Humans, Other Beings in/Relevant to the Quran, Part 7


 

41.  BANU KHUZA'A

Arab tribe near the coast between Mecca and Medina. One of the main ancestral tribes in Arabia. According to Arab history the tribe once ruled Mecca, but the problem with Arab history is that it is totally adjusted to make the Quran seem true, so that it often is difficult to find what is true and what not.

0 + 1278 = 1278 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

42.  BANU MUSTALIQ

Subtribe of the Khuza'a tribe. The only subtribe of the Khuza'a who did not want to accept Muhammad. Muhammad attacked and suppressed them in 627 AD.

0 + 1278 = 1278 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

43.  banu NADIR - ONE OF THE 3 JEWISH TRIBES IN MEDINA

When Muhammad arrived in Medina, there were 3 major (and members of a few other) Jewish tribes there - banu (which means tribe) Nadir, banu Qaynuqa, and banu Qurayzah. Muhammad in stages got rid of them when he grew powerful enough. First he had banu Qaynuqa expelled from the town. Then banu Nadir. (Many from banu Nadir settled in or near Khaybar, where Muhammad later found them, murdered the men and made the women and children slaves). Finally there was the horrendous finishing of the Qurayzah tribe: Muhammad murdered all the men - somewhere between 600 and 900, likely around 700 - and made the women and children (likely at least 2ooo) slaves. In all 3 cases Muhammad stole what property the Jews could not take with them.

Like the Quran and Islam claim: Muhammad was the foremost representative ever of a good and benevolent god. And Muhammad never asked for any kind of payment for his leadership.

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

001 59/2a: “It is He (Allah*) Who got out the Unbelievers (the Jewish tribe Banu al-Nadir*) amongst the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces).” This was an expulsion of non-Arabs (Jews) from Medina, after Muhammad found an excuse to act against them – Muhammad actually wanted to kill them, but one of the Arab tribes who had a covenant with some of them, made that impossible for him the first time – he still was not strong enough military. This happened shortly after the battle of Badr in 624 AD. It was one of Muhammad’s first step towards becoming economically really self-sufficient as he “took over” all their land, etc., and an essential step towards absolute power in Medina. Here it is treated as a laudable, glorious act. "It is the winner who writes the history - and he sometimes color it".

002 59/2d: "- - - they (the expelled Jews*) destroyed their dwellings with their own hands - - -". They had to leave Medina, but Muhammad was forced to let them take with them everything they could bring on their camels. They naturally packed everything they had, but they also took the sills over doors and windows. These were from wooden planks, and wooden planks were valuable in the desert, and also there most likely was a lot of natural spite - but the result was that parts of the houses fell down. We may add that many from Banu al-Nadir settled around Khaybar, where Muhammad found them when he attacked Khaybar some 3 years later.

##003 59/3a: "And had it not been that Allah had decreed banishment for them (the Jewish tribe Banu Nadir - Bane means tribe*) for them - - -". There exists a Scandinavian word "poelsevev" - literally meaning "a weaving made from sausages" - which means utter nonsense with a large dash of stupidity included. This tale is "poelsevev" - Muhammad simply was forced to let them go because a strong Arab tribe (the Khazraiites under Abd Allah b. Ubayy) demanded it, even though he wanted to murder the men and enslave the women and children like he f.x. later did with banu Qurayza, when he was military stronger.

PS: Which god would use "poelsevev"?

004 59/3b: "- - - in the Hereafter they (the Jews from the tribe Banu al-Nadir) shall (certainly) have the Punishment of the Fire". See 3/77b above.

###005 59/4a: "That (see 59/2a, 59/2d, 59/3a above) is because they resisted Allah and his Messenger (Muhammad) - - -". This is very interesting information, because practically all Muhammad's armed conflicts were because of aggression from the Muslims - even Badr, Uhud, and The Trench were defense battles in a war of aggression started and kept alive by Muhammad and his raids against caravans, etc. Also in this case it seems that Banu al-Nadir had not helped an enemy, but they had not helped Muhammad, and they were negative to him and Muhammad found an excuse to attack (NB: Most Muslims honestly believe Banu al-Nadir helped some enemy, because that is what they are told). Thus what Muhammad really is saying here, is that it is prohibited to defend yourself from his/Islam's aggression and raids for money and slaves, or other aggression.

######Beware of a crucial word her: "resisted". Not "attacked", but "resisted".

"The Religion of Peace"!! And "The Religion of Honesty".

006 59/4f: "- - - they (Bani al-Nadir*) resisted - - -". See 58/1b above and 59/4e just above. To defend yourself against Muhammad was a sin. Not bad for a claimed good and benevolent god.

007 59/5a: “Whether ye cut down (O ye Muslims!) the tender palm-trees - - -.” To cut down palm-trees – the very basis for life in the desert – was reckoned to be such a “low” deed, that it was almost unheard of. But Muhammad did so – in an act of sheer terrorism and psychological warfare. But the deed was deemed so rotten, that Muhammad afterwards had to have Allah's help sorting it out ("it was by leave of Allah") - it is typical for the Quran that when Muhammad was in a fix, he never got a warning from the claimed clairvoyant/omniscient Allah so as to avoid the problem, only help to tidy up afterwards. Was not Allah really clairvoyant? (Muslims today try to explain away this terrorist act or worse, by telling that he made an open place for a battlefield. This “explanation” is just so much rubbish. For one thing: If there is one thing there is enough of in an arid land, it is open space – it was just to agree on where to meet. For another: Who have in the entire history of war ever heard of primitive warriors felling the forest to make opening for a fight? For a third: Anyone – absolutely anyone, included any Muslim – who has ever seen a plantation of date palms, knows very well that there is plenty of space for fighting between the trees. But the main fact: Who the hec would believe that a weak force – the Banu al-Nadir – would come out from behind reasonably secure walls to fight an open battle against a much stronger enemy? – and on top of all leave their families undefended? No sane man knowing two millimeters about warfare would believe this – and Muhammad already knew a lot about warfare. You have to be very naïve to believe this “explanation”. Muslim terrorism simply is nothing new).

##008 59/6a: “What Allah has bestowed on His Messenger (Muhammad*) (and taken away) from them (Banu al-Nadir*) – for this ye (the Muslim warriors*) made no expedition with either cavalry or camelery - - -.” This was very nice for Muhammad, because when there was no fight and the enemy just gave in, all the spoils of war was called “fay” and was for Allah/Muhammad alone. Muhammad in a short time got a good economy. We may add that you often find Islam boasting about rich plunder. But you will never - never - find Islam reflecting over what terror, what destruction, what catastrophe - and what setbacks to the culture - the Muslim attacks and destruction and murdering meant to others. Empathy with others, not to mention with non-Muslims, at least was outside Islam's capability - and still is so at least within some parts of Islam.

#####It must be added that to be thieves, robbers, enslavers and murderers - and rapists - in the name of a god, makes both the religion and the god extra distasteful - and it makes the claim that Allah is a good and benevolent god an unintended, black joke. Compare Islam to the gold standard; "do against others like you want others do against you" and shudder in distaste. ####Also remember that dishonesty is not only words, but also deeds - to steal/rob/extort is dishonest - to say the least of it - deeds.

##009 59/6a: “What Allah has bestowed on His Messenger (Muhammad*) (and taken away) from them (Banu al-Nadir*) – for this ye (the Muslim warriors*) made no expedition with either cavalry or camelery - - -.” This was very nice for Muhammad, because when there was no fight and the enemy just gave in, all the spoils of war was called “fay” and was for Allah/Muhammad alone. Muhammad in a short time got a good economy. We may add that you often find Islam boasting about rich plunder. But you will never - never - find Islam reflecting over what terror, what destruction, what catastrophe - and what setbacks to the culture - the Muslim attacks and destruction and murdering meant to others. Empathy with others, not to mention with non-Muslims, at least was outside Islam's capability - and still is at least within some parts of Islam.

#####It must be added that to be thieves, robbers, enslavers and murderers - and rapists - in the name of a god, makes both the religion and the god extra distasteful - and it makes the claim that Allah is a good and benevolent god an unintended, black joke. Compare Islam to the gold standard; "do against others like you want others do against you" and shudder in distaste. ####Also remember that dishonesty is not only words, but also deeds - to steal/rob/extort is dishonest - to say the least of it - deeds. And rape, slave taking, torture, murder in the name of a god are even worse. The "yuk" factor some places is big when you read the Quran with your brain and not only your Muslim religion engaged.

010 59/11d: "- - - they (the hypocrites in Medina*) are indeed liars". According to Muslim sources, the first Jews had from the old a truce with one or more Arab tribes (there had been a kind of civil war more or less in Medina, and there were truces between different tribes). These Arabs did not help them when they (Banu al Nadir) were attacked, but they prevented that they were murdered.

Also it is a bit ironic when the Quran slanders non-Muslims for being liars, as Islam is the only one of the major religions which accepts and in some cases even glorifies the use of dishonesty, betrayal, etc. - even broken/disused oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2. Even among the many small religions we can remember to have read about similar moral codes only in a primitive pagan religion in old New Guinea.

011 59/12: "If they (non-Muslims*) are expelled, never will they (Arab non-Muslims*) go out with them; and if they are attacked (in fight), they will never help them; and if they do help them, they will turn their backs; so they will receive no help". See 59/11d just above. The tribe Bani (Bani = tribe) Qainuqa were expelled from Medina in 624. They had been part of the loosing fraction in a kind of protracted civil war in Medina shortly before Muhammad arrived, and it was not too difficult for Muhammad to have them evicted. Then his next victim proved to be Banu al-Nadir.

012 59/14a: "- - - from behind walls - - -". In these warlike areas the inhabitants lived in fortified villages or towns - and of course fought from behind those walls if possible when attacked. The Jewish tribe Banu al-Nadir was attacked shortly after the military fiasco named the Battle of Uhud in March 625 AD (Muhammad lost that battle, but at a price for Mecca which made them wait too long to follow up the victory). Muslims like to tell a couple of anecdotes and give them as together with claims about Banu al-Nadir helping the enemy, as the reason for the attack. Historical science disagrees and says that those anecdotes just are anecdotes, and that for one thing Muhammad needed a victory after Uhud, and for another thing it was a traditional play for power. The Banu al-Nadir nearly to a man disbelieved Muhammad. To evict them or kill them, meant that Medina would be weakened military - they counted 700 warriors. But at the same time it meant that Muhammad got rid of 700 opponents - and to many a politician personal power counts more than the nation - here the town and its surrounding area (and in this case it paid off). The Banu al-Nadir had to give in after some 2 weeks in their fortified quarters. Muhammad wanted to kill the men and enslave the women and children (like he later did with the last of the strong Jewish tribe of Qurayza in Medina), but the Banu al-Nadir were permitted to flee from town. Unluckily for many of them a large part of the tribe settled near Khaybar, where Muhammad found them when he attacked Khaybar.

013 59/15a: "- - - those (Banu Quinuqa*) who lately preceded them (Banu al-Nadir*) - - -". This refers to the Jewish tribe Banu Qainuqa (Banu = tribe), which some time before (624 AD) was banished from Medina (most of them ended in Syria, where they over some generations were assimilated by the locals) - Banu Nadir did not understand that that eviction just was first chapter, as Muhammad wanted to get rid of the Jews because they did not believe in him and had a strongly negative influence on the propagating of his religion.

13 + 1278 = 1291 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

44.  BANU QAYNUQA - ANOTHER OF THE 3 JEWISH TRIBES IN MEDINA

When Muhammad arrived in Medina, there were 3 major (and members of a few other) Jewish tribes there - banu (which means tribe) Nadir, banu Qaynuqa, and banu Qurayzah. Muhammad in stages got rid of them when he grew powerful enough. First he had banu Qaynuqa expelled from the town. Then banu Nadir. (Many from banu Nadir settled in or near Khaybar, where Muhammad later found them, murdered the men and made the women and children slaves). Finally there was the horrendous finishing of the Qurayzah tribe: Muhammad murdered all the men - somewhere between 600 and 900, likely around 700 - and made the women and children (likely at least 2ooo) slaves. In all 3 cases Muhammad stole what property the Jews could not take with them. Especially the conquest of the Qurayzah (in Khaybar) made him well off.

Like the Quran and Islam claim: Muhammad was the foremost representative ever of a good and benevolent god. And Muhammad never asked for any kind of payment for his leadership(?).

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

062 59/15a: "- - - those (Banu Quinuqa*) who lately preceded them (Banu al-Nadir*) - - -". This refers to the Jewish tribe Banu Qainuqa (Banu = tribe), which some time before (624 AD) was banished from Medina (most of them ended in Syria, where they over some generations were assimilated by the locals) - Banu Nadir did not understand that that eviction just was first chapter, as Muhammad wanted to get rid of the Jews because they did not believe in him and had a strongly negative influence on the propagating of his religion.

1 + 1291 = 1292 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

45.  BANU QURAYASH

- the ruling tribe in Mecca when Muhammad was born.

Muhammad belonged to this tribe, but to a branch outside the rich and dominant parts of it.

The Quraysh strongly opposed Muhammad's new religion until Muhammad grew too strong for them and took over also Mecca in 630 AD. Likely this partly was because at least some were honest believers, and no honest believer in any religion, no matter how far out or inhuman that religion is, easily changes his mind, but also partly because that much of their power and riches derived from the fact that Mecca and the temple Kabah were very central in the Arab religion, and Muhammad's new religion might disturb this.

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

001 8/5b: “Just as thy Lord (Allah*) ordered thee out of your house in truth (to make war against the Quraysh – battle of Badr 624 AD*) - - -.” The Muslims went out to raid a military weak caravan - - - and met a small army instead, “according to Allah’s will”. Allah likes warriors – and he needs war to promote his power and religion, even if he is omnipotent. Remembering his claimed omnipotence, this is a strange "fact".

002 8/5c: “Just as thy Lord (Allah*) ordered thee out of your house in truth (to make war against the Quraysh – battle of Badr 624 AD*) - - -.” A time anomaly. See 4/13 above.

003 8/5d: “Just as thy Lord (Allah*) ordered thee out of your house in truth (to make war against the Quraysh – battle of Badr 624 AD*) - - -.” If man had free will, Allah could not know for sure millions of years earlier that Mecca would march against Badr just then. 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.

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.

004 8/5+6: “- - - even though a party of the Believers disliked it (to do battle against the Quraysh at Badr 624 AD*). Disputing with thee (Muhammad*) concerning the truth after it was made manifest - - -“. See 8/5d just above. In this case (Badr) some Muslims refused to take part in the battle against the seemingly much stronger small army and fled before it started “even after it had been made clear that it was Allah’s will that they should do battle against the Quraysh” according to “The Message of the Quran”. War seems to be a pleasure for Allah, and necessary to augment his power and promote his religion, even though he is said to be omnipotent. Or maybe it only is to test his followers and find out their quality – even though he is omniscient and predestining and knows everything before. The unsolvable contradiction made by the claims: Allah decides everything vs. man has free will, are also put to a test? But at least it is clear that Allah wants war.

005 8/6e: (A8/6): “- - - (some of your followers are*) disputing with thee (Muhammad*) after it was manifest (that there would be a battle at Badr*), as if they were driven to death - - -.” But it is unclear what the Arab word “kama” (“just as” or “even as”) points to, and then there is at least one more possible meaning (Mujahid, Tabari): “Just as some of the believers were adverse to going forth from Medina to fight the Quraysh (Mecca*), so, too, they would argue with thee as to whether it was really willed by Allah.” Unclear language = more than one possible meaning. A clear and impossible to misunderstand text in the Quran? And these variants naturally also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has more than one meaning.

006 8/19a: (A22 – in 2008 edition A21): “(O Unbelievers!) if ye prayed for victory and judgment, now hath the judgment come to you: if ye desist (from wrong), it will be best for you: if you return (to the attack) so shall We (Allah*).” This seems to be a clear-cut warning to the enemy (the Quraysh/Mecca at Badr). But remember that what is written in ( ) is put there by the translator to explain or to make things more clear – and if the translator has guessed wrong, the explanations are wrong. F.x. Razi thinks the meaning is this: “If you have been praying for victory (O believers) – victory has now indeed come onto you. And if you abstain (from sinning), it will be for your own good; but if you revert to it, We (Allah*) shall revoke (Our promise of aid).” Unclear language opens for many ways of understanding verses. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

007 8/56: "They are those with whom thou (Muhammad? Muslims?) make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of Allah)." Muslim hypocrites? Jews? Christians? Pagans? Jews, Christians and for that case Pagans did not - and do not - have any fear of Allah, as they did - and do - believe that the Quran is a made up book and Allah a made up god. There are good reasons for such beliefs.

Unclear. Many Muslim comments say this is about Banu Quraysh and it’s claimed "repeated treachery".

008 17/76a: "Their (the Quraysh leaders in Mecca*) purpose was to scare thee (Muhammad*) - - -". Time anomalies.

009 17/76b: "Their (the Quraysh leaders in Mecca*) purpose was to scare thee (Muhammad*) - - -". This is dishonest political fast-talk. Their purpose was to neutralize him as a political and economical danger by letting him share power and be part of the establishment. But the fast-talk afterwards sounded better for his followers.

010 22/25a: "- - - those who have rejected (Allah*) - - -". Non-Muslims - in this case likely the Quraysh - the ruling tribe in Mecca at that time. They did not like Muhammad and his Muslims. Also one of Muhammad's any negative names for non-Muslims.

011 23/77c: "- - - lo, they (non-Muslims - here likely the leading tribe in Mecca, the Quraysh*) in despair therein". = Into the severe punishment of Hell.

012 28/47a: "If (We (Allah*) had) not (sent thee (Muhammad*) to the Quraysh (the leading tribe in Mecca*)) - - -". But was Muhammad a man from an omniscient god? - impossible; there are too much wrong in his "facts", etc.

013 28/47c: "- - - (the deeds) that their hands (in this case the Quraysh's*) 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.

*014 28/48a: “- - - When the Truth (the Quran*) has come to them (the Quraysh - the leading tribe in Mecca*) - - -”. If it was not because the word “truth” is so central and so disused in Islam, we had stopped commenting on it long time ago - it is so obvious that the Quran can be only partly the truth, at best. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.) See all the mistakes - some small, some big blunders, some repeated many times and really cemented - - - but even one mistake is impossible for an omniscient god. Is Allah omniscient? Or did someone else compose the Quran? If Allah is not omniscient, that means something is wrong with the religion - not to mention if he does not exist. If Muhammad or another human composed it, it is a false religion. The same and even worse if it in reality is from the dark forces.

###And if it is a false religion and there somewhere exists a real, true one, to which Islam blocks the road to for its believers - - - what then in a possible next life for the Muslims?

*015 28/48b: “- - - When the Truth (the Quran*) has come to them (the Quraysh*) from Ourselves (Allah*) - - -". No god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran.

016 28/48e: "- - - they (the Quraysh*) say, 'Why are not (Signs) sent - - -". How could this reliably be written in the claimed "Mother Book" long time before, is predestination if less than 100%? Impossible.

017 28/48h: "They (the Quraysh*) say - - -". A time anomaly.

018 28/48i: "They (the Quraysh*) say: 'Two kinds of sorcery - - -'". How could this reliably be written in the claimed "Mother Book" long time before, is predestination if less than 100%?

019 28/48j: "And they (the Quraysh*) say - - -". A time anomaly.

020 28/48k: "And they (the Quraysh*) say: 'For us, we reject- - -'". How could this reliably be written in the claimed "Mother Book" long time before, is predestination if less than 100%? Impossible.

021 44/34a: "- - - (Quraysh) - - -". The leading tribe in Mecca at the time of Muhammad - a time anomaly in this connection if man has even the slightest free will.

022 44/34b: "- - - they (the Quraysh*) say forsooth: 'There is nothing - - -". See 44/14c above.

023 44/36a: "Then bring (back) our (the Quraysh's*) forefathers, if what ye (Muhammad*) say is true". A request for a proof for his tales - but Muhammad never was able to prove anything at all about his central claims.

024 46/26a: "And We (Allah*) had firmly established them (the 'Ad tribe*) in a (prosperity and) power which We have not given to you (ye Quraysh) - - -". When you read the Quran, it is striking that more or less always when Allah destroys a people, it was a more rich and powerful people than Muhammad's contemporary Arabs. It made his already omniscient god and also the impression on Muhammad's Arabs greater - but did an omnipotent god need to become greater?

025 46/26b: "- - - (- - - Quraysh) - - -". The leading tribe in Mecca. They opposed and disbelieved Muhammad strongly.

026 47/1a: "Those who reject Allah - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative (for his followers) names for non-Muslims. Here likely the Quraysh firstly.

027 47/1b: "Those who reject Allah and hinder (men (what about women?*)) from the Path of Allah - - -". This may refer to the Meccans who for a few years between 622 AD and 629 AD denied Muslims admission to the Kabah in Mecca.

028 47/1d: "- - - their (non-Muslims - here likely the Quraysh in Mecca*) deeds will Allah send astray - - -". Not possible unless Allah exists and is something supernatural.

029 54/43b: "- - - (- - - Quraysh) - - -". The Quraysh was the leading tribe in Mecca at the time of Muhammad. Here another time anomaly.

030 56/47b: "- - - they (the Quraysh - the leading tribe in Mecca*) used to say, 'What! When we - - -". See 54/2c above.

031 70/1a: "A questioner - - -". Like so many thing in the Quran, it is unclear who the Quran is talking about, but Muslim scholars tend to believe it was one of the leaders among the Quraysh in Mecca, Nadr ibn-Harith.

032 106/2: "Their (Mecca's*) covenants (covering) journeys by winter and summer - - -". Which meant it covered the trading caravans to Yemen in winter and to Syria in summer - the two main goals for caravans from Mecca.

033 106/3: "- - - the Lord of this House - - -". Allah (then still called al-Lah by the majority, at least if the surah is from Mecca) in the Kabah in Mecca.

034 106/4a: "(Allah*) Who provides them (the Meccans*) with food against hunger - - -". Allah or nature + work in reality?

Quraysh also it the name of surah 106 in the Quran:

SURAH 106: QURAYSH - The Quraysh (the leading tribe in Mecca*).

Year unknown, but likely Mecca.

1 + 1292 = 1293 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

46.  BANU QURAYZAH

- the 3. Jewish tribe in Medina. See "QURAYSH" further down.

When Muhammad arrived in Medina, there were 3 major (and members of a few other) Jewish tribes there - banu (which means tribe) Nadir, banu Qaynuqa, and banu Qurayzah. Muhammad in stages got rid of them when he grew powerful enough. First he had banu Qaynuqa expelled from the town. Then banu Nadir. (Many from banu Nadir settled in or near Khaybar, where Muhammad later found them, murdered the men and made the women and children slaves). Finally there was the horrendous finishing of the Qurayzah tribe: Muhammad murdered all the men - somewhere between 600 and 900, likely around 700 - and made the women and children (likely at least 2ooo) slaves. In all 3 cases Muhammad stole what property the Jews could not take with them.

Like the Quran and Islam claim: Muhammad was the foremost representative ever of a good and benevolent god. And Muhammad never asked for any kind of payment for his leadership.

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

001 4/60a: "- - - those who declare that they believe in the revelations that have come to thee (Muhammad*) and to those before thee - - -". These are the Jews and Christians. "- - - those before thee - - -" is a clear reference to them, and "revelations that have come to thee" - well, Muhammad liked to claim that many Jews and Christians believed in his teachings. F.x. the Qurayza proved it was not true. (Though here he may mean that they lied when they said they believed in him.)

002 5/83g: "- - - their (Christians*) eyes overflowing with tears (from belief in the Quran*) - - -". Remembering the real points of view of the Jews in and around Medina (there were few Christians there) and that at this time (632 AD) most of them had had to flee, were made slaves or semi-slaves, or murdered by the many hundreds (some 700 one believe only from the Qurayza tribe) because they refused to become Muslims, one gets a bad taste in the mouth when reading dramatic claims like this. And one wonders what kind of naivety and religious blindness it takes to believe in fairy tales like this when one knows the truth - after all they had taken part in the atrocities and torture and enslaving and murdering themselves! But it makes it easy to understand why Muslims do not see what they really read in the Quran and the Hadiths: Indoctrination by the religion of the parents since baby age, parents and surrounding telling this is true, religious blindness, wishful thinking, a bent moral code, etc.

###003 17/107a: “Say: ‘Whether you believe it or not, it is true that those who were given knowledge beforehand (= Christians and Jews mainly*), when it (the Quran*) is recited to them, fall down on their faces in humble prostration”. One word: Nonsense. Or a stronger word: Propaganda. And what is worse: #####The one who composed this verse knew it was a lie – which also Muhammad knew when he made or recited it. It is one of the places where Muhammad lied in the Quran. A few Jews and Christians are said to have converted by 656 AD when the Quran is said to be written, though very few if any in 621 AD when this surah was made, but as a general rule: Utter nonsense. Just look at the history of conflicts between Islam, Jews and Christians, not to mention all the Jews in and near Medina who rather became fugitives or were killed, than to accept Islam – f.x. the Qurayza - and no more is necessary to say. You sometimes meet dishonesty like this in new, emerging religions and sects. It is a way of gaining “weight” for their statements, especially when they have few facts or proofs to show for themselves. Just one small fact that disproves this fairy tale: The 700 Jews of the Qurayza tribe - the last big Jewish tribe in Medina - could have saved their lives and possessions by becoming Muslims in time. To a man they chose not to. This verse contradicts solid historical science and knowledge. And one more fact: Remember that Muslims not only are permitted to lie to defend or forward Islam, but are urged to do it "if necessary" (al-Taqiyya and Kitman - the lawful lie and the lawful half-truth).

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

004 26/197a: “Is it not a Sign to them that the Learned of the Children of Israel knew it (as true)?”

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

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

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

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

"The Religion of Dishonesty"?

*005 28/53c: “They (Jews and Christians*) say: ‘We believe therein, for it is the Truth from our Lord - - -“. Well, this is what Muhammad claimed. The reality as clearly told in Islamic written sources about what you find in 28/52a above - and like in 28/52a also here Muhammad had to know he was lying, because this he knew was untrue. It may have been true for a few, but only for a few in case. Also see 28/48a and 28/48b. A few Jews and Christians may or may not have become Muslims - there only are Muslim sources for the claims - but the majority clearly said no, even in the face of persecution and murder (f.x. the Qurayza tribe - the last big Jewish tribe in Medina - or in Khaybar).

006 33/26c: "And those of the people of the Book (in this case the Jews in and around Medina*) who aided them (Muhammad accused these Jews of helping his enemies*) - - -". It is clear that they stayed out of the fighting. We have not found reliable proof for that they acted against the Muslims. But they represented intellectual and religious - and thus political - opposition, and he wanted to get rid of that. The first psychological moment came after the defeat at Uhud - he needed a "victory", and riches to the followers would give them other things to think about. And then after "the Battle of the Trench" he was strong enough to finish off - in the horrible meaning of the word - the last strong opposition. We may add that if the behavior of the Muslims during the mass murders of the men from Qurayza tribe - the last big Jewish tribe in Medina - is correctly described, it tells a lot about what kind of people it was who followed Muhammad and brought him to power.

##007 33/26d: “And those of the People of the Book (the Jews of the Qurayzah tribe - see above*) who had aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror in their hearts. (So that) some ye (the Muslims/Muhammad) slew, and some ye made prisoners.” Very simple and “lawful and good” - to quote another verse - mass murdering, enslavement, rape, and robbery. The same happened to most of the ones who earlier had been chased away from Medina, but not fled far enough - the ones who had stopped in Khaybar had men killed and the women and children raped and enslaved. Allah is good and benevolent and gave the Arabs much loot and many slaves to and use in other ways. Muslims - not even today - never reflected over that to steal and rape and enslave and murder you had to ruin and destroy the lives of other humans. This fact is never mentioned by "the religion of peace", never reflected on, never compared to ethics or moral or sympathy or empathy in any Islamic media or publication we have met or heard about.

Well, on thinking it over we are wrong - it is compared to the Quran's moral code: The Quran clearly says "it is lawful and good". This tells a lot about the religion.

A good and loving god and a peaceful religion - and this was far from the only pogrom in Muslim countries through the times. But it is typical that Allah sanctified the attack only afterwards. (Perhaps except Khaybar - if Muhammad told the truth).

008 33/50c: “O Prophet! We (Allah*) have made lawful (for sex*) to thee (it is not unusual that the god "permits" this towards the founder of a religion or a sect – it happens not infrequently*) thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers: and those to whom thy right hand possesses out of the spoils of war (which was quite a huge number*) whom Allah has assigned to thee; and the daughters of thy parental uncles and aunts, and the daughters of maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makkah (= Mecca*)) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her – this is only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); we know that We have appointed for them (permitted sex*) as to their wives and those whom their right hands possess – in order that there should be no difficulty for thee.” As for slaves, a huge number passed through Muhammad’s hands – perhaps 2000 or more only from the Qurayza tribe. We do not know if and in case how many of them he personally raped, except Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay (which we know about because the first later became one of his concubines, and the other one of his wives), but the casual way and the minimal fuzz with which two rapes happened and made, makes it easy to think that they neither were the first, nor the only ones – to rape ones captives and slaves was (and formally still is) completely ok in Islam. That just was the way life was/is for slave women and captive women under Islam.

And once more: Read 33/28-29 through 33/33 + 33/50 and 33/51 together to get a picture of his – and very many other dominant religious persons in strong and dark religious societies – technique. One of the much used – and proved efficient – ways of manipulating dependant persons. Even the use or disuse of the god, is typical for such persons. All this formally is about Muhammad’s private intimate life, but as what he said and did was and is the correct ethical and moral code in Islam, it became the norm for all women concerning this aspect of life under Islam.

Besides: Does Muhammad's private sex life belong in a claimed holy book for all times and the entire world? - or as part of a religion?

###009 46/10c: “If (this teaching) be from Allah, and ye (non-Muslims) reject it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel testifies to its similarity (with earlier scriptures (what is Muhammad’s definition of “similarity” here?*)), and has believed (or pretended to believe - sometimes that was necessary to survive*) while ye are arrogant, (how unjust ye are) - - -”. This sentence is a bit complicated, but what Muhammad said, was that a Jew agreed – true or not true - to that the Quran was similar to old Jewish scriptures, and that non-Muslims then were unjust not accepting that Muhammad is a real prophet.

The logic here is invalid and wrong - when just one says something and many says something else all of them know about, normally the many are right. The way for Muhammad to prove his words had been to compare the two texts, something he for some reason or other did not do. Now Muslims may say that the old Jewish scriptures were falsified - the normal and proved wrong way out for Muhammad and for his followers - but one cannot at the same time say that the man's scriptures were falsified (Muhammad claimed the old scriptures were falsified, and that this was the reason why they differed from the Quran), and then say that the man proved the Quran right because he had read his own scriptures - in that case the man witnessed that the Quran was similar to a falsified book. (This is a typical Muslim way of "proving" things: One tells that one aspect of something must be like this and this - and overlook that other aspects with the case screams that things are wrong.)

  1. Tales like this are quite common among self proclaimed prophets trying to prove their new religion or sect. They may be true or not true.
  2. We only have Muhammad’s word for this - a man who had initiated or himself done a lot of dubious deeds included lying/betrayal, and on top of that had a lot to gain from making people believe him, a man who lusted for power - and one who was teaching a dubious tale. There are no other sources. The tale may be true or not true, but his conclusion is in no case valid.
  3. We do not know how many Jews lived in the neighborhood of Mecca/Medina. But in only one tribe he destroyed, there were some 700 men (all murdered – in Khaybar. Plus the 29 from the peace delegation he invited and murdered earlier). As families tended to be large, that should mean some 2ooo women and children in addition (all made slaves). And there were three big tribes (and some small ones) and thus thousands of Jews - and the women at least here cannot be omitted, as they tend to be more religious than men. It would be most surprising if not one or a few of them wanted to humor the power-that-be or really changed the religion - from belief or greed or fright or other reasons.
  4. But all the other – thousands and thousands - of Jews said Muhammad was wrong. This even when he marched against them with his army, and they knew that to humor him meant “no war”. Even when they had to give him all their farms and become day workers for him - still knowing that humoring him meant they would keep their possessions if they in time had humored him. Even those who had to flee, losing everything they could not carry - knowing that if they humored him, they could stay. Not to mention the 700 men of the Qurayza tribe - knowing they were murdered by the half-dozens through the day and far into the night, and that humoring him perhaps could save their lives. All said no; Muhammad was too wrong to be possible to accept even then.
  5. Even if it was correct that one or a few Jew said yes - which well may be true: “One swallow makes no summer”. (It also may be a made up story - that often happens in new sects to "prove" they are right.)

All in all: This “proof” has no value. According to the Jews Muhammad was very wrong. And even more: We still have the same books of Moses - the Torah was unabridged for at least 1000 years before Muhammad and still is according to science – and the rest of the Jewish Bible (the OT) that the Jews in Arabia had. Anyone can read this and see they were right.

##010 59/3a: "And had it not been that Allah had decreed banishment for them (the Jewish tribe Banu Nadir - Banu means tribe*) for them - - -". There exists a Scandinavian word "poelsevev" - literally meaning "a weaving made from sausages" - which means utter nonsense with a large dash of stupidity included. This tale is "poelsevev" - Muhammad simply was forced to let them go because a strong Arab tribe (the Khazraiites under Abd Allah b.Ubayy) demanded it, even though he wanted to murder the men and enslave the women and children like he f.x. later did with banu Qurayza, when he was military stronger.

PS: Which god would use "poelsevev"?

011 59/14a: "- - - from behind walls - - -". In these warlike areas the inhabitants lived in fortified villages or towns - and of course fought from behind those walls if possible when attacked. The Jewish tribe Banu al-Nadir was attacked shortly after the military fiasco named the Battle of Uhud in March 625 AD (Muhammad lost that battle, but at a price for Mecca which made them wait too long to follow up the victory). Muslims like to tell a couple of anecdotes and give them as together with claims about Banu al-Nadir helping the enemy, as the reason for the attack. Historical science disagrees and says that those anecdotes just are anecdotes, and that for one thing Muhammad needed a victory after Uhud, and for another thing it was a traditional play for power. The Banu al-Nadir nearly to a man disbelieved Muhammad. To evict them or kill them, meant that Medina would be weakened military - they counted 700 warriors. But at the same time it meant that Muhammad got rid of 700 opponents - and to many a politician personal power counts more than the nation - here the town and its surrounding area (and in this case it paid off). The Banu al-Nadir had to give in after some 2 weeks in their fortified quarters. Muhammad wanted to kill the men and enslave the women and children (like he later did with the last of the strong Jewish tribe of Qurayza in Medina), but the Banu al-Nadir were permitted to flee from town, because a strong Arab tribe (the Khazraiites under Abd Allah b.Ubayy) demanded it. Unluckily for many of them a large part of the tribe settled near Khaybar, where Muhammad found them when he attacked Khaybar.

11 + 1293 = 1304 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

47.  BANU SULAIM (OR SULAYM)

A large tribe east of Medina allied to the Quraysh tribe in Mecca. They changed side before Muhammad's conquest of Mecca, and became very active in the wars of expansion after Muhammad's death.

0 + 1304 = 1304 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

48.  BANU THAQIF

The Arab tribe in and around the town Taif, south-east from Mecca.

0 + 1304 = 1304 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

49.  BATHSHEBA (not named in the Quran)

- married to Uriah, mistress of David, mother of Solomon.

The short story according to the Bible: Bathsheba was married to the soldier Uriah. King David saw her, wanted her - and got her. She became pregnant and David had Uriah killed in order to avoid trouble. Yahweh did not like that and sent the prophet Nathan with some harsh words to David.

That child later became King Solomon.

According to the Quran David did not sin. (Prophets - included Muhammad - do not sin according to Islam.)

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

001 21/78b: "- - - the sheep of certain people who had strayed by night - - -". There is no such story in the Bible. Either this is a pure legend retold - there are many made up legends retold in the Quran, claimed to be the pure truth - or it is a misunderstood version of the story about David and Bathsheba (2. Sam. 11/2-26), or to be more exact the prophet Nathan's words to David because of this (2. Sam. 12/1-12). Twisted stories from the Bible you find some of in the Quran - and the crucial word in those cases is "twisted". And as crucial: As the Quran is not from a god - too much is wrong - and as the Bible mostly is the only source for these old stories: From where did Muhammad get the claimed Biblical information not in the Bible?

002 38/21-24: This story is not from the Bible. But it is likely it is inspired by vague rumors about the story about David and Bathsheba (2. Sam. Ch. 11), or more correct the prophet Nathan's reaction to that story (2. Sam. Ch.12). Besides being differently told, the story in the Quran also is "hanging in the air", because it does not tell the background or reason for it, and thus not what it was all about (David had an affair with a married woman - in spite of all his own wives. When she became pregnant, he had her husband, Uriah, killed to avoid trouble. Nathan rebuked David strongly for this. By the way, that baby later became king Solomon.

003 38/24e: "And David gathered that we had tried him - - -". But who not knowing the Bible can get heads or tails about why David was not only tried but judged, from what is told in verse 38/23-24? (this is the story of David with all his wives - and all the same he took Bathsheba, the only wife of his loyal soldier Uriah for himself, and saw to it that Uriah was killed in battle). (2. Sam. 11/2-16). Guess which book which is the best as literature - the Bible or the Quran?

Bathsheba became the mother of Solomon as mentioned.(2. Sam. 12/24).

3 + 1304 = 1307 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

50.  BENJAMIN - YOUNGER (FULL) BROTHER OF JOSEP, SON OF JACOB

According to the Bible Benjamin was the only full brother of Jacob - the last of the 3 Jewish patriarchs. Their mother died when Benjamin was born. Benjamin is not named in the Quran, but he is the one who seemingly got trouble in Egypt.

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

001 12/7c: "- - - Joseph and his brethren - - -". Benjamin was Joseph's only full brother - both sons of Rachel, Jacob's favorite wife. The other 10 had different mothers (Rachel's sister, Leah, was the mother of Reuben, Simon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulon - Bilha (slave of Rachel) of Dan and Naphtali - Zilpah (slave of Leah) of Gad and Asher. 81. Mos. 35/23-26.)) Also a time anomaly.

002 12/8b: "They (Joseph's brothers - here except Benjamin*) said: "Truly Joseph and his brother (Benjamin*) are loved more by our father (Jacob*) - - -". How could this end up 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 (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, even though that means to corrupt 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.

003 12/8c: "Joseph and his brother - - -." This refers to Benjamin, Joseph's only full brother and the youngest one of Jacob's sons. They were the 2 sons of Rachel - Jacob's favorite wife.

004 12/60b: "- - - him - - -". Benjamin - Joseph's only full brother.

005 12/69c: Joseph told Benjamin: “Behold! I am thy (own) brother - - -“. Contradicted by the Bible, which says Joseph did not tell this until later. 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.

006 12/69d: Joseph told Benjamin: “Behold! I am thy (own) brother - - -“. It does not fit verses 70 – 77 that he told it at this time. The story simply fizzles out in case - literature not even worthy a story for a magazine for teen-age girls.

007 12/76c: "So he (Joseph*) began (the search) - - - (and found the beaker*)". This is where the tale fizzles out - if not before (see 12/69d above). If Benjamin had known Joseph was his/their brother, if not before then now he had talked - not to mention during the threatening continuation of the tale like the Quran tells it.

008 12/76d: "- - - at length he (Joseph*) brought it (the beaker*) out of his brother's (Benjamin's*) baggage". What had happened here if Benjamin had known Joseph was his brother like said in 12/69d? The logic in the tale is wrong.

The ones claiming the Quran is good literature know very little about good literature.

009 12/76g: "He (Joseph*) could not take his brother (Benjamin*) by the law of the king - - -". This is rubbish to use polite words. One thing is that Joseph was not after his brother Benjamin - Benjamin had not wronged him. He was after his half-brothers - to frighten them (hardly any more). But the main point is that in a full dictatorship like the old Egypt, the king/pharaoh AND his highest officers could - and can - do almost what they wanted, included detain a man or more. At most they had to find an excuse. F.x. Joseph could use the excuse he according to the Bible used to hold back in prison his half-brother Simeon from the first trip (1. Mos. 42/12-24). This storey is told by someone who did not know what he was talking about, or someone who did not have a more creative mind - - - and to believe it, also the listeners had to be little bright or little knowledgeable.

010 12/77c: “If he (Benjamin*) steals, there was a brother of his (Joseph*) who did steal before (him)”. Here something is wrong: The youth Joseph was not accused of stealing. (Some Muslims explain the sentence with that it was a lie they uttered to create more distance between themselves and Benjamin. Or that they were blinded by hate to Joseph and Benjamin, and said it from spite. These about the only possible "explanations" one can use to get out of this mistake(?), but neither the Quran nor the Bible indicates that they tried to do this. Also neither the Bible nor the Quran indicates that they had negative feelings for Benjamin.)

011 12/83c: "- - - may be Allah will bring them (Joseph and Benjamin*) back to me - - -". The Quran some places makes it clear that Jacob did not believe Joseph was dead - a prophet like Jacob could not be wrong. In the Bible it is clear Jacob believed Joseph was dead (1. Mos. 42/38 - Jacob says Benjamin is the only son of Rachel left). (Just for the record: When 1.Mos. 43/14 says "your other brother and Benjamin", it is meant Simeon and Benjamin.)

012 12/87b: Jacob said: “O my sons! Go ye (to Egypt*) and enquire about Joseph and his brother - - -". It is clear from some places in the Quran that Jacob did not believe Joseph was dead. But this is contradicted by the Bible, which says he believed he was dead (1. Mos. 42/38). 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.

And why should Jacob want to search for Joseph in Egypt?

013 12/89b: "Know ye (the brothers*) how ye dealt with Joseph and his brother (Benjamin*) - - -". Neither the Quran nor the Bible tells they had done anything to Benjamin.

014 12/99c: “- - - he (Joseph*) provided a home for his parents - - -“. Not possible, as his mother (Rachel) died already when Benjamin was born – he could provide a home only for his father. (Islam explains or “explains” this with claiming that he reckoned the sister of his mother (Leah - also wife of Jacob) to be his mother, but there is nothing neither in the Quran nor in the Bible saying so. But then it is quite normal for Islam to make claims without facts.) One more small detail here. Abraham first married Leah, and later her sister Rachel. But Muslims cannot be married to 2 sisters at the same time, which Jacob was for a long time. How then could Abraham be a good and devoted Muslim? - the "mother book" in Heaven they claim he, too, got a copy and the laws from, had not changed.

015 12/99d: (A12/92 – in 2008 edition A12/96): “(Joseph*) provided a home for his parents - - -.” What does this mean? The Bible tells and the Quran does not object to that his mother Rachel died in childbirth when Benjamin was born, and he only had his father Jacob. Muslims “may", therefore, assume that the “mother” implied in the term “parents” was another of Jacob’s wives - - -.” It is not uncommon to call a foster mother for “mother”. In some cultures it even is common to use the words “mother” and “father” as a respectful title when speaking with old people. But a pet name, a respectful name/title, does not make someone your parent. The very least that should have been done by Allah if he claimed to use a language “clear and easy to understand” was to say “his father and step-mother”. (The likely explanation is that Muhammad when he told this, forgot or did not know that Joseph’s mother was dead).

15 + 1307 = 1322 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".