Humans, Other Beings in/Relevant to the Quran, Part 8


 

51.   BILAL

Likely originally an African slave, likely set free by abu Bakr. Because of strong voice he became the first caller from a mosque for "come to prayers". Died in Damascus in 640 AD.

0 + 1322 = 1322 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

52. BILQIS (ACCORDING TO ARAB TRADITION THE NAME OF THE QUEEN OF SHEBA/SABAH/SABA

- not named in the Quran.

According to the Bible the Queen of Sheba visited King Solomon on her own initiative (1. Kings 10/1) - likely from curiosity. According to the Quran Solomon invited her (27/28). Maximum one of these versions can be true.

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

001 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 to the 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.

*002 27/16 – 44: These stories – also repeated other places in the Quran - about King Solomon, the ants, the jinns slaving for him, the hoopoe, and not to mention the Queen of Sheba/Sabah – are fantastic like were they from a fairy tale - - - which is what they are: They are “borrowed” from the made up - apocryphal, and hardly even apocryphal - scripture “Second Targum of Ester”. No god needs to steal old fairy tales and retell them with small – or big – twists to make them fit his religion/tales, and then call them facts. But Muhammad often did so. This is the reason why his contemporaries so often said that what he told just were old tales – they simply recognized the legends, fairy tales, and stories.

003 27/17-44: King Solomon and the Queen of Sabah (in Arab traditions her name was Bilqis). The Queen of Sabah (Sheba) you also find in the Bible (1. kings 10/1-13), but what is told here, are taken from the old made up book "The Second Targum of Esther", not from the Bible. Allah chooses what sources he will!

004 27/24a: “I (the hoopoe - anthropomorphism*) found her (the Queen of Saba/Sabah/Sheba*) - - -". 2 time anomalies.

This also is one more anthropomorphism in the Quran - (the belief that inanimate things or animals can react, think and/or speak like humans) - normally found in primitive religions and in fairy tales.

005 27/24b: “I (the hoopoe - anthropomorphism*) found her (the queen of Saba/Sheba*) worshipping the sun - - -“. Saba was at the southern end of the Arabian Peninsula – approximately Yemen today. In the old times this whole peninsula had a moon religion, not a sun religion – al-Lah or sometimes Allah (whom Muhammad later dressed up) originally was a moon god (the same was Hubal, but over time al-Ilah/al-Lah/Allah took his place - if Hubal was not another name for al-Lah). It is documented that also in old Saba the main god was the moon god (source; “The Lunar Passion and the Daughters of Allah”). We may add that Muslims say that even if the moon religion was the dominant, there also may have been sun worshippers. That is true, but not for the ruler of the country – the ruler has to be very strong or be a member of the official and main religion, if not there will be problems.

Besides she – the queen – could not "worship the sun besides Allah", because that name was not created yet. Perhaps the moon god al-Lah (later as mentioned renamed by Muhammad to Allah) or the old Il or al-Ilah. Also see 25/18a above. But Muhammad had a tendency to claim that others had different gods "in addition to Allah". Partly because by a little twisting of the facts this could be said about Arabs - they believed in al-Lat, a name sounding nearly like Allah, even if al-Lah was a pagan, polytheistic god, and partly perhaps because it made Allah look bigger and universal.

006 27/28b: “Go thou (the hoopoe*), with this letter of mine (Solomon's*), and deliver it to them (in reality to the Queen of Sheba): then draw back from them, and (wait to) see what answer they return…” No bird is able to do this. Not even the carrier pigeon brings letters – it only is able to return home with a letter. (The pigeons have to be brought in cages from the one who is to receive the letter, to the one who is to send the message. Then when the bird is let loose, it simply wants to return home - - - and carries the letter to its nest, where the receiver can collect it. This is the only possible way for using birds for carrying a letter. Except in fairy tales.)

This also is one more anthropomorphism in the Quran - (the belief that inanimate things or animals can react, think and/or speak like humans) - normally found in primitive religions and in fairy tales.

007 27/28c: “Go thou (the hoopoe*), with this letter of mine, and deliver it to them: then draw back from them, and (wait to) see what answer they return…” This in any case is contradicting the Bible (but not certain fairy tales). The Bible makes it clear that the Queen of Sheba/Saba visited Solomon on her own initiative, not after an invitation. (1. Kings 10/1).

008 27/34e: (A27/26): "Implied in her (the Queen of Saba/Sheba*) statement (about wanting to avoid war*) is the Quranic condemnation of all political power obtained through violence ('anwatan) inasmuch as it is bound to give raise to oppression, suffering and moral corruption". Are Muhammad and Islam samples of this?

Hypocrisy.

009 27/35b: "But I (the Queen of Saba/Sheba*) am going to send - - -". See 27/22a above.

##010 27/37a: King Solomon is offered gifts from the Queen of Saba/Sheba but answers with anger: “Go back to them (the rulers/queen of Saba*), and be sure we shall come to them with such hosts (armies*) as they will never be able to meet (= attack them*) - - -.” This answer has no logical reason or meaning, especially as the gifts were rich (“abundance of wealth”- 27/36) and thus no insult to a king. Also Islam agrees to that something is wrong here, as "a prophet could not answer good gifts with a war of aggression" (in the Quran Solomon is a prophet, not so in the Bible), but they do not have any good explanations – only rather lame speculations about perhaps it in reality is Allah who is speaking and threatening them with what he will do if they do not become Muslims (1500 years before Muhammad! – King Solomon ruled 961 – 922 BC give or take maximum 10 years according to Wikipedia). “Let there be no compulsion in religion”? THIS IS ONE OF THE PLACES WHERE MUSLIM SCHOLARS AGREE THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE TEXT IN THE QURAN. It also contradicts the Bible - nothing even similar to this there.

011 27/37b: (A27/29): “Go back to them, and be sure we shall come to them (Saba/Sheba*) with such a host (army*) as they will never be able to meet: we shall expel them from there in disgrace, and they will feel humbled (indeed).” It is very clear from both the previous and the following verse that here it is Solomon speaking. But this is no logical answer to a peaceful embassy. The Quran also formally says that a war of attack is never permissible (though Muslims have found many ways around that formality.) So Muslim scholars have found it has another meaning: This is Allah warning the Sabeans to become Muslims – Solomon of course was a devout Muslim according to Islam and could not answer like this. In this case the second meaning clearly is made up – but it sounds real for Islam and its Muslims. And linguistically it is possible to twist the story like this. Also: "Let there be no compulsion in religion".

And a historical fact destroying this "explanation": The Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one - Solomon never could have said this for a religious reason. Another historical fact: Solomon was a king of peace, not one of war - also for this reason it is highly unlikely he said this, and even more so as Sheba was a country far off.

And 3 scientific facts: 1): There never was found any trace from a book similar to the Quran anywhere before 610 AD when Muhammad started his mission. 2): There never was found any trace from a god similar to Muhammad's Allah anywhere older than 610 AD when Muhammad started his Mission. 3): There never was found any trace of a religion similar to Islam before 610 AD. Neither science nor Islam has been able to find anything - not in literature, not in history, not in archeology. The best proof for this is that if Islam had found even the smallest proof for Islam or Allah (Muhammad's version), or for the Quran older than 610 AD, they had told the world about it, and in BIG letters. Nobody has ever seen such letters. Another nearly as good proof is all the made up "proofs" Muslims and Islam are making. If they had had real proofs, they had not had to make up such hopeless claims (f.x. that Big Bang proves the creation in the Quran, etc., etc., etc.). The ones having to make up claims and "proofs" and twist facts, are the ones who have no real arguments to use.

012 27/38a: (A27/31): “Ye Chiefs! Which of you can bring me her (the Queen of Sheba's*) throne before they come to me in surrender.” There is no logical meaning for surrender at this stage of the story – and especially not for such a distant country. May be therefore – or may be to keep up the pretension that good Muslims like Solomon (!) never starts a war – Islam has found another meaning: It means surrender to Islam. Well, the explanation is not quite as impossible as in 27/37b above. But it is not what the book says. “Surrender” is a political and military word with a clear meaning. It also is used in other connection, but then it is made clear what connection – like “surrender to Allah”, or “she will surrender to me” which implicates further details, articulated or not, to the word “surrender”. That is not the case here. Also see 27/38b just below.

And also we are back to some historical facts: There was no religion like Islam and no god like Allah anywhere in the world at that time + another historical fact: The Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one.

The only possible conclusion is: The religious claims concerning the Queen of Sheba and Solomon are made up ones.

013 27/38b: “Ye Chiefs! Which of you can bring me her (the Queen of Sheba'.*) throne before they come to me in surrender.” Here we have a small tit-bit. As far as we can find out, this is the correct translation of the Arab text. But this is not logical - see 27/38a just above. A small change eliminates the problem in the "clear text in the Quran". Some instead use "surrender to Allah" even though "to Allah" is not in the Arab text, or "submission" - a word easier to associate with religion. Voila!!

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

014 27/38c: "- - - in submission - - -". Another contradiction to the Bible - nothing like neither submission nor surrender there. Actually this story is miles from the one in the Bible.

015 27/38a: (A27/31): “Ye Chiefs! Which of you can bring me her throne before they come to me in surrender.” There is no logical meaning for surrender at this stage of the story – and especially not for such a distant country. May be therefore – or may be to keep up the pretension that good Muslims like Solomon (!) never starts a war – Islam has found another meaning: It means surrender to Islam. Well, the explanation is not quite as impossible as in 27/37b above. But it is not what the book says. “Surrender” is a political and military word with a clear meaning. It also is used in other connection, but then it is made clear what connection – like “surrender to Allah”, or “she will surrender to me” which implicates further details, articulated or not, to the word “surrender”. That is not the case here. Also see 27/38b just below.

And also we are back to some historical facts: There was no religion like Islam and no god like Allah anywhere in the world at that time + another historical fact: The Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one.

The only possible conclusion is: The religious claims concerning the Queen of Sheba and Solomon are made up ones.

016 27/41b: "Transform her (Queen of Sheba's*) throne out of all recognition - - -". In addition to all the other points which contradict the Bible here, there is not one word in the Bible about Solomon or about that some of his men were able of this kind of sorcery - or any other kind of such. (Not strange as the story is "borrowed" from a fairy tale - "The Second Targum of Esther").

017 27/41c: "Transform her (Queen of Sheba's*) throne out of all recognition by her (the Queen of Sheba*): let us (Solomon*) see whether she is guided to the truth - - -". A rather obscure sentence for which you find some explanations from Muslim scholars - none of them very down-to-earth. But then a test for her ability to sense Islam may be intended. Believe it if you are able to that the Jewish king tested people to see if they could become good Muslims - 1500 years before Muhammad.

018 27/42-43: One possible meaning of the Arab text: “- - - and we (the Queen of Saba/Sheba – in Arab tradition called Bilqis*) have submitted to Allah (in Islam). And he (Solomon*) diverted her from the worship of others besides Allah - - -.” The alternative possible meaning of the book that is clear and not possible to misunderstand: “And we (Solomon*) had knowledge of Allah’s Message and accepted it before her - - - and the worship of others besides Allah diverted her (from the true Religion).” Clear or confusing? – 2 very different meanings. In addition this verse simply has unclear text.

019 27/44c: “- - - she (the Queen of Sabah*) thought it (the floor*) was a lake of water (though it was slabs of glass) - - -“.

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

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

020 27/44d: The Queen of Sheba/Saba is shown a floor of glass and becomes a Muslim. Where are the logic and the psychology behind such a reaction? If you know something about psychology and about human ways of reacting, you will get a good laugh here, too.

20 + 1322 = 1342 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

53.  BIRDS

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

001 2/260e: (A2/257): “Take four birds; tame them to turn to thee (Abraham*); put a portion of them on every hill, and call to them - - -.” But the Arab expression “surhunna ilayka” simply means “make them incline towards thee”. And then the meaning really is: “- (tame them and) place them (separately and alive) on every hill, and call to them - - -.” And that is a very different story. Clear (fairy) tale? Besides - from where did Muhammad get this story? It is not in the Bible - the only source for knowledge about Abraham as the Quran is not from a god, and thus not a source about things like this.

002 3/49b: “I (Jesus*) have come to you (humans*), with a Sign form your Lord (the god - in the Quran claimed to be Allah*), in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave”. (This tale is “borrowed” from one of the apocryphal (= made up religious fairy tales*) so-called “Child Gospels”, in this case the so-called Egyptian one, but also mentioned in the so-called Arab one from Syria around 500 AD, and in the Gnostic apocryphal (made up) Thomas’ Child Gospel - it is not from the Bible*),

Islam is aware of that this is from an apocryphal story - (f.x. Yusuf Ali: "The meaning of the Holy Quran", comment 390: "The miracle of the clay birds is found in some of the apocryphal Gospels".) - but they never mention the fact that as the stories are apocryphal they are fakes (most apocryphal tales are fakes), to their congregations, and seldom inform their readers that these are made up stories. A kind of dishonesty you meet too often in Islam. All are totally invalid as a proof for Allah.

003 5/110h: “And behold, thou (the child Jesus*) makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and you brethest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, - - - “. This is not from the Bible. It is a made up story from the made up legends in the made up (apocryphal) Thomas Child Gospel and also mentioned in a couple of the others of the so-called child gospels (also made up legends in reality) - see 3/49b above. Besides: A wonder like this had not been forgotten in the Bible - and especially not by “wrongdoers” wanting to falsify the Bible to make Jesus more holy, like the Quran frequently says/indicates.

#####004 13/2b: “Allah is He Who raised the heavens (plural and wrong*) without any pillars that ye can see: - - -”. A Muslim information organization was in ca. 2007 asked to explain this sentence. They replied not 100% politely, that anyone with an IQ of 60 or more had to understand that this meant that the pillars did not exist. The person who asked, replied that he knew the difference between non-existent and invisible - the meaning in the sentence above is “invisible” - and asked them please to give him a real explanation. They never answered.

There exist no pillars - visible or invisible. And actually the idea is ridiculous, as there exists no material heaven which needs to be kept in position - the heaven we see is just an optical illusion. Any god - even small ones - would know this, but Muhammad naturally not. Then who made the Quran?

Besides no man or animal or bird has ever banged into such an invisible pillar – and no plane collided with one. Also see 31/10b below.

005 16/49a: “And to Allah doth obeisance all that is in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and on earth, whether moving (living) creatures or the angels - - -“. Wrong – if Islam does not prove the opposite. Animals, birds, insects, fish, worms, etc. – they never are observed making obeisance to Allah (or to any other god). No rituals, no 5 prayers a day/night (even more so: Few animals are naturally active both night and day – “prayers” should thus be easy to notice when they are active praying at for them un-normal times to be active), no servility except sometimes towards their own leaders, etc. And surely non-Muslim humans do not do obeisance to Allah – though sometimes to other real or made up god or gods. This verse contradicts nearly any branch of science and knowledge – except legends and fairy tales.

006 16/79a: “Nothing holds them (the birds*) up but (the power of) Allah”. Wrong. What hold them up are the laws of aerodynamics. Muhammad would not know this, but all gods would. Contradicts reality. Also see 11/7a above and 67/19a below.

007 19/9d: “I (Allah*) did indeed create thee (man or Zakariyya?*) before, when thou hadst been nothing! (from nothing*).” But:

This is contradicted by 6/2, 7/12, 17/61, 32/7, 38/71, and 38/76 that tell man/Adam was made from clay, 15/26, 15/26, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from sounding clay, 55/14 that tells man/Adam was made from ringing clay, 37/11 that tells man/Adam was made from sticky clay, 23/12, that tell man/Adam was made from essence of clay, 15/26, 15/28, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from mud, 3/59, 22/5, 35/11, 40/67, that tell man/Adam was made from dust, 20/55 that tells man/Adam was made from earth, 96/2 that tells man/Adam was made from a clot of congealed blood, 16/4, 75/37, 76/2, 80/19, that tell man/Adam was made from semen (without explaining from where the semen came), 21/30, 24/45, and 25/54 that tell man/Adam was made from water (NB! NB! Not in water, but from water!), 70/39 that tells man/Adam was made from “base material”, and not to mention the greatest contradiction in this case: 19/9 and 19/67 which both tell that man/Adam was created from nothing. (Also see verse 6/2 in the chapter about the 1000+ mistakes in the Quran.) (Strictly reckoned this contradicts 29 other verses. But minimum 15 contradictions.) (NB: In just this case a Muslim can say Allah created Zachariah, not “man” (Adam) - but not even Zakariyya was made from nothing. But later in the same chapter it is made clear that Allah talked about he had made man from nothing – in the very worst case he at least has said this one place, so the contradiction stands. But for any case we do not count the extra contradictions here.)

This with Allah and creation also is an interesting claim, because neither Allah nor Muhammad was ever able to prove he had power for neither creation, nor recreation - whereas Yahweh several times proved he at least had the power of recreating, if the old books tell the truth (and also for creation according to the Quran - remember the clay bird from which he/Jesus created a live bird).

008 26/119: “- - - in the Ark filled (with all creatures).” Wrong. No boat could take that many thousands of animal and bird pairs (millions if you included insects and similar) + food for them. And even more so not a wooden boat - not possible to build big enough and strong enough for the necessary size. See 11/40.

009 27/15 - 28: The story about Solomon and the bird (hoopoe - a very colorful bird, some 12 inches/30 cm long - and the national bird of Israel! (here an anthropomorphism)) has nothing to do with the Bible, but is "borrowed" from a "fairy tale" ("The second Targum of Ester"). If it had been true, you bet the Jews had not forgotten to include it in their books to praise their hero king Solomon. See 27/16-44 shortly below.

010 27/16b: “We (King Solomon*) have been taught the speech of the Birds.” Wrong. One thing is that there is not one bird “speech” but one for each of the some 2000 different kinds of birds on Earth, and actually even more, as some birds have different “languages” or “dialects” from one place to another – even if you were thought cockney English, you would not understand Italian or Arab or Swahili. More fundamental is the fact that the birds’ brains are too small for developing coherent speech. The last years science has found that birds brains may be more efficient that our, gram for gram, but that all the same they are far too small for coherent speech – the minimum size where it is theoretically possible for a brain to get faculties rudimentary similar to the human brain, is guessed to be a brain the size of a cat’s. Coherent, intelligent speech from birds simply is physically impossible. Also see 27/16-44 below.

011 27/17b: "- - - his (Solomon's*) hosts of Jinns and men and birds - - -". Believe this whoever wants to. But be 120% sure that if king Solomon had had command over jinns and/or birds, it had neither been forgotten in the Bible, nor falsified out of it - you do not reduce your greatest heroes, and neither does the Jews, who in case had made the falsification.

012 27/17c: "- - - his (Solomon's*) hosts of Jinns and men and birds - - -". There is nothing even remotely like this in the Bible.

013 27/17d: "- - - his (Solomon's*) hosts of Jinns and men and birds, and they were all kept in order and ranks". The next verse (27/18) implies they were on the march. How do you keep birds in "order and ranks"?

014 27/20b: "And he (Solomon*) took a muster of the Birds - - -". See 27/16b and 27/17b above.

##015 27/22-26: A bird - the hoopoe - making long, coherent speech/sentences of its own composition. No bird on Earth can do that - they do not have the brain capacity (see 27/16a and 27/17b - above). From a fairy tale - "The Second Targum of Ester". Allah chooses what sources he will! Also this is a case of anthropomorphism - normally found in primitive religions and in fairy tales.

016 27/28b: “Go thou (the hoopoe*), with this letter of mine (Solomon's*), and deliver it to them (in reality to the Queen of Sheba): then draw back from them, and (wait to) see what answer they return…” No bird is able to do this. Not even the carrier pigeon brings letters – it only is able to return home with a letter. (The pigeons have to be brought in cages from the one who is to receive the letter, to the one who is to send the message. Then when the bird is let loose, it simply wants to return home - - - and carries the letter to its nest, where the receiver can collect it. This is the only possible way for using birds for carrying a letter. Except in fairy tales.)

This also is one more anthropomorphism in the Quran - (the belief that inanimate things or animals can react, think and/or speak like humans) - normally found in primitive religions and in fairy tales.

017 38/19a: “- - - and the birds gathered (in assemblies): all with him (King David*) did turn (to Allah).” Anthropomorphism - believing or pretending animals think or behave like humans - something normally found in primitive religions and in fairy tales.

Not from the Bible.

018 64/1a: “Whatever is in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and on earth, doth declare the praise and glory of Allah - - -”. No. 62/1a above is cemented. Besides: It is said "whatever", not "whoever" = animism and/or anthropomorphism. (You meet this some places in the Quran. Animism and anthropomorphism you normally meet in primitive religions and in fairy tales.) This simply is not true - easy for anybody to see. F.x. the majority of humans do not even believe in Allah, and when did you last time see animals, birds, fish, slugs, and plants bow down to Allah direction Mecca 5 times a day?

##019 67/19a: “None can hold them (the birds*) up except (Allah) - - -”. Wrong. What keeps the birds up, are the laws of aerodynamics. (Of course Muslims can use one of their favorite last resorts: Declare that Allah made those laws. But then they will have to prove that - not just use cheap words that any priest in any religion can use about any claimed god.) Also see 11/7a. Similar in 16/79a+b above.

020 105/1: "- - - the Companions of the Elephant- - -". This refers to an attack from Abyssinia in 570 AD (though modern science question if the year is quite correct). The vice king Abrahah or Abrah, lost much of his army because of a virulent illness - perhaps smallpox - and had to return home without attacking Mecca. The troops were NOT killed by stones from birds. (Muslims sometimes try to “explain” the clear text and the as clear mistake away by some linguistic gymnastics that includes that the Arab word for stone and the one for writings are not dissimilar, and they think that these words have been mixed up (in a holy book sent down by Allah, and without mistakes - how many more mixed ups?), and then say the meaning is metaphorical (in a book that Allah says shall be understood as it is written), it may not mean stones, but hard physical strikes - but also hard physical strikes is not the same as illness (and how hard physical strikes can birds give?). Muslims frequently have to use far out “explanations” like this to try to camouflage mistakes in the Quran. But if there is a linguistic mistake here according to Muslims – how many more linguistic mistakes are there in the Quran?

021 105/3: “- - - Han (Allah*) sent against them (the Abyssinians*) Flights of Birds - - -". We quote (YA6272): "The miracle consisted in birds coming in large flights and flinging stones at the army which caused a great pestilence to arise and destroy the whole of Abrahah' army". This is scientifically so stupid an explanation that we do not bother to comment on it - everyone with the least knowledge about contagious deceases (included Mr. Abdullah Yusuf Ali) knows this is nonsense anyhow. This even more so as no bird could carry 3 stones each, like Hadiths say, all too heavy for the soldiers to stop by their shields. If the stones were not heavy, the soldiers had had no problems taking them on their shields. ####But how come that a top Islamic scholar uses an explanation there is no chance he did not know was wrong? And how come that even the educated part of the Muslims are able to accept it?

THIS IS A KIND OF DISHONESTY YOU MEET ALL TOO OFTEN FROM ISLAM AND ITS MUSLIMS. ALL TOO OFTEN.

022 105/3+4: “And He (Allah*) sent against them (the Abyssinian army*) Flights of Birds, Striking them with stones of baked clay.” The soldiers were not killed by birds dropping stones. This just was the one of the fairy tales Muhammad came to believe in. Besides the tale is nonsense - in addition to all the other improbabilities in it, there is a limit to the size of bird claws, of beaks, and of ability to lift weight for birds; there is not a bird in Arabia who could lift 3 stones each, like the Hadiths say, too big for a man to meet with his shield - and in addition the biggest birds exist just in small numbers in an area. And this to defend the holy city of pagans, not of Islam (this was some 40 years before Muhammad started his teaching).

According to science the army was hit by a contagious disease.

22 + 1342 = 1364 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

54.  BURAQ - MUHAMMAD'S CLAIMED RIDING ANIMAL DURING HIS CLAIMED NIGHT JOURNEY

- neither mentioned nor named in the Quran.

Muhammad's Night Ride is mentioned in just one single verse in the Quran - 17/1. There is not one chance neither in Hell nor in Heaven that there had not been a lot more about it if it had been true that he rode through the night all the way to Jerusalem and on through the 7 Heavens and to Allah - and back. It had been such a heavy argument in a time when he was in troubles - and later - that the chance for that it was not thoroughly described in the Quran if it were true, is not existing.

A probable explanation verse 17/1 is mentioned by at least two old Muslim scholars, but never by Islam: He one night went from Jirana, a village with a mosque some 9-10 miles/15 km from Mecca, up to the Kabah mosque and back. One single verse in the Quran for such a trip may be logical, but not for a great miracle and a visit to the heavens and to Allah himself.

If Islam does not deliver real proofs, this story is a fairy tale.

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

As no riding animal for Muhammad's claimed "Night Journey" is mentioned in the Quran, also no name and no description of such an animal is given. But in the Hadiths Buraq is described like a donkey or a small horse with wings. For anybody knowing something about the laws of aerodynamics, this is an impossibility. One thing is that such a animal - and with a rider - could not move fast through the air, because it would meet too much resistance from the air - and remember that there is a long way from Mecca to Jerusalem (to be able to do everything Islam claims he did that night, he needed a speed of AT LEAST 300 miles/hour (nearly 500 km/h). Worse: Such an animal + Muhammad would together weigh 200-300 kilos - may be 500 pounds or more. What kind of wings would Buraq need? - remember that the heaviest birds able to fly, the male Kori Bustards in Africa, are maximum 18 kilos and with a wing span of up to 9 f/2,75 m. And: What kind of flying muscles would Buraq need - and to which bones were those muscles anchored? No horse like animal has neither suitable flying muscles, nor bones suitable for anchoring such bones.

Buraq is a physically impossible fairy tale.

0 + 1364 = 1364 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

55.  CAIN - SON OF ADAM

- killed his brother Abel. None of them are named in the Quran.

In the Bible you find the story about Cain and Abel in 1. Mos. 4/1-16. You will see that the story is very different in the Quran compared to the one in the Bible. And we here once more remind you that both science and Islam strongly have proved that the Bible is not falsified - this in spite of Muhammad's/the Quran's never proved claims about this (Muhammad's only way out to explain away the differences between what he told the Bible said (after taking his stories from legends, fairy tales, etc.) and what the Bible really said).

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

001 5/27a: "- - - the truth of the stories of the two sons of Adam (Cain and Abel*)". Well is it the truth? The murder is from the Bible, but the dialogue between the two just before the murder is borrowed from the made up scripture the Targum of Jerusalem (better known as pseudo-Jonathan).

Did an omniscient and omnipotent god really have to borrow from made up texts and then call it "the truth"?

002 5/27c: "- - - the two sons of Adam - - -". Like so very often the Quran is vague on relevant details, like here the names - Muhammad simply did not know them. Not good literature. (You find them in the Bible: Cain and Abel - 1. Mos. 4/4-16). 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.

003 5/27-31 Cain and Abel (the names not mentioned in the Quran): A lot of this is neither in the Bible nor in any other somewhat reliable source (actually the Bible is the only existing perhaps source about them). See 5/27a above.

004 5/28a: “If thou (“infidels”, Cain*) dost stretch thy hand against me (Muslims, Abel*), it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee - - -.” When you read this, remember that Muslims have no overall moral philosophy. What they have is a code telling them to look for “What did Muhammad say about such things?” If he has said something, they take that as a moral code – good moral or not. If not, they have to look in the book: “Is there a parallel situation somewhere?” If they find – sometimes by stretching imagination – a "right" way to act, or the alibi for how one wishes to act, that is the moral code. Mind also that this verse is one of the very few in all the Quran which is in accordance with the teachings of Jesus – one of the very few. And it is totally “murdered” by abrogations. This verse is contradicted and abrogated and “killed” by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 5/73, 8/12, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256 in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". (At least 29 contradictions). Besides: This sentence or similar is not mentioned in the Bible or any other somewhat reliable source.

005 5/28b: “If thou (“infidels”, Cain*) dost stretch thy hand against me (Muslims, Abel*), it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee - - -.” This is not from the Bible. See 5/27a above.

006 5/28c: "- - - I (Cain*) do fear Allah - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which says his god was Yahweh. 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.

Plus there is the fact that Cain - if he ever lived - lived more than 4ooo years BC according to religions, and neither science nor Islam has ever found traces from a god like Allah or a religion like Islam older than 610 AD.

007 5/28-29: The dialogue between the two is "borrowed" from the made up scripture Targum of Jerusalem (better known as pseudo-Jonathan) - see 5/27a above.

008 5/29a: (YA732): “- - - my sin as well as thine - - -.” The meaning is that a murderer according to the Quran also carries the sins of the victim – as the victim was robbed his possibility to regret his sin and be forgiven (this is one of the dogmas in Islam). But there also is another possible meaning: “my sin” may mean the sin against me who is murdered, and “thy sin” may then be the committing of the murder or “thy sin against yourself by committing such a grave deed and rob yourself for Paradise.”

There is no similar text in the Bible, etc. Actually just this part of the story of Cain and Abel as said is from "the Targum of Jerusalem" also known as "pseudo-Jonathan", not from the Bible.

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

009 5/31: The raven and Cain (for burying Abel). This tale is not from the Bible, but is to be found in "The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziah" and also in "The Targum of Jerusalem" also called "pseudo-Jonathan". You also find it in Mishna Sanhedrin. All these 3 are made up Jewish tales. Muhammad "borrowed" from many places. Would a god need to borrow from made up tales?

010 5/31-32: "'Woe is me!' said he (Cain*); 'Was I not even able to hide the shame of my brother (Abel*)?" Then he became full of regrets - On that account (which account? - there is no meaningful reason here for what follows*): We (Allah*) ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a people - - - it would be as if he slew the whole people - - -". This sentence refers to something, but what it refers to here - Cain's regret - does not give meaning, as it is not a reason for such a drastic and unconnected conclusion.

If you look in the Bible (1. Mos. 4/10) you find: "Your (Cain's*) brother's blood cries out to me (Yahweh*) from the ground". And if you go from there to Mishna Sanhedrin (4/5) you find the full story the Quran is partly repeating: "The voice of your brother's blood (NB: This word is in plural*) cries out. Man was created individually, so as to show that if someone kills a single individual, it shall be reckoned like if he had killed the whole people".

The difference - and the reason Muhammad missed - is the word "blood" in plural, which means the victims own blood and the blood of his semen = the blood of all his descendants who will never be born because he was killed. The killer thus kills not only the victim, but also all his unborn descendants - "all the people".

Muhammad here simply quotes Mishna Sanhedrin (4/5), but did not know the tale well enough to see the crucial point here - and got a conclusion hanging in the air.

10 + 1364 = 1374 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

56.  CALEB - SPY FOR MOSES

- like so many not named in the Quran.

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

#001 5/23b: “- - - two (of Moses’ Jews*) on whom Allah hath - - -“. Note how often the Quran is vague on details - f.x. names. Muhammad simply did not know, and thus he simply found a name (perhaps from Arab legends?) - like for the father of Abraham (Azar instead of Terah) or the first Jewish king (Talut instead of Saul), or he used vague words like here. In just this case the Bible simply tells that Joshua ben Nun and Caleb ben Jephunneh (4. Mos. 14/6) - both later leaders - wanted the Jews to enter Canaan at once. (There is no doubt which is the best piece of literature of the Bible and the Quran also in this case).

According to the Bible, what happened was that the spies became frightened from what they met in Canaan. Only Caleb ben Jephunneh and Joshua ben Nun advised to attack (Joshua became the leader after Moses died.)

Their spying trip also more or less proves that the Bible's Paran was far further west than Faran in Arabia - Faran was too far off for Moses to send spies.

1 + 1374 = 1375 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

57.  CANAANITES - THE INHABITANTS OF CANAAN

- mot named in the Quran.

The Canaanites were the earlier inhabitants of approximately what is now Israel. According to the Bible they were such a bad people that Yahweh wanted to finish them off. Which they were - partly by being killed and partly slowly being integrated among the Jews. It is worth remembering that what today is called the Palestinians are not descendants of the original Canaanites, but of Arabs invading and settling in the land after Jerusalem/Israel was taken by the Muslims in 637 AD. (And do you see the irony in that the same Muslims who are boasting about their conquests of among other areas the Jews' lands, scream and howl about the injustice and horror in that the Jews after the second world war finally took it back?)

(The name Palestine is from 135 AD, and introduced by the Roman emperor Hadrian).

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

001 5/21b: "- - - the holy land - - -". Wrong. This expression (name for Israel) did not exist at the time of Moses - it is a much, much younger name (coined sometimes early in the first millennia AD as far as we have been able to find out). It also never is used in the Bible, not to mention in OT. A glaring time anomaly - see 4/13d below.

The name at that time according to the Bible was Canaan.

002 5/23e: "Assault them (the Canaanites*) at the proper Gate - - -". What does this mean? - you may attack a walled town through a gate, but not a country.

The Canaanites you in the Bible mainly meet in the first "books" of the OT in the Bible - connected to Abraham and later to the Jews' conquest of the land, f.x. connected to Moses and to Joshua.

2 + 1375 = 1377 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

58.  "CHILDREN OF ADAM"

You meet this expression a few times in the Quran. It simply means man or mankind.

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

001 7/26a: "- - - Children of Adam - - -". Man.

002 7/27a: "- - - Children of Adam - - -". Man.

003 7/31a: "- - - Children of Adam - - -". Man.

004 7/35a: "- - - Children of Adam - - -". Man.

###005 7/172a: "When thy (mans'*) Lord drew forth (= caused to be born*) from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and made them testify - - -". YA1146 here has an interesting comment - we quote: "This passage has led to differences of opinion (because of unclear language*) in interpretation. According to the dominant opinion of commentators, each individual in the posterity of Adam (= after Adam*) had a separate existence from the time of Adam (= he or she in some way existed since the time of Adam*) and a Covenant was taken from all of them, which is binding accordingly on each individual". To use a simpler language: Each and every human being in some way existed at the time of Adam, and when Adam made his claimed covenant with Allah, also all human beings through all times at the same time made a similar covenant with the claimed god - a covenant which thus is binding for each and every human being who have existed or will exist. No comment - except this to us sounds not like religion, but like mysticism or like a fairy tale. And one more fact: At the time of Adam's claimed covenant, only Adam and Eve (her name not mentioned in the Quran), existed. The rest of what is fabulated here just is "ad hoc" speculation - - - or fabulation.

006 17/70a: "- - - sons of Adam - - -". All humanity.

6 + 1377 = 1383 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

59.  CHILDREN OF ISRAEL

The Jewish patriarch Jacob got the name Israel (= he struggles with God - 1.Mos.32/28). Later the name "Children of Israel" became another name for "Jews".

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

001 2/40a: "- - - Children of Israel - - -". A time anomaly. See 2/121a and 4/13d below.

201 2/47a: "O Children of Israel! Call to mind the (special) favor which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others (for My Message (this seems not to be in the original Arab text, but added by the translator - may be to reduce the value of the message*))." This refers to the Covenant Yahweh made with Abraham and later renewed with the Jews several times - the last time mentioned in the relevant books around 33 AD by Jesus ("the New Covenant" - f.x. Luke 22/20). This has at least one serious implication which Muslims NEVER mention when they scold the Jews for haughtily, etc. believing they will be saved, or at least have a special relationship to Yahweh: This old covenant has never been terminated (though Muslims like to say the opposite), and it is the old covenant Jews rely on, not their relationship to Abraham. Broken and disused and renewed, but never terminated: It has been disused and maltreated, but Yahweh never has ended it. Religious Jews and Israel therefore acted because of the covenant and because they saw a lot of mistakes in the Quran, not because of haughtiness, stupidity, etc. And as you see even the Quran accepts that Israel/the Jews have a special standing onto Yahweh - superstition or not.

002 2/47b: "- - - Children of Israel! - - -". A time anomaly: The first "children of Israel" were the 12 sons of Jacob, who lived - if he ever lived - around 1800 - 1700 BC. Earlier readers - f.x. Abraham if he knew how to red (which he did not - man did not learn how to read until at least 500 years later) - would not understand this reference in his claimed Quran. See 4/13d below.

003 2/122: "- - - Children if Israel - - -". A time anomaly. "Israel" was a name the old Jewish Patriarch Jacob got from Yahweh according to the Bible (1. Mos. 32/28) in his middle age. The word thus has to be younger than this - say maximum from ca. 1700 - 1800 BC. and this name/reference was without any meaning to any user of the claimed copies of the claimed "Mother Book" (similar to the Quran) sent down to Allah's claimed prophets and messenger even before this. Jacob must have lived - if he ever lived - around 1700 - 1800 BC, and thus none of the claimed earlier prophets/messengers from Allah the previous perhaps 191ooo years (until ca. 160ooo - 200ooo years before now for Homo Sapiens alone, which the maker of the Quran obviously did not know), could understand what this meant. But no omniscient god would give meaningless references without explaining what they meant. We here point to that 2/213 tells that Allah sent down copies of "the Mother of the Book" (85/21-22)/the Quran already when mankind was one single nation, which must have been when mankind just was a tribe or a collection of tribes in Africa 160ooo-200ooo years ago, as it has never been the situation later.

NB: This is if the Quran with the word "mankind" just means modern man, Homo Sapiens. But mankind really is older. If Allah tried to win f.x. Homo Habilis (the first real human - 2.8 mill. years ago) or Homo Erectus for his religion, the oldest copies of the Quran of course are much older.

Some facts here: Science tells that the Homos (humans) split from the Pans (chimpanses) some time between 6.3 and 5.4 million years ago, that our forfathers Homo Habilis emerged some 2.8 million and our later forfathers Homo Erectus some 1.5 million years ago, and that modern man after a transition period of some 200ooo years finally was Homo Sapiens some time between 200ooo and 160ooo - likely 195ooo - years ago. At least Homo Habilis (the first real human - 2.8 mill. years ago) and Homo Erectus were scentient beings, if likely more primitive than Homo Sapiens. And then there were man's older "brothers", the Neanderthals and the Denisovans (400ooo years old?) who both definitely were sentient and humans/people. 35/24: tells: “- - - there never was a people, without a warner having lived among them (in the past).” The oldest knowledge of reading is some 5ooo+ years old. How did older "messengers" use their copies of "the Mother of the Book" (85/21-22) - the Quran? And in what language were they written? - Muslims like to claim that the Quran has to be read in Arab, but remember here that the Arab - or proto-Arab - language is maximum from around 7ooo BC, and the Arab alphabet was not completed until around 900 AD.

#003 2/211a: “Ask the Children of Israel how many clear (signs) We (the god) have sent them.” Yes, if the Bible speaks the truth - quite a number. But this in case proves the Jewish/Christian god Yahweh, not Allah - as said f.x. in 29/47f below it is impossible that the two can be the same, even though Muslims like to pretend/say so - too fundamental differences. (A small curiosity: A newspaper in Kuala Lumpur, capital of the Muslim country Malaysia, was forbidden to use the name Allah for the Christian God. (This has been done infrequently through history) “Allah is the name of the Muslim god, and cannot be used about the Christian one, (Yahweh or normally only called God by Christians*)”. Q.E.D: Allah is not Yahweh according to this Islamic country. And one more case where Muslims demand one rule for themselves - they use "God" for "Allah" in media meant for non-Muslims, as this camouflages some of the differences - and another for non-Muslims. (Later PS: This judgment later was overturned by the High Court, but all the same it shows something fundamental).

004 3/93a: "All food was lawful to the Children of Israel - - - before the Law (of Moses) was revealed". From where is this information? It is not from the Bible, and it is not from any god (as no god ever was involved in a book with so much wrong like the Quran). Then remain dark forces/a devil (which the moral(?) code, the partly immoral laws and the rules for thieving, blood and war may indicate), a mental illness (like TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy - like modern medical science believe), or a cold and scheming brain, like f.x. all the wrong science from that time may indicate.

005 5/12a: “Allah did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel - - -.” Wrong - it is a historical fact that the god of the Jews was Yahweh, not Allah - 2 very different gods. See 4/159a. The covenant was with Yahweh, not with Allah. (As the two teachings basically are very different, the two gods cannot have been just two names for the same god like the Quran claims - they were too different (if one or both existed) if the god was not a mentally ill one.)

006 5/31-32: "'Woe is me!' said he (Cain*); 'Was I not even able to hide the shame of my brother?" Then he became full of regrets - On that account (which account? - there is no meaningful reason here for what follows*): We (Allah*) ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a people - - - it would be as if he slew the whole people - - -". This sentence refers to something, but what it refers to here - Cain's regret - does not give meaning, as it is not a reason for such a drastic and unconnected conclusion.

If you look in the Bible (1. Mos. 4/10) you find: "Your (Cain's*) brother's blood cries out to me (Yahweh*) from the ground". And if you go from there to Mishna Sanhedrin (4/5) you find the full story the Quran is partly repeating: "The voice of your brother's blood (NB: This word is in plural*) cries out. Man was created individually, so as to show that if someone kills a single individual, it shall be reckoned like if he had killed the whole people".

The difference - and the reason Muhammad missed - is the word "blood" in plural, which means the victims own blood and the blood of his semen = the blood of all his descendants who will never be born because he was killed. The killer thus kills not only the victim, but also all his unborn descendants - "all the people".

Muhammad here simply quotes Mishna Sanhedrin (4/5), but did not know the tale well enough to see the crucial point here - and got a conclusion hanging in the air.

007 5/32a: "We (the god*) ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person - - - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people". This is not from the Bible - there neither is anything similar in the Bible. (See 5/32b+c just below). Muslims also always "forget" to mention that this was said to the Jews, not to the Muslims.

##008 5/72g: “But said Christ; ‘O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord‘”. If Jesus had tried to teach about the in Israel known polytheistic god al-Lah from a heathen neighboring country, he had got very few followers and had been quickly killed by the clergy in the religious climate in Israel at that time. This is told by someone not knowing the religious and political situation in Israel at the time of Jesus.

Remember here that now we are in times of written history and exact knowledge. There was no god like Allah, no religion like Islam, and no book like the Quran anywhere in the Roman Empire neither at the time of Jesus, nor any time later until after 610 AD, when Muhammad started his mission.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a procelyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much procelyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left). Islam is a strongly procelyting 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) 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 procelyting, and on top of the fact that Abraham did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran tells. 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.

009 5/78a: "Curses were pronounced on those of the Children of Israel who rejected Faith (Islam - only Islam is Faith in the Quran*), by the tongue of David and of Jesus - - -". This is wrong, if for no other reason than because there are found no traces of Islam or claims about Muhammad's Allah older than 610 AD when Muhammad started his religion. There f.x. is not a word about curses because of Allah or al-Lah (the name of the pagan Arab god Muhammad took over and only called Allah) in the Bible - actually there are no traces neither of Allah nor of Muhammad in the Bible (in spite of Islam's claims about the opposite)).

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a procelyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much procelyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left). Islam is a strongly procelyting 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) 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 procelyting, and on top of the fact that Abraham did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran tells. 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.

Also in written history there are no traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, or a book like the Quran around the inner Mediterranean Sea, included Israel, the Roman Empire, and the Persian empire, at the time of Jesus. This simply is a bluff if islam has not real proofs.

010 From 5/110: “The Message of the Quran” solves the problem of what the Bible really tells very simply: It tells that a verse in the Quran explains what the NT tells about Muhammad (surah 61/6e-f):

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary (see 5/110a), said: 'O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving the glad Tiding of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad (61/6, 7/157 (no name) - but ONLY claimed in the Quran*)'. But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "This is evident sorcery!'"

The problem is that the Bible says nothing even remotely similar to surah 61/6e-f - not anywhere. (An elegant explanation is that it shall have been mentioned in the non-existing Gospel Islam needed to make up to explain how the child Jesus could learn the Gospel(s) before they were written - a Gospel which Mary and others 100% sure had taken care of if it was not a fairy tale, because it would really have cemented an even more a special connection between Jesus and Yahweh/God). And a Gospel no-one in Islam has or had ever seen the text of, and thus impossible could know the contents of even if it had once existed.

011 7/134d: "- - - the Children of Israel - - -". Israel was the new name the Jewish patriarch Jacob got from Yahweh (1. Mos. 32/28). The Children of Israel means his descendants = the Jews.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------

*012 10/90c: “I (Ramses II) believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in (indicated by Muhammad to be Allah)". One more thing we know about Ramses II (see 10/90), is that he was a polytheist and never a Muslim – and never a Jew. This episode is nowhere motioned in the Bible.

When Ramses II saw the miracle that Moses's god could command the wind and the water, he became a believer - according to the Quran.

################This episode(?) told by Muhammad in 614-615 AD also is a very strong proof for that Muhammad knew that miracles or other proofs from a god - like indicated Ramses II understood here - would make people believers, and thus a strong proof for that he knew he lied each time later when he "explained" away requests for proofs from/for Allah with the claim that proofs or miracles would have no effect.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------

013 26/17: "- - - the Children of Israel (Israel originally was a name for the Jewish patriarch Jacob - 1. Mos. 32/28) - - -". The Jews. A time anomaly.

#014 26/59a: "- - - but We (Allah*) made the Children of Israel inheritors of such things (riches, etc. - see 26/58 just above*) - - -". Also the Bible says the god (via Moses) saw to that the Jews received some riches when leaving Egypt (2. Mos. 12/36). Muslims today have a tendency to blame the Jews for dishonesty and robbing in this connection, but is such an accusation right, fair, or honest when both the Bible and the Quran indicate that this was the work of the god?

Besides: We have till this date not met one Muslim saying that perhaps this was fair payment for centuries of slave work. And also we have seen not one Muslim comparing this to the Quran's rules for "lawful and good" stealing/looting.

015 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 - and the stare case 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok - but how much cheating is it then in the Quran? - by Allah or by Muhammad) 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 are 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.

At least a lie by omission by not correcting this claim later.

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"?

016 27/76b: “Verily this Quran doth explain to the Children of Israel most of the matters in which they disagree”. Very wrong. For one thing the Quran is so different from the Mosaic religion (and even more different from Christianity), that it clearly is not the same and thus cannot explain much. For another: A book with that many mistakes, etc. can explain very little.

017 32/23g: "- - - We (Allah) made it (the book Muhammad claimed Allah gave Moses*) a guide for the Children of Israel". There is no doubt from historical sources that the god of the Jews was Yahweh, not Allah.

018 32/23h: "- - - We (Allah) made it (the book Muhammad claimed Allah gave Moses*) a guide for the Children of Israel". There is little doubt that what became the guide for the Jews, was the laws which later was incorporated in the Torah. Laws which on some central points have little similarity to the Quran. Also - and at least as essential - the moral code behind the laws in the Bible - and especially the ones corrected or added by Jesus - also are very different. So different that combined with the fact that the Bible is proved not falsified by strong circumstantial and and empirical and may be stronger proofs, this is one of the many proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and for that Jesus and Muhammad was not in the same religion.

#####019 43/59d: "- - - We (Allah*) made him (Jesus) an example to the Children of Israel". (YA4660): "A reference to the limited mission of Jesus, whose Gospel to the Jews only survives in uncertain fragmentary forms". We do not think this merits any comment, but quote it to show a sample of what Muslims are told even today. Remember here that al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), etc. not only are permitted, but advised "if necessary" when defending or promoting Islam.

There are large quantities of secular scientists in the west and in the rest of the world - and to real scientists dishonest means of working or arguments are an absolute NO. They do not doubt that the Gospels are the original ones and the complete ones, except for minor errors normal when manuscripts are copied by hand. Islam will have to prove and not only claim their words. This even more so as there are so many mistaken facts and other errors in the Quran, that also the claim that the Gospels are falsified, may be - highly likely is - wrong. (This on top of that it long since is proved that the Bible - included the Gospels - is not falsified.)

020 44/30a: "We (Allah*) delivered the Children of Israel from humiliating punishment - - -". According to the Bible the Jews had been reduced from honored guests to slaves over a period of 430 years since Joseph. In addition the pharaoh had started killing their male babies, because they had become so many that the Egyptians found them to be a threat and wanted to reduce their numbers. (This f.x. was the reason why the baby Moses was set afloat on the Nile in a desperate hope of saving him).

But a central point here is that according to the Bible it was Yahweh who helped them out, not Allah.

021 44/30b: "- - - the Children of Israel - - -". Literally "the children of the Jewish patriarch Jacob" (who was renamed Israel by Yahweh in the disguise as a man - 1. Mos. 32/28). Here a time anomaly.

022 45/16a: "We (Allah*) did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel the Book (here the Bible/Torah*) - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which says the involved god - the god of the Jews - was Yahweh, not Allah. #####Also historical facts very strongly indicates that no god with a teaching like Muhammad's ever was involved in the Mosaic (Jewish) religion before 610 AD - and of course not afterwards. #####For times as far back as some time between 300 BC and 800 BC the known historical facts are so strong that this is not indicated, but proved. Also see 13/1g and 67/9c - 2 strong ones. 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.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a procelyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much procelyting (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 procelyting 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 procelyting, 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.

############And not least: We know that from as far back as written history goes, and from archeology, etc. even further back, the Mosaic religion was the religion of the Jews, that NT was the religion of Christians - and not least that there nowhere or any time before 610 AD is found even traces from a god like the Muslim Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or messengers preaching Islam.

***023 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 conclution is in no case valied.
  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.

024 61/14e: "- - - then a portion of the Children of Israel believed - - -". Yes, but not in Allah. Even if we omit the information in the Bible, there is not one historical source indicating a warlike religion like Islam in that area at that time. Historically wrong simply - at least if Islam does not prove - prove otherwise, and now we are so far into the dawn of history, that historical proofs should be possible (a growing and soon big, warlike sect would have caused remarks in history).

24 + 1383 = 1407 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


60.  CHRIST (A TITLE FOR JESUS)

Also see our Book P.

According to the Quran the name of Jesus was Christ Jesus (3/45). But for one thing Christ was not a name, but a title, and for another it was not used at the time of Jesus at all - and thus naturally also used as his name. "Christ" (or "Christos") is the Greek version of the Hebrew word "Messiah" (= the anointed one). The title Messiah may sporadically have been used as a title for Jesus when he was alive, but not the Greek Christ.

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

*001 3/45e: “- - - his name will be Christ Jesus - - - “. His name was only Jesus. The word Christ was not even a name, but a title of honor, and it only emerged years after his death - originally in what is now Turkey (even though it is made from a Greek word). But Muhammad did not know the Bible well. (Christ or Christos in Greek means the same as Messiah in Hebrew – the anointed one (which indicates “king”, because new kings in the old Israel were anointed). Because of this some editions of the Bible use Christ instead of Messiah in NT, but the name - or title really - Christ in reality did not exist connected to Jesus, until well after his death. But the name Messiah was aired - partly as questions about if he was the announced Messiah). But the Gospels originally were written in Greek, and at a time when that title had emerged.

002 3/45f: "- - - his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary - - -". This is the full name the Quran uses for him - to underline their claim that he was not the son of Yahweh. And it is entirely wrong - he never was called "the son of Mary". When a parent's name was mentioned as part of his name (normal in those countries), he was "son of Joseph" - "ben Joseph" - the name of his (adopted?) father on Earth. And to be even more accurate: As Jesus is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Joshua, Jesus' name there and then would be "Joshua ben Joseph". Any - any - god had known this - Muhammad obviously not. Then who made the Quran?

003 4/157a: "They said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus'". A time anomaly. See 4/13d below.

004 4/157b: “We killed Christ Jesus - - -”. Wrong name. The word Christ did not exist as a name for Jesus until years after his death, and then it came from Asia Minor, (the Turks had not arrived there at that time), and then as a title, (see 3/45d). Any god had known this. (Christos in Greek = Messiah in Hebrew (= the anointed one). Because of this some translations of the Bible use Christ instead of Messiah in the NT. But the title Christ – not a name originally, but a title – in reality was not used for Jesus until years after his death.)

005 4/157c: "We killed Christ Jesus - - -". Wrong. This they did not say, simply because the reason why they killed him, was that they refused to believe he was the Messiah (Messiah in Hebrew = Christ is Greek and on top of that "Christ" was not used for Jesus until years after his death). As the Hebrew form of the name Jesus was Joshua, they in case may have said something like "We killed Jesus ben Joseph" or "We killed Joshua ben Joseph" or something like that, but not "We killed Christ/Messiah - - -". - this even more so as the Greek form of the title like said was not used until a couple of decades later. Any god had known, Muhammad obviously not.

006 4/157d: "- - - Christ Jesus - - -". A double time anomaly: For one thing the name - or really title - Christ connected to Jesus did not exist at that time. For another: People in earlier times reading copies of the claimed "Mother Book" like the Quran claims - copies thus similar to the Quran if the claimed "Mother Book" was not changed now and then, which the Quran claims it was not - would not understand references to the name Jesus. Also see 4/13d above.

007 4/157f: "We killed Christ Jesus - - - the Messenger of Allah - - -". Wrong. For one thing not even his worst enemies claimed Jesus was a prophet of Allah (or al-Lah) - the pagan god al-Lah "lived" in the not too distant Arabia, and not one soul in Jerusalem thought about al-Lah there and then. But neither did they call him a prophet or messenger of Yahweh - the reason why they killed him was just that it was claimed, and many believed, he was a false prophet claiming to be a prophet for Yahweh, the directly opposite of what the Quran here tells they said.

008 4/171e: “- - - Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a Messenger- - -.” Well, he frequently called Yahweh (the Jewish and Christian god) his father - the word is used for Yahweh in the relationship between Yahweh and Jesus at least 204 times in the Bible, and the word "son" at least 89 times, many of those times by Jesus himself - and Jesus was reliable also according to the Quran (and remember: Neither science nor Islam has been able to find one single falsification in the Bible - lots of claims from Islam, but not one documented case (just guess how loudly Islam had screamed about it, if they had ever found one!)).

009 4/171f: "- - - Christ Jesus - - -". Wrong. "Christ" was not part of his name - it was a title given him after his death - Christos is the Greek version of the Hebrew title Messiah, which means the anointed one. The word Messiah was sporadically mentioned during his lifetime, but not Christ, which only emerged some years after his death and resurrection. Unknown to Muhammad, but known to any god - then who made the Quran?

010 4/171j: "Christ Jesus - - -". A time anomaly. See 4/13d above.

011 4/172a: “Christ disdaineth not to serve and worship Allah.” In 3/51a is implicated in the explanation why this is wrong. The only possible exception is if Yahweh and Allah really are the same god. But only Islam states that, and the teachings of Yahweh (especially in NT and the New Covenant – f.x. Luke 22/20) are so different at essential points from the teachings of Allah, that they cannot be the same god unless he is mentally ill (schizophrenic). Islam will in case have to prove what they say, not only to claim it.

012 4/172b: “Christ disdaineth not to serve and worship Allah.” Strongly contradicted by the Bible, which says Jesus' god was Yahweh. It also is strongly contradicted by the science of history, which flatly says there was no god like Allah and no religion similar to Islam in what is now Israel or anywhere else in the Roman Empire (we are now deep inside the times of written history in those areas) or anywhere else in the world. 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.

013 5/17a: "In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ - - -." No Christian - not one single one - says that Allah (or Yahweh) = Jesus. They are separate, but closely connected only. To use an Irish picture: Together with the Spirit they make up the 3 parts of a clover leaf. As for the Trinity, though, Islam may be right, as this is not clearly a part of the Bible (though Jesus said: "My Father (Yahweh/God) and I are one" - may be figuratively meant). But no Christian says Yahweh/God = Jesus.

A picture may be: Yahweh = the god. Jesus = a co-worker and/or friend and/or crown prince. The Holy Spirit = the messenger - an errand boy and helper.

*014 5/17b: “In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ (= put another god by Allah’s side – the ultimate and unforgivable sin according to 4/48 and 4/116) - - -". No Christian says that Jesus is Allah or the other way around. Neither do they say that Jesus is Yahweh. Also Muhammad never understood the trinity dogma of the Christians. (He believed the trinity consists of Yahweh, Jesus and Mary!!!). But if one looks only at that dogma, Islam may be right that it is not correct - may be. It is only a dogma decided on by humans after much discussion; it is not part of the Bible - but see 5/17a just above. (This dogma is from the 4. century, and it got its present form from the so-called Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory of Nyassa (332-395), Basil the Great (320-79 AD), Gregory of Nazeanzus (329-389). The nearest you come in the Bible is that Jesus said that he and his father, Yahweh, were one, and this like said may be figuratively meant.) Also see 5/17a and 5/73b. But no-one in his right mind and with some knowledge about the Bible, would ever believe Mary was part of the trinity. Any even baby god had known. Then who made the Quran?

015 5/17c: "In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ - - -." Part of the background for the sharia laws.

016 5/17d: "- - - those that say that Allah is Christ - - -." Contradicting the Bible - but Muhammad did not know the Bible well. Also one of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims.

017 5/72a: “They (Christians*) do blaspheme who say: ‘God is Christ the son of Mary.’ - - - and the Fire will be their abode.” This clearly contradicts – and abrogates:

  1. 2/62: “- - - those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabeans any who believe in Allah (Yahweh = Allah according to the Quran*) and the Last Day, and work in righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord - - -.”
  2. 5/69: “Those who (believe in the Quran), and those who follows the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabeans – any who believe in Allah (here included Yahweh/God*) and the Last day, and work righteousness – on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”

(2 abrogations)

(2 contradictions)

018 5/72b: “They (Christians*) do blaspheme who say: ‘God is Christ the son of Mary.’" 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 - - - and 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.

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.

019 5/72c: “They (Christians*) do blaspheme - - -". Only if the Quran tells the full truth and only the truth. And only if Allah exists and in addition is a god.

*020 5/72d: “They do blaspheme who say: ‘God is Christ the son of Mary’”. No Christians say that Yahweh is the son of Mary, Jesus. (Though catholic people use the expression “Mother of God” meaning “Mother of (the holy) Jesus”, but also they clearly know the difference between God/Yahweh and Jesus).

**021 5/72e: "- - - Christ (Jesus*) the son of Mary." See 5/110a below.

**022 5/72f: "- - - Christ (Jesus*) the son of Mary." 2 historical anomalies. See 4/13d below.

##023 5/72g: “But said Christ; ‘O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord‘”. If Jesus had tried to teach about the in Israel known polytheistic god al-Lah from a heathen neighboring country, he had got very few followers and had been quickly killed by the clergy in the religious climate in Israel at that time. This is told by someone not knowing the religious and political situation in Israel at the time of Jesus.

024 7/157e: Point of relevance I in NT - Claim from Islam.

John 1/19-23

“ (19)Now this was John’s (John the Baptist*) testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites (from the Levi tribe – the priest tribe*) to ask him who he was. (20) He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, ‘I am not the Christ (Messiah*).’(21)They asked him, ‘Then who are you? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the Prophet?’ He answered, ‘No.’ (22)Finally they said, ‘Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?’ (23)John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, ‘I am the voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord’’”.

Well, this has to be about Muhammad, is the claim – a voice in the desert and a “straight way” (an expression often used by Muhammad)! This even though all the rest is about Jesus and is proclaiming his divinity (and has to be lies, according to Islam) – this cherry-picked small piece must be true, according to some Muslims.

But how could John the Baptist – the messenger for Jesus, and he who proclaimed Jesus’ divinity – be making "the way straight for Muhammad” some 580 years later? – without once even giving a hint about Arabia or anything? There is no connection between the two anywhere. Wrong.

This even more so as he told that the one he was speaking about, was standing living among them (John 1/26) - a person alive around 30 AD, was definitely not alive around 610 AD.

Besides John spoke about one who would baptize - even baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1/8). Muhammad did not use baptizing, and knew very little about the Holy Spirit.

And finally: As mentioned before the word "Lord" used in the Bible as a name for a religious "person" ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION refers to Yahweh or (sometimes in NT) Jesus. There is no exception from this rule.

Ugly: Muslim scholars has got to know this - it is in the same Gospel as their main claim - but they never mention it - or that in the Bible "Lord" ALWAYS means Yahweh or sometimes Jesus. Al-Taqiyya? Kitman?

 

025 9/30c: "- - - Christians - - - Christ - - -". These names were coined only some time after Jesus' death. A time anomaly. See 4/13d above.

026 9/30d: “- - - the Christians call Christ the son of God - - - (in this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old (the Jews*) used to say". Wrong: As mentioned in 9/30a above, the Jews never used to say so - that there was a son of God. If the Jews at Yathrib/Medina said so, this was something local. As they had the old scriptures it is very unlikely they believed f.x. Ezra was son of Yahweh, but we have found no reliable source saying anything about this. But to repeat ourselves: Any god making a Quran had known the truth and not made a blemish like this. Then who made the Quran?

027 9/30e: “- - - the Christians call Christ the son of God - - - (in this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old (the Jews*) used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: - - -”. We are back to the old facts: Jesus himself many times called God “father”. There were lots of witnesses to this. It was written down a few years later. The Quran vehemently denies it. The Quran has neither witnesses nor any other proofs. The Quran was written more than 600 years later and all the same offers only claims and statements - not one document. Muhammad had a lot to gain if Jesus was not the son of God - if Jesus is closely related to God, Muhammad obviously is not the greatest of prophets (irony; he in reality was no real prophet as he did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies - he never even claimed or pretended to have it, but even admitted he did not have it), and though Muslims may be right that Muhammad personally did not care all too much about money except for using it for bribes, there is no doubt that he liked power and that he spent large sums for “buying” followers (his lust for power is easy to see from the texts in the Quran and the Hadiths). The end of the quote is rather sympathetic (?!). Similar statements in 2/116 – 4/171 – 10/68 – 17/111 – 18/4 – 18/5 -19/88-89 – 23/91 – 25/2.The reason for this quote may be threefold:

  1. Muhammad’s obsession with that there only was one god.
  2. The fact that if Jesus in some way was the son of God/Yahweh, Muhammad very obviously was not the greatest of prophets.
  3. If Jesus was the son of the god, would be difficult to make people listen to Muhammad and not to the Bible – tales about falsified Bible or not.

If Muhammad partly believed in his own religion, point 1 may have been the main one. If he did not – and very clearly he knew that parts of it were not true (f.x. the explanations why he could not make miracles) – parts 2 and 3 were the main ones (minding his platform of power).

028 9/31c: "- - - Christ the son of Mary - - -". See 5/110a above.

029 53/14: "- - - the Lote-tree - - -". This is a thorny bush without edible fruits. The Latin name is Zizyphus Spina Christi because the crown of Christ - Jesus - before he was crucified, was said to be from this bush.

030 72/7d: (A72/5): "The overwhelming majority of the Jews were convinced that no prophet would be raised after those who were explicitly mentioned in the Old Testament: hence their rejection of Jesus and, of course, Muhammad - - -". This is utterly wrong, even according to the Quran and Islam itself. It is very clearly foretold in the OT that a mighty prophet - the Messiah (Christ in Greek) - should come once upon a time. This is very well known also in Islam, as they use f.x. Moses' words about a future prophet "like himself" in 5.Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 to claim foretelling about Muhammad - so intensely well known in Islam that there is no chance Mr. Asad did not know about it - the claim simply is one of the al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) in Islam. It also is a school example of the many cases where Muslims try to "explain" away things by "explaining" one or some aspect(s) of something, but forget that other texts or even facts kills the "explanation". Sometimes - like here - such tries are perfectly helpless. It also is one of the many examples of the degree of honesty among at least some Muslim scholars.

###The reason why the Jews rejected Jesus was that he was so very different from the mighty king they had dreamt of, the mighty king who should throw out the Romans for them. Why they did not accept Muhammad is even easier to see - Muhammad and his god and religion were so far out compared to both the OT and NT that no somewhat learned person with a minimum of brain would be able to believe that Muhammad "confirmed" Yahweh or Jesus or their teaching. It neither was nor is possible that Yahweh and Allah are the same god - not unless he is strongly schizophrenic.

30 + 1407 = 1437 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".