Muhammad in the Quran, Vol. 3: Chapter 58


 

DISHONESTY AND MUHAMMAD'S USE OF IT

(Also see chapters 16 and 19)

Islam is the only one of the big religions which accepts dishonesty, deceit, betrayal, disuse of words/promises/oaths, etc. as working tools. That dishonesty both in words and deeds are acceptable for Muhammad and for Islam is clear from many points both in the Quran and in the Hadiths. We mention some categories Muhammad preached and used:

  1. Al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie.
  2. Kitman - the lawful half-truth.
  3. Hilah - the lawful pretending and circumventing.
  4. Deceit - accepted and used as a working tool by Muhammad, and thus ok to use by any Muslim.
  5. Betrayal - "War is betrayal" according to Muhammad - and "everything" is war.
  6. Disuse/breaking of words/promises/oaths - See verses 2/225, 5/89, 16/91, and 66/2. No other big religion has such rules.
  7. Muhammad lying even in the Quran - See f.x. our Booklet 2.
  8. Rape of captives - perhaps not dishonest, but at least very immoral - but "lawful and good"!
  9. Stealing/looting - deeds of dishonesty -"lawful and good" (8/69). No comments necessary.
  10. Extortion - a most dishonest and immoral way of making money.
  11. Slave taking - stealing other humans' freedom, work capacity, and future - and sex life.
  12. Destruction of other people's lives or property. and refuse to compensate for the destruction.

One really big question of disbelief: How is it possible for Muslims never to check if a man living by such moral rules like Muhammad did (also according to the Quran and other Muslim sources), and a man wanting respect, power, and women, did not sometimes also deceive his followers to reach his goals? A man who in addition lied at least some times in his claimed holy book, ought to be at least checked for possible dishonesty also towards his followers. Politicians - and Muhammad also was a politician - of this category are not always honest even towards "comrades".

Also see the chapter "Muhammad lying in the Quran".

Some samples of dishonesty and some of the rules for dishonesty - remember that not only lying, etc. is dishonesty, but also stealing/looting, extorting, etc.:

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

#001 2/7b: “Allah hath set seal on their (non-Muslims*) hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).” Do they really incur it when it is according to Allah’s plan (see 6/107)? - and when Allah destroys their possibilities for seeing that they are wrong (if they are wrong)? Some Muslims (f.x. A2/7) even claim - like mostly without documentation - that "it is a natural law instituted by Allah" that if you lie, after some time you lose the ability to see the truth (thought-provoking for Islam and it's al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), and Muhammad's advices in the Quran about breaking even your oaths if that gives a better result?), which is untrue, as it only becomes easier to resort to lies. What kind of god is this? One more Muslim loose claim (f.x. Azad: If you reject Allah, "the result (is*) that the spiritual faculties become dead - - -". Some claim from a culture and a religion which brought forth not one single new idea benefiting humanity at least 850 years from 1095 AD and "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad; al-Ghazali and his killing of philosophy/new thinking - use of spiritual faculties - (by means of his book "On the Incoherence of the Philosophers"). (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.) It also is some claim from the only one of the big religions which accepts the use of dishonesty as working tools - and as incitement for going on raids and war (stealing/looting).

*002 2/26h: “- - - He (Allah*) causes many to stray - - -.” The main point here is that it is Allah who causes it. Can Allah then be a benevolent god when straying means you will end in Hell? There is quite a difference between this and "the lost sheep" in NT (the good shepherd - God/Jesus - lost a sheep (similitude for a human) and went far out to find it). This is one of the places where there are worlds between the basic ideas of Allah and of God/Yahweh - so fundamental differences that it is clear that Muhammad's claim that Allah = Yahweh is wrong - - - unless the god is highly schizophrenic. (See f.x. Luke 15/8-10 and 15/11-31 or Matt. 18/12-14 and 20/8-13).

All this means Allah is deceiving persons. We also here touch Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) and lawfully breaking of even oaths (and what then about normal promises?) which is something which is special for Islam. You find this kind of accepted dishonesty in no other of the major religions – and in few of the minor ones.

Actually al-Taqiyya and Kitman are not explicitly introduced in the Quran. It is based on conclusions Islamic scholars have made from things said and done about (dishonest) planning or cheating, honesty, breaking of oaths (introduced in the Quran), etc. in the book and in Hadiths. See the verses below. Institutionalizes by Muhammad and his Quran, but formalized by the scholars.

The Quran and Islam tell that in principle you should be honest. But in many cases where dishonesty will give a better result, you are permitted to lie (Al-Taqiyya, Kitman) and even to deceive - done by Muhammad, and thus permitted - or make false oaths or to break oaths you have made (2/225a, 5/89a+b, 13/42, 27/50 and some more)). In some cases Allah will say it is ok because it is a minor thing or because you did not really mean your oath, and in other cases he will say; “ok – if you pay me some money or give me a gift for expiation afterward”. And then in some cases it is not only permitted, but obligatory to use it if necessary: To defend or promote Islam.

Al-Taqiyya and Kitman can be used at least in these cases (for broken oaths there are given no real limitations if the broken oath will give a better result. By implication this also goes for ordinary words or promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal promise or a normal given word).

  • 1. To save your or others' health or life.
  • 2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem or position.
  • 3. To make peace in a family.
  • 4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one’s oath.
  • 5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get work permit or residence permit in a rich country.)
  • 6. To deceive opponents/enemies.
  • 7. To betray enemies.
  • 8. To secure one’s money (very clear from Hadiths).
  • 9. To defend Islam. (Advised if necessary to succeed.)
  • 10. To promote Islam. (Advised if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive some ones – actually also in the long run too if the opposite part does not know about this side of Muslims and of Islam, or if he/she is naïve.

But the serious side effect is that people quickly learn that one can never know for sure when to believe a Muslim in serious questions: Is he honest or is he using f.x. an al-Taqiyya?

And there is another side effect: Muslims have difficulties being believed even when they are telling the full truth – for very good reasons the opposite parts are reluctant to fully believe them, as may be they tell the truth or maybe they just are practicing al-Taqiyya or Kitman.

And yet another side effect: How can Muslims know when to believe their leaders and others? (This may be one of the reasons for why Muslims produce so may conspiracy theories - they go looking for "the real truth" behind what is told, no matter if the tale is an al-Taqiyya or the plain, sterling truth).

And all these side effects – which really over time may be the main effects – are made worse because Muslims have no way of strengthening their words by swearing, as oaths from Muslims are without much value, because they are permitted false oaths and to break their oaths – it is no sin to do so if you did not really mean the oath or have a reason for breaking it, and especially not if you give Allah a gift for expiation afterwards (necessary in serious cases).

*003 2/79b: “Then woe to those who write the Book (here the Bible?*) with their own hands - - -.” Contradicting at least parts of the Bible, as for parts of it the book itself tells who the writers are (and for the rest both science and Islam has proved it is not falsified, which is what this verse claims. But claims about falsifications was Muhammad's only way out to save his religion and thus his platform of power - and as known Muhammad was not too strong on honesty (al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie - Kitman - the lawful half-truth - deception, and even the breaking of words/oaths).

###004 2/93c: “We (Jews in Medina*) hear and we disobey”. Muhammad Asad adds (A2/77): “Even if they did not say those words, their later behavior justifies this quote”. But words which are not said, are not said, and cannot be quoted in honesty, only in dishonesty – would a god resort to such arguments? And how come that this quote is in the Quran – may be billions of years old and infallible and revered by Allah – if they did not say it? - and how many other made up arguments do you in case find in the Quran?

Besides this quote from M. A. tells a lot about leading Muslims' view on the use of honesty and dishonesty.

##005 2/125e: "We (Allah*) covenanted with Abraham and Ishmael - - -". The Bible is contradicting: (1.Mos.17/21) Yahweh says: "But my covenant I will make with Isaac". And many years later to Isaac's son Jacob (and now Ishmael is totally out of the picture) similar words like the ones which were said to Abraham 2 generations earlier (1.Mos. 28/14): "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring". There is no doubt according to the Bible with which branch of Abraham's descendants the god covenanted. Even if the Arabs really were descendants of Ishmael, they had belonged to the wrong branch of the family - they were not the offspring of Jacob, and not even of Isaac. And it is likely this might be the reality - at the time when the Torah was written, there was no reason for the writers to place Ishmael and his descendants at the border of Egypt (1.Mos. 25/18) if he really lived in Arabia - Muhammad and his competing religion still was 1000 years into the unknown future when it was written. But for Muhammad the situation was different: It is quite common for emerging sects and religions to "high-jack" parts of a mother religion - it gives "weight" and tradition to the new sect/religion. For Muhammad it would pay to "take over" a known name like Ishmael. It obviously also would pay for him to take over the claimed center of the religious word - even a made up claim works if people believe in it.

Another fact: Modern DNA-analysis has shown that the Arabs are no coherent tribe. They are a mixture of many nations - not strange lying at a crossroad with travelers passing through, and where sex and alcohol were "the two delightful things" until Muhammad took over. And also Arab tradesmen brought brides and slaves back home even long before Muhammad, not to mention all the slave women who were brought home after the robberies made the Arabs rich enough to afford more/many women. The "Arab Blood" is strongly diluted and mixed up, and even was never a homogenous tribe originally.

What the Bible really says about Ishmael in relevant connections is:

(1. Mos. 16/7): The pregnant Hagar fled from Abraham and Sarah (then named Sarai - not mentioned in the Quran), and "The angel of the Lord found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur". Shur was a desert area east of the Gulf of Suez in Egypt. Shur extended southwards past the northern end of the Red Sea, "opposite Egypt" = roughly east of where the Suez Canal now runs and a little down the east side of the Red Sea. 1): Hagar may have headed towards her home country Egypt. 2): Abraham had to be far west - and very far from Arabia/Mecca - for her to find that road, as that road run inland from the Mediterranean Sea (far inland but in that region).

(1. Mos. 21/12-13): "But God/Yahweh said to him (Abraham*), 'Do not be so distressed about the boy (Ishmael*) and your maidservant (Hagar - Ishmael's mother*). Listen to what Sara (Abraham's wife*) tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of your maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring".

(1. Mos. 20/1): "Now Abraham moved - - - into the region of Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur". Kadesh was a town West of the southern end of the Dead sea, between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, and a bit more than halfway to the Mediterranean Sea. The desert of Shur was west of Kadesh direction Egypt and near the Gulf of Suez in Egypt and southwards past the northern end of the Red Sea. (You will meet Muslims claiming Kadesh was in or near Mecca, and others claiming it was near Petra in Jordan - necessary to be able to move the Paran desert area to the Faran Mountain and the Faran Wilderness on the Arab peninsula, rename it Paran like the Muslims have done, and claim this Paran/Faran is the Paran of the Bible? (- even though there is no doubt where the Paran of the Bible was - there is a little too much of this kind of dishonesty in Islam.)) But to tell Abraham settled between Shur, near Egypt, and Jordan or Mecca is not even comical - Muslims often are very clever at finding solutions they want to find, but forgetting or "forgetting" details - or big things - making the claimed solution wrong or invalid.) The point here is that Abraham now was living in Negev in the west, not so very far from the Mediterranean Sea area, and in the region where the road to Shur and on to Egypt crossed. The Bible tells when Abraham made major moves, and it does not mention that Abraham left this region until after Isaac was born and after Hagar and Ishmael (who must have been something like 14 - 16 years by then - he was born when Abraham was 86 years (1. Mos. 16/16) and circumcised when Abraham was 99 and Ishmael 13 years old (1. Mos. 17/24-25), and this was a bit later) had left Abraham's camp. Which indicates that Hagar and Ishmael left his camp in this area - something which may correspond well with that they took the road to Shur and on to the border of her homeland, Egypt, and settled there like the Bible tells: 1. Mos. 25/18: ""His (Ishmael's*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt". The desert of Shur is well known, but this Havilah (there is another connected to the Garden of Eden) is not clearly located, but is believed to have been in the southern part of Canaan (Palestine from 135 AD and emperor Hadrian, now Israel). (We may add that Muslim sources we find on Internet - f.x. www.jamaat.net/compl/arabsinthebible.html - admits that "the wilderness of Paran" = Faran in Arabic.)

(1. Mos. 21/18): "- - - I (Yahweh*) will make him into a great nation". See further down.

(1. Mos. 21/14): "She (Hagar) went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba", which meant that she had to leave Abraham somewhere in what is now the south of Israel (Beersheba itself is some 70 miles (ca. 115 km) south of Tel Aviv) in a part of the Negev desert bordering or part the Paran area bordering Sinai - Sinai as you most likely know is a peninsula to the southwest of Israel, bordering Egypt (the Arabian Peninsula is to the southeast and with the Bay of Acaba between it and the Sinai peninsula).

(1. Mos.21/15): "When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes". It would not be possible for Hagar to walk to Mecca - hundreds of miles through hot desert - with the only water she had was one water skin. (Besides there was no sane reason for her to walk that way - this even more so as she was not from Arabia, and had absolutely no known connection to that area, but was from Egypt = in the west.)

(1. Mos. 21/21): "While he (Ishmael*) lived in the desert of Paran, his mother (Hagar*) got a wife for him from Egypt". Muslims dearly wants Paran to mean Paran in Arabia (the name really was Faran, but has become Paran because Muslims wanted it to be a reference from the Bible), but Paran Desert was an area south of Canaan - and south of Beersheba - bordering North Sinai and reaching towards Elath. The name of the area today is el-Tih. The Desert of Paran also contained the Mountain of Paran mentioned in 5. Mos. 33/2. As Paran bordered Canaan, Moses sent his 12 spies into Canaan from here (from in or near the town of Kadesh) - if he had sent them from Paran/Faran in Arabia, they first would have had to cross hundreds of miles - and kilometers - of forbidding desert to reach Canaan. And how far would Hagar have had to travel to find a wife from Egypt to him? (It is typical for Muslim argumentation to produce claims where details - or not details - are omitted to get the (made up) argument they want - you meet this technique a bit too often. It is one of the problems we meet when studying Islamic literature - all information has to be checked, because you never know what is true and what is f.x. an al-Taqiyya (lawful lie), a Kitman (lawful half-truth), or even just wishful thinking helped by invalid logic (Muslims often jumps from "this may be a possibility" or even weaker to "it is like this") to make things fit the Quran. It may seem like many Muslims in addition are little trained in the use of the laws of logic and in critical thinking.)) (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

But the Muslims' high-jacking of Paran has one good effect: They have placed lots of pictures from Paran/Faran in Arabia on Internet. Paran/Faran itself is a mountain, and the wilderness is lying near and mainly north of Mecca, and Abraham would have had to cross the large desert now called the Paran Wilderness by Muslims to reach Mecca - and live in it, as Mecca used to be similar to this at that time. Open some of the pages and look at the pictures: How tempted would Abraham be to go into hundreds of miles of this with all his cattle? Exactly not at all. (This in addition to that it is well known where the real Paran from the Bible was).

(1. Mos. 25/16): "These (the 12 sons of Ishmael*) are the names of the 12 tribal rulers - - -" = the great nation mentioned in 1. Mos.21/18 - Muslims never mention this verse. (But there is a large difference between a promise to make them a great nation and a covenant. Also remember that a great nation at that time was something different from today - f.x. Abraham with his 318 men beat the combined forces of 4 kings in battle near Dan (1. Mos. 14/14-15))

(1. Mos. 25/18): "His (Ishmael's*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur (see above*), near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur (= eastwards*)". One more verse Muslims never - never - mention.

(1. Mos. 25/18): "And they (the sons of Ishmael) lived in hostility toward all their brothers". Also this a verse Muslims never mention - perhaps because they want it to have been a good relationship so that there still could be a brotherhood when Moses made his speech in 5. Mos. 500 - 700 years later, and when Muhammad came some 2500 years later - - - if the Arabs are descendants from among many others Ishmael.

There are two ways to understand this sentence: They lived in hostility towards each other, or they lived in hostility towards the sons of their uncle Isaac. As it is said in 1. Mos. 21/18 that they - the 12 tribes descending from Ishmael - became a great nation, the second meaning is the likely one. May be partly for this reason, the descendants of Ishmael are never in the Bible reckoned by the Jews to be relatives, or at least very, very distant such ones.

All this points to that Hagar and Ishmael left the camp of Abraham in west Negev, took the road towards Shur, direction Egypt and settled near the border of Egypt, likely north the desert Shur - i.e. between Shur and the Mediterranean Sea somewhere - - - pretty far from Arabia and Mecca, and in nearly exactly the opposite direction.

There also is another point to include: The camel likely was domesticated at the time of Abraham. But it did not come into wide use until around 1ooo-900 BC, and it seems that it even then only was used for working and carrying, not or very little for riding. (F.x. the first time one knows camels were used in a battle, was in a battle between the kings Croesus of Lydia and Cyrus the Great in 547 BC, where Cyrus used PACKING camels (for want of riding ones) to frighten Croesus' horses, who were not used to camels.) If Abraham had no riding camels, the valley of later Mecca, some 750 miles/1200 km or whatever, depending on where he started, was a long walk - and as long return. Each time.

One final and partly different point: As mentioned costal Arabia was settled around 5ooo BC (or earlier). The interior was settled 2ooo-3ooo or more years later. By 1800 BC the peninsula had a reasonably big population. Even if Ishmael took all his 12 sons and moved to Arabia, how big percent of the total population of Arabia would they make up? In other words: How big percent of the forefathers of the Arabs of today, or at the time of Muhammad, did Ishmael represent? - a small number behind a lot of zeroes behind a comma. Even in the unlikely case that Ishmael had settled in Arabia and not near Egypt, Arabs 2400 years later (Muhammad) or 3800 years later (today) were/are not the descendants of Ishmael, but the descendants of all the people living in Arabia in the old times, of which Ishmael in case had made up only a miniscule part of a percent (for the Jews the picture is a bit different, because of the restrictions on marrying outside the group - a restriction often broken, but all the same relatively effective). This in addition to all later mixing with people from the outside, included hundreds of thousands (likely some millions) slave girls imported to a miserable life in the harems of Arabs before and after Muhammad.

Also see 2/127a below.

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 (around 800 BC), 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.

We may add that Muslim sources we find on Internet - f.x. www.jamaat.net/compl/arabsinthebible.html - admits that "the wilderness of Paran" = Faran in Arabic, not Paran.

006 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.

007 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), betrayal, broken oaths even.)

008 2/177p: "- - - the people of truth - - -". = Muslims, as the Quran claims Islam is the religion of truth (a bit ironic for a religion believing in al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), deceit, and even breaking of words/promises/oaths like Muhammad did and advised). (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

009 2/187d: "- - - (Allah*) forgave you - - -". Wrong. Allah can forgive nobody unless he for one exists and for two is a god, neither of which is documented.

But can at all Allah forgive? - even if he should happen to be a god? The Quran MANY places states that Allah predestines absolutely everything, and he predestines it according to his Plan, which nobody and nothing can change. And he predestines it long time before it is going to happen - he f.x. according to Hadiths predestines whether you are going to end in Hell or Heaven already when you are a 4 months old fetus = 5 months before you are born. Now the Quran tells that man also has free will - a necessary claim not to make Allah very unjust when he sends a person to Hell for sins (or for that case rewards him for good deeds) - but those are two things which are impossible even for an omniscient and omnipotent god to combine. Give man even the slightest degree of free will, and the laws of chaos inexorably finish off predestination - the god can make things happen by adjusting this and that, but the moment man gets the possibility to change his mind once more about something, full predestination is gone - and the same is full precognition. Even Islam admits that full predestination is impossible to combine with free will of man (some claim that partly free will is possible, but that is wrong - the laws of chaos is very clear on that point; the so-called "butterfly effect" kicks in): We quote (A6/141 - comment to verse 6/149): “In other words, the real relationship between Allah’s knowledge of the future (and, therefore, the ineluctability of what is to happen in the future) on one side, and man’s free will, on the other – two propositions which, on the face of it, seem to contradict one another – is beyond man’s comprehension; but since both are postulated by Allah, both must be true". But here Islam is leaving religion, and entering pure mysticism. In the non-material realms of life there are things impossible even for an omniscient and omnipotent god. Proofs for this in 6/149a above.

If there is complete predestination in Islam like the Quran states as absolute several places in the Quran, forgiving can have no effect in this religion - everything is already decided and nothing can be changed in Allah’s long since predestined Plan - and to forgive means to change the predestination/Plan (You of course may claim that also the forgiving was predestined, but then it is not forgiving any more, but theater). To claim the opposite just is mysticism, not religion.

We further quote 67/9c: "(Non-Muslims said*): '- - - ye (Muslims*) are in nothing but an egregious delusion". As for the Quran, all the mistaken facts and other errors, the contradictions, the low quality of the book as literature, the unclear language, etc. prove with mathematical certainty that the book is not from any god. As for Allah he of course could have existed in spite of the fact that the Quran is a made up book - made up by dark forces or by (a?) sick or not sick human(s) (the only alternatives). But when you add Allah's background - he originally was the pagan god al-Lah (sometimes named Allah) which Muhammad simply dressed up, and without the slightest proof claimed was the real god and the only god. Then you add Muhammad himself - a man who wanted respect and power, not to mention riches for more power - and women - and a man who did not hide that he believed in the use of dishonesty to reach a goal (he lied even in the Quran - f.x. the "explanation" that nobody would believe anyhow, even if Allah had proved himself by making some miracles; Muhammad was too intelligent and knew too much about people to believe in that claim himself. And there was al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), and Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), even though they were not formalized until later. And not to forget "War is deceit - war is betrayal", and "break your word/promise/oat if that gives a better result - pay expiation later if necessary (2/225, 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok), 5/89, 16/91, 66/2)). (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

Add this and add to Muhammad's unreliability and low morality (easy to see in the Quran if you skip the glorification and read the reality) the fact that neither Muhammad, nor Allah ever was able to prove anything at all of any essence concerning Islam or Allah, add the fact that Allah has not manifested himself one single time neither during the life of Muhammad, nor afterwards, manifested or proved himself in any way - numbers of claims, but not one single proved case. The only place Allah ever manifested himself, was in the mouth of Muhammad. Add the fact that both science and even more so Islam (they have searched harder) have delivered so strong circumstantial and empirical proofs for that the Bible is not falsified, that it practically is a mathematical proof (44ooo old scriptures : 0 proved falsification in reality = a mathematical proof) - and that thus Allah's claimed history disappears, as he is not the same god as Yahweh (the teachings and everything are fundamentally and morally too different) - yes, not only disappears, but are proved to be made up and wrong.

Add all this, and you end up with a probability for his existence far below one to a million. The circumstantial and empirical proofs for that he does not exist, are so strong that it practically is a mathematical certainty.

Then finally add the Muhammad's and Islam's partly immoral moral code, their partly unethical ethical code, their very immoral code of war and terror, their code for dishonesty, betrayal, etc., their partly unjust judicial code, their political code (apartheid/fascism/Nazism), and the Quran's cultural code (f.x. knowledge = knowledge related to Islam only), you end up with such a strong empirical proofs proof for that if Allah after all exists, he is no good and/or benevolent god, that also these in practice are so strong that they are to be classified together with mathematical proofs in strength and reliability.

Combine all this and there just is one conclusion possible: The chances for that this claimed god can forgive, by far is less than one in a million. Far less. (And the same goes for that he f.x. can punish or reward or for that prayers to him can have any effect - for the same reasons: Even if the infinitesimal chance for that he exists should happen to be a reality - even if perhaps totally different from what is described in the Quran - his predestined Plan cannot be changed.)

010 2/188: "- - - nor use it (property*) as bait for judges - - -." Do not bribe anyone - - - but Muhammad used bribes large scale to get and keep followers. Islam advocates honesty - - - up to a limit (al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), "war is deceiving" - and "everything" is war, and "break even your oath if that gives a better result - pay expiation if necessary". A problem for any non-Muslim (and Muslim) who do not know when to believe a Muslim in serious cases, and a problem for Muslims who really tells the truth, but are not believed. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

###011 2/210c: "But to Allah do all questions go back (for decision)". Here we are back to the predestination: Allah decides everything, and he decides it according to his unchangeable Plan. And then we are back to the question of man's free will: If Allah decides everything, man's claimed free will is just an illusion. But if man's free will is an illusion, how then can Allah punish humans? - not to mention how can he punish for it and still be a benevolent, fair and good god? This is an unsolvable problem for Islam. The lay members of Islam are fed good words about the free will of man and that Allah is able to see the future no matter and thus only reacts to what you do. Fast words are cheap and if the naive or the strong believers want to believe these logical impossibilities, it is easy to make them believe it. But the moment Allah "writes down" your future, your free will is gone - if not Allah's knowledge may turn out to be wrong. Or if you really have free will, Allah can never know the future for sure, because you always can change your mind once more. Most Muslims happily overlook or are not aware of this impossibility, but among the scholars you meet it (though they never debate it with their lay followers if they can avoid it). We quote from Azad: "The Message of the Quran", surah 6, comment 143 (to verse 149):

"In other words, the relationship between Allah's knowledge of the future (and, therefore, the ineluctably of what is to happening the future) on one side, and man's free will, on the other - two propositions which, on the face of it, seem to contradict one another - is beyond man's comprehension; but since both are postulated by Allah (in the Quran*), both must be true. The very concept of "Allah" presupposes omniscience; and the very concept of morality and moral responsibility presupposes free will on man's part."

This is a version of the "Time Travel Paradox" - a paradox which is proved unsolvable. But instead of facing this fact, Islam makes the ultimate surrendered to blind belief - even blind belief in the impossible. (Actually they have to - or face the fact that something is wrong. A fact which is too difficult to meet, because that means something is seriously wrong with the religion). But they are giving in to a claim in a book full of mistakes, dictated by the man who institutionalized al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth) - formalized later, but the foundations for it were introduced by Muhammad - and advocated breaking even your oaths if that gave a better result, not to mention that he practiced deceit ("war is deceit" or "war is betrayal" - and "everything" is war). Further comments should be unnecessary.

But notice: "- - - the very concept of morality and moral responsibility presupposes free will on man's part". No matter what Islam claims and "explains", that free will does not exist if Allah predestines everything, like the Quran clearly states several times.

012 2/224d: "And do not make Allah's (name) an excuse in your oaths against - - - making peace between persons - - -." Break your oath if you find this will give a better result. Pay expiation if you think this is necessary. In cases of making peace - and also f.x. when you want to cheat women - also al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc. are permitted, if you think this will give better result than honesty.

013 2/224g: "- - - Allah is one who heareth and knoweth all things". Here it seems to mean that Allah understands what you really meant when you swore an oath, and thus can forgive - against expiation - the not too strongly meant oaths (and even those if there is a reason for breaking them). But oaths also have another side: The humans. How can anyone know when a Muslim is telling the truth and when not, when not even an oath is very serious to break, if he thinks there is a reason for doing so? And how can a Muslim telling the plain truth strengthen his words in order to be believed, when the opposite part knows about al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), the advices about breaking even oaths if that gives a better result, Muhammad's practicing (and thus permitting all Muslims to do the same) of deceit, etc.?

There are clear samples for that Muhammad lied (f.x. promising the peace delegation from Khaybar safe return) or advised people to lie (f.x. to hit enemies or save one's money).

Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), and Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing) can be used at least in these cases (for broken oaths there are given no real limitations if the broken oath will give a better result. By implication this also goes for ordinary promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal promise):

  • 1. To save your or others' health or life.
  • 2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem.
  • 3. To make peace in a family.
  • 4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one’s oath.
  • 5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get residence or work permit in a rich country (we have personally seen such cases).)
  • 6. To deceive opponents/enemies.
  • 7. o betray enemies.
  • 8. To secure one’s money (very clear from Hadiths).
  • 9. To defend Islam. (Advised used if necessary to succeed.)
  • 10. To promote Islam. (Advised used if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive some ones – actually also in the long run if the opposite part does not know about this side of Muslims and of Islam, or if he/she is naïve. But in the long run: No-one can quite trust a Muslim/Muslims/Islam in serious questions.

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

#########014 2/225a: “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your heart”. If you swear an oath without thinking it over - or not enough over – you are not bound by it. But how are other people to know if the oath you have made is binding for you or not - or if you will break it? Besides; you may break also a more serious oath if that will give a better result, but you may have to pay expiation to Allah for it. See f.x. 2/224e-f above, and 5/89, 16/91, and 66/2.

##015 2/256a: “Let there be no compulsion in religion - - -“. Beware that this is the real words of the verse - Muslims often claim it says "there is no compulsion in religion" or similar claims. There is an ocean between the wish or whatever "let there be no - - - ", and the (wrong) claim "there is no - - -". A small(?) al-Taqiyya - or perhaps a Kitman? (lawful lie and lawful half-truth respectively - accepted dishonesty you only find in Islam of the big religions). Also see 2/256b just below.

###016 2/256b: “- - - no compulsion in religion - - -“. This “flagship” for “proving” the peaceful Islam, disused daily by most Muslims and very frequently by Islam itself, is very wrong, because it is abrogated (made invalid) by at least these verses (ca. 30 all together) from the more bloody and inhuman later Medina surahs: 2/191 – 2/193 – 3/28 – 3/85 – 4/91 - 5/33 – 5/72 – 5/73 - 8/12 – 8/38-39 – 8/39 - 8/60 – 9/3 - 9/5 - 9/14 – 9/23 – 9/29 – 9/33 - 9/73 – 9/123 – 14/7 – 25/36 - 25/52 – 33/61 – 33/73 – 35/36 - 47/4 – 66/9 (also see further down) (as for 5/33: Remember that practically all the wars and raids Muhammad fought, were wars of aggression, even if he called it jihad – even Badr, Uhud and the Trench (Medina) were battles of defense in a war of aggression, started and kept alive by Muhammad’s raids. Non-Muslims thus should not defend themselves and their belongings, according to 5/33).

In addition to this there are other kinds of compulsion than the sword – economy, brutal taxes, social stigma, “Berufsverbot” (good jobs prohibited), physical insecurity, etc. And all of them were backed by the sword – “conform and obey and pay or else - - -“!!

It must be added that some Muslims say this nonsense ("there is no compulsion in religion") in good faith. But not one single Muslim educated in his religion, does not know he is lying each time he says that there is no compulsion in religion under Islam, as he knows 2/256 here is wrongly quoted and on top of that is abrogated (made invalid) – but then defending and promoting Islam are the two cases where Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth), are not only lawful, but advised to use in Islam, if it is necessary to use it to reach the result you wish. (A small PS: One or two of the verses abrogating 2/256 may or may not be a little older than 2/256 itself, but there once was a long debate in Islam if an older verse could abrogate a younger, and the conclusion was that this sometimes was possible). Surah 2 is from 622-624 AD - early Medina.

Besides Muslims mentioned normally misquote the verse, and tell you it says: "There is no compulsion in religion". What it really says is: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" - a wish or a demand, not a fulfilled fact. And in addition as said: An abrogated - invalid - verse.

If this verse had not been abrogated, it had been “Glad Tidings”. Yes, even if Muslims had been honest and told the verse is abrogated by at least some 30 harsh later verses it had helped – at least it had helped the moral standard of Muslims to be that honest.

But NB! NB! As mentioned the surah says: “Let it be - - -.” It only is a demand or – judging also from 2/255 – more likely a wish. It is not something which existed or exists. It is a hope or a goal for the future, it is not something that one have already – and all the same most Muslims quote it like this: “There is no compulsion in Religion” - - - a small, little “Kitman” (lawful half-truth – an expression special for Islam together with “al-Taqiyya", the lawful lie), etc. make the Quran and the religion sound much more friendly and tolerant. But not one single of them mention the fact that this verse is contradicted and in most cases abrogated by at least these 29 verses:

  1. ##2/191: “And slay them (your opponents*) wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression (from them*) is worse than slaughter (of them*) - - -.”
  2. ###2/193: ”And fight them (your opponents*) on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah (“No compulsion in religion”*) - - -.”
  3. 3/28: “Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah - - -.” Social pressure, but may be meant defensive originally, as it is from 625 AD - before Muhammad gained full control in 630 AD. It is offensive today.
  4. 3/85: “If anyone desired a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him - - -.” Yes: “No compulsion in religion.” (Hardly defensive – see 3/28 just above).
  5. 3/14: “- - - and help us against those who resist Faith”. This is from 625 AD – the Medina period. It can be meant as defensive or offensive help. After 630 the possible defensive use was gone – Islam became powerful, and only the offensive aspect is left, and it contradicts not only 2/256, but some more verses, too.
  6. 4/81: “- - - so (Muslims*) keep clear of them (“infidels” or hypocrites*) - - -.” (626 AD) Social pressure, etc. also is pressure – especially when everybody knows it is backed by the sword if you protest.
  7. ##4/91: “- - - if they (“infidels”*) withdraw not from you, and (instead) send you guarantees of peace (remember that in nearly all the conflicts, the Muslims were the aggressors*) besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever you get them - - -.” No comments about “No Compulsion in Religion”.
  8. 5/33: “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and his Messenger (Muhammad*) - - - is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from the opposite sides, or exile from the land.” Remember that this surah is from 632 AD, and that practically all raids and wars were wars of attack from the Muslims – even the battles of Badr, Uhud and Medina/the Trench were battles in a war of aggression started and kept alive by Muhammad and his raids for robbing and extortion – so mostly the victims who “fought war against Allah and his Messenger” were fighting in desperate and sheer self defense to defend themselves against the on-slaughter of Islam - - - and to defend themselves obviously was a great sin. Muslims attacked for gaining loot, land, slaves, power - - - and force Islam on their neighbors. In spite of Islam’s peaceful words, the surrounding Arabs often only got two choices: Become Muslims or fight/die. “No compulsion in religion”.
  9. 5/72: “They (Christians*) do blaspheme who say: ‘God is Christ the son of Mary.’ - - - and the Fire will be their abode.” A serious warning also is a compulsion.
  10. 5/73: “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity - - -.” This was to put two other gods at the side of Allah – two times the ultimate sin. Also a warning about blasphemy is a compulsion.
  11. 8/12: “I (Allah*) will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite ye all their fingertips off them (making them unable to use a bow well, but this is told by Muslims (comment A8/15 translated from Swedish) to be an Arab expression meaning : "Kill absolutely every one of them". (Only to smite off their fingertips, would make them unable as good archers afterwards). A good and benevolent religion full of mercy.*). Remember: Nearly all skirmishes, raids, battles and wars at least for 110 years (till the Battle of Tours, France, against Carl Martell in 732 AD) and actually much longer, were wars of aggression started by the Muslims): “No compulsion in religion.”.
  12. ##8/38-39: “Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief (become Muslims*)), their past would be forgiven them, but if they persist, the punishment for those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight with them until there is no more tumult and oppression, and there prevail justice (sharia?*) and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere”. Well, to say the least of it: This contradicts and abrogates and kills 2/256 - and more.
  13. ###8/39: “And fight them (the Unbelievers) until there is no more tumult and oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere - - -.” Is it possible to get a more direct order about wars of religion and of suppression of the vanquished “infidels”? And if “justice” means sharia, that is not too god for the non-Muslims, to be polite.
  14. ##8/60: “Against them (the non-Muslims*) make ready your strength to the utmost of your power - - - to strike terror into (the hearts of) the (attacked – the Muslims nearly always were the aggressors in spite of peaceful words today*) enemies of Allah - - -.” War for the religion – and for riches and slaves and power – but “no compulsion in religion.”
  15. 9/3: (631 AD): “And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith”. Muslims may say it is meant figuratively and for the next life. But it is said in connection to 9/5, which indicates this life.
  16. ###9/5: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans (unbelievers*) wherever ye find them, and size them, beleaguer them, and lay in wait for them in every strategy (of war)” This is the famous and infamous “Verse of the Sword” – from the “Religion of Peace” which at least preaches “No compulsion in religion”. But then to preach peace often is a good strategy of war. (Also see 9/5 in the chapter “Abrogations”.) PS: "Every strategy of war" also sanctifies terrorism and even the most horrible methods of killing and molesting.
  17. ##9/14: “Fight them (the “infidels”*), and Allah will punish them by your hand (you are fighting on behalf of Allah*), cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them - - -.” No comments necessary. A peaceful religion with no religious overtones in their wars and plans, stratagems and teachings? And why does Allah need primitive help from humans if he is omnipotent?
  18. ###*9/23: “Take not for protectors your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred if they love infidelity above Faith (Islam*): if any of you do so, they do wrong.” Social pressure – and for that case economical pressure (often used against non-Muslim underlings in the form of high taxes, no good jobs permitted, etc.) – also is “Compulsion in Religion” – which does not exist in Islam (?)
  19. ####9/29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day, nor holds that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his Prophet (Muhammad*), not acknowledge the religion of the Truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians mainly), until they pay the jizya (“infidel”-tax where Islam has set no upper limit, and which frequently through the history has been very high*) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”. Conquer and suppress the infidels and then let them live like Negroes under apartheid in South Africa or in the southern states in USA in the early 1900s - - - the ones who were not taken into slavery – especially the women. Yes, no compulsion – neither by the sword first, nor by destroyed economy and social life, etc. after the defeat. True?
  20. 9/33: “It is He (Allah*) Who hath sent his Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of the Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest it”. With plain words: Accept Islam's hegemony whether you like it or not – as there is “no Compulsion in Religion.” (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)
  21. 9/73: “O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them.” The highest leader and of course his followers should strive hard against the “infidels” – but “No Compulsion in Religion”. Well, at least the claim "no compulsion" is good propaganda which proves how "peaceful" the Quran is.
  22. 9/123: “O ye who believe! Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about and let them find firmness in you - - -.” If you are a good Muslim, then fight the non-Muslims – but “no compulsion” – not in religion.
  23. 25/36: “’Go ye both (Moses and Aaron*) to the people who have rejected our Signs’. And those (people) We (Allah*) destroyed with utter destruction.” A clear message.
  24. 25/52: “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Quran)”. As you see: Peace in religion is not included when you strive against the “infidels”.
  25. ###33/61: “They (hypocrites - not good enough Muslims – or non-Muslims*) shall have a curse on them whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).” If you are not good enough Muslims you are to be killed without mercy. A most clear order. Only do not mention it, because the propaganda line is: “The Religion of Peace” and “No compulsion in Religion”. NB: This also is one of the verses behind the demand for expulsion from all the society (not only the religious parts) and even killing of Muslims leaving Islam.
  26. 33/73: (Because man – the Arabs – undertook the Trust of the Quran/Islam) “With the result that Allah has to punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the unbelievers, men and women (why? - not all humanity undertook it*) - - -.” And Muslims works on behalf of Allah.
  27. 35/36: “But those who reject (Allah) – for them will be the Fire of Hell”. Not exactly compulsion on the surface, but at least a clear threat and a stigma. We include it because this threat and stigma are repeated often, so it makes up a considerable psychological compulsion anyhow for anyone.
  28. 47/4: “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them) - - -.” Yes, unbelievers have to be killed or subdued. AND: According to our sources the words "(in fight)" do not exist in the Arab original - which makes the text one hec of a lot more sinister.
  29. 66/9: “O Prophet. Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them.” No pardon for “infidels” – compulsion makes more new Muslims than no compulsion - - - and loot is loot if Muhammad has to be firm against the ones that are stubborn in their infidelity.

(2/256 is abrogated by at least these 29 points – and in reality by more).

2/256 is the most disused verse in all the Quran – and all the worse as each and every educated Muslim, and a large percentage of the uneducated ones know it is totally abrogated and totally invalid - and often wrongly quoted.

###017 2/256c: “Let there be no compulsion in religion”. This is the flagship for all Muslims who want to impress non-Muslims about how peaceful and tolerant Islam is. But NB! NB! Note that the surah says: “Let it be - - -.” It is an order or – judging also from 2/255 – more likely a wish, it is not something that they had or have. It is a hope or a goal for the future, it is not something that exist – and all the same most Muslims quote it like this: “There is no compulsion in Religion” - - - a small, little “Kitman” (lawful half-truth – an expression and a way of thinking special for Islam together with “al-Taqiyya, (the lawful lie)) makes the Quran and the religion sound much more friendly and tolerant than the reality. But not one single of them mentions that 2/256 is totally abrogated and killed by many verses - see 2/256b just above.

These countries - all Muslim - has death penalty for atheism (2012 AD): Afghanistan, Iran, the Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. Many others have prohibition or strong restrictions on expressing atheism or humanism - f.x. Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Kuwait, and Jordan. And many have restrictions, often strong ones, against doubting or expressing doubt of or leaving Islam. "No compulsion in religion"?

018 2/256f: "- - - Truth - - -". Beware that when Islam uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code, so beware of f.x. al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) and Kitmans (lawful half-truths), etc. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.) Also see 2/2b above and 13/1g and 40/75 below.

#019 2/286c: “(Pray:) ‘Our Lord! - - -‘“. The word "(Pray:)" does not exist in the original Arab text – Yusuf Ali has added it to “camouflage” the fact that this is Muhammad praying to Allah - in a book claimed to be billions of years old or made by a god. Honesty? How is it possible to explain that Muhammad is praying to Allah in a book made by Allah or may be never made, but existed since eternity? (There are some 8 places or more like this in the Quran concerning Muhammad and at least 3 concerning angels).

020 3/2a: "There is no god but He (Allah*)". Well, what is for sure is that Allah is not the same god as Yahweh (if any of them exists) - the teachings are fundamentally too different. (The only possibility is if the god is strongly schizophrenic.) Also see 2/225a above and 6/106b and 25/18a below. Another thing which is for sure, is that the existence of Allah was and is never proved. And a third: The only basis for the claims about Allah, is the word of a man who would be accepted by no court in any real democracy as a reliable witness, as he believed in the use of lies (al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth - etc.), deception and even the breaking of words and oaths, but pay expiation if necessary (2/225a above, 5/89a+b, 16/91e, 66/2a below). (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

Both the Bible and the Quran states that the old Jewish and Christian god existed, even though the Quran wrongly mixes him up with Allah (the question of other gods - f.x. the Hindu ones - we omit here). Thus there are at least two - - - if Allah exists.

021 3/19a: "- - - nor did the People of the Book (mainly Jews and Christians*) dissent therefrom (Islam*) - - -." To say this is not true, must be the understatement of the year - Islam has always met strong disbelief from both Jews and Christians, MUCH to the chagrin of Muhammad. This is one of the places in the Quran where it at least is clear he knew he was lying when he told this - he was too intelligent not to know what Jews and Christians generally meant about his new religion.

##022 3/35b: "Imran’s wife - - -". This is an example on "honest" Muslim technique of debate, taken - unbelievably - from Muhammad Yusuf Ali, the famous translator of the Quran, in his book: "The Meaning of the Quran": "By tradition Mary's mother was called Hannah (in Latin Anna, in English Anne), and her father was called Imran. Hannah is therefore both a descendant of the priestly house of Imran (the Arab name of Moses' father*) and the wife of Imran." One thing is that when using traditions and legends as basis, one cannot say that something "is", only that it "may be". But the real screamer is that the name of the father of Mary never in the traditions and legends was Imran. That name you only find in the Quran, and of course among the ones who take the name from the Quran - and this even more so as he mix in the Latin (and English) names. The name of Mary's father in the traditions was Jojakim or Jocim (except that Muslims have looked in the Quran and found the name Imran and made a new “tradition” from that). Further comments not necessary - just make your own conclusions about how reliable Muslims - even outstanding, learned ones like Mr. Ali - sometimes may be, and how reliable Muslim arguments and "facts" sometimes are. "Use al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie*), Kitman (the lawful half-truth*) and even deception and broken oaths to forward or defend the Religion of Truth". As you understand: When we base most of our writings on Islamic sources, we often run into the problem that everything has to be checked, because even claimed "facts" too often are incorrect. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

023 3/44a: "This (Mary serving in the Temple under Zachariah and later her receiving the message about a child*)is part of the tidings of things unseen, which We (Allah*) reveal unto thee (Muhammad*) by inspiration - - -". Wrong. It is neither from inspiration, nor from the Bible, but from old apocryphal - made up - scriptures. It is even more wrong, as according to Mosaic - Jewish - law, only men could serve in the temple. And even some more: Only male members of the Levi tribe could serve in the Temple, whereas Mary was a woman and a descendant of David, and thus from the Judah tribe. Muslim scholars knew and know this (f.x. A. Yusuf Ali: "The Meaning of the Holy Quran", comment 378: "The female child (Mary*) could not be devoted to Temple service under the Mosaic (Jewish*) law - - -" (the rest of the quote we omit - it is speculative and unscientific to say the least of it, like sometimes in Islamic literature), and that only Levites could be priests, etc. is very clear from many places in the Bible), but never mention to Muslim congregations. Honesty. Also see 3/37a-b-c above.

#024 3/54ab: ”- - - and Allah too plotted and planned, and the best of planners is Allah.” It in reality is Allah who decides everything according to the Quran – “the best of planners”.

####025 3/54b: ”- - - and Allah too plotted and planned, and the best of planners is Allah.” This verse in addition is one of the verses the Muslim phenomena al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), and Hilah (the lawful pretending or circumventing - "the dishonesty in disguise") - are based on. When Allah can “plot and plan” (indicating using dishonest means) of course his followers can do the same as long as it is not forbidden – which it is not. Also see 2/26h, 2/224e-f, 2/225a, 4/142a, 8/30, 10/21b, 13/42, 27/50, and 86/16 - dishonesty as a policy is one of the fundamental rules in the Quran's moral - or immoral - code. Al-Taqiyya and Kitman are permitted in 8 - 10 wide cases, and advised "if necessary" in 2: To defend and to promote Islam. Worth remembering for Muslims and non-Muslims alike; what is true and what is not true in Muslims' arguments about such things? And how much is true in a religion partly relying on dishonesty? - - - and what then about its claimed prophet, Muhammad? - how much of his words are Kitmans or al-Taqiyyas or deceit, etc.? (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

026 3/79e: "It is not (possible) that (a prophet*) should say to people: 'Be ye my worshipers rather than Allah's.'" A number of Muslim scholars think this clear claim, but with somewhat unclear reference refers to Jesus - that it is impossible that Jesus did not come to tell about Allah. To Quote Yusuf Ali (YA414): "It is not in reason or in the nature of things (claims, not documentation*) that Allah's messenger (according to the Quran and Islam Jesus was a messenger for Allah, something which would have been impossible in the strong Yahweh culture in Israel at that time - he had got few/no followers and had been arrested/killed fast*) should preach against Allah (= a religion different from Islam*). Jesus came to preach and convey the true message of Allah (= the Quran/Islam*)", according to Muhammad. As it is strongly proved by both science and even more strongly by Islam that the Bible is not falsified, this merits no comments, except on behalf of the ones who does not know the Bible well: There are so big and so fundamental differences between the teaching of Jesus in the Bible and the teaching of Muhammad in the Quran, that you have to be religiously very blind - or with little knowledge - to be able to believe the two religions came from one and the same god. Even with all the superficial similarities between Islam and Christianity it is difficult to find another of the big religions which fundamentally is more different from Jesus and NT than Islam. One is the religion of truth and love, the other the religion of war, resting partly on the use of lies (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, "war is deceit" - and most things are jihad/"holy" war, break your promise/word/oath if that gives a better result (and pay expiation afterwards if necessary - 2/26h, 2/224e-f, 2/225a, 3/54b, 4/142a, 5/89a+b, 8/30, 10/21b, 13/42a, 27/50, 86/16)).

Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya and Kitman can be used at least in these cases (for broken oaths there are given no real limitations if the broken oath will give a better result. By implication this also goes for ordinary promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal promise):

1. To save your or others' health or life.

2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem.

3. To make peace in a family.

4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one’s oath.

5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get residence permit in a rich country.)

6. To deceive opponents/enemies.

7. To betray enemies.

8. To secure one’s money (very clear from Hadiths).

9. To defend Islam. (Compulsory if necessary to succeed.)

10. To promote Islam. (Compulsory if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive some ones – actually also in the long run if the opposite part does not know about this side of Muslims and of Islam, or if he/she is naïve - but that is it.

027 3/84n: "- - - we (Muslims*) make no distinctions between them (the prophets*)". Wrong. Muslims treat Muhammad differently. And they should make one more distinction: Between real and false prophets - there have been many more of the last ones than of the real ones.(5.Mos.18/21 - just after 18/15 and 18/18, which Islam claims indicate Muhammad - - - but they ALWAYS drop 18/21 and some other relevant verses).

028 3/110j: “Most of them (Jews and Christians*) are perverted transgressors.” Yes, one has to be perverted to believe in the god of the old - a god who according to their holy book has manifested his power many times - and in a book backed by thousands of witnesses at least from the times of Moses till the times of Jesus (though in both these cases something or details may be wrong), compared to believe in a medium large businessman liking power and respect - and women - and who in addition is a highway man, extorter, womanizer, rapist, torturer, enslaver, slave dealer (selling or giving away for bribes his 20% of the slaves taken), assassin, murder, mass murderer, believer of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) (even thought these two kinds of dishonesty only was formalized later), deceiving ("war is deceit" - and "everything" is jihad), breaker of his words and oaths (f.x. murdering 29 men from Khaybar he had guaranteed safety during peace talks), even a few places clearly lying in the Quran, and an inciter to hate, discrimination and war - but in no way able to do more than to tell unproved tales backed by invalid and even wrong “signs” and “proofs” - tales which on top of all show a number of the hallmarks of a swindler, cheater and deceiver. (Muslims: This is no slander - these facts are taken from Islam’s own books telling about and praising Muhammad - it only lacks the sugar coat of explaining away and heroism. There is no reason of being angry when meeting the very plain truth from your own books. When glorious words and reality disagree, we always believe in reality).

Yes, Jews, Christians and for that case Pagans have to be perverted not to believe on basis of such - unproved - words from such a man. And for not to kill and steal/rob and terrorize on his orders. Is it possible to add: - those perverted transgressors may deserve suppression and extermination - at least sometimes?

How would Muslims around the world react if some ones in big media claimed that most Muslims are perverted transgressors? - and how would different countries' judicial systems react to it? This in spite of that some of the moral and judicial rules in the Quran are perverse - f.x. the permission to rape female prisoners of war and slaves, included children, at least down to 9 years.

##029 3/154f “Even if you had remained in your homes, those for whom death was decreed would certainly have gone forth to the place of their death (anyhow*).” According to this, they would die anyhow - but another place and may be at a slightly different time. The laws of chaos means that this changes the future - may be much and may be for many. ####This effect is not possible to avoid, and is sometimes strengthened by the so-called butterfly effect = a small cause can have a big effect. Allah's claimed unchangeable Plan is changed every time this happens. Something is seriously wrong also here in the Quran.

Another point is that this claim so obviously is wrong, that there is no chance an intelligent person like Muhammad did not know this was a lie.

030 3/167e: “The Message of the Quran” has this remark to this verse (no. 3/128 to this surah): “Only war in self defense – in the widest meaning of the word – can be reckoned to be a fight for the cause of Allah”. But as “the widest meaning of the word" is very wide, each and every war where one part is Muslim and the other not – and most where both parts are Muslims – are in “self defense” or for other reasons are just wars and always are declared jihad, this simply is hypocrisy. Practically all Muslim wars, included wars of aggression, and there have been plenty of those through the history, have been declared “jihad” – at least we have not been able to find many exceptions from this rule. Actually for centuries all the four law schools in Islam agreed on that the fact that the opposite part in a conflict were Pagans, was good enough reason for to attack them and to declare the attack/war for jihad (holy war). It was not until in the 1920s or 1930s that some Muslim scholars started to question this “law” – and it still only is questioned and only by parts of the Muslims, though nowadays these questions normally makes the Muslim parts, included terrorists, blame the other part so as to give the claim of jihad at least a demagogue’s made up reality of being a just war. Very convenient for anyone who needs warriors/soldiers – and a convenient incitement to war: All wars against “infidels” are “jihad” – with permission to rape and steal and suppress and murder - - - and guarantee for your going to Paradise if you are killed - just like the old Vikings. The good and benevolent Allah likes killers, thieves/robbers, rapists, apartheid, etc., etc. - at least when the dishonesty, atrocities and inhumanities are done in his honor.

####A fact to remember here is that it just takes a little dishonesty and demagogy to find an "explanation" for why even a not provoked attack - f.x. for stealing/robbing, slave taking and extortion - "in reality" is self defense. Of the some 83 armed "incidences" under Muhammad, only 3 - the battles of Badr, Uhud and Medina ("the Trench") really were battles of defense, and even these 3 were caused by provocations from Muhammad and his Muslims (their banditry towards caravans and villages). Nearly all the others were raids to steal and take prisoners for slavery or extortion + for raping girls and women if such ones were present.

031 4/11: “Allah (thus) directs you as regards to your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a proportion equal to that of two females.” One man = two women, like in other cases in Islam (in some cases less - f.x. men decide and men often can do what they want).

032 4/69e: "- - - the Sincere (lovers of Truth) - - -". The man who in reality institutionalized al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing),etc. even though it only was formalized later, who believed in deceiving ("war is deceit" - and everything is jihad) and who advised his followers to break their words/promises/oaths if that gave a better result (according to the Quran: 2/224e-f, 2/224-225, 5/89a+b), so definitely did and do not belong here. "Ausgeschlossen". (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

This panegyric point also is quite a black joke and irony when you remember that Islam is the only one of the big religions which accepts dishonesty like mentioned just above, deceit, disuse/breaking of words/promises/oats (2/225, 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok), 5/89, 16/91, 66/2) as working tools.

033 4/69f: "- - - Truth - - -". See 13/1g and 40/75 below. Also beware that al-Taqiyya (lawful lies), Kitman (lawful half-truths), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing),etc. at times could and can be used instead of the truth. Islam is a bit special religion on the point of honesty, and especially so when defending or promoting the religion.

034 4/87g: "And whose words can be truer than Allah's?" Allah - al-Lah - was a pagan main god from Arabia made sole god on basis of a book full of mistakes, contradictions, etc., dictated by a man of very doubtful morals - believing f.x. in al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing) and even the breaking of oaths (2/224, 2/225, 16/91, 66/2) and on deceit - and a man liking power and riches (at least for bribes - and women), but unable to prove one single of his claims about his god or his connection to a god. Is this a god basis for believing what is said to be the truth? And 100% sure: If the Quran is Allah's words, much of his words are not the truth.

035 4/92e: "If anyone finds it beyond their means (to free a Muslim (NB) slave) - - -". In connection to among others this verse and its expression according to M. Azad "- - - if anyone has not (the wherewithal) - - -" you may find - or meet - a nice sample of Islamic honesty in debate - or in propaganda: (A58/7): "As regard the phrase 'he who does not find the wherewithal (lam yajid)', it may indicate either lack of financial means or the impossibility of finding anyone else who could be redeemed from factual of figurative bondage (- - -). According to many Islamic scholars of our times (e.g., Rashid Rida), this relates, in first instance, to circumstances in which 'slavery will have been abolished in accordance with the aim of Islam' (Manar V, 337)'". This simply is an al-Taqiyya - a lawful lie - and even a distasteful such one.

  1. First note that the translation of the Arab text is changed a little compared to Yusuf Ali's one, and "by coincidence"(?) fits the "explanation" of the claim about Islam's intention of abolishing slavery better. The Quran in reality is clear on that it speaks about the economy of the person.

  2. There is nowhere in the Quran said that slavery is bad or for other reasons should be terminated,
  3. There is nowhere in the Quran even indicated that slavery is bad or for other reasons should be terminated. Not one place.
  4. There is nowhere in the Quran said or in other ways indicated that slavery is morally wrong.
  5. There is nowhere in the Quran even indicated that it would be good moral or good ethics to abolish slavery. To set free a slave - at least a Muslim slave - is a good thing, but slavery as an institution is nowhere attacked or even questioned.

  6. The main Islamic idol - Muhammad - took and traded (sold or gave away for bribes) at least a few thousand slaves and expressed no qualms for doing this. Everything Muhammad said - or not said - or did, is the right thing to do for any Muslim, if it is not directly prohibited (f. x. a Muslim can have only 4 wives - a number mentioned in the Quran - as he is forbidden to have as many as Muhammad had).
  7. Muslim countries were forced backwards and kicking and protesting into abolishing slavery - Mauritania as late as in unbelievable 1982 AD (and made it a punishable crime as late as in 2007 AD)!! - by forces and ideas from the west. We at least have never seen a Muslim whisper from old times about abolishing slavery as an institution.
  8. Abolishing slavery is a "new idea" and a "foreign idea" in Islam. Such ideas were not accepted by Islam through most of Islam's history - well, necessity after long time made some "new ideas" acceptable if they clearly were in accordance with ideas in the Quran or strong Hadiths. We have found nowhere in older Islamic literature where the "new idea" of abolishing slavery was even aired, not to mention received serious backing.

  9. The claim that Islam/Muhammad/the Quran promotes abolishing of slavery you ONLY meet from Muslim scholars born and raised in modern times - times when foreign, mainly Western, thinking, has made slavery extremely immoral. As it is not only permitted in Islam to lie, but advised "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion (and permitted in a number of other wide cases - f.x. to cheat women or save your money), this al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) is launched: 'Islam is the best also on this - Islam all the time intended to abolish slavery". (You even meet Muslims boasting that Islam forced Europe to end slavery, by stopping the trade from Africa. This simply is nonsense. For one thing European slaves mainly came from the Slavic areas in the East - it was not for nothing that the name "slave" was coined. And for another there hardly has been an area or a time in all history where trade between areas and countries and cultures has stopped for long times if good profit was possible to make. Slavery in Europe died out partly because in agriculture in chilly countries the work season is short and slaves had to be fed all the year, and ordinary workers were cheap, but mainly because it was opposed to Christian basic moral and ideas (this even though it is not directly discredited or forbidden in the Bible).
  10. There are in the world today some 24 million humans "living as slaves or under slave-like conditions" according to UN (the number is from 2006 if we remember correctly). A good percentage of these live in Islamic areas. We have seen little or nothing of negative reactions from Islam or Muslims to this fact. There may have been, but in case not enough to reach us, even though we have been looking for such reactions.
  11. As abolishing of slavery as mentioned is "a new idea" and on top of that "a foreign idea" both of which are despised by conservative Islam, and as Muhammad showed what was right and wrong for Islam in this question by taking and trading and keeping slaves (f. x. his concubines Maria and Rayhana bint Amr), you can be pretty sure that if the world ever returns to medieval conditions, official slavery will re-emerge in Islamic areas "lawful and good".

So much for this Islamic al-Taqiyya - lawful lie.

######036 4/108c: "- - - Allah doth compass round (= notice and outdo*) all that they do." ######One of the alibis for al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), deceiving, etc. in Islam - if Allah can outdo bad people, all Muslims have the permission to do the same as long as it is not prohibited - which it is not (the Quran is not teaching an absolute on honesty - even oaths can be broken).

037 4/112b: "- - - if anyone earns a fault or a sin and throws it on to one that is innocent, he carries (on himself) (both) a falsehood and a flagrant sin". To put the blame on others for bad things one has done oneself, is a big sin also in the Quran. (But of course al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, deceit, disuse of words/promises/oaths is ok if necessary or if it will give a better result - pay expiation afterwards in necessary. Any comments necessary?)

####038 4/142a: “The hypocrites – they think they are overreaching Allah, but he will overreach them (literal meaning: 'He (Allah*) is their deceiver'*) - - -.” This is one of Islam’s alibis for Al-Taqiyya and Kitman: When Allah could cheat, then of course his followers can do the same.

Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya and Kitman can be used at least in the cases mentioned below (for broken oaths there are given no real limitations if the broken oath will give a better result. By implication this also goes for ordinary promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal promise. For cheating/deceit/betrayal there may - may - be the limit that it is to be used in connection to war - but many things are called part of a war especially by extremists.)

  • 1. To save your or others' health or life.
  • 2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem.
  • 3. To make peace in a family.
  • 4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one’s oath.
  • 5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get work permit or residence permit in a rich country.)
  • 6. To deceive opponents/enemies.
  • 7. To betray enemies.
  • 8. To secure one’s money (very clear from Hadiths).
  • 9. To defend Islam. (Advised if necessary to succeed.)
  • 10. To promote Islam. (Advised if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive some ones – actually also in the long run if the opposite part does not know about this side of Muslims and of Islam, or if he/she is naïve. But in the long run one discovers that Muslims can lie without sinning, and thus that it is impossible to rely 100% on a Muslim’s word in serious cases - he may be using an al-Taqiyya, a Kitman or even be relying on Muhammad's words about deceiving or about breaking oaths if this gives a better result.

Also see 4/142b just below.

Rules and permission like this for the use of dishonesty only exists in Islam - "the Religion of the Truth". No other of the big religions accepts and partly relies on dishonesty.

####039 4/142b: (A4/157 – in 2008 edition A158): “The hypocrites – they think they are overreaching Allah, but He will overreach them (non-Muslims*) - - -“. Literal meaning: “He is their deceiver”. But f.x. Rezi has: “He (Allah*) will requite them for their deception.” There is a clear distinction here: In the first case Allah deceives the non-Muslims so that may be their plans crumble before they give any Muslims problems. In the other case he avenges what they did. 2 different meanings. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning. Clear language in the Quran?

### We also add that this sentence: “He (Allah*) is their deceiver” is one of the moral alibis Islam uses for its doctrines of “al-Taqiyya” (the lawful lie) and “Kitman” (the lawful half-truth), etc. – a kind of permitted dishonesty included in Islam, but in no other of the major religions. Al-Taqiyya, Kitman, and Hilah, and also broken oaths can be used without sinning in a number of cases – f.x. to save your life, to get you out of serious problems, to save your money, to cheat women – and it shall be used if necessary to promote or defend the religion. (It only is guesswork how many proselytes who have been cheated by al-Taqiyya and/or Kitman when wondering if Islam is a true and good religion or not. Or how many non-Muslims who have been cheated to believe that the Quran is not the basis for a teaching of suppression, inhumanities and blood, but a peaceful and benevolent book promoting peace. Not to mention how many girls who have been deceived into marriage, when the Muslim boy just wanted a residence or work permit - or simply into sex.) Also see 4/142a just above. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

We finally point to the fact that the literal meaning - "He (Allah*) is their deceiver" - tells gigabytes about the Quran, Muhammad and Islam. It also is legion miles away from the NT - one of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

##040 4/157h: (YA 663):"- - - nor crucified him - - -." We quote from the book "The Meaning of the Holy Quran" one of the "heavy" ones in Islam - comment 663: "The Gospel of St. Barnabas supported the theory of substitution (that another man than Jesus was crucified*) on the Cross". This is one of Islam's pet claims for explanation of the claim that Jesus was not crucified, this in spite of that nothing neither in the Quran, nor in Hadiths indicates anything like this. But we must admit we reacted when we saw the so-called "Gospel of Barnabas" used as a documentation for this claim in a book told by Islam to be of high quality - "The Gospel of Barnabas" is a well known apocryphal - made up - scripture. Now many of these made up scriptures were made by fringe semi-Christian sects in the old times. But this one most likely is not even one of them. It is likely it is written by Islam - most likely one of the many falsifications which were made in Spain around 800 - 900 AD during its Muslim period, to "prove" pet Muslim theories or to cheat people. But it also is a possibility that it was made in Baghdad at the court of the caliph - #### remember that Muslims are not only permitted to lie (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, etc.) when defending or promoting Islam, but are told to lie "if necessary" if that gives a better result. That it is a falsification is so well known, that there is no chance Yusuf Ali did not know this. The use of this well known falsification, then tells quantities about how reliable even presumed high quality Islamic religious literature sometimes is - or not is. It also tells mountains about lack of true facts and arguments - or total lack of such (no sane person uses arguments he knows are faked, if he has true arguments). And not least: It tells something about even top Muslim scholars. Honestly we had preferred not to meet things like this - there are more than enough facts which document that something is wrong, so we did not need this al-Taqiyya. It makes the Islamic religion so dirty and "small" - we had preferred honest mistakes. And the sad thing is: It is not the only time we have met this kind of debate from Muslims.

To repeat the final point: #### The use of known falsifications prove that Islam has no honest arguments and no real proofs for their claim - if they had, they had not been forced to use known falsifications as a last resort as "proofs".

041 4/157j: "- - - those who differ therein (believe that Jesus was crucified*) are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow - - -". Good propaganda if the listeners were naive enough or eager enough to believe what they wanted to hear - but wrong information (few Christian believer doubt this point, something Muhammad ever so well knew).

042 5/1d: "Fulfill (all) obligations." This is the general rule in the sharia laws. But see the points about f.x. al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc., deceiving/betrayal, and breaking of promises/word/oaths. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

043 5/14c: "We (the god*) did take a Covenant (with the Christians, too*) - - -". It is crystal clear that if the old scriptures and 11 witnesses tell the truth, this covenant was confirmed by Jesus' words the last supper (Luke 22/20). This is so well known and so central in the Christian religion, that not one single Muslim really educated in religion do not know this. All the same this almost always is omitted when Muslim scholars write or talk - and the lay Muslim mostly have never heard about it. And then you even in presumably good quality Islamic literature meet claims like this - claims which have to be written against the writers knowledge, as it is so well known (YA: The Meaning of the Quran", comment 71: "The Christian Covenant may be taken to be the charge which Jesus gave to his disciples, and which the disciples accepted, to welcome Ahmad (= Muhammad*)":

  1. There exists a verse in the Quran (61/6) where it is claimed Jesus said there should come a messenger named Ahmad (= Muhammad) - but only in the Quran, a book dictated by Muhammad. Not very strange if Muhammad foretold himself. BUT NOT EVEN THERE IT IS SAID THAT JESUS' DISCIPLES ACCEPTED THE MESSAGE. (It is claimed in the Quran that the disciples said they were Muslims, but not that they got the claimed message about Muhammad). Honesty in argumentation?
  2. There is no-where in the Bible said anything even remotely similar to this. And it is worth remembering that science - and Islam - long since has proved the claims in the Quran about falsifications in the Bible wrong - not to say fakes.
  3. Jesus' order to his disciples before he left them (according to the Bible and not opposed by the Quran) was to find proselytes and make them Christians by baptizing them - something very different from what here is said.
  4. Jesus also told them he should send them a helper - and they received their "parts" of the Holy Spirit some days later, something which helped them quite a lot according to the NT. But Islam strongly claims this helper Jesus promised, was Muhammad - who was born nearly 500 years after the last of the disciples was dead! (But this is the only place they can twist the NT so much that an al-Taqiyya may look distantly believable for the ones not knowing the Bible, and as it is told in the Quran that Muhammad was foretold also in the Gospels, they HAVE to find such a foretelling, come Hell or high water. See 7/157e below.
  5. Another fact worth mentioning here is that in absolutely no foretelling in the Bible about anybody not in the foreteller's near future, are names given - sometimes titles, but never names. In the verse in the Quran claimed to be parallel to one in the Bible, there is a clear name - typical for a deceiver overdoing his "job".

044 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 and 5/13 above) - 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) 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).

045 5/19j: "- - - a warner (Muhammad*) - - -". At this time (632 AD) this at least was a Kitman (a lawful half-truth (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)). In 632 AD Muhammad also was an enforcer - most of Arabia and much of the rest of the now Muslim area became Muslim by some kind of force - weapons, money, social pressure, work, etc. (Arabia mainly by greed - the Arabs wanted parts of the loot from raids and wars - or force: "Become Muslims or fight and die - and see your women and children become slaves".)

046 5/46f: “- - - we (Allah*) sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law (of Moses*)”. According to the Bible Jesus was not sent to change the old laws – that was not his main purpose. All the same he did so – changed some and even nullified some of them, especially many of all the additions made by the times by Jewish religious thinkers and leaders. This was more or less formalized during his last Easter, when the new covenant (f.x. Luke 22/20) was made. (This covenant is never mentioned by Islam, and most Muslims without religious education have not even heard about it. This even though it is one of the main and most central facts in the Christian religion).

##### It is worth remembering that at least in 3/50a the Quran confirms that Jesus changed old Jewish laws. Especially it is worth remembering this all the many times Muslims claims that Jesus confirmed the old laws of Moses, without mentioning a whisper about that both the Bible and the Quran confirm he changed or terminated a number of them.

###### An extra juicy pint here is that surah 3 - where Muhammad says Jesus came to "make lawful to you (the Jews*) part of what was (before) forbidden to you" - is from ca. 625 AD. This means that already then he knew that Jesus changed laws. All the same he here - in 632 AD - he simply tells that Jesus was sent to confirm the Laws of Moses. ### A clear and documented case of Muhammad lying in the Quran - he knew better.

047 5/73a: “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity”. Our sources tell that the 3 last words does not exist in the Arab edition, but is added by Yusuf Ali. Then the correct text in case ends: “Allah (Yahweh*) is one of three (gods*).” This obviously is wrong, as Christians only believe in one god. Besides it is a most dubious way of working to make additions to a text without making the readers aware of that it is an addition – f.x. by at least putting the addition in ( ).

But the claim in any case is wrong: Christians do not say Allah is one of a Trinity, but Yahweh is one of a Trinity. (But there is a chance for that the Quran here is correct when it denies that the god is part of a trinity, as this is not said in the Bible - this is a Christian dogma from the 4. century, and it got its present form from the so-called Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory of Nyassa (332-395), Basil the Great (320-79), Gregory of Nazeanzus (329-389)). The nearest you come in the Bible is that Jesus said that he and his father, Yahweh, were one.) Also see 5/73b just below.

048 5/83a: "And when they (Christians*) listen to the revelations received by the Messenger (Muhammad*), thou (Muslims*) wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears - - -". Pure propaganda which was possible for Muhammad to use, as there were few Christians in the area, so that Muhammad's followers could not see it was not true. Today it is easy for all and every Muslim to see that Christians are not moved by the contents of the Quran, and especially not the ones who really has studied that book.

This surah is from 632 AD and by then Muhammad knew very well that Christians just did not storm to embrace his new religion - he knew he was lying in the Quran when he said this.

##049 5/84b: “What cause can we have not to believe in Allah and the truth (the Quran*) which has come to us - - -?” F.x. because it hardly is the truth - see among others 13/1g and 40/75 below. In addition - to answer the question: There are heavy reasons for not believing in Allah or in the Quran: The fact that the Quran - the basis of the religion - contains so many mistaken facts in a book which claims to be sent down from their god. Then how many mistakes are there in the religious points which are wrong? Is it really sent down from a god, or is it made up by someone here on Earth? And if it is sent down: In that case Allah very clearly is not omniscient - and not benevolent. Or it may be sent from other - darker - forces. Another fact is that Allah is claimed to be a good and benevolent god, whereas the Quran shows he in reality - if he exists - is an unfair god of war liking inhumanities and blood and accepting dishonesty (skip the glorifying big words, and see the realities they hide - or try to hide). Etc.

####And not least: It is difficult to believe in the claimed truth of a religion founder and a religion believing in and practicing dishonesty - al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc., deception (practiced by Muhammad himself), broken words/oaths (practices and advised by Muhammad) - how much is true and how much is not in such a religion and in the arguments of its followers?

#####050 5/89a: “Allah will not call you to account for where is futile in your oaths - - -" = oaths you just throw around - f.x. in anger or from habits, or for oaths you for other reasons did not mean, does not count, and breaking them is no sin for Allah. Quite a different from normal religions. Besides: How can others know when you mean an oath and when not? (Well, in some cases you can guess, but what about all the border-line cases and the cases where it sounds like you mean it?) The Quran and Islam are very special when it comes to breaking oaths and some other kinds of dishonesty (f.x. al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth)) - it is the only of the big religions with such rules for accepted dishonesty, and the only of the big religions which accepts dishonesty, even as a part of the religion/religious life.

#####051 5/89b: “Allah will not call you to account for where is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: (if you break such one*) for expiation, feed 10 indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families: or clothe them, or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the (breaking of*) oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths.” In principle: Keep your oaths, at least if you meant them. But if you break them, not much is lost, as it is just to pay expiation, and everything is ok. And if the oath was made without thinking things over, you are not even bound to it or bound to pay expiation for it. Guess if this is different from NT! (- and from most other religions included all the big ones!) (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

No other of the big religions has dishonesty as an integrated and accepted part of the religion - also here remember al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) - and "war is deceit". Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya and Kitman can be used at least in these cases (for broken oaths there are given no real limitations if the broken oath will give a better result. By implication this also goes for ordinary words and promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal word or promise):

  1. To save your or others' health or life.
  2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem.
  3. To make peace in a family.
  4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one’s oath.
  5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get residence permit or work permit in a rich country.)
  6. To deceive opponents/enemies.
  7. To betray enemies.
  8. To secure one’s money (very clear from Hadiths).
  9. To defend Islam. (Advisable if necessary to succeed.)
  10. To promote Islam. (Advisable if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive someone – actually also in the long run if the opposite part does not know about this side of Muslims and of Islam, or if he/she is naïve. But in the long run one learns that there is no way to really be sure a Muslim speaks the full truth - or the truth at all - in serious questions. (This also may be a big problem for Muslims telling the truth about something without being believed - they have no reliable way of strengthening their words.)

###052 5/89c: "That is the expiation for the oaths ye (Muslims'*) have sworn (and broken*)". Even though it is advisable to keep your oats, if you break one, it is just to pay expiation, and everything is ok. The Religion of Truth?!? - an ironical joke. "The Religion of Honesty"? - not even a joke (may be that is why you seldom hear this last name seldom and never from Muslims and Islam).

053 5/108a: "- - - other oaths would be taken after their oaths". Oaths can be broken in Islam according to Muhammad, though if you really meant the oath when you swore it, you have to pay expiation to Allah to be forgiven. All the same: The main rule is that you shall try to keep your oaths. (But that rule is far from absolute).

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

054 6/28d: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) are indeed liars". At least a clear message to Muhammad's followers - if it is true, is another question. Besides it is an ironic message from the only one of the big religions which accepts lies in the religion (f.x. Muhammad was too intelligent not to know he was lying when he claimed miracles would not make people believe - but he needed to explain away the lack of proofs for Allah), and as work tools - f.x. al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) and worse, etc. - lies can be efficient.

055 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 proofs had given many new followers. Also see 6/7–9 above and 6/35b just below.

056 6/40b: "- - - truthful - - -". See 2/2b above. In connection to words like this, also beware of f.x. al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth), which both may be claimed to be the truth.

057 6/56c: "- - - those who receive guidance (Muslims*)." You do not receive much real guidance from a book full of errors and with a partly detestable moral and ethics" and even accepting dishonesty in many cases. (F.x. Al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth, and worse.)

058 6/61a: "He (Allah*) is the Irresistible - - -". This and similar are often claimed, but never proved. It takes blind belief to believe in it - but then Muhammad glorified and Islam glorifies blind belief, as none of them could/can prove any of their central claims. In all other aspects of life, blind belief is the easiest way to be deceived, but in religion Muhammad glorified it and Islam glorifies it, in spite of that all claimed information comes only from a hardly reliable man believing in the use of lies, etc. (f.x. al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie - and Kitman - the lawful half-truth) and even in broken words/promises/oaths, but liking power and riches (at least for bribes), and women. Is there a connection?

059 6/62d: "- - - Allah - - - the (only) Reality - - -". Incompatible with the Bible, and: Is he a reality? There exists not ones single documentation - ONLY the word of a not very reliable man unable to prove one single of his words - a man with very doubtful morality, a man who clearly lied sometimes, a man who made lying, half truths (al-Taqiyya and Kitman), etc. parts of his religion, a man who advocated breaking even your oaths if that gave a better result - and a man lusting for riches for bribes and for power - and for women - and not "specific" on how to lay his hands on any of those three. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

###060 6/112b: "- - - (non-Muslims*) inspiring each other with flowery discourses by way of deception." This is a nice piece of pep-talk, explaining-away, and inducement for his followers not to believe what non-Muslims told them. But is it true? ####Besides: Used as slander from "the Religion of Dishonesty" (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, lawful deceit, even breaking of oaths (2/224, 2/225, 16/91, 66/2)) the claim is a bit ironic.

061 6/113d: "- - - those who incline (to deceit) - - -". An ironic name and point of view, as the Quran/Islam is the only one of the big religions which in many cases accepts dishonesty - al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, deceit, broken words/oaths - as working tools.

062 6/116d: "- - - they (disbelievers*) do nothing but lie". The irony once more: The only one of the large religions which accepts - even sometimes advices - the use of lies and dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, deceit, betrayal, broken words/oaths), is accusing others of lying - - - and as normal for the Quran without proofs behind the claim. A lie? At least it was a lie that they did nothing but lie - a fact so obvious that also Muhammad knew this.

063 6/124b: "We (non-Muslims*) shall not believe until we receive one (proof*) (exactly) like those received by Allah's messengers". Wrong - the only thing they asked for, was a clear proof for Allah and his power, which Muhammad never was able to deliver. Here Muhammad has twisted the truth a little - lawful in Islam (this is a Kitman - a lawful half-truth) - to be able to explain it away and to be able to make his opponents look bad.

Not a proved lie from Muhammad in the Quran, as one or a few can have said so. But a very likely one, especially as the Quran says every leader said the same, which is highly unlikely.)

064 6/148i: "- - - ye (non-Muslims*) do nothing but lie". This is a demonstration of 6/148c above: Loose claim. But this also is a part of some ones - and not only Muslims' - method of debate: Scolding, etc. Just this accusation in the Quran is a bit ironic, though: The only one of the reasonably big religions where dishonesty not only is an accepted, but advised part of religious debates, is Islam (but NB: Only if there is a reason for lying, or if it is necessary to win your point - - - but all the same: How reliable is a religion which relies on lies? - al Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), even broken words/promises/oaths.)

065 6/152c: "Whenever ye (Muslims*) speak, speak justly - - -", - - - except when it is better to use al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth - or may be more exact; making mental reservations against what you say), or when it simply is better to break your word or even your oath to gain a better result. Islam and the Quran has some special rules for speaking the truth - rules you find in no other of the big religions, and rules one has to beware of, as you never can be sure that a Muslim really is speaking the truth. (A problem also for Muslims: If he really is speaking the truth and others do not believe him, he has no way of strengthening his words.)

066 6/153e: "- - - thus doth He (Allah*) command you, that you may be righteous". Is it righteous ("lawful and good") to steal or rob in the name of Allah? - is it righteous ("lawful and good") to enslave in the name of Allah? - is it righteous ("lawful and good") to extort in the name of Allah? - is it righteous ("lawful and good") to attack peaceful people in the name of Allah? - is it righteous ("lawful and good") to rape captive or slave women in the name of Allah? - is it righteous ("lawful and good") to rape captive or slave children in the name of Allah? - is it righteous to punish a raped woman because she cannot produce 4 men - men - who have seen the very act, to prove it was a rape? (one of the most disgusting and unjust laws in this complete world)! - is it righteous ("lawful and good") to lie, or cheat or break your word or your oath (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, "break your oath if that gives a better result" (Muhammad))? - is it righteous ("lawful and good") to murder opponents because they do not agree with you? - is it righteous ("lawful and good") to kill persons because they do not believe in Islam or wants to leave it - a religion based on a book full of mistakes, contradictions, wrong logic, etc., dictated by a man believing in al-Taqiyya, in Kitman, and in breaking his words and his oats even - is it "lawful and good"? The horrible truth is that many Muslims will answer "yes" to some or all of these questions. These rules of moral and justice - or rather immoral and injustice - have been so strongly imprinted on them since they were babies, that they are unable to see the horror and the places of inhuman injustice in their code of so-called moral - and moral philosophy which could have mended the terrible cultural rules does not exist in Islam - and the same the as disgusting injustice in some of their laws. They really believe those are the best of rules, and that everybody not living by them are second rate "Untermench" - In parts of Pakistan imams/mullahs have debated if non-Muslims have half the value or less compared to Muslims. No Comments - except "do not laugh - it is impolite". But also see 6/108d above and 23/24b (A23/11) and 26/74c below.

But even if many Muslims honestly believe the Quran's moral code is just and righteous - because they are too used to it to be able to see immoral, injustice and often horror it accepts or even advocates - this claim in the Quran is wrong - sometimes horribly wrong.

##067 7/40d: In connection to 7/40c just above, Muhammad Asad ("The Message of the Quran") has an interesting piece of disinformation, showing why we have to be so careful when using Islamic sources. We quote from A7/32: "One should remember that the Gospels were originally composed in Aramaic, the language of Palestine at the time of Jesus, and that those Aramaic texts are now lost. It is more than probable that, owing to the customary absence of vowels (like in Arab at the time of Muhammad*) signs in Aramaic writing, the Greek translators misunderstood the consonant spelling g-m-l - - - and took it to mean 'a camel' (and not a thick rope*)".

But this is wrong - the Gospels were originally written in Greek, ##### AND THIS IS SUCH A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT THERE IS NO CHANCE NEITHER IN HELL NOR IN HEAVEN THAT MR. ASAD DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT, AND IN A WAY WORSE: THE SAME GOES FOR THE MUSLIM SCHOLARS WHO REVISED THE 2008 ENGLISH EDITION WITHOUT COMMENTING ON THIS MISTAKE. And Greek had a complete alphabet where the problem with missing vowels did not exist.

###### This simply is an al-Taqiyya - a lawful lie - made by Mr. Asad and endorsed by the scholars revising the book, by Al-Azhar Al Sharif Islamic Research Academy (part of Al-Azhar Islamic University in Cairo - one of the 2 - 3 foremost Islamic universities in the world, if not the foremost), by "Svenska Islamiska Akademien" ("the Swedish Islamic Academy"), and "The Book Foundation".

Al-Taqiyya and similar rules for lawful dishonesty is a powerful tool when addressing the uneducated and the naive. But it backfires most strongly, and produces distaste and disrespect - and suspicion concerning other claims - when discovered. Of the big religions only Islam has these kinds of lawful dishonesty - and how much is true and how much is not, in the tales and the augmentation of a religion relying partly on dishonesty and on dishonest arguments?

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

068 7/54f: Muhammad Asad has this translation: "(Allah*) created the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth in six eons" (the same in 11/7c - actually this point is from 11/7c)- telling that the Arab word used here for "day" (yawm) also may mean f.x. eon, even though it is very clear that Muhammad's listeners and later Muslims understood "day" - - - until science proved that days could not be right. Mr. Asad(?) also is forced to change from "day" to "eon" in order to use the word "evolution" instead of "creation" in his comment 11/10 to this verse.

Honesty seems not to count too much in Islam, compared to the essential: To make the Quran look right. But where goes the reliability of the religion when you discovers small and big "twists" and lies? - and how much more of the religion, the teaching, and its arguments are in reality untrue?

One more point: In the Swedish somewhat older edition, is used "days". It thus may look like it is the editors of the new English edition who have falsified Mr. Azad to get a text nearer to what is scientific correct instead of giving a correct translation of the Quran. Once more: Honesty does not seem to count too much in Islam.

Do you understand why we have to be careful and check a lot, when working with Islamic literature? Unclear meanings + dishonesty.

Perhaps there is a reason why Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that "Islam is the Religion of Honesty".

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

###069 7/64c: (A7/46): Muslims – even scholars and Al-Azhar University - do not need difficult language to get troubles with the claimed true meanings and the claimed Truth and reality. 7/64 “do not support the theory of a world deluge” (= the words in that verse are not clear enough to merit such an explanation, they say) – gallantly omitting the fact that Islam and the Quran claim the ark stranded on a 2089 m high mountain (Mt. Al-Jedi) in Turkey (not Ararat in Turkey), which is impossible if the deluge was not universal, as the water then had streamed away to lower, not flooded places. And “The Message of the Quran” – also in the 2008 edition!! – as gallantly explains it with the filling up of the Mediterranean Basin “during the Ice Age” (ended some 10ooo - 15ooo years ago), this in spite of that this filling up happened 4-5 million years ago, and also for several other reasons – f.x. wrong place and by far wrong way of filling up – cannot explain the deluge. These are well known facts which the honorable professors have to know, or at least had to and easily could check before they "broadcast" their "explanation". A typical al-Taqiyya (lawful lie - here to explain away a clear mistake and thus defend Islam) as the time for and way of the filling up of the Mediterranean Sea as said are well known scientific facts.

The filling up of the Black Sea could be an explanation with some extra "explanations" - - - but it cannot explain the stranding of the Ark on a high mountain in Syria, and neither the terrible weather and the enormous waves, as that too was a slow filling up (at least months of a slowly raising water level.)

As said: Some Muslims – even elite scholars – do not need difficult language to get different meanings – at least different from well known facts. Al-Taqiyya etc. are easy ways out, but produces a number of not intended reactions and thoughts in the listener/reader if found out. Dishonesty does not induce respect or trust.

Also this is a typical example of what you often meet from Muslims: Claimed "explanations" which obviously are wrong because they only "explain" one or some aspect(s) in a case, but then the other aspects prove them wrong. Like here: The Mediterranean once filled up - perhaps an explanation for the flood? - we use it!

But wrong time - some 5 million years too early. Wrong place - the Mediterranean Salt Desert where no man lived (there at places are found sun-baked salt under it), whereas Noah is believed to have lived (if he is not fiction) around what is now south Iraq, and only some 5ooo-6ooo years ago. Wrong effect no. I - such a filling up produces no bad weather. Wrong effect no. II - such a filling up produces no big waves, except just close to the inlet (here Gibraltar). Wrong duration - the Mediterranean took at least 100 years to fill up, as the opening was not very big in the beginning. (Well, there is a new theory saying that the rush of water made a big opening, but even in that case at least 1 - 2 years.) Wrong drama - as it took long time, the water rose just some meters a year, and produced no storm. Wrong finish - such a filling up only could fill up to sea level, whereas the Quran as said tells the Ark ended on the 2089 m tall Mt. Al-Jedi in Syria (correction: According to Wikipedia it lies in Anatolia in Turkey). Also see 7/64d just below.

But the really dark point is that most of these facts are so well known among educated people, that there is no chance that Islam does not know it - not to mention how easy it is to check on such fact. All the same they use it - people with little education or a strong wish to believe, believes in even such fairy tales, not to use the correct word: Al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie - a specialty for Islam.

But such stories - and there are too many of them - totally destroy Islam's and Muslims' credibility among those of educated, intelligent people used to critical thinking. Do you understand why we have to check each and every piece of information from Islamic sources to see if they are true?

Also see 7/64d.

##070 7/64d: “- - - We (Allah*) overwhelmed in the Flood those who rejected Our Signs”. And everybody except those in the Ark were drowned. Well, Islam claims quite correctly that the Quran does not directly say that the Big Flood covered all the Earth (but it says so indirectly, as it tells the ark ended on a 2089 m tall mountain in Anatolia in Turkey (Mt. Al-Judi) - impossible if the flood did not cover the entire world - the water in case had disappeared to not flooded areas). But when they try to explain the Flood as described in the Quran, they not only stumble, but fall head-over-heel down a full hill. This especially as some of the facts they twist, are so well known among learned people, that the honorable learned Muslims obviously have to know they are making up things and conclusions to cheat naïve and/or not learned people - - - some small al-Taqiyyas and/or Kitmans? (lawful lies and half-truths). This is lawful in Islam (yes, al-Taqiyya even is advised in case) if necessary in promoting and/or defending the religion, which is much more essential than to find out what is the truth. But a religion which has to lie, also has things to hide - f.x. that neither Muhammad nor Allah ever was able to prove anything about Islam. Also see 11/40 – 11/42 and 11/43 below. And: How reliable is a religion which has to lie? - and how much of its preaching, arguments and holy(?) books are lies and how much truth? (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

Relevant here may be the fact that the Muslim historian Abu al-Hasan 'Ali al-Mas'udi (ca. 896 - 956) told that the Ark started its journey near Kufa in central Iraq, sailed to Arabia, where it circled the Kabah (it would be possible today to find out if the oldest parts of the Kabah are that old), and continued to Mt. al-Judi - a voyage impossible unless the flood was universal. Also: Mecca lies at an elevation of 909 ft/277 m. To circumnavigate the Ark above the Kabah, the elevation of the sea level had to be at least some 1ooo ft/300 m above the present sea level. Impossible unless the flood was universal.

###F.x. they try to explain the flood with the filling up of the Mediterranean Sea (see 7/64a just above) or the Black Sea – which is not even scientific rubbish:

  1. The Mediterranean Sea was filled up via Gibraltar some 4-5 million years ago – long before Homo Sapiens – modern man – ever existed (Homo Sapiens developed in Africa some 160ooo-200ooo (195ooo?) years ago, came out of Africa perhaps some 70ooo years ago, and then something happened in Asia (?) some 60ooo-70ooo (64ooo?) years ago that put him on the trail to or made him to what we are today.)
  2. The filling up of the Mediterranean See took many years – to the tune of a hundred years, this because the opening was not very big in the beginning and the basin enormous. Therefore the water rose slowly – some meters a year. Drama and waves of the kind described in the Quran simply did not exist. (Well, a new theory claims that it may have happened in 1-2 years, but even in that case it would mean a silent and sluggish rise of something like 9 feet/3 m a day (the average depth of the Mediterranean Sea is some 4900 feet/1500 m.)
  3. Look at a map and please explain us how the slow filling up of the Mediterranean Sea could make a flood in south Mesopotamia – now approximately south Iraq – where Noah is presumed to have lived?
  4. The filling up of the Black Sea had no connection to the original filling up of the Mediterranean See at all – in stark contradiction to f.x. 7/64, comment 46, in “The Message of the Quran”.
  5. The filling up of the Black Sea happened when the oceans had nearly finished rising because of the melting of the ice from the last Ice Age – we have seen 5200 years ago, (the main melting ended 10ooo - 12ooo years ago, but there have been some ups and downs - cooler and warmer periods) but the calculated time varies some. This happened faster, but far from fast enough to produce cataclysms like the ones described in the Quran – months or a few years. All the same one of the theories trying to explain the story of the Big Flood, is this filling up – the story have travelled (or Noah may be lived there and moved later?) and also it has been made more dramatic.
  6. ##Islam claims the ark stranded on a mountain (2089 m tall Mt. Al-Jedi) in Anatolia in Turkey (not Ararat in Turkey) . For the ark to get stranded on a high mountain, the water according to all physical laws must have covered the entire Earth – if not it had streamed to the empty lower places and disappeared/fallen. Muslim scholars know the elementary physical laws as good and well as anybody else. They know that these “explanations” about what the Quran may talk about, calling it a “local” flood is all sheer dishonesty. Either that or what the Quran tells about where the Ark ended, is wrong. At least one of these two has to be wrong – and they know it, but all the same they tell an "explanation" they know must be wrong to naïve and/or uneducated followers and proselytes.
  7. There also is a highly speculative theory that the flood was caused by the impact of an asteroid into the Indian Ocean. References to Chinese history and astronomical constellations in Hindu legends in case date the start of the flood to 10. May 2807 BC. But as said the theory is highly speculative - and no traces of the impact have been found, which it should have been from such a big and recent impact. Also no traces have been found on land from such a flooding, which obviously would have been the case if this theory had been correct (one has found traces from old tsunamis many places around the world, but nothing which can be from 2807 BC and nothing so big as this had to be to explain where the ark ended. An NB here is that as this is found in Hindu legends, this means that other people than Abraham and his people in case survived.
  8. The most likely explanation, though, and one we have not heard from Islam at all, is the fact that there have been found traces of an extreme flood in Iraq from a time that can roughly correspond with Noah (5200 years ago). It is strangely little known – we have seen it mentioned only 2-3 times, and we read a lot of such stuff. Clear traces were found in the 1920s by a British team. The Scandinavian popular scientific magazine LEXICON (Nov. 1992, p. 46) had an article with a picture from the deep layer of clay this flood had left behind. There were traces of human activity under that layer, which indicates that people lived there when it happened. We translate:
  9. Around the year 3200 BC there was an enormous flooding. The (renown*) British archeologist C. Leonard Woolley made in 1929 a very deep dig in Mesopotamia near the river Euphrates (he often worked near Ur of the Chaldeans*). 12 meters (some 13 yards*) down he and his people found a 2.4 meters thick layer of clay made in water (all layers of clay are made in water - there is no exception from this rule*). Under the clay there were traces from a civilization from before the flood. The layer of clay, therefore, must be a proof for a huge flood lasting for a long time".
  10. This enormous flood may be what is behind the story about the Big Flood. It happened in the right place (Abraham - if he ever lived - according to the Bible was from this area. It also happened roughly at the right time, as science tells Noah lived - if he is not fiction - some 3ooo-4ooo BC. Hundreds of square miles and kilometers of water covering all small humps and hillocks - "mountains" - in the flat land may have been "all the world" to Abraham and his people. But this alternative seldom is mentioned by the religions as it can explain neither the Bible's 5165 meters high Mt. Ararat, nor the Quran's 2089 meters high Mt. al Judi. But what may have happened is that as tales were told from generation to generation the story grew from the water covering all local small hills, to covering all the mountains of the world. Here we again are back to the fact that it is possible to explain such a mistake in a book written by humans - humans make mistakes sometimes, and there were some 2500 years between 3200 BC and the time when the Genesis was written down. Such an explanation is not possible for a book delivered by an omniscient god. Then who in case delivered the Quran?
  11. (Science tells there likely were more than one such flood there. But that in case does not change the conclusion.)
  12. In none of the explanations Islam gives, it is possible to explain the enormous weather the Quran describes. That only is possible in the last point just above and perhaps the asteroid impact – explanations we never or seldom have met from Muslims. And explanations which cannot explain how the ark could end up on a 2089 m high mountain in Anatolia in Turkey like the Quran claims.
  13. There also are two more facts which are heavy here: Modern DNA shows no "bottleneck" - time when life nearly was wiped out around the claimed time of Abraham - neither for humans, nor for animals nor for birds nor for insects. The last major general die-off was some 64 million years ago, and the last major "bottleneck" for humans is connected to the so-called archeological Eve tens of thousands of years ago, whereas Noah lived(?) some 5ooo-6ooo years ago. And also neither geology nor archeology has found traces from a worldwide flood. The tales of the Big Flood are wrong. There may have been an enormous local one in what now is Iraq, but that is it. And again: This is possible to explain as human mistakes in the Bible, but not in the Quran (as the Quran is claimed to be delivered by an omniscient god).

Also see 7/64c above.

071 7/78b: “So the earthquake took them (the people of Thamud*) unawares, and they lay prostrate (= dead*) in their homes in the morning”. Except that this is contradicted by:

  1. 11/67: “The (mighty) Blast overtook the wrongdoers (the people of Thamud*), and they lay prostrate in their homes in the morning - - -.” A blast sounds like something from f.x. an explosion.
  2. 15/83: "But the (mighty) Blast sized them (the People of the Rocky Tract - believed by Islam to be another name for the Thamuds) of a morning - - -". Similar to 11/67 just above.

  3. 69/5: “But the Thamud – they were destroyed by a terrible Storm of thunder and lightning”. You meet Muslims referring to the storms that “naturally follow earthquakes”. That is wrong – there is no – no – connection between earthquakes and storms, as they are caused by entirely different mechanisms. (To continue the song about “correcting” the Quran: Mr. Muhammad Asad in “The Message of) the Quran” has quietly and without comments changed 69/5 from “storm and lightning” to “earthquake”. An “al-Taqiyya” (lawful lie)? Al-Taqiyya is not only permitted, but ordered if necessary to defend or promote the religion.

2 contradictions. And do you understand why we have to be careful and check everything when we use Islamic sources?

Comment YA2004 to 15/83 where they were killed by a mighty blast: "The mighty rumbling noise and wind accompanying an earthquake". There is no wind (and no blast, thunder or lightning) accompanying earthquakes - the mechanism producing wind is totally different, a fact even educated Muslim scholars know, but all the same they produces arguments like this. Intellectual dishonesty - there is a bit much of this in Islam. And in a religion using dishonesty/lies, how much is true of their arguments? - and of their religion?

#####The reason for this dishonesty, is that it is believed that "the people of the rocky tract" just is another name of the Thamud tribe. And in 7/78 the Thamuds were killed by an earthquake. 11/67, 15/83, and 54/31 they were killed by a mighty blast. And in 69/5 they were killed by " terrible Storm of thunder and lightning!". Voila!: Make wind/blast accompany earthquakes or let the noise represent a blast to hide this mistake in the Quran - but forget the thunder and lightning! But neither wind nor blasts nor thunder nor lightning is a part of an earthquake.

#####Honesty too often is not essential for Muslims and Islam. The main thing is to make the Quran and thus Islam look like they are true. But when even persons like Muhammad Yusuf Ali uses dishonesty - here an la-Taqiyya (a lawful lie), how many more lies are there then in Islamic literature and argumentation? - and in the Quran and in Islam?

072 7/102a: “Most of them (people*) We (Allah*) found not men (true) to their covenant - - -“. “The Message of the Quran” (A7/81 - A7/83 in 2008 English edition) tells (in the Swedish edition) that the exact word-for-word translation is: “We found by them nothing that tied them to what is truth and right”. Not a word about a covenant.

And that book continues by telling that this may include man’s capability to instinctively to see the difference between right and wrong.

Now the fact that some of the most fundamental moral questions get the same answer in many societies indicates that something deep inside man tells some common moral truths (though to call it this a "capability to instinctively to see what is truth and right" is deeply wrong - this and similar claims from Islam solely is dictated from the deep lack of proofs for anything at all of the central points in the religion): You shall not steal, you shall not be a nuisance – or worse – to others, you shall not rape, you shall not kill, etc. But Islam and the Quran is the best proof for that these inner messages are easy to override for a charismatic leader and for a society, and make immoral behavior praiseworthy and a moral code: To steal/rob, rape, enslave, murder, and more – it all is “lawful and good” if you just observe the right formalities in Islam. To what claimed covenant are they true?

Besides: Is there really a clear covenant between Allah and the Muslims, or have Muhammad and his followers just made promises and believe it is a covenant? - and if there is a covenant: What is it worth if Allah is a made up god?"

073 7/105d: One small "en passent" here as Muslims do not like the timing of the Exodus, and as M. Yusuf Ali makes a comment (in A1073 to this verse) "(The Jews stayed in Egypt*) perhaps two to four centuries. (Renan allows only one century).": The Bible is very clear on how long time the Jews spent in Egypt: 430 Years, and there was no reason for the Jews to falsify this number, in addition to that in spite of Islam's claims no falsification is known in the Bible, mistakes yes, falsifications no (again: Guess if Islam had screamed about it if even one documented case had been found!). But as Ramses II did not drown, Islam needs to use an earlier pharaoh where one does not know how he died - f.x. Thothmes I (ca. 1540 BC) is mentioned. But Jacob - the patriarch who took the Jews to Egypt lived around 1800 BC (if he is not fiction), or to be exact: Abraham lived - if he is not fiction - around 2ooo - 1800 BC. Jacob was his grandson, and as Abraham was old when he got Isaac (the father of Jacob) it is realistic to say Jacob lived around 1800 or perhaps a bit later. Then it is not possible to use earlier pharaohs than Ramses II if the Jews stayed 430 years. A little twist is necessary in case - and voila!: Islam says (the mentioned YA comment 1073): "- - - Israel stayed there perhaps two to four centuries." Problem solved - without any source for the estimate given. Maybe the 430 years in the Bible is a falsification? (but in case why?) - the standard and easy "explanation" Muhammad always used.

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

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

*074 7/157a: “- - - the Messenger, unlettered Prophet (Muhammad) - - -”. Islam frequently tells that Muhammad was an an-alphabetic (then he could not have made up the Quran, they claim - which he could anyhow, he in case just could not do the writing it down himself - which he did not do - as it is the brain, not the pen which makes (up) stories). But in science there is serious doubt about this - he was from a good family which it is likely taught its male members how to read and write, and in addition he was intelligent and he run first a big business (the one of his first wife Khadijah) and later a large organization. It is highly unlikely that such a man did not learn how to read and write - and unlikely that his first wife had accepted him as the manager of her business if he was analphabetic).

You also can meet Muslims telling you that the “fact” that Mohammad could not read, “proves” that all his knowledge about the Bible he had to have gotten via holy inspiration - he could not have read about it. We find it distinctly dishonest that they omit all the vocal storytelling that was very rife in Arabia (and most other countries) – and the fact is that most of the Biblical stories in the Quran are such tales and not really from the Bible itself.

Not to forget that a well off man like Muhammad - he married a rich widow - easily could pay someone to read for him. Also some points in Hadiths indicate that he knew both how to read and how to write - facts Islam and Muslims very seldom mention.

We also may mention that the claim that Muhammad was an-alphabetic "proves" he did not make the Quran, is very naive. The very strongest word possible to use here is "indicates", and even this is too strong as it in case was Muhammad's brain and not his pen which made up the Quran. But if you read Muslim religious literature or debates, you will notice a strong tendency to use too strong words hoping to prove the religion and the Quran are right - "perhaps", "probably", "an indication", etc. all too often are transferred to "proof".

Islam's use of the claim that Muhammad was non-alphabetic is strongly distasteful and dishonest - this even if it should be true that he did not know how to read and write. The problem simply was too easy for a rich man to solve + Islam knows ever so well the rich traditions of story-telling in Arabia. But Islam's dishonesty also is revealing: It reveals that they have few or none real facts and arguments on these points (like so many others) - if they had had honest facts, they had used them instead of stooping down to the use of dishonest claims and invalid - here very wrong - logic.

#######075 7/157d: “(Muhammad, whom they – the people of Moses*) ‘find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) – in the Law and the Gospel - - -‘“. The Law existed when Moses made this speech. But how could the people of Moses find the Gospels (remember that this is from a speech Moses made to his people some 1300 - 1335 years before Jesus was even born)? – the Gospels did not exist until some 1400 years later!! Another strong mistake and another strong contradiction.

EVEN THE VERY FACT THAT THE QURAN STATES THAT MUHAMMAD IS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE - BOTH IN THE LAW (THE BOOKS OF MOSES) AND IN THE GOSPELS - IS ONE OF THE BIG PROBLEMS FOR ISLAM, BECAUSE HE IS NOT THERE. BECAUSE OF THIS THEY HAVE TO CHERRY-PICK WORDS AND TWIST CONTEXTS AND LOGIC TO "FIND" HIM - IF THEY DO NOT FIND HIM, THAT MEANS THE QURAN IS WRONG ON A VERY SERIOUS POINT, AND THEN THE BOOK CANNOT BE FROM A GOD, AS NO GOD MAKES THAT KIND OF MISTAKES. AND LIKE SO OFTEN FOR ISLAM THE MAIN THING IS NOT HONESTY, BUT TO "FIND" THE ANSWER THEY WANT.

Some Muslim writers try to cover up this blunder (that this was said to the people of Moses) by adding in brackets "(later on)". But for one thing this is not what the Quran says (another case where Islam admits there is a mistake in the Quran?). And for another: Even if it had been true that Moses meant "later on", the word "Gospel" had no meaning for his listeners, as no Gospel existed and the word as a name was meaningless to his followers. A clear case of trying to explaining away a logical and historical mistake.

Also beware that the expression "The Law of Moses" may be misleading. Moses according to the books got the laws in Sinai. Much later they were included in "the Books of Moses" when they were written, and therefore these books also often were called "the Law". It may well be these books Muhammad referred to. But in that case: The verses Muslim (wrongly) claim is about Muhammad (5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18) are not in the Law proper which are the only scriptures said to be written down then (the rest of the so-called "Books of Moses" are written some centuries later according to science), and could thus not have existed at the time of Moses.

There is a chance the Quran suddenly has changed subject - the book is of that quality. In this case we get 7/157e.

076 7/158r: "- - - follow him (Muhammad*) that (so) ye (Muslims/people*) may be guided." Thieving/robbing, extorting, raping, enslaving, slave dealing, womanizing, discrimination mongering, hate mongering, torture, murder, mass murder, suppression, war mongering, war, al-Taqiyya and Kitman (lies), breaking your oaths, and more. Yes, follow him and be guided! - Muslims do so?

Muhammad in the Medina period behaved something like IS does today (2014). Like it or not: It is IS, Boko Haram, etc. who live according to Mohammad's example and rules and the Quran's rules and demands, not the moderate Muslims. Something to think over for the rest of the world? - especially as all the errors, etc. in the Quran prove that that book is not from any god.

077 7/185d: "In what Message after this (Muhammad's*) will they (non-Muslims*) then believe?" Difficult to say, as some choose one belief, others another one. But for thinking persons with some knowledge it is difficult to choose a belief which itself proves strongly that something is very wrong. For children brainwashed and pressured from baby age and never taught critical thinking, it may be explainable. But for adults to choose such a religion it takes a lot of lack of knowledge, a lot of lack of brain, or a lot of naivety. Or perhaps some al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) or Kitman (lawful half-truth) - both of which "if necessary" or if "it gives a better result" ought to be used to promote Islam, f.x. by making proselytes believe in Islam and become Muslims. Islam is the only of the big religions who promotes the using of lies to among other things defend or promote the religion.

Besides why do they have to believe in messages later than Muhammad? There are some older ones which may be ok.

078 7/190b: "- - - Allah is exalted high above (anything*) - - -". Often claimed, never proved. There only are the words of Muhammad for this claim - and judge for yourself how reliable a man Muhammad was with his al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies), Kitmans (lawful half-truths), broken promises/words/oaths according to the Quran (2/225, 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok), 5/89, 16/91, 66/2), and his "War is deceit", etc.

###079 7/198b: In connection to this verse (7/198) M. Yusuf Ali - a Muslim scholar who knew the real, historical side of Muhammad, not only the glossy picture from the imams, very well, in all his stealing and robbing, raping, womanizing, lying, torture, murder, and blood - wrote this about Muhammad (YA 1169): "Even now, after fourteen centuries, a life (Muhammad*) of unexampled purity, probity, justice, and righteousness is seen in the false light by blind detractors!" #####It simply is very difficult to believe that it is humanly possible honestly to believe in such a shining picture for a learned scholar. And what then about uneducated Muslims?

Is this really the "realism" in Islam?

In that case it is easy to see why many such areas are pretty backwards.

Are we living in the same world?

Or is this really what the Muslim moral code is like?

Did Yusuf Ali really believe what he said? - one of the foremost Muslim scholars and translators in last century?! - or is it perhaps an al-Taqiyya meant to satisfy the clergy/religious scholars?"

Or does this tell something about Islam and al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie Muslims are urged to use if necessary to defend and forward the religion (and some other things)???

###The sentence made a huge impression on us, and told us much about Muslim integrity and moral backbone.

080 8/29e: "- - - forgive you - - -". Only two can forgive - the victim (or his representative) and a god. Is Allah really a god - if he exists? Muhammad is the only source for claims about him, and the real Muhammad was not very reliable (cfr. al-Taqiyya - lawful lies, Kitman - lawful half-truths, broken oaths, deceptions, etc.). Also his book, the Quran, is choke full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. and not from any god.

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

####081 8/30d: “They (non-Muslims*) plot and plan, and Allah too plans; but the best of planners is Allah”. When Allah can make devious and cheating plans, of course his followers also can. This verse is may be the main alibi for the institution of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and its brothers Kitman (the lawful half-truth), and Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing) - three lawful ways of dishonesty you find in no other of the large religions. Worse: For promoting or defending Islam, they are not only permitted, but advised to use them "if necessary". (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya, Kitman, and Hilah can be used at least in these cases (for broken oaths there are given no real limitations if the broken oath will give a better result. By implication this also goes for ordinary words and promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal word or promise):

  1. To save your or others' health or life.
  2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous situation.
  3. To make peace in a family.
  4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one’s oath.
  5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get residence permit in a rich country.)
  6. To deceive opponents/enemies.
  7. To betray enemies.
  8. To secure one’s money (very clear from Hadiths).
  9. To defend Islam. (Advised if necessary to succeed.)
  10. To promote Islam. (Advised if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive some ones – actually also in the long run if the opposite part does not know about this side of Muslims and of Islam, or if he/she is naïve. But in the long run it means that people learn Muslims cannot be relied on in serious questions. And it also means p0roblems for Muslims telling a plain truth without being believed - there is no way for them to strengthen their words, as even oaths are unreliable.

Also remember that Muhammad in addition to "normal" dishonesty - he f.x. knows he is lying at least a few places in the Quran - used both betrayals, deceiving and broken oaths - the Islamic personification of truth and honesty?

All this is "good and lawful" in Islam.

Also: Combine this to Islam's slogan: "Islam is the Religion of Truth", and have a good laugh.

082 8/58b: “If thou fearest (“fearest”, not “understandest” or “knowest”*) treachery from any group, throw back (their Covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous.” – except Muslims - - - remember Muhammad’s betrayals and his words “War is betrayal” and "War is deceit" (Ibn Ishaq) Also remember al-Taqiyya (the lawful lies), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), and Muhammad's advice about breaking ones promises, words and oaths if that gave a better result. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

###083 9/5e: Pagans - and often others - often got a rough deal from Muslims. (Quite an irony, as the Muslims are pagans themselves if the Quran is a made up book - and with all those errors and worse it at least is not from any god.) See the other parts of 9/5 above. The choice often was: Fight us and be killed or become Muslims: “But if they (the pagans, etc.) repent, and establish regular prayers (= become Muslims) and practice regular charity, then open the way for them (= let them live*)”. Muslims say that according to the Quran there is no force or compulsion used by Islam to change religion (except pressure, economy, etc. and some pogroms). But this verse says the straight opposite - though we never hear it quoted by Muslims, for some reason or other. But this verse is from as late as 631 AD. According to Islam’s rules if two or more verses “collide”, the newest of them normally is the right one and the older ones are invalidated - abrogated. And this verse preaches: Kill them unless they become Muslims. What is a poor non-Muslim to believe? Especially as we know Muslims under some circumstances are permitted - or even advised to if necessary - to lie for non-Muslims.

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

  1. 2/109 “- - - but (Muslims*) forgive and overlook (Jews and Christians*) - - -.” But that was long before 9/5 and other hard verses.
  2. 2/190: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits - - -.” 9/5 does not care much about limits.
  3. ###2/256: “Let there be no compulsion in Religion - - -.” This is the flagship for all Muslims who wants to impress non-Muslims about how peaceful and tolerant Islam is. But NB! NB! The surah says: “Let there be - - -.” It is an incitement or – judging also from 2/255 – more likely a wish, it is not something which was a fact or a reality. It is a hope or a goal for the future, it is not something that existed (or exists - just ask a fundamentalist or a terrorist) – and all the same most Muslims quote it like this: “There is no compulsion in Religion” - - - a small, little “Kitman” (lawful half-truth – an expression special for Islam together with “al-Taqiyya, “the lawful lie”) in addition to the obvious al-Taqiyya as there in many a Muslim country are compulsions towards non-Muslims and towards Muslims wanting to change religion. This makes the Quran and the religion sound much more friendly and tolerant than the reality is some places.

Do not tell that to 9/5.

  1. 2/272: “It is not required of thee (O Messenger (Muhammad*)) to set them on the right path - - -.”
  2. 3/20: “If they (“infidels”*) do (become Muslims*), they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, thy duty is to convey the Message - - -.” This – that his duty was to convey the message (only), was deeply contradicted – and abrogated - by at least those of these verses that came after surah number 3 (in 625 AD), and we add the ones of them that came before, too, because Islam says an older verse in clear cases can abrogate a younger one (it is the one exception from the standard rule that the newest abrogates the older ones, though it is seldom used). Anyhow it is a clear-cut contradiction – and abrogated by many verses.
  3. 4/62: “Those men (not good Muslims or apostates*) - - - keep clear of them, but admonish them, and speak to them a word to reach their very soul.”
  4. 4/81: “- - - so keep clear of them (hypocrites, “infidels”) - - -.” 9/5 instead wants you to kill them.
  5. 4/90: “- - - if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them.)” Guess if this changed later!!!
  6. 5/28: “If thou (“infidels”, Cain*) dost stretch thy hand against me (Muslims, Abel*), it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee - - -.”
  7. 5/48: “- - - so strive as in a race in all virtues.” In a race you strive peacefully. 9/5 is terror and war and inhumanity.
  8. 5/99: “The Messenger’s duty is but to proclaim (the Message) - - -.” Oh??
  9. 6/60: “Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement - - -“.
  10. 6/66: “Not mine (Muhammad’s*) is the responsibility for arranging your (“infidels’”*) affairs.” No, his responsibility only is to kill you or suppress you or force you to become a Muslim.
  11. 6/70: “Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement - - -.” No comment necessary.
  12. 6 /104: “I (Muhammad*) am not (here) to watch over your doings”.
  13. 6/107: “- - - but We (Allah*) made thee (Muhammad*) not to watch over their (“infidels’) doing - - -.”
  14. 6/112: “- - - so (Muhammad*) leave them (opponents*) and their Invention (gods*) alone.”
  15. 6/158: “Wait ye (“infidels”*): we (Muhammad*) too are waiting.” He later stopped waiting.
  16. 7/87: “- - - hold yourselves in patience until Allah doth decide between us: for He is the best to decide.”
  17. 7/188: “I (Muhammad*) am but a warner, and a bringer of glad tidings – to those who have faith.” A warner and a warrior.
  18. 7/193: “- - - for you (Muhammad*) it is the same whether ye call them or ye hold your peace!”
  19. 7/199: “(Muhammad*) Hold to forgiveness (towards the “infidels”*).
  20. 8/61: “But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (Muhammad*) (also) incline towards peace - - -.”
  21. 9/68: “- - - therein (Hell*) shall they (hypocrites and “infidels”*) dwell: sufficient is it for them - - -.” Later it was not sufficient - Muhammad and his followers sent them there (or at least killed them).
  22. 10/41: “My work to me (Muhammad*), and yours to you! Ye are free from responsibility for what I do, and I for what you do.” Later he took the responsibility of forcing them to believe.
  23. 10/99: “Wilt thou (Muhammad*) then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!” Irony.
  24. 10/102: “Wait ye “non-Muslims*) then: For I (Muhammad), to, will wait with you.”
  25. 10/108: “- - - those (“infidels”*) who stray, do so for their own loss, and I (Muhammad*) am (not set) over you to arrange your affair.” Muhammad did not want them to arrange their own affairs, but later when he became stronger – then he wanted them to become Muslims and warriors, so that they could strengthen his own affairs of war and power.
  26. 11/12: “But thou (Muhammad*) art only there to warn”. And then some more – at least after 622 AD.
  27. 11/121: “Say to those who do not believe: ‘Do what ye can: we shall do our part’”. This was in 621 AD. Muhammad/Allah was/were still speaking peace – but not for much longer.
  28. 13/40: “- - - thy (Muhammad’s*) duty is to make (the Message) reach them (“infidels”): It is Our (Allah’s*) part to call them to account.” Well, from 622 AD this also became a part of the "duty" of Muhammad and his men.
  29. 15/3: “Leave them (the disbelievers*) alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves - - -.” This was in 621 AD. It did not take long before Allah needed to change and contradict his word, when he started to change his rather peaceful religion to one of inhumanity and blood and war (luckily many Muslims do not live according to those parts if the Quran).
  30. 15/94: “- - - turn away from those who join false gods with Allah.”
  31. 16/35: “But what is the mission of the Messengers but to preach the Clear Message?” Surah 16 is one of the very last surahs from Mecca – months later the contents started to change, and contradictions – and abrogations – were necessary for the changes to a war religion. Then - was the message clear in 622 AD?
  32. 16/82: “- - - thy (Muhammad’s) duty is only to preach the clear Message.” This was just months before Muhammad fled from Mecca in 622 AD. But a little later he came to Medina and started to gain power.
  33. 16/125: “Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord (Allah*) with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious - - -.”
  34. 16/126: “And if ye do catch them out, catch them out no worse than they catch you out: but if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient.”
  35. 16/127: “And do thou (Muhammad*) be patient, for thou patience is but from Allah; nor grieve over them: and distress not thyself because of their plots.”
  36. 17/54: “We (Allah*) have not sent thee (Muhammad*) to be a disposer of their (“infidels’”*) affairs for them”. Allah or Muhammad started to change his mind about this one year later – in 622 AD – when Muhammad started to gain enough military power to decide “their” religion for them. (In spite of what Islam likes to tell, Islam to a large degree was introduced by the sword – and by the wish for taking part in the looting/robbing/stealing/raping and slave taking – in Arabia).
  37. 18/29: “- - - let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject (it) - - -.” Guess if this peaceful line from the last year in Mecca was short-lived before it was abrogated by bloodier ones from Medina like 9/5!
  38. 18/56: “We (Allah*) only sent the messengers to give glad tidings - - -.” Well, the self proclaimed messenger started to change his mind shortly after he came to Medina. And so did his god.
  39. 19/39: “But warn them of the Day of Distress - - -.” Here in ca. 615 AD Muhammad should just warn them. The picture changed somewhat as he gained more power some years later.
  40. 20/130: “Therefore (Muhammad/Muslims*) be patient with what they (“infidels”) say - - -.” That was Muhammad’s tone in Mecca 615 AD or before – and until his flight to Medina in 622 AD. It changed quite a lot from 622 AD and onwards and contradicted quite a lot of the mild words from the Mecca period.
  41. 21/107: “We (Allah*) sent thee (Muhammad*) not, but for a Mercy for all creatures.” Muhammad was not much of a mercy to the world – read the surahs from Medina. Neither was he a Mercy for all Muslims – read the surahs from Medina + the verses about women, law, slavery, not to mention the to a large part inhuman ethical and moral code and also the war code.
  42. 21/112: “(Allah*) is the One Whose assistance should be sought against blasphemies.” Well, that was in 621 (?) AD. After 622 AD the sword was handier – blasphemy soon carried a death penalty - - - and there came a number of contradicting texts.
  43. 22/49: “I (Muhammad*) am (sent) to you (men*) only to give a Clear Warning - - -.” Well this was ca. 616 AD. But from some 6-7, years later on it was no longer only a warning, but the sword - - - and a lot of contradictions and abrogations in the texts and the teaching.
  44. 22/68: “If they (“infidels”) do wrangle with thee, say. ‘Allah knows best what it is ye are doing” – and leave them alone. This was ca. 616 AD. But from some 6 years later and more came lots of contradictions and abrogations.
  45. 23/54: “But leave them (“infidels”*) in their confused ignorance for a time”. This was in 621 or 622 AD, shortly before his – Muhammad’s – flight to Medina. When he started to become military strong enough, it was finish with leaving them alone – and there came a lot of contradictions and abrogations in the teachings and in the religion – from peace to inhumanity and war.
  46. 23/96: “Repel evil with what is best”. Later it became: Repel evil with evil – do against “infidel” like they do against you or more – at least when it comes to the bad things. Further comments identical to 23/54 above.
  47. 24/54: “- - - if ye (people*) turn away (from Muhammad*), he is only responsible for the duty placed on him, and ye for that place on you.”
  48. 26/216: “I (Muhammad*) am free (of responsibility) for what ye (“infidels”*) do!” This was in Mecca ca. 615 – 616 AD. The tone rapidly grew more unfriendly after 622 AD when he grew military strong – and the teachings needed some “adjustments” to fit a war religion = some more contradictions and abrogations.
  49. 27/92: “I (Muhammad’) am only a Warner”. That was in 615 – 616 AD. From 622 he fast became a robber baron, warlord and dictator – and more verses with contradictions and abrogations appeared. Many of the older verses were abrogated and contradicted when Muhammad grew military strong after 622 AD and the religion was changed to one of war and conquest.
  50. 28/50: But if they (“infidels”*) hearken not to thee (Muhammad*), know that they only follow their own lusts - - -.”
  51. 28/55: “To us (Muslims*) our deeds, and to you (“infidels”*) yours; peace be to you - - -.” Mecca 621 or 622 AD carried a much more peaceful tone than after Muhammad gained strength from 622 – 624 AD and needed a religion more fit for robberies, raids and war – and got it from Allah (or was it Allah who wanted more blood than before?) – resulting in contradiction with and abrogation of the old teachings.
  52. 29/18: “- - - the duty of the messenger is only to preach publicly (and clearly).” Well, as Muhammad grew more powerful, so did his wish for controlling the locals’ and later all the Arabs’ lives and religious ideas - - - force and punishment became means to a goal. With the necessary changes in the religion, and contradictions and necessary abrogations compared to the more peaceful 12-13 years in Mecca.
  53. 29/46: “And dispute ye not with the People of the Book - - -.“ No comments – but read 9/29 and 9/5 once more.
  54. 32/30: “So turn away from them and wait - - -.” When Muhammad grew more powerful, there was little waiting. The rest of the Arabian peninsula mainly was turned Muslim by the sword – and some by “gifts”/bribes and promises of looted riches – all of which demanded changes in the religion (or was it the other way around, initiated by a god who found his original religion was not good enough – or too little blood and human tragedy?) which caused contradictions between the old and the new version of Islam – and also abrogations naturally.
  55. 34/25: “Ye (“infidels”) shall not be questioned as to our sins, nor shall we be questioned as to what you do.” This may mean something like “we prefer to live and let live” and was one of the many more peaceful verses that became overruled – contradicted and abrogated – when Muhammad gained more power (34/25 is from ca. or a little after 622 AD.)
  56. 34/28: “We (Allah*) have not sent thee (Muhammad*) but as a universal (Messenger) to men giving them glad tidings - - -.”
  57. 35/23: “Thou (Muhammad*) art no other than a warner.” No, around 615 – 616 AD he was may be only that. But it changed later – from a warner to an enforcer and a robber baron. With the corresponding changes of the religion – and abrogations of and contradictions to the old sayings, like this one.
  58. 35/24a: “Verily We (Allah*) have sent thee (Muhammad*) in truth as a bearer of Glad Tidings and as a warner - - -.” As for glad tidings, that only goes for the Muslims, and for far from all of them even.
  59. 36/17: “And our (Muhammad’s*) duty to proclaim the clear message.” Once more something from Mecca (ca. 615 – 616 AD), that was “killed” by “The verse of the Sword" (9/5) and a number of others when later Muhammad also became – or decided that he also was – an enforcer.
  60. 39/41: “Nor art thou (Muhammad*) set over them (“infidels”) to dispose of their affairs.” But 5 – 7 years later, when Muhammad started to gain power from 622 AD on, this changed – he became an overseer, enforcer and robber baron – and later a warlord - - - and rules/religion had to change. Or was it the other way around – that it was Allah who changed his mind and wanted more inhumanity, immoral action, and blood? Anyhow the result was contradictions and abrogations compared to the old.
  61. 41/34: “Repel (Evil) with what is better (Good*); then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate”.
  62. 42/6: “- - - thou (Muhammad*) art not the disposer of their affairs.” No, not around 614 – 618 AD. But after 622 AD he became quite a lot, included an enforcer – and verses like this were both contradicted and abrogated.
  63. 42/15: “There is no contention between us (Muslims*) and you (“infidels”).” May be not in 614 – 618 AD. But later Islam was the power class = Muslims (with Muhammad as dictator), and non-Muslims “thoroughly subdued” - - - and with the religion a lot changed = contradictions and abrogations in the Quran.
  64. 42/48: “Thy (Muhammad’s) duty is but to convey (the Message (the Quran* - or the peaceful parts which existed in 614 – 618 AD*))”. From some years later on, Islam found some of their duties to be more brutal enforcers, so among other verses this one and a lot more were contradicted and abrogated.
  65. 43/83: “So leave them (“infidels”*) to babble and play (with their vanities) - - -.” Comments like 42/48 just above.
  66. 43/89: “But turn away from them, and say ‘Peace.’” Comments like 43/48 above.
  67. 44/59: “So wait thou (Muhammad*) and watch; for they (people*) (too) are waiting”. Here in the peaceful religion from the middle of the Mecca period, Muhammad should wait and see. He became stricter some 10 years later – much stricter.
  68. 45/14: “Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the Days of Allah (Day of Doom*).” But the word “forgive" was slowly forgotten after 622 AD – when they also took on the duty of also being enforcers.
  69. 46/9: “- - - I (Muhammad*) am but a Warner, open and clear.” Yes, in 620 AD he only was a self proclaimed warner. Things changed and verses were really abrogated when he got more power a few years later.
  70. 46/135a: “(Muhammad*) - - - be in no haste about the (unbelievers) - - -.” When he gained power he got more haste – f.x. the reluctant Arabs (and a lot of others) who were not won by gifts and free plundering/slave taking/rape, were won by the sword – in stark contradiction to what Muslims like to tell. "Become Muslim or fight us and die - and see your women and children become slaves!"
  71. 46/135b: “(Thine (duty Muhammad is*) but) to proclaim the Message (the Quran*).” This was in 620 AD. The changes came in and after 622 AD.
  72. 50/39: “Bear, then, with patience, all that they (“infidels”*) say - - -.” The patience became much less talked about from one year later on (622 AD).
  73. ##50/45: “We (Allah*) know best what they (the “infidels”*) say; and thou (Muhammad*) art not one to overawe them by force.” Knowing the later history, this verse is a big, ironic or sardonic joke. This surah is from 614 AD
  74. 51/50-51b: “I (Muhammad*) am from Him (Allah*) a Warner to you (Muslims*), clear and open. And make not another (person/thing/idea*) an object of worship with Allah: I am from Him a Warner to you, clear and open!” This is from Mecca 620. Muhammad is still military weak – and still only a warner. Later he became an enforcer (much of Arabia became Muslims on the point of the sword).
  75. 51/54: “So (Muhammad*) turn away from them (“infidels”*) - - -.” One more point that was contradicted and abrogated when Muhammad grew military strong from 2 years later on.
  76. 52/45: “So (Muhammad/Muslims*) leave them (“infidels”*) alone until they encounter that Day - - -.” Leave them alone till the Day of Doom. But neither Muhammad nor his successors left them alone as soon as Islam was military strong enough. And has Islam at any time ever after left their surroundings alone in periods when Islam was military strong?
  77. 52/47: “And verily, for those who do wrong (“infidels”*), there is another punishment besides this (that in the long run they will lose – and meet the other punishment: Hell*)” A comforting thought at the difficult end of the Mecca period - so just leave them alone. (A confirmation of 52/45, really).
  78. 53/29: “Therefore shun those who turn away from Our (Muhammad’s*) Message - - -.” That was Muhammad’s words around 612 – 615 AD. 10 years lager the “melody” changed.
  79. 67/26: “- - - I (Muhammad*) am (sent) only to warn plainly in public.” But 3 - 4 years later (from 622 AD) he started to take on more dirty and inhuman jobs, too.
  80. 73/10: “And have patience with what they say, and leave them with noble (dignity).” This is an early surah (611 – 614 AD). Muhammad has little or no real power, and is a peaceful preacher. Both he and the religion showed other faces when he gained power – or may be Allah wanted more blood and gore and suffering from 622 AD on.
  81. 73/11: “And leave Me (Allah*) (alone with those) in possession of the good things of life, who (yet) deny the Truth, and bear with them for a little while.” That little while lasted exactly till Muhammad gained enough military power – then he (or Allah*) went for a stricter regime.
  82. 79/45: “Thou (Muhammad*) art but a Warner - - -.” And he stayed like that - - - until he grew powerful enough to do more than warning – f.x. enforcing and empire-building. And it is a question who changed his mind around 622 AD – Allah or Muhammad? And who changed the religion – Allah or Muhammad? That chance demanded that the relatively peaceful religion from the 12 - 13 years in Mecca had to be both contradicted and abrogated on many a point.
  83. 86/17: “Therefore grant a delay to the Unbelievers: give respite to them gently (for a while). Guess if this one from 614 AD was abrogated when Muhammad grew more powerful!!
  84. 88/22: “Thou (Muhammad*) art not to manage (men’s) (religious*) affairs - - -.” One more verse which was abrogated by the more powerful Muhammad – or Allah – later.
  85. 109/6: “To you (non-Muslim*) be your ways (in religion*), and to me (Muhammad or Muslims*) mine.” It is typical that Muhammad and Islam were peaceful in Mecca – they were not strong enough for anything else. And besides it is possible Muhammad meant it like that, but was destroyed morally by his success in Medina later, like many scientists believe.
  86. We repeat:“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and size them, beleaguer them, and lay in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).” Not even an incitement, but a clear order.

084 9/12f: "- - - for their (non-Muslims*) oaths are nothing to them - - -". Strange words from a man who practiced himself and impressed on his followers that it is better to break an oath if that gave a better result, and who lived by his slogan "war is betrayal" or "war is deceit" + that the use of dishonesty was and is an ok working tool in wide cases for Muhammad and for Islam and its Muslims. (F.x. 2/225a and 5/89a+b above, and 16/91e and 66/2a below, + al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth, Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), etc.)

Also: Combine this to Islam's acceptance of the use of dishonesty as a working tool - included the disuse of oaths (2/225, 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok), 5/89, 16/91, 66/2) - and have a good laugh.

085 9/13c: “Will ye (Muslims*) not fight people who violated their oaths (like Muhammad did himself*), plotted to expel the Messenger - - -". It should not be necessary to tell that this contradict at least NT very much. Jesus and Muhammad in the same line of prophets? Simply no. We may add that in addition to Jesus' military pacifism contra Muhammad's dedicated war religion, and Jesus' line of total honesty, contra Muhammad's stealing/robbing, etc. and contra Muhammad's al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) and Kitman (lawful half-truths), etc. - though this was named and formalized later - there also is the difference in the view on keeping your word/promise/oath: here is not a little irony here, as Muhammad himself did not respect his own oaths very much - oaths could be broken if it paid better to do so, and then one if necessary - if the case was serious - could pay expiation afterwards and everything was and is good and fine. Compare this to f.x. Matt 5/33-37: You shall not even swear, but be fully truthful and keep and stay by your word. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.) Jesus and Muhammad in the same line of prophets? A fantasy.

####086 ##9/29a: “Fight those who believe not in Allah - - -.” A most clear order - - - in spite of “no compulsion in religion” (2/256). One of those clear orders which shows reality and belies the glorious words about a "Religion of Peace". As said before: Whenever there is discrepancy between reality and propaganda, we believe in the reality.

Compare this sentence with the 3 samples below and weep:

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

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

###087 9/29h: (Islam is) ”the religion of Truth”. It is not 100% - an understatement - the truth with that many mistakes, etc. in the Quran. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. The difficult additional question is: With that many mistaken facts - are there also mistakes in the religious claims? And in addition there are the facts of “al-Taqiyya” (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) and broken oaths and deceit - how much in a religion using such means is true? Much simply is proved wrong +: With all those errors, etc. it least it is not made by an omniscient god.

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

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

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

088 9/104b: "Know they (people*) not that Allah doth accept repentance - - - and that Allah is verily He (this definitely is no proved verity/truth*) - - -". This is a serious problem: The ONLY source for claimed information about the claimed god Allah, is a man with a very special view on honesty (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hiah, "war is betrayal", break even your oaths if that gives a better result) and a liking for power - and women. No-one in reality knows anything about Allah - many believe, but with such an unreliable source, no-one knows, only believes. The only thing which is proved and thus possible to know, is that there are very many mistakes and other errors in the Quran, and thus that no god has been involved in making or delivering it, and that consequently also much is seriously wrong with Islam.

089 10/3k: "- - - Him (Allah*) therefore serve ye - - -". The word "therefore" here shows to not proved claims - and from a man with proved (by Islam - al-Taqiyya, Kitman, "break even your oaths", and betrayals) low morality.

090 10/18c: "- - - hurt them (people*) not nor profit them - - -". But this also goes for Allah: In the entire history and 1400 years exactly as this is written there never was one single proved incident clearly done by Allah - for good or bad. Not one. Jesus had proofs, both according to the Quran and to the Bible. Muhammad only had words that cost zero - and is worth the same, especially coming from a man believing in al-Taqiyya (lawful lies), Kitman (lawful half-truths), broken oaths - and on top had all his future sins forgiven (the last according to Hadiths).

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

####091 10/21b: “- - - they (people*) take to plotting against our (Allah’s*) Signs! Say: ‘Swifter to plan is Allah!’” (The original - translated from Swedish (omitted in the English 2008 edition) A10/33: "Allah is swifter (than you) making plans"). This is another of the main alibis for al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth*), and Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing): When Allah can use devious means like indicated here, of course any Muslim can.

Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya and Kitman can be used at least in these cases (for broken oaths there are given no real limitations if the broken oath will give a better result. By implication this also goes for ordinary promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal promise):

  1.  To save your or others' health or life.
  2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem.
  3. To make peace in a family.
  4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one’s oath.
  5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get residence permit in a rich country.)
  6. To deceive opponents/enemies.
  7. To betray enemies.
  8. To secure one’s money (very clear from Hadiths).
  9. To defend Islam. (Advisable if necessary to succeed.)
  10. To promote Islam. (Advisable if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive some ones – actually also in the long run if the opposite part does not know about this side of Muslims and of Islam, or if he/she is naïve. But in the long run the real result is that you have no way of strengthening your word to be believed - yes, knowing about al-Taqiyya, Kitman. etc. anyone has to be a bit careful believing a Muslim - you never know when he may be using a "lawful lie", etc.

###092 10/64d: “Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme Felicity.” The first sentence may partly explain why Muslims cannot admit the mistakes in the Quran, no matter how wild “explanations” they have to use. The second one is plainly wrong - see f.x. 10/39 above.

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

093 10/68f: "No warrant have ye for this (that Jesus is the son of Yahweh*)!" Wrong. The claim itself may be correct or incorrect, but there is a clear warrant for the statement in the fact that it is said many times by Jesus, witnessed by many witnesses, according to the Bible - and we repeat once more that science and Islam both have proved that the Bible is not falsified (in spite of Muhammad's often repeated, but never documented claims - and statements from a man like Muhammad need documentation (al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth, etc.). Not one proved case of falsification is found - guess if Islam had screamed about it if there ever was a proved case!

094 10/69b: "Those who invent a lie against Allah will never prosper". Wrong: People who lie, even against gods, often prosper, at least in this world - just look at Muhammad. But if there is a Heaven and a Hell, one may wonder: Where is Muhammad now? - he believed in lies (al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth, broken promises/oaths, deceit (ibn Ishaq), etc.) And where are all the Muslims who lived according to Muhammad's harsh guidelines from Medina?

##095 11/2d: The text in the Arab original is: "Verily, I (Muhammad*) am sent onto you (people*) from Him (Allah*) - - -". Comment A11/3: "The interpolation, between brackets, of the words 'Say, O Prophet' is necessitated by the first-person construction of this sentence. (It is Muhammad who is speaking, but it should be Allah). And A. Yusuf Ali is even smarter - he simply and quietly adds the word "(Say)" without mentioning that it is not in the original. If the text tells something which does not fit Islam, just change it. (But where then goes the reliability of the scholars and the religion?)

096 11/3c: "- - - He (Allah*) may grant you enjoyment - - -". We are back to the major problem in the Quran: There only is the word of a little reliable man (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, "war is deceit", "break even your oaths") for that Allah exists and even is a major god. If he is not, Allah can do or give nothing.

097 11/7a: "He (Allah*) it is who created the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth - - -". Many, many places in the Quran you find Muhammad is claiming natural phenomena for his god - for glorification, for "sign" (normally "Quran-speak" for proof) or directly for "proof". He never even tried to prove or document it - there only was and is his word: The word of the man who was behind the institutionalization of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), breaking of promises and your words, included your oaths, the man who lived by "war is deceit" - and everything was war - etc. But cheap words like this any mullah - yes, even an ordinary believer - in any religion as easily can claim for his god(s) as long as he can avoid the requests for proofs - loose words and loose claims are as cheap as that - - - one of the reasons why they often are used for propaganda.

But such words and such claims have some things in common:

  1. Unless it is proved that the god really is behind the claimed phenomena, such words and claims are totally without any logical value.
  2. Without such proofs, they also are totally without any value as indications or proofs.
  3. Such claims also show that the user has no valid arguments or facts - if he had, he had used them instead.
  4. Invalid arguments normally are the hallmarks of persons trying to cheat you - be it a politician, a cheat, a deceiver, a swindler - Muhammad may have been all of this as he was going for power and for riches for bribes - and for women. And he was not the glossy semi-saint Muslims like to claim - just read the Quran about his demands and deeds and some lies, and you see this. Skip the glorifying words and claims, and read what he demanded, introduced and did, and you get the real picture - glorious words are cheap, demands and deeds are by far more reliable when you want the truth about a person.

Claims of this kind all are wrong and invalid unless Islam proves - proves - the opposite. ("A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion".)

098 11/7c: Muhammad Asad has this translation: "(Allah*) created the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth in six eons" (the same in 7/54)- telling that the Arab word used here for "day" (yawm) also may mean f.x. eon, even though it is very clear that Muhammad's listeners and later Muslims understood "day" - - - until science proved that days could not be right. Mr. Asad also is forced to change from "day" to "eon" in order to use the word "evolution" instead of "creation" in his comment 11/10 to this verse.

Honesty seems not to count too much in Islam, compared to the essential: To make the Quran look right. But where goes the reliability of the religion when you discovers small and big "twists" and lies? - and how much more of the religion, the teaching and its arguments are in reality untrue?

One more point: In the Swedish somewhat older edition, is used "days". It thus may look like it is the editors of the new English edition who have falsified Mr. Azad to get a text nearer to what is scientific correct instead of giving a correct translation of the Quran. Once more: ####Honesty does not seem to count too much in Islam.

Do you understand why we have to be careful and check a lot when working with Islamic literature?

099 11/7e: "- - - His (Allah's*) Throne was over the Waters - - -". This may be from the Bible, because there (1. Mos. 1/2-7) it has a meaning. In the Quran it has no relevance, and Muslims have problems finding reasons for why the throne was over the waters. The explanation you are most likely to meet, is that it was because Allah made all living things from water - a claim which contradicts many other places in the Quran, where Allah created the living beings in many different ways, and not least does it contradict reality which says life was not made from water, but in water. We must admit that to us it tells something when the Quran in 21/30 tells the living beings are made from water, and many even top Muslim writers then tell that here science backs the Quran, because science tells life started in water! Very impressive - there is a huge difference between "from water" and "in water" - but what is a small Kitman (lawful half-truth though in this case a regular lie - an al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie)) when it comes to forwarding Islam?! It really tells something about Muslims and about Islam - and about reliability. Further: The first many millions of years Earth was too hot for water, and even afterwards it took some hundreds of millions years before life started - a long time even for a god to sit on his throne waiting.

100 11/7f: "- - - His (Allah's*) Throne was over the Waters - - -". Comment YA1502: "It is scientifically correct to say that all life evolved out of water, and this statement also occurs in the Quran, 21/30 - - -". Which is a highly incorrect scientifically, because the Quran does not say it has developed out of water or in water - it says that it is made from water, which is something quite different. YA also "forgets" to mention that the Quran has a number of other "explanations" of from what life was created.

A11/10 is no better: "The symbolic (not indicated in the Quran*) reference to ' the throne of His almightiness (Allah*) resting upon water' would seem to point to the Allah-willed evolution (not creating like said in the Quran, but evolution) of all life out of water - a fact clearly (!*) brought out by the Quran (21/30) and in modern times confirmed by biological science (!*)".

Such use of small (or big?) lies - here a Kitman (lawful half-truth according to Islam) - tells much about Muslim scholars and about Islam - and about reliability.

101 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 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), 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), and Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing) and according to the Quran advised even breaking your oaths (and can you break oaths, you also can break weaker promises and words) if that gave a better result. (The Quran also contains a few obvious lies he made - f.x. that miracles would make no-one believe, a claim any intelligent man knows is untrue.)

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

###102 11/40a: (A11/58 – in 2008 edition A11/62): “- - - and the fountains of the earth gushed forth - - -.” Literal meaning (also see 11/40b just below) in the Arab text: “- - - the face of the earth boiled over - - -.” To quote “The Message of the Quran”: “This phrase has been subject to several conflicting interpretations.” - the literal meaning cannot be true. Unclear words to say the least of it. And it really is a confusing sentence, among other reasons because only liquids can boil. And to make the confusion complete, modern Islam even in 2008 once more resort to the filling up of the Mediterranean basin, which happened some 5 million years ago – nearly at the time of the first traces of the first possible real forefathers of Homo Sapiens 6 million years ago, and LONG before Homo Sapiens (modern man) himself ever existed (started 160oo - 200ooo years ago - perhaps 195oo years ago), not to mention some million years before a possible Noah a few (5-6?) thousand years ago. To be impolite: What the in Islam respected “The Message of the Quran” writes about this, is gobbledygook and as wrong and meaningless as that word. But when texts in the Quran are so confusing that even the top Islamic thinkers often are at a loss understanding and agreeing on what the texts really mean, and other times only agree that it cannot mean what it says – how then can Muslims repeat and repeat and repeat that everything in the Quran is clear and easy to understand, and demand to be believed?

And how can top learned men in Islam use so wrong facts – to seduce naïve and uneducated people? – that are so well known and so easy to check and even not too infrequently mentioned in media, and then demand to be believed when they claim to have written it in good faith? Especially so as it just is not the first – and neither the last – time they “bend” scientific and other facts to fit their wishes.

###103 11/40b: "- - - and the fountains of the earth gushed forth (and made the flood for Noah*) - - -.” The Quran does not explicit say that the flood covered the entire world, and as there are no traces of such a flood found, many Muslims try to tell you that the flood only was regional. Not educated Muslims may honestly believe so, but the educated ones know that is one more untrue story – another al-Taqiyya or Kitman – because the Quran clearly tells that the Ark ended on a high mountain in Syria (Correction: Some sources say Syria, but Wikipedia that it lies in Anatolia in Turkey) , Mt. Al-Judi (11/44b), 2089 m high, something which demanded so high a level of water that it was physically impossible unless the flood was universal (the water had disappeared to non-flooded places if not). Perhaps 1ooo - 2ooo m above our sea level? - or more? (The Bible says over even the highest mountains (which in case mean some 8460 m above the present sea level).

But that makes a problem for this verse. Really big quantities of water - giving may be 2000 m or more of water all over the globe (8848+ m to cover "the highest mountains" to quote the Bible = roughly 4 times all the water in all oceans, seas, lakes, and rivers on Earth today added) - could not gush forth from the Earth without leaving huge empty holes in there – either really empty, or at least with highly reduced pressure, (though most likely empty, as it is nearly impossible to compress water and then explain the gushing with expansion of the water (to compress water to double density, we have read that you need a pressure of 44000ooo kg/cm2 – or very roughly 30 times the pressure at the centre of Earth)). These holes would be too big (in order to contain enough water - 2ooo m = roughly as much waters as in all oceans, seas, glaciers and lakes on Earth today) to be stable, and would collapse. There is nowhere on Earth traces from such big collapses. (And not least: To where did the water disappear afterwards? And what mechanism made it first gush forth and then return down?)

(It is here among other places you will meet the explanation like the flood = the filling up of the Mediterranean Basin – a story so obviously an al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) that it is distasteful. That filling up happened 4 – 5 million years ago, and long before modern man existed. Besides it happened because Africa and Europe slowly drifted apart and the Strait of Gibraltar very slowly opened – centimeters a year – which means that the opening and thus the stream of water was small in the beginning. The filling up took a hundred years and may be much more, with the water level rising slowly – one or a few meters a year – and nothing like the cataclysm of the flood of Noah. Something no educated Muslim has an excuse for not checking up before telling stories like this, especially since this is a well known story among educated people, and they most likely were aware of the real facts before spinning such a tale. (There is a theory that the water may have dug out a canal much faster, but even in that case it took some years). And how could that filling up land the Ark high up on a mountain?

Also the filling up of the Black Sea some thousands years ago cannot explain the Big Flood - not like that flood is described. In addition it happened in a wrong place, as Noah - if he is not fiction - is believed to have lived in what is now the south of Iraq or somewhere in that region. (According to Islam (YA comment 1531) Noah lived somewhere in or near the Tigris Valley "800 to 900 miles (some 1300-1500 km*) from the Persian Gulf".) Also Noah - if he was real - lived some 4ooo-5ooo years after that filling up.

##104 11/44b: "The Ark rested on Mount Al-Judi (in present Syria* (According to Wikipedia it lays in Anatolia in Turkey)) - - -". This is a contradiction to the Bible, who says Mt. Ararat in present Turkey, but this does not matter much. What matters is that it is said to end on a mountain (11/44b) which is 2089 m high. This means that a local flood was impossible - with a local flood at least that deep, the water had streamed away faster than the Niagara to lower places without water. And as Syria (and also Turkey) is in the middle of Islamic area, nobody knows this better has the Muslims. All the same you meet "serious" claims for a regional flood - or hopeless stories from university level like the filling up of the Mediterranean Sea - which maximally could fill up to the normal sea level (and according to Islam (YA comment 1531) Noah lived somewhere in or near the Tigris Valley "800 to 900 miles (some 1300-1500 km*) from the Persian Gulf". When you read Islamic literature even of claimed high quality, you slowly - or not so slowly - become disillusioned when it comes to the reliability of the claimed top writers: It seems that the main thing is to make the Quran seem true, and then they adjust reality a little here and a little there. But like so often when one makes up "facts", facts have a tendency to live their own life - here you see "facts" which are wrong, there you see "facts" which contradicts each other, etc. And when you have met enough such al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) and Kitmans (lawful half-truths), your belief in their reliability starts to corrode - this even more so as you know mostly it is information they either know are wrong (f.x. that the slow filling up of the Mediterranean Sea some million years before modern man existed could bring the Ark from the Tigris Valley and land it on a high mountain in Turkey) or information which is easy to check if they really do not know it - f.x.: "When did the formerly dry desert basin which became the Mediterranean Sea fill up?". You simply have to check all claims they make - too many of them are wrong.

But what is the reliability of a religion which accepts the use of lies "if necessary", and which has to rely on lies to make their stories, claims and religious dogmas seem - not be, but seem - true? A religion which on top of all only is built on a book which itself proves it is not from a god, and a book told only by a single man of doubtful moral quality believing in the use of dishonesty, cheating, broken words, etc., a man liking power and riches for more power and women, and a man who on top of all this again never was able to prove a comma of his central claims.

105 11/67b: “The (mighty) Blast overtook the wrongdoers (the people of Thamud*), and they lay prostrate (dead*) in their homes before the morning - - -.” (Similar in 15/83 - remember that "the People of the Rocky Tract" according to Islam is another name for the Thamuds.) A blast is something from f.x. an explosion. But this is contradicted by:

  1. 7/78: “So the earthquake took them (the people of Thamud*) unawares, and they lay prostrate (= dead*) in their homes in the morning”. (Also and NB: An earth-quake never kills 100% - except for in low quality high-rise buildings seldom more than maximum 30%.)
  2. 69/5: “But the Thamud – they were destroyed by a terrible Storm of thunder and lightning”. You meet Muslims referring to the storms that “naturally follow earthquakes”. DISHONESTY. That is wrong – there is no – no – connection between earthquakes and storms, as they are caused by entirely different mechanisms, and this any higher educated person know, but all the same they use it as an argument. ####(To continue the song about “correcting” the Quran: Mr. Muhammad Asad in “The Message of the Quran” has quietly and without comments changed 69/5 from “storm and lightning” to “earthquake”. An “al-Taqiyya (lawful lie)? Al-Taqiyya is not only permitted, but recommended if necessary to defend or promote the religion.

Well, in 7/78 they were killed by an earth-quake and in 69/5 by a terrible storm (which is something different from a blast - a storm lasts for some time, a blast is over in a moment, like the blast from an explosion). Two of the three alternatives must be wrong – simply two more contradictions. This even though the claimed absence of any contradiction is said in the Quran to prove that it is sent down from Allah. A small additional curiosity: The honest Al-Azhar Al-Sharif Islamic Research Academy at the famous elite Islamic university Al-Azhar University in Cairo has sanctified a change of this verse 69/5: The Swedish edition tells the Arab text says they were killed by an earthquake and the new English one says “by a terrible upheaval (of the earth).” Thus quietly and nicely a contradiction in the timeless Quran has partly disappeared, as "upheaval" may be understood to be an earth quake. But does this tell anything about honesty in Islam? – or about a way of thinking in a case where all the possible Muslims' next life is at stake, and the truth should be the absolute essential thing in order to find the really right way? Lying and cheating never is the truth – and why does Islam need such methods? AND CAN THE RIGHT RELIGION BE FOUND BY LIES? NOT TO MENTION: HOW MUCH IS TRUE IN A RELIGION WHICH ACCEPTS AND EVEN ADVOCATES LIES "WHEN NECESSARY" (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, even deceit or broken oaths (2/225a, 5/89a+b, 16/91, 66/2))? As lies are acceptable, then may be more in the Quran and in Hadiths are lies? - and remember the theory that may be Muhammad did not meet Gabriel, but Iblis (the devil) or some other dark forces disguised and pretending to be Gabriel, in which case all the lies, stealing, harsh rules and blood in Islam is easily explained. Also see 7/78 above.

(2 contradictions.)

Comment YA2004 to 15/83 where they were killed by a mighty blast: "The mighty rumbling noise and wind accompanying an earthquake". There is no wind (and no blast, thunder or lightning, though such ones may be caused by a volcanic eruption) accompanying earthquakes - the mechanism producing wind is totally different, a fact even educated Muslim scholars know, but all the same they produces arguments like this. Intellectual dishonesty - there is a bit much of this in Islam. And in a religion using dishonesty/lies, how much is true of their arguments? - and of their religion?

#####The reason for this dishonesty, is that it is believed that "the people of the rocky tract" just is another name of the Thamud tribe. And in 7/78 the Thamuds were killed by an earthquake. 11/67, 15/83, and 54/31 they were killed by a mighty blast. And in 69/5 they were killed by " terrible Storm of thunder and lightning!". Voila!: Make wind/blast accompany earthquakes or let the noise represent a blast to hide this mistake in the Quran - but forget the thunder and lightning! But neither wind nor blasts nor thunder nor lightning is a part of an earthquake.

#####Honesty too often is not essential for Muslims and Islam. The main thing is to make the Quran and thus Islam look like they are true. But when even persons like Muhammad Yusuf Ali uses dishonesty - here an la-Taqiyya (a lawful lie), how many more lies are there then in Islamic literature and argumentation? - and in the Quran and in Islam?

106 11/82c: "- - - brimstones - - -(see 11/82b just above)". A11/114 here has one of Muslim scholars' many dishonest comments to "explain" things: "If this supposition (the meaning of the name*) is correct, the "stones of petrified clay" would be more or less synonymous with "brimstones" (so far correct*), which in its turn would point to a volcanic eruption - - -".

This is about as wrong geology as it is possible to get - and even worse: This is tertiary school level - no really educated scholar does not know that this is wrong. Clay is made only in one way: Stone is eroded to very fine grains, and these grains is then separated out in water - and can by chemical processes and physical pressure over millennia be petrified. What comes out of volcanoes, is magma. This can be of different qualities, but not one of those is even a distant relative of clay or clay stone. Any student knows there is a fundamental difference - or many differences - between sediment stone and eruptive stone. A's "explanation" here is pure dishonesty.

And the comment continues: "- - - probably in connection with a severe earthquake - - -". Also scientific nonsense which educated people at least know enough about to know this they have to check on before they give it as an explanation: There often are minor and sometimes even medium earthquakes connected to volcanic eruptions, but the severe ones you only get in connection with tectonic activity (movement of the tectonic plates the Earth's upper layer consists of.) Volcanoes often are found in the intersection zones between tectonic plates, but volcanic eruptions and severe earthquakes come from two entirely different mechanisms. In addition even the worst volcanic eruptions do not unlash enough energy - and not fast enough - to produce a severe earthquake. (Though volcanoes once in a while produce explosions - but the earthquakes from these are reduced proportional to the inverse of between the 2. and the 3. power of the distance. Besides we have never heard about traces of such an explosion some 3800-4000 years ago near the Dead Sea.)

These "explanations" are scientific nonsense - and the facts are so well known, that scholars know it - or at least know enough to know they have to check on the facts before they write about it. This is not even a Kitman (a lawful half-truth), but it may be an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie). Clay stones NEVER come from volcanoes. Never. Thus a volcano cannot explain a rain of clay stones.

One meets a bit too many Kitmans and al-Taqiyyas in Muslim religious literature, and grows a little disillusioned.

"For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that 'Islam is the Religion of Honesty'".

107 11/82d: "- - - brimstones hard as baked clay, spread, layer on layer - - -". No Muslim has ever informed us about such a site near the Dead Sea. In that dry climate it takes some millennia and more to remove thick layers of brimstone. Are the Quran telling the truth or not here?

108 12/49b: (A12/44 – in 2008 edition A12/48): “Then will come after that (period) a year in which the people will have abundant water - - -.” Here the language in the Quran is so unclear – read “directly wrong” - that A. Yusuf Ali’s religion has subdued his moral and intellectual integrity. The Arab verb that is used – “yughath” – derives either from the noun “ghayth” = “rain”, or from another noun “ghawth” = “deliverance from distress”. There is no way that it can mean just “water”. The “clear language” offers 2 choices – one wrong, one not a good description, so the pious Muslims used a 3. and dishonest one as Egypt did not get rain but flooding of the Nile (or actually a “Kitman” – a lawful half-truth – as the rain much further south in Africa causes the flood - - - but that is not what the Quran is talking about.) Well, to be polite and forget the dishonesty – al-Taqiyya (which Kitman is a version of) – the lawful lie - after all is lawful in Islam, and even a duty to use if necessary to defend or promote Islam (and curiously enough also permitted to use f.x. to cheat women – something for women to remember sometimes - - - f.x. that a marriage is a possible way for a Muslim man to get residence permit in a rich country – it happens now and then - and it is permitted to use al-Taqiyya also f.x. to save your money). And these variants inevitably also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

109 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 see13/2m 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.

###110 13/27e: (A13/48 - in the English 2008 edition 13/49): "- - - their (humans'*) original, innate faculty to realize the existence of Allah and their own dependence of His guidance - - -". Science has nowhere and to no time found such an "innate faculty" concerning any god. This includes all Islamic universities and other Islamic research centers. (Guess if Muslim newspapers and others had had big letters on their front pages if such a faculty had ever been found!) But Islam needs arguments even like this, as there is no clear documentation for any of their central religious claims. Fast talk. Scientifically it is not even "gobbledygook".

111 13/38b: "We (Allah*) did send Messengers before thee (Muhammad*), and appointed for them wives and children - - -". We quote A1861: "All prophets of whom we have any detailed knowledge, except one (Jesus*), had wives and children (= Muhammad was a normal prophet also in this way - well, extra normal with 36 known women). But this claim needs a selective use of the expression "detailed knowledge". Not all prophets are known to have had wives - f.x. it is unlikely John the Baptist had a wife - and for many that situation simply is not mentioned in the Bible. Also the Quran does not mention any wives for the claimed Arab prophets Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb. Use the expression "detailed knowledge" selectively enough, and you get the answer you want.

But more dishonest her - a Kitman (lawful half-truth) - is that one does not mention that none - not one - of the prophets in the Bible had a big harem (beware that f.x. David and Solomon are kings, but not reckoned among the prophets in the Bible). Of claimed prophets only Muhammad had - science knows the name of 35 women who for shorter or longer time belonged to his harem (in addition there was Khadijah, but she died before he got a harem). Also in this way Muhammad does not belong in the line of Yahweh's prophets in Israel.

112 13/42a: “- - - but in all things the master planning is Allah’s.” Allah is the one that decides in reality. This is one of the verses Islam and Muslims have founded the rules for al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) on - the moral alibi and explanation for it. When Allah could device plots, also his followers could and can do so.

Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya and Kitman can be used at least in these cases (for broken oaths there are given no real limitations if the broken oath will give a better result. By implication this also goes for ordinary promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal promise):

  1. To save your or others' health or life.
  2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem.
  3. To make peace in a family.
  4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one’s oath.
  5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get residence permit in a rich country.)
  6. To deceive opponents/enemies.
  7. To secure one’s money (very clear from Hadiths).
  8. To defend Islam. (Advised if necessary to succeed.)
  9. To promote Islam. (Advised if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive some ones – actually also in the long run if the opposite part does not know about this side of Muslims and of Islam, or if he/she is naïve.

In addition there f.x. are Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), acceptance of use of deceit and betrayal, and not least acceptance and sometimes even the advice to break ones word/promise/oath (2/225a, 5/89a, 16/91b, 66/2a).

You find no acceptance of any of these - or other - kinds of dishonesty from Jesus.

###113 14/10a: "Is there a doubt about Allah - - -?" Yes, there clearly is:

  1. The absolute only source for the claims of his existence, the Quran, is a book so full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. that it is highly unreliable.
  2. This book was dictated by a man with lust for power, a moral which was pretty amoral - cfr. his acceptance of lying (al-Taqiyya, Kitman and breaking of oaths), thieving, enslaving, womanizing/rape, murder, etc. - and possibly with a mental illness (TLE?).
  3. It is claimed that the religion is from Adam and before, but not one single trace of any kind older than 610 AD exists anywhere.

  4. There never was any kind of reliable proof for any of the central claims - including the existence of Allah. Absolutely nothing."
  5. Allah has never - neither before Muhammad, nor during Muhammad's life, nor after Muhammad - given one single reliable sign showing that he exists".
  6. The only possible conclusion is that there are good reasons for strong doubts about Allah's existence.
  7. And even if he should exist there are good reasons for strong doubts about how he wants his followers to behave - partly because there is so much difference between Islam before 622 AD and after 622 AD when Muhammad started to need warriors, and partly because so much is wrong in the book, that also the claim about a possible Allah may be wrong.

114 15/4a: (A15/4): “Never did We (Allah*) destroy a people that had not a term decreed and assigned beforehand”. Here Mr. Yusuf Ali once more seems to have translated a bit freely – may be because he knew the real meaning impossibly could be correct. According to Muhammad Asad, “The Message of the Quran”, the literal meaning is: “Never did We destroy a people unless it (the community) had known a divine writ - - -.” Perhaps Mr. Yusuf Ali knew the rules for ”al-Taqiyya” (the lawful lie – a duty when it comes to defending Islam). Homo Sapiens is something like 160ooo – 200ooo (195ooo?) years old. Writing has existed just some thousands of years (some 5200). But thousands and thousands of tribes and peoples disappeared before that. Can thousands of peoples – not persons, but peoples – have died out without Allah’s knowing it, before writing was invented (ca. 3200 BC) and in contradiction to the Quran's claim that every people had had prophets and books like the Quran? Here something is wrong to say the least of it. And on top of that: There are not one single trace of something similar to the Quran written - or preached - before 610 AD.

115 15/9e: "- - - We will assuredly guard (it (the Quran*) from corruption)". YA1944: "The purity of the text of the Quran through fourteen centuries is a foretaste of the central care with which Allah's Truth is guarded through all ages". Not one word about the troubles because of the incomplete Arab alphabet around 650 AD. Not one word about the many varieties through the centuries - of them 14 canonized + some "lightly canonized". Not one word about changes through the time - documented f.x. by the finding of the "Quran-graveyard" in Yemen in 1972. Do you find it strange that persons used to honesty and to straight scientific ways of thinking sometime feel disrespect and distaste when studying Islamic sources? - And Abdullah Yusuf Ali: "The Meaning of the Holy Quran" is one of Islam’s "flagships" on the intellectual medium level! His sentence here is not only wrong, but dishonest - but then dishonesty (al-Taqiyya) is advised by Islam to use "if necessary" to defend or promote Islam"

How much more is dishonest in Islam - and in the Quran?

116 15/71a “There are my daughters (to marry)”. Here modesty has got the better of the Quran (or the translator). The men of Sodom or Gomorrah were not going for marriage - neither could a few daughters (Lot had 2 according to 1. Mos. 19/30) marry a lot of men. It is talk about sexual abuse. Most likely a dishonest translation – but in that case: How many other places in the Quran are explained dishonestly?

117 15/83b: "- - - a mighty blast seized them (non-Muslims in "the Rocky Tract"*)- - -". Comment YA2004: "The mighty rumbling noise and wind accompanying an earthquake". There is no wind (and no blast) accompanying earthquakes - the mechanism producing wind is totally different, a fact even educated Muslim scholars know, but all the same they produces arguments like this. Intellectual dishonesty - there is a bit much of this in Islam. And in a religion using dishonesty/lies, how much is true of their arguments? - and of their religion?

#####The reason for this dishonesty, is that it is believed that "the people of the rocky tract" just is another name of the Thamud tribe. And in 7/78 the Thamuds were killed by an earthquake. Voila!: Make wind/blast accompany earthquakes or let the noise represent a blast to hide this mistake in the Quran! But neither wind nor blasts is a part of an earthquake.

#####Honesty too often is not essential for Muslims and Islam. The main thing is to make the Quran and thus Islam look like they are true. But when even persons like Muhammad Yusuf Ali uses dishonesty - here an la-Taqiyya (a lawful lie), how many more lies are there then in Islamic literature and argumentation? - and in the Quran and in Islam?

#####The reason for this dishonesty, is that it is believed that "the people of the rocky tract" just is another name of the Thamud tribe. And in 7/78 the Thamuds were killed by an earthquake. 11/67, 15/83, and 54/31 they were killed by a mighty blast. And in 69/5 they were killed by " terrible Storm of thunder and lightning!". Voila!: Make wind/blast accompany earthquakes or let the noise represent a blast to hide this mistake in the Quran - but forget the thunder and lightning! But neither wind nor blasts nor thunder nor lightning is a part of an earthquake.

#####Honesty too often is not essential for Muslims and Islam. The main thing is to make the Quran and thus Islam look like they are true. But when even persons like Muhammad Yusuf Ali uses dishonesty - here an la-Taqiyya (a lawful lie), how many more lies are there then in Islamic literature and argumentation? - and in the Quran and in Islam?

####118 16/35e: YA here has an interesting comment (YA2057: "- - - the limited free will granted to man, which is the whole basis of Ethics". The Quran claims man has free will. As this obviously is wrong, as Allah predestines everything, some Muslims try to save the day by adjusting it to that the book and Allah in reality mean limited free will, something the Quran definitely nowhere says. The flat reality, though, is that if Allah decides and predestines everything, like the Quran states MANY places, there is nothing left for man to decide. Thus also "limited free will" is an impossibility. Worse: The fact that if Allah decides everything, there is nothing left for man to decide, is such a simple mathematics, that it is not possible YA and all other learned Muslims do not know it. x - x = 0. There exists no other possible answer. All the same they use this argument - and many simpleminded or uneducated or wishful believers believe it. You meet a little too much of this kind of dishonesty in Islamic literature.

But the really interesting point just here, is that YA clearly states the obvious: If man has no free will, all ethical questions concerning him disappears. What you are forced to do, tells nothing about your ethics. But on the other hand it tells a lot about the ethics of the one who forces you to do it. Not to mention what it tells about the ethics of the one forcing you, if he punishes you for bad things he has forced you to do. Allah predestines everything according to his Plan, according to the Quran. All the same Allah punishes you for the bad deeds he forced you to do to follow his Plan. What kind of god is this?!!

Thus Islam has two - or actually at least three - problems concerning predestination where the contradictions are so strong, that they are unsolvable even for an omniscient and omnipotent god:

  1. If Allah predestines everything like the Quran states most clearly many places, there is no room for free will of man, not even for "partly free will". x - x = 0 simply, and no other answer is possible. (Also full clairvoyance from Allah would be impossible - with free will man always could change his mind once more.) It also is symptomatic that we no place in Muslim literature have met an explanation for how "partly free will" should be possible. Like so much in Islam, it just is a claim hanging on nothing.
  2. If Allah predestines everything, and you thus just do what he has decided you shall do, how is it then ethically and morally possible to punish you for bad deeds? - and for that case reward you for good deeds? What kind of god is this?!
  3. ##### And the third problem - one Muslims and Islam NEVER mention: If Allah predestines everything, and does so according to his unchangeable Plan like the Quran states many places - and decides it even years and decades before it is to happen (your death and whether you are to end in Hell or Heaven f.x. are decided 5 months before you are born according to Hadiths) - there is no value in prayers, as prayers like everything else can have no effect on his decisions made according to his Plan which nobody and nothing can change. As bad: Also forgiving is impossible - it will change Allah's predestined Plan.

These are the reasons why you meet Muslims claiming that Allah's predestinations are not real predestinations, without explaining what it then is - and in stark contradiction to many clear statements in the Quran. And why you meet Muslims claiming the impossible - and like so often in Islam without logical explanation for how it is possible - that man has free will or at least partly free will, in spite of the 100% predestination stated frequently in the Quran, "because the claim has to be true because Allah says so in the Quran".

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 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. In cases where 2 or more possible solutions are mutually excluding each other, maximum 1 of the mutually excluding ones can be true. 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. The same for full and unchangeable predestination long time before, combined with any claimed effect of prayers - the two are mutually excluding each other.)

To summarize some effects of Allah's total predestination:

  1. Free will for man is not possible.
  2. Forgiving is not possible - it will change Allah's Plan.
  3. Prayers cannot have any effect, as such an effect will change Allah's unchangeable Plan.
  4. If your bad deeds are predestined by Allah, like the Quran claims, punishment is immoral.
  5. If your good deeds are predestined by Allah, like the Quran claims, reward is threat.

119 16/38h: “- - - a promise (binding) on Him (Allah*) - - -". There never was a proved case of Allah keeping a promise in the entire history or prehistory - lots of claims, but not one proved case.

#####120 16/38j: “- - - a promise (binding) on Him (Allah*) - - -". Not least: How binding is a promise for a claimed god who accepts and he himself uses dishonesty (f.x. al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie - and Kitman - the lawful half-truth), deceit ("Allah is the best of 'planners (this verse indicates he uses deceiving plans*)" and "war is deceit"), and even broken words/oaths (according to the Quran - 2/225a, 5/89a+b, 16/91e, 66/2a)?

121 16/86c: "Indeed ye (non-Muslims*) are liars". Some may be liars, some perhaps not - if they happen to believe in an existing god. But what about Muslims? If an ordinary Muslim tells something from the Quran which is wrong, but which he honestly believes is correct - is he a liar? - what if he knows it is wrong, but uses an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie)? But what if he is a mullah or imam and should have controlled his information before he says anything? - and what about if he is a scholar? (In Sunni Islam where there is no hierarchy of priests, it is the religious scholars who make up the hierarchies, and who are the really educated and powerful ones within the religious community. Remember here that al-Taqiyya and its brothers Kitman and Hilah are lawful (and to defend or forward the religion even advised) in Islam.

But how much is true in a religion permitting (and more) both lies and worse?

##122 16/90h: "He (Allah*) instructs you (Muslims*) - - -". Is it Allah or someone else who instructs? The instructions are via Muhammad and his Quran, and Muhammad did not hide that he did use dishonesty - even the breaking of words/oaths (2/225a, 5/89a+b, 16/91e, 16/92a+b) - and there are facts like lies in the Quran (6/7a, 6/28c, 6/35b, 7/120a, 7/146b, 20/70a), and words like al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), and "war is deceit". (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.) The question is even more relevant as the Quran is of such a quality, that no god was ever involved in the making or delivery of it, not to mention revered it in his own "home" as the "Mother of Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+b, 85/21-22), but that one theory for the Quran's creation is that it is made by dark forces - perhaps by Allah if he belongs to those forces and just cheated Muhammad.

123 16/91d: "- - - break not your oaths after you have confirmed it." Part of the basis for the sharia laws. Especially interesting here are the words "after you have confirmed it".

124 16/91e: "- - - break not your oaths after you have confirmed it." Well, Muhammad in the Quran and in Hadiths strongly advices you to break your oath if that gives a better result - pay a "fine" (expiation) to Allah afterwards if necessary. No wonder the Muslim areas are full of conspiracy theories about all and everything; When do the authorities and others speak the truth and when is it an al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) or a Kitman (lawful half-truth)?

Besides, if you all the same break a serious oath, you blot out the sin by paying expiation afterwards. Very simple. And a very practical moral code. BUT WHO CAN TRUST EVEN THE OATH OF A MUSLIM?

And note the words: "- - - after you have confirmed it”. A really strong proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same line of anything in the world of morality, not to mention line of prophets (in addition to that Muhammad was no real prophet - he was unable to make prophesies).

125 16/105c: "- - - (non-Muslims*) forge falsehood - - -". Muhammad claimed Jews and Christians had falsified the Quran - a never documented claim which later is proved wrong both by science and by Islam (by being unable to find any proved falsification). Besides; what if they happen to believe in a real religion (if such one exists) - and especially what if Islam is a made up religion?

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

126 16/105d: "- - - it is they (non-Muslims*) who lie!" They only lie if what they tell is wrong. Just like the Muslims lie if the Quran is wrong. Another thing is that the claim here is that Muhammad claimed the non-Muslims had falsified the Bible, a claim both science and Islam thoroughly has proved is not true = they did not lie.

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

127 16/105e: "It is they who believe not in the Signs of Allah, that forge falsehood: it is they who lie!." Do not trust non-Muslims - they are false and unreliable. Psychologically this is a much used way to make distance between "us" and "them". And sometimes a start on the production of enmity between "us" and "them".

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

128 16/105f: "- - - it is they (non-Muslims - here Jews and Christians most likely*) who lie!" What kind of god accuses people of lying, and then it is later proved they told the truth (see 16/105c above)? - and what kind of god throws around lots of such accusations without even trying to produce proof? Or was it not a god who did it?

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

129 16/116a: "But say not - for any false thing that your tongues may put forth (= lies*) 'This is lawful, and this is forbidden', so as to ascribe false things to Allah." But this was just what the Muslims did when they made up literally hundreds of thousands of Hadiths. They simply made up Hadiths fitting their wishes - often for political reasons - to give their words more credibility and "weight". Which resulted in big problems for later collectors of Hadiths: Which were true and which not? This resulted in the situation today: Hadiths hailed by Islam even though many of them obviously are untrue. (There are Muslims using only the Quran, as they have discovered that the Hadiths are not reliable, even though men like Al-Bukhari and Muslim surely did their very best, at least mostly).

130 16/125f: "- - - beautiful preaching - - -". This is not necessarily honest preaching, but honest preaching is not demanded from Islam - f.x. al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) and worse are fully permitted when defending or spreading the religion.

131 17/53b: "- - - (Muslims*) should (only) say those things that are best - - -". Yahweh tells that his followers should only say what is true. But remember that dishonesty is permitted in wide cases - even recommended "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion - in Islam.

132 17/77b: “(This was Our (Allah’s*)) way with the messengers We sent before thee (Muhammad*), thou wilt find no change in Our ways.” Wrong. There is so much difference between especially NT and the Quran that it is not the same religion at all. F.x. Jesus was for peace, Muhammad for war. And science has clearly shown that the Bible is not falsified – Islam in case will have to prove it, and after 1400 years of thorough searching they have found not one single proof, only loose claims. (Guess if they had told the world about it if they really had found a proof!! The lack of such a proof from Islam, is an even better proof than science has produced for that the Bible is not falsified.)

133 17/81b: "- - - Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish". Let us hope so. But falsehood combined with ruthlessness, armed strengths and willingness to terror and murder often survives for a long time - just look at the Mafia, the Chinese Triads, etc. Are at least parts of Muhammad’s teaching and behavior in the same league?

###134 17/107a: “Say: ‘Whether you believe it or not, it is true that those who were given knowledge beforehand (= Christians and Jews mainly*), when it (the Quran*) is recited to them, fall down on their faces in humble prostration”. One word: Nonsense. Or a stronger word: Propaganda. And what is worse: #####The one who composed this verse knew it was a lie – which also Muhammad knew when he made or recited it. It is one of the places where Muhammad lied in the Quran. A few Jews and Christians are said to have converted by 656 AD when the Quran is said to be written, though very few if any in 621 AD when this surah was made, but as a general rule: Utter nonsense. Just look at the history of conflicts between Islam, Jews and Christians, not to mention all the Jews in and near Medina who rather became fugitives or were killed, than to accept Islam – f.x. the Qurayza - and no more is necessary to say. You sometimes meet dishonesty like this in new, emerging religions and sects. It is a way of gaining “weight” for their statements, especially when they have few facts or proofs to show for themselves. Just one small fact that disproves this fairy tale: The 700 Jews of the Qurayza tribe - the last big Jewish tribe in Medina - could have saved their lives and possessions by becoming Muslims in time. To a man they chose not to. This verse contradicts solid historical science and knowledge. And one more fact: Remember that Muslims not only are permitted to lie to defend or forward Islam, but are urged to do it "if necessary" (al-Taqiyya and Kitman - the lawful lie and the lawful half-truth).

Muhammad did not intend this to be slander, but the claim is slanderous - and a lie - against people who choose death or to flee instead of accepting Islam.

135 17/108a: “And they (Jews and Christians when they hear the Quran*) say: ‘Glory to our Lord! Truly has the promise of our Lord been fulfilled!” Made up propaganda. See 17/107a above.

136 17/108c: “And they (Jews and Christians) say: “Glory to our Lord! Truly has the promise of our Lord been fulfilled!” As for the likeliness that this is true, see 17/107a above. A lie simply. But Islam (in this case “The Message of the Quran”) tells that it may refer to all the mentioning of Muhammad in the Bible (of which we have found none that is not just wishful statements which are obviously wrong – see “Muhammad in the Bible?” in http://1000mistakes.com ), but that it most likely means joy for finally getting the Quran, which Allah had promised and now finally had sent. There is no reference to a promise of something like the Quran in the Bible, and Jews and Christians at all times did reckon the Quran to be so wrong and so distant from the Bible, that it was not even heresy. Verse 107 and 108 simply are fairy tales made up to back up Muhammad - a not unusual technique to use by emerging new sects or religions. It may be based on a few converts at that time, or free fantasy - dishonesty happens when new religions and sects are made. And later.

137 17/109: “They (Jews and Christians*) fall down on their faces in tears (when they hear the Quran*)”. As honest as 17/107 and 17/108 above - but then dishonesty is a part of Islam (f.x. al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth, etc., broken words/promises/oaths (if necessary against expiation), and betrayal/deceit all are accepted "if necessary" or "if it will give a better result").

This is one more of the places where Muhammad knew he was lying in the Quran. Perhaps one or a very few did this, even though it is highly unlikely and not documented (except that a few converted to Islam, but not necessarily through tears), but "they" (= all or at least the majority) simply no.

#138 18/1d: “(Allah*) hath allowed therein no Crookedness.” In a book that full of mistaken facts and other mistakes, there is a lot of crookedness. Especially the mistakes, the use of invalid “signs”, ”proofs” and as invalid logic, and the partly immoral moral code and laws, the acceptance of dishonesty in words (lies, deceit, broken oaths, etc.) and deeds (thieving/looting, extortion, slave taking, etc), "smell".

BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT THE QURAN ITSELF DECLARES THAT THERE IS NO CROOKEDNESS IN THE BOOK - THE TEXTS ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD LITERALLY.

139 18/105c: "- - - the fact - - -". See 2/2b. Words like "fact" needs to be checked extra thoroughly, as Muhammad and other Muslims have a strong tendency to call unproved claims or statement "facts".

140 18/105d: "- - - the fact of their (non-Muslims'*) having to meet Him (Allah*) (in the Hereafter) - - -". Wrong: This is a claim, and even though it is repeated many times in the Quran, it is just a claim, not a fact.

141 20/52b: "- - - (Allah*) never errs, nor forgets - - -". Why then does he have to test people? And why does he need records?

AND HOW CAN ALL THE ERRORS IN THE QURAN BE EXPLAINED IF THIS IS CORRECT? (Only two possibilities: To lie/"explain" away, or Allah is not the one behind the book.)

142 21/30d: (A21/37 - in English 2008 edition A21/38): "Nevertheless, the above unmistakable reference to the Unitarian origin of the universe (see 51/47c) (2 al-Taqiyyas: There is no reference to that everything was made from one single element, and the "heavens and the earth" was not meant as a metonymy by Muhammad, and not understood like that by his listeners - and in addition the Quran says the book is to be understood literally where nothing else is indicated) - metonymically described in the Quran as "the heavens and the earth" - strikingly anticipates the view of almost all modern astrophysicist this universe (see 51/47c) has originated as one entity from one single element, namely hydrogen - - -".

Wrong. Modern astrophysicists say there were 2 elements after the Big Bang: Hydrogen (H2) and Helium (He) - most hydrogen, but still 2 elements (+ perhaps traces of lithium - Li). We must admit we grow slightly disgusted each time we see Muslims twisting facts - and facts so well known that scholars have got to know it, or at least very easy could check if their claims are correct - and that we consequently feel some glee when they use invalid or wrong facts as "proofs" for their claims and statements, and end up with conclusions which are clearly and sometimes laughably wrong. This disuse and twisting of known science also tell a lot about Islam and about Muslim scholars.

Also there existed no Earth at that time from which the heavens could be split.

Another point is that this is not what the Quran is talking about. This is gas. The Quran tells that heaven and Earth were smoke, which is something entirely different: Aerosols (very small particles) floating in gas.

And yet another point: The 7 heavens the Quran talks about, and to which the stars, etc. were fastened, never existed and do not exist, and thus are not "cloven" from the Earth.

143 21/51c: (A21/55 – in 2008 edition A21/59, but some is omitted): “We (Allah*) bestowed aforetime on Abraham his rectitude of conduct - - -.” But the Arab expression “min qabl” which here is translated to “aforetime”, also may mean “already in young years”. “The Message of the Quran”, 2006 has (translated from Swedish): “Already in his youth We (Allah*) gave Abraham - - -.” Interestingly the ones who have revised the 2008 edition in his name (Muhammad Asad is as far as we know dead – the book originally is from at not later than 1980), has omitted some of his information and changed the text to this: “And, indeed, long before (the time of Moses) We vouchsafed unto Abraham - - -.” Also the information about alternative meanings is omitted in the 2008 edition. To make the text more clear? – or out of honesty?

##144 22/65a: Has Muhammad Ali made an “al-Taqiyya” (lawful lie) here? He says that Allah “withholds the sky (rain) from falling on the earth”. But according to “The Message of the Quran” the Arab text says that Allah withholds the heaven from falling down on Earth. Quite a scientific mistake in case. And also a dishonesty from Yusuf Ali. But then it not only is lawful, but more or less an obligation in Islam "if necessary" to lie to defend or promote the religion. Islam is the only one of the big religions which has such a rule - a rule which makes any Muslim unreliable in some cases - like religion, women, money, etc. BUT NB: Not all Muslims live according to this rule.

145 22/65b: (A22/80, YA2847): Three translations of the same Arab words:

  1. A. Yusuf Ali: ”He (Allah*) withholds the sky (rain) from falling - - -.”
  2. M. Asad literal meaning (translated from Swedish): "- - - withholds the sky from falling - - -".
  3. M. Asad, “corrected” 2008: “- - - and (that it is He who) holds the celestial bodies (in their orbits), so that they may not fall upon earth - - -.” One of these sounds much better than the other – and honesty in religion does not matter very much. At least not in all religions.

This Arab word “samaa” may mean: A: “something high”. B: ”a roof, a ceiling”. C: “the sky, the canopy of heaven” (but not “the universe” or "space", which in Arab is "al-kawn"*). D: “cloud or rain”. The ones who have revised the 2008 edition really have done a good work. But is it an honest work? Clear at least?

And not to forget: Both that the sky (the real literal meaning) and that the celestial bodies (= stars, planets, and moon) can fall down on Earth is scientific nonsense.

146 23/17b; (YA2876): We simply quote: “Thara’iq; tracts, roads, orbits, or paths in the visible heaven. These seven are clearly marked to our eyes (??*), in the immense space (the Arab word meaning space in modern astronomical meaning- al-Kawn - is not used anywhere in the Quran*) that we see around us. We must go to astronomy to form any plausible theories to these motions. But their simplest observation gives us a sublime view of beauty, order, and grandeur in the universe (see 51/47c). The assurance given in the next clause, that Allah cares for us and all His Creation, calls out attention to Allah’s goodness, which is further illustrated in the subsequent verses.” A lot of words to avoid explaining anything about the 7 material heavens with the stars fastened to the lowest one (37/6-7, 41/12), and with stars used as shooting stars to chase away spying jinns and bad spirits, which is what the Quran in reality is speaking about. Here things are clear, but is made unclear and wrapped up in verbal wool to tuck away wrongs which the Quran clearly states many places.

147 23/27d: "- - - and the fountains of the earth gush forth (and make the Big Flood - 7/64c+d*) - - -". The Quran tells (11/44) that the Ark ended on Mount Al-Judi in Syria (According to Wikipedia it lies in Anatolia in Turkey - Mt. Ararat lies there, and is the mountain mentioned in the Bible). This mountain is 2089 m high. There is no way water in Turkey or Syria could be that high unless the flood was universal - it had streamed away to not flooded places in case (a fact Islam knows very well, and all the same tries to explain that the flood only was regional - a clear al-Taqiyya (lawful lie)). But there is no way fountains of the Earth could have gushed forth that much water - not even 10% of it - not even if it was assisted by heavy rain (and there are limits to how much rain the atmosphere can contain and release). And absolutely not without leaving any traces from collapsed enormous chambers or something where the Water had been. Also such an enormous flood would have left marks many places all over the world. With one possible exception - in Iraq - nothing was ever found anywhere which could fit the texts. Something is wrong here.

The Quran also does neither explain from where all the water came, nor to where it drained. To cover Mt. al-Judi one needed roughly as much extra water as there today are in all oceans, etc. on Earth. To cover the highest mountains one needed roughly 4 times more water than exists on Earth today. There is nowhere that much water could come from or return to, and no mechanism which can explain what happened.

There is an interesting fact here which religious people never mention - most simply do not know about it: Around 3600 BC there was an enormous flood in Mesopotamia (where Noah likely lived - if he ever lived). It was found in 1929 by the British archeologist C. Leonard Woolley - a well known one. This may well be the Big Flood - for people surviving it in that flat countryside, it may have looked like covering the entire world. Also the age may roughly correspond to the time of Noah. The reason why it never is mentioned as an alternative explanation for the Big Flood, may be that even though it was enormous and must have lasted for some time, it far from was as big as the Bible and the Quran mention, and then it in case proves that at least central details are wrong in the books. The Bible, which is written by humans, may well survive the exaggeration, but it is more difficult for the Quran, as any god had known the reality.

148 24/13b: "Why did they (the ones talking about Aisha*) not bring four witnesses - - -?" For the very obvious reason that no witnesses existed - this is a rhetoric and hypocritical question where Muhammad knew the answer very well on beforehand. A dishonest way of augmenting, and a dishonest way to move the focus away from Aisha to others. Psychologically may be a wise sentence - but dishonest. This question was nonsense from the moment it was asked.

The request also is a bit ironic, as Muhammad never proved anything himself - claims and invalid "signs" and as invalid "proofs", but never a valid proof for anything central in his new religion.

####149 24/13c: "Why did they (see 24/13f just above*) not bring the (4*) witnesses, such men, in the sight of Allah (stand forth) themselves as liars". This is one of the really black spots on Islam, and one of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god: The lack of witnesses does not only make the ones speaking suspect, but it is a proof for that they are liars - if they speak the truth or not, does not matter. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.) If they do not have the witnesses, it is a proof for that they are lying. If this was lying for men, this was bad enough. #######But it is a valid proof for Allah!!: "- - - in the sight of Allah, (stand forth) themselves as liars!". ########This in spite of that if they spoke the truth, an omnipotent god would know they spoke the truth!. And all the same, without the witnesses they were liars to Allah!

This tells volumes about Allah, about Islam, and about Muhammad.

#150 25/40a: "And the (unbelievers) must indeed have passed the town on which was rained a shower of evil: did they then not see it (with their own eyes)?". This is plainly wrong. It refers to Sodom and/or Gomorrah, and nobody knows where they lay - if they ever existed (except that if they once existed, it was in the region of the Dead Sea). It therefore was and is impossible for anyone to see the towns "with their own eyes". It also is impressive that Yusuf Ali hides this mistake in the Quran by saying (YA3095): "The site lies on the highway between Arabia and Syria". But you can bet high money on 2 things: If this had been true -

  1. - there had been 100ooo tourists a year.
  2. - the site had been on the UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites.

#### This is the kind of dishonesty - here a Kitman (lawful half-truth) or Hilah (lawful circumventing) - we all the time have to sort out when we work with Islamic sources - even heavy names like Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Everything has to be checked. Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) etc. not only are permitted to, but advised to be used it "if necessary" to defend or forward Islam. (And this is the main reason why you should check all claims or "facts" given by refuters of our and other books: Al-Taqiyya and its brothers are busy at work and make any claimed information from Muslims and Islam unreliable - - - but blind believers happy).

151 25/52b: "- - - with the (Quran)". We quote YA3110: "The distribution of Allah's Signs (we here remind you that in the entire history and the entire world there never was a sign proving Allah*) being universal, the Prophet of Allah pays no heed to carping critics who reject Faith (= Islam*). He wages the biggest Jihad (holy war*) of all, with the weapons of Allah's Revelation". As you perhaps remember the Jihad means that any weapon and any strategy of war - included dishonesty, betrayal, and broken oaths, are permitted - everything as long as you win over the opposition/the non-Muslims. (Rather different from Jesus and NT to say the least of it - the same gods and the same line of prophets? You bet!)

A SAMPLE OF MODERN ISLAM'S "ARGUMENTS.

###152 26/4d: "- - - a Sign, to which they (people*) would bend their necks in humility". Comment A26/4: "Inasmuch as the spiritual value of man's faith depends on its being an outcome of free choice and not of compulsion, the visible and audible appearance of a 'message from the skies' would, by its obviousness, nullify the element of free choice and, therefore, deprive man's faith in that message of all its moral significance'.

This claim is pure dishonesty.

The argument is not even rubbish and gobbledygook, politely speaking, and an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie). Choices made by a person's free will, has got to be made on basis of what the person know, and the more he or she knows about something, the more likely it is that correct choice about that thing is made. Therefore the addition of correct information - f.x. real proof for that a god exists - can have no negative significance morally for the person's decisions or choices.

On the contrary: Withholding of essential, correct information forcing the person to make decisions or choices on basis of serious lack of central information easy for a god to provide, is morally a very doubtful deed by that god. Worse: ##### Top Muslim scholars know enough about logic and moral to know that this is the case, and even so they are capable of producing "explanations" like this, trying to cheat less educated people. But then al-Taqiyya is not only permitted when it comes to defend or forward Islam, but is advised if it gives a better effect. How much in the Muslim scholars' arguments are al-Taqiyyas or Kitmans (lawful half-truths) like this one?

The facts above are so well known, that there is no chance Muhammad Asad did not know it. The only possible conclusion is that he - like so many others - is lying to defend and/or promote his religion.

#####But what is the real value - and what is the real truth - of a religion which has to rely on dishonesty? And how much more in such a religion and its claims and "arguments" are lies? Not to mention: Is there any reliability left concerning that religion?

#####Perhaps the most helpless and hopeless "explanation" we have met for the lack of proofs in Islam, and for answer of requests for proofs at least for Allah's existence and claimed power.

But also hopeless dishonesty is dishonesty. The "logic" in A's comment here is dishonest. Not only wrong, but dishonest.

153 26/127a: "No reward do I (Hud*) ask of you for it - - -". Also this was one of Muhammad's claims about himself - see 26/125 and 26/126 above. At least for Muhammad this claim was enormously wrong, as he at least claimed total power over his followers, enormous riches (which he according to Islamic books mostly used for bribes to attract and keep followers + not a little to wage war) and lots of women - typical for some false prophets throughout history and even today, whereas real prophets seldom had or wanted much riches and as seldom had more than one wife if any at all (a man like Solomon with all his wives is reckoned to be a powerful king, not a prophet, except in the Quran - the same goes for David (though the word prophet is mentioned)). Also see 26/209a above.

154 26/186c: "- - - a liar." As a parallel to Muhammad, this is (unintended?) irony, as it is clear Muhammad lied now and then - even broke his oath.

155 26/189d: “The Message of the Quran” here comments the catastrophe that killed the Madyan people, and the connected darkness told about in the Quran, in this way (A26/77): “This may refer either to the physical darkness which often accompanies volcanic eruptions and earthquakes (which as shown in 7/91, overtook the people of Madyan) - - -“. ######This is not – repeat: NOT – true connected to earthquakes. It is not unusual if a volcano blows out a lot of ash and it becomes dark, but unusual if it only or mainly emits lava, and it is totally untrue for earthquakes. Dishonesty or al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie - here in case to defend the religion).

If we check 7/91, the footnote number 73 says: “Like the 'harrah' once inhabited by the Thamud tribe, the adjoining region of Madyan shows ample evidence of volcanic eruptions and earthquakes”. This is everything that is said about volcanic activity. The main volcanism stopped some 400ooo years ago, though there has been a little activity later. Not to mention this fact is dishonesty.

Then if you go to 7/91 itself, it says: “Thereupon an earthquake overtook them: and they lay lifeless, in their very homes, on the ground.” Not one single word about volcanism.

They started with earthquake. But as earthquakes never kills 100% (normally max 10% and hardly ever more that 30% except combined with low quality high-rise buildings), the footnote added a hint of the possibility of a volcanic eruption. Then in footnote A78 to 26/189 this has evolved to “- - - volcanic eruptions and earthquakes (which, as shown in 7/91, overtook the people of Madyan.)”.

########This is a kind of dishonesty and a kind of intellectual corruption that one meets far too often in Islamic religious literature, included in literature pretending to be on a scientific level. Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and its brothers are busy sometimes in Islam - you have to check everything (this also go for so-called "refuting" of arguments or facts adverse to the Quran or Islam - you have to check everything to see what is true and what not).

The next life – if it exists – is a far too serious topic to cheat people about. And if you have to cheat or “al-Taqiyya” or lie – or use pressure or threats - to attract people to your religion, or to make its members stay inside, it is height time to stop up and start thinking why you have to lie or cheat or use pressure. In such cases the chances are high for that something is seriously wrong and the religion not true. A true religion can afford to be honest, so if you have to cheat or make lies or use pressure, that indicates that something is wrong, to use an understatement.

#######If your religion cannot afford total honesty, it is a clear indication for that it is not a true religion. And this alone is nearly a proof for that you are heading a wrong way – if there is a next life. (If not, the way you are heading does not matter – except as a cheap way to a good earthly life for your religious leaders.)

And there is a final, nearly as serious fact: If the persons writing – or like “The Message of the Quran” 2008, revising it – such literature are intelligent ones (and they clearly are), ######there is no way they do not themselves see that they are manipulating the truth. They are doing this in a cold and psychologically well planned way – efficient to lure and to cheat the naïve and the little educated and the ones who on beforehand wants to believe, but methods easily recognizable for persons trained in critical thinking. Why do they have to use such methods? - ######and what is a religion(?) needing such methods worth?

#####156 26/193-196b: (A26/85 – in 2008 edition AA26/83): “With it (the Quran) came down the Spirit and the Truth – to thy heart and mind that thou mayst admonish in the perspicuous Arabic tongue. ####Without doubt it is (announced) in the revealed Books of former peoples.” What is sure - absolutely sure - here is that the Quran is NOT announced in the Bible. It is totally wrong - so wrong that not even Islam looks for such announcements. They try to find foretelling about Muhammad, but not about the Quran - most likely because there is no point in the Bible which can be twisted to a foretelling for that book. This claim thus is not only totally wrong, but also totally dishonest. (Do you understand why it is so complicated to use Islamic sources? - every detail has to be checked to see if it may be true or not.)

###What is absolutely sure is that the Quran is not announced in the Bible. (####And in spite of Islam's and the Quran's claims about the opposite (7/157), this also goes for Muhammad - he is not even mentioned, not even indirectly, in the Bible.) The claim that the Quran is announced in the Bible is so hopeless that it is unusual to meet it even from the most fanatical Muslims - there is nothing in the Bible even for them to "hang" such a claim on.

"The Religion of Truth"?? ######How much is really true in a religion using such methods? And is a religion based at least partly on dishonesty reliable?

#####157 26/196b: “Without doubt it (the Quran*) is (announced) in the revealed Books (the Torah, the Bible*) of former peoples.” There is very much doubt about that, as the basic elements of the teachings are too different – especially compared to NT and “the new covenant” which is the fundamental one for Christianity. It is plainly wrong - it is absolutely sure that the Quran is not announced in the Bible or in any relevant Jewish scriptures. Also see the chapter about "Muhammad in the Bible" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran", and 26/193-196b above.

Flatly stated: It is incorrect that the Quran is revealed in the Bible (not even Muslims claim this today - and if you run across the claim, their references are not to "documentation" about the Quran revealed in the Bible, but to claimed references to Muhammad there (they only are possible to see if you cherry-pick words and add wishful thinking and a huge dash of al-Taqiyya and/or Kitman - lawful lies and lawful half-truths)). Even this often met claim that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible, as you understand is wrong. And as said the basic thoughts are too different between the Bible and the Quran: Both books cannot come from the same god. This is especially easy to see if you compare the Quran to NT.

Some Muslim scholars say it is the basic ideas of the Quran which is foretold in the Bible. Please read the Bible and especially NT, and the Quran and compare - and weep (you will not be tempted to laugh - except a black laugh).

158 26/197a: “Is it not a Sign to them that the Learned of the Children of Israel knew it (as true)?”

  1. This sentence is dishonest - one of the places where Muhammad lied in the Quran. It is not proved, but Islam claims that one or some learned Jew(s) accepted Muhammad as a prophet. But only a few of the thousands of learned Jews in case. If the story is true, an honest sentence had said: “- - - a few of - - -” or at most “- - - some of - - -”. There is quite a difference between "- - - the Learned of - - -" and "- - - a few of the Learned of - - -". Dishonesty in a presumed holy book does not give a favorable impression. And why is dishonesty necessary? - and how many other points in the book stems from dishonesty?
  2. As the great majority of the Jews - learned as not learned - denied that Muhammad could be a prophet even as they were robbed of their possessions, slaughtered in wars, and murdered “en masse” as helpless prisoners, or made slaves, it is absolutely sure that what the Jews - learned or not - meant about him, was no sign for Muhammad or Allah. This even more so as to become Muslim was the only way to keep one’s riches and later one’s life, as Muhammad gained power in Medina, and still most Jews refused him. Some “renegade” swallows make no summer.
  3. A true religion easily can live on - and tell - the truth or what one honestly believes is the truth after honest examination. If a religion or any other story needs to use lies or half-truths or even al-Taqiyyas (the lawful lie) or Kitman (the lawful half-truth), not to mention institutionalizes al-Taqiyya and Kitman and Hilah, deceit, and disuse of even oaths (2/225, 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok), 5/89, 16/91, 66/2) as means to defend and forward the religion, one must ask why are lies necessary? - and the natural following up question: How much more of what they tell about their religion in reality is lies?

In the Quran and also in Hadith, it is claimed there were one or a very few learned Jew(s) who accepted Muhammad as may be a prophet. The stories might even be true. But we are back to the old truth: “One swallow makes no summer”. It is absolutely sure that the Jews as a group - learned or not - did not accept his teachings for the truth even in the face of death (f.x. the Qurayza tribe - the last big Jewish tribe in Medina), one or a few exceptions may be expected. The same is the truth today.

There also is another fact here: Islam from Mecca (610 - 622 AD) is quite different from Islam from Medina (622 - 632 AD) - a fact NEVER mentioned by Muslims. Therefore, even if some Jewish and/or Christian scholars should have been inclined towards Islam of Mecca - there only is Islam's words for this - it tells little or nothing about how such scholars viewed Islam of Medina in say 632 AD.

No, an al-Taqiyya or at best a Kitman was and is no valid sign. ####But it definitely is a sign telling a lot about Muhammad, about the Quran, and about Islam.

"The Religion of Dishonesty"?

159 26/198-199: "Had We (Allah*) revealed it (the Quran*) to the non-Arabs, and had he recited it, they (the Arabs*) would not have believed in it". Wrong. There were a number of Arabs who had converted to other religions - included the Mosaic and the Christian ones - religions who had their holy books in other languages.

Besides: The main thing for a universal god should have been that many got the message - to send it via Arabia was quite a bottleneck. And: The main thing for a universal god had been that the majority of people had understood, not only that the majority of Arabs understood.

##160 26/209: “- - - and We (Allah) never are unjust”.

  1. A man correctly telling that a woman has been indecent, is lying to Allah if he cannot produce 4 witnesses - even if an omniscient Allah has to know he is speaking the truth.
  2. A woman who has been raped, is forbidden to tell who it was, unless she can produce 4 MALE witnesses WHO HAS ACTUALLY SEEN THE ACT. If she cannot produce 4 such witnesses, and all the same tells who the rapist is she shall have 80 whiplashes for slander.
  3. ##A woman who is raped and cannot produce 4 MALE witnesses (who on top of all will be punished for not helping her if they witness about what they saw) that saw the very act, is to be strictly punished – may be stoned – for indecency - if she is unable to hide that she has been raped - . Probably the most unjust and amoral law we have ever seen in a “modern” society.
  4. It is 100% permitted for an owner to rape his female slaves or captives of war (may be this is why Muslims so often rape women during conflicts - f.x. earlier in Bangladesh and earlier and now in Africa). The Quran even directly tells that it is no sin to rape also your married slaves or prisoners of war, as long as they are not pregnant. NB: As for raping a captive there is an even more disgusting fact: It has to be done in the name of Allah - during or after a jihad ("holy war" - practically all conflicts are declared jihad).
  5. ##It is glorious and the Muslims’ right to steal, rob, plunder, rape, enslave and to kill non-Muslims during jihad - and almost any conflict is declared jihad (holy war). It is “lawful and good”.

There are more if you look. Pleas never tell us that Allah as described in the Quran never is unjust. These 5 points - and more - are morally horrible. Some of it actually the most unjust we have ever seen in any law. And rape in the name of Allah perhaps the most disgusting.

161 26/222a: "They (the evil ones*) descend on every lying, wicked person - - -". Just a few words: Al-Taqiyya, Kitman, "war is betrayal", broken words/promises/oaths, stealing/robbing/looting, raping, enslaving, extorting, torturing, murder, war mongering, discrimination mongering, hate mongering, mass murder, war - and there are more. No more comments.

Is this quote the real explanation behind this war and hate and apartheid religion?

162 26/222b: "They (the evil ones*) descend on every lying, wicked person - - -". We may here mention that Muhammad sometimes lied - even in the Quran - and even accepted the breaking of oaths if that gave better results. Also not a little of his moral code qualifies for the word "wicked".

###163 27/50: “They (non-Muslims*) plotted and planned, but We (Allah*) too planned - - -.” As said other places: When Allah can deceive, any good Muslim of course can do the same. THIS IS ONE OF THE VERSES WHICH MAKES THE "MORAL" FOUNDATION FOR AL-TAQIYYA (THE LAWFUL LIE), KITMAN (THE LAWFUL HALF-TRUTH), HILAH (THE LAWFUL PRETENDING/CIRCUMVENTING), ETC. - WHEN ALLAH COULD DECEIVE, IT OF COURSE WAS/IS MORALLY OK TO DO SO. Muhammad institutionalized it by his points of view on deceit and breaking of even oaths. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

#### This is one of the verses on which the use of dishonesty in Islam rests - accepted dishonest methods like al-Taqiyya (lawful lie), Kitman (lawful half-truths), Hilah (lawful pretending/circumventing), etc.

Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya and Kitman, etc. can be used at least in these cases (for broken oaths there are given no real limitations if the broken oath will give a better result, and the same for deceit/betrayal. By implication this also goes for ordinary promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal promise):

  1. To save your or others' health or life.
  2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem.
  3. To make peace in a family.
  4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one’s oath.
  5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get work/residence permit in a rich country.)
  6. To deceive opponents/enemies.
  7. To betray enemies.
  8. To secure one’s money (very clear from Hadiths).
  9. To defend Islam. (Advised if necessary to succeed.)
  10. To promote Islam. (Advised if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive some ones – actually also in the long run if the opposite part does not know about this side of Muslims and of Islam, or if he/she is naïve.

164 27/58: "- - - a shower (of brimstone) - - -". Another contradiction to the Bible: In the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by a rain of burning sulfur (1. Mos. 19/24). We may add that burning sulfur may come from a volcano, brimstone not (brimstone is from clay, and you do not find clay in magma from a volcano - - - and all the same learned Muslims try to use volcanism as an explanation for the brimstones mentioned in the Quran).

"The Religion of Honesty"?

#165 28/4b: "- - - (Pharaoh*) broke up its (Egypt's*) people in sections - - -". Comment YA3329: "For a king or a ruler to make individual distinctions between his subjects, and especially to depress or oppress any particular class of his subjects, is a dereliction of his kings duties - - -". Is it here pertinent to remind the reader about how Muslims at times and places have treated non-Muslims and sects of Muslims? Or the Arabs' superiority compared to other Muslims, especially the first centuries? Not to mention that it is the Quran's official policy that all non-Muslims shall be suppressed?

Besides the argument is dishonesty, as the Jews were slaves. There never was a society who did not make distinctions between slaves and free - just ask the Quran. This also Muslim scholars know ever so well, but all the same they use arguments like this to blacken the pharaoh. But Ramses II was in exactly the same class as Muhammad on this point - f.x. Muhammad permitted the owner to rape his female slaves included children, but not free ones - - - not unless he first made her/them his slaves/captives. As every Muslim scholar know, Muhammad also practiced this himself.

To make a comparison of today: Muhammad behaved quite similar to IS today (2014 AD). IS, Boko Haram and others are the ones who live according to the surahs im the Quran from Medina.

166 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.

167 28/68c: (A28/74): “Thy Lord (Allah*) does create and choose as He pleases: no choice have they (in the matter) - - -.” A clear message and in full compliance to Allah’s power of predestination. But predestination collides with man’s presumed (partly? according to some Muslims) free will (predestination and free will - even partly - is mutually excluding each other. The combination of the two is even theoretically impossible, and Muslims go to a lot of pain to reduce both (“not real predestination” and “partly free will”) to make space for a little of both, but no matter: It still is even theoretically impossible to combine them - - - except in religious wishful thinking. Can that be the reason why this explanation is preferred by many Muslims (Zamakhshari, etc.): “(Allah) chooses (for mankind) whatever is best for them.” Then the problem of predestination is omitted – and both translations are possible from the Arab text “ma kana lahum al-khiyarah”. (Al-khiyarah or khirah (depending on what vowels you place there) = “choice” or “freedom to choose”). Just you choose - as mentioned a couple of times the texts in the Quran often far from is "clear and easy to understand".

168 31/25f: "But most of them (non-Muslim opponents of Muhammad*) understand not". Who understands? - he who understands something is wrong or he who believes blindly in the tales of a man of a dubious character and liking power and money and women? Many a false prophet has had a good life - and Muhammad never proved a comma about essential points. The easiest way to be cheated in most situations in life, is to be blind. and to believe blindly.

##169 32/2i: (YA3629): "By the time of the Prophet (Muhammad*) the earlier Book of Revelation (the Bible*) had been corrupted by human ignorance or selfishness or fraud, or misinterpreted or lost all together". The interesting point here is that the main statement behind this sentence is not true - proved wrong by both science and even stronger (because they have tried stronger) by Islam - and all the same top Muslim writers treat it like a proved fact. There were fringe sects - some of them quite big - who disagreed and debated and even made up apocryphal scriptures - just like in Islam later (f. x. made up Hadiths). The Quran may be looked on as a (very) apocryphal book split off from the Bible - and Islam an apocryphal sect. But the old scriptures lived on, and neither science nor Islam has ever found these proved corrupted or falsified. The oldest copies we know are just like today's ones, except for minor varieties which normally happens when books are copied by hand. These are well known facts. All the same Muslim scholars write things like this - and with a straight face. It tells something about Muslim scholars and about honesty within Islam.

###170 33/60e: "- - - We (Allah*) shall certainly stir thee (Muslims*) up against them (bad or not Muslims*) - - -". To twist an old proverb: This sentence alone tells more than a 1000 choice slogans about "the religion of peace". What you say when you forget to guard your words or do not think it necessary, always by far is more reliable than carefully chosen claims. Also see next comment just below.

171 34/3f: "- - - by my (Muhammad's*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". Muhammad is swearing by Allah. Most sentences in the Quran beginning with "by" are oaths, and Muhammad swears rather often - which is one more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and for that Jesus and Muhammad have no relationship or basic religious similarities: NT tells you not to swear at all (Matt. 33/37), and if you do it all the same, you are obliged to keep your oath - whereas Muhammad easily breaks his oath "if that gives a better result". Also see 34/3g just below.

##172 34/3g: “- - - by my (Muhammad's*) Lord (Allah*) - - -“. The expression “by my Lord” here is an oath (sentences in the Quran starting with "by" normally are oaths swearing "by" someone or something), but then Muhammad very clearly and several times (mostly in Hadiths) said that even though it was not a good thing normally to break an oath if you had meant it when you said it (if not it was/is more or less ok.), it was no big sin to break it if you had a reason – yes, in some cases it even is the right thing to do (f.x 2/225a, 5/89a+b, 16/91e, 16/92a+b, 66/2a). This – a part of what is often called al-Taqiyya or the lawful lie - is a problem even today: When can you believe what a Muslim says and when not? Actually it also is a problem for Muslims; they have no reasonably sure way to strengthen their words when they need to do so, because even an oath is not reliable – with clear precedence from Muhammad (he f.x. promised an unarmed peace delegation from Khaybar safe return - - - and murdered all of them except one who managed to get away (29 out of 30). Add to this the slogan “War is betrayal” to quote Muhammad in Ibn Ishaq.

173 34/12e: “- - - and We (Allah*) made a Font of molten brass to flow for him (Solomon*) - - -“. Here Yusuf Ali has an informative twist - informative about Muslim ways of explaining and explaining away. We quote from his "The Meaning of the Holy Quran" (YA3804): "(2. Chronicle 4/2 (says*)), "Also he (Solomon*) made a molten sea of 10 cubits (4.5 m*) from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits (2.25 m*) the height thereof - - -. The receptacle or "sea" or Font was made of molten brass - - -". Here the honorable Yusuf Ali - highly respected Muslim writer - is able to include most of the central words in the same piece in the Quran. Only the "fact" that the Quran says it was a running font of molten brass flowing for Solomon is missing.

What the Bible in reality says (NIV) is: "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring 10 cubits (ca. 5yds/ca. 4.5 m) from rim to rim and five cubits high".

There is a difference between a "Sea" of water - an artificial "pond" - and a running font of molten brass. There is a difference between being made from cast metal - melted when made, but then hardened - and being "molten brass to flow for him". There is a difference between an artificial pond and a font "presumably containing flowing water" as YA continues to be able to include the word "flowing". This even more so at flowing water on top of the Temple Mount was technically impossible at that time - a fact a learned man like Mr. YA well knew. Lead tubes existed. But to have running water, one had to have a source of water lying higher than the Temple Mount and the Temple - which did not exist within reasonable distance.

Solomon made an artificial "pond" for water. Islam needs to explain away "a font of molten brass to flow for him". Mr. YA really tries, ####and quite likely many Muslims believe him - the ones who strongly wants to believe in any explanation which seems to remove mistakes, the ones without enough knowledge to see the impossibilities, and the naive ones.

Actually this point is scientific nonsense - one did not have the technology making it possible to make molten brass flow like a font at the time of Solomon.

174 35/41f: (YA3933): "The universe (see 51/47c), as we know it, shows not only evidence of initial designs, but also the working of an intelligent Providence - - -". Dishonesty. Creationists claim this and this, but there is no proofs for an intelligence behind the creation or running of the universe (see 51/47c). Also YA knew this, if for no other reason than that creationists had hailed such a proof with thundering noise - a fact YA had to know.

And wonder: The universe is very different from the description in the Quran. Very.

#175 38/44a: “And take in thy hand a little grass and strike therewith, and break no thy oath.” Job had according to another place in the Quran sworn to give his wife 100 whiplashes because she did not believe strongly enough (“no compulsion in religion”? - and not from the Bible). But then he regretted his oath, and instead struck her lightly once with 100 straws of grass – then he had kept his oath! Cheating is ok in the Quran as you see among other places here - to circumvent an oath or a promise or to only pretend keeping them, is ok - a small example of Kitman. And an excellent sample of the moral in the Quran. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

An example of a Hilah - a pretending or circumventing.

Al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah. etc. make a problem for every non-Muslim: Is it possible any time at all to know when a Muslim speaks the truth about a serious question? - when he/she is using Al-Taqiyya or Kitman to cheat you?

But it also is a problem for Muslims: How to make people believe you even when you are telling the full truth, when they know about the lawful lie and the lawful half-truth (al-Taqiyya and Kitman), etc.? And how to strengthen your word when even oaths are not reliable?

176 42/40b: (A41 – in 2008 edition A40): “The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree) - - -.” The literal meaning of the Arab words are “- - - is (or “may be”) an evil like it”. And the “modernized” 2008 edition of “The Message of the Quran” has exactly the same Arab words interpreted like this for the West and others: “But (remember that an attempt at) requiting evil may, too, become an evil - - -.” This sounds much better (and is closer to Jesus' moral code). But it is not honest translation. How often is dishonest translations used by Islam/Muslim scholars/Muslims?

177 46/11e: "This is an (old) falsehood". There were good reasons for saying so - everybody saw that Muhammad's stories just were twists on old stories, and many saw that things were wrong. But the robber baron and later warlord Muhammad became too strong and forced a foothold for his religion on the people - a foothold they rapidly enlarged, mainly by weapons or money or permission to steal/rob/rape/enslave.

#178 47/4k: “But those who are slain in the way of Allah - He (Allah*) will never let their deeds be lost.” "Make war for the religion of peace" and go to Paradise. But this only is true if Allah exists and is a major war god (only a war god rewards ill deeds, and makes them look god in the perpetrators' eyes - well, also devils do).

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

179 48/28d: “- - - the Religion of Truth - - -". At most partly the truth. See 13/1g and 40/75 above.

For one thing: That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. For another: Islam accepts the use of dishonesty - al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), deceit and betrayal (both permitted and practiced by Muhammad, and thus ok), and even broken words/promises/oaths (2/224, 2/225, 16/91, 66/2). Islam is the only one of the big religions which accepts - yes, when it comes to defend or promote the religion even advices the use of dishonesty "if necessary". The claim that "Islam is "the religion of truth" is not even irony, but an al-Taqiyya.

But then for some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.

##180 49/6b: "O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly - - -". This is worth thinking over also in another connection: Muslims know about al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), they know about Kitman (the lawful half-truth), they know about "war is deceit" and "war is betrayal" (to quote Muhammad himself in f. x. Ibn Ishaq "Life of the Prophet") and that everything outside Islam can be defined as "the area of war", they know Muhammad advised and himself practiced even breaking of one’s own oaths. All the same - when some good Muslim tells something positive about Islam - true or not true - or something negative about others - true or not true - they believe it without checking if it is true or not. F.x. the Muhammad cartoons - the Danish mullahs in the beginning did not get the angry reactions they wanted. Therefore they colored 3 of the drawings in ugly colors and told Muslims abroad that this was from the Danish newspaper, and then finally they got reactions. (What in a way is worse: This falsification is known in Muslim countries, but as far as we understand it has provoked no reaction - it seems to be ok to do things like that. We have heard the episode mentioned on al-Jazeera, but that is it). Or a more recent episode: In 2009 Muslim scholars announced on Internet that they could prove - without giving the proofs - that the texts in the Bible had been changed more than 50 places (56 if we remember correctly) during the meeting in Cannae in 325 AD. Now the agenda for that meeting is well known, and changes to Biblical texts were not even mentioned there. Besides it is just as easy to make bishops change texts in the Bible as it is to make ayatollahs change texts in the Quran - it is just the same mental mechanism at work in both cases. And one more point the mentioned Muslim scholars skipped: The Old Testament (OT) makes up more than 3/4 of the Bible. How do you falsify that part of the Bible without agreements from the Jews? - there was not one single Jew at that meeting. Well, how at all make the Jews agree to changes in the Bible favoring Jesus, when they do not believe in Jesus? But good Muslims reading the tale in the Internet, at once accepted the fairy tale without checking anything, even though in this case to check the agenda for that meeting is easy. (Actually al-Taqiyya, Kitman, etc. make information from Muslim sources difficult to use, because everything has to be checked - all too often the claimed facts are made up or "twisted" or "cherry-picked" half truths - see f.x. the claims that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible: There they first have cherry-picked some quotes and taken them out of the context, then they have twisted logic quite a lot, omitted some facts - - - and seemingly got a nice answer - an answer Muslims believe in without even checking in the Bible (where they would have found the claims are not true - the main word in the claim, "brother", f.x. is used at least 339 times (99 in OT, 240 in NT) in the Bible - and not one time about an Arab/Arabs. Arabs/Arabia are mentioned at least 15 times - not one of them as friends, not to mention brothers*).

181 51/5b: “(The Quran/Allah/Muhammad swears Allah is swearing by a number of things - normally when a sentence in the Quran starts with "by", it is an oath. One of the indications for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same gods, because Yahweh strictly says you shall not swear (Matt. 5/34), and as this is said via Jesus, it also proves that Jesus and Muhammad does not belong in the same group. Further the Bible makes it clear that if you all the same swear, you have to keep your oath, whereas Allah permits even oaths to be broken - a strong proof for the same.

182 51/7: "By the Sky - - -". Allah is swearing by the Sky - normally when a sentence in the Quran starts with "by", it is an oath. One of the 100% proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same gods, because Yahweh strictly says you shall not swear (Matt. 5/34), and as this is said via Jesus, it also proves that Jesus and Muhammad do not belong in the same group. Further the Bible makes it clear that if you all the same swear, you have to keep your oath, whereas Allah permits even oaths to be broken - another proof for the same.

183 51/7-8: "By the Sky with (its) numerous Paths Truly ye (non-Muslims* are in a doctrine discordant". The Quran here swears by the sky - sentences in the Quran starting with "by" normally are oaths. But remember that oaths can be broken in Islam - at worst you have to pay expiation to Allah. (Well, if you do not only swear but also confirm the oath the best is not to break it - at least expiation will be more expensive).

184 51/9b: “Through which (non-Muslims*) are deluded (away from the Truth) such as would be deluded”. Non-Muslims believing in non-existing gods are deluded, but not if their god(s) (f.x. Yahweh) exist(s). Muslims are deluded if something is wrong with the Quran, and especially so if this means their claimed god is a made up one. We do not believe most Muslims wants to be deluded. They just are unable to see how much is wrong with the Quran and that it thus is not from a god - and what is then Islam? They prefer explanations away, wishful thinking refuting and such ways out, instead of having to face the problem. As for refuting, the main thing is that someone refutes difficult points. Whether what the refuters say is true or not does not matter much as long as it sounds ok - most Muslim lay people do not check this even though one knows about facts like al-Taqiyya (lawful lies) Kitman (lawful half-truths), etc. (Because of Islam's somewhat special point of view on honesty, in serious cases you should always check if what a Muslim says is true, especially in religious questions. Most Muslims are ok but it is not a sin to lie to forward or defend the religion - - - or to cheat women or to save your money and some other topics. Actually when it comes to defending or promoting Islam - f.x. to get proselytes into the religion - it is advisable to use lies "if necessary" to get the result you want. (It had been interesting to know how many through the times - and through f.x. the last year - have ended in Islam because of some al-Taqiyyas and Kitmans? - and f.x. how many girls have been cheated in similar ways - to the bed or to a marriage where the real wish from the man is a work or residence permit.

185 51/44b: "- - - so the stunning noise (of an earthquake) sized them (the Thamud) - - -". For one thing the translator seems to have been a little dishonest here - according to our sources the words "(of an earthquake)" is not in the Arab original. For another "The Message of the Quran" translates it:"- - - the thunderbolt (plural in the Swedish edition*) of punishment - - -". And for the third neither earthquakes nor thunderstorms ever kills 100% of whole large tribes - earthquakes kills maximum 30% except in low quality high-rise buildings, and thunderstorms in warm countries even less. Something is wrong in this story.

##186 51/47c: “- - - it is We (Allah*) Who created the vastness of space.” Here is a point which should be checked: According to one of our sources, the word which is used in Arab is “samaa” which is said to mean “sky”, whereas the Arab word for “universe” or “space” is said to be “al-kawn”. We have till now been unable to check this for sure, but mention it because such dishonesty tells so very much about Islam and honesty, and about Islam and Muslims even today if it is true (and our source is quite reliable) – whereas we find half truths or cases of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) too often in Islamic media/books (though we had originally not expected it from a man like Yusuf Ali). Our source also is strengthened by the fact that Muhammad Asad (A51/30) admits that the literal meaning of the Arab texts is "the sky" - see 51/47d just below - so it seems to be true that the translation of the Quran here is falsified.

Sources we reckon to be reliable, also ###say that the Arab word for universe in the modern meaning, (al-kawn) is not at all used in the entire Quran. Also see 51/47d just below.)

There is some difference between the sky and the universe. Dishonesty like this you find a little too often in Islam.

187 51/47d: (A57/30): "Literal meaning "the sky" or "the heaven", which often in the Quran has the connotation of "universe (see 51/47c)" or in the plural ("the heavens"), of "cosmic systems". This is dishonesty as such words ("universe" and "cosmic systems") used in the modern meaning of those words, did not exist at that time in any relevant language included in Arab - a typical al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) or at best a Kitman (lawful half-truth) like the ones you find too many of in Muslim religious literature trying to adjust the Quran to modern knowledge or twist facts or words to pretend that here the Quran is foretelling modern knowledge. (F.x. Muhammad Asad in connection to this verse and also to 21/30 claims that the Quran here foretells the expanding universe (see 51/47c), etc. The claim is so far out that we do not bother to comment on it).

NB:#######: Here it is not Muhammad who is lying in the Quran, though, but Muslim scholars. (There are a number of points in the Quran, where the translators have "adjusted" the texts in small ways like this, this even in the work of a top translator like A. Yusuf Ali - and what the about less honest translators? (Muhammad Ali after all is not too bad on this point).)

##188 53/37a: "- - - and (the books? *) of Abraham - - -". There is nowhere in the Bible - the only real source telling about Abraham - mentioned he had books. To explain this Islam simply tells that (YA5111): "No original 'Book of Abraham’s now extant (undocumented claim: There must have been one or more which have disappeared*). But a book called 'The Testament of Abraham' (exists*)". This Yusuf Ali tells without mentioning a syllable about that "The Testament of Abraham" is a well known made up - apocryphal - book, and made millennia after Abraham. Honesty counts little in Islam when it comes to defend or explain or forward the religion - cfr. f.x. "al-Taqiyya" - the lawful lie - and "Kitman" - the lawful half-truth - which are not only permitted to use, but advised to use "if necessary" to defend or forward Islam. But why are lies necessary in Islam? - and how much is lies and how much truth in a religion which accepts and at least partly relies on lies? - and how much is a religion at least partly relying on lies worth?

Besides: What is the chance for that a shepherd - Abraham - knew how to read, not to mention had a book, 2ooo-1800 BC?

##189 58/4h: In connection to among others this verse and its expression according to M. Azad "- - - if anyone has not (the wherewithal) - - -" you may find - or meet - a nice sample of Islamic honesty in debate - or in propaganda: (A58/7): "As regard the phrase 'he who does not find the wherewithal (lam yajid)', it may indicate either lack of financial means or the impossibility of finding anyone else who could be redeemed from factual or figurative bondage (- - -). According to many Islamic scholars of our times (e.g., Rashid Rida - - -), this relates, in first instance, to circumstances in which 'slavery will have been abolished ####in accordance with the aim of Islam' (Manar V, 337)". This simply is an al-Taqiyya - a lawful lie - and even a distasteful such one.

  1. First note that the translation of the Arab text is changed a little compared to Yusuf Ali's one, and "by coincidence"(?) fits the "explanation" of the claim about Islam's intention of abolishing slavery better. The Quran in reality is clear on that it speaks about the economy of the person.

  2. There is nowhere in the Quran said that slavery is bad or for other reasons should be terminated (it is a good deed to free a slave, but slavery is nowhere in the Quran condemned).
  3. There is nowhere in the Quran even indicated that slavery is bad or for other reasons should be terminated. Not one place.
  4. There is nowhere in the Quran said or in other ways indicated that slavery is morally wrong.
  5. There is nowhere in the Quran even indicated that it would be good moral or good ethics to abolish slavery. To set free a slave - at least a Muslim slave - is a good thing, but slavery as an institution is nowhere attacked or even questioned.

  6. The main Islamic idol - Muhammad - took and traded (sold or gave away for bribes) at least a few thousand slaves and expressed no qualms for doing this. Everything Muhammad said - or not said - or did, is the right thing to do for any Muslim, if it is not directly prohibited (f.x. a Muslim can have only 4 wives as he is forbidden to have as many as Muhammad had (36 we know by name included concubines and 7 we do not know if he was formally married to or not)).
  7. Muslim countries were forced backwards and kicking and protesting into abolishing slavery - Mauritania as late as in unbelievable 1982 AD (and made it a punishable crime as late as in 2007 AD)!! - by forces and ideas from the west. We at least have never seen a Muslim whisper from older times about abolishing slavery as an institution.
  8. Abolishing slavery is a "new idea" and a "foreign idea" in Islam. Such ideas were not accepted by Islam through most of Islam's history - well, necessity after long time made some "new ideas" acceptable if they clearly were in accordance with ideas in the Quran or strong Hadiths. We have found nowhere in older Islamic literature where the "new idea" of abolishing slavery was even aired, not to mention received backing.

  9. The claim that Islam/Muhammad/the Quran promotes abolishing of slavery you ONLY meets from Muslim scholars born and raised in modern times - times when foreign, mainly Western, thinking, has made slavery extremely immoral. As it is not only permitted in Islam to lie, but advised "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion (and permitted in a number of other wide cases), this al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) is launched: 'Islam is the best also on this - Islam all the time intended to abolish slavery". (You even meet Muslims boasting that Islam forced Europe to end slavery, by stopping the trade from Africa. This simply is nonsense. For one thing European slaves mainly came from the Slavic areas in the East - it was not for nothing that the name "slave" was coined. And for another there hardly has been an area or a time in all history where trades between areas and countries and cultures have stopped for long times if good profit was possible to make. Slavery in Europe died out partly because in agriculture in chilly countries the work season is short and slaves had to be fed all the year, but mainly because it was opposed to Christian basic moral and ideas (this even though it is not clearly discredited or forbidden in the Bible).
  10. There are in the world today some 24 million humans "living as slaves or under slave-like conditions" according to UN (the number is from 2005 if we remember correctly). A good percentage of these live in Islamic areas. We have seen little or nothing of negative reactions from Islam or Muslims to this fact. There may have been, but in case not enough to reach us, even though we have been looking for such reactions.
  11. As abolishing of slavery is "a new idea" and on top of that "a foreign idea" both of which are despised by conservative Islam, and as Muhammad showed what was right and wrong for Islam in this question by taking and trading and keeping slaves (f.x. his concubines Marieh and Rayhana bint Amr), you can be pretty sure that if the world ever returns to medieval conditions, official slavery will re-emerge in Islamic areas "lawful and good".

So much for this Islamic al-Taqiyya - lawful lie.

190 58/16a: "They (non-Muslims*) have made their oaths a screen - - -". What sometimes happened when a person did not like to do this or that - or not to do this and that - was that he made an oath on that he would do - or not do - this and this. Then he had the good excuse that he could not break his oath - and live a nice life doing or not doing those things.

#####191 66/2a: "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases)- - -". According to other places in the Quran, the cases when you can break your oat without sinning, are:

  1. Oaths you have given without really meaning them.
  2. Oaths where you later see you will get a more satisfactory result if you break your oat. In serious cases, though, you should pay a "fine" - expiation - to Allah to be forgiven".

Also see 2/225, 5/89,and 16/91 above.

Can anyone please tell us what remains of trustworthiness of a Muslim's words and oaths - especially when you add to this the al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and the Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc., and permitted betrayals? - and his point of view that "war is deceit" (and everything is war). And much worse in this case: WHAT REMAINS OF MUHAMMAD'S TRUSTWORTHINESS - NOT TO MENTION THE QURAN'S TRUSTWORTHINESS?

##192 66/2b: "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases)- - -". According to other places in the Quran, the cases when you can break your oat without sinning, are:

  1. Oaths you have given without really meaning them.
  2. Oaths where you later see you will get a more satisfactory result if you break your oat. In serious cases, though, you should pay a "fine" - expiation - to Allah to be forgiven".

Also see 2/225, 5/89,and 16/91 above.

One of the at least 200% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and Jesus not in any line morally connected to Muhammad. NT tells you not to swear at all ( f.x. Matt. 5/34), and if you do it all the same, you have to keep your word.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

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

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

#############193 66/12c: (A66/26): “- - - We (Allah*) breathed into (her (Mary’s*) body) Our spirit - - -.” Does this refer to how Jesus was created? – or does it refer to the "normal" transfer of spirit that according to Islam makes a fetus to a human, and which according to Islam happens 5 months before the baby is born? Nobody knows – and this is an essential question in just this case. But the text is not clearer than this.

According to the fact that Mary was a virgin (according to several points in the Quran - 3/47, 19/20, 21/91, 66/12), though, she could not be the carrier of a fetus. Thus this has to be the very "start" of Jesus - the creation of him. And note that according to this verse it was done by the god personally: "'We' breathed into her 'Our' spirit - - -". (This way of using the words "We" and "Our" is named "royal 'We'", and is used by kings, etc. in formal speech instead of "I" and "my".) There thus is no doubt that Jesus was "started" by the god himself. This also goes even if it here is meant that the god blew the soul/personality/mind into Jesus at the 4-month stage, as it after all is the soul/person/mind which counts in the case of Jesus, not the body. We may add that there is no way of believing that if the god personally started the growth of a fetus, that fetus was to become an ordinary man - this even more so if you combine this verse with 19/19, telling that Mary would get a holy son.

In spite of Muslim scholars' debates about this, there really is only one possible conclusion here: The god "started" Jesus - and the male who "starts" a baby, is the father of that baby. THUS THE QURAN HERE DIRECTLY CONFIRMS THAT JESUS WAS THE SON OF THE GOD (AND 19/19 CONFIRMS THAT HE WAS HOLY) - this in spite of Muhammad's repeated claims about the opposite, as Jesus the son of the god would make Muhammad maximum messenger number 2 (and Muhammad wanted respect and power). Muhammad clearly accepted the use of dishonesty as working tools - this is clear from several points in the Quran. He also personally used dishonesty as a means - f.x. when murdering the peace delegation from Khaybar - and he lied at least a few times in the Quran (some cases are listed in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran"). But the problem when lying is not to make up a lie, but not to say things in other connections which shows that this and this was a lie. Also remember that in such cases what is said unconsciously is more reliable than what is claimed very consciously. About Jesus Muhammad claims Jesus was number 2, but here and in 19/19 stumbles and divulges that Jesus for one thing really was the son of the god, and that he was holy.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

B!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!!!!

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

194 67/5d: (A67/5 – omitted in 2008 edition): “We (Allah*) have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven (out of the 7 the Quran frequently tells about, and which Muhammad even visited*) with lamps (stars*), and We have made such (lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones - - -.” But the disagreement concerns: Is it the stones in the shooting stars that chase jinns, etc. away? – the Arab word “rudjum” – plural of “radjm” means “throwing of stones” or “stoning” (one name for the Devil f.x. is “ar-radjim” = “the stoned one”). Or is it the fire? – the Quran really mention the fire. Once more: Start guessing. (The 2008 edition of “The Message of the Quran” even has got a new one – at least new to us: The Quran is not talking about stars used like shooting stars, but used as objects for divination by the bad astrologers. They need a lot of easy words to reach that conclusion, but so what? – as we have indicated before: Sometimes the religion is more essential than honesty and intellectual integrity. Though we have touched this theme before, we ask again: What does it indicate that a religion has to resort to cheating and dishonesty? Normally such methods mean that one does not have real arguments. In religion there also is the serious fact: If there is a next life, and if a religion needs to base its life on lies – even only partly – that is a strong indication for that that religion is not based on the truth. And in that case its believers will not wake up in any Paradise.)

The Islamic universe. 7 Heavens, 7 Earths, and Hell.

According to the Quran the “everything” is like this:

On top of all - above the 7. heaven - Allah has his residence.

Seven heavens above the Earth – one on top of the other. They have names, guardian angel, and gates.

The heavens are resting on the Earth by means of invisible pillars.

In between the heavens are the sun (?) and the moon.

The sun is a flat disk (if not it cannot be folded up like it does at the Day of Doom).

The 7 heavens contain Paradise - the higher heavens are for top Muslims.

The lower heaven is for "normal good" Muslims - split in at least 4 gardens = 4 qualities.

Under heavens, and fastened to the lowest (37/6-7, 41/12) one, are all the stars.

Allah often uses stars as shooting stars to chase away jinns and bad spirits spying on Heaven.

Under the heavens and stars are clouds – which Allah sometimes breaks to pieces (rain).

Under that the birds are kept up there by the will of Allah only.

On the Earth mountains are set down - or really dropped down.

The reason why Allah has set down mountains on Earth is to stabilize it - if not it can start wobbling and tip over (This is the Quran's real meaning).

(Modern Muslims claims the mountains are set down to reduce earthquakes - but mountains do not reduce earthquakes (on the contrary sometimes)).

According to Hadiths 2 of the rivers on Earth starts in Heaven - the Nile and Euphrates.

Earth was – according to the Quran - created together with the heavens from something like smoke which Allah ordered to come together to one mass and then he split asunder. One part became our flat Earth (or really "earths" as there are 7 (65/12) – one on top of the other according to Hadiths) and the other became heaven, or actually the 7 material heavens which lies above Earth. (For more about this, see the about the creation of heaven).

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

Man - Adam - is created in 13 different ways if you count exactly and strictly (5 - 7 if you are kind-hearted towards Islam).

All this is existing or living on our flat Earth.

There are 7 earths - according to Hadiths the others are under "our" Earth.

According to Hadiths Islam knows the names of the 7 earths - and the name of their people.

Underneath everything is Hell

(we have not found out for sure if it is situated in the world Ajiba).

The lower the earth the more Hell-like is the situation for its inhabitants, Hadiths tell.

And at the bottom Hell (?)

All this (possibly with the exception of Paradise and Hell) was created in 6 - or 8 - days.

That it took 6 days, is mentioned at least in 10/3 – 11/7 – 25/59 – 32/4 – 50/38 - 57/4. But science tells a very different story.

Just like your teacher of geography told you? And who created this nonsense?

##(YA5570):"He (Allah*) Who creates must necessarily know His own handiwork". This is very correct, so when the Quran shows that the maker of that book clearly do not know the reality, ####it is a strong proof for that something is very wrong somewhere.

The 7 heavens, its guardian angels, and its gates:

  1. 7.Gharibya, angel Razquel, gate made from shining light.
  2. 6.Rafqa, angel Shamkhael, gate made from white pearl.
  3. 5.Ratqa, angel Kalkael, gate made from gold.
  4. 4.Arqlun, angel Salsael, gate made from silver.
  5. 3.Aun, angel Saadiel, gate made from topaz.
  6. 2.Faydum, angel Michael, gate made from ruby.
  7. 1.Birqi, angel Ismael, gate made from emerald.

The 7 heavens were Greek and Persian astronomy. One observed 7 movements on the firmament - the stars, the sun and the moon, plus Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn (the other planets were not visible to the naked eye) - and thus needed 7 invisible heavens to fasten them to, to explain why they did not fall down on Earth. Any - any - god had known better. Then who made the Quran?

The 7 Earths and Hell - and their people:

(As you see included "our" Earth - scientific name Tellus - Islam lists 8 Earths, but if you recon Ajiba to contain Hell, there are 7 + Hell. Or if you reckon Remaka to be our Earth, also the numbers add up. We have not found out of this for sure.)

The scientific name of the people on our Earth is Homo Sapiens. That means "the thinking human" or "knowing human". There are times when there are reasons for believing that name is an ironical joke - f.x. when leaders demand blindness, blind belief, and acceptance/belief in obviously wrong facts and/or obviously invalid logic.

If there somewhere is a god who is behind the creation or development of man, his second most valuable gift - after life itself - is our brain. If it is a gift from a god, it is an insult to this god to use blind belief instead of the brain.

  1. Remake. People: Muwasshim, in everlasting torment and divine retribution.
  2. Khalada. People: Tamis, eating their own flesh, drinking their own blood.
  3. Arqa. People: Qays, eating dirt, drinking mother's milk. Pest: Mulelike eagles with spearlike tails and poisonous quills.
  4. Haraba. People: Jilla, have no eyes, hands, or feet, but batlike wings. Pest: the snakes of Hell, large as mountains.
  5. Maltham. People: Hajla, eat each other. Pest: carry stones of sulfur around their neck - may burn.
  6. Sijjin. People: Qatat, look like birds, worship Allah. Pest(?): contains the register of Hell.
  7. Ajiba. People: Khasum, black and short, with claws like lions. Pest: Iblis/the Devil lives here (Hell?). Gog and Magog will end here.

According to f.x. Al-Bukhari the Earths are placed one above the other – easy as the Quran tells the Earth(s) is/are flat. The lower down, the more devilish life on the respective layer – and if you are a big enough sinner, you can fall down through them all at the Day of Doom. It is not necessary to say it is all rubbish.

Also see 2/131 – 7/61 - 7/67 – 7/104 – 7/121 – 10/3 – 26/16 – 26/23 – 26/47 – 26/77 – 26/98 – 26/109 – 26/127 – 26/145 – 27/8 – 27/44 – 32/2 – 37/87 – 38/87 – 39/74 – 41/9 – 43/46 – 45/36 - 56/80 – 59/16 – 68/52 – 69/43 – 81/27 – 81/29 – 83/6 and many more. All these places mention “the worlds” in plural – f.x. “Lord of the Worlds (Allah*)” – and reference to the 7 worlds. But beware of a stumbling stone here: The Quran also in 1 – 2 cases uses the expression “the Worlds” in another connection – Muslim scholars believe it in that or those couple of cases refers to “man and Jinn” or “man and woman”. In western languages it is not possible to see the difference, because our nouns only have singular and plural. But in Arab (and some other languages) it is different: They have singular, dual (= 2), and plural. We are informed that in all such cases where the original Arab text has plural, it refers to the 7 non-existing Earths (well, one exists, even though it is not flat). But if the Arab text any place has the noun "Worlds" in dual, it just that place is referring to something else - like "man and jinn".

The 7 gates of Hell:

Like the heavens also Hell has 7 gates. They open to 7 parts of Hell, one worse than the next.

  1. Gehanna.
  2. Laza.
  3. Hutama.
  4. Sair.
  5. Saquar.
  6. Jahim. (This one is for Jews, Christians, and Sabeans - "the People of the Book".)
  7. Hawiya

Once more: Just like your teacher of geography told you? And who created this nonsense?

Once more: ##(YA5570):"He (Allah*) Who creates must necessarily know His own handiwork". This is very correct, so when the Quran shows that the maker of that book clearly do not know the reality, it is a strong proof for that something is very wrong somewhere.

195 69/5a: “But the Thamud – they were destroyed by a terrible Storm of thunder and lightning.” But:

  1. 7/78: “So the earthquake took them unawares, and they lay prostrate in their homes in the morning.” For a good measure: In “The Message of the Quran” – and for all we know also in other translations – this mistake simply is falsified when translating 69/5 and just a tiny reference to a comment with the correct text another place in the big book. They write (translated from Swedish): “The people of Thamud were buried by an earthquake”. Then 69/5 is in accordance with 7/78 – even though in the Arab scripture is said they were destroyed by a storm. We may add that the book is permitted printed by Al-Ahzar Al-Sharif Islamic Research Academy, Cairo – one of the 2-3 foremost universities in all Islam.

     

    Should there be honesty in a religion?

    But then Islam have al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and “Kitman” (the lawful half-truth) – and are urged to use it if necessary to defend or promote Islam (and permitted to do it in other cases like cheating women and securing money – the last at least according to Ibn Ishaq and Al-Bukhari.)

    When to trust Muslims and when not in serious cases?

  2. 11/67: “The (mighty) Blast overtook the wrongdoers (the people of Thamud*), and they lay prostrate in their homes in the morning - - -.” A blast is not a wind, but something from f.x. an explosion.

(2 - 5 contradictions.)

To make a complete overview: In 7/78 they were destroyed by an earthquake, in 11/67 and 54/31 by a mighty blast (these two are not compatible, as earthquakes do not give blasts - they are produced by totally different mechanisms). In 26/158 they were destroyed by "the penalty of a great day" - which tells nothing. And in 69/5 by a terrible storm - which also is not compatible with neither an earthquake nor a blast (a blast comes from an explosion or something). We also point to that thunder and lightning also do not follow earthquakes.

Comment YA2004 to 15/83 where they were killed by a mighty blast: "The mighty rumbling noise and wind accompanying an earthquake". There is no wind (and no blast, thunder or lightning) accompanying earthquakes - the mechanism producing wind is totally different, a fact even educated Muslim scholars know, but all the same they produces arguments like this. Intellectual dishonesty - there is a bit much of this in Islam. And in a religion using dishonesty/lies, how much is true of their arguments? - and of their religion?

#####The reason for this dishonesty - in addition to trying to make the Quran sound correct - is that it is believed that "the people of the rocky tract" just is another name of the Thamud tribe. And in 7/78 the Thamuds were killed by an earthquake. 11/67, 15/83, and 54/31 they were killed by a mighty blast. And in 69/5 they were killed by " terrible Storm of thunder and lightning!". Voila!: Make wind/blast accompany earthquakes or let the noise represent a blast to hide this mistake in the Quran - but forget the thunder and lightning! But neither wind nor blasts nor thunder nor lightning is a part of an earthquake.

#####Honesty too often is not essential for Muslims and Islam. The main thing is to make the Quran and thus Islam look like they are true. But when even persons like Muhammad Yusuf Ali uses dishonesty - here and la-Taqiyya (a lawful lie) - how many more lies are there then in Islamic literature and argumentation? - and in the Quran and in Islam?

#####196 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. This 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.

197 89/1-4a: "By - - -". A sentence in the Quran starting with "by" normally is an oath - here it seems that the Quran swears in irritation over verse 5. But whenever Muhammad or the Quran swears - or in other ways promises - remember that according to the rules for al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth), it is permitted to lie to defend and to forward Islam (and for 6-8 other broad topics), and also that according to Muhammad's own words and deeds in the Quran, oaths should be broken if that will give a more satisfying result (2/225, 5/89, 16/61, 66/2). (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

Sub-total Chapter 58 = 197 + 5.456 = 5.653.


>>> 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".