Muhammad in the Quran, Vol. 3: Chapter 72


 

The value of witnesses/proofs

The quotes below - and there are more - prove beyond any reasonable and unreasonable doubt that witnesses - proofs - were essential to both Allah and Muhammad. Muhammad's/the Quran's many demands for witnesses and proofs from opponents prove the same. One point even tells that a person unable to prove his/her words, is a liar to Allah. Then it is very revealing and thought provoking that Muhammad was unable to deliver even one single valid proof for any of his central religious claims or tales.

Witness/proof clearly counted for Muhammad - but he never was able to prove anything of any essence concerning his new religion himself.

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

001 2/23g: "- - - witness or helpers - - -". In this case helpers mean other gods than Allah. Muhammad like so often demanded witnesses and proofs from opponents (and thus showing that proofs count), but was never able to give valid proofs for any of his own central claims - never.

###002 2/111a: "Say (to Jews and Christians*): "Produce your proofs if you are truthful". Islam often demands proofs. Islam itself never offers any proofs for its central claims and statements. IT IS VERY PERTINENT TO DEMAND PROOFS FROM ISLAM AND FROM MUSLIMS, PARTLY BECAUSE THEY MOSTLY USES ONLY LOOSE CLAIMS AND AS LOOSE STATEMENTS, AND PARTLY BECAUSE THEY FREQUENTLY THEMSELVES DEMAND PROOFS. And not to forget: Partly because they never have real proofs for any of the central points in a religion - only claims, statements and quotes resting on no proofs.

#### There is a hidden, but essential point here: The fact that Muhammad several times demanded proofs from others, prove that proofs are essential - and were essential to him. All the same he was unable to prove any of his essential points himself, and had to fast-talk himself away from requests for such proofs. This tells something very serious about him and about Islam.

003 2/143d: "- - - witnesses over the nations - - -". Why does an omniscient god so often in the Quran need witnesses?

*004 3/18b: “- - - that is the witness of Allah - - -.” The problem is that there exists not one single witness from Allah – no miracle which could have been a witness, and nothing else. Only the words of a very doubtful man with a very "special" moral code, written in a book with very many errors, contradictions, etc. Muslims her often talk about “signs” from the nature, but the nature is not a proof for Allah until it first is proved that it is created by a god, and further that it is proved that this god is Allah – words are very cheap, but only proofs are reliable. This claim is wrong until Islam proves that Allah really made it – and proves, not only claims like Muslims nearly always do.

005 3/52d: “Said the Disciples (of Jesus*): ‘We are Allah’s helpers: we believe in Allah, and do thou (Jesus*) bear witness that we are Muslims". Definitely not to be found in the Bible.

*006 3/52h: Said the disciples: “- - - and thou (Jesus*) bear witness that we are Muslims”. See 3/51a above. Besides the word "Muslims" hardly had a meaning 600 years before Muhammad.

007 3/70d: “Why do ye (the Jews*) reject the Signs of Allah, of which ye are (yourselves) witnesses?” They rejected the “Signs” – the teaching of Muhammad (the Quran as a book did not exist yet). The word “Sign” here may refer to two statements:

  1. Islam say Muhammad is foretold in the Bible, and especially refers to 5 Mos. 18/15 and 18/18. But the brother of a Jew is a Jew, not an Arab, and the Jews’ fellow countrymen also are Jews, not Arabs. Islam also never mention the next few verses – f.x. number 18/21 about real and false prophets, and where Muhammad do not even qualify as a real prophet. See the chapter about “Muhammad in the Bible?” in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". Wrong.
  2. The other claim here is that when Jesus talked to his disciples about a helper that should come to them, Muslims claim that this meant Muhammad, even though they have to twist their “explanation” not a little (they need at least one “foretelling” from GT and one from NT, because it is said that Muhammad is foretold in both) - and even though Muhammad was born 500 years after the disciples were dead, he should be the helper of the disciples of Jesus according to Islam! (Jesus was talking about The Holy Spirit which came to the disciples some days later at Pentecost (Acts 2/2-4)).
  3. The Quran refers to one or two learned Jews whom Islam claims accepted Mohammad as a prophet. (This may or may not be true). But it is in no way correct to say that “ye” (all or most of the Jews) did so. On the contrary – may be a thousand Jews were killed and murdered and many more made slaves or had to flee the area, because they refused to accept Islam as their religion. Wrong - there is a huge difference between one/a few and most/all.

See 7/157d+e below.

Islam only has produced claims and twisted logic for this – well, claim. They will have to produce documentation or proofs if they want to be believed by others than the brainwashed and the naïve. Similar claims in 2/42 – 2/101 – 2/146.

What was wrong with them, Muhammad told, was that they had distorted or thrown away parts of the OT (he claimed), so that it did not tell the same story as the Quran – which it, he claimed, surely had done when it was sent down from Allah (As mentioned no part of the Bible is “sent down”, except the 10 Commandments. It is all written by humans – may be inspired by god, but written by humans. What comes closest to having been “sent down” except for the 10 Commandments are the laws of Moses, which the Bible tells Yahweh told to Moses, and Moses wrote them down later.) See 2/75b, 2/76b and 2/77a above, and especially 7/157d+e below.

Worse: Not even Islam has ever found a proof for that the Bible is falsified - not even a single point of proved falsification they have found in it (guess if they had referred to it if they had found anything!). Mistakes, yes, but no falsifications. The same goes for science: No proved falsification found in the Bible.

008 3/81m: "Allah said: 'Do ye (all the old prophets*) agree, and take this Covenant (including believing in and helping Muhammad*) as binding on you?' They said: 'We agree'". He said: 'Then bear witness (about Muhammad*) - - -". They cannot have been very reliable, as exactly none of the known prophets ever mentioned him - included not Abraham, not Moses, and not Jesus to mention 3 of the main prophets according to the Quran (and yes, we know about the cherry-picked, wrong claims concerning 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18, and about the helper Jesus promised his disciples (the Holy Spirit) which Islam claims meant Muhammad 500+ years after the last disciple was dead).

009 3/86a: “How shall Allah guide those who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger (Muhammad*) was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them?” Well, on basis of this sentence it is not possible for Allah to guide anyone, because Muhammad/the Quran is proved (by science and by Islam) full of mistakes, and not one single so called sign is proved true - with the possible exception of some “borrowed” from the Bible, and they in case prove Yahweh/God, not Allah.

010 3/99g: “(Jews and Christians*) ye were yourselves witnesses (to Allah’s covenant)”. Wrong. They were witnesses to Yahweh’s covenant(s). Allah is not the same god as Yahweh, unless the god is seriously schizophrenic, as the teachings fundamentally are too different. If Islam still insists on the opposite, they will have to bring proofs, not only the old and still not documented loose claims.

011 4/6b: “Make a trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them, release their property to them; but consume it not wastefully, nor in haste against their growing up. If the guardian is affluent, let him claim no remuneration, but if he is poor, let him have for himself what is just and reasonable. When ye release their property to them, take witnesses in their presence - - -". One of the verses behind sharia laws.

012 4/33d: "For truly Allah is witness to all things". See 2/233h above and 35/38b below.

013 4/41a: "How then if We (Allah*) brought from each People a witness - - -?" But why - WHY - does a god whom Islam claims is omniscient and predestining, need witnesses??!!

014 4/41b: "- - - and We (Allah*) brought thee (a Muslim*) as a witness against these People!" See 4/41a just above.

015 4/69g: "- - - the Witness (who testify) - - -". A man like Muhammad would not be reckoned to be a reliable witness in any just court. See f.x. 4/69c+d above.

016 4/135d: "- - - a witness to Allah - - -". But why does a presumed or at least claimed omniscient and predestining god need witnesses? This even more so as even in this same verse it is stated that Allah knows everything one does!? See 4/135f below.

017 4/159e: "- - - on the Day of Judgment he (Jesus*) will be a witness against them (sinners*) - - -". Why does an omniscient god need witnesses? Especially if he predestines everything?

018 4/166a: "But Allah beareth witness that what He hath sent (the Quran*) onto thee (Muhammad)- - -". No god has ever sent a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, etc.

019 4/166d: "- - - the angels bear witness - - -". Why does an omniscient, predestining god need witnesses?

020 4/166e: "- - - enough is Allah for a witness". Only if he exists and in addition is reliable in spite of the Quran's and Islam's points of view concerning al-Taqiyya (lawful lies), Kitman (lawful half-truths), deception ("war is deceit" - and everything is war), broken words/oaths, etc.

021 5/83i: "- - - write us (learned Christians*) down among the witnesses". This may be 100% propaganda, or there may have been a few (most likely the last alternative). As for all the rest this is pure fantasy - - - but good propaganda. (Also today you see the few Christians converting to Islam used for propaganda by Muslims - and denial of the ones converting from Islam to other religions, mainly to the Christian one. #####Another fact is that of the ones - Christians and others - who convert to Islam, some 75% leave the religion within 3 years, indicating that they see it is not a true religion when they learn more about it. This fact is NEVER mentioned by Muslims.)

022 5/106b: "When death approaches any of you (Muslims*),(take) witnesses among yourselves when making bequests - - -." Make a will not later than when you feel death is coming to you. Muhammad himself broke this rule, which made considerable troubles. For one thing: Who was to inherit his considerable wealth? (Muslims like to tell that Muhammad died very poor. It simply is not true - and many of them know it, as it is clearly told in Hadiths. He had estates in Medina, Khaybar and Fadak. But he had said - not willed, but at least said - that this was to be given to the religion, and therefore the caliph, Abu Bakr, confiscated it, much to the anger of Muhammad's only living child, Fatime, who wanted the inheritance from her father. But he neither had made rules for his own inheritors, nor for transfer of power or for succession of leaders of Islam, which resulted in that Fatima did not get her inheritance - and that of the 11 first caliphs only one (Abu Bakr) died a natural death - the line of transfer of power was unclear and many wanted that power. The religion of peace!

023 5/111f: “(the Disciples*) said: “We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to Allah as Muslims”. A made up story - see 3/51a+b for explanation.

024 5/113b: "- - - and that we ourselves (the disciples*) may be witness to the miracle". Invalid explanation - they had seen plenty of miracles in other connections according to the old books. Also this is not from the Bible.

One more confirmation in the Quran for that Jesus could cause miracles - the story is made up unless the opposite is proved, but the confirmation and admission are real ones. Neither Allah nor Muhammad proved they were able to this (Muhammad - and Islam - clearly admitted/s that he himself was unable to (see 5/110i)).

025 5/117b: "- - - Thou (Allah*) art a witness to all things". See 2/233b above.

026 6/19a: “’What thing is the most weighty in evidence (of the Quran*)?’ Say: ’Allah is witness between me (Mohammad*) and you (Muslims*) - - -”.

  1. It is nowhere proved that Allah had anything to do with the Quran - on the contrary: All the mistakes etc. in the book prove that no god was involved, at least no omniscient one.
  2. Can a book with that many mistakes, loose statements and invalid “signs” and “proofs” really be evidence for anything at all? - except an evidence for that something is wrong? And this verse 6/19 tells it is the weightiest evidence for Allah! (An invalid claim if not Allah really did witness.)
  3. A claimed witness from Allah has no value if Allah did not really witness and in an indisputable way.

027 6/19b: "Allah is witness between me (Mohammad*) and you (Muslims*) - - -”. Not unless he exists - a witness who does not exist, is no witness.

028 6/19f: "Can ye possibly bear witness that besides Allah there is another God?". The expression "besides Allah" demands that Allah really exists. This is nowhere proved - there only are Muhammad's not too reliable words and claims for this. The expression is invalid unless it is proved that Allah exists.

029 6/19g: "Can ye possibly bear witness that besides Allah there is another God?". This is typical for Muhammad's technique of debating - he claims without even trying to prove it that Allah exists, but just states it as a "fact", and then demands proofs from everyone else for anything. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" - Islam will have to bring proofs to be believe by rational brains, especially as the one making the claim was such an unreliable and immoral man. (Read the Quran - skip the cheap, glorious words and read the reality; what he demanded and did, his view on the use of dishonesty and what moral rules he introduced - before you protest.)

What here backfires for Muhammad, is that the fact he lays much weight on proofs and demands proof from every opponent, is that this proves that he held proofs for essential and of high value. But all the same neither he nor Allah ever was able to give a valid proof for one single of his central religious claims. "A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". And we repeat: "A claim without a proof may be dismissed without a proof" - all too often unproved claims are made up claims.

030 6/130d: "- - - witness - - -". Why does an omniscient god need witnesses?

031 6/148e: "Say: 'Have ye any (certain) knowledge? If so, produce it before us." Islam and the Quran are quick to demand proofs from anyone else, but hardly ever prove anything themselves - they rely on unproved claims and on statements built on other unproved claims. Beware of this when you debate with Muslims: They often put forth loose claims without any proofs, and demands that you prove it is wrong - if you are unable to that, they claim they are right, no matter how wrong they are. And if you are able to prove a claim wrong, they utter disbelief and instead make another unproved claim. One technique is quoting a known writer speaking about things he knows no more about than ordinary people - but he is a known writer. By cherry-picking quotes Islam has found a number of "good" claims, and it is not always easy to prove they are wrong, even when they are far from reality. But it is not for you to prove him/her wrong. It is he/she who is making the claim, and thus it is for him/her to prove it. Demand proofs for all claims from them before you at all start answering them - mostly they are unable to prove anything when they are using dishonest arguments or loose claims, and loose claims are especially often used.

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

032 6/148g: "If so, produce it before us (Muhammad*)". In clear text: 'If you non-Muslims have knowledge opposing the Quran, prove it'. Muslims demand proofs from everybody else, but never prove any central claims they put forth themselves. This in spite of that it is the one who claims something who has the burden of proving his claim.

033 6/150a: "Bring forward your witnesses - - -". See 6/148e above.

034 7/37e: "- - - witness - - -". Why did an omniscient god even bother with witnesses - or throw away time listening to things he already knew?

035 9/17ca: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) witness against their own soul to infidelity". 1): Why does an omniscient god need witnesses - do not his followers trust him? 2): Again this in the Quran somewhat diffuse word "soul".

036 10/29b: "Enough is Allah for a witness - - -". Only if he exists - and not if he in case is from the dark forces, like much of the Quran indicates if he exists.

037 10/46f: "- - - ultimately Allah is witness to all that they (people*) do". If he exists and if he is a powerful enough god or devil to see everything.

038 10/61a: "- - - We (Allah*) are witness - - -". Only possible if he exists and if he has the power - from white or black forces - to observe everything.

039 10/61b: "- - - We (Allah*) are witness thereof (whatever you do*) - - -". See 2/233h above.

040 11/17i: "- - - a witness (Muhammad*) from Himself (Allah*) doth teach - - - a guide and a mercy (the Quran*)." Do read the complete Quran and especially the surahs from Medina - and read it with your brain and your other relevant knowledge engaged, not only your eyes and your wishful thinking. How much of a reliable guide do you find among all the mistakes, contradictions, wrong/invalid logic, etc. do you find? - and how much mercy are you able to find? - real mercy, not glossy words. How much of a teacher of f.x. good morality and of mercy was really Muhammad?!

041 11/18b: (A11/33 – in the 2008 edition A35): “They (sinners at the Day of Doom*) will be turned back to the presence of their Lord (Allah*) and the witnesses will say - - -.” But who are the witnesses? Many or most Muslim scholars think it refers to the reporting angles that stay with each human and note down everything the person does (what for if Allah is omniscient?). Others – like an authority like Ibn Abbas – said it meant the prophets who according to the Quran will be called forth to give witness on the Day of Doom (what for if Allah is omniscient?). What is the right answer, nobody knows – the book does not make this clear.

042 11/18c: "- - - witnesses - - -" Why do Allah arrange a “court” and why the witnesses, and why the writing down - in this case and in some other cases in the Quran? If Allah is omniscient, he knows everything and this all is just theatre – a farce. Or is he not omniscient? Why does he need witnesses?

But it may be an efficient tale to tell followers on Earth if they are not trained in thinking. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

043 11/54b: "I (Hud*) call Allah to witness - - -". No value unless Allah exists - and what the value is if he in case is from the dark forces, is uncertain. (Though he in that case may bear witness for the mistakes and even lies in the Quran).

044 12/26d: "- - - one of her (the wife of Joseph's owner's*) household - - - bore witness (thus) - 'If it was she - - -". See 12/8b above.

045 12/66d: "- - - be Allah the Witness and Guardian!" Neither of which is possible unless he exists. And if he exists, but belongs to the dark forces, he in both cases is unreliable. Just for the record: He is no god if he is behind the Quran with all its errors.

046 13/43d: (YA1868): “Enough for a witness between me (Muhammad*) and you “non-Muslims*) is Allah - - -". The old problem: Not unless he exists and is a god. (If he exists and is from the dark forces, he may be a rather unreliable witness.)

047 13/43e: (YA1868): “Enough for a witness between me (Muhammad*) and you “non-Muslims*) is Allah, and such as have knowledge of the Book (the Quran*)” = the Quran is a witness for that I am a prophet, and the ones who study it, sees that and bear witness. Or: “- - - as all knowledge in the Book comes from Allah, the Quran also bears witness to me” = the Quran is a direct witness. What is your choice?

On the other hand: All the mistakes, etc. in the book makes it a lousy witness. There in addition is the fact that no god would make his representative make so many mistakes, and no good and benevolent god would use an as harsh robber baron as Muhammad for his representative. And not least: Compare Jesus' views on the use of dishonesty, stealing, rape, suppression, murder, etc. with the ones of Muhammad - no comment necessary.

048 13/43f: (A13/84): “Enough for a witness between me (Muhammad*) and you “non-Muslims*) is Allah, and such as have knowledge (Muslims*) of the Book (the Quran*)”. The comment says:"(This is*) - - - implying that a true understanding of the Quran unavoidably leads one to the conviction that is has been revealed by Allah". Pointing to all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran proving 110% that no god is involved in its making, we do not bother to add more comments, except that as Islam has no documentation for any of its central religious claims, it needs even arguments like this.

Islam has not one proof neither for Allah, for that a god was involved in the delivery of the Quran, nor for that Muhammad had any connection to any god, and you will find they sometimes use "svada" (a good Scandinavian word meaning "(lots of) meaningless, nice talk") like this to underbuild or "prove" things.

#####We also quote science: "It takes the belief of a Muslim to be able to believe the texts in the Quran are of such a quality that they prove the book is from a god". It also takes the belief of a Muslim not to see the irony if you combine the claim that the texts in the Quran is of such a quality that they prove divine origin, with the many claims that the texts often are so unclear or with the "real" meaning so hidden that wise humans have to "explain" what the god "really" meant, because the clumsy god unluckily has used words and expressions which "look like" errors - in a book which itself tells it is very clear and easy and to be understood literally, and a book which itself tells that "only the sick or heart look for hidden meanings" - hidden meanings only Allah in case are able to see and understand.

But of course if "true understanding" means blind belief in the Quran after all errors and worse has been "explained" away and glossed over and the brain and real knowledge of the world is disengaged, then one may put forth claims like Muhammad Asad does here. But you have to disengage your brain and knowledge also to be able to believe such claims. "- - - a true understanding is unavoidable - - -" are impressive words, but nonsense is nonsense.

049 16/84b: "- - - a Witness - - -". Many Muslim scholars believe it here is referred to all the claimed prophets who according to the Quran are sent out by Allah, but it is not clear - like so much in the Quran. But why does Allah need a Witness if he is omniscient?

050 16/89b: "- - - raise from all Peoples a witness (f.x. Muhammad*) against them (sinners*), from amongst themselves - - -". See 16/84b above.

051 16/89c: "- - - bring thee (Muhammad?) as a witness against these (sinners*) - - -". See 16/84b above.

052 21/78c: "- - - We (Allah*) did witness their (David/Solomon's*) judgment". If the story (see 21/78b just above) is a made up one - and there is no known source for it (it f.x. is not from the Bible) - this is a thought provoking statement.

##053 21/56e: “- - - He (Allah*) Who created them (man*) (from nothing): and I (Abraham) am a witness to this (truth)”. Wrong even according to the Quran, as the Quran tells Man - Adam - was created from this and that (see 6/2b above). And on top of that: – man was made from something, though not created, as he developed from earlier primates. This really is an unintended joke: It is told that Allah did something that is not true - and Abraham witnesses that it is the truth, and this even if he lived millions of years later! (Some 6 million years or a bit more after the first humanoid, and may be 200ooo after the first Homo Sapiens). Some proof for Allah! Is it possible that Allah himself has sent down this mistaken "proof"? But it does tell something about proofs in the Quran – and from Muslims.

054 21/78c: "- - - We (Allah*) did witness their (David/Solomon's*) judgment". If the story (see 21/78b just above) is a made up one - and there is no known source for it - this is a thought provoking statement.

055 22/17h: "- - - for Allah is witness of all things." See 2/233h above.

056 22/78i: "- - - the Messenger (Muhammad*) may be a witness for you, and ye be witnesses for mankind!". But why does an omniscient god need witnesses?

Not to mention: What value would a witness from a man with a morality - al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), deceit, betrayal, and broken words/promises/oaths (2/225, 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok), 5/89, 16/91, 66/2) - like Muhammad have? Old Bailey would not accept him as a bona fide Witness, and a god should be even choosier and more mindful of honesty and reliability than a human court.

057 24/2b: “The woman and the man guilty of adultery of fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes: let not compassion move you (Muslims*) in their case, in a Matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment”. Part of the background for the sharia laws.

But remember that the laws in Islam on a number of points are very different between men and women - and in real practice on even more points.

058 24/4b: "And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegation) flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their evidence ever after - - - ." Normally an impossible, and thus unjust demand. Part of the background for the sharia laws.

059 24/6-7b: “And for those (men*) who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own - their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth; And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie”. Part of the background for the sharia laws.

060 24/8-9b: "But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) by Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie. And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth". Part of the basis for the sharia laws.

061 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 argumenting, 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.

####062 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. 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.

BUT THERE ALSO IS ANOTHER VERY ESSENTIAL POINT HERE: ACCORDING TO ALLAH THE ONES WHO CANNOT PROVE THEIR WORDS, ARE LIARS. THIS FOR ONE THING CONFIRMS THAT TO ALLAH PROOFS ARE VERY ESSENTIAL, AND FOR ANOTHER THING IT TELLS SOMETHING REALLY ESSENTIAL ABOUT MUHAMMAD, AS HE NEVER WAS ABLE TO GIVE A VALID PROOF FOR ANY OF HIS CENTRAL RELIGIOUS CLAIMS. THIS MEANS THAT IF THIS VERSE IS TRUE, MUHAMMAD WAS A LIAR.

063 24/13d: "Why did they (see 24/13b just above*) not bring the (4*) witnesses, such men, in the sight of Allah (stand forth) themselves as liars". Part of the basis under the sharia laws.

064 24/24b: "- - - witness - - -". Why does a predestining, omniscient god need witnesses?

065 28/75a: "And from each people We (Allah*) shall draw a witness - - -". What for if Allah is omniscient?

066 28/75b: "And from each people We (Allah*) shall draw a witness - - -". According to Muslim scholars here are meant the prophets claimed by Islam sent to every people and nation in the world throughout all times. There never have been found any kind of traces from such claimed Muslim prophets anywhere, older than 610 AD when Muhammad started his preaching - neither by science, nor by Islam. The claimed many prophets/messengers never existed, unless Muslims/Islam bring proofs instead of claims for them.

067 33/45e: "- - - (Muhammad*) a Witness - - -". In normal speech this is a word only used about persons from whom one demands truth and only the truth. All the errors in the Quran, included some clear lies, prove that the word does not belong in this verse - and in some others.

068 33/55d: "- - - Allah witness to all things". The standard warning and reminder - here connected to that women should not try to cheat and be indecent. But also see 2/233h above.

069 36/65b: "But their hands will speak to Us (Allah*), and their feet bear witness - - -". Why does an omniscient god need witnesses? He is presumed to know and decide everything himself.

070 37/150b: "- - - witness - - -". This is typical for the Quran; Muhammad demands proofs from everybody not agreeing with him, but he himself evades all questions for proofs - and the only "signs" and "proofs" he presents - and then not when requested - are natural phenomena he simply claims for his god without even one single time proving his god is behind the phenomenon.

071 39/69b: "- - - the witnesses will be brought forward - - -". Why does an omniscient god need witnesses?

072 40/51e: "- - - when the Witness will stand forth - - -". Why does an omniscient god who on top of all predestines all things, need witnesses?

073 41/20: "- - - witness - - -". The Quran never explains why an omniscient good needs witnesses. Any god would have known this was unnecessary.

074 41/22b: "- - - witness - - -". Why does an omniscient god need witnesses?

075 41/53d: "- - - thy (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) doth witness all things - - -". Why then 2/233h above?

076 43/86b: “And those whom they invoke (“gods”, saints*) besides Allah have no power of intercession – only he (has*) who bears witness to the Truth (the Quran*) - - -.” If this all the same refers to Allah (see 43/86a just above), the meaning changes to one more of the many never proved claims in the Quran: Allah is the only one with power. A power he in case never has proved.

Another point: That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact.

And there remains the question about f.x. Yahweh. The Quran admits that this old Jewish and Christian god exists, but wrongly mixes him up with Allah.

077 43/86d: “- - - only he (Allah*) who bears witness to the Truth - - -”. Allah can witness nothing unless he exists - and should he happen to belong to the dark forces, his witness is unreliable.

078 48/8a: “We (Allah*) have truly sent thee (Muhammad*) as a witness - - -”. Is this reliable? - in a book with this much mistakes, invalid statements, “signs” and “proofs”? There is only one possible answer to that: A “witness” bringing so much wrong information and wrong fact, is not sent from an omniscient god. And one may add: A “witness” bringing so much injustice, hate and misery to the world, is not sent by a good and benevolent god. If Muhammad at all was sent, on may speculate about by whom. Personally we hardly believe he was sent by even a devil, though parts of the religion as preached in the Quran fit any devil well. But not even a devil would make a "holy" book with so many mistakes and errors – he would be found out sooner or later.

***But may be a devil knew that mistakes do not matter very much – may be he knew that religiously blind persons are unable to see even the most obvious mistaken facts, because they do not want to see them? Or maybe that was the condition on which the god permitted the book - so that man should have a fair chance to see the trap and avoid Hell?

079 50/21b: (YA4957): “- - - with each will be an (angel (?*)) to drive, and an (angel (?*)) to bear witness.” Several interpretations are possible according to Muslim scholars: 1) It may refer to the 2 angels Islam claims are at your right and left side to note down good and bad deeds (what for id Allah is omniscient?). 2) It may not be angels, but your evil deeds that “drive you like a task-master. 3) “His misused limbs and faculties will drive him to his doom, where his well-used limbs and faculties will witness for him” – to quote “The Meaning of the Holy Quran” exactly. Yes, the language in the Quran is clear and not to be understood - so clear that it is a proof for Allah, because only a god can have written/created it.

080 50/21c: "- - - Witness". Why does an omniscient god need witnesses?

081 56/75b: (A56/26): “Furthermore I call to witness the setting of the stars”. The Arab word “mawqi” – plural “mawaqi” – literally means “the place (or time) where (when) something falls down”. And the Arab word “nudjum” – here called “stars” – also may mean something like “chapters”. “Ergo” and “voila”: A more pious translation: “I call to witness the coming-down in parts (of this Quran)”. Do not omit the possibility that wishful or “correct” thinking may influence interpretation. Here at least are two meanings – though the first one is the most accepted one. But also see 56/75b just below.

082 57/19f: "- - - the witnesses (who testify) in the eyes of their (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". Why does an omniscient god need witnesses testifying???

083 58/6d: "- - - Allah is Witness to all things". Why then does the Quran so often tell about his needing witnesses? And why 2/233h above?

084 63/1g: "- - - and Allah beareth witness that the Hypocrites are indeed liars". There never was a proved case of Allah bearing witness for anything at all.

085 69/38: "So do I (Allah*) call to witness - - -". This is a question never answered in the Quran: Why does an omniscient god need witnesses?

086 73/15d: "- - - a witness (Muhammad*) - - -". But about what could Muhammad witness when the Quran makes it clear that the Quran with all its mistakes, contradictions, etc. was not from a god, and that Muhammad thus had no connection to a god?

087 75/1a: "I (Allah*) call to witness - - -". But why does an omniscient god need witnesses?

088 75/2a: "And I (Allah*) do call to witness - - -". See 75/1 just above.

089 81/15b: "- - - I call to witness - - -". Who is speaking here? It may be Allah - but why do an omniscient, predestining god need witnesses? Or it may be Muhammad - but how can a human speak in a copy of the "mother book" in Heaven, a book which on top of all has to be billions of years old if it is made before the universe or at least before the Earth?

090 83/18-21: “Nay, verily (though this definitely is no proved verity/truth*), the Record of the Righteous is (preserved) in ‘illiyin. And what will explain to thee what ‘illiyin is? (There is a Register (fully) inscribed, to which bear witness those nearest (to Allah).” The omniscient god Allah needs witnesses – and he is not more advanced and omniscient than that everything has to be written down in a good, old-fashioned book.

091 83/21: "- - - witness - - -". Why does a claimed omniscient god need witnesses?

###092 84/15+16: “For his Lord (Allah*) was ever watchful of him (non-Muslim*)! So I (Muhammad*) do call to witness the ruddy glow of Sunset - - -”. A serious one - here it once more is Muhammad who is speaking - in what is said to be the copy of the Mother Book (43/3-4) in Heaven, made of Allah and existed from eternity. How is that possible?

093 85/3+4: "By one that witness, and the subject of the witness - - - Woe to the Makers of the pit (of fire) - - -". See 85/1+4 above.

094 85/9d: "And Allah is Witness to all things". Why then does he need witnesses? And why does he need to test even his followers ( - - - or is it Muhammad who needed an "explanation" for wanting warriors)?

095 90/1-2: (A90/1): “I (Allah?*) do call to witness this City (Mecca?*) – and thou (Muhammad?*) art a freeman of this City - - -.” This is the most common interpretation according to Muslims. But it also is possible to read it like this: “I (Allah or Muhammad*) call to witness this land (may be all the Earth*) in which thou (Muslims or man) are free to dwell - - -“. A clear and distinct language in the Quran?

096 100/7: "And to that (fact (that he is ungrateful to Allah*)) he (non-Muslim*) bears witness (by his (bad according to Muhammad*) deeds - - -". Beware that when the Quran speaks about bad deeds, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

Sub-total Chapter 72 = 96 + 6.368 = 6.464.


>>> 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".