Muhammad in the Quran, Vol. 2: Chapter 42


 

MUHAMMAD SEDUCING PEOPLE

To be an agitator, and especially if one is agitating for a diffuse case with no clear and proved facts, frequently means to try to seduce people with nice words and claims. Compare Muhammad's deeds, demands, and introduced rules, with his often enticing words. Is there any doubt that he used nice words and claims?

You Will see there is much overlapping between this chapter and the chapter "Proselyting by Muhammad". The reason simply is that the argumentation, and thus the arguments, methods, and claims were more or less the same. (The same to a good degree goes for the chapter "Incitement to war" (for the simple reason that Islam in spite of nice slogans is a religion of war)).

You will see that texts here often are the same as in the chapter about Muhammad proselyting - for the simple reason that these topics are very similar. (The same to a good degree goes for the chapter "Incitement to war" (for the simple reason that Islam in spite of nice slogans is a religion of war).

Some samples:

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

001 2/25f: “- - - their (Muslims’*) portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: ‘Why, this is what we were fed before’, for they are given things in similitude - - -”. The fruits and food in the Muslim heaven are the same as in this life – just plenty and only the best. As said: An Earth-like paradise. Plus plenty of water and women – heavenly for primitive people - men - from a desert. But what about people from other parts of the world with other kinds of climate and other kinds of fruits? - many fruits used by the Arabs would be unknown to them, and the other way around. Also see 2/25d above. An extra tit-bit: Of the 4 rivers in Paradise, 2 continue on Earth according to Hadiths - the Nile and the Euphrates(!!!)

002 2/25l: "- - - they (god Muslims*) abide therein (Paradise*) (for ever)". If Allah exists. If he is behind the Quran. And if the Quran in addition tells the full truth and only the truth on everything concerning this point. But beware that 11/108c may indicate that the Quran's paradise is not quite forever. Islam does not know, but claims - as normal without documentation - that it in case means that the good Muslims will be transferred to an even better place. An easy way out of a problem - but not mentioned in the Quran.

003 2/126c: “- - - Abraham said: ‘Make this (Mecca*) a City Of Peace - - -.” This is quite a contradiction, both with reality, as at the time of Muhammad 2500 years later Mecca was not a really old city (we have not found the age of Mecca city, but it definitely is much younger than Abraham - and the same goes for even the oldest parts of the Kabah - - - unless Islam proves the opposite (and today it is possible to measure the age of even the oldest parts (may the reason why Islam does not measure it be that they fear the real age? - if the oldest parts are from f.x. 100 - 200 AD, it proves that the information in the Quran is wrong)), and with the Quran. Further even the Quran tells Mecca did not exist at the time of Abraham - only a dry desert valley. The Quran tells that Hagar run around in this empty desert valley where Mecca once in the future became situated, finding neither people nor water after being left by Abraham when Abraham already was some 101 years old. ######And here Abraham all the same talks about "this City" Mecca!!

What is absolutely sure is that this quote in the Quran is wrong, as there existed no city at the time of Abraham. We also may remind you that science says that "it is practically sure Abraham never visited Mecca".

004 2/126e: "- - - make this (Mecca*) a City of Peace - - -". This is a special time anomaly (see 4/13d below), as not even Abraham could understand what this referred to - Mecca is much younger than Abraham, and the city did not exist at his time. A clear mistake (notice that he said "this" not "what will come here" or something similar).

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 (f.x. Moses) never were Muslims.

##005 2/127a: “And remember that Abraham and Ishmael raised the foundations of the House (Kabah*) (with this prayer): - - - “. Abraham never built the foundation of Kabah (and a contradiction; other verses say he built the building, not only the foundation of it) - and there are several reasons for this:

  1. He was born in Ur in Chaldea (if he really existed) in what is now south Iraq. Together with his father, (Terah according to the Bible (1. Mos. 11/26-32), Azar in the Quran (6/74)), he later travelled northwest up along the Euphrates valley to Haran in what is now north Iraq. Years later he continued west-southwest to Canaan and the town Sikem in what is now Israel (Sikem is north of Jerusalem. It is now named Nablus). That is to say he travelled along the so-called Fertile Crescent - the natural route when you travel with flocks of animals. The alternative was to take a shortcut through the Arab desert, but few of his numerous sheep and goats and cows would survive such a trip. He never visited Mecca on his way from Ur to Sikem. (Besides this was too early in the story - Ishmael was not born yet, and he is a part of the building of the Kabah according to the Quran).
  2. Abraham then settled in the western part of Canaan (now approximately Israel, Lebanon, parts of Syria and Jordan and most of Sinai), whereas his nephew Lot settled in the Jordan valley and in the Arabah Valley south of the Dead Sea further east. Later Abraham moved south to Negev in Sinai. Negev today is most known for its desert, but not all was desert. All this is according to the Bible, but the Quran has no conflicting information, except that his father had another name, and that he quarreled with his father about Allah, which is not told in the Bible (on the contrary - they lived together for decades). The point is that between Canaan and Mecca and also between West Negev and Mecca are hundreds and hundreds of miles or kilometers of the tough and dry and hot Arab desert. Abraham was rich and had huge flocks of animals. He could not take those huge flocks of sheep, etc., through Lot's area and then through that desert, and especially so when there was no reason for doing it.
  3. Abraham lived hundreds of miles from Mecca - and had to cross harsh terrain to get to and from (see 2/125d above). Nobody builds a big temple for himself and his family at a place they can never or nearly never visit.
  4. Abraham was a nomad. Nomads do not have the know-how and technology to build large stone buildings.
  5. Hadiths tell than when Mecca restored the Kabah some years before Muhammad took over, they rebuilt it smaller than Abraham's(?) foundations. Which means that the nomad Abraham and his son built so big, that it was too big and too expensive for the full city of Mecca to rebuild in the same size. A nomad and his son building that big a temple for himself and his small family, even though he lived hundreds of miles away and at the very best hardly ever could visit the place? Of course you are free to believe it if you want.
  6. Abraham and Lot split up for practical reasons - Lot moved east whereas Abraham moved west (1. Mos. 13/11-12). Arabia and the place which was to become Mecca many generations later was to the east - much further east and south than even Lot settled.
  7. (1. Mos. 14/6): "- - - in the Hill country of Seir, as far as El Paran near the desert". Seir was the hilly country east of the southern end of the Dead Sea. To the west of this was the Arabah Valley (running from Elath to the Dead Sea), and across that valley you met the Paran Desert - quite a long way from Mecca.
  8. Abraham simply was not involved in the building of Kabah, and it is highly unlikely he ever visited Mecca and even the Arab peninsula. It looks like a fairy tale made up to give weight to Kabah and to Islam. And not least to give weight to Muhammad, who 2500 years later could tell he was direct descendant from Abraham - without the slightest written paper from all those years. 2500 years of mostly an-alphabetic nomads without any written history. Believe it if you want – and if you know who were all your forefathers the year 500 BC (= ca. 2500 years ago), as after 2500 years you have, and Muhammad had, a large number of them (something like 80 generations give you quite a number of forefathers, not only one - Abraham - like Muhammad claimed).

Also Abraham did not have camels. The camel was not introduced that far north until the Assyrians started trade to the south around 800 BC. Without camels the claimed long treks through the rough deserts were impossible.

It also is worth adding that Muslims say that Mecca was where Abraham’s (or actually Sarah’s) slave, Hagar, and his and her child Ismail (Ishmael) were sent away from Abraham’s camp, that the two lived there, and that Abraham frequently visited them later. There is no source of information for this. The OT says they lived in Negev, which is weeks by camel from Mecca - and much, much longer for large flocks of sheep, goats, and cattle (American cowboys driving flocks of cattle to the railway, made 10-12 miles – 16-20 km - a day. The nomads in the south hardly moved any faster - - - if they could find water). In addition to the long time it would take, many animals hardly would survive the long trek through the harsh Arab desert with little food and hardly any water. And there was in addition no reason for him and his family to take such a dangerous and meaningless trip with their animals to a barren and dry valley. And as he never visited Mecca, he could not have left Hagar and Ismail there (this even more so as the Bible mention that Ishmael lived near the border of Egypt and got his wife from Egypt (see below) - - - and science and Islam both have proved that the Bible is not falsified (Islam has delivered a very strong proof by being unable to find even one clear falsification among all the tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts) - the easy way out for Muslims when the Bible mentions things they do not like). If Islam wants to insist that he ever visited Mecca, they have to produce strong proofs, as it is extremely unlikely - and “special statements demands special proofs”. It is highly likely this just is a story made up or “borrowed” from f.x. Arab folklore to give the teachings of Muhammad credence.

One more fact: The Bible – a book which Islam insists is correct every time there is some text they like, but which may be the truth other times, too - says (1. Mos. 21/21): “While he (Ishmael*) was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt”. Except for religious Muslims who strongly wishes this to be a reference to Paran or Faran near Mecca, all serious scientists say that this was Paran in or bordering Sinai - - - which also made it easier for his mother (who was from Egypt) to find him a wife from Egypt even though that made his children ¾ Egyptian and only ¼ descendants of Abraham’s stock (there is mentioned only one wife for Ishmael). Also remember that the old Egyptians were not Arabs, even if modern Egyptians often are called Arabs - where is the pure Arab blood of Ishmael's descendant?

Further (1. Mos. 25/18): “His (Ishmael’s) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur”. The border of Egypt means near the Red Sea or north of the Red Sea up to the Gulf of Suez. Just where scientists place Paran - it run from there and towards Elath. (It is a bit ironic that Islam say the Bible has the name correct, (but claim it is meaning Faran in Arabia), but all the rest of the information about place, wife from (neighboring) Egypt, etc. wrong. Though if you go looking, you will find that according to Islam, the Bible never has a mistake and is reliable when what it says fits Islam. Only when it tells things or facts that contradicts Islam, the Bible is falsified - or like here one simply omits the contradicting facts - - - which one safely can do, as hardly any Muslim knows the Bible well enough to see the cherry-picking of information, unless he has higher religious education). And NB: This was written 1000 or more years before Muhammad, and thus with no reason to place Ishmael far from Arabia if it was not the truth.

There also is another fact: The Bible reports on what Abraham built: He built an altar at Shechem (1. Mos. 12/6-7), an altar at Betel (1. Mos. 12/8), and an altar at Mamre, near Hebron (1. Mos. 13/18) - altars simply were a regular heap of natural, not artificially formed stones - - - and that is it. This is all the Bible tells he built (except for Sarah's grave, but that was not a building, but a cave (1. Mos. 23/19)). Then the Quran claims he suddenly built a huge temple (mosque), a big stone building which for one thing is far outside the know-how of a nomad to build, and for another thing is situated far away from all places Abraham ever was (as far as we can find the nearest he ever was Mecca, was Hebron, a good number of miles (multiply with 1.6 to get km) south of Bethlehem. And not least: The building of this big temple is not at all mentioned in the Bible, even if it had to take a number of years to build it - Solomon with his enormous resources and his army of highly qualified builders (though no jinns, etc. like the Quran claims) used 7 years to build his temple (1. Kings 6/38), and a big church in medieval Europe could take up to 30 years. These years of building the Kabah is not in any way mentioned in the Bible - neither the building, nor the years it took, nor when it was done. Actually the time and resources it took also is not mentioned in the Quran - it just is indicated (though not directly said) that the Kabah was built during one or a few short visits to Mecca, and nothing about the skill and resources needed and the time it takes for building such a big temple/mosque. No comments - and none necessary.

Besides: To go all the way to Mecca as mentioned was too forbidding for a man with large flocks of animal – and there never was a reason to go there for Abraham. On the contrary: Little food for his animals, no water in Mecca before the Zamzam was found later (?) – and Ishmael living “near the border of Egypt”. He never was in Mecca and consequently never built the Kabah – the big temple that he anyhow did not have the know-how to build, and worse; could not use, because he lived the better part of 1000 km away (this even more so as he could not travel "as the crow flees", but had to go as the cow grazes). And one he did not need as it was far too big for his small family - 2 sons included Ishmael, one wife and some workers. This claim, too, is a clear contradiction to the Bible.

Also remember that science clearly says: "It is practically sure that Abraham never visited Mecca" (and the claim that he built the Kabah, they do not even bother to comment on). And: The ones writing OT some 9oo-1400 or may be a bit more before Muhammad started his preaching - even if they had falsified the scriptures, they had no reason to falsify Abraham out of Arabia as Muhammad and his religion was unknown to them. And: Abraham as said had his pastures in the west whereas Lot had chosen the eastern area (1. Mos. 13/11-12) - i.e. according to the agreement between them Lot's pastures were around and south of the Dead Sea towards Acaba, whereas Abraham grazed his cattle in the western parts of Canaan and later in Negev, both nearer the Mediterranean Sea. Which means that to visit Mecca, Abraham had to move all his cattle from the Mediterranean region and all the way through Lot's area down to Acaba, and then through the forbidding desert to Mecca - a place in or near the Faran Wilderness, a wilderness which now Muslims now have renamed Paran (Muslim sources on Internet admits that the real Arab name was Faran - but you f.x. meet Muslims claiming that Faran just is the Arab name, and that it is named Paran by others - - - a well chosen "explanation" as Muslims saw the name Paran in the Bible, and said: This sounds very like Faran - it must mean Faran. And then they started to tell that Paran, yes, that was in Arabia near Mecca! And foreigners not knowing the real name, used - and uses - the new Arab name Paran as they did not and do not know it is wrong - very few non-Arabs know that the correct name of that wilderness is Faran). But just take a look at the pictures from Faran/Paran, Arabia (they today use only the name Paran to be able to claim that Ishmael was there according to the Bible) and see how tempting this area was for a nomad with lots and lots of animals - Abraham was rich. No rich nomad in his right mind would even think of moving hundreds and hundreds of miles - and more in kilometers - from good pastures in the west to dry desert - Mecca did not even have a well, because this according to the Quran was before the Zamzam well was found. F.x. Hagar did not find water there according to the Quran.

The scientists are right: Abraham never was in Mecca - and to comment on the claim that he built the Kabah is not even worth to bother about.

And see 2/125e above.

Added 5. Apr. 2013 AD: Quoted from the Scandinavian newspaper Aftenposten published today, where professor emeritus (in physics) Redvald Skullerud says: "(It is claimed that Abraham*) used camels for transport some 1200 years before the camel was introduced as a transport animal in the area when the Assyrians started trade with South Arabia". As you see it is an accepted scientific fact that even though the dromedary was domesticated and somewhat used in South Arabia, it was not introduced further north until a long time - 1ooo+ years - after Abraham, and then as a transport animal. To use it as a riding animal came even later. And without the camel, it would be impossible for Abraham to go back and forth between Canaan and the dry desert valley where Mecca later came - crossing rough and forbidding big deserts. Abraham's claimed connection to Mecca is an impossibility.

And: It also is unlikely the Kabah is that old. There today exists methods for finding the age of the oldest parts of the building, but to our knowledge Islam has not tried to use them - too young age will make a problem (if Abraham ever lived, he lived around 1800-2ooo BC, and if the oldest parts of Kabah should turn out to be from say 100 AD, that would mean quite a problem. Another problem: Only Muslims are accepted in Mecca, and on background of f.x. al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), who would 100% believe a Muslim saying he had measured the Kabah to be from ca. 1900 BC?

006 2/128b: "Make of us (Abraham and Ishmael*) Muslims - - -". This was some 2500 years before Muhammad and 2500 years before the first time Muslims appeared. In addition science has found not one single trace of a god similar to Allah, a religion similar to Islam (if you omit Jews and Christians who are some percents similar), or a book like the Quran anywhere in the world older than 610 AD when Muhammad started his preaching. Worse: Also Islam has been unable to find traces from such a religion. It should be unnecessary to mention that this claim also contradicts 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 (f.x. Moses) never were Muslims.

007 2/137c: “- - - (Muslims are*) on the right path - - -“. Can a “path” based on a book full of mistakes and dictated by a man of very doubtful moral, and clearly not from a god, really be said to be “the right path”? And as Allah cannot be the same god as Yahweh - too different teachings - this also is a contradiction to the Bible, as Islam is not on the same "path" as the Bible and especially not NT and its new covenant preaches; one is a religion of blood and war and suppression (that Islam is the religion of peace simply is an al-Taqiyya - a lawful lie (something you only find in Islam of the big religions) - read the surahs from Medina and weep), partly based on dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, etc.), the other of love and peace.

008 2/154a: “And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: ‘They are dead’. Nay, they are living (and enjoy a luxury life with lots of sex in Paradise*) - - -.” Go to war – the worst which can happen to you is a quick way to a royal Earth-like life with a royal harem - see 10/9f below. (The possibility of becoming a cripple is never mentioned - never. The nearest you come this, is one place where the Quran glorifies warriors who become hurt, but still fight on.)

009 2/156a: "To Allah we (Muslims*) belong - - -". - - - if he exists and is a god - nothing was ever proved. There only are claims and a demand for blind belief from a man who permitted al-Taqiyya (lawful lie), Kitman (lawful half-truth), and advised even breaking your - and his own - oaths if that gave a better result. A man who used deceit and betrayal (cfr. the peace delegation from Khaybar). And a man who on top of all wanted respect and power, riches (at least for bribes) and women - religion often is a mighty platform of power.

Muslims seldom belong to Yahweh. If then Allah does not exist - and the Quran and all its mistakes + the fact that the only place Allah has ever manifested himself, is in the mouth of Muhammad makes this extremely likely - where then do Muslims belong if there is a next life?

010 2/156b: "- - - and to Him (Allah*) is our return (at the Day of Doom*)". Another never documented claim - there are hundreds of them in the Quran. (Some undocumented claims could be ok - "he just tells how things are" might be the reaction if he had at least proofs for some of what he told, and in addition was a reliable person. But in the Quran absolutely nothing of the central claims is proved - - - and Muhammad was far from very reliable - al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), deceit, betrayal, broken oaths even.)

011 2/169c: "- - - say of Allah that of which ye (people*) have no knowledge". If one overlooks all the glorious words in the Quran, and reads the rest, one gets a lot of knowledge about both Allah and Muhammad. Much of it is very negative.

012 2/208b: “O ye who believe! Enter into Islam wholeheartedly; and follow not in the footsteps of Satan - - -.” An interesting sentence as one of the theories about who made the Quran, is just that it is made by dark forces (the other two are: Made by an illness (like TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) or by man - or by a mixture of two or three of these three. No god could be involved in a book with so many errors.)

013 2/233h: "But fear Allah and know that Allah sees well what ye do". This is the last resort; "You know that may be you can cheat us, but there is a god working together with us, and him you cannot cheat. Be good and obedient - and go to war - and he will reward you. Be disobedient or cheat, and he will punish you." This is a carrot and a stick - or a whip - which costs nothing for a leader, but which is efficient if the underlings believe in it - the ultimate means of total control and dictatorship. True or not does not matter - what counts is what the underlings believe.

But one impertinent question: If Allah knows everything and even predestines everything according to his own unchangeable Plan like the Quran frequently states, why - why - does he then need to test his followers, f.x. by sending them on raids for riches or to war for Muhammad to may be become invalids or be killed? - if he knows everything, he cannot learn anything from testing them. There is no logic in it. And this even more so if Allah as said on top of all really predestines everything you do, and thus know - and force you to do - every detail of your life and deeds. Allah's claimed need for testing you is a farce or worse, as a test for one thing could tell him nothing he did not already know, and for another thing: If he predestines everything - like MANY points in the Quran very clearly state and confirm - he also predestines what you do during the claimed tests. The tests thus doubly are without meaning.

But if this was Muhammad who needed the carrot and the whip, the logic appears.

This kind of whip (and also the carrot) is much used by Muhammad in the Quran.

014 2/256i: "- - - the most trustworthy hand-hold - - -". Only if Allah exists, if he is a god, if he has sent down the Quran, and if the Quran in addition tells the full and only truth about this.

015 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

##016 3/9f: "- - - Allah never fails His promise." One more never proved claim which only rests on the word of a man with a rather doubtful moral, who accepted both lies, half-truths and even breaking of oats. But in this case it may be true: There is no proof for that Allah ever gave any promise - only the words of a morally suspect person. If he never gave a promise, he also never failed one. (We may add that there never has been any proved case where Allah was proved to have given or to have kept a promise - and Islam had not given you a chance to forget it if it had ever happened.)

017 3/15g: “(In Paradise Muslim men*) find their eternal home; with Companions pure (+ their wives if they qualify for Paradise*), and the good pleasure of Allah.” Does this sentence tell something about how women are valued and looked upon in Islam? Also see 3/14 just above.

#018 3/15i: "- - - Companions pure (and holy) - - -". The famous houris. There in not a word anywhere in the Quran about how they enjoy being "companions" to rough and uneducated self-centered warriors. Such questions were of no interest to Muhammad or to his Muslims. Empathy hardly exists in the Quran. The same goes for the moral behind f.x. rape and forcing women - and girl children at least down to 9 years old - to sex.

019 3/31a: "If ye do love Allah, follow me (Muhammad) - - -". A strong version of Muhammad's mantras used to glue himself to his platform of power; his god.

020 3/31b: "If ye do love Allah, follow me (Muhammad) - - -". No comments necessary: The words of many a maker of sects and religions - and the dream for any highway-men boss, any warlord, any dictator.

021 3/31c: "If ye do love Allah, follow me (Muhammad): for Allah will love you and forgive your sins - - -". Partly strengthening his - Muhammad's - platform of power, and partly pep-talk - including a promise which was very cheap for Muhammad, especially if Allah does not exist.

As for Allah forgiving: Also see 2/187d above.

022 3/31d: "If ye do love Allah, follow me (Muhammad): for Allah will love you and forgive your sins - - -". Allah cannot forgive sins unless he exists and is a god.

023 3/68b: “Without doubt, among men, the nearest of kin to Abraham, are those who follow him - - -“.

  1. You do not get related to a man just because you are a follower.
  2. Is Islam really following Abraham’s real religion? – only the Quran says so, and the Quran has proved that it has lots of mistakes – lots of.
  3. Worse: The Quran has proved exactly nothing of its central parts and claims.

  4. There are lots of discrepancies between the Bible and the Quran concerning Abraham. Science reckons the Bible to be considerably more reliable than the Quran - which is not reckoned to be reliable for anything at all older than Muhammad (you f.x. never see a serious scientist using the Quran as a source for historical facts from before Muhammad),
  5. If Muhammad included himself here: Was he really a descendant of Abraham? – Abraham lived some 2500 years earlier, and how many even today know their forefathers 2500 years back? – people have lied for political or personal reasons throughout both history and pre-history, also about honorable ancestors. Also remember here that according to the Bible - the only "real" source - Ishmael settled in Sinai near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18), not in Arabia.
  6. Also: According to science "it is practically sure Abraham (and thus Ishmael*) never visited Mecca". How then could the Meccan Muhammad be a descendant of Abraham?
  7. Even if Muhammad had been a descendant of Abraham – then how close after 2500 years? His first forefather in case was Ishmael. Ishmael was half Egyptian (his mother Hagar was a slave maiden from Egypt (1.Mos. 16/1), and Ishmael himself married a woman (only one wife is mentioned) from Egypt (1. Mos. 21/21) and his family settled near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) in Sinai. The border of Egypt of that time never was in the middle of Arabia, even though Muslims want Hagar and Ishmael to have settled in Mecca). In addition modern DNA has showed that Arabs far from is a pure race. Arabs originally were a mixture of groups and persons which drifted into the then empty area something like 6ooo years ago (a bit earlier some places along the coasts), and thus was no pure race even from the beginning. Later they were drifting nomads and traders – and brought home wives and slaves and got children with them. Also foreign traders crossed Arabia and made a child now and then – the sexual taboos were far looser before Muhammad. And then there were all the slave women, included f.x. Negro ones (there is a measurable percent of Negro blood in today’s' Arabs) who produced dilution of the blood also in Islamic times. The Arabs simply is a mix of different local and a lot of not local DNA – in addition to the already mentioned fact that already after 2 generations only ¼ of the relationship was with Abraham (if at all) - - - and the 25oo years up to Muhammad meant some 80 - 100 generations diluting of the claimed, but unlikely relationship.

There thus is much reason for doubt.

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 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.

024 3/79a: "It is not (possible) that a man, to whom is given the Book, and Wisdom, and the Prophetic Office, should say to people: 'Be my worshippers rather than Allah's - - -". This is correct only if the person really is a prophet - many things have been said by false prophets. In this case this is an invalid defense for Muhammad, as he did not have the gift of making prophesies, and thus was no real prophet - perhaps a messenger for something or somebody, but a prophet unable to make prophesies is no prophet. There also are so many points which are wrong or worse (lies, contradictions, etc.) in the Quran, that it is not from any god, not to mention an omniscient one. But see 3/79b+c just below.

025 3/81l: "Allah said: 'Do ye (all the old prophets*) agree, and take this Covenant (including believing in and helping Muhammad*) as binding on you?' They said: 'We agree'". There is nothing even remotely similar to this in the Bible.

026 3/81m: "Allah said: 'Do ye (all the old prophets*) agree, and take this Covenant (including believing in and helping Muhammad*) as binding on you?' They said: 'We agree'". He said: 'Then bear witness (about Muhammad*) - - -". They cannot have been very reliable, as exactly none of the known prophets ever mentioned him - included not Abraham, not Moses, and not Jesus to mention 3 of the main prophets according to the Quran (and yes, we know about the cherry-picked, wrong claims concerning 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18, and about the helper Jesus promised his disciples (the Holy Spirit) which Islam claims meant Muhammad 500+ years after the last disciple was dead, but those are claims made up after cherry-picking and twisting of texts. Claims made up from dire need simply - to find "confirmation" was and is more essential than to find out what is true or not in the Quran.)

027 3/85b: "- - - in the Hereafter he (the non-Muslim*) will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good)". This only can be true if the Quran is reliable, and if Allah in addition exists and is a major god + in the god the non-Muslim believe in - f.x. Yahweh - does not exist.

028 3/149b: “If ye (Muslims) obey the unbelievers, they will drive you back on your heals - - -”. No good. We may mention that there have been many cases of disturbance through the times because non-Muslims have got leading positions (Christians and even more so Jews often had better education than Muslims, who often concentrated on "Islamic sciences" - the religion and related knowledge - only) - the Muslims refused to have non-Muslim leaders they had to obey.

029 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.

030 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 all history - be sure Islam had told about it if such a proved case had existed.

031 3/60a: “The Truth (comes) from Allah alone; - - -”. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. With so many mistaken facts that you find in that book, it can at most be partly true, if this refers to the presumed truths in the Quran. Also see 2/2b above and 13/1g and 40/75 below.

032 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.

#033 3/151g: "- - - evil is the home for wrongdoers." "Wrongdoers" normally is one of Muhammad’s names for non-Muslims. But: Much of the Quran's rules and moral and ethical code, not to mention rules for behavior in war, etc., most strongly sins against the "constitution" of all moral and ethical kinds of code: "Do unto others like you want others do onto you". Are Muslims thus wrongdoers heading for an "evil home" if there is a next life? This question is extra relevant as it is clear they live by a claimed holy book not produced by any god - too many errors, etc. in it.

034 3/154i: "But (all this (Battle of Uhud*) was) that Allah might test what is in your breast and purge what is in your hearts". But why does an omniscient god who on top of all decides and predestines everything according to the Quran, have to test his followers? Where is the logic? There also is a strong contradiction between so close claims as 3/154i and 3/154j - a strong contradiction.

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

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

As for Allah forgiving: Also see 2/187d above.

##036 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.

##037 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?

038 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. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.) Also see 3/170b and 10/9f below.

039 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.

040 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.

###041 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 83 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".

042 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.

043 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.)

044 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).

045 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.

046 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?

047 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.

048 4/75c: “And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women and children (crying for help and rescue*) - - -.” Muhammad’s version of the glorious hero on the white horse - and "forgetting" to add "- and power and riches for Muhammad". Another inciting dream "pushed" by good psychology - claimed help to women and children is a good motif. Especially when the men know there are loot and rape and slaves to take in addition.

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

And what about all the cases where non- Muslim "men, women and children" were crying for help against Muslim riders, terrorists, and warriors? After all in most cases the Muslims were the aggressors, at least until the West became too strong and were able to stop them.

049 4/76i: “- - - fight ye (Muslims*) against the friends of Satan (non-Muslims*) - - -“. 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.

##050 4/80b: "He who obeys the Messenger (Muhammad*), obeys Allah - - -". If Muslims insist on that Yahweh = Allah, this is one more very strong proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. The ones obeying Muhammad, definitely and all too often did not obey Yahweh's and Jesus' laws and moral codes. Definitely!

(+ what a statement for a dictator!!)

051 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.

#052 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?

#053 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.

#054 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.

055 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.

056 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 theater.)

057 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.

058 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.

059 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.

060 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.

061 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.

062 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.

063 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.

064 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?

065 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.

###066 5/72g: “But said Christ; ‘O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord‘”. If Jesus had tried to teach about the in Israel known polytheistic god al-Lah from a heathen neighboring country, he had got very few followers and had been quickly killed by the clergy in the religious climate in Israel at that time. This is told by someone not knowing the religious and political situation in Israel at the time of Jesus.

Remember here that now we are in times of written history and exact knowledge. There was no god like Allah, no religion like Islam, and no book like the Quran anywhere in the Roman Empire neither at the time of Jesus, nor any time later until after 610 AD, when Muhammad started his mission.

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.

067 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.

068 5/83i: "- - - write us (learned Christians*) down among the witnesses". This may be 100% propaganda, or there may have been a few (most likely the last alternative). As for all the rest this is pure fantasy - - - but good propaganda. (Also today you see the few Christians converting to Islam used for propaganda by Muslims - and denial of the ones converting from Islam to other religions, mainly to the Christian one. #####Another fact is that of the ones - Christians and others - who convert to Islam, some 75% leave the religion within 3 years, indicating that they see it is not a true religion when they learn more about it. This fact is NEVER mentioned by Muslims.)

069 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.

070 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.

*071 5/117a: (Jesus said*): “Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord”. A story made up to strengthen Islam. If Jesus had said things like this about the known foreign and pagan god al-Lah, he had had very few followers - - - and had been killed within months by the Jewish clergy. See 3/51a and 5/116c above for further explanation. A bluff or a lie - but also bluffs are lies.

072 6/1b: “Praise be to Allah, who created the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth - - -.” Often claimed, never proved. This simply is one of the many claims in the Quran every believer in any religion can use on behalf of his god(s) free of charge, as long as he/she can evade all requests for proof. Also see 2/22a-b above and 21/56c below.

##073 6/9ba: “If We (Allah*) had made it (the proof*) an angel, We should have sent him as a man, and We (= our proof/angel*) should certainly have caused them confusion in a matter (religion*) which they have already covered with confusion.”

This is wrong. To send an angel - and an omnipotent god had no reason for to, and was/is in no way limited to - sending that angel dressed up or shaped like a man - would be such a strong proof for that Muhammad's claimed god and claimed religion were strongly true, that none, hardly even the very most skeptical disbelievers, would accept and believe such a proof. This is such an obvious psychological and human fact, that there is no chance an as intelligent man and a man knowing so much as Muhammad did about how humans think and react, did not know it. One more place in where Muhammad knew he lied in the Quran.

*074 6/11a: “Travel through the earth and see what was the end of those who rejected the Truth”. Scattered around in Arabia and neighboring countries there were ruins of old houses, villages and towns, and there also were folk tales about older tribes and people now gone. Muhammad told these were the remains and rumors left by people destroyed by Allah because of not believing in or sins against Allah - which hardly is true in most cases, if in any. To tell the truth: Not one serious professor of history believes in this. And not one serious scientific book about history mentions such claims as a credible reason for why houses or villages or towns or cities became empty. It will take heavy proofs from Islam to convince them.

That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. Actually the opposite is proved.

075 6/19i: "- - - He (Allah*) is the One God - - -". For one thing: The Quran is not more reliable than that its claims have to be proved - and the Quran never is able to prove anything central to the religion. For another thing: The Bible talks about Yahweh (and other books about other gods). As Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - too fundamentally too different teachings - there either has to be more than one god, or at least one of the two (not to mention claims about other gods) cannot exist. (And a small point here: Yahweh has proved his existences and his power according to both the Bible and to the Quran - Allah has proved absolutely nothing.)

##076 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.

077 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.

078 6/36b: “Those who listen (in truth), be sure, will accept - - -.” Pep-talk - the ones who does not accept Muhammad, is because they do not really listen to him. That it for many was not true, did - and does - not matter very much for pep-talk, as long as his believers believed/believe it.

It also is a most open question what he/she will do if he/she has some knowledge to compare the many claims to, and in addition uses his/her brain. This even more so if he/she has some education and is used to think him-/herself, not only just to swallow readymade claims uncritically. But in many Islamic cultures the children and youths are not trained in thinking things over themselves - accept and believe what your fathers tell you!

*079 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.

080 6/71g: "Allah's guidance is the (only) guidance - - -". But if Allah's guidance = the teachings of the Quran, there are too many mistakes, etc. to be any reliable guidance.

081 6/102a: "There is no god but He (Allah*) - - -". Well, not mentioning other claimed gods in different religions, there still remains Yahweh. The basics of Islam and the basics especially of NT are so different that they cannot be the same god, no matter what wishful thinking and not documented claims the Quran or Muslims put forth. (One possibility: The two may really be one god, if the god is strongly schizophrenic.) If there is one, but just one god, that means that only Allah or only Yahweh can exist. And Allah only is to be found in a book with hundreds and more mistakes, told by a man with very suspect moral and liking power, using Allah - real or made up - as his platform of power; Self-centered. Selfish? Well, of course Allah is to be found in the old pagan Arab religion, then obeying(?) the name al-Lah - "the god". Whereas there after all is a chance for that Yahweh exists - there f.x. were so many witnesses to Jesus' miracles, death and resurrection, that one may wonder.

####082 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.

##083 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.)

084 6/117c: "- - - His (Allah's*) guidance (the Quran*)." There is no divine guidance in a book full of mistakes. Also see 7/192a and 16/107 below.

585 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?

086 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.)

087 6/148e: "Say: 'Have ye any (certain) knowledge? If so, produce it before us." Islam and the Quran are quick to demand proofs from anyone else, but hardly ever prove anything themselves - they rely on unproved claims and on statements built nothing or on other unproved claims. Beware of this when you debate with Muslims: They often put forth loose claims without any proofs, and demands that you prove it is wrong - if you are unable to that, they claim they are right, no matter how wrong they are. And if you are able to prove a claim wrong, they utter disbelief and instead make another unproved claim. One technique is quoting a known writer speaking about things he knows no more about than ordinary people - but he is a known writer. By cherry-picking quotes Islam has found a number of "good" claims, and it is not always easy to prove they are wrong, even when they are far from reality. But it is not for you to prove him/her wrong. It is he/she who is making the claim, and thus it is for him/her to prove it. Demand proofs for all claims from them before you at all start answering them - mostly they are unable to prove anything when they are using dishonest arguments or loose claims, and loose claims are especially often used.

###"A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". "Strong claims need strong proofs". "Claims are cheap, but only proofs are proofs". "A claim without a proof may be dismissed without a proof".

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".

088 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.

089 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.

090 7/8b: "- - - those whose scale (of good) will be heavy - - -". This includes all kinds good deeds like thieving, lying, discrimination mongering, suppressing, enslaving, torture, rape, murder, etc. if it is done in the name of "Allah and His Prophet" during a Jihad - and practically every conflict and raid was and is claimed to be Jihad.

###091 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 – Aisha - 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 Aisha 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.

092 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.

093 7/57e: "- - - thus shall We (Allah*) rise up the dead - - -". Interesting claim, because neither Allah nor Muhammad has ever showed they have this power - Muhammad could not even help his own dying children (he lost all his children except Fatima, and she died shortly after him - was some god punishing him for something?) - there only are lofty words. Whereas if either the Bible or the Quran (f.x. 5/110a) tells the truth on this point, Jesus and Yahweh - and for that case even Elisha (1. Kings 17/22) and Paul (Acts 20/9-12) - proved so thoroughly, and thus showed they were closer to a god and thus greater prophets than Muhammad (if he at all was a prophet - no person unable to make prophesies is a prophet). ####There also is a thought provoking fact concerning Muhammad and his claim about being a prophet: Many of the Biblical prophets received or experienced during their years as prophets some kind of proofs for a god behind their call and work. This never happened to the many false prophets the Bible sometimes mentions - and Muhammad never was able to prove even a molecule about his claimed god, his claimed contact to a god - Allah or any other - or his own claimed prophethood. There only were claims and words, and many of those provably wrong (like f.x. shown in our book "1ooo+ Mistakes in the Quran") - the typical situation not for prophets, but for false prophets.

094 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 archeology, not in history, not in literature, not in folklore or legends, yes, not even in fairy tales.

095 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.

096 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.

097 8/10d: "- - - Allah is Exalted in Power - - -". See 8/10b above.

098 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.

099 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".

100 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).

101 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.

102 9/63a "Know they (non-Muslims*) that for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*), is the Fire of Hell - - -". Nobody knows this. Most Muslims believe it, but no-one knows it, as there only is the word of a man with very special moral and ethics for it. But also see 9/62a above.

103 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.

104 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.

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

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

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

####105 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!!!

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

**106 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.

107 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.

108 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.

109 9/100d: "- - - for them (good Muslims*) hath He (Allah*) prepared 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.

110 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).

111 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"?

**112 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.

113 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?

114 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?

115 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.

116 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).

117 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.

118 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.

119 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.

120 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!

121 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?

122 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".

123 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?

124 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".

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

######125 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”?

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

126 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.

127 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.

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

#####128 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.

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

129 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.

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

#130 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.

131 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.

132 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.

133 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.

134 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.

135 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.

*136 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".

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

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

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

*137 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!!!

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

138 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.

####139 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?)

140 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).

141 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.

142 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.

143 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.

144 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.

145 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.

*146 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".

147 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 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 as 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.

148 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".

149 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.

**150 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.

###151 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.

152 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.

153 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.

154 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!)

155 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.

156 13/18a: "For those who respond to their lord (Allah*) are (all) good things". Ever so often claimed in the Quran, but never proved.

157 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?

158 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!

159 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.

####160 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.

161 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.

162 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.

163 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.

164 16/1e: "- - - glory to Him (Allah*) - - -". Read 1/1a above and see if you agree - - - if he exists.

165 16/18c: "- - - Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." Please read the surahs from Medina - or perhaps some of his (?) sharia laws - and see if you afterwards agree. Also See 1/1a and 1/1e above.

166 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.

167 16/51c: "- - - fear Me (Allah*) and Me alone". There is no reason to fear him unless he exists. If he exists and is behind the Quran, he is no god - too much is wrong in that book for a god to have ever been involved - but he may belong to the dark forces and simply cheated Muhammad - - - or created by Muhammad. In this case he may be dangerous - at least in a perhaps next life.

168 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.

169 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.

###170 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.

##171 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?

172 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?

173 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).

174 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.

175 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).

176 19/43d: "- - - a way that is even and straight". The claimed road to the Quran's and Islam's paradise - see 10/9f above.

####### 177 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.

178 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.

179 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.

180 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.

181 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.

182 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?).

183 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

184 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.

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

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

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

#####185 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 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. (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!! NB!! NB!!!

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

186 24/46e: "- - - Allah guides whom He wills to a Way that is straight". But the black point is that he also denies Paradise for whom he will - something he decides already 5 months before you are born according to Hadiths, and you have no chance to change his mind according to the Quran - even if you try to do your very best to be a good Muslim, Allah will block the road to Paradise for you a little before you are qualified if you are destined for Hell - all this according to Hadiths. (Islam may try to disprove this if they are able to.)

This also differ greatly from the Bible: Allah guides whom he wants - Yahweh guides absolutely everybody who wants strongly enough to qualify (free will for man is real in the Bible, and everybody can choose) according to that book.

187 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.

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

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

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

###188 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!!!

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

189 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

190 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.

191 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") .

192 27/3d: "- - - (full) assurance for the Hereafter". Only if Allah exists and is a god, and the Quran in addition tells the full truth and only the truth.

193 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.

194 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.

195 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.

196 28/46e: "Yet (art thou (Muhammad*) sent) as a Mercy from thy Lord (Allah*) - - -". Muhammad with his Quran full of errors and mistakes was from no god - and no mercy to even his own people.

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

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

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

197 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!!!

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

###198 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!!!

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

###199 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.

200 30/9a: "Do they not travel throughout the earth, and see what was the End of those before them?" This is a theme which is repeated many times in the Quran. In and around Arabia there were ruins and deserted buildings and villagers and some towns - and there were tales about former people now gone. Muhammad claimed they all were result if Allah's punishments for sins. Science disagrees, as there are many other possible explanations. Islam will have to prove their never documented claims if they want to make science believe what they say. It seems like Muhammad is bluffing.

201 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.

202 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.

203 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.

204 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.

205 33/6c: "The Prophet (Muhammad*) is closer to the Believers than their own selves - - -". His followers hardly were aware of it, but this is an extremely strong demand on them.

206 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.

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

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

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

#####207 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!!!

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

208 42/15k: "- - - to Him (Allah*) is (our) final goal (at the Day of Doom)". Often claimed, never documented. And contradicted by the Bible.

209 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 PARABLE 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".

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

###210 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?

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

#211 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).

####212 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!!

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

####213 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!!

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

###214 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?"

###215 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 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.

THIS IS ONE OF THE CLAIMS MUHAMMAD MADE UP.

216 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.

217 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.

218 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.

219 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).

###220 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."

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

###221 44/54a: “- - - and We (Allah*) shall join them to Companions with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes.” Women as payment for "good deeds" like lying, deceiving, stealing, suppressing, torturing, killing. Some moral code and some view on women - slaves/things to use for gifts or payment. Not in the Bible. One of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - their paradises are utterly different. If they had been the same god, their Paradise had been one and the same. 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).

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

222 44/55: "There (in Paradise*) they (the resurrected dead*) can call for every kind of fruit - - -". Another most strong proofs for that Yahweh's and Allah's Paradises are not the same one. In Yahweh's the resurrected persons "become like angels" (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)), in the Quran they are resurrected in body, though as young adults - and need food and drink and plenty of women (there is little talk of the women's life in Paradise - Islam is a religion mainly for men (also this is very different from Yahweh's and Jesus' Paradise)).

223 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.

224 45/28c: "This Day shall ye (people/sects*) be recompensed for all that ye did!" This may well be - but by whom? As the Quran is form no god, and there never has been a real proof for Allah, he is highly unlikely to be anything but the old pagan god al-Lah in a new suit, and thus no existing god. Then who will recompense people for good and bad deeds, prayers for forgiving, etc.? One may hope for a good and benevolent god, but what then about all the Muslims who have lived according to the Quran's harsh war religion laws?

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?)

Similar goes for forgiving in Islam - it will change Allah's Plan "which nobody and nothing can change" according to the Quran.

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

225 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.

226 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.

227 48/5a: "- - - He (Allah*) may admit men and women who believe, to Gardens - - -". Only if he exists and is a god, none of which Muhammad was able to prove.

228 48/5c: "- - - Gardens beneath which rivers flow - - -". The Quran's and Islam's Paradise. See 10/9f above. Also an Arabism.

229 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.

230 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).

#231 53/62: "- - - adore (Him (Allah*))!" Why adore the "hero" in a clearly made up - by dark forces or human(s) - book? A claimed "hero" who has never before or later manifested himself in any way at all! Cervantes was out from prison when he wrote Don Quixote - in a book of a measurably better literary quality than the Quran. But Don Quixote does not exist even though a doubtful person wrote a book about him.

Even if things are said or written, that does not mean that it is true - and especially not when the narrator is an unreliable person of doubtful moral even according to the realities in central Islamic relevant literature.

232 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.

233 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.

234 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?)

235 56/15-16: “(They (the pious Muslims*) will be) on Thrones encrusted (with gold and precious stones), reclining on them, facing each other”. This means long double rows of thrones – millions or perhaps a few billions of thrones in double rows facing each other. More, if also the women and children and all the houris shall recline on thrones. Also there has to be some space between the rows, as there have to be places for resting on carpets as mentioned in other verses, and for the fruit trees and the water.

But endless double rows of thrones does not sound like our idea of a perfect paradise, no matter how many houris for free use and good food and drinks, as the nearly only pastime is some polite and not intellectually demanding conversation - the only alternative mentioned. See also quote 56/25-26 below.

236 56/15-23: A description of Allah's Paradise. Does anyone see any difference between this and a poor, naive, uneducated warrior's dream of a royal life included a suitable harem, and this? Very - VERY - different from Yahweh's Paradise in the Bible, where you "become like the angels" (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)). Another point: In Yahweh's Paradise there is no houris and even no married couples any more - no sex. And being like an angel, you need no food - a sharp contrast to Muhammad's description of delicious things to eat and drink. Yahweh the same god as Allah? You are free to believe it if you are logically blind.

237 56/35-37a: “We (Allah*) have created (their Companions (houris*)) of special creation. And made them virgin-pure (and undefiled) – beloved (by nature), equal in age (for good Muslim men 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 miles and square miles about Islam’s view of women. The servile nature of the houris – the ideal women – in the descriptions, also tells volumes about Islam’s point of view on how women shall behave.

The houris simply were sex slaves and courtesans, an idea extremely far from the Bible's, Yahweh's, and Jesus' Paradise (they are "borrowed from the Zoroastrian paradise, where they were named paaris). A very strong proof for that Yahweh and Allah were not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion. (The idea of houris is "borrowed" from Persian old religion, where they were named paaris.)

238 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).

239 57/8a: "What cause have ye (non-Muslims*) why ye should not believe in Allah?". Well to mention a few of the reasons:

  1. Not one single claim is proved in Islam - not even the existence of the claimed god, the former pagan god al-Lah.
  2. All the mistaken facts and other mistakes prove 110% and more that the Quran is not from any god - no omniscient god makes such and so many mistakes (which is why Muslims cannot afford to see the mistakes no matter how obvious they are).
  3. All the contradictions have the same 110% effect.

  4. All the invalid logic also has the same 110% effect - so only on these 3 points you have 330% proofs that the Quran is not from a god.
  5. The language many places are unclear or with 2 or more possible ways of understanding a point. No god would use unclear language in his holy book.
  6. A lot of points in the book were difficult or impossible to understand from people not from that region - Arabisms. No universal god would make his holy book in ways not possible for all to understand unless they were known in a small region of Earth. Humans might make such mistakes, but not an omniscient god.
  7. The horrible and immoral parts of the Quran's moral code may indicate that the real maker of the Quran belongs to some dark forces. Who wants to believe in a religion perhaps made up by f.x. a devil impersonating Gabriel? What at least is sure, is that points like that are not from any good and benevolent god.
  8. The immoral and unethical parts of the ethical code, means a not good and benevolent god.
  9. The parts of sharia which are unjust and/or immoral gives the same thoughts as the sentence above.
  10. The Quran contains not a few cases of boasting or bluffs. Who needs to use bluffs? - the cheat and deceiver, not an omnipotent god.
  11. #####The Quran contains some places where Muhammad is lying. How true is a religion which needs lies? And who needs to use lies? - the cheat and deceiver.
  12. All the points in the Quran where it is used wrong science - science believed in at the time of Muhammad - indicates very clearly that the Quran is made by humans living at the time of Muhammad - perhaps by Muhammad himself.
  13. Islam is a war religion - the claim "the religion of peace" is an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie) - and who believes a "good and benevolent" god runs a religion of dishonesty, stealing, apartheid, rape, suppression, and war?
  14. The Quran accepts the use of dishonesty. How much then is dishonest points in the book?
  15. The Quran is entirely based on the words of a man with a very doubtful moral - lying, breaking even of oaths, deceiving, stealing, raping, and a lot more - and a man wanting power and riches (for "gifts" to buy more followers and to keep some of the ones he had - clear from central Islamic books) - and not to mention women (one knows the name of 36 women he had more or less regular sex with (see the chapters about Muhammad under www.1000mistakes.com - and those are the ones one knows the names of).

Well, these at least were a few reasons why not to believe in Allah and in Muhammad's religion - at least not until at least something is proved.

240 57/9g: "- - - He (Allah*) may lead you (by means of the Quran*) from the depths of Darkness into the light". No book with that much wrong and with such a large part of its moral code immoral and brutal, can lead anyone into real light - especially as f.x. all the mistakes prove that the texts are not from any god.

241 57/12j: "This (Paradise*) is indeed the highest Achievement". This may well be true, but only if the Quran's Paradise exists, and only if the good Muslims end there. As the Quran with all its errors, etc. is not from any god, these are very open questions.

242 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.

243 59/23m: "Glory to Allah!" Please read 1/1a above and see if you think he deserves it - if he exists.

**244 61/4b: “Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array as if they were a solid cemented structure”. The ones who say the Quran is as good as the Bible, not to mention NT, have never read the Quran - which we can say even if we are not very Christian.

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

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

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

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

#####245 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.)

246 62/2a: “It is He (Allah*) Who has sent (Muhammad*)”. It is difficult to believe that an omniscient god sent a messenger with a message containing so much wrong, and a messenger taking so good care of himself. It simply is not correct. No omniscient god would do so. Neither would a good and benevolent god send such a harsh and bloody representative - Yahweh could be hard at times in OT, but nothing like Allah - and for a limited purpose, not to suppress the entire world like the Quran orders.

###247 63/1e: “- - - thou (Muhammad*) art indeed His (Allah’s*) Messenger - - -.” Well, the Quran says so – but very much of what is said in the Quran obviously is wrong. And can a man claiming to be bringing rather ok and moral messages for 13 years, and then highly immoral and inhuman messages for 10 years (Islam changed much in and after 622 AD and the flight to Medina) to man – and using the messages as his platform of power – really be the messenger of a timeless and benevolent god? Does an eternal and omniscient god change his mind and his religion that much in some months? If not, Muhammad was no real messenger.

248 64/9j: "- - - that (Paradise*) will be a Supreme Achievement". Certainly - if this is not one of the many, many mistakes in the Quran - or one of the sporadic lies in the book.

##249 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.

250 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.

251 65/5e: "- - - if anyone fears Allah, He will remove his (not her - Islam is a man's religion*) ills from him, and will enlarge his reward". Only possible - possible - is Allah exists and is a god. (Allah may exist and even be a god and not do this all the same, if not the Quran has told the full truth and only the truth about him.)

######252 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 Aishah 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 Marieh had no free choice. We do not know if he raped other captives or slaves.

And not least: All this is from Muslim sources - what Islam itself tells about him, though in more glossy words. There is no excuse for becoming angry, because it is 100% true according to Islam itself.

Yes, many will call this “an exalted standard of character”. But not many of those would be non-Muslims. And how many of the Muslims can say it and feel honest?

"Do against others like you want others do against you".

If Muhammad was an excellent idol for good Muslims, we hope never to meet a bad Muslim.

253 68/34e: "- - - (in Paradise Muslims are*) in the Presence of their Lord (Allah)". This is the only pleasure in Muhammad's Paradise which is not a bodily one - perhaps in addition to peace and quiet and the closeness of the family. Everything else is for the body: Good food, good things to drink, good clothes, good houses, pleasant weather, etc. Oh, there may be a little vainglory, too: Sitting on glorious thrones in long rows - miles and miles and miles of them (but some of the royal superiority complex gets bleached when everybody else - by the millions - are kings, too, all without underlings, except their wives and houris (and the women do not even have such underlings - but so what, as Islam is a men's and warriors' religion?)

And as for presence to Allah: If normally good Muslims ends up in the lower heaven out of 7, and Hadiths tells there are may be 100 years travel between each heaven, the "presence" is not very close - yes, not even Muhammad and the 7th heaven is very close.

####254 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.)

255 73/8: "- - - devote thyself (Muslim*) to Him (Allah*) wholeheartedly". Not a too good idea if Allah does not exist - or if he exists, but belongs to the dark forces. That is to say: It might be a good idea for the god's claimed representative on Earth, as on Earth this in praxis for a large part meant: Devote yourself to the god's claimed representative on Earth".

#####256 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?

257 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.

258 77/41-44: The paradise of the Quran and of Islam modeled after the poor, naive desert dweller's dream about en emperor's luxury once more. See 10/9f above.

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.

259 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).

260 84/25d: "- - - a Reward that will never fail". If Allah exists, if he is a major god, and if the Quran tells the full truth and only the truth about this.

261 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").

262 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".

263 94/8b: "And to thy (Muslims'?*) Lord (Allah*) turn (all) thy attention". Why, when you know that each and every rumor and claim about even his existence are based only on a book choke full of mistakes, contradictions, etc.? This plus some additional words from a man even the religion's own books divulge is the user of lies and deceit and even broken words/promises/oaths - and a man liking respect, power, riches for more power - and women. Plus you know that the claimed god is the pagan old Arab god al-Lah/Allah, dressed up and renamed a little to only Allah, and tried intertwined with the more accepted old Jewish and Christian god, Yahweh - a god who after all may, but stress the word may, exist. And a former pagan Arab god who has never - never - manifested himself in any provable way. Neither himself, nor his power. There only - only - are the loose and never proved words and claims of this man - a man modern medical science on top of all suspects had a brain illness (TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy), an illness whish in case explains both his physical fits and his religious illusions.

264 96/19c: "- - - bring thyself (Muslim/Muhammad*) the closer (to Allah*)". Not possible unless Allah exists and is something supernatural. You cannot bring yourself closer to something which does not exist.

Sub-total Chapter 42 = 264 + 3.784 = 4.048.


>>> Go to Next Chapter

>>> Go to Previous Chapter

This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".