Muhammad in the Quran, Vol. 3: Chapter 68



 

CLAIMS ABOUT "GLAD TIDING"

The Quran and Muhammad many times claims that the book and Muhammad's teachings, etc. are glad tidings. In this world this may be true for the many who became - and still become - rich and powerful because of the religion. If there somewhere is a god and a next life, the situation may be very different: As all the mistakes, contradictions, etc. in the Quran prove 100% and more that the book is not from any god, and thus that Islam is a pagan, made up religion (the proofs are circumstantial and perhaps empirical, but they are so many and some so strong that together they make one - or more - proof(s) of mathematical strength), some ones may meet a black surprise when entering that life.

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

001 2/25a: "- - - glad tidings - - -". The Quran represents glad tidings if - and only if - it correctly represents a real god. If not at the very best one can say that the Quran brought some glad tidings for all the bad ones, wanting loot and slaves and power, and for some ones longing for a strong religion - - - if it was not because the Quran itself proves 100% that something is very wrong in the book. And definitely not glad tidings to their fellow humans who became their victims - a point Muslims never mention (empathy with non-Muslim fellow humans does not exist in the Quran). So wrong that it neither can be made nor revered by any god – not even by a small mini god. Too much is wrong in the book. Also see 61/13e below.

*002 2/97i: “- - - glad tidings - - -“. Wrong. At the very best one can say that the Quran brought some glad tidings to all the bad ones wanting loot and slaves and power, and to some ones longing for a strong religion - - - if it was not because the Quran itself proves 100% that something is very wrong in the book. So wrong that it neither can be made nor revered by any god – not even by a small mini god. Too much is wrong in the book. Also see 2/25a above and 61/13e below.

003 2/119b: “Verily, We (Allah*) have sent thee (Muslims/people*) in truth a bearer of glad tidings and a warner (= Muhammad) - - -.” (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.) It definitely is no proved verity/truth. No omniscient god has sent a bearer of tidings in which so much is wrong.

004 2/119e: “- - - glad tidings - - -“. That the Quran is “glad tidings” at very best is only partly true. See 2/25a and 2/97c above and 61/136 below.

005 2/155b: "- - - glad tidings - - -". May be for the many who grew rich from stealing/robbing, enslaving, etc., and for many who believed they had found salvation in this war religion based on a book ripe with mistakes, etc. But definitely not for all the victims for Islam's aggression and brutality - victims Islam even today is not developed and mature enough to feel any sympathy, not to mention empathy, with - and why should they? - as non-Muslims are not completely human, then why should they?

006 2/213c: “- - - glad tidings - - -“. Wrong. See 2/97e above and 61/13 below.

007 3/15a: “- - - glad tidings - - -“. Wrong. See 2/97g above and 61/13e below.

008 5/19g: "- - - bringer (Muhammad*) om glad tidings - - -". Please read the surahs from Medina + 1/1a above and see what "glad" tidings he brought - especially as it is clear that his claimed tidings - the Quran with all its mistakes, contradictions, etc. - are not from a god.

###009 5/19m: "- - - but now hath come to you (Jews, Christians, Sabeans*) a bringer (Muhammad*) of glad tidings and a warner (from evil)." Read the Quran - skip the glorious words, and read the realities; the demands, the introduced rules, the deeds, the (im)moral code, the lack of ethics, the sharia law, the code of war, etc. Glorious words are cheap to use for propaganda, the underlying realities are the realities. Read these realities and see what "glad tidings" and warning from real evil you find. Muhammad probably is the single man throughout the existence of man who has brought most terror and misery into this world - and if his Quran with all its errors, etc. is made up or from dark forces, also into the possible next world for his followers, if there is a real god somewhere.

010 7/57b: “It is He who sendeth the winds like heralds of glad tidings - - -". An Arabism; in desert areas of the world wind may be glad tidings - it may be a forerunner of rain, or at least it may quench the heath. But we may tell you this is not the message of winds in some other parts of the world. Was Allah just a god for desert part of Tellus (the Earth) as he forgets this fact?

011 7/188e: “I (Muhammad*) am but a warner, and a bringer of glad tidings – to those who have faith.” A warner and a warrior. This verse is abrogated – made invalid - by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/38, 3/85, 3/148, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 8/12, 8/38, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many bloody threats, but also verses advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256 in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". (At least 28 abrogations).

012 7/188f: “- - - glad tidings - - -“. See 2/97 above and 61/13 below.

*013 9/21a: “Their (terrorists/warriors*) Lord (Allah*) doth give them glad tidings of a Mercy (that terrorists/warriors for Allah are forgiven practically any sin*) from Himself (from Allah personally*), of His good pleasure (from the fighting and murdering they have done for the good and kind and benevolent god*), and the Gardens for them, wherein are delights (earth-like riches, luxury and women*) that endures”. The ultimate pep talk for war, terror and murder? In the name of a presumably peaceful religion and a kind and good god?

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

*014 9/21b: “Their (terrorists/warriors*) Lord (Allah*) doth give them glad tidings of a Mercy (that terrorists/warriors for Allah are forgiven practically any sin*) from Himself (from Allah personally*), of His good pleasure (from the fighting and murdering they have done for the good and kind and benevolent god*), and the Gardens for them, wherein are delights (earth-like riches, luxury and women*) that endures”. One more at least 110% proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and for that the Jewish prophets, not to mention Jesus, were not in the same line of prophets as Muhammad claimed to be. See 9/20h above.

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

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

###015 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), etc., 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".

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.

016 9/112e: "- - - glad tidings - - -". A book with so much war and blood and apartheid and suppression and rape and incitement to dislike and distaste and hate and lying and much more, is no "glad tiding". This even more so if the book is a made up one - and at least it is not from a god; no god makes that many errors, etc. And we refrain from mentioning the case "what if there is a true religion somewhere which Muslims have been prohibited to look for?" - what kind of (perhaps) next life then for Muslims?

017 10/64a: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -.” See 2/97c and 61/13.

018 10/87d: “- - - Glad Tidings (indicated to be Islam*) - - -.” At best partly true only - and wrong religion, here according to the Bible. See 2/97c above and 61/13 below.

019 11/2h: "- - - glad tiding - - -". The Quran is no good or glad tidings, except for the ones who grew rich by looting, the ones who gained power, plus the ones who needed a religion to lean to (this goes for may be 5-10% of the people according to science, some + or - depending on bad or good times, but any religion helps them as long as they believe strongly). Especially it is not glad tidings if the Quran is not really made by a god, not to mention if on top of that there somewhere existed a true religion Muslims have been prohibited from searching. A rude awakening if there is a next life?

020 16/89j: "- - - (the Quran is) - - - Glad Tidings to Muslims". Only if it is from a god and only if it in addition is the full truth and nothing but the truth. (In reality it is not good tidings even to most Muslims.)

021 16/102k: “- - - revelations from thy Lord (Allah*) in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims”. What kind of glad tidings can be built on at least to a large part mistaken and/or valueless statements and as wrong facts? It is bad if Islam really believes everything - that means they are too blind - or blinded - to see even the most obvious mistakes. But it is much worse if (some of) the leaders and learned men/teachers see the mistakes and bluff their audiences. And not least: If all the mistakes means that Islam is a made up religion - such religions do happen - and blocks the way for its (un)believers to a true religion (if such one exists), what then? Besides: Is it permission to steal and rob and rape and take slaves that are “glad tidings”? – fighting, women and looting are very central in the Quran.

022 16/102m: "(The Quran is) Glad Tidings to Muslims". Please read the Quran and look for the realities behind the big and glossy words. How glad tiding is it even to Muslims (not to mention to Muslim women)? And to get a war religion into the world so absolutely was no glad tidings to the rest of the world - this even more so as the whole religion builds on a book with no connection to a god.

###023 17/9d: “- - - and (the Quran*) giveth the glad tidings to the Believers - - -”. What kind of glad tidings can be built on a book containing hundreds of mistakes? And can even tidings be reliable, when built on hundreds and hundreds of mistakes + hundreds and hundreds of unproved statements hanging in the air, resting on unproved words? (See separate chapters in http://www.1000mistakes.com ). And what kind of glad tidings are built on moral and ethics like what you find in the Quran - live a good life at the expenses of misery and catastrophes and death for many others, like Muhammad and his followers did?! Also see 17/9b above.

024 17/105e: "- - - and We (Allah*) sent thee (Muhammad*) but to give Glad Tidings and to warn (sinners)". This was in Mecca before he gained military strength. After he became stronger, he - and his successors - forgot (?) that their duty only was to warn.

025 17/105f: “- - - (the Quran =) Glad Tidings - - -.” At best only partly right. See 2/97i and 17/9b above and 91/13 below.

026 18/2g: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -.” At best only partly right. See 2/97i and 17/9d above and 91/13 below.

027 18/56a: “We (Allah*) only send the message to give glad tidings and to give warnings - - -.” This was in 622 AD, and shortly later Muhammad started to change his mind and Islam started to use the sword to get proselytes. This verse is contradicted and often “killed” by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 5/73, 8/12, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 29 contradictions).

028 19/97d: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -.” At best only partly right. See 2/97i and 17/9d above and 91/13 below.

029 22/34g: "- - - the good news (Islam*) - - -". A war religion never is good news, not even to its followers. There are exceptions, though: The leaders who become rich from loot and tax and powerful from suppression, and those of the warriors who become more or less rich from loot. But even these may be destroyed morally and as human beings. (Even the Quran says that the one who does bad things, is destroyed morally.)

030 22/37f: "- - - Good News (the Quran*) - - -". Wrong. What good religious news is to be found in a book where no god is involved?. Also see 1/1a and 22/34g above.

031 25/48a: "And it is He (Allah*) Who sends the Winds as heralds of glad tidings (rain*) - - -". For one thing rain is not automatically glad tidings except in the dry parts of the world - would not a universal god use an example which was a glad tiding everywhere? But for another and more serious thing: This is one more of the very many natural phenomena any priest in any religion can claim for his god(s) free of charge as long as he does not have to prove anything - just like Muhammad does time and again and again and again, without proving anything at all. It has exactly no value as an indication, not to mention as a proof for Allah, which is indicated many places in the Quran. Also see 11/7a above. (Also science has another explanation.)

*032 25/56c: “- - - glad tidings (the Quran*) - - -“. Wrong. At the very best one can say that the Quran brought some glad tidings to all the bad ones, wanting loot and slaves, and among some longing for a strong religion - - - if it was not because the Quran itself proves 100% that something is very wrong in the book. So wrong that it neither can be made nor revered by any god – not even by a small mini god. Too much is wrong in the book. And a "holy" book not connected to a god, also is not "glad tidings".

033 27/2b: “- - - glad tidings - - -“. Wrong. At the very best one can say that the Quran brought some glad tidings among all the bad persons, wanting loot and slaves, among some longing for a strong religion, and among some leaders wanting power - - - if it was not because the Quran itself proves 100% that something is very wrong in the book. So wrong that it neither can be made nor revered by any god – not even by a small mini god. Too much is wrong in the book. And a holy book not connected to a god, is that glad tidings? Also see 2/97i and 17/9d above and 61/13 below.

034 27/63c: “- - - glad tidings - - -“. In this case it refers to rain. That is glad tidings in deserts like in Arabia, but hardly in f.x. Amazonas or England or a lot of other places. Another of the many "Arabia-isms" in the Quran. In Muhammad’s local area rain was glad tidings, in the area of a world religion that claims at best only is partly true – but why is Arabia the only cultural and otherwise centre of the Quran if it is for all the world – and from an omniscient god?

035 30/46c: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -“. Glad tidings in just this case mean rain. But rain is glad tidings only in dry places. Was Allah only a god for (some) dry places, or was he unable to find universal glad tidings?

036 33/45f: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -“. Wrong. Islam is no glad tiding, except for the ones not suppressed and those of them who could rob and steal and rape and become rich – and really glad only for the ones near the top of the pyramid. It often is like that in war religions, especially when made to fit a strong and charismatic leader (and his successors), though many war religions have not been as hypocritical as Islam in trying to make its members and others believe it is good and just and benevolent. And well, it may have been glad tidings for the minor percent of people that needs a religion to lean on (the exact percentage is not known, but science indicates 5 – 10 %, though some more in difficult times.) In Islam these small percents have usurped all the power and force everybody not only to live, but also to think and believe like themselves.

By the way: Have you ever noticed how many similarities there are between the Quran's moral code and that of organized crime - f.x. the Mafia?

037 33/47a: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -“. See 33/45a and 33/45c above.

038 34/45b: "- - - My (Allah's*) messengers - - -". But f.x. Muhammad was not the messenger of a god - too much was wrong in his claimed message. If he was a messenger, then for whom?

039 35/24f: “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. But for that: This verse is abrogated – made invalid - by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/38, 3/85, 3/148, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 8/12, 8/38, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36,e25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many bloody threats, but also verses advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 28 abrogations).

No omniscient god heeds to abrogate himself, and definitely not this often. Then who - if any - sent Muhammad?

040 35/24g: “Verily We (Allah*) have sent thee (Muhammad*) in truth as a bearer of Glad Tidings and as a warner - - -.” (See 35/24f just above.) This verse is contradicted and often “killed” by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 5/73, 8/12, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 29 contradictions).

It definitely is no proved verity/truth.

041 35/24h: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -.” Wrong. Islam is no glad tiding, except for the ones not suppressed – and really glad only for the ones looking for booty and slaves and stolen riches, and not least for the ones near the top of the pyramid who got – and get – a lot of power in addition. It often is like that in war religions, especially when made to fit a strong and charismatic leader (and his successors), though many war religions have not been as hypocritical as Islam in trying to make its members and others believe it is good and just and humane and benevolent. And well, it may have been glad tidings for the minor percentage of people who needs a religion to lean on – at least for the possible ones who found the old pagan religion not strong enough.

042 36/11e: "- - - good tidings - - -". The Quran has good news only if it is true and only if it really is from a god (which it is not, as no god makes that many mistakes, etc.)

043 38/29c: “Here is a Book (the Quran*) which We (Allah*) have sent down unto thee (Muhammad*), full of blessings, - - -". A book full of errors and not from a god, is no blessing from anybody.

044 39/17c: "- - - Good News - - -". No religion based on war, suppression, and partly on dishonesty is "good news" for anyone but the leaders of the religion, and for the ones who grows rich and/or powerful because of that religion. And, well, yes for the small percent of humans (5 - 10%?) who needs a religion to lean to, but they will be satisfied by any religion they believe in, as it is the belief itself which helps them, not the religion.

045 41/4a: "Giving Good News - - -". Including mongering in discrimination and war and promoting stealing/robbing, enslaving, terrorism, rape, lying and even breaking of oaths, torturing, murdering and so on. Yes, good news. Though perhaps we should not judge this verse too harshly, as it was made around 616 - 618 AD while the religion still was a rather peaceful on - Muhammad or Allah did not change it to a war religion until after 622 AD and Muhammad's flight to Medina. Also see 2/97i and 17/9d above and 61/13 below.

##046 41/30b: "'Fear ye (Muslims*) not' (they (angels*) suggest (= this is something happening "now", but claimed written some billion years ago)), 'nor grieve! But receive the Glad Tidings of the Garden (of Bliss), that for which ye were promised!'" (Also see 41/31 and 41/32 below.) Some Muslims claim that the Quran - or really the "Mother of the Book" in Heaven which the Quran is an exact copy from - is never made, but has existed since eternity. ####Here it is proved once more that this claim is not correct: It is angels who are speaking. Which proves that the claimed "mother book" must be younger than the first angels - yes younger than the first humans, as they are speaking to humans - , and the angels have not existed since eternity (and definitely the same goes for humans) - actually they are created by Allah from light, according to the Quran. Worse: They are speaking to Muslims, which means that the claimed "mother book" cannot be older than the first Muslims. Worst: The first sure trace from Muslims is from 610 AD. Is 610 AD the age of the oldest parts of the claimed "mother book"? Also see the rest of this verse and the next two ones.

047 41/30d: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -.” Wrong. Islam is no glad tiding, except for the ones not suppressed – and really glad only for the ones looking for booty and slaves and stolen riches, and not least for the ones near the top of the pyramid that got – and get – a lot of power in addition. It often is like that in war religions, especially when made to fit a strong and charismatic leader (and his successors), though many war religions have not been as hypocritical as Islam in trying to make its members and others believe it is good and just and humane and benevolent. And well, it may have been glad tidings for the small percentage of people who need a religion to lean on – at least for the possible ones where the old pagan religion was not strong enough. Also see 2/97i and 17/9d above and 61/13 below.

048 42/23b: "- - - Glad Tidings - - -". Because Islam is a war religion, it is from disturbing to horrible tidings for all non-Muslims. For Muslims it is glad tidings for the ones who grow rich and/or powerful from robbing and suppressing fellow human beings, and for persons needing a religion to lean to - and the last ones find the strength they look for in any religion in case they really believe in it, a fact you meet in any religion. But in the end Islam only is glad news also for these ones, if the Quran is from a god. And no god makes a book with that much wrong contents, and as it is from no god, what will be the tidings for Muslims if there is a next life?

049 46/12h: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -.” Wrong. Islam is no glad tiding, except for the ones not suppressed – and really glad only for the ones looking for booty and slaves and stolen riches, and not least for the ones near the top of the pyramid who got – and get – a lot of power in addition. It often is like that in war religions, especially when made to fit a strong and charismatic leader (and his successors), though many war religions have not been as hypocritical as Islam in trying to make its members and others believe it is good and just and humane and benevolent. And well, it may have been glad tidings also for the minor percentage of people that need a religion to lean on – at least for the possible ones where the old pagan religion was not strong enough. But for the majority of people no. Even not for the majority of the Muslims.

050 48/8c: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -.” Wrong. Islam is no glad tiding, except for the ones not suppressed – and really glad only for the ones looking for booty and slaves and stolen riches, and not least for the ones near the top of the pyramid who got – and get – a lot of power in addition. It often is like that in war religions, especially when made to fit a strong and charismatic leader (and his successors), though many war religions have not been as hypocritical as Islam in trying to make its members and others believe it is good and just and humane and benevolent. And well, it may have been glad tidings for the minor percentage of people who need a religion to lean on – at least for the possible ones where the old pagan religion was not strong enough.

Of the war religion the world has seen, only Islam remains today - at least among the big ones still preaching war, and where war still is a basic element in the "holy" book.

##### 051 61/6f: “- - - (Jesus said: I am*) giving the Glad Tiding of a Messenger to come after Me, whose name shall be Ahmed (another form of the name Muhammad*) - - -”. This is quite a funny verse, as you meet Muslims who insist it is copied from the Bible. Worse: You find it quoted in books like it was from the Bible, without a word about the fact that it only is to be found in the Quran. But there is not anything remotely like this in the Bible, and neither in the some 12ooo - 13ooo relevant scriptures or fragments found through the times older than 610 AD – included some 300 from the Gospels, and also not in the some 32ooo other relevant known manuscripts older than 610 AD (when Muhammad started his preaching) with quotes from the Bible. #####It is only to be found in the Quran. #####Also you do not find a single case in OT where a prophesy about distant future mentions a clear name (sometimes title or something, but never a clear name). But here - o wonder! - is most conveniently the unmistakable name given - an Arab version of the name Muhammad even!

And it is worth remembering that it is quite common for makers of new sects or religions to connect themselves to a mother religion and bend that one some to fit one's purpose - or even high-jack (parts of) it. The founder of the Amaddijja-Muslims is really one of the latest examples, and Mormons tell Jesus visited America during his last days on earth. Such things give roots, credence and weight to a movement.

Jesus told his disciples that the Holy Spirit (also named the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of the Lord, or only the Spirit, etc. – like Allah and like Muhammad it has more than one name) should come shortly - which it did. And he told he himself should return once upon a time “to judge the living and the dead“. But not a single word about any other - and not to mention one with a foreign name the Jews would question.

We know of one place where Muhammad is mentioned: In the Barnabas Gospel - a most apocryphal (made up) book - according to one of our sources it may even be written at the caliph’s court in Baghdad (not very strange if it then mentions Muhammad), but it also may be one of the many falsifications made by Muslims in Spain from around 800 AD on. You need to make up proofs only if you have no real ones. Muslims sometimes tell you this “gospel” is a real one.

But the standard explanation Muslims follow - without proofs: The Bible is falsified and names indicating Muhammad taken out by bad conspiracies - people in that area has a strong tendency to look for and believe in conspiracy theories (We have a private theory that the reason is that they never in their history have been used to relatively reliable information). But in that case:

  1. The life of the first Christians had been entirely different - and their time scale had been entirely different if any of them had heard about another prophet to be expected before the return of Jesus “to judge the living and the dead”. (They would know the return of Jesus would take much longer time than they now believed, to give the “prophet” time to work. They thought Jesus would be back in a short time - some years.)
  2. The contents of the NT had been different - not least the letters had been different. It simply is a fairy tale made up to strengthen Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet - like some other self-proclaimed prophets. (Rather ironic, as he did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies – he did not even claim or pretend he had it – he was no real prophet. A messenger for someone or something perhaps, but not a real prophet).

The Muslims only back their claim on one Greek word used in the Bible: “parakletos” which means “helper” – Jesus before he left Earth, promised to send his disciples a helper – the Holy Spirit (which arrived some days later – at Whitsun - according to the Bible (a story that is not negated in the Quran)).

Islam claims “parakletos” is a misspelling for another Greek word “periklytos”, which means “the highly praised”. In Aramaic “the highly praised” means “Mawhamana” of which the second part of that word as a verb is “hamida” (= to praise) and as a noun “hamd” (law or praise). If you then continue to Arab the names Muhammad and Ahmad (another version of the name Muhammad) both derives from “hamida” or “hamd” according to Islam. Which to Islam and all Muslims is a strong proof for that “parakletos” in reality is misspelled and means “Muhammad” in the Gospel after John (f. x. John 14/16). Not a very convincing proof to say the least of it – and in addition:

The word “periklytos” that Islam claims is misspelled – the only possibility they have to get the answer they want and desperately need (they need it desperately, because the Quran clearly tells that Muhammad is foretold also in the NT - - - and he is not there) – does not exist at all in the Bible, not to mention in the NT. It is not used one single time.

The word “periklytos” also is not found one single time in all the some 13ooo relevant manuscripts and fragments science knows from before 610 AD. Neither in one single place or time, nor in one single of the many manuscripts.

Worse: Neither is it found in any of the some 300 copies or fragments of Gospels older than 610 AD or in other manuscripts referring to the Gospels.

Neither is it found in quotes from the Bible found in some 32ooo other old manuscripts.

The word “periklytos” simply never was used in the old scriptures that became the Bible. The word that is used everywhere is “parakletos” – “helper” (and a helper was what the disciples needed). This goes for each and every known copy.

Beside: How could it be possible to falsify – as Islam claims – the same word the same way in thousands and tens or hundreds of thousands of manuscripts – and how to find each and every “periklytos” in each and every of the many different manuscripts – spread over all those countries? – and on top of all: In a time with little travel and hardly any media. Islam has a tough job proving their claim – and remember: It is the ones making claims that have to prove them, not others to disprove it. This often is forgotten when Muslims throw loose claims and statements around.

There also are huge numbers (some 32ooo) of non-religious manuscripts or fragments which refer to the Bible. Whenever this word pops up in those manuscripts it without exception is written "parakletos". Islam must explain how it was possible to find and to falsify all these papers, and not least how it was possible to erase the ink and write another word in such a way that it is impossible for modern science to find traces of falsifications.

Arabs think it is logical that parakletos and periklytos may be mixed – in the old Arab alphabet and scriptures this just meant that someone had guessed the not written vowels wrong. But not so for Greek, as Greek already and a long time before had a complete alphabet where all letters were written. This kind of misspelling therefore is not logical in Greek. (NT was originally written in Greek.)

Muslims try to explain that it could not be a question of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit already was present. And the Holy Spirit was present or visited Jesus. But it was not part of the disciples – and that was what happened at Whitsun according to the Bible: They each got personal contact with the Spirit, and that is quite a change of a situation.

Muslims also say that as two different names for the Spirit is used (the Spirit of Truth and the Holy Spirit (you actually also have the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God (1. Mos. 1/2), the Spirit of the Lord, and only the Spirit)) it proves that John does not mean the Holy Spirit, when he uses the name “the Spirit of truth” – “the Spirit of truth” must mean the Muhammad who lies to his followers in the Quran (“miracles will make no-one believe”, f. x.) and advised his people to even break their oaths if that gave a better result. In addition to all the other wrong logic here, this claim is just as logical as to claim that the 99 names of Allah means there are 99 different gods, or the 200 or more names of Muhammad means there were 200 or more of him. The spirit simply is named by different names (at least 6) – and in addition it is absolutely clear that in the whole Bible there only is one spirit with a special connection to Yahweh.

There only is one conclusion – the conclusion science has made long ago – possible to make in this: This Islamic claim – like many others – either is a lie (an al-Taqiyya?) or wishful thinking. And still “the raisin in the sausage” is not mentioned:

Jesus promised his disciples a helper – a parakletos. If he had meant Muhammad, how could Muhammad be their helper when they were all dead 500 years before he was even born?? It simply is nonsense or wishful thinking.

Further the spirit according to the same verses in the Bible that Muslims quote, could not be seen. Muhammad was not difficult to see.

And another “raisin”: Also in the same verses it is said that the Spirit should be with them forever. Muhammad definitely was not with them forever – he was not even with them.

Not to mention: How do you make Jews and Christians agree on how to falsify the Bible? - f.x. the foretelling about Messiah/Jesus? - and when did they do it? Muslims like to blame Nicaea, but for one thing the agenda for that meeting is well known, and "adjustments" of the Bible was not even mentioned (but some Muslims in 2009 or 2010 screamed that they could prove that 56 points (if we remember the number correctly) in the Bible had been changed at that meeting - the word "proofs" sometimes come easy to some Muslims), and as bad: There was not one single representative for the Mosaic (Jewish) religion present.

In the thousands of manuscripts older than 610 AD - the first point of time when Christians - and also the Jews - could get a reason for such a falsification - how was it possible to erase the word parakletos with the primitive means of that time, and fill in the word periklytos instead, in such a way that modern science are unable to find physical traces from the erasing, unable to find chemical differences in the ink that was used, and unable to see any difference of the letters (all people written differently)?

There only is one conclusion – the conclusion science has made long ago – possible to make is this: This Islamic claim – like many others – either is a lie (an al-Taqiyya?) or wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking? – or a bluff? – or a lie/al-Taqiyya? At least science long ago as mentioned has proved from the old manuscripts that it is not true – the Bible never was falsified on this point either. Worse: Islam has proved the same because they, too, have been unable to find such a proved falsification in spite of intensive searching. (But Islam HAS to find him somewhere there, if not the Quran is wrong on this for Islam very essential point - and then something is seriously wrong with Islam). Also see 7/157.

(We should mention that also the apocryphal (made up) “Gospel of Barnabas” sometimes still is used as an argument, because there Muhammad is clearly mentioned (no surprise if the theory that it is made at the court in Baghdad is correct. The same if it is one of the many Islamic forgeries from Spain from around 800 AD and somewhat later). The sorry fact, though, is that a made up gospel is a made up gospel (there are a number of them) – and it tells something about Islam’s lack of arguments that they continue to insist that may be it is not made up, and therefore is a proof for Muhammad, when science is unanimous: It is one of the false ones. The only thing the “Gospel of Barnabas” in reality proves, is that Islam has no real documentation for their claim that Muhammad is mentioned in the NT, as they have to resort to this kind of argumentation).

But the most solid proof for that the Bible is not falsified, comes from Islam itself. If they had found one single solid proof for falsification of the Bible among all the many thousands of old manuscripts that exist, THEY HAD SCREAMED TO HOLY HEAVEN ABOUT IT – and no-one has till now heard such a scream – not even after 1400 years!!!.

052 61/13e: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -“. Permission to steal/rob, suppress, rape, enslave, keep harems/sex slaves, murder, etc. which are central parts of the Quran – is that “Glad Tidings”? Direct orders to go to war and kill and suppress and enslave and loot and destruct – or be killed or mutilated yourself - is that “Glad Tidings”? Direct orders to concentrate only on religious knowledge (indirectly very clear in the Quran and directly and unmistakably very clear in Islam from very early on – and totally dominant from 1095 AD) – is that “Glad Tidings”? Total destruction of all advanced countries and cultures they met in Africa, Europe and Asia at least as far east as what was then India – destruction it took the locals at least 200 years to overcome (if ever) – is that “Glad Tidings”? The inhumanity in the war religion – is that “Glad Tidings”? The reduction of women to third class citizens – if really citizens – (Islam’s claim that women were/are better off under Islam than before only is true for some parts of what is now the Muslim area, mainly in towns in parts of Arabia – and even there it had not necessarily been true today if it was not for the suppressing factor of Islam) – is that “Glad Tidings”? The enslavement and suppression and mass murders/slaughtering of non-Muslims – was and is (see Muslims at waging war and terror even today) that “Glad Tidings”? What a war religion did and does to the societies and the personal soul – is that “Glad Tidings”? The suppression of thinking – all non-religious philosophy, and all religious non-conform (to Islam) thinking – is that “Glad Tidings”? Well, yes, for some Muslims – the ones of the warriors who survived in good health and became rich from looting, and the ones of the leaders who became rich in wealth and women from looting/slave taking and taxation plus became powerful, then and today.

For everyone else it was everything from “Bad Tidings” to terror – and still is (just look at the backward societies it resulted in once the riches from looting came to an end – and even worse when the hard taxation or pogroms of non-Muslim underlings, reduced the number and/or economy of those underlings. Look f.x. at the development in India, China, Brazil of today – especially India and China were far behind the Islamic countries 60 years ago, but what has been happening during these years? Take away the oil, the money from outside the area and the ideas from outside, more or less forced on the clergy and the leaders from media and others – what has really happened in the Islamic area since f.x. 1950 compared to many other places?

Yes: For everyone else included most Muslims it was and still is everything from “Bad Tidings” to terror.

Especially so if Islam is a made up religion. And even more so if there somewhere is a true religion that Islam blocks its members from even looking for.

The very best one can say about the Quran and “Glad Tidings”, is that for some parts of it partly were glad tidings because they grew rich and/or powerful, and that for some others parts of it brings peace to the soul – like strong believers gain from ANY of the main religions.

For all others – included the majority of Muslims – it as said was “Bad Tidings”. And as said especially so if Islam is a made up religion. Which it seems to be from the proofs of the Quran and the words and life of Muhammad.

This claim about "glad tidings" is contradicted by stark and black reality and history.

Sub-total Chapter 68 = 52 + 6.191 = 6.243.


>>> 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".