Muslim Devil - dressed up like Gabriel (Muhammad had in case no chance to know the difference). Personally we are skeptical to the idea about Iblis - too many mistakes in the Quran even for a devil. But the possibility remains that the god did not permit him to make the Quran to waylay more humans, unless it contained so many mistakes that normally intelligent persons saw the trap. There is a cold, scheming brain - perhaps Muhammad's. The only thing which is sure, is that revelations as full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. like the Quran, is not from any god.

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 argument 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?

662 31/22d: “- - - the most trustworthy hand-hold (the Quran and Allah*) - - -“. But a book with so many mistakes, etc. - and even some shining lies (like that miracles will not make a lot of people believe) – is not trustworthy. May be also this is wrong. Also see 31/22a above.

663 31/25a: “If thou ask them who it is that created the heavens (plural and wrong once more*) and the earth, they will certainly say, ‘Allah’”. Wrong. If they believe a god created this, they certainly will name their own god(s) - though in the old Arabia this might have been the polytheistic god al-Lah. (But here is a hidden, but clear Arabism: The likeness of the pronunciation of al-Lah and Allah hides the difference when spoken - just like when the Muslims use the word God instead of Allah speaking to non-Muslims - it on the surface camouflages some of the fundamental differences there are between Allah and God/Yahweh for people with little knowledge.)

It is very clear according to the Quran that the creator is Allah. You find that statement – but never a proof – at least in these verses: 10/3 – 11/7 – 21/30 – 21/32 – 23/17 – 25/59 – 30/22 - 32/4 – 35/1 – 39/5 – 41/11 – 41/12 – 50/38 – 51/47 – 79/28. Also see 11/7a and 21/56c above.

664 31/27e: “- - - Allah is - - - Full of wisdom.” Not if the Quran is representative for his wisdom.

665 31/31g: "- - - constantly persevere - - -". ######An expression non-Muslims should NEVER forget is imprinted, imprinted, imprinted on Muslims - persevere, and in the end you win, if for no other reason than because the "enemy" grows tired and gives in. It has been correct too many times.

666 31/33a: "Do your (Muslims'*) duty to your Lord (Allah*)". No-one even can have a duty to Allah unless he exists and is a god - well, if he exists and belongs to the dark forces, at least the question is very open.

667 32/2e: “- - - the Book (the Quran*) from the Lord (Allah*) of the Worlds (plural and wrong).” Wrong. No omniscient god makes a book with that many mistakes, etc., not to mention revere it in his “home” as the claimed "Mother Book" - see 13/39b above and 43/4 and 85/21-22 below.

668 32/2i: (YA3629): "By the time of the Prophet (Muhammad*) the earlier Book of Revelation (the Bible*) had been corrupted by human ignorance or selfishness or fraud, or misinterpreted or lost all together". The interesting point here is that the main statement - falsification of the Bible - behind this sentence, is not true (a fact thoroughly proved by both science and by Islam), and all the same top Muslim writers treat it like a proved fact, this in spite of that the real facts are so well known, that there is no chance they are not aware of it (though perhaps they do not want to believe it). There were fringe sects - some of them quite big - who disagreed and debated and even made up apocryphal scriptures - just like in Islam later (f.x. made up Hadiths).The Quran may be looked on as a (very) apocryphal book split off from the Bible - and Islam an apocryphal sect. But the old scriptures lived on, and neither science nor Islam has ever found these proved corrupted or falsified. The oldest copies we know are just like today's ones, except for minor varieties which normally happens when books are copied by hand. These are well known facts. All the same Muslim scholars write things like this - and with a straight face. It tells something about Muslim scholars and about honesty within Islam.

Another interesting point is that this claimed "Religion of the Truth", but which accepts the use of dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, deceit, betrayal, disuse and breaking of words/promises/oaths) as working tools, and started by a man with a very doubtful moral, but with strong lust for respect, power, riches for bribes, and women, and a man who taught that in a strife you should use any means - included dishonesty and deceit - to win, this religion and its followers treat claims like the ones above like facts, but without ever being able to prove anything of it, or even to give believable explanations for how it could have happened,

Note that Jesus according to the Quran was a good Muslim, who read his books. This means for one thing that if his books were not a correct Quran, he could not be a good Muslim, and for another the prophet Jesus according to the Quran, received his Quran directly from Heaven - all prophets and messengers did so according to the Quran. It thus is impossible that the falsification happened before - Jesus in case had corrected it, and so had f.x. John the Baptist. THIS MEANS THAT EVEN OT CANNOT HAVE BEEN FALCIFIED UNTIL AFTER THE YEAR 33 AD, IF THE QURAN TELLS THE TRUTH ABOUT JESUS. But science has good overview over the religions and the Bible from before the time of Jesus and up till today. No falsification is found. Islam will have to bring strong proofs to be believed.

There is another serious problem here: This is one of the main Islamic claims behind the claim that the Quran is the Truth (with capital letter), and f.x. the Bible untrue, even in cases where the Bible directly or indirectly is confirmed by science/history, BUT NOT ONE SINGLE TIME DID MUHAMMAD PROVE HIS WORDS, AND NOT ONE SINGLE TIME DID/DO LATER MUSLIMS OR ISLAM ITSELF PROVE THE CLAIMS. On the contrary: The fact that neither science nor Islam (who has tried even stronger) has been able to find neither even one proved case of falsification nor to give a believable explanation for how tens of thousands of old relevant scriptures spread on 3 continents could be identically and without producing f.x. contradictions, falsified, and falsified in such clever ways that not even modern science is able to find traces from the falsifications in the old books and fragments - no scratching to remove old texts, no difference in what ink is used, no change in the hand-writing, the false texts needing just the same space as the one removed, etc. And also not one word about how the falsifiers made the owners agree to falsification of their holy scriptures. Not one word about how to make priests etc. change their preaching and teaching to confirm to the falsifications. Not to mention how to run such an enormous operation in and outside the entire "known world" without even one historian ever heard about it.

And not one word about haw to make people/the owners believe in scriptures they knew were falsified - a psychological impossibility.

There only is one possible conclusion to make from these documented facts: The claim that the Bible is falsified is wrong. And one unavoidable consequence of such a fact, is that quite a number of points in the Quran - and thus in Islam - are wrong.

669 32/13ca: “If We (Allah*) had so willed, We could certainly have brought every soul its true guidance - - -”. If this claim is true, it tells some real facts about how "good and benevolent" Allah really is: He has the power to save every man and Jinn, but instead lets billions of them end in Hell. He even predestines that this is what is to happen.

#670 32/13f: “If We (Allah*) so willed, We could certainly have brought every soul its true guidance: but the Word from Me will come true, ‘I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together’”. One thought: May be it is true Allah has arranged also Hell like a number of Muslim scholars believe (their logic is that Hell could not exist without Allah's permission, if Allah is omnipotent). Another thought: No matter if he has or not – as long as he wants to fill Hell with living beings, he is no benevolent god. Yet another thought: Can the Quran be explained by that the god permitted f. x. a devil (Iblis?) to make a "holy" book to deceive more humans, on the condition that it contained so much wrong that intelligent persons had a fair chance to see the trap?

#####671 32/18b: “Is then the man who believes (Muslim*) no better than the man who is rebellious and wicked (the non-Muslim*)? Not equal are they.” Muhammad forgets (?) to mention that there are many good humans also among non-Muslims - neither rebellious, nor wicked. "Forgotten" on purpose?

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

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

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

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

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

672 32/23e: (YA3656): "Moses had, revealed to him, a Law, a sharia (!*), which was to guide his people in all practical affairs of their life. Jesus, after him, was also inspired by Allah (by Yahweh according to the Bible*): but his Injil or Gospel contained only general principles and not a Code (here in the meaning Law) or sharia. The Prophet (Muhammad*) was the next one to have a sharia - - -". Some of Jesus’ orders were specific. And as Muhammad belonged to another religion than Moses, Jesus, etc., this claim also is irrelevant.

How in case to explain the enormous differences between the Laws of Moses/Jesus' words and the laws of Muhammad if they were from the same god? Falsification of the Bible is not an explanation, because if OT had been falsified at the time of Jesus, he had warned against it, which he did not, not even according to the Quran. And we know from the Qumran scrolls that the books making up OT at the time of Jesus, had the same texts like today. It is for Islam to explain this.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left - and remember here that the Quran (21/91) confirms that Jesus was for all peoples, (and in 19/19 that he was holy, which Muhammad definitely was not)). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses and the Jewish prophets) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and this on top of the fact that Abraham like mentioned did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran claims. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

############And not least: We know from as far back as written history goes, and from archeology, etc. even further back, the Mosaic religion was the religion of the Jews, that NT was the religion of Christians - and not least that there nowhere or any time before 610 AD is found even traces from a god like the Muslim Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or messengers preaching Islam.

673 33/11a: "In that situation where the Believers tried - - -". Why - WHY - does an omniscient god need to try his followers? The question is quite different if the is an explanation Muhammad used for the cost in difficulties for his raids and wars.

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

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

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

###674 33/16c: “Running away will not profit you (Muslim warriors*), if ye are running away from death or slaughter, and even if (ye do escape), no more than a brief (respite) will ye be allowed to enjoy”. Well, this proves two things: It is not possible to escape predestination - no matter what Islam tries to tell you today that "it is not real predestination" (with full predestination man has no free will, and it is immoral by Allah to punish for sins or reward for good deeds) - and that in spite of the Quran, you at least can change your destination with “a brief respite“. A respite that at least has to be for some hours or days - if not there had been newly-dead frightened warriors laying around the nearest tens and more kilometers from some battlefields (because of their predestined hour or minute of death) - dead for no obvious reasons after fleeing from battle.

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

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

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

Another fact is that even if a man died at the same time whether he tilled his garden of fought in a battle, the very fact that he died another place, would change the future. And if he died a little later if he fled from a battle, the time factor would add to that change. Both are scientific facts the Quran "overlooks".

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

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

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

###675 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, dishonesty, womanizing, raping, lying, betraying, extorting, torture, 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.

Worse: There is no doubt that it is IS/ISIL, Boko Haram, LRA, and other such ones who are living in accordance with Muhammad's and the Quran's demands and moral, etc. codes - not the moderate Muslims.

676 33/29h: "- - - a great reward (Paradise*)". If Allah exists. If Allah is behind the Quran. If the Quran in addition tells the full truth and only the truth. Also see 10/9f and 13/1g above and 40/75 below.

677 33/31b: "- - - Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". Muhammad's standard, but never proved mantra to glue himself to his god and platform of power. Besides: A self-centered man preaching a tale full of mistakes, partly immoral moral code, etc., is he the messenger of a god?

####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.

678 33/33f: "- - - obey (o consorts of Muhammad*) Allah and His Messenger - - -". A stronger version of Muhammad's standard, but never proved mantra to glue himself to his platform of power, Allah.

####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.

In this case also a very nice order for Muhammad!

#####679 33/36a: "It is not fitting for a Believer (Muslim*) - - - when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger, to have any option about their decision - - -". Full control - absolute power - no thinking, only obedience. The ultimate dream for any dictator. One extra point here is that in reality it was Muhammad who made the decisions here on Earth - not even Muhammad claimed he got all details dictated from Allah. And the final touch: As no god dictated the Quran - too much mistakes, contradictions, etc. - then who in reality dictated here that one should obey among others - and the only one on Earth - Muhammad absolutely blindly?

####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.

195 33/36b: "It is not fitting for a Believer (Muslim*) - - - when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger, to have any option about their decision - - -". (YA3721): "We (Muslims*) must not put our own wisdom in competition with Allah's wisdom." If a Muslim knows something is wrong in the Quran, he shall all the same believe what the Quran - a book full of wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. - says(!!). No comment - and not one single one necessary!!

Not less serious: At the time of Muhammad obedience to Allah = obedience to Muhammad. Total obedience is nice for any dictator. This even more so if the Quran and/or Allah are made up - and at least the Quran and all its errors, etc. is not from any god. No further comment necessary on these facts, too.

(YA3721 again): "We (Muslims*) must not put our own wisdom in competition with Allah's wisdom." But that is just what Islam and Muslims are doing when they claim they can explain better than Allah himself, when they claim that they explain what Allah really meant (when quranic texts are in error).

#########219 33/39c: "And enough is Allah to call (men) to account." This is a sentence in the Quran Muslims have forgotten - and keeps forgetting - when they punish humans for religious or religiously related mistakes or "crimes". And this even is a relatively late surah. Are they sinning or is this sentence abrogated? (We may here remind you that many Muslims denies the rule of abrogation, as abrogations are profs for that the god has to correct earlier mistakes - which in case are more proofs for that Allah makes mistakes.

680 33/36h: "- - - (if) anyone disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong path." In plain words: If anyone here on Earth disobeys Muhammad, he will end in Hell. The ultimate dictatorship.

681 33/40f: "- - - the Seal of the Prophets - - -." A never proved claim. See 33/40c just above: How could Muhammad be the seal of the prophets (the last and greatest prophet), when he in reality was not a real prophet? – he neither had, nor pretended to have, nor claimed to have the gift of prophesying!!! And also his teaching was so full of errors that it was not from a god - Muhammad thus definitely was not the prophet of any god. And not least: Muhammad never was able to prove in any way that he really had a connection to a god - there exists not one valid proof for any of the central claims in the Quran, included this. Also See 33/28a above and 33/45 below.

And one more point: As Muhammad was in a different religion compared to both Jewism and Christianity, and also had a god very different from Yahweh, he was not in the line of Jewish prophets. Further there is proved not one single prophet for Islam prior to Muhammad - many claims, but not one single proof. Thus it seems he was not in any line there, too.

###682 33/51g: "- - - Allah is All-Knowing - - -". How can it then be possible he does not know that to have all your possessions stolen is a catastrophe for anybody, that to be made a slave is destroying for the life of any human? - and how can it be possible that he does not know that to be raped is destroying for the life of a woman - not to mention a child?. Or does he know, but does not care as long as his warriors and terrorists get money and pleasure and power?

######These rules are not only unethical and immoral, but downright disgusting - especially the point that it should be done in the name of a god (during/after "holy" war - jihad).

"Do to others like you want others do to you".

###683 33/60e: "- - - We (Allah*) shall certainly stir thee (Muslims*) up against them (bad or not Muslims*) - - -". To twist an old proverb: This sentence alone tells more than a 1000 choice slogans about "the religion of peace". What you say when you forget to guard your words or do not think it necessary, always by far is more reliable than carefully chosen claims. Also see next comment just below.

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

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

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

###684 33/62a: “(Such was) the practice (kill non-believers without mercy*) (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: no change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.” Muhammad here refers to the Mosaic and the Christian religions (and he wrongly sets Allah = Yahweh) when he talks about “those who lived aforetime”. But even though OT is hard against many non-Jews, the war and the killing was to get room for living for the Jews, not wanton murdering just because they were not Jews or for plunder and slaves. And in NT: Try to find a single place saying that non-believers shall be murdered just because they have another religion – such an order simply does not exist. (There are 1-2 places in the OT where Yahweh disliked that the Jews did not kill many enough of the enemies, but because the survivors represented future problems, not because they refused to change religion.) The Quran here actually is a 180 degree contradiction to the very core of the teachings of Jesus.

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

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

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

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

685 33/71f: "- - - he that obeys Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*), has already achieved the highest Achievement". No comment - except: Good psychology if the listeners are naive, uneducated or in more or less blind belief. At least if the real purpose is "Power to Muhammad".

686 33/71j: "- - - he that obeys Allah and His Messenger, has already attained the highest Achievement". As Muhammad was the only one of these two the people met, these were the sweetest possible words for Muhammad's lust for power - and for any dictator's such lust.

687 34/10d: "And We (Allah*) made the iron soft for him (David*)". Anyone is permitted to believe the iron was softer for David than for anybody else. But among other facts, it is a fact that this is not mentioned in the Bible, and the Jews had hardly omitted miracles from facts about their greatest king - if it had been true.

688 34/12d: “- - - and We (Allah*) made a Font of molten brass to flow for him (Solomon*) - - -“.

  1. To keep a fountain of molten brass running, was technically impossible at that time. (Also this is not from the Bible - see 34/12b above).
  2. If it had been running all the same, there is no chance at all for that it had been forgotten or omitted from the Bible - too mighty a wonder to omit.

The claim simply is a fairy tale, perhaps inspired by the temple's brass “sea” the Bible tells about – a round metal vessel filled with water, 10 cubits (4.5 m) diameter and 5 cubits (2.25 m) high (1. Kings 7/23).

############################################

(This one counts because it is so obvious and easy to see that this is physically impossible and thus that the Quran is wrong.)

**689 34/14b: “Then, when We (Allah*) decreed (Solomon’s) death, nothing showed them (see 34/14a just above) his death, except a little worm from the earth, which kept (slowly) gnawing away his staff; so when he fell down - - -”. Wrong: It would take days or more for a small worm to weaken the staff enough for Solomon to fall - may be weeks.

  1. A mighty king sitting not mowing for too long would after some time be addressed by his servants.
  2. A mighty king not talking for a long enough while, would be addressed by his servants.
  3. A mighty king not taking care of his duties and his visitors for a long enough while, would be addressed by his servants.
  4. A mighty king not going to bed in the evening would be addressed by his servants.
  5. Rigor mortis (the only possible, but highly unlikely reason for the situation) takes time to start – and it disappears. If not for other reasons, he would fall because of that long before a small worm had the time to weaken the staff.
  6. Inside the climate of Jerusalem - even in winter (when there after all would be a fire) - his body would start decomposing. Everyone had to notice that.
  7. In no castle anywhere in the world there are earth worms in a place where a king would sit. And if it happened out-of-doors, his servants would ask questions if the king did not go inside during night.

Scientific nonsense and a fairy tale simply. Even Islam admits that this is from an Arab legend (A34/20).

As bad: An intelligent man like Muhammad had to know at least many of these points, and thus know that this story was a lie. It also is very difficult to understand why thinking persons were and are able to believe in this tale.

#######################################

690 34/33c: “We (Allah*) shall put yokes on the necks of the Unbelievers: it would only be a requital for their (ill) Deeds.” That is what those bad people deserve. They are not better. But it is true?

###691 34/47b: “No reward do I (Muhammad*) ask of you - - -“. - - - except absolute power and plenty of women. Yes, and 20% of all stolen/looted valuables and slaves – 100% if there is no fight – and poor-tax (on average ca. 2.5% of everything you own each and every year, but up to 10%) as I need money for bribes, for strengthening my religion and platform of power, and for war and myself and my large family (NB: There is reason to believe that he did not take from the so-called "poor-tax" (the 2.5%) for personal use*), and some for the poor.

692 34/47c: "- - - my (Muhammad's*) reward is only due from Allah - - -". Hypocrisy. When he grew in power, he lived a good life - not really rich, but reasonably well off (and with enough riches to feed all his women). You will meet Muslims telling how poor he was when he died - it is a Kitman (a lawful half-truth). When he died he had estates in Medina, Fadang and Khaybar. The false rumor about his poverty emerged from the fact that he had decided that his riches should follow the religious establishment. Because of that there exists a short list over some personal belongings, which many Muslims claim - and often honestly believe - was everything left after him. (They even forget the fact you also Islamic literature mentions, that his daughter Fatima for the rest of her short life (and her husband Ali afterwards) quarreled with the first caliph, Abu Bakr, because she demanded the inheritance after her father).

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

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

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

#####693 34/50b: “If I (Muhammad*) am astray, I only stray to the loss of my own soul - - -.” Wrong to at least the 9. power (as there are better than a billion Muslims – or the 10. power or more if you reckon the ones through the times). #############################If Muhammad was astray – ALL believing Muslims are astray – and all the mistaken facts, contradictions, invalid logic, etc., tell an ominous tale. The Quran - its mistakes, errors, etc. - also is contradicted 100% by any non-religious knowledge and by logic. ONE MORE PLACE WHERE AN INTELLIGENT MAN LIKE MUHAMMAD HAD TO KNOW HE WAS LYING, BECAUSE BOTH THE FACTS AND THE LOGIC ARE WRONG. THERE IS NO CHANCE MUHAMMAD DID NOT KNOW ALSO HIS FOLLOWERS WERE STRAYING IF HE HIMSELF WAS.

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

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

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

694 34/51-54: (YA3867): We simply quote A. Yusuf Ali in “The Meaning of the Holy Quran”: “- - - the verses 51 – 54 may be understood in many meanings: (1) The description applies to the position in final Hereafter, as compared with the position in this life. (2) It applies to the triumphant Islam in Madinah (= Medina*) and later, as compared with the position of persecuted Islam in its early days in Makkah (= Mecca*). (3) It applies to the reversal of the position of right and wrong at various phases of the world’s history, or (4) individual history.” Very clear and distinct text. The Quran too often is like this.

*695 35/3g: “- - - how then are ye deluded away from the Truth?” The big question: Who are deluded - the Muslims or the non-Muslims? The Quran has so many mistakes and other blemishes that to say it is made or revered by or sent down from a god, is an insult to that god. And if the Quran is wrong about Allah, the Muslims are even more deluded.

That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. Actually it is strongly proved wrong.

696 35/5c: “Certainly the promise of Allah is true.” There never through the times was one single documented case of Allah giving and/or keeping a promise - if there had been, Islam had put it on the walls of every mosque and many other places. Claims aplenty, proved cases none.

697 35/8d: “Is he, then, to whom the evil of his conduct is made alluring (non-Muslims*) - - - (equal to one who is rightly guided*)?” There is a serious question here: In the Quran there are a number of central rules and demands which are obviously bad - compare them to "do to others like you want others do to you" and see for yourself. But they are made look like good and alluring by the texts in the book. Is he who believes in these verses which well may be made by a devil, to be reckoned among the evil ones? (these evil rules in the Quran are the reason why we cannot drop the possibility that the real originator is a devil - f.x. dressed up like Gabriel. This even though it is difficult for us to see how even a devil would make so many mistakes, etc. in an after all small book. He had to know he would be found out and loose credence sooner or later.

698 35/22a: “Nor (alike*) are those who are living (Muslims*) and those that are dead (non-Muslims*).” In the stagnant civilization of the intellectually living dead (see 35/8) that is likely to be true of course - Islam was like that from around 1ooo-1100 AD on. (But there have been some small tendencies to new intellectual life in the Islamic areas the last some 60-80 years - though not enough to bring forth many new ideas or new knowledge, mainly to question some of the old ones. NB: We here talk about areas where the religion is a dominant part of life.)

Is it symbolic that intellectual life in medieval Islam lasted longest in the West (Maghreb/Spain?)?

699 35/24c: “Verily We (Allah*) have sent thee (Muhammad*) in truth - - -”. We are back to the literally age old question (the serious questions that started around 610 AD - but Muhammad in the end was military the strongest) about the Quran: What - if anything - is true, and what is not true in the Quran? (Nowadays it is easy to see that at least many of the tales and many of the statements are untrue).

700 35/29e: "- - - a commerce (the promise of Paradise*) that will never fail". This is not true unless Allah really exists, is a major god, and is correctly described in the Quran - all of which Islam will have to prove to be believed by us - too much is wrong in the book and exactly nothing is proved about Allah.

701 35/31e: “- - - (the Quran is*) confirming what was (revealed) before it (= the Bible, the Torah, etc.*)”. Wrong. There are so many and so fundamental differences between the Bible and the Quran, that the Quran has not even relevance to the Bible, not to mention confirms it. This is easy for anybody to check - and remember here that both science and Islam have proved that the Bible is not falsified - a some errors, but no proved falsifications.

702 35/40i: “- - - clear (evidence) - - -“. No book in itself is clear evidence - only proved facts in it can be that. There f.x. is no clear or valid evidence for anything concerning Allah in the entire Quran. See 2/39b and 2/99 above. This sentence in reality is very naive.

(Well, there exists one exception: Books pretending to come from a god, but which are of such a quality that it is clear that no god ever was involved = clear evidence for that something is seriously wrong, and for that the book is from no god.)

###703 36/7a: "The Word (from the Quran*) is proved true against the greater part of them (non-Muslim Arabs in this case*) - - -". The Quran has so many mistakes, that it at best is partly true. ("A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". Muhammad's claims are not based on proved facts, and in addition logic often can give at least two possible explanations for them. Also see 36/7b just below.)

Also: The Quran definitely is not proved true. Actually the many wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. prove that at least much is not true. "You have to have a Muslim's belief to be able to believe that the quality of the texts in the Quran proves a divine connection".

Some other quotes about proofs and invalid or made up proofs:

  1. "Strong claims need strong proofs.
  2. "A claim without a proof may be dismissed without a proof".
  3. "Claims are cheap, but only proofs are proofs".
  4. "The use of invalid proofs normally proves that something is fishy".
  5. "The cheat or deceiver naturally must rely on claims pretending to be facts or proofs".
  6. "A made up "proof" makes the man very suspect".
  7. "A strong belief is not a proof - not necessarily even a truth"
  8. .
  9. "Wrong claims and invalid "proofs" are working tools of the cheat".
  10. "A student with correct facts gets a more correct answer than 20 professors with wrong facts". (Invalid, "signs", claims, "proofs", etc. of course are wrong facts.)
  11. And we may add from Peer Gynt in his original language: "Naar utgangspunktet er som galest, blir resultatet tidt originalest" - freely translated: "When you conclude from wrong claims/wrong facts/invalid "proofs"/etc., you get wrong conclusions".

704 36/21a: "Obey those who ask no reward of you (for themselves) - - -". This is reflecting Muhammad's often repeated, but very wrong claim that he demanded nothing from his followers. He demanded much - extremely much - included their lives, total power, huge fortunes to use as gifts/bribes to attract and keep followers, respect, lots of women, etc. Persons like Jesus and Buddha really claimed nothing for themselves, and there is an irony in that if Muslims are to follow verses like this in the Quran, they cannot follow Muhammad but have to follow f.x. one of the two mentioned.

#####705 36/21d: (YA3967): "Prophets do not seek their own advantage". If you read the Bible, you will find that this mostly is correct. Which is another indication/proof for that Muhammad was no prophet - he wanted and got respect and power and obedience (in addition to riches for bribes for more power and women - he was well off when he died (in spite of Muslims' claims about his poverty), f.x. with estates in Medina, Fadang, and Khaybar).

706 36/33-35: Muhammad claims nearly all and everything of natural phenomena as indications for Allah and/or glorification, without even one single time trying to prove that it really is Allah who is behind it. It all is just unproved words and claims - just like so many other religions. Invalid as indication, not to mention as proofs, as long as it is not first proved that it is Allah's work. Also see 11/7a above.

#707 36/69b: “We (Allah*) have not instructed (the Prophet (Muhammad*)) in Poetry - - -.” As for Muhammad not being versed in making poetry, this is a claim used by Islam as a “proof” for that the Quran is not made by Muhammad. But the claim is invalid – you do not have to be versed on poetry to spin tales like in the Quran. Actually the often naive style and helpless repetitions, etc, indicates that it is not made by a good poet or even essayist. And besides the Quran is not poetry, but prose. (Though in the Arab original, there are rhythms - some Arabs were well versed in making poetry and rhythms, and they spent some 250 years polishing the texts - the language in the texts in today's Quran was (were!) not finished until around 900 AD.

##708 36/69d: “- - - this is no less than a Message and a Quran - - -.” But in case from whom? With all its mistaken facts and other errors, contradictions, unclear language, etc. it is from no god. It hardly can be even from a devil - no devil would use a book that helpless and full of errors, because he would know that sooner or later he would be looked through and lose credibility. (One possible explanation: May be the god demanded it done in this way to permit the Devil luring more people to Hell, so that it should be easy for persons using their brains - the second most valuable gift a human has after life itself - easily should see and evade the trap. This in case also may explain the Quran's demand for blindness - blind belief and blind obeying.)

The last alternative is that the Quran is man-made. Actually the helpless composition and style of the book (except a linguistically polished Arab language - linguistically polished through some 250 years up to around 900 AD by the best Muslim brains as mentioned) and all the scientific mistakes which one believed were correct science at the time of Muhammad in the "Middle East", indicate this. Also the at least some clear lies in the Quran indicate human or dark force origin.

709 36/69f: (A36/41 - in the English 2008 edition A36/39): "- - - the Quran is an integral element in the process of divine revelation". = An integral element in the Jewish and Christian revelations. This is a central Muslim - like normal never proved - claim and dogma, but it is wrong. The Quran is fundamentally so different from the other scriptures, that it does neither fit nor belong in that series. Islam and Muslims and the Quran itself try to explain away this well known fact with that the Bible and other scriptures are falsified, but both science and Islam itself have delivered solid circumstantial and empirical proofs for that this is not true - neither of them has found one single proved falsification of a relevant and authentic scripture, this even though there are many thousands of such manuscripts known.

710 36/78b: "Who can give life to (dry) bones, and decomposed ones (at that)?" Muhammad claimed that Allah gathered all the bits and molecules and fluids which had made up you, and resurrected you physically (but as a young adult). This was a bit difficult for the skeptics to believe, naturally.

711 36/83d: "- - - to Him (Allah*) will ye all (humans*) be brought back". Often claimed, never documented - never even documented that Allah exists, in contrast to Yahweh who made so many miracles that there is no doubt about his existence - - - if either the Bible or the Quran speaks the truth on these points. (Beware that the Quran mistakenly calls Yahweh Allah when it "borrows" him from the Bible or from religious legends and fairy tales - but the basics of their teachings are so fundamentally different that it is obvious they are not the same god).

###712 37/6c: “We (Allah*) have indeed decked the lower heaven with - - - stars - - -”. The nature has produced billions of stars - of which man with his naked eyes is able to see 6ooo-7ooo. But in no way he used them to deck a non-existing lower heaven (below the moon according to the astronomy of that time and place - and to the Quran - as the moon is "between the heavens") - and neither do nature use the stars as weapons (shooting stars) to chase away evil spirits or jinns like in the Quran, next verse (37/7). Also if the stars - suns - were below the moon, Earth had been pretty hot (in addition to all other nonsense this verse would imply if it had been true, compared to the reality). Is this a proof for that nature knows what it is doing, whereas Muhammad was bluffing? Remember in case that bluffing is a kind of lie.

Actually it is not 100% correct to say that Muhammad told everything about the heavens according to the astronomy of that time. If we remember our Greek astronomy (which was the going one until long after Muhammad) correctly, it was like this:

  1. The outer layer or ceiling: The stars.
  2. The 7. Heaven Saturn.
  3. The 6. Heaven Jupiter.
  4. The 5. heaven Mars.
  5. The 4. Heaven The Sun.
  6. The 3. Heaven Venus.
  7. The 2. Heaven Mercury.
  8. The 1. Heaven The Moon.

The outer layer some "astronomers" reckoned to be the 8. heaven. We stress that you may find old "charts" with a different design or with a somewhat different sequence of the heavenly bodies. But as far as we have found, Islam is the only one with the stars fixed to the 1. Heaven. And the Moon claimed to be between the heavens(!)

All the same: The Quran here is scientifically wrong, but had "correct" belief at the time of Muhammad. Who made the Quran?

713 37/34ca: "- - - Sinners - - -". Beware that when the Quran use words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

*714 37/37c: “- - - and he (Muhammad*) confirms (the Messages of) the Messengers (before him (= from Jews and Christians*))”. Wrong. There are too many and too fundamental differences between especially NT and the Quran. The Quran is not confirming the Bible in spite of Muhammad’s words – the fundamental differences between the teachings simply are too big – especially compared to NT and the “new covenant” Jesus caused. See 29/46 and others. Actually this claim is to be found several places in the Quran. (Muhammad tried to explain away even the deep differences with never proved claims that the Bible is falsified - claims both modern science and Islam (unintentionally) very strongly have proved wrong, by not being able to find one proved falsification among the some 45ooo relevant manuscripts and fragments older than 610 AD).

Also see separate chapter in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" about this.

715 37/80a: "Thus indeed do We (Allah*) reward - - -". Allah rewards nobody unless he exists and is something supernatural - white or black. And it is an open question if he at all can reward - or punish - anybody at all, as that will mean changes in his predestined Plan, which nobody and nothing can change according to several verses in the Quran.

716 37/103: (YA4101): YA argues that as the Bible says that as the god ordered Abraham to sacrifice his only son (f.x. 1. Mos. 22/2), this must mean that Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Ishmael, and that this happened after Ishmael - the oldest of the two - was born, but before Isaac was born, and Abraham only had one son. But:

  1. The Bible is written quite chronologically (unlike the Quran where there is very little chronology). The test of Abraham comes well after the birth of Isaac and after Hagar and Ishmael was sent away, and Abraham only had Isaac left.
  2. ----------------------------------------------------------
  3. 1. Mos. 12/4: Abraham was 75 when he left Haran for Canaan.
  4. 1. Mos. 16/3-4: After Abraham had lived in Canaan 10 years, Hagar became pregnant. Abraham thus was 86 when Ishmael was born.
  5. 1. Mos. 17/24-25: Abraham was 99 and Ishmael was 13 when they both were circumcised.
  6. 1. Mos. 21/5: Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born (and Ishmael 14).
  7. 1. Mos. 21/8: Isaac then grew and was weaned. Time is not given, but likely 1-2 years (in the old time and some places also today 2 years often were/are used, because the child then often were more healthy. They did not know the reason, but mother's milk is wholesome and also contains stuff which reduces some bacteria.
  8. 1. Mos. 21/14: Around this time - the time is not more exactly given - Hagar and Ishmael were sent away. Abraham now some 102, Ishmael some 16, and Isaac some 2 years old.
  9. 1. Mos. 21/20-21: Ishmael grew up, became an archer, and his mother found him a wife from Egypt. Time is not given, but some years. An educated guess; say 5 - 7 years till Ishmael was married. If we say 6, Abraham was 108, Ishmael 22 (a normal age for marriage then), and Isaac 8 years.

  10. 1. Mos. 21/22-31: The treaty of Beersheba. Verse 22 starts with: "At that time - - -". This refers to verse 21 just before, and the marriage of Ishmael. The Treaty of Beersheba was made around that time - and Abraham still some 108, Ishmael some 22, and Isaac some 8 years.
  11. 1. Mos. 21/34: After the Treaty of Beersheba was made, "Abraham stayed in the land of the Philistines for a long time". For a man around 108 years old, "a long time" should be one or some years. If we guess 3 years, Abraham now was 111, Ishmael 25, and Isaac 11 years.
  12. 1. Mos. 22/1: "Some time later (some time after verse 21/34 just above*) God tested Abraham". And this test was the demand for the sacrifice of his "only" son. This means that Abraham was something like 111, Ishmael something like 25, and Isaac something like 11 years old when this took place. It also means that both Ishmael and Isaac were born, but that Ishmael had been away for some 8-10 years, lived near Egypt, and it is not mentioned he had visited his father one single time during those years - understandable, but likely a fact.
  13. Remember here that both science and Islam have given strong circumstantial and empirical proofs for that the Bible is not falsified.
  14. ----------------------------------------------------------
  15. After Hagar and Ishmael was sent away, Abraham only had one son left (he got 6 more later - never mentioned in the Quran (1. Mos. 25/2)).
  16. At that time Isaac was his only son born in wedlock - Ishmael was born out of wedlock, even if some Muslims try to "repair" this - according to the books - fact.
  17. Ishmael had been away for many years with little or no contact with Abraham, and also was no member of Abraham's household.
  18. The Bible names the son he is going to sacrifice: Isaac.(1. Mos. 22/2).
  19. In the relevant chapter - 1. Mos. Ch. 22 - the god stresses no less than 3 times that it is about his only son, Isaac. He simply stresses that Isaac was the only son who counted (and the only one Abraham really had left) as Abraham's descendants were to be reckoned through Isaac (1. Mos. 21/12) and it was through Isaac and his son Jacob the god's covenant would run.
  20. In the Bible - the only perhaps reliable source about Abraham (the Quran is so full of errors, that it definitely is not reliable) - there also are some time sequences. They fit the story like told in the Bible, but not like told in the Quran (the numbers do not add up if the sacrifice happened before Isaac was born, like Islam and Muslims claim).

Muhammad simply wanted to elbow into the old story and take at least parts of it over for his new religion - not uncommon for starters of new sects or religions. Another fact is that as for the test of Abraham which boy it was in reality is of no consequence - and the test was of Abraham, not of the boys (but Muhammad needed "roots" for his religion, and this is one of the few openings he had). Muslims wants the test to be also of the child, but what kind of a god puts children to that kind of a test? And if the god really was devil enough to put a child to such a test, what real value would the result have as a child largely reacts to how he is influenced, not from a mature intellect?

717 38/48b: "- - - Ishmael - - -". There is no indication in the Bible for that Ishmael was a prophet. He became the father of 12 tribal rulers (1. Mos. 25/16) "near the border of Egypt" (1. Mos. 25/18), but not a single indication anywhere of being a prophet.

718 39/4b: "Had Allah wished to take to Himself a son, He could have chosen whom He pleased out of those whom He doth create - - -". Which may be was what he did (but which neither Muhammad nor Islam could/can accept because for one thing then Muhammad is not the greatest of self proclaimed prophets, and for another: Then they must admit that something is seriously wrong with their religion. Better with blind belief, than to have to do a real check and may be find out the religion is a made up one.

##0719 39/4f: (YA4246): "It is blasphemy to say that Allah begot a son. If that were true, He should have had a wife - - -". This argument is nonsense in this case. For one thing Islam claims that Allah is the same god as Yahweh, and it is known that in the really old times Yahweh had a female companion - his Amat (source New Scientist and others). Even if this is not widely known, it is unlikely that a learned man like Abdullah Yusuf Ali did not know it. And what is 110% sure he knew, is that according to the Quran if the god wished something "He just could say 'Be' and it was" - the god just could say "Be a son" and Jesus was. This simply is one of the many places where Muslims find the answer they want, by omitting facts which make their wanted answer invalid and often even impossible. To emit the second possibility at least was - and is - dishonesty, as it is fully accepted in Islam that Allah can create whatever he wants.

And: Is it blasphemy to say that Allah begot a son? We believe it is more blasphemy to say: "We know better than Allah what he wants and what reasons he has".

########720 39/23d: “(The Quran*) is consistent with itself”. ########Wrong – there are plenty of contradictions. Plenty - several hundred (at least 300 internal contradictions + all the external ones)! Islam even needs a special abrogation rule for deciding which paragraph is the correct one when two or more “collide” (the youngest one is normally claimed to be the correct one - that is one of the reasons why the age of the different verses counts in Islam and why the question of ages of the surahs are integrated parts of Islamic judicial procedures). Some Muslims tell this is not true - Allah just made the rules stricter. It may look like an ok explanation in some, but only some, cases, f.x. concerning alcohol. But what kind of omniscient god did not know from the very beginning what kind of rules was needed? – besides; more strict rules also are abrogations.

Contradicted by all the contradictions in the book.

Simply an unintended joke. (F.x. see the claims saying that Allah predestines everything vs. man has even a little free will. Or Allah predestines everything and all the same rewards or punishes for words and deeds he predestined.

721 39/33c: "- - - confirming it (the Quran*) - - -". There is some irony in glorifying "confirming" of a book full of errors, etc.

722 40/3f: "There is no god but He (Allah*) - - -". Even omitting all other gods claimed to exist, there is the problem with Yahweh. Both the Quran and the Bible claim that this originally Jewish god exists - even though the Quran wrongly mixes him with Allah. The teachings of Yahweh and Allah are fundamentally so different that it is clear that Muhammad's, Islam's, and the Quran's never documented claim that the two are the same god, is wrong. If there is only one god, which of the two - if any - does exist? (There are no proofs at all for the existence of Allah whereas both the Quran and the Bible tell that Yahweh - partly via Jesus - performed many miracles. If thus one of those two books tells the truth on this point, it is proved that something supernatural took place connected to the Jewish god Yahweh.) Also see 2/255a, 6/106b, 25/18a above.

723 40/4a: “None can dispute about the Signs of Allah but the Unbelievers”. This may be absolutely correct, though the correct expression may be "are permitted to" not "can":

  1. It is a reason for social extrication in Muslim societies to doubt any word in the Quran.
  2. It is a reason for imprisonment in some Muslim countries to doubt too much or deny belief in the Quran. (March 2008: A woman in Malaysia, Kamariah Ali, was just (2007? AD) sentenced to 2 years of prison for being inconsistent with Islam. The judge, Mohammad Abdullah, told she had committed a grave offence, and that the sentence was in the public interest.)
  3. It is a good reason in some countries and in some societies for being murdered by Muslims if you express too much doubt in the Quran, not to mention in Muhammad - the weak link in the religion (the only claimed witness and not a very holy character).
  4. It still is a reason for death penalty - official or unofficial - in some Muslim areas to doubt too much in the Quran, not to mention to want to leave Islam.
  5. Your marriage is automatically void and ended the moment a Muslim leaves Islam - and not everyone wants to lose his wife or her husband or the mother or father of their children (not to mention lose their children).
  6. Even for non-Muslims it is dangerous to doubt the signs and the Quran - they may be murdered. Islam do not trust the power of the word - with a reason, thinking about all the mistakes and invalid statements, “signs” and “proofs”, etc. in the Quran - and resort to murder. It is better to believe in the never proved religion of the fathers, than to try to find out if it really is true. Like Islam says when “hunting” for proselytes: It is difficult to question your (heathen*) deepest beliefs and what you were imprinted as a child". They forget that this also goes for Muslims: Better not to control if what you believe in is right or wrong - and to run the risk of not finding the right religion (if one exists) in time, if Islam is wrong.

Yes, many places only non-Muslims can - or actually are permitted to - discuss or dispute the signs of Islam. And even for us it is so dangerous, that this book cannot be printed unless the printer is very brave, in spite of the book being very down-to-earth and based entirely on the Quran and other central Islamic literature + correct scientific knowledge.

724 40/18c: "- - - no intimate friend or intercessor will the wrongdoers have - - -". Here we are back to the fundamental fact that there on many points are huge differences between who are wrongdoers according to the Quran - f.x. the ones not wanting to steal or fight or murder for the god and the leader on Earth - and normal religions, f.x. the one you find in NT (Christianity). Thus may be Yahweh will intercede at least for his followers? - even for the ones the Quran claims are wrongdoers, but who according to Yahweh are good people?

725 40/28k: "- - - Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies!" The thought provoking question is: Does he guide anyone at all? - no such case is ever proved.

And if he does, does he guide the Muslims? They have been frequent and harsh transgressors through the centuries, and Islam is the only one of the big religions which permits the use of lies as working tools.

##726 40/75: “- - - the Truth (the Quran*) - - -”. To repeat things:

  1. The Quran contains more than 1750 (likely 2ooo+) places with wrong facts. Add the ones we have overlooked (some more we have found during the work with this book will be added - perhaps 250 new ones? - 2ooo all together?) + all the other kinds of mistakes and other types of wrongs and you may have some 3000 or more places with mistaken facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. in one single book.
  2. The Quran in addition contains at least 200+ “most likely“ wrong facts.
  3. The Quran is likely to contain more mistaken facts we have not seen.
  4. The Quran contains lots of invalid “signs” claiming to be indicating or “proving” Allah/Islam. The use of invalid arguments is the hallmark of cheats.
  5. The Quran contains hundreds of point with unclear language or meaning. Not from an omniscient god declaring that his words are easy and plain to understand.
  6. The Quran contains a number of invalid “proofs,” pretending to indicate or “prove” Allah/Islam. The use of invalid “signs” and “proofs” are strong hallmarks for cheats, swindlers, and deluders.
  7. The Quran contains a huge number of claims and statements taken from thin air or resting on other invalid claims, statements, “signs”, or “proofs”. The use of such invalid arguments and cheap words is the hallmark of cheats and deceivers.
  8. There is not one single statement, “sign” or “proof” in the Quran which really proves Allah - they without exception are logically invalid, mostly because it is not first proved that it really is Allah who is behind them. There are a few taken from the Bible that may indicate a god - not Allah, but a god. But the Bible talks about Yahweh, not about Allah (and the teachings are fundamentally so different - see 29/46 - that in spite of what the Quran and Hadith say, Allah is not the same god as the one Jesus told about - not unless he is schizophrenic.)
  9. The Arab Quran contains more than 100 linguistic mistakes according to linguists.
  10. The Quran is said to be pure Arabic. It contains a lot of non-Arabic words. We have seen different numbers, but perhaps 275 different words according to Arthur Jeffries (the word Quran is said to be one of them). For the story these are not serious, but they are mistakes compared to what the Quran says, and the Quran pretends to be perfect and without mistakes - sent down from an omniscient god. Islam has an explanation, though: Arabs has used the foreign words and made them Arab. A Negro does not become an Arab even if he moves to Arabia. A very practical way of making something look true only.
  11. The Quran contains at least ca. 300 contradictions. (To be on the careful side we often say 300+)
  12. The Quran contains at very least 400+ places where the original Arab text is so unclear that it is impossible to be sure what is really meant. (To be on the careful side we often say 300+)
  13. The Quran contains lots and lots and lots of places where the text is unclear (at least 300+ only of "different ways of reading") - this is openly admitted also by Muslim scholar (you will find it in any reasonably thorough book explaining Quranic texts).
  14. The oldest alphabets known - f.x. the cuneiform one - are perhaps 5100-5200 years old. Pictographs as a means for writing texts (f.x. Sumer - now part of northern Iraq - China, and Egypt) are of roughly similar age, though in China a bit younger: Egypt some 3400 BC, Sumer some 3300 BC, China some 1500 BC. Homo sapiens - modern man - is perhaps 200ooo years old, the Neanderthals and Denisovans a lot older (some 400ooo years), and then there are f.x. Homo Habilis (2.4 million years), and Homo Erectus (1.5 million years), etc. - man's first forefathers developed some 5-6 million years ago (between 6.2 and 5.4 million years). 35/24 says: “- - - there never was a people, without a warner having lived among them (in the past)," and Islam tells that every "warner"/"prophet"/"messenger" received a copy of "the Mother of the Book" = a Quran. Why did Allah send down such copies and what did they mean to the "messengers" and to people before they learnt how to read?

The Quran at best is partly true. There are very good reasons for doubt and skepticism.

It is also told that the Quran is a copy of a revered “Mother Book” in the Heaven of Allah. This has to be wrong. An omnipotent god impossibly can have revered - not kept as a funny curiosum, but revered!! - a book with that many mistakes and contradictions, that number of loose and without value claims and statements, not to mention all the invalid “signs” and “proofs”- hallmarks of an imbecile or a cheat or deceiver. Besides: The other 124ooo (= 620 at any time for 5ooo years or 12-15 for 160ooo-200ooo. No traces found. Believe it if you can.) + earlier prophets (or at least many of them) according to Islam received a similar copy of the Mother Book. Pretend you were the prophets Hud or Salih living at least 2000 years before Muhammad (because Moses spoke about them according to the Quran, and he lived (?) some 2000 years before Muhammad - Hud and Salih consequently must have lived before that), or that you were one of the Indian prophets in the Americas before 1492 AD – or in the Arctic or in Australia 100 years before Botany Bay – the Quran and Islam claims that all people have had prophets (and all prophet a copy of "the Mother of the Book). Then read the Quran and see how much you would understand and how much not – even words like cows, sheep, goats, camels, ships, coats of mail, and a number of other words – what did they mean in South America or Australia? And how much is irrelevant? – f.x. Muhammad’s family problems, all the facts and happenings relevant mostly for Arabia, etc.

Read the Quran with that in your mind – and weep.

Would a god make or revere or use copies of such a claimed timeless and unchangeable book for his prophets through all times and all over the world? – Remember we here talk about the perfect and timeless Mother Book that the Quran and all other not falsified books sent down to the prophets all over the world from Adam to Muhammad are exact copies of. This in spite of that Islam explains that the reason for new prophets and new scriptures were that time changed, so the scriptures had to be changed a little - how to change perfect copies of the one and perfect Mother Book?

To repeat some facts here: Science tells that the Homos (humans) split from the Pans (chimpanzees) sometime between 6.3 and 5.4 million years ago, that our forefathers Homo Habilis emerged some 2.4 million and our later forefathers Homo Erectus some 1.5 million years ago, and that modern man after a transition period of some 200ooo years finally was Homo Sapiens sometime between 200ooo and 160ooo - likely 195ooo - years ago. At least Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus were sentient beings, if likely more primitive than Homo Sapiens. And then there were man's older "brothers", the Neanderthals and the Denisovans (400ooo years old?) who both definitely were sentient and humans/people. 35/24: tells: “- - - there never was a people, without a warner having lived among them (in the past).” The oldest knowledge of reading is some 5ooo+ years old. How did older "messengers" use their copies of "the Mother of the Book" - the Quran? And in what language and alphabet were they written? - Muslims like to claim that the Quran has to be read in Arab, but remember here that the Arab - or proto-Arab - language is maximum from around 7ooo BC, and the Arab alphabet was not completed until around 900 AD.

*727 40/82a: “Do they not travel through the earth and see what was the End of those before them?” In and around Arabia there were - and are - scattered ruins. Muhammad told they were all remains of people punished by Allah for sins (and for good measure they were stronger than Muhammad’s contemporary Arabs). Believe it who wants - but contact a professor of history or a psychologist if you do. Similar claims at least in 3/137 – 6/11 – 7/4 – 9/70 -16/36 - 21/6 - 40/21.

A sweet and naive story: Also in Pakistan there are ruins. The authorities debated in 2010 to repair some of them to attract tourists. Local Muslims instead proposed to put placards on them, telling that this was how Allah punished non-Muslims and sinners(!!)

####728 41/12e: “And We (Allah*) adorned the lower heaven with lights (= stars*) - - -”. This is one of the points Muslims are very reluctant to try to explain, as it is obviously and impossibly wrong - and impossible to “explain” away in any believable manner. We know from old astronomy that the moon and the planets were fastened to different heavens, and this means that the stars have to be between us and the moon (the Quran another place also says that the moon is between the heavens) - at less than some 384ooo km distance - as the stars were fastened to the lowest heaven. In addition to all the other impossibilities, humans would not be even crisps in a millisecond. Once more: Any existing god knew this, Muhammad not. Contradicted by almost anything – except as said: Not by fairy tales. Is Allah non-existing? Or who composed the Quran?

729 41/39e: "Truly - - -". Definitely not a proved truth - only a not proved claim. See 2/2b above.

When used in the Quran words like "true", "truth", "truly", "sure" "surety", "surely", "verity", "verily", etc. are claims, not proved facts. Also see 2/2b + 13/1g and 67/9c - 2 strong ones - and as for contradiction to the Bible also 40/20b. Also the latter half of the comments to 41/39a is very relevant. These and similar words cannot be taken at face value unless they are proved.

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

B. "'Surely' (etc.*) and rhetorical questions - whenever you encounter these in a text, stop and think. The author usually wants you to skate over them as if the claim is so obvious as to be beyond doubt, or the answer self-evident. The opposite is often the case." (Graham Lawton.) Also this trick is very often used in the Quran, by Islam, and by Muslims.

Try to count such cases in the Quran - they are MANY. Especially the never proved claim "the Truth" and similar are very often used. Samples: "Without doubt", "certain", "verily", "clear", "right", "fact", "wrong", "sign", "proof" (even modern Muslims disuse this word often), "term appointed", "predestined", "If Allah wanted - - -", "non-Muslims are bad, Muslims are good", "error", "wisdom", and more.

183 41/41b: "And indeed it (the Quran*) is a Book of exalted power". This really needs proofs - especially because of all the errors, etc. in the book, and the fact that it is not from any god - too much is wrong.

Well, like f.x. communism, Nazism, and a number of war religions, etc., the Quran had and still has an explosive power. But it is the power of an ideology combined with ruthlessness - a combination which many times through history has given strong results (also f.x. in the Mafia, the Cosa Nostra, the Chinese Triads, etc. - ######have you ever noticed the similarity between many points in the Quran's moral code, and the corresponding points in the moral codes of such organizations?)). But the supernatural power from a god is only possible if a real god is involved - and no god, not to mention an omniscient one, was ever involved in a book of a quality like the Quran with all its mistaken facts, other errors, contradictions, unclear language, cases of invalid logic, etc., etc. (And no good and benevolent god has ever even touched the bad parts of the Quran's and Islam's moral code.)

183 41/41b: "And indeed it (the Quran*) is a Book of exalted power". This really needs proofs - especially because of all the errors, etc. in the book, and the fact that it is not from any god - too much is wrong.

Well, like f.x. communism, Nazism, and a number of war religions, etc., the Quran had and still has an explosive power. But it is the power of an ideology combined with ruthlessness - a combination which many times through history has given strong results (also f.x. in the Mafia, the Cosa Nostra, the Chinese Triads, etc. - ######have you ever noticed the similarity between many points in the Quran's moral code, and the corresponding points in the moral codes of such organizations?)). But the supernatural power from a god is only possible if a real god is involved - and no god, not to mention an omniscient one, was ever involved in a book of a quality like the Quran with all its mistaken facts, other errors, contradictions, unclear language, cases of invalid logic, etc., etc. (And no good and benevolent god has ever even touched the bad parts of the Quran's and Islam's moral code.)

730 41/41b: "And indeed it (the Quran*) is a Book of exalted power". This really needs proofs - especially because of all the errors, etc. in the book, and the fact that it is not from any god - too much is wrong.

Well, like f.x. communism, Nazism, and a number of war religions, etc., the Quran had and still has an explosive power. But it is the power of an ideology combined with ruthlessness - a combination which many times through history has given strong results (also f.x. in the Mafia, the Cosa Nostra, the Chinese Triads, etc. - ######have you ever noticed the similarity between many points in the Quran's moral code, and the corresponding points in the moral codes of such organizations?)). But the supernatural power from a god is only possible if a real god is involved - and no god, not to mention an omniscient one, was ever involved in a book of a quality like the Quran with all its mistaken facts, other errors, contradictions, unclear language, cases of invalid logic, etc., etc. (And no good and benevolent god has ever even touched the bad parts of the Quran's and Islam's moral code.)

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

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

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

###731 41/43a: “Nothing is said to thee (Muhammad*) that was not said to the messengers before thee (Muhammad*) (f.x. to Jesus and the old Jewish prophets*) - - -.” Wrong. As both science and Islam thoroughly have proved that the Bible is not falsified – and especially strong proofs for NT, though also for OT the proofs are 100+% (f.x. Jesus' use of the old scriptures in the synagogues without claiming they were falsified + the Qumran scrolls) – it is very clear that what Muhammad claimed to have been told, often is far from what the real prophets and patriarchs had been told. And this is strengthened by the fact that it very often is very clear that Muhammad took his “Biblical” stories not from the Bible, but from religious legends (often even based on apocryphal scriptures and stories, not the Bible) that circulated in the area, and which Muhammad believed was from the Bible - - - and then later he had only one way out how to explain the errors compared to the real Bible: To claim he was right and the Bible falsified!!!. As for the quotation above, it is not true that nothing was said to Muhammad that was not said to earlier (real) prophets – a fact that Islam even confirms sometimes – f.x. in the statement from Muhammad that he was the first “messenger/prophet” who had got permission from the god to steal and rob and rape, which the god according to the Quran even confirms is “lawful and good”. A clear contradiction.

To be impolite, but truthful: The Quran's claim here is rubbish. (This early - 614-616 AD - it is not sure Muhammad knew he was lying when he said it. But he lied by omission as he never corrected this claim after he learnt better in Medina, where he learnt more about the old Jewish scriptures, and even more so as he continued to use similar claims and statements about that the Bible was falsified or that the Quran confirmed the "original" Bible.)

One extra point: The Quran here confirms that everything said in the Quran about Muhammad, Mecca, Medina, and everything which happened there, also was told to all the claimed earlier messengers/prophets. To what avail and purpose? And with what effect?

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

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

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

732 41/44g: "It (the Quran*) is - - - healing - - -". It takes a very special mentality to find healing in a book with such moral, ethical and judicial codes like some of the points you find in the Quran - plus all the errors. On the other hand strong belief can give mental peace and healing no matter what religion it is.

###733 42/3d: (A42/2): "I.e. the basic truths propounded in the Quranic revelation - - - are the same as those revealed to the earlier (Jewish*) prophets". To be very polite: This is not true. There are oceans between Muhammad and the Jewish prophets - deep fundamental differences and contradictions, especially compared to Jesus and his new covenant. Muhammad was not in that line of prophets - not even in the same moral world - and in a basically very different religion - one of war and suppression, dishonesty and apartheid, simply 180 degree contradiction to Jesus' teachings and a lot different from the older prophets, too.

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

734 42/9d: "- - - it is He (Allah*) Who has power over all things". He in case never clearly has proved such power.

735 42/11e: "- - - He (Allah*) is the One that hears and sees (all things)". See 2/233h above.

**736 42/13d: “The same religion (Islam*) has He (Allah*) established for - - - Abraham, Moses, and Jesus”. Neither the Quran, nor Hadith, nor Islam has brought the slightest valid proof for this - only words and claims. And at least when it comes to Jesus, it is provably wrong. The teachings of Jesus and the ones of Muhammad are fundamentally too different. Of course Muslims say that the Bible is falsified and that scriptures have disappeared – that is the only way out they have. But they have yet to prove the first and to prove that scriptures documenting all the points Islam says are wrong in other religions, have disappeared and none reliable and impossible to misunderstand ones have reappeared among the relevant 13ooo - 13ooo - scriptures + the some 32ooo with references to the Bible which exists. “Strong claims need strong proofs.” This even more so as science by means of all the old scriptures has proved that the Bible is not falsified – a fact that is extra clear for NT. And as central: Islam has proved the same even stronger by being unable to find one single proved falsification among all those scriptures. You bet they had told about it if they had found even one.As for Abraham and Moses being good Muslims, for one thing that is strongly contradicted by the Bible, which tells their god was Yahweh, and for another thing: As mentioned no traces from Islam older than 610 AD has ever or anywhere been found - not even by Islam - - - and Moses lived some 2000 years before, and Abraham some 2500 years before that.

#############There also is another hard fact here concerning Jesus: Jesus lived deep inside the times of written history. We know for sure that there was no religion like Islam, no god like Allah, and no book similar to the Quran anywhere in the Roman Empire not before Jesus and not until several centuries after him - not until after 610 AD when Muhammad started his mission. This is an indisputable historical fact. (May be one cannot prove the details of Jesus' teaching from historical sources outside the Bible, but one easily can prove that the Mosaic religion and not something like Islam was the religion among the Jews at the time of Jesus, and thus that the basis for Jesus' teaching was the Mosaic religion and not something like Islam). This means Jesus was no Muslim. Another historical fact is that also early Christianity is known from such sources, and it had no similarity to Islam - and the same for the Jewish religion. The claim that Jesus was a Muslim and preached Islam thus is proved by written history to be made up claims (claims also never proved true by Islam - like normal for Muhammad's very many claims).

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left - and remember here that the Quran (21/91) confirms that Jesus was for all peoples, (and in 19/19 that he was holy, which Muhammad definitely was not)). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses and the Jewish prophets) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and this on top of the fact that Abraham like mentioned did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran claims. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

############And not least: We know from as far back as written history goes, and from archeology, etc. even further back, the Mosaic religion was the religion of the Jews, that NT was the religion of Christians - and not least that there nowhere or any time before 610 AD is found even traces from a god like the Muslim Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or messengers preaching Islam.

737 42/15h: “There is no contention between us (Muslims*) and you (“infidels”).” Please tell that in the old Palestine after 637 AD and the modern Darfur. And in Sind/India, and in Armenia, not to mention in Africa and many other places in older times - and some places even nowadays. Thoroughly contradicted by Islamic history of aggression, dishonesty, stealing/looting, slave taking, war and suppression.

738 42/15k: "- - - to Him (Allah*) is (our) final goal (at the Day of Doom)". Often claimed, never documented. And contradicted by the Bible.

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

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

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

739 42/23f: “No reward do I (Muhammad*) ask of you (Muslims/people*) - - -“. - - - except total dictatorship over you, total obedience from you, plenty of women, cheap warriors, plenty of riches for bribes, etc., etc. One of the places in the Quran where Muhammad knew he was lying.”

740 42/23g: "No reward do I (Muhammad*) ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin". Well, except 20% of all stolen goods and enslaved people - 100% if they gave in without a fight - 2.5% (average) of all your belongings each and every year in tax (though it is likely Muhammad used little or nothing of just this point personally), plenty of women and undisputed and total power over you, + lots of warriors to fight and may be die for me, among other things. One of the in reality most and strongest contradicted and abrogated by reality verse in the entire Quran. Good propaganda towards followers unable to think for themselves.

Yes, and Jizya from non-Muslims - tax with no specified upper limit (and later rulers sometimes demanded much) - and from the ones using land he had taken from them and thus "belonged" to him also land tax (here he normally took 50% of everything produced - this also became the norm for other land grabbers, but up to 70% happened). Life could be difficult for non-Muslims - so difficult and meager that they had to flee to get out from the dire poverty or worse.

Two words: Hypocrisy. Dishonesty.

#########One of the places where Muhammad knew he was lying in the Quran.

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

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

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

741 42/24g: "And Allah - - - proves the Truth by His Words". Muhammad's literal meaning here is that the words of the Quran is of such a quality, that only a god can have uttered them. Muslims and Islam claim the same today - and are as wrong as Muhammad: The linguistics are ok because it was polished by Islam's best brains for some 250 years before the final prototypes were ready around 900 AD, but on most of the other points the Quran really is of miserable quality, included unbelievably many wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc., and no god ever was involved in a book - not to mention a claimed holy book - of that quality.

Besides: That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. It also is proved at least partly wrong.

And not least: Nobody uses this kind of arguments and "proof" if they have valid arguments and/or proofs. It simply is fast talk. At very best a so-called circular proof: The words are claimed to be the truth, and then the claimed truth proves the words which proves the truth which proves the words - - -. Circular proofs are by definition invalid.

Another point: THE QURAN HERE TELLS THAT THE LANGUAGE IN THE BOOK IS SO PERFECT THAT ONLY A GOD CAN HAVE SPOKEN THEM. HOW CAN THEN MERE HUMANS CLAIM THAT ALLAH WAS UNABLE TO EXPRESS HIMSELF CORRECTLY, AND IN MANY CASES MEANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HE REALLY SAID, AND THAT WISE HUMANS HAVE TO EXPLAIN HIS "REAL" MEANINGS? THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST USED "EXPLANATIONS" FOR EXPLAINING AWAY ERRORS IN THE QURAN: THE PERFECT GOD ALLAH DID NOT MEAN WHAT HIS PERFECT TEXTS SAY, BUT SOMETHING DIFFERENT - A PRARBLE OR SOMETHING, IN SPITE OF THAT THE QURAN CLEARLY TELLS THAT TO LOOK FOR HIDDEN MEANINGS, ONLY IS FOR THE SICK OF HEART - AND A GOOD MUSLIMS HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE "REALLY" MEANT. (THIS IN SPITE OF THAT THE QURAN ALSO TELLS THAT IF THERE ARE HIDDEN MEANINGS ALL THE SAME, ONLY ALLAH CAN UNDERSTAND THEM).

And: Science says: "You have to have a Muslim's belief to be able to believe that the Quran's texts are of such a quality that the quality proves the book is from a god".

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

###742 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). The words of the Quran prove not a thing, among other reasons because:

  1. Far too many mistakes pretending to be facts. (Swindle?)
  2. Far too many loose statements pretending to be facts. (Swindle?)
  3. Far too many invalid “signs” pretending to be documentation. (Swindle?)
  4. Far too many invalid or even wrong "proofs" pretending to be documentation. (Swindle?)
  5. Some obvious lies – f.x. that miracles would make no-one believe, or that Muhammad wanted no payment (in spite of what Muslims claim, Muhammad was well off when he died - estates in Medina, Khaybar, and Fadang, and more - even though he had spent fortunes for bribes for followers/power, and lots of women also cost something). (Swindle.)
  6. Muhammad was unable to present anything but fast-talk when asked for proofs. (Swindle?)
  7. Lots of invalid use of logic. (Swindle?)
  8. Lots of contradictions (– proves of lies?)
  9. Lots of unclear language - at least 500+ confirmed by Muslim scholars. (Not from a god.)
  10. Lots of fast talk. (Suspicious.)
  11. At least some lies. (VERY revealing.)
  12. The Quran has few real details, it jumps back and forth in its story, and it has unclear tales and explanations on many points. According to science these normally are indications for a cheat or deceiver. They mention one more such an indication - that cheats and deceivers have a tendency to talk with a higher pitch when spinning tales. For natural reasons it is impossible to find out if Muhammad did so.

These all are hallmarks of a crook and a cheat and a deceiver.

####What does this mean for the religion?

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

#743 42/27b: "- - - His (Allah's*) Servants - - -". The Quran itself and Muslims and Islam claim that the language in the Quran is so clear - easy to understand, impossible to misunderstand, and distinct - that its very clearness is a proof for that it is made by a god. All the same there f.x. are lots and lots and lots of words and expressions which can have more than one meaning. This is one of them. If nothing else is indicated, this expression may mean:

  1. All humans.
  2. All Muslims.
  3. All good Muslims.
  4. All claimed prophets/messengers through the times.
  5. In some cases it may mean the angels or all sentient beings, included the angels.
  6. In some cases it even may include the jinns.
  7. And used in singular it means Muhammad, if nothing else is indicated.

If clearness proves a god like the Quran says one place, what then does unclearness prove?

744 42/30b: “Whatever misfortune happens to you, is because of things your hands have wrought - - -”. Please compare this to some of the other verses quoted in this chapter and other places (f.x. 42/31 below) and tell us: Is there honesty in this kind of Muslim argumentation? Because the Quran clearly tells many places that Allah decides everything, and nothing can change his predestinations. You f.x. cannot change your destiny by staying away from battle.

Or is the main thing to cling to what they want to believe? - and rather not find out if they are wrong until in the possible next world, when it may be too late not to end up in some real religion’s Hell?

(At least 10 contradictions in the Quran.)

#745 42/30d: (A42/35 - English 2008 edition 42/34): "Since this latter (man’s life in the hereafter*) is but an organic continuation of the earthly life - - -". A very informative sentence - and a universe from the Bible's Paradise, where you become "like the angels in heaven" (f. x. Matt. 22/30). Did anyone claim Yahweh and Allah are the same god? - even their Paradises are incomparable and incompatible. And did anyone claim the basic elements in the religions of all prophets, included Muhammad, are identical? It is so wrong that "wrong" is not even the correct word.

One more of the strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - if they had been, their Paradises had been one and the same.

746 42/42a: "The blame is only upon those who oppress men with wrongdoing and insolently transgress beyond bounds - - -". But this is just what Muslims are ordered to do against non-Muslim, and what is "lawful and good" in the Islamic war laws - nominally only for jihads, but in reality practically everything is called jihad. And honestly: WHAT KIND OF GOOD AND BENEVOLENT GOD IS IT WHO TELLS THAT IF YOU DO HORRIBLE THINGS OR DESTROY THE LIVES AND FUTURE OF FELLOW HUMANS IN HIS NAME, IT IS "LAWFUL AND GOOD". A horrible difference between the Quran and NT: "Do against others like you want others do against you" (Matt. 7/12). The same god? Nyet! - which is a good and strong English word meaning NO with 3 lines under it. And a word we use because even the rich English language does not have a strong enough NO for this. And Jesus and Muhammad in the same line of prophets (for Muhammad also see 9/88b above)? The same answer.

##########747 42/45e: (A42/47 - English 2008 edition A4246): "Thus the above sentence implies that every kind of evildoing (zulm), ####and particularly the oppression of others, results in a spiritual injury to, and ultimately the self-destruction of, its perpetrators and/or their followers". ######Read the Quran's moral code, laws, and rules concerning points of view on and treatment of non-Muslims - includes suppression and oppression of them. Also compare this to the one basic moral code: "Do onto others like you want others do onto you" - and weep. This sentence tells a lot about why many Muslim societies are like they are - and may be about why Islam and Muslims are widely disliked. (As for the latter also Islam's/Muslims' haughtiness and Islam's aggressive ideology count a lot.)

What does this sentence tell about Islam and about its Muslims? - because this also goes for them.

#748 43/2a: “By the Book (the Quran*) that makes things clear - - -.” Which also must mean the language is not hiding the meanings and it is intended that everything shall be easy to understand, plus it explains things in ways clear to see. Also see 11/1b, 19/97, and 26/2 above, and 44/2 below.

Also: Sentences starting with "by" in the Quran normally - like here - are oaths. Here the Quran swears by the Quran. Oaths are ok according to the Quran and in Islam - even disuse of oaths may be ok. According to the Bible you should not swear, and if you all the same do so, you have to keep your word. One more strong difference in the respective moral codes - a difference strong enough to be one more at least circumstantial proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god (and thus also that Jesus and Muhammad did not belong to the same religion).

##749 43/2b: “- - - the Book that makes things clear - - -”. But a book with perhaps 3000+ mistakes makes few things clear. See also 40/75 + 41/12 above and 43/3a below.

Anyone wanting to try to “explain” away difficult points like mistakes or invalid logic or contradictions by calling them allegories etc. should read this sentence. It even is written 4 times and thus a solidly cemented and nailed truth: The Quran is to be understood literally and search for hidden meanings is only for Allah (3/7c), and such search only is for the ones “in whose hearts is perversity - - -.”

######T

More down to the Earth: Muslims often explains away mistakes, etc. in the Quran with the claim that what is written there is not what is meant - it is a parable or an allegory or something. A book where you have to guess what is literally meant and what are parables - and what the parables in case mean - definitely is not easy or clear.

######That the Quran tells - directly or indirectly, but clearly - that the texts in the Quran is clear, explained by Allah, and to be understood literally, you find f.x. these places: 3/7b, 3/138a, 6/114da, 11/1b, 15/1b, 18/1d-e, 18/2a, 19/97b, 20/113b+c, 24/34, 24/54j, 26/2a, 27/1b-d, 28/2, 36/69e, 37/117c, 39/28b, 41/3da, 43/2a, 44/2b-c, 44/58b, 54/17a, 54/22b, 54/32a+b, 54/40a, and 75/19 Worth remembering each time a Muslim or Islam tries to "explain" away errors, etc. by claiming the text means something different from what it says. In such cases either the Muslim/Islam lies when he/she claims the text means something different from what it says (the claim often is that it is a parable or something), or the Quran lies when it says that the book uses clear texts where nothing else is indicated.

The listed points are all collected here under 3/7b and 44/58b.

Or perhaps Allah is so clumsy and helpless when he explains things, that he needs help from humans to explain what "he really means"? (Nonsense to say the least about such claims lying under such "explanations".)

WHO CAN EXPLAIN SOMETHING BETTER AND MORE CORRECTLY AND COMPLETELY THAN AN OMNISCIENT GOD? AND WHO KNOWS BETTER THEN ALLAH EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS TO SAY, THAN HE HIMSELF?

####750 43/3c: "We (Allah*) have made it a Quran in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand - - -". It is clear that Allah has done everything to make the Quran plain and easy to understand - he even made the Quran in the local language and in texts they would be able to understand. And who can make a text easier to understand correctly than an omniscient god? - not to mention when it is written in the local language to make it impossible not to understand exactly what was said and meant. Worth remembering each time Muslims try to explain away mistakes with that the text does not mean what it says, but something else or something hidden. Also see 43/2a and 43/2b above.

But for a god wanting to reach the whole world, Arab was a lousy choice. One thing is that it was a language mainly used by uneducated tribesmen, and thus with a limited vocabulary. Another thing that it mostly was a language for the locals in Arabia - mainly farmers at the oasis and Bedouins, and not a widely known language like Latin, Greek or Persian. But the main problem is that it did not have a complete alphabet. Its alphabet mainly consisted of the consonants. It lacked the vocals, the points Arab today use to signify some letters - called diacritical points - and even the signs use when writing, like the full stop, the comma, etc. (Which makes the Muslim claim that the Quran is the correct words of Muhammad down to the last comma, a joke - the comma did not even exist at that time). The incomplete alphabet even today makes serious problems for Islam, as it often is impossible to know what exactly is meant by words and sentences. Islam has "solved" this problem by declaring that all possible translations of the old manuscripts which give logical meaning, are correct. To hide that this results in a lot of different versions of the texts, they call it "different ways of reading". The Arab alphabet was not completed until around 900 AD - some 250 years after the official Quran was written.

Also:

1. The Quran here makes it clear that the reason why it is delivered in Arabic, is that the Arabs should be able to understand it, NOT that Arab is the original language in Heaven and in "the Mother of the Book" like some Muslims claim. For several reasons a nonsense claim really. F.x.:

  1. A. If the Quran is as old as Islam claims, Arab did not exist at that time.
  2. B. Arab is a mix of the languages of the people who drifted into Arabia when the peninsula was settled some 7ooo-10ooo years ago. Did the same mixing happen in Heaven at that time?
  3. C. All languages change over the generations. Was it a lucky chance that the Arab in Heaven and in the unchangeable, eternal "Mother of the Book" and the Arab of Arabia were identical just at the time of Muhammad?
  4. D. Like all languages Arab borrowed words from other languages. Did Allah and Heaven borrow the same words? - from earthly languages?
  5. E. What language did Allah and the angels use before the proto-Arab language came to in Arabia?

  6. F. Arab used to be the language of primitive desert tribes. Was it such a language the omniscient Allah found perfect for Heaven?
  7. G. When the old Arab "drifted" (slowly changed) over centuries and millennia, was that because of orders from Allah, or did Allah and the angels - and Iblis - ape the Arabs?
  8. H. Arab at the time of Muhammad was a local language. It had been much wiser for a god wanting to reach the entire world to use f.x. Greek or Persian - or f.x. Mandarin.
  9. I. The Arab alphabet at the time of Muhammad was very incomplete - it only had the consonants, not the vowels and the different signs used in modern Arab (the Arab alphabet was not complete until around 900 AD). It had been much wiser by Allah to use f.x. Greek, which had a complete alphabet, so that the Quran could tell exactly what Allah said. Now there are hundreds of words and expressions in the Quran Islam does not really know what means - the incomplete original alphabet can give 2 - 3 - 4 or even more different meanings. (The claim that the Quran is the exact words of Allah "down to the last comma", is not even a joke, but naive lack of knowledge.) To avoid the reality that there are many versions of the Quran because of this, Islam names this central problem "different ways of reading".
  10. J. Did Allah in his books adjust his Arab alphabet in accordance with the alphabetic progress Muslim scholars made over the some 250 years between the first written Qurans in the 630s via Uthman's official version in the 650's till the alphabet was complete around 900 AD? Or did he slowly and over 250 years instruct those scholars how to adjust their alphabet to his?
  11. K. The last couple of centuries Arab has borrowed a lot of words mainly from the West. Does Allah borrow the same words? And is it in case Allah who tells the Arab linguists and authorities which words to borrow, or does he simply ape what happens on Earth?

Are any comments necessary?

2. If Allah delivered a Quran in the local language to the Arabs in order that they should understand better, it is highly illogical that he did not want the same doe any other language, and for the same reason. (That the Quran only can be understood really correct in Arab, is one of those made up arguments Islam and Muslims use to be able to flee from errors and difficult points in the Quran and in debates. According to linguists Arab only is a medium difficult language to translate - plus the fact that "what one brain is able to express, another brain of similar quality and education is able to understand" One may have to explain some words and expression, but that is the same no matter what language one translates.

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

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

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

####751 43/4b: “- - - it (the Quran*) is in the Mother of Book, in Our (Allah’s*) presence, high (in dignity) - - -”. This is one of the places in the Quran where Muhammad claims the Quran is taken from (is a copy of) "the Mother Book" (= "the Mother of the Quran") in Allah’s own home/Heaven. But no book containing hundreds of mistakes, hundreds of contradictions, hundreds of loose claims and statements, lots of invalid logic, lots of invalid “signs” and lots of invalid “proofs” easy for anybody with good and wide education too see through, hundreds of places with unclear language, etc., is copied from a revered Mother Book, high in dignity and esteem, in the perfect Heaven, the home of and by a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient god, not to mention revered by him and by his angels. See also 13/39,43/4, 85/21-22.

By the way: Would an omniscient god revere a book with so helpless and unclear texts that mere humans hundreds and more places would have to explain what the texts "really" means? - not to mention "explain" that wrong facts and other errors "are not errors, but hidden meanings - and the same for the contradictions"?

Nonsense.

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

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

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

752 43/19c: "- - - evidence - - -". Muhammad wanted proofs form all opponents, but never - never - proved anything of any consequence himself. The entire Quran and all Islam are built only on loose words and claims. - But Muhammad demanded and Islam demands proofs from everyone else.Also beware that both Muhammad, the Quran, Muslims, and Islam frequently are very "free" and "generous" with the use of words like "evidence", "proof", etc. A proof is "one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". This - that they build on proved facts - very far from is the case for many Islamic "proofs", etc.

REMEMBER THIS: THE QURAN - AND ISLAM AND MUSLIMS - IS VERY "LIBERAL" WITH USING WORDS LIKE EVIDENCE, PROOF, SIGN (INDICATED TO BE PROOFS), ETC. IT IS SYMPTOMATIC THAT F.X. NOT ONE OF THE CLAIMED SIGNS OR PROOFS FOR ALLAH IS VALID - "A PROOF IS ONE OR MORE PROVED FACTS WHICH CAN GIVE ONLY ONE CONCLUSION", AND NEITHER THE QURAN, NOR ISLAM, NOR MUSLIMS, EVER PROVE THAT IT REALLY WAS ALLAH WHO WAS/IS BEHIND WHAT IS CLAIMED TO BE THE PROOF FOR HIM, AND THUS MORE THAN ONE CONCLUSION IS POSSIBLE. THERE IS NO EXCEPTION FROM THIS NEITHER IN THE QURAN NOR IN THE HADITHS.

Some other quotes about proofs and invalid or made up proofs:

  1. "Strong claims need strong proofs.
  2. "A claim without a proof may be dismissed without a proof".
  3. "Claims are cheap, but only proofs are proofs".
  4. "The use of invalid proofs normally proves that something is fishy".
  5. "The cheat or deceiver naturally must rely on claims pretending to be facts or proofs".
  6. "A made up "proof" makes the man very suspect".
  7. "A strong belief is not a proof - not necessarily even a truth"
  8. .
  9. "Wrong claims and invalid "proofs" are working tools of the cheat".
  10. "A student with correct facts gets a more correct answer than 20 professors with wrong facts". (Invalid, "signs", claims, "proofs", etc. of course are wrong facts.)
  11. And we may add from Peer Gynt in his original language: "Naar utgangspunktet er som galest, blir resultatet tidt originalest" - freely translated: "When you conclude from wrong claims/wrong facts/invalid "proofs"/etc., you get wrong conclusions".

###753 43/23b: (A43/23): “Rezi (one of the foremost Muslim scholars through the times*) says: ‘Had there been in the Quran nothing but these verses (43/20-24*), they would have sufficed to show the falsity of the principle postulating blind, unquestioning (by a Muslim) adoption of (another person’s) religious opinions (“ibtal al-qawl bi’t-raqlid”) - - -‘”.

If he had indicated Islam and the fathers and/or the imams, it hardly would be possible to say this more accurate. Islam is to a very large degree based on indoctrination, social and judicial pressure, and glorification of blind belief + even physical threats if you ask "wrong" questions, air a "wrong" fact, or leave the religion. "I believe because my father told his father said the Quran is the truth, and then it must be the truth". Very few Muslims have tried to find out: "What can be true and what not in this book? - and can there then be a god behind it?" Instead the "logic" is: "The Quran is the truth - because so my father and my mullah tell me. How can I then explain away the wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc., so that it looks like the Truth?"

###754 43/59c: "- - - We (Allah*) made him (Jesus) an example - - -". According to the Bible the god of Jesus was Yahweh, and in a way worse for the Quran: We are now on safe historical ground. It is well documented that the god of the Jews at this time was Yahweh - and that the religion at this time was so strong among the Jews, that Jesus had gotten few followers if he tried to talk about a known pagan god, al-Lah - from a neighboring country. Not to mention that if he had tried to mix him with Yahweh, the establishment had had him executed much earlier. The claim that a god with a teaching like in the Quran was dominant in Israel, was and is not only contradicted by the Bible, but historically wrong. Also see 13/1g and 67/9c - 2 strong ones. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left - and remember here that the Quran (21/91) confirms that Jesus was for all peoples, (and in 19/19 that he was holy, which Muhammad definitely was not)). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses and the Jewish prophets) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and this on top of the fact that Abraham like mentioned did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran claims. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

############And not least: We know that from as far back as written history goes, and from archeology, etc. even further back, the Mosaic religion was the religion of the Jews, that NT was the religion of Christians - and not least that there nowhere or any time before 610 AD is found even traces from a god like the Muslim Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or messengers preaching Islam.

THERE IS ONE MORE STRONG FACT CONNECTED TO JESUS AND THE OTHER OLD JEWISH PROPHETS: ACCORDING TO THE QURAN THEY ALL WERE GOD MUSLIMS - AN IMPOSSIBILITY IF THEIR CLAIMED HOLY BOOKS FROM ALLAH WERE FALSIFIED. THUS THE CLAIMED FALSIFICATION OF ALSO OT CANNOT HAVE HAPPENED UNTIL AFTER JESUS (F.X. EZRA COULD NOT HAVE FALSIFIED OT, LIKE SOME MUSLIMS CLAIM - IF HE HAD, JESUS HAD RECEIVED WRONG INFORMATION AND HAD BEEN NO GOOD MUSLIM UNLESS HE WARNED AGAINST IT). THIS IN ADDITION TO THAT THE BOOKS WERE SENT DOWN (DIRECTLY) FROM ALLAH TO THE PROPHETS, ACCORDING TO THE QURAN, AND ERRORS IN THEM THEREFORE SHOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. ALL THE OLD GOOD MUSLIM PROPHETS INCLUDED JESUS THUS MUST HAVE HAD CORRECT HOLY BOOKS - THE OLD JEWISH SCRIPTURES/OT. IF NOT F.X. JESUS HAD BEEN TEACHING WRONG THINGS, WHICH HE DID NOT DO ACCORDING TO THE QURAN (and if the scrolls he read from in the synagogues had differed from what he received from Heaven, he like said had told about it - if not he was a bad Muslim). THE ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION HERE IS THAT ALSO NO PART OF THE OLD SCRIPTURES - OT - CAN HAVE BEEN FALSIFIED UNTIL AFTER JESUS TIME.

B U T T H E R E E X I S T P L E N T Y O F M A N U S C R I P T S A N D F R A G M E N T S O L D E N O U G H T O P R O V E T H A T O T W A S N O T S I M I L A R T O T H E Q U R A N A T T H A T T I M E !!! I T W A S S I M I L A R T O T H E S C R I P T U R E S O F T O D A Y !!! F. X. T H E Q U M R A N S C R O L L S F R O M 1 5 0 - 5 0 B. C.

In addition there is the problem: How in case make Jews and Christians agree on what new texts to use when they falsified (parts of) the Quran into OT??? And how to make ALL Jews and Christians spread over large parts of the world without any protest accept the new and falsified holy scriptures - and destroy all the old copies so thoroughly that not one piece of any of them has been found later? This in addition to the claimed falsification of NT and all the impossibilities and improbabilities which have to be "explained" away concerning the claimed falsification of NT.

T H I S I S O N E O F T H E C L A I M S M U H A M A D M A D E U P.

#####755 43/59d: "- - - We (Allah*) made him (Jesus) an example to the Children of Israel". (YA4660): "A reference to the limited mission of Jesus, who’s Gospel to the Jews only survives in uncertain fragmentary forms". We do not think this merits any comment, but quote it to show a sample of what Muslims are told even today. Remember here that al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), etc. not only are permitted, but advised "if necessary" when defending or promoting Islam.

There are large quantities of secular scientists in the west and in the rest of the world - and to real scientists dishonest means of working or arguments are an absolute NO. They do not doubt that the Gospels are the original ones and the complete ones, except for minor errors normal when manuscripts are copied by hand. Islam will have to prove and not only claim their words. This even more so as there are so many mistaken facts and other errors in the Quran, that also the claim that the Gospels are falsified, may be - highly likely is - wrong. (This on top of that it long since is proved that the Bible - included the Gospels - is not falsified.)

756 43/63b: "- - - Jesus came with Clear Signs - - -". If either the Bible or the Quran or both are correct on this point, Jesus did a number of miracles proving his connection to something supernatural. Muhammad never did anything but claiming this and that for his god, never proving anything at all. There is a huge and qualitative difference between the two facts.

The trouble is that Jesus' miracles according to the after all much more reliable source (according to scientific ways of evaluating sources) the Bible, proved Jesus and Yahweh, not Jesus and Allah. Remember here that it is possible to prove from written, non-religious sources that for one thing the god of the Jews at the time of Jesus was Yahweh, and for another thing it is possible to prove from the same sources that no god of war like Allah and no religion like Islam existed anywhere in the Roman Empire or the rest of the middle east at that time. The Quran provably is wrong when it makes such claims.

757 43/71-73: What an empty paradise - all is about earth-like luxury (+ lots of sex for the men), etc. What a difference to Yahweh's Paradise where you "are like the angels" (Luke 20/36, not to mention: "For the Kingdom of God/Yahweh is not a matter of eating and drinking (or sex*) - - -", (Rom.14/17). And also not to mention: "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Mark 12/25)). The same god? - impossible with so different Paradises (in addition to all the other differences). The differences of the paradises is one of the absolute proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same line of anything of any essence.

758 43/78d: “- - - but most of you (non-Muslims*) have a hatred to the Truth.” The truth (Islam) - see 40/75 and 41/12. And in addition:

  1. *Few hate – but many are frightened.
  2. MANY see that things are very wrong in the Quran and Islam, and thus that the Quran is not the truth.

  3. Quite a number feel distaste because of the inhuman and unjust moral code, laws and traditions in Islam.
  4. **There is a difference between frightened strength and frightened weakness – a fact that sometimes is forgotten.

759 43/81b: “If (Allah) Most Gracious had a son, I (Muhammad*) would be the first to worship”. Some proof!! But for that: There still is Jesus calling Yahweh father. And any neutral professor of history would say that according to all normal rules, the Bible should be more reliable than the Quran as a source of correct history: Very much closer in time to Jesus, thousands of witnesses, many narrators, versus one single narrator without good sources and 600 years later - and even a man of dubious character and with strong motif to reduce Jesus, to become the greatest prophet himself - and a man clearly lusting for power (just read the Quran and the Hadiths - it is easy to see f.x. his gluing himself to the god and platform of power). A man who definitely had not been accepted as a reliable witness in any country with a reliable judicial system. (The real and historical Muhammad was something quite different from the glossy semi-saint Islam and Muslims claims – a claim made necessary because all Islam only is built on this man’s words - if he lies, the religion is a false one - - - and Allah likely a false god). Also: Science has showed that the never documented Islamic claim about falsification of the Bible is wrong. At least some scientists also directly say that Islam is falsifying history to find a semi-saintly Muhammad (actually you do not have to be a scientist to be able to see this from the Quran - just read about his demands, rules, deeds, etc., and skip the cheap glorious words he use about himself in the book).

###760 44/2d: (YA4689): "The Quran is its own evidence". Wrong - and this should have been written with capital and bold letters. Islam has no proofs for anything central in its religion - no proof for the existence of Allah, no proof for Allah being a god, no proof for the Quran coming from a deity, not to mention being a revered "mother book" in Heaven, no proof for Muhammad's connection to a god, not even a proof for Muhammad being a good or a reliable person. Partly because of this, Muslims always have been on the look-out for things they could use as proofs. And one such claimed "proof" is that the Quran is a proof or proves itself. Claims like the language is so perfect that it must be made by a god (there are many weak points in the language), that only a god could make such a book without contradictions (there are at least 300 - 400 contradictions in the book), that nobody but a god could make such a book totally without mistakes (there may be as many as unbelievable 3ooo mistakes, etc. in that after all small book), that only a god could make such a good literature - a claim you should tell no-one who really knows how good literature is written. Etc. In addition the book is far from well written, and there are the repetitions, repetitions, repetitions, etc. The only thing the Quran with all its miserable mistakes, etc. proves, is that no god ever was involved in making it - it is slander and heresy against any omniscient god to accuse him of making a book of a quality like the Quran. And thus it at the same time proves that something is seriously wrong with Islam.

Besides: To prove the Quran by means of the Quran is a so-called circular proof. Circular proof are by definition invalid, as they proves nothing.

It tells something about the value of proofs for Islam that it tries strongly to find proofs. And it tells even more that one has to resort to this kind of fast talk.

"A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". There is not one "proof" or even "sign" about Allah or about the origin of the Quran in the Quran which satisfy this minimum requirement.

Some other quotes about proofs and invalid or made up proofs:

  1. "Strong claims need strong proofs.
  2. "A claim without a proof may be dismissed without a proof".
  3. "Claims are cheap, but only proofs are proofs".
  4. "The use of invalid proofs normally proves that something is fishy".
  5. "The cheat or deceiver naturally must rely on claims pretending to be facts or proofs".
  6. "A made up "proof" makes the man very suspect".
  7. "A strong belief is not a proof - not necessarily even a truth"
  8. .
  9. "Wrong claims and invalid "proofs" are working tools of the cheat".
  10. "A student with correct facts gets a more correct answer than 20 professors with wrong facts". (Invalid, "signs", claims, "proofs", etc. of course are wrong facts.)
  11. And we may add from Peer Gynt in his original language: "Naar utgangspunktet er som galest, blir resultatet tidt originalest" - freely translated: "When you conclude from wrong claims/wrong facts/invalid "proofs"/etc., you get wrong conclusions".

####We may also add from science: "One has to have a Muslim's belief to be able to believe that the quality of the Quran proves it is made by a god."

761 44/50a: "Truly - - -". Definitely not a proved truth - only a not proved claim. See 2/2b above.

When used in the Quran words like "true", "truth", "truly", "sure" "surety", "surely", "verity", "verily", etc. are claims, not proved facts. Also see 2/2b, 67/9c - a strong one - and as for contradictions to the Bible also 40/20b. Also the latter half of the comments to 41/39a is very relevant. These and similar words cannot be taken at face value unless they are proved.

###762 44/58f: “Verily, We (Allah*) have made this (Quran) easy, in thy (Muhammad’s or Arabs') tongue in order that they (people*) may give heed.” This is the reason the Quran gives - here and other places - for why the book was delivered in Arab. ##########################The reason is NOT said to be that Arab is the language of "the Mother of the Book" or in the rest of heaven, or that the Quran has to be read in a special language.

763 45/5b: “- - - the fact that Allah sends down Sustenance from the sky - - -.” As “always” the Quran makes a claim only, and proves nothing, but claims it is a fact. As long as it is not proved, it is not a fact – words are too cheap. Actually this is one of the very many cases where the Quran takes a natural a phenomenon – here rain – and unceremoniously say it is "a fact" that it is Allah who makes it - - - just like any priest in any religion can say about his god or gods, just as cheaply. A bluff - there are many of them in the Quran.

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

"Fact"? "'Surely' (etc.*) and rhetorical questions - whenever you encounter these in a text, stop and think. The author usually wants you to skate over them as if the claim is so obvious as to be beyond doubt, or the answer self-evident. The opposite is often the case." (Graham Lawton.) Also this trick is very often used in the Quran, by Islam, and by Muslims.

Try to count such cases in the Quran - they are MANY. Especially the never proved claim "the Truth" and similar are very often used. Samples: "Without doubt", "certain", "verily", "clear", "right", "fact", "wrong", "sign", "proof" (even modern Muslims disuse this word often), "term appointed", "predestined", "If Allah wanted - - -", "non-Muslims are bad, Muslims are good", "error", "wisdom", and more.

#######Like said these two rhetorical ways of dishonesty are used very many places in the Quran - we have not counted, but hundreds. Each of them may be a hidden lie - is a lie if the orator knows his point is a claim or bluff or worse, and not a proved or provable fact. And according to the Quran what is said in the Quran, is said by Allah.

Who needs such tricks? - the cheat and deceiver, the swindler and the charlatan.

764 45/10b: "- - - nor any protector they (non-Muslims*) may have taken to themselves - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells that at least the followers of Yahweh may have taken Yahweh for a protector. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

765 45/11a: “This (the Quran*) is (true) Guidance - - -”. A book with perhaps 3ooo mistakes, invalid statements, contradictions, etc., etc., is no true guidance. See 13/1g and 40/75 above. And the fact that Muhammad knew about at least a few point he had to knew were lies, makes at least parts of this dishonest.

766 45/35c: "- - - deceived - - -". Who are most easily deceived - the ones who use their brains and knowledge and thinks things over, or the ones who tumble into blind belief? - and not to mention the ones brainwashed from baby age and not even able to or wanting to think things over?

767 46/10f: "- - - truly - - -". Definitely not a proved truth - only a not proved claim. See f.x. 2/2b and 45/3a above.

When used in the Quran words like "true", "truth", "truly", "sure" "surety", "surely", "verity", "verily", etc. are claims, not proved facts. Also see 2/2b, 67/9c - a strong one - and as for contradictions to the Bible also 40/20b. Also the latter half of the comments to 41/39a is very relevant. These and similar words cannot be taken at face value unless they are proved.

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

B. "'Surely' (etc.*) and rhetorical questions - whenever you encounter these in a text, stop and think. The author usually wants you to skate over them as if the claim is so obvious as to be beyond doubt, or the answer self-evident. The opposite is often the case." (Graham Lawton.) Also this trick is very often used in the Quran, by Islam, and by Muslims.

Try to count such cases in the Quran - they are MANY. Especially the never proved claim "the Truth" and similar are very often used. Samples: "Without doubt", "certain", "verily", "clear", "right", "fact", "wrong", "sign", "proof" (even modern Muslims disuse this word often), "term appointed", "predestined", "If Allah wanted - - -", "non-Muslims are bad, Muslims are good", "error", "wisdom", and more.

#######Like said these two rhetorical ways of dishonesty are used very many places in the Quran - we have not counted, but hundreds. Each of them may be a hidden lie - is a lie if the orator knows his point is a claim or bluff or worse, and not a proved or provable fact. And according to the Quran what is said in the Quran, is said by Allah.

Who needs such tricks? - the cheat and deceiver, the swindler and the charlatan.

768 46/31g: "He (Allah*) will forgive you (people*) your faults - - -". Only 2 can forgive: The victim and a god. Is Allah a god - if he exists? There only is a claim from a man with dubious moral, but a liking for power, wealth for bribes, and for women, which tells this.

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

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

###769 47/4c: This is a really serious one: “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them) - - -.” BUT OUR SOURCES TELL THAT THE WORDS “(in fight)” IS NOT WRITTEN IN THE ARAB TEXT – IT IS ADDED BY THE TRANSLATOR (and by more than one). Muslims primarily shall read the Quran in Arab, and there in case our sources are correct the text is: “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers, smite at their necks - - -“. It in case simply is a permanent order to be aggressive.

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

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

######The world should never forget that Islam in Medina was turned into a religion of hate, superiority claims, apartheid, suppression, blood and war, and that this is the Quran and Islam also today, as the surahs from Medina according to Islam's rules for abrogation (making points in the Quran invalid) supersedes the ones from Mecca, because the ones from Medina are younger. Neither should the world ever forget that the Quran and Islam accept the use of dishonesty as a working tool, if that gives a better result - even advice to use it in some cases "if necessary" (to defend or promote Islam). ########Most Muslims are ok persons, but one should never forget neither the demands for war and suppression and nor the moral code in the Quran.

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

#####770 47/4n: (A47/4): "In other words, when "those who are bent on denying the truth (the Quran with all its mistakes, etc.*)', deprive the Muslims of their social and political liberty and thus make it impossible for them to live in accordance with the principle of their faith, a just war (jihad) becomes allowable and, more than that, a duty". In this connection it is very thought provoking that according to the Quran the principle of Islam includes that Muslims shall rule and everyone else suppressed and without political power or influence - and "paying jizya - extra tax - "with willing submission". This is the official and final goal for Islam according to the Quran. Think this over.

Also denial of burka, restrictions on other Muslim cultural customs, denial to accept points in Islam's moral code, etc., etc. may be seen as a reason for war and terror, at least by strong believers and by extremists. And we all have seen and heard what such ones may do.

#######For people or religions suppressed under Islam there are no similar rules.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

771 47/20-21: "- - - more fitting for them (the ones not wanting to go to war*) were it to obey - - -". Obey whom? Allah, of course! - which here on Earth meant obeying Muhammad. A nice sentence for any dictator.

109 47/21a: “- - - it were best for them (the ones not strong in belief*) if they were true to Allah (= war).” That also is best also for you. But what did following the Quran mean? As it is not from a god, it does not mean being true to any god. True to dark forces? - or to men? - or to the robber baron and later warlord Muhammad?

######772 48/2b: "- - - Allah may forgive thee (Muhammad) thy faults of the past ####and those to follow". A dogma in Islam is that Muhammad was forgiven all his sins during his life, also the ones he at each point of time had not yet committed. Well, why then not rape a woman or two or murder some opponents (like he did)?

This point reveals something dark about both Muhammad and - as Islam accepts that this is ok moral - also about Islam.

In addition: If the old books are reliable on this point, this is one of the proofs for that Jesus and Muhammad were not like. According to the books Jesus was without sins, whereas Muhammad had to be forgiven his - often horrible - sins.

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 is something nobody and nothing can make him do. See 2/187d above.

773 48/20f: (A48/23 – in 2008 edition A22): “Allah has promised you many gains that ye shall acquire - - -.” Booty. A good and cheap way to get warriors. But does it here only talk about “gold and slaves and a few rapes” in this life (may be Khaybar in this case), or also riches in the next life like among others Ibn Abbas thought?

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

124 48/24d: "And Allah sees well all that ye (people*) do". The carrot and the stick: Allah sees all good deeds and rewards them. But Allah also sees all bad deeds and punishes them, so do not try to cheat. Also see 2/233h above - if he sees everything, why then does he have to test even his followers?

774 49/3c: "- - - Allah's Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". No omniscient god ever sent a messenger telling so much wrong - it for no other reason, then because he had to know the mistakes, etc. would be discovered sooner or later. (Many have discovered them through the times and not entered Islam - and some have entered, but according to media some 3/4 of them leave again within 3 years, likely because they have discovered things about the religion). Also see 63/5a below.

066 50/27c: "- - - he (non-Muslim*) was (himself) far astray".

  1. If no god exists, he and a Muslim was equally astray.
  2. If only Allah exists, but is no god, both are astray.
  3. If only Allah exists, and is a god, the non-Muslim was astray

  4. If the non-Muslim's god (f.x. Yahweh) and Allah both exist as gods, none was astray.
  5. If the non-Muslim's god (f.x. Yahweh) and Allah both exist, but Allah no god, the Muslim was astray.
  6. if the non-Muslim's god (f.x. Yahweh) exists, but Allah not, the Muslim was astray.

#####Remember here that there exists not one valid proof for the existence of Allah, neither in the Quran nor anywhere else - MANY claims, but not one single valid proof. And perhaps as revealing: There does not exist one single proved trace from a book like the Quran, a religion like Islam, or a god like Allah anywhere in the world older than 610 AD, when Muhammad started his mission. Again MANY claims, but not one single proved case. The best proof for this is Islam`s silence about proofs - and remember that "A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion"

Some other quotes about proofs and invalid or made up proofs:

  1. "Strong claims need strong proofs.
  2. "A claim without a proof may be dismissed without a proof".
  3. "Claims are cheap, but only proofs are proofs".
  4. "The use of invalid proofs normally proves that something is fishy".
  5. "The cheat or deceiver naturally must rely on claims pretending to be facts or proofs".
  6. "A made up "proof" makes the man very suspect".
  7. "A strong belief is not a proof - not necessarily even a truth"
  8. .
  9. "Wrong claims and invalid "proofs" are working tools of the cheat".
  10. "A student with correct facts gets a more correct answer than 20 professors with wrong facts". (Invalid, "signs", claims, "proofs", etc. of course are wrong facts.)
  11. And we may add from Peer Gynt in his original language: "Naar utgangspunktet er som galest, blir resultatet tidt originalest" - freely translated: "When you conclude from wrong claims/wrong facts/invalid "proofs/etc., you get wrong conclusions". Or may be more correct:"The more wrong your "facts" are, the more wrong your conclusions".

775 50/43c: "- - - to Us (Allah*) is the Final Goal (at the Day of Doom*)". Often claimed, never documented - like nearly everything central in the Quran.

776 51/36a: "- - - found not there (Sodom and Gomorrah*) any just (Muslim) persons - - -". This was some 2500 years before Muhammad. You are free to believe there could be Muslims in Sodom and Gomorrah, and that f.x. Lot and for that case Abraham were Muslims. But neither science nor Islam has found any traces of Muslims or Islam or a book similar to the Quran older than 610 AD when Muhammad started his preaching - and with the exception of the belief in Yahweh (some points similar to Allah) also nothing remotely similar to Islam.

##777 51/47c: “- - - it is We (Allah*) Who created the vastness of space.” Here is a point which should be checked: According to one of our sources, the word which is used in Arab is “samaa” which means “sky”, whereas the Arab word for “universe” or “space” is “al-kawn”. Dishonesty tells so very much about Islam and (dis)honesty even today, and we find half truths or cases of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) too often in Islamic media/books (though we had originally not expected it from a man like Yusuf Ali). Our source also is strengthened by the fact that Muhammad Asad (A51/30) admits that the literal meaning of the Arab texts is "the sky" - see 51/47d just below - so it seems to be true that the translation of the Quran here is falsified.

Sources we reckon to be reliable, also says that the Arab word for universe in the modern meaning, (al-kawn) is not at all used anywhere in the entire Quran. Also see 51/47d just below.)

There is some difference between the sky and the universe. Dishonesty like this you find a little too often in Islam.

778 52/17-24: A description of life in Muhammad's Paradise: Good food, good drinks, lazy life, houris/lots of sex (for men), your children around you (how is that possible as there will be hundred generations?), luxury, servants, etc., etc., like a royal life in the dreams of poor, naive, and primitive warriors - - - and universes away from Yahweh's Paradise, where you "will become like the angels (Mark 12/25). Yahweh and Allah the same god? - no chance!! One of the at least 200% proofs.

779 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.

And not least: Muhammad himself in the Quran told he was unable to make prophesies/"see the unseen", and that he had no supernatural power.

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.

780 53/4: "It (the surahs*) is no less than inspiration sent down to him (Muhammad*) - - -". May be true, but from whom? - not from a god with all those mistakes. Then may be from a sick brain (f.x. TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy - like modern medical science suspects)? From dark forces - like parts of the contents of the Quran may indicate? From a cold brain? - few things are as easy as claimed "inspiration" to manipulate. The word "inspiration" also never is used in such connection in the Bible. On the contrary the Bible stated that Yahweh used direct contact, visions, or dreams (4. Mos. 12/6-8). One more indication for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

#####We also quote science: "It takes the belief of a Muslim to be able to believe the texts in the Quran are of such a quality that they prove the book is from a god". It also takes the belief of a Muslim not to see the irony if you combine the claim that the texts in the Quran is of such a quality that they prove divine origin, with the many claims that the texts often are so unclear or with the "real" meaning so hidden that wise humans have to "explain" what the god "really" meant, because the clumsy god unluckily has used words and expressions which "look like" errors - in a book which itself tells it is very clear and easy and to be understood literally, and a book which itself tells that "only the sick or heart look for hidden meanings" (3/7) - hidden meanings only Allah in case are able to see and understand (3/7).

781 53/5a: "He (Muhammad*) was taught by one Mighty in Power (Allah*)". Wrong. No god ever was the teacher of so many mistakes, so many contradictions, so many cases of wrong logic, so many cases of unclear language, etc.

Well, on thinking it over: If the dark forces exist, also they are a mighty power.

#782 53/11b: “The (Prophet’s (Muhammad’s*)) (mind and) heart in no way falsified that which he saw.” If the Quran is fundamentally different from the Bible, and the Bible is not falsified according to science (and unintentionally also according to Islam) – in spite of Islam’s not documented claims - what explanations are then left for the differences between f.x. what Muhammad claimed the Bible said and what it really said? This simply is one of Muhammad's many, many never proved claims - he never was able to prove anything at all concerning the main point of his religion.

783 55/2: “It is He (Allah*) Who has taught the Quran.” No omniscient god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran. See 13/1g, 40/75, and others.

784 55/56a: "In them (the gardens of Paradise*) will be (Maidens), restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before has touched". A nice Paradise for primitive men - women do not count much in the Quran - but totally different from Yahweh's Paradise - only this verse proves so formidable difference to Yahweh's Paradise, that this alone proves that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. (see f. x. Luke 20/36, not to mention: "For the Kingdom of God/Yahweh is not a matter of eating and drinking (or sex*) - - -", (Rom.14/17). And also not to mention: "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Mark 12/25)) that this alone proves Yahweh and Allah cannot be the same god - and then there are all the other differences in addition.

If Yahweh and Allah had been the same god, their Paradise had been one and the same.

785 56/7+10b: “(At the Day of Doom) ye shall be sorted out in three classes - - - And those Foremost (in Faith) will be the Foremost (in the Hereafter).” The best Muslims – and that of course include the fiercest fighters – will go to the best places in Heaven, and also nearest to Allah. Of the rest the ones sorted to the right will go to the lower quality parts of Heaven, whereas the ones sorted to the left will go to Hell. (A small curiosity here: In the old Arabia right was reckoned to be the “good” side and left the “bad” side. Is it a coincidence that the omniscient god for the entire world sorted the dead ones according to customs and rules in after all tiny Arabia on Earth?)

786 56/95d: "- - - the very truth and certainty - - -". Our experience is that the cheater, etc. are the ones without true facts, but who strongest insists on that certainly he is telling the very truth (others often have real facts or proofs to show for themselves).

787 57/21d: "- - - believe in Allah and His messengers (included Muhammad*) - - -". A somewhat strengthened variety of Muhammad's standard, but never proved mantra for gluing himself to his god and his platform of power; Self-centered. Selfish?

####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.

788 57/25a: "We (Allah*) sent aforetime Our messengers - - -". The Quran claims that Allah has sent prophets to all people through all times preaching Islam - included the old Jewish prophets(!) - but that the teaching has been falsified or superseded by false religions. The Hadiths mentions the number 124ooo (= 620 at any time for 5ooo years or 12-15 for 160ooo-200ooo. No traces found. Believe it if you can.) prophets/messengers, and the "real" number must be even higher. Except for the old Jewish ones and Muhammad, neither science nor Islam has been able to find the slightest traces from any of them.

###789 57/27c: This is one of the serious ones: “- - - (Allah*) bestowed on him (Jesus*) the Gospel - - -”. For one thing is seems that Muhammad did not know there were 4 Gospels - he always used singular. Worse is that the Gospels were all written after his (Jesus') death. Muslims try to “save the day” by insisting that Allah used another Gospel which is now disappeared - a standard way for Muslims to “explain” difficult points, and as normal without documentation. But in this case they may even be right - there may have existed an older one (the possible original for 3 of the known Gospels). The bad news is that we know that if it ever existed, also that one was written after Jesus was dead, because a Gospel is the story of Jesus’ life and death, resurrection, and ascension to Heaven, and it could not be written until after this had happened (and that possible Gospel in case means that there is even shorter time between Jesus and the first written Gospels - and thus even more reliable). Muslims also never mention the other possible explanation for why the 3 are so similar: That the oldest have been model for the two others. (In this case there was no older Gospel they partly copied.)

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left - and remember here that the Quran (21/91) confirms that Jesus was for all peoples, (and in 19/19 that he was holy, which Muhammad definitely was not)). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses and the Jewish prophets) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and this on top of the fact that Abraham like mentioned did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran claims. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

############And not least: We know that from as far back as written history goes, and from archeology, etc. even further back, the Mosaic religion was the religion of the Jews, that NT was the religion of Christians - and not least that there nowhere or any time before 610 AD is found even traces from a god like the Muslim Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or messengers preaching Islam.

THERE IS ONE MORE STRONG FACT CONNECTED TO JESUS AND THE OTHER OLD JEWISH PROPHETS: ACCORDING TO THE QURAN THEY ALL WERE GOD MUSLIMS - AN IMPOSSIBILITY IF THEIR CLAIMED HOLY BOOKS FROM ALLAH WERE FALSIFIED. THUS THE CLAIMED FALSIFICATION OF ALSO OT CANNOT HAVE HAPPENED UNTIL AFTER JESUS (F.X. EZRA COULD NOT HAVE FALSIFIED OT, LIKE SOME MUSLIMS CLAIM - IF HE HAD, JESUS HAD RECEIVED WRONG INFORMATION AND HAD BEEN NO GOOD MUSLIM). THIS IN ADDITION TO THAT THE BOOKS WERE SENT DOWN (DIRECTLY) FROM ALLAH TO THE PROPHETS, ACCORDING TO THE QURAN, AND ERRORS IN THEM THEREFORE SHOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. ALL THE OLD GOOD MUSLIM PROPHETS INCLUDED JESUS THUS MUST HAVE HAD CORRECT HOLY BOOKS - THE OLD JEWISH SCRIPTURES/OT. IF NOT F.X. JESUS HAD BEEN TEACHING WRONG THINGS, WHICH HE DID NOT DO ACCORDING TO THE QURAN (and if the scrolls he read from in the synagogues had differed from what he received from Heaven, he had told about it - if not he was a bad Muslim).. THE ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION HERE IS THAT ALSO NO PART OF THE OLD SCRIPTURES - OT - CAN HAVE BEEN FALSIFIED UNTIL AFTER JESUS TIME.

B U T T H E R E E X I S T P L E N T Y O F M A N U S C R I P T S A N D F R A G M E N T S O L D E N O U G H T O P R O V E T H A T O T W A S N O T S I M I L A R T O T H E Q U R A N A T T H A T T I M E !!! I T W A S S I M I L A R T O T H E S C R I P T U R E S O F T O D A Y !!! F. X. T H E Q U M R A N S C R O L L S F R O M 1 5 0 - 5 0 B. C.

In addition there is the problem: How in case make Jews and Christians agree on what new texts to use when they falsified (parts of) the Quran into OT??? And how to make ALL Jews spread over large parts of the world without protests accept the new and falsified holy scriptures - and destroy all the old copies so thoroughly that not one piece of any of them has been found later? This in addition to the claimed falsification of NT and all the impossibilities and improbabilities which have to be "explained" away concerning the claimed falsification of NT.

T H I S I S O N E O F T H E C L A I M S M U H A M M A D M A D E U P.

790 57/29d: "For Allah is the Lord of Grace abounding". One more of the never proved claims in the Quran. As for claims it might have been possible to accept that some of them simply were tales telling how things were/are, but only if at least some of them were proved true so that the reliability was confirmed here and there. But when nothing is proved or documented - nothing at all of the central claims - things feel wrong, and this even more so as to rely on tales and fast talk and evade or being unable to prove anything, are hallmarks of cheats, deceivers and swindlers.

791 58/22a: “Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and his Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or kindred.” Really bad people it should not be loved. This sentence deserves no comment, but it is an all too common one in sects where the leaders want full control over their followers.

###792 59/4a: "That (see 59/2a, 59/2d, 59/3a above) is because they resisted Allah and his Messenger (Muhammad) - - -". This is very interesting information, because practically all Muhammad's armed conflicts were because of aggression from the Muslims - even Badr, Uhud, and The Trench were defense battles in a war of aggression started and kept alive by Muhammad and his raids against caravans, etc. Also in this case it seems that Banu al-Nadir had not helped an enemy, but they had not helped Muhammad, and they were negative to him and Muhammad found an excuse to attack (NB: Most Muslims honestly believe Banu al-Nadir helped some enemy, because that is what they are told). Thus what Muhammad really is saying here, is that it is prohibited to defend yourself from his/Islam's aggression and raids for money and slaves, or other aggression.

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

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

793 59/21c: “Had We (Allah*) sent down this Quran on a mountain, verily, thou (Muslims*) wouldst have seen it humble itself and cleave itself asunder for fear of Allah”. Rocks do not only understand what is happening, but also have enough brain to be afraid. Animism - something you normally find in primitive pagan religions and in fairy tales - a fact we just "propound to men, that they may reflect".

####794 59/23c: (YA5402): Here we just want to quote “The Meaning of the Holy Quran”: “How can a translator reproduce the sublimity and the comprehensiveness of the magnificent Arabic words, which means so much in a single symbol?” ###But this is just another and glorified way of saying: “How can one translate from a language where the words are so little precise and so vague in meaning, that it is difficult to know what is really meant”.

PS: According to linguists Arab just is a medium difficult language to translate.

795 59/23m: "Glory to Allah!" Please read 1/1a above and see if you think he deserves it - if he exists.

796 60/1i: "If ye (Muslims*) have come out to strive (normally in the Quran = war (there are a few possible exceptions)) in My (Allah's*) Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them (non-Muslims*) not as friends)". A clear message and order.

797 61/1d: "- - - He (Allah*) is the Exalted in Might - - -". He in case never clearly has proved it. Never in the entire history or prehistory - (remember here: The never documented Islamic claim that Allah = Yahweh is wrong - the teachings are fundamentally too different and the differences cannot be explained by Islam’s also never proved claims about falsification of the Bible, as science has proved this to be untrue.

798 61/1e: “- - - (Allah is*) the Wise.” Not if he is behind the Quran.

**799 61/4c: “Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array as if they were a solid cemented structure”. Muslims claiming the Quran confirms the Bible, have never tried to find sentences like this in NT. This is one of the at least 200% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - not to mention that Jesus and Muhammad are not in the same line of anything at all of any consequence. Antipodes is a suitable word for most of the essential facts of their lives and teachings.

***800 61/6d: “- - - (Jesus said*) I am the Messenger of Allah - - -”. Contradicted by the Bible and by reality. If Jesus had said something like this about the known polytheistic god al-Lah from a not too distant foreign country, for one thing he had not got many followers, and for another: The clergy had at once had an excuse for having him killed – and long before they really did. This verse is composed by someone not knowing the religious and political realities in Israel around 30 AD. Similar claims in 4/157 - 5/72 – 5/117. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

####But remember that we now are in times of written history. There were no book like the Quran, no god like Allah, and no religion like Islam anywhere in or near the Roman Empire (of which Israel was a part) at the time of Jesus - not until more than 600 years later. But we know for sure that at that time Yahweh and the Mosaic religion ruled the Jews. The Quran is very wrong here - documented by written history.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left - and remember here that the Quran (21/91) confirms that Jesus was for all peoples, (and in 19/19 that he was holy, which Muhammad definitely was not)). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses and the Jewish prophets) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and this on top of the fact that Abraham like mentioned did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran claims. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

############And not least: We know that from as far back as written history goes, and from archeology, etc. even further back, the Mosaic religion was the religion of the Jews, that NT was the religion of Christians - and not least that there nowhere or any time before 610 AD is found even traces from a god like the Muslim Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or messengers preaching Islam.

THERE IS ONE MORE STRONG FACT CONNECTED TO JESUS AND THE OTHER OLD JEWISH PROPHETS: ACCORDING TO THE QURAN THEY ALL WERE GOD MUSLIMS - AN IMPOSSIBILITY IF THEIR CLAIMED HOLY BOOKS FROM ALLAH WERE FALSIFIED. THUS THE CLAIMED FALSIFICATION OF ALSO OT CANNOT HAVE HAPPENED UNTIL AFTER JESUS (F.X. EZRA COULD NOT HAVE FALSIFIED OT, LIKE SOME MUSLIMS CLAIM - IF HE HAD, JESUS HAD RECEIVED WRONG INFORMATION AND HAD BEEN NO GOOD MUSLIM). THIS IN ADDITION TO THAT THE BOOKS WERE SENT DOWN (DIRECTLY) FROM ALLAH TO THE PROPHETS, ACCORDING TO THE QURAN, AND ERRORS IN THEM THEREFORE SHOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. ALL THE OLD GOOD MUSLIM PROPHETS INCLUDED JESUS THUS MUST HAVE HAD CORRECT HOLY BOOKS - THE OLD JEWISH SCRIPTURES/OT. IF NOT F.X. JESUS HAD BEEN TEACHING WRONG THINGS, WHICH HE DID NOT DO ACCORDING TO THE QURAN (and if the scrolls he read from in the synagogues had differed from what he received from Heaven, he had told about it - if not he was a bad Muslim).. THE ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION HERE IS THAT ALSO NO PART OF THE OLD SCRIPTURES - OT - CAN HAVE BEEN FALSIFIED UNTIL AFTER JESUS TIME.

B U T T H E R E E X I S T P L E N T Y O F M A N U S C R I P T S A N D F R A G M E N T S O L D E N O U G H T O P R O V E T H A T O T W A S N O T S I M I L A R T O T H E Q U R A N A T T H A T T I M E !!! I T W A S S I M I L A R T O T H E S C R I P T U R E S O F T O D A Y !!! F. X. T H E Q U M R A N S C R O L L S F R O M 1 5 0 - 5 0 B. C.

In addition there is the problem: How in case make Jews and Christians agree on what new texts to use when they falsified (parts of) the Quran into OT??? And how to make ALL Jews and Christians spread over large parts of the world without protests accept the new and falsified holy scriptures - and destroy all the old copies so thoroughly that not one piece of any of them has been found later? This in addition to the claimed falsification of NT and all the impossibilities and improbabilities which have to be "explained" away concerning the claimed falsification of NT.

T H I S I S O N E O F T H E C L A I M S M U H A M M A D M A D E U P.

#####801 61/6e: “- - - (Jesus said that he came for*) confirming the Law (of Moses*) - - -.” What he according to the Bible said, was that he had not come to finish that law, but to fulfill the law and to save souls – which was not the same as he should confirm the old laws or was prohibited from changing them or finish them. What he actually did according both to the Bible and to the Quran, was to change parts of the laws of Moses and a number of other Jewish laws, and according to the Bible (f.x. Luke 22/20), he was making a new covenant between man and Yahweh which itself “de facto” changed or terminated many of those old laws – a covenant Muslims never mention. To find the essence of it, read about “the Last Supper” in the Bible. (There were at least 12 witnesses to that supper, and they told about it to many afterwards.) F.x. Luke 22/20.

But did he really change anything? He said (Matt. 22/37-39): "'Love the Lord your God (Yahweh*) with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind'. This is the first and the greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments". If this is the sum of the law, Jesus did not change the essence of the Law of Moses - he just adjusted some details and strengthened that law, included removing or softening many of the harsh point, etc. (And he changed or terminated a number of younger Jewish laws.)

Also according to the Quran (3/50a) Jesus changed parts of the old laws:

The Quran says in 3/50: "(I (Jesus*) have come to you) to attest the Law (of Moses*) which was before me. ####And to make lawful to you (people*) part of what was (before) forbidden to you - - -". According to this Jesus clearly had the power to change old laws - and he did so. 3/50 also makes it clear that this was one of his purposes.

The Quran says in 3/50: Jesus did "- - - ####make lawful to you parts of what was (before) forbidden to you - - -". A number of the old laws and rules were not necessary any more, and could be omitted or changed.

What he actually did according both to the Bible and to the Quran, was to change or adjust parts of the laws of Moses, and according to the Bible he also was making a new covenant between man and Yahweh which itself “de facto” changed or terminated many of those old laws – a covenant Muslims never mention. To find the essence of it, read about “the Last Supper” in the Bible. (There were at least 12 witnesses to that supper, and they told about it too many afterwards.) F.x. Luke 22/20.

#802 61/6ea: (A61/6) Here is a claim which is nearly as interesting as the claim that the word "Parakletos" (in NT a name for the Holy Spirit) must be "Periklytos" in spite of no proofs for and lots of proofs against the claim - when Islam really need something, the truth and proofs can go whistling a jitterbug. And almost as revealing when it comes to show what arguments - and "honesty" - Islam are willing to resort to "prove" their claims instead of having to face difficult facts. Not a proved fact, only "it must be" because that is the only way Muslims can manage to twist this point. A logical reason or proof from "the Religion of Truth" and al-Taqiyya?

We quote:

"An even more unequivocal prediction of the advent of the Prophet Muhammad - mentioned by name, in its Arabic form - is said to be forthcoming from the so-called Gospel of St. Barnabas (a co-worker with Paul on his first missionary journey), which, though now regarded as apocryphal, was accepted as authentic and was read in the churches until the year 496 of the Christian era, when it was banned as "heretical" by a decree of Pope Gelasius. However, since the original text of that Gospel is no available (having come down to us only in an Italian translation dating from the late sixteenth century), its authenticity cannot be established with certainty (note the wording*)".

There is a number of things we do not know about this "gospel", but most of what is known, is so well known that there is not a chance that a highly educated Muslim scholar does not know it:

  1. The age is not known, but science has found that it cannot have been written earlier than the 8. century.
  2. There are references in old manuscripts to an older letter or something named after Barnabas. It is lost, but it is clear that it had no connection to the claimed "Gospel of Barnabas" and that it was not at all a gospel. It also is not clear if it was real or apocryphal, but likely also this one was apocryphal.
  3. The origin of the "gospel" is not known. One leading theory is that it is one of the many false "Christian" manuscripts produced by Muslims in Spain around the 8. and 9. century to "prove" Islam and "disprove" Christianity. Another is that it was manufactured at the court in Bagdad - in this case it may be as young as the 14. century or even a little later.

  4. One of the very first - if not the first - pieces of information about the "gospel" of Barnabas, was a report from someone who had travelled in Muslim area - North Africa if we remember correctly - which told that "the Muslims had a gospel unknown to the Christian Europe, and which was very different from the ones in the Bible".
  5. It is quite normal for Muslims to talk about the older Barnabas paper as if it were the "gospel" of Barnabas - never mentioning that they were different papers, that the "Gospel" of Barnabas is too young, or that at least the "gospel" and likely both is/were apocryphal (= made up manuscripts).
  6. The Swedish 2002 edition has also this information - strangely enough omitted in the conservatively more "correct" English 2008 edition: "Concerning the - - - translation to Italian (from Arab*), which is kept in the National Library in Vienna, experts there have said they are sure that it is a copy of a work written in late Middle Age (which may indicate that the theory that it is written at the court in Baghdad may be correct*), quite likely with the intention to produce a link, admittedly a made up one, between Christianity and Islam, but without any connection to the real Gospel of Barnabas" (see the comment just above - the old scripture here referred to, was not a Gospel, but it is normal for Muslims to claim things like this*). The interesting aspect here is that it is told that it for one thing is no connection between the old Barnabas scripture and the much younger made up claimed "'Gospel' of Barnabas" and that the claimed "'Gospel' of Barnabas" really is much younger and a made up one - and not only a made up one, but made up for a purpose: To make a link between Christian and Islamic scriptures (making Islam come out on top). This is even more interesting as the claimed "'Gospel' of Barnabas" had a pretty wide circulation in Islamic areas, and is there treated like it was authentic, even though it here is documented that also the Islamic scholars know it is not - a kind of "honesty" you too often find in Islamic religious debate.
  7. Even if this "gospel" had existed and was read in the very old church - if modern science has found it is a made up and false scripture, it was a false scripture also in the old times, and the fact that the old priests in case were cheated, is no argument for that it may be authentic - false is false.
  8. As for predictions in the Bible, there never is given clear names in foretelling into a medium or more distant future (if you protest and remind us about Messiah, Messiah was a title, not a name). But in this claimed "gospel" Muhammad is mentioned by his real, Arabic name - voila! - what a proof for Muhammad and Islam!! (- not very surprising if it is produced by Muslims in Spain or Baghdad or somewhere, wanting to prove Muhammad and his religion in a clumsy and too clear way).

None of these facts are mentioned in the quotation above, even though the facts are so well known that there is no chance a highly educated Muslim scholar working on stuff like this, did not know about it. And all the same the underlying indication in his words is that it is likely his "information" is true, only that it is not possible to prove it.

Are you surprised when we tell that studying Islamic religious literature is difficult and time consuming, because all "information" has to be checked, as too much is untrue or half truths - al-Taqiyyas and Kitmans. The normal rules and moral codes for honesty in religion - or honesty at all - are not accepted in Islam. Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Muhammad's advices about breaking even of oaths if that gave better results, etc. in many cases overrides normal expectations for honesty, and especially when it comes to defending or promoting Islam (but also when it f. x. comes to cheating a woman - which women should remember, especially if their "sweetheart" is a Muslim needing work permit or a "Green Card" or a residence permit (Muslim divorce is simple after he has got it) - or saving your money).

"The Religion of Honesty".

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

#####803 61/6f: “- - - (Jesus said: I am*) giving the Glad Tiding of a Messenger to come after Me, whose name shall be Ahamad (another form of the name Muhammad*) - - -”. This is quite a funny verse, as you meet Muslims who insist it is copied from the Bible. Worse: You find it quoted in books like it was from the Bible, without a word about the fact that it only is to be found in the Quran. But there is not anything remotely like this in the Bible, and neither in the some 13ooo relevant scriptures or fragments found through the times older than 610 AD – included some 300 from the Gospels, and also not in the some 32ooo other relevant known manuscripts older than 610 AD (when Muhammad started his preaching) with quotes from the Bible. #####It is only to be found in the Quran. #####Also you do not find a single case in OT where a prophesy about distant future mentions a clear name (sometimes title or something, but never a clear name). But here - o wonder! - is most conveniently the unmistakable name given - an Arab version of the name Muhammad even!

This surah is from 625 or 626 AD. At this time Muhammad knew or at least could check the facts about this. In addition an intelligent man like Muhammad would have known that if he really was mentioned in the Bible, someone had told him quickly to humor him. Besides: If Muhammad really had believed he was mentioned in the Bible, he had used this as a proof for his proof for his mission each and every time somebody had asked or challenged him. This is nearly the only time he mentions such a claim. He simply knew there was nothing like this in the Bible. This either is a bluff or an al-Taqiyya - and also a bluff is a lie. (There is not one word in the Bible about a later prophet - a piece of information too essential to omit from that book, if it had been true.)

#########"The only place Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, is in the Quran". A most ironic and to the point sentence.

And it is worth remembering that it is quite common for makers of new sects or religions to connect themselves to a mother religion and bend that one some to fit one's purpose - or even high-jack (parts of) it. The founder of the Amaddijja-Muslims is really one of the latest examples, and Mormons tell Jesus visited America during his last days on earth. Such things give roots, credence and weight to a movement.

Jesus told his disciples that the Holy Spirit (also named the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of the Lord, or only the Spirit, etc. – like Allah and like Muhammad it has more than one name) should come shortly - which it did. And he told he himself should return once upon a time “to judge the living and the dead“. But not a single word about any other - and not to mention one with a foreign name the Jews would question.

We know of one place where Muhammad is mentioned: In the Barnabas Gospel - a most apocryphal (made up) book - according to one of our sources it may even be written at the caliph’s court in Baghdad (not very strange if it then mentions Muhammad), but it also may be one of the many falsifications made by Muslims in Spain from around 800 AD on. You need to make up proofs only if you have no real ones. Muslims sometimes tell you this “gospel” is a real one.

But the standard explanation Muslims follow - without proofs: The Bible is falsified and names indicating Muhammad taken out by bad conspiracies - people in that area has a strong tendency to look for and believe in conspiracy theories (We have a private theory that the reason is that they never in their history have been used to relatively reliable information). But in that case:

  1. The life of the first Christians had been entirely different - and their time scale had been entirely different if any of them had heard about another prophet to be expected before the return of Jesus “to judge the living and the dead”. (They would know the return of Jesus would take much longer time than they now believed, to give the “prophet” time to work. They thought Jesus would be back in a short time - some years.)
  2. The contents of the NT had been different - not least the letters had been different. It simply is a fairy tale made up to strengthen Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet - like some other self-proclaimed prophets. (Rather ironic, as he did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies – he did not even claim or pretend he had it – he was no real prophet. A messenger for someone or something perhaps, but not a real prophet).

We also remind you that both science and Islam strongly have proved that the Bible is not falsified - some errors, but not one proved falsification.

  1. The Muslims only back their claim on one Greek word used in the Bible: “parakletos” which means “helper” – Jesus before he left Earth, promised to send his disciples a helper – the Holy Spirit (which arrived some days later – at Whitsun - according to the Bible (a story that is not negated in the Quran)).
  2. Islam claims “parakletos” is a misspelling for another Greek word “periklytos”, which means “the highly praised”. In Aramaic “the highly praised” means “Mawhamana” of which the second part of that word as a verb is “hamida” (= to praise) and as a noun “hamd” (law or praise). If you then continue to Arab the names Muhammad and Ahmad (another version of the name Muhammad (61/6, 7/157 (no name) - but ONLY claimed in the Quran)) both derives from “hamida” or “hamd” according to Islam. Which to Islam and all Muslims is a strong proof for that “parakletos” in reality is misspelled and means “Muhammad” in the Gospel after John (f. x. John 14/16). Not a very convincing proof to say the least of it – and in addition:
  3. The word “periklytos” that Islam claims is misspelled – the only possibility they have to get the answer they want and desperately need (they need it desperately, because the Quran clearly tells that Muhammad is foretold also in the NT - - - and he is not there) – does not exist at all in the Bible, not to mention in the NT. It is not used one single time.
  4. The word “periklytos” also is not found one single time in any of the some 13ooo relevant manuscripts and fragments science knows from before 610 AD. Neither in one single place or time, nor in one single of the many manuscripts.
  5. li>Worse: Neither is it found in any of the some 300 copies or fragments of Gospels older than 610 AD or in other manuscripts referring to the Gospels.
  6. Neither is it found in quotes from the Bible found in some 32ooo other old manuscripts.
  7. The word “periklytos” simply never was used in the old scriptures that became the Bible. The word that is used everywhere is “parakletos” – “helper” (and a helper was what the disciples needed). This goes for each and every known copy.
  8. Beside: How could it be possible to falsify – as Islam claims – the same word the same way in thousands and tens or hundreds of thousands of manuscripts – and how to find each and every “periklytos” in each and every of the many different manuscripts – spread over all those countries? – and on top of all: In a time with little travel and hardly any media. Islam has a tough job proving their claim – and remember: It is the ones making claims that have to prove them, not others to disprove it. This often is forgotten when Muslims throw loose claims and statements around.
  9. There also are huge numbers (some 32ooo) of non-religious manuscripts or fragments which refer to the Bible. Whenever this word pops up in those manuscripts it without exception is written "parakletos". Islam must explain how it was possible to find and to falsify all these papers, and not least how it was possible to erase the ink and write another word in such a way that it is impossible for modern science to find traces of falsifications.
  10. Arabs think it is logical that parakletos and periklytos may be mixed – in the old Arab alphabet and scriptures this just meant that someone had guessed the not written vowels wrong. But not so for Greek, as Greek already and a long time before had a complete alphabet where all letters were written. This kind of misspelling therefore is not logical in Greek.(NT was originally written in Greek.)
  11. They also sometimes claim the Gospels were written in Aramaic, and that the misspelling happened before it was translated to Greek. This in spite of that even Muslim scholars know the Gospels originally were written in Greek, and that this "explanation" is a made up one.

  12. Muslims try to explain that it could not be a question of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit already was present. And the Holy Spirit was present or visited Jesus. But it was not part of the disciples – and that was what happened at Whitsun according to the Bible: They each got personal contact with the Spirit, and that is quite a change of a situation.
  13. Muslims also say that as two different names for the Spirit is used (the Spirit of Truth and the Holy Spirit (you actually also have the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God (1. Mos. 1/2), the Spirit of the Lord, and only the Spirit)) it proves that John does not mean the Holy Spirit, when he uses the name “the Spirit of truth” – “the Spirit of truth” must mean the Muhammad who lies to his followers in the Quran (“miracles will make no-one believe”, f.x.) and advised his people to even break their oaths if that gave a better result. In addition to all the other wrong logic here, this claim is just as logical as to claim that the 99 names of Allah means there are 99 different gods, or the 200 or more names of Muhammad means there were 200 or more of him. The spirit simply is named by different names (at least 6) – and in addition it is absolutely clear that in the entire Bible there only is one spirit with a special connection to Yahweh.
  14. There only is one conclusion – the conclusion science has made long ago – possible to make in this: This Islamic claim – like many others – either is a lie (an al-Taqiyya?) or wishful thinking. And still “the raisin in the sausage” is not mentioned:
  15. Jesus promised his disciples a helper – a parakletos. If he had meant Muhammad, how could Muhammad be their helper when they were all dead 500 years before he was even born?? It simply is nonsense or wishful thinking.
  16. Further the spirit according to the same verses in the Bible that Muslims quote, could not be seen. Muhammad was not difficult to see.
  17. And another “raisin”: Also in the same verses it is said that the Spirit should be with them forever. Muhammad definitely was not with them forever – he was not even with them.
  18. Not to mention: How do you make Jews and Christians agree on what and how to falsify in the Bible? - f.x. the foretelling about Messiah/Jesus? - and when did they do it? Muslims like to blame Nicaea, but for one thing the agenda for that meeting is well known, and "adjustments" of the Bible was not even mentioned (but some Muslims in 2009 or 2010 screamed that they could prove that 56 points (if we remember the number correctly) in the Bible had been changed at that meeting - the word "proofs" sometimes come easy to some Muslims), and as bad: There was not one single representative for the Mosaic (Jewish) religion present. (Besides the differences between the Bible and the Quran are so many and so fundamental, that 56 falsifications had been just a droplet in the Pacific.)
  19. In the thousands of manuscripts older than 610 AD - the first point of time when Christians - and also the Jews - could get a reason for such a falsification - how was it possible to erase the word periklytos with the primitive means of that time, and fill in the word parakletos instead, in such a way that modern science is unable to find physical traces from the erasing, unable to find chemical differences in the ink that was used, and unable to see any difference of the letters (all people write differently)?
  20. The Bible has 4-5 times as much text as the Quran. One has to use the same writing material, and only that, because - what they did not know - today we easily can find the age of the writing material. In the two books there only is one sentence - six words in Psalm 37/29 - which is identical = everything had to be erased and written again. How to write 4-5 times as much texts on the same parchment, papyrus or whatever?
  21. Where smaller quotes in other relevant scriptures had to be falsified: How to place on average 4-5 times as much texts on a patch of erased "paper" and still use the same size so as not to show that "here is something wrong"?
  22. When falsifying, how to make the handwriting identical to the old one?
  23. When falsifying, how to get exactly the same ink? - differences are easy to see today.

  24. How to find each and every scripture and letter on 3 continents to falsify?
  25. How to make each and every owner accept to have their cherished holy papers and books falsified?
  26. How afterwards make them believe in scriptures they knew were falsified?
  27. How to find enough scribes to do such an enormous job? - it f.x. takes months just to handwrite one Bible.

  28. Who paid for this enormous operation? - the church of those times was not very rich.
  29. How to perform such an enormous operation without starting tongues wagging and cause owners to hide their holy scriptures to save them from such destruction?
  30. Hoe to perform such an enormous operation without one single historian got a whiff about it and noticed something?
  31. Search and you will find more such hopeless questions.
  32. There only is one conclusion – the conclusion science has made long ago – possible to make is this: This Islamic claim – like many others – either is a lie (an al-Taqiyya?) or wishful thinking. Well, one more: This whole scenario is a hopelessly naive "explanation". Muhammad also never tried to explain thing, he only stated the claim - many times. And people believed it!!
  33. AND THERE IS ONE MORE VERY STRONG FACT: ISLAM HAS NEVER FOUND ONE SINGLE PROVED FALSIFICATION IN THE BIBLE.

Wishful thinking? – or a bluff? – or a lie/al-Taqiyya? At least science long ago as mentioned has proved from the old manuscripts that it is not true – the Bible never was falsified. Worse: Islam has proved the same because they, too, have been unable to find such a proved falsification in spite of intensive searching. (But Islam HAS to find him somewhere there, if not the Quran is wrong on this for Islam very essential point - and then something is seriously wrong with Islam). Also see 7/157.

(We should mention that also the apocryphal (made up) “Gospel of Barnabas” sometimes still is used as an argument, because there Muhammad is clearly mentioned (no surprise if the theory that it is made at the court in Baghdad is correct. The same if it is one of the many Islamic forgeries from Spain from around 800 AD and somewhat later). The sorry fact, though, is that a made up gospel is a made up gospel (there are a number of them) – and it tells something about Islam’s lack of arguments that they continue to insist that may be it is not made up, and therefore is a proof for Muhammad, when science is unanimous: It is one of the false ones. The only thing the “Gospel of Barnabas” in reality proves, is that Islam has no real documentation for their claim that Muhammad is mentioned in the NT, as they have to resort to this kind of argumentation).

And the most solid proof for that the Bible is not falsified, comes from Islam itself. If they had found one single solid proof for falsification of the Bible among all the many thousands of old manuscripts that exist, THEY HAD SCREAMED TO HOLY HEAVEN ABOUT IT – and no-one has till now heard such a scream – not even after 1400 years!!!.

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

###804 61/6i: (YA5436): "The mission of Jesus was to his own people, the Jews". This is a claim you often and with strength meet from many Muslims and from the official Islam - and it is quite possible to find quotes from the Bible seemingly confirming this claim - - - if you cherry-pick your quotes and omit the points which very clearly tell a different story, the most central of which in this connection we think is his final order to his disciples - never mentioned by Muslims or by Islam: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father (God/Yahweh*) and of the Son (Jesus*) and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you". (Matt.28/18-20 - similar in Mark 16/15-16 and Luke 24/47. There are more such indications in the Bible - even a few in OT. But in Islam the main "moral aspect" is not to find the truth, but to defend what they on beforehand believe is the truth, even by means of lies and by lies of omission - the reign of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), etc. in cases where "it is necessary" to win the "points" - not to find out what is the truth, but to win the "points".

Some Muslims use the argument that Jesus only worked in Israel ("forgetting" about Samaria). But in the same way Muhammad only worked in Arabia. But even the Quran one place tells that Jesus was a sign for the world.

**805 61/9b: “It is He (Allah*) Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad*) with Guidance - - -”. A teaching based on a book containing unbelievable perhaps 3ooo+ mistakes, loose statements, contradictions, invalid “signs” and “proofs” + at least some clear lies + statements telling that Muhammad did not respect even his oaths too much (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the stare 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), is not much of a guidance.

#####806 61/9f: “- - - the Religion of Truth - - -”. See 13/1g and 40/75. It is also worth to remember that normal people of today - and earlier times – would be reluctant with trusting or believing in a man with a CV like Islam tells Muhammad had: Robbery, extortion, women, lies, broken oaths, incitement to hate, incitement to suppression of all opponents, assassination of opponents, murder of opponents, mass murder, rape, betrayal, (30 opponents from Khaybar invited to debate under promise of safe return - but 29 murdered on the slightest excuse, the last one managed to flee), incitement to war - and lust for women and for power. We have met Muslims excusing him with that he was a hard man living in a hard time, and that he was no worse than other warlords. May be so, but he definitely was no better either, and he pretended (?) to represent a good and benevolent god. And as for the truth - the Quran at best is partly true, as proved by all the errors, etc. in the book.

That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact - actually all the errors, etc. in it prove the claim wrong. Besides: Islam is the only one of the big religions accepting the use of dishonesty in many cases - yes, even advices you to use it "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion.

For errors, etc. - included at least some lies - see "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran", Book A. How much in the Quran are truth and how much is not? There normally is a difference between propaganda and reality.

And not least: Islam is the only one of the big religions which by means of all the mistakes, contradictions, etc. proves that no god is behind its claimed holy book, and thus no god behind the religion - and thus that things are seriously wrong with the religion: A religion without a god behind it, is a made up and pagan religion.

(For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is "The Religion of Honesty.)

807 61/11c: “That ye (people*) believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: that will be best for you, if ye but knew!” Strongly contradicted by the Bible. The Quran simply is the anti-thesis of the teaching of Jesus and NT. One of the 200% proof for that Jesus and Muhammad had nothing of any essence in common - in spite of a couple of verses from NT Muslims like to quote (they claim that you cannot draw any conclusions from just one or a few verses in the Quran - you have to look at the complete book - but they themselves cherry-pick the few words in the Bible, and damn be the picture the complete book gives - - - this even if they have to twist the cherry-picked words they find to be able to use them (f.x. the word "brother" in the speech by Moses (5. Mos. 18/2+15+18+21 - well, Muslims never quote but 18/15+18 and then twist the word "brother")). Not to mention how strongly it proves that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

###808 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. 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. (This background in addition to that several things points to that he knew both how to read and to write.)

Not to forget: Hadiths indicate in at least 2 connections that Muhammad knew how to 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 use of such claims and "arguments" prove, is that Muslims have no real arguments. If they had had, they would not have to use stupidity and dishonesty like this for "proofs".

809 62/5a: "The similitude of those (Jews*) who were charged with the (obligations of the) Mosaic Law, but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes (but understands them not". And if the Quran is not from a god, is it a good similitude to compare Muslims with a man carrying a heavy burden of stones, believing he is carrying gold because someone has painted them golden and made him believe and buy it at a high price? - or a horrible price if there somewhere is a real god Islam is prohibiting him to look for.

810 62/5b: "The similitude of those (Jews*) who were charged with the (obligations of the) Mosaic Law, but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes (but understands them not)". A much better story for Muhammad to tell than to admit the plain truth: The real reason was that most Jews saw something was very wrong in Muhammad's tales.

811 62/5i: "- - - Allah guides not people who do wrong". Sizable parts of the Quran’s moral code are obviously wrong - easy to see for anyone who is not indoctrinated that the immoral parts are good moral - easy to see if you compare it to the "gold standard": "Do against others like you want others do against you". The same go for some parts of the sharia laws. Are then Muslims living according to the mentioned parts, not guided by a god?

812 64/1a: “Whatever is in the heavens (plural and wrong*)and on earth, doth declare the praise and glory of Allah - - -”. No. 62/1a above is cemented. Besides: It is said "whatever", not "whoever" = animism and/or anthropomorphism. (You meet this some places in the Quran. Animism and anthropomorphism you normally meet in primitive religions and in fairy tales.)

##813 64/1e: (A64/1): "- - - all human beings are endowed with the instinctive ability to perceive the existence of the Creator - - -". This is so stupid a claim that it is not even wrong - it is plain imbecility. It also is totally un-scientific - no scientist has till this day found even traces of such an ability. It is a pure al-Taqiyya (lawful lie - something you only find in Islam of the big religions), likely dictated by the fact that Islam has not one single valid proof for its god (lots and lots of claims, but not one real proof - and the word of a man like Muhammad is not much worth), and they are groping for handholds where they can - if you go looking, you will find a number of such invalid claims about indications for a god in Islamic literature. There is a drive or a need for something strong - a god - in a minor part of humanity (may be 5 - 10% of the population). But no-one - included science and included Islam - have ever found even traces of an ability in man to perceive a god.

It also is a fact that small children easily accept the claim that there is religion behind reality - but any religion, not a special one or a special god. But that is it.

Islam has not one single proof for Allah. But they feel the need for one, and use many "clever" ways to try to find something. One recurring claim is this that human instinct can feel/perceive/have knowledge about the god. This is one of the cases.

The only two things such wishful thinking proves, is that Muslims feel the need for proofs for their claimed god very strongly - so strongly that they forget to use their brain. And it proves that they have no such proof - if they had, they would use that proof instead of using more or less occultism and wishful dreams for "arguments".

814 64/12d: "- - - the duty of Our (Allah's*) Messenger (Muhammad*) is but to proclaim (the Message) clearly and openly". You bet that this verse was abrogated and killed when he - and his successors - became military strong enough to force Islam on the "infidels"!!! - especially on the pagans, but there also are many ugly stories of treatment of Jews and Christians - "Let there be no compulsion in religion" also is an abrogated verse, except in al-Taqiyya-dominated propaganda (well, some of the lay Muslims may perhaps honestly believe it, but not one single Muslim scholar - among them the verses which abrogate this one - and f.x. 2/256 - are too well known (f. x. 9/5, but there are some 30 different verses which each and every of them abrogate 2/256 - all the same all Muslims use it as a flagship for how tolerant Islam is).

##815 64/16a: "- - - fear Allah - - -". Why? - unless he exists and is something supernatural? Nothing of which has ever been proved. Not one single time has Allah manifested himself or done anything which clearly is his work. There only is the tales of a man with provable (in f.x. the Quran) dubious moral, a man who provably (f.x. in the Quran) believed in the use of dishonesty and even broken oaths, a man who liked (easy to see f.x. in the Quran) power, riches for more power, and women, and a man who used (easy to see f.x. in the Quran) his god and religion as his platform of power - like many a self proclaimed "prophet" have done throughout the times, and do even today.

816 64/17d: "- - - He will grant you (Muslims*) Forgiveness - - -". There only are two who can forgive: The victim and a god. Is Allah a god - - - if he exists?

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 is something nobody and nothing can make him do. See 2/187d above.

817 65/12e: "- - - Allah has power over all things - - ". He in case never has proved this power.

#####818 66/2a: "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases)- - -". According to other places in the Quran, the cases when you can break your oat without sinning, are:

  1. Oaths you have given without really meaning them.
  2. Oaths where you later see you will get a more satisfactory result if you break your oat. In serious cases, though, you should pay a "fine" - expiation - to Allah to be forgiven".
  3. #####To defend or promote Islam, you should disuse also oaths "if necessary" to succeed.

Also see 2/225, 3/54, 5/89,and 16/91 above.

Can anyone please tell us what remains of trustworthiness of a Muslim's words and oaths - especially when you add to this al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), permitted deceit, and permitted betrayals? - f.x. his point of view that "war is deceit" (and everything is war). And much worse in this case: WHAT REMAINS OF MUHAMMAD'S TRUSTWORTHINESS - NOT TO MENTION THE QURAN'S TRUSTWORTHINESS?

**819 66/12a: “And Mary the daughter of ‘Imran - - -”. Once more this famous mistake. Imran was the father of Moses and Aaron - - - but they lived (if they are not fiction) some 1200 years before Mary, mother of Jesus. The pharaoh of Moses f.x. was Ramses II according to science, and we know when he lived. Muslims try to explain this with that it was another Imran, but science agrees on that it is the same one, and that Muhammad here made a genuine mistake. This even more so as Hadith shows that Muhammad later was told about his mistake, and tried to “explain” it away, but without success.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

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

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

#############820 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.

But: 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, if the Quran here tells the truth. 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", in "Muhammad in the Quran", and in the booklet "Muhammad lying 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. None of which Muhammad was.

Also see 19/19b and 19/33b above.

This also is something very different from the conception of Muhammad.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

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

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The essence below is that it is so howlingly and laughably obvious to see that this is wrong. No god had made mistakes like this. Then who made the Quran?

###821 67/5a: “And We (Allah*) have (from of old), adorned the lowest (37/6-7, 41/12) heaven with Lamps (Stars*)- - -”. The Quran’s picture of cosmos is taken from Greek and/or Persian astronomy, and as any secondary school child not blinded by religious indoctrination can see; it is much wrong - laughably wrong. For one thing the heavens have to be made from something material to make possible fixing the stars to one of them. Besides: From Greek etc. astronomy we know that the planets, stars, sun and moon were fixed to 7-8 different heavens (actually 7 heavens + the "canopy" of the stars, sometimes said to be the 8. one). As the stars according to the Quran is fixed to the lowest, they have to be lower than the than the moon. But what happens if you try to place say Betelgeuse or even Helios - our sun - below Luna - our moon?

Further: Our rockets cannot go too high - they will collide with the material heavens. Muhammad said the Quran is perfect and without mistakes or flaws. The Quran says the Quran is perfect and without mistakes or flaws. Islam says the Quran is perfect and without mistakes or flaws. Muslims say the Quran is perfect and without mistakes or flaws. All of them say the Quran is perfect and without mistakes or flaws because Allah sent down a book he had made or which had existed forever - a book which is the revered “Mother Book” (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in the heaven of Allah - and an omniscient god can neither make mistakes nor revere texts containing lots of mistakes, contradictions, flaws and hallmarks of cheats and deceivers. Also see 67/3 above and 67/5b+c just below.

BUT WHAT DO ALL THOSE WORDS HELP WHEN THE MISTAKES, CONTRADICTIONS, AND THE FLAWS ARE THERE ANYHOW? #####AND WHEN ISLAM TELLS THAT THE TOTAL LACK OF ANY MISTAKE IN THE QURAN PROVES IT IS FROM ALLAH, WHAT THEN DOES MEGA BLUNDERS LIKE THIS PROVE?

##822 67/5b: “- - - and We (Allah*) have made such (lamps (stars*) as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones - - -”. Well, well. Any secondary school child able to see that the entry from the same verse 67/5a were wrong, would laugh from this: Stars fastened to the lowest heaven and then doubling as shooting stars to drive this away! Today it is clear such "information" only belongs in fairy tales, and hardly even there as even children know better. Also see 67/3 and 67/5a. Who made the Quran?

No further comments - except that you find similar in 15/17-18 - 37/10 – 72/8.

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

##823 67/10d: (A67/8): "Reason, properly used, must lead man to a cognition of Allah's existence, and thus of the fact that a definite plan underlies all His creation”. Scientifically this sentence is nonsense, but you several places in the Quran and even more so in Islamic scholars' explanations of the texts find claims about that reason "must" give this and this conclusion or similar strengthening the claims of the Quran or Islam. The trouble is that such claims also just are claims and wishful thinking and prove nothing unless they are backed by proofs. Islam and its Muslims have no proofs about any central point in Islam, and try this way to construct proofs by means of claims about reason and intelligence, but both scientifically and logically this is nonsense, as you do not have a proof unless you have a proof. "A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". Also see 67/9c above.

Some other quotes about proofs and invalid or made up proofs:

  1. "Strong claims need strong proofs.
  2. "A claim without a proof may be dismissed without a proof".
  3. "Claims are cheap, but only proofs are proofs".
  4. "The use of invalid proofs normally proves that something is fishy".
  5. "The cheat or deceiver naturally must rely on claims pretending to be facts or proofs".
  6. "A made up "proof" makes the man very suspect".
  7. "A strong belief is not a proof - not necessarily even a truth"
  8. .
  9. "Wrong claims and invalid "proofs" are working tools of the cheat".
  10. "A student with correct facts gets a more correct answer than 20 professors with wrong facts". (Invalid "signs", claims, "proofs", etc. of course are wrong facts.)
  11. And we may add from Peer Gynt in his original language: "Naar utgangspunktet er som galest, blir resultatet tidt originalest" - freely translated: "When you conclude from wrong claims/wrong facts/invalid "proofs"/etc., you get wrong conclusions".

We may also point to the fact that it is not a fact that a plan underlies creation or universe. It is an often repeated claim - nearly always from religious persons and based on religious and not scientific ideas - but it is only a claim, not a fact. As mentioned before Islam hardly is "the Religion of Honesty".

Another point is that even it had been true that reason had led to a cognition of something divine, this would not mean that this divine was Allah - it could as well be Yahweh or someone/something else.

There also exist circumstantial and empirical proofs for that life developed instead of being created. F.x. all life has come through the millions of years in lines, without crossover types. There f.x. exists no mammal with feathers, no bird with hands, no mammal with the bird kind of brain (which gram for gram is more efficient than mammals' ones), etc. For a creator there was no reason why not create such beings, whereas for nature and DNA it is impossible - - - and life has developed according to what was possible for nature and DNA, not according to the whims of a divine creator.

#####824 67/14b: (YA5570):"He (Allah*) Who creates must necessarily know His own handiwork". This is very correct, so that when the Quran shows he clearly does not know the reality, it is a strong proof for that something is very wrong somewhere concerning the Quran - and thus also concerning Muhammad and Islam.

THIS SENTENCE COMBINED WITH ALL THE ERRORS AND WORSE IN THE QURAN, SHOULD PROVE THAT THE QURAN IS NOT FROM THE MAKER OF THE WORLD, OF THE UNIVERSE, AND OF LIFE (claimed by the Quran to be Allah).

######825 68/4b: “And thou (Muhammad*) (standest) on an exalted standard of character - - -”. Well:

Seen in the Quran and the Hadiths:

  1. Lots of mistaken facts, and other mistakes. Not typical for an omniscient god, but sometimes for cheaters, deceivers and swindlers.
  2. Lots of invalid arguments - hallmarks for cheaters and deceivers.
  3. Lots of "signs" - all invalid as proofs for Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god.
  4. 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.
  5. A man gluing himself to his god and his religion – his platform of power; Self-centered. Selfish?
  6. 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.)
  7. A messenger being the chief of highwaymen from Yathrib/Medina - even in holy months.
  8. A messenger also living from extortion - (money for men kidnapped from f.x. caravans or raided villages and towns).
  9. A messenger whose due was 100% of the robbed things if the victim gave in without a fight (albeit not all for personal use).
  10. A messenger permitting to take “spoils of war” - and 20% for him (albeit not all for himself).
  11. A messenger permitting to take slaves - and 20% for him (albeit not all for personal use).
  12. 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.
  13. A messenger using betrayal (f.x. promise of safe return of a 30 strong delegation from Khaybar broken and 29 of them murdered, and his slogans "war is betrayal" and "war is deceit").
  14. A messenger accepting and using dishonesty as working tools - what about his reliability?
  15. A messenger lying even in the claimed holy Quran - what about his reliability?
  16. a messenger accepting even disuse of words/promises/oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the stare case 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok - but how much cheating is it then in the Quran?)
  17. A messenger with special agreement with the god for having many women.
  18. A messenger teaching hate against and suppression of non-followers.
  19. A messenger teaching and inciting war against non-followers.
  20. A messenger personally raping female prisoners/slaves.
  21. A messenger liking a sizable harem.
  22. A messenger who married a 6 year old girl and started sex with her when she was 9 (and he 52).
  23. 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 (43).
  24. A messenger who had the child Aisha as his favorite wife for the rest of his life.

  25. A messenger and his men - all with permission from their god to rape any female prisoner or slave who was not pregnant. It was “lawful and good”.
  26. A messenger who initiated assassinations of opponents.
  27. A messenger who initiated murders on opponents.
  28. A messenger who initiated mass murder.
  29. A messenger teaching suppression of women and non-followers.
  30. 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).
  31. 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 does 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 Maria 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.

826 68/46a: "- - - or is it that thou (Muhammad*) dost ask them (Muslims*) for a reward - - -". Muhammad claimed he demanded nothing from his followers - only 2.5% (to be exact 0 - 10%, but average 2.5%) of everything you owned - not of income, but of what you own - each year (called zakat or "poor tax", but only parts of it ended with the poor) + 20% of everything which was stolen/looted + 20% of all slaves taken + 100% of everything stolen and 100% of all slaves if the victim gave in without a fight + extra gifts from the followers + tax from the non-Muslims (jizya). There was no maximum on the jizya, and the result was that at times and places Muhammad's successors set it so high, that the non-Muslims were unable to pay, and had to flee the country. So Muhammad really did not ask for a reward, yes. And we have not even mentioned the 50% land tax users of his stolen land had to pay.

On top of this his warriors sometimes did not even get their full share of the loot after a raid - so much so, that there was not a little grumbling because of it sometimes. (Muhammad used it as bribes to get new recruits or secure undecided ones, instead of paying his veteran warriors in full sometimes.)

827 69/41: "This (the Quran*) is not the word of a poet - - -". Muhammad claimed he was not a poet - most likely true - and that he thus could not have made up the Quran; an invalid argument to use an understatement. You f.x. do not have to be a poet to make prose. Also Mr. H. C. Andersen was not a poet, but he made a lot of fairy tales - and his were good ones.

#828 69/51g: (YA5673): "All Truth is in itself certain". Correct, but only if it really is a truth, not only a claim pretended to be a proved or self evident truth, like you too often find in the Quran and other places in Islam and in debates with Muslims.

Besides even if a truth in itself is certain, that does not mean people will know it is true - even the truth needs to be proved to make people know it is certain and true. This even more so as bluffs and deceit is very cheap and often impossible or at least difficult to know from the truth, unless there are proofs. And this fact is strengthened by the fact that the ones demanding blind belief and/or using dishonesty or made up "facts" and argument ever so often are cheats or deceivers.

###Note that even the truth normally needs proof - without a proof it may be the truth, but it also may just be a claim. Truth + proof = knowledge. Believed truth (or untruth or claims or lies) without a proof = Belief - and belief often is wrong.

One fact: Certainty in one's brain does not necessarily mean that something is true, and this no matter how many it is who feel certain.

####829 69/52d: (YA5674): "- - - Allah has given us (man*) his absolute Truth (a claim, not a proved fact*) through his Revelations - - -". This is the reason why Muslims and Islam can admit no mistake in the Quran, no matter how obvious it is - a mistake will prove that things are wrong in Allah's "absolute Truth". And this also is why the myriad of mistaken facts and other errors in the Quran proves 110% and more that something is seriously wrong with the Quran and that it is not from a god - no omniscient god makes mistakes.

A cold fact here: No book as full of errors, contradictions, etc. as the Quran, is the truth - and no such book is from any god (no omniscient god makes mistakes, contradiction, uses invalid logic, uses helpless or unclear language/explanations, etc.)

###830 71/15a: “- - - Allah has created the seven heavens one above another - - -”. Wrong - it hardly is possible to be more wrong as there are no 7 heavens. But you find these claims about 7 heavens/firmaments/tracts in 2/29d+e, 17/44a, 23/17a, 23/86a, 41/12a+b, 65/12a, 67/3a+b and 71/15a+b - all together the Quran mentions "heavens" in plural at least 199 times; there is no doubt the Quran means there are 7 heavens (and as the stars are fastened to the lowermost of them - f. x. 67/5a - they have to be material ones - if not the stars could not be fastened to it). In 67/3 and here you also are told they are placed one above the other, which means they of course are built successively higher above the Earth - which also is clear from most places in the Quran where the place of the heavens are indicated. Some modern Muslims try to place the heavens in space, deep space included. But among others 67/3 prohibits this, as "up" and "down" ("one above the other") has no meaning as part of the real space.

By the way: 65/12b also claims there are 7 Earths, and Hadiths give their names according to Islam. Also see 67/5d above.

831 72/7d: (A72/5): "The overwhelming majority of the Jews were convinced that no prophet would be raised after those who were explicitly mentioned in the Old Testament: hence their rejection of Jesus and, of course, Muhammad - - -". This is utterly wrong, even according to the Quran and Islam itself. It is very clearly foretold in the OT that a mighty prophet - the Messiah (Christ in Greek) - should come once upon a time. This is very well known also in Islam, as they use f.x. Moses' words about a future prophet "like himself" in 5.Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 to claim foretelling about Muhammad - so intensely well known in Islam that there is no chance Mr. Asad did not know about it - the claim simply is one of the al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) in Islam. It also is a school example of the many cases where Muslims try to "explain" away things by "explaining" one or some aspect(s) of something, but forget that other texts or even facts kill the "explanation". Sometimes - like here - such tries are perfectly helpless. It also is one of the many examples of the degree of honesty among at least some Muslim scholars.

###The reason why the Jews rejected Jesus was that he was so very different from the mighty king they had dreamt of, the mighty king who should throw out the Romans for them. Why they did not accept Muhammad is even easier to see - Muhammad and his god and religion were so far out compared to both the OT and NT that no somewhat learned person with a minimum of brain would be able to believe that Muhammad "confirmed" Yahweh or Jesus or their teaching. It neither was nor is possible that Yahweh and Allah are the same god - not unless he is strongly schizophrenic.

*832 72/8b: “And we (jinns*) pried into the secrets of heaven, but we found it filled with stern guides and flaming fires.” The Quran tells that Allah uses the stars like shooting stars – flaming fire – to chase away bad spirits and jinns wanting to spy on heaven. No comments should be necessary to this nonsense. Any god had known the difference between a shooting star, and a real star - even a devil had known. Then who made the Quran?

And where are the 7 (material) heavens the Quran tells about, as they are not up there? Not to mention: How was it possible for jinns to spy on the heavens when there were no 7 heavens up there?

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

833 72/24b: "- - - when they (non-Muslims*) see (with their own eyes) - - - then they will know - - -". This - and a number of similar points in the Quran - kills Muhammad's "explanations" saying that the reason why Allah did not send proofs for his existence, power, or contact with Muhammad, was that proofs would not make skeptics believe anyhow: "- - - when they see - - - then they will know - - -".

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

#####834 73/20e: (A73/12 - English 2008 edition 73/13): "- - - there is no doubt that jihad was first sanctioned during the Medina period - - -". This confirms that Muhammad/Allah and Islam did not think about or talk about or insist on or glorify war until after Muhammad started needing warriors for his raids for riches and later also for conquests, in and after 622 AD. Was this very fundamental change in the religion at this time a coincidence? And why did not the omniscient god Allah know before 622 AD - and Muhammad's need for warriors - that fighting was a good thing, a duty for all fit Muslim men, and a sure way to Paradise for even the worst sinner?

835 74/5a: "And all abomination shun!" Thieving/robbing, womanizing, raping, suppressing, lying, deceiving, breaking oaths, torturing, enslaving, slave trading, murder, mass murder, hate mongering, war mongering, raids for thieving and enslaving, wars - they all are "lawful and good" if done in the name of Allah (a fact which makes this even more repulsive), so - yes, "all abomination shun!".

This is one of the points which should have had an impact on the Quran's moral code, but the book uses a twisted - often very twisted - way of understanding that word, with the result that Muslims doing even horrible things - like lying, deceiving, stealing, extorting, raping, enslaving, torturing, murdering in the name of Allah - believe or at least are able to claim that what they do is good or even glorious.

836 74/11a: "Leave Me (Allah*) alone (to deal) with the (creature (man*)) whom I created (bare and) alone". Well, some years later Muhammad started to "help" Allah with managing those creatures - especially the ones that did not want him as their dictator. This verse is abrogated – made invalid - and contradicted by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/38, 3/85, 3/148, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 8/12, 8/38, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many bloody threats, but also verses advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 28 abrogations).

837 75/1a: "I (Muhammad*) call to witness - - -". Witness/proof clearly counted for Muhammad - but he never was able to prove anything of any essence concerning his new religion himself. This reveals something.

###838 75/22c: (YA5822): "This passage (especially with reference to verses 26-28) would seem to refer to what our Doctors (of religion*) call the Lesser Judgment (al Qiyamah al Sughra), which takes place immediately after death, and not to the Greater or General Judgment, which may be supposed to be referred to in such passages as occur in surah 56. There are other passages referring to the Lesser Judgment immediately after death; e.g., 7/37 etc. (if true at least not a clear reference*). If I understand aright, the punishment of sins takes place in three ways; (1)it may take place in this very life, but it may be deferred, to give the sinner respite; (2) it may be an agony immediately after death or in the grave ("punishment in the grave" - though #####not mentioned in the Quran, only in the even more unreliable Hadiths*), with the Partition of 'Barzakh (23/100) separating the sinner from the final Resurrection; and (3) in the final resurrection, when the whole of the present order gives place to a wholly new world: 14/48". This is a very interesting comment, because the Lesser Judgment is something Muslims never tells about, and it is no clear part of the Quran - a few sentences may be understood or twisted to give such a meaning, but it is no clear part of Muhammad's teaching. The "punishment in the grave" you meet in Hadiths may be included here, but #####also this punishment clearly is no clear part of the Quran - you simply do not find it there.

Also see (YA5914) under 78/40c below - a detail is interestingly different.

We also point to that if there really had existed something as serious as punishment in the grave, it is extremely unlikely it had not been mentioned in the Quran, which it like said is not. There also is the time factor: According to the Quran one does not know that time has passed between their death and the Day of Doom. If they had been tortured in the grave you bet they had for one thing known that at least some time had passed, and for another referred to the torture as a reference at least when asked how long time they think passed, a question sometimes asked in the Quran, this even more so as torture and pain make the time pass slowly for the victims. The claimed torture in the grave thus seems not to come from Muhammad, but is something made up later - perhaps together with the making up of Hadiths (Islam makes it very clear that the overwhelming part of the originally collected Hadiths were made up ones.)

#839 75/40a: "Has not He (Allah*) (the same) the power to give life to the dead?". One more standard sample of one of Muhammad’s main techniques of arguing or debating: He takes a never proved claim - here the never proved claim that Allah has given humans their first life - and pretend this claim is a fact, and then he goes on and uses this invalid "fact" as an argument for that Allah also must have another never proved power; the power of resurrection. As the chain of arguments just builds on a not proved claim or presumption, it is entirely outside all rules for logical deductions of proofs, and totally without any value as a proof for anything at all.

And who is it who have to use arguments like this? - the ones who have no real facts or sound arguments (if they had had such ones, they had used them instead) - all too often cheats and deceivers.

You frequently meet this kind of argumentation from Muslims and even from Islam itself (its scholars).

"'Surely' (etc.*) and rhetorical questions - whenever you encounter these in a text, stop and think. The author usually wants you to skate over them as if the claim is so obvious as to be beyond doubt, or the answer self-evident. The opposite is often the case." (Graham Lawton.) Also this trick is very often used in the Quran, by Islam, and by Muslims.

840 75/40b: "Has not He (Allah*) - - - the power to give life to the dead?". Resurrection. Nobody really knows, as Allah never has proved he had such power - there are a lot of claims and words, but only words, and words are cheap, especially when they come from a man and politician of dubious moral quality, documented to use lies (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah), deceit, and accepting even broken oaths - and worse. And liking money for bribes for attracting or keeping followers, not to mention liking power - and women. The funny situation is that if the Quran and/or the Bible tell the truth on this point, Yahweh has proved his power over life and death, but Allah not - he has not even proved his existence. Also see 7/158i above. (Remember here that Yahweh and Allah are so different and with teachings, moral codes, etc. are so often and so deeply different that these differences prove that the never documented claims that the two were the same god, are not true.)

#####841 76/4d: (A76/5): "- - - man's - - - inborn cognition of Allah's existence - - -". This is scientific nonsense. No such inborn cognition has ever been found - even by Islam. Science has found that a small percentage has an inborn longing for something stronger to lean on - a god. But any religion and any god(s) do(es) the job as long as the needy believe in it. But no "inborn cognition" has ever been found. It has been found that small children easily accepts the idea of a god, just like they accept most other things they believe are facts, but there are miles between also this and "inborn cognition of Allah's existence". This claim most likely is a result of Islam's lack of proofs for Allah (and for Muhammad's connection to a god) and its search for "strong" arguments for that Allah must exist in spite of the total lack of valid proofs. You find similar claims on "instinctive knowledge", etc. several places in the Quran and other Islamic literature. Scientifically it is totally wrong and invalid - so much so, that al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) may be a more correct word than "wrong", as this is so well known that also Muslim scholars have got to know it. It tells something about Islam that they have to stoop to the use of "arguments" like this.

As said: Scientific nonsense.

And also logical nonsense: Why should Allah create such an inborn cognition, and then not make it strong enough to make itself clear?

842 76/14-21: More about the same details of the Earth-like and royal-royal paradise, but with the addition of a stuff called “zanjabil” (76/17) to mix in wine (the age of this surah is not known, and consequently we do not know if Allah had yet changed his view of alcohol), and a fountain “salsabil” (76/18). The first word may mean ginger, the second one nobody knows, though there is guessing. Once more the unclear language of the Quran.

Very unlike Yahweh's Paradise.

843 76/19a: "And around them (good Muslims in Paradise*) will (serve) youths - - -". This is one more case of the Quran's total lack of empathy with any others than the main persons - mainly the adult Muslim male. In the entire Quran - and as far as we have read in all central Islamic literature - there is never used one single thought or one single word about how Paradise is for these youths - and neither how it is to be forced to be sex toys and concubines for all kinds of primitive warriors for the houris. And for that case also not a word about how it was to be victims from Muslim conquest or thieving raids or slave hunting (that is to say; we have been told that slaves under Muslims were so well treated, that if they were given freedom, they did not want to go home. Some tellers of tales have never been slaves themselves - and besides; how would a freed slave from f.x. Niger be able to reach home? - and was there any home and any family left to return to after slave raiders had razed the village?).

844 76/19b: "And around them (good Muslims in Paradise*) will (serve) youths - - -". This is one more case where the Quran differs totally from the Bible - there is not any likeness between the lives in the two paradises at all (f.x. Luke 20/34-36, not to mention: "For the Kingdom of God/Yahweh is not a matter of eating and drinking (or sex*) - - -", (Rom.14/17). And also not to mention: "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Mark 12/25)). Yahweh and Allah the same god with so different paradises? You bet! One of the at least - at least - 200% proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. (Another question which lingers in the air: Homosexuality is officially condemned in Islam, but silently accepted at places - was this fact in the background when the description of these delicate young men was created?)

845 77/16b: "Did We (Allah*) not destroy the men of the old (for their evil)?". In and around Arabia there were ruins and empty settlements, and there also were tales about old, disappeared tribes. Muhammad claimed they all were killed by Allah because of sins against him. Science has a number of other possible explanations in a warlike, arid area.

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

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

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

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

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

846 77/41d: "- - - (cool) shades and springs (of water)". The Arab desert dweller's dream of a paradise - far from f.x. the Inuit's or Samoyed's or for that case the North Europeans' or the original inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego's dream about nice sunshine and not too much rain and water. All the "Arabisms" make Allah seem to be a god for desert Arabs mainly.

Also remember that the many and deep differences between Yahweh’s Paradise and the one of Allah, are one of the strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

847 78/12-13: “And have We (Allah*) not built over you the seven firmaments, and placed (therein) a light of Splendor (= the sun*)?” The sun is not placed among (“therein”) the 7 firmaments.

A wrong and never proved claim pretended to be a proved fact - Muslims and Islam often use this technique. (Here it becomes a parody, because there exists no 7 (material as the stars are fastened to one of them) heavens.)

848 78/38c: (YA5911): "Some(!*) Commentators understand by 'the Spirit' the angel Gabriel, as he is charged specially with bringing Messages to human prophets". An interesting piece of information, as this is neither from the Quran nor from the Bible, and arch angel Gabriel also hardly is mentioned as a messenger boy in connection to Biblical prophets. (But the claim of course makes Muhammad look like a prophet at this point as he claimed he god his messages via Gabriel.) Also see 78/38b just above.

As for Gabriel there is a strange fact in the Quran: He is never mentioned by name 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 a central angel, 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?

849 79/10-11: "What! Shall we (humans*) indeed be returned to our former state? - What - when we shall have become rotten bones?" Muhammad claimed people would be resurrected to the claimed next life in body, mot only in soul, (though as young adults). This was - and still is - a bit difficult to believe, especially as it is so meaningless - resurrection to a next life as free souls could be much more exciting than still being bound to a cumbersome physical body. On the other hand Muhammad was forced to claim resurrection in body, because except for relative closeness to Allah and peace, all which his paradise has to offer, is physical luxury and bodily pleasure - nothing else. To enjoy that you have to have a body.

*850 79/30: “And the earth, moreover, hath He (Allah*) extended to a wide expense - - -”. See 78/6a+b. As this is one of the last places in the Quran where the Earth’s form is indicated (flat), we may add that you will meet Muslims who insist that it is egg-shaped. This is taken from one of the translators that even Islam reckons not to be an outstanding one, Rashad Khalifa. He translates that the Earth is egg shaped. But the Arab original speaks about the ground that the ostrich flattens before it lays its egg = a flat area. Instead the clever Mr. Rashad Khalifa talks about the egg – and egg shaped!! And as this fits reality in a way (Earth in reality is a slightly flattened sphere - 21 km shorter diameter between the poles than at equator (an egg is the opposite) and with an ever so slight pear-shape), though not the Quran – this mistaken translation often is quoted. (You never find that translation from a good translator, but as you perhaps know for many Muslims the main point is not to find the truth, but to make the Quran look like it is correct.)

851 80/11a: "For it (the Quran*) is indeed a Message of instruction". Perhaps - but with so many mistakes is it a correct instruction? Unlikely. And with that many errors, it definitely is not from any god. Then from whom?

852 81/1b: (YA5970): "- - - is folded up, or twisted up, like a sheet or a garment". There is little doubt that the Quran means the sun is something flat.

######853 81/24: "Neither doth he (Muhammad*) withhold grudgingly a knowledge of the Unseen ("the Unseen" in the Quran normally means the future or what is hidden from humans*)".. In plain words Muhammad was unable to tell the future or other hidden things = he was unable to make foretelling.

Once more we are back to the fact that Muhammad was unable to see what was hidden and also unable to see the future, which means he was no real prophet - a person unable to make prophesies, is no prophet (the original title for "prophet" even was "a seer" - one who was able to see the unseen). But "prophet" is an imposing title, so Muhammad "borrowed" it, like so many have done trough the times. This even though he here indirectly, but very clearly admits he does not deserve or merit that title.

854 82/12: "They (your guardian angels*) know (and understand) all that ye (humans*) do (and note down reports to Allah*)". The never answered question: Why then does Allah need to test even his followers, and why does he need reports when he knows everything already?

855 83/18-21: “Nay, verily (though this definitely is no proved verity/truth*), the Record of the Righteous is (preserved) in ‘illiyin. And what will explain to thee what ‘illiyin is? (There is a Register (fully) inscribed (in a book*), to which bear witness those nearest (to Allah).” The omniscient god Allah needs witnesses – and he is not more advanced and omniscient than that everything has to be written down in a good, old-fashioned book.

856 84/8-9: "Soon will his (Muslim's*) account be taken by an easy reckoning, and he will turn to his people, rejoicing!" Only if Allah exists, and if the Quran has told the full truth and only the truth. (If f.x. the Bible has told the truth, few Muslims will rejoice - and it is very clear from all its errors, etc. that the Quran at least has not told neither only nor the full truth).

857 85/22b:** "- - - a Tablet Preserved - - -". The claimed "Mother of the Book" (= mother of the Quran) in Allah's personal heaven. This in case says that the Quran is an exact copy of the claimed (but like always in the Quran never proved) "Mother of the Book". But some Muslims refer to the Quran itself "as Allah has promised it shall not be changed in any way". They then omit the fact that there existed many versions of the Quran - at one time at least 14 canonized + 10 accepted versions (see "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.100mistakes.com ), and there still are two of them in use + 4 a little used. They also the problems with the language in the old Arab texts, which permits many different ways of understanding the texts. And they omit f.x. the old Qurans found in Yemen in 1972 which "had small, but significant differences from the present Qurans".

##############################Verses 85/21-22 directly say that the Quran is in "the Mother of the Book" = its texts are identical to the ones in the claimed "Mother of the Book"(but just these verses do not say that there may not be more text in "the Mother of the Book", though such texts can vary only in minor details from the Quran, if the Quran shall continue to be "reliable").

858 86/13c: "- - - this (the Quran*) is the Word that distinguishes (good from Evil)." Some claims do not need a comment. But remember the basis for all normal moral codes: "Do to others like you want others do to you".

859 86/14: "It (the Quran*) is not a thing for amusement". Some of the mistakes and some other points really are unintended jokes. But remembering all the blood and misery Islam has cost and will cost in the future, for Muslims and non-Muslims, the wish to laugh disappears.

860 87/2b: "(Allah*) Who has created - - -". (YA6081): "The story of Creation is wonderful and continuous". You often meet Muslims claiming the Quran speaks about continuous creation like modern science has found. But when the Quran speaks about creation (except recreation or claims for that he can destroy and make new creations) it is always in the past tense, never in present or future tense. Creation in the Quran is something which happened and is finished.

861 87/18-19: "And this is in the Books of the earliest revelations - the Books of Abraham and Moses." But according to the Quran there always have been revelations from Allah to man. Homo Sapiens - man - developed perhaps 200ooo years ago, and f.x. Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus - older humans - were from even much older times (some 2.4 and 1.5 million years respectively). And he started in earnest on the road to modern man 60-70ooo (64000?) years ago. Abraham lived - if he ever did - some 3800-4000 years ago and Moses some 3300-3400 years ago - if he ever lived. How can their claimed books (see 87/19a-c below) be the earliest ones - tens and may be hundreds of thousands of years after the first humans, and thus the first prophets according to the Quran? Not to mention; how can Moses have had of the oldest ones, when there according to the Quran were earlier prophets even in Arabia? (Moses talked about them according to the Quran - not according to the Bible - so they had to be earlier). The same story tells the claim that the last of the 3 special Arab claimed prophets of the old, Shu'ayb, is claimed to be 4. generation after Lot, which in case indicates that Shu'ayb lived around 1700 BC or may be a little earlier (and the 2 others, Hud and Salih, then naturally even earlier).

As for Abraham, Moses and other persons from OT there also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left - and remember here that the Quran (21/91) confirms that Jesus was for all peoples, (and in 19/19 that he was holy, which Muhammad definitely was not)). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses and the Jewish prophets) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and this on top of the fact that Abraham like mentioned did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran claims. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

#862 87/19b: (YA6094): "There is a book in Greek, which has been translated by Mr. G.H. Box, called the "Testament of Abraham" (published by the Society for the Promotion of Christian knowledge, London, 1927). It seems to be a Greek translation of a Hebrew original. The Greek text was probably written in the second Christian century, in Egypt (then mainly a Christian country*), but in its present form it probably goes back only to the 9th or 10t century. It was popular among the Christians. Perhaps the Jewish Midrash also refers to a Testament of Abraham".

What do you think about this book and about Abraham and books when you read this?

####And what do you think about Muslim way of "informing" people when we add that this is an apocryphal - made up - book, a fact which is well known, so well that there is no chance a learned man like Muhammad Yusuf Ali did not know it, but without mentioning this fact even with a whisper in his comment. He also never mentions the fact that even though Abraham lived (if he ever lived) some 2ooo - 1800 BC, and thus "his" book had to be that old and a very central book as it was from Abraham, is never referred to in any of the old confirmed Jewish scriptures. The story seems to be a religious legend of humor. #####This kind of dishonesty you meet a little too often in Islamic religious literature.

The "Testament of Abraham" is about Abraham's reluctance to die, and seems to be a made up tale meant to produce entertainment and laughter. It likely was made in Egypt sometime around 100 AD, and originally in Greek, not in Hebrew - - - and not a translation of an older Hebrew original.

An informative sample of al-Taqiyya - the Lawful Lie (something you only find in Islam among the big religions - actually the only place we have heard there once was similar rules for dishonesty, was in a small tribal pagan religion on New Guinea once upon a time) - something a Muslim can use in 8-10 wide cases (f.x. to cheat women or to save his money), and which not only are permitted, but should be used "if necessary" to defend or promote Islam". No further comments should be necessary.

#863 87/19d: "The books of Moses - - -". (YA6095): "The original Revelation of Moses, of which the Present Pentateuch (the 5 books of Moses*) is a surviving recension - - -". This deserves no comment, except that it is written by the same man who wrote the comment in 87/19b above. For your information: He is reckoned to be a top scholar and writer in Islam. When he writes things like this, how serious are then the lesser Muslim scholars?

###We may add that even the oldest copies and fragment of what often is called "the Books of Moses" or "the Pentateuch" are more or less identical to the present ones (there may be minimal differences a few places because they are copied by hand, and then such things can happen). And as essential: There never was found even one fragment from those books with contents close to that in the Quran - Muhammad claimed the Bible originally was similar to the Quran, but falsified by the bad Jews and Christians. (It was his only way to explain away the differences between what he told the Bible said - he took his material from verbal legends, fairy tales etc. - and what the Bible really said.) This never proved - very normal for Muhammad and for Islam - claim from Muhammad and from the Quran simply is wrong, unless Islam proves - proves - the opposite.

Facts according to science: Moses according to the Bible had one book - the so-called "Book of Covenant" - in practice the law. This one he had written himself, but from what Yahweh had told him. The Pentateuch - what we call "the Books of Moses" - were written centuries later and not earlier than around 800 BC (Moses lived around 1300-1200 BC). "The Book of Covenant" is mentioned a few times through the centuries in the Bible, but there never even is hinted that Moses had other books. There even is specified that when Solomon had the Ark of Covenant installed in his new temple, there were no books in it, only the 2 stone tablets (1. Kings 8/9). It is told that Book of the Law was refound (2. Kings 22/8) but no other relevant book is ever mentioned in the Bible - and no other place ever - - - except by Muhammad. And Muhammad like normal never was able to prove anything essential about his claims.

864 90/4b: "Verily, We (Allah*) have created man - - -". Often claimed in the Quran - never proved. Like everything else in that book. But see 6/2b above.

Verily:

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

B. "'Surely' (etc.*) and rhetorical questions - whenever you encounter these in a text, stop and think. The author usually wants you to skate over them as if the claim is so obvious as to be beyond doubt, or the answer self-evident. The opposite is often the case." (Graham Lawton.) Also this trick is very often used in the Quran, by Islam, and by Muslims.

Try to count such cases in the Quran - they are MANY. Especially the never proved claim "the Truth" and similar are very often used. Samples: "Without doubt", "certain", "verily", "clear", "right", "fact", "wrong", "sign", "proof" (even modern Muslims disuse this word often), "term appointed", "predestined", "If Allah wanted - - -", "non-Muslims are bad, Muslims are good", "error", "wisdom", and more.

#######Like said these two rhetorical ways of dishonesty are used very many places in the Quran - we have not counted, but hundreds. Each of them may be a hidden lie - is a lie if the orator knows his point is a claim or bluff or worse, and not a proved or provable fact. And according to the Quran what is said in the Quran, is said by Allah.

Who needs such tricks? - the cheat and deceiver, the swindler and the charlatan.

865 90/20: "On them (non-Muslims*) will be Fire vaulted over (all around)". = They will be in Hell. Also see 3/77b above.

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

866 91/8c "- - - right and wrong - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code, partly unethical ethical code, partly unjust judicial code, etc.

867 91/11-14: Notice how parallel the basics of this story - and many other stories in the Quran - are to Muhammad's situation at the time it was told. The psychology behind such parallels is to "explain" that Muhammad's situation was normal for a prophet, and that Muhammad thus was a normal prophet.

868 92/20a: "But (help others*) only (because of*) the desire to seek Countenance of their (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) - - -*. Compassion, empathy and sympathy for others do not count. What counts in charity, etc. mainly is to gain merit in Heaven. A very self-centered way of thinking and feeling - and quite different from NT and its wanting you to love your fellow human beings.

#####869 97/4f: "Therein came down the angels and the Spirit - - -". The (Holy*) Spirit - here like in the Bible - is not an angel, and thus has to be mentioned separately.A verification in the Quran for that the Holy Spirit is not the angel Gabriel. Remember here that it also nowhere in the Quran is said or indicated that the Holy Spirit = Gabriel - this never documented claim is a later invention made by Muslims, and only based on the fact that the Quran tells Gabriel brought Muhammad messages, but also that the Holy Spirit a few times did so - - - which according to Muslims/Islam "must" mean the Holy Spirit = Gabriel. This deduction is far outside all rules for logically correct deductions.

870 98/1g: “- - - Clear Evidence - - -”. This means the Quran: See 13/1g, 40/75, and 96/11 above, and 98/1h just below. There exists no clear evidence neither for Allah, nor for the truth of the Quran, nor for Muhammad's connection to a god.

Just you guess if Islam had screamed about it, if even one real proof had existed!!

871 98/7a: "Those who have faith and do righteous deeds (indicated the Muslims*) - they are the best of creatures". Shall we repeat some of the atrocities, inhumanities, dishonesties, etc. which the Quran's - and thus Islam's - moral code, ethical code, sharia law, etc. permits or even sometimes demands. If such people are the best, we hope never to meet a slightly bad one.

What do facts like this tell about the Quran's reliability and honesty?

872 100/8: "And violent is he (man*) in his love of wealth". Just ask the many Muslim warriors who became wealthy from things they stole or extorted from non-Muslims.

873 111/1-5: "Perish the hands of the Father of Flames! Perish he! No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains! Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of blazing Flame! His wife shall carry the (crackling) wood - as fuel! - A twisted rope of palm-leaf fiber round her (own) neck." This is said against Muhammad's uncle Abu Lahab, called Father of Flame because of reddish skin. (See 111/1 just above) The scholars say that for one thing a surah like this does not belong in a holy book, and for another is not worthy of a god, and consequently must be wrong. (Also f.x. some verses concerning Muhammad's private affairs have a doubtful reputation among some scholars.) Many Muslim scholars as said say that this surah is not from Allah, which in case means it is Muhammad who is speaking.

Sub-total Chapter 26 = 872 + 2.058 = 2.930


>>> Go to Next Chapter

>>> Go to Introduction

This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".