Muhammad in the Quran, Vol. 4: Chapter 87


 

RELIABILITY

Is it a surprise if a claimed prophet - Muhammad - and a religion which permit and themselves use dishonesty as working tools, are not 100% reliable?

  1. Al Taqiyya - the lawful lie.
  2. Kitman - the lawful half-truth.
  3. Hilah - the lawful pretending/circumventing.
  4. Cheating: "To get my riches from Mecca to Medina I must cheat". "Do it", Muhammad said.
  5. Deceit: "To be able to kill him we must use deceit". "Do it", Muhammad said.
  6. Betrayal: "War is betrayal", Muhammad said - and "everything" is war.
  7. Breaking/disuse of your word: Implicated as a weaker case of permitted breaking/disuse of oaths.
  8. Breaking/disuse of your promise: Implicated as a weaker case of permitted breaking/disuse of oaths.
  9. Breaking/disuse of oaths: Verses 2/225, 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok), 5/89, 16/91, 66/2).
  10. Stealing/looting: = Dishonest deeds in all normal moral codes.
  11. Extortion = Dishonest deed in all normal moral codes.
  12. Slave taking (= stealing people's life and future).

As for points 1 - 3 Islam is the only one of the big religions which has such rules for permitted dishonesty. Similar can to a large degree be said about the rest of the points.

Looting simply is a more accepted word - at least in Islam - for stealing, and "spoils of war" a "nicer" word for "stolen things or valuables" - this especially so when the main purpose for an attack is to steal and take captives for extortion or slavery. But stealing is stealing.

How is it possible to rely on a religion you know is not reliable? All the same that is what all believing Muslims do - because their fathers say that is the Truth (though many (3/4) of the new Muslims honestly checking the reliability of Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam, leave the religion within 3 years according to science). Taqlid simply.

In contact with Muslims and with Islam one should remember Islam's rules for lawful dishonesty (especially in religious cases), and what reliability follows from such rules.

A conundrum: Neither the Quran nor Hadiths hide the fact that Muhammad believed in, accepted, and himself used, the use of dishonesty as working tools. They also do not hide that Muhammad wanted respect, power, riches for more power, and women. Such persons normally are little reliable. And the big question here is: How is it possible for Islam and for Muslims never to look seriously into the problem: May such a deceiver also have deceived us? This even more so as his book is so full of wrong facts and other errors, that there has been no god involved in its making.

A few cases:

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

001 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.

##002 2/224e: To quote Asad: "The Message of the Quran", footnote A2/212 (to this verse): "- - - there are several authentic Traditions (= Hadiths*) to the effect that the Prophet Muhammad said: 'If anyone takes a solemn oath (easier ones are little binding*) (that he would do or refrain from doing such-and-such a thing), and thereupon realizes that something else would be a more righteous course (or give better result*)) then let him do what is more righteous (or gives a better result*), and let him break his oath and then atone for it". Definitely not compatible with the Bible.

###003 2/224f: The problems with verse 2/224 - and a few similar verses + some similar Hadiths - of course are for one thing that it never is possible quite to trust a Muslim's (included Muhammad's) word in serious cases - he may see no sin in lying - and for another thing a Muslim has no reasonably reliable way of strengthening his words if he is not believed, no matter if what he says is the full truth. Also see 2/225a below. (That it also contradicts the Bible on this point, is highly unnecessary to say.

#########004 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.

005 3/74a: "For His (Allah's*) Mercy (here = prophethood*) He specially choseth whom He pleaseth - - -". Muhammad claimed that he was not rejected by the Jews because his teaching was wrong, but because he was not a Jew. This verse is a defense against the bad Jews disliking that he was not Jewish - it was for Allah to decide whom to choose for a messenger. (Muhammad's claim was wrong - and it is likely Muhammad knew it, but needed the "explanation" - as the real reason was that there are miles between Islam and the Mosaic - Jewish - religion.

006 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.

####007 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.

####008 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) – a kind of permitted dishonesty included in Islam, but in no other of the major religions. Al-Taqiyya and Kitman 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.

#####009 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 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)), etc.) - 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.

#####010 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, Kitman, and Hilah can be used at least in these cases (for broken oaths, etc., 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.)

###011 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).

###012 5/104f: "Enough for us (non-Muslims*) are the ways we found our fathers following". = We non-Muslims prefer to follow the religion of our fathers. A way of thinking which Muhammad found much wanting - - - but which is just what most Muslims of all times have been and are doing; our parents and our surroundings told this religion was the true one and worthy of blind and unthinking belief, and then we follow their beliefs - as they and others say so, it must be the truth.

###013 5/104g: "'Enough for us (non-Muslims*) are the ways we found our fathers following' What! Even though their fathers were void of knowledge and guidance?". This is exactly the Muslims' position: The reason why they believe in the Quran, is that their parents and everyone else was and is telling them that the tales of Muhammad must be true no matter if Muhammad is reliable or a Baron von Münchausen - a strong and blind belief only.

###014 6/109i: “- - - what will make you (Muslims) realize that (even) if (special) Signs came, they (non-Muslims*) will not believe?” Wrong. If there were real proofs of a god - miracles - at least a good number of people would believe - that is a psychological fact (look f.x. at the Pharaoh’s magicians and at the results of Jesus' miracles). The sentence really is fast-talking to “explain” away why Allah/Muhammad was unable to produce unmistakable proofs for Allah. Worse: An intelligent man like Muhammad knew this argument is a lie - and all the same he used it frequently. This simply is one of the places in the Quran where Muhammad knew he was lying.

###015 6/111a: “Even if We (Allah*) did send unto them (non-Muslims*) angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is Allah’s plan”. This may be understood in two ways – both quite fast talk:

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

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

016 6/112a: "- - - by way of deception". Muhammad Ali here has an interesting comment: "- - - the Prophet (Muhammad*) was asked: 'Are there Satans from among men?' - and he replied, 'Yes, and they are more evil than Satans from among the invisible beings - - -". When one knows about all the inhumanities, immoral parts of the moral code, etc. Muhammad introduced, and when one knows all he demanded and did, one may start thinking from such a piece of information.

017 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.)

018 6/124c: "- - - they (non-Muslims at the time of Muhammad*) say: 'We shall not believe until we receive one (proof*) (exactly) like those received by Allah's messengers". One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 4 reasons - 2 of them unavoidable - for this:

  1. When something is changed, automatically the future is changed.
  2. The laws of chaos will be at work and change things.
  3. The so-called "Butterfly Effect"; "a butterfly flapping its wing in Brazil may cause a storm in China later on" or "a small bump may overturn a big load".
  4. The so-called "Domino Effect": Any change will cause this and this to change, which will cause this and this to change, which will cause this and this to change - - - and so on forever. Also each cause may cause one or more or many changes. And: The Butterfly Effect only may happen, whereas the Domino Effect is unavoidable and inexorable - a main reason why if you in a battle is killed 5 meters from or 5 minutes later than where and when Allah has predestined - not to mention if you die when tilling your fields 50 miles off - unavoidably the entire future of the world is changed. Perhaps not much changed, but multiply it with many billion people through the centuries, and the world is totally changed. And full clairvoyance of course totally impossible - except in occultism, made up legends, and in fairy tales.

This that Allah predestines everything like the Quran claims and states many places, is an essential point, because besides totally removing the free will of man (in spite of the Quran's claims of such free will, or some Muslims' adjusted "partly free will for man" - to adjust the meanings where the texts in the Quran are wrong, is typical for Islam and its Muslims) - it also removes the moral behind Allah's punishing (and rewarding) persons for what they say and do - Allah cannot reward or punish people for things he himself has forced them to say or do, and still expect to be believed when he (Muhammad?) claims to be a good or benevolent or moral or just god. Also see 2/51b and 3/24a above.

And as mentioned above, full predestination also makes prayers to Allah meaningless, as everything already is predestined according to Allah's Plan - a Plan which no prayer ("nobody and nothing") can change.

####019 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 brother 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 "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.

020 8/31d: "- - - these (Muhammad's tales in the Quran*) are nothing but tales of the ancients". Something the skeptics had every right to say, as the tales in the Quran may be absolutely all are taken from older tales well known in Arabia at that time - folklore, tales, legends (even seemingly Biblical stories mostly were not from the Bible, but from legends - that is the real reason why they differ so much from the Bible), and even fairy tales were given some twists and repeated by Muhammad as true stories from his god. No god would need to do this - and if he did, he would not need to take stories only from in and around Arabia, not to mention he would have told them without errors.

021 11/13c: "He forged it (the Quran*)". Already at that time, many thought this. It is impossible to prove it - others (men or perhaps dark forces) may have made it. But what the Quran itself proves 100% - or 110% or more - is that it is not made by a god. No god makes that many and often big mistakes, that many contradictions, that many cases of invalid logic and unclear language, etc. It simply is heresy and slander imbecility to accuse a god for having made this book.

022 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.

023 15/71b: “There are my daughters - - -". Muslim scholars refuse to believe Lot said this. According to the Quran Lot was a prophet (not so in the Bible), and a prophet simply could not say anything like that (it would in case stain the title of "prophet" and thus also Muhammad.)

####"Facts are facts only if we want to believe them - and the other way around". Some reliable religion and scholars!

024 16/38i: “- - - a promise (binding) on Him (Allah*) - - -". The promise of safe return for the 30 man strong peace talk delegation from Khaybar, was binding on Allah's claimed prophet and messenger (Muhammad), too. All the same he murdered them (except one who managed to flee).

#####025 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' (our quotation marks - because 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)?

026 16/38k: “- - - a promise (binding) on Him (Allah*) in Truth (a claim, not a proved fact*), - - -”. What is true in a book full of mistakes?

027 16/91c: "- - - break not your oaths after you have confirmed it". A bit different from in most religions: "Break not your oaths".<(p>

028 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".

029 16/101f: "Thou (Muhammad*) art but a forger - - -". They may have been right - all the mistakes, etc. indicates something bad. The same that most of the stories just are retold with some twists from old Arab folklore, etc.

030 16/102f: “- - - revelations from thy Lord (Allah*) in Truth - - -”. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. With all the mistakes, the revelations told in the Quran, at best are partly true.

031 16/102h: “- - - revelations from thy Lord (Allah*) in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe - - -”. It is a strange way for a religion to strengthen its believers at least partly with wrong and/or not reliable “information”. There are far too many mistakes in the Quran for any sentient educated being with fresh eyes, to believe it is reliable.

032 16/103c: "- - - what they (non-Muslim contemporaries of Muhammad*) say, 'It is a man who teaches him (Muhammad*) - - -". See 16/101d above.

033 16/103e: “’It is a man that teaches him (Muhammad*)’. (But*) The tongue of him they point to (a learned foreigner*) is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear”. The proof is invalid (even if the teacher was a foreigner, Muhammad's retelling would depend on Muhammad's choice of words), and also because the language is not “pure and clean” - Muhammad might have gotten the imported words (100+) from that foreigner. Also see 16/103f just below.

##034 18/11: "Then We (Allah*) drew (a veil) over their ears - - - (so that they heard not) - - -". It takes more than a veil to stop sound and thus hearing - except in fairy tales. (Sorry for being a little sarcastic, but this is a well known, old legend/fairy tale, but Islam and Muslims even today treat it like and pretends it is a true and holy story proving the power of Allah. Well, they have to, because the Quran says the story is true (see 18/13a below), and then it has to be true - if not, something is seriously wrong with the Quran, with Allah, and with Islam, which is a too hard fact to face. And just for the record: This story is not from the Bible.)

035 18/13b: “We (Allah*) relate to thee (Muhammad/Muslims*) their (the 7 sleepers) story in truth: - - -”. As this is a well-known fairy tale/legend, and as the Quran has so many other mistakes, carefully said: At best it is only partly the truth. But note that it is stressed that the story is the truth - not an allegory, not made up, but the truth.. A fairy tale = the claimed truth = irony.

##036 18/61a: "- - - their (Moses' and his attendant's*) Fish, which took its course through the sea (straight) as in a tunnel". Here Yusuf Ali has used a rather "free" translation, perhaps to avoid some unbelievable text. The correct Arab text is (translated from Swedish (A18/69 - the English 2008 edition has omitted most of it): "(the fish) found its way to the sea by digging (burrowing) its way to it". Some fish! - and the translations tells something about how reliable some Islamic texts are when the Quran is difficult to believe.

037 18/63c: "I (Moses' servant*) did indeed forget (about) the fish - - -". A likely story: He saw a fish brought for food (= a dead fish) making its way from a rock by digging its way to the sea and then through the sea and forgot to tell about it. Nobody would forget to do that. = a made up claim - a lie.

038 18/86b: (A84 – in 2008 edition A85): “Until, when he (Dhu'l Quarnayn/Alexander the Great*) reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water”. In this case A. Yusuf Ali – like mostly – has a correct translation. The Arab word “ayn” normally means a spring. Muslims has a tendency to claim that “many philologists” also tell it can mean “abundance of water”, “a large body of water” or similar. This even though if he had seen even a murky Pacific Ocean, it only had been a tea-spoon compared to the real size of the sun - far, far too Small. Not to mention that the real sun is far, far too hot close up. Then they - “forgetting” the word “murky” (there exist no murky ocean and hardly any murky really big lake in the area) - happily go on to explain that he must have seen the reflecting of the sun in the sea or ocean, a sight Alexander had seen hundreds of times before and never had mistaken for what he was looking for according to the Quran. When religious people have to choose between truth, reality and religious “Truth”, both truth and reality can walk west singing a song. Here the text is clear – but Muslims make up other meanings to flee from an obvious mistake in the Quran. It is not the only place in the book.

039 18/93b: "Until, when he (Alexander the Great*) reached (a tract) between two mountains - - -". Nobody knows where this tract was. And worse: If it had existed, closing in the two big tribes Gog and Magog until the Day of Doom like the Quran and the Hadiths tell, it had been found by now - we know every square yard of the globe, not to mention that part of Asia. This story is a made up one unless Islam proves the opposite.

040 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".

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

#### 041 19/19b: "- - - a holy son (Jesus*)". HERE THE QURAN CONFIRMS THAT JESUS WAS HOLY AND THUS RELATED TO WHAT IS HOLY = THE GOD. THAT HE WAS HOLY ALSO CONFIRMS THAT HE WAS SOMETHING MORE THAN A NORMAL MAN. AND NOT LEAST JUST HERE, THAT HE WAS SOMETHING MORE THAN MUHAMMAD, WHO HIMSELF SEVERAL TIMES ADMITTED AND EVEN STATED THAT HE JUST WAS AN ORDINARY HUMAN.

Muhammad very far from was anything holy.

### Muhammad/the Quran are not reliable, but if they are not lying here, it is impossible that Muhammad was a greater prophet than Jesus - a mere human impossible can be greater than someone holy. And as Muhammad quoted also hit verse, he knew he was dishonest/lying when he claimed to be the greatest.

A L S O S E E 19/33b A N D 66/12c B E L O W !!!!

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

042 19/22-27: The birth of Jesus. This tale strongly contradicts the Bible on most points and is very different from what is told there about his birth. Actually what is told in the Quran, is from an apocryphal - made up - "gospel", the so-called "proto gospel after (some*) Mathew.

###043 19/24+25: "But (a voice) (the new-born baby Jesus*) cried from beneath the (palm-tree): ’Grieve not! For thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee; ’And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree (normally date palms are some 20 inches/50 cm or more wide and strong – impossible for a human to shake*): it will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee”. This story is “borrowed” from chapter 20 in an apocryphal – made up - “proto gospel” said to be after some Mathew. “Borrowed” by Muhammad or Allah, but presumably sent down as a true story copied from the Mother Book in Heaven. Believe this if you want. There are few if any original stories in the Quran - mostly they are “borrowed” from different sources, but often changed a little to fit Muhammad's teaching. In this special case one also finds the story in “The Childbirth of Mary and the Salvador’s Childhood” if we remember the name correctly, and it has perhaps entered the Quran via “The Arab Childhood Gospel” (source; among others Ibn Warraq). As said before: Muhammad took stories from such fairy tales, and then accused the Bible of being falsified when it did not tell the same made up legends and tales. But no newborn baby is able to think rationally or to speak fluently - if it had really happened, it had to be a miracle, and there is no chance that it had been forgotten in NT, as it had strengthened Jesus' connection to something supernatural quite a lot.

###044 19/26a: "- - - say, "I have vowed to fast to (Allah*) Most Gracious, and this day will I (Mary*) enter into no talk with any human being". (A19/20 - in English 2008 edition A19/19) tells that the literal meaning is: "Say, 'Behold, abstinence from speech have I (Mary*) vowed unto the Most Gracious (Allah*); hence I may not speak today to any mortal'". But if she had given such a vow, she could not say this, because then she would be speaking to a mortal. Because of this, Muhammad Asad here explains that since her saying this would contradict the given vow, the text had to be changed a little (so that Jesus said this)(!!). Abdullah Muhammad Ali indicates that the vow had not yet taken effect, Muhammad Ali that she should not say it, but tell so by gestures - though how tell this with gestures?

But the really interesting point here is the underlying clear message, told matter-of-factly and without the slightest blushing - an everyday fact really: If there are mistakes - here a clear internal contradiction - in the Quran, it is ok for mere mortal humans to correct the claimed omniscient, but bumbling god who on top of all tells in the Quran that his words are easy to understand and are to be understood literally if nothing else is said (see f.x. 3/7b+c, 11/1b, 16/103b, 18/1c+d+e, 18/1-2, 18/2a above and 19/97, 26/2a, 27/1a+b+c, 28/2, 41/3, 43/2, 44/2, 44/58, 54/17, 54/32 below) by simply "adjusting" the text so that the mistake seems to disappear. And then tell that there are no mistakes in the Quran - down to the last comma!! (The comma did not even exist in Arab when the Quran was written).

####How much is "adjusted" in the Quran?

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

045 19/33b: "- - - the day I (Jesus*) die, and the day I shall be raised up to life (again) - - -". Here Islam has a problem: They claim he did not die on the cross, but was taken up to the god alive. How come that he then here foresees his death - and his resurrection?? (NB: No matter if Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, or was taken up to Heaven alive, it proves his connection to something supernatural (if true). No such proof exists neither for Allah, nor for Muhammad.) But if he did not die, but was taken up alive, he did not die, and then something is wrong here - here or in other never proved claims.

NB: Whether Jesus died and was resurrected and afterwards taken up to Heaven alive, or just was taken up to Heaven alive, this proves he had a special connection to the god. For Muhammad there never was any kind of proof, only claims. Who then likely was the greatest prophet? - especially as Muhammad even was unable to make prophesies - "see the unseen"?

Conclusion: If Jesus did not die, but was taken up to Heaven alive, the Quran is wrong here. If he died, was resurrected, and then was taken up to heaven alive, the Bible is right, whereas the Quran also in this case is wrong. In both cases: If the story is true, it proves that Jesus had connection to a supernatural god. Muhammad was never able to prove anything at all about his central claims, included any connection to a god. There is little doubt (if the old books tell the truth) who of the two, Jesus and Muhammad, had best contact with the god - if Muhammad had any such contact at all.

Also see 19/19b above and 66/12c below.

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

046 19/34c: "- - - Jesus the son of Mary - - -". See 5/110a above.

047 19/58f: "- - - they (the old Jewish prophets*) would fall down in prostration (indicated to Allah*) and tears". As Allah had no connections to the Jewish prophets, also this part of the claim is untrue according to the Bible. And not least according to history: We know strongly from history that the god of the Jews was Yahweh, and nothing like Allah was involved.

This is one of Muhammad's bluffs, if Islam does not prove - prove - differently. There are quite a number of bluffs - f.x. never proved claims or statements - in the Quran. Many are very easy to see, as they in addition to not be proved, give wrong information, something no omniscient god had done.

Remember that also bluffs are a kind of lie.

048 19/66: "What! When I (a man*) am dead, shall I then be raised alive". A second life was hardly a surprise for an old Arab - if they were not strong in that belief themselves, they knew other religions were. But Muhammad claimed regeneration in body, which is a bit much. (But as the Muslim Paradise mainly has bodily pleasures, a bodily resurrection is necessary.)

049 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.)

050 21/2c: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) listened to it (the Quran*) as in jest - - -". There may have been good reason for this for people knowing the Jewish scriptures and the Bible and thus saw the differences between what Muhammad told the old books said and what they really said - especially as they most likely knew the same old legends, fairy tales, etc. as Muhammad did, and understood from where he got his tales.

051 21/5b: "- - - (these (Muhammad's teachings*) are) medleys of dreams!" This may be the real truth if Muhammad's claimed visions in reality were results of f.x. TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) like modern medical science strongly suspects. TLE can give religious hallucinations like this - and then he perhaps added some when he was in thigh spots or wanted something. (It is clear that at least some places he had to know he was lying.)

052 21/5c: "- - - he (Muhammad*) forged it (the Quran*)!" Also this is a real possibility - perhaps the most likely one. The many cases where Allah(?) supported his personal needs and his hunting for power and for that chase for women (f.x. Zaid's wife) may point to this - there are so many "prophets" through the times who have used similar methods like Muhammad, though the military power of the united Arab tribes gave him/his successors more success than the others - with a partly (but only partly) exception for Indonesia, Islam’s expansion was built on war and then suppression (or worse) afterwards of the ones who refused to become Muslims.

*053 21/31c: “And We (Allah*) have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them - - -”. Experts on Islam and the Quran say this refers to that the disk which is the Earth (in the Quran the Earth is flat, but perhaps a round disk) might shake and become unstable, and because of this may slip away or tip around and drop everything - included humanity - off the Earth.

We refer to some Muslim scholars: Jalalan, (p. 437), Baydawi (p. 686), Tabari (p.589), and Zamakhshari (part 4, p. 381): They all tell that “if it was not for these unshakable (!!*) mountains, the earth would slip away.”(!!!*)

###*And Jalalan, Baydawi, and Zamakhshari all say that “- - - He (Allah*) placed unshakable mountains (not more so than that they shake during earthquakes*) on Earth lest it tilts with people.” This obviously is what the Quran really meant, and this even more obviously was the meaning Muhammad told his followers, as it is what the learned Muslim scholars were sure was the truth.

But this “truth” is so ridiculous, that let us go on to the alternative explanation – the one that is in vogue in Islam now that they know the original “truth” was wrong: That the mountains hinder earth-quakes.

That is not correct. Well, it is so far from the truth, that it is not even wrong - it is sometimes the opposite of the truth:

  1. According to f.x. heavyweights like “New Scientist” and “Nature” mountains sometimes can CAUSE earthquakes because of their considerable weight and pressure on the underground. Yes, even variations in the amount of water (= weight) in big mountain lakes or glaciers sometimes causes minor and medium earthquakes. The same goes for heavy snow-falls in the mountains sometimes – snow in the mountains and rain lower down is a normal phenomenon = imbalance in weight. (There f.x. are more earthquakes in the north in winter than in summer).
  2. *It is well known today that mountains are made because of tectonic activity (this always causes earthquakes - though sometimes too feeble for human so feel) or volcanic activity which often causes earthquakes. This means that mountains in reality are made by earthquakes (or actually by the same mechanisms which make most earthquakes), it does not hinder such quakes. Any god had known this, but Muhammad not - this is new knowledge to humans. Then who composed the Quran?
  3. Also volcanism is closely connected to earth quakes. Volcanism also in many cases is connected to tectonic activity - there thus are connections between the two mechanisms for mountain building - and for earthquakes. Tectonic activity makes it easier for lava to break through to the surface - as seen f.x. in "the Ring of Fire" around the Pacific.

Also see 15/19 – 16/15 – 31/10b – 41/10

054 21/50a: "- - - this (the Quran*) is a blessed message - - -". A war "gospel" spiced with may be 3ooo mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, etc. + partly immoral rules for ethics, moral and laws, is not blessed. At least not by any good and benevolent god.

##055 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.

056 21/82a: “And of the evil ones it was some who (worked for him = Solomon*) - - -“. Islam will have to bring strong proofs for this. There were plenty of legends and fairy tales in Arabia like this which Muhammad could “borrow” stories from, but never any proved case of any jinn really working for anyone. It also in no case had been omitted from the Bible if it had been true - it had glorified Solomon far too much to be left out of the book. UNLESS VERY STRONG PROOFS, THIS IS A MADE UP FAIRY TALE - and "strong claims need strong proofs".

057 22/8a: "- - - there is among men such a one who disputes about Allah - - -". Some of them because they already at that time saw that something was very wrong in this new religion - f.x. that Muhammad's references to the Bible often were wrong, sometimes horribly wrong. Quite likely some even recognized the real sources - apocryphal (made up) scriptures, legends, and fairy tales - for his tales.

058 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 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.

059 24/11-16: This refers to the incident with Aisha - Muhammad’s child wife - and a young man. The slander afterwards was not an obvious lie like Muhammad later liked to claim. That it was not obvious - something also his own initial reaction clearly demonstrated - was and is so obvious that it is clear an intelligent man like Muhammad knew he was not telling the truth when he said it was obvious. (He used many days to decide to believe her.) Also they were not really proved innocent - there only were some convenient verses in the Quran some weeks later, and the Quran far from is reliable. (But there is a fair chance that the two told the truth). Also see 24/11b above.

Muhammad in this case definitely did not behave like a gentleman, and it is very unlikely that his behavior did not "put wood to the fire" and provoke more and/or stronger slander. Not the right man to blame others for bad conduct.

The story also tells not a little about the person Muhammad.

060 25/4e: “But the Misbelievers say: ’Naught is this but a lie which he has forged, and others have helped him at it.’ In truth it is they who have put forward an iniquity and a falsehood”. With the many mistakes in the Quran, it is a very open question if it is the misbelievers who have put forward a falsehood. It might even be Muhammad. The Quran at least is not from an omniscient god - too many mistakes, etc. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

061 25/75b: "- - - the highest place in heaven - - -". In the Islamic Heaven there are many levels. As far as we understand the common people - medium good Muslims - stay in the lowest heaven, whereas the higher heavens are shared among extra good Muslims, and the better Muslim the higher heaven and the nearer Allah. A somewhat good Muslim like Jesus ends in 2. heaven f.x. (he is the main competitor to Muhammad and has to be reduced - 19/19 confirms that Jesus was holy, something Muhammad was not, but all the same Muhammad wanted to be the greatest), whereas the thief/robber, womanizer, rapist, enslaver, murderer, liar, deceiver (all according to the Quran, Hadiths, etc.) and a lot more, Muhammad, of course ends in the 7. and best heaven. Also the 1. heaven is split in good, better, best - at least 4 "gardens", may be 6 or more. Different from f.x. the Christian one to say the least of it. The same god do you believe?

062 26/2b: “These are verses of the Book that makes (things) clear.” A book with so many mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, so much unclear language, etc., makes very little clear in reality.

###063 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 is rubbish, 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, it is advised if it gives a better effect. How much in the Muslim scholars' arguments are al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) or Kitmans (lawful half-truths) like this? (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

These are so well known facts, 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 are lies? Not to mention: Is there any reliability left concerning that religion?

###064 26/46-47: "Then did the sorcerers fall down, prostrate in adoration, Saying 'We believe in the Lord of the Worlds - - -". For one thing this is not from the Bible. But much more serious in this connection is that #######this is one of the proofs for that Muhammad knew he was lying each time he explained away his inability to produce any miracle as a proof for his god and for his own connection to a god, with that Allah did not want because it would make no-one believe in Allah anyhow. Here Muhammad is telling - early in his career and before many of those "explaining" away - about a minor miracle which made all those sorcerers suddenly become ardent believers in just Allah. Also see 26/51 below.

###065 26/51: "Only, our (the sorcerers*) desire is that our Lord (Allah) will forgive us our faults, that we may become foremost among the Believers". For one thing this is not from the Bible. For another thing it is a contradiction to reality - one knows there was no religion like Islam in Egypt around 1235 BC when the Exodus happened according to science - if it happened.#######BUT THE MOST SERIOUS POINT HERE IS THAT MUHAMMAD CLAIMS THAT THE SORCERERS BECAME EAGER MUSLIMS BECAUSE OF MINOR MIRACLES PERFORMED BY MOSES. THIS WAS AS EARLY AS 615 OR 616 AD. T H I S P R O V E S T H A T M U H A M M A D A T L E A S T L A T E R K N E W H E W A S L Y I N G E A C H T I M E H E C L A I M E D T H A T T H E R E A S O N F O R T H A T A L L A H D I D N O T U S E M I R A C L E S O R O T H E R R E A L P R O O F S, W A S T H A T I T W O U L D N O T M A K E A N Y B O D Y B E L I V E A N Y H O W !!!!!!!

Also see 26/46-47 above.

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

066 26/109a: "No reward do I (Noah*)ask of you (people*) for it (my preaching*) - - -". Another - and wrong - of Muhammad's mantras - see 26/108 just above. Muhammad also demanded much from his followers’ obedience, respect, women, riches for bribes and women, and total power.

067 27/15 - 28: The story about Solomon and the bird (hoopoe) has nothing to do with the Bible, but is "borrowed" from a "fairy tale" ("The second Targum of Ester"). If it had been true, you bet the Jews had not forgotten to include it in their books to praise their hero king Solomon. See 27/16-44 shortly below.

##068 27/19a: “So he (Solomon) smiled at her (the ant's*) speech - - -”. Wrong. See 27/16b and 27/18a above. It would be impossible for Solomon to hear what the ant also could not pronounce – also because if it could speak and if it could speak loud enough for us to hear, the diminutive size of an ant also would make the words far too high-pitched for our ear to register. Besides ants do not have organs making it possible for them to vocalize - and not large enough brain to compose coherent speech.

##069 27/19a: “So he (Solomon) smiled at her (the ant's*) speech - - -”. Wrong. See 27/16b and 27/18a above. It would be impossible for Solomon to hear what the ant also could not pronounce – also because if it could speak and if it could speak loud enough for us to hear, the diminutive size of an ant also would make the words far too high-pitched for our ear to register. Besides ants do not have organs making it possible for them to vocalize - and not large enough brain to compose coherent speech.

070 27/38b: “Ye Chiefs! Which of you can bring me her throne before they come to me in surrender.” Here we have a small tit-bit. As far as we can find out, this is the correct translation of the Arab text. But this is not logical - see 27/38a just above. A small change eliminates the problem in the "clear text in the Quran": Some instead use "surrender to Allah" even though "to Allah" is not in the Arab text, or "submission" - a word easier to associate with religion. Voila!!

"The Religion of Truth"! "The Religion of Honesty"!

071 27/44c: “- - - she (the Queen of Sabah*) thought it (the floor*) was a lake of water (though it was slabs of glass) - - -“.

  1. They did not have the technology to make that quality of glass ca. 1000 BC.
  2. They did not have the technology to make big slabs – and they had to be really big not to notice at once the cracks between the slabs - of glass ca. 1000 BC. Even today it is difficult, as it needs months of very exact and slow cooling for big slabs not to crack. (Cfr. the making of large astronomical telescopes).

Contradicted by historical and technical facts. Simply nonsense. If you know something about glass and about its history, you get a good laugh here.

072 27/86d: "Verily, in this are Signs for any people that believe". There is an irony in claiming that here are in verity signs, when they use "signs" which are not verified, and thus invalid as proofs. Islam often does this or similar.

073 28/49f: "- - - if ye (opponents*) are truthful!" It is remarkable that Muhammad demanded truthful speech from others, but he himself sometimes used lies, deceit, and even broken oaths.

Or perhaps just that is not remarkable.

##074 28/63: "Those whom we (non-Muslims*) lead astray, as we were astray ourselves - - -”.

Comment A28/66: “In its deepest sense, this passage – as so many similar throughout the Quran – points to the moral inadmissibility of accepting an ethical or intellectual proposition as true on no other grounds than that is was held to be true for older generations.”

For members of a religion based only – only – on a book with many mistakes and wrongs and with partly malevolent moral and ethical rules (but so integrated and accepted in and by their religion and culture, that they themselves are unable to see anything wrong or how bad it really is), this should be a reason for some deep thinking, and especially for Muslims, where the ONLY basis was a man of very doubtful moral even according to the Quran (f.x. acceptance and personally use of dishonesty as working tools and of dishonesty - stealing/robbing/extortion - to get riches, and with much power (and women) to gain from making people believe in his god and platform of power).

#######Most Muslims today believe in Islam only because their fathers and surroundings tell them that the Quran is the truth, no matter how many errors one have to explain away - taqlid. VERY FEW MUSLIMS HAVE SAT DOWN WITH THE QURAN AND ENGAGED THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND BRAIN AND WITH AN OPEN MIND TRIED TO FIND OUT: HOW MUCH OF THIS IS REALLY TRUE? - OR AT LEAST MAY BE TRUE? Not to mention: HOW RELIABLE WAS A MAN WITH A MORAL CODE LIKE THE ONE THE QURAN CLEARLY - IF YOU LOOK BEHIND THE GLORIFICATIONS - TELLS MUHAMMAD HAD?

075 29/48c: "- - - in that case (if Muhammad could read and write*), indeed, would talkers of vanities have doubted (in his tales*)". Many did - and looking at all the mistakes in his stories, they had plenty of reasons for doubt. There are reasons for suspecting dishonesty behind the claim that Muhammad could not read or write. Some quotes in the Quran and in Hadiths may indicate that he knew this, and the same do his social standing and business standing.

Also the argument that Muhammad could not have made up the Quran - or verses - because one claims he could not read or write, is nonsense. It always is the brain and not the pen which makes up tales - and Muhammad had a brain. Actually the use of invalid arguments - like this - tell for one thing that Islam has no better arguments (if they had, they had used those instead), and for another that they feel they need proofs for Islam and its claimed truths.

076 29/49c: "- - - Signs self-evident - - -". It may be impolite to mention it, but even today Muslims have to resort to arguments of this quality - a proof for that they have very little of real arguments, and no real proofs. We may add that the only signs which would be self evident proofs for a supernatural being, would be a supernatural evidence. There is not one single supernatural evidence connected to neither Islam nor to Muhammad, and this also is admitted by Islam, with the exception that they claim that the claimed delivery of the Quran was supernatural.

077 29/51b: "And is it not enough for them (non-Muslims*) that We (Allah*) have sent down to thee (Muhammad*) the Book - - -". (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.) Comment (A29/50): "I.e., 'are the contents of this revelation not enough for them (the skeptics*) to make them grasp its intrinsic truth without help of 'miraculous proofs' of its divine origin?'" This is logical nonsense on the same level as 29/48b above - and even more so when one remembers all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran.

It also tells a lot about what arguments and proofs Muslims and Islam have, when they are forced to stoop to this kind of claims/arguments - especially when you know the real quality of the Quran.

078 32/2b: “(This is) the revelation of the Book (the Quran*) in which there is no doubt - - -.” And all the same Islam and Muslims doubt very much of its words and tell that this and this and this must be allegories - - - especially if it is the only way to explain away errors.

079 32/13e: "- - - true - - -". See 2/2b, 13/1g, and 40/45 above. Especially words like "true" and other absolutes in reality often only are claims.

080 32/13h: "- - - the Word from Me (Allah*) will come true - - -". There never on this side of Adam was a proved case of Allah's word coming true, and definitely not a case where it provably came true as a result of Allah's decision or deed.

081 33/70c: "- - - (always) say a word directed to the Right". The Arab word here translated with "the Right", is a word meaning "exactly correct" - true, relevant for the point, and straight to the point. ####Remember that this is how the Quran demands things should be said - and several places in the book says is how things are said in the Quran - , when they try to explain away mistakes, etc, by claiming it is an analogy or something - a very normal "explaining away" for Muslims to use. #####Not to mention the times Muhammad lies in the Quran or advices the use of dishonesty as working tools.

082 34/8a: "Has he (Muhammad*) invented falsehood - - ?" Already at that time there were persons seeing there were reasons for suspicion - but then Muhammad grew military too strong.

#083 34/8c: "- - - has a spirit (sized) him (Muhammad*)?" This question was and is more relevant than you should believe, because in the old days when someone lost his mind or turned crazy - more or less - one many places believed he/she had been invaded by a bad spirit. This expression thus means they thought there was something wrong with his brain - - - and modern medical science strongly suspects Muhammad had the mental decease TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) - an illness which can give just such fits and traumas/religious "experiences" like it is told Muhammad got. If this is the case, this is a good partial explanation for why and how the Quran was made up (the rest easily may be his lust for power, honor and women).

084 34/12b: “And to Solomon (We (Allah*) made) the Wind (obedient) - - -.” Islam will have to prove that this is not just one more story “borrowed” from a legend/fairy tale. (It is not from the Bible, and is sure the Jews had mentioned this - to glorify their great king - if it had been true).

##085 34/14b: “Then, when We (Allah*) decreed (Solomon’s) death, nothing showed them (see 34/14a just above) his death, except a little worm from the earth, which kept (slowly) gnawing away his staff; so when he fell down - - -”. Wrong: It would take days or more for a small worm to weaken the staff enough for Solomon to fall - may be weeks.

  1. A mighty king sitting not mowing for too long, would after some time be addressed by his servants.
  2. A mighty king not talking for a long enough while, would be addressed by his servants.
  3. A mighty king not taking care of his duties and his visitors for a long enough while, would be addressed by his servants.
  4. A mighty king not going to bed in the evening, would be addressed by his servants.
  5. Rigor mortis (the only possible, but highly unlikely reason for the situation) takes time to start – and it disappears. If not for other reasons, he would fall because of that long before a small worm had the time to weaken the staff.
  6. In the climate of Jerusalem - even in winter (when there after all would be a fire) - his body would start decomposing. Everyone had to notice that.

A fairy tale simply. Even Islam admits that this is from an Arab legend (A34/20).

086 34/29d: "- - - if ye (Muhammad*) are telling the truth?". Muhammad's message was the Quran. See 13/1g above and 40/75 below. People did not quite trust him.

087 34/43e: "This (Islam*) is only a falsehood invented". Many did not believe in Muhammad from the very beginning - some believed in other gods, and some saw there were reasons for disbelief. But over some years Muhammad became too powerful.

088 34/47c: "- - - my (Muhammad's*) reward is only due from Allah - - -". Hypocrisy. When he grew in power, he lived a good life - not really rich, but reasonably well off (and with enough riches to feed all his women). You will meet Muslims telling how poor he was when he died - it is a Kitman (a lawful half-truth). When he died he had estates in Mecca, Fadaq and Khaybar. The false rumor about his poverty emerged from the fact that he had decided that his riches should follow the religious establishment. Because of that there exists a short list over some personal belongings, which many Muslims claim - and often honestly believe - was everything left after him. (They even forget the fact also Islamic literature mentions, that his daughter Fatima for the rest of her short life (and her husband Ali afterwards) quarreled with the first caliph, Abu Bakr, because she demanded the inheritance after her father).

#####089 34/50b: “If I (Muhammad*) am astray, I only stray to the loss of my own soul - - -.” Wrong to at least the 9. power (as there are better than a billion Muslims – or the 10. power or more if you reckon the ones through the times). If Muhammad was astray – ALL believing Muslims are astray – and all the mistaken facts, contradictions, invalid logic, etc., tell an ominous tale. The Quran also is contradicted 100% by any religious knowledge and by logic. ONE MORE PLACE WHERE AN INTELLIGENT MAN LIKE MUHAMMAD HAD TO KNOW HE WAS LYING, BECAUSE THE LOGIC IS WRONG.

#####090 34/50c: “If I (Muhammad*) am astray, I only stray to the loss of my own soul - - -“.  This is utmost and extremely wrong – if Muhammad was astray (and too much point in that direction) it is to the loss of each and every Muslim’s soul. Because then Islam is a false religion. Also see 34/50a just above.

091 37/15c: "This (the Quran*) is nothing but evident sorcery!". "Sorcery" hardly is the correct word, but perhaps "fantasy".

#092 38/1b: “- - - by the Quran, full of Admonition: (this is the Truth)." Sentences in the Quran starting with "by" normally are oaths. Here Allah or Muhammad is swearing by the Quran that the Quran is the truth. For one thing circular proofs are logically invalid. For another: What is an oath by a book full of mistakes worth? But doing it, tells something about the one who is swearing. It also is one more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion: In the Quran swearing mostly is ok. In the Bible you preferably shall not swear at all (Matt. 5/34), and if you all the same do it, you are obliged to keep your word - whereas in the Quran to break an oath if that gives a better result, is not too bad, yes, even laudable in special cases (2/225a, 5/89a+b, 16/91e, 16/92a+b, 66/2a).

093 38/4d: "And the Unbelievers say, 'This is a sorcerer telling lies!". Already at that time there were many who saw that at least parts of the Quran could not be true.

094 38/69a: "No knowledge have I (Muhammad*) - - -". When one looks at the sorry quality of the Quran, and at all these mistakes, contradictions, etc. in the book, one is tempted to agree on this.

095 39/2e: “(Allah has*) revealed the Book (the Quran*) to thee (Muhammad*) in Truth“. Can it really be the truth that Allah has sent down a book like this, with so many errors? - see 2/2b, 13/1g, and 40/75 above. In that case Allah cannot be omniscient. Something is wrong. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

##096 40/75: “- - - the Truth (the Quran*) - - -”. To repeat things:

  1. The Quran contains at least - at least - some 500 points where Islam/Muslim scholars confirm the texts are not clear or even not possible to understand surely - one has to guess.

  2. The Quran contains more than 1750 places with wrong facts. Add the ones we have overlooked (some more we have found during the work with this book will be added - perhaps 250 new ones? - 2ooo all together?) + all the other kinds of mistakes and other types of wrongs and you may have some 3000 or more places with mistaken facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. in one single book.
  3. The Quran in addition contains at least 200+ “most likely“ wrong facts.
  4. The Quran is likely to contain more mistaken facts we have not seen.
  5. The Quran contains lots of invalid “signs” claiming to be indicating or “proving” Allah/Islam. The use of invalid arguments is the hallmark of cheats.
  6. The Quran contains a number of invalid “proofs,” pretending to indicate or “prove” Allah/Islam. The use of invalid “signs” and “proofs” are strong hallmarks for cheats, swindlers, and deluders.
  7. The Quran contains a huge number of claims and statements taken from thin air or resting on other invalid claims, statements, “signs”, or “proofs”. The use of such invalid arguments and cheap words is the hallmark of cheats and deceivers.
  8. There is not one single statement, “sign” or “proof” in the Quran which really proves Allah - they without exception are logically invalid, mostly because it is not first proved that it really is Allah who is behind them. There are a few taken from the Bible that may indicate a god - not Allah, but a god. But the Bible talks about Yahweh, not about Allah (and the teachings are fundamentally so different - see 29/46 - that in spite of what the Quran and Hadith say, Allah is not the same god as the one the Bible and Jesus told about - not unless he is schizophrenic.)
  9. The Arab Quran contains more than 100 linguistic mistakes according to linguists.
  10. The Quran is said to be pure Arabic. It contains a lot of non-Arabic words. We have seen different numbers, but perhaps 275 different words according to Arthur Jeffries (the word Quran is said to be one of them). For the story these are not serious, but they are mistakes compared to what the Quran says, and the Quran pretends to be perfect and without mistakes - sent down from an omniscient god. Islam has an explanation, though: Arabs has used the foreign words and made them Arab. A Negro does not become an Arab even if he moves to Arabia. A very practical way of making something look true only.
  11. The Quran contains at least ca. 400 contradictions.
  12. The Quran contains at very least 400+ places where the original Arab text is so unclear that it is impossible to be sure what is really meant.
  13. The Quran contains lots and lots and lots of places where the text is unclear - this is openly admitted also by Muslim scholar (you will find it in any reasonably thorough book explaining Quranic texts).

The Quran at best is partly true. There are very good reasons for doubt and skepticism.

It is also told that the Quran is a copy of a revered “Mother Book” in the Heaven of Allah. This has to be wrong. An omnipotent god impossibly can have revered - not kept as a funny curiosum, but revered!! - a book with that many mistakes and contradictions, that number of loose and without value claims and statements, not to mention all the invalid “signs” and “proofs”- hallmarks of an imbecile or a cheat or deceiver. Besides: The other 124ooo+ earlier prophets (or at least many of them) according to Islam received a similar copy of the Mother Book. Pretend you were the prophets Hud or Salih living at least 2000 years before Muhammad (because Moses spoke about them according to the Quran, and he lived (?) some 2000 years before Muhammad - Hud and Salih consequently must have lived before that), or that you were one of the Indian prophets in the Americas before 1492 AD – or in the Arctic or in Australia 100 years before Botany Bay – the Quran and Islam claims that all people have had prophets. Then read the Quran and see how much you would understand and how much not – even words like cows, sheep, goats, camels, ships, coats of mail, and a number of other words – what did they mean in South America or Australia? And how much is irrelevant? – f.x. Muhammad’s family problems, all the facts and happenings relevant mostly for Arabia, etc.

Read the Quran with that in your mind – and weep.

Would a god make or revere or use copies of such a claimed timeless and unchangeable book for his prophets through all times and all over the world? – Remember we here talk about the perfect and timeless Mother Book that the Quran and all other not falsified books sent down to the prophets all over the world from Adam to Muhammad are exact copies of. This in spite of that Islam explains that the reason for new prophets and new scriptures were that time changed, so the scriptures had to be changed a little - how to change perfect copies of the one and perfect Mother Book?

Similar can be said about words like "surely", "verily", etc. They are claims, not verified facts. Also see 67/9c - a strong one - and as for contradictions to the Bible also 40/20b.

097 41/3c: “A Book (the Quran*) whereof the verses are explained in detail - - -.” Oh, no! They are not explained in detail, according to Islam and Muslims – they are allegories with the meaning hidden, or with a very different meaning, so "we" must explain it", - - - especially if that is the only way to “explain” away errors and mistakes. Also see 3/7 and 11/1 and 41/3b above and 41/3d below.

098 42/23g: "No reward do I (Muhammad*) ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin". Well, except 20% of all stolen goods and enslaved people - 100% if they gave in without a fight - 2.5% (average) of all your belongings each and every year in tax (though it is likely Muhammad used little or nothing of just this point personally), plenty of women and undisputed and total power over you, + lots of warriors to fight and may be die for me, among other things. One of the in reality most and strongest contradicted and abrogated by reality verse in all the Quran. Good propaganda towards followers unable to think for themselves.

Two words: Hypocrisy. Dishonesty.

One of the places where Muhammad knew he was lying in the Quran.

099 42/24g: "And Allah - - - proves the Truth by His Words". Muhammad's literal meaning here is that the words of the Quran are of such a quality, that only a god can have uttered them. Muslims and Islam claim the same today - and are as wrong as Muhammad: The linguistics are ok because it was polished by Islam's best brains for some 250 years before the final prototypes were ready around 900 AD, but on most of the other points the Quran really is of miserable quality, and no god ever was involved in a book - not to mention a claimed holy book - of that level.

Besides: That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. It also is proved at least partly wrong.

And not least: Nobody uses this kind of arguments and "proof" if they have valid arguments and/or proofs. It simply is fast talk. At very best a so-called circular proof: The words are claimed to be the truth, and then the claimed truth proves the words which proves the truth which proves the words - - -. Circular proofs are by definition invalid.

100 42/24h: "And Allah - - - proves the Truth by His Words". As long as Allah is unable to prove they really are his words, the words from a man with a moral like shown (NB: Notice that we say "shown", not "claimed") in the Quran and other central Islamic literature, carry no weight as proofs, as long as they are not backed by real proofs - words are too cheap).

###101 42/24j: “And Allah - - - proves the Truth by His Words.” Muhammad was asked many times to prove his - or presumably Allah’s - words, but he never did, and seemed never to be able to, this even more so, as f.x. some of his “explanations” for why he never could prove anything, an intelligent man like him knew were lies (f.x. that real miracles would make no-one believe anyhow). And the words of the Quran prove not a thing, among other reasons because:

  1. Far too many mistakes pretending to be facts. (Swindle?)
  2. Far too many loose statements pretending to be facts. (Swindle?)
  3. Far too many invalid “signs” pretending to be documentation. (Swindle?)
  4. Far too many invalid or even wrong "proofs" pretending to be documentation. (Swindle?)
  5. Some obvious lies – f.x. that miracles would make no-one believe, or that Muhammad wanted no payment (in spite of what Islam and Muslims claim, Muhammad was well off when he died - estates in Mecca, Medina, and Fadang, and more - even though he had spent fortunes for bribes for followers/power, and lots of women also cost something). (Swindle.)
  6. Muhammad was unable to present anything but fast-talk when asked for proofs. (Swindle?)
  7. Lots of invalid use of logic. (Swindle?)
  8. Lots of contradictions (– proves for lies?)
  9. Lots of unclear language - at least 500+ confirmed by Muslim scholars. (Not from a god.)
  10. Lots of fast talk. (Suspicious.)

These all are hallmarks of a crook and a cheat and a deceiver.

####What does this mean for the religion?

102 43/4c: "- - - the Mother of the Book (from which the Quran is copied according to the Quran*), in Our (Allah's*) Presence, high (in dignity) - - -". No book with so much wrong like the Quran is cherished by a god - or held high in dignity by any god - not even by a baby dwarf god hidden in a cradle in remote corner. Something is seriously wrong.

###103 43/23b: (A43/23): “Rezi (one of the foremost Muslim scholars through the times*) says: ‘Had there been in the Quran nothing but these verses (43/20-24*), they would have sufficed to show the falsity of the principle postulating blind, unquestioning (by a Muslim) adoption of (another person’s) religious opinions (“ibtal al-qawl bi’t-raqlid”) - - -‘”.

#####If he had indicated Islam and the fathers and/or the imams, it hardly would be possible to say this more accurate. Islam is to a large degree based on indoctrination, social and judicial pressure, and glorification of blind belief + even physical threats if you ask "wrong" questions or leave the religion.

###104 43/48b: (A43/41): "The concept of 'returning' to Allah implies that the instinctive ability to perceive His (Allah's*) existence is inherent in human nature as such - - -". #####Scientifically this is nonsense and gobbledygook. No such "instinctive ability" has ever been found - not even a shadow of it. One has found that a minor percentage has a longing for something strong to lean to - a god. But nothing more - no "ability to perceive" a god. But Islam is built on absolutely nothing - only on never proved words and claims from a man of doubtful character, but with a liking for power, riches for bribes, and women - and needs dogmas like this. True or not true does not matter very much, as al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) and Kitmans (lawful half-truths) are not only permitted, but advised to use "if necessary" for defending or advancing the religion - Islam sometimes is a bit "special" when it comes to honesty. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

For another thing the logic in the claim also is wrong. "To return to" means to go back to - a claim that they were Muslims before, but had left the god and religion (Allah did not exist in the old Egypt, so that also this part of the claim is wrong), but indicates nothing about instinct or instinctive knowledge. Actually if the quote simply is a propaganda expression, everything is easy to understand.

105 43/61e: "- - - follow ye (people/Muslims/Muhammad?) Me (Allah*) - - -". Normally it is not advisable to follow someone who has nothing to show for his big and incredible words but claims for blind belief - and especially so when the self proclaimed messenger is a person of doubtful moral even according to his own religion's books, and on top of all is believing in the use of dishonesty and deceit and even broken words/promises/oaths - - - and liking power, riches for more power - and women.

#106 43/63d: “(Jesus said*): fear Allah and obey me - - -.” This is really is Muhammad’s slogan – he wanted power, that much is easy to see from the Quran, and religion/Allah was his Platform of Power. And many places in the Quran it becomes clear that Muhammad wants everyone to believe he was a “normal” (but top) prophet (actually he was no real prophet, as he did not have the gift of making prophesies – see chapter about Muhammad in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" or 9/88b above), and then it was nice if Jesus used the same words like Muhammad and showed this was normal ways for prophets to talk. But one of the really – and one of many - fundamental differences between Jesus and Muhammad (and for that case between f. x. Buddha and Muhammad and also between most of the Jewish prophets and Muhammad), was that Jesus was absolutely not interested in power on this Earth. Consequently this slogan that Muhammad very frequently used to secure his power, was meaningless for Jesus. (The Quran does not oppose this fact: That Jesus preached, but he did not seek power on Earth.)

Also the verse below can be taken as part of a strategy for reducing Jesus from something special to something ordinary – at least an ordinary prophet – to make it easier for Muhammad to be number one (another obvious example: During Muhammad’s claimed trip to heaven, Jesus lived in the lowest of the prophets’ heavens – heaven number 2. Whereas other known prophets from the Bible lived higher up and closer to the god, and Muhammad was to be given place in the 7. heaven, the closest one to the deity. But beware of that this trip likely is a story made up by Muslims later. If it had been a true story, it had been a proof Muhammad had mentioned frequently in the Quran. All which is mentioned there, is that 17/1 mentions he once made a successful trip from one mosque to another.)

Finally there is the death and resurrection of Jesus. If that really happened, Jesus clearly was at least one division higher up than Muhammad. So according to Muhammad and the Quran it did not happen.

What the Quran does not debate, is the fact that if Jesus was taken up to Heaven alive, also this proves the same.

May be worse: As there never was a source saying this, Muhammad knew he was bluffing each time he said things like this. A bluff is a kind of lie.

#####107 45/5e: "- - - the fact - - -". Beware that the Quran - and Muslims and Islam - often are very free and liberal when using words like "fact", "proof", etc. Always check if the claims really are fact or proofs, etc. before you believe in such words from Muslim/Islamic sources. And do not judge a Muslim if you find out he is lying about this or that, and especially not concerning the religion. Remember that in Islam it often is not a sin to lie - yes, when it comes to defending or promoting the religion, it even is advices to do so "if necessary". Cfr. "Al-Taqiyya" (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), "war is deceit" (and "everything" is war), and the rules for breaking even words/promises/oaths in the Quran (f.x. 2/225a, 5/89a+b, 16/91d, 16/92a+b, and 66/2a). (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.) All this are moral "specialties" you do not find in normal religions - not to mention in the Bible or NT. But then the moral code in the Quran is a bit "special" on too many points.

108 47/19a: "Know - - -". Also this is one of the words which cannot be accepted at face value in a book with so much wrong like in the Quran, unless there are additional proofs.

109 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 there are parts of the religion as preached in the Quran, which fits 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?

110 48/29b: “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” There are so many mistakes and so many places tried cheating and deceiving in the Quran - is this any more reliable? - especially as it is said by the man himself, a man who was unreliable and who clearly liked power? Also see 63/5a below.

No omniscient god would teach so many and often grave errors as you find in the Quran. And no good and benevolent god would teach such often immoral moral codes or laws.

#111 53/11b: “The (Prophet’s (Muhammad’s*)) (mind and) heart in no way falsified that which he saw.” If the Quran is fundamentally different from the Bible, and the Bible is not falsified according to science (and unintentionally also according to Islam) – in spite of Islam’s not documented claims - what explanations are then left for the differences between f.x. what Muhammad claimed the Bible said and what it really said? This simply is one of Muhammad's many, many never proved claims - he never was able to prove anything at all concerning the main point of his religion.

112 56/77a: "This is a Quran Most Honorable - - -". Mistaken facts "en gross", other mistakes, partly immoral moral code, partly Unethical ethical code, unjust laws, even lies and broken oaths, war mongering, hate mongering, apartheid mongering - Most Honorable?

113 56/77b: "This is a Quran Most Honorable - - -". To be a little flippant: If Muhammad's Quran is the most honorable, we have to hope we - and the world - never meet a dishonorable one.

114 56/95b: “Verily, this (the description of hell in the Quran*) is the Very Truth and Certainty”. Why should what the Quran says about Hell be more true and certain than the rest of the book with its many mistakes and errors? – Islam in case will have to bring some proofs instead of cheap words. See 42/7 above and other places.

###And the big differences between the Bible's and the Quran's hells put together are more than big and fundamental enough to prove that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - if they had been, also their hells had been more or less identical.

115 56/95d: "- - - the very truth and certainty - - -". Our experience is that the cheater, etc. are the ones without true facts, but who strongest insists on that certainly he is telling the very truth (others often have real facts or proofs to show for themselves).

##116 62/2f: “It is He (Allah*) Who has sent amongst the Unlettered a Messenger from among themselves - - - “. Muhammad made much out of his claim that he was from among his own people like all (wrong) other prophets, and used the claimed fact that all prophets were from among their own people - according the Quran, not in reality - as a "proof" or at least an indication for that he was a real prophet. (The claim was wrong, though, as some of the Biblical prophets did not work among their own people - Abraham and Lot both were from what is now Iraq, but worked in Canaan (now Israel), Joseph was from what is now Israel, but worked in Egypt, Moses was a native of Egypt, but worked 40 years in Midian in what perhaps is now Arabia (but perhaps in Sudan, and definitely most likely is in Sinai), the Jew Jonah worked in Nineveh (the capital of Assyria), to mention some of the Quran's Jewish prophets.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

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

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

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

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

Also see 19/19b and 19/33b above.

This also is something very different from the conception of Muhammad.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

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

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

118 68/10c: "- - - despicable men - ready with oaths - - -". An ironic complaint - ironic because Islam is the only of the large religions which officially permits lies, deceit, and broken oaths, etc. in many connections - for a broken oat the only reason you need, is that it will give a better result to break your oath than to keep it - well, in some cases you will have to pay expiation to Allah afterwards (like the worst excesses by the Roman catholic Church during the darkest Middle Age - and it is official Islamic religion in the Quran then, today and forever, as the Quran is unchangeable.

It also tells something about Muhammad's, Islam's, and Muslims' moral code that they know Islam and the Quran permits disuse and breaking of oaths, and all the same slander others for using oaths.

##119 68/39b: "- - - Covenant with Us (Allah*) on oath - - -". What is really an oath worth in Islam and for Muslims, as oaths can be broken - pay expiation if necessary?(2/225, 5/89, 16/61, 66/2).

120 68/43: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) had been summoned aforetime - - -". Only by an unreliable man of doubtful moral quality even according to the central Islamic religious books, and a man without ANY kind of credentials to show for himself - none at all. Besides: If Allah exists, and has predestined all your life like the Quran states several places, how can a fair god judge you for what he has forced you to do??! See f.x. 68/45c below.

121 68/46a: "- - - or is it that thou (Muhammad*) dost ask them (Muslims*) for a reward - - -". Muhammad claimed he demanded nothing from his followers - only 2.5% (to be exact 0 - 10%, but average 2.5%) of everything you owned - not of income, but of what you own - each year (called zakat or "poor tax", but only parts of it ended with the poor) + 20% of everything which was stolen/looted + 20% of all slaves taken + 100% of everything stolen and 100% of all slaves if the victim gave in without a fight + extra gifts from the followers + tax from the non-Muslims (jizya). There was no maximum on the jizya, and the result was that at times and places Muhammad's successors set it so high, that the non-Muslims were unable to pay, and had to flee the country. So Muhammad really did not ask for a reward, yes. And we have not even mentioned the 50% land tax users of his stolen land had to pay.

On top of this his warriors sometimes did not even get their full share of the loot after a raid - so much so, that there was not a little grumbling because of it sometimes. (Muhammad used it as bribes to get new recruits or secure undecided ones, instead of paying his veteran warriors in full sometimes.)

122 69/2. "What is the Sure Reality?" At least not the Quran and/or Allah. See 69/1 just above.

123 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), etc. – and are ordered 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?

124 69/7: “He (Allah*) made it (the storm that destroyed Ad*) rage against them seven nights and eight days in succession - - -.”

54/19: “For We (Allah*) sent against them (the people of Ad*) a furious wind, on a Day of violent Disaster.” Here it is one day.

####125 69/52d: (YA5674): "- - - Allah has given us (man*) his absolute Truth (a claim, not a proved fact*) through his Revelations - - -". This is the reason why Muslims and Islam can admit no mistake in the Quran, no matter how obvious it is - a mistake will prove that things are wrong in Allah's "absolute Truth". And this also is why the myriad of mistaken facts and other errors in the Quran proves 110% and more that something is seriously wrong with the Quran and that it is not from a god - no omniscient god makes mistakes, and definitely not by the hundreds and more.

A cold fact here: No book as full of errors, contradictions, etc. as the Quran, is the truth - and no such book is from any god (no omniscient god makes mistakes, contradiction, uses invalid logic, uses helpless or unclear language/explanations, etc.)

126 72/5: "But we (Jinns (for Muhammad)*) do think that no man or spirit should say aught that is untrue against Allah". No comments except: Remember how much is wrong in the Quran and that not a comma of the essential claims is proved.

Well, one more thing: As the Quran is from no god and full of mistakes, contradictions, etc.: Who is speaking untruth about Allah? - Muslims or non-Muslims? (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

127 72/6b: "True, there are persons among mankind who took shelter with persons among the Jinns - - -". If you are able to believe humans took shelter among beings borrowed from old pagan Arab religion, folklore and fairy tales, you are permitted to believe so. But there never was a proved case of such a happening. But it is a nice, if a bit incredible, case of one of Muhammad's techniques when debating: Claim or state that something is true without the slightest proofs, and then make claims from there, or claim it proves this and this. Totally without value as a real argument and not even related to normal logic - - - but so what, as long as naive followers believe it?! (But then Muslims often are not trained in logical deduction, and some of the training they get, even is wrong, as Islam cannot afford to teach logical laws which make the mistakes, contradictions, etc. too easy to see. F.x. that problems can have 2 or more correct solutions, even if the solutions are mutually excluding.)

128 95/7a: "Then what can, after this, contradict thee (Muhammad? Muslims? - clear language in the Quran*) - - -". F.x. may be the real truth may do so. The Quran is not the truth as it is not from a god, but from someone able to make unbelievably many mistakes.

Sub-total Chapter 87 = 128 + 8.532 = 8.660.

>>> 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".