Humans, Other Beings in/Relevant to the Quran, Part 5


 

26.  APOSTLES/DISCIPLES

The name - or really title - disciple is in the Quran used for the 12 close followers of Jesus. In religious literature also the title/name apostle also mostly means these 12.

In the Quran it is stated that those 12 were good Muslims. According to the Bible their religion was so far from Islam, that this cannot be true. In a way worse: We are now in times of written history, and science proves that there existed no book like the Quran (copy of the claimed "Mother of the Book"), no god like Allah, and no religion like or similar to Islam anywhere in the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus and his disciples. Thus the Bible states and written history and archeology prove that neither Jesus nor his disciples were Muslims.

The Quran's and Islam's claim here simply is one of the more serious and revealing al-Taqiyyas - lawful lies - in the Quran. Never proved claims just are claims. Historical facts are historical facts.

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

001 3/52d: “Said the Disciples (of Jesus*): ‘We are Allah’s helpers: we believe in Allah, and do thou (Jesus*) bear witness that we are Muslims". Definitely not to be found in the Bible. And definitely not in the according to history strongly Yahweh-believing Israel around 30 AD. That they confessed belief in a known pagan god - al-Lah/Allah - from a neighboring country is totally unlikely.

002 3/52e: “Said the Disciples (of Jesus*): ‘We are Allah’s helpers: we believe in Allah, and do thou (Jesus*) bear witness that we are Muslims". One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" 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 man has free will - even partly only - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 5 reasons - at least 3 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, if even only a tiny part is made different. And multiply even a tiny change with some billion people through the centuries, and many and also big things will be changed.
  3. The displacement of a happening - f.x. the death of a warrior in battle - of only one yard or one minute may or even will change the future forever (that yard or minute f.x. may mean that the warrior killed - or not killed - an opponent). The laws of chaos and the "Butterfly Effect" and the "Domino Effect" kick in.

  4. 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".
  5. 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 like said; 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, mysticism, made up legends, and in fairy tales.

This that Allah predestines everything 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 (or Muhammad?) claims to be a good or benevolent or moral or just god. See 2/51b and 3/24a above.

But remember as for punishment and rewards - and forgiving: They cannot be given unless there are made changes in the Plan of Allah, which several verses in the Quran states nobody and nothing can make. (A predestined reward is not a reward, but theater.)

003 3/52f: “Said the Disciples (of Jesus*): ‘We are Allah’s helpers:'” See 3/51a above.

004 3/52g: "Said the disciples: '- - - we believe in Allah, - - -'”. See 3/51a above.

*005 3/52h: Said the disciples: “- - - and thou (Jesus*) bear witness that we are Muslims”. See 3/51a and 3/52d above. Besides the word hardly had a meaning 600 years before Muhammad.

006 3/70d: “Why do ye (the Jews*) reject the Signs of Allah, of which ye are (yourselves) witnesses?” They rejected the “Signs” – the teaching of Muhammad (the Quran as a book did not exist yet). The word “Sign” here may refer to two statements:

  1. Islam say Muhammad is foretold in the Bible, and especially refers to 5 Mos. 18/15 and 18/18. But the brother of a Jew is a Jew, not an Arab, and the Jews’ fellow countrymen also are Jews, not Arabs. Islam also never mention the next few verses – f.x. number 8/22 about real and false prophets, and where Muhammad do not even qualify as a real prophet. See the chapter about “Muhammad in the Bible?” in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". Wrong.
  2. The other claim here is that when Jesus talked to his disciples about a helper that should come to them, Muslims claim that this meant Muhammad, even though they have to twist their “explanation” not a little (they need at least one “foretelling” from OT and one from NT, because it is said that Muhammad is foretold in both (7/157)) - and even though Muhammad was born 500 years after the disciples were dead he should be the helper of the disciples of Jesus according to Islam! (Jesus was talking about The Holy Spirit which came to the disciples some days later at Pentecost (Acts 2/2-4)).
  3. The Quran refers to one or two learned Jews whom Islam claims accepted Mohammad as a prophet. (This may or may not be true). But it is in no way correct to say that “ye” (all or most of the Jews) did so. On the contrary – may be a thousand Jews were killed and murdered and many more made slaves or had to flee the area, because they refused to accept Islam as their religion. Wrong - there is a huge difference between one/a few and most/all.

See 7/157d+e below.

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

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

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

007 3/81m: "Allah said: 'Do ye (all the old prophets*) agree, and take this Covenant (including believing in and helping Muhammad*) as binding on you?' They said: 'We agree'". He said: 'Then bear witness (about Muhammad*) - - -". They cannot have been very reliable, as exactly none of the known prophets ever mentioned him - included not Abraham, not Moses, and not Jesus to mention 3 of the main prophets according to the Quran (and yes, we know about the cherry-picked, wrong claims concerning 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18, and about the helper Jesus promised his disciples (the Holy Spirit) which Islam claims meant Muhammad 500+ years after the last disciple was dead).

008 5/5c: "The food of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians*) is lawful unto you (Muslims*) - - -". One small point here: You will meet Muslims claiming that the restrictive food laws of Moses really are binding also for Christians as they are not explicit cancelled in the Gospels. We quote MA: "The Massage of the Quran", comment 14 to surah 5: "- - - there is no statement whatsoever in the Gospels to the effect that these prohibitions were cancelled by Jesus". No, but for one thing the Gospels only make up a little better than 40% of the NT, and it is clear in the other parts of the NT that the strict Jewish food laws only are for Jews, not for Christians, and for another it is clear that Jesus did not accept everything in those laws - see f.x. his reaction when some ones scolded his disciples for harvesting grains and eating them during the Sabbath. And not least: Even the Quran tells that Jesus changed some of the Jewish laws (3/50a above).

009 5/14c: "We (the god*) did take a Covenant (with the Christians, too*) - - -". It is crystal clear that if the old scriptures and 11 witnesses (the disciples*) tell the truth, this covenant was confirmed by Jesus' words the last supper (Luke 22/20). This is so well known and so central in the Christian religion, that not one single Muslim really educated in religion do not know this. All the same this almost always is omitted when Muslim scholars write or talk - and the lay Muslim mostly have never heard about it. And then you even in presumably good quality Islamic literature meet claims like this - claims which have to be written against the writers knowledge, as it is so well known (YA: The Meaning of the Quran", comment 715): "The Christian Covenant may be taken to be the charge which Jesus gave to his disciples, and which the disciples accepted, to welcome Ahmad (= Muhammad*)":

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

010 5/111a: "I (Allah*) inspired the Disciples to have faith in Me - - -". According to the Bible this was done by Yahweh.

011 5/111f: “(the Disciples*) said: “We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to Allah as Muslims”. A made up story - see 3/51a+b for explanation.

012 5/112a: "Behold, the Disciples said: "O Jesus - - - (etc.*)". 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 5 reasons - at least 3 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, if even a tiny part is made different. And multiply even a tiny change with some billion people through the centuries, and many and also big things will be changed.
  3. The displacement of a happening - f.x. the death of a warrior in battle - of only one yard or one minute may or even will change the future forever (that yard or minute f.x. may mean that the warrior killed - or not killed - an opponent). The laws of chaos and the "Butterfly Effect" and the "Domino Effect" kick in.

  4. 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".
  5. 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 like said; 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, mysticism, 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.

But remember as for punishments and rewards - and forgiving: They cannot be given unless there are made changes in the Plan of Allah, which several verses in the Quran states nobody and nothing can make. (A predestined reward is not a reward, but theater.)

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.

013 5/112b: "O Jesus the son of Mary!" For one thing your nearest co-workers (here Jesus' disciples*) do not use a long and formal name for you. Plus wrong name - the name of Jesus was Jesus ben Joseph, not Jesus ben Mary. For another see 5/110a above.

014 5/112-115: This story about a table from Heaven is not from the Bible. Some Muslims think it is a mix-up with the "Lord's Prayer" - "give us today our daily bread" - or a mix-up with Jesus feeding many as told in the Bible, but as likely it is a mix-up with the last supper as it only includes his disciples. Or it may be a legend he "borrowed". A miracle like this had not been forgotten by the writers of the Bible, as it was different from his other miracles. Neither had it been omitted by "bad people" falsifying the Bible to strengthen Jesus, especially as it showed a direct connection in the direction (up) they believed the god to be. Also see 5/114b and 5/114d below.

015 5/113b: "- - - and that we ourselves (the disciples*) may be witness to the miracle". Invalid explanation - they had seen plenty of miracles in other connections according to the old books. Also this is not from the Bible.

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

016 5/114d: “Send us (Jesus and the Disciples*) from heaven a Table set (with viands), - - -”. A made up story - there is no chance that such a miracle which clearly shows Jesus’ connection to Yahweh, would be omitted from the Bible. Not one single chance. Even if Muhammad had been right and Christians had falsified the NT, this is the kind of stories they had added, not omitted. Some Muslims say this may refer a little to “The Prayer of God” - "give us our daily bread" - in the Bible. Much more likely it is a contorted version of the last Easter supper.

The Quran tells nearly nothing about Jesus as a preacher or about his teachings. The main points for Muhammad were that Jesus was a good Muslim and that even though Jesus was a great prophet – and a real prophet according to both the Bible and to the Quran – he in reality was no match to the greatest: Muhammad. Muhammad claimed to be the greatest prophet - - - but never even proved that he was one.

#017 8/63a: "- - - He (Allah*) is Exalted in might - - -". One of the many never proved claims in the Quran. Just look for them - they are so many and so easy to see. Claims anyone can make on behalf of his god(s) free of charge - words are that cheap. If either the Bible or the Quran is correct about this, both Jesus and some of the older prophets in the Bible - at least Elisha /1.Kings 17/22 and 2. Kings 4/34-35), the disciple Peter (Acts 9/40) and even Paul (Acts 20/10) proved their connections to a god by resurrecting the dead, and many others by other miracles and/or real foretelling (a special kind of miracles). Muhammad was totally unable to prove anything at all - just claims and fast words. Even Islam (though not all Muslims) admits there exists no proofs for Allah - a main reason why Islam praises blind belief and scorns questions for proofs so much, and why they can accept no questions about the reliability or integrity of Muhammad - the only claimed connection between Allah and Islam.

018 16/102b: “- - - the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation - - -“. Muhammad Azad: “The Message of the Quran” tells that the Arab word “ruh al-qudus” (= the Holy Spirit) is used 3 times in the Quran (2/87, 5/110 – both connected to Jesus – and here), and that here it means the angel Gabriel. The Holy Spirit in Arab = Gabriel? That in case means that in 2/87 and 5/110 Jesus is strengthened with the angel Gabriel - a bit far from what the Bible tells. (It is likely Islam sets the Holy Spirit = Gabriel because the Quran tells that Gabriel brought large parts of the Quran (other parts came to him by "inspiration", etc.), so that when it says that the Holy Spirit brought him verses, that must mean that the book is talking about Gabriel - not 100% logical to say the least of it. (But Muslims often are quick to go from "this may be so" to "this is so" and sometimes even to "this is a proof"). Also see 2/97. (There are texts in the Bible making this impossible - f.x. that the disciples of Jesus each got a part of the Spirit, whereas angels do not split into pieces. Besides the Bible very well knows the difference between angels and spirits. And not to forget: It is nowhere said in the Quran that Gabriel = the Holy Spirit. This is a claim made by humans in Islam, and only by them - and like so often in Islam a never proved strong statement used like a fact.)

019 16/102c: (YA2141): "- - - the Holy Spirit - - -". YA's comment: = The title of the Angel Gabriel - - -". This is a claim you sometimes meet from Muslims. But no-one who ever read the Bible with an open mind, would ever get such an idea (and even the Quran does not say so) - the Holy Spirit clearly is something special in the Bible, and something much more and much more essential than even an arch angel. Besides the Bible knows very well the difference between a spirit and an angel - and in the Bible Gabriel is not even an ordinary angel, but an arch-angel. And: When the Holy Spirit came to the disciples of Jesus after he had left them, it split or splintered off something and took part in each of them. No angel could be split in 11 (Judas Iscariot was not there naturally) or more. Some spirits can.

As for Gabriel there is a strange fact in the Quran: He is never named in the surahs from Mecca. Not until after he came to Medina did Muhammad start claiming he got his information(?) and messages(?) from Gabriel. If Muhammad really had got - or even only believed he got - the claimed messages from a central angel, this had been such a strong argument that there is no chance Muhammad had not told about this - and often - during the first difficult 13 years in Mecca. What is the explanation?

020 23/52b: "- - - verily, this Brotherhood of yours (prophets'*) is a single Brotherhood - - -". Wrong. One may say that the prophets from the Bible, included Jesus and perhaps his disciples and Paul belonged to a brotherhood - clearly the same god, clearly the same teaching - except that "the New Covenant" represented more mildness from Yahweh - the words and teachings and foretelling corresponded to each other, etc., all in the same line of traditions. Muhammad was totally outside that line on every essential point - different god, different teaching, fundamentally different religion, different traditions, outside the foretelling of the older prophets (not only himself, but also what he said and told), very different code of moral, no empathy - even a very different paradise.

In spite of Muhammad's repeated claims: He did not belong in the same line of prophets as the Biblical ones. No matter whether he is claimed to be a real or a false prophet, his teachings and his god are too different from that of the Biblical prophets - he is not in that line of prophets. It is not a single brotherhood.

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

#####021 61/6f: “- - - (Jesus said: I am*) giving the Glad Tiding of a Messenger to come after Me, whose name shall be Ahamad (another form of the name Muhammad*) - - -”. This is quite a funny verse, as you meet Muslims who insist it is copied from the Bible. Worse: You find it quoted in books like it was from the Bible, without a word about the fact that it only is to be found in the Quran. But there is not anything remotely like this in the Bible, and neither in the some 13ooo relevant scriptures or fragments found through the times older than 610 AD – included some 300 from the Gospels, and also not in the some 32ooo other relevant known manuscripts older than 610 AD (when Muhammad started his preaching) with quotes from the Bible. #####It is only to be found in the Quran. #####Also you do not find a single case in OT where a prophesy about distant future mentions a clear name (sometimes title or something, but never a clear name). But here - o wonder! - is most conveniently the unmistakable name given - an Arab version of the name Muhammad even!

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

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

We know of one place where Muhammad is mentioned: In the Barnabas Gospel - a most apocryphal (made up) book - according to one of our sources it may even be written at the caliph’s court in Baghdad (not very strange if it then mentions Muhammad), but it also may be one of the many falsifications made by Muslims in Spain around 8. century AD. You need to make up proofs only if you have no real ones. Muslims sometimes tell you this “gospel” is a real one.

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

  1. The life of the first Christians had been entirely different - and their time scale had been entirely different if any of them had heard about another prophet to be expected before the return of Jesus “to judge the living and the dead”. (They would know the return of Jesus would take much longer time than they now believed, to give the “prophet” time to work. They thought Jesus would be back in a short time - some years.)
  2. The contents of the NT had been different - not least the letters had been different. It simply is a fairy tale made up to strengthen Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet - like some other self-proclaimed prophets. (Rather ironic, as he did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies – he did not even claim or pretend he had it, on the contrary he stated he was unable "to see the unseen (3/144, 6/50,7/188,10/20, 27/65, 46/9, 72/26, 81/24)" – he was no real prophet. A messenger for someone or something perhaps, but not a real prophet).
  3. The Muslims only back their claim on one Greek word used in the Bible: “parakletos” which means “helper” – Jesus before he left Earth, promised to send his disciples a helper – the Holy Spirit (which arrived some days later – at Whitsun - according to the Bible (a story that is not negated in the Quran)).
  4. Islam claims “parakletos” is a misspelling for another Greek word “periklytos”, which means “the highly praised”. In Aramaic “the highly praised” means “Mawhamana” of which the second part of that word as a verb is “hamida” (= to praise) and as a noun “hamd” (law or praise). If you then continue to Arab the names Muhammad and Ahmad (another version of the name Muhammad) both derives from “hamida” or “hamd” according to Islam. Which to Islam and all Muslims is a strong proof for that “parakletos” in reality is misspelled and means “Muhammad” in the Gospel after John (f. x. John 14/16). Not a very convincing proof to say the least of it – and in addition:
  5. The word “periklytos” that Islam claims is misspelled – the only possibility they have to get the answer they want and desperately need (they need it desperately, because the Quran clearly tells that Muhammad is foretold also in the NT - - - and he is not there) – does not exist at all in the Bible, not to mention in the NT. It is not used one single time.
  6. The word “periklytos” also is not found one single time in all the some 13ooo relevant manuscripts and fragments science knows from before 610 AD. Neither in one single place or time, nor in one single of the many manuscripts.
  7. Worse: Neither is it found in any of the some 300 copies or fragments of Gospels older than 610 AD or in other manuscripts referring to the Gospels.
  8. The word “periklytos” simply never was used in the old scriptures that became the Bible. The word that is used everywhere is “parakletos” – “helper” (and a helper was what the disciples needed). This goes for each and every known copy.
  9. Beside: How could it be possible to falsify – as Islam claims – the same word the same way in thousands and tens or hundreds of thousands of manuscripts – and how to find each and every “periklytos” in each and every of the many different manuscripts – spread over all those countries? – and on top of all: In a time with little travel and hardly any media. Islam has a tough job proving their claim – and remember: It is the ones making claims who have to prove them, not others to disprove it. This often is forgotten when Muslims throw loose claims and statements around.
  10. There also are huge numbers (some 32ooo) of non-religious manuscripts or fragments which refer to the Bible. Whenever this word pops up in those manuscripts it without exception is written "parakletos". Islam must explain how it was possible to find and to falsify all these papers, and not least how it was possible to erase the ink and write another word in such a way that it is impossible for modern science to find traces of falsifications.
  11. Arabs think it is logical that parakletos and periklytos may be mixed – in the old Arab alphabet and scriptures this just meant that someone had guessed the not written vowels wrong. But not so for Greek, as Greek already and a long time before had a complete alphabet where all letters already existed. This kind of misspelling therefore is not logical in Greek.(NT was originally written in Greek.)
  12. Muslims try to explain that it could not be a question of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit already was present. And the Holy Spirit was present or visited Jesus. But it was not part of the disciples – and that was what happened at Whitsun according to the Bible: They each got personal contact with the Spirit, and that is quite a change of a situation.
  13. Muslims also say that as two different names for the Spirit is used (the Spirit of Truth and the Holy Spirit (you actually also have the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God (1. Mos. 1/2), the Spirit of the Lord, and only the Spirit)) it proves that John does not mean the Holy Spirit, when he uses the name “the Spirit of truth” – “the Spirit of truth” must mean the Muhammad who even lies to his followers in the Quran (“miracles will make no-one believe”, f. x.) and advised his people to even break their oaths if that gave a better result. In addition to all the other wrong logic here, this claim is just as logical as to claim that the 99 names of Allah means there are 99 different gods, or the 200 or more names of Muhammad means there were 200 or more of him. The spirit simply is named by different names (at least 6) – and in addition it is absolutely clear that in the whole Bible there only is one spirit with a special connection to Yahweh.
  14. There only is one conclusion – the conclusion science has made long ago – possible to make in this: This Islamic claim – like many others – either is a lie (an al-Taqiyya?) or wishful thinking. And still “the raisin in the sausage” is not mentioned:
  15. Jesus promised his disciples a helper – a parakletos. If he had meant Muhammad, how could Muhammad be their helper when they were all dead 500 years before he was even born?? It simply is nonsense or wishful thinking.
  16. Further the spirit according to the same verses in the Bible that Muslims quote, could not be seen. Muhammad was not difficult to see.
  17. And another “raisin”: Also in the same verses it is said that the Spirit should be with them forever. Muhammad definitely was not with them forever – he was not even with them.
  18. Not to forget: The Bible also tells that the Paracletos should be in the disciples. The only persons Muhammad was in, were 36 or more women - willing or forced or raped.
  19. Not to mention: How do you make Jews and Christians agree on how to falsify the Bible? - f.x. the foretelling about Messiah/Jesus? - and when did they do it? Muslims like to blame Nicaea, but for one thing the agenda for that meeting is well known, and "adjustments" of the Bible were not even mentioned (but some Muslims in 2009 or 2010 screamed that they could prove that 56 points (if we remember the number correctly) in the Bible had been changed at that meeting - the word "proofs" sometimes come easy to some Muslims), and as bad: There was not one single representative for the Mosaic (Jewish) religion present.
  20. In the thousands of manuscripts older than 610 AD - the first point of time when Christians - and also the Jews - could get a reason for such a falsification - how was it possible to erase the word parakletos with the primitive means of that time, and fill in the word periklytos instead, in such a way that modern science are unable to find physical traces from the erasing, unable to find chemical differences in the ink that was used, and unable to see any difference of the letters (all people written differently)?
  21. The Bible has 4-5 times as much text as the Quran. One has to use the same writing material, and only that, because - what they did not know - today we easily can find the age of the writing material. In the two books there only is one sentence - six words in Psalm 37/29 - which is identical = everything had to be erased and written again. How to write 4-5 times as much texts on the same parchment, papyrus or whatever?
  22. Where smaller quotes in other relevant scriptures had to be falsified: How to place on average 4-5 times as much texts on a patch of erased "paper" and still use the same size so as not to show that "here is something wrong"?
  23. When falsifying, how to make the handwriting identical to the old one?
  24. When falsifying, how to get exactly the same ink? - differences are easy to see today.
  25. How always to make the new words or sentences exactly fit the length of the eradicated open space?
  26. How to find each and every scripture and letter on 3 continents to falsify?
  27. How to make each and every owner accept to have their cherished holy papers and books falsified?
  28. How afterwards make them believe in scriptures they knew were falsified?
  29. How to find enough scribes to do such an enormous job? - it f.x. takes months just to handwrite one Bible.

  30. Who paid for this enormous operation? - the church of those times was not very rich.
  31. How to perform such an enormous operation without starting tongues wagging and cause owners to hide their holy scriptures to save them from such destruction?
  32. How to perform such an enormous operation without one single historian got a whiff about it and noticed something?
  33. Search and you will find more such hopeless questions.
  34. There only is one conclusion possible – the conclusion science has made long ago – to make from this: This Islamic claim – like many others – either is a lie (an al-Taqiyya?) or wishful thinking.
  35. AND THERE IS ONE MORE VERY STRONG FACT: ISLAM HAS NEVER FOUND ONE SINGLE PROVED FALSIFICATION.

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

(We should mention that also the apocryphal (made up) “Gospel of Barnabas” sometimes still is used as an argument, because there Muhammad is clearly mentioned (no surprise if the theory that it is made at the court in Baghdad is correct. The same if it is one of the many Islamic forgeries from Spain from around the 8. century and somewhat later). The sorry fact, though, is that a made up gospel is a made up gospel (there are a number of them) – and it tells something about Islam’s lack of arguments that they continue to insist that may be it is not made up, and therefore is a proof for Muhammad, when science is unanimous: It is one of the false ones. The only thing the “Gospel of Barnabas” in reality proves, is that Islam has no real documentation for their claim that Muhammad is mentioned in the NT, as they have to resort to this kind of argumentation).

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

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

###022 61/6i: (YA5436): "The mission of Jesus was to his own people, the Jews". This is a claim you often and with strength meet from many Muslims and from the official Islam - and it is quite possible to find quotes from the Bible seemingly confirming this claim - - - if you cherry-pick your quotes and omit the points which very clearly tell a different story, the most central of which in this connection we think is his final order to his disciples - never mentioned by Muslims or by Islam: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father (God/Yahweh*) and of the Son (Jesus*)and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you". (Matt.28/18-20 - similar in Mark 16/15-16 and Luke 24/47. There are more such indications in the Bible - even a few in OT. But in Islam the main "moral aspect" is not to find the truth, but to defend what they on beforehand believe is the truth, even by means of lies and by lies of omission - the reign of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), etc. in cases where "it is necessary" to win the "points" - not to find out what is the truth, but to win the "points".

Some Muslims use the argument that Jesus only worked in Israel ("forgetting" about Samaria). But in the same way Muhammad only taught Islam in Arabia. But even the Quran one place tells that Jesus is a sign for the world.

023 61/14c: “- - - said Jesus - - - to the Disciples,’ Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?’” Wrong. If Jesus had said this about a known pagan god in a neighboring country (al-Lah in Arabia), he for one thing had got few followers, and for another had been killed by the Jewish clergy much earlier. Contradicted by reality. Also see 61/6a-f + 3/51 in the full list in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". Similar claim in 3/52.

But of course the disciples – also here according to the Quran - were good Muslims. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs. ###Also remember that we now are in times of written history, and we know for sure there was no book like the Quran, no god like Allah and no religion like Islam anywhere in that area - and we know for as sure that the religion of the Jews at that time was a strong Mosaic (Jewish) one. The Quran is totally wrong here.

024 61/14d: “Said the Disciples, ’We are Allah’s helpers”. See 61/14a, 61/6 (all comments) above.

24 + 961 = 985 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

27.  ARABISMS

The expression "Arabism" covers f.x. things you have to know Arabia or Arabian culture to fully understand, things typical for Arabia, things indicating this is meant for Arabs or part of Arab culture, folklore, old religion, traditions, etc.

Etc., etc.

A most serious point is that no omniscient god would need to use Arabism or any other similar -ism, and no god, omniscient or not, would use such things in a holy book he intended for the entire world - too many would not understand what he meant. All the same there are LOTS of such things in the Quran - more than even our long list, as this list definitely is not complete.

One of the strong circumstantial proofs for that Allah was/is not a universal god - and an at least empirical one for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god (if they had been, also Yahweh had used Arabisms, and there is not one in the entire Bible).

There also is another similar circumstantial proof: If it is correct what Islam and Muslims claim that you have to learn Arab in order to understand the Quran/Allah's teaching completely, that in case is a strong circumstantial proof for that Allah was/is not a god for the entire world - or anywhere outside Arabia: No sane god, not to mention an omniscient god, would make his teaching that difficult accessible if he wanted to reach the entire humanity. (But Islam and Muslims need this claim and some others in order to be able to flee from all the mistakes, contradictions, etc. in the Quran ("you misunderstand because you do not speak Arab") - errors which prove that the book is not from any god. No god makes that number of and that grave errors.)

Also see 4/13d below.

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

001 1/1c: "In the name of Allah - - -". One main Arabism (see 4/13d below) in the Quran: Muhammad simply transformed the old Arab pagan god al-Lah/Allah to his god Allah - see 1/1d just below.

002 2/25g: “- - - their (Muslims’*) portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow". An Arabism (4/13d below) - the most used one. Water was very essential in Arabia - not so all other places.

003 2/194a: "The prohibited month - - -". An Arabism. Arabia had 4 months - number 1, 7, 11, and 12 - which were holy and in which f.x. fighting was prohibited. This was one of many traditions Muhammad or Allah took over from the old Arab pagan religion. Muhammad, Allah and Islam took over many old Arab traditions, laws and rules, many of them from the old pagan Arab religion, but few from other cultures and none from distant cultures. To be blunt: The taking over of many pagan rules, does not indicate a real god behind the Quran, and the taking over of mainly Arab traditions, etc. does not indicate an international god in case there after all is on.

004 2/196a: "Hajj or umrah". Typical Quranic Arabisms - 2 different kinds of pilgrimages. Hajj and umrah simply are pagan Arab religious traditions Muhammad took over and integrated in his new religion. For some reason or other (?) the claimed international god Allah utilized a lot of pagan Arab traditions, a few traditions etc. from neighboring areas, and nothing from distant lands or other times - - - and very little if anything from himself.

005 2/197a: " - - - Hajj - - -". A religious tradition Muhammad simply too over from the old Arab pagan religion. One of the Arabisms in the Quran and in Islam.

006 2/200a: "- - - the holy rites - - -". There are three remarkable facts concerning the Islamic rites in Mecca during Hajj, and both the 2 first make it clear that this is an Arabism: For one thing they simply are Arab pagan rites from the old times taken over by Muhammad - which means that the old pagan religion in Arabia had all the correct rites. For another they all were Arab rites - hardly one single of the rites came from any other place on the globe. The universal god had not taught any other people the right rites - not even the Jews and the Christians had been taught the correct rites in spite of their long connection to the god - - - remember that Muhammad claimed it was the same god. And for a third: The rites are very primitive and superficial - and with very primitive and superficial symbolisms. Was that all an omniscient god was able to give his followers?

007 2/200d: “- - - celebrate the praise of Allah, as ye used to celebrate the praises of your fathers - - -.” No matter what is the answer to the unsolvable question in 2/200b+c above, it is clear that Islam just took over the old Pagan rites - another Arabism. Was that all an omnipotent, omniscient god had to offer?

008 2/203a: "- - - the Appointed Days". In the Pagan times in Arabia the people used to stay on in Mecca during pilgrimage for 2-3 days after the official part, and used the time to among other things praise their ancestors. The rituals of the pilgrimage takes 10 days, and the finish is marked by the slaughtering - sacrifice - of animals, named "Festival of Sacrifices" ('id al-adha'), which takes place on the 10. of the Muslim month Dhu 'l-Hijjah. "The Appointed Days thus means the 11., 12. and 13. of that month (but remember that the Muslim year is some 11-12 days shorter than the natural year, so during a period of ca. 33 years every religious special day wanders through the full natural year). It must be added that Muslims during these days shall not praise their ancestors, but Allah. It tells something about the pilgrimage ceremonies that this praising - after the real pilgrimage is finished - seems to be the most spiritual part of the Hajj. Was an omniscient god unable to give 10-13 full days no more spiritual contents? (This also is another Arabism (see 4/13d below), as it simply is another Arab pagan old tradition adopted by Muhammad.)

1

There is nothing like this in the Bible, even though Mecca and its Kabah are the most holy places on Earth. One more indication for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

009 3/15f: "- - - with rivers flowing beneath - - -". The paradise of the Quran is the desert dwellers' dream - plenty of water is a main reward (if not it had not been so frequently mentioned in the Quran). For short we call it an Arabism - one of many in the Quran. But Allah is the god of all people? - also the ones outside deserts and hot temperature - f.x. in Siberia? It does not sound so in the Quran. The paradise dream always is the one of the desert dweller.

010 3/20i: "- - - the Message (the Quran*) - - -". But is it really a message? - and in case from whom? All the errors, etc. makes it clear it is not from any god, and the remaining possibilities are: 1) Dark forces - f.x. parts of the Quran's moral code, code of war and sharia laws may indicate this. 2) A mental illness - f.x. TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) like modern medical science strongly suspects. 3) One or more cold brains, like f.x. Muhammad himself - all the mistaken facts which are in accordance with (wrong) science there at that time, and also all the "Arabisms" in the Quran may indicate this.

011 3/64e: "- - - we (here Muslims, Jews and Christians*) associate no partners with Him (Allah*) - - -". One thing is that Jews and Christians did and do not believe in Allah, but in Yahweh. But the main point just here is that Muhammad tries to tell his followers and others that other gods were gods the non-Muslims had in addition to Allah. This is a kind of Arabism, as this claim after a fashion could be used in Arabia, as Muhammad just had taken over the old Arab main god al-Lah/Allah and renamed him only Allah. Thus the old Arabs had other gods in addition to al-Lah - but only after a fashion, as they prayed to the old pagan version of this god, whereas Muhammad talked about a refashioned one. All other religions had god/gods INSTEAD of Allah, not beside him. There is a huge difference between "instead of" and "beside" in this case, but Muhammad tries this trick again and again - if he could make his followers and others believe it was a general rule and not just something Arab that other gods just were in addition to Allah, it would make Allah big.

012 3/136c: "Gardens with rivers flowing underneath - - -". One of the characteristics with the Quran's paradise, is that it is made according to desert dwellers' dreams - plenty of water, shade, cool air, etc. This simply is the most frequently used Arabism ((see 4/13d below) in the Quran. But what god for the entire Earth forms his paradise according to only one group's dreams? - primitive dreams even. Actually this is the most frequently used Arabisms in the Quran.

*013 3/137a: “- - - travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who rejected the Truth”. In Arabia there were scattered old ruins - another Arabism (see 4/13d below). Muhammad told they were all remnants after peoples Allah had punished for their sins. There are more likely explanations. (Some time ago in Pakistan Muslim groups wanted to place placards in some ruins telling that these were from people punished by Allah, and that this was how Allah punished a people for sins. Western media referred the story without comments - something they sometimes do when the stupidity is so obvious that even morons see it without explanations.

As for punishment see 4/43h and 4/64g below.

014 3/181a: "Allah hath heard the taunt of those who say: 'Truly, Allah is indigent and we (non-Muslims*) are rich!" The other Arabs taunted the still poor Muslims (mainly poor people followed Muhammad in the start, and they had still not become rich from plunder) with that the Muslims were poor and they themselves were rich. One of the many Arabisms in the Quran.

015 3/195h: "- - - Gardens with rivers flowing beneath - - -". The Quran's and Islam's paradise. See 10/9f below. This is the most frequently used Arabism in the Quran.

016 3/198d: "- - - Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath - - -". The paradise of the Quran and of Islam is the dream of the desert dweller - included plenty of water. This also is the most used Arabism (see 4/13d below) in the Quran.

017 4/13d: "- - - Gardens with rivers flowing beneath - - -". The Quran's and Islam's paradise - see 10/9f below. Also typical is the central value given to water - valuable and a dream situation for desert dwellers. (For the sake of convenience, we call such local connections, marks or values, etc. "Arabism" as they in the Quran describe the situation in and around Arabia - and typical for the Quran there is no other climatic or other local characteristics than what you meet in dry and hot places used as background in the book, except for the corresponding dreams people living in such places had about what would be pleasant or a paradise. Any god had known about the rain forests, the pleasant summer sun of 60 - 70 degrees latitude, the unpleasant drizzle of winter England, the cold of Siberia, etc., whereas Muhammad obviously did not know about this. Did an omniscient god create his own holy book in such a way that only a small part of his intended followers could recognize their own life and situation, and all the rest would feel like outsiders or even sometimes not understand what was meant? - or did someone with little knowledge of what was the reality outside what we now call the Middle East, compose it?). The above mentioned is the most frequently used Arabism in the Quran, but there are many others - f.x. things found in dry countries or for the area in or around Arabia, the total dominance of Muhammad and of his period of time, things which happened to and around Muhammad and his followers, etc., etc., in a book claimed sent down to all prophets during all times (124ooo and more according to Hadiths) and all places on Earth. Or to be more exact: They all got their copy of the claimed "mother book" which Allah and his angels revered in Heaven, and which also the Quran was a copy of. But how many from Greenland or Siberia or the rain forests in Brazil or Congo would understand the Arabisms in their copy of the "mother book"/Quran, which necessarily had to be similar to Muhammad's Quran as they were copies of the same claimed "mother book"? Not to mention how many, hundreds and thousands of years earlier, would understand all the references to Muhammad and his family and co-workers and daily life?

Then there is another kind of related questionable points - the time anomalies. As these as said are related and in addition both are time anomalies and Arabisms, we in this overview treat them together, though marked "Arabism" or "anomalies". In this overview we use the word "time anomaly" (or just "anomaly") - as opposed to historical errors - for "historical" "information" given in the Quran, which makes problems for the claims related to the claimed "Mother Book" the Quran claims exists in Allah’s Heaven where it is revered by Allah and his angels according to the Quran. Still according to Muhammad and the Quran this book is copied and sent down to all(?) prophets and messengers through the times and all over the world (f.x. 10/47: "To every people (was sent) a Messenger - - -") - Hadiths mention the number 124ooo, but even that may be a symbolic number, and the real one perhaps bigger.

We remind you that even if we omit all older sub-groups of humans, Homo Sapiens - modern man - is between 160ooo and 200ooo years old according to science - a likely number seems to be some 195ooo years. As the Quran claims Allah has sent his prophets and messengers through all times, he has had his representatives spread over the globe at least that long (may be longer if Allah wanted to save also earlier sub-groups like f.x. Homo Neanderthalis, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus or all the others). According to the Quran all these old prophets, etc. god their book - a copy of the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven - just like Muhammad did.

As these books all were copies of the claimed "Mother Book", they of course have to be similar - copies of the same book are similar, no matter how many are made (f.x. 10/64: "- - - no change can there be in the Words of Allah."). As mentioned also the Quran is claimed to be a copy of that book, they naturally also are similar to the Quran. A very natural concept for Islam, as Islam - and the Quran - claim that Islam is the original religion from the oldest times and all over the world (though not even Islam has found the slightest traces of a book or a religion like the Quran and Islam older than 610 AD - the closest they are able to come, are claims - only claims - about Allah being the same god as Yahweh, a claim which is impossible unless the god is strongly schizophrenic, as the teachings and the fundamental thoughts, ethics, morality, etc. are far too different).

But if we all the same pretend that Allah is an existing god who has had his prophets, etc. spread over the Earth through all times, and that these prophets, etc. each has got a copy of the "Mother Book" - a Quran - we run into another problem: As mentioned copies necessarily are similar to the "Mother Book" - if not they are not copies - and thus similar to the Quran. But the Quran tells about lots and lots of things and persons and happenings the older prophet would not understand about:

  1. Abraham would not understand references to f.x. Moses or what he meant to the people and the religion.
  2. To Moses references to the Judges or David or Solomon would tell or explain exactly nothing.

  3. The names Ezra or Isaiah or Jeremiah would be empty names for David.

  4. Etc., etc., etc., etc.

  5. Jesus might mean some to many of them, but only if you used the title Messiah - names like Jesus or titles like Christ would be totally void of any meaning or information.
  6. Not to mention that none of them would get one millimeter of information from names like Muhammad, Medina, Battle of Uhud, etc. Well, perhaps Jesus may have understood some if he was supernatural, but he in case never mentioned any such names (in spite of Islam's pathetic try to claim the opposite - to claim that a man born some 500 years after the last disciples of Jesus was dead, should be the helper of the disciples, is pathetic).
  7. And if we go from the prophets and others among the Jews, to more distant people, the situation grows even more "joyful": Say a prophet in Congo or Amazonas or Nunavut, Canada, or Arizona or New Guinea or Moscow or Hawaii or Japan f.x. some 3000 BC sat down to read his Quran, how much would he understand? - less than half the book. Or what if it happened 15ooo BC - before man had learnt how to read and write? - and remember even then man/Homo Sapiens had existed with his claimed Qurans for may be 180ooo years, and not one of the really ancient ones knew even how to read a book.

Time anomalies.

What at least is for sure, is that things happened. And that if the book referred to things which had not yet happened, the people reading the book only would understand bits and pieces - if anything - from those references, as they naturally did not know the stories it referred to.

Another aspect of this point is that if the prophets and messengers of the old received copies of the timeless and unchangeable "Mother Book" - and it has to be unchangeable if it is written before man was created and even more so if it has existed since eternity - these copies were perfect foretelling about the things the Quran - one of the copies - tells about which had still not happened when the local prophet received his copy. If f.x. Abraham or Isaac or Jacob had received their copies, they knew very well what was going to happen to Joseph and where to find him. Admittedly some Muslims claim there was one Quran for each time, but that is not possible if the "Mother Book" which it is a copy from, is as old as the Islam and its Muslims claim. Only Muhammad got no foretelling, because there is not one single real foretelling in the Quran about the times after Muhammad and onwards. Both facts are thought provoking.

Of course it is possible to try to explain the problems away.

One may claim Allah knew everything, and wrote what was going to happen. But in that case free will for man disappears - full and detailed precognition is not possible even for a god, if man has free will - he always can make a new decision or change his mind once more. Some Muslims claim that what the Quran and Allah "really mean" is partly free will - without ever explaining what that means. But this is not what the Quran says, and besides it does not change one iota, except perhaps the time scale a little - just read a little about chaos theory and see where you end. In the non-physical realm there are things impossible even for gods, included detailed precognition. It here also is symptomatic that if Allah wrote the book from his precognition, that precognition had to be limited, as he was unable to write about anything which happened after Muhammad's death in 632 AD - there is not one single real foretelling about things which were to happen after Muhammad.

One may drop the claim that the Quran is from eternity and never made. But in that case it cannot have been made until during the lifetime of Muhammad, as a lot of things which happened then is described - not to mention that Muhammad speaks some places in the Quran. But where then are the similar copies the older prophets received according to the Quran?

Or one may claim that the Quran was old, but that Allah changed it now and then as time went by so that he could add things which happened. But where then end Allah's unchangeable words, his unchangeable predestinations and his unchangeable Plan? And is a Quran - a "Mother Book" which are changed as things happen, worthy of reverence from an almighty and omniscient god and his angels?

Arabism in our meaning of the word in principle is closely related to time anomalies, only that there are other facts than time which makes them logical anomalies, f.x. different culture, geography, climate, etc.

You find lots of Arabisms and time anomalies in the Quran. What do they tell you?

018 4/24c: "- - - those whom your right hand possess - - -". An Arabism (see 4/13d above) - an Arab expression meaning your slaves.

019 4/25d: "- - - those whom your right hands possess - - -". An Arabism (see 4/13d above) - an Arab expression meaning your slaves.

020 4/36a: "Serve Allah, and join not partners with Him - - -". In reality an Arabism, because only the Arabs could be accused of joining other gods with al-Lah/Allah. All others simply did not believe in al-Lah/Allah and had one or more god not in addition to him, but instead of him (and the old Arabs really believed in the pagan al-Lah, not in Muhammad's version of him.

021 4/36d: "- - - what your (Muslims*) right hands possess - - -". An Arab expression meaning slaves - an Arabism (see 4/13d above).

022 4/57d: "- - - Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath - - -". The desert dwellers' dream of a paradise - an Arabism.

023 4/57i: (A4/74): “We shall admit them to shades, cool and deepening.” One thing is that here is one more of the many cases of “only Arabian references” - Arabisms - (or at least hot parts of the globe) in a claimed world religion from a god for the entire world. More down to earth is: Is the sentence correctly understood? Today the Arab word “zill” mainly means “shade” and “zill zahil” something like “dense shadow” (no good thing for one from cold countries who dreams about good sunshine). But all languages change – so also Arab. In old Arab it also meant “a covering” or “a shelter” and also “protection” or even “a state of ease, pleasure and plenty” or “happiness” (Lane 1915) – and the “zill zahil” which is used here then may mean f.x. “abundant happiness” (Razi). There is a difference between “deep shade” and “abundant happiness” – except perhaps for home-grown dwellers of hot deserts. Clear language in the Quran?

024 4/57k: "We (Allah*) shall admit them to shades, cool and ever deepening". An Arabism - see 4/13d above.

025 4/116b: "- - - one who joins gods with Allah - - -". Non-Muslims do not join gods with Allah. They simply do not believe he exists, and believe in their own god(s). An exception may be the old Arabs, who believed in their main pagan god, al-Lah/Allah, which Muhammad claimed in reality was the only god Allah - this in case is one of the Arabisms in the Quran.

026 4/122d: "- - - Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath - - -". The dream of desert dwellers is a paradise with plenty of water - the most frequent Arabism in the Quran. See 4/13d above.

027 5/2d: "- - - Sacred Month/Months - - -". The months 1, 7, 11, and 12. An Arabism taken over from the old pagan Arab religion. Also see 4/13d above.

028 5/2i: "- - - Sacred House - - -". May be the strongest of all Arabisms. And a very strong proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god: There is not one chance that a god would not mention his most sacred place, and all the same this originally old pagan temple in Arabia became a most holy place - - - But Yahweh and Jesus and the entire Bible never mention it.

029 5/12k: "- - - Gardens with rivers flowing below - - -". The most repeated Arabism (see 4/13d above) in the Quran. The many and large differences between Yahweh's and Allah's Paradises are one more proof for that the two are not the same god. If they had been, their Paradises had been one and the same.

030 5/97c: "- - - the Sacred Months - - -". Months number 1, 7, 11, and 12 were sacred in the old Arab pagan religion - one of the many pagan rules and rites Islam took over - - - even though when the Muslims broke the religious law that fighting was prohibited those months, Muhammad found an excuse for that it was ok - he and his god sometimes were very pragmatic. Also remember that the Islamic year is an artificial construction not following the natural year, and thus the "holy months" slide trough the natural year once every ca. 33 years (100 natural years = ca. 103 Islamic years). In the old Arabia they had extra months now and then to make their year follow the natural year approximately, but Muhammad stopped that.

These are two ("holy" months and artificial year) of the many Arabisms (see 4/13d above) in the Quran.

031 5/103a: This verse lists some pre-Islamic Arab customs - one (or several) of the Arabisms in the Quran - see 4/13d above.

032 5/119d: "- - - Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath - - -". The Quran's and Islam's paradise - see 10/9f below - and also the most frequently used Arabism in the Quran.

033 6/100b: "Jinns" - an Arabism. You only find them in and around Arabia (included traces of them in the old Jewish culture, though slightly different spelled - but not in the Bible).

034 6/128b: "- - - Jinns - - -". Supernatural beings only to be found in and around Arabia - an Arabism. They are not from the Bible. See 4/13d above.

035 7/33g: "- - - assigning partners to Allah - - -". Wrong. Most non-Muslims do not assign partners to Allah. They simply do not believe he exists and instead believe in other gods - or another god (like Yahweh). Assigning partners to Allah, was only done in the old Arabia, and really not to Muhammad's Allah, but to Allah before he was dressed up by Muhammad and still was the pagan god al-Lah - an Arabism (see 4/13d above).

036 7/38b: "- - - Jinns - - -". A being from Arab folklore, fairy tales and pagan religion which Muhammad has taken into Islam. An Arabism - see 4/13d above - as they only existed (?) in Arabia and neighboring areas.

037 7/43a: "(Paradise*) - beneath them will be rivers flowing - - -". The most frequently used Arabism in the Quran.

038 7/57b: “It is He who sendeth the winds like heralds of glad tidings - - -". An Arabism; in desert areas of the world wind may be glad tidings - it may be a forerunner of rain, or at least it may quench the heath. But we may tell you this is not the message of winds in some other parts of the world. Was Allah just a god for desert part of Tellus (the Earth) as he forgets this fact?

039 7/179c: "- - - Jinn - - -". A kind of beings “borrowed” from Arab Pagan religion, legends and fairy tales. They are material beings - f.x. there exist laws in Islam for marriage between humans and jinns, and marriage would be impossible unless they are material. And they are sent to Hell and fire for punishment - for immaterial beings fire would be no punishment. Allah made them from fire, according to the Quran. They are an Arabism as except for in the Quran they only exist in Arab and neighboring folklore, (+ fairy tales and old Arab pagan religion). They also are one more proof for that the Bible and the Quran are not from the same god, because even though Jinns do exist in the periphery of Jewish folklore, they never are mentioned in the Bible. This even though they except for angels make up the largest population of supernatural beings in the Quran. They are a rather central part of the world of Allah, but does not exist in the world of Yahweh.

040 7/190c: "- - - the partners (other gods*) they describe to Him (Allah*)". An Arabism - only in Arabia they had partners to al-Lah/Allah - the pagan god Muhammad took over and renamed only Allah. All other places they did not have gods in addition to Allah, but instead of Allah.

041 7/191a: "Do they (non-Muslims*) indeed ascribe to Him (Allah*) - - - partners - - -". An Arabism. Except for in Arabia where the pagan god al-Lah/Allah (renamed to only Allah by Muhammad) had many colleges, no non-Muslims ascribed or ascribe partners to Allah, because they simply do not believe in him. They believe in one or more entirely different god (Jews and Christians) or gods (polytheists). See 2/165c above and 25/18a below.

042 9/5i: "- - - the forbidden months - - -". The old Arabs had 4 holy months a year (numbers 1, 7, 11, and 12). Muhammad took them into Islam. A clear Arabism. There is nothing similar in the Bible.

043 9/30a: "The Jews call 'Uzayr (Ezra*) a son of God - - -". This is flatly wrong - Ezra was a central prophet after the Jews returned from Babylon, but there never was even a whisper about that he was the son of Yahweh. Now, Muslims admits this, but claim that the Jews around Yathrib (Medina) said so. We have not been able to find out if this is true or just another al-Taqiyya, but it also is totally irrelevant: Any god making a Quran had known the truth and not made a blemish like this. Then who made the Quran?

But it is relevant for another question: Why do Muslims mean that it should mean anything what Jews in tiny Medina in the middle of nearly nowhere meant in this case? - did the maker of the Quran live there and get his information by way of an Arabism from the locals? In that case he was no universal, omniscient god.

Besides: Is the claim that the Jews of Medina said Ezra was the son of God? They believed in their old scriptures, and it is very clear that such a claim conflicted those scriptures. Is this claim just another al-Taqiyya?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some Muslims claim Ezra falsified OT, but in addition to other facts:

THERE IS ONE STRONG FACT CONNECTED TO JESUS AND THE OTHER OLD JEWISH PROPHETS: ACCORDING TO THE QURAN THEY ALL WERE GOD MUSLIMS - AN IMPOSSIBILITY IF THEIR CLAIMED HOLY BOOKS FROM ALLAH WERE FALSIFIED. THUS THE CLAIMED FALSIFICATION OF ALSO OT CANNOT HAVE HAPPENED UNTIL AFTER JESUS (F.X. EZRA COULD NOT HAVE FALSIFIED OT, LIKE SOME MUSLIMS CLAIM - IF HE HAD, JESUS HAD RECEIVED WRONG INFORMATION AND HAD BEEN NO GOOD MUSLIM). THIS IN ADDITION TO THAT THE BOOKS WERE SENT DOWN (DIRECTLY) FROM ALLAH TO THE PROPHETS, ACCORDING TO THE QURAN, AND ERRORS IN THEM THEREFORE SHOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. ALL THE OLD GOOD MUSLIM PROPHETS INCLUDED JESUS THUS MUST HAVE HAD CORRECT HOLY BOOKS - THE OLD JEWISH SCRIPTURES/OT. IF NOT F.X. JESUS HAD BEEN TEACHING WRONG THINGS, WHICH HE DID NOT DO ACCORDING TO THE QURAN (and if the scrolls he read from in the synagogues had differed from what he received from Heaven, he had told about it - if not he was a bad Muslim). THE ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION HERE IS THAT ALSO NO PART OF THE OLD SCRIPTURES - OT - CAN HAVE BEEN FALSIFIED UNTIL AFTER JESUS TIME.

B U T  T H E R E  E X I S T  P L E N T Y  O F  M A N U S C R I P T S  A N D  F R A G M E N T S O L D  E N O U G H  T O  P R O V E  T H A T  O T  W A S  N O T  S I M I L A R  T O  T H E  Q U R A N  A T  T H A T  T I M E!!! I T  W A S  S I M I L A R  T O  T H E  S C R I P T U R E S  O F  T O D A Y !!!

In addition there is the problem: How in case make Jews and Christians agree on what new texts to use when they falsified (parts of) the Quran into OT??? And how to make ALL Jews spread over large parts of the world unprotestingly accept the new and falsified holy scriptures - and destroy all the old copies so thoroughly that not one piece of any of them has been found later? This in addition to the claimed falsification of NT and all the impossibilities and improbabilities which have to be "explained" away concerning the claimed falsification of NT.

THIS IS ONE OF THE CLAIMS MUHAMMAD MADE UP.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

044 9/31h: "- - - (far is He (Allah*)) from having the partners they associate with him". This is a clear Arabism, as the only place in the entire world they associated other deities with Allah, was in Arabia. And to be more exact, they did not associate them with Allah, but with al-Lah (though also named Allah) - the pagan old Arab main god witch Muhammad made to the only god and renamed Allah. No place else in the world did Allah have "partners". All other places they instead had another or other god(s). But Muhammad liked to pretend towards his followers - and perhaps also towards others - that Allah was in the background other places, too, only that the people there had chosen other gods. Perhaps he thought it gave weight to his own god Allah.

045 9/36d: "- - - of them (the months*) four are sacred". Months numbers 1, 7, 11, 12, are sacred in Islam - f.x. is fighting prohibited (if it is not forced on you). One of the many Arabisms in Islam.

046 9/37c: Neither holy months nor when to insert extra months - or to forbid such insertion - is from the Bible. Holy months and inserting of "leap months" are Arabisms.

As this was of no interest to Yahweh and Jesus, but "an addition to Unbelief" for Muhammad and Allah, it is one more indication for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion, not to mention in the same line of prophets.

047 9/72c: "- - - Gardens under which rivers flow - - -" The most frequently used Arabism in the Quran. See 4/13d above. And also see 10/9f below.

Also remember that the big and fundamental differences between the Bible's Paradise and the one of the Quran, are one of the strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

 

048 9/89b: "- - - Gardens under which rivers flow - - -". The most frequently used Arabism in the Quran. See 4/13d above.

049 9/100e: "- - - Gardens under which rives flow - - -". The most frequently used Arabism in the Quran.

050 10/9ea: "- - - beneath them (Muslims in Paradise*) will flow rivers - - -". The most frequently used Arabism in the Quran.

#051 11/95c: Shu'ayb - Salih - Hud. These are the 3 big non-Biblical claimed prophets in the Quran (+ Muhammad of course). All were Arabs working in Arabia. A universal god should have had a bigger choice including also other countries and continents - and perhaps also some success and/or different stories, not only parallels to Muhammad. One of the half hidden, but clear and strong Arabisms in the Quran. See 4/13d above.

052 13/35b: "- - - Garden - - - beneath it flow rivers - - -". The most frequently used Arabism in the Quran - the geography of paradise is like a desert dweller's dream.

053 14/23e: "- - - Gardens beneath which rivers flow - - -". The most frequently used Arabism in the Quran. And as said: Muhammad's Paradise is like the life of the very rich + more water and women, as seen through the eyes of primitive and poor male dwellers of a hot desert. But Allah should be the god of the entire world and all people. And why such a primitive paradise? – because as paradises come, this is a primitive one, and in the long run also a very boring one.

The many and fundamental differences between Yahweh's (where you become like the angels) and the one of Allah are one of the many absolute proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - if they had been, the Paradise had been one and the same.

054 15/27a: “And the Jinn race, We (Allah*) had created before - - -". According to this, the jinns were created before man. Jinns are a typical Arabism - something special for Arabia and its surroundings (you f.x. may find djinnies in Jewish folklore and fairy tales - but not in the Bible). They have a not small, but very unclear share of the supernatural part Islam's world, together with spirits, etc.

055 15/45d: "- - - Gardens and fountains (of clear-flowing water)". An Arabism - see 4/13d above - in the meaning that this is the primitive desert-dweller's dream of the conditions in Paradise.

056 16/31c: "- - - beneath them (in Paradise*) flow (pleasant) rivers - - -". A variant of the most used Arabism in the Quran. Also see 16/30-32 above and 25/18a below.

057 16/71d: "- - - those whom their right hands possess - - -". = An Arab expression - an Arabism - for slaves.

##058 16/81g: “He (Allah*) made you garments to protect you from the heath”. An Arabism. See 4/13d above.

059 17/24a: "- - - lower them the wing - - -". An Arab expression meaning take care of, defend. Nice - but would a god for the entire world use expressions only Arabs understood? An Arabism.

060 17/45c: "- - - those who believe not in the Hereafter - - -". Most religious people believe in a next life (though the old Arabs are said not to put much stress on that part of the religion - an Arabism perhaps? See 4/13d above.)

061 17/88b: "- - - Jinns - - -". Originally figures from Arab pagan religion, folklore and fairy tales – and not mentioned by any other prophet throughout times, even though they are pretty active and part of what Islam claims is the same basic religion as the Jewish and the Christian one (the claim is wrong, though - the basic ideals are too different, and the same for the two gods). According to the Quran they are made from fire (or hot wind) and are distinct from spirits. An Arabism (see 4/13d above) as far as we have found out they only exists in the folklore in and around Arabia.

062 18/31d: "- - - beneath them (in Paradise*) rivers will flow - - -". The most frequently used Arabism in the Quran - see 4/13d above. Also remember that the big differences between the Bible's Paradise and the Quran's are one of the strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - if they had been, their Paradises had been one and the same one.

063 19/86b: "- - - like thirsty camels driven down to water - - -". An Arabism. See 4/13d above.

064 20/76c: "Gardens of Eternity, beneath which flow rivers - - -". The most used Arabism in the Quran - see 4/13d above.

065 21/82b: "- - - the evil ones - - -". Here jinns - an invisible being from old Arab pagan religion, folklore and fairy tales. They were according to the Quran made from fire (or may be from very hot wind?), and invisible, but distinct from spirits - they are normally talked about as different kinds of beings (all the same in western translations you sometimes see it translated to spirits, for lack of closer name - Jinn is an Arabism, in the meaning that you "find" them only in and around Arabia).

066 22/14g: "- - - Gardens, beneath which rivers flow - - -". The most frequently used Arabism in the Quran - see 4/13d above.

067 22/23f: "- - - Gardens, beneath which rivers flow - - -". The most frequently used Arabism in the Quran. See 4/13d above.

068 22/36a: "The sacrificial camels - - -". Quite an Arabism. See 4/13d above.

0069 23/37b: "But we (the people of the unknown prophet*) shall never be raised up again!". More or less all religions have some kind of second life. The old pagan Arabs knew this from surrounding religions, but had weak belief about this themselves, and some of them said things like this to Muhammad. Here Muhammad claims the opponents told that prophet just the same as Arab opponents told Muhammad - "confirming" that the opposition Muhammad met, was normal for prophets, and thus also that Muhammad was in a normal situation for a normal prophet. But as this was a religious point of view one seldom and few places in the world met, this simply is one more Arabism.

070 23/117a: "- - - if anyone invokes, besides Allah, any other god - - -". A camouflaged way of telling that of course everyone invokes Allah - but some are bad and invokes other gods, too. The plain truth is that few, if any at all, who invoke another god also invoke Allah. In the old Arabia they may have invoked al-Lah/Allah, which was the same god Muhammad took over from the pagans, gave a slightly new name and a new past + a new role. But when the pagans invoked al-Lah/Allah, they invoked the old pagan god, not Muhammad's new Allah. Anyhow this only was possible in Arabia as it was there the names were so like that this "mishearing" was possible - another Arabism.

071 24/31d: "- - - those whom their right hand possesses - - -". = An old Arab expression - an Arabism - for slaves.

072 24/58b: “- - - those whom your right hand possess - - -". = An old Arab expression - an Arabism - for slaves.

073 25/10f: "- - - Gardens beneath which rivers flow - - -". The Quran's Paradise. See 10/9f above. Also the most frequently used Arabism in the Quran.

074 25/18a: "- - - others (other gods*) besides Thee (Allah*) - - -". Muhammad very often chooses his(?) words in such a way that it sounds like everyone had Allah for a god, but that many had other gods in addition. (This claim makes Allah very big and central - but it only is a never documented claim.) The correct was and is that with the exception of Arabia where they had the pagan god al-Lah/Allah which Muhammad renamed a little and claimed was Allah, they had/have one or more god(s) not in addition to Allah but instead of Allah - f.x. Yahweh.

As it - twisting the truth some between pagan and monotheistic god - could be after a fashion correct and understood like that, this in reality is one more Arabism - and one you meet often in the Quran.

075 27/17f: "- - - Jinns - - -". An Arabism - see 13/4d above - as they only exists in and around Arabia. The word sometimes is translated with "spirits", but they clearly are something different from ordinary spirits.

076 27/59f: "- - - false gods they (non-Muslims*) associate (with Him) (Allah*) - - -". They do not associate other gods with Allah, but he or they are instead of Allah. But Muhammad uses such expressions many places in the Quran - it makes Allah sound much bigger. The exception with some twisting was Arabia, where the polytheistic main god al-Lah and the monotheistic god Allah had so close names that Muhammad could mix them (actually the name Allah was used even before Muhammad) - an Arabism in this case. But this simply was a linguistic dishonesty.

077 27/63e: "- - - his mercy - - -". In this case this in reality means rain - a mercy to people in desert areas - a good Arabism. But it definitely is not a mercy everywhere (not unless you use extreme "explanations"). A universal god would not use such a strong word except for something which was a mercy to every community.

078 28/47c: "- - - (the deeds) that their hands (in this case the Quraysh'*) have sent forth - - -". An Arab expression for the good and bad deeds you will be judged from at the Day of Doom. An Arabism - see 4/13d above.

079 30/28b: “- - - those your right hand possesses- - -". This is an Arab expression for slaves - an Arabism. See 13/4d above.

080 30/36b: "- - - what their (own) hands have sent forth - - -" An Arab expression meaning "what you yourself have done" - an Arabism (see 4/13d above).

081 30/48c: "- - - they (humans*) do rejoice (for rain*) - - -". In Arabia they do - but hardly f.x. in England or Amazonas. If Allah had existed and been a universal god, he had used examples which had made everyone rejoice if he was involved in the making of the Quran. An Arabism - see 4/13d above. Then who made the Quran?

082 ########SURAH 31: LUQMAN

Luqman was a wise man from old Arab fairy tales - an Arabism. (+ what does it tell about the Quran that Muhammad took persons and tales also from local fairy tales?)

Mecca 614 - 617 AD.

083 31/12b: "We (Allah*) bestowed (in the past) wisdom on Luqman - - -". Luqman is a wise man in some Arab fairy tales. (A fact only Arabs knew - was Allah for the entire world in 614 - 617 AD, or was that idea a later one? Luqman is one more Arabism in the Quran.) Besides: How come that Allah bestowed wisdom on a made up person from fairy tales? (One possible explanation is that Muhammad did not know that Luqman was a made up person - but what does that in case tell about Allah?) And what does it tell about the maker of the Quran, that he uses Arab fairy tales in his book?

084 31/13b: "- - - Luqman - - -". A solid Arabism - see 4/13d above.

085 31/25a: “If thou ask them who it is that created the heavens (plural and wrong once more*) and the earth, they will certainly say, ‘Allah’”. Wrong. If they believe a god created this, they certainly will name their own god(s) - though in the old Arabia this might have been the polytheistic god al-Lah. (But here is a hidden, but clear Arabism: The likeness of the pronunciation of al-Lah and Allah hides the difference when spoken - just like when the Muslims use the word God instead of Allah speaking to non-Muslims - it on the surface camouflages some of the fundamental differences there are between Allah and God/Yahweh for people with little knowledge.)

It is very clear according to the Quran that the creator is Allah. You find that statement – but never a proof – at least in these verses: 10/3 – 11/7 – 21/30 – 21/32 – 23/17 – 25/59 – 30/22 - 32/4 – 35/1 – 39/5 – 41/11 – 41/12 – 50/38 – 51/47 – 79/28. Also see 11/7a and 21/56c above.

086 34/41c: "- - - Jinns, most of them (non-Muslims*) believed in them". Wrong. In most parts of the world nobody knew about jinns - they are from Arab and surrounding folklore and pagan religion. An Arabism. They f.x. were material beings and not spirits, and therefore cannot be compared to the spirits one find in many religions.

087 37/28: "- - - (coming*) from the right hand - - -". This is an old Arab expression - an Arabism. "To come from the right hand side" implies that the one who is talked about have power and authority + he is behaving morally, etc. correct. But would a universal god use such an Arabism in his claimed holy book claimed to be meant for the entire world?

088 37/158b: "- - - Jinns - - -". Beings - not spirits, though invisible for humans - from old Arab pagan religion, folklore, and fairy tales. They only "existed" in and around Arabia - an Arabism used in the Quran.

089 38/12c: "- - - the Lord of Stakes - - -". Another name for the Pharaoh. This Arab name is taken from the old Arab culture - a man with such a big tent that it needed many tent-poles ("stakes"), was a rich and powerful man. But would a god for the entire world use expressions in his holy book which only Arabs would understand - an Arabism? (It may also mean a leader who punished people by impaling them with/on stakes. We have not seen that this kind of punishment was used in old Egypt, though.)

#########090 39/32c: "- - - utters a lie concerning Allah - - -". There is no bigger lie against Allah than the Quran, this whether he exists or not. Why we can say this so 100% sure and definitely, is that the book is so full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. that no god has been involved in it, not to mention a claimed omniscient god. It is not possible to say who made it, though there are good reasons for to suspect Muhammad, partly because one recognize the methods used by false prophets, partly because many of the mistakes are things one believed was correct science at his time in that area, partly because it is clear from f.x. Arabisms that it was made in or near Arabia, partly because of all the times Allah helped him with family and other personal problems, partly because he was the main benefactor, partly because it was his platform of power, and not least because the religion changed when Muhammad needed or wanted changes.

If he was mentally ill, like modern medical science suspects, he can however partly have believed in his own tales and preaching himself. But he was too intelligent and knew too much about people not to know that he was lying some times, even in surahs and verses in the Quran. Some things are not possible for an intelligent person knowing people to believe.

But if one believes in supernatural beings, there also is the possibility that the Quran is from the dark forces. If f.x. the Devil dressed up like the angel Gabriel, no human - included Muhammad - would have a chance to know the difference. The partly immoral moral code, the partly unethical ethical code, the partly unjust judicial code, the permission of stealing/robbing, raping, suppressing, enslaving, murdering, etc., etc., may point in this direction.

What do these facts mean for the religion?

Also see 34/8b above.

As for Gabriel there is a strange fact in the Quran: He is never named in the surahs from Mecca. Not until after he came to Medina did Muhammad start claiming he got his information(?) and messages(?) from Gabriel. If Muhammad really had got - or even only believed he got - the claimed messages from a central angel, this had been such a strong agument that there is no chance Muhammad had not told about this - and often - during the first difficult 13 years in Mecca. What is the explanation?

#091 39/36c: "- - - other (gods) besides Him (Allah*) - - -". Another Arabism, because no non-Muslim had Allah as a god in addition to their real god(s) - an expression Muhammad often used because it made Allah sound bigger (the underlying claim: Everybody believe in Allah, though some have other gods in addition - Allah must be the central and main god for all in reality!). But you only could use this claim in Arabia, where the main pagan god was named al-Lah or sometimes Allah (the god Muhammad took over and only permitted the name Allah), because for one thing the names were so alike that a little twist of the pronunciation was enough to be able to claim that the pagans talked about Allah, and for another when the pagans meant the pagan god al-Lah/Allah. Yes, if the old pagans used the pagan name Allah, it was identical to the name of Muhammad's claimed monotheistic god (even though if Muhammad's Allah is a fiction - and at least all the errors in the Quran prove that the book is not from any god - Muslims simply are new pagans), Muhammad easily could claim they really meant his monotheistic Allah, as he had taken over al-Lah and dressed him up only, so that in reality they spoke about the same god.

092 43/16b: "What! Has He (Allah*) taken daughters out of what He himself creates, and granted to you (Arabs*) sons for choice?" In the old Arabia daughters had so low esteem that Muhammad could use this as an argument - a god impossibly could want daughters! But many places is the world women were not reckoned to be that invalid (actually not many places the world over was as bad for women as in Mecca and a few other places), and some places they even were valuable - matriarchies or valuable as brides (= money to the parents many places) or as partners for the man in the toil for the daily food. Islam claims Allah is god for the entire world. Would a universal god use arguments which would not be universally understood? - here simply an Arabism -(this is far from the only such case where mainly Arabs would understand the point).

##093 46/29a: "- - - Jinns - - -". A being "borrowed" from old Arab folklore and local pagan religion - an Arabism. You never find it in the Bible, even though Muhammad claimed it to be the same god and the same basic religion. Jinns were/are physical beings - created from fire (or from excessively hot wind is said one place), not spirits. (Fire is something physical - to be reasonably exact it is smoke so hot that it emits light, and Jinns are thus made from hot smoke. Jinns also can marry humans according to the old Islamic laws - something which would be difficult if they were not material. NB: No such marriage has ever provably happened. Also note here that they "returned to their people" - their fellow Jinns - and not to "their fellow spirits": They had their main similarities to people, even though they were invisible.)

094 48/5c: "- - - Gardens beneath which rivers flow - - -". The Quran's and Islam's Paradise. See 10/9f above. Also an Arabism.

095 48/17h: "- - - Gardens beneath which rivers flow - - -". The Quran's and Islam's Paradise - see 10/9f above. Also: An Arabism - the one most frequently used in the Quran.

096 51/15d: "- - - Gardens and Springs - - -". The Quran's Paradise is a Paradise for dwellers of hot deserts - like in Arabia; water, shade, cool temperature, etc. For large parts of the world good weather, sunshine, good temperature, etc. would be Paradise. Allah is a god for Arabia, Sahara, etc. it seems. A god for the entire world had not used pictures relevant mainly for people from hot desert areas - Arabisms.

The large and fundamental differences between Yahweh's Paradise and Allah's one, are one of the strong proofs for that the two are not the same god.

097 51/56a: “I (Allah*) have only created jinns - - -". But are jinns really created? They have never ever provably manifested themselves in any way, and they after all just are beings borrowed from old Arab folklore, fairy tales, and pagan religion, and were not to be found other places than in and around Arabia - an Arabism.

It is a reason for thinking that Muhammad uses jinns as a proof for the existence of Allah, as the only places they are proved to "exist", are in old folklore, fairy tales, and old pagan religion. They also according to science of religion are a special kind of beings (the word often is translated with "spirits", but spirits are pure mental beings, whereas jinns are made from smoke, and thus at least partly physical) which on in the old times only found in and around Arabia. A strange choice for a god for the entire world, a pretty natural choice for Muhammad, who took most of his tales in the Quran from his surroundings, and mostly without checking if they were true. (With a rich wife it f.x. had not been too difficult for him to get hold of a Bible, or at least a copy of the old Jewish scriptures and check what that book really said. But he did not bother - to claim that the Bible was falsified, was easier.

098 54/27-29: "- - - the she-camel - - -". Of this story we originally were unable to understand the point - in a land where there are 2 dozen camels to the dozen, how could a camel be a sign of Allah? Then at long last we found the explanation: There was an old legend about a camel which came out from a sheer cliff and became a prophet. Of course this camel would be a sign or proof. But for one thing: Would an omniscient god going for a world religion use a story no-one outside Arabia would understand - an Arabism - simply because they did not know the legend Muhammad built his story on? And besides it so obviously is a fairy tale, that today even many Muslims try to deny this connection - but this is the story.

099 54/54c: "- - - in the midst of Gardens and Rivers - - -". = In the Quran's and Islam's Paradise - an Arabism. See 10/9f above.

100 55/33b: "- - - Jinns - - -". A being from old Arab pagan religion (like much more in Islam), folklore, and fairy tales, taken over by Muhammad and his new religion. They are made from fire, and thus material (fire = smoke so hot that it emits light, and smoke is material - in Islamic law there also are laws for marriage to a Jinn, which would not be practically possible if the Jinn was not material), but existed only in and around Arabia at the time of Muhammad - an Arabism. They seem not to be of good nature, because mostly they end up in Hell. It seems to be possible, though, for them also to end in Heaven, but not one word is said in the Quran of their possible life there.

#101 55/41c: "- - - sized by their forelocks - - -". An Arab expression - an Arabism -meaning taken complete control over by someone else, like when leading a tamed horse by its forelocks. Would a god aiming for the entire world use Arabisms?

###A newer point is that as the front lock is near the frontal part of the brain (where the "higher" functions are situated), many Muslims claims that the Quran here does not mean the front lock, but the frontal part of the brain! Oh, no - it is not a possibility!- it is a fact that this is what Allah meant!! This in spite of what Allah says about the language in the book. Muslims' "magic of similarity" at work - and the similarity here is that there are no similarity between hair and the brain, except that they are placed at dissimilar sides of the skull. Well, at least it is a telling sample of Muslim logic, and of their "logical conclusions" based on "the magic of similarity" (they use similar logic connected to "the magic of numbers".

Also: For Muslims or Islam to claim that the Quran means something different from what it says, is to corrupt or falsify the texts.

102 56/30-31: "- - - In shade long-extended, by water flowing constantly - - -". An Arabism. The Quran's Paradise mirrors the dreams of dwellers in hot deserts. Hardly any place in the Quran you find the dreams of people from chilly and perhaps wet countries. Did not Allah know such places existed when he(?) made his claimed holy book for the entire Earth?

Not from the Bible.

103 56/55b: "Indeed ye shall drink like diseased camels raging with thirst". Another one of the many "Arabisms" in the Quran - how could an Inuit, a Samoyed, or for that case an Indian in Peru or a Swede or an Australian aborigine knows a camel's capacity of drinking? A holy book for the entire world - made by an omniscient god?

104 57/8a: (See point 6). "What cause have ye (non-Muslims*) why ye should not believe in Allah?". Well to mention a few of the reasons:

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

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

105 57/12e: "- - - by their right hands - - -". In Arabia the right hand was the good or good luck hand/side (and the left the bad hand or bad luck side). An Arabism.

106 57/12h: "Gardens beneath which flow rivers!. The Quran's and Islam's Paradise - see 10/9f above. This expression also is the most used Arabism in the Quran - a river is one of the big dreams for dwellers of a hot desert.

107 58/22k: "- - - Gardens beneath which Rivers flow - - -". The Quran's and Islam's Paradise - see 10/9f above. And also the most frequently used Arabisms in the Quran.

108 60/13g: "- - - the unbelievers are in despair about those (buried) in the grave". A complicated way of saying they do not believe in resurrection from the graves. But this is an Arabism. The old did not think much about a next life, and could be skeptical to its existence, but in the rest of the world most people believed in a next life. Would a universal god use Arabisms in his claimed universal and holy book?

109 61/12e: "- - - Gardens beneath which rivers flow". The Quran's and Islam's Paradise - see 10/9f above. Also the most frequently used Arabism in the Quran.

**110 64/7b: “The Unbelievers think that they will not be raised up (after this life*)”. Wrong. Islam wants to be a religion for the entire world, and most religions it met and meets have a second life. But what was difficult for the old Arabs - and others - to accept, was that Muhammad told that not only your soul - or something similar - was to be resurrected, but your complete and exact body and mental self, except that you are to be resurrected as a young and good-looking person - there is said nothing about people born with mental or physical handicaps, or babies/children in this connection. (There is one inconsistency, though: 2-3 places the Quran tells that your women in Paradise will be of “suitable age” - f.x. 78/33. Why? - if everyone will be young and then of roughly the same age?) If bodily resurrection is believable or not, anyone will have to decide for himself or herself.

We repeat, though, that the old Pagan Arabs did not pay much attention to a possible next life. But if that is what Muhammad here meant, that is an Arabism, because this was a rarity except among the Arabs.

111 64/9h: "- - - beneath which rivers flow - - -". The most frequently used Arabism in the Quran.

112 65/11n: "- - - beneath which rivers flow - - -". The most frequently used Arabism in the Quran.

113 66/8c: "- - - Gardens beneath which Rivers flow - - -". The Quran's and Islam's Paradise - see 10/9f above. It also is the most frequently used Arabism in the Quran.

114 71/11: "He (Allah*) will send rain to you in abundance - - -". See 11/7a above - plus this is one of the Arabisms in the Quran - only in dry countries rain is a top favor.

115 71/12b: "- - - bestow on you rivers (of flowing water) - - -". The most frequently used Arabism in the Quran. Muhammad overlooked that if Noah and his people lived in the south of Iraq like one believe (if he is not fiction), they may have had plenty of water (the Euphrates and the Tigris).

116 72/1b: "Jinn". A being originally from old Arab folklore, legends and old pagan Arab religion. According to the Quran, they were created by Allah from fire, and it seems that most of them end in Hell. It also seems, but is not 100% sure from the Quran, that Iblis - the Muslim Devil - originally was a Jinn. In western literature "jinn" often is translated with "spirit", but they seem to be material, though invisible, and also the Quran differentiate between Jinns and spirits, which means Jinns are not spirits. There exist old Islamic laws regulating marriages between humans and jinns, (but no such marriage has ever taken place), and such marriages could not be arranged unless (the Muslims thought) Jinns were material. Also fire = smoke so hot that it emits light, and smoke is material (glowing "ash" floating in gas). Strangely you found Jinns only in and around Arabia - an Arabism in a claimed universal god's tales.

117 74/39b: "- - - the Right Hand". In the old Arabia the right side was the good side, and the left the bad side. Is it a co-incidence that it is the same in Heaven? Yes, we know that some Muslims claim that Arab is the language spoken in Heaven (if not f.x. the Quran has to be translated from the claimed "mother book" it is a copy of, and they accuse all other Quran's than the Arab one to be not exact - - - because they are translated), and the Amaddiyya Muslims even have "proved" that Arab is the original language on Earth. But childish stupidity aside: Is there a distinction between good and bad side in Heaven like in the old Arabia - but very far from in all country? An Arabism? Is the choice of good and bad side in case the same as in the old Arabia? Or has simply Muhammad or Allah or Iblis or whoever made the Quran, thought that this superstition was universal as it was self evident in Arabia?

As for the similarity between Arabia and Heaven on this point, there are 3 possible explanations:

  1. A coincidence.
  2. Arabia - but few others - has learnt it from Heaven.
  3. Heaven has learnt it from Arabia or someone.

118 76/14a: "And the shades of the (Garden) will come low over them (Muslims in Paradise*)..." Another Arabism - in this case one valid for all hot and dry countries. But shade is not a paradise for people from cold countries. Why does Allah use pictures mainly from hot desert countries, if he wants to be a god for the entire world? For Muhammad shade and plenty of water was a heavenly dream, but an omniscient god should be able to give all people heavenly dreams. Plenty of rain and shade was and is not a paradise for a Briton or anyone else at high latitudes, and especially not in rainy or cold districts. Who really made the Quran?

Also remember that the many and deep differences between Yahweh's Paradise and the one of Allah is one of the strong proofs for that the two are not the same god - if they had been, their Paradise had been one and the same one.

119 77/41d: "- - - (cool) shades and springs (of water)". The Arab desert dwelling nomads' dream of a paradise - far from f.x. the Inuit's or Samoyed's or for that case the North Europeans' or the original inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego's dream about nice sunshine and not too much rain and water. All the "Arabism" makes Allah seem to be a god for desert Arabs mainly.

Also remember that the many and deep differences between Yahweh’s Paradise and the one of Allah, are one of the strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

120 85/11d: "- - - Gardens; beneath which Rivers flow - - -". The Quran's and Islam's Paradise - see 10/9f above. This also is the most frequently used Arabism in the Quran.

And not to forget: One more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, as their paradises are too different.

121 90/18b: "- - - the Right Hand". In the Old Arabia the right hand was the good and lucky one. (Whereas the left hand was the unlucky one.) An Arabism. Is it a coincident that this superstition also is found in the Quran?

122 91/14: "So their (the Thamud tribe's*) Lord (claimed to be Allah - more than 2ooo years before Muhammad*), on account of their crime (not accepting Islam - more than 2ooo years before Muhammad*), obliterated their traces - - -". This is one of the quite many cases of old ruins and/or old folklore telling about earlier, but disappeared people in and around Arabia (mainly in - another Arabism) which Muhammad claimed had been killed off because of sins against Allah. Science has a number of other possible explanations for disappearing or moving away in a harsh, lawless, and warlike area.

123 96/15: "- - - We (Allah*) will drag him (non-Muslim*) by the forelock - - -". Once again: Not unless Allah exists, and not unless he has power - good or bad. Muhammad was never able to prove anything of any essence about his new religion. ("Leading by the forelock" is an Arab saying meaning that the one leading has full control over the other one - one more Arabism in the book).

124 98/8c: "- - - Gardens of Eternity, between which rivers flow - - -". Once more the desert dwellers dream of a paradise - and once more an Arabism.

We may add that 2 of those rivers according to Hadiths continue unearth - the Nile and the Euphrates. Believe it if you are able to.

125 106/1-4: The whole of this surah is one big Arabism.

126 108/1b: "- - - Fount (or river?*) (of Abundance) - - -". Unclear meaning as the Arab word which is used here for fount or river, al-kawthar, also is the name of a river in Paradise (A108/1). This river Allah has promised Muhammad according to YA6286, and this verse may confirm this. Quite a gift for a desert dweller - and quite an Arabism.

127 108/3c: "- - - he (non-Muslim*) will be cut off (from Future Hope)". But here is a hidden meaning - hidden for non-Arabs: (A108/2 - omitted from the English 2008 edition): "With this word - "abtar" the Arabs named the man without male descendants, as they meant that a man's reputation and words about him could not be kept alive after his death without male descendants. The sons also meant strength, and in the end power. - - - As a man's prestige in this way to a large degree depended on his number of sons, the word "abtar" to a high degree was a demeaning title. The Prophet Muhammad got at least two sons, but they both died as infants, and it is told that among the insulting words used against him by his enemies in Mecca, was just this word. An Arabism not possible to understand the meaning of, if you do not know life in Arabia. Why does an god who is claimed to be the god for the entire world use so many Arabisms - but hardly any information from other places and nothing from places really distant from Arabia?

127 + 985 = 1112 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

28.  ARABS

"Arab" was the name of the people who lived in the Arabian Peninsula. Contrasting their own claims they originally were/are no bona fide race or tribe or people. The peninsula was populated over a period of many millennia - first the coastal areas (perhaps from some 7ooo BC on), and much later the interior. The ones who settled in the peninsula were people who drifted in from all the surrounding areas and groups of people. This mixture was further "diluted" by traders passing through - "sex and alcohol were the two delightful things" in the old Arabia, and much more so by the import of millions slaves from all around - Europe, Asia from as far off as China, and large quantities from Africa. The slave girls and women were regularly raped and forced to make children - there f.x. is not a little Negro blood in the Arabs.

(To specify a little concerning the settlement of humans in Arabia: Modern humans may have entered the coastal area, river areas, etc. as early as 75ooo-50ooo years ago. The Neolithic period started around 6500 BC with a likely expansion of the population because of some agriculture, expansion of the use of domesticated animals, and trade. The interior of Arabia except for some oasis, etc. were settled much later and not until well after the camel was domesticated and more widely used. It is unclear where and when it was domesticated, but likely in south of the peninsula (Oman?) something like 2ooo BC (the number varies some), but it did not come into wide use until the 9. or 10. century BC.)

That the Arabs are of very mixed origin and not really of a coherent origin, today also proved by modern DNA tests.

Arabs and Arabia are mentioned some 3 dozen times in the Bible, and always either in neutral words or as enemies, never as friends, not to mention as relatives of the Jews. (Thus also in the Quran Jews and Arabs nowhere are mentioned as friends or relatives - one single time it is mentioned that bad Arabs are friends of Jews, and that is all.) But in the Quran the Arabs naturally are the good guys and a strong race - descended from Abraham. But as said historic facts and even more reliable; modern DNA, has proved they are a mixture, not a "clean" race descended from a common source, and thus definitely not from a single man like f.x. Abraham. (This in addition to that science is highly skeptical - or more - to that Abraham ever visited Arabia.)

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

001 1/4c: "- - - the Day of Judgment". In the old Arab religion there was no after-life, or if there were, this idea was little essential. But of course roaming people like the Arabs (even the Meccans had been nomads only a few generations earlier, and were now traveling businessmen) had heard about religions with a Day of Doom and resurrection. If Muhammad or someone made up the Quran, it is likely that this idea came from old Sumerian or similar religions partly via the Mosaic (Jewish) religion. (It is to be remembered that the Quran contains nearly no - if any - new or original histories or ideas at all. They are "borrowed" from the old Arabia or mainly from neighboring cultures and religions).

002 2/62f: "- - - the Sabeans - - -". There are at least 3 possible explanations for whom the Sabeans were:

  1. A semi-Christian group in Iraq - it still exists near Basra (some 2ooo members today).
  2. At the time of Muhammad there also was a Gnostic group at Harran called Sabeans.
  3. But the by far most likely explanation is the old kingdom of Saba (Sabah, Sheba) in what is now Yemen (cfr. the Queen of Saba/Sabah/Sheba). The fact that they mainly were Christians, makes this even more likely.

Muslims nearly always only mention one or both of the 2 first when talking about this, and when they mention the country of Sheba, we have never seen them mention that they were Christians. Sheba was made Christian via the Christian Abyssinia (now approximately Ethiopia) which conquered them ca. 350 AD (and then conquered by Persia ca.579 AD). When they are mentioned specially, the reason may be that perhaps the teachings and/or rituals varied a little from the Christians the Arabs met further north - or simply that they lived in another place (south) than the other Christians desert Arabs met, who lived in north-west in Sham = the lands at the inner end of the Mediterranean Sea. It is anybody’s guess why Muslims do not like to mention the Christian Sheba - perhaps they were made Muslims in ways not constituent with "let there be no compulsion in religion" (often wrongly quoted by Muslims to "there is no compulsion - - -")? - lots of Arabs were made Muslims that way.

003 2/85a: "After this (the covenant - the first one was with Abraham around 2ooo-1800 BC, and Muhammad claimed Abraham was the forefather of the Arabs (wrong according to modern DNA, as the Arabs are a hodge-podge of different races originally)) it is ye (Jews*) - - - who slay among yourselves - - -. How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before, and then copied in the Quran? See 2/51b above.

004 2/85b: "- - - the same people (Jews*), who slay among yourselves - - -". When Muhammad arrived in Medina, the town was in a permanent state of civil war, and with Jews on both sides of the fighting. Thus it could happen that Jew fought - and killed - Jew (actually also the Bible has a number of cases where Jews fought Jews). But how come that this is told in a book claimed to be written long time before - may be even existed since eternity - if man has free will? The moment the book was written, on-one could change his mind or anything about anything - f.x. agree with the enemy to stop fighting - because then the book would be wrong - - - and thus free will for man cannot exist - or full clairvoyance and omniscience for Allah cannot exist.

But NB: Also the Arabs fought among themselves.

###005 2/113g: "- - - the ones who know not - - -". Most likely this refers to the Pagan Arabs - like so often the Quran is not clear, in spite of strong claims for being clear and easy to understand. Remember here that when the Quran speaks about knowledge, it means religious knowledge - knowledge about the Quran and Islam. The Pagans could be full of knowledge, but as they did not accept Muhammad and his new teachings, they were "the ones who know not". Symptomatic here also is the Islamic name for the times before Islam: "The Time of Ignorance". This in clear contradiction to that f.x. in Persia the learned people had much more knowledge than the backward Arab tribes - but they did not know about or dismissed Islam. One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims - a not very strong one here.

##006 2/125e: "We (Allah*) covenanted with Abraham and Ishmael - - -". The Bible is contradicting: (1.Mos.17/21) Yahweh says: "But my covenant I will make with Isaac". And many years later to Isaac's son Jacob (and now Ishmael is totally out of the picture) similar words like the ones which were said to Abraham 2 generations earlier (1.Mos. 28/14): "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring". There is no doubt according to the Bible with which branch of Abraham's descendants the god covenanted. Even if the Arabs really were descendants of Ishmael, they had belonged to the wrong branch of the family - they were not the offspring of Jacob, and not even of Isaac. And it is likely this might be the reality - at the time when the Torah was written, there was no reason for the writers to place Ishmael and his descendants at the border of Egypt (1.Mos. 25/18) if he really lived in Arabia - Muhammad and his competing religion still was 1000 years into the unknown future when it was written. But for Muhammad the situation was different: It is quite common for emerging sects and religions to "high-jack" parts of a mother religion - it gives "weight" and tradition to the new sect/religion. For Muhammad it would pay to "take over" a known name like Ishmael. It obviously also would pay for him to take over the claimed center of the religious word - even a made up claim works if people believe in it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There also is another point to include: The camel likely was domesticated at the time of Abraham. But it did not come into wide use until around 1ooo-900 BC, and it seems that it even then only was used for working and carrying, not or very little for riding. (F.x. the first time one knows camels were used in a battle, was in a battle between the kings Croesus of Lydia and Cyrus the Great in 547 BC, where Cyrus used PACKING camels (for want of riding ones) to frighten Croesus' horses, who were not used to camels.) Also science tells that the camel was not introduced in Abraham's area until the Assyrians started trade with South Arabia around 800 BC - 1ooo-1200 years after Abraham. If Abraham had no riding camels, the valley of later Mecca, some 750 miles/1200 km or whatever, depending on where he started, was a long walk - and as long return. Each time.

One final and partly different point: As mentioned costal Arabia was settled around 7ooo BC . The interior was settled after the camel was introduced. By 1800 BC the peninsula had a reasonably big population. Even if Ishmael took all his 12 sons and moved to Arabia, how big percent of the total population of Arabia would they make up? In other words: How big percent of the forefathers of the Arabs of today, or at the time of Muhammad, did Ishmael represent? - a small number behind a lot of zeroes behind a comma. Even in the unlikely case that Ishmael had settled in Arabia and not near Egypt, Arabs 2400 years later (Muhammad) or 3800 years later (today) were/are not the descendants of Ishmael, but the descendants of all the people living in Arabia in the old times, of which Ishmael in case had made up only a miniscule part of a percent (for the Jews the picture is a bit different, because of the restrictions on marrying outside the group - a restriction often broken, but all the same relatively effective). This in addition to all later mixing with people from the outside, included hundreds of thousands (likely a some millions) slave girls imported to a miserable life in the harems of Arabs before and after Muhammad.

(To specify a little concerning the settlement of humans in Arabia: Modern humans may have entered the coastal area, river areas, etc. as early as 75ooo-50ooo years ago. The Neolithic period started around 6500 BC with a likely expansion of the population because of some agriculture, expansion of the use of domesticated animals, and trade. The interior of Arabia except for some oasis, etc. were settled much later and not until well after the camel was domesticated and more widely used. It is unclear where and when it was domesticated, but likely in south of the peninsula (Oman?) something like 2ooo BC (the number varies some), but it did not come into wide use until the 9. or 10. century BC.)

Also see 2/127a below.

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

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

007 2/125l: "- - - they should sanctify my House (Kabah in Mecca*) - - -." The Quran claims Abraham was in what was to become Mecca because he had left Hagar and Ishmael there years before - two claims never documented (and wrong according to the Bible and likely to science), but which according to A: "The Message of the Quran" used to be an old Arab tradition (do an omniscient god have to listen to legends?). This is contradicting the Bible (1.Mos. 21/14): "She (Hagar*) went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba". Beersheba was and is in the south part of Palestine - far from Arabia and Mecca. (Well, the name Palestine did not exist then. That name was introduced by Hadrian in 135 AD.)

What is more: According to the Bible (1. Mos. 25/18) Hagar - who was from Egypt - and her son settled near Egypt, not Arabia: "- - - his descendants settled in the area from Havila to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur" (1.Mos. 25/18).

Islam never mentions the last part of this, and explains Beersheba away with claiming that all desert south of Beersheba used to be called "the wilderness of Beersheba" and the Paran desert they explain away with that there was a mountain in near Mecca named Paran - or originally Faran - and what is the difference between "desert" and "mountain" - or between "Paran" and "Faran"? - voila: It must have happened in Arabia!! (It normally is called the wilderness or the desert of Paran by Muslims today - and on Internet you find a lot of claims for that this was the Biblical Paran. Take a look at them and see how likely it is that Abraham would take his large flocks of sheep, etc. through long distances of such landscape to reach an empty desert valley with no known water (the Zamzam was not discovered until a little later according to the Quran.))

The problem is that Arabia and Arabs are mentioned at least 15 times in OT (see 2/42d above) - so the makers of the OT clearly knew the difference between Beersheba and Arabia - and Egypt - and especially when so large distances were involved. Also they knew what a desert was, and the difference between a desert and a mountain. The Mormons claim Jesus visited USA - they have yet to prove it. Muslims claim Abraham visited Mecca - they have yet to prove it. But of course such claims make good anchors to "solid religious ground" as long as they can evade questions for proofs.

Also see 2/125e above and 2/127a below.

008 2/218c: “- - - those (Muslims*) who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of Allah - they have the hope of the Mercy of Allah: - - -”. Especially as practically all Muhammad's raid and war were acts of aggression, this is incompatible with especially NT. (Perhaps war in self defense is permitted in NT. In OT this clearly is permitted, as was war to make room for a Jewish nation. In contrast Muhammad's and Muslims' raids and wars nearly always were acts of aggression for riches, captives, land, power and spreading Islam - f.x. most of Arabia and large areas outside Arabia were converted to Islam by the sword (and even more areas by different kinds of pressure backed by the sword).

009 3/33a: "Allah did choose - - - the family of Abraham - - - above all people". Arabs claim - as normal without any proofs - to be the descendants of Ishmael, the illegitimate son of Abraham (in spite of that according to the Bible Ishmael's descendants settled on the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) - not in Arabia - and became a powerful people there "with twelve tribal rulers" (1.Mos. 25/16)), and they (the Arabs) claims they thus are descendants of Abraham. Is this the reason why Arabs through the first centuries claimed to be better than other Muslims, and thus caused lots of and lasting strife in Islam? Also see 2/125a and 2/127a above.

010 3/68b: “Without doubt, among men, the nearest of kin to Abraham, are those who follow him - - -“.

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

  4. There are lots of discrepancies between the Bible and the Quran concerning Abraham. Science reckons the Bible to be considerably more reliable than the Quran - which is not reckoned to be reliable for anything at all older than Muhammad (you f.x. never see a serious scientist using the Quran as a source for historical facts from before Muhammad),
  5. If Muhammad included himself here: Was he really a descendant of Abraham? – Abraham lived some 2500 years earlier, and how many even today know their forefathers 2500 years back? – people have lied for political or personal reasons throughout both history and pre-history, also about honorable ancestors. Also remember here that according to the Bible - the only "real" source - Ishmael settled in Sinai near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18), not in Arabia.
  6. Even if Muhammad had been a descendant of Abraham – then how close after 2500 years? His first forefather in case was Ishmael. Ishmael was half Egyptian (his mother Hagar was a slave maiden from Egypt (1.Mos. 16/1), and Ishmael himself married a woman (only one wife is mentioned) from Egypt (1. Mos. 21/21) and his family settled near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) in Sinai. The border of Egypt of that time never was in the middle of Arabia, even though Muslims want Hagar and Ishmael to have settled in Mecca). In addition modern DNA has shown that Arabs far from is a pure race. Arabs originally were a mixture of groups and persons which drifted into the then empty area something like 8ooo years ago (a bit earlier some places along the coasts), and thus was no pure race even from the beginning. Later they were drifting nomads and traders – and brought home wives and slaves and got children with them. Also foreign traders crossed Arabia and made a child now and then – the sexual taboos were far looser before Muhammad. And then there were all the slave women who produced dilution of the blood also in Islamic times. The Arabs simply is a mix of different local and a lot of not local DNA – in addition to the already mentioned fact that already after 2 generations only ¼ of the relationship was with Abraham (if at all) - - - and the 25oo years up to Muhammad meant some 80 - 100 generations diluting of the claimed, but unlikely relationship.

There thus is much reason for doubt.

##011 3/162a: “Is the man who follows the good pleasure of Allah like the man who draws on himself the wrath of Allah - - -?” Of course not – the Muslims are better. It is a strange rule this that the ones inventing an ideology, always deem themselves to be the best, and all others of lower value. The Greeks were better than their "barbarian" neighbors. The old Egyptian found it distasting even to eat together with the Jews, according to the Bible (because they were lowly shepherds). Arab Muslims for centuries were better than other Muslims. Afghan Muslims even today mean they are better Muslims than other Muslims. Everybody is better than the Jews. The Indians were better than the Eskimos. The white race was the very best. Communists were and are best. Not to mention how best the Nazis were. And not to forget: Muslims are better than anyone else - twice as good or better according to some Muslims (according to the laws in Saudi Arabia, Muslims are twice as good as Jews or Christians, and sixteen - 16 - times as good as everybody else). It even is possible to believe things like this if you have little education, are naive, or are brainwashed.

012 4/34a: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength (only the physical strength counts*)) than the other, and because they support them from their means (because the women hardly had any other choice in Muhammad's Arabia*). Therefore, the righteous women are devoutly obedient (and chaste*)”. As for support: In many Arabian societies before Islam, the woman was working and doing her share of supporting the family and herself. In those many cases the reason why she needs support, is that Islam denies her the possibility to do it herself. (Actually one reason why a war religion like Islam may be will not succeed in conquering the world, simply is the inefficiency of the female workforce - and another that Muslims cannot be trained to think for themselves (and be innovative) because then they may start asking questions about Islam - among other things about all the mistakes, contradictions, and invalid proofs and logic - and some aspects with its morality, ethics and humanity - or the lack of such. As for empathy it is so far from Islam, that it is an open question to what degree an average, but strongly believing Muslim is able to feel empathy, at least for anything not Muslim - it is too foreign to the ideals of Islam).

013 4/36a: "Serve Allah, and join not partners with Him - - -". In reality an Arabism, because only the Arabs could be accused of joining other gods with al-Lah/Allah. All others simply did not believe in al-Lah/Allah and had one or more god not in addition to him, but instead of him (and the old Arabs really believed in the pagan al-Lah/Allah, not in Muhammad's version of him.

014 4/94d: “Say not (warrior during raid/war*) to anyone who offers you a salutation: ‘Thou art none of a believer!” – coveting the perishable goods of this life - - -.” Most of Arabia and many other places were turned Islamic in this way – people became Muslims to save life and what they owned. But some were not believed or pretended not to be believed, so that the warriors could steal – or kill or rape – as they wished. It is told in the Hadiths that Muhammad disliked cases where the victims said they were Muslims and all the same were killed - this verse may - may - be a try to stop such cases.

But it is thought provoking that the rule only was and is for Muslim victims - anyone else you can kill to steal his property or enslave his family (enslavement is more difficult today, but ok in the Quran).

015 5/2c: "- - - Sacred Month - - -". A tradition - one of many - taken over from the old Pagan times in Arabia. No other of the large religions have such holy months - funny how many things the pagan old Arabs had correct, but nobody else, according to Allah. There were 4 such months (number 1, 7, 11, 12), when f.x. fighting and war was not permitted - but the Muslims broke it at least once. Muhammad afterwards - as normal - got a "revelation" which sanctified the breaking. By the way: Hajj - pilgrimage - is in month number 12, but beware that the Muslim year is a little - ca. 11 days - shorter than the natural year, and thus it wanders along the normal year over a period of ca. 33 years. 100 normal years = ca. 103 Muslim years. (As the expression here is in singular, the book just here may indicate the month of pilgrimage only.)

016 5/7b: "- - - His Covenant, which He (Allah') ratified with you (Muslims*), when ye said: 'We hear and we obey'- - -". Once upon a time some Boers of South Africa made what they called a covenant with Yahweh/God. They promised that if Yahweh/God would help them, they would do so-and-so. What they over-looked was that a covenant must be agreed on by at least two parts; and as Yahweh/God was not an involved participant in an agreement about the case, they in reality only made promises, not a covenant. Is this something of the same? Another point: According to the Bible the god did not make any covenant with Ishmael and his descendants, only with Isaac and his line (1.Mos. 17/21). This even more so as in spite of Arabs' claims of being descendants of Ishmael, it is unlikely they are. For one thing and for what it is worth the Bible tells that Ishmael's descendants settled not in Arabia, but in vest Sinai "near the border of Egypt" (1. Mos. 25/18) where they became 12 tribes with "twelve tribal rulers" (1. Mos. 25/16) = the god's promise of making Ishmael's descendants mighty. But easier and more solid proved: Modern DNA analyses have shown that the Arabs not are and never were a pure "race". The original Arabs seems to have been people from here and there who settled in the desert something like 3ooo - 5ooo years ago (earlier along the coast), partly because the introduction of tamed camels around that time made life in the desert a real possibility - though the camel only was used to a limited degree and only in the south. And this mixed group has been even much more mixed up through the times, partly by traders and others passing through on the caravan "highways" crossing Arabia and leaving off-springs now and then - remember that before Islam, "the two delightful things" in Arabia were sex and alcohol - and also Arab traders bringing home brides from abroad. But perhaps the biggest source for foreign blood to further mix up and dilute the claimed race, was import of slaves from all around, both long before Muhammad and far more later. All the girl and women slaves were definitely not imported just for decoration, and the "pure Arab blood" never was much more than an illusion - originally started by Ishmael or not. (And in addition: Even if Ishmael had settled in Arabia, there also lived many others - so even if this had been true, only a small percent - less than 0.001 percent (= if there at that time lived only 100ooo in the entire Arabia) - of the Arab DNA could have been from Ishmael already at that time, and it would have been far more diluted by now.)

There is no rational or scientific reason for believing in the claim that the Arabs are descendants of Ishmael and Abraham - on the contrary: What knowledge which exists, makes the claim highly unlikely, and even if there should be a connection, it in case is an extremely diluted one.

017 5/19j: "- - - a warner (Muhammad*) - - -". At this time (632 AD) this at least was a Kitman (a lawful half-truth (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)). In 632 AD Muhammad also was an enforcer - most of Arabia and much of the rest of the now Muslim area became Muslim by some kind of force - weapons, money, social pressure, work, etc. (Arabia mainly by greed - the Arabs wanted parts of the loot from raids and wars - or force: "Become Muslims or fight and die - and see your women and children become slaves".)

018 5/33a: “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and his Messenger (Muhammad*) - - - is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from the opposite sides, or exile from the land.” Remember that this surah is from 632 AD, and that practically all raids and wars were wars of aggression from the Muslims, mostly raids for riches – even the battles of Badr, Uhud and Medina/the Trench were battle in a war of aggression started and kept alive by Muhammad – so mostly the victims who “fought war against Allah and his Messenger” were fighting in desperate and sheer self defense to defend themselves against the on-slaughter of Islam - - - and to defend themselves obviously was a great sin. Muslims attacked for gaining loot, land, slaves, power - - - and force Islam on their neighbors. Arabia mainly was made Islamic by the sword. In spite of Islam’s peaceful words some places, the local Arabs normally only got two choices: Become Muslims or fight/die. A clear contradiction – and abrogation of 2/256: "Let there be no compulsion in religion".

019 5/33f: "- - - (making*) mischief through the land - - -". Most of the mischief was made by the Muslims in their aggressive attacks for riches, slaves/extortion and for forcing Islam on its neighbors - most of Arabia was made Muslim by the sword and by Arabs' lust for looting, which made many become Muslims so as to have the permission to steal/loot and rape, enslave and extort.

There exists an old folk tale: A bear was drinking from a river. Further down a lamb also was drinking. "You dirty the water for me", the bear said to the lamb. "No, that is impossible, sir", the lamb answered. "You are further upriver from me, and the water is streaming from you to me, and not from me to you". "I say that you dirty the water for me", the bear repeated, and killed the lamb.

Often Muslim claims and "explanations" make us think about this small tale.

 

020 5/104h: "- - - their fathers (non-Muslims*) were void of knowledge and guidance - - -". Many of the people the Arabs conquered had a lot more knowledge than themselves. But Islam only counts religious and related knowledge.

021 6/81d: "Which of (us) two parties (Arab/Muslims vs. non-Muslims*) hath more right - - -". That is more of a question than most Muslims like to believe.

022 6/100c: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) - - - attribute to Him sons and daughters." In the old pagan religion al-Lah (the name means "the god" - not "God" but "the god" - Muhammad used the slightly different name Allah) was the main god and often said to be the moon god (he used to be the moon god at least in south Arabia - ###it is no co-incidence that the crescent moon is the symbol for him). Many Arabs thought the other gods were his children, with three of his daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat, as the three main ones - the 3 Muhammad accepted in the famous "Satanic Verses" (but later changed his mind).

023 6/141c: "But waste not by excess - - -". The Quran is against wasting your money and your fortune by excesses. In this way it is similar to Buddhism: Use "the Middle Way". Actually there is a slight chance that Muhammad got the idea about "the middle way" from Buddhism - as known hardly any of his ideas was his own, he "borrowed" more or less everything from others. The Arabs were traders and had business connections also with India, and at least later also with China. The idea of "the middle way" may have come from India where a large percent of the population were Buddhist (until Muslims later murdered them by the hundreds of thousands and ended Buddhism in India (= Pakistan, India and Bangladesh today) nearly completely, even though India was the origin of Buddhism. Islam's demonstrations of "let there be no compulsion in religion" were horrible and grotesque f.x. in Sind - now mainly Pakistan - but also in what is now India. Really worthy the claimed "Religion of Peace". To quote a wise man: "When someone says one thing, but acts differently, I believe in his acts, not in his words").

024 7/69e: "- - - ('Ad had) a tall stature among the nations". No group of people on the Arab peninsula ever had "a tall stature" among peoples that early (except perhaps locally). They (with the exception of parts of what is now Yemen) always were a backward region compared to neighbors like Egypt and Mesopotamia, not to mention Persia, Greece and the Romans. Only after they united into a warrior nation under and after Muhammad during 622 AD and following years, they had a period of strength and of growing big - mainly as destructors destructing other cultures, and robbing and suppressing them. This period was not long, though, before others - f.x. the Turks - took over. There also was a period of intellectual greatness, but if you go into the story, you will find that few of the leading intellectuals were Arabs. And over a few centuries everything stopped and the area drifted into stagnation, because the religion killed science and thinking - a stagnation which in the end meant the downfall of even the power of warfare and suppression and put the people back among the backward ones, a position which is the fact many places even today, and for the places where it is not the case, the reason mainly are thoughts, ideas and impulses from the outside.

025 From 7/157e:

Point of relevance V - NEVER mentioned by Islam.

Deuteronomy (=5. Mos.) 18/2:

The 4 relevant points 5. Mos. 18/2, 5. Mos. 18/15, 5. Mos. 18/18, and 5. Mos. 18/22 all are from the same speech Moses made to the Jews (for the others see further down) - but Muhammad, Muslims, and Islam NEVER mention 18/2 or 18/22, and also not that the word "brother/brothers/brethren/brotherhood" is used figuratively pretty often in OT (at least 99 times according to our last leafing through the book, and figuratively at least 325 times in the entire Bible - and we hardly saw all places) and with 5 - 6 specified exceptions always about members of a closed group; the Jews. They also never mention that the some 15 places where Arabia or Arabs are mentioned in OT, it is as neutrals or enemies, never as friends, not to mention brothers. Nearly as damning: The word is used at least 30 times in the Quran, and with one specified exception always about members of the closed group Arabs or the closed group Muslims. Arabs never were brothers of Jews. And "brothers" always parts of a closed group.

For the sake of context we quote from both 18/1 and 18/2: Moses said about shearing the future Israel among the 12 tribes (even without the Levi tribe, there were 12, as Joseph's tribe was split in two): "The priests, who are Levites - indeed the whole tribe of Levi - are to have no allotment or inheritance with (part of*) Israel. They shall live on the offerings made to the Lord (Yahweh*) by fire, for that is their inheritance. They shall have no inheritance (no land of their own*) among their brothers - - -".

This clearly shows what Moses in his speech meant by "brothers" - the Jews. We may also mention that this speech by Moses (or Yahweh?) starts in 5. Mos.4/1 and lasts till 28/68. In this speech the word "brother" is used figuratively at least 15 or 16 times (one may or may not be literal), AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION ABOUT MEMBERS OF THE CLOSED GROUP, THE FELLOW JEWS - a fact Muslims also NEVER mention when they claim 18/15 and 18/18 for themselves, as normal without the slightest proof and in spite of all context for their claim.

Point of relevance VI - Claim from Islam.

Deuteronomy (= 5. Mos.) 18/15 (A main claim from Islam together with 18/18):

18/15: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me (Moses*) from among your brothers." (18/18: "I (Yahweh*) will raise up for them a prophet like you (Moses*) from among their brothers".) (One translation says to the Jews “one from your own people, from your fellow countrymen”, another talks about a brother like quoted.)

NB: This is one of the two “heavy” points according to Islam – the only “heavy” one in OT. (The other one is about the Holy Spirit in NT - John 15/26.)

These two - 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 - in reality are the same and identical, and we will treat them like that (Islam does the same). In 18/15 Yahweh says to the Jews via Moses: “The Lord your God will raise up for you (Jews*) a prophet like me (Moses*) from among your brothers. You must listen to him”. In 18/18 Yahweh says to Moses: “I (Yahweh*) will rise up for them (the Jews*) a prophet like you (Moses*) from among their brothers, and he will tell them everything I command him.”

The two central expressions according to Islam, are “your/their brothers” and “a prophet like you (Moses*)”.

"YOUR BROTHERS:

Islam and most/all Muslims claim this is figurative speech (correct) and must point to Muhammad, because he claimed to be (see chapter about Muhammad in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran") a descendant of Abraham and Ishmael – the brother of Isaac – even a direct descendant (as normal for Islam without the slightest documentation) – and that the Arabs because they (claim they) are the descendants of Ishmael, are the brothers of the Jews (descendants of Isaac) – “it is the only possible meaning”. (But: The brother of a Jew is a Jew, not an Arab, and the same for a fellow countryman of a Jew – he is a Jew. It may talk about Jesus, but not about Muhammad.)

  1. The word brother(s)/brethren/brotherhood is used in the figurative meaning at least 325 times in the Bible, according to our last leafing through the Bible (and we hardly found all places) – included at least 99 times in OT, at least 31 times in 5.Mos. and at least 22 times in the very speech of Moses from which Muslims cherry-pick 18/15 and 18/18.(Facts that are seldom mentioned and never by Muslims).
  2. That word - brother(s)/brethren/brotherhood - always speak about persons within a specific group, (and with only a few borderline cases – in the NT there are a few places where the entire world is the including group (as humans – and as potential Christians)) - about Jews in OT and Christians and/or Jews in NT.
  3. In OT it in addition as mentioned above, is used only about fellow Jews – it is clear from the context and often said directly. We have found only 5 - 6 exceptions: In 1. Mos.13/8 Abraham uses the word to Lot (Lot in reality was his nephew - and thus inside his group), in 1.Mos. 25/18 it is told that Ishmael and his sons and near descendants chose to be hostile towards the rest of the family – the later Jews – even though they at that time were closely related – and thus "brothers in a closed group – (a disgusting thing to do according to the ethics of that distant past), and in 4.Mos. 20/14, 5.Mos.2/2, and 5.Mos. 2/8 it is used about the Edomites (descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob). Finally there is one place where a king says it to another, but friendly king (1. Kings 20/32-33).
    1. The Jews after a fashion reckoned the Edomites to be (distant) relatives (Edomites were descendants from Esau - also named Edom - the brother of Jacob, the last of the three patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who started the real(?) history of Israel) – and thus included in a larger, but defined and closed group. In contrast they did not reckon Ishmaelite as relatives.
    2. For one thing Ishmael’s mother was a foreigner (from Egypt) - and so was his wife.
    3. For another thing Ishmael was outside the covenant Yahweh made when he renewed the covenant he had had with Abraham and made the renewed covenant with his son Isaac (but Esau was inside, as the son of Isaac) as mentioned in 1.Mos. 17/19-21: “I (Yahweh*) will establish my covenant with him (Isaac*) as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him... But my covenant I will establish with Isaac...”
    4. For a third the Ishmaelite that Arabs claim later became the Arabs, lived so far off (and not in Arabia, but on the border of Egypt according to the Bible - 1. Mos. 25/18) that the relationship even for natural reasons was all but severed.
    5. For the fourth and worse: The Ishmaelite chose to be enemies of the Jews – 1.Mos. 25/18: “And they (the Ishmaelite*) lived in hostility toward all their brothers” (if this does not mean they Quarreled among themselves) – see some comments further up in this point (no. IV).
    6. And for the fifth and perhaps most essential besides being outside the covenant: Ishmael and his mother were expelled from the family and tribe (which easily may explain their hostility, but all the same it was hostility in a time when the safety of a person and a family mainly depended on the strength of that family). And they were expelled from the tribe before it became Israel 2 generations later - the name came with Abraham's grandson Jacob.
    7. All the other times the word was used about fellow Jews only, except Ishmael's sons who quarreled with their brothers.
  4. Also: In all the few mentioned cases of borderline exception the name of the opposite part was specified, whereas Moses very clearly did not specify that the brothers he talked about in 18/15 and 18/18 were Arabs – on the contrary it is clear for anyone who are not burdened with strong wishful thinking or desperate need, that he was talking to and about Jews and using a most normal expression for his fellow Jews.
  5. Also In the NT the word always (with the possible exception mentioned above) is used about fellows in a group – either fellow Jews or fellow Christians.
  6. There is not one single place in the entire Bible where Arabs are mentioned as brothers or even as more distant relatives - yes, not even as friends.. As for Ishmaelites: In 1.Mos. 25/18 the word is used to stress the Ishmaelites' (which are not likely to be the forefathers of the Arabs in reality) bad conduct (see above).
  7. The word brother(s)/brethren/brotherhood also is used figuratively in the Quran – at least 32 times – and the Quran follows just the same rule as the Bible: Brothers are belonging to a group – Muslims to Muslims (god or less god), Arabs to Arabs, tribe people within the tribe, (even Lot/Lut they try to pretend belonged to the locals), the bad to the bad. Even the one and single time where Jews clearly are mentioned (59/11) in this connection it is not said that Arabs or Muslims are the brothers of Jews, but that the hypocrites (no specification of nationality, so likely all hypocrites) are the brothers of the Jews (belonging to the group “the bad ones”). Not one single time it is said or even hinted that the Arabs are the brothers of the Jews - neither in the Bible nor in the Quran. A fact no Muslim ever mentions (and few know).
  8. Arabia and Arabs are mentioned a few times (about a dozen times) in OT, f.x. 2. Chronicles 9/14 and 22/1, Isaiah 21/13, Jeremiah 25/24, Ezekiel 30/5. They always are mentioned in neutral words – like paying tribute to King Solomon – or in negative connections, f.x. as enemies. Not one place is there said or hinted anything about close relationship, not to mention kinship and absolutely not a comma about brotherhood. For some reason or other Muslims never mention this fact, either – but then of course it is more essential to win the debate than to find out what is right. After all al-Taqiyya – the lawful lie – is both a right and a duty to Muslims when it comes to defending or promoting the religion. The religion they believe in because other Muslims and the Quran and their parents believe in it and have told them to believe in from blind faith - - - because the others believe in it from blind faith, and the clergy and others do not want to question their beliefs and their small or big platforms of power.
  9. Muslims claim – as normal without documentation – that the Quran are the words of Allah, and that Muhammad thus spoke the words of the god, which is one of the criteria (he misses on others - see below) for being the prophet Moses spoke about (f.x. Jeremiah 1/9 in addition to 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18-19). This could have been partly right - - - if Islam proves that the Quran really is from a god (actually all the mistakes and other wrong points proves 100% that it is not from a god – no god would do such a sorry work). Besides: Even if it was correct that they were the words of a god, it would only be a criterion, not a proof – many of the Jewish prophets spoke the words of the god, according to both the Bible and the Quran, but they were not the prophet Moses spoke about. Muslims presents the unproved claim in triumph like a proof.
  10. Muslims also dismiss in what connection these two verses were said. They themselves tell others strictly that you cannot take a verse – or more – from the Quran and make conclusions or statements from that – a standard demand from any Muslim, especially when he meets arguments that are difficult to answer, an often used last way out. But for themselves that rule is invalid and they quote these two verses from 5.Mos. very much out of the context.
  11. Because the context clearly tells that Moses was speaking to and about the Jews, and verses 18/1-2 even specifies who the “brothers” were – he had used the same word just seconds earlier in the same speech to the same people and in the same contexts: The Levi tribe “shall have no inheritance from among their brothers (= the 11 (12) other tribes*). The Lord (Yahweh*) is their inheritance (they should be priests and be paid for that*) - - -“. Then seconds later he use the same word without specifying that now he is speaking about other brothers than Jews (which he had had to do not to confuse his listeners if he had meant Arabs or someone else) – for the simple reason that he continued speaking about the same 11 - 12 tribes (by the way: Jesus was from the Judah tribe).

THE WORD "BROTHER", (INCL. "BROTHERS", "BRETHREN", "BROTHERHOOD", ETC.) USED FIGURATIVELY IN THE BIBLE

Note what we said above, that when the word is used in the Bible, it nearly always is about members of a closed group - in OT the Jews and in NT the Jews and/or the Christians - and in the few cases this is not the case, it always is said by name whom is meant. If one part is not named in some way, in the OT it is always meant the Jews or a group within the Jews (and of course also the Jews are meant if they are named). In NT the rule is the same, but mostly Christians instead of Jews in the general rule. There is a similar rule when the word(s) is/are used in the Quran - with only two exceptions and one perhaps exception we have found, it refers to one or both of the two closed groups; Muslims or the same group of people, often the same tribe - see below.

1. Mos.:

01. 13/8: Abraham telling Lot they were brothers - a closed group: The near family.

02. *25/18: Ishmael's sons settled "in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur. And they lived in hostility toward all their brothers. This may be meant literally - they quarreled among themselves - or figuratively that they quarreled with the descendants of their father's 7 half brothers (Isaac + the 6 sons of Abraham and Keturah), included Isaac's sons Esau (also called Edom) and Jacob (later called Israel). In the last case it is within a closed group: The near family.

03. (In 1. Mos. 16/12 Yahweh tells Abraham that his son Ishmael "will live in hostility towards all his brothers". But here the word is literally, and also this was said about Ishmael only and not about his descendants. Ishmael had the brothers Isaac (mother: Sarah), and Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah (mother: Keturah, whom Abraham married after Sarah died - 1. Mos. 25/1-2). In 1. Mos. 25/5 it is said that the sons of Keturah were "sent to the land of the east" which means Jordan or further east (Arabia is to the south and south east), and they do not appear in later books of the Bible, and also never in the Quran).

04. 1. Mos. 29/4: Sheppard’s near Haran "brothers" of Jacob.

3. Mos.:

05: 21/10. "The high priest, the one among his brothers who - - -". A closed group: The Jewish priests. Similar words to 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18.

4. Mos.:

06. 20/3: "- - - when our brothers - - -". A closed group: The Jews. Similar words to 1. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18.

07. 20/14 Moses talking to the Edomites on behalf of the Jews. The Edomites were the descendants of Esau (also called Edom), the brother of Jacob and son of Isaac, and the Jews reckoned them to be relatives, though distant ones - Moses here used the word to remind the Edomites of that relationship. Also here a closed group: Recognized relatives. As Esau was the son of Isaac, he also was inside the pact Yahweh had made with Abraham - "because it is through Isaac your (Abraham's*) offspring will be reckoned", 1. Mos. 21/12. And also notice that as the Edomites did not belong to the Jews, they are named to notify this.

5. Mos.

(5. Mos. chapters 1 through 28 is a long speech Moses made to the Jews "in the desert east of Jordan" - 5. Mos. 1/1. In this speech he used the word "brother" figuratively at least 22 times, each and every time about members of the closed group Jews, and not once specifying that he talked about any others than the Jews - the two debated times (18/15 and 18/18) even using the same words as other places where it is not possible to doubt he meant Jews, no matter how much twisting of the words and wishful thinking you use):

08. 1/16a: "- - - disputes among your brothers - - -". - fellow Jews.

09. 1/16b: "- - - your - - - brother Israelites - - -". - fellow Jews.

10. 1/28: "Our brothers made us loose heart - - -". The Jewish spies in Canaan - fellow Jews.

11. 2/4: "- - - your (the Jews'*) brothers the descendants of Esau (named) - - -" - see 4. Mos. 20/14 above.

12. 2/8: "- - - our (the Jews'*) brothers the descendants of Esau (named) - - -" - see 4. Mos. 20/14 above.

13. 3/18: "- - - your brother Israelites" - fellow Jews.

14. 3/20: "- - - (Yahweh*) gives rest to your brothers - - -" - fellow Jews.

15. 10/9: "- - - the Levites have no share or inheritance among their brothers - - -". The other Jews.

16. 15/2: "- - - fellow Israelite or brother - - -". Fellow Jews.

17. 15/2: *("Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother". It is here clear it is talked about Jews, but the word "brother" in this case may be meant literally. What is sure, is that this only concerned Jews).

18. 15/7a: "If there is a poor man among your brothers in any town (in Israel*) - - -". - fellow Jews.

19. 15/7b: "- - - do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. (See 15/7a)". - fellow Jew.

20. 15/9: "- - - your needy brother - - - (see 15/7a)" - fellow Jew.

21. 17/15a: "- - - be sure to appoint over you (the Jews*) the king the Lord your God (Yahweh*) chooses. He must be from among your own brothers". Beware that this is exactly the same words which is used in 18/15 and 18/18, and it is absolutely sure they wanted a Jewish, not an Arab king. Also see 17/15b.

22. 17/15b: ####"Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite - - -". - fellow Jew. Also see 17/15a).

23. 18/2: "- - - they (the Levites*) shall have no inheritance among their brothers (the other Jews*) - - -". - fellow Jews. Also here nearly identical words to the ones used in 18/15 and 18/18 like several other places.

24. 18/15: "- - - a prophet like me (Moses*) from among your brothers" - this and 18/18 (see this one just below) are where Muslims claim Moses in his speech to the Jews refers to the Arabs - this even though Arabs are never mentioned in the Bible until under King Solomon nearly 400 years later and also never in all the Bible mentioned as friends or relatives. And in spite of that the same words other places in the same speech without doubt mean Jews. But it is strange what results one can twist from a clear expression when there is enough wishful thinking + dire need - Muslims HAVE to find Muhammad in the Bible, both in OT and NT, because it is said in the Quran he is mentioned there, and if they do not find him there, the Quran is wrong and something consequently is wrong with Islam. Which it is, among other reasons because Muhammad is not mentioned in the Bible in spite of the Quran's claim. "No omniscient god makes errors" - "ergo" the Quran is from no omniscient god.

25. 18/18: "- - - a prophet like you (Moses*) from among their (the Jews') brothers - - -". - fellow Jews. This and 18/15 (see this one just above) are the two points Islam claims refers to Arabs. They totally omit the context which clearly tells Moses was speaking to and about Jews, and only point to that Ishmael was the half-brother of Jacob - one of the forefathers of the Jews. They also omits the fact that Ishmaelites never were reckoned by the Jews to be their real relatives, as the relationship was broken already by Ishmael and his sons + Ishmael was outside the line from Isaac, who according to the Bible was the line from which Abraham's descendants should be reckoned. They also omit the fact that Arabs never - included in the Quran - reckoned Jews to be their brothers. They omit the fact that it is no place documented that the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael - he and his descendants after all settled on the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) and not in Mecca like Muhammad claimed, according to the only perhaps reliable source about this, the Bible. Also see 1.Mos. 8/22-22 which Muslims never mention - who is a genuine prophet? (Muhammad did not even make prophesies).

26. 19/18: "- - - against his (a Jew's*) brother - - -". One he had a reasonably close relationship to - from the context it is clear Moses meant the fellow Jews - this even more so as he was speaking to the Jews about the rules and effects of the Mosaic Law just here (the chapters 19 through 26 and some others are about this law - the Mosaic Law was for Jews and for Jews only (there was a debate about if they should rule and be valid also for Christians, but that was 1200 - 1300 years later)).

27. 19/19: "- - - do to his brother - - -". See 19/18 just above.

28. 20/8: "- - - so that his brothers will not become - - -". His fellow Jewish soldiers.

29. 22/1: "- - - your brother's ox - - -". See 19/18 above.

30. 22/2: "If the brother - - -". See 19/18 above.

31. 22/3: "- - - if you find your brother's donkey - - -". See 19/18 above.

32. 22/4: "If you see your brother's donkey - - -". See 19/18 above.

33. 23/19: "Do not charge your brother interest - - -". Here it may be argued that the word is literally meant, but the context - f.x. the next verse - makes it clear that it is figuratively. We also points to the fact that Jews forever after was famous and infamous for charging interest from all non-Jews, included Arabs, which in this connection shows that the Jews did not reckon the Arabs as real relatives, not to mention brothers. Also see 19/18 above and 23/19 just below.

34. 23/20: "You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite - - -". This is a strengthening of what is said in 23/19 just above. Moses is saying that Jews are Jews and brothers, but all others are foreigners - also called Gentiles in the NT. Among others Arabs were foreigners - just ask the Arabs if the Jews did not charge interest from them when they lent Arabs money! Foreigners - not brothers. Also see 19/18 and 23/19 above.

35. 24/3: "- - - your brother will be degraded - - -". Fellow Jews.

36. 24/7: "- - - his brother Israelites - - -". It is clear what Moses meant with "brother". Also see 19/18 above.

37. 24/14: "- - - whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien - - -". Here Moses speaks in very clear language: The Jews/Israelites are brothers, all others are aliens/foreigners. The horrible moral fact here is that at least many of the Muslim scholars knew and know this - they had to study the Bible to find the points they wanted to quote (normally out of context literally spoken) or in other ways use, and it is not possible to overlook the fact that Moses in his speech talked to and about the Jews and about their brother Jews/Israelites. All the same they tell their congregations that Moses suddenly and only in 18/15 and 18/18 meant Arabs when he talked to the Jews about their Jewish brothers. Al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie. The Quran tells Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, and as he is not mentioned, "we" have to use "lawful dishonesty" to defend Islam, because if not, it is obvious for everybody that something is wrong with the Quran and with Islam - no omniscient god makes mistakes like this!

38. 25/3: "- - - your brother will be degraded in your eyes". We still are in Moses' quotations of the Mosaic Law - there is no doubt this is about fellow Jews.

39. 33/16: "- - - (Joseph*) - - - the prince among his brothers". - fellow Jews.

40. 33/24: "- - - let him (Asher*) be favored by his brothers - - -". No doubt about fellow Jews, but perhaps literally meant.

Joshua:

41. 1/14a:"- - - ahead of your brothers". - fellow Jewish warriors from other Jewish tribes.

42. 1/14b: "- - - help your brothers - - -". See 1/14a just above.

43. 14/8: "- - - my (Caleb's*) brothers who went up with me - - -". The first Jewish spies in Canaan - no doubt fellow Jews.

44. 17/4: "- - - give us an inheritance among our brothers - - -". As the women speaking here had no literal brothers, there is no doubt this is figuratively meant - and fellow Jews.

45. 22/3: "- - - you have not deserted your brothers - - -". Fellow Jewish warriors from other Jewish tribes under Joshua.

46. 22/4: "- - - has given your brothers - - -". See 22/3 just above.

47. 22/8: "- - - divide with your brothers - - -". Here may be meant fellow warriors or fellow Jews at home who for some reason had not taken part in the war - but in both cases fellow Jews.

Judges:

48. 1/17: "- - - the men of Judah went with the Simonites their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews.

49. 9/3: "He is our brother". This was said by the inhabitants of Shechem - fellow Jews.

50. 9/18: "- - - because he is your brother - - -". Said to the inhabitants of Shechem - fellow Jews.

51. 19/8: "- - - their brothers asked them - - -". Fellow Jews (of their own tribe of Dan).

52. 19/14: "- - - said to their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews (of their own tribe of Dan).

53. 20/23: "- - - the Benjaminites, our brothers - - -". Fellow Jews of the tribe of Benjamin, one of the 12 Jewish tribes.

54. 20/28: "- - - (the tribe of*) Benjamin our brother - - -". Fellow Jews - the tribe of Benjamin.

55. 21/6: "Now the Israelites grieved for their brothers, the Benjaminites". Fellow Jews - the other Jewish tribes grieved for the loss of many of the men of the Benjamin tribe.

1. Samuel:

56. 30/23: "David replied, 'No, my brothers - - -'". Fellow Jews - his warriors after a battle.

2. Samuel:

57. 1/26: "- - - Jonathan, my brother - - -". Fellow Jew (Jonathan was not David's real brother).

58. 2/26: "- - - to stop pursuing their brothers - - -". Stop fighting fellow Jews.

59. 2/27: "- - - pursuing of their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews - see 2/26 just above.

60. 19/12: "You are my brothers - - -". Fellow Jews (fellow members of the Judah tribe).

61. 19/41: "- - - our brothers, the men of Judah - - -". Fellow Jews - Jews from other tribes speaking about Jews from the Judah tribe (one of the 12 Jewish tribes).

62. 20/9: "How are you, my brother?" The Jew Joab speaking to the Jew Amasa.

1. Kings:
  • 63. 9/13: "- - - my brother - - -". Another king = member of a group.
  • 64. 12/24: "Do not go up to fight against your (the members of the Judah tribe*) brothers Israel". Fellow Jews (This was said in connection with the splitting of the kingdom in two - Judah in the South and Israel in the north - after Solomon died).
  • 65. 13/30: "Oh, my brother". Fellow Jew - one Jew talking to/about another.
  • 66. #20/32: "He is my brother". This as far as we see is the only place in the OT where the word brother is used (figuratively) about one not a Jew and one not accepted to be related to the Jews. But here it is within another very closed group: Two kings - King Ahab of Israel (Jewish) speaking about King Ben-Haddad of Aram - Ahab wanted good relationship with Ben-Haddad, even if he had beaten him in war. (There is a parallel case in 9/13, but there it is not a Jew speaking.)
  • 67. #20/33: "Yes, your brother Ben-Haddad". In reality part of 20/32 just above.
  • 1. Chr.:
  • 67. 9/25: "Their (some of the Levi tribe*) brothers in their villages - - -". Fellow Jews. There is a slight chance that this is meant literally, but the context indicates figuratively.
  • 68. 13/2: "- - - the rest of our brothers". Here = the rest of the Jews were called by David.
  • 69. 15/16: "- - - their (Levites') brothers - - -". Fellow Levites (one of the 12 Jewish tribes).
  • 70. 15/17a: "- - - from his brothers - - -". Fellow Jews - as far as we understand even fellow Levites. (It has to be meant figuratively, as Herman son of Joel cannot literally be the brother of Asaph son of Berekia.)
  • 71. 15/17b: "- - - their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews (and figuratively, as what seems to be another sub-tribe or family is mentioned).
  • 72. 15/18: "- - - their brothers next in rank - - -". Fellow Jews. (Levites of a little lower rank?)
  • 73. 23/32: "- - - their (Levites') brothers the descendants of Aaron - - -". Fellow Jews.
  • 74. 24/31b: "- - - their (Levites') brothers the descendants of Aaron - - -". Fellow Jews.
  • 75. 24/31b: "- - - the oldest brother - - -". Fellow Jews (fellow Levites).
  • 76. 28/2: "- - - my brothers and my people - - -" David speaking to Jewish leaders.
  • 2. Chr.:
  • 77. 11/4: "Do not go up to fight against your (the members of the Judah tribe*) brothers Israel". Fellow Jews (This was said in connection with the splitting of the kingdom in two - Judah in the South and Israel in the north - after Solomon died). (The same situation as in 1. Kings 12/24 above).
  • 78. 19/10: "- - - his (Yahweh's*) wrath will come on you and your brothers". You Levites and your fellow Levites (or fellow Jews).
  • 79. 29/15: "When they (some Levites*) had assembled their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews - a group of Levites.
  • 79. 30/7: "- - - your fathers and your brothers - - -". Your (Jewish) forefathers and fellow Jews.
  • 80. 30/9: "- - - your brothers and your children - - -". Your fellow Jews and your descendants.
  • Ezra:

  • 81. 3/8: "- - - the rest of their (Zerubbabel, etc.*) brothers (the priests and the Levites and all who had returned from captivity to Jerusalem)". Fellow Jews.
  • 82. 6/20: "- - - for their (some Levites*) brothers the priests - - -". Fellow Jews (fellow Levites even).
  • 83. 7/18: "You and your brother Jews - - -". Clearly fellow Jews.
  • 84. 8/24: "- - - ten of their fellow brothers - - -". 10 other priests = fellow Jews.
  • Nehemiah:
  • 85. 5/1: "- - - their Jewish brothers". The context - f.x. 5/8 - makes it clear that it is fellow Jews.
  • 86. 5/8a: "- - - we have bought back our Jewish brothers - - -". Fellow Jews.
  • 87. 5/8b: "- - - you are selling your Jewish brothers - - -". Fellow Jews.
  • 88. 10/29: "- - - join their brothers - - -". The text of 10/29-30 makes it clear this is fellow Jews.
  • 89. 13/13: "- - - distributing the supplies to their brothers". - to their fellow Jews.
  • Isaiah:
  • 90. 66/20: "- - - bring all your brothers, from all nations - - -". Verse 66/18 makes it clear that this is the largest of all groups of humans: The entire humanity.
  • Jeremiah:
  • 91. 7/15: "- - - all your brothers, the people of Ephraim". Fellow Jews (Ephraim was one of the 12 Jewish tribes).
  • 92. 22/18: "Alas my brother! Alas my sister!" Fellow Jews - Jeremiah talking to/about the Jewish people.
  • Ezekiel:
  • 93. 11/14: "- - - your brothers - your brothers who are blood relatives and the whole house of Israel - - -". Fellow Jews.
  • 94. 38/20: "Every man's sword will be against his brother". - against his fellow countrymen/Jews.
  • Hosea:
  • 95. 2/1: "Say of your brothers, 'My people' - - -". Fellow Jews - Hosea speaking to and about the Jews. A close parallel to Moses when he made the speech containing 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 actually. Does Islam claim that these are the Arabs, too?
  • Amos:

  • 96. 1/11: "Because he (the descendants of Esau*) pursued his brother (the descendants of Jacob*) - - -". The Jews reckoned the descendants of Esau - the Edomites - to be their relatives (this they definitely did not towards the Arabs).
  • Obadiah:
    97. 1/10: "- - - your brother Jacob - - -". See Amos 1/11 just above.

    98. 1/12: "- - - your brother - - -". See Amos 1/11 above.

    Micah:

    98. 5/3: "- - - the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites - - -". The rest of the Jews returning to join the Israelites/Jews. Micah 5/2-5 normally is reckoned to be a foretelling about Jesus. Jesus was a Jew and the Israelites were Jews. (The word Jew really derives from Judah - one of the 12 Jewish tribes - but it is normal to use it for all believers in the Mosaic religion).

    Zechariah:

    99. 11/14: "- - - the brotherhood between Judah and Israel". After Solomon died, the country was split in a southern kingdom named Judah after the dominant tribe, and a northern one named Israel. Brotherhood between these two so definitely is between fellow Jews.

    These are 99 of the places we have found in OT where the word "brother" or similar clearly or most likely is used figuratively. If we add the word "sister" used figuratively, which may be relevant in just this case, it is 100+ all together. They are used within closed groups - the family, the tribe, the nation. The few times this group is not the Jews or part of that nation - f.x. a Jewish tribe - it is indicated who are meant (f.x. a fellow king or Lot or the Edomites. Not one single time is there a reference to Arabia or Arabs. With a few exceptions it is referred to fellow Jews, and it is a normal way in OT to refer to fellow Jews - actually if you look, you will find that every place where the word is used in OT without reference to who one means, it is clear from the context that it is meant fellow Jews.
    As for 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 which Islam claims refers to Muhammad - as it is the only place in OT were some twisting of the words can make a claim about Muhammad in the OT possible (there are some more, but they are weaker), we point to that for one thing nobody reading the Bible with an open mind would ever get the idea that it here was a reference to Muhammad - not even if they knew the Islamic claim from before. Besides the context makes it clear that Moses was speaking to and about his fellow Jews. Then there is the fact that he used words which normally meant - and would be understood as such by his listeners - fellow Jews. Further there is the fact that the word was used within closed groups, and the Arabs were outside all closed groups accepted by the Jews of that time, except "all humanity" and this group was not indicated in connection to these two verses. Further: When the word is used in the OT without something else is specified, it always refers to Jews - there is no reference to others than Jews connected to the two mentioned verses. And finally: When others than Jews are meant, it always is indicated. As said there is no such indication connected to 5. Mos. 18/15 or 18/18.

     

    We may add that the word "brother" or similar is used figuratively at least 227 times in the NT, and the picture is just the same: Used within closed groups (mainly Jews and/or Christians), and specifications given if others are meant - - - and not one single time any reference in such connections to Arabs.

    Where is the brotherhood between the Jews and Arabs?

    You have to be a Muslim and one with no knowledge or strong wishful thinking - or dishonesty - to be able to believe that 5. Mos. 18/15 or 18/18 refers to Muhammad.

    What is worse: At least many of the Muslim scholars have got to know this. They study the Bible to pick the points they want to use or disuse, but to find them, they have to read the entire Bible (if not they will overlook points). And this picture of how this word "brother" is used in the OT - and nearly similar in NT, except there Christians are added to the Jews - is so obvious and so easy to see, that no-one studying the Bible can miss it.

    Al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie? (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

    (We remind you that it is not only permitted, but advised to use al-Taqiyya and Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc., "if necessary" to defend or to forward Islam, and Islam HAVE to find Muhammad in both the OT and the NT, because it is said in the Quran that he is foretold there. If he is not there, the Quran and the omniscient god Allah is wrong and something thus wrong with Islam).

    Al-Taqiyya and Kitman are convenient means - - - but how much worth is a religion relying on dishonesty, and built only on the words of a man of doubtful moral and honesty?

    THE WORD "BROTHER", (INCL. "BROTHERS", "BRETHREN", "BROTHERHOOD", ETC.) USED FIGURATIVELY IN THE QURAN:

    Note that when the word is used in the Bible, it nearly always is about members of a closed group - in OT the Jews and in NT the Jews and/or the Christians - and in the few cases this is not the case, it always is said by name who is meant. If one part is not named in some way, in the OT it is always meant the Jews or a group within the Jews (and of course also the Jews are meant if they are named). In NT the rule is the same, but often Christians instead of Jews in the general rule. There is a similar rule when the word(s) is/are used in the Quran - with only two exceptions and one perhaps exception we have found, it refers to one or both of the two closed groups Muslims or the same group of people, often the same tribe - see below.

    1. 2/220: "- - - they (orphans*) are your brethren - - -". The same tribe at least mainly.
    2. 3/103: "- - - ye became brethren - - -". Fellow Muslims.

    3. 3/156: "Be not like the unbelievers, who say of their brethren - - -". Fellow Arabs, perhaps same tribes.
    4. 3/168: "- - - (of their brethren slain) - - -". Fellow Arabs, perhaps same tribes.
    5. 5/106: "- - - your own (brotherhood) - - -". Fellow Muslims.

    6. 7/65: "- - - their own brethren - - -". The same tribe.
    7. 7/73: "- - - their own brethren - - -". The same tribe.
    8. 7/85: "- - - their own brethren - - -". The same tribe.
    9. 7/202: "*- - - their (non-Muslim*) brethren (the evil ones) - - -". The non-Muslims - included Jews - so definitely are not the brethren/brothers of Muslims. The non-Muslims' - and thus the Jews' - brothers are "the evil ones".
    10. . 9/11: "- - - your brethren in Faith - - -". Fellow Muslims.

    11. . 11/50: "- - - their own brethren". The same tribe.
    12. . 11/61: "- - - their own brethren". The same tribe.
    13. . 11/84: "- - - their own brethren". The same tribe.
    14. . 15/47: "- - - (they will be) brothers - - -". Fellow Muslims.

    15. . 17/27: "*- - - spendthrifts are brothers of Satan - - -". Dramatic - but nothing about brotherhood between Arabs and Jews.

    16.   21/92a: "- - - this Brotherhood of yours - - -". Fellow Muslims.
    17. . 21/92b: "- - - a single Brotherhood - - -". Fellow Muslims.
    18.   26/106: "- - - their brother Noah - - -". The same tribe.
    19.   26/124: "- - - their brother Hud - - -". The same tribe.
    20. . 26/142: "- - - their brother Salih - - -". The same tribe.
    21.   26/161: "- - - their brother Lut - - -". Lut/Lot in reality was no relative or in other ways related to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, but what counts here, is that the Quran claims he had become one of them (this to be able to claim that prophets were sent to their own people and be like Muhammad, or the other way around). Thus once more the same tribe.
    22. . 27/45: "- - - their brother Salih - - -". The same tribe.
    23. . 27/36: "- - - their brother Shu'ayb - - -". The same tribe.
    24. . 33/5: "- - - your Brothers in faith - - -". Fellow Muslims.
    25. . 33/6: "- - - (the Brotherhood) of believers - - -".
    26. . 33/18: "- - - their brethren - - -". Fellow Muslims.
    27. . 46/21: "- - - one of 'Ad's (own) brethren - - -". Fellow Muslims.
    28. . 49/10a: "The Believers (Muslims*) are but a single Brotherhood - - -". Fellow Muslims.
    29. . 49/10b: "- - - your (Muslims'*) two (contending) brothers (refers to "If two parties in 49/9*) - - -". Fellow Muslims.

    30. . 49/12: "- - - his dead brother - - -". This one may be literally or figuratively meant. In the last case it refers to fellow Muslims.
    31. . 50/13: "- - - the brethren of Lut - - -". The same tribe - see 26/161 above in this list.
    32. . 59/10: "- - - our brethren who came before us into the Faith - - -". Fellow Muslims.
    33. . 59/11: "*- - - the Hypocrites say to their misbelieving brethren among the People of the Book - - -".
    33 all together, included a couple which may be literally meant. Only 2-3 are not within an Arab tribe or something, or within Islam. And what is absolutely clear and sure is that it is not the Muslims who are the brothers of "the People of the Book" - mainly Jews in that area - but hypocrites and bad people. And even the hypocrites only were the brothers of the unbelievers - "misbelieving" - among those people.

     

    Where is the brotherhood among Jews and Arabs?

    Arab and Arabia also are mentioned in the OT. But always in neutral form or as enemies, NEVER as relatives, not to mention close relatives. (Ishmaelites: Psalm 83/6 and other places.)

    1. Kings:

    01. 10/14: "- - - the Arabian kings - - -". Revenues to Solomon.

    2. Chr.:

    02. 9/14: "Also all the kings of Arabia brought gold to Solomon - - -". Neutral.

    03. 17/11: "- - - the Arabs brought him (Solomon*) flocks - - -". Neutral.

    04. 21/16: "- - - the hostility of the Philistines and of the Arabs who lived near Cushites". Enemy.

    05. 22/1: "- - - the raiders, who came with the Arabs into the camp, had killed all the other sons (of the Jewish king*). Enemies.

    06. 26/7: "God (Yahweh*) helped him (the Jewish king Uzziah*) against the Philistines and against the Arabs who lived in Gug Baal - - -". Enemies.

    Nehemiah:

    07. 2/19: "- - - Geshen the Arab - - -". An Arab leader and enemy.

    08. 4/7: "But when Sanballat, Tobiah, the Arabs, the Ammonites and the men of Ashdod heard that the repair of Jerusalem's walls - - - all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem - - -". Enemies.

    09. 6/1: "- - - Geshem the Arab and the rest of our enemies - - -". Enemies.

    Isaiah:

    10. 13/20: "- - - no Arab will pinch his tent there - - -". Neutral.

    11. 21/13: "- - - who camp in the thickets of Arabia - - -". Neutral.

    Jeremiah:

    12. 25/24: "(The cup of Yahweh's wrath will be drunk by - among others -*) all the kings of Arabia - - -". Because they have behaved badly.

    Ezekiel:

    13. 27/21: "Arabia and all the princes of Kedar - - -". Neutral.

    14. 30/5: "Cush and Put, Lydia and all Arabia, Libya and the people of the covenant land will fall by the sword along with Egypt". Because they behaved badly.

    Acts (NT):

    15. 1/11: "- - - Cretans and Arabs - - -". Neutral.

    Galatians (NT):

    16. 1/17: "- - - I (Paul*) went immediately into Arabia, and later returned to Damascus". Neutral. Paul is the only of the old leaders known to have visited Arabia - a short visit (to teach about Jesus).

    17. 4/25: "- - - Mount Sinai in Arabia - - -". Here the Sinai Peninsula is said to be part of Arabia, but it is definitely not a part of the Arabian Peninsula.

    17 all together + mentioned a couple of times in NT.

    To say the least of it: Not one single sign of brotherhood between Arabs and Jews here, too.

    In addition the word "brother" is used something like 33 times in the Quran - always about closed groups - mainly Muslims, and not one single time including Jews. Well, there is one exception - a verse is telling that hypocrites and Jews are brothers.

    But in 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 they suddenly and very much out of the norm are claimed to be brothers, to make a direly needed claimed foretelling about Muhammad possible (in reality it seems to be a foretelling about Jesus).

    Where is the brotherhood between Jews and Arabs in reality? - it is nowhere neither in the Bible nor in the Quran. It just is an al-Taqiyya used on 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 to be able to pretend to find what Islam desperately need: Foretelling about Muhammad - desperately because the Quran clearly states that he is mentioned both in the OT and the NT, and he is not there. Then they have to use a couple of al-Taqiyyas to be able to claim he is there - if not the Quran is wrong and a made up book. And a religion based on a made up book - what is that? It is better to refuse to see it, than to perhaps find out that your life is built on one man's mirages and deceptions made up to gain power. This even if the price they have to pay if there is a next life run by a real god they have been prohibited by Islam to look for, will be horrible.

    PROPHET

    “- - - a prophet like me (Moses*) - - -“ / “- - - a prophet like you (Moses*) - - -.”

    1. There are more contexts: Moses spoke about a prophet. Muhammad in reality was not a prophet. A prophet is a person with close enough connections to a god, so that the god tells him/her or informs him/her about the future on topics the god wants humans to know. To be more specific:
    1. A prophet makes prophesies.
    2. >
    3. He makes prophesies so often and/or so essential ones that prophesying is a marked part of his mission.
    4. >
    5. And he at least mostly makes correct prophesies - if not he is a false prophet.
    6. This is the gift of prophesying. No-one is a real prophet without having the gift of being able to/forced to make prophesies. A messenger, perhaps, or a lot of other things, but you are not a real prophet unless you make prophesies.
    7. Muhammad did not have that gift. It is very clear from the Quran that he neither had the gift, nor ever claimed or pretended to have it – not one single time in the entire book. He even himself said that he was unable to "see the unseen (3/144, 6/50,7/188,10/20, 27/65, 46/9, 72/26, 81/24)". It also is very clear from Hadiths - f.x. Aisha.
    8. Oh, there were a few times according to traditions, when things he said, later came true, and also some pep-talk which always are optimistic and comes true if one succeeds in what one tries to do. It is like that with anybody that speaks much – pep-talk and other talk – that at least some things has to come true for simple statistical reasons – and the rest mostly is forgotten. (But it is remarkable how seldom this happened - so much as he spoke it mathematically and by sheer chance should have happened a lot more times according to all laws of probability. But then it is clear that Muhammad had limited imagination - f.x. more or less all tales in the Quran are "borrowed" ones.) But the main things are:
    9. They were never claimed to be prophesies when they were said.
    10. Muhammad never claimed to have the gift of being able to make prophesies.
    11. Both Muhammad and Aisha (in Hadiths) said he was unable to foresee the future.

    12. He did not even pretend to be a prophet – he only used the title.
    13. Muhammad only “borrowed”/stole the imposing and impressing title, he was no real prophet.
    14. Also these verses shows that Muhammad had not the power to make prophesies: 6/50a, 7/188b, 10/20c+d, 10/49a, and 72/26.
    15. And when he in reality was no prophet – not even a real pretender, only using the nice title as a disguise – he could not be the future prophet Moses told about. (We know there exist "softer" definitions for who is a prophet, like "a person speaking on behalf of a god" - it is an imposing title and many wants to use it. But a real prophet by definition has to be able to make prophesies. Not to mention if he was to be "a prophet like Moses".)
    16. Then there is 5.Mos. 18/20 – the next-door neighbor to the for Islam essential 18/18: “But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.” These are criteria for singling out false prophets. In his famous and infamous “Satanic Verses” Muhammad promoted the three pagan goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat – 3 daughters of the Arab main pagan god al-Lah/Allah (the same god that Muhammad renamed to only Allah). To promote pagan goddesses definitely is something Yahweh had “not commanded him to say”. And promoting the pagan goddesses meant Muhammad also could not be speaking in the name of Allah just then, but in the name of the pagan al-Lah/Allah – another god - or the Devil according to himself.
    17. According to this verse – in the same chapter which Islam is using as a strong and reliable proof – it as you see is documented that according to definition Muhammad is a false prophet (also f.x. all that is wrong in the Quran documents the same). And no false prophet could be the prophet Moses spoke about. The same for a "not real prophet".
    18. And one more context just seconds later in the same speech of Moses (5.Mos. 8/22). Moses said: “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord (Yahweh*) does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken”. Muhammad never even made real prophesies and a lot of what he said else in the Quran, pretending to repeat the words of a god, most obviously is not true – just look at all the mistaken facts and all the other wrong points in the book. According to 5.Mos. 8/22 (another verse in the Bible Muslims never mention) this proves – on top of the other proofs – that Muhammad was no prophet. Consequently also for this reason he cannot have been the prophet Moses talked about.
    19. As mentioned the word “brother”, etc. are used many times in the Bible. It even is used in exactly the same sentence in at least one more for Israel crucial case, and by the same man, Moses, and speaking to the same people – the Jews. 5.Mos. 17/15: “- - - be sure to appoint over you the king your Lord your God (Yahweh*) chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place over you, one who is not a brother Israelite.” One more verse and one more context Muslims never mention – it is permitted to guess why. No further comments necessary. Well, we may point to that Moses hardly was advising the Jews to elect an Arab king for ruling them.

    Muslims also claim that there are so many likenesses between Moses and Muhammad, that Muhammad has to be the prophet Moses spoke about. And that there are so many differences between Moses and Jesus that it cannot be Jesus.

    Honestly: What kind of argument is that? You would have no problem at all to find 50 likenesses between Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler - or for that case Muhammad. And if you look closely enough, you find plenty of differences between even identical twins. This kind of "arguments" is logical word pollution, absolutely without any value in this case, and only proves that Islam has no real arguments here - if they had had, they had not used "verbal smoke" like this.

    No matter what two men you choose in all this world and through all times – choose any two you like – you will find similarities and you will find differences (though it is typical that Islam only looks for similarities between Moses and Muhammad, and for differences between Moses and Jesus – they are not trying to find out what is correct, only to get the answer they need.) Such similarities and differences may be interesting as curiosities, but they have no value as proofs if they are not “sine qua non” – facts that make other answers impossible.

    Here are two central words: “prophet” and "you" (“Moses”). But the main word is “prophet” – “Moses” is just for comparison or measure and invalid as "sine qua non". And of course Muslims debate the measure, not the fundamental word "prophet" – wise of them, as Muhammad was not a real prophet as mentioned. (Also see about Muhammad in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran".) Yes, he was not even pretending to have the gift of a prophet, but directly admitted he was not able to see the unseen", (see the previous piece above) – he only "borrowed" that impressing title. Perhaps he was a messenger for someone or something, but no real prophet.

    And the thing to compare if you are to compare one prophet with another, is if he/she is as good and as powerful in making prophesies – and correct prophesies – as the other. Muhammad obviously here falls trough completely, as he did not have that gift at all. And a man – no matter how charismatic – who was no real prophet, could not be the prophet Moses talked about - Moses f.x. made prophesies. This in addition that the contexts in which the word "brother" is used both in the Bible and in the Quran shows that there nowhere is meant that Arabs were brothers of Jews.

    (On the other hand Jesus could be the one. Both according to the Quran and to the Bible he was a prophet at least as great as Moses - even if Hadiths place Jesus in 2. Heaven and Moses in 5. so as not compete with Muhammad. Jesus also was a Jew - one of "their brothers". He actually was from the Judah tribe.)

    All other details in reality are without interest in this case as this is the “sine qua non” - the ability to prophesy and make correct such marks the prophet + being among "the brothers". The rest is just so much hot air.

    A small PS: In John 5/46 Jesus says: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me”. And even the Quran states that Jesus was a prophet who spoke the truth.

    CONCLUSIONS

    Conclusion – and it is so obvious a conclusion that it is not necessary to stress that it is the only one that is logically possible: These verses has nothing to do with Muhammad – it simply is Moses talking to his people about his people. Even each and every of many of these points above alone prove this 100% - not to mention when one takes all together.

    Another obvious conclusion: Islam has used "cherry picking" of the sentences they could use, omitted the parts of the same context that proved their claims wrong, and then twisted the words and contexts a little - or much - to arrive at the claims they are searching for. Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) is recommended in Islam if necessary to defend the religion - not to find out what is true, but do defend what your fathers believed. But what does it tell about a religion that it partly relies on al-Taqiyya, etc. (= lies)?

    Islam always demands that points in their own stories must be read and understood in the full context – especially when they run into trouble explaining some difficult points. But in this case the context completely destroys their wishful thinking and desperate need for a proof for Muhammad in the OT – desperate because the Quran declares he is foretold there (in this verse, 7/157 f.x.), but no clear foretelling exists - and as you see also no unclear one.

    The claim is not even wishful thinking, but rubbish.

    ################Perhaps worse: The fact that Muhammad so seldom used the claim that he was mentioned in the Bible, strongly indicates that he knew he was lying in the Quran when he claimed so. The being mentioned in the Bible had been such a strong fact and argument for him, that if he had honestly believed so, he had used it much more often and in even stronger words.

    Point of relevance VII - Claim from Islam.

    Deuteronomy (5. Mos.) 18/18:

    5.Mos. 18/18 in reality says just the same as 5. Mos. 18/15. See this just above.

    Point of relevance IX - Claim from Islam.

    Genesis (1. Mos.) 21/21:

    “While he (Ishmael*) was in the desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt”. Paran is on the Sinai Peninsula. But there also is a place with that name near Mecca (well, actually it is Faran, not Paran, but Islam has mainly switched to calling it Paran for obvious reasons - and they hardly ever mention this switching) – and the Muslims do not say that perhaps it was this Paran the Bible speaks about. They simply declare that the name proves it was this place, and that the Paran in Sinai there is no reason to talk about. It is like declaring that Stalin in all his brutality was an American because there is a town in USA named Moscow (there really are at least 2 - one in Idaho and one in Pennsylvania).

    But when they quote the Bible and 1. Mos. and use it for a “proof”, it is dishonesty bordering something very distasteful not also to mention 1. Mos. 25/18: “His (Ishmael’s*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur.” This was a very natural place, as Ishmael’s mother, Hagar, was from Egypt. It also made it easy for her to find a wife from Egypt for her son, like the Bible tells she did (1. Mos. 21/21) – whereas deep inside the Arabian peninsula, that had been quite another task.

    The Bible – which Muslims themselves use as the witness in this case – here proves with the same strength that Ishmael, his mother and his descendant had nothing to do with Mecca or Arabia. They lived in vest Sinai near the border of Egypt. (To be near the border of Egypt, it had to be in the western part of Sinai or northwards). Actually this also gives one more proof – from a source and a place in the Bible which the Muslims themselves use as a decisive witness – for that all the tales about Hagar and Ishmael living in - and Abraham therefore visiting - Mecca, just is a made up story. (This even more so as Abraham did not have camels, and such trips therefore very difficult.) It also fits the fact that Abraham for long periods lived in Sinai according to the same Bible that Islam here uses for a claimed proof. And it is reasonably near Paran in Sinai.

    The claim is wrong. (It also just is one of the weak ones which you mainly meet from less educated Muslims - and in media meant for less educated Muslims.)

    026 7/184c: "Their Companion (Muhammad*) - - - is but a perspicuous warner." In 621 AD Muhammad did not have the power to be anything but a warner. From 622 AD on - when he started to get military power - he changed to also being an enforcer. The same for his successors; it became dangerous to try to leave Islam, and large parts of the Arabs - and others - got the choice: Become Muslim or fight and die.

    027 7/191a: "Do they (non-Muslims*) indeed ascribe to Him (Allah*) - - - partners - - -". An Arabism. Except for in Arabia where the pagan god al-Lah/Allah (renamed to only Allah by Muhammad) had many colleges, no non-Muslims ascribed or ascribe partners to Allah, because they simply do not believe in him. They believe in one or more entirely different god (Jews and Christians) or gods (polytheists).See 2/165c above and 25/18a below.

    028 7/199a: “(Muhammad*) Hold to forgiveness (towards the “infidels”*). This verse is abrogated – made invalid - by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/38, 3/85, 3/148, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 8/12, 8/38, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many bloody threats, but also verses advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256 in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". (At least 28 abrogations).

    1. Many non-Muslims - and Muslims - say that terrorists and others pick and choose and disuse the Quran when they hate and kill. But in reality it is the militants and the terrorists who are right: According to the surahs from Medina it is the peaceful Muslims who are not good Muslims - and the surahs from Medina mostly override the peaceful ones from Mecca as they are younger, as mentioned before. (As this book is meant to be one to open and find out things – an “encyclopedia” - we sometimes repeat essential information, so that readers do not have to search too much - in addition to that many things are repeated because the Quran often repeats and repeats and repeats itself, and we have to give the answers). But some mullahs, militants and terrorists really do know how to read the Quran correctly. And the horrible fact is: The militants do read it correctly (with the possible exception of self murder).
    2. Most of the verses telling about peaceful coexistence with and treatment of non-Muslims are found in the some 86 surahs from Mecca (610-622 AD). Practically all the bloody, suppressing, hate, rape, robbery (“lawful and good”) and war verses are from Medina (622-632 AD). That means that many or most of the peaceful ones are nullified by the much harsher ones from Medina, a fact which turned the religion into one of disgust and haughtiness towards others, and war and robbing and conquest - a religion that fitted the warring desert Arabs (by far the majority in Arabia at that time) most well (it is symptomatic that Muhammad did not start getting large quantities of followers until he stopped preaching peace, and started preaching robbing, stealing, slave taking, ”lawful and good” rape, suppression, war and riches and power also in this life - - - and abrogated the peaceful verses to get a warriors‘ and robbers‘ religion.)
    3. You will see that in many cases it is the same verses/points that are abrogated (and thus often at the same time are contradicted) by many other verses, and the other way around. The reason simply is that many or most of the harsh verses – mainly from Medina where Islam changed to a war religion – each abrogates and contradicts many or most of the same softer verses – mainly from the earlier time (the Mecca period).

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

    029 8/35c: "Their (the pagan Arabs*) prayer at the House (of Allah) is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands - - -". Muhammad’s haughty description. The deep irony here is that in reality there were a number of pagan customs and ceremonies connected to the Kabah, and Muhammad took over most of these pagan ways of worship more or less unabridged - the pagans obviously had known the correct ways of worship Allah, but only the pagans in Arabia. Two remarkable coincidences?

    Besides: What is the value of Muslims' prayers if Allah had predestined everything according to his unchangeable Plan a long time ago, like the Quran states several places? If such predestination is true, prayers just are waste of time and effort (and if it is not true, something more is severely wrong with the religion).

    030 8/35e: "- - - blasphemed". The pagan Arabs' belief only were blasphemy against Allah if Allah exists (unlikely as the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is not from a god - and his existence never proved) and their beliefs in addition were wrong (likely, but also never proved).

    031 9/5c: The Muslims and Muhammad had treaties with some pagan tribes who had kept their part of the treaties as promised. Muhammad therefore could not attack them before the time/months of agreement (or holy months?) were over, “for Allah loveth the righteous”.

    “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in any stratagem of war”.

    1. Do you see the sick irony? Your partners - kill them as soon as permitted because they are not Muslims. Can the same happen to others they have treaties with?
    2. Pagans - also Arab pagans - got a very rough treatment often (though modern Muslims never mention this when talking about how well past Muslims treated non-Muslims); frequently they only got two choices: Die or become Muslims - in open violation of the Quran’s word about no compulsion in religion. (A word they often like to quote today even though they know it is dead - abrogated by 2-3 dozen later verses.)
    3. This verse may be one of the reasons for the Muslims’ behavior f.x. when conquering India (now Pakistan + India + Bangladesh) and in Africa. There were large-scale mass murders, enslavement, etc.
    4. It also is a very nice word for terrorists today, as words from one situation in the Quran, normally can be used in similar situations - and as Muslim terrorists have no treaties with non-Muslims, and especially not in the West, it is just to start killing, because even if Europeans are not pagans, they are not Muslims. The same goes for Muslims' behavior in f.x. Darfur.

    035 9/5i: "- - - the forbidden months - - -". The old Arabs had 4 holy months a year (numbers 1, 7, 11, and 12). Muhammad took them into Islam. A clear Arabism. There is nothing similar in the Bible.

    032 9/17c: "- - - join gods with Allah - - -". The old Arabs joined gods with their old pagan god al-Lah/Allah (Muhammad only accepted the name Allah). But for that no-one joins gods with him. They simply do not believe he exists, and believe in another god - or gods.

    033 9/31h: "- - - (far is He (Allah*)) from having the partners they associate with him". This is a clear Arabism, as the only place in the entire world they associated other deities with Allah, was in Arabia. And to be more exact, they did not associate them with Allah, but with al-Lah (though also named Allah) - the pagan old Arab main god witch Muhammad made to the only god and renamed to only Allah. No place else in the world did Allah have "partners". All other places they had another or other god(s) instead, not in addition to. But Muhammad liked to pretend towards his followers - and perhaps also towards others - that Allah was in the background other places, too, only that the people there had chosen other gods. Perhaps he thought it gave weight to his own god Allah.

    034 9/37b: "Verily the transposing (of a prohibited (f.x. to fight*) month) is an addition to Unbelief". The Arabs had a month calendar of 12 moon months. To make it follow the natural year they sometimes added a month (normally in year number 3, 5 and 8 in an 8-year cycle). These additions moved the holy months in which it among other things was prohibited to fight. But Allah forbade such additions, according to Muhammad. (This resulted in the artificial Muslim year.)

    035 9/37d: (YA1295): The old Arabs used to add an extra month some years, as mentioned (9/36a). The norm was the 3., 5. and 8. year in an 8 year cycle, but this was sometimes changed - used and disused - by the rulers for political, military or other purposes.

    036 9/86a: “When a surah comes down (to Muhammad*), enjoining them to believe in Allah and strive and struggle (= make war*) with His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - - (some do not want to go to war - they prefer to stay with the women, not a nice reputation for an Arab in 631 AD, not to mention for a Bedouin warrior*)”. But after all not every Muslim liked – or likes – war.

    037 9/97a: "The Arabs of the desert (at the time of Muhammad*) - - -". This is quite a time anomaly. One thing is the "normal" anomaly - see 4/13d above. Another is that some millennia ago there existed no "Arabs of the desert". They drifted into the desert from different places and became the mixture later called "Arabs" only after the domestication of the camel made life in the desert possible. Before that no reader of a copy of the claimed "Mother Book" - similar to the Quran - would understand one whistle of what the book was talking about when talking about desert Arabs. (The Arab camel - dromedary - was not domesticated until sometime between 4ooo and 2ooo BC, perhaps in Oman, but it took a long time before it was utilized further north.).

    It also took a long time from the camel (dromedary) was domesticated till it became an animal much used for riding:

    Here we include a small, but essential piece of information - essential f.x. for some of the claims regarding Abraham, and even more the claims concerning the claims about Abraham, Mecca, and the Kabah mosque. The dromedary was domesticated sometime between around 2ooo BC and 3500 BC - the exact time is not known (the very first proved case of domesticated dromedary/camel in the Middle East is from Qasr Ibrim in Lower Nubia (east Africa) around 740 BC) - and likely in the coastal area of South Arabia. Abraham according to science lived - if he was a real person - around 2ooo-1800 BC (and far from South Arabia). But today - 27. Dec. 2012 - we discovered a small fact we have not been aware of - small, but essential and revealing in this case: THE DROMEARY - THE ARAB CAMEL - DID NOT COME INTO WIDE USE UNTIL AROUND 1OOO-900 BC (around the time of King Solomon), and in Abraham’s area not until after the Assyrians started trade with South Arabia in the 8. century BC! And f.x. the first time camels are known to be used in battle, was Cyrus the Great who used camels against Croesus of Lydia in 547 BC, AND THEN TRANSPORT DROMEDARIES, NOT RIDING ONES WERE USED. (Horses not used to camels were frightened by them, and this made problems for the cavalry of Croesus.) This means that as late as in 547 BC - some 1300 years after Abraham - riding camels were not widely enough used to be a factor in daily life (if they had been, riding dromedaries had been used instead by Cyrus). Camels are mentioned in the Books of Moses, too, but this is reckoned by science to be one of the proofs for that those books are written long after Moses.

    This means that Abraham did not have camels, and definitely not riding camels. Which makes his claimed trip with his animals to the lonesome, waterless and empty desert valley where Mecca later grew up, physically impossible, his claimed building of the big Kabah hundreds of miles and more in kilometers from home, even more meaningless as he could not go back and forth between his home and his temple, and his claimed visits there later as hopeless a Muslim claim as his first claimed trip.

    THIS MEANS HE NEVER LEFT HAGAR AND ISHMAEL IN THAT VALLEY, THAT HE NEVER BUILT THE KABAH, AND THAT HE NEVER VISITED THE PLACE LATER,TOO. We have said the same before, but without the camel/dromedary Muhammad's claims about Abraham going to that dry desert valley to leave Hagar and Ishmael, and later to build the Kabah (a job needing years + no nomad had such technology), and then to visit the place now and then, move from extremely improbable to physically impossible.

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

    038 9/97-104: "The Arabs of the desert are among the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy - - -". In the beginning Muhammad had great problems winning the nomads and semi-nomads in the desert for his religion. One possible reason was the freedom they were used to - to accept Muhammad as a supreme leader and to accept Islam's on many points strict regime - and its tax - took some coercion. But the combination of a clear message: Become Muslims or fight us and be killed - in spite of Islam's nice claims about the opposite - and the possibility to make money from stealing, robbing, and enslaving did the job. Much of Arabia became Muslim at the point of the sword - combined with some honest new believers, a number won over by Muhammad by means of rich "gifts", and a lot of men among the desert Arabs who wanted to become - and became - rich from looting; well, in some years this combination worked and most Arabs became more or less honestly believing Muslims.

    039 9/98b: "Some of the desert Arabs looks upon their payment as a fine." This refers to the zakat - the so-called "poor-tax" (but which in reality also were used for a number of other things, too - included war) which all Muslims who was/is not too poor, had and have to pay. You paid/pay from 0% to 10% - average ca. 2.5% - not of your income, but of what you own. All the same 10% on farm products. It was paid to Muhammad and later to his successors.

    040 9/99a: "- - - some of the desert Arabs (nomads*) believe in Allah and the Last Day, and look on their payments (tax/zakat*) as pious gifts bringing them nearer to Allah - - -. Aye, and indeed they (and perhaps Muhammad's prayers*) bring them nearer (to Him (Allah*))". No comments except: A nice reward - - - if Allah exists and is a god (quite a surprise to some Muslims if he turns out to be someone from the dark forces who sometimes dressed up like the angel Gabriel to meet Muhammad - a possibility which the f.x. immoral parts of the Quran's moral code may point to.

    As for the value of prayers in Islam, also see 62/9c. And if you combine 62/9c with 67/9c - a strong one - you get something thought-provoking. (And relevant here: Muslims often are taught that a question or problem can have 2 or more true and correct solutions - Islam is forced to teach this, because if not many of the mistakes and contradictions in the Quran become too obvious. But this ONLY is true if parallel true solutions are possible. In cases where 2 or more possible solutions are mutually excluding each other, maximum 1 of the mutually excluding ones can be true. It should be a bit thought provoking for Muslims, that just this "small" difference in theoretical thinking and teaching, was one of the reasons (there were several of course) for why Europe and the West exploded into the Technical Revolution, while the Muslim area stagnated). Two star examples are: 1) Full predestination is not possible even for an omnipotent god to combine with even the smallest piece of free will for man - the two are mutually excluding. The same for full and unchangeable predestination long time before combined with any claimed effect of prayers - the two are mutually excluding each other.)

    041 9/101b: "Certain of the desert Arabs - - - are obstinate in hypocrisy - - -". See 9/98c above.

    042 9/102a: "Others (of the desert Arabs at the time of Muhammad*) - - - have acknowledged their wrongdoings - - -". See 9/98c above.

    043 9/103a: "- - - pray (Muhammad*) on their (the good desert Arabs*) behalf - - -". To what avail if Allah predestines everything according to his Plan which nobody and nothing can change anyhow? - one of the Quran's and Islam's most central and unsolvable mysteries and contradiction - and one which unlike the impossibility of combining Allah's complete predestination with even a small piece of free will for man, is never mentioned by Muslims. (Total predestination after all is mentions sometimes by Islam, though their scholars (not the lay people who believe in the mumbo-jumbo they are told explains it) admit it is impossible to understand how it can be combined.)

    044 9/117e: "- - - Ansars - - -". The Arabs in Medina who helped Muhammad and his followers the first time after the flight from Mecca to Medina.

    045 9/120a: “It was not fitting for the people of Medina and the Bedouin Arabs of the neighborhood, to refuse to follow Allah’s Messenger (to wage war - it refers to the expedition to Tabuk*) - - - “. But it is fitting for Islam to steal and rob and kill end enslave and suppress, "lawful and good".

    And it was “fitting” to make Muhammad a powerful warlord.

    Have you ever heard words like "self-centered" or "selfishness"?

    What then about “let there be no compulsion in religion”? - or about religious wars? - not to mention what about honesty and "do unto others like you want others do unto you"? - the basic law behind all real inter human morality. Not to mention: Can Jesus and Muhammad be in the same line of prophets - (they in case have to preach approximately the same truths, the same basic ideas and the same moral code). No answer necessary - and the same goes for "is Yahweh the same god as Allah"?

    046 10/14a: "Then We (Allah*) made you heirs in the land after them - - -". In and around Arabia there were remains from earlier habitations - plus old tales and legends about earlier tribes and people. Muhammad claimed they all had been exterminated for sins by Allah - if Yahweh could be hard sometimes in OT, he was an amateur compared to Allah - and that his time's Arab were their inheritors - by the grace of Allah.

    047 11/84f: "And give not short measure and weight - - -". One of the (few?) good moral rules in the Quran, is the demand for honesty in trade - though the fact that it some places is said you shall not cheat Muslims, to some - or many? - weak souls may indicate that to cheat non-Muslims does not count too much (do not ask a sailor about his opinion about "Arab salesmen" - he may answer in too strong words for your ears).

    #048 11/95c: Shu'ayb - Salih - Hud. These are the 3 big non-Biblical claimed prophets in the Quran (+ Muhammad of course). All were Arabs working in Arabia. A universal god should have had a bigger choice - and perhaps also some success and/or different stories, not only parallels to Muhammad. One of the half hidden, but clear and strong Arabisms in the Quran. See 4/13d above.

    049 13/30b: "- - - a People before whom (long since) have (other) People (gone and) passed away - - -". = The Arabs. Folklore told that tribes like the 'Ad and Thamud had lived there before - and Muhammad claimed they had all been killed by Allah because of sins against him, and that the Arabs had got their places - - - and had to be obedient to Allah - and to Muhammad - not to risk the same fate.

    050 13/40d: "- - - it is Our (Allah's*) part to call them (non-Muslims*) to account". To say it with small letters: Muhammad, and not to mention his successors, had a tendency for "forget" this after he got military strong enough to force Islam on others - f.x. large parts of the Arabs were forced to change their religion and become Muslims; "accept Muhammad and Islam or fight us and die".

    051 14/10k: “Ye (the claimed prophets*) wish to turn us (pagan Arabs*) away from the (gods) our fathers used to worship: then bring us some clear authority.” These pagans did not say no - they asked for proof. Proofs would have made an impression, but like Muhammad Islam's(?) prophets(?) also at these times could prove nothing. But no doubt: People asked for proofs. Muhammad only had fast talk and claims to offer instead of proofs.

    052 15/85h: "So overlook (any human faults) with gracious forgiveness". Among human faults according to Islam, are disbelief in Allah or even leaving Islam - and you bet Muhammad left this 621 AD point of view when he grew strong enough. f.x. Arabia to a large degree was made Muslim at the point of the sword, and the wish to leave Islam soon carried - and some places carries - death penalty. This verse is abrogated – made invalid - and contradicted by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/38, 3/85, 3/148, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 8/12, 8/38, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many bloody threats, but also verses advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 28 abrogations).

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

    053 15/94a: “- - - turn away from those who join false gods with Allah (here mainly the non-Muslim Arabs).” This was in 621 AD. Already the next year Muhammad started to change his religion towards war and blood, and stopped turning away from non-Muslims as soon as his and his successors' military strength was powerful enough to demand conversion to Islam - later on Arabs mainly got the choice: Become Muslims or fight and die. This verse is contradicted and often “killed”/abrogated by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 5/73, 8/12, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 29 contradictions).

    054 16/1h: "- - - far is He (Allah*) above having the partners (likely the other gods of the pagan Arabs, but non-Arab gods and Jesus may be included*) they (the pagan Arabs and perhaps the Christians*) ascribe unto Him (Allah*)!" By using this formula - and he uses it often - Muhammad indicates that Allah is the god everyone everywhere knows about or at least was known from the old, but that many have added other gods in addition to him. This picture is false - except for in Arabia where many had al-Lah (also named Allah sometimes) as one of their gods - the same pagan god Muhammad dressed up and called only Allah - the rest of the world had other gods not in addition to, but instead of Allah, and most did not even know about al-Lah/Allah. They had their oven gods and they were self-sufficient and not added to Allah. But psychologically a good sentence for Muhammad and his preaching. Also see 25/18a below.

    055 16/3c: "- - - far is He (Allah*) above having the partners (likely the other gods of the pagan Arabs and others, but Jesus may be included*) they (the pagan Arabs and perhaps the Christians*) ascribe unto Him (Allah*)!" See 6/106b and 16/1e+f above and 25/18a below.

    056 16/23e: ""- - - verily He (Allah*) loveth not the arrogant". Muslims sometimes are pretty arrogant, perhaps especially from among the Arab ones - does this mean Islam is not loved by Allah?

    057 16/29d: "- - - the arrogant". Non-Muslims - they were arrogant to disbelieve Muhammad. Another fact is that the Arabs for centuries - perhaps even now - were arrogant towards non-Arab Muslims (not to mention towards non-Muslims).

    058 16/57d: "And they (pagan Arabs*) assign daughters for Allah! - - - and for themselves (sons - the issue) they desire". Sons were valuable, daughters of negative value in the old Arab culture. That the men wanted sons for themselves, but accepted daughters for a god was in such a culture a strong argument for that any claim about daughters for a god had to be wrong - a god impossibly could want daughters! A god for the entire world had known that f.x. the "world mother" or similar, was held in high esteem many places in the world.

    059 16/58b: “When news is brought to one of them (Arabs at the time of Muhammad*), of (the birth) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief! With shame does he hide himself from people, because of the bad news he has had!” It hardly is as bad today, but only a boy is a boy in many Muslim societies even now.

    060 16/62a: “- - - they (contemporaries of Muhammad*) attribute to Allah what they hate (daughters*)”. In Arabia girl babies were disliked, and here it is said people generally hated to get girl babies. Wrong – if Islam pretends to be a universal religion. Some places on Earth – like in Arabia – girl babies may have been hated. But most places they only were of lower value, and far from hated. Then some places they were valued more or less equally. There also were places where daughters were valuable – f.x. because they meant money/valuables to their parents when they married. There even were a few places were the societies were matriarchate’s, and the girls the main sex. (This is one of the many points in the Quran where wrong knowledge points to some human(s) in Arabia as the maker(s) of the Quran – there are too many points like this.)

    061 17/49c: "What! When we (humans*) are reduced to bones and dust, should we really be raised up (to be) a new creation?". It is said that the old Arabs did not value the next life much, but at least they knew it existed in many religions - it was no surprise to them. But Islam claims that Allah picks up all the atoms and juices of your rot and nullified body and puts it all back to recreate you - though as a young person (nothing is said about fixing the body of handicapped or the mind of mentally retarded), and that was a bit much for the non-believers to believe. We must admit we find it somewhat unbelievably, too - but for another reason: Why! - why recreate the body, when a soul free from cumbersome bones and meat are much freer? - and when mental and intellectual pleasures and experiences are much more fulfilling than bodily ones? May the reason be that in a primitive culture(?) like in the old Arabia, the bodily pleasures were the only ones rough warriors really knew and were able to picture? - and to experience bodily pleasures one needed bodies. Is the explanation for bodily recreation simply that Muhammad needed "carrots" his primitive and self centered (f.x. unable to feel empathy with their victims or with women they raped) rough bunches of warriors were able to visualize?

    *062 17/111b: “- - - Allah, Who begets no son - - -”. Well, Jesus called Yahweh “father” many times (the word "father" for the relationship Yahweh/Jesus is used at least 204 times in the Bible, and the word "son" at least 89 times - frequently by Jesus, who also the Quran says was reliable - and remember: The Bible is proved not falsified). Besides it is funny to read the Quran scolding Arabs to believe Allah had daughters - al-Lat, al-Uzza and (al-) Manat - because it is plain stupidity to believe a god who wanted family, would choose to have daughters. He was sure to choose sons. That "imbecility" was enough proof in the man-centered old Arabia, to “prove” that the very idea had to be wrong. But when Yahweh may be wanted some company - a son - that is an utter impossibility in spite of this. Even more funny because the Quran, Muhammad, Islam and Muslims tell it is impossible for mere humans to understand a god - - - but everyone seems to be sure that a god wants to be alone, and neither do they ask if a god perhaps has a reason (that we may or may not understand) for having a son, nor ask if he just wants company. Who knows a god's wishes?

    063 20/113c: (YA2638): "The Quran is in clear Arabic, so that even an unlearned people like the Arabs might understand and profit by its warning". Remember this each time a Muslim tries to explain away mistakes, contradiction, etc. with claims that does not mean what it says, but something else, or that it is figuratively meant or that it is a metaphor or something. Also see 16/103b above and 41/3d below.

    But if the Quran had been for the entire world, the point had not been to make Arabs understand the texts, but to make the entire world understand it. Arab in case was a wrong language to start with.

    064 22/30a: "- - - the sacred rites of Allah - - -". The big question mark here is that more or less all these rites were taken over from the old Pagan Arab religion. Few if any rite possible to combine with monotheism were omitted - and few, if any were added. How come that the old pagan Arabs and only they in the entire world had more or less all the rites correct? - and how come that all the other religions, included the Mosaic and the Christians - had nearly everything wrong? Remember here that the Jews and the Christians had their rites mainly from the Bible (and remember that science have proved the Bible is not falsified in spite of Islam's never documented claims - - - and that Islam has proved this even clearer by not being able to find one single proved falsification in the old, relevant papers, even though there are many thousands of relevant papers).

    065 22/78e: "- - - it (Islam*) is the cult of your father Abraham". For one thing it is unlikely Abraham is the forefather of the Arabs - Ishmael and his sons settled near the border of Egypt, according to the Bible (written at a time when there was no reason for the writer to falsify this), not in Arabia (1. Mos. 25/18). Also DNA-analysis indicate that the Arabs in reality are a mixture of people who drifted into the desert from different places and nations when the domestication of the camel made life there possible + the result of being at a crossroad for the caravans + the result of large import of slaves/concubines from Europe, Asia and Africa - white, brown and negroes. What once - impolitely - was called a bastard product. Not to mention that Arabia was settled thousands of years before Abraham - not later than 7ooo BC in the coastal areas - which means that even if Abraham had been one of the Arabs' forefathers, he had been only one out of perhaps 100ooo. This in case means that even if Abraham had been among their forefathers, out of an Arab's some 5 liters of blood, only 0.05 milliliters would come from Abraham, and only 0.001% of an Arab's DNA would come from Abraham. Or really only half of this - the other half would be from the mothers. And for another thing there is no reason to believe Islam was Abraham's religion, but strong reason reasons for to believe that the claim is wrong, as no traces from a religion like Islam older than 610 AD have ever been found. Islam will have to produce proofs in order to be believed by us.

    There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left - and remember here that the Quran (21/91) confirms that Jesus was for all peoples, (and in 19/19 that he was holy, which Muhammad definitely was not)). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses and the Jewish prophets) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and this on top of the fact that Abraham like mentioned did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran claims. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.

    (To specify a little concerning the settlement of humans in Arabia: Modern humans may have entered the coastal area, river areas, etc. as early as 75ooo-50ooo years ago. The Neolithic period started around 6500 BC with a likely expansion of the population because of some agriculture, expansion of the use of domesticated animals, and trade. The interior of Arabia except for some oasis, etc. were settled much later and not until well after the camel was domesticated and more widely used. It is unclear where and when it was domesticated, but likely in south of the peninsula (Oman?) something like 2ooo BC (the number varies some), but it did not come into wide use until the 9. or 10. century BC.)

    066 23/35b: "Does he (the claimed Muslim prophet*) promise that when ye (people*) die and ye become dust and bones, ye shall be brought forth (again)?" Remember here that what Muhammad promised and Islam promises, is that Allah shall find all the pieces and juices - all atoms and molecules - you were made by and put everything together again and then wake you up to the claimed next life. The old Arabs knew about a possible waking up of your soul, but this process with putting everything together and waking you up bodily, was a bit hard to swallow - it still is for people knowing some about chemistry, physics, etc. - especially as a life free from the cumbersome body like in NT is a far more attractive alternative for a possible next life. (But in Islam's Paradise most of the pleasures are bodily ones, and then Muhammad needed bodily resurrection - very different form NT where Jesus tells that in Paradise you become like the angels (f. x. Luke 20/36), not to mention: "For the Kingdom of God/Yahweh is not a matter of eating and drinking (or sex*) - - -", (Rom.14/17). - the same god and the same Paradise? - impossible.

    But a copy of Muhammad's experiences like so much in the Quran - - - "proving" Muhammad's problems were normal for prophets, and that Muhammad thus was a normal prophet - though the greatest one. Not from the Bible.

    067 23/37b: "But we (the people of the unknown prophet*) shall never be raised up again!". More or less all religions have some kind of second life. The old pagan Arabs knew this from surrounding religions, but had weak belief about this themselves, and some of them said things like this to Muhammad. Here Muhammad claims the opponents told that prophet just the same as Arab opponents told Muhammad - "confirming" that the opposition Muhammad met, was normal for prophets, and thus also that Muhammad was in a normal situation for a normal prophet. But as this was a religious point of view one seldom and few places in the world met, this simply is one more Arabism.

    068 28/46g: "- - - (you Muhammad are*) to give a warning to a people to whom no warner had come before thee - - -". According to the Quran, the Arabs had had at least these warners: Abraham (claimed to have been in Mecca), Hud, Salih, Shu’yab, and Moses (some Muslims claim the Quran tells the truth, because none of these had been in Medina. But when you talk about a people, you talk about a people - in this case the Arabs - unless otherwise is specified. If you make the area small enough in cases like this, you may make anything look true.)

    069 28/46h: "- - - that they (Arabs*) may receive admonition". And what value would such an admonition in reality have, when there is no god behind the teaching and the book? - no god was ever behind a book so full of errors, contradictions, etc.

    070 28/83c: "- - - mischief - - -". According to the Quran there is a lot of mischief done on Earth, which is not mischief, but laudable deeds, when done by Muslims - and especially so if it is done in the name of their claimed good and benevolent god.

    ###071 29/61d: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) will certainly reply,’ Allah*". Wrong. If they believed the Earth and the rest were created by a god, they would say the name of their own god. But in Arabia a small cheating was easy: The old Arabs would say the name of their god al-Lah, but this is so close to Allah in pronunciation that it was easy to claim they said Allah. (A similar trick is used today, when Muslims and Islam in the west calls Allah "God" - the Christian name for Yahweh. This camouflages a lot of the differences between God/Yahweh and Allah, at least on the surface."

    072 30/28a: “- - - do ye (Muslims*) have partners among those your right hand possess, to share as equals in the wealth We (Allah*) have bestowed on you? Do you fear them as ye fear each other?” Oh, no - Muslims do not. Arabia was a to a degree a slave society, and slaves for one thing got little part in the riches of the Master, and for another were too suppressed to be of any danger - and for a third all the imported slave women made the mixture named Arabs an even less pure race. A fitting similitude for Muslims?

    073 32/3g: “- - - thou (Muhammad*) mayst admonish a people to whom no warner has come before thee - - -.” But:

    1. 2/125-129: These verses remind Muslims about that according to the Quran both Abraham and Ishmael lived and worked in Mecca (according to the Quran) – and both were prophets and messengers, still according to the Quran. But according to science: If Abraham has ever lived, he lived some 2000 – 1800 BC – which means centuries before Moses, and millennia before Muhammad - he "admonished" in Mecca before Muhammad (at least according to the Quran).
    2. 10/47: “To every people (was sent) a messenger - - -.” Homo Sapiens – also called Modern Man – developed most likely in East Africa some 160ooo – 200ooo years ago, and crossed – and occupied – the land bridge between Africa and Asia (= the Middle East) may be 100ooo years ago. If every people had got Messengers, how come that Sinai/Arabia/etc. had not got one for nearly 100ooo years – not until Moses some 3300 years ago or Abraham perhaps 3800 - 4ooo years ago?
    3. 16/36: “For We (Allah*) assuredly sent amongst every People a Messenger.” See 10/47 just above.
    4. 35/24: “- - - and there never was a people, without a warner having lived among them (in the past).” A very clear contradiction.

    Besides there were prophets like Hud, Salih and Shu’ayb who lived (according to the Quran) some generations after Noah, but long before Moses, not to mention Muhammad.

    (Min. 6 contradictions.)

    074 33/37a: This verse does not at all belong in any holy book - this is solving of Muhammad's family affairs. (Muhammad fell in love - or in desire - with the wife of his adopted son, Zaid. According to old Arab law an adopted son was a son, and a father-in-law could not marry his daughter-in-law. But Allah changed the law for Muhammad, there was a divorce - what could Zaid say against his mighty "father"? (Muslims claim the marriage was not a good one - that be as it may, it anyhow was a betrayal of Zaid, and even most Muslims do not feel entirely well about this marriage) - - - and Muhammad had himself yet another wife. Also see 33/37 just below.

    075 34/7d: "- - - (in ridicule) - - - (because of the claim that *) when ye (people*) are all scattered to pieces in disintegration, that ye shall (then be raised) in a New Creation - - -". The reason for their skepticism hardly was the resurrection. Perhaps it was true that the old Arabs did not believe strongly in a next life, but they in case knew that resurrection was normal for the surrounding religions, and thus nothing new or strange. What was difficult to believe, was resurrection of the body, not only of the soul. (But for Muhammad resurrection of the body was necessary, as most of the pleasures in his claimed Paradise were bodily pleasures).

    #076 34/45c: "- - - these (the Arabs at the time of Muhammad*) have not received a tenth of what We (Allah*) had granted those (earlier, but disappeared people in and around Arabia*) - - -". In and around Arabia there were empty buildings and ruins, and also there were folk tales about disappeared tribes and people. Muhammad claimed they had all been destroyed by Allah because of sins (science tells there are a lot of other possible explanations in a harsh and warlike area). And to magnify his god and the god's power, if he mentioned the strength of disappeared people, he always claimed that they had been much richer and more powerful than the Arabs of his own time. Just read the Quran, and you will see this.

    #077 37/101: "- - - a boy - - -". This is meant to be Ishmael, the son Abraham got with the Egyptian slave woman, Hagar, and whom the Arabs claim are their forefather - even though the Bible tells he and his mother settled near the border of Egypt - 1. Mos. 25/18. (The Quran claims he settled in Mecca - a claim which extremely unlikely can be true).

    ###There also is the fact that Arabia was settled thousands of years before Abraham and Ishmael. Thus there were tens of thousands of forefathers for the Arabs of Muhammad's generation. Thus if all the same some descendants of Ishmael settled in Arabia, they in case meant only a miniscule part of a percent of an Arab's blood at that time, and even less today, mainly because of import of millions of slaves from Africa and other places through the years. That much for Arab's relationship to Abraham and for the pure Arab blood today (the pure Arab blood even never existed - modern DNA shows that the Arabs never was a "pure" race, but are the descendants of people who drifted into the peninsula from neighboring countries all around - - - + from the millions of imported Negro and other slaves.

    078 37/113b: "We (in the Quran claimed to be Allah*) blessed him (Abram/Abraham*) and Isaac - - -". Abram/Abraham according to the Bible (and the Quran) became the one who started the Jewish people - through Isaac and Isaac's son Jacob. Ishmael and his children settle on the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) and mainly disappears from the story, except that Muhammad some 2500 years later claims they settled in Mecca and were the forefathers of the in reality mixed up peoples living in Arabia, later named Arabs.

    079 37/149a: "Now (Muhammad) ask them (the Arabs*) - - -". Here the Quran suddenly and without warning jumps from Jonah and Nineveh around 700 BC and back to Muhammad and Arabs around 615 - 617 AD. There are quite a few similar jumps in the Quran. Good literature?.

    080 37/149a: "Now (Muhammad) ask them (the Arabs*) - - -". Here the Quran suddenly and without warning jumps from Jonah and Nineveh around 700 BC and back to Muhammad and Arabs around 615 - 617 AD. There are quite a few similar jumps in the Quran. Good literature?.

    081 37/150a: "Or that We (Allah*) created the angels female - - -". In the old pagan Arab religion the angels were believed to be females.

    082 37/158a: "And they (people*) have invented blood-relationship between him (Allah*) and the Jinns: But the Jinns know (quite well) that they have indeed to appear (before His Judgment Seat)". To say the least of it: This is not from the Bible. If there had been any connection between Allah and Yahweh, the Jinns and their judgment at least should have been mentioned in the Bible. As for what exactly is meant here with "blood-relationship" (= quite close relatives) we have not found, as different Muslim scholars give different comments, but it is clear no Muslim likes the accusation. It is clear, though, the old Arabs reckoned the angels to be the daughters of al-Lah/Allah, but the Jinns were not angels.

    083 38/50-51: Good food and drink in Paradise. Earthly luxury. Is this the best Paradise a claimed omniscient and omnipotent has to offer his followers? This might be the maximum poor, uneducated, naive warriors in the old Arabia were able to dream about, but would a god make his Paradise from such limited and immature intellects and as limited and immature dreams? Also see 10/9f above.

    The fundamental differences between Yahweh's and Allah's paradises are one of the absolute proofs for that the two are not the same god. If they had been, their paradises had been one and the same.

    084 39/25a: "- - - those before them - - -". In this case Arabs and others from before Muhammad and his generation.

    085 39/39b: "O my (Allah's or Muhammad's*) people ("infidel" Arabs in Mecca ca.616-617 AD*)! Do whatever ye can (against Muhammad's teaching*)- - -". There was a 180 degree change of this point of view half a dozen years later - Allah changed his mind? This verse is abrogated – made invalid - and contradicted by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/38, 3/85, 3/148, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 8/12, 8/38, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many bloody threats, but also verses advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 28 abrogations).

    086 40/48a: "Those who had been arrogant - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims. (It here is quite an irony that the Arab Muslims the first centuries were so arrogant towards non-Arab Muslims that it led to strife and revolt.)

    *087 40/82a: “Do they not travel through the earth and see what was the End of those before them?” In and around Arabia there were - and are - scattered ruins. Muhammad told they were all remains of people punished by Allah for sins (and for good measure they were stronger than Muhammad’s contemporary Arabs). Believe it who wants - but contact a professor of history or a psychologist if you do. Similar claims at least in 3/137 – 6/11 – 7/4 – 9/70 -16/36 - 21/6 - 40/21.

    A sweet and naive story: Also in Pakistan there are ruins. The authorities debated in 2010 to repair some of them to attract tourists. Local Muslims instead proposed to put placards on them, telling that this was how Allah punished non-Muslims and sinners(!!)

    088 40/82b: "They (the destroyed people of the old*) were more numerous than these (Arabs at the time of Muhammad*), and superior in strength - - -". If you read the Quran, you will see that mostly when Muhammad tells that Allah destroyed people of the far past, they were strong and mighty ones. That made Allah more impressive.

    089 41/5c: "- - - so do thou (non-Muslim Arabs*) (what you wilt) - - -". The plain story later on: This verse is abrogated – made invalid - and contradicted by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/38, 3/85, 3/148, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 8/12, 8/38, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many bloody threats, but also verses advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 28 abrogations).

    *090 43/9b: “- - - ‘Who created the heavens (plural and wrong*)?’ they (non-Muslims*) would be sure to reply, ‘They were created by (Allah*)”. Wrong - if they believed a god had created it, they would be sure to mention their own god, though in the old Arabia this may have been the polytheistic god al-Lah/Allah, which could cause (intended?) confusion because the names were so similar (the same reason why Islam now tends to use the word “God” instead of “Allah” in the west, we have been told – it hides some of the real differences between Islam and he Christian religion. Well, in a way Muhammad would be right just in Arabia, as his claimed monotheistic god Allah, just is the polytheistic god of the old pagan Arabs, al-Lah/Allah, which Muhammad renamed slightly and dressed up and claimed was the only god. But all the same: When the old Arabs talked about their own main pagan god, they did not mean Muhammad's new and monotheistic version.)

    091 43/13c: "- - - we (humans*) could never have accomplished this (see 43/12d+e*) (by ourselves) - - -". Well, boats and ships were designed and made by men so far back in the past, that we really do not know when the first log was burnt and axed to become a boat. And cattle was tamed by man - not by gods - may be some 15ooo years ago and later (the camel f.x. around 3500 - 2000 BC, one does not know more exactly. But THE DROMEARY - THE ARAB CAMEL - DID NOT COME INTO WIDE USE UNTIL AROUND 1OOO-900 BC (around the time of King Solomon), and even later in North Arabia and further north (when the Assyrians started trade with South Arabia and discovered the value of the camel as a transport animal around 600 BC) - essential information concerning Abraham, who lived around 2000 - 1800 BC, and northwest from Arabia).

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

    092 43/16a: "What! Has He (Allah*) taken daughters - - -". In the pagan old Arabia the 3 main goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat and also the angels were reckoned to be the daughters of the main god, al-Lat/Allah, whom Muhammad later took for his god, renamed him only Allah, and declared he was the only real god (out of some 300 - 400 or more in the old Arabia - there were 360 only in the Kabah until Muhammad threw out all of them except al-Lah/Allah).

    093 43/16b: "What! Has He (Allah*) taken daughters out of what He himself creates, and granted to you (Arabs*) sons for choice?" In the old Arabia daughters had so low esteem that Muhammad could use this as an argument - a god impossibly could want daughters! But many places is the world women were not reckoned to be that invalid (actually not many places the world over was as bad for women as in Mecca and a few other places), and some places they even were valuable - matriarchies or valuable as brides (= money to the parents many places) or as partners for the man in the toil for the daily food. Islam claims Allah is god for the entire world. Would a universal god use arguments which would not be universally understood? - here simply an Arabism -(this is far from the only such case where mainly Arabs would understand the point).

    094 43/17a: "- - - (the birth of) what he (a pagan Arab*) set up as a likeness to (Allah*) - - -". Here = the Arab got a daughter.

    095 43/19a: "And they (pagan Arabs*) make into females angels - - -". See 43/16a+b above.

    096 43/19b: "And they (pagan Arabs*) make into females angels - - -". Muhammad did not only promote the pagan Arab god al-Lah/Allah to the universal god Allah, but also changed the old Arabs' female angels to angels without any sex. They are neither male nor female.

    097 43/21a: "Have We (Allah*) given them (pagan Arabs) a Book - - -". Allah has never given anyone a book, if the Quran is a sample - no god ever delivered a "holy" book full of wrong facts, contradictions, etc.

    098 43/21b: "Have We (Allah*) given them (pagan Arabs) a Book before this - - -". Muhammad treats the possession of a book like a definite proof - a claimed holy book = proof. But any god had known better - a book (also a Quran) is as easy to falsify or fill with mistakes as is a verbal tale. Who made the Quran?"

    ##099 43/24b: "Even if I (a self proclaimed prophet in Muhammad's tradition*) brought you (non-Muslims - here pagan Arabs most likely*) a better guidance than that which ye found your fathers following". The Quran is not better than the religion of the old pagan Arabs on the main point: None of them really represented gods - this included Islam, as it is built on a book so full of errors and worse, that no god ever was involved in its making. As for details, the Quran was/is a little better morally on a few points, but worse on others - like the nearly deification of raids and wars mainly for riches, slaves, power and forcing (by weapons or pressure) the new religion on others.

    100 43/58c: "And they (Arab opponents of Muhammad) say, "Are our gods best, or he (Jesus*)?" The old Arabs thought their own gods were sufficient, and also had been little interested in the Christian religion - which in addition may have been far too peaceful for the warlike nomads of Arabia.

    101 44/35: "There is nothing beyond our first death, and we shall not be raised again". The old pagan Arabs seems to have put little weight on a possible next life, but they were not unknown to the idea. But remember that Muhammad claimed we shall be resurrected bodily - though as young adults - something necessary for Muhammad as most of his promised pleasures in Paradise were bodily pleasures, but something which was and is difficult to believe in, if for no other reasons, the because an omnipotent god should have more attractive alternatives.

    ***102 46/21a: "Hud". A prophet Muhammad and the Quran claimed once lived in Arabia. There exists no trace from him outside the claims in the Quran. He in case was a self proclaimed prophet with problems similar to Muhammad's and was used by Muhammad to show his own followers that former prophets had been disbelieved, too, and that thus Muhammad's situation was normal for prophets. There is a Muslim rumor that there is a chance for that he is the same person as the little known Biblical person Eber. In that case he was the great great grandson of Noah "at a time when the forefathers of the Jews were Arabs living in south Arabia before some of them emigrated to Mesopotamia, where among others Abraham was born (in Ur of the Chaldeans according to the Bible*)". It is a kind of fun when you read about ideology and/or religion and/or nationalism, etc. to see how many - and especially populists - try to grab honor from wherever they can find it. (The quote here is freely translated from Swedish after A6/47 - comment to verse 6/65).

    Another point is that if the 'Ad was a mighty tribe, Hud could not be identical to Eber - It would be impossible to make up a mighty tribe from a one or maximum a few of Noah's descendants or few servants - the only remaining humans on Earth according to the Quran, in just 3-4 generations. But this kind of claims is typical for Muslims and Islam - you meet it too often: They put forth nice claims about themselves or bad ones about the opponents, without taking all "facts" into consideration. In that way they get fitting "information" or "arguments" which may sound good, but which pulverizes when you check them. When such things are done too often, it gives a bad impression and destroys credibility.

    103 48/11a: "The desert Arabs who lagged behind - - -". In the beginning the Bedouins were not too interested in Muhammad's new religion. Just this verse refers to their not wanting to come along on the pilgrimage which ended in the treaty of Hudaybiyah.

    104 48/11b: "The desert Arabs who lagged behind - - -". Desert Arabs of any quantity did not exist until after the camel was domesticated a few thousand (4ooo?) years ago, and thus a time anomaly for claimed Muslims reading claimed copies of the claimed "Mother Book" - similar to the Quran - before that.

    There also is another fact here. Even if the camel was domesticated (likely) in the south of the Arab peninsula, it took a thousand years before it spread to the rest of Arabia. And further it did not spread until the Assyrians started trade on Arabia, which means sometime around the reign of King David or King Solomon or perhaps a little later. This among other things means that f.x. Abraham, who lived 800-1ooo years earlier in and around Canaan (now roughly Israel) and in northern Sinai (if he is not a made up person), did not have camels (there the camel did not arrive until the Assyrians started trade with South Arabia in the 8. century BC). This again means that the trek to Mecca and the leaving of Hagar and Ishmael there, and Abraham's several trips to Mecca later - f.x. to build the big Kabah, (which no shepherd (which was Abraham's profession) had the technology to build) - were impossible.

    105 48/11e: "Who then has any power at all (to intervene) on your (half-hearted Muslims*) behalf with Allah - - -". The desert Arabs - the Bedouins - originally were rather luke-warm to Muhammad and his religion, and Muhammad was frustrated about it. But where is the logic when he normally tells that Allah decides everything and nobody can influence Allah's will and decisions or Plan, whereas his implicit threat here seems to be that if the desert Arabs will not obey him - the two points you find he comments other places in the Quran, are that they are reluctant to take part in his raids and reluctant to pay tax - he will not intervene on their behalf with Allah (to make Allah change his Plan to benefit them). But then Muhammad is not always logical when other arguments works better. See f.x. his claims that Allah decides and predestines everything, but all the same man has free will. It is so impossible to combine these two, that even Islam has given in to explain it. The essential things seem not to be that things or claims can be true, but that they work - that naive or brainwashed or blindly believing followers believe what is claimed. Predestination and free will for man is not possible even for gods to combine. The same goes for predestination and no intervention possible but all the same intervention by Muhammad possible, like here is indicated.

    And a small PS: What is the value of prayers in Islam, if everything is predestined long time before by Allah, and according to his Plan which "nobody and nothing can change"? - if nothing can change it, then also prayers can change nothing in the Plan, and prayers are to no avail.

    106 48/16b: “Say (Muhammad*) to the desert Arabs (but most of the Quran is valid for all people and all times according to Islam*) who lagged behind: ‘Ye shall be summoned (to fight) against a people given to vehement war: then shall ye fight, or they shall submit. Then if ye show obedience (fight*), Allah will grant you a goodly reward (rich spoils of war and Paradise*) - - -”. A huge carrot to make fighting attractive - but what peaceful religion goes far out to make war attractive?

    107 48/16c: "- - - the desert Arabs who lagged behind - - -". In the beginning the Bedouins were not too interested in Muhammad's new religion. This changed considerably after Muhammad started his raids for riches and captives/slaves.

    108 48/16d: "- - - the desert Arabs - - -". Desert Arabs did not exist until after the camel was domesticated a few thousand (4ooo - 5ooo?) years ago - one does not know exactly. And real desert lives -desert Arabs could not exist until use of the camel became more widespread around 1ooo-900 BC = around the time of King Solomon), and thus a time anomaly for claimed Muslims reading claimed copies of the claimed "Mother Book" - similar to the Quran - before that. (In this case before Muhammad started his raids for riches in earnest.)

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

    109 48/16e: "Ye (the desert Arabs*) shall be summoned (to fight) against a people given to vehement war: then ye shall fight , or they shall submit." Try to find things like this in NT! One more at least 100% proof for that Yahweh and Allah were not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same line of anything of any consequence.

    ##110 48/16f: "Then if ye (in this case desert Arabs reluctant to take part in raids*) show obedience, Allah will grant you a goodly reward - - -". Obedience to whom? - here on Earth in reality to Muhammad, and for a reward costing Muhammad exactly nothing but some words free of charge. The dream position for a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, a Papa Doc, any dictator wanting absolute and total power and obedience. Religion disused is the ultimate platform of power.

    111 48/16g: "- - - Allah will give ye (Bedouins*) a goodly reward (for going to war*)". The religion of peace?? Try to find things like this in NT! One more at least 100% proof for that Yahweh and Allah were not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same line of anything of any consequence.

    ###112 48/16h: “- - - but if ye (see first part of 48/16a above*) turn back (refuse to fight*) as ye did before, He (Allah*) will punish you with a grievous Penalty”. Very clear words from Muhammad and then Islam: Do battle or end in Hell. Some nice "Religion of Peace"! Try to find things like this in NT! One more at least 100% proof for that Yahweh and Allah were not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same line of anything of any consequence.

    ##113 49/6b: "O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly - - -". This is worth thinking over also in another connection: Muslims know about al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), they know about Kitman (the lawful half-truth), they know about "war is deceit" and "war is betrayal" (to quote Muhammad himself in f.x. Ibn Ishaq "Life of the Prophet") and that everything outside Islam can be defined as "the area of war", they know Muhammad advised and himself practiced even breaking of one’s own oaths. All the same - when some good Muslim tells something positive about Islam - true or not true - or something negative about others - true or not true - they believe it without checking if it is true or not. F.x. the Muhammad cartoons - the Danish mullahs in the beginning did not get the angry reactions they wanted. Therefore they colored 3 of the drawings in ugly colors and told Muslims abroad that this was from the Danish newspaper, and then finally they got reactions. (What in a way is worse: This falsification is known in Muslim countries, but as far as we understand it has provoked no reaction - it seems to be ok to do things like that. We have heard the episode mentioned on al-Jazeera, but that is it). Or a more recent episode: Last year (2009) Muslim scholars announced on Internet that they could prove - without giving the proofs - that the texts in the Bible had been changed more than 50 places (56 if we remember correctly) during the meeting in Cannae in 325 AD. Now the agenda for that meeting is well known, and changes to Biblical texts were not even mentioned there. Besides it is just as easy to make bishops change texts in the Bible as it is to make ayatollahs change texts in the Quran - it is just the same mental mechanism at work in both cases. And one more point the mentioned Muslim scholars skipped: The Old Testament (OT) makes up more than 3/4 of the Bible. How do you falsify that part of the Bible without agreements from the Jews? - there was not one single Jew at that meeting. Well, how at all make the Jews agree to changes in the Bible favoring Jesus, when they do not believe in Jesus? But good Muslims reading the tale in the Internet, at once accepted the fairy tale without checking anything, even though in this case to check the agenda for that meeting is easy. (Actually al-Taqiyya, Kitman, etc. makes information from Muslim sources difficult to use, because everything has to be checked - all too often the claimed facts are made up or "twisted" or "cherry-picked" half truths or not truths - see f.x. the claims that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible: There they first have cherry-picked some quotes and taken them out of the context, then they have twisted logic quite a lot, omitted some facts - - - and seemingly got a nice answer - an answer Muslims believe in without even checking in the Bible (where they would have found the claims are not true - the main word in the claim, "brother", f.x. is used at least 338 times (98 in OT, 240 in NT) in the Bible - and not one time about an Arab/Arabs. Arabs/Arabia are mentioned at least 15 times - not one of them as friends, not to mention brothers*).

    114 49/14b: "The desert Arabs say, 'We believe.'". How could this reliably be written in the claimed "Mother Book" (of which the Quran is a copy according to Muhammad) billions of years before it was said or happened? 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 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 5 reasons - at least 3 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, if even a tiny part is made different. And multiply even a tiny change with some billion people through the centuries, and many and also big things will be changed.
    3. The displacement of a happening - f.x. the death of a warrior in battle - of only one yard or one minute may or even will change the future forever (that yard or minute f.x. may mean that the warrior killed - or not killed - an opponent). The laws of chaos and the "Butterfly Effect" and the "Domino Effect" kick in.

    4. 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".
    5. 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 like said; 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, mysticism, 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, even though it means to falsify the book) - 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.

    Also see 3/154e, 6/149a, 7/34a, 14/22b, and not least 27/22-26 above.

    115 49/14d: "- - - if ye (desert Arabs) obey Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". A nice small condition - especially as here on Earth that meant: "If ye obey me, Muhammad".(Also on this point there is a great difference between Jesus and Muhammad. Jesus said "Follow me", Muhammad said "Obey me".)

    116 50/3b: "That (resurrection in body*) is a (sort of) return far (from our (Arab non-Muslims'*) understanding)." Islam claims that the old Arabs did not believe much in a next life. This may or may not be true, but at least they knew a next life existed in many neighboring religions. What was - and is - difficult to believe, is resurrection in body. This strongly limits the freedom in a next life, but as Muhammad’s paradise mainly offered bodily pleasures - top food, drinks, clothes, etc. - bodily resurrection was necessary.

    117 50/3b: "That (resurrection in body*) is a (sort of) return far (from our (Arab non-Muslims'*) understanding)." Islam claims that the old Arabs did not believe much in a next life. This may or may not be true, but at least they knew a next life existed in many neighboring religions. What was - and is - difficult to believe, is resurrection in body. This in case strongly limits the freedom in a next life, but as Muhammad’s paradise mainly offered bodily pleasures - top food, drinks, clothes, etc. - bodily resurrection was necessary.

    118 50/3c: "That (resurrection in body*) is a (sort of) return far (from our (Arab non-Muslims'*) understanding)." Perhaps their understanding was correct.

    119 50/36b: "- - - stronger in power than they (Arabs contemporary of Muhammad*)". If you read the Quran you will see that Muhammad frequently claims that the people he claims Allah destroyed because of sins, were stronger and better and richer and with more children than his own contemporary Arabs. Such claims made the effect of the stories stronger. But like most of what Muhammad told also these claims were never documented.

    120 52/39: “Or has He (Allah*) only daughters and ye have sons?” It was most unbelievable for the strongly masculine society of the Arabs that a god could want daughters - and treated as a proof for it being a lie that Allah has descendant(s). It tells a lot about Islam’s view concerning women. This argument is never even mentioned when it comes to Jesus – he after all was male and should fit in the picture Muhammad painted.

    **121 55/56e: The Muslim Paradise is quite like the Zoroastrian one (Zoroastrians mainly lived in Persia, one of the big trading partners for Arabia. The Arabs knew that religion – hardly as well as the Mosaic or the Christian religions, but at least superficially). The houris there were named paaris. Also see 19/71 above. (Also the Jewish and Christian - and the Muslim one - Hell may have got some inspiration from the Zoroastrian one.)

    122 60/4e: "- - - whatever ye (non-Muslims*) worship besides Allah - - -". Wrong. Muhammad often used this expression - it gives the impression that Allah is so central that everyone worship him, but that the non-Muslims had other gods in addition. The plain truth is that non-Muslims did not believe in Allah at all, but had other god(s). This also was the case for the old Arabs, where Muhammad twisted the facts to make it look like his claim was right. The old pagan Arabs did not believe in Muhammad's Allah, but in the old pagan god al-Lah. Also see 25/18a above

    **123 62/2i: “(Muhammad was to*) instruct them (the Unlettered Arabs*) in Scripture and Wisdom - - -”. There is not much wisdom in a book full of mistakes, contradictions, etc., and with a partly immoral moral code like the Quran.

    124 62/2j: "- - - they (the pagan Arabs*) were in manifest error". Were they in less error afterwards? Are they in less error today? That will depend on if the Quran tells the full truth and only the truth - and if Allah exists and is a god. Read the Quran - skip the glorious words and the loose claims, and read the realities and judge for yourself.

    ##125 66/9d: “O Prophet (Muhammad*)! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell - - -.” A clear order and a clear explanation why they are sub-human, and thus deserve to die. “Untermench” always are ok to kill – they deserve it. It also is the right of the “Übermench” to do so – and in the Quran no doubt the Muslims are the “Übermench”. (Quite like the Nazi philosophy - except that according to the Nazis, Arabs were "Untermench".(Übermench = super humans, Untermench = sub humans.)

    ###Also the big differences between the Bible's and the Quran's hells 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.

    126 69/8a: "Then seest thou (people*) any of them (the 'Ad people*) left surviving?" At least at the time of Muhammad - at least 2ooo years later (according to the Quran's information) if the 'Ad had ever existed - no survivors were known (if there were, they were mixed up with the mixture of people who are the Arabs). An easy "proof" for Muhammad.

    127 77/41d: "- - - (cool) shades and springs (of water)". The Arab desert dweller's dream of a paradise - far from f.x. the Inuit's or Samoyed's or for that case the North Europeans' or the original inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego's dream about nice sunshine and not too much rain and water. All the "Arabism" makes Allah seem to be a god for desert Arabs mainly.

    Also remember that the many and deep differences between Yahweh's Paradise and the one of Allah, are one of the strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

    128 81/22: "And (O people!) your (here Arabs'*) Companion (Muhammad*) is not one possessed - - -". A most open question, as modern medical science suspects he had TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) - his symptoms are uncannily like those of that illness, included religious illusions. And in the old times persons with mental illnesses were reckoned to be possessed by one or more bad spirit(s).

    129 83/25: "- - - Wine - - -". Wine used to be very popular in the old Arabia. Actually alcohol and sex were "the two delightful things". And just these "two delightful things" Muhammad reintroduces in the Muslims' Paradise: Lots of women plus lots of wine. Is that a co-incidence? (at least he reintroduces it for men - women may have to be starved at least for one of the "delightful things", but women do not count much in the Quran.)

    130 84/7b: "- - - his (a Muslim*) Right hand - - -". In the old Arabia the right side and the right hand were the good ones, whereas the left were the bad ones. Is it a coincidence that Allah has learnt this Arab superstition?

    131 106/1: "- - - the covenants (of security and safeguard - - -) - - -". Mecca was a central religious town also before Islam, as it was a holy town for the Arab pagans - and thus fighting and strife prohibited by old religious taboos.

    132 108/3c: "- - - he (non-Muslim*) will be cut off (from Future Hope)". But here is a hidden meaning - hidden for non-Arabs: (A108/2 - omitted from the English 2008 edition): "With this word - "abtar" the Arabs named the man without male descendants, as they meant that a man's reputation and words about him could not be kept alive after his death without male descendants. The sons also meant strength, and in the end power. - - - As a man's prestige in this way to a large degree depended on his number of sons, the word "abtar" to a high degree was a demeaning title. The Prophet Muhammad got at least two sons, but they both died as infants, and it is told that among the insulting words used against him by his enemies in Mecca, was just this word". An Arabism not possible to understand the meaning of, if you do not know life in Arabia. Why does an god who is claimed to be the god for the entire world use so many Arabisms - but hardly any information from other places and nothing from places really distant from Arabia?

    133 110/2: "And thou dost see the People enter Allah's Religion in crowds - - -". The book forgets(?) to mention that in 632 when this surah was made, Muhammad no longer was only a preacher, but also an enforcer: Become Muslim and get rich from plunder and have women or girls to rape, or fight us and die - to be a bit blunt. Much of the present Muslim areas - included most of Arabia - were won by "money and sword" directly or indirectly.

    133 + 1112 = 1245 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


     

    29.  AS (abu al-As)

    Relative of Khadija and married to Muhammad's daughter Zaynab. Originally opponent of Muhammad, but rather late he switched to Islam.

    0 + 1245 = 1245 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


     

    30.  AZAR - THE FATHER OF ABRAHAM (TERAH IN THE BIBLE)

    In the Bible there is mentioned no quarrel neither between Abram/Abraham and his people, nor between him and his father. On the contrary the Bible tells Abraham and his father (and Lot) were working and travelling together for decades, until Yahweh ordered Abraham to continue to Canaan from Haram in north Mesopotamia (now roughly north Iraq). The Quran on the other hand tells about quarrel, destruction of pagan gods, Abraham being burnt in Nimrod's fire (in spite of that Nimrod lived - if he ever existed - millennia before Abraham. (Nimrod was the great great grandson of Noah. The time lines are diffuse that early, but a couple of thousand years before Abraham.))

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

    001 6/74c: "Lo, said Abraham to his father Azar". Contradiction to the Bible: There his father's name is Terah. (But to be fair one must mention that Talmud - Jewish scriptures - sometimes calls him Zarah, and that also the name Athar has been used in a history book from around 300 AD (Eusebius Pamphili)).

    002 6/74d: "Lo, said Abraham to his father Azar: 'Takest thou Idols for gods? For I see thee and thy people in manifest error". This is not from the Bible. In the Bible there is not even a hint about that Terah/Azar or his people had other gods than Yahweh. There also is not one hint about a disagreement between Abram (his original name according to the Bible - the name Abraham he got from Yahweh much later (not mentioned in the Quran - Muhammad hardly knew this)) and his father or between Abram and his people. Also there is no hint about religious disagreement and there further is no other reason to believe that another god than Yahweh was involved - though this early they may have used f.x. the name El for him (the earliest known name for Yahweh). From where did Muhammad get this story? No god was involved in a book with so much wrong like the Quran, and but for a god there is no other source about Abram/Abraham than the Bible. Oh, well, there are the dark forces, there are the legends and fairy tales, and there is the fantasy (though Muhammad seems not to have had a very creative fantasy - he normally "borrowed" stories from where he found them and just twisted them so as to make them fit his new religion).

    003 9/70c: "- - - Abraham's people - - -". Here is a list of people and tribes who according to the Quran were destroyed because they did not accept Allah or sinned against him. But the possible sin and punishment of Abraham's people are not mentioned in the Quran. Some Muslim scholars tell it must be the Babylonians who were "Abraham's people" (Ur in Chaldea was not too far off) and the fall of the first Babylonian empire the punishment. But Abraham - if he is not fiction - lived around 1800 - 2000 BC. Babylon fell to Assyria around 1100 BC (and later to the Persians in 538 BC). The time simply is wrong by some 800 years (but then Islam too often does not care too much about the truth or not, as long as one can get a seemingly logical explanation which corresponds to the Quran, and which little educated and/or wishful believers may believe in - you meet this fact a little too often.)

    In the Bible there is nothing about punishment of Abraham's people. It only says that his father Terah left them and went north, heading for Canaan in the northwest, and brought his son Abram (later renamed by Yahweh to Abraham) and his grandson Lot along - which means that in the Bible there also is nothing about religious or any other quarrel between Abram and his father. Also the story about the pagan gods Abram destroyed and the religious quarrel he had with his people according to the Quran, is not from the Bible - the only perhaps reliable source for information about Abram/Abraham.

    004 9/114e: "- - - he (Abraham*) dissociated himself from his father (and left him*) - - -". This is contradicting the Bible. What the Bible tells about his father, Terah, is found in 1. Mos. 11/25-32. The text which is relevant here is 1. Mos. 11/31-32: "Terah took his son Abram (later renamed to Abraham by Yahweh - a detail not mentioned in the Quran is that his name was not at all Abraham until late in his life: 1. Mos. 17/1-5: "When Abraham was ninety-nine years old, the Lord (Yahweh*) appeared to him and said, - - - 'No longer will you be called Abram, your name will be Abraham'"*), his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai (later renamed Sarah*), the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans (in what now is south Iraq*) to go to Canaan (approximately what is now Israel*). But when they came to Haran (in what now is north Iraq*), they settled there. Terah lived 205 years, and died in Haran". Nothing about Abram dissociated himself from his father - on the contrary. Later (but before his father died) - in 1. Mos. 12/4-6 - Abram continued to Canaan, ordered by Yahweh. Now Abram/Abraham may have been fiction. But if he has lived, any professor - or even student - of history will say that the Bible is a more reliable source than the Quran, as it is written 1ooo years closer to what happened, and was building on strong traditions - and no serious professor believes the Quran is made by a god and thus reliable, a fact that is proved by the reality that no serious professor - or even serious student - ever use the Quran for a source for anything which happened before 610 AD, and only carefully for things which happened after that year.

    005 19/42b: "Why worship that which heareth not and seeth not, and can profit thee nothing?" In the Bible there is no report of any kind of religious strife neither between Abraham and his father, (on the contrary they travelled together and lived together till Abraham set out for Canaan at the age of 75 - 1. Mos. 12/4-5), nor between Abraham and the rest of their people. But Muhammad was pretty one-tracked - see how all his stories are built in the same way: Always conflict Muslim vs. non-Muslim and the Muslim coming out the winner or in Paradise, whereas the bad non-Muslims come out the losers or in Hell. The story of Abraham is pressed into the same stereotypic form: Conflict and triumph. In the Bible it is a much more varied story and a more complicated human person.

    006 19/45b: "I (Abraham*) fear lest a Penalty afflict thee (Abraham's father Terah (Azar in the Quran)*) from (Allah) Most Gracious, so that thou become to Satan a friend". Comment (YA2497): "To entertain a feeling of friendliness, instead of aversion, to Evil, is in itself a degeneration of our nature, a Penalty which Allah imposes on our deliberate rejection of Truth. And the friendliness to Evil also implies the sharing of the outlawry of Evil". If you compare the basis for all real moral among humans, "Do onto others like you want others do onto you", with the Quran's moral code, you find a number of evil points in the Quran's moral and ethical codes. Also Muslims refuse to see the mistakes in the Quran, even the most obvious, and refuse to accept the truth on such points.

    What thoughts are pertinent and close by here?

    007 19/46b: "(The father (of Abraham*) replied: 'Dost thou (Abraham*) hate - - -". See 19/45b above.

    008 19/46d: "- - - I (Abraham's father*) will indeed stone thee: now get away from me for a good long while". This is totally at odds with the underlying story in the Bible, where there is reported no serious conflict between Abraham and his father - religious or other kinds. See 19/42b and 19/42-50 above.

    009 19/47b; "- - - I (Abraham*) will pray to my lord (here indicated Allah*) for thy (his father's*) forgiveness - - -". Why? - if Allah predestines everything long before, and does so according to a Plan which nobody and nothing can change, like the Quran states many places, prayers have no meaning in Islam, as they cannot have any effect. A question Muslims never touch.

    As for the value of prayers in Islam, also see 62/9c. And if you combine 62/9c with 67/9c - a strong one - you get something thought-provoking. (And relevant here: Muslims often are taught that a question or problem can have 2 or more true and correct solutions - Islam is forced to teach this, because if not, many of the mistakes and contradictions in the Quran become too obvious. But this ONLY is true if parallel true solutions are possible. In cases where 2 or more possible solutions are mutually excluding each other, maximum 1 of the mutually excluding ones can be true. It should be a bit thought provoking for Muslims, that just this "small" difference in theoretical thinking and teaching, was one of the reasons (there were several of course) for why Europe and the West exploded into the Technical Revolution, while the Muslim area stagnated). Two star examples are: 1) Full predestination is not possible even for an omnipotent god to combine with even the smallest piece of free will for man - the two are mutually excluding. The same for full and unchangeable predestination long time before, combined with any claimed effect of prayers - the two are mutually excluding each other.)

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

    010 19/48-49: "And I (Abram/Abraham*) will turn away from you (all) - - - etc. - - -". Strong contradiction to the Bible where he never left his father until Yahweh much later ordered him to go on to Canaan. On the contrary his father Terah, his nephew Lot whose father died, and he went together until Abraham set out for Canaan at the venerable age of 75 (1. Mos. 12/4-5). Together they went from Ur of the Chaldeans (south Iraq) to Haran (Northwest Iraq) where they lived until Abraham set out for Canaan (1. Mos. 12/4-5).

    011 21/53-67: The quarrel about religion between Abram/Abraham and his father and the others is not from the Bible. There also in the Torah is no indication for that they were pagans or that there was a quarrel (the relevant verses: 1. Mos. 11/27-32. There is an exception though in Jos. 24/2 which tells about other gods, but not about strife). Besides: As the Quran is not from a god, and as the Bible is the only source of information about Abram/Abraham - from where did Muhammad get these stories?

    012 26/72-73: "Do they (false gods*) listen to you (Terah in the Bible, Azad in the Quran - father of Abram/Abraham*) when ye call (on them), Or do you good or harm?" But if you ask the same question about Allah, he has not done one single of those things in a provable way during his entire claimed existence - not once - just listen to Islam's silence about this. Besides it is not said in the Bible that Abraham's people were polytheists.

    013 26/86: "Forgive my (Abram/Abraham's*) father, for that he is among those astray". Contradicting the Bible - in the Bible there is no conflict between Abram - later Abraham - and his father. There also is no conflict between Abraham and the others.

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

    014 29/17b: "The things that ye (Abram/Abraham's people*) worship besides Allah have no power - - -". It is not unlikely that Noah's people had more than one god - actually it is quite likely. But in the Bible there is mentioned no kind of religious strife, neither between Abram/Abraham and his people (1. Mos. 11/27-31), nor between Abram/Abraham and his father (1. Mos. 11/27-32 and 12/1-5).

    015 60/4g: "- - - but not (= no good example*) when Abraham said to his father: "I will pray for forgiveness for thee - - -". It is normal for leaders of extreme sects to try to cut their followers' connections to people outside the sect, included the nearest family, because knowledge from the outside may tell truths the leaders do not want should reach their often manipulated congregations. Muhammad and Islam was - and is - in good company when doing this.

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

    016 60/4h: "I (Abraham*) will pray for thee (his father*) - - -". There is no trace of such a dispute in the Bible. On the contrary - Abraham lived together with his father (Terah in the Bible) from he was born when Terah was 70 years old (1. Mos. 11/26) till Abram/Abraham was told by Yahweh to continue to Canaan when Abram/Abraham was 75 (1. Mos. 12/1-5).

    017 60/4i: "I (Abraham*) will pray for thee (his father*) - - -". If Abram/Abraham had been a Muslim, what had been the idea of praying? - everything is totally predestined by Allah in his unchangeable Plan, according to the Quran - a plan nobody and nothing can change. Why then prayers, when they can change nothing anyhow?

    As for the value of prayers in Islam, also see 62/9c. And if you combine 62/9c with 67/9c - a strong one - you get something thought-provoking. (And relevant here: Muslims often are taught that a question or problem can have 2 or more true and correct solutions - Islam is forced to teach this, because if not, many of the mistakes and contradictions in the Quran become too obvious. But this ONLY is true if parallel true solutions are possible. In cases where 2 or more possible solutions are mutually excluding each other, maximum 1 of the mutually excluding ones can be true. It should be a bit thought provoking for Muslims, that just this "small" difference in theoretical thinking and teaching, was one of the reasons (there were several of course) for why Europe and the West exploded into the Technical Revolution, while the Muslim area stagnated). Two star examples are: 1) Full predestination is not possible even for an omnipotent god to combine with even the smallest piece of free will for man - the two are mutually excluding. The same for full and unchangeable predestination long time before, combined with any claimed effect of prayers - the two are mutually excluding each other.)

    17 + 1245 = 1262 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


    >>> 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".